Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hydrologic Comparison of Four Types of Permeable Pavement and Standard Asphalt in Eastern North Carolina

Collins, Kelly A., Hunt, William F., Hathaway, Jon M.·2008·Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
DOI 10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146

Abstract

A permeable pavement parking lot in eastern North Carolina consisting of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt was monitored from June 2006 to July 2007 for hydrologic differences in pavement surface runoff volumes, total outflow volumes, peak flow rates, and time to peak. The four permeable sections were pervious concrete (PC), two types of permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP) with small-sized aggregate in the joints and having 12.9% (PICP1) and 8.5% (PICP2) open surface area, and concrete grid pavers (CGP) filled with sand. The site was located in poorly drained soils, and all permeable sections were underlain by a crushed stone base layer with a perforated underdrain. All permeable pavements significantly reduced surface runoff volumes and peak flow rates from those of asphalt (p<0.01). Of the permeable pavements, CGP generated the greatest surface runoff volumes (p<0.01). The PICP1 and CGP cells generated significantly lower total outflow volumes than all other sections evaluated (p<0.01), and had the lowest peak flows and the longest time to peak. The response of the PICP1 cell was likely due to an increased base storage volume resulting from an elevated pipe underdrain whereas the CGP cell response was attributed to water retention in the sand fill layer. Overall, different permeable pavement sections performed similarly, but were substantially different from asphalt. Subtle differences in the performance of CGP were primarily due to the characteristics of the sand filled media compared to small aggregate typically used in PC and PICP joints and bedding.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146)

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Collins, K. A., Hunt, W. F., & Hathaway, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Published
2008-12
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
1146-1157
ISSN
  • 1084-0699 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-5584
DOI
10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146
OpenAlex
W2045756578
Cited by
288
References
7
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hydrologic Comparison of Four Types of Permeable Pavement and Standard Asphalt in Eastern North Carolina. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146
The paper
Collins, K. A., Hunt, W. F., & Hathaway, J. M. (2008). Hydrologic Comparison of Four Types of Permeable Pavement and Standard Asphalt in Eastern North Carolina. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13%3A12(1146

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.