Files in this item

FilesDescriptionFormat

application/pdf

application/pdfFHWA-ICT-16-001.pdf (2MB)
(no description provided)PDF

application/pdf

application/pdfFHWA-ICT-16-001.pdf (2MB)
(no description provided)PDF

application/pdf

application/pdfFHWA-ICT-16-001.pdf (2MB)
(no description provided)PDF

Description

Title:Evaluation of Curb and Gutter Inlet Protection Products for Sediment Retention
Contributor(s):Bhattarai, Rabin; Kalita, Pransanta; Azeem, Anwar; Jha, Ranjeet
Subject(s):construction
environment
materials
testing
Geographic Coverage:Illinois
Abstract:Construction sites are one of the largest sources of sediment and contaminants. When rainfall occurs, sediment is produced as soil particles disintegrate and erode from the bare soil area and are transported to the nearest water conveyance structure, such as an inlet. When soil is disturbed to construct buildings and highways, the rate of erosion increases. Sediment from these areas mixes with water and enters roadside gutters after rainfall or snowmelt events. This can lead to clogging of drainage systems and street flooding. It can also escalate treatment cost for wastewater treatment facilities, due to increased sediment load. Various tests were performed to analyze the effectiveness of curb and gutter inlet protection products at the Erosion Control Research and Training Center (ECRTC) of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The tests analyzed the ability of these products to prevent sediment from entering the inlets. The goal of these tests was to compare the various products and determine which would work best to prevent sediment from entering the inlets at construction sites. Several criteria were used in testing in order to make the best recommendations to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The products analyzed in testing were (1) frame and grate, (2) Dandy curb bag, (3) Dandy curb sack (orange fabric), (4) Erosion Eel, (5) GeoHay, (6) SediGuard, and (7) Inlet Pro. The duration of the test was 15 minutes with a discharge rate of 119 gallons/minute (7.5 L/s). One 5 gallon bucket of clay soil was initially poured into a 300 gallon water tank; half a bucket was later poured at 5 and 10 minutes. This mixture would spill over onto the slab, where samples would be collected before and after the product was installed. Water samples were collected every 3 minutes and were oven-dried to determine sediment concentration. Using this procedure, it was possible to determine how efficient each product was in terms of sediment retention. The SediGuard and Dandy curb sack products performed better than the other products tested. Although several products were able to filter efficiently, they often created excessive ponding. Ponding on an active roadway can potentially create safety concerns. The evaluation was based on two criteria: water should be able to infiltrate the product without creating heavy ponding and the product should retain a large fraction of the sediment.
Issue Date:2016-01
Publisher:Illinois Center for Transportation/Illinois Department of Transportation
Citation Info:Bhattarai, Rabin, Prasanta Kalita, Anwar Azeem, and Ranjeet Jha. 2016. Evaluation of Curb and Gutter Inlet Protection Products for Sediment Retention. A report of the findings of ICT-R27-102. Illinois Center for Transportation Series No. 16-001. Research Report No. FHWA-ICT-16-001. Illinois Center for Transportation, Rantoul, IL.
Series/Report:Illinois Center for Transportation Series No. 16-001
Research Report No. FHWA-ICT-16-001
Genre:Technical Report
Type:Text
Language:English
URI:http://hdl.handle.net/2142/89500
ISSN:0197-9191
Sponsor:Illinois Department of Transportation, R27-102
Rights Information:No restrictions. This document is available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
Date Available in IDEALS:2016-03-11


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Item Statistics