PRELIMINARY REPORT

GREEN ROOF
ALTERNATIVE SUBSTRATE PILOT STUDY
May – June 2008
Funder: Leading By Example program
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Consultants:
Carol Steinfeld • David Del Porto, Ecological Engineering Group

Hosting Facility: University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Summary:

Green roofs (also known as vegetated roofs, garden roofs and green eco-roofs), are
much in demand now as a means to (1) insulate roofs, (2) divert stormwater and reduce
first flush of stormwater, (3) reduce the heat island effect of black roofs, and (4) add
visual interest to roof surfaces.

Currently, most facilities designers and managers look to proprietary manufactured

products, engineered soil mixes, and specialized consultants for green roof solutions.
However, green roofs can be constructed of easily accessed materials, some of which
are currently deemed waste products.

This study evaluated the performance of seven substrates that can be used as green
roof media. At least three substrates proved to be lightweight, effective and low-cost
options. These green roof substrates would also be viable media for wastewater and in-
ground stormwater systems. The plants used in the study also serve as effective low-
cost no-mow, low-water lawn alternatives.
Project Description:
To investigate and demonstrate the feasibility of lowering the cost of vegetated roof
options (“green roofs”), seven lower-cost green roof substrates were tested. These
substrates all have the potential to provide green roofs that reduce stormwater runoff,
insulate and preserve roof membranes, reduce heat island effect, demonstrate no-mow
landscape alternatives, and treat graywater.

This pilot studied the water retention capacity, throughput, and weights of seven low-
cost substrates (three of them recycled waste products) and various plant varieties.

The primary goal was to show that green roof systems can be installed for less expense
than is currently spent on proprietary commercial green roof systems. It also suggested
potential new applications and markets for waste products by showing the effectiveness
of alternative substrates (aggregate) as green roof treatment and support media.

Study Design
Seven substrates were tested by a Pennsylvania State University laboratory
specializing in green roof evaluations. Weight (dry and wet), water conductivity, pore
space volume, etc. were tested.

To observe performance of the substrates and assure plants would thrive in them, 10
study planters were each filled with a test substrate and plant varieties (natives and
non-natives), mostly sedums.

Successful substrates that met local building code for landscaped-roof loads were to be
installed in a 17’ x 17’ sample green roof to further observe performance and the rate of
plant spreading. The University halted the test bed construction on June 28 to await
more information. Two 17’ x 17’ green roof test beds might be constructed at a later
date.

Green roofs installed with two of the tested substrates will be viewable by the public at
privately developed buildings by September 2008.

Currently Used Green Roof Substrates

Green roofs are a product that, functionally, can be divided in two categories:
Garden roofs: These are merely planted roofs, usually using soil. These are commonly
landscaped like their on-ground counterparts, sometimes with trees.

Green roofs or green eco-roofs: Increasingly, this term refers to roofs with water-
holding capacity to hold rainwater and allow it to drain gradually or evaporate. This is an
infrastructure-oriented product and the focus of this study. The substrate provides air
pockets, or “pore spaces,” in which rainwater collects and is stored. These also provide
space for plant roots and provide aeration that both evaporates water and supports
aerobic bacteria that dissimilate any contaminants from the rain (dirt, bird excreta, etc.).

Many manufactured green roof products comprise layers of geotextile (fabric made of
plastic) and plastic mesh designed to hold water and roots. In some systems,
corrugated plastic layers are used as an underdrain to both store water and facilitate
controlled drainage. The advantage of these systems is they are lightweight and usually
have a rated performance. The disadvantage is their price and the need for professional
installation.

Other green roofs use specialized soil mixes. The majority of these mixes comprise
coconut coir, expanded shale, vermiculite, compost, and perlite. These mixes are
lightweight and effective but might be prone to clogging and compaction over time.

Some green roofs are made solely of expanded shale, a lightweight aggregate of kiln-
expanded stone. This is relatively inexpensive and effective. Others add compost to
expanded shale (such as Montgomery Park, Maryland) or to gravel (Harvard Design
School, Cambridge, Mass.).

This study sought to (1) show the effectiveness of discarded local materials as green
roof substrate, and (2) evaluate new possibilities for lightweight and effective substrate.

Materials tested were: crushed shell, rockwool, tumbled discarded porcelain, shredded
tires, coconut coir and styrofoam, crushed glass, rockwool, and crushed brick.

These can be compared to expanded shale using performance parameters established

in Germany (the German FLL Guideline for the Planning, Execution and Upkeep of
Green-Roof Sites) and used internationally. These standards address root resistance of
waterproofing materials and root-barriers, water-holding capacity of media, and
maximum weight of green roof media. This pilot study does not address roof membrane
root resistance as it is assumed standard roof membrane is used.

The applicability of these findings inform not only green roof design but also wastewater
and stormwater runoff-mitigation solution choices.

At the same time, different substrate options point to opportunities to obtain locally
derived substrates and even to divert materials from the waste stream. Other substrates
might offer efficiencies of delivery or installation.

Taken together, these factors can go far to significantly reduce costs of green roof
systems, an option increasingly chosen by state facilities to meet LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) standards and to meet new onsite stormwater
treatment regulations such as NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) and laws requiring onsite infiltration of stormwater.

Study Designers

The roof study was designed by David Del Porto of the Ecological Engineering Group,
which has designed innovative ecological wastewater pilots throughout the country with
many in Massachusetts, including through the state Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and Tufts University. Carol Steinfeld, a technology transfer specialist
and author of articles and books on rootzone modalities for water treatment, managed
the project and will distribute findings to state and non-state audiences. Pennsylvania
State University’s national green roof testing facility provided specialized testing. A
UMassD student assisted with the construction and set-up of the project.

For 2008, the result will be observations and a downloadable PDF how-to booklet
detailing construction, materials list, and results. Results will be posted on a Web site
(www.flowscapes.org) and presented throughout the state.

Environmental Benefits of Green Roofs

Briefly, green roofs provide direct benefit for state (and non-state) facilities for reducing
costs of installing green roofs, reducing stormwater (as increasingly mandated by
regulations), reducing energy costs (heat loss, cooling and mowing), and increasing air
and water quality.
- Stormwater: With today’s stricter stormwater regulations and more and more
communities disconnecting stormwater drains from city sewage lines, diverting and
allowing slow evaporation and release of stormwater are increasingly critical tasks for
infrastructure planners. Green roofs are one of several methods for both removing
pollutants from stormwater and slowing its force and volume. In Germany, they are
mandated for buildings in some cities as a means of stormwater runoff reduction.
Reducing stormwater can also reduce the load on the campus’s wastewater treatment
system.

- Energy-use reduction is achieved by reducing heat loss from roofs and by reducing
heat gain during the hot months, as well as the viability of using drought-tolerant no-mow
plants

- Air quality is improved and heat island effect can be improved by green roofs.

- Water conservation is possible by collecting the captured rainwater, allowing the green
roof to treat it, then using it for irrigation or washdown purposes.
Cost Savings

• A full green roof essentially insulates a roof. It reduces energy costs by lowering heat loss
during cold months and reducing heat gain in the summer.

• Green roofs also extend the life of expensive roof membranes.

• Green roofs divert stormwater from surrounding stormwater detention basins (in urban
settings, it would divert stormwater from wastewater treatment plants, an increasingly mandated
requirement).

Educational Value

Green roofs have captured the public’s imagination as an aesthetically pleasing method of
reducing stormwater runoff, diverting stormwater from overloaded wastewater treatment plants,
and lowering energy costs while providing landscapes in places they haven’t before existed.

As the Alternative Substrates Green Roof project advances, it will be presented to the
community via presentations, tours, and at least one workshop. Its findings will be distributed to
the state university system as well as to applicable professions. UMassD is on Buzzards Bay, a
nitrogen-compromised water body that can benefit directly from modalities like green roofs that
divert nitrogen runoff. What’s more, the findings from this pilot also apply to wastewater
systems, no-mow landscaping, and runoff control on land. The findings of this study are of
particular value to urban buildings where stormwater, heat island effect, and air quality are more
acute issues than in rural settings. We will distribute information to urban settings as much as
possible, with presentations at Boston’s Nexus Center and regional green building conferences
in Boston this fall.
Degradable versus Non-degradable Substrates
In Germany, green roof designers increasingly are moving away from organic
substrates. The main reasons: (1) organic substrates can leach nutrients, and (2) they
are subject to decomposition and compaction.
Over time, the root mass and leaf drop of the green roof’s plants create their own
carbon, which decomposes and becomes soil in the substrate.
At the same time, precipitation compacts substrates.
Organic substrates also decompose over time.
The combination of these factors leads to clogging of the substrates, especially high-
density substrates. Substrates with a lot of air spaces will continue to hold water and
drain at a desirable rate.
At the same time, water flowing through porous substrates literally pulls air through the
substrate, which is very important to support the microbes and the roots. Oxygen-using
microbes are the fastest-acting transformers of pollutants.
It is thought that the dominance of mosses on some green roofs, such as on the
renowned Ford Motor Company Rouge River facility, is due to organic substrates that
have clogged, resulting in the dominance of plants that live only on the surface.
For green roofs, plants are selected that do not need significant nutrients so clogging is
minimized. These plants derive nutrients from the sun and atmosphere and even the
nitrogen content of precipitation.
Especially after a storm, rain contains nitrogen (electricity dissolves the atmospheric
nitrogen and make nitrates).

Plant List
Three categories of plants were planted in some of the substrates: sedums, native
beach grass, and herbs. All three were successful, despite the high summer heat and
long periods of no rain. Plants grew in all of the substrates. During a three-week drought
period, plants in the porcelain and glass showed signs of stress, likely due to the low
water retention of these substrates. It is also noted that plants suffer where the test bin
was on the roof, probably due to the high temperature of the black, unplanted roof.
Sedums are a class of plant representing about 400 species of succulents. The plants
store water in their leaves. That and their short root systems make them ideal for green
roofs.
Native plants seem like a preferred choice for green roofs, but sedums might be easier
and more predictable to source.
Cape Cod Beach Grass was planted in the test tray filled with crushed shell. During the
test period, the grass survived and even produced some shoots. The relative
shallowness of the substrate depth (4 inches), might be, over the long term, too shallow
for the beach grass, which grows very deep root systems. Perhaps beach grass planted
in a wide area would tolerate extending its roots more horizontally than vertically.
Thyme, mint and chives were planted in one green roof test cell. The thyme did not
thrive, perhaps not tolerating long periods of no water.
Plants used for this study:

Sedums:
Sedum requiemi (miniature stonecrop)
Sedum acre “aureum” (green low)
Sedum spurium 'Dragon's Blood'
Delosperma nubigerum (flowers
Sedum hispanicum minus 'Purple Form' (Blue Carpet Stonecrop)
Sempervivium 'Winter Hardy Mix' (Hens & Chicks)
Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (ice plant)
Portulaca

Dune:
Cape Cod beach grass

Herbs:
Chives
Mint
Thyme
Descriptions of Substrates

Just-planted rockwool.
• Rockwool:
Rockwool is a spun mineral, much like fiberglass insulation is spun glass fibers. It is
sold widely for use as insulation and for hydroponic growing. It is made of basalt rocks
and chalk. These are melted at 1600 C°. The lava is blown into a spinning chamber,
which pulls the lava into fibers, much like cotton candy.
Advantages: Very lightweight, absorbent and non-degradeable, yet mineral so not an
environmental liability if disposed.
Disadvantages: Compared to the other substrates, it is expensive. However, its
lightweight makes it less costly to transport and to install on the roof—a significant
consideration.

Coconut coir
• Coconut coir:
Coir fibers are found between the husk and the outer shell of a coconut. The individual
fiber cells are narrow and hollow, with thick walls made of cellulose. Mature brown coir
fibers contain more lignin and less cellulose than fibers such as flax and cotton and so
are stronger but less flexible. They are made up of small threads, each about 1 mm long
and 10 to 20 micrometers in diameter. Coir is used to make rope and mats but also as a
super-absorbent soil amendment or soil-less growing media. Coir can absorb several
times its weight in water.
Advantages Lightweight and absorbent. Low cost.
Disadvantages: It is organic and subject to compaction and decomposition over time.

Styrofoam pellets
• Styrofoam pellets:
Styrofoam pellets made of expanded polystyrene for use as a gravel replacement in
wastewater leach fields and other drainage systems. Polystyrene, which is not the most
advantageous plastic for recycling, is not the most ecologically elegant material, but it is
used here to show the viability of using a lightweight plastic product. This same product
could be made of recycled plastic, a product that needs more markets. (Note: Packing
peanuts were not chosen because it is feared they are more prone to blowing away and
compaction.)
Advantages: Lightweight (alleviating the need for heavy trucking and mechanical
installation) and non-degreadable. This plastic takes high temperatures and is highly
stable.

Disadvantages: So lightweight they can blow away with winds. The pellets have no
absorbent value.

Styrofoam pellets were added to the coir to provide structure (for less compaction) and
add more pore spaces.

Left: Limpet shells. Right: Crushed sea clam shell with beach grass in planting

• Crushed shell:
Crushed sea clam and quahog shells mixed with lighter limpet (lady slipper) shells were
tested for this study. Clam shells are thick and heavy, and are a byproduct of the fishing
industry. Thin sea scallop shells might have provided a lighter substrate, however these
shells are typically disposed at sea. Its production costs are
Advantages: A low-cost waste product. Highly alkaline so counters acid rain. Diverts a
phosphorus source from the sea (phosporus is an interrupted nutrient cycle).
Disadvantages: Must be crushed and washed (costs). Can be dusty and have an
organic content if not thoroughly washed and aged. The shell itself is not very
absorbent, however it provides pore spaces.

• Crushed shell and coir:

Adding shell to coir provides a non-degradable structure to the coir to minimize

compaction.
 Shell-rockwool mix
• Rockwool and crushed shell:
Rockwool adds absorbency to crushed shell while also reducing its weight. Unlike coir,
it is inert and nondegradeable.

Expanded shale
• Expanded shale:
Expanded shale is currently a common substrate for green roofs, thanks to its light
weight and non-degradeable quality. Expanded shale is a lightweight aggregate
prepared by expanding minerals in a rotary kiln at temperatures over 1000°C. This
expands the stone so it is porous, lightweight and insulative.
 Crushed brick and mortar
• Crushed brick and mortar:

Brick and mortar from demolished buildings and walls offer some porosity and a
substrate of variable size, depending on how finely it is ground. Crushed brick has been
used for green roof substrate on European buildings as well as in wastewater systems.
Theoretically, it can be ground up as a building is being demolished and placed on top
of another building via a conveyor belt.
Advantages: Diverts a waste product from landfills and makes use of the ceramic
porosity of brick.
Disadvantages: Heavy

Shredded tires (colored)

• Shredded tires:
Tires are discarded in huge volumes across the country. Many end up in landfills,
although some are burned for energy and some are made into products. In New
Bedford, an operation shreds tires for addition to playground surfaces, asphalt roads,
and fill. Generally, tires are made of natural rubber (polyisoprene) as well as synthetic
rubber and rubber additives, including silica and zinc oxide. For this study, 1-inch
shredded tire product that is colored red and sold as mulch was used.
Advantages: Lightweight, cheap, diverts a waste product from landfills
Disadvantages: Almost non-absorbent, potentially leaches undesirable chemicals, and
usually black (heat absorbing)

Tumbled crushed glass

• Tumbled glass:
Glass products are routinely discarded in huge volumes nationwide. Although there is a
market for discarded glass, its washing and processing costs are considerable.

Tumbled porcelain

• Tumbled porcelain:
Porcelain from sinks, toilets, and other plumbing fixtures are removed from homes
regularly and usually landfilled. A very few firms now crush and tumble these fixtures
and use the resulting aggregate for flooring and countertop material. For this study,
Enviroglas tumbled porcelain, about 1/4-inch average size, was purchased from a
Texas firm.
Advantages: Diverts a waste product from landfills. Usually light in color and attractive.
Disadvantages: Heavy and with little absorbency.

Depth
A depth of 4 inches was chosen as the minimum depth for retaining water and
maintaing plant growth. Deeper green roof substrates might be more desirable if roof
strength to support it is established. For the lighter substrates, we recommend using 6
inches.

Regulations and Building Code

The Massachusetts state building code addresses “landscaped roofs” and roof gardens
[see: http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/BuildingCode/780016PT1.pdf].
The design volume for a snow load for Dartmouth, Mass. under state building code is 30
pounds per square foot.

Building code (“1609.6.1 Landscaped roofs”): “Where roofs are to be landscaped, the
uniform design live load in the landscaped area shall be 20 psf (97.64 kg/m2). The
weight of the landscaping materials shall be considered as dead load and shall be
computed on the basis of saturation of the soil.”

A roof must be able to carry 30 psf (required snow load in eastern Mass.) + 20 psf live
weight + weight of a saturated green roof substrate and plants.

Those planning to install a green roof is urged to check these requirements first.
Substrate Analysis Per 1 Cubic Foot of Substrate
4-inch depth weights are in green
Air-Filled
porosity at Water
Dry Saturated Max. water- water- perm-
Weight (wet) holding holding eability Cost,
Substrate @ 1 s.f. Weight capacity % capacity (%) (ins/min.) generally

Rockwool 7.37 60.42 85.1% 9.4% >.38 High

20.14 @ 4”

Coir and 2.06 13.19 18.3% 52.1% >17.89 Medium

styrofoam
pellets 4.39 @ 4”

Crushed 68.86 72.73 6.2% 55.1% >17.06 Low

shell
24.24 @ 4”

Expanded To come Medium

shale from mfr

Crushed 82.69 89.10 10.3% 39.4% >17.24 Low

brick
29.7 @ 4”

Shredded 32.40 35.06 5.7% 49.4% >17.32 Low

tires
11.68 @ 4”

Tumbled 59.14 61.23 3.3% 57.7% >11.36 High cost

porcelain (low cost if
20.41 @ 4” made locally)

Crushed To come Medium

shell and
coir

Rockwool To come Medium

and
crushed
shell

Tumbled Not laboratory tested; near equivalent of porcelain Medium

glass cost
Observed Performance
Twelve test bins were created to observe the suitability of the substrates for plant
growth. Plants grew in all the substrates. The bins were drained to bottles in which the
levels of collected water showed the absorbency of the substrates. This observed
performance was consistent with the laboratory test results.
For example, after about 1 1/2 inches of rain, collected water levels in the bottles were:

Substrate test bin Depth of rain in collection bottle

Porcelain 3 1/2 inches

Crushed shell and sedums 2 inches

Rockwool 0 inches (no rainwater)

Empty bin A minute volume

Tires 5 3/8 inches

Coir and styrofoam A minute volume

Glass 4 1/2 inches

Crushed shell and beachgrass 2 2/3 inches

Brick 2 inches
Conclusions
Rockwool—both in the form of 4- and 6-inch blocks as well as in granular form as 1/2-
inch cubes combined with other substrates—emerged an ideal medium for green roofs.
Its relatively high upfront cost can be made up by its low cost of installation. Its light
weight allows it to be easily carried to a roof by hand. Plants can be started in the blocks
on the ground and carried to the roof.
Aesthetically, its yellow color is not as appealing as stone or shell, but it does not
absorb heat (as dark colors such as brown soil will) and it can be covered with a thin
layer of a another substrate for aesthetic purposes.
Although rockwool is made with an energy-intensive process (much like expanded
shale), its lifecycle cost as insulation and green roof substrate is very long. Its light
weight reduces energy used in transporting it to buildings. Its light weight also allows it
to be used on buildings with questionable loading capacities, allowing the installation of
green roofs where they might not be feasible otherwise.
Rockwool can be combined with less absorbent substrates to provide a high-
performance green roof.
If discarded, rockwool poses no environmental liability. It is essentially stone spun into
fibers.
Placing 4-inch rockwool block on a 1-inch layer of crushed shell or other chunky non-
degradable substrate would likely produce an effective green roof.

Rockwool blocks planted.

Coconut coir mixed with a structural material, such as plastic media and crushed shell,
also appears to perform well as a substrate. Coir is not a local product but it is a
sustainably harvested product that provides income for tropical islands and is a highly
renewable alternative to peat moss. Its transport cost to the United States and to
buildings is low, thanks to its light weight and ability to be compacted mechanically to be
expanded by water at its destination.
Coir likely compacts over time, suggesting it works best mixed with a non-degradeable
solid substrate such as shell or stone or recycled plastic as used in this study It leaches
little nutrient. Over time, if compaction is observed, more coir can be added to the
surface, perhaps installed as plugs of compacted coir that expands with precipitation.
Expanded shale proved a successful substrate as expected given its wide use for green
roofs. The nearest production facility for the Northeast is in New York, however its
delivered cost to Massachusetts is still relatively low thanks to its light weight. Its
manufacturer reports that it is expanded in kilns fired with waste oil.
As far as low-cost recycled waste products, crushed shell emerged as an effective
substrate-alternative to gravel. Its relatively high alkalinity can counter the acidity of acid
rain. Currently, only some shellfish, mostly sea clams, is brought unshelled to shore by
the fishing industry. This is heavier shell than crushed scallop shell but might provide
better void spaces due its curved shape. Shell must be thoroughly washed to remove
salts and organics. Even unplanted, shell likely offers benefits as a visually appealing
light-colored covering to hot black roofs. In this study, we were surprised to observe
plants growing well in the shell and seeds even sprouting on their own in the shell. Shell
planted with seashore plants, including native sedums or beachgrass, could provide a
lovely and intriguing “dune roof” for buildings in coastal communities.
Crushed brick and mortar performed much like shell but it can be heavier.
Crushed glass and porcelain, tumbled to remove sharp edges, proved nonabsorbent.
However, their visually pleasing appearance make them candidates as top dressings for
substrates such as rockwool that is less visually interesting.
Shredded tires were the least absorbent substrate, although lightweight. This quality
lends itself to use as a drainage layer under a more absorbent substrate. Very likely,
recycled plastic pellets, such as the solid Styrofoam pellets added to the coconut coir in
this study, are also nonabsorbent. Like tires, they add structure to finer, absorbent
substrates.

Further Study
• Plant performance:
The test bins and test beds will be observed over time to determine longer-term
performance of the plants in the substrates, although the small size of the test bins
might not provide representative results that would be seen in a full-size green roof
where roots can more easily spread.
• Plant palettes:
Sedums were chosen as the primary plant mix because the substrates were the primary
focus of this study. However, it is worthwhile to try various plants for green roofs.
Examples of potentially successful plants include violet, native succulents, shrub
bamboos, and heath and heather mixes.
• Year-round performance:
A key observation will be how the plants react in the substrates to changing season.
Another observation will be how much the substrates compact over four seasons.
Observations and new developments, as well as new editions of this report, will be
posted at www.flowscapes.org.
Source List
Rockwool and coir: Worms Way (www.wormsway.com and other suppliers)
Crushed porcelain: Enviroglas (www.enviroglasproducts.com)
Crushed and tumbled glass: Conigliaro Industries, Natick, Mass. and others
Crushed brick and mortar: New England Recycling, Taunton, Mass. and others
Crushed shell: CCR, Marion, Mass. and New Bedford beaches

Styrofoam pellets: EZ Flow (www.ezflowlp.com)

Plants: Quansett Nurseries (www.quansettnurseries.com) and various

Project Photos

Making the test bins with spigots Planting the bins

Rockwool with sedums

Planting in porcelain Planting beachgrass in shell
 The bins were covered with foil to reflect heat. Otherwise the black bins absorbed heat.

Planting in crushed glass

Shell and beachgrass
Coir and Styrofoam mix is covered with
hemp net to contain lightweight Styrofoam
pellets that are prone to blowing away.
Right: Shredded tires (colored).

Expanded shale
Rockwool An empty bin

Crushed shell planted with sedums Crushed brick and mortar

Rockwool block

One row of test bed. Fishing net was used

to prevent dry rockwool from blowing away
before the rain moistened it. It was
observed that this was not needed.
 A 17’ x 17’ test bed was started on the roof
to create cells in which larger expanses of
substrates could be observed on the roof.

A rain gauge shows 3 inches of rain depth

 The test bed was lined with roof membrane
to assure facility managers no new leaks
would result from the substrate
experiments.

Shell and rockwool fills one row, next to

another filled with rockwool blocks.

Rainwater pools on an adjacent roof.

Debris at the roof drain shows what can
accumulate on a rooftop.
The test bins seen from the hallway inside the university.