Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Modelling of green roof hydrological performance for urban drainage

applications
Luca Locatelli a,, Ole Mark b, Peter Steen Mikkelsen a, Karsten Arnbjerg-Nielsen a, Marina Bergen Jensen c,
Philip John Binning a
a
Technical University of Denmark, Dept. of Environmental Engineering (DTU Environment), Miljoevej, Building 113, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark
b
DHI, Agern All 5, 2970 Hrsholm, Denmark
c
University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: Green roofs are being widely implemented for stormwater management and their impact on the urban
Received 20 December 2013 hydrological cycle can be evaluated by incorporating them into urban drainage models. This paper pre-
Received in revised form 1 October 2014 sents a model of green roof long term and single event hydrological performance. The model includes sur-
Accepted 11 October 2014
face and subsurface storage components representing the overall retention capacity of the green roof
Available online 17 October 2014
This manuscript was handled by
which is continuously re-established by evapotranspiration. The runoff from the model is described
Konstantine P. Georgakakos, Editor-in-Chief, through a non-linear reservoir approach. The model was calibrated and validated using measurement
with the assistance of Michael Bruen, data from 3 different extensive sedum roofs in Denmark. These data consist of high-resolution measure-
Associate Editor ments of runoff, precipitation and atmospheric variables in the period 20102012. The hydrological
response of green roofs was quantied based on statistical analysis of the results of a 22-year
Keywords: (19892010) continuous simulation with Danish climate data. The results show that during single events,
Green roofs the 10 min runoff intensities were reduced by 1036% for 510 years return period and 4078% for
Water Sensitive Urban Design 0.11 year return period; the runoff volumes were reduced by 25% for 510 years return period and
Modelling 1828% for 0.11 year return period. Annual runoff volumes were estimated to be 4368% of the total
Rainfallrunoff precipitation. The peak time delay was found to greatly vary from 0 to more than 40 min depending
Retention
on the type of event, and a general decrease in the time delay was observed for increasing rainfall inten-
Detention
sities. Furthermore, the model was used to evaluate the variation of the average annual runoff from green
roofs as a function of the total available storage and vegetation type. The results show that even a few
millimeters of storage can reduce the mean annual runoff by up to 20% when compared to a traditional
roof and that the mean annual runoff is not linearly related to the storage. Green roofs have therefore the
potential to be important parts of future urban stormwater management plans.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Urbanization signicantly affects the natural landscape turning
green areas into built environment. This process creates new
impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, cycling lanes, sidewalks,
public squares and parking areas which modify the natural water
cycle. Impervious areas increase stormwater runoff peaks and vol-
umes and reduce the time delay between peak rainfall and peak
runoff when compared to natural areas (Bengtsson, 2005). Current
urban drainage systems have limited capacity to deal with ooding
and climate change will increase the risk of ooding from sewers in
urban areas (Larsen et al., 2009; Madsen et al., 2009).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 4525 1432.
E-mail address: lulo@env.dtu.dk (L. Locatelli).
Green roofs are one of the many WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban
Design; the concept of water sensitive cities was presented by
Wong and Brown, 2009), LID (Low Impact Development), SUDS
(Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems), LIUDD (Low Impact Urban
Design and Development) techniques aimed to improve storm-
water management and address future climatic challenges. Green
roofs have the great advantage of not using new spaces; in fact
they can in some cases be retrotted onto existing traditional
rooftops. The roof area in urban residential areas can be as high
as 4050% of the total impervious area (Palla et al., 2009;
Lindblom et al., 2011; Vezzaro et al., 2012). Green roofs are claimed
to reduce the risk of urban ooding and to re-establish a more
natural water balance (Bengtsson et al., 2005; VanWoert et al., 2005)
and to reduce water and contaminant loads to sewer systems
(Buccola and Spolek, 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.030
0022-1694/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
3238 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
The German Guidelines for the Planning, Construction and
Maintenance of Green Roong (FLL, 2008) have suggested a classi-
cation of green roofs into two different categories:
 Intensive green roofs have thick soil layers (>15 cm) with large
plants and moderate slopes, these are heavier and require reg-
ular watering and fertilization.
 Extensive green roofs can have soil covers with a thickness of as
little as few cm and vegetation which requires hardly any main-
tenance. When the soil layer is thin and the weight of the green
roof is limited, extensive green roofs can often be placed on
existing buildings without structural reinforcement and they
can reach slopes up to 4045% (FLL, 2008).
From the 1990s green roofs have become common practice in
several countries such as Austria, Switzerland and particularly Ger-
many where green roofs reached 13% of the at roofs in 2003
(Herman, 2003). Some countries have also released guidelines for
implementation of green roofs like the UK, Germany, United States,
New Zealand, Australia, etc.
Green roof performance regarding stormwater management
may vary among geographic regions due to varying climate, pre-
cipitation patterns, building practices and green roof materials.
During rainfall events the most important hydrologic mechanisms
are the interception of rain by the vegetation layer, inltration and
retention/detention in the soil substrate, and retention/detention
in the drainage layer. Any water in excess to the storage capacity
will be drained into an outlet and during non-rainy periods water
stored in the green roof is lost through evapotranspiration.
Green roofs reduce stormwater runoff compared to conven-
tional roofs due to water retention and subsequent evapotranspira-
tion. Volume retention depends on rainfall intensity distribution,
the initial moisture conditions and green roof characteristics (layer
thickness, slope, materials, etc.), including the ability of the green
roof to dry up. Volume retention also contributes to peak attenua-
tion and delay. The following examples are based on observations
from experimental sites. Experimental sites in Germany showed
that the annual runoff from intensive green roofs was 1535% of
the annual rainfall, whereas the performance of extensive roofs is
reported to be 2075% of the annual rainfall (Mentens et al.,
2006). In Sweden the runoff observed from thin extensive green
roofs was 46% of the annual precipitation (Bengtsson et al.,
2005). In England Stovin et al. (2012) reported an overall retention
capacity of green roofs of 50%. VanWoert et al. (2005) observed a
60% retention in Detroit (Michigan), DeNardo et al. (2005) 45% in
Pennsylvania, Voyde et al. (2010) 66% in Auckland (New Zealand),
Monterusso et al. (2004) 49% and Carter and Rasmussen (2006)
78% in Athens (Georgia).
Volume detention, dened as temporary storage and subse-
quent release, results in additional attenuation and time delay of
runoff peaks. Volume detention takes place when the initial mois-
ture content is at eld capacity (micro- and mesosized pores are
water lled) and additional water percolates through macropores.
Peak attenuation and delay due to detention depend on the rainfall
intensity distribution and the green roof characteristics, including
layer thickness, slope, poresize distribution, tortuosity, etc. of the
materials. Observed data recorded from experimental green roofs
have been reported by several researchers. Peak runoff delay of
vegetated roofs was found to vary signicantly, for the majority
of the observed rain events peak delay was found to be between
0 and 30 min when compared to traditional roofs (VanWoert
et al., 2005; Carter and Rasmussen, 2006; Simmons et al., 2008).
Getter et al. (2007) observed only minimal runoff delay and
Villarreal and Bengtsson (2005) found peak delays to be around
1 min. DeNardo et al. (2005) showed considerable peak reductions
for low intensity rains. Stovin et al. (2012) observed a mean peak
ow reduction of 60% for rain events of more than 22 mm accumu-
lated rain. Moran et al. (2005) reported 85% peak reductions.
Several models have been developed for the hydrological per-
formance of green roofs. Hilten et al. (2008) used the soil moisture
software HYDRUS-1D to simulate the single events runoff response
from green roofs and validated his results with data collected in
Georgia (USA). Palla et al. (2009) used SWMS_2D based on Richards
equation to simulate the variably saturated conditions within a
typical green roof during individual storm events and validated
the model against data collected in Genoa (Italy). Zhang and Guo
(2013) presented a physically based analytical probabilistic model
to evaluate the average long term hydrological response of green
roofs. Villarreal and Bengtsson (2005) analyzed single events run-
off from an extensive green roof in Sweden and derived a unit hyd-
rograph. Zimmer and Geiger (1997) proposed a linear/non-linear
reservoir model to compute the runoff from an experimental green
roof under constant rainfall intensities. Kasmin et al. (2010) used a
simple conceptual model, with the runoff described by a non-linear
reservoir, in order to evaluate the performance of different meth-
ods for modeling evapotranspiration. Sherrard and Jacobs (2012)
presented a ve parameter water balance model with a daily time
step in order to reproduce the volume runoff on a daily and annual
basis. Jarret and Berghage (2008) presented one model for annual
water balance and one for single event runoff. Stovin et al.
(2013) presented a model to quantify long term runoff using con-
tinous simulation; results from the model showed volumetric
retention values between 0.19 (cool, wet climate) and 0.59 (warm,
dry climate) depending on local climate conditions in the UK.
Other studies have derived empirical runoff relations from
experimental data. Mentens et al. (2006) gathered experimental
data of green roof hydrological performance on seasonal and
annual bases from 18 different publications in Germany.
Bengtsson (2005) derived IntensityDurationFrequency curves
for rainfallrunoff prediction from an extensive green roof in Mal-
mo in Sweden. Moran et al. (2005) derived the rational coefcient
based on green roof data from North Carolina (USA). Carter and
Jackson (2007) used the Curve Number method for predicting
green roof performances at large case studies in Georgia (USA)
and Getter et al. (2007) derived the curve number for the studied
green roof in Detroit (USA).
A review of available WSUD models was provided by Elliott and
Trowsdale (2007). The literature review shows that modeling
approaches vary, from models for single event runoff to conceptual
models applied to simulate distributed urban runoff. None of these
studies have presented a single and low computationally demand-
ing model that can continuously simulate both single events with
ne time resolution and the annual water balance of single green
roofs. The single event hydrological response of green roofs is
highly affected by initial moisture conditions which depends on
evapotranspiration rates and can be estimated from a continuous
simulation; at the same time the long term performance is inu-
enced by single event runoff and evapotranspiration rates. Thus
it is relevant to develop a model that can continuously simulate
both single events and long term response. This paper is based
on the preliminary model results presented in the conference
paper of Locatelli et al. (2013).
The rst aim of this study is to present a simple conceptual
model for the hydrological performance of green roofs that can
be integrated into urban drainage models for evaluating the
impacts of implementing green roofs at a large scale (e.g. modeling
of ood mitigation potential; modeling the potential for reduction
of combined sewage volume and combined sewer overow). Low
computational costs and ne time resolutions are thus a require-
ment. Many of the previously developed green roof models such
as SWMS-2D and HYDRUS have a high computational cost and so
are not suitable for large scale urban water modelling.
 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248 3239

The approach used here is based on a deterministic lumped
rainfallrunoff conceptual model applied to a single green roof.
The model was calibrated and validated against observed runoff
from three different extensive green roofs installed in Denmark.
The second aim of the study is to simulate the hydrological perfor-
mance of green roofs in the long term. Statistical analysis of contin-
uous simulation results was applied to determine the single event
peak time delay, peak and volume reductions and mean annual
runoff for a 22 year simulation period exposed to Danish rainfall
and climate data. The third aim of the study is to analyze the var-
iation of the mean annual runoff as a function of storage capacity
and crop coefcient.
The modeling approach developed in this paper is similar to
that employed in several other classical hydrological models, such
as the NAM model of DHI (1999) and Gustafsson et al. (1999). The
emphasis here, is therefore not on presenting a novel hydrological
model. Rather, it is on presenting and testing a modeling approach
for green roofs that is simple, computationally effective and capa-
ble of simulating the response to individual rainfall events and
long term runoff. A comparison between the actual model and an
existing rainfallrunoff model included in the commercial software
MIKE-URBAN was made.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The experimental data
Three different extensive green roofs were installed in Denmark
and runoff from each test setup was measured. Data from these
installations were provided by the different partners. Denmark
has a cold climate, without a dry season (Peel et al., 2007) and with
an average precipitation of 600700 mm/year (Frich et al., 1997).
The rst green roof (GR1, Fig. 1 left) is located in the city of Odense.
It has a 3  3 m2 surface, east oriented, a slope of 10 and sedum
vegetation growing on a 40 mm layer substrate drained by a
40 mm of mineral-wool. The roof has a maximum fully wet weight
between 80 and 130 kg/m2. Runoff data from this roof are available
from August 2010 to May 2012. The second green roof (GR2, Fig. 1
right) has Sedum vegetation growing on a 30 mm substrate
drained by a 40 mm drainage layer made of high porosity oxy-
foam mats. This roof has a water saturated weight of 55 kg/m2.
The third green roof (GR3, Fig. 1 right) has sedum growing on
60 mm high plastic trays lled with substrate soil and drained
through raised holes, placed approximately 10 mm above the bot-
tom. This has a water saturated weight of 45 kg/m2. A reference
traditional roof was also installed. The latter 3 roofs are connected
to each other and have a surface area of 20 m2 each and slope of
4.3 oriented to the south-east and they are located in Copenhagen.
Runoff data are available from March 2011 to February 2012. The
characteristics of the different roofs are summarized in Table 1.
Each roof has a distinctly separate drainage and runoff cannot
migrate among them. Runoff from the roofs was collected in sepa-
rated tanks where the water depth was measured by pressure
transducers to provide a continuous record of runoff. Rainfall was
monitored using tipping buckets installed at the test sites at a dis-
tance of <50 m from the roofs. Meteorological data (wind speed, air
temperature, relative humidity, global radiation and atmospheric
pressure) were collected from the nearest available meteorological
stations which were located 10 km away for one green roof (GR1)
and 3 km away for the other two green roofs (GR2 and GR3). The
rainfall data were logged by tipping bucket rain gauges with a
bucket volume of 0.2 mm and runoff data were recorded at
1-min time intervals while meteorological data were recorded
every 1-h. Usually small distances (<1 km) are considered to be
acceptable for weather stations; however given the lower spatial
variation of hourly averaged climate variables we assume that
the actual distances are acceptable. Single rain events were dened

GR1

GR3

GR2

Fig. 1. The 3 experimental extensive green roofs (GR1, GR2 and GR3). GR2 and GR3 are covered by the same vegetation but have different substrate thickness and drainage
media.

Table 1
Roofs characteristics.

GR1 GR2 GR3 Reference roof

Location Odense Copenhagen Copenhagen Copenhagen
Area (m2) 9 20 20 20
Slope () 10 4.3 4.3 4.3
Overall thickness (mm) 80 70 60
Vegetation type Sedum and herbs Sedum and herbs Sedum and herbs
Saturated weight (kg/m2) 130 55 45
a
Drainage (mm) 40 40
Drainage material Mineral wool Exapanded foam Holes in plastic trays
Substrate depth (mm) 40 30 60
Substrate material Soil Crushed clay, medium-ne peat, compost Crushed clay, medium-ne peat, compost
Water holding capacity (l/m2) 53 31 No data
a
Drainage holes are placed 1 cm above the bottom.
3240 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
Soil moisture in P
the porous media
Pe
max
Surface storage S
Dmax
FC
ET
Rmax
Rmax
R
WP Subsurface
storage
Fig. 2. Conceptual mass balance model of a green roof.
Fig. 3. Composite scaled sensitivities of the model parameters for the water balance and peak runoff. Long term simulation (left) and a selected single event simulation
(right).
as rainfall periods separated by more than an hour. One-hour inter-
event period is the denition adopted in Denmark for single rain
events based on the considerations of Arnell et al. (1984). Single
event runoff was dened to begin with the corresponding rain
event and to end at the beginning of the following rain event. This
denition might cause some runoff events starting with non-zero
runoff values resulting in single event runoff volume > rainfall vol-
ume. This is not considered a problem in the present analysis since
the observed green roofs cease runoff within 12 h meaning that
after 1 h most of the water is drained. Results from Fig. 8 (Right)
show only couple of events with runoff volume > rainfall volume
and the difference in volume is approximately 1 mm.
Rainfall data were corrected according to Allerup et al. (1998) to
take into consideration the inuence of wind speed, rain intensity,
wetting and sheltering effects of the rain gauge.
2.2. The model
A deterministic lumped rainfallrunoff conceptual model was
used. Lumped conceptual models (grey box models), rather than
physically distributed (white box models) or analytical models
(black box models), require lower computational costs and can
have the advantage of easier interpretation of model parameters.
The conceptual model divides the green roof into 3 different water
storages connected to each other and is shown in Fig. 2. A model
ET
Smax ET Overland ow
k1(h-Dmax)n1
Dmax
Qss Detenon storage h
khn
Runo
aRmax
based on the mass balance equation for the system was imple-
mented in MATLAB. Some of the model parameters can be esti-
mated from physical data (Rmax, Smax, Kc), but nal calibration to
hydrological data is needed.
The mass balance for each of the storages is described as:
ds
qin  qout 1
dt
where s is the storage depth [mm], qin and qout are the inow and
outow intensities normalized by the roof area [mm/min] and t is
time [min].
Rainfall intercepted by the vegetation layer of the green roof is
referred to as surface storage and Smax (see Fig. 2) indicates its max-
imum capacity. The capacity of the surface storage is continuously
re-established through evaporation. When the maximum surface
storage Smax is exceeded, the effective precipitation Peff is driven
as inltration into the subsurface storage.
The volume of water that can be stored (retained) both in the
green roof substrate and in the drainage layer (and eventually
other built-in layers) is referred to as subsurface storage R. The
drainage layer is normally constructed to ensure that the roof
has sufcient underdrain and only few commercial products
introduce storage (retention) elements into the drainage board.
The drainage layer of one green roof (GR1) in this study is made
of mineral wool, which has a high retention capacity, and for
 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248 3241

Fig. 4. Rainfallrunoff intensity from the 3 extensive green roofs during three different rain events within the calibration period.

Fig. 5. Simulated and observed accumulated rainfallrunoff depth for the summer period (left) and for the winter period (right). Data from GR1.

Fig. 6. Simulated 10 min peak intensities per event as a function of the return period (left). Simulated 10 min peak reductions per event as a function of different return
periods (right).

this reason we decided to keep the drainage layer to account for The detention storage temporarily stores water up to a maxi-
the subsurface storage. Rmax represents the maximum capacity of mum volume Dmax. The detention storage represents the excess
the substrate and drainage layer (and other built-in layers) water that cannot be held against gravity by the green roof and
together; this can be estimated as the difference between the therefore will runoff as subsurface ow through the drainage layer.
water content at eld capacity hFC (after drainage, macropores Theoretically the maximum capacity of the detention storage Dmax
empty) and the permanently retained water content hWP cannot exceed the difference between the saturated water content
(comparable to permanent wilting point, mesopores empty). and the water content at eld capacity. When the maximum capac-
R = 0 represents the permanently retained moisture in the green ity Dmax is exceeded saturation overland ow runoff occurs. The
roof (it does not correspond to oven dry conditions) and may runoff from the detention storage is described by the non-linear
vary in response to atmospheric variables. The water content reservoir method:
in the subsurface storage is continuously reduced by evapotrans- Runoff k  h ;
n
h  Dmax
piration. From the subsurface storage Qss is diverted into the n1
2
detention storage. Runoff k  Dnmax k1  h  Dmax ; h > Dmax
3242 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
Fig. 7. Simulated single event runoff volume as a function of the return period (left). Simulated single event runoff volume reductions as a function of different return periods
(right).
Fig. 8. Simulated single event intensity as a function of the 10 min rainfall return period (left). Simulated single event runoff volume as a function of the rainfall volume
return period (right).
where n, k are the routing parameters for subsurface runoff through
the drainage layer and n1, k1 are the routing parameters for satu-
rated overland ow. This method was proposed by Zimmer and
Geiger (1997) for the design of multilayered inltration systems.
Due to the high conductivity of the subsurface materials all the rain
is assumed to inltrate and percolate vertically to the drainage
layer. However the water can accumulate in the system up to a cer-
tain volume beyond which saturated overland ow occurs.
Evaporation and transpiration continuously restore the capacity
of all the storages. Evaporation rstly acts in the surface storage, if
the surface storage falls below zero then water is withdrawn from
the detention storage and when the detention storage is empty
evapotranspiration takes place in the subsurface storage. The model
assumes no evapotranspiration during rain events and it does not
distinguish between evaporation and transpiration.
The actual ET rates are calculated based on the FAO Penman
Monteith equation (Allen, 1998):
ET ET 0  K c  F
where Kc is the crop coefcient (vegetation coefcient), F is the
reduction factor due to water shortage and ET0 is the reference
evapotranspiration. The input parameters for ET0 are the observed
wind speed, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, global radia-
tion and air temperature. The clear sky solar radiation used in the
calculation of ET0 (Allen, 1998) was corrected according to
Dingman (2002) in order to take the roof slope and orientation into
consideration.
The crop coefcient Kc depends on the type of vegetation and
takes into account the differences in stomatal resistance of the leaf
and aerodynamic resistance through the body of the plant (Allen,
1998). The reduction factor F accounts for environmental stress.
In the actual model evapotranspiration rates are reduced due to
water shortage. The reduction factor F is equal to 1 for both the
surface and detention storages, whereas for the subsurface storage
F = 1 for a water content R > w Rmax and then decreases linearly to
zero between R = w Rmax and the minimum water content R = 0
(0 6 F 6 1). The quantity w Rmax can be interpreted as the water
content at the stomatal closure point.
The ow recharging the detention storage depends on the lling
ratio of the subsurface storage.
(
Peff R=Rmax a
; R=Rmax > a
Qss 1a 4
3 0; R=Rmax  a
where a Rmax is the threshold water content above which water
starts draining from the subsurface storage (0 6 a < 1). When the
subsurface storage is full then Qss = Peff. The parameter a is a thresh-
old value that changes the hydrograph at the beginning of the rain
event by allowing runoff from the green roof even if the subsurface
storage still has some capacity.
 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248 3243

2.3. Calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis
The model parameters for the green roofs were determined by
inverse modeling with a calibration period of approximately
23 months during the summer period. The calibration procedure
used the Shufed Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm (Vrugt
et al., 2003).
Each of the three extensive green roofs was calibrated according
to three different objectives:
(1) Peak runoff. The objective function to be minimized was the
sum of the squared peak errors. The peak error was calcu-
lated for each event as the difference between the observed
and the computed peak runoff. Only runoff peaks above
4 mm/h were taken into account. The threshold of 4 mm/h
was chosen in order to have at least 46 peaks to be cali-
brated and still avoiding the inuence of small peaks.
(2) Water balance. The objective function to be minimized was
the sum of the squared water balance error where the error
was dened to be the difference between the accumulated
observed and computed runoff. The water balance error
was calculated for periods with durations of approximately
7 days each.
(3) Peak runoff and water balance. The objective function to be
minimized included peak runoff and water balance together
with different weights and was dened as:
" #
XNc
wi Xm
C obsi;t  C simi;t 2
5 istic lumped model with linear reservoirs and threshold functions
i1
m t1 r2i;t
where Nc is the number of objectives considered (in this case Nc = 2,
peak runoff and water balance), m is the number of observations for
each objective, Cobs are the observed values, Csim are the simulated
values, r is the standard deviation of observations and wi are the
weighting parameters.
The reference hard roof was also calibrated using the green roof
model. Subsurface and detention storage capacities were set to
zero (Rmax = Dmax = 0).
The model was validated for each of the three extensive green
roofs and the validation period (35 months) made use of all the
remaining observation data (data out of the calibration and winter
periods). The standard deviation of the peak error and water bal-
ance error during the validation period was calculated.
Sensitivity of the model parameters was analyzed using Com-
posite Scaled Sensitivities (CSS) (Hill, 1998). The CSS were calcu-
lated considering four different objectives: (1) peak ows during
a single event simulation; (2) runoff volume during a single event
simulation; (3) peak ows during a long term simulation; (4) run-
off volume during a long term simulation.
The return period T [years] was calculated using the Weibull
(1939) plotting position formula:
y1
T 6
r
where y is the duration of the time series in years and r is the rank
of the observed event.
2.5. Annual runoff as a function of storage capacity and crop
coefcient
The variation of the annual runoff as a function of the total
green roof retention capacity (total storage capacity = surface stor-
age + subsurface storage; detention storage is not considered since
it is low sensitive parameter (see Fig. 3) for annual runoff) and
for different crop coefcients Kc was simulated. The total storage
capacity was assumed to vary between 2.8 and 40 mm and the crop
coefcient Kc = 0.60; 0.89; 1.20; 1.50.
2.6. Model with MIKE URBAN
The single event and long term hydrological response from the
green roof (GR1) was also computed using the commercial soft-
ware MIKE URBAN (Andersen et al., 2004; DHI, 2009). Mike Urban
includes a model referred to as NAM (Nedbr-Afstrmnings-Model.
In English: rainfallrunoff model), which was developed to compute
the runoff from pervious areas and it is furthermore used to simu-
late inltration-inow to urban drainage systems. It is a determin-
that allow to simulate a range of phenomena. A detailed descrip-
tion of the NAM model and its parameters was given by Nielsen
and Hansen (1973) and in the manual DHI (1999). The input data
required for the NAM model are ET rates [mm/day], rainfall inten-
sities [mm/min] and the horizontal projected area of the green roof
[m2]. The input ET rates had an hourly time step and were obtained
from Equation 3. The time step for the NAM model was set to 1 min
in order to have a direct comparison to the actual model approach.
The chosen simulation period was the month of June 2011. The
NAM model input parameters were calibrated by trial and error.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis
The calibrated values for the reference roof are Smax = 0.5 mm,
k1 = 0.215 mm1min1 and n1 = 1.67. The results of the calibration
for the three extensive green roofs are given in Table 2. The over-
land ow from the green roofs was assumed to have the same
Table 2
Calibration results.

Calibration objective k Rmax Kc a a Dmax

2.4. Long term simulations
(mm min)1 (mm) (mm)
GR1
The long term simulations were based on rainfall and climate
Peaks 0.0038 21.2 0.93 0.65 10
data from Copenhagen in the period 19892010. The rainfall data Water Balance 0.0038 20.4 0.88 0.65 10
were taken from a tipping bucket rain gauge in Copenhagen and 0.60 Peaks; 0.40 WB 0.0040 21.5 0.89 0.53 10
corrected as described in Section 2.1. The rainfall data were GR2
recorded for every 0.2 mm of rain. Global radiation, wind speed Peaks 0.018 11.0 1.44 0.85 4.2
and temperature were obtained with a daily time step from the Water Balance 0.018 8.8 0.80 0.85 4.2
Danish national climate grid data (Scharling, 1999,2001). Atmo- 0.60 Peaks; 0.40 WB 0.022 9.7 0.85 0.85 4.2

spheric pressure and relative humidity were taken from a measur- GR3
ing station in Copenhagen. The clear sky solar radiation in the Peaks 0.065 9.7 0.83 0.90 3.5
Water Balance 0.065 10.6 0.90 0.90 3.5
calculation of ET0 was corrected as explained in Section 2.2. It
0.60 Peaks; 0.40 WB 0.075 10.8 0.87 0.90 3.5
was assumed that the uncertainty in the model predictions is the
a
same as the uncertainty calculated for the validation period. The crop coefcient was calibrated within the period AprilOctober.
3244 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
routing parameters (k1 and n1) as the reference hard roof. During
the observation period few events with overland ow occurred
from GR2 and GR3, and no overland ow was registered from
GR1. Overland ow was assumed to occur when the observed run-
off hydrograph suddenly jumped to the same intensity as the
incoming rainfall. The value of Dmax for GR1 was thus assumed to
be just above the maximum simulated detention height during
the calibration period; this assumption was made in order to avoid
overestimation of the parameter Dmax which could result in higher
peak reductions (simulations will be in the safe side). The Dmax
parameter for roofs GR2 and GR3, was calibrated for a couple of
events. The parameters k = 2, Smax = 0.8 and w = 0.5 were xed
due to high parameter correlation. The retention storages Smax
and Rmax were found to be highly correlated meaning that they
could be simplied into a single storage compartment; however
for a more exibility of the model (i.e. one could have a function
describing the seasonal variation of the interception storage) they
were kept separated. The calibrated values of Dmax are in the same
range as those reported by Villarreal (2007) for green roofs with
30 mm substrates. The sensitivity analysis (Fig. 3) shows that in
the long term hydrological performance (continuous simulations)
the most sensitive parameters for the water balance are the crop
coefcient Kc and the subsurface storage Rmax, whereas for individ-
ual peaks in the long time series the most sensitive parameters are
k, n and Dmax which control the slope of the hydrograph and Kc and
Rmax, which determine the initial moisture conditions and available
storage. For the single events (without continuous simulations),
the most sensitive parameters to the water balance were the sub-
surface storage Rmax and the initial moisture conditions whereas
for the peaks the most sensitive parameters are k, n and Dmax which
control the hydrograph shape, and Rmax and the initial moisture
conditions which affect the initial loss.
The non-linear reservoir method was also employed by Kasmin
et al. (2010) to simulate the runoff from an observed extensive
green roof and they found routing parameters n = 2 and
k = 0.030 mm1 min1 which are of the same order of magnitude
as those found in our calibration.
Table 2 shows that peaks had 0.6 weight and water balance 0.4.
Several optimizations with different combinations of weights were
carried out and it was observed that reducing the weight on the
peaks would signicantly worsen the modeled peaks, whereas
the water balance would keep more stable. This is why peaks were
given a higher weight.
The model validation results are reported in Table 3. It should
be noticed that the retention component was not validated specif-
ically for single events, however the observed runoff was shown to
be continuously reproduced by the model (Fig. 5) and the objective
function for the water balance considered the runoff volume every
710 days.
Examples of the computed and observed runoff hydrographs
and the corresponding hyetograph for the 3 extensive green roofs
are illustrated in Fig. 4. These examples show that the non-linear
reservoir routing method adopted in the model suitably describes
the runoff from the 3 observed green roofs. In the present model it
was assumed that, due to the high hydraulic conductivity of the
substrate materials, all the water inltrates and percolates down
Table 3
Validation results.
GR1
Standard deviation
Calibration target WB (mm) Peaks (mm/min)
Peaks 2.4 0.024
Water Balance 1.6 0.027
Peaks and WB 1.9 0.026
to the drainage layer (unless maximum detention storage Dmax
was exceeded) and that interow through the substrate layer is
negligible (in GR3 interow is not possible due to trays forming
vertical barriers). The latter assumption might not be valid when
substrate thicknesses become larger than those of the tested roofs
(>40 mm) and the interow through the substrate layer might
become larger.
The time delay due to percolation processes was not considered
in the model, nevertheless the time of the observed peaks matched
the computed one (12 min). This means that percolation is fast
through the substrate layer due to the highly porous and granular
materials (presence of macropores, low tortuosity).
Accumulated rainfall and observed and simulated runoff were
computed for GR1 and shown in Fig. 5. Results show good match
between observed and simulated values. Two different graphs
are shown in Fig. 5, one for the summer period (April 2011Octo-
ber 2011) and one for winter (October 2011April 2012). The crop
coefcient for the winter period was assumed to be the same as the
calibrated Kc from Table 2. Proper calibration for the winter period
was not attempted due to the fact that precipitation as snow was
not accounted; nevertheless the modelled runoff is shown to
approximate the observed data well (Fig. 5). The annual runoff of
the green roof GR1 was observed to be 0.47 whereas observations
from GR2 and GR3 were not available due to the lack of continuous
data set for a whole year. Fig. 5 shows that there is a seasonal var-
iation in retention. Retention is 53% for the period AprilOctober
and 35% for the period NovemberMarch.
The calibrated crop coefcients for the observed green roofs are
in agreement with the range of values found in the literature.
Lazzarin et al. (2005) experimentally found crop coefcients for
sedum to decrease with decreasing soil relative humidity. For
well-watered conditions they observed crop coefcients to vary
between 0.42 and 0.65 and for stressed water conditions between
0.16 and 0.39. Sherrard and Jacobs (2012) calibrated their model
with experimental data and obtained a crop coefcient for sedum
of 0.53. Rezaei et al. (2005) conducted green-house experiments
and found crop coefcients of 0.74 in winter and 1.97 in fall/spring.
Schneider et al. (2011) presented average sedum crop coefcients
between 1.1 and 1.9 based on experiments. Seasonal variation of
the crop coefcient in the present study was assumed not to be sig-
nicant due to the limited transpiration of Sedum crop. Actual
model results (see Fig. 5) showed that using the same crop coef-
cient for the whole year did reproduce observed runoff for the
12 month continuously; this supported the assumption of no sea-
sonal effects on the crop coefcient.
Theoretically the crop coefcient should only account for the
differences in crop canopy and aerodynamic resistance (Allen,
1998). However the crop coefcient in this study might be overes-
timated due to the effect of roof elevation into the atmospheric
boundary layer and the enhanced turbulence generated by the roof
slope and neighbouring structures. GR1 might also include the
effect of a possible heat ux from the wooden house below the
green roof (see Fig. 1).
The parameters presented above are case-specic. In order to
estimate some of the parameter values for a previously-unmoni-
tored roof the authors suggest the following. The maximum capac-
GR2 GR3
Standard deviation Standard deviation
WB (mm) Peaks (mm/min) WB (mm) Peaks (mm/min)
3.5 0.028 2.9 0.043
1.8 0.041 2.2 0.056
2.3 0.035 2.6 0.051
 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
ity of the substrate and drainage layer Rmax could be calculated as
the difference between a physical measure of eld capacity and the
permanently retained water content; the crop coefcient Kc could
be determined from literature. For the parameters a, Dmax and k,
calibration is needed, which could be achieved by use of rainfall,
runoff and moisture data collected during controlled experiments.
3.2. Long term simulations
The simulated 10 min runoff intensity as a function of the
return period is illustrated in Fig. 6 (left). The 10 min intensity is
especially relevant for local sewer surcharge problems, i.e. for
small catchments with short time of concentration. Extensive
green roofs are most effective for short duration storms because
they have a small detention capacity; shorter duration storms
(i.e. 1 min) result in higher peak ow reductions and vice versa.
The results show that the observed extensive green roofs reduce
single event 10 min peak runoff ow and volume when compared
to the reference traditional roof. Peak runoff ows from GR2 and
GR3 approach those of traditional roofs for return periods above
710 years whereas GR1 has higher peak reductions. Fig. 6 (right)
shows the peak reduction for 4 different ranges of return periods. It
can be seen that peak ow reductions decrease with increasing the
event return period. The 10 min peak reductions are 4078% for
return periods between 0.1 and 1 and 1036% for return periods
between 5 and 10. The results show that the best performing green
roof is GR1, which has the thickest substrate and drainage layer.
Overland ow during the simulation period was observed twice
for GR1, 9 times for GR2 and 22 times for GR3. Villarreal (2007)
observed the 1 min peak intensity runoff to be on average 47% of
that of a reference hard roof for a real rain event of 2 years return
period in Sweden. He also estimated, using the unit hydrograph
method, 1 min peak runoff reductions to be 64% for a 5 years
return period event and 63% for a 10 years events. Peak reduction
depends on many factors such as the initial available storage, rain-
fall patterns and the detention capacity of the roof, which depends
on the conductivity and thickness of the layers. In general, the
higher the detention capacity the higher the peak intensity reduc-
tion and the higher the hydraulic conductivity of the materials the
lower the peak reduction. Initial available storage and rainfall pat-
terns are more correlated when a rainfall peak occurs at the begin-
ning of the event, where initially low moisture content in the green
roof helps reducing the peak; conversely if the rainfall peak
occurred at the end of the event when the green roof had been sat-
urated, initial moisture content would not matter.
The simulated single event rainfallrunoff volumes as a func-
tion of the return period are illustrated in Fig. 7 (left). These gures
can be used to estimate the stormwater volume reduction during
single events. Fig. 7 (right) shows the volume reductions for 4
ranges of return period. The single event volume reductions
decrease with increasing the return period. The reductions are
1828% for 0.11 year return period and 25% for 510 year return
period. Similar conclusions were found by Stovin et al. (2012) who
showed that retention during single 10 year return period events
could vary between 0 and 80% depending on initial moisture con-
ditions. Voyde et al. (2010) also concluded that the single event
retention is likely to decrease with increasing the event return per-
iod. The simulated runoff volume reductions only depend on the
available storage at the beginning of the rain event. Nevertheless
Getter et al. (2007) and Sherrard and Jacobs (2012) observed reten-
tion to change depending on the rainfall intensity. It is important
to notice that the higher the rainfall depth the lower the potential
for runoff volume reduction. In fact if we assumed to have a max-
imum storage available of 20 mm (similar to GR1) and a rainfall
volume of 50 mm (710 years return period according to the
3245
observed time series) the maximum achievable volume reduction
would be 40%.
Fig. 8 shows the single event 10-min runoff intensities and run-
off volumes as a function of the rainfall return period (runoff inten-
sities and volumes are associated with the corresponding rain
event). Results show that the green roof response to single events
has a high variability. This highlights the importance of continuous
modelling when forecasting the response of green roofs. For
instance if we look at the intensity for return periods between 1
and 10 years (Fig. 8, left) there is a great variation in the green roof
response with some of the events that show similar runoff inten-
sity as the incoming rainfall and others where the runoff intensity
is almost nil.
The peak time delay dened as the time lag between the com-
puted runoff peak from the green roof and the one from the refer-
ence roof is shown in Fig. 9 as a function of the 10 min rainfall
return period. The peak time delay is relevant for calculating
reductions in sewer surcharges. Results show that green roofs
can delay peak ows from as little as 0 min up to more than
60 min (peak delays higher than 40 min were simply shown as
40 min, this was done to simplify the gure and to avoid mislead-
ing values. Some events where no runoff is observed actually have
no time delay by denition. Other events resulted in more than
200 min delay, which is a misleading result because it is an artefact
of the method used to calculate peak time delay). Peak time delay
variability depends on initial available storage, rainfall patterns,
detention storage capacity and material hydraulic conductivity.
An overall trend of decreasing time delay with increasing the rain-
fall return period is seen. Nevertheless for some events with return
periods above 1 year the model indicates delays above 20 min.
The annual runoff dened as the ratio between the runoff and
the incoming rainfall in 1 year period is shown with a box plot in
Fig. 10. The annual runoff reduction is useful for estimating dis-
charge reductions to the sewer system. Results show that annual
runoff ratios vary between 43% and 68% for the given extensive
green roofs. Fig. 10 also reports the values presented by Mentens
et al. (2006) which are based on observations from 121 different
extensive green roofs in Germany. The annual runoff from green
roofs is considerably lower compared to that of traditional roofs.
The annual runoff was computed assuming a constant crop coef-
cient throughout the year even though literature values suggest
that winter crop coefcients might be 050% smaller. Nevertheless
results are not expected to vary much since the rainfall depth dur-
ing the winter months in Denmark is only 23% of the whole year
(Thomsen, 2011) and evapotranspiration rates in this period are
Fig. 9. Single event peak time delay as a function of the 10 min rainfall return
period. Peak time delay above 40 min is simply shown as 40 min value (for
illustration purposes).
3246 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
Fig. 10. Simulated average annual runoff over 22 years. The box-whiskers plot
indicate inter-annual variation. The gure also includes the results from Mentens
(2006) derived from observation of 121 different extensive green roofs.
Fig. 11. Simulated mean annual runoff as a function of the green roofs total storage
capacity (surface storage + subsurface storage).
about 10% of the ones in summer. Moreover Fig. 5 showed that
using the same crop coefcient for the summer and winter period
was a reasonable assumption. It should be noted that crop transpi-
ration is not that important for Sedum species; nevertheless it
would become relevant when non-succulent species are used.
Fig. 12. Comparison between the actual model and the NAM model integrated into MIKE URBAN. 10 min rainfall-runoff intensity from a single rain event (left). Accumulated
rainfall-runoff for the month of June 2011 (right). Data from GR1.
GR2 and GR3 have very similar annual runoff volumes. This is
because the most sensitive parameters to the long term water bal-
ance (Rmax and Kc; see Fig. 3) are similar for the two roofs. This is
reasonable since these two green roofs have similar substrate
material and vegetation, and are placed on the same structure.
The model results presented in this paper were based on
extrapolation of a model calibrated with limited eld data. During
the observation period the highest 10 min rainfall intensity regis-
tered had a return period of T  2 years whereas the single event
rainfall volume recorded had a return period in the range of
T  8 years. This means that the modeled runoff associated with
higher return period events might be especially uncertain (a higher
uncertainty compared to the one presented for the validation per-
iod in Table 3). The modeled single event runoff volume was shown
to be only function of the initial moisture content and therefore
results can be considered reliable even at higher return periods.
The modeled single event peak runoff associated with high return
period events likely occurs as overland ow; since the model
accounts for overland ow which was shown to happen even dur-
ing the observation period, results can be assumed to be reliable
and most likely not overestimating peak reductions.
3.3. Annual runoff as a function of storage capacity and crop
coefcient
Fig. 11 shows the variation of the mean annual runoff as a func-
tion of the total green roof retention capacity and for different crop
coefcients. It can be seen that increasing the retention capacity
reduces the annual runoff and the relation between the two is
not linear. Even few mm of storage can result in signicant reduc-
tions in annual runoff as shown by Mentens et al. (2006) who
experimentally observed annual runoff from gravel-covered roofs
to be 7085% of the total annual rainfall. Similar conclusions were
also found by Berghage and Jarret (2007). Lastly it can be seen that
increasing the crop coefcient by changing the type of vegetation
reduces the mean annual runoff. Changing the crop species might
require different substrate depth and composition which could not
be taken into account into the actual simulation.
3.4. Model with MIKE URBAN
A comparison between the computed single event runoff with
the model and the Mike Urban software is shown in Fig. 12 (left).
The results show that both models are suitable for reproducing
the observed runoff from green roofs during single rain events.
The NAM model integrated in MIKE URBAN routs runoff with the
 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
linear-reservoir method whereas the present model uses the non-
linear reservoir. The parameter n > 1 changes the curvature of the
computed hydrograph, during peak ows it gives a steeper shape
and during the descending hydrograph a milder one. Long term
accumulated rainfallrunoff was also compared and shown in
Fig. 12 (right). Results show that the two models behave similarly.
The NAM has a similar conceptual model based on several storages
which are continuously restored through evapotranspiration. The
actual evapotranspiration rates in the NAM model vary linearly
from 100% at R = Rmax to 0% when R = 0. This is the equivalent to
setting w = 1 in the actual model.
4. Future research prospects
The model is designed to be simple so that it can be incorpo-
rated into large scale simulations of whole cities. Future research
could model the impact of retrotting green roofs at a large scale.
The presented model could also be validated for intensive green
roofs. The model is uncertain particularly for peaks resulting from
high return period events where data were not available; the
model should be tested when such data becomes available. It
would also be useful to determine how the model parameters (a,
Dmax and k) can be related to roof characteristics such as the slope,
thickness and material, pore size distribution, length and width.
5. Conclusion
The presented model for the hydrological response of green
roofs is demonstrated to reproduce runoff data from 3 different
extensive green roofs in Denmark. Both the single event and the
long term hydrological performance can be continuously simu-
lated. Model results for runoff peak and volume reductions, and
peak time delay associated with high return period events were
shown. The model is divided into surface, subsurface and detention
storage. The surface and subsurface storages represent the overall
retention capacity of the green roof whereas the detention storage
represent the amount of water that can be temporarily stored in
the system. All the rainfall is assumed to inltrate into the sub-
strate, unless the maximum detention capacity is exceeded. Runoff
from the model is assumed to occur either as subsurface ow or, in
case the maximum detention storage capacity is exceeded, as sat-
urated overland ow. Runoff time delay due to percolation through
the substrate layer and saturated ow in the drainage layer was
not considered in the model since the simulated timing of peak
ows matched the observed ones, suggesting that for such thin lay-
ers and high conductivity materials this process is fast. Evapotrans-
piration continuously regenerates the capacity of the different
storages between rainfall events. The model has a ne temporal
resolution and low computational costs so that it can be integrated
into urban drainage models to simulate the impact of city-wide
implementation of green roofs.
Intensity-frequency and volume-frequency curves were calcu-
lated using a statistical analysis of a 22 year continuous simulation
results with Danish climate inputs. Results showed peak ows and
single event runoff volumes reductions to decrease with increasing
return period of the event. Single events 10 min runoff intensities
were reduced by 1036% for 510 years return period and 40
78% for 0.11 year return period; the runoff volumes were reduced
by 25% for 510 years return period and 1828% for 0.11 year
return period. The simulated average annual runoff was found to
be 4368% of the one from reference roofs (runoff coef-
cient = 0.430.68). Retention was shown to be higher in the period
AprilOctober than NovemberMarch and seasonal variation of the
crop coefcient was found to be negligible. The peak time delay
was shown to have a great variability ranging from 0 to more than
3247
40 min, while for 510 year return period events the simulated
time delay was less than 10 min. The mean annual runoff was
found to decrease with increasing the roof retention capacity and
crop coefcient. Finally a comparison between the developed
model and the rainfallrunoff model (NAM) integrated into the
software MIKE URBAN showed similar results both during single
events and long term hydrological response of green roofs.
The long-term continuous simulation allowed us to classify the
performance of green roofs for both annual water balance and for
single events. Annual runoff coefcients were introduced for green
roofs. For single events, variables like initial moisture content and
rainfall patterns make runoff analysis quite uncertain and so con-
tinuous long term simulations are recommended.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Danish Council for Research that
nanced the present research through the project BIV (Byer I Vand-
balance/Cities in water balance), Annette Brink-Kjr from Vand-
center Syd who provided the green roof (GR1) runoff data, and
Nykilde APS and HOFOR for nancing green roof experiments in
Copenhagen (GR2 and GR3).
References
Allen, R.G., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water
requirements.
Allerup, P., Madsen, H., Vejen, F., 1998. Standardvrdier (196190) af
nedbrkorrektioner (Standard values of rainfall corrections). Danish
Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.
Andersen, H.S., Tamaauskas, H., Mark, O., 2004. The full urban water cycle
modeling with MIKE URBAN. 7th Urban Drainage Modelling, Dresden, Germany.
Arnell, V., Harremos, P., Jensen, M., Johansen, N.B., Niemczynowicz, J., 1984. Review
of rainfall data application for design and analysis. Water Sci. Technol. 16 (89),
145.
Bengtsson, L., 2005. Peak ows from thin sedum-moss roof. Nord. Hydrol. 36 (3),
269280.
Bengtsson, L., Grahn, L., Olsson, J., 2005. Hydrological function of a thin extensive
green roof in southern Sweden. Nord. Hydrol. 36 (3), 259268.
Berghage, R., Jarret, A., 2007. Quantifying Evaporation and Transpirational Water
Losses from Green Roofs and Green Roof Media Capacity for Neutralizing Acid
Rain. The Pennsylvania State University and North Carolina State University.
Buccola, N., Spolek, G., 2011. A pilot-scale evaluation of greenroof runoff retention,
detention, and quality. Water Air Soil Pollut. 216 (14), 8392.
Carter, T., Jackson, C.R., 2007. Vegetated roofs for stormwater management at
multiple spatial scales. Landscape Urban Plann. 80 (12), 8494.
Carter, T.L., Rasmussen, T.C., 2006. Hydrologic behavior of vegetated roofs. J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (5), 12611274.
DeNardo, J.C., Jarrett, A.R., Manbeck, H.B., Beattie, D.J., Berghage, R.D., 2005.
Stormwater mitigation and surface temperature reduction by green roofs.
Trans. ASAE 48 (4), 14911496.
DHI, 1999. NAM Model Documentation.
DHI, 2009. Collection System. User Manual, Dhi Water & Environment. In: Agern
All 5, Hrsholm, Denmark.
Dingman, S.L., 2002. Physical Hydrology. Prentice-Hall Inc., ISBN 1-57766-561-9.
Elliott, A.H., Trowsdale, S.A., 2007. A review of models for low impact urban
stormwater drainage. Environ. Modell. Software 22 (3), 394405.
FLL, F.L.L., 2008. Guidelines for the planning, Construction and Maintenance of
Green Roong. Green Roong Guideline. Germany.
Frich, P., Rosenrn, S., Madsen, H., Jensen, J.J., 1997. Observed Precipitation in
Denmark, 196190. Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.
Getter, K.L., Rowe, D.B., Andresen, J.A., 2007. Quantifying the effect of slope on
extensive green roof stormwater retention. Ecol. Eng. 31 (4), 225231.
Gustafsson, L.-G., Hernebring, C., Hammarlund, H., 1999. Continuous Modelling of
Inow/Inltration in Sewers with MouseNAM 10 years of experience. In: 3rd
DHI Software Conference, 1999.
Herman, R., 2003. Green roofs in Germany: yesterday, today and tomorrow. In: 1st
North American Green Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities, Chicago.
Hill, M.C., 1998. Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration. Water-
resources investigation report 984005, U.S. Geological Survey.
Hilten, R.N., Lawrence, T.M., Tollner, E.W., 2008. Modeling stormwater runoff from
green roofs with HYDRUS-1D. J. Hydrol. 358 (34), 288293.
Jarret, A., Berghage, R., 2008. Annual and individual green roofs stormwater
response models. In: 6th Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities
Conference. Baltimore, MD.
Kasmin, H., Stovin, V.R., Hathway, E.A., 2010. Towards a generic rainfall-runoff
model for green roofs. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (4), 898905.
3248 L. Locatelli et al. / Journal of Hydrology 519 (2014) 32373248
Larsen, A.N., Gregersen, I.B., Christensen, O.B., Linde, J.J., Mikkelsen, P.S., 2009.
Potential future increase in extreme one-hour precipitation events over Europe
due to climate change. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (9), 22052216.
Lazzarin, R.A., Castellotti, F., Busato, F., 2005. Experimental measurements and
numerical modelling of a green roof. Energy Build. 37 (12), 12601267.
Lindblom, E., Ahlman, S., Mikkelsen, P.S., 2011. Uncertainty-based calibration and
prediction with a stormwater surface accumulation-washoff model based on
coverage of sampled Zn, Cu, Pb and Cd eld data. Water Res. 45 (13), 3823
3835.
Locatelli, L., Mark, O., Mikkelsen, P.S., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Kleinlercher, B., Roldin,
M., Binning, P.J., 2013. A simple rainfallrunoff model for the single and long
term hydrological performance of green roofs, Novatech 2013. Lyone (France).
Madsen, H., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Mikkelsen, P.S., 2009. Update of regional intensity-
duration-frequency curves in Denmark: tendency towards increased storm
intensities. Atmos. Res. 92 (3), 343349.
Mentens, J., Raes, D., Hermy, M., 2006. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater
runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape Urban Plann. 77 (3),
217226.
Monterusso, M.A., Rowe, D.B., Rugh, C.L., Russell, D.K., 2004. Runoff water quantity
and quality from green roof systems. ACTA Horticult. (639), 369376.
Moran, A., Hunt, B., Snith, J., 2005. Hydrologic and water quality performance of
green roofs in Goldsboro and Raleigh, North Carolina. Greening Rooftops for
Sustainable Communities, Washington.
Nielsen, S.A., Hansen, E., 1973. Numerical simulation of the rainfallrunoff process
on a daily basis. Nord. Hydrol. 4, 171190.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., Lanza, L.G., 2009. Unsaturated 2D modelling of subsurface water
ow in the coarse-grained porous matrix of a green roof. J. Hydrol. 379 (12),
193204.
Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L., McMahon, T.A., 2007. Updated world map of the Kppen-
Geiger climate classication. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (5), 16331644.
Rezaei, F., Jarrett, A., Berghage, R., Beattie, D., 2005. Evaporation Rates from
Extensive Green Roof Plant Species. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
International Meeting, Tampa, Florida.
Scharling, M., 1999. Klimagrid - Danmark Nedbr, lufttemperatur og potentiel
fordampning (Climate grid Denmark, air temperature and potential
evaporation) 20 20 & 40 40 km, Danish Meteorological Institute.
Scharling, M., 2001. Klimagrid Danmark Sammenligning af potentiel fordampning
beregnet ud fra Makkinks formel og den modicerede Penman formel (Climate
grid Denmark, comparison of potential evaporation calculated with Makkinks
method and the modied Penman method). Danish Meteorological Institute,
Copenhagen.
Schneider, D., Wadzuk, B.M., Traver, R.G., 2011. Using a weighing lysimeter to
determine a crop coefcient for a green roof to predict evapotranspiration with
the FAO standardized PenmanMonteith equation. World Environ. Water
Resour. Cong. 2011, 36293638.
Sherrard, J., Jacobs, J., 2012. Vegetated roof water-balance model: experimental and
model results. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (8), 858868.
Simmons, M.T., Gardiner, B., Windhager, S., Tinsley, J., 2008. Green roofs are not
created equal: the hydrologic and thermal performance of six different
extensive green roofs and reective and non-reective roofs in a sub-tropical
climate. Urban Ecosyst. 11 (4), 339348.
Stovin, V., Vesuviano, G., Kasmin, H., 2012. The hydrological performance of a green
roof test bed under UK climatic conditions. J. Hydrol. 414, 148161.
Stovin, V., Poe, S., Berretta, C., 2013. A modelling study of long term green roof
retention performance. J. Environ. Manage. 131, 206215.
Thomsen, R.S., 2011. Drift af Spildevandskomitens Regnmlersystem. Teknisk
rapport Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). 12-03.
VanWoert, N.D., Rowe, D.B., Andresen, J.A., Rugh, C.L., Fernandez, R.T., Xiao, L., 2005.
Green roof stormwater retention: effects of roof surface, slope, and media
depth. J. Environ. Qual. 34 (3), 10361044.
Vezzaro, L., Ledin, A., Mikkelsen, P.S., 2012. Integrated modelling of priority
pollutants in stormwater systems. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 4244, 4251.
Villarreal, E.L., 2007. Runoff detention effect of a sedum green-roof. Nord. Hydrol. 38
(1), 99105.
Villarreal, E.L., Bengtsson, L., 2005. Response of a Sedum green-roof to individual
rain events. Ecol. Eng. 25 (1), 17.
Vrugt, J.A., Gupta, H.V., Bouten, W., Sorooshian, S., 2003. A shufed complex
evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of
hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour. Res. 39 (8).
Voyde, E., Fassman, E., Simcock, R., 2010. Hydrology of an extensive living roof
under sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. J. Hydrol. 394
(34), 384395.
Weibull, W., 1939. A statistical theory of strength of materials. Ing. Vetensk. Akad
Handl. 151, 145.
Wong, T.H.F., Brown, R.R., 2009. The water sensitive city: principles for practice.
Water Sci. Technol. 60 (3), 673682.
Zhang, S., Guo, Y., 2013. Analytical probabilistic model for evaluating the hydrologic
performance of green roofs. J. Hydrol. Eng. 18 (1), 1928.
Zimmer, U., Geiger, W.F., 1997. Model for the design of multilayered inltration
systems. Water Sci. Technol. 36 (89), 301306.