660

ARTICLE
A case study of flow characteristics of permeable pavements by
time and space model
Wuguang Lin, SungWoo Ryu, and Yoon-Ho Cho
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15

Abstract: Permeable pavement is widely used to improve the water circulation system in urban areas. The advantages of
using permeable pavement are the storage of rainwater, reduction of runoff, out-flow delay, and reduction of peak discharge.
The outflow characteristics of different types of permeable pavements are explained by runoff coefficients, which define the
relationship between runoff and infiltration rate. This study presents a model of cumulative outflow with respect to time
explaining the discharge characteristics of permeable pavement. The model can be used to explain storage capacity, delay
time, peak discharge rate, and outflow of pavement structure by accumulating total discharge at the surface and subsurface
relative to time. For further verification of the model, a rainfall simulation experiment was performed in the field. Based on the
data analysis through the developed model, the advantages of different permeable pavements can be characterized.
Key words: permeable pavement, pavement storage capacity, cumulative water flow, time and space model.
Résumé : Les chaussées perméables sont utilisées pour améliorer le système de circulation d’eau dans les zones urbaines. Elles
présentent les avantages suivants : l’entreposage de l’eau de pluie, la réduction du ruissellement, le délai des écoulements et la
réduction du débit de pointe. Les caractéristiques des rejets pour divers types de chaussées perméables sont expliquées en tant que
coefficient de ruissellement, lequel définit la relation entre le ruissellement et le taux d’infiltration. Cette étude présente un modèle
de rejet cumulatif qui tient compte du temps, expliquant les caractéristiques de décharge des chaussées perméables. Le modèle peut
servir à expliquer la capacité d’entreposage, le délai, le débit de pointe et le rejet par la chaussée en accumulant, dans le temps, la
For personal use only.

décharge totale à la surface et dans la sous-surface. Pour pousser la vérification du modèle, une expérience de simulation de précipi-
tations a été réalisée sur le terrain. En se basant sur l’analyse des données par le modèle mis au point, il est possible de caractériser les
avantages des diverses chaussées perméables. [Traduit par la Rédaction]
Mots-clés : chaussée perméable, capacité d’entreposage des chaussées, débit d’eau cumulatif, modèle de temps et d’espace.
1. Introduction of three porous pavement systems from the perspective of infil-
As urbanization continues, the convenience of the living envi- tration and runoff. Runoff coefficients of porous pavements at
ronment has improved with efficient land utilization. The water different precipitation conditions were measured to explain the
circulation system of the city changes as ground coverage in- relationship between infiltration capacity and pavement thick-
creases. The urbanization causes heat islands, desertification of ness. Pappas and Huang (2010) proposed a relationship between
the city, and floods. Permeable pavement is suggested in research the infiltration capacity of a permeable pavement system and the
fields to improve water circulation systems in urban areas. Four runoff rate. It showed that the runoff rate increases as the infil-
major functions of permeable pavement are storage of rainwater, tration rate decreases.
reduction of runoff, outflow delay, and delay of peak outflow; The objectives of this study are to describe the relationship of
these functions can be affected by pavement structure, permea- inflow and outflow of water, which explains surface and subsur-
bility of the pavement surface, and rainfall intensity and duration face outflows by cumulative concept. Furthermore, this study
(Sansalone and Teng 2004; Fassman and Blackbourn 2010). proposes a new simple model where parameters provide an as-
Permeable or porous pavement systems, generally, show signif- sessment tool to evaluate the outflow characteristics of different
icant reduction in runoff volume compared to dense asphalt pave- permeable pavement systems. Hydrologic responses of the pave-
ment systems. Most studies related to hydrology characteristics ment systems were defined and evaluated through field experi-
in permeable pavement systems focused only on runoff and eval- ment.
uated the efficiency of the permeable pavement system using
typical hydrograph or runoff coefficient. Collins et al. (2008) eval- 2. Discharge characteristics of pavement types
uated the flood prevention capacity of four types of permeable Pavement can be classified into impermeable, partially perme-
pavement systems and concluded that all of the permeable pave- able, and permeable pavement by drainage techniques at the sub-
ment systems significantly reduced surface runoff volumes and surface. The most common form of impermeable pavement uses
peak flow rates compared to asphalt pavement system based on dense grade asphalt and concrete, which are commonly used
observational data of rainfall and runoff. The majority of outflow for roads with high traffic volume. Rainwater on the surface of
resulting from permeable pavement system was in the form of impermeable pavement flows out of the structure by geometric
subsurface drainage. Hou et al. (2008) evaluated the performance and drainage design, not into the pavement itself. Consequently,

Received 9 April 2013. Accepted 28 May 2014.

W. Lin, S.W. Ryu, and Y.-H. Cho. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-Ro, Dongjak-Gu, Seoul,
Republic of Korea.
Corresponding author: Yoon-Ho Cho (e-mail: yhcho@cau.ac.kr).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 41: 660–666 (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0165 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 6 June 2014.
 Lin et al.
Fig. 1. Rainwater drainage system of each pavement type.
formation of water film on the surface of the road reduces contact
friction which could threaten drivers’ safety.
Partially permeable pavement was also named open-graded
friction course (OGFC). This type of pavement system was intro-
duced at an airport in England in mid-1950s to prevent the forma-
tion of a water slick on the runway (Shoenberger 1981). Generally,
only the surface layer of the pavement is designed with permeable
materials, while the sub-layers are impermeable. The porous ma-
terial is placed on the surface layer to drain water through the
air voids of the surface down into the pavement. Aside from pre-
venting water slick on the surface, the surface decreases noise,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15
enhances frictional resistance, and minimizes water splash. A
method of rainwater drainage for this pavement allows the rain-
water to penetrate only into the surface layer and is being dis-
charged at the side of the sub-layers. Runoff happens when the
permeable layer is saturated depending on the rain condition. The
ability of reducing peak discharge and delay runoff is limited.
Permeable pavement is a type of pavement that allows rainwa-
ter to penetrate into the surface and base layers, as well as sub-
grade down to the groundwater. The pavement can be classified
into two different systems depending on the permeable coeffi-
cient of the sub-grade. Systems with a permeable coefficient of the
subgrade that ranges from 1.0 × 10−3 to 1.0 × 10−5 mm/s are classi-
fied as partial infiltration system, while 0.1 × 10−1 to 1.0 × 10−3 mm/s
are classified as total infiltration system (Interpave 2008). In hy-
draulic design, the storage capacity under the surface pavement is
For personal use only.
usually calculated by the permeable coefficient of the materials or
porous ratio (Rollings and Rollings 1999; Smith 2006). Since per-
meable pavement secures the rainwater storage, it is better than
partially permeable pavement in terms of characteristics such as
delay of runoff, reduction of peak discharge, and total discharge.
Figure 1 shows a typical structure and the drainage system of each
pavement type.
3. Empirical model by water supply and demand
concept
Since this study covers outflows at both the surface and subsur-
face layers of the pavement system, it considers the outflow dis-
charge of each layer. The discharge over time can be explained
with the typical hydrograph. Start delay is the time when rainfall
begins until rainwater is discharged out of the surface or subsur-
face. Rising limb is the inclination when rainwater starts to be
discharged until the water flow becomes constant. The slope of
the rising limb depends on rainfall intensity; it is defined as the
period to reach peak discharge. Moreover, peak discharge is the
maximum constant level of water outflow.
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the typical and cumulative
hydrograph illustrations. In the typical hydrograph, the water
flow at each layer of the pavement is presented in individual
frames. The uppermost frame represents the water input through
rainfall and, subsequently, followed by individual discharges
661
from each section layer. The graph indicates that, after rainfall,
the discharge rate in all layers gradually decreases. While this
illustration can explain runoff behavior of rainwater, it is insuffi-
cient to describe the cumulative water flow response at its sub-
layers. Furthermore, it is limited to the individual outflow delay
over time and storage capacity, and does not show a cumulative
impact across all layers.
Meanwhile, the cumulative hydrograph plots the accumulated
water flow over time. Moreover, it presents the accumulated dis-
charge behaviors at every layer of the section on the same graph.
The input line in the cumulative hydrograph represents the total
input, while other lines represent the outflow at different layers.
Figure 2c shows a case where runoff occurs only on the surface.
When runoff occurs immediately after the rain, the discharge
reached its peak rapidly resulting in a relatively low water loss
due to absorption and infiltration. Figure 2d shows another case
where drainage at the sub-layer exists. This case happens in per-
meable pavements. Since the total outflow is the sum of runoff
and sub-layer discharge, the illustration shows that the outflow at
the sub-layer is directly proportional to the efficiency of the per-
meable pavement. Finally, Fig. 2e shows another diagram captur-
ing the responses attributed to absorption and infiltration. Hence,
the cumulative hydrograph can better explain the input and out-
put of water at different layers with respect to time easily similar
to time and space modeling in traffic engineering (Roess et al.
2010).
Figure 3 shows a cumulative flow hydrograph that explains the
relationship between precipitation and cumulative outflow dis-
charge. The straight line as “input” in the graph represents the
accumulated precipitation over time, and the slope of the line
indicates the rainfall intensity. The curve formed just below the
mentioned line is the discharge. The graph is divided into three
levels similar to the typical hydrograph: increasing, constant, and
decreasing. Considering loss factors such as evaporation of rain-
water, water leakage, and infiltration into the sub-grade, the in-
flow and outflow curves intersect after some period of time due to
water balance.
Since this study considers only outflow discharges, there is al-
ways a gap between the inflow and outflow. In Fig. 3, there are two
different paths between tin and tend. The curve that intersects the
accumulated input is the ideal output where the loss factors are not
considered. Meanwhile, the other curve in the same period below
the ideal output is the actual output considering the loss factors. The
area between the two curves is the qloss. The tend is presumed to be
infinite. Storage at certain time t is the difference between the vol-
umes of water input and output. The difference between time of
arrival and time of runout at a certain time is called delay. The max-
imum storage capacity can be defined by the height at tin. The con-
dition where outflow becomes constant is called the state of
equilibrium which occurs between t 0 and tin. The total amount of
effective water flowing through the pavement can be obtained by
Published by NRC Research Press
 662 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 41, 2014

Fig. 2. Time and space model with different types of discharge: (a–c) typical hydrographs and (d–f) cumulative hydrographs.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15
For personal use only.

Fig. 3. Cumulative hydrograph.

integrating the area between the supply and demand curves. There- 4. Model explanation through rainfall simulation
fore, the total effectiveness concept was used and defined as the area,
E (L·min), in eq. (1), wherein higher values of E yield better hydrologic 4.1. Experimental profile and rainfall simulation
performance (storage capacity and delay effectiveness) of the perme- To explain the concept of cumulative water flow versus time
able pavement. based on the experimental results, various types of pavement
were constructed in the pavement acceleration laboratory of the
Korea Expressway Corporation. A rainfall simulation experiment
1 was performed. The pavement structures of dense graded asphalt
(1) E [q (t
1 t in t 1) q 0 (t in t s)]
2 (AP), permeable block (PBP), porous concrete (PCP), and porous
0

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lin et al. 663

Table 1. Material properties.

Bedding Base Sub-base
Property PBP PCP PAP AP sand aggregate aggregate
Maximum dry density (ton/m3) 2.35 2.31 2.26 2.32 2.05 2.24 2.29
Specific gravity 2.48 2.48 2.35 2.36 2.86 2.90 2.35
Void ratio 0.06 0.29 0.19 0.12 0.39 0.29 0.03
Porosity (%) 0.05 22.75 15.99 10.37 28.00 23.00 3.00
Note: PBP, permeable block; PCP, porous concrete; PAP, porous asphalt; AP, asphalt.

asphalt (PAP) were constructed for the experiments. The dimen- Fig. 4. (a) Cross-section of the pavement and (b) rainfall simulation
sions of each section were 6 m by 1.4 m. A surface slope of 2% was experiment system.
formed in the transverse direction. Cross-sections of the test pave-
ment structures were 80 mm thick block paver and 30 mm thick
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15

bedding sand were used for the permeable block pavement. The
thickness of porous concrete and porous asphalt was 100 mm. The
thickness of the permeable granular base at all sections was
200 mm. The permeable block and porous asphalt had 300 mm of
sub-base, and porous concrete had 50 mm of filter layer instead of
sub-base. Permeable block was used for the surface layer materi-
als, while ordinary materials were used for porous concrete and
porous asphalt. The bedding sand and permeable granular base
used particle sizes suggested by Interpave (2008) and Louisiana
State (Tao and Abu-Farsakh 2008), respectively. The material prop-
erties used were evaluated and are presented in Table 1. For
the unbonded materials proctor test was used to determine the
moisture–density relationship between soils and soil aggregate
mixtures in accordance with AASHTO T 99 (2010a). The specific
gravity was conducted in accordance with the AASHTO T 85
For personal use only.

(2010b), while bulk density and void ratio were in accordance with
AASHTO T 19 (2009). For the bonded materials, a simple test was
conducted based on gravimetric differences between measure-
ment in the air and water. Hence, its void ratio was determined by
calculating the difference in weight between the oven dried and
the water saturated samples (Park and Tia 2004). The core speci-
mens were taken in AP, PCP, and PAP; the other materials were
sampled directly from the site. Three specimens were tested for
each material, and mean values were used as the result.
For AP, the outflow collected at the surface only, while for the
permeable pavement the outflow collected at the surface, sub-
base, and sub-grade. The rainfall simulation system utilized a
water tank supplying inflow, a flow gauge measuring inflow, a
sprinkling pipe, and automatic outflow gauges. The detail infor-
mation is shown in Fig. 4.
4.2. Experimental results
4.2.1. Outflow
Rainfall simulation experiments were performed at three levels
of rainfall intensity: 100, 150, and 200 mm/h. Different durations
of rainfall (sprinkling time) were applied, and sprinkling water
stopped after total outflow became constant. Figure 5 shows the
results when the rainfall intensity was 200 mm/h. The figures in
5a, 5c, and 5e show a typical hydrograph and Figs. 5b, 5d, 5f illus-
trate the cumulative flow hydrograph that indicates peak dis-
charge, delay time, total delay, and maximum storage capacity.
The maximum storage capacity is the maximum amount of water
contained in the pavement structure at the time when rainfall
event stopped. It is determined at the end of the equilibrium state.
It can be greater than long-term storage capacity, but the latter
should not be treated as the former because rainwater will con-
tinue to be discharged out of the system.
Meanwhile, as shown in Fig. 5b and 5f, at the rainfall intensity of
200 mm/h, runoff did not occur in either PBP or PAP, and the gap
between input and output was nearly the same. However, a runoff
of about 15% of the inflow took place in PCP and the gap between
input and output was bigger than PBP or PAP as shown in Fig. 5d.
No runoff was recorded for the rainfall intensities of 100 mm/h
and 150 mm/h for the permeable pavements expect for AP. This is
attributed to the free drainage system of the test which inhibits
the generation of runoff on the surface of the pavement structure
at 100 mm/h and 150 mm/h. Instead, the rainwater has permeated
into the sublayer.
Table 2 shows the experimental results for the relationship be-
tween inflow and outflow related to rainfall intensity. Regardless of
rainfall intensity, outflows were approximately 78% of inflow for
PBP, 75% for PCP, and 84% for PAP. As a result, compared to the AP,
permeable pavements used in this study reduced total outflow by
approximately 10 20%, as shown using Toutflow. It also lists the qloss
quantified by the difference between qin and qout for different types
of pavement. This parameter represents the amounts of water that
were evaporated, leaked, and stored in the pavement. Considering
the area of each test section, 10 20 L/m2 water could be stored in the
pavement structure by assuming that no water was evaporated or
leaked. There were no significant differences of outflow among per-
meable pavement types; and more than 80% outflow rates were ob-
served in all pavement types. This is probably due to the free
drainage system used in the rainfall simulation test.
4.2.2. Start delay and peak flow time
Start delay in the cumulative hydrograph is defined as the start
time of outflow at the drainage channel from the pavement struc-
ture. Since free drainage system was used in the rainfall simula-
tion test, this parameter was dimensionless for the pavement, and

Published by NRC Research Press

 664 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 41, 2014

Fig. 5. Outflow related to rain intensity and pavement type: (a–b) permeable block pavement, (c–d) porous concrete pavement, and
(e–f) porous asphalt pavement.

it is only related to the rain intensity, infiltration capacity, and
pavement thickness. The experiment was performed after wet-
ting each type of pavement. Figure 6 shows the trend of start delay
depending on rainfall intensity on each type of permeable pave-
ment. The start delay for PBP and PCP is recorded at about 13 min
and 9 min for PAP during 100 mm/h rain intensity. Start delay
decreases as the rainfall intensity increases for each type of pave-
ment and reaches 3 to 4 min at 200 mm/h rain intensity.
Peak flow time is defined as the sum of the overland sheet flow
travel time (t0) and travel time in the channel (tch) of the most
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15
testing. Regardless of rain intensity, it takes around 3 5 min to
achieve peak flow rate in AP. For PBP and PCP, reaching peak flow
rate takes about 15 20 min after rainfall. For PAP, variation of
peak flow rate according to rain intensity was large at 10 20 min.
All sections of the peak flow time were shortened by 5 9 min if
the rain intensity increases from 100 mm/h to 200 mm/h.
107 × n1 × W1/3
(2) t0
S1

hydrological remote point. Equation (2) below was used to esti-

mate the overland sheet flow travel time (t0). Equation (3) is
known as Manning’s Equation. It was used to calculate the travel where t0 is overland sheet flow travel time (min), W is the flow
time in the channel (tch), Both eq. (2) and eq. (3) were used to path length of the overland sheet (m), n1 is Manning’s roughness
generalize the peak flow time from the real dimension of test value for the surface, and S1 is the slope of the overland surface (%).
section from 6 m by 1.4 m to a unit area 1 m by 1 m.
Figure 7 shows the peak flow time at different rainfall intensi-
ties. Single trial was conducted for each pavement type. Surface n2 × L 2
(3) tch R3 s2
and base layer of the pavement systems were fully wet before 60
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lin et al. 665

Table 2. Outflow amount related to rain intensity and pavement type. Fig. 8. Maximum storage capacity related to pavement type.
qout(L)*
Pavement Rainfall qloss Toutflow Ofr
type intensity (mm/h) qin (L) sr sf (L) (%)† (%)‡
PBP 100 616 0 448 168 73 84
150 693 0 561 132 81 93
200 784 0 624 161 80 83
PCP 100 616 0 453 163 74 96
150 609 0 477 132 78 80
200 868 130 530 208 76 81
PAP 100 616 0 523 93 85 98
150 546 0 476 70 87 84
200 700 0 559 141 80 81
AP 100 616 579 0 37 94 96
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15

150 336 327 0 9 97 96

200 336 318 0 27 95 95
*sr is runoff and sf is sub layer outflow.
outflow is defined as the ratio of qout to qin.
†T
‡Outflow rate (O , %) is quantified as the ratio of peak discharge rate to rain Fig. 9. Total effectiveness related to pavement type.
fr
intensity.

Fig. 6. Start delay related to rain intensity.

For personal use only.

rainfall event has stopped. The average value of the maximum

storage capacity of PBP is measured as 40 L/m2. PCP and PAP can
keep 35 L/m2 and 30 L/m2 in the pavement, respectively. It can also
be noted that the maximum storage capacity increases with in-
Fig. 7. Peak flow time related to rain intensity.
creasing rainfall intensity. This is due to the increase in rainwater
inflow while outflow is constrained since it has reached its maxi-
mum discharge flow rate capacity.
The total effectiveness is calculated by eq. (1). To compare the re-
sults of the total effectiveness among the different types of pave-
ment, all test results are converted into equivalent total effectiveness
for 11 min, which is the minimum rainfall simulation duration of AP
with 200 mm/h rain intensity. Figure 9 indicates the total effective-
ness relative to different types of pavement. PCP showed the best
performance in all test sections. Each type of pavement was com-
pared as a ratio of concrete pavement total effectiveness, since it
showed the highest performance. Hence permeable block pavement
and porous asphalt have values of 95% and 81%, respectively.

5. Summary and conclusions

where tch is travel time in the channel (min), n2 is Manning’s rough-
ness value for the channel surface, L is the length of reach (m), R is the
hydraulic radius (m), and S2 is the slope of the channel (%).
4.2.3. Maximum storage capacity and total effectiveness
Figure 8 shows the maximum storage capacity related to the
pavement type and rainfall intensity. Storage capacity is defined
as the difference between input and output volume after the
This paper presents a time and space model using the concept
of cumulative water flow considering both surface and sub-layer
outflow, to improve the existing permeable pavement analysis
method that focuses only on the surface. This concept makes it
possible to explain the characteristics of rainfall storage of per-
meable pavement, reduction of surface outflow, delay of surface
outflow, and decrease in peak outflow. In addition, the proposed
concept distinguishes permeable pavements from the existing
impermeable pavement in terms of hydraulic characteristics.
Through a rainfall simulation experiment, elements such as delay
effects of rainfall outflow, pavement storage capacity, peak out-
flow, etc., can be explained. A comparison of the model applied

Published by NRC Research Press

 666
for different types of pavement was performed. The results are as
follows based on the acquired data from the test:
• Regardless of rainfall intensity, outflow quantities were ap-
proximately 78% of inflow for permeable block pavement (PBP),
75% for porous concrete pavement (PCP), and 84% for porous
asphalt pavement (PAP). As a result, compared to the dense
graded asphalt pavement (AP), permeable pavements used in
this research reduced total outflow by approximately 10 20%.
As the rain intensity increased, peak discharge rate increased
linearly reading above 80% from all pavement types.
• The start delay of permeable pavements used in the test de-
creased from 9 13 min to 3 to 4 min as the rainfall intensity
increased from 100 to 200 mm/h. Furthermore, the peak flow
time was shortened from 20 min to 10 min as the rain intensity
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Mr Deviprasad K on 02/26/15
increased. It was confirmed that, compared to the peak flow
time measured from AP, the permeable pavement exhibited
approximately 5 10 min delay effect.
• Regardless of rainfall intensity, the maximum storage capacity
of porous pavement systems used in this study is 30 40 L/m2.
The porous concrete pavement (PCP) showed the best hydrologic
performance compared to the other permeable pavement sys-
tems used in this case study.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National Research Founda-
tion of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOE). We
are very grateful for their strong support.
References
For personal use only.
AASHTO T 19. 2009. Standard method of test for bulk density and voids in
aggregate. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials, Washington D.C.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 41, 2014
AASHTO T 99. 2010a. Standard method of test for moisture-density relations of
soils using a 2.5-kg (5.5-lb) rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) drop. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO T 85. 2010b. Standard method of test for specific gravity and absorption
of coarse aggregate. American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, Washington, D.C.
Collins, K.A., Hunt, W.F., and 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. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146).
Fassman, E.A., and Blackbourn, S. 2010. Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable
pavement system over impermeable soils. Journal of Hydrologic Engineer-
ing, 15(6): 475–485. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000238.
Hou, L.Z., Feng, S.Y., Ding, Y.Y., Zhang, S.H., and Hou, Z.L. 2008. Experimental
study on rainfall-runoff relation for porous pavements. Hydrology Research,
39(3): 181–190. doi:10.2166/nh.2008.001.
Interpave. 2008. Permeable pavements: guide to the design consideration and
maintenance of concrete block permeable pavements 5th edition, Precast
Concrete Paving and Kerb Association, Leicester, UK.
Pappas, E., and Huang, C.H. 2010. Runoff and infiltration dynamics on pervious
paver surfaces. In Proceedings of the Watershed Management, Madison,
Wisconsin, United States, August 23–27. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, pp. 767–773.
Park, S., and Tia, M. 2004. An Experimental study on the water-purification
properties of porous concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 34: 177–184.
doi:10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00223-0.
Roess, R.P., Prassas, E.S., and McShane, W.R. 2010. Traffic Engineering, Fourth
Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Rollings, R.S., and Rollings, M.P. 1999. Design Considerations for the UNI
ECO-STONE Concrete Paver. UNI-GROUP, U.S.A.
Sansalone, J., and Teng, Z. 2004. In situ partial exfiltration of rainfall runoff I:
quality and quantity attenuation. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
130(9): 990–1007. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:9(990).
Shoenberger, J.E. 1981. Condition survey of porous friction surface course, Re-
port No. FAA-R-80-111, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Smith, D.R. 2006. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements, Third Edition.
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Washington, D.C.
Tao, M.J., and Abu-Farsakh, M.Y. 2008. Effect of Drainage in Unbound Aggregate
Bases on Flexible Pavement Performance, Final Report, Department of
Transportation and Development, Louisiana Transportation Research Cen-
ter, Federal Highway Administration, United States.
Published by NRC Research Press
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science
Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.