Sources and Impacts of Uncertainty in Uncalibrated

Bioretention Models Using SWMM 5.1.012

Elizabeth Fassman-Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE 1; and Firas Saleh, Ph.D. 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Using the USEPA’s Storm Water Management Model version 5.1.012 (SWMM), a case study of a street right-of-way bioretention
system (ROWB) configured as a storage node is compared against SWMM’s Low Impact Development (LID) Controls for urban runoff
retention, detention, and the timing of discharge. Through 12,000 one-year continuous simulations, single parameter perturbations and
Monte-Carlo simulation of the uncalibrated models result in predicted annual runoff coefficients (representing stormwater retention) of
0.19–0.55 for an exfiltrating ROWB compared to 0.61 and 0.72 for a storage node with low and high assumed exfiltration capacity,
respectively. Stormwater detention was represented by the frequency of event peak discharges exceeding an arbitrary low threshold value.
The storage node simulations predicted peak discharges near or exceeding the upper values for the LID Control simulations. The dynamic
representation of flow through porous media in the LID Control predicts greater retention and detention compared to the storage node over the
range of uncalibrated models investigated. Sensitivity analysis of the LID Control parameterization indicates that the relative difference
between the engineered media’s porosity and field capacity have the most significant influence on predicted performance. Poor runoff
retention results in scenarios where the engineered media exhibits a high field capacity relative to its porosity, whereas high field capacity
is a desirable trait that should lead to superior performance. The model’s calculation procedures and neglect of unsaturated flow or preferential
pathways bias model output toward more frequent runoff bypass. The sensitivity analysis also demonstrates that the timing and duration of
the discharge hydrograph are highly variable depending on parameterization. The wide range of potential performance generated from
uncalibrated model parameterization leads to significant concerns for infrastructure planning and implementation, leading potentially to
underperforming infrastructure, or excessive cost. Allocating resources to collect field performance data that enables robust model develop-
ment, calibration, and verification at the green infrastructure (GI) stormwater control measure (SCM) scale offers the opportunity to reduce
uncertainty in model predictions. DOI: 10.1061/JSWBAY.0000944. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bioretention; Hydrologic modeling; Green infrastructure; Low impact development (LID); Sensitivity analysis;
Uncertainty; Storm water management model (SWMM); Stormwater.

Introduction Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and total maxi-

Increasingly, solutions to manage stormwater and comply with
state and federal environmental regulations in the US rely on green
infrastructure (GI) or low impact development (LID) technologies.
Billion dollar–level investments in GI in cities including (among
others) New York City, Philadelphia, Omaha, Columbus (Ohio),
and Washington DC are in progress to reduce the frequency and
volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and to comply with
federal legislation such as the Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Policy (USEPA 1994) and Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000. In
Seattle and Portland (Oregon), GI implementation to keep conta-
minated runoff out of receiving waters is driven largely by the
federal Endangered Species Act (1973). Elsewhere across the
US, such as in Southern California, investments of hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars in GI are aimed to address Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge
1
Principal Engineer, Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project, 3535 Harbor Blvd., Suite 110, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6214-6783. Email:
elizabethfb@sccwrp.org
2
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Ocean Engi-
neering, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 13, 2020; approved on
December 16, 2020; published online on April 5, 2021. Discussion period
open until September 5, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Sustainable Water
in the Built Environment, © ASCE, ISSN 2379-6111.
mum daily load (TMDL) plans to restore the quality of impaired
waterways, as per Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (1992).
Smaller communities are also subject to CSO and MS4 regulations.
For example, the USEPA reports that the majority of combined
sewer systems (CSSs) in nearly 860 communities serve fewer than
10,000 people each (USEPA 2018). Likewise, NPDES permits are
required for communities across the US for MS4s serving popula-
tions as small as 10,000 people, among other dischargers.
Achieving the hydrologic mitigation and water quality objec-
tives associated with CSO mitigation and MS4 permits increasingly
relies on GI and LID solutions that integrate a combination of
1. Reducing the volume of runoff entering a combined or separate
storm sewer through on-site stormwater retention. Processes
contributing to retention include promoting runoff to infiltrate
into in-situ soils [including exfiltration from a stormwater con-
trol measure (SCM) to the surrounding soils], storing runoff in
soils (or engineered media) for subsequent evapotranspiration
(ET), or rainwater harvesting and reuse;
2. Reducing the peak flow rate of runoff entering the combined or
separate storm sewer through stormwater detention. Detention is
achieved by temporarily storing runoff for later release off-site
(e.g., into the downstream sewer); and
3. Staggering the arrival of peak flows into the combined or sep-
arate storm sewer by manipulating the timing of subcatchment
peak discharges. Timing of discharges depends on relative lo-
cations of GI SCMs, impervious area, sewer inlets, buried
pipes, etc.

© ASCE 04021006-1 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006

 Each of the mitigating functions are related: retention affects
detention and timing, while detention affects timing. In each case,
hydrologic models are critical tools for developing urban runoff
mitigation strategies, in particular by quantifying the influence
of GI SCMs. Flow through engineered media is the key operational
process in GI SCMs such as bioretention, green (living) roofs, and
permeable pavement to mitigate runoff hydrology. Flow through
engineered media provides stormwater retention and detention re-
gardless of the potential for the GI SCM to exfiltrate to in-situ soils.
While empirical assessments of individual GI SCMs is rapidly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increasing, modeling approaches have been slow to evolve. Ac-
cording to an industry survey, one typical approach is to model
a media-filled GI SCM as a storage node or stormwater pond,
whose storage capacity is dictated by the porosity of the media,
and other relevant elements (such as a surface ponding zone and
possible underlying stone storage layer in the case of bioretention)
(Arcadis 2016). Flow routing calculations have been applied as a
steady-discharge (e.g., constant rate exfiltration to subsoils or
through underdrains), or through an adaptation of reservoir-routing.
From an operational perspective, the active storage available to
manage a runoff event in a stormwater pond is an empty reservoir
(a bucket) that fills from the bottom up, and drains by gravity. Con-
versely, water flow through a media-filled GI SCM follows a tor-
tuous path, the rate of which is controlled largely by characteristics
of the media and the media’s moisture conditions (which change
throughout the duration of a runoff event). In underdrained media-
filled GI SCMs, the characteristics of the underdrain can also in-
fluence runoff control. In simplistic terms, flow routing through a
stormwater pond versus a media-filled GI SCM can be compared to
filling and draining a bucket with a hole in it versus watering a
potted plant.
The USEPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) version
5.1 (2010) was the first open source model to provide routines to
explicitly model the processes thought to govern the hydrology of
media-filled GI SCMs. These routines have recently been incorpo-
rated into commercial software, such as InfoWorks ICM (Inno-
vyze). SWMM uses the term LID Control, rather than GI SCM.
LID is an industry term that predates GI, and is often used inter-
changeably by engineers (Fletcher et al. 2014). In the SWMM LID
Control, runoff from the catchment temporarily ponds on the sur-
face of a GI SCM such as a bioretention system (Fig. 1), prior to
seepage into the engineered media, or bypass through the overflow.
Once the engineered media surface is saturated, water in the
Fig. 1. Bioretention configuration: (a) exfiltrating system that discharges to surrounding in-situ soils; and (b) underdrained system with discharge of
managed flows to a downstream system such as a storm or combined sewer.
© ASCE 04021006-2
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006
ponding zone infiltrates through the surface according to the
Green-Ampt model (Rossman and Huber 2016). Runoff is retained
(stored) within the engineered media up to a volumetric water con-
tent (θ) equivalent to the media’s field capacity (θfc ). Excess water
is detained (temporarily stored), up to a maximum θ equal to the
porosity (ϕ) of the media. Water percolates out of the media accord-
ing to Darcy’s Law, and into the underlying storage layer (usually a
gravel layer). Lateral exfiltration (through the sides of the SCM) is
not simulated. The storage layer may or may not have underdrains.
Without underdrains [Fig. 1(a)], water that percolates through the
media to the storage layer exfiltrates to the surrounding soils. In a
continuous simulation, drying of the media through ET provides
storage recovery. SWMM restricts the media’s lowest moisture
content to its wilting point (θwp ). Various mass balance checks be-
tween SCM layers impose additional constraints on flow through
the system (Rossman and Huber 2016). If a unique runoff event is
bounded from the time of the onset of rainfall to the cessation of
free drainage from the SCM (exfiltration or underdrain flow), these
processes are summarized as
θmin ≥ θwp : initial moisture content at the onset of storm
θwp ≤ θðtÞ < θfc : runoff infiltrating from ponding zone is re-
tained in the media
θfc ≤ θðtÞ < ϕ: additional runoff infiltrates from the ponding
zone according to Green-Ampt, is temporarily detained in the me-
dia, and percolates to gravel storage layer according to Darcy’s Law
Uncalibrated SWMM models are found in the literature
to evaluate bioretention placement for stormwater mitigation
(Bahrami et al. 2019; Dietrich et al. 2017; Fry and Maxwell 2017;
Yang 2018), to prioritize bioretention implementation within mar-
ginalized communities (Garcia-Cuerva et al. 2018), to evaluate
SCM mitigation under climate change scenarios (Zahmatkesh
et al. 2014), and for GI cost-benefit and triple bottom line analysis
(Huang et al. 2018; Li et al 2017; Mei et al. 2018).
Calibrated studies of the SWMM LID Controls using experi-
mental or empirical data are limited. At the watershed scale, Rosa
et al. (2015) successfully calibrated and verified a SWMM model
using watershed parameters as calibration parameters, rather than
parameters within the LID Controls. Textbook values were used for
the GI SCM parameterization. Avellaneda et al. (2017) used outfall
flow-duration curves to calibrate the hydrologic simulation of a res-
idential neighborhood with 58 individual SCMs. Bioretention
SCMs were parameterized using unspecified field data and text-
book values. Liu and Fassman-Beck (2016b, 2017) demonstrated
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.
 the importance of measured hydrologic parameters to calibrate
SWMM for laboratory columns of bioretention and green (living)
roof media when simulating large storm events. The assumption
that percolation from the media to the storage layer does not occur
until field capacity is reached created substantial error in predicting
the timing of bioretention outflow, while the actual magnitude of
peak flow and discharge volume were well reproduced (Liu and
Fassman-Beck 2017). The method to quantify the field capacity
substantially influenced model error; better model predictions were
observed when the field capacity was calibrated as the residual
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
moisture content after columns ceased gravity drainage compared
to a nominal measurement using a tension test at −10 kPa. Gülbaz
and Kazezyılmaz-Alhan (2017) combined some measured media
properties with user-manual parameterization to assess SWMM
predictions for outflow from laboratory columns, without further
calibration. Peak flow and outflow volume were underpredicted
compared to measured column outflow. Hohaia et al. (2011) ob-
served a significant influence of nonphysically based parameters
describing underdrain functions in calibrating SWMM for per-
meable pavement.
Limited studies have explored the impact of parameterization
in SWMM hydrology (Ahmed et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2013;
Zhang et al. 2018), but no studies to date have investigated the rep-
resentation and parameterization of flow processes within the SCM.
Few experimental studies measure engineered media characteristics
required to parameterize Green-Ampt infiltration or Darcy’s Law
percolation in the SWMM LID Control SWMM (Aravena and
Dussaillant 2009; Brown et al. 2013; Dussaillant et al. 2005;
Fassman-Beck et al. 2015; Liu and Fassman-Beck 2016b; Torbati
2010), thus introducing one source of uncertainty for uncalibrated
models. Overall, while the theoretical development of SWMM’s
LID Controls appears reasonable, its accuracy has yet to be
assessed.
Considering the massive investment in GI, the importance of
modeling accuracy and/or understanding uncertainty is evident.
Through sensitivity analysis, the investigation presented in this pa-
per explores sources of uncertainty introduced by uncalibrated
models for a GI SCM, and quantifies their impact on predicting
runoff retention and detention. A SWMM case study of a street
right-of-way bioretention system (ROWB) configured as a SWMM
storage node is compared against configuration using the SWMM
LID Control. The effects of flow process representation and input
variable parameterization on retention and detention performance
metrics, and an example of their influence on hydrograph timing
predictions are considered. The overall objective of this research
is to highlight sources of uncertainty in model predictions, and
use this knowledge to prioritize future monitoring and/or modeling
efforts.
Methods
Site Description
An existing ROWB on Junius St., Brooklyn, NY is the basis of this
sensitivity analysis. This catchment is part of the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection’s (NYCDEP) comprehen-
sive program for GI implementation to support CSO mitigation
(NYCDEP 2014). The area is largely occupied by land used for
industrial, manufacturing, transportation, or utility activities.
The ROWB’s drainage area is 366 m2 of urban street (assumed
98% impervious), and is served by a combined sewer (Fig. 2). The
ROWB is straight-sided, with dimensions described in Table 1. The
fill media of the ROWB is characterized as loamy sand (NYCDEP
© ASCE
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006
2014). The ROWB is designed to exfiltrate to surrounding soils
[i.e., there are no underdrains nor bottom impervious liner, as per
Fig. 1(a)].
SWMM Configurations
Catchment Hydrology
The study site was modeled using SWMM version 5.1.012
(Gironás et al. 2010). For each model configuration, a continuous
simulation was executed at a 60-s time step using hourly rainfall
data from 2008 available from John F. Kennedy (JFK) International
Airport (National Weather Service, n.d.) (Fig. 3). NYCDEP adopts
2008 as the “average hydrologic year” for its long term control
planning for CSO mitigation and for measuring compliance with
a 2012 Consent Order (Arcadis 2016). The total annual accumu-
lated precipitation in 2008 was 117.5 cm. Over the long-term,
small storms dominate the rainfall record. Analysis of 24-h rainfall
totals at JFK 1948–2017 indicate that 85% of daily rainfall delivers
2.5 cm or less.
Runoff from the catchment to the ROWB was modeled using the
full dynamic wave flow routing option based on the Saint-Venant
equations (de Saint-Venant 1871). Daily ET was calculated by
SWMM according to the Hargreaves method using temperature
data downloaded from the same weather station at JFK.
Storage Node ROWB
For consistency with the industry’s current common approach, the
ROWB was modeled using a storage node with a static maximum
capture capacity equal to 2.54 cm of runoff from the managed
drainage area, in accordance with design documentation (Arcadis
2016). The volumetric properties of a storage node are described by
a function or table of surface area versus depth. The storage node
was modeled with a 9.3-m2 footprint equivalent to the actual
ROWB (Table 1); thus it is 1.0-m-deep to accommodate the total
required storage volume. Runoff in excess of 2.54 cm bypasses
the system. The model depletes runoff captured in a storage node
through surface evaporation, modeled using the Hargreaves’ method,
and vertical exfiltration into in-situ soil at an assumed rate of
4.4 cm=h. Assumptions regarding evaporation or ET have not been
investigated herein. It would be unusual to find homogenous soils in
an urban environment; therefore, for comparison, the storage node
configuration was also simulated with an arbitrarily assumed lower
exfiltration rate of 1.3 cm=h.
SWMM LID Control (GI-Specific Representation):
Exfiltrating ROWB
For the purposes of the present study, only an exfiltrating ROWB
configuration is considered [Fig. 1(a)]. SWMM conceptualizes an
exfiltrating bioretention system as three layers: surface, soil, and
storage (Rossman and Huber 2016). In the model, each of the layers
are described according to their depth and a series of parameters
quantifying their hydrologic properties
• Surface: maximum ponding depth, vegetation coverage, Mann-
ing’s roughness, slope;
• Soil (engineered media): media depth, porosity, field capacity,
wilting point, hydraulic conductivity, conductivity slope, and
suction head. These parameters are used in the Green-Ampt sur-
face infiltration and Darcy’s Law percolation calculations; and
• Storage: depth, void ratio, and seepage rate.
Ranges of engineered media parameter values were defined
from the literature for various soil classes and a few actual biore-
tention systems. Collating information from the experimental stud-
ies that quantify engineered media characteristics created ranges of
parameter values generally wider than the ranges reported as typical
04021006-3 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. The modeled ROWB and tributary drainage area on Junius St., Brooklyn, New York. Source of lower panel is Google Earth. (©2020 Google
Earth, Data SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO.)

Table 1. ROWB specifications for the study site

Specification Value
Length (m) 6.1
Width (m) 1.5
Depth of engineered media (m) 0.6
Depth of storage layer (m) 0.6
Managed area (m2 ) 366.2
Source: Data from NYCDEP (2014).

for bioretention media in the SWMM user manual (Table 2). The
values in the SWMM user manual are predominantly sourced from
jurisdictional design manuals (Rossman and Huber 2016), without
further reference. Larger values of parameters such as field capacity
or porosity, and such as the upper bounds of parameter values used
herein, are not surprising for GI SCM engineered media. Engi-
neered media are often comprised of materials that maximize
stormwater storage and retention. For example, engineered media Fig. 3. Observed 2008 precipitation at John F. Kennedy International
derived from pumice yields very high field capacity because pum- Airport.
ice holds water within the aggregate itself, unlike a marine sand or
iron sand (Fassman-Beck et al. 2015; Liu and Fassman-Beck
2016a). Because SWMM’s flux calculations between layers dic-
tates that porosity must exceed field capacity to avoid a numerical
Sensitivity Analysis
error, the upper limit of porosity in the allowable range for the cur-
rent analysis is forced reasonably high (0.7), but is not too far above A sensitivity analysis framework was implemented for parameter
the range measured by Liu and Fassman-Beck (2016a). For surface combinations built by sampling values for each parameter from
and storage layers, parameter defaults were adopted as per the uniform distributions. Limited parameterization of the surface layer
user’s manual (Rossman and Huber 2016). and storage layers was also investigated.

© ASCE 04021006-4 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006

 Table 2. Engineered media characteristics for model parameterization
Parameter
Saturated hydraulic
conductivity
Porosity, ϕ
Field capacity, θfc
Wilting point, θwp
Conductivity slope
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
SWMM manual vol. 3
5.1–14.0 cm=h
0.45–0.60 cm3 =cm3
0.15–0.25 cm3 =cm3
0.05–0.15 cm3 =cm3
30–55
5.1–10.2 cm
This study Literature sources
1–89 cm=h Aravena and Dussaillant (2009), Brown et al. (2013), Dussaillant
et al. (2005), Liu and Fassman-Beck (2016b), Rawls et al. (1983)a,
and Torbati (2010)
0.25–0.70 cm3 =cm3 Brown et al. (2013), Fassman-Beck et al. (2015), Liu and
Fassman-Beck (2016b), Rawls et al. (1983)a, and Torbati (2010)
0.1–0.4 cm3 =cm3 Brown et al. (2013), Fassman-Beck et al. (2015), Liu and
0.01–0.16 cm3 =cm3 Fassman-Beck (2016b), and Torbati (2010)
30–60 Rawls et al. (1983)a
1–45.7 cm Rawls et al. (1983)a

Soil suction head

a
Textbook values for natural soils, with textures sandy loam to sand.

The sensitivity analysis framework was controlled by a set of
automated Python and R scripts that generate LID Control param-
eters, pre and postprocess inputs/outputs, and coordinate the ex-
change of files between the generated random parameters of the
ROWB and the SWMM input files (Fig. 4). The SWMM project
file (named with a .INP extension) contains all the information used
to model the study area and was generated for each sensitivity
analysis simulation to cover all the combinations of generated
ROWB parameters for this site.
Initially, the sensitivity analysis was performed by systemati-
cally perturbing a single input parameter at a time. However,
SWMM’s calculation procedure depends on interactions between
parameters, e.g., the available storage capacity and the hydraulic
conductivity influence water movement from the ponding (surface)
layer to the soil (engineered media) layer, and vary throughout a
single storm event. Therefore, a Monte Carlo simulation was also
performed to investigate the effect of randomly and simultaneously
perturbing input parameters within the allowable ranges.
Performance Metrics
Runoff retention and detention for the catchment were selected as
metrics for evaluating model sensitivity. The annual runoff coeffi-
cient was selected to quantify retention. It is the ratio of runoff vol-
ume discharging from the catchment to annual rainfall, calculated
according to
Runoff Coefficient
Annual Runoff Volume into Combined Sewer
¼ ð1Þ
Annual Rainfall
In the current analysis, the runoff volume discharging from the
catchment is determined as runoff bypassing the ROWB, which
subsequently enters the combined sewer.
The metric for evaluating runoff detention was arbitrarily se-
lected as the number of peak flows occurring with magnitude
greater than 0.6 L=s during the simulated 2008 year. The threshold
of 0.6 L=s was identified as a low flowrate that could be feasibly
measured with typical field monitoring equipment, such as a
Fig. 4. SWMM sensitivity analysis framework.
pressure transducer coupled with a primary device, based on expe-
rience of the first author. It does not indicate conditions that could
cause a CSO or any other critical in-sewer conditions. The assumed
interevent time is 6 h (Driscoll et al. 1989). The assumptions of the
magnitude of the threshold flow rate and interevent time influence
the model’s determination of individual events. It is used here for
comparative purposes only, because the conditions are applied con-
sistently across all simulations.
To provide example insight into the effects of model parameter-
ization on prediction of the timing of discharges from an ROWB,
the runoff hydrograph predicted by multiple model configurations
were compared for a single storm of approximately 3.9 cm occur-
ring February 1–2, 2008. This storm was chosen because it is close
to the theoretical 95th percentile event for total depth, which is in
the range of common design storms recommended for GI SCM
design in many jurisdictions in the US.
Results and Discussion
LID Control Sensitivity to Parameterization for
Retention
The sensitivity analysis includes 12,000 simulations to quantify
and analyze model output variability caused by the assumed
ROWB input parameter values (Table 3). It must be emphasized
that these results are for comparison of how model configuration
influences results, and highlights the uncertainty inherent in the use
of an uncalibrated model. Accuracy cannot be assessed because
there is no comparison to observed performance.
Single-parameter sensitivity analysis for an exfiltrating ROWB
using the LID Control showed that the runoff coefficient is not sen-
sitive to surface or storage layer parameterization. Likewise, the
runoff coefficient was not influenced by the engineered media’s
wilting point, hydraulic conductivity, conductivity slope, or soil
suction head (Table 3). It is hypothesized that the wilting point
could emerge as a sensitive parameter depending on ET assump-
tions. Studies have shown that ET from GI differs substantially
from common ET estimates derived from climate data and readily
provided by climate stations, especially during periods when water
is limited (Poë et al. 2015; Voyde et al. 2010; Berretta et al. 2014;
DiGiovanni et al. 2013; Voyde 2011; Wadzuk et al. 2013; Hess
et al. 2017).
The single-parameter sensitivity analysis approach suggests that
the runoff coefficient predicted by the model is predominantly sen-
sitive to field capacity (Table 3). Deeper investigation indicates that
the relative difference between field capacity and porosity is the
most influential factor in SWMM’s LID Control calculations.
SWMM assumes that all water entering the ROWB media layer
is retained until the moisture content reaches the engineered

© ASCE 04021006-5 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006

 Table 3. Sensitivity analysis: LID Control input parameter ranges and resultant runoff coefficients
SWMM Allowable Number of Default Other Runoff
layer Parameter Units range runs value parameters coefficienta
Surface Manning’s n Dimensionless 0.025–0.3 1,000 0.1 Default 0.2
Soil Porosity, ϕ Volume/volume 0.25–0.70 1,000 0.41 Default 0.2–0.3
Soil Field capacity, θfc Volume/volume 0.1–0.4 1,000 0.19 Default 0.2–0.55
1,000 0.19 ϕ = 0.61 0.2–0.21
Soil Wilting point, θwp Volume/volume 0.01–0.16 1,000 0.085 Default 0.2
Soil Saturated hydraulic conductivity cm/h 1–89 1,000 38 Default 0.22
1,000 38 ϕ = 0.61 0.22
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Soil Conductivity slope Dimensionless 30–60 1,000 40 Default 0.2–0.22

Soil Suction head cm 1–45.7 1,000 11 Default 0.2
Storage Void ratio Volume/volume 0.25–0.70 1,000 0.4 Default 0.2
Storage Seepage rate cm/h 0.03–89 1,000 4.4 Default 0.2
Monte Carlo simulations 1,000 Parameters randomly and 0.19–0.50
simultaneously perturbed
a
Bold values indicate sensitive parameters. A single value indicates the model is not sensitive to perturbations in this parameter.

media’s field capacity (Rossman and Huber 2016). Until this state
of moisture content, the model assumes there is no percolation out
of the media into the underlying storage layer. In other words, there
is no unsaturated flow that can create flow out of the media. Once
field capacity is reached, additional runoff entering the media, up to
the capacity dictated by its porosity, is temporarily stored (de-
tained). The amount of water entering the media layer from the
ponding layer at any time step is limited by the media layer’s avail-
able storage. Available storage is determined by the balance be-
tween the difference between the actual moisture content at any
time and the porosity, and the rate at which water percolates out
of the media and into the underlying storage layer. This latter step
is not usually limiting, because the storage layer in an ROWB is
usually large rock that drains freely. However, water in the ponding
zone cannot infiltrate into the engineered media if there is no avail-
able storage in a given time step, and any new inflow bypasses the
ROWB via the overflow.
The difference between the field capacity and porosity can be an
important performance-limiting artefact introduced by the LID
Control’s calculation procedure, rather than an actual physical phe-
nomenon. The LID Control calculates significant available pore
space for water to infiltrate into the media layer during runoff con-
ditions with an engineered media characterized by low field capac-
ity relative to porosity (Fig. 5). Conversely, infiltration from the
surface is substantially limited at any time after the media’s mois-
ture content equals field capacity, when the media’s field capacity
value is close to the porosity (Fig. 5). In this case, the available
Fig. 5. Conceptual representation of the importance of field capacity
versus porosity. The bucket represents the total volume of engineered
media. The water in the bucket represents the maximum retained runoff
for medias with high and low field capacity. Temporary available sto-
rage for runoff detention depends on the relative difference between the
media porosity and field capacity.
temporary storage is always low even if percolation is significant,
minimizing infiltration from the surface and thereby causing an in-
crease in system overflow (bypass). In practice, preferential flow
paths are available (Liu and Fassman-Beck 2017), inflow may
not be uniformly distributed over the surface (Brown et al. 2015),
and the media is not necessarily saturated when infiltration and per-
colation occur (Carpenter and Hallam 2010; Liu and Fassman-Beck
2018). Assumptions that percolation out of the media does not oc-
cur until the field capacity is satisfied, and that temporary available
storage is limited by the relationship between field capacity and
porosity, are seen as limitations to the LID Control calculations that
introduce error and uncertainty.
The range of model results in Fig. 6(a) from the single parameter
perturbation sensitivity analysis reflect the ROWB when there is a
relatively large difference between field capacity and porosity
(Fig. 5). There is always substantial available storage and the an-
nual runoff coefficient shows little variation (0.2–0.3), suggesting
the ROWB retains and exfiltrates substantial runoff. However,
when the field capacity approaches the assumed porosity (Fig. 5),
there is little available storage, so water cannot infiltrate the media
from the surface ponding layer [Fig. 6(b), in this case, above a field
capacity of approximately 0.3 when porosity is fixed at 0.41]. In-
stead, it bypasses the system and results in high values of the annual
runoff coefficient. Concurrently, little water is available to percolate
out of the media into the storage layer, and into the surrounding
soils, shown as a decrease in annual exfiltration for high values
of field capacity [Fig. 6(c)]. Under these conditions with imposed
limitations on available storage, the runoff coefficient varies more
substantially from 0.2 to 0.55.
The change in runoff response is not easily predicted when all
parameters are perturbed using the Monte Carlo simulation [com-
paring Fig. 7 with Figs. 6(a and b)]. A soil’s actual porosity, field
capacity, wilting point, and hydraulic conductivity will change with
environmental conditions. For example, field capacity at any time is
partly a function of pore size distribution (affected by media set-
tling/compaction), and organic content, both of which will change
over time, while porosity will be substantially affected by media
settling/compaction. Root growth enhances hydraulic conductivity
by providing structure, and counteracting clogging and/or compac-
tion from long-term operation (Hatt et al. 2009; Muerdter et al.
2018). While these variations are not expressly modeled, the high
variability in the runoff coefficient resultant from random pertur-
bation could be considered more representative of the day-to-
day variation in operating conditions.

© ASCE 04021006-6 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Example effects of the interaction between field capacity and porosity on the (a and b) runoff coefficient; and (c) exfiltration to surrounding
soils in the SWMM 5.1.012 LID Control.
Fig. 7. Annual runoff coefficient prediction using Monte Carlo
Simulation for an exfiltrating ROWB modeled using the SWMM
5.1.012 LID Control.
The Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that the uncalibrated
LID Control models can produce a wide range of uncertainty; the
predicted value of the annual runoff coefficient more than doubled
over the scenarios tested. Best case planning would adopt GI SCM
parameters that produced the lowest runoff coefficients. Two
significant risks emerge: (1) that engineered media properties of
the as-built SCMs do not match the model parameterization; and
(2) implementation fails to adequately mitigate stormwater impacts
and/or protect the downstream environment. Worst case planning
risks excessive expenditure for infrastructure design, implementa-
tion, and long-term operation and maintenance because more
and/or larger SCMs would be required to satisfy objectives. Allo-
cating resources to collect field performance data that enables
robust model development, calibration, and verification offers the
opportunity to reduce uncertainty in model predictions, and narrow
the gap between best and worst case scenarios.
Detention and Runoff Timing Sensitivity to LID Control
Parameterization
Runoff detention and timing receive less attention in the GI SCM
literature compared to retention; however, they are essential
© ASCE
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006
hydrologic mitigation functions to achieve CSO and MS4 objec-
tives in areas with poor in-situ infiltration capacity, extensive sub-
surface utilities, high groundwater, subsurface transit (such as
subways), or contaminated soils. LID guidance manuals frequently
promote site design to extend the postdevelopment catchment time
of concentration. GI SCMs that delay downstream discharge may
reduce the volume and duration of excess loading to CSS (Davis
et al. 2011, 2012), particularly in sewersheds with short times of
concentration. Nissen et al. (2020) suggest that accurately quanti-
fying the timing of GI SCM discharges is essential to strategic plan-
ning for CSO mitigation.
As discussed, retention, detention, and timing are linked
phenomenon. It is therefore unsurprising that the variability in
the uncalibrated LID Control model retention prediction due to en-
gineered media parameterization is likewise observed in the mod-
els’ predictions of runoff detention or timing. The Monte Carlo
simulations yield a detention performance metric that nearly dou-
bles over the range of potential outcomes, predicting the occurrence
of 17–28 peak flows exceeding 0.6 L=s, depending on the engi-
neered media’s parameterization.
Simulations of a single runoff event using the LID Control dem-
onstrates uncertainty generated by an uncalibrated model on the
timing of the runoff hydrograph (Fig. 8). The compiled Monte
Carlo simulations for an approximately 3.9-cm storm suggest that
the most significant influence is in the timing of the rising limb. The
delay in initial discharge from the ROWB underdrain to the down-
stream sewer is anywhere from none to approximately 6 h in these
simulations. The relationships between porosity, field capacity, and
temporary available storage previously discussed also impact de-
tention and timing prediction because they directly influence the
frequency and magnitude of flow bypass.
LID Control versus Storage Node
The storage node approach consistently yields more conservative
estimates of ROWB hydrologic mitigation for retention or deten-
tion compared to the LID Control (Table 4). The assumed value of
the exfiltration rate for the storage node resulted in a runoff coef-
ficient of 0.61 and 0.72, for a high and low exfiltration rate, respec-
tively, compared to 0.19–0.55 over all parameterizations of the LID
Control. Likewise, the storage node with a higher assumed exfil-
tration rate (4.4 cm=h) yielded peak flow control that is only as
good as the worst case scenario for detention in the LID Control.
ROWB hydrology as represented by the LID Control incorpo-
rates highly dynamic flow processes, incorporating retention and
04021006-7 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Runoff variability for a single storm event predicted using
Monte Carlo simulation for a subcatchment with an exfiltrating ROWB
modeled using the SWMM 5.1.012 LID Control.
Table 4. Comparative performance
Number of peak Runoff
Scenario flows >0.6 L=s coefficient
Baseline (no GI) 63 0.96
Storage node model 27 0.61
(exfiltration at 4.4 cm=h)
Storage node model 36 0.72
(exfiltration at 1.3 cm=h)
SWMM LID control 17–28a 0.19–0.55
a
Monte Carlo simulation: all parameters perturbed over allowable ranges
(Table 2).
detention influences of flow through porous media. The compara-
tive underestimation of hydrologic mitigation from the storage
node approach arises from the static estimate of maximum capture
potential, equal to the volume of the node, and the fill and drain
flow representation. Greater investment in GI SCMs would be re-
quired to achieve mitigation objectives if the storage node approach
were used rather than the LID Control for GI SCM planning, ac-
cording to most model configurations evaluated. It is worth repeat-
ing that there are no claims as to the accuracy of any of the
predictions herein. It is the responsibility of the modeler to under-
stand the limitations and opportunities of any model, and convey
the information to decision-makers. In this case, the comparison
between the use of the LID Control and the storage node is used
to demonstrate the effects of how flow through the ROWB is si-
mulated overall within the model.
Summary and Conclusions
A sensitivity analysis was used to investigate model prediction un-
certainty derived from ROWB flow process representation in
SWMM version 5.1.012, comparing scenarios where the ROWB
was modeled as a storage node or using the LID Control, and un-
certainty derived from parameterization of the ROWB within the
LID Control. The LID Control simulates flow through the engi-
neered media of a bioretention system using a modified form of
Green-Ampt infiltration coupled with Darcy’s Law, whereas the
storage node is an empty reservoir that fills and drains independent
of media.
© ASCE
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006
While the theoretical development of the SWMM LID
Control should represent the complex flow process that occurs
in bioretention SCMs, the 12,000 uncalibrated models investigated
result in a large range of predicted runoff coefficients and occur-
rences of peak flows: doubling or tripling the performance metrics
representing runoff retention and detention. Likewise, the brief
look at a single runoff hydrograph for a representative storm event
shows quite substantial variation in the timing of the outflow and
outflow hydrograph duration. The LID Control requires substantial
parameterization, often for properties where data are not readily
available. On the other hand, the sensitivity analysis indicates
that the only critical parameters influencing predictions of runoff
control for an exfiltrating ROWB are the engineered media’s field
capacity and porosity. Most importantly, SWMM version 5.1.012
assumptions neglecting unsaturated flow and constraints on fluxes
between the ponding zone and the media layer bias results towards
greater bypass, artificially underestimating GI SCM performance in
runoff mitigation. Specifically, engineered media characterized by
high field capacity relative to porosity results in a higher annual
runoff coefficient, contrary to empirical science encouraging these
properties in media design.
A storage node approach is much simpler, but results are con-
sistent with the upper end of the ranges, i.e., a more conservative
estimate of runoff control, and likely underestimation of perfor-
mance. It is abundantly clear that where uncalibrated models are
applied in planning and design, variable parameterization should
be tested, and performance variation should be expected and re-
ported. This is not current common practice.
An optimal GI SCM parameterization and deterministic runoff
estimates from an uncalibrated model are difficult to quantify be-
cause they are cross-dependent. Different parameters can have the
same effect on the hydrologic modeling outputs, as demonstrated
by a Monte Carlo simulation. The importance of calibration and
verification with observed data cannot be underestimated, regard-
less of the algorithm (i.e., representing a GI SCM as a storage node
or using the LID Control). This contributes to the growing literature
that shows the importance of GI SCM design and parametrization
(Kaini et al. 2012) and capacities (Youn et al. 2012).
Integrated at a sewershed scale, the implications for predicting
CSO occurrence (or prevention), MS4 compliance or other storm-
water management planning with an uncalibrated model are baffling.
Literally, billions of dollars are being invested across the US in GI
SCMs to minimize, protect, or restore water resources from the im-
pacts of urban stormwater runoff. Management and policy decisions
on these strategies and specific project implementation rely heavily
on hydrologic modeling. The scenarios in this paper suggest that
substantial investment in GI SCM data collection to support hydro-
logic model calibration and/or development is imperative. After all, it
is ethically the responsibility of civil engineers to “hold paramount
the safety, health and welfare of the public” (ASCE 2017).
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by Riverkeeper, Inc. through the New York
City Stormwater Infrastructure Matters (SWIM) Coalition. Stevens
Institute of Technology (Hoboken, NJ) provided in-kind support.
04021006-8 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.
 References
Ahmed, K., E.-S. Chung, J.-Y. Song, and S. Shahid. 2017. “Effective
design and planning specification of low impact development prac-
tices using water management analysis module (WMAM): Case of
Malaysia.” Water 9 (3): 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030173.
Aravena, J. E., and A. Dussaillant. 2009. “Storm-water infiltration and fo-
cused recharge modeling with finite-volume two-dimensional Richards
equation: Application to an experimental rain garden.” J. Hydraul. Eng.
135 (12): 1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0000111.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Arcadis. 2016. “Green infrastructure performance metrics report prepared
for the city of New York department of environmental protection.”
Accessed February 28, 2017. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html
/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure_plan.shtml.
ASCE. 2017. “Code of ethics.” Accessed January 6, 2019. https://www
.asce.org/code-of-ethics/.
Avellaneda, P. M., A. J. Jefferson, J. M. Grieser, and S. A. Bush. 2017.
“Simulation of the cumulative hydrological response to green infra-
structure.” Water Resour. Res. 53 (4): 3087–3101. https://doi.org/10
.1002/2016WR019836.
Bahrami, M., O. Bozorg-Haddad, and L. Hugo. 2019. “Optimizing storm-
water low-impact development strategies in an urban watershed consid-
ering sensitivity and uncertainty.” Environ. Monit. Assess. 191 (6):
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7488-y.
Berretta, C. S. Poë, and V. Stovin. 2014. “Moisture content behaviour in
extensive green roofs during dry periods: The influence of vegetation
and substrate characteristics.” J. Hydrol. 511 (2014): 374–386. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.036.
Brown, R. A., T. P. O’Connor, and M. Borst. 2015. “Divergent vegetation
growth patterns relative to bioinfiltration unit size and plant placement.”
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ. 1 (3): 04015001. https://doi.org/10
.1061/JSWBAY.0000796.
Brown, R. A., R. W. Skaggs, and W. F. Hunt. 2013. “Calibration and val-
idation of DRAINMOD to model bioretention hydrology.” J. Hydrol.
486 (Apr): 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.02.017.
Carpenter, D. D., and L. Hallam. 2010. “Influence of planting soil mix
characteristics on bioretention cell design and performance.” J. Hydrol.
Eng. 15 (6): 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584
.0000131.
Davis, A. P., J. M. Olszewski, R. G. Traver, R. A. Brown, W. F. Hunt, and
R. Lee. 2012. “Hydrologic performance of bioretention storm-water
control measures.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (5): 604–614. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000467.
Davis, A. P., R. G. Traver, W. F. Hunt, R. Lee, R. A. Brown, and J. M.
Olszewski. 2011. “Hydrologic performance of bioretention storm-water
control measures.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (5): 604–614. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000467.
Dietrich, A., R. Yarlagadda, and C. Gruden. 2017. “Estimating the potential
benefits of green stormwater infrastructure on developed sites using
hydrologic model simulation.” Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy
36 (2): 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12428.
DiGiovanni, K., F. Montalto, S. Gaffin, and C. Rosenzweig. 2013. “Appli-
cability of classical predictive equations for the estimation of evapotran-
spiration from urban green spaces: Green roof results.” J. Hydrol.
Eng. 18 (1): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584
.0000572.
Driscoll, E. D., G. E. Palhegyi, E. Strecker, and P. Shelley. 1989. Analysis of
storm event characteristics for selected rainfall gages throughout the
United States. Rep. for the USEPA. Washington, DC: USEPA.
Dussaillant, A. R., K. W. Potter, and C. H. Wu. 2005. “Infiltration of storm-
water in bioretention cells: Numerical model and field experiment.”
Ingenieria Hidraulica Mex. 20 (2): 5–17.
Fassman-Beck, E., S. Wang, R. Simcock, and R. Liu. 2015. “Assessing
the effects assessing the effects of bioretention’s engineered media com-
position and compaction on hydraulic conductivity and water holding
capacity.” J. Sustainable Water Built Environ. 1 (4): 04015003. https://
doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000799.
Fletcher, T., et al. 2014. “SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more: The
evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage.”
© ASCE 04021006-9
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006
Urban Water J. 12 (7): 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X
.2014.916314.
Fry, T. J., and R. M. Maxwell. 2017. “Evaluation of distributed bmps
in an urban watershed—High resolution modeling for stormwater man-
agement.” Hydrol. Processes 31 (15): 2700–2712. https://doi.org/10
.1002/hyp.11177.
Garcia-Cuerva, L., E. Zechman Berglund, and L. Rivers. 2018. “An inte-
grated approach to place green infrastructure strategies in marginalized
communities and evaluate stormwater mitigation.” J. Hydrol. 559 (Apr):
648–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.066.
Gironás, J., L. A. Roesner, L. A. Rossman, and J. Davis. 2010. “A new
applications manual for the storm water management model (SWMM).”
Environ. Modell. Software 25 (6): 813–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.envsoft.2009.11.009.
Gülbaz, S., and C. M. Kazezyılmaz-Alhan. 2017. “An evaluation of hydro-
logic modeling performance of EPA SWMM for bioretention.” Water
Sci. Technol. 76 (11): 3035–3043. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017
.464.
Hatt, B. E., T. D. Fletcher, and A. Deletic. 2009. “Pollutant removal per-
formance of field-scale stormwater biofiltration systems.” Water Sci.
Technol. 59 (8): 1567–1576. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.173.
Hess, A., B. M. Wadzuk, and A. W. Welker. 2017. “Evapotranspiration in
rain gardens using weighing lysimeters.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 143 (6):
04017004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001157.
Hohaia, N., E. Fassman, W. F. Hunt, and K. A. Collins. 2011. “Hydraulic
and hydrologic modelling of permeable pavement.” In Proc., World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011: Bearing Knowl-
edge for Sustainability. Palm Springs, CA: World Environmental and
Water Resources Congress. https://doi.org/10.1061/41173(414)61.
Huang, C. L., N. S. Hsu, H. J. Liu, and Y. H. Huang. 2018. “Optimization
of low impact development layout designs for megacity flood mitiga-
tion.” J. Hydrol. 564 (Sep): 542–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol
.2018.07.044.
Kaini, P., K. Artita, and J. W. Nicklow. 2012. “Optimizing structural best
management practices using SWAT and genetic algorithm to improve
water quality goals.” Water Resour. Manage. 26 (7): 1827–1845.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-9989-0.
Li, J., C. Deng, Y. Li, Y. Li, and J. Song. 2017. “Comprehensive benefit
evaluation system for low-impact development of urban stormwater
management measures.” Water Resour. Manage. 31 (15): 4745–4758.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1776-5.
Liu, R., and E. Fassman-Beck. 2016a. “Effect of composition on
basic properties of engineered media for living roofs and bioretention.”
J. Hydrol. Eng. 21 (6): 06016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE
.1943-5584.0001373.
Liu, R., and E. Fassman-Beck. 2016b. “Hydrologic response of engineered
media in living roofs and bioretention to large rainfalls: Experiments
and modeling.” Hydrol. Processes 31 (3): 556–572. https://doi.org/10
.1002/hyp.11044.
Liu, R., and E. Fassman-Beck. 2017. “Hydrologic experiments and mod-
eling of two laboratory bioretention systems under differenct boundary
conditions.” Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 11 (4): 10. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11783-017-0951-5.
Liu, R., and E. Fassman-Beck. 2018. “Pore structure and unsaturated hy-
draulic conductivity of engineered media for living roofs and bioreten-
tion based on water retention data.” J. Hydrol. Eng. 23 (3): 04017065.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001621.
Mei, C., J. Liu, H. Wang, Z. Yang, X. Ding, and W. Shao. 2018. “Integrated
assessments of green infrastructure for flood mitigation to support
robust decision-making for sponge city construction in an urbanized
watershed.” Sci. Total Environ. 639 (Oct): 1394–1407. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.199.
Muerdter, C. P., C. K. Wong, and G. H. LeFevre. 2018. “Emerging inves-
tigator series: The role of vegetation in bioretention for stormwater
treatment in the built environment: Pollutant removal, hydrologic func-
tion, and ancillary benefits.” Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 4 (5):
592–612. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EW00511C.
National Weather Service. n.d. “Weather forecasts.” Accessed June 15,
2017. http://www.weather.gov/okx/KennedyHistorical.
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.
 Nissen, K., M. Borst, and E. Fassman-Beck. 2020. “Bioretention planter
performance measured by lag and capture.” Hydrol. Processes 34 (25):
5176–5184. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13927.
NYCDEP (New York City Department of Environmental Protection). 2014.
“Report for post-construction monitoring green infrastructure neighbor-
hood demonstration areas.” Accessed June 12, 2017. http://
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/cso_long_term_control_plan/post-construction
-monitoring-report-gi-neighborhood-demonstration-areas.pdf.
Poë, S., V. Stovin, and C. Berretta. 2015. “Parameters influencing the regen-
eration of a green roof’s retention capacity via evapotranspiration.” J. Hy-
drol. 523: 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.02.002.
Rawls, W. J., D. L. Brakensiek, and N. Miller. 1983. “Green-ampt infiltra-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria on 08/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion parameters from soils data.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 109 (1): 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1983)109:1(62).
Rosa, D. J., J. C. Clausen, and M. E. Dietz. 2015. “Calibration and veri-
fication of SWMM for low impact development.” J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 51 (3): 746–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12272.
Rossman, L., and W. Huber. 2016. Stormwater management model refer-
ence manual volume III: Water quality. EPA/600/R-16/093. Cincinnati:
Office of Research and Development.
Saint-Venant, A. J. C. Barré de 1871. “Théorie du mouvement non perma-
nent des eaux, avec application aux crues des rivières et à l’introduction
des marées dans leurs lits.” Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences
73: 147–154 and 237–240.
Torbati, S. S. 2010. “Pollutant removal evaluation and hydrologic charac-
terization by continuous simulation for a concrete lined bioretention
cell.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Auckland.
USEPA. 1994. Federal register: The daily journal of the United States.
59 Federal Register 75 Federal Register. Washington, DC: USEPA.
USEPA. 2018. “Combined sewer overflows.” Accessed March 15, 2018.
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-csos.
© ASCE 04021006-10
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2021, 7(3): 04021006
Voyde, E. 2011. “Quantifying the complete hydrologic budget for an
extensive living roof.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Auckland.
Voyde, E., E. Fassman, R. Simcock, and J. Wells. 2010. “Quantifying
evapotranspiration rates for New Zealand green roofs.” J. Hydrol.
Eng. 15 (6): 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584
.0000141.
Wadzuk, B. M., D. Schneider, M. Feller, and R. G. Traver. 2013. “Evapo-
transpiration from a green-roof storm-water control measure.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 139 (12): 995–1003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR
.1943-4774.0000643.
Wang, H. W., Y. F. Mao, Y. Gao, J. H. Fan, S. F. Zhang, and L. M. Ma.
2013. “Analysis of bioretention cell design elements based on Fourier
amplitude sensitivity test (fast).” Adv. Mater. Res. 779–780: 1369–
1375. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.779-780.1369.
Yang, Y. 2018. “Rapid assessment of hydrologic performance of low im-
pact development practices under design storms.” J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 54 (3): 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12637.
Youn, S.-G., E.-S. Chung, W. G. Kang, and J. H. Sung. 2012. “Probabilistic
estimation of the storage capacity of a rainwater harvesting system con-
sidering climate change.” Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 65 (Aug): 136–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.05.005.
Zahmatkesh, Z., S. J. Burian, M. Karamouz, H. Tavakol-Davani, and
E. Goharian. 2014. “Low-impact development practices to mitigate
climate change effects on urban stormwater runoff: Case study of
New York City.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 141 (1): 04014043. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000770.
Zhang, L., Q. Lu, Y. Ding, P. Peng, and Y. Yao. 2018. “Design and per-
formance simulation of road bioretention media for sponge cities.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 32 (5): 04018061. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001209.
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.