h 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) GDR MCD Safety Mod-RFP, Part 3 of 4.pdf

Moose Creek Dam Modification, North Pole, Alaska C

Geotechnical Data Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ANNEX C

Geotechnical Data Report

Weir Geotechnical Investigation for the Moose Creek Dam Modification Study Golder 2017

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

CHL023

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2260 of 3674

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL DATA

REPORT

WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE

MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION STUDY

CHENA RIVER LAKES FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT,

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Contract W911KB-17-D-0002

Task Order No. W911KB17F0034

Submitted To: US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District ATTN: CEPOA-EN-G (Robert Weakland, PE)

P.O. BOX 6898

JBER, AK 99506-0898

Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.

2121 Abbott Road, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska, USA 99507

Distribution:

3 Copies + 3 CD – US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District 2 Copies – Golder Associates Inc.

September 29, 2017 1781138

G E

O

TE

C H

N

IC

A L

D A

TA

R

E P

O R

T

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2261 of 3674

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Purpose and Scope

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Subsurface Drilling, Sampling, and Headspace Screening

2.2 Laboratory Testing

2.2.1 Soil Index Testing

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Regional Geology

3.2 Regional Seismicity

3.3 Surface Conditions

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

4.0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES AND GROUND IMPROVEMENT

4.1 Simplified Liquefaction Method Using Blow Count Data

4.2 Seismically Induced Settlement Methods

4.3 Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading Method

4.4 Liquefaction Analysis and Seismically Induced Settlement Results

4.5 Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading Results

4.6 Subsurface Soil Improvements

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT

6.0 CLOSING

7.0 REFERENCES

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2262 of 3674

List of Tables Table 2.1 Borehole Summary Table 4.1 Liquefaction Induced Settlement – Total Settlement Table 4.2 Liquefaction Induced Settlement – Differential Settlement Table 4.3 Lateral Displacement Index

Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 to 8 Borehole Location Maps Figure 9 Geologic Map Figure 10 Geologic Map with Borehole Locations

List of Appendices Appendix A Borehole Logs Appendix B Laboratory Data Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Calculations (Liquefaction Analysis and Seismically Induced Settlements)

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2263 of 3674

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) has been contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Alaska District to perform the services outlined in the revised Statement of Work (SOW) for the “Weir

Geotechnical Investigation and Mix Design, Moose Creek Dam Safety Modification Study, Chena River

Lakes Flood Control Project, at North Pole, Alaska,” dated June 15, 2017 (Contract No. W911KB-17-D-

002, Task Order W911KB17F0034). The work entails executing a subsurface exploration program and providing a geotechnical data report for proposed seepage weirs and a mix design report for a bentonite-

Portland Cement mix design for a proposed mix-in-place cutoff wall at the Moose Creek Dam in North Pole, Alaska (Figure 1). The mix design report is presented under a separate cover and is not discussed in this report.

The Weir Geotechnical Investigation includes advancing a total of 19 boreholes at select locations for seepage weirs and sheet pile tie-ins at Moose Creek Dam, which is an active flood control project.

1.2 Purpose and Scope

This report presents a summary of Golder’s review of available site data, geotechnical site exploration, and laboratory testing. This data report also includes results from an evaluation of the liquefaction potential at the site and a discussion of regional seismic hazards.

The work was accomplished in the following six tasks outlined in the SOW:

Task A – Project Management and Plan Development

Task B – Field Exploration, including drilling and sampling

Task C – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing, including index testing of soil samples

Task D – Geotechnical Data Reporting

Task E – Bench-Scale Testing (presented in a separate report)

Task F – Mix Design Reporting (presented in a separate report)

Borehole depths and locations were specified by the USACE in the SOW, as was the geotechnical laboratory testing.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2264 of 3674

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Subsurface Drilling, Sampling, and Headspace Screening

The drilling program took place from July 10, 2017 to July 28, 2017. The program consisted of drilling and sampling 19 geotechnical boreholes to depths between 51.5 feet and 76.5 feet at the locations shown in

Figures 2 through 8. Fieldwork was performed consistent with the procedures outlined in the geotechnical

Work Plan (Golder 2017b), as summarized below.

The borehole locations were selected by the USACE, and were pre-staked in the field. Upon completion of drilling, Rodney P. Kinney Associates Inc. (RPKA) performed an as-drilled survey of the borehole locations. As-drilled borehole locations are presented in Figure 2.

Borehole numbers shown in Figure 3 through 8 include an identification number assigned by Golder and a permanent identification number supplied by the USACE after completion of the field work. Golder coordinated locates with the USACE and Samson Electric, Inc., a private utility locator, prior to drilling to clear the borehole locations.

The drilling effort was performed by Discovery Drilling Inc. (Discovery) of Anchorage, Alaska. Discovery utilized their track-mounted CME850 and truck-mounted CME75 drills, both equipped with 3.25-inch inside diameter (I.D.) hollow-stem augers and 340-pound auto-hammers.

Samples were obtained using an unlined modified penetration test (MPT) sampler, which is indicated as a

‘Heavy Duty’ sampler (HD) in the borehole logs. The MPT sampler consisted of a three-inch outside diameter (O.D.) and 2.5-inch I.D. split-barrel tube. The samplers were typically advanced 18 to 24 inches into the soil ahead of the auger or to effective refusal as determined by our field geologist/engineer.

MPT samplers were driven into the soil using a 340-pound auto-hammer free-falling a vertical distance of

30 inches. The number of hammer blows or blow counts required to drive the sampler in three or four six-inch segments were recorded during sampling. On samples that were advanced 18 inches, the combined blow count for the final two six-inch segments is referred to as the uncorrected N-Value and is presented on the borehole logs as the “Uncorrected Blows.” The uncorrected blow count for samples that were advanced 24 inches is the combined blow counts for the middle two six-inch segments. Hammer efficiency was not measured as part of this study, but typical auto-hammers have efficiencies ranging between 80 to

95 percent.

Sampling procedures employed in the field were generally consistent with those described by ASTM D1586, “Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling”, with the exception of the use of an

MPT sampler in combination with heavier hammers. The MPT sampler was used to obtain sufficient sample material for testing. Energy conversions between MPT N-values and standard penetration test (SPT) N-

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2265 of 3674 values are not consistently defined. While there are several methodologies for this conversion, the USACE

Alaska District Engineers typically utilize the methods presented in Daniel, Howie, and Sy (2003), which is calculated to be 1.3 and was used in the liquefaction analysis.

Samples were collected at: the surface, 2.5 feet, 4.5 feet, 6.5 feet, 9.5 feet, and at five-foot intervals thereafter to the bottom of the borehole. Soil collected inside the split-barrel sampler was visually classified in the field and described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is summarized in Appendix A, Figure A-1. Each soil sample collected was double-sealed in polyethylene bags to preserve natural moisture content, and stored in five-gallon buckets for ease of handling and transportation. The borehole logs are presented in Appendix A. Boundaries between different soil types shown on the logs are approximate because actual transition between layers may be gradual or were estimated based on drilling action and observation of cuttings.

Field screening was performed on samples above the water table, and included inspecting the soil samples for evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e., sheen, odor, and staining) and testing for volatile organic vapors using a photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 10.6-electronvolt (eV) lamp. Using the PID, an initial reading was taken near the undisturbed soil sample immediately after the split spoon sampler was opened, which is referred to as the “cold” reading in the borehole logs in Appendix A. Additionally, a “warm”

PID reading was taken on samples that were sealed in plastic bags and allowed to equilibrate to a temperature above 40 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 15 minutes.

The measured PID readings ranged from 0 to 7.7 parts per million (ppm) and are presented in the borehole logs (Appendix A).

Groundwater levels were recorded at the time of drilling when observed. Upon completion of boreholes, the boreholes were backfilled with drill cuttings and bentonite chips were placed between depths of one foot above the observed groundwater table and one foot below ground surface (bgs). The top foot of each borehole was backfilled with drill cuttings and hand compacted. Excess cuttings not used as backfill were spread around ground surface near the borehole.

To gain access to some areas of the site, selective tree removal was performed by Discovery prior to drilling activities. Path selection and access was coordinated with the USACE prior to any tree removal activities occurring.

Table 2.1 presents a list of boreholes drilled for this project and includes location information, total depths, and depth to groundwater.

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2266 of 3674

Table 2.1: Borehole Summary

Golder No.

USACE

No.

Total Depth

(feet) Date

Completed Groundwater Depth1 (feet) Northing2 Easting2

G17-MC-52 AP-2994 76.0 7/14/2017 7.7 3931865.9 1449725.1

G17-MC-53 AP-2995 75.0 7/14/2017 10.1 3931937.7 1449646.3

G17-MC-54 AP-2996 76.5 7/23/2017 6.8 3938109.7 1452310.9

G17-MC-55 AP-2997 76.5 7/20/2017 8.4 3938180.1 1452073.5

G17-MC-56 AP-2998 76.0 7/15/2017 13.6 3938220.5 1451896.5

G17-MC-57 AP-2999 51.5 7/28/2017 7.8 3940581.6 1453769.8

G17-MC-58 AP-3000 51.5 7/28/2017 8.4 3940649.1 1453807.1

G17-MC-59 AP-3001 76.0 7/16/2017 11.3 3943706.6 1454078.7

G17-MC-60 AP-3002 76.5 7/21/2017 10.5 3943864 1454158.5

G17-MC-61 AP-3003 76.5 7/22/2017 6.3 3943948.9 1454204.5

G17-MC-62 AP-3004 76.5 7/24/2017 11.8 3944291.3 1454842.1

G17-MC-63 AP-3005 76.5 7/25/2017 8.5 3944503.9 1454984.3

G17-MC-64 AP-3006 76.0 7/12/2017 10.0 3945338.5 1455476.1

G17-MC-65 AP-3007 76.0 7/13/2017 10.0 3945621.5 1455590.1

G17-MC-66 AP-3008 76.5 7/26/2017 9.0 3947937 1456044.2

G17-MC-67 AP-3009 76.0 7/18/2017 10.3 3948008.4 1456117.4

G17-MC-68 AP-3010 76.5 7/27/2017 6.8 3948979.2 1457536.2

G17-MC-69 AP-3011 76.0 7/19/2017 9.2 3949116.6 1457282.8

G17-MC-70 AP-3012 76.0 7/17/2017 10.2 3949172.2 1457190.9

Notes: 1) Groundwater depths recorded as observation while drilling.

2) Surveyed as-drilled borehole locations conducted by RPKA. Horizontal Datum reported in Alaska State Plane Zone 3, NAD83 (1992), US Survey Feet.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

2.2.1 Soil Index Testing

Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples retrieved during field exploration in Golder’s

USACE-validated geotechnical laboratory in Anchorage. The testing discussed below was performed in order to:

Confirm visual field classifications

Estimate frost classification

Measure index properties, which provide a basis for estimating engineering parameters used in geotechnical analysis and design

Laboratory testing consisted of soils classification to USCS standards (ASTM D2487), grain size and hydrometer testing (ASTM D422), moisture content (ASTM D2216), and Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318).

Results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory testing results are also presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A. Frost design soil classification is part of the soil descriptions presented

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2267 of 3674 on the borehole logs, as defined in Appendix A, Figure A-2. Frost design soil classifications are only provided for soil units when there are hydrometer test results indicating the percent passing the 0.02 mm particle size, which for this project were determined using two-hour hydrometer tests.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2268 of 3674

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Regional Geology

The Moose Creek Dam project site is within the Tanana Basin (Ridgway et al., 2007), located southwest of the Yukon-Tanana uplands. Surface sediments within the project area are mapped as Quaternary flood-plain alluvium (Qa) and swamp deposits (Qs). A geologic map of the area is presented in Figure 9. The alluvium facies is described as containing well-stratified layers and lenses of unconsolidated soil that includes pebbles, cobbles, and boulders, ranging in size from ¼-inch to three feet in diameter, of resistant rocks from neighboring uplands. Swamp deposits consist of peat and silt layers more than five feet thick in areas of poor drainage and where ponded water is present year-round. Small swamps and areas of seasonal flooding can be expected in both of the mapped units (Péwé et al., 1966).

3.2 Regional Seismicity

The project site is located within the Fairbanks Seismic Zone (FSZ). The FSZ is part of a series of northeast-trending seismic zones located in interior Alaska that are situated south of the Tintina fault zone and north of the Denali fault system (Koehler et al., 2012). Deformation of the North American continental plate resulting from the collision of the Yakutat microplate along the southern Alaska coast is responsible for seismic activity in the seismic zones. As the Yakutat microplate converges with the North American continental plate, the collision drives deformation across Alaska, including right-lateral slip on the Denali fault, deformation of the Northern Foothills Fold and Thrust Belt, and seismicity and faulting in the interior

Alaska seismic zones.

The FSZ is a zone approximately 67 miles long in the northeast-southwest direction at its maximum extent

(Koehler et al., 2012). The FSZ represents a northeast-trending band of historic seismicity. On June 21, 1967, a series of three earthquakes occurred within the FSZ with epicenters located about 15 miles northwest of the project area (Ruppert et al. 2009; Stover and Coffman, 1993). These earthquakes ranged in magnitude from surface-wave magnitude (Ms) 5.5 to 5.9. The earthquakes resulted in building damage and ground cracks in roads in the Fairbanks area. These earthquakes were followed by a Richter magnitude (ML) 5.6 earthquake on June 23, 1967, with the epicenter located about eight miles west-northwest of the project area.

In 1937, the Ms 7.3 Salcha earthquake, the largest recorded earthquake in the interior Alaska seismic zones, occurred in the central portion of the Salcha Seismic Zone (SSZ) (Ruppert et al., 2008; Stover and Coffman, 1993). The SSZ is located to the southeast of the FSZ. Focal mechanism data for the 1937 earthquake suggests left-lateral motion of a steeply-dipping fault (Page et al., 1991). Based on the epicenter location provided by Ruppert et al. (2008) for the 1937 earthquake, the earthquake epicenter is located approximately 13 miles south-southeast of the project area, although the uncertainty in latitude and longitude coordinates for the epicenter may be as large as tens of miles. For interior Alaska and Fairbanks, RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2269 of 3674 the 1937 earthquake produced cracks and mudboils in roads, a landslide across the highway at Salcha

Bluff, and broken windows and loss of merchandise in Fairbanks (Stover and Coffman, 1993). No documented evidence of surface fault rupture was found for the 1937 earthquake (Ruppert et al., 2008).

3.3 Surface Conditions

The project site is located in an area that is mostly undeveloped and contains trees and other vegetation.

A distance of approximately 3.6 miles spans the furthest southern and northern boreholes, with boreholes generally spaced in groups of two to three boreholes along the project area. All but two of the boreholes, G17-MC-57 (AP-2999) and G17-MC-58 (AP-3000), are located at proposed weir locations along a stream channel west of the main road and toe of the dam. Two boreholes (G17-MC-57 (AP-2999) and G17-MC-

58 (AP-3000)) are located near the upstream toe of the dam at the Low Point Drain structure.

Representative site photographs of the project area are included in Appendix C.

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes generally consisted of silt, sandy silt or silty sand overlying alluvial sand and gravel deposits. Occasional cobbles were also inferred in the alluvial deposits based on the presence of cobbles in drill cuttings and drilling action.

In four of the boreholes, Boreholes G17-MC-52 (AP-2994), G17-MC-53 (AP-2995), G17-MC-56 (AP-2998) and G17-MC-65 (AP-3007), fill material was observed up to seven feet thick. These boreholes were advanced in or near disturbed areas such as a bike path, road and or graded drainage ditches.

The near surface, siltier material generally extended to depths between 1.5 and 26 feet bgs. Borehole G17-

MC-59 (AP-3001) had silt with variable amounts of sand from the surface to 26 feet bgs. A layer of elastic silt was observed in Borehole G17-MC-60 (AP-3002) from 9.5 to 15 feet bgs and from 2.5 to 4.5 feet bgs in Borehole G17-MC-66 (AP-3008). Peat was not observed in the geotechnical boreholes drilled by Golder.

The occurrence of both peat and silt layers thicker than five feet may exist within other areas of the project footprint, Figure 10 shows the borehole locations overlaying the geologic map.

The alluvial sand and gravel deposits were generally observed below the silty material and extended to the bottom of the boreholes. The alluvial deposits consisted of intermixed layers of sand with gravel and gravel with sand. Silt contents of the alluvial material were generally less than 12 percent. Occasionally, zones of sand with no gravel were observed. These zones ranged in thickness from approximately five to 15 feet.

Groundwater was observed in each of the boreholes advanced at the site. The depth to groundwater at time of drilling ranged from 6.3 to 13.6 feet bgs, these depths may not reflect actual static groundwater conditions, depths may vary and fluctuate seasonally. The depth to groundwater is summarized in Table

2.1. Detailed subsurface conditions are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2270 of 3674

Frozen soil was observed in Boreholes G17-MC-52 (AP-2994) and G17-MC-53 (AP-2995) at the time of drilling. In these boreholes, frozen soil was observed at depths of 75.5 and 69 feet bgs, respectively.

Frozen soil may exist elsewhere at the project site, and may exist in the boreholes below the depths explored during the geotechnical exploration.

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2271 of 3674

4.0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES AND GROUND IMPROVEMENT

When saturated soil deposits, particularly sandy sediments, are subjected to shaking during an earthquake, pore water pressures have potential to build up due to dilation/consolidation in the soil grain structure; and excess pore pressures can lead to loss of strength or liquefaction. The pore water pressure dissipates mainly toward the ground surface and is accompanied by some volume change of the soil deposits, which may manifest at the ground surface as settlement or lateral displacements.

A discussion of the liquefaction analysis methods and results are included in this section. Soil conditions and laboratory data from the boreholes advanced to depths of 50 feet and greater were used in the analyses. Based on an understanding of the subsurface soils, assumed average total unit weights of 125 pounds per cubic foot (lbs/ft3) for unsaturated soils and 130 lbs/ft3 below the ground water table were used in the analyses for all materials. Site groundwater levels were observed at depths of 6.3 to 13.6 feet bgs at the time of drilling.

Regional and local seismicity are key factors in liquefaction analyses. As discussed above, the project area is located in a region of high seismicity. Based on our understanding of the seismicity of the region, a moment Magnitude (Mw) 7.5 earthquake is estimated to be the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) with a 2,475-year return period (two percent in 50 years). The peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) used in the analysis is based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10). The site modified PGA is 0.44g based on mapped values in ASCE 7-10 and the Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Structural Engineering. UFC

3-301-01 (DOD 2016).

4.1 Simplified Liquefaction Method Using Blow Count Data

Several liquefaction screening procedures (Youd et al (2001), Idriss and Boulanger (2008), and Boulanger and Idriss (2014)) were used to assess the liquefaction potential of the site. Our analyses are based on the state-of-practice Simplified Method using corrected blow count data. The Simplified Method was originally developed by Seed and Idriss (1971), but has been subsequently updated and refined in the referenced screening procedures. In order to estimate liquefaction potential, the cyclic resistance ratio

(CRR) [the cyclic stress ratio required to induce liquefaction for cohesionless soil stratum at a given depth] is compared with the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at that depth from a specified design earthquake. Potential liquefaction is identified when the CSR is greater than the CRR. It is important to note that screening procedures based on Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and Boulanger and Idriss (2014) will yield very similar results in this study because the magnitude scaling factor (MSF) is equal to unity for an

Mw 7.5 earthquake. The MSF is the only significant modification between the two methods.

The uncorrected field blow counts (N values) were adjusted for various factors including: borehole diameter, rod length, sampler size, energy ratio, normalized for overburden pressure, and clean sand adjustment. In

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2272 of 3674 addition, a correction factor has been used to account for the larger sampler size and heavier drop weights used in this exploration, compared to standard SPT. These factors are provided in the calculation results presented in Appendix D. The product of these factors determines corrected SPT (N1)60CS values.

4.2 Seismically Induced Settlement Methods

One consequence of liquefaction susceptibility at a site is the potential for seismically induced settlement resulting from reconsolidation and volume change of a liquefied soil layer. Estimates of seismically induced settlements were performed using two methods: Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) with updates from

Yoshimine et al (2006); and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987).

4.3 Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading Method

Liquefaction can also cause lateral soil movement on gently sloping ground known as lateral spreading.

One of the methods to evaluate the lateral spreading displacement at a site is by estimating the shear strains during liquefaction. In the analysis for lateral spreading, the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) methodology was used to estimate the Lateral Displacement Index (LDI). The LDI represents the potential maximum displacement at a specific borehole, and is a summation of the shear strain and depth. The LDI is meant as an indicator of lateral spreading severity while actual lateral displacement is dependent on site or as constructed conditions including the ground slope or extent of the liquefiable layer. (Idriss and

Boulanger 2008)

4.4 Liquefaction Analysis and Seismically Induced Settlement Results The screening analyses described in Section 4.1 were performed for the boreholes advanced for this project. Only the unfrozen material was evaluated for liquefaction susceptibility when using the blow count data. Appendix D presents the results of the various analyses for each borehole.

The analyses show that the site is susceptible to liquefaction during the estimated MCE event described above, regardless of the screening method used. The primary depths of concern are where factors of safety against liquefaction are less than 1.0, which generally range between five and 50 feet bgs across the site.

Seismically induced ground displacements, such as settlement, should be anticipated at the site and ground mitigation measures should be considered. A summary of the seismically induced settlements within the existing thawed soils, per borehole, is provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 presents a summary of potential differential settlement based on the maximum and minimum liquefaction induced settlement at each proposed weir location using the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) analysis results.

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2273 of 3674

Table 4.1: Liquefaction Induced Settlement – Total Settlement

Golder No. USACE No.

Estimated Total Settlement (inches)1,2 Ishihara and Yoshimine

(1992) Tokimatsu and Seed (1987)

G17-MCD-52 AP-2994 6.3 - 6.9 4.3 - 4.6

G17-MCD-53 AP-2995 4.3 - 5.4 3.2 - 3.7

G17-MC-54 AP-2996 6.8 - 7 4.7 - 5.4

G17-MC-55 AP-2997 8.3 - 9.3 6 - 6.6

G17-MC-56 AP-2998 6.7 - 9.1 4.9 - 5.8

G17-MC-57 AP-2999 5.7 - 5.8 3.8 - 3.9

G17-MC-58 AP-3000 4.8 - 5.2 3.3 - 3.6

G17-MC-59 AP-3001 4.6 - 5.5 3.1 - 3.5

G17-MC-60 AP-3002 8.6 - 10.6 5.7 - 6.7

G17-MC-61 AP-3003 8.7 - 9.3 6.3 - 6.9

G17-MC-62 AP-3004 4.3 - 5.5 3.2 - 3.2

G17-MC-63 AP-3005 5.8 - 7.2 4.2 – 5

G17-MC-64 AP-3006 4 - 4.5 2.8 – 3

G17-MC-65 AP-3007 4.7 - 5.6 3.3 - 3.7

G17-MC-66 AP-3008 5.7 - 6.7 3.9 - 4.5

G17-MC-67 AP-3009 4 - 4.3 2.9 - 3.1

G17-MC-68 AP-3010 3.1 - 3.2 2.3 - 2.3

G17-MC-69 AP-3011 3.4 - 4.3 2.6 – 3

G17-MC-70 AP-3012 6.3 - 6.8 4.2 - 4.7

Notes: 1) Calculations are presented in Appendix D.

2) Ranges of estimates are based on multiple liquefaction analysis methods.

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2274 of 3674

Table 4.2: Liquefaction Induced Settlement – Idriss and Boulanger (2008) Differential Settlement

Location (Golder No.)

Location (USACE No.)

Estimated Differential Settlement (inches)1,2

Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992)

Tokimatsu and Seed (1987)

G17-MC-52 to

G17-MC-53

AP-2994 to AP-2995

2.0 1.2

G17-MC-54 to

G17-MC-56

AP-2996 to AP-2998

1.7 1.3

G17-MC-57 to

G17-MC-58

AP-2999 to AP-3000

0.9 0.2

G17-MC-59 to

G17-MC-61

AP-3001 to AP-3003

4.1 3.2

G17-MC-62 to

G17-MC-63

AP-3004 to AP-3005

1.5 1.1

G17-MC-64 to

G17-MC-65

AP-3006 to AP-3007

0.7 0.5

G17-MC-66 to

G17-MC-67

AP-3008 to AP-3009

1.7 1.0

G17-MC-68 to

G17-MC-70

AP-3010 to AP-3012

3.2 1.9

2) Ranges of estimates are based on the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) liquefaction analysis method.

The estimates provided in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 should be considered approximate. Where noted on the borehole logs, obstructions such as cobbles may have impacted some blow counts used in the liquefaction screening. The liquefaction analysis should be reviewed by the design engineer.

SPT can be coarse indicator of liquefaction potential and seismically induced settlement. For high importance structures, the liquefaction evaluation should be refined with additional screening and improved methods of evaluation, such as cone penetration testing (CPT). The use of CPT at the site may require special equipment not commonly available in Alaska.

4.5 Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading Results

Based on our liquefaction screening analysis, the site could potentially be susceptible to lateral spreading depending on the final site geometry. Table 4.3 presents a summary of the LDI from the Idriss and

Boulanger (2008) screening analysis.

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2275 of 3674

Table 4.3: Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading - Lateral Displacement Index

Golder No. USACE No.

Estimated LDI (feet)1,2 Idriss and Boulanger

(2008)

G17-MC-52 AP-2994 4.2

G17-MC-53 AP-2995 1.7

G17-MC-54 AP-2996 4.7

G17-MC-55 AP-2997 6.4

G17-MC-56 AP-2998 3.6

G17-MC-57 AP-2999 4.1

G17-MC-58 AP-3000 2.7

G17-MC-59 AP-3001 2.4

G17-MC-60 AP-3002 6.5

G17-MC-61 AP-3003 7.4

G17-MC-62 AP-3004 2.2

G17-MC-63 AP-3005 3.7

G17-MC-64 AP-3006 2.5

G17-MC-65 AP-3007 2.4

G17-MC-66 AP-3008 2.4

G17-MC-67 AP-3009 2.7

G17-MC-68 AP-3010 2.3

G17-MC-69 AP-3011 2.0

G17-MC-70 AP-3012 3.9

2) Ranges of estimates are based on the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) liquefaction analysis method.

The LDIs are presented as indicator of theoretical lateral spreading potential based on the soil resistance without reviewing the site grading or distance to any open faces. The site topography and final site grading should be reviewed to determine whether the sites are prone to lateral spreading.

4.6 Subsurface Soil Improvements

The need for ground improvement was evaluated using the Engineering Technical Letter (ETL 1110-1-185)

“Guidelines on Ground Improvement for Structures and Facilities” (USACE 1999). Mitigation techniques discussed are aimed at improving soil conditions, with the intent of reducing potential settlements by increasing relative density and adding shear strength. The site is considered susceptible to liquefaction as described in Section 4.4. Vertical movement greater than twice the allowable requires ground improvement according to in ETL-1110-1-185 Figure 5.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2276 of 3674

Ground improvement efforts may not be necessary for the weirs if the planned sheet piles are designed to include additional downdrag load induced by liquefaction induced settlement. Densification as part of typical ground improvement methods may impede the installation of the sheet piles and could potentially damage the sheet piles. By installing the sheet piles into a nonliquefiable layer and accounting for the downdrag loads, the foundation may meet the intent of the ETL.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2277 of 3674

5.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT

This report has been prepared exclusively for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, for the

Weir Geotechnical Investigation project at Moose Creek Dam in North Pole, Alaska. If there are significant changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities, we should be notified so that we may review the information within this report in light of the proposed changes and provide a written modification or verification of the changes.

Variations are likely in subsurface conditions between explorations and also with time. Therefore, inspection and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer should be included during construction to provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during the work. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule in the event corrective measures are necessary based on conditions revealed in the excavations.

This work program followed the standard of care expected of professionals undertaking similar work in

Alaska under similar conditions. No warranty expressed or implied is made.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2278 of 3674

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2279 of 3674

7.0 REFERENCES

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2013. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures. ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10.

Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M., 2014, CPT- and SPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA.

Daniel, C.R., Howie, J.A., Sy, A., 2003. A Method for Correlating Large Penetration Test (LPT) to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Counts, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40: 66-77.

Department of Defense (DOD). Unified Facilities Criteria. Structural Engineering. UFC 3-301-01. Change 3, 12 Sept. 2016.

Golder Associates Inc., 2017, Weir Geotechnical Investigation and Mix Design for the Moose Creek Dam Safety Modification Study, Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project, North Pole, Alaska, Work Plan, Contract W911-KB-17-D-0002, Task Order No. W911KB17F0034, Golder Project Number 1781138, July 7, 2017.

Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., 2008, Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO-12.

Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of settlement in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, 32(1), 173-188.

Koehler, R.D., Farrell, Rebecca-Ellen, Burns, P.A.C., and Combellick, R.A., 2012, Quaternary faults and folds in Alaska: A digital database, 31 p., 1 sheet, 1:3,700,000.

Page, R.A., Biswas, N.N., Lahr, J.C., and Pulpan, H., 1991, Seismicity of Continental Alaska, in Slemmons, D. B., Engdahl, E. R., Zoback, M. D., and Blackwell, D. D., eds., Neotectonics of North America:

Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Decade Map Volume 1.

Péwé, T.L., Wahrhaftig, C., and Weber, F.R., 1966, Geologic map of the Fairbanks Quadrangle, Alaska:

U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 455, 5 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000.

Ruppert, N.A., Ridgway, K.D., Freymueller, J.T., Cross, R.C., and Hansen, R.A., 2008, Active Tectonics of Interior Alaska: Seismicity, GPS Geodesy, and Local Geomorphology, in: Freymueller, J.T., Haeussler, P.J., Wesson, R.L., and Ekström, G., eds., Active Tectonics and Seismic Potential of Alaska: American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series 179, p. 109-134.

Ridgway, K.D., Thomas, E.E., Layer, P.W., Lesh, M.E., White, J.M., and Smith, S.V., 2007, Neogene Transpressional Foreland Basin Development on the North Side of the Central Alaska Range, Usibelli Group and Nenana Gravel, Tanana basin: Geological Society of America Special Papers 431, p. 507- 547, doi:10.1130/2007.2431(20).

Stover, C.W. and Coffman, J.L., 1993, Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised): U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, 418 p.

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., 1987, Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861-878.

Yoshimine, M., Nishizaki, H., Amano, K., and Hosono, Y., 2006, Flow deformation of liquefied sand under constant shear load and its application analysis of flow slide in infinite slope, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26, 253-264.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2280 of 3674

USACE, 1999. Guidelines on Ground Improvement for Structures and Facilities. ETL 1110-1-185.

Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Liam Finn, W.D., Harder Jr., L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.C., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe II, K.H., 2001, Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10), 817-833.

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2281 of 3674

FIGURES

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2282 of 3674

TANANA RIVER

RICHARDSON HIGHWAY

PROJECT

LOCATION

TO FAIRBANKS

NORTH POLE

in

1781138

CONTROL

FIGURE

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - ALASKA DISTRICT

VICINITY MAP

TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

2000 4000

1'' = 4000'

REFERENCE(S)

1:25,000 SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY

USGS. QUADRANGLES USED INCLUDE FAIRBANKS (D-1) SE, ALASKA

(1992), FAIRBANKS (D-1) SW, ALASKA (1992), FAIRBANKS (C-1) NW,

ALASKA (1992), AND FAIRBANKS (C-1) NE, ALASKA (1992).

CANADA

HAINES

JUNEAU

KETCHICAN

PACIFIC OCEAN

GULF OF

ALASKA

ANCHORAGE

ALASKA

FAIRBANKS

ARCTIC

OCEAN

NORTH

POLE

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2283 of 3674

FIGURE 3

EXTENT

FIGURE 4

EXTENT

FIGURE 5

EXTENT

FIGURE 6

EXTENT

FIGURE 7

EXTENT

FIGURE 8

EXTENT

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

SITE PLAN

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

1000 2000

1'' = 2000'

REFERENCE(S)

LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10, 2017.

1. DIGITAL ORTH-QUADRANGLE (DOQQ) ACQUIRED IN 2007 BY

NRCS/USDA AND WAS DISTRIBUTED BY USGS.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2284 of 3674

G17-MC-52

(AP-2994)

G17-MC-53

(AP-2995)

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

BOREHOLE LOCATION MAP

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

100 200

1'' = 200'

REFERENCE(S)LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

GOLDER BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

(AP-####)

G17-MC-##

USACE BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10,

2017.

1. ORTHOIMAGERY ACQUIRED IN 2012 AND 2013 WAS PROVIDED BY

FAIRBANKS NORTSTAR BOROUGH AND DISTRIBUTED VIA ARCGIS

ONLINE.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2285 of 3674

G17-MC-54

(AP-2996)

G17-MC-55

(AP-2997)

G17-MC-56

(AP-2998)

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

100 200

1'' = 200'

REFERENCE(S)LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

GOLDER BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

(AP-####)

G17-MC-##

USACE BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10,

2017.

1. ORTHOIMAGERY ACQUIRED IN 2012 AND 2013 WAS PROVIDED BY

FAIRBANKS NORTSTAR BOROUGH AND DISTRIBUTED VIA ARCGIS

ONLINE.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2286 of 3674

G17-MC-57

(AP-2999)

G17-MC-58

(AP-3000)

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

100 200

1'' = 200'

REFERENCE(S)LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

GOLDER BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

(AP-####)

G17-MC-##

USACE BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10,

2017.

1. ORTHOIMAGERY ACQUIRED IN 2012 AND 2013 WAS PROVIDED BY

FAIRBANKS NORTSTAR BOROUGH AND DISTRIBUTED VIA ARCGIS

ONLINE.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2287 of 3674

G17-MC-59

(AP-3001)

G17-MC-60

(AP-3002)

G17-MC-61

(AP-3003)

G17-MC-62

(AP-3004)

G17-MC-63

(AP-3005)

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

100 200

1'' = 200'

REFERENCE(S)LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

GOLDER BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

(AP-####)

G17-MC-##

USACE BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10,

2017.

1. ORTHOIMAGERY ACQUIRED IN 2012 AND 2013 WAS PROVIDED BY

FAIRBANKS NORTSTAR BOROUGH AND DISTRIBUTED VIA ARCGIS

ONLINE.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2288 of 3674

G17-MC-64

(AP-3006)

G17-MC-65

(AP-3007)

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

100 200

1'' = 200'

REFERENCE(S)LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

GOLDER BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

(AP-####)

G17-MC-##

USACE BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10,

2017.

1. ORTHOIMAGERY ACQUIRED IN 2012 AND 2013 WAS PROVIDED BY

FAIRBANKS NORTSTAR BOROUGH AND DISTRIBUTED VIA ARCGIS

ONLINE.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2289 of 3674

G17-MC-66

(AP-3008)

G17-MC-67

(AP-3009)

G17-MC-68

(AP-3010)

G17-MC-69

(AP-3011)

G17-MC-70

(AP-3012)

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

100 200

1'' = 200'

REFERENCE(S)LEGEND

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

GOLDER BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

(AP-####)

G17-MC-##

USACE BOREHOLE ID - 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10,

2017.

1. ORTHOIMAGERY ACQUIRED IN 2012 AND 2013 WAS PROVIDED BY

FAIRBANKS NORTSTAR BOROUGH AND DISTRIBUTED VIA ARCGIS

ONLINE.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2290 of 3674

TANANA RIVER

TO FAIRBANKS

NORTH POLE

Qs

Qa

Qsu

Qf

Qs

TANANA RIVER

RICHARDSON HIGHWAY

NORTH POLE

PROJECT

LOCATION

Qa

Qsu

Qs

Qf in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

GEOLOGIC MAP

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

2000 4000

1'' = 4000'

GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE FAIRBANKS QUADRANGLE, ALASKA, BY PEWE

T.L. ET AL., MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 1-455,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL

SURVEY, (1966). SCALE 1:250,000.

LEGEND

Qa - FLOOD PLAIN ALLUVIUM

Qsu - PERENNIALLY FROZEN SILT, UNDIFFERENTIATED

Qs - SWAMP DEPOSITS

Qf - FAIRBANKS LOESS

Qab - ABANDONED FLOOD PLAIN ALLUVIUM

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2291 of 3674

Qa

Qsu

Qs

Qs

Qa

Qsu

FIGURE 3

EXTENT

FIGURE 4

EXTENT

FIGURE 5

EXTENT

FIGURE 6

EXTENT

FIGURE 7

EXTENT

FIGURE 8

EXTENT

in

2017-09-29

APG

BBS

JDT

MOOSE CREEK DAM WEIR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AND MIX DESIGN

GEOLOGIC MAP WITH BOREHOLE LOCATIONS

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

IF

T

H

IS

M

EA

SU

R

EM

EN

T D

O

ES

N O

T M

AT

C

H W

H

AT

IS

S

H O

W N

, T H

E

SH

EE

T

SI

ZE

H

AS

B

EE

N M

O D

IF

IE

D F

R O

M : A

N

SI

B

Pa th

: D :\G eo m at ic s\ U

SA

C

E\ N or th

P ol e\

_P R

O

JE

C

TS

\1

M oo se C re ek

D am

W ei r G eo te ch ni ca l I nv es tig at io n an d M ix D es ig n\

\0

2_

PR

O D

U C

TI

O

N \D

W G

Fi le

N am e:

.0

.d w g

FEET

1000 2000

1'' = 2000'

REFERENCE(S)

GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE FAIRBANKS QUADRANGLE, ALASKA, BY PEWE T.L. ET

AL., MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 1-455, DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, (1966).

SCALE 1:250,000.

LEGEND

Qa - FLOOD PLAIN ALLUVIUM

Qsu - PERENNIALLY FROZEN SILT, UNDIFFERENTIATED

Qs - SWAMP DEPOSITS

Qab - ABANDONED FLOOD PLAIN ALLUVIUM

AS-BUILT 2017 GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOCATION

NOTE(S)

1. BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RPKA, INC. ON AUGUST 9-10, 2017.

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2292 of 3674

APPENDIX A

BOREHOLE LOGS

RFP MOOSE CREEK DAM SAFETY MODIFICATION

NORTH POLE, ALASKA

Section 35 73 20.00 29 Attachment (1) Page 2293 of 3674

SIZE RANGE

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE GRAVEL

FINE GRAVEL

SAND

COARSE SAND

MEDIUM SAND

FINE SAND

SILT & CLAY (FINES)

GREATER THAN 12 in.

12 in. to 3 in.

3 in. to #4 Sieve (4.76 mm) 3 in. to 3/4 in.

3/4 in. to #4 (4.76 mm) #4 (4.76 mm) to #200 (0.074 mm) #4 (4.76 mm) to #10 (2.0 mm) #10 (2.0 mm) to #40 (0.42 mm) #40 (0.42 mm) to #200 (0.074 mm) SMALLER THAN #200 (0.074 mm)

LABORATORY TEST AND NOTES ABBREVIATIONS / SYMBOLS

CONSISTENCYRELATIVE DENSITY

COHESIONLESS SOILS (a) COHESIVE SOILS(b)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (TSF)(d)

C

TW

TP

MS

MC

RC

AG

(N1)60 (blows/ft)(c)

Core (Diamond Bit) Thin Wall (Shelby Tube) Thin Wall Piston Sampler Modified Shelby Geoprobe Macro-Core Air Rotary Cuttings Auger Cuttings

0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 15 15 - 30

OVER 30

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0

OVER 4.0

(N1)60 (blows/ft)(c)

SAMPLER ABBREVIATIONS

DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY FOR

PERCENTAGES (ASTM D2488)

COMPONENT

D

D 30( )2

= x D

LI

BR

AR

Y-

AN

C

(3 -3

0-

).G

LB

AN

C _S

O

IL

_L

EG

EN

D

/3 1/

RANGE OF

PROPORTION

TXCD

TXCU

TXUU

WL

WP

TRACE

FEW

LITTLE

SOME

MOSTLY

0 - 5% 5 - 10% 10 - 25% 30 - 45% 50 - 100%

DESCRIPTIVE

TERMS

FI

N

E- G

R

AI

N

ED

S O

IL

S

>5 0%

P

AS

SE

S

N O

. 2

S

IE

VE

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MATERIAL

TYPES SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND

>50% OF COARSE

FRACTION RETAINED

ON NO 4. SIEVE

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

(P

I)

PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR

(PI > 7)

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

PT

GROUP

SYMBOL

If so il co nt ai ns s an d, a dd "w ith s an d"

If so il co nt ai ns c oa rs e-gr ai ne d so il fro m to

9%

, a dd

"w ith s an d" o r " w ith gr av el

" f or w hi ch ev er ty pe is p ro m in en t, or fo r

0% , a dd "s an dy

" o r " gr av el ly

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

C H

AR

T

< 0.75

CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES

AND GROUP SYMBOLS USING LABORATORY TESTS

(PI < 4)

LL (oven dried) LL (not dried)

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

(OH, OL) if:

COMPONENT DEFINITIONS BY GRADATION

60C C

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

COMPACT

(MEDIUM DENSE)

DENSE

VERY DENSE

VERY SOFT

SOFT

FIRM

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

CRITERIA FOR DESCRIBING MOISTURE CONDITION

(adapted from ASTM D2488)

D 60C =

CLEAN SANDS

<5% FINES

SANDS AND FINES

>12% FINES

SANDS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT <50

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT 50

50% OF COARSE

FRACTION PASSES

ON NO 4. SIEVE If so il co nt ai ns g ra ve l, ad d

"w ith g ra ve l"

CU 6 AND 1 CC 3

CU < 6 AND/OR [CC < 1 OR CC > 3]

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (adapted from ASTM D2487)

(4 PI 7)

PEAT

C O

AR

SE

-G R

AI

N

ED

S

O

IL

S >5

0% R

ET

AI

N

ED

O N

N O

. 2

S

IE

VE

GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS

<5% FINES

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

>12% FINES

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

CL

ML

OL

CH

MH

OH

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL

SILTY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED SAND

POORLY GRADED SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

LEAN CLAY

SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

FAT CLAY

ELASTIC SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

U 10

Con Dd

K

MA

NP

OLI

P200 pH

PI

D

Figure

A-1SOIL CLASSIFICATION / LEGEND

0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30

30 - 50

OVER 50

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY ESTIMATE

USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) VALUES

(adapted from Terzaghi and Peck 1967 and NAVFAC DM 7.1)

AW Auger Wash

SS

HD

-BL

R

CA

GS

AC

ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH

DAMP BUT NO VISIBLE WATER

VISIBLE FREE WATER, USUALLY SOIL IS BELOW

WATER TABLE

DRY

MOIST

WET

NOTES:

Gravels or sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols (GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, GP-GC, SW-SM, SW-SC, SP-SM, SP-SC) and add "with clay" or "with silt" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML for GM or SM, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. The coefficient of uniformity, C U , and coefficient of curvature, C C equations are given above where D (X%) is soil particle diameter where X% is % finer.