See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277664018

Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Permeable Pavement for

Stormwater Reduction - St. Louis Green Alley Pilot Study.

Conference Paper · January 2015

DOI: 10.1061/9780784479025.028

CITATIONS READS

3 102

1 author:

Isam Alyaseri
Al-Muthanna University
10 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Low impact development in St. Louis View project

lmproving uncertainty in life cycle assessment studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isam Alyaseri on 03 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Stormwater Volume Reduction in Combined Sewer
Using Permeable Pavement: City of St. Louis
Isam Alyaseri, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; and Jianpeng Zhou, Ph.D., P.E. 2

Abstract: This paper describes findings from the City of St. Louis Low Impact Development Green Alley Pilot Study to reduce water quantity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the combined sewer system. Permeable pavement is one green infrastructure technique used for water quantity reduction. The effectiveness of
permeable pavement in reducing the stormwater runoff to the combined sewer was tested. Monitored flow from reconstruction and postcon-
struction of permeable pavement are used for analysis. The separation of base flow and runoff is based on estimating the base flow in the
antecedent/subsequent dry days of the rainfall events. The comparison between runoff in the reconstruction and postconstruction of the permeable
pavement from three alleys showed different percentages of runoff reduction from different types of pavement (36, 13, and 46% from permeable
concrete, permeable asphalt, and permeable pavers respectively). Permeable asphalt had the lowest percentage reduction, most likely due to the
slope of the site and the small ratio of permeable to catchment area in this location. The permeable paver showed the highest percentage of runoff
reduction. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001056. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Combined sewer overflow; Stormwater runoff; Permeable pavement.

Introduction Permeable pavement is one of the techniques used to allow

A combined sewer system is designed to collect rainwater runoff
and domestic sewage in the same pipes, then transport them to the
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for treatment prior to the final
discharge to the surface water. One problem with the combined
sewer occurs during the periods of heavy rainfall. If the flow in
the combined sewer exceeded the capacity of the treatment plant
or the capacity of the conveyance system at any point along its
route, it would discharge excess combined untreated wastewater
and stormwater to the surface water, causing the problem of
combined sewer overflow (CSO).
CSO have been a significant challenge in the St. Louis area,
where most sewers within the city and some in the surrounding
county are combined. There are hundreds of points in the city
where a combination of rainwater and wastewater has discharged
into local waterways during heavy rainstorms. Without relief
points, basement backups or street flooding would occur. The over-
flow discharges depend upon how much rain falls over a given
period of time. The discharge of untreated sanitary and stormwater
during CSO contributes to the degradation of surface water quality
(Lee et al. 2007).
One method of overcoming the problem of CSO is to reduce the
stormwater runoff by green infrastructures. They are proposed to
reduce the runoff from impervious areas. The selection of the green
infrastructure techniques is based on the land use characteristics.
Green infrastructures may include rain gardens, green roofs, veg-
etated curb extensions, permeable pavement, or other controls.
1
Visiting Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Southern
Illinois Univ. Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62026-1800 (corresponding
author). E-mail: ialyase@siue.edu
2
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois
Univ. Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62026-1800. E-mail: jzhou@siue.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 22, 2014; approved on
September 16, 2015; published online on January 4, 2016. Discussion per-
iod open until June 4, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Environmental En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9372.
stormwater to infiltrate into the soil and ultimately recharge the
groundwater. In areas with soil that has a low infiltration rate,
below-pavement storage can provide a storage volume to reduce
the runoff on the surfaces. This pavement is an alternative to the
conventional impervious asphalt and concrete pavement. Water
in the permeable pavement passes through several layers of per-
meable materials and allows for reduction in the quantity of runoff
(Collin et al. 2007).
Several studies have been conducted to show the effectiveness
of permeable pavement for runoff reduction (Booth and Leavitt
1999; Hunt et al. 2002; Brattebo and Booth 2003; Rankin and Ball
2004; Kwiatkowski et al. 2007; Bean et al. 2007). James (2008)
reported a reduction of 90% of the surface runoff volume due to
installing a permeable interlocking concrete paver. Collins et al.
(2007) also reported a reduction of 99.4% of the surface runoff vol-
ume when using permeable concrete. Most of these studies were
designed to test the effectiveness of permeable pavement by direct
measurement of runoff, and were not related directly to the problem
of CSO. It is still unknown how the results obtained from such ex-
periments would contribute to the reduction of flow in a combined
sewer in the natural environment. While such experiments have the
ability to control variables, in which only one or two factors are
manipulated by the experimenter(s), they did not provide sufficient
information about real-world applications. Case studies can be used
to test if an engineering solution actually works in the real world.
Although these case studies represent a limited number of exam-
ples, they can provide realistic understanding, likely leading to new
research directions. The case study described in this paper was de-
signed to evaluate the effectiveness of permeable pavement in
addressing the problem of CSO by measuring the flow in the com-
bined sewer preconstruction and postconstruction of the permeable
pavement in the site. However, careful analysis and interpretation
of data can provide confidence in the results of the case study.
In 2008, the City of St. Louis, along with several partners started
a green infrastructure program to identify and implement projects
that could significantly reduce the CSO volumes to the Mississippi
River. The City started a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of
various green infrastructures for capturing and in-place treating of

© ASCE 04016002-1 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

 stormwater by detention, infiltration into ground, or evapotranspi-
ration. This study tested the effectiveness of permeable pavement
on volume reduction in combined sewers at three alleys in the City.
Study Objective
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of per-
meable pavement to reduce the volume of stormwater in combined
sewers. The study also tried to determine if the type of permeable
pavement affects the runoff reduction efficiency.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A permeable paver is composed of a layer of brick pavers sep-
arated by joints filled with small stones. Water passes through the
joints then flows through an open-graded base made of crushed
stone layers that have no fine particles. The crushed stone or ag-
gregate used in the base fills the joints typically 2 to 5 mm. Water
that infiltrates through the openings between the blocks is stored or
infiltrated into the soil, resulting in higher reduction in runoff.
Study Sites and Phases
Three alleys (Eads, Cardinal, and Geyer) were selected for per-
meable pavement installation, monitoring, and data analysis.
The study consisted of three phases. Phase I (preconstruction) in-

Methodology
The study was planned to monitor and characterize flows in
combined sewers for Pre- and Post- construction of permeable
pavement at three alleys. Flows were measured by using the
2,150 Area Velocity Flow Module and Sensor of Teledyne ISCO
(Lincoln, Nebraska). The flowmeter measures liquid level and aver-
age stream velocity which calculates the flow rate and total flow.
The liquid level and velocity measurements are read from an at-
tached area velocity (AV) sensor that is placed in the flow stream.
Flow rates were calculated using a built-in program from the liquid
depths and velocities that were measured by the AV sensor
(Teledyne 2009). The rainfall event included in the analysis had a
minimum depth of 0.13 cm (0.05 in.) occurring in a period of 1 day.
Permeable Pavement Types
There are several different types of permeable pavement materials
such as permeable pavers, permeable asphalt, permeable concrete,
and block paving stone (Mullaney and Lucke 2014; Scholz and
Grabowiecki 2007).
Three types of permeable pavement were used in this study:
permeable concrete, permeable asphalt, and permeable pavers.
Permeable concrete is composed of cement materials, coarse aggre-
gate, and water with little to no fine aggregates (0:1 to 1:1 fine
aggregates to cement) with a water to cement ratio of 0.35 to
0.40 and a void content of 15 to 25%. The typical thicknesses
for the permeable concrete range from 10 to 30.5 cm (4 to 12 in.),
depending on the traffic load and other requirements (MSD 2010;
Tennis et al. 2004).
Permeable asphalt consists of open-graded coarse aggregate,
bonded together by bituminous asphalt (5.75–6.0% by weight).
Polymers are sometimes added to increase strength for heavy-load
applications. The thickness can range from 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in.)
depending on the expected traffic loads. The minimum air voids in
permeable asphalt is 16% (USEPA 2009).
cluded monitoring the flow in the combined sewer where the
proposed permeable pavements were installed. This phase was con-
ducted in the year 2008. The available flow data were from March
26, 2008, to July 17, 2008. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
(MSD) installed and maintained the flow meters.
Phase II work included installing the permeable pavements at
the three sites. The soil in the three sites was silty clay loam (hydro-
logic soil group of D). The threshold rainfall depth used for design
was 3.3 cm (1.3 in.) in interval events of 24 h. The drainage area for
each alley includes the alley and half of the adjacent properties that
were assumed to drain into the alley. The rock void percentage used
to calculate the storage size ranged from 30 to 40%.
MSD provided the design information for the three alleys. The
Eads site was originally conventional asphalt pavement with
approximately 2,590 m2 (0.64 acre) of drainage area. The imper-
vious pavement in the alley was changed to permeable concrete.
The below-pavement storage size for this site is 43.6 m3 (1,539 ft3).
The Geyer site was originally a brick alley with total of 6,637 m2
(1.64 acre) of drainage area. It was changed into permeable paver.
The below-pavement storage size for this site is 108.8 m3 (3,843 ft3).
Cardinal site was originally brick with approximately 2,509 ~ m2
(0.62 acre) of drainage area. It was changed into permeable
asphalt, and the below-pavement storage size for this site was
42.5 m3 (1,500 ft3, Table 1). Phase II was completed in the year 2009.
Phase III (postconstruction) was carried out in 2011 to 2012 and
consisted of flow monitoring. The available flow data in this phase
are from March 3, 2011, to February 6, 2012.
Data from MSD were assessed for data quality and acceptability
prior to analysis. Many factors, such as turbulence, build-up of
sediments and debris over the sensor, and inadequate liquid depth
due to low flows can affect the quality of flow data. Negative veloc-
ities and flows were treated as zero when there was no appropriate
evidence to justify alternative handling. Data that unreasonably
fluctuated or were suspected to be different due to clogging in
the sensors were eliminated.

Table 1. Permeable Pavement Alleys in Three Locations with the Estimated Catchment Area, Permeable Paved Area, and Below-Pavement Storage
Site characteristics
Phase I condition
Phase III condition
Location
Flow meter manholes
Rain gauge
Estimated drainage area
Permeable paved area
Below pavement storage
Eads
Conventional asphalt pavement
Permeable concrete
3,127 Eads Avenue (parallel
to Compton Avenue, between
Eads and Henrietta)
21F2-284 C
C-24
2,590 m2 (0.64 acre)
324 m2 (0.08 acre)
43.5 m3 (1,539 ft3 )
Site
Cardinal Geyer
Conventional brick pavement Conventional brick pavement
Permeable asphalt Permeable paver
1,412 Cardinal avenue (parallel to 3,217 Geyer avenue (parallel
Park Avenue and Caroline St., to Compton Hill Pl, between
between Montrose and Cardinal) Geyer and I-44)
21E1-385 C 21F2-147 C
C-9 C-13
2,509 m2 (0.62 acre) 6,637 m2 (1.64 acre)
231 m2 (0.06 acre) 514 m2 (0.13 acre)
42.5 m3 (1,500 ft3 ) 109 m3 (3,843 ft3 )

© ASCE 04016002-2 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

 Table 2. Total Volume of the Combined Sanitary and Stormwater Through the Sewer System and the Total Amounts of Rainfall in the Periods between March
26, 2008 and July 17, 2008 (Preconstruction), and between March 26, 2011, and July 17, 2011 (Postconstruction), in Three Locations
Preconstruction (2008)
Location Total volume [m3 (gal.)] Total rainfall [cm (in.)]
Eads 3,445 (910,173) 50.8 (20.00)
Cardinal 2,330 (615,596) 53.2 (20.96)
Geyer 2,466 (651,416) 54.5 (21.48)
Rainfall Data
MSD maintained a network of rain gauge stations throughout the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
metropolitan St. Louis area. The rain gauge station nearest to each
site was chosen to obtain rainfall data for analysis. The cumulative
rainfall data at the three locations, Eads, Cardinal, and Geyer were
taken from MSD’s rain gauge stations of C24, C9, and C13 respec-
tively. To be consistent with the flow rate data that was provided by
MSD at an interval of 15 min, the rainfall data was obtained as a
cumulative of 15-min intervals. The hydrographs used for illustra-
tion in this study were drawn using 15-min intervals. The minimum
rainfall that can be detected in the rain gages is 0.25 mm (0.01 in.).
A summary of site locations, manholes where flow meters were
deployed, rain gauge stations, and pavement types (both precon-
struction and postconstruction) are shown in Table 1.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed and compared on the basis of flow during
comparable time periods between Phase I and Phase III. The data
for both preconstruction (2008) and postconstruction (2011) of per-
meable pavement from March 26 to July 17 were used to determine
the effectiveness of the permeable pavement to reduce stormwater
volume in the combined sewer. The data were available from three
locations (Eads, Cardinal, and Geyer) and includes the flow rates
measured at 15-min intervals. In a few periods, the meters mea-
sured the flow rate in an interval of 1 min and for the purpose
of analysis, these data were aggregated to the 15-min intervals.
Volume of the discharged sanitary and stormwater was calculated
for every 15 min.
Comparison between the preconstruction and postconstruction
of permeable pavement cannot be performed in the combined sewer
system by simply calculating the difference between combined
water in the before and after phases. Table 2 shows this problem
in general. For example, in the Cardinal site, although the total
rainfall in year 2011 was less than year 2008 [45.5 cm
(17.91 in.) versus 53.2 cm (20.96 in.) respectively], the total
volume of the combined storm and sanitary water was higher in
year 2011 [3,328 m3 (8,79,047 gal.) versus 2,330 m3 (6,15,596 gal.)
respectively]. The fluctuation came from sanitary flow, therefore, it
has to be separated prior to any comparison between the two phases.
Base Flow Separation
Since the volume of stormwater discharged to the sewer cannot be
calculated unless the base flow (due to sanitary and infiltration) is
subtracted, the first step was to perform a separation procedure. A
procedure used for estimation was based on the assumption that the
base flow in the wet days is equal to the antecedent and subsequent
dry days. This procedure will be referred to as the Antecedent/
Subsequent Days Estimation Method. In this procedure, the base
flow for each rainfall event was estimated by averaging the flow
rates in dry days before and after each rainy day. Weekend days
were taken from the weekends before and after as well. The hol-
idays and special events were excluded due to atypical changes in
© ASCE 04016002-3
J. Environ. Eng., 04016002
Postconstruction (2011)
Total volume [m3 (gal.)] Total rainfall [cm (in.)]
2,862 (756,216) 45.3 (17.85)
3,328 (879,047) 45.5 (17.91)
456 (120,509) 58.5 (23.04)
the flow. The meter malfunctioning days were also excluded. For
example, on Friday, April 29, 2011, a rainfall event of 2.43 cm
(0.96 in.) in a duration of 15 min (8:15 to 8:30 a.m.) had occurred
but the meter was not functioning. Also, the meter in the Eads lo-
cation was not working during June, so all rainfall events were not
considered during this month. In the Geyer location, malfunction-
ing meters resulted in the exclusion of 15 rainfall events (out of
37 events) in the year 2008 and 14 rainfall events (out of 37 events)
in the year 2011.
Preconstruction and Postconstruction Phases
Comparison
Volume of runoff discharged due to the rain was estimated for every
rainfall event based on the former separation method. Then, the
average volume of runoff discharged due to a rain per each
2.54 m (1 in.) of this rain was calculated. The runoff discharged
due to rain was estimated by where
Pm
Fj
Xn
Fi − ð j¼1 Þ
m
Runoff phase ¼
i¼1
Ri
Runoff phase = total stormwater runoff discharged into a combined
sewer for a given phase per every centimeter or inch of rain; n =
number of rainfall events used in the analysis; m = number of dry
days before and after the rainfall event used to estimate the base
flow; Fi = flow in the rainy day include sanitary, infiltration
and stormwater runoff, cubic meter or gallon per day; Fj = flow
in the dry days before or after the rainy day, cubic meters or gallons
per day; and Ri = rainfall amount in an one day period, centimeter
or inch.
The numbers of rainfall events used for runoff per rain estima-
tion at every site are shown in Table 3, and this estimation was
performed for both reconstruction and postconstruction phases.
The percentage reduction in runoff due to the use of permeable
pavement was then calculated between Runoff pre and Runoff post
for every site.
Results and Discussions
Alley by Eads Avenue (Permeable Concrete)
The alley was changed from conventional asphalt to permeable
concrete. In the year 2008, 26 rainfall events were used to estimate
the total stormwater volume discharged to the combined sewer
due to every rainfall. The average stormwater discharged to the
sewer system per each 2.54 cm (1 in.) of storm was calculated
[31.9 m3 =cm (21,372 gal:=in:)]. At the Eads site, year 2011, 27
rainfall events were analyzed to estimate the total stormwater vol-
ume discharged to the sewer due to every rainfall. The average run-
off discharged to the sewer per each 1 in. of storm was calculated
and it was equal to 20.5 m3 =cm (13,775 gal:=in:).
J. Environ. Eng.
 Table 3. Summary for the Percentage Reduction in Runoff in the Three Locations of the Study
Preconstruction phase Postconstruction phase
Number Number Percent
of rainfall Overflow per each rain of rainfall Overflow per each reduction in
Location Type events inche [m3 =cm (gal./in.)] events rain inche [m3 =cm (gal./in.)] CSO (%)
Eads Permeable concrete 23 31.9  9.6a (21,372) 25 20.5  6.2a (13,775) 36
Cardinal Permeable asphalt 39 6.6  1.9a (4,427) 32 5.8  2.6a (3,866) 13
Geyer Permeable pavers 22 7.3  2.6a (4,915) 23 4.0  1.4a (2,652) 46
a
Confidence limit in a 95% probability.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Rainfall–flow rate chart for the rainfall event on Sunday March 30, 2008 (preconstruction phase), in Eads Alley with conventional asphalt

Fig. 2. Rainfall–flow rate chart for the rainfall event on Monday May 23, 2011, in Eads Alley with permeable concrete

© ASCE 04016002-4 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Rainfall–flow rate chart for the rainfall event on Friday April 25, 2008, in Cardinal Alley with conventional brick pavement

Comparison between the two averages of runoff per rainfall
shows around 36% reduction in the amount of water discharged
to the sewer between year 2008 and year 2011 for the storms
ranging from 15 min cumulative daily rain of 0.18–4.55 cm
(0.07–1.79 in.). This is most likely due to the installation of
permeable pavement in the year 2009.
To show this difference in more detail, two rainfall events were
chosen. These two rainfalls are close in their daily cumulative
amount, duration, and maximum depth. The rainfall event on
Sunday, March 30, 2008, with a daily cumulative amount, duration,
and maximum depth of 1.45 cm (0.57 in.), 150 min, and 0.35 cm
(0.14 in.), respectively, was chosen as an example. Base flow for
this rainfall event was assumed to be close to the flow rate in the
Sunday after (April 6, 2008). Fig. 1 shows the rainfall–flow rate
relationship for this rainfall event and it also shows the base flow
rate day.
The second rainfall event chosen was on Monday, May 23,
2011, with a daily cumulative amount, duration, and maximum
depth of 1.27 cm (0.5 in.), 90 min, and 0.45 cm (0.18 in.), respec-
tively. Base flow for this rainfall event was assumed to be close to
the flow rate in the day after (Tuesday, May 24, 2011). Fig. 2 shows
the rainfall–flow rate relationship for this rainfall event and it also
shows the base flow day.
Fig. 1 shows that for a rainfall intensity of 0.35 cm (0.14 in.), the
flow rate in the sewer can reach up to 36.3 m3 =h (160 gal. per min
or gpm), while Fig. 2 shows that for a rainfall intensity up to

Fig. 4. Rainfall–flow rate chart for the rainfall event on Friday June 17, 2011, in Cardinal Alley with permeable asphalt pavement

© ASCE 04016002-5 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Rainfall–flow rate chart for the rainfall event on Friday May 30, 2008, and May 31, 2008, in Cardinal Alley with conventional brick pavement

0.45 cm (0.18 in.), the flow rate did not exceeded 25.7 m3 =h
(113 gpm). This is likely due to the ability of the permeable pave-
ment to reduce the peak flow.
Alley by Cardinal Avenue (Permeable Asphalt)
This alley was changed from conventional brick to permeable
asphalt. At this site, for the periods from March 26, 2008, to April
17, 2008 (preconstruction), a total of 39 rainfall events were used to
estimate the amount of runoff discharged to the sewer per each inch
of rain. The average runoff discharged into the sewer per each 1 in.
of storm was calculated to be 6.6 m3 =cm (4,427 gal:=in:).
In the same site, and for the period from March 26, 2011, to
July 17, 2011 (postconstruction), 32 rainfall events were used to
estimate the amount of runoff discharged to the sewer system
per each inch of rain. The average stormwater runoff dis-
charged to the sewer per each 1 in. of rain was calculated and
it was 5.8 m3 =cm (3,866 gal:=in:). The averages from the two
years show a reduction in the runoff due to permeable pavement
at 13%.
Four rainfall events were chosen for further analysis. The first
two rainfalls are close in their daily cumulative amount, duration,
and maximum depth. The rainfall event on Friday, April 25, 2008,
with a cumulative amount, duration, and maximum depth of 1.5 cm
(0.59 in.), 60 min, and 1.1 cm (0.43 in.), respectively, was chosen
as an example. Base flow for this rainfall event was assumed to be
close to the flow rate in the days April 23, 2008 (Wednesday), and
April 28, 2008 (Monday). Fig. 3 shows the rainfall–flow rate rela-
tionship for this rainfall event and it also shows the base flow rate
from the dry days.

Fig. 6. Rainfall–flow rate chart for the rainfall event on Tuesday April 19, 2011, in Cardinal Alley with permeable asphalt pavement

© ASCE 04016002-6 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Rainfall–flow relation for the rainfall event on Thursday March 27, 2008, in Geyer Alley with conventional brick pavement

The second rainfall event chosen was on Friday, June 17, 2011,
with a cumulative amount, duration, and maximum depth of
1.72 cm (0.68 in.), 90 min, and 1.14 cm (0.45 in.), respectively.
Base flow for this rainfall event was assumed to be close to the
flow rate in the two Fridays before and after (June 3, 2011, and
June 24, 2011). Fig. 4 shows the rainfall–flow rate relationship
for this rainfall event and it also shows the base flow rate from
the dry days.
Fig. 3 shows for a rainfall intensity of 1.1 cm (0.43 in.) per
15 min, the flow in the sewer can reach up to 13.6 m3 =h (60 gpm),
while Fig. 4 shows that for a rainfall intensity up 1.14 cm (0.45 in.),
the flow may exceed 24.9 m3 =h (110 gpm). This shows that the
permeable pavement in this site is not efficiently reducing the
peak flow.
The two other rainfall events are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. These
two figures show a different pattern than Figs. 3 and 4. The events
occurred on Friday, May 30, 2008, and Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
The two events were also close in their accumulative daily rainfall
amount, duration, and maximum depth [2.7 cm (1.08 in.), 150 min,
and 0.43 cm (0.17 in.) versus 2.3 cm (0.91 in.), 165 min, and
0.96 cm (0.38 in.), respectively]. Fig. 5 shows that in the year 2008,
for a rainfall intensity that reaches up to 0.94 cm (0.37 in.), the flow

Fig. 8. Rainfall–flow relation for the rainfall event on Friday April 15, 2011, in Geyer Alley with permeable paver

© ASCE 04016002-7 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

 rate reached up to 38.6 m3 =h (170 gpm). However, Fig. 6 shows (a)
that in the year 2011, for the same rainfall intensity (0.94 cm) the
flow rate in the pipe did not exceed the level of 22.7 m3 =h
(100 gpm), indicating effective reduction of storm runoff.

Alley by Geyer Avenue (Permeable Paver)

The alley at this site was changed from conventional brick to
permeable paver. In this site, for the same period (March 26,
2008, to July 17, 2008) (preconstruction), 16 rainfall events were
excluded due to flow meter malfunctioning either during the day
of a rainfall event or during the days before and after. Only 22
rainfall events were used to estimate the amount of runoff dis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

charged to the sewer per every inch of rain. The average stormwater
discharged to the sewer per every inch of storm was equal to
7.3 m3 =cm (4,915 gal:=in:).
In the same site, and for the period from March 26, 2011 to July (b)
17, 2011 (postconstruction), 23 rainfall events were used to esti-
mate the amount of runoff discharged to the sewer system per every
inch of rain. The average stormwater discharged to the sewer per
each 1 in. of rain was equal to 4.0 m3 =cm (2,652 gal:=in:). The
averages from the two phases show a reduction in the runoff
due to the permeable paver at 46%.
Like the previous sites, two rainfall events were chosen for fur-
ther analysis. The rainfall event on Thursday, March 27, 2008, with
a cumulative amount, duration, and maximum depth of 1.5 cm
(0.60 in.), 270 min, and 0.28 cm (0.11 in.), respectively, was chosen
as an example. Base flow for this rainfall event was assumed to be
close to the flow rate on Friday, March 28, 2008. Fig. 7 shows the
rainfall–flow rate relationship for this rainfall event and it also
shows the base flow rate from the dry day.
The second rainfall event chosen was on Friday, April 15, 2011,
with a cumulative amount, duration, and maximum depth of (c)
1.72 cm (0.68 in.), 195 min, and 0.33 cm (0.13 in.), respectively.
Base flow for this rainfall event was assumed to be close to the flow
rate in the day after (April 16, 2011). Fig. 8 shows the rainfall–flow
rate relationship for this rainfall event and it also shows the base
flow rate from the dry day.
Fig. 7 shows that, for the maximum rainfall depth of 0.28 cm
(0.11 in.), the flow in the sewer can reach up to 5.7 m3 =h (25 gpm),
while Fig. 8 shows that for a rainfall intensity that exceeded
0.30 cm (0.12 in.), the flow did not exceed 2.3 m3 =h (10 gpm).
This shows that the permeable pavement in this site is efficiently
reducing the peak flow.

Discussion of Results

The results show different percentages of reduction from different
types of pavement (36, 13, and 46% from permeable concrete,
permeable asphalt and permeable pavers, respectively). Fig. 9 sum-
marizes the comparison between the preconstruction and postcon-
dition in the three alleys. The mean connect lines in the three alleys
show a reduction from the preconstruction to postconstruction
condition. Statistical analysis shows significant reduction in runoff
in the Eads and Geyer sites while the reduction in the Cardinal site
was not significant.
In this case study, results showed that the pavement type can
affect the percent reduction. Properties like drainage rate and reten-
tion properties of the permeable pavement may affect the percent-
age of reduction, and they are largely dependent on the pore space
and the particle-size distribution of the bedding materials and
the underlying permeable layers (Anderson et al. 1999). The open
space of the joints used for infiltration in the permeable pavers
represents typically between 8 to 20% of the pavement surface area
Fig. 9. Comparison of runoff/rain between the preconstruction and
postconstruction of permeable pavement in three alleys: (a) Eads Site;
(b) Cardinal Site; (c) Geyer Site; the large box represents the 25th per-
centile, median, and 75th percentile; the whiskers represent the 5th and
95th percentiles; the small circle represents the mean
(Mullaney and Lucke 2014) which contribute to the high percent-
age of reduction from this type of permeable pavement. Brattebo
and Booth (2003) showed that little to no runoff was evident from
the pervious pavers tested on parking areas even during high peri-
ods of rainfall (42 mm over 14 h). Results in the three sites are
summarized in Table 3.
The lowest reduction in the stormwater runoff was in the
Cardinal site, which used the permeable asphalt (13%). This per-
cent was lower than two studies reported by the U.S. EPA (2009)

© ASCE 04016002-8 J. Environ. Eng.

J. Environ. Eng., 04016002

 for volume retention of runoff from porous asphalt (96.7 and 25%
from France and Durham, New Hampshire, respectively). In these
two studies, the permeable asphalt is equal to the total catchment
area (constructed experiment) while in this study related to CSO,
the permeable pavement is not equal to total catchment area and
such a ratio would have an important role. The percentage reduc-
tion of runoff would increase due to the increase of permeable area
installed compared to the total catchment area at any site. Although
the drainage or catchment areas for the manholes where the flow
meters where installed were unpredictable with the presence of
many other manholes nearby, the difference in permeable area be-
tween the sites has an effect on percentage reduction. The Geyer
site has 510 m2 (5,490 ft2), the Eads site has 304 m2 (3,267 ft2),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southern Illinois University on 02/03/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
while the Cardinal site has 232 m2 (2,500 ft2) of a total permeable
area which is consistent with the ranking of percentage reductions
from the three sites (46, 36, and 13% from Geyer, Eads, and
Cardinal, respectively).
Another potential reason for the difference in percentage reduc-
tion is the slope of the pavement. The Cardinal site had the steepest
slope among the three sites which reduces the amount of water that
can infiltrate through the pavement (3.5% for the Cardinal site
versus 1 and 0.8% for the Eads and Geyer sites, respectively).
Conclusion
Green infrastructure such as permeable pavement provides on-site
stormwater management for volume reduction from storm runoffs,
and can offer a cost-effective means to address the CSO problem
especially in the alleys where the loads are expected to be low.
The reduction in stormwater runoff was 36, 13, and 46% from
permeable concrete, permeable asphalt, and permeable pavers, re-
spectively. In this case study, the results showed that the type
of permeable pavement can affect the reduction in the CSO.
Permeable asphalt had the lowest reduction while the permeable
pavers had the highest. For each tested site, factors like ratio of
permeable pavement to the total catchment area, slope, and main-
tenance may affect the percentage of reduction in water quantity.
The study showed that the installation of permeable pavement in
alleys can be used to reduce the flow in the combined sewer sys-
tems and may represent one of the solutions for cities that are
experiencing CSO problems. The manual method used to calculate
the reduction in runoff was a time-consuming method, but was able
to estimate the volume reduction in combined sewers based on
detailed rainfall events analysis.
Recommendations
Permeable pavement represents an effective technique for the re-
duction of stormwater runoff especially in the alleys where low
loads are expected. The study had to exclude many rainfall events
due to unverified data that were caused by malfunctioned instruments.
Increased frequency to verify and calibrate flow meters and automatic
samplers during their deployment is recommended.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by the Missouri Department of
Conservation through the City of St. Louis and Southern Illinois
© ASCE 04016002-9
View publication stats J. Environ. Eng., 04016002
University Edwardsville (SIUE). The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District (MSD) undertook the flow monitoring and data collection.
The East West Gateway Council of Governments assisted the
coordination of the study. Mr. Philip Kreisman and Mr. Rex Pierce
reviewed the manuscript.
Supplemental Data
Tables S1–S6 are available online in the ASCE Library (www.
ascelibrary.org).
References
Anderson, C. T., Foster, I. L., and Pratt, C. J. (1999). “Role of urban
surfaces (permeable pavements) in regulating drainage and evapora-
tion: Development of a laboratory simulation experiment.” Hydrol.
Processes, 13, 597–609.
Bean, E. Z., Hunt, W. F., and Bidelspach, D. A. (2007). “Evaluation of four
permeable pavement sites in eastern North Carolina for runoff reduction
and water quality impacts.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9437(2007)133:6(583), 583–592.
Booth, D. B., and Leavitt, J. (1999). “Field evaluation of permeable
pavement systems for improved stormwater management.” J. Am. Plan.
Assoc., 65(3), 314–325.
Brattebo, B. O., and Booth, D. B. (2003). “Long term stormwater quantity
and quality performance of permeable pavement systems.” Water Res.,
37(18), 4369–4376.
Collin, K. A., Hunt, W. F., and Hathaway, J. M. (2007). “Evaluation of
various types of permeable pavements with respect to water quality im-
provement and flood control.” World Environmental and Water Resour-
ces Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–12.
Hunt, B., Stevens, S., and Mayes, D. (2002). “Permeable pavement use and
research at two sites in eastern North Carolina.” Global Solutions for
Urban Drainage, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–10.
James, W. (2008). “Green roads: Research into permeable pavers.”
Stormwater, 3(2), 40–48.
Kwiatkowski, M., Welker, A. L., Traver, R. G., Vanacore, M., and Ladd, T.
(2007). “Evaluation of an infiltration best management practice utilizing
pervious concrete.” J. Am. Water Res. Assoc., 43(5), 1208–1222.
Lee, H., Swamikannu, X., Radulescu, D., Kim, S. J., and Strenstrom, M. K.
(2007). “Design of stormwater monitoring programs.” Water Res.,
41(18), 4186–4196.
MSD (Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District). (2010). “Pervious concrete
pavement.” 〈http://www.stlmsd.com/portal/page/portal/engineering/
planreview/PlanReviewInformation/ProprietaryBMPs/Pervious%
20Concrete%20-%20Final.pdf〉 (May 7, 2014).
Mullaney, J., and Lucke, T. (2014). “Practical review of pervious pavement
designs.” Clean–Soil, Air, Water, 42(2), 111–124.
Rankin, K., and Ball, J. E. (2004). “A review of the performance of
permeable pavers.” Univ. of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Scholz, M., and Grabowiecki, P. (2007). “Review of permeable pavement
systems.” Build. Environ., 42(11), 3830–3836.
Teledyne Isco. (2009). “2150 area velocity flow module and sensor
installation and operation guide.” 〈http://isco.com/pcfiles/PartPDF/
SL000004/UP00163Z.pdf〉 (Nov. 24, 2014).
Tennis, P., Leming, M., and Akers, D. (2004). “Pervious concrete pave-
ments.” 〈http://myscmap.sc.gov/marine/NERR/pdf/PerviousConcrete
_pavements.pdf〉 (May 8, 2014).
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2009).
“Porous asphalt pavement.” 〈http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/
menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=
135&minmeasure=5〉 (May 7, 2014).
J. Environ. Eng.