| dc.contributor.author |
Risse, LM |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Thompson, SA |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Governo, J |
en |
| dc.contributor.author |
Harris, K |
en |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2014-06-06T06:48:12Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2014-06-06T06:48:12Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2008 |
en |
| dc.identifier.issn |
00224561 |
en |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://62.217.125.90/xmlui/handle/123456789/4013 |
|
| dc.relation.uri |
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-57149118929&partnerID=40&md5=cb0e19c39c02faa621e4b0acaa23a370 |
en |
| dc.subject |
Best management practices (BMPs) |
en |
| dc.subject |
Geotextiles |
en |
| dc.subject |
Sediment and erosion control |
en |
| dc.subject |
Silt fence |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
erosion control |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
retention |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
soil test |
en |
| dc.subject.other |
suspended sediment |
en |
| dc.title |
Testing of new silt fence materials: A case study of a belted strand retention fence |
en |
| heal.type |
journalArticle |
en |
| heal.publicationDate |
2008 |
en |
| heal.abstract |
The Silt-Saver Belted Strand Retention Fence (BSRF) was compared with the traditional type C silt fence to determine whether it would be acceptable for use as a sediment barrier. ASTM standard methods were used to evaluate flow-through and sediment removal efficiency using three different soils. For flow without sediment, there were no statistical differences, although the BSRF showed a slightly higher flow rate than the type C fence. Flow rates with sediment were generally 30% to 85% lower on the BSRF than the type C fence with greater differences observed with finer particle sizes and double concentration runs. This indicates the influence of soil particles on flow rate and suggests that sediment trapped behind the fence is controlling flow rate more than the fence itself. Results from analysis of effluent and sediment removal efficiency indicated that BSRF was more effective at retaining sediment behind the fence. Both suspended solids content and turbidity of the effluent were lower using the BSRF material than type C fence material for all test conditions. Sediment removal efficiencies for BSRF were significantly higher for all three tested soils. Additional tests were conducted using variations of the ASTM standard, and these tests showed similar trends. Testing also indicated that design of the supporting apparatus was sufficient for withstanding overtopping with water. While no testing program can provide results to prove an application will function under all conditions that will be encountered in the field, this testing indicates that the Silt-Saver BSRF should be an effective alternative to the standard type C silt fence. |
en |
| heal.journalName |
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation |
en |
| dc.identifier.issue |
5 |
en |
| dc.identifier.volume |
63 |
en |
| dc.identifier.spage |
265 |
en |
| dc.identifier.epage |
273 |
en |