Effect of the choice of different methods on the permeable pavement hydraulic characterization and hydrological classification

Abstract

The permeable pavement is a compensatory drainage technique for urban waters that aims to control runoff and to ensure ideal hydrological conditions. This work had as main objectives to evaluate the infiltration capacity of a permeable pavement (PP) at real scale, through analytical and numerical modeling. It relies on water infiltration experiments and related modeling for the hydrodynamic characterization of the coating layer (saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ks , and sorptivity, S). A large panel of analytical and numerical models was considered, and several estimates were obtained. Then, the criteria for the evaluation of the maintenance requirement of the permeable pavements were computed for all the Ks -estimates considering the NCRS standards (assessment of permeability levels). The results indicated nice fits and accurate estimates for both the saturated hydraulic conductivity and the sorptivity. However, the Ks -estimates depended on the considered model and led to contrasting results in terms of classification. For 8 of the 9 models, the value of the Ks -estimate leads to the classification of “Group A” of the NCRS soil classification, meaning a very permeable material. In contrasts, the last method (numerical inverse modeling) classified the permeable pavement as “Group D”, i.e., soils with low permeability. Those results show the importance of the selection of characterization methods regarding the assessment of the hydrological classification of permeable pavements.

A numerical test of soil layering effects on theoretical and practical Beerkan infiltration runs

“…(2010) and da Silva Ribas et al. (2021) suggested that, when the soil is layered and the upper layer is the less permeable, water infiltration is more representative of the upper layer. A similar result was obtained by Yilmaz et al.…”

“…The number of documents examining 3D infiltration processes into layered soils seems to be limited (Dohnal et al, 2016;Shan & Stephens, 1995;Wu et al, 1997), but some studies specifically considered the case of a low-permeable layer over a more permeable layer. In particular, Lassabatere et al (2010) and da Silva Ribas et al (2021) suggested that, when the soil is layered and the upper layer is the less permeable, water infiltration is more representative of the upper layer. A similar result was obtained by Yilmaz et al (2013), sampling temporal changes of a basic oxygen furnace slag.…”

“…Therefore, with reference to a more compacted and less conductive upper layer overlying a less compacted and more conductive subsoil, the expectation is that a simple 3D infiltration run will yield more representative results for the upper layer than the subsoil (da Silva Ribas et al., 2021; Lassabatere et al., 2010) and that the measured infiltration will contain (Moret‐Fernández et al., 2021), but not necessarily in a perceivable manner (Di Prima et al., 2018), some information related to the subsoil. These conclusions require further investigations to better establish what is meant in practice when one speaks of an infiltration curve being more representative of the upper layer and also what factors influence this similarity and how.…”

A Numerical Test of Soil Layering Effects on Theoretical and Practical Beerkan Infiltration Runs

“…There doesn't seem to be much in the literature with reference to a 3D infiltration process into layered soils (Shan and Stephens, 1995;Wu et al, 1997;Dohnal et al, 2016), but some investigations specifically considering the case of a low permeable layer overlying a more permeable layer can be found. In particular, Lassabatere et al (2010) and da Silva Ribas et al (2021) suggested that, when the soil is layered and the upper layer is the less permeable, water infiltration is more representative of the upper layer. Di Prima et al (2018) tested in the laboratory infiltration in a sealed soil and they recognized that the process was mainly governed by seal formation and also that the final infiltration rates were representative of the hydraulic behavior of the seal layer, irrespective of the upper soil layer thickness.…”

“…Therefore, with reference to a more compacted and less conductive upper layer overlying a less compacted and more conductive subsoil, the expectation is that a simple 3D infiltration run will yield more representative results for the upper layer than the subsoil (Lassabatere et al, 2010;da Silva Ribas et al, 2021) and that the measured infiltration will contain (Moret-Fernández et al, 2021), but not necessarily in a perceivable manner (Di Prima et al, 2018), some information related to the subsoil. These conclusions lead to the need to carry out further investigations.…”