8550-2024-25_Heart_Butte_FD_Borrow_0002.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior December 2024

GLFS TM No. 8550-2024-25

Heart Butte Dam Final Design Borrow Soil Investigation

Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program, North Dakota Missouri Basin Region 5

Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.

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.

GLFS TM No. 8550-2024-25

Heart Butte Dam Final Design Borrow Soil Investigation

Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program, North Dakota Missouri Basin Region 5

Prepared: Blake Armstrong, P.E.

Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support, 86-68550

Checked: Kaitlyn Truss, M.Sc.

Technical Approval: Evan J. Lindenbach, P.E., P.G.

Peer Review: Kevin Schaeffer, Ph.D., P.E.

Cover Photo: Heart River downstream of the outlet works by Armstrong (Reclamation) 11/29/2023 iii

Contents

Tables .................................................................................................................... iv

Figures.................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction

Background Previous Work Scope of Study

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Physical Properties Compaction Dispersion Undrained Strength Permeability

Summary of Laboratory Testing Methods

Physical Properties Compaction Dispersion Undrained Strength Permeability

References

Appendix A. Physical Properties Test Reports

Appendix B. Compaction Test Reports and Test Photos

Appendix C. Crumb Dispersion Test Specimen Photos

Appendix D. Ko-Consolidated, Undrained Triaxial Compression Test Reports and Post-test Specimen Photos

Appendix E. Flow Pump Permeability Post-test Specimen Photos iv

Tables Table 1. Sample index and test completed Table 2. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area physical properties Table 3. Summary Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil compaction test results Table 4. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area crumb dispersion test results Table 5. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area TRX test results Table 6. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area constant head permeability test results

Figures Figure 1. Map of the Heart Butte Downstream Left Abutment Borrow Area (Reed, 2024) Figure 2. Map of the Heart Butte Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area (Reed, 2024) Figure 3. Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil standard Proctor compaction curves with vibratory hammer compaction results Figure 4. Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area a) undrained strength model and b) Mohr-Coulomb effective stress failure envelopes

Introduction

Background Heart Butte Dam is a 125-foot-tall earthfill dam located on the Heart River, approximately 72 miles southeast of Bismarck, ND, and impounds Lake Tschida (60,763 ac-ft at the top of active conservation elevation of 2064.5 ft). The structure was constructed between 1948 and 1949 on predominantly fine-grained, sandstone of the Fort Union Formation. Due to internal erosion issues with the outlet works, many studies have been conducted over the last 10 years including a Safety of Dams (SOD) Issue Evaluation (IE) study and Corrective Action Study (CAS). The latest SOD recommendation states:

2019-SOD-A Identify and evaluate modification alternatives to reduce the risks of internal erosion potential failure modes (PFMs) associated with various seepage paths in the backfill and the sandstone foundation of the outlet works conduit.

To address this SOD recommendation, the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Technical Service Center (TSC) Geotechnical Services Division and Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support group (GLFS) developed a Field Exploration Request (FER) in 2024 to perform a field investigation to gather SOD Final Design (FD) data for modifications proposed for Heart Butte Dam, ND. The current preferred alternative involves jet grouting, installing a sand filter trench, and constructing a zoned seepage berm downstream of the outlet works (Reed, 2024). The purpose of this TSC GLFS Technical Memorandum (TM) is to identify an estimated 19,000 cubic yards (CY) of material to be used as miscellaneous fill for the proposed berm.

Previous Work A summary of salient points from previous GLFS TMs is provided in this section. Final TMs are available in USBR TSC Engineering and Laboratory Services Division’s (8500) archive.

In 2014, a FER was developed to investigate voids around the outlet works conduit and obtain soil physical property data on the foundation material. Samples were collected from core holes drilled from inside the outlet works conduit, but the holes did not penetrate the foundation rock deep enough to fully evaluate the potential seepage pathway through the foundation rock.

In April 2018, a FER was developed to provide supplemental data for future spillway/outlet works conduit modifications under a SOD CAS. The CAS sought to identify and evaluate modification alternatives to mitigate the risk of internal erosion failure associated with the outlet works conduit (Wagner, 2018a). Similar to the 2014 investigation, samples were collected from core holes drilled from inside the outlet works conduit to characterize the embankment bedrock foundation materials and give particular attention to the potential for voids and/or other discontinuities within the rock foundation or along the contact of the rock foundation with the overlying concrete conduit.

TSC Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory (CGSL) conducted a geotechnical laboratory testing program on the foundation samples collected. Almost all material was nonplastic (NP) and had Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classifications of SM – silty sand to SP-SM – poorly graded sand with silt. Some gravels had strong reactions to HCl, and drained direct shear (DS) strength was relatively high. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis indicated primarily the presence of quartz and clay (i.e., smectite and illite). The April 2018 FER also included a borrow soil investigation to evaluate potential candidates to be used as miscellaneous fill for potential future modifications. All three test pit samples classified as SM – silty sand. All results from that study are summarized in a 2018 preliminary Data Transmittal (DT) (Armstrong, 2018).

In November 2018, a second FER was completed including ten (10) drill holes within the dam footprint, downstream toe, and right abutment areas; laboratory testing of the foundation materials; and tracer testing as a phase two investigation (Wagner, 2018b). In 2018 - 2019, drill holes were bored through the crest, mid-slope, and downstream toe to collect intact samples of embankment (Emb), Quaternary alluvium (Qal), Bullion Creek Formation shale (Sh), and Bullion Creek Formation sandstone (SS). After injecting dye into the foundation from inside the conduit, it was detected in the stilling basin over 150 ft away in just over an hour.

As part of the November 2018 FER, samples were tested for soil physical properties, permeability, erodibility, soil unconfined compressive strength (soil UCS), and rock uniaxial compressive strength (rock UCS). Jet erosion testing (JET) and permeability testing of the foundation alluvium indicated the material was erodible to extremely erodible with a vertical hydraulic conductivity (kv) of 8E-4 centimeters per second (cm/s). During JET testing, the variability of the foundation ‘bedrock’ erodibility was apparent. One sample was predominantly erodible sandstone, but the test was terminated when a very thin, erosion resistant shale vein was impinged upon and did not erode. The shale foundation lenses had UCS’ similar to stiff soil or an intermediate geomaterial. Results including Armstrong (2018) DT results were documented in a TM from the newly developed (at that time) GLFS group (Arany, 2020).

In 2021, a novel laboratory testing program was developed to investigate the feasibility of grouting the disaggregated sandstone (or silty sand) foundation using ultrafine grout and modified flexible wall permeameters. The assumption was made that composite reconstituted silty sand specimens (fines contents equal to 0%, 5%, and 10%) compacted to an equivalent in-situ density would have a similar groutability to the non-disaggregated sandstone. Five rounds of laboratory permeation testing were conducted (Lindenbach, 2021a). It was concluded that the fine-grained silty sand could not be grouted on the laboratory scale with the proposed ultrafine grout, even with no fines (Lindenbach, et al., 2022).

As part of the CAS sandstone grout testing, a disaggregation investigation was conducted. It was suggested that the sandstone was competent when the outlet works was constructed but has since disaggregated leading to weakening and susceptibility to internal erosion. Competent sandstone was soaked in solutions of hydrochloric acid, salicylic acid, sodium hexametaphosphate, and DI water (for a control) for several days. Only the fines portion of the particle size distribution increased due to deflocculation of clay clods in sodium hexametaphosphate. No sandstone disaggregation was observed.

Lasater (2022) has since reported on records from the 1952 Heart Butte Dam Technical Record of Construction (USBR, 1952) that stated:

“The Fort Union sands were quite firm when damp but would not stand up under traffic when either very dry or very wet.”

In pre-construction investigations, Reclamation’s Denver Laboratory in USBR (1950) classified the bedrock material in the channels as

“Unconsolidated and uncemented, indicating that foundation consolidation was to be expected.”

It can be assumed that the term consolidation used in this 1950s report refers to the decrease in volume due to breakdown of the soil structure, not true consolidation which refers to the decrease in volume due to compressing and expelling pore fluid from fine-grained soil.

Further XRD and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyses indicate there are at least two primary sandstone units: calcitic sandstone and weakly-bonded clayey sandstone. However, the petrographer suggested reclassifying the calcitic sandstone as “calcitic limestone” based on the high calcium carbonate content (greater than 50% by weight). Referring to the hypothesis about the foundation losing strength over time, it could be the case that the clay-bonded sandstone’s strength was much higher during construction but has since lost strength, likely due to hydration or other processes (Lindenbach, 2021b) with the calcitic sandstone (or limestone) remaining largely intact. Again, the clay content did increase when soaking sandstone in sodium hexametaphosphate, and the rest of the gradation was unchanged.

Additional testing in 2021 included soil physical properties, soil UCS, rock physical properties, and JET testing. A majority of the 17 specimens tested had erodibility classifications of erodible, with two extremely erodible and two moderately resistant classifications (Lindenbach, 2021b).

In cooperation with the 2021 grout investigation, a field exploration was conducted to assess the feasibility of grouting sandstone downhole on the right abutment of the dam using chemical grout. Flight auger dry core (FADC) was used to get to depth. Then chemical grout was pumped downhole into the abutment foundation alluvium and sandstone. The hole did not stop taking grout, and the effort was abandoned with this behavior occurring at several depths (Zukowski, TBD).

In January 2024, a FER was completed to inform a FD modification to reduce the risk of internal erosion. As previously mentioned, the preferred alternative involves jet grouting, installing a sand filter trench, and constructing a zoned seepage berm downstream of the outlet works (Reed, 2024).

In November 2023 (prior to the completion of the 2024 FER), GLFS investigated potential commercially available sand and gravel sources to be used to construct the sand filter trench, the seepage berm’s sand filter, and the berm’s gravel drain. GLFS personnel visited three suppliers and sampled one sand and gravel sample from each. Material testing included soil physical properties, durability, density, cleanliness, cementation potential, permeability, and minerology.

The results of the laboratory testing and quarry investigations are summarized in the GLFS TM Dziedzina (2024). The Armstrong (2024) Trip Report is provided the Appendix of Dziedzina (2024).

Scope of Study In 2023, Missouri Basin (MB) Regional Geology conducted a field investigation on two borrow areas: Downstream Left Abutment Borrow (DSLAB) and Downstream Right Abutment Borrow (DSRAB). Maps of the DSLASB and DSRAB are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

Twenty-one 5-gallon bucket samples from 15 test pits (TP-23-1 through TP-23-15) were sent to GLFS to be tested as potential borrow soil sources for miscellaneous fill during the berm construction. A test request with samples received and tests conducted is available in Table 1.

Per TSC Design Team, DSLAB borrow soil candidates were not tested due to shallow bedrock encountered and therefore, the limited quantity of material available.

DSRAB soil samples from test pits TP-23-11 to TP-23-15 were tested for use as miscellaneous fill in berm construction. Testing was conducted by GLFS and Upper Colorado Basin Region’s (UCB) Provo Area Office (PAO) Materials Laboratory and included soil physical properties, standard Proctor and vibratory hammer compaction, dispersion potential, undrained strength, and permeability in general accordance with applicable ASTM (2022) and USBR (1989) standards (described in a later section).

Summary of Laboratory Test Results As previously mentioned, due to shallow bedrock and limited material available, the DSLAB area was abandoned, and samples collected from test pit TP-23-1 to TP-23-10 were not tested.

For the DSRAB area, individual bucket samples were tested for water content and dispersion potential. Samples were then combined per test pit and tested for soil physical properties including gradation with hydrometer, Attberberg limits, USCS classifications, and specific gravity. Composite samples DSRAB 1 and DSRAB 2 were created by combining TP-23-11 and - 13 samples, and TP-23-14A and -15 samples, respectively. The DSRAB 1 composite sample was chosen as representing the material likely be used as miscellaneous fill (denoted as simply DSRAB) and was tested for undrained strength and permeability.

DSRAB miscellaneous fill tested to be cohesionless and NP with a USCS classification of SM – silty sand with trace gravel. Material showed liquefaction potential during saturated vibratory hammer testing, and dry vibratory hammer testing resulted in a lower maximum dry unit weight than provided by standard Proctor compaction. Thus, compaction behavior was controlled by tamping compaction. To assess the potential for ‘pumping’ (an elastic deformation of soil that occurs when a load is applied to soil with excess moisture), a range of water contents were used during compaction testing (approximately 3% dry to 1% wet of optimum water content). Two additional Proctor specimens were compacted at 2.8% dry and 1.7% wet of optimum water content. No ‘pumping’ was observed, and photos are available in Appendix B. Compaction test reports are also available in Appendix B.

Average kv was equal to 8E-4 cm/s, similar to the foundation material tested in 2018. Clays from the DSRAB did show dispersion potential, though there was no more than 7% clay, which is less than the minimum 12% content required by the ASTM (2022) standard for a valid test. A Mohr- Coulomb failure envelope was developed resulting in an effective stress friction angle (ϕ’) equal to 35.4° with no effective stress cohesion (c’).

Physical Properties DSRAB borrow soil candidates were evaluated for soil physical properties by the TSC GLFS and UCB PAO. DSRAB samples had four USCS classifications of SM – silty sand with one (SM)g – silty sand with gravel and one (SP-SM)g – poorly-graded sand with silt and gravel.

Average clay, silt, sand, and gravel contents were equal to 4.4, 15.2, 68.1, and 12.4%, respectively. Maximum particle size ranged from the #8 US sieve size to 1.5 inch. All minus #40 US sieve size material behaved NP except for the (SP-SM)g sample that had a liquid limit (LL) of 33 with a plasticity index (PI) of 8. Average specific gravity was equal to 2.72. DSRAB borrow soil physical properties test results are summarized in Table 2, and test reports are available in Appendix A.

Compaction GLFS conducted standard Proctor and vibratory hammer compaction testing on the composite DSRAB 1 (TP-23-11 and -13) and DSRAB 2 (TP-23-14A and -15) samples. During saturated vibratory hammer compaction testing, material was not free-draining and liquified around the hammer; a maximum dry unit weight could not be obtained. Results of the dry vibratory hammer compaction test indicated 94.2 and 99.4 pcf maximum dry unit weight for the DSRAB 1 and 2, respectively.

Due to the silt-like behavior, standard Proctor compaction testing was performed. The compaction curves were very flat, making selection of the maximum dry density and optimum water content challenging. A total of sixteen specimens were compacted in an attempt to develop two compaction curves. The maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content of the DSRAB 1 and 2 were equal to 104.4 pcf and 13.8%, and 112.9 pcf and 12.4%, respectively.

Per the TSC Design Team, DSRAB 1 was chosen as the representative DSRAB miscellaneous fill source. The construction Specification for an acceptable water content during placement was proposed to be from 3% dry (10.8%) to 1% wet (14.8%) of optimum water content (13.8%). This range was chosen by the Design Team in an effort to alleviate potential issues with ‘pumping’ that could occur during field compaction, which would result in difficulties reaching the target density. Thus, the Design Team sought to provide options for the contractor to manage the material if compaction proves problematic. To demonstrate adequate soil compaction behavior near the proposed water content range, two more Proctor specimens were compacted at 2.8% dry and 1.7% wet of optimum water content; no pumping occurred. DSRAB borrow soil compaction test results are summarized in Tables 3 and Figure 3. Test reports and compaction test photos are available in Appendix B.

Dispersion Crumb and pinhole dispersion test results should be used with caution as no sample met the material clay content requirement (> 12% clay) and plasticity requirements which are above A-line for ASTM (2022) and PI > 7 per USBR (1989). Crumb dispersion test results ranged from grades 1 – nondispersive to 4 – dispersive. Confirmation pinhole tests were attempted, but results were inconclusive. Since material was NP cohesionless silty sand with less than 7% clay, the phenomenon occurring during pinhole dispersion testing was most-likely mechanical erosion rather than the physiochemical phenomenon of deflocculating clay colloids (i.e. dispersion). Due to the questionable pinhole dispersion test results, pinhole testing was abandoned and not included within the scope of this report. Crumb dispersion test results are summarized in Table 4.

Post-test specimen photographs are available in Appendix C.

Undrained Strength Ko-consolidated undrained (KoCU) triaxial compression (TRX) testing was conducted on four reconstituted specimens of DSRAB miscellaneous fill (or sample DSRAB 1, a composite sample of TP-23-11 and -13) compacted to approximately 95% maximum dry unit weight (99.2 pcf) at optimum water content (13.8%). Composite specimens were reconstituted using tamping compaction into rigid 2-inch-diameter split molds. Once removed from the molds, the ends were squared by hand trimming to create a cylindrical specimen with a height of 4 inches keeping an aspect ratio of 2:1 (H:D).

In coordination with the TSC Design Team, selected values of consolidation stress were estimated and based on assumed post-construction conditions/ in-situ effective stresses anticipated within the proposed berm. Specimens were saturated and then consolidated to effective vertical consolidation stresses (σ’vc) of 720, 1480, 2890, and 5770 psf pertaining to approximately 5 to 50 ft below the surface of the proposed berm. Consolidation data was analyzed to determine the axial strain rate; 0.5% per hour was chosen. Selection of failure was chosen at the point in which stress paths approached the critical state line (Kf -line) in p’-q space, which generally corresponded to the point of when excess pore pressure became negative. An undrained strength (su) model was developed using the undrained strength and effective vertical consolidation stress.

su = 0.67 σ’vc + 225 psf

An effective stress analysis was conducted to develop a Mohr-Coulomb failure envelop using undrained strength and effective normal stress at failure (σ’n) where τ is shear stress.

τ = σ’n tan (35.4°) + 0 psf

A summary of the TRX testing is available in Table 5. Figure 4 presents undrained strength and effective stress analyses. Full TRX test reports and post-test specimen photos are available in Appendix D.

Permeability Flow pump permeability testing was performed on DSRAB KoCU TRX specimens after consolidation and prior to shear using flow pumps (constant flow rate). Vertical hydraulic conductivity was evaluated to be 7.03E-4 and 9.08E-4 cm/s under effective vertical consolidation stresses of approximately 1440 and 2880 psf, respectively. A summary of flow pump permeameter test results is provided in Table 6. Post-test specimen photos are available in Appendix E.

Summary of Laboratory Testing Methods

Physical Properties Samples were tested for in-situ water content (ASTM D2216-19), gradation with hydrometer (USBR 5330-89), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318-17 – Method B), USCS classifications (ASTM D2487-17), and minus #4 US sieve size material specific gravity (ASTM D854-23).

Compaction Standard Proctor compaction testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D698-12 (Method A). Vibratory hammer compaction testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM D7382-20. Samples were compacted in a 6-inch diameter mold in 3 lifts, with each lift vibrated for 1 minute. Both wet (saturated) and dry compaction tests were performed.

Dispersion Crumb dispersion testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D6572-21 (Method B).

Dispersion is a physiochemical phenomenon that occurs when saturated clay particles deflocculate in solution causing a breakdown of the soil structure. Analysis of such properties of finer materials are primarily qualitative in nature. Fifteen-millimeter (mm) cubes were created from minus #10 US sieve size material near the in-situ water content. The soil cubes were submerged in a bath of deionized water contained in a glass beaker. As the specimens were subjected to the water, their tendency to be dispersive, or not, was observed and visually classified at time intervals of two minutes, fifteen minutes, one hour, and six hours. This classification is based on the turbidity, or “cloudiness”, of the water bath over time as clay particles go into solution.

The crumb test does have known limitations as dispersive soil may sometimes give a nondispersive result (Nelson, 1979). This has been observed in the field with soils containing kaolinite (Kinney, 1991). None-the-less, if the crumb test indicates dispersive soil, it is likely dispersive. Pinhole dispersion testing is considered the most reliable indicator of soil dispersion potential (McCook, 2002) and were conducted in accordance with test method USBR 5410-89 though the results were abandoned.

Undrained Strength KoCU TRX testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4767-21 to determine peak undrained strength. Specimens were encased in a latex membrane, attached to drainage lines, and placed in the triaxial chamber. Saturation was accomplished via backpressure saturation to a minimum B-value of 0.95. After saturation, specimens were Ko-consolidated to target vertical effective consolidation stresses chosen in coordination with the TSC Design Team. Axial strain continued until primary consolidation was complete and a well-defined state of secondary consolidation was established, indicating that any excess pore pressures were dissipated.

In TRX testing, Ko-consolidation involves creating a stress state in which the cell pressure (σ3 = σ2 = minor principal stress) is not equal to the axial stress (σ1 = major principal stress), but rather σ3 = Koσ1 where Ko is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest. The desired vertical effective consolidation stress and vertical strain rate are input into the TRX testing software in order to guide the consolidation process. Axial strain is applied according to the input rate until the desired consolidation stress is reached. Simultaneously, the pore water pump extracts pore water at a rate equivalent to the volumetric strain rate due to the axial compression. The cell pressure is continuously adjusted to ensure there is no excess (positive or negative) pore pressure. In this way, the specimen itself dictates the value of Ko, and the specimen does not experience any lateral strain – in fact, Ko consolidation is sometimes also termed “zero-lateral strain consolidation.” Testing via this procedure allows for the stress state of the test specimen to more closely mimic the stress conditions known to exist in-situ than does the more familiar isotropic consolidation (σ3 = σ2 = σ1) method. Testing with anisotropic consolidation stresses represents best practice (Ladd and DeGroot, 2003) and is preferred to testing with isotropic consolidation which is known to give unconservative results (Germaine and Ladd, 1988).

Following consolidation, specimens were axially compressed (i.e., sheared) under undrained conditions to 20% axial strain. The strain rate was deemed slow enough based on physical properties to allow pore pressures to equilibrate throughout the specimen during undrained shearing, resulting in accurate effective stress measurements. Measured stresses were corrected for changes in cross-sectional area due to compression and the effects of the latex membrane (if greater than 5% of the peak strength). Based on the stress states at failure, a linear Mohr- Coulomb failure envelope was created to determine the ϕ’ and c’. Furthermore, a linear best-fit slope-intercept undrained strength model was developed using peak undrained strength and effective vertical consolidation stress.

Permeability Constant rate of flow permeability testing was performed on selected TRX test specimens in general accordance with ASTM D5084-24 (Method D) to determine vertical hydraulic conductivity. Tests were performed in conjunction with the KoCU TRX tests after consolidation and prior to the shear phase (previously described). After consolidation was completed, the system was isolated in order to connect a second flow pump to the triaxial cell. The two flow pumps were connected to opposite ends of the specimen via the triaxial cell drainage lines to provide means of inducing water flow and measuring the hydraulic gradient (i) across the specimen. Selection of a target gradient was based on guidance in ASTM D5084-24 as well engineering judgement on the material type. A constant flow rate (Q) was induced by the flow pumps, the gradient was measured, and hydraulic conductivity values were calculated. Once the gradient was stabilized and steady state conditions were observed, hydraulic conductivities were averaged over a selected time interval. This testing was performed using de-aired laboratory tap water.

References Armstrong, B. O. (2018). “Transmittal of TM No. 8530-2018-54: Results of Soil Testing on

Heart Butte Dam Conduit Material,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Concrete, Geotechnical, and Structural Laboratory, Denver, CO.

Armstrong, B. O. (2024). “Travel to Heart Butte Dam Commercial Borrow Sources (Bismarck, ND),” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support, Denver, CO.

Arany, G. (2020). “Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results for Heart Butte Dam Conduit Floor, Foundation, Borrow, and Rock Material.” GLFS TM No. 8550-2020-06, United States

Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support, Denver, CO.

ASTM International (2022). “Annual Book of Standards, Section 4, Volumes 4.08 and 4.09 – Soil and Rock,” West Conshohocken, PA.

Dziedzina, T. L. (2024). “Geotechnical Laboratory Testing to Characterize Commercial Sources for Heart Butte Dam Modifications,” GLFS TM No. 8550-2024-05, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support, Denver, CO.

Germaine, J. T. and Ladd, C. C. (1988). “State-of-the-Art-Paper: Triaxial Testing of Saturated Soils,” Advanced Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, Donaghe, R. T., Chaney, R. C., and Silver, M. L., Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 421-459.

Kinney, E. H. (1991). “Soil Mechanics Note No. 13, Dispersive Clays,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Washington D.C.

Ladd, C. C. and DeGroot, D. J. (2003). “Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site Characterization: Arthur Casagrande Lecture,” in Proceedings of 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Lasater, J. (2022). “2018 – 2021 Heart Butte Dam Corrective Action Study Geologic Exploration Report,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Missouri Basin Region, Lindenbach, E. J. (2021a). “Grout Permeation Laboratory Testing for the Heart Butte Dam Corrective Action Study,” GLFS TM No. 8550-2021-21, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support, Denver, CO.

Lindenbach, E. J. (2021b). “Transmittal of Laboratory Data in Support of Heart Butte Dam Outlet Works Modification Final Design,” GLFS TM No. 8550-2021-29, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Geotechnical Laboratory and Field Support, Denver, CO.

Lindenbach, E. J., Armstrong, B. O., Downs, J., Lucero, C., Joy, W. T., and Qiao, J. (2022). “A Novel Testing Approach to Investigate Cementitious Grout Permeation in Fine Sand,” 2022 United States Society on Dams, San Diego, CA.

McCook, D. K. (2002). “Things Your Mother Never Told You About Earth Dam Design,” 2002 ASDSO Annual Conference, Tampa, FL.

Nelson, J. L. (1979). “Laboratory Procedures for Determining the Dispersibility of Clayey Soils,” REC-ERC 79-10, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver

CO.

Reed, A. (2024) “Field Exploration Request for Heart Butte Dam Final Design,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Engineering Geology and Geophysics, Denver, CO.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1950). “Final Embankment Construction Report for Heart Butte Dam,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Missouri River Basin Project, Heart Division, Heart Butte Unit.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1952). “Heart Butte Dam Technical Record of Design and Construction,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1989). “Earth Manual, Part 2,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Wagner, C. (2018a). “Field Exploration Request for Heart Butte Dam Corrective Action Study,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Engineering Geology and Geophysics, Denver, CO.

Wagner, C. (2018b). “Field Exploration Request #2 for Heart Butte Dam,” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Engineering Geology and Geophysics, Denver, CO.

Zukowski, Z. (Draft). “Heart Butte Dam Grout Testing Results and Analyses.” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Geotechnical Services Division, Denver, CO.

Figure 1. Map of the Heart Butte Downstream Left Abutment Borrow Area (Reed, 2024).

Figure 2. Map of the Heart Butte Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area (Reed, 2024).

Table 1. Sample index and test completed.

Sample

TP-24-01 0.0 - 1.0

TP-24-02 0.0 - 1.5

TP-24-03 0.0 - 1.3

TP-24-05 0.0 - 1.4

0.0 - 1.3

0.0 - 2.5

1.3 - 1.0

0.0 - 4.0

TP-24-09 1.0 - 0.8

TP-24-10 0.0 - 1.0

1.6 - 3.1 X X

4.3 - 5.3 X X

9.5 - 9.9 X X

TP-24-12 1.0 - 1.4 X X X X X X X

1.7 - 2.2 X X

5.2 - 5.2 X X

0.0 - 1.0 X X

1.0 - 1.8 X X

TP-24-14A 1.2 - 2.5 X X X X X X

1.5 - 2.3 X X

4.7 - 5.0 X X

TP-24-11, -13 D/S RA Borrow 1 1.6 - 9.9 X X TP-24-1 and -13 were combined TP-24-14A, -15 D/S RA Borrow 2 1.2 - 5.0 X X TP-24-14A and -15 were TP-24-11, -13 HB Borrow 1.6 - 9.9 5-Gallon Bucket X X X X X X X X Identical to D/S RA Borrow 1

5-Gallon Bucket

X X

TP-24-15 X X X X X

X X

TP-24-13 X X X X X

TP-24-11

Downstream Right Abutment Borrow

Area 5-Gallon Bucket

X X X

TP-24-14 X X X

Downstream Left Abutment Borrow

Area 5-Gallon Bucket

Bedrock too shallow. Did not test.

TP-24-06

TP-24-08

Re pe at ed

D ire ct S he ar

, A

ST

M D

M od ifi ed

Se ns iti vi ty (l ab v an e)

, A

ST

M D

JE

T

Er os io n, U

SB

R In

-h ou se

Pe tr og ra ph ic e xa m in at io n

O rg an ic

C on te nt

, A

ST

M D

Co rr os io n Su ite (p

H, S ul fa te s, C hl or id es , R es ist iv ity

Di re ct S im pl e Sh ea r, AS

TM

D

Cy cl ic S im pl e Sh ea r, AS

TM

D

U U

T ria xi al

S he ar , A

ST

M

D

CU

T ria xi al S he ar

, A

ST

M D

CD

T ria xi al S he ar

, A

ST

M D

Cy cl ic T ria xi al S he ar

, A

ST

M D

Fl ow

P um p Pe rm ea bi lit y, A

ST

M

D

M et ho d D

O ne

-D im en sio na l c on so lid at io n, A

ST

M D

Sw el l/C ol la ps e, A

ST

M

D

Co ns ta nt

R at e of

S tr ai n, A

ST

M D

U nc on fin ed C om pr es siv e, A

ST

M

D

Di re ct S he ar

, A

ST

M D

Do ub le H yd ro m et er D isp er sio n

Te st

, A

ST

M D

Co m pa ct io n

- S ta nd ar d Pr oc to r, AS

TM

D

Co m pa ct io n

- V ib ra to ry H am m er , A

ST

M

D

Co ns ta nt h ea d Pe rm ea bi lit y, A

ST

M

D

Fl ex ib le

W al l P er m ea m et er , A

ST

M

D

M et ho d C

Fi lte r T es tin g

/ F ilt er C em en ta tio n, U

SB

R in -h ou se

Misc.

CommentsN at ur al

W at er C on te nt , A

ST

M

D

U ni t W ei gh t, AS

TM

D

M in

/M ax

In de x U ni t W ei gh t, AS

TM

D a nd

D

G ra da tio n, A

ST

M

D

Hy dr om et er , A

ST

M

D

At te rb er g Li m its

M oi st o r A ir

Dr y, A

ST

M D

At te rb er g Li m its

O ve n Dr y, A

ST

M

D

M od ifi ed

Sp ec ifi c

G ra vi ty

, A

ST

M D

Test Pit Depth ft Sample Type

Physical Properties Permeability Consol. Shear Strength

Pi n ho le

D isp er sio n Te st , A

ST

M

D

Cr um b Di sp er sio n te st

, A

ST

M D

Table 2. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area physical properties.

Test Pit USCS Cl ay

.0 m m

Si lt

(0

.0 to

.0 m m

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

1.6 - 3.1 8.7

4.3 - 5.3 7.4

9.5 - 9.9 8.0

TP-24-12 1.0 - 1.4 (SP-SM)g 2.7 7.0 49.4 40.9 0.0 60.50 4.17 33 8 2.89 10.7

1.7 - 2.2 11.8

5.2 - 5.2 9.0

0.0 - 1.0 15.4

1.0 - 1.8 10.5

TP-24-14A 1.2 - 2.5 SM 4.1 11.2 75.7 9.0 0.0 6.56 1.57 NP NP 2.69 9.6

1.5 - 2.3 11.3

4.7 - 5.0 10.8

TP-24-11, -13 2 1.6 - 9.9 SM 4.5 16.0 79.0 0.5 0.0 6.64 2.23 NP NP - -

TP-24-14A, -15 2 1.2 - 5.0 SM 5.9 18.4 71.9 3.8 0.0 11.09 2.30 NP NP - -

SM 11.0 38.9 50.1 0.0 0.0 86.95 7.63 NP NP 2.70 -

1 Cu = D60 / D10 ; Cc = D30 2 / ( D60 x D10 ) . If N/A, D10 was not obtained.

2 Gradations combined using original test pit sample gradation masses. Material was assumed to be nonplastic since it is made up of nonplastic constituents.

0.0

0.0 38.84 0.72 NP

10.84 2.48 NP

NP 2.68

NP 2.70

Depth Sp ec ifi c

G ra vi ty

(M in us

4)

0.0

4.22 1.57 NP

NP7.95 1.97

(SM)g

In -s itu W at er

C on te nt

NP 2.690.0

Fines (< #200)

Sa nd to

4)

G ra ve l to in ch

Co bb le s in ch

Coefficients 1

Co ef fic ie nt o f U ni fo rm ity

C u Co ff ic ie nt o f C ur va tu re

C c

TP-24-15 0.9

22.4

SM 3.0 11.3 85.6

SM 6.9 22.5 69.7

2.7 15.5 59.4

Downstream Right Abutment Borrow

NP 2.64

SM 6.9 23.5 68.5

0.1

1.1

Particle Size Fraction Atterberg Limits

TP-24-11

TP-24-13

TP-24-14

Table 3. Summary Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil compaction test results.

Figure 3. Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil standard Proctor compaction curves with vibratory hammer compaction results.

Vibratory Hammer (Method 2A) 3, 4

Sample Test Pit USCS Li qu id L im it

Pl tic ity

In de x

M ax im um

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t

(p cf

O pt im um

W at er C on

M ax im um

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t

(p cf

1.6 - 3.1 8.7

4.3 - 5.3 7.4

9.5 - 9.9 8.0

1.7 - 2.2 11.8

5.2 - 5.2 9.0

TP-24-14A 1.2 - 2.5 2.69 9.6

1.5 - 2.3 11.3

4.7 - 5.0 10.8

2 The fines controlled compaction with the maximum dry unit weight being informed by the Standard Proctor tests on minus #4 material.

3 Vibratory hammer compaction was performed on minus #4 control fractions to compare to the standard Proctor compaction results.

4 The wet method (1A) was attempted, but the material did not exhibit free-draining behavior and liquified.

SM 0.5 NP NP

3.8SM NP NP

Atterberg Limits

Standard Proctor (Method A) 2

2.64 99.412.4

In -s itu W at er

C on

Laboratory Compaction

1 Gravel content gravel from individual gradation datasheets' masses combined. Was not enough to warrant oversize correction (> 5% oversize).

TP-24-11

TP-24-13

TP-24-15

2.69

D/S RA

Borrow 1

D/S RA

Borrow 2

94.213.8

Pl us

O ve rs iz e Co nt en t 1

)Depth

(ft)

2.68

112.9

104.4

Sp ec ifi c

G ra vi ty

(M in us

4) y = -0.10x2 + 2.89x + 84.82 y = -0.23x2 + 5.70x + 77.63

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dr y

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Water Content (%)

Borrow 1 Max

Borrow 1 Std Proctor

Borrow 1 Vib Hammer

Borrow 2 Max

Borrow 2 Std Proctor

Borrow 2 Vib Hammer

Table 4. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area crumb dispersion test results.

U

SC

S

Cl ay

C on te nt

.0 m m

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

In -s itu W at er

C on

Cr um b Di sp er si on

G ra de

Cr um b Di sp er si on

Cl si fic at io n

LL PI w

1.6 - 3.1 8.7 4 Highly Dispersive

4.3 - 5.3 7.4 3 Dispersive

9.5 - 9.9 8.0 2 Intermediate

TP-24-12 1.0 - 1.4 (SP-SM)g 2.7 33 8 10.7 1 Nondispersive

1.7 - 2.2 11.8 3 Dispersive

5.2 - 5.2 9.0 4 Highly Dispersive

0.0 - 1.0 15.4 3 Dispersive

1.0 - 1.8 10.5 2 Intermediate

TP-24-14A 1.2 - 2.5 SM 4.1 NP NP 9.6 3 Dispersive

1.5 - 2.3 11.3 3 Dispersive

4.7 - 5.0 10.8 2 Intermediate

Note: Crumb tests require samples to have greater than 12.0% minus 0.002 mm and to plot above the A-line [PI = 0.73 (LL - 20)] (ASTM D6572). Results are presented, but caution should be taken when using results that do not meet the test requirements.

TP-24-14

TP-24-15 SM 6.9 NP NP

(SM)g 2.7 NP

SM 6.9 NP

TP-24-11

TP-24-13

NP NP

NP

3.0

NP

Test Pit Depth

(ft)

SM

Table 5. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area TRX test results.

Figure 4. Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area a) undrained strength model and b) Mohr-Coulomb effective stress failure envelopes.

DEPTH Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

In iti al W at er

C on te nt

In iti al D ry U ni t W ei gh t

Ef fe ct iv e Ve rt ic al

Co ns ol id at io n St re ss

Co ef fic ie nt o f L at er al

E ar th

Pr es su re a t R es t P os t-

Co ns ol

M aj or E ffe ct iv e

Pr in ci pa l St re ss a t F ai lu re

M in or E ffe ct iv e

Pr in ci pa l St re ss a t F ai lu re

Ex ce ss P or e

W at er P re ss ur e at

Fa ilu re

U nd ra in ed E ffe ct iv e

St ss

Fr tio n

An gl e

U nd ra in ed E ffe ct iv e

St ss he si on

Sh ea r S tr es s o n Fa ilu re

P la ne at F ai lu re

Pe ak ed U nd ra in ed

S he ar

St ng th

M ea su re d U nd ra in ed

S tr en gt h Ra tio

U nd ar in ed S tr en gt h

M od el

Borrow Area Test pits (ft) LL PI w (%) γ d (pcf) σ ' vc (psf) K o σ ' 1f (psf) σ ' 3f (psf) u (psf) φ ' CU ( °) c' CU (psf) τ ff (psf) s u (psf) s u / σ ' vc (psf)

13.4 100.0 721 0.58 1483 424 -7 432 530 0.73

13.3 99.2 1449 0.68 3301 994 -13 940 1154 0.80

13.3 99.6 2889 0.65 6919 1872 -6 2057 2524 0.87

13.4 101.2 5769 0.48 10605 2757 -5 3199 3924 0.68

1 Due to strain hardening behavior (no clear peak in deviator stress) failure was chosen based on analysis of the p'-q stress path as it approached the K f line.

USCS

NP

Downstream Right

Abutment Borrow

TP-24-11, -13 1.6 - 9.9 SM NP 0.67 σ' vc + 225 psf35.4

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Pe ak

U nd ra in ed S he ar

S tr en gt h (p sf

Vertical Effective Consolidation Stress (psf)

Downstream Right Abutment Borrow su = 0.67 σ'vc + 225 psf

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Sh ea r S tr es s ( ps f)

Effective Normal Stress (psf)

Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope

Φ'cu = 35.4° c'cu = 0 psf

Table 6. Summary of Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Area flow pump permeability test results.

Borrow Area Test Pit Depth Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

U ni fie d

So il

Cl as si fic at io n Sy st em

C la ss ifi ca tio n

Fi ne s C on te nt

W at er C on te nt

De gr ee o f S at ur at io n

Dr y

U ni t W ei gh t

Pe rc en t C om pa ct io n

In iti al V oi d

Ra tio

Ef ec tiv e

Ve rt al ns ol id at io n

St re ss

To ta l F lo w

Time Elapsed G ra di en t

Ve rt ic al

H yd ra ul nd uc tiv ity

(ft) LL PI USCS (%) w (%) S (%) γ d (psf) (%) e o σ ' vc (psf) Q (mL) t (min) i k v (cm/s)

13.4 54.6 101.3 97.0 0.663 1440 55 54 1.2 7.03E-04

13.3 52.1 99.7 95.5 0.690 2880 50 48 0.9 9.08E-04 1 Flow pump permeability testing

49.9 Downstream

Right Abutment

TP-24-11, -13 1.6 - 9.9 NP NP SM

Appendix A. Physical Properties Test Reports

Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Laboratory Services Division

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S21 Issue No: 1

9/12/2024Date Signed:

Blake ArmstrongChecked By: 9/12/2024

100.09.5mm (3/8in) 100.04.75mm (No.4) 99.92.36mm (No.8)

100.019.0mm (¾in) 100.075.0mm (3in) 100.037.5mm (1½in)

% PassingSieve Size Limits

57.9150µm (No.100) 49.975µm (No.200) 20.937µm (0.001in)

95.5300µm (No.50) 99.31.18mm (No.16) 99.2600µm (No.30)

18.519µm (0.0007in) 15.89µm (0.0004in)

11.01µm (0.000in) 14.65µm (0.0002in) 11.42µm (0.0001in)

Date Tested: 9/12/2024

Borrow SoilMaterial USBR 5330Specification

Sample Details 24-00212-S21Sample ID Downstream Right AbutmentSource

5-Gallon BucketSampling Method DSRABBoring No

1.6 - 9.9 ftDepth

5/15/2024Date Sampled

Atterberg Limit:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Sample Description:

SM - silty sand

Grading:

N/A

NP

NP

0.2472D85: 0.1559D60: 0.0757D50:

0.0462D30: 0.0072D15: 0.0018D10:

86.95Cu: 7.63Cc:

USBR 5330

Tested By: Kaitlyn Truss

Particle Size Distribution

COBBLES GRAVEL

Coarse (0.0%)

Fine (0.0%)

SAND

Coarse (0.2%)

Medium (2.4%)

Fine (47.5%)

FINES

Silt

(35.3%) Clay

(14.6%) (0.0%)

© 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: MAT:24-00212-S21 A-1

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S21 Issue No: 1

9/12/2024Date Signed:

Blake ArmstrongChecked By: 9/12/2024

Sample Details

9/12/2024 Kaitlyn Truss

Silty sand

SM

Borrow SoilMaterial USBR 5330Specification

24-00212-S21Sample ID Downstream Right AbutmentSource

5-Gallon BucketSampling Method DSRABBoring No

1.6 - 9.9 ftDepth

5/15/2024Date Sampled

Result Group Symbol ASTM D 2487

Other Test Results MethodDescription Limits

Group Name Tested By Date Tested Approximate maximum grain size ASTM D 4318 Material retained on 425µm (No. 40) (%) Method of Removal Grooving Tool Type Specimen preparation method Drying Method Special selection process Rolling Method for PL As Received Water Content (%) Liquid Limit Device Type

N/ALiquid Limit NPPlastic Limit NPPlasticity Index

Liquid Limit Procedure Ryan FlingTested By 9/12/2024Date Tested

2.70Specific Gravity (at 20°C) ASTM D 854 2.70Average Specific Gravity (at 20°C)

AMethod Passing 4.75mm (No.4) (%) Test temperature (°C)

Kaitlyn TrussTested By Sample Details

© 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: MAT:24-00212-S21

NP = Non Plastic Silt-clay fraction at 0.005mm when should be 0.002mm Comments

A-2

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S21 Issue No: 1

9/12/2024Date Signed:

Blake ArmstrongChecked By: 9/12/2024

Sample Details

Oven-Dried Method A

7.63 86.95

0.00 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.25

9/12/2024

Borrow SoilMaterial USBR 5330Specification

24-00212-S21Sample ID Downstream Right AbutmentSource

5-Gallon BucketSampling Method DSRABBoring No

1.6 - 9.9 ftDepth

5/15/2024Date Sampled

Result Date Tested

Other Test Results MethodDescription Limits

D85 USBR 5330

D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cu Cc Method Sample Obtained While Group Name Group Symbol

NoComposite Sieving Used Dispersant by handDispersion Method

Prior Testing

© 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: MAT:24-00212-S21

NP = Non Plastic Silt-clay fraction at 0.005mm when should be 0.002mm

A-3

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S17 Issue No: 1

8/15/2024Date Signed:

Kaitlyn TrussChecked By: 8/15/2024

99.79.5mm (3/8in) 99.54.75mm (No.4) 99.22.36mm (No.8)

99.919.0mm (¾in) 100.075.0mm (3in) 100.037.5mm (1½in)

% PassingSieve Size Limits

58.7150µm (No.100) 20.575µm (No.200) 15.237µm (0.001in)

93.9300µm (No.50) 98.71.18mm (No.16) 98.1600µm (No.30)

7.819µm (0.0007in) 6.59µm (0.0004in)

2.91µm (0.000in) 5.55µm (0.0002in) 4.52µm (0.0001in)

Date Tested: 8/15/2024

Material Specification

Sample Details Sample ID Source

Sampling Method Boring No Depth

24-00212-S17 5/15/2024 Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil

USBR 5330

5-Gallon Bucket

DSRAB 1 (TP-24-11, -13)

1.6 - 9.9 ft

Date Sampled

Atterberg Limit:

Liquid Limit:

Plastic Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Sample Description:

Data combined from TP-24-11 and -13. SM

- silty sand. max dry unit weight 104.4 pcf.

optimum water content = 13.8%.

Grading:

N/A

NP

NP

0.2518D85: 0.1539D60: 0.1281D50:

0.0891D30: 0.0363D15: 0.0232D10:

6.64Cu: 2.23Cc:

USBR 5330

Tested By: Blake Armstrong

Particle Size Distribution

COBBLES GRAVEL

Coarse (0.1%)

Fine (0.4%)

SAND

Coarse (0.4%)

Medium (3.1%)

Fine (75.5%)

FINES

Silt

(15.0%) Clay

(5.5%) (0.0%)

© 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: MAT:24-00212-S17 A-4

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S17 Issue No: 1

8/15/2024Date Signed:

Kaitlyn TrussChecked By: 8/15/2024

Sample Details

Silty sand

SM

Material Specification

Sample ID Source

Sampling Method Boring No Depth

24-00212-S17 5/15/2024 Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil

USBR 5330

5-Gallon Bucket

DSRAB 1 (TP-24-11, -13)

1.6 - 5.3 ft

Date Sampled

Result Group Symbol ASTM D 2487

Other Test Results MethodDescription Limits

Group Name Approximate maximum grain size ASTM D 4318 Material retained on 425µm (No. 40) (%) Method of Removal Grooving Tool Type Specimen preparation method Drying Method Special selection process Rolling Method for PL As Received Water Content (%) Liquid Limit Device Type

N/ALiquid Limit NPPlastic Limit NPPlasticity Index

Liquid Limit Procedure Blake ArmstrongTested By

8/15/2024Date Tested 0.5Oversize Fraction (%) ASTM D 7382

20.5Fines Fraction (%) 1ADry Test Method

94.2Maximum Dry Unit Weight - Dry (pcf) Corrected Max Dry Unit Weight - Dry (pcf) Wet Test Method Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Water Content (%)

Sample Details

© 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: MAT:24-00212-S17

NP = Non Plastic Clay silt split = 0.005 mm, should be 0.002 mm

A-5

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S17 Issue No: 1

8/15/2024Date Signed:

Kaitlyn TrussChecked By: 8/15/2024

Sample Details

2.23 6.64 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.25

8/15/2024

Material Specification

Sample ID Source

Sampling Method Boring No Depth

24-00212-S17 5/15/2024 Downstream Right Abutment Borrow Soil

USBR 5330

5-Gallon Bucket

DSRAB 1 (TP-24-11, -13)

1.6 - 5.3 ft

Date Sampled

Result Corrected Max Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Other Test Results MethodDescription Limits

Corrected Water Content (%) Date Tested

D85 USBR 5330

D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cu Cc Method

Oven-DriedSample Obtained While Group Name Group Symbol

NoComposite Sieving Used Dispersant by handDispersion Method

Prior Testing

© 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.comForm No: 18909, Report No: MAT:24-00212-S17

NP = Non Plastic Clay silt split = 0.005 mm, should be 0.002 mm

A-6

Denver Federal Center Building 56 PO Box 25007 Denver, CO 80225-0007 www.usbr.gov/tsc/tscorganization/8500.html

Material Test Report Feature/Job: Heart Butte - Final Design Region/Project: GP-Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program

Blake Armstrong, Civil Engineer (Geotechnical)Reviewed By:

Report No: MAT:24-00212-S18 Issue No: 2

8/15/2024Date Signed:

Kaitlyn TrussChecked By: 8/15/2024

96.24.75mm (No.4) 92.92.36mm (No.8) 89.81.18mm (No.16)

98.79.5mm (3/8in) 100.075.0mm (3in) 99.637.5mm (1½in)

% PassingSieve Size Limits

24.375µm (No.200) 18.537µm (0.001in) 11.019µm (0.0007in)

49.5150µm (No.100) 86.6600µm (No.30) 78.5300µm (No.50)

8.19µm (0.0004in) 6.55µm (0.0002in) 5.92µm (0.0001in) 4.11µm (0.000in)

Date Tested:

Borrow SoilMaterial USBR…