1210

Bioretention cell efficacy in cold climates:

Part 1 — hydrologic performance
U.T. Khan, C. Valeo, A. Chu, and B. van Duin
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16

Abstract: Bioretention cells are an emerging low impact development technology that address urban stormwater runoff
concerns. Field and column experiments were conducted to assess the efficacy of bioretention cells in cold conditions. Field
experiments in a prairie environment demonstrated a significant decrease (91.5%) in effluent volumes compared to influent
volumes. The majority (⬃60%) of the runoff percolated to the surrounding soils or evapotranspirated. Cold condition
performance significantly impacted high volume events and was characterized by significantly higher effluent volumes,
significantly lower runoff storage, higher effluent peak flow rates, and longer peak delays. A partially frozen surface layer caused
the changes in performance. Long-term simulation experiments on the columns indicated a significant decrease in saturated
hydraulic conductivity over the first 4 equivalent years of operation, before levelling to a constant value.
Key words: urban runoff, bioretention, LID, cold climate, hydraulic conductivity, prairie hydrology.
Résumé : Les cellules de biorétention représentent une technique émergeante de développement à faible impact qui aborde
les questions d’écoulement des eaux pluviales en zone urbaine. Des expériences sur le terrain et en colonnes ont été
réalisées pour évaluer l’efficacité des cellules de biorétention sous des conditions froides. Les expériences dans une prairie
ont démontré une diminution marquée (91,5 %) des volumes d’effluent par rapport aux volumes d’influent. La plus grande
partie (60 %) du ruissellement a percolé dans les sols environnants ou s’est dissipée par évapotranspiration. Le rendement
sous des conditions froides a grandement affecté les événements à fort volume et se caractérisait par des volumes
For personal use only.

d’effluent considérablement plus élevés, un entreposage du ruissellement considérablement plus faible, des débits de pointe
à l’effluent plus élevés et de plus longs délais pour atteindre la pointe. Une couche partiellement gelée à la surface a
modifié le rendement. Des expériences de simulation à long terme dans les colonnes ont indiqué une diminution importante
de la conductivité hydraulique saturée au cours de l’équivalent des quatre premières années de fonctionnement avant
qu’elle ne se stabilise à une valeur constante.
Mots-clés : ruissellement en milieu urbain, biorétention, LID, climat froid, conductivité hydraulique, hydrologie des
prairies.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

1. Introduction Thorolfsson 2004; Hsieh and Davis 2005; Sharkey and Hunt
2005; Davis 2008). The primary aims of LID are to reduce the
Urban stormwater runoff is an important and abundant volume of runoff generated and to capture and treat the runoff
water resource (Hsieh and Davis 2003). Uncontrolled, urban on-site. Natural processes are used to achieve these goals, e.g.,
stormwater runoff presents a variety of complex environmen- vegetation is used to reduce and disconnect impervious areas
tal concerns including increased risk of flooding and the po- and to increase infiltration, evapotranspiration, and storage.
tential to carry a variety of contaminants into water bodies Bioretention cells, a type of LID, are small, localized infil-
(Davis 2008; Delleur 1982). Low impact development (LID) is tration and treatment basins. They are plant and soil based
a site design strategy that aims to control and treat urban facilities, consisting of a basin filled with a highly porous
stormwater runoff at or near the source. Controls and struc- growing media layer that is topped with dense vegetation and
tures are implemented on-site such that the post-development mulch (Hsieh and Davis 2003; Kim et al. 2003). Urban storm-
hydrology and water quality is improved compared to pre or water runoff is routed to the cells, where it collects on the
undeveloped site conditions (US EPA 2001; Nordberg and surface, before infiltrating into the media. As the water passes
Received 11 May 2012. Revision accepted 28 September 2012. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 30 October 2012.
U.T. Khan and C. Valeo. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4,
Canada; Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3055, Station CSC, EOW Building, Room 223, Victoria, BC V8W 3P6,
Canada.
A. Chu. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada.
B. van Duin. Infrastructure Planning, Water Resources, The City of Calgary, Mail Code #409, Manchester Water Centre, 625 25 Avenue S.E,
Calgary, AB T2G 4K8, Canada.
Corresponding author: C. Valeo (e-mail: valeo@ucalgary.ca and valeo@uvic.ca).
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 March 2013.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 39: 1210 –1221 (2012) doi:10.1139/l2012-110 Published by NRC Research Press
 Khan et al.
through the media, it undergoes various physical, chemical,
and biological processes that remove contaminants associated
with urban runoff (Hsieh and Davis 2005). The runoff can then
exit the cell via an under-drain beneath the cell, percolate into
the surrounding subsoils, or a combination of both depending
on the configuration.
The hydrological performance indicators of bioretention
cells include the decrease of volume and peak flow rate be-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
tween the influent and effluent, the delay of the effluent, basin
emptying time, and changes to the long-term surface and
near-surface hydraulic conductivity. These indicators are in-
fluenced by the design of the bioretention cell (e.g., the pres-
ence of an impermeable liner) and by the characteristics of the
corresponding catchment area and runoff. Due to these differ-
ences, reported efficacy of bioretention cells has been highly
variable and inadequately reported (WER 2007a). In the lit-
erature, bioretention cells tested in both field and laboratory-
scale experiments, have been able to capture (or mitigate)
100% of the influent volume for small to medium size events,
but ranged from 33% to 80% for larger events (Traver and
Prokop 2003; Ermilio and Traver 2006; Davis 2008; Hatt et al.
2009). Similarly, large variability was also reported for peak
flow rate reduction and delay. Peak reduction ranged from
19% to 96% (Sharkey and Hunt 2005; Hunt et al. 2008; Lewis
et al. 2008), while delay ranged from 90 min to up to 615 min
(UNHSC 2005; Muthanna et al. 2008). The causes for the
For personal use only.
large variability can be attributed to different runoff event
sizes and duration, along with the size and design of the
bioretention cell. Thus, it may be misleading to directly com-
pare these parameters from different experiments. No consis-
tent and uniform methodology exists to measure bioretention
cell performance across different sites or even different types
of events.
The hydraulic conductivity and surface infiltration rates of
bioretention cells can affect hydrologic performance. Over
time, it is expected that due to compaction and clogging, the
values of the two parameters will decrease, limiting the effec-
tiveness of the cells. Multiple studies have shown that initially,
hydraulic conductivity will rapidly decline (up to a 66% de-
crease) and then tend towards a constant value. This is thought
to be due to the compaction of media caused by the hydraulic
loading on the cells and the effects of time. However, after this
initial decline, the establishment of vegetation and root growth
can maintain or even enhance the hydraulic conductivity
(Archer et al. 2002; Le Coustumer et al. 2007, 2008; Lewis et
al. 2008; Li and Davis 2008). Furthermore, over the long term,
bioretention cells can develop unique soil and vegetation char-
acteristics that create distinct flow paths. These paths impact
retention time and contribute to improving infiltration rates.
Plant growth and root systems contribute to reopening path-
ways, resulting in minimum degradation of infiltration rates
after several years of operation (Traver et al. 2007). For
example, soil compaction and changes to porosity can affect
where runoff pools on the surface and can divert it to more
permeable locations. Dense vegetation can act to decrease
the flow rate and redirect incoming runoff. Roots can also
play a role in increasing the porosity of the soil in some
cases, or creating a mat effect to reduce surface permeabil-
ity (Le Coustumer et al. 2008).
Questions remain on bioretention cell performance in cold
climate regions, particularly in areas governed by prairie hy-
1211
drology. In these regions, design guideline revisions may be
required to account for altered hydraulic characteristics, such
as frozen soil, higher snowmelt volumes, and lower runoff
intensity from snowmelt. Local conditions are important to
take into account because of the unique freeze–thaw cycles
and precipitation patterns. For example, in Calgary, Alberta,
westerly winds during the winter known as Chinook winds
temporarily raise temperatures to above freezing. These winds
cause Calgary to experience frequent freeze–thaw cycles
throughout the cold months, rather than one large spring melt
as experienced in other regions. These unique conditions can
impact bioretention cell operation and hydrologic efficacy.
Various sources assert that filter based treatment systems
such as bioretention cells function suitably in cold weather
conditions and that there is minimal effect of frozen media on
hydraulic function (UNHSC 2005; Davidson et al. 2008;
Roseen et al. 2006, 2009). Impacts on various performance
parameters have been reported, notably an increase in effluent
volume and peak flow rate and an increase in lag time (Hunt
and Jarrett 2004; Muthanna et al. 2008; Roseen et al. 2009).
The increase in effluent volumes was attributed to a decrease
in evapotranspiration in cold conditions; which resulted in a
larger fraction of volume exiting the cells as runoff (Muthanna
et al. 2007). Higher effluent peak flow rates were attributed
to channelization and comparatively less homogenously dis-
tributed soil, which in turn decreased the infiltration time
(Muthanna et al. 2007, 2008). However, some discrepancies
exist: Muthanna et al. (2007, 2008) reported shorter lag times
in cold conditions due to partially frozen media and preferen-
tial flow patterns through frozen media. Thus, there is some
indication towards reduced hydrologic performance, despite
the assertion that there is minimal effect on filter media from
cold conditions. In general, limited data has been published on
bioretention performance in cold conditions and has not sub-
stantially characterized the change in performance compared
to warm conditions.
Bioretention cell performance research has largely been lim-
ited to short-term studies, i.e., studies that focus on a series of
precipitation events rather than the measurement of performance
after long-term operation. Assessing the impacts of long-term
operation would assist in understanding the lifecycle and main-
tenance requirements, as well as potential failure scenarios. Re-
search is therefore needed on surface and near-surface hydraulic
conductivity changes with time.
1.1. Objectives
The objectives of this study are to characterize the hy-
drologic performance of a bioretention cell in a region that
experiences prairie hydrology, compare the efficacy between
warm and cold (with Chinook) conditions, and to assess the
change in performance with long-term operation. Field exper-
iments were conducted to characterize and compare perfor-
mance in cold conditions, while column experiments were
conducted to test the long-term performance. Long-term op-
eration is interpreted as corresponding to 20 years of contin-
uous operation for this research. Further objectives related to
water quality performance are in the second part of this study
(see Khan et al. 2012). Together, Part I and Part II will enable
stormwater managers to implement and design bioretention
cells for use in cold regions, like that of Calgary.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1212
Fig. 1. (a) A bioretention cell in Calgary, Alberta and (b) design
details of bioretention test facility used for the field experiments.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
For personal use only.
2. Methods and materials
2.1. Field site description
An 8 m long by 4 m wide bioretention cell in Calgary, was
used for the field experiments. The cell was built for testing
purposes and did not receive any natural stormwater runoff. It
consisted of a 75 mm mulch layer on the surface, followed by
a 1200 mm growing media layer, and a 300 mm under-drain
system at the base. The growing media was classified as sandy
loam, with a mix of 45%– 64% sand, 43%–55% silt, and
5%–18% clay with an average organic content of 9%. Eight
trees (four Beaked Willow: Salix bebiana; four Pin Cherry:
Prunus pensylvanica) and seventy two shrubs (24 Shrubby
Cinquefoil: Potentilla fruticosa; 24 Prickly Rose: Rosa acicu-
laris; 24 Wild Gooseberry: Ribes oxyacanthoides) were
planted in the bioretention cell. The growing media and under-
drain system were enclosed by a permeable nonwoven geo-
textile that allowed any water inside the cell to freely drain
into the surrounding soils. A particle size distribution (PSD)
analysis of the surrounding and subsoil classified it as loam
(34%–36% sand, 45%– 46% silt, and 19%–20% clay), with an
organic content between 2 and 6%. Design details of the field
site are illustrated in Fig. 1b.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 39, 2012
2.2. Column description
Four scaled versions of the field cell were used to test the
performance under long-term operation. The columns mea-
sured 0.5 m by 0.5 m in surface area. Two short columns
(hereupon referred to as LS1 and LS2 for “long-term short”)
were 450 mm deep (360 mm of growing media and 90 mm of
under-drain aggregate) and two tall columns (hereupon re-
ferred to as LT1 and LT2 for “long-term tall”) were 800 mm
deep (640 mm of growing media and 160 mm of under-drain
aggregate). The different column depths were used to compare
the effect of media depth on performance. The columns were
constructed using standard-sized lumber. A 20 mm thick steel
base plate with 6.4 mm diameter perforations was installed at
the bottom of the columns to support the weight of the mate-
rial. The columns were waterproofed with a wood sealer and
lined with a nonwoven geotextile. The under-drain consisted
of washed 40 mm drainage rock, placed directly on top of the
perforated steel base plate. A woven geotextile was installed as
a barrier between the under-drain aggregate and the growing
media, as in the field scale bioretention cell.
The growing media used in the columns was the same as the
field installation and was compacted prior to the experiments
to mimic the compaction levels present in the field. Each
column had one shrub installed; either a Shrubby Cinquefoil
(Potentilla fruticosa) or a Prickly Rose (Rosa acicularis). A
75 mm mulch layer was added on top of each column after the
installation of the shrubs. A 250 mm deep zone on the surface
of each column provided additional runoff storage during
experiments.
2.3. Experiment procedure and data collection
2.3.1. Field experiments
A synthetic stormwater distribution system was set up to
simulate different storm events on the field test facility. This
enabled testing under conditions such as high intensity and
large volume events, which may not be logistically possible
under natural conditions. The synthetic stormwater used for
the experiments was composed of water collected from a City
of Calgary stormwater detention pond. Sediment, which was
sourced from the City’s annual road cleaning activities, was
mixed into the stormwater, to match average Calgary total
suspended solids (TSS) concentration of approximately
444 mg/L. The amount of stormwater and sediment used was
dependent on the size of the event being simulated in each
experiment.
The synthetic runoff was first pumped from two 5 m3
storage tanks to a conical 5 m3 mixing tank, where the sedi-
ment was added. This water, representing the influent, was
then routed to the inlet of the bioretention cell through a pipe.
The influent runoff infiltrated into the cell, eventually moving
to the under-drain layer. The effluent then drained via the
perforated sub-drain pipe to a monitoring manhole located
nearby. Each storage tank had a Sigma 950 submerged pres-
sure sensor installed at the base, which measured the depth of
water in the tank. A Sigma 900 MAX auto-sampler was used
to log the water level in the tanks during each experiment. This
data, along with the dimensions of the tank, was used to
calculate the flow rate and volume of influent used in each
experiment. The manhole to where the effluent drained was
equipped with a 100° V-notch weir. A Sigma 950 submerged
pressure sensor and a Sigma 75 KHz ultra-sonic sensor were
Published by NRC Research Press
 Khan et al.
installed to measure the depth of the water above the notch; the
bottom of the notch was used as the datum and was calibrated
before each experiment. The pressure and ultra-sonic sensors
were connected to a Sigma 900 MAX auto-sampler and Sigma
950 flow-meter, respectively, to collect the depth over time,
and calculated the flow rate of the effluent.
The soil moisture and soil temperature were measured for
each experiment. Four Delta-T SM200 soil moisture sensors
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
were installed in the middle of the cell at depths of 150, 300,
500, and 1000 mm below the surface. A Delta-T DL6 soil
moisture logger was used to collect the data. The sensors were
accurate for operating temperatures between 0.1 and 40 °C.
Two HOBO soil temperature sensors were installed at depths
of 150 and 500 mm below the surface. Both the soil moisture
and temperature sensors were programmed to measure contin-
uously at 1 min intervals.
To calculate the equivalent depth of precipitation applied in
the form of synthetic stormwater runoff, the size and charac-
teristics of a hypothetical catchment had to be defined. For this
project, the area of the bioretention cell was defined to be
equal to 10% of the total catchment area, which is a typical
estimate based on guidelines that recommend between 5% and
20% (Hunt and Jarrett 2004; Lanarc Consultants et al. 2005).
The area of the cell was 32 m2, making the corresponding
hypothetical catchment area 320 m2. Furthermore, a typical
catchment will consist of pervious and impervious areas with
For personal use only.
the majority of the runoff generated from the impervious
fraction. To account for this, a ratio known as the impervious
to pervious ratio (I/P) was introduced (Brown 2007). The
expression I/P is the ratio of the upstream impervious area (I)
to the area of the pervious bioretention cell (P) that receives
the runoff. For this project, an I/P of 4 was selected to
represent typical residential areas. Thus, if the bioretention
area is 32 m2, the upstream impervious area (“I”) is 128 m2
(four times the bioretention area), which represents 40% of the
total catchment area (320 m2 with the other 60% being pervi-
ous and assumed to generate no runoff). The relationship
between runoff volume and precipitation depth can be formu-
lated as
[1] V ⫽ d AB (I/P ⫹ 1)
where V is the volume of influent from tanks (m3); d is the
equivalent precipitation depth (m); AB is the bioretention cell
area (m2); and I/P is the impervious to pervious ratio. Equation [1]
takes into account the runoff generated from the impervious
area in the catchment and also the precipitation that occurs on
the bioretention cell itself. Using this equation, d was calcu-
lated for each experiment using the volume of runoff applied
from the two storage tanks. The average intensity of the
artificial storm event was equal to the d divided by the duration
of the event. This intensity and V was used to estimate the
return period of the simulated events using intensity– dura-
tion–frequency (IDF) curves for Calgary (CoC 2000).
A total of 24 experiments were conducted on the field
bioretention cell site, each representing a distinct precipitation
event. A summary of the experiments is provided in Table 1.
The experiments were conducted in the spring (Sp), summer
(S), fall (F), and winter (W). Eight experiments, indicated by
an asterisk, were conducted in cold weather conditions, during
or proceeding Chinook conditions, when the mean air temper-
1213
ature was between –5 and ⫹5 °C and snowmelt conditions
were possible. The calculated precipitation depth, d, of the
synthetic influent varied from 23.23 to 112.47 mm. The equiv-
alent intensities of the experiments ranged from 25.88 to
134.29 mm/h and the return periods were estimated to be 25,
50, 100, and 200 years.
2.3.2. Column experiments: long-term simulations
A synthetic stormwater runoff distribution system similar to
the field experiments was used for the long-term simulation
experiments on the four columns, LT1, LT2, LS1, and LS2.
Stormwater was collected from the same City of Calgary
detention pond used for the field experiments and stored at the
University of Calgary’s Hydraulics Laboratory. The stormwa-
ter was then pumped to a mixing tank where sediment was
added to simulate the average Calgary TSS concentration.
Submersible pumps routed the runoff to the four columns via
vinyl tubing. The runoff drained onto the columns through an
apparatus designed to equally distribute the runoff on the
surface.
Equation [1] was used to estimate the equivalent volume of
influent for the 20 year period. In this case, d equalled to
400 mm, the annual precipitation in Calgary, AB was equal to
0.25 m2, and I/P was the same as the field experiments, 4. This
meant the equivalent runoff each column received for a sim-
ulated year was 0.5 m3 or 10 m3 for 20 years. The volume
applied to the columns was calculated using the dimensions of
the mixing tank and the initial and final water level in the tank.
The runoff was applied to the columns periodically: approxi-
mately 0.140 m3 of runoff was pumped to each column in
90 min. After the pumping ended, the columns drained for
60 min. This process was repeated three times a day; staged
application of runoff was necessary to prevent excessive pool-
ing of runoff on the surface of the column. The total amount
of sediment applied on each column was approximately 5 kg,
which corresponds to a TSS concentration of 444 mg/L.
Though the application of a large volume of runoff over a
short period does not exactly mimic the natural maturation
process and long-term operation, it can give a conservative
estimate and highlight the anticipated changes in the hy-
drological performance.
The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the growing
media was estimated using a Model 2800K1 Guelph per-
meameter. The initial Ksat was measured at 0 equivalent years
(prior to the application of runoff) and after 3.8, 9.2, 15.6, and
20 equivalent years (or after the application of 1.9, 4.6, 7.8,
and 10 m3 of runoff). Two Ksat values were calculated on each
column at each interval, with a constant head of 10 cm and
15 cm, respectively.
The PSD of the growing media was analysed throughout the
experiments to understand the mechanisms behind the poten-
tial decline in surface infiltration and Ksat. Media samples were
taken at three depths each from LT1 and LT2: 0 – 0.20 m,
0.20 – 0.4 m, and 0.4 – 0.64 m; and at two depths from LS1 and
LS2: 0 – 0.18 m and 0.18 – 0.36 m. The samples were taken at
the same five intervals as the Ksat measurements.
2.4. Performance measures
2.4.1. Change in runoff volume
The influent and effluent volumes for the field experiments
were calculated for each experiment, with the exception of five
Published by NRC Research Press
 1214 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 39, 2012

Table 1. Summary of hydrologic parameters for field experiments.

Precip. Return
Experiment Air Influent depth Duration Intensity period
ID Date temp. °C volume (L) (mm) (min) (mm/h) (years)
S1 7/17/08 14 8 004 50.03 116 25.88 100
S2 8/6/08 22 7 520 47.00 21 134.29 100
S3 8/15/08 20 7 736 48.35 36 80.58 100
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16

S4 8/27/08 13 7 943 49.64 31 96.08 100

F1 10/7/08 11 8 230 51.44 34 90.77 100
F2 10/24/08 9 8 120 50.75 32 95.16 100
F3* 11/4/08 –1 4 739 29.62 28 63.47 50
W1*ⴙ 2/3/09 3 3 919 24.49 19 77.35 25
Sp1*ⴙ 5/20/09 4 3 866 24.16 21 69.04 25
Sp2⫹ 6/9/09 9 8 601 53.76 27 119.46 100
Sp3ⴙ 6/16/09 16 3 877 24.23 14 103.85 50
S5⫹ 7/8/09 12 8 395 52.47 34 92.59 100
S6 7/22/09 22 7 842 49.01 36 81.69 100
S7 8/12/09 15 4 848 30.30 17 106.94 50
S8 8/26/09 17 4 857 30.36 16 113.84 50
S9 8/27/09 17 3 717 23.23 21 116.16 50
S10 9/2/09 21 17 995 112.47 88 76.68 200
F4* 12/2/09 –5 8 840 55.25 61 54.34 100
W2* 1/12/10 5 8 398 52.49 62 50.79 100
W3* 1/14/10 2 9 014 56.34 68 49.71 100
W4* 2/19/10 –4 8 951 55.94 69 48.65 100
For personal use only.

W5* 3/3/10 5 8 581 53.63 64 50.28 100

S11 7/8/10 19 6 922 43.26 67 38.74 100
S12 7/13/10 10 8 868 55.43 67 49.63 100
Note: *Cold climate experiments; ⫹No soil moisture data collected. The rows that are in bold font represent
events with precipitation depth of less than 32 mm.

experiments, where no effluent drained to the outlet manhole
(see Section 3.1 for details). The influent volume was calcu-
lated using the initial and final depths of water in the storage
tanks and multiplying this difference by the cross-sectional
area of each tank. The effluent volume was calculated by
multiplying the measured flow rate in the outlet manhole by
the time step, and adding these values for the entire duration of
flow into the manhole. The change in runoff volume was
calculated using
[2] DV ⫽ 1 ⫺共 Ve
Vi 兲
⫻ 100%
where ⌬V is the change in runoff volume between inlet and
outlet of the bioretention cell (%); Ve is the volume of
effluent (m3); and Vi is the volume of influent (m3). A value
of ⌬V less than 100% indicates a decrease in runoff volume
between the inlet and outlet, or a lower volume of effluent
than influent.
A mass balance analysis of the runoff was conducted to
determine the fate of the artificial runoff applied to the cell.
The mass balance of the runoff was calculated using
growing media 12 h after peak soil moisture (m3); and L is the
other losses (m3). The variable Sg is defined as the difference
between the initial and “final” volume of water held in the
growing media. The initial volume is calculated using the soil
moisture measured immediately prior to an event. The final
volume is calculated using the soil moisture measured 12 h
after the occurrence of peak soil moisture during the event.
The volume of water stored was calculated by multiplying the
difference in initial and final moisture in each sensor by the
representative depth and summing the volumes for each sen-
sor. This calculation assumes that the measurement by each
soil moisture sensor is representative of the surface area of the
cell at each depth. The term L represents the combined losses
from evapotranspiration and percolation into the soil surround-
ing the bioretention cell, i.e., the volume of runoff not ac-
counted for between Ve and Sg.
2.4.2. Change in flow rate
The change in peak and centre-of-mass (CoM) were calcu-
lated using the following equation:

[3] Vi ⫽ Ve ⫹ Sg ⫹ L
[4] DQ ⫽ 1 ⫺ 共 Qe
Qi 兲
⫻ 100%

where Vi is the volume of influent and Ve is the volume of where ⌬Q is the change in either the peak or CoM flow rate
effluent, as in eq. [2]; Sg is the volume of water stored in reduction (%); Qe is the effluent peak or CoM flow rate

Published by NRC Research Press

 Khan et al.
Fig. 2. Different shapes of the influent and effluent hydrographs from four experiments illustrate the need for a normalized measurement of
delay. The DF is calculated using ti – ts and to – ts, depicted in (a). Note that these experiments have a similar Vi and peak delay (30 or
31 min) but distinct values of DF.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
For personal use only.
(mm/h); and Qi is the influent peak or CoM flow rate (mm/h).
An analysis of CoM was included along with the traditional
analysis of peak flow rates to provide an additional measure of
influent hydrographs with multiple peaks (caused by the pump
mechanism).
2.4.3. Delay factor
In addition to analysing the change in the magnitude of
the peak or CoM flow rate, the delay in the occurrences of
these flow rates were also analysed. The delay was defined
as the difference between the times at which Qi and Qe
occur. However, analysing the delay without considering
the start time of the event can be misleading. This is due to
a number of reasons; first, for events with a similar duration
and runoff volume, the shape of the influent hydrographs
varied widely with peaks occurring at different times rela-
tive to start and total duration of the event. Second, by
focusing on peak or CoM flow rate delay, the difference in
flow rates and volumes (indicators of the return period) are
not accounted for, thus making it hard to compare the delay
between events. Finally, the influence of antecedent soil
moisture conditions in the cell affects the timing and shape
(start, duration, and peak) of the effluent hydrograph. Thus
a delay factor, DF, was defined, which normalizes the time
1215
to peak (or time to CoM) of the effluent and the time to peak
(or time to CoM) of the influent.
t e ⫺ ti
[5] DF ⫽
ti ⫺ ts
where DF is the delay factor; te is the time of effluent peak or
CoM; ti is the time of influent peak or CoM; and ts is the start
time of the experiment. Note that this differs from the tradi-
tional “lag time” since both, te and ti are measured from the
same point, ts, the time at which the experiment began. The
functionality of DF is illustrated in Fig. 2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Change in runoff volume
The change in runoff volume, ⌬V for all field experi-
ments is shown in Fig. 3; the average ⌬V for the 24 field
experiments was 91.5%, i.e., a significant decrease in runoff
volume between the influent and effluent. Additionally, ⌬V
was 99.9% for seven experiments (bolded rows in Table 1)
that had precipitation depths of 30.36 mm or less. Apart from
F3 (⌬V ⫽ 99.9%) and Sp3 (⌬V ⫽ 99.8%), no effluent (i.e.,
Published by NRC Research Press
 1216
Fig. 3. Change in runoff volume, ⌬V for all field experiments.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
For personal use only.
⌬V ⫽ 100%) drained to the outlet manhole for the remaining
5 experiments listed above. In Calgary, 96% of all precipita-
tion events are smaller than 32 mm (WER 2007b). This
demonstrates that bioretention cells with similar configura-
tions can capture the majority of precipitation and resulting
runoff, when sized to 10% of the catchment area in regions
with similar hydrology.
The average ⌬V was 93.5% for warm conditions and was
87.5% for cold conditions. This difference was not significant
at the 95% confidence level. However, if the seven experiments
with precipitation depths less than 32 mm are excluded from the
analysis (i.e., events that produce minimal to no outflow) then
there is a statistically significant difference (p ⫽ 0.006) between
the warm (⌬V ⫽ 91%) and cold (⌬V ⫽ 80%) weather conditions.
Thus, in cold conditions there is reduced capacity to capture or
decrease the runoff volume from large, high intensity and low
frequency events.
A summary of the results from the mass balance analysis
is shown in the insert in Fig. 3. The results show each
component of the mass balance equation (eq. [3]) as a per-
centage of Vi. Soil moisture data was not logged for five
events, W1 through S5 (due to a soil temperature below 0.1 °C
or sensor malfunction), so these events were excluded from
this analysis. Due to these omissions, the percentage Ve/Vi is
higher than the results shown for ⌬V above. For the remaining
19 experiments, approximately 59% of the influent was ob-
served to be “other losses” (L) and 31% was stored in the
growing media (Sg). Decrease in runoff volume via Sg is minor
compared to L. On average, L was calculated to be 30 mm over
the 12 h period, suggesting that losses to the surrounding soils,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 39, 2012
through the permeable liner, were much higher than evapo-
transpiration. This result has important implications for biore-
tention design as it indicates that the majority of “captured”
runoff is in fact lost to the surrounding soils. If this bioreten-
tion cell was constructed with an impermeable liner, the ef-
fluent volume could theoretically be as high as ⬃70%
(L ⫹ Ve). Thus, if the objective of a specific bioretention cell
application is to decrease runoff volume, a cell with a perme-
able liner would perform better than one with an impermeable
liner.
Comparing the two weather conditions, Sg was signifi-
cantly lower in cold conditions (p ⫽ 0.043); i.e., a lower
volume of runoff stored in the growing media in cold
conditions. Other losses, L were not significantly different
between warm and cold conditions (p ⬎ 0.05). These results
suggest that in cold conditions, less runoff volume is being
held in the growing media (Sg) and the volume portion
leaving via the outlet pipe is larger (⌬V).
3.2. Peak and centre-of-mass flow rate reduction
and delay
Average peak Qi was 85.6 mm/h and average peak Qe was
3.2 mm/h. Average CoM Qi was 34.7 mm/h and average CoM
Qe was 0.6 mm/h. The peak and CoM change in flow rate
reduction and delay are summarized in Table 2. On average,
the peak and CoM ⌬Q for all experiments were 95.3% and
97.5%, respectively (excluding events where no effluent
drained to the manhole). On average, both peak and CoM ⌬Q
were lower in cold conditions but not significantly different
(p ⫽ 0.203 and p ⫽ 0.271).
Published by NRC Research Press
 Khan et al. 1217

Table 2. Summary of changes in peak and CoM flow rate, delay, surface. Thus, in cold weather conditions, even though the
and DF for field experiments. initial soil moisture was similar, the maximum amount of
volume held was lower near the surface. Also, analyzing soil
⌬Q ⌬Q Peak CoM moisture readings 12 h after the peak soil moisture (i.e., the
Experiment (peak) (CoM) delay delay Peak CoM “final soil moisture”), shows that the moisture levels at the
ID (%) (%) (min) (min) DF (⫺) DF (⫺) 150 mm and 1000 mm deep sensors were significantly higher
S1 88.9 93.6 31 57 1.38 1.95 in warm conditions (p ⫽ 0.046 and p ⫽ 0.021 for the 150 mm
S2 99.0 99.3 15 28 1.75 3.33 and 1000 mm sensors, respectively). This means that either a
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16

S3 98.6 98.9 30 38 2.30 3.11 relatively larger volume of runoff is stored at these locations in
S4 96.5 98.8 22 41 2.29 3.41 warm conditions or that these locations are receiving less total
F1 98.6 99.3 23 43 2.35 3.69 runoff in cold conditions. The reasons for this phenomenon are
F2 97.8 99.3 30 50 1.45 3.27 discussed below. It is also important to note that there were no
F3 100.0 100.0 90 112 11.00 9.00 significant differences in moisture values for the 300 mm and
W1* — — — — — — 500 mm deep sensors.
Sp1* — — — — — —
Sp2 97.4 99.1 26 51 2.44 4.64 3.4. Cold climate hydrologic characteristics
Sp3 99.9 100.0 76 72 11.29 11.29 Cold condition experiments were characterized by higher
S5 96.8 98.0 12 41 1.32 2.58 peak and CoM Qe, higher Ve and lower Sg, as well as the soil
S6 97.2 98.9 34 48 2.89 3.67 moisture trends described above; these differences are illus-
S7* — — — — — — trated in Fig. 4 for experiments S6 and W3 as examples. The
S8* — — — — — — differences indicate that the partially frozen top layer (mea-
S9* — — — — — — sured to a depth of 150 mm by the soil temperature sensor)
S10 90.5 92.5 46 90 1.43 2.17 altered the flow path of the runoff through the bioretention cell
F4 84.8 97.1 46 52 5.18 2.86 media. The runoff is hypothesized to be short-circuiting and
W2 96.5 97.1 61 62 7.78 3.21 travelling through preferential flow paths and macro-pores to
W3 93.1 94.8 69 73 18.25 3.81 the outlet pipe, bypassing or not fully utilizing the available
For personal use only.

W4 96.6 97.6 31 66 1.66 3.00 media mass in the deeper areas of the cell. This is typical of
W5 89.9 94.6 38 70 2.03 3.12 drainage in the prairies during the winter months (Granger
S11 96.6 97.5 38 60 2.83 3.61 et al. 1984; Gray et al. 2001; van der Kamp et al. 2003; Fang
S12 92.4 96.2 71 75 19.50 3.78 et al. 2007).
Averages As the runoff is applied to the cell (Fig. 4), in cold
All 95.3 97.49 42 59.42 5.22 3.97 conditions the frozen top layer does not allow the water to
Warm 96.2 97.79 35 53.38 4.09 3.88 penetrate the growing media as it does in warm conditions.
Cold 93.5 96.84 56 72.50 7.65 4.17 The runoff does not disperse evenly and tends to travel later-
ally before finding a route down towards the perforated section
Note: *No effluent drained to the monitoring manhole for these five of the under-drain pipe. This explains the higher peak flow rate
experiments so the listed parameters could not be calculated.
(since the runoff is wetting a smaller volume of soil), longer
peak delays (due to a decrease in permeability because of the
The average delay in peak flow rate was 42 min; with a partially frozen layer), and the lower volume held in the
significantly (p ⫽ 0.039) shorter delay in warm conditions growing media (bypassing effect). It is important to note that
compared to cold conditions (35 vs. 55 min). Similarly, the since the 300 and 500 mm deep sensors do not show any
average delay in CoM flow rate was 59 min; with a signifi- difference between warm and cold conditions, the bioretention
cantly (p ⫽ 0.049) shorter lag in warm conditions compared to media itself is not altering the hydrologic response in cold
cold conditions (53 vs. 72 min). The average peak DF for all weather conditions. Rather boundary effects — specifically
experiments was 5.22; 4.10 in warm conditions and 7.65 in the surface boundary that is subject to freezing conditions —
cold conditions. The CoM DF for all experiments was 3.97; appears to affect the flow paths. This phenomenon is believed
3.88 in warm conditions and 4.17 in cold conditions. This to be unique to prairie regions experiencing frequent freeze–
supports the results from the peak and CoM delay, where there thaw cycles and its characterization improves the understand-
is a longer delay in cold weather conditions. However, using ing of bioretention operation in these conditions.
the normalized measure of delay, DF, indicates that the dif-
ferences are not significant (p ⫽ 0.188 for peak DF and 3.5. Long-term simulation experiments
p ⫽ 0.861 for CoM DF). The saturated hydraulic conductivity, Ksat, for each column
is shown in Fig. 5. The figure shows the average results for LT1
3.3. Soil moisture trends and LT2 and for LS1 and LS2. Over the testing period, Ksat for
Comparing soil moisture data between warm and cold con- LT decreased from 2.25 ⫻ 10⫺5 to 1.98 ⫻ 10⫺6 m/s, a
ditions, there was no statistical difference between initial soil significant reduction of 91.2% (p ⫽ 0.017). The Ksat for LS
moisture in the growing media at each of the four depths. This decreased from 1.91 ⫻ 10⫺5 to 1.24 ⫻ 10⫺6 m/s, a significant
indicates that the amount of initial storage capacity was un- reduction of 93.3% (p ⫽ 0.015). For both sets of columns, Ksat
changed in the two weather conditions. However, the peak soil decreased rapidly over the first 4 equivalent years of runoff
moisture was significantly lower (p ⫽ 0.020) in cold condi- application. After this, the rate of decline decreased and was
tions for only one location: the sensor 150 mm below the effectively a constant value. The Ksat initially drops due to a

Published by NRC Research Press

 1218
Fig. 4. A comparison of effluent flow rate, soil moisture (measured at a depth of 150 mm and 1000 mm from the surface), and runoff
movement through the growing media (schematic not-to-scale), for a warm (S6) and cold (W4) climate experiment. Note that the partially
frozen layer was measured to a depth of 150 mm.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
For personal use only.
combination of compaction (due to settling of the growing
media and runoff application) and initial clogging. The clog-
ging in the columns was limited due to the lack of formation
of a crust layer. This contributed to keeping Ksat relatively
constant. The depth of the columns did not have a significant
impact on Ksat. These results indicate that the hydraulic con-
ductivity of the columns was unaffected by the depth of the
media and remained high without any maintenance after con-
tinuous operation. This can potentially reduce the cost of
bioretention cell construction and operation, due to the lower
volume of growing media and lower frequency of maintenance
required.
The PSD analysis of the growing media in the columns at
different depths concluded there was effectively no change in
the distribution below a depth of 0.20 m in each column. The
change in distribution for the 0 – 0.20 m deep layer was char-
acterized by a 50% increase in particles between 50 and
200 ␮m and a 50% decrease in particles 0.1 and 50 ␮m. There
were no changes to the distribution for particles smaller than
0.1 ␮m and larger than 200 ␮m. This shows that the sediment
from the synthetic stormwater runoff (the majority of which is
between 50 and 200 ␮m) was primarily captured in the top
20 cm for all columns. This indicates that the capture of the
sediment is due to surface filtration; as additional depth did not
have any impact on particle capture (depth filtration). The
capture of these particles on the surface is also responsible for
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 39, 2012
the overall reduction in saturated hydraulic conductivity of the
columns. This analysis also demonstrates how the majority of
TSS is captured by the columns, which is responsible for the
large decrease in TSS concentration seen in the water quality
component of this study (Khan et al. 2012).
It is important to note that the rate of decrease in con-
ductivity and sediment capture in this experiment is accel-
erated compared to what might be experienced on a field
scale. There was no maintenance conducted on the columns
and the plants did not mature at the same rate as the runoff
application. As a result, the effects of the root function are
not fully accounted for as in the field experiments. Thus,
this procedure gives a conservative estimate in terms of
hydrologic performance.
4. Conclusions
The hydrological performance of the field bioretention cell
was high in both warm and cold conditions. The field exper-
iments show an average change in runoff volume (⌬V) of
91.5% and a reduction of peak flow rate of 95.3%, further
supporting the use of bioretention cells as an important tech-
nology for stormwater control. Cold condition performance
was characterized by significantly lower ⌬V (only for exper-
iments with a precipitation depth larger than 32 mm), lower
peak and CoM flow rate reduction, and longer lag times. An
Published by NRC Research Press
 Khan et al.
Fig. 5. Saturated hydraulic conductivity trends for (a) LT1 and LT2 and (b) LS1 and LS2; the black high-low bars represent the maximum
and minimum measured values by the Guelph Permeameter at each interval; the dotted lines represent the corresponding upper and lower
bounds of measurement error.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
For personal use only.
analysis of the soil moisture during experiments concluded
that a partial frozen surface layer altered how the runoff
moved through the cell in cold conditions. This contributed
to the change in performance in cold conditions. However,
the efficacy remained high, indicating that bioretention cells
are a viable method of addressing urban stormwater runoff
concerns in Calgary and areas with similar climate and
drainage patterns.
Long-term performance experiments on the columns dem-
onstrated a significant decrease in Ksat over the first 4 equiv-
alent years of runoff application, after which the conductivity
was constant. Over the 20 year equivalent runoff application
period, Ksat significantly decreased in the tall and short col-
umns, by 91.2% and 93.3%, respectively. Compaction and
initial clogging due to the sediment in the influent was respon-
sible for this decrease. The majority of the captured sediment
was caught in the top 20 cm of all the columns. This data can
be used to assess suitable maintenance procedures to improve
long-term bioretention cell performance.
Future research should be conducted with different I/P
and catchment sizes, using the methods outlined in this
paper. This would change the average intensities of the
synthetic storm events and the equivalent duration for the
field and column experiments, respectively, allowing for
performance analysis in different regions. Additionally, ex-
periments to mimic snowmelt events and intensities need to
be conducted. Future research should focus on the fate of
the percolating runoff.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NSERC, the City of Calgary,
Canada Lands Company, and the CWRA (with a student schol-
1219
arship). The authors would also like to thank Dr. M. Hayashi and
Dr. C. Ryan of the Department of Geoscience, University of
Calgary; A. Montgomery of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Victoria; and staff at the City of Calgary and University of
Calgary for their assistance and suggestions.
References
Archer, N.A., Quinton, J.N., and Hess, T.M. 2002. Below-ground
relationships of soil texture, roots and hydraulic conductivity in
two-phase mosaic vegetation in south-east Spain. Journal of Arid
Environments, 52(4): 535–553. doi:10.1006/jare.2002.1011.
Brown, C.R. 2007. Characteristics of solids removal and clogging
processes in two types of permeable pavement. M.Sc. thesis,
University of Calgary.
CoC. 2000. Stormwater management and design manual. The City of
Calgary Wastewater and Drainage. Calgary, Alta.
Davidson, J.D., LeFevre, N.-J., and Oberts, G. 2008. Hydrologic
bioretention performance and design criteria for cold climates.
Water Environment Research Foundation, Farmington, MN.
Davis, A.P. 2008. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology
impacts. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(2): 90 –95. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90).
Delleur, J.W. 1982. Introduction to urban hydrology and stormwater
management. In Urban stormwater hydrology. Edited by D.F.
Kibler. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA.
Water Resources Monograph 7. pp. 1–26.
Ermilio, J.R., and Traver, R.G. 2006. Hydrologic and pollutant re-
moval performance of a bio-infiltration BMP. Proceedings of the
2006 world environmental and water resources congress. ASCE/
EWRI. Omaha, Nb, USA. pp. 1–12.
Fang, X., Minke, A., Pomeroy, J., Brown, T., Westbrook, C., Guo,
X., and Guangul, S. 2007. A review of Canadian Prairie hy-
Published by NRC Research Press
 1220
drology: Principles, modelling and response to land use and drain-
age change. 2 ed., Vol. 2. Centre for Hydrology, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.
Granger, R.J., Gray, D.M., and Dyck, G.E. 1984. Snowmelt infiltra-
tion to frozen prairie soils. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,
21(6): 669 – 677. doi:10.1139/e84-073.
Gray, D.M., Toth, B., Zhao, L., Pomeroy, J.W., and Granger, R.J.
2001. Estimating areal snowmelt infiltration into froze soils. Hy-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
drological Processes, 15(16): 3095–3111. doi:10.1002/hyp.320.
Hatt, B.E., Fletcher, T.D., and Deletic, A. 2009. Hydrologic and
pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems
at the field scale. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 365(3– 4):
310 –321. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001.
Hsieh, C.H., and Davis, A.P. 2003. Evaluation of bioretention for
treatment of urban storm water runoff. Proceedings of World
Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2003. ASCE. Phil-
adelphia, Pa. pp. 141–148.
Hsieh, C.H., and Davis, A.P. 2005. Evaluation and optimization of
bioretention media for treatment of urban storm water runoff.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131(11): 1521–1531. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:11(1521).
Hunt, W.F., and Jarrett, A.R. 2004. Evaluating bioretention areas
from two field sites in North Carolina. Proceedings of the 2004
world water and environmental resources congress: Critical tran-
sitions in water and environmental resources management. ASCE.
Salt Lake City, Utah. pp. 797– 806.
For personal use only.
Hunt, W.F., Smith, J.T., Jadlocki, S.J., Hathaway, J.M., and Eubanks,
P.R. 2008. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a biore-
tention cell in urban Charlotte, N.C. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 134(5): 403– 408. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372
(2008)134:5(403).
Khan, U.T., Valeo, C., Chu, A., and van Duin, B. 2012. Bioretention
cell efficacy in cold conditions: Part 2 — water quality perfor-
mance. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 39(11): This issue.
doi:10.1139/l2012-111.
Kim, H., Seagren, E.A., and Davis, A.P. 2003. Engineered biore-
tention for removal of nitrate from stormwater runoff. Water Envi-
ronment Research, 75(4): 355–367. doi:10.2175/106143003X141169.
PMID:12934829.
Lanarc Consultants Ltd., Kerr Wood Leidal Associates, and Ngan, G.
2005. Infiltration rain garden. In Stormwater source control design
guidelines April 2005. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Van-
couver, B.C. pp. 43–52.
Le Coustumer, S., Fletcher, T.D., Deletic, A., and Barraud, S. 2007.
Hydraulic performance of biofilters for stormwater management:
first lessons from both laboratory and field studies. Water Science
and Technology, 56(10): 93–100. doi:10.2166/wst.2007.735.
PMID:18048981.
Le Coustumer, S., Fletcher, T., Deletic, A., and Barraud, S. 2008.
Influence of time and design on the hydraulic performance of
biofiltration systems for stormwater management. Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on urban drainage. ICUD, Ed-
inburgh, UK. pp. 1–10.
Lewis, J.F., Hatt, B.E., Deletic, A., and Fletcher, T.D. 2008. The
impact of vegetation on the hydraulic conductivity of stormwater
biofiltration systems. Proceedings of the 11th International Con-
ference on urban drainage. ICUD, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 1–10.
Li, H., and Davis, A.P. 2008. Urban particle capture in bioretention
media. I: Laboratory and field studies. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 134(6): 409–418. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)
134:6(409).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 39, 2012
Muthanna, T.M., Viklander, M., Gjesdahl, N., and Thorolfsson, S.T.
2007. Heavy metal removal in cold climate bioretention. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution, 183(1– 4): 391– 402. doi:10.1007/s11270-
007-9387-z.
Muthanna, T.M., Viklander, M., and Thorolfsson, S.T. 2008. Sea-
sonal climatic effects on the hydrology of a rain garden. Hydro-
logical Processes, 22(11): 1640 –1649. doi:10.1002/hyp.6732.
Nordberg, M., and Thorolfsson, S.T. 2004. Low impact development
and bioretention areas in cold climates. Proceedings of the 2004
world water and environmental resources congress: Critical tran-
sitions in water and environmental resources. ASCE, Salt Lake
City, Utah. pp. 3409 –3418.
Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Houle, J.J., Avelleneda, P., Wildey,
R., and Briggs, J. 2006. An examination of cold climate perfor-
mance of low impact development stormwater BMPs in a northern
climate. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on cold
regions engineering. ASCE, Orono, Maine, USA. pp. 210.
Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Houle, J.J., Avellaneda, P., Briggs, J.,
Fowler, G., and Wildey, R. 2009. Seasonal performance variations
for storm-water management systems in cold climate conditions.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135(3): 128 –137. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(128).
Sharkey, L.J., and Hunt, W.F. 2005. Hydrologic and water quality
performance of four bioretention cells in central North Carolina.
Proceedings of the 2005 Watershed management conference -
Managing watersheds for human and natural impacts: Engineering,
ecological and economic challenges. ASCE/EWRI, Williamsburg,
Va., USA. pp. 833– 842.
Traver, R.G., and Prokop, M. 2003. Effectiveness of a bioinfiltration
BMP. Proceedings of the World water and environmental re-
sources congress 2003 and related symposia. ASCE/EWRI, Phil-
adelphia, Pa., USA. pp. 1.
Traver, R.G., Davis, A.P., and Hunt, W.F. 2007. Bioretention and
bioinfiltration BMPs. Stormwater: The journal for surface water
quality professionals, October 2007.
UNHSC. 2005. 2005 Data Report. Bioretention System. 1st ed.,
Durham, N.H., USA.
US EPA. 2001. Low impact development (LID): A literature review
(# EPA-841-B-00-005). Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, D.C., USA.
van der Kamp, G., Hayashi, M., and Gallén, D. 2003. Comparing the
hydrology of grassed and cultivated catchments in the semi-arid
Canadian prairies. Hydrological Processes, 17: 559 –575. doi:
10.1002/hyp.1157.
Westhoff Engineering Resources (WER). 2007a. Bioretention areas.
In Source control practices handbook. Edited by Westhoff Engi-
neering Resources. Westhoff Engineering Resources, Calgary, Al-
berta. pp. 7.1–7.38.
Westhoff Engineering Resources (WER). 2007b. Appendix A: Key
aspects of interest. In Source control practices handbook. Edited by
Westhoff Engineering Resources. Westhoff Engineering Re-
sources, Calgary, Alberta. pp. A.1–A.37.
List of symbols
AB bioretention cell area (m2)
d equivalent precipitation depth (mm)
Ksat saturated hydraulic conductivity
L other losses (m3)
Qe effluent peak or CoM flow rate (mm/h)
Qi influent peak or CoM flow rate (mm/h)
Published by NRC Research Press
 Khan et al. 1221

Sg is equal to the volume of water stored in growing media 12 Ve volume of effluent (m3)
hours after peak soil moisture (m3) Vi volume of influent (m3)
te time of effluent peak or CoM ⌬Q change in either the peak or CoM flow rate reduction (%)
ti time of influent peak or CoM ⌬V change in runoff volume between inlet and outlet of the
ts start time of the experiment bioretention cell (%)
TSS total suspended solids (mg/L)
V volume of influent from tanks (m3)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by "University of the Philippines, Diliman-" on 11/18/16
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press