Mon - Fri: 8AM - 5PM 316-370-6100 info@arkvalleyutilitysolutions.com
Lateral Fields
Two Common Types of Septic Drain Fields (Lateral/Leach Fields): Traditional Rock and Pipe vs. Infiltrator-Style Chambers.
The drain field (also called the leach field or lateral field) is the final stage of a septic system, where treated effluent from the septic tank disperses into the soil for natural filtration and absorption. It typically consists of perforated pipes or structures buried in trenches to allow wastewater to percolate slowly into the ground. The two primary options are traditional rock (gravel) and pipe systems (the long-standing method) and chamber systems (like Infiltrator brand plastic chambers, a modern gravelless alternative). Each has trade-offs in cost, installation, performance, longevity, and maintenance.
Traditional Rock and Pipe Drain Fields
This classic design uses perforated plastic pipes laid in trenches filled with gravel or crushed rock, which helps distribute effluent evenly and supports the structure. Geo Fabric is laid over the rock to prevent soil from infiltrating down into the rock.
Advantages:
• Proven longevity and reliability — These systems have decades of real-world performance, often lasting 20–40+ years with proper care. They disperse effluent effectively through the gravel layer, promoting even soil contact and reducing biomat (biological mat) buildup issues in many soils, including sand, for this reason its important to use 1.5' - 2" rock or gravel to prevent biomat from locking up your lateral field.
• Better in challenging soils — Gravel filters solids and prevents direct soil clogging; it performs well in heavier or clay soils by avoiding prolonged water retention that can accelerate scum or biomat formation.
• Maintainable long-term — If lines clog from roots, biomat, or solids, professionals can use hydro-jetting (high-pressure water) to clear pipes without full excavation. This makes repairs more feasible and cost-effective in many cases.
• Strong structural support — Gravel provides stability against soil shifting or compaction, and the system handles loads well when properly installed.
Disadvantages:
• Higher installation costs and effort — Requires large quantities of gravel (often truckloads), heavy equipment for transport and placement, wider/more trenches, and more labor—especially if gravel is scarce or expensive in your area.
• Larger footprint — Typically needs more space due to standard sizing requirements (though some codes allow reductions with enhancements).
• Environmental impact — More digging and material hauling; gravel can compact soil during installation, potentially reducing infiltration if not done carefully.
• Slower/easier initial setup challenges — Transporting and spreading gravel adds time and expense.
Infiltrator Septic Chambers (Gravelless/Plastic Chambers)
These use modular, open-bottom plastic chambers (e.g., Infiltrator Quick4 or Arc series) that snap together in trenches, replacing gravel and often reducing pipe needs. Effluent flows directly into the open chamber and contacts soil over a larger area.
Advantages:
• Cheaper and faster installation — Lightweight plastic eliminates gravel costs and heavy hauling; trenches are quicker to dig and backfill, often with less equipment—ideal for remote sites, steep slopes, or limited-access areas.
• Smaller footprint and flexibility — Many jurisdictions allow 25% reduction in drain field size due to greater storage volume and surface contact area; easier in tight lots, high water tables, or variable flow scenarios (e.g., vacation homes).
• No gravel issues — Avoids soil compaction from gravel placement; chambers provide more void space for temporary storage during surges and easier visual inspection via ports.
• Tend to handle root intrusion better than rock and pipe, roots have a harder time completely blokcing off the large chamber.
Disadvantages:
• Reported failures in some cases — Chambers can fail prematurely (sometimes in 9–15 years) due to biomat clogging, soil intrusion (sand/dirt filling chambers), improper installation, or overload. In heavier soils, retained water promotes scum/bacteria growth, leading to faster failure than gravel systems.
• Less forgiving in poor conditions — Direct soil contact without gravel filtration can accelerate clogging in unsuitable soils (e.g., fine sands, clays, or high groundwater); not ideal everywhere, and some installers note more issues in certain regions.
• Limited repair options — While some maintenance (like pumping the tank) helps, clearing clogs is harder without perforated pipes—jetting isn’t as straightforward or effective on chambers compared to traditional pipe systems.
• Structural concerns — Chambers can deform under heavy loads (e.g., vehicles) or if not backfilled properly; they may not match gravel’s long-term track record in all environments.
Sand and Pipe Drain Fields
This variation uses clean, washed sand (often coarse or “septic sand”/“road sand” types with good drainage but structure) to surround and fill around perforated pipes in trenches. We dont usually install sand in laterals, do to the bio mat that is formed. The photo to the left shows a backed up lateral line, you can see where the black water locked up the sand at the pipe perferations. When we removed that sand the pipe unloaded a couple hundred gallons of water, that was unable to leach into the sand.
Advantages:
• Lower material cost — Sand is often cheaper and more locally available than gravel, reducing upfront expenses—especially useful in sandy regions or for budget-conscious installs.
• Excellent drainage in suitable applications — Sand promotes rapid percolation in fast-draining native soils, provides good filtration for finer particles, and can slow effluent flow appropriately if the right grade is used (not too fine to compact or too coarse to settle).
Disadvantages:
• Risk of settling, compaction, or failure — Sand particles are finer and can migrate, compact under load, or wash into pipes/perforations over time, reducing void space, restricting flow, or causing premature clogging. Without proper bedding/support, trenches may settle unevenly.
• Less effective biomat and solids management — Lacks gravel’s large voids for storage/surge buffering; effluent contacts soil more directly, potentially accelerating biomat buildup or soil intrusion in marginal conditions.
• Limited maintainability — Hydro-jetting is possible but less effective/easier than in gravel-filled pipes; sand can make clearing blockages harder if migration occurs.
• Shorter track record/variable reliability — While used successfully in some regions, installers often prefer gravel for foolproof performance; sand systems need geotextile or careful design to match gravel longevity
Here you can see where biomat has locked up this lateral line, preventing the water from leaching into the soil.
Distribution boxes can be installed in place of header pipes to ensure precise dosing to each run, theyre also a great point to perform maintenance in the future.
