Effect of Roof Surface Type on Storm-Water Runoff from

Full-Scale Roofs in a Temperate Climate

Donald D. Carpenter, Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP, M.ASCE1; and Preethi Kaluvakolanu2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Roof surfaces represent a significant portion of the impervious area associated with urban development. Storm-water runoff from
those surfaces causes stream degradation in receiving waters attributable to excess volume of water runoff. This paper investigates the
influence of roof surface type on storm-water runoff and specifically considers the benefits of a vegetated roof, or green roof, as a
storm-water best management practice (BMP). Runoff data were collected over a 6-month period from three full-scale roofs, which were
retrofitted with flow meters and automated water-quality samplers. The roof surfaces included an asphalt roof (for control purposes), a
vegetated extensive green roof, and a stone ballasted roof. Both the green roof and stone roof were effective at reducing runoff volume
and attenuating peak discharge, with the green roof being more efficient for rainfall events less than 2.54 cm. Overall, the green roof retained
68.25% of rainfall volume and reduced peak discharge by an average of 88.86%. Water-quality results were inconclusive, but did provide
some indication that green roof systems could reduce nutrient loadings. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000185. © 2011 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Storm-water management; Best Management Practice; Hydrology; Water quality; Runoff; Urban
development; Subtainable development; Roofs.
Author keywords: Storm-water management; Best management practice; Hydrology; Water quality; Runoff; Urban development;
Low-impact development; Green roof.

Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a best
management practice (BMP) as a “measure, technique or a struc-
tural control which manages the quantity and improves water qual-
ity of storm-water runoff, for a given set of conditions, in the most
cost-effective manner” (U.S. EPA 2003). BMPs such as rain gar-
dens, storm-water treatment wetlands, and detention ponds are in
wide practice, but require significant surface areas for construction.
When ground surface area is limited or unavailable, such as in a
dense urban environment, a vegetated roof has proved to be a good
alternative roof covering because of the many benefits associated
with vegetated roofs including storm-water management.
A vegetated roof, or green roof, is a rooftop planted with veg-
etation over layers of soil media and drainage systems. There are
two general categories of green roofs—extensive and intensive.
Extensive green roofs tend to use thinner soil media, weigh less,
are less expensive and have lower maintenance requirements. In
contrast, intensive green roofs typically have deeper soil layers,
a wider variety of plants, are heavier, and require higher levels
of maintenance. In both roof types, precipitation is retained by
the green roof and either evaporated into the atmosphere or used
1
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Lawrence Technological
Univ., 21000 W. Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075. E-mail:
carpenter@ltu.edu
2
Research Assistant, Civil Engineering Dept., Lawrence Technological
Univ., 21000 W. Ten Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075. E-mail:
pk000547767@ltu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 25, 2009; approved
on June 18, 2010; published online on June 22, 2010. Discussion period
open until August 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drai-
nage Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 3, March 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9437/2011/3-161–169/$25.00.
by the vegetation. Excess precipitation drains from the green roof
through roof drains similar to those of traditional roofs.
A key feature of vegetated roofing systems is their ability to
mitigate storm-water runoff in urban environments where imper-
vious surfaces are prolific (Liptan 2003). Research has shown that
the quantitative benefits associated with green roofs include a
decrease of runoff peak discharge (Carter and Rasmussen 2006;
Moran et al. 2004; Kurtz 2008), a delay in runoff occurrence
(Carter and Rasmussen 2006; Moran et al. 2004; VanWoert et al.
2005), and a reduction in runoff volume (Kolb 2004; Moran et al.
2004; Carter and Rasmussen 2006; Teemusk and Mander 2007;
VanWoert et al. 2005; Kurtz 2008; Hutchinson et al. 2003). How-
ever, the performance of green roofs has been shown to be based on
factors such as roof slope, media depth, and roof surface (Kolb
2004; VanWoert et al. 2005).
Green roofs can improve water quality by retaining and filtering
rain water through the soil medium and root uptake zone (Dramstad
et al. 1996). However, the literature does not clearly demonstrate
the influence of vegetated roofing systems on water quality. Studies
have found that green roofs can cause an increase in nutrient con-
centrations in runoff (Hutchinson et al. 2003; Moran et al. 2005;
Teemusk and Mander 2007; Van Seters et al. 2007) but reduce
the concentration of other common storm-water pollutants includ-
ing metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Van Seters et al.
2007; Berhage et al. 2007; Buccola et al. 2008). Even the reported
nutrient data is mixed with a reduction in nitrogen reported in some
investigations (Berhage et al. 2007; Van Seters et al. 2007).
There exists a need to investigate full-scale vegetated roof sys-
tems over a range of climatic conditions to better quantify the
hydrologic and water-quality response of green roofs on storm-
water management. Monitoring full-scale and retrofitted roofs al-
lows investigators to determine how vegetated roofs will respond in
actual as-built conditions that may vary from reported monitoring
project results on smaller pilot scale roofs. The opportunity to

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 161

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 5-year 24-hour storm event and several events over 2.54 cm
in depth.
To evaluate the relative performance of the green roof, it was
compared with two other roofs at the university: a stone-ballasted
roof with an area of 84:7 m2 , located on the bridge that connects the
Center and the Science Building (visible in the foreground of
Fig. 1), and an asphalt roof of 153:0 m2 , located on a nearby boiler
house. The stone-ballasted roof has approximately a 5.0 cm layer of
1.2 cm to 2.5 cm stone above the insulation layer instead of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

drainage layer and vegetation layers present on the green roof.

Fig. 1. A. Alfred Taubman Student Services Center, Lawrence Tech- The asphalt roof is a traditional black tar roofing system. An aerial
nological University, Southfield, Michigan photograph (Fig. 3) indicates the proximity of the three roofs and
relative size, with Table 1 providing comparative information.
investigate the effect of a full-scale green roof surfaced upon The goal of this research was to quantify the effect of roof sur-
completion of the green-certified student services center on face type on runoff retention, peak discharge attenuation, and
the campus of Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, water-quality characteristics with a specific interest in the perfor-
Michigan (Fig. 1). The building included an extensive green roof mance of the Hydrotech Garden Roof system. To monitor water
that represents a storm-water BMP in an urban environment. quantity and quality data, three horizontal roof drains were retro-
fitted with 10.16 cm- (4 in.)-diameter Palmer-Bowlus flumes. The
flumes were connected to an Isco Avalanche Sampler with a 730
Methodology Bubbler Flowmeter Module with two plastic tubes—one for flow
measurement and the other for water-quality sampling. Finally, a
The center is covered with a Hydrotech Garden Roof system 0.25 cm Teledyne Isco Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge records rainfall
(Fig. 2). The planting medium consists of a lightweight depth in 5 min increments.
10.16 cm deep expanded shale blend consisting of less than 6%
by mass organic matter. The planting medium has a saturated den-
sity of approximately 1;200 kg=m3 and a saturated water content of
Asphalt
0.30. The roof is planted with seven varieties of sedum that are
appropriate for the northern temperate climate. The roof received
irrigation for the first two years to establish plant life, but the irri-
gation system was disconnected in 2007 and remained discon- Stone
nected during the duration of this investigation. The system was
designed to retain approximately 60% of the annual rainfall, with
the remainder draining into a 37,800 L cistern to be used as “gray”
water for sanitary purposes. The green roof has four roof drains that Green
independently drain four hydrologically separated sections of the
green roof. A 325:2 m2 section of the 929:0 m2 green roof was
monitored as part of this investigation.
The study location (Southfield, Michigan) is in a northern tem-
perate climate with four distinct seasons. The average winter tem-
perature in Southfield is 27.5°F, and the average summer
temperature is 71.6°F (NOAA 2004). The area receives approxi-
mately 85.3 cm of precipitation annually, with a 2-year 24-hour
storm producing 14.6 cm of rainfall, and a 100-year 24-hour storm
producing 28.1 cm (Huff and Angel 1992). The monitoring was Fig. 3. Relative location of the three roofs monitored during this
investigation
performed during a drier than normal season, but did include a

Sedum
Planting Mix
Filter Fabric

Floradrain FD25® Water Retention Layer

Root Barrier Insulation Layer

Waterproof Roof Deck

Membrane

Fig. 2. Cross section of the garden roof

162 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 Table 1. Comparison of Physical Characteristics for Roofing Systems (C v ) is a dimensionless number that provides a fraction of
Monitored in this Investigation storm-water runoff from a surface. The volumetric runoff coeffi-
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof cient is also occasionally used as a proxy for the rational coefficient
(C) that determines the peak discharge of an area for a given
Roof area (m2 ) 153.0 325.2 84.7 rainfall intensity. The volumetric runoff coefficient was determined
Longest flow path (m) 9.1 20.7 17.7 as
Roof slope (V∶H) 1∶18 1∶24 1∶24
Volume of roof runoff ðm3 Þ
Cv ¼ ð4Þ
Water Quantity Volume of rainfall ðm3 Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The discharge through a flume, in this case storm-water runoff, was
calculated based on the water level readings in the flumes using a
calibrated weir equation
Q ¼ 1:68 × H 1:9 ð1Þ
where Q = discharge in ft3 =s and H = flume water level (ft) as re-
corded by the flowmeter. Values were then converted into metric
units for analysis and reporting. The discharge rate from Eq. (1)
was integrated over the length of time that runoff was measured
to obtain the volume of the runoff
Z t
V¼ QðtÞdt ð2Þ
0 the time to peak discharge using a precipitation centroid method
where V = volume of runoff in m3 ; Q = discharge in m3 =s; and t =
time in seconds. These calculations were repeated for each roof
system. For comparison between roofs, volume was converted into
a runoff depth by dividing by roof surface area. Rainfall was mea-
sured in 5-min increments, with the total rainfall depth for a given
storm event being the summation of rain depths from each incre-
ment. The amount of water retained by each roof is the total rainfall
depth for a storm event minus the runoff depth. Finally, a percent
retained was determined
rainfall depth ðcmÞ
runoff depth ðcmÞ
% retained ¼ × 100%
rainfall depth ðcmÞ
ð3Þ
The volume of rainfall for each event and the corresponding
runoff volume for the three roofs have been utilized to calculate
the volumetric runoff coefficient. A volumetric runoff coefficient
Attenuation of the peak discharge can be analyzed by consid-
ering both the reduction in magnitude and the lag time associated
with peak discharge. To compare the three roofs, which were differ-
ent in size, the discharge rates were normalized per 100 m2 of the
corresponding roof areas and represented as hydrographs. The re-
duction in peak discharge can be determined by comparing the
green roof and stone roof peaks with the asphalt roof peak dis-
charge serving as the control.
Two methods were utilized to determine peak discharge time
delay. The first compared the time from which rainfall was first
recorded to the time in which the highest discharge was recorded.
However, during most events, multiple peaks were recorded, mak-
ing this type of analysis suspect. The second method determined
(Carter and Rasmussen 2006) that calculates the depth-weighted
time
1X n
tp ¼ Pt ð5Þ
P i¼1 i i
where P = total storm precipitation depth (cm); n = total number of
time intervals; Pi = depth of precipitation in each interval (cm); and
ti = observation time of each interval (s). This method was used to
calculate a time to peak discharge centroid for the asphalt roof, the
green roof, and the stone roof.
Water Quality
The Avalanche Sampler has a refrigerated compartment with a 14-
bottle configuration for sequential collection of water samples. The
sampler was programmed to draw a sample when volumetric runoff
reached the equivalent of 0.15 cm of rainfall depth over the roof

Fig. 4. Normalized flow hydrographs for each roof for the May 30, 2008, rainfall event

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 163

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 Table 2. Summary of Storm-Water Runoff for the Three Roofs
Asphalt roof Stone roof Green roof
Date Rainfall (cm) Runoff (cm) Cv Runoff (cm) Cv Runoff (cm) Cv
10-Apr 0.762 0.635 0.833 0.559 0.733 0.229 0.300
12-Apr 0.508 0.356 0.700 0.102 0.200 0.0005 0.0009
25-Apr 0.457 0.381 0.833 0.152 0.333 0.003 0.006
2-May 0.991 0.940 0.949 0.330 0.333 0.020 0.021
7-May 0.711 0.584 0.821 0.356 0.500 0.004 0.006
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11-May 1.930 1.727 0.895 1.295 0.671 0.076 0.039

30-May 1.753 1.600 0.913 0.559 0.319 0.203 0.116
7-Jun 1.651 1.600 0.969 0.914 0.554 0.127 0.077
10-Jun 1.778 1.626 0.914 0.762 0.429 0.559 0.314
13-Jun 1.016 0.889 0.875 0.406 0.400 0.036 0.035
14-Jun 0.533 0.508 0.952 0.279 0.524 0.036 0.067
23-Jun 0.406 0.356 0.875 0.229 0.563 0.0003 0.0006
25-Jun 1.295 1.168 0.902 0.432 0.333 0.127 0.098
28-Jun 2.261 2.032 0.899 1.067 0.472 0.813 0.360
2-Jul 3.226 3.048 0.945 1.803 0.559 1.473 0.457
12-Jul 1.397 1.118 0.800 0.127 0.091 0.025 0.018
16-Jul 1.397 1.168 0.836 0.127 0.091 0.036 0.025
21-Jul 0.457 0.406 0.889 0.025 0.055 0.0003 0.0006
9-Aug 0.737 0.686 0.931 0.305 0.414 0.004 0.006
13-Sep 7.468 6.604 0.884 NA NA 4.826 0.646
14-Sep 3.302 3.048 0.923 NA NA 2.210 0.669
Apr–Aug
Total 23.266 20.828 9.830 3.772
Mean 1.225 1.096 0.881 0.517 0.399 0.199 0.102
Std Dev 0.748 0.708 0.065 0.466 0.192 0.375 0.142
Apr–Sep
Total 34.036 30.480 NA 10.807
Mean 1.621 1.451 0.883 NA NA 0.515 0.155
Std dev 1.582 1.423 0.063 NA NA 1.138 0.215

surface. Once the volumetric threshold was reached, the sampling exhibit a reduced volume and delayed discharge response. The fol-
protocol was initiated and water was drawn from the flume and lowing sections provide quantitative analysis of these trends.
deposited into a bottle every 15 min over the duration of the storm
event. Once the storm was finished, 50 cm3 from each of the 14 Volume
bottles were mixed to form a composite sample for analysis.
A total of 21 storm events with measureable runoff were observed
The composite sample was then utilized to determine an event
during a six-month period from April 1, 2008, to September 30,
mean concentration (EMC) for total phosphate, nitrate (NO3 -N),
2008 (Table 2), with the cumulative volume of runoff depicted
and total solids for each storm event using standardized laboratory
in Fig. 5. Unfortunately, equipment malfunction for the stone roof
testing protocols (Johnson et al. 2000). The total mass for each
made the water-quantity monitoring results for the final two storm
water-quality parameter was then determined by multiplying total
event runoff volume with concentration over the event duration.
Concentration and mass of total phosphate, nitrate (NO3 -N), and
total solids were determined for five sampled rainfall events that
exhibited rainfall greater than 1.27 cm in a 24 h period. To deter-
mine whether there was a statistically significant difference be-
tween the roof surfaces, a Mann-Whitney nonparametric test for
independent paired samples was performed on each pairwise
comparison.

Results and Discussion

The normalized hydrographs for a May 30, 2008, rain event are
presented as an example of the influence of roof type on hydro-
graph response (Fig. 4). It is clear that the asphalt roof responds
almost instantaneously to the rainfall and exhibits multiple peaks.
Fig. 5. Accumulative runoff from each roof (April–September 2008)
This is not the case for the green roof or the stone roof, which

164 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 100 Rainfall

10 Asphalt Roof Depth

90
Stone Roof Depth
80
Green Roof Depth
8
70

Percent Retained (%)

Asphalt Roof %
Retained
60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Depth (cm)

Stone Roof %
6 Retained
50 Green Roof %
Retained
40
4
30

20
2

10

0 0
Apr(1.727) May(5.385) Jun(8.940) July(6.477) Aug(0.737) Sep(10.770)

Fig. 6. Monthly retention for each roofing system (total monthly rainfall is in parentheses for each month)

events questionable. Those values were removed from the analysis,
with stone roof results being reported for 19 events. This is increas-
ingly unfortunate because those were the two largest rainfall events
recorded.
For the measured events, the asphalt roof recorded 30.48 cm of
runoff, for a retention rate of 10.45%. The green roof recorded
10.81 cm of runoff, for an overall retention rate of 68.25%. Finally,
the stone roof recorded 9.83 cm of runoff from the 23.27 cm of rain
experienced from April to August (retention rate of 57.75%). As a
direct comparison, the green roof retained 83.79% of the rainfall
during the same 5-month period.
Fig. 6 depicts the monthly depth of runoff for each of the three
roofs as bars with percent retained as a line plot. The asphalt roof
discharge is relatively constant around 10% except for the month of
April, when 20% of the precipitation was retained. The first two
precipitation events in April were a wet snow/rain mixture, which
probably influenced performance. Runoff from the stone roof was
more variable than that from the asphalt roof, retaining between
53.2% (April and May) and 67.9% (July). Finally, the green roof
exhibited significantly more variability with regard to rainfall re-
tention, retaining as much as 99.45% of rainfall in August and
as little as 34.66% for September. The month of September re-
corded the highest rainfall of any month in the investigation, with
10.77 cm of rainfall recorded in two events.
The variability of response to individual storm events for the
different roof surfaces is depicted as volumetric runoff coefficient
(C v ) in Table 2. The mean volumetric coefficient for the asphalt
roof is 0.883 with a standard deviation of 0.063. These values
are 0.399 and 0.192 for the stone roof (April to August) and
0.155 and 0.215 for the green roof. To demonstrate the influence
that rainfall volume has on the volumetric runoff coefficient, rain-
fall events have been categorized into three sizes: rainfall volumes
that varied between 0.40 cm to 1.27 cm were categorized as small
rainfall events, 1.27 cm to 2.54 cm were considered medium events,
and greater than 2.54 cm were considered large events (Table 3).
The green roof is highly efficient at retaining smaller rainfall
events, with the mean C v being nearly zero for events under
1.27 cm, but the green roof C v increases significantly as storm size
increases. The stone roof had a mean C v of 0.40 for small and
medium-size storm events, but also had a higher value for the
one large storm event. Finally, the asphalt roof retained similar vol-
umes of water for all storm events.
The variability in roof response to a rainfall event is attributable
to various factors that affect the rainfall retention, including rainfall
intensity/duration/frequency (i-d-f ), evapotranspiration rates, and
in the case of the green roof, initial soil medium moisture. When
the soil media on the green roof is already saturated, additional rain-
fall was not absorbed before runoff was recorded from the green
roof. When a longer time period between storm events exists,
evapotranspiration removed water temporarily stored in the soil
media and water storage layer.
As an example, May had a rainfall of 5.38 cm over four events
that were at least 4 days apart, whereas in June (Fig. 7), the total
rainfall was 8.91 cm over seven storm events, with several events

Table 3. Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Cv for All Three Roofs Based on Storm Size
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Size category Storm size (cm) Number of observations Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Small 0.40–1.27 10 0.866 0.075 0.044 0.092 0.409 0.191
Medium 1.27–2.54 8 0.891 0.263 0.131 0.123 0.37 0.191
Large > 2:54 3 0.917 0.923 0.591 0.669 0.559a NA
a
Stone roof volumetric runoff coefficients for large storm size category is based on a single storm as compared to three storms for the small and medium sized
storms.

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 165

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 2.5 100
Rainfall
Depth
90
% Retained
2 80

70
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Percent Retained
1.5 60
Depth (cm)

50

1 40

30

0.5 20

10

0 0
7-Jun 10-Jun 13-Jun 14-Jun 23-Jun 25-Jun 28-Jun
Date

Fig. 7. Green roof retention for individual rainfall events for June 2008

occurring only 1–3 days apart. For June, the green roof retained
81% of the total precipitation, compared with 94% for May.
The effect of temporal spacing and magnitude of rain events on
retention rate is clearly depicted in Fig. 7.
A plot of runoff versus rainfall (Fig. 8) depicts the correlation of
storm size with runoff. Statistical best-fit trend lines indicated a lin-
ear relationship for the asphalt roof (r 2 ¼ 0:99) and the stone roof
(r2 ¼ 0:60), whereas the green roof exhibited a best-fit power func-
tion relationship based on coefficient of correlation (r 2 ¼ 0:71).
One use of these equations is to determine how the stone roof might
have performed for the two larger events measured in September.
If the best-fit relationship for the stone roof is used to predict the
response to the larger events, the stone roof would be expected to
retain a total 48.58% of rainfall instead of the 57.75% of the rainfall
it retained from April to August.
Discharge
For green roofs, the soil media and the drainage layer absorb rain
water, and runoff occurs after the soil is saturated and the drainage
layer is full. This led to a delay for the runoff to occur, and a time
delay is observed between when rainfall begins and when the green
roof exhibits measureable runoff. This difference varied from

Asphalt Roof Stone Roof Green Roof Linear (Asphalt Roof) Linear (Stone Roof) Power (Green Roof)

2.5
y = 0.9208x - 0.0374
R2 = 0.9886

2
Roof Run off (cm)

1.5
y = 0.47x - 0.0764
R2 = 0.6005

0.5

y = 0.0243x3.7455
R2 = 0.7104
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Rainfall (cm)

Fig. 8. Runoff comparison for the three roofs for storms with less than 2.54 cm of total rainfall

166 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 Table 4. Peak Flow Reduction for a 100 m2 Normalized Roof Area
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Date Storm size Peak (L=s=100 m2 ) Peak (L=s=100 m2 ) Percent reduction (%) Peak (L=s=100 m2 ) Percent reduction (%)
10-Apr Small 0.119 0.003 97.203 0.033 72.39
12-Apr Small 0.035 0 98.835 0.019 44.425
25-Apr Small 0.144 0.001 99.269 0.087 39.681
2-May Small 0.793 0.01 98.787 0.098 87.619
7-May Small 0.304 0.003 98.909 0.133 56.439
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11-May Medium 0.123 0.01 92.181 0.078 36.622

30-May Medium 0.835 0.111 86.741 0.201 75.968
7-Jun Medium 0.856 0.014 98.316 0.248 71.061
10-Jun Medium 1.099 0.039 96.433 0.203 81.514
13-Jun Small 0.793 0.024 96.97 0.232 70.779
14-Jun Small 0.679 0.011 98.398 0.123 81.902
23-Jun Small 0.606 0 99.932 0.165 72.772
25-Jun Medium 0.968 0.087 91.001 0.232 76.08
28-Jun Medium 0.672 0.256 61.865 0.388 42.286
2-Jul Large 0.597 0.159 73.321 0.186 68.828
12-Jul Medium 0.772 0.009 98.865 0.048 93.792
16-Jul Medium 0.846 0.03 96.492 0.104 87.759
21-Jul Small 0.459 0 99.948 0.048 89.558
9-Aug Small 0.278 0.006 97.795 0.092 66.82
13-Sep Large 1.85 0.834 54.926 NA NA
14-Sep Large 0.761 0.534 29.855 NA NA
Mean 0.647 0.102 88.859 0.143 69.279
Std dev 0.414 0.209 18.558 0.093 17.603

several minutes to several hours depending on rainfall characteris-
tics and media saturation. For the stone-ballasted roof, the
rock layers provided roughness as well as storage area for the
storm water and exhibited response characteristics similar to
those of the green roof.
For comparison purposes, the peak runoff discharge values
for each roof surface normalized to 100 m2 (Fig. 5) to account
for the fact the roofs have different surface areas. The mean peak
runoff discharge rate was 0:65 L=s=100 m2 for the asphalt roof,
0:10 L=s=100 m2 for the green roof, and 0:14 L=s=100 m2 for
the stone roof (Table 4). Using the asphalt roof peak discharge
as the control roof, the green roof reduced peak discharges by
84.86% and the stone roof by 69.28%. However, it is worth noting
that the largest two storm events were not captured by the stone
roof. Similar to volumetric retention, the rainfall distribution also
influenced the peak discharge reduction and the stone roof exhib-
ited much higher variability than the green roof.
To determine the influence of storm size on peak discharge re-
duction, the analysis was repeated using the same storm size cat-
egories (Table 5). Using the asphalt roof as the control, the percent
reduction in peak discharge varied from 98.60% for small events to
52.70% for large events. The green roof also exhibited increased
variability in peak discharge reduction as storm event size in-
creased, as evidenced by higher standard deviation values for larger
storm events. Similar trends were not evidenced by the stone roof,
which reduced peak discharges by approximately 70% for all storm
event categories.
In addition to reducing peak discharge, the green roof and the
stone roof also delay hydrologic response. Time to peak discharge
was computed on the basis of depth-weighted time for the asphalt
roof, green roof, and stone roof (Table 6). The mean peak delay
response time for the asphalt roof is 10.8 min (0.18 h) and varied
from less than a minute to 24.6 min. The stone roof had a mean
response time of 1.25 h and varied from 8.3 min to 3.36 h. Finally,
the green roof had a mean response time of 2.16 h and exhibited
variability similar to that of the stone roof, with response times
ranging from 10.2 min to 4.8 h. The variability of response time
for the green roof and stone roof appeared to depend on rainfall
volume, with mean peak delay being less for large storm events
when compared with small and medium-sized storm events
(Table 7).
Water Quality
Water-quality concentrations were computed for runoff samples
from five rainfall events (May 30, June 25, July 2, July 12, and
September 5) that exhibited rainfall greater than 1.27 cm in a

Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Peak Discharge Reduction for All Three Roofs Based on Storm Size
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Peak (L=s=100 m2 ) Peak (L=s=100 m2 ) Percent reduction Peak (L=s=100 m2 ) Percent reduction
Size Category Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Small 0.42 0.28 0.01 0.01 98.60 1.03 0.10 0.06 68.24 16.95
Medium 0.77 0.28 0.07 0.08 90.24 12.18 0.19 0.11 70.64 20.59
Large 1.07 0.68 0.51 0.34 52.70 21.82 0.19 NAa 68.83 NAa
a
Stone roof values for large storm size category are based on a single storm as compared to three storms for the small- and medium-sized storms.

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 167

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 Table 6. Time to Peak Discharge Centroid Based on Depth-Weighted Time
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Date Storm size Rainfall centroid (h) Peak time (h) Peak delay (h) Peak time (h) Peak delay (h) Peak time (h) Peak delay (h)
10-Apr Small 3.071 3.151 0.080 4.613 1.542 4.112 1.041
12-Apr Small 5.913 6.080 0.167 9.102 3.189 7.402 1.489
25-Apr Small 2.530 2.662 0.132 4.341 1.811 4.170 1.640
2-May Small 0.365 0.461 0.096 1.805 1.440 1.595 1.230
7-May Small 1.039 1.051 0.012 2.366 1.327 2.338 1.299
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11-May Medium 6.110 6.325 0.215 10.919 4.809 8.419 2.309

30-May Medium 1.820 1.844 0.024 3.656 1.836 2.990 1.170
7-Jun Medium 1.425 1.451 0.026 3.805 2.380 3.280 1.855
10-Jun Medium 3.570 3.728 0.158 5.147 1.577 4.896 1.326
13-Jun Small 7.443 7.829 0.386 11.305 3.862 10.801 3.358
14-Jun Small 2.110 2.320 0.210 6.543 4.433 3.011 0.901
23-Jun Small 0.180 0.182 0.002 2.526 2.346 1.622 1.442
25-Jun Medium 1.803 1.913 0.110 4.377 2.574 3.967 2.164
28-Jun Medium 5.314 6.221 0.907 9.706 4.392 6.410 1.096
2-Jul Large 2.142 2.170 0.028 2.377 0.235 2.342 0.200
12-Jul Medium 0.318 0.492 0.174 2.571 2.253 0.547 0.229
16-Jul Medium 0.240 0.347 0.107 0.410 0.170 0.397 0.157
21-Jul Small 0.139 0.203 0.064 0.693 0.554 0.278 0.139
9-Aug Small 0.256 0.660 0.404 1.205 0.949 1.033 0.777
13-Sep Large 12.317 12.631 0.314 14.950 2.633 NA NA
14-Sep Large 2.131 2.229 0.098 3.077 0.946 NA NA
Mean 2.868 3.045 0.177 5.024 2.155 3.664 1.254
Std dev 3.059 3.155 0.203 3.957 1.359 2.876 0.817

24 h period. The green roof exhibited a significantly higher total concentrations for the green roof were lower than those for the as-
solids concentration ( p ¼ 0:045) than the asphalt roof (Table 8), phalt roof and stone roof, but not at the p ¼ 0:05 significance level.
with the stone roof having the second-highest measured solids con- Finally, the stone roof exhibited the highest measured nitrate con-
centration for all five sampled runoff events. The total phosphate centration for all five events with the green roof runoff having

Table 7. Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Peak Discharge Delay for All Three Roofs Based on Storm Size
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Peak delay (h) Peak delay (h) Peak delay (h)
Size category Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Small 0.16 0.14 2.15 1.29 1.33 0.83
Medium 0.22 0.29 2.50 1.50 1.29 0.81
Large 0.15 0.15 1.27 1.23 0.20 NAa
a
Stone roof values for large storm size category are based on a single storm as compared to three storms for the small and medium sized storms.

Table 8. Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Concentration for Water-Quality Parameters
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Concentrations (mg=L) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Total solids 108 55.52 190 51.84 152 60.17
Total phosphate 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.05 0.10 0.08
Nitrate 0.37 0.55 0.41 0.28 0.81 0.64

Table 9. Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of Mass for Water-Quality Parameters
Asphalt roof Green roof Stone roof
Mass (g) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Total solids 503.7 498.24 946.72 1,490.85 101.94 97.49
Total phosphate 0.88 0.83 0.63 0.99 0.05 0.03
Nitrate 0.87 0.96 0.69 1.11 0.31 0.30

168 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169

 slightly higher mean nitrate concentrations when compared with
those of the asphalt roof but also not at a statistically signifi-
cant level.
When converting the concentration to mass (Table 9), both the
green roof and asphalt roof had significantly higher ( p ¼ 0:05) to-
tal mass of solids compared with the stone roof. In addition, there
exists a direct correlation between the size of the storm event and
the total solid mass released from the roofs, with larger storm
events registering higher solids mass. The high concentration
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr S & SS Ghandhy Government Engineering College on 10/09/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and mass of total solids from the green roof are from the green roof
growing media. With regard to mass, the only other statistically
significant parameter was phosphate, with the asphalt roof and
green roof both exhibiting higher levels of phosphate mass than
the stone roof. It is important to reiterate that the roofs were differ-
ent in area so a comparison of total mass can be misleading, but it is
included to demonstrate the influence of volumetric runoff on
water-quality performance of roof surfaces.
Sampling was limited to five storm events, which is not
adequate to generalize the water-quality results on the whole,
but the data demonstrates the potential of a green roof to reduce
nutrients. Observed nitrate concentrations were highest from the
stone roof, with the green roof and asphalt roof releasing similar
concentrations of nitrate. Mean mass values of total phosphate
and nitrate were lower for the green roof than for the asphalt roof.
It might be possible that the green roof would show a decrease in
the nutrient concentrations if additional data were collected over a
prolonged period (Hunt et al. 2006; Moran et al. 2005). In addition,
intermediate nonsampled smaller rainfall events would have
flushed nutrients and sediment off the asphalt roof and stone roof
for cases in which the green roof did not exhibit measureable run-
off. The capture of those events might influence the total mass dis-
charged from the roofs.
Conclusions
The goal of this research was to determine the effect of roof surface
type on runoff retention, peak discharge attenuation, and water
quality. Of specific interest was the performance of a full-scale
established nonirrigated extensive green roof. Results indicated that
the green roof was highly efficient in capturing small storm events
and was able to retain 68.25% of rainfall volume. The ability of the
green roof to capture and slowly release rainfall runoff was very
pronounced for events less than 2.54 cm, which historically repre-
sents more than 90% of all rainfall events in the northern temperate
climate of Michigan. The green roof reduced peak discharge by
more than 90% for 17 of the 21 measured storm events and on aver-
age, delayed the centroid of runoff mass by more than 2 h. The
stone roof also demonstrated the ability to mitigate storm-water
runoff, capturing approximately 50% of the rainfall volume, exhib-
iting a significant reduction in peak discharge, and creating a time
delay of 1.2 h.
Volumetric runoff coefficients were developed for each roof sur-
face and will aid in modeling and designing future storm-water
management systems that incorporate green or stone roofs. Volu-
metric runoff coefficients varied significantly based on rainfall vol-
ume, which is important when predicting a roof system’s response
to a design rainfall event. With regard to water quality, there was
significant variability between individual rainfall events, and the
nutrient removal and water-quality performance portion of the
investigation is inconclusive. However, the data provide some
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2011 / 169
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2011, 137(3): 161-169
indication that a green roof could be effective at reducing nutrient
and solid loadings.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the College of Engineering at Lawrence
Technological University for partial funding of this investigation.
References
Berhage, R., Beattie, D., Jarrett, A., and O’Connor, T. (2007). “Greenroof
runoff water quality.” Proc., 2007 Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities Conf., Minneapolis.
Buccola, N., Spolek, C., and Johnson, G. (2008). “A laboratory comparison
of green roof runoff water quality.” Proc., 2008 Low Impact Develop-
ment Conf., Seattle.
Carter, T. L., and Rasmussen, T. C. (2006). “Hydrologic behavior of
vegetated roof.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 42(5), 1261–1274.
Dramstad, W. E., Olson, J. D., and Forman, R. T. T. (1996). Landscape
ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning,
Harvard Univ. Graduate School of Design, Island Press, Washington,
DC, 39.
Huff, F., and Angel, J. (1992). Rainfall frequency atlas of the Midwest,
Midwestern Climate Center and Illinois State Water Survey,
Washington, DC.
Hunt, W., Hathaway, A., Smith, J., and Calabria, J. (2006). “Choosing the
right green roof media for water quality.” Proc., 2006 Greening Roof-
tops for Sustainable Communities, Boston.
Hutchinson, D., Abrams, P., Retzlaff, R., and Liptan, T. (2003).
“Stormwater monitoring of two ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA.”
Proc., 1st North American Greenroof Conf., Chicago.
Johnson, R., Redding, K., and Holmquist, D. (2000). Water quality with
computers, Vernier Software and Technology, Beaverton, OR.
Kurtz, T. (2008). “Flow monitoring of three ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon.”
Proc., 2008 Low Impact Development Conf., Seattle.
Kolb, W. (2004). “Good reasons for roof planting—Green roofs and
rainwater.” Int. Conf. on Urban Horticulture, Acta Horticulturae,
Waedenswil, Switzerland, 643, 295–300.
Liptan, T. (2003). “Planning, zoning and financial incentives for ecoroofs in
Portland, Oregon.” Proc., 1st North American Green Roof Conf., Chi-
cago, 113–120.
Moran, A., Hunt, B., and Jennings, G. (2004). “A North Carolina field
study to evaluate green roof runoff quantity, runoff quality, and plant
growth.” Proc., 2nd North American Green Roof Conf., Portland,
OR, 446–460.
Moran, A. C., Hunt, W. F., and Smith, J. T. (2005). “Green roof hydrologic
and water quality performance from two field studies in North Caro-
lina.” Proc., 2005 Watershed Management Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). (2004). “Clima-
tography of the United States, 1971–2000.” 〈www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/
climate/normals/usnormalshist.html〉.
Teemusk, A., and Mander, U. (2007). “Rainwater runoff quantity and qual-
ity performance from a greenroof: The effects of short-term events.”
Ecol. Eng., 30(3), 271–277.
U.S. EPA. (2003). “Protecting water quality from urban runoff.” 〈http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nps_urban-facts_final.pdf〉.
Van Seters, T., Rocha, L., and MacMillan, G. (2007). “Evaluation of the
runoff quantity and quality performance of an extensive greenroof in
Toronto, Ontario.” Proc., 2007 Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities Conf., Minneapolis.
VanWoert, N. D., Rowe, D. B., Andresen, J. A., Rugh, C. L.,
Fernandez, R. T., and Xiao, L. (2005). “Green roof stormwater reten-
tion: Effects of roof surface, slope, and media depth.” J. Environ. Qual.,
34(3), 1036–1044.