111

Jennifer Mullaney
Terry Lucke
Review

Faculty of Science, University of the Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs

Sunshine Coast, Health, Education
and Engineering, Maroochydore, QLD,
An international literature review was undertaken to identify the most appropriate
Australia
design for a pervious paving system. The literature review revealed that information
contained in design guidelines is often unclear and occasionally conflicting and this can
be confusing for designers and other stormwater professionals. This literature review was
to form the basis of a design for a new research study on the benefits of using pervious
pavements to promote street tree health has recently commenced at the University of the
Sunshine Coast in Australia. The review identified four typical pervious paving surfaces
porous concrete porous asphalt, permeable inter locking concrete pavers, and concrete
and plastic grid pavers. All four pavement surfaces were found to have high stormwater
pollutant removal performance in a variety of conditions, with a wide range of designs.
Maintenance procedures can have a significant impact on the rate of clogging of pervious
pavements which can impact on the effective life span and there is conflicting and
unreliable evidence to support the inclusion of a geofabric layer within pervious paving
systems. This paper summarises the literature review findings and is intended as a
practical resource for designers and researchers of pervious pavement systems.
Keywords: Clogging; Geofabric; Pollutant removal; Street trees; SUDS
Received: March 4, 2013; revised: July 12, 2013; accepted: July 26, 2013
DOI: 10.1002/clen.201300118

1 Introduction mitigating the adverse effects of urban stormwater runoff and

1.1 Water sensitive urban design
Altering the natural characteristics of a drainage basin through
urbanisation can impose dramatic changes on the movement and
storage of stormwater within the catchment. Impervious surfaces
such as roofs and pavements can prevent precipitation from reaching
the soil and this can reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge,
while increasing stormwater runoff volumes and flow rates from the
catchment. Increased stormwater runoff can also cause significant
reductions in downstream water quality [1]. Increasing impervious
areas in urban catchments can also cause flooding to occur during
periods of heavy rainfall when stormwater drainage systems are at
capacity. With approximately 50% of the world’s population now
living in urban environments the amount of impervious surfaces and
their associated environmental problems are set to increase [2].
Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) in Australia, is similar to
sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in Europe and low impact
development in the USA and Japan [3]. All embrace the concept of
integrated land and water management and in particular integrated
urban water management [4]. The principles of WSUD focus on
Correspondence: Dr. T. Lucke, University of the Sunshine Coast, Faculty of
Science, Health, Education and Engineering, Maroochydore, QLD 4558,
Australia
E-mail: tlucke@usc.edu.au
Abbreviations: CGP, concrete grid paver; PA, porous asphalt; PC, porous
concrete; PGP, plastic grid paver; PICP, permeable interlocking concrete
pavers; SUDS, sustainable urban drainage systems; USC, University of the
Sunshine Coast; WSUD, water sensitive urban design
finding solutions to integrated water cycle management. Pezzaniti
et al. [4] defined these principles as being:

Reducing portable water demand through water efficient
appliance, rainwater and grey water reuse.

Minimising wastewater generated and treatment of wastewater
to a standard suitable for efficient reuse opportunities and/or
release to receiving waters.

Treating urban stormwater to meet water quality objectives for
reuse and/or discharge to surface waters.

Using stormwater in the urban landscape to maximise the visual
and recreational amenity of developments.
WSUD is a relatively recent concept that brings together new
technologies, with an increasing interest in urban regeneration, to
rethink urban water management and apply solutions to make towns
and cities more sustainable.
As part of the WSUD stormwater management principle, a number
of stormwater treatment devices have been developed to improve
water quality, such as swales, bioretention basins, settlement ponds
and wetlands. However, these treatment devices can require
significant land uptake. Highly urbanised areas are often restricted
in space, and potential stormwater treatment measures should
ideally fit into the urban area without further land uptake.
1.2 Pervious pavements
Pavements currently account for approximately 25% of impervious
areas within urban environments [5]. Typically two-thirds of all
the rain that falls on potentially impervious surfaces in urban

© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
112 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke
catchments ends up on pavements [6]. Pavements generate significant
volumes of runoff which is often contaminated with heavy metals
and hydrocarbons [7, 8].
Conventional pavements designed for use by vehicular traffic
typically consist of a sub-grade, one or more overlying basecourses of
compacted pavement material and an impervious surface seal. An
integral aspect of conventional pavement design involves preventing
the entry of water into the pavement, via the seal or the paving joints,
to protect the integrity of the underlying basecourse and sub-grade [9].
Pervious pavements are a relatively new technology and have quite
different objectives and design requirements to conventional
pavements. They can be used as an alternative to conventional
impervious hard surfaces, such as roads, carparks, footpaths and
pedestrian areas [10]. Permeable pavements are specifically designed
to promote the infiltration of stormwater through the paving
and structure where it is filtered through the various pavement
layers. This results in many stormwater management and environ-
mental benefits. The filtered stormwater is then either harvested for
later reuse or released slowly into the underlying soil or stormwater
drainage system [10].
Pervious pavements are one WSUD treatment option that do not
require any increase in land area. They help increase infiltration in
urbanised areas and help reduce pressure on existing stormwater
infrastructure. They are commonly used as part of a treatment train
or as a source control measure [4]. Pervious pavements in good
working order have infiltration rates, from 130 mm/h up to several
thousand mm/h [11] and can manage the runoff of rainfall events in
excess of a 1 in 100 year storm event [12]. However, the performance
of a pervious paving system also depends on the local site conditions.
For example, if underlying soils have low permeability a collection
pipe is often needed in the base of the system to divert infiltrated
water to the underground drainage network.
Pervious paving provides multiple benefits for managing storm-
water runoff at source [13]. They help to reinstate the infiltration
capabilities and restore the natural hydrological cycle of urban areas.
This reduces runoff volumes and the risk of flooding. They filter and
treat the infiltrating runoff by trapping pollutants that might
otherwise contaminate groundwater and stormwater [2, 5]. It is also
thought that pervious pavements can reduce the urban heat island
effect and can contribute to a wider range of sustainable water
management objectives through rainwater harvesting [10, 14–16].
Recently, the potential for pervious pavements to replace conven-
tional asphalt paving installed around street trees has also been
proposed. Pervious pavement’s ability to allow water and air to
infiltrate through to the root zone could potentially increase street
tree health and minimise pavement damage.
There are some common misconceptions associated with pervious
pavements systems. These include the belief that they cannot be used in
clay soils, that they clog easily which hinders infiltration, and that they
do not work well in cold climates due to damage caused by freeze and/
or frosting [12]. Increased interest in pervious pavements from
planners, designers and stormwater managers has led to an increase
in research addressing these misconceptions of clogging, maintenance
costs and frost/freeze damage interest [4, 13, 17]. It has also initiated
new research areas such as using pervious pavement for stormwater
harvesting and reuse and to promote street tree health [10, 18, 19].
A new research study on the benefits of using pervious pavements
to promote street tree health has recently commenced at the
University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) in Australia. The study
methodology necessitated the design and construction of 32
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
prototype pervious pavement test plots. An international literature
review was undertaken to identify the most appropriate design
specifications for the USC test plots. The literature review revealed
that there are currently numerous pervious pavement design
guidelines in use worldwide and that the information contained
in these design guidelines is often unclear and occasionally
conflicting. This paper summarises the results of the international
literature review and is intended as a practical resource for designers
and researchers of pervious pavement systems.
2 Pervious pavement systems
Pervious pavements are a logical stormwater management solution
within the urban environment as they make effective use of available
land, allow water to infiltrate through the paving surface and into the
soil layers below, and they provide a hard surface for light vehicle use
or pedestrians [2, 20]. Pervious pavements are suitable for a wide variety
of applications within residential, commercial and industrial sites.
Common applications include parking lots, low traffic volume streets,
foot paths, residential driveways, shopping areas and bicycle tracks
(e.g. www.knoxcounty.org/stormwater/pdfs/KCSWM_2008_VOL_2.pdf)
[21]. However, they are generally not suitable for high traffic
volumes, heavy loads or traffic laden with sediment as this can result
in structural damage and a potential reduction in the infiltration
performance of the system.
All types of pervious pavements share common goals of encourag-
ing infiltration to reduce stormwater runoff, improving water quality
through various filtering, chemical and biological treatments, and
providing water storage. Pervious surfaces have been installed across
Europe and North America for many years, while uptake in Australia
has been relatively slow to date. Pervious pavements have different
design variations, with four types commonly used [22].

Permeable interlocking concrete pavers (PICP).

Concrete and plastic grid pavers (CGP and PGP).

Porous asphalt (PA).

Porous concrete (PC).
The four types of pervious pavement will be discussed in detail in
the following sections.
2.1 PICP
PICPs are generally designed so that there is sufficient open space
between the pavers to allow water to infiltrate into the pavement
structure. This is either achieved by way of specially designed paving
shapes that include small apertures in the paving surface (Fig. 1b) or
with slots or spacing lugs that are cast into the perimeter of the
pavers to keep them apart (Fig. 1a). The joints or spaces between PICPs
are not filled with sand or other binders as they are with conventional
pavers. Instead, the open spaces between the pavers are usually filled
with the same 2–5 mm aggregate that is used for the paving bedding
layer. Filling the joints with bedding aggregate promotes rapid
infiltration between the pavers.
PICPs rely on their geometry to provide interlocking and structural
strength. Rectangular shaped PICPs are generally laid in patterns that
increase the structural integrity of the pavement surface (e.g.
herringbone, Fig. 1a). A variety of other paver shapes have also been
used to increase the structural integrity and to promote infiltration
(Fig. 1b). The open space of the joints or apertures used for infiltration
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124

Figure 1. PICP with wide joints (a) and apertures (b).
typically constitute between 8 and 20% of the pavement surface
area [22]. PICPs have been available for more than 25 years and are the
most widely used pervious pavement system [13].
Figure 2 shows a typical PICP structure with wide joints to allow
water to infiltrate through the gaps between the pavers. Below the
pavers is a bedding layer of small sized aggregate (typically between 2
and 5 mm in diameter) which is often laid on a geofabric. In the past,
geofabrics have often been incorporated into permeable pavements
to separate differently sized aggregates and to prevent the smaller
aggregate from migrating downwards. They are also considered to be
beneficial in improving water quality, particularly in the removal of
oil [21, 23]. Below the geofabric (if included) is a sub-base aggregate
consisting of larger aggregate sizes (between 20 and 63 mm in
diameter). The depth of this layer is typically between 300 and
500 mm, depending on the structural and water storage require-
ments. The larger aggregate in the sub-base provides high void ratios,
enabling stormwater to utilise this area as a reservoir and act as a
pollutant trap.
2.2 CGP and PGP
The design and function of CGPs and PGPs are similar to PICP
however they generally have significant differences in the impervious
area of the pavement surface. CGPs are generally much larger than
the individual pavers used for PICP and they have more open void
spaces to promote infiltration. The percentage of open void space
ranges from between 20 and 50% for CGPs (Fig. 3b) and between 90
and 98% for PGPs (Fig. 3a), compared with between 8 and 20% for PICP.
Stormwater is able to infiltrate through the large gaps in these pavers
which are usually filled with gravel, or topsoil planted with grass
(Fig. 3). The void space depends on the type of fill media [22]. Few
studies have been undertaken on CGPs or PGPs.
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs 113
Past experience in Australia has shown that long dry spells and hot
weather makes CGPs unsuitable for use in many parts of the
country [13]. Grass planted in the paving apertures often experiences
severe heat stress in dry periods which can cause it to die-off. This can
then lead to erosion of the soil in the paving apertures during heavy
rainfall. This type of system appears to be generally more suitable for
cooler climates.
2.3 PA
PA is similar to typical hot mix asphalt but the fine portion of the
aggregate is omitted. The thickness of the PA wearing surface is
typically between 75 and 180 mm, depending on the traffic design
volume [24]. PA pavements generally have a similar structure to that
shown in Fig. 2 except that the pavers are replaced by a PA layer.
Although PA has been used successfully in the USA since the 1970s,
the performance results have been varied, in terms of design,
production, construction and maintenance [25]. The design lifespan
is typically around 15 years for a PA pavement. However, this can
depend on maintenance programmes, traffic loading and the effect
of continuous exposure to air water and oxygen, which can often
result in cracking of the bitumen [26]. Figure 4 shows the difference
in infiltration performance between a normal asphalt and a PA
surface during a rainfall event.
2.4 PC
PC consists of a specially formulated mixture of Portland
cement binder, uniform open graded course aggregate and water
(e.g. www.knoxcounty.org/stormwater/pdfs/KCSWM_2008_VOL_2.pdf)
[21]. The fine aggregates included in the production of traditional
concrete are omitted during the production of PC which increases its
Figure 2. Typical PICP structure.
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
114 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke
Figure 3. (a) Plastic grid pavers and (b) concrete grid pavers.
infiltration capacity. One of the most common applications for PC is
for road pavements because the open structure has three distinct
advantages over traditional concrete [27]:
(1) the surface provides reduced noise levels;
(2) the surface produces less spray; and
(3) the surface enhances skid resistance.
The key challenges in utilising PC include: ensuring adequate
strength and durability, and typically higher installation costs. PC
has also been used to produce PICP pavers and these have been shown
to achieve high pollution retention capacities and infiltration
rates [28–30].
3 Previous pervious pavement research
The following sections list and discuss contemporary research papers
that focus on the infiltration capacity, pollutant removal perfor-
mance and clogging processes and maintenance of pervious pave-
ments. The main outcomes from each paper are recorded within a
table in each section to enable the reader to easily identify the main
advantages/disadvantages of the different pervious pavements
available. Column 3 lists the type of pervious pavement (Sections
2.1–2.4) investigated in the studies. Column 4 shows whether or not
Figure 4. Infiltration properties of normal and porous asphalt (with
courtesy by USDA).
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
a geofabric layer was included in the study between the bedding
and the base course aggregate layers. A dash in column 4 means
that it was unclear from the literature whether a geofabric had
been used or not.
3.1 Infiltration capacity of pervious pavements
Pervious pavements have been shown to significantly reduce the
volume of stormwater runoff and reduce peak flowrates from urban
catchments, compared to traditional pavements. A considerable
amount of research has been undertaken on the infiltration capacity
of pervious pavements. A number of studies have also investigated
the potential hydrological impacts that pervious pavement surfaces
can have within a catchment, and on its downstream receiving
waters. Table 1 outlines findings from nine pivotal studies
undertaken on the infiltration capacity and hydrological impact of
pervious pavement systems.
3.2 Water quality
Urban runoff from roofs, pavements and pedestrian areas typically
includes a variety of pollutants including heavy metals, total
phosphorous, total nitrogen, oils and other hydrocarbons, and
sediment that has been deposited onto these impermeable surfaces
(e.g. www.perviouspavement.org/) [12, 40, 41]. Heavy metals are
another major source of pollution typically found in urban runoff
that negatively impact on aquatic ecosystems [8]. These include, iron,
zinc, lead, copper and generally refer to any metals which have a
relatively high density and can be toxic to human, terrestrial and
aquatic life. Heavy metals tend to attach themselves to sediment
particles between 0.1 and 0.3 mm [8, 35]. Stormwater can readily
transport these pollutants, particularly the finer fractions [14] and
this increases the turbidity of waterways [8].
The majority of pollution in urban stormwater in developed
countries originates from non-point or diffuse sources, such as from
road surfaces, industrial sites, housing estates or farmland, and the
source is often difficult to locate [14, 42]. Table 2 shows a range of
contaminants typically found in runoff from road surfaces and their
sources. The types of pollutants and their concentrations are
dependent on land use, population density, geology, topography
and stormwater duration and intensity within the catchment.
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
 Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs 115

Table 1. Previous research findings on the infiltration capacity of pervious pavements

Research study Type of pervious

(location)
Pratt et al. [31, 32]
(Coventry, UK)
Hunt et al. [33] (NC, USA)
Brattebo and Booth [34]
(Seattle, WA, USA)
Rankin and Ball [35]
(Sydney, Australia)
Straet et al. [36] (Belgium)
Gilbert and Clausen [37]
(CT, USA)
Collins et al. [38]
(NC, USA)
Dreelin et al. [24]
(GA, USA)
Jayasuriya and
Kadurupokune [39]
(Melbourne, Australia)
Main findings pavement Geofabric
• PICP systems significantly reduced runoff volumes and peak flow-rates PICP Yes
from the car-park (by up to 60%) compared to conventional asphalt
pavements
• There was a significant delay between the start of a rainfall event and the
first discharge from the reservoir drainage pipes and the discharge
continued well after the rainfall had ceased
• Grass-concrete block system and grass-plastic grid system tested for PGP –
infiltration performance. The authors recommend that it is reasonable to
assign a rational runoff coefficient ranging from 0.20 to 0.50 for these
pervious paving systems
• The long-term effectiveness of four pervious surfaces after six years was PGP –
deemed high
• Little or no runoff was evident from the pervious pavements surfaces PICP
tested, even during high period of rainfall (42 mm over 14 h)
• Site had generally low rainfall, recommended to confirm the effectiveness CGP
in a wetter climate
• A PICP installation reduced the effective imperviousness of a residential PICP –
Street by 42%
• Tested the infiltration capacity of plastic geocells and open jointed grids PGP –
sown with grass compared to open jointed paving blocks
• Infiltration capacity of vegetated plastic geocells was lower than the open PICP
jointed pavers
• 72% runoff reduction from driveway with PICP with apertures compared to PICP No
conventional asphalt
• Runoff from four pervious surfaces was compared to a conventional CGP No
impervious asphalt surface
• All had significantly higher removal rates than the conventional PC
impervious asphalt surface
• Mean runoff reduction was 98% for all pervious surfaces compared to 35% PICP
for the asphalt surface
• Plastic pavers filled with grass were clearly shown to reduce runoff PGP No
volumes by 93% compared to a conventional asphalt surface
• Field results of Ecotrihex pavers and Atlantic Turf Cells (porous) compared PICP Yes
to impervious asphalt surface
• Asphalt surface produced runoff after 3 mm of rainfall, compared to 13 PGP
and 18 mm, respectively, for the Ecotrihex paver and Turf cells
• Peak discharge was reduced between 40–55% for the Ecotrihex paver and
45–60% for the Turf cell. Runoff volume was reduced by 43–55% for the
Ecotihex paver and 52–62% for the Turf cell

Pervious pavements have been shown to be effective in removing
pollutants (e.g. suspended solids, oils and heavy metals) due to the
infiltration processes that take place through the structure. Table 3
outlines findings from twelve pivotal studies undertaken on the
pollutant removal efficiency of pervious pavement systems.
3.3 Clogging
Clogging is a result of fines, organic matter and traffic-caused abraded
particles, blocking the gaps and surfaces of pervious pavement systems
due to physical, biological and chemical processes [50]. This clogging
decreases the porosity/permeability of the paving surface and hence the
infiltration rate of a system [51–53]. Street tree litter can also block
permeable pavements but an advantage of decomposing leaves is the
elevated nutrient levels, which stimulate microbial activity on the
geofabric, and this leads to accelerated hydrocarbon breakdown [20].
The degree that particle deposition onto pavement surfaces impacts on
the performance of a system depends on the particle size distribution of
the material and the pore structure or permeability of the system [54].
A number of studies have investigated the clogging processes that
occur in pervious pavements and the pollutant distribution within
paving structures. These are listed in Tab. 4.

Table 2. Contaminants and sources of urban road pollution (adapted from [14, 34])

Contaminant Primary source

Metals: lead, zinc, cadmium, copper, Tyre wear, motor oil, grease, exhaust wear, moving engine parts, break lining,
iron, nickel, chromium metal plating, fuel
Sediment Pavement wear, maintenance, construction, vehicles, erosion, traffic de-icing salts, wind
Petroleum hydrocarbons Oil spills, leaks, anti-freeze, hydraulic fluids, leachate from pavement
Nutrients-phosphorus, nitrogen Fertiliser, decomposing organic matter
Rubber Tyre wear

© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
116 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke

Table 3. Previous research on the pollutant removal efficiency of pervious pavements

Type of
pervious
Research study (location) Main findings pavement Geofabric
Legret et al. [43] • Concentrations of suspended solids and lead that passed through a PA No
(Nantes, France) porous asphalt surface were reduced by 64 and 79%
• Zinc and cadmium showed similar removal performance of 72 and
67% repectively
Pratt et al. [42] • Permeable pavement with geofabric can reduce stormwater PICP Yes
(Coventry, UK) petroleum contamination by 97.6% compared to that found on the
pavement surface
Legret et al. [44] • Pollutants become trapped on suspended solids in the porous PA –
(Nantes, France) asphalt surfaces and can be readily remobilised
Dierkes et al. [29] • Tested the performance of four different sub-bases; gravel, basalt, PICP No
(Essen, Germany) limestone and sandstone
• Sandstone demonstrated the lowest heavy metal pollutant removal
performance but still removed 72–82% of all heavy metals
• Gravel and basalt were most effective removing 88–98%
Legret and Colandini [40] • Compared the exfiltrate of a porous asphalt surface to an urban PA No
(Nantes, France) catchment
• Mean metal concentration in exfiltrate through the pavement were
lower than in those found in the catchment runoff
• Mean difference in the reduction of lead, cadmium, zinc and SS
concentrations between the porous pavement and the reference
catchment was 74, 84, 77 and 59% respectively
Dierkes et al. [30] • Stormwater pollutants tend to accumulate in the top 20–30 mm of PICP –
(Stadtlohn, Germany) PICPs
Newman et al. [45] • Tested the capability of a permeable pavement, asphalt and PICP Yes
(Coventry, UK) concrete surfaces to retain oil
• The three surfaces retained the following oil percentages
respectively: 99.6, 49.6 and 70.2%
Newman et al. • Addition of a fertiliser was shown to be no more effective than PICP Yes
(www.perviouspavement.org/; natural fauna that had colonised the test rigs over four years in
Coventry, UK) assisting the breakdown of hydrocarbons
Brattebo and Booth [34] • Four different pervious surfaces, with no geofabric. All four PGP No
(Seattle, USA) surfaces demonstrated a significant difference between quality of PGP
subsurface infill and surface runoff compared to conventional PICP
asphalt CGP
Dierkes et al. [46] • Tested five permeable pavement joint fillers and simulated 18 years PICP –
(Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany) of operation to evaluate pollution removal performance of each
joint filler
• All five showed high removal performance, 99% lead and cadmium,
98% copper and 94–96% zinc
Highest pollution retention capabilities were in the recycled blended
material and recycled concrete
University of New Hampshire • Porous asphalt system removed 99% TSS, 96% zinc and 99% PA No
(www.perviouspavement.org/; petroleum hydrocarbons
New Hampshire, USA)
Jayasuriya and Kadurupokune [39] • Water quality from two permeable pavements surfaces; Ecotrihex PICP Yes
(Melbourne, Australia) paver and Atlantic Turf cell (porous), compared to a conventional
asphalt surface
• Removal efficiencies of water quality parameters were calculated PGP
by comparing concentrations and loads from the asphalt pavement
• TSS, TP, zinc and oil reduced between 87–92, 55–62, 76–93 and

89–92% respectively for the Ecotrihex and 90–92, 50–56, 91–92 and
93–94% for the Turf cell
Fassman and Blackbourn [47] • Road runoff quality of permeable modular concrete pavers PICP Yes
(Auckland, New Zealand) compared to asphalt surface
• Removal rates approximately 70% for copper, 90% for zinc and 82%
for TSS
Welker et al. [48] (PA, USA) • PC and PA were analysed and compared for water quality over one PC No
year
• From a water quality perspective pavement performance are nearly PA
identical
Mullaney et al. [49] • 40–60% of heavy metals retained within the top layer of the paving PICP Yes and No
(Dundee, Scotland) structure in PICP systems

© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
 Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs 117

Table 4. Previous research findings on the clogging processes of pervious pavements

Research study (location)
Borgwardt [51] (Germany)
Gonázalez-Angullo et al. [55]
(Santander, Spain)
Yong et al. [56]
(Melbourne, Australia)
Pezzaniti et al. [4]
(Adelaide, Australia)
Yong et al. [53, 56]
(Melbourne, Australia)
Fassman and Blackbourne [47]
(Auckland, New Zealand)
Lucke and Beecham [13]
(Adelaide, Australia)
Pratt [31] (Coventry, UK);
Fassman and Blackbourne [47]
(Auckland, New Zealand);
Lucke and Beecham [13]
(Adelaide, Australia);
Cahill [57] (Ellicott, Maryland, USA)
Kayhanian, et al. [58] (CA, USA)
Type of
pervious
Main findings pavement Geofabric
• Infiltration performance is affected by the age of the pavement PICP
• Entrainment of mineral and organic fines in the upper 20 mm of
joint fillings or the pores of porous paving blocks
• Infiltration rate will decrease steadily after installation but
eventually stabilise between 20 and 25% of a pavements new
infiltration rate after approximately ten years
• Infiltration rate of a fully clogged PICP was tested with varying PICP Yes
rainfall intensities
• 81% of runoff was infiltrated at a rainfall intensity of 55 mm/h
• The maximum infiltration rate was determined to be 64 mm/h,
achieved at a runoff equivalent to 125 mm/h but only represented
51% infiltration
• Pervious surfaces have been shown to trap between 90 and 100% Yes
of suspended solids contained within stormwater
• Demonstrated that pervious surfaces will remove close to 100% of PICP; PGP Yes
SS from stormwater even after the simulated application of the
equivalent of 35 years of sediment of sediment loading
• Two phase study into the effects of clogging PA Yes
• 1st phase: looked at the clogging impact using simulated storms PICP
on three paving surfaces, two PA and one PICP
• Results indicated that under typical low intensity rainfall
conditions none of the pavements showed signs of clogging even
after 17 years of operation in Melbourne or 8.5 years in Brisbane
• 2nd phase: incorporated periods of drying before simulated storm
events
• Infiltration was still high after 18 years of operation and showed
that drying had no effect on TSS removal, with all systems
achieving 100% removal
• Sub-surface investigations revealed that a crust had formed above PICP Yes
the geofabric
• Dry periods of no rainfall play significant role in the sediment
retention and blocking process
• Results from simulated long-term sediment loading studies that
do not include drying cycles may not be applicable to real PICP
systems
• Infiltration capacity of PICP system in situ for eight years was PICP Yes
determined to still be satisfactory, despite the appearance of
being blocked
• Found that nearly 92% (by mass) of sediment was trapped in the
upper paving and bedding layers of the pavements
• Past experience has shown that failures can be a result of poor PICP Yes
construction, bad design, low permeability soils or poor main-
tenance
• Pavements can also fail due to a lack of control of sediment
erosion during construction
• Permeability of 20 pervious concrete parking lots measured across PC
California
• Pavement core were taken and analysed using a CT scanner to
determine the depth of sediment migration
• Image analysis and porosity profiling identified that the porosity
of the top 25 mm of the core samples was generally lower and
may be an indication of clogging

There is a perception that pervious pavements will block 3.4 Geofabrics

quickly when used as a stormwater source control, resulting in
high maintenance and replacement costs [4]. However, some
manufacturers claim that when regularly inspected and maintained,
PICPs should last between 20 and 25 years (e.g. www.wgpaver.com/)
[4, 5, 57]. A number of studies have investigated the effects of
maintenance on clogging, infiltration performance and the
effective lifespans of pervious pavements. These studies are
outlined in Tab. 5.
Geofabrics are often included in the design of previous paving
systems in order to keep the sub-base and the bedding layers separate,
to act as reinforcement, to provide stability, and for filtration and
drainage purposes [65]. However, there appears to be a number of
conflicting recommendations regarding the inclusion of a geofabric
layer within the structure of pervious pavement systems, particularly
for PICP systems. Table 6 lists 14 contemporary pervious pavement

© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
118 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke

Table 5. Previous research on pervious pavement maintenance

Research study (location)
Pratt [59] (USA);
Colandini et al. [60]
(Bouguenais, France);
Mullaney et al. [61]
(Dundee, Scotland)
Gerrits and James [52]
(Guelph, Canada)
Dierkes et al. [30]
(Stadtlohn, Germany)
Bean et al. [62] (NC, USA)
Scholz and Graboweicki [21]
(Edinburgh, UK)
Pezzaniti et al. [4] (Adelaide,
Australia)
Chopra et al. [63]
(South Eastern, USA)
Fassman and Blackbourne [47]
(Auckland, New Zealand)
Shackel [5] (New South Wales,
Australia)
Lucke and Beecham [13]
(Adelaide, Australia)
Hess and Ibe [64]
(Cambridge, England)
Type of
pervious
Main findings pavement Geofabric
• Has been suggested by various researchers that in order to remove PICP Yes
pollutants from a paving structure only the pavers and the bedding layer
would need to be replaced, rather than the whole paving structure
• This reduces cost implications for councils and planners
• Suggest infiltrations rates will significantly increase by removing the top PICP No
10–20 mm of joint filler
• Reinforced by Balades et al. [71] who suggested increasing the depth of
sediment removed for areas of high traffic to 20–25 mm
• Infiltration rates prior to maintenance were as low as 0.36 mm/h and PICP –
increased to 556 and 1900 mm/h after maintenance
• Maintenance on PICPs increased infiltration by up to 65% PICP –
CGP
• Porous asphalt and porous concrete found to be susceptible to clogging PC; –
within the first three years
• Fully clogged porous asphalt and concrete surfaces need the top surfaces PA
removed and replaced to reinstate infiltration capabilities
• Simulated yearly street-sweeping and vacuuming of PICPs and found no PICP Yes
significant difference in outflow SS concentration between maintained
and un-maintained systems
• Investigated infiltration rates and the effectiveness of rejuvenation PC –
methods, study of eight PC pavements between 6 and 18 years old
• Vacuum sweeping was not found to be effective for rejuvenating some
completely clogged cores. However pressure washing was extremely
effective
• Pressure washing not recommended as a maintenance procedure as PICP Yes
dislodged sediments may be washed into the reticulation system and
ultimately to the receiving water
• Some authorities in the USA recommend routine sweeping of PICP up to PICP –
three or more times a year, but experience in Europe and Australia
suggests that such frequent maintenance is often unnecessary
• Demonstrated that pavements which had been in service for eight years PICP No
without maintenance can still demonstrate satisfactory infiltration rates
despite significant clogging
• Assessed the hydrological performance of a six year-old PICP pavement PICP Yes
with an upper geofabric which has received no maintenance
• Pavement is still functioning well with average infiltration rate 162 mm/h

design guidelines showing whether or not a geofabric layer is
recommended between the bedding and base course aggregate layers
in the design.
As shown in Tab. 6, there are varied recommendations in the
different guidelines regarding the inclusion of a geofabric within the
pervious pavement structure. These conflicting recommendations
can make it difficult for designers of pervious pavement systems
to undertake designs with a high degree of confidence in the
performance of the systems.
There appears to be limited research evidence to support its
inclusion, although it is thought to improve water quality. Few
studies have enabled direct comparisons of pervious pavements with
and without a geofabric to support this hypothesis. Table 7 outlines
findings from the six main studies undertaken on the geofabric layer
in pervious pavement systems.
Results above demonstrate that the (perceived) requirement for a
geofabric layer to be included in permeable pavement systems to
filter out sediments may not be necessary. This finding may be
particularly important to geotechnical engineers because of the
layering effects and the potential slip plane that inclusion of a
geofabric liner could create within a permeable pavement system
(e.g. www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/SD-20.pdf)
[67].
3.5 Pervious pavements and street trees
Street trees are often subjected to various stresses in the urban
environment including water scarcity and soil compaction (either
intentionally or unintentionally). Lack of water can cause tree roots
to seek out water at the surface or under pavement surfaces, often
causing damage to infrastructure such as pavements, pipes and
buildings. Pervious pavements could potentially solve problems
between roots and pavements (Fig. 5), while providing improved
growing conditions for urban vegetation [18]. They allow moisture
and oxygen to pass into the sub-soil, providing optimum growing
conditions for roots and this should reduce summer water stress
and increase tree growth. A number of studies have investigated
the potential of pervious pavements to reduce damage to infra-
structure and promote street tree health. Table 8 outlines findings
from the main studies undertaken on street trees and pervious
pavement systems.
Although the studies above produced some interesting initial
results, the study durations were too short to make any predictions
on the long-term effects of the different permeable pavement designs
on the growth rates of the trees, or of the value of using pervious
surfaces to help increase street tree health and reduce potential
conflicts between trees and infrastructure. These studies are ongoing

© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
 Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs 119

Table 6. Recommendations of contemporary pervious pavement design guidelines on the inclusion of a geofabric layer

Geofabric included
Guideline (yes/no/optional)
Melbourne Water – WSUD Engineering Procedures: Stormwater [66] Yes
Technical Manual for Water Sensitive Urban Design in Greater Adelaide, South Australia, [67] Optional, but advises against
if there is slipping potential
Gold Coast City Council, Porous and Permeable Paving Guidelines (www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/ Yes
gcplanningscheme_0509/attachments/policies/policy11/section_13_11_porous_and_permeable_paving.
pdf)
Boral Masonry, Hydrapave Permeable Paving System Brochure (www.boral.com.au/brochures/ordering/ Optional
PDF/10503_Hydrapave_Web.pdf?site¼boral&company¼Pavers)
Adbri Masonry, Permeable Paving Design Guidelines (www.adbrimasonry.com.au/) No
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute of America: Permeable Paving Design Guidelines (www.icpi.org/ Optional
node/553)
Concrete Masonry Association of Australia (CMAA): Permeable Paving Design Guidelines (www.cmaa.com. Optional
au/tech_info.html)
State of New Jersey, Standard for Pervious Pavement Systems (www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/ Yes
BMP_DOCS/Paving.PDF)
Concrete Manufactures Association of South Africa, Concrete Block Paving Design Guidelines No
(www.cma.org.za/)
Interpave UK: Permeable pavements: guide to the design, construction, and maintenance of concrete Optional
block permeable pavements (www.paving.org.uk/commercial/permeable.php)
City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual (www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/202883) No
Essex County Council, Sustainable Drainage Systems: Design and Adoption Guide (http://essex.gov.uk/ Optional
Environment%20Planning/Environmental-issues/local-environment/flooding/Documents/suds_
design_adoption_guide.pdf)
North Shore City Council, Permeable Pavement Design Guidelines (www.northshorecity.govt.nz/IDSM/ Optional
downloads/PDFs/Permeable_Pavement_Design_Guidelines_Draft_092004.pdf)
California Stormwater Quality Association, Pervious Pavements BMP Handbook, SD-20 Optional, but advises against
(http://cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/SD-20.pdf) if there is slipping potential

and it is anticipated that they will produce more valuable results as
the studies progress.
Further research is needed to investigate the long-term
potential engineering, environmental and other community
benefits of these systems. An Australian Research Council Linkage
research project (LP120200678) has recently commenced at the
USC, Queensland to investigate the potential of using permeable
pavements with underlying reservoirs to enhance urban tree
performance and to minimise pavement damage by street
tree roots. Four different permeable pavement designs are being
trialled in two soil types. The study site contains 32 street tree
plots of 3 m  3 m size (Fig. 6). The results of this study could have

Table 7. Previous research findings on the geofabric layer of pervious pavements

Type of
pervious
Research study (location) Main findings pavement Geofabric
Pratt [31] (Coventry, UK) • Pollutants found to accumulate on the surface of the geofabric PICP Yes
• The top layers of the PICP structure were found to retain 84% of all
oil applied, with 65% of this found on the geofabric
Puehmeier and Newman [23] • Pervious paving with a geofabric retained greater volumes of oil PICP Yes
(Coventry, UK) than those without
• New geofabric specifically designed to retain hydrocarbons gave a
slight advantage over the traditional geofabrics
Rowe et al. [16] (Edison, NJ, USA) • Peak exfiltration rates from the pavement structure were found to PICP Yes and No
be 7.2% lower in test units with a geofabric compared to those
without a geofabric
Lucke and Beecham [13] • Found that 8.3% of the total sediment mass trapped in a PICP Yes and No
(Adelaide, Australia) permeable pavement system was retained in the upper geofabric
layer
• Over 90% of the sediments were trapped in the paving and
bedding aggregate layers of the test pavement
Mullaney et al. [49] (Dundee, UK) • Controlled comparative study to investigate whether the PICP Yes and No
inclusion of a geofabric provided any benefits to the water quality
of a PICP system
• Rigs with a geofabric performed slightly better, on average 3%
Mullaney et al. [61] (Dundee, UK) • Compared infiltration rates of pervious pavement systems with PICP Yes and No
and without a geofabric installed
• Hypothesised thatgeofabric layer causes slower infiltration rates

© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
120 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke
Figure 5. Typical street tree and permeable paving configuration.
significant implications for stormwater management in Australia,
and for the rest of the world.
3.6 Summary
Pervious surfaces have been shown to be an effective measure in
reducing stormwater volumes within urban catchments, typically
Table 8. Previous research on street trees with pervious pavements
Research study (location)
Volder et al. [11] (TX, USA)
Morgenroth and Buchan [68]
(Christchurch, New Zealand)
Morgenroth and Visser [69]
(Christchurch, New Zealand)
Johnson et al. [18]
(Adelaide, Australia)
Mullaney et al. [19]
(Adelaide, Australia)
Morgenroth et al. [70]
(Christchurch,
New Zealand)
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
reducing >90% of the total stormwater runoff volumes [24, 34, 37, 38].
Peak stormwater discharge can be reduced by 43–55% using
PICPs [39]. These studies highlight the effectiveness of PICPS in
increasing surface infiltration rates and reproducing the original
catchment hydrological conditions.
It is clear from the literature that pervious pavements can
remove high levels of pollutants from stormwater irrespective
of whether or not a geofabric layer is included between the
aggregate layers. For example, over 94% of zinc, cadmium and
lead where removed in a study by Dierkes et al. [46] and 96% of
zinc was removed in another study (www.perviouspavement.org/)
where both studies did not include a geofabric. The pollution
removal rates of pervious pavements with a geofabric layer
included were also high; 74% lead, and 84% cadmium [40] and
between 70 and 90% for other heavy metals [47]. The review
results suggest that heavy metal removal is independent of the
inclusion of a geofabric layer within the structure. A comparison
of pollutant removal by PC and PA found that both pavements
removed similar quantities of pollutants [48]. Similar pollutant
removal results were also found in a comparison of PICP to
grass pavers [39].
It has been suggested that the inclusion of a geofabric can assist in
the breakdown of oil [23, 45]. The geofabric may trap pollutants on
its surface long enough for microbial activity to degrade it, having
provided a suitable environment for an oil degrading biofilm.
Microbes convert hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water over
time [45]. However, research at the University of New Hampshire
determined removal rates of 99% of oils in a PA surface without a
Type of
pervious
Main findings pavement Geofabric
• Compared moisture contents of soil beneath mature trees with porous PC No
pavement and normal pavement surfaces
• Minimal difference was found in soil water content in the upper soil layers
between 5 and 25 cm
• However, deeper soil layers (between 30 and 50 cm) had significantly more
water under pervious plots (21.4%) during some seasons (but not summer)
• No significant difference found in soil water content in the upper soil layers PC No
• Concluded that moisture sensors possibly located too close to the trunk to
observe any differences
• Compared soil conditions beneath saplings with porous pavement and PC No
normal pavement surfaces
• Tree growth increased by 28% in the plots with the porous concrete
• In plots with a compacted sub-grade and gravel base there was <2 cm
difference in height between porous and impervious plots
• Root biomass in plots with a sub-base was unaffected by pavement type, but
porous pavement roots biomass significantly exceeded that below the
impervious surface
• Overall porous pavements improved tree growth both above ground and
below ground, but only without a sub-grade profile design
• Investigated possibility of using PICPs to reduce infrastructure damage and PICP Yes
promoting street tree health
• Tree trunk diameters were similar in three permeable pavement designs
after 17 months of growth
• Results over nearly three years of initial growth show that trees planted in PICP Yes
areas with permeable pavement surrounds were slightly taller than those
planted in impermeable control pavements
• Investigated the impact of porous pavements on soil moisture and PC No
chemistry under street trees
• Pavements can alter soil moisture and chemical characteristics, but the
effects differ depending on pavement porosity and profile design
www.clean-journal.com Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124

Figure 6. PICP and street tree test plots at USC.
geofabric, compared to 99.6% removal in PICP structure with a
geofabric (www.perviouspavement.org/).
PICP surfaces are very effective at removing TSS and have been
shown to trap between 90 and 100% of the suspended solids
contained within stormwater [4, 5, 16, 56]. Pezzaniti et al. [4]
demonstrated that PICPs still removed close to 100% of suspended
solids from stormwater even after the simulated application of the
equivalent of 35 years of sediment loading.
Recent studies by Pezzaniti et al. [4], Shackel [5] and Mullaney
et al. [49] have hypothesised that the effective life of a permeable
pavement system could be between 15 and 35 years. However,
Dierkes et al. [30] maintain that experience over the last 20 years
has shown that permeable pavements tend to clog between 5
and 10 years after construction. Over the last two decades
there have been numerous studies on the effects that
maintenance and the frequency of maintenance has on the
clogging of pervious surfaces [4, 5, 30, 49, 53]. However, many
of the study conclusions and recommendations appear to be
contradictory.
Regular inspection of permeable pavements is required to ensure
optimum performance, identify potential problems and implement
solutions (e.g. www.wgpaver.com/) [67]. Maintenance can reduce the
risk of clogging and has been shown to improve infiltration rates [30,
62, 63]. Maintenance procedures include high pressure hosing,
sweeping or vacuuming to remove sediments and restore/maintain
porosity [46, 67]. However, there are inconsistencies on the
recommended frequency and degree of maintenance required. Based
on experience and independent studies it appears that PICPs un-
maintained for many years can still provide adequate stormwater
infiltration [5, 13, 56].
Although studies have demonstrated that maintenance can
effectively restore or improve the infiltration properties of pervious
pavements at the majority of sites, there is a significant lack of
knowledge on the effect of maintenance on the effective life of
pervious pavements. Identification of the correct inter-mainte-
nance period is difficult and is dependent on a variety of factors
including environmental site conditions, pavement use and site
rainfall conditions. More research is therefore needed in this
area to identify the correct maintenance regimes for permeable
pavement surfaces.
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs 121
4 Discussion
The pollutant retention performance of all four pervious pavements
types reviewed was generally quite high and there did not appear to
be any significant differences between pavement types. The pollution
retention potential of the pavement was therefore not a deciding
factor in the choice of pavement for the USC research studies. The
literature review also showed that the infiltration rates of all four
pervious surfaces are high, particularly when they are newly
installed. The infiltration capacity of pervious pavements was the
primary driver of the investigative study at USC to use PICPs to
promote street tree health and reduce pavement damage.
It is inevitable that pervious pavements will clog with sediment
over time. However, the literature review has revealed that the type
and frequency of pavement maintenance procedures can significant-
ly affect the rate of clogging and the effective life spans of pervious
pavements. The clogging processes have also been shown to be
significantly affected by pervious pavement type. It appears that
porous pavements are the most susceptible to clogging due to the
large number of small pores and voids present within the pavement
layer. These pavement types may require maintenance on a more
regular basis than PICPs. As the USC studies are investigating the
effects that pervious pavements have on street tree growth and
health, it was anticipated that leaf litter and soil/mulch from the
planting pit could potentially lead to more rapid clogging of a PA or
concrete surface [4]. It was therefore decided that PICPs would be
more suitable for the USC research project.
It is evident from the literature review that a significant knowledge
gap still exists regarding whether or not a geofabric should be
included between the aggregate layers of pervious pavement
structures to assist in pollutant removal. A review of numerous
pervious pavement design guidelines showed a lack of consistency
between the guidelines. Three guidelines recommend the inclusion
of a geofabric, three recommend no geofabric, and eight state that it
is optional. This lack of consistency can be confusing for designers
and other stormwater professionals.
A number of the guidelines reviewed expressed concern that the
inclusion of a geofabric layer in the pavement structure may
significantly decrease the infiltration rate of the pervious pavement
system. There was also concern that the inclusion of a geofabric
layer could reduce the structural integrity of the pavements when
used in locations where vehicles may be stopping or turning [67]. It
was suggested that the geofabric layer may reduce friction between
the individual layers which could potentially create a slip-plane
within the structure in response to vehicular loads (www.
cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/SD-20.pdf). Due to
the lack of reliable evidence supporting the inclusion of a geofabric
layer, the paving plots constructed for the USC street tree study
contain no geofabric between the bedding and base course
aggregate layers (Fig. 2).
Urban environments can be hostile to street trees and water is
often in short supply. By utilising the ability of pervious pavements to
allow water to percolate into the sub-base, the rapid decline of street
trees may be prevented. The aggregate layers under the PICP surface
can also potentially reduce the costs of repairing pavement damage
resulting from tree roots searching for more optimum growth
conditions. The aggregate sub-base beneath a pervious paving
structure can store large quantities of water before slowly releasing
it into the substrate below. This has the potential to act as a reservoir
to supply water to tree roots during dry spells.
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
122 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke
Research is currently underway at USC to investigate the potential
of using PICPs with underlying reservoirs to enhance urban tree
performance and to minimise pavement damage by street tree roots.
This literature review helped direct and guide the design specifica-
tions for the 32 study test plots (Fig. 6) by identifying and comparing
the important properties of the different types of pervious pave-
ments. From the literature review, it was decided to design and trial
four different PICP systems, in two different soil types, namely sandy
and clayey. The results of this research project has the potential to
significantly affect stormwater management practices and the way
street trees are implemented and maintained in Australia, and in the
rest of the world.
It is anticipated that the results of this literature review will be
beneficial for both practitioners charged with designing new
pervious pavements systems, and for researchers planning new
experimental pervious pavement studies.
5 Concluding remarks
The results of an international literature review to identify the most
appropriate design specifications for a new research study on the
benefits of using pervious pavements to promote street tree health
are presented. The literature review revealed that information
contained in design guidelines is often unclear and occasionally
conflicting and this can be confusing for designers and other
stormwater professionals. In particular, the literature review showed:

The stormwater pollutant removal performance of all four
pervious pavements types reviewed was generally quite high and
there did not appear to be any significant differences between
pavement types.

The infiltration rates of all four pervious surfaces are generally
quite high, particularly when they are newly installed. This rate
decreases significantly after a few years in service. However, the
infiltration rate generally remains satisfactory.

Although it is inevitable that pervious pavements will clog with
sediment over time, the type and frequency of pavement
maintenance procedures can significantly affect the rate of
clogging and the effective life spans of pervious pavements.

There is a lack of consensus between design guidelines as to
whether or not a geofabric should be included between the
aggregate layers of pervious pavements.

The inclusion of a geofabric layer in the pavement structure may
significantly decrease the infiltration rate of the pervious
pavement system and could potentially reduce the structural
integrity of the pervious pavement.
Due to the lack of reliable evidence supporting the inclusion of a
geofabric layer, the paving plots constructed for the USC street tree
study contain no geofabric between the bedding and base course
aggregate layers. This paper is intended as a practical resource for
designers and researchers of pervious pavement systems.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the generous and insightful
advice from Professor Chris Jefferies of the University of Abertay. We
also thank Associate Professor Stephen Trueman, Mr. Hugh Allen and
Mr. Bernhard Black from the University of the Sunshine Coast for all
their valuable help on this research project. Finally, we acknowledge
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
the long-term support we have received from the Sunshine Coast
Regional Council, particularly from Mr. Andrew Ryan, Mr. Mark
Presswell, Ms. Amanda Warren, Ms. Sarah Dunn and Mr. Graham
Bebington.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
[1] M. E. Dietz, Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current
Research and Recommendations for Future Directions, Water Air Soil
Pollut. 2007, 186, 351–363.
[2] J. Sansalone, X. Kuang, V. Ranieri, Permeable Pavement as a
Hydraulic and Filtration Interface for Urban Drainage, J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 2008, 134 (5), 666–674.
[3] S. Beecham, D. Pezzaniti, J. Kandasamy, Stormwater Treatment
Using Permeable Pavements, J. Water Manage. 2012, 165 (3), 161–170.
[4] D. Pezzaniti, S. Beecham, J. Kandasamy, Influence of Clogging on the
Effective Life of Permeable Pavements, J. Water Manage. 2009, 162 (3),
76–87.
[5] B. Shackel, The design, construction and evaluation of permeable
pavements in Australia, in 24th ARRB Conference-Building on 50 Years of
Road and Transports Research, October 13–15, Melbourne, Australia
2010.
[6] B. Ferguson, Porous Pavements, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2005.
[7] T. D. Fletcher, H. P. Duncan, P. Poelsma, S. D. Lloyd, Storm Water Flow
and Quality, and the Effectiveness of Non-Proprietary Storm Water Treatment
Measures – a Review and Gap Analysis, Technical Report 04/8,
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Clayton,
Australia 2005.
[8] B. E. Hatt, T. D. Fletcher, A. Deletic, Hydrologic and Pollutant
Removal Performance of Stormwater Biofiltration Systems at the
Field Scale, J. Hydrol. 2007, 365 (3–4), 310–321.
[9] S. Beecham, D. Pezzaniti, B. Myers, B. Shackel, A. Pearson, Experience
in the application of permeable interlocking concrete paving in
Australia, in 9th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,
October 18–21, Buenos Aires, Argentina 2009.
[10] S. Beecham, T. Lucke, B. Myers, Designing porous and permeable
pavements for stormwater harvesting and reuse, in First European
IAHR Congress, International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineer-
ing and Research, May 4–6, Edinburgh, UK 2010.
[11] A. Volder, T. Watson, B. Visawanathan, Potential Use of Pervious
Concrete for Maintaining Existing Mature Trees during and after
Urban Development, Urban For. Urban Greening 2009, 8 (4), 249–256.
[12] P. Shaffer, S. Wilson, F. Brindle, B. Baffoe-Bonnie, C. Prescott,
N. Tarbet, Understanding Permeable and Impermeable Surfaces-Technical
Report on Surfacing Options and Cost Benefit Analysis, Department for
Communities and Local Government, London 2009.
[13] T. Lucke, S. Beecham, Field Investigation of Clogging in a Permeable
Pavement System, Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39 (6), 603–615.
[14] K. B. Barnes, J. M. Morgan, M. C. Roberge, Impervious Surfaces and the
Quality of Natural and Built Environments, Department of Geography
and Environmental Planning, Townson University, Baltimore 2000.
[15] L. Frazer, Paving Paradise – the Peril of Impervious Surfaces, Environ.
Health Perspect. 2005, 113 (7), 457–462.
[16] A. A. Rowe, M. Borst, T. P. O’Connor, Pervious pavement system
evaluation, in Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress, Vol. 342, Great River, Kansas City 2009, pp. 1440–
1447.
[17] B. Van Duin, C. Brown, A. Chu, J. Marsalek, C. Valeo, Characterization
of long-term solids removal and clogging processes in two types of
permeable pavements under cold climate conditions, in 11th
International Conference on Urban Drainage, August 31–September 5,
Edinburgh, Scotland 2008.
[18] T. P. Johnson, D. A. Cameron, G. M. Moore, Trees, stormwater, soil
and civil infrastructure: Synergies towards sustainable urban design
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124

for a changing climate, in ISA International Conference and Tree Climbing
Championships, July 23–24, Sydney, Australia 2011.
[19] J. Mullaney, T. Johnston, T. Lucke, D. Cameron, G. Moore, Pervious
paving systems: Potential use for promoting street tree health,
reducing pavement damage and reducing stormwater flows, in
Sudsnet Conference, September 4–6, Coventry, England 2012.
[20] B. Shackel, S. Beecham, D. Pezzaniti, B. Myers, Design of permeable
pavements for Australian conditions, in 23rd ARRB Conference –
Research Partnering with Practitioners, August 30–September 1, Ade-
laide, Australia 2008.
[21] M. Scholz, P. Grabowieki, Review of Permeable Pavement Systems,
Build. Environ. 2007, 42 (11), 3830–3836.
[22] W. F. Hunt, K. A. Collins, Permeable pavement: Research update and
design implication, in Urban Waterway Series, North Carolina State
University, Published by North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Raleigh, North Carolina 2008.
[23] T. Puehmeier, A. P. Newman, Oil retaining and treating geofabric for
pavement applications, in 11th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, August 31–September 5, Edinburgh, Scotland 2008.
[24] E. A. Dreelin, L. Fowler, C. R. Carroll, A Test of Porous Pavement
Effectiveness on Clay Soils during Natural Storm Events, Water Res.
2006, 40 (4), 799–805.
[25] R. M. Roseen, T. Ballestero, J. J. Houle, J. F. Briggs, K. M. Houle, Water
Quality and Hydrologic Performance of a Porous Asphalt Pavement
as a Stormwater Treatment Strategy in a Cold Climate, J. Environ. Eng.
2012, 138 (1), 81–89.
[26] W. S. Abdullah, M. T. Obaidat, N. M. Abu-sa’da, Influence of Aggregate
Type and Gradation on Voids of Asphalt Concrete Pavements, J.
Mater. Civil Eng. 1998, 10, 76–85.
[27] J. W. Tiggelaar, R. D. Lisi, Porous asphalt proven successful in cold
region: WBUUC porous parking lot, in 14th Conference Cold Regions
Engineering: Cold Regions Impacts on Research, Design, and Construction,
August 30–September 2, Duluth, MN 2009, pp. 374–383.
[28] C. Dierkes, PhD Thesis, University GH Essen, Essen, Germany 1999.
[29] C. Dierkes, A. Holte, W. F. Geiger, Heavy metal retention within a
pervious pavement structure, in 8th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, August 30–September 3, Sydney, Australia 1999.
[30] C. Dierkes, L. Kuhlmann, J. Kandasamy, G. Angelis, Pollution
retention capability and maintenance of permeable pavements,
Global Solution for Urban Drainage, in 9th International Conference on
Urban Drainage, September 8–13, Portland, OR 2002.
[31] C. J. Pratt, Design guidelines for porous/permeable pavements, in
Engineering Foundation Conference: Sustaining Water Resources in the 21st
Century, September 7–12, Malmö, Sweden 1997.
[32] C. J. Pratt, J. D. Mantle, P. A. Schofield, UK Research into the
Performance of Permeable Pavement, Reservoir Structures in
Controlling Stormwater Discharge Quantity and Quality, Water
Sci. Technol. 1995, 32 (1), 63–69.
[33] B. Hunt, S. Stevens, D. Mayes, Permeable pavement use and research
at two sites in Eastern North Carolina, Global Solutions for Urban
Drainage, September 8–13, Portland, OR 2002.
[34] B. O. Brattebo, D. B. Booth, Long-Term Stormwater Quantity and
Quality Performance of Permeable Pavement Systems, Water Res.
2003, 37 (28), 4369–4376.
[35] K. Rankin, J. E. Ball, A review of the performance of permeable
pavers, in International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design WSUD
2004: Cities as Catchments, November 21–25, Adelaide, Australia 2004.
[36] F. Straet, E. Beckers, A. Degre, Hydrologic behaviour of greened
porous pavements: a physical study, in 11th International Conference on
Urban Drainage, August 31–September 5, Edinburgh, Scotland 2008.
[37] J. K. Gilbert, J. C. Clausen, Stormwater Runoff Quality and Quantity
from Asphalt, Paver and Crushed Stone Driveways in Connecticut,
Water Res. 2006, 40 (4), 826–832.
[38] K. A. Collins, W. F. Hunt, J. M. Hathaway, Hydrologic Comparison of
Four Types of Permeable Pavements and Standard Asphalt in Eastern
North Carolina, J. Hydrol. Eng. 2008, 13 (12), 1146–1157.
[39] N. Jayasuriya, N. Kadurupokune, Comparative performance of
permeable and porous pavements, in International Conference on
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
Practical Review of Pervious Pavement Designs 123
Sustainable Built Environment (ICSBE-2010), December 13–14, Kandy, Sri
Lanka 2010.
[40] M. Legret, V. Colandini, Effects of a Porous Pavement with Reservoir
Structure on Runoff Water Quality and Fate of Heavy Metals, Water
Sci. Technol. 1999, 39 (2), 111–127.
[41] A. Deletic, D. W. Orr, Pollution Buildup on Road Surfaces, J. Environ.
Eng. 2005, 131 (1), 49–59.
[42] C. J. Pratt, A. P. Newman, P. C. Bond, Mineral Oil Biodegradation
within a Permeable Pavement: Long Term Observations, Water Sci.
Technol. 1999, 39 (2), 103–109.
[43] M. Legret, V. Colandini, C. Le Marc, Effects of a Porous Pavement with
Reservoir Structure on the Quality of Runoff Water and Soil, Sci. Total
Environ. 1996, 189–190, 335–340.
[44] M. Legret, M. Nicollet, V. Colandini, G. Raimbault, Simulation of Heavy
Metal Pollution from Stormwater Infiltration through a Porous Pavement
with Reservoir Structure, Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39 (2), 119–125.
[45] A. P. Newman, C. J. Pratt, S. J. Coupe, N. Cresswell, Oil Biodegradation
in Permeable Pavements by Microbial Communities, Water Sci.
Technol. 2002, 45 (7), 51–56.
[46] C. Dierkes, M. Lohmann, M. Becker, U. Raasch, Pollution retention of
different permeable pavements with reservoir structure at high
hydraulic loads, in 10th International Conference on Urban Drainage,
August 21–26, Copenhagen, Denmark 2005.
[47] E. Fassman, S. Blackbourne, Urban Runoff Mitigation by a Permeable
Pavement System over Impermeable Soils, J. Hydrol. Eng. 2010, 15 (6),
475–485.
[48] A. L. Welker, J. D. Barbis, P. A. Jeffers, A Side-by-Side Comparison of
Pervious Concrete and Porous Asphalt, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
2012, 48 (4), 809–819.
[49] J. Mullaney, C. Jefferies, P. Rikalainen, Pollution Profiling and
Particle Size Distribution within Permeable Paving Units – with and
without a Geotextile, Manage. Environ. Qual. 2012, 23 (2), 150–162.
[50] N. Siriwardene, A. Deletic, T. Fletcher, Clogging of Stormwater
Gravel Infiltration Systems and Filters: Insights from a Laboratory
Study, Water Res. 2007, 41, 1433–1440.
[51] S. Borgwardt, Long-term in situ infiltration performance of
permeable concrete block pavement, in 8th International Conference
on Concrete Block Paving, November 6–8, Portland, OR 2006.
[52] C. Gerrits, W. James, Restoration of infiltration capacity of
permeable pavements, in 9th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, September 8–13, Portland, OR 2002.
[53] C. F. Yong, A. Deletic, T. D. Fletcher, M. R. Grace, The drying and
wetting effects on clogging and pollutant removal through porous
pavements, in 7th International Conference on Sustainable Techniques and
Strategies in Urban Water Management, NOVATECH 2010, June 27–July 1,
Lyon, France 2010.
[54] O. Deo, N. Sumanasooriya, N. Neithalath, Permeability Reduction in
Pervious Concrete due to Clogging: Experiments and Modelling, J.
Mater. Civil Eng. 2010, 22 (7), 741–751.
[55] N. González-Angullo, D. Castro, J. Rodríguez-Hernández, J. W. Davies,
Runoff Infiltration to Permeable Paving in Clogged Conditions,
Urban Water J. 2008, 5 (2), 117–124.
[56] C. Yong, A. Deletic, T. Fletcher, M. Grace, The clogging behaviour and
treatment efficiency of a range of porous pavements, in 11th
International Conference on Urban Drainage, August 31–September 5,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK 2008.
[57] T. Cahill, Urban Best Management Practices: A second Look at Porous
Pavement/Underground Recharge, Technical Note 21: From Watershed
Protection Techniques, US Environment Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, DC 2008, pp. 76–78.
[58] M. Kayhanian, D. Anderson, J. T. Harvey, D. Jones, B. Muhunthan,
Permeability Measurement and Scan Imaging to Assess Clogging of
Pervious Concrete Pavements in Parking Lots, J. Environ. Manage.
2012, 95 (1), 114–123.
[59] C. J. Pratt, Permeable pavements for stormwater quality enhance-
ment, in Urban Stormwater Quality Enhancement – Source Control,
Retrofitting and Combined Source Technology (Ed.: H. C. Torno), American
Society of Civil Engineering, Reston, VA 1990, pp. 131–155.
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124
124 J. Mullaney and T. Lucke
[60] V. Colandini, M. Legret, Y. Brosseaud, J. D. Baladés, Metallic Pollution
in Clogging Materials of Urban Porous Pavements, Water Sci. Technol.
1995, 32 (1), 57–62.
[61] J. Mullaney, C. Jefferies, E. Mackinnon, The performance of block
paving with and without a geofabric in the sub-base, in 12th
International Conference on Urban Drainage, September 11–15, Porto
Alegre, Brazil 2011.
[62] E. Z. Bean, W. F. Hunt, D. A. Bidelspach, J. E. Smith, Study on the
surface infiltration rate of permeable pavements, in 1st Water and
Environment Speciality Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering, June 2–5, Saskatchewan, Canada 2004.
[63] M. B. Chopra, E. S. Wanielista, M. P. Wanielista, Pervious pavement
systems in Florida-research results, in Proceedings of the 2010
International Low Impact Development Conference – Redefining Water in
the City, American Society of Civil Engineering, Reston, VA 2010,
pp. 193–206.
[64] T. Hess, C. Ibe, Evaluation of the Performance of Permeable Pavements at
Lamb Drove, Department of Environmental Science and Technology,
Cranfield University, Cranfield 2011.
© 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com
[65] T. S. Ingold, K. S. Muller, Geofabrics Handbook, Thomas Telford,
London, UK 1988.
[66] Melbourne Water, WSUD Engineering Procedures: Stormwater, CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia 2005.
[67] S. Beecham, Pervious Pavements in Department of Planning and Local
Government, Chapter 7, Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical
Manual for the Greater Adelaide Region Government of South
Australia, Adelaide 2010.
[68] J. D. Morgenroth, G. D. Buchan, Soil Moisture and Aeration Beneath
Pervious and Impervious Pavements, Arboric. Urban For. 2009, 35 (3),
135–141.
[69] J. D. Morgenroth, R. Visser, Above-Ground Growth Response of
Platanus orientalis to Porous Pavements, Arboric. Urban For. 2011, 37 (1),
1–5.
[70] J. Morgenroth, G. Buchan, B. C. Scharenbroch, Belowground Effects
of Porous Pavements – Soil Moisture and Chemical Properties, J. Ecol.
Eng. 2013, 51, 221–228.
[71] J. D. Balades, M. Legret, H. Madiec, Permeable Pavements: Pollution
Management Tools, Water Sci. Technol. 1995, 32 (1), 49–56.
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2014, 42 (2), 111–124