C H R I S B R A G G , L A W R E N C E T E C H . U N I V E R S I T Y D I A N E N E L S O N , M A N N I K S M I T H G R O U P J U N E 1 , 2 0 1 7

Benefits of Green Infrastructure Implementation on Vacant Lots in South

East Detroit

GLRI-LEAP Vacant Lots

ó 31 vacant parcels in East Detroit

ó Funded by GLRI ó Project included Green

Infrastructure Installations and Hydraulic Performance Monitoring

ó 5 Treatment types

What Were Our Roles?

ó The Greening of Detroit ¡ Gaining Access to vacant

parcels ¡ Installation of Treatments ÷ Amended DFC Green

Infrastructure Designs ¡ Maintenance to

Treatments for 2 years

ó Lawrence Tech University ¡ Design, build, and test a

portable rainfall simulator ¡ Develop a Quality

Assurance Protocol Plan (QAPP)

¡ Monitor the impact of green infrastructure on vacant lots

Predevelopment Site Conditions

Predevelopment Site Conditions

Constraints

Property Considerations • Slope • Ground Cover • Gutter Condition

Monitoring Constraints

Treatment Type- Tree Stand

ó 8 trees used to break up compacted soil

ó Previous Industrial Use ó Surrounded by low- mow

grass ó Vandalized ó Only 1 treatment

installed

Treatment Type: Flower Meadow

ó Used flower and grass root systems to break up soil and absorb water

ó Reintroduces native species into area

ó Promotes native pollinators and bird use

ó Contained by grass boarder

ó 18 treatments installed

Treatment Type: Turbo Till

ó Uses earthworms to break up soil to increase infiltration

ó Very low maintenance ó 4 treatments installed

Treatment Type- Rain Garden

ó Vegetated mound and depression were landscaped to capture storm-water

ó Water loving, native species planted in bowl for absorption

ó No down-spout disconnect

ó 4 treatments installed

Treatment Type: 4 seasons Rain Garden

ó 4 rain gardens on each lot to showcase each season

ó Most accepted by community- used as parks

ó Most expensive ó No downspout

disconnects ó 4 treatments installed

Research!

“A Systematic Approach to Monitor the Hydrologic Performance of Vacant Lots through the Development

and Application of a Portable Rainfall Simulator”

Rainfall Simulator 15

Monitoring 16

4 Hour Simulation • 3- 6” of Rain Measured Parameters • System Flowrate • System Pressure • Runoff Flowrate • Wind Speed • Depth of Rainfall

Simulation 17

Simulation

Simulation

Lot Hydrology 20

Lot #: 11 – Pre-construction

Address: 8871 Forest

Date 8/27/15 9/1/15

Storm Event (yr.) >100 >100

Duration (hr.) 4:00 4:00

Total Rainfall (in.) 6.74 6.33

Avg. Application Rate (gpm.) 43.6 43.6

Applied Volume (gal.) 12072.4 11335.7

Runoff Volume (gal.) - 1475.2

Avg. Infiltration Rate of Soil (in./hr.) - 4.67

Avg. Antecedent Soil Moisture (%) - 17.56 0246810121416

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

,Q,

(GP

M)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

9/1/15

Lot Hydrology 21

Lot #: 11 – Post-construction – Turbo Till Address: 8871 Forest

Date 8/18/2016 Storm Event (yr.) >100 Duration (hr.) 4:00 Total Rainfall (in.) 5.84 Avg. Application Rate (gpm.) 41.4 Applied Volume (gal.) 10458.30 Runoff Volume (gal.) 665.5 Avg. Infiltration Rate of Soil (in./hr.) 2.50 Avg. Antecedent Soil Moisture (%) 19.97

0246810121416

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

,Q,

(GP

M)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

8/18/16

Lot Hydrology 22

Lot #: 18 – Pre-construction Address: 4320 Pennsylvania

Date 10/26/15 11/3/15 Storm Event (yr.) >100 >100 Duration (hr.) 4:00 4:00 Total Rainfall (in.) 3.16 3.60 Avg. Application Rate (gpm.) 40.1 44.9 Applied Volume (gal.) 9716.7 11079.1 Runoff Volume (gal.) 0 1594.4 Avg. Infiltration Rate of Soil (in./hr.) 2.0 1.5 Avg. Antecedent Soil Moisture (%) 16.16 20.49

0246810121416

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 100 200 300

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

,Q,

(GP

M)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

10/26/15

0 100 200 3000246810121416

0

10

20

30

40

50

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

, Q,

(GP

M.)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

11/3/15

Lot Hydrology 23

Lot #: 18 – Post-construction – Rain Garden Address: 4320 Pennsylvania

Date 6/13/16 Storm Event (yr.) >100 Duration (hr.) 4:00 Total Rainfall (in.) 3.80 Avg. Application Rate (gpm.) 44.2 Applied Volume (gal.) 11685.5 Runoff Volume (gal.) 0 Avg. Infiltration Rate of Soil (in./hr.) - Avg. Antecedent Soil Moisture (%) 15.99

0246810121416

010203040506070

0 100 200 RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

, Q,

(GP

M.)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

6/13/16

Lot Hydrology 24

Lot #: 33 – Pre-construction – Flower Meadow Address: 4503 Pennsylvania

Date 8/7/15 9/17/15 Storm Event (yr.) >100 >100 Duration (hr.) 4:00 4:00 Total Rainfall (in.) 4.90 4.13 Avg. Application Rate (gpm.) 53.2 49.7 Applied Volume (gal.) 14407.9 12139.1 Runoff Volume (gal.) 558.9 1415.9 Avg. Infiltration Rate of Soil (in./hr.) - - Avg. Antecedent Soil Moisture (%) - -

0246810121416

010203040506070

0 100 200 300

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

,Q,

(GP

M)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

8/7/15

0 100 200 3000246810121416

010203040506070

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

, Q,

(GP

M.)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (MIN.)

9/17/15

Lot Hydrology 25

Lot #: 33 – Post-construction – Flower Meadow Address: 4503 Pennsylvania

Date 8/9/16 Storm Event (yr.) >100 Duration (hr.) 4:00 Total Rainfall (in.) 3.94 Avg. Application Rate (gpm.) 45.9 Applied Volume (gal.) 11568.5 Runoff Volume (gal.) 992.52 Avg. Infiltration Rate of Soil (in./hr.) - Avg. Antecedent Soil Moisture (%) 3.28

0

5

10

15

0102030405060

0 100 200 300

RU

NO

FF

RA

TE

,Q,

(GP

M)

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N R

AT

E

(GP

M)

TIME INTO SIMULATION (H:MM)

8/9/16

Pre-construction Simulation Results 26

Lot Type Lot No. Date Duration, (hh:mm)

Application, (inches)

Runoff Volume, V

(ft3) Cv

Calculated Runoff

Volume, V (ft3)

Weighted CN

Turb

o Ti

ll

11 8/27/2015 4:00 6.74 - - 1902 83.4 9/1/2015 4:00 6.33 1475 0.13 1750

27 9/22/2015 4:02 4.27 0 - 1177 82.9 9/25/2015 5:00 6.05 5443 0.31 1934

31 11/2/2015 4:00 3.09 0 - 665 82.4 11/4/2015 4:00 3.43 477 0.05 790

Rain

Ga

rden

18 10/26/2015 4:00 3.16 0 - 719 83.3 11/3/2015 4:00 3.6 1589 0.14 885

23 11/16/2015 4:00 3.75 233 0.02 854 83.7

Flow

er

Mea

dow

25 10/8/2015 4:00 5.75 970 0.10 1230 83.8

10/23/2015 4:00 4.44 1045 0.14 782

33 8/7/2015 4:00 4.9 559 0.04 1230 83.4

9/17/2015 4:10 4.13 1416 0.12 959

Note: 5 additional lots were tested but exhibited zero runoff.

Post-construction Simulation Results 27

Lot Type Lot No. Date Duration, (hh:mm)

Application, (inches)

Runoff Volume, V

(ft3) Cv

Calculated Runoff

Volume, V (ft3)

Weighted CN

Turb

o Ti

ll 11 8/18/2016 4:00 5.84 665.5 0.06 1570 83.4

27 6/24/2016 4:00 4.81 0 - 1842 82.9

31 5/25/2016 4:00 3.39 172.7 0.02 775 82.4

Rain

G

arde

n 18 6/13/2016 4:00 3.80 0 - 719 83.3

23 6/10/2016 4:00 3.86 238.8 0.02 892 83.7

Flow

er

Mea

dow

25 5/31/2016 4:00 5.32 918.6 0.10 1010 83.8

33 8/9/2016 4:00 3.94 992.5 0.09 894 83.4

Sand Cone Test 28

Field Survey 29

LEAP Comments 30

• Complexity of Rainfall Hyetograph Difficult to Recreate

• Rain Bird Flow and Spread Pressure Dependent

• Of the 12 Lots, 7 Produced Runoff During 2015 (Summer, Fall)

• 3-6 in. of Rainfall Required to Produce Measurable Runoff

• Field Capacity of Soils Greater Than Expected • Sand Cone Test, Loss On Ignition Test and Detailed Surveys

• Upper Layer Soil Capacity & Depression Storage

• 2016 Field Monitoring • 7 (at least once) and 4 “worst offender” lots (at least twice)

Questions?

Donald D. Carpenter, PhD, PE, LEED AP Lawrence Technological University

dcarpente@ltu.edu

31