Engineering and Design Phase · encompass the rock ramp structure is between station 576+00 and 596+00. Inlet Structure – Multi‐drop rock ramp o Stability of the excavated slope

Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Design Documentation Report Flood Risk Management Project Lower Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure and Reach 5 Appendix D2: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology

DDR_FMM_R5_Appendix_D2_Post_FTR_150323.docx

AppendixD2:GeotechnicalEngineeringandGeology

FargoMoorheadMetropolitanAreaFloodRiskManagementProject

Reach5LowerRushRiverInlet/DropStructure

EngineeringandDesignPhase

P2#370365

Doc Version: Post FTR Submittal

23 March 2015


DDR_FMM_R5_Appendix_D2_Post_FTR_150323.docx

This page is intentionally left blank


DDR_FMM_R5_Appendix_D2_Post_FTR_150323.docx D‐i of D‐iii

AppendixD2:GeotechnicalEngineeringandGeologyTable of Contents

D.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

D.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 1

D.2.1 Physiography ............................................................................................................................. 1

D.2.2 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 1

D.2.3 Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 2

D.2.4 Structure ................................................................................................................................... 2

D.2.5 Site Hydrogeology ..................................................................................................................... 2

D.2.6 Seismic Risk and Earthquake History ........................................................................................ 4

D.3 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................... 4

D.3.1 Exploration ................................................................................................................................ 4

D.3.2 Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 5

D.3.3 Design Parameters .................................................................................................................... 5

D.4 DIVERSION CHANNEL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 7

D.4.1 Modeling Summary ................................................................................................................... 7

D.4.1.1 Lower Rush Inlet Geometry .................................................................................................. 7

D.4.1.2 Diversion Channel Geometry ................................................................................................ 8

D.4.2 Sections ..................................................................................................................................... 9

D.4.3 Seepage ................................................................................................................................... 10

D.4.4 Stability ................................................................................................................................... 11

D.4.5 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 11

D.4.6 Future Work ............................................................................................................................ 15

D.5 EXCAVATED MATERIAL BERM AND LEVEE ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 15

D.6 RIGHT BANK EMEDDED LEVEES .......................................................................................................... 17

D.7 SETTLEMENT AND REBOUND .............................................................................................................. 18

D.7.1 Consolidation Parameters ....................................................................................................... 18


DDR_FMM_R5_Appendix_D2_Post_FTR_150323.docx D‐ii of D‐iii

D.7.2 Settlement of typical levee/ Right Bank EMB ......................................................................... 18

D.7.3 Rebound in the Channel Excavation ....................................................................................... 19

D.8 DIVERSION EXCAVATION TYPES .......................................................................................................... 20

D.9 LOCAL DRAINAGE INLETS .................................................................................................................... 21

D.10 RIPRAP AND BEDDING ........................................................................................................................ 21

D.11 CONSTRUCTABILITY............................................................................................................................. 21

D.11.1 Excavations.............................................................................................................................. 21

D.11.1.1 Past Experience ................................................................................................................... 21

D.11.1.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 21

D.11.1.3 Stripping and Overexcavation ............................................................................................. 22

D.11.1.4 Dewatering .......................................................................................................................... 22

D.11.1.5 Sand Pockets / Lenses ......................................................................................................... 22

D.11.2 Access/Maintenance Road Foundations ................................................................................. 22

D.11.3 Embankment Construction ..................................................................................................... 22

D.11.4 Winter Conditions ................................................................................................................... 23

D.11.5 Levees and Excavated Material Berms ................................................................................... 23

D.11.5.1 Net Swelling of Material Used for EMBs ............................................................................. 24

D.12 SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 25

D.12.1 Levee Material ........................................................................................................................ 25

D.12.2 Concrete Aggregate, Riprap, and Bedding .............................................................................. 25

D.13 PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 26

D.14 handled properly.REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 26

D.15 ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 27

TABLES

Table D2 ‐ 1: Summary of Soil Exploration for Lower Rush Structure .......................................................... 5

Table D2 ‐ 2: Channel Sections Geometry .................................................................................................... 9

Table D2 ‐ 3: Formation Contact Elevations ............................................................................................... 10

Table D2 ‐ 4: Summary of Diversion Channel Stability Results ................................................................... 12

Table D2 ‐ 5: Rock Ramp Stability Results ................................................................................................... 13


DDR_FMM_R5_Appendix_D2_Post_FTR_150323.docx D‐iii of D‐iii

Table D2 ‐ 6: Total Stress Parameters ......................................................................................................... 14

Table D2 ‐ 7: Summary of EMB Maximum Grading Extents ....................................................................... 16

Table D2 ‐ 8: Mean Consolidation Parameters ........................................................................................... 18

Table D2 ‐ 9: Settlement Check Analysis Results ........................................................................................ 19

Table D2 ‐ 10: Predicted EMB Settlement for Determination of Levee Overbuild ..................................... 19

Table D2 ‐ 11: Predicted Ultimate Rebound in Diversion Channel ............................................................. 20

Table D2 ‐ 12: Summary of Diversion Channel Excavation Types ............................................................... 20

FIGURES

Figure D2‐ 1: 12‐190P Instrumentation Plot ................................................................................................. 3

Figure D2‐ 2: 13‐204P Instrumentation Plot ................................................................................................. 4

Figure D2‐ 3 : Brenna Strength Plot .............................................................................................................. 6

Figure D2‐ 4 : Lower Rush Rock Ramp Configuration

Figure D2‐ 6 : EMB Grading Extents ............................................................................................................ 14

Figure D2‐ 6 : EMB Grading Extents ............................................................................................................ 16

Figure D2‐ 7: In‐situ dry density data compared to standard proctor results ............................................ 25

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment D2 ‐ 1: Stratigraphy (Included in Reach 5 DDR)

Attachment D2 ‐ 2: Soil Exploration Location Maps (Included in Reach 5 DDR)

Attachment D2 ‐ 3: Boring Log Plates (Included in Reach 5 DDR)

Attachment D2 ‐ 4: Outlet and Diversion Stability Analysis Results

Attachment D2 ‐ 5: Settlement and Rebound Calculations


DDR_FMM_R5_Appendix_D2_Post_FTR_150323.docx Page D2‐1 of D2‐27

AppendixD2:GeotechnicalEngineeringandGeology

D.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Lower Rush River Drop Structure is located in the central area of the project where the Lower Rush

River will be diverted into the diversion channel, within Reach 5. Within this reach, there are multiple

features that require geotechnical design and considerations which are listed below. The reach that will

encompass the rock ramp structure is between station 576+00 and 596+00.

Inlet Structure – Multi‐drop rock ramp

o Stability of the excavated slope

o Design of riprap and bedding that is used along the rock ramp

o Estimate of rebound due to the unloading of the soil

Diversion Channel

o Stability of the excavated slope, accounting for the excavated material berms and low

flow channel

o Stability of the excavated slope, accounting for potential erosion of the low flow channel

and sedimentation at the bottom of the diversion.

o Estimate of rebound due to the unloading of the soil

Levees within the Excavated Material Berms along the Diversion Channel

o Settlement of the levees and excavated material berms

o Minimum vegetation‐free zone requirements

D.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

D.2.1 Physiography

Physiography is discussed in detail in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology”

(Reference D2 ‐1).

D.2.2 Topography

The topographic profile along the Reach 5 centerline begins at the downstream end at Sta. 521+00 where the ground surface is at typical elevation 890. Along Reach 5 moving upstream, the ground surface elevation rises very gradually to an average of about elevation 894 at Sta. 586+50. The ground surface from this point to the reach’s end varies from elevation 893 to 894. A number of small roads and County Road 22 cross the alignment along embankments that are several feet higher than the average ground elevations.



D.2.3 Geology

A detailed description of the regional geology can be found in the “General Report: Geotechnical

Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 ‐1). Generally speaking the Lower Rush Inlet Structure is

defined by a sequence of glacio‐lacustrine deposits (Argusville, Brenna, and Sherack Formations)

overlying a dense, overconsolidated glacial till. A layer of alluvial clay and topsoil typically caps the

lacustrine sequence.

The glacial till is not of great importance on the Lower Rush Inlet Structure, as no pile‐founded

structures are planned. Borings indicate that the top of the glacial till is located at about El. 828. Above

the till is the Argusville formation, which is approximately 10 to 15 ft thick. The contact between the

Argusville Formation and the Brenna Formation is gradational and typically occurs over 10 or more feet.

For the purposes of the stability analyses this gradational contact has been assumed as part of the

Brenna Formation, which exhibits lower shear strengths than the Argusville Formation. The

characterization of the 2012 and 2013 borings, which rely upon liquid limits, have been utilized in the

determination of this contact for the Lower Rush analyses, as it is more conservative than the field

classifications of the 2010 borings. The contact between the Brenna and Sherack Formations is located

at between El. 879 and 884. Typically there is a portion at the top of the Brenna that is oxidized and

sometimes desiccated. Testing indicates that this portion of the Brenna, typically several feet thick, is

characterized by higher shear strengths, and so it has been broken out as a separate material for

stability analyses. The Sherack Formation is typically around 5 ft thick, and its upper limit can range from

El. 890 to the ground surface. The Sherack is typically overlain by alluvial clays that are usually several

feet thick.

The stratigraphy for the Lower Rush inlet structure and Reach 5 is presented in the attachments for the

Reach 5 analysis and DDR prepared by the St. Paul District (MVP).

D.2.4 Structure

Geologic structures are discussed in detail in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and

Geology” (Reference D2 ‐1).

D.2.5 Site Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology as discussed in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology”

(Reference D2 ‐1) applies to the Lower Rush Inlet Structure. Groundwater levels as measured during soil

borings varied. In some borings water could be 2.3 ft from the ground surface after a day, and in other

borings the hole would be dry to 20 ft for the same time period. Groundwater assumptions for modeling

were made based on instrumentation located at other locations in the Fargo‐Moorhead area and

seepage calibration modeling.

Instrumentation consisting of nested vibrating wire piezometers was installed along the proposed alignment in August 2012 and February 2013 to verify groundwater assumptions along portions of the diversion. The nearest instrumentation clusters to Reach 5 are 13‐204P and 12‐190P. 13‐204P is located approximately 2.3 miles downstream in Reach 4. 12‐190P is located just upstream in Reach 6. Readings



from these locations indicate that the groundwater depths have fluctuated between 3.5 to 12 feet below the ground surface. The highest groundwater table elevations occurred in June and July of 2013, with the levels dropping afterwards. All piezometers indicate downward gradients through the Lake Agassiz clays into the Unit “A” Till. Piezometer 12‐190P indicates a downward gradient of 0.1 to 0.35 (Figure D2‐ 1). Piezometer 13‐204P indicates a downward gradient of about 0.15 to 0.65 (Figure D2‐ 2). The USGS Fargo gage on the Red River is shown for reference only. Please refer to the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 ‐ 1) for additional information and details concerning the instrumentation.

Figure D2‐ 1: 12‐190P Instrumentation Plot



D.2.6 Seismic Risk and Earthquake History

Seismic Risk and Earthquake History are discussed in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and

Geology” (Reference D2 ‐1). The main conclusion is that the Fargo‐Moorhead area is one of the least

seismically active places in the United States. The estimated peak horizontal ground accelerations are

small, 0.025 g and 0.04g for a mean return time of 2475 years and 4975 years. Considering the low risk,

the low ground accelerations, and the fact that the foundation soils are not prone to liquefaction,

seismic analysis is not required for the diversion channel and inlet structure.

D.3 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

D.3.1 Exploration

Soil borings and cone penetration test (CPT) soundings were completed within the project area to

determine the stratigraphy. The number and type of exploration method is summarized below in the

table. The location of the completed soil exploration can be found in Attachment D2 ‐ 2 for the Reach 5

DDR submitted by MVP. The boring logs can be found in Attachment D2 ‐ 3 for the Reach 5 DDR

Figure D2‐ 2: 13‐204P Instrumentation Plot



submitted by MVP. Details concerning the subsurface investigation can be found in the “General Report:

Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 ‐1).

Table D2 ‐ 1: Summary of Soil Exploration for Lower Rush Structure

Location Machine

Borings

Undisturbed

Borings

Hand Auger

Topsoil Borings

CPT

Lower Rush River

Drop Structure

6 1 1 1

D.3.2 Testing

While conducting the soil borings, samples are collected. Some of these samples are tested to

determine the in situ moisture content and Atterberg limits. At less frequency, grain size analysis

including hydrometer testing is completed on the samples. The results of these tests are including in the

boring log staffs.

One undisturbed soil boring (12‐162MU) was taken in the vicinity of the Drop Structure, west of the

Lower Rush River. Five samples were obtained from this boring and tested for shear strengths and

consolidation parameters.

D.3.3 Design Parameters

Geotechnical design parameters are discussed in detail in the “General Report: Geotechnical

Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 ‐1). The design parameters presented in the general report

were used in the analysis and design of the Lower Rush Structure and Reach 5.

Many undisturbed borings were conducted throughout the Fargo‐Moorhead area. The samples were

tested to determine the shear strength and consolidation parameters of the materials. The results were

broken up into the different formations and the results combined together to determine the parameters

required for design. The results of the undisturbed testing can be found in the “General Report:

Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 ‐ 1).

During the 35% phase of this project, final changes were made to the project stratigraphic profile by St. Paul District. The changes reflect geologic interpretations based on a review of laboratory testing, contact elevations and selection of most relevant soil borings. The changes in Reach 5 were generally detrimental to the design, lowering the Brenna/Argusville contact and therefore reducing the shear strengths in the lower part of the stratigraphy. In an effort to minimize changes to the layout, MVP performed a thorough review of shear strength testing. An increase in the drained shear strength of the Brenna formation was considered defensible and reduced the impact to layout and schedule.



The drained shear strength of the Brenna formation was reviewed and it was found that increasing the shear envelope by 20 psf was an acceptable change as the envelope still was within the range of the test results. Additionally it is has been noted that legacy testing performed for the Horace to West Fargo and West Fargo diversions, south of Reach 5, plots well below tests performed for the current project. There is no geologic reason to expect such a discrepancy, and additional investigation is planned to explore potential causes. The updated shear strength data parameters to the Brenna formation is displayed in the below Figure D2‐3.

Figure D2‐ 3 : Brenna Strength Plot



D.4 DIVERSION CHANNEL ANALYSIS

D.4.1 Modeling Summary

This section discusses the basic geometric features of the diversion channel within Reach 5 and the

Lower Rush River Rock Ramp as it drains into the diversions channel and as it pertains to geotechnical

analysis.

D.4.1.1 Lower Rush Inlet Geometry

The Lower Rush River will empty into the FMM Diversion Channel via a rock ramp which employs rock

weirs and a 5% slope to achieve the majority of the elevation change. 1V:8H side slopes are required

throughout the ramp to meet stability requirements.

Throughout the outlet the base of the excavation will be covered with a layer of rock and bedding

material in order to prevent erosion. This erosion protection extends up to the 500 year + 2 feet flood

elevation and will be up to five feet thick. In the undrained case it was verified that the additional

excavation prior to placing the rock was not detrimental to stability.

The geometry of the critical section for the inlet structure is taken at the bottom of the 5% ramp at LRR

Station 5+40. During construction with overexcavation for riprap, this section has the lowest invert

elevation within the rock ramp. The invert of the rock ramp at this point is elevation 866.20’. At this

location the centerline of the diversion channel low‐flow channel is about 270 feet away from the rock

structure channel centerline. Five feet of riprap are required for erosion protection at this section.

Due to the geometry of the rock ramp and corresponding layout of the excavated material berms, the

EMBs to the north of the ramp require flatter slopes than those on the EMB to the south of the ramp.

The EMB to the north of the ramp is higher in elevation where the critical section occurs at Sta 5+40. A

southern EMB does not exist at this location, and develops very slowly from this point to its maximum

elevation much further up the ramp where it has much flatter slopes and a higher invert elevation. To

evaluate the stability of the ramp where the southern EMB with slopes 1:8 has a significant height, a

section was analyzed at Sta 12+00. This section has the greatest differential in maximum EMB elevation

and invert elevation, and was therefore determined to be a critical location for this analysis. The 1:8

EMB slopes for the EMB south of the Rock Ramp were determined to be stable for this section. Utilizing

two different EMB slopes for this reach along the rock ramp optimizes storage area of the excavated

material compared to that which would be achieved if both EMBs were constructed at 1:10 slopes.

Figure D2‐4 displays the location of the two sections.



Figure D2‐ 4 : Lower Rush Rock Ramp Configuration

D.4.1.2 Diversion Channel Geometry

In cross‐section, the channel features can be divided in three parts:

1) Main channel: The main diversion channel will be described separately from the meandering low‐flow

channel at its base. The main channel provides the vast majority of the channel’s capacity and was sized

to handle large flows associated with flooding. It is characterized by excavated side slopes of 1V:7H and

a 300 ft wide base sloping at 1V:50H (2%) towards the channel centerline. Within Reach 5 the side

slopes are typically around 19 ft in height.

2) Meandering Low Flow Channel: A smaller low flow channel at the base of the main channel is

required in order to convey the smaller flows anticipated over most of the channel’s design life. For

environmental reasons, the low flow channel meanders sinuously within the base of the main channel.

The geometry of the channel and its spatial relationship to the main channel have been selected in order

to meet both hydraulic and geotechnical requirements. The channel itself is 90 ft wide at the top with

5.6 ft high side slopes and a 46 ft wide base sloping at 2% to the low flow channel invert. Side slopes

vary with the meander in order to maintain the above dimensions, but are roughly 1V:4H for the

stability design case (Case 2, as described in section D.4.4)

The low flow channel meanders within a 200 ft wide band centered in the main channel, leaving 50 ft

between the toe of the main channel and the top of the low flow channel at its maximum offset from

centerline. This was the cross‐section chosen for stability analysis.



3) Excavated Material Berms (EMBs): Material excavated for the diversion channel will be placed

adjacent to the channel in berms that could be a maximum of 20 ft in height. The berms will be offset

from the top of excavation by 50 ft and the side slopes facing the channel will be 1V:7H. Side slopes

facing away from the channel are currently shown as 1V:6H. Excavation and stability requirements were

achieved by maintaining a simple EMB configuration, and, therefore, stepped EMBs analyses were not

required. A design envelope was developed in order to help the Civil layout of the EMBs, which provides

maximum grading extents for the material that would still remain stable. The results of this process will

be presented in section D.5.

Models were not updated from the 65% DDR Submittal for the Lower Rush Diversion channel. The parameters chosen and profile assumed in this report were verified by additional borings completed in 2013. Formation contact elevations generally varied by less than one foot with all original assumptions being more conservative than those determined by additional exploration. The largest variation was in the contact of the Oxidized Brenna and Brenna formation at Section 8a, which was interpreted to be 875.0 from 2010 borings and interpreted to be 872.3 from 2013 boring. This variation was determined to be insignificant in the overall stability of the cross sections, as it did not improve conditions enough to change the required geometry of the cross section.

D.4.2 Sections

The geometric configurations of the cross‐sections analyzed for stability are summarized below Table

D2‐2. Formation contact elevations for each are provided in Table D2‐3.

Table D2 ‐ 2: Channel Sections Geometry

Section Geometry

Section # Station

Ground El. (ft)

Channel Side Slopes (V:H)

EMB Side Slopes (V:H)

Toe EL. (ft)

Main Channel

Base Slope (V:H)

Low Flow Slope (V:H)

Low Flow Base Slope

(V:H)

Low Flow invert El.

(ft)

Ramp invert EL. (ft)

EMB (1)

8 576+51 893.1 1:7 1:7 874.2 1:50 (2%) 1:4 1:50 (2%) 866.5 N/A Simple

8A 586+51 893.3 1:7 1:7 874.6 1:50 (2%) 1:4 1:50 (2%) 866.5 N/A Simple

LRR1 5+30 892.1 1:8 1:10 (2) 867.4 3:100 (3%) N/A N/A N/A 866.2 N/A

LRR2 12+00 893.1 1:8 1:8/1:10 (3) 886.2 3:100 (3%) N/A N/A N/A 885.4 N/A

Notes:

(1) The EMB configuration and geometry will be detailed in the summary for the stability analysis. (2) Side Slopes for Northern EMB (3) Side Slopes for Southern EMB/Northern EMB



Table D2 ‐ 3: Formation Contact Elevations

Section 8 8a LRR1 LRR2

576+51 586+51 5+30 12+00

Geologic Unit Top El. (ft)

Bottom El. (ft) Top El. (ft)

Bottom El. (ft)

Top El. (ft)

Bottom El. (ft)

Top El. (ft)

Bottom El. (ft)

Alluvium (1) 893.0 887.5 893.3 889.0 893.0 892.0 893.0 889.6

Sherack 887.5 880.0 889.0 879.0 892.0 882.7 889.6 882.7

Ox Brenna 880.0 874.0 879.0 875.0 882.7 872.3 882.7 871.9

Brenna 874.0 840.0 875.0 840.0 872.3 839.0 871.9 839.0

Argusville 840.0 827.7 840.0 827.7 839.0 824.0 839.0 824.0

Till (2) 827.7 777.0 827.7 777.0 824.0 777.0 824.0 777.0

Notes:

(1) The top of the Alluvium is considered the Ground Surface Elevation (GSE).

(2) The bottom of the Till is equal to the bottom of the model used for stability purposes.

D.4.3 Seepage

Seepage analysis was conducted according to the “MFR‐002, Diversion Channel and Low‐Flow Chanel Design” (Reference D2‐3), in which the analysis methodology is described in detail. These pore pressures are then used in the long‐term (drained) slope stability analysis. Briefly, half‐space models were constructed with a total head condition at the far field boundary, located 2000 ft from the channel centerline. The total head condition is equivalent to 10 ft below the ground surface. This assumes a hydrostatic groundwater condition at the far‐field boundary, which is thought to be a reasonable assumption based on available instrumentation data. A potential seepage face boundary condition was applied to the face of the channel slope and the base of the low flow channel. Currently the low flow channel is modeled as “dry” as it is anticipated that the channel could dry up occasionally during the project’s design life, and this would represent a critical design condition.

Seepage analyses of the Lower Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure were performed similar to the diversion

channel analyses. However, the interface between the riprap and the excavated surface was modeled as

a zero pressure boundary condition for Section LRR1 at Station 5+00. This method produced a realistic

pore pressure regime while preventing water from “ponding” in the sizable pore space of the riprap.

This was considered a reasonable assumption because the Lower Rush River is known to dry up at times,

in which case ponded water below the riprap surface would not be present. Due to the higher elevation

of the ramp at Section LRR2, Station 12+00, it is not realistic to assume the piezometric surface will be

above the riprap and would “pond” within its pore space. Therefore, a potential seepage face boundary

condition was applied between the riprap and excavated surface. This produced the most realistic

ground water conditions for the geometry of this section.

A seepage calibration has been performed using piezometer data in the FMM area. The purpose of the

calibration was to verify that assumptions regarding boundary conditions and hydraulic conductivities



correlated reasonably well with field data. The calibration is discussed in detail in the “General Report:

Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2‐1).

D.4.4 Stability

The methodology used to analyze slope stability is described in detail in the “MFR‐002, Diversion Channel and Low‐Flow Chanel Design” (Reference D2‐3), and will be summarized only briefly here. The analyses considered both drained and undrained cases. The pore pressures from the seepage analysis are coupled in the long‐term (drained) stability analysis. For the drained case, several search zones were identified with varying required factors of safety based on criticality of the slip surface.

Two geometric configurations (Case 2 and 5) were analyzed for stability of the diversion channel and

have varying required factors of safety depending on the occurrence of each configuration. Two cases

analyzed in the 35% DDR (Case 3 and 4) were rendered obsolete in light of the Meander Belt Width

Analysis completed by Barr Engineering and the HEC‐RAS Sediment Transport Analysis completed by

USACE St. Paul District. Case 2 represents the design geometry of the low flow channel as described in

Section D.4.1. Case 5 represents two vertical feet of erosion at the base of the low flow channel and

along the low flow side slopes and sedimentation above the bottom of the diversion channel. The intent

of Case 5 is to estimate the stability of the diversion channel throughout the lifetime of the project,

considering that erosion of the low‐flow and sedimentation of the diversion will likely occur.

The stability analysis of the inlet structure did not consider the two geometric configurations because

the channel was centered within the cut and riprap and bedding is being placed to prevent erosion. It

was therefore unnecessary to look at cases in which the inlet channel migrated towards the toe of the

main channel.

D.4.5 Results

Stability results for the Diversion channel are summarized below in Table D2‐4.



Table D2 ‐ 4: Summary of Diversion Channel Stability Results

Minimum Required FS

1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1

General Section Information CASE 2 (1)

CASE 5 – 2 Feet Sedimentation (6)

Section Station

Max crack depth (ft) (3) Global

Global Check (4) Lower Localized

Left Slope EMB

Undrained (5)

Left Slope EMB‐

Undrained (2) Global

Global Check (4) Lower Localized

8 576+51 4 1.43 1.46 1.48 1.53 1.76 1.33 1.49 1.35 1.45 1.25 1.05

8a 586+51 3 1.41 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.76 1.34 1.5 1.36 1.45 1.27 1.1

Notes: (1) All factors of safety presented are the optimized factors of safety. The non‐optimized factors were checked and yield larger values in all cases.

(2) The results of the Left‐Slope EMB analysis stay the same regardless of the low‐flow case. (3) Tension cracks were started at 1 foot deep and progressively increased until tension forces in the slices were removed.

(4) Global Check analysis accounts for the influence of the large EMB. (5) The Undrained analysis has the same entry and exit extents as the Global Check to account for the influence of the EMB (6) Sedimentation was started at 2 feet and increased by 2 feet increments until the factor of safety was not met. Sedimentation greater than 2 feet yielded factors of safety less than those required for all lower and localized analyses.

(7) Drained analysis with 5' rock over excavation and riprap in place of soil. Permeability of riprap assumed as 1000 ft/day. Potential seepage face modeled on top of the ramp slopes where riprap is not expected, and zero pressure head placed beneath the riprap material.

The diversion stability analysis was performed in accordance with “MFR‐002, Diversion Channel and

Low‐Flow Chanel Design” (Reference D2‐3) and also follows the guidance provided in the “EMB Regional

Webinar” presented on June 21st, 2012. The results indicate that benches will not be needed in the

diversion slopes along Reach 5 in order to meet stability criteria.

Stability results for the Rock Ramp can be summarized in Table D2‐5 below.



Table D2 ‐ 5: Rock Ramp Stability Results

Minimum Required FS

1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3

Section (1) Stationing Max crack depth (ft) Global

Global Check Lower Localized

Undrained During

Construction

Undrained End of

Construction (5)

LRR1 5+30 4 1.73 1.73 1.82 1.75 1.23 (3)

1.45 (4) 1.35

LRR2 12+00 1 2.06 1.71 2.1 2.21 1.37 1.47

Notes:

(1) Drained analysis with 5' rock over excavation and riprap in place of soil. Permeability of riprap assumed as 1000 ft/day. Potential seepage face modeled on top of the ramp slopes where riprap is not expected, and zero pressure head placed beneath the riprap material. (2) Temporary excavation for riprap included in the analysis with no material type present. Peak undrained material strengths utilized. (3) Using Ultimate Undrained Material Strengths

(4) Using Peak Undrained Material Strengths

(5) Riprap in place. Ultimate Undrained Material Strengths utilized.

In order to meet stability criteria for the undrained case, the slopes of the Lower Rush Ramp must be

1V:8H. Models of the rock ramp were run with different boundary conditions in the seepage model in

order to determine how the difference would be reflected in the stability analysis. These different

boundary conditions resulted in a slight variation in Factors of Safety for the drained cases, but utilizing

the zero‐pressure head boundary condition is believed to be the more accurate representation of actual

conditions.

For the undrained case two conditions were considered, the during construction case in which overexcavation of five feet is modeled for the riprap and the end of construction case in which riprap has been placed within the ramp. For Section LRR1, peak undrained strengths were utilized for the temporary excavation condition, which yielded a Factor of Safety of 1.45. Utilizing the ultimate undrained strengths resulted in a Factor of Safety of 1.23, which is acceptable for the temporary conditions. Ultimate material strengths are considered when significant deformation may be expected in the soils. The short term, during construction condition is not expected to experience such deformation and can therefore be reasonably expected to attain peak strength characteristics. For Section LRR2, ultimate undrained strengths yielded a Factor of Safety greater than the required 1.3, and therefore, peak strengths were not modeled. End of construction analyses utilized ultimate undrained strengths.

A comparison of peak and undrained strengths of foundation materials is displayed in Table D2‐6. A

typical stress‐strain relationship obtained from testing of Brenna Formation within the Lower Rush reach

is displayed in Figure D2‐5. A complete listing of Soil Parameters and testing data is available in the

“General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2‐1).



Table D2 ‐ 6: Total Stress Parameters

Formation Total Stress, c (psf)

Ultimate (1) Peak (2)

Alluvium 900 1400

Sherack 900 1400

Oxidized Brenna 900 1000

Brenna 575 650

Argusville See Note (3) 825

Unit “A” Till 1900 2200

Notes:

(1) The ultimate total stress parameters are based on unconsolidated‐undrained triaxial shear tests with the

failure criterion defined at ultimate deviator stress which equates to the deviator stress at 15% axial strain.

(2) The peak total stress parameters are based on unconsolidated‐undrained triaxial shear tests with the failure

criterion defined at peak deviator stress.

(3) The Argusville formation ultimate undrained shear strength was assumed to be linearly increasing with depth.

Initial cohesion was assumed to be 575 psf, with an increase of 10 psf/FT.

Figure D2‐ 5 : Boring 12‐162MU Uncosolidated Undrained Triaxial Test Results

The seepage and stability analyses are presented in Attachment D2 ‐ 4.



D.4.6 Future Work

Any changes to the channel geometry or EMB geometry that occur for non‐geotechnical reasons may

require re‐analysis for stability. For example, on one side of the channel the EMBs will likely be shaped

in undulating hills for recreational purposes. This may have stability implications and will require

verification as the grading plan moves forward.

D.5 EXCAVATED MATERIAL BERM AND LEVEE ANALYSIS

In some areas the EMBs will be subject to differential head conditions for the most significant diversion

discharges. It has been determined that for the right bank of the diversion channel the EMBs will in

some capacity act as levees. The levees will be designed in accordance with the parameters provided in

“MFR‐001, Levees and Excavated Material Berms along the Diversion” (5). The MFR outlines slopes for

the levee prism, material and compaction requirements and also covers the Vegetation‐Free Zone and

Vegetation‐Management Zone requirements needed for the levees and EMBs. The levee prism will be

completely encapsulated by the larger EMB for the Lower Rush Reach. There is no need for an

embedded levee in the left bank EMB.

Analyses were conducted to determine the maximum grading extents of the EMBS based on the current design concepts and restrictions. The crown of the EMB must not extend more than 21 feet above existing grade at the time of construction because of viewshed height limitation requirements. In order to accommodate the 2% crown slope, the initial EMB height is less than the EMB crown height. A simple EMB and different configurations of stepped EMBs, with varied stepped height, width and offset, were analyzed in order to establish a design envelope that the civil layout could fall within and still be stable. The results indicate that for both Sections 8 and 8a, the simple would be the most practical and efficient design. The maximum EMB height and width was then determined for the civil layout to be completed. Once the civil layout of the EMB was determined, verification analyses were performed to assure that the section meets stability requirements. Based on the results, the EMB initial height should be limited to 16 feet with a maximum EMB height of 20 feet and width of 400 feet for both Sections 8 and 8a. A summary of the maximum grading extents is below in Table D2‐7. The diversion channel stability plates in Attachment D2‐4 show the simple EMB Configuration. The results of the maximum EMB grading extents based solely on the geotechnical slope stability concerns are summarized below in Table D2‐7. The heights indicated are based on a generalized existing ground surface elevation. If the existing ground surface is higher than the assumed ground surface, then the elevations of the maximum grading extents need to control the layout. The geotechnical analysis was conducted using the left side of the diversion channel centerline. The stratigraphy has been assumed to be symmetrical along the centerline, so the results of the maximum grading extents of the left EMB can be applied to the right EMB. This is of importance when the



undulations are being designed for the right bank recreational plan. The undulations shall be designed such that the undulation grading does not exceed the maximum grading extents.

Table D2 ‐ 7: Summary of EMB Maximum Grading Extents

Left Bank EMB Maximum Grading Extents based only on Geotechnical Engineering Considerations

(2)

Configuration (1)

Existing Ground EMB Height

EMB Width

Section Location Section Extents (ELEV) (ft) (ELEV) (ft)

8 576+51 576+00 – 580+00 Simple 893.1 20 913.1 400

8a 586+51 580+00‐ 596+00 Simple 893.3 20 913.3 400

Notes: (1) Simple ‐ EMB without a step and top crowned at 2% (2) All stability analyses completed for left bank EMB. The maximum grading extents for the right

bank EMB will be the same.

Figure D2‐ 6 : EMB Grading Extents

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

‐1100 ‐1000 ‐900 ‐800 ‐700 ‐600 ‐500 ‐400 ‐300 ‐200 ‐100 0

Elevation (FT)

Stationing

Fargo‐Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project

Geotechnical EMB Maxium Gradients Extents Sections 8 and 8a

Case 2

Simplified EMB

EMB Height = 20

EMB Slope 1V:7H

EMB Crown: 2%

EMB Slope 1V:6H

EMB Width = 400 ft



D.6 RIGHT BANK EMEDDED LEVEES

As previously mentioned, an embedded levee will be required within the right bank for flood risk

reduction reasons. There is no need for a levee on the left bank. The requirements for the right bank

embedded levee are summarized below. Additional details concerning the levees and EMBs can be

found in MFR‐001, Levees and Excavated Material Berms along the Diversion” (5).

Crest Elevation – The crest elevation will be the estimated maximum flood fight flow profile plus overbuild to account for estimated settlement

Typical Section – The typical cross section will be the St. Paul District typical section for levees within the Red River Valley which has a 10ft top width and a 1V:3H side slopes

Construction Requirements – The construction requirements are:

o Stripping: All organic materials beneath the footprint of the levee shall be removed.

o Inspection Trench: An inspection trench will not be required because the diversion

channel will act as a large inspection trench. If any pervious layers are encountered

during excavation, an analysis should be completed to determine if a cut‐off trench

will be needed

o Utilities and Drain Tile: If utilities and drain tile are encountered within the diversion

channel excavation or they are known to be beneath the footprint of the levee, at a

minimum, the utilities and drain tile shall be removed from beneath the footprint of

the levee and extending out 15 feet from both toes of the levee. The exception would

be utilities relocated as part of this project in compliance with “MFR‐010, Utility

Relocation Requirements” (Reference D2 ‐ 4).

o Fill Material: Alluvium or Sherack materials shall be used as fill material. These

formations will be located in the upper portion of the diversion channel excavation.

These materials are identified in the specifications as those with a liquid limit of less

than or equal to 90 (LL≤90).

o Placement: The materials shall be placed in lifts of 12 inches or less.

o Compaction: The fill material will be required to be compacted to a minimum 90

percent of maximum dry densisty as determined by the standard proctor.

o Moisture Control: Moisture control will not be specified but this will not relieve the

contractor from obtaining the required compaction.

o Testing: Minimum testing will be completed on materials placed. Testing will include

proctors, density, Atterberg limits, and grain size analysis.



D.7 SETTLEMENT AND REBOUND The large‐scale excavation and placement of soil introduces the potential for significant soil rebound and settlement, respectively. Since the final grade is important for many project features, including the drainage structures, embedded levees, and the low‐flow invert, rebound and settlement need to be analyzed in order to plan potential mitigation measures. Settlement and rebound calculations are presented in Attachment D 2‐5 and explained in this section. Calculations were not updated from the 65% DDR Submittal for the Lower Rush Diversion channel. The parameters chosen and profile assumed in this report were verified by additional borings completed in 2013. Formation contact elevations generally varied by less than one foot with all original assumptions being more conservative than those determined by additional exploration. The largest variation was in the contact of the Oxidized Brenna and Brenna formation at Section 8a, which was interpreted to be 875.0 from 2010 borings and interpreted to be 872.3 from 2013 boring. This variation was determined to be insignificant in the overall settlement and rebound findings.

D.7.1 Consolidation Parameters

Soil parameters used for settlement and rebound calculations were taken from consolidation tests performed throughout the Fargo‐Moorhead metro area for several USACE projects. In‐situ effective vertical stresses were estimated based on the stratigraphy indicated in the adjacent machine boring and assuming a groundwater table 10 ft below ground surface when no other groundwater data was available. Preconsolidation pressures were determined both by the laboratory and by the Casagrande approach. Generally there was good agreement between laboratory‐determined values and Corps determined values. The glacial till was assumed to be incompressible for the purposes of estimating settlement. The consolidation parameters selected for the settlement and rebound analyses represent the “mean” or “expected value” parameters based on the available data. The mean consolidation parameters are shown below in Table D2 ‐ 8.

Table D2 ‐ 8: Mean Consolidation Parameters

Formation sat (pcf) ' OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec

Alluvium 120 57.6 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130

Sherack 115 52.6 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.123

OX Brenna 108 45.6 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.249

Brenna 106 43.6 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312

Argusville 110 47.6 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318

D.7.2 Settlement of typical levee/ Right Bank EMB

Settlement of the right bank EMB was estimated in order to approximate the amount of required overbuild for encapsulated levees in order to maintain the maximum flood fight flow profile of the levee. The final grade of the EMBs is not a concern since overbuild will be applied directly to the encapsulated levee section. The levee and right bank EMB were assumed to be practically



incompressible for the purposes of analysis. An analysis considering an infinite surcharge equivalent to the maximum allowable EMB height of 20 ft of compacted clay fill and the mean consolidation parameters resulted in a settlement of roughly 17 inches. This value would decrease somewhat by accounting for the finite nature of the loading. Also, the stripping of the upper several feet of topsoil and replacement with compacted levee fill would further reduce this estimate. Check analyses using the settlement program CSETT and the same consolidation parameters were conducted using both infinite and finite loading for Section 8. The resulting settlement values were in agreement with the results calculated using the spreadsheet developed by MVP. Considering overbuild required throughout the entire Reach 5 extents, recommended overbuild for the right bank levee is 1.5 feet. Settlement analyses results are located in Attachment D2 ‐5.

Table D2 ‐ 9: Settlement Check Analysis Results

Sta 576+51 Section 8 EMB Settlement

Material δ CSETT infinite (ft) δ CSETT finite (ft) δ EXCEL (ft)

Alluvium 0.305 0.305 0.37

Sherack 0.131 0.131 0.14

Ox Brenna 0.158 0.157 0.16

Brenna 0.597 0.572 0.62

Argusville 0.134 0.119 0.14

Total (ft) 1.325 1.284 1.43

Total (in) 15.9 15.4 17.1

Table D2 ‐ 10: Predicted EMB Settlement for Determination of Levee Overbuild

EMB Settlement for Determination of Levee Overbuild

Section 8 8a

EMB Height (ft) 20 20

Depth of Compressible Material (ft) 65 65

Predicted Settlement (ft) 1.43 1.39

D.7.3 Rebound in the Channel Excavation

The net change in grade resulting from excavation for the diversion channel the will result in rebound. Analysis considering infinite excavation to the level of the diversion channel invert calculated this rebound to be roughly 15 inches.



Table D2 ‐ 11: Predicted Ultimate Rebound in Diversion Channel

Rebound at Diversion Invert

Section 8 8a

Excavation Depth (ft) 21 21

Depth of Compressible Material beneath Excavation (ft) 65 65

Predicted Ultimate Rebound (ft) 1.22 1.32

Additional details on time‐rate of rebound calculations can be found in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 ‐1). Over excavation of the diversion channel to account for rebound is not recommended based on geotechnical and hydraulic analyses – it is anticipated that hydraulic capacity will be sufficient even if rebound occurs. If and when changes in grade due to sedimentation and/or rebound become a hydraulic issue, cleanout will be required in order to maintain the necessary flow capacity. MVP will monitor rebound in Reach 1 and determine if adjustments should be made prior to construction of subsequent reaches, including Reach 5.

D.8 DIVERSION EXCAVATION TYPES

The construction of the diversion channel will require excavation through different materials. The type

of equipment used, production rates, and excavation costs will depend on the characteristics of these

different material. In order to complete a comprehensive cost estimate, the diversion channel

excavation was broken into five different excavation types. A profile was developed along the Reach 5

alignment discerning the five different excavation types in order to estimate quantities. A summary of

the excavation types is below in Table D2‐12. For diversion excavation types 1 and 2, the groundwater

table was based on water level readings in the boring logs or the bottom of the local drainage features

and was generally 5 to 7.5 feet below the ground surface. This assumption is different from that which is

used in the seepage and stability analysis.

Table D2 ‐ 12: Summary of Diversion Channel Excavation Types



D.9 LOCAL DRAINAGE INLETS

The local drainage plan does not call for any drainage inlets at the location of the Lower Rush River

Drop/Inlet structure.

D.10 RIPRAP AND BEDDING

Riprap will be required at several locations where the Lower Rush River meets the Diversion Channel.

Riprap gradation R30 and R270 will be used. Further details on the Riprap sizing, gradations, and

locations can be found in Appendix C.

D.11 CONSTRUCTABILITY

D.11.1 Excavations

This section discusses several considerations with regards to the constructability of the proposed

excavations.

D.11.1.1 Past Experience

MVP has experience with excavations in the Fargo‐Moorhead area as a result of the Horace to West

Fargo and West Fargo Diversion Channels (HWF Diversions) and frequent flood fighting efforts that have

required use of borrow material. The HWF Diversions were on the order of 10 feet deep, placing the

bottom of the excavation in the Sherack formation or just into the Brenna formation. The side slopes of

these channels where excavated at 1V:7H using scrapers. No constructability issues sloughing of the

excavated slopes or seepage into the excavation were encountered in the tight clay materials.

During flood fights, a substantial amount of borrow is needed to construct emergency levees. The fill is

obtained from local borrow pits and have been excavated with very steep to nearly vertical faces with

depths ranging from 10 to 20 feet. These steep faces typically show little to no sloughing failures during

the time they remain open, which could be up to a couple months. Also, seepage is not a concern as

very little water seepages into the excavation.

D.11.1.2 Methods

MVP recognized that the soils change with depth; the materials will become wetter and weaker with

depth. Due to the changing nature of the soils with depth, it is anticipated that different excavation

techniques will be employed as the excavation increases in depth. Specifically, the stronger upper soils

(Alluvium, Sherack) will likely be excavated with a scraper as was the case for the HWF Diversions. As the

excavation penetrates into the Brenna Formation the soils may have a reduced capacity to support

construction equipment. Therefore, it is likely an excavator will be used and material loaded into off‐

road haul trucks to transport the excavated materials.



D.11.1.3 Stripping and Overexcavation

It is anticipated that 1 to 2 feet of topsoil will need to be stripped from the footprint of the project based

on the results of the top soil survey. However, localized variations could be encountered along the

alignment. This layer should be readily distinguishable as it will be black and contain organics. Topsoil

should be stripped from the diversion footprint and stockpiled as needed for placement during final

grading. This layer should be readily distinguishable as it will be black and contain organics.

It is anticipated that soft surface soils will be encountered at several locations along the alignment and will require special treatment beneath fill areas (EMBs, levees, and other embankments). Slopes of 1V:4H or steeper need to be stepped prior to subgrade preparation.

D.11.1.4 Dewatering

Dewatering prior to the start of excavation will not be required due to the impervious nature of the

soils, and the flow of water into the excavation will be minimal. The diversion channel will need to be

excavated with a slope such that any precipitation that occurs will runoff towards a low area. If a large

amount of precipitation occurs, the contractor may be required to pump this water out of the

excavation.

D.11.1.5 Sand Pockets / Lenses

There is the possibility of encountering sand pockets or lenses. If sand pockets or lenses are

encountered during excavation and have a perched water table, there could be a large quantity of flow

into the excavation. If dewater efforts could not keep up with the flow, an impervious cutoff trench

could be constructed adjacent to the diversion channel to reduce flow into the excavation.

D.11.2 Access/Maintenance Road Foundations

Access and maintenance roads along the project will require adequate foundations in order to minimize

surface degradation and associated maintenance over the project lifespan. Aggregate base course will

require a minimum 8” thickness, and will be placed atop a separation geotextile. The subgrade shall

consist of 3 ft of impervious fill placed in lifts no greater than 9” thick and compacted to 95% of standard

proctor with a moisture content between plus 3% and minus 2% of optimum.

This design is similar to the standard design used by Cass County. Additionally, calculations following the

Giroud and Han design method for unpaved roads (Reference D2 ‐ 6) were completed as part of the

Reach 1 design. The results of the calculations indicate that strong subgrade (undrained shear strength

of 1500 psf), geotextile separation fabric, and 9 inches of gravel was needed to support a minimal

number of passes (500) of heavy construction traffic (~12,600 lb wheel load). This supports the need to

compact the 3 feet of subgrade beneath the aggregate surfacing.

D.11.3 Embankment Construction

Construction of embankments in the Red River Valley can pose to be problematic due to the weak

foundation conditions. Placement of materials along the banks of existing rivers can reactivate existing

slides or initiate a new slope failure. Rapid placement of material for embankments can also lead to



slope failures during construction. These failures are dependent on the size and configuration of the

embankment along with the rate the embankments are constructed.

One recent example of failure during construction was the 9th Street and Interstate 94 Interchange in

West Fargo, North Dakota, occurring in 2007. In this case, bridge overpass embankments were

constructed over wick drains to heights greater than 30 ft above existing grade using 1V:2H side slopes

and failed 45 to 60 days after construction had started. It is recognized that rapidly constructing tall

embankments with steep side slopes can lead to end‐of‐construction (undrained) failures.

D.11.4 Winter Conditions

The contract specifications allow for some work to continue through the winter. Freezing temperatures

may be advantageous during bulk excavation of the diversion channel, as soils will be stiffer and subject

to less wetting by precipitation. However, the potential for freezing of the EMB subgrade and excavated

material requires some restrictions regarding material placement in these conditions.

Winter conditions are defined as when frost thickness measures 3 inches or greater. Continuous

operation (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) is required during winter conditions in order to minimize the

amount of excavated frozen material. Levees will not be constructed during the winter, though unfrozen

material may be placed anywhere in the EMB section so long as the subgrade is also unfrozen. Within

the inward ½ of the EMB (as measured by base width from the diversion‐side toe), frozen subgrade

must be removed prior to placement of unfrozen fill.

Excavated material containing any amount of frost must be placed in the outward ½ of the EMB, where

frozen subgrade must be scarified prior to placement. Chunks of frozen material measuring more than

12 inches in any direction must be temporarily stockpiled within the temporary work limits until thawed,

then re‐worked and placed in the EMB in accordance with the specifications.

D.11.5 Levees and Excavated Material Berms

In some areas of the channel a portion of the EMBs will function as a levee for channel flows that rise

above existing ground elevations. This portion of the EMB will be identified as a levee prism and will be

subject to more stringent construction specifications. For example, the materials used to construct the

levee will need to be taken from the upper portion of the stratigraphy containing the stronger alluvium

and Sherack soils. Also, stricter construction requirements will be required on lift thick and compaction.

Material used for the excavated material berms will have less strict lift thickness, density and

compaction requirements. The intent is to avoid soft spots and pockets along with minimizing the

differential settlement of the EMB.

Experience with the West Fargo Diversion project suggests that compaction of these excavated soils

occurs with relatively little effort.



D.11.5.1 Net Swelling of Material Used for EMBs

It is anticipated that the soil that is excavated for the construction of the diversion channel will not

occupy the same volume after placement as before excavation due to handling and placement. In other

words, there will likely be a net shrinking or swelling of the excavated soil. The experience during the

construction of the Manitoba floodway was that an average net increase in volume of 15% was

observed under non‐frozen conditions. The increase was larger under freezing conditions. The required

lift thickness was about 12 inches, and the only requirement regarding compaction was that the

excavated materials be “compacted with wheel loads, tracks or compaction equipment”. During

construction of the Horace to West Fargo Diversion in the Fargo area, there was a net decrease in

volume of the material, and additional material had to be obtained in order to construct the levees

adjacent to the channel. However, for the Horace to West Fargo Diversion all material was subject to

strict levee compaction requirements. It is apparent that the change in volume is heavily dependent on

the method of placement and cannot be quantified without replicating the placement conditions that

are anticipated during construction.

The approach that the design team has taken with regards to placement of the EMBs is to (1) control the

lift thickness and compaction within a reasonable level, (2) to plan for a range of potential soil

expansion, from no expansion to 15% expansion and (3) to provide a contingency plan should the

volume exceed the expected amount. Lift thicknesses are limited to 18 inches and compaction to 85% of

standard proctor is required. Considering the EMB grading guidelines it has been estimated that there is

enough space within the presently shown right‐of‐way in order to accommodate approximately 16%

combined expansion and quantity overruns. Additional “excavated material pile” sites have been

identified should the excavated material exhibit more expansion than expected.

Laboratory testing, including standard proctor and in‐situ dry density tests, have been conducted in

order to develop confidence in the above design approach. Undisturbed samples were extracted from

two locations in Reach 1. The samples were taken from the upper 20 ft, which comprise the vast

majority of the diversion excavation. The goal of the testing was to determine how the in‐situ density

compares to compaction levels required by the specification.

The results are plotted in Figure D2‐7, which shows the in‐situ density compared to the dry density

associated with the specified compaction level for EMB material (85% of maximum dry density

according to standard proctor). In all cases there is a reduction in density between the in‐situ density

and the compacted density that directly corresponds with volumetric expansion. The expansion varies

by sample between 4% and 19%, with an average of 13%. The average value does not necessarily

correspond with the average value of the excavated material ‐ A greater proportion of the material will

be derived from the upper stratigraphy due to the trapezoidal shape of the channel. However,

normalized to account for the shape of the channel the average expansion remains 13%.



Figure D2‐ 7: In‐situ dry density data compared to standard proctor results

Generally speaking it can be said that the results of the soils testing support the design approach. They

can be interpreted to mean that if 85% of standard proctor is achieved for all excavated soils, there will

be sufficient volume within the current design grade lines to accommodate the excavated materials

within the EMB section. In reality some of the material will experience greater compaction, whether

required (embedded levee) or incidental (greater equipment traffic).

D.12 SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

D.12.1 Levee Material

As mentioned previously, the material that is goes into the levee section will come for the upper portion

of the diversion channel excavation. This material mush have a liquid limit (LL) of 90% or lower.

D.12.2 Concrete Aggregate, Riprap, and Bedding

Sources for fine and coarse concrete aggregate, bedding, and riprap should be available locally. Most of

the material consists of rounded, wave‐washed boulders, cobbles, and sand. Acceptable quality

commercial aggregates in the Fargo/Moorhead vicinity are usually obtained from the beach ridges of

glacial Lake Agassiz east of the Red River. Riprap and bedding material may be available from field stone

piles in farm fields. If large quantities of riprap size material are required, especially "over‐size" rock,

producers will need significant lead time in order to stockpile material. Outside of the Red River Valley

sources of quarried, angular, stone are also be available within an approximate radius of 200 miles of

the proposed project.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Depth (ft)

(pcf)

Dry Densitydry density, 85% compaction (pcf) in‐situ dry density (pcf)



D.13 PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted along the project area to identify the

presence and/or potential presence of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes (HTRW). The ESA

identifies past or present HTRW issues term Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) which is

defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a

property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a

release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the

ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.

The initial PI ESA was completed during the feasibility study in 2010 by Stanley Consultants (Reference

D2 ‐ 7). A supplemental investigation was completed in 2012 by the St. Louis District Corps of Engineers

(Reference D2 ‐ 5) to cover the areas of the shifted alignment at the north end of the project. The ESAs

were completed in conformance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527‐05 and Engineering Regulation ER‐1165‐2‐132 Water Resource Policies

and Authorities Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Guidance for Civil Works Projects.

Within Reach 5 specifically, there were no major issues identified on the properties within Reach 5. Due to the agricultural and rural setting, it would be common to have RECs associated with these types of settings which include aboveground storage tanks, (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), underground utilities, etc. Even if these RECs were present, they would not present a significant risk if handled properly.

D.14 REFERENCES

Reference D2 ‐1: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management General Report: Geotechnical Design and Geology. St. Paul District: July 2011. Reference D2 ‐ 2: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fargo‐Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project –MFR‐001, Levees and Excavated Material Berms along the Diversion Channel. St. Paul District: June 2012.

Reference D2 ‐ 3: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Fargo‐Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project –MFR‐002, Diversion Channel and Low‐Flow Chanel Design. St. Paul District: June 2012.

Reference D2‐4: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – St. Paul District. Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management – MFR‐010, Utility Relocation Requirements. April 2012.

Reference D2 ‐ 5: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – St. Louis District. Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Area

Flood Risk Management Project Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) 2012 Supplement.

September 2012.

Reference D2 ‐ 6: Giroud, J.P. and Han, Jie. Design Method for Geogrid‐Reinforced Unpaved Roads.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. August 2004.

Reference D2 ‐ 7: Stanly Consultants, Inc. (2010). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fargo Metro

Feasibility Study HTRW. November 2010.



D.15 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment D2 ‐ 1: Stratigraphy (Included in Reach 5 DDR)

Attachment D2 ‐ 2: Soil Exploration Location Maps (Included in Reach 5 DDR)

Attachment D2 ‐ 3: Boring Log Plates (Included in Reach 5 DDR)

Attachment D2 ‐ 4: Outlet and Diversion Stability Analysis Results

Diversion Channel Section 8: Pages 1‐19

Diversion Channel Section 8a: Pages 20‐38

Lower Rush Ramp Section LRR1: Pages 39‐50

Lower Rush Ramp Section LRR2: Pages 51‐61

Attachment D2 ‐ 5: Settlement and Rebound Calculations

Attachment D2-1: Stratigraphy

See Attachment D1-1: Stratigraphy included in Reach 5 DDR

Attachment D2-2: Soil Exploration Location Maps

See Attachment D1-2: Soil Exploration Location Maps included in Reach 5 DDR

Attachment D2-3: Boring Log Plates

See Attachment D1-3: Boring Log Plates included in Reach 5 DDR

Attachment D2-4: Outlet and Diversion Stability Analysis Results

890

900

910

920

Elevation (FT)

Fargo‐Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management ProjectEMB Maxium Grading for Section 8

Case 2

SemiCompacted EMB

Simplified EMB

‐325,893

‐275,892

‐437,909

‐1018,893

‐990,886 ‐‐980,886

‐953,892.7

‐933,893

‐837,909

‐637,913

‐485,910

Max InitialEMB Height 16ft

EMB Width 400ft

Max EMB Height 20ft

1V:7H1V:6H

860

870

880

‐1100 ‐1050 ‐1000 ‐950 ‐900 ‐850 ‐800 ‐750 ‐700 ‐650 ‐600 ‐550 ‐500 ‐450 ‐400 ‐350 ‐300 ‐250 ‐200 ‐150 ‐100 ‐50 0

Stationing

‐150,874

‐100,873 ‐10,871

‐33,867‐55,866

‐78,867

Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management

Design Documentation Report Lower Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure

Attachment D2-4: Stability Analysis

Page 1 of 61

870 872

874 876 878

8

80

Unit "A" Till

AlluviumSherackOx Brenna

File Name: FMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gsz Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: OX Brenna Vol. WC. Function: OX Brenna K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.6 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.057 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.45 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 0.25 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section 8, Simple EMBSTA 576+51 (HEC-RAS 57651 and 58651)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 2 - 6.5ft Low Flow HeightHeight=20 Feet, Width=400 Feet

Argusville

Created By: Lopez, JoseLast Edited By: Ernst, Rachel L MVSDate: 10/23/2012

Case 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 2 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Created By: Lopez, Rachel Last Edited By: Lopez, Rachel Date: 9/24/2014

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

870 872

874 876 878

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 3 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

1.427

Unit "A" Till



Name: Alluvium Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 31 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 28 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 108 pcf Strength Function: OX Brenna Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 106 pcf Strength Function: Brenna Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 110 pcf Strength Function: Argusville Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 225 psf Phi: 22 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 121 pcf Cohesion: 50 psf Phi: 14 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 50 psf Phi: 14 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Brenna


Argusville


Case 2: (1) Global Stability FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 4 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

1.427

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 5 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

1.456

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (2) Global EMB Stability

5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 6 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (3) Lower Stability

0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 7 of 61

1.528

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (4) Localized Stability

.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 8 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

1.759

Unit "A" Till

AlluviumSherack

Ox Brenna

Excavated Material Berm

Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (5) EMB Left Slope Stability

Distance ( 1000)

-1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6




Page 9 of 61

1.330

Unit "A" Till Undrained

Alluvium UndrainedSherack UndrainedOx Brenna Undrained


Name: Alluvium Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 900 psf Name: Sherack Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 900 psf Name: Ox Brenna Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 108 pcf Cohesion: 900 psf Name: Brenna Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 106 pcf Cohesion: 575 psf Name: Argusville Undrained Model: S=f(depth) Unit Weight: 110 pcf C-Top of Layer: 575 psf C-Rate of Change: 10 psf/ft Limiting C: 1000 psf Name: Unit "A" Till Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 1900 psf Name: Excavated Material Berm Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 121 pcf Cohesion: 600 psf Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 600 psf

Brenna Undrained


Argusville Undrained


Case 2: Undrained Stability FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

10

00)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 10 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB Undrained

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


1.330



Brenna Undrained


FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 11 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB Undrained

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB Undrained

1.486


Alluvium UndrainedSherack Undrained

Ox Brenna Undrained

Excavated Material Berm Undrained

Brenna Undrained


FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability EMB Left Slope

Distance (x 1000)

-1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6




Page 12 of 61

866

8

68

870 872 874 876

8

78

8

80

Unit "A" Till



Name: Alluvium Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: OX Brenna Vol. WC. Function: OX Brenna K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.6 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.057 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.45 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 0.25 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 °

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section 8, Simple EMBSTA 576+51 (HEC-RAS 57651 and 58651)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 5 - 6.5ft Low Flow Height, 2 ft SedimentationHeight=20 Feet, Width=400 Feet

Argusville


Case 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 13 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


866 868 870

872 874

876 8

78

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 14 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

1.352

Unit "A" Till




Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section 8, Simple EMBSTA 576+51 (HEC-RAS 57651 and 58651)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 5 - 6.5ft Low Flow Height, 2 ft SedimentationHeight=20 Feet, Width=400 Feet

Argusville


Case 2: (1) Global Stability FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

10

00)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 15 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

1.352

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 16 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

1.448

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (2) Global EMB Stability

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 17 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

1.249

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (3) Lower Stability

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 18 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

EMB

1.053

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.576+51_EMB_H20_W400.gszCase 2: (4) Localized Stability

5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 19 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Semi Compacted EMB

890

900

910

920

Elevation (FT)

Fargo‐Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management ProjectEMB Maxium Grading for Section 8a

Case 2

SemiCompacted EMB

Simplified EMB

‐329,893

‐279,893

‐441,909

‐1023,893

‐995,886 ‐‐985,886

‐957,893

‐937,893

‐841,909

‐641,913

‐489,910


Max EMB Height 20ft

‐329,893

‐279,893

‐441,909

‐1023,893

‐995,886 ‐‐985,886

‐957,893

‐937,893

‐641,913

‐489,910


1V:7H1V:6H

EMB Width 400ft

860

870

880

‐1100 ‐1050 ‐1000 ‐950 ‐900 ‐850 ‐800 ‐750 ‐700 ‐650 ‐600 ‐550 ‐500 ‐450 ‐400 ‐350 ‐300 ‐250 ‐200 ‐150 ‐100 ‐50 0

Stationing

‐150,875

‐100,874 ‐10,871

‐33,867‐55,866

‐78,867

‐150,875

‐100,874 ‐10,871

‐33,867‐55,866

‐78,867




Page 20 of 61

8

68

870

8

72

874

876

878

Unit "A" Till


File Name: FMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gsz Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: OX Brenna Vol. WC. Function: OX Brenna K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.6 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.057 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.45 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 0.25 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 °

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section 8A, Simple EMBSTA 586+51 (HEC-RAS 58651 and 59651)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 2 - 6.5ft Low Flow HeightHeight=20, Width 400

Created By: Lopez, JoseLast Edited By: Goltz, Amanda MVSDate: 1/25/2013

Case 2: Steady-State Seepage AnalysisFMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 21 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


868 870 872

874

876 878

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 22 of 61

1.414

Unit "A" Till




Brenna



Case 2: (1) Global StabilityFMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

Argusville

Semi-Compacted Excavated Material BermExcavated Material Berm

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

10

00)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 23 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


1.414

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

Argusville

Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 24 of 61

1.485

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (2) Global EMB Stability

Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm m

Argusville

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 25 of 61

1.509

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (3) Lower Stability

Argusville

-Compacted Excavated Material Berm

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 26 of 61

1.516

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (4) Localized Stability

i-Compacted Excavated Material Berm

Argusville

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 27 of 61

1.762

Unit

AlluviumSheracOx Bre

Bre

gidth 400 eft Slope Stability

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (5) EMB Left Slope Stability

Arg

Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Excavated Material Berm

.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4




Page 28 of 61

1.339





Brenna Undrained


Excavated Material Berm Undrained


Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Undrained

Case 2: Undrained Stability


FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

10

00)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 29 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

1.339



Brenna Undrained

erial Berm Undrained Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Undrained


FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability

6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 30 of 61

1.495Excavated Material Berm Undrained Semi-Compact

y pFMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE2_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability EMB Left Slope

Distance (x 1000)

-1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5




Page 31 of 61

870 872 874 876

8

78

880

Unit "A" Till



Name: Alluvium Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: OX Brenna Vol. WC. Function: OX Brenna K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.6 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.057 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.45 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 0.25 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction

Semi- Compacted Excavted Material Berm Excavted Material Berm

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section 8A, Simple EMBSTA 586+51 (HEC-RAS 58651 and 59651)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 5 - 6.5ft Low Flow Height, 2 ft sedimentationWidth=400, Height=20

Argusville


Case 2: Steady-State Seepage AnalysisFMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 32 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


870 872

874 876

878

Unit "A" Till


Semi- Compacted Excavted Material Berm

Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 33 of 61

1.356

Unit "A" Till




Semi- Compacted Excavted Material Berm Excavted Material Berm

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section 8A, Simple EMBSTA 586+51 (HEC-RAS 58651 and 59651)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 5 - 6.5ft Low Flow Height, 2 ft sedimentationWidth=400, Height=20

Argusville


Case 2: (1) Global StabilityFMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-2.0 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Ele

vatio

n (x

10

00)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 34 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Text Box

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text


1.356

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 35 of 61

1.447

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (2) Global EMB Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 36 of 61

1.271

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (3) Lower Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 37 of 61

1.100

Unit "A" Till


Excavted Material Berm

Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 5 - Section 8, Simple EMBFMM_Sect-08_CASE5_Sta.586+51_EMB20_W400.gszCase 2: (4) Localized Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x

100

0)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00




Page 38 of 61

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800-50-100-150-200-250-300-350-400-450-500-550-600-650-700-750-800-850-900-950-1000-1050-1100-1150-1200-1250-1300-1350-1400-5+30

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

905.40

-896.90

911.06

-664.37 913.12

-519.75912.91

-505.49

912.80

-503.79

893.12

-306.89

892.15

-254.67 872.30

312.07

866.68

358.76

866.69

412.57

872.13

437.72866.24

386.60

867.40

-60.00866.20

-20.00

867.40

60.00866.20

20.00

878.39

-144.76

873.39

-144.76

862.40

-60.00

861.20

-20.00

861.20

20.00 862.40

60.00

869.29

343.08

892.27

770.86

874.35

593.66

901.08

-947.21

872.40

138.71875.15

138.71

871.02

167.27

877.33

139.41

874.30

169.39

872.44

165.51

870.80

169.39




Page 39 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Lower Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure Section LRR1 Sta 5+30

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

862

864

866

868

870

8

72

8

74


Alluvium

File Name: FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gsz

Sherack

Argusville

Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: OX Brenna Vol. WC. Function: OX Brenna K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.6 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.057 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.45 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 0.25 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Riprap Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 1000 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0 ft³/ft³ Mv: 0 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 °

Ox Brenna

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section LRR1, STA 5+30North EMB Rock Ramp Stability

Unit "A" Till

Riprap

Created By: Ernst, RachelLast Edited By: Lopez, Rachel L MVSDate: 10/4/2014

Steady-State Seepage Analysis

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gszSteady-State Seepage Analysis

Distance (x 1000)

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0740

780

820

860

900

940

Ele

vatio

n

740

780

820

860

900

940




Page 40 of 61

862

864

866

868

870 872

874


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

Riprap


-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5




Page 41 of 61

1.730Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm

Excavated Material BermAlluvium


Sherack

Argusville

Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 31 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 28 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 108 pcf Strength Function: OX Brenna Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 106 pcf Strength Function: Brenna Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 110 pcf Strength Function: Argusville Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 225 psf Phi: 22 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Riprap Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 121 pcf Cohesion: 50 psf Phi: 14 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 50 psf Phi: 14 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Ox Brenna

Brenna


Unit "A" Till

Riprap


(1) Global Stability

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gsz(1) Global Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0740760780800820840860880900920940960

Ele

vatio

n

740760780800820840860880900920940960




Page 42 of 61

1.730Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Excavated Material Berm

Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

Riprap

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gsz(2) Global EMB Stability

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5




Page 43 of 61


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

Riprap

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gsz(2) Global EMB Stability

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5




Page 44 of 61


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

Riprap

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gsz(3) Lower Stability

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5




Page 45 of 61


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

Riprap

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gsz(4) Localized Stability

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5




Page 46 of 61

1.447Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Undrained

Excavated Material Berm UndrainedAlluvium Undrained Peak


Sherack Undrained Peak

Argusville Undrained Peak

Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 900 psf Name: Excavated Material Berm Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 121 pcf Cohesion: 600 psf Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Undrained Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 600 psf Name: Alluvium Undrained Peak Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 1400 psf Name: Sherack Undrained Peak Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 1400 psf Name: Ox Brenna Undrained Peak Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 108 pcf Cohesion: 1000 psf Name: Brenna Undrained Peak Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 106 pcf Cohesion: 650 psf Name: Argusville Undrained Peak Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 110 pcf Cohesion: 825 psf Name: Unit "A" Till Undrained Peak Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 2200 psf

Ox Brenna Undrained Peak

Brenna Undrained Peak


Unit "A" Till Undrained Peak


Undrained Stability - DC Peak

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gszUndrained Stability - DC Peak

Distance (x 1000)

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0740760780800820840860880900920940960

Ele

vatio

n

740760780800820840860880900920940960




Page 47 of 61


Excavated Material Berm UndrainedAlluvium Undrained Peak Sherack Undrained Peak

Argusville Undrained Peak

Ox Brenna Undrained Peak

Brenna Undrained Peak

Unit "A" Till Undrained Peak

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gszUndrained Stability - During Construction - Peak Strengths

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6




Page 48 of 61


Excavated Material Berm UndrainedAlluvium Undrained Sherack Undrained


Ox Brenna Undrained

Brenna Undrained


FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gszUndrained Stability - During Construction - Ultimate Strengths

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6




Page 49 of 61


Excavated Material Berm UndrainedAlluvium Undrained Sherack Undrained


Ox Brenna Undrained

Brenna Undrained


Riprap

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 5+30FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR1_Sta.5+30.gszUndrained Stability - End Of Construction

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6




Page 50 of 61

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000-50-100-150-200-250-300-350-400-450-500-550-600-650-700-750-800-850-900-950-1000-12+00

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

892.17

-621.64

886.14

-552.28

886.14

-529.25892.39

-457.21

892.82

-410.63

905.45

-236.12

913.25

273.07

913.30

278.24

909.37

739.82

895.17

969.89

883.20

0.00883.45

19.97

894.35

121.35893.87

97.13

893.35

71.11886.16

35.24

885.70

19.97

885.45

0.00

885.70

-20.03

886.16

-35.30

893.85

-96.39893.35

-71.04

894.35

-121.75

892.18

-96.39891.68

-71.04

884.50

-35.30

883.91

-35.30

883.45

-20.03883.91

35.24884.51

35.30891.68

71.11892.20

97.13




Page 51 of 61

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Lower Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure Section LRR2 Sta 12+00

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

B3ECGRLE

Typewritten Text

Riprap


Alluvium


Sherack

Argusville

Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: Alluv/Sherack Vol. WC. Function: Alluv/Sherack K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Saturated / Unsaturated K-Function: OX Brenna Vol. WC. Function: OX Brenna K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.6 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.057 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.45 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 0.25 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Riprap Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 1000 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0 ft³/ft³ Mv: 0 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 0.00028 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0.63 ft³/ft³ Mv: 3e-005 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 °

Ox Brenna

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 5, Section LRR2, STA 12+00 South EMB Rock Ramp Stability

Unit "A" Till

Created By: Lopez, RachelLast Edited By: Lopez, Rachel L MVSDate: 1/9/2015

Steady-State Seepage Analysis


Distance (x 1000)

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8740

780

820

860

900

940

Ele

vatio

n

740

780

820

860

900

940




Page 52 of 61

Riprap


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till


-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2




Page 53 of 61

2.730Riprap


Alluvium


Sherack

Argusville

Soil Properties

Name: Alluvium Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 31 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Sherack Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 28 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Ox Brenna Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 108 pcf Strength Function: OX Brenna Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Brenna Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 106 pcf Strength Function: Brenna Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Argusville Model: Shear/Normal Fn. Unit Weight: 110 pcf Strength Function: Argusville Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Unit "A" Till Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 225 psf Phi: 22 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Riprap Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Excavated Material Berm Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 121 pcf Cohesion: 50 psf Phi: 14 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Name: Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 123 pcf Cohesion: 50 psf Phi: 14 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Ox Brenna

Brenna


Unit "A" Till


(1) Global Stability (2)

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gsz(1) Global Stability (2)

Distance (x 1000)

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8740

780

820

860

900

940

Ele

vatio

n

740

780

820

860

900

940




Page 54 of 61

2.730Riprap


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gsz(1) Global Stability (2)




Page 55 of 61

1.775Riprap


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gsz(2) Global EMB Stability (2)




Page 56 of 61

Riprap


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gsz(3) Lower Stability (2)




Page 57 of 61

Riprap


Alluvium Sherack

Argusville

Ox Brenna

Brenna

Unit "A" Till

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gsz(4) Localized Stability (2)




Page 58 of 61

1.374

Alluvium Undrained

Semi-Compacted Excavated Material Berm UndrainedExcavated Material Berm Undrained

Alluvium Undrained


Sherack Undrained


Soil Properties


Ox Brenna Undrained

Brenna Undrained




Undrained Stability

FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gszUndrained Stability

Distance (x 1000)

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8740

780

820

860

900

940

Ele

vatio

n

740

780

820

860

900

940




Page 59 of 61

1.374Alluvium Undrained




Ox Brenna Undrained

Brenna Undrained


FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gszUndrained Stability

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3




Page 60 of 61

1.469Riprap




Ox Brenna Undrained

Brenna Undrained


FMM: Reach 5 - Lower Rush Rock Ramp Sta 12+00FMM_LRR_Sect-LRR2_Sta.12+00.gszUndrained Stability End of Construction

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2




Page 61 of 61

Attachment D2-5: Settlement and Rebound Calculations

Project: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project

Subject: Settlement Calculations - Sta 576+81 (infinite surcharge)

Computed By: RLL Reviewed By: JRL

Date: 1/22/2013 Date: 1/22/2013

General Section Information Stratigraphy Information Material Properties - Mean

Location Layer Formation Depth (ft) Settlement in layer (in.) sat (pcf) ' OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec

893 893.0 1 Alluvium 5.0 4.45 120 57.6 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130

10 888 2 Sherack 13.0 1.70 115 52.6 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.123

873 880.0 3 OX Brenna 19.0 1.97 108 45.6 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.249

874.0 4 Brenna 53.0 7.38 106 43.6 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312

Surcharge - Excavated Material Berm 840.0 5 Argusville 65.0 1.64 110 47.6 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318

Sta 576+81 (infinite surcharge)

Ground Surface Elevation (ft NAVD88)

Depth to groundwater table (ft)

Base of Drain

Unit Weight (pcf) 123 828 6

Thickness (ft) 20 7

Surcharge (psf) 2460 8

Depth of compressible strata (ft) 65.0 17.15

Results (ft) (in.)

Total Settlement 1.43 17.1



Attachment D2-5. Settlement and Rebound Analysis

Page 1 of 17



Computed By: RLL Reviewed By: JRL

Date: 1/22/2013 Date: 1/22/2013

Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) GW depth (ft) Formation sat (pcf) σv (psf) u (psf) σ'vo (psf) σ'v (psf) σ'vf (psf) OCR σ'vc (psf) Cer Cec Recomp. (ft) Comp. (ft) Sc (ft) Sc (ft)Sc ‐ cumulative (ft),

mean parameters,

infinite surcharge

0 893 0 Alluvium 120 0 0 0 2460 2460 3.8 0 0.018 0.130 0.000 0 0 0 1.429

1 892 0 Alluvium 120 120 0 120 2460 2580 3.8 456 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.136 0.147 0.147 1.282

2 891 0 Alluvium 120 240 0 240 2460 2700 3.8 912 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.077 0.087 0.234 1.195

3 890 0 Alluvium 120 360 0 360 2460 2820 3.8 1368 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.050 0.061 0.295 1.134

4 889 0 Alluvium 120 480 0 480 2460 2940 3.8 1824 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.033 0.044 0.339 1.090

5 888 0 Alluvium 120 600 0 600 2460 3060 3.8 2280 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.022 0.032 0.371 1.058

6 887 0 Sherack 115 715 0 715 2460 3175 3.6 2574 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.013 0.030 0.401 1.028

7 886 0 Sherack 115 830 0 830 2460 3290 3.6 2988 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.008 0.024 0.425 1.004

8 885 0 Sherack 115 945 0 945 2460 3405 3.6 3402 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.002 0.018 0.443 0.986

9 884 0 Sherack 115 1060 0 1060 2460 3520 3.6 3816 0.028 0.123 0.015 0.000 0.015 0.458 0.971

10 883 0 Sherack 115 1175 0 1175 2460 3635 3.6 4230 0.028 0.123 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.473 0.956

11 882 1 Sherack 115 1290 62.4 1227.6 2460 3687.6 3.6 4419.36 0.028 0.123 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.486 0.943

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Settlement (ft)

Sc ‐ cumulative (ft)mean parameters, infinite surcharge

12 881 2 Sherack 115 1405 124.8 1280.2 2460 3740.2 3.6 4608.72 0.028 0.123 0.013 0.000 0.013 0.500 0.929

13 880 3 Sherack 115 1520 187.2 1332.8 2460 3792.8 3.6 4798.08 0.028 0.123 0.013 0.000 0.013 0.513 0.916

14 879 4 OX Brenna 108 1628 249.6 1378.4 2460 3838.4 4.2 5789.28 0.064 0.249 0.029 0.000 0.029 0.542 0.887

15 878 5 OX Brenna 108 1736 312 1424 2460 3884 4.2 5980.8 0.064 0.249 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.570 0.859

16 877 6 OX Brenna 108 1844 374.4 1469.6 2460 3929.6 4.2 6172.32 0.064 0.249 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.597 0.832

17 876 7 OX Brenna 108 1952 436.8 1515.2 2460 3975.2 4.2 6363.84 0.064 0.249 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.624 0.805

18 875 8 OX Brenna 108 2060 499.2 1560.8 2460 4020.8 4.2 6555.36 0.064 0.249 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.651 0.778

19 874 9 OX Brenna 108 2168 561.6 1606.4 2460 4066.4 4.2 6746.88 0.064 0.249 0.026 0.000 0.026 0.677 0.752

20 873 10 Brenna 106 2274 624 1650 2460 4110 3.1 5115 0.057 0.312 0.023 0.000 0.023 0.700 0.729

21 872 11 Brenna 106 2380 686.4 1693.6 2460 4153.6 3.1 5250.16 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.722 0.707

22 871 12 Brenna 106 2486 748.8 1737.2 2460 4197.2 3.1 5385.32 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.744 0.685

23 870 13 Brenna 106 2592 811.2 1780.8 2460 4240.8 3.1 5520.48 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.766 0.663

24 869 14 Brenna 106 2698 873.6 1824.4 2460 4284.4 3.1 5655.64 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.787 0.642

25 868 15 Brenna 106 2804 936 1868 2460 4328 3.1 5790.8 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.808 0.621

26 867 16 Brenna 106 2910 998.4 1911.6 2460 4371.6 3.1 5925.96 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.829 0.600

27 866 17 Brenna 106 3016 1060.8 1955.2 2460 4415.2 3.1 6061.12 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.849 0.580

28 865 18 Brenna 106 3122 1123.2 1998.8 2460 4458.8 3.1 6196.28 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.869 0.560

29 864 19 Brenna 106 3228 1185.6 2042.4 2460 4502.4 3.1 6331.44 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.889 0.540

30 863 20 Brenna 106 3334 1248 2086 2460 4546 3.1 6466.6 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.909 0.521

31 862 21 Brenna 106 3440 1310.4 2129.6 2460 4589.6 3.1 6601.76 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.928 0.501

32 861 22 B 106 3546 1372 8 2173 2 2460 4633 2 3 1 6736 92 0 057 0 312 0 019 0 000 0 019 0 947 0 482

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

depth (ft)

32 861 22 Brenna 106 3546 1372.8 2173.2 2460 4633.2 3.1 6736.92 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.947 0.482

33 860 23 Brenna 106 3652 1435.2 2216.8 2460 4676.8 3.1 6872.08 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.965 0.464

34 859 24 Brenna 106 3758 1497.6 2260.4 2460 4720.4 3.1 7007.24 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 0.984 0.445

35 858 25 Brenna 106 3864 1560 2304 2460 4764 3.1 7142.4 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.002 0.427

36 857 26 Brenna 106 3970 1622.4 2347.6 2460 4807.6 3.1 7277.56 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.020 0.409

37 856 27 Brenna 106 4076 1684.8 2391.2 2460 4851.2 3.1 7412.72 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.037 0.392

38 855 28 Brenna 106 4182 1747.2 2434.8 2460 4894.8 3.1 7547.88 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.055 0.374

39 854 29 Brenna 106 4288 1809.6 2478.4 2460 4938.4 3.1 7683.04 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.072 0.357

40 853 30 Brenna 106 4394 1872 2522 2460 4982 3.1 7818.2 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.089 0.340

41 852 31 Brenna 106 4500 1934.4 2565.6 2460 5025.6 3.1 7953.36 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.106 0.323

42 851 32 Brenna 106 4606 1996.8 2609.2 2460 5069.2 3.1 8088.52 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.122 0.307

43 850 33 Brenna 106 4712 2059.2 2652.8 2460 5112.8 3.1 8223.68 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.139 0.290

44 849 34 Brenna 106 4818 2121.6 2696.4 2460 5156.4 3.1 8358.84 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.155 0.274

45 848 35 Brenna 106 4924 2184 2740 2460 5200 3.1 8494 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.171 0.258

46 847 36 Brenna 106 5030 2246.4 2783.6 2460 5243.6 3.1 8629.16 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.187 0.242

47 846 37 Brenna 106 5136 2308.8 2827.2 2460 5287.2 3.1 8764.32 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.202 0.227

48 845 38 Brenna 106 5242 2371.2 2870.8 2460 5330.8 3.1 8899.48 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.218 0.211

49 844 39 Brenna 106 5348 2433.6 2914.4 2460 5374.4 3.1 9034.64 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.233 0.196

50 843 40 Brenna 106 5454 2496 2958 2460 5418 3.1 9169.8 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.248 0.181

51 842 41 Brenna 106 5560 2558.4 3001.6 2460 5461.6 3.1 9304.96 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.263 0.166

52 841 42 Brenna 106 5666 2620 8 3045 2 2460 5505 2 3 1 9440 12 0 057 0 312 0 015 0 000 0 015 1 278 0 15152 841 42 Brenna 106 5666 2620.8 3045.2 2460 5505.2 3.1 9440.12 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.278 0.151

53 840 43 Brenna 106 5772 2683.2 3088.8 2460 5548.8 3.1 9575.28 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.292 0.137

54 839 44 Argusville 110 5882 2745.6 3136.4 2460 5596.4 2.2 6900.08 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.304 0.125

55 838 45 Argusville 110 5992 2808 3184 2460 5644 2.2 7004.8 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.316 0.113

56 837 46 Argusville 110 6102 2870.4 3231.6 2460 5691.6 2.2 7109.52 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.328 0.101

57 836 47 Argusville 110 6212 2932.8 3279.2 2460 5739.2 2.2 7214.24 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.340 0.089

58 835 48 Argusville 110 6322 2995.2 3326.8 2460 5786.8 2.2 7318.96 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.351 0.078

59 834 49 Argusville 110 6432 3057.6 3374.4 2460 5834.4 2.2 7423.68 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.363 0.066

60 833 50 Argusville 110 6542 3120 3422 2460 5882 2.2 7528.4 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.374 0.055

61 832 51 Argusville 110 6652 3182.4 3469.6 2460 5929.6 2.2 7633.12 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.385 0.044

62 831 52 Argusville 110 6762 3244.8 3517.2 2460 5977.2 2.2 7737.84 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.397 0.033

63 830 53 Argusville 110 6872 3307.2 3564.8 2460 6024.8 2.2 7842.56 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.408 0.022

64 829 54 Argusville 110 6982 3369.6 3612.4 2460 6072.4 2.2 7947.28 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.418 0.011

65 828 55 Argusville 110 7092 3432 3660 2460 6120 2.2 8052 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.429 0.000




Page 2 of 17



Computed By: RLE Reviewed By: JRL

Date: 1/22/2013 Date: 1/22/2013

General Section Information Stratigraphy Information Material Properties - Mean

Location Layer Formation Depth (ft) Settlement in layer (in.) sat (pcf) ' OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec

893 893 1 Alluvium 4 4.07 120 57.6 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130

10 889 2 Sherack 14 2.34 115 52.6 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.123

873 879 3 OX Brenna 18 1.31 108 45.6 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.249

875 4 Brenna 41 5.42 106 43.6 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312S h E t d M t i l B 840 A ill 65 3 49 110 47 6 2 2 0 113 0 75 1 36 0 048 0 318

Sta 586+51 (infinite surcharge)

Ground Surface Elevation (ft NAVD88)


Base of Drain

Surcharge - Excavated Material Berm 840 5 Argusville 65 3.49 110 47.6 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318

Unit Weight (pcf) 123 828 6

Thickness (ft) 20 7

Surcharge (psf) 2460 8

Depth of compressible strata (ft) 65 16.63

Results (ft) (in.)

Total Settlement 1.39 16.6




Page 3 of 17



Computed By: RLE Reviewed By: JRL

Date: 1/22/2013 Date: 1/22/2013

Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) GW depth (ft) Formation sat (pcf) σv (psf) u (psf) σ'vo (psf) σ'v (psf) σ'vf (psf) OCR σ'vc (psf) Cer Cec Recomp. (ft) Comp. (ft) Sc (ft) Sc (ft)Sc ‐ cumulative (ft),

mean parameters,

infinite surcharge

0 893 0 Alluvium 120 0 0 0 2460 2460 3.8 0 0.018 0.130 0.000 0 0 0 1.386

1 892 0 Alluvium 120 120 0 120 2460 2580 3.8 456 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.136 0.147 0.147 1.239

2 891 0 Alluvium 120 240 0 240 2460 2700 3.8 912 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.077 0.087 0.234 1.152

3 890 0 Alluvium 120 360 0 360 2460 2820 3.8 1368 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.050 0.061 0.295 1.091

4 889 0 Alluvium 120 480 0 480 2460 2940 3.8 1824 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.033 0.044 0.339 1.047

5 888 0 Sherack 115 595 0 595 2460 3055 3.6 2142 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.022 0.038 0.377 1.009

6 887 0 Sherack 115 710 0 710 2460 3170 3.6 2556 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.015 0.031 0.408 0.978

7 886 0 Sherack 115 825 0 825 2460 3285 3.6 2970 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.008 0.024 0.432 0.954

8 885 0 Sherack 115 940 0 940 2460 3400 3.6 3384 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.003 0.019 0.451 0.935

9 884 0 Sherack 115 1055 0 1055 2460 3515 3.6 3798 0.028 0.123 0.015 0.000 0.015 0.466 0.920

10 883 0 Sherack 115 1170 0 1170 2460 3630 3.6 4212 0.028 0.123 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.481 0.905

11 882 1 Sherack 115 1285 62 4 1222 6 2460 3682 6 3 6 4401 36 0 028 0 123 0 014 0 000 0 014 0 494 0 891

0

10

20

30

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Settlement (ft)

Sc ‐ cumulative (ft)mean parameters, infinite surcharge

11 882 1 Sherack 115 1285 62.4 1222.6 2460 3682.6 3.6 4401.36 0.028 0.123 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.494 0.891

12 881 2 Sherack 115 1400 124.8 1275.2 2460 3735.2 3.6 4590.72 0.028 0.123 0.013 0.000 0.013 0.508 0.878

13 880 3 Sherack 115 1515 187.2 1327.8 2460 3787.8 3.6 4780.08 0.028 0.123 0.013 0.000 0.013 0.521 0.865

14 879 4 Sherack 115 1630 249.6 1380.4 2460 3840.4 3.6 4969.44 0.028 0.123 0.013 0.000 0.013 0.534 0.852

15 878 5 OX Brenna 108 1738 312 1426 2460 3886 4.2 5989.2 0.064 0.249 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.562 0.824

16 877 6 OX Brenna 108 1846 374.4 1471.6 2460 3931.6 4.2 6180.72 0.064 0.249 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.589 0.796

17 876 7 OX Brenna 108 1954 436.8 1517.2 2460 3977.2 4.2 6372.24 0.064 0.249 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.616 0.769

18 875 8 OX Brenna 108 2062 499.2 1562.8 2460 4022.8 4.2 6563.76 0.064 0.249 0.026 0.000 0.026 0.643 0.743

19 874 9 Brenna 106 2168 561.6 1606.4 2460 4066.4 3.1 4979.84 0.057 0.312 0.023 0.000 0.023 0.666 0.720

20 873 10 Brenna 106 2274 624 1650 2460 4110 3.1 5115 0.057 0.312 0.023 0.000 0.023 0.689 0.697

21 872 11 Brenna 106 2380 686.4 1693.6 2460 4153.6 3.1 5250.16 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.711 0.674

22 871 12 Brenna 106 2486 748.8 1737.2 2460 4197.2 3.1 5385.32 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.734 0.652

23 870 13 Brenna 106 2592 811.2 1780.8 2460 4240.8 3.1 5520.48 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.755 0.631

24 869 14 Brenna 106 2698 873.6 1824.4 2460 4284.4 3.1 5655.64 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.777 0.609

25 868 15 Brenna 106 2804 936 1868 2460 4328 3.1 5790.8 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.798 0.588

26 867 16 Brenna 106 2910 998.4 1911.6 2460 4371.6 3.1 5925.96 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.818 0.568

27 866 17 Brenna 106 3016 1060.8 1955.2 2460 4415.2 3.1 6061.12 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.839 0.547

28 865 18 Brenna 106 3122 1123.2 1998.8 2460 4458.8 3.1 6196.28 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.859 0.527

29 864 19 Brenna 106 3228 1185.6 2042.4 2460 4502.4 3.1 6331.44 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.878 0.507

30 863 20 Brenna 106 3334 1248 2086 2460 4546 3.1 6466.6 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.898 0.488

31 862 21 Brenna 106 3440 1310.4 2129.6 2460 4589.6 3.1 6601.76 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.917 0.469

32 861 22 B 106 3546 1372 8 2173 2 2460 4633 2 3 1 6736 92 0 057 0 312 0 019 0 000 0 019 0 936 0 450

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

dep

th (ft)

32 861 22 Brenna 106 3546 1372.8 2173.2 2460 4633.2 3.1 6736.92 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.936 0.450

33 860 23 Brenna 106 3652 1435.2 2216.8 2460 4676.8 3.1 6872.08 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.955 0.431

34 859 24 Brenna 106 3758 1497.6 2260.4 2460 4720.4 3.1 7007.24 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 0.973 0.413

35 858 25 Brenna 106 3864 1560 2304 2460 4764 3.1 7142.4 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 0.991 0.395

36 857 26 Brenna 106 3970 1622.4 2347.6 2460 4807.6 3.1 7277.56 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.009 0.377

37 856 27 Brenna 106 4076 1684.8 2391.2 2460 4851.2 3.1 7412.72 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.027 0.359

38 855 28 Brenna 106 4182 1747.2 2434.8 2460 4894.8 3.1 7547.88 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.044 0.342

39 854 29 Brenna 106 4288 1809.6 2478.4 2460 4938.4 3.1 7683.04 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.061 0.325

40 853 30 Brenna 106 4394 1872 2522 2460 4982 3.1 7818.2 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.078 0.308

41 852 31 Brenna 106 4500 1934.4 2565.6 2460 5025.6 3.1 7953.36 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.095 0.291

42 851 32 Argusville 110 4610 1996.8 2613.2 2460 5073.2 2.2 5749.04 0.048 0.318 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.109 0.277

43 850 33 Argusville 110 4720 2059.2 2660.8 2460 5120.8 2.2 5853.76 0.048 0.318 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.123 0.263

44 849 34 Argusville 110 4830 2121.6 2708.4 2460 5168.4 2.2 5958.48 0.048 0.318 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.136 0.250

45 848 35 Argusville 110 4940 2184 2756 2460 5216 2.2 6063.2 0.048 0.318 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.149 0.236

46 847 36 Argusville 110 5050 2246.4 2803.6 2460 5263.6 2.2 6167.92 0.048 0.318 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.163 0.223

47 846 37 Argusville 110 5160 2308.8 2851.2 2460 5311.2 2.2 6272.64 0.048 0.318 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.176 0.210

48 845 38 Argusville 110 5270 2371.2 2898.8 2460 5358.8 2.2 6377.36 0.048 0.318 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.188 0.197

49 844 39 Argusville 110 5380 2433.6 2946.4 2460 5406.4 2.2 6482.08 0.048 0.318 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.201 0.185

50 843 40 Argusville 110 5490 2496 2994 2460 5454 2.2 6586.8 0.048 0.318 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.214 0.172

51 842 41 Argusville 110 5600 2558.4 3041.6 2460 5501.6 2.2 6691.52 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.226 0.160

52 841 42 Argusville 110 5710 2620.8 3089.2 2460 5549.2 2.2 6796.24 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.238 0.147

53 840 43 Argusville 110 5820 2683.2 3136.8 2460 5596.8 2.2 6900.96 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.250 0.135

54 839 44 Argusville 110 5930 2745.6 3184.4 2460 5644.4 2.2 7005.68 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.262 0.123

55 838 45 Argusville 110 6040 2808 3232 2460 5692 2.2 7110.4 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.274 0.112

56 837 46 Argusville 110 6150 2870.4 3279.6 2460 5739.6 2.2 7215.12 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.286 0.100

57 836 47 Argusville 110 6260 2932.8 3327.2 2460 5787.2 2.2 7319.84 0.048 0.318 0.012 0.000 0.012 1.298 0.088

58 835 48 Argusville 110 6370 2995.2 3374.8 2460 5834.8 2.2 7424.56 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.309 0.077

59 834 49 Argusville 110 6480 3057.6 3422.4 2460 5882.4 2.2 7529.28 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.320 0.065

60 833 50 Argusville 110 6590 3120 3470 2460 5930 2.2 7634 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.332 0.054

61 832 51 Argusville 110 6700 3182.4 3517.6 2460 5977.6 2.2 7738.72 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.343 0.043

62 831 52 Argusville 110 6810 3244.8 3565.2 2460 6025.2 2.2 7843.44 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.354 0.032

63 830 53 Argusville 110 6920 3307.2 3612.8 2460 6072.8 2.2 7948.16 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.364 0.021

64 829 54 Argusville 110 7030 3369.6 3660.4 2460 6120.4 2.2 8052.88 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.375 0.011

65 828 55 Argusville 110 7140 3432 3708 2460 6168 2.2 8157.6 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.386 0.000




Page 4 of 17

PROGRAM CSETT - VERTICAL STRESS INDUCTION AND SETTLEMENT PROGRAM DATE: 19-FEB-2013 TIME: 10.32.34 I. INPUT DATA 1. TITLE - Section 8 Infinite Loading 2. BOUSSINESQ SOLUTION WILL BE USED TO COMPUTE INDUCED STRESSES. THE MAXIMUM DEPTH TO WHICH THE ANALYSIS WILL BE EXTENDED IS 70.00 FEET. 3. 2-DIMENSIONAL PRESSURE LOAD DATA NONE 4. 2-DIMENSIONAL SOIL LOAD DATA PROFILE NUMBER 1 :NUMBER OF POINTS= 2 BEGINNING TIME OF APPLICATION = 0.0000 YRS. ENDING TIME OF APPLICATION = 0.1000 YRS. EFFECTIVE UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL LOAD= 123.00 PCF POINT NO. X Y (FT.) (FT.) 1 -9999.00 913.00 2 9999.00 913.00 5. 3-DIMENSIONAL RECTANGULAR LOAD DATA NONE 6. 3-DIMENSIONAL IRREGULAR LOAD DATA NONE 7. EXCAVATION DATA NONE 8. SOIL DATA STRATA EL. OF TOP DRAINAGE EFF UNIT RECOMPR. COEF.OF POISSON'S NO. OF STRATUM CONDITION WEIGHT INDEX CONSOL. RATIO (FEET NGVD) (PCF) (SQFT/YR) 1 893.00 S 120.00 0.03400 1.00000 0.32000 2 888.00 S 115.00 0.05100 1.00000 0.32000 3 883.00 S 52.60 0.05100 1.00000 0.32000 4 880.00 S 45.60 0.15400 1.00000 0.32000 5 874.00 S 43.60 0.14100 1.00000 0.32000 6 840.00 S 47.60 0.11300 1.00000 0.32000 9. STRESS-STRAIN DATA STRATUM NO. 1 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.24000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.03400 INSITU VOID RATIO= 0.84000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 1140.00 PSF




Page 5 of 17

STRATUM NO. 2 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.22000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.05100 INSITU VOID RATIO= 0.79000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 3195.00 PSF STRATUM NO. 3 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.22000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.05100 INSITU VOID RATIO= 0.79000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 4514.00 PSF STRATUM NO. 4 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.60000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.15400 INSITU VOID RATIO= 1.41000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 6172.30 PSF STRATUM NO. 5 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.77000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.14100 INSITU VOID RATIO= 1.47000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 7277.60 PSF STRATUM NO. 6 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.75000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.11300 INSITU VOID RATIO= 1.36000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 7423.70 PSF 10. TIME SEQUENCE FOR CONSOLIDATION CALCULATIONS TIME RATE OF CONSOLIDATION CALCULATIONS WILL BE MADE AT TIMES (YRS): 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 11. OUTPUT CONTROL DATA XXL= 0.0000 FT. XUL= 0.0000 FT. DELX= 1.0000 FT. . 1 PROGRAM CSETT - VERTICAL STRESS INDUCTION AND SETTLEMENT PROGRAM DATE: 19-FEB-2013 TIME: 10.32.34 II. OUTPUT SUMMARY. 1. Section 8 Infinite Loading POSITION: X= 0.0 *********************




Page 6 of 17

2. SUMMARY OF ULTIMATE SETTLEMENTS. STRATA MID-DEPTH IN-SITU DELTA ULTIMATE NO. OF STRATA OVERBURDEN SIGMA SETTLEMENT (FEET) (LB/SQ FT) (LB/SQ FT) (FEET) ------ --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 2.50 300.00 2460.00 0.305 2 7.50 887.50 2460.00 0.091 3 11.50 1253.90 2460.00 0.040 4 16.00 1469.60 2460.00 0.158 5 36.00 2347.60 2460.00 0.597 6 59.00 3374.40 2460.00 0.134 3. TIME-SETTLEMENT SUMMARY. (SETTLEMENT IN FEET AT SPECIFIED TIMES) STRATA ULT 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 NO (YRS.) (YRS.) (YRS.) (YRS.) ------ --- ------ ------ ------ ------ 1 0.305 0.285 0.304 0.305 0.305 2 0.091 0.085 0.090 0.091 0.091 3 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 4 0.158 0.134 0.154 0.157 0.158 5 0.597 0.099 0.141 0.171 0.198 6 0.134 0.064 0.088 0.104 0.114 TOTALS: 1.325 0.707 0.817 0.868 0.906


Material δ CSETT infinite (ft)

δ EXCEL (in)

δ EXCEL (ft)

Δ (ft)

Alluvium 0.305 4.45 0.37 0.07

Sherack 0.131 1.70 0.14 0.01

Ox Brenna 0.158 1.97 0.16 0.01

Brenna 0.597 7.38 0.62 0.02

Argusville 0.134 1.64 0.14 0.00

Total 1.325 17.15 1.43 0.10




Page 7 of 17

PROGRAM CSETT - VERTICAL STRESS INDUCTION AND SETTLEMENT PROGRAM DATE: 19-FEB-2013 TIME: 10.43.42 I. INPUT DATA 1. TITLE - Section 8 Finite Loading 2. BOUSSINESQ SOLUTION WILL BE USED TO COMPUTE INDUCED STRESSES. THE MAXIMUM DEPTH TO WHICH THE ANALYSIS WILL BE EXTENDED IS 70.00 FEET. 3. 2-DIMENSIONAL PRESSURE LOAD DATA NONE 4. 2-DIMENSIONAL SOIL LOAD DATA PROFILE NUMBER 1 :NUMBER OF POINTS= 6 BEGINNING TIME OF APPLICATION = 0.0000 YRS. ENDING TIME OF APPLICATION = 0.1000 YRS. EFFECTIVE UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL LOAD= 123.00 PCF POINT NO. X Y (FT.) (FT.) 1 -9999.00 893.00 2 -165.00 893.00 3 -18.00 913.00 4 18.00 913.00 5 165.00 893.00 6 9999.00 893.00 5. 3-DIMENSIONAL RECTANGULAR LOAD DATA NONE 6. 3-DIMENSIONAL IRREGULAR LOAD DATA NONE 7. EXCAVATION DATA NONE 8. SOIL DATA STRATA EL. OF TOP DRAINAGE EFF UNIT RECOMPR. COEF.OF POISSON'S NO. OF STRATUM CONDITION WEIGHT INDEX CONSOL. RATIO (FEET NGVD) (PCF) (SQFT/YR) 1 893.00 S 120.00 0.03400 1.00000 0.32000 2 888.00 S 115.00 0.05100 1.00000 0.32000 3 883.00 S 52.60 0.05100 1.00000 0.32000 4 880.00 S 45.60 0.15400 1.00000 0.32000 5 874.00 S 43.60 0.14100 1.00000 0.32000 6 840.00 S 47.60 0.11300 1.00000 0.32000




Page 8 of 17

9. STRESS-STRAIN DATA STRATUM NO. 1 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.24000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.03400 INSITU VOID RATIO= 0.84000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 1140.00 PSF STRATUM NO. 2 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.22000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.05100 INSITU VOID RATIO= 0.79000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 3195.00 PSF STRATUM NO. 3 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.22000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.05100 INSITU VOID RATIO= 0.79000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 4514.00 PSF STRATUM NO. 4 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.60000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.15400 INSITU VOID RATIO= 1.41000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 6172.30 PSF STRATUM NO. 5 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.77000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.14100 INSITU VOID RATIO= 1.47000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 7277.60 PSF STRATUM NO. 6 -------------- COMPRESSION INDEX= 0.75000 RECOMPRESSION INDEX= 0.11300 INSITU VOID RATIO= 1.36000 INSITU OVERBURDEN= 7423.70 PSF 10. TIME SEQUENCE FOR CONSOLIDATION CALCULATIONS TIME RATE OF CONSOLIDATION CALCULATIONS WILL BE MADE AT TIMES (YRS): 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 11. OUTPUT CONTROL DATA XXL= 0.0000 FT. XUL= 0.0000 FT. DELX= 1.0000 FT.




Page 9 of 17

. 1 PROGRAM CSETT - VERTICAL STRESS INDUCTION AND SETTLEMENT PROGRAM DATE: 19-FEB-2013 TIME: 10.46.46 II. OUTPUT SUMMARY. 1. Section 8 Finite Loading POSITION: X= 0.0 ********************* 2. SUMMARY OF ULTIMATE SETTLEMENTS. STRATA MID-DEPTH IN-SITU DELTA ULTIMATE NO. OF STRATA OVERBURDEN SIGMA SETTLEMENT (FEET) (LB/SQ FT) (LB/SQ FT) (FEET) ------ --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 2.50 300.00 2459.70 0.305 2 7.50 887.50 2455.55 0.091 3 11.50 1253.90 2446.70 0.040 4 16.00 1469.60 2429.10 0.157 5 36.00 2347.60 2291.10 0.572 6 59.00 3374.40 2100.85 0.119 3. TIME-SETTLEMENT SUMMARY. (SETTLEMENT IN FEET AT SPECIFIED TIMES) STRATA ULT 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 NO (YRS.) (YRS.) (YRS.) (YRS.) ------ --- ------ ------ ------ ------ 1 0.305 0.285 0.304 0.305 0.305 2 0.091 0.084 0.090 0.091 0.091 3 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 4 0.157 0.134 0.152 0.155 0.157 5 0.572 0.095 0.133 0.165 0.188 6 0.119 0.056 0.078 0.094 0.102 TOTALS: 1.284 0.694 0.797 0.850 0.883


Material δ CSETT finite (ft)

δ EXCEL (in)

δ EXCEL (ft)

Δ (ft)

Alluvium 0.305 4.45 0.37 0.07

Sherack 0.131 1.70 0.14 0.01

Ox Brenna

0.157 1.97 0.16 0.01

Brenna 0.572 7.38 0.62 0.04

Argusville 0.119 1.64 0.14 0.02

Total 1.284 17.14 1.43 0.14




Page 10 of 17

Figure1.PlotofInputGeometryandLoads‐InfiniteSoilLoad

Figure2.PlotofInputGeometryandLoads‐FiniteSoilLoad


Material δ CSETT infinite (ft)

δ CSETT finite (ft)

δ EXCEL (ft)

Alluvium 0.305 0.305 0.37

Sherack 0.131 0.131 0.14

Ox Brenna 0.158 0.157 0.16

Brenna 0.597 0.572 0.62

Argusville 0.134 0.119 0.14

Total (ft) 1.325 1.284 1.43

Total (in) 15.9 15.408 17.14

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150( )

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150Distance (f t)

820

840

860

880

900

920

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

820

840

860

880

900

920

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200Distance (ft)

820

840

860

880

900

920

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

820

840

860

880

900

920

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)




Page 11 of 17




Page 12 of 17




Page 13 of 17

Project: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Channel Properties

Subject: Rebound Calculations - Section 8, 576+51 Station 57651

Computed by: RLL Checked by: JLL STA GSE

Date: 1/22/2013 Date: 1/22/2013 Closest HEC‐RAS Sections 57651 891.7 871.2 866.1 21.8

58651 892.9 871.4 866.3

General Section Information Stratigraphy Information Material Properties - mean

Location Layer Formation Depth (ft) sat OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec Rebound in layer (in.)

893 893.0 1 Alluvium 5.0 120 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130 0.00

10 888 2 Sherack 13.0 115 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.123 0.00

880.0 3 OX Brenna 19.0 108 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.249 0.00874.0 4 Brenna 53.0 106 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312 -12.64

Excavation 840 0 5 Argusville 65 0 110 2 2 0 113 0 75 1 36 0 048 0 318 -1 99

Depth to Diversion

Centerline (ft)

Section 8, 576+51

Ground Surface Elevation (ft NAD88)


Diversion

Invert Elev

Low‐Flow Invert

Elev

Excavation 840.0 5 Argusville 65.0 110 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318 -1.99

828 6

Depth (ft) 21.8 7

8

Depth of compressible strata (ft) 65 Total Rebound (in.) ‐14.6

Results (ft) (in.)

Total Rebound ‐1.22 ‐14.6




Page 14 of 17


Subject: Rebound Calculations - Section 8, 576+51 Station 57651

Computed by: RLL Checked by: JLL STA GSE


58651 892.9 871.4 866.3

Depth to Diversion

Centerline (ft)

Diversion

Invert Elev

Low‐Flow Invert

Elev

Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) GW depth (ft) Formation sat (pcf) σv (psf) u (psf) σ'vo (psf) σvf (psf) uf (psf) σ'vf (psf) OCR σ'vc (psf) Cer Cec Rebound (ft) Comp. (ft) Sc (ft) Sc (ft) Sc ‐ cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite excavation

0 893 0 Alluvium 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 0.018 0.130 0.000 0 0 0 ‐1.219

1 892 0 Alluvium 120 120 0 120 0 0 0 3.8 456 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

2 891 0 Alluvium 120 240 0 240 0 0 0 3.8 912 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

3 890 0 Alluvium 120 360 0 360 0 0 0 3.8 1368 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

4 889 0 Alluvium 120 480 0 480 0 0 0 3.8 1824 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

5 888 0 Alluvium 120 600 0 600 0 0 0 3.8 2280 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

6 887 0 Sherack 115 715 0 715 0 0 0 3.6 2574 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

7 886 0 Sherack 115 830 0 830 0 0 0 3.6 2988 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

8 885 0 Sherack 115 945 0 945 0 0 0 3.6 3402 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

9 884 0 Sherack 115 1060 0 1060 0 0 0 3.6 3816 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

10 883 0 Sherack 115 1175 0 1175 0 0 0 3.6 4230 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

11 882 1 Sherack 115 1290 62.4 1227.6 0 0 0 3.6 4419.36 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

12 881 2 Sherack 115 1405 124.8 1280.2 0 0 0 3.6 4608.72 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

13 880 3 Sherack 115 1520 187 2 1332 8 0 0 0 3 6 4798 08 0 028 0 123 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 ‐1 219

Existing Conditions After Construction

0

10

20

‐2.00 ‐1.50 ‐1.00 ‐0.50 0.00

Rebound (ft)

Sc ‐ cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite excavation

13 880 3 Sherack 115 1520 187.2 1332.8 0 0 0 3.6 4798.08 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

14 879 4 OX Brenna 108 1628 249.6 1378.4 0 0 0 4.2 5789.28 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

15 878 5 OX Brenna 108 1736 312 1424 0 0 0 4.2 5980.8 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

16 877 6 OX Brenna 108 1844 374.4 1469.6 0 0 0 4.2 6172.32 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

17 876 7 OX Brenna 108 1952 436.8 1515.2 0 0 0 4.2 6363.84 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

18 875 8 OX Brenna 108 2060 499.2 1560.8 0 0 0 4.2 6555.36 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

19 874 9 OX Brenna 108 2168 561.6 1606.4 0 0 0 4.2 6746.88 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

20 873 10 Brenna 106 2274 624 1650 0 0 0 3.1 5115 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

21 872 11 Brenna 106 2380 686.4 1693.6 0 0 0 3.1 5250.16 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.219

22 871 12 Brenna 106 2486 748.8 1737.2 106 12.48 93.52 3.1 5385.32 0.057 0.312 ‐0.072 0.000 ‐0.072 ‐0.072 ‐1.147

23 870 13 Brenna 106 2592 811.2 1780.8 212 74.88 137.12 3.1 5520.48 0.057 0.312 ‐0.064 0.000 ‐0.064 ‐0.136 ‐1.083

24 869 14 Brenna 106 2698 873.6 1824.4 318 137.28 180.72 3.1 5655.64 0.057 0.312 ‐0.057 0.000 ‐0.057 ‐0.193 ‐1.026

25 868 15 Brenna 106 2804 936 1868 424 199.68 224.32 3.1 5790.8 0.057 0.312 ‐0.053 0.000 ‐0.053 ‐0.246 ‐0.973

26 867 16 Brenna 106 2910 998.4 1911.6 530 262.08 267.92 3.1 5925.96 0.057 0.312 ‐0.049 0.000 ‐0.049 ‐0.295 ‐0.924

27 866 17 Brenna 106 3016 1060.8 1955.2 636 324.48 311.52 3.1 6061.12 0.057 0.312 ‐0.046 0.000 ‐0.046 ‐0.340 ‐0.879

28 865 18 Brenna 106 3122 1123.2 1998.8 742 386.88 355.12 3.1 6196.28 0.057 0.312 ‐0.043 0.000 ‐0.043 ‐0.383 ‐0.836

29 864 19 Brenna 106 3228 1185.6 2042.4 848 449.28 398.72 3.1 6331.44 0.057 0.312 ‐0.041 0.000 ‐0.041 ‐0.423 ‐0.795

30 863 20 Brenna 106 3334 1248 2086 954 511.68 442.32 3.1 6466.6 0.057 0.312 ‐0.038 0.000 ‐0.038 ‐0.462 ‐0.757

31 862 21 Brenna 106 3440 1310.4 2129.6 1060 574.08 485.92 3.1 6601.76 0.057 0.312 ‐0.037 0.000 ‐0.037 ‐0.499 ‐0.720

32 861 22 Brenna 106 3546 1372.8 2173.2 1166 636.48 529.52 3.1 6736.92 0.057 0.312 ‐0.035 0.000 ‐0.035 ‐0.534 ‐0.685

33 860 23 Brenna 106 3652 1435.2 2216.8 1272 698.88 573.12 3.1 6872.08 0.057 0.312 ‐0.034 0.000 ‐0.034 ‐0.567 ‐0.652

34 859 24 Brenna 106 3758 1497 6 2260 4 1378 761 28 616 72 3 1 7007 24 0 057 0 312 0 032 0 000 0 032 0 599 0 620

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

dep

th (ft)

34 859 24 Brenna 106 3758 1497.6 2260.4 1378 761.28 616.72 3.1 7007.24 0.057 0.312 ‐0.032 0.000 ‐0.032 ‐0.599 ‐0.620

35 858 25 Brenna 106 3864 1560 2304 1484 823.68 660.32 3.1 7142.4 0.057 0.312 ‐0.031 0.000 ‐0.031 ‐0.630 ‐0.589

36 857 26 Brenna 106 3970 1622.4 2347.6 1590 886.08 703.92 3.1 7277.56 0.057 0.312 ‐0.030 0.000 ‐0.030 ‐0.660 ‐0.559

37 856 27 Brenna 106 4076 1684.8 2391.2 1696 948.48 747.52 3.1 7412.72 0.057 0.312 ‐0.029 0.000 ‐0.029 ‐0.689 ‐0.530

38 855 28 Brenna 106 4182 1747.2 2434.8 1802 1010.88 791.12 3.1 7547.88 0.057 0.312 ‐0.028 0.000 ‐0.028 ‐0.717 ‐0.502

39 854 29 Brenna 106 4288 1809.6 2478.4 1908 1073.28 834.72 3.1 7683.04 0.057 0.312 ‐0.027 0.000 ‐0.027 ‐0.744 ‐0.475

40 853 30 Brenna 106 4394 1872 2522 2014 1135.68 878.32 3.1 7818.2 0.057 0.312 ‐0.026 0.000 ‐0.026 ‐0.770 ‐0.449

41 852 31 Brenna 106 4500 1934.4 2565.6 2120 1198.08 921.92 3.1 7953.36 0.057 0.312 ‐0.025 0.000 ‐0.025 ‐0.795 ‐0.424

42 851 32 Brenna 106 4606 1996.8 2609.2 2226 1260.48 965.52 3.1 8088.52 0.057 0.312 ‐0.025 0.000 ‐0.025 ‐0.820 ‐0.399

43 850 33 Brenna 106 4712 2059.2 2652.8 2332 1322.88 1009.12 3.1 8223.68 0.057 0.312 ‐0.024 0.000 ‐0.024 ‐0.844 ‐0.375

44 849 34 Brenna 106 4818 2121.6 2696.4 2438 1385.28 1052.72 3.1 8358.84 0.057 0.312 ‐0.023 0.000 ‐0.023 ‐0.867 ‐0.352

45 848 35 Brenna 106 4924 2184 2740 2544 1447.68 1096.32 3.1 8494 0.057 0.312 ‐0.023 0.000 ‐0.023 ‐0.890 ‐0.329

46 847 36 Brenna 106 5030 2246.4 2783.6 2650 1510.08 1139.92 3.1 8629.16 0.057 0.312 ‐0.022 0.000 ‐0.022 ‐0.912 ‐0.307

47 846 37 Brenna 106 5136 2308.8 2827.2 2756 1572.48 1183.52 3.1 8764.32 0.057 0.312 ‐0.022 0.000 ‐0.022 ‐0.934 ‐0.285

48 845 38 Brenna 106 5242 2371.2 2870.8 2862 1634.88 1227.12 3.1 8899.48 0.057 0.312 ‐0.021 0.000 ‐0.021 ‐0.955 ‐0.264

49 844 39 Brenna 106 5348 2433.6 2914.4 2968 1697.28 1270.72 3.1 9034.64 0.057 0.312 ‐0.021 0.000 ‐0.021 ‐0.975 ‐0.244

50 843 40 Brenna 106 5454 2496 2958 3074 1759.68 1314.32 3.1 9169.8 0.057 0.312 ‐0.020 0.000 ‐0.020 ‐0.995 ‐0.224

51 842 41 Brenna 106 5560 2558.4 3001.6 3180 1822.08 1357.92 3.1 9304.96 0.057 0.312 ‐0.020 0.000 ‐0.020 ‐1.015 ‐0.204

52 841 42 Brenna 106 5666 2620.8 3045.2 3286 1884.48 1401.52 3.1 9440.12 0.057 0.312 ‐0.019 0.000 ‐0.019 ‐1.034 ‐0.185

53 840 43 Brenna 106 5772 2683.2 3088.8 3392 1946.88 1445.12 3.1 9575.28 0.057 0.312 ‐0.019 0.000 ‐0.019 ‐1.053 ‐0.166

54 839 44 Argusville 110 5882 2745.6 3136.4 3502 2009.28 1492.72 2.2 6900.08 0.048 0.318 ‐0.015 0.000 ‐0.015 ‐1.069 ‐0.150

ll

100

55 838 45 Argusville 110 5992 2808 3184 3612 2071.68 1540.32 2.2 7004.8 0.048 0.318 ‐0.015 0.000 ‐0.015 ‐1.084 ‐0.135

56 837 46 Argusville 110 6102 2870.4 3231.6 3722 2134.08 1587.92 2.2 7109.52 0.048 0.318 ‐0.015 0.000 ‐0.015 ‐1.099 ‐0.120

57 836 47 Argusville 110 6212 2932.8 3279.2 3832 2196.48 1635.52 2.2 7214.24 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.113 ‐0.106

58 835 48 Argusville 110 6322 2995.2 3326.8 3942 2258.88 1683.12 2.2 7318.96 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.127 ‐0.092

59 834 49 Argusville 110 6432 3057.6 3374.4 4052 2321.28 1730.72 2.2 7423.68 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.141 ‐0.078

60 833 50 Argusville 110 6542 3120 3422 4162 2383.68 1778.32 2.2 7528.4 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.155 ‐0.064

61 832 51 Argusville 110 6652 3182.4 3469.6 4272 2446.08 1825.92 2.2 7633.12 0.048 0.318 ‐0.013 0.000 ‐0.013 ‐1.168 ‐0.051

62 831 52 Argusville 110 6762 3244.8 3517.2 4382 2508.48 1873.52 2.2 7737.84 0.048 0.318 ‐0.013 0.000 ‐0.013 ‐1.181 ‐0.038

63 830 53 Argusville 110 6872 3307.2 3564.8 4492 2570.88 1921.12 2.2 7842.56 0.048 0.318 ‐0.013 0.000 ‐0.013 ‐1.194 ‐0.025

64 829 54 Argusville 110 6982 3369.6 3612.4 4602 2633.28 1968.72 2.2 7947.28 0.048 0.318 ‐0.013 0.000 ‐0.013 ‐1.207 ‐0.012

65 828 55 Argusville 110 7092 3432 3660 4712 2695.68 2016.32 2.2 8052 0.048 0.318 ‐0.012 0.000 ‐0.012 ‐1.219 0.000




Page 15 of 17


Subject: Rebound Calculations - Section 8a, 586+51 Station 58651

Computed by: RLL Checked by: JRL STA GSE


59651 892.5 871.6 866.4

General Section Information Stratigraphy Information Material Properties - mean

Location Layer Formation Depth (ft) sat OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec Rebound in layer (in.)

893 893.0 1 Alluvium 4.0 120 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130 0.00

10 889.0 2 Sherack 14.0 115 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.123 0.00

879.0 3 OX Brenna 18.0 108 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.249 0.00875.0 4 Brenna 53.0 106 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312 -13.74

Excavation 840 5 Argusville 65 0 110 2 2 0 113 0 75 1 36 0 048 0 318 -2 15

Depth to Diversion

Centerline (ft)

Section 8a, 586+51

Ground Surface Elevation (ft NAD88)


Diversion

Invert Elev

Low‐Flow Invert

Elev

Excavation 840 5 Argusville 65.0 110 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318 -2.15

828 6

Depth (ft) 22 7

8

Depth of compressible strata (ft) 65 Total Rebound (in.) ‐15.9

Results (ft) (in.)

Total Rebound ‐1.32 ‐15.9




Page 16 of 17


Subject: Rebound Calculations - Section 8a, 586+51 Station 58651

Computed by: RLL Checked by: JRL STA GSE


59651 892.5 871.6 866.4

Depth to Diversion

Centerline (ft)

Diversion

Invert Elev

Low‐Flow Invert

Elev

Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) GW depth (ft) Formation sat (pcf) σv (psf) u (psf) σ'vo (psf) σvf (psf) uf (psf) σ'vf (psf) OCR σ'vc (psf) Cer Cec Rebound (ft) Comp. (ft) Sc (ft) Sc (ft) Sc ‐ cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite excavation

0 893 0 Alluvium 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 0.018 0.130 0.000 0 0 0 ‐1.325

1 892 0 Alluvium 120 120 0 120 0 0 0 3.8 456 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

2 891 0 Alluvium 120 240 0 240 0 0 0 3.8 912 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

3 890 0 Alluvium 120 360 0 360 0 0 0 3.8 1368 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

4 889 0 Alluvium 120 480 0 480 0 0 0 3.8 1824 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

5 888 0 Sherack 115 595 0 595 0 0 0 3.6 2142 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

6 887 0 Sherack 115 710 0 710 0 0 0 3.6 2556 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

7 886 0 Sherack 115 825 0 825 0 0 0 3.6 2970 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

8 885 0 Sherack 115 940 0 940 0 0 0 3.6 3384 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

9 884 0 Sherack 115 1055 0 1055 0 0 0 3.6 3798 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

10 883 0 Sherack 115 1170 0 1170 0 0 0 3.6 4212 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

11 882 1 Sherack 115 1285 62.4 1222.6 0 0 0 3.6 4401.36 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

12 881 2 Sherack 115 1400 124.8 1275.2 0 0 0 3.6 4590.72 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

13 880 3 Sherack 115 1515 187 2 1327 8 0 0 0 3 6 4780 08 0 028 0 123 0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000 ‐1 325

Existing Conditions After Construction

0

10

20

‐2.00 ‐1.50 ‐1.00 ‐0.50 0.00

Rebound (ft)

Sc ‐ cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite excavation

13 880 3 Sherack 115 1515 187.2 1327.8 0 0 0 3.6 4780.08 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

14 879 4 Sherack 115 1630 249.6 1380.4 0 0 0 3.6 4969.44 0.028 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

15 878 5 OX Brenna 108 1738 312 1426 0 0 0 4.2 5989.2 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

16 877 6 OX Brenna 108 1846 374.4 1471.6 0 0 0 4.2 6180.72 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

17 876 7 OX Brenna 108 1954 436.8 1517.2 0 0 0 4.2 6372.24 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

18 875 8 OX Brenna 108 2062 499.2 1562.8 0 0 0 4.2 6563.76 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

19 874 9 Brenna 106 2168 561.6 1606.4 0 0 0 3.1 4979.84 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

20 873 10 Brenna 106 2274 624 1650 0 0 0 3.1 5115 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

21 872 11 Brenna 106 2380 686.4 1693.6 0 0 0 3.1 5250.16 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

22 871 12 Brenna 106 2486 748.8 1737.2 0 0 0 3.1 5385.32 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ‐1.325

23 870 13 Brenna 106 2592 811.2 1780.8 106 62.4 43.6 3.1 5520.48 0.057 0.312 ‐0.092 0.000 ‐0.092 ‐0.092 ‐1.233

24 869 14 Brenna 106 2698 873.6 1824.4 212 124.8 87.2 3.1 5655.64 0.057 0.312 ‐0.075 0.000 ‐0.075 ‐0.167 ‐1.158

25 868 15 Brenna 106 2804 936 1868 318 187.2 130.8 3.1 5790.8 0.057 0.312 ‐0.066 0.000 ‐0.066 ‐0.233 ‐1.092

26 867 16 Brenna 106 2910 998.4 1911.6 424 249.6 174.4 3.1 5925.96 0.057 0.312 ‐0.059 0.000 ‐0.059 ‐0.293 ‐1.032

27 866 17 Brenna 106 3016 1060.8 1955.2 530 312 218 3.1 6061.12 0.057 0.312 ‐0.054 0.000 ‐0.054 ‐0.347 ‐0.978

28 865 18 Brenna 106 3122 1123.2 1998.8 636 374.4 261.6 3.1 6196.28 0.057 0.312 ‐0.050 0.000 ‐0.050 ‐0.397 ‐0.928

29 864 19 Brenna 106 3228 1185.6 2042.4 742 436.8 305.2 3.1 6331.44 0.057 0.312 ‐0.047 0.000 ‐0.047 ‐0.445 ‐0.880

30 863 20 Brenna 106 3334 1248 2086 848 499.2 348.8 3.1 6466.6 0.057 0.312 ‐0.044 0.000 ‐0.044 ‐0.489 ‐0.836

31 862 21 Brenna 106 3440 1310.4 2129.6 954 561.6 392.4 3.1 6601.76 0.057 0.312 ‐0.042 0.000 ‐0.042 ‐0.531 ‐0.794

32 861 22 Brenna 106 3546 1372.8 2173.2 1060 624 436 3.1 6736.92 0.057 0.312 ‐0.040 0.000 ‐0.040 ‐0.571 ‐0.754

33 860 23 Brenna 106 3652 1435.2 2216.8 1166 686.4 479.6 3.1 6872.08 0.057 0.312 ‐0.038 0.000 ‐0.038 ‐0.609 ‐0.716

34 859 24 Brenna 106 3758 1497 6 2260 4 1272 748 8 523 2 3 1 7007 24 0 057 0 312 0 036 0 000 0 036 0 645 0 680

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

dep

th (ft)

34 859 24 Brenna 106 3758 1497.6 2260.4 1272 748.8 523.2 3.1 7007.24 0.057 0.312 ‐0.036 0.000 ‐0.036 ‐0.645 ‐0.680

35 858 25 Brenna 106 3864 1560 2304 1378 811.2 566.8 3.1 7142.4 0.057 0.312 ‐0.035 0.000 ‐0.035 ‐0.680 ‐0.645

36 857 26 Brenna 106 3970 1622.4 2347.6 1484 873.6 610.4 3.1 7277.56 0.057 0.312 ‐0.033 0.000 ‐0.033 ‐0.713 ‐0.612

37 856 27 Brenna 106 4076 1684.8 2391.2 1590 936 654 3.1 7412.72 0.057 0.312 ‐0.032 0.000 ‐0.032 ‐0.745 ‐0.580

38 855 28 Brenna 106 4182 1747.2 2434.8 1696 998.4 697.6 3.1 7547.88 0.057 0.312 ‐0.031 0.000 ‐0.031 ‐0.776 ‐0.549

39 854 29 Brenna 106 4288 1809.6 2478.4 1802 1060.8 741.2 3.1 7683.04 0.057 0.312 ‐0.030 0.000 ‐0.030 ‐0.806 ‐0.519

40 853 30 Brenna 106 4394 1872 2522 1908 1123.2 784.8 3.1 7818.2 0.057 0.312 ‐0.029 0.000 ‐0.029 ‐0.835 ‐0.490

41 852 31 Brenna 106 4500 1934.4 2565.6 2014 1185.6 828.4 3.1 7953.36 0.057 0.312 ‐0.028 0.000 ‐0.028 ‐0.863 ‐0.462

42 851 32 Brenna 106 4606 1996.8 2609.2 2120 1248 872 3.1 8088.52 0.057 0.312 ‐0.027 0.000 ‐0.027 ‐0.890 ‐0.435

43 850 33 Brenna 106 4712 2059.2 2652.8 2226 1310.4 915.6 3.1 8223.68 0.057 0.312 ‐0.026 0.000 ‐0.026 ‐0.917 ‐0.408

44 849 34 Brenna 106 4818 2121.6 2696.4 2332 1372.8 959.2 3.1 8358.84 0.057 0.312 ‐0.026 0.000 ‐0.026 ‐0.942 ‐0.383

45 848 35 Brenna 106 4924 2184 2740 2438 1435.2 1002.8 3.1 8494 0.057 0.312 ‐0.025 0.000 ‐0.025 ‐0.967 ‐0.358

46 847 36 Brenna 106 5030 2246.4 2783.6 2544 1497.6 1046.4 3.1 8629.16 0.057 0.312 ‐0.024 0.000 ‐0.024 ‐0.991 ‐0.334

47 846 37 Brenna 106 5136 2308.8 2827.2 2650 1560 1090 3.1 8764.32 0.057 0.312 ‐0.024 0.000 ‐0.024 ‐1.015 ‐0.310

48 845 38 Brenna 106 5242 2371.2 2870.8 2756 1622.4 1133.6 3.1 8899.48 0.057 0.312 ‐0.023 0.000 ‐0.023 ‐1.038 ‐0.287

49 844 39 Brenna 106 5348 2433.6 2914.4 2862 1684.8 1177.2 3.1 9034.64 0.057 0.312 ‐0.022 0.000 ‐0.022 ‐1.061 ‐0.264

50 843 40 Brenna 106 5454 2496 2958 2968 1747.2 1220.8 3.1 9169.8 0.057 0.312 ‐0.022 0.000 ‐0.022 ‐1.083 ‐0.242

51 842 41 Brenna 106 5560 2558.4 3001.6 3074 1809.6 1264.4 3.1 9304.96 0.057 0.312 ‐0.021 0.000 ‐0.021 ‐1.104 ‐0.221

52 841 42 Brenna 106 5666 2620.8 3045.2 3180 1872 1308 3.1 9440.12 0.057 0.312 ‐0.021 0.000 ‐0.021 ‐1.125 ‐0.200

53 840 43 Brenna 106 5772 2683.2 3088.8 3286 1934.4 1351.6 3.1 9575.28 0.057 0.312 ‐0.020 0.000 ‐0.020 ‐1.145 ‐0.180

54 839 44 Argusville 110 5882 2745.6 3136.4 3396 1996.8 1399.2 2.2 6900.08 0.048 0.318 ‐0.017 0.000 ‐0.017 ‐1.162 ‐0.163

ll

100

55 838 45 Argusville 110 5992 2808 3184 3506 2059.2 1446.8 2.2 7004.8 0.048 0.318 ‐0.016 0.000 ‐0.016 ‐1.179 ‐0.146

56 837 46 Argusville 110 6102 2870.4 3231.6 3616 2121.6 1494.4 2.2 7109.52 0.048 0.318 ‐0.016 0.000 ‐0.016 ‐1.195 ‐0.130

57 836 47 Argusville 110 6212 2932.8 3279.2 3726 2184 1542 2.2 7214.24 0.048 0.318 ‐0.016 0.000 ‐0.016 ‐1.210 ‐0.115

58 835 48 Argusville 110 6322 2995.2 3326.8 3836 2246.4 1589.6 2.2 7318.96 0.048 0.318 ‐0.015 0.000 ‐0.015 ‐1.226 ‐0.099

59 834 49 Argusville 110 6432 3057.6 3374.4 3946 2308.8 1637.2 2.2 7423.68 0.048 0.318 ‐0.015 0.000 ‐0.015 ‐1.241 ‐0.084

60 833 50 Argusville 110 6542 3120 3422 4056 2371.2 1684.8 2.2 7528.4 0.048 0.318 ‐0.015 0.000 ‐0.015 ‐1.255 ‐0.070

61 832 51 Argusville 110 6652 3182.4 3469.6 4166 2433.6 1732.4 2.2 7633.12 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.270 ‐0.055

62 831 52 Argusville 110 6762 3244.8 3517.2 4276 2496 1780 2.2 7737.84 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.284 ‐0.041

63 830 53 Argusville 110 6872 3307.2 3564.8 4386 2558.4 1827.6 2.2 7842.56 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.298 ‐0.027

64 829 54 Argusville 110 6982 3369.6 3612.4 4496 2620.8 1875.2 2.2 7947.28 0.048 0.318 ‐0.014 0.000 ‐0.014 ‐1.312 ‐0.013

65 828 55 Argusville 110 7092 3432 3660 4606 2683.2 1922.8 2.2 8052 0.048 0.318 ‐0.013 0.000 ‐0.013 ‐1.325 0.000




Page 17 of 17

Engineering and Design Phase · encompass the rock ramp structure is between station 576+00 and 596+00. Inlet Structure – Multi‐drop rock ramp o Stability of the excavated slope

Documents