Bonview Catchment Modelling

With MUSIC v3 Simulation Software

Group 315
Darryl de Lange
Nilufar Khundakar

421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
1.0 Introduction
Bonview wetland is located at Doncaster in Melbourne’s east. The wetland receives
stormwater from an urban catchment comprised predominantly of residential areas, along
with the large Doncaster shopping complex on Williamsons Road, two grassed reserve areas
and a sports field.

The Bonview wetland was modelled using MUSIC v3 simulation software to establish the
effectiveness of the wetlands in improving stormwater quality. To achieve this, the
characteristics of Bonview’s 138 ha catchment were determined as source inputs to the
model.

2.0 Catchment Categorisation

The Bonview catchment was categorised into zones of similar characteristics as shown
below.

Fig.1 Bonview Catchment Zones

Page |1 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

The size of each zone as shown in Table.1 was established as a proportion of the total
catchment area of 138 ha. The pervious/impervious characteristics of each catchment zone
were estimated based on satellite photography of the area (Google Maps 2009).

Table 1 – Bonview Catchment Properties

Type Proportion Ratio Area Impervious
Sports Agricultural 0.08 0.01 1.5 5%
Reserve 1 Forest 1.00 0.13 18.2 5%
Reserve 2 Forest 0.70 0.09 12.7 5%
Retail Urban 0.80 0.11 14.6 95%
Residential Urban 5.00 0.66 91.0 70%
Total 7.58 1.00 138.0 ha

Total catchment area 138 ha

The following input data was assumed for the Bonview wetland MUSIC model:

Table 2 – Bonview Input Data

Low flow bypass 0 m3/s

High flow bypass 1 m3/s

Inlet pond volume 670 m3

Surface Area 6,000 m2

Extended Detention Depth 0.8 m

Permanent Pond volume 3200 m3

Outlet

Equivalent pipe dia 0.18 m

Weir width 10 m

Catchment Area 138 Ha

Source Moore G (2009)

Page |2 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

Local water quality values from SEPP Waters of Victoria (urban waterway tributaries to the
Yara River downstream of Diamond Creek) were used to quantify the outputs from the
MUSIC model.

Table.3 - SEPP (WoV) Water Quality Values

Indicator Value Compliance Freq %
TSS <50 50%
TP <0.1 100%
TN <1.0 100%
Source EPA (1999)

3.0 Pollutant Input Data for MUSIC Model

Source node characteristics for the various zones identified previously were based on
default MUSIC parameters but with some modification for each specific zone based on land
use versus concentration from Duncan (1999) in Fig.2.

Fig.2 Total Pollutant Concentrations vs Land Use

Source – CRC (2005)

The resulting values for the individual Bonview catchment zones are indicated in the table
below.

Page |3 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

Table.4 Bonview Total Pollutant Concentrations per Zone (Storm Flow)
TSS TP TN
Conc Log Comment Conc Log Comment Conc Log Comment
Sports 110 2.04 all rural 0.52 -0.28 agricultural 3.9 0.59 agricultural
Reserve 1 92 1.96 other rural 0.22 -0.66 other rural 2.2 0.34 other rural
Reserve 2 92 1.96 other rural 0.22 -0.66 other rural 2.2 0.34 other rural
Retail 130 2.11 commercial 0.32 -0.49 commercial 2.1 0.32 commercial
Residential 140 2.15 residential 0.4 -0.40 residential 2.8 0.45 residential

4.0 Stormwater Emissions from Current Wetland

Below is shown a schematic of the MUSIC model created to simulate the operation of
Bonview catchment and wetland.

Fig.3 MUSIC Model – Bonview Wetland

Page |4 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

The outputs from the Bonview wetland is shown in the graphs and data indicated below.

Table.5 Bonview Wetland Outlet - Daily Mean Statistics (Current Status)

Inflow mean std dev median max min 10 % 90 %
Flow (m3/sec) 0.014 0.043 0.001 0.381 0.000 0.001 0.033
TP Conc (mg/L) 0.116 0.111 0.06 0.526 0.000 0.060 0.320
TN Conc (mg/L) 1.31 0.695 1.01 3.320 0.000 1.000 2.540
TP Load (kg/day) 0.421 1.45 0.003 12.800 0.000 0.003 0.938
TN Load (kg/day) 3.09 10.1 0.052 87.600 0.000 0.048 7.650

Table.6 Bonview Wetland Outlet - Daily Maxima Statistics (Current Status)

Inflow mean std dev median max min 10 % 90 %
Flow (m3/sec) 0.334 1.10 0.001 8.880 0.00 0.001 0.797
TP Conc (mg/L) 0.155 0.190 0.060 0.978 0.00 0.060 0.461
TN Conc (mg/L) 1.51 1.02 1.01 6.020 0.00 1.00 3.08
TP Load (kg/6 min) 0.055 0.188 0.00 1.530 0.00 0.00 0.097
TN Load (kg/6 min) 0.354 1.210 0.00 9.880 0.00 0.00 0.841

As can be seen from the results above, the wetland is not achieving the required SEPP
targets with mean TP values 16% above target and mean TN values 31% above.
Furthermore, the performance deteriorated for higher flows with maxima TP values 55%
above target and maxima TN values 51% above the local SEPP targets.

However, while the results are “below par”, the wetland performance should be viewed in
the context of what is being achieved. The table below compares the water quality entering
the wetland and that exiting for both mean and maxima flows.

It is evident from the percentage improvement achieved (up to 63%) across all pollutant
categories, that in terms of water quality improvement the wetland is performing
excellently, especially under high-flow conditions.

Page |5 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

 Table.7 Wetland Input vs Output Performance
Bonview Wetlands - Daily Mean Statistics Bonview Wetlands - Daily Maxima Statistics
Inflow mean Inflow mean
Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.014 Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.440
TSS Concentration (mg/L) 50.6 TSS Concentration (mg/L) 135.0
TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.170 TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.417
TN Concentration (mg/L) 1.550 TN Concentration (mg/L) 2.910
TSS Load (kg/Day) 215.0 TSS Load (kg/6 Minutes) 39.7
TP Load (kg/Day) 0.550 TP Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.093
TN Load (kg/Day) 3.50 TN Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.492
Gross Pollutant Load (kg/Day) 48.2 Gross Pollutant Load (kg/6 min) 7.27

Outflow mean % change Outflow mean % change

Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.014 -3% Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.334 -24%
TSS Concentration (mg/L) 29.3 -42% TSS Concentration (mg/L) 49.5 -63%
TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.118 -31% TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.158 -62%
TN Concentration (mg/L) 1.320 -15% TN Concentration (mg/L) 1.53 -47%
TSS Load (kg/Day) 157.0 -27% TSS Load (kg/6 Minutes) 26.1 -34%
TP Load (kg/Day) 0.439 -20% TP Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.064 -31%
TN Load (kg/Day) 3.14 -10% TN Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.338 -31%
Gross Pollutant Load (kg/Day) 8.88 -82% Gross Pollutant Load (kg/6 min) 3.98 -45%

However, the wetland alone is incapable of achieving the desired SEPP targets.
Supplementary source treatment measures in the treatment train are necessary to achieve
the desired water quality objectives. This option will be explored further in Sections 6 and 7
of this report.

5.0 Stormwater Emissions from Degraded Wetland

Poor maintenance of wetland systems leads to poor water quality, with wetlands requiring
dredging and other operational inputs to maintain acceptable performance (Melbourne
Water 2005).

To assess the potential loss in wetland treatment performance, the following detrimental
effects were assumed to have occurred in Bonview wetland:

Page |6 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

 • The height of the high-flow bypass weir has become reduced such that the bypass
threshold volume is reduced to 0.5m3/s.
• The inlet pond has suffered sedimentation build-up such that the pond volume is
reduced to 400 m3.
• The outlet pipe has become partially blocked, such that the equivalent pipe diameter
has been reduced to 0.06 m.

The MUSIC model was re-run with the changed operating conditions, and the output results
are displayed in the graphs and tables below.

Table.8 Bonview Wetland Outlet - Daily Mean Statistics (Degraded Status)

Inflow mean std dev median max min 10 % 90 %
Flow (m3/sec) 0.014 0.043 0.00 0.381 0.00 0.00 0.033
TP Conc (mg/L) 0.135 0.125 0.060 0.673 0.00 0.060 0.364
TN Conc (mg/L) 1.420 0.760 1.02 3.46 0.00 1.00 2.68
TP Load (kg/day) 0.455 1.53 0.00 13.3 0.00 0.00 1.06
TN Load (kg/day) 3.210 10.30 0.006 87.6 0.00 0.006 8.06

Table.9 Bonview Wetland Outlet - Daily Maxima Statistics (Degraded Status)

Inflow mean std dev median max min 10 % 90 %
Flow (m3/sec) 0.377 1.15 0.00 9.27 0.00 0.00 1.09
TP Conc (mg/L) 0.191 0.233 0.060 1.14 0.00 0.06 0.574
TN Conc (mg/L) 1.73 1.28 1.02 7.04 0.00 1.00 3.77
TP Load (kg/6 min) 0.065 0.206 0.00 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.191
TN Load (kg/6 min) 0.408 1.29 0.00 10.4 0.00 0.00 1.18

The graphs and figures above indicate that the “degradation” suffered by the wetland has
resulted in a significant reduction in water treatment effectiveness. Compared to current
performance, the mean TP and TN concentrations have increased by 16% and 8%
respectively, and mean concentrations increased by 8% and 4% respectively.

The effects of the degradation were more pronounced at higher flow levels, with mean peak
flow increasing by 13% compared to current, mean peak TP and TN concentrations
increased by 23% and 15% respectively, and mean loads increased by 19% and 15%
respectively.

Page |7 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

Consequently, while the wetland continued to provide most of its function at lower flows,
the reduced detention capacity affected its performance significantly at higher flow rates.

Page |8 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

6.0 Stormwater Emissions Source Control – Bioretention
by Darryl de Lange

Water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) integrates urban planning with water conservation
and management functions (Melbourne Water 2004). The goal of WSUD is protection of
natural waterways, integration of stormwater management into the landscape,
improvement of water quality from urban development and run-off and peak flow reduction
(CSIRO 1999).

One technique for integrating WSUD technology into the urban landscape is bio-retention
systems, which provide secondary treatment, detention and tertiary treatment (Melbourne
Water 2004).

Fig.4 Bonview Simulation with Bioretention Source Control

Page |9 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

For the purpose of simulation analysis, bioretention systems were added to the Bonview
catchment MUSIC model to treat storm water flows at source. The retail zone included 1km
of bioretention system located around the perimeter and in parking separation strips.
Fig.5 Location of Retail Bioretention Systems in Retail Zone

Source Google Maps (2009)

The residential area had a total of 5km of retention systems located throughout the zone in
curbs adjacent to stormwater drains. The sports field and reserve 2 each had a 200m
bioretention system.

Fig.6 Residential Bioretention System

P a g e | 10 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

 Source Lamshed S (2009)

The effect of these systems is shown in the simulation results below.

P a g e | 11 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

The simulation results show that the use of bioretention, in conjunction with the existing
Bonview wetland, is a highly effective method of source control, contributing to substantial
levels of reduction across all pollutant types.

Compared to current wetland performance, the mean TSS level was reduced by 63%, while
mean TP and TN concentrations were reduced by 28% and 15% respectively. Significantly,
the bioretention systems reduced the gross pollutant load by 100%.

The daily maxima statistics reveal even better performance improvements, with maxima TSS
levels reduced by 72%, and maxima TP and TN concentrations reduced by 37% and 19%
respectively. Again, the gross pollutant load was reduced by 100%.

Additionally, the bioretention system is also has a very effective damping effect on storm
flow volumes, reducing mean peak flows by 83% and max peak flows by 73%.

However it should be noted that, even with bioretention systems supplementing the
existing wetland, the SEPP targets are still not assured. While mean TP concentration is
acceptable, the mean TN exceeds standards by 12%. For the maxima results, again the TP
concentration is acceptable but mean TN exceeds standards by a larger 23%.

These results reinforce the need for a treatment-train approach to achieve robust results.

P a g e | 12 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

7.0 Stormwater Emissions Source Control – Gross Pollutant Traps
By Nilufar Khundakar

Source control within the Bonview Drain Catchment is now consists of kerbs, stormwater
drains, stormwater pits and an underground network of stormwater pipes and it is placing
the large pressure onto the Bonview wetland to treat highly polluted that is moving at high
speed into the treatment train. Situation worsens during storm events. Due to underground
networked stormwater system the water that flows onto drainage system can not be used
for passive irrigation of vegetation and turf which might become an issue at the times of
drought. If we think to improve the existing system rather than introducing something new,
Gross Pollutant Trap is the best possible option. For the existing system Gross Pollutant trap
can be introduced with every source so that minimum pollutants can pass to the wetland.
GPTs are the devices that prevent large items polluting waterways and generally take away
larger items from runoff water such as containers, leaves, bottles and plastic bags. There are
two main categories of GPTs- collected items stored above standing water levels (Dry GPT)
and collected items stored below standing water levels (Wet GPT). Design factors of a GPT
is dependent on the location it is to be used. At the entrance of urban wetland and at the
outlet of commercial places are the possible options to insert GPT. For mid rainfall, swales
may be placed upstream to help cope with high rainfall situations. The following factors are
to be considered in GPT design:
• Size of particles to be caught in that location.
• Physical space available for the trap.
• Frequency of storm and other major water influxes.
• Average flow of water.
• Easy and safe access for maintenance works.
• Frequency of maintenance required on that area.
• Estimated load.
• Safety and aesthetics of the trap being exposed or enclosed.
• Installation and operating costs.

P a g e | 13 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

 • Biochemical reactions that might occur in the pollutants.
(“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Word Constructions: For all your business writing needs”, Gross
Pollutant Traps, Hughes T. 31st October, 2009, <
http://www.wordconstructions.com/articles/technical/gpt.html>)

(“Gross Pollutant Trap.” 31st October 2009,

<http://www.everhard.com.au/ProductDetails.aspx?Id=142>)

(“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Humes Water Solutions, 31st October, 2009. <
http://www.humes.com.au/ProdsServices/EnvWaterSolns/humegard.shtml>)

P a g e | 14 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

(“Gross Pollutant Trap.” 31st October 2009,
<http://www.everhard.com.au/ProductDetails.aspx?Id=142>)

(Gross Pollutant Trap.” Water Quality:Treatment: Gross Pollutant Trap: CLeansAll, 31st October 2009,
<http://www.rocla.com.au/Cleansall.php>)
Solid pollutants conveyed in flows from the upstream pipe are filtered through the basket positioned
directly below the upstream pipe invert. The filtered stormwater continues to go through the unit to
the downstream outlet pipe. When the basket is 90% full, the by-pass flaps begin to open in
response to incoming flow. When the basket is 100% full, the pressure of the incoming force flow
open the by- pass flaps allowing the excess flow to enter the drainage system. When the flow
ceases, the flaps return to their normal position. The unique by-pass system eliminates the risk of
flooding without adversely affecting the inlet pit hydraulic performance.

P a g e | 15 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

(“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Ecosol Water Filtration systems, At-Source targeting of pollutants,
31st October, 2009. < http://www.ecosol.com.au/solutions_source.asp>)
Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT’s) are able to capture 95% of gross pollutants over1mm and 95%
of sediment over 200μm in size (Rocla 2007). Data on reduction of fine sediment (TSS) is not
available, however we assumed a 20% reduction in TSS. TP and TN reductions are achieved
through adsorption on the trapped gross pollutants (Rocla 2007), so an assumption for 20%
reduction on both of these pollutants was assumed. GPT is an option of significant
improvement of water quality in Bonview area which can be introduce with the existing
system without saviour structural and behavioural change. So it can be the very first step to
improve the water quality. The GPT MUSIC model is as shown below.

Fig.7 Bonview MUSIC Model with GPT’s

P a g e | 16 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

Table.11 Simulation Results for GPT (Receiving Node Input)

8.0 Recommendations
For further improvement of the project water quality situation our group strongly
recommends the following actions:

• Installation of source control devices

• Incorporate vegetation to increase retention time

P a g e | 17 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

 • Behavioural change and proper education of the local community

• Involvement of community

• Road and other impervious land reduction as much as possible with proper
environment friendly urban design

• Conversion of freed-up land and nature strips to buffer strips

• Proper management of Solid wastes

• Porous pavements for car parking areas

• Prevent vegetation litter to enter into drainage system

• Utilize existing system to capture storm water as much as possible

9.0 Conclusion
We are using MUSIC to draw a conclusion about the water quality and improvement of it. In
fact, there are some limitations of MUSIC. Most of the values, we used default values which
are not comprehensive enough to replicate the actual situation of Doncaster. We assumed
that the wetland is the only treatment node but there is a possibility of sedimentation basin
treatment node followed by a series of two treatment node which might make the actual
situation more complex. The calculation of land is another issue. It might be different for
different system, even in this project we found the difference of assumptions by different
groups in the class. Paying careful attention to inputs and default values in modelling by
MUSIC can never ensure absolute simulated values. Efficiency, failure scenarios and
potential improvements for different scenarios can be visualising to get a guideline
conducting urban catchment planning from MUSIC.

Our group tried to assess the effectiveness of Bonview wetland treatment train. Pollutant
reduction results derived from MUSIC showed that the current performance of the wetland
system is well below the SEPP best practice standards. Due to lack of available data and time
limitation of the project time, it is recommended that further studies should be carried out
to find the best possible solution for the improvement of the water quality of Bonview
wetland.

P a g e | 18 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

References

CRC (2005). MUSIC v3 Manual. Centre for Cooperative Research for Catchment Hydrology
April 2005

CRC (1997). Stromwater Gross Pollutants. Centre for Cooperative Research for Catchment
Hydrology December 1997 http://www.catchment.crc.org.au/pdfs/industry199711.pdf

Duncan H. (1998) Urban Stormwater Quality Improvement in Storage. Proceedings of

Hydrastorm 98, 3rd International Symposium on Stormwater Management Sept 1998, pp.
203-208.

CSIRO (1999). Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines.

Commonwealth Government of Australia.

EPA (2009). State Environment Protection Policy: Waters of the Yarra Catchment. State of
Victoria.

Google Maps (2009). Williamsons Rd Doncaster VIC 3108. Google Maps Australia.
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Lamshed S (2009). Working to ensure a sustainable future. Melbourne Water.

Moore G (2009). Project C: Stormwater Design. Melbourne University Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering

Melbourne Water (2004). Water-sensitive urban design. State of Victoria.

Melbourne Water (2005). Constructed Shallow Lake Systems Design Guidelines for
Developers Version 2. State of Victoria November 2005.

Rocla (2007). CDS Unit Gross Pollutant Traps. Rocla Water Quality.
http://www.rocla.com.au/Drawings/CDS_GPT_Unit_6pp_Apr2008.pdf

P a g e | 19 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Word Constructions: For all your business writing needs”, Gross
Pollutant Traps, Hughes T. 31st October, 2009, <
http://www.wordconstructions.com/articles/technical/gpt.html>

“Gross Pollutant Trap.” 31st October 2009,

<http://www.everhard.com.au/ProductDetails.aspx?Id=142>

“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Humes Water Solutions, 31st October, 2009. <
http://www.humes.com.au/ProdsServices/EnvWaterSolns/humegard.shtml>

“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Water Quality:Treatment: Gross Pollutant Trap: CLeansAll, 31st October 2009,
<http://www.rocla.com.au/Cleansall.php>

“Gross Pollutant Trap.” Ecosol Water Filtration systems, At-Source targeting of pollutants,
31st October, 2009. < http://www.ecosol.com.au/solutions_source.asp>

P a g e | 20 421-605 Managing Waterborne Risks Group 315

Filename: Assignment 3 - Group 315
Directory: C:\Users\rita\Documents\Subjects 2nd sem\MWBR\Assignments
Template: C:\Users\rita\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dotm
Title:
Subject:
Author: Darryl
Keywords:
Comments:
Creation Date: 30/10/2009 3:55:00 PM
Change Number: 6
Last Saved On: 31/10/2009 2:09:00 PM
Last Saved By: rita
Total Editing Time: 227 Minutes
Last Printed On: 22/05/2010 8:41:00 PM
As of Last Complete Printing
Number of Pages: 21
Number of Words: 3,244 (approx.)
Number of Characters: 18,491 (approx.)