当前位置:首页 >> 建筑/土木 >>

Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems


ARTICLE IN PRESS

Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376

Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems
Benjamin O. Brattebo, Derek B. Booth*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Water and Watershed Studies, University of Washington, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Received 10 October 2002; received in revised form 20 June 2003; accepted 1 July 2003

Abstract This study examined the long-term effectiveness of permeable pavement as an alternative to traditional impervious asphalt pavement in a parking area. Four commercially available permeable pavement systems were evaluated after 6 years of daily parking usage for structural durability, ability to in?ltrate precipitation, and impacts on in?ltrate water quality. All four permeable pavement systems showed no major signs of wear. Virtually all rainwater in?ltrated through the permeable pavements, with almost no surface runoff. The in?ltrated water had signi?cantly lower levels of copper and zinc than the direct surface runoff from the asphalt area. Motor oil was detected in 89% of samples from the asphalt runoff but not in any water sample in?ltrated through the permeable pavement. Neither lead nor diesel fuel were detected in any sample. In?ltrate measured 5 years earlier displayed signi?cantly higher concentrations of zinc and signi?cantly lower concentrations of copper and lead. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Impervious surfaces; Permeable pavement; Stormwater; Urban runoff; Water quality

1. Introduction Impervious surfaces have long been implicated in the decline of watershed integrity in urban and urbanizing areas [1–3]. Most of these surfaces serve automobile travel, but a signi?cant portion of these impervious areas, particularly parking lots, driveways, and road shoulders, experience only minimal traf?c loading [4,5]. Parking lots are typically sized to accommodate peak traf?c usage, which occurs only occasionally, leaving most of the area unused during a majority of the time [6,7]. Other large parking areas, such as those for businesses and schools, may be used to full capacity nearly every day but with only once-in and once-out traf?c that imposes little long-term wear.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-206-543-7923; fax: +1206-685-3836. E-mail address: dbooth@u.washington.edu (D.B. Booth).

The creation of any large impervious surface commonly leads to multiple impacts on stream systems. These impacts include higher peak stream ?ows which cause channel incision, bank erosion, and increased sediment transport [8–11]. Another impact is a reduction of in?ltration which lessens groundwater recharge and potentially lowers stream base ?ows [1,12,13]. Runoff from impervious areas may also increase pollutant loads to streams [14–17]. Permeable pavements offer one solution to the problem of increased stormwater runoff and decreased stream water quality associated with automobile usage. Permeable pavement systems are commonly made up of a matrix of concrete blocks or a plastic web-type structure with voids ?lled with sand, gravel, or soil. These voids allow stormwater to in?ltrate through the pavement into the underlying soil, which in turn can play a signi?cant role in mitigating the impacts of stormwater runoff caused by urban development [18–21]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of permeable pavements as a

0043-1354/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00410-X

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4370 B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376

Fig. 1. Plan view of the nine test parking stalls. Each permeable pavement type had two parking stalls paired into one instrument station.

stormwater management strategy, expecting that if they can in?ltrate stormwater reliably without creating a new set of water-quality problems then they present an attractive adjunct or replacement for the current structural requirements for stormwater management. This investigation was made by evaluating the waterquality and water-quantity performance of four permeable pavement systems in an intensively monitored parking lot after 6 years of constant use. Our intention was to address commonly raised questions about permeable pavement systems:
*

*

*

Is permeable pavement structurally durable, and can it withstand long-term use as well as asphalt? Do permeable pavements remain permeable or does particulate matter and grease reduce in?ltration over time? What is the water quality of the in?ltrate through permeable pavement, and how does it compare to runoff from asphalt?

2. Project history This work follows the study of Booth and Leavitt [22], which presented the results of a preliminary test of a ?eld installation of permeable pavement systems as a means of improving stormwater management. That study was conducted in the ?rst year following construction of the site, using the same facility as the present evaluation. The ?eld site used for both studies was constructed in 1996. It is located in Renton, Washington, 20 km south of Seattle, and includes nine parking stalls, eight of which are constructed of four pairs of different permeable pavement systems. The ninth

stall is covered with asphalt and used as the control (Fig. 1). The study site was chosen for several reasons. It has very deep permeable soil that is well suited for in?ltration, good security for monitoring equipment, and frequent use. A site with intrinsically good in?ltration properties was selected to ensure that the permeable pavements systems were not hindered by poor in?ltration in the underlying soil. The site is used for employee parking at the King County Public Works facility, with once-in, once-out daily usage. Stalls were presumed clear of cars at night and on weekends, although this was directly veri?ed only sporadically during the study. Occupancy of the nine stalls during working hours was typically 90–100%. The initial study by Booth and Leavitt [22] examined both hydrologic and water-quality characteristics of the site. Their results showed no measurable surface runoff from the permeable pavement areas. In samples of in?ltrate collected during three storms, concentrations of several priority pollutants (copper, lead, and zinc) were generally low and not signi?cantly different from runoff from the asphalt surface; hardness and conductivity were signi?cantly higher in all subsurface in?ltration samples.

3. Methods The experimental methods used for the present work followed those established in the earlier study [22]. Eight stalls were constructed with four types of commercially available permeable paving systems, with two neighboring stalls covered with each of the four permeable paving systems. The permeable pavement systems used in this

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376 4371

study were:
*

*

*

*

Grasspave2s, a ?exible plastic grid system with virtually no impervious area, ?lled with sand and planted with grass. Gravelpave2s, an equivalent plastic grid, ?lled with gravel. Turfstones, a concrete block lattice with about 60% impervious coverage, ?lled with soil and planted with grass. UNI Eco-Stones, small concrete blocks with about 90% impervious coverage, with the spaces between blocks ?lled with gravel.

showed no areas of rutting, settling, or shifting. Grass was growing uniformly across the Turfstones surface, but more spotty (and locally quite sparse) in the Grasspave2s stalls. 4.2. Runoff and in?ltration Surface runoff and in?ltration rates were measured at the site throughout November 2001 and from the beginning of January until early March 2002. During the period of measurement, rainfall at the site totaled 570 mm. A total of 15 distinct precipitation events were measured during the study period. Runoff from the asphalt stall closely followed precipitation rates during all rain events (Fig. 2). Any delay between the onset of rainfall and the runoff of water was less than the 15-min time step of the data logger, and there was no measurable continuation in runoff after precipitation stopped. This response was dramatically different from any measured ‘‘runoff’’ (see below) from the permeable stalls. For the permeable stalls, virtually all water in?ltrated for every observed storm. Measurable surface runoff did occur during several of the precipitation events, but this resulted primarily from observed leaks through the cover of the troughs used to capture surface runoff. These leaks typically resulted in one to three tips (200–600 ml) of the gauge per hour; during the same interval, rainfall events delivered up to several hundred times this volume onto each pair of stalls. These results were therefore deemed insigni?cant. During six of the 15 distinct precipitation events, however, surface runoff from a single pair of stalls was
Precipitation and Runoff (millimeters per 15 minutes) Precipitation Turfstone Surface Runoff Asphalt Surface Runoff

Each test parking stall was 3 m wide by 6 m long. A series of gutters and pipes, discussed in detail by Booth and Leavitt [22], were used to collect both surface runoff and subsurface in?ltrate. Surface runoff and subsurface in?ltration from each pair of stalls were measured with tipping-bucket gauges for each of the four types of permeable pavements and the impervious asphalt stall. Precipitation and runoff rates were recorded in a data logger at 15-min intervals. Durability of the permeable pavement systems was assessed by qualitative visual comparison with the asphalt control stall. During rainfall events, composite samples were collected from surface runoff from the asphalt and from in?ltrated water at each of the four pairs of instrumented stalls. Following the guidelines outlined in Washington State Department of Ecology [23], a ‘‘rainfall event’’ was considered to be at least 13 mm of precipitation in 24 h, preceded by at least 24 h of no rain. Flow splitters at each tipping bucket were adjusted to yield about 2 l of sample for 10–15 mm of rain for both the permeable (subsurface) and asphalt (surface) runoff collectors. Samples were collected from the ?eld and held for less than 24 h on ice before being taken to the laboratory, where they were analyzed for hardness, conductivity, dissolved metals (lead, copper, and zinc), diesel fuel, and motor oil. Analysis of the samples was done by Aquatic Research, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA, a state-certi?ed laboratory.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

4. Results 4.1. Durability Visual inspection of the permeable pavement systems showed varying, but generally minor, signs of wear and tear after 6 years. In two small areas, the interlocking sheets of the Grasspave2s and the Gravelpave2s plastic matrix had shifted slightly and partly lifted out of the soil in the area where the rear wheels of the parked cars typically rest. The Turfstones and UNI Eco-Stones

0.2

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Elapsed Time (hours)

Fig. 2. A comparison of precipitation rates and surface runoff from a permeable pavement stall and the asphalt stall during a storm beginning at 16:00 on 6 January 2002. Minor surface runoff from the permeable Turfstones stall occurring around 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 h is attributed to leaks in the piping used to capture water.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4372
Precipitation and Infiltration (millimeters per 15 minutes)
1.2

B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376

1.0

Precipitation Turfstone Infiltration

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Elapsed Time (hours)

Fig. 3. A comparison of precipitation and subsurface in?ltration during a storm beginning at 2 pm on 20 November 2001.

greater than could be attributed to leakage into the trough. Five of these six cases occurred from the Grasspave2s surface and the 6th event was from the Gravelpave2s surface. In four of the six cases, surface runoff occurred during working hours and so cars almost certainly covered the pavement area. Presumably, water sheeting off the roofs and hoods of the cars temporarily saturated the exposed permeable areas, resulting in local surface runoff. In two cases, substantial surface runoff occurred from the Grasspave2s surface during non-business hours when parked cars were unlikely. One of these runoff events occurred during the most prolonged period of high-intensity rainfall seen during the study. In that storm, 42 mm of rain fell in 14 non-business hours and yielded 1 mm of surface runoff from the Grasspave2s surface during that period. The entire storm lasted 72 h, produced 121 mm of rainfall, and yielded 4 mm of surface runoff in total, the most voluminous example of surface runoff (3% of total precipitation) during the entire study. Measured in?ltration in the permeable pavement stalls followed the trends of precipitation but with a signi?cant lag-to-peak due to subsurface ?ow rates (Fig. 3). Though the ?ow path was quite short (o10 cm through soil, plus a few meters along the gravel-?lled buried gutter) it imposed delays of up to about an hour.

4.3. Water quality Composite water samples for entire storms were collected from the asphalt runoff and the in?ltrated water passing through each of the pervious pavement systems. Because surface water runoff from the permeable pavement was extremely limited and overwhel-

mingly due to leakage, water quality was not tested for this fraction. Nine storms were sampled for water quality (Table 1 and Fig. 4). Of the nine, seven fully met the Washington State Department of Ecology de?nition of a ‘‘rainfall event’’ (13 mm of rain within the ?rst 24 h proceeding at least 24 h of no precipitation). Though two sets of samples did not meet these storm criteria, they were included in the water quality analysis because they ‘‘failed’’ only minimally: in the ?rst case, more than 30 mm of rain fell in 36 h; in the second case, 12.4 mm fell in 48 h. Water quality data were log-transformed for statistical tests and for determining mean concentrations, following the well-established observations that constituent event mean concentrations in urban stormwater follow a log-normal distribution [24]. Paired t-tests on the log-transformed data were used to compare the quality of the in?ltrated water from the pervious surfaces with the asphalt runoff. In samples where concentrations were below the minimum detection limit, a concentration of one-half the detection limit was assumed [25,26]. The minimum detection limits for sample constituents were as follows: motor oil, 0.10 mg/l; diesel fuel, 0.05 mg/l; copper, 1.0 mg/l; zinc, 5 mg/l; lead, 1 mg/l. Overall, surface runoff from the asphalt showed signi?cantly higher concentrations than the in?ltrated water of most measured constituents, namely motor oil, copper, and zinc. No samples from any surface had detectable diesel fuel or lead. Both hardness and conductivity had signi?cantly higher concentrations in the subsurface in?ltrate than in the asphalt runoff samples (Po0:01) (Table 1 and Fig. 4). Among the permeable systems, these parameters were also signi?cantly higher from the concrete-based systems (Turfstones and UNI Eco-Stones) than from the plastic systems (Grasspave2s and Gravelpave2s). Concentrations for zinc and copper were signi?cantly lower in the in?ltration samples then in the asphalt runoff (Po0:01) (Table 1 and Fig. 4). In all cases, the asphalt samples had measurable concentrations of copper and zinc, with the highest measured concentrations being 12.1 and 34 mg/l, respectively. Moreover, all samples from asphalt runoff exceeded Washington State surface water-quality standards for copper at both acute and chronic toxicity levels [27]. For zinc, asphalt runoff exceeded the surface water-quality standard in all but one case at both the acute and chronic levels. In contrast, 72% (copper) and 22% (zinc) of the in?ltrated water samples from the permeable systems were below the minimum detection limit (Table 1 and Fig. 4). Only one sample (from UNI Eco-Stones) exceeded state levels for chronic toxicity for copper. Zinc concentrations were exceeded once for acute level and three times at the chronic level. Note that metal toxicity

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376 4373 Table 1 Mean concentrations of detected constituents from storm samples in 2001–2002 (1996 results from Booth and Leavitt [22] in square brackets). Nine storms sampled in 2001–2002; three in 1996 Hardness (mg CaCO3/l) In?ltration samples Gravelpave2s Grasspave2s Turfstones Uni Eco-Stones 22.6 [20.3] 14.6 [22.8] 47.6 [49.4] 49.5 [23.0] Conductivity (mmhos/cm) 47 [63] 38 [94] 114 [111] 114 [44] Copper (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Motor oil (mg/l) oMDL oMDL oMDL oMDL

0.89 (66% oMDL) [1.9 (67% oMDL)] oMDL [21.4 (33% oMDL)] 1.33 (44% oMDL) [1.4 (67% oMDL)] 0.86 (77% oMDL) [14.3 (33% oMDL)]

8.23 (22% oMDL) [2.0 (67% oMDL)] 13.2 [2.5 (67% oMDL)] 7.7 (33% oMDL) [oMDL] 6.8 (33% oMDL) [7.9 (33% oMDL)]

Surface runoff samples Asphalt 7.2 [6.1]

13.4 [17.0]

7.98 [9.0 (33%oMDL)]

21.6 [12]

0.164 (11% oMDL)

In parenthesis is the percent of samples that fell below detectable levels. Lead was not detected in 2001–2002 but was present in 5 of 15 samples in 1996; motor oil was not tested in 1996. oMDL=all samples below minimum detection limit. Minimum detection limits listed in text.

150

0.025

Conductivity (umhos/cm)

0.020

Copper (mg/l)
Gravelpave2Grasspave2 Turfstone UniEcoStone Asphalt

100

0.015

0.010

50

0.005

0

0.000

Gravelpave2Grasspave2 Turfstone UniEcoStone Asphalt
0.04

60

Hardness (mg CaCO3)

40

Zinc (mg/l)
Gravelpave2Grasspave2 Turfstone UniEcoStone Asphalt

0.02

20

0

0.00

Gravelpave2Grasspave2 Turfstone UniEcoStone Asphalt

Fig. 4. A comparison of concentrations in composite samples from different paving surfaces collected from nine storms 2001–2002. Samples from permeable pavements were in?ltrated water; samples from asphalt were surface runoff. The large box represents the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile; the whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles; the small box represents the mean.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4374
0.04
Permeable Pavement Asphalt

B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376
0.06
Permeable Pavement Asphalt

0.03

Copper (mg/l)

Zinc (mg/l)

0.04

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

1996

2001 - 02

1996

2001 - 02

1996

2001 - 02

1996

2001 - 02

Fig. 5. A comparison of zinc and copper concentrations in samples collected in 1996 and 2001–2002. Concentrations for permeable pavement are averages of in?ltrated samples from all four paving systems. For 1996, n ? 12 from the permeable pavements and n ? 3 from the asphalt runoff. For 2001–2002, n ? 27 from permeable pavements and n ? 9 from asphalt runoff. The large box represents the 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile; the whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles; the small box represents the mean.

criteria are determined not only by the concentration of the constituent but also by hardness—as hardness increases allowable concentrations for copper and zinc also increase [27].

5. Discussion Surface durability, in?ltration capacity, and waterquality performance of the tested permeable pavement systems all compared well, and in several regards extremely well, with the classic asphalt surface. Structurally, all permeable pavement systems in this study have held up to 6 years of daily usage. Two (Turfstones and UNI Eco-Stones) systems are apparently as durable as the asphalt surface under at least this magnitude and frequency of loading; the ?exible plastic systems (Grasspave2s and Gravelpave2s) may have required additional maintenance under heavier or more frequent loads. Under the conditions here, however, the wear was minor and presented no impediment to use. All four permeable pavement systems in?ltrated virtually all precipitation, even during the most intense storms experienced during the study period. A larger parking area covered entirely by permeable pavement would almost certainly have suf?cient uncovered areas to make up for any local saturation that may have occurred around individual cars. While this study demonstrated long-term success for in?ltration, it does not assure uniformly good performance everywhere. Paci?c Northwest has generally low rainfall intensities. The highest rainfall intensity observed during the study was 7.4 mm/h. Our extremely positive in?ltration results may not apply as well in other locales that receive higher rainfall intensities. The site itself was speci?cally chosen because of good underlying drainage characteristics, and so in?ltration during extended storms would probably not be as

effective in areas underlain with less permeable soils. Windblown dust or particulate matter washed off cars could also reduce permeability over time; we observed such deposits, but the in?ltration capacity here has not fallen in consequence to levels approaching the rainfall intensities experienced (typically o5 mm/h). The water quality results from this study demonstrate clear differences between the subsurface in?ltrate and surface runoff from asphalt. For nearly all storms and constituents, water quality of the in?ltrated water was signi?cantly different than the surface runoff from the asphalt parking area. For both copper and zinc, in?ltration of the stormwater had a dramatic effect on water quality (Table 1): toxic concentrations were reached in 97% of the asphalt runoff samples; but in 31 of 36 in?ltrate samples, concentrations fell below toxic levels and in a majority of samples below even detectable levels. The long-term degradation of water-quality performance may be a modest, but probably not problematic, phenomenon of permeable pavement systems (Fig. 5). Zinc concentrations in both permeable pavement in?ltrate (Student t-test, P ? 0:002) and asphalt runoff (Student t-test, P ? 0:01) exhibited signi?cant increases during the 6-year study period. Yet two of the systems, Grasspave2s (Student t-test, P ? 0:007) and UNI EcoStones (Student t-test, P ? 0:08), showed simultaneous decreases in copper concentrations. Lead, present in a third of the 1996 samples, was not detected during the current survey. Conductivity and hardness remained relatively constant between the two studies. These results suggest both positive and negative changes in runoff water quality after 6 years. Subsurface ?ow paths for this experimental system, however, were less than 10 cm, a far shorter path to groundwater tables than would occur in most ?eld installations. Longer ?ow paths would presumably lead to greater attenuation of pollutant loads and a

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376 4375

corresponding decrease in the potential for long-term groundwater impacts.

Acknowledgements King County, City of Olympia, and the Center for Water and Watershed Studies provided funding for site construction and subsequent investigations; partial funding of the water-quality analysis was provided by Mutual Materials, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA. Grateful appreciation is offered to Jenna Leavitt Friebel for her work on the preliminary study.

6. Conclusions This study evaluated the performance of four permeable pavement systems from the perspectives of mechanical durability, in?ltration, and water quality after 6 years of daily use. We found generally positive, and in several aspects very positive, performance in comparison to a traditional asphalt surface. Runoff performance was very good. All four permeable pavement systems in?ltrated virtually all precipitation, even during the most intense storms experienced during the study period. The water quality of the resulting in?ltrate was signi?cantly different from, and generally much better than, the surface runoff from the asphalt parking area. For both copper and zinc, the in?ltrated stormwater usually had concentrations below detectable levels and, in all but four samples, below toxic levels; in contrast, these constituents had near-uniform toxic concentrations in the asphalt runoff. Motor oil was also consistently much lower in the in?ltrate than in the surface runoff; hardness and conductivity were generally higher, and neither lead nor diesel fuel were detected in any sample. Over a 5-year period, concentrations of some in?ltrated constituents have increased while others have stayed the same or decreased. Zinc concentrations in both in?ltrated and surface runoff exhibited marked increases; copper concentrations decreased substantially in two of the in?ltrating systems. Lead was detected in one-third of the samples in 1996 but not in the present study; conductivity and hardness were relatively constant. Despite these generally quite favorable results, uniformly good performance cannot be guaranteed everywhere. The experimental site has particularly favorable soil conditions, and rainfall intensities in the Paci?c Northwest United States are typically quite low, masking any potential consequences of reduced in?ltration of the surfaces over time. The study site had no weather conditions requiring snow removal or extended periods of sub-freezing weather, so this study is not a comprehensive evaluation of the suitability of such systems for all climate zones. Financial considerations, either the cost of installing permeable pavement systems or the cost savings from reduced stormwater management facilities, will play a major role in determining the feasibility of any given project. Despite these acknowledged limitations, we believe that these results provide clear indication of the value of permeable pavement systems and their long-term suitability for broad expanses of the built environment.

References
[1] Klein RD. Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Water Resour Bull 1979;15(4):948–63. [2] Schueler T. Site planning for urban stream protection. Silver Spring, MD, USA: Center for Watershed Protection; 1995. [3] Booth DB, Jackson CJ. Urbanization of aquatic systemsdegradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and limits of mitigation. Water Resour Bull 1997;33(5):1077–90. [4] City of Olympia. Impervious surface reduction study. Department of Public Works, Olympia, WA, USA, 1995. [5] Washington State Department of Transportation. Design manual. M22-01, Olympia, WA, USA, 2001. [6] Willson RW. Suburban parking requirements. J Am Plann Assoc 1995;61(1):29–42. [7] Albanese B, Matlack G. Environmental auditing: utilization of parking lots in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA and impacts on local streams. Environ Manage 1998;24(2): 265–71. [8] Whipple W, Dilouie JM, Pytler T. Erosional potential of streams in urbanizing areas. Water Resour Bull 1981; 17(1):36–45. [9] Trimble SW. Contribution of stream channel erosion to sediment yield from an urbanizing watershed. Science 1997;278(5342):1442–4. [10] Nelson EJ, Booth DB. Sediment budget of a mixed-land use, urbanizing watershed. J Hydrol 2002;264:51–68. [11] Konrad CP, Booth DB, Burges SJ, Montgomery DR. Partial entrainment of gravel bars during ?oods. Water Resour Res 2002;38(7):9-1–9-16. [12] Simmons DL, Reynolds RS. Effects of urbanization on base ?ow of selected south-shore streams, Long Island, New York. Water Resour Bull 1982;18(5):797–805. [13] Finkenbine JK, Atwater JW, Mavinic DS. Stream health after urbanization. J Am Water Resour Assoc 2000;6(5): 1149–60. [14] Van Hassel JH, Ney JJ, Garling DL. Heavy metals in a stream ecosystem at sites near highways. Trans Am Fish Soc 1980;109(6):636–43. [15] Jones RC, Clark CC. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect communities. Water Resour Bull 1987;23(6):1047–55. [16] Horner RR, Skupien JJ, Livingston EH, Shaver HE. Fundamentals of urban-runoff management-technical and institutional issues. Washington, DC, USA: Terrene Institute; 1994.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4376 B.O. Brattebo, D.B. Booth / Water Research 37 (2003) 4369–4376 [23] Washington State Department of Ecology. Stormwater management manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Olympia, WA, USA, 1990. [24] Novotny V, Olem H. Water quality prevention, identi?cation and management of diffuse pollution. New York, NY, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1994. p. 484–90. [25] Gilbert RO. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. New York, NY, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1987. p. 177–8. [26] Kayhanian M, Singh A, Meyer S. Impact of non-detects in water quality data on estimation of constituent mass loading. Water Sci Technol 2002;45(9):219–25. [27] Washington State Department of Ecology. Water quality standards for surface waters of the State of Washington. WAC, Olympia, WA, USA, 1997 [chapter 173–201A]. [17] Winter JG, Duthie HC. Effects of urbanization on water quality and invertebrate communities in a southern Ontario stream. Can Water Resour J 1998;23(3):245–57. [18] Pratt CJ, G, Mantle JD, Scho?eld PA. Urban stormwater reduction and quality improvement through use of permeable pavements. Water Sci Technol 1989;21(8/9):769–78. [19] Fujita S. In?ltration structures in Tokyo. Water Sci Technol 1994;30(1):33–41. [20] Pratt CJ. A review of source control of urban stormwater runoff. Water Environ Manage 1995;9(2):132–9. [21] Watanabe S. Study on storm water control by permeable pavement and in?ltration pipes. Water Sci Technol 1995; 32(1):25–32. [22] Booth DB, Leavitt J. Field evaluation of permeable pavement systems for improved stormwater management. J Am Plann Assoc 1999;65(3):314–25.


相关文章:
透水人行道-开题报告_图文.ppt
Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems[J]. Water research, 2003, 37(18): 4369-4376. [14]何鑫, 曹霞, 张欣...
美国行答辩_图文.ppt
Weirs at the roof drain inlets create temporary ponding and gradual release of stormwater. Permeable Pavement ? Permeable pavement is a range of materials ...
具有导渗导排管的透水混凝土铺装对径流削减试验研究.pdf
05-0041-04 Experiment 011 the runoffreductionofthepermeableconcretepavementwith...(1.Key Laboratory ofUrbanStormwaterof and Beijing University CivilEngineering...
渗滤作用在雨水资源化中的应用研究进展.pdf
China) Abstract :The main utilization measures of stormwater runoff are green roof,permeable pavement and bioretention pool.They all use infiltration effect,...
深圳光明新区透水沥青道路与滞留带对径流水质水量控制效果研究_....pdf
controleffectsofpermeableasphaltroadandroadretentionwaterqualityandquantityofrunoff...Sun Kunpen94 o/’Urban StormwaterSystemand WaterEnvironment(BeijingofEduc...
渗透铺装对降雨径流水文水质调控效果分析.doc
and to analyze the regulation effect of permeable pavement on the ecosystem of city rainwater.The results showed the permeable pavement could reduce rainfall...
生态型铺装系统热效应的研究现状与展望.pdf
theThermalPerformance YANGXiaoshanl’2一,HUZhenyul,ZHAOLihua2(1.Collegeofarc...Theconcreteuse of eeopavements(e.g.,permeable pavement,waterpermeablebrick...
Cost Efficiency of Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater ....pdf
evaluation of long-term performance of alternative stormwater management ...With the capital cost of constructing the permeable pavement over the large ...
沥青,外文_图文.pdf
which are permeable and allow water to drain ... quality is critical to pavement performance. ...Drainage, including ditches, storm drains and ...
Rob-James_LID-Modeling-Mar-28-2012_图文.pdf
(2009) Long Term Performance Runoff With No ... permeable pavement Olds College: wet pond Olds ... detention pond sizing Design storm analysis: pond...
...Permeable Pavements for Sustainable Energy and Water_论文_....pdf
Utilisation of Geothermal Heat Pumps within Permeable Pavements for Sustainable Energy and Water_专业资料。JunlfnryadPwrnierg521)22 oraoEeg noeEgnen (01...
BMPs4LID_图文.pdf
Permeable pavement applications tested for water quality benefits in Goldsboro ...In addition to reducing stormwater runoff quantity, the media and plants ...
LEED Credit Summary_图文.pdf
porous pavement, permeable surfaces, vegetated ...Stormwater Management: Rate & Quantity SS Credit ... C or D of 2001 International Performance ...
外文文献.doc
附录E:外文文献 Permeable concrete construction ...3, considering the storm season factors, and to...water quality assurance of concrete pavement, ...
路面工程总结.doc
Asphalt treated permeable bases(ATPB) Why is the...Quantity and characteristics of cementing materials ...water mixture (mud) from beneath the pavement ...
Road Science Tutorial道路科学教程.doc
“Daylighted” permeable base exposed here at...Pavement structures will contain water in its free...longer-term performance and associated effects of ...
US EPA DAA Michael Shapiro_图文.pdf
Working with major cities to encourage integrated planning for stormwater, ...Permeable pavement Green streets/alleys ? Trees ? Compost amendments ? ...
二级公路毕业设计外文文献.doc
The best bases in terms of pavement performance were the permeable bases . Typical base courses have permeabilities ranging from 0 to less than 1 ft/day...
porous thickness_图文.pdf
long-term performance and cost effectiveness of ...quality, reducing stormwater runoff, and restoring...(LID), permeable pavement, pervious pavement ...
南京市地面停车场透水铺装使用可行性及效益分析_图文.pdf
Booth. Long-term Stormwater Quantity and Quality Performance of Permeable Pavement Systems? [J]. Water Research, 2003(37): 4369 ~ 4376. [7] 汪慧贞,...