339
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 177:
Line 177: − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − Line 242:
Line 241: +
→Performance
|-
|-
|rowspan="6" style="text-align: center;" | Permeable pavement without underdrain
|rowspan="6" style="text-align: center;" | Permeable pavement without underdrain
|Guelph, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |Guelph, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
|style="text-align: center;" |James(2002)
|style="text-align: center;" |James (2002)
|-
|-
|Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
|style="text-align: center;" |90%
|style="text-align: center;" |Kwiatkowski et al. (2007)
|style="text-align: center;" |Kwiatkowski et al. (2007)
|-
|-
|France
|style="text-align: center;" |France
|style="text-align: center;" |97%
|style="text-align: center;" |97%
|style="text-align: center;" |Legret and Colandini (1999)
|style="text-align: center;" |Legret and Colandini (1999)
|-
|-
|Washington
|style="text-align: center;" |Washington
|style="text-align: center;" |97 to 100%
|style="text-align: center;" |97 to 100%
|style="text-align: center;" |Brattebo and Booth (2003)
|style="text-align: center;" |Brattebo and Booth (2003)
|-
|-
|Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |72%<sup>2</sup>
|style="text-align: center;" |72%<sup>2</sup>
|style="text-align: center;" |Gilbert and Clausen (2006)
|style="text-align: center;" |Gilbert and Clausen (2006)
|-
|-
|King City, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |King City, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |99%<sup>4</sup>
|style="text-align: center;" |99%<sup>4</sup>
|style="text-align: center;" |TRCA (2008b)
|style="text-align: center;" |TRCA (2008b)
|-
|-
|rowspan="6" style="text-align: center;" | Permeable pavement with underdrain
|rowspan="7" style="text-align: center;" | Permeable pavement with underdrain
|-
|-
|Vaughan, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |Vaughan, Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |45%<sup>2</sup>
|style="text-align: center;" |45%<sup>2</sup>
|style="text-align: center;" |Van Seters and Drake (2015)
|style="text-align: center;" |Van Seters and Drake (2015)
|-
|-
|North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |98 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |98 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |Collins et al. (2008)
|style="text-align: center;" |Collins et al. (2008)
|-
|-
|United Kingdom
|style="text-align: center;" |United Kingdom
|style="text-align: center;" |50%
|style="text-align: center;" |50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Jefferies (2004)
|style="text-align: center;" |Jefferies (2004)
|-
|-
|United Kingdom
|style="text-align: center;" |United Kingdom
|style="text-align: center;" |53 to 66%
|style="text-align: center;" |53 to 66%
|style="text-align: center;" |Pratt ''et al.'' (1995)
|style="text-align: center;" |Pratt ''et al.'' (1995)
|-
|-
|Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |45% to 60%
|style="text-align: center;" |45% to 60%
|style="text-align: center;" |Schueler ''et al.'' (1987)
|style="text-align: center;" |Schueler ''et al.'' (1987)
|-
|-
|Mississauga
|style="text-align: center;" |Mississauga
|style="text-align: center;" |61 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |61 to 99%
|style="text-align: center;" |CVC (2018)
|style="text-align: center;" |CVC (2018)
|-
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''Runoff Reduction Estimate<sup>3</sup>'''
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''Runoff Reduction Estimate<sup>3</sup>'''
|colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''85% without underdrain;
|colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''85% without underdrain;'''
45% with underdrain'''
'''45% with underdrain'''
|-
|-
|colspan="4"| Notes:
|colspan="4"| Notes:
1. Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences between runoff volume from the practice and total precipitation over the period of monitoring unless otherwise.
1. Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences between runoff volume from the practice and total precipitation over the period of monitoring unless otherwise.
4. 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.
4. 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.
|}
|}
==Proprietary Links==
==Proprietary Links==
{{:Disclaimer}}
{{:Disclaimer}}