Large-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (ASTM D 7351) SedCatch Sediment Basket Inlet Filter Exposed to 1.5% Sediment Load

Similar documents
Large-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (ASTM D 7351) SedCatch Sediment Basket Inlet Filter Exposed to 6% Sediment Load

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459) East Coast Erosion Control s ECS-2, Double Net Straw Blanket over Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459) East Coast Erosion Blanket ECC-2B, Double Net Coconut Fiber Blanket over Sandy Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459) Winters Excelsior s Straw Bio, Double Biodegradable Net Straw Blanket over Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459 modified) Flexterra Ultra over Sandy Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459 modified) Hydromulch 2000 over Sandy Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459) US Erosion Control Products US-2S, Double Net Straw Blanket over Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459) American Excelsior s AEC Premier Straw Double Net FibreNet, Erosion Control Blanket (ECB) over Loam

Large-Scale Slope Erosion Testing (ASTM D 6459 modified) Central Fiber s Second Nature Wood Fiber PLUS HECP and Enviro-Gold PLUS HECP over Sandy Loam

EVALUATING SEDIMENT BARRIERS

Stone Outlet Sediment Trap

Sediment Capture in Pervious Concrete Pavement tsystems: Effects on Hydrological Performance and Suspended Solids

INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM PLAN 40 C.F.R. PART PLANT YATES ASH POND 2 (AP-2) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

What Is Water Erosion? Aren t they the same thing? What Is Sediment? What Is Sedimentation? How can Sediment Yields be Minimized?

APPENDIX B DESIGN CRITERIA FOR TEMPORARY WATER QUALITY BMPS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION

**Temporary Erosion Control**

Module 5: Channel and Slope Protection Example Assignments

Provide sediment tubes for ditch check and Type A inlet structure filter applications that meet the minimum performance requirements of Table 1.

Stormwater Inlet Sediment Traps

International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research

TPDES: Soil, Erosion and Sedimentation Methods

SILT FENCE EFFECTIVENESS

Selected Site BMPs: Why s the Water Muddy? John C. Hayes, Ph.D., P. E. Biosystems Engineering Clemson University

Stormwater Guidelines and Case Studies. CAHILL ASSOCIATES Environmental Consultants West Chester, PA (610)


Field Exploration. March 31, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 115 Northstar Avenue Twin Falls, Idaho Attn: Mr. Tracy Ahrens, P. E. E:

Continuing Education Associated with Maintaining CPESC and CESSWI Certification

Materials. Use materials meeting the following.

B805 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES - OPSS 805

EROSION CONTROL NARRATIVE

Mr. Michael Malone CPS Energy 145 Navarro Street San Antonio, Texas Project No

APPENDIX B WORKSHEETS & EXHIBITS

Sediment Trap. A temporary runoff containment area, which promotes sedimentation prior to discharge of the runoff through a stabilized spillway.

Application of SWAT Model to Estimate the Runoff and Sediment Load from the Right Bank Valleys of Mosul Dam Reservoir

APPENDIX G APPENDIX G SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM DESIGN RATIONALE

Civil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting WASP0059.ltr.JLS.Mich Ave Bridge Geotech.docx

HOTEL KANATA 160 HEARST WAY KANATA, ONTARIO SERVICING REPORT. Prepared for: David Johnston Architect. Prepared By:

Rock & Aggregate Drop Inlet Protection

U-Shaped Sediment Traps

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOP FOR AASHTO T 85

STREUVER FIDELCO CAPPELLI, LLC YONKERS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For: PALISADES POINT

STRUCTURAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT

Drivable Grass Report for Hydraulic Performance Testing

Objectives: After completing this assignment, you should be able to:

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND ABSORPTION OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOP FOR AASHTO T 85

Stormwater Outlet Sediment Traps

[1] Performance of the sediment trap depends on the type of outlet structure and the settling pond surface area.

FULL SCALE STORMWATER TREATMENT STRUCTURE HYDRAULICS, SEDIMENT REMOVAL, & SEDIMENT RETENTION TESTING. Conducted in Accordance with

Section 4: Model Development and Application

Suitable Applications Sediment traps should be considered for use:

FOR PROJECTS INITIATED AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 2008 ITEM 716 EMBANKMENT EARTH OUTLET SEDIMENT TRAP

Appendix E Guidance for Shallow Flooding Analyses and Mapping

HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION FOR EXISTING CCR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT PLANT GASTON ASH POND 40 CFR (c)(1)(i) (xii)

Sediment Trap. At multiple locations within the project site where sediment control is needed.

BRANDON LAKES AVENUE PRE AND POST CONDITIONS DRAINAGE REPORT

Instream Sediment Control Systems

Coarse Sediment Traps

GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Laboratory #5 ABE 325 Erosion Processes Laboratory

Procedure for Determining Near-Surface Pollution Sensitivity

Lincoln County Board of Commissioner s Agenda Item Cover Sheet

City of Thornton Attn: Tim Semones Development Engineeering 9500 Civic Center Dr. Thornton, CO 80229

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMPUTATIONS. Mount Prospect

CONCEPTS Conservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport System

PONDNET.WK1 - Flow and Phosphorus Routing in Pond Networks

C) D) 3. Which graph best represents the relationship between soil particle size and the rate at which water infiltrates permeable soil?

5. Which surface soil type has the slowest permeability rate and is most likely to produce flooding? A) pebbles B) sand C) silt D) clay A) B) C) D)

Dr. L. I. N. de Silva. Student Name Registration Number: Assessed By: Lecturers Remarks

Subject Name: SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION ENGINEERING 3(2+1) COURSE OUTLINE

Culvert and Pipe Phasing

Bachelor of Biosystems Technology Faculty of Technology South Eastern University of Sri Lanka

Sediment Control Practices. John Mathews Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Resources

6. Circle the correct answer: SINK A drains faster or SINK B drains faster Why?

Sediment and Erosion Design Guide

@Copyright 2016 SKAPS Industries.

Stage Discharge Tabulation for Only Orifice Flow

UNIVERSITY OF BOLTON WESTERN INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE FZE. BEng (HONS) IN CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMESTER ONE EXAMINATION 2016/2017 GROUND AND WATER STUDIES 1

Basic Aggregates Study Guide

Laboratory Exercise #3 The Hydrologic Cycle and Running Water Processes

Snead Pond Restoration

GEOL 1121 Earth Processes and Environments

STATE OF COLORADO DESIGN CRITERIA FOR POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION. Price: $5.00. Revised March 31, 1997

Template for Sediment and Erosion Control Plan General Instructions. Section Instructions

APPENDIX A: EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL FORMS

Evaluation of Miramat Under High Velocity Flows

APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY

Type 1 System Sheet Flow Sandy Soils Type 2 System Concentrated Flow Clayey Soils Type 3 System [1] Supplementary Trap Dispersive Soils

Monitoring Considerations and Costs

TESTING PROTOCAL. Via & US Mail. April 30, 2010

1.0 INSPECTION ANNUAL INSPECTION, JUNE 29, 2011 CARMACKS COPPER PROJECT, CARMACKS, YUKON. Dear Mr. West-Sells,

International Journal for Management Science And Technology (IJMST)

Reflectec Thermal Fabric & Reflectec Fiberboard

LOCATED IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PREPARED FOR S.J.R.W.M.D. AND F.W.C.D. DECEMBER, 2003 Updated 2007 Updated May 2014 PREPARED BY

CONSTRUCTION EXIT SEDIMENT BARRIER

The Use of Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Lightweight Aggregates in Granular Geotechnical Fills

FHWA - HIGHWAY HYDROLOGY

Exercise 2-4. Titration of a Buffer Solution EXERCISE OBJECTIVES

Remote Sensing and GIS Applications for Hilly Watersheds SUBASHISA DUTTA DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IIT GUWAHATI

Table 1 - Infiltration Rates

Etobicoke Exfiltration System: Monitoring and Evaluation. Tim Van Seters Ryerson University July 24, 2015

Transcription:

Large-Scale Sediment Retention Device Testing (ASTM D 7351) of SedCatch Sediment Basket Inlet Filter Exposed to 1.5% Sediment Load February 2010 Submitted to: SedCatch Environmental Products 8380 Point O Woods Ct. Springboro, Ohio 45066 Attn: Mr. Greg Vreeland Submitted by: TRI/Environmental, Inc. 9063 Bee Caves Road Austin, TX 78733 C. Joel Sprague Project Manager 9063 Bee Caves Road Austin, TX 78733-6201 (512) 263-2101 FAX 263-2558 1-800-880-TEST

Mr. Greg Vreeland SedCatch Environmental Products 8380 Point O Woods Springborg, Ohio 45066 E-mail: greg@erosionrunner.com Subject: Sediment Retention Device Testing of Inlet Filters (# 2278-01-49) Dear Mr. Vreeland: This letter report presents the results of large-scale sediment retention device tests performed on SedCatch Sediment Basket inlet filters. Included are data developed for simulated sediment-laden runoff (1.5% sediment load) from a 100-ft long, 3:1 slope exposed to a 4 inch storm event. All testing work was performed in general accordance with the ASTM D 7351, Standard Test Method For Determination Of Sediment Retention Device Effectiveness In Sheet Flow Application, though the protocol was modified to present the flow from the entire storm event to an inlet. Generated results were used to develop the following effectiveness percentage for the tested material: Property 200 SedCatch Sediment Basket Retention Effectiveness (Filtration Efficiency) 80.6 % Soil Captured During Rain Event (@ 80 lb/ft 3 ) 0.60 ft 3 Tested Bag Capacity (below overflow level) 3.13 ft 3 Capacity Utilization Rate 19 % % of (4-inch) Storm Event Handled 100 % TRI is pleased to present this final report. The data presented herein appears to be consistent with commonly reported values. 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: Sam Allen, Jarrett Nelson TRI 9063 Bee Caves Road Austin, TX 78733-6201 (512) 263-2101 FAX 263-2558 1-800-880-TEST

Page 1 SEDIMENT RETENTION DEVICE (SRD) TESTING REPORT SedCatch Sediment Basket Inlet Filter Exposed to 1.5% Sediment Load TESTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES Overview of Test and Apparatus TRI/Environmental, Inc.'s (TRI's) large-scale sediment retention device 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 accordance with ASTM D 7351 modified to present the flow from the entire storm event to an inlet. At a minimum, the amount (via water and soil weight) of sediment-laden flow is measured both upstream and downstream of the SRD. The measurement of sediment that passes through the SRD compared to the amount in the upstream flow is used to quantify the effectiveness of the SRD in retaining sediments. This test method is full-scale and therefore, appropriate as an indication of product performance, for general comparison of product capabilities, and for assessment of product installation techniques. For this testing, a simulated area inlet comprised of a wooden box section and inlet opening was used to position the Inlet Filters in a representative condition. The test apparatus and setup is shown in Figure 1 and the inlet filter is shown in Figure 2. Sediment Retention Device (SRD) The following table describes the tested SRDs. Test Soil Table 1. Tested SRD Descriptions Fabric Component 200 SedCatch Sediment Basket Description Woven, monofilament AOS, mm 0.49 Water Flow Rate, gpm 200 Tested Bag Capacity*, ft 3.13 (* below overflow level) The test soil used as sediment was a sandy loam screened through a ½-inch mesh. The base soil gradation is shown in the appendix.

Test Setup SedCatch Sediment Basket Inlet Filters Testing Page 2 SRD Installation The Sediment Retention Device (SRD) installation used a simulated area inlet comprised of a wooden box section and inlet opening to position the Inlet Filter Bags in a representative condition. Mixing Sediment-Laden Runoff - Sediment-laden runoff was created by combining water and soil in the mixing tank and agitated during the test. 4000 lb of water and 240 lb of soil were combined to create the sediment-laden runoff. This amount of water and sediment simulates sheet flow from a slope measuring 16 ft (4.8 m) wide by 100 ft (30 m) long during the peak 30 minutes of a 4 in (100 mm) per hour rainfall hydrograph as outlined in the following calculation (which is outlined in the standard)... For this testing, a standard 10-year, 6-hour storm event (mid-atlantic region of US) was selected. This return frequency is commonly used for sizing sediment control ponds and, thus, was deemed appropriate for the testing of other SRDs. Using this criterion, a 100 mm (4 in) rainfall was selected. It was also assumed that approximately 25% of the storm would occur during the peak 30 minutes, and that 50% of the rainfall would infiltrate into the ground. A theoretical contributory area of 30 m (100 ft) slope length by 6 m (20 ft) wide was selected to limit runoff to sheet flow conditions. Runoff and associated sediment were calculated using the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) which allows for calculating a storm-specific quantity of sediment. Following is the MUSLE (SI formula): T = 89.6 (V x Q p ) 0.56 K LS C P Where: T = sediment yield (tonnes); V = runoff (m 3 ) = (Rainfall Infiltration) x Area; Q p = peak flow (m 3 /s); and K, LS, C, P are from RUSLE charts The following calculations provided the runoff and sediment load used in the testing: V = (0.5)* x (0.1 m) x (180 m 2 ) = 9 m 3 Q p = (0.1m) x (0.25)* x (0.5)** x (180m 2 ) = 2.25 m 3 / 30min = 0.00125 m 3 /s (* = 25% of storm during 30-min peak; ** = 50% infiltration) K, sandy-silt = 0.041; LS, 2-10%/30m = 0.46 (approx); C, P = 1.0 T = 89.6 (9 x 0.00125) 0.56 (0.041) (0.46) (1.0) (1.0) = 0.136 Tonnes = 136 kg of soil (assume most sediment is generated during the peak flow period) Std. Test Quantities: 30-Minute Runoff: 2.25 m 3 x 1000 kg/m 3 = 2250 kg (approx. 5000 lb) Sediment Load: 136 kg (approx. 300 lb) Actual Test Quantities adjusted for 16 ft wide slope: 30-Minute Runoff: 5000 lb x (16 ft / 20 ft) = 4000 lb Sediment Load: 300 lb x (16 ft / 20 ft) = 240 lb For this testing, 1/4 sediment load was used to simulate the beneficial effects of upstream controls. Sediment Load: 240 lb / 4 = 60 lb

Page 3 Installation of Sediment Retention Device As noted, the submitted SRD installation used a simulated area inlet comprised of a wooden box section and inlet opening to position the inlet filters in a representative condition. This facilitated multiple test repetitions. Sediment laden flow was introduced through a pipe from the mixing tank as shown in Figure 1. Test Procedure Figure 1. Test set-up, including mixing tank, supply pipe and wooden box with simulated area inlet inside collection tank. Releasing, and Collecting Sediment-Laden Runoff - The sediment-laden water was discharged evenly for a maximum of 30 minutes. The quantity of released runoff was measured at 1-minute intervals by noting the reduction in weight in the mixing tank, adjusting the valve on the tank outlet to increase/decrease flow to stay as close as possible to the target (4060 lb / 30 min = 135 lb/min). The discharge flow introduced to the inlet area through a 6-inch diameter pipe. Runoff passing the SRD is sampled at intervals. Additionally, retention observations and associated times are recorded during the test. Figure 2. 200 SedCatch Sediment Basket Collecting Sediments in Test

Page 4 Collecting and Measuring Sediments - Grab samples are evaluated in a lab to percent dry solids content. Drying of collected sediments is accomplished in a forced air oven at 110 C for a minimum of 24 hours or until all moisture is driven off, whichever is greater. All weighing of sediments is done with laboratory scales accurate to ± 0.01 lbs. TEST RESULTS Total sediment and associated runoff measured during the testing are the principle data used to determine the performance of the products tested. This data is entered into a spreadsheet (see appendix) that transforms the sediment concentration and collected runoff into the retention effectiveness and percent of storm event values shown in Table 2. Table 2. Measures of Effectiveness Property 200 SedCatch Sediment Basket Retention Effectiveness (Filtration Efficiency) 80.6 % Soil Captured During Rain Event (@ 80 lb/ft 3 ) 0.60 ft 3 Tested Bag Capacity (below overflow level) 3.13 ft 3 Capacity Utilization Rate 19 % % of (4-inch) Storm Event Handled 100 %

Appendix APPENDIX A RECORDED DATA AND CALCULATIONS Data Tabulation and Retention Effectiveness Calculation Spreadsheets

Sample Number Test Time, minutes Total Weight, g Decanted Weight, g Dry Weight, g Bottle Weight, g Dry Sediment Weight, mg Retention Effectiveness Calculations Run F: 200 SedCatch Sediment Basket @ 1.5% Sediment Load 11/10/2009 Total Collected Water Wt., g Total Collected Volume of Water, l Sediment Conc., mg/l Corrected Sediment Conc., mg/l % Solids Reservoir Weight, lb Assoc. Water Discharge, gal Cumm Water Discharge, gal plot time Cumm Soil Collected, lbs Cumm Soil Loss, lbs Upstream 15000 0 0 0 12839 18875 1.89% 4060 44 44 2.5 6.9 6.9 T1 5 309.01 57.24 36.40 32.90 3500 272.61 0.27 12839 18875 1.89% 3320 84 127 7.5 20.0 13.2 T2 10 313.54 58.04 36.12 32.90 3220 277.42 0.28 11607 17064 1.71% 2640 78 205 12.5 31.1 11.1 T3 15 302.48 58.92 35.41 32.90 2510 267.07 0.27 9398 13817 1.38% 2000 73 278 17.5 39.6 8.5 T4 20 306.52 62.51 35.18 32.90 2280 271.34 0.27 8403 12353 1.24% 1400 77 355 22.5 47.5 7.9 T5 25 315.58 45.19 35.19 32.90 2290 280.39 0.28 8167 12007 1.20% 700 83 438 27.5 55.8 8.3 30 8167 12007 1.20% 0 41 480 30.0 60.0 4.2 4000 Soil Added To Mixer Water (lbs): 60 Added To Mixer (lbs): AVGS: 10203 15000 1.50% TOTALS: 480 60.0 Downstream 2900 0 0 0 0 5498 3860 0.39% 0 44 44 2.5 5.5 1.4 1.4 F5 5 309.07 53.87 34.41 32.90 1510 274.66 0.27 5498 3860 0.39% 740 84 127 7.5 15.9 4.1 2.7 F10 10 317.41 46.74 34.40 32.90 1500 283.01 0.28 5300 3721 0.37% 1420 78 205 12.5 24.6 6.5 2.4 F15 15 297.77 48.55 34.25 32.90 1350 263.52 0.26 5123 3597 0.36% 2060 73 278 17.5 30.9 8.7 2.2 F20 20 313.72 44.78 33.60 32.90 700 280.12 0.28 2499 1754 0.18% 2660 77 355 22.5 37.7 9.8 1.1 F25 25 313.72 44.78 33.60 32.90 700 280.12 0.28 2499 1754 0.18% 3360 83 438 27.5 44.7 11.1 1.2 F30 30 313.72 44.78 33.60 32.90 700 280.12 0.28 2499 1754 0.18% 4060 41 480 30.0 48.3 11.7 0.6 4131 4131 0.29% 4060 480 11.7 Assoc. Solids Loss, lbs Soil Retention Effectiveness, % Soil Collected from Bag (lbs): 48.3 Time to End (mins): 30 (avg) (avg) (total) (total) (approx.) 48.30 80.55%

Appendix APPENDIX B TEST SOIL Test Soil Grain Size Distribution Curve (before screening through ½-inch mesh)

TRI/Environmental, Inc. A Texas Research International Company November 2009 100 90 80 70 ASTM D 6459 Target Loam Plasticity (ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit: 41 Plastic Limit: 33 Plastic Index: 8 Soil classifies as a sandy silty clay (ML-CL) in accordance with ASTM D 2487 Percent Finer 60 50 40 DDRF ASTM D 6459 Blended Test Soil 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Size (mm)

Appendix APPENDIX C LABORATORY QUALIFICATIONS

Appendix Testing Expertise TRI/Environmental (TRI) is a leading, accredited geosynthetic, plastic pipe, and erosion and sediment control product testing laboratory. TRI s large-scale erosion and sediment control testing facility in the upstate of South Carolina at the Denver Downs Research Farm (DDRF) is initially focused on the following full-scale erosion and sediment control performance tests: ASTM D 6459: Determination of Rolled Erosion Control Product (RECP) Performance in Protecting Hillslopes from Rainfall-Induced Erosion; ASTM D 6460: Determination of Rolled Erosion Control Product (RECP) Performance in Protecting Earthen Channels from Stormwater-Induced Erosion; ASTM D 7208: Determination of Temporary Ditch Check Performance in Protecting Earthen Channels from Stormwater-Induced Erosion. ASTM D 7351: Determination of Sediment Retention Device Effectiveness In Sheet Flow Applications. Technical Oversight Joel Sprague, P.E., TRI s Senior Engineer provides technical oversight of all of TRI s erosion and sediment control testing and can be contacted at: Mr. C. Joel Sprague, Senior Engineer PO Box 9192, Greenville, SC 29604 Ph: 864/242-2220; Fax 864/242-3107; jsprague@tri-env.com Mr. Sprague has been involved with the design of erosion and sediment control systems and the research, development, and application of erosion and sediment control products/materials for many years. He was the lead consultant in the development of bench-scale testing procedures for the Erosion Control Technology Council. Mr. Sprague has authored numerous technical papers on his research and is readily available to assist clients with their research and testing needs. Operations Management Sam Allen, TRI s Division Vice President provides operational management of all TRI laboratories and can be contacted at: Mr. Sam Allen, Vice President & Program Manager 9063 Bee Caves Road Austin, TX 78733 Ph: 512/263-2101; Fax: 512/263-2558; sallen@tri-env.com Mr. Allen pioneered the laboratory index testing of rolled erosion control products (RECPs) and has been actively involved in the development and standardization of testing protocol and apparatus for more than 10 years. He set up and oversees TRI s erosion and sediment control testing laboratories. His oversight responsibilities include test coordination, reporting, and failure resolution associated with the National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) for RECPs.