4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 140:
Line 140: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 149:
Line 250: − +
→Performance
Tables for identifying ideal species for bioretention are found in the [[Plant lists]]. See [[plant selection]] and [[planting design]] for supporting advice.
Tables for identifying ideal species for bioretention are found in the [[Plant lists]]. See [[plant selection]] and [[planting design]] for supporting advice.
==Performance==
{|class="wikitable"
|+Ability of Bioretention to Meet Stormwater Management Objectives
|-
!BMP
!Water Balance
!Water Quality
!Erosion Control
|-
|'''Bioretention with no underdrain'''
|Yes
|Yes-size for water quality storage requirement
|Partial-based on available storage volume and native soil infiltration rate
|-
|'''Bioretention with underdrain'''
|Partial-based on available storage volume beneath the underdrain and soil infiltration rate
|Yes-size for water quality storage requirement
|Partial-based on available storage volume beneath the underdrain and soil infiltration rate
|-
|'''Bioretention with underdrain and impermeable liner'''
|Partial-some volume reduction through evapotranspiration
|Yes-size for water quality storage requirement
|Partial-some volume reduction through evapotranspiration
|}
===Water Balance===
Bioretention has been shown to reduce runoff volume through evapotranspiration and infiltration of runoff. The research can be classified into bioretention applications that include underdrains and those that do not (and therefore rely on full infiltration into underlying soils). Aside from the underdrain, many other factors can impact the water balance
Aside from the underdrain, many other factors can impact the water balance performance of a bioretention installation:
* Native soil infiltration rate;
* Rainfall patterns; and,
* Various sizing criteria on a per-installation basis.
{|class="wikitable"
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from Bioretention
|-
!'''LID Practice'''
!'''Location'''
!'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences in runoff volume between the practice and a conventional impervious surface over the period of monitoring." >% Runoff Reduction*</span></u>'''
!'''Reference'''
|-
|rowspan="3" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |Dietz and Clausen(2005)<ref>Dietz, M.E. and Clausen, J.C. 2005. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 167(1), pp.123-138. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.9417&rep=rep1&type=pdf.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |80%
|style="text-align: center;" |Ermilio (2005)<ref>Ermilio, J. 2005. Characterization study of a bio-infiltration stormwater BMP. M.S. Thesis. Villanova University. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Philadelphia, PA. https://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/engineering/vcase/vusp/Ermilio-Thesis06.pdf.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |70%
|style="text-align: center;" |Emerson and Traver (2004)<ref>Emerson, C. and Traver, R. 2004. The Villanova Bio-infiltration Traffic Island: Project Overview. Proceedings of 2004 World Water and Environmental Resources Congress
(EWRI/ASCE). Salt Lake City, Utah, June 22 – July 1, 2004. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40737(2004)38.</ref>
|-
|rowspan="10" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Vaughan, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences in runoff volume between the practice and a conventional impervious surface over the period of monitoring.">45%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2016/02/KPP-Ext_FinalReport_Dec2015.pdf Van Seters and Drake (2015)]</span>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |98 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |Collins et al. (2008)<ref>Collins, K., W. Hunt and J. Hathaway. 2008. Hydrologic comparison of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. </ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |United Kingdom
|style="text-align: center;" |50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Jefferies (2004)<ref>Jefferies, C. 2004. Sustainable drainage systems in Scotland: the monitoring
programme. Scottish Universities SUDS Monitoring Project. Dundee, Scotland</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |United Kingdom
|style="text-align: center;" |53 to 66%
|style="text-align: center;" |Pratt ''et al.'' (1995)<ref>Pratt, C.J., Mantle, J.D.G., Schofield, P.A. 1995. UK research into the performance of permeable pavement reservoir structures in controlling stormwater discharge quantity and quality. Water Science Technology. Vol. 32. No. 1. pp. 63-69.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |45% to 60%
|style="text-align: center;" |Schueler ''et al.'' (1987)<ref>Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling urban runoff: a practical manual for planning and designing urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC. </ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Mississauga
|style="text-align: center;" |61 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMAX-Low-Impact-Development-Monitoring-Case-Study-may-24.pdf CVC (2018)]</span>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Montreal
|style="text-align: center;" |26 to 98%
|style="text-align: center;" |Vaillancourt ''et al.'' (2019) <ref>Vaillancourt, C., Duchesne, S., & Pelletier, G. 2019. Hydrologic performance of permeable pavement as an adaptive measure in urban areas: case studies near Montreal, Canada. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 24(8), 05019020.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Northern Ohio
|style="text-align: center;" |16 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |Winston ''et al.'' (2015) <ref>Winston, R. J., Dorsey, J. D., & Hunt, W. F. (2015). Monitoring the performance of bioretention and permeable pavement stormwater controls in Northern Ohio: hydrology, water quality, and maintenance needs. Chagrin River Watershed Partners. Inc. under NOAA award No. NA09NOS4190153.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Seoul, Korea
|style="text-align: center;" |30 to 65%
|style="text-align: center;" |Shafique ''et al.'' (2018) <ref>Shafique, M., Kim, R. and Kyung-Ho, K., 2018. Rainfall runoff mitigation by retrofitted permeable pavement in an urban area. Sustainability, 10(4), p.1231.</ref>
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: This estimate is provided only for the purpose of initial screening of LID practices suitable for achieving stormwater management objectives and targets. Performance of individual facilities will vary depending on site specific contexts and facility design parameters and should be estimated as part of the design process and submitted with other documentation for review by the approval authority." >Runoff Reduction Estimate*</span></u>'''
|colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''85% without underdrain;'''
'''45% with underdrain'''
|-
|}
==See also==
==See also==
*[https://store.csagroup.org/?cclcl=en_US/ CSA W200-18 Design of Bioretention Systems (2018) CSA Group]
*[https://store.csagroup.org/?cclcl=en_US/ CSA W200-18 Design of Bioretention Systems (2018) CSA Group]
*[https://store.csagroup.org/?cclcl=en_US/ CSA W201-18 Construction of Bioretention Systems (2018) CSA Group]
*[https://store.csagroup.org/?cclcl=en_US/ CSA W201-18 Construction of Bioretention Systems (2018) CSA Group]
*[https://hlw.org.au/download/bioretention-technical-design-guidelines/ Bioretention Design Guidelines (2014) Healthy Waterways]
*[https://hlw.org.au/download/bioretention-technical-design-guidelines/ Bioretention Design Guidelines (2014) Healthy Waterways (Australia)]
----
----
[[Category:Infiltration]]
[[Category:Infiltration]]
[[Category:Green infrastructure]]
[[Category:Green infrastructure]]