2,145
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 315:
Line 315: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Performance
</br>
</br>
|}
|}
<br>
</br>
{|class="wikitable"
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from bioretention
|-
!'''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="4" 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;" |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="8" 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;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |40 to 60%
|style="text-align: center;" |Smith and Hunt (2007)<ref>Smith, R and W. Hunt. 2007. Pollutant removals in bioretention cells with grass cover. Proceedings 2nd National Low Impact Development Conference. Wilmington, NC. March 13-15, 2007.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |33 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Hunt and Lord (2006). <ref>Hunt, W.F. and Lord, W.G. 2006. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construction, and Maintenance. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Urban Waterways Series. AG-588-5. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland and North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |20 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Li ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>Li, H., Sharkey, L.J., Hunt, W.F., and Davis, A.P. 2009. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. Vol. 14. No. 4. pp. 407-415.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Ohio
|style="text-align: center;" |36 to 59%
|style="text-align: center;" |Winston ''et al.'' (2016). <ref>Winston, R.J., Dorsey, J.D. and Hunt, W.F. 2016. Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Science of the Total Environment, 553, pp.83-95.</ref>
|-
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 34%
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf STEP (2019)]</span> <ref>STEP. 2019. Comparative Performance Assessment of Bioretention in Ontari0. Technical Brief. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |49 to 58%
|style="text-align: center;" |Davis (2008). <ref>Davis, A.P. 2008. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. Journal of hydrologic engineering, 13(2), pp.90-95. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90)</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia
|style="text-align: center;" |33 to 84%
|style="text-align: center;" |Lucke and Nichols (2015). <ref>Lucke, T., & Nichols, P. W. B. 2015. The pollution removal and stormwater reduction performance of street-side bioretention basins after ten years in operation. Science of The Total Environment, 536, 784-792. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.142</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Victoria, Australia
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 83%
|style="text-align: center;" |Hatt ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., & Deletic, A. 2009. Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale. Journal of Hydrology, 365(3), 310-321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001</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''' | '''30% with underdrain and liner'''
|-
|}
===Interception===
===Interception===