The Influence of Built Form and Area on the Performance of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

Jim W. Hall,Cherona Chapman

doi:10.5334/fce.112

Abstract

In the face of increased housing demand and climatic change, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) are often viewed as an alternative to traditional piped drainage networks, offering multiple benefits. However, whilst design guidelines for SuDS exist, there is little systematic understanding of how SuDS perform for different urban forms at a neighbourhood scale. This paper, therefore, explores the response of a one hectare urban area to rainfall events of varying magnitude under a range of different scenarios for the built environment (development density, SuDS type, residence type and SuDS deployment extent), using the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). It finds that whilst increased development density leads to an increased peak runoff rate, in some cases lower SuDS deployment in higher density scenarios leads to lower runoff rates than higher deployment in a lower development density. The type of SuDS also has a considerable impact on runoff dynamics, with those constructed on existing infrastructure offering greater proportional reductions in runoff rates than those constructed on previously undeveloped land.

Highlights

There is a longstanding debate about the relationship between the density of urban development and cities’ sustainability
The resultant hydrograph responses of the different urban designs were analysed to ascertain the impact of different soils and topographies, housing design and sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) design in the tile
Urban hydrology Irrespective of building or SuDS design, alterations to the urban hydrology illustrated the same patterns across the scenarios

Summary

Introduction

There is a longstanding debate about the relationship between the density of urban development and cities’ sustainability. The debate is reflected in discussion of the ‘liveability’ of cities, which idealise a walkable city environment and reduced urban sprawl, promoting a compact, dense city form, whilst calls for increased urban greenspace and the maintenance of nature networks seemingly demand the opposite (Artmann et al 2019). When it comes to considering sustainable urban development, high and low density solutions present their own strengths and weaknesses, and a delicate balancing act is required in the development of urban spaces to create the best of both worlds (Lehmann 2016). As well as developing appropriate methods and technologies to cope with these changes, the spatiality of these infrastructures and their integrated nature into the built environment are important considerations (Yazdanfar & Sharma 2015)

Methods

Results

Conclusion