Potential for Potable Water Savings in Buildings

by Using Stormwater Harvested from Permeable

Pavements

Lucas Niehuns Antunes

Enedir Ghisi, PhD

Department of Civil Engineering

 Introduction
Runoff management in urban areas has been seen in a more ecological way due to the
appearance of sustainable drainage systems that collect, store, process, and redistribute or
recycle water.
Benefits: reducing runoff, groundwater recharge, as well as water savings by recycling and
pollution prevention.
Permeable pavements: examples of sustainable drainage systems
Pagoto et al. (2000): Heavy metals are reduced by up to 74%, solids are retained at the rate of
87% and hydrocarbons are intercepted at an even higher rate (90%).
Brattebo and Booth (1999): Significantly better performance for permeable pavements.
Almost all precipitation infiltrated through the systems. Toxic concentrations of copper and
zinc were found in 97% of samples of the conventional pavement. However, concentrations
were below the detectable toxic level in 31 out of 36 water samples infiltrated in permeable
pavements.
 Objective

The objective of this study was to estimate the potential for potable water savings in the
buildings of residential, public, and commercial sectors of Florianópolis, southern Brazil, by
using stormwater from permeable pavements. Infiltration for different types of pavements
were also assessed.
 Methodology
Infiltration through Asphalt Concrete Slabs
 Methodology
• Infiltration through Asphalt Concrete Slabs
 Methodology
Water Quality
The analysis of rainwater quality was divided into three stages:
1) Before contact with the asphalt draining concrete slabs;
2) After rainwater infiltration through the slabs;
3) Quality of stormwater samples collected directly from the runoff of a road.
Parameters analysed: aluminium, ammonia, copper, chromium, iron, phosphorus, nitrite,
dissolved oxygen, pH, and zinc.
 Methodology
Potential for Potable Water Savings
Rainwater would be used for non-potable uses such as flushing toilets and urinals, cleaning
external areas, and garden watering.
Volume of stormwater collected from roads was stored in one or more water tanks.
Netuno computer programme, version 4, was used for the assessment of potential for
potable water savings for different tank capacities.
Input data: daily rainfall, surface area of pavements, daily average potable water demand,
rainwater demand and runoff coefficient.
Simulations were performed for paved areas equal to 100%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 1%,
and 0.1% of the total surface area of paved roads in Florianópolis.
 Results and Discussion
Infiltration through Asphalt Concrete Slabs

• Rainwater infiltration = 85.4%

• No significant difference between

the slabs modified with asphalt-
rubber and the slabs modified with
SBS polymer.
• No significant difference between
the slabs without water cycling
and slabs with water cycling.
 Results and Discussion
Infiltration through Asphalt Concrete Slabs

• Although the coefficient of determination is low, there is a trend in which rainwater

infiltration through the slabs increases as rainwater volume also increases
 Results and Discussion
Water Quality
 Results and Discussion
Water Quality
 Results and Discussion
Water Quality
 Results and Discussion
Water consumption
 Results and Discussion
Water end-uses
 Results and Discussion
Rainfall Data
 Results and Discussion
Rainfall Data

• The average annual rainfall over this period was 1766 mm

 Results and Discussion
Measurement of the paved roads

Map of the paved roads of Florianópolis

 Results and Discussion
Potential for Potable Water Savings in Buildings
 Results and Discussion
Potential for Potable Water Savings in Buildings
 Results and Discussion
Potential for Potable Water Savings in Buildings
 Results and Discussion
Potential for Potable Water Savings in Buildings
 Results and Discussion
Potential for Potable Water Savings in Buildings
 Conclusions
This is a first study on the matter. Therefore, if this comes to be used in Florianópolis or any
other place, attention should be given to sizing rainwater tank capacities in order to get
smaller capacities, finding places to locate the tanks, distributing rainwater to buildings, and
treating stormwater etc.
The treatment and the subsequent use of stormwater collected from permeable pavements
for use in non-potable purposes could reduce the consumption of potable water, minimize
water rationing, decrease the shortage of water resources, and in addition would control one
of the main sources of the pollution of rivers and streams.
 Reference

Antunes, L.N.; Thives, L.P.; Ghisi, E. Potential for potable water savings in buildings by using
stormwater harvested from porous pavements. Water 2016, 8, 110.
 Environmental Evaluation of the Use of Infiltrated
Stormwater from a Permeable Pavement System in
Comparison with a Conventional Drainage System
through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Lucas Niehuns Antunes

Enedir Ghisi, PhD

Department of Civil Engineering

 Introduction
Life cycle assessment has been applied to assess the environmental performance of water
infrastructures, such as permeable pavements
Environmental impacts associated with construction, maintenance and disposal, mainly
evaluating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the consumption of energy and
natural resources
De Sousa et al. (2012): environmental performance of green infrastructures (permeable
pavements and bioretention basins) by comparing them to grey infrastructure. The results
showed that green infrastructures emitted 75% to 95% less greenhouse gases, mainly due to the
lower use of electricity during the life cycle.
Wang et al. (2018): 73.48% of energy consumption, 46.70% of greenhouse gas emissions, 98.33%
of lead emissions and 99.70% of zinc emissions could be avoided by using permeable pavement
instead of conventional pavement.
 Objective

The objective of this work is to evaluate and compare environmentally, through the life cycle
assessment, two drainage systems for a parking lot: the first compound of a permeable
pavement system, with subsequent use of the stormwater harvested; and the second composed
by a traditional drainage system (with conventional pavement), without the use of stormwater.
 Methodology
Object of study

- Epagri
- Florianópolis
- Public building
- 82% of the end-uses for
non-potable purposes (flush
toilets and urinals, garden
watering, wash cars)
- Two blocks; two floors
- Total area = 8,025 m²
 Methodology
Scenario 1:
Permeable Pavement Model • Type: No infiltration

• Asphalt mixture: layer 5 cm;

agreggates 4.8 mm to 9.5 mm;
5.0% rubber

• Choker Course: layer 3 cm;

agreggates 19 mm

• Reservoir Course: layer

Source: Adapted from Hammes et al. (2018) calculated by NBR16416;
agreggates max. 37 mm

• Infiltration rate = 80%

 Methodology
Scenario 1:
Permeable Pavement Model

• Reservoir course design

• Hmáx = (∆QcR + P – fTe)/Vr
 Methodology
• Hydraulic System: Pumps, pipes, connections
• Hm = Hg x K
• P = (𝛾 x Qr x Hm)/(75 x 𝜂)
• Dr = 1,3 x √Q x (√(t/24))^(1/4)

• Additional Treatment and Water Quality

• Quality parameters recommended by NBR 15527 (ABNT, 2007)
• Disinfection by chlorination Economic and easy maintenance
 Methodology
• Potential for Potable Water Savings
• Use of stormwater for non-potable uses such as flushing toilets and urinals,
cleaning external areas, and garden watering
• Netuno, version 4

• Potential for Energy Savings

• ES = CSW x Etreatment
 Methodology
• Scenario 2:
Traditional Pavement (Conventional Drainage System)
• Flexible pavement
• Structural Design: DNER (1981)
• Earthwork, sub-bed regularization, sub-base compaction, base, asphalt layer
• Drainage of stormwater: gravitational, through gutters, storm drains and pipes that
will route the stormwater drained by the pavement to the public system.
 Methodology
• Comparison of the systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Based on ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
• Goal and Scope Definition:
• Function:
• Water supply for non-potable uses in the building
• Time horizon:
• 20 years (lifespan of most components of the hydraulic systems)
• Functional unit:
• Total volume of water consumed in the building during the time horizon
• Input and output data will always be referred to the functional unit
 Methodology
• Comparison of the systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Goal and Scope Definition:
• System boundaries:
• From the acquisition of raw materials, production, use, post-use treatment,
recycling until final disposal
• Omissions of life cycle stages:
• Comparative evaluation All identical elementary processes between the two
scenarios will be omitted
• Cut-off criteria:
• Initially 1% in terms of mass, provided their environmental relevance is observed
 Methodology
• Comparison of the systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Inventory analysis:
• Data collection and calculation procedures to quantify the relevant inputs and
outputs in each of the system processes (use of the software OpenLCA)
• Quantification of inputs (RIBEIRO, 2015):
• Total Effects: TEpp = IEEpp + MEpp + OEpp + EFpp
TEcs = IEcs + MEcs + OEcs + EFcs
• Initial Embedded Effects: IEEpp = IMEpp
IEEcs = IMEcs
• Maintenance Effects: ME = Σ(IEEc x nr)
nr = (H/LScomp) – 1
• Operation Effects: OE = O x H
• End-of-life Effects: EF = ED + ET + Σ(EF x nr)
 Methodology
• Comparison of the systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Inventory analysis:
• Quantification of outputs:
• Database available on Ecoinvent
• Atmospheric emissions
• Emissions in water
• Emissions in soil
 Methodology
• Comparison of the systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Impact assessment: ReCiPe Method
• Selected categories are related to human health, ecosystem quality and resource
depletion (endpoints)
• Midpoints:
• Global warming potential / Climate change
• Ozone depletion
• Ionizing radiation
• Acidification
• Eutrophication
• Eco-toxicity
• Human toxicity
• Land use transformation
• Depletion of minerals
• Depletion of fossil fuels
• Abiotic depletion potential
• Water depletion
 Methodology
• Comparison of the systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Interpretation:
• The conclusions of the inventory analysis and impact assessment are considered
together
• Comparison of environmental effects by category
• Categories of impact most affected
• Components with greater environmental impact
• Main life cycle phases contributing to environmental impacts
• Conclusions, limitations and recommendations
• If necessary, it should involve an iterative process
 Expected Results

• Which of the two systems has the highest environmental impact in each of the
categories chosen for evaluation?
• Categories of impact most affected
• Components with greater environmental impact
• Life cycle phases that contribute most to environmental impacts
• Proposing improvements to minimize the environmental impacts generated
• Guide planning and decision making
• Provide scientific guidance for choosing more sustainable drainage systems
• Improve stormwater management in urban centers
 References

• Antunes, L.N.; Ghisi, E.; Thives, L.P. Permeable Pavements Life Cycle
Assessment: A Literature Review. Water 2018, 10, 1575.
• De Sousa, M.R.C.; Montalto, F.; Spatari, S. Using life cycle assessment to
evaluate green and grey combined sewer overflow control strategies. J. Ind. Ecol.
2012, 16, 901–913.
• Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Ghadimi, B.; Abdelhady, A.; Harvey, J. Initial evaluation
methodology and case studies for life cycle impact of permeability of permeable
pavements. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 7, 169–178.
• Hammes, G.; Thives, L.P.; Ghisi, E. Application of stormwater collected from
porous asphalt pavements for non-potable uses in buildings. J. Environ. Manag.
2018, 222, 338–347.
Water Consumption in Schools:
Case Studies in Brazil

Lucas Niehuns Antunes

Enedir Ghisi, PhD

Department of Civil Engineering

 Introduction
The principles of sustainable development are becoming increasingly relevant to society,
where organizations and individuals have a relevant role to play in the process.
Many educational institutions are becoming more aware of their impact on the environment
and trying to understand the environmental needs and implications of their operations.
The rational use of water in buildings is becoming increasingly necessary.
Ilha et al. (2008) compared water consumption in several types of educational institutions in
Brazil, obtained by different authors, and the consumption varied from very low, for example,
0.51 liters/person/day (Werneck 2006), to very high, i.e., 81.1 liters/person/day (Oliveira and
Gonçalves 1999).
Methodology used to measure consumption varies greatly in each study, resulting in a great
variation in the consumption.
 Objective

This study aims to present a methodology for measuring water consumption in schools, as
well as to evaluate the implementation of a rainwater harvesting system in order to estimate
the potential for water savings. The economic feasibility of such strategy was also assessed.
 Methodology
Water consumption of 62 public schools (middle and high schools from the city of Florianópolis)
were evaluated.
Water consumption data from January 2016 to May 2017
Data on water consumption, number of students, hours of operation, type of education and
details about the buildings were obtained through a request to the General Coordination of
Education of Santa Catarina.
Two schools were selected as case studies: one with high water consumption and another with
low consumption. In these two schools, strategies to reduce potable water consumption by
using rainwater harvested from roofs for non-potable purposes were implemented.
Daily potable water consumption per capita in each school:
Cwater = (Cw x 1000) / (S x D)
 Methodology
Potential for potable water savings: Netuno, version 4.
Scenarios: Rainwater demands equal to 60%, 70% and 80% of the total water demand. This
percentage was defined based on other studies, such as Ywashima (2005), Marinoski and Ghisi
(2008), Fasola et al. (2009) and others.
Cpump = Ppump x t x N x Venergy
Ewater = [Cmonth x (Psavings / 100) x Vwater] – Cpump
Investment feasibility analysis:
Payback period:
Net present value:
Internal rate of return: = 0
 Results

• Consumption per capita varies from very low (0.81 liters/student/day) to very
high (35.42 liters/student/day).
• It can be stated that the samples do not follow a normal distribution.
• It is assumed that there are no significant differences between water
consumption of schools in relation to the type of education or period of
operation.
 Results

Fig. 2. Potable water consumption per capita in public schools located in

Florianópolis.
 Results
• Selecting two schools as case studies:

• School A: 17.13 liters/student/day

• School B: 3.12 liters/student/day

• School A: 5,635 m², serving 451 students in three periods. It has eleven
bathrooms and two kitchens. In total, there are twelve toilets with flushing
valve, twelve conventional lavatory taps, four sink taps, a shower and three
drinking fountains located in the corridors.

• School B: 1,550 m² and 576 students in three turns. There are three toilets with
flushing valve, eight dual flush toilets, two toilets for wheelchair users, three
urinals, seven lavatory taps with timer, two conventional lavatory taps, a
shower, three sink taps, a cleaning tap, a garden tap, four taps for general uses
and three drinking fountains in the corridors.
Results
 Results
• School A:

• A tank with a capacity equal to 30,000 liters, divided into two fibre tanks with a
capacity equal to 15,000 liters each, was chosen

• If the system was implemented, there would be potable water savings ranging
from 2,996 to 5,431 liters/day

• The initial investment of the rainwater harvesting system (tanks, pumps, filter,
pipes, connections, water break, float switch, solenoid valve, floating suction,
chlorinator, level float and labour) was R$ 28,032.93

• Monthly savings varied from R$ 910.81 to R$ 1,665.89

• The payback period varied from 20 to 36 months

• The net present value ranged from R$ 65,946.20 to R$ 141,787.56

• The internal rate of return ranged from 3.43% to 6.05% per month
Results
 Results
• School B:

• A tank capacity equal to 15,000 liters was selected

• If the system was implemented, there would be potable water savings ranging
from 542 to 1,574 liters/day

• The initial investment was R$ 18,461.04

• Monthly savings varied from R$ 159.14 to R$ 479.08

• For some scenarios (considering minimum water consumption) there was no

payback period. For other scenarios (average and maximum consumption) the
payback period varied from 46 to 83 months

• The net present value ranged from R$ -1,294.20 to R$ 31,573.72

• The internal rate of return ranged from 0.91% to 2.80% per month
 Conclusions
• The strategies proposed for School A are extremely necessary and economically
feasible, mainly due to the high potable water consumption.

• On the other hand, the improvements proposed for School B do not bring good
financial returns, being economically unfeasible for some scenarios.

• The results show that, before any implementation, it is necessary to study the
consumption and conditions of the building in order to obtain preliminary results
of the efficiency of the implementation proposed.

• It is possible to obtain a significant reduction in the water consumption. Thus,

such type of building has a great potential for contributing to the environmental
and economical scope, bringing significant savings to public coffers.
 References
• Ilha, M. S. O., Pedroso, P. L., & Ywashima, L. A. (2008). Indicadores de consumo de água
em escolas. XII Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Contruído. Available at:
http://www.infohab.org.br/entac2014/2008/artigos/A1875.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2018. (In
Portuguese).

• Werneck, G. A. M. (2006). Sistemas de utilização da água de chuva nas edificações: o

estudo de caso da aplicação em escola de Barra do Piraí, RJ. Masters dissertation, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (In Portuguese).

• Oliveira, L. H., & Gonçalves, O. M. (1999). Metodologia para a implantação de programa

de uso racional da água em edifícios. Available at:
http://www.sef.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2015/08/PUERHE_%C3%81gua-
BT_Oliveira.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2018. (In Portuguese).
 Thank you!
lucas_niehuns@hotmail.com
enedir@labeee.ufsc.br
www.labeee.ufsc.br