4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 183:
Line 183: − + − + − + − + − March/April.</ref> − + − + − + − + − + − |-+ − |style="text-align: center;" |Washington − |style="text-align: center;" |97 to 100% − |style="text-align: center;" |Brattebo and Booth (2003)<ref name="example2">Brattebo, B. and D. Booth. 2003. Long term stormwater quantity and quality − performance of permeable pavement systems. Water Research 37(18): 4369-4376 </ref> − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut − |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." >72%*</span></u>''' − |style="text-align: center;" |Gilbert and Clausen (2006)<ref>Gilbert, J. and J. Clausen. 2006. Stormwater runoff quality and quantity from asphalt, − paver and crushed stone driveways in Connecticut. Water Research 40: 826-832.</ref> − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |King City, Ontario − |style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: In this study, there was no underdrain in the pavement base, but an underdrain was located 1 m below the native soils to allow for sampling of infiltrated water. Temporary water storage fluctuations in the base were similar to those expected in a no underdrain design." >99%*</span></u>''' − |style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2013/03/PP_FactsheetSept2011-compressed.pdf TRCA (2008)]</span>
→Performance
!'''Reference'''
!'''Reference'''
|-
|-
|rowspan="6" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|rowspan="3" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |Guelph, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |James (2002)<ref>James, W. 2002. Green Roads: Research into Permeable Pavers. Stormwater.
|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;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
|style="text-align: center;" |80%
|style="text-align: center;" |Kwiatkowski et al. (2007)<ref name="example1">Kwiatkowski, M., Welker, A.L., Traver, R.G., Vanacore, M., Ladd. T. 2007. Evaluation of an infiltration best management practice utilizing pervious concrete. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 43. No. 5. pp. 1208-1222.</ref>
|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;" |France
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |97%
|style="text-align: center;" |70%
|style="text-align: center;" |Legret and Colandini (1999)<ref>Legret, M and V. Colandani. 1999. Effects of a porous pavement structure with a reservoir structure on runoff water: water quality and fate of metals. Water Science and Technology. 39(2): 111-117</ref>
|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
|rowspan="10" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain