Discussions and Closures
models need to incorporate this variation, for areas with significant
Discussion of “Modeling and Sizing
Bioretention Using Flow Duration Control”
by Gary E. Palhegyi
June 2010, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 417–425.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000205
Robert G. Traver, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, M.ASCE1
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Villanova Univ.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
800 Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA 19085. E-mail: robert.traver@
villanova.edu
I read with great interest Mr. Palhagyi’s work on sizing of biore-
tention stormwater control measures. The model that he used was
validated with a limited subset of data collected from an ongoing
research program at Villanova University, supported by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the
EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. We had no con-
tact with Mr. Palhagyi after agreeing to supply the data to support
his model calibration. The purpose of this discussion is to clarify or
correct several statements made in the article and to provide
appropriate references to the reader.
It should be noted that the description of the site characteristics
were taken from a mixture of student theses. As the research has
progressed, surveys and experiments have defined the site param-
eters more precisely. Updated site data is available from refereed
journal articles (Heasom et al. 2006; Emerson and Traver 2008;
Davis et al. 2009).
Although the statement repeated by the author that early obser-
vations of infiltration rates being influenced by temperature are
correct, more definitive work was subsequently published in ASCE
journals in 2008, and was not referenced. Hydraulic conductivity is
not just a soil property; it is also a function of the permeating fluid.
As dynamic viscosity changes with temperature, so does hydraulic
conductivity. The reader is referred to Emerson and Traver (2008)
for a more complete discussion of this relationship.
Unfortunately, from reading a graduate student thesis, the author
infers that “[d]ecreasing rates have also been observed over time
since construction of the facility in 2002.” That observation was
early in the data record of the site and not based on any statistical
study (note the site was built in 2001, not 2002). Later work found
that there was no statistical degradation of the infiltration perfor-
mance of the site, when the effect of temperature was properly
accounted for (Emerson and Traver 2008).
In addition to flow duration control, another property of biore-
tention stormwater control measures is the capture and removal
from surface flows of a significant volume of runoff. In regions
with climates similar to that at Villanova, most storms produce
no surface outflow, mimicking natural settings when viewed from
the surface water perspective. This capture volume then can be
related to pollutant load capture and temperature mitigation, giving
us a versatile tool that can be designed to address many of our
mitigation challenges (Davis et al. 2009).
It is interesting to see how our understanding of the soil moisture
accounting has grown since Heasom et al. (2005) first published
their work modeling the bioretention site using a steady infiltration
rate . The soil moisture accountability is a good improvement, but
temperature variations in the Northeast can essentially double hy-
draulic conductivity (Emerson and Traver 2008). Continuous flow
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2011 / 695
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:696-697.
temperature changes. I am also glad to see the discussion of soil
properties such as wilting point and evapotranspiration (ET),
although it is not clear from the article how the average ET was
determined and if it was derived specifically for bioretention plant-
ings. The role of plants removing soil moisture in the root zone
from field conditions to the wilting point is significant to the per-
formance of the site and may change our understanding of ET.
Acknowledgments
The discusser wishes to thank the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program, William Penn Foundation, Pennsylvania Growing
Greener Program, and many corporate sponsors for helping provide
financial support for much of this and other ongoing research as
part of the Villanova Urban Stormwater Partnership. The discusser
also wishes to thank the many past graduate students who have
worked on this project.
References
Davis, A. P., et al. (2009). “Bioretention Technology: Overview of
Current Practice and Future Needs.” J. Environ. Eng., 135(3), 109–117.
Emerson, C. H., and Traver, R. G. (2008). “Multiyear and seasonal varia-
tion of infiltration from storm-water best management practices.”
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 134(5), 598–605.
Heasom, W., Traver, R., and Welker, A. (2006). “Hydrologic modeling of a
bioinfiltration best management practice.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.,
42(5), 1329–1347.
Closure to “Modeling and Sizing Bioretention
Using Flow Duration Control”
by Gary E. Palhegyi
June 2010, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 417–425.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000205
Gary E. Palhegyi, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE1
1
Senior Project Engineer, Hydrology and River Mechanics, ENTRIX Inc.
E-mail: gpalhegyi@entrix.com
We greatly appreciate Mr. Traver’s time and interest in our paper,
for clarifying statements made in our article regarding his research
and publications, and for providing more recent references. In
our paper, published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
June 2010, we presented a modeling and sizing method for biore-
tention facilities using continuous hydrologic modeling and flow
duration control as the sizing mechanism. Mr. Traver was gracious
enough to provide measured inflow/outflow data, soils, and site
characteristics data for a bioretention facility installed and moni-
tored by Mr. Traver and his students at Villanova University.
The purpose of our paper was to present the use of flow duration
curve matching as design criteria when sizing bioretention facilities
or other similar low-impact development (LID) type control mea-
sures. The use of Mr. Traver’s data provided the means to verify our
 modeling approach before presenting size requirements for three
geographic regions in California.
It is true that we did not have contact after receiving Mr. Traver’s
data, but we felt lucky that he had taken time to provide us the data
and we felt we had bothered Mr. Traver enough. We would have
been happy to receive Mr. Traver’s review had we known he had so
much interest in our paper.
We appreciate Mr. Traver for noting additional references for us
to review regarding updated site characteristics. He notes that our
statements referencing his student’s publications were correct, but
that they have been updated in more recent articles (Emerson and
Traver 2008). Mr. Traver refers to the relationship between temper-
ature and water viscosity, and therefore hydraulic conductivity and
notes the importance of including temperature in regions with wide
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
temperature fluctuations. Our paper mentions decreasing hydraulic
conductivities over time, as reported in his earlier work. Upon
analysis of more lengthy data sets, Emerson and Traver (2008) con-
cluded that no decrease in hydraulic conductivities could be statisti-
cally identified in the data. Although we mention temperature
in our summary of the literature, temperature is currently not a
parameter in our modeling approach.
Mr. Traver provides positive feedback regarding the use of con-
tinuous hydrology and soil moisture accounting to vary infiltration
over time when modeling bioretention. He states that this is a good
improvement (presumably over conventional discrete storm meth-
ods) and notes the need to add temperature as a variable, especially
in the Northeast (Emerson and Traver 2008). We agree with the
relevancy of temperature in modeling physical processes, but note
that continuous modeling with soil moisture accounting is currently
used by a minority of practicing engineers. Most stormwater practi-
tioners rely on discrete storm events (e.g., 2-year and 10-year) and
fixed soil parameters when designing bioretention and other similar
types of LID control measures. The ability to incorporate temper-
ature is held to be of great interest but, as a practice, clients often
want inexpensive and quick assessments and designs and experi-
enced engineers are often reluctant to change from discrete storm
methods.
Mr. Traver also provides positive feedback regarding our
discussion of evapotranspiration and a plant’s wilting point. We
incorporate a plant’s wilting point so that available soil storage
between storms approaches zero at the wilting point—otherwise
plants will die and the bioretention facility will not function prop-
erly. Mr. Traver states that the role of plants removing soil moisture
down to the wilting point is a significant feature in the performance
of bioretention facilities; and may in fact change our understanding
of evapotranspiration. We concur with Mr. Traver’s statements.
We also concur with Mr. Traver’s statement regarding the im-
portance of capturing and removing surface water volume. Flow
duration control accomplishes both but, more precisely, it controls
stormwater volume in a distributed manner. Matching flow dura-
tion curves matches both the magnitude of flow and the length
of time flows occur at select rates; therefore, by applying flow du-
ration control, we obtain the same volume of runoff over a wide
spectrum of flow rates. As we state in our article, deviating from
the preproject flow duration curve by greater than
20% can create
potential for excessive erosion of receiving water channels and
ultimately impact habitat and other riparian resources.
References
Emerson, C. H., and Traver, R. G. (2008). “Multi-Year and Seasonal
Variation of Infiltration from Stormwater Best Management Practices.”
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 134(5), 598–605.
696 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2011
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:696-697.
Discussion of “Multiobjective Groundwater
Remediation System Design Using Coupled
Finite-Element Model and Nondominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm II” by Arpita
Mondal, T. I. Eldho, and V. V. S. Gurunadha
Rao
May 2010, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 350–359.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000198
Dibakar Chakrabarty1 and Thangjam Somchand Singh2
1
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Silchar, India (corresponding author). E-mail: dibachakra@gmail.com
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Silchar, India.
The authors presented a model linking a finite-element-based
groundwater flow and transport simulator with the Nondominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA II). The developed model
(FEM-NSGA II) is applied for the design of a groundwater
remediation system for a two-dimensional real field unconfined
aquifer (150 sq km) near Vadodara, Gujarat, India. The developed
multiobjective model has two objectives: (1) minimization of
remediation time, commencing at the end of 2008; and (2) minimi-
zation of cost; that is, the cost of pumping and the cost required for
treatment of water pumped. The applicability of the model is dem-
onstrated under three design scenarios with a view to obtaining the
trade-off (Pareto-optimal solutions) between the two objectives.
Moreover, out of the 30 abstraction wells considered to be available
in the study area, only 15 abstraction wells at a time at different
locations are considered to be pumping wells in each of the design
scenarios. In this regard, the discussers would like to comment on
some related issues that would help the readers to better understand
the work.
1. The authors claim to have obtained well spread and consistent
Pareto-optimal solution sets for all three design scenarios.
However, the results presented in the technical paper show
that the Pareto-optimal solutions obtained by the authors are
not well spread. There appear to be gaps in the Pareto-optimal
fronts for all the three design scenarios. The discontinuity
in Pareto-optimal front in case of the first remediation design
scenario is more prominent. Fig. 7 of the paper shows that
the Pareto-optimal front is discontinuous between point Y,
corresponding to approximately 15,651 days, and the
next Pareto-optimal solution, corresponding to approximately
19,200 days. In other words, there is not a single Pareto-
optimal solution available for a period of approximately
9.7 years, starting at 15,651 days. The discontinuity in the
trade-off curves is also visible for the second and third design
scenarios, as shown in Fig. 11 of the paper, although these
discontinuities span for shorter periods than for the first de-
sign scenario. Surprisingly, the authors have not explained the
reasons for such discontinuities in the Pareto-optimal fronts
they obtained.
In this regard, the following two points are relevant:
• A Pareto-optimal front can be convex, concave, discon-
nected, or piecewise continuous hypersurface (Deb 2001).
By using NSGA II, Singh and Chakrabarty (2011a, b)
obtained a piecewise continuous Pareto-optimal front for
an illustrative aquifer remediation design problem invol-
ving (1) minimization of remediation cost, and (2) minimi-
zation of remediation time as the objective functions. The
 discussers also observed discontinuity in the Pareto-optimal
fronts for a limited number of other multiobjective aquifer
remediation problems using the same two objectives.
Piecewise continuous pareto-optimal fronts are observed
(Singh and Chakrabarty 2010b) by using a trade-off be-
tween minimization of remediation cost and maximization
of clean water extraction rate for an illustrative aquifer
remediation problem.
Although the characteristics of the Pareto-optimal fronts
are dependent on the model vis-à-vis the characteristics of
both the feasible objective space and the feasible variable
space, it is possible that the discontinuities in the Pareto-
optimal fronts obtained by the authors for all three design
scenarios are attributable to dominated solutions (non-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Pareto-optimal solutions) in the discontinuous zones.
NSGA II obviously excluded these inferior solutions from
the Pareto-solutions set.
• The efficiency of NSGA II is reported to be better in main-
taining diversity in the Pareto-optimal solutions, provided
optional NSGA II parameters are judiciously chosen.
Chakrabarty (2001) observes that proper scaling of both
the objective function and the constraints are necessary
for obtaining quality solutions in simulation optimiza-
tion-based groundwater management models. In the case
of NSGA II, many researchers, including the discussers,
observe that scaling of the objective functions plays an
important role in obtaining evenly spread Pareto-optimal
solutions. However, according to the experiment details
reported by the authors, it seems that neither the choice of
NSGA II parameters nor scaling of the objective functions
resulted in discontinuities in their Pareto-optimal fronts.
4. The cost coefficients (a1 ¼ INR 5 × 24 kW/day and a2 ¼
INR 3:0=m3 of water pumped, as used by the authors in the
technical paper) are likely to vary with time. Viewed under this
backdrop, the cost function defined by the authors seems un-
realistic, considering the span of the remediation period
(25,000 days, equaling approximately 68.5 years) used for
obtaining the trade-off. A discounted cost function could have
been a better choice.
5. Fifteen abstraction wells considered by the authors in each
of the three design scenarios apparently may not be the
optimal pumping well locations. Ideally, a mixed integer
formulation, considering the available 30 abstraction wells
as potential pumping wells, could have possibly worked
better in this case. In addition, the symbols N and NP used
by the authors in their optimization formulation appear to be
the same.
6. The remediation period span (68.5 years) considered by the
authors for obtaining the trade-off appears to be on the higher
side, particularly when the study relates to remediation of a real
field groundwater system.
7. Consideration of remediation period as a decision variable
even in a single objective aquifer remediation formulation
is preferable to a fixed remediation period (Singh and
Chakrabarty 2009, 2010a) in the case of pump-and-treat based
remediation design, unless assumption of a fixed remediation
period is absolutely warranted.
References
Chakrabarty, D. (2001). “Identification of unknown groundwater pollution
sources and simultaneous parameter estimation using linked optimiza-
tion-simulation approach” Ph.D. dissertation, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur, India.
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2011 / 697
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:696-697.
Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algo-
rithms, Wiley, New York.
Singh, T. S., and Chakrabarty, D. (2009). “Significance of remediation time
on the optimal remediation design of contaminated aquifers.” Proc., 2nd
Int. Conf. on Environmental and Computer Science (ICECS 2009),
IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.
Singh, T. S., and Chakrabarty, D. (2010a). “Chance constrained program-
ming (CCP) for optimal remediation design of contaminated aquifers
with flexible remediation time.” Proc., 2010 Int. Conf. on Environmen-
tal Science and Development (CESD 2010), World Academic Press,
Liverpool, UK.
Singh, T. S., and Chakrabarty, D. (2010b). “Multi-objective optimization
for optimal groundwater remediation design and management systems.”
Geosci. J., 14(1), 87–97.
Singh, T. S., and Chakrabarty, D. (2011a). “Chance-constrained multi-
objective programming for optimal multi-layer aquifer remediation
design.” Eng. Optim., 43(4), 417–432.
Singh, T. S., and Chakrabarty, D. (2011b). “Multiobjective optimization of
pump-and-treat-based optimal multilayer aquifer remediation design
with flexible remediation time.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 16(5), 413–420.
Closure to “Multiobjective Groundwater
Remediation System Design Using Coupled
Finite-Element Model and Nondominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm II”
by Arpita Mondal, T. I. Eldho,
and V. V. S. Gurunadha Rao
May 2010, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 350–359.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000198
Arpita Mondal1 and T. I. Eldho2
1
Formerly, Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT) Bombay, Mumbai-400076, India. E-mail:
arpita567@gmail.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
Bombay, Mumbai-400076, India (corresponding author). E-mail:
eldho@civil.iitb.ac.in
The authors thank the discussers for their keen interest in the tech-
nical paper. The study presented applies a coupled finite-element
method (FEM) and nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II
(NSGA II)-based simulation-optimization model for the optimal
design of a real field groundwater aquifer system near Vadodara,
India. Out of the 30 abstraction wells that were considered available
in the study area, only 15 wells were considered for the remediation
because it was not guaranteed that all the 30 wells would remain
operative for the entire period of remediation, which in this particu-
lar field example, has turned out to be as high as 35 years. More-
over, the well locations for remediation were chosen based on the
maximum total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration contour map.
The authors’ replies to the discussers’ points are serially and
categorically substantiated as follows:
1. The discussers are indeed correct that for the first remediation
design scenario, it is possible that the discontinuity in the
Pareto-optimal fronts might be attributed to dominated solu-
tions (non-Pareto-optimal solutions) in the discontinuous
zones that had been excluded by NSGA II. However, there
is only one significant discontinuity, unlike most piecewise
continuous Pareto-optimal fronts where discontinuities are
more in number and visibly more evident. Because this model
simulated a real field scenario of a complex groundwater
remediation system with a relatively large area and time
 stretch, visibly continuous, or purely concave or convex,
Pareto-optimal fronts are in any case not expected, and the in-
significant discontinuities encountered in the second or the
third remediation design scenarios are anticipated. The scaling
of objective function has not been done within the study
presented; however, the parameters of the model were the
tuned parameters after initial trial and error, as had been
mentioned in the text.
2. The cost coefficients a1 and a2 are realistically chosen, and the
choice has been justified in the text. A discounted cost factor
would no doubt be more precise on numbers; however, the
nature of the solutions would not change.
3. The 15 well locations for remediation have been chosen based
on TDS contour patterns and feasibility, and the three scenarios
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are presented to provide design options to the decision maker.
However, it is to be kept in mind that for each scenario, each
generation of the optimization model involves 100 runs of the
simulation model (since the population size is hundred) and
this being a large aquifer with too many complexities like
irregular boundaries and varying geologic properties where
the feasible time period of remediation is checked each time
everywhere between zero and 25,000 days, a formulation that
is considering all the 30 well locations, as suggested by the
discussers, would be computationally infeasible. Further re-
search using more recent nongenetic algorithm optimization
tools like differential evolution coupled with mesh-free simu-
lation models could be tried to find whether the problem of
698 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2011
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2011.16:696-697.
intensive computational efforts could be checked. However,
that remains out of scope of the present text.
4. The finding of the present study is indeed apparently unusually
large remediation periods for each of the solutions of the
Pareto-optimal front. The large area of the polluted aquifer,
along with the associated complexities, have given rise to such
a situation, which questions the basic applicability of pump
and treat remediation techniques for such large and complex
contaminated aquifers such as this. Possibly, for avoiding such
a large time span of remediation involving higher costs, a very
large-scale artificial recharge can be resorted to, or the aquifer
can be partially remediated by the pump and treat.
5. The study presented deals only with multiobjective optimiza-
tion and the remediation period has indeed been treated as a
decision variable in the multiobjective formulation that can
vary from zero to 25,000 days, as mentioned on page 355, last
paragraph of the text. The single objective optimization formu-
lation on the same study area has been previously attempted
(S. M. V. Sharief, Ph.D. dissertation, IIT Bombay). The mo-
tivation to choose the remediation time period as an objective
was not to keep it fixed, unless the assumption of a fixed
remediation period is absolutely warranted, in which the dis-
cussers also concurred.
The authors appreciate the discussers’ queries and look forward
to future research that may answer many of these problems to
advance the subject under further discussion.