Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  +
<poem>
 +
Curb cuts are a form of LID/BMP [[Inlets|inlet]].
 +
They are well suited to retrofit scenarios and to collect runoff from catchments with relatively gentle longitudinal slope, and/or a greater cross slope. This might be the local topography of a parking lot or a piece of parkland?
 +
As this inlet width is directly proportional to longitudinal slope; the required curb cut width increases rapidly on steeper roads.
 +
'''Standard width (450 mm), as included in OPSD drawings should be compared to and modified for the flow requirements of the practice.'''
 +
</poem>
 +
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|+The OPSD collection of standard drawings for curb cuts include
 +
|-
 +
!Flow direction
 +
!From asphalt catchment
 +
!From concrete catchment
 +
|-
 +
|30 - 45 deg
 +
|605.020 <ref name =OPSD>http://www.roadauthority.com/Standards/?id=b00e3771-6095-4257-b029-1d9879418039</ref>
 +
|605.010 <ref name =OPSD/>
 +
|-
 +
|90 deg
 +
|604.020 <ref name =OPSD/>
 +
|604.010 <ref name =OPSD/>
 +
|}
 +
 
==Sizing==
 
==Sizing==
To completely capture linear flow travelling along a gutter perpendicular to a curb inlet, the inlet must be of width::
+
<div style="float: right">
 +
{{#widget:WolframAlpha|id=664012476f5d9635d57cd58920e763e6}}</div>
 +
 +
To completely capture linear flow travelling along a gutter perpendicular to a curb inlet, the inlet must be of width<ref>U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration. 2013. “URBAN DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/10009/10009.pdf.[[File:USFHWA 2009.pdf|view here]]</ref>::
 
<math>W_T=0.817Q^{0.42}S_{0}^{0.3}\left (\frac{1}{nS_{x}}\right)^{0.6}</math>
 
<math>W_T=0.817Q^{0.42}S_{0}^{0.3}\left (\frac{1}{nS_{x}}\right)^{0.6}</math>
 +
 +
{{Plainlist|1=Where:
 +
*''W<sub>T</sub>'' is the width of the inlet for complete capture (m),
 +
*''Q'' is the design flow perpendicular to the inlet (m<sup>3</sup>/s)
 +
*''S<sub>0</sub>'' is the longitudinal slope ratio
 +
*''n'' is Manning's 'n' (between 0.012 and 0.016 for concrete, depending on surface treatment), and
 +
*''S<sub>x</sub>'' is the cross slope ratio (typically between 0.015 and 0.04)}}
    
Where the intention is to capture only a proportion of the flow, the ratio of flow entering the curb inlet may be calculated::
 
Where the intention is to capture only a proportion of the flow, the ratio of flow entering the curb inlet may be calculated::
 
<math>R_c=1-\left ( 1-\frac{W}{W_T} \right )^{1.8}</math>
 
<math>R_c=1-\left ( 1-\frac{W}{W_T} \right )^{1.8}</math>
+
 
 +
{{Plainlist|1=Where:
 +
*''R<sub>c</sub>'' is the proportion of flow entering the curb cut, and
 +
*''W'' is the available curb cut width (m)}}
 +
 
 +
Where the curb cut width is constrained and a greater flow into the BMP is desired, the effective cross slope may be increased by adding a depressed apron.
 +
 
 
==Example==
 
==Example==
A curb cut of 3 m is proposed as an inlet for an offline bioretention cell receiving runoff from an adjacent roadway. The gutter and the curb are made from smooth concrete with Manning's 'n' = 0.013. The x-slope is 3% and the longitudinal slope of the road is 2%. The design storm produces flow of 0.08 m<sup>3</sup>/s.  
+
A curb cut of 3 m is proposed as an inlet for an offline [[Bioretention|bioretention cell]] receiving runoff from an adjacent roadway. The gutter and the curb are made from smooth concrete with Manning's 'n' = 0.013. The x-slope is 3% and the longitudinal slope of the road is 2%. The 1 in 25 year design storm produces a peak flow of 0.08 m<sup>3</sup>/s.  
    
The width of inlet to capture 100% of this flow is::
 
The width of inlet to capture 100% of this flow is::
Line 13: Line 52:  
   
 
   
 
The proportion of water entering the bioretention cell under these flow conditions would be::
 
The proportion of water entering the bioretention cell under these flow conditions would be::
<math>R_c=1-\left ( 1-\frac{3}{9.71} \right )^{1.8}</ma
+
<math>R_c=1-\left ( 1-\frac{3}{9.71} \right )^{1.8}= 0.48</math>
   −
==Curb cuts Gallery==
+
48% of the 0.08 m<sup>3</sup>/s (i.e. 0.038 m<sup>3</sup>/s) would enter the bioretention cell through the inlet as designed.
<gallery mode="packed" widths=300px heights=300px>
  −
LSRCA curb.jpg| Curb cut used as a controlled overflow route from permeable paving to a bioretention facility with monitoring well, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Newmarket, ON
  −
Curb cut CNT.jpg| Curb cut into a bioretention facility in Hinsdale, IL. <br>Decorative aggregate in the center of the facility reduces erosion and dissipates power inflow around the inlet area. A monitoring/maintenance well can be seen in the foreground. <br>[[Acknowledgements| Photo credit: CNT]]
  −
Curb cut AV.jpg | Curb cut into a bioretention facility in Brown Deer, WI.  <br>Aggregate is used to reduce erosion around the inlet area. <br>[[Acknowledgements| Photo credit: Aaron Volkening]]
  −
</gallery>
     −
[[category: modeling]]
+
==Curb cuts gallery==
 +
{{:Curb cuts: Gallery}}
 +
----
 +
[[category: Calculations]]
8,255

edits

Navigation menu