Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

In NJ Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, the reliability of the model for demonstrating off-site stability (non-erosive velocities for point discharges) is limited to 10 cfs for the 25-year storm.  Does anyone know the basis for this limitation?

We have a project where our discharge is 17 cfs for the 25-year storm and have no means for splitting into two discharge points.  We meet every other standard for demonstrating off-site stability.

RE: Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

You mention a limiting Q, but the goal parameter is stated to be velocity.  Q by itself does not lead to erosion, v and shear do.  

Spread out the discharge via level spreader, and show permissible v and shear for the liner type.

Discuss this with the reviewer first; nothing works until it clears the reviewer.

Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”

RE: Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

That was the point we made.  The Standards, however, indicate that the model is unreliable if Q25 is greater than 10 cfs.  Additionally, "level spreaders are not considered to be an acceptable design".

I am looking for what "model" predicates the standard that 10 cfs is the maximum Q25.

RE: Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

I have no idea.  Here in neighboring PA, we have no such "standard".  I've been doing E&S here for 5 years.

Why are level spreaders out?  In PA, they are recommended in the E&S Manual.  Go here, page 97:

Also, if post <= pre, you can't legally be prohibited from releasing runoff which currently goes there.  So, unless you are changing watersheds (putting more water than before to that point), you have to be allowed to release any amount...10 cfs, 17 cfs, 1000 cfs...the amount is not relevant.  If you have added to the watershed, then you have to cut it back to pre.

Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”

RE: Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

I agree with IHA.
You state:
The Standards, however, indicate that the model is unreliable if Q25 is greater than 10 cfs.

How was that determined and under what assumptions?

If the model is unreliable under those conditions, why were the results accepted?

RE: Demonstrate Off-Site Stability


That is MY question.  I am questioning how the State Standards were developed and why they say the model is unreliable.  We meet permissible velocities, etc. but our Q25 exceeds 10 cfs and therefore, they have stated that we don't meet off-site stability.

I wanted to know if anyone else in NJ has run into similar situation and has any info on the "model".


RE: Demonstrate Off-Site Stability

The answer lies with the agency that accepted the standards. They obviously did not develop the standards.
"They" have the background material ( technical meetings, documents, etc) that led to the approval. In most cases , many of these folks are long gone, but there may be someone who uses these models regularly within the agency.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close