Files in this item



application/pdfWOOD-THESIS-2019.pdf (6MB)Restricted to U of Illinois
(no description provided)PDF


Title:Evaluation of various products for sediment perimeter barrier
Author(s):Wood, Jacob Jordan
Advisor(s):Bhattarai , Rabin
Department / Program:Engineering Administration
Discipline:Agricultural & Biological Engr
Degree Granting Institution:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
silt fence
Abstract:Construction activities often entail earthmoving operations that involve the disturbance of topsoil and the removal of vegetative cover. As a result, stormwater runoff and erosion rates are significantly increased. In order to mitigate this resultant runoff and erosion, a best management practice known as a sediment perimeter barrier (SPB) or a sediment retention device is implemented. Several products have been designed for use as SPBs, the most common of which is silt fence. However, many of these products have not been tested for their relative performance as SPBs under relevant sediment loading and flow conditions. This study utilized standardized full-scale testing methods at the Erosion Control Research and Training Center (ECRTC) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to evaluate the relative performance of six alternatives to silt fence: woven monofilament geotextile, compost log (Filtrexx Siltsoxx), Siltworm, coconut coir log, Curlex Sediment Log and ERTEC ProWattle. A full-scale testing apparatus provides specific insight and direct comparison between installation, removal and in-field performance relative to Illinois soil and rainfall conditions. Each SPB product was evaluated for performance based on the analysis of water samples collected downstream of the installed SPB. The samples were analyzed for turbidity (NTU) and total sediment concentration (mg/L). Additionally, volumetric sediment retention scans were compared using laser distance elevation measurements of an earthen testing area upstream of the installed SPB. Elevation measurements were taken before and after testing to determine the change in elevation of the earthen testing area, and thus the sediment volume retained by the SPB product. Products were categorized as either damming devices or filtering devices based on ponding depth and time to ponding subsidence. Of the new products tested, woven monofilament geotextile, compost log, and ERTEC ProWattle were deemed to be damming devices. Siltworm, coconut coir log, and Curlex Sediment Log were found to be filtering devices. As a whole, the damming devices outperformed the filtering devices in terms of downstream TSC, turbidity reduction and sediment retention. Research results indicated that compost log performed slightly better than all other products when considering downstream TSC values, while there was no significant difference in downstream TSC between the three damming products. Curlex Sediment Log was the only filtering device that showed similar downstream TSC values to that of silt fence. Siltworm and coconut coir log had significantly higher downstream TSC values, or performed worse than silt fence. Other characteristics such as ease of installation and removal, material costs, environmental savings and sustainability, and product failures were taken into consideration during testing. None of the products tested exhibited product failures under the manufacturer’s suggested installation techniques. Woven monofilament geotextile and compost log were difficult to install and remove. As such, these products would have increased labor costs associated with practical usage. Additionally, compost log coconut coir log have a substantially higher material cost per linear foot than the other products, at nearly twice the price of the next most expensive product. On the other hand, compost log has a high degradability and sustainability factor, while the other two damming devices are considerably less favorable when it comes to sustainability. All three of the filtering devices are composed of degradable naturally occurring materials that are considerably sustainable.
Issue Date:2019-07-19
Rights Information:Copyright 2019 Jacob Wood
Date Available in IDEALS:2019-11-26
Date Deposited:2019-08

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Item Statistics