Vegetated Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460) (Modified procedure used for vegetated channel tests)
|
|
- Arlene Powell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Vegetated Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460) (Modified procedure used for vegetated channel tests) of North American Green s P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam May 2013 Submitted to: AASHTO/NTPEP 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, D.C Attn: Evan Rothblatt, NTPEP erothblatt@aashto.org Submitted by: TRI/Environmental, Inc Bee Caves Road Austin, TX C. Joel Sprague Project Manager
2 May 3, 2013 Mr. Evan Rothblatt AASHTO/NTPEP 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, D.C Subject: Channel Testing over Loam of North American Green P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, manufactured in Poseyville, IN. Dear Mr. Rothblatt: This letter report presents the results for large-scale channel erosion tests performed on P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam. Included are data developed for target hydraulic shears ranging from 0.5 to 3+ psf (0.02 to kpa) for the unvegetated condition and from 1 to 13+ psf (0.04 to kpa) for the vegetated condition. All testing work was performed in general accordance with the ASTM D 6460, Standard Test Method for Determination of Rolled Erosion Control Product (RECP) Performance in Protecting Earthen Channels from Stormwater- Induced Erosion. The procedure was modified to use only single replicates when testing vegetated channels. Generated results were used to develop the following permissible or limiting shear (τ limit ) and limiting velocity (V limit ) for the tested material: P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat & 3.8 staples/sy Product Unvegetated 6+ Week Vegetated 1+ Year Vegetated Condition Condition Condition Actual growth period, wks τ limit * 12.3* V limit * 24.5* * = ASTM D 6460 requires that three test replicates be performed using identical procedures to obtain an average threshold of performance. Thus, the results of vegetated testing, being single replicates of each condition, cannot be considered as an average threshold of performance. TRI is pleased to present this final report. Please feel free to call if we can answer any questions or provide any additional information. Sincerely, C. Joel Sprague, P.E. Senior Engineer Geosynthetics Services Division cc: Jarrett Nelson, Jay Sprague - TRI
3 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page 3 CHANNEL TESTING REPORT P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam TESTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES Overview of Test and Apparatus TRI/Environmental, Inc.'s (TRI's) large-scale channel erosion testing facility is located at the Denver Downs Research Farm in Anderson, SC. Testing oversight is provided by C. Joel Sprague, P.E. The large-scale testing is performed in a rectangular flume having a 10% slope (unvegetated condition) or 20% slope (vegetated condition) using a loamy soil test section. The concentrated flow is produced by raising gates to allow gravity flow from an adjacent pond. At least four sequential, increasing flows are applied to each test section for 30 minutes (unvegetated condition) or 1 hour (vegetated condition) each to achieve a range of hydraulic shear stresses in order to define the permissible, or limiting, shear stress, τ limit, which is the shear stress necessary to cause an average of 0.5 inch of soil loss over the entire channel bottom. Testing is performed in accordance with ASTM D 6460, though the procedure was modified to use only single replicates when testing vegetated channels. Tables and graphs of shear versus soil loss are generated from the accumulated data. Rolled Erosion Control Product (RECP) The following information and index properties were determined from the supplied product. Table 1. Tested Product Information & Index Properties Product Information and Index Property / Test Units Values Product Identification - P300 Manufacturer - North American Green Manufacturing Plant Location - Poseyville, IN Lot number of sample - - Fiber - 100% Poly Fiber Netting Openings in 0. 5 x 0. 5 (approx) Stitching Spacing in 1.5 (approx) Tensile Strength MD x XD (ASTM D 6818)* lb/in 41.1 x 17.9 Tensile Elongation MD x XD (ASTM D 6818)* % 29.1 x 27.3 Thickness (ASTM D 6525)* mils 384 Light Penetration (ASTM D 6567)* % cover 74.5 Density Net Only (ASTM D 792, Method A)* g/cm Mass / Unit Area (ASTM D 6475)* oz/sy * Values from Independent Testing of Randomly Sampled Product
4 Test Soil P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page 4 The test soil used in the test plots had the following characteristics. Table 2. TRI-Loam Characteristics Soil Characteristic Test Method Value % Gravel 0 % Sand 45 ASTM D 422 % Silt 35 % Clay 20 Liquid Limit, % 41 ASTM D 4318 Plasticity Index, % 8 Soil Classification USDA Loam Soil Classification USCS Sandy silty clay (ML-CL) Preparation of the Test Channels The initial channel soil veneer (12-inch thick minimum) is placed and compacted. Compaction is verified to be 90% (± 3%) of Proctor Standard density using ASTM D 698 (sand cone method). The test channels undergo a standard preparation procedure prior to each test. First, any rills or depressions resulting from previous testing are filled in with test soil. The soil surface is replaced to a depth of 1 inch and groomed to create a channel bottom that is level side-to-side and at a smooth slope top-to-bottom. Finally, a vibrating plate compactor is run over the renewed channel surface. If a vegetated condition is to be tested, grass seed (tall fescue) is applied to the plot at the rate of 500 seeds per square foot. The submitted erosion control product is then installed using the anchors and anchorage pattern directed by the client. Installation of Erosion Control Product in Test Channel As noted, the submitted erosion control product is installed as directed by the client. For the tests reported herein, the erosion control product was anchored using a diamond anchorage patterns. The P300 anchorage consisted of 2 x 8 steel staples to create an anchorage density of approximately 3.8 staples per square yard. Specific Test Procedure Immediately prior to testing, the initial soil surface elevation readings are made at predetermined cross-sections. The channel is then exposed to sequential 30-minute (unvegetated condition) or 1-hour (vegetated condition) flows having target hydraulic shear stresses selected to create at least three flow events below and one flow event above the shear stress level that results in a cummulative average soil loss of ½-inch. During the testing, flow depth and corresponding flow measurements are taken at the predetermined cross-section locations. Between flow events, the flow is stopped and soil surface elevation measurements are made to facilitate calculation of soil loss. The flow is then restarted at the next desired flow (shear) level. Pictures of typical channel flows and resulting soil/vegetation loss are shown in Figures 7 thru 12.
5 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page 5 Figure 1. Typical 10% (Unvegetated Shear) Flumes on Left; 20% Flumes on Right Figure 4. Unvegetated RECP Figure Week Vegetated Shear in 20% Flumes; Figure Week Vegetated RECP Figure 3. Typical 20% Temporary Flume Set Up 1+ Year Vegetated Shear Plots Figure Year Vegetated RECP
6 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page 6 Figure 7. Typical Flow in Unvegetated Channel Figure 10. Unvegetated Channel after Test with Product Removed (typical) Figure 8. Typical Flow in 6+ Week Vegetated Channel Figure Week Vegetated Channel after Test (typical) Figure 9. Typical Flow in 1+ Year Vegetated Channel Figure Year Vegetated Channel after Test (typical)
7 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page 7 TEST RESULTS Average soil loss and the associated hydraulic shear calculated from flow and depth measurements made during the testing are the principle data used to determine the performance of the product tested. This data is entered into a spreadsheet that transforms the flow depth and velocity into an hydraulic shear stress and the soil loss measurements into an average Clopper Soil Loss Index (CSLI). Measured and calculated data is summarized in Table 3. A graph of shear versus soil loss for the protected condition is shown in Figure 13. The associated velocities and time of vegetation growth are plotted in Figures 14 and 15, respectively. The graphs include the best regression line fit to the test data to facilitate a determination of the limiting shear stress, τ limit,, and limiting velocity, V limit,. The 0.5-inch intercept values are provided in Table 4. Test # (Channel # - Shear Level) Table 3. Summary Data Table Protected Test Reach Actual Growth Period (wks) Flow depth (in) Flow velocity (fps) Flow (cfs) Manning s roughness, n Max Bed Shear Cumm. CSLI (in) C1-S1, Unvegetated C1-S2, Unvegetated C1-S3, Unvegetated C1-S5, Unvegetated C2-S1, Unvegetated C2-S2, Unvegetated C2-S3, Unvegetated C2-S4, Unvegetated C3-S1, Unvegetated C3-S2, Unvegetated C3-S3, Unvegetated C3-S4, Unvegetated S1, 6+ Wk Vegetated S2, 6+ Wk Vegetated S3, 6+ Wk Vegetated S4, 6+ Wk Vegetated S5, 6+ Wk Vegetated S1, 1+ Yr Vegetated S2, 1+ Yr Vegetated S3, 1+ Yr Vegetated S4, 1+ Yr Vegetated Table 4. P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat & 3.8 staples/sy Product Unvegetated 6+ Week Vegetated 1+ Year Vegetated Condition Condition Condition Actual growth period, wks τ limit * 12.3* V limit * 24.5* * = ASTM D 6460 requires that three test replicates be performed using identical procedures to obtain an average threshold of performance. Thus, the results of vegetated testing, being single replicates of each condition, cannot be considered as an average threshold of performance.
8 Cummulative Soil Loss (CSLI), in Cummulative Soil Loss (CSLI), in P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page y = x R² = Limiting Shear via ASTM D 6460 P300; 3.8 Anchors/SY Unvegetated Channel #1 Unvegetated Channel #2 Unvegetated Channel #3 All P Weeks of Vegetation P Year of Vegetation Power (All) Poly. (P Weeks of Vegetation) Poly. (P Year of Vegetation) Limiting Shear = 2.8 psf y = x x x R² = Limiting Shear = 8.8 psf y = x x x R² = Limiting Shear = 12.3 psf Shear, psf Figure 13. Shear Stress vs. Soil Loss Tested Product Unvegetated Channel #1 Limiting Unvegetated Velocity Channel via ASTM #2 D 6460 Unvegetated Channel #3 All P300 P300; + 6 Weeks 3.8 Anchors/SY of Vegetation P Year of Vegetation Power (All) Poly. (P Weeks of Vegetation) Poly. (P Year of Vegetation) y = x R² = Limiting Velocity = 9.5 ft/sec y = x x x R² = Limiting Velocity = 19.5 ft/sec y = -2E-05x x 2-7E-05x R² = Limiting Velocity = 24.5 ft/sec Velocity, ft/sec Figure 14. Velocity vs. Soil Loss Tested Product
9 Manning's n Permissible Shear, psf P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page Vegetation Loss vs Time of Vegetation Growth via ASTM D 6460 P300; 3.8 Staples/SY SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS Weeks of Vegetation Growth Initial Vegetative Density (stems/ft ) Final Vegetative Density (stems/ft ) % of Initial Vegetation after Max. Shear (%) 0 68% 83% Permissible Shear Time of Vegetation Growth, weeks Figure 15. Shear Stress vs. Time of Vegetation Growth Tested Product Manning's n vs. Water Depth P300 Unvegetated Channel #1 Unvegetated Channel #2 Unvegetated Channel #3 All Unvegetated P Weeks of Vegetation P Year of Vegetation All Vegetated Power (All Unvegetated) Power (All Vegetated) y = x R² = y = x R² = Water Depth, in Figure 16. Flow Depth vs. Manning s n Tested Product
10 Elevation Relative to Benchmark, ft Elevation Relative to Benchmark, ft P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page Energy Grade Lines - All Shear Levels P Shear Level 4 Shear Level 3 Shear Level 2 Shear Level 1 Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x y = x X-Section (ft along test reach) Figure 17a. Energy Grade Lines All Channels, Unvegetated Shears Tested Product Energy Grade Lines - All Shear Levels Vegetated Channels Wk Vegetated Shear Level 5 y = x Yr Vegetated Shear Level 4 y = x y = x Shear Level 3 y = -0.16x y = x Shear Level 2 y = x y = x Shear Level 1 y = x y = x X-Section (ft along test reach) Figure 17b. Energy Grade Lines All Channels, Vegetated Shears Tested Product
11 Cummulative Soil Loss (CSLI), in Percent of Initial Vegetation after Shear Stress, % Vegetation Loss vs Shear via ASTM D Staples/SY P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page % P Weeks of Vegetation P Year of Vegetation Poly. (P Weeks of Vegetation) Poly. (P Year of Vegetation) 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% Initial 6-Week Vegetative Stand = 331 stems/ft 2 y = x x x + 1 R² = Initial 1-Year Vegetative Stand = 245 stems/ft 2 y = -5E-05x x x + 1 R² = % 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Shear, psf Figure 18. Vegetation vs. Shear Stress Tested Product y = x x x R² = Limiting Shear via ASTM D 6460 Control Runs Unvegetated With 6 Weeks of Vegetation With 61 Weeks of Vegetation Poly. (Unvegetated) Poly. (With 6 Weeks of Vegetation) Poly. (With 61 Weeks of Vegetation) Limiting Shear = y = x x R² = Limiting Shear = 0.5 psf y = x x x R² = Limiting Shear = 8.0 psf Shear, psf Figure 19. Shear Stress vs. Soil Loss Controls (Vegetation Only / No RECP)
12 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Page 12 Figure 20. Typical 6+ Week Control Vegetation-Only Before Testing Figure 22. Typical 1+ Year Control Vegetation-Only Before Testing Figure 21. Typical 6+ Week Control Vegetation-Only After Testing Figure 23. Typical 1+ Year Control Vegetation-Only After Testing CONCLUSIONS Rectangular channel (flume) tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 6460 using Loam soil protected with an RECP. Three replicates of the unvegetated condition and one replicate each of the 6+ week and 1+ year vegetated conditions were performed. Testing in a rectangular (vertical wall) channel was conducted to achieve increasing shear levels in an attempt to cause at least 0.5-inch of soil loss. Figure 13 shows the maximum bottom shear stress and associated soil loss from each flow event. Figure 14 presents the velocity versus soil loss. Figure 15 relates the permissible shear stress to the length of time the vegetation had been allowed to grow. Figure 16 relates channel liner roughness (Manning s n ) to flow depth. Together, this data describes the relevant performance characteristics of the tested RECP. It is important to note that ASTM D 6460, the procedure used to guide the testing reported herein, requires that three test replicates be performed using identical procedures to obtain an average threshold of performance. Thus, the results of the testing of vegetated channels reported herein, being single replicates of each condition, cannot be considered as an average threshold of performance. The data in Figures 17a, 17b, 18 and 19, the calculated energy grade lines for each channel and shear level, the retained vegetation at each shear level, and the control condition shear stress vs. soil loss relationships, are included to provide a reference for the reported test results.
13 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Appendix APPENDIX A RECORDED DATA Test Record Sheets (Note: Unvegetated Test Record Sheets are in a Separate Report)
14 2-5 CHANNEL 2 - SHEAR STRESS 5 Date: 10/26/11 Start Time: 9:00 AM End Time: 10:00 AM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): Slope: 20% 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: P300 Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW TEST DATA Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 2 C = 0.00 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Stress (psf) Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.57
15 2-4 CHANNEL 2 - SHEAR STRESS 4 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 10/26/11 Start Time: 9:00 AM End Time: 10:00 AM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 5.00 Slope: 20% Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 2 C = 0.00 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 15.5 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 16.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.3 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.3 Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 16.6 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.3 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.3 Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 16.8 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 17.2 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.3 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.3 Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 17.7 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.3 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.3 Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 18.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.3 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.3 Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 18.3 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.4 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.4 Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 18.5 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.6 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.6 Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 19.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.4 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.4 P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 19.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.6 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.6 Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = -0.4 Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.4
16 2-3 CHANNEL 2 - SHEAR STRESS 3 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 10/25/11 Start Time: 3:00 PM End Time: 4:00 PM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 3.00 Slope: 20% Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 2 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 12.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 12.4 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 12.8 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 12.9 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 13.1 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 13.3 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 13.4 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = 0.0 Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 13.6 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.3 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.3 Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 13.9 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.5 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.5 Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 14.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.4 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.4 P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 14.2 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.4 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.4 Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = -0.3 Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.3
17 2-2 CHANNEL 2 - SHEAR STRESS 2 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: 1500 rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 10/25/11 Start Time: 1:00 PM End Time: 2:00 PM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 2.00 Slope: 20% Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 4 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 4.2 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 4.5 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 4.8 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 5.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 5.3 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 5.4 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 5.6 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 5.8 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 5.8 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 6.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 6.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.2 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.2 Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = -0.1 Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.1
18 2-1 CHANNEL 2 - SHEAR STRESS 1 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 10/25/11 Start Time: 11:30 AM End Time: 12:30 PM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 1.00 Slope: 20% Outlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 2 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.0 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.1 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.2 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft 25.5 Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.3 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.3 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.3 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.4 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.5 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.6 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.7 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 2.8 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = -0.1 Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.1
19 3-4 CHANNEL 3 - SHEAR STRESS 4 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 4/18/13 Start Time: 2:51 PM End Time: Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): Slope: 20% Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 2.00 C = 0.00 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.54
20 3-3 CHANNEL 3 - SHEAR STRESS 3 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 4/18/13 Start Time: 12:03 PM End Time: 1:03 PM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 8.00 Slope: 20% Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 4 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in pins / sy TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.34
21 3-2 CHANNEL 3 - SHEAR STRESS 2 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: 1500 rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 4/18/13 Start Time: 10:49 AM End Time: 11:49 AM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 4.00 Slope: 20% Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.16
22 3-1 CHANNEL 3 - SHEAR STRESS 1 40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage: rpms 2 ft wide flume Date: 4/18/13 Start Time: 9:27 AM End Time: 10:27 AM Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 2.00 Slope: 20% Outlet Weir Weir Channel Targets FLOW Water Depth, in Weir width (ft) = 2 Water Velocity, ft/s ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs Cross-section 1 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 7.32 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 2 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 7.30 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 3 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 7.56 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft 25.5 Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 4 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 8.07 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 5 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 7.82 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 6 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 8.30 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 7 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 8.20 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 8 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 8.61 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 9 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 9.18 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Cross-section 10 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 9.35 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in P300 TEST DATA Cross-section 11 A B C 0.2d 0.6d 0.8d To Water Surf, cm To original Surface Elev, cm To eroded Surface Elev, cm Vavg (fps) = 9.61 Soil Loss / Gain, cm navg = pins / sy Clopper Soil Loss, cm Flow (cfs) = Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in Soil Loss / Gain, in Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = Clopper Soil Loss, in Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.07
23 P300, Double Net Poly Fiber Mat, over Loam Channel Erosion Testing May 3, 2013 Appendix APPENDIX B TEST SOIL Test Soil Grain Size Distribution Curve Compaction Curves Veneer Soil Compaction Verification
24 Percent Finer January Plasticity (ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit: 35 Plastic Limit: 30 Plastic Index: 5 Soil classifies as a sandy silt (ML) in accordance with ASTM D DDRF ASTM D 6459 & D 6460 Blended Test Soil ASTM ASTM D 6459 & D 6460 Target Loam Particle Size (mm)
25 Proctor Compaction Test 120 Project: TRI-DDRF 115 Sample No.: DDRF Test Soil - January 2010 TRI Log No.: E Dry Density (pcf) Test Method: ASTM D Method A Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 98.7 Optimum Moisture Content (%): Moisture Content (%) Cheng-Wei Chen, 02/03/10 Quality Review/Date Tested by: Tamika Walker The testing herein is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. Test results reported herein do not apply to samples other than those tested. TRI neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use and purpose of the material. TRI observes and maintains client confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI Bee Caves Road Austin, TX (512) (512) TEST
26 Compaction Worksheet ASTM D 1556 Calibration Date: 8/16/2009 Sand Used: Pool Filter Sand Volume Measure: Liquid Volume, V m (cm 3 ): 425 Wt. of Sand to Fill Known Volume: Total Wt (g) Pan Wt (g) Net Wt (g) Trial #1 (g) Trial #2 (g) Trial #3 (g) W a (g) Density of Sand, ɣ sand (g/cm 3 ) = W a / V m = 1.53 Wt. of Sand to Fill Cone: Total Wt (g) Cone Wt (g) Net Wt (g) Trial #1 (g) Trial #2 (g) Trial #3 (g) Wt. of Sand in Cone (g): Field Data Date: 2/10/2010 Soil Data: Wt. of Wet Soil + Pan (g) Wt. of Dry Soil + Pan (g) Wt. of Pan (g) 14.5 Wt. of Wet Soil, W' (g) Wt. of Dry Soil (g) Wt. of Water (g) Water Content, w (%) 18.3% Volume Data: Sand Used: Pool Filter Sand Unit Wt. of Sand, ɣ sand (g/cm 3 ) = 1.53 Wt. of Jug & Cone Before (g) = Wt. of Jug & Cone After (g) = Wt. of Sand Used (g) = Wt. of Sand in Cone (g) = Wt. of Sand in Hole, W (g) = Volume of hole, V h (cm 3 ) = W / ɣ sand = Density Calculation: Wet density, ɣ wet = W' / V h (kn/m 3 ) = 1.74 Wet density, ɣ wet = W' / V h (lb/ft 3 ) = Dry density, ɣ dry = ɣ wet / [1 + w] (kn/m 3 ) = 1.47 Wet density, ɣ wet = W' / V h (lb/ft 3 ) = Max Std. Proctor Dry density (kn/m 3 ) = Opt. Moisture via Std. Proctor density (%) = Compaction as % of Std. Proctor = 92.9%
Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460, modified) ErosionTech s ETPP-10, Double Net Synthetic Fiber Mat, over Loam
Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460, modified) of ErosionTech s ETPP-10, Double Net Synthetic Fiber Mat, over Loam December 2011 Submitted to: AASHTO/NTPEP 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite
More informationLarge-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460) (Modified procedure used for vegetated channel tests)
Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460) (Modified procedure used for vegetated channel tests) of North American Green s ShoreMax Mats over P550-TRM over Loam December 2011 Submitted to: AASHTO/NTPEP
More informationLarge-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460) (Modified procedure used for vegetated channel tests)
Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6460) (Modified procedure used for vegetated channel tests) of East Coast Erosion Blanket ECP-3 Permanent Turf Reinforcement Mats over Loam December 2011 Submitted
More informationLarge-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (ASTM D 7351) FLEXSTORM Inlet Filter
Large-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (ASTM D 7351) of FLEXSTORM Inlet Filter February 2009 Submitted to: Inlet & Pipe Protection, Inc. 24137 W. 111 th St., Unit A Naperville, IL 60564 Attn: Mr.
More informationQuality Control, Quality Assurance and Performance Testing of ECPs. Erosion. Erosion Control
Testing and Specifying Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECPs) Presented by: C. J. (Joel) Sprague, TRI/Environmental, Inc., United States J. E. (Jay) Sprague, TRI s Denver Downs Research Facility, United
More informationLarge-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing Representing Exposure to Post-Construction Sediment Load. FLEXSTORM PC Inlet Filters
Large-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing Representing Exposure to Post-Construction Sediment Load of FLEXSTORM PC Inlet Filters November 2009 Submitted to: Inlet & Pipe Protection, Inc. 24137 W. 111
More informationTESTING AND SPECIFYING EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS
TESTING AND SPECIFYING EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS C. Joel Sprague, P.E. TRI/Environmental, Inc. PO Box 9192, Greenville, SC 29604 Phone: 864/242-2220; Fax: 864/242-3107; jsprague@tri-env.com James E. (Jay)
More informationUser Guide. Overview. March product innovation. NTPEP test reports contain data collected according to laboratory testing protocols
AASHTO/NTPEP Erosion Control Products User Guide Overview The National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) was developed to provide quality and responsive engineering to the testing and evaluation
More informationSpecifications for the Selection and Application of Erosion Control Blanket on Slopes or Channels
Specifications for the Selection and Application of Erosion Control Blanket on Slopes or Channels Excel CS-3 All Natural - Provided by Western Excelsior PART I - GENERAL 1.01 Summary A. The Erosion Control
More informationTechnical Note. Hydraulic Flow Capacity of Concrete Cloth
Introduction: Stormwater flow in drainage channel and flume applications may be subjected to high velocity water conditions generating high shear forces on the side slopes. These applications are designed
More informationManual for Erosion and Sediment Control Updates
Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control Updates Chapter 1 - The Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 Minor revisions were made to content Existing pictures were replaced with new ones Chapter 2 Sediment
More informationSTATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATION 836 SEEDING AND EROSION CONTROL WITH TURF REINFORCING MAT January 18, 2013
836.01 Description 836.02 Materials 836.03 Construction 836.04 Maintenance 836.05 Method of Measurement 836.06 Basis of Payment STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATION 836
More informationNTPEP Evaluation of Erosion Control Products (ECP) and Sediment Retention Devices (SRD)
Standard Practice for NTPEP Evaluation of Erosion Control Products (ECP) and Sediment Retention Devices (SRD) AASHTO Designation: ECP 14-01 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
More informationROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP)
Supplemental Technical Specification for ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP) SCDOT Designation: SC-M-815-9 (07/17) 1.0 Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECP) This Supplemental Specification replaces
More informationEC-04 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP)
Greenville County Technical Specification EC-04 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP) 1.0 Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECP) 1.1 Description A variety of Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECP) are
More informationRE: Bench-scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (Log # E )
Ms. Kellyn Hargett GeoHay, LLC PO Box 160040 Spartanburg, SC 29316 (info@geohay.com) RE: Bench-scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (Log # E2280-14-10) Dear Kellyn: TRI appreciates the opportunity to
More informationStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey May 2012 STANDARD FOR SLOPE PROTECTION STRUCTURES. Definition
STANDARD FOR SLOPE PROTECTION STRUCTURES Definition Structures to safely conduct surface runoff from the top of a slope to the bottom of the slope. Purpose The purpose of this practice is to convey storm
More informationStandards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey May 2012 STANDARD FOR GRASSED WATERWAYS. Definition. Purpose
STANDARD FOR GRASSED WATERWAYS Definition A natural or constructed watercourse shaped or graded in earth materials and stabilized with suitable vegetation for the safe conveyance of runoff water. Purpose
More informationRecyclex TRM TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT SPECIFICATION
Recyclex TRM TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT SPECIFICATION PART I - GENERAL 1.01 Summary A. The Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) contains post-consumer recycled polyester fiber for the purpose of erosion control and
More informationDevelopment of transition mat scour protection design methodology and comparison to the state-of-the-practice
Hydrology Days 2011 Development of transition mat scour protection design methodology and comparison to the state-of-the-practice Michael D. Turner, Amanda L. Cox 1, and Christopher I. Thornton Department
More informationTriNet Coconut EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION
PART I - GENERAL TriNet Coconut EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION 1.01 Summary A. The biocomposite Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) contains coconut fiber for the purpose of erosion control and revegetation
More informationTriNet Coconut EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION
PART I - GENERAL TriNet Coconut EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION 1.01 Summary A. The biocomposite Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) contains coconut fiber for the purpose of erosion control and revegetation
More informationCurlex Enforcer EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION
PART I - GENERAL Curlex Enforcer EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION 1.01 Summary A. The biocomposite Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM) contains excelsior wood fiber for the purpose of erosion control and
More informationARMORMAX ENGINEERED EARTH ARMORING SOLUTIONS
ARMORMAX ENGINEERED EARTH ARMORING SOLUTIONS The ARMORMAX Engineered Earth Armoring Solution is the most advanced flexible armoring technology available for severe erosion and surficial slope stability
More informationMr. Michael Malone CPS Energy 145 Navarro Street San Antonio, Texas Project No
Environmental Resources Management January 13, 2017 Mr. Michael Malone 145 Navarro Street San Antonio, Texas 78205 Project No. 0352436 CityCentre Four 840 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 600 Houston,
More informationCurlex II EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION
Curlex II EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION PART I - GENERAL 1.01 Summary A. The erosion control blanket contains excelsior wood fiber for the purpose of erosion control and revegetation as described
More informationAEC Premier Straw Double Net Quick Mow EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION
AEC Premier Straw Double Net Quick Mow EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION PART I - GENERAL 1.01 Summary A. The erosion control blanket contains agricultural straw fibers for the purpose of erosion control
More informationWritten by: Lindsay O Leary Date: 11 /08 /26 Reviewed by: Brandon Klenzendorf Date: 11 /08 /26 YY MM DD YY MM DD
Page 2 of 21 Written by: Lindsay O Leary Date: 11 /08 /26 Reviewed by: Brandon Klenzendorf Date: 11 /08 /26 YY MM DD YY MM DD Client: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Project: ASARCO El Paso Site Project/Proposal
More informationDiversion Dikes. Fe=0.95
2.2 Diversion Dike Erosion Control Description: A diversion dike is a compacted soil mound, which redirects runoff to a desired location. The dike is typically stabilized with natural grass for low velocities
More informationFlow Diversion Banks: On earth slopes
Flow Diversion Banks: On earth slopes DRAINAGE CONTROL TECHNIQUE Low Gradient Velocity Control Short Term Steep Gradient Channel Lining Medium-Long Term Outlet Control Soil Treatment Permanent [1] [1]
More informationCurlex High Velocity EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION
Curlex High Velocity EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SPECIFICATION PART I - GENERAL 1.01 Summary A. The erosion control blanket contains excelsior wood fiber for the purpose of erosion control and revegetation
More informationTreatment Volume: Curve Numbers. Composite CN or Not? Treatment Volume: Curve Numbers. Treatment Volume: Calculation. Treatment Volume: Calculation
Stormwater Engineering Bioretention Design Bill Hunt, PE, Ph.D. Extension Specialist & Assistant Professor NCSU-BAE www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater Bioretention Design Six Step Process 1 Determine Volume to
More information[1] Level spreaders can release sheet flow down steep slopes, but the level spreader itself must be constructed across a level gradient.
Level Spreaders DRAINAGE CONTROL TECHNIQUE Low Gradient Velocity Control Short Term Steep Gradient [1] Channel Lining Medium-Long Term Outlet Control Soil Treatment Permanent [1] Level spreaders can release
More informationPOST CLOSURE PLAN. CFR (d) Pond 1. Clinch Power Plant Russell County, West Virginia. November Prepared for: Appalachian Power Company
POST CLOSURE PLAN CFR 257.104(d) Pond 1 Clinch Power Plant Russell County, West Virginia November 2016 Prepared for: Appalachian Power Company Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure,
More informationSECTION EROSION CONTROL MATTINGS AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 02375 EROSION CONTROL MATTINGS AND COMPONENTS PART 1 GENERAL 1.01 SUMMARY A. This section addresses erosion control blankets, erosion control revegetation matting, turf reinforcement matting, and
More informationRETENTION BASIN EXAMPLE
-7 Given: Total Tributary Area = 7.5 ac o Tributary Area within Existing R/W = 5.8 ac o Tributary Area, Impervious, Outside of R/W = 0.0 ac o Tributary Area, Pervious, Outside of R/W = 1.7 ac o Tributary
More informationSediment Retention Fiber Roll (SRFR) General Usage and Installation Guidelines
April 2011 Version 1.0 Sediment Retention Fiber Roll (SRFR) General Usage and Installation Guidelines Erosion Control Technology Council Introduction Table of Contents Introduction 1 Reducing Slope Length
More informationHYDRAULIC TESTING AND DATA REPORT FOR SIX- INCH TRITON FILTER MATTRESS
HYDRAULIC TESTING AND DATA REPORT FOR SIX- INCH TRITON FILTER MATTRESS Prepared for Tensar International Corporation Colorado State University Daryl B. Simons Building at the Engineering Research Center
More informationMATERIAL SPECIFICATION Manufactured Ditch Checks
MATERIAL SPECIFICATION 514. Manufactured Ditch Checks 1. SCOPE This specification covers the types of material used in various manufactured ditch check products and associated installation materials. 2.
More information521D-1 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD POND SEALING OR LINING COMPACTED CLAY TREATMENT (NO.) CODE 521D DEFINITION A liner for a pond or waste storage impoundment constructed
More informationEvaluation of ALDOT Ditch Check Practices using Large-Scale Testing Techniques
Research Report No. 3 Project Number: 930-826R Evaluation of ALDOT Ditch Check Practices using Large-Scale Testing Techniques Large-scale Channel Testing (ASTM D 7208 modified) of Evaluation of Sand Bag
More informationIndex. outlet protection Rev. 12/93
6 Index outlet protection level spreader outlet stabilization structure 6.40.1 6.41.1 Rev. 12/93 Practice Standards and Specifications 6.40 level spreader Definition Purpose Conditions Where Practice Applies
More informationPOND SEALING OR LINING COMPACTED SOIL TREATMENT
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD POND SEALING OR LINING COMPACTED SOIL TREATMENT CODE 520 (FT. 2 ) DEFINITION A liner for an impoundment constructed using compacted
More informationTesting, Analyses, and Performance Values for Slope Interruption and Perimeter Control BMPs
Testing, Analyses, and Performance Values for Slope Interruption and Perimeter Control BMPs Kurt Kelsey Research Scientist American Excelsior Company 831 Pioneer Ave Rice Lake, WI 54868 Phone: 715-236-5643
More informationSECTION EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS
SECTION 312500 PART 1 GENERAL 1.01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Attention is directed to the CONTRACT AND GENERAL CONDITIONS and all Sections within DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS which are hereby made
More informationFlexamat Tied Concrete Block Mats
Flexamat Tied Concrete Block Mats 1. DESCRIPTION 2. MATERIALS Flexamat Tied Concrete Block Erosion Control Mats This work shall consist of furnishing and placing the Flexamat system in accordance with
More informationEvaluation of ALDOT Ditch Check Practices using Large Scale Testing Techniques
Research Report No. 2 Project Number: 930 826R Evaluation of ALDOT Ditch Check Practices using Large Scale Testing Techniques Large scale Channel Testing (ASTM D 7208 modified) of Evaluation of ALDOT Class
More informationCase History: Value Engineering of Driven H-Piles for Slope Stability on the Missouri River
DEEP FOUNDATIONS 207 Case History: Value Engineering of Driven H-Piles for Slope Stability on the Missouri River W. Robert Thompson, III, 1 M.ASCE, P.E., Jeffrey R. Hill, 2 M.ASCE, P.E., and J. Erik Loehr,
More informationWarner Robins Stormwater Local Design Manual
Warner Robins Stormwater Local Design Manual Prepared for Houston County City of Warner Robins City of Perry City of Centerville May 17, 2005 Version 4 (As presented with adopted Stormwater Ordinance)
More information( ) or 811 or mo1call.com
Missouri One Call 1-800-DIG RITE (800-344-7483) or 811 or mo1call.com Missouri One Call 1-800-DIG RITE (800-344-7483) or 811 or mo1call.com Missouri One Call 1-800-DIG RITE (800-344-7483) or 811 or mo1call.com
More informationNTPEP Evaluation of Spray Applied Non-Structural and Structural Pipe Liners for Storm Water Conveyance
Work Plan for NTPEP Evaluation of Spray Applied Non-Structural and Structural Pipe Liners for Storm Water Conveyance AASHTO Designation: [SAL] (2018) American Association of State Highway and Transportation
More informationPERMANENT EROSION CONTROL SOLUTIONS
PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL SOLUTIONS Erosion Prevention and Protection Flexamat Provides Permanent Erosion Control Solutions for a Wide Range of Applications Including: AIRPORTS DOT ROADSIDE DRIVABLE SURFACES
More informationDecember 6, Nate Hatleback Project Manager City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229
December 6, 2016 Nate Hatleback Project Manager City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 RE: Drainage Conformance Letter Hilton Garden Inn @ The Grove The Grove Filing No 1, lot 5E Thornton,
More informationErosion Control Blankets
2.3 Erosion Control Description: An erosion control blanket (ECB) is a temporary, degradable, rolled erosion control product that reduces soil erosion and assists in the establishment and growth of vegetation.
More informationSediment Basin. Fe= (Depends on soil type)
3.9 Sediment Control Description: A sediment basin is an embankment with a controlled outlet that detains stormwater runoff, resulting in the settling of suspended sediment. The basin provides treatment
More informationSlope Erosion Testing Identifying Critical Parameters
Slope Erosion Testing Identifying Critical Parameters C. Joel Sprague, P.E. TRI/Environmental, Inc. PO Box 9192, Greenville, SC 29604 Phone: 864/242-2220, Fax: 864/242-3107; cjoelsprague@cs.com Presented
More informationDr. Mark Risse Dr. Sidney Thompson Xianben Zhu Keith Harris Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Evaluation of Belted Strand Retention Fabric and Conventional Type C Silt Fence using ASTM standards Dr. Mark Risse Dr. Sidney Thompson Xianben Zhu Keith Harris Department of Biological and Agricultural
More informationCOMPACTED CLAY LINERS
Technical Reference Document for Liquid Manure Storage Structures COMPACTED CLAY LINERS Table of Contents SECTION 1 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1.1. Purpose of the Technical Reference Document 1.2. Requirement
More information19 May Provide profiles for all storm sewer going into the ground with the grading permit showing 5 and 100yr HGLs.
19 May 2017 City of Thornton Attn: Nate Hatleback 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 Re: Initial Review Response to 05/16/17 Letter Dear Mr. Hatleback: This letter is in response to technical comments
More informationB. Install storm drain inlet protection to prevent clogging of the stormsewer and sediment loads to downstream stormwater facilities or waterbodies.
The language provided in these specifications is meant to serve as a reminder and provide a generic example of the type of language that should be provided in final construction documents. This language
More informationRational Method Hydrological Calculations with Excel COURSE CONTENT
Rational Method Hydrological Calculations with Excel Harlan H. Bengtson, PhD, P.E. COURSE CONTENT 1. Introduction Calculation of peak storm water runoff rate from a drainage area is often done with the
More informationStormwater Local Design Manual For Houston County, Georgia
Stormwater Local Design Manual For Houston County, Georgia Adopted November 15, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. FORWARD... 1 2. GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS... 2 2.1. DETENTION REQUIREMENTS... 2 2.1.1.
More informationCCR Annual Inspection (b) for the Ash Pond at the A.B. Brown Generating Station. Revision 0
Submitted to Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company dba Vectren Power Supply, Inc. (SIGECO) One Vectren Square Evansville, IN 47708 Submitted by AECOM 9400 Amberglen Boulevard Austin, Texas 78729 257.83
More informationFACING OPTIONS FOR REINFORCED STEEPED SLOPES
FACING OPTIONS FOR REINFORCED STEEPED SLOPES Prepared by: TenCate TM Geosynthetics North America 365 South Holland Drive Pendergrass, GA 30567 Tel 706 693 2226 Fax 706 693 4400 www.tencate.com Revised:
More informationDrop-In Specification Standard Flexamat Erosion Control System (English Units)
Drop-In Specification Standard Flexamat Erosion Control System (English Units) The following specification is a sample guideline to be customized by the engineer as needed for preparing a site-specific
More informationJanuary 20, Nate Hatleback Project Manager, City of Thornton Development Engineering 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO (303)
January 20, 2017 Nate Hatleback Project Manager, City of Thornton Development Engineering 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, CO 80229 (303) 538-7694 RE: Riverdale Five Retail Drainage Conformance Letter
More informationMODEL Stormwater Local Design Manual. City of Centerville
MODEL Stormwater Local Design Manual City of Centerville Adopted December 6, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. FORWARD... 1 2. GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS... 1 2.1. DETENTION REQUIREMENTS... 1 2.1.1. Discharge
More informationErosion Control Product Testing
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory January 1979 Erosion Control Product Testing C. Earl Israelsen Eugene K. Israelsen Joel E. Fletcher Jerald S. Fifield Ronald
More informationLow Gradient Velocity Control Short Term Steep Gradient Channel Lining Medium-Long Term Outlet Control Soil Treatment Permanent [1]
Diversion Channels DRAINAGE CONTROL TECHNIQUE Low Gradient Velocity Control Short Term Steep Gradient Channel Lining Medium-Long Term Outlet Control Soil Treatment Permanent [1] [1] The design of permanent
More informationAwareness Training. Overview of Proposed Changes. John Showler, P.E. NJDA-SSCC
Awareness Training Overview of Proposed Changes John Showler, P.E. NJDA-SSCC December 12, 2012 Revised review process in the Governor s office added to timeline (was not present in 1999) Several revised
More informationMaine s Land Use Regulations and Erosion Control Techniques
Maine s Land Use Regulations and Erosion Control Techniques Protecting Maine s Air, Land and Water Colin Clark 441-7419 colin.a.clark@maine.gov Tom Gilbert 441-8031 thomas.gilbert@maine.gov Jim Rodrigue
More informationHUITEX GEOCELL INSTALLATION MANUAL
Table of Contents 1 Site Preparation 2 Installation for the Retaining Wall 2.1 Base Preparation 2.2 Footing Installation 2.3 Placement of the Drainage System 2.4 Placement of the HUITEX Geocell panels
More informationATTACHMENT 6 WATER QUALITY SWALE DESIGN ADDENDUM
ATTACHMENT 6 WATER QUALITY SWALE DESIGN ADDENDUM 12 October 2010 Project No. 073-81694.0022 Mr. Robert R. Monok Project Manager Energy Fuels Resource Corporation 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 Lakewood,
More informationGRADING, FILL, EXCAVATION AND LANDSCAPING 2012 EDITION
CHAPTER 23.105 GRADING, FILL, EXCAVATION AND LANDSCAPING 2012 EDITION Sections 23.105.101 General... 1 23.105.102 Definitions... 1 23.105.103 Permits required... 3 23.105.104 Hazards.... 4 23.105.105 Permit
More informationLyon Creek Cedar Way Stormwater Detention Dam Operation and Maintenance Manual
Lyon Creek Cedar Way Stormwater Detention Dam Operation and Maintenance Manual Prepared by: Mike Shaw Stormwater Program Manager City of Mountlake Terrace January 2010 Section I General Information This
More informationROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Small Pond Approval. SWM MD-378 Pond Checklist Training 10/17/07. Exemptions EMBANKMENT HEIGHT. Height of Dam Weir Wall
SWM MD-378 Pond Checklist Training 10/17/07 Ken Wolfe Warren Johnson USDA, NRCS Frederick, Maryland ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Small Pond Approval MDE, WMA, Dam Safety Division Authority (COMAR 26.17.04.03)
More informationOrganic Filter Tubes. Fe= (Depends on soil type)
3.6 Sediment Control Description: Organic filter tubes are comprised of an open weave, mesh tube that is filled with a filter material (compost, wood chips, straw, coir, aspen fiber, or a mixture of materials).
More informationPrecipitation Surface Cover Topography Soil Properties
Precipitation Surface Cover Topography Soil Properties Intrinsic capacity of rainfall to cause erosion Influenced by Amount, intensity, terminal velocity, drop size and drop size distribution of rain.
More informationPART 3 - STANDARDS FOR SEWERAGE FACILITIES DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS
PART 3 - STANDARDS FOR SEWERAGE FACILITIES 3.3 - DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS 3.301 Design of Storm Sewers A. General Information B. Investigations and Surveys C. Special Projects 3.302 Design Criteria for Storm
More informationRE: Final Drainage Letter: Northwest Aurora Alley Improvements 2016
April 12, 2016 Mr. Craig Perl, P.E. Senior Engineer City of Aurora Public Works Department 15151 E. Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012 RE: Final Drainage Letter: Northwest Aurora Alley Improvements 2016
More information3.11 Sand Filter Basin
3.11 Sand Filter Basin Type of BMP Priority Level Treatment Mechanisms Maximum Drainage Area Flow-Through Treatment Priority 3 Treatment Control BMP Filtration 25 acres Description The Sand Filter Basin
More informationDetermination of Design Infiltration Rates for the Sizing of Infiltration based Green Infrastructure Facilities
Determination of Design Infiltration Rates for the Sizing of Infiltration based Green Infrastructure Facilities 1 Introduction This document, developed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
More informationSECTION EROSION CONTROLS
SECTION 31 25 13 EROSION CONTROLS PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 SUMMARY A. Section Includes installing, maintaining and removing: 1. Silt Fence. 2. Temporary Construction Entrances. 3. Diversion Channels. 4. Sediment
More informationAugust 15, 2006 (Revised) July 3, 2006 Project No A
August 15, 2006 (Revised) July 3, 2006 Project No. 01-05-0854-101A Mr. David Reed, P.E. Protean Design Group 100 East Pine Street, Suite 306 Orlando, Florida 32801 Preliminary Soil Survey Report Polk Parkway
More informationAPPENDIX I: EROSION TEST RESULTS ON NEW ORLEANS LEVEE SAMPLES
APPENDIX I: EROSION TEST RESULTS ON NEW ORLEANS LEVEE SAMPLES I.1 THE EFA: EROSION FUNCTION APPARATUS The EFA (Briaud et al. 1999, Briaud et al., 2001a) was conceived by Dr. Briaud in 1991, designed in
More informationFlexamat Erosion Control Mat
Flexamat Erosion Control Mat 1. DESCRIPTION 2. MATERIALS Furnish and install Flexamat Erosion Control Mats. Submit manufacturer s performance research results and calculations in support of the Flexamat
More informationCEEN Geotechnical Engineering
CEEN 3160 - Geotechnical Engineering Lab Report 1 Soil Classification prepared by Student Name 1 Student Name 2 Student Name 3 Student Name 4 Tuesday Lab Time 9:30 10:45 Lab Team 1 Submission Date INTRODUCTION
More informationMVP 17.3 WATER BAR END TREATMENT SIZING AND DETAILS 1/22/18
MVP 17.3 WATER BAR END TREATMENT SIZING AND DETAILS 1/22/18 The purpose of this detail is to document the methodology developed to size the length of the water bar end treatments to ensure flow leaving
More informationAMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER (SWEPCO)
2016 DAM & DIKE INSPECTION REPORT ASH PONDS GERS-16-163 WELSH POWER PLANT AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER (SWEPCO) CASON, TEXAS NATIONAL INVENTORY NO. TX4357 PREPARED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AEP SERVICE CORPORATION
More informationExperience of a Large Scale Unintentionally Long Surcharge on Organic Soils
Experience of a Large Scale Unintentionally Long Surcharge on Organic Soils Ying Liu, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Engineer, Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 37 Amapola Ave., Suite 212, Torrance, CA. Email: yingl@groupdelta.com
More informationSPECIFICATIONS FOR PRECAST MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SYSTEM (revised 5/8/7)
Page 1 of 7 STONE STRONG SYSTEMS SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRECAST MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SYSTEM (revised 5/8/7) PART 1: GENERAL 1.01 Description A. Work includes furnishing and installing precast modular
More informationCE 435/535, Fall 2003 Preliminary Design Example 1 / 6
CE 435/535, Fall 2003 Preliminary Design Example 1 / 6 Perform a preliminary design for a bridge on a state highway over a large creek in rural Alabama. Produce a construction layout drawing showing profile
More informationJASON COTE-WONG RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND STORMWATER PERMITTING EAST MONTPELIER, VERMONT JUNE 21, 2017 OWNER: JASON COTE-WONG
OWNER: 4028 U.S ROUTE 2 05651 (802) 223-7171 JUNE 21, 2017 ENGINEER: 34 SCHOOL STREET LITTLETON, NH 03561 (603) 444-4111 EAST MONTPELIER SURVEYOR: CHASE & CHASE SURVEYORS 301 NORTH MAIN ST., SUITE 1 BARRE,
More information