Menu
Menu
Soilworks products are the industry’s top standard due to our insistence on creating high performance soil stabilization and dust control products that stand up to rigorous testing – both in the lab and in the field. Our commitment to quality and performance has led to our involvement and testing in hundreds of real-world situations. The following library of reports, presentations, specifications, approvals and other similar documents provide you, our customer, the transparency and dependable assurance that is expected from Soilworks.
UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
DUST CONTROL FOR ROADS, AIRFIELDS, AND ADJACENT AREAS
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
DUST CONTROL FOR ROADS, AIRFIELDS, AND ADJACENT AREAS
Any copyrighted material included in this UFC is identified at its point of use. Use of the copyrighted material apart from this UFC must have the permission of the copyright holder.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Preparing Activity)
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER SUPPORT AGENCY
Record of Changes (changes are indicated by \1\ … /1/)
| Change No. | Date | Location |
This UFC supersedes TM 5-830-3, dated 30 September 1987. The format of this UFC does not conform to UFC 1-300-01; however, the format will be adjusted to conform at the next revision. The body of this UFC is the previous TM 5-830-3, dated 30 September 1987.
FOREWORD
\1\
The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) system is prescribed by MIL-STD 3007 and provides planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria, and applies to the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities in accordance with USD(AT&L) Memorandum dated 29 May 2002. UFC will be used for all DoD projects and work for other customers where appropriate. All construction outside of the United States is also governed by Status of forces Agreements (SOFA), Host Nation Funded Construction Agreements (HNFA), and in some instances, Bilateral Infrastructure Agreements (BIA.) Therefore, the acquisition team must ensure compliance with the more stringent of the UFC, the SOFA, the HNFA, and the BIA, as applicable.
UFC are living documents and will be periodically reviewed, updated, and made available to users as part of the Services’ responsibility for providing technical criteria for military construction. Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA) are responsible for administration of the UFC system. Defense agencies should contact the preparing service for document interpretation and improvements. Technical content of UFC is the responsibility of the cognizant DoD working group. Recommended changes with supporting rationale should be sent to the respective service proponent office by the following electronic form: Criteria Change Request (CCR). The form is also accessible from the Internet sites listed below.
UFC are effective upon issuance and are distributed only in electronic media from the following source:
Hard copies of UFC printed from electronic media should be checked against the current electronic version prior to use to ensure that they are current.
AUTHORIZED BY:
|
DONALD L. BASHAM, P.E. Chief, Engineering and Construction U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
DR. JAMES W WRIGHT, P.E. Chief Engineer Naval Facilities Engineering Command |
|
KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, P.E. The Deputy Civil Engineer DCS/Installations & Logistics Department of the Air Force |
Dr. GET W. MOY, P.E. Director, Installations Requirements and Management Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) |
2
ARMY TM 5-830-3
AIR FORCE AFM 88-17, CHAP. 3
TECHNICAL MANUAL
DUST CONTROL FOR ROADS, AIRFIELDS, AND ADJACENT AREAS
DEPA RT M ENT S O F T H E A R M Y A ND T H E A I R FO RCE
30 SEPTEMBER 1987
REPRODUCTION AUTHORIZATION/RESTRICTIONS
Reprints or republications of this manual should include a credit substantially as follows: “Joint Departments of the Army and Air Force USA, Technical Manual TM 5-830-3/AFM 88-17, Chapter 3, Dust Control for Roads, Airfields, and Adjacent Areas, 30 September 1987.”
TECHNICAL MANUAL HEADQUARTERS
No. 5-830-3 DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY
AIR FORCE MANUAL AND THE AIR FORCE
AFM 88-17, CHAPTER 3 WASHINGTON, DC, 30 SEPTEMBER 1987
| DUST CONTROL FOR ROADS, AIRFIELDS, AND ADJACENT AREAS | |||
|
Chapter |
1. INTRODUCTION |
Paragraph |
Page |
| Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………………. | 1-1 | 1-1 | |
| Scope ……………………………………………………………………………………………. | 1-2 | 1-1 | |
| Definition and cause………………………………………………………………………… | 1-3 | 1-1 | |
| Factors influencing dust …………………………………………………………………… | 1-4 | 1-2 | |
| Environmental factors ……………………………………………………………………… | 1-5 | 1-2 | |
| Chapter | 2. FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
General …………………………………………………………………………………………. |
2-1 |
2-1 |
| Intensity of area use………………………………………………………………………… | 2-2 | 2-1 | |
| Topography ……………………………………………………………………………………. | 2-3 | 2-2 | |
| Soil type…………………………………………………………………………………………. | 2-4 | 2-2 | |
| Soil surface feature …………………………………………………………………………. | 2-5 | 2-2 | |
| Climate ………………………………………………………………………………………….. | 2-6 | 2-3 | |
| Chapter | 3. DUST CONTROL METHODS
General …………………………………………………………………………………………. |
3-1 |
3-1 |
| Agronomic method ………………………………………………………………………….. | 3-2 | 3-1 | |
| Surface penetration method……………………………………………………………… | 3-3 | 3-2 | |
| Admix method ………………………………………………………………………………… | 3-4 | 3-5 | |
| Surface blanket method …………………………………………………………………… | 3-5 | 3-7 | |
| Chapter | 4. DUST PALLIATIVES
General …………………………………………………………………………………………. |
4-1 |
4-1 |
| Selection ……………………………………………………………………………………….. | 4-2 | 4-1 | |
| Application rates……………………………………………………………………………… | 4-3 | 4-2 | |
| Placement ……………………………………………………………………………………… | 4-4 | 4-3 | |
| Dilution ………………………………………………………………………………………….. | 4-5 | 4-3 | |
| Prewet …………………………………………………………………………………………… | 4-6 | 4-4 | |
| Cure ……………………………………………………………………………………………… | 4-7 | 4-8 | |
| Chapter | 5. ECONOMICS
General …………………………………………………………………………………………. |
5-1 |
5-1 |
| Economic factors ……………………………………………………………………………. | 5-2 | 5-1 | |
| Final selection ………………………………………………………………………………… | 5-3 | 5-3 | |
| Appendix A. | REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….. | A-1 | |
| Appendix B. | CONTROL OF WINDBORNE SAND …………………………………………………. | B-1 | |
| Bibliography | …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. | Biblio-1 | |
*This manual supersedes TM 5-830-3/AFM 88-17, Chap. 3.30 September 1974.
i
|
Figure |
LIST OF FIGURES |
Page |
| 1-1. | Three examples of typical dust clouds ………………………………………………………………….. | 1-3 |
| 3-1. | Special distributor for the three-step process for applying the | |
| DCA 1295 …………………………………………………………………………………………………… | 3-9 | |
| 3-2. | Rolling frame for placing polypropylene fabric over the first coat of | |
| asphalt emulsion ………………………………………………………………………………………….. | 3-9 | |
| 3-3. | Polypropylene membrane layout for tangential sections………………………………………….. | 3-10 |
| 3-4. | Polypropylene membrane layout for curved sections………………………………………………. | 3-10 |
| 5-1. | Typical pump modifications for conventional asphalt distributor ……………………………….. | 5-2 |
| B-1. | Types of fixed sand dunes ………………………………………………………………………………….. | B-2 |
| B-2. | Types of moving sand dunes ………………………………………………………………………………. | B-3 |
| B-3. | Cross section of dune showing initial and subsequent fences………………………………….. | B-4 |
| B-4. | Three fences installed to control dune formation ……………………………………………………. | B-4 |
| B-5. | Three types of solid fencing or paneling for control of | |
| dune formation. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. | B-5 | |
| B-6. | Schematic of dune destruction or stabilization by selective | |
| treatment…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. | B-6 | |
|
Table |
LIST OF TABLES |
Page |
| 4-1. | Dust Palliative Numbers for Dust Control in Nontraffic Area…………………………………….. | 4-2 |
| 4-2. | Dust Palliative Numbers for Dust Control in Occasional | |
| Traffic Area …………………………………………………………………………………………………. | 4-3 | |
| 4-3. | Dust Palliative Numbers for Dust Control in Traffic Area …………………………………………. | 4-4 |
| 4-4. | Dust Palliative Electives ……………………………………………………………………………………… | 4-5 |
ii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This manual provides guidance for dust control methods and materials that can be used successfully at airfields and heliports to stop dust from forming naturally or as a result of man’s activities and to control dust in areas directly impacted by man’s activities. Dust develops naturally in denuded or sparsely vegetated areas and in most unpaved, sparsely vegetated areas occupied by man. (Man’s activities may be detrimental to existing vegetation and create a dust problem.) Dust is created in unsurfaced areas subjected to concentrated foot or vehicular traffic, and is usually a problem on shoulders of surfaced airport and heliport traffic areas. Dust control becomes desirable when man needs to occupy land areas adjacent to the dust producing areas or is required to conceal military activities. The control of dust is also an important factor to consider for lengthening the life of vehicles and their engines.
This manual discusses dust control methods and materials that have proven effective for treating soil surfaces to reduce dust; provides suggestions for rates and methods of application of materials for various soil types and environmental conditions; and discusses factors, such as availability, curing time, durability, logistics, and economics, that may be significant in the ultimate choice of material. Army and Air Force Regulations that implement the requirements for environmental quality are found in appendix A, and economic solutions for dust control of very large areas with little or no vegetation and no direct impact from man are presented in appendix B.
The term “dust” can be defined simply as particles of soil that have become airborne. As a general rule, dust consists mainly of soil particles finer than 0.074 millimeter (i.e., passing the No. 200 sieve as described in ASTM E 11). Dust is produced whenever the outside force(s) acting on a soil particle exceeds the force(s) holding it in place. Dust may occur naturally from the force of wind although the production of dust is accelerated in areas of soil experiencing actual physical abrasion caused by the environment or man’s activities. Other terms unique to this manual are listed and defined as follows:
channelized traffic by vehicles, aircraft, or personnel. Typical areas include: roadways and vehicle parking areas; walkways; open storage areas; construction sites; runways, taxiways, shoulders, overruns, and parking areas of airfields; runways, taxiways, taxi- hover lanes, and landing and parking pads of heliports.
by propeller or jet air-craft, and shoulders, hover lanes, and peripheral areas of heliports and helipads.
The presence of dust-size particles in a soil does not necessarily indicate a dust problem or severity of the dust problem that will result in various situations. Some of the factors that contribute to the formation, severity, and endurance of dust include soil texture and structure,
soil moisture content, soil density, presence of salts or organic matter in the soil, smoothness of the ground surface, vegetative cover, wind velocity and direction, and humidity. Depending on these factors an external force imposed on a ground surface will generate volumes of dust of varying density, size, and height above ground which are referred to as dust clouds. Figure 1-1 shows three typical dust clouds. Dust clouds may be generated by drafts of moving air from windstorms, aircraft engines, or ground vehicles which not only produce drafts of moving air but also abrade the soil surface.
The selection and use of adjust control method and a dust palliative should consider applicable safety, health, and environmental requirements. Material compliance with existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and regulations should be required for all peacetime applications.
Figure 1-1. Three examples of typical dust clouds.
1-3
CHAPTER 2
FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION
A wide selection of dust palliatives for dust control is available to the engineer; however, no one material can be singled out as being the most acceptable for all situations. The successful control of dust and erosion in an area depend on several factors, the most important of which are:
-Intensity of area use.
-Topography.
-Soil type.
-Soil surface feature(s).
-Climate.
The areas requiring treatment should be divided according to the. amount of traffic expected: those with no traffic, with occasional traffic, and with channelized traffic (i.e., roadway or taxiway). Where the extent of traffic can be predicted or regulated, significant savings in time and material(s) may be realized by adjusting the type and amount of treatment an area receives according to use.
-Graded construction areas.’
-Denuded areas around the periphery of completed construction projects.
-Areas .bordering airfield or heliport complexes.
-Protective petroleum, oil and lubricant (PQL) dikes.
-Magazine embankments of ammunition storage barricades.
-Bunkers and revetments.
-Cantonment, warehouse, storage, and housing
areas, excluding walkways and roadways.
-Unimproved grounds.
-Areas experiencing windborne sand (see app B).
-Shoulders and overruns of airfields.
-Shoulders, hover lanes, and peripheral areas of heliports and helipads.
-Areas mentioned in 2-2a where occasional traffic becomes necessary.
-Roadways and vehicle parking areas.
-Walkways.
-Open storage areas.
-Construction sites.
–Runways, taxiways, shoulders.
*The method(s) and dust palliatives recommended for occasional traffic (table 4-2) are known to be effective for ground surface airblast and temperature of 80 mph and 120°F respectively.
overruns, and parking areas of airfields.
-Runways, taxiways, taxi-hover lanes, and landing and parking pads of heliports.
-Tank trails.
Economic analysis of the cost to maintain an unsurfaced road versus the costs associated with a paved surface road indicates the break-even point occurs at a traffic level of approximately 100 vehicles per day. A durable riding surface such as an asphalt mixture or portland cement concrete should be considered when unpaved roads are trafficked by 100 or more vehicles per day. Where these areas are considered permanent, they should be treated as specified in existing Army and Air Force publications.
control depends on the type of traffic expected, etc.; however, the final dust palliative selected may be affected by the slope. For example, liquid dust control materials may tend to flow instead of penetrate or form a protective cover over the dusty area.
The soil type is one of the key features used to determine which method and material should be used for dust control. Soils to be treated for dust control have been placed into five general descriptive groupings based On the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), MIL-STD-619B.
little or no fines). The highly permeable sands or gravelly sands contain little or no fines encompassing USCS types SW-SM, SP, and SW.
Soil surface features refer to both the state of compaction and degree of saturation of the soil in the area being considered.
regardless of the expected traffic. The soil surface features described in paragraph b and d cannot be treated and do not need treatment for dust control in the stated condition. Normal earth moving methods can be employed in most situations to upgrade dust producing areas to the condition described in paragraph c.
2-3
CHAPTER 3
DUST CONTROL METHODS
This chapter describes several types of dust palliatives that are commercially available; special care that must be used with a dust palliative; type of traffic areas where a dust palliative is applicable; and references as to where more details on the proper use and application of the dust palliative can be obtained. Each dust control method should be considered in relation to the specific job requirements. The four general dust control treatment methods commonly used are:
-Agronomic.
-Surface penetrant.
-Admix.
-Surface blanket.
The surface penetrant and surface blanket methods are the easiest to apply. Application of either method requires a material placement procedure (i.e., spreading aggregate or membrane over the area) or a material spraying procedure. One of these two methods will probably suffice for the majority of dust control cases. The other two methods are much more involved and require more time and equipment to implement., The agronomic method requires a knowledge of the indigenous vegetation and access to farm type equipment. The admix method requires standard road building techniques using construction equipment.
Application may require specific handling, equipment,
and procedures. The manufacturer’s precautions should be adhered to with the use of personnel protective equipment (masks, safety glasses, gloves, etc.) as required.
shelter belts, and rough-tillage. It includes such items as seeding, sprigging, sodding, topsoiling, fertilizing, mulching, and disking. Agronomic methods are not normally prescribed for traffic areas.
vegetative material .can be used to stabilize soil against wind and water erosion. Mulch refers to any substance, such as straw, hay, paper, or brushwood, that is spread over the ground surface to protect it from the wind. Vegetative mulches are normally effective for 1 year and can be applied during any season. Mulches are normally spread by either a beater or blower type, spreader. The blower type has the advantage in that it is
normally equipped with an asphalt spraying mechanism for anchoring the mulch. It can place the mulch and asphalt at the same time and at considerable distance from the operating location. Otherwise, anchoring is normally accomplished with either a disk packer or V- tread rolling wheel packer. Rapid curing (RC) cutbacks or rapid setting (RS) asphalt emulsions are normally used for anchoring, since they are more effective than the slower curing materials. In an emergency, vegetative mulch can be anchored by applying a jet of water to bury part of the mulch in the soil. About 2,000 gallons of water per acre is needed to provide maximum anchorage. Mulch is undesirable around airports since it may be ingested into jet engines. Further details on the recommended uses and methods of applying a wide variety of mulches are discussed in TM 5-830-2/AFM 88- 17, Chapter 2; TM 5-630/AFM 126-2; and Department of Agriculture Hand- book No. 346.
shrubs, or trees high and dense enough to protect facilities and unsurfaced soil areas is considered to be a shelter belt or windbreak. Shelter belts should be placed at right angles to the direction of the prevailing wind. Several parallel shelter belts may be required and usually the higher the average wind velocity the closer the shelter belts should be spaced. While such shelter belts can serve occupied areas, their practical applicability solely for dust control is limited. Trees are slow to become established, and additional soil treatment between tree belts is usually required. Finally, in semiarid regions, where shelter belts or windbreaks are most highly valued, trees often cannot be sustained without irrigation. Notwithstanding the above limitations, shelter belts can supplement other dust-control measures by reducing wind velocity. The use of shelter belts are recommended wherever they do not interfere with the intended area activities.
plows are used to till strips across nontraffic areas that have become sources of dust. Several strips are placed in parallel as an emergency measure to control dust in
semiarid regions. The soil should be cohesive enough to produce soil clods (lumps of earth with a minimum dimension of 1 inch measured in any direction). Strips should be tilled at 25- to 100-foot intervals at right angles to the prevailing wind. As the strips become smooth through erosion, new strips should be plowed adjacent to the earlier ones. The success of this method depends upon the formation of a cloddy, rough surface that breaks up the sweep of soil particles. Tillage of dry soil typical of desert areas sometimes may be harmful rather than beneficial to dust control if a cloddy surface is not produced. Rough tillage is normally considered a temporary control measure to be followed by permanent vegetative cover, but it sometimes can be sufficient as the only treatment if traffic is excluded from the area and the native vegetation is capable of regeneration. Disk- type tillage tools generally should not be used for rough tillage as they tend to pulverize the soil too much (i.e., soil clods are not formed). However, if long narrow grooves are created which would channel runoff water, the tillage should be laid out on horizontal contours to prevent water damage.
In the surface penetration method, the dust palliative, a liquid, is applied directly on the soil surface by spraying or sprinkling and allowed to penetrate the surface under its own accord. Surface penetration applications may be accomplished with a liquid pressure distributor, by a gravity-flow water distributor, or by hand-held devices. The spray apparatus should be positioned directly above the area being treated (8-14 inches) to preclude, wind- drift. Runoff should be avoided (if necessary by decreasing the application rate or applying the dust palliative at one-half the recommended rate and repeating the treatment later).
surface penetration method depends on the depth of penetration which is a function of the viscosity of the dust
palliative and the permeability of the soil. Penetration is facilitated by sprinkling (prewetting) the surface with water prior to applying the dust palliative. This procedure reduces surface tension and helps assure a uniform coverage and maximum penetration.
viscosity. The RC and SC grades of 70 and 250, respectively, and MC grades of 30, 70, and 250 are generally used. Regardless of classification or grade the best results are obtained by preheating the cutback. Spraying temperatures usually range from 120 to 300 degrees Fahrenheit. The actual range for a particular cutback is much narrower and should be requested from the supplier at the time of purchase. The user is cautioned that some cutbacks must be heated above their flash point for spraying purposes and therefore no smoking or open flames should be permitted during application or cure. MC-30 grade can be sprayed without being heated if the temperature of the asphalt is 80 degrees Fahrenheit or above. A slightly moist soil surface will assist penetration. Curing time for cutbacks varies with the type. Under favorable ground temperature and weather conditions RC cures in 1 hour, MC in 3 to 6 hours, and SC in 1 to 3 days. In selecting the material for use, local environmental protection regulations must be considered.
emulsions (emulsions) are a blend of asphalt, water, and an emulsifying agent and are available either as ionic or cationic emulsions. The application of emulsions at ambient temperatures of 80 degrees Fahrenheit or above gives the best results. Satisfactory results may be obtained below this temperature, especially if application is made in the morning to permit the warming effects of the afternoon sun to aid in curing. Emulsions should not be placed at temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Emulsions placed at temperatures below freezing will freeze, producing a substandard product. For best results in a freezing environment, emulsions should be heated to between 75 degrees and 130 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature of the material should never exceed the upper heating limit of 185 degrees Fahrenheit because the asphalt and water will separate (break), resulting in material damage. Emulsions generally cure in about 8 hours. The slow setting anionic emulsions of grades SS-1 and SS-1h may be diluted
with 1 to 5 or more parts water to one part emulsified asphalt by volume prior to use. As a general rule, a 3 part water to 1 part emulsion dilution is satisfactory for most applications. The slow-setting cationic emulsions of grades CSS-1 and CSS-1h are easiest to use without dilution. If dilution is desired, the water used must be free of any impurities, minerals, or salts that might cause separation (breaking) of the emulsion within the distribution equipment.
viscous liquids obtained by distillation of crude tars obtained from coal. Tars derived from other basic materials are also available, but are not normally used as soil treatments. Tars are graded by viscosity and available in grades ranging from 1 to 12. Tars are also available in the cutback (RTCB) form of viscosity grades 5 and 6, and in the emulsified form. Tar emulsions are difficult to prepare and handle. The low viscosity grades RT-1 and RT-2 and the RTCB grades can be applied at temperatures as low as 60 degrees Fahrenheit without heating. The tar cutbacks generally have better penetrating characteristics than asphalts and will normally cure in a few hours. Tars will produce excellent surfaces, but curing proceeds very slowly, and several days or even weeks may be required to obtain a completely cured layer. Tars are susceptible to temperature changes and may soften in hot weather or become brittle in cold weather.
(APSB). This commercial product is a special liquid asphalt composed of high penetration grade asphalt and a solvent blend of kerosene and naphtha. It is similar in character to a standard low viscosity, medium curing liquid asphalt, but differs in many specific properties. The APSB is suitable for application to soils that are relatively impervious to conventional liquid asphalts and emulsion systems. Silts and moderately plastic clays (to a plasticity index of 15) can be treated effectively. Curing time for the APSB is 6 to 12 hours under favorable ground temperature and weather conditions. On high plasticity solids (plasticity index greater than 15), the
material will remain on the surface as an asphalt film that is tacky at a ground temperature of approximately 100 degrees Fahrenheit and above. The APSB must be heated to a temperature between 130 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit to permit spraying with an asphalt distributor.
manufacture of wood pulp. It is soluble in water and therefore readily penetrates the soil. Its solubility also makes it susceptible to leaching from the soil; thus application is repeated as necessary after rainfall. Lignin is readily available in the continental United States and certain other sections of the world, and has utility in areas where dust control is desirable for short periods of time. It is not recommended for use where durability is, an important factor. Application at a rate of 1 gallon per square yard of a resinous solution of 8 percent solid lignin sulphite is recommended.
have been used with varying success as dust palliatives. Dry calcium chloride is deliquescent and is effective when the relative humidity is about 30 percent or greater. A calcium chloride treated soil will retain more moisture than the untreated soil under comparable drying conditions. Its use is limited to occasional traffic areas. Sodium chloride achieves some dust control by retaining moisture and also by some cementing from salt crystallization. Both calcium chloride and sodium chloride are soluble in water and are readily leached from the soil surface; thus frequent maintenance is required. Continued applications of salt solutions can ultimately build up a thin, crusted surface that will be fairly hard and free of dust. Most salts are corrosive to metal and should not be stored in the vehicle used for application. Magnesium chloride will control dust on gravel roads with tracked vehicle traffic. Best results can be, expected in areas with occasional rainfall or where the humidity is above about 30 percent. The dust palliative selected and the quantity used should not exceed local environmental protection regulations.
temporary measure for allaying; dust, a soil surface can be sprinkled with water. As long as the ground surface remains moist or damp, soil particles will resist becoming airborne. Depending on the soil and climate, frequent treatment may be required. Water should not be applied to clay soil surfaces in such quantity that puddles form, since a muddy or slippery surface may result where the soil remains-wet.
In the admix method, the dust palliative is blended with the soil to produce a uniform mixture. This method takes more effort, time, and equipment than the penetration and surface blanket methods, however, it also increases soil strength.
-Powders – Portland cement, hydrated lime
-Liquids – Bituminous materials including cutback asphalt, emulsified asphalt, and road tars.
construction. For dust control on a nontraffic area, adequate compaction can be achieved by trafficking the entire surface with a 5-ton dual wheel truck. For all other traffic situations the procedure should follow TM 5-822-4. This procedure is time consuming and requires the use of more equipment than the other three. Following placement, admixing, and compaction a minimum of 7 days is required for curing.
type powders (portland cement and hydrated lime) are primarily used to improve the strength of soils. However, when they are admixed with soils in relatively small quantities (2 to 5 percent by dry soil weight), the modified soil is resistant to dusting. Portland cement is generally suited for all soil types, provided uniform mixing can be achieved; whereas hydrated lime is applicable only to soils containing a high percentage of clay. The compacted soil surface should be kept moist for a minimum of 7 days prior to traffic.
materials are more versatile than cementing materials in providing adequate dust control and waterproofing the soil. Cutbacks, emulsion asphalts, and road tars can all be used successfully. The quantities of residual bituminous material used should range from 2 to 3 percent of dry soil weight for soils having less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve to 6 to 8 percent for soils having more than 30 percent fine-grained passing the No. 200 sieve. The presence of mica in a soil is detrimental to the effectiveness of a soil-bituminous material admixture. There are no simple guides or shortcuts for designing mixtures of soil and bituminous materials. The maximum effectiveness of soil- bituminous material admixtures can usually be achieved if the soil characteristics are within the following limits:
Plasticity Index: equal to or
less than 10 Percent of material equal to or passing No. 200 less than
sieve: 30 percent
by weight
These data and additional construction data can be found in TM 5-822-4. Traffic should be detoured around the treated area until the soil-bituminous material admixture has cured.
30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Emulsified asphalts, particularly the cationics, are extremely sensitive. When they (CSS-1 or CSS-1h) are used improperly, the emulsion may break prematurely or after some delay. The slow-setting anionic emulsions of grades are less sensitive.
See also paragraph 3-3c(1)(b).
3-5. Surface- blanket method
This method includes the use of aggregates, prefabricated membranes and mesh, bituminous surface treatments, polyvinyl acetates (with and without fiberglass scrim reinforcement), and polypropylene- asphalt membranes to create a surface blanket for dust control. The type of treatment used will dictate the equipment required. However, standard construction equipment in all cases can be used effectively to place any of the systems applicable to the surface blanket method. Mechanized equipment should be used wherever possible to assure uniformity of treatment.
applicable to nontraffic, occasional traffic, and traffic areas. Aggregate, prefabricated membrane, and mesh treatments are easy to place and can withstand considerable rutting. The other surface blanket methods will only withstand minimal rutting. Once a surface blanket treatment is torn or otherwise compromised, and the soil exposed, subsequent traffic or airblast will increase the damage to the torn surface blanket while producing dust from the exposed soil. Repairs (maintenance) should begin as soon as possible to protect the material in place and keep the dust controlled. Three types of materials may be used as surface blankets:
-Mineral aggregates.
-Synthetics membranes or meshes.
-Liquids Bituminous or polyvinyl acetate liquids.
personnel. Aggregate should be spread in a layer about 2 inches thick and should contain at least 80 percent by weight of particles retained on the 1/4-inch screen. Traffic over aggregate blanketed areas tends to press the material into the soil and pulverize the surface; therefore this treatment is not recommended where channelized traffic is expected.
used to surface an area will control dust and even act as a surface course or riding surface for traffic that does not rut the soil. When subjected to traffic, the membrane can be expected to last approximately 5 years. Minor repairs can be made easily. For optimum anchorage, the membrane should be extended into 2-foot-deep ditches at each edge of the covered area; staked in place and the ditches backfilled. Further details on the use and installation of prefabricated membranes can be obtained from TM 5-330/AFM 86-3, Volume II.
mesh such as commonly used in conjunction with grass seed operations can be used for dust control of nontraffic areas. The mesh should be secured to the soil by burying the edges in trenches and by using large U- shaped staples that are driven flush with the soil surface. A minimum overlap of 3 inches should be used in joining rolls of mesh. After being placed, the mesh and covered soil should be sprayed with a bituminous material. Trial applications are recommended at each site and should be adjusted to suit each job situation.
double bituminous surface treatments can be used to control dust on most soils. A medium-curing liquid asphalt is ordinarily used to prime the soil prior to placement of the surface treatment. Fine-grained soils are generally primed with MC-30, and coarse-grained soils with MC-70. After the prime coat has cured, a bituminous material is uniformly applied and gravel, slag, or stone aggregate spread over the treated area at approximately 25 pounds of aggregate per square yard.
Types of bituminous materials, aggregate gradations, application rates, and methods of placing surface treatments are described in TM 5-822-8/AFM 88-6, Chapter 9. Single or double bituminous surface treatments should not be used where turf is to be established.
Figure 3-1. Special distributor for the three-step process of applying the DCA 1295.
Figure 3-2. Rolling frame for placing polypropylene fabric over the first coat of asphalt emulsion.
process on tangential sections. Application of polypropylene on roadway curves requires cutting and
placing the fabric as shown in figure 3-4. The joints in curved areas should be overlapped a minimum of 24 inches.
Figure 3-3. Polypropylene membrane layout for tangential sections.
Figure 3-4. Polypropylene membrane layout for curved sections.
3-10
CHAPTER 4
DUST PALLIATIVES
Many materials exist that are suitable as dust palliatives for each of the four major methods given in this manual. The selection of a- dust control procedure limits the number of applicable dust palliatives. For example the use of vegetation would obviously only apply to the agronomic method. However, some dust palliatives will not penetrate a fine grained clay and must act as a surface blanket while the same material readily penetrates coarse grained sand and gravel and consequently acts as a surface penetrant. Tables 4-1 through 4-4 were developed as aids for selecting a material. These tables present dust palliatives and methods proven effective through test and analysis and/or satisfactory service in actual use. The dust palliatives and dust control methods are not listed in any order of priority; the selection is left to the designer. All listed dust palliatives in table 4-4 are available commercially in the continental United States. The application rates and the anticipated service life presented represent the best estimate available. The numbers listed in vertical columns in tables 4-1:through 4-3 represent dust palliatives. The columns are interrupted by horizontal lines to separate each dust control method. Each column appears directly below the particular soil type/soil condition applicable. Where no column of numbers is present, no dust palliative for that particular dust control method is recommended. For
Table 4-1. Dust palliative numbers for dust control in nontraffic area.
*Hillside (ref para 2-3) applications for liquid dust palliatives should be reduced by half and then repeated if necessary to avoid runoff/waste.
example, a dust palliative is not recommended for the agronomic method for a loose, sand soil with no binder nor is a dust palliative recommended for the surface penetration of a firm, clay soil (tables 4-1 and 4-2). Also the agronomic method of dust control is not recommended for any traffic area (table 4-3). The column of numbers representing dust palliatives identified in numerical order and separated by dust control method in table 4-4. Included in table 4-4 is the suggested rates of application for each dust palliative; gallon per square yard for liquid spray on applications, gallon per square yard per inch for liquid (or pound per square yard per inch for powders) admix applications.
The application rates should be considered estimates as stated above. Unfortunately the admix method and
Table 4-2. Dust palliative numbers for dust control in occasional traffic area.
*Hillside (ref para 2-3) applications for liquid dust palliatives should be reduced by half and then repeated if necessary to avoid runoff/waste.
some surface blanket methods represent, a full commitment. Should failure occur after selection and placement, the, only, recourse is to completely; retreat- the failed area which is a lengthy, involved process. However, should failure occur on a section treated with a, liquid, dust palliative, retreatment of the failed area is relatively simple involving only a distributor and operator. A second application is encouraged as soon as it is determined that the initial application rate is not achieving the desired results.
4-4. Placement
No treatment- is suggested for areas containing large dense vegetation and/or large debris. Loose soil in a wet or slurry condition and firm soil that is wet should not be treated (dust problems should not exist in any of-these areas). However, if- these areas are known dust producers when dry, they should be dried or conditioned and then treated.
Several dilution ratios are mentioned for some liquid dust palliatives. The ratios are presented as volume of
Table 4-3. Dust palliative numbers for dust control in traffic area.
NOTE: Numbers refer to palliative numbers listed in table 4-4.
* Hillside (ref para 2-3) applications for liquid dust palliatives should be reduced by half and then repeated if necessary to avoid runoff/waste.
** Upgrade to a firm condition.
concentrate to volume of water and should be viewed as a necessary procedure before a particular liquid can be sprayed. The water is a necessary vehicle to get the dust palliative on the ground. The stated application rate is for the dust palliative (only). When high dilution ratios are required to spray adjust palliative, extra care should be taken to prevent the mixture flowing into adjacent areas where, treatment may be unnecessary and/or into drainage ditches. Two or more applications may be necessary to achieve the desired application rate. Considerable time can be saved by first determining the minimum dilution that permits a dust palliative to be sprayed.
All liquid dust palliatives present a better finished product when they are sprayed over an area that has been prewet with water. The actual amount of prewet water varies but usually ranges from 0.03 to 0.15 gallons per square yard. The prewet water should not-be allowed to pond on the surface and all exposed soil should be completely dampened. The performance of brine materials is enhanced by increasing the amount of prewet water two to three times the usual recommendation. However the water should not be allowed to pond, and the fine sized particles should not be washed away.
Table 4-4. Dust palliative electives.
Palliative Estimatedc
Number Materiala Rate of Application b Service Life
AGRONOMIC METHOD
and AR 420-74
and AR 420-74
SURFACE PENETRANT METHOD
Bituminous Materials
Cutback asphalt
Emulsified asphalt
| 8 SS or CSS | 0.33 | 4-6 | |
| 9 SS or CSS | 0.50 | 1-3 | |
| 10 SS or CSS
Road tar and road tar cutback |
0.50 | 1 | |
|
11 |
RT grades 1-6, RTCB grades 5-6 |
0.33 |
2-4 |
| 12 | 0.50 | 5-7 | |
| 13 | 0.50 | 2-4 | |
| 14 | 0.50 | 1-2 | |
| 15 | Asphalt penetrative soil binder (APSB) | 0.33 | 5-8 |
| 16 | APSB | 0.50 | 5-8 |
| 17 | APSE | 0.50 | 1-4 |
Resinous Materials
| 18 | Resin in water emulsion | 0.50 | 3-9 |
| 19 | Resin in water emulsion | 0.50 | 1-3 |
| 20 | Lignin (8X solids) | 0.50 | 1-3 |
| 21 | Concrete curing compound | 0.33 | 1-3 |
| Brine Materials | |||
| 22 | Salt in water emulsion | 0.33 | 10-14 |
| 23 | Salt in water emulsion | 0.50 | 8-12 |
(Continued)
aUsers must insure that materials comply with existing EPA regulations for the intended use.
bRate of application in gallons per square yard unless otherwise noted.
cEstimated service life in months unless otherwise noted.
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Palliative Estimatedc
Number Materiala Rate of Application b Service Life
SURFACE PENETRANT METHOD (Continued)
| 24 Salt in water emulsion | 0.67 | 6-12 |
| 25 Water | 0.25 | 1 hr |
| 26 Water | 0.33 | 1 hr |
| 27 Water | 0.50 | 1 hr |
| ADMIX METHOD* | ||
| Cementing Materials | ||
| 28 Portland cement | 1.5 lb per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 29 Portland cement | 2.5 lb per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 30 Portland cement | 4.0 lb per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 31 Hydrated lime | 1.5 lb per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 32 Hydrated lime | 2.5 lb per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 33 Hydrated lime | 4.0 lb per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| Bituminous Materials |
Cutback asphalt
| 34 | SC, MC, RC; grades 70-250 | 0.15 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 35 | SC, MC, RC; grades 70-250 | 0.25 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 36 | SC, MC, RC; grades 70-250 | 0.40 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
Emulsified asphalt
| 37 SS-or CSS | 0.10 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 38 SS or CSS | 0.30 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 39 SS or CSS | 0.50 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| Road tar and road tar cutback | ||
| 40 RT grades 1-6; RTCB grades 5-6 | 0.15 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
| 41 RT grades 1-6; RTCB grades 5-6 | 0.25 gal per sq yd per in, | 4-6 |
| 42 RT grades 1-6; RTCB grades 5-6 | 0.40 gal per sq yd per in. | 4-6 |
SURFACE BLANKET METHOD
| 43 Aggregates | 2 in. thick | 2-3 yr |
| 44 Prefabricated membrane | 1 layer | 3-6 |
| 45 Prefabricated membrane | 1 layer | 6-9 |
| 46 Prefabricated membrane | 1 layer | 4-5 yr |
| 47 Fabricated mesh | 1 layer | 9-12 |
| 48 Bituminous surface treatment | 0.15 prime; 0.25-0.35 cover | 1-2 yr |
(Continued)
*Suggested minimum thickness, 4 inches. See TM 5-331A and TM 5-822-4.
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Table 4-4. (Concluded)
Palliative Estimatedc
Number Materiala Rate of Application b Service Life
SURFACE BLANKET METHOD (Continued)
| 49 Bituminous surface treatment | 0.25 prime; 0.25-0.35 cover | 4-6 | |
| 50 Bituminous surface treatment | 0.40 prime; 0.25-0.35 cover | 4-6 | |
| 51 Polyvinyl Acetate (DCA 1295) | 0.33 | 8-12 | |
| diluted 3 parts concentrate | |||
| to 1 part water
52 DCA 1295 diluted 3 parts |
0.50 |
4-8 |
|
| concentrate to 1 part water | |||
| 53 DCA 1295 diluted 3 parts concentrate | 0.67 | 3-4 | |
| to 1 part water | |||
| 54 | DCA 1295 diluted 3 parts concentrate | 0.33 | 8-16 |
|
55 |
to 1 part water with fiberglass reinforcing
DCA 1295 diluted 3 parts concentrate |
0.50 |
4-12 |
|
56 |
to 1 part water with fiberglass reinforcing
DCA 1295 diluted 3 parts concentrate |
0.67 |
3-6 |
| to 1 part water with fiberglass reinforcing | |||
| 57 Polypropylene-Asphalt Membrane | 0.67 | 4-6 | |
| 58 Polypropylene-Asphalt Membrane | 0.67 | 8-12 | |
| 59 Polypropylene-Asphalt Membrane | 0.67 | 1-2 yr | |
| 60 Polypropylene-Asphalt Membrane | 0.83 | 4-6 | |
| 61 Polypropylene-Asphalt Membrane | 0.83 | 8-12 | |
| 62 Polypropylene-Asphalt Membrane | 0.83 | 1-2 yr | |
(Sheet 3 of 3)
4-7. Cure
Most liquid dust palliatives require a cure period. DCA 1295 dries on the soil surface to form a clear film. The cure time varies depending on the weather at the time of placement but averages around 4 hours. Cure is complete when the in-place material becomes dry to the touch. Brine materials do not require a cure period and
traffic can begin immediately following placement. Some bituminous materials are ready for traffic as soon as the material temperature drops to the ambient temperature. Traffic can begin immediately on the resinous material Coherex; when it dries (in several months) its effectiveness is lessened considerably.
4-8
CHAPTER 5
ECONOMICS
Dust control is based on many factors and methods. More than one dust palliative is normally found to be satisfactory for the method selected. Economic considerations should determine the dust palliative selected for use.
Economic factors should include, but not limited to, the following items:
-Initial cost of the dust palliative(s) at site.
-Equipment and labor costs (by method if applicable).
-Maintenance costs (see paragraph 5-2c).
-Material storage costs (if applicable).
-Shipping costs, equipment acquisition/modification costs.
-Area preparation (clearing and grubbing should be expected at all sites).
From these factors, the most economical dust palliative can be determined.
distributor. Bituminous materials lubricate the asphalt distributor pump when they pass through (this is an inherent feature of bituminous materials). In order to spray other types of dust palliatives (polyvinyl acetate, salts, etc.), the asphalt distributor pump should be altered for external lubrication of the pump shaft brushings as shown in figure 5-1. The alteration is estimated to cost less than $400 (1985). Aggregate and membrane costs are best taken from the supplier(s) near the area where dust control is planned. This is especially true for membrane costs. Labor costs associated with these two methods vary according to the size crew employed. The minimum size crew for spraying a dust palliative is one foreman and/or civil engineering technician, one distributor operator, and one laborer. It is possible to contract the application of dust palliatives. Many membrane suppliers will also contract to place their own materials.
c . Maintenance. No dust-control method or dust palliative provides a maintenance-free solution. Indeed, frequent maintenance is usually required.
Figure 5-1. Typical pump modifications for conventional asphalt distributor.
Considerable thought should be directed toward ordering enough material for initial application plus an equal amount for 12 months maintenance. In the case of trafficked areas, maintenance can-be minimized by prohibiting quick stops and sharp turns for all using
vehicles and limiting traffic to essential vehicles only. Tanks and other tracked vehicles will obliterate most dust-control methods employed.
TM 5-830-3/AFM 88-17, Chap. 3
palliatives purchased until they can be applied. Some of the liquid dust palliatives must be protected from freezing temperatures. The manufacture should be consulted prior to purchase for storage information/ requirements. Powders such as lime and cement should be stored in a dry place with low humidity.
sticks and stumps. If possible the area to be treated should be rolled with a rubber tired roller prior to prewetting to compact the soil and help prolong the dust control treatment.
Some of the economic factors outlined in paragraph 5-2 will be difficult to determine with certainty, especially where placement crews have no prior experience with dust palliative placement or, the expected traffic use is not known. However, by considering these factors the final selection of a dust palliative should be easier.
5-3
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
Department of Agriculture
Agriculture Handbook No. 346 Wind Erosion Forces in the United States and Their Use in Predicting Soil Loss (April 1968)
Department of Defense
MIL-STD-619B Unified Soil Classification
System for Roads, Airfields. Embankments, and Foundations
Departments of the Army and Air Force
TM 5-330/AFM 86-3, Vol II Planning and Design of Roads, Airbases, and Heliports in the Theater of Operations
TM 5-630/AFM 126-2 Ground Maintenance and Land Management
TM 5-822-8/AFM 88-6, Chap. 9 Standard Practice Manual for Bituminous Materials in Roads and Airfield Construction
TM 5-822-4, Chap. 4 Soil Stabilization for Pavements
TM 5-830-2/AFM 88-17, Chap. 2 Planting Turf
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103.
E 11-81 Wire Cloth Sieves for
Testing Purposes
A-1
APPENDIX B CONTROL OF WINDBORNE SAND
SECTION I
DESCRIPTION, DEFINITIONS, FORMATION, AND-CONTROL OF DUNES
Many factors, including low rainfall, high evaporation, sparse vegetation, and seasonal winds, contribute to rock weathering and sand, movement. Methods of controlling sand movement have met with varying degrees of success. This appendix summarizes the latest available information on windborne sand control and lists recommended methods of sand movement stoppage and diversion. Marine and river sand movement control are not discussed herein.
Wind is defined as any natural movement of air, whether of high or low velocity, or great or little force. Most regions have a predominant wind direction-some section of the compass from which the wind blows most often and with the greatest velocity. Crosswinds are winds directed at some angle to the predominant wind direction.
A dune is defined as a mound or ridge of windblown material, usually sand, formed in arid regions. Local conditions under which dunes are developed vary widely, and, consequently, there is a broad range in their shape and size. The shape may, assume almost any configuration, and the size may vary from an insignificant lone sand pebble to mounds higher than 100 feet. Some coastal dune formations have reached 1,000 feet in height. The three general types of sand dunes are described below; only the third type requires control.
B-1
Figure B-1. Types of fixed sand dunes
winds form the more typical crescent-shaped or barchan transverse dune (fig B-2d).
After a dune is formed, the predominant wind may blow sand over the crest to the leeward slope. By this migration of particles the dune then moves forward: at a rate depending on wind velocity”, topography, size of dune, and other factors. Along the Bay of Biscay on the west coast of France, duties travel at-fates up to more than 100 feet per year.
B-2
Figure B-2. Types of moving sand dunes
SECTION II CONTROL METHODS
There are-many methods of sand control, with pertain advantages and disadvantage in each method. The methods described below for the stabilization and/or destruction of windborne sand Dunes are the most effective. These methods may be used singularly or in combination.
This method of control employs flexible, portable inexpensive fences to destroy. the symmetry of a dune formation. The fence need not be a solid surface and may -even have 50 percent openings as in snow fencing. Any material such as wood slats, slender poles, stalks, or perforated plastic sheets bound together in any
B-3
manner and attached to vertical or horizontal supports will be adequate. Rolled bundles that can be transported easily are practical. Prefabricated fencing is desirable because it can be erected quickly and economically. Because the wind tends to underscour and undermine the base of any obstacle in its flow path, the fence should be installed about 1 foot above ground level. To maintain the effectiveness of the fencing system, a second fence should be installed on top of the first fence on the crest of the sand accumulation. The entire windward surface of the dune should be stabilized with dust-control materials, such as bituminous material, prior to erecting the first fence. The old fences should not be removed during or after the addition of new fences.
Figure B-3 shows a cross section of a stabilized dune with porous fencing. As long as the fences are in place, the sand will remain trapped. If the fences are removed, the sand will soon move downwind, forming an advancing dune. The proper spacing and number of fences required to protect a specific area can only be determined by trial and observation. Figure B-4 illustrates a three-fence method of control. If the supply of new sand to the dune is eliminated, migration is accelerated and dune volume decreases. As the dune migrates, it may move great distances downwind before it completely dissipates. An upwind fence may be installed to cut off new sand supply if the object to be protected is far downwind of the dune. This distance
Figure B-3. Cross section of dune showing initial and subsequent fences.
Figure B-4. Three fences installed to control dune formation
B-4
usually should be at least four times the width of the dune.
Solid barrier fences of metal, wood, plastic, or masonry can be used to stop or divert sand movement. To stop sand, the barriers should be constructed perpendicular to the wind direction. To divert sand, the panels should be placed obliquely or nearly parallel to the wind. They may be single slant or “V” in pattern (fig B-5). When first erected, paneling appears to give excellent protection. However, panels are not self-cleaning, and the initial accumulations must be promptly removed by mechanical means. If the accumulation is not removed, sand will begin to flow over and around the barrier and soon submerge the object to be protected. Mechanical removal is costly and endless. This method of control is unsatisfactory because of the inefficiency and expense and should be employed only in conjunction with a more permanent control, such as planting, fencing, or using dust palliatives. Equally good protection at less cost is achieved by the fencing method.
Destruction of dune symmetry by spraying bituminous materials at either the center or the ends of the dune is an inexpensive and practical method of sand control. Petroleum resin emulsion and asphalt emulsions have been found to be effective. The desired stickiness of the sand is obtained by diluting 1 part petroleum resin emulsion with 4 parts water and spraying at the rate of
1/2 gallon per square yard. Generally, the object to be protected should be downwind a distance of-at least twice the tip-to-tip width of the dune. The center portion of a barchan dune can be left untreated, or can be treated and the unstabilized portions allowed to reduce in size by wasting. Figure B-6 shows destruction of a typical barchan dune and stabilization depending on the area treated.
Vegetative cover is an excellent method of sand stabilization. The vegetation to be established must often be drought resistant and adapted to the climate and soil. Most vegetative treatments are effective only if the supply of new sand is cut off. Upwind and water, fertilizers, and mulch are used liberally. To prevent the engulfment of the vegetation, the upwind boundaries are protected by fences or dikes, and the seed may be protected by mulch sprayed with a bituminous material. Seed on slopes may be anchored by mulch or matting. Oats and other cereal grasses may be planted as -a fast- growing companion crop to provide protection while slower growing perennial vegetation becomes established. Usually the procedure is to plant clonal plantings followed by shrubs used as an intermediate step, followed by the planting of long-lived trees. There are numerous suitable vegetative treatments for use in different environments. The actual type of vegetation selected should -be chosen by qualified individuals familiar with the type of vegetation that .thrives in the affected area Stabilization by planting has the
Figure B-5. Three types of solid fencing or paneling for control of dune formation
B-5
Figure B-6. Schematic of dune destruction or stabilization by selective treatment
advantages of permanence and environmental enhancement wherever water can be provided for growth.
In small areas, sand may be removed by heavy equipment, but conveyor belts and power-driven wind machines are not recommended because of their complexity and expense. Mechanical removal may be employed only after some other method has been used to prevent the accumulation of more deposits. Except for its use in conjunction with another method of control, the mechanical removal of sand is not practical or economical.
A trench may be cut either transversely or longitudinally across a dune to destroy its symmetry. If the trench is maintained, the dune will be destroyed by wastage. This method has been used successfully in the (Yuma Desert) Arizona highway program, but it is expensive and requires constant inspection and maintenance.
Water may be applied to sand surfaces to prevent sand movement. It is widely used and excellent temporary
treatment. Water is required for establishing vegetative covers. The need for frequent reapplication and an adequate and convenient source constitute two major disadvantages of this method.
Any material that forms a (semi) permanent cover and is immovable by the wind will serve to control dust. Solid covers, though expensive, are excellent protection and can be used over small areas. This method of sand control accommodates pedestrian traffic as well as a minimum amount of vehicular traffic. Blanket covers may be made from bituminous or concrete pavements, prefabricated landing mat, membrane, aggregate, seashells, and saltwater solutions. After placement of any of the above listed materials, a spray application of bituminous material may be required to prevent blanket decomposition and subsequent dust.
Water saturated with sodium chloride or other salts can be applied to sand dunes to control dust. Rainfall will leach salts from the soil in time. During periods of no rainfall and low humidity (below approximately 30 percent) artificial moisture in the form of water may have to be added to the treated area at a rate of 0.10-0.20 gallons per square yard to activate the salt solution.
B-6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bagnold, R. A., “The Movement of Desert Sand.”
Geological Journal, Volume 85, 1935.
Brown, R. L., “Permanent Dune Stabilization with Grasses and Legumes.” Journal of Soil Water Conservation, Volume 3, 1948.
Chapman, V. J., “The Stabilization of Sand Dunes by Vegetation.” Proceedings of Conference on Biology and Civil Engineering, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, 1949.
Culpepper, M. M. and Wilvert, W. A., “Engineer Design Tests of Dust-Control Materials and Emplacement Equipment.” Miscellaneous Paper No. S-72-14. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, June 1972.
Free, E. E., “The Movement of Soil : Material by the Wind.” US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1911.
Hagen, L., -“Fixation of Sand Dunes.” US Army Corps of Engineers, Professional Memoirs, Volume 8, No. 41, 1916.
Headquarters, Department of Army, “Dust Control.” Pamphlet 525-5, Washington, DC, February 1969.
Hitchcock, “Controlling Sand Dunes in the United States. “National Geological Magazine, Volume XV, 1904.
Kerr, R. C. and Negra, J. O., “Analysis of Eolian Sand Control.” Arabian American Oil Company, New York, August 1957.
Kozan, G. R., “Stabilization of Shifting Sand.” Miscellaneous Paper No. 4968, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, March 1968.
Kozan, G. R. and Pimental, R. A., “Guide Manual for Selection and Use of Dust Palliatives and Soil Waterproofers in the Theater of Operations.” Miscellaneous Paper No. 4-756, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, November 1965.
Kroodsma, R. F., “Permanent Fixation of Sand Dunes in Michigan. “Journal of Forestry, Volume 35, No. 4, April 1937.
Lehotsky, K., “Sand Dune Fixation in Michigan.” Journal of Forestry, Volume 39, December 1941.
Lowdermilk, W. C., “Les Lanes, Where Over Three Quarters of A Century France Has Transformed Vast Mobile Sand Dunes and Waste Marshland into Rich Pine Producing Area” American Forests, Volume 50, August 1944.
Melton, F. A., “A Tentative Classification of Sand Dunes, and Its Application to Dune History in the Southern Great Plains.” Journal of Geology, Volume 48, 1940.
Oglesby, C. H., and Altenhofen, M. J., “Economics of Design Standards for Low-Volume Rural Roads,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report63, Highway Research Record, 1969.
Oldham, J. C., “Section 32 Program, Streambank Erosion Control, Evaluation and Demonstration, Work Unit 4 Research on Soil Stability and Identification of Causes of Streambank Erosion; Investigation Report 1, Evaluation of Spray-On Stabilizers for Bank Protection.” US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, February 1979.
Peters, J. and Sciandrone, J., “Stabilization of Sand Dunes at Vandenberg Air Force Base.” Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineering, SM4, July 1964.
Poe, E., “Lashing Down the Dunes.” US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC; July 1945.
Smith, O. W. et al., “Stabilization of Sand Dunes in the Pacific Northwest.” Bibliography, Washington Agriculture Experiment Bulletin, Volume 492, 1947.
BIBLIO-1
Steele, T. A., “Grass and Associated Vegetation to Reclaim Oregon’s Coastal Sand Dunes.” US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, August 1940.
Styron, C. R, “Erosion Control at the ARES Facility, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.” Miscellaneous Paper No. S-72-27, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, June 1972.
Styron, C. R. and Eaves, R. C., “Investigation of Dust- Control Materials.” Miscellaneous Paper No. S-73-70, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, December 1973.
Styron, C. R. and Spivey, A. C., “MX Road Design Criteria Studies; Report 2, Investigation of a Proprietary Material for Dust Control.” Technical Report No. GL-82-11, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, September 1982.
Suter, J., “Sand Road Construction” (Yuma Desert, Arizona-California).
Standard Oil Company of California, San Francisco, California, October 1943.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, “Dune Formation and Stabilization by Vegetation and Plantings.” Technical Memorandum No. 101, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, October 1957.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, “Shore Protection Planning and Design.” Technical Report No. 4, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 1954.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Dustproofing and Waterproofing of Soils; Report 1, Field and Laboratory Investigations of Selected Materials.” Technical Report No. 3-530, Vicksburg, Mississippi, December 1959.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Dustproofing and Waterproofing of Soils; Report 2, Laboratory Studies of Soil Waterproofing Materials.” Technical Report No. 3-530, Vicksburg, Mississippi, July 1963.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Review of Materials and Methods for Dustproofing and Waterproofing Soils.” Miscellaneous Paper No. 3- 176, Vicksburg, Mississippi, July 1956.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, “Soil Stabilization Requirements for Military Roads and Airfields in the Theater of Operations.” Miscellaneous Paper No. 3-605, Vicksburg, Mississippi, October 1963.
US Department of Agriculture, “Mulches for Wind and Water Erosion Control.” Agricultural Research Service 41-84, Washington, DC, July 1963.
Whitfield, C. J. and Brown, R. L, “Grasses that Fix Sand Dunes.” US Agriculture Yearbook, 1948.
* U.S. GOVERN PRINTING OFFICE: 1993 342-421 (80127)
BIBLIO-2
By Order of the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force:
CARL E. VUONO
General, United States Army Chief of Staff
Official:
Brigadier General, United States Army The Adjutant General
LARRY D. WELCH, General, USAF
Chief of Staff
OFFICIAL
WILLIAM O. NATION, COLONEL, USAF
Director of Information Management and Administration
Distribution:
Army: To be distributed in accordance with DA Form 12-34B, Requirements for Drainage and Erosion Control Structures.
Air Force: F
PIN: 025965-000
Copyright Soilworks, LLC 2003-. All Rights Reserved. Soilworks®, Soiltac®, Gorilla-Snot®, and Durasoil®are registered trademarks of Soilworks, LCC.
Copyright Soilworks, LLC 2003-. All Rights Reserved. Soilworks®, Soiltac®, Gorilla-Snot®, and Durasoil® are registered trademarks of Soilworks, LCC.
