Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

The hydrological performance of a green roof test bed under UK climatic conditions
Virginia Stovin a,⇑, Gianni Vesuviano a, Hartini Kasmin b
a
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
b
Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussien Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: This paper presents new rainfall and runoff data from a UK green roof test bed which has been collected
Received 3 November 2010 almost-continuously over a 29-month period from 01/01/2007 to 31/05/2009. Overall, the monitoring
Received in revised form 31 May 2011 period was fairly typical of the location’s long-term climatic averages, although the data set includes
Accepted 18 October 2011
some extreme events in June 2007, which were associated with serious flooding locally. To focus on
Available online 28 October 2011
This manuscript was handled by
the system’s performance under rainfall events likely to be of interest from an urban drainage/storm-
Konstantine P. Georgakakos, Editor-in-Chief, water management perspective, return period analysis has been applied to identify those storm events
with the assistance of Michael Brian Butts, with a rainfall depth in excess of 5 mm and a return period greater than one year. According to these cri-
Associate Editor teria, 22 significant events have been identified, of which 21 have reliable runoff records. Overall the roof
provided 50.2% cumulative annual rainfall retention, with a total volumetric retention equivalent to 30%
Keywords: during the significant events. The annual performance figures are towards the lower end of a range of
Green roof international data, probably reflecting the fact that rainfall depths may be higher and evapotranspiration
Stormwater management rates lower than in some more continental climatic settings. The roof’s finite retention depth means that
Retention the maximum possible retention percentage declines as storm depth increases, and retention varied from
Return period between 0 and 20 mm, or 0% to 100%. Although some attenuation and delay of peak runoff is generally
Detention
observed (mean peak flow reduction of 60% for the 21 significant events), the irregularity of natural rain-
Substrate
fall patterns, combined with the variable influence of detention storage in specific events, makes the
identification of peak-to-peak lag times difficult and arguably meaningless. Regression analyses have
been undertaken to explore the potential to predict the roof’s hydrological performance as a function
of storm characteristics. However, these are shown to have poor predictive capability, even for the system
from which they were derived. Through a detailed examination of data from three contrasting events, it is
argued that the inter-event processes are too complex to be captured by this type of modelling approach.
Instead, an understanding of the hydrological processes affecting the flux of moisture into and out of the
substrate is required to explain the observed runoff response. Locally-derived evapotranspiration rates
and the roof’s observed maximum retention capacity are utilised to provide pragmatic guidance on the
retention performance to be expected in response to selected design events.
Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ment processes (i.e. infiltration, attenuation, conveyance, storage

Stormwater runoff from urban roofs makes a significant contri-
bution to sewerage-derived flooding and urban water quality prob-
lems. In most developed cities, roofs may account for approximately
40–50% of the impermeable urban surface area. Any technique that
reduces the rate and volume of roof runoff has the potential to con-
tribute to improved stormwater management.
In the UK, the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environ-
ment Protection Agency promote the use of Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SUDS) for the management of surface water runoff. SUDS
include, amongst others, green roofs, soakaways, swales, infiltra-
tion basins and ponds. Because of their reliance on natural catch-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)114 222 5051; fax: +44 (0)114 222 5700.
E-mail address: v.stovin@sheffield.ac.uk (V. Stovin).
and biological treatment) these techniques are seen to constitute
a ‘more sustainable’ approach to stormwater management com-
pared with conventional piped drainage. The SUDS philosophy sug-
gests that modern approaches to stormwater management need to
control the quantity of runoff, but at the same time address urban
water quality problems and provide amenity value. Green roofs
have the potential to achieve these three aims simultaneously,
and genuinely represent an opportunity for engineering to work
in harmony with natural environmental processes to contribute
to sustainable urban environments. In addition to the quantity-
quality-amenity SUDS ‘triangle’, the SUDS philosophy also em-
braces two other important concepts. The first is that rainfall is
generally best controlled as close to the source as possible. The sec-
ond is the concept of a treatment train, where multiple SUDS de-
vices may be combined to provide more robust and beneficial

0022-1694/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.022
 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
stormwater management than any single element can achieve on
its own. Internationally the terms BMPs (Best Management Prac-
tices), LID (Low Impact Development), WSUD (Water Sensitive Ur-
ban Design) and Green Infrastructure refer to similar concepts.
Stormwater controls need to be designed to accommodate both
extreme events and to deal effectively with more routine events.
The former is required for flood protection, whilst the latter is re-
quired to protect river morphology and receiving water quality.
In the UK, the expectation is that SUDS devices should be designed
to provide protection from downstream flooding for a minimum of
a 1 in 30 year return period event (CIRIA, 2007b). It is therefore
critical to understand how green roofs will function both routinely
and in response to specific design return period rainfall events.
Green roofs provide an opportunity to reduce and attenuate
storm runoff at source (Fig. 1). Extensive green roofs typically take
the form of a ‘carpet’ of plants, supported by lightweight growing
media and overlying a drainage layer (Fig. 2), whereas intensive
green roofs incorporate more deeply-planted vegetation.
During a storm event the key hydrological mechanisms operat-
ing within the green roof are the interception of rainfall by the
plant layer, infiltration and storage in the substrate, and reservoir
storage in the drainage layer. Any excess moisture will be directed
out of the drainage layer into the downstream drainage system.
Moisture will be lost to the atmosphere as a result of evapotrans-
piration during dry periods.
In addition to stormwater source control, green roofs may also
increase the design life of a roof, improve air quality (Banting
et al., 2005), add aesthetic value to urban architecture and enhance
biodiversity (English Nature, 2003). Many of the roofs that have
been constructed to date in the UK have been stimulated by biodi-
Fig. 1. Rainfall runoff response (schematic).
Fig. 2. Green roof hydrological processes.
149
versity drivers (e.g. to provide habitat for the Black Redstart in Lon-
don (Gedge, 2003)) rather than for stormwater management
reasons. Assuming sufficient moisture is available within the roof
substrate, green roofs may also promote evaporative cooling in
the summer, thereby offsetting some of the energy requirements
associated with air conditioning systems and reducing urban heat
island effects (Sailor, 2008). Green roofs may also help to mitigate
climate change via carbon sequestration (Getter and Rowe, 2008).
Green roofs should be seen as providing an ‘all-round’ contribution
to sustainable urban environments. Further information on these
broader performance aspects can be found in: CIRIA (2007a), Dun-
nett and Kingsbury (2004), Banting et al. (2005), www.green-
roofs.org and www.livingroofs.org, amongst others.
Although green roofs are by no means a new idea (see Köhler,
2004; Herman, 2003), their widespread use, particularly for storm-
water management purposes, has only emerged more recently.
Over the last 20 years green roofs have become relatively common-
place in Germany, Austria and Switzerland; 14% of the flat roofs in
Germany (13.5 km2) supported green roofs in 2003 (Herman,
2003). In the UK the latest CIRIA SUDS guidance (CIRIA, 2007b)
strongly endorses green roofs as a SUDS technology. CIRIA has also
produced guidance which specifically relates to the use of green
roofs and living walls on buildings (CIRIA, 2007a). However, uptake
to date has been rather limited in the UK. Possible reasons for this
include: the perceived risks associated with a technology that has
not been widely used in the UK; the lack of UK validated data and
modelling tools to enable green roofs to be evaluated against alter-
native stormwater management approaches; and the current lack
of any real incentives for the UK water utilities, local authorities
or developers to implement any form of SUDS at a significant scale.
It is sometimes argued that the land-use requirements associ-
ated with SUDS make them incompatible with high density urban
environments; green roofs differ from many other SUDS ap-
proaches in that they have no additional land-take requirement be-
yond the footprint of the building.
2. Literature review
To date, hydrological green roof research has been undertaken
using test facilities at Michigan State University (VanWoert et al.,
2005), the Penn State Center for Green Roof Research (Berghage
et al., 2007), and European facilities at KULeuven (Mentens et al.,
2003) and Neubrandenburg (Köhler et al., 2002). These test facili-
ties complement a number of full-scale instrumented green roof
demonstration projects (e.g. Hutchinson et al., 2003). Typically
vegetation type, planting substrate and slope have been investi-
gated (e.g. VanWoert et al., 2005), with continuous runoff monitor-
ing being provided either by tipping bucket gauges or rainwater
collection tanks incorporating depth sensors. These studies consis-
tently show that high levels of stormwater attenuation can be
achieved with the use of green roofs. For example, Kolb (2004) re-
ported that green roofs reduced annual runoff by 45–70%, Moran
et al. (2004) report 60% total rainfall retention and an 85% reduc-
tion in peak flowrate. However, seasonal effects can be significant.
Johnston et al. (2004) noted that runoff could rise to 100% with
prolonged heavy rainfall. In Portland, where ‘‘ecoroofs’’ must be
irrigated for 3 months in the summer, Liptan (2003) suggests that
a 10–35% volume reduction during the wet season and 65–100%
volume reduction in the dry season can be achieved. Van Seters
et al. (2007) report similar variations for an extensive green roof
in Toronto. Palla et al. (2010) provide a useful review of these
and other similar studies.
Initial losses, or the depth of rainfall that is retained by the roof,
are a function of the antecedent dry weather period (ADWP), but
also of the weather conditions associated with the ADWP. In wet
150 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
winter conditions a roof will be slower to recover its retention
capacity than in summer, when evaporation rates will be expected
to be significantly higher.
Many authors state a nominal maximum retention depth, but
few provide sound justification. Some erroneously assume that
the porosity (or the water holding capacity) of the substrate im-
plies a certain level of retention. However, this can be misleading,
as – in practice – the roof will never achieve the ‘oven-dry’ condi-
tions required to achieve such high ‘potential’ retention levels. A
better indication of retention is obtained from field measurements
of rainfall and runoff obtained from real storm events.
Voyde et al. (2010) provided a comprehensive analysis of data
collected from an extensive living roof in Auckland, New Zealand.
They identified a cumulative retention efficiency of 66% based on
12 months of continuous monitoring, with a median of 82% reten-
tion per event for rainfall events greater than 2 mm. Based on six
different roof configurations, no statistically significant differences
in runoff response as a result of substrate composition, substrate
depth or season were identified. The authors acknowledged that
their data record did not include any events greater than or equal
to the 2 year return period 24 h duration event; they also observed
that retention efficiency decreased as storm depth increased and
when antecedent conditions resulted in high levels of moisture
within the green roof substrate.
Berghage et al. (2007) operated a comprehensive test pro-
gramme on behalf of the USEPA. DeNardo et al. (2005) measured
retentions in the order of 4–6 mm for a range of autumn storms
on test beds with 12 mm drainage +78 mm substrate (90 mm total
depth). Their work on evapotranspiration suggests that water loss
(or depression storage recharge) will initially be around 3 mm/day
for vegetated (Sedum spurium) and 1.5 mm/day for unvegetated
roof surfaces (at 27 °C). This rate is a function of temperature,
but also declines exponentially with time as the amount of avail-
able moisture declines. Their data suggests that 48 h after satura-
tion, approximately 5 mm rainfall might be retained by a
vegetated roof. This figure corresponds to 5% of the substrate
depth. Palla et al. (2008) presented preliminary findings from a
deep (350 mm substrate) full-scale roof operating in a Mediterra-
nean climate (Genoa). Although complete retention was observed
for many storm events, those that did result in runoff typically
demonstrated retention depths that corresponded to between 3%
and 11% of the total substrate depth (e.g. for a large event
(138.2 mm), the volume retained was 13.13 mm, or 3.75% of the
substrate depth). In contrast, Uhl and Schiedt (2008) present data
that suggest a maximum retention of 40 mm in a 100 mm sub-
strate (i.e. 40% of substrate depth).
Care must be taken when presenting/interpreting green roof
hydrological performance data. Palla et al. (2010) provided nine-
teen months’ data comprising 30 individual storm events. 11
events exceeded 40 mm depth, and the total monitored rainfall
was 1165.1 mm. On an event-by-event basis the mean retention
was given as 51.5%. The authors suggest that this is evidence of
excellent storm water control performance. However, from a
drainage engineering perspective the mean retention per event
may be less meaningful than an understanding of the system’s
overall annual retention or its response to extreme events. The pre-
sented data shows that, for many of the larger events, retention
was actually below 25%. As these larger events account for the bulk
of the total rainfall, the total volume retained was around 35%. An
annual retention performance of, say, 60% should not be used to in-
fer that the roof will have the capacity to retain 60% – or even 30% –
of a significant rainfall event. Similarly, there are many different
roof configurations (substrate type and depth, slope, size, plant-
ing), which can all be expected to perform differently, and the
same roof configuration will not demonstrate the same perfor-
mance characteristics in two different climatic regimes. Green roof
monitoring programmes have generally been quite short (2 years
or less), and few, if any, of the existing data sets have been evalu-
ated in terms of how typical they were of long-term climatic record
or in relation to event return periods. Based on published data it is
surprisingly difficult to provide a reasonable estimate for the level
of retention to be expected for a specific roof configuration in re-
sponse to either an annual time-series of rainfall or a design event
corresponding to a specific return period.
The primary objectives of this paper are to present new hydro-
logical performance data relating to a continuously-monitored
green roof test bed in the UK, and to provide an interpretation of
the data in terms of return period analysis and drainage design.
To enable generalisation of the data set such that performance un-
der unseen climatic inputs (for example in other locations, or in re-
sponse to climate change) can be estimated, hydrological
modelling tools are required. Therefore, a further objective is to as-
sess the suitability of regression-based and process-based model-
ling tools for predicting the observed runoff phenomena.
3. Methodology
3.1. Description of the test rig
The test bed (3  1 m) (Fig. 3) uses a standard commercial (Alu-
masc/Zinco) extensive green roof system, comprising a sedum veg-
etation layer growing in 80 mm of substrate. The basic
configuration is as shown in Fig. 2. The base of the rig is laid at a
slope of 1.5°. The substrate is composed of a mixture of crushed
brick and fines. A fine particle filter membrane separates the sub-
strate from the underlying FloradrainÒ FD 25 ‘egg box’ drainage
layer. The drainage layer alone has a nominal retention capacity
of 3 l/m2 (i.e. 3 mm rainfall).
Rainfall is monitored using an Environmental Measures ARG-
100 tipping bucket rain gauge sited adjacent to the test bed. The
rain gauge has a resolution of 0.2 mm. Runoff from the roof is col-
lected in a tank below the test bed via a gutter at its downstream
end. The collection tank is tapered to provide greatest sensitivity
for the first 0.5 mm of runoff. Depth in the collection tank is mon-
itored using a pressure transducer to provide a continuous record
of runoff via an appropriate calibration relationship. The data res-
olution is approximately 2  104 mm in the most sensitive zone,
decreasing to 7  103 mm; in both cases considerably higher than
the rain gauge (0.2 mm). The collection tank is automatically emp-
tied every time the depth stored approaches the capacity of the
tank. Data from the pressure transducer and the rain gauge is
Fig. 3. University of Sheffield green roof performance monitoring test bed.
 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
logged using a Campbell Scientific data logger (CR1000) at 1-min
intervals.
As the surface area of the test rig is only 3 m2, it is anticipated
that the monitored data will underestimate detention (i.e. the lag
and attenuation of the runoff hydrograph) compared with a full-
scale green roof installation. However, retention effects (initial
losses) are a function of substrate depth and moisture holding
capacity, and are not expected to be affected by the physical scale
of the experimental set-up. Whilst acknowledging this limitation
in the detention performance data, it should be noted that the pri-
mary emphasis in this paper is on the roof’s retention performance.
It should also be noted that the aim of the study was to provide
information directly relating green roof runoff to rainfall, rather
than to provide a comparison between a conventional rooftop
and a green roof. This was also the case in the Voyde et al.
(2010) study, although they suggested that – based on published
literature – between 62% and 91% of rainfall becomes runoff from
conventional asphalt and gravel ballast rooftops. The percentage
runoff is likely to be higher for tiled and pitched roofs.
3.2. Overview of the data record
The green roof rainfall–runoff monitoring record contains
29 months’ continuous rainfall data (01/01/07 to 31/05/09). How-
ever, pressure transducer data collected during the periods
17/01/08 to 03/03/08 and 17/03/08 to 01/04/08 are unavailable
due to instrumentation problems believed to be linked to a period
of cold weather.
Section 4 provides a detailed review of the rainfall time series.
In Section 4.2 comparison with the long-term climatic record for
this location (Met Office, 2010) is provided, whereas in Section 4.3
the storm event characteristics are interpreted with respect to rel-
evant depth-duration-frequency data taken from the Flood Estima-
tion Handbook (FEH CD-ROM, NERC, 1999). Rainfall events with an
estimated return period of greater than one year have been termed
‘significant’ – as distinct from ‘routine’ – events for the purposes of
this paper.
3.3. Data analysis
Section 5 provides a detailed analysis of the runoff response
data. As outlined earlier, stormwater management requirements
are such that the roof’s response to both routine and extreme
events is of interest. The data has therefore been analysed in terms
of cumulative annual retention and both mean and median reten-
tion per storm event.
The rainfall record has been classified into 468 individual rain-
fall events. No minimum rainfall depth was specified, so the storm
event data set contains events with as little as 0.2 mm rainfall,
which is the minimum depth recordable by the rain gauge. Individ-
ual events were defined as being separated by continuous dry peri-
ods of at least six hours. This definition was selected based on
VanWoert et al. (2005), Getter et al. (2007) and Voyde et al.
(2010), amongst others.
The per storm event analysis has been sub-divided into reten-
tion averaged across all storms, storms larger than 2 mm (for com-
parison with Voyde et al. (2010)), and for the greater than 1 year
return period ‘significant’ events. The significant event data was
also examined to determine whether seasonal variations in the
roof’s response were evident.
The following five storm parameters were evaluated: Rain dura-
tion (RD); Rainfall depth (TP); Antecedent Dry Weather Period
(ADWP); Mean storm intensity (i); and Peak 5-min storm intensity
(Rp). Eight hydrological performance variables were defined and
derived from the monitored rainfall and runoff data: Runoff depth
(TR); Retention depth (TS); Retention % (VR); 5-min peak runoff
151
intensity (Qp); Peak attenuation (PA); Time to start of runoff (Rs);
Runoff delay (peak-to-peak) (tp); and Runoff delay (centroids) (tc).
From a stormwater management perspective, there is a require-
ment for modelling tools that enable both the volume and timing
of runoff to be predicted in response to an arbitrary or design rain-
fall input. Regression analysis was undertaken to establish whether
useful equations could be identified. In all cases normality checks
(Shapiro–Wilk test) were undertaken, and suitable transformations
were applied to improve normality. In two cases (ADWP and i), the
Shapiro–Wilk significance was below 0.05, indicating that normal-
ity assumptions were not met. Although it may be argued that
non-parametric tests (e.g. Spearman’s rho) would be more suitable
under such circumstances, non-parametric tests lack the predictive
capacity associated with parametric approaches, so they were not
utilised. For all regression analyses, the coefficient of determina-
tion (Pearson’s R2) is used to indicate correlation strength, i.e. the
proportion of variability that can be explained by the proposed
model.
Initially scatter plots and single-parameter regression analyses
were used to identify predictive relationships for retention based
on the storm property parameters that were expected to influence
retention most strongly, i.e. rainfall depth, ADWP and rainfall
intensity. Comprehensive multiple regression analyses were then
performed to generate predictive relationships for all eight hydro-
logical performance characteristics using forwards, backwards and
stepwise linear regression, this time including all five of the storm
parameters. The multiple linear regression analyses were per-
formed systematically to ensure that the model generated in each
case had the highest possible R2 and that non-significant terms
were eliminated. It should be noted that the multiple regressions
were performed using sub-sets of the five storm parameters to en-
sure that non-independent parameters were not erroneously com-
bined. Specifically, rainfall depth was described using either TP or i
and RD (TP = i x RD) and storm intensity was described using either
i or Rp.
ADWP has certain limitations as a predictor of the actual mois-
ture retention capacity in the green roof substrate at the onset of a
storm event. This is discussed further in Section 6. Additional mul-
tiple linear regression analyses were therefore undertaken using a
new set of parameters describing antecedent weather conditions.
These were: the total rainfall in the 24 h, 7 days and 14 days pre-
ceding the storm event (P24, P7 and P14); and the mean temperature
over the past 24 h or the long-term mean monthly temperature for
the relevant month (T24 and T30).
The influence of interactions between the various storm and
antecedent weather parameters was also evaluated through the
application of non-linear multiple regression analyses. In this case
the large number of potential combinations prevents an objective
and systematic approach; instead subjective judgement and trial-
and-error were used to identify and evaluate potentially-meaning-
ful combinations.
The raw data collected from the field logger was processed
using custom-written MATLAB scripts. All the detailed statistical
analyses were undertaken using SPSS 16, whereas Microsoft Excel
was used for all other analyses.
4. Rainfall event analysis
4.1. Sheffield’s climate
Like the rest of the United Kingdom, the climate in Sheffield is
generally temperate (Fig. 4). Between 1971 and 2000 Sheffield
averaged 824.7 mm of rain per year, with December the wettest
month (91.9 mm) and July the driest (51.0 mm). The mean yearly
high temperature is about 12 °C, with July being the hottest month.
152 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161

Fig. 4. Average monthly temperature and rainfall data for Sheffield (1971–2000). Source: UK Met Office.

The mean minimum temperature in January and February is 1.6 °C,
and snow is not uncommon during the winter.
4.2. The data record in context
Clearly the data record does not constitute a long record in
hydrological terms. The following section therefore examines
how representative the specific weather conditions experienced
are for the location. Fig. 5 presents the monthly rainfall time-series,
alongside the record from Sheffield’s official Met Office recording
station at Weston Park. The Met Office gauge is located at 4339E
3872N, less than 1 km west of the study gauge. Any differences be-
tween the two records are therefore likely to reflect the effects of
shading from buildings that surround the study location. During
the study period the total rainfall was 2038.8 mm at the study
location, 93.4% of the depth recorded at the official Met Office site
(2182.9 mm). The rainfall depth was 10% higher than would typi-
cally have been expected according to the 1971–2000 monthly
averages (Met Office, 2010). The summer of 2007 experienced
some extreme conditions, with June experiencing more than four
times, and July more than double, the normal monthly totals. Many
areas of the UK were affected by severe flooding at this time. Con-
versely, totals for April, August, September and October 2007 fell
below 50% of the norm. The summer of 2008 was wetter than aver-
age, whilst conditions over the following winter (November 08–
April 09) were notably drier.
4.3. Analysis of the rainfall time-series
The rainfall record has been classified into 468 individual rain-
fall events. For consistency with previous green roof performance
analysis, individual events were defined as being separated by con-

Fig. 5. Monthly rainfall totals for the study period.

 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
tinuous dry periods of at least six hours. However, the use of 6 h
Antecedent Dry Weather Period (ADWP) is not universal, and many
drainage designs are based on an assumed ADWP of 24 h. It is clear
that the way in which a storm event is defined will significantly
influence any conclusions reached about the overall retention
and detention performance of the green roof. For example, if more
events are included with short ADWPs this may result in lower
mean retention per event than if all analysed events are preceded
by longer ADWPs. Conversely, if the smallest events are completely
excluded from analysis, many events with 100% retention will be
eliminated, and the mean retention percentage per storm event
may be reduced as a consequence.
As highlighted above, few – if any – previous green roof perfor-
mance studies have provided return period analysis for monitored
events. The analysis that follows will therefore attempt to consider
the roof’s performance for ‘significant’ (here defined as >1 year Re-
turn Period) events, in addition to its overall performance. Where
relevant, a distinction will also be made between events with short
(6–24 h) ADWPs and longer (>24 h) ADWPs, as well as events with
TP > 2 mm.
The full rainfall time-series has been analysed against Sheffield
return period data taken from the FEH CD-ROM (NERC, 1999). The
FEH rainfall data supersedes the FSR Rainfall (NERC, 1975), and it
should be noted that the later analysis incorporates more data
and better spatial resolution than the FSR data. In many parts of
the UK FEH rainfall depths for the 100 year return period storm
are up to 1.4 times greater than the equivalent FSR event. It should
be appreciated, therefore, that events of the same depth may have
a lower FEH return period compared with previously-determined
FSR values.
Fig. 6 compares all the monitored storm depths and durations
against the relevant FEH data set for Sheffield. Fig. 6 clearly shows
– as expected – that most events fall below the 1 year return period
threshold. Fourteen events have a return period of greater than one
year, with three greater than two years and one greater than
10 years. The largest event (starting on 13/06/2007) had 99.6 mm
rainfall over 42:29 h, and has a return period of approximately 1
in 16 years. The rainfall record contains a reasonable distribution
of short and long-duration events.
The depths and durations presented in Fig. 6 are event totals. It
is possible for an event represented in this way to appear to have a
return period less than 1 year, even if rainfall intensities exceed the
1 in 1 year threshold for part of the event. The peak 1 h, 6 h and
Fig. 6. Rainfall characteristics for the 29-month data series compared with FEH return period estimates for Sheffield.
153
12 h rainfall intensities have therefore also been compared with
FEH rainfall intensities. Overall there were 22 events with an ADWP
greater than or equal to 6 h which experienced event mean or max-
imum 1, 6 or 12 h intensities greater than that expected for a
1 year return period. Of the 22 significant rainfall events, one
was found to occur on 20/01/08 and is excluded from any further
analysis due to the lack of reliable runoff data.
The WaPUG Code of Practice (2002) is widely-used by UK drain-
age engineers as a basis for the calibration and verification of sewer
flow models. It provides the following definition of a storm event
suitable for sewer flow model verification purposes: ADWP > 24 h;
Rainfall depth >5 mm; and rainfall intensity >6 mm/h for more
than 4 min. As explained above, a minimum ADWP of 6 h has been
adopted here for consistency with previous green roof research.
However, the events all exceed the WaPUG Code’s minimum depth
and intensity criteria. For the 21 significant events highlighted
above, the minimum rainfall depth is 8.8 mm and all events expe-
rience rainfall intensities of 7.2 mm/h or more for at least 5 min
(Table 1).
In the following section the green roof’s performance will be
evaluated, both in terms of annual retention and the retention
and detention associated with significant events.
5. Green roof performance characteristics
5.1. Annual
Considering the approximately 27 months for which both a
rainfall and runoff record are available and accurate, a total of
1892.2 mm of rain fell. 949.4 mm was retained by the green roof,
which equates to a cumulative annual retention of 50.2%. This
may be compared to previously-published annual retention data.
From a range of studies – including both test beds and full-scale
installations – annual volumetric retention figures appear to range
between 50% and 80% (Hutchinson et al., 2003; Moran et al., 2005;
Liu and Minor, 2005; Carter and Rasmussen, 2006; VanWoert et al.,
2005; Getter et al., 2007; Jarret and Berghage, 2008; Uhl and
Schiedt, 2008; Mentens et al., 2006; and Voyde et al., 2010). The
performance of the Sheffield test bed therefore falls at the lower
end of previously-reported data. This probably reflects the fact that
the climate in Sheffield is relatively cool and wet, with moderate
evapotranspiration rates even in the height of summer. The test
154 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161

Table 1
Rainfall characteristics for the significant rainfall events (Return Period > 1 year).

Event start Rain duration Rainfall ADWP Mean intensity Peak 5-min Return period
(hh:mm) depth (mm) (hh:mm) (mm/h) Intensity (mm/h)
Event 1h 6h 12 h
RD TP ADWP i Rp
18/01/2007 01:11 24:17 27.0 10:26 1.11 21.6 – – >1 >1
20/01/2007 19:47 24:18 38.6 9:02 1.59 14.4 1.54 >1 >1 >1
13/05/2007 12:34 21:30 29.8 16:04 1.39 12.0 1.20 – >1 >1
12/06/2007 05:38 2:03 12.8 199:14 6.24 28.8 1.56 >1 – –
13/06/2007 15:39 42:29 99.6 31:58 2.34 21.6 15.91 >2 >2 >10
15/06/2007 17:54 9:19 16.2 7:46 1.74 12.0 – >1 >1 –
24/06/2007 22:12 22:41 58.0 6:00 2.56 28.8 4.73 >1 >2 >5
26/07/2007 06:56 13:29 12.6 13:25 0.93 33.6 – >1 – –
15/01/2008 02:51 10:23 21.0 7:19 2.02 9.6 1.22 – >1 >1
28/05/2008 14:33 8:11 11.0 6:24 1.34 19.2 – >1 – –
02/06/2008 20:40 23:27 21.6 34:04 0.92 9.6 – >1 >1 –
26/06/2008 13:22 9:05 16.6 21:57 1.83 16.8 – – >1 –
19/07/2008 00:13 5:00 8.8 12:49 1.76 26.4 – >1 – –
31/07/2008 10:12 7:15 19.8 27:22 2.73 48.0 1.39 >2 >1 >1
01/08/2008 01:44 2:24 18.8 8:17 7.83 50.4 2.71 >5 >1 –
12/08/2008 05:13 7:02 18.0 13:28 2.56 24.0 1.25 >1 >1 –
16/08/2008 19:05 9:26 18.8 49:56 1.99 14.4 1.13 >1 >1 –
03/09/2008 13:43 7:29 11.4 14:31 1.52 28.8 – >1 – –
05/09/2008 04:36 22:29 46.8 14:38 2.08 26.4 2.24 >1 >1 >1
04/10/2008 17:19 15:09 27.8 30:23 1.83 7.2 1.38 – >1 >1
28/04/2009 16:37 6:39 14.6 9:39 2.20 24.0 1.02 >1 >1 –
MEAN 14:00 26.17 25:56 2.31 22.74
MEDIAN 9:26 18.8 13:28 1.83 21.6
MINIMUM 2:03 8.8 6:00 0.92 7.2
MAXIMUM 42:29 99.6 199:14 7.83 50.4

bed’s substrate depth is also shallower than some, although it is
typical of current commercially-available extensive systems. The
relatively poor performance is probably an underestimate of
long-term performance, given that the rainfall total during the
monitored period was 10% higher than the long-term mean.
The cumulative retention (on average 50.2% of 824.7 mm mean
annual rainfall, or just over 400 mm per annum) demonstrates that
the roof can make a significant contribution to the total volume of
stormwater that might otherwise impact upon watercourses and/
or require treatment (approximately 4000 m3 per impermeable
ha per year). However, it is also critical to have a fuller understand-
ing of the roof’s ability to retain and detain flows from larger ex-
treme events which are more likely to contribute to significant
catchment flooding or CSO problems.
5.2. Storm event
In two of the storms (02/06/08 and 01/08/08) the runoff mea-
surement system failed to record the latter part of the event, as a
result of debris becoming trapped in the collection barrel’s sole-
noid valve. Because the start of runoff had been captured, it was
possible to fit a conceptual model (Kasmin et al., 2010, also dis-
cussed later in this paper) to the data and thereby identify the
retention depth (initial losses) with a high degree of confidence.
However, confidence in the temporal response characteristics of
the model is not sufficient to allow it to be used it to identify
any of the temporal runoff parameters, which have not therefore
been calculated for these two events. This provides 21 storms for
volumetric analysis and 19 for temporal profiles.
The 21 storms vary widely (Table 1), ranging in duration (RD for
Rainfall Duration) from just over 2 h to almost 2 days and in depth
(TP for Total Precipitation) from 8.8 to 99.6 mm. Two alternative
rainfall intensities are presented in Table 1. i (mm/h) denotes the
mean storm intensity, i.e. TP/RD, whereas Rp denoted the peak
intensity measured over 5 min, which on average was ten times
higher than the mean storm intensity.
Table 2 summarises the corresponding green roof performance
characteristics. The runoff depth (TR for Total Runoff) (mm) is the
depth of runoff recorded for the storm event. The system’s reten-
tion depth (i.e. initial losses) is calculated as TP–TR. This is denoted
as TS (for Total Storage). The Volumetric Retention (VR) is the ratio
TS/TP, and is expressed as a percentage. It may be seen that the
mean retention for significant storms is approximately 43%. How-
ever, this is a very variable figure; the retention on a single storm
basis varies from zero to 100%. The total depth retained over the 21
events was only 29.3% of total rainfall, as retention is naturally
lower for the larger storms. Similarly, the median retention was
30.2%. Nonetheless, evidence that green roofs can retain even one
third of the runoff from significant events provides strong support
for their role in urban surface water management strategies.
The maximum observed retention depth was 19.8 mm
(13/05/07). Subsequent analysis of the data therefore assumes that
the roof’s practical maximum storage capacity is approximately
20 mm.
Fig. 7 shows that for return periods of between 1 and 2 years,
retention of up to 100% is possible. This is to be expected, given
that, for a one-year return period, the rainfall depth associated
with short duration events (<12 h) falls below the roof’s maximum
retention capacity of 20 mm (see Fig. 6). Two year return period
events of less than 3 h duration are also smaller than the roof’s
maximum retention capacity.
There is very limited data for return periods of greater than two
years. The maximum retention observed for the four monitored
events in this category was 29.3%, whilst the 16 year return period
event provided less than 15% retention. For higher return period
events, the expected rainfall depth (Fig. 6) significantly exceeds
the roof’s maximum retention capacity. For example, the 1 in
10 year 24 h duration event depth is 72 mm; compared with the
roof’s maximum retention capacity of 20 mm, this implies that
the maximum retention possible will be 28%. For a 1 in 10 year
6 h event (42 mm) the maximum retention possible would be 48%.
Voyde et al. (2010) considered all storm events with rainfall
depths greater than 2 mm, on the assumption that rainfall events
<2 mm are unlikely to produce runoff from a conventional roof.
They found a mean per-event retention efficiency of 78%, with a
median value of 82%. The comparable analysis for the Sheffield
 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161 155

Table 2
Green roof performance characteristics.

Event start Runoff Retention Retention 5-min peak runoff Peak Time to Start of Runoff delay Runoff delay
depth (mm) depth (mm) (%) intensity (mm/h) attenuation (%) Runoff (min) (peak-to-peak) (min) (centroids) (min)
TR TS VR Qp PA Rs tp tc
18/01/2007 01:11 25.33 1.67 6.18 11.28 47.79 15 7 42.74
20/01/2007 19:47 36.75 1.85 4.79 11.55 19.81 18 5 70.22
13/05/2007 12:34 9.98 19.82 66.50 4.17 65.22 262 90 198.57
12/06/2007 05:38 0.01 12.79 99.95 0.02 99.93 483 103 83.38
13/06/2007 15:39 86.48 13.12 13.17 15.24 29.43 350 9 261.32
15/06/2007 17:54 16.19 0.01 0.04 8.97 25.26 9 7 39.04
24/06/2007 22:12 57.96 0.04 0.07 14.92 48.20 12 4 51.69
26/07/2007 06:56 10.06 2.54 20.18 13.89 58.67 14 6 66.64
15/01/2008 02:51 19.75 1.25 5.97 6.63 30.96 9 9 41.30
28/05/2008 14:33 1.67 9.33 84.79 2.52 86.89 78 44 31.12
02/06/2008 20:40* 15.10 6.50 30.20 451
26/06/2008 13:22 0.27 16.33 98.36 0.59 96.48 359 283 181.41
19/07/2008 00:13 4.25 4.55 51.66 3.39 87.16 13 35 78.77
31/07/2008 10:12 3.15 16.65 84.10 13.66 71.54 41 54 4.50
01/08/2008 01:44a 13.30 5.50 29.30 4
12/08/2008 05:13 5.24 12.76 70.89 2.41 89.97 73 77 78.54
16/08/2008 19:05 9.46 9.34 49.68 10.12 29.70 396 18 85.03
03/09/2008 13:43 1.45 9.95 87.30 1.32 95.43 218 43 121.65
05/09/2008 04:36 44.53 2.27 4.84 16.72 36.66 35 49 54.63
04/10/2008 17:19 24.35 3.45 12.40 4.80 33.40 56 12 75.36
28/04/2009 16:37 3.32 11.28 77.23 6.57 72.62 106 272 100.39
MEAN 18.51 7.67 42.74 7.83 59.22 142.95 54.16 87.70
MEDIAN 10.06 6.50 30.20 6.63 58.67 56 18 75.36
MINIMUM 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 19.81 4 49 4.50
MAXIMUM 86.48 19.82 99.95 16.72 99.93 483 283 261.32
a
Runoff record missing from the end of the event – recreated by model fit.

Fig. 7. Retention as a function of return period.
dataset suggests mean and median per-event retention values for
>2 mm rainfall events of 61% and 62% respectively. It should be
noted, however, that whilst the Sheffield dataset includes four
events with return periods in excess of two years, the Auckland
data contained no events larger than the 2-year 24 h return period
event. Furthermore, Voyde et al. (2010) acknowledge that the per-
formance of the roof would be expected to be reduced for large
storm events or when the roof is already at field capacity.
The peak runoff intensity (Qp) is evaluated over a 5 min time
interval. It ranges from zero (the 12/06/2007 event barely gener-
ated any runoff) up to 16.7 mm/hr. The magnitude of peak attenu-
ation (PA) has been calculated for the aggregated 5-min data, with
the mean attenuation found to be around 60%. Again, this is a sig-
nificant finding for urban drainage applications.
The time to start of runoff, Rs was defined as the time between
the start of the rainfall and the time at which the total runoff ex-
ceeded 0.01 mm. Ten storms had an Rs value above one hour, while
eleven had a value below one hour. Empirical analysis confirmed
that a high Rs was associated with a high level of retention; every
storm with an Rs over one hour retained an above average depth of
storm water. The mean retention was 71% for storms with an Rs
over one hour, but only 24% for storms with an Rs below one hour.
Various parameters have been defined that attempt to link the
timing and magnitude of this peak runoff to the peak in the rainfall
hyetograph. The simplest approach – which literally evaluates the
time difference between the two peaks (tp) – ranges from instanta-
neous to nearly five hours. One value (05/09/08) is actually nega-
tive. This definition is highly sensitive to the timing of tips in the
rain gauge. An alternative approach is to evaluate the difference
between the centroids of the rainfall and runoff distributions (tc).
Both approaches suggest that the lag is of the order of one hour.
However, careful inspection of the temporal rainfall and runoff
profiles (see Section 6) suggests that runoff will follow rainfall al-
most instantaneously, unless there is spare retention capacity. In
most instances the apparent lag effect is a function of retention
(initial losses) and not a result of detention (temporary storage).
It should be noted, however, that more significant temporal runoff
delays are likely to arise in a full scale green roof.
5.3. Seasonal analysis
Several previous studies (Hutchinson et al., 2003; Johnston
et al., 2004; Liptan, 2003; Liu and Minor, 2005; Mentens et al.,
2006; Uhl and Schiedt, 2008; Van Seters et al., 2007) have pre-
sented retention results on a seasonal basis, typically showing that
the roof’s retention capabilities are reduced in winter and in-
creased in summer, as a result of the different seasonal rainfall to-
tals and evapotranspiration rates. Interestingly, however, Voyde
et al. (2010) were unable to detect any statistically significant sea-
sonal variations in their New Zealand data set.
The set of storms in the present analysis is highly biased to-
wards the summer months. From the 21 selected storms, 12 oc-
curred in June, July or August and three each in spring, autumn
and winter (the one rejected storm also occurred in winter). Fur-
thermore, the three storms with the largest return periods all oc-
curred in the summer. Consequently, this very uneven spread of
events causes difficulty in performing a meaningful seasonal anal-
156 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
ysis of the roof’s performance. In addition, due to the large climatic
variations that occur naturally within seasons, the value of such an
analysis is questionable. For a very basic overview, however, the
retention of the green roof on a seasonal basis is given in Table 3.
Table 3 suggests that the greatest retention occurs during spring
(1st March to 31st May) and not summer. However, the storm
events that occur during the summer are on average 45% larger.
Furthermore, during the study period the mean cumulative sea-
sonal rainfall was 303.8 mm in summer but only 167.3 mm in
spring. Additionally, the mean peak intensity of the summer events
was 42% higher than the spring events, 26.2 mm/h compared to
18.4 mm/h. The mean retention depth is almost equal in spring
and summer, in both cases near to the limit of the green roof’s
retention capacity. It may be concluded that the perceived lack of
retention during the summer months is primarily due to the larger
rainfall depths of the summer storms.
5.4. Regression analysis
From an engineering, stormwater management, perspective,
there is a requirement for modelling tools that enable runoff per-
formance to be predicted in response to an arbitrary or design rain-
fall input. The following analysis therefore explores whether
regression analysis can provide a robust predictive tool for storm
Table 3
Seasonal retention of the green roof.
Season No. of events Average rainfall depth (mm)
Winter (01 December to 28/29 February) 3 28.9
Spring (01 March to 31 May) 3 18.5
Summer (01 June to 31 August) 12 26.8
Autumn (01 September to 30 November) 3 28.7
Fig. 8. Regression plots for selected key rainfall/runoff parameters. Solid black lines correspond to the regression equations given in Table 4.
event performance. Initially scatter plots and single-parameter
regression analyses were used to identify potential predictive rela-
tionships for retention based on Total Rainfall, ADWP and Rainfall
Intensity.
Fig. 8a shows a strong relationship between rainfall depth and
runoff depth, which is not surprising. The plot essentially shows
– as was evident in Table 2 – that the total runoff tends to be
0–20 mm below the total rainfall. The amount of retention (be-
tween 0 and 20 mm) is assumed to depend on the storage available
in the system at the onset of the storm event. Fig. 8b shows the
same phenomenon in terms of the percentage retention. The max-
imum possible percentage retention decreases with any increase in
rainfall depth over 20 mm. The observed event data all fall on or
below this optimal performance curve. Table 4 provides informa-
tion on the significance of the regression relationships. The t-statis-
tic indicates that TP is a determinant of both TR and VR, with a
significance of p = 0.01. However, R2 values of 0.72 and 0.33 respec-
tively provide limited confidence in the predictive capability of the
derived relationships.
Based on the assumption that a longer ADWP provides more
time for the green roof substrate to recharge its storage capacity
by drying out, attempts were made to correlate both retention
depth and percentage retention with ADWP (Fig. 8c and d). How-
ever, the plots show large amounts of scatter, and the R2 values
Average retention (%) Average retention (mm)
6.06 1.7
76.18 14.1
52.12 14.0
35.26 10.1
 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161 157

Table 4
Retention as a function of rainfall depth (TP), ADWP, i and Rp.
Equation R2 t-statistics
1/3
TR = 2.410 + 1.514 ln TP 0.7239 3.60**, 7.06**
VR0.43 = 11.05  2.173 ln TP 0.3290 4.97**, 3.05**
TS0.55 = 3.130 + 0.882 ln ADWP 0.2481 9.88**, 2.50*
VR0.43 = 4.832 + 1.136 ln ADWP 0.1746 9.48**, 2.01NS
VR0.43 = 3.916 + ln i 0.0253 4.68**, 0.70NS
VR0.43 = 1.858 + 3.421Rp1/5 0.0881 0.40NS, 1.35NS
NS – not significant.
*
Significant at p = 0.05.
**
Significant at p = 0.01.
are poor (Table 4). The data set includes a spring storm (28/05/08)
of 11 mm with an ADWP of 6.4 h retaining 84.8% of runoff
(9.33 mm), but also a similarly sized summer storm (26/07/07) of
12.6 mm with an AWDP of 13.42 h retaining only 20.2% of runoff
(2.54 mm). Although, there is an observable link between low
ADWP and low retention, the inverse does not hold true; a long
ADWP does not guarantee high retention, as the roof’s retention
capacity is finite.
Considering that more intense storms may arguably lead to de-
creased retention, as there is less time for the substrate to absorb
moisture, an analysis was also performed to link percentage reten-
tion to storm intensity. Of the storms in this analysis, the range of
mean storm intensities varies widely, from 0.92 mm/h to
7.83 mm/h. They are somewhat negatively skewed as 18 of the
21 storms are in the bottom quarter of this range. The overall
and peak intensity of the storms are not strongly correlated
(R2 = 0.3469). The total rainfall depth is not correlated to either
the overall or peak storm intensity (R2 = 0.0019 and 0.0069 respec-
tively). Regression analysis of percentage retention against both
peak and overall storm intensities showed that these were not sig-
nificantly related (see Table 4).
The results of the comprehensive forwards and backwards step-
wise multiple linear regression analysis are summarised in Table 5,
where the t-statistics are presented in the same order as the terms
in the relevant equation.
The multiple regression analysis for TR improved (R2 = 0.83,
rather than 0.72), with RD, ADWP and i determined as being signif-
icant predictors and, in contrast to Table 4, TP eliminated as being
non-significant. Four out of the eight relationships presented in Ta-
ble 5 identify ADWP as being a significant determinant of hydrolog-
ical performance. Yet Fig. 8c and d clearly indicate that the links
between ADWP and green roof hydrological performance are com-
plex, and unlikely to be revealed by regression-based analysis.
Apart from the relationship for TR, the regressions do not have
strong predictive value (R2 < 0.60). It should also be recalled that
two of the key predictive variables identified above (ADWP and i)
did not comply with the normality assumptions required for para-
metric tests of this type. This further reduces confidence in their
usefulness and applicability.
Multiple linear regressions based on the antecedent weather
parameters (P24, P7, P14, T24 and T30) provided improved models
for all hydrological performance parameters except TR and Qp.
However, given that the predictive value of the TR model was sig-
nificantly reduced (R2 = 0.323) and that for percentage retention
(VR) R2 was only improved from 0.499 to 0.552, this approach
was not judged to provide a significant improvement in overall
predictive modelling capability. Similarly, the non-linear multiple
regression analysis also failed to provide any predictive relation-
ships that were clearly superior to those generated using linear
regression.
The main conclusion from the regression analysis is that it is not
possible to predict the likely retention depth associated with a par-
ticular rainfall depth or return period, even when ADWP and rain-
fall intensity or other antecedent weather parameters are taken
into consideration. The next section will explore why some of the
expected relationships were not evident in the data set; at the
same time it will show that a continuous modelling framework,
based on substrate moisture flux, can help to both understand
and predict a green roof’s runoff performance.
6. Green roof moisture flux model
The statistical analysis above failed to provide either a robust
predictive tool or much additional insight into the key processes
operating within the green roof system. Of particular interest is
the fact that ADWP was not found to be a good predictor of reten-
tion. However, this may be explained through a more careful con-
sideration of the roof’s key hydrological processes, specifically the
flux of moisture into and out of the substrate.
The substrate’s maximum water-holding capacity defines the
condition when the substrate can hold no more moisture under
gravity (i.e. field capacity). The moisture content at any given time
will lie somewhere between field capacity and a minimum practi-
cal moisture content, which may vary in response to ambient con-
ditions and to substrate physical characteristics. Standard
laboratory material tests exist for the determination of field capac-
ity (FLL, 2002). The minimum moisture content may be considered
to define the depth of permanently retained moisture. In soil sci-
ence, tension plate tests are utilised to quantify the soil-bound
moisture fraction. However, the large mineral fragments character-
istic of green roof substrates require the standard test procedures
to be refined before they can be applied with confidence. Nonethe-
less, the moisture retention capacity of the green roof system is
clearly finite; in this case the empirical data suggests that it may
reach a maximum of 20 mm. For this reason it is unreasonable to
expect retention to vary in response to ADWP beyond this practical
upper limit.

Table 5
Multiple regression analysis to predict various measures of green roof performance from storm event characteristics.

Regression equation Model R2 t-statistics

0.3 1/5
TR = 4.811 + 7.082RD  0.336 ln ADWP + 0.893 ln i Backward 0.823 5.673**, 8.196**, 2.958**, 4.044**
TS0.58 = 3.329 + 0.990 ln ADWP Forward & Backward 0.247 9.336**, 2.498*
ln Rs = 4.542 + 1.304 ln ADWP Forward & Backward 0.489 16.510**, 4.264**
VR0.45 = 12.656  2.438 ln TP + 1.229 ln ADWP Forward 0.499 5.662**, 3.408**, 2.395*
Q 0:6 1=5 Forward 0.478 2.358*, 3.942*
p ¼ 4:829 þ 9:217RD
t0:38
c – no equation with either method – – –
ln tp = 8.998 – 6.688RD1/5 Forward & Backward 0.354 4.579**, 2.959**
PA50:3 ¼ 2:160  0:432 ln TP þ 1:366R1=5 Backward 0.596 2.162*, 3.289**, 2.949**
p

NS – not significant.
*
Significant at p = 0.05.
**
Significant at p = 0.01.
158 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
In a rainfall event, the substrate will absorb moisture until the
point when field capacity is reached. If further moisture is added
to the system, runoff will occur. It should be noted that, as green
roof substrates typically have very high permeabilities, surface
runoff is not expected to occur. The excess runoff will pass verti-
cally down through the substrate and leave the roof via the under-
lying drainage layer, where it will be temporarily detained before
becoming runoff.
Between rainfall events the roof’s storage capacity will be re-
stored via evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration rates vary sea-
sonally and daily depending upon meteorological conditions,
plant configuration and health. Therefore, a simple relationship be-
tween ADWP and the restoration of retention capacity should not
be expected. For example, Kasmin et al. (2010) suggested that ET
rates on the Sheffield test rig were likely to range from a winter
average of <0.5 mm/day up to around 3 mm/day in summer.
Furthermore, the ADWP can provide misleading information
about the actual level of moisture in the substrate. It is feasible
Fig. 9. Rainfall and runoff profiles for three selected events.
for the data to reveal a short ADWP, but for the substrate still to
have a high moisture retention capacity. This will arise if the pre-
ceding event was small, and did not cause the roof to reach its field
capacity or to initiate runoff.
This conceptual model of green roof hydrological processes will
now be employed to explain the runoff behaviour observed in
three storm events selected from the data series, and – subse-
quently – to further explain the limitations of the regression-based
modelling approach.
Stovin (2010) and Kasmin et al. (2010) have already provided
some discussion on events from this data set; hence the analysis
will focus now on three new, contrasting events. These are
26/07/07, 26/06/08 and 04/10/08. The roof responses for these
events are presented in Fig. 9, both as 5-min discretised temporal
profiles and as cumulative profiles.
The 26/07/07 event provides an example of a response to high
intensity summer rainfall. The peak intensity – measured over
5 min – was 2.8 mm/5 min, i.e. 33.6 mm/h. Of the 12.6 mm rainfall,
 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
only 20.2% was retained by the roof. The initial small rainfall was
completely retained, as was the initial part of the period of high
intensity rainfall that commenced around 12:00. After that time,
it is clear that the roof had reached field capacity, and runoff essen-
tially mirrored the rainfall input thereafter. There is evidence of
peak attenuation (60%), but minimal delay in the timing of the
peaks. This almost instantaneous response is not unexpected, as
the test bed has a small surface area (3 m2) and a shallow depth
(100 mm). Some detention is evident, with the runoff decreasing
exponentially after the rainfall ceased. The limited retention ob-
served in this event reflects the relatively short ADWP of only
13:25 h. The roof generated runoff from the previous event, sug-
gesting that it was at, or close to, field capacity at the start of the
ADWP (although this will not always be the case), and even with
high summer rates of evapotranspiration (3 mm/day, see Kasmin
et al., 2010), it is likely that only 2 mm of the roof’s moisture deficit
(i.e. retention capacity) would have been restored. The observed
retention of 2.54 mm provides some confidence in the validity of
the process-based conceptual model.
The 26/06/08 event demonstrated the roof at close to its most
effective as a stormwater retention device. 98.4% of the 16.6 mm
rainfall was retained. The roof was able to retain this much as a re-
sult of a prolonged antecedent dry period. Although the ADWP was
calculated to be short, 21:57 h, only 11 mm rainfall fell in the pre-
ceding 20 days. With assumed summer ET rates of 3 mm/day, the
roof is likely to have reached close to its maximum retention
Fig. 10. Runoff depths and percentage retention for selected design rainfall events for Sheffield.
159
capacity, i.e. approximately 20 mm, and was therefore able to re-
tain the entire rainfall. In this case the ADWP parameter fails to
provide a useful indication of the roof’s real moisture retention
capacity.
The 04/10/08 event has been selected to illustrate a typical au-
tumn response to longer, low intensity frontal-type rainfall. In total
27.8 mm fell in 15 h. In contrast to the 26/07/07 event, the maxi-
mum intensity observed was only 7.2 mm/h. However, the roof’s
hydrological response appears unaffected by rainfall intensity. As
with the 26/07/07 event, some initial losses due to retention are
observed, after which no further retention and only limited deten-
tion effects are observed. On this occasion care must again be taken
in any assessment of the link between ADWP and retention capac-
ity. Technically the ADWP is 30:23 h. However the rainfall event on
03/10/08 was only 0.2 mm and did not generate runoff from the
roof. The last rainfall event to generate runoff occurred the day be-
fore, with runoff ceasing approximately 48 h before the start of the
current event. ET rates in autumn tend to be lower, so estimating
1.5 mm/day would suggest around 3 mm retention. The observed
retention of 3.45 mm is again consistent with this process-based
model.
Voyde et al. (2010) present a detailed analysis of their roof’s
hydrological response to a set of consecutive rainfall events. Their
interpretation of the processes leading to observed variations in
hydrological performance is entirely consistent with that reported
here, with high retention being observed following a prolonged dry
160 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
period and limited retention associated with substrate at close to
field capacity.
Jarret and Berghage (2008) and Kasmin et al. (2010) have both
demonstrated that a substrate moisture flux model, when com-
bined with storage routing to represent detention, has the capabil-
ity to accurately simulate the observed temporal runoff profiles
associated with specific green roof test rig installations. Input data
requirements are the rainfall time series, suitable evapotranspira-
tion rates, an estimate of the roof’s maximum retention depth
and relevant storage routing parameters. As an alternative to the
use of semi-empirical routing methods to model the detention ef-
fects of green roof systems, She and Pang (2010) have demon-
strated that a more mechanistic, physically-based, hydrological
model effectively replicates green roof runoff profiles monitored
at full scale. Unlike regression-based analyses, these process-based
approaches have the potential to provide detailed predictions of
temporal runoff responses for any roof configuration subjected to
arbitrary climatic or design storm inputs. However, further re-
search is required to link the controlling parameter values to spe-
cific green roof configuration variables, including plant type,
substrate type and depth, amongst others.
In the meantime, the substrate moisture flux concept may be
used to provide simple performance estimates corresponding to
specific design rainfall depths. If the roof is dry, then retention will
approach its maximum value (in this case 20 mm). Twenty milli-
metres is 91% of a 10 year return period 1 h duration rainfall event
for Sheffield. However, if a conservative assumption is made and
calculations are based on a 48 h period since the roof was satu-
rated, then ET will only have removed 1–6 mm, depending on sea-
son. 6 mm only represents 27% of the 10 yr rainfall depth. In winter
the ET and retention values will obviously be reduced. Fig. 10 pro-
vides contour plots of the expected runoff from the roof for se-
lected design events for Sheffield (NERC, 1999). Data for both 1 h
duration and 24 h duration events is presented. Fig. 10a and c show
runoff depths, whilst Fig. 10b and d show the retention as a per-
centage of the rainfall. The plots show that high levels of runoff
and low percentage retention are to be expected from long return
period events. For an extreme event, such as a 100 year return per-
iod event, the percentage retention is always small, even when the
roof’s retention capacity is at its maximum. The 100 year return
period 1 h duration rainfall depth for Sheffield is 44.8 mm; at an
assumed maximum retention capacity of 20 mm, the roof is capa-
ble of retaining 44.6% of the rainfall. For the 24 h duration event,
120.9 mm, the maximum possible retention falls to 16.5%. Perfor-
mance is proportionately better for less extreme design events.
The roof is capable of retaining 100% of the 1 yr return period 1 h
event, even at below 50% of maximum retention capacity, whilst
72.2% of a 1 yr return period 24 h event can be retained when
the roof’s retention capacity is at its maximum.
Clearly it is feasible to replace the Sheffield-specific return per-
iod data with locally-relevant intensity–duration–frequency values
to provide a generic approach for estimating the retention perfor-
mance expected for a green roof installation in response to specific
design rainfall characteristics. It is evident that the prediction of
design storm performance is critically dependent on the assump-
tions made regarding an appropriate ADWP; it remains to be seen
whether the 48 h suggested here becomes adopted as a standard
basis for design amongst SUDS and green roof practitioners.
7. Conclusions
Data on rainfall and runoff has been continuously monitored on
a green roof test rig in Sheffield, UK, which has a typical extensive
green roof build-up. From a 29 month record of green roof rainfall/
runoff performance, 22 events were judged to meet defined criteria
for significant events; 21 events had good runoff data. The moni-
tored period was reasonably typical of Sheffield’s temperate cli-
mate, though rainfall totals were exceptionally high in summer
2007. The largest event had an estimated return period of approx-
imately 16 years.
Cumulative retention by the roof was 50.2%. However, mean (or
median) retention per event is sensitive to the events that are in-
cluded in the analysis. Retention performance was greater when
all storm events were considered, with mean and median retention
of 70% and 91% per event (all storms) and 61% and 62% (all storms
with rainfall >2 mm). This implies that green roofs can make a sig-
nificant contribution to the mitigation of storm runoff associated
with high frequency rainfall events. Retention reduced to 43%
(mean) and 30.2% (median) for storms with a return period of
greater than one year. The mean peak attenuation for these signif-
icant storms was 60%. These figures provide a clear indication that
green roofs could play a significant part in providing source con-
trols as part of SUDS treatment trains. However, retention varied
widely between storm events, ranging between 0 and 100%, and
the roof provided only 13.2% retention for the largest event
(16 year return period).
Regression analyses confirmed that it is not possible to provide
a useful predictive relationship for the depth or percentage reten-
tion, even when a range of storm and antecedent weather indica-
tors were considered. Although the response of the green roof
can be explained by considering moisture fluxes into and out of
the substrate, the ADWP parameter fails to characterise the com-
plex processes that account for the roof’s antecedent moisture con-
tent. Compared with regression-based analysis, a continuous
simulation approach based on substrate moisture flux appears
likely to provide a more robust framework for predicting the runoff
response.
Estimates of the roof’s response to specific design events may be
derived from careful consideration of the likely maximum reten-
tion depth and the choice of a suitable ADWP. For example, when
dry, the roof is capable of retaining approximately 20 mm, which
corresponds to 91% of a 10 year return period 1 h duration rainfall
event for Sheffield, or 45% of a 100 year 1 h event. For more realis-
tic estimates based on 48 h ADWP, the retention values should be
revised downwards to just 27% and 13% respectively.
References
Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., 2005. Report on the Benefits and Costs of
Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto, Ryerson University. <http://
www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/findings.htm>.
Berghage, R., Jarrett, A., et al., 2007. Quantifying Evaporation and Transpirational
Water Losses from Green Roofs and Green Roof Media Capacity for Neutralising
Acid Rain. National Decentralised Water Resources Capacity Development
Project. Pennsylvania State University.
Carter, T.L., Rasmussen, T.C., 2006. Hydrologic behaviour of vegetated roofs. J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (5), 1261–1274.
CIRIA, 2007a. C644, Building Greener.
CIRIA, 2007b. C697, The SUDS Manual.
DeNardo, J.C., Jarrett, A.R., Manbeck, H.B., Beattie, D.J., Berghage, R.D., 2005.
Stormwater mitigation and surface temperature reduction by green roofs.
Trans. ASAE 48 (4), 1491–1496.
Dunnett, N., Kingsbury, N., 2004. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. Timber
Press, Cambridge, UK.
English Nature, 2003. Green Roofs: Their Existing Status and Potential for
Conserving Biodiversity in Urban Areas. English Nature Report No. 498,
Peterborough.
FLL (Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau), 2002.
Guidelines for the Planning, Execution and Upkeep of Green-Roof Sites.
Gedge, D., 2003. From Rubble to Redstarts, Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities, Chicago, 29–30 May, pp. 233–241.
Getter, K.L., Rowe, D.B., Andersen, J.A., 2007. Quantifying the effect of slope on
extensive green roof stormwater retention. J. Ecol. Eng. 31, 225–231.
Getter, K., Rowe, B., 2008. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Extensive Green Roofs.
World Green Roof Congress – London, 17–18th September 2008.
Herman, R., 2003. Green roofs in Germany: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, 29–30 May, pp.
41–45.
 V. Stovin et al. / Journal of Hydrology 414–415 (2012) 148–161
Hutchinson, D., Abrams, P., Retzlaff, R., Liptan, T., 2003. Stormwater Monitoring Two
Ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities Conference, Chicago, 29–30 May, pp. 372–389.
Jarret, A.R., Berghage, R.D., 2008. Annual and Individual Green Roofs Stormwater
Response Models, 6th Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities
Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Johnston, C., McCreary, K., Nelms, C., 2004. Vancouver Public Library Green Roof
Monitoring Project, 2nd Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conf.,
Portland, 2–4 June, pp. 391–403.
Kasmin, H., Stovin, V.R., Hathway, E.A., 2010. Towards a generic rainfall-runoff
model for green roofs. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (4), 898–905.
Köhler, M., Schmidt, M., Grimme, F.W., Laar, M., Paiva, V.L.A., Taveres, S., 2002.
Green roofs in temperate climates and in the hot-humid tropics – far beyond
the aesthetics. Environ. Manage. Health 13 (4), 382–391.
Köhler, M., 2004. Green Roof Technology – From a Fire-Protection System to a
Central Instrument in Sustainable Urban Design, 2nd Green Roof Conference,
Portland, Oregon.
Kolb, W., 2004. Good reasons for roof planting – Green roofs and rainwater. Int. Conf
on Urban Horticulture, Acta Horticulturae, No.643, 295-300.
Liptan, T., 2003. Planning, Zoning and Financial Incentives for Ecoroofs in Portland,
Oregon. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Chicago,
29–30 May, pp. 113–120.
Liu, K., Minor, J., 2005. Performance Evaluation of an Extensive Green Roof. Greening
Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Washington DC, 4–6 May.
Mentens, J., Raes, D., Hermy, M., 2003. Effect of Orientation on the Water Balance of
Greenroofs. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, 29–30
May, pp. 363–371.
Mentens, J., Raes, D., Hermy, M., 2006. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater
runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 217–
226.
Met Office, 2010. <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/>.
Moran, A., Hunt, B., Jennings, G., 2004. A North Carolina Field Study to Evaluate
Greenroof Quantity, Runoff Quality, and Plant Growth, 2nd Greening Rooftops
for Sustainable Communities Conf., Portland, 2–4 June, pp. 446–460.
161
Moran, A., Hunt, B., Smith, J., 2005, Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance from
Greenroofs in Goldsboro and Raleigh, North Carolina, Greening Rooftops for
Sustainable Communities Conference, Washington DC, 4–6 May.
NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), 1975. The Flood Studies Report.
NERC (Natural Environment Research Council), 1999. Flood Estimation Handbook
(FEH) CD.
Palla, A., Lanza, L.G., La Barbera, P., 2008. A green roof experimental site in the
Mediterranean climate. In: 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 31/8-5/9.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., Lanza, L.G., 2010. Hydrologic restoration in the urban
environment using green roofs. Water 2, 140–154.
Sailor, D.J., 2008. A green roof model for building energy simulation programs.
Energy Build. 40, 1466–1478.
She, N., Pang, J., 2010. Physically based green roof model. J. Hydrol. Eng. (ASCE) 15
(6), 458–464.
Stovin, V., 2010. The potential of green roofs to manage urban stormwater. Water
Environ. J. 24 (3), 192–199.
Uhl, M., Schiedt, L., 2008. Green roof storm water retention –monitoring results. In:
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 31/
8-5/9.
Van Seters, T., Rocha, L., MacMillan, G., 2007. Evaluation of the runoff quantity and
quality performance of an extensive green roof in Toronto, Ontario. In: 5th
Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conf., Minneapolis.
VanWoert, N.D., Rowe, D.B., Andresen, J.A., Rugh, C.L., Fernandez, R.T., Xiao, L., 2005.
Green roof stormwater retention: effects of roof surface, slope, and media
depth. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 1036–1044.
Voyde, E., Fassman, E., Simcock, R., 2010. Hydrology of an extensive living roof
under sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. J. Hydrol. 394,
384–395.
WaPUG (Wastewater Planning Users Group), 2002. Code of Practice for the
Hydraulic Modelling of Sewer Systems. <http://www.ciwem.org/knowledge-
networks/groups/wapug/publications/code-of-practice.aspx>.