EPA/600/R-10/083 | June 2010 | www.epa.gov /nrmrl

Surface Infiltration Rates of Permeable Surfaces: 

Six Month Update (November 2009 through April 2010)

Office of Research and Development

National Risk Management Research Laboratory - Water Supply and Water Resources Division
Surface Infiltration Rates of Permeable Surfaces: 

Six Month Update (November 2009 through April 2010)
 

Michael Borst 

Amy A. Rowe 

Emilie K. Stander 

Thomas P. O’Connor 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Water Supply and Water Resources Division 

2890 Woodbridge Ave (MS 104) 

Edison, NJ 08837 
Disclaimer 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development, 

funded and managed, or partially funded and collaborated in, the research described herein. It 

has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for 

publication. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the author (s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. 

Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

2 
Abstract 

At the end of October 2009, EPA opened a parking lot on the Edison Environmental Center that 

included three parking rows of permeable pavement. The construction was a cooperative effort 

among EPA’s Office of Administration and Resources Management, National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory, and the facility owner, Region 2. The lot serves as an active parking area 

for facility staff and visitors and also as a research platform. 

Key unknowns in the application of green infrastructure include the long term performance and 

the maintenance requirements. The perceived uncertainty in these is a barrier to widespread 

adoption of the installation of permeable surfaces for stormwater management. EPA recognizes 

the need for credible long-term performance maintenance data and has begun a long-term 

monitoring effort on this installation. 

This document outlines the methods and results of the surface infiltration monitoring of the 

permeable parking surfaces during the first six months of operation. 

3 
Foreword 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the 

Nation’s land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the 

Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between 

human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this 

mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and technical support for solving 

environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our 

ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce 

environmental risks in the future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for 

investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks 

from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s 

research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of 

pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water 

systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control 

of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public 

and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to 

anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides solutions to environmental 

problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; 

advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and 

providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of 

environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. 

It is published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the 

user community and to link researchers with their clients. 

Sally Gutierrez, Director 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

4 
Table of Contents 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6
 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 7
 

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8
 

Chapter 2 Measurement Methods ................................................................................................. 10
 

Chapter 3 Statistical Methods ....................................................................................................... 13
 

Hypotheses................................................................................................................................. 13
 

Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 14
 

H1: Infiltration rate by surface type .......................................................................................... 14
 

H2: Infiltration rate by side ....................................................................................................... 15
 

H3: Infiltration rate of porous concrete sections ....................................................................... 16
 

H4: Infiltration rate changes with time...................................................................................... 17
 

H5: Stripe effect......................................................................................................................... 18
 

Chapter 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 20
 

5 
List of Tables 

Table 1. Location and results of the December 2009 surface infiltration measurements............ 22
 

Table 2. Location and results of January 2010 surface infiltration measurements...................... 24
 

Table 3 Locations and results for February 2010 surface infiltration measurements.................. 25
 

Table 4. Locations and results for March 2010 surface infiltration measurements..................... 26
 

Table 5. Locations and results for April 2010 surface infiltration measurements........................ 27
 

6 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Photograph of measurement apparatus......................................................................... 11
 

Figure 2. Drawing showing location of measurement locations.................................................. 12
 

Figure 3 Graph showing the infiltration rate of the three surface materials.. .............................. 15
 

Figure 4. Graph showing the infiltration rate of the east and west sides porous concrete........... 16
 

Figure 5. Graph showing monthly measured surface infiltration rate of each surface................ 18
 

Figure 6. Photograph of the wetted area after removing the test apparatus showing leakage..... 20
 

7 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) constructed a parking lot on the Edison 

Environmental Center that incorporates three permeable pavement surfaces. The parking lot has 

110 spaces in three double (head-to-head parking) rows and two single car rows. The three 

double rows have permeable surfaces (interlocking concrete pavers, porous concrete, and porous 

asphalt). The northernmost (single) row is paved with porous concrete. The driving lanes and 

the southernmost single parking row are traditional impervious asphalt. All surfaces were placed 

during the fall of 2009 by installers certified by their respective trade organizations. 

The lot is actively used, providing parking for facility staff and visitors. In addition to providing 

the facility with needed parking, EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

(NRMRL) is using the parking lot as a platform to monitor the performance of the three 

permeable surfaces as a stormwater management practice. The site is also being used as an 

outreach tool to demonstrate a working example of the stormwater control. 

Part of the planned NRMRL research is to collect information that will allow users to create an 

a priori estimate of the maintenance requirements and predict the associated operating costs. 

While many owners will routinely clean the parking area for litter and debris control, a more 

aggressive cleaning may be required periodically to maintain or restore the surface infiltration 

capacity. Cahill and others (2003), for example, recommend maintaining with an industrial 

vacuum system twice each year while simultaneously noting that installations that have not been 

maintained continue to function well for many years. Baladés and others (1995) noted no 

reduction in infiltration rates during the first year and rapid reductions in unmaintained systems 

in the following year. Conceptually, the infiltration rate decreases as solids accumulate in the 

surface pores (Legret and Colandini 1999). The accumulated solids decrease the open area 

available for water passage and, therefore, decrease the surface infiltration capacity. Periodic 

cleaning removes the solids, reopening the passages and restoring the infiltration capacity. 

Currently there is insufficient information to forecast the cleaning frequency necessary to 

maintain the needed infiltration capacity or assess the effectiveness of the cleaning. This 

knowledge gap precludes generating estimates of operating and whole-life costs that, in turn, are 

perceived barriers to increased use. 

The NRMRL research uses an imaginary north-south line to divide each permeable parking area 

into an eastern half and a western half. The planned research approach will clean half of each 

parking area after a certain decrease in infiltration. The remainder of the parking area will not be 

maintained until a later time to allow comparison. Monitored infiltration rates will provide clear 

results demonstrating the presumed infiltration capacity recovery produced by the periodic 

cleaning and demonstrate any longer-term degradation of the infiltration rate of the unmaintained 

8 
surfaces. 

Surface infiltration rates are measured monthly and the current plan is to use regenerative air 

vacuum systems to vacuum the lot based on measured changes in infiltration rates. This 

document presents the first set of infiltration measurements collected during the first six months 

of parking lot use. The period was predominantly the winter months. The first infiltration 

measurements were completed during December 2009, the second month that the parking lot was 

in use. 

9 
 

Chapter 2 Measurement Methods 

Infiltration measurements were made following a modified version of the ASTM method C1701 

(ASTM 2009). Although the method was developed specifically for porous concrete, this testing 

applies the same method to all three permeable surfaces. The sole modification was the sealing 

method between the 12-inch diameter PVC cylinder and the surface. The pipe used in this 

testing is 15 cm high with parallel black lines drawn 10 and 15 mm from the pipe bottom. This 

work substitutes -inch thick Neoprene sheeting compressed with applied weight (See Figure 1) 

for the plumbers’ putty seal described in the ASTM method. The Neoprene sheeting is trimmed 

to align with the inside circumference of the pipe. The wooden frame holds 5-gallon buckets 

filled with stone. Tie-down straps spanning the PVC cylinder support the frame slightly above 

the parking lot surface. The weight of the buckets on the pipe compresses the Neoprene sheet to 

form a gasket with minimal leakage. When used on the pavers, additional Neoprene strips 

placed in the gaps between the individual paver blocks dam the openings. Similar sealing 

mechanisms have been used successfully by others (e.g., Bäckström and Bergström 2000; Bean 

2007; Houle 2008). 

After positioning the pipe and applying the weight, 3.60 kg of water is poured into the area 

isolated by the cylinder while keeping the water level between the two lines drawn on the interior 

during the pouring. The pipe is oriented so that the lines are at the lower (southern) side. The 

time required for the water to drain, called the prewet time, is measured and recorded. The time 

begins when the water first impacts the permeable surface and stops when water is no longer 

visible on the surface. 

If the prewet time is less than 30 seconds, then the infiltration measurement is completed with 

18.00 kg of water. If the time is 30 seconds or more, then the infiltration measurement is made 

using 3.60 kg of water. The testing is done within 2 minutes of the prewet measurement and 

measurement sites must be separated by at least 1 m. No testing is undertaken within 24 hours of 

measurable rainfall. 

The location for each measurement was selected using the random number1 function in an Excel 

spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp. 2003). The spreadsheet was created to identify a set of three 

locations on the eastern and western half of each surface. The surface area of each half of the 

double parking rows is about 250 m. The ASTM method requires measurements at three 

1

 Microsoft has tested the algorithm used in the RAND function of Excel 2003 using the Diehard 

tests. The testing shows that the pseudo random number generator repeats only after 1013 

function calls. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/828795 

10 
locations for areas up to 2,500 m with one additional measurement for each additional 1,000 m

of area. The locations are specified as a distance from the adjacent curb and from the north edge 

of the permeable surface with all measurements rounded to the nearest inch. A pair of spare 

locations was also designated for situations where parked vehicles prevented the measurement 

for multiple days. Figure 2 shows the locations where measurements were completed. 

Locations where the positioning of the ring spanned a painted line were noted and, after the 

December measurements, the water temperature was measured and recorded. 

The 24 monthly measurements can be completed in a single day by two people if the water 

containers are prepared the previous day and there are no complications during the process. The 

measurements must be scheduled around the weather as the method requires a 24-hr antecedent 

dry period, and rain events trigger other sampling procedures in the parking lot. Weather and 

other factors combined to delay the February measurements until March 1, 2010. The March 

measurements were mostly completed on March 10, 2010. The time between the measurements 

is not uniform from month to month. 

Figure 1. The weight of the 5-gallon buckets of stone applied to the PVC compresses the Neoprene sheeting to form a 

leak-free seal with the parking surface. Collectively the buckets weigh 150 to 200 kg. 

11 
Thermistors embedded in the surface material during construction monitor the pavement 

temperature at 10-minute intervals. The temperature of the surfaces are noted to potentially 

adjust for known temperature-related effects (Bäckström and Bergström 2000; Braga, Horst et al. 

2007; Emerson and Traver 2008) that may introduce seasonal infiltration patterns. 

Figure 2. The location of the measured infiltration rate was selected using a random number generator within each half of 

each permeable section. PC designates porous concrete, PA designates porous asphalt. The Xs show the location of 

entry doors to the building at the bottom. Colors indicate the month the measurements were made. The far right-hand 

parking row is traditional impervious asphalt. The circles are to approximate scale. The color codes are December, 

January, February, March, and April. 

12
Chapter 3 Statistical Methods 

Using the known area and water mass (either 3.60 kg or 18.00 kg, depending on the measured 

prewet time), the measured time required for the water to drain from the pipe through the surface 

was converted to an infiltration rate. Each measurement is associated with a permeable surface 

material, measurement date, and location in the parking lot (east or west) in anticipation of the 

future vacuuming. The two porous concrete areas are identified separately as either the middle 

(row 2) or northern row (row 0). All analyses used Statistica 9.0 (Statsoft 2010) with the 

significance levels set to 95% (=0.05). Other than the testing for H5 that uses a one-way 

analysis of variance (ANOVA), the results are analyzed as a repeated-measures ANOVA. 

Hypotheses 

The data are analyzed to test five hypotheses on the infiltration rates of the pavers, porous 

concrete (PC) and porous asphalt (PA) surfaces during this six-month pre-maintenance period. 

H1: The infiltration rates differ from surface to surface. 

H2: The infiltration rates of the east and west side of a given surface are equivalent.. 

for =Pavers, PC, PA 

H3: The infiltration rates of the two porous concrete sections are equivalent. 

H4: The infiltration rates of each section decrease with passing time. 

for =Pavers, PC, PA 

H5: Measuring on a paint stripe will reduce the measured infiltration rate. 

for =Pavers, PC, PA 

13 
Chapter 4 Results 

Table 1 through Table 5 list the locations, measured infiltration times and calculated infiltration 

rates for each measurement made from December 2009 through April 2010. 

The prewet times required that the tests use 18.00 kg of water for all measurements on the pavers 

and the porous concrete. The pre-wet time required 3.60 kg of water for all measurements on the 

porous asphalt but one during the January measurements that used 18.00 kg. 

H1: Infiltration rate by surface type 

The first hypothesis tests whether the surface infiltration rates vary from surface to surface. The 

ANOVA groups the two porous concrete rows into a single category and shows that the surface 

infiltration rates are significantly different (F(2, 21)=119.5, p<<0.001). The trend (observed 

unweighted means) is from porous concrete (4000 cm/hr) to pavers (2,400 cm/hr) to porous 

asphalt (200 cm/hr). Figure 3 shows the results for the three surfaces. 

14 
Figure 3 The ANOVA shows differences in the infiltration rate of the three surface materials. This analysis pools the 

porous concrete measurements across both rows. 

H2: Infiltration rate by side 

The east and west side of each surface have received nearly the same treatment during the first 

six months of operation. The time required for the installation of any surface was no more than a 

few days. The lot is used to near capacity so most parking stalls are routinely filled during the 

work day; however the west side of the parking lanes is nearer the building entrance and may 

receive preferential parking when there are excess spaces. Snow management has been similar 

on each side of the lot with plowing using a rubber-edged blade and salt applications but no sand 

application. Overall, the expectation is that before maintenance occurs to differentiate the two 

sides, the east and west sides of each parking row will have the same infiltration rate. 

In comparing the infiltration rates of the halves, the parking rows are each tested separately. The 

infiltration rate of the western side of the middle porous concrete row (4,000 cm/hr) is 

significantly (F(1, 4)=9.3, p=0.038) smaller than the infiltration rate of the eastern half of that 

15 
 

row (5,000 cm/hr). Figure 4 shows the differences in infiltration rates for the middle porous 

concrete row. The infiltration rates on the eastern and western halves of the northern concrete 

row, the interlocking pavers, and the porous asphalt are not significantly different. 

Figure 4. The infiltration rate of the east and west sides of the middle porous concrete are significantly different 

H3: Infiltration rate of porous concrete sections 

The third hypothesis, that the infiltration rate of the two porous concrete rows is the same, 

recognizes that the two rows were poured during the same two-day period and have received 

similar use and maintenance as already outlined. The northern row includes some parking 

spaces designated as handicapped parking that appear to be used less frequently than the 

remaining parking spaces. The larger gap between the handicapped parking spaces to allow for 

wider door openings is not generally used for parking. The northern row is a single row which 

means that the infiltration measurements are denser than the measurements in middle row, which 

is a double row. This approach maintains the minimum of three measurements locations for an 

area outlined in the ASTM test method. During the installation, it was noted that the northern 

parking row is thicker than the middle concrete row (20 cm vs. 15 cm). 

16 
The ANOVA shows that the infiltration rate of the northern row (3,600 cm/hr) is significantly 

(F(1,10)=9.050, p=0.013) smaller than the infiltration rate of the middle parking row 

(4,500 cm/hr). 

H4: Infiltration rate changes with time 

The fourth hypothesis addresses the research on the maintenance needs of the permeable surfaces 

by tracking the infiltration rate. The expectation is that, with time, the vehicles using the parking 

lot will transport particulates to the parking surface that, along with wind-blown particulates, 

accumulate in the surface openings. The accumulation of particulates will progressively block 

the openings and reduce the infiltration capacity. Solids accumulate from, among other sources, 

particulates carried by the vehicles, tire deterioration, wind-blown solids and run on from 

adjacent areas. Anecdotally, the particulates accumulate more rapidly when roadways receive 

traction sand that is carried onto the surface by vehicles even if it is not directly applied to the 

permeable surfaces. 

The measurements show no significant changes in the infiltration rate of the porous asphalt or 

the pavers during the monitored period. The porous concrete, however, shows a more surprising 

trend. The infiltration rates measured from February through April are larger than the December 

and January measurements. Figure 5 shows the monthly mean infiltration rate for each 

permeable surface. 

17 
Figure 5. The monthly measured surface infiltration rate of each surface is shown above. This analysis pools the 

measurements from both rows of porous concrete. There is no change in the measured infiltration rates of the 

interlocking pavers or porous asphalt, but the infiltration rates of the porous concrete increase. 

H5: Stripe effect 

The construction specifications call for waterborne acrylic traffic paint to be used for the stripes 

and other traffic markings on the parking lot. The lines designating the parking stalls and the 

diagonal striping between handicap stalls are four inches wide. The lines designating the 

handicapped parking are blue and the remaining lines are white. If the selected sampling 

location happens to center on a line crossing; the painted surface can theoretically be more than 

70% of the available infiltration area. If the paint hinders flow through the surface, then the 

infiltration rate of the surfaces will be smaller when the measurement location spans a painted 

surface. 

Of the 120 sites where infiltration was measured during this period, 21 are noted to have 

included a partly painted area. Most (16) measurements that span or partially span a line are on 

the porous concrete surface. For the remainder, 3 are on the porous asphalt and only 1 is on 

pavers. The one-way factorial ANOVA suggests that making a measurement where paint is 

18 
partly on the infiltrating areas does not affect the measured infiltration rate (F(1, 118)=0.1, 

p=0.90) for any of the surfaces. Examining the porous concrete as a subset because of the large 

fraction of the measurements including a stripe made on the concrete supports the conclusion the 

paint does not affect the measurements (F(1, 58)=0.04, p=0.91). 

19 
Chapter 5 Conclusions 

The compressed Neoprene sheet forms an effective seal that prevents leaks between the pipe and 

the parking surface. Minimal leakage was observed on the porous asphalt and nearly no leakage 

was observed on either the pavers or the porous concrete (see Figure 6). 

Figure 6. The wetted area after removing the test apparatus shows the limited leakage through the seal formed by the 

compressed Neoprene sheeting. 

The infiltration capacity of all three surfaces is very large. Although the surface infiltration rates 

vary by more than an order of magnitude, each is much larger than the reasonably expected rain 

event. This translates into a difference in the amount of available excess capacity or the amount 

20 
of impervious surface that can be serviced. The values are in reasonable agreement with values 

reported by others (e.g., Ferguson 2005; Bean 2007) in the literature. 

The data are highly variable with relative standard deviations usually exceeding 10% of the mean 

value. The confidence interval for the mean infiltration rate made on a given surface in a given 

month average 700 cm/hr and range from 480 to 900 cm/hr. This is partially attributable to the 

high infiltration rates making the measurement difficult to execute. Pouring 18 kg of water into 

the 12-inch diameter pipe while trying to maintain the water depth between the markings 5 mm 

apart in the pipe is awkward. The high variability will make it difficult to detect meaningful 

change. For example, the confidence interval for the porous asphalt does not exclude zero so, if 

current uncertainty levels continue, even complete blockage will not be statistically different 

from the current readings (see Figure 3 and Figure 5). 

The surface infiltration rates of the east and west halves of the middle porous concrete row are 

significantly different. The infiltration rate of the western half is smaller than the infiltration rate 

of eastern half. If this difference is the result of preferential parking, then the western rate would 

have decreased from the common starting point. The data do not support this, however. Post 

hoc testing does not show significant time based changes for either half of the lot (F(4, 16)=0.74, 

p=0.58) suggesting the cause is other than users selectively parking near the building. 

The painted stripes do not affect the measured infiltration rates on the porous concrete. On the 

concrete, the paint appears to mostly coat the surfaces surrounding the opening and not seal the 

openings. All the measurements completed to date on a painted surface have been situated such 

that the painted surface blocks a relatively small portion of the infiltrating area which may be 

masking the potential effect. The large infiltration capacity of the unpainted area, particularly 

with the variability of the measurements, will mask any effects. 

The anticipated reduction in infiltration capacity from clogging has not occurred during this 

period. The anecdotal information on infiltration reductions closely associated with winter 

operations failed to materialize. The differences in the porous concrete measurements suggest an 

increase in infiltration capacity with passing time during this period. The available temperature 

data are rough estimates of the temperature of the infiltrating water and are not adequate to test 

temperature-related effects. The water temperature, average air temperature, and temperature 

recorded by the thermistors embedded in the wearing surface do not show an obvious correlation 

to measured infiltration rates. 

21 
Table 1. Location and results of the December 2009 surface infiltration measurements. umber

Distance 

t Ti e (s) m

ater 

s)

Infiltration Rate 

m/h)

on N

Distance from North 

used (lkg) 

me (

 (c

(m

Half

ati

from curb edge 

-w

ght of w

Test Ti

h) 

Line?

Ave m/h) rage

Dev 

D 

RowLoc

Ft In. Ft In. 

Pre eWei(cm/On Std RS

‡ L3 59 8 15 1 16.5 18.0 57.3 615 

E ‡ A1 37 4 9 5 9.1 18.0 27.2 1296 776 461 59% 

0 

‡ A2 62 0 10 11 9.2 18.0 84.6 417 Y ‡ L1 20 5 1 11 9.8 18.0 31.3 1126 

W ‡ L2 9 8 18 6 8.5 18.0 32.4 1088 1124 36 3% 

‡ L3 60 4 6 2 7.0 18.0 30.4 1159 ‡ L1 30 8 30 9 8.4 18.0 32.3 1091 

E ‡ L2 14 7 2 11 9.4 18.0 39.8 885 1027 123 12% 

1 

‡ L3 2 4 28 11 10.5 18.0 31.9 1105 

L1 19 5 19 6 11.4 18.0 44.5 792 

W L2 68 7 34 10 10.0 18.0 37.9 930 898 94 10% 

L3 30 5 31 4 9.0 18.0 36.3 971 

L1 25 3 26 0 6.4 18.0 15.9 2216 

E L2 57 6 6 4 6.5 18.0 23.5 1500 1820 364 20% 

2 L3 4 7 10 9 5.5 18.0 20.2 1745 

L1 33 2 10 7 6.2 18.0 19.7 1789 

W L2 66 8 17 9 7.1 18.0 29.7 1187 1505 303 20% 

A2 34 2 3 11 10.3 18.0 22.9 1539 

L1 55 8 2 12 55.0 3.6 83.8 84 

E L2 25 2 16 12 88.0 3.6 151.8 46 64 19 29% 

3 A1 12 4 7 8 60.1 3.6 112.8 62 

L2 24 5 17 10 103.2 3.6 144.6 49 

W L3 53 1 6 6 57.6 3.6 102.1 69 52 15 29% 

A2 51 8 20 3 118.1 3.6 178.6 39 ‡ . Measurements made on December 11, 2009, remaining measurements were completed on December 15, 2009 

Row 0 is the northernmost parking row and, like row 2, is constructed of porous concrete. Row 1 

is constructed from interlocking concrete pavers and row 3 is constructed of porous asphalt. 

Locations L1 though L3 are the three primary locations selected using the spreadsheet. 

Locations A1 and A2 are the alternate locations. 

Water temperature was not recorded. The average air temperature recorded on site from 08:00 

through 16:00 EST was -2.4 oC on December 11, 2009 and 9.1oC on December 15, 2009. Air 

temperature was recorded at 10-minute intervals using an Onset (Pocasset, MA) weather station 

on the Edison Environmental Center but not adjacent to the parking lot. 

The average temperature recorded by thermistors embedded in each surface listed from 08:00 

through 16:00 the day of measurement (December 11, 2009) for rows 1 through 3 is below. Row 

22 
0 does not have embedded thermistors. The temperature of the driving surface is recorded at 

10-minute intervals using Campbell Scientific (Logan, UT) thermistors (model 107 and 108) and 

loggers (model CR1000X). 

Row Surface T East (oC) T West (oC) 

1 Pavers 7.7 -1.7 

2 Porous Concrete 5.6 6.8 

3 Porous Asphalt 7.1 7.8 

23 
 

Table 2. Location and results of January 2010 surface infiltration measurements. Location Number

Distance 

from 

Curb 

Distance 

from 

North 

edge 

Pre-wet time (s) 

kg) Wei t of water used (

Test time (s) Infiltrat ate (cm/h) ion R

e? 

e(cm/h)

Std De cm/h)v (

o Temp ( C) 

RowHalf

Ft In. Ft In. 

gh

On LinAveragRSD Water

0 

E 

L2 

A1 

A2 

53 

24 

53 

8 

4 

8 

18 

15 

3 

3 

6 

6 

7.0 

11.8 

6.5 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

31.6 

65.9 

22.6 

1115 

535 

1559 Y 

1070 514 48% 10.4 

W 

L1 

L2 

L3 

11 

43 

26 

5 

11 

2 

13 

18 

16 

10 

9 

10 

11.7 

8.2 

6.8 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

55.1 

21.6 

30.0 

640 

1632 

1175 

1149 496 43% 15.8 

1 

E 

L1 

L2 

A1 

44 

29 

50 

6 

7 

8 

35 

30 

30 

6 

6 

7 

10.2 

8.2 

6.9 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

38.8 

38.5 

30.9 

908 

915 

1141 

988 132 13% 8.3 

W 

L2 

L3 

A2 

30 

12 

37 

6 

6 

7 

23 

15 

9 

6 

9 

9 

9.8 

7.5 

9.3 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

54.9 

31.3 

42.3 

642 

1126 

833 

Y 867 244 28% 7.8 

2 

E 

L2 

L3 

A1 

61 

41 

11 

1 

10 

0 

6 

6 

1 

5 

8 

0 

7.6 

7.5 

7.1 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

19.8 

22.0 

21.6 

1780 

1600 

1632 

Y 

Y 1670 96 6% 16.5 

W 

L1 

L2 

A1 

4 

42 

9 

0 

9 

11 

19 

23 

3 

1 

2 

10 

6.6 

5.3 

7.8 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

27.2 

20.8 

30.4 

1296 

1694 

1159 

Y 

Y 1383 278 20% 8.6 

3 

E 

L2 

L3 

A2 

17 

11 

6 

3 

5 

6 

11 

19 

25 

11 

2 

2 

102.8 

191.8 

104.3 

3.6 

3.6 

3.6 

187.8 

293.2 

233.2 

38 

24 

30 

31 7 22% 16.0 

W 

L1 

L3 

A1 

34 

53 

42 

7 

10 

3 

23 

32 

7 

1 

2 

9 

36.6 

20.1 

42.2 

3.6 

18.0 

3.6 

72.6 

153.9 

76.9 

97 

229 

92 Y 

139 78 56% 9.9 

The average surface temperature recorded by thermistors embedded in each surface listed from 

08:00 through 16:00 EST the day of measurement (January 14, 2010) for rows 1 through 3 is 

below. Row 0 does not have embedded thermistors. The average air temperature for the same 

period was 3.2 oC. 

Row Surface T East (oC) T West (oC) 

1 Pavers 2.3 4.9 

2 Porous Concrete -2.9 -1.1 

3 Porous Asphalt 4.6 1.4 

24 
 

Table 3 Locations and results for February 2010 surface infiltration measurements. 

Distance 

Loc on Number ati

from 

Curb 

Distance 

from 

North 

edge 

Pre- et time (s) w

i ater We ght of w

used (kg)Tes e (s) t timInfilt ate ration R

h) 

? 

rage(cm/h)

Dev (cm/h)

t p

RowHalf

Ft 

Wa er Tem (o C) 

In. Ft In. 

(cm/

neLi

AveStd RSD

0 

E 

L2 

L3 

A1* 

33 

39 

38 

2 

0 

9 

13 

10 

4 

4 

0 

11 

6.2 

5.1 

4.5 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

22.5 

17.7 

15.4 

1566 

1991 

2288 

Y 

Y 1949 363 19% 8.7 

W 

L2* 

L3* 

A1 

4 

5 

47 

10 

2 

4 

13 

17 

16 

11 

9 

11 

6.0 

11.1 

7.7 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

33.0 

30.6 

19.0 

1068 

1152 

1855 

Y 1358 432 32% 14.9 

1 

E 

L1 

L3 

A2 

53 

61 

54 

7 

6 

9 

23 

26 

17 

2 

9 

3 

8.6 

11.5 

7.9 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

35.3 

37.4 

33.4 

998 

942 

1055 

999 56 6% 17.7 

W 

L1 

L2 

A2 

14 

27 

49 

2 

9 

10 

25 

9 

5 

10 

5 

7 

9.4 

12.2 

10.3 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

39.2 

57.9 

39.0 

899 

609 

904 

804 169 21% 10.3 

2 

E 

L1* 

L2* 

A2 

13 

14 

20 

5 

1 

7 

25 

30 

19 

8 

8 

2 

8.9 

5.9 

4.8 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

15.7 

17.9 

14.4 

2242 

1969 

2447 Y 

2219 240 11% 16.1 

W 

L2 

L3 

A2 

35 

63 

15 

0 

0 

4 

23 

11 

20 

6 

9 

0 

6.2 

4.4 

6.8 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

24.1 

17.9 

32.3 

1462 

1969 

1091 

Y 1507 441 29% 13.7 

3 

E 

L1 

L3 

A3‡

41 

42 

16 

5 

2 

4 

28 

22 

17 

9 

2 

6 

32.8 

79.1 

70.5 

3.6 

3.6 

3.6 

64.3 

149.3 

121.6 

110 

47 

58 

Y 

Y 72 33 47% 11.7 

W 

L1 

L2 

L3* 

9 

6 

47 

11 

10 

4 

13 

16 

8 

5 

6 

4 

200.0 

68.0 

50.3 

3.6 

3.6 

3.6 

302.0 

165.0 

91.7 

23 

43 

77 

48 27 57% 16.3 

* Snow cleared before measuring infiltration rate ‡

 Site L2 and both A1 and A2 were unavailable. Site selected by tossing a coin onto the available series of spaces. 

The average surface temperature recorded by thermistors embedded in each surface listed from 

08:00 through 16:00 EST the day of measurement (March 1, 21010) for rows 1 through 3 is 

below. Row 0 does not have embedded thermistors. The average air temperature was 7.7o

C 

during the same period 

Row Surface T East (oC) T West (oC) 

1 Pavers 6.2 12.7 

2 Porous Concrete 2.1 0.2 

3 Porous Asphalt 4.4 6.4 

25 
Table 4. Locations and results for March 2010 surface infiltration measurements. Location Number

Distance 

t time (s) 

ater w

s) 

Infiltration Rate 

m/h)

m/h)

o p ( C) 

Distance from 

used (kg)

 (

(c

 (c

from North 

ight of 

) 

ne? 

ge

RowHalfStd Dev

Curb edge 

Pre-weWeTest time

m h

Ft In. Ft In. 

(c /On liAveraRSD Wa r Temte

L1 41 10 6 9 5.9 18.0 15.6 2259 Y 

E L3 61 5 10 0 5.9 18.0 27.4 1286 Y 1466 721 49% 8.4 

0 A1 51 9 16 10 8.0 18.0 41.4 851 Y 

L3 5 5 13 7 5.0 18.0 25.5 1382 

W A1 43 7 7 11 7.4 18.0 15.8 2230 1807 424 23% 7.6 

A2 42 11 4 1 4.2 18.0 19.5 1807 Y 

L1 48 0 31 11 6.7 18.0 29.6 1191 

E A1 40 8 23 0 8.8 18.0 32.4 1088 1140 51 5% 11.7 

A2 32 5 4 6 6.9 18.0 30.9 1141 

1 L2 45 7 25 3 8.4 18.0 38.1 925 

W L3 29 5 1 8 11.0 18.0 54.9 642 817 153 19% 11.5 

A2 23 3 7 11 9.3 18.0 39.8 885 

E 

L1 

L2 

19 

44 

11 

4 

6 

24 

2 

2 

4.6 

4.7 

18.0 

18.0 

17.8 

17.1 

1980 

2061 2135 203 10% 11.0 

2 

L3 18 4 17 8 4.6 18.0 14.9 2365 

W 

L1 

L3 

A1 

58 

64 

53 

2 

10 

2 

10 

16 

11 

8 

8 

4 

3.8 

6.5 

6.5 

18.0 

18.0 

18.0 

13.8 

29.1 

14.3 

2554 

1211 

2464 

2076 751 36% 8.1 

L1 12 9 37 7 42.4 3.6 63.2 112 

E L2 23 0 8 8 114.0 3.6 197.5 36 88 46 52% 10.6 

3 

A1 37 11 34 7 38.1 3.6 59.7 118 

W 

‡ L1

‡ L2

 56 

39 

9 

5 

7 

22 

0 

11 

85.0 

61.6 

3.6 

3.6 

155.0 

92.3 

45 

76 61 15 25% 14.1 

A1 46 7 24 2 82.8 3.6 115.0 61 

‡ Measurements made on March 18, 2010. 

The average surface temperature recorded by thermistors embedded in each surface listed from 

08:00 through 16:00 the day of most measurement (March 10, 2010) for rows 1 through 3 is 

below. Row 0 does not have embedded thermistors. The average air temperature during the 

same period was 10.7oC. 

Row Surface T East (oC) T West (oC) 

1 Pavers 9.2 9.2 

2 Porous Concrete 8.0 8.6 

3 Porous Asphalt 10.2 8.9 

26 
Table 5. Locations and results for April 2010 surface infiltration measurements. mber

Distance 

t Time (s) 

ater 

s)

Infiltration Rate 

/h) 

. (oC)

Nu

from 

f w

used (kg)

me (

(c

cm(

w

Half

cation 

Distance 

from curb 

North 

edge 

Pr ee-w

ght oWei

st Ti

(cm/h) On Line? Av m/h) erage Std Dev 

D

ter Te p

RoLo

Ft In. Ft In. 

TeRS

Wa m

 L1* 57 1 2 12 5.7 18.0 24.6 1433 

E A1* 66 1 11 3 8.7 18.0 13.4 2630 2084 606 29% 19.4

0 

 A2* 10 12 5 1 4.9 18.0 16.1 2189 Y 

L2* 4 4 18 0 5.7 18.0 22.8 1546 

W A1* 20 10 4 3 5.1 18.0 22.8 1546 Y 1383 281 20% 13.4

 A2* 6 10 12 3 6.5 18.0 33.3 1058 

 L2* 44 9 20 2 10.0 18.0 39.3 897 

E A1* 52 10 22 4 9.4 18.0 39.6 890 885 15 2% 19.1

1 

 A2* 35 2 34 3 9.6 18.0 40.6 868 

L1* 43 3 23 5 9.1 18.0 39.9 883 

W L3* 32 5 14 4 7.7 18.0 29.6 1191 1092 181 17% 19.3

 A2* 68 10 13 4 7.5 18.0 29.3 1203 

 L1* 27 4 23 7 9.4 18.0 17.1 2057 

E L2* 31 0 37 2 8.2 18.0 19.1 1845 Y 1953 106 5% 19.3

2 

 A2* 31 2 29 1 5.6 18.0 18.0 1958 

L2* 52 3 8 3 5.3 18.0 20.5 1719 

W L3* 3 11 20 11 6.5 18.0 27.5 1282 1423 257 18% 14.2

 A1* 6 1 25 3 5.4 18.0 27.8 1268 ‡ L1 12 2 31 9 43.6 3.6 65.8 107 Y 

E ‡ L2 51 1 4 8 57.5 3.6 134.4 52 82 28 34% 18.6

3 

‡ A2 10 7 25 4 38.0 3.6 80.8 87 ‡ L1 57 0 15 2 83.2 3.6 169.8 42 

W ‡ L3 3 2 3 1 56.4 3.6 106.1 66 54 12 23% 13.0

‡ A1 10 1 26 2 68.4 3.6 129.8 54 ‡ Measurements made April 24, 2010 * Measurements made April 23, 2010 

The average surface temperature recorded by thermistors embedded in each surface listed from 

08:00 through 16:00 EST the days of measurement for rows 1 through 3 is below. Row 0 does 

not have embedded thermistors. The average air temperature for the period on April 23, 2010 

was 16.8oC and on April 24, 2010 it was 19.2oC. 

Row Surface T East (oC) T West (oC) 

1 Pavers 17.9 15.7 

2 Porous Concrete 13.1 15.8 

3 Porous Asphalt 29.4 31.4 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASTM (2009). Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of In-place Pervious Concrete West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2003. 

Bäckström, M. and A. Bergström (2000). "Draining function of porous asphalt during snowmelt 

and temporary freezing." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 27(3). 

Baladés, J. D., M. Legret, et al. (1995). "Permeable pavements: Pollution management tools." 

Water Science and Technology 32(1): 49-56. 

Bean, E. Z., Hunt, W.F., Bidelspach, D.A. , (2007). "Field survey of permeable pavement surface 

infiltration rates." Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering 133(2): 247-255. 

Braga, A., M. Horst, et al. (2007). "Temperature Effects on the Infiltration Rate through an 

Infiltration Basin BMP." Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering 133(6): 593-601. 

Cahill, T., A. Adams, et al. (2003). Porous Asphalt: The Right Choice for Porous Pavements. 

Hot Mix Asphalt Technology. Lanham, MD, National Asphalt Pavement Association. 

Emerson, C. and R. Traver (2008). "Multiyear and Seasonal Variation of Infiltration from StormWater Best Management Practices." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 134(5): 598­

605. 

Ferguson, B. K. (2005). Pervous Pavements. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. 

 

Houle, K. M. (2008). Winter Performance Assessment of Permeable Pavements. Civil 

Engineering. Durham, NH, University of New Hampshire. Masters of Science: 133. 

 

Legret, M. and V. Colandini (1999). "Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on 

runoff water: Water quality and fate of heavy metals." Water Science and Technology 39(2): 

111-117. 

 

Microsoft Corp. (2003). Excel. Redmond, WA 98052-7329, Microsoft Corp. 

 

Statsoft, I. (2010). Statistica. Tulsa. OK. 

 

28