DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for Certification and Management of Rockfall Fence Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines for Certification and Management of Rockfall Fence Systems COPY NO. # Guidelines for Certification and Management of Rockfall Fence Systems Final Report Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 24‐35 Transportation Research Board of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Ben Arndt, P.E., P.G. Brett Arpin, P.E. Yeh and Associates, Inc. Denver, CO Jerry D. Higgins, Ph.D., P.G. Consulting Engineering Geologist Golden, CO Paul Thompson Consultant Bellevue, WA December 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. DISCLAIMER This is an uncorrected draft as submitted by the contractor. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied herein are those of the contractor. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, or the program sponsors. ii Guidelines for Certification and Management of Rockfall Fence Systems Final Report Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 24‐35 Transportation Research Board of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Ben Arndt, P.E., P.G. Brett Arpin, P.E. Yeh and Associates, Inc. Denver, CO Jerry D. Higgins, Ph.D., P.G. Consulting Engineering Geologist Golden, CO Paul Thompson Consultant Bellevue, WA December 2015 iii CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... IX AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. X ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... XI SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................... 2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Certification of Rockfall Fence Systems in the United States ........................................................ 2 1.1.2 Asset Management of Flexible Rockfall Fence Systems ................................................................ 2 1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................... 4 Research Approach ............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Review Previous Rockfall Fence Testing Standards .................................................................................... 4 2.3 Review of Previous Geotechnical Asset Inventory and Assessment Systems ............................................ 4 2.4 Review of Transportation and Geotechnical Asset Management .............................................................. 5 2.5 Survey Input from Transportation Agencies, Designers, and Manufacturers Regarding Rockfall Fence Systems ............................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................... 7 Review of Flexible Rockfall Fence Testing Definitions, Standards, and Guidelines ............... 7 3.1 Rockfall Protection System Definitions ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Discussion on Rockfall Fence Testing Delivery Methods ............................................................................ 9 3.2.1 Rock Rolling Tests .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Inclined Cable Type Tests ............................................................................................................ 10 3.2.3 Vertical Drop Tests ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.4 Pendulum Type Tests .................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.5 Comparison of Rockfall Fence Testing Delivery Methods ........................................................... 12 3.3 Overview of Rockfall Fence Testing Programs, Standards, and Guidelines .............................................. 13 3.3.1 Rockfall Fence Testing In 1980s ................................................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Rockfall Fence Testing In 1990s ................................................................................................... 15 iv 3.3.3 Rockfall Fence Testing In 2000 to Present ................................................................................... 19 3.3.3.1 Swiss Testing ................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.3.2 Geobrugg North America Testing .................................................................................. 20 3.3.3.3 Italian Testing ................................................................................................................ 20 3.3.3.4 Colorado Attenuator Testing ......................................................................................... 21 3.3.3.5 Austrian Testing ............................................................................................................ 22 3.3.3.6 Colorado Rockfall Fence and Post Foundation Systems Testing ................................... 22 3.3.4 Early United States Rockfall Fence Performance Standards and Guidelines ............................... 24 3.3.5 Early Italian Rockfall Fence Testing Standards ............................................................................ 26 3.3.6 Swiss Rockfall Fence Performance Standards and Guidelines .................................................... 26 3.3.7 United States NCHRP 20‐07 Testing Guidelines .......................................................................... 30 3.3.8 European ETAG 27 Testing Standards ......................................................................................... 31 3.4 Comparison of SAEFL, NCHRP 20‐07, and ETAG 27 .................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................. 39 Review of Flexible Rockfall Fence Inventory, Assessment and Management Systems ....... 39 4.1 Overview Asset Management .................................................................................................................. 39 4.2 Austrian Rockfall System Inspection and Maintenance Guidelines ......................................................... 40 4.3 Canadian Rockfall Site and System Inspection and Maintenance Practices ............................................. 41 4.4 Comparison with Retaining Wall Inventory and Condition Assessment Methods ................................... 42 4.4.1 Examples of WIP Field Forms for Wall Systems........................................................................... 42 4.4.2 Example of Definitions, Conditions and Performance Ratings for Wall Systems ........................ 45 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................. 47 Research Results ............................................................................................................... 47 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 47 5.2 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................... 47 5.2.1 Background Section Results ........................................................................................................ 47 5.2.2 Standards and Certifications Section Results .............................................................................. 48 5.2.3 Design and Construction Section Results ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Colorado's Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C141 October 2009 Colorado’s Full-Scale Field Testing of Rockfall Attenuator Systems TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Vice Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009–2010 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Paul H. Bingham, Principal, Global Insight, Inc., Washington, D.C., Freight Systems Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair James M. Crites, Executive Vice President, Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, Aviation Group Chair Leanna Depue, Director, Highway Safety Division, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, System Users Group Chair Robert M. Dorer, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Transportation Programs, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research and Innovative
    [Show full text]
  • Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil
    www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees Summer Term 2015 Hochschule Munchen Fakultat Bauingenieurwesen Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 2/60 LAYOUT Details and Analysis of Anchored Walls Details and Analysis of Soil Nailing Examples of Executive Projects www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 3/60 ANCHORED “CURTAIN” WALLS (Tie Back Walls) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 4/60 Introduction Details: • Earth retaining structures with active anchors • A.J. Costa Nunes pioneer work in 1957 • 20 – 30 cm thick concrete wall face tied back • Ascending or descending construction methods • Niche excavation • ACTIVE anchor 4 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 5/60 Excavation Procedure www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 6/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 7/60 Molding Joints www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 8/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 9/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 10/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 11/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 12/60 Stability Analysis Verification of failure modes: • Toe bearing capacity (NSPT < 10) • Bottom failure • Wedge or generalized failure: limit equilibrium analyses • Excessive deformations • Anchor stability and punching • Structural failure • Construction failures (e.g. during excavation) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 13/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 14/60 www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees 15/60 Stability Analysis Methodologies Wedge Method: • Kranz (1953) is the pioneer • One or two wedges • Ranke and Ostermeyer (1968) German Method • Nunes and Velloso (1963) Brazilian Method • Hoek and Bray (1981) www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees
    [Show full text]
  • Division 2 Earthwork
    Division 2 Earthwork 2-01 Clearing, Grubbing, and Roadside Cleanup 2-01.1 Description The Contractor shall clear, grub, and clean up those areas staked or described in the Special Provisions. This Work includes protecting from harm all trees, bushes, shrubs, or other objects selected to remain. “Clearing” means removing and disposing of all unwanted material from the surface, such as trees, brush, down timber, or other natural material. “Grubbing” means removing and disposing of all unwanted vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs, or other debris. “Roadside cleanup”, whether inside or outside the staked area, means Work done to give the roadside an attractive, finished appearance. “Debris” means all unusable natural material produced by clearing, grubbing, or roadside cleanup. 2-01.2 Disposal of Usable Material and Debris The Contractor shall meet all requirements of state, county, and municipal regulations regarding health, safety, and public welfare in the disposal of all usable material and debris. The Contractor shall dispose of all debris by one or more of the disposal methods described below. 2-01.2(1) Disposal Method No. 1 – Open Burning The open burning of residue resulting from land clearing is restricted by Chapter 173-425 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). No commercial open burning shall be conducted without authorization from the Washington State Department of Ecology or the appropriate local air pollution control authority. All burning operations shall be strictly in accordance with these authorizations. 2-01.2(2) Disposal Method No. 2 – Waste Site Debris shall be hauled to a waste site obtained and provided by the Contractor in accordance with Section 2-03.3(7)C.
    [Show full text]
  • View Souvenir Book
    DFI INDIA 2018 Souvenir With extended abstracts Sponsor / Exhibitor catalogue www.dfi -india.org Deep Foundations Institute USA, DFI of India Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India Indian Geotechnical Society, Ahmedabad Chapter, Ahmedabad, India 8th Annual Conference on Deep Foundation Technologies for Infrastructure Development in India IIT Gandhinagar, India, 15-17 November 2018 1 Deep Foundations Institute of India Advanced foundation technologies Good contracting and work practices Skill development Design, construction, and safety manuals Professionalism in Geotechnical Investigation Student outreach Women in deep foundation industry Join the DFI Family DFI India 2018 8th Annual Conference on Deep Foundation Technologies for Infrastructure Development in India IIT Gandhinagar, India, 15-17 November 2018 Souvenir With extended abstracts Sponsor / Exhibitor catalogue Deep Foundations Institute, DFI of India Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India Indian Geotechnical Society, Ahmedabad Chapter, Ahmedabad, India www.dfi -india.org 3 Deep Foundation Technologies for Infrastucture Development in India - DFI India 2018 IIT Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India, 15-17 November 2018 DFI India 2018, 8th Annual Conference on Deep Foundation Technologies for Infrastructure Development in India Advisory Committee Prof. Sudhir K. Jain, Director. IIT Gandhinagar Dr. Dan Brown, Dan Brown and Association and DFI President Mr. John R. Wolosick, Hayward Baker and DFI Past President Prof. G. L. Sivakumar Babu, IGS President Er. Arvind Shrivastava, Nuclear Power Corp of India and EC Member, DFI of India Prof. A. Boominathan, IIT Madras and EC Member, DFI of India Prof. S. R. Gandhi, NIT Surat and EC Member, DFI of India Gianfranco Di Cicco, GD Consulting LLC and DFI Trustee Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Asset Management in a World of Dirt
    ransportation agencies in the United States ASSET MANAGEMENT IN A and worldwide are adopting transportation asset management (TAM) to focus strate­ gically on the long­term management of Tgovernment­owned assets (1, 2). As TAM concepts and tools have developed, however, they have not addressed all classes of assets—in particular, geotech­ nical assets such as retaining walls, embankments, WORLD rock slopes, rockfall protection barriers, rock and ground anchors, soil nail walls, material sites, tun­ nels, and geotechnical instrumentation and data. Some state agencies have attempted to press for­ ward in applying asset management principles to OF geotechnical assets, but the efforts have been iso­ lated and limited. Many have not applied the gamut DIRT of the TAM process, starting from asset inventories Emergence of an Underdeveloped and moving on to condition assessment and service­ life estimates, performance modeling, alternative Sector of Transportation Asset evaluation with life­cycle­based decision making, Management project selection, and performance monitoring (see Figure 1, page 19). DAVID A. STANLEY Most geotechnical asset management (GAM) efforts have halted at inventorying and conducting condition surveys, without progressing along the TAM spectrum. For example, agencies are unlikely to have specific performance standards for their geo­ technical assets, and information about determining or estimating the service life of geotechnical assets is sparse. Nonetheless, much has been accomplished in the areas of assessing the corrosion and degradation of buried metal reinforcements in retaining walls and in estimating their remaining service life (3–5). Promoting the Principles Recent efforts have begun to promote GAM. For example, the TRB Engineering Geology Committee formed a Geotechnical Asset Management Subcom­ mittee to address research needs in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stabilization and Repair Solutions for Local Government Engineers
    Slope Stabilization and Repair Solutions for Local Government Engineers David Saftner, Principal Investigator Department of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota Duluth June 2017 Research Project Final Report 2017-17 • mndot.gov/research To request this document in an alternative format, such as braille or large print, call 651-366-4718 or 1- 800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota) or email your request to [email protected]. Please request at least one week in advance. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC 2017-17 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Slope Stabilization and Repair Solutions for Local Government June 2017 Engineers 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. David Saftner, Carlos Carranza-Torres, and Mitchell Nelson 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Department of Civil Engineering CTS #2016011 University of Minnesota Duluth 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 1405 University Dr. (c) 99008 (wo) 190 Duluth, MN 55812 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Local Road Research Board Final Report Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 15. Supplementary Notes http:// mndot.gov/research/reports/2017/201717.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) The purpose of this project is to create a user-friendly guide focusing on locally maintained slopes requiring reoccurring maintenance in Minnesota. This study addresses the need to provide a consistent, logical approach to slope stabilization that is founded in geotechnical research and experience and applies to common slope failures.
    [Show full text]
  • Landslide, Debris Flow & Rock Fall Technologies
    Landslide, Debris Flow & Rock Fall Technologies Geotechnical Centrifuge Embankment Slope Stability during an Earthquake Countermeasures against Soft Ground Debris Flow Hazard Analysis & Prediction Realtime Debris Flow Hazard Prediction and System Slope Stability Analysis Seepage Flow Analysis Numerical Simulation of Slope Reinforcement Structures Analysis of Rock Fall Hazards R&D Center for Innovation, New Technologies & Engineering Solutions 2304 Inarihara, Tsukuba City, Ibaraki 300-1259, JAPAN Email: [email protected] Web: www.n-koei.co.jp/english/rd-center/index.html 27 Geotechnical Centrifuge Modeling • NK’s geotechnical centrifuge with shaking table performs model tests to obtain the solutions of geotechnical problems such as 2.6m strength, stiffness and capacity of foundations for embankments, slope stability, and tunnel stability. • The Shaking table can produce seismic conditions. • R&D center has performed more then 400 centrifuge model tests over the last 40 years. The centrifuge spins its arm and increases gravitational acceleration to a physical model in order to produce identical stress-strain condition in the small-scale model and real-size prototype. NK Centrifuge The centrifuge has a radius of 2.6 m, a maximum centrifugal acceleration of 250G, and a maximum payload of 1,000 kgf. 3G (30 rpm) 30G (100 rpm) 120G (200 rpm) Embankment Slope Stability during an Earthquake NK’s geotechnical centrifuge with a shaking table 800 is used to obtain the solution of slope failure of an 600 Level 2 (gal) 400 200 embankment during a earthquake. 0 -200 The shaking table is equipped with an electro- -400 Case2 -600 Acceleration Toyoura sand hydraulic servo control and has a maximum -800 0 10 20 30 40 Time (sec) centrifugal acceleration of 100G, a maximum shaking acceleration: 25G (1/30 model 818gal), Shaking table Seismic wave frequency Range: 10-400Hz, and maximum velocity: 40 cm/s.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guidelines and Details
    CHAPTER IV DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DETAILS A. General In this chapter, general design guidelines are provided for various bank stabilization methodologies introduced in Chapter II. Selection criteria for any of these erosion control methods is outlined in Chapter III. Details for the stabilization and erosion control methods discussed in this chapter are found in Appendix A. WEST PITTMAN CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF DIAMONDHEAD DRIVE, PLANO, TEXAS B. Structural and Armor Methods 1. Concrete-Lined Channel. Concrete-lined channels are a common drainage feature of small, urban streams in North Central Texas, especially in areas where right-of-way for drainage purposes is minimal. In addition to flood flow capacity, concrete lined channels should be designed to maintain scour velocities (>2 fps) throughout the expected flow regime. Supercritical flow will not be allowed. Minimum bottom width shall be 10 feet. Channel intersections shall be at an angle not exceeding IV-1 15 degrees. The minimum radius of centerline curvature shall be three times the top width of the channel unless superelevation computations are submitted for review. Subsurface drainage should be provided to prevent scour under the slabs and relieve pressures behind protected slopes. Uplift forces on the slabs should be evaluated. Joint location and frequency should be carefully considered by the design engineer (USACE, 1991). A typical concrete lined channel section is shown in Plate 1 of Appendix A. The designer is also referred to the standard details of the community in which they are working. 2. Rock Riprap Revetment. Rock or stone can be an effective erosion control measure if properly designed.
    [Show full text]
  • Geotechnical Design Procedure for Flexible Wall Systems
    GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR FLEXIBLE WALL SYSTEMS GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE GDP-11 Revision #4 AUGUST 2015 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE: GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR FLEXIBLE WALL SYSTEMS GDP-11 Revision #4 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU AUGUST 2015 EB 15-025 Page 1 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4 A. Purpose ...........................................................................................................................4 B. General Discussion ........................................................................................................4 C. Soil Parameters ..............................................................................................................4 II. DESIGN PREMISE ...................................................................................................................5 A. Lateral Earth Pressures ...................................................................................................5 B. Factor of Safety ..............................................................................................................8 III. FLEXIBLE CANTILEVERED WALLS ...................................................................................9 A. General ...........................................................................................................................9 B. Analysis ..........................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Road Gabion Wall/Slope Stabilization
    Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (2013) - Seventh International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 02 May 2013, 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm Mississippi River Road Gabion Wall/Slope Stabilization W. Ken Beck Terracon Consultants, Inc., Bettendorf, IA Lok M. Sharma Terracon Consultants, Inc., Lenexa, KS Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Beck, W. Ken and Sharma, Lok M., "Mississippi River Road Gabion Wall/Slope Stabilization" (2013). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 61. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/7icchge/session03/61 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MISSISSIPPI RIVER ROAD GABION WALL/SLOPE STABILIZATION W. Ken Beck, P.E. Lok M. Sharma, P.E. Terracon Consultants, Inc. Terracon Consultants, Inc. Bettendorf, Iowa-USA 52722 Lenexa, Kansas-USA 66215 ABSTRACT Lee County widened Mississippi River Road north of the Keokuk, Iowa in the early 1990s, removing material from the toe of slopes along the alignment. Gabion walls were constructed to provide grade separation. Significant precipitation occurred in the spring of 2010, and two (2) wall sections (about 100 feet each in length) failed.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability Analysis with Stabl4
    SCHOOL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS JOINT HIGHWAY RESEARCH REPORT JHRP-84-19 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH STABLE SUMMARY INFORMATIONAL REPORT C.W. Lovell S . S . Sharma J.R. Carpenter &t UNIVERSITY JOINT HIGHWAY RESEARCH REPORT JHRP-84-19 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH STABLE SUMMARY INFORMATIONAL REPORT C.W. Lovell S.S. Sharma J.R. Carpenter Summary Informational Report INTRODUCTION TO SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH STABL4 To: R.L. Eskew, Chairman October 10, 1984 Joint Highway Research Project Advisory Board File: 6-14-12 From: H.L. Michael, Director Joint Highway Research Project The attached report is an Informational one which summarized much of the work done by the authors is developing an implementa- tion package of the STABL materials for the Federal Highway Administration. This work was performed under a FHWA contract with Purdue University by the authors under the direction of Pro- fessor C.W. Lovell. This summary report is submitted for information and use by IDOH personnel and for sale when requests are submitted to us. Under the implementation program plans of FHWA they will provide copies of the report in the format submitted by us to them under the contract to governmental agencies, but will advise all others (consultants, researchers, etc.) to contact Purdue for copies of the STABL4 materials. Materials supplied will be a copy of the attached report and a tape of the STABL4 program at a price which will cover our costs of handling this activity. Comments and questions relative to the Report should be directed to Professor Lovell at the Civil Engineering Building, Purdue University, phone (317) 494-5034.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 16 Streambank and Shoreline Protection Chapter 16 Streambank and Shoreline Protection Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook
    United States Department of Engineering Agriculture Natural Field Resources Conservation Handbook Service Chapter 16 Streambank and Shoreline Protection Chapter 16 Streambank and Shoreline Protection Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook Issued December 1996 Cover: Little Yellow Creek, Cumberland Gap National Park, Kentucky (photograph by Robbin B. Sotir & Associates) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimina- tion in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all pro- hibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 16–ii (210-vi-EFH, December 1996) Chapter 16 Preface Chapter 16, Streambank and Shoreline Protection, is one of 18 chapters of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Ser- vice, Engineering Field Handbook, previously referred to as the Engineer- ing Field Manual. Other chapters that are pertinent to, and should be refer- enced in use with, Chapter 16 are: Chapter 1: Engineering Surveys Chapter 2: Estimating Runoff Chapter 3: Hydraulics Chapter 4: Elementary Soils Engineering Chapter 5: Preparation of Engineering Plans Chapter 6: Structures Chapter 7: Grassed Waterways and Outlets Chapter 8: Terraces Chapter 9: Diversions Chapter 10: Gully Treatment Chapter 11: Ponds and Reservoirs Chapter 12: Springs and Wells Chapter 13: Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation Chapter 14: Drainage Chapter 15: Irrigation Chapter 17: Construction and Construction Materials Chapter 18: Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction This is the second edition of chapter 16.
    [Show full text]