A0002_Att_23_Evaluations_of_Potential_Filter_Sand_and_Drain_Gravel_Sources_for_Hyrum_Dam_Modifications_0002.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado April 2018

Evaluation of Potential Filter Sand and Drain Gravel Sources for Hyrum Dam Modifications Hyrum Project, Hyrum Dam

Upper Colorado Region, Utah

Concrete, Geotechnical, & Structural laboratory (CGSL) Technical Memorandum No 8530-2018-18

Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory, 86-68530

Technical Memorandum No: 8530-2018-18

Evaluation of Potential Filter Sand and Drain Gravel Sources for Hyrum Dam Modifications

Prepared by: Amber Brusak E.I.T.

Civil Engineer, Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory (86-68530)

Checked by: Ashley Johnson Civil Engineer Intern, Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory (86-68530)

Technical Approval: Robert Rinehart, Ph.D. P.E.

Civil Engineer, Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory (86-68530)

Peer Review: Tyler Chatfield, P.E.

Civil Engineer, Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory (86-68530)

Digitally signed by AMBER

BRUSAK

Date: 2018.05.09 12:06:12 -06'00'

JANET WHITE Digitally signed by JANET WHITE Date: 2018.05.14 09:38:16 -06'00'

Digitally signed by ROBERT

RINEHART

Date: 2018.05.15 08:11:25 -06'00'

Digitally signed by TYLER

CHATFIELD

Date: 2018.05.09 08:58:00 -06'00' iv

Contents Introduction Conclusions Materials Tested

Legrand Johnson, Hyrum Pit JB Parson, Brigham Pit Legrand Johnson, Nibley Pit Legrand Johnson, Brigham City Kunderson Pit

Test Methods & Results Material Conditioning Gradation Analysis Compaction and Density Testing Modified Sand Castle Testing Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests Petrographic Examination and Mica Count Other Tests

References Tables

Physical Properties and Cementation Potential ..............................................A-1 Mineralogy .....................................................................................................B-1

Tables Table 1: Summary of Cementation Potential Test Results, Potential Hyrum Dam Filter Sand Sources Table 2: Summary of Material Physical Properties (failing tests indicated in bold italics) Table 3: Hyrum Dam Sand Filter Gradation Specification Table 4: Hyrum Dam Gravel Drain Gradation Specification

8530-2018-18

Introduction Hyrum Dam is an earthfill dam located approximately 78 miles north of Salt Lake City, Utah, in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Colorado (UC) Region. The dam was constructed between 1934 and 1935 by the Bureau of Reclamation. The dam is 116 feet tall with a crest length of 540 feet. The dam impounds water along the Little Bear River to create Hyrum Reservoir which has a storage capacity of 186,885 acre feet.

Proposed modifications include constructing a new spillway crest structure, chute, and stilling basin. Some components of the new spillway necessitate sand filter and gravel drain zones. The quality of these sands is paramount to their performance. Cracking within the sand filter may occur if the sand has significant cementation potential, which could result in unwanted particle migration. Cementation potential refers to the ability of a sand to cement based on material solubility, exposure to water, water chemistry and arid conditions. The following study was conducted to evaluate three potential sand filter sources and two potential gravel drain sources for material quality and durability, with special attention paid to cementation potential of filter sands.

Filter sand samples were collected in December 2017 by UC Region personnel from JB Parson- Brigham’s Brigham pit, and Legrand Johnson’s Hyrum, Nibley, and Brigham City Kunderson pits. These sources are all located within 20 miles of the dam.

Samples were tested at Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC) Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory (CGSL) and two other contract laboratories. Tests included: index property tests (gradation, specific gravity, lightweight particles, clay lumps and friable particles, and organic impurities), vibratory hammer compaction tests, relative density tests, sodium sulfate soundness, LA abrasion, modified sand castle testing (MSCT), cemented unconfined compressive strength, petrographic analysis, and mica content. Engineering Analytics Inc.

completed density testing (vibratory table maximum index density and minimum density) and Kumar and Associates, Inc completed sand equivalency and lightweight particles.

Conclusions Cementation potential testing (MSCT and UCS), physical properties, and other supplemental tests were performed on the three candidate filter sands and two candidate drain gravels. Four general conclusions can be drawn from the results:

1) The three candidate filter sands met most requirements for gradation, durability and quality. The test results outside specification limits were clay lumps and friable particles and post compaction percent passing the No. 200 sieve for sand from the Brigham Pit.

This indicates that particular attention should be paid to washing and stockpiling of sands.

2) The three candidate filter sands exhibited “low” cementation potential with low MSCT Classes and low UCS values.

Hyrum Dam Sand Filter Study

3) Vibratory table and vibratory hammer compaction tests for filter sands resulted in similar maximum dry unit weights. The vibratory table test has been discontinued at Reclamation laboratories and the vibratory hammer test is now routinely performed. The results show that the vibratory hammer maximum unit weight can be used confidently for both specifying percent field compaction and calculation of relative density, if desired, for the sands tested here.

4) The two candidate drain materials (gravel) met all requirements for gradation, durability, and quality.

Conclusions specific to the three potential sand and two potential gravel sources are discussed in the following sections. Summaries of test results can be seen in Tables 1 and 2.

Materials Tested Legrand Johnson, Hyrum Pit

The gravel material tested from the Legrand Johnson Hyrum Pit (Sample 55R-268) was sold as a #67 rock. The gravel was sourced from an alluvium deposit with dominant basin rocks of quartzite and limestone. The gravel was crushed by a cone crusher and screened over a screen deck. The gravel was not washed. The gravel is currently in production.

JB Parson, Brigham Pit

Both sand and gravel were sampled from the JB Parson, Brigham Pit (Samples 55R-269 and 55R-270 respectively). The two samples were sold as C33 sand and #57 rock. The sand was sourced from alluvial deposits, screened, and stock piled. The stockpiled sand is not being washed to meet C33 standards, but the pit has the capacity to wash the sand if needed. Both the sand and rock are currently in production. The materials have been used as filter sand and drain gravel for state and city agencies and contractors. The sand sample, Sample 55R-270, is visually similar to the sand from the Brigham City Kunderson pit.

Legrand Johnson, Nibley Pit

The material tested from the Legrand Johnson Nibley Pit (Sample 55R-271) was sold as a C33 sand. The sand was sourced from an alluvial deposit with dominant basin rocks of quartzite and limestone. The sand was processed by screw and screening washing operations. The sand is not currently in production, but is stockpiled.

Legrand Johnson, Brigham City Kunderson Pit

The material tested from Legrand Johnson’s Brigham City Kunderson Pit (Sample 55R-272) was sold as a C33 sand. The sand was sampled from an alluvial deposit with quartzite and limestone dominant basin rocks. The sand was processed with a cone crusher and a screen deck. The sand is currently not being washed in order to meet ASTM C33. The sand is visually similar to the sand from the Brigham Pit.

Test Methods & Results Material Conditioning

Samples arrived at CGSL on December 19th, 2017. Upon arrival, each sample was mixed thoroughly according to guidelines set by ASTM C702. Water from Hyrum Reservoir was stored in a CGSL environmental chamber at 40ºF and 70 % humidity. All tests were completed by CGSL personnel unless otherwise specified.

Gradation Analysis

Gradations were performed on as-received filter sand to check against gradation specifications and on post-compaction specimens to understand how the filter sand may break down during placement and compaction. As received gradations were also completed for gravel. ASTM C117 and ASTM C136 standards were used for gradation testing. Gradation specifications were developed for the Hyrum Dam filter sand based on filter compatibility requirements with the foundation materials (Bureau of Reclamation, 2017) (Table 4). The gradation requirements to meet filter and drain compatibility were generated using Reclamation’s Design Standard No. 13 Chapter 5 (Bureau of Reclamation, 2011).

All samples were non-plastic and classified as poorly graded sand (SP) or poorly graded gravel (GP) according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). All as received samples were within the required gradation range for filter sand. The Legrand Johnson Nibley Pit post compaction gradations were within the required range, but JB Parson Brigham Pit and Legrand Johnson Brigham City Kunderson Pit post compaction gradations were not within the required range. The percent passing the #200 sieve (75 μm) for JB Parson’s Brigham Pit sand was 4.4%, which was 0.9% above the required range. The percent passing the #50 sieve (300 μm) for Legrand Johnson’s Brigham City Kunderson Pit sand was 9.1%, which was 1.4% above the required range. These results indicate that material breakdown due to compaction is a potential issue and should be monitored.

Both gravel samples passed gradation requirements. Gradation test results are available in the Appendix.

Compaction and Density Testing

Vibratory hammer compaction tests were run in accordance with ASTM D7382 to determine the maximum unit weight of the sands. Filter sand was compacted in a 6-inch diameter modified roctor mold in 3 lifts with each lift vibrated for 1 minute. Both wet and dry compaction tests were run and the maximum unit weight of the two methods was defined as the maximum dry unit weight for all the sand samples. Maximum unit weights varied from 125.2 lbf/ft3 to 119.2 lbf/ft3. The goal of the MSCT and UCS test was to achieve similar unit weights.

Relative Density tests (Maximum index and minimum unit weight) were conducted by the contract lab Engineering Analytics, Inc. (Fort Collins, CO) according to ASTM D4253 and D4254. Minimum unit weights varied from 93.0 lbf/ft3 to 102.2 lbf/ft3.The Nibley pit sand had the lowest minimum unit weight and the Brigham and Brigham City Kunderson pits sand had the highest minimum unit weight. Vibratory table and vibratory hammer method results agreed well and were generally within about 3%. For both methods, the Nibley pit sand showed the lowest maximum unit weights and the Brigham pit sand showed the highest maximum unit weights.

Density testing results can be found in Table 5. Full testing results completed by Engineering Analytics Inc. are in the Appendix.

Modified Sand Castle Testing

MSCT were completed to evaluate the cementation potential of the candidate filter sand. The test involves incrementally soaking compacted, dried specimens until collapse occurs and is described in detail by Rinehart & Pabst (2014). All MSCT testing was performed using Hyrum Reservoir water.

Specimens were compacted under saturated conditions in a 6-inch vibratory hammer mold to 100% compaction per ASTM D7382. The use of the 6 –inch vibratory hammer mold allows for a uniform volume for all specimens. Specimens were extracted by inverting the mold and specimen allowing the specimen to slide out by self-weight. All specimens were dried to constant mass at about 50ºC.

After a specimen is compacted and dried, it is subject to incremental soaking until collapse occurs. The specimen is soaked in 1 inch of water (measured from the base of the specimen) for the first 20 minutes, 2 inches for the next 80 minutes, and fully submerged until the specimen fails (for as long as 24 hours). A specimen is considered to have failed when it collapses beyond recognition of the original cylindrical state. Generally, samples are undercut by the standing water and either fail by slumping, or in two to four distinct sections. If a specimen fails quickly, there was minimal cementation while drying the specimen. Specimens were classified based on time to collapse, Class I indicating the least cementation potential (shortest collapse time) and VI indicating the most (longest collapse time). The full procedure is outlined in Rinehart & Pabst (2014).

Four specimens were created and tested for each sample. The results of the four tests were averaged for each sample. Results indicate that all samples had low cementation potential.

Average failure times varied from 2 minutes 1 second (Sample 55R-270) to 3 minutes 33 seconds (Sample 55R-271) for all the samples. All specimens, from individual tests, also classified as MSCT class I. Cementation potential results are presented in Table 1.

Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests

Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests were completed on the three filter sand samples to evaluate the cementation potential. The procedure followed methods used in ASTM D1633, ASTM D2166, and “A New Test for Cementation Potential of Embankment Dam Granular Filter Material” (Rinehart & Pabst, 2014). Similar to the MSCT, specimens are compacted with the vibratory hammer under saturated conditions in a mold and dried. Specimens are created in a 3 inch diameter, 6.75 inch tall split mold in three lifts. Each lift is vibrated for 15 seconds to reach a similar density as achieved when creating MSCT specimens. Thin velum liners are place in between the mold and filter sand to allow for easy extraction of a specimen. In some cases, the velum liner will be disturbed during compaction, leading to errors for unit weight calculatons.

Therefore the dry unit weight reported from UCS testing results in 91-95% compaction.

Specimens are dried to constant mass at approximately 50ºC. Specimens are weighted, measured and tested using an automated load actuator where the system records the peak strength and strain. If testing results in a high compressive strength, the specimen was cemented while drying indicating high cementation potential. Three specimens were tested for each sample, then results were compared and averaged.

The maximum average unconfined strength was 5,400 psf for the Legrand Johnson Nibley Pit (sample 55R-271) and minimum was 1,303 psf for the JB Parson Brigham Pit (sample 55R-270).

Results were similar for samples the JB Parson Brigham Pit and the Legrand Johnson Brigham City Kunderson Pit, as expected due to similar appearance and behavior in other tests. Generally, results were within a similar range for the two samples. Results for 55R-271 indicate high cementation potential compared to previous MSCT by Rinehart & Pabst where maximum UCS was 5,431 psf for 16 samples (2014). UCS results are presented in Table 1 and detailed UCS results are available in the appendix.

Petrographic Examination and Mica Count

Petrographic examinations of the samples were performed using x-ray diffraction analysis in an attempt to understand the mineralogical controls on filter sand cementation and how those results can relate to the MSCT results. The analysis used the X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) method.

Samples were crushed in a mortar grinder pulverisette and particles less than 45 micrometers were analyzed. Analysis used a wide angle powder diffractometer via copper radiation. The Material Data Inc. (MDI) Jade (V 9.6) software was used in conjunction with the MDI Whole Fit Pattern Fit software to estimate the mineral content of each sample based on percent weight.

Results are summarized as follows, with full reports available in the Appendix:

The JB Parson Brigham Pit sample contained 81% quartz, 6% muscovite, and 5% dolomite. Less than 5% of albite, calcite, microcline, and chlorite was identified in the specimen. The non-clay material totaled 93%.

The Legrand Johnson Nibley Pit sample contained 35% dolomite, 31% quartz, 22% calcite, and 5% albite. Less than 5% of microcline, chlorite and muscovite was identified in the specimen. The non-clay material totaled 96%.

The Legrand Johnson Brigham City Kunderson Pit sample contained 82% quartz and 5% dolomite. Less than 5% of albite, calcite, microcline, chlorite, and muscovite was identified in the specimen. The non-clay material totaled 92%.

The higher dolomite content in the Legrand Johnson Nibley pit sample could explain the higher compressive strength compared to other samples. The rapid collapse time observed in the MSCT indicates that this cementation is rapidly water soluble. Accordingly, the sand is thought to be suitable for use as a filter.

Mica Counts were completed for each filter sand according to CGSL in-house procedures to account for potential chemical weathering of mica into clay. Results indicated 0% mica in all three samples. Results can be seen in Table 2. Detailed mica content test procedures are available in the appendix.

Other Tests

Other standard physical property, soundness, and durability tests performed included: specific gravity (ASTM C128), sand equivalency value (ASTM D2419), lightweight particles (ASTM C123), clay lumps and friable particles (ASTM C142), organic impurities (ASTM C40), LA abrasion (ASTM C131), and sodium sulfate soundness (ASTM C88). Testing for sand equivalency value and lightweight particles was tested by the contract laboratory Kumar and Associates, Inc. (Denver, CO). All results from the following tests were within specifications for filter and drain materials. Physical properties test results are given in Table 2.

References ASTM C40 / C40M-16, Standard Test Method for Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregates for

Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016, www.astm.org

ASTM C88-13, Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org

ASTM C117-17, Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75- Mineral Aggregates by Washing, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, www.astm.org

ASTM C123 / C123M-14, Standard Test Method for Lightweight Particles in Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org

ASTM C131/ C131M-14, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, www.astm.org

ASTM C136 / C136M-14, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org

ASTM C142 / C142M-17, Standard Test Method for Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, www.astm.org

ASTM C702 / C702M-18, Standard Practice for Reducing Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, www.astm.org

ASTM D1633-17, Standard Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, www.astm.org

ASTM D2166-00, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, www.astm.org

ASTM D2419-14, Standard Test Method for Sand Equivalent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org

ASTM D7382-08, Standard Test Methods for Determination of Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Water Content Range for Effective Compaction of Granular Soils Using a Vibrating Hammer (Withdrawn 2017), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, www.astm.org

Bureau of Reclamation. (2016). TM 8530-2016-19: Evaluation of Proposed Filter Materials, Truckee Storage Project. Lakewood: USBR.

Bureau of Reclamation, (2017), Draft Boca Dam Seismic Modification Project Specifications, Truckee Storage Project, Truckee, California

Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center. (2011). Design Standard No. 13:

Embankment Dams. Lakewood: USBR.

Rinehart, R. V., & Pabst, M. W. (2014). A New Test for Cementation Porential of Embankment Dam Granular Filter Material. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, pg. 1-11.

Tables Table 1: Summary of Cementation Potential Test Results, Potential Hyrum Dam Filter Sand

Sources

PROPERTY SAMPLE UNITS

Lab Index No. 55R-270 55R-271 55R-272 --

Company JB Parson – Brigham Legrand Johnson Legrand Johnson --

Quarry Brigham Pit Nibley Pit Brigham City Kunderson Pit --

Address 33 S. 900 E.

Brigham, UT 84302

4000 S. Main Nibley, UT

1200 E. 700 S.

Brigham City

Kunderson, UT 84302

Product Name C33 C33 C33 --

Product Details Alluvium Sand Alluvium Sand, screen and washed

Alluvium Sand, crushed and screened, no washing

MSCT Average Collapse Time, Reservoir Water1 00:02:01 00:03:33 00:02:07 h:m:s

MSCT Class, Reservoir Water1 I I I --

Average Unconfined Compressive Strength 1303 5400 1413 lb/ft3

1Testing performed according to the procedures described in Rinehart, R.V., and Pabst, M.W., (2014), "A New Test Method for Cementation Potential of Embankment Dam Granular Filter Material," Geotechnical Testing Journal , ASTM International, Vol. 37, No. 3, 11 pp.

Table 2: Summary of Material Physical Properties (failing tests indicated in bold italics)

PROPERTY SAMPLE UNITS

ASTM TEST

DESIGNATION

SPECIFICATION

LIMITS

Lab Index No. 55R-268 55R-269 55R-270 55R-271 55R-272 -- -- --

Company Legrand Johnson JB Parson-Brigham JB Parson – Brigham Legrand Johnson Legrand Johnson -- -- --

Quarry Hyrum Pit Brigham Pit Brigham Pit Nibley Pit Brigham City

Kunderson Pit -- -- --

Address 400 N 1100 E

Hyrum, UT 33 S. 900 E.

Brigham, UT

33 S. 900 E.

Brigham, UT

4000 S. Main Nibley, UT

1200 E. 700 S.

Brigham City

Kunderson, UT 84302

Product Name #67 Rock #67 Rock C33 Sand C33 Sand C33 Sand -- -- --

Product Details Alluvial Gravel, Crushed, screened, but not washed

Gravel Alluvial Sand Alluvial Sand, screen and washed

Alluvial Sand, crushed and screened, but not washed

Meets Hyrum Dam Gradation Spec As-Received? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- -- C136

Passing No. 200 Sieve As-Received

NA NA 2.3 2.5 2.8 % weight C117 < 3.5 %

Passing No. 200 Sieve Post-Compaction1 NA NA 4.4 3.0 2.8 % weight C117 < 3.5%

Sodium Sulfate Soundness 3 1 2 3 2 % weight loss C88 < 10 %

Coal & Lignite (SpG<2.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 % weight C123 < 1.0 %

Chert (SpG<2.4) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 % weight C123 < 1.0 %

Clay Lumps and Friable Particles

0.23 0.54 2.82 0.63 0.68 % weight C124 < 1.0 %

Sand Equivalent Value NA NA 88 92 92 -- D2419 NA

LA Abrasion 17 12 NA NA NA % C131 < 50 %

Specific Gravity 2.73 2.69 2.67 2.71 2.66 --- C128 >2.6

Absorption 0.82 0.66 NA NA NA % mass C128 --

Organic Impurities NA NA Clear Clear Clear C40 Plate #3

Mica Content2 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 % particles < 3.0 %

Maximum Dry Unit Weight1 NA NA 125.2 119.2 124.9 lbf/ft3 D7382

Maximum Index Density3 NA NA 122.2 114.4 120.7 lbf/ft3 D4253 --

Minimum Dry Unit Weight NA NA 102.2 93.0 102.2 lbf/ft3 D4254 -- 1Compaction testing performed according to ASTM D7382, dry method (vibratory hammer maximum dry unit weight). It is anticipated that construction control will be based on percent compaction of vibratory hammer max density.

2Testing performed according to USBR TSC CGSL in-house procedures.

3Maximum index density determined via vibrating table, for comparison to vibratory hammer and potential calculations of relative density.

Table 3: Hyrum Dam Sand Filter Gradation Specification

U.S.

Standard

Sieve Size

Percent Passing by Weight (%)

3/8 inch 100

No. 4 90-100

No. 8 80-100

No. 16 50-85

No. 30 25-60

No. 50 5-30

No. 100 0-10

No. 200 <3.5

Table 4: Hyrum Dam Gravel Drain Gradation Specification

U.S.

Standard

Sieve Size

Percent Passing by Weight (%)

1in 100

¾ inch 90-100

3/8 inch 20-55

No. 4 0-10

No. 8 0-5

No. 200 <3.0

Physical Properties and Cementation Potential

The following appendix could not be made 508 compliant. For more information contact Robert Rinehart at 303-445-2395

Tested By: Valdez Checked By: Brusak

Denver, Colorado

2-28-18

A-1

Hyrum Gravel Drain Specification

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Hyrum Pit - poorly graded gravel 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8

100.0 91.0 27.0 3.0 1.8

90.0 - 100.0

20.0 - 55.0

0.0 - 10.0

0.0 - 5.0 NP NV NP

18.7556 17.5057 13.4323

12.1968 9.8864 7.8546

6.9463 1.93 1.05

UC Region Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam

55R

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Legrand Johnson - Hyrum Pit Sample Number: 55R-268 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

Hyrum Gravel Drain Specification

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 9.0 88.0 3.0 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Particle Size Distribution Report

Tested By: Valdez Checked By: Brusak

Denver, Colorado

2-28-18

A-2

Hyrum Gravel Drain Specification

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

Brigham Pit- poorly graded gravel 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8

100.0 92.0 30.0 2.0 0.8

90.0 - 100.0

20.0 - 55.0

0.0 - 10.0

0.0 - 5.0 NP NV NP

18.4465 17.1997 13.1009

11.8559 9.5250 7.5230

6.6934 1.96 1.03

GP

UC Region Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam

55R

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: JB Parson-Brigham Sample Number: 55R-269 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

Hyrum Gravel Drain Specification

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 8.0 90.0 2.0 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Tested By: Valdez Brusak Checked By: Brusak

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: JB Parson-Brigham Sample Number: 55R-270 Source of Sample: JB Parson-Brigham Sample Number: 55R-270 (PC)

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Denver, Colorado Figure

NV NP 2.4103 0.8679 0.5883 0.3363 0.2110 0.1704 0.76 5.09

NV NP 2.7215 0.8841 0.5896 0.3219 0.1986 0.1589 0.74 5.56

poorly graded sand SP A-1-b poorly graded sand SP A-1-b

55R UC Region

A-3

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

Hyrum Dam Specification

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

18.5 41.7 36.4 2.3

21.0 38.1 35.2 4.4 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam Post COmpaction

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: Lagrand Johnson - Nibley Sample Number: 55R-271 Source of Sample: Lagrand Johnson - Nibley Sample Number: 55R-271 (PC)

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Denver, Colorado Figure

NV NP 2.1821 0.8687 0.6288 0.3657 0.2258 0.1784 0.86 4.87

NV NP 2.0099 0.8096 0.6017 0.3584 0.2248 0.1796 0.88 4.51

poorly graded sand SP A-1-b poorly graded sand SP A-1-b

55R UC Region

A-4

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

Hyrum Dam Specification

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

16.5 47.3 33.1 2.5

14.9 48.3 33.6 3.0 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam Post Compaction

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: Lagrand Johnson - Brighham City Sample Number: 55R-272 Source of Sample: Lagrand Johnson - Brighham City Sample Number: 55R-272 (PC)

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Denver, Colorado Figure

NP NP 2.9586 0.9035 0.5702 0.3000 0.1883 0.1537 0.65 5.88

NV NP 2.8146 0.8156 0.5316 0.2887 0.1878 0.1562 0.65 5.22

poorly graded sand SP A-1-b poorly graded sand SP A-1-b

55R UC Region

A-4

P E

R C

E N

T

FI

N E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

Hyrum Dam Specification

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

20.5 34.5 38.7 2.8

20.8 34.0 40.5 2.8 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam Post Compaction

Project:

Material:

Tested By:

Left Right

21.25 lb L 4.243 in 4.243 in

48.70 lb L 5.04 in R 5.04 in

27.45 lb F 0.80 in B 0.80 in

0.27 ft3 0.80 in 0.07 ft

0.04 ft3 [(change in ht)*Area of cylinder(0.66]

0.22 ft3 [(Volume at start-(change in vol.)]

102.2 pcf [(wt of soil)/Volume at start]

122.2 pcf [(wt of soil)/(compacted volume)]

116.2 pcf [ymin + 0.7*(ymax-ymax)]

116.2 119.4

116.4 119.6

116.6 119.8

116.8 120.0

117.0 120.2

117.2 120.4

117.4 120.6

117.6 120.8

117.8 121.0

118.0 121.2

118.2 121.4

118.4 121.6

118.6 121.8

118.8 122.0

119.0 122.2 119.2

Relative Density Testing

USBR - Hyrum 2/20/2018

55R-270Sand

Compacted dial reading:

98% unit wt 99% unit wt

Density

Volume at start:

WT of soil:

Date:

Description:

KG

Empty Bucket

Bucket+ Loose Soil

TEST PROCEDURE: ASTM 4253 & D4254

100% unit wt

89% unit wt 90% unit wt 91% unit wt 92% unit wt 93% unit wt 94% unit wt 95% unit wt pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf

86% unit wt pcf 87% unit wt 88% unit wt

Change in Height:

Average:

70% unit wt y:

NOTE: Engineering Analytics standard bucket: vol. = 0.50 ft3, Diam = 11" = 0.9167' and depth 9.125 = 0.760'

Change in Volume:

Compacted Volume:

Minimum unit wt y:

Maximum unit wt y:

Initial dial reading:

84% unit wt 85% unit wt

74% unit wt 75% unit wt 76% unit wt 77% unit wt 78% unit wt 79% unit wt

83% unit wt 82% unit wt

73% unit wt 72% unit wt 71% unit wt 70% unit wt

80% unit wt 81% unit wt pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf

Relative Density Dry Unit Weight Relative Density Dry Unit Weight

97% unit wt 96% unit wt

Tested By:

Left Right

21.25 lb L 4.862 in 4.862 in

43.05 lb L 5.67 in R 5.67 in

21.80 lb F 0.80 in B 0.80 in

0.23 ft3 0.80 in 0.07 ft

0.04 ft3 [(change in ht)*Area of cylinder(0.66)]

0.19 ft3 [(Volume at start-(change in vol.)]

93.0 pcf [(wt of soil)/Volume at start]

114.4 pcf [(wt of soil)/(compacted volume)]

108.0 pcf [ymin + 0.7*(ymax-ymax)]

108.0 111.4

108.2 111.6

108.4 111.8

108.6 112.0

108.8 112.2

109.0 112.4

109.2 112.7

109.4 112.9

109.7 113.1

109.9 113.3

110.1 113.5

110.3 113.7

110.5 113.9

110.7 114.2

110.9 114.4 111.2

Relative Density Testing

USBR - Hyrum 2/20/2018

55R-271Sand

Compacted dial reading:

98% unit wt 99% unit wt

Density

Volume at start:

WT of soil:

Date:

Description:

KG

Empty Bucket

Bucket+ Loose Soil

TEST PROCEDURE: ASTM 4253 & D4254

100% unit wt

89% unit wt 90% unit wt 91% unit wt 92% unit wt 93% unit wt 94% unit wt 95% unit wt pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf

86% unit wt pcf 87% unit wt 88% unit wt

Change in Height:

Average:

70% unit wt y:

NOTE: Engineering Analytics standard bucket: vol. = 0.50 ft3, Diam = 11" = 0.9167' and depth 9.125 = 0.760'

Change in Volume:

Compacted Volume:

Minimum unit wt y:

Maximum unit wt y:

Initial dial reading:

84% unit wt 85% unit wt

74% unit wt 75% unit wt 76% unit wt 77% unit wt 78% unit wt 79% unit wt

83% unit wt 82% unit wt

73% unit wt 72% unit wt 71% unit wt 70% unit wt

80% unit wt 81% unit wt pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf

Relative Density Dry Unit Weight Relative Density Dry Unit Weight

Tested By:

Left Right

21.25 lb L 3.958 in 3.958 in

50.30 lb L 4.747 in R 4.747 in

29.05 lb F 0.79 in B 0.79 in

0.28 ft3 0.79 in 0.07 ft

0.04 ft3 [(change in ht)*Area of cylinder(0.66]

0.24 ft3 [(Volume at start-(change in vol.)]

102.2 pcf [(wt of soil)/Volume at start]

120.7 pcf [(wt of soil)/(compacted volume)]

115.1 pcf [ymin + 0.7*(ymax-ymax)]

115.1 118.1

115.3 118.3

115.5 118.4

115.7 118.6

115.9 118.8

116.0 119.0

116.2 119.2

116.4 119.4

116.6 119.5

116.8 119.7

117.0 119.9

117.2 120.1

117.3 120.3

117.5 120.5

117.7 120.7 117.9

Relative Density Testing

USBR - Hyrum 2/20/2018

55R-272Sand

Compacted dial reading:

98% unit wt 99% unit wt

Density

Volume at start:

WT of soil:

Date:

Description:

KG

Empty Bucket

Bucket+ Loose Soil

TEST PROCEDURE: ASTM 4253 & D4254

100% unit wt

89% unit wt 90% unit wt 91% unit wt 92% unit wt 93% unit wt 94% unit wt 95% unit wt pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf

86% unit wt pcf 87% unit wt 88% unit wt

Change in Height:

Average:

70% unit wt y:

NOTE: Engineering Analytics standard bucket: vol. = 0.50 ft3, Diam = 11" = 0.9167' and depth 9.125 = 0.760'

Change in Volume:

Compacted Volume:

Minimum unit wt y:

Maximum unit wt y:

Initial dial reading:

84% unit wt 85% unit wt

74% unit wt 75% unit wt 76% unit wt 77% unit wt 78% unit wt 79% unit wt

83% unit wt 82% unit wt

73% unit wt 72% unit wt 71% unit wt 70% unit wt

80% unit wt 81% unit wt pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf pcf

Relative Density Dry Unit Weight Relative Density Dry Unit Weight

Table A-1: MSCT Sample 55R-270 Results

Specimen 1 2 3 4 Average

Max Wet Unit Weight (lbf/ft3) 118.05 117.26 117.37 117.98 117.67

Moisture Content (%) 10.84 10.75 10.83 10.73 10.79

Time to Failure (m:s) 1:55 2:24 1:24 2:21 2:01

Failure Type 2 sections 4 sections tilted 3 sections

Class I I I I I

Table A-2: MSCT Sample 55R-271 Results

Max Wet Unit Weight (lbf/ft3) 110.16 109.1 108.64 109.39 109.32

Moisture Content (%) 14.65 13.8 13.95 13.38 13.95

Time to Failure (m:s) 4:15 4:45 3:23 1:51 3:33

Failure Type 2 sections 3 sections 3 sections tilted

Table A-3: MSCT Sample 55R-272 Results

Max Wet Unit Weight (lbf/ft3) 116.76 116.76 117.77 117.55 117.21

Moisture Content (%) 11.57 11.59 11.65 10.1 11.23

Time to Failure (m:s) 1:59 1:46 2:06 2:37 2:07

Failure Type tilted tilted 2 sections tilted

Tested By: Brusak Checked By: Rinehart

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Denver, Colorado

Project No.: 55R Date Sampled: 2-20-18 Remarks:

compacted each lift for 15 seconds using vibratory hammer

Figure A-6

Client: UC Region

Project: Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam

Source of Sample: JB Parson-Brigham Sample Number: 55R-270

Description: poorly graded sand LL = NV PI = NPPL = GS= 2.67 Type: Filter Sand

Sample No.

Unconfined strength, psf Undrained shear strength, psf Failure strain, % Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, % Wet density, pcf Dry density, pcf Saturation, % Void ratio Specimen diameter, in.

Specimen height, in.

Height/diameter ratio

1.4

0.50 0.0

118.9 118.9

0.0 0.4014 3.001 6.739 2.25

0.9 0.92 0.0

117.1 117.1

0.0 0.4238 3.057 6.754 2.21

0.9

1.00 0.0

119.0 119.0

0.0 0.4008 3.022 6.737 2.23

C om pr es si ve

S tre ss , p sf

Axial Strain, %

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Denver, Colorado

Project No.: 55R Date Sampled: 2-22-18 Remarks:

Compacted each lift for 15 seconds using vibratory hammer

Figure A-7

Client: UC Region

Project: Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam

Source of Sample: Lagrand Johnson - Nibley Sample Number: 55R-271

Description: poorly graded sand LL = NV PI = NPPL = GS= 2.71 Type: Filter Sand

Sample No.

Unconfined strength, psf Undrained shear strength, psf Failure strain, % Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, % Wet density, pcf Dry density, pcf Saturation, % Void ratio Specimen diameter, in.

Specimen height, in.

Height/diameter ratio

1.1

0.50 0.0

108.7 108.7

0.0 0.5567 3.025 6.718 2.22

0.8 1.00 0.0

111.6 111.6

0.0 0.5159 3.034 6.744 2.22

0.8

1.00 0.0

111.9 111.9

0.0 0.5112 3.022 6.729 2.23

C om pr es si ve

S tre ss , p sf

Axial Strain, %

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Denver, Colorado

Project No.: 55R Date Sampled: 2-20-18 Remarks:

compacted each lift for 15 seconds with a vibratory hammer

Figure A-8

Client: UC Region

Project: Hyrum Project - Hyrum Dam

Source of Sample: Lagrand Johnson - Brighham City Sample Number: 55R-272

Description: poorly graded sand LL = NP PI = NPPL = GS= 2.66 Type: Filter Sand

Sample No.

Unconfined strength, psf Undrained shear strength, psf Failure strain, % Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, % Wet density, pcf Dry density, pcf Saturation, % Void ratio Specimen diameter, in.

Specimen height, in.

Height/diameter ratio

1.1

0.99 0.0

116.3 116.3

0.0 0.4273 3.047 6.730 2.21

1.3 1.00 0.0

117.6 117.6

0.0 0.4122 3.031 6.729 2.22

1.3

1.00 0.0

117.0 117.0

0.0 0.4190 3.028 6.728 2.22

C om pr es si ve

S tre ss , p sf

Axial Strain, %

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mineralogy

Table B-1: XRD Analysis Results

Sample 55R-270 55R-271 55R-272

(wt%) (wt%) (wt%)

Non-Clays

Quarts 81 31 82

Dolomite 5 35 5

Albite 3 5 1

Calcite 3 22 2

Microcline 1 3 2

Total Non-Clays 93 96 92

Clays

Chlorite 0.5 3 4

Muscovite 6 1 4

Total Clays 6.5 4 8

Total 99.5 100 100

Proposed Friable Particle Count Method for Fine Aggregate (Coarse and Fine Sand)

The following is a proposed method for evaluating the percentage of friable particles (including mica) contained in fine aggregate (sand). This method is not intended to be a complete petrographic assessment of aggregate quality. If the rock/mineral composition differs significantly from the original sample for which a complete petrographic evaluation has already been conducted according to ASTM C295, an additional petrographic evaluation of the aggregate is recommended.

NOTE: See Bates and Jackson (1980) for a definition of mica and friable.

1) Sample the aggregate according to ASTM D75, and allow to air-dry. Do not wash the sample.

2) Dry sieve to separate fine aggregate (smaller than No. 4 sieve) from coarse aggregate (larger than No. 4 sieve).

3) Reduce fine aggregate sample to ~250g following ASTM C702.

4) Dry sieve into a stack of sieve Nos. 8, 16, 30, 50, 100, 200 and a pan using a mechanical sieve shaker for approximately 15 minutes. Alternatively, the sieves can be individually shaken (i.e., not shaken in a stack) by hand according to ASTM D6913.

5) For each sieve of the coarse sand (Nos. 8, 16, and 30):

NOTE: Sieve number refers to material retained on that sieve, passing the larger sized sieve.

a) Reduce the number of particles to approximately 150 for the No. 8 sieve, approximately

300 for the No. 16 sieve and approximately 300 for the No. 30 sieve using a microsplitter or cone-and-quarter method. NOTE: If using the cone and quarter method, care should be taken to split the sample into as many quarters as necessary so that the smallest quartered cone contains as close to 300 particles as possible. If using a microsplitter, brush the hopper, chutes and riffles into the holding pans to ensure mica and other electrostatic particles reach the holding pans.

i) Examine the particles using a stereo microscope and classify each of the particles as either:

(1) Physically Sound (NOTE: no mica particles should be included in this category)

(2) Physically Unsound/Friable. Further classify each unsound/friable particle as either:

(a) Mica-flake: A rock or mineral particle consisting of 90% or greater mica with a flat shape (visual estimate that width/depth >3)

(b) Mica-book: A rock or mineral particle consisting of 90% or greater mica that is more equant in shape (visual estimate that width/depth <3)

(c) Non-mica

NOTE: Each particle may be wetted to aid in identification, but the sand sample should not be washed at any stage of the process.

ii) Record the percentage of physically sound and physically unsound/friable particles as well as the percentage of mica flakes and books for each sieve size.

For each sieve of the fine sand sizes (Nos. 50, 100, and 200), follow the same procedures for the coarse sand described above in step 5, classifying approximately 500 particles.

NOTE: It is recommended that the petrographer use a wet #000 paint brush to manipulate the fine sand sizes during identification. Doing so will reduce particle scattering.

Using a polarizing light microscope, examine the particles passing the No. 200 sieve retained in the pan (< No. 200 sieve size). stimate the percentage by count of mica particles.

Using the original gradation of the aggregate, compute the weighted averages of all physically unsound particles as well as total mica identified in the sample. The mica count should represent the total of mica books and mica flakes. The weights applied should total 100% (i.e., if the original sample had particles retained on the #4 sieve that percentage should be added to the percentage retained on the #8 sieve for purposes of computed weighted averages).

Prepare a table summarizing the particle count information gathered in steps 5-7, as well as the weighted averages calculated in step 8. An example table follows:

Table X. Summary of unsound particles count

Sieve Size % Retained, original gradation Total Unsound Particles (%)

Mica Particles

No. 8 X.X% X.X% X.X% No. 16 X.X% X.X% X.X% No. 30 X.X% X.X% X.X% No. 50 X.X% X.X% X.X% No. 100 X.X% X.X% X.X% No. 200 X.X% X.X% X.X% Pan X.X% X.X% X.X% Weighted Average (total sample) X.X% X.X%

DEFINITIONS

Bates, R.L., and Jackson, J.A., editors, 1980, Glossary of Geology: Falls Church, Virginia, American Geological Institute, 751 p.

friable (a) Said of a rock or mineral that crumbles naturally or is easily broken, pulverized, or reduced to powder, such as a soft or poorly cemented sandstone. (b) Said of a soil consistency in which moist soil material crushes easily under gentle to moderate pressure (between thumb and forefinger) and coheres when pressed together.

mica (a) A group of minerals of general formula: (K, Na, Ca) (Mg, Fe, Li, Al)2-

3(Al,Si)4O10(OH,F)2. It consists of complex phyllosilicates that crystallize in forms apparently orthorhombic or hexagonal (such as tabular six-sided prisms) but really monoclinic; that are characterized by low hardness and by perfect basal cleavage, readily splitting into thin, tough, somewhat elastic laminae or plates with a splendent pearly luster;

and that range in color from colorless, silvery white, pale brown, or yellow to green or black.

Micas are prominent rock-forming constituents of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and commonly occur as flakes, scales, or shreds. Sheet muscovite is used in electric insulators;

ground mica in paint and as a dusting agent. Cf: brittle mica. Syn: isinglass; glimmer. (b) Any mineral of the mica group, including muscovite, biotite, lepidolite, phlogopite, zinnwaldite, roscoelite, paragonite, and sericite.