2,216
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 212:
Line 212:
→Performance
===Water Balance===
===Water Balance===
Bioretention practices have been shown to reduce runoff volume through both means of evapotranspiration and infiltration. The primary body of research is separated into bioretention practices either with underdrains and those without (therefore, relying solely on full infiltration into underlying soils). Volumetric performance improves when:
* Native soils have high infiltration capacity.
* General size of the practice.
* Underdrain is elevated above the native soil and/or a flow restrictor is installed on the underdrain.
{|class="wikitable"
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from permeable pavements
|-
!'''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="6" 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 J.C. Clausen. 2005. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air and Soil Pollution. Vol. 167. No. 2. pp. 201-208. http://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.F., 2005. Characterization study of a bio-infiltration stormwater BMP (Doctoral dissertation, Villanova University). 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., 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/book/10.1061/9780784407370</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |
|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;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">85 to 100%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>Gao, J., Pan, J., Hu, N. and Xie, C., 2018. Hydrologic performance of bioretention in an expressway service area. Water Science and Technology, 77(7), pp.1829-1837.</ref>
|-
|rowspan="10" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Texas
|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.">82%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Mahmoud, ''et al.'' (2019)<ref>Mahmoud, A., Alam, T., Rahman, M.Y.A., Sanchez, A., Guerrero, J. and Jones, K.D. 2019. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecological Engineering, 142, p.100007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590290319300070</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Virginia
|style="text-align: center;" |97 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |DeBusk and Wynn (2011)<ref>DeBusk, K.M. and Wynn, T.M., 2011. Storm-water bioretention for runoff quality and quantity mitigation. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 137(9), pp.800-808. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ce431/Articles/DeBusk-ASCE-2011.pdf</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">35 to 75%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>Gao, J., Pan, J., Hu, N. and Xie, C., 2018. Hydrologic performance of bioretention in an expressway service area. Water Science and Technology, 77(7), pp.1829-1837.</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==