Stormflow against streamflow – Can LID-provided storage capacity ensure performance efficiency and maintenance of pre-development flow regime?

• Published in: Journal of hydrology (Amsterdam) Vol. 602; p. 126768
• Main Authors: Khadka, Ambika, Kokkonen, Teemu, Koivusalo, Harri, Niemi, Tero J., Leskinen, Piia, Körber, Jan-Hendrik
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01-11-2021
• Subjects: Performance efficiency; Pre-development flow regime; Storage capacity; Pre-development flow regime; Storage capacity; Performance efficiency
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126768
• EISSN: 1879-2707
• ISSN: 0022-1694

•The need for cost-efficient stormwater management designs is high.•Dynamic storage assessment of designs can quantify storage recovery rate.•Both storage capacity and capture ratio are important for cost efficiency.•Infiltration must be added to piped stormflow when compared to streamflow.•Comprehensive model simulations can help designers in identifying key LID units.
The goal of Low Impact Development (LID) is to restore and maintain the pre-development flow regime. The static storage capacity, which is often used as a parameter in LID designs, provides the maximum capacity of an LID type and is easily quantifiable already at the design phase. However, the static storage approach does not consider the inter-event recovery of storage capacity by infiltration and evapotranspiration. This study investigated dynamic storage capacities of three stormwater management designs with increasing proportions of LID units on a 1.2 ha urban residential block in Southern Finland, to compare their cost-efficiency, as well as their potential in restoring the pre-development flow regime. The cost-efficiency of LID designs was assessed based on their ability to contribute to water losses, and on the additional construction costs required when comparing them to conventional solutions (e.g. asphalt replaced with permeable pavement). The design with a small storage capacity and a large capture ratio, i.e., the ratio of contributing area to LID area, was the least efficient albeit its small construction cost. The design with an appropriate balance between the capture ratio and the LID provided storage capacity was the most efficient option. In assessing the potential of stormwater designs in restoring the pre-development flow regime, the sum of infiltration and flow in storm sewer networks was more representative of the catchment total runoff than flow alone. Finally, an extensive simulation of a large set of differently placed LID units proved useful in a priori identification of the most influential units in the treatment train.