2,148
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + + +
→Bioretention
This study compares the performance of nine different [[Bioretention]] facilities monitored by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) in the Greater Toronto Area. The monitored facilities of varying shape, size and design were constructed to manage runoff from parking lots, public roads and residential areas. Key performance variables assessed included peak flows, runoff volume, water quality, water temperature and functional characteristics. To learn more about the results and differences amongst the 9 facilities when it comes to volume and load reductions and water quality and quantity control, click the button above.
This study compares the performance of nine different [[Bioretention]] facilities monitored by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) in the Greater Toronto Area. The monitored facilities of varying shape, size and design were constructed to manage runoff from parking lots, public roads and residential areas. Key performance variables assessed included peak flows, runoff volume, water quality, water temperature and functional characteristics. To learn more about the results and differences amongst the 9 facilities when it comes to volume and load reductions and water quality and quantity control, click the button above.
{{Clickable button|[[File:Hydroloic assessment Honda.PNG|150 px|link=https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2015/07/Honda_TechBrief_July2015.pdf]]}}
This technical brief discusses TRCA's study that evaluated the effectiveness of meeting provincial and municipal stormwater management and flood control criteria on a commercial property by using a combination of decentralized LID practices as an alternative to sole reliance on centralized stormwater detention facilities. Practices incorporated into the design included [[Bioretention]], [[Permeable pavements]], [[Swales]] and [[Rainwater harvesting]] and re-use for landscape irrigation. Results from the study period found that, relative to a conventional stormwater approach without LID, runoff was reduced by 30-35% for the entire site, and by 58-62% in the catchment with a higher density of LID practices, peak flows were also reduced by 65 to 79%. To learn more about the details of these performance metrics click the button above.
{{Clickable button|[[File:Fairford parkette.PNG|130 px|link=https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2017/08/Fairford-Parkette-Case-Study_2017.pdf]]}}
{{Clickable button|[[File:Fairford parkette.PNG|130 px|link=https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2017/08/Fairford-Parkette-Case-Study_2017.pdf]]}}