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
31
