Please wait a minute...
 首页  期刊列表 期刊订阅 开放获取 关于我们
English
在线预览  |  当期目录  |  过刊浏览  |  热点文章  |  下载排行
Frontiers of Engineering Management
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Life cycle cost savings analysis on traditional drainage systems from low impact development strategies
Pengfei ZHANG, Samuel T. ARIARATNAM()
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287–3005, USA
全文: PDF(935 KB)   HTML
导出: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Areas that are covered with natural vegetation have been converted into asphalt, concrete, or roofed structures and have increased surface impermeability and decreased natural drainage capability. Conventional drainage systems were built to mimic natural drainage patterns to prevent the occurrence of waterlogging in developed sites. These drainage systems consist of two major components: 1) a stormwater conduit system, and 2) a runoff storage system. Runoff storage systems contain retention basins and drywells that are used to store and percolate runoff, whereas conduit systems are combination of catch basins and conduit pipes used to collect and transport runoff. The construction of these drainage systems is costly and may cause significant environmental disturbance. In this study, low impact development (LID) methods that consist of extensive green roofs (GRs) and permeable interlocking concrete pavements (PICPs) are applied in real-world construction projects. Construction project documents were reviewed, and related cost information was gathered through the accepted bidding proposals and interviews of specialty contractors in the metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona. Results indicate that the application of both LID methods to existing projects can save an average of 27.2% in life cycle costs (LCC) for a 50-year service life and 18.7% in LCC for a 25-year service life on the proposed drainage system, respectively.

Keywords low impact development      traditional drainage system      hydraulic benefits      life-cycle cost     
在线预览日期:   
服务
推荐给朋友
免费邮件订阅
RSS订阅
作者相关文章
Pengfei ZHANG
Samuel T. ARIARATNAM
引用本文:   
Pengfei ZHANG,Samuel T. ARIARATNAM. Life cycle cost savings analysis on traditional drainage systems from low impact development strategies[J]. Front. Eng, 07 April 2020. [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1007/s42524-020-0063-y.
网址:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-020-0063-y     OR     http://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y/V/I/0
Fig.1  Watershed segregation per grading and drainage plan.
Fig.2  Catch basins and associated conduit pipes.
Fig.3  Runoff flow rate comparison at each watershed (Case study #1).
Fig.4  Runoff flow rate comparison at each watershed (Case study #2).
Fig.5  Runoff flow rate comparison at each watershed (Case study #3).
From To Initial accumulated
flow (cfs)
Modified accumulated
flow (cfs)
Initial pipe size
(inch)
Modified pipe size
(inch)
Case
Study #1
WS1 WS2 0.50 0.23 15 12
WS2 WS3 1.05 0.46 18 15
WS3 Outflow 1.50 0.70 18 15
WS4 WS5 0.45 0.25 15 15
WS5 Outflow 0.81 0.46 15 15
WS6 WS7 0.42 0.19 15 15
WS7 WS8 0.71 0.35 18 15
WS8 WS9 1.18 0.55 24 22
WS9 WS10 1.61 0.73 24 22
WS10 WS11 1.87 0.87 24 22
WS11 WS12 2.32 1.07 30 24
WS12 WS13 2.81 1.40 30 26
WS14 WS15 0.59 0.38 18 18
WS15 WS16 1.15 0.63 18 18
WS16 WS17 1.67 0.86 24 22
WS17 WS18 2.10 1.08 24 22
WS19 WS20 0.55 0.24 18 15
WS20 WS21 0.84 0.40 24 22
WS21 WS22 1.27 0.58 24 20
WS22 WS23 1.72 0.78 30 24
WS23 WS24 2.01 0.93 30 24
WS24 WS25 2.34 1.10 30 24
WS25 WS26 2.43 1.19 30 26
WS26 WS27 2.72 1.37 30 26
WS27 WS28 3.01 1.54 30 26
WS29 WS30 0.49 0.27 15 15
WS30 WS31 0.90 0.51 15 15
WS31 WS32 1.38 0.79 18 18
WS33 WS34 0.49 0.28 15 15
WS34 Outflow 0.80 0.47 15 15
WS35 WS36 0.46 0.27 15 15
WS36 WS37 0.84 0.48 18 18
WS37 WS38 1.15 0.67 24 22
WS38 WS39 1.43 0.84 24 22
WS39 Outflow 1.71 0.99 24 22
Case
Study #2
WS7 WS6 0.21 0.07 8 6
WS6 WS5 0.38 0.17 8 6
WS5 WS4 0.67 0.44 12 12
WS4 WS1 1.33 0.77 18 15
WS1 WS2 1.58 0.93 24 20
WS2 WS3 1.96 1.15 24 20
WS3 Outflow 2.94 2.03 24 22
WS17 WS18 1.68 1.22 12 12
WS16 Outflow 0.41 0.31 18 18
WS18 Outflow 2.08 1.42 24 22
WS8 WS9 0.85 0.49 12 10
WS10 WS9 0.75 0.47 12 12
WS9 Outflow 1.96 1.19 18 15
WS19 Outflow 0.93 0.77 12 12
WS20 Outflow 0.42 0.33 12 12
WS11 Outflow 0.89 0.53 18 15
WS15 WS14 1.14 0.52 24 18
WS14 WS13 1.33 0.64 24 20
WS12 WS13 0.45 0.22 18 15
WS13 Outflow 2.42 1.30 24 20
Case
Study #3
WS1 WS2 0.33 0.23 12 12
WS2 WS3 0.66 0.45 12 12
WS3 Outflow 0.93 0.64 12 12
WS7 WS6 0.27 0.16 12 10
WS6 WS4 0.45 0.27 12 10
WS4 Outflow 0.63 0.44 12 12
WS8 WS9 0.27 0.16 12 10
WS9 WS10 0.62 0.41 12 12
WS10 WS14 0.94 0.62 12 12
WS13 WS14 0.07 0.05 12 12
WS14 Outflow 1.15 0.76 12 12
WS15 WS14 0.08 0.06 12 12
WS17 WS16 0.16 0.07 12 10
Tab.1  Summary for the alternative design
Project Service years LCC savings at different discount rates Average saving
rate
0% 3% 5%
1 50 $24317.04 $16517.73 $14122.15 9%
25 $11053.20 $11053.20 $11053.20
2 50 $33375.01 $22670.49 $19382.58 33%
25 $15170.46 $15170.46 $15170.46
3 50 $3435.96 $2333.93 $1995.44 7%
25 $1561.80 $1561.80 $1561.80
Tab.2  Life-cycle cost savings attributed to reduced pipe dimensions
Fig.6  LCC saving rate on the drainage system (Case study #1).
Fig.7  LCC saving rate on the drainage system (Case study #2).
Fig.8  LCC saving rate on the drainage system (Case study #3).
1 A S Braswell, R J Winston, W F Hunt (2018). Hydrologic and water quality performance of permeable pavement with internal water storage over a clay soil in Durham, North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Management, 224: 277–287
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.040 pmid: 30055460
2 City of Phoenix (2018). Triple bottom line cost benefit analysis of green infrastructure/low impact development (GI/LID) in Phoenix, AZ. City of Phoenix Result Report. Phoenix, AZ
3 K Collins, W F Hunt, J M Hathaway (2008). Hydrologic comparison of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(12): 1146–1157
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146)
4 J Drake, A Bradford, T Van Seters (2014). Hydrologic performance of three partial-infiltration permeable pavements in a cold climate over low permeability soil. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19(9): 04014016
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000943
5 Flood Control District of Maricopa County (2018). Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards. Maricopa, AZ
6 R Hakimdavar, P J Culligan, M Finazzi, S Barontini, R Ranzi (2014). Scale dynamics of extensive green roofs: Quantifying the effect of drainage area and rainfall characteristics on observed and modeled green roof hydrologic performance. Ecological Engineering, 73: 494–508
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.080
7 J Hill, J Drake, B Sleep, L Margolis (2017). Influences of four extensive green roof design variables on stormwater hydrology. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 22(8): 04017019
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001534
8 D Joksimovic, Z Alam (2014). Cost efficiency of low impact development (LID) stormwater management practices. Procedia Engineering, 89: 734–741
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.501
9 M Razzaghmanesh, S Beecham (2014). The hydrological behaviour of extensive and intensive green roofs in a dry climate. Science of the Total Environment, 499: 284–296
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.046 pmid: 25194906
10 M Shafique, R Kim, K Kyung-Ho (2018). Rainfall runoff mitigation by retrofitted permeable pavement in an urban area. Sustainability, 10(4): 1231
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041231
11 K X Soulis, N Ntoulas, P A Nektarios, G Kargas (2017). Runoff reduction from extensive green roofs having different substrate depth and plant cover. Ecological Engineering, 102: 80–89
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.01.031
12 S Suripin, S Sri Sangkawati, S A Pranoto, E Sutarto, B Hary, K Dwi (2018). Reducing stormwater runoff from parking lot with permeable pavement. In: The 3rd International Conference on Energy, Environmental and Information System (ICENIS 2018). E3S Web of Conferences (73): 05016
13 M Uda, T Van Seters, C Graham, L Rocha (2013). Evaluation of life cycle costs for low impact development stormwater management practices. Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
14 Water Environment Research Foundation (2009). User’s guide to the BMP and LID whole life cost models. Final Report 2009. Environmental Protection Agency
15 P F Zhang (2019). Life-Cycle-Cost Analysis of Using Low Impact Development Compared to Traditional Drainage Systems in Arizona: Using Value Engineering to Mitigate Urban Runoff. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University
16 P F Zhang, S T Ariaratnam (2018). Meta-analysis of storm water impacts in urbanized cities including runoff control and mitigation strategies. Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(6): 27–40
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v11n6p27
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 2015 高等教育出版社.
电话: 010-58556848 (技术); 010-58556485 (订阅) E-mail: subscribe@hep.com.cn