剛性透水鋪面工法之透水性能比較

透水鋪面是綠建築所提倡的基地保水手法之一，其保水原理是利用土壤孔隙的毛細滲透原理來達到土壤滋養水分的功能。此手法可減輕溝渠及地下排水負擔，在強降雨季節時延緩洪峰流量，達到滯洪效果，並減緩都市熱島效應。傳統透水鋪面適用於低承載路面及輕交通量之原土層位置，如：廣場、停車場、步道、人行道、集合住宅周邊等，但實務上發現傳統透水鋪面會產生不均勻沉陷問題。為解決此問題，近來出現了許多剛性透水鋪面工法。然而，剛性透水鋪面的透水性能如何，相關研究十分有限。因此，本研究以目前市面上常見的幾種剛性透水鋪面工法、基層材料、表層材料為對象，進行了二個階段實驗性的測試，以驗證不同剛性透水鋪面的透水性能差異及剛性基層的透水性能差異。本研究第一階段依200cm×300cm×H50cm 鋼製框架施作了10 種以紙模、塑膠模(可拆式)、塑膠模(子母式)、透水混凝土為基層，再以鋪面、石板、連鎖磚、青斗石、復古磚、洗石子等為表面材的1:1 剛性透水鋪面，並依美國材料試驗協會訂定的ASTM C1701 單環測試方法求取I 值滲透率。實驗結果顯示，透水率I 值除了編號7 與9 被排除以外， 8 種透水鋪面皆符合美國材料試驗協會的標準。進一步比較後發現，以編號2 的塑膠模板(子母模)搭配石板磚的組合效果最佳(0.18cm/sec)，而以紙模為基層搭配青斗石表面材的組合表現最差(0.019cm/sec)。第二階段另闢建築基地做了五個套組，基層以紙模、塑膠模(可拆式)、塑膠模(子母式)，但表層鋪面僅以一種青斗石，以求取三種剛性連結地坪工法的優劣，再依美國材料試驗協會訂定的ASTM C1701 單環測試方法求取I 值。實驗結果顯示編號11、12、14 數據相差不多；編號15 塑膠模(子母模具)+青斗石最佳 (0.016cm/sec)；而編號13 紙模+青斗石僅達0.01cm/sec 為最差。第一階段與第二階段1：1 實驗雖其目的有所不同，一求整個套組，另一求基層的透水I 值優劣。但兩階段的透水性能有類似的結果，塑膠模(子母式)的透水性能最佳，紙模之透水性能最差。

關鍵字

熱島效應，透水鋪面，剛性地坪

並列摘要

Permeable pavement is one of the methods promoted by green building to facilitate soil water retention. The theory behind water retention is to utilize the principle of capillary of the soil porosity to achieve the preservation of water in the soil. This method can alleviate the burden of ditch and underground drainage and delay peak flow during seasons with strong rainfall, achieving detention and alleviating urban heat island effect. Conventional permeable pavements are suitable for original soil layers at pavements with low bearing and light traffic,such as plazas, parking lots, trails, sidewalks, and the surroundings of congregate housings. However, in practice, it has been discovered that conventional permeable pavements result in differential settlement. To address this problem, several rigid permeable pavement methods have been invented. However, few studies have been conducted on the permeability of rigid permeable pavements. Therefore, this study examined commonly applied rigid permeable pavement methods, subbase materials, and surface materials by conducting two-stage experiments to verify the differences in permeability in different rigid permeable pavements and in rigid subbases. In the first stage of this study, a 200cm × 300cm × H50cm steel frame was adopted to produce 10 subbases made of paper mold, plastic mode (removable), plastic mode (two-in-one), and permeable concrete. Subsequently, pavement, stone plates, interlocking blocks, basalt, vintage blocks, and facial washed terrazzo were adopted as surface materials to create 1:1 rigid permeable pavements. The ASTM C1701 single ring infiltrometer method established by the ASTM International of the United States was used to calculate the infiltration rate (I). The results indicated that except for those of No. 7 and No. 9, the I values for the rest of the eight permeable pavements meet the ASTM standard. Further comparisons revealed that the combination of No. 2 plastic mode (two-in-one) and stone plate blocks yielded the optimal result (0.18 cm/sec), whereas paper mold subbase paired with basalt surface material exhibited the poorest performance (0.019 cm/sec). In the second stage, this study established another building base and made five sets of pavements. The bases involved paper mold, plastic mode (removable), and plastic mode (two-in-one), but the surface pavement all adopted basalt, thereby determining the superiority of the three rigid flooring methods. Next, the ASTM C1701 single ring infiltrometer method established by the ASTM International of the United States was used to calculate the infiltration rate (I). The results showed that the data of Nos. 11, 12, and 14 were nearly equal, that the datum of No. 15 plastic mold (two-in-one) paired with basalt yielded the most favorable performance (0.016 cm/sec), whereas No. 13 paper mold paired with basalt exhibited the poorest result (0.01 cm/sec). The 1:1 experiments of stage 1 and stage 2 differed in their objectives. The stage 1 experiment was conducted to determine the I value performance of the pavements with different materials, whereas the stage 2 experiment was performed to verify the I value performance of an entire set of pavements. However, the two stages were similar in the permeability performance test results. Plastic mold (two-in-one) exhibited the most satisfactory permeability, whereas paper mold exhibited the poorest permeability.