|
Flexible
Channel Lining Systems:
The Benefits of Geosynthetically Reinforced Vegetation Over Rock Riprap
by: Tim Lancaster,
North American Green, Inc.
Don Lutyens, American Excelsior Company
Deron Austin, Synthetic Industries
 
In the last several
years many areas of the U.S. have been drastically affected by torrential
rainfalls and flooding. Although most of these "natural" disasters
are indeed caused by nature, mans impact on the environment and
land use has magnified the destructive forces and the resulting damages.
A major contributor to the flooding problems, which seem to occur all
too often, is the "hardening" of our natural landscapes. The
replacement of forests and fields with impervious sidewalks, streets,
parking lots and roofs has resulted in increased run-off volumes which
exceed the capacity of our existing drainage systems.
Ironically, even
mans own attempts to manage storm water and control erosion have
added to the problem. The use of "hard armor" materials such
as rock riprap, concrete and asphalt to line and stabilize drainage channels
inhibits water infiltration, reduces filtration of sediment and other
potential pollutants, and increases run-off volumes. The result - more
polluted water feeding into our over-burdened streams and reservoirs at
a faster pace. In addition to adverse environmental effects, hard armor
erosion control materials pose other concerns, prompting todays
engineers and designers to employ more natural, vegetative solutions.
To extend the erosion resistance capabilities of vegetative "soft
armor" channel linings, modern geosynthetic turf reinforcement mattings
(TRMs) are widely used for immediate erosion protection and long-term
vegetative reinforcement. This article will explore the use of geosynthetically
reinforced vegetation for permanent channel stabilization and its many
benefits over one of the most commonly used types of "hard armor"
protection, rock riprap.
Engineering
Performance
"Hard
armor" materials such as rock riprap were once thought to be the only
suitable lining systems for channels exposed to high water flows. Vegetative
channel linings were simply out of the question where expected flow velocities
exceeded 8 feet per second (ft/s) (Chow, 1959) or shear stresses topped
the 3.7 pounds per square foot (lbs/sf) mark (Chen and Cotton, 1988).
Since their first use in 1979, TRMs have proven their ability to substantially
increase the erosion resistance of natural vegetation. Two independent
channel lining studies performed by CIRIA (Hewlett, etal, 1987) and the
Texas Department of Transportation (Northcutt, 1997), suggest that some
types of TRMs can more than double the erosion resistance of vegetation,
enabling its use in channels where velocities exceed 15 ft/s and when
shear stresses reach 8 lbs/sf. Compared to the Federal Highway Administrations
recommendations for rock riprap, this level of protection is equivalent
to that of 24 inch (d50) stone (Chen and Cotton, 1988). This revelation
is to the delight of many designers who appreciate the lower cost, lower
maintenance, safety and environmental benefits of "soft armor" vegetative
linings.
Aesthetics
In the past,
aesthetics was not considered by engineers an important factor in erosion
control materials selection. Today, as the urban sprawl lays a maze of
paved roads, sidewalks and parking lots, "greenways" have become
scarce. This loss of green space, in conjunction with heightened public
environmental awareness and the ever increasing demands of owners, has
engineers re-thinking the aesthetic aspects of materials used to stabilize
drainage channels. On urban projects, these areas may offer the only opportunity
to provide a natural setting within an otherwise grey, manmade landscape.
Though rock is a completely natural material, its associated with
and causes the same "hardening" effect as manmade pavements
such as concrete or asphalt. Hence, the use of vegetation to soften and
naturalize the appearance of drainage channels is becoming the preferred
method.
Wildlife
Habitat
Vegetation
not only improves aesthetics, vegetative channel linings function as living
components in the surrounding ecosystem. Grasses and flowers can provide
food and habitat to draw and support preferred wildlife species. Though
rock riprap may provide improved fish habitat when used in perennial streambeds,
when used in intermittent drainage channels, it often harbors undesirable
species such as mosquitoes, snakes and rodents.
Clean
Water
Vegetative
channel linings are also efficient at trapping and filtering sediment
and pollutants in storm water. In recent research conducted on three different
types of vegetation with varying densities and heights, in-stream vegetative
stands increased sedimentation from 200 to 700 % versus unvegetated stream
beds, with up to 81 % retention of the trapped sediments following clean
water flush events (Abt et.al., 1995). Plants, along with microorganisms
within the soil, can metabolize and convert many pollutants often carried
by sediments into non-harmful compounds. Though rock riprap linings will
also capture some sediment, rock has no way of "neutralizing" these pollutants.
The sediment and its attached pollutants trapped during one storm event
will often be washed out of the rocks and carried downstream during the
next.
Noise
Abatement
Furthermore,
vegetation offers an absorptive buffer for noise. This can be quite beneficial
in channels along highways through heavily populated areas where noise
pollution is a problem. Rock linings have little capacity for sound absorption.
Maintenance
At first thought,
one might expect riprap to require less maintenance than vegetation. Just
after it's installed, rock has a nice, neat appearance. But what happens
a year or two down the road? Water- or wind-carried seeds (often from
weeds) deposit in the void spaces between rocks, resulting in an unattractive
combination of rocks and weeds. Since rock cannot be safely mowed over
with riding equipment, maintenance must be performed with weed-eaters
or pesticide sprayers to eliminate weed growth. Furthermore, the voids
in a rock lining not only harbor weeds, they also collect debris and litter.
Pulling litter out of rock linings can be a very laborious and even dangerous
task for maintenance crews.
Other
potential costs and/or hazards associated rock riprap linings, include:
increased maintenance time due to use of extreme care when mowing around
the rock; excessive wear and tear on machinery from accidentally hitting
rocks with mower blades; lost work days from employees due to injury from
flying debris; damage to personal property from flying rocks and debris;
and possible law suits from injury and vehicle damage.
On
the other hand, vegetative channel linings can typically be maintained
simply by mowing to the preferred height using conventional riding equipment.
In a well manicured setting, this may require frequent mowings and occasional
fertilizer applications. However, in many situations where native grasses
or low maintenance species are used, mowing and fertilization may only
be necessary once a year. In regards to litter removal, hand collection
can be done safely, and the use of a power rake where litter is heavy
can simplify the task.
Safety
The potential
hazards of rock riprap go beyond those associated with maintenance activities.
If the channel is in a residential or public area, riprap poses a risk
for children and pedestrians who may trip and fall when playing on or
walking across the jagged surface. Along roadsides, riprap linings are
an obstacle to vehicles that stray from the pavement, causing reduced
control of the vehicle and possibly more severe damage to the car and
its passengers.
Vandalism
When riprap is installed,
the only thing holding it in place is the weight of the rock itself. Though
its weight may be sufficient to resist movement under high velocity water
flow, it can be helpless against the most damaging force known to man
- the little boy next door. A report from the field tells the story. The
use of detention basins around subdivisions is a typical approach to water
and sediment management. In one state, the most commonly used lining for
the out-fall channels from the basins is rock riprap. Inspections in the
spring by Department of Natural Resources officials after installation
of many of these channels the previous autumn revealed a puzzling loss
of rock from the channel surfaces. Knowing that the rock didn't wash away,
state inspectors conducted an investigation. What they found out was,
the rocks "walked" away over winter, carried by neighborhood children
up to the detention basin and thrown onto the frozen surface of the detention
basin to try to break the ice.
Materials Installation
The benefits of
vegetative linings are realized even before they are in place. Installation
of rock riprap typically requires excavation of a bed at least twice as
deep as the mean diameter stone, lining the bed with a geotextile, and
placement of two or more layers of stone in the bed. This entire process,
aside from geotextile installation, requires heavy equipment. From dump
trucks hauling loads of rock to the site to backhoes excavating the beds
and placing the rock, each step is a time consuming, expensive task. [With
just a little more effort it takes to hand place the geotextile under
riprap, a TRM can be installed.] (note: use this statement also
in a box) No excavation, heavy equipment, or skilled equipment operators
are required. The area is simply raked to form a seedbed and treated with
seed and any necessary soil amendments. The TRMs are rolled out over the
treated area and secured in place with relatively small trenches, stakes
and/or staples, and in some cases top-dressed with a fine layer of soil
and more seed.
Fig.
1) Proper installation of rock riprap requires an expensive, time-consuming
three step process with heavy equipment. Installation becomes more labor
intensive and potentially hazardous when gabion baskets, installed by
hand, must be used to encapsulate the rock.
Cost Effectiveness
Putting
all other benefits aside, the first consideration in erosion control materials
selection must be cost-effectiveness. For channel lining applications,
many engineers have adopted the design procedures presented by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in the most recent HEC #15 manual (Chen
and Cotton, 1988). This design methodology utilizes maximum shear stress
calculations in determining the suitability of various lining materials.
However, at the time the HEC #15 was developed, little was known about
the vegetative reinforcement properties of geosynthetic mattings. Furthermore,
this design methodology lacks the cost information needed to determine
the most cost-effective lining.
Fig.
2) Both 12 inch riprap (foreground) and a turf reinforcement matting (downstream
section) were installed in this channel in September. Following heavy
winter rains, the rock portion shows signs of erosion. In comparison,
the TRM downstream has worked with early vegetation growth to prevent
scouring of the channel surface.
The following Tables
1. and 2. present up-to-date permissible shear stresses for one type of
TRM and hard armor material, along with approximate installed costs for
the Indianapolis, Indiana area (Lancaster and Spangler, 1996).
Table 1. Comparison
of Performance Limits and Unit Cost
| Material
Type |
Permissible
Shear Stress (lbs/sf) |
Installed
Cost($/sy)* |
| 8" Riprap |
2.671 |
25.00
|
| TRM (unvegetated) |
3.202 |
7.00 |
| 18" Riprap |
6.001 |
35.00 |
| TRM (partially
vegetated) |
6.003 |
7.00 |
| 24" Riprap |
8.001 |
45.00 |
| TRM (vegetated) |
8.004 |
7.00 |
* Costs may vary
considerably for different regions and types of TRMs
1 Based on FHWA
HEC #15 Recommendations for double layered rock lining (size = d50)
2 Based on laboratory
flume testing with a commercial TRM on bare soil (failure @ .5 inches
soil loss)
3 Extrapolated
from laboratory flume testing
4 Based on laboratory
flume testing and outdoor channel testing at the Texas Transportation
Institute (failure @ .3 inches soil loss)
This information
can be used in general to complement HEC #15 design procedures. These
figures suggest that certain turf reinforcement mattings can provide similar
protection, even before vegetation growth, as 8 inch rock riprap, at less
than 1/3 the cost. Once vegetation begins to establish through the matting,
the degree of protection increases to that of 18 inch rock, at 1/5 of
the cost. Once vegetation becomes fully established, it has similar erosion
resistance as 24 inch riprap, at 1/6 the cost!
To see how this
affects overall project costs, let's consider linings for two small channels
where calculated shear stresses exceed the limits of unreinforced vegetation.
Table 2. Comparison
of Installed Costs (12 ft x 750 ft channels (1,000 sys))
| Calculated
Shear Stress (lbs/sf) |
|
Total Installed
Cost |
| |
2 yr storm |
100 yr
storm |
Lining
Option |
(U.S.
Dollars)
|
| Channel "A" |
2.5 |
6.0 |
TRM |
$ 7,000 |
| |
|
|
18 inch riprap |
$ 35,000 |
| Channel "B" |
3.0 |
8.0 |
TRM |
$ 7,000 |
| |
|
|
24 inch riprap |
$ 45,000 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Based
on these applications, using a TRM to control erosion and reinforce vegetation
in place of rock would save $ 28,000 - $ 38,000. This money could be put
into the owner's pocket, or used by the engineer to address other areas
which may have been disregarded due to a limited budget.
Fig
3) Like electricity, water follows the path of least resistance. The roughness
of rock can create problems for improperly placed linings. Here, water
has eroded around a rock-lined chute. Weed growth in the rock poses further
headaches for highway maintenance crews.
Conclusions
Geosynthetically
reinforced vegetation can provide a lower cost, lower maintenance, less
hazardous and more aesthetically and environmentally pleasing alternative
to riprap in areas requiring high performance erosion protection (see
Table 3.). However, the vegetation and its stand characteristics, along
with the erodibility of the soil, will significantly affect the erosion
resistance of this type of system. Further analysis through the United
States Department of Agriculture design procedures for "Grass-Lined Open
Channels" (Ag Handbook #667) (Temple, etal, 1987) can assist in evaluating
different vegetative stands and soil types. Areas where vegetation is
difficult to establish and maintain as a dense, healthy stand may necessitate
hard armor protection.
|
Table
3. Summary of Lining System Features
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feature
|
TRM
Reinforced Vegetation
|
Rock
Riprap
|
|
Permissible
Shear Stress
|
8.00 lbs/sf
(fully vegetated)
|
8.00 lbs/sf
(24 in rock)
|
|
Aesthetics
(color)
|
Natural
Green
|
Grey
|
|
Wildlife
Attraction
|
Desirable
Species
|
Pests
|
|
Water Filtration/Treatment
|
Excellent
|
Poor
|
|
Noise Abatement
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Maintenance
|
Low - Medium
|
Low - High
|
|
Hazard
Risk
|
None
|
Low - High
|
|
Risk of
Vandalism
|
None -
Low
|
Low - High
|
|
Installation
Labor Requirements
|
Unskilled
|
Skilled
|
|
Installation
Equipment
|
Hand tools
|
Dump truck
/ backhoe
|
|
Installation
Time
|
Fast (50
- 100 sys/man/hr)
|
Slow (<
50 sys/hr)
|
|
Material
Delivery
|
Lightweight
Rolls
|
Heavy truckloads
|
|
Installed
Cost
|
$ 5.00
- $ 13.00 / sy
|
$ 20.00
- $ 45.00 / sy
|
Contact
Information:
For
more information, contact the Erosion Control Technology Council (ECTC),
355 W. Chestnut Street, Genesee, ID, 83832, www.ectc.org.
REFERENCES
Abt, S.R., Clary,
W.P., Thornton, C.I., 1995. "Sediment Entrapment Potential of Submerged
Stream Channel Vegetation", Proceedings of the International Erosion
Control Associations 26th Annual Conference, Feb. 28th
March 3rd, Atlanta, GA, pp. 409 420.
Chen, Y.H, and
G.K. Cotton. 1988. Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings.
Federal Highway Administration, HEC #15. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA. 124 pgs.
Chow, V.T. 1959.
Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New
York. p. 185.
Hewlett, H.W.M.,
etal. 1987. Design of Reinforced Grass Waterways. Construction
Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Report 116. Ciria,
6 Storey's Gate, London, England. 116 pgs.
Lancaster, T.,
and E. Spangler. 1996. "Soft Armor vs. Hard Armor Channel Linings: A Cost
Effective Analysis". Erosion Discussion Newsletter, North American Green,
Inc.
Northcutt, P. 1997.
TXDOT/TTI Hydraulics and Erosion Control Laboratory Field Performance
Testing of Selected Erosion Control Products, Final Performance Analysis
- 1995-96 Evaluation Cycle, Class 1 - "Slope Protection", Class 2 - "Flexible
Channel Liners". Texas Department of Transportation Construction &
Maintenance Division. 177 pgs.
Temple, D.M., etal.
1987. Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook 667. 175 pgs.
|