QUALITY DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS 3

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

CHAPTER 3 QUALITY DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 POLLUTANT ESTIMATION ........................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Typical Runoff Pollutants ................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Water Quality Volume (WQV) .......................................................................... 3-1
3.2.3 Load Estimate....................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 POLLUTANT CONTROL................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1 Particulate Pollutants .......................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.2 Dissolved Pollutants ........................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.3 Floatable Pollutants ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.4 BMPs FACILITIES ............................................................................................................. 3-4
3.4.1 Types ..................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.2 Treatment Objectives .......................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.3 Selection ................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.5 PRELIMINARY SIZING OF BMPs .................................................................................. 3-6
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 3-10
APPENDIX 3.A EXAMPLE - POLLUTION LOAD FROM MULTIPLE LANDUSES ........... 3-11
APPENDIX 3.B EXAMPLE - PRELIMINARY SIZING OF WATER QUALITY POND ........ 3-13
APPENDIX 3.C EXAMPLE - PRELIMINARY SIZING OF TREATMENT TRAIN ................ 3-14

3-i
 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides fundamentals on the non-point source (NPS) pollutants from typical urban areas,
estimation of annual pollutant load based on the event mean concentration (EMC) and simplified procedures
required for preliminary sizing and designing stormwater quality control facilities or Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The recommended approach is to adopt performance standards as set out in Chapter 1. For
new development and redevelopment, a minimum overall reduction in the average annual pollutant load is
specified (Table 1.4) compared with the load under existing condition. The targeted reduction is achievable
applying the prescribed BMPs and treatment trains, as presented in the relevant design Chapters.

3.2 POLLUTANT ESTIMATION

3.2.1 Typical Runoff Pollutants

Although many different constituents can be found in urban runoff, the focus is primarily on certain pollutants
that can be used as representative indicators of others. The following constituents are recommended as typical
pollutants characterising urban runoff in Malaysia:-

• Gross pollutants;
• Total suspended solids (TSS);
• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD);
• Chemical oxygen demand (COD);
• Total nitrogen (TN);
• Total phosphorus (TP);
• Copper (Cu);
• Lead (Pb);
• Zinc (Zn);
• Oil and grease (O&G); and
• Bacteria (E. coli).

However, in the current practice, BMPs are to be designed based on three types of selected pollutants; namely
gross pollutants, total suspended solids (TSS), and nutrients (TN and TP). These stormwater pollutants are
potentially generated from various landuses as given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Selected Pollutants Generation Potentials (Adapted from Melbourne Water, 2005)

Generation Potentials
Landuse Gross Total Suspended Nutrients
Pollutants Solids (TSS) (TN & TP)
Roads and Highways Low High Low
Residential High High High
Commercial High Medium Medium
Industrial Medium Medium Low
Parks and Agricultural Low Medium High

3.2.2 Water Quality Volume (WQV)

It is necessary to estimate runoff volumes before any assessment can be made of pollutant loads. Runoff
estimation is necessary to size certain BMPs and also to design the outlet structures of the BMPs. Runoff
volumes (expressed as rainfall depth multiplied by the catchment area and volumetric runoff coefficient, Cv)
should be used to determine the BMPs volumes.

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-1

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

The required water quality volume (WQV) for BMPs can be calculated using Equation 3.1 as follows:

WQV = Cv.(Pd).A (3.1)

where,
WQV = Water quality volume (m3);
Cv = Area-weighted volumetric runoff coefficient for the landuse (Table 2.5);
Pd = Rainfall depth for water quality design storm (m); and
A = Contributing drainage area (m2).

The runoff coefficient C for Rational Method (Chapter 2) is a function of rainfall intensity, and therefore of event
ARI. In general, the value of average volumetric runoff coefficient Cv will be less than that of Rational Method
runoff coefficient C for events of large ARI (say >2 years), and Cv will be greater than C for events of small ARI.
However, for the simplicity and without compromising the accuracy, the values of Cv can be considered same as
C given in Table 2.5, which would provide safe values as the BMPs are designed for small ARIs.

3.2.3 Load Estimate

Ideally, the identification of sustainable pollutant loads in receiving water should be based on the magnitude of
overall catchment pollutant exports, and the reduction in pollutant loads required to achieve water quality
objectives. Land activities and practices within a catchment contribute to the accumulation of pollutant loads as
a result of stormwater wash off. Event mean concentrations (EMC) for different land activities are to be used to
estimate pollutant loads.

Load estimation, based on the EMC method, is recommended for most practices. This is the simplest but most
widely used method to estimate runoff pollutants from urban areas. However, the reliability of this method
depends on the accuracy of the EMC values for the intended parameters and landuses. Recommended mean
EMC values for various pollutants and landuses are set out in Table 3.2. They are related to level of
housekeeping practices within the selected study areas, namely in Malacca, Damansara and Penang river
catchments and Kajang Municipality.

Table 3.2: Mean EMC Values for Selected Landuses

Pollutants Landuses
Parameter Unit Residential Commercial Industrial Highway
TSS mg/L 128.00 122.00 166.00 80.00
Turbidity NTU 122.00 96.00 147.00 69.00
TDS mg/L 131.00 43.00 137.00 38.00
pH - 6.46 6.77 6.66 6.57
BOD mg/L 17.90 22.90 19.30 14.90
COD mg/L 97.00 134.00 140.00 81.00
AN mg/L 0.73 0.85 1.00 0.44
TKN mg/L 2.38 2.53 4.25 1.43
TN mg/L 4.21 4.84 5.00 2.25
TP mg/L 0.34 0.32 0.49 0.16
O&G mg/L 2.00 4.00 NA 3.00
Zn mg/L 0.19 0.34 0.43 0.21
Pb µg/L 6.00 22.00 12.00 20.00
Cu µg/L 28.00 37.00 42.00 28.00
Cr µg/L 4.00 32.00 31.00 11.00
Ni µg/L 10.00 17.00 30.00 15.00
Cd µg/L 6.00 26.00 5.00 10.00
Source: Local stormwater studies conducted by DID in Malacca, Damansara, Penang and Kajang

3-2 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

The load estimated by EMC method is

L = R . EMC . A. C v / 100 (3.2)

where,
L = Annual pollutant load (kg/year);
R = Mean annual rainfall-MAR (mm/year);
EMC = Event mean concentration (mg/L);
A = Catchment area (ha); and
Cv = Area-weighted volumetric runoff coefficient for the whole catchment (Table 2.5).

3.3 POLLUTANT CONTROL

Stormwater pollutants can be particulates, dissolved substances and floatables (litters and hydrocarbons).
Physicochemical nature of each group of pollutants is different. Therefore, mechanism to remove them from the
water is also different, which are briefly discussed below.

3.3.1 Particulate Pollutants

Particulates are the primary pollutants found in stormwater and are removed through sedimentation and
filtration. Sedimentation occurs when particles have a greater density than the surrounding liquid. Under
laboratory quiescent conditions, it is possible to settle out very small particles; the smallest practical settling size
in the field is around 0.01 mm (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979). Sometimes, the smallest particles become electrically
charged, which can further interfere with their ability to settle out. The Newton’s and Stoke’s laws are often
used to quantify the sedimentation process. More information on sedimentation theory, including Stokes’ and
Newton’s laws, can be found in other references (Hazen, 1904).

Particulates can also be removed by filtration through use of infiltration facilities. The mechanism is different
from sedimentation process, where media is used for example sand, to increase the efficiency of the pollutant
filtration process. Excellent removal of suspended solids in field bioretention systems has been reported
elsewhere (Li and Davis, 2009).

3.3.2 Dissolved Pollutants

Dissolved pollutants are mainly removed through adsorption, microbial fixation, biochemical degradation and
plant uptake (phytoremediation). However, the dominancy of the process mechanism depends on the type of
BMPs. Soil or plant-based media is required to remove the dissolved pollutants (Metals, TN, TP, BOD, COD,
pesticides, herbicides, etc.).

Two most common BMPs used to remove dissolved pollutant from stormwater are wetlands and bioretention
facilities. Wetlands support various types of microphytes and macrophytes that either absorb or adsorb
dissolved pollutants from the storm runoff. On the other hand removal of dissolved pollutants by bioretention
facility is mainly done by media and plant uptakes. This is because due to the dry nature of the bioretention
system, the number of microbial aquatic organism (e.g. algae) will be less, which plays important role in
removing micronutrients of low concentrations.

3.3.3 Floatable Pollutants

Floatable pollutants in the storm runoff can be in the form of litters (refuse or trash) or oil and grease (floating
hydrocarbon). The litters are floating or submerged particles large enough to be removed by screen, trash rack,
nets and other mechanical devices. Opening of the litter trapping devices depend on the size of the particles to
be trapped. However, fine screens pose high potential to choke or clog the drainage system. Therefore, captured
floatable pollutants should be removed from the gross pollutant trap at the soonest possible time, preferably
before the next storm occurs.

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-3

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

The removal of floating oil and grease (hydrocarbon) is based upon the rise rate velocity of oil droplet and rate
of runoff. However, with the exception of stormwater from oil refineries there are no data describing the
characteristics of petroleum products in urban stormwater that are relevant to design; either oil density and
droplet size to calculate rise rate or direct measurement of rise rates. Further, it is known that a significant
percentage of the petroleum products are attached to the fine suspended solids and therefore are removed by
settling (API, 1990).

3.4 BMPs FACILITIES

This Section provides types, treatment objectives and guidance for the selection of a stormwater treatment
system (BMPs). They should be carefully selected based on site-specific conditions and the overall management
objectives of the catchment.

The selection process has the following aspects:

• Identification of problems and treatment objectives;
• Familiarisation with capabilities of the alternative treatment devices and treatment mechanisms;
• Familiarisation with constraints on use of various treatment devices; and
• Cost considerations.
The advantages or disadvantages of each BMPs facility, constraints on use and some factors likely to affect cost
are summarised.

3.4.1 Types

Only the more universally accepted BMPs types are recommended for present use. They are infiltration
facilities, bioretention facilities, swales, gross pollutant traps and water quality pond and wetlands. It is to be
expected that more newer and improved BMPs facilities will be developed worldwide and the designer should
keep up-to-date with these in the future.

(a) Infiltration Facilities

Infiltration devices can take a number of structural forms including pits, trenches, or basins. All of these
devices work by storing stormwater flow and promoting infiltration into the soil. They are primarily for
removing soluble and fine materials from stormwater.

(b) Bioretention Facilities

These devices use a filtering action to remove pollutants, mainly particulate material. Two types of filtration are
used: biofiltration, using biological methods, and media filtration through porous media such as sand.
Bioretention facilities are good for abstracting nutrients and fine colloidal particles, which are difficult to be
retained in sediment basins and water quality ponds.

(c) Gross Pollutant Traps

Gross pollutant traps (GPTs) remove floating and submerged gross litter, hydrocarbons and coarse solids. They
can be either built in-situ or pre-fabricated. The GPTs mainly help improve the visual quality of the storm
runoff. However, these facilities require frequent maintenance for them to be performed to meet the designed
efficiency. Choked GPTs in the drains may cause nuisance flooding in the locality.

(d) Swales

Swales are vegetated drains that can be used to convey and filter runoff. They take advantage of biological
processes to improve pollutant removal from the storm runoff. Biological controls provided by swales are
typically cheaper and have better aesthetic than structural controls, but may involve more maintenance and
landtake.

3-4 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

(e) Water Quality Pond and Wetlands

Water quality ponds have a beneficial effect on stormwater quality treatment by controlling the volume of
runoff and providing treatment by gravity settling, biological stabilisation of soluble pollutants such as
nutrients, and adsorption and decomposition of biodegradable pollutants such as BOD and light oils. The
function of wetlands is similar to that of ponds, except that areas of active vegetation growth are the main
component of wetlands instead of open water. This promotes biological action in preference to sedimentation.
In practice, most water quality ponds contain wetlands areas and vice versa so it is convenient to consider the
two types together.

3.4.2 Treatment Objectives

The primary objective of the treatment BMPs in this manual (with the exception of oil separators) is to remove
total suspended solids and sediment-bound compounds. Removal of TSS will result in the removal of many of
the contaminants of concern, including:
• Particulate trace metals;
• Particulate nutrients; and
• Oil and grease on solids.

The overall objective of removing 80% of the TSS load (on a long-term average basis) in a catchment has been
adopted in this Manual (refer to Chapter 1). A higher degree of removal would require a large increase in
treatment device size and cost. In some retrofitting cases in older developed catchments, it may not be possible
to meet the 80% removal objectives due to space limitations. For oil and grease removal, the objective of
treating over 90% of the total annual runoff is proposed.

3.4.3 Selection

The permanent facilities such as infiltration basins, swales, GPTs, bioretention facilities, water quality ponds
and wetlands are to be provided to take care of the runoff laden pollutants generated from the developed areas.
Table 3.3 provides a rating from low to high for each treatment BMPs type against its removal efficiency and
other factors such as maintenance and cost. Consideration should be given to the intended catchment area to be
treated, as some systems such as wetlands take up considerable amounts of land.

Table 3.3: Selection of BMPs for Various Pollutants (Adapted from Melbourne Water, 2005)

Pollutant Removal Efficiency Other factors

Maintenance

Catchment
(TN & TP)
Pollutants

BMPs Type
Required

Treatable
Nutrient
Gross

Land

Area

Cost
TSS

Infiltration Low High High Medium High Medium Low

Bioretention Low High High Low Medium Medium Medium
Swale Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Low
GPT High Low No Medium Medium Medium Medium
Water Quality Pond Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High
Wetlands Medium High High High Medium High High
Note: In order to remove the desired contaminants for the application being considered, a composite system
incorporating numerous design elements may be required. This is commonly referred to as a ‘treatment
train’. In this instance, an order of suitability can be obtained by referencing various combinations of
design elements and their associated pollutant treatment ability and other factors as listed above. The
higher the level, the more suitable that combination of design elements will be.

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-5

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

The definitions of low, medium and high capture or treatment target for each of the BMPs for TSS and nutrients
is given in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Classification of Treatment Targets for Individual BMPs (Adapted from Melbourne Water, 2005)

Target of Treatment
Pollutant
Low Medium High
TSS Less than 40% of 40-70% of particulates More than 70% of
particulates greater than greater than 0.125mm particulates greater than
0.125mm retained. retained. 0.125 mm retained.
Nutrients Less than 10% reduction 10-40% reduction More than 40% reduction
(TN & TP)
Note: There is insufficient data available to give firm guidance on gross pollutants. The level of treatment
chosen has an effect on the area required for the BMPs. However, in all situations, the overall
pollutant reduction by any BMPs or treatment train (at least) must comply with the criteria given in
Table 1.4.

Suitability of BMPs also depends on the type and size of the development and its associated landuse. Table 3.5
provides a guide to select the most appropriate BMPs for different development types while Table 3.6 provides
commentary on benefits and siting considerations for different BMPs elements.

Table 3.5: Suitability of BMPs for Various Landuses (Adapted from City of Knox, 2002)

Quality Pond
Bioretention

Infiltration
Wetlands

Development Types/Landuse Water

Swale

GPT
New Roads and Highways
‐ On slopes less than 4% High High High High High High
‐ On slopes greater than 4% Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Old Roads and Highways
‐ On slopes less than 4% High Medium High High Medium High
‐ On slopes greater than 4% Medium Low High Medium Low High
New Residential/Commercial/ High High High High High High
Industrial Development
Old Residential/Commercial/ Medium Low Low Medium High High
Industrial Development

3.5 PRELIMINARY SIZING OF BMPs

Removal curves are presented in this Section for the preliminary estimate of BMPs sizes. They are for swale,
water quality pond and wetlands application only. The simplified procedure is used for the purpose of
planning submission to a regulatory local authority for initial assessment. The “planning application process”
usually entails an applicant submitting to a local regulatory authority the prepared plans and associated
documentation that outline the intent and extent of the proposed development. Detailed design is not
undertaken at this stage, as the authority is likely to provide recommendations or conditions during the initial
assessment. Local regulatory authority can, therefore, also use the preliminary design outcomes to assess
submissions based on the methodology proposed in this section.

This process is by no means intended to replace the more rigorous processes outlined in the design Chapters of
the Manual, and as such should not be used to determine final treatment sizing or efficiency. Designers should

3-6 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

Table 3.6: Treatment Application Guide (Landcom, 2004)

BMPs Potential Benefits Suitable Site Condition Unsuitable Conditions

Reduces litter and debris Conventional drainage systems Sites Larger than 100 ha
GPT Can reduce sediments Natural channels
Pre-treatment for other
measures
Reduce runoff Sandy to sandy-clay soils (k more Silty clay to clay soils
Pollutant removal than 36mm/hr) Steep terrain
Infiltration Passive irrigation Flat terrain (less than 2%) Shallow groundwater table
Deep groundwater table Highly polluted runoff
Medium and fine particulate Mild slopes (less than 4%) Steep slopes (more than 4%)
Swales removal
Passive irrigation
Fine and soluble pollutants Flat terrain Steep terrain
Bioretention removal High groundwater table
Small ARI
Frequent flood retardation
Storage for reuse Steep terrain with confined valleys Proximity to airports, landfill
Fine sediment removal High groundwater table
Water Flood retardation
Quality Community and wildlife
Pond asset

Community asset Flat terrain Steep terrain

Medium to fine particulates High groundwater table
Wetlands and some soluble pollutant Acid sulphate soils
removal
Wildlife habitat

recognise that local factors may strongly influence the results from the process and take these into account in
their final decision in sizing the BMPs.

The preliminary BMPs sizing procedure is given below:

Step 1: Identify the main non-point source (NPS) pollutants that would be generated by the proposed
development (Table 3.3).
Step 2: Choose the BMPs best suited to the target the NPS pollutants (Step 1) and landuse (Table 3.5).
Step 3: Choose the level of treatment and reduction target required for the BMPs (Table 1.4).
Step 4: Work out the BMPs area required by reading the target pollutant reduction value from the Y-axis of the
relevant chart. Then move horizontally right and meet the curve of the target pollutant. Then move
vertically down and read the BMPs/Catchment Impervious Area ratio in percentage (%) from the
appropriate chart in Figure 3.1. Estimate the BMPs area by multiplying the BMPs/Catchment
Impervious Area ratio by the estimated impervious area (in ha) of the catchment and dividing by 100. If
the impervious area is not available, a relevant runoff coefficient (Table 2.6) appropriate for the target
landuse can be used instead of the imperviousness (%).
Step 5: Choose the appropriate layout plans and guideline drawing(s) and for the proposed BMPs.
Step 6: Collate the results and submit the information to the local regulatory authority for initial approval.

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-7

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

70
TSS TN TP
60
Pollutant Reduction (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Swale Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious Area

a) Swale

100
TSS TN TP
90

80
Pollutant Reduction (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Water Quality Pond Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious Area

b) Water Quality Pond

Figure 3.1: Pollutant Reduction Curves (Adapted from Melbourne Water, 2005 and Darwin Harbour, 2009)

3-8 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

90
80 TSS TN TP

70
Pollutant Reduction (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Wetland Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious Area

c) Wetlands

Figure 3.1: Pollutant Reduction Curves (Adapted from Melbourne Water, 2005 and Darwin Harbour, 2009)

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-9

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

REFERENCES

1. American Petroleum Institute, API, (1990). Design and Operation of Oil-Water Separators, Publication 421.
2. City of Knox (2002). Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines for the City of Knox. Murphy Design Group and
KLM Development Consultants. City of Knox, Australia.
3. Darwin Harbour (2009). Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Design Guidelines. Darwin, Australia.
4. Hazen, A. (1904). On Sedimentation. Trans. ASCE 53:45-88.
5. Landcom (2004). Water Sensitive Urban Design Strategy. Sydney, Australia.
6. Li, H. and Davis, A.P. (2009). Water Quality Improvement through Reductions of Pollutant Loads using
Bioretention. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 135(8): 567-576.
7. Melbourne Water (2005). WSUD Engineering Procedures: Stormwater. Adopted for WSUD Engineering
Procedures for Stormwater Management in Southern Tasmania, Australia.
8. Metcalf & Eddy Inc. (1979). Wastewater Engineering, Collection, Treatment, Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.

3-10 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

APPENDIX 3.A EXAMPLE - POLLUTION LOAD FROM MULTIPLE LANDUSES

Problem:

Determine the annual pollution loading (in tonnes/yr) generated from a 753.28 ha mixed development area
located in upstream of Sg. Buloh catchment shown in Figure 3.A1. The mean annual rainfall for the catchment is
2850 mm.

Residential (114.54 ha)

Taman Wangsa Permai

Industrial (124 ha)

Taman Perindustrian Tago Industrial (104.15 ha)
Taman Perindustrian KIP

Sg. Buloh
Roads and Highways
(30.39 ha)
Commercial (26.18 ha)
Bandar Dri Damansara

Residential (86.5 ha)

Bandar Manjalara

Legends:
Catchment Boundary
Landuse Boundary

Figure 3.A1: Catchment Area for the Calculation of Pollution Load

Solution:

Reference Calculation Output

Table 2.5 Step 1: Get the mean annual rainfall (MAR) data for the catchment (in Table 3.A1
Equation 2.4 this case, 2850 mm) and multiply with the corresponding
runoff coefficient to calculate the annual runoff from each
landuse.

Table 3.2 Step 2: Pick the EMC values for each pollutant corresponding to the Table 3.A1
Equation 3.2 landuse and use Equation 3.2 to calculate the pollutant
loading. The results are summarised in Table 3.A1.

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-11

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

Reference Calculation Output

Step 3: Calculate the total annual pollution load for TSS, TP and TN in
tonne per year.

They are summed as follows:

TSS = TSS from Residential + Industry + Commercial + Road and
Highway
= 1299.07 + 971.44 + 81.93 + 65.84 = 2418.28
Similarly tonne/year

TP = 3.45 + 2.87 + 0.22 + 0.13 = 6.67

tonne/year

TN = 42.73 + 29.26 + 3.25 + 1.85 = 77.09

tonne/year

Table 3.A1: Calculation of Pollution Loading from Various Catchments

Volumetric Annual Loading

Runoff EMC Annual Runoff
Landuse Area (ha) Pollutant
Coefficient (mg/L) (mm)
(Cv) (kg/year) (tonne/year)

TSS 128 1299073 1299.07

468.56 0.76* TP 0.34 2166 3451 3.45
Residential
TN 4.21 42727 42.73
TSS 166 971440 971.44
Industry 228.15 0.90 TP 0.49 2565 2868 2.87
TN 5.00 29260 29.26
TSS 122 81925 81.93
Commercial 26.18 0.90 TP 0.32 2565 215 0.22
TN 4.84 3250 3.25
Roads and TSS 80 65837 65.84
Highways 30.39 0.95 TP 0.16 2708 132 0.13
TN 2.25 1852 1.85
* Area-weighted average volumetric runoff coefficient for the residential areas (using Table 2.5 and
Equation 2.4).

3-12 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

APPENDIX 3.B EXAMPLE - PRELIMINARY SIZING OF WATER QUALITY POND

Problem:

Estimate the preliminary size of a water quality pond required to reduce the TSS, TN and TP by 80%, 35% and
40%, respectively from the residential area (Taman Wangsa Permai, 114.54 ha), as given in Example 3.A (Figure
3.A1). The average runoff coefficient of the area is 0.55, which was calculated based on the actual
imperviousness of the mixed development residential area (e.g. Bungalow, Link House and Open Spaces).

Solution:

Reference Calculation Output

Figure Step 1 - Calculate the contributing impervious area as 0.55 x 114.54 ha = 63 ha

3.1b
Step 2 - Identify the percentage of pollutant needed to be removed by the proposed
pond and draw the horizontal lines as shown below:

100
TSS TN TP TSS
90

80
Pollutant Reduction (%)

70

60

50 TP
40

30
TN
20

10

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Water Quality Pond Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious
Area

Step 3 - Determine the ratio of Pond Area/Contributing Impervious Area ratio

in %, from the X-axis as shown above, which are:
For TSS = 1.7%
For TN = 4.95%
For TP = 2.0%

Step 4 - Now the preliminary pond area must be determined based on the maximum
area required which is 4.95% for the TN removal.
Therefore, the water quality pond area should be,

(4.95 x 63 ha) /100 = 3.12 ha.

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-13

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

APPENDIX 3.C EXAMPLE - PRELIMINARY SIZING OF TREATMENT TRAIN

Problem:

Estimate the preliminary sizes of a BMPs treatment train using swale, wetlands and water quality pond shown
in Figure 3.C1, to reduce TSS by 80% from a residential subcatchment, Taman Bukit Rahman Putra located in
Upper Sg. Buloh Catchment, with an area of 14.46 ha (Figure 3.C1). The average contributing imperviousness of
the residential area is 75%.

Catchment Boundary
Area (14.46 ha)
Imperviousness=75%

ale
Sw

ale Access Road

Sw
Sw
al
e

Primary
Outlet
Secondary Outlet
(Spillway)
Sw
al
e

Figure 3.C1: Layout of the Proposed of BMPs Treatment Train

3-14 Quality Design Fundamentals

 MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

Solution:

Reference Calculation Output

Table 3.3 Step 1: Assuming TSS removal within the treatment train is distributed as
and 3.4 follows :
Swale (40%) Wetlands (10%) Water Quality Pond (30%)

Figure 3.1a Step 2: Top widths of the swales are assumed to be 3 m wide, including the
drainage reserves that act as buffer strip. Now the total area of the swales
required to remove 40% of the TSS can be determined using Figure 3.1a, which
is shown below:

70
TSS TN TP
60
Pollutant Reduction (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Swale Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious Area

So, the total swale area required is 0.30% of the contributing impervious area,

= 0.30/100 x 14.46 x 0.75 = 0.033 ha = 330 m2

Swale length (for width 3m) = 110 m

Step 3: The next step is to estimate the size of wetland to remove 10% of the
Figure 3.1c TSS. A preliminary size of the wetland is estimated from the Figure 3.1 (c). The
required wetland area to remove 10% of the TSS is 0.20%, i.e.

Wetlands area = 0.20/100 x 14.46 x 0.75 = 0.022 ha = 220 m2

The area is divided into two units of wetlands, as shown in Figure 3.C1. One is
for shallow pool (100 m2) and the other is for deep pool (120 m2) with
submerged macrophytes.

Figure 3.1b Step 4: The remaining 30% of the TSS needed to meet the removal target of 80%
will be removed by the water quality pond, which is the last component of the
proposed treatment train BMPs. Preliminary size of the pond is estimated from
the Figure 3.1 (b). The required water quality pond area to remove 30% of the
TSS is 0.18%, i.e.

Water quality pond area = 0.18/100 x 14.46 x 0.75 = 0.020 ha = 200m2

Quality Design Fundamentals 3-15

MSMA 2nd Edition. 2012 | DID Malaysia

Reference Calculation Output

90
80 TSS TN TP

70
Pollutant Reduction (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Wetland Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious Area

100
TSS TN
90
80
Pollutant Reduction (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Water Quality Pond Area as Percentage of Contributing Impervious Area

Summary and flow of the estimated BMPs sizes are as follows:

Swale (330m2) → Wetland 1 (100m2) → Wetland 2 (120m2) → Water Quality

Pond (200m2)

3-16 Quality Design Fundamentals