View the Whole Report - Center for Research in Water Resources ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

concentrated flow which promoted erosion below the structure and resulted in short circuiting in the ponded area. In contrast to the field monitoring, high removal efficiencies were achieved with silt fences in the flume studies. The geometry of the flume created a large ponded area behind the controls resulting in long detention times and significant particle settling even with the fine-grained sediment used in the tests. Mean sediment removal efficiency in the flume ranged from 68 to 90% and was highly correlated with the detention time of the runoff. This indicates that silt fences should be sited in the field so as to maximize the ponded volume behind the fence. Sediment-laden runoff flow rates through the controls were two orders of magnitude less than those typically specified by transportation agencies. The flow rates of a sediment slurry through geotextile fences are a function of apparent opening size as well as permittivity (or other measures of clean water flowrates). The fabric resulting in the longest detention times in this series of flume tests had the highest reported permittivity, but it also had the smallest apparent opening size, suggesting that clogging of the fabric with sediment affected its hydraulic performance. Field performance can not be determined from current parameters used to characterize the hydraulic properties of these fabrics. In addition, tests of silt fence fabrics in a modified permeameter showed that flowrates through the fabric were not linearly related to head as is assumed in the ASTM definition. The discrepancy was due to the fact that flow at the heads fabrics are subjected to in silt fence applications is turbulent resulting in much lower flow rates. Permeameter tests of silt fence fabrics confirmed that entrapped air is not the cause of the much lower flowrates. Flowrates through rock berms greatly exceeded the rates typically recommended in regulatory agency guidelines. The short detention times and large pore size of the berms resulted in only a slight reduction in the suspended solids load in the flume tests. Development of a new test or series of tests to characterize the expected performance of geotextile fabrics when used as silt fences is urgently needed. The use of current parameters results in an over-estimate of the area that can be treated without over- 54
topping. Knowledge of the performance under field conditions would allow the development of rational guidelines governing the placement of these controls. Testing of fabrics using sediment size distributions of construction site sediment yield should serve as the foundation for future studies. 55
Page 1:
CRWR Online Report 95-6 AN EVALUATI
Page 5:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was s
Page 8 and 9:
4.2.3 TSS Reduction Efficiency of S
Page 11 and 12: LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 2.1
Page 13 and 14: and reduce construction duration (G
Page 15 and 16: 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introducti
Page 17 and 18: are characterized by lower permeabi
Page 19 and 20: size and is the estimated largest p
Page 21 and 22: corrected to a viscosity at 20 o C
Page 23 and 24: Influent samples from each of the t
Page 25 and 26: emaining 10% ranged from 15 to 50
Page 27 and 28: Much less research has been directe
Page 29 and 30: Figure 3.1 Location of Inventoried
Page 31 and 32: Table 3.2 Costs of Temporary Contro
Page 33 and 34: The inventory data indicate that si
Page 35 and 36: nature of construction activities r
Page 37 and 38: the discharge was 1542 mg/L, with a
Page 39 and 40: emained in suspension and were able
Page 41 and 42: Effluent Sampling Location Rock Ber
Page 43 and 44: 5. LABORATORY TESTS OF SILT FENCES
Page 45 and 46: along with runoff from the flume. T
Page 47 and 48: Table 5.3 Grain sizes, Gradation, R
Page 49 and 50: phenomenon is similar to sediment-l
Page 51 and 52: w A S h 1 Silt Fence Figure 5.4 Vol
Page 53 and 54: Many of the tests ended after 48 ho
Page 55 and 56: observation demonstrates that field
Page 57 and 58: The permeameter initially was set u
Page 59 and 60: Flow per Area, cm/s 40 30 20 10 0 y
Page 61: 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 65 and 66: Das, B. M., 1985, “Principles of
Page 67: Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 19
Page 71 and 72: Sample Descriptions Samples T1-T30
Page 73 and 74: Samples T109-T122 Although samples
Page 75 and 76: individual analyses of samples T1-T
Page 77 and 78: 2 6 7 4 1 Fort McGrude Bannister Ln
Page 79 and 80: N T6 W W W W W W W W W W W T7 T5 T8
Page 81 and 82: LEGEND: -W- -NW- T18 Water Boundary
Page 83 and 84: T34 T38 NW NW NW NW T39 NW NW NW NW
Page 85 and 86: T49 T50 T53 T54 T58 W T55 W W W W T
Page 87 and 88: T75 W W W LEGEND: -W- -NW- T18 Wate
Page 89 and 90: N T105 T106 T107 T108 T97 T98 T101
Page 91 and 92: T117 N LEGEND: T118 -W- -NW- T18 Wa
Page 93: APPENDIX B - RESULTS OF SAMPLE ANAL
Page 96 and 97: SAMPLE DATE TIME DESCRIPTOR SITE TS
Page 98 and 99: T64 4/7/93 10:55AM UPSTREAM C 6 NIA
Page 100 and 101: Table B2. Results of Particle Size
Page 102 and 103: Table B4. Silt Fence Turbidity Redu
Page 105 and 106: Total Suspended Solids The analysis
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX D - CATALOG OF FLUME TESTS
Page 109 and 110: Test number: 1 Influent Samples : D
Page 111 and 112: Test number: 3 Influent Samples : D
Page 113 and 114:
Test number: 5 Influent Samples : D
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Test number: 11 Influent Samples :
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
132
Page 141 and 142:
Amoco woven d = #20 sieve d = 8.50E
Page 143 and 144:
70 60 Flow per Area, cm/s 50 40 30
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX F - BASE EFFICIENCY TEST 1
Page 147 and 148:
Date = 9/17/94 Influent Samples: St
show all

View the Whole Report - Center for Research in Water Resources ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?