International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Transportation

Science and Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijtst

Simulation study on effect of permeable pavement on reducing

flood risk of urban runoff
Haoran Zhu a,b, Mingming Yu a,b,⇑, Junqing Zhu a,b, Haizhu Lu c, Rongji Cao a,b
a
JSTI Group Co. Ltd., Nanjing 211112, China
b
National Engineering Laboratory for Advanced Road Materials, Nanjing 211112, China
c
Jiangsu Expressway Maintenance Technology Co. Ltd, Nanjing, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Permeable pavement is part of the low impact development (LID) measurement, which can
Received 17 September 2018 decrease urban surface runoff coefficient and flood peak flow. In this paper, a two-way, six-
Received in revised form 30 November 2018 lane road in Nanjing was selected as the study area. Storm water management model
Accepted 3 December 2018
(SWMM) was used to simulate the effect of different pavement structures (drainage sur-
Available online 15 December 2018
face, permeable pavement and permeable road) under different rainfall conditions on
reducing surface runoff and controlling urban stormwater. The simulation results show
Keywords:
that the drainage surface can reduce part of surface runoff, but it has no influence on the
SWMM
Drainage surface
reduction and hysteresis of flood peak. The permeable pavement can reduce part of surface
Permeable pavement runoff and flood peak and can delay peak time. The permeable road has better effect on
Ratio of flood peak reduction reducing runoff coefficient and flood peak, which can effectively reduce the pressure of
Runoff coefficient urban drainage and reduce the risk of stormwater flood.
Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the urbanization rate of China reached 57.35 percent in 2016. The
underlying surface condition in urban area has changed a lot as the urbanization process is accelerating. Impervious surfaces
such as concrete structures and hardened roads have increased considerably, which increases the surface runoff and the risk
of urban floods. In addition, groundwater has not been effectively supplied due to the lack of rainwater drainage. Many cities
are therefore faced with severe water shortage and drought. Developed countries such as United States, UK, Australia began
to pay attention to such problems decades ago. They developed a series of techniques to control urban runoff and introduced
a series of stormwater management plans and guidelines. These techniques and guidelines have been applied systematically.
Since October 2014, China has proposed a ‘‘sponge city” strategy for the development of urbanization based on the summary
of urban stormwater control concepts in foreign countries. A series of policy and technical guidelines were issued thereby.
The design of city road should adjust timely, as city road is a very important part of city development, such as creating
ecological grass ditches, sunken lawns, rain gardens and permeable pavement. Zhang (2009) used SWMM to simulate the
surface runoff of a residential area in Nanjing which was reconstructed with sunken lawn and permeable pavement. Jin
et al. (2010) used SWMM to study the variation of the flood peak of the drainage pipeline in the area covered by permeable

Peer review under responsibility of Tongji University and Tongji University Press.
⇑ Corresponding author at: JSTI Group Co. Ltd, No. 2200 Chengxin Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing, China.
E-mail address: ymm79@jsti.com (M. Yu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2018.12.001
2046-0430/Ó 2019 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
374 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382

brick and sunken lawn in Beijing. Zhenci and Guo (2017) studied the relationship between rainfall and runoff in the area
under four different underlying conditions by distributed water stability model. Zhou (2017) established the runoff model
and studied the ability of the sunken lawn to store rainfall, when it was under the conditions of different rainfall frequency
and different proportion of green area. Cai et al. (2017) used SWMM to simulate the runoff and drainage condition under
different rainfall conditions in Guangzhou. Palla used SWMM to simulate the hydrologic response of a small urban catch-
ment which was covered by green roofs and permeable pavements. Guan et al. (2015) quantifies the effects of common
stormwater management techniques on urban runoff generation, such as green roofs and permeable pavements. Tsihrintzis
tested the applicability of SWMM in small subtropical urban catchments and provided modellers with a way to select appro-
priate input parameters to be used in planning studies. Park used SWMM to simulate and investigate changes in runoff and
peak runoff with LID plans. Do-Hyson (2005) used SWMM to investigate and analyze the runoff characteristics of non-point
source pollutions in the municipal area of Jeonju. Temprano (2006) used SWMM to predict the pollution in rainy weather in a
combined sewer system catchment in Santander, Spain.
Researchers at home and abroad have carried out studies on the effect of different kinds of LID measures on the control of
surface runoff. Permeable pavement can be divided into drainage surface, permeable pavement and permeable road, based
on the flow path of surface runoff. However, the influence of different kinds of permeable pavement structures on urban sur-
face runoff has not been reported. In this paper, a two-way, six-lane road in Nanjing was selected as the study area, and
SWMM was used to simulate the effect of different pavement structures under different rainfall conditions on reducing sur-
face runoff and controlling urban stormwater. The objective of this study is to provide theoretical support for the ‘‘sponge
city”.

2. Modeling of surface runoff

2.1. Introduction of SWMM

Storm water management model (SWMM) is a comprehensive mathematical model developed by the United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the design and management of urban stormwater. It can dynamically simulate the
whole urban rainfall-runoff process, including surface runoff, drainage pipe transportation and water confluence, water
quantity and water quality. At present, SWMM is the best model, which has been widely used in many countries.
In the SWMM, a catchment area is usually divided into several subcatchment areas, each one is an independent hydraulic
unit, and it is assumed that there is only one drainage exit to collect the surface runoff produced by each subcatchment area.
The runoff process is calculated respectively based on the characteristics of each subcatchment area. Finally, the whole dis-
charge is superposed by means of flow calculus.
There are 4 main types of core simulation process in SWMM: surface runoff produce process, surface runoff confluence
process, pipeline network confluence process and water quality simulation process. SWMM can use 3 different models to
describe the runoff infiltration capacity: Horton model, Green-Ampt model, SCS model. In this paper, the Horton model
was used to calculate the runoff infiltration.
Steps to use SWMM: 1. carefully study the areas where the storm was simulated and divide the whole catchment areas
into several subcatchment areas; 2. confirm the parameters of each subcatchment areas and other models; 3. input the data;
4. calculate the flood peak, total runoff, the flow variation process, and then make reasonable analysis.

2.2. Study areas

In this paper, the study area is a two-way, six-lane road in Nanjing, the length of the road is 500 m, and the width is 55 m.
As is shown in Fig. 1, it is mainly composed by median divider, driveway, lane separator, cycle path and sidewalk. The total
area is 2.75
104 m2. The area of the driveway is 1.2
104 m2, accounting for 43.6% of the whole research areas; the area of
the cycle path is 5000 m2, accounting for 18.2%; the area of the sidewalk is 3000 m2, accounting for 10.9%; the area of the
lane separator is 7500 m2, accounting for 27.3%. Fig. 2 illustrates the specific distribution of each area.

Fig. 1. Pavement cross section.

 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382 375

Fig. 2. The specific distribution of study area.

As each area has different surface features, the whole area was divided into 9 subcatchment area. Nine nodes and one
drainage outlet was created.

2.3. Parameters of models

Parameters including average surface slope, area of catchment, percent of impervious area and pervious area were
inputted based on actual conditions. The driveway, cycle path and sidewalk were considered as impermeable pavement, per-
centage of impervious area is 90%. Percentage of impervious area of the median divider and lane separator is 15%. The aver-
age surface slope is 2%.
Other parameters in the model were inputted based on recommended values in the user’s manual of SWMM and liter-
ature review, including mannings N for impervious area and pervious area, depth of depression storage on impervious area
and pervious area, max.infil.rate, min.infil.rate and decay constant in Horton formula. Values of these inputs were listed in
Table 1 below. The established SWMM model for the study area is shown in Fig. 3.

2.4. Storm design

When using SWMM to simulate the rainfall, the input rainfall data can be the measured value or the calculated value. This
paper uses the calculated value according to the latest rainstorm intensity formula of Nanjing Urban Management Bureau.
The formula is as follows.

64:300 þ 53:800 lg P 10716700ð1 þ 0:8371gPÞ

i¼ or q ¼
ðt þ 32:900Þ1:011 ðt þ 32:900Þ1:011

where, i is designed rainstorm intensity, which refers to the average rainfall during a continuous rainfall period or the aver-
age rainfall depth per unit time, mm/min;

q is the rainfall volume per hectare per unit time, L/(s*h m2);
t is the rainfall duration, min;
p is designed frequency, a.
The rain-type was simulated by Chicago rain-type generator, the rainstorm duration was 180 min, the time step was
1 min and the design rainfall recurrence period was 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and 30 years. The dynamic rainfall duration
distribution was shown in Fig. 4, and the cumulative rainfall curve was shown in Fig. 5. The rainfall peak coefficient r

Table 1
Inputs for SWMM.

Input Value Units

max.infil.rate 76.2 mm/h
min.infil.rate 3.18 mm/h
decay constant 3 h1
Mannings N for impervious area 0.015 –
Mannings N for pervious area 0.03 –
Depth of depression storage on impervious area 5.0 mm
Depth of depression storage on pervious area 2.5 mm
376 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382

Fig. 3. The established SWMM model for the study area.

Fig. 4. Dynamic rainfall duration distribution plot.

(0 < r < 1) was introduced to describe the time of the rainfall peck occurrence. In this paper, the rainfall peck coefficient was
taken as r = 0.4.
As can be seen from the figures, the maximum rainfall intensity occurred at 72 min under different rainfall recurrence
periods. The rain peak intensity of rainfall recurrence period of 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and 30 years were 2.97 mm/
min, 3.44 mm/min, 3.92 mm/min and 4.19 mm/min. The corresponding cumulative rainfall were 81.20 mm, 94.10 mm,
107.01 mm, 114.56 mm.

3. Permeable pavement structures

According to the Technical Specification for Permeable Bituminous Pavement (2012), permeable pavement can be divided
into the following 3 categories based on water flow path:
 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382 377

Fig. 5. Cumulative rainfall curve.

Drainage surface: Permeable material is only used on the surface layer. Impervious asphalt material or asphalt seal coat is
used on the base layer. Rainfall is allowed to seep into the surface, but not the base. After the rainfall passes through the
surface, the water moves along the top surface of the impervious base and is directly discharged from the roadbed through
road drainage facility. The structure is shown in Fig. 6 (a).
Semi-permeable pavement: Permeable material is used on the surface layer. Permeable open-graded aggregate is used on
the base layer. The cushion layer is composed of impervious materials such as asphalt sand. Impervious geotextile must be
installed above the subgrade as an impermeable layer. The rainfall passes through the surface layer and the base layer, and
then it is directly discharged on the top surface of the impervious geotextile. The structure is shown in Fig. 6(b).
Permeable road: permeable material is used on both asphalt layer and base layer. Permeable geotextile mesh is used
above subgrade to improve the bearing capacity. Rainfall passes through the surface layer, the base and the cushion layer,
and directly seeps into the subgrade. The structure is shown in Fig. 6(c).
Based on literature review, when considering the feasibility of pavement structural design, porous asphalt mixture is used
on the surface layer of drainage surface with air void ratio around 20%. The drainage surface can be made of single or double
layer drainage surface with thickness of 4 cm or 10 cm. Permeable pavement and permeable road use graded gravel or gravel
as a reservoir with maximum size of 37.5 mm or 31.5 mm. Thickness is no less than 15 cm, and the air void ratio is usually
40%.
The basic testing principle of permeability measurement method is Darcy’s law, the difference of each measuring method
lies in the sample size and test sequence. In this paper, a self-made apparatus is used to measure the permeability. The range
of permeability coefficient of porous asphalt mixture is 0.15–0.5 cm/s. The permeability of porous asphalt mixture is
150 mm/h (equivalent to the permeability coefficient of 0.25 cm/s). The permeability coefficient of graded macadam is no
less than 0.4 cm/s, the hydraulic conductivity is 240 mm/h (equivalent to the permeability coefficient of 0.4 cm/s). The
hydraulic conductivity of drainage surface and permeable pavement is 0 as they both have impermeable bottom.

(a) Drainage surface (b) Permeable pavement (c) Permeable road

Fig. 6. Different kind of permeable pavement structures.

378 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382

Table 2
The LID parameters of different kind of permeable pavement structures.

LID parameters Unit Drainage surface Permeable pavement Permeable road

Surface Berm height mm 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vegetation volume fraction / 0 0 0
Surface roughness / 0.015 0.015 0.015
Surface slope % 2.0 2.0 2.0
Pavement Thickness mm 40,100 100 100
Void ratio / 0.20 0.20 0.20
Impervious surface fraction / 0 0 0
Permeable mm/h or in/h 150 150 150
Clogging factor / 0 0 0
Storage Thickness mm 0 150–300 150–300
Void ratio / 0.40 0.40 0.40
Seepage rate mm/h or in/h 0 0 240
Clogging factor / 0 0 0

The SWMM5.0 contains the LID module which can simulate the surface runoff. The LID parameters of different kind of
permeable pavement structures are shown in Table 2.

4. Simulation results analysis

Usually, the driveway, cycle path and sidewalk are all impervious to water. Considering the applicable conditions of dif-
ferent permeable pavement structures, in this paper, the drainage surface was used on the driveway, the permeable pave-
ment was used on the cycle path and the permeable road was used on the sidewalk. And then the runoff process of different
permeable pavement structures under 4 different kinds of rainfall recurrence periods was simulated, the runoff coefficient,
flood peck flow and peck moment were calculated.

4.1. Drainage surface used on the driveway

(1) Surface runoff and flood peak flow

Drainage surface was used on the driveway. Thickness of the surface layer were 4 cm and 10 cm and rainfall recurrence
period was 30 years. The simulation results is shown in Fig. 7.
When the thickness of the surface drainage surface was 4 cm and the rainfall recurrence period was 30 years, surface run-
off appeared at 0:52. The time point was delayed to 01:03 when the thickness became 10 cm. This indicates the drainage
surface can reduce part of surface runoff in the early stage of rainfall.
That is because the rain falls onto the road and seep into the interior of the pavement structure at the beginning the rain,
and no runoff will be formed at this stage. However, there is impervious asphalt material and asphalt seal coat above the
base. The rainwater accumulated in the pavement structure was increasing with the persistent rainfall, and when the rain-
water reached the maximum value, the surface runoff was formed.
Whether the thickness of the pavement was 4 cm or 10 cm, the flood peak both appeared at 01:04. Flood peak flow and
flood peak time was also the same, which indicates that the drainage surface could not play a role in reducing flood peak and
had no influence on the reduction and hysteresis of flood peak.

(2) Runoff coefficient

The runoff coefficients of driveway under 4 distinctive rainfall recurrence periods conditions were shown in Table 3.
According to the simulation results, under the conditions of 4 distinctive rainfall recurrence periods, when the thickness
was 4 cm and 10 cm, the runoff coefficient of drainage surface was between 0.733 and 0.898, and the runoff coefficient of
impervious pavement was 0.953–0.966.
Compared with impervious pavement, the total runoff and runoff coefficient of drainage surface are smaller. As the thick-
ness of drainage surface increases, rainfall infiltration increases, runoff coefficient decreases, which means the drainage sur-
face is more effective in reducing surface runoff.

4.2. Permeable pavement used in the cycle path

(1) Surface runoff and flood peak flow

When permeable pavement was used in the cycle path, the open-graded gravel is used as storage, the thickness of the
storage was 15 cm, 20 cm, 25 cm and 30 cm, the rainfall recurrence periods was 30 years, the simulation results were shown
in Fig. 8 and Table 4.
 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382 379

Fig. 7. The rainfall and runoff of drainage surface.

Table 3
Runoff coefficients of driveway.

Design Scheme Rainfall recurrence period Rainfall recurrence period Rainfall recurrence period Rainfall recurrence period 5
30 years 20 years 10 years years
Total runoff Runoff Total runoff Runoff Total runoff Runoff Total runoff Runoff
(mm) coefficient (mm) coefficient (mm) coefficient (mm) coefficient
Impervious pavement 110.69 0.966 103.15 0.964 90.26 0.959 77.36 0.953
Surface with thickness 102.83 0.898 95.27 0.89 82.37 0.875 69.46 0.855
of 4 cm
Surface with thickness 92.9 0.811 85.16 0.796 72.23 0.768 59.53 0.733
of 10 cm

Fig. 8. The rainfall and runoff of permeable pavement.

380 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382

Table 4
The flood peak and peak time of permeable pavement.

Design Scheme Total runoff (103 m3) Flood peck (m3/s) Ratio of flood peck reduction (%) Peak time
Impervious pavement 0.277 0.17 / 01:13
Storage with thickness of 15 cm 0.125 0.08 52.94 01:21
Storage with thickness of 20 cm 0.089 0.05 70.59 01:29
Storage with thickness of 25 cm 0.053 0.03 82.35 01:45
Storage with Thickness of 30 cm 0.017 0.01 94.12 02:25

As can be seen from the simulation results, the permeable pavement can effectively reduce and delay the flood peak. In
case of distinctive rainfall recurrence periods, the total runoff and flood peak all decreases, and the peak time delays.
The ratio of flood peak reduction increased with the increase of the thickness of storage. The reduction ratio was about
50% when the thickness of storage was 15 cm, and it increased to 95% as the thickness increased to 30 cm. This is because the
open graded gravel can store up rainwater and reduce runoff, these capacities depends on the air void ratio, thickness and
other characteristics.

(2) Runoff coefficient

The runoff coefficients of cycle path under 4 distinctive rainfall recurrence periods conditions were shown in Table 5.
As can be seen from the simulation results, when the thickness of storage was 30 cm and the rainfall recurrence periods
was 5 years, the runoff coefficients of cycle path was nearly 0. When the thickness of storage was 15 cm, the runoff coeffi-
cient of permeable pavement was between 0.202 and 0.437 under the conditions of different rainfall recurrence periods.
The runoff coefficients of cycle path were greatly affected by the thickness of storage and the rainfall recurrence periods.
When the thickness increased from 15 cm to 30 cm, rainfall infiltration increased, and the larger the thickness of storage, the
more effective permeable pavement was in reducing surface runoff. When it comes to permeable pavement, it is suggested
that large thickness of open-graded gravel should be used.

4.3. Permeable road used in the sidewalk

(1) Influence of soil foundation permeability

The permeability coefficient of subgrade varies greatly with different soil types, while the permeability of subgrade is the
decisive factor of the drainage effect of the whole permeable pavement system. Therefore, it is necessary to study the influ-
ence of subgrade permeability on the design of permeable pavement and to select the optimum soil type.
In most cases, the velocity of water in the roadbed is small, which can be regarded as laminar flow. The drainage time of
different permeable soil foundation can be calculated using Darcy’s law. The results of time required to discharge 0.1 m3
water with different subgrade are shown in Table 6. In the table, H is the distance from the bottom of the pavement structure
to the groundwater level and H0 is the distance from the bottom of the pavement structure to the impermeable layer.
As can be seen from the calculation results, when the subgrade permeability is low (permeability coefficient is 105 cm/s),
it takes more than one day to discharge 0.1 m3 water. When the permeability coefficient is less than 107 cm/s, it takes

Table 5
Runoff coefficients of cycle path.

Design scheme Rainfall recurrence periods 30 years Rainfall recurrence periods 20 years
Total rainfall Total runoff Runoff Total rainfall Total runoff Runoff
(mm) (mm) coefficient (mm) (mm) coefficient
Impervious pavement 114.57 110.69 0.966 107.02 103.15 0.964
Storage with thickness of 15 cm 114.57 50.04 0.437 107.02 42.49 0.397
Storage with thickness of 20 cm 114.57 35.74 0.312 107.02 28.20 0.263
Storage with thickness of 25 cm 114.57 21.29 0.186 107.02 13.76 0.129
Storage with thickness of 30 cm 114.57 7.07 0.062 107.02 0.24 0.002
Design scheme Rainfall recurrence periods 10 years Rainfall recurrence periods 5 years
Total rainfall Total runoff Runoff Total rainfall Total runoff Runoff
(mm) (mm) coefficient (mm) (mm) coefficient
Impervious pavement 94.11 90.26 0.959 81.2 77.36 0.953
Storage with thickness of 15 cm 94.11 29.58 0.314 81.2 16.44 0.202
Storage with thickness of 20 cm 94.11 15.12 0.161 81.2 2.27 0.028
Storage with thickness of 25 cm 94.11 0.91 0.010 81.2 0 0
Storage with thickness of 30 cm 94.11 0 0 81.2 0 0
 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382 381

Table 6
Runoff coefficients of sidewalk.

Design scheme Rainfall recurrence
periods 30 years
Impervious pavement 0.967
Storage with thickness of 15 cm 0.019
Storage with thickness of 30 cm 0.019
Rainfall recurrence Rainfall recurrence Rainfall recurrence
periods 20 years periods 10 years periods 5 years
0.964 0.959 0.953
0.002 0 0
0.002 0 0

Table 7
Runoff coefficients of sidewalk.

Design scheme Rainfall recurrence periods 30 years Rainfall recurrence periods 20 years
Total rainfal Total runoff Runoff Total runoff Total rainfall Runoff
(mm) (mm) coefficient (mm) (mm) coefficient
Impervious pavement 114.57 110.74 0.967 107.02 103.15 0.964
Storage with thickness of 15 cm 114.57 2.17 0.019 107.02 0.24 0.002
Storage with thickness of 30 cm 114.57 2.17 0.019 107.02 0.24 0.002
Design scheme Rainfall recurrence periods 10 years Rainfall recurrence periods 5 years
Total rainfall Total runoff Runoff Total rainfall Total runoff Runoff
(mm) (mm) coefficient (mm) (mm) coefficient
Impervious pavement 94.11 90.26 0.959 81.2 77.36 0.953
Storage with thickness of 15 cm 94.11 0 0 81.2 0 0
Storage with thickness of 30 cm 94.11 0 0 81.2 0 0

Table 8
Runoff coefficient of different permeable pavement structures.

Permeable pavement structures Recommended runoff coefficient value

Drainage surface 0.70–0.85
Semi-permeable pavement 0.45
Fully-permeable pavement 0

months to get rid of this water. This means it’s actually impervious. Therefore, the design should consider permeability of
different soil types. Sand soil is an ideal material for permeable pavement which can be applied to all occasions. However,
clay and silt should not be directly used as the permeable pavement subgrade. If necessary, the soil should be changed or
improved within a certain depth or treated by increasing the thickness of the upper cushion layer.

(2) Simulation results

Permeable road was used in the sidewalk, the open graded gravel is used as storage. When the thickness of storage was
15 cm and 30 cm, the runoff coefficients of sidewalk under 4 differently designed rainfall recurrence periods conditions was
shown in Table 7.
As can be seen from the simulation results, since rainfall passed through the surface layer, the base layer and the cushion
layer, and directly seeped into the roadbed, there was no surface runoff formed. Runoff coefficient of permeable pavement
was nearly 0. In addition, the thickness of storage has little influence on the total runoff and runoff coefficient.
At present, the design runoff coefficient of sponge city is based on Code For Design Of Outdoor Wasterwater Engineering
(2006). The roof, concrete or asphalt pavements use w = 0.90, graded macadam pavement uses w = 0.40–0.50, sunken lawn
uses w = 0.15. However, there is no reference for drainage surface, permeable pavement and permeable road. The range of
runoff coefficient of different permeable pavement structures is recommended according to the simulation results, and is
shown in Table 8.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a two-way, six-lane road in Nanjing was selected, and SWMM was used to simulate the effect of different
pavement structures under different rainfall conditions on reducing surface runoff and urban stormwater. Conclusions were
drawn as following:
382 H. Zhu et al. / International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 8 (2019) 373–382

(1) The drainage surface can reduce part of surface runoff by more than 10%, but it could not play a role in reducing flood
peak, and it had no influence on the reduction or hysteresis of flood peak.
(2) The permeable pavement can reduce surface runoff by more than 50% and have an influence on reducing flood peak
and the reduction and hysteresis of flood peak. As the thickness of permeable open graded gravel stone increases, the
percentage of flood peak reduction increases.
(3) The permeable road had better effect on reducing runoff coefficient and flood peak flow.
(4) The permeability of subgrade had great influence on the permeable effect of the whole permeable pavement system.
Sand is an ideal material for permeable pavement which can be applied to all occasions. Clay and silt should not be
directly used as the permeable pavement subgrade. If necessary, the soil should be changed or improved within a cer-
tain depth or treated by increasing the thickness of the upper cushion.
(5) The range of runoff coefficient of different permeable pavement structures was recommended, the drainage surface
adopts w = 0.7–0.85, the permeable pavement  the permeable road, and the runoff coefficient of permeable road
was 0, which provides theoretical support for the practice of ‘‘sponge city”.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The research activities described in this paper was sponsored in part by China International Research Cooperation Pro-
jects under Grant No. 2016YFE0108200, the Research Project of Jiangsu DOT under Grant No. 2016Y03 and 2018Y25, and
the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China under Grant No. BK20170156 and BK20140112. All the sponsor-
ships are gratefully acknowledged. Meanwhile, we sincerely appreciate Dr. Li Hui helping to revise the paper writing and
grammar very carefully.

References

Cai, Qingni, Chen, Zhihe, Chen, Xing, Chen, Xingzhen, Zhang, Danrong, 2017. Simulation of control efficiency of low impact development measures for urban
stormwater. Water Resour. Protect. 02, 31–36.
Do-Hyson, P., Young-Hwan, L., Jin-Kyu, C., et al, 2005. Study on the runoff characteristics of non-point source pollution in municipal area using SWMM
model-a case study in Jeonju City. J. Korean Soc. Geospatial Inf. Syst. 14 (12).
Guan, M., Sillanpää, N., Koivusalo, H., 2015. Assessment of LID practices for restoring pre-development runoff regime in an urbanized catchment in southern
Finland. Water Sci. Technol. 71 (10), 1485.
Jin, Cuntian, Zhao, Shuqi, Yan, Xiaoli, Zhou, Yuwen, 2010. Impacts of permeable brick and sunken lawn on urban stormwater. China Water Wastewater 01.
40-42+46.
Temprano, J., Arango, Ó., Cagiao, J., et al, 2006. Stormwater quality calibration by SWMM: A case study in Northern Spain. Water S A 32 (1), 55–63.
Zhang, Dawei, Zhao, Dongquan, Chen, Jining, 2009. Review and application of urban storm runoff control technology. Water Wastewater Eng. 35, 25–29.
Zhenci, Xu., Guo, Yongchen, 2017. Simulation test of runoff on different underlying surfaces in urban area. South North Water Transfers Water Sci. Technol.
10, 64–66.
Zhou, Feng, Peng, Xiaojin, Li, Yulai, 2017. Impact of sunken lawn on urban rainwater runoff. Water Resour. Hydropower Northeast China 10, 10–11.

Further Reading

Zhang, Chao, Ding, Zhibin, 2014. Research on simulation of sunken lawn and porous pavement based on management model of storm and flood. J. Water
Resour. Water Eng. 05, 185–189.
Xie, Lihua, Zhang, Yongli, Wen, Yong, Guo, Kuixiang, 2010. Simulation model of storm runoff in Chengdu urban district. Resour. Dev. Market 26 (05), 420–
422.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., 2015. Hydrologic modeling of low impact development systems at the urban catchment scale. J. Hydrol. 528, 361–368.
Park, J., Yoo, Y., Park, Y., et al, 2008. Analysis of runoff reduction with LID adoption using the SWMM. J. Korean Soc. Water Qual. 24 (6), 805–815.
Rossman, L.A., 2010. Storm Water Management Model User,s Manual, Version5.0. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati.
Tsihrintzis, V.A., Hamid, R., 2015. Runoff quality prediction from small urban catchments using SWMM. Hydrol. Process. 12 (2), 311–329.
Rui, Xiaofang, Jiang, Chengyu, Chen, Qingjin, Ding, Xiaoyan, 2015. Principle analysis and application of storm water management model on stimulating
rainfall-runoff. Adv. Sci. Technol. Water Resour. 35 (04), 1–5.