Final Research Report

Research Project Agreement No. Y8265

Implementation of Infiltration Ponds Research

A DESIGN MANUAL FOR SIZING INFILTRATION PONDS

by

Joel W. Massmann
6520 East Mercer Way
Mercer Island, Washington 98040

Washington State Department of Transportation

Technical Monitor
Tony Allen
State Geotechnical Engineer

Prepared for

Washington State Transportation Commission

Department of Transportation
and in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

October 2003
 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

WA-RD 578.2
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE

A DESIGN MANUAL FOR SIZING INFILTRATION PONDS October 2003

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

Joel Massmann
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

Joel Massmann
6520 East Mercer Way Contract no. Y8265
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

Research Office Design Manual for

Washington State Department of Transportation Final Research Report
Transportation Building, MS 47370
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Olympia, Washington 98504-7370
Keith Anderson, Project Manager, 360-709-5405
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
16. ABSTRACT
Stormwater infiltration facilities help reduce the hydrologic impacts of residential and commercial
development. The design of these facilities is particularly challenging because of large uncertainties associated
with predictions of both short-term and long-term infiltration rates. This manual describes step-by-step
procedures for collecting and analyzing data and information needed to size infiltration ponds. The procedures
were developed recognizing that the performance of infiltration facilities depends upon a combination of near-
surface soil characteristics, subsurface geology, groundwater conditions, and pond geometry. The manual
focuses on infiltration ponds located in unconsolidated geologic materials.

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Stormwater infiltration facilities, infiltration rates, No restrictions. This document is available to the
full-scale infiltration tests, stormwater infiltration public through the National Technical Information
design Service, Springfield, VA 22616
19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this report) 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (of this page) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE

None None
 DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Washington State Transportation Commission,
Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does
not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

iii
iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Performance Objectives ....................................................................................... 2
1.2 Manual Format.................................................................................................... 3

2 STEPS FOR SIZING INFILTRATION FACILITIES .............................................. 4

2.1 Estimate the volume of stormwater that must be infiltrated by the proposed or
planned facility ............................................................................................... 4
2.2 Choose a trial geometry and estimate depth in the pond .................................. 6
2.3 Perform subsurface site characterization and data collection ........................... 7
2.4 Estimate saturated hydraulic conductivity from soil information, laboratory
tests, or field measurements ............................................................................ 7
2.4.1 Estimate values based on grain size information........................................ 7
2.4.2 Estimate values based on laboratory tests................................................... 9
2.4.3 Estimate values based on field tests............................................................ 9
2.4.4 Incorporate hydraulic conductivity estimates for layered soil.................... 10
2.5 Estimate the hydraulic gradient ..................................................................... 11
2.6 Estimate the infiltration rate by multiplying gradient and hydraulic
conductivity..................................................................................................... 17
2.7 Apply correction factors for biofouling, siltation, and pond geometry .......... 17
2.8 Design approaches for single-event hydrographs ........................................... 21
2.9 Design approaches for continuous hydrographs ............................................ 22
2.10 Consider computer simulations to refine design ............................................. 23
2.11 Post design-evaluations.................................................................................... 24

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... 25

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 25

APPENDICES

A Methods for conducting and analyzing full-scale infiltration tests

B Example calculations using the suggested design approach

v
 TABLES

Table Page
1 Example water quality performance objectives for infiltration facilities 27
2 WDOE requirements for subsurface characterization at infiltration facilities
(from WDOE, 2001) ............................................................................... 28
3 Comparison of methods for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity values
for unconsolidated soils above the water table approximation .............. 30
4 Example calculations for equivalent hydraulic conductivity using the Hazen
approximation ........................................................................................ 31
5 Modeled infiltration rates for different water table elevations (from Massmann
et al., 2003) ............................................................................................. 32
6 Infiltration rate reduction factors to account for effects of biofouling and
siltation (from Massmann et al., 2003) .................................................. 33
7 Infiltration rates for different pond perimeters (from Massmann et al., 2003) 33
8 Recommended infiltration rates based on USDA soil textural classification
(from Table 3.7 in Vol. III and Table 7.1 in Vol. V, WDOE, 2001) ..... 33
9 Recommended infiltration rates based on ASTM gradation testing (from Table
3.8 in Vol. III and Table 7.2 in Vol. V, WDOE, 2001) ......................... 34
10 Correction factors to be used with in-situ infiltration measurements to estimate
long-term design infiltration rates (from Table 3.9 in Vol. III and Table 7.3 in
Vol. V, WDOE, 2001) ........................................................................... 34

FIGURES

Figure Page
1 Flow chart summarizing design approach .............................................. 35
2 Example single-event hydrograph used for infiltration pond design ..... 36
3 Definition of variables used in the Green-Ampt equation (Equation 2.6). 36
4 Comparison of gradients for ponds calculated using Equation (2.5) with
gradients simulated using computer models (from Massmann et al. 2003). 37
5 Comparison of gradients for trenches calculated using Equation (2.5) with
gradients simulated using computer models (from Massmann et al. 2003). 38
6 Comparison of small scale, short-term infiltrometer tests with long-term, full-
scale observations (Massmann et al., 2003)............................................ 39

vi
 1 INTRODUCTION
Storm water infiltration facilities are used to reduce the hydrologic impacts of
residential and commercial development. Increased runoff caused by impervious
surfaces within these developments may destabilize stream channels and may degrade or
destroy fish and wildlife habitat. Impervious surfaces also prevent rain and snowmelt
from seeping into the ground and recharging streams, wetlands, and aquifers. Infiltration
facilities, such as ponds, dry wells, infiltration galleries, and swales, are designed to
capture and retain runoff and allow it to infiltrate rather than to discharge directly to
surface water. Important benefits of groundwater infiltration facilities include reducing
surface-runoff volume, reducing pollutant discharge, reducing thermal impacts on
fisheries, increasing groundwater recharge, and augmenting low-flow stream conditions.

The design of infiltration facilities is particularly challenging because of the large

uncertainties associated with predictions of both short-term and long-term infiltration
rates. These uncertainties in infiltration rates translate into uncertainties in the area and
volume that are required for infiltration ponds. There are economic penalties for both
under-designed and over-designed facilities. Under-sized ponds may result in flooding,
while over-sized ponds may be inefficient in terms of land use and expensive in terms of
property acquisition.

This manual describes step-by-step procedures for collecting and analyzing data
and information needed to size infiltration ponds. The procedures were developed
recognizing that the performance of infiltration facilities depends upon a combination of
near-surface soil characteristics, subsurface geology, groundwater conditions, and pond
geometry. The manual focuses on infiltration ponds located in unconsolidated geologic
materials. The performance of ponds or other infiltration facilities in geologic
environments comprised of fractured rock are not considered. The manual does not
directly consider water quality issues in terms of fate and transport of constituents within
the stormwater runoff. It focuses on estimating the rate at which this stormwater will
infiltrate into the subsurface, and not on chemical and biological processes that may
affect groundwater water quality.

1
 The approaches described below are aimed at developing design
recommendations and at identifying situations in which more sophisticated approaches
are likely warranted or recommended. The approaches are intended to provide
complementary or equivalent alternatives to the approaches described in the WDOE
manual (2001).

1.1 Performance Objectives

This manual considers analytical techniques and approaches for sizing infiltration
ponds to meet the performance objectives specified in Volumes III and V of the
Washington Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual (WDOE, 2001).
The performance objectives for infiltration facilities described in the WDOE manual are
based on two primary considerations: a water quality consideration related to how
quickly the pond empties after a storm event and a water quantity consideration related to
the magnitude of overflow from the facility if the facility includes overflow features or
design components (WDOE, 2001, Vol. III, page 3-73). For the water quality
consideration related to how quickly the pond empties, the infiltration facility must be
designed to drain completely within 24 hours after the flow to it has stopped. This
requirement is aimed at preventing anaerobic (low-oxygen) conditions from developing
in and beneath the infiltration facility. According to the WDOE manual (WDOE, 2001,
Vol. III, page 3-73), these anaerobic conditions can foster the growth of bacteria and may
contribute to soil clogging and fouling. It should be noted that growth of bacteria and
subsequent clogging and fouling can also be controlled through a well-designed and
fully-implemented maintenance program.

The performance objective for water quantity considerations relates to overflow

from infiltration facilities. Minimum Technical Requirement #7 (MTR #7) in the WDOE
Stormwater Management Model (Volume I, Chapter 2, page 2-31) specifies that
stormwater discharges to streams must mimic certain aspects of pre-developed
conditions. Both the duration of stormwater flows and the peak discharge rates for a

2
specified set of selected storms must be the same for post-development conditions as they
were for pre-development conditions. In some cases, infiltration ponds are designed with
an overflow that discharges to streams. In these cases, the rate of overflow will depend to
some degree on infiltration rates. If infiltration rates are too low, the overflow rates may
become large enough to cause violations of MTR #7.

The techniques and procedures described in this manual are not only applicable to
infiltration ponds designed to meet the WDOE performance requirements. These
techniques can be used to help size infiltration ponds for any project where a design
objective is to infiltrate a prescribed amount of water in a prescribed amount of time.
This type of performance objective is often used by state and federal agencies, as
summarized in Table 1.

1.2 Manual Format

The format used in this manual is focused on a step-by-step methodology that is

illustrated in Figure 1. The look-up tables and graphs are generally based on the results
described in Massmann et al. (2003). The computer simulations used in Massmann et al.
(2003) are loosely based on the Lacy Lid facility in Thurston County, Washington. This
facility, which is described in Wiltsie (1998), was not chosen because it represents a
particularly good or a particularly poor design example. Rather, it is typical of facilities
in western Washington in terms of size, performance, and availability of data.

Methods for conducting full-scale infiltration tests and for evaluating the data
from these tests are described in Appendix A. Appendix B includes example calculations
for estimating infiltration rates using the design approach and equations described in this
manual.

3
 2 STEPS FOR SIZING INFILTRATION FACILITIES

The steps described below are aimed at achieving two main objectives. The first
objective is to describe procedures used to develop designs for infiltration facilities.
These designs will include recommendations for the size and shape of infiltration ponds
or infiltration trenches. The second objective is to help identify situations in which more
refined and sophisticated analyses should be brought to bear in the design process. These
more sophisticated analyses may include additional field or laboratory tests and more
realistic analytical tools including analytical groundwater flow models and computer
simulations.

2.1 Estimate the volume of stormwater that must be infiltrated by the proposed or
planned facility

The volume of stormwater that must be infiltrated and the rate at which this must
occur are generally specified by local, regional, or state requirements. In many cases, the
volume and required rates of discharge are controlled by both water quality and water
quantity concerns, as introduced in Section 1. Although the methods for estimating the
stormwater volume is beyond the scope of this manual, it is useful to recognize the
general ways in which this stormwater volume or discharge can be described.

There are three primary ways in which the stormwater discharges are generally
described: 1) a single-value or fixed volume of runoff water, 2) a single-event or single-
storm runoff hydrograph (i.e. runoff volume versus time), and 3) a continuous
hydrograph that considers multiple events or storms over some longer period of time.
The first and most simple way of describing stormwater discharge is as a total volume of
water that much be infiltrated in a prescribed period of time. This is the approach that is
generally used for water quality considerations related to how quickly the pond empties.
Table 1 describes time requirements used by different state and federal agencies. For
example, the WDOE design requirement that the pond empty within 24 hours focuses on
the runoff that is generated by a storm that is defined as the 24-hour storm with a 6-
month return frequency (a.k.a., 6-month, 24-hour storm). (Note: For areas in western

4
Washington, the 6-month, 24-hour storm can be estimated as 72% of the 2-year, 24-hour
rainfall amount.). The volume of run-off from this storm that is discharged to the
infiltration facility is often determined using a “curve-number” method that relates a land
area's total runoff volume to the precipitation it receives and to its natural storage
capacity. This approach is described in Volume III, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2 of the
WDOE manual (2001). The important thing to note about this approach is that it results
in a single number that represents the total volume of water that will be discharged to the
stormwater facility, denoted as Vdesign in the sections below.

The second method for describing stormwater discharges is the single-event or

single-storm runoff hydrograph. The hydrograph describes the volume of runoff versus
time for some specified precipitation event. An example single-event hydrograph for a 6-
month, 24 hour storm in Western Washington is included Figure 2. The single-event
hydrograph method is used primarily for calculations aimed at insuring that the pond
empties within 24 hours. For example, the WDOE stormwater manual (2001) describes
the Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph (SBUH) method for estimating the hydrograph from
the 6-month, 24-hour storm. This description is included in Volume III, Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.2 of the WDOE manual (2001). Because the unit hydrograph approach
results in a time-series of inflows to the infiltration facility, spreadsheet solutions are
generally required to account for the balances between time-dependent inflow, outflow,
infiltration rates, and pond storage changes. These time-varying conditions generally
preclude more simple designed approaches that are based on tables or graphs. (For
example, Akan (2002) gives solutions for time-dependent infiltration rates that result
from time-varying inflow rates and subsurface saturation conditions).

The third and most involved method for describing stormwater discharges uses a
continuous hydrograph that considers the runoff from multiple events or storms over
some longer period of time. This approach generally requires a computer-based rainfall-
runoff model, such as the WSDOT’s MGSFLOOD model, U.S. EPA’s HSPF model or
the Danish Hydraulic Institute’s MIKE SHE model. The continuous runoff hydrographs
that result from these models can be used to design infiltration facilities if they are linked

5
with some approach for estimating infiltration rates. In the most general case, these
infiltration rates will change with time during the storm event. These transient infiltration
rates can be estimated using computer-based groundwater flow models such as USGS’s
MODFLOW. The continuous runoff hydrographs can also be linked with more simple
approaches for estimating infiltration rates, including the steady-state rates described
below. It should be noted, however, that these steady-state rates may over- or under-
estimate actual time-dependent rates, depending upon site-specific conditions. The
continuous-hydrograph approach is generally required to meet water quantity
requirements if the infiltration pond is designed with an overflow system that discharges
to a stream or surface water body. This method is described in Section 2.2 and
Appendix III-B of Volume III of the WDOE manual (2001).

2.2 Choose a trial geometry and estimate depth in the pond

The methodology described below for estimating infiltration rates is based on

regression equations to estimate gradients. These equations depend upon the size of the
pond, Apond, and upon the depth of water in the pond, Dpond. Larger ponds result in
smaller gradients and deeper ponds result in higher gradients. This dependency
introduces some difficulty or complications into the design process because the gradient
is needed to select the size of the pond and the size of the pond is needed to estimate the
gradient. An iterative approach is recommended, wherein a trial pond size and depth are
assumed, perhaps based on experience at similar sites. The design approach described
below can then be used to check the trial design. After the design has been fully
developed, the trial pond size should be compared to the design pond calculated below
and revised as necessary.

The initial trial geometry, including length, width, and depth of the facility, will
generally be based on the characteristics of the property or site that is proposed for the
infiltration facility. Computer simulations and observations suggest that elongated
facilities with a larger fraction of side area to bottom area may result in higher infiltration
rates. Facilities that result in deeper water depths within the facilities also result in higher
infiltration rates. If possible, trial geometries should reflect these results. The volume of

6
the infiltration facility for trial geometry should be based on the design volume, Vdesign,
described in Section 2.1. The margin or factor safety that is used in this calculation
should reflect the site-specific consequences that would occur if the actual stormwater
volume exceeds the design volume.

2.3 Perform subsurface site characterization and data collection

The WDOE (2001) stormwater manual includes recommendations for subsurface

site characterization and data collection activities that are relevant for the design
procedures described in this manual. These recommendations are summarized in Table
2. The WDOE recommendations related to depths of soil borings or test pits should be
viewed as minimum requirements. The results of computer simulations described in
Massmann et al. (2003) suggest that relatively deep features in the subsurface may affect
the performance of infiltration ponds and trenches. The identification of small-scale
layering and stratigraphy can be particularly important in terms of the potential for
groundwater mounding. Continuous and careful sampling is recommended to depths at
least as large as the WDOE requirements.

2.4 Estimate saturated hydraulic conductivity from soil information, laboratory

tests, or field measurements

A variety of methods can be used to estimate saturated hydraulic conductivity.

These methods, which are summarized below, include estimates based on grain size
information, laboratory permeameter tests, air conductivity measurements, infiltrometer
tests, and pilot infiltration tests. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of these
various methods are summarized in Table 3.

2.4.1 Estimate values based on grain size information

Given the requirements for soil sampling and grain size analyses summarized in
Table 2, saturated hydraulic conductivity estimates should be developed based on grain
size distributions for all layers encountered during the site characterization phase. These
estimates from soil gradation data are more reliable than estimates based solely on USDA
soil type.

7
 A variety of methods are available for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity
values from grain size information. One of the most simple and most commonly used
approaches is the Hazen equation:

K s = Cd102 (2.1)

where Ks is the saturated hydraulic conductivity, C is a conversion coefficient, and d10 is

the grain size for which 10% of the sample is more fine (10% of the soil particles have
grain diameters smaller than d10). For Ksat in units of cm/s and for D10 in units of mm,
the coefficient, C, is approximately 1.

A second approach for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivities for soils

typical of western Washington was proposed by Massmann et al. (2003):

log10 ( K s ) = -1.57 + 1.90d10 + 0.015d 60 - 0.013d90 - 2.08f fines (2.2)

where Ks is in units of cm/sec, d60 and d90 are the grain sizes in mm for which 60% and
90% of the sample is more fine and ffines is the fraction of the soil (by weight) that passes
the number-200 sieve. This approach is based on a comparison of hydraulic conductivity
estimates from air permeability tests with grain size characteristics. Other regression
relationships between saturated hydraulic conductivity and grain size distributions are
available from the literature (e.g. Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Fetter, 1994; Rawls et al.,
1982; Rawls and Brakensiek, 1985).

Grain size samples can also be used to estimate hydraulic conductivity through air
conductivity tests (Massmann et al., 2003) using the following relationship:

K s = C f K air (2.3)

The correction factor Cf, is dependent upon the viscosity and density of air and water. If
the air conductivity is measured at laboratory temperatures, and if the hydraulic

8
conductivity is also for laboratory temperatures, then the correction factor is equal to 15.
This is based on an assumed laboratory temperature of 20° C. If the air conductivity is
measured at laboratory temperatures, and if the hydraulic conductivity is for field
temperatures, then the correction factor is approximately 11.5. This is based on an
assumed field temperature of 10° C. A simple apparatus for estimating air conductivity
from grain size samples is described in Massmann and Johnson (2001) and Massmann et
al. (2003).

It should be noted that the estimates given by equations (2.1) through (2.3) should be
viewed as “order-of-magnitude” estimates. If measurements of hydraulic conductivity
are available from laboratory or field tests (as described in sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3), these
data should be weighed more heavily in selecting values of hydraulic conductivity for
design purposes.

2.4.2 Estimate values based on laboratory tests

The grain size methods described in the previous section will give order-of-
magnitude estimates for hydraulic conductivity for soils that are relatively coarse-grained
(sands and some silty sands). For more fine-grained soils, these methods are prone to
significant error. Laboratory saturated hydraulic conductivity tests are recommended for
fine-grained soils or whenever feasible. These tests should be conducted on samples that
are compacted to a density similar to what is anticipated for actual subsurface conditions.
Fixed-head and falling-head tests using both rigid-wall and flexible-wall permeameters
are commonly used in the geotechnical laboratories. If this type of data is available, it
should be considered in the design process.

2.4.3 Estimate values based on field tests

If data from field tests of saturated hydraulic conductivity are available, these
should be considered in the design. These field tests typically include single-ring and
double-ring infiltrometer tests or pilot infiltration tests (PIT) similar to what is described
in Appendix V-B in Volume V of the WDOE stormwater manual (2001).

9
 Recent developments have also shown that field-tests of air conductivity can also
be used to estimate saturated hydraulic conductivity values, in much the same way as
laboratory tests. Descriptions of these types of field tests are included in Iverson et al
(2001a and 2001b), Fish and Koppi (1994), Liang et al. (1996), and Seyfried and
Murdock (1997).

2.4.4 Incorporate hydraulic conductivity estimates for layered soils.

In many cases, estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity values are derived from
discrete soil samples collected from several depths at several different horizontal
locations beneath each of the infiltration ponds. The goal should be to collect at least one
sample from each discrete layer at each horizontal location. Table 4 gives an example of
how the data from these multiple samples can be combined to obtain a single “effective”
or “equivalent” hydraulic conductivity estimate for an infiltration facility. Soil samples
were collected at four different horizontal locations at the example site. At three of these
horizontal locations, samples were collected from three different layers. At the fourth
location, samples were collected from only two different layers. Hydraulic conductivity
values were estimated for each soil sample using the Hazen equation. Hydraulic
conductivity estimates from different layers at a single horizontal location can be
combined using the harmonic mean:
d
K equiv = (2.4)
d
∑ Ki
i

where d is the total depth of the soil column, di is the thickness of layer “i” in the soil
column, and Ki is the saturated hydraulic conductivity of layer “i” in the soil column.

The depth of the soil column, d, would typically include all layers between the
pond bottom and the water table. However, for sites with very deep water tables (> 100
feet) where groundwater mounding to the base of the pond is not likely to occur, it is
recommended that the total depth of the soil column in Equation 2.4 be limited to
approximately 20 times the depth of pond. This is to insure that the most important and
relevant layers are included in the hydraulic conductivity calculations. Deep layers that

10
are not likely to affect the infiltration rate near the pond bottom should not be included in
Equation 2.4.

The harmonic mean given by equation (2.4) is the appropriate effective hydraulic
conductivity for flow that is perpendicular to stratigraphic layers (Freeze and Cherry,
1979). For the example site, these harmonic means range from 6 in/hr for locations 1 and
4 to 12 in/hr for location 3, as shown in the last column in Table 4. The harmonic means
for each horizontal location are then averaged to obtain a single estimated hydraulic
conductivity for each infiltration pond. This average is equal to 8.7 in/hr for the example
site.

The approach described by Equation (2.4) and shown in Table 4 is applicable for
combining hydraulic conductivity estimates that are derived from a variety of methods,
including grain size analyses, laboratory tests, and field tests. When combining these
values, it is important to recognize the layer or which for which the test is relevant.

2.5 Estimate the hydraulic gradient

The infiltration rate from a pond or trench is given by the product of the saturated
hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient. The hydraulic gradient describes the
driving forces that cause flow from the infiltration facility. The two primary forces are
gravity and capillary suction. The relative importance of these forces and the subsequent
gradient depends upon a variety of factors, including duration of the infiltration event,
local and regional geology, and depth to groundwater.

In general, there are two cases or end-points for estimating gradients. One end-
point is sites with relatively shallow groundwater and the second is sites with relatively
deep groundwater. For those sites with thick unsaturated zones, infiltration can be
approximated by the Green-Ampt equation (e.g. Chin, 2000). This approach assumes
ponded water at the ground surface and a wetting front that extends to some depth, L.
The wetting front is assumed to move downward as a sharp interface. The soil is
assumed saturated above the wetting front (the water content is assumed equal to the

11
porosity). The water content below the wetting front is assumed equal to some lower
initial value. The gradient is approximated by the following expression:

D pond + L + hwf
gradient ≈ (2.5)
L

where Dpond is the depth of water in the pond or infiltration facility, L is the depth of the
wetting front below the bottom of the pond, and hwf is the average capillary head at the
wetting front, with units of length. For infiltration ponds and trenches, the average
capillary head, hwf, will be small relative to the depth of water in the facility and the depth
of the wetting front so this term can be dropped from equation (2.5).

The term “L” in equation (2.5) represents the depth of the wetting front. Because
this changes with time as water infiltrates at the ground surface, the gradient also changes
with time. The gradient will start out at some value significantly greater than 1 and will
approach 1 as the wetting front moves downward. For most infiltration events, the
gradient will reach a value of 1 relatively quickly as compared to the duration of the
event (e.g. Massmann et al., 2003). A gradient of 1 would be appropriate for these cases.
For very short infiltration events or for soils that are relatively fine-grained (e.g. sandy
loam), a gradient of 1.5 may be justified.

For the shallow groundwater sites, the possibility of groundwater mounding must
be considered in designing infiltration facilities. This mounding will reduce the hydraulic
gradient to a value that is often significantly less than 1.0, and the infiltration rate may be
much less than the saturated hydraulic conductivity. This is a very important concept and
one that is overlooked in design approaches in which infiltration rates are estimated
solely on the basis of soil types or saturated hydraulic conductivity estimates. It should
be noted that mounding may also result if perched water-table conditions occur due to
low-permeability layers beneath site and above the water table. (In very general terms, a
layer would be characterized as “low-permeability” in this context if the estimated
hydraulic conductivity of the layer is less than 10% of the hydraulic conductivity
assigned to the overlying materials and if the hydraulic conductivity of this layer is less

12
than the infiltration rate from the pond. As a first approximation, a layer could be
characterized as low permeability in this context if it is less than 0.5 inches per hour and
if it is less than 10% of the overlying materials.)

For deep groundwater sites, where the effects of mounding will generally be
small, the gradient will not typically be reduced by infiltration from the facility. For
these deep sites, the gradient will be approximately equal to 1.0, as described by the
Green-Ampt equation. The approach described below uses regression equations to
estimate the hydraulic gradient. These equations were developed based on computer
simulations described in Massmann et al. (2003) for sites where water table mounds will
develop. These regression equations can also be applied to sites with deep groundwater
by limiting the gradient to a maximum value of 1.0.

Massmann et al. (2003) report the results of computer simulations that were based
on the geometry and observed geology beneath the Lacey-Lid infiltration pond in
Thurston County, Wash. as described in the Water Resources Investigations Report 92-
4109 (Drost et al., 1999). Based on the results of these computer simulations, the
effective gradient under steady-state conditions beneath a medium-sized infiltration
facility can be approximated with the following expression:

Dwt + D pond
gradient = i ≈ CFsize (2.6)
138.62( K 0.1 )

where K is saturated hydraulic conductivity in feet/day, Dwt is the depth in feet from the
base of the infiltration facility to the water table or to the first low-permeability layer, and
Dpond is the depth of water in the pond, in feet. The regression equation given above was
developed using computer simulations for ponds with infiltration rates that ranged from
0.2 to 20 inches per hour (saturated K values from 1.5 to 150 in/hour). The data that
were used to develop the regression equation given by Equation 2.6 and the approach
used to select the form of the equation are described in Massmann et al. (2003) and
summarized in Table 5.

13
 The correction for pond size, CFsize, is given by the following expression:

CFsize = 0.73( Apond ) −0.76 (2.7)

where
CFsize = correction factor for size of the pond
Apond = area of the pond bottom in acres

This expression for correction factor was developed for ponds with bottom areas between
0.6 and 6 acres in size. Figure 3 shows the relationship between Equation (2.7) and the
calculated correction factor based on computer simulations. For small ponds (ponds with
area equal to 2/3 acre), the correction factor is equal to 1.0. For large ponds (ponds with
area equal to 6 acres), the correction factor is 0.2.

Massmann et al. (2003) also report the results of computer simulations for
infiltration trenches in which the length dimension is much larger than the width. Based
on the results of these computer simulations, the effective gradient under steady-state
conditions beneath an infiltration trench can be approximated with the following
expression:
Dwt + Dtrench
gradient = i ≈ (2.8)
78( K 0.05 )

where K is saturated hydraulic conductivity in feet/day, Dwt is the depth in feet from the
base of the infiltration trench to the water table or to the first low-permeability layer, and
Dtrench is the depth of water in the trench, in feet. The regression equation given by
Equation 2.8 was developed using computer simulations for trenches with infiltration
rates that ranged from 0.2 to 20 inches per hour (saturated K values from 1.5 to 150
in/hour), as described in Massmann et al. (2003). There is no correction factor required
for trench size.

14
 The relationships given in Equation 2.6 and 2.8 are based on estimates of
infiltration rates derived from the computer simulations presented in Massmann et al.
(2003). These relationships were derived by estimating infiltration rates as a function of
depth to groundwater using the computer model. The results of these computer
simulations allowed a relationship to be developed between the infiltration rate and the
depth to groundwater. As the depth to groundwater was decreased in the computer
model, the infiltration rate also decreased. This observed relationship can be incorporated
into Darcy’s law through the gradient term. As the depth to groundwater decreases, the
gradient also decreases. Equations 2.6 and 2.8 provide estimates for relating the depth to
groundwater and the gradient.

Figure 4 compares the gradients for ponds estimated using Equation (2.6) with the
gradients calculated using the model. The data shown with circles is the data used to
develop Equation (2.6), as described in Massmann et al. (2003). Additional computer
simulations were then conducted using larger ponds and ponds with deeper water tables
to evaluate the robustness of the regression equation. The open squares show the results
of this verification. The data and computer models used in the regressions are more fully
described in Massmann et al. (2003). Figure 4 shows that the regression equation
provides very good estimates of the modeled systems with gradients less than
approximately 0.2. The equation also provides reasonable estimates for gradients for
systems with deeper water tables. Furthermore, the regression equation is conservative
for the deep water table ponds in that the estimated gradients are smaller than the model
predictions. Figure 5 compares gradients for trenches calculated using Equation 2.8 with
the gradients calculated using the model. These results also show that the regression
equation provides good estimates of the modeled systems with gradients less than
approximately 0.3.

It is important to note that the relationships described in Equations (2.6) through

(2.8) are approximations that were derived from a set of computer simulations for a
particular facility in a particular hydrogeologic system. It is believed that these equations
are representative of facilities at sites where the depth to groundwater is from several feet

15
to approximately 100 feet. For systems deeper than 100 feet, where the Green-Ampt
equation will provide a better representation of the infiltration processes, a gradient of 1.0
is recommended in lieu of the gradients given by Equations (2.6) and (2.8).

It should also be noted that Equations (2.6) and (2.8) do not incorporate the
effects of perched water tables that result beneath the infiltration facility. Under some
hydrogeologic conditions, water-table mounding may occur above low-permeability
layers that lie above the “normal” or regional water table. This mounding can result in an
unsaturated zone between the saturated, perched water and the normal or regional water
table. Under these conditions, the appropriate depth that should be used in Equations
(2.6) and (2.8) is not the depth to the regional water table, but rather the depth to the low-
permeability layer that may cause perched conditions. In very general terms, a layer
could be characterized as “low-permeability” in this context if the estimated hydraulic
conductivity of the layer is less than 10% of the hydraulic conductivity assigned to the
overlying materials and if the hydraulic conductivity of this layer is less than the
infiltration rate from the pond. As a first approximation, a layer could be characterized as
low permeability in this context if it is less than 0.5 inches per hour and if it is less than
10% of the overlying materials.

Equation (2.6) shows that the gradient depends upon the size of the pond, Apond,
upon the depth of water in the pond, Dpond. Larger ponds result in smaller gradients and
deeper ponds result in higher gradients. This introduces some difficulty in that the
gradient is needed to select the size of the pond and the size of the pond is needed to
estimate the gradient. An iterative approach is recommended, wherein a trial pond size
and depth is assumed, perhaps based on experience in similar sites. The trial pond size is
used in Equation (2.7) to get a pond correction factor and the depth of water is used in
Equation (2.6) to estimate the gradient. The trial pond size should be compared to the
actual pond size calculated below to determine if a revised correction factor is required.

2.6 Estimate the infiltration rate by multiplying gradient and hydraulic

conductivity.

16
 Based on Darcy’s law, the infiltration rate can be estimated by multiplying the
saturated hydraulic conductivity from Section 2.4 with the hydraulic gradient determined
in section 2.5:
⎛ dh ⎞
f = K ⎜ ⎟ = Ki (2.9)
⎝ dz ⎠
where f is the specific discharge or infiltration rate of water through a unit cross-section
of the infiltration facility (L/t), K is the hydraulic conductivity (L/t), dh/dz is the
hydraulic gradient (L/L), and “i” is a “short-hand” notation for the gradient (given by
Equation (2.6) or (2.8) for ponds and trenches at sites with shallow water tables, or a
value of approximately 1 for ponds and trenches at sites with deep water tables).

2.7 Apply correction factors for biofouling, siltation, and pond geometry

The infiltration rate given in Equation (2.9) was developed assuming that the
hydraulic conductivity of the soil beneath the infiltration facility will remain equal to the
value measured in the field or laboratory tests or estimated using soil information.
Depending upon the level of pre-treatment and the maintenance program that is put in
place at the facility, the long-term infiltration rates may be reduced significantly by
factors such as siltation and biofouling. Siltation is more likely to occur if there is not
sufficient pre-treatment of the storm water or in locations where the drainage basin is
prone to erosion because of recent land disturbances or steep slopes. Biofouling is more
likely to occur if the pond is located beneath trees and other vegetation or in shaded
locations.

If effective pre-treatment and reliable long-term maintenance cannot be

guaranteed, the infiltration rates used in Equation 2.9 should be reduced. Table 6 gives
infiltration rate reduction factors to account for biofouling and siltation effects for
infiltration ponds and trenches. These factors, which are somewhat subjective, were
developed based on the field observations and computer simulations reported by
Massmann et al (2003). The infiltration rates calculated using Equation (2.9) should be

17
multiplied by these correction factors to account for the effects of siltation and
biofouling.

Although siltation and biofouling may be less prevalent in infiltration trenches as

compared to infiltration ponds, field data have not been collected that would allow
correction factors to be estimated for these trenches. The conservative approach would
be to use the same correction factors for trenches as for ponds. However, the computer
simulation results described in Massmann et al. (2003) suggest that reductions in
hydraulic conductivity due to bottom clogging from siltation and biofouling may have
relatively small effects on overall infiltration rates and gradients for trenches. This is
because of the larger amounts of lateral flow that occurs in trenches relative to ponds.
Reductions in vertical flow from the bottom of the trench are offset by increases in lateral
flow, particularly for trenches with deeper water levels. Based on these results, it may be
more appropriate to use correction factors that are included Column D in Table 6.

Computer simulations described in Massmann et al. (2003) also suggest that

ponds with large aspect ratios (defined as pond length divided by pond width) have
higher infiltration rates than ponds with lower aspect ratios. The data in Table 7 can be
used to develop an equation for correction factor that can be used to account for these
results:

CFaspect = 0.02 Aratio + 0.98 (2.10)

where Aratio is the aspect ratio for the pond (length/width). In no case should the
correction factor for aspect ratio be greater than 1.4.

The correction factors for siltation and biofouling and for aspect ratio are
multiplied by the infiltration rate given by Equation (2.9):

f corr = (CFsilt / bio )(CFaspect ) f = (CFsilt / bio )(CFaspect ) Ki (2.11)

18
where CFsilt/bio, is the correction factor for siltation and biofouling, CFaspect is the
correction factor for aspect ratio, and f is the “uncorrected” infiltration rate given by
Equation 2.9. (Note: The aspect ratio correction is not applied to trench configurations.)

Once an infiltration rate has been estimated using Equation (2.11), it should be
compared with rates from the literature, from design manuals, and from observations at
other similar facilities in similar hydrogeologic environments for verification purposes.
For example, the rates can be compared to those rates given in the WDOE stormwater
manual (see Tables 8 through 10 below). Table 8 gives rates that are based on USDA
soil type, Table 9 gives rates that are based on soil gradation analyses, and Table 10 gives
correction factors that are used to reduce infiltration rate estimates from field-scale tests,
including PIT tests.

In many instances, the infiltration rates estimated using Equation (2.11) will be
significantly larger than the rates given in Tables 8 through 10. The rates given in Tables
8 through 10 from the WDOE manual were developed based on observations at field sites
in western Washington. Many of these sites have reduced infiltration rates due to
maintenance and design issues, as described in Massmann et al. (2003) and Wiltsie
(1998). The rates in Tables 8 through 10 were also developed for sites with relatively
shallow water tables and will likely be overly conservative for sites with deep water
tables and thick unsaturated zones. Figure 6 illustrates the range of values for infiltration
rates that can be expected based on maintenance and design practices. This figure
includes both the rates recommended in the WDOE manual and actual rates measured in
full scale facilities in Western Washington with shallow ground water. The shaded range
in this figure can be particularly useful for making the comparison described above.

The infiltration rates given by Equation (2.11) may, in fact, be larger or smaller
than the rates given in Tables 8 through 10 or in Figure 6 for reasons that are reality-
based. The important question is whether an explanation can be developed for the
differences. For example, if the value given by Equation (2.11) is for a site with coarse
gravel and a deep water table, it may be significantly larger than the rates in the figures,

19
tables, or other databases. Similarly, if the site is located in low-permeability materials
with a shallow water table and no pretreatment, the value from Equation (2.11) may be
smaller than previously-observed values.

Other safety factors could also be applied to the infiltration rate at this step in
exceptional circumstances to account for other uncertainties. It should be noted that
there are “built-in” safety factors in the methodology described above related to the
hydrologic analyses used to estimate the volume of infiltrated water, Vdesign. These safety
factors are related to the design storm that is used to generate runoff for the infiltration
facility. Additional safety factors are built into Table 6, as the factors provided in that
table were derived from the shallow ground water sites in Western Washington
mentioned previously. In effect, these factors were derived to yield similar results to
what is provided in Table 9 for the shallow ground water conditions from which the
values in Table 9 were derived. The WDOE manual specifies that the values in Table 9
may be used without the application of additional reduction or safety factors. The
method proposed herein (i.e., Equation 2.11) is consistent with this philosophy.

The infiltration rate given by Equation (2.11) can be combined with the gradient
equation given by Equation (2.6) to obtain a relationship between hydraulic conductivity,
gradient, and infiltration for infiltration ponds:

⎡ Dwt + D pond ⎤
Q ponds = KiA total ≈ K ⎢ 0.1
CFsize ⎥ (CFsilt / bio )(CFaspect ) Atotal (2.12)
⎣138.62( K ) ⎦
where, Atotal is as defined in Section 2.8.

A similar equation can be developed for trenches by combining Equations (2.8) and
(2.11):

⎡D + D ⎤
Q trench = KiA total ≈ K ⎢ wt 0.trench
05 ⎥ (CFsilt / bio ) Atrench (2.13)
⎣ 78( K ) ⎦
where, Atrench is the wetted area of the trench sides and bottom.

20
2.8 Design approaches for single-event hydrographs

In most cases, flow from the infiltration facilities will occur through both the sides
and the bottom of the facility. It may be useful in some instances to quantify the
magnitude of these two components in order to assess the effects of bottom plugging and
other maintenance issues. Based on observations and computer simulations described in
Massmann et al. (2003), horizontal flow from facilities may be significant and is sensitive
to the average depth of water during the infiltration event.

The total flow out the sides and bottom of the facility can be estimated to a first
approximation with the following expressions:

Q = Qsides + Qbottom = f corr ( Asides + Abottom ) = f corr ( Atotal ) (2.14)

where f is the infiltration rate of water through a unit cross-section of the infiltration
facility (L/t) estimated using Equation (2.11), Q is the volumetric flow rate (L3/t), Asides
and is the cross-sectional area of the submerged pond sides in a vertical plane, Abottom is
the cross-sectional area of the pond bottom in a horizontal plane, and Atotal is the total
area of both sides and bottom. In the general case, the value for both Asides and Abottom
will depend upon the depth of water in the facility. Reasonable first approximations can
be derived using values based on one-half the maximum depth of water for the design
storm. As a minimum, the total flow rate, Q, times the required draining time, Treq (e.g.
from Table 1) should be greater than the design volume, Vdesign.:

(Q)Treq ≥ Vdesign (2.15)

2.9 Design approaches for continuous hydrographs

The required infiltration rates given by equation (2.15) were developed based on
the assumption that the complete design flow volume arrives “instantaneously” at the
infiltration facility. The WDOE storm-water manual (2001) specifies that the infiltration

21
facility must be designed to drain completely within 24 hours after the flow to it has
stopped. For the 24-hour design event, flow will not stop arriving to the infiltration
facility until at least 24 hours after the storm begins. The WDOE manual effectively
allows at least 48 hours from the beginning of the storm event before the water must be
infiltrated.

For typical inflow hydrographs, similar to what is shown in Figure 2, most of the
stormwater arrives relatively early in the storm event, which allows more than 24 hours
for it to become infiltrated. The methodologies described by Equation (2.15) do not
include this “extra” time. More importantly, the single-event hydrograph does not
directly account for the effects of a long sequence of multiple precipitation events.

Continuous flow models such as WSDOT’s MGSFLOOD model or U.S. EPA’s

HSPF can be used to incorporate the transient effects described by continuous
hydrographs. One approach for accomplishing this is to include the infiltration facility in
the runoff or flow models using a stage-discharge relationship. This stage-discharge
relationship describes the flow rate as a function of the depth of water in the pond or
trench. The infiltration equations given by Equations (2.12) and (2.13) can be used for
these purposes. These equations effectively provide stage-discharge relationships for
ponds and trenches. Both the gradient term and the area term in Equations (2.12) and
(2.13) depend upon the depth or stage of water in the pond or trench. These stage
discharge relationships can be directly implemented within the continuous flow models to
evaluate the change in depth in the facility with time.

The typical design approach for using continuous hydrographs for facilities
without overflow features would be to select a pond geometry that would provide a
minimum freeboard for the continuous design hydrograph. The magnitude of this
minimum freeboard would be dependent upon the consequences of overflow from the
facility.
For facilities that include overflow features or design components, the design
approach would be to select the pond geometry to meet the performance objective for

22
water quantity considerations given by Minimum Technical Requirement #7 (MTR #7)
in the WDOE Stormwater Management Model (Volume I, Chapter 2, page 2-31). This
requirement specifies that stormwater discharges to streams must mimic certain aspects
of pre-developed conditions, as described in Section 1.

2.10 Consider computer simulations to refine design

More sophisticated computer-based simulations should be considered for many

sites. It is likely that these simulations will result in facilities that are less over-designed
than the facilities that would result from infiltration rates given in the WDOE stormwater
manual (2001). These simulations should be especially considered for the following
situations:
1) Sites with significant heterogeneity and stratigraphy, particularly sites where
subsurface lateral flow through higher-permeability strata may be extensive.
2) Sites where transient effects of inflow rates are likely to be important, as
discussed in Section 2.9.
3) Sites with water table depths or depths to low-permeability layers that are greater
than 100 feet. These types of sites were not included in the computer simulations
described in Massmann et al. (2003) and the regression equation given by
Equations (2.6) and (2.8) may significantly under-estimate the actual gradient.

Steady-state, saturated simulations similar to what can be developed using the

USGS MODFLOW computer code will generally give conservative results that are more
realistic than the procedures described in this manual. For particularly important sites,
transient, unsaturated models may be warranted, similar to what is described in
Massmann et al. (2003).

2.11 Post design-evaluations

Full-scale tests should be conducted at all sites on a periodic basis where possible.
If a source of water is available (e.g. nearby fire hydrants or water trucks), these tests
should be conducted using controlled and measured inflow rates that result in significant

23
ponding in the facility. If water sources are not available, inflow rates should be
monitored if at all possible.
By monitoring inflow rates, relationships can be developed that give infiltration
rates as a function of stage or water level in the facility. These types of relationships are
particularly valuable if computer-simulations are used to evaluate the design
performance, or if continuous hydrographs are used in the design approach. Appendix A
describes methods for conducting and analyzing data from the full-scale tests with known
inflow rates.

In cases where the full-scale tests indicate infiltration rates that are significantly
less than the design rates, the facility may need to be modified. If the lower rates are
expected to be caused by soil plugging or bio-fouling, then remediation of the existing
pond may be possible. For some sites, particularly those where the lower rates are due to
unexpectedly high groundwater levels, there may be little that can be done, other than
increasing the areal extent of the facility or designing an overflow system. The
approaches described in this manual can be used to re-evaluate these facility retrofit
options. In many instances, more refined and sophisticated analyses will be warranted.

24
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the generous help and support provided during
the study by Tony Allen and Keith Anderson at the Washington State Department of
Transportation. The design recommendations included in this manual are based on work
conducted by Carolyn Butchart and Stephanie Brown as graduate students in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington.
Stephanie Brown also contributed additional computer simulations to evaluate flow from
trenches.

REFERENCES
Akan, A.O., Sizing stormwater infiltration structures, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
ASCE, 128 (5): 534-537, May, 2002.

California Department of Transportation, Stormwater quality handbook, Project Training

and Design Guide, Sacramento, CA, 2000.

Chin, D.A., Water Resources Engineering, Prentice Hall, 2000.

Federal Highway Administration, Urban Design Drainage Manual, Hydrologic

Engineering Circular No. 22, Washington D.C., 1996.

Fetter, C.W., Applied Hydrogeology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1994.

Fish, A.N. and A.J. Koppi,, The use of a simple field air permeameter as a rapid indicator
of functional pore-space, Geoderma, 63(3-4), pp. 255-264, November, 1994.

Freeze A. and J. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979.

Iversen B., P. Moldrup , P. Schjonning, and P.Loll. Air and water permeability in
differently textured soils at two measurement scales, Soil Science, 166(10), pp. 643-659,
October, 2001.

Iversen B.V., P. Schjonning, T.G. Poulsen, and P. Moldrup, In situ, on-site and laboratory
measurements of soil air permeability: Boundary conditions and measurement scale,
Soil Science, 166(2), pp. 97-106, February, 2001.

King County, King County Surface Water Design Manual, Seattle, Washington, 1998.

25
Liang P., C.G. Bowers, and H.D. Bowen, Effects of insert edge design and insertion and
sealing techniques on soil air permeability measurement, Transactions of the ASAE,
39(4), pp 1269-1273, July-August, 1996.

Massmann, J.W. and L. Johnson, A set of exercises illustrating flow in porous media,
Ground Water, Volume 34(4), July-August, pp. 499-503, 2001.

Massmann, J.W., C. Butchart, and S. Stolar, Infiltration Characteristics, Performance,

and Design of Stormwater Facilities, Final Research Report, Research Project T1803,
Task 12, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington, 2003.

Mays, L.W., Water Resources Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Maryland Department of the Environment and Center for Watershed Protection, 2000
Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volumes I and II, Maryland Department of the
Environment, Baltimore, Maryland, 2000.

Rawls, W.J., and D.L. Brakensiek, Prediction of Soil Water Properties for Hydrologic
Modeling, Watershed Management in the Eighties, ASCE, 1985.

Rawls, W.J., D.L. Brakensiek and K.E. Saxton, Estimation of Soil Water Properties,
Transations of the ASAE, 1982.

Seyfried, M.S. and M.D. Murdock, Use of air permeability to estimate infiltrability of
frozen soil, Journal of Hydrology, 202(1-4), pp. 95-107, December, 1997.

Washington Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual for Western

Washington: Volume III -- Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control Design/BMPs,
Publication 99-13, August, 2001.

Wiltsie, E., Stormwater Facilities Performance Study, Infiltration Pond Testing and Data
Evaluation, Thurston County, Washington, August 10, 1998.

26
 Table 1 – Example water quality performance objectives for infiltration facilities

Recommended
or allowable
Agency Reference
storage time,
Treq
Urban Design Drainage Manual,
Federal Highway
72 hours Hydrologic Engineering Circular
Administration
No. 22, Washington D.C., 1996.
Maryland Maryland Stormwater Design
Department of the 48 hours Manual, Center for Watershed
Environment Protection , Annapolis, MD 1998.
California Stormwater quality handbook,
Department of 24 hours Project Training and Design Guide,
Transportation Sacramento, CA, 2000.
Washington Stormwater Management Manual
Department of 24 hours for Western Washington, Publication
Ecology 99-13, Olympia, WA, 2001.

27
Table 2 – WDOE requirements for subsurface characterization at infiltration facilities
(from WDOE, 2001)
WDOE (2001) Requirements Comments and Recommendations
Subsurface explorations (test holes or test pits) to a This should be viewed as a
depth below the base of the infiltration facility of at minimum requirement. Infiltration
least 5 times the maximum design depth of ponded rates from stormwater facilities can
water proposed for the infiltration facility. (p. 3-62) be affected by relatively deep
features in the groundwater flow
system, particularly for sites with
subsurface layering. Deeper
features may be especially important
in western Washington where there
are long periods of precipitation that
may cause groundwater mounding
and where facilities may receive
runoff from multiple storms. In
many cases, it may be prudent to
continue subsurface explorations to
depths of 50 feet or greater.
Continuous sampling (representative samples from This should be viewed as a
each soil type and/or unit within the infiltration minimum requirement. It may not
receptor) to a depth below the base of the infiltration be conservative, especially for ponds
facility of 2.5 times the maximum design ponded that receive runoff from multiple
water depth, but not less than 6 feet. (p. 3-62) storms and for sites with subsurface
layering. Relatively small-scale
layering can affect infiltration
performance, even if these features
occur relatively deep beneath the
facility. Continuous samples and
more detailed sampling to greater
depth is probably warranted in many
cases.
For basins, at least one test pit or test hole per 5,000 This is a reasonable amount of
ft 2 of basin infiltrating surface (in no case less than investigation.
two per basin) (p. 3-62)
For trenches, at least one test pit or test hole per 50 This is a high density of test pits,
feet of trench length (in no case less than two per especially as compared to the
trench). (p. 3-62) sampling frequency for ponds
Prepare detailed logs for each test pit or test hole This is a reasonable and appropriate
and a map showing the location of the test pits or recommendation.
test holes. Logs must include at a minimum, depth of
pit or hole, soil descriptions, depth to water,
presence of stratification. (p. 3-63)

28
 WDOE (2001) Requirements Comments and Recommendations
As a minimum, one soil grain-size analysis per soil Grain size analyses should be
stratum in each test hole shall be performed within performed on samples from all strata
2.5 times the maximum design water depth, but not encountered in the soil borings.
less than 6 feet. Deeper borings are recommended.
Soil characterization for each soil unit (soils of the These are prudent and reasonable
same texture, color, density, compaction, recommendations.
consolidation and permeability) encountered should
include: grain-size distribution, textural class
(USDA), percent clay content (include type of clay, if
known, color/mottling, and variations and nature of
stratification
Installation of ground water monitoring wells (at This is a prudent and reasonable
least three per infiltration facility, unless the highest recommendation. Note that if wells
ground water level is known to be at least 50 feet are installed to 50 feet, continuous
below the proposed infiltration facility) or near-continuous soil samples are
recommended for the full depth.
Monitor the seasonal ground water levels at the site This is a prudent and reasonable
during at least one wet season. recommendation
Estimate of the volumetric water holding capacity of This is a prudent and reasonable
the infiltration receptor soil. recommendation
Existing ground water flow direction and gradient These are prudent and reasonable
,lateral extent of infiltration receptor, horizontal recommendations.
hydraulic conductivity of the saturated zone
Impact of the infiltration rate and volume at the Groundwater mounding analyses are
project site on ground water mounding, flow prudent. However, the one-acre
direction, and water table; and the discharge point requirement for a mounding analysis
or area of the infiltrating water. A ground water is arbitrary. This should be based on
mounding analysis should be conducted at all sites the anticipated depth of stormwater
where the depth to seasonal ground water table or discharge. Low-permeability strata
low permeability stratum is less than 15 feet and the below 15 feet may also affect
runoff to the infiltration facility is from more than mounding and should be considered
one acre. in mounding analyses.

29
Table 3 – Comparison of methods for estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity values
for unconsolidated soils above the water table.

Method Advantages Disadvantages

Regressions using Inexpensive; rapid sample Errors may be significant (a

grain size information collection; can often collect factor or 10 or more), especially
many samples to evaluate for soils with large percentages
heterogeneity and layering of fine materials or swelling
clays
Laboratory Measures effects of swelling, Typically disturbed samples;
permeameter tests well-accepted methods and requires specialized equipment
protocols and expertise
Field infiltrometer Measures unsaturated flow Time consuming, only possible
tests processes; gives in-situ with near-surface soils that can
results that reduce the effects be exposed in excavations;
of sample disturbance should be used to estimate
saturated hydraulic conductivity
and not infiltration rate
Pilot infiltration tests Gives large-scale estimate Large volumes of water are
that incorporates effects of typically required; only possible
heterogeneity with near-surface soils that can
be exposed in excavations
Packer permeability Allows in-situ measurements Expensive and time-consuming,
tests in boreholes at depth, allows specific requires specialized equipment
strata to be tested and expertise, large volumes of
water may be required
Estimates from air No water is required; tests Requires specialized equipment
conductivity can be done in the field or in and expertise; errors may be
the laboratory; relatively significant if swelling occurs;
rapid test; methods and protocols not yet
well-accepted

30
Table 4 – Example calculations for equivalent hydraulic conductivity using the Hazen
approximation
Layer Layer thickness d10 Kw Kw Kequivalent
(inches) (mm) (cm/s) (in/hr) (in/hr)
1 13 0.05 2.2E-03 3
1 8 0.08 5.6E-03 8
1 10 0.18 2.8E-02 40 6
2 9 0.09 7.0E-03 10
2 6 0.13 1.5E-02 21
2 17 0.09 7.0E-03 10 11
3 14 0.07 4.3E-03 6
3 8 0.54 2.5E-01 360
3 7 0.23 4.6E-02 65 12
4 18 0.06 3.1E-03 4
4 8 0.34 1.0E-01 143 6
Averages: 61 8.7

31
Table 5 - Modeled infiltration rates for different water table elevations (from Massmann
et al., 2003)
Hydraulic Infiltration Rate Percent of Total
Depth of
conductivity Infiltration
Water Table
beneath facility cm/hr in/hr
(ft) Bottom Sides
(in/hr)
1.5 0.7 0.3
2.5 1.0 0.4
5 1.8 0.7
20 69 31
25 9.2 3.6
50 17.7 7.0
150 49.4 19.4
1.5 0.5 0.2
2.5 0.8 0.3
5 1.5 0.6
15 68 32
25 7.6 3.0
50 14.7 5.8
150 41.2 16.2
1.5 0.3 0.1
2.5 0.6 0.2
5 1.1 0.4
10 67 33
25 5.9 2.3
50 11.5 4.5
150 32.4 12.8
1.5 0.2 0.08
2.5 0.3 0.1
5 0.7 0.3
5 66 34
25 4.1 1.6
50 8.1 3.2
150 23.1 9.1
1.5 0.02 0.01
2.5 0.1 0.04
0 25 2.3 0.9 66 34
50 4.54 1.8
150 13.1 5.2

32
 Table 6 —Infiltration rate reduction factors to account for effects of biofouling and
siltation (from Massmann et al., 2003)
A B C D
Potential Degree of long-term Infiltration rate
for maintenance and performance reduction factor
biofouling monitoring Ponds Trenches
Low Average to high 0.9 0.9
Low Low 0.6 0.8
High Average to high 0.5 0.75
High Low 0.2 0.6

Table 7 —Infiltration rates for different pond perimeters (from Massmann et al., 2003)
Pond
Aspect Correction factor Flow out sides
Dimensions
ratio for aspect ratio (%)
(ft x ft)
1 170 x 170 1.0 30.7
2 120 x 240 1.02 31.4
8 480 x 60 1.09 35.5

Table 8 — Recommended infiltration rates based on USDA soil textural classification

(from Table 3.7 in Vol. III and Table 7.1 in Vol. V, WDOE, 2001)
Estimated Long-
Short-Term
Correction Term Infiltration
Infiltration Rate,
Factor Rate, in/hr
in/hr (cm/hr)
(cm/hr)
Clean sandy gravels and
gravelly sands (i.e., 90% of the 20 2
10 (25)
total soil sample is retained in (50) (5)
the #10 sieve)
Sand 8 (20) 4 (10) 2 (5)
Loamy Sand 2 (5) 4 (10) 0.5 (1.3)
Sandy Loam 1 (2.5) 4 (10) 0.25 (0.64)
Loam 0.5 (1.3) 4 (10) 0.13 (0.33)

33
Table 9—Recommended infiltration rates based on ASTM gradation testing
(from Table 3.8 in Vol. III and Table 7.2 in Vol. V, WDOE, 2001)

D10 Size from ASTM D422 Estimated Long-Term

Soil Gradation Test mm Infiltration Rate, in/hr (cm/hr)
>0.4 9 (23)
0.3 6.5 (16.5)
0.2 3.5 (8.9)
0.1 2.0 (5)
0.05 0.8 (2)

Table 10—Correction factors to be used with in-situ infiltration measurements to

estimate long-term design infiltration rates (from Table 3.9 in Vol. III and Table 7.3 in
Vol. V, WDOE, 2001)
Issue Partial Correction
Factor
Site variability and number of locations tested CFv = 1.5 to 6
Degree of long-term maintenance to prevent CFm = 2 to 6
Siltation and bio-buildup
Degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio- CFi = 2 to 6
buildup
Total correction factor CF = CFv + CFm + CFi

34
 Estimate volume of stormwater, Vdesign
Perform subsurface site - Single value
characterization and data - Single-event hydrograph
collection (Table 2) - Continuous hydrograph

Choose trial geometry

based on site constraints

Calculate hydraulic gradient using Equations

Estimate saturated hydraulic 2.6 and 2.7. Use pond area and depth from trial
conductivity geometry. Use equation 2.8 for trench
- Soil grain sizes configurations. Use depth to low permeability
- Laboratory tests layers, as appropriate for systems with
- Field tests potential for perched water tables (Section 2.5)
- Layered system

Estimate infiltration rate (Equation 2.9)

Apply correction factors for siltation and biofouling (Table 5) and

aspect ratio (Table 6 and Equation 2.10)

Estimate flow rates. Use Equation 2.12 for ponds and

Equation 2.13 for trenches

Select design using single-event Select design using continuous

hydrograph (Section 2.8) hydrograph (Section 2.9)

Consider refined analyses (Sections 2.10)

Conduct full-scale tests

CONSTRUCT (Section 2.11 and Appendix A)
FACILITY

Figure 1 – Flow chart summarizing design approach for ponds

35
 Rainfall and Runoff for Example Problem

0.09 6

0.08
5
0.07
Water volume (inches)

0.06 4
Rainfall (in.)

Flow rate (cfs)

Runoff (in.)
0.05
Design Flowrate (cfs)
3
0.04

0.03 2

0.02
1
0.01

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (minutes)

Figure 2– Example single-event hydrograph used for infiltration pond design

Pond size correction factor

1.2
1
Correction factor

K=5 in/hr
0.8
K=50 in/hr
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Size of pond (acres)

Figure 3– Correction factors for pond size given by Equation (2.6) (Massmann et al.,
2003)

36
 Estimated Pond Gradient

0.5
Estimated using computer simulation

0.4
Regression data
Verification data
0.3

0.2

2
R = 0.98
0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Calculated using regression equation

Figure 4 – Comparison of gradients for ponds calculated using Equation (2.5) with gradients simulated using computer models
(Massmann et al., 2003)

37
 Estimated Trench Gradient

0.5
Estimated using computer simulation

0.4

0.3

0.2

R2 = 0.97
0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Calculated using regression equation

Figure 5– Comparison of gradients for trenches calculated using Equation (2.7) with gradients simulated using computer models
(Massmann et al., 2003)

38
 100 Recommended
Characteris tic Rates
Upperbound: good influent control from S tormwater
and long-term maintenance, moderate Management Manual for
depth to ground water Wes tern WA, 2001
10
In filtra tio n ra te (in ./h r)

Meas ured from

infiltrometer tes ts at
beginning of s tudy,
taken 1 ft below pond
1 bottom (s hort-term)
0.5 Meas ured long-term
infiltration rates

0.1
Lowerbound: poor influent control
and long-term maintenance, fine layering, Meas ured long-term
shallow depth to ground water infiltration rates (fine
0.01 layering, s urface
clogging)
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
D10 (mm)
Figure 6 – Comparison of small scale, short-term infiltrometer tests with long-term, full-scale observations (Massmann et al., 2003).

39
APPENDIX A: METHODS FOR CONDUCTING AND ANALYZING
FULL-SCALE INFILTRATION TESTS

This appendix describes methods that can be used to complete full-scale

infiltration tests to estimate infiltration rates for ponds and similar infiltration facilities.
The methods used to conduct these tests are described in Section A.1 and the approach
used to analyze the data is described in Section A.2. An example is given in Section A.3.
For more details on implementing these tests, see Chapter 4, Massmann et al. (2003).

Compared to other field and laboratory methods, full-scale tests provide the most
reliable estimates of how infiltration ponds will perform. These tests, which are often
termed "flood tests," are conducted by discharging water into a pond and measuring the
change in water level in the pond as a function of time. Data are collected both during
the filling stage of the test and during the draining stage after the discharge into the pond
has been stopped. The primary advantage of these full-scale tests is that the infiltration
rate is measured directly. The approach does not require modeling or significant
analytical tools to estimate or infer infiltration rate from some other measured parameter.
Sampling errors that can be introduced with small-scale measurements in heterogeneous
soils are avoided. The primary disadvantage is that these tests require a source of water
that can be delivered at a high enough flow rate to cause ponding within the facility.

A.1 Field Methods for the Full-Scale Tests

A.1.1 Measure pond geometry
Surveying measurements should be taken to calculate the pond geometry. If practical,
elevation measurements should be collected along transects with a horizontal spacing
between measurements of approximately four to six feet, depending upon the site. The
length and width of the pond bottom can be measured with a steel tape measurer. The
side slopes (change in elevation divided by change in horizontal distance) should be
recorded.

A-1
A.1.2. Complete pre-test calculations
The objective is to estimate the volume of water that would be required to achieve
ponding in the infiltration facility. This is accomplished by defining both the discharge
and the duration of test. The following steps are used:
1. Develop preliminary estimates of infiltration rates based on soil type or other
available data.
2. Calculate the minimum discharge rate that would be required to achieve ponding:
Qmin = Pond area* estimated infiltration rate
3. Choose a desired maximum depth in the pond (> 2 feet if possible)
4. Choose a desired duration for the inflow portion of the test (< 8 hrs)
5. Estimate the discharge rate to achieve a prescribed depth of water in a prescribed
time: Qtest = (area* desired depth /desired inflow time) + Qmin
6. Multiply Qtest by some factor of safety (~1.5 to 3)
7. Estimate test time as (area* desired depth)/Qmin

A.1.3 Install pressure transducers

At least one pressure transducer is recommended, although staff measurements can also
be used if necessary. Transducers should be secured so they are not disturbed during the
test, as shown in Figure A-1. Set sampling interval based on test duration and discharge
duration.

A.1.4 Perform flood test and import data to spreadsheet

A.2 Data Analysis for the Full-Scale Tests

The rate of infiltration is estimated using data from full-scale tests by performing
a water balance on the infiltration pond. The following expression gives the volume of
water that infiltrates during a time interval dt:

Vinf = Qin (dt ) − Asurf (dz ) (A.1)

A-2
where Vinf is the volume of water that infiltrates during the time interval (L3), Qin is the
flow rate into the pond (L3/t), Asurf is the area of the pond surface (L2), and dz is the
change in water depth during the time interval (L). The sign convention that is used in
equation A.1 is that a positive dz denotes an increase in the depth of the water in the
pond.

Except for ponds with rectangular cross-sections, the area of the water surface,
Asurf, will be a function of the depth of the water in the pond, dz. The surface area for
rectangular ponds can be calculated using the following expression:

2
Asurf = (L ∗ W ) + (L + W ) + 4(dz2 )
2(dz )
(A.2)
s s

where "L" and "W" are the length and width of the pond bottom and "s" is the side slope
of the pond. The slope is defined as the change in elevation divided by change in
horizontal distance.

The infiltration rate is generally defined as the volume of water that infiltrates per unit
time per unit area of the wetted pond bottom:
Vinf
I= (A.3)
Awet (dt )

where I = infiltration rate (L/t) and Awet is wetted area of the pond bottom (L2).

Equations A.1 and A.3 can be combined to give the following expression for infiltration
rate during some time interval:

Vinf Q Asurf (dz )

I= = in − (A.4)
Awet (dt ) Awet Awet (dt )

A-3
 During the early portion of the test when the pond is being filled, the flow rate
into the pond (Qin) and the change in depth (dz) are both positive values. During the
later stage of the test the flow rate is zero and the change in depth is a negative number.
In both stages the infiltration rate is a positive value.

Except for ponds with vertical sides, the wetted area of the pond bottom will
depend upon the depth of water in the pond. The wetted area (Awet) for a rectangular
pond is given by the following expression:

⎛ 4(dz ) ⎞ (dz ) 2
Awet = L * W + ⎜ 2 L + 2W + ⎟ (dz ) + 2
2
(A.5)
⎝ s ⎠ s

A.3 An example: Clark County Pond

In November 2000 a flood test was performed at a stormwater infiltration pond in

Clark County, shown in Figure A.2. The pond is located in a residential area in the
northern part of Vancouver, Washington. No information was available regarding the age
of the pond or area of the basin that drains into the pond.

The pond bottom is rectangular with dimensions 75 feet by 25 feet. The side
slopes were surveyed to be 0.3 (V:H) and the depth of the pond is approximately six feet.
A three-foot high retaining wall constructed with concrete blocks in located on the north
side of the infiltration pond. The retaining wall is permeable because of open spaces
between the concrete blocks. The water flows into the infiltration pond from a pre-
treatment area located on the grassy plateau above the retaining wall. Stormwater
discharges to the pretreatment area from two pipes located at opposite ends of the grassy
plateau.

A-4
 The pond bottom and side slopes are covered with patches of moss and grass and
two trees are located in opposite diagonal corners of the pond. The side slopes of the
pond are covered in patches of grass.

The basic data that were used to estimate infiltration rates at the Clark County site
are shown in Table A.1 and in Figure A.3. Table A.1 lists the flow rates, the duration of
the test, and the pond geometry. Figure A.3 shows the depth of water as a function of
time, measured at 10-minute intervals. The flow rate into the pond during the filling
portion of the test was approximately 2000 ft3/hr (250 gpm) and the filling stage lasted
for approximately 2.5 hours. The water level in the pond reached a depth of
approximately 21 inches during the filling portion of the test.

Table A.1 - Summary of data for full-scale infiltration tests.

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I.
Site Inflow Inflow Total Draining Max. Bottom Side Total
Rate Duration Inflow Duration Water Area Slope Infiltration
(ft3/hr) (hours) (ft3) (hours) Depth (ft2) (ft3)
(inches)
Clark 2060 2.5 4710 67.8 21.5 1860 0.3 4820

The draining phase, which lasted just under 70 hours, can be divided into two
parts. During the first part, which lasted until hour 30, the change in water level followed
an exponentially shaped curve that became flatter with time. Between hour 30 and the
end of the test, the water level followed a linearly shaped curve with a slope that was
essentially constant.

The water level data shown in Figure A.3 can be used to estimate the infiltration
rate as a function of time using Equation A.4. Figure A.4 shows the infiltration rate
averaged over each 30-minute period. The infiltration rate increases with time during the
filling portion of the test and reaches a maximum rate of approximately 2.0 in/hr. After
the discharge to the pond is stopped, the infiltration rate quickly decreases to
approximately 0.25 in/hr. This rate remains roughly constant for the duration of the test.

A-5
 The total volume of water that was discharged to the infiltration pond during the
full-scale test at the Clark County site was approximately 4710 ft3. All of this water
eventually infiltrated into the ground. Figure A.5 shows the fraction of the total inflow
that had infiltrated from the pond as a function of time. The total inflow is estimated by
summing the infiltration rates shown in Figure A.4 over the duration of the test. This
total inflow is given in the last column of Table A.1. It should be noted that the total
inflow that is calculated based on estimated infiltration rates (Column "I" in Table A.1) is
different from the total inflow that is calculated based on discharge to the pond (Column
"D" in Table A.1). These differences are due to uncertainties in pond surface area and
wetted pond bottom in Equation A.4.

The fraction of the total inflow that had infiltrated at each time is calculated by
summing the infiltration rates for all earlier times and then dividing this sum by the total
inflow. For the Clark County site, approximately 20% of the total inflow occurred
during the filling stage of the test.

The estimated infiltration rate is nearly constant after approximately 30 hours, as

shown in Figure A.4. A constant infiltration rate suggests that the hydraulic gradient that
causes flow is also approximately constant during this period. Given that the water level
in the pond was decreasing from approximately 10 inches at 30 hours to less than 1 inch
at 70 hours, it appears that the water level or water pressure in the pond was not a
primary component of the forces causing infiltration.

The rapid increase in infiltration during the filling portion of the test may be
caused in part by lateral flow along the sides of the ponds. This is similar to "bank
storage" that occurs in stream channels. As the water level in the pond increases, flow is
induced horizontally into the banks of the pond. This infiltration is in addition to the
infiltration that occurs along the pond bottom. Once the water level in the pond begins to
decrease, the horizontal flow is reversed and water drains into the pond along the sides

A-6
and out of the pond along the bottom. This inflow, which reduces the net infiltration rate,
decreases with time.

Figure A.6 compares infiltration rates as a function of water level for the rising
and falling limbs of the hydrograph. The graph shows that infiltration rates during the
rising limb were significantly larger than the infiltration rates during the falling limb. In
general, this is expected because the head gradient is largest for initially dry soils.
However, these differences in infiltration rates could also be explained by lateral flow.

When the pond is filling up, flow in both the horizontal and vertical direction
allows for more water storage in the sub-surface and thus a higher infiltration rate. When
the water level in the pond decreases, the flow from the sides of the pond reverses
direction.

The data shown in Figure A.6 can be used to estimate the relative magnitude of
the horizontal and vertical flows. As an example, when the depth of water in the pond
is18 inches, the infiltration rate during the rising limb is approximately 1.7 in/hr while the
infiltration rate during the falling limb is approximately 0.8 in/hr. During the filling
phase, the horizontal and vertical flows are both away from the pond, as shown in Figure
A.7a. Equation (A.6) describes vertical and horizontal flow from the pond during the
filling phase:

V + H ≅ 1.7 in/hr. (A.6)

where V is vertical flow (L/t) and H is horizontal flow (L/t).

During the draining phase, the horizontal flow is into the pond and the vertical
flow is away from the pond, as shown in Figure A.7b. Equation (A.7) describes vertical
and horizontal flow from the pond during the draining phase:

V - H ≅ 0.8 in/hr. (A.7)

A-7
 Equations A.6 and A.7 can be solved simultaneously if it is assumed that V and H
are the same in both equations. This results in a horizontal flow of 0.45 in/hr and a
vertical flow of 1.25 in/hr. At the water depth of 18 inches, the horizontal flow accounts
for roughly 36 percent of the total infiltrating water. When the water level stops rising,
the water infiltrating vertically now has the addition of the total horizontal flow volume
of water that is coming back into the pond. This may explain why the net infiltration rate
quickly drops as soon as the inflow from the hydrant is shut off.

A-8
Figure A.1 – Example pressure transducer set-up.

A-9
 Pre-treatment
1 area
0.3
Retaining
Wall

Figure A.2 - Clark County pond, 9616 NE 59th Ave., Vancouver, Washington, 98686

A-10
 25.0

20.0
Water Level (inches)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Time (hours)

Figure A.3 - Water levels during the full-scale test at the Clark County Pond.

2.5

2.0
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Time (hours)

Figure A.4 - Infiltration rate for Clark County averaged over 30-minute intervals.

A-11
 1

0.9

0.8
Fraction of total infiltration

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Time (hours)

Figure A.5 - Fraction of total inflow that had infiltrated as a function of time at the
Clark County Pond.

2.5
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

1.5 Rising Limb

Falling Limb

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Water Level (inches)

Figure A.6- Infiltration rate versus water level for Clark County Pond.

A-12
 a) Filling - Equation (A.6) b) Draining - Equation (A.7)

Figure A.7 - Horizontal and vertical infiltration during filling and draining stages.

A-13
 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS USING THE
SUGGESTED DESIGN APPROACH

This appendix describes examples calculations used to estimate infiltration rates

for ponds. The focus of the calculations is on estimating infiltration rates using the
approaches and equations described in Sections 2.4 through 2.7. The examples are based
on field data collected at four existing facilities described in the Thurston County study
(Wiltsie, 1998; Massmann et al., 2003). Infiltration rates are estimated for the following
sites: Airdustrial, Lacy Lid, Sweetbriar, and Woodward Glen. These four sites were
selected because of the availability of data describing groundwater levels. Descriptions
of the four sites are included in Table B.1.

B.1 Estimate saturated hydraulic conductivity from soil information

Saturated hydraulic conductivity values will be estimated in the examples using

soil texture information, as described in Section 2.4.1. Table B.2 includes soil texture
information that was collected at the four sites. The grain-size curves that used to
develop this data are included in Appendix C in Massmann et al. (2003).

The first column in Table B.2 describes the number of horizontal locations at
which soil samples were collected at each facility. The second column describes the
number of layers that were encountered at each horizontal location and the third column
gives the thickness of each of these layers. Columns E through H in Table B.2 gives soil
texture information. This information includes D10, D60, and D90 grain size diameters and
the fraction of fine-grained material, ffines, for each horizontal location and for each layer.

The soil texture information can be used to estimate the saturated hydraulic
conductivity value using the log-regression equation (Equation 2.2):

log10 ( K sat ) = -1.57 + 1.90 D10 + 0.015D60 - 0.013D90 - 2.08f fines (2.2)

B-1
Column I in Table B.2 gives saturated hydraulic conductivity values in cm/s for each
location and layer calculated using Equation 2.2. These values represent “point”
measurements for the hydraulic conductivity of each layer at each location. The values
for each layer can be combined using Equation 2.4 to give an equivalent hydraulic
conductivity for each location:

d
K equiv = (2.4)
d
∑ Ki
i

These equivalent hydraulic conductivity values are given in Column J in Table B.2.

Finally, the equivalent hydraulic conductivity values for each location can be
averaged to obtain a single estimate of saturated hydraulic conductivity value for each
facility. This averaging is described in Column K in Table B.2. The average hydraulic
conductivity values in units of ft/day are included in Column L.

B.2 Estimate the hydraulic gradient

The hydraulic gradient at each site can be estimated using Equation 2.6:

Dwt + D pond
gradient = i ≈ CFsize (2.6)
138.62( K 0.1 )

where K is saturated hydraulic conductivity in feet/day, Dwt is the depth in feet from the
base of the infiltration facility to the water table or to the first low-permeability layer, and
Dpond is the depth of water in the pond, in feet.

The correction for pond size, CFsize, is given by Equation 2.7:

CFsize = 0.73( Apond ) −0.76 (2.7)

where
CFsize = correction factor for size of the pond
Apond = area of the pond bottom in acres

B-2
Equation 2.7 was developed for ponds with bottom areas between 0.6 and 6 acres in size.
For small ponds (ponds with area equal to 2/3 acre), the correction factor is equal to 1.0.
All of the example facilities were smaller than 2/3 acre so that correction factor for pond
size is 1.0 in all cases.

Table B.3 summarizes gradient calculations. The depths to the water table at the
four sites, Dwt, and the depth of water in the pond Dpond, were estimated based on data
that were collected using pressure transducers at each site. These data are described in
Wiltsie et al. (1998). The hydraulic conductivity values in column E were estimated
using the log regression equation, as described in the previous section. Column F gives
estimated gradient for each location.

B.3 Estimate the uncorrected infiltration rate

The infiltration rates are estimated by multiplying the saturated hydraulic

conductivity with the hydraulic gradient, as described by Equation 2.9:
⎛ dh ⎞
f = K ⎜ ⎟ = Ki (2.9)
⎝ dz ⎠
Table 8.14 summarizes the calculated infiltration rates for the example sites.

B.4 Apply correction factors for pond geometry and for biofouling and siltation

The infiltration rates calculated in Table B.4 do not include corrections for pond
geometry or for biofouling and siltation caused by poor maintenance and/or insufficient
pretreatment. The correction factor for pond geometry is given by Equation 2.10:

CFaspect = 0.02 Aratio + 0.98 (2.10)

Table B.5 includes aspect ratios for the four example ponds. The calculated correction
factor for pond geometry is also included in Table B.5.

B-3
 Correction factors for biofouling and siltation are included in Table 2.7. These
correction factors describe both biofouling and poor maintenance. The report by Wiltsie
(1998) includes descriptions of pond conditions, including biofouling and maintenance
practices. The correction factors in Table B.6 were estimated based on these
descriptions. Two estimates of infiltration rate are included for the Airdustrial site. The
first estimate assumes poor maintenance with a correction factor for siltation and
biofouling equal to 0.3. The second estimate assumes a maintained facility with a
correction factor equal to 1.0. These two estimates were developed to allow comparisons
with observed infiltration rates from tests that were conducted both before and after
maintenance activities at the actual field site.

The infiltration rates calculated in Table B.5 are corrected using the correction
factors for aspect ratio and for maintenance and biofouling in Table B.6. These
corrected infiltration rates are calculated using Equation (2.11):

f corr = (CFsilt / bio )(CFaspect ) f = (CFsilt / bio )(CFaspect ) Ki (2.11)

B.5 Comparison of observed and calculated infiltration rates

Table B.7 provides a comparison of the measured infiltration rates with the
estimates that were developed using the suggested design approach. The rates are
reasonably similar, in part because the correction factors used for siltation and biofouling
were originally developed based on observations at these ponds. Table B.7 also includes
estimates used the WDOE approach based on the D10 grain size diameters. The values
calculated using the equations suggested in the current study incorporate more site-
specific characteristics, including pond size, depth to groundwater, and depth of water in
the pond. These additional characteristics allow more variability in the estimated
infiltration rates, as shown in Table B.7. The WDOE recommended rates based on
USDA soil textural classification and D10 measurements (reproduced in Tables 2.8 and
2.9) do not explicitly consider hydraulic gradient. The WDOE rates are based on
observations from sites in Western Washington with shallow groundwater tables and with
absent or inconsistent pretreatment and maintenance practices. As expected, these rates

B-4
are reasonably similar to the rates estimated using the approach developed in the current
study for these particular sites in Western Washington. The two approaches would give
significantly different results for facilities with deeper water tables and with better
pretreatment and maintenance activities.

B-5
 Table B.1 – Description of ponds used in example calculations

Pond Pond Bottom

Pond Volume
Site Name Site Address Age Surface Area Pond Geometry
(ft3)
(years) (ft2)

Airdustrial Bonniewood Dr SW and 70th Ave 7 6,400 34,000 Rectangular

Tumwater, WA

Lacey Lid Yelm Hwy and Corporate Ctr 10 17,100 248,276 Rectangular
Lacey, WA

Margaret Morse-Merryman Rd SE and 10 6,720 72,352 Rectangular

McKenny Quentin St.; Lacey, WA

Sweetbriar Boulevard Rd and 45th Av. SE 8 15,000 92,123 Triangular

Lacey, WA

Woodard Lister Rd NE and Cherry 21 2,000 8,700 Small trapezoidal

Glen Blossom Olympia, WA

B-6
 Table B.2 - Estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity developed using the log-regression relationship
A B C D E F G H I J K

Site Location Layer Thickness d10 d60 d90 fines Ks Kequiv Kequiv
(in.) (mm) (mm) (mm) (cm/s) (cm/s) (ft/day)
Airdustrial 1 1 67" 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.02 5.8E-02 5.8E-02
2 1 48" 0.13 0.31 0.7 0.03 4.0E-02 4.0E-02
Average Kequiv 4.9E-02 140

Lacey Lid 1 1 69” 0.11 0.26 0.4 0.03 3.7E-02 3.7E-02

2 1 50” 0.16 0.32 0.7 0 5.3E-02 5.3E-02
Average Kequiv 4.5E-02 128

Margaret 1 1 22" 0.34 12 31 0.02 6.34E-02

McKenny 1 2 20" 0.23 1 10 0 5.55E-02
1 3 12" 0.11 0.8 11 0.06 2.37E-02 4.4E-02
Average Kequiv 4.4E-02 126

Sweetbriar 1 1 36” 0.16 0.28 0.4 0 5.34E-02

1 2 9” 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.03 3.72E-02
1 3 24” 0.18 0.3 0.5 0 5.82E-02 5.2E-02
2 1 36” 0.18 0.29 0.4 0.02 5.30E-02
2 2 30” 0.21 0.52 0.94 0 6.60E-02 5.8E-02
Average Kequiv 5.5E-02 156

Woodard 1 1 15" 0.55 9 11.7 0 2.84E-01

Glen 1 2 28" 0.2 0.55 1.5 0.01 5.92E-02 8.2E-02
2 1 36" 0.18 0.28 0.4 0.01 5.56E-02
2 2 6" 0.2 40 100 0 1.24E-02 3.7E-02
Average Kequiv 5.9E-02 168

B-7
 Table B.3– Estimates of hydraulic gradient for the example sites
A B C D E F
Facility Apond Dwt Dpond K Calculated
(acres) (feet) (feet) (ft/day) gradient
Airdustrial 0.15 3.0 1.0 140 0.018
Lacey Lid 0.52 2.5 0.4 128 0.013
Margaret McKenny 0.15 3.5 1.3 126 0.021
Sweetbriar 0.34 3.2 1.7 156 0.021
Wood Glen 0.05 3.2 0.6 168 0.016

Table B.4 – Estimates of uncorrected infiltration rates for the example sites
A B C D E
Facility K K Calculated Calculated
(ft/day) (in/hr) gradient infiltration rate
(in/hr)
Airdustrial 140 70 0.018 1.23
Lacey Lid 128 64 0.013 0.83
Margaret McKenny 126 63 0.021 1.33
Sweetbriar 156 78 0.021 1.64
Wood Glen 168 84 0.016 1.38

Table B.5 – Correction factors for aspect ratios

Aspect
Facility CFaspect
Ratio
Airdustrial 1.0 1.0
Lacey Lid 18.0 1.3
Margaret McKenny 5.7 1.1
Sweetbriar 1.5 1.0
Woodward Glen 1.4 1.0

Table B.6 – Correction factors for siltation and biofouling

Facility Descriptions CFaspect CFsilt/bio Infiltration (in/hr)
Regarding Uncorrected Corrected
Siltation and
Biofouling
Airdustrial Not maintained 1.0 0.3 1.23 0.37
Airdustrial Maintained 1.0 1 1.23 1.23
Lacey Lid Silt fouling 1.3 0.5 0.83 0.56
Margaret McKenny Partially maintained 1.1 0.9 1.33 1.31
Sweetbriar Not maintained 1.0 0.3 1.64 0.50
Woodward Glen Maintained 1.0 1 1.38 1.39

B-8
 Table B.7. Comparison of measured infiltration rates with the estimated rates

A B C D E
Observed Rate estimated
Estimated infiltration from WDOEa d10
Facility infiltration rate (in/hr) (mm)
(in/hr) (in/hr)
Airdustrial (pre-maintenance) 0.37 0.3 2 0.09
Airdustrial (post-maintenance) 1.23 1.7 2 0.09
Lacey Lid 0.56 0.3 2 0.12
Margaret McKenny 1.31 2.0 3.5 0.25
Sweetbriar 0.50 0.4 0.8 0.065
Woodward Glen 1.39 2.3 0.2 0.1
a
Rate based on D10 using Table 3.8 in Vol. III and Table 7.2 in Vol. V, WDOE, 2001

B-9