bssh inc. - cold stream dam rehabilitation

8/2/2019 BSSH Inc. - Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation

1/124

BSSH Inc.

122 Hasselhoff Drive

Zhang River, China

April 27, 2012

Philipsburg Borough

P.O. Box 631, 4 N. Centre St.

Philipsburg, PA 16866

Dear Philipsburg Borough:

In the attached proposal, BSSH Inc. presents plans to redesign the Cold Stream Dam. The

attached report includes project and geologic information, field and laboratory

investigations and subsurface conditions conducted by CMT Laboratories.

BSSH Inc. proposes three design options for fill over the earthen embankment: rollercompacted concrete, soil with asphalt, and a concrete seawall. Prepared in this document

are recommendations and analysis for site preparation, drainage, structural fill placement,

foundations, lateral earth pressure, settlement, cost analysis and slope stability for each

design option.

In interest to the general contractor, the acid mine drainage located east of the dam is of

concern due to the environmental safety of the community. Slope stability is of concern

for the earthen dam and may cause danger to the workers during dam rehabilitation.

Therefore, it is recommended that a Professional Engineer (P.E.) be present for the

entirety of construction.

Sincerely,

Scott Parker

President

BSSH Inc.


2/124

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

COLD STREAM DAM REHABILITATION

Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania

Prepared For:

Philipsburg Borough

P.O. Box 631, 4 N. Centre St.

Philipsburg, PA 16866

Prepared By:

Hasib Hussain

Scott Parker

Shan Lin

Ben Schatz

April 27, 2012


3/124

INDEX

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION.........................................................................................1

GENERAL .......................................................................................................................................2

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION ........................................................................................................2

MINING INFORMATION ..............................................................................................................3

FIELD INVESTIGATION ..............................................................................................................4

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................5

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................6

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................7

Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................7

Drainage ...............................................................................................................................7

Structural Fill Placement......................................................................................................8

Foundations ........................................................................................................................10

Lateral Earth Pressure ........................................................................................................10

Settlement ..........................................................................................................................11

Design Options...................................................................................................................11

Cost Analysis .........................................................................................................12Slope Stability ........................................................................................................13

COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................13

APPENDIX:

A. Boring Logs & Test Boring Location PlansB. Laboratory TestsC. Slope Stability (RocScience)

a. Current Conditionsb. Concrete Optionc. Soil w/ Asphalt Optiond. Seawall Option

D. Foundation Drawings & CalculationsE. Cost AnalysisF. Sources


4/124

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation


April 27, 2012

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a subsurface exploration and geotechnical analysis for

the proposed Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation, located in Philipsburg Borough, Centre County,

Pennsylvania.

Test borings were drilled to determine the in-situ subsurface condition and to obtain

information for construction and other geotechnical recommendations. The scope of services

does not include an environmental assessment for the presence or absence of wetlands,

hazardous, radioactive or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air on, below

or around the site. Any statements in this report or on the Test Boring Logs regarding odors,

colors or unusual or suspicious items are strictly for the information of the client.

PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION

The Cold Stream Dam is located in the Borough of Philipsburg, Centre County,

Pennsylvania. Specifically, the project site is located at the corner of Half Moon Street and

Railroad Street off of PA S.R. 322.

The existing site was constructed in the year 1889 with nine (9) acres of normal surface

area used for recreational purposes. Cold Stream Dam is of earthen construction with a height of

fifteen (15) feet with a length of 1600 linear feet. Its capacity is 75 acre feet with a normal

storage of 25 acre feet. The spillway drains an area of 21 square miles.

Topographic information was taken from the site plan on August 10, 2009. The existing

site contains earth embankments to the north and east of the impoundment. Average dam breast

elevations are 1448.08 and 1448.60 feet along the north and east embankments, respectively.

The existing spillway is located at the western end of the northern embankment, measures

approximately 130 feet in length and has an average top of spillway elevation of 1443.13 feet.


5/124

Geotechnical Report (Contd) April 27, 2012


Re: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation

BSSH Inc.

2

To the north of the impoundment, the site is grass covered and consists of a playground. To the

east of the impoundment, an acid mine drainage bypass channel is present.

General project information was provided by two professional engineers with Stiffler,McGraw & Associates, Inc. According to their information, the proposed rehabilitation will

consist of a roller compacted concrete stabilization placed on both faces of embankment,

replacement of the dewatering and energy dissipation systems, a removal of sediment within

dam, and a replacement of pedestrian bridge. The structural loading information regarding the

spillway and wing-walls was not available at the time of this report.

The above information was utilized in our geotechnical analysis. Therefore, if any of this

information has changed, is incorrect or becomes available in the future, please inform theengineer so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.

GENERAL

The followingrecommendations are based on general subsurface information shown on

the Test Boring Logs located in Appendix A. The descriptions shown on the Test Boring Logs

represent the conditions only at the actual test boring locations. Conditions encountered during

excavation may not reflect the conditions presented on the Test Boring Logs, since variations in

soil may occur between test boring locations. Therefore, it is necessary that a representative

from BSSH Inc. be present during excavation operations. Any variations will then be presented

to the geotechnical engineer on site, who may and can make changes to this report if variations

are present.

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION

After the examination of 14 test borings across the site, the subsurface conditions

revealed local bedrock with coal, sandstone, shale, and claystone. The processions of the boring

locations begin at the west end of the north face of the dam and spillway. There are three (3)

boring sights on this west face of the structure. At TB-1, with a depth of 30 ft., there is 3 ft. of

coal present followed by at least 2 ft. of sandstone before the boring depth ends at 35 ft. The


6/124




BSSH Inc.

3

subsurface is almost the same at TB-2, which is downstream. At TB-3 there is no bedrock found

with a 17 ft. bore.

Next, across the spillway at TB-4, shale was discovered at a depth of 16 ft. This shale isnot present upstream at TB-5, which contains coal and sandstone similar to TB-2 and 1. This

coal and sandstone was also found at TB-6A.

Next, moving around the berm, there was claystone at a depth of approximately 30 ft.

measured from the walkway height and sandstone at about 40 ft. from the same datum present in

TB-7, TB-8, TB-9, and TB-10.

Moving further east, claystone was present at TB-11 and TB-12 at 30 feet. Lastly, at the

southern end of the east berm shale was present at a depth of 15 ft.

The coal is described as weathered, very dense, and wet. Also present is sandstone, a

sedimentary rock, described as brown and weathered. The shale found at TB-4 was described as

gray and weathered. Claystone was found in great abundance at this site, described as gray, very

broken to broken, weathered, and medium in hardness. Sandstone found along the eastern end of

the north berm was different compared to the sandstone found closer to the spillway. This

sandstone was described as gray, fine-grained, broken to slightly broken, slightly weathered, and

hard. Lastly, the shale present was described as gray, weathered, very dense, and wet.

MINING INFOFRMATION

There is a coal mine nearby with a divided runoff stream that parallels the eastern face of

the berm. At certain locations, this stream is a few yards away from the reservoir and the vertical

faces on both sides lack reinforcement. This situation presents a great potential for water

pollution that could involve EPA penalties, fines, environmental concerns, and health risks. The

acid mine drainage should be chemically analyzed to ensure proper attention is given. Typical

acid mine drainage contains elevated concentrations of sulfate (SO4), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn)

and aluminum (Al), as well as common elements such as calcium, sodium, potassium and

magnesium. The pH ranges from 3 to 4.5 or 6 to 7. To ensure the success and safety of the

project, we recommend reinforcing the containing surfaces of the runoff stream with an


7/124




BSSH Inc.

4

impermeable fabric to keep dangerous elements from the reservoir water and the surrounding

environment.

FIELD INVESTIGATION

The geotechnical boring logs conducted by CMT Labs under File No. 09867 was

completed between January 27, 2010 and March 1, 2010 using the Mobile B-40 (ATV) drill rig.

With the instability of the terrain and soil conditions it is recommended that the Contractor

proceed cautiously during construction with respect to excavating and equipment.

The test boring investigation accounts for fourteen (14) test borings. Locations for the test

borings represent the location plan set forth by the subsidiaries of the geotechnical engineer in

reference to the site plan while implementing standard procedures. The elevations listed on the

test boring logs were calculated from the location plan previously mentioned. General layout and

approximate locations are shown in the Test Boring Location Plan, located in Appendix A.

Soil samples performed by CMT Laboratories were conducted in accordance to ASTM

standard D-1586 using sample intervals. Standard Penetration Test values, such as blow counts

and N values, were recorded and shown on the Test Boring Logs attached in Appendix A.

Results obtained from the Standard Penetration Test provide general conclusions about the

layout and consistency of the soil, which will serve as basis for estimating the compressibility

and relative strength of the soil.

For test boring locations, TB-3 and TB-4, the default 3 casings were replaced with 4-

1/4 HSA augers from a Soilmax drill rig. Auger refusal designates material that cannot be

further penetrated by the power auger and is indicative of hard clay, boulders and bedrock.

Stratification of underlying soil imaged in the Test Boring Logs is confined to the actual

location of the test boring at the time conducted. Natural variations should be expected

throughout the site, which should be taken into account during construction. Furthermore, the

strata described in the Test Boring Logs provide approximate boundaries between subsurface

materials and soil layers. Actual fluctuations amongst layers in expected.


8/124




BSSH Inc.

5

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

The laboratory testing program was directed toward determining the index, engineering

properties and consolidation characteristics of the foundation soils encountered along the northend of the Cold Stream Dam. Soil samples obtained during drilling operations were sealed and

labeled in containers and transported to CMT Laboratories for inspection, testing and

classification. For future reference, unused samples will remain in the lab for a minimum of one

year.

In addition to visual classification of the soil samples, moisture content determination

tests were performed on all split-spoon samples. The moisture content is the ratio of the weight

of water to the dry weight of the sample. These tests were performed in compliance with ASTMD2217.

Hand penetrometer values were determined on representative natural cohesive soil

samples. These values provide a basis for estimating the relative strength and compressibility of

the soil.

By means of the Atterberg Limit Test, moisture-plasticity characteristics of one soil

sample were determined. The test determines the moisture content at which the soil begins to act

as a viscous liquid (Liquid Limit - LL) and the moisture content at which the soil changes from a

plastic state to a semi-solid state (Plastic Limit - PL). The Plasticity Index (PI) can then be

calculated by subtracting the Plastic Limit from the Liquid Limit. The test procedures were

performed in compliance with ASTM D4318.

A particle-size analysis was performed on the same soil sample in compliance with

ASTM D422. The procedure involves a sieve analysis for particle sizes greater than the #200

sieve and a hydrometer analysis for particle sizes smaller than the #200 sieve. Using this

information, the sample was classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS),

ASTM D2487.


9/124




BSSH Inc.

6

A Standard Proctor analysis was also performed on the same soil sample in accordance

with ASTM D698. This laboratory compaction test enables the development of a moisture-

density relationship for a given amount of compactive energy.

The following is a summary of the laboratory testing results. A more detailed analysis of

the testing is included in Appendix B of this report.

Sample

Number

Location

of Sample

Liquid

Limit

(LL)

Plasticity

Index (PI)

USCS

Classification

Max Dry

Density

(lb/ft3)

Optimum

Moisture

Content (%)

9757 TB- 8,

5.0'-7.0'

24 4 SC-SM 126.2 13.2

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The data associated with the test borings should be reviewed in Appendix A. This

section includes a brief description of the soils and rock based on the test borings.

The first stratum encountered at each location is fill, topsoil, or embankment. The fill

material is highly organic and will result in large settlement values when loaded with any

sizeable weight. This material is between two (2) and five (5) inches, created from the decay of

vegetation and natural weathering, and should be removed prior to construction.

The fill material underlays the topsoil or lies directly at the surface wherever no

embankment is present. There are several different types of fill materials present, each one with

unique properties. One is brown silty sand, some gravel, a little clay, and damp to wet. Another

type is a damp, brown, sandstone boulder. A third type of fill was brown/gray clayey sand and

gravel described as wet. All three of these materials were found at TB-1. At TB-2 fill material

was brown/gray sand and gravel, with ash and shale fragments, described as moist. Below this,

there were sandstone cobbles and boulders, some sand, some gravel, trace organics and described


10/124




BSSH Inc.

7

as moist. The other material present at the surface was embankment, described as damp, dark

brown, silty sand, with some gravel, and little clay.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions and recommendations set forth in this geotechnical report are based upon the

field explorations and laboratory testing programs obtained from CMT Laboratories. Cold

Stream Dam is considered suitable for construction based on safety and slope stability

calculations, attached in Appendix C, if recommendations and concerns addressed in this report

are assessed during the design and construction phase.

Addressed here forth are recommendations and evaluations in segmented sections.

Site Preparation

Prior to drainage and construction, the site should be closed to the public and all existing

utilities identified. Drainage concerns are discussed in the next section of the report. Moisten soil

resides on both sides of the spillway, thus protection against sliding should be designed and

overseen by the Professional Engineer on site. The General Contractor is advised to be aware of

slope stability issues during the deconstruction of the spillway and abutment walls.

Slope stability concerns arise along the earthen embankment during structural fill.

Therefore, fill should be placed in lifts and compacted at each half foot. Structural fill

recommendations and designs are discussed later in the report. Proof-rolling along the

embankment will reveal any soil defects present not identified in test borings.

It is recommended that a consulting Professional Engineer be present for the duration of

the project, should safety concerns arise.

Drainage

Current conditions include a spillway on the northern end of the dam which drains

incoming reservoir water, and a separate acid mine stream running parallel to the dam between

the eastern embankment and PA S.R. 322. Previous proposed site preparation for construction

designed the rerouting of water through the acid mine stream. Considering current conditions,


11/124




BSSH Inc.

8

such as the community use of the childrens playground and pedestrian walkway, environmental

and safety concerns arise if the current acid mine drainage remains open to the atmosphere and

possible overflow conditions. Calculations for the acid mine channel show that it can withstand a

flow of about 46.6 cfs at bank full stage. During flood events the water elevation of the channel

will rise above the bank full stage causing overflow into PA SR-322 and surrounding residences.

Area of the Acid Mine Stream (A): 3.0 m2

Perimeter of the Acid Mine Stream (P): 2.83 m

Manning Constant (n): 0.025

Slope of the Acid Mine Stream (So): 0.001

Max Flow in Acid Mine Stream (Qmax): Qmax =

(A) (Rh)2/3 (So)1/2

Qmax =1

0.025(3) (

3

2.83)2/3 (0.001)1/2

Qmax = 1.32 cms = 46.6 cfs

Environmental concerns elevate with increased flow and possible overflow of the acid

mine stream, as water is rerouted from the dam. Contaminating the rerouted water may cause

health and safety concerns for the community and ecosystem.

It is recommended that the existing spillway is utilized during drainage. Plans to replace

the spillway provide an opportunity to drain the reservoir in conjunction with demolishment.

Through incremental deconstruction, water can be drained over the spillway with minimal

environmental impacts. As caution, the general contractor should begin drainage months before

the contracted start date and take note of any cracks present.

Structural Fill Placement

Structural fill is defined as all fill placed over and around the earthen dam, utilities, and

acid mine stream. Evaluation of backfill material should be considered during construction,

depending on its intended use.

Current soil conditions, based on the laboratory results located in Appendix B, are

suitable for holding two (2) feet of additional fill (proposed for protection against the 100 year


12/124




BSSH Inc.

9

flood). However, continued monitoring of the moisture content and strength of the soil is

required to verify suitability during construction. Elevated moisture contents may be

encountered, requiring the underlain soil to be dried or aerated. Processes may become difficult

for the General Contractor based on the current weather conditions and time of year.

The two (2) feet placement of additional fill will require imported fill material to be

monitored on a case by case basis. Fill material recommendations are discussed later in this

report, however it is recommended that the material satisfy the following: Any material utilized

as fill should not contain rock greater than three (3) inches in diameter and it should not contain

more than one (1) percent (by weight) of organic matter or other deleterious material. The

Plasticity Index, PI, (ASTM D4318) for the material should not exceed 30 and the Liquid Limit

for the material should not exceed 50 (Unified Soils Classifications of GW, GM, GC, SW, SM,

SC, and some CL). Potentially expansive material such as mine tailings, pyritic shale, and slag

should not be used as structural fill material. Other materials should be considered on a case-by-

case basis, alternative materials should be approved by a Geotechnical Engineer.

Difficulties may be encountered during compaction of the fill material due to the

moisture present in the existing earth berm. Without proper confinement, poorly graded materials

will have the tendency to fail horizontally. It is recommended that weight rollers with high

frequency be used to compact the earth berm.

All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding six (6) inches of loose

thickness. Structural fill facing the acid mine stream should be placed on a 2H:1V slope,

resulting in horizontal displacement of the top and western slope (2H:1V) of the earthen dam.

ASTM D698 requires the fill to be compacted to 100 percent of the maximum dry density, as

determined by the Standard Proctor Test. It is recommended that a Soil Technician, working

under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer, be on site during placement and compaction of

the fill to ensure the specifications are met.


13/124




BSSH Inc.

10

Foundations

Attached in Appendix D, are abutment and pier designs prepared by BSSH Inc.

Abutment design calculations are based on Rankines Theory for overturning and sliding.

No surcharge loading exists on the abutment based on a 2V:1H from the parking lot and

recreational area. Obtained from TB-6A, the water table location and soil properties were used in

the calculations. For a conservative design, the maximum unit weight from the strata was used,

with a friction angle of 30 degrees, and a surface slope angle of 20 degrees. Based on these

calculations, BSSH Inc. recommends a base width of 11 feet composed of an 8 foot heel and 2

foot toe. The factor of safety for overturning is 3.15, while the factor of safety for sliding is 1.42.

Due to low sliding friction, it is highly recommended that a key be placed on the bottom of theabutment or tie-backs anchored into the earthen embankment. High moisture content in the

embankment makes drainage a concern, thus drainage pipes should be installed to provide

further resistance against failure.

Pier design calculations are based on Rankines Theory for overturning and sliding. A

live load of 2.7 kips from the pedestrian bridge (Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian

Bridges) and a dead load of 765 kips from the spillway structure were used. Based on these

calculations, BSSH Inc. recommends a footing width of 6 feet and a length of 12 feet. Upon

design, safety requirements are met with factors of safety for overturning and sliding of 6.75 and

13.0 respectively.

Lateral Earth Pressure

During the construction of raising and extending the berm, the lateral earth forces and

hydrostatic forces from the reservoir must be considered in determining the safety and stability.

These conditions must be determined under extreme weather events, such as the 100 year flood,

seismic, and rapid draw down conditions, when the soil is least stable and the hydrostatic force is

at a maximum.

The backfill used should be periodically compacted to prevent excessive lateral pressures

during placement. To prevent exacerbating any slide problems, the existing slope or maximum


14/124




BSSH Inc.

11

of 2H:1V should be maintained. An example of effective lateral earth pressure using Rankines

Method is shown below:

Effective Friction Angle (): 30.0o

Active Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (ka): 1- sin = 0.500

Depth (d): 1.524 m

Effective Unit Weight of Soil (): 20.4 kn/m3

Vertical Effective Pressure (v): d *

Effective Lateral Earth Pressure (ha): ha= v * ka

ha = (1.524)*(20.4)*(0.500)

ha = 15.55 kPa

The total resultant lateral forces acting on the embankment were found to be:

Po = 465.33 kN/m (at rest) and Pa = 342.32 kN/m (active)

Settlement

Settlement calculations for the embankment were completed using the online RocScience

Settlement application based on the cross sectional dimensions from TB-6 and TB-13. All design

options mentioned previously were considered and evaluated based on individual strata and

loading.

Design Options

In regards to the raising of the earthen dam, design options include the utilization of roller

compacted concrete, soil with asphalt, and seawalls.


15/124




BSSH Inc.

12

Cost Analysis

All cost values used in this report were taken from the RS Means books for landscaping

and heavy construction updated 2010. These books consider labor, materials, and overhead coststo develop estimated costs that can be used professionally with a high level of accuracy.

Costs were developed for increasing the height of the berm 2 feet, as well as adding fill to

the existing slopes to maintain a safe incline after construction. This slope is to be reinforced

with rip-rap on each side of the embankment to maintain slope stability and then tied down with

jute mesh to protect against erosion.

The previously discussed options were selected because they represent an array of

material options at varying costs, longevity, and safety. The slopes were determined to be stable

with an acceptable factor of safety under extreme weather condition with all material options.

The longevity of the material was considered to ensure that the cost analysis was applicable into

the long-term future. While some options are cheaper to implement, they cannot be expected to

last as long, and therefore may not be the most practical choice.

The first material considered was roller compacted concrete. Priced at $108.5 per cubic

yard, it has the highest material cost of $753,000. Including the cost of rip-rap and soil fill, this

option is the most expensive overall at $2,868,000. However, it should be considered that

concrete is more erosion resistant than soil, and may therefore be a better long-term investment.

Also, the RCC option provides an aesthetically pleasing and clean walking path for the

community.

The next material considered was soil with an asphalt pavement on top. The material

cost for these two was $512,000 with a total cost of $2,627,000. This was the cheapest option

and would provide erosion resistance due to the weight of the pavement. However, additional

costs for pavement renovations after 20-30 years should be considered when weighing options

over a long time period.

Lastly, a concrete seawall with a shallow foundation was considered. Since this section

of concrete is about 1 foot wide, soil is needed on the rest of the walkway to raise the berm to an


16/124




BSSH Inc.

13

acceptable level. The seawall will be placed on the reservoir side of the berm to help protect

against erosion and flooding. The seawall will help water from seeping across the berm during

flood conditions and should be erosion resistant over a long time period. The total cost for this

option was $2,647,000 making it the second cheapest option.

Slope Stability

For structural fill placement along the earth embankment, maximum slopes of 2H:1V

shall be used in construction of the embankment. Stability concerns have been evaluated in

Appendix C using the Bishop and Janbu Corrected Methods within the slope stability program

Slide 6.0 by RocScience. If slopes proposed are greater than a maximum of 2H:1V, analysis

for each condition is required.

At the worst case scenario (100 year flood, seismic, and rapid draw down), the current

geometrical layout for TB-8 achieves a minimum factor a safety of 0.751. Therefore, it is

imperative to redesign the embankment. For the concrete option listed above, the minimum

factor of safety under the worst case scenario is 3.91. For the soil with asphalt option, the

minimum factor of safety under the worst case scenario is 1.257. For the seawall option, the

minimum factor of safety under the worst case scenario is 1.450. For additional cross-sections

and calculations, refer to Appendix C.

COMMENTS

This geotechnical report has been prepared by BSSH Inc. to assist the local government

of Philipsburg in deciding how to best renovate their reservoir embankment and spillway.

Proper consideration and planning should result in a cost-effective system with a long lifespan if

necessary renovations and upkeep are undertaken. Flood data should be constantly recorded and

analyzed to ensure that the dam will be safe under changing weather conditions, particularly in

this era of climate change.

The subsurface data used in this report should not be extrapolated past what is clearly

evident. Conditions surrounding boring holes may be different when compared to the actual


17/124




BSSH Inc.

14

borings. Therefore, the importance of inspection, consultation, and testing before, during, and

after construction is imperative.


18/124

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS & TEST BORING LOCATION PLANS


19/124


20/124

Current Design

Main 1443.13 1443.13

Secondary 1443.13 1445.53

Bearing 1432.50 1432.50

North 1448.08 1448.50

East 1448.60 1448.50

Volume (MG) Elevation (ft.) Flow (MGD)

Pool 10.75 1444.00 ?/105

Tailwater - 1433.00 -

100 Year Flood - 1448.14 93.06

General Information

Spillway

Embankment

Elevation (ft.)


21/124

10.63

13.03

-

15.08

15.60

Area (ft.2)

93732.49

Design Height (ft.)


22/124


23/124


24/124


25/124


26/124

Test Boring LogBoring: TB-1

Project Name: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Date of Work: 2/22/2010

Site: Philipsburg Borough, Centre County, Pennsylvania File No.: 09867

Driller/helper: M. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Core Bit: N/A

Auger Type: 3" Casing Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586 Elevation: 1447.03'

Depth Sample Blow "N" q Mc GR

Description (ft) Type Counts Value (tsf) (%) Remarks

4" TOPSOIL SS-1 3-5-7 12 --- 37.0

FILL MATERIAL - Brown silty sand, some

gravel, little clay, damp to wet SS-2 10-13-32 45 --- 12.5

FILL MATERIAL - Brown sandstone SS-3 50/0.1 --- --- 3.3boulder, damp

FILL MATERIAL - Brown/gray clayey sand

and gravel, wet

SS-4 10-13-18 31 --- 16.4

SS-5 30-42-38 80 --- 12.2

Gray clayey SAND, some gravel, little silt, SS-6 10-15-21 36 --- 11.2 End of boring and 24

dense, wet hour groundwater

(Possible fill) SS-7 16-18-23 41 --- 12.3 measurements are6.5 and 13.6 feet,

respectively. Water

SS-8 23-23-16 39 utilized for drilling was

introduced into the

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-9 20-25-23 48 --- 13.6 boring prior to these

little clay, dense to very dense, wet measurements.

SS-10 10-15-22 37 --- 12.7

SS-11 25-50/0.2 50/0.2 --- 11.0

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet SS-12 49-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 17.0

Brown weathered SANDSTONE

End of Boring - 35.0'

40

CMT Laboratories, Inc. 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-8845

25

30

35

5

10

15

20No Recovery


27/124




Driller/helper: M. Rager/J. Morrison Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Core Bit: N/A




4" TOPSOIL SS-1 5-6-7 13 --- 21.2

FILL MATERIAL - Brown/gray sand, gravel,

ash and shale fragments, moist SS-2 8-6-3 9 --- ---

FILL MATERIAL - Sandstone cobbles and SS-3 50/0.4 --- --- 18.7boulders, some sand, some gravel,

trace organics, moist

FILL MATERIAL - Brown/gray sandy clay, SS-4 5-4-9 13 1.1 23.0

little gravel, moist

FILL MATERIAL - Brown clayey sand and SS-5 15-19-16 35 --- 15.4

gravel, little silt, wet

Brown GRAVEL, some sand, little silt, SS-6 46-50/0.2 50/0.2 --- 9.9

trace clay, dense to very dense, wet End of boring and 24

hour groundwatermeasurements are

11.4 and 15.0 feet,

SS-7 50/0.1 --- respectively. Water

utilized for drilling was

introduced into the

boring prior to these

measurements.

SS-8 18-24-16 40 --- 14.1

SS-9 26-20-11 31 --- 16.5

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet SS-10 50-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 19.1

Weathered SANDSTONE Casing Refusal - 34.0'


40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20No Recovery


28/124




Driller/helper: R. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Soilmax (Truck) Core Bit: N/A

Auger Type: 4-1/4" HSA Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586 Elevation: 1442.05'



FILL MATERIAL - Black ash, sand and SS-1 35-42-30 72 --- 17.1

gravel, damp

SS-2 16-12-17 29 --- 19.6

Brown clayey SAND, some gravel,

little silt, very dense, moist

SS-3 25-36-50/0.1 86/0.6 --- 19.1

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little clay,

little silt, very dense, wet

End of boring and 24

SS-4 17-34-27 61 --- 12.2 hour groundwater

measurements are

SS-5 19-27-50/0.3 77/0.8 --- 9.5 both 15.0 feet.

SS-6 50/0.3 --- --- 14.2

Casing Refusal - 17.0'


40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20


29/124




Driller/helper: R. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Soilmax (Truck) Core Bit: N/A

Auger Type: 4-1/4" HSA Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586 Elevation: 1436.76'



FILL MATERIAL - Black ash, sand and SS-1 22-17-8 25 --- 18.1

gravel, damp

Brown clayey SAND, little silt, trace gravel, SS-2 5-8-8 16 --- 23.4

slightly compact, moist

Brown silty SAND, some gravel, SS-3 25-30-21 51 --- 10.5dense to very dense, moist to wet

SS-4 16-15-16 31 --- 10.8


hour groundwater

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-5 16-28-30 58 --- 9.4 measurements are

very dense, moist to wet 7.0 and 3.0 feet,

SS-6 7-20-40 60 --- 10.6 respectively.

SS-7 40-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 11.5

Gray weathered SHALE

Auger Refusal - 18.0'End of Boring - 18.0'

40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20


30/124




Driller/helper: M. Rager/J. Tyson Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Core Bit: N/A




EMBANKMENT - Dark brown silty sand, SS-1 46-37-23 60 --- 11.0

some gravel, little clay, damp

SS-2 23-17-22 39 --- 8.2

Brown SAND, little silt, trace gravel, SS-3 3-1-2 3very loose to loose, wet

SS-4 3-4-4 8 --- 21.6 End of boring and 24

hour groundwater

measurements are

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-5 26-46-50/0.1 96/0.6 --- 6.9 6.0 and 5.2 feet,

very dense, wet respectively. Water


introduced into the


Brown SAND and GRAVEL, some cobbles, SS-6 45-50/0.4 50/0.4 --- 9.6 measurements.


SS-7 50/0.1 ---

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet

SS-8 46-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 18.1



40

25

30

35

5

10

15

20


No Recovery

No Recovery



31/124




Driller/helper: R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Core Bit: N/A




EMBANKMENT - Brown silty clay, some SS-1 30-10-5 15 --- 20.0 End of boring

gravel, little sand, damp groundwater

SS-2 5-8-15 23 2.5 18.0 measurement is 9.0

feet. Water utilized

for drilling was

EMBANKMENT - Brown sandstone gravel introduced into theand clay, some slag, little sand, wet boring prior to this

measurement.

EMBANKMENT - Brown/gray sandy clay, SS-3 3-3-3 6 0.6 18.3

some gravel, wet

Gray silty SAND, little clay, trace gravel, SS-4 2-3-4 7 --- 28.5

loose, wet


40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20

ST-1


32/124

Test Boring LogBoring: TB-6A

Project Name: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Date of Work:






EMBANKMENT - Sandstone boulders, SS-1 50/0.4 --- --- 21.5

cobbles and gravel with some sand, damp

EMBANKMENT - Brown sand and gravel, SS-2 3-2-1 3 --- 28.4little slag, little clay, wet

SS-3 1-2-3 5 --- 26.5


SS-4 1-1-2 3 hour groundwater

measurements are

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-5 4-3-7 10 --- 14.5 8.0 and 7.3 feet,

trace clay, loose to very dense, wet respectively. Water


SS-6 16-23-27 50 --- 12.3 introduced into the


SS-7 27-28-30 58 --- 11.8 measurements.

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, some cobbles SS-8 24-46-50/0.3 96/0.8 --- 10.0

and boulders, very dense, wet

SS-9 50-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 10.4

Black weathered COAL, very dense, wet SS-10 50/0.4 --- --- 21.0




40

25

30

35

5

10

15

20

2/17 & 2/18/2010

No Recovery



33/124

Test Boring LogBoring:

Project Name: Cold Stream Dam Rehabilitation Date of Work: 2/15 & 2/17/2010


Driller/helper: R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Core Bit: NQ-II




2" TOPSOIL SS-1 8-4-9 13 --- 28.8

FILL MATERIAL - Brown gravel and slag,

some clay, moist to wet SS-2 8-6-5 11 --- 33.9

End of boring

groundwater

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-3 14-13-8 21 --- 10.4 measurement is 2.0trace clay, slightly compact to medium feet. Water utilized

dense, wet SS-4 8-6-10 16 --- 20.0 for drilling was

introduced into the

boring prior to this

Brown GRAVEL, some sand, little silt, SS-5 17-20-15 35 --- 10.3 measurement.

dense to very dense, wet See geotechnical

SS-6 22-27-28 55 --- 9.6 report for further

groundwater

measurements.

SS-7 30-40-27 67 --- 11.6

SS-8 24-24-32 56 --- 14.5Casing Refusal - 19.0'

Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken to broken,

weathered, medium hard

NQ-1 Recovery = 52

RQD = 0

NQ-2 Recovery = 100

Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to RQD = 8

slightly broken, slightly weathered, hard


40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20

TB-7 (Monitoring Well)


34/124








EMBANKMENT - Sandstone boulders,


EMBANKMENT - Brown silty sand,some clay, some gravel, damp to wet

SS-1 4-3-2 5 1.6 15.5

SS-2 2-4-3 7 1.5 14.7

End of boring

Brown SAND, some gravel, little silt, SS-3 12-18-19 37 --- 11.4 groundwater

little clay, slightly compact to dense, measurement is 13.5

wet SS-4 13-10-9 19 --- 10.9 feet. Water utilizedfor drilling was

introduced into the

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-5 3-16-16 32 --- 9.9 boring prior to this

trace clay, dense to very dense, wet measurement.

SS-6 18-19-18 37 --- 11.5 See geotechnical

report for further

groundwater

SS-7 40-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 10.6 measurements.

SS-8 15-45-18 63 --- 15.2

Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, SS-9 17-32-40 72 --- 8.6

very dense, wet

SS-10 50/0.0 --- Casing Refusal - 35.0'


weathered, medium hard

Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken NQ-1 Recovery = 100

to massive, slightly weathered,, hard RQD = 0

40

TB-8 (Monitoring Well, 1 of 2)

Continued on next page


25

30

35

5

10

15

No Recovery

20

ST-1


35/124








Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken

to massive, slightly weathered to fresh, NQ-2 Recovery = 100

hard RQD = 44


80


65

70

75

45

50

55

60

TB-8 (Monitoring Well, 2 of 2)

Continued from previous page


36/124








5" TOPSOIL SS-1 2-6-12 18 --- 12.8

FILL MATERIAL - Brown clay and gravel,

little silt, little sand, damp to moist SS-2 6-4-5 9 --- 22.4


Brown silty SAND and GRAVEL, ST-1 hour groundwaterlittle clay, wet measurements are

2.4 and 3.0 feet,

respectively. Water


Gray silty SAND, little gravel, trace clay, SS-3 11-12-11 23 --- 14.2 introduced into the

medium dense to dense, wet boring prior to these

SS-4 22-23-15 38 --- 10.2 measurements.

SS-5 14-14-12 26 --- 13.0

Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, SS-6 11-12-20 32 --- 14.1dense, wet



weathered to slightly weathered, medium

hard to hard NQ-1 Recovery = 100

RQD = 0

Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken to

massive, slightly weathered to fresh, hard NQ-2 Recovery = 100

RQD = 50


40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20


37/124








EMBANKMENT - Sandstone boulders,


EMBANKMENT - Brown silty sand, SS-1 4-6-9 15 --- 18.0some gravel, little clay, damp to wet

SS-2 5-5-13 18 1.8 19.3

SS-3 8-5-4 9 1.2 12.5

SS-4 4-4-5 9 3.8 15.8


hour groundwater

SANDSTONE BOULDER SS-5 50/0.2 --- measurements are

12.2 and 9.4 feet,

respectively. WaterBrown clayey SAND and GRAVEL, utilized for drilling was

little silt, dense, wet introduced into the

SS-6 9-15-17 32 --- 13.4 boring prior to these

measurements.

SS-7 9-12-19 31 --- 14.5

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-8 15-17-10 27 --- 18.6

little clay, medium dense to dense, wet

SS-9 13-20-23 43 --- 12.1

Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, SS-10 8-31-36 67 --- 12.2

very dense, wet

SS-11 50-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 10.6

SS-12 50/0.0 --- Casing Refusal - 35.0'


to massive, slightly weathered to fresh,

hard NQ-1 Recovery = 100

RQD = 20

40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20

No Recovery

No Recovery

TB-10 (1 of 2)

Continued on next page


38/124









to massive, slightly weathered to fresh, NQ-2 Recovery = 90

hard RQD = 26


80

Continued from previous page


65

70

75

45

50

55

60

TB-10 (2 of 2)


39/124




Driller/helper: R. Rager/M. Rager Drill Rig: Mobile B-40 (ATV) Core Bit: N/A




2" TOPSOIL SS-1 3-4-11 15 1.2 23.0

EMBANKMENT FILL - Brown silty clay,

little sand, little gravel, moist SS-2 9-10-9 19 --- 14.7

EMBANKMENT FILL - Brown silty gravel,

little sand, little clay, moist

Brown silty SAND and GRAVEL, SS-3 9-5-9 14 --- 13.3trace clay, slightly compact, wet

SS-4 8-6-9 15 --- 13.0

End of boring

Brown/gray SAND, little silt, little gravel, SS-5 8-10-11 21 --- 19.0 groundwater

slightly compact to medium dense, wet measurement is 8.0

SS-6 11-8-6 14 --- 12.4 feet. Water utilized

for drilling was

introduced into the

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-7 12-8-11 19 --- 12.4 boring prior to this

slightly compact to dense, wet measurement.

SS-8 22-30-11 41 --- 19.9 See geotechnicalreport for further

groundwater

Brown/gray weathered CLAYSTONE, SS-10 8-22-50/0.4 72/0.9 --- 24.7 measurements.

very dense, wet

End of Boring - 22.0' Casing Refusal - 22.0'

40

25

30

35

5

10

15

20

SS-9 25-28-8 36 No Recovery




40/124





Auger Type: Sampling Type: ASTM D-1586 Elevation: 1449.02'



EMBANKMENT - Brown sandy clay, gravel SS-1 6-50/0.0 --- --- 14.3

and sandstone cobbles and boulders, damp

SS-2 50/0.0 ---

EMBANKMENT - Dark brown sandy clay SS-3 3-4-3 7 --- 14.9

and gravel, little silt, wet End of boring

SS-4 2-2-2 4 --- 20.2 groundwater

SS-5 2-1-1 2 --- 17.9 measurement is 8.0

feet. Water utilized

SS-6 2-2-4 6 --- 17.2 for drilling was

introduced into the

Dark gray clayey SAND, little silt, little SS-7 3-4-2 6 --- 40.2 boring prior to this

gravel, trace organics, loose to slightly measurement.

compact, wet SS-8 2-6-10 16 --- 47.8 See geotechnicalreport for further

groundwater

Brown clayey SAND, some gravel, SS-9 5-9-8 17 measurements.

little silt, slightly compact to medium

dense, wet SS-10 8-10-11 21 --- 14.1

Brown clayey SAND and GRAVEL, SS-11 6-8-18 26 --- 13.1

medium dense to dense, wet

SS-12 25-22-16 38 --- 13.1

Gray highly weathered CLAYSTONE, SS-13 50-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 16.1

very dense, wet

Gray CLAYSTONE, very broken,

weathered, medium hard Recovery = 20

RQD = 0

Gray fine-grained SANDSTONE, broken, Recovery = 72

slightly weathered, hard RQD = 0

End of Boring - 39.8' 40

25

30

35

5

10

15

20


Auger Refusal - 30.8'

NQ-1

NQ-2


No Recovery

No Recovery


41/124








EMBANKMENT - Sandstone cobbles and

boulders with sand, gravel, clay and shale

fragments, moist

SS-1 6-7-8 15 --- 14.3

SS-2 6-28-8 36 --- 15.7 End of boring and 24

hour groundwater

measurements are

Dark brown silty CLAY, little sand, firm, SS-3 1-1-6 7 0.6 50.9 5.0 and 6.3 feet,

wet (possible pre-fill topsoil) respectively. Water

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, SS-4 11-18-28 46 --- 14.6 utilized for drilling was

dense, wet introduced into the


Gray weathered SHALE, very dense, wet SS-5 50/0.3 --- --- 10.3 measurements.



40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20


42/124








EMBANKMENT - Sandstone cobbles and

boulders with sand, gravel, clay and shale

fragments, moist

SS-1 18-24-25 49 --- 12.5 End of boringgroundwater

EMBANKMENT - Brown clay and gravel, SS-2 18-20-18 38 --- 14.2 measurement is 4.3

little sand, little shale fragments, wet feet. Water utilized

for drilling was

Brown sandy CLAY, little silt, little gravel, SS-3 8-3-5 8 0.7 19.6 introduced into the

firm, moist boring prior to this

Brown SAND and GRAVEL, some clay, SS-4 9-50/0.3 50/0.3 --- 19.0 measurement.


Gray weathered SHALE, very dense, wet SS-5 50/0.2 --- --- 14.5


40


25

30

35

5

10

15

20



43/124

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTS


44/124

CMT ID #9757 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Water Content (%) 13.80 13.20 13.20

Dry Density (lb/ft3) 124.20 126.10 126.20

Saturated Density (lb/ft3) 141.48 142.70 142.70

Saturation (%) 99.00 99.90 100.00

Void Ratio 0.384 0.363 0.363

Specific Gravity, Gs 2.754 Compression Index, Cc 0.126

Friction Angle, 35.8 Swelling Index, Cs 0.028

Liquid Limit, LL 24

Plastic Limit, PL 20

Plasticity Index, PI 4

Test Boring - 8 (5'0" - 7'0") Lab Information


45/124

Average

13.40

125.50

142.29

99.63

0.370


46/124


47/124


48/124


49/124


50/124


51/124


52/124


53/124

APPENDIX C

SLOPE STABILITY


54/124

Material Description Applicable Section Moist Unit Weight (pcf)Saturated Unit Weight

(pcf)

Embankment A, B, C, D 130 N/A

Embankment Fill (SC-SM) A, B 122.5 142.7

Embankment Fill (Sandy

Clay and Gravel)C 115 125

Silty Clay D 110 120

Sand and Gravel (SM) A, B, C, D 114.4 126.3

Clayey Sand with Gravel C 115 125

Material Description Applicable Section Moist Unit Weight (pcf)Saturated Unit Weight

(pcf)

Claystone A, B, C 130 N/A

Sandstone A, B, C 140 N/A

Shale D 130 N/A


55/124

Angle of Internal Friction

(deg)Cohesion (psf)

30 50

35.8 100

20 250

5 500

32.4 0

30 250

Intact UCS (psf)Geological Strength

IndexIntact Rock Constant Disturbance Factor

500000 40 4 0

1500000 70 17 0

700000 50 6 0


56/124

Angle of Internal Friction

(deg)Cohesion (psf)

19.63 16734

41.03 118830

26.28 29906


57/124

8.016

8.923

27.220

2.800

41.000

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Geometric Layout)

CompanyScale1:116

Drawn ByHasib Hussain/Scott Parker

File NameDate4/5/2012, 4:36:38 PM

Project

Cold Stream Dam Phillipsburg, PA

LIDE 6.015


58/124

Pressure Head

[ft]

-17.500

-15.000

-12.500

-10.000

-7.500

-5.000

-2.500

0.000

2.500

5.000

7.500

10.000

12.500

15.000

17.500

20.000

22.500

25.000

27.500

30.000

32.500

35.000

37.500

40.000

42.500

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Groundwater Analysis)

CompanyScale1:118



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


59/124

1.7851.7851.7851.785

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Current - Bishop - Right to Le

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


60/124

2.3762.3762.3762.3762.3762.376

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Current - Janbu - Right to Le

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


61/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Current - Bishop - Left to Rig

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


62/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Current - Janbu - Left to Rig

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


63/124

1.7851.7851.7851.7851.7851.785

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Bishop -

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


64/124

2.3762.3762.3762.3762.3762.376

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60


CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


65/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60


CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


66/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Current - Rapid Drawdown - Janbu - L

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


67/124

1.7851.7851.7851.785

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Bishop - Right

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


68/124

2.3762.3762.3762.3762.3762.376

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Janbu - Right t

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


69/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Bishop - Left to

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


70/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Janbu - Left to

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


71/124

1.7851.7851.7851.785

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Bisho

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


72/124

2.3762.3762.3762.3762.3762.376

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Janb

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


73/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Bisho

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


74/124

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (100 Year Flood - Rapid Drawdown - Janb

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


75/124

4.0164.0164.016

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

4.0164.0164.016

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Concrete -

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


76/124

3.8223.8223.822

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

3.8223.8223.822

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60


CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


77/124

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60


CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


78/124

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

300.00 lbs/ft2

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60


CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


79/124

2.9562.9562.956150.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2200.00 lbs/ft2

2.9562.9562.956

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphalt

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


80/124

2.9612.9612.961150.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2200.00 lbs/ft2

2.9612.9612.961

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphal

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


81/124

150.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2200.00 lbs/ft2

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphalt

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


82/124

150.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2

200.00 lbs/ft2200.00 lbs/ft2

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Soil w/ Asphal

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


83/124

1.7561.7561.756

937.50lbs/ft

275.00 lbs/ft2

275.00 lbs/ft2275.00 lbs/ft2

1.7561.7561.756

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Bishop

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


84/124

1.7011.7011.701

937.50lbs/ft

275.00 lbs/ft2

275.00 lbs/ft2275.00 lbs/ft2

1.7011.7011.701

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Janbu

CompanyScale1:187



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


85/124

937.50lbs/ft

275.00 lbs/ft2

275.00 lbs/ft2275.00 lbs/ft2

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Bishop

CompanyScale1:168



Project


LIDEINTERPRET 6.015


86/124

937.50lbs/ft

275.00 lbs/ft2

275.00 lbs/ft2275.00 lbs/ft2

Safety Factor

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

1.250

1.500

1.750

2.000

2.250

2.500

2.750

3.000

3.250

3.500

3.750

4.000

4.250

4.500

4.750

5.000

5.250

5.500

5.750

6.000+

80

60

40

20

0

-20 0 20 40 60

Analysis DescriptionSection A, TB-8 (Worst Case Scenario w/o Seismic - Janbu

CompanyScale1:168



Project

bssh inc. - cold stream dam rehabilitation

Documents