Difference between revisions of "Permeable pavements: Life Cycle Costs"
(Created page with "thumb|500px|Placement of permeable pavers during construction. {{TOClimit|2}} ==Overview== Permeable Pavers are an alternative to traditional impervious pavements that allow stormwater to drain through them and into a storage reservoir below. Depending on the native soil properties and site constraints, the system may be designed for full infiltration, partial infiltration, or as a non-infiltrating detention...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 21:24, 13 December 2022
thumb|500px|Placement of permeable pavers during construction.
Overview[edit]
Permeable Pavers are an alternative to traditional impervious pavements that allow stormwater to drain through them and into a storage reservoir below. Depending on the native soil properties and site constraints, the system may be designed for full infiltration, partial infiltration, or as a non-infiltrating detention and filtration only practice. They can be used for low traffic roads, parking, driveways, and walk ways, and are ideal where space for other surface BMPs is limited. Permeable pavement types include: • permeable interlocking pavers (concrete or composite materials) • grid systems (concrete or composite materials) • pervious concrete (poured-in-place or pre-cast) • porous asphalt • permeable articulating block/mat systems
For the sake of this page and associated costs/figures below the inmformation found here relate to Permeable Pavers, for costs and information associated with Porous Asphalt click here. STEP conducted life cycle costs estimates for each of permeable pavements 3 design configurations which can be viewed below. To design your own life cycle cost estimates that can be adapted to fit your project budget and unique development needs access the updated LCCT Tool here.
Design Guidance[edit]
Bioretention is an ideal technology for fitting functional vegetation into urban landscapes and treating runoff collected from nearby impervious surfaces.
Components include: a 'filter bed' with filter media, storage layer of reservoir aggregate, planting and a finishing surface layer of mulch and/or stone.
Additional components include an underdrain to remove excess water and soil additives to enhance pollutant removal.
Tool defaults based on STEP recommendations:
- Maximum drainage area to surface area ratio of 20:1
- Default depth of 0.75 meters.
- Default mulch depth of 75 millimeters.
- An underdrain (minimum 200 mm perforated pipe) is only needed when native soil infiltration is less than 15 mm/hr or infiltration is precluded.
Design Notes[edit]
- Designs include pretreatment through stone diaphragms at curb inlets. Pretreatment through settling forebay and vegetated filter strip not included.
- The tool calculates costs for new designs and includes costs for contractor overhead and profit, material, delivery, labour, equipment (rental, operating and operator costs), hauling and disposal. Mobilization and demobilization costs not included. The tool adds 10% contingency and additional overhead.
- Design and Engineering cost estimates are not calculated by the tool and must be supplied by the user.
- Unit costs are based on 2018 pricing; the tool automatically adds inflation. See the Assumptions sheet in the tool for further details.
- The cost of retrofitting is ~16% higher than the cost of new construction.
- Retrofit costs are included in the 'Costs Summary' section and can be added to the Total Construction Cost for increased accuracy.
- Retrofit costs are included in the 'Costs Summary' section and can be added to the Total Construction Cost for increased accuracy.
Note: Bioretention (all 3 design scenarios): Includes pretreatment sump at inlet and assumes that rehabilitation of filter media bed is performed at 25 years.
Construction Costs[edit]
Note: Please click on each image to enlarge to view associated construction cost results.
Above you can find a cost breakdown of a 250m2 in three different configurations:
- non-infiltrating/filtration only Bioretention,
- Bioretention: Partial infiltration
- Bioretention: Full infiltration
As can be seen the greatest cost for this practice (regardless of configuration type) will be Material & Installation, which include costly components such as the, impermeable membrane/liner appropriate planting and vegetation selection, underdrain, filter media and the stone storage layer or Internal water storage zone (IWSZ).
Life Cycle Costs[edit]
Below are both the capital and life cycle costs of the three bioretention configuration practices over a 25 and 50-year time horizon based on a detailed assessment of local input costs, maintenance requirements, rehabilitation costs and design scenarios relevant to Canadian climates. The costs of maintenance and rehabilitation (Life cycle costs) are set at "Present Value" of these activities in 2022.
Looking at the pie charts below for each configuration we can see that they are all relatively close to being the same cost with a variation of a few hundred dollars between each over both a 25 and 50-year time horizon. The percentage of the Full Infitlration configuration is greater than the other two due to the lesser cost of the overall installation for material and Installation, (no underdrains, no gravel storage layer or impermeable membrane, etc.).
25-Year life cycle cost break down[edit]
Note: Please click on each image to enlarge to view associated life cycle cost results.
50-Year life cycle cost break down[edit]
Note: Please click on each image to enlarge to view associated life cycle cost results.
Total Cost & Design Summary[edit]
As previously discussed the three Bioretention configurations total cost summary vary greatly dependent on whether you want you feature to possess full infiltration, no infiltration, or partial infiltration. In short the most expensive of this options is the Bioretention: Partial infiltration option ($113,800.83 vs. $109,113.76 - no infiltration and $80,392.33 - full infiltration). The same can be said for construction + associated retrofit costs with each configuration design ($132,008.97 vs. $126,571.96 - no infiltration and $93,255.10 - full infiltration) This configuration allows for the greatest storage volume (187.5 m3) compared to its counterparts at 1453 for no infiltration and 107.53 for full infiltration; all while having the exact same surface area footprint of 250m2. As a note it is important to understand your site's surrounding native soil infiltration rate to ensure you are selecting the appropriate design.
A final note in the accuracy of the LCCT. A follow up sensitivity analysis study was conducted by CVC & STEP back in 2019 to test the tool's accuracy. The analysis took designs from 6 completed projects (4 bioretention, 1 permeable pavement, and 1 infiltration trench), and ran them through the tool comparing construction costing results from the LCCT to actual construction costs for the projects. The accuracy target set for the tool was plus-or-minus 30% of actual construction costs.
The analysis found that the tool was on average (±14%) to actual construction costs[1]
Full Infiltration[edit]
Partial Infiltration[edit]
Non-Infiltrating/filtration only[edit]
References[edit]
- ↑ Credit Vally Conservation (CVC). 2019. Life-cycle costing tool 2019 update: sensitivity analysis. Credit Valley Conservation, Mississauga, Ontario. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2020/04/LCCT-Sensitivity-Analysis_March2020.pdf
- ↑ Performance Comparison of Surface and Underground Stormwater Infiltration Practices - TECHNICAL BRIEF. Low Impact Development Series. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2016/08/BioVSTrench_TechBrief__July2015.pdf