MSC Thesis Rethinking The Design of Infiltration Facilities

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities
Master of Science Thesis
24 April 2009
Leon Adrianus Valkenburg
1170546
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Geosciences and Civil Engineering
Department of Watermanagement
Section of Water Resources Management
Graduation committee:
Prof.dr.ir. N.C. van de Giesen - TU Delft

Water Resources Management
Dr.ir. F.H.M. van de Ven - TU Delft/Deltares

Water Resources Management
Ir. J.A.E. ten Veldhuis - TU Delft

Urban Drainage
Ir. E.C. Hartman – DHV

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
April the 24th, 2009
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.
The functioning of infiltration facilities is affected by three main processes:

• 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
Rioolsystemen hebben tegenwoordig te maken met twee problemen: wateroverlast en

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.
De werking van infiltratievoorzieningen wordt vooral beïnvloed door drie processen:

• 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.
Tijdens dit onderzoek zijn vier ontwerpmethoden voor infiltratievoorzieningen geanalyseerd. De

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.
De aannames en onzekerheden in de berekening van de infiltratiecapaciteit zijn op twee

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.
Op basis van het modelleren en meten van infiltratievoorzieningen is de ontwerpmethode verfijnd.

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
Preface ............................................................................................................................. III
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................IV
Executive summary .............................................................................................................. V
Samenvatting .....................................................................................................................VI
Table of contents ...............................................................................................................VII
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. Processes influencing infiltration facilities............................................................................ 4

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. Current design practice ................................................................................................... 11

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. Studying the infiltration capacity...................................................................................... 15

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. Refining the design methodology..................................................................................... 29

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. Conclusions & recommendations...................................................................................... 37

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 1 Consequences of sewer overloading: pluvial flooding and CSO’s .................................. 1

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 1 Comparing design rainfall methods ............................................................................ 5

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
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.
Figure 1 Consequences of sewer overloading: pluvial flooding and CSO’s
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.
1.2 Infiltration facilities

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.
MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 1

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

1.3 Scope of this research

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.
1.4 Research question

How can the design of infiltration facilities be improved using modelling in an unsaturated zone
model and measuring in facilities in practice?
1.5 Research method

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.
1.6 Readers guide

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.

2. Processes influencing 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.
2.1 Urban runoff

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.
In table 1 three methods are compared on the 5 aspects mentioned before.

Type of design rainfall

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
2.1.2 Runoff generation
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.

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.
2.2 The infiltration capacity

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)

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?
2.2.1 Darcy’s description of groundwater flow

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 [-]
2.2.2 Deriving Richards’ equation

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.

Tindall et al.(1999) use K dependent on θ, because potential hysteresis due to ψm is then

avoided. This step yields:
q = −K (θ )∇H (2.4)
Adding ψm in the form of h to the hydraulic gradient H= h+z leads to:
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.
2.2.3 Applying 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).
2.2.4 Simplifications of Richards’ equation

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.

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.
Figure 6 Green-Ampt schematisation of infiltration
Bouwer (1978) presented the following form of the Green-Ampt equation:

⎛ H 0 (t ) + L (t ) + ψ m ⎞
q (t ) = −K ⎜ ⎟ (2.10)
⎝ L (t ) ⎠
2.2.5 Temperature effect

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.

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.
2.3.1 The clogging process

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.
2.3.2 Quantifying clogging

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.

3. Current design practice
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.
3.1 The inflow

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

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.
3.2 Determining the infiltration capacity

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.
Guideline Hydraulic conductivity Infiltrating area

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

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.
On the field of design aspects:

• 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.
On the field of (geo)hydrologic boundary conditions:

• 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.
On the field of clogging:

• 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.
3.3 Determining the dimensions and the storage

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]

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.
3.3.1 Emptying time

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.

4. Studying the infiltration capacity
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.
4.1 Modelling infiltration facilities

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.
4.1.1 Model description

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.

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.
4.1.2 Setup of model

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.

Influence groundwater level (groundwater level: 0.5 m above bottom level – 2 m

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 ]
Figure 9 Influence groundwater level on discharge and emptying time
Influence hydraulic conductivity (hydraulic conductivity 0.1 m/d - 10 m/d)

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.

Influence hydraulic conductivity Influence hydraulic conductivity

100 10000.00
Darcy co nstant
Darcy dynamic
1000.00 Hydrus
Relative discharge [-]
10
100.00
Emptying time [h]

10.00
1
Darcy dynamic 1.00

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]
Figure 10 Influence hydraulic conductivity on discharge and emptying time
Shape of a facility (facilities of 1 m3 with varying side/bottom ratios of 0.16 - 6.25)

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.
Influence side bottom ratio Influence side/bottom ratio on em ptying tim e

for subsurface facility of 1 m ^3/m storage
40.00
160.00
35.00 Darcy co nstant (guidelines)
140.00 Darcy dynamic (guidelines)
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 [-]
Figure 11 Influence facility's shape on discharge and emptying time

Clogged bottom (Clogged bottom ratio: 1 – fully clogged)

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.
Influence clogged bottom Influence clogged bottom

80.00
35
Darcy dynamic
70.00
30 Darcy co nstant
Hydrus 60.00
Emptying time [h]
25 Hydrus fully clo gged

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 [-]
Figure 12 Influence clogged bottom on discharge and emptying time
Initial moisture content (Initial moisture content: 0.08 - 0.32)

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.

Influence initial moisture conditions

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 [-]
Figure 13 Influence initial moisture content on emptying time
Influence temperature (Temperature: 2 oC – 26 oC)

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.
Influence tem perature Influence temperature

35 80.00
30 70.00
60.00
25
Emptying time [h]
50.00
20
Darcy dynamic
40.00
Darcy co nstant Hydrus
15
Hydrus 30.00 Darcy co nstant (guidelines)
10 Darcy dynamic (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]
Figure 14 Influence varying temperature on discharge and emptying time
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.

• 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.
4.2 Monitoring infiltration facilities

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

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.
4.2.1 Case study in Ede

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.
4.2.2 Location case study

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

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.

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

4.2.4 Setup of measurements

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.
Figure 17 Top view of sensor setup at the Buurtscheuterlaan
The sensors 1 till 5 were placed at the following depths:

1. Sensor depth at 2.8 m

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).
Measurements soakaway horapark 18-3-3009 & 19-3-2009

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

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.
Q-h relation (filtered)

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 ]
Figure 20 Q-h relation for Horapark soakaway
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

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.
0.500 Soil moisture measurements

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]
Figure 21 Soil moisture measurements at the Buurtscheuterlaan
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

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.

5. Refining the design methodology
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.
5.1 Determining the inflow

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.
In formulas this results in:
Qin = C I A (5.17)
Where:
Qin = inflow [L3T-1]
C = runoff coefficient [-]
A = connected area [L2]
I = Urban runoff [LT-1]
The runoff coefficients should be read from the table below.
5.2 Determining the infiltration capacity

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.
The new Valkenburg design formula reads as follows:

Qout (t ) = kC gw i (t ) Afc (t )
(5.18)

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.
5.2.1 The hydraulic conductivity

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.
5.2.2 The groundwater coefficient

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.
5.2.3 The hydraulic gradient

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:

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
Figure 22 Schematisation of 2D infiltration
5.2.4 The infiltrating area

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)

Where:
Ainf= infiltrating area in facility [L2]
l = length of facility [L]
w = width of facility [L]
h = height of facility [L]
5.3 Determining the dimensions

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.
5.3.1 Emptying time

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:
temptying = tempty - tfull
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.
5.4 Testing the refined design method

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

• Clogged bottom ratio

• Varying hydraulic conductivity
The design methods were compared on each of these aspects in figure similar to those of section
4.1.
5.4.1 Groundwater level

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
Influence groundw ater level Influence groundwater level

80
35
70
30
60
Emptying time [h]

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 ]
Figure 23 Comparing design methods for varying groundwater level
5.4.2 Varying hydraulic conductivity

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.
Influence hydraulic conductivity Influence hydraulic conductivity

10000.00
100 Darcy co nstant
Darcy dynamic
Valkenburg
1000.00
Hydrus
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]
Figure 24 Comparing design methods for varying hydraulic conductivity

5.4.3 Varying side-bottom ratio

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.
Influence side bottom ratio Influence side/bottom ratio

40.00 160.00
Darcy co nstant
140.00 Darcy dynamic
35.00
Hydrus
30.00 120.00
Emptying time [h]

Valkenburg
25.00 100.00
Hydrus
20.00 Darcy dynamic 80.00
15.00 Darcy co nstant 60.00

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 [-]
Figure 25 Comparing design methods for varying side-bottom ratio
5.4.4 Varying clogged 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.
Influence clogged bottom Influence clogged bottom

80.00
35
Darcy dynamic
Darcy constant
Darcy co nstant 70.00 Darcy dynamic
30 Hydrus
Valkenburg
Emptying time [h]
60.00 Hydrus fully clogged

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 [ - ]
Figure 26 Comparing design methods for varying clogged bottom ratio
5.4.2 Measurements results

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.

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.
Comparing design methods to measurements

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]
Figure 27 Comparing design methods to measurements of the Horapark
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.
Q-h relation (filtered) compared to design methods

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]
Figure 28 Comparing design methods to Q-h relation of the Horapark

5.4.3 Design example

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.
Design guideline T = 2 year T = 5 year T = 10 year

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.

6. Conclusions & recommendations

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.
Conclusion drawn from identification of relevant processes influencing infiltration facilities:

• 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.
Conclusions drawn from the analysis of the current design method:

• 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.
Conclusions drawn from the model results and measurements:

• 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.
Conclusion related to the refined design method:

• 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

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).

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., Dichtslibben van infiltratievoorzieningen, Stichting RIONED, 2007
Boogaard, F.A. et al., Ondergrondse infiltratie van regenwater, Stichting RIONED, 2008
Bouwer, H., Groundwater hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978
Bouwer, H., Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering, Hydrogeology

Journal, 2002
Butler, D. & Davis, J., Urban Drainage, SPON Press, 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
Ferguson, B.K., Stormwater infiltration, CRC Press, 1994
Fujita S., Measures to promote stormwater infiltration, Water Science & Technology, 1997
Geiger, W., Neue Wege für das Regenwasser, Oldenbourg, 2001
Hartman, E.C., Monitoring Permeobuis, DHV Water BV, 2001
Hillel, D., Soil and Water, physical principles and processes, New York, academic press, 1971
Hillel, D., Environmental soil physics, Academic Press, 1998
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

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
Warrick, A.W., Soil Water Dynamics, Oxford University Press, 2003

Annexes
Annexes ii
Annex I Hydrus modelling graphs
60.00 B o tto m 0,25 m abo ve GWL

B o tto m 0,50 m abo ve GWL
Water level in the facility [cm]
50.00 B o tto m 0.75 m abo ve GWL

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]
Influence soil type
k = 0.1 m/d
Comparing Hydrus with design method for k = 0.1 m/d

60.00
Hydrus
Darcy dynamic
50.00 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
Tim e [d]
Annexes iii
k = 1 m/d
Comparing Hydrus with design method for k = 1 m/d

60.00
Hydrus
Darcy dynamic
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
Comparing Hydrus with design method for k = 5 m/d
60.00
Hydrus
Darcy dynamic
50.00
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
Influence shape of facility
Side/bottom ratio = 1:4
Comparing Hydrus with design method for side/bottom ratio 1/4
60.00
Hydrus
Darcy dynamic
50.00
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]
Comparing Hydrus with design method for side/bottom ratio of 1/1

120.00
Hydrus
Darcy dynamic
100.00
Darcy constant
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
Comparing Hydrus with design method for side/bottom ratio of 4/1
250.00
Hydrus
Darcy dynamic
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]
Influence initial moisture content
Influence moisture content

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
Influence clogged bottom
Influence clogged bottom

50.00
CB ratio 1:1
45.00 CB ratio 1:2
Pressure head in facility [cm]
40.00 CB ratio 1:4

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 of the water and soil
Influence temperature
60.00
Temperature = 2 ºC
Temperature = 8 ºC
50.00
Temperature = 14 ºC
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
Annex II Measuring plan in Ede (in Dutch)
Meetplan voor infiltratievoorzieningen in Ede
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
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
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
Samenvatting benodigde materieel en apparatuur:

- 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)
Algemene planning (onder voorbehoud)

- 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
Tekening meting zakput
Annexes xi
Tekening metingen krattensysteem
Annexes xii
Annex III Contacted stakeholders
A. The 90 emailed municipalities* for monitoring data

*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):
1. Achtkarspelen 32. Helden 62. Raalte

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
• TU Delft (various people)
Consultants
• Tauw (Floris Boogaard)
• DHV (various people)
Infiltration facility’s manufacturers

• Beuker Kunststoffen (Robert Stokkers)
• Dyka (Jasper Honingh)
• Wavin (Fokko Dijkstra & Louis Wildvank)
Annexes xiii
Annexes ii

MSC Thesis Rethinking The Design of Infiltration Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC Thesis Rethinking The Design of Infiltration Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rethinking the design of infiltration facilities

Master of Science Thesis

Leon Adrianus Valkenburg

Delft University of Technology

Faculty of Geosciences and Civil Engineering

Section of Water Resources Management

Prof.dr.ir. N.C. van de Giesen - TU Delft

Dr.ir. F.H.M. van de Ven - TU Delft/Deltares

Ir. J.A.E. ten Veldhuis - TU Delft

Ir. E.C. Hartman – DHV

April the 24th, 2009

The functioning of infiltration facilities is affected by three main processes:

Rioolsystemen hebben tegenwoordig te maken met twee problemen: wateroverlast en

De werking van infiltratievoorzieningen wordt vooral beïnvloed door drie processen:

Tijdens dit onderzoek zijn vier ontwerpmethoden voor infiltratievoorzieningen geanalyseerd. De

De aannames en onzekerheden in de berekening van de infiltratiecapaciteit zijn op twee

Op basis van het modelleren en meten van infiltratievoorzieningen is de ontwerpmethode verfijnd.

Preface ............................................................................................................................. III

Executive summary .............................................................................................................. V

Table of contents ...............................................................................................................VII

2. Processes influencing infiltration facilities............................................................................ 4

3. Current design practice ................................................................................................... 11

4. Studying the infiltration capacity...................................................................................... 15

5. Refining the design methodology..................................................................................... 29

6. Conclusions & recommendations...................................................................................... 37

Figure 1 Consequences of sewer overloading: pluvial flooding and CSO’s .................................. 1

Table 1 Comparing design rainfall methods ............................................................................ 5

Figure 1 Consequences of sewer overloading: pluvial flooding and CSO’s

1.2 Infiltration facilities

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 1

Figure 2 An infiltration facility

Figure 3 Types of infiltration facilities

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 2

1.3 Scope of this research

1.4 Research question

1.5 Research method

1.6 Readers guide

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 3

2. Processes influencing infiltration facilities

2.1 Urban runoff

In table 1 three methods are compared on the 5 aspects mentioned before.

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 4

Type of design rainfall

2.1.2 Runoff generation

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 5

2.2 The infiltration capacity

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 6

2.2.1 Darcy’s description of groundwater flow

2.2.2 Deriving Richards’ equation

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 7

Tindall et al.(1999) use K dependent on θ, because potential hysteresis due to ψm is then

Adding ψm in the form of h to the hydraulic gradient H= h+z leads to:

2.2.3 Applying Richards’ equation

2.2.4 Simplifications of Richards’ equation

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 8

Figure 6 Green-Ampt schematisation of infiltration

Bouwer (1978) presented the following form of the Green-Ampt equation:

2.2.5 Temperature effect

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 9

2.3.1 The clogging process

2.3.2 Quantifying clogging

MSc Thesis Leon Valkenburg 10

3. Current design practice