Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bioretention (view source)

Revision as of 12:29, 16 February 2022

8,245 bytes added ,  3 years ago
no edit summary
Line 140: Line 140:     
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 Permeable Pavements to Meet Stormwater Management Objectives
 +
|-
 +
!BMP
 +
!Water Balance
 +
!Water Quality
 +
!Erosion Control
 +
|-
 +
|'''Permeable pavement with no underdrain'''
 +
|Yes
 +
|Yes-size for water quality storage requirement
 +
|Partial-based on available storage volume and native soil infiltration rate
 +
|-
 +
|'''Permeable pavement with underdrain'''
 +
|Partial-based on available storage, native soil infiltration rate and if a flow restrictor is used
 +
|Yes-size for water quality storage requirement
 +
|Partial-based on available storage, native soil infiltration rate and if a flow restrictor is used
 +
|-
 +
|'''Permeable Interlocking Pavements'''
 +
|No-some volume reduction occurs through evaporation
 +
|Yes-size for water quality storage requirement
 +
|Partial-based on available storage volume and if a flow restrictor is used
 +
|}
 +
 +
===Water Balance===
 +
Research on the volumetric runoff reduction performance of permeable pavements have been conducted on pavements with and without an underdrain in the base.  Volumetric performance improves when: 
 +
* Native soils have high infiltration capacity.
 +
* Impervious surface draining onto the permeable pavement is limited or absent.
 +
* Underdrain is elevated above the native soil and/or a flow restrictor is installed on the underdrain.
 +
 +
All permeable pavements have very high surface infiltration rates when appropriately maintained.  Therefore, the surface course type (i.e. PICP, pervious concrete) is not a key factor in determining volumetric runoff reduction performance. 
 +
 +
{|class="wikitable"
 +
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from permeable pavements
 +
|-
 +
!'''LID Practice'''
 +
!'''Location'''
 +
!'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences between runoff volume from the practice and total precipitation over the period of monitoring unless otherwise stated." >Runoff Reduction*</span></u>'''
 +
!'''Reference'''
 +
|-
 +
|rowspan="6" style="text-align: center;" | Permeable pavement without underdrain
 +
|style="text-align: center;" |Guelph, Ontario
 +
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
 +
|style="text-align: center;" |James (2002)<ref>James, W. 2002. Green Roads: Research into Permeable Pavers. Stormwater.
 +
March/April.</ref>
 +
|-
 +
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
 +
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
 +
|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;" |France
 +
|style="text-align: center;" |97%
 +
|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;" |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>
 +
|-
 +
|rowspan="10" style="text-align: center;" | Permeable pavement 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==
Retrieved from "https://wiki.trca.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/11887"

Navigation menu