| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北科技大學 === 土木工程系土木與防災碩士班 === 105 === ASTM on the Rolled Erosion Control Products (RECPs) of the functionality, have set a unified specification, in accordance with the conditions of the operation is not the same, and there are different experimental methods, respectively, for storms and runoff, river erosion etc. There are clear experimental specifications. At present, The ability of RECPs have been evaluated by ASTM D7207 and ASTM D6460 to resist shear and resistance to strom runoff, respectively. Both of them are expressly specified in the test operation, and each test is subjected to 30 minutes, and if the accumulated erosion depth of the soil reaches 0.5 in (12.7 mm) during the operation, it will be discontinued and considered to be destroyed. In addition, the two specifications for sand, loam,and clay particles are clearly defined range.
Therefore, in order to explore the difference between the soil and the ASTM soil, the soil properties of the soil were different from those of the Geomesh, and the cumulative erosion depth of the soil was 0.5 in (12.7 mm), and the critical flow rate to the range of failure flow rate. In this study, a series of the tangential water flow resistance tests were carried out by arranging the sand soils specified by ASTM and compared with the general sand treated by Lin and Wu. The results were as follows: (1) The impact of the two soils on the impact of the critical flow rate and failure flow rate is similar, showing a low impact of soil properties; (2) The cumulative depth of soil erosion at failure flow rate is much lower than that of ASTMs accumulated soil erosion depth of 0.5 in (12.7 mm), indicating that the damage is not the same.
|
|---|
