Advertisement

Life cycle cost savings analysis on traditional drainage systems from low impact development strategies

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

References

  1. Braswell A S, Winston R J, Hunt W F (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

  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. Collins K, Hunt W F, Hathaway J M (2008). Hydrologic comparison of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(12): 1146–1157

  4. Drake J, Bradford A, Van Seters T (2014). Hydrologic performance of three partial-infiltration permeable pavements in a cold climate over low permeability soil. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19(9): 04014016

  5. Flood Control District of Maricopa County (2018). Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards. Maricopa, AZ

  6. Hakimdavar R, Culligan P J, Finazzi M, Barontini S, Ranzi R (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

  7. Hill J, Drake J, Sleep B, Margolis L (2017). Influences of four extensive green roof design variables on stormwater hydrology. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 22(8): 04017019

  8. Joksimovic D, Alam Z (2014). Cost efficiency of low impact development (LID) stormwater management practices. Procedia Engineering, 89: 734–741

  9. Razzaghmanesh M, Beecham S (2014). The hydrological behaviour of extensive and intensive green roofs in a dry climate. Science of the Total Environment, 499: 284–296

  10. Shafique M, Kim R, Kyung-Ho K (2018). Rainfall runoff mitigation by retrofitted permeable pavement in an urban area. Sustainability, 10(4): 1231

  11. Soulis K X, Ntoulas N, Nektarios P A, Kargas G (2017). Runoff reduction from extensive green roofs having different substrate depth and plant cover. Ecological Engineering, 102: 80–89

  12. Suripin S, Sri Sangkawati S, Pranoto S A, Sutarto E, Hary B, Dwi K (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. Uda M, Van Seters T, Graham C, Rocha L (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. Zhang P F (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. Zhang P F, Ariaratnam S T (2018). Meta-analysis of storm water impacts in urbanized cities including runoff control and mitigation strategies. Journal of Sustainable Development, 11(6): 27–40

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Samuel T. Ariaratnam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, P., Ariaratnam, S.T. Life cycle cost savings analysis on traditional drainage systems from low impact development strategies. Front. Eng. Manag. (2020) doi:10.1007/s42524-020-0063-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • low impact development
  • traditional drainage system
  • hydraulic benefits
  • life-cycle cost