large-scale channel erosion testing (astm d … · large-scale channel erosion testing (astm d...

Large-Scale Channel Erosion Testing

(ASTM D 6460)

of

ErosionTech’s

ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket

over

Loam

July 2012

Submitted to:

AASHTO/NTPEP

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249

Washington, D.C. 20001

Attn: Evan Rothblatt, NTPEP

[email protected]

Submitted by:

TRI/Environmental, Inc.

9063 Bee Caves Road

Austin, TX 78733

C. Joel Sprague

Project Manager

goret

Typewritten Text

Amended April 2016 - See Appendix D

July 31, 2012

Mr. Evan Rothblatt AASHTO/NTPEP

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249

Washington, D.C. 20001

E-mail: [email protected]

Subject: Channel Testing over Loam of ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket,

manufactured by ErosionTech in Juliette, GA

Dear Mr. Rothblatt:

This letter report presents the results for large-scale channel erosion tests performed on ET-

X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket, over Loam. Included are data developed for target

hydraulic shears ranging from 0.5 to 3+ psf (0.02 to 0.15+ kPa). 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. Generated results were used to develop the following permissible

or limiting shear (τlimit) and limiting velocity (Vlimit) for the tested material:

τlimit ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket & 3.8 staples/sy = 2.63 psf;

Vlimit ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket & 3.8 staples/sy = 9.4 ft/sec

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: Sam Allen, Jarrett Nelson - TRI

goret

Typewritten Text


goret

Highlight

ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket, over Loam

Channel Erosion Testing

July 31, 2012

CHANNEL TESTING REPORT

ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket, 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

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 each to achieve a range of hydraulic shear stresses in order to

define the permissible, or limiting, shear stress, τlimit, 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 protocol. 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 Sampled Product

Product Identification - ET-X2HV

Manufacturer - ErosionTech

Manufacturing Plant Location - Juliette, GA

Lot number of sample - -

Fiber - 100% Aspen Excelsior

Netting Openings in 0.75 x 0.75 (top)

Stitching Spacing in 2.0 (approx)

Tensile Strength MD x XD (ASTM D 6818)* lb/in 10.0 x 7.5

Tensile Elongation MD x XD (ASTM D 6818)* % 28.4 x 25.7

Thickness (ASTM D 6525)* mils 438

Light Penetration (ASTM D 6567)* % cover 79.4

Water Absorption (ASTM D 1117 & ECTC-TASC 00197)* % Wt Change 186

Mass / Unit Area (ASTM D 6475)* oz/sy 11.85 * Values from Independent Testing of Randomly Sampled Product



July 31, 2012

Test Soil

The test soil used in the test plots had the following characteristics.

Table 2. TRI-Loam Characteristics

Soil Characteristic Test Method Value

% Gravel

ASTM D 422

0

% Sand 45

% Silt 35

% Clay 20

Liquid Limit, % ASTM D 4318

41

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 10% slope top-to-bottom. Finally, a vibrating plate compactor is run over the

renewed channel surface. 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

pattern consisting of 2”x 8” steel staples to create an anchorage density of approximately 3.8

anchors 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 flows having typical target

hydraulic shear stresses ranging from 0.5 to 3+ psf. During the testing, flow depth and

corresponding flow velocity 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. Flows are then increased to achieve the subsequent

shear target in an attempt to create more than 0.5 inches of soil loss. Pictures of channel flows

and resulting soil loss are shown in Figures 6 thru 12.



July 31, 2012

Figure 1. Flumes Setup (typical)

Figure 2. Flow Velocity Measurement in

Channel (typical)

Figure 3. Channel Flow Depth

Measurement (typical)

Figure 4. RECP Installed (typical)

Figure 5. Typical Low Flow in Channels

Figure 6. Typical Low to Medium

Flow in Channel



July 31, 2012

Figure 7. Typical Medium Flow in Channel

Figure 8. Typical High Flow in Channel

Figure 9. Highest Flow Condition

Figure 10. Channel 1 After RECP Removed





July 31, 2012

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). A graph of shear versus soil loss for the protected condition is shown in

Figure 13. The associated velocities and roughness 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, τlimit,, and limiting velocity, Vlimit,. Linear (R2=0.66),

power (R2=0.93), and polynomial (R

2=0.92) fits were evaluated.

Table 3. Summary Data Table – Protected Test Reach

Test #

(Channel # - Shear

Level)

Flow

depth

(in)

Flow

velocity

(fps)

Flow

(cfs)

Manning’s

roughness, n

Max Bed

Shear

Stress (psf)

Cumm.

CSLI (in)

C1-S1 1.59 3.23 0.86 0.038 0.83 0.02

C1-S2 2.32 4.72 1.82 0.033 1.20 0.05

C1-S3 3.28 6.50 3.55 0.030 1.70 0.11

C1-S4 4.08 7.99 5.44 0.029 2.12 0.22

C1-S5 4.94 9.35 7.69 0.028 2.56 0.44

C2-S1 1.50 3.08 0.77 0.038 0.78 0.03

C2-S2 2.32 4.73 1.83 0.033 1.20 0.09

C2-S3 3.30 6.35 3.49 0.031 1.71 0.23

C2-S4 4.27 8.02 5.70 0.029 2.22 0.46

C2-S5 5.43 10.08 9.12 0.027 2.82 0.76

C3-S1 1.47 3.12 0.76 0.038 0.76 0.04

C3-S2 2.39 4.85 1.93 0.033 1.24 0.10

C3-S3 3.35 6.29 3.51 0.032 1.74 0.16

C3-S4 4.27 7.74 5.51 0.031 2.22 0.37

C3-S5 5.52 10.00 9.20 0.028 2.87 0.60

Using the test procedure and data evaluation technique described herein, the limiting shear stress

shown in Table 4 was determined using the following equation:

τlimit, = γ d S

where: τlimit, = limiting shear stress;

γ = unit weight of water, 62.4pcf;

d = depth of water, ft

S = channel slope, 0.10

Table 4. Overall Results

Product Limiting Shear, τlimit Limiting Velocity, Vlimit

ET-X2HV, Double Net Excelsior Blanket & 3.8 staples/sy

2.63 psf 9.4 ft/sec

goret

Typewritten Text


goret

Highlight

goret

Highlight



July 31, 2012

y = 0.0486x2.4114

R² = 0.9266

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Cu

mm

ula

tive

So

il L

oss (

CS

LI)

, in

Shear, psf

Limiting Shear via ASTM D 6460ET-X2HV; 3.8 Anchors/SY

Unvegetated Channel #1 Unvegetated Channel #2 Unvegetated Channel #3 All Power (All)

Limiting Shear = 2.63 psf

Figure 13. Shear Stress vs. Soil Loss – Tested Product

y = 0.0013x2.6596

R² = 0.9216

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00

Cu

mm

ula

tive

So

il L

oss (

CS

LI)

, in

Velocity, ft/sec

Limiting Velocity via ASTM D 6460ET-X2HV; 3.8 Anchors/SY


Limiting Velocity = 9.4 ft/sec

Figure 14. Velocity vs. Soil Loss – Tested Product

goret

Typewritten Text


goret

Typewritten Text


goret

Highlight

goret

Highlight

goret

Highlight



July 31, 2012

y = 0.0417x-0.244

R² = 0.966

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

0.055

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Ma

nn

ing

's n

Water Depth, in

Manning's n vs. Water DepthET-X2HV; 3.8 Anchors/SY


Figure 15. Flow Depth vs. Manning’s “n” – Tested Product

y = -0.0944x + 197.01 y = -0.0957x + 197.02 y = -0.0947x + 196.94

y = -0.0909x + 197.22 y = -0.0898x + 197.22 y = -0.0905x + 197.18

y = -0.0932x + 197.63 y = -0.0896x + 197.57 y = -0.0907x + 197.5

y = -0.0915x + 198 y = -0.0855x + 197.96 y = -0.0935x + 197.9

y = -0.0867x + 198.37 y = -0.082x + 198.58 y = -0.0837x + 198.52

190.00

191.00

192.00

193.00

194.00

195.00

196.00

197.00

198.00

199.00

200.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Ele

va

tio

n R

ela

tive

to

Be

nc

hm

ark

, ft

X-Section (ft along test reach)

Energy Grade Lines - All Shear LevelsET-X2HV; 3.8 Anchors/SY

Shear Level 4

Shear Level 3

Shear Level 2

Shear Level 1

Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3

Shear Level 5

Figure 16. Energy Grade Lines – All Channels, All Shears – Tested Product



July 31, 2012

y = 16.269x2 + 5.4657xR² = 0.9953

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Cum

mu

lative

So

il L

oss (

CS

LI)

, in

Shear, psf

Limiting Shear via ASTM D 6460Soil-only Control Test

Control Test - 1% Flume Poly. (Control Test - 1% Flume)


Figure 17. Shear Stress vs. Soil Loss – Soil Only

CONCLUSIONS

Rectangular channel (flume) tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 6460 using

Loam soil protected with an RECP. 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 channel liner roughness

(Manning’s “n”) to flow depth. Together, this data provides a quantitative estimate of the

performance characteristics of the tested RECP.

The data in Figure 16 and 17, the calculated energy grade lines for each channel and shear level

and the soil-only shear stress vs. soil loss relationship, are included to provide a reference for the

reported test results.



July 31, 2012

Appendix

APPENDIX A – RECORDED DATA

Test Record Sheets

1 - 1

Date: 7/9/12 Start Time: 9:17 AM End Time: 9:47 AM

Soil: Loam Target Shear (psf): 0.75 Slope: 10%

40 ft long flume 20 ft test section RECP: Anchorage:

rpms 2 ft wide flume

1 3 Outlet Weir Weir Channel Targets

Water Depth, in 2.50 1.50

Weir width (ft) = 2 Water Velocity, ft/s 1.50 2.50

0 ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.63

Cross-section 1 A B C V @ 0.2d V @ 0.6d V @ 0.8d To Water Surf, cm

To original Surface Elev, cm 68.8 69.5 69.4 3 64.7

To eroded Surface Elev, cm 68.6 69.1 69.3 Vavg (fps) = 3.00

Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.2 0.4 0.1 navg = 0.042

Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0 0 0 Flow (cfs) = 0.85 0.88 1.69

2 ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.09 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.00


To original Surface Elev, cm 69.3 69.8 70.3 3.1 65.7

To eroded Surface Elev, cm 69.2 70 70.3 Vavg (fps) = 3.10

Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.1 -0.2 0 navg = 0.040

Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0 -0.2 0 Flow (cfs) = 0.84 0.84 1.63

4 ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.01 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.03



To eroded Surface Elev, cm 69 69.5 69.1 Vavg (fps) = 3.10

Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.2 -0.1 0.3 navg = 0.040


6 ft 25.5Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.05 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.01



To eroded Surface Elev, cm 69 69 69 Vavg (fps) = 3.20

Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 navg = 0.040

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.5 -0.1 -0.1 Flow (cfs) = 0.90 0.88 1.69





Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.4 0 0.1 navg = 0.038






Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.1 0 -0.2 navg = 0.035

Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0 0 -0.2 Flow (cfs) = 0.80 0.76 1.46





Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.2 0.5 0 navg = 0.038




To original Surface Elev, cm 72.8 71.7 71 3.3 67.6

To eroded Surface Elev, cm 72.4 71.5 71 Vavg (fps) = 3.30







Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.1 0 -0.2 navg = 0.037

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.1 0 -0.2 Flow (cfs) = 0.89 0.84 1.61





Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.1 0.1 0.4 navg = 0.035

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.1 0 0 Flow (cfs) = 0.87 0.80 1.54

20 ft Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.05 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.01




Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.3 0 0 navg = 0.035


Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in -0.04 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.04

Soil Loss / Gain, in 0.02 0.03 0.01 Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = 0.02

Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.04 -0.01 -0.02 Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.02

Bed Max Shear Stress

(psf) Water Depth (in)





CHANNEL 1 - SHEAR STRESS 1

TEST DATA



FLOW

2

ET-X2HV 3.8 pins / sy

Water Depth (in)






(psf)









1 - 2





1 3 Inlet Weir Weir Channel Targets













Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.1 -0.6 0.3 navg = 0.035

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.1 -0.6 0 Flow (cfs) = 1.59 1.15 2.22




To eroded Surface Elev, cm 69 69.1 69 Vavg (fps) = 4.60













Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.1 -0.4 -0.1 navg = 0.033

Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0 -0.4 -0.1 Flow (cfs) = 1.88 1.22 2.35





























Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.1 0.1 0 navg = 0.032






Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.7 -0.1 0 navg = 0.030



Soil Loss / Gain, in 0.00 -0.02 0.02 Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = 0.00
















Water Depth (in)






(psf)




TEST DATA

FLOW

2


1 - 3




































Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0 -0.4 -0.2 navg = 0.031


















Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.1 0.4 -0.2 navg = 0.029

















To eroded Surface Elev, cm 73 74 72.8 Vavg (fps) = 6.70




Soil Loss / Gain, in -0.04 -0.13 -0.08 Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = -0.08









TEST DATA


FLOW

2

Water Depth (in)






(psf)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)




(psf)


(psf)

Water Depth (in)




(psf)

1 - 4

Date: 7/9/12 Start Time: 11:35 AM End Time: 12:05 PM






Weir width (ft) = 2.00 C = Water Velocity, ft/s 4.00 7.00





























Soil Loss / Gain, cm -1 -1.7 -0.3 navg = 0.030

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -1 -1.7 -0.3 Flow (cfs) = 5.74 2.23 4.30






















































Water Depth (in)






(psf)




TEST DATA

FLOW

2


1 - 5

Date: 7/9/12 Start Time: 2:45 PM End Time: 3:15 PM











Soil Loss / Gain, cm -2 -1.7 -1 navg = 0.030

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -2 -1.7 -1 Flow (cfs) = 7.85 2.72 5.24




























To eroded Surface Elev, cm 70.8 71 71 Vavg (fps) = 9.30







Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0 -1.4 0.5 navg = 0.028
















































(psf)





TEST DATA

Water Depth (in)

2

FLOW

0.00

2 - 1

Date: Start Time: 9:17 AM End Time: 9:47 AM












Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flow (cfs) = 0.7 0.8 1.5






Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 Flow (cfs) = 0.8 0.8 1.5







6 ft 25.5Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.1 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0





Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.1 -0.4 0.0 Flow (cfs) = 0.8 0.8 1.5












Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.1 0.0 0.0 Flow (cfs) = 0.7 0.7 1.4

















Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.4 0.3 -0.1 navg = 0.036

Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Flow (cfs) = 0.7 0.7 1.4













Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0

Soil Loss / Gain, in 0.0 0.1 0.0 Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = 0.0

Clopper Soil Loss, in 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = 0.0

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf) Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)


TEST DATA

FLOW

2


7/9/12

2 - 2































Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0.0 -0.2 0.0 Flow (cfs) = 1.7 1.1 2.2


















Clopper Soil Loss, cm 0.0 -0.1 0.0 Flow (cfs) = 1.9 1.3 2.5


























Soil Loss / Gain, in -0.1 -0.1 0.1 Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = 0.0

Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.1 -0.1 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.1

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear



TEST DATA


FLOW

2

7/9/12

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

2 - 3









Cross-section 1 A B C V @ 0.2d V @ 0.6d To Water Surf, cm


































































Soil Loss / Gain, in -0.4 -0.3 0.0 Avg Bottom Loss/Gain per Cross-Section = -0.2

Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.4 -0.3 0.0 Avg Clopper Soil Loss per Cross-Section = -0.2

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear



Bed Max Shear



TEST DATA

FLOW

2

7/9/12

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

2 - 4

Date: Start Time: 11:35 AM End Time: 12:05 PM












































































Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear



TEST DATA

0.00


FLOW

2

7/9/12

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

2 - 5

Date: Start Time: 11:35 AM End Time: 12:05 PM









To original Surface Elev, cm 68.9 70 67.5 9.6 56.2












To original Surface Elev, cm 69.2 69 67.9 9.8 56.5












To original Surface Elev, cm 72 70.8 68.8 10 58.9












To original Surface Elev, cm 72 72.5 70.9 10.3 59.9








Soil Loss / Gain, cm -2.7 -1.9 -1 navg = 0.027

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -2.7 -1.9 -1 Flow (cfs) = 9.60 2.87 5.54









































(psf)





TEST DATA

Water Depth (in)

2

FLOW

0.00

7/9/12

3 - 1


















Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0 -0.2 0.1 navg = 0.041






Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.2 0 0.2 navg = 0.044


6 ft 25.5Avg Bottom Loss/Gain, in 0.00 Avg Clopper Soil Loss, in -0.03
















Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0 0 0.3 navg = 0.056



































Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear


Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear



TEST DATA

FLOW

2


Bed Max Shear


Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

3 - 2







Weir width (ft) = Water Velocity, ft/s 2.00 4.00





























Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.1 0 0 navg = 0.035









































Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear



TEST DATA


FLOW

2

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

3 - 3








ft A B C Flow Rate, cfs 0.00 2.75 0.00 2.75


























































Soil Loss / Gain, cm -0.7 -1 0 navg = 0.030

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -0.7 -1 0 Flow (cfs) = 3.62 1.71 3.29










Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)


TEST DATA

FLOW

2


3 - 4












Soil Loss / Gain, cm -2 -2.3 -0.9 navg = 0.031

Clopper Soil Loss, cm -2 -2.3 -0.9 Flow (cfs) = 5.52 2.26 4.36

















Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0.3 0 0.2 navg = 0.030









































To eroded Surface Elev, cm 78 76.2 75 Vavg (fps) = 7.90






Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear



TEST DATA

0.00


FLOW

2

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

Water Depth (in)

Bed Max Shear


Bed Max Shear

Stress (psf)

3 - 5






























Soil Loss / Gain, cm 0 0.1 -0.3 navg = 0.028


































































(psf)





TEST DATA

Water Depth (in)

2

FLOW

0.00



July 31, 2012

Appendix

APPENDIX B – TEST SOIL

Test Soil Grain Size Distribution Curve

Compaction Curves

Veneer Soil Compaction Verification

December 2011

Corporate Laboratory: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / 800-880-TEST / 512-263-2101 / [email protected]

Denver Downs Research Facility: 4915 Clemson Blvd., Anderson, SC 29621 / 864-242-2220 / [email protected]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Pe

rce

nt

Fin

er

Particle Size (mm)

DDRF ASTM D 6460 Blended Test Soil

ASTM D 6460 Target Loam Range

Plasticity (ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit: 30 Plastic Limit: 22 Plastic Index: 8

Soil classifies as a silty sand (SM) in accordance with ASTM D 2487

Tested by: Tamika Walker

TRI observes and maintains client confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI.

9063 Bee Caves Road Austin, TX 78733-6201 (512) 263-2101 (512) 263-2558 1-800-880-TEST

Cheng-Wei Chen, 02/03/10

Quality Review/Date

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.

Proctor Compaction Test

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Moisture Content (%)

Dry

Den

sity

(pcf

)

2.80

2.60

2.70

Project: TRI-DDRF

Sample No.: DDRF Test Soil - January 2010

TRI Log No.: E2337-12-04

Test Method: ASTM D 698 - Method A

Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 98.7

Optimum Moisture Content (%): 20.0

Calibration Date: 8/16/2009

Sand Used: Pool Filter Sand

Volume Measure: Liquid Volume, Vm (cm3): 425

Wt. of Sand to Fill Known Volume:

Total Wt (g) Pan Wt (g) Net Wt (g)

Trial #1 (g) 663.3 11.5 651.8

Trial #2 (g) 661.3 11.5 649.8

Trial #3 (g) 657.3 11.5 645.8

Wa (g) 649.1

Density of Sand, ɣsand (g/cm3) = Wa / Vm = 1.53

Wt. of Sand to Fill Cone:

Total Wt (g) Cone Wt (g) Net Wt (g)

Trial #1 (g) 7046.0 5152.9 1893.1

Trial #2 (g) 7045.3 5152.9 1892.4

Trial #3 (g) 7046.9 5152.9 1894.0

Wt. of Sand in Cone (g): 1893.2

Field Data Date: 2/10/2010

Wt. of Wet Soil + Pan (g) 934.6

Wt. of Dry Soil + Pan (g) 792.4

Wt. of Pan (g) 14.5

Wt. of Wet Soil, W' (g) 920.1

Wt. of Dry Soil (g) 777.9

Wt. of Water (g) 142.2

Water Content, w (%) 18.3%

Sand Used: Pool Filter Sand

Unit Wt. of Sand, ɣsand (g/cm3) = 1.53

Wt. of Jug & Cone Before (g) = 7050.10

Wt. of Jug & Cone After (g) = 4348.33

Wt. of Sand Used (g) = 2701.77

Wt. of Sand in Cone (g) = 1893.17

Wt. of Sand in Hole, W (g) = 808.60

Volume of hole, Vh (cm3) = W / ɣsand = 529.41

Wet density, ɣwet = W' / Vh (kN/m3) = 1.74

Wet density, ɣwet = W' / Vh (lb/ft3) = 108.40

Dry density, ɣdry = ɣwet / [1 + w] (kN/m3) = 1.47

Wet density, ɣwet = W' / Vh (lb/ft3) = 91.65

Max Std. Proctor Dry density (kN/m3) = 98.70

Opt. Moisture via Std. Proctor density (%) = 20.00

Compaction as % of Std. Proctor = 92.9%

Density Calculation:

Compaction Worksheet

ASTM D 1556

Volume Data:

Soil Data:



July 31, 2012

Appendix

APPENDIX C – ANCHOR PATTERN

APPENDIX D

REPORT REVISION The reported performance values of Permissible Shear and/or Limiting Velocity have been revised to exclude areas exhibiting nonlinear or turbulent flow.

NTPEP ASTM D 6460 Permissible Shear and Velocity Revision to Data Explanation

Testing of Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECPs) is conducted by a number of methods. NTPEP selected ASTM D 6460-07 as a large scale method to determine the performance of these materials with respect to soil loss under concentrated (channel) flow. Upon review, one primary issue was noted in the determination of the permissible shear stress.

Permissible Shear Background The ASTM D 6460-12 standard provides guidelines for evaluating the performance of rolled erosion control products from stormwater-induced erosion, particularly with respect to maximum boundary shear stress. The standard recognizes that the test data typically exhibit non-uniform flow, and calculation of the shear stress must account for non-uniform flow conditions. The standard also recognizes that variability in the raw data can yield inconsistent or inaccurate results due to nonlinear data.

Oversimplified Calculations The ASTM D 6460-12 test method reporting requirements include using a control volume with a minimum length of 20 feet if the water surface and energy grade line exhibit linear behavior over the reach of the control volume. If excess turbulence causes nonlinearity within the raw data yielding inconsistent or inaccurate results, the standard allows alternative methods to quantify shear stress and velocity to be used. Previous reporting of data by the NTPEP lab has taken each channel cross-section as an independent control volume in order to negate the effects of any non-uniform flow conditions and to simplify the calculation of shear stress. Independent consultant review has viewed this as an oversimplification, especially with highly turbulent flows.

Revised Calculations To maintain compliance with the ASTM standard, the full non-uniform flow calculation or an alternative method for data that exhibit nonlinear behavior should be used. To this end, and with the help of the independent consultant and in compliance with the current standard, an alternative calculation method for data that exhibit nonlinear behavior has been developed. The alternative calculation uses linear regression techniques over a representative control volume that is the least turbulent and exhibits linear behavior.

Tests that exhibited turbulent flows required eliminating those nonlinear areas from the calculation. If the remaining linear areas experienced a lower average soil loss than that of the entire test channel, this resulted in a higher permissible shear when recalculated. Alternately, if the remaining linear areas experienced a higher average soil loss than that of the entire test channel, this resulted in a lower permissible shear when recalculated. Flows that were more turbulent, especially the 1-year vegetated tests, resulted in larger differences between the original calculation and the revised calculation. Additionally, NTPEP policy does not allow for extrapolation, so the maximum shear achieved is recorded, even if ½-inch soil loss is not reached. All NTPEP ASTM D 6460 test reports that do not reflect this revised reporting of permissible shear and velocity must be amended.

Impact on End Users For end users of the NTPEP test reports, it is expected that the product approval processes or specification requirements may need to be updated to reflect the updated reporting of permissible shear and/or velocity.

goret

Typewritten Text

Amended April 2016

y = 0.0283x3 - 0.011x2 + 0.0214xR² = 0.9679

y = 0.0486x2.4114

R² = 0.9266

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 1 2 3 4

Cum

mu

lative

So

il L

oss (

CS

LI)

, in

Shear, psf

Limiting Shear via ASTM D 6460 X2HV; 3.8 Anchors/SY

Channel # 1 Channel # 2 Channel # 3 All Channels

Original #1 Results Original #2 Results Original #3 Results All Channels - Original

Poly. (All Channels) Power (All Channels - Original)

Orig. Limiting Shear = 2.63 psf


goret

Typewritten Text

Amended April 2016

y = 0.0009x3 - 0.0049x2 + 0.0165xR² = 0.9093

y = 0.0013x2.6596

R² = 0.9216

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Cum

mu

lative

So

il L

oss (

CS

LI)

, in

Velocity, ft/sec

Limiting Velocity via ASTM D 6460X2HV; 3.8 Anchors/SY

Channel # 1 Channel # 2 Channel # 3 Original #1 Results

Original #2 Results Original #3 Results All Channels All Original Channels

Poly. (All Channels) Power (All Original Channels)

Orig. Limiting Velocity = 9.4 ft/sec

Limiting Velocity= 9.8ft/sec

goret

Typewritten Text

Amended April 2016

large-scale channel erosion testing (astm d … · large-scale channel erosion testing (astm d...

Documents