This research is on the design of storm water infiltration facilities. Infiltration facilities are best management practices. Contents of the report are the scientific background of infiltration, a comparison of design guidelines, extensive modelling in a 2D unsaturated zone model (Hydrus 2D) and field experiments in facilities in The Netherlands. The goal was to rethink the design method.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

541 Aufrufe

This research is on the design of storm water infiltration facilities. Infiltration facilities are best management practices. Contents of the report are the scientific background of infiltration, a comparison of design guidelines, extensive modelling in a 2D unsaturated zone model (Hydrus 2D) and field experiments in facilities in The Netherlands. The goal was to rethink the design method.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- WSoilCon (1)
- Geology Soils Technical Report081508
- A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting at Commercial Facilities
- Assessing the Impact of Infiltration and Exfiltration in Sewer
- Gully and Flooding in Anambra State- The Way Forward
- C3 Technical Guidance May 2013 (Low Res) - Alameda County
- storm water management
- Roller Separator
- CSPI detman Hidrol.
- PDF of Paper
- CANCSA S503-15 - Community drainage system planning, design, and maintenance in northern communities.pdf
- 3.2.3 - Laboratory Methods.pdf
- Chapter 1- Main Hydrological Concepts
- Full Paper TamerandMogheir
- Methods of Testing Compaction Soil
- analysis
- Water Infintration Measurements
- Chapter 2.docx
- Ch 10 - Choice of Management Options
- Green Infrastructure Glossary

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 64

24 April 2009

1170546

Department of Watermanagement

Graduation committee:

Water Resources Management

Water Resources Management

Urban Drainage

Urban Watermanagement

II

Preface

This thesis has been written as the final step towards a Master of Science degree in

Watermanagement at the Civil Engineering faculty of the TU Delft. During an MSc research the

student has to show his capabilities after 5 years of study in the form of a scientific research. In

my case I have done research on the design of infiltration facilities.

When I started the research I only had a simple idea about infiltration facilities. So at the start it

was somewhat like opening a door to a whole new aspect of water management. And somehow

you have to show yourself the way. As I found out during the months, there is a lot to be

discovered about infiltration facilities. The unsaturated zone, the part of the soil in which the

infiltration facilities are constructed, is one of the most complex and least studied parts of the

hydrological system. Infiltration facilities themselves are also hardly studied as well.

Doing research on infiltration facilities sometimes felt like pioneering. Basically, the current design

method for infiltration facilities is scientifically wrong. This generally leads to facilities which much

better than expected during the design. It proved to be challenging to come up with

improvements to the design method, which are both scientifically acceptable and applicable in

practice. I hope this research is a step towards a better design of infiltration facilities.

So enjoy reading and if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me!

Leon Valkenburg

III

Acknowledgements

Fortunately I couldn’t have finished my study and written this thesis all by myself. It is a good

thing you can always depend and rely on people close to you. Actually, if I would have written

my thesis on my own, it would probably have been very boring and bad piece of work. Now I

think it has become a really nice piece of work, not only because of my own efforts, but also

thanks to the help of many, many people. So thank you all!! Some of you I want to mention in

particular:

First of all I would like to thank my main supervisors, Emil Hartman at DHV and Frans van de Ven

at the TU Delft. Without their criticism and support I would probably still be wondering what to

do. The DHV department of Mens, Stad and Water was of great help in facilitating my research.

Also thanks go out to the other members of my committee, prof. Nick van de Giesen and Marie

Claire ten Veldhuis.

Also I want to thank the people from the municipality of Ede and Deltares Utrecht for helping me

to do experiments with (their) infiltration facilities. Probably you don’t get requests from a

student every day to go into the field and fill an infiltration facility, drill some holes in and next to

it, add some measuring equipment and then see what happens. I think it was fun and it did

deliver interesting results!

Of course my friends and fellow MSc students were of great help. Writing a thesis can be tough,

but doing it together makes it more fun. I will definitely remember the sometimes pretty odd, but

usually nice lunch break discussions we had.

Last, but not least, many thanks go out to my family. Without their help I would not have been

able to complete my study. I hope I have made you proud!

IV

Executive summary

Currently urban sewer systems are facing two problems: pluvial flooding and combined sewer

overflows (CSO). Both problems occur when the systems are overloaded due to heavy rainfall.

Recently sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) have been developed to reduce the load on

the drainage systems. Infiltration facilities are used as SUDS more and more. Basically an

infiltration facility collects the storm water at the source (for instance at a parking lot) and lets

the water soak into the soil. This research is focussed on the design of infiltration facilities.

• Urban runoff: the amount of runoff water which can be expected to enter the facility.

• Infiltration capacity of the facility: the flux of water which leaves the facility and enters

the soil.

• Clogging of the facility: during its lifetime the facility’s infiltration capacity is reduced by

clogging of the surrounding soil and components of the facility itself. Clogging is the most

important threat for the life expectancy of a facility.

In the design all three processes should be taken into account as accurate as possible.

During this research four design methods for infiltration facilities have been analysed. The design

guidelines from the UK, Germany, Australia and the Netherlands have been compared. The

guidelines have similar approaches for the design of infiltration facilities. The design methods are

all based on a calculation of the storage and dimensions of the designed facility given an inflow

(urban runoff) and an infiltration capacity. However the basis of the design methods in all

guidelines proved to be scientifically wrong. Several uncertainties have been identified on each of

the three processes affecting the performance of the facilities. The biggest uncertainties (and

assumptions) have been identified in the calculation of the infiltration capacity. These

uncertainties have been investigated further.

The assumptions and uncertainties in the calculation of the infiltration capacity were studied in

two ways:

1. By modelling infiltration facilities in Hydrus 2D. The modelling with Hydrus showed that

the current design methods underestimate the maximum infiltration capacity of facilities

up to 30 times and overestimate the emptying time up to 15 times.

2. By measuring in existing infiltration facilities in the municipality of Ede. The

measurements in two infiltration facilities in Ede showed that both facility still perform

well years after construction. The old facility (from 1980) was empty within half a day.

The “new” facility (from 2001) infiltrated the water faster than the water could be

discharged to the facility. In both facilities the bottom proved not be clogged.

The design method has been refined based on the model results and the measurements in

infiltration facilities. The main changes were:

• The introduction of the calculation of the hydraulic gradient dependent on the water level

in the facility.

• Taking into account the bottom area of the facility.

• Considering the groundwater level in the design of a facility.

The new design method has simulated the results from the measurements and the modelling

much better. Therefore the new design method should replace the current design method.

V

Samenvatting

riooloverstorten. Beide problemen ontstaan wanneer de systemen overbelast zijn als gevolg van

zware regenval. Recent zijn afkoppelvoorzieningen ontwikkeld om de belasting op de riolering te

verminderen. Infiltratievoorzieningen worden steeds vaker gebruikt als afkoppelvoorziening. Een

infiltratievoorziening verzamelt het water bij de bron (bijvoorbeeld bij een parkeerplaats) en laat

het water de bodem in lopen. Dit onderzoek is gericht op het ontwerp van infiltratievoorzieningen.

• Stedelijke afvoer: de hoeveelheid water die naar de voorziening stroomt.

• Infiltratie capaciteit van de voorziening: het debiet dat vanuit de voorziening de bodem in

loopt.

• Dichtslibben van de voorziening: tijdens de levensduur van de voorziening vermindert de

infiltratiecapaciteit door verstopping van de omringende bodem en delen van de voorziening

zelf. Verstopping is de belangrijkste bedreiging voor de capaciteit van een voorziening.

Bij het ontwerp moet men zo goed mogelijk rekening houden met alle drie processen.

ontwerprichtlijnen uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Duitsland, Australië en Nederland zijn vergeleken.

De richtlijnen hebben vergelijkbare methoden voor het ontwerp van infiltratievoorzieningen. Ze

zijn allemaal gebaseerd op een berekening van de berging en de afmetingen van een voorziening

met een gegeven instroom (stedelijke afvoer) en een infiltratie capaciteit. De onderbouwing van

de ontwerpmethode van de richtlijnen bleek wetenschappelijk onjuist te zijn. Verschillende

onzekerheden zijn geïdentificeerd op elk van de drie processen die de werking van de

voorzieningen beïnvloeden. De grootste onzekerheden (en aannames) bleken in de berekening

van de infiltratiecapaciteit te zitten. Deze onzekerheden zijn verder onderzocht.

manieren bestudeerd:

1. Door modelleren van infiltratie voorzieningen in het onverzadigde zone model Hydrus 2D.

Uit de resultaten van Hydrus bleek dat de huidige ontwerpmethoden de maximale

infiltratie capaciteit van de installaties tot 30 keer onderschatten en de ledigingstijd tot 15

maal overschatten.

2. Door te meten in de bestaande voorzieningen in de gemeente Ede. Uit de metingen in

twee infiltratievoorzieningen in Ede bleek dat deze voorzieningen (tientallen) jaren na

aanleg nog goed infiltreerden. De oudere voorziening (uit 1980) was binnen een halve

dag leeg. De jongere voorziening (uit 2001) infiltreerde sneller dan het water toegevoerd

kon worden. De bodem bleek bij beide voorzieningen niet dichtgeslibd te zijn.

De belangrijkste wijzigingen zijn:

• De berekening van de hydraulische gradiënt is afhankelijk van het waterniveau in de

voorziening.

• Het bodemoppervlak van de voorziening wordt meegerekend.

• De grondwaterstand van een voorziening wordt meegenomen in het ontwerp.

Deze nieuwe ontwerpmethode benadert de model- en meetresultaten veel beter dan de oude en

zou daarom de huidige ontwerpmethode moeten vervangen.

VI

Table of contents

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................IV

Samenvatting .....................................................................................................................VI

List of figures...................................................................................................................... IX

List of tables....................................................................................................................... IX

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Urban drainage and infiltration facilities......................................................................... 1

1.2 Infiltration facilities...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope of this research ................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Research question ....................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Research method ........................................................................................................ 3

1.6 Readers guide............................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Urban runoff ............................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Rainfall................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.2 Runoff generation ................................................................................................. 5

2.2 The infiltration capacity................................................................................................ 6

2.2.1 Darcy’s description of groundwater flow .................................................................. 7

2.2.2 Deriving Richards’ equation .................................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Applying Richards’ equation ................................................................................... 8

2.2.4 Simplifications of Richards’ equation ....................................................................... 8

2.2.5 Temperature effect................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Clogging................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 The clogging process........................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Quantifying clogging............................................................................................ 10

3.1 The inflow ................................................................................................................ 11

3.2 Determining the infiltration capacity............................................................................ 12

3.3 Determining the dimensions and the storage ............................................................... 13

3.3.1 Emptying time .................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Modelling infiltration facilities...................................................................................... 15

4.1.1 Model description ................................................................................................ 15

4.1.2 Setup of model ................................................................................................... 16

4.1.3 Results ............................................................................................................... 16

VII

4.1.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 20

4.2 Monitoring infiltration facilities .................................................................................... 21

4.2.1 Case study in Ede................................................................................................ 22

4.2.2 Location case study ............................................................................................. 22

4.2.3 The tested facilities ............................................................................................. 22

4.2.4 Setup of measurements ....................................................................................... 24

4.2.5 Results ............................................................................................................... 25

4.2.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 28

5.1 Determining the inflow .............................................................................................. 29

5.2 Determining the infiltration capacity............................................................................ 29

5.2.1 The hydraulic conductivity.................................................................................... 30

5.2.2 The groundwater coefficient................................................................................. 30

5.2.3 The hydraulic gradient ......................................................................................... 30

5.2.4 The infiltrating area ............................................................................................. 31

5.3 Determining the dimensions ....................................................................................... 32

5.3.1 Emptying time .................................................................................................... 32

5.4 Testing the refined design method.............................................................................. 32

5.4.1 Groundwater level ............................................................................................... 33

5.4.2 Varying hydraulic conductivity .............................................................................. 33

5.4.3 Varying side-bottom ratio..................................................................................... 34

5.4.4 Varying clogged bottom ratio ............................................................................... 34

5.4.2 Measurements results.......................................................................................... 34

5.4.3 Design example .................................................................................................. 36

6.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 37

6.2 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 37

References ........................................................................................................................ 39

Annexes ...............................................................................................................................ii

Annex I Hydrus modelling graphs......................................................................................iii

Annex II Measuring plan in Ede (in Dutch) ........................................................................ viii

Annex III Contacted stakeholders.................................................................................... xiii

A. The 90 emailed municipalities* for monitoring data .................................................... xiii

B. Interviewed stakeholders ......................................................................................... xiii

VIII

List of figures

Figure 2 An infiltration facility................................................................................................ 2

Figure 3 Types of infiltration facilities ..................................................................................... 2

Figure 4 pF curves for various soil types after Dreven, van et al (2000) .................................... 6

Figure 5 Plotting K, θ and ψm against the column length after Hillel (1971) ............................... 7

Figure 6 Green-Ampt schematisation of infiltration .................................................................. 9

Figure 7 Relation storage (S), infiltration capacity (q) and inflow (T=p year) after Monster &

Leeflang (1996) ................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 8 The Hydrus 2D model ............................................................................................ 15

Figure 9 Influence groundwater level on discharge and emptying time ................................... 17

Figure 10 Influence hydraulic conductivity on discharge and emptying time ............................ 18

Figure 11 Influence facility's shape on discharge and emptying time....................................... 18

Figure 12 Influence clogged bottom on discharge and emptying time ..................................... 19

Figure 13 Influence initial moisture content on emptying time................................................ 20

Figure 14 Influence varying temperature on discharge and emptying time .............................. 20

Figure 15 Location of the tested facilities (Google Earth) ....................................................... 22

Figure 16 Studied infiltration facilities at the Horapark and the Buurtscheuterlaan in Ede.......... 23

Figure 17 Top view of sensor setup at the Buurtscheuterlaan................................................. 24

Figure 18 Fieldwork at the Horapark (on the left) and the Buurtscheuterlaan in Ede................. 25

Figure 19 Water level measurements in the Horapark soakaway............................................. 25

Figure 20 Q-h relation for Horapark soakaway ...................................................................... 26

Figure 21 Soil moisture measurements at the Buurtscheuterlaan ............................................ 27

Figure 22 Comparing design methods for varying groundwater level....................................... 33

Figure 23 Comparing design methods for varying hydraulic conductivity ................................. 33

Figure 24 Comparing design methods for varying side-bottom ratio ........................................ 34

Figure 25 Comparing design methods for varying clogged bottom ratio................................... 34

Figure 26 Comparing design methods to measurements of the Horapark ................................ 35

Figure 27 Comparing design methods to Q-h relation of the Horapark .................................... 35

List of tables

Table 2 Comparing guidelines on inflow aspects ................................................................... 11

Table 3 Comparing guidelines on hydraulic conductivity and infiltrating area ........................... 12

Table 4 Comparing design guidelines ................................................................................... 36

IX

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

1. Introduction

1.1 Urban drainage and infiltration facilities

Currently urban sewer systems are facing two problems: pluvial flooding and combined sewer

overflows (CSO). Pluvial flooding can lead to damage to buildings and gardens. A combined

sewer overflow can lead to ecological damage, because the discharge of nutrient rich waste

water has a big impact on the ecology of the receiving surface water body. Both problems are

caused by excess water discharged by overloaded sewer systems: in case of extreme rain events

the sewer system can no longer store and discharge the water in a controlled way. The excess

water is either stored at the surface creating pluvial flooding or discharged by a sewer overflow

(CSO) on a surface water body. This should be avoided as much as possible, although it can

never be prevented completely.

The main solution to avoid both pluvial flooding and CSO’s is to reduce the load on the sewer

system. The load on a sewer system is determined by the rainfall and the connected (paved)

area. As the rainfall cannot be controlled, the load on the sewer system should be reduced by

reducing the (paved) area connected to the sewer system. In the Netherlands the government

actively promotes the disconnection (Dutch: afkoppelen) paved surfaces from the sewer system.

The disconnected surface area is then connected to the surface water systems or to a

decentralised facility. A type of decentralised facility which is applied more and more is a storm

water infiltration facility. Storm water infiltration facilities can be used to effectively reduce runoff

in urban areas (Bouwer, 1978, Ferguson, 1994 & Fujita, 1997). These facilities are the topic of

this MSc research.

An infiltration facility does a very simple thing: to let collected storm water runoff soak into the

soil. Not surprisingly infiltration facilities are known as soakaways in the United Kingdom. Usually

there is a known directly connected paved area, like a roof, a parking lot or part of a road with a

known area. When the rain falls, it runs off from the area and is collected in a gutter or pipe. This

gutter or pipe is connected to the infiltration facility itself. The facility is a space either located

below the surface or on the surface with a specific storage capacity and an internal area which

takes part in the infiltration process. When the facility is filled with the storm water runoff the

water enters the soil driven by the suction head of the soil and gravity. Like centralised urban

sewer systems an infiltration facility also overflows when the design inflow is exceeded.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Infiltration facilities come in many shapes and sizes. The facilities can be divided in three

categories:

1. Surface facilities: trenches and man-made depressions in green areas

2. Subsurface facilities: facilities beneath the surface consisting of an empty space

constructed with plastic or concrete units and covered with geotextile.

3. Combined facilities: combining a trench at the surface and a plastic infiltration unit below.

The possibilities for infiltration facilities depend on the quality of the runoff water and the

geohydrological conditions at a location. Pitt (1996) showed that infiltrating storm water with a

very poor water quality could lead to groundwater contamination. However, he also showed that

runoff from roofs and residential areas can be infiltrated without any problems. The

geohydrological suitability of a location mainly depends on the local groundwater level and the

soil type. Ideally, the groundwater should be low, for instance 2 meters below the surface. The

soil should be very permeable, so sandy soils are preferred. At less suitable locations, with a high

groundwater table or a soil with low permeability, infiltration can still be possible. Because the

infiltration capacity of facilities will be significantly lower, the infiltration facilities do need to be

bigger to deliver the same performance.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

The scope of this research was rethinking the hydraulic design of infiltration facilities. Design

methods for storm water infiltration facilities in the Netherlands and abroad have been in use for

years now. They have been commonly accepted and are rarely questioned. However the

assumptions, rules of thumb and guidelines used in these methods have a scientific basis which

is unclear. The first step of this research is to question these current guidelines and point out the

(scientific) uncertainties in them. The second step is to test and fill in the uncertainties by

modelling facilities in an unsaturated zone model and measuring them in practice. The final step

is to come up with an improved design method containing fewer uncertainties.

How can the design of infiltration facilities be improved using modelling in an unsaturated zone

model and measuring in facilities in practice?

Answering the research question was done in four steps:

1. The scientific background of the processes which influence the hydraulic design (and

performance) of infiltration facilities was summarised. This way the processes relevant

for the performance and design of infiltration facilities could be identified.

2. The current design methods used in four countries were analysed. In this analysis the

design guidelines were compared with each other and tested on scientific validity.

3. The influence of the design assumptions and uncertainties on the calculation of

infiltration capacity was studied. This was done by modelling infiltration facilities in a

unsaturated zone model and by measuring in infiltration facilities in the municipality of

Ede.

4. Based on the measurements and the model results, the design method for infiltration

facilities was refined.

This report starts with explaining the scientific background of infiltration facilities in chapter 2.

Chapter 3 contains the analysis of the current design methods. In chapter 4 the uncertainties in

the infiltration capacity are studied and explained. Chapter 5 presents a refined design method

based on the results from chapter 4. In the chapter 6 the conclusions and recommendations of

the research are presented.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

How does storm water infiltration actually work? As this research is focussed on the hydraulic

design of storm water infiltration facilities, this chapter will take a closer look at the (hydrologic)

processes influencing their hydraulic performance. Evidently these processes are also of big

influence on the design of a facility.

Basically the hydraulic performance of an infiltration facility is influenced by three processes. Like

any facility that is involved in storing and discharging water, the facilities are governed by an

inflow, an outflow and a reduction of capacity in time. Applying these aspects to infiltration

facilities result in:

1. The urban runoff (the inflow): the amount of water expected to enter the facility.

2. The infiltration rate: the flux of water which infiltrates from the facility to the soil and the

groundwater.

3. The clogging: reduction of the infiltration rate due to chemical, biological and physical

clogging of the facility and the surrounding soil.

All three of these processes will be explained in detail in this chapter.

Urban runoff in itself is influenced by two processes: rainfall and runoff generation. The question

is how much water of a rain event will reach the inlet of an infiltration system. This section will

describe the processes which are important for urban runoff generation. It will also introduce the

main scientific method used in this research for calculating the amount of urban runoff.

2.1.1 Rainfall

For the design of an urban drainage system the relevant characteristics of rainfall should be

taken into account. Butler (2004) identified four aspects, expressed in question, which are

included in rainfall analysis:

• Depth: how much rainfall (in mm) is generated by one storm?

• Intensity: how much rainfall is generated per unit of time (in mm per hour)?

• Duration: how much time (in minutes or hours) has elapsed between from the first drop

that has been caught till the last drop?

• Frequency: how often does a specific rainfall event occur (in years)?

For a study which needs continuous rainfall data, the following aspect is also relevant:

• Temporal variability: how is the rainfall divided over a specific time period (usually in

years)?

To give answers to these questions long term observations of point rainfall have to be statistically

represented. Like in all scientific disciplines various methods have been developed to do this.

Below three main methods (Butler, 2004) for describing point rainfall will be discussed:

1. Depth-duration-frequency curve: Graphical representation of analysis of long term

rainfall statistics; given a return period the rainfall depth is plotted against time.

2. Synthetic design storm: a synthetically generated rainfall event, with specific

characteristics (variable intensity) to test drainage systems to their limits.

3. Rainfall series: historical rainfall records with a specific measuring interval.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Depth-duration-frequency Depth: statistically verified

curve Intensity: intensity (implicitly included, but not realistically)

Duration: duration in graph is not realistic

Frequency: statistically verified

Temporal variability: offers a single rainfall event only

Synthetic design storm Depth: statistically verified

Intensity: realistic, weak statistical basis

Duration: realistic,

Frequency: weak statistical basis

Temporal variability: offers a single rainfall event only

Rainfall series Depth: measured in reality

Intensity: measured, accuracy depends on length measuring interval

Duration: measured in reality

Frequency: included in long series

Temporal variability: included in the series

Table 1 Comparing design rainfall methods

The total depth and the intensity of runoff generated in a catchment, also known as the effective

rainfall, will be less than that of the rainfall on the catchment. This difference between runoff and

rainfall is caused by two processes (Butler, 2004):

• The losses in the catchment: the amount of water that is “lost”, because of hydrological

processes in the catchment.

• Overland flow: the time needed for the runoff to reach the entry point of the facility.

Losses

The rainfall losses in a catchment can either be a threshold or a continuous loss. The threshold

losses can either be interception of rain by trees and plants or depression storage. The canopy of

a tree and a flat roof can catch and store several mm of storm water. Continuous losses are

evapotranspiration from open water, plants and the soil and infiltration into the soil.

The quantity of the losses at the time of the rain event depends on:

• The surface type: A garden area will have little runoff due to high interception, infiltration

and transpiration, but a sloped roof will have a much runoff due to low interception and

no infiltration and transpiration.

• The season: In summertime the soil will usually be dryer (and infiltrate more) and the

evapotranspiration will be high, causing little runoff.

• Antecedent weather conditions: If the previous days have been very wet, the soil will

already be soaked and depressions have been filled resulting in much runoff.

If the rainfall does not exceed the potential losses of a specific area, the area will not contribute

to the runoff. Then the catchment is not “connected” to the drainage system.

Overland flow

When the water accumulates on the surface, it needs some time to reach the inlet of an

infiltration facility. Runoff from parts of a catchment that are located close to the inlet will reach it

sooner than from parts further away. With a unit hydrograph, which plots the rainfall and the

runoff over time, this delay of runoff can clearly be visualised.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

The rational method (first developed by Mulvaney in 1850) is a scientific to quantify both the

effects of losses and overland flow in the catchment on the runoff generation. It is commonly

used for the design of storm water sewer systems can be used. It reads as follows:

Qr = CAitc (2.1)

Where:

Qr = runoff [L3T-1]

C = runoff coefficient [-]

A = connected area [L2]

itc = rainfall intensity depending on the time of concentration[LT-1]

The runoff is calculated with a runoff coefficient, the connected area and the rainfall intensity.

The runoff coefficient depends on the surface type and implicitly takes into account the losses.

The connected area is assumed to be a known constant. The rainfall intensity depends on the

time of concentration (tc) of the catchment. This is the time needed for surface runoff to reach

the inlet of the facility from the remotest part of the catchment, taking into account overland flow.

The tc is combines the time of entry in the facility te and the time of flow inside the system tf:

tc = te+tf (2.2)

The rational method has got some clear limitations, which are mainly caused by assuming the

runoff coefficient to be constant. The “real” coefficient is never constant in reality. In reality it is

affected by all processes mentioned in the beginning of this section. These processes are not

constant. For instance a roof can already be wet or depressions can be filled by rain on the day

before. Considering this the runoff coefficients are applied conservatively.

The infiltration capacity of an infiltration facility depends on the characteristics of water flow in

unsaturated porous soils. The degree of saturation of a soil depends on the soil moisture content.

In fully saturated soil all the pores are filled with water. In fully dry soil there is no water in the

pores. The conditions in between these two extremes depend on the soil type and are usually

plotted in a pF figure (like figure 4). In this figure the soil moisture content (on the x–axis) is

plotted against the pressure head (on the y-axis).

Figure 4 pF curves for various soil types after Dreven, van et al (2000)

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

For the design of infiltration facilities the information in figure 4 should be translated to

groundwater fluxes. There are however many steps in between. Water flow in unsaturated

conditions is a very complex process (Tindal et al., 1999) and this naturally leads to complex

calculations. So how can unsaturated flow accurately be described?

The basics of groundwater flow are commonly described by Darcy’s law. This law is applicable for

saturated homogenous porous media and laminar flow in the pores, which is governed by the

gravity or the hydraulic gradient only:

q = −K ∇H (2.3)

Where:

q = flux of water [LT -1 ]

K = hydraulic conductivity [LT -1 ]

∇H = hydraulic gradient [-]

For an accurate description of infiltration a few transformations of Darcy are needed. The

conventional Darcy formula assumes the hydraulic conductivity K to be constant, while in reality it

is influenced by two variables:

1. The volumetric water content of the soil θ [L]

2. The soil matrix suction potential ψm [L]

To show K’s dependency on θ and ψm Hillel (1971) plotted them (figure 5). It shows how K, θ

and ψm change over the length of an infiltration column.

Figure 5 Plotting K, θ and ψm against the column length after Hillel (1971)

How can K’s dependency on θ and ψ be included in Darcy’s law? Firstly a choice to include either

the dependency of K on r the moisture content θ or on the matrix potential should be made.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

avoided. This step yields:

q = −K (θ )∇H (2.4)

q = −K (θ )∇(h + z ) (2.5)

One dimensional form to flow in the z direction and substituting -ψm for h gives:

∂ψ m

q = −K (θ )(1 − ) (2.6)

∂z

Assuming ψ is a single valued function of θ:

∂ψ m d ψ m ∂θ (2.7)

=

∂z d θ ∂z

Combing (6) and (7) finally yields the equation developed by Richards in 1931:

⎛ ∂ψ ⎞ ∂θ

q = −K (θ ) − K (θ ) ⎜ − ⎟ ∂z (2.8)

⎝ ∂θ ⎠

Many scientists (Gardner, Mualem & Van Genuchten) have produced methods for calculating K

and other variables within Richards’ equation.

How can Richards’ equation be used in water resources management practice? Water resources

management is about quantifying water flow, so how can Richards’ equation in the research be

used to quantify infiltration? The challenge is that Richards’ equation is a non linear differential

equation. In other words, it is too complex to calculate directly. The several additions from

scientists like Mualem and Van Genuchten have improved the description of infiltration and

reduced complexity in the calculations. However to include all the old and new theories in the

calculation is a big challenge.

Fortunately computers have made complex calculations a lot easier. Computer models facilitate

the simulation of infiltration without the need of elaborate programming. A good example of an

accessible model is HYDRUS, which includes Richards’ equation and all relevant additions and,

above all, is scientifically verified (Simunek et al, 2008).

Horton

For a direct calculation of the infiltration rate without the help of computers Richards’ equation

needs to be simplified. One way is to assume the K not dependent on θ, this results in:

⎛ ∂ψ ⎞

q = −K ⎜1 − m ⎟ (2.9)

⎝ ∂z ⎠

This formula is actually a form of Horton’s equation of infiltration developed in 1933. Horton

determined empirically how the infiltration rate decreased from an initial infiltration rate to an

end infiltration rate at the surface. In fact he was describing the influence of the matrix potential

on the infiltration rate.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Green-Ampt

The disadvantage of Horton infiltration is the complexity in determining the initial and end

infiltration rate. This is caused by the matrix suction ψm, which is implicitly taken as a variable.

Assuming it to be constant yields an expression that can be used without the need to do many

measurements. The formula of Green-Ampt from 1911 uses this assumption with the addition of

an extra term, the water depth above the soil H0. It assumes a ponded water sheet on the soil, a

wetted zone, defined by L, which grows and advances through the soil (in which behaviour is

saturated) and an unsaturated zone below.

⎛ H 0 (t ) + L (t ) + ψ m ⎞

q (t ) = −K ⎜ ⎟ (2.10)

⎝ L (t ) ⎠

The temperature of infiltrating water can have a significant impact on the infiltration rate

(Bouwer, 2002 & Emerson, 2008). Emerson has observed that the seasonal changes can affect

the infiltration rate by a factor 2. This can partly be explained by the dependency of the viscosity

of the water on the temperature of the water. Without going into detail the dynamic viscosity of

water at 1o C (in winter time) is about 2 times larger than at 25o C (in summer time) (Hillel,

1998). Hillel explained the dependency of the hydraulic conductivity on the dynamic viscosity as

follows:

ρg

K =k (2.11)

η

Where:

K = hydraulic conductivity [LT-1]

k = intrinsic hydraulic conductivity [L2]

η = dynamic viscosity [ML-1T-1]

g = gravitational acceleration [LT-2]

ρ = density [ML-3]

This formula shows the inverse relation between the hydraulic conductivity and the dynamic

viscosity of the infiltrating water. As shown before, the lower the temperature, the higher the

viscosity is. Hence, lower temperatures result in lower infiltration rates. But it is not feasible that

the temperature alone could cause a difference in infiltration capacity as large as Emerson (2008)

has observed. More on this in section 4.1.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

2.3 Clogging

In all processes in which water enters a soil mass clogging will occur. Pollution particles dissolved

and suspended in water will slowly fill the pores of the soil mass. The soil will in this case always

act as a filter. Naturally this process is often used on purpose: in drinking water treatment the

raw water is lead trough a sand filter in which the pollutants are contained. However storm water

infiltration facilities are vulnerable to clogging, because clogging leads to a reduction of the

infiltration capacity(Bouwer, 1978, Rinck-Pfeiffer, 2000, Dechesne, 2004 & Siwardene, 2007),

which eventually could lead to failure of the facility. This section will describe the clogging

process and methods to quantify its reduction of the hydraulic capacity of infiltration facilities.

Clogging can be described as the reduction of the infiltration rate by reduction of the hydraulic

conductivity and the porosity of the soil. Bouwer (2002) identifies three different causes of

clogging:

• Physical clogging due to an accumulation of inorganic and organic suspended solids.

• Biological clogging due to an accumulation of algae and bacterial flocks on the infiltrating

surface.

• Chemical clogging due to “precipitation” of different chemicals in the soil, such as

phosphate and calcium carbonate.

Of these three processes infiltration facilities are affected most by physical clogging (Rinck-

Pfeiffer, 2000 & Siwardene, 2007). This physical clogging is caused by sediments suspended and

dissolved in the storm water runoff. These particles will form a clogging layer at the filter/soil

interface. Siwardene (2007) found that clogging is driven by sediment particles less than 6 μm,

because there are more likely to reach the filter/soil interface. Also, facilities with a fluctuating

water level were found to be more prone to clogging than facilities with a stable water level.

Quantifying the reduction of the infiltration rate by clogging is complex, because it is very case

dependent. The time elapsed until a facility is clogged, depends on many factors. The type of

connected paved area; the type of facility; the presence of pre-treatment; the maintenance

regime or the design of the facility itself; it all can play a role. Because of this the quantification

of clogging has been limited to theoretical and laboratory studies.

Deshesne (2004) and Bouwer (2002) have tried to develop similar ways to determine the

infiltration rate for a clogged basin. The expression is similar to Bouwer’s presentation of Green-

Ampt (2.10):

H 0 (t ) − 2ψ m

q (t ) = K c (2.12)

Lc

Where

q(t) = infiltration rate [LT-1]

Kc = hydraulic conductivity of the clogging layer [LT-1]

H0 = water level in facility [L]

Lc = Thickness of clogging layer [L]

Ψm = matrix suction potential [L]

The infiltration rate in this formula depends on the hydraulic conductivity of the clogging layer

water level in the facility, the matrix suction potential divided by the thickness of the clogging

layer.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

In what way are infiltration facilities currently designed in the Netherlands and abroad? The

content of this chapter is based on the design guidelines from four countries. From the

Netherlands the ISSO guideline was used (Hartman et al., 2008). From Germany the DWA

guideline included in “Neue Wege für das Regenwasser” (Geiger, 2001) was used and from the

United Kingdom the BRE guideline (Pratt, 2007). The Australian guideline used was chapter 11

from the book Australian runoff quality (Argue et al., 2006). Because the design methods used in

these guidelines are similar, they will be discussed together.

In all guidelines three aspects of storm water infiltration facilities are relevant for the design:

1. The inflow (urban runoff)

2. The infiltration rate (often called the emptying rate)

3. The storage

For each of these aspects the basic method used in the four guidelines and the differences

between them will be explained. The uncertainties identified in all guidelines which are not

scientifically acceptable will also be explained.

In all guidelines, except for the Australian guideline, the calculation of the inflow to the facility is

simplified form of the rational method described in section 2.1. The main difference is that the

design rainfall is not based on the concentration time. In stead the design rainfall follows from

the iteration process in the design (explained in section 3.3). The following formula is used:

Qin = C I A (3.13)

Where:

Qin = the inflow to the facility [L3T-1]

C = runoff coefficient of the contributing area [-]

I = design rainfall [LT-1]

A = contributing area [L2]

The calculation of three aspects in formula 3.13 is described in table 2 for each of the guidelines.

Guideline Aspect of inflow

Netherlands Runoff coefficient: Depends on surface type, read from table.

Design rainfall: Rainfall taken from KNMI depth duration frequency curves

with safety coefficient of 1,25. Return period to be selected by the user.

Contributing area: Known or measured.

Germany Runoff coefficient: Depends on surface type, read from table.

Design rainfall: Location dependent depth duration frequency curve. Required

return period 5 years.

Contributing area: Known or measured

United Kingdom Runoff coefficient: Always take 1 for safety.

Design rainfall: Location dependent depth duration frequency curve. Required

return period 10 years.

Contributing area: Known or measured.

Table 2 Comparing guidelines on inflow aspects

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

In Australia no design storm is used. In stead the facility is designed on hydrologic effectiveness,

the fraction of the cumulative annual precipitation that should be captured by the facility(varying

from 40%-95%). This method does include the use of area specific runoff coefficients.

The following uncertainties in the calculation of the inflow can be identified given the theory

described in section 2.1:

• DDF-curves are not very suitable for use as design rainfall (explained in section 2.1.1).

• A constant runoff coefficient does not include the variability of runoff in reality.

• As the rainfall intensity is not based on the concentration time, no delay in runoff is

included.

• Extreme rainfall (rainfall which exceeds the design rainfall) is not considered.

Although these uncertainties can be significant, they will not be looked into more detail for this

research. Much other research has already been done on this.

Determining the infiltration capacity of a facility is a key aspect in the design. In all guidelines a

method based on Darcy’s law is used to calculate the infiltration rate. Darcy’s law given in

formula 2.3 is rewritten to flow in the vertical direction and multiplied with the infiltration area.

dh

Qout = kA (3.14)

dz

Where:

Qout = the discharge (or infiltration capacity) [L3 T -1 ]

k = the hydraulic conductivity of the soil in saturated conditions [LT -1 ]

A = the infiltration area [L2 ]

dh

= the hydraulic gradient in the direction of flow in [-]

dz

In all guidelines the hydraulic gradient is assumed to be 1. Remaining in 3.14 are two variables,

the hydraulic conductivity and the area of the facility that takes part in the infiltration process.

The hydraulic conductivity is either a measured or estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity and

bound by a minimum value. The infiltrating area depends on how to take into account the area of

the sides and the bottom. Table 3 shows an overview of the guidelines.

Netherlands Measured: Take 0.5 of the value Bottom: Yes(surface facility)

Estimated: Take 0.3 of the value No (subsurface facility)

Minimum: Not specified Sides: Half the sides

Germany Measured: Take 0.5 of the value Bottom: Yes

Estimated: Not specified Sides: Half the sides

Minimum: 3.6 mm/h

United Measured: Special method required Bottom: No

Kingdom Estimated: Not specified Sides: Half the sides

Minimum:

Australia Measured: Take 0.5 or 1 of the value Bottom: Yes

depending on soil type Sides: No

Estimated: Not specified

Minimum: 3.6 mm/h

Table 3 Comparing guidelines on hydraulic conductivity and infiltrating area

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Many uncertainties in the calculation of the infiltration rate can be identified given the theory

described in section 2.2 and 2.3. On the field of the design formula and related assumptions

these uncertainties can be identified:

• Darcy’s law for saturated flow cannot be applied to unsaturated flow.

• The hydraulic gradient in Darcy’s law cannot be assumed to be 1; it is significantly higher

in infiltration.

• The saturated hydraulic conductivity (used in the design) either measured or estimated

contains many uncertainties in itself: the heterogeneity of the soil is not included, the

unsaturated conductivity always less than saturated conductivity, the conductivity is not

constant and depends on the amount of entrapped air, soil moisture content and suction

head of the soil matrix and conductivity can be affected by temperature.

• Infiltration through the sides of a facility is not one dimensional and cannot be described

one dimensionally like infiltration through the bottom.

• Taking into account half of the sides assumes a constant water level during the

infiltration process. In reality the water level is variable. The assumption underestimates

the area of the sides that takes part in infiltration for the infiltration of the first half of the

storage in the facility and overestimates it for the second half.

• Few recommendations are made about the optimal shape of an infiltration facility. It is

unclear what the optimal ratio is between bottom area and side area of a facility to

maximise infiltration.

• The influence of the groundwater on the infiltration rate is unclear, so it is not known

whether the design formulas still hold in cases with a low or high groundwater level.

• Although some guidelines give recommendations about the soil type (and hydraulic

conductivity) required for infiltration, the basis of these recommendations is unclear.

• In the calculation the hydraulic conductivity of the soil at the project location is taken as

the normative value for the conductivity. Due to clogging the conductivity of either the

soil or the geotextile at the soil-water interface could be limiting the infiltration rate and

not the soil at the project location.

• Complete clogging of the bottom till the point it no longer takes part in infiltration has

not been observed in practice.

If the inflow and the infiltration rate have been determined the storage can be calculated.

Sometimes the required storage can be bounded by local regulations; the guidelines do not have

requirements on this point. Formula 3.15 is used to determine the storage needed in a facility:

t

Max (S ) = ∫ (Q in − Qout )dt (3.15)

0

Where:

S = storage in [L3]

Qin = total inflow for the given/chosen time interval [L3T-1]

Qout = total outflow for the given/chosen time interval [L3T-1]

t = duration of design rainfall [T]

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Finding the storage and dimensions is an iterative process. This is also visualised in figure 7.

Starting at a short duration of the design rainfall the difference between the rainfall and the

infiltration rate is calculated until the maximum difference between the inflow (rainfall) and the

outflow is found. This difference is the storage.

Figure 7 Relation storage (S), infiltration capacity (q) and inflow (T=p year) after Monster & Leeflang (1996)

In Australia the storage calculation is based on another kind of design graphs. Given the

infiltration rate in l/s/m2 and the desired hydrological effectiveness the fraction of the mean

annual runoff volume(MARV) can be read from the graph. This MARV can then be used to

calculate the storage using the connected surface area and the annual rainfall.

There are no extra uncertainties included in the calculation of the storage. Naturally the

uncertainties in the inflow and the infiltration rate will affect the storage and dimensions.

When the required storage has been determined, a calculation of the time the facility needs to

empty completely is required by the Dutch (between 0.25 and 3 days) and Australian

guidelines(between 0.5 and 3.5 days). The British guideline requires a calculation of the time

needed to empty half of the facility(maximum 24 hours). The following formula is used in this

calculation:

S

T empty =

Qout ;avg

(3.16)

Where:

T = emptying time [T]

S = storage in the facility [L3]

Qout; avg = average infiltration capacity of the facility [L3T-1]

The emptying time needs to be within the required time interval, to ensure the facility is prepared

for the next storm. If the designed facility has a larger emptying time, the design needs to be

adjusted according to the guidelines. The calculated emptying time can be different from the

emptying time measured in reality. Requiring a maximum emptying time implies that the current

design guidelines can accurately calculate the emptying time in reality. As stated in section 3.2

the calculation of the infiltration rate in current guidelines contains many uncertainties.

Some infiltration facilities in practice (Abbott, 2001, Bogaard, 2007, Emerson, 2008) show longer

emptying times than required. Because these facilities have been constructed very near to the

groundwater level and in soils with low hydraulic conductivity, longer emptying times have been

observed. Nevertheless the facilities perform satisfactorily, because no pluvial flooding and few

overflows have been observed. The facilities in studied in this research showed emptying times

which were shorter than or as long as required in the guidelines. More on this in section 4.2.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Which uncertainties affect the performance of infiltration facilities in practice the most? In what

way can the infiltration capacity be calculated accurately and in what way can the design be

optimised to maximise the infiltration capacity? The goal of this chapter was filling in the

assumptions and uncertainties in the infiltration rate as much as possible. This was done by

modelling in Hydrus 2D (see section 2.2.3) or by measuring infiltration facilities in practice.

A computer model can assist in studying infiltration in more detail. In this section an unsaturated

zone model was used to study several of the uncertainties identified in chapter 3. To study these

uncertainties this model should be able to:

• Quantify infiltration in the unsaturated zone in time.

• Include Richards equation explained in section 2.2 to ensure reliable calculation of the

infiltration process.

• Include multidimensional flow, in horizontal and vertical direction.

• Able to model different types of infiltration facilities.

• Able to model different (geo)hydrological conditions, such as groundwater level and soil

types.

In this research the unsaturated zone model Hydrus 2D was used. Hydrus 2D is a visually based

model, which can quantify and visualise infiltration in 2D, both vertically and horizontally. It uses

a finite element based calculation and includes Richards’ equation. For all the possibilities and

scientific verification see the paper of Simunek (2008). For this research it was very useful,

because it complied with all the requirements from section 4.1. In figure 8 two examples of

subsurface facilities modelled in Hydrus 2D can be seen.

Figure 8 The Hydrus 2D model: setup for maximum discharge and setup for emptying

Every computer model has got limitations, so does Hydrus 2D. Scientifically Hydrus 2D is state of

the art (Simunek, 2008), so on that aspect few limitations can be expected. Modelling in Hydrus

is done in a 2D reservoir in which aspects like soil types, boundary conditions are specified.

However applying Hydrus to infiltration facilities does have some clear limitations. Infiltration

systems are always 3D in practice, so modelling in 2D is limited in itself.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Also, aspects which are important for infiltration, clogging, the type of facility (concrete or plastic

unit with geotextile) and the heterogeneity of the soil, cannot be modelled easily. This is primarily

because they are very case dependent and there are no data available which are useful for

modelling these aspects. Because these aspects can prolong the emptying time of a facility and

cannot be included in Hydrus, the value of studying the emptying time of facilities with Hydrus is

limited. Real-life measurements of emptying times are essential here.

Hydrus was used to study the uncertainties in the calculation of the infiltration rate identified in

section 3.2. The limitations described in section 4.1.1 had to be considered as well. The focus for

modelling was to find out the accuracy of the Darcy-based calculation used in the guidelines in

describing infiltration. The calculation of the guidelines is done with two methods:

• Darcy constant: assuming a constant outflow from a facility with the water level constant

at half the height of the sides.

• Darcy dynamic: dynamic outflow dependent on the water level in the facility.

Hydrus was used to model an infiltration facility and compare the Hydrus’ results to the results

calculated with the design method. The following parameters were constant throughout the

modelling, unless it was the parameter on which the comparison was made:

• The facility: subsurface facility of 2 m x 0.5 m (width x height).

• The groundwater level: 1.5 m below bottom level of facility

• The soil type: loamy sand (saturated hydraulic conductivity ks = 1 m/d, residual

moisture content θr = 0.065, saturated moisture content θs = 0.41 )

• Initial moisture content θi: 0.08

• Temperature of water and soil: 20 0C

• Bottom was assumed not to be clogged (different than in the design method)

The comparison was done on two aspects (screenshots of both model setups can be seen in

figure 8):

• The maximum infiltration capacity: the discharge after 0.5 hour given a constant

maximum water level in the facility is simulated. The maximum infiltration capacity is

important because it can affect the calculated storage significantly (see figure 7).

• The emptying time, the time needed for a facility to empty.

The design formula (primary) was compared on various parameters, which can affect the

infiltration capacity of a facility and can vary significantly per location:

1. Influence groundwater level

2. Influence soil type (expressed in the hydraulic conductivity).

3. Influence initial moisture content

4. Influence shape of facility

5. Influence clogged bottom

6. Influence temperature of the water and soil

4.1.3 Results

In this section the results of the Hydrus modelling are presented. In all graphs used for

comparing the maximum discharge, the maximum discharge calculated with the Darcy constant

design formula was made equal to 1. This eases comparison of the design formula with the

modelled result of Hydrus. The emptying time is expressed in hours. Graphs plotting the

infiltration process itself can be found in annex I.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

below bottom level)

Not surprisingly the groundwater level significantly affects both the emptying time and the

infiltration rate of an infiltration facility. As figure 9 shows, the lower the groundwater level the

higher the discharge of the infiltration facility of 2 m x 0.5 m (width x height). The discharge

from a facility with a groundwater level 2 meters below its bottom was up to 3 times higher than

from the same facility with a groundwater level directly below its bottom. The facility only

emptied completely, when the groundwater level was more than 0.25 m below the bottom. The

emptying time also decreased exponentially until the influence of the groundwater level was

negligible.

As stated in section 3.2 the design formula (Darcy constant and Darcy dynamic) did not take into

account varying groundwater levels. This could lead to an underestimation of the discharge and

overestimation of the emptying time. Hydrus showed a initial discharge to 30 times higher (15 for

Darcy dynamic) from facilities with a low groundwater level up and an emptying time up to 10

times shorter (15 times for Darcy dynamic). In cases with a higher groundwater level the design

formula predicted the discharge and the emptying time more accurately.

Influence groundw ater level

Influence groundwater level

35 80

70

30

60

Emptying time [h]

25

Relative discharge

50

20 Darcy dynamic

40 Darcy constant

Darcy co nstant

15 Darcy dynamic

Hydrus 30

Hydrus

10 Hydrus no GWL

20

Hydrus no groundwater

5 10

0 0

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Depth groundw ater level below bottom [m ] G ro undwa t e r le v e l be lo w bo t t o m [ m ]

Evidently the hydraulic conductivity of the soil also has a big influence on the infiltration rate and

the emptying time of a facility. In the design formula a linear increase in conductivity gave linear

increase in the infiltration rate. However the Hydrus results in figure 10 (in log scale) showed a

different pattern. The discharge calculated with the design formula was made 1 here. For low

hydraulic conductivity (around 0.1 m/d) discharge was much higher and the emptying time much

shorter than expected on basis of a linear reduction in conductivity.

The difference between the modelled discharge and emptying rate and the ones calculated with

the Darcy constant and dynamic is also very big. For low conductivity Hydrus calculated a

maximum discharge which is 80 times higher than calculated with the design formula, for high

conductivity it was around 12 times higher. Hydrus also showed emptying times which were

consistently 9 times shorter than the emptying times calculated with the design formula.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

100 10000.00

Darcy co nstant

Darcy dynamic

1000.00 Hydrus

Relative discharge [-]

10

100.00

10.00

1

Darcy co nstant

Hydrus

0.1 0.10

0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10

Hydraulic conductivity [m /d] H ydra ulic c o nduc t iv it y [ m / d]

The shape of an infiltration system can be expressed in the side/bottom ratio. The side/bottom

ratio is calculated by dividing the height of one side by the width of the bottom. In figure 10 the

discharge and the emptying time for varying side/bottom ratio has been plotted. In this case the

design formula was not plotted as a constant, because it also takes into account the change in

the facility’s shape. The design formula’s discharge with a side/bottom ratio of 1 is taken as 1.

For increasing side/bottom ratio and equal storage Hydrus showed an increasing maximum

discharge. The difference can be up to a factor 3 between a low and a high side/bottom ratio.

Different results are found on the emptying time. For a side/bottom ratio of 3 the emptying time

was the highest.

The discharge calculated with Hydrus is 32 times higher than calculated with the design formula

for low side/bottom ratios and for high side/bottom ratio 6 times higher. The emptying time for

low side/bottom ratio(below 0.25) is more than 10 times longer if calculated with the design

method, for high side/bottom ratios(above 1) the difference is only 50% or less.

for subsurface facility of 1 m ^3/m storage

40.00

160.00

35.00 Darcy co nstant (guidelines)

140.00 Darcy dynamic (guidelines)

Relative discharge [-]

30.00 Hydrus

120.00

Emptying time [h]

25.00

Hydrus 100.00

20.00 Darcy dynamic

Darcy co nstant 80.00

15.00

60.00

10.00

40.00

5.00

20.00

0.00 0.00

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6

Side-bottom ratio [-] Side/bottom ratio [-]

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

The current practice is to assume the bottom of the facility to be clogged for subsurface facilities.

The influence of a clogged bottom has been investigated with the use of Hydrus. The clogging of

the bottom is in this case expressed in the clogged bottom ratio. This theoretical value is the

conductivity of clogged soil at the bottom divided by the conductivity of the soil without clogging.

With a clogged bottom ratio of 16, the conductivity of the soil at the bottom is 16 times lower

than the conductivity of the unclogged soil.

With increasing clogging of the bottom the discharge decreased and the emptying time increased.

The discharge with a clogged bottom was 3 times lower than without clogged bottom. The

emptying time with a clogged bottom was 4 times longer than without a clogged bottom.

The comparison of the Hydrus results with the design methods still showed big differences.

These differences decrease the more clogged the bottom is. The design formulas (dynamic and

constant) underestimated the discharge with a clogged bottom 6 to 12 times. Also the emptying

time was overestimated 2-3 times.

80.00

35

Darcy dynamic

70.00

30 Darcy co nstant

Hydrus 60.00

Relative discharge [-]

50.00

20

40.00 Darcy constant (guidelines)

Darcy dynamic (guidelines)

15 Hydrus

30.00

Hydrus fully clogged

10 20.00

5 10.00

0 0.00

0 5 10 15 20 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Clogged bottom ratio [-] Clogged bottom ratio [-]

For the initial moisture content θi only the emptying time could be modelled with Hydrus. The

maximum discharge could not be modelled. The model runs were done from the minimum

moisture content of the soil (residual moisture content) θr = 0.065 till near the saturated

moisture content θs = 0.41.

The results showed an increasing emptying time for increasing initial moisture content. However

the difference between low and high moisture content was only a factor 2.5. The design methods

overestimated the emptying time 5-12 times.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

80.00

70.00

60.00

Emptying time [h]

50.00

40.00

Hydrus

30.00

Darcy co nstant (guidelines)

Darcy dynamic (guidelines)

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Initial moisture content of the soil [-]

As explained in section 2.2.5 the temperature of the water and the soil can affect the discharge

and emptying time of an infiltration facility. The Hydrus results showed that for a temperature 2

ºC the discharge was 1.3 times higher than for a temperature of 26 ºC. The emptying time for 2

ºC was about 2 times longer than for 26 ºC.

The design methods underestimated the discharge with 12 - 33 times. The calculated emptying

time was 5- 12 longer for the design methods.

35 80.00

30 70.00

60.00

Relative discharge [-]

25

Emptying time [h]

50.00

20

Darcy dynamic

40.00

Darcy co nstant Hydrus

15

Hydrus 30.00 Darcy co nstant (guidelines)

20.00

5

10.00

0 0.00

0 10 20 30 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Tem perature [C] Tem perature [C]

4.1.4 Conclusions

The focus of this section was to test the validity and accuracy of the Darcy based design formulas.

The results from Hydrus show that:

• The design formula underestimates the infiltration rate of facilities on all aspects by a

factor 2 up to a factor of more than 30.

• The emptying time is severely overestimated.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

• The influence of the groundwater level is not taken into account, although it has a big

impact on the infiltration capacity.

• The influence of the shape of an infiltration facility is significant. The current design

method is better in calculating the performance of facilities with a high side-bottom ratio.

• Even if the bottom is fully clogged in Hydrus, the design formulas still underestimated 6-

12 times and overestimated the emptying time 2-3 times.

The logical conclusion is that the design formula in this form should not be applied anymore to

the design of infiltration facilities.

The test was done on several parameters; the results from Hydrus for these parameters showed

that:

• The groundwater level affects the infiltration rate and the emptying time significantly.

The infiltration rate increases and the emptying rate decreases with a lower groundwater

level. Eventually this influence reaches a limit where the groundwater level does not have

an influence anymore.

• Infiltration can take place when the groundwater level is below the bottom level.

However for emptying the groundwater level has to be around 0.25 m below the bottom.

• A linear increase in hydraulic conductivity does not lead to linear trends in the emptying

time and the discharge: for low conductivity the discharge is higher than expected. This

could imply the infiltration is also feasible with less conductible soils of 0.2 m/d.

• The higher the side/bottom ratio the higher the infiltration rate. However the emptying

rate is less clear affected by this ratio. Still, in the design the height of the sides should

be maximised if the groundwater level allows it.

• A fully clogged bottom could lead to a 250 % reduction in maximum discharge compared

to an unclogged bottom. The emptying time increased 300%. This is a severe reduction

of the infiltration capacity. However the assumption of the clogged bottom still needs

confirmation from measurements in practice.

• A initial moisture content which is 4 times higher than the residual moisture content

could lead to a 100% increase in emptying time. Infiltration is sensitive for the moisture

content. However as θ is below 0.25, the influence of the initial moisture content is

limited. This aspect will not be looked into further for this research, because it cannot be

controlled during the design.

• At a temperature of 2 ºC the discharge is 45% lower than at 26 ºC. The difference

between 2 ºC and 26 ºC for the emptying time is 95 %. This means that infiltration in

summer is higher, this is very convenient, because then the largest rain storms occur.

However the temperature of the soil is quite constant during the year, so the influence of

temperature is not significant. Therefore this aspect will not be looked into further.

The uncertainties concerning clogging could not easily be included in the model. Only the clogged

bottom was included in the modelling exercise. Clogging is very case dependent. This could result

in a different performance of facilities in practice than could be expected based on the model.

Therefore measurements from facilities in practice are needed to test the combination of all

uncertainties.

As said in section 4.1 uncertainties like clogging and the effects of the heterogeneity of the soil

cannot be modelled. To study the effects of these uncertainties monitoring of facilities in practice

is needed. Although the experiences from a small field work cannot be generalised to be valid for

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

all infiltration facilities, they can provide valuable information about the influences of these

uncertainties identified during their lifetime.

Monitoring data of the hydraulic performance of infiltration facilities can either be gathered at

organisations using facilities or measured for the research. An inquiry of 90 municipalities (for a

list see annex IIIA) in all parts of the Netherlands was done to gather useful monitoring data for

this research. 23 of them responded, 4 of which had done monitoring of some form.

Unfortunately there was not any useful long term or short term monitoring data of the

performance of infiltration systems available. This inquiry showed that monitoring is not a priority

for municipalities, even when information about the actual performance of infiltration facilities is

very scarce.

A field case study was conducted to gather useful monitoring data of infiltration facilities for this

research. The municipality of Ede offered an opportunity to test several of their infiltration

systems. They recognised the blind spot of the performance of infiltration facilities especially on

aspects of maintenance and life expectancy. These aspects are closely related to clogging.

Conveniently in Ede there a various types of facilities in use and the hydrological conditions vary

significantly. This provides the opportunity to study and verify two important aspects of

infiltration facilities:

• The performance of different types of infiltration facilities in practice.

• The effects of different hydrological conditions on the performance of infiltration facilities.

In the next sections the field study will be explained further. Also the measuring plan (in Dutch)

can be found in annex 2.

Two infiltration facilities have been studied in the municipality of Ede. The municipality of Ede is

located in the centre of the Netherlands. The city is partially built in the valley of Gelderland and

partially on a terminal moraine (Dutch: stuwwal). Its elevation is between 10 and 40 meters

above sea level. The two tested facilities are located in the east of Ede, on the moraine.

Two different infiltration facilities have been tested for this research:

• A concrete soakaway in a commercial area, the Horapark.

• Infiltration unit in a residential area, at the Buurtscheuterlaan.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Horapark

The soakaway is located in a commercial area, the Horapark, in the southeast of Ede. It is part of

an integral drainage system. The storm water from the roofs and parking lots in the Horapark is

collected and infiltrated in a series of soakaways. The system was designed and constructed in

1980. The studied soakaway (nr. 36) has the following characteristics (see figure 16):

• Surface level at + 21.5 m NAP

• Average highest groundwater level at +15 m NAP

• Concrete circular soakaway

• Dimensions (diameter and height) 1.5 m and 2.8 m; storage = 5.0 m3

• Bottom at + 18 m NAP, overflow at + 20.4 m NAP

• Top level at + 20.9 m NAP

• Surrounded by layer of branches

• Soil is sandy loam (k = 0.5 - 2 m/d)

Buurtscheuterlaan

The infiltration unit is located in a residential area at the Buurtscheuterlaan in the east of Ede. It

was designed and constructed to solve a local pluvial flooding problem. The runoff from the

street near the facility is collected and diverted to the infiltration unit. The system was designed

and constructed in 2001. The unit is filled only, when there is water on the street, because the

inlets are raised. It has the following characteristics (see figure 16):

• Surface level at + 37 m NAP

• Average highest groundwater level at +17 m NAP

• Consists of 18 plastic units (of 2100 x 810 x 860 mm); storage = 27 m3

• Dimensions (l x w x h) 4.3 m x 4 m x 1.6 m

• Top level at + 36.20 m NAP; bottom level at + 34.48 m NAP;

• Surrounded by geotextile

• Surrounded by layer drainage sand (below bottom 10 cm and next to sides 30 cm)

• Soil is sandy loam (k = 0.5 - 2 m/d)

Figure 16 Studied infiltration facilities at the Horapark and the Buurtscheuterlaan in Ede

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

The measurements were done in two periods of two days. Both periods had the same measuring

setup. The two facilities were filled water from a tank truck and the infiltration process was

measured. Below the setup of the measurements for the two facilities is explained.

Horapark

The facility in the Horapark was tested in the first measuring period only:

• The facility is filled with 5 m3 in approximately 1 hour from the man hole. During the

filling and emptying the water level and the barometric pressure (for compensation) was

measured each minute with a diver. The hydraulic conductivity of the soil was

determined with previously done soil tests at the location.

Buurtscheuterlaan

At the Buurtscheuterlaan the infiltration unit was tested during two periods (see figure 17):

• During the first period the facility was filled with 5 m3 in the facility’s inlet. The water

level was measured with a diver each minute in a pipe connected to the side of the

infiltration unit. The pipe was constructed by a contractor for this research.

• During the second period the facility was filled with two tank trucks with a total of 10 m3.

The water level was measured each half minute with a diver in the same pipe as during

period 1. Also five soil moisture sensors were placed around the facility to measure the

movement of the water in the soil. Figure 17 shows a top view of the setup of the

moisture sensors.

1. Sensor depth at 2.8 m

2. Sensor depth at 2.6 m

3. Sensor depth at 3.1 m

4. Sensor depth at 2.8 m

5. Sensor depth at 2.9 m

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

4.2.5 Results

The measurements were successfully done in Ede. The first measurement period was on the 18th

March and 19th March. The second period was the 31st of March and the 1st of April. Below the

results are presented for both locations.

Figure 18 Fieldwork at the Horapark (on the left) and the Buurtscheuterlaan in Ede

Horapark

The water level in the Horapark soakaway was measured during the filling and subsequent

infiltration on the 18th and 19th of March. The graph of both processes can be seen in figure 19.

The filling took 1.5 hours; the infiltration took approximately 10.5 hours. At higher water levels

the water level dropped more quickly than at lower water levels. This indicates a higher

infiltration capacity when the water level is higher. This can be explained by an increase in

infiltrating area of the facility. At low water levels the water level still decreased significantly. This

indicates that the bottom takes part in the infiltration and therefore is not clogged.

The temperature of the water was also measured. The temperature in the facility stayed between

8 and 9 degrees during the experiment, while the temperature outside the facility during the

measurements dropped below zero (in the night).

180

Water level soakaway

160 horapark

Water level in facility [cm]

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

Time [h]

Figure 19 Water level measurements in the Horapark soakaway

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Further analysis of the measurements confirmed that the bottom was not clogged and higher

water levels resulted in a higher infiltration capacity of the facility. With the derivative of the

water level the infiltration capacity was calculated. Subsequently the noise in the measurements

was filtered with a moving average of 5 measurements. In figure 20 the derived infiltration

capacity of the facility is plotted.

16

Q-h relation

14

12

Infiltration capacity [l/min]

10

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

-2

Water level [cm ]

Buurtscheuterlaan

Measurement period 1

The first measurement period at the Buurtscheuterlaan did not yield any measurements. This was

mainly due to two reasons:

1. The first 2 m3 of the 5 m3 in the truck was discharged in the wrong inlet. In stead of the

inlet of the infiltration unit the water was discharged in the central storm water sewer.

2. The water level in the facility did not rise. Although the 3 m3, which was still in the tank,

was discharged in the facility. This implies that the infiltration capacity of the facility was

higher than the discharge that entered the facility. This confirms that the bottom of the

facility was not clogged. The discharge that entered the facility seemed to be limited by

the entry pipe and the possibility for the air to escape from the facility.

Measurement period 2

The second measurement period at the Buurtscheuterlaan did yield interesting measurements.

First of all the reason of the absence of a rise in water level was discovered. The facility on the

first technical drawing was 5 m3 in the revised design it was expanded to 27 m3. So instead of

the 5 m3 assumed during the measurement period, the facility was 5 times bigger. A tank truck

of 5 m3 discharging in this facility has a lot less impact.

During the second measurement period the facility was filled with two tank truck carrying a total

of 10 m3. Again no water level rise was measured with the divers. Like during the first measuring

period the inflow in the facility was lower than the infiltration capacity of the facility, so the water

level in the facility did not rise. The main cause for this proved to be the limited capacity of the

two inlet pipes. One seemed to be almost completely clogged. According to municipality 570 m2

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

of paved surface area was connected to the facility. Given the inflow the maximum rain event of

17 mm in 1.33 h was simulated with a peak of 23 mm/h. This storm water load is similar to a

storm that occurs once a year, while the facility itself could handle at least a once in 100 year

storm of 50 mm in 1.33 h. The maximum capacity of the pipes limited the facility significantly.

This aspect of the design of infiltration facilities could actually be more limiting to the

performance than clogging of the facilities themselves.

The fact that this was not measured by the diver in the measuring pipe can also be because of

three other reasons:

1. The measuring pipe was located at the end of the facility, 5 m from the inlet. Therefore

the water level could not have risen that high to reach it.

2. The facility could have been constructed along the natural slope. The measuring pipe

was located on the high end of the slope, so a small water level rise could not have

reached it.

3. The facility consisted of two rows of infiltration units. The water could not have reached

the second row of units, because of the internal construction of the units. The

municipality found out after measurement period 2 that the individual units were each

fully surrounded by geotextile. This could have resulted in units acting individually and

not as one.

Soil moisture (expressed as θ [-]) was measured at five locations around the facility. Of the 5 soil

moisture sensors 3 sensors did produce interesting results. Sensor 2 was accidentally unplugged

and sensor 3 just did not measure anything. The measurements from the working sensors are

plotted in figure 21. The inflow is included qualitatively too.

Sensor 1

0.450 Sensor 4

0.400 Sensor 5

Soil moisture content [-]

0.350 Inflow

0.300

0.250

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Time [h]

The sensors were placed close to the bottom of the facility. It is clear that after the inflow was

started the soil almost immediately reacted and went from dry (θd = 0.06-0.08, estimated pF =

2.5) to fully saturated (θs = 0.41-0.43) in approximately 5 minutes. Calculating the drainable

porosity η = θs - θd gives 0.34, which means a third of the soil was available to store and convey

the infiltrating water. After the inflow was stopped the soil was fully saturated for another 1.5

hours before an exponential decrease in moisture content could begin (towards a pF of 2). This

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

could indicate that part of the storage of the facility was actually filled, because infiltration was

still taking place when the inflow was stopped.

4.2.6 Conclusions

Based on the measurements the following conclusions can be drawn:

• The effects of clogging in both facilities were very limited. The bottom areas of both

facilities were clearly not clogged.

• The infiltration capacity of both facilities was much larger than assumed in the design.

• It was impossible to fill the facility at the Buurtscheuterlaan completely by a tank truck or

an extreme rain event, because the capacity of the inlet pipes was too small. The design

of inlets and overflows is an aspect deserving more attention in the design.

• The measurements in the facility at the Horapark showed that high water levels result in

high infiltration capacity.

The two studied facilities in Ede cannot be considered as completely generic for other infiltration

facilities. The results of the measurement should be used considering the specific conditions at

the facilities. The geohydrologic location of the facilities is favourable for infiltration: the

groundwater level was too low to affect the performance and the hydraulic conductivity of the

soil was high. Also the usual storm water load on the facilities is beneficial for their performance.

The soakaway at the Horapark is part of a series of soakaways, and as it is not the first in line,

the water it receives is low on sediments. Water enters the infiltration unit at the

Buurtscheuterlaan only when a significant amount of water is on the street. This happens

perhaps 10 times per year; this is much less than a facility directly connected to a roof. The

smaller storm water load could have resulted in less clogging.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Given the scientific background of infiltration facilities, the basis of the current design practice

and the uncertainties in the calculation of the infiltration capacity: in what way can the design

methodology be improved? In this chapter an adapted design method will be considered.

In the refined design method the calculation of the inflow will be similar to the current guidelines.

As stated in section 3.1 the calculation of the inflow in the current design method contains some

uncertainties. Therefore some adaptations should be made. This leads to the following key

element in the refined calculation of the inflow:

• The design rainfall should be based on DDF curves, without an extra safety coefficient.

• The inflow should be calculated modified rational method with runoff constants, which

are conservatively applied.

• Delay in runoff should not be taken into account, because the influence of the delay

(some minutes) is negligible in the total infiltration process (several hours).

• The main difference is a simulated test of the designed infiltration facility with a rainfall

series (hourly rainfall of 20-50 years length). This simulation should be done when the

dimensions and storage already have been determined. This way the preliminary design

can be tested with real rainfall data, eliminating the disadvantages of the DDF-curve.

Moreover, it can be tested if the design criteria been met and also how often and how

much water can be expected to overflow during extreme rainfall.

Qin = C I A (5.17)

Where:

Qin = inflow [L3T-1]

C = runoff coefficient [-]

A = connected area [L2]

I = Urban runoff [LT-1]

In the refined design method the calculation of the infiltration capacity of a facility is changed in

three ways:

1. The design formula is changed from a Darcy based calculation to a new Green-Ampt

based calculation.

2. The groundwater level below the facility is now considered during the design.

3. The infiltrating area is calculated differently, the full height and the bottom area are

included depending on the groundwater level.

Qout (t ) = kC gw i (t ) Afc (t )

(5.18)

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Where:

Qout = infiltration capacity [L3T-1]

k = hydraulic conductivity [LT-1]

Cgw = groundwater coefficient [-]

i(t) = hydraulic gradient [-]

Afc = infiltrating area in facility [L2]

The formula consists of four aspects: the hydraulic conductivity, the groundwater coefficient, the

hydraulic gradient and the infiltrating area.

The hydraulic conductivity is either measured or estimated. The safety coefficients for the

hydraulic conductivity are 0.5 for measured hydraulic conductivity and 0.3 for estimated

conductivity. Clogging could also be incorporated in the hydraulic conductivity. Dividing the

hydraulic conductivity by a certain clogging rate the effects of clogging could be taken into

account. This was not looked into further for this research.

The groundwater coefficient is dependent on the groundwater level. If the groundwater level is at

least 1 m lower than the bottom level Cgw = 1. If the groundwater is higher, then Cgw should be

calculated. If Cgw > 1 in the calculation, Cgw = 1 should be used in stead. Cgw is calculated with

the following formula:

H fc

C gw = + d gw (5.19)

3

Where:

dgw = difference between bottom level and groundwater level [L]

From the formula it can be derived that Cgw is not dimensionless, while according to 5.18 it

should be. Therefore it should be assumed to be dimensionless when applied in 5.18.

The hydraulic gradient i(t) is now calculated dynamically and Green-Ampt (and Bouwer, 2002)

based in stead of assuming it to be 1. The hydraulic gradient is calculated with the following

formula:

⎛ H w (t ) − ψ m + L (t ) ⎞ (5.20)

i (t ) = ⎜ ⎟

⎝ L (t ) ⎠

Where:

Hw = water level in the facility [L]

ψm = suction of the soil matrix potential [L]

L (t) = thickness of the moisturised zone [L]

The various aspects included in the hydraulic gradient are visualised in figure 22 on the next

page. The gradient depends on water level in the facility, Hw (t), the soil matrix suction ψm and

the thickness of the wetted zone in the soil. ψm depends on the groundwater level and can be

read from figure 4 and similar pF curves. The L should be calculated dynamically with the

following formula:

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Qout (t − 1) (5.21)

L (t ) = L (t − 1) + *η

Ainf (t − 1)

Where:

L(t-1) = thickness of moisturised zone during previous time step [L];.

Qout (t-1) = infiltration during previous time step[L3]

Ainf (t-1) = infiltrating area during previous time step [L2]

η = drainable porosity [-]

The L depends on the amount of water that has already infiltrated. Qout divided by the infiltrating

area and multiplied by the drainable porosity calculates the increase of L during the time step.

Adding to the L of the previous time step gives the new L. The infiltrating area is calculated as

described at the next bullet. The drainable porosity is calculated with:

η = θs - θd (5.22)

Where:

θs = saturated moisture content [-]

θd = dry moisture content [-]

Please note that L > 0 at all time. So for the first time step a L0 has to be assumed. Based on the

Hydrus results the following empirical formula has been developed to calculate L0 and is

dependent on the hydraulic conductivity (in m/d) only:

k

L0 = 0.1 + (5.23)

4

The infiltrating area is calculated dynamically. In this formula the bottom area is included in the

infiltrating area. The sides are only taken into account for 50%, because the average gradient at

the sides is also 50% of the gradient at the bottom.

Ainf = lw + h (t ) (w + l ) (5.24)

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Where:

Ainf= infiltrating area in facility [L2]

l = length of facility [L]

w = width of facility [L]

h = height of facility [L]

Like in the current design methods finding the dimensions and storage of a facility is an iterative

process. In the refined design method formula 3.15 is still used:

t

Max (S ) = ∫ (Q in − Qout )dt (3.15)

0

Where:

S = storage in [L3]

Qin = total inflow for the given/chosen time interval [L3T-1]

Qout = total outflow for the given/chosen time interval [L3T-1]

t = duration of design rainfall [T]

Based on the model results and the measurements some recommendations for an efficiently

designed facility can be made:

• Maximise the height of the sides of the facility

• Aim to design the bottom level as far as possible above the groundwater level

• When the design is finished, it should be tested with a rainfall series of hourly rainfall.

This way the estimated frequency and amount of pluvial flooding can be calculated. If

the results are not satisfactorily the design can be changed.

The emptying time is also calculated dynamically with the Valkenburg method. If the storm is

assumed to start at t=0, it can be calculated simply by:

Where:

tfull = time of filling [T]; this is the t where S and Hw are at their maximum.

tempty = time when the facility is empty again [T]; this is when the cumulative inflow equals the

cumulative outflow.

How accurate is the refined design method in calculating the required storage, dimensions and

emptying time? In this section the results of the comparison of the refined design method, the

current design method and the measurements and model results are presented. Also a design

example is used to compare the dimensions and storage calculated with the four described

design guidelines and new design method.

The refined design method was compared to the results from Hydrus. The refined design method

should be close to the results from Hydrus. In section 4.1 the following aspects have been

identified which affect the performance of infiltration facilities the most:

• Groundwater level

• Side-bottom ratio

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

• Varying hydraulic conductivity

The design methods were compared on each of these aspects in figure similar to those of section

4.1.

In the current guidelines the groundwater level is not taken into account. In the refined design

method it is taken into account. In figure 23 the design methods and the Hydrus results are

plotted. The Valkenburg method still underestimated the discharge, but only slightly instead of 15

times. With the Valkenburg method the emptying time calculated well for groundwater levels

deeper than 0.75 m

80

35

70

30

60

Relative discharge [-]

25

Darcy dynamic 50

20 Darcy co nstant

Valkenburg

40 Darcy constant

15 Hydrus Darcy dynamic

Hydrus no GWL

30 Hydrus

10 Hydrus no groundwater

20

Valkenburg

5 10

0 0

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

D e pt h gro undwa t e r le v e l be lo w bo t t o m [ m ] G ro undwa t e r le v e l be lo w bo t t o m [ m ]

The Valkenburg design method was as sensitive for the hydraulic conductivity as Hydrus.

Valkenburg’s method was much closer to Hydrus’ results than the current design methods for

both the discharge and the emptying time as figure 22 shows.

10000.00

100 Darcy co nstant

Darcy dynamic

Valkenburg

1000.00

Hydrus

Relative discharge [-]

10 100.00

Emptying time [h]

10.00

1

Darcy dynamic 1.00

Darcy co nstant

Hydrus

Valkenburg 0.10

0.1

0.1 1 10

0.1 1

Hydraulic conductivity [m /d] 10 H ydra ulic c o nduc t iv it y [ m / d]

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

The Valkenburg design method was much closer in calculating the discharge for varying side

bottom ratios than the current design methods as figure 25 shows. This is because in

Valkenburg’s method the bottom area and the hydraulic gradient are taken into account in a

better way. Valkenburg’s prediction of the emptying time is less accurate, but generally better

than the predictions of current design methods.

40.00 160.00

Darcy co nstant

140.00 Darcy dynamic

35.00

Hydrus

Relative discharge [-]

30.00 120.00

Valkenburg

25.00 100.00

Hydrus

20.00 Darcy dynamic 80.00

Valkenburg

10.00 40.00

5.00 20.00

0.00 0.00

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6

Side-bottom ratio [-] Side/bottom ratio [-]

The Valkenburg method underestimated the discharge with a varying clogged bottom ratio by

factor two (it was included by dividing the k value for the bottom area by the clogged bottom

ratio. This underestimation results in an overestimation of the emptying time by a factor 4. Still, it

is much better than the current design methods.

80.00

35

Darcy dynamic

Darcy constant

Darcy co nstant 70.00 Darcy dynamic

30 Hydrus

Valkenburg

Emptying time [h]

Relative discharge [-]

Hydrus

25 Valkenburg

Hydrus fully clo gged 50.00

20

40.00

15

30.00

10 20.00

5 10.00

0 0.00

0 5 10 15 20 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Clogged bottom ratio [-] C lo gge d bo t t o m ra t io [ - ]

The refined design method was also compared to the measurement from the facilities in Ede. The

measurements used for comparison were the water level measurements from the Horapark and

the derived Q-h relation for this facility.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

In figure 26 the water level measurements were compared to the model results from Hydrus and

the three design methods: Valkenburg’s method, Darcy dynamic and Darcy constant. It showed

that both Hydrus and Valkenburg’s (k=1 m/d, η = 0.25 and L0 = 1 m) method can model the

measurements very accurately. The two Darcy methods were much less accurate. These results

showed that the new method can model the performance of facility which has been functioning

for more 25 years including the effects of the accumulated clogging during the years.

180

Measurements

160 Hydrus

Darcy constant

140

Darcy dynamic

120 Valkenburg

Water level [cm]

100

80

60

40

20

0

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00

Time [h]

Because the water level measurement were modelled accurately by Valkenburg’s method, it is

also not surprising the derived Q-h relation was modelled well. As figure 27 shows, it nicely fitted

the results from the scatter plot, the Darcy methods did not.

16

Measurements

14 Darcy constant

Darcy dynamic

12

Infiltration capacity [l/min]

Valkenburg

10

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Water level [cm]

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

As a last test the refined design method was compared to the design guidelines from the four

countries with a design example. All design guidelines were used to design a subsurface facility.

The design parameters for this subsurface infiltration facility were:

• Groundwater level 1.5 m below bottom level

• Connected surface area: Acon = 100 m2

• Runoff coefficient for a roof: CA = 0.9

• Width infiltration unit: wfc = 0.4 m

• Height infiltration unit: hfc = 0.85 m

• Measured hydraulic conductivity: kmeasured = 1 m/d

• Drainable porosity η = 0.25

• Effective storage in infiltration unit = 0.95

The results of the design exercise can be found in the table below.

Valkenburg l = 3.4 m l = 4.3 m l = 5.2 m

S = 1.16 m3 S = 1.47 m3 S = 1.76 m3

tempty = 6 h tempty = 7 h tempty = 7 h

Netherlands l = 6.9 m l = 8.6 m l = 10 m

S = 2.35 m3 S = 2.92 m3 S = 3.4 m3

tempty = 17.8 h tempty = 18.3 h tempty = 18.5 h

Germany l=7m l = 8.9 m l = 10.4 m

S = 2.37 m3 S = 3.03 m3 S = 3.52 m3

tempty = 23.9 h tempty = 24.2 h tempty = 24.3

United Kingdom - l = 7.7 m l = 9.4 m

S = 2.63 m3 S = 3.18 m3

thalf empty = 11.7 h thalf empty = 11.8 h

Australia (different For hydrologic effectiveness of 95 % (95 % of annual rain is captured):

design basis, see l = 4.2 m

chapter 3) S = 1.42 m3

tempty = 40.8 h

Table 4 Comparing design guidelines on design example

Compared to the European guidelines the facilities designed with Valkenburg’s method were

significantly smaller (approximately 50 %). Also the predicted emptying time was approximately

60-70% shorter. The Australian design was similar in dimensions, but comparison between

Australian and other guidelines is difficult. The Australians design facilities on the fraction of

annual rain captured and not on a design storm with a return period.

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

6.1 Conclusions

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities was done by modelling in an unsaturated zone

model and measuring in facilities in practice. In section 1.5 this approach was explained in four

steps. Below the conclusions for each of these four steps can be found.

• The functioning of infiltration facilities is affected by three processes: urban runoff, the

infiltration capacity of the facility and clogging of the facility. In the design all three

processes should be taken into account as accurate as possible.

• The current design method is scientifically wrong. There are many assumptions and

uncertainties included in the method, these result in over dimensioned facilities.

• The biggest uncertainty in the current design methods is the calculation of the infiltration

capacity of a facility.

• Within the calculation of the infiltration capacity (in the current design method) the

hydraulic gradient and the infiltrating area should be calculated differently.

• The Hydrus model results showed the significant influence of the groundwater level, the

water level in the facility and the shape of the facility on the infiltration capacity of

facilities. Therefore these should be considered in the design of the facilities.

• The inquiry of 90 municipalities showed that monitoring the performance of infiltration

facilities is not a priority at this moment.

• The measurements in Ede showed that after many years the effect of clogging of the

bottom is limited. As clogging of the bottom has not been observed in practice. Therefore

the bottom should no longer be assumed to be clogged in the design.

• The measurements in Ede also showed that the performance of a facility can also be

limited by the capacity of the inlet structure and not by the facility itself.

• The refined design method offers a more accurate design. It is much better in

representing the model results and the measurements in practice.

• The refined design method still includes several uncertainties. Therefore its should be

calibrated and verified further with measurement from facilities in practice

• Important remaining uncertainties are: representing the influence of the groundwater

level correctly, determining the soil properties at a project and quantifying the amount of

clogging in the facility and its surrounding soil.

6.2 Recommendations

During this research many issues came up, which would be worthwhile to look at in more detail.

As these issues could not be studied for this research, they offer possibilities for more research

on storm water infiltration facilities. Below recommendations on several aspects of infiltration

facilities can be found:

• Start monitoring and measuring. Both continuous measurements from a specific

facility and sample measurements from various types of facilities in the field give vital

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

information about the performance of infiltration facilities. The measuring plan in this

research could be used to setup experiments.

• Try to calculate the influence of the groundwater level better in the design. The

method proposed in this research lacks a good physical basis and was not verified with

measurements from practice.

• Try to use measurements of the performance of a facility as a basis for maintenance,

to predict lifespan of facilities and for further refinement of the design method.

• Study the clogging process in detail, to what extend can the performance of a facility

be affected by clogging and how can (the effects of) clogging be minimalised?

• Try to optimise the technical design of a facility to reduce sediment loads as much as

possible as the clogging rate is dependent on the sediment content of the storm water.

• Study feasibility of infiltration facilities in locations which are traditionally regarded

as unsuitable: high groundwater level or low hydraulic conductivity (below 0.5 m/d).

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

References

Abbott, C.L. et al., In situ performance monitoring of an infiltration drainage system and field

testing of current design procedures, Water and Environment Journal, 2001

Argue, J.R. & Pezzaniti, D., Australian Runoff Quality, chapter 11: Infiltration systems, Engineers

Australia, 2006

Boogaard, F.A. et al., Ondergrondse infiltratie van regenwater, Stichting RIONED, 2008

Journal, 2002

Cloquet, R. & Hartman, E., Publicatie 70.1 Omgaan met hemelwater binnen de perceelgrens,

ISSO, 2008

Dechesne, M., Indicators for hydraulic and pollution retention assessment of stormwater

infiltration basins, Journal of Environmental Management, 2004

Dreven, van F. et al. , Cultuurtechnisch vademecum : handboek voor inrichting en beheer van

land, water en milieu, Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie, 2000

Emerson, C.H. & Traver, R.G., Multiyear and seasonal variation of infiltration from storm-water

best management practices, Journal of irrigation an drainage engineering, 2008

Fujita S., Measures to promote stormwater infiltration, Water Science & Technology, 1997

Hillel, D., Soil and Water, physical principles and processes, New York, academic press, 1971

Massman, J.W., Infiltration characteristics, performance and design of storm water infiltration

facilities, Washington State Department of Infiltration, 2001

Monster, N.J. & Leeflang, M.J., On the design of percolation facilities, TU Delft, 1996

Nashimhan, T.N., Darcy's Law and Unsaturated Flow, Vadose Zone Journal, 2004

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Osman Akan, A., Sizing stormwater infiltration structures, Journal of hydraulic engineering, 2002

Pitt R. et al., Groundwater contamination from stormwater infiltration, CRC Press, 1996

Pratt, C.J., Digest 365: Soakaway Design, Building Research Establishment, 2007

Rinck-Pfeiffer, S., et al., Interrelationships between biological, chemical and physical processes as

an analog to clogging in aquifer storage and recovery wells (ASR), Water Research, 2000

Simunek, K., Genuchten, van M.Th. & Sejna, M., Development and applications of the HYDRUS

and STANMOD software packages and related codes, Vadose zone journal, 2008

Siwardene, N.R. et al, Clogging of stormwater gravel infiltration systems and filters: insights from

a laboratory study, Water Research, 2007

Tindall, J.A. & Kunkel J.R., Unsaturated zone hydrology for scientists & engineers, Prentice Hall,

1999

Ven, van de, F.H.M., Lecture notes Watermanagement in urban areas, TU Delft, 2007

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Annexes

Annexes ii

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

B o tto m 0,50 m abo ve GWL

Water level in the facility [cm]

B o tto m 1m abo ve GWL

B o tto m 1,5 m abo ve GWL

40.00 B o tto m 2 m abo ve GWL

No GW

Darcy dynamic

30.00

Darcy co nstant

Valkenburg no GW

20.00 Valkenburg bo tto m 0.5 m abo ve GWL

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

k = 0.1 m/d

60.00

Hydrus

Darcy dynamic

50.00 Darcy constant

Water level in facility [cm]

Valkenburg

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Tim e [d]

Annexes iii

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

k = 1 m/d

60.00

Hydrus

Darcy dynamic

50.00 Darcy constant

Water level in facility [cm]

Valkenburg

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

k = 5 m/d

60.00

Hydrus

Darcy dynamic

50.00

Water level in facility [cm]

Darcy constant

Valkenburg

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

Annexes iv

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

60.00

Hydrus

Darcy dynamic

50.00

Water level in facility [cm]

Darcy constant

Valkenburg

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

120.00

Hydrus

Darcy dynamic

100.00

Darcy constant

Water level in facility [cm]

Valkenburg

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Tim e [d]

Annexes v

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

250.00

Hydrus

Darcy dynamic

200.00 Darcy constant

Valkenburg

Water level [cm]

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

60.00

theta = 0.08

theta = 0.12

50.00

theta = 0.16

theta = 0.24

Water level [cm]

40.00

theta = 0.32

Darcy dynamic

30.00

Darcy constant

Valkenburg

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

Annexes vi

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

50.00

CB ratio 1:1

45.00 CB ratio 1:2

Pressure head in facility [cm]

CB ratio 1:8

35.00

CB ratio 1:16

30.00 CB ratio (fully clogged)

25.00 Darcy dynamic (guidelines)

Darcy constant (guidelines)

20.00

Valkenburg

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

Influence temperature

60.00

Temperature = 2 ºC

Temperature = 8 ºC

50.00

Temperature = 14 ºC

Water level in facility [cm]

Temperature = 20 ºC

40.00 Darcy dynamic

Darcy constant

30.00 Valkenburg

20.00

10.00

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Time [d]

Annexes vii

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Inleiding

De huidige ontwerpbenadering van infiltratievoorzieningen is wetenschappelijk slecht

onderbouwd. Het ontwerp wordt gedaan op basis van formules en aannames die eigenlijk niet op

infiltratie kunnen worden toegepast. Met veiligheidscoëfficiënten worden de onzekerheden in de

ontwerpbenadering afgedekt. Maar juist het stapelen van veiligheidscoëfficiënten kan leiden tot

voorzieningen die te groot ontworpen worden. Ook is vanuit beheersoogpunt onbekend zijn

zowel de uiteindelijke levensduur als mogelijke onderhoudsmethoden een blinde vlek. Het

dichtslibben van infiltratievoorzieningen is een belangrijke onzekerheid op dit gebied.

Hoewel er weinig problemen bekend zijn met huidige voorzieningen, is nader onderzoek dus

gewenst. De beste methode hiervoor is om aan voorzieningen in de praktijk te meten om het

hydraulisch functioneren van de voorzieningen beter in kaart te brengen. De aspecten die van

belang zijn voor het ontwerp en het beheer zijn de infiltratie capaciteit en de leeglooptijd van een

voorziening. Helaas worden die amper gemeten. De metingen kunnen helpen de

ontwerpbenadering te verfijnen én antwoorden geven op beheersvragen op het gebied van

levensduur en onderhoud.

Doel

- Analyseren welke processen de capaciteit van een infiltratievoorziening tijdens de

levensduur beïnvloeden: grondwaterstand, type voorziening, waterstand in de

voorziening en dichtslibben.

- Meten van werkelijke leeglooptijd en infiltratiecapaciteit van infiltratievoorzieningen.

- Bekijken van de invloed van onderhoud en beheers aspecten van infiltratievoorzieningen:

Hoe kan de infiltratiecapaciteit van een voorziening bekeken en verbeterd worden door

onderhoud?

Hypothese

De huidige ontwerpbenadering zorgt voor overgedimensioneerde systemen. Dit betekent dat de

huidige infiltratiesystemen te groot en dus duurder dan nodig zijn. Het dichtslibben van

voorzieningen zorgt ervoor, dat ze anders functioneren dan aangenomen in het ontwerp.

Eventueel zou dichtslibben het functioneren van een voorziening kunnen bedreigen.

Locaties

- Zakput in het bedrijventerrein in Ede Zuid (Horapark). Dit is de locatie voor de

detailstudie

- Krattensysteem in Ede Oost (Buurtscheuterlaan)in het openbaar groen. Ligging in

openbaar groen en op zichzelf staand systeem.

Algemeen meetplan

Voor het bestuderen van het functioneren van de drie voorzieningen wordt de volgende methode

gehanteerd:

Met hulp van een tankwagen wordt de voorziening gevuld totdat deze volledig gevuld is. Dan

hoeft er niet gewacht te worden op regen. Als de capaciteit van de tankwagen ontoereikend is,

wordt de voorziening met de maximale hoeveelheid water gevuld. De voorziening moet wel

Annexes viii

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

minimaal voor de helft te gevuld zijn. Een debietmeter is nodig om te weten hoe groot de

toevoer naar voorziening is geweest. Vervolgens wordt de infiltratiecapaciteit van de voorziening

bekeken en gemonitord. Hiervoor zijn rondom en in de voorzieningen zijn de

metingen/meetlocaties in ieder geval nodig:

- De k-waarde omringende grond met infiltroring methode.

- Meten van het verloop van de waterstand in voorziening met een diver.

Rekening houden met de weersomstandigheden is belangrijk. Meten kan het beste in een droge

periode. Het meten kan het best gepland worden in twee rondes (in twee weken).

1. De eerste ronde worden de verschillende voorzieningen getest. Gedurende enkele dagen

worden een zakput, een krattensysteem en evt. doorlatende verharding in Ede gevuld en

het infiltratieproces wordt bekeken.

2. De tweede ronde beslaat het detailonderzoek aan het krattensysteem.

In de volgende alinea’s wordt verder ingegaan op de specifieke metingen die nodig zijn bij de

verschillende voorzieningen. Daarnaast wordt ook een inschatting gemaakt van de benodigde tijd,

apparatuur en mankracht.

Meetplan zakput

De zakputten bevinden in Ede Zuidoost, (nabij de rand van de Veluwe) in het openbaar groen

van een bedrijventerrein, het Horapark. Ze zorgen voor de hemelwaterafvoer van het

bedrijventerrein. De technische details van de voorziening:

- Maaiveld: + 21.50 m NAP.

- Grondsoort: lemig zand, zandig leem (k=0.5-2 m/d)

- Grondwaterstand (GHG): + 15 m NAP

- Gronddekking: 0.60 m

- Omringd door takkenbossenlaag met minimale dikte van 0.7 m

- Bodem op + 18.1 m NAP

- Betonnen zakput: l x b x h = 1.50 m x 1.50 m x 2.80 m

- Overstort op ongeveer 2.40 m (+ 20.5 m NAP), dus nuttige berging = 5.4 m3

Meetronde 1:

1. Opgraven en openen voorziening, 1 uur

2. Visuele inspectie binnenkant, 0.5 uur

3. Installeren diver (zie voor tekening de bijlage), 0.5 uur

4. Volledig vullen, 0,5 uur

5. Meten leegloop, 5 uur (schatting)

6. Meten k waarde, 1 uur

Meetplan krattensysteem

Het krattensysteem bevindt zich in Ede Noordoost, nabij de Buurtscheuterlaan in het openbaar

groen. De voorziening zorgt voor de hemelwaterafvoer van een deel van de straat en was

aangelegd in 2001 om wateroverlast tegen te gaan. De technische details van de voorziening:

- Maaiveld: + 37 m NAP.

- Grondsoort: aanname zelfde als bij zakput

- Grondwaterstand(GHG): + 17 m NAP., heeft dus geen invloed

- Systeem 16 kratten van 810x400x860mm (geeft een berging van 5 m3)

- Bovenkant kratten op 36.20 m boven N.A.P., onderkant kratten op 34.48 m boven N.A.P.

- Drainzand 10 cm aan onderzijde en 30 cm aan zijkanten aangebracht

- Connectie met straat via twee straatkolken, pvc buizen van rond 125 en 160 mm en twee

zandvangen

Annexes ix

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Meetronde 1:

1. Opgraven voorziening en buis in voorziening “prikken”, 1 uur

2. Visuele inspectie binnenkant, 0.5 uur

3. Installeren diver (zie voor tekening de bijlage), 0.5 uur

4. Volledig vullen, 0,5 uur

5. Meten leegloop, 5-15 uur (schatting)

6. Meten k waarde, 1 uur

7. Opruimen en afronden, 1 uur

Meetronde 2:

1. Opgraven voorziening en buis in voorziening “prikken”, 0.5 uur

2. Installeren diver en 5 bodemvochtmeters(zie voor tekening de bijlage), 3 uur

3. Volledig vullen, 1 uur

4. Meten leegloop, 5-15 uur (schatting)

5. Opruimen en afronden, 1 uur

- Divers voor het meten van de waterstand (Leon)

- Pompwagen voor het vullen van een voorziening (Ede)

- Loggers voor het opslaan van metingen (Leon)

- Laptop voor het uitlezen van de metingen (Leon)

- Communicatie naar omwonenden (Ede)

- 10 maart:

Uitwerking en planning van meetcampagne

- 18 maart – 20 maart:

Meetcampagne deel 1

- 25 maart – 27 maart

Meetcampagne deel 2

- Eind maart – begin april:

Verwerking resultaten

Annexes x

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Annexes xi

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Annexes xii

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

*The 19 municipalities marked with an r responded, but had no monitoring information. The 4

municipalities with an m responded and had some monitoring data(not suitable however):

2. Alblasserdam 33. Hellendoorn 63. Renswoude (r)

3. Almere 34. Hendrik Ido 64. Renkum (m)

4. Alkmaar (r) Ambacht 65. Rhenen (r)

5. Alphen a/d Rijn 35. Hilversum 66. Rotterdam

6. Amersfoort 36. Hoogeveen 67. Schoonhoven

7. Amstelveen (r) 37. Houten 68. Schouwen-

8. Amsterdam 38. Huizen (r) Duiveland (r)

9. Anna Palowna 39. Kollumerland 69. ’s Hertogenbosch

10. Bergen NH (m) 40. Landsmeer (r) 70. Sliedrecht

11. Beverwijk (r) 41. Langedijk 71. Stedebroec (r)

12. Binnenmaas 42. Leeuwarderadiel 72. Texel

13. Boarnsterhim 43. Lemsterland 73. Tytsjeksteradiel

14. Borger-Odoorn (m) 44. Littenseradiel 74. Utrecht

15. Breda 45. Loenen 75. Veenendaal

16. Breukelen 46. Lopik 76. Vianen (r)

17. Brummen (r) 47. Maarssen 77. Vlaardingen

18. Coevorden 48. Maastricht 78. Wassenaar

19. Dantumadiel 49. Midden-Delfland (r) 79. Wageningen (r)

20. De Bilt 50. Midden-Drenthe 80. Westerveld (r)

21. Den Haag 51. Naarden 81. Westland

22. Den Helder 52. Nieuwegein 82. Wieringen

23. Dordrecht 53. Nijkerk 83. Woerden

24. Ede (r) 54. Nijmegen (m) 84. Wunseradiel (r)

25. Emmen 55. Noordenveld 85. Woudrichem

26. Enkhuizen 56. Noordwijkerhout 86. Wormerland

27. Gaasterland 57. Oost-Stellingwerf 87. IJsselstein

28. Haarlemmermeer 58. Opsterland 88. Zaanstad

29. Haaksbergen (r) 59. Ouder Amstel 89. Zijpe (r)

30. Harderwijk (m) 60. Papendrecht 90. Zwolle

31. Heerenveen (r) 61. Purmerend

B. Interviewed stakeholders

Overview of the people interviewed for this research sorted on stakeholder type.

Municipalities

• Nijmegen (Antal Zuurman, via telephone)

• Renkum (Raymond Leyte)

• Ede (various people)

Research institutes

• RIONED (Harry van Luijtelaar)

• Deltares (various people)

Annexes xiii

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Consultants

• Tauw (Floris Boogaard)

• DHV (various people)

• Beuker Kunststoffen (Robert Stokkers)

• Dyka (Jasper Honingh)

• Wavin (Fokko Dijkstra & Louis Wildvank)

Annexes xiii

Annexes ii

- WSoilCon (1)Hochgeladen vonJyotsanaTrivedi
- Geology Soils Technical Report081508Hochgeladen vonLivian Teddy
- A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rainwater Harvesting at Commercial FacilitiesHochgeladen vonGreen Action Sustainable Technology Group
- Assessing the Impact of Infiltration and Exfiltration in SewerHochgeladen vonGabriela Piroșcă
- Gully and Flooding in Anambra State- The Way ForwardHochgeladen vonAlexander Decker
- C3 Technical Guidance May 2013 (Low Res) - Alameda CountyHochgeladen vonDebo Sodipo
- storm water managementHochgeladen vonRajesh Reddy
- Roller SeparatorHochgeladen vongustavogfp
- CSPI detman Hidrol.Hochgeladen vonirridren10
- PDF of PaperHochgeladen vonSobia Javed
- CANCSA S503-15 - Community drainage system planning, design, and maintenance in northern communities.pdfHochgeladen vonJohn Angus
- 3.2.3 - Laboratory Methods.pdfHochgeladen vonGermancho Mancho
- Chapter 1- Main Hydrological ConceptsHochgeladen vonMARVIN
- Full Paper TamerandMogheirHochgeladen vonAdoOoL_BaShA
- Methods of Testing Compaction SoilHochgeladen voncrizel
- analysisHochgeladen vonapi-284354818
- Water Infintration MeasurementsHochgeladen vonRusydan Ibrahim
- Chapter 2.docxHochgeladen vonRushed Alama
- Ch 10 - Choice of Management OptionsHochgeladen vonchkung
- Green Infrastructure GlossaryHochgeladen vonAnonymous P9CBp4uQh
- 09Hochgeladen voncrizel
- check dam 1Hochgeladen vonHugo Chavez
- 1Hochgeladen vonapi-242423759
- erosion labHochgeladen vonapi-240476952
- US Department of Justice Official Release - 01193-246enr htmHochgeladen vonlegalmatters
- Historical Development of Wet-Weather Flow Management_1999Hochgeladen vonMaria Fernanda Alvarez Ibarra
- CoreChpt7_PesticidesinEnvironmentHochgeladen vonIftime Ionela
- jss2009b.pdfHochgeladen vonKauê Boidi Pereira
- File 7 Floodrisk Drainage ReportHochgeladen vonDr Kerry Gough
- wading in wasteHochgeladen vonapi-235658421

- uc student visit schedule - 2015-02-28-1Hochgeladen vonapi-280546053
- PFDHochgeladen vonleo besa
- Green Streets - A Conceptual Guide to Effective Green Streets Design SolutionsHochgeladen vonGreen Action Sustainable Technology Group
- Sustainable Participatory Environmental Monitoring in Oyu Tolgoi, MongoliaHochgeladen vonEnvironmental Governance Programme (EGP) for Sustainable Natural Resource Management
- AWW2013: Manila Water’s Separate Sewer and Combined Sewer-Drainage Systems by R. Baffrey, A. Adis and G. AranzamendezHochgeladen vonadbwaterforall
- Storm DrainHochgeladen vonainatul
- Agent Orange Dioxin Military BasesHochgeladen vonChildren Of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance
- Erosion and Sediment Control.PDFHochgeladen voncityofdarwingis
- Aspects of Environmental Degradation in BangladeshHochgeladen vonIstiauk Mahmud
- Conserving Water FinalHochgeladen vonSid Dharth
- West GodavariHochgeladen vonVarma Chintamaneni
- Immediate Flood Report #2 - Tax Day Flood (1)Hochgeladen vonEric Berger
- Water Pollution in KosovoHochgeladen vonAstrit E. Salihu
- AM LJ DwarkaHochgeladen vonforsyth007
- Quiz No. 9 _SolutionHochgeladen vonAjay meena
- Panduan Triple RinsingHochgeladen vonAurudy
- Project on Water ScarcityHochgeladen vonGaurav
- D2-Coastal Cities Project_ADB-BMGF Pilot PartnershipHochgeladen vonadbwaterforall
- PJB38(5)1359Hochgeladen vonHimadri Himu
- Environmental Audit ReportHochgeladen vonPrince Vince
- Library RajeshHochgeladen vonBhim Prasad Dahal
- Lake Chad Basin Project Tiga and Challawa Gorge Dam Safety Assessment EnglishHochgeladen vonMuhammad Dini
- Resume LinkedIn - Pascal BOURBOUSSON - EnglishHochgeladen vonPascalBourbousson
- Tarlac_eswm0909Hochgeladen vonsorbisorbi
- Wadi GarawiHochgeladen vonKashef
- Sea LevelHochgeladen vonBernard Amoo
- fracking pptHochgeladen vonapi-284048334
- In NA EO 09 Monólogos1Hochgeladen vonmu_paco
- EIA Guidelines 1999 (for Land Reclamation Projects)Hochgeladen vonSubhradeb Pramanik
- Eia GroundwaterHochgeladen vonAldren Delina Rivera