The presentation from the Erosion and Sediment Control Demonstration Facility, Australia

1. Shane Holborn
Will Pearce
Erosion and Sediment Control
Demonstration Facility

2. Introduction
Erosion & Sediment Control Demonstration Facility
(TU10025)
Funded by the turf levy through Horticulture
Australia Ltd (HAL)
Started under Queensland Government
management at Redlands Research Station
Transferred to BioScience Australia Pty Ltd as a
result of DAFF disinvestment in turf
Scheduled to run until February 2014 under this
round of funding

3. Built a facility
Run monthly demonstration workshops for:
building, road construction and mining industries (practitioners);
decision makers in local, state and federal government (specifiers);
Partnering with training companies e.g. Absorb Enviro and Lend Lease.
Erosion and Sediment Control Demonstration Facility

4. Meet with practitioners
Identify barriers to use
Address barriers with research and by working with industry and decision
makers.
Erosion and Sediment Control Demonstration Facility

5. Erosion and Sediment Control
Demonstration Facility
Extension of previous research with Dr Rob
Loch - Optimising Turf Use to Minimise Soil
Erosion on Construction Sites

6. Optimising Turf Use to Minimise Soil Erosion on
Construction Sites
Four main areas:
Study of hydraulic roughness of different turf types;
Measurement of sediment trapping;
Assessment of potential tunnelling under turf strips of various ages;
Assessment of rates of root development in turf and impact of season on
initial root development.

7. Results
Hydraulic roughness of different turf types? (Hydraulic
roughness is the measure of the amount of frictional
resistance water experiences when passing over land
features).
Showed increasing Manning’s n values as turf height
increased (i.e. decreased velocity)
Sediment trapping capacity?
Turf was highly effective in trapping particles
>0.05mm and able to cause some reduction in the
0.02 – 0.05mm range.
Turf will trap sediment sizes capable of moving
through some silt fences/barriers.

8. Results - Sediment trapping
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4
T im e ( m in )
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
TotalSediment(g/L)
I n le t
O u t le t

9. Tunnelling?
• Tunnel erosion potential and
undermining of turf was not present
and was able to handle large flows
within 8 days
Root development differences and
seasonal impacts?
• Little observable difference between
species in summer but green couch,
kikuyu and to lesser extent blue
couch, faster to establish in winter
Results

10. 1. A role for turf to control erosion by firstly
reducing detachment

11. Erosion control
• turf on slopes up to 33% gradient; turfgrass
seed could be promoted for steeper slopes.
• in channels with flow velocities >1.5 m/s;
Recommendations/specifications:

12. 2. And trapping sediment

13. Sediment control
•turf can enhance or replace sediment fences;
•preferred strip width of ≥2 m
•varying species depending on season is an option.

15. Could be considered as an option

16. Could be better option - functionality

17. Could be better option – safety and aesthetics

18. Works well in conjunction with other measures

19. Erosion demonstration facility

20. •Six bays in total, bays are 3mx10m (30m2
)
•Water runs on sheet flow
•2L /sec
•8% slope
•To the outfall trough
•Water is timed running across the plot
•Samples are collected at 1 min intervals
•Turbidity measures taken to illustrate
differences
Erosion demonstration bays

21. Erosion channel (video then 10:45)
•Demonstrate sediment movement and
deposition in faster flows
•90 meters long
•500mm deep
•10-15 L/sec
•Snakes down the slope starting with a 1%
slope along the top, coming round a bend at
3-4% slope and running down the hill at 8%
toward the end

22. Information packs

23. Or search for
Erosion and Sediment Control