R. Pitt

July 9, 2002

Channel and Slope Stability for Construction Site Erosion Control

Introduction

General Channel Stability Shear Stress Relationship

Allowable Velocity and Shear Stress

Allowable Velocity Data

Allowable Shear Stress Data

Design Steps for Maximum Permissible Velocity/Allowable Shear Stress Method

Design of Grass-Lined Channels

Species Selection for Grass-Lined Channels

Selecting Plant Materials for Establishing Temporary Channel Covers

Selecting Plant Materials for Establishing Permanent Covers

Hydroseeding and Mulching

Determination of Channel Design Parameters

Vegetal Parameters

Soil Parameters

General Design Procedure for Grass-Lined Channels

Channel Stability Applied to Construction Site Erosion Control Design

Design using Vegetated Channel Liner Mats

Design of Lined Channels having Bends

Slope Stability Applied to Construction Site Erosion Control Design

Summary

Important Links

References

Appendix 4A: Commercial Sources for Channel Liners and Slope Protecting Mats

Rock Baskets (Gabions)

Concrete Flexible Grids (Revetment)

Plastic Grids

Fabric Blankets and Channel Mat Liners

Turf Grass

Hydroseeding and Chemicals

Appendix 4B: Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials and Research

Approved Erosion Control Products for Slope Protection

Class 1 “Slope Protection”

Approved Erosion Control Products for Flexible Channel Liners

Class 2 – “Flexible Channel Liner”

 

Introduction

This module will review the basic approaches and techniques available for the design of stable channels and slopes. There are several alternatives that can be used, which are briefly described and example problems are presented. Specific issues associated with construction sites are stressed in this module, compared to the more general applications for which some of these techniques are usually applied. The information previously presented in Module 3 (Erosion mechanisms and the revised universal soil loss equation) and Module 4 (Regional rainfall conditions and site hydrology for construction site erosion evaluations) is used in this module to design stable diversion, on-site, and downslope channels, plus stable slopes. These are some of the most critical erosion control elements that can be used on a construction site, as these are preventative measures which are always more effective than control practices applied after erosion has occurred. The design approaches described in this module can be also used with different criteria, based on allowable erosion yield.

General Channel Stability Shear Stress Relationship

The following discussion on the general shear stress relationships and channel bed movement is summarized from COE (1994; Engineering and Design: Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects. EM 1110-2-1418). Although this reference is specifically for large channels, many of the basic concepts are similar to what occurs at construction site, and these are specifically addressed in the following. More extensive information on these topics is available in numerous textbooks and manuals on sediment transport and channel design.

Allowable Velocity and Shear Stress

The concepts of allowable velocity and allowable shear stress are closely linked. They have been used mainly to design channels free from boundary erosion. In channels transporting sediment, however, the design should ensure that sediment outflow equals sediment inflow. Modifications of allowable velocity or shear stress to allow for sediment transport have been proposed in a few references, but are of limited applicability (see the discussion on the “regime” theory in McCuen 1998, for example).

Allowable Velocity Data

The concept of allowable velocities for various soils and materials dates from the early days of hydrau­lics. An example of simple velocity criteria data is given by Table 5-1 (COE undated, EM 1110-2-1601). Table 5-2 is a similar table, from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation research (Fortier and Scobey 1926, reprinted by McCuen 1998), that also shows the corresponding allowable shear stresses and Manning’s roughness values.

Table 5-1. Example of Simple Allowable Velocity Data (From COE undated, EM 1110-2-1601)

Table 5-2. Maximum Permissible Velocities and Corresponding Unit Tractive Force (Shear Stress) (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation research, Fortier and Scobey 1926)

Note:

· an increase in velocity of 0.5 ft/sec can be added to these values when the depth of water is greater than 3 ft.

· a decrease in velocity of 0.5 ft/sec should subtracted then the water contains very coarse suspended sediments.

· for high and infrequent discharges of short duration, up to 30% increase in velocity can be added

Another example is Figure 5-1, which shows data provided by the Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Depart­ment of Agriculture (USDA 1977). This figure discriminates between “sediment-free” and “sediment-laden” flow. Adjustment factors are suggested by the USDA for depth of flow, channel curvature, and bank slope.

Figure 5-1. Example of allowable velocity data with provision for sediment transport (USDA 1977)

Allowable Shear Stress Data

By the 1930’s, boundary shear stress (sometimes called tractive force) was generally accepted as a more appropriate erosion criterion. The average boundary shear stress in uniform flow (Figure 5-3) is given by

                    (lb/ft²)

where:

                γ = specific weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft³)

                R = hydraulic radius (ft)

                S = hydraulic slope (ft/ft)

Figure 5-2 shows a typical distribution of the shear stresses in a channel, indicating how the maximum shear stress is applied along the channel center (Chow 1959).

Figure 5-2.  Typical shear stress distributions in a trapezoidal channel (Chow 1959).

If the maximum shear stress is desired (typical for design conditions), then the flow depth is used instead of the hydraulic radius. For sheetflow conditions, the hydraulic radius (R) is very close to the depth of flow, and the above equation is also modified, as shown in Figure 5-3, by using the depth of flow to replace the hydraulic radius.

Figure 5-3. Boundary shear stress in uniform flow (COE 1994).

Values for incipient erosion (or initiation of motion) of noncohesive materials are usually presented in nondimensional form in the Shield’s diagram (Figure 5-4). This diagram indicates the initial movement or scour of noncohesive uniformly graded sediments on a flat bed. The diagram plots the Shield’s number (or mobility number), which combines shear stress with grain size and relative density, against a form of the Reynolds number that uses grain size as the length variable. The ASCE Sedimentation Manual (1975) uses a dimensionless parameter, shown on Figure 5-4, to select the dimensionless stress value. This value is calculated as:

where:

d = particle diameter (meters)

g = gravitational constant (9.81 m/sec²)

n = kinematic viscosity (1.306 x 10 ^–6 m²/sec for 10^oC)

                g_s = specific gravity of the solid

                g = specific gravity of water

A series of parallel lines on Figure 5-4 represent these calculated values. The dimensionless shear stress value (t_*) is selected where the appropriate line intersects the Shield’s curve. The critical shear stress can then be calculated by:

Figure 5-4. Shield’s diagram for dimensionless critical shear stress (COE 1994).

The following example, presented by Chang (1988), illustrates the use of the Shield’s diagram:

“Determine the maximum depth of a wide canal for which scour of the bed material can just be prevented. The canal has rigid banks and an erodible bed; it is laid on a slope of 0.0005. The bed material has a median size of 2.5 mm and its specific gravity is 2.65. Assume a temperature of 10^oC.”

Therefore:

d = particle diameter (meters) = 2.5 mm = 0.0025 m

g = gravitational constant = 9.81 m/sec²

n = kinematic viscosity = 1.306 x 10 ^–6 m²/sec for 10^oC

                g_s = specific gravity of the solid = 2.65

                g = specific gravity of water = 1

                 =

This line intersects the Shield’s curve at t_* = 0.043. The critical shear stress is therefore:

                =

Using the basic shear stress formula:

the critical depth of flow (D) is calculated to be 0.36 meters.

For sediments in the gravel size range and larger, the Shield’s number for beginning of bed movement is essentially independent of the Reynolds number. For wide channels, the relationship can then be expressed as:

                constant

where:

                S = channel slope

                s = dry relative density of sediment

                D = grain size

                d = depth of flow

The constant is shown as 0.06 in Figure 5-4, but it is often taken as 0.045, or even as low as 0.03 if absolutely no movement is required. For widely graded bed mate­rials, the median grain size by weight (D₅₀) is generally taken as the representative size, although same favor a smaller percentile, such as D₃₅.

An example evaluation is given by the COE (1994) in their assessment manual. In their example, the use of the Shield’s diagram is shown to likely greatly over-predict the erodibility of the channel bottom material. The expected reason they give is that the Shield’s diagram assumes a flat bottom channel and the total roughness is determined by the size of the granular bottom material. The actual Manning’s roughness value is likely much larger because it is largely determined by bed forms, channel irregularities, and vegetation. They recommend, as a more realistic assessment, that empirical data based on field observations be used. In the absence of local data, they present Figure 5-5 (from Chow 1959) for applications for channels in granular materials. This figure shows the permissible unit tractive force (shear stress) as a function of the average particle diameter, and the fine sediment content of the flowing water. For construction site diversion channels intercepting upland water from stable sites, the “clear” water curve is recommended. However, if the channel is on the construction site, the “high content” curve is most likely more suitable.

Figure 5-5.  Allowable shear stresses (tractive forces) for canals in granular materials (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, reprinted in Chow 1959).

The allowable shear stress concept has also been applied to semicohesive and noncohesive soils, but values do not correlate well with standard geotechnical param­eters because erosional resistance is affected by such fac­tors as water chemistry, history of exposure to flows, and weathering (Raudkivi and Tan 1984). Figure 5-6 gives an example of allowable shear stresses for a range of cohesive materials. Where possible, values should be compared against the results of field observation or labo­ratory testing.

Figure 5-6. Example of allowable shear stresses (tractive forces) for cohesive materials (COE 1994).

Allowable Velocity-Depth Relationships. Theoretical objections to use of velocity as an erosion criterion can be overcome by using depth as a second independent variable. An example of a velocity-depth-grain size chart is shown in Figure 5-7. This particular chart is intended to correspond to a small degree of bed movement rather than no movement. It is intended to be used as an indication of trends only.

Figure 5-7.  Example of allowable velocity-depth data for granular materials (COE 1994).

Cautions Regarding Allowable Velocity or Shear Stress. The following limitations of the allowable velocity

and allowable shear stress approaches should be recognized (COE 1994):

· For channels with substantial inflows of bed mate­rial, a minimum velocity or shear stress to avoid sediment deposition may be as important as a maximum value to avoid erosion. Such a value cannot be determined using allow­able data for minimal erosion. [See the discussion of the “regime” theory in McCuen (1998)].

· In bends and meandering channels, bank erosion and migration may occur even if average velocities and boundary shear stresses are well below allowable values. Conversely, deposition may occur in local slack-water areas, even if average values are well above the values indicated for maximum deposition. Information on cross-sectional distributions of velocity and shear stress in bends is provided in COE (undated) (EM 1110-2-1601).

· The Shield’s relationship (Fig­ure 5-4) applies basically to uniform flow over a flat bed. In sand bed channels especially, the bed is normally cov­ered with bed forms such as ripples or dunes, and shear stresses required for significant erosion may be much greater than indicated by the Shield’s diagram. Bed forms and irregularities occur also in many channels with coarser beds. More complex approaches have been used that involve separating the total shear stress into two parts associated with the roughness of the sediment grains and of the bed forms, of which only the first part contributes to erosion. In general, however, the Shield’s approach is not very useful for the design of channels in fine-grained materials.

Guidelines for Applications. The following guide­lines are suggested for computations and procedures using allowable velocity and shear stress concepts (COE 1994):

· If cross sections and slope are reasonably uniform, computations can be based on an average section. Otherwise, divide the project length into reaches and consider values for small, medium, and large sections.

· Determine the discharge for incipient erosion from the stage-velocity or discharge-velocity curve, and deter­mine its frequency from a flood-frequency or flow-­duration curve. This may give some indication of the potential for instability. For example, if bed movement has a return period measured in years, which is the case with some cobble or boulder channels, the potential for extensive profile instability is likely to be negligible. On the other hand, if the bed is evidently active at relatively frequent flows, response to channel modifications may be rapid and extensive.

Design Steps for Maximum Permissible Velocity/Allowable Shear Stress Method

McCuen (1998) presents the following steps when designing a stable channel using the permissible velocity/allowable shear stress method:

1) for a given channel material, estimate the Manning’s roughness coefficient (n), the channel slope (S), and the maximum permissible velocity (V) (such as from Tables 5-1 or 5-2).

2) Compute the hydraulic radius (R) using Manning’s equation:

where:

                R = hydraulic radius, ft.

                V = permissible velocity, ft/sec

                S = channel slope, ft/ft

                n = roughness of channel lining material, dimensionless

3) Calculate the required cross-sectional area, using the continuity equation and the previously design storm peak flow rate (Q) (from Module 4):

where:

                A = cross-sectional area of channel (wetted portion), ft²

                Q =  peak discharge for design storm being considered, ft³/sec

                V = permissible velocity, ft/sec 

4) Calculate the corresponding wetter perimeter (P):

where:

                P = wetted perimeter, ft

                A = cross-sectional area of channel (wetted portion), ft²

                R = hydraulic radius, ft.

5) Calculate an appropriate channel base width (b) and depth (y) corresponding to a specific channel geometry (usually a trapezoid channel, having a side slope of z:1 side slopes).

Figure 5-8 (Chow 1959) can be used to significantly shorten the calculation effort for the design of channels, by skipping step 4 above and more effectively completing step 5. This figure is used to calculate the normal depth (y) of a channel based on the channel side slopes and known flow and channel characteristics, using the Manning’s equation in the following form:

Initial channel characteristics that must be know include: z (the side slope), and b (the channel bottom width, assuming a trapezoid). It is easy to examine several different channel options (z and b) by calculating the normal depth (y) for a given peak discharge rate, channel slope, and roughness. The most practical channel can then be selected from the alternatives.

Figure 5-8.  Chow (1959) curves for determining normal depth for various channel geometries.

As an example, assume the following conditions:

Noncolloidal alluvial silts, water transporting colloidal silts:

                Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) = 0.020

                maximum permissible velocity (V) = 3.5 ft/sec

                (the allowable shear stress is 0.15 lb/ft²)

The previously calculated peak discharge (Q) = 13 ft³/sec

Channel slope = 1%, or 0.01 ft/ft

Therefore:

The hydraulic radius (R) using Manning’s equation:

The required cross-sectional area, using the continuity equation and the design storm peak flow rate (Q):

Therefore, AR^2/3 =  (3.7)(0.32)^2/3 = 1.7, and the wetted perimeter is A/R = 3.7/0.32 = 12 ft. Table 5-3 shows the calculated normal depth (y) for different channel options that all meet the allowable velocity criteria. Also shown on this table is the calculated maximum shear stress:

                γyS= (62.4 lb/ft³) (y ft) 0.01 ft/ft) = 0.62d

since the allowable shear stress is 0.15 lb/ft², the normal depth must be less than 0.24 ft (only about 3 inches). This will require a relatively wide channel.

As the channel becomes wider, the side slopes have little effect on the normal depth and the calculated maximum shear stress, as expected. The safety factors are the ratios of the allowable shear stress (0.15 lb/ft²) divided by the calculated maximum shear stress. None of these channels can satisfy the allowable shear stress with this natural material, unless the channel is wide. A minimum channel width between 15 and 25 ft would result in a stable channel. However, a channel liner can be used to reinforce the soils, resulting in a larger allowable shear stress, enabling a narrower channel.

Table 5-3. Alternative Channel Geometries Meeting Maximum Permissible Velocity Criterion

                * estimated, as these values are under range from the plotted curves.

A more direct approach is to use Figure 5-8 in reverse order. As shown above, the maximum depth (0.24 ft) can be calculated based on the maximum allowable shear stress and the channel slope. With the known value for AR^2/3 (1.7), Table 5-4 is used to calculated the required maximum side slope for different channel bottom widths (b). All of these options will meet both the allowable velocity and shear stress criteria.

Table 5-4. Example Calculations for Required Side Slopes for Different Bottom Widths, Meeting Allowable Velocity and Maximum Shear Stress Criteria

                                * estimated, as these values are under range from the plotted curves.

For this example, side slopes of about 5:1 and with a bottom width of 15 ft may be stable, or “any” side slope may be suitable for bottom widths of 20 ft, or wider. This example has shown that it may not be possible to design a stable channel only based on allowable maximum velocity. It is a good idea to also calculate the maximum shear stress, based on the normal depth. Without a channel liner, most stable channels in soils will need to be relatively wide. Because of the increased use of land needed for wide channels, it is usually feasible to consider channel liners, either grass-lined, or re-enforced with netting mats, as described in the following sections.

Design of Grass-Lined Channels

According to Temple, et al. (1987) in Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels, USDA Agricultural Handbook # 667, it is assumed that grass channel lining is used to protect an erodible soil boundary. The following discussion is summarized from this reference. The stability limits of concern are therefore those related to the prevention of channel degradation. Since significant bed load transport, along with its associated detachment and redeposition, is incompatible with the maintenance of a quality grass cover, further design considerations may be needed to limit particle or aggregate detachment processes. This limitation results in the logical dominant parameter being the boundary stress effective in gener­ating a tractive force on detachable particles or aggregates.

For the soils most often encountered in grass-lined channel design, particle detachment begins at levels of total stress low enough to be withstood by the vegetation without significant damage to the individual vegetal elements. When this occurs, the vegetation is undercut and the weaker vegetation is removed. This removal decreases the density and uniformity of the cover, which in turn leads to greater stresses at the soil-water interface, resulting in an increased erosion rate. Supercritical flow causes a more severe problem by the tendency for slight boundary or cover discontinuities to cause flow and stress concentrations to develop during these flow conditions.

For very erosion-resistant soils, the vegetal elements may sustain damage before the effective stress at the soil-water interface becomes large enough to detach soil particles or aggregates. Although the limiting condition in this case is the stress on the vegetal elements, failure progresses in much the same fashion. Damage to the vegetal cover results in an increase in effective stress on the soil boundary until condi­tions critical to erosion are exceeded. The ensuing erosion further weakens the cover, and unraveling occurs.

The potential for rapid unraveling of a channel lining once a weak point has developed, combined with the variability of vegetative covers, forces design criteria to be conservative. Very dense and uniform covers may withstand stresses substan­tially larger than those specified for short periods without significant damage. Reducing of the stability limits is not advised, however, unless a high level of maintenance guaran­tees that an unusually dense uniform cover will always exist. Also, unusually poor maintenance practices or nonuniform bound­ary conditions should be reflected in the design.

Because the failure most often observed in the field and in the  laboratory has resulted from the weakening of the vegetal lining by removal of soil through the lining, few data exist related to the maximum stresses that vegetal elements rooted in highly erosion-resistant materials may withstand. Observations of cover damage under high stress conditions, however, indicate that this type of failure may become dominant when the vegetation is established on highly erosion-resistant soils. These observations also indicate that when vegetal failure occurs, it is a complex process involving removing young and weak plants, shredding and tearing of leaves, and fatigue weakening of stems. The complexity of this process, combined with limited data, force the stability limitation shown in the next subsection to be only a rough approximation. A more detailed treatment would require the inclusion of many additional variables, not normally available in the design situation, to adequately describe both the soil and the cover. The use of an approxi­mating relation, therefore, is considered appropriate for most practical applications.

For conditions where the soil surface remains intact, the dominant action associated with vegetal cover failure appears to be fatigue-related stem breakage combined with leaf damage and removal. Force is transmitted from the flow to a vegetated boundary by drag along the entire length of a submerged vegetal element. This distribution of force along the stem, coupled with the fact that the waving action of longer stems will be at a lower frequency, and with the increased size and maturity normally associated with greater stem length, suggests that the allowable boundary stress associated with the vegetation should increase with stem length and density.

Species Selection for Grass-Lined Channels

This following discussion is summarized from Temple, et al. (1987). This is a general discussion and does not provide site-specific guidance for different climatic regions. However, it does describe the unusual problems associated with establishing plants in a channel environment. Local guidance (such as from local USDA or University Extension services) needs to be sought for specific recommendations for a project site.

The selection of grass species for use in waterways (channels) for erosion control is based on site-specific factors: (1) soil texture, (2) depth of underlying material, (3) management requirements of vegetation, (4) climate, (5) slope, and (6) type of structure or engineering design. Expected flow rate, availability of seed, ease of stand establishment (germination and seedling growth habit), species or vegetative growth habit, plant cover (aerial parts, height, and mulch), and persistence of established species, are other factors that must be considered in selecting the appropriate grass to meet conditions critical to channel stability.

Soil and climate of a particular area determine the best adapted grass species for erosion control in lined channels:

1) Sandy soils take water rapidly, but do not retain moisture as long as finer textured soils.

2) Moisture is more readily caught, stored, and returned to plants grown on sandy soils.

3) Fine-textured soils are more slowly permeable than sandy soils and are characterized by (a) greater runoff, yet are less erodible; (b) less total storage capacity because of well-developed B horizons; and (c) lower yield of water to plants due to the higher colloidal fraction.

Channel construction should be scheduled to allow establishment of the grass stand before subjecting the channel to excessive flows. (Note: the use of modern channel lining systems, as discussed below, help alleviate this problem.) Establishing permanent covers must be tailored for each location because channel stability is a site-specific problem until vegetation is well established. Establishment involves liming and fertilizing, seed bed preparation, appropriate planting dates, seeding rates, mulching, and plant-soil relationships. These activities must be properly planned, with strict attention to rainfall patterns. Often the channel is completed too late to establish permanent grasses that grow best during the optimum planting and establishment season. (Again, the use of available lining mats and vegetation systems help reduce these problems.)

Selecting Plant Materials for Estab­lishing Temporary Channel Covers

Based on flow tests on sandy clay channels, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is recommended for winter and sudangrass [Sorghum sudanensis (Piper) Hitchc.] for late-summer temporary covers. These temporary covers have been shown to increase the permissible discharge rate to five times that of an unprotected drainageway. Other annual and short-lived peren­nials used for temporary seedings include (1) barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), noted for its early fall growth; (2) oats (Avena) sativa L.), in areas of mild winters; (3) mixtures of wheat, oats, barley, and rye (Secale cereale L.); (4) field bromegrass (Bromus spp.); and (5) ryegrasses (Lolium spp.). Summer annuals, for example, German and foxtail millets (Setaria spp.), pearl millet [Pennisetum americanurn (L.) Leeke], and certain cultivated sorghums other than sudangrass, may also be useful for temporary mid- to late-summer covers. Since millets do not continue to grow as aggressively as sorghums after mowing, they may leave a more desirable, uniformly thin mulch for the permanent seeding. Temporary seedings involve minimal cultural treatment, short-lived but quick germinating species, and little or no maintenance. The temporary covers should be close-drilled stands and not be allowed to go to seed. The protective cover should provide stalks, roots, and litter into which grass seeds can be drilled the following spring or fall.

Selecting Plant Materials for Estab­lishing Permanent Covers

Many grasses can be used for permanent vegetal channel linings. The most preferred warm- and cool-season grasses for waterway channels are the tight-sod-forming grasses; bermudagrass [Cyodon dactylon var dactylon (L.) Pers.], bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Fluggle), buffalograss [Buchloe dactyloides (Nutt.) Enge1m.], intermediate wheatgrass [Agropyron intermedium (Host) Beauv.], Kentucky bluegrass (Poa ratensis L.), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), smooth bromegrass, (Bromus inermis Leyss.), vine mesquitegrass (Panicum obtusum H.B.K.), and Western wheatgrass (Agropyron Smithii Rydb.). These grasses are among the most widely used species and grow well on a variety of soils.

To understand the relation between different grasses and grass mixtures to grass-lined channel use, one must consider growth characteristics and grass-climate compatibilities in the different geographic areas of the United States. A grass mix­ture should include species adapted to the full range of soil moisture conditions on the channel side slopes. Conservationists and agronomists of each State should know the best soil-binding grass species adapted to their particular areas, seeding rates, dates of seeding particular grass species, and cultural requirements for early maximum cover. The most important characteristic of the grasses selected is its ability to survive and thrive in the channel environment.

Bermudagrass is probably the most widely used grass in the South. It will grow on many soil types, but at times it may demand extra management. It forms a dense sod that persists if managed properly. When bermudagrass is used, winter-hardy cultivars should be obtained. Improved cultivars, such as “Coastal,” “Midland,” “Greenfield,” “Tifton,” and “Hardie,” do not produce seed, and must be established by sprigging. Where winters are mild, channels can be estab­lished quickly with seed of “Arizona Common.” Seed of bermudagrass, a new seed-propagated variety with greater winter hardiness than “Arizona Common,” should now be available commer­cially. Bermudagrass is not shade tolerant and should not be used in mixtures containing tall grasses. However, the inclusion of winter annual legumes such as hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth.), narrowleaf vetch [V. sativa L. subspecies nigra (L.) Ehrh.], and/or a summer annual such as Korean lespedeza (Lespedeza stipulacea Maxim.) may be beneficial to stand maintenance.

The selection of species used in channel establishment often depends on availability of seed or plant material. Chronic national seed shortages of some warm-season grasses, especially seed of native species, have often led to planting seed marginally suited to site situations. Lack of available seed of desired grass species and cultivars adapted to specific problem sites is a major constraint often delaying or frustrating seeding programs. In addition to the grass species or base mixture of grasses used for erosion control, carefully selected special-use plants may be added for a specific purpose or situation. Desirable wildlife food plants may be included in the mixture if they do not compete to the detriment of the base grasses used for erosion control. Locally adapted legumes are often added if they are compatible with the grasses and noncompetitive.

Additional information on establishment and maintenance of grass-lined channels is provided in Temple, et al, (1987).

Hydroseeding and Mulching

Hydroseeding and mulching provide a method of planting on moderate to steep slopes, but require large amounts of water. Mulches include:

(1) Long-stem wheat straw (preferred), clean prairie hay, and so forth. Straw or hay mulches are either broadcast and “punched” in (4 to 5 inches deep) on moderate slopes with a straight disk, or broadcast along with an adhesive or tacking agent on steep slopes. About 1.0 to 1.5 tons/acre of straw is ideal. Mulches conserve surface moisture and reduce summer soil surface temperatures and crusting. The disadvantages of hay and straw mulches are that they can be a source of weed seed, and too much surface mulch, regardless of the type, can cause seedling disease problems. Commercial wood fiber mulch materials are available for relatively level areas.

2) Soil retention blankets, or mats, made of various interlocking fabrics and plastic webbing can be used on extremely steep slopes in areas with a high potential for water movement. These erosion blankets prevent seeds from being washed out by rain, and at the same time mulch and enhance germination and establishment.

Determination of Channel Design Parameters

The conditions governing the stability of a grass-lined open channel are the channel geometry and slope, the erodibility of the soil boundary, and the properties of the grass lining that relate to flow retardance potential and boundary protection.

Vegetal Parameters

Stability design of a grass-lined open channel by considering the effective stress imposed on the soil layer requires the determination of two vegetal parameters. The first is the retardance curve index (C_I) which describes the potential of the vegetal cover to develop flow resistance. The second is the vegetal cover factor (C_f) which describes the degree to which the vegetal cover prevents high velocities and stresses at the soil-water interface. Although some of the same con­siderations (such as vegetal density) will influence both parameters, the actions and the parameters may be considered as essentially independent.

Retardance Potential. The parameter describing the retardance potential of a vegetal cover is the retardance curve index, C_I. This parameter determines the limiting vegetal stress. Its relation to the measurable physical properties of the vegetal cover is given by:

where:

                h is the representative stem length

                M is the stem density in stems per unit area.

When consistent units are used, the relation is dimensionless. This factor is commonly used in the following equation to estimate the maximum allowable stress on the vegetation (t_va, in lb/ft²):

The stem length will usually need to be estimated directly from knowledge of the vegetal conditions at the time of anticipated maximum flow. When two or more grasses with widely differing growth characteristics are involved, the representative stem length is determined as the root mean square of the individual stem lengths.

When this equation is used to estimate the retardance potential, an estimate of the stem density is required. The reference stem densities contained later in Table 5-5 may be used as a guide in esti­mating this parameter. The values of reference stem density contained in this table were obtained from a review of the available qualitative descriptions and stem counts reported by researchers studying channel resistance and stability.

Since cover conditions will vary from year to year and season to season, establishing an upper and a lower bound for the curve index is often more realistic than selecting a single value. When this approach is taken, the lower bound should be used in stability computations and the upper bound should be used in determining channel capacity. Such an approach will normally result in satisfactory operation for lining conditions between the specified bounds. Whatever the approach used to obtain the flow retardance potential of the lining, the values selected should represent an average for the channel reach in question, since it will be used to infer an average energy loss per unit of boundary area for any given flow.

Vegetal Cover Factor. The vegetal cover factor, C_f, is used to describe the degree to which the vegetal cover prevents high velocities and stresses at the soil-water interface. Because the protective action described by this parameter is associated with the prevention of local erosion damage which may lead to channel unraveling, the cover factor should represent the weakest area in a reach rather than an average for the cover.

Observation of flow behavior and available data indicate that the cover factor is dominated by the density and uniformity of density in the immediate vicinity of the soil boundary. For relatively dense and uniform covers, uniformity of density is primarily dependent on the growth characteristics of the cover, which are in turn related to grass type. This relationship was used in the development of Table 5-5. This table can not obviously account for such considerations as maintenance practices or uniformity of soil fertility or moisture.

Soil Parameters

Two soil parameters are required for application of effective stress concepts to the stability design of lined or unlined channels having an erodible soil boundary: soil grain roughness (n_s) and allowable effective stress (t_a). When the effective stress approach is used, the soil parameters are the same for both lined and unlined channels, satisfying sediment transport restrictions. The relations presented here are taken from the SCS (1977) channel stability criteria: the desired parameters, soil grain roughness and allowable stress, are determined from basic soil parameters. Ideally, the basic parameters should be determined from tests on representative soil samples from the site.

For effective stress design, soil grain roughness is defined as that roughness associated with particles or aggregates of a size that may be independently moved by the flow at incipient channel failure. Although this parameter is expressed in terms of a flow resistance coefficient (n_s), its primary importance in design of vegetated channels is its influence on effective stress, as shown below. Its contribution to the total flow resistance of a grass-lined channel is usually negligibly small.

The allowable stress is key to the effective stress design procedure. It is defined as that stress above which an unacceptable amount of particle or aggregate detachment would occur.

Noncohesive Soil                . For purposes of determining the soil grain roughness and allowable stress, noncohesive soil is divided into fine- or coarse-grained soil, according to the diameter for which 75 percent of the material is finer (d75). Ideally, the point of division for hydraulic purposes would define the point at which particle submergence in the viscous boundary layer causes pressure drag to become negligible. Strict identification of this point is impractical for channel design applications, however. For practical application in computing soil grain roughness and allowable effective stress, noncohesive soils are defined as fine- or coarse-grained, based on whether d75 is less than or greater than 0.05 in. For fine-grained soils, the soil grain roughness and allowable effective stress are constant, while for a coarse-grained soil, these parameters are a function of particle size. These required parameters for noncohesive soils are given in Figures 5-9 and 5-10, as a function of particle size.

Figure 5-9.  Allowable effective stress for noncohesive soils (Temple, et al. 1987).

Figure 5-10.  Soil grain roughness for noncohesive soils (Temple, et al. 1987).

Cohesive Soil. All cohesive soil is treated as fine-grained soil, having a constant soil grain roughness (about 0.0155, according to Figure 5-10). The allowable effective stresses presented here are taken directly from SCS (1977) permissible velocity design criteria. The soil properties required to determine the allowable effective stress are the soil’s classification in the unified soil classification system, its plasticity index (I_w), and its void ratio (e). This calculation requires that a basic allowable effective stress (t_ab) be determined from the soil classification and plasticity index. This basic value is then corrected for void ratio, according to the relation:

The basic allowable shear stress (t_ab) is given in Figure 5-11, while the void ratio correction factor (C_e) is given in Figure 5-12. The soil classification information (plasticity index, I_w, and void ratio, e) are readily available for cohesive soils in standard soils references, including Temple, et al. (1987). See the previously presented Figure 5-6 (COE 1994) for a simplified figure for determining allowable shear stress for cohesive material for typical soils, if these detailed soil characteristics are not available.

Figure 5-11.  Basic allowable effective stress for cohesive soils (Temple, et al. 1987 and SCS 1977).

Figure 5-12.  Void ratio correction factor for cohesive soils (Temple, et al. 1987 and SCS 1977).

General Design Procedure for Grass-Lined Channels

The design of a grass-lined open channel differs from the design of an unlined or structurally lined channel in that (1) the flow resistance is dependent on channel geometry and discharge, (2) a portion of the boundary stress is associated with drag on individual vegetal elements and is transmitted to the erodible boundary through the plant root system, and (3) the properties of the lining vary both randomly and periodically with time. Each of these differences requires special consideration in the design process. Temple, et al. (1987) presents detailed descriptions of the generalized step-by-step procedure for grass-lined channel design, including computer codes.

Temple, et al. (1987) states that numerically, stability dependent channel design may be viewed as the solution of a set of simultaneous equations relating channel geometry and flow conditions to boundary stress. The transmission of stress to the boundary via the plant root system is accounted for through a modification of the effective stress relation and an additional limit check for identification of conditions where stress on the lining rather than stress on the erodible boundary limits stability. The time variability of vegetal cover conditions is accounted for in the computational procedure through the use of different cover conditions to determine the required channel width and depth. Minimum estimated cover (minimum C_I and C_f) is assumed to determine channel width as a shape-dependent function of depth (stability). Maximum estimated cover conditions are then used to compute the required depth (capacity).

In many cases, this process is a trial-and-error procedure. Chow (1959) presented many graphical aids for the stable design of grass-lined channels. His basic steps require an initial design for channel stability (based on critical stability conditions with immature vegetation offering little protection), followed by a design for channel capacity (when the vegetation is mature, offering greater flow resistance). With a seeded channel and no protective armoring from erosion control mats, the initial channel design usually results in a broad, parabolic shape, with little depth. This was necessary to increase the flow resistance by increasing the cross-sectional area. The capacity calculations resulted in additional freeboard to account for the increased flow resistance due to mature vegetation.

Currently, the use of channel lining mats protecting immature vegetation allows immediate protection of the sensitive soil boundary layer, as described in the following discussions. Also, modern computer programs, such as supplied by North American Green, greatly help in the design of the most appropriate channel cross section and liner system.

Channel Stability Applied to Construction Site Erosion Control Design

Current practice is to design channel linings based on shear stress and not on allowable velocity. Shear stress considers the weight of the water above the lining and therefore does a better job of predicting liner stability compared to only using velocity.

Design using Vegetated Channel Liner Mats

If a channel will have intermittent flows, it is common to use vegetated liners to increase the channel stability. However, if the channel will have perennial (or long-term) flows, grass will not be successful and mechanical liners must be used.

According to Croke (2000), construction site channel design using turf reinforcement mats (TRM) must consider three phases: (1) the original channel in an unvegetated state to determine if the matting alone will provide the needed protection before the vegetation is established, (2) the channel in a partially vegetated state, usually at 50% plant density, and (3) the permanent channel condition with vegetation fully established and reinforced by the matting’s permanent net structure. It is also important to base the matting failure on soil loss (usually 0.5 inch of soil; greater amounts greatly hinder plant establishment) instead of physical failure of the matting material. The basic shear stress equation can be modified to predict the shear stress applied to the soil beneath a channel mat (Temple, et al. 1987):

where:

                t_e = effective shear stress exerted on soil beneath vegetation

                γ = specific weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft³)

                D = the maximum flow depth in the cross section (ft)

                S = hydraulic slope (ft/ft)

                C_f = vegetal cover factor (this factor is 0 for an unlined channel)

                n_s = roughness coefficient of underlying soil

                n = roughness coefficient of vegetal components

The flow depth, rather than the hydraulic radius, is used in this equation because this will result in the maximum shear stress developed, rather than the average stress (Temple, et al. 1987). The cover factor is a function of the grass and stem density, as previously described, while the roughness coefficients are standard Manning’s roughness values. The permissible shear stress for a liner mat should also be available from manufacture’s specifications, but it will vary for different growth phases, if vegetated. Obviously, the liner matting significantly reduces the shear stress exerted on the soil. The following tables summarize some typical values for some of these equation parameters for erosion control mats, for different products supplied by North American Green (from www.nagreen.com). Included on these tables are conservation factor, C, values used in RUSLE for slope protection, along with roughness coefficients and maximum permissible shear stress values used in channel lining analyses. Only the P300 and C350 mats shown here are permanent liners and therefore have different values for different plant growth stages.

S75 straw erosion control blanket (12 month life; 314 g/m² mass per unit area)

S150 straw erosion control blanket (12 month life; 323 g/m² mass per unit area)

S150BN straw erosion control blanket (10 month life; 352 g/m² mass per unit area)

SC150 straw erosion control blanket (24 month life; 424 g/m² mass per unit area)

SC150BN straw erosion control blanket (18 month life; 424 g/m² mass per unit area)

C125 coconut fiber erosion control blanket (36 month life; 274 g/m² mass per unit area)

C125BN coconut fiber erosion control blanket (24 month life; 360 g/m² mass per unit area)

P300 polypropylene fiber erosion control blanket (permanent use; 456 g/m² mass per unit area)

Additional permissible shear stress information for vegetated North American Green products:

¹ Phase 2 is 50% stand maturity, usually at 6 months, while Phase 3 is mature growth

Values of C_f, the grass cover factor, are given in Table 5-5 (Temple, et al. 1987). They recommend multiplying the stem densities given by 1/3, 2/3, 1, 4/3, and 5/3, for poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent covers, respectively. C_f values for untested covers may be estimated by recognizing that the cover factor is dominated by density and uniformity of cover near the soil surface: the sod-forming grasses near the top of the table have higher C_f values than the bunch grasses and annuals near the bottom. For the legumes tested (alfalfa and lespedeza sericea), the effective stem count for resistance (given on the table) is approximately five times the actual stem count very close to the bed. Similar adjustment may be needed for other unusually large-stemmed, branching, and/ or woody vegetation.

Table 5-5. Properties of Grass Channel Linings (Temple, et al. 1987)

As an example, consider the following conditions for a mature buffalograss on a channel liner mat:

                = 2.83 lb/ft² (previously calculated), requiring a NAG P300 permanent mat, for example

                n_s for the soil is 0.016

                n for the vegetated mat is 0.042

                C_f for the vegetated mat is 0.87

                The permissible shear stress for the underlying soil is 0.08 lb/ft²

Therefore:

                 lb/ft²

This calculated shear stress being exerted on the soil beneath the liner mat must be less than the permissible shear stress for the soil. In this example, the safety factor is 0.08/0.053 = 1.5 and the channel lining system is expected to be stable.

Design of Lined Channels having Bends

The basic shear stress formulas can be modified to account for the increased shear stress after bends in channels. Normally, the maximum shear stress is along the center part of a channel (usually the deepest area), but a hydrodynamic force is applied to the outside bend after a change in direction. Along the outside of the bend, increased water velocity and shear stress will increase the erosion potential, while sedimentation may occur along the inside of the bend where the water velocity slows. The basic shear stress formula is modified with a bend coefficient, as follows:

where:

                γ = specific weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft³)

                R = hydraulic radius (ft) (can be estimated by water depth, for relatively wide channels or sheetflows)

                S = hydraulic slope (ft/ft)

                K_b = bend coefficient

The bend coefficient can be estimated by (Croke 2001):

where:

                R_c = bend curvature (radius of the bend)

                B = bottom width of the channel

These parameters are illustrated in Figure 5-13 (North American Green).

Figure 5-13.  Location of increased shear stress due to channel bend (North American Green).

This formula obviously cannot be used for a V-shaped channel, where the bottom width is zero. Croke (2001) points out that this design is unlikely on construction sites due to difficulties in shaping.

The area being affected by the increased shear stress due to channel bends is usually assumed to begin immediately after the bend at the tangent to the downstream channel, as shown in Figure 5-13. The length of extra shear stress can be estimated by the following formula (after Croke 2001):

where:

                L_p = length of extra protection needed due to increased shear stress on outside of bend (same units as R)

                R = hydraulic radius = ratio of cross-sectional area of flow to wetted perimeter (A/P)

                n = Manning’s roughness coefficient for liner in the channel bend

As an example, assume the following conditions:

                R = 3.0 ft

                n = 0.042

then:

                ft

In addition to the increased shear stress being exerted along the outside bend, water elevations will also rise due to momentum. This will require an additional channel depth needing protection at outside bends.

Slope Stability Applied to Construction Site Erosion Control Design

Much of the above information on channel stability can also be applied to slope stability evaluations. Of course, this discussion assumes that the slopes have been designed by geotechnical engineers to prevent slippage, as this discussion only addresses sheet and rill erosion. As indicated in Module 4, it is possible to modify the Manning’s formula to calculate the flow depth for sheetflow conditions which are used for slope analyses:

where:    y is the flow depth (in feet),

                q is the unit width flow rate (Q/W, the total flow rate, in ft³/sec, divided by the slope width, in ft.)

                n is the sheet flow roughness coefficient for the slope surface, and

                s is the slope (as a fraction)

Therefore, the basic shear stress equation can be used to calculate the maximum shear stress expected on a slope:

                    (lb/ft²)

where:

                γ = specific weight of water (62.4 lbs/ft³)

                y = flow depth (ft)

                S = slope (ft/ft)

Information in Module 4 can be used to calculate the unit width flow rate (q) for the slope in question. Assume the following conditions:

                Design storm peak flow rate (Q) = 2.2 ft³/sec (from Module 4 procedures)

                Slope width (W) = 200 ft

                Slope roughness for sheetflow (n) = 0.24 (vegetated with dense grass stand; would be only about 0.055 for

an erosion control mat before vegetation, however, using the vegetated mat results in deeper water

and a worst case condition)              

                Steepness of slope (s) = 25% = 0.25

Therefore, the unit width peak flow = Q/W = 2.2 ft³/sec/200 ft = 0.011ft²/sec and the flow depth is:

This depth corresponds to a flow depth of about 0.4 inches. The corresponding maximum shear stress would be:

                lb/ft²

For an ordinary firm loam soil, the Manning’s roughness is 0.020 and the allowable shear stress is 0.15 lb/ft² (from Table 5-2). Without a protective mat, the calculated maximum shear stress is substantially greater than the allowable shear stress for the soil. The effective shear stress impacting the soil underneath a erosion control mat can be calculated (using the previously calculated maximum shear stress), The following calculation indicates the effective shear stress underneath the mat:

Where:

                t_e = effective shear stress exerted on soil beneath mat on slope

                t_o = maximum shear stress from the flowing water = 0.51 lb/ft²

                C_f = vegetal cover factor (this factor is 0 for an unlined channel) = 0 for critical unvegetated slope

                n_s = roughness coefficient of underlying soil = 0.020

                n = roughness coefficient of liner = assume 0.055 as a typical value for unvegetated mat on slope

Therefore:

                  lb/ft²

The safety factor using these values is about 2.2 (1.5/0.067), so the slope should be adequately protected when an adequate mat is selected. In fact, any erosion mat with a Manning’s roughness larger than 0.037 should be adequate for this example.

Final mat selection is usually based on calculating the erosion yield from the slope, using the RUSLE [A = RK(LS)CP]. Table 5-6 lists some representative conservation factors (C) for different North American Green erosion control mats, and the following lists other needed RUSLE values:

                R = 350 (Birmingham, AL conditions)

                K = 0.28

                LS for length of 300 ft and slope of 25% = 10.81 (from Module 3)

This is a 200 ft by 300 ft area, or about 1.4 acres.

Soil loss for bare slope (C = 1):

                Soil loss = (350)(0.28)(10.81)(1) = 1,060 tons/acre/yr

Soil loss for protected slope (example using S75, with an n = 0.055, and C=0.19)

                Soil loss = (350)(0.28)(10.81)(0.19) = 201 tons/acre/yr

The conversion factor for calculating the uniform inches lost per year from tons/acre is 0.00595. Therefore, for the unprotected bare slope, the soil loss would be about 6.3 inches, while it would be about 1.2 inches for the protected slope. Both these values are excessive. The USDA (1987) states the a reasonable tolerance limit to allow agricultural activity (plants to survive) would be about 0.5 inches. North American Green recommends that a tolerable soil loss value of 0.25 inches (at the bottom 10% of the slope length) be used for temporary erosion control blankets and new growth vegetation. This corresponds to a maximum soil loss of about 42 tons/acre/year (still about 10 times greater than the tolerable, T, value given for many soils in the county soil maps for sustainable agriculture). Since these are for temporary controls while the vegetation is immature, it is expected that the soil losses would decrease substantially with time, as the plants on the slope mature. The tolerable soil loss for permanent slope protection is given as 0.03 inches/year, or about 5 tons/acre/year (close to the SCS tolerable, T, values in the soil maps).

Therefore, an erosion control mat having a smaller C factor for these slope conditions is needed. The target maximum C value can be estimated by the ratio of the maximum allowable to the bare soil conditions:

                C _maximum = 42/1060 = 0.039

                N _minimum = 0.037

For the long slope length of 300 ft and the 25% (4:1) slope, the suitable erosion control mats shown on Table 5-6 would be:  S150BN (C=0.020 and n=0.055) or SC150BN (C=0.010 and n=0.050) both much more substantial than the initial selection of S75 based on shear stress alone. If the slope length was shorter, the lower rated mats would be suitable (such as S75 for slope lengths less than 20ft, and C125 if the slope lengths are up to 50ft). None of these erosion control mats would provide the soil loss protection on this long slope example for permanent installations (5/1060 = 0.0047) without vegetation. Both the C350 or P300 would likely be suitable permanent mats, with partial to full vegetation.

It is possible to design slope protection having different erosion control mats at different sections on the slope. However, there are many other factors involved in selecting the most appropriate erosion control mat, and the manufactures information must be reviewed for proper selection.

Table 5-6.  North American Green Conservation Factors (C) for Different Erosion Control Mats, for Different Slopes and Slope Lengths

Summary

This module reviewed several techniques for designing stable channels and slopes at construction sites. The shear stress method was shown to be generally necessary for channel design, compared to only using an allowable velocity approach. For slopes, however, tolerable soil loss calculations may be needed to verify the selection of slope protection solutions; the use of shear stress alone may not be suitable.

It is critical that a construction site use suitable procedures to prevent erosion on site, instead of relying on sediment removal from the flowing water after erosion occurs. These techniques must be used, in conjunction with good construction planning, to minimize the amount of land exposed to erosion, and to decrease the amount of sediment erosion produced. Later modules will describe sediment control measures, and their design, for construction sites.

Important Links

US Army Corps of Engineers Channel Stability Assessment Method Report: Engineering and Design - Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects, 1994:

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-2-1418/toc.htm

USDA Agricultural Handbook 667: Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels, 1987:

http://www.pswcrl.ars.usda.gov/ah667/ah667.htm

North America Green downloadable program for slope and channel protection:

http://www.nagreen.com/

References

ASCE. Sedimentation Engineering. Edited by Vito A. Vanoni. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 54. 1975.

Chang, H.H. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley & Sons. 1988.

Chow, Ven Te. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill. 1959.

Croke, T. “Reliable channel design using turf reinforcement mats.” Erosion Discussion. Vol. 5, No. 1. North American Green (availabe from their web page: www.nagreen.com). June 2000.

Croke, T. “Accounting for bends in channel design.” Erosion Discussion. Vol. 6, No. 1. North American Green (availabe from their web page: www.nagreen.com). Summer 2001.

Fortier, S. and F.C. Scobey. “Permissible canal velocities.” Trans. ASCE, Vol. 89, paper No. 1588, pp. 940-984. 1926.

McCuen, R.H. Hydrologic Analysis and Design, 2^nd Edition. Prentice Hall. 1998.

Raudkivi, A. J., and Tan, S. K. “Erosion of cohesive soils,” Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol 22, No. 4, pp 217-233. 1984.

SCS (Soil Conservation Service). Handbook for Channel Design for Soil and Water Conservation. SCS-TP-61, rev. 1954.

SCS (Soil Conservation Service). Design of Open Channels. TR-25. 1977.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels. EM 1110-2-1601. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. undated.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Engineering and Design: Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects. EM 1110-2-1418. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 1994.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Design of Open Channels. Technical Release No. 25, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 1977.

USDA. Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels. Agricultural Handbook 667. 1987:

Williams, D. T., and Julien, P. Y. “Examination of stage-discharge relationships of compound/composite channels,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff. B.C. Yen, ed., University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 22-26 May 1989, pp 478-488. 1989.

Appendix 4A: Commercial Sources for Channel Liners and Slope Protecting Mats

The following lists various commercial sources for channel liners and mats for protecting channels and slopes at construction sites. Obviously, this is not a comprehensive listing and their inclusion here does not imply any endorsement. These are included as examples of the types of products, and supporting information, currently available.

Rock Baskets (Gabions)

Maccaferri   www.maccaferri-usa.com

Terra Aqua    www.terraaqua.com

Concrete Flexible Grids (Revetment)

Armortec  www.armortec.com

Hydropace   info@hydropve.com

Plastic Grids

Invisible Structures, Inc, (Slope Tamer²)  www.invisiblestructures.com

Presto (Geoweb)  1-800-548-3424 http://www.prestogeo.com/

Fabric Blankets and Channel Mat Liners

Synthetic Industries (Landlok erosion control blankets and Pyramat)  www.fixsoil.com

Construction Products, Inc. (Contech)  Middleton, Ohio

Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Co. (Super Gro)  1-800-445-7732

Akzo Nobel (Enkamat) 1-800-365-7391

North American Green   www.nagreen.com

RoLanks Erosion Control Blankets 1-800-760-3215

Turf Grass

Gardner Turfgrass, Inc. (sod farms, also Stay Turf live matting)   www.Gardnerturf.com

Hydroseeding and Chemicals

Conwed fibers (mulch and blankets)  www.conwedfibers.com   1-800-366-1180

Soil Guard (bonded fiber matrix mulch)   www.soilguard.com

Soil Moist (soil erosion polymer)   www.soilmoist.com

Terra Mulch   www.terra-mulch.com

Applied Polymer Systems   lwinskis@aol.com

Appendix 4B: Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials and Research

The following list contains the pre-approved products listed by the Kansas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Materials and Research, for different types of construction site erosion control applications. This list is from:

http://www.state.ks.us/public/kdot/burmatrres/pql/PQL34B.pdf

This list is an example of pre-approved erosion control products and shows the variety of products now available for slope and channel protection. Other states’ have similar lists, but may have differing standards and testing procedures. This is included here as an example of what is being developed. Obviously, it is important to select materials that will meet local, site-specific conditions, and that are also approved by the local regulatory agency.

Approved Erosion Control Products for Slope Protection

Class 1 “Slope Protection”

Type A- Slopes 1:3 or Flatter – Clay Soils:

Type B- Slopes 1:3 or Flatter – Sandy Soils:

Type C- Slopes Steeper than 1:3 – Clay Soils:

Type D- Slopes Steeper than 1:3 – Sandy Soils:

Approved Erosion Control Products for Flexible Channel Liners

Class 2 – “Flexible Channel Liner”

Type E- Shear Stress Range 0-96 Pascal (0-2 lb/ft²):

Type F- Shear Stress Range 0-192 Pascal (0-4 lb/ft²):

Type G- Shear Stress Range 0-287 Pascal (0-6 lb/ft²):

Type H- Shear Stress Range 0-383 Pascal (0-8 lb/ft²):