appendix d2: geotechnical engineering and geology · • rush river inlet/drop structure –...

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

DDR_FMM_RR_Appendix_D2_Geo2013_08_28.docx

Appendix D2: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology

Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area

Flood Risk Management Project

Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure

Engineering and Design Phase

P2#xxxxx

Doc Version: Post - FTR Submittal

14 November 2013


DDR_FMM_RR_Appendix_D2_Geo2013_08_28.docx

This page is intentionally left blank


DDR_FMM_RR_Appendix_D2_Geo2013_08_28.docx D-i of D-iii

Appendix D2: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology Table 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 ..................................................................................................................................... 1

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 ....................................................................................................................................... 4

D.3.3 Design Parameters .................................................................................................................... 4

D.4 DIVERSION CHANNEL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 6

D.4.1 Modeling Summary ................................................................................................................... 6

D.4.1.1 Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure Geometry .......................................................................... 6

D.4.1.2 Diversion Channel Geometry ................................................................................................ 7

D.4.2 Sections ..................................................................................................................................... 8

D.4.3 Seepage ..................................................................................................................................... 8

D.4.4 Stability ..................................................................................................................................... 9

D.4.5 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 9

D.4.6 Future Work ............................................................................................................................ 10

D.5 EXCAVATED MATERIAL BERM AND LEVEE ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 11

D.6 Right Bank embedded levees .............................................................................................................. 12

D.7 SETTLEMENT AND REBOUND .............................................................................................................. 13

D.7.1 Consolidation Parameters ....................................................................................................... 13


DDR_FMM_RR_Appendix_D2_Geo2013_08_28.docx D-ii of D-iii

D.7.2 Settlement of typical levee/Right Bank EMB .......................................................................... 14

D.7.3 Rebound in the Diversion Channel Excavation ....................................................................... 14

D.8 Diversion Excavation Types ................................................................................................................. 15

D.9 LOCAL DRAINAGE INLETS .................................................................................................................... 15

D.10 Riprap and Bedding ............................................................................................................................. 16

D.11 CONSTRUCTABILITY............................................................................................................................. 16

D.11.1 Excavations.............................................................................................................................. 16

D.11.1.1 Past Experience ................................................................................................................... 16

D.11.1.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 16

D.11.1.3 Stripping and Overexcavation ............................................................................................. 16

D.11.1.4 Dewatering .......................................................................................................................... 17

D.11.1.5 Sand Pockets / Lenses ......................................................................................................... 17

D.11.2 Access/Maintenance Road Foundations ................................................................................. 17

D.11.3 Embankment Construction ..................................................................................................... 17

D.11.4 Winter Construction................................................................................................................ 18

D.11.5 Levees and Excavated Material Berms ................................................................................... 18

D.11.5.1 Net Swelling of Material Used for EMBs ............................................................................. 18

D.12 SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.......................................................................................... 20

D.12.1 Levee Material ........................................................................................................................ 20

D.12.2 Concrete Aggregate, Riprap, and Bedding .............................................................................. 20

D.13 PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 21

D.14 references ........................................................................................................................................... 21

D.15 ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 22

TABLES

Table D2 - 1: Summary of Soil Exploration.................................................................................................... 4

Table D2 - 2: Section Geometry .................................................................................................................... 8

Table D2 - 3: Formation Contact Elevations ................................................................................................. 8

Table D2 - 4: Summary of Stability Results ................................................................................................. 10

Table D2 - 5: Summary of EMB Maximum Grading Extents ....................................................................... 11


DDR_FMM_RR_Appendix_D2_Geo2013_08_28.docx D-iii of D-iii

Table D2 - 6: Consolidation Parameters. .................................................................................................... 14

Table D2 - 7: Predicted EMB Settlement for Determination of Levee Overbuild ....................................... 14

TableD2 - 8: Summary of Diversion Channel Excavation Types .................................................................. 15

FIGURES Figure D2 - 1: Piezometer 12-193P near the proposed Diversion Outlet ..................................................... 3

Figure D2 - 2: Piezometer 12-190P near the proposed Maple River crossing .............................................. 3

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

Figure D2 - 4: Max Grading Extents ............................................................................................................ 12

Figure D2 - 5: In-situ dry density data compared to standard proctor results ........................................... 20

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment D2 - 1: See Attachment D1-1: Stratigraphy (Included in MVK – Reach 4 FTR)

Attachment D2 - 2: Soil Exploration Location Maps

Attachment D2 - 3: Boring Log Plates

Attachment D2 - 4: Stability Analysis Results

Attachment D2 - 5: Settlement and Rebound Analysis Results


DDR_FMM_RR_Appendix_D2_Geo2013_08_28.docx Page D-1 of D-22

Appendix D2: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology

D.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure is located on the central area of the project where the Rush River will be diverted into the diversion channel, within Reach 4. 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 413+47 and 456+00.

• Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure – Multi-drop rock ramp with fish passage 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 - 3).

D.2.2 Topography A topographic profile along the reach centerline was created. The ground surface ranges from elevation 888 to 890 ft. A slightly deeper meandering low-flow channel is located inside the main diversion channel. A drainage ditch will be located along the protected side of the EMB and will be located 20 ft from the toe of the EMB.

D.2.3 Geology A detailed description of the regional geology can be found in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 - 3) Generally speaking the Rush River Inlet/Drop 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 at the Rush River inlet/drop structure because there are no pile-founded structures planned. The glacial till (Unit “A” Till) was encountered in borings at approximately EL 816. Argusville formation lies above the till formation and was encountered at EL 828. The Brenna formation was encountered at EL. 876. 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 and is referred to as “Oxidized Brenna”. The Oxidized Brenna was encountered at EL. 881. The contact between the Brenna and Sherack formation occurs between EL. 886. The Sherack formation is approximately 4 ft thick and is overlain by Alluvium and topsoil are the upper strata and are approximately 4 ft thick. Topsoil ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 ft thick based on hand augers completed recently. For stability analyses, the topsoil is included in the Alluvium strata.

The stratigraphy for the River Inlet/Drop Structure and Reach 4 is presented in Attachment D1 -1 for the Reach 4 analysis and DDR prepared by the Vicksburg District (MVK).

D.2.4 Structure Geologic structures are discussed in detail in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 - 3).

D.2.5 Site Hydrogeology The hydrogeology as discussed in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 - 3) applies to Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure. Groundwater levels as measured during soil borings varied. In some borings water could be 4 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 calibrating modeling.

Additional instrumentation was installed along the alignment in August 2012 in order to verify groundwater assumptions. Initial readings are available from four of these locations indicate groundwater depths of 7-22ft. All piezometers indicate downward gradients to some degree. Piezometer 12-193P, located near the diversion outlet, indicates a groundwater depth of 22 ft and an average downward gradient of 0.1 (Figure D2 - 1). Piezometer 12-190P is the next piezometer moving upstream and is located 3700 ft northeast of the Maple River crossing, near station 680+00 in Reach 6 (Figure D2 - 2). Piezometer 12-190P indicates a groundwater depth of 7 ft, and a downward gradient of about 0.3. An additional instrumentation location is planned near the downstream end of Reach 1 as well as on Reach 4. These locations are pending right of entry. Plots of instrumentation data will be available once more readings are collected and analyzed.



Figure D2 - 1: Piezometer 12-193P near the proposed Diversion Outlet

Figure D2 - 2: Piezometer 12-190P near the proposed Maple River crossing



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 - 3). The main conclusion is that the Fargo-Moorhead is 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 Rush River Inlet/Drop 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 Table D2 - 1 . The location of the completed soil exploration can be found in Attachment D2 - 2. The boring logs can be found in Attachment D2 - 3. Details concerning the subsurface investigation can be found in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 - 3).

Table D2 - 1: Summary of Soil Exploration

Location Machine Borings

Undisturbed Borings

CPT

Rush River 5 0 0

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.

D.3.3 Design Parameters Geotechnical design parameters are discussed in detail in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 -3). The design parameters presented in the general report were used in the analysis and design of the Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure.

Many undisturbed borings were conducted throughout the Fargo-Moorhead area, though none fall within the Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure stationing. 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 - 3).

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 made a minimal difference with regards to the test results. Additionally is has been noted that legacy testing performed for the Horace to West Fargo and West Fargo diversions, 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 4 and the Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure as they relate to geotechnical analysis.

D.4.1.1 Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure Geometry

The Rush River will empty into the FMM Diversion Channel via a rock ramp with a 2% longitudinal slope increasing from downstream to upstream in order to tie into the invert of the river. The rock ramp has been designed with fish passage in mind and contains several boulder fields and pools. Side slopes of 1V:8H are required in order to maintain global stability once the Rush River enters the rock ramp.

Throughout the rock ramp the base of the excavation will be covered with a layer of rock and bedding material in order to prevent erosion. The rock and bedding layer is 2.75 feet thick. It was verified by analysis that the additional excavation prior to rock placement was not detrimental to stability. The rock was included in the drained or long-term stability analyses.



The geometry of the critical section for the inlet/drop structure occurs at Section RR1, Sta 7+84.04. The invert of the rock ramp at this station is elevation 861.53, the lowest invert elevation within the rock ramp. The combined rip rap and bedding thickness is 2.75 feet. Because this section has the lowest invert elevation and the thickest rock thickness along the Rush River the modeled geometry was pulled directly from the plan set in order to avoid the need for conservative assumptions.

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 towards the channel centerline. Within Reach 4 the side slopes are typically around 20 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 low flow channel has two typical design sections for Reach 4. The two sections are similar except one has a top width of approximately 90 ft and the other is 100 ft. The side slopes of the low flow channel are approximately 1V:4H for both sections and there is a 2% slope on the bottom. The bottom width is approximately 46 ft and 52 ft for the 90 ft and 100 ft top widths, respectively. 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. The location of maximum offset was the cross-section chosen for stability analysis. In addition to analyzing the design condition, stability analyses were conducted in order to determine the amount of allowable sedimentation at the base of the diversion, assuming 2 ft of vertical degradation in the low-flow channel. The methodology for stability analyses is described in detail in the “MFR-002, Diversion Channel and Low-Flow Design” (Reference D2 - 5), and is briefly summarized in Section D.4.4.

3) Excavated Material Berms (EMBs): Material excavated for the diversion channel will be placed adjacent to the channel in berms with a maximum initial height of 13 ft. 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. The requirements for excavated material placement and stability were met using a simple EMB configuration, therefore stepped EMB analyses were not required.. The EMB configurations were used to develop a design envelope for use in the Civil layout of the EMBs. The results are presented in section D.4.5.



D.4.2 Sections The geometric configurations of the cross-sections analyzed for stability are summarized below in Table D2 - 2. Formation contact elevations for each section analyzed are provided in Table D2 - 3.

Table D2 - 2: Section Geometry

Section Geometry

Section # Stationing Ground El. (ft)

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)

6a 436+75 889.5 1:7 871.8 1:50 (2%) 1:4 1:50 (2%) 863.3 N/A Stepped

RR1 7+84.04 890.1 1:8 864.53 3:50 (6%) N/A N/A N/A 861.53 N/A

Notes: (1) The EMB configuariton and geometry will be detailed in the summary for

the staibility analysis.

Table D2 - 3: Formation Contact Elevations

Formation Contact Elevations (NAVD 88) Section 6A RR1

Geologic Unit Top El. Bottom El. Top

El. Bottom El.

Alluvium 890 886 890 886 Sherack 886 881 886 881

Oxidized Brenna 881 876 881 876 Brenna 876 828 876 828

Argusville 828 816 828 816 Unit "A" Till 816 766 816 766

D.4.3 Seepage Seepage analyses were conducted in support of the stability analyses according to the “MFR-002, Diversion Channel and Low Flow Design” (Reference D2 - 5) where 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 (left) 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 review 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 Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure were performed similar to the diversion channel analyses. However, the interface between the rip rap and the excavated surface was modeled as a zero pressure boundary condition. This method produced a realistic pore pressure regime while preventing water from “ponding” in the sizable pore space of the rip. This was considered a reasonable assumption because the Rush River is known to dry up at times, in which case ponded water below the rip rap surface would not be present.

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 - 3).

D.4.4 Stability The methodology used to analyze slope stability is described in detail in the “MFR-002, Diversion Channel and Low Flow Design” (Reference D2 - 5) 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 (Cases 2 and 5) were analyzed for stability of the diversion channel and have varying required factors of safety depending on the occurrence rate of each configuration. Cases 3 and 4, which were analyzed previously, are now obsolete in light of additional geomorphology studies that have been completed, as described in “MFR-002, Diversion Channel and Low-Flow Design” (Reference D2 - 5). Case 2 represents the design geometry of the low flow channel as described in Section D.4.1. Case5 represents 2 ft of vertical scour of the base of the low flow channel coupled with sedimentation of the main channel. The amount of allowable sedimentation was determined by increasing the sedimentation in 1 ft increments until the target factor of safety was no longer met.

The stability analysis of the Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure only considers Case 2 because the low flow channel was centered within the cut and riprap and bedding is being placed to prevent erosion. In addition sedimentation is not expected to negatively impact stability, so Case 5 analyses are unnecessary.

D.4.5 Results Stability results for the Diversion Channel and the Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure are summarized below in Table D2 - 4.



Table D2 - 4: Summary of Stability Results

The Diversion Channel stability analysis were performed in accordance with “FMM – Diversion Channel and Low Flow Design” MFR and the guidance provided in the “EMB Regional Webinar” presented on June 21st, 2012. It was determined that a simple EMB configuration was the most practical design envelope for the diversion channel. Verification analysis will be performed once the local sponsor provides the layout of the recreational features to be incorporated into the EMBs in order to ensure that the sections meet stability requirements.

Due to the lower invert elevation of the Rush River inlet/drop structure, the side slopes must be 1V:8H in order to meet global stability requirements. In addition, the undrained, or during construction, analyses of section RR1 dictate a temporary max EMB height of 12 ft until the rip rap and bedding stone are in place. Once the rip rap and bedding stone has been placed the EMBs can be raised to their full design height. This requirement accounts for the temporary 2.75 ft of over excavation that must occur prior to the placement of the rip rap and bedding stone.

The seepage and stability analyses are presented in Attachment D2 - 4. Stability plates show the most critical slip surface for each case.

D.4.6 Future Work Some aspect of the geotechnical analyses are subject to change pending additional analyses. Additional stability analysis will be performed along the rock ramp alignment in order to establish extents for the temporary EMB height restrictions. The Case 5 analyses for the Section 6a need to be completed, however this design element is primarily for maintenance purposes, though it does have an erosional component, and it is not anticipated to affect the design envelope.

Future consideration will need to be directed to the area in Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure from STA 438+00 to STA 446+00 where the existing Rush River channel will pass beneath the planned EMBs, embedded levee and through the diversion channel excavation. Portions of the existing river channel will be backfilled in this area because the Lower Rush River will be re-directed to the proposed Lower Rush River Drop Structure. Consideration should be given to potential stability and settlement concerns.

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

1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.15 1.0

Section Stationing NotesInitial Height

EMB Width

Max Tension

Crack Depth

(ft)

GlobalGlobal Check

Lower LocalizedLeft

Slope EMB

UndrainedLeft Slope

EMB-Undrained

2ft Erosion,

Xft Sedimenta

tion (ft)

GlobalGlobal Check

Lower Localized

NOTES:

CASE 2 CASE 5

4.00

N/A

N/A

1.57 1.57 1.67 1.18 1.04

1.57 1.63

N/A N/A

N/AN/A

6A Max EMB Grading Extents

13 395

General Section Information

4 1.44 1.43 1.481.31 1.32 1.30

N/A1.63 N/A 1.32

RR165 ft EMB offset

during construction12 N/A

N/A4 1.50RR1 65 ft EMB Offset and Rip Rap in place

13 N/A

Minimum Required FS

Section RR1 requires a temperary, during construction, restriction on the EMB height of 12ft. This is required to maintain undrained stability during the excavation and placement of boulders and rip rap required at the base of the Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure.

436+75

7+84.04

7+84.04 N/A N/A N/A1.31 N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A4

N/A



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 Channel” (Reference D2 - 4). 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. The left bank EMB will not have an embedded levee.

The results of the maximum EMB grading extents based solely on the geotechnical slope stability concerns are summarized below in Table D2 - 5. Figure D2 - 4 is a graphical representation of the maximum EMB design envelope which the Civil Engineer used to layout the project. The geotechnical analyses were 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 for the left EMB can be applied to the right EMB. This is of importance for when the undulations are being designed for the right bank recreation plan. The undulation shall be designed such that the undulation grading does not exceed the maximum grading extents.

Table D2 - 5: Summary of EMB Maximum Grading Extents

Section Station Section Extents ConfigurationExisting Ground

Elevation

Max Initial EMB

Height (ft)

Max Initial EMB

Elevation

Max Simple

EMB Height

(ft)

Max Simple

EMB Elevation

Steeped EMB

Offset (ft)

Max Stepped

EMB Height

(ft)

Max Stepped

EMB Elevation

Top Width of Step (ft)

Max EMB Width

(ft)

6a 436+75 412+47 - 456+00 Stepped (3) 889.5 13 902.5 17 906.5 198 20 909.5 134 564Notes:

(4) Sloping for drainage is not necessary in the landside half of the EMB where the undulations will be constructed.

Rush River Right Bank Maximum Grading Extents (1)(2)

(1) The maximum grading extents were based on geotechnical considerations and viewshed height limitation requirements. The undulation shall be designed such that the undulation grading does not exceed the maximum grading extents.

(3) Stepped configuration for the Right Bank EMB deviates from the typical stepped configuration in that the intent is to increase volume available to design undulations rather than to maintain stability from failure into the diversion channel. The typical stepped configuration is defined as a Simple EMB with step added, step height maximized, and step offset minimized. The offset in the right bank EMB is the channel-side half of the EMB in which no undulations will be designed.

(2) If the footprint of EMB increases beyond what is indicated, the layout of the EMB will require additional geotechnical evaluation for stability.



Figure D2 - 4: Max Grading Extents

D.6 RIGHT BANK EMBEDDED 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 for Reach 1 are summarized below. Additional details concerning the levees and EMBs can be found in “MFR-001, Levees and Excavated Material Berms along the Diversion Channel” (Reference D2 - 4).

• 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 10-foot top width and 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 - 6).

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 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 density 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 the embedded levees and low-flow invert, rebound and settlement need to be analyzed in order to plan potential mitigation measures. Settlement and rebound calculation are presented in Attachment D2 - 5 and explained in this section.

D.7.1 Consolidation Parameters Soil parameters used for settlement and rebound calculation 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 stragraphy indicated in the adjacent machine boring and assuming a groundwater table 10 ft below gound 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 used in design are summarized below in Table D2 - 6



Table D2 - 6: Consolidation Parameters.

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 design grade. The final grade of the EMBs is not a concern. 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 these analyses. An analysis considering an infinite surcharge equivalent to 20 ft of compacted clay fill and the consolidation parameters presented in Table D2 - 6 resulted in a settlement of slightly greater than 20 inches. Analyses using the settlement program CSETT and the same consolidation parameters were conducted using both infinite and finite loadings. The resulting settlements were both approximately 19 inches. Recommended overbuild for the right bank EMB is 21 to 22 inches. Settlement analyses results are summarized in Table D2 - 7 and analyses results are presented in Attachment D2 - 5.

Table D2 - 7: Predicted EMB Settlement for Determination of Levee Overbuild

D.7.3 Rebound in the Diversion Channel Excavation Simplified calculations of rebound using assuming 1-D expansion with the slope of recompression index suggest that maximum rebound at the center of the excavation will be approximately 17.3 inches, or 1.4 ft, for Section 6a. At this location the diversion channel invert elevation is 869, equivalent to a diversion channel depth of approximately 21 ft.

Formation γsat (pcf) γ' OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec

Alluvium 120 57.6 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130Sherack 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 0.249Brenna 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

MATERIAL TYPESettlement (δ) EXCEL

Infinate LoadAlluvium 4.07Sherack 1.53

Ox Brenna 1.84Brenna 10.47

Argusville 1.52------ ------

Total δ (inches) 19.40Total δ (feet) 1.62

Section 6a EMB Settlement



Additional details on the time rate of rebound calculation can be found in the “General Report: Geotechnical Engineering and Geology” (Reference D2 - 3). 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.

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 5 different excavation types. A summary of the excavation types is below in TableD2 - 8. For diversion excavation types 1 and 2, the groundwater table was based water level readings in the boring logs or the bottom of the local drainage features, and 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.

TableD2 - 8: 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 Rush River Drop/Inlet structure.



D.10 RIPRAP AND BEDDING Riprap will be required at several locations where the Rush River meets the Diversion Channel. Riprap gradation R30 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 transports 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 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

It is not anticipated that sand pockets or lenses will be encountered in the excavation. 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 - 1) 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 Construction 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 - 5, 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 - 5: 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

Dept

h (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 - 2). A supplemental investigation was completed in 2012 by the St. Louis District Corps of Engineers (Reference D2 - 7) 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 Reach4, 1property was identified with a limited number of minor recognized environmental conditions (RECs). The properties are listed below and include a description of the RECs.

• Breimer Properties (Parcel No. 44000000674000) – Quansit hut barn with asphalt shingles, water well and 3 grain silos

The conclusions for the ESAs are as follows:

• Complete a limited Phase II ESA on the 1 property • Structures within the Reach 4 should be inspected for “potential asbestos containing materials”

(PACM) prior to demolition. • Visual inspection the ASTs and make determination in soil sampling is required

Many of the RECs encounter within Reach 4 are common to the small agriculture and rural residential settings. These RECs should not be a significant risk to the project if handled correctly.

D.14 REFERENCES Reference D2 - 1: Giroud, J.P. and Han, Jie. Design Method for Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Roads. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. August 2004.

Reference D2 - 2: Stanly Consultants, Inc. (2010). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fargo Metro Feasibility Study HTRW. November 2010.

Reference D2 - 3: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – St. Paul District. Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management General Report: Geotechnical Design and Geology. July 2011.

Reference D2 - 4: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – St. Paul District. Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project – MFR-001, Levees and Excavated Material Berms along the Diversion Channel. June 2012.



Reference D2 - 5: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – St. Paul District. Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project – MFR-002, Diversion Channel and Low-Flow Chanel Design. June 2012.

Reference D2 - 6: 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 - 7: 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.

D.15 ATTACHMENTS Attachment D2 - 1: See Attachment D1-1: Stratigraphy (Included in MVK – Reach 4 FTR)

Attachment D2 - 2: Soil Exploration Location Maps

Attachment D2 - 3: Boring Log Plates

Attachment D2 - 4: Stability Analysis Results

Attachment D2 - 5: Settlement and Rebound Analysis Results

Attachment D2-1: Stratigraphy

See Attachment D1-1: Stratigraphy included in MVK – Reach 4 ATR

Attachment D2-2: Soil Exploration Location Maps

865

865

870

870875

875

875

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

880

885

885

885

885

885

885

885885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885

885885

885

885

885

885

885

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890890

890

890

890

890 89

0

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890 890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

890

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

895

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

900

905

905

SO

LICIT

ATIO

N N

O.:

FIL

E N

AM

E:

DW

N B

Y:

CK

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

1

D

2 3

C

4 5

A

B

MA

RK

AP

PR.

DA

TE:

FIL

E N

UM

BE

R:

SIZ

E:

SU

BMIT

TE

D B

Y:

PL

OT S

CA

LE:

PL

OT D

AT

E:

DA

TE

MA

RK

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

CO

NT

RA

CT N

O.:

DA

TE

AP

PR.

fiof Engineers

US Army Corps

of Engineers

US Army Corps

IDENTIFICATION

SHEET

auto_tim

e

95

% A

TR S

UB

MIT

TA

L

600’0 300’

BORING PLAN

12-147M

12-165M

12-164M

12-148M

10-72M10-73M

09-62M

414+00

416+00

418+00

420+00

422+00

424+00

426+00

428+00

430+00

432+00

434+00

436+00

438+00

440+00

442+00

444+00

446+00

448+00

450+00

452+00

454+00

168T

H AVE

SE

CO

UN

TY R

OA

D 32

RUS

H RIV

ER

ST

AR

T R

EA

CH 4 - V

OL

UM

E 2 - S

TA 4

13+47.0

0

EN

D R

EA

CH 4 - V

OL

UM

E 2 - S

TA 4

56+00.0

0

CO

MBIN

ED S

CA

LE F

AC

TO

R (

CS

F):

ELE

VA

TIO

N D

AT

UM (

VE

RTIC

AL C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E S

YS

TE

M (

HO

RIZ

ON

TA

L C

ON

TR

OL):

R 0

+00

R 2

+00

R 4

+00

R 6

+00

R 8

+00

R 1

0+00

R 1

2+00

R 1

4+00

R 1

6+00

R 1

8+00

R 2

0+00

R 22+00

R 24+

00

N

No

FM

M DIV

ER

SIO

N R

EA

CH 4

FA

RG

O - M

OO

RH

EA

D F

LO

OD RIS

K M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

FA

RG

O,

ND

RE

D RIV

ER O

F T

HE N

OR

TH RIV

ER B

ASIN

ST. P

AU

L DIS

TRIC

T

ST. P

AU

L,

MIN

NE

SO

TA

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

FM

MD

R4_

B-1

01-V

2.d

gn

MV

H

MV

H

B-101

ST. L

OUIS,

MIS

SO

URI

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

ST. L

OUIS DIS

TRIC

T

VO

LU

ME 2 - B

ORIN

G P

LA

N

0.9

99901266

GE

OID

09

NA

D 8

3 (2007)

ND S

PC

S, S

OU

TH Z

ON

E-U.S. S

UR

VE

Y F

T.

NA

VD 8

8

BORING LOCATIONS

12-165M

12-164M

12-148M

12-147M

10-73M

10-72M

09-62M

506687.11

506107.77

503256.02

508751.60

505926.49

505815.21

508565.64

2853928.33

2852626.72

2852795.83

2855674.23

2853102.72

2853117.96

2852970.48

NAME NORTHING EASTING

Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management 15/11/2013

Design Documentation Report Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure

Post FTR

Attachment D2-2: Soil Exploration Map Page 1

Attachment D2-3: Boring Log Plates

SO

LICIT

ATIO

N N

O.:

FIL

E N

AM

E:

DW

N B

Y:

CK

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

1

D

2 3

C

4 5

A

B

MA

RK

AP

PR.

DA

TE:

FIL

E N

UM

BE

R:

SIZ

E:

SU

BMIT

TE

D B

Y:

PL

OT S

CA

LE:

PL

OT D

AT

E:

DA

TE

MA

RK

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

CO

NT

RA

CT N

O.:

DA

TE

AP

PR.

fiof Engineers

US Army Corps

of Engineers

US Army Corps

IDENTIFICATION

SHEET

auto_tim

e

95

% A

TR S

UB

MIT

TA

L

NOTES:

1. WATER LEVEL DETERMINED AFTER 7.5 HOURSBOTTOM OF HOLE EL. 868.1

FARGO-MOORHEAD METRO FEASIBILITY STUDY & PED

D10

4

9

5

6

6

4

4

4

4

5

6

6

7

10

58

4

SPT

808.6

W. L. 885.3

G.S. 893.1

09-62M04 DEC 09

GC

OL/OH

CH

CH

CH

CL

CH

74

81

74

115

100

98

104

102

96

88

86

28

30

40

26

25

36

42

38

36

38

33

35

32

33

17

16

17

34

34

46

60

58

53

61

62

68

50

59

20

18

19

LL PLMC

(FILL)ROAD BED, BROWN. (GC) CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, DENSE, DRY, 0’ TO 0.7’

(FILL)BLACK. (OL/OH) ORGANIC SOIL, MEDIUM STIFF, TOP SOIL, 0.7’ TO 3.7’

(ALLUVIUM)LITTLE ROOTS, BROWN. (CH) FAT CLAY, SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, 3.7’ TO 8’

(GLACIO-LACUSTRINE)STAINING, REDDISH BROWN TO DARK GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) VARVED, SLICKS IN ZONES, LAMINATED IN ZONES, IRON OXIDE

(CH) FAT CLAY, SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, 18’ TO 48’

885.1TOP SHERACK FORMATION

875.1TOP BRENNA FORMATION

TOP UNIT "A" TILL826.3

845.1TOP ARGUSVILLE FORMATION

(GLACIO-LACUSTRINE)OCCASIONAL DROP STONES, DARK GRAY. (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, WITH 48’ TO 66.8’

(GLACIO-LACUSTRINE)BROWN. VARVED, GYPSUM CRYSTALLS, IRON OXIDE STAINING, REDDISH

(CH) FAT CLAY, SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET TO SATURATED, 8’ TO 18’

(TILL)TO WET, HOMOGENEOUS, DARK GRAY. TO COARSE SAND FINE TO COARSE, VERY STIFF TO HARD, VERY MOIST

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, SILTY, GRAVEL FINE 66.8’ TO 84.5’

CL

2. HOLE STABILIZED WITH IRON PIPE CASING TO EL. 885.1, DRILLING MUD USED BELOW

3. BORING BACKFILLED WITH TREMIED HIGH SOLIDS BENTONITE GROUT

NOTES:

1. WATER LEVEL DETERMINED AFTER 24 HOURS IN OPEN HOLE

BOTTOM OF HOLE EL. 887.73


D10

15

23

16

10

8

10

6

7

9

6

6

7

8

7

9

79

111

48

SPT

800.0

W. L. 889.3

G.S. 894.0

10-72M18 MAY 10

OH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CL

81

74

74

98

110

114

103

98

100

115

116

109

105

98

90

99

84

29

33

34

29

26

25

35

40

29

32

33

33

27

35

33

29

29

32

30

28

16

17

35

34

33

36

41

55

63

56

61

59

63

65

63

55

54

57

59

61

17

14

0.003

0.009

60

LL PLMC

(TOPSOIL)BROWN. TRACE SILT STRATA OR LENSES, BLACK MOTTLED WITH

(OH) ORGANIC CLAY, STIFF, DRY, SOME ORGANICS, 0’ TO 5.2’

(FILL)BROWNISH GRAY. (CH) FAT CLAY, STIFF, MOIST, TRACE ORGANICS, 5.2’ TO 8.8’

GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, WET, 26.3’ TO 48.2’

GRAVEL, TRACE TILL INCLUSIONS, GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET, TRACE FINE 48.2’ TO 60’

CL

SM

SM

SM

TOP SHERACK FORMATION

TOP UNIT "A" TILL

TOP ARGUSVILLE FORMATION

TOP BRENNA FORMATION

885.2

880.8

834.0

819.4

BRENNA FORMATION)OXIDE STAINING, GRAY MOTTLED WITH BROWN. (DESSICATED CALCAREOUS NODULES, WITH SILT STRATA OR LENSES, IRON

(CH) FAT CLAY, STIFF, MOIST, BLOCKY, TRACE 13.2’ TO 17.2’

GRAYISH BROWN. (OXIDIZED BRENNA FORMATION)OCCASIONAL CALCAREOUS NODULES, IRON OXIDE STAINING,

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, WET, 17.2’ TO 26.3’

STAINING, GRAY MOTTLED WITH BROWN. CALCAREOUS NODULES, WITH SILT STRATA OR LENSES, IRON OXIDE

(CH) FAT CLAY, STIFF, MOIST TO WET, TRACE 8.8’ TO 11.2’

STAINING, GRAY MOTTLED WITH BROWNISH GRAY. (CH) FAT CLAY, STIFF, MOIST TO WET, IRON OXIDE 11.2’ TO 13.2’

GRAVEL, TRACE TILL INCLUSIONS, GRAY. (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET, TRACE FINE 60’ TO 74.6’

TO MEDIUM, DENSE TO VERY DENSE, WET, GRAY. (SM) SILTY SAND, GRAVEL FINE TO COARSE, SAND FINE 74.6’ TO 88’

COARSE SAND FINE TO MEDIUM, HARD, MOIST, GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, GRAVEL FINE TO 88’ TO 94’

2. HOLE STABILIZED WITH IRON PIPE CASING TO EL. 887.0, DRILLING MUD USED BELOW


118

No

FM

M DIV

ER

SIO

N R

EA

CH 4

FA

RG

O - M

OO

RH

EA

D F

LO

OD RIS

K M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

FA

RG

O,

ND

RE

D RIV

ER O

F T

HE N

OR

TH RIV

ER B

ASIN

ST. P

AU

L DIS

TRIC

T

ST. P

AU

L,

MIN

NE

SO

TA

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

FM

MD

R4_

B-2

01-V

2.d

gn

MV

H

MV

H

B-201

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

ST. L

OUIS DIS

TRIC

T

ST. L

OUIS,

MIS

SO

URI

09-6

2M & 1

0-7

2M

VO

LU

ME 2 - B

ORIN

G L

OG

S A

ND L

EG

EN

D

GENERAL BORING NOTES

INSPECT LOGS CAN BE MADE BY CALLING (651) 290-5599.

LOGS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE ST. PAUL DISTRICT OFFICE. ARRANGEMENTS TO

THE BORINGS SHOW SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION RECORDED ON THE ORIGINAL FIELD LOGS. THESE

ELEVATIONS REFERENCED TO N.A.V.D. 1988 ADJ. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.

CORE IS 4-INCH DIAMETER.

LENGTH OF CORE RECOVERED/LENGTH OF CORE CUT X 100. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE, ALL

PERCENT CORE RECOVERY IS SHOWN TO THE LEFT OF THE BORING STAFF. PERCENT RECOVERY IS

RQD IS THE PERCENT RECOVERY CONSISTING OF UNBROKEN PIECES LONGER THAN 4-INCHES.

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) IS SHOWN TO THE LEFT OF THE PERCENT RECOVERY COLUMN.

LEFT OF THE BORING STAFF.

THE GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS OF WHICH 10% OF THE SAMPLE IS FINER IS SHOWN TO THE

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) AND PLASTIC LIMIT (PL) ARE SHOWN TO THE RIGHT OF THE BORING STAFF.

HAMMER WEIGHT, AND HEIGHT OF DROP ARE AS SHOWN.

140 LB. HAMMER, AND A 30-INCH DROP. FOR NON-STANDARD BLOW COUNTS SAMPLER SIZE,

X 2-INCH SAMPLER,

83BLOW COUNTS ARE FOR A STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) USING A 1� X 2-INCH SAMPLER,

STANDARD

NUMBER OF BLOWS NECESSARY TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER USED A DISTANCE OF 12-INCHES.

BLOW COUNTS ARE SHOWN TO THE LEFT OF THE BORING STAFF AND, EXCEPT AS NOTED, ARE THE

THE BORING STAFF.

THE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT (MC) IS SHOWN TO THE LEFT OF

SPECIFIC BORING ARE SHOWN BELOW THE BORING STAFF.

INFORMATION IS ADDED TO THE RIGHT OF THE BORING STAFF. NOTES PERTAINING TO A

LEGEND REPRESENTS ONLY THE BASIC SOILS. TO COMPLETE THE CLASSIFICATION, PERTINENT

THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IS USED TO IDENTIFY BASIC SOIL TYPE. THE

9. RECORD LOCATION

8. VERTICAL DATUM

7. % RECOVERY:

6. RQD:

5. D SIZE:

4. ATTERBERG LIMITS:

3. BLOW COUNT (SPT):

2. MOISTURE CONTENT:

1. GENERAL:

GENERAL BORING LEGEND

DATE OF BORING

YEAR OF BORING-BORING NUMBER, BORING TYPE

( EG: M=MACHINE, A=AUGER, TP=TEST PIT, P=PIEZOMETER ).

1 MAY 1984

84-1M

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION AT BORING

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURE, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS, LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

INORGANIC SILTS, LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50

INORGANIC CLAYS, LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

INORGANIC CLAYS, HIGH PLASTICITY, LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS, LOW PLASTICITY, LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

BORDERLINE MATERIAL

STRATIFIED MATERIAL

LOCATION AND SAMPLE NUMBER FOR UNDISTURBED SAMPLE

NO RECOVERY

WATER LEVEL ON DATE OF BORING

ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF BORING

ELEVATION IN METERS

W.S. 1026.7

G.S. 1020.2

W.L. 726.7

700.1

(238.56)

WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ON DAY OF BORING

SM

SP

SW

GC

GM

GP

GW

ML

MH

CL

CH

OL

OH

PT

SP-

SM

SP&

SM

SC

1

PEAT

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS, MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50

920

910

900

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

920

910

900

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

NA

VD

88

NA

VD

88

ELE

VA

TIO

N D

AT

UM (

VE

RTIC

AL C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E S

YS

TE

M (

HO

RIZ

ON

TA

L C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

MBIN

ED S

CA

LE F

AC

TO

R (

CS

F):

0.9

99901266

GE

OID

09

NA

D 8

3 (2007)

ND S

PC

S, S

OU

TH Z

ON

E-U.S. S

UR

VE

Y F

T.

NA

VD 8

8



Post FTR

Attachment D2-3: Boging Log Plates Page 1

SO

LICIT

ATIO

N N

O.:

FIL

E N

AM

E:

DW

N B

Y:

CK

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

1

D

2 3

C

4 5

A

B

MA

RK

AP

PR.

DA

TE:

FIL

E N

UM

BE

R:

SIZ

E:

SU

BMIT

TE

D B

Y:

PL

OT S

CA

LE:

PL

OT D

AT

E:

DA

TE

MA

RK

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

CO

NT

RA

CT N

O.:

DA

TE

AP

PR.

fiof Engineers

US Army Corps

of Engineers

US Army Corps

IDENTIFICATION

SHEET

auto_tim

e

95

% A

TR S

UB

MIT

TA

L

NOTES:



D10

6

4

5

4

4

2

4

3

3

4

5

3

11

58

72

60

26

43

131

117

SPT

787.4

W. L. 879.5

G.S. 883.9

10-73M18 MAY 10

OL

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

SC

55

109

112

107

96

112

102

122

113

103

96

93

87

26

26

33

33

30

31

30

35

35

33

34

35

29

35

30

29

30

35

16

15

19

18

41

46

62

58

54

70

63

74

62

68

61

59

60

64

19

18

18

22

120

LL PLMC


TOP UNIT "A" TILL



(TOPSOIL) (OL) ORGANIC SOIL, MOIST, WITH ROOTS, BLACK. 0’ TO 0.3’

WHEN SHEARED, GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, MOIST, FORMS SLICKENSIDES 20’ TO 41.5’

883.6

880.5

833.6

821.3

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

2. HOLE STABILIZED WITH HOLLOW STEM AUGER TO EL. 873.9

GRAY AND ORANGE. (DESSICATED BRENNA FM.)GYPSUM IN FRACTURES, IRON OXIDE STAINING, OXIDIZED, DARK

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST, VARVED, WITH 3.4’ TO 7.2’

ORANGEISH GRAY. (OXIDIZED BRENNA FM.)FRACTURES, WITH SILT STRINGERS, IRON OXIDE STAINING,

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, MOIST, WITH GYPSUM IN 7.2’ TO 10’

(OXIDIZED BRENNA FM.)IN FRACTURES, IRON OXIDE STAINING, BROWNISH GRAY.

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, MOIST, MOTTLED, WITH GYPSUM 10’ TO 20’

OCCASIONAL COARSE SAND, GRAY. OCCASIONAL TILL INCLUSIONS, OCCASIONAL FINE SAND,

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, GRITTY, 50’ TO 62.6’

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, HARD, WET, GRAY.62.6’ TO 96.5’


GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION)INCLUSIONS, AND SAND, FORMS SLICKENSIDES WHEN SHEARED,

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, MOIST, GRITTY, WITH TILL 41.5’ TO 50’

GRAY.GYPSUM IN FRACTURES, IRON OXIDE STAINING, BROWN WITH

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST, WITH 0.3’ TO 3.4’

NOTES:



D10

9

9

5

5

3

3

4

3

4

3

2

3

4

6

15

164

200

94

58

72

78

69

35

36

31

33

40

42

42

39

7

39

SPT

714.2

W. L. 878.8

G.S. 892.3

12-147M23 FEB 12

OL

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CL

SP

ML

CL

CL

SP

CL

CL

SM

CL

CL

CL

SP

62

79

62

105

123

97

102

104

88

103

113

109

100

75

80

84

30

22

25

25

29

28

31

28

29

29

29

27

28

26

25

25

24

17

36

37

36

46

60

55

71

60

66

64

64

65

55

50

59

57

19

LL PLMC

BRENNA FM.)BROWN WITH GRAY, WITH LAYERS OF DESSICATED BRENNA. (OXIDIZED

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET, WEATHERED, YELLOWISH 11.2’ TO 11.8’


TOP UNIT "A" TILL



887.3

881.1

837.3

818.1

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

SP

DARK GRAY AND BROWN. (DESSICATED BRENNA FM.) (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, MOIST TO WET, BLOCKY, 15.4’ TO 16.3’

BROWN. (OXIDIZED BRENNA FM.) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, NONE, GRAY WITH 16.3’ TO 30’

FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, STICKY, GRAY. (BRENNA 30’ TO 45’


BLOCKY, DARK GRAY AND BROWN. (DESSICATED BRENNA FM.) (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, MOIST TO WET, 12.7’ TO 15.4’

POORLY DEFINED LAMINATIONS, OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, GRAY.(CL) LEAN CLAY, VERY STIFF TO HARD, DRY TO MOIST, THIN 128.5’ TO 163’

250/ 0.5’

125/ 0.2’

100/ 0.1’

100/ 0.1’

(TOPSOIL/FILL)BLACK. (OL) SILTY CLAY, STIFF, MOIST TO FROZEN, CONTORTED BEDS, 0’ TO 5’

GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, STICKY, OCCASIONAL GRITTY, 45’ TO 55’

3. BACKFILLED BORING WITH TREMIED BENTONITE-CEMENT GROUT

NO SAMPLE RECOVERED - POSSIBLE BOULDERS/COBBLES.166’ TO 178.1’

COARSE, VERY DENSE, SATURATED, GRAY. (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, SAND FINE TO 163’ TO 166’

(SM) SILTY SAND, DENSE, SATURATED, LIGHT GRAY.128’ TO 128.5’

TRACE TO SOME GRAVEL, TRACE SAND, DARK GRAY. (CL) LEAN CLAY, VERY STIFF TO HARD, DRY TO MOIST, WITH 118.3’ TO 128’

COARSE, VERY DENSE, SATURATED, GRAY. (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, SAND FINE TO 118’ TO 118.3’

TRACE SAND, DARK GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, HARD, DRY TO MOIST, TRACE GRAVEL, 103’ TO 118’

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, HARD, MOIST, GRAY.99.5’ TO 103’

(ML) SILT, VERY DENSE, SATURATED, SILT SEAM, GRAY.99’ TO 99.5’

(CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, HARD, MOIST, GRAY. 83.5’ TO 99’

SATURATED, LIGHT GRAY. (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND, DENSE TO VERY DENSE, 81’ TO 83.5’

MOIST, GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, 74.2’ TO 81’

GRITTY, OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, GRAY. (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, NONE, STICKY, 70’ TO 74.2’

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, STICKY, GRITTY, GRAY. 55’ TO 70’

YELLOWISH BROWN WITH GRAY. GYPSUM CRYSTALS, GYPSUM IN FRACTURES, THIN WELL DEFINED LAMINATIONS,

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, LAMINATED, WITH 8’ TO 11.2’

BROWN TO GRAY. (CH) LEAN CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST, WEATHERED, YELLOWISH 5’ TO 8’

NOTES:



TOP UNIT "A" TILL



884.4

883.2

835.2

825.6


CL

CL

CH

CHCH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CL

SP

3

22

129

217

144

135

98

SPT

10

11

9

5

5

3

4

3

2

2

3

2

8

793.2

G.S. 893.2

12-148M28 FEB 12

80

78

80

96

113

117

97

88

95

112

117

111

99

71

65

29

22

21

28

27

28

25

24

27

26

29

26

25

23

23

24

16

33

36

43

43

57

62

57

54

63

59

56

68

65

47

43

20

LL PLMC

WEATHERED, LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY. (DESSICATED BRENNA FM.) (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, 10’ TO 11.5’

LIGHT BROWN AND GRAY. (DESSICATED BRENNA FM.) (CH) FAT CLAY, STIFF, WET, BLOCKY, 11.5’ TO 15’

AND GRAY. (OXIDIZED BRENNA FM.)WITH GYPSUM IN FLUID FRACTURES, IRON OXIDE STAINING, BROWN

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, NONE, 15’ TO 17.8’

WET, NONE, BROWNISH GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, 17.8’ TO 20’

DEFINED LAMINATIONS, STICKY, GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, THIN POORLY 20’ TO 50’

(BRENNA FORMATION)OCCASIONAL TILL INCLUSIONS, STICKY, SLIGHTLY GRITTY, GRAY.

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, 50’ TO 58’

W. L. 884.2

CL

CL

SP

SP

SP

D10


LIGHT GRAY. (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND, VERY DENSE, SATURATED, 83’ TO 100’

(ALLUVIUM)TOPSOIL, GRAY AND BLACK. (CL) LEAN CLAY, STIFF, MOIST, WEATHERED, WITH 3.4’ TO 6’

(ALLUVIUM)BROWN. (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, GRAYISH 6’ TO 8.8’

(TOPSOIL)TO FROZEN, BLACK. (CL) LEAN CLAY, SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, MOIST 0’ TO 3.4’

YELLOWISH BROWN WITH GRAY. WET, LAMINATED, WITH GYPSUM IN FLUID FRACTURES,

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, MOIST TO 8.8’ TO 10’

TRACE GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL SAND SEAMS, GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, STIFF TO VERY STIFF, WET, 70’ TO 83’

GRAVEL, GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET, TRACE 67.6’ TO 70’

GRITTY, GRAY. LAMINATIONS, OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL TILL INCLUSIONS,

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, THIN POORLY DEFINED 58’ TO 67.6’

GROUT3. BACKFILLED BORING USING TREMIED CEMENT-BENTONITE

No

FM

M DIV

ER

SIO

N R

EA

CH 4

FA

RG

O - M

OO

RH

EA

D F

LO

OD RIS

K M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

FA

RG

O,

ND

RE

D RIV

ER O

F T

HE N

OR

TH RIV

ER B

ASIN

ST. P

AU

L DIS

TRIC

T

ST. P

AU

L,

MIN

NE

SO

TA

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

FM

MD

R4_

B-2

02-V

2.d

gn

MV

H

MV

H

B-202

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

ST. L

OUIS DIS

TRIC

T

ST. L

OUIS,

MIS

SO

URI

10-7

3M, 12-1

47

M & 1

2-1

48

M

VO

LU

ME 2 - B

ORIN

G L

OG

S

NA

VD

88

NA

VD

88

900

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

730

720

710

900

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

730

720

710

ELE

VA

TIO

N D

AT

UM (

VE

RTIC

AL C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E S

YS

TE

M (

HO

RIZ

ON

TA

L C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

MBIN

ED S

CA

LE F

AC

TO

R (

CS

F):

0.9

99901266

GE

OID

09

NA

D 8

3 (2007)

ND S

PC

S, S

OU

TH Z

ON

E-U.S. S

UR

VE

Y F

T.

NA

VD 8

8



Post FTR


SO

LICIT

ATIO

N N

O.:

FIL

E N

AM

E:

DW

N B

Y:

CK

D B

Y:

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y:

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

1

D

2 3

C

4 5

A

B

MA

RK

AP

PR.

DA

TE:

FIL

E N

UM

BE

R:

SIZ

E:

SU

BMIT

TE

D B

Y:

PL

OT S

CA

LE:

PL

OT D

AT

E:

DA

TE

MA

RK

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

CO

NT

RA

CT N

O.:

DA

TE

AP

PR.

fiof Engineers

US Army Corps

of Engineers

US Army Corps

IDENTIFICATION

SHEET

auto_tim

e

95

% A

TR S

UB

MIT

TA

L

NOTES:



D10

12

5

6

2

4

3

3

3

4

4

3

3

4

6

45

230

148

102

7

89

SPT

789.4

W. L. 885.4

G.S. 894.4

12-164M13 MAR 12

CL

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CH

CL

SPCL

73

72

106

99

87

93

99

93

113

107

85

81

106

24

21

30

27

31

29

27

26

31

29

25

24

25

35

38

52

61

52

62

63

56

61

64

61

50

63

LL PLMC

(ALLUVIUM)BROWN. OCCASIONAL TOPSOIL LENSES, DARK BROWN WITH YELLOWISH

(CL) LEAN CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO FROZEN, W/ 0’ TO 8’

FM.)DARK BROWN WITH YELLOWISH BROWN. (DESSICATED BRENNA

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, BLOCKY, 13.5’ TO 18’

YELLOWISH BROWN AND GRAY. (OXIDIZED BRENNA FM.) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, NONE, 18’ TO 28’

LAMINATIONS, GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, THIN POORLY DEFINED 28’ TO 30’

FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, GRAY. (BRENNA 30’ TO 45’

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL


TOP UNIT "A" TILL



884.4

880.9

839.4

823.4


BROWN WITH GRAY. GYPSUM IN FLUID FRACTURES, IRON OXIDE STAINING, YELLOWISH

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, MOIST TO WET, LAMINATED, WITH 10’ TO 13.5’

INCLUSIONS, OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, GRITTY, GRAY. (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO GRITTY, WET, OCCASIONAL TILL 65’ TO 71’

GRAVEL, GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET, TRACE 71’ TO 78.5’

GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, HARD, DRY, 78.8’ TO 105’

SATURATED, SAND SEAM, GRAY. (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND, MEDIUM DENSE, 78.5’ TO 78.8’

GROUT3. BORING BACKFILLED BORING WITH HIGH SOLIDS BENTONITE

BOTTOM OF HOLE EL. 880.1

FILL)GRAY, GRANULAR, BROWN AND YELLOWISH BROWN. ( (CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET, TRACE 8’ TO 10’

(BRENNA FORMATION) (CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, SLIGHTLY GRITTY, GRAY. 45’ TO 55’

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT, WET, NONE, SLIGHTLY GRITTY, GRAY. 55’ TO 65’

196/0.6’

NOTES:

1. WATER LEVEL NOT DETERMINED


D10

6

9

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

5

8

28

36

60

79

59

68

47

3

76

SPT

780.0

G.S. 890.0

12-165M14 MAR 12

ML

CH

CH

CH

CH

CL

SMSC

81

106

102

90

100

94

93

28

31

23

29

27

27

25

27

25

17

14

40

50

59

56

65

63

57

21

14

LL PLMC

(TOPSOIL)CRYSTALS, FROZEN TO 2.5, DARK GRAYISH BROWN. (ML) SILT, CLAYEY, FROZEN TO WET, WITH GYPSUM 0’ TO 4.3’

SLICKENSIDES WHEN SHEARED, GRAY. (BRENNA FORMATION)SATURATED, OCCASIONAL CALCITE CRYSTALS, FORMS

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET TO 14.3’ TO 42’

FORMATION)COARSE SAND, OCCASIONAL SILT INCLUSIONS, GRAY. (BRENNA

(CH) FAT CLAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET, LITTLE 42’ TO 61.8’

COARSE, VERY DENSE, MOIST, DARK GRAY (SC) CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, SAND FINE TO 75’ TO 80’


TOP UNIT "A" TILL



885.7

881.2

828.2

816.2

SC

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL


FRACTURES, IRON OXIDE STAINING, MEDIUM BROWN. WET, TRACE ORGANIC NODULES, WITH GYPSUM IN

(CH) FAT CLAY, SILTY, MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO 4.3’ TO 8.8’

FINE TO COARSE SAND & GRAVEL, GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF, WET, 20% 61.8’ TO 73.8’

COARSE, DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST, DARK GRAY. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, SAND FINE TO 80’ TO 100’

TO COARSE, VERY DENSE, MOIST, DARK GRAYISH BROWN. (CL) SANDY LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL, SAND FINE 100’ TO 110’

GROUT3. BACKFILLED BORING USING TREMIED CEMENT-BENTONITE

WITH SOME TILL SEAMS, LIGHT GRAY. SATURATED, INTERBEDDED WITH CLAYEY SILT, MEDIUM BEDDED

(SM) SILTY SAND, SAND FINE, MEDIUM DENSE, 73.8’ TO 75’

(OXIDIZED BRENNA FORMATION)LAMINATED, WITH GYPSUM CRYSTALS, DARK REDDISH GRAY.

(CH) FAT CLAY, MEDIUM STIFF TO SOFT, WET, 8.8’ TO 14.3’

No

FM

M DIV

ER

SIO

N R

EA

CH 4

FA

RG

O - M

OO

RH

EA

D F

LO

OD RIS

K M

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

FA

RG

O,

ND

RE

D RIV

ER O

F T

HE N

OR

TH RIV

ER B

ASIN

ST. P

AU

L DIS

TRIC

T

ST. P

AU

L,

MIN

NE

SO

TA

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

FM

MD

R4_

B-2

03-V

2.d

gn

MV

H

MV

H

B-203

U.S.

AR

MY C

OR

PS O

F E

NGIN

EE

RS

ST. L

OUIS DIS

TRIC

T

ST. L

OUIS,

MIS

SO

URI

VO

LU

ME 2 - B

ORIN

G L

OG

S

NA

VD

88

NA

VD

88

930

920

910

900

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

930

920

910

900

890

880

870

860

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

780

770

760

750

740

12-1

64

M & 1

2-1

65

M

ELE

VA

TIO

N D

AT

UM (

VE

RTIC

AL C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E S

YS

TE

M (

HO

RIZ

ON

TA

L C

ON

TR

OL):

CO

MBIN

ED S

CA

LE F

AC

TO

R (

CS

F):

0.9

99901266

GE

OID

09

NA

D 8

3 (2007)

ND S

PC

S, S

OU

TH Z

ON

E-U.S. S

UR

VE

Y F

T.

NA

VD 8

8



Post FTR


Attachment D2-4: Stability Analysis Results

0, 868.8

-20, 863.8 -46, 863.3

-72, 863.8

-100, 870.8 -150, 871.8

-274, 889.5

-324, 889.5

-415, 902.5

-613, 906.5

-634, 909.5

-768, 909.5

-888, 889.5

-908, 889.5

-933, 884.5 -943, 884.5

-968, 889.5

-1000, 889.5

860

870

880

890

900

910

920

-1000 -900 -800 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

Elev

atio

n

Station

Rush River/Reach 4 Maximum EMB Grading Extents for Undulation Design

Maximum Grading Extents

Ground Surface

Max Stepped Height

20ft

Max Simple EMB

Height 17ft

Max Initial EMB

Height 13ft

Stepped EMB Offset 198ft

1V:7H

1V:6H

Top Width 134 ft

EMB Width 564ft

1V:7H



Post FTR

Attachment D2-4: Stability Analysis Results Page 1

Section Station Section Extents ConfigurationExisting Ground

Elevation

Max Initial EMB

Height (ft)

Max Initial EMB

Elevation

Max Simple EMB

Height (ft)

Max Simple EMB

Elevation

Steeped EMB

Offset (ft)

Max Stepped

EMB Height (ft)

Max Stepped

EMB Elevation

Top Width of Step

(ft)

Max EMB Width (ft)

6a 436+75 412+47 - 456+00 Stepped (3) 889.5 13 902.5 17 906.5 198 20 909.5 134 564Notes:

(4) Sloping for drainage is not necessary in the landside half of the EMB where the undulations will be constructed.

Rush River Right Bank Maximum Grading Extents (1)(2)

(1) The maximum grading extents were based on geotechnical considerations and viewshed height limitation requirements. The undulation shall be designed such that the undulation grading does not exceed the maximum grading extents.

(3) Stepped configuration for the Right Bank EMB deviates from the typical stepped configuration in that the intent is to increase volume available to design undulations rather than to maintain stability from failure into the diversion channel. The typical stepped configuration is defined as a Simple EMB with step added, step height maximized, and step offset minimized. The offset in the right bank EMB is the channel-side half of the EMB in which no undulations will be designed.

(2) If the footprint of EMB increases beyond what is indicated, the layout of the EMB will require additional geotechnical evaluation for stability.



Post FTR


Unit "A" Till

AlluviumSherackOx Brenna

File Name: FMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.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-D

Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 4, Section 6, Simple EMBSTA 436+75 (HEC-RAS 43675 and 44677)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 2 - 6.5ft Low Flow HeightHeight=13ft Width=564ft

Argusville

Created By: Rose, NathanLast Edited By: Rose, Nathan S MVSDate: 5/14/2013

Case 2: Steady-State Seepage AnalysisFMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.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 1

000)

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



Post FTR


Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.442

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 StabilityFMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.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 1

000)

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



Post FTR


1.442

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.431

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.gszCase 2: (2) Global EMB Stability

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.565

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.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



Post FTR


1.565

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.gszCase 2: (4) Localized Stability

0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.668

p g

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 4, Section 6, Simple EMBSTA 436+75 (HEC-RAS 43675 and 44677)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 2 - 6.5ft Low Flow HeightHeight=13ft Width=564ftCase 2: (5) EMB Left Slope Stability

Distance (x 1000)1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.



Post FTR


1.313

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 StabilityFMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.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 1

000)

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



Post FTR


1.313



Brenna Undrained


FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE2_Sta.436+75_H13_UndulationTemplate.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability

-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.319

p g

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 4, Section 6, Simple EMBSTA 436+75 (HEC-RAS 43675 and 44677)Diversion Channel StabilityCASE 2 - 6.5ft Low Flow HeightHeight=13ft Width=564ftCase 2: Undrained Stability EMB Left Slope

Distance (x 1000)1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.



Post FTR


Unit "A" Till


File Name: FMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.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-D

Brenna


Argusville


Case 5: Steady-State Seepage AnalysisFMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: 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 1

000)

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



Post FTR


Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.295

Unit "A" Till


File Name: FMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gsz 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: 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 5: (1) Global StabilityFMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: (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 1

000)

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



Post FTR


1.295

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: (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



Post FTR


1.482

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: (2) Global EMB Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.182

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: (3) Lower Stability

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.00.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.039

Unit "A" Till


Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Reach 4 - Section 6A, Simple EMB, ATR SubmittalFMM_Sect-06a_CASE5_Sta.436+75_H13_4ft_Sediment.gszCase 5: (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



Post FTR


850

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

-7+84.04

875.23

-182.74

889.18

-272.15890.17

-322.60

905.75

-447.86

903.29

-586.17

889.71

-678.25

881.87

-741.51

881.87

-752.68

890.04

-798.21

861.80

-75.33

858.78

-25.00

858.78

25.00861.80

75.33

871.14

145.16

873.91

145.16

861.53

-25.00864.53

-75.00

878.00

-182.74

861.53

25.00864.53

75.00



Post FTR


B3ECGNSR

Typewritten Text

Rush River Inlet/Drop Structure Section RR1 Sta 7-84.04 Design Section

B3ECGNSR

Typewritten Text

B3ECGNSR

Typewritten Text

860

862

864

866 868

870 872

872

874

874

876

878

Unit "A" Till


File Name: FMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gsz Soil PropertiesName: 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 ° Name: Rip Rap Model: Saturated Only K-Sat: 1000 ft/days Volumetric Water Content: 0 ft³/ft³ Mv: 0 /psf K-Ratio: 1 K-Direction: 0 °

Ox Brenna

F-M Flood Risk ManagementReach 4, Section RR 1, STA 7+84Rock Ramp Stability

Argusville

Created By: Redell, ChrisLast Edited By: Redell, Chris MVSDate: 1/31/2013

Case 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.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 0.1 0.2

(x 1

000)

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



Post FTR


860

862 864

866 868

870

872

872

874

Unit "A" Till


Ox Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: Steady-State Seepage Analysis

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.497

Unit "A" Till


File Name: FMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gsz Soil PropertiesName: 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 ° Name: Rip Rap Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Ox Brenna


Argusville


Case 2: (1) Global Stability

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.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 0.1 0.2

(x 1

000)

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



Post FTR


1.497

Unit "A" Till


Ox Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: (1) Global Stability

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.598

Unit "A" Till


Ox Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: (2) Global Check Stability

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.622

Unit "A" Till


Ox Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: (3) Lower Stability

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.623

Unit "A" Till


Ox Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: (4) Localized Stability

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.870

Unit "A" Till


Ox Brenna

Argusville

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: (5) Left Slope Stability

-0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.320



File Name: FMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gsz Soil PropertiesName: 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 Name: Rip Rap Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 30 ° Phi-B: 0 °

Ox Brenna Undrained




Case 2: Undrained Stability With Rip Rap

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability With Rip Rap

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 0.1 0.2

(x 1

000)

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



Post FTR


1.320



Ox Brenna Undrained


FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_15.58_EMB_1on8_RR_65OS.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability With Rip Rap

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


1.306



File Name: FMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_12_EMB_1on8_65OS_WO_RR.gsz Soil Properties

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

Ox Brenna Undrained




Case 2: Undrained Stability Without Rip Rap

FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_12_EMB_1on8_65OS_WO_RR.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability Without Rip Rap

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 0.1 0.2

(x 1

000)

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



Post FTR


1.306



Ox Brenna Undrained


FMM: Rock Ramp Section 1 - STA 7+84, DTR SubmittalFMM_Sect-RR1_CASE2_Sta.7+84_12_EMB_1on8_65OS_WO_RR.gszCase 2: Undrained Stability Without Rip Rap

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

(x 1

000)

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00



Post FTR


Attachment D2-5: Settlement and Rebound Analysis Results

Project: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management ProjectSubject: Settlement Calculations - (infinite surcharge) - Sta. 436+75Computed By: Chris J. Redell Reviewed By:Date: 5/8/2013 Date:

General Section Information Stratigraphy Information Material Properties - MeanLocation Layer Formation Depth (ft) Settlement in layer (in.) γsat (pcf) γ' OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec

890.5 1 Alluvium 4 4.07 120 57.6 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.13010 2 Sherack 9 1.53 115 52.6 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.123

890.5 3 OX Brenna 14 1.84 108 45.6 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.2494 Brenna 62 10.47 106 43.6 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312

Surcharge - Excavated Material Berm 5 Argusville 74 1.52 110 47.6 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318Unit Weight (pcf) 123 6Thickness (ft) 20 7Surcharge (psf) 2460 8

Depth of compressible strata (ft) 74 19.42Results (ft) (in.)Total Settlement 1.62 19.4Settlement at location of interest 1.62 19.4

(infinite surcharge) - Sta. 436+75Ground Surface Elevation (ft NAVD88)

Depth to groundwater table (ft)Elevation of Interest



Post FTR

Attachment D2-5: Settlement and Rebound Analysis Results Page 1

Project: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management ProjectSubject: Settlement Calculations - (infinite surcharge) - Sta. 436+75Computed By: Chris J. Redell Reviewed By:Date: 5/8/2013 Date:

Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) GW depth (ft) Formation γsat (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) ΣSc (ft)Sc - cumulative (ft), mean parameters, infinite surcharge

0 890.5 0 Alluvium 120 0 0 0 2460 2460 3.8 0 0.018 0.130 0.000 0 0 0 1.6191 889.5 0 Alluvium 120 120 0 120 2460 2580 3.8 456 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.136 0.147 0.147 1.4722 888.5 0 Alluvium 120 240 0 240 2460 2700 3.8 912 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.077 0.087 0.234 1.3853 887.5 0 Alluvium 120 360 0 360 2460 2820 3.8 1368 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.050 0.061 0.295 1.3244 886.5 0 Alluvium 120 480 0 480 2460 2940 3.8 1824 0.018 0.130 0.011 0.033 0.044 0.339 1.2805 885.5 0 Sherack 115 595 0 595 2460 3055 3.6 2142 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.022 0.038 0.377 1.2416 884.5 0 Sherack 115 710 0 710 2460 3170 3.6 2556 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.015 0.031 0.408 1.2117 883.5 0 Sherack 115 825 0 825 2460 3285 3.6 2970 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.008 0.024 0.432 1.1868 882.5 0 Sherack 115 940 0 940 2460 3400 3.6 3384 0.028 0.123 0.016 0.003 0.019 0.451 1.1689 881.5 0 Sherack 115 1055 0 1055 2460 3515 3.6 3798 0.028 0.123 0.015 0.000 0.015 0.466 1.152

10 880.5 0 OX Brenna 108 1163 0 1163 2460 3623 4.2 4884.6 0.064 0.249 0.032 0.000 0.032 0.499 1.12011 879.5 1 OX Brenna 108 1271 62.4 1208.6 2460 3668.6 4.2 5076.12 0.064 0.249 0.031 0.000 0.031 0.530 1.08912 878.5 2 OX Brenna 108 1379 124.8 1254.2 2460 3714.2 4.2 5267.64 0.064 0.249 0.030 0.000 0.030 0.560 1.05813 877.5 3 OX Brenna 108 1487 187.2 1299.8 2460 3759.8 4.2 5459.16 0.064 0.249 0.030 0.000 0.030 0.590 1.02914 876.5 4 OX Brenna 108 1595 249.6 1345.4 2460 3805.4 4.2 5650.68 0.064 0.249 0.029 0.000 0.029 0.619 0.99915 875.5 5 Brenna 106 1701 312 1389 2460 3849 3.1 4305.9 0.057 0.312 0.026 0.000 0.026 0.645 0.97416 874.5 6 Brenna 106 1807 374.4 1432.6 2460 3892.6 3.1 4441.06 0.057 0.312 0.025 0.000 0.025 0.670 0.94917 873.5 7 Brenna 106 1913 436.8 1476.2 2460 3936.2 3.1 4576.22 0.057 0.312 0.025 0.000 0.025 0.694 0.92418 872.5 8 Brenna 106 2019 499.2 1519.8 2460 3979.8 3.1 4711.38 0.057 0.312 0.024 0.000 0.024 0.718 0.90019 871.5 9 Brenna 106 2125 561.6 1563.4 2460 4023.4 3.1 4846.54 0.057 0.312 0.024 0.000 0.024 0.742 0.87720 870.5 10 Brenna 106 2231 624 1607 2460 4067 3.1 4981.7 0.057 0.312 0.023 0.000 0.023 0.765 0.85321 869.5 11 Brenna 106 2337 686.4 1650.6 2460 4110.6 3.1 5116.86 0.057 0.312 0.023 0.000 0.023 0.788 0.83122 868.5 12 Brenna 106 2443 748.8 1694.2 2460 4154.2 3.1 5252.02 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.810 0.80823 867.5 13 Brenna 106 2549 811.2 1737.8 2460 4197.8 3.1 5387.18 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.833 0.78624 866.5 14 Brenna 106 2655 873.6 1781.4 2460 4241.4 3.1 5522.34 0.057 0.312 0.022 0.000 0.022 0.854 0.76425 865.5 15 Brenna 106 2761 936 1825 2460 4285 3.1 5657.5 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.876 0.74326 864.5 16 Brenna 106 2867 998.4 1868.6 2460 4328.6 3.1 5792.66 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.897 0.72227 863.5 17 Brenna 106 2973 1060.8 1912.2 2460 4372.2 3.1 5927.82 0.057 0.312 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.917 0.70128 862.5 18 Brenna 106 3079 1123.2 1955.8 2460 4415.8 3.1 6062.98 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.938 0.68129 861.5 19 Brenna 106 3185 1185.6 1999.4 2460 4459.4 3.1 6198.14 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.958 0.66130 860.5 20 Brenna 106 3291 1248 2043 2460 4503 3.1 6333.3 0.057 0.312 0.020 0.000 0.020 0.977 0.64131 859.5 21 Brenna 106 3397 1310.4 2086.6 2460 4546.6 3.1 6468.46 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.997 0.62232 858.5 22 Brenna 106 3503 1372.8 2130.2 2460 4590.2 3.1 6603.62 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 1.016 0.60333 857.5 23 Brenna 106 3609 1435.2 2173.8 2460 4633.8 3.1 6738.78 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 1.035 0.58434 856.5 24 Brenna 106 3715 1497.6 2217.4 2460 4677.4 3.1 6873.94 0.057 0.312 0.019 0.000 0.019 1.053 0.56535 855.5 25 Brenna 106 3821 1560 2261 2460 4721 3.1 7009.1 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.072 0.54736 854.5 26 Brenna 106 3927 1622.4 2304.6 2460 4764.6 3.1 7144.26 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.090 0.52937 853.5 27 Brenna 106 4033 1684.8 2348.2 2460 4808.2 3.1 7279.42 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.108 0.51138 852.5 28 Brenna 106 4139 1747.2 2391.8 2460 4851.8 3.1 7414.58 0.057 0.312 0.018 0.000 0.018 1.126 0.49339 851.5 29 Brenna 106 4245 1809.6 2435.4 2460 4895.4 3.1 7549.74 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.143 0.47640 850.5 30 Brenna 106 4351 1872 2479 2460 4939 3.1 7684.9 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.160 0.45841 849.5 31 Brenna 106 4457 1934.4 2522.6 2460 4982.6 3.1 7820.06 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.177 0.44142 848.5 32 Brenna 106 4563 1996.8 2566.2 2460 5026.2 3.1 7955.22 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.194 0.42543 847.5 33 Brenna 106 4669 2059.2 2609.8 2460 5069.8 3.1 8090.38 0.057 0.312 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.210 0.40844 846.5 34 Brenna 106 4775 2121.6 2653.4 2460 5113.4 3.1 8225.54 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.227 0.39245 845.5 35 Brenna 106 4881 2184 2697 2460 5157 3.1 8360.7 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.243 0.37646 844.5 36 Brenna 106 4987 2246.4 2740.6 2460 5200.6 3.1 8495.86 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.259 0.36047 843.5 37 Brenna 106 5093 2308.8 2784.2 2460 5244.2 3.1 8631.02 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.275 0.34448 842.5 38 Brenna 106 5199 2371.2 2827.8 2460 5287.8 3.1 8766.18 0.057 0.312 0.016 0.000 0.016 1.290 0.32849 841.5 39 Brenna 106 5305 2433.6 2871.4 2460 5331.4 3.1 8901.34 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.306 0.31350 840.5 40 Brenna 106 5411 2496 2915 2460 5375 3.1 9036.5 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.321 0.29851 839.5 41 Brenna 106 5517 2558.4 2958.6 2460 5418.6 3.1 9171.66 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.336 0.28252 838.5 42 Brenna 106 5623 2620.8 3002.2 2460 5462.2 3.1 9306.82 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.351 0.26853 837.5 43 Brenna 106 5729 2683.2 3045.8 2460 5505.8 3.1 9441.98 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.366 0.25354 836.5 44 Brenna 106 5835 2745.6 3089.4 2460 5549.4 3.1 9577.14 0.057 0.312 0.015 0.000 0.015 1.380 0.23855 835.5 45 Brenna 106 5941 2808 3133 2460 5593 3.1 9712.3 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.395 0.22456 834.5 46 Brenna 106 6047 2870.4 3176.6 2460 5636.6 3.1 9847.46 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.409 0.20957 833.5 47 Brenna 106 6153 2932.8 3220.2 2460 5680.2 3.1 9982.62 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.423 0.19558 832.5 48 Brenna 106 6259 2995.2 3263.8 2460 5723.8 3.1 10117.78 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.437 0.18159 831.5 49 Brenna 106 6365 3057.6 3307.4 2460 5767.4 3.1 10252.94 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.451 0.16760 830.5 50 Brenna 106 6471 3120 3351 2460 5811 3.1 10388.1 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.465 0.15461 829.5 51 Brenna 106 6577 3182.4 3394.6 2460 5854.6 3.1 10523.26 0.057 0.312 0.014 0.000 0.014 1.478 0.14062 828.5 52 Brenna 106 6683 3244.8 3438.2 2460 5898.2 3.1 10658.42 0.057 0.312 0.013 0.000 0.013 1.492 0.12763 827.5 53 Argusville 110 6793 3307.2 3485.8 2460 5945.8 2.2 7668.76 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.503 0.11664 826.5 54 Argusville 110 6903 3369.6 3533.4 2460 5993.4 2.2 7773.48 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.514 0.10565 825.5 55 Argusville 110 7013 3432 3581 2460 6041 2.2 7878.2 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.525 0.09466 824.5 56 Argusville 110 7123 3494.4 3628.6 2460 6088.6 2.2 7982.92 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.536 0.08367 823.5 57 Argusville 110 7233 3556.8 3676.2 2460 6136.2 2.2 8087.64 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.547 0.07268 822.5 58 Argusville 110 7343 3619.2 3723.8 2460 6183.8 2.2 8192.36 0.048 0.318 0.011 0.000 0.011 1.557 0.06169 821.5 59 Argusville 110 7453 3681.6 3771.4 2460 6231.4 2.2 8297.08 0.048 0.318 0.010 0.000 0.010 1.568 0.05170 820.5 60 Argusville 110 7563 3744 3819 2460 6279 2.2 8401.8 0.048 0.318 0.010 0.000 0.010 1.578 0.04171 819.5 61 Argusville 110 7673 3806.4 3866.6 2460 6326.6 2.2 8506.52 0.048 0.318 0.010 0.000 0.010 1.588 0.03072 818.5 62 Argusville 110 7783 3868.8 3914.2 2460 6374.2 2.2 8611.24 0.048 0.318 0.010 0.000 0.010 1.599 0.02073 817.5 63 Argusville 110 7893 3931.2 3961.8 2460 6421.8 2.2 8715.96 0.048 0.318 0.010 0.000 0.010 1.609 0.01074 816.5 64 Argusville 110 8003 3993.6 4009.4 2460 6469.4 2.2 8820.68 0.048 0.318 0.010 0.000 0.010 1.619 0.000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

dept

h (ft

)

Settlement (ft)

Sc - cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite surcharge



Post FTR


Project: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Channel PropertiesSubject: Rebound Calculations - Section 6A, 436+75 Station 43675Computed by: CJR Checked by: STA GSEDate: 5/8/2013 Date: Closest HEC-RAS Sections 43675 889.2 868.8 863.3 21.2

44677 889.2 869.0 863.5 21.0

General Section Information Stratigraphy Information Material Properties - meanLocation Layer Formation Depth (ft) γsat OCR Cr Cc eo Cer Cec Rebound in layer (in.)

890 1 Alluvium 4 120 3.8 0.034 0.24 0.84 0.018 0.130 0.0010 2 Sherack 9 115 3.6 0.051 0.22 0.79 0.028 0.168 0.00

3 OX Brenna 14 108 4.2 0.154 0.6 1.41 0.064 0.249 0.004 Brenna 62 106 3.1 0.141 0.77 1.47 0.057 0.312 -15.53

Excavation 5 Argusville 74 110 2.2 0.113 0.75 1.36 0.048 0.318 -1.746

Depth (ft) 21 78

Depth of compressible strata (ft) 74 Total Rebound (in.) -17.3Results (ft) (in.) Height of Rebounding Layer (ft) 53Total Rebound -1.44 -17.3

Depth to groundwater table (ft)

Depth to Diversion Centerline (ft)

Diversion Invert Elev

Low-Flow Invert Elev

Section 6A, 436+75Ground Surface Elevation (ft NAD88)



Post FTR


Project: Fargo-Moorhead Metro Flood Risk Management Project Diversion Channel PropertiesSubject: Rebound Calculations - Section 6A, 436+75 Station 43675Computed by: CJR Checked by: STA GSEDate: 5/8/2013 Date: Closest HEC-RAS Sections 43675 889.2 868.8 863.3 21.2

44677 889.2 869.0 863.5 21.0

Depth to Diversion Centerline (ft)

Diversion Invert Elev

Low-Flow Invert Elev

Depth (ft) Elev. (ft) GW depth (ft) Formation γsat (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) ΣSc (ft) Sc - cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite excavation0 890 0 Alluvium 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 0.018 0.130 0.000 0 0 0 -1.4391 889 0 Alluvium 120 120 0 120 0 0 0 3.8 456 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4392 888 0 Alluvium 120 240 0 240 0 0 0 3.8 912 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4393 887 0 Alluvium 120 360 0 360 0 0 0 3.8 1368 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4394 886 0 Alluvium 120 480 0 480 0 0 0 3.8 1824 0.018 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4395 885 0 Sherack 115 595 0 595 0 0 0 3.6 2142 0.028 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4396 884 0 Sherack 115 710 0 710 0 0 0 3.6 2556 0.028 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4397 883 0 Sherack 115 825 0 825 0 0 0 3.6 2970 0.028 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4398 882 0 Sherack 115 940 0 940 0 0 0 3.6 3384 0.028 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.4399 881 0 Sherack 115 1055 0 1055 0 0 0 3.6 3798 0.028 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.439

10 880 0 OX Brenna 108 1163 0 1163 0 0 0 4.2 4884.6 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43911 879 1 OX Brenna 108 1271 62.4 1208.6 0 0 0 4.2 5076.12 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43912 878 2 OX Brenna 108 1379 124.8 1254.2 0 0 0 4.2 5267.64 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43913 877 3 OX Brenna 108 1487 187.2 1299.8 0 0 0 4.2 5459.16 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43914 876 4 OX Brenna 108 1595 249.6 1345.4 0 0 0 4.2 5650.68 0.064 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43915 875 5 Brenna 106 1701 312 1389 0 0 0 3.1 4305.9 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43916 874 6 Brenna 106 1807 374.4 1432.6 0 0 0 3.1 4441.06 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43917 873 7 Brenna 106 1913 436.8 1476.2 0 0 0 3.1 4576.22 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43918 872 8 Brenna 106 2019 499.2 1519.8 0 0 0 3.1 4711.38 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43919 871 9 Brenna 106 2125 561.6 1563.4 0 0 0 3.1 4846.54 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43920 870 10 Brenna 106 2231 624 1607 0 0 0 3.1 4981.7 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43921 869 11 Brenna 106 2337 686.4 1650.6 0 0 0 3.1 5116.86 0.057 0.312 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -1.43922 868 12 Brenna 106 2443 748.8 1694.2 106 62.4 43.6 3.1 5252.02 0.057 0.312 -0.091 0.000 -0.091 -0.091 -1.34823 867 13 Brenna 106 2549 811.2 1737.8 212 124.8 87.2 3.1 5387.18 0.057 0.312 -0.074 0.000 -0.074 -0.165 -1.27424 866 14 Brenna 106 2655 873.6 1781.4 318 187.2 130.8 3.1 5522.34 0.057 0.312 -0.065 0.000 -0.065 -0.230 -1.21025 865 15 Brenna 106 2761 936 1825 424 249.6 174.4 3.1 5657.5 0.057 0.312 -0.058 0.000 -0.058 -0.288 -1.15126 864 16 Brenna 106 2867 998.4 1868.6 530 312 218 3.1 5792.66 0.057 0.312 -0.053 0.000 -0.053 -0.341 -1.09827 863 17 Brenna 106 2973 1060.8 1912.2 636 374.4 261.6 3.1 5927.82 0.057 0.312 -0.049 0.000 -0.049 -0.390 -1.04928 862 18 Brenna 106 3079 1123.2 1955.8 742 436.8 305.2 3.1 6062.98 0.057 0.312 -0.046 0.000 -0.046 -0.437 -1.00329 861 19 Brenna 106 3185 1185.6 1999.4 848 499.2 348.8 3.1 6198.14 0.057 0.312 -0.043 0.000 -0.043 -0.480 -0.95930 860 20 Brenna 106 3291 1248 2043 954 561.6 392.4 3.1 6333.3 0.057 0.312 -0.041 0.000 -0.041 -0.521 -0.91831 859 21 Brenna 106 3397 1310.4 2086.6 1060 624 436 3.1 6468.46 0.057 0.312 -0.039 0.000 -0.039 -0.560 -0.88032 858 22 Brenna 106 3503 1372.8 2130.2 1166 686.4 479.6 3.1 6603.62 0.057 0.312 -0.037 0.000 -0.037 -0.596 -0.84333 857 23 Brenna 106 3609 1435.2 2173.8 1272 748.8 523.2 3.1 6738.78 0.057 0.312 -0.035 0.000 -0.035 -0.632 -0.80734 856 24 Brenna 106 3715 1497.6 2217.4 1378 811.2 566.8 3.1 6873.94 0.057 0.312 -0.034 0.000 -0.034 -0.666 -0.77435 855 25 Brenna 106 3821 1560 2261 1484 873.6 610.4 3.1 7009.1 0.057 0.312 -0.032 0.000 -0.032 -0.698 -0.74136 854 26 Brenna 106 3927 1622.4 2304.6 1590 936 654 3.1 7144.26 0.057 0.312 -0.031 0.000 -0.031 -0.729 -0.71037 853 27 Brenna 106 4033 1684.8 2348.2 1696 998.4 697.6 3.1 7279.42 0.057 0.312 -0.030 0.000 -0.030 -0.759 -0.68038 852 28 Brenna 106 4139 1747.2 2391.8 1802 1060.8 741.2 3.1 7414.58 0.057 0.312 -0.029 0.000 -0.029 -0.788 -0.65139 851 29 Brenna 106 4245 1809.6 2435.4 1908 1123.2 784.8 3.1 7549.74 0.057 0.312 -0.028 0.000 -0.028 -0.817 -0.62340 850 30 Brenna 106 4351 1872 2479 2014 1185.6 828.4 3.1 7684.9 0.057 0.312 -0.027 0.000 -0.027 -0.844 -0.59641 849 31 Brenna 106 4457 1934.4 2522.6 2120 1248 872 3.1 7820.06 0.057 0.312 -0.026 0.000 -0.026 -0.870 -0.56942 848 32 Brenna 106 4563 1996.8 2566.2 2226 1310.4 915.6 3.1 7955.22 0.057 0.312 -0.026 0.000 -0.026 -0.896 -0.54443 847 33 Brenna 106 4669 2059.2 2609.8 2332 1372.8 959.2 3.1 8090.38 0.057 0.312 -0.025 0.000 -0.025 -0.920 -0.51944 846 34 Brenna 106 4775 2121.6 2653.4 2438 1435.2 1002.8 3.1 8225.54 0.057 0.312 -0.024 0.000 -0.024 -0.945 -0.49545 845 35 Brenna 106 4881 2184 2697 2544 1497.6 1046.4 3.1 8360.7 0.057 0.312 -0.023 0.000 -0.023 -0.968 -0.47146 844 36 Brenna 106 4987 2246.4 2740.6 2650 1560 1090 3.1 8495.86 0.057 0.312 -0.023 0.000 -0.023 -0.991 -0.44847 843 37 Brenna 106 5093 2308.8 2784.2 2756 1622.4 1133.6 3.1 8631.02 0.057 0.312 -0.022 0.000 -0.022 -1.013 -0.42648 842 38 Brenna 106 5199 2371.2 2827.8 2862 1684.8 1177.2 3.1 8766.18 0.057 0.312 -0.022 0.000 -0.022 -1.035 -0.40449 841 39 Brenna 106 5305 2433.6 2871.4 2968 1747.2 1220.8 3.1 8901.34 0.057 0.312 -0.021 0.000 -0.021 -1.056 -0.38350 840 40 Brenna 106 5411 2496 2915 3074 1809.6 1264.4 3.1 9036.5 0.057 0.312 -0.021 0.000 -0.021 -1.077 -0.36251 839 41 Brenna 106 5517 2558.4 2958.6 3180 1872 1308 3.1 9171.66 0.057 0.312 -0.020 0.000 -0.020 -1.097 -0.34252 838 42 Brenna 106 5623 2620.8 3002.2 3286 1934.4 1351.6 3.1 9306.82 0.057 0.312 -0.020 0.000 -0.020 -1.117 -0.32253 837 43 Brenna 106 5729 2683.2 3045.8 3392 1996.8 1395.2 3.1 9441.98 0.057 0.312 -0.019 0.000 -0.019 -1.136 -0.30354 836 44 Brenna 106 5835 2745.6 3089.4 3498 2059.2 1438.8 3.1 9577.14 0.057 0.312 -0.019 0.000 -0.019 -1.155 -0.28455 835 45 Brenna 106 5941 2808 3133 3604 2121.6 1482.4 3.1 9712.3 0.057 0.312 -0.019 0.000 -0.019 -1.174 -0.26656 834 46 Brenna 106 6047 2870.4 3176.6 3710 2184 1526 3.1 9847.46 0.057 0.312 -0.018 0.000 -0.018 -1.192 -0.24757 833 47 Brenna 106 6153 2932.8 3220.2 3816 2246.4 1569.6 3.1 9982.62 0.057 0.312 -0.018 0.000 -0.018 -1.210 -0.23058 832 48 Brenna 106 6259 2995.2 3263.8 3922 2308.8 1613.2 3.1 10117.78 0.057 0.312 -0.017 0.000 -0.017 -1.227 -0.21259 831 49 Brenna 106 6365 3057.6 3307.4 4028 2371.2 1656.8 3.1 10252.94 0.057 0.312 -0.017 0.000 -0.017 -1.244 -0.19560 830 50 Brenna 106 6471 3120 3351 4134 2433.6 1700.4 3.1 10388.1 0.057 0.312 -0.017 0.000 -0.017 -1.261 -0.17861 829 51 Brenna 106 6577 3182.4 3394.6 4240 2496 1744 3.1 10523.26 0.057 0.312 -0.017 0.000 -0.017 -1.278 -0.16262 828 52 Brenna 106 6683 3244.8 3438.2 4346 2558.4 1787.6 3.1 10658.42 0.057 0.312 -0.016 0.000 -0.016 -1.294 -0.14563 827 53 Argusville 110 6793 3307.2 3485.8 4456 2620.8 1835.2 2.2 7668.76 0.048 0.318 -0.013 0.000 -0.013 -1.307 -0.13264 826 54 Argusville 110 6903 3369.6 3533.4 4566 2683.2 1882.8 2.2 7773.48 0.048 0.318 -0.013 0.000 -0.013 -1.320 -0.11965 825 55 Argusville 110 7013 3432 3581 4676 2745.6 1930.4 2.2 7878.2 0.048 0.318 -0.013 0.000 -0.013 -1.333 -0.10666 824 56 Argusville 110 7123 3494.4 3628.6 4786 2808 1978 2.2 7982.92 0.048 0.318 -0.013 0.000 -0.013 -1.346 -0.09467 823 57 Argusville 110 7233 3556.8 3676.2 4896 2870.4 2025.6 2.2 8087.64 0.048 0.318 -0.012 0.000 -0.012 -1.358 -0.08168 822 58 Argusville 110 7343 3619.2 3723.8 5006 2932.8 2073.2 2.2 8192.36 0.048 0.318 -0.012 0.000 -0.012 -1.370 -0.06969 821 59 Argusville 110 7453 3681.6 3771.4 5116 2995.2 2120.8 2.2 8297.08 0.048 0.318 -0.012 0.000 -0.012 -1.382 -0.05770 820 60 Argusville 110 7563 3744 3819 5226 3057.6 2168.4 2.2 8401.8 0.048 0.318 -0.012 0.000 -0.012 -1.394 -0.04571 819 61 Argusville 110 7673 3806.4 3866.6 5336 3120 2216 2.2 8506.52 0.048 0.318 -0.012 0.000 -0.012 -1.406 -0.03472 818 62 Argusville 110 7783 3868.8 3914.2 5446 3182.4 2263.6 2.2 8611.24 0.048 0.318 -0.011 0.000 -0.011 -1.417 -0.02273 817 63 Argusville 110 7893 3931.2 3961.8 5556 3244.8 2311.2 2.2 8715.96 0.048 0.318 -0.011 0.000 -0.011 -1.428 -0.01174 816 64 Argusville 110 8003 3993.6 4009.4 5666 3307.2 2358.8 2.2 8820.68 0.048 0.318 -0.011 0.000 -0.011 -1.439 0.000

Existing Conditions After Construction

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00

dept

h (ft

)

Rebound (ft)

Sc - cumulative (ft) mean parameters, infinite excavation



Post FTR


appendix d2: geotechnical engineering and geology · • rush river inlet/drop structure –...

Documents