November 28, 2016

W. Cully Hession
Professor of Biological Systems Engineering
204 Seitz Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24060

Dear Dr. Hession,

Enclosed is the requested Analysis of Potential Solutions for Retrofitting Drop Inlets. This analysis
introduces design alternatives for the retrofit by evaluating the structure, media content, and organic
content. These alternatives are analyzed using decision matrices to determine their suitability for the
purpose of retrofitting drop inlets. The examination of various alternatives will identify the general
solution of the problem.

Please let us know if you need more information.

Sincerely,

Enclosure: Analysis of Potential Solutions

 Retrofitting Drop Inlets
Analysis of Potential Solutions
BSE 4125 Comprehensive Design Project
4 December 2016
---
Team B.M. Perfect
Connor Brogan
Dalia Rakha
Dina Huynh
---
Faculty/Non-Faculty Advisors
Tess Thompson
Chuck Dietz
Lauren Grimes
Introduction
Until 1990, stormwater systems were built to primarily contain flooding in urban areas.
Rising populations produced a rapid increase in impervious surface area. As water flowed over
newly paved surfaces, these networks carried a wide variety of contaminants into local channels,
introducing high concentrations of heavy metals, organic pollutants, and nutrients into aquatic
ecosystems (Brinkman et al., 1985). In the past 30 years, the US government has attempted to
attenuate such contamination pathways by regulating urban area discharge quality through
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permits. This push has forced cities to upgrade their
current stormwater systems to enhance water quality, using best management practices (BMPs)
like retention ponds and settling basins to reduce polluted outflows (EPA, 2016). Although many
current BMPs successfully reduce key contaminant loadings, they require large amounts of land
and often force new extensions to be built to the existing network.
A number of issues are further created when the target area is heavily populated such that
no available land is present to allow for additional structures. This is typically the case with drop
inlets--simple grates placed near sloped surfaces to allow water to flow directly into the
stormwater network. These structures, often located in sports fields and parking lots, present
unique water quality challenges, receiving high flows that are left untreated by standard BMPs
(VDOT, 2016). The purpose of this project is to design a filter capable of retrofitting existing
drop inlets to efficiently capture heavy metals, nutrients, sediment, and organic pollutants. In
order to be effective, the device must be capable of fitting within existing inlets (of varying
cross-sections and volumes) and permit sufficient flow during storms to promote settling without
allowing excessive ponding over the inlet. Available standards for BMPs like Contechs Filterra
and VADEQ bioretention cells served as inspiration for the basic design, presenting physical
guidelines required to achieve the reduction goals. However, a number of modifications and
alterations must be made to these specifications to permit proper function within the confines of
a drop inlet manhole. This paper explores the various components of device design left open by
such standards, focusing on finding ideal media compositions and filter housing.

Structural design
This projects goal is to update drop inlets on campus to filter pollutants from stormwater
runoff before it enters Stroubles Creek. The first step is to determine where retrofit structures can
be placed with regards to the manhole. The first proposed design was to be placed on top of the
inlet grate and the second was to be beneath the grate. A retrofit that would occur over the grate
will have a vegetated surface. This cover would function similarly to a geotextile fabric or a
natural O-horizon layer, capturing sediment and nutrients from incoming flows. A design
beneath the grate, in turn, would have similar characteristics to a bioretention cell. The
below-the-grate design would contain a shallow ponding area, mulch layer, gravel base, and soil
mixture that contains organic matter and sand. Similarly to a bioretention cell, the media would
filter nutrients and hydrocarbons, however it will not have vegetation to additionally uptake
pollutants. There are many extrinsic factors that were accounted for when making this decision
which include, susceptibility to flooding (water quantity performance), available spacing, water
quality performance, aesthetics, and vandalism (Table 1).

1
Table 1. Structural Decision Matrix (Scale = 1 to 5, 5 being best)

Water quality performance is assessed by how much sediment, nutrients, and

hydrocarbons are collected. The vegetation barrier would only be able to gather sediment and
some nutrients/hydrocarbons. Although a portion of the nutrients and hydrocarbons will be
absorbed by the soil organics, organic matter itself is prone to leaching. Therefore large
quantities of organic matter in the barrier would be inappropriate for these purposes. Mimicking
bioretention media beneath the grate solves this issue by cutting organics to 3-5% of the total
media.
Water Quantity Performance is scored by the likeliness of flooding. The vegetation cover
above the grate would level the surface to the ground level instead of having a slight gradient for
water flow. In addition, there is no accessibility to overflow. Thus, there may be an inclination
for flooding under high flow scenarios. The goal of the bioretention material is to permit an
infiltration rate equal to the runoff of a 5-year storm event. Furthermore, the under grate has an
overflow area.
Other considered criteria are as follows: available surface area, susceptibility to
vandalism, and aesthetics. These are all evaluated by the physical location of the design and are
correlated with each other. Both designs above and beneath the grate are limited in space.
However since the design of the retrofit is specified for drop inlets surrounded by impervious
surfaces, the design above the grate is limited by the surface area of the grate, whereas the design
below the grate is limited by the volume of the drop inlet. The surface area of the grate has a
smaller range. Moreover, placing a product above the grate allows larger public accessibility.
Devices may therefore become susceptible to vandalism or tampering. If a design is placed
below the grate, it is more difficult to access unless someone has the tools to remove the metal
covering. These same concepts affect each drafts aesthetic score as well. Above grate designs
are more visible and may generate community complaints, whereas below grate devices may go
unnoticed.
As seen in table 1, the below-the-grate design ranked higher in the decision matrix and
should be used in this project. However, an important detail to consider next is the type of
2
material to hold filter media. The material must be able to hold weight of media, maintain
permeability under high flows, and be inexpensive. The material must allow for runoff to
infiltrate at a high rate to prevent flooding. Proposed options were generated from available local
materials suitable for the project, including fisherman netting and filter fabric. These were
evaluated under the criteria of tensile strength, permeability, and cost (Table 2).

Table 2. Material to Hold Media Decision Matrix (Scale = 1 to 5, 5 being best)

Woven geotextile filter fabrics have a range of total tensile strength of 150-215lbs
(Granite Environmental). Fisherman Netting have a capacity of 80-100lbs (Fish Net). Thus, a
filter fabric would have a greater tensile strength to hold the media and stormwater runoff. In
addition, the largest difference between the two options is the cost. Fisherman netting costs
approximately $140 per net whereas, the filter fabric costs roughly $150 for 150 yards.
Therefore, the more feasible option is filter fabric.
In addition, depending on the weight of the media a decision must be made on whether or
not a support beam is required. A free standing design may be feasible if the weight of media and
force of runoff flow rate can be held by the material holding it. This decision will be made when
materials are bought and media content is finalized after testing.

Organic Material
An important component in the proper design of a stormwater filter is the incorporation
of organic material within the media. Paved surfaces commonly contain a number of
carbonaceous pollutants that are most efficiently captured by similarly structured molecules:
organic sorbents thus adsorb organic contaminants. With a proper carbon source available,
microbial populations can grow within the media to promote contaminant degradation and
additional dissolution processes (Grebel et al., 2013). The complex form of organic material
further adds to the efficacy of the filter, creating a number of complexation and filtering
pathways.
In systems similar to those proposed, filter media are typically constructed to include
about 3-5% organic material. However, most standards fail to specify a particular substrate,
instead suggesting a range of possible components (VADEQ 2011). This paper thus considers
various organic substrates for incorporation within the design media, using a matrix to evaluate
the options. Selected materials were drawn from existing, successful best management practices
(BMPs) with published performance data. The most common and effective media included
compost (yard, food, and manure), coconut fiber rolls, woodchips, biochar, and sawdust.
Although each substance is used in filtration and retention, they retain unique
biochemical properties and thus function differently in situ. These discrepancies served as a
useful basis for narrowing the range of acceptable materials: the positive aspects of each medium

3
could be matched to the constraints of retroffiting drop inlets to provide water quality
enhancement. As shown in table 2, each substrate was evaluated for several key characteristics
important to the design of this device, including cost, removal efficiency, material availability,
and leaching potential. These criteria were selected based on material properties relevant to both
the project objective and setting (i.e. within an inlet). Weights were subsequently assigned based
on significance to the engineering process and scores were given to each medium with higher
numbers representing more optimal choices.
Cost and availability were assessed separately for the media. As this project intends to be
a cost-effective solution offered in a variety of areas, both criteria are critically important in
design drafting: materials must be affordable and widely available. Biochar illustrates the
differences that separated these criteria. Although it is priced similarly to erosion control devices
like fiber rolls, it is not widely produced; biochar is a relatively new soil additive yet to develop a
standard market value. Individual bags would have to be ordered and supply could be limited.
Coconut fiber rolls, are more readily available, but still must be shipped from supply depots. The
options ranked the highest in both these fields were thus compost, sawdust, and woodchips as
each material is readily produced in most industrial complexes. Further, sawdust and woodchips
(ranked highest for cost) are typical byproducts that may be offered freely from workshops and
plants.
Since each of the evaluated organic substances have previously been tested in best
management practices across the country, they were ranked according to their pollutant reduction
and leaching potentials. Although similar in nature, these properties were gauged as separate
criteria due to the variable nature of some of the assessed options. A high score in pollutant
reduction reflects a media capable of retaining or otherwise diminishing contaminant
concentration in water inflows, while a high leaching rank illustrates the potential for eventual
pollutant discharge. Compost and biochar vary wildly in their physiochemical makeup based on
both source material and degree of degradation. In turn, their ability to reduce pollutant loadings
is rather inconsistent. Although some studies report high rates (over 90%) of organic material
adsorption and heavy metal complexation, other documents express large rates of dissolved
carbon and nutrient leaching (Iqbal et al., 2015; LeFerve et al., 2011). These materials vary
drastically in carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratios based on degradation times: extended pyrolysis or
decomposition will reduce available N in favor of C production. When younger material is used,
these media leach large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus (Faucette et al., 2004). On the other
hand, when selected carefully for high C:N ratios, tested columns had high uptake and storage
rates (Iqbal et al., 2015). These materials were thus ranked high in their reduction potentials, but
penalized with low scores in leaching due to their inherent performance variability.
The remaining media options are significantly more consistent in their structural makeup
and thus their contaminant reduction abilities. Fiber rolls, sawdust, and woodchips all provide
readily available organic material to help promote microbial uptake and contaminant adsorption.
In several field studies, coconut fiber rolls have shown the ability to significantly lower solids
loadings, reducing total nutrient and metal concentrations (Theisen and Spittle; Wu et al., 2010).
Although sawdust and woodchips typically perform to a lesser extent in regards to heavy metals,
they are a common ingredient in bioreactor and retention cells due to their ability to efficiently
promote nitrogen and phosphorus uptake (Kim et al., 2000). Little research has been conducted
into reducing organic pollutants through coconut fiber rolls useage, but it is suspected that the
higher surface area to volume ratios provided by the sawdust and woodchips would create larger

4
pore space for material bonding or complexation. Further, the known high C:N ratios of the
wooden materials would fuel microbial processes to additionally degrade any sorbed or dissolved
contaminant passing through the device (Atlas and Philp, 2005). The woodchips and sawdust
were thus ranked the highest for nutrient and organic material reductions, but were marked down
in heavy metal reduction since other substrates relatively removed metals to a higher degree. Due
to the relatively high C:N ratios of all the evaluated materials, each was further marked high for
leaching potential to reflect the small amount of key pollutants leaving the system.
Table 2 summarizes the result of the organic material analysis. Biochar, although capable
of pollutant reduction, received the lowest score due to its availability and high leaching
potential. Compost similarly earned a small total due to the nutrient discharges associated with
younger materials. The remaining options each earned scores above 300, but small discrepancies
in reduction potential and cost ultimately eliminated all but sawdust. Given the low cost, wide
availability, and high pollutant uptake, sawdust is the best option for organic material in the
filter.

Table 3. Organic Matter for Filter Media Decision Matrix (Scale = 1 to 5, 5 being best)

Media Finalization
After deciding upon the organic material used within the design media, the remaining
levels and their respective percentages needed to be analyzed. There were four main media
types: mulch/wood chips, soil, sand, and gravel. Six criteria were used to analyze these materials.
The first is cost, referring to the relative price and thus availability for each type of media. The
second is weight, which is a very important aspect of the design structure not only for
maintenance purposes, but also for the ability of existing drop inlets to support the filter. The
third criterion is treatment efficiency. This refers to the ability of each media to remove
pollutants, which are mainly sediment, nutrients, and hydrocarbons. Phosphorus, pathogens, and
fertilizer chemicals adsorb to sediment particles, so the removal of sediment additionally
removes a number of contaminants. Nitrate does not adsorb, and will therefore need to be treated
by the chemical reactions within organic matter. The hydrocarbons are the result of oil and
gasoline runoff from parking lots, and will need to be collected by a carbon source within the

5
filter. The third criterion thus analyzes the ability of each media type to remove these three
pollutants from an incoming water source. The fourth criterion is flow capacity, referring to the
ability of the media to withstand high flows without flooding. It is related to the porosity of the
media as well as the infiltration rate. The fifth criterion is detention time, as it is a necessary
treatment process for denitrification. While this will be a challenge for the filter to both be able
to allow high flows but also hold water for some period of time, this criterion is separate from
the other treatment processes. It is of much benefit if possible but will not be the most important
criteria if other aspects are lacking in the design. The final criterion is that of durability, which
refers to the necessity for regular maintenance on each media type.
Each criterion was given a certain weight based on its importance to the success of the
overall filter design. The highest possible total score was 120 for the six categories. The media
types were then given a ranking based on their ability to meet each of these criteria. For the
treatment efficiency, the media ranked on whether or not it was able to remove each of the
individual target pollutants. The total weight was divided between the three in order to rank the
total removal of each separately.

Table 3. Media Decision Matrix (Scale = 0 to 5, with 0 meaning the media did not at all meet the
requirements of that criterion, and 5 meaning it perfectly met the requirements.)

From Table 3, the amounts and types of media was decided. As mulch and soil generally perform
the same purpose of providing an organic layer for water retention, mulch will mostly be used in
the media for simplicity. It better performed in the criteria listed, and will therefore be more
useful for the final filter design. Based on bioretention standards, shredded aged hardwood bark
would be the primary mulch in the media. Only 10 to 20% of soil will be used as it removes a
significantly lower amount of nutrients due to leaching. Sand and gravel also similarly provide a
means of filtering water, however, sand has a much smaller pore space and will therefore be of
more use for the bulk of the media. It was decided that 80 to 90% sand will be used, and the soil
will be a loamy sand texture to ensure that water more easily passes through the media. The
gravel will be used to support the system and prevent runoff media from exiting the filter design.
These results similarly agree with bioretention standards, suggesting mulch and gravel retention
layers and a sandy filter media (VADEQ, 2011).

6
Conclusion
The under-the-grate retrofit design scored higher than the above-the-grate design. This
steered the project design towards creating a filter media similar to a bioretention cell beneath
the grate. It was determined that filter fabric would be used because of its large tensile strength
for its cost. With the initial design frame selected, it became important to design a filter media
capable of slowing flows for sedimentation without causing flooding. Under the guidelines of
available standards, it was determined that organic material was a critical component to the filter,
promoting nutrient uptake and contaminant adsorption. Table 2 was used to narrow down the
range of acceptable material, with sawdust ultimately proving to be most suitable for the project
due to its low cost and high pollutant reduction potential. The remaining media should largely
consist of mulch covered sand, as addressed by Table 3.

References
Atlas, R. M. and Philp, K. (2005). Bioremediation: Applied Microbial Solutions for Real-World
Environmental Cleanup. Washington D.C, District of Columbia: ASM Press.

Brinkman, W. L. F. (1985). Urban stormwater pollutants: Sources and loadings. GeoJounal,

11(3): 277-283.

Faucette, L. B., Risse, L. M., Nearing M. A., Gaskin, J. W., & West, L. T. (2004). Runoff,
erosion, and nutrient losses from compost and mulch blankets under simulated rainfall. J.
Soil Water Conserv., 62(6): 154-160.

Fish Net Company LLC (2016). Cast Nets The Fish New Company LLC. Retrieved from
https://fishnetco.com/products/fishing-nets/cast-nets

Granite Environmental (2016). Geotextile Specifications Woven & Nonwoven Geotextile Spec
Sheets. GEI Works. Retrieved from http://www.erosionpollution.com/
geotextilespecifications.html

Grebel, J. E., Mohanty, S. K., Torkelson, A. A., Boehm, A. B., Higgins, C. P., Maxwell, R. M.,
Nelson, K. L., & Sedlak, D. L. (2013). Engineered infiltration systems for urban
stormwater reclamation. Environ. Eng. Sci., 30(8): 437:454. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2012.0312

Iqbal, H., Garcia-Perez, M., & Flury, M. (2015). Effect of biochar on leaching of organic carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorus from compost in bioretention systems. Sci. Total Environ.,
521-522: 37-45. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.060

Kim, H., Seagren, E. A., & Davis, A. P. (2000). Engineered bioretention for removal of nitrate
from stormwater runoff. Water Environmental Federation. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.9685&rep=rep1&type=pdf

7
LeFevre, G. H., Novak, P. J., & R. M. Hozalski. (2011). Fate of naphthalene in laboratory-scale
bioretention cells: Implications for sustainable stormwater management. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 46: 995-1002. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202266z

Theisen, M. S. and Spittle, K. A quantitative comparison of sediment retention devices under

standardized test conditions. Retrieved from http://www.profilelibrary.info/Files/80.
stormconpaper.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016). Stormwater discharges from municipal

sources. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-municipal-sources#overview

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). (2011). VADEQ Stormwater Design

Specification no. 9: Bioretention. Retrieved from http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/
NonProprietaryBMPs.html

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). (2016). Chapter 9 Storm Drains. Retrieved

from
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/locdes/drainagemanual/drain-manual-chap
ter-09.pdf

Wu, Y., Yang, L., Byksnmez, F., Beighley, R. E., Gu, Z., & Grey, M. (2010). Evaluation of
soil erosion and sediment control products for release of heavy metals. Environ. Eng.
Sci., 27(10): 905-914.