ML11157A042

Enclosure 2, Calculation RSOFLHROGCDX00033320090003, PMF Temporary Modification Analysis.

ML11157A042
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	11/02/2009
From:	Long J Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC ME3945 RSOFLHROGCDX00033320090003
Download: ML11157A042 (193)

Text

ENCLOSURE 2 CALCULATION RSOFLHROGCDX00033320090003 "PMF TEMPORARY MODIFICATION ANALYSIS"

TVA Calculation Package Page: 1 of 192 Title PMF Temporary Modification Analysis Location

Description:

Total Pages: (including (Optional) appendices &attachments) 192 Calculation ID (All parts required to form a unique ID):

Location/ Alphanumeric Part = Discipline Code (1) + Type Code (1) + "X" +

Org Code Plant Code Branch Code Unit Field (3) + Sys Code (3) + Year (4) + Sequence No. (4)

RSO FLH ROG CDX00033320090003 NOTE: When referencing the calculation ID, include all parts without spaces or dashes between them.

Unit(s), Spill gate(s), or Voltages (PSO): Key Nouns (For CTSICCRIS):

Unit 0 Stability Analysis, TemporaryModification, PMF Applicable Design Document(s): Rev RIMS/EDMS Accession Number (Optional)

None R0 R

UNID System(s): R 333 R R0 R R R DCN, PCN, NA FLH-09-56 Prepared:

Print Name J. Justin Long __

Checked: 00/7 Sign+ I _

Print Name Coleman E ,oskins These calculations contain unverified assumption(s) that must be verified later? LI Yes El No These calculations contain special requirements and/or limiting conditions? El Yes Dl No Approved: I Sign4 /A' Print Name / Kendal R. Lennon Approval Date J !1.* T These calculations contain a design output attachment? El Yes [ No Revision ED Entire calc El Entire calc El Entire calc El Entire calc Applicability I] Selected pgs LI Selected pgs LI Selected pgs Computer output Microfiche generated? [] Yes [ No Number:

Purpose of the Calculation: To evaluate the stability of Hesco Bastion Concertainers for use as a temporary flood wall to raise FLH to meet the revised PMF evaluation.

Abstract: Hesco Bastion Concertainers will be used to temporarily raise the elevation of the top of the dam while a permanent modification can be implemented. Several configurations of the Concertainers were evaluated including utilizing existing flood walls to support the temporary flood wall.This calculation also documents the applicability of the Concertainer flood wall system to CRH, TEH, and WBH.

E Electronically file and return calculation to Calculation Library.

LI Electronically file and return calculation Address:

TVA 20156 [8-2007]

TVA Calculation Coversheet CTS Input Form Page: 2 Of 192 Preparer Preparer Login ID Date J. Justin Long jilong 11/2/2009 Checker Checker Login ID Date Coleman E. Hoskins cehoskins 11/13/2009 Update Code: 0 Add [I Change El Delete E] Rename El Supersede E] Duplicate LI Verify The following section applies ifa calculation is being renamed, superseded, or has a duplicate.

Org Cur New Code Plant Branch Number Rev Rev Current Calc ID:

The following section applies to all calculations.

CaIc ID: RSO FLH ROG CDX00033320090003 0 Firm: (TVA or Contractor)

Cross-References Xref Org AIC/D Code Type Code Plant Branch Number Rev A P DW RSO FLH ROG 10W222-1 0 A P DW RSO FLH- ROG 10W222-2 0 A P DW RSO FLH ROG 10W222-3 0 A P DW RSO CRH ROG 10W222-1 0 A P DW RSO CRH ROG 10W222-2 0 A P DW RSO TEH ROG 10W222-1 0 A P DW RSO TEH ROG 10W222-2 0 A P DW RSO WBH ROG 10W222-1 0 A S CN RSO WBH ROG CDX00033320090006 0 4 F i + 4 i 4 4 F F + 4 4- +

4 F F + 4 4 +

4 F F + 4 4 +

TVA 20156 [8-20071

TVA Calculation Record of Revision Page: 3 Of 192 Calculation Identifier: RSOFLHROGCDX00033320090003 In Title PMF Temporary Modification Analysis Revision No. Description of Revision 0 Initial Issue i

TVA 20156 [8-2007]

TVA Computer File Storage Information Sheet Page: 4 Of 192 Calculation Identifier: RSOFLHROGCDX00033320090003 Rev. 0 Plant: FLH

Subject:

PMF Temporary Modification Analysis Software Name: NA Revision Level: NA Vendor Name: NA Address: NA Executable Files 0 No TVA developed executable files were used in this calculation.

Comments:

E] TVA developed executable files used in this calculation have been stored electronically and sufficient identifying information is provided below for each executable file. (Any retrievedfile requiresre-verification of its contents before use.)

Input Files 0 Electronic storage of the input files for this calculation is not required.

Comments:

[] Input files for this calculation have been stored electronically and sufficient identifying information is provided below for each input file. (Any retrievedfile requiresre-verification of its contents before use.)

TVA 20156 [8-2007]

TVA Calculation Table of Contents Page: 5 of 192 Calculation Identifier: RSOFLHROGCDX00033320090003 Revision: o Table of Contents Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 6 2.0 References 6 3.0 Assumptions 6 4.0 Literature Review 6 4.1 Wenck Associates Inc. 6 4.2 USACE Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) Study 7 4.3 Literature Review Conclusions 8 5.0 Concertalner Weight 8 6.0 Stability Analysis 9 6.1 Single 4-Foot Concertainer Flood Wall 10 6.2 Single 3-Foot Concertainer Flood Wall 12 6.3 Double Concertainer Flood Wall Along US 321 13 6.4 Double Concertainer Flood Wall Along City Park Drive 16 6.5 Double Concertainer Flood Under US 321 Bridge 19 6.6 L-Shaped Concertainer Configuration 23 7.0 Summary and Conclusions 24 AUt.I Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance in Fargo, ND 2009 (Reference 2.1) 25 AUt.2 Excerpts from USACE ERDC Report (Reference 2.2) 60 Att. 3 Amendment A: Re-Test of HESCO Bastion (Reference 2.3) 112 AUt.4 TVA Calculation "Modify Dams - Dam Safety" Fort Loudoun & Tellico (Reference 2.5) 115 AUt.5 Table 6.3 from Reference 2.7 173 AUt. 6 PMF Headwater and Tailwater Elevations 175 AUt.7 Moisture-Density Relationships for Sand Utilized in the Temporary Dams Modification Project 178 AUt.8 Applicability of Fort Loudoun Dam Calculation to Tellico, Cherokee, and Watts Bar Dams 191 4 4 4 +

TVA 20156 [8-2007]

CALCULATION SHEET Page:6 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 1.0 Introduction and Purpose The HESCO Bastion Concertainers, hereinafter referred to as Concentainers, will be used as a flood wall to temporarily raise the elevation of Fort Loudoun, Tellico, Cherokee, and Watts Bar Dams to meet the impoundment requirements during the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event.

Concertainers are a wire basket measuring 3-feet wide by 15-feet long by either 3 or 4-feet deep filled with sand or other fill material. Each 15-foot unit is divided into 5 equal compartments, each lined with a polypropylene nonwoven geotextile liner A review of product literature has been performed and shows that the Concertainers have been successfully deployed as flood walls at multiple locations in the United States. The body calculation will evaluate the sliding and overturning stability of the Concertainers under a hydrostatic loading for both typical Concertainer configurations and the atypical Concertainer configurations unique to Fort Loudoun Dam.

Attachment 8 addresses the applicability of this calculation to the other three projects.

2.0 References 2.1 "Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance in Fargo, ND 2009." Wenck Associates, Inc., May 2009 (Wenck File #2283-01).

2.2 "Flood-Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program: Laboratory and Field Testing in Vicksburg, Mississippi." US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering Research and Development Center, ERDC TR-07-3, July 2007.

2.3 Ward, Don. "Amendment A: Re-Test of HESCO Bastion." US Army Corps of Engineers:

Engineering Research and Development Center - Coastal & Hydraulics Laboratory, October 25, 2005.

2.4 "ACI 360.R-92: Design of Slabs on Grade." American Concrete Institute 2.5 TVA Calculation "Modify Dams - Dam Safety." Fort Loudoun & Tellico. RIMS Accession Number B66 88 0122 102.

2.6 "Engineering and Design: Stability Analysis of Concrete Structures." EM 1110-2-2100.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. December 1, 2005.

2.7 Terzaghi, Karl et. al.,"Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice," 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1996.

3.0 Assumptions There are no unverified assumptions.

4.0 Literature Review A review of product literature was performed to determine the applicability of the Concertainer system as a flood wall to raise the top elevation of the dams. The review included an engineering evaluation performed by Wenck Associates, Inc. at the request of Hesco Bastion and a USACE Engineering Research and Development Center study as directed by the US Congress in the 2004 Energy and Water Development Bill.

4.1 Wenck Associates, Inc.

As discussed in Ref. 2.1, the Concertainer system was deployed in Fargo, ND, as a flood wall along the Red River of the North. This engineerng evaluation was performed by Wenck Associates at the request Hesco Bastion in response to comments that surfaced following the flood fighting efforts regarding sliding/tipping stability and seepage rates. A copy of the Ref 2.1 is included in this

CALCULATION SHEET Page:7 Plant: FLH TITLE Cal #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 calculation as Attachment 1.

As part of the evaluation Wenck Associates performed field tests to evaluate the coefficient of friction between the fill material and various test surfaces. The coefficients of friction computed from the test data were higher than published values. This deviation from published values was attributed to the deformation of the bottom of the basket that was observed as the basket began to move.

The Wenck Associates evaluation also assessed the overturning stability of the Concertainers.

Based on their results the Concertainers have a factor-of-safety of 30 against overturning with up to 14-degrees of tilt. Therefore, the Wenck Associates evaluation concludes that overtuning is not a problem for the Concertainers unless there is an entire subgrade failure.

Finally, reported excessive seepage rates were also evaluated. Measurement of the seepage rates was not performed since the evaluation was not performed until after the conclusion of the flood fighting effort. Seepage was evaluated based on interviews with field personnel. The interview revealed varying reports of seepage rates where some thought it was excessive while others thought it was less than that of a traditional sandbag wall. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) evaluated the Hesco Concertainer system as part of their flood-fighting structure demonstration which included measurement of seepage rates.

4.2 USACE Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) Study Reference 2.2 (excerpts included in Attachment 2) is the ERDC Technical Release describing the Flood-Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program. This program included both laboratory and field testing of three rapidly deployable flood-fighting systems including the Hesco Concertainer system compared to a sandbag levee as a baseline. The program evaluated deployment requirements, the effects of hydrostatic loading with and without wave action on seepage rates and displacement, effects of debris impacts, repair rates, and reuseability. Both the laboratory and field test levees were constructed by Government personnel at the direction of a Hesco representative.

The laboratory testing of the Concertainers was performed in May 2004. The laboratory testing revealed that the Concertainer system had higher seepage rates than the other systems tested including the sandbag levee baseline. The majority of the seepage was noted to be occuring at the vertical joints between the units and at the corners of the layout. The concertainer system performed well in the debris impact, wave action, and overtopping test scenarios. However, scour of the fill material was noted when the units were overtopped either by wave action or pool elevation. It was noted that the scour did not have an apparent negative impact on the stability of the Concertainers. One of the repairs performed on the concertainer system was to cover the units with a tarp to protect the fill material.

The field testing of the Concertainer system was performed between May and July 2004 on Government property in Vicksburg Harbor. Half of each rapidly deployable flood fighting system was constructed on bare earth and the other half was constructed directly on grass and weeds.

As with the laboratory test, the field test revealed seepage rates much higher than those measured for the other rapidly deployable flood-fighting systems and the sandbag levee. Two repair attempts were made during the testing to reduce the seepage rate, both resulting in basically no reduction in the seepage rate. There was no discussion about any problems with piping under the Concertainers either on the bare soil or on the grass.

As discussed in Ref. 2.3, Hesco Bastion requested and funded a laboratory retest of the Concertainer system in 2005. The Concertainer system installation procedure was revised to include the installation of poly sheeting on the water side of the flood wall to reduce the seepage

CALCULATION SHEET Page:8 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date: 11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 rates. The retest report indicates that the revised installation procedure reduced the seepage rates to comparable levels as the other rapidly deployable flood fighting systems evaluated.

4.3 Literature Review Conclusions Based on the body of literature reviewed, the use of the Hesco Bastion Concertainer system to temporarily raise the dams is an appropriate application of this technology. However, following lessons from the testing should be considered when the developing the layouts and details for the installation.

1. Installation of the Concertainer system without the poly sheeting on the water side leads to seepage rates of up to 1.81 gpm/ft. If this seepage rate is not acceptable, the poly sheeting will need to be installed on the upstream face of the flood wall.

2. If the flood wall elevation is such that it might be overtopped by wave action, either a geotextile or poly sheeting should be placed over the top of the Concertainers to protect the fill material. This same protection may be applicable in areas where the Concertainers are placed immediately adjacent to traffic to prevent the air flow from passing vehicles from scouring the fill material.

3. As with any temporary flood-fighting structure, the Concertainer system will require inspection and repair during the flood event. Reserve materials should be kept available on site t:o perform repairs to the flood wall as necessary.

5.0 Concertainer Weight The Concertainer units bulge when they are filled and properly compacted. The deformed shape of the Concertainer unit allows the unit to hold more weight than in its square shape. Therefore, the additional weight per Concertainer is computed below based on a single 3-foot square unit. Since the Concertianers will be in a continuous line, only one or two sides of the unit will be able to bulge depending on the configuration. For the purposes of increasing the weight, the deformed shape is idealized as a circle with a circumference equivalent to the perimeter of the undeformed unit. The idealized shape will then be compared to the test data provide in Ref. 2.1.

Length of Unit Face, Lface 3ft Perimeter of Undeformed Unit, Pundeformed := 4. Lface Pundeformed = 12 ft Area of Undeformed Unit, Aundeformed := Lface2 Aundeformed = 9ft 2 Pundeformed Radius of Idealized Shape, ridealized : ridealized =1.91 ft 2.71 22 Area of idealized Shape, Aidealized := c. ridealized Aidealized = 11.459 ft2 Aidealized Volume Increase Factor, Fvolume -Andeformed Fvolume = 1.273 Aundeformed Therefore, the volume of the 3' x 3' x 4' unit tested in Ref. 2.1 would be 1.70 CY. Based on the data included in Table 4 of Ref. 2.1, the average volume of the unit was 1.78 CY. Therefore, the volume increase factor is slightly conservative for the purposes of this stability analysis. Since only one or two faces of the unit are able to deform in the flood wall, the volume increase will be evenly distributed to each face of the unit.

Fvolume - 1 .0 Volume Increase Factor per Face, fe := Fv:= fvolume = 0.068 4

CALCULATION SHEET Page:9 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date: 11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 6.0 Stability Analysis The maximum water depth that maintains the minimum factor-of-safety for sliding stability will be calculated for several Concertainer configurations in accordance with USACE EM 1110-2-2100 and EM 1110-2-2200. The location of the resultant force under the Concertainer will be calculated for the water depth corresponding to the sliding stability analysis. The analyses will be performed for a unit length of the flood wall and the Concertainers will be assumed to act as a rigid bodies.

The zero compression zone analysis included in USACE EM 1110-2-2200 will not be utilized in this calculation because, while the analysis in this calculation assumes rigid body behavior, the Concertainers will not uplift as rigid bodies but will deform under loading and not actually rotate about their downstream edge.

The fill material weight and friction coefficients used in the analyses are based on the data collected during Wenck Associates, Inc. field testing and published values.

Design Input Unit Weight of Water, yw := 62.4pcf Concertainer Width, W := 3ft Concertainer Height, H4 := 4ft or H3 := 3ft Unit Weight of Lightly Compacted Fill Material, Yfill_L 102pcf (Ref. 2.1, Table 4, Compacted Sand)

Unit Weight of Dry Dense Uniform Sand, YSanddry:= 109.43pcf (Ref. 2.7, Table 6.3)

Unit Weight of Saturated Dense Uniform Sand, YSandsat := 130.43pcf (Ref. 2.7, Table 6.3)

Unit Weight of Heavily Compacted Fill Material, 7fillH  :-Yanddry + YSand sat 2

Vfill H - 119.93 pcf (See Moisture-Density Relationships for Sand Utilized in the Temporary Dams Modification Project in Attachment 7)

Coefficients of Friction, Concertainer on Grass-Muddy/Saturated, Agrass := 0.65 (Ref. 2.1, Table 4)

Concertainer on PCC Street, PCC:= 0.57 (Ref. 2.1, Table 4)

Uniform Concrete Slab Thickness on Earth, pslab := 0.6 (Ref. 2.4, Section 8.8)

Minimum Sliding Factor of Safety, FSmin := 1.1 (Ref. 2.6, Table 3-2, Extreme Condition)

6.1 Single 4-Foot Concertainer Flood Wall 6.1.1 Sliding Stability Depth of Water, Dw:= 4ft Hydrostatic Resultant Force, FH :=

2Dw FH = 499.2plf Concertainer Weight, FC := W. H4.YfiII_L.(2-fvolume + 1 .0) FC = 1391.223plf Uplift Force, FU ywDw. W 2

Resisting Force on Grass, FRgrass ggrass.(Fc - FU) FRagrass 660.935plf Resisting Force on Pavement, FRPCC := IPCc.(Fc - Fu) FR_PCC = 579.589plf Factor of Safety on Grass, FSgrass R-grass IFSgrass = 1.324 FH Factor of Safety on Pavement, FSpcc FR-PC*C IFSpcc 1.161

CALCULATION SHEET Page:1 1 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 b.1 .e uverurming *maDilTy Compute the location of the resultant force under the Concertainer considering the Concertainer installed without any unit tilt loaded with the full hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

This analysis assumes that the unit acts as a rigid body.

Dw 2W Ibf.ft Overturning Moment About Point A, Mo := FH.- + Fu.- - Mo = 1414.4 -

3 3 ft lbf.ft Resisting Moment About Point A, MR  := Fc.-- MR = 20 86.834 2 ft MR- Mo Distance of Resultant from point A, x := Fc - FU x = 0.4661 ft Resultant within base

- Since the Concertainer units may become skewed during installation, deterimine the maximum unit tilt angle while maintaining the resultant force 3-in-6hes within the base. USACE guidance states that the resultant force must be sufficiently within the base to maintain bearing pressures within allowables. Due to the relatively light weight of the Concertainers as compared to the bearing pressures of the controlled fill they are placed on and that they will not act as rigid bodies as the analysis assumes, 3-inches within the base will maintain bearing pressures within allowables.

Ibf-ft

--

Minimum Resisting Moment, MR_min = 1668.606 ft MR min Minimum Moment Arm About Pont A, Darm = Darm = 1.199ft M

( - Darm]

Maximum Tilt Angle, tilt := tan 2" H4 0

tilt = 8.678 de!

2

CALCULATION SHEET Page:12 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 6.2 Single 3-Foot Concertainer Flood Wall 6.2.1 Sliding Stability Depth of Water, Dw := 3ft yv- D Hydrostatic Resultant Force, FH .- FH = 280.8plf 2

Concertainer Weight, Fc := W'H3'Yfiil_L'(2"fvolume + 1.0) FC = 1043.417plf yw* Dw- W Uplift Force, FU :=- FU = 280.8plf 2

Resisting Force on Grass, FR-grass := ttgrass.(Fc - FU) FRgrass = 495.701 plf

- Since the pavement is impervious, uplift pressure does not act on the Concertainer units on pavement.

Resisting Force on Pavement, FR_PCc := P.PCc.(Fc - Fu) FR_P0c = 434.692plf Factor of Safety on Grass, FSgrass := FRHgrass FSgrass 1.765 FR P00 Factor of Safety on Pavement, FSpcc FRFH Fp FSpc==158 1.548

CALCULATION SHEET Page:1'3 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 6.2.2 Overturning Stability Compute the location of the resultant force under the Concertainers considering the Concertainer installed without any unit tilt loaded with the full hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

This analysis assumes that the unit acts as a rigid body.

Dw 2W Ibf.ft

-

Overturning Moment About Point A, Mo := FH. - + FU.- Mo = 842.4 3 3 ft Resisting Moment About Point A, MR:= FC.--W Ibf.ft MR = 1565.125--

2 ft MR- Mo Distance of Resultant from point A, x .- Fc - FU x = 0.948ft Resultant within base 6.3 Double Concertainer Flood Wall Along US 321 A concrete flood wall was installed along the downstream side of US 321 in the 1990's to raise the elevation of Fort Loudoun Dam to El. 833.25. The temporary modification to Fort Loudoun Dam must raise the elevation above El. 835.00. Therefore, a 4-foot and 3-foot will be required to achieve this revised elevation. Hesco Bastion's recommended configuration for a double height flood wall utilizes two Concertainers at the base and one stacked on top. Due to limited space on

.the shoulder of the road it is desired to utilize the existing concrete flood wall to aid the stability of the double height Concertainer configuration as shown in the figure below and avoid using the second unit on the base level.

EL.

CALCULATION SHEET Page:1 4 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09

- Compute weight and center of gravity of existing flood wall.

Part Shape Factor Width Height Area Unit Weight Weight Moment Arm Moment (in) (in) (SF) (PCF) (lb/ft) Lin) (lb-in/ft) 1 1 8 19 1.06 145 153.06 7 1071.39 2 0.5 2 19 0.13 145 19.13 11.667 223.21 3 1 10 10 0.69 145 100.69 8 805.56 4 0.5 7 10 0.24 145 35.24 15.333 540.38 5 1 17 5.1875 0.61 145 88.80 11.5 1021.20 6 1 60 21 8.75 145 1268.75 30 38062.50 Totals 11.49 11665.671 41724.2 Weight of Existing Flood Wall, Fwall:= 1665.67-bf ft Ibf-in Moment of Wall Parts About Point A, Mwall := 41724.24 ft Mwaii Center of Gravity of Concrete Flood Wall from Point A, CGwall:= -- CGwall = 2.087ft Fwall 6.3.1 Sliding Stability Maximum Pool Elevation, ELmax:= 836.2ft Depth of Soil, Dsoil := 1.75ft Depth of Water, Dw := ELmax - 830.4ft + Dsoil .Dw= 7.55ft y2 yD2 D2 Hydrostatic Resultant Force, FH .- FH =1778.478plf 2

Concertainer Weight, Fc := W.(H 4 + H3)'yfill H-(2.fvolume + 1.0) FC = 2862.611 plf Footing Width, Wfooting := 5ft Uplift Force, Fu := y* Dw Wfooting Fu = 1177.8 plf

- 2 Resisting Force of Concrete on Earth, FR-slab :=Jslab*(Fwall + FC - FU)

FR_slab = 2010.289plf

CALCULATION SHEET Page:15 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09

- Compute active earth pressure on slab. Active pressure based on soil properties obtained from the original design calculation for the flood wall (Ref. 2.5).

Effective Weight of Soil, Ysoileff := 65pcf Internal Friction Angle, 0soil 26deg Ka :tan 45.deg- ýsoiI 2

Active Pressure Coefficient, Ka = 0.39 A2 Active Earth Pressure Resultant, FA := 0.5"Ysoil-eff'*Dsoil ."Ka FA = 38.863plf FR slab Factor of Safety, FH + FA IFSs = 1.106 1 6.3.2 Overturning Stability Compute the location of the resultant force under the Concertainer considering the Concertainer installed without any unit tilt loaded with the full hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

This analysis assumes that the unit acts as a rigid body.

Distance From Point A to Centerline of Concertainters, Dconc := 38in 2

Dw Wfooting Dsoil Overturning Moment About Point A, Mo := FH.-- + Fu. + FA' 3 33 lbf.ft Mo 8424.506-- ft Resisting Moment About Point A, MR := FC DConc + Fwall' CGwall Ibf.ft MR = 12541.955--

ft MR- Mo Distance of Resultant from point A, x := x = 1.229ft Resultant within base.

Fwall + FC - FU

CALCULATION SHEET Page:16 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 6.4 Double Concertainer Flood Wall Along City Park Drive A concrete flood wall was installed along the along the edge of City Park Drive which runs along the top of the saddle dam in the 1990's to raise the elevation of Fort Loudoun Dam to El. 833.25.

As with the flood wall located on the downstream side of US 321, it is desired to utilize the existing concrete flood wall to aid the stability of the double height Concertainer configuration as shown in the figure below and avoid using the second unit on the base level to maintain two lanes of traffic along City Park Drive.

EL 837.94-\

HEAVILY COVPACTED

--- FILL WEICHT

7",< b7" HEAVILY COMPACTED EL 832.61 FILL WEI-HT

/.4 m L.I,-'

_1rN.*= :LF.__

- ,

• .! ,!~~~V I .-- , L ,., .

o" i:i _*_ - -J '*:0 ::%.

A / I:-- . .. .* 0

. ..... T - &- o --- -

CALCULATION SHEET Page:17 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09

- Compute weight and center of gravity of parts 1 through 10 and 12.

Part Shape Factor Width Height Area Unit Weight Weight Moment Arm Moment (in) (in) (SF) (PCF) (Iblft) (in) (Ib-inlft) 1 1 8 19 1.06 145 153.06 23 3520.28 2 0.5 2 19 0.13 145 19.13 27.667 529.32

'3 1 10 10 0.69 145 100.69 24 2416.67 4 0.5 7 10 0.24 145 35.24 31.333 1104.27 5 0.5 19 11.32 0.75 145 108.29 12.667 1371.67 6 1 17 14.32 1.69 145 245.13 27.5 6741.09 7 0.5 24 11.32 0.94 145 136.78 44 6018.47 8 1 60 12 5.00 145 725.00 30 21750.00 9 0.5 24 11.32 0.94 127.4 120.18 52 6249.39 10 1.068 24 48 8.54 117.625 1004.99 48 48239.42 12 1.068 24 36 6.41 117.625 753.74 48 36179.57 Totals I I 26.40 1 13402.241 134120.15 Table Notes: 1. Unit weight for part 9 accounts for effective weight of soil and water weight.

2. Shape factors for parts 10 and 12 accounts for deformation of one side of the Concertainers Weight of Existing Flood Wall, Fwall =3402.24- lbf ft Ibf. in Moment of Wall Parts About Point A, Mwall := 134120.15--

ft Mwall Center of Gravity of Concrete Flood Wall from Point A, CGwall :=- l CGwall = 3.285 ft Fwall 6.4.1 Sliding Stability Maximum Pool Elevation, ELmax:= 836.47ft Depth of Water, Dw := ELmax - 829.0ft Dw = 7.47 ft YwwD2 Hydrostatic Resultant Force, FH 2 FH = 1740.988plf Total Width, WtotaI := 6ft Width of Footing, Wfooting = 5ft Concertainer Weight, Fc := (Wtotal- Wfooting)'(H4 + H3).yfillH'(fvolume + 1.0)

FC = 896.857plf Wfooting Yw Dw" Wtotal Wfooting Uplift Force Under Flood Wall, FU1 :=2 FUl = 971.1 plf

CALCULATION SHEET Page:18 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date: 11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09

• Yw"Dw"Wtotal-Fu Uplift Force Under Concertainers, FU2 .- FUl FU2 = 427.284plf 2

Resisting Force of Concrete on Earth, FR1 Pslab'(Fwall - FU1) FRI = 1458.684plf Resisting Force of Concertainer on Pavement, FR2 := tPCC" FC FR2 = 511.208 plf

- Compute active earth pressure on slab. Active pressure based on soil properties obtained from the original design calculation for the flood wall (Ref. 2.5).

Effective Weight of Soil, Ysoileff := 65pcf Internal Friction Angle, 40soil := 26deg Ka := tan(45.deg- +/-soil2 Active Pressure Coefficient, Ka = 0.39 Depth of Soil, Dsoil := 22in Active Earth Pressure Resultant, FA := 0.5""fsoil eff' Dsoil2 "Ka FA = 42.653 plf FR1 + FR2 Factor of Safety, I FS.=.1074]

FH + FA 6.4.2 Overturning Stability Compute the location of the resultant force under the Concertainer considering the Concertainer installed without any unit tilt loaded with the full hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

This analysis assumes that the unit acts as a rigid body.

Distance From Point A to Centerline of Parts 11 & 13, D~onc := 66in "f'yDwWtotal Total Uplift Pressure, FUtotal := 2 FUtotal = 1398.384plf 2

2 Dw Wtotal Dsoil Overturning Moment About Point A, Mo := FH.'- + FU. * + FA.-

3 3 3 lbf.ft Mo= 9072.326f--

Resisting Moment About Point A, MR:= Fc. Dconc + Fwall'CGwall + FR2 11.943ft MR = 17102.67 lbf-ft ft MR-Mo Distance of Resultant from point A, x := x = 2.768ft Resultant within Fwall + FC - FUl - FU2 base

CALCULATION SHEET Page:19 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date: 11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 6.5 Double Concertainer Flood Wall Under US 321 Bridge A concrete flood wall was installed along the under the US 321 bridge over the dam in the 1990's to raise the elevation of Fort Loudoun Dam to El. 833.25. As with the flood wall located on the downstream side of US 321 and along City Park Drive, it is desired to utilize the existing concrete flood wall to aid the stability of the double height Concertainer configuration as shown in the figure below and avoid using the second unit on the base level to maintain two lanes of traffic along City Park Drive. The wall configuration is shown in Section A4-A4 on TVA Drawing 23W230-4.

- Compute weight and center of gravity of parts 1 through 6.

Part Shape Factor Width Height Area Unit Weight weight Moment Arm Mloment (in) (in) (SF) (PCF) (Ib/ft) (in) (lb-in/ft) 1 1 12 51 4.25 145 616.25 15 9243.75 2 1 12 15 1.25 145 181.25 21 3806.25 3 1 48 12 4.00 145 580.00 24 13920.00 4 1 27 12 2.25 127.4 286.65 34.5 9889.43 5 1.068 27 48 9.61 117.625 1130.61 34.5 39006.10 6 1.068 27 36 7.21 117.625 847.96 34.5 29254.57 Totals I - 1 28.57 1 13642.721 1105120.09 Table Notes: 1. Unit weight for part 4 accounts for effective weight of soil and water weight.

2. Shape factors for parts 5 and 6 accounts for deformation of one side of the Concertainers Ibf Weight of Existing Flood Wall, Fwail := 3642.72-ft lbf-in Moment of Wall Parts About Point A, Mwall :=105120.09 ft ft Mwall Center of Gravity of Concrete Flood Wall from Point A, CGwaii=- CGwali = 2.405 ft Fwall 6.5.1 Sliding Stability Maximum Pool Elevation, ELmax := 835.8ft Depth of Water, Dw := ELmax - 826.75ft Dw = 9.05ft FH .- 7wD2 Hydrostatic Resultant Force, 2 FH = 2555.358plf Total Width, Wtotai := 4.75ft Width of Footing, Wfooting:= 4ft Concertainer Weight, Fc := (Wtotal- Wfooting).(H4 + H3).yfill H.(fvolume + 1.0)

FC = 672.643plf Wfooting Yw" Dw" Wfooti Wfooting Uplift Force Under Flood Wall, FU1 Wtota= FUl =951.107plf 2

Uplift Force Under Concertainers, FU2 -Ful FU2 = 390.103plf 2

Resisting Force of Concrete on Earth, FR1 := Jslab'(Fwall - FU1) FR1 = 1614.968plf

CALCULATION SHEET Page:21 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 Resisting Force of Concertainer on Pavement, FR2:= pcc" Fc FR2 = 383.406plf

- Compute active earth pressure on slab. Active pressure based on soil properties obtained from the original design calculation for the flood wall (Ref. 2.5).

Effective Weight of Soil, 7'soileff := 65pcf Internal Friction Angle, 0soil := 26deg Active Pressure Coefficient, Ka :=tan 45.deg- +/-sil 2 Ka = 0.39 Depth of Soil, Dsoil := 3.25ft Active Earth Pressure Resultant, 2 FA 0. 5 -'(soil-eff *Ds 5011 Ka FA = 134.038plf

- Compute passive earth pressure on slab. Passive pressure based on soil properties obtained from the original design calculation for the flood wall (Ref. 2.5).

Effective Weight of Soil, Y'soileff := 65pcf Internal Friction Angle, (1soil := 26deg Active Pressure Coefficient, K :=tan 45.deg+

KI = 2.561 Depth of Soil, Dsoil := 3.25ft Active Earth Pressure Resultant, 2 879.168plf Fp := 0 5 '(soil eff, Dsoil .KID Fp =

FR1 + FR2 + Fp Factor of Safety, FH + FA F5= 1.07 6.5.2 Overturning Stability Compute the location of the resultant force under the Concertainer considering the Concertainer installed without any unit tilt loaded with the full hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

This analysis assumes that the unit acts as a rigid body.

Distance From Point A to Centerline of Parts 7 & 8, DConc := 52.5in Wtotal Total Uplift Pressure, FuItotal :='w"Dw.2 FUtotal = 1341.21 plf IDw 2 Wtotal Dsoil Overturning Moment About Point A, Mo := FH'- + Fu.-- + Fp.

13 33

CALCULATION SHEET Page:22 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:1 1/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 Ibf~ft

-

Mo = 12390.795 ft D so il +

R 2f Resisting Moment About Point A, MR:= FC' Dconc + Fwall' CGwall + FA"- + FR2"2f 3

MR = 12614.84fft ft x := MR- Mo Distance of Resultantfrom point A, x = 0.075ft Resultant within Fwall + FC - Futotal base Fhis overturning analysis neglects the passive pressure that would be developed behind the hear key as the wall rotated which has the effect of shifting the resultant location closer to oint A. Therefore, the configuration has adequate overturning stability.

CALCULATION SHEET Page:23 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 6.6 L-Shaped Concertainer Configuration Ifthe pool elevation for Fort LoudoL Inexceeds the values calculated above for the concrete flood wall configurations, the L-shaped d ouble stacked Concertainer configuration shown below will need to be utilized.

vaflhI}1 HEAVILY COMPACTED FILL WEIGHT 6.6.1 Sliding Stability Depth of Water, Dw:= 7ft 2

Hydrostatic Resultant Force, FH := FH = 1528.8 plf 2

Concertainer Weight, Fc := W. H3.Yfill_H(2fvolume + 1.0) + 2W. H4'Yfill_H'(fvolume + 1 .0)

FC = 4301.771 plf

CALCULATION SHEET Page:24 Plant: FLH TITLE Calc #: ROGGCDX00033320090003 PMF Temporary Modification Stability Prep: JJL Date:11/02/09 Rev: 0 Analysis Check: CEH Date:11/13/09 Width of Base, Wbase:= 2W Wbase = 6 ft

'Yw" DwWbase 2

Uplift Force, Fu := Fu = 1310.4plf 2

Resisting Force on Grass, FR_grass := g.grass"(Fc - FU) FR-grass = 1944.391 plf Resisting Force on Pavement, FR_PCC := .PCc'(Fc - FU) FR_PCc = 1705.081 plf Factor of Safety on Grass, FSgrass : FRgrass F 'grass = 1 .272]

FH FR PCC Factor of Safety on Pavement, FSpcc:. FH PF0 Pcc 1.115 6.6.2 Overturning Stability Compute the location of the resultant force under the Concertainer considering the Concertainer installed without any unit tilt loaded with the full hydrostatic and uplift pressures.

This analysis assumes that the unit acts as a rigid body.

(2' 2 Wbase -

Ibf.ft Overturning Moment About Point A, Mo := FH.- + FU- 3 3 Mo = 7061.6 ft Ibf.ft-Resisting Moment About Point A, MR:= F. Wbase MR = 12905.313 2 ft MR- MO Distance of Resultant from point A, x -x = 1.954ft Resultant within base.

Fc - FU 7.0 Summary and Conclusions As stated in Attachment 6 the pool elevation associated with the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is 835.65 feet. At Fort Loudoun Dam, there are no locations that required the single 4-foot or single 3-foot Concertainer configurations and one location at the Lock Operations Building that-requires the L-shaped Concertainer configuration as shown on drawings 1 0W222-1 through 10W222-3. The maximum computed pool elevations for the flood wall configurations above were all above the PMF elevation of 835.65-feet. The maximum pool elevation for the L-shaped Concertainer configuration adacent to the Lock Operations Building is also above the PMF elevation because the L-shaped configuration has a maximum allowable water depth of 7-feet and the ground elevation is 829.92-feet (23W230-4).

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 25 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 1 Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance in Fargo, ND 2009 (Reference 2.1)

CALCULATIC)N SHEET Page: 26 Plant: FLH TITLLE Attachment 1 Cac #: PMF Temporary¥ Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance at Fargo,ND 2009 Wenck File #2283-01 Prepared for:

Hesco Bastion, LLC 47152 Conrad E. Anderson Drive Hammond, LA 70401 Prepared by:

WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.

33 10 Fiechtner Drive; Suite 110 May 2009 Fargo, North Dakota (701) 297-9600 iLWenck

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 27 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................ I-I 1.1 Purpose of Evaluation .......................................................................................... -3 1.2 Background Information ..................................................................................... 1-3 2.0 CITY OF FARGO USES OF HESCO BARRIERS ................................................. 2-1 2.1 Num ber of M iles Used Versus Total .............................................................. 2-1 2.2 S ize s ...................................................................................................................... 2 -I 2.3 Installation Rates ............................................................................................. 2-I 2.4 Complicating Factors ..................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 INTERVIEWS WITH CITY AND CITY REPRESENTATIVES ............. 3-1 3.1 Issues Raised and Areas of Concern .............................. 3-1 3.2 Com m ents from Interview s ............................................................................. 3-1 4.0 ON SITE EVALUATIONS BY WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC .............................. 4-1 4.1 V isual Inspection ............................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

S ..................................................................................... 5-1 5 .1 S lid in g .................................................................................................................. 5- 1 5.1.1 Review of Available Information ..................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Independent Review ................................... 5-3 5.1.3 Field Testing ........................................ 5-4 5.2 O verturning/T ipping ............................................................................................ 5-8 5.3 Seepage .................................................. 5-9 5.3.1 Review of A vailable Inform ation ............................................................... 5-9 6.0

SUMMARY

AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 6-1 i

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 28 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PM F Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis ATTACHMENTS A - Red River Flood Protection Plan - 3/26/2009 (Map of Levee System)

B - "Engineering Analysis" from Report to:

United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, June 29-30, 2004.

ii

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 29 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 1.0 Introduction The Fargo, North Dakota area, along with its sister city across the river, Moorhead, Minnesota was recently faced with massive flooding from the Red River of the North. Due to an unusually wet fall, followed by a cold, snowy winter, the normally placid Red River was forecasted by the National Weather Service (NWS) to reach a flood crest elevation of 37 to 39 feet in Fargo by late March.fl) Unfortunately, unusual conditions continued to dominate, forcing the NWS to revise their forecast up to 41 feet, higher than any flood level on record, and predicted for only 7 to 10 days from then, instead of the originally estimated three weeks. As the river rapidly rose to nearly 39 feet, new forecasts predicted the river might even go as high as 42 or even 43 feet.

This situation, of course., generated intense concerns, and forced.the rapid evaluation and subsequentuse of several different methods of flood protection. To protect the City of Fargo, temporary clay dikes, which are the most common form of flood protection in the area, were used to the greatest extent possible to raise existing flood protection to at first 42 feet, but later raised to 44 feet in response to the revised forecasts. Traditional sandbag dikes were also widely used, but due to tirne constraints, reliability, height limitations, and availability of volunteers, the length of dikes that could be deployed could not meet all the area needs. Therefore, the US Army Corps of Engineers, who were assisting the City of Fargo, turned to Hesco Bastion, LLC for help, and to provide the, remaining flood barriers. Hesco barriers have been well-tested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for use as temporary flood protection, and widely used in many flood situations around the country, including New Orleans for temporary hurricane protection.

Footnote: (I) For reference. "normal" flood stage here is considered to be anything over 18 tect. The 1997 flood, called the "Flood of the Century" and which inundated Grand Forks that year, reached a stage height in Fargo of 39.6 feet. The highest level on record was 40.1 feet. reached back in 1897.

I-I tj:\2283\01\Nttsco tinasilon Relport.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 30 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Hesco barriers are able to be installed relatively quickly, and due to this speed of deployment.,

approximately 10 miles of barriers were installed over a 4 to 5 day period. Fortunately, the combination of clay dikes, sandbag dikes, and Hesco barriers, together with the tremendous efforts by City of Fargo staff, National Guard, and volunteers, worked, and the City of Fargo largely escaped serious flooding.

In the aftermath of these efforts, various comments surfaced regarding the performance of the Hesco Barriers. In particular, concerns were raised about the possibility of the Hesco's sliding laterally over the ground surface due to water pressure, and the increased rate of seepage through the barriers over expected rates. Also, concerns were raised about two specific locations where Hesco's had been deployed, and significant leakage had occurred requiring emergency actions to prevent possible breaching.

[lesco Bastion, concerned about these comments, approached Wenck Associates, Inc. (Wenck) to provide an independent engineering evaluation of the performance of the Hesco barriers during the Fargo floodfighting efforts. The scope of this engineering evaluation was agreed to be as follows:

" Meet with Mr. Dennis Barkemeyer of Hesco Bastion to discuss installation procedures that were used at the various sites in Fargo.

• Evaluate photographs taken during installation of the barriers.

" Visit selected Hlesco sites around Fargo to evaluate post-flood barriers.

" Interview City of" Fargo/COE staff to discuss product use, problems they encountered or noted, comparison to other dikes (sand bag and clay), and comments on the products.

• Revisit dike locations where the City/COE indicated they had problems or issues.

• Evaluate product and its uses in Fargo for floodfighting in light of the frozen ground oftentimes encountered, and the soft clay soils.

• Prepare a letter report or technical memorandum that outlines the findings of the above work, and provides recommendations for future use in this environment.

I-2 U:\2283\01 \Hesco Bastion Repoo.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 31 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 1.1 PURPOSE OF EVALUATION This independent engineering evaluation was requested by Hlesco Bastion, LLC to address comments raised after Hesco units were installed in Fargo, North Dakota for combating flooding by the Red River of the North in March, 2009.

1.2 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION Hesco Bastion Concertainers (hereinafter referred to as "'Hesco"). are a structural system of linked baskets containing fill material. They provide a way of positioning and containing large volumes of earth. sand, gravel, or rock to form either temporary or long term structures. They may then be used for a variety of projects, including emergency flood protection (as at Fargo, North Dakota in 2009). The units are manufactured in various sizes and are made of welded galvanized steel mesh that are assembled with coiled joints. A polypropylene. nonwoven geotextile liner retains the fill material that is placed into the open top basket. The baskets are initially flat-packed on pallets, then extended and joined with joining pins, filled with fill material, and placed in various configurations depending on the end use. The units are lightweight, portable, and are easily deployed.

1-3 U:\2283\O \flesco Basion Rel*rldoc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 32 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 2.0 City of Fargo Uses of Hesco Barriers 2.1 NUMBER OF MILES USED VERSUS TOTAL The City of Fargo constructed a total of approximately 80 miles of dikes using a combination of clay, sandbags. and Hesco barriers. There were approximately 10 miles of Hesco barriers deployed within the City of Fargo. The barriers were used for both primary and contingency dikes, and were placed on paved and non-paved surfaces, as well as on top of existing levees. The location and types of dikes are shown in Attachment A.

2.2 SIZES The City of Fargo deployed two types of Hesco units, thestandard and flood barriers in the 3' deep by 3' high by 15' long, and 3' deep by 4' high by 15' long sizes. The standard barriers have separation fabric dividing each barrier into five equal compartments. 3' long each. The flood barriers do not utilize the separation fabric between compartments, so each unit is able to have continuous fill material.

2.3 INSTALLATION RATES Installation rates varied greatly due to the availability of fill material, and the access to the area in terms of both men, equipment, and physical access. Field personnel that were interviewed stated they typically could deploy and fill 400 to 600 feet of Hlesco's per hour.

2.4 COMPLICATING FACTORS The City of Fargo is located in the Red River Valley, formed at the bottomof former glacial Lake Agassiz. This lake deposited thick sequences of lacustrine clays and silts, which form the soils here. These soils are very fertile, but have poor engineering properties, and are prone to slippage and soil failures. Weather conditions prior to the 2-1 U:\2283\01\1Icsco Bastion Reporidoc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 33 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis rising of the Red River had completely saturated these soils, making conditions very muddy. Dikes then had to built on top of, and using, these saturated clay soils, often while rains continued. Subgrade conditions were thus far from ideal.

Later in the week prior to the predicted flood crest for the Red River, the weather changed again to very cold, and the area received nearly one- foot of snow. These cold conditions persisted for awhile, and caused many of the soils to freeze at the surface, further complicating subgrade conditions on which the Hesco barriers (and all temporary dikes) were built.

2-2 UJ:\2283\( IPi.esco Bastion Report doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 34 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 3.0 Interviews with City and City Representatives 3.1 ISSUES RAISED AND AREAS OF CONCERN During interviews with personnel involved with the Hesco barriers, concerns were brought up about the stability of the barriers. Some had thought that the barriers were kicking out at the bottom, leaning and possibly sliding over the soil surface. Comments were made about lines of Hesco barriers installed "straight", but then becoming ragged looking over subsequent days as though some were sliding and/or leaning, even though no floodwater had reached them as yet. Concerns were also raised about possible sliding and/or overturning of the Hesco barriers if floodwaters came up over their half-way level (approximately 2 feet vs. the 4-foot height of the barriers), especially since many were already leaning toward the water (although not installed with a noticeable "lean").

Additionally, seepage through some of the barriers had caused some concern.

Two specific locations of concern were also brought up by the City of Fargo. The first was on 5"' Street South (just south of 1-94), and the second was along the south side of Drain 27 (just east of 1-29). It was stated that the 5t" Street area had to be buttressed with material on the back side of the Hesco barriers and a section of sandbag dike, after a significant leak was found in the transition area from Hesco barrier to sandbag dike. The second was the Drain 27 area, which had shown settlement in one area where the Hesco barriers were placed on top of an existing earthen levee.

3.2 COMMENTS FROM INTERVIEWS After hearing the above issues, Wenck interviewed several engineers that were directly involved in erecting Hlesco barriers during the flood fight, as well as clay or sandbag dikes. These engineers included representatives from the City Engineering Department, and local firms, Ulteig Engineers, and SRF Engineers. Questions were asked directly 3-1 (J:\?223\0 l\Ilesco Bastion Repoil.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 35 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis about the issues raised above, and what the engineers observed, as well as about the two locations of concerns.

The first location of concern, 5t" Street South, was thought to be a problem due to a sandbag dike being butted up directly to a Hesco barrier, with little or no overlap. This transition area had started to leak, so emergency crews buttressed the back side with clay to stop the excessive leakage. Field personnel thought the problem was due to the poor transition, not the Hesco units.

The second location of concern, along the south side of Drain 27, was due to water pushing through a stormwater structure and discharging rapidly out the top of a manhole.

This water saturated the dike around the structure and caused a section -ofthe dike to slump (sag), including the Hesco units on top of the dike. Field personnel packed clay over the top of the manhole, and built a small cofferdam around it to stop the leakage.

Field personnel thought this issue had nothing to do with the Hlesco units, only the stormwater structure.

Field personnel indicated that the amount of dikes constructed with the Hesco barriers in a short time was instrumental in protecting the city. Building the 10 miles with sandbag dikes would have been very difficult with the time and volunteers available, plus the miles already built with sandbags. Additionally, the uniformity of the dikes erected with Hesco units was thought to be very important, especially relative to sandbag dikes raised on an emergency basis by volunteers. They also noted that the units adapted to terrain changes very well. Most thought that seepage uinder the units was less than what a sandbag dike would be, even without the poly-sheeting used in most locations. Field personnel believed that any leaning or apparent sliding of the units was most likely due to settlement of the units into the saturated clay subsoils, as subgrade locations were often poor due to the saturated conditions, and then the snow and freezing conditions, rather than actual sliding.

3-2 U:\2283\01\llcsco Bastion Reponrdoc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 36 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 4.0 On Site Evaluations by Wenck Associates, Inc.

4.1 VISUAL INSPECTION Visual observations were made of Hesco barrier installations at 5t' Street South, Drain 27, the Fargo Country Club golf course, 40ti Avenue South, Timberline addition, and the Harwood Groves area.

The 5"' Street Hesco barriers were difficult to inspect for the concerns that were brought up by City staff. The area behind the Hesco barriers and sandbag dike had been filled in with sand after issues were first brought uip. During interviews with field personnel it was determined that this area most likely didn't have the sandbag, dike tied in sufficiently to the Hesco barriers. It was stated that the sandbags butted up directly to the Hesco units, instead of using a sufficient overlap to adequately protect the transition.

In the Drain 27 area, Hesco barriers were placed on top of an existing earthen levee.

Settlement was noted in a section of the earthen levee just east of 1-29 on the south side of the drain. Interviews and inspection showed that this appeared to be due to an existing storm sewer running through the existing earth levee and discharging to the drain. After installation of the Hesco barriers and noticeable settlement in part of the dike, it became apparent that a storm sewer structure located within the earthen levee was discharging water through the top of the structure and onto the earthen levee. This leakage completely saturated the area and allowed the Hesco barriers to settle into the earthen levee, as well as causing settlement of the levee itself.

The Fargo Country Club area consisted of Hesco barriers being deployed through the golf course. Evidence of soft soils were noted from the ruts left by equipment used to deploy and fill the Hesco barriers.

4-1 U'2283\O IAllesco Bastion Repor.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 37 Plant FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis The 4 0 th Avenue south area had Hesco barriers installed on top of an existing earthen levee. A concern of the barriers leaning was made during interviews. Measurements showed that the barriers were leaning approximately 3.5" in 4 vertical feet. These barriers have also settled on the water side approximately a V". and none on the dry side.

The Timberline area consisted of Hesco barriers that were used for primary temporary protection. Barriers were placed in residential backyards along a drainage channel. It was noted that some of the Hesco barriers were leaning. Measurements were made at a few locations, which showed 6.5" of lean in four feet. Field personnel indicated that the barriers were leaning during installation because of the lay of the land, and that they had performed field measurements over a couple of days and determined that the units had not shown any movement.

The Harwood Groves area consisted of Hesco barriers installed in a 2 - I configuration (base 2 barriers wide with a single unit placed on top). The Hesco barriers were providing secondary protection is this area. Clay had been placed up to the top of the base units on the backside.

4-2 1.:j22S3',01\11e"co B;tslion Repomzld-c

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 38 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 5.0 Technical Evaluations This section discusses three different traditional failure mechanisms for retaining structures such as the Hesco barriers; sliding, overturning/tipping, and seepage, and the Hesco barriers resistance to them. Within each of this subsections, references to previous studies are introduced and discussed (if available), followed by an independent review.

5.1 SLIDING Sliding of a retaining system (i.e., the Hesco barriers) is most simply defined by Equation 1, which relates the resisting and driving forces for sliding to the overall factor of safety against sliding. For long-term situations (i.e. permanent walls), it is considered good practice to have a factorof safety (FS) against sliding equal at least 1.5, meaning that the resisting forces are 50% greater than the driving forces. For short-term situations, applicable to temporary flood protection dikes, this acceptable factor of safety is 1.3.

FS = Resisting Forces _(F tan 6) + cL (Equation 1)

Driving Forces Fh Where: F, = Weight of basket (I' "slice" of basket) minus uplift force (Ibs/ft) 8= Interface friction coefficient c = Cohesion, or undrained shear strength (lbs/fl2)

L = Length, or basket depth (ft)

Fh= Horizontal force from water (lbs/ft) 5.1.1 Review of Available Information A report issued for the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, dated June 29-30, 2004. discussed possible sliding, and is provided in Attachment B for reference.

This report discusses the resistance to sliding based on different types of fill soils (fine 5-1 1: \2283\01 ,1esco Bastion Report.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 39 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis sand, coarse sand, and gravel), and different types of surfacing materials (earth, concrete, and grass).

Table I of the referenced report, shown below, gives the interface coefficients of friction for the fill soils and surfacing materials.

Table 1. Interface friction information Interface Coefficient of Friction Fill Type Earth Concrete Grass tan 6 8 tani 8 tan 8 8 Fine Sand 0.58 30 0.35 19 0.30 17 Coarse Sand 0.67 34 0.45 24 0.35 19 Gravel 0.78 38 0.60 31 0.40 22 Note: tan 8 =Tangent (8) It or the friction coeficient.

Using the above intbrmation, the authors of the referenced report compiled factors of safety against sliding for 30 different load cases, considering various structure heights, flood heights, fill types, and surfacing materials. This information is provided in Attachment B, but most of the cases are shown again (albeit in a different order) in Table 2 below. Information not included in Table 2 are the cases where the flood height was higher than the structure height, and also cases where the fill material was gravel (because site observations in Fargo noted that only sand was used to fill the Hesco Concertainers).

Table 2. Factor of safety against sliding for various load cases organized by flood heightI Structure Surface Fill Typee FS (full FS(no Case Flood Height Height T ype uplift) uplift)

A ' nnrertP Fine *and Ii1 _I 1 "7) 4 Concrete 5 3 3 Concrete Coarse sand I 1 3 3 Earth Fine sand 2 3 Earth Coarse sand 7 3 Grass Fine sand 8 3 3 Grass Coarse sand 13 3 4 Concrete Fine sand 14 4 Concrete Coarse sand 10 3 4 Earth Fine sand II 3 4 Earth Coarse sand 5-2 U:\2283\011)sc BastnsionRepoii.d~c

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 40 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Flood ight Structure Surface Fill Tp FS (full FS'(no Case eigt Height Type U lift uplift) 4 Grass Fine sand j, 16 3 17 3 4 Grass Coarse sand 22 4 4 Concrete Fine sand 1.2 1 23 4 4 Concrete I Coarse sand 1 1.2 1 19 4 4 Earth Fine sand 20 4 4 Earth Coarse sand 25 4 4 Grass Fine sand 26 4 4 Grass Coarse sand Red highlighting means the factor of safety is not acceptable (below 1.0).

Yellow highlighting means that the factor of safety is only marginally acceptable (between 1.0 and 1.3)

Blue highlighting means that the factor of safely is acceptable (greater than 1.3) for short-term conditions.

This table indicates that the authors found acceptable or marginally acceptable factors of safety against sliding are achievable for many of the cases analyzed, including all of the cases where the flood height was 3 feet, the containers were 4 feet high, and the containers were placed on earth.

5.1.2 Independent Review The above calculated factor of safety values assume that uplift pressures exist and will reduce the available resisting force. This is a conservative opinion, because it is likely that even if a layer of sand is frozen at the base of the Hesco Concertainer, enough pore-water pressure would be dissipated so as to minimize or negate the resulting uplift pressures (from buoyancy of the structure vs. the underlying soils), simply based on the fact that the drainage path for seepage beneath the unit is no longer than about 3 feet.

An analysis was also completed for a two layer Hesco system (consider a double container base and a single container top) using the same theories as used to develop Table 2 (i.e., forces acting on a one-foot cross-section of barrier). This information is provided in Table 3, below.

5-3 WA2283\01 \1Icsco Bastion Reponidoc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 41 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Table 3. Factor of safety against sliding for various load cases organized by flood height"'2 Case Flood Height Height Type Fill u ft 4 6 6 Concrete Fine sand 5 6 6 Concrete Coarse sand 1__ 6 6 Earth Fine sandT 2 6 6 Earth Coarse sand 1.1 7 6 6 Grass Fine sand 8 6 6 Grass Coarse sand 7 St Concrete Fine *and 1 I I i

14 1 7 1 8 1 Concrete ICoarse sand [ 1.1 10 7 8 Earth Fine sand i1 7 8 Earth Coarse sand 16 7 8 Grass Fine sand 17 7 8 Grass Coarse sand 22 8 8 Concrete Fine sand 23 8 8 Concrete Coarse sand 19 8 8 Earth Fine sand 20 8 8 Earth Coarse sand 25 8 8 Grass Fine sand 26 8 8 Grass Coarse sand Red highlighting means the factor of safety is not acceptable (at or below 1.0).

Yellow highlight means that the factor of safety is only marginally acceptable (between 1.0 and 1.3).

Blue highlighting means that the factor of safety is acceptable (greater than 1.3) for short-term conditions.

12)Overall system is set up as 2 containers on the bottom and one on top.

This table shows that careful engineering is needed before installing such a two-tier system, as acceptable factors of safety are achievable for much fewer cases than the single tier system. These relatively low calculated factors, together with some concerns about the single tier system, especially with flood height equal to barrier height, showed that some actual field testing of the barriers should be done. This was largely due to actual field experience not squaring well with theory.

5.1.3 Field Testing in response to the concerns raised above, field test analyses were performed on partial sections of the Hesco units to determine the sliding resistance to lateral forces. These analyses were done in Fargo on April 9, 2009, and reported on in a separate technical 5-4 U:'2283\Ol\ltesco 3 slion Repomdoc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 42 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis memo to Hesco Bastion LLC, dated April 30, 2009. Tests on 3' deep by 3' wide by 4' high sections were conducted with the filled units placed on various base surfaces. The total amount of force required to move the unit was recorded, along with the volume and weight of the filled unit. This allowed the actual friction coefficient and factor of safety to be computed in a real-life environment. An independent soils laboratory performed soil analyses on submitted fill samples, and gave a unit weight and gradation of the till sand for both uncompacted and medium compacted samples (see Tables 4, 5 and 6).

[Note: The field tests did not consider overturning, bearing capacity of the underlying soils, or seepage rates of the units.]

Table 4. Field Data Collected Basket Basket Calculated Calculated Weight Weight Friction Friction Hesco Unit Load @ 89.5 @ 102.0 Coefficient Coefficient Test Test ("Basket") Cell PCF PCF if Sand is if Sand is Surface # Volume Reading Sand Sand 89.5 PCF 102.0 PCF (ft3) (Ibs) . (Ibs) (Ibs)

Grass 1 48.8 2700 4387 4978 0.62 0.54 Grass -

Muddy 2 44.0 3300 3956 4488 0.83 0.74 Grass -

Muddy/

Saturated 3 51.4 3400 4621 5243 0.74 0.65 PCC Street 4 46.7 2700 4198 4763 0.64 0.57 PCC Street 5 49.8 2600 4477 5080 0.58 0.51 Notes: Weights of sand are from laboratory tests on samples obtained during field testing - 89.5 PCF is average uncompacted, and 102.0 PCF is average of compacted samples to approximately 88% Standard Proctor.

PCF Pounds per Cubic Foot PCC Portland Concrete Cement 5-5 U:\2283\0 1\1lesco Bastion Report.dec

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 43 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Table 5: Summary of Factor'of Safety Calculations for Water 3' High Against 3' x 3' x 4' High Baskets Force Causing Forces Resisting Sliding Sliding Basket Fuplift Fw Weight (y,, x H x (x, X H2 x Factor of Test Surface (y, x V) w2/2) P FR w)/2 Safety (Ibs) (Ibs) _ (Ibs) (Ibs)

Grass 4387 842 0.58 2056 842 2.44 Grass - Muddy 3956 842 0.78 2429 842 2.88 Grass -

Muddy/Saturated 4621 842 "0.70 2645 842 3.14 PCC Street 4338 842 0.58 2028 842 2.40 Table 6: Summary of Factor of Safety Calculations for Water 4' High Against 3' x 3' x 4' High Baskets Force Causing Forces Resisting Sliding Sliding Basket Fuplift F, Weight (y. x H x (y,. x H' x- Factor of Test Surface (y, x V-) w2 /2) j1 FR w)/2 Safety (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs)

Grass 4387 1123 0.58 1893 1497 1.26 Grass - Muddy 3956 1123 0.78 2209 1497 1.47 Grass -

Muddy/Saturated. 4621 1123 0.70 2449 1497 1.63 PCC Street 4338 1123 0.58 1865 1497 1.24 5-6 U:\2283\01\I-ksco B~astion Repori.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 44 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

1) Summary of Calculated Friction Coefficient Data Friction coefficients were calculated tor each of the field tests performed.

The field data showed significantly higher friction coefficients than the original engineering calculations, which used published friction coefficients for the different base materials. This is believed to be due to the deformation of the .bottom edge of the basket, which was observed as it began to slide. This deformation cannot be discounted, however, as it would occur in the event that the lateral loads applied to the basket were enough to cause lateral movement. Therefore, the field measured friction coefficients are believed to be valid for the specific situations in which the baskets were tested.

These higher friction coefficients, in turn, show that the actual performance of the Hesco units in resisting sliding is highLr than the calculated resistance using published friction coefficients, as shown by the factors of safety calculated in Tables 5 and 6.

5-7 U:\2283\O I1 lesco Bastion Repoil.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 45 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 5.2 OVERTURNING/TIPPING Traditional methods of overturning analysis are not truly applicable for this type of container because of the general deformability of the system. plus the possibility that uplift pore-water pressures can often be dissipated through the sandy infill material. Even if a layer of sand is frozen at the base of the Hlesco Concertainer, enough pore-water pressure would be likely dissipated so as to minimize or negate the uplift pressures, simply based on the fact that the 1.30 FEET 0.25 FEET drainage path is no longer than about 3 feet.

RESISTING DRIVING Therefore, the overturning and tipping will most BLOCK BLOCK likely be related to either I) installation issues (where infill material is placed in a manner such that initial container tilt occurs), or 2) thaw of the subsoil on only one side of the container occurs, such that some differential settlement occurs (e.g., rising water on one side of barrier thaws the soil beneath one side).

As discussed earlier in this report, some of the units were experiencing some tilt, with angles nearing 6 or 7 degrees. Based on information obtained during the field work, it is believed that the units showing some tilt were either installed that way, or settlement of the units into the base soils occurred.

For a single layer system, a tilt of less than 14 degrees is a reasonable maximum value.

The reason for this is because the system tends to operate as a block. Therefore, at an angle of 14 degrees or less, there is at least 7 times the mass holding back the container from tipping. When considering this angle, the resisting mass and the associated moment arm of the units, based on the resisting and driving forces, a calculated system factor of safety against overturning is greater than 30. This is shown by Equation 2 below.

Overturning or tipping is not considered to be a significant problem, therefore, unless the

,entire subgrade fails.

5-8 UJ:\2283\0 IM

'Isc BCCOastioni Repmlr.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 46 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis FS = Resisting Forces Driving Forces FS = Resisting Block Area x Resisting Moment Arm x Density Driving Block Area x Driving Moment Arm x Density (Equation 2) 5.3 SEEPAGE Field personnel's input on the issue of seepage by the Hesco barriers varied greatly.

Some thought that the seepage was excessive, while others thought it was less than a traditional sandbag levee would be. Most areas had poly-sheeting placed on the wet side of the Hesco units. However, an area of Drain 27 did not receive poly-sheeting, and the field staff thought that the seepage wasn't excessive and was easily managed.

Assessment of actual seepage rates in the field were not part of this report.

5.3.1 Review of Available Information In 2004, tile USACOE conducted tests on Hesco units in regards to seepage rates. These initial tests showed higher seepage rates than other levee systems. Most of the seepage occurred through the seams between adjacent units. Hesco learned after these test that the end panels on adjacent units should be removed to decrease the amount of seepage.

Retesting of the units for seepage rates was conducted by USACOE in July and August, 2005. In this retest, the end panels of units butted uip against on another were removed.

This allowed for a continuously filled sand unit with no gaps between units. This retest showed seepage rates of 0.04 gpm/ft at 1' of head, and 0. 14 gpm/ft and a head of 2.85' 5-9 U:\2283\0 Ilesco Bastion Reporidoc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 47 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 6.0 Summary and Recommendations Overall, the consensus of opinion among users of the Hesco barriers for the Fargo floodfight is that the barriers are well-designed, and were vital to the success of the effort to contain the flooding from the Red River of the North. They were appreciative of the speed of deployment (vital in emergency situations such as this), their ability to adapt to irregular subgrades, and the uniformity of results compared to sandbag dikes. Some cautions oftentirnes repeated were to be careful with proper filling of the barriers, and to pay particular attention to the subgrade tile barriers are placed on. as this can cause significant problems. Additionally, transitions between Hesco's and other types of dikes need to be done carefully, allowing an adequate overlap to prevent a weak spot in the resulting dike. Adequate monitoring of the completed barrier wall must be done, just as for any temporary dike, throughout the emergency period. Most users, especially those who used them in the field, declared they would use them again, given the same situation.

Some useful recommendations were made, however, and should be considered by Hesco Bastion.

o Consider use of colored hinge pins to join the units together. This would make the visual inspection of finished units easier and faster, particularly at night (i.e., Were the baskets properly joined during installation?).

o Additional training. Several users reported receiving only very minimal training in how to properly install the units. This caused considerable problems and delays in getting the various installations properly started, especially as new workers arrived to help.

6-1 LU:\22S3\0 I\Hesco 13asiion Report.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 48 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis o Preparation of a Guidance Document for communities considering using the Hesco barriers. Like most products being considered to fight a flood, proper engineering needs to be done prior to installing them. Such a guidance document could be given to communities prior to their using Hesco's, recommending tile type of engineering needed, the considerations that need to be made, and procedures to follow for such things as needed site preparation, height of barriers needed for the predicted flood elevations and their configuration (e.g., 2-4' barriers with I-4' stacked over them, or 2-4' with 2 more 4' barriers stacked over them), lessening seepage with plastic sheeting and how to do it (front face of barrier, back face, how anchored, etc.),

joining Hesco barrier walls to sandbag or clay dikes (necessary overlap, tie-ins, etc.),

and proper installation procedures.

6-2 IJ:\283\t) I \I Bas(ionl IecoCC Rceoti.doc

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 49 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment A Red River Flood Protection Plan - 3/26/2009.

(Map of Levee System)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 50 Plant FLH TITLE -Attachment 1 Calc#:

• PMF Temporary Modification

<'

ROGGCD~X60033320090003 -- ri! StabilityAnalysis - - ~L~

~~'1

'I 'K I

ý j T

L 1 N N

N

~jK, 4~.

-7 2'

• .13

.-

• I' 1,

I; 7

'4-,,,-

4.,

• ~ j~4 k '1. rŽ~

r~N~

47<~

j&~T

~

~

- -- A Il i

I I

I

_1

.4 K. Li~&j

-.4 ,

4' L ki,

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 51 Plant, FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment B "EngineeringAnalysis" from Report to:

United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, June 29- 30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 52 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 3

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, The ability of the Concertainer@ structure to withstand hydrostatic and uplift forces, as well as other forces, results primarily from a combination of shape and weight of the structure and the frictional resistance generated along its base. The linkages between the units also allows for the load on a single unit to be distributed over several adjacent units.

The structure is compliant and deforms slightly as a response to applied loads. This particularly important when the structure responds to uplifting forces. The Concertainer basket is basically a shell and will experience almost no uplifting forces.

Since the basket is open at the bottom, if the unit is raised the fill material remains in contact with the ground surface. The uplifting force on the fill will be due to buoyancy and not from any mechanical force of the basket. Therefore, the conventional analysis of stability based upon overturning is not applicable to the Concertainer structure.

However, because the basket and fill could be displaced laterally, the analysis of the stability of the structure to sliding is appropriate.

The ability of the structure to resist lateral forces it can be theoretically analyzed based upon the assumption that the structure will respond as a rigid body to hydrodynamic forces. A general load case is shown in Figure 1.

Fw, Fi -÷ I

.11 I1 II II w "I t II 1111I h FhII 3/4I II II,,,A 1*Rh Fu Rv Figure I. Schematic diagram of forces on a ConcertainerO unit.

The Figure illustrates that the force per foot of structure on the Concertainer can result from several sources:

W = weight of the basket and fill Fh = hydrostatic pressure force Fw = wave forces Fi = impact force Fu = uplift force Rv = vertical reaction force of the soil Rh = horizontal reaction force of the soil, with a maximum value equal to Cf Rv, where Cf is the coefficient of friction along the interface United States Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 53 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PM F Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 4

The formulas for the static forces for the load case shown in Figure I and their lines of action from point A, are as follows:

W = /2 Yrai B H @ B/2 Fh = V2 y h2 @ h13 Fu= 1/22yBh @2/3 B Rv = W- Fu @ 1/3 B Rh = Fh with maximum value of Cf Rv Where:

B = width of the Concertainer H = height of the Concertainer Ynu1 = unit weight of the fill or S y y = unit weight of water S specific gravity of the fill h = height of water above the base of the structure The resistance to sliding can be expressed as a-factor of safety, which is the ratio of the resisting forces to the applied forces. The horizontal resisting force is the frictional resistance generated along the base of the structure, given by Cf Rv. The applied hydrostatic force is Fh. Thus factor of safety against sliding can then be defined by SF = Cf Rv/Fh = Cf(W-FU)/Fh The analysis presented is based upon treating the structure as a rigid body, the Concertainer@ is actually deformable and it would affect the impact loads and the overturning. The Concertainer is highly resistant to impact loads because the basket and fill deform when the load is applied, thus lengthening the time over which the impacting object is stopped, and hence reducing the force. The amount of deformation would depend upon the where the impact occurred, with more deformation occurring near the top of the structure.

The Concertainer structure is well suited to resist impact loads. The structure is compliant such that it will deform under loads. This property means that a unit will absorb debris loads and actually experience a lower force from debris than rigid structures would experience for the same debris. This can be explained because debris loads resulting from floating objects such as vegetation, logs and lumber are impact loads. In an impact load the force produced by the impacting object depends upon the initial momentum of the object, its mass time its velocity, and the time over which the objects velocity is reduced to zero by the impact; that is its deceleration. The compliancy of the structure thus extends the time over which the impacting object is stopped. This results in a reduced deceleration and hence a reduced force on the structure. The United States Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 54 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 5

performance of the structure under debris loads would also depend upon the water depth relative to the top of the structure, the fill in the structure and the shape of the debris object. Impact tests for specific objects of interest for various fill types would need to be conducted. The effect of debris loads on the performance of the Concertainer can be accounted for by including impact loads in the analysis of the factor of safety against sliding.

Waves can affect the Concertainer structure in several different manners: as an additional horizontal force, as a carrier of debris, and as a mechanism for removing material from the structure. The effects of waves will depend upon whether the waves hitting the structure are non-breaking, breaking or broken waves. The horizontal force on a structure produced by each type of wave can be computed from standard coastal engineering design procedures, e.g., the Shore Protection Manual, and included in the analysis of the resistance of a structure to sliding for various unit sizes and types of fill.

Debris loads could be severely increased under wave action. While the movement of water resulting from a current will be generally parallel to the structure, wave action causes water movement that is more generally perpendicular to the structure. The velocity of the water at the crest of a breaking wave approaches the phase speed of the wave and, even in shallow water, can reach a value of several feet/sec. Thus velocity of the debris could be greatly increased by the presence of waves. The property of the ConcertainerO to absorb impact loads clearly becomes an advantage in resisting this wave enhanced threat from debris. The effect of waves on the erosion of material from the structure will depend upon the height of the mean water at the structure, the height and type of wave hitting the structure, and the fill material. When the combined mean water height and incoming wave height is lower than the top of the structure, no erosion would occur. For mean water levels below the top of the structure, but with wave height high enough to overtop the structure, erosion would be minimal. Water would be thrown onto the top of the fill with little horizontal velocity and wet the fill. For higher waves, waves that break into the structure, there would be some initial suspension and transport of fill out of the structure. When the mean water height exceeds the height of the structure so that it becomes submerged all types of waves would suspend some fill material. The amount of fill removed would depend upon the intensity of the wave action and the type of fill. These various effects of wave action on the structure would needto be considered in the selection of the Concertainer size and fill so as to maintain an acceptable factor of safety against sliding under expected field conditions.

United States Senate Cormmiittee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 55 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Cale #: PM F Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 6

GROUND SURFACE PERFORMANCE The performance of the Concertainer on various surfaces will depend both on the type of surface and the type of fill used in the structure. This is because the same fill will interact differently with different surface materials. The net effect of the surface/fill interaction can be expressed through the interface friction coefficient. As shown above, the friction coefficient directly affects the resistance of the structure to sliding. Other factorsthat may need to be considered concerning the surface upon which the structure is placed are the permeability of the surface and it's bearing capacity. Given the test conditions described in the solicitation, the bearing capacity and permeability of the test surfaces should present no problems. However, in actual usage, these issues would need to be investigated at each field site.

The actual coefficient of friction between different fill materials and the different test surfaces will depend upon the detailed characteristics each. -Sincetheseare not known at this time, representation values of the friction coefficient can be taken from published values. The following values were used in the stability analysis:

Table 1. Soil parameters used in the analysis.

Fill Type Specific Gravity Interface Coefficient of Friction Earth Concrete Grass Fine Sand 1.60 .58 .35 .30 Coarse Sand 1.76 .67 .45 .35 Gravel 1.92 .78 .60 .40 The coefficients of friction between concrete and for various fill types are taken from the Shore Protection Manual (Table 7-15 and 7-16). Table 7-16 gives the friction coefficients for concrete dams on sand and gravel. For freshly graded surfaces, earthen material is present both in the containerand on the surface. The friction resistance will depend upon the angle of internal friction for the each material. The values used in the analysis for the various fills on an earthen surface are based upon the angles of internal friction for firmly packed sediments as given in Table 7-15 of the SPM. For the grass surface case, the approach taken is that the coefficient of friction will be assumed to be smaller than for a concrete surface. Thus the concrete values were reduced for gravel, coarse sand, and fine sand by factor of .67, .77 and .86 respectively.

United States Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 56 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 7

FIELD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE Depends on the location.

TEST CONDITION ANALYSIS The performance of the Concertainer under a particular set of test conditions can be determined using the formulas presented above. Various load cases were considered based upon the type of surface at the test site, the height of the floodwater, the size of the structure and the fill material. The results of these calculations are given in Table 2.

A single load case will be used to illustrate the methodology used in computing the factor of safety against sliding. The structure will be assumed to be placed on either grass, earth or concrete. A 3 foot by 3 foot unit will be subject to a 3 foot flood, with no waves or impact loads. The structure will be fill with either fine sand, coarse sand, or gravel. The formula for the factor of safety against sliding for a 3 foot Concertainer unit (b=H=3 feet) as FS = Cf ( W-Fu)/Fh or FS = Cf (HBSy-hB1/2)/(h 2y/2) = 2BCf (HS-h/2)/(h 2)

This can be simplified for H = B = 3 ft, and h=3 feet to FS = .67 Cf (3S - 1.5)

For the various fill materials and surface types the values of Cf and S can be specified.

For example, for an earthen surface and with a fine sand fill, S= 1.60 and Cf = .58. The computed factor of safety is FS = .67 (.58) (3(1.60) - 1.5) = 1.28 This is the result shown in Table 2 for load case 1. For coarse sand S = 1.76 and Cf =

.67, and the resulting factor of safety is 1.69, as shown in Table 2 for load case 2. For gravel, S = 1.92 and Cf =.78, and the factor of safety is 2.22, as shown in Table 2 as load case 3.

The other load cases listed in Table 2 were based upon changing the surface types, flood water depth and unit size. A second set of calculations were performed based upon increasing the flood water depth to 4 feet, and placing a 2 foot by 2 foot Concertainer on top of a 3 foot by 3 foot unit. The factors of safety against sliding for different surfaces are given in load cases 28, 29 and 30.

United States Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 57 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 8

Overall the analysis indicates that for the fill types and surface types considered, large changes in the factor of safety can occur. For example, for a 3 foot by 3 foot unit on a concrete surface the factor of safety changes from .77 to 1.13, to 1.70 as the fill is changed from fine sand, to coarse sand and then to gravel.

Table 2. Factor of safety against sliding for various load cases.

Load Surface Structure Flood Fill Factor of Safety Case Type Hgt Hgt Type Against Sliding 1 3' 3' FS 1.28 2 3' 3' CS 1.69 3 3, 3' GR 2.22 4 3, 3, FS .77 5 3, 3, CS 1.13 6 3' 3, GR 1.70 7 3' 3' FS .66 8 3, 3' CS .88 9 3' 3' GR 1.14 10 4, 3' FS 2.53 11 4, 3' CS 3.30 12 4, 3' GR 4.28 13 4' 3, FS 1.52 14 4' 3, CS 2.22 15 4, 3, GR 3.29 16 4' 3' FS 1.31 17 4' 3' CS 1.72 18 4' 3' GR 2.20 19 4' 4' FS 1.28 20 4, 4' CS 1.69 21 4, 4' GR 2.22 22 4, 4, FS .77 23 4' 4' CS 1.13 24 4' 4$ GR 1.70 25 4' 4' FS .66 26 4' 4' CS .88 27 4, 4, GR 1.14 28 4, 5' FS 1.07 29 4' 5, CS 1.41 30 4, 5' GR 1.85 Note: E = Earthen surface C = Concrete surface G = Grass surface FS = Fine sand fill CS = Coarse sand fill GR = Gravel fill United States Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 58 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 1 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 9

The data presented herein by HESCO Bastion USA, LLC from the Rapid Deployment Flood Wall Testing at Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) Water Experimental Station (WES) in preliminary information from Dr. Joseph Suhayda.

United States Senate Committee on Appropriations June 29-30, 2004

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 59 Plant: FLLHI TITLE Attachment 1

Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX0003MO*O69 n USA, Inc. "-"Stability Analysis L~Y~iI MEMORANDUM I TO: RECIPIENTS OF TECHNICAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION VI ~7i The information provided by Hesco herewith is intended solely to provide general guidance to a purchaser or potential purchaser of its products, who accepts-full responsibility for the engineering and other design, installation and use of structures incorporating the Hesco Concertainer and I associated products. While reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the information provided is accurate and has been obtained from reliable sources, and the information is provided ii in good faith based upon that which is available at the time of production, Hesco provides no I

guarantee or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or effectiveness of the information.

Nothing herein shall be construed as a substitute for the need for the purchaser to exercise or employ adequate independent technical expertise and judgment. Purchaser acknowledges that risks and dangers may arise from foreseeable and unforeseeable causes and assumes all risk and danger and all responsibility for any losses and/or damages to person or property that may result from purchaser's use of Hesco's products. HESCO PROVIDES NO GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY LAW, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS SALE OR THE THIRD PARTY INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREWITH, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN ITS STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE.

f I

J I

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 60 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 2 Excerpts from USACE ERCD Report (Reference 2.2)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 61 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Environmental aspects The only material used (sand) is considered to be nonhazardous and nontoxic, so there were no exposure hazards during these tests.

ff the floodwater is contaminated with bacteria or pollutants, the sand fill inside the bags also may be contaminated. The sandbag itself should provide some filtering protection, especially for nonwater-soluble and small contaminants such as floating oil, but water-soluble contaminants would likely seep into the sand fill.

Hesco Bastion Concertainer Levee Tests Design Hesco Bastion Concertainer@ (hereinafter referred to as "Hesco"), listed under U.S. Patents 3333970, 5472297, and European Patent 046626, is a structural- system of linked baskets containing fill material. Hesco systems have been used around the world for military operations as well as for combating natural disasters (Hesco 2004).

The corporate Web site is http://www.hesco-usa.com.

The units (Figure 2-44) are manufactured in various sizes and are made of welded galvanized steel mesh that is assembled with coiled joints. A polypropylene nonwoven geotextile liner retains the fill material (sand, gravel, or other fill) that is dumped into the open (top and bottom) basket using minimal labor and commonly available equipment.

The baskets are flat-packed on pallets, extended and joined with joining pins, filled with fill material, and stacked in various configurations depending on the end-use. The units are lightweight, portable, and are easily handled.

Engineering analysis of the system was provided by Hesco, and listed the ability of the structure to withstand hydrostatic and uplift forces. The ability of the structure to resist lateral forces was analyzed based on the assumption that the structure will respond as a rigid body to hydrostatic forces. A free-body diagram of the hydrostatic forces showed the resistance to lateral sliding on a concrete floor with a given water height of 3 ft and a coarse-grained fill material.

A test-condition analysis for a 3-ft by 3-ft unit on a concrete floor subjected to a 3-ft-high flood was given for various load cases with given basket and fill weights, given sand unit weight, vertical and horizontal reaction forces, hydrostatic pressure force, and uplift force. Assuming an interface coefficient of friction between coarse sand and concrete floor of 0.45, the safety factor against lateral sliding was calculated to be 1.13 (Load Case 5). No floor anchoring system was accounted for, and no floor anchoring was planned for the ERDC tests.

50 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 62 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-44. Hesco Bastion Concertainer basket units, assembled and empty For the ERDC tests, the Hesco Flood Unit system (General Services Administration (GSA) No. GS-07F5369P) was furnished, with unfolded unit dimensions of 3 ft height by 3 ft depth by 12 ft width, and commercial price of $295 per unit (approximately $25 per linear foot). End panels (3 ft x 3 ft X 3 ft), connecting joining pins (3 ft) and connecting coil hinges (3 ft) were also furnished. The wire mesh, joining pins, and coil hinges were manufactured from 8-gauge steel and coated with a proprietary galvanizing. Wire mesh size was 3 in. by 3 in. The nonwoven geotextile liner was GEOTEX 641. Fill sand was provided by ERDC (delivered price of $7 per cubic yard) and was classified as poorly graded sand (USCS "SP") with approximate moisture content of 6 percent.

Construction Layout of the Hesco levee built at the ERDC test facility is shown in Figure 2-45.

The stacked units were shipped to the laboratory on a wooden pallet. Construction commenced on 4 May 2004., Relatively cool ambient air temperatures (approximately 60 to 70 deg) provided comfortable working conditions inside the hangar.

Personnel needed to construct the levee included a Hesco supervisor and four laborers unfamiliar with the product. A 5-min training session commenced (Figure 2-46),

the supervisor handed out gloves to the workers, and they began unloading and expanding the units onto the concrete floor (Figure 2-47).

Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 51

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 63 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 3' x 3' x

-12' unit Figure 2-45. Hesco levee layout 4

Figure 2-46. Training session for Hesco assembly team 52 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 64 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-47. Expanding and positioning units The expanded units were sequentially positioned on the layout footprint, and the coil hinges were fastened together with the joining pins (Figure 2-48). At angled connections (the intersection of the left and center walls), the supervisor folded and attached end panels to achieve proper unit geometry (Figure 2-49), and the workers continued pinning the units together. Nylon cable ties were also used for securing units together at critical locations determined by the supervisor (Figure 2-50). Initial treatments at concrete wall abutments were also installed (Figure 2-51). Total installation time for offloading, laying out, aligning, and connecting the levee structure was 60 min (approximately 1 lft/min).

The next construction phase consisted of filling the units with sand and completing the installation. The bottom flaps were flattened against the concrete floor (Figure 2-52).

A front-end loader top-dumped sand into each unit (Figure 2-53). The supervisor and four workers continued securing the units, filling with sand, compacting, and leveling sand within the units with shovels while the sand-fill operation was ongoing, until all units were full and leveled (Figures 2-54 through 2-57). Approximately 24 cu yd of sand was required to fill the units.

No floor anchoring system was used at the concrete wall abutment connections. To seal the joint between the unit and the concrete wall abutment, expandable foam was dispensed into the joint by the supervisor (Figures 2-58 and 2-59).

Total installation time for the Hesco levee was 3.5 hr (approximately 3.4 min per linear foot of levee). Labor required was a six-man crew (total 20.8 man-hours), and equipment required was a Cat 916 front-end loader, sand, and aerosol foam. On a linear foot basis, the construction required 20.8 man-hours per 62 lft (measured along the protected toe), or 0.3 man-hours per linear foot.

Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 53

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 65 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-48. Pinning units together Figure 2-49. Top view of angled unit at intersection of left and center walls 54 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 66 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-50. Cable ties at joint connections Figure 2-51. Right concrete wall abutment Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 55

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 67 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-52. Securng flaps against concrete floor. Note center coils which are prefastened at factory Figure 2-53. Filling with sand 56 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 68 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-54. Shoveling sand into unit Figure 2-55. Leveling and compacting sand within each unit Chapter 2 Laboratory-Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 57

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 69 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-56. Filled with sand, view from left concrete wall abutment Figure 2-57. View from pool side 58 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 70 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis I*

Figure 2-58. Sealing concrete wall abutment with aerosol foam Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 59

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 71 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis f

<'a ,z )', -cI; Figure~~~

2-9 Exane foamatabtetwhcorteal 1, tk)'

Figure 2-59. Expanded foam at abutment with concrete wall Prior to filling the reservoir to begin the hydrostatic tests, laser targets were positioned in the levee walls and sealed with expandable foam (Figure 2-60). The completed structure was instrumented with the center-wall displacement monitoring system and was readied for static testing (Figure 2-61). The vendor representative agreed in writing that the levee had been constructed properly and was ready for testing.

60 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 72 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis I -- --

Figure 2-60. Laser target

-I r]

Figure 2-61. Center wall displacement monitoring system Performance Testing of the Hesco barrier began after construction was completed and was documented in the same manner as testing of the sandbag structure. Three minor repairs were allowed within seven windows of opportunity during the tests, as described in Appendix C. After the overtopping test, one final repair (or rebuild) was allowed prior to the impact tests.

Disassembly and removal of the barrier was performed after testing was completed and the test basin was drained. An environmental evaluation was also performed for the barrier system, to assess environmental hazards of construction and disposal.

Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 61

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 73 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Hydrostatic head tests The pool elevation was raised to three different elevations for a minimum of 22 hr at each predetermined elevation. During the testing period, levee movement and seepage values were recorded. During and after each test the levee was inspected for weakness and/or failure before the pool elevation was raised to the next level.

Hydrostatic head test, 1-ft reservoir (33 percentheight). The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was raised to a height of 1 ft (33 percent of the levee height). Seepage flow rate ranged from 0.36 to 0.42 gpm/lft (Figure 2-62), and no displacement was observed. Most of the flow rate was observed coming from the wall comers, and the vertical joint between unit ends.

Figure 2-63 shows the wetting front observed on top of the structure as the water saturated the dry sand. Figure 2-64 is a close-up of seepage occurring at a vertical joint between units.

Hydrostatic head test, 2-ft reservoir (66 percent height). The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was raised to a height of 2 ft (66 percent of levee height). Seepage flow rate ranged from 0.90 to 0.97 gpm/lft (Figure 2-65), and no displacementwas observed. Most of the flow was observed coming from the wall comers and the vertical joint between unit ends. Figure 2-66 shows the structure from the front, Hydrostatic head test, 3-ft reservoir (95 percent height). The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was raised to an approximate height of 34 in.

(95 percent of levee height). Seepage flow rate ranged from 1.76 to 1.86 gpm/lft (Figure 2-67). Lateral displacement ranged from 3 to 9 mm. Vertical deformation was observed to range from 0.24 to 2.28 in., and was assumed to be a result of units "barreling" as the sand became completely saturated. Most of the flow was observed coming from the wall comers and the vertical joint between unit ends.

Hydrodynamic tests The testing protocol specified that packets of monochromatic waves with a wave period T = 2.0 sec would be generated to impact the levee hydrodynamically. Tests were performed at two different pool elevations (66 percent and 80 percent of levee height).

At the 66 percent height, 3-in. waves (measured from trough to crest) were generated continuously for a period of 7 hr. Waves ranging from 7 to 9 in. were then allowed to impact the structure a total of 30 min (three 10-min intervals with 15 min calming periods between). Next, wave heights ranging from 10 to 13 in. were allowed to impact the structure for 10 min. The water was then raised to a level of 80 percent levee height and the tests were repeated. At the end of each 10-min increment of wave testing (excluding the 7 hr of 3-in. waves), the testing basin was stilled for up to 45 rmin to allow the waves to dissipate.

62 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 74 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Hesco Bastion Static, Water Eiev 33%H

-- Seepaue,gpmnlfl-- Pod Eleva5t, in]

0.45 -2 0.40 18

• 0.35 0

0.25

.10 0.20- L 0.15

.6 0.10-4 0.00 i.0 0.00 5-00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 T1me, hr Figure 2-62. Seepage-flow rate per linear foot at 1-ft pool elevation (33% H)

Figure 2-63. View of left wall water saturation Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 63

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 75 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis I

Figure 2-64. Close-up of seepage through vertical joint between units Figure 2-65. Seepage flow rate per linear foot at 2-ft pool elevation (66% H) 64 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 76 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-66. View from front Hesco Bastion Static, Water Etev. 95%H

--- Seepage,gfl --- Pod ae, I 2.00 50 1.60 40 11.40 35 C 1.20 30~

30 1.00 25 a0.80 203 0.* 0 15 0.40 10 0.20 5 0.00 0 0.0 5.00 10.00 1&00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Time, hr Figure 2-67. Seepage flow rate per linear foot at 95 percent pool elevation 3-in. wave test, reservoir level at 66 percent levee height. The Water level in the reservoir of the levee was lowered from the 95 percent level to a height of 24 in. within an interval of about 2 hr. The wave generator was activated and the waves began to impact the levee. Flow rate was observed to range from 0.81 to 0.83 gpm/lft (Figure 2-68), with no displacement. No wave overtopping was observed. Figure 2-69 is a view of the left wall and center wall intersection showing seepage at the wall base.

Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 65

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 77 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

• Hesco Bastion Dynamic Small Waves, Water Elev. 66%H

-- Sspage, gpm/ -u-Pool Ehiosto i 0.90 45 0.80 40 0.70 35 0.40 2o 10.30 1s 0.20* -10 0.10 1 5 0.00 . 0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 500 6.O0 7.00 8.00 9.00 Tlmen hr Figure 2-68. Seepage flow rate per linear foot, small wave at 66 percent pool elevation Figure 2-69. Left wall and center wall intersection 7- to 9-in. wave test, reservoir level at 66 percent levee height. The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was held at a height of 24 in., the wave generator was activated, and the waves began to impact the levee. Flow rate was observed to subside within a range of 0.77 to 0.78 gpm/lft (Figure 2-70), with no levee displacement. No wave overtopping was observed.

66 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 78 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Hesco Bastion Dynamic Medium Waves, Water Elev. 66%,

I--Seepa'e gpmlfl -U- Poo Elvaton, In 0.90 30 0.80 -2

-25 0.70 o S0.00 20 o0o i -15]

Z0.40 LU 0.30 0..0 -to 0.10 0.00 0 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Time, min Figure 2-70. Seepage flow rate per linear foot, medium wave at 66 percent pool elevation 10- to 13-in. wave test, reservoir level at 66 percent levee height. The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was held at a height of 24 in., the wave generator was activated, and the waves began to impact the levee. Flow rate was observed to range from 0.78 to 0.98 gpm/lft (Figure 2-71), with no displacement. Minor sporadic wave overtopping was observed, primarily along the center wall (Figure 2-72).

Hesco Bastion Dynamic High Waves, Water Elev. 66%H

-Seepage, gpmAFf -PoolEievatonin 1.00 60 0.90

• 0.70 40 Z.0.40 0.30 0.20 10 0.10 o.o0 0 .

Time, min Figure 2-71. Seepage flow rate per linear foot, high wave at 66 percent pool elevation Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 67

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 79 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-72. Center wall wave-induced erosion At the conclusion of the test, sand had eroded and settled from the top of the center wall (Figure 2-73), and a solution was devised to prevent further erosion during subsequent testing. As shown in Figures 2-74 and 2-75, a tarp covering was placed on the wall top and secured with cable ties.

-~

• ,. -~

2 Figure 2-73. Sand eroded from top of center wall 68 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 80 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-74. Covering top of wall with tarp to prevent further erosion Figure 2-75. Securing with cable ties 3-in. wave test, reservoir level at 80 percent levee height. The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was raised to a height of 29 in., the wave generator Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 69

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 81 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis was activated, and the waves began to impact the levee. Flow rate was observed to range from 1.03 to 1.04 gpm/lft (Figure 2-76), with no displacement. No wave overtopping was observed. Figure 2-77 shows seepage under the center wall base.

Hesco Bastion Dynamic Small Waves, Water Elev. 80%H 1 Seepage,gpmifft-U-ifPool Elevation,In 1.20 60 1.00 0 0.80 40

--0

,a.2 0L A 0.40 -20 0.20. -10 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Time, hr Figure 2-76. Seepage rate per linear foot, small wave at 80 percent pool elevation Figure 2-77. Seepage at vertical joint and wall base 7- to 9-in, wave test, reservoir level at 80 percent levee height. The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was held at a height of 29 in., the wave generator was activated, and the waves began to impact the levee. Flow rate was 70 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 82 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis observed to range from 1.03 to 1.07 gpm/lft (Figure 2-78), with no displacement. No wave overtopping was observed. Figure 2-79 shows a view of the structure.

Hesco Bastion Dynamic Medium Waves, Water EIlev. 80%H

--*-Seepage. gpnt-,-P te . ]

1.20 60 I.00 50 0.80

40 Ei

• 0.40 - 0 0.20 10 0.00 0 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 00.00 90.00 Time, min Figure 2-78. Seepage flow rate per linear foot, medium wave at 80 percent pool elevation Figure 2-79. View of left and center walls Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 71

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 83 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 10- to 13-in. wave test, reservoir level at 80 percent levee height. The water level in the reservoir on the pool side of the levee was held at a height of 29 in., the wave generator was activated, and the waves began to impact the levee. Flow rate was observed to range from 1.05 to 3.14 gpm/lft (Figure 2-80), with no displacement. Wave overtopping was observed at each wave front, which contributed to the significant flow rate increase. Figure 2-81 shows wave overtopping.

Hesco Bastion dynamic high wave, pool Elevation 8O%h

-- Seeage, gpm/If --*Pool Elea., i 3.50 70 3.00 60 2.50 50 0.-

2.00- 40 03 1.50 t30 0

.1.0. .20 0.50 . .10 0.00 0 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 Time, Min Figure 2-80. Seepage flow rate per linear foot, high wave at 80 percent pool elevation "74 Figure 2-81. Wave overtopping along center wall Levee-overtopping test The reservoir level was raised from a height of 37.6 in. to a height of 38.8 in. After the water level reached the top of levee, overtopping occurred. The structure successfully 72 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 84 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PM F Temporary Modification-ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis withstood overtopping without failure. Overtopping water combined with seepage water to increase the measured flow rate within a range of 25.2 to 35.0 gpm/lft (1,800 to 2,500 gpm) in the span of 1 hr as shown in Figure 2-82. The overflow was uniform due to the uniform levee height. Figures 2-83 and 2-84, show the overtopped levee.

Hesco Bastion overtopping test I-*-Seepage. gpmilft-U*-Pool Seatork In 40.00 s0 35.00- 70 9 30.00- 60 25.00 50 E 20.00 40 10.00- 20 5.00I 10 0.00 .0 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 180.00 Time, min Figure 2-82. Seepage flow rate per linear foot during overtopping Figure 2-83. Overtopped levee structure, view from right wall Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 73

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 85 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

__I ________

Figure 2-84. Overtopped levee structure, view from left wall Debris impact test With reservoir level at 24 in., the log impact tests were'begun. The 12-in. log impacted the structure and bounced back without causing noticeable damage. The structure displaced slightly and recovered to its original position. The 16-in. log impacted the structure and bounced back also without causing any noticeable damage.

The structure displaced slightly and recovered to its original position, but vertical deformations of the sand fill ranging from 4.02 to 0.72 in. were noted. Figure 2-85 shows the minor change in seepage flow rate during impact testing and Figure 2-86 shows the area where the logs hit, viewed from the pool side.

Hesco Bastion Log Impact Test

-Seepapg, p./ -- E ,I 60 0.90 0.80 4 50 0.70 40 0.60 030 0

0.40 -a 0.30 a 0*0.0 0.00 0 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 Time, sec Figure 2-85. Seepage flow rate per linear foot during impact tests 74 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 86 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-86. Log impact zone on center wall, pool side Maintenance and repair Repair 1 was performed prior to the 80 percent small (2- to 3-in.) wave test. It consisted of adding a top membrane fabric over the units, and adding cable ties and wire ties. A four-man crew took 24 min (1.6 man-hours) to do this work. Figure 2-87 shows this work (see also Figures 2-74 and 2-75).

Repair 2 was performed prior to overtopping. It took three men 5 min (0.25 man-hours) to add prefilled sandbags on the pool side for additional protection against joint seepage (Figure 2-88). Repairs 3 and 4 were not needed.

Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 75

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 87 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-87. Repair 1, view along right wall 76 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 88 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-88. Added sandbag along left wall Disassembly and reusability At test conclusion, with a dry concrete floor, the Hesco levee was disassembled and removed from the test facility on 24 May 2004. Disassembly consisted of three laborers and a supervisor to unpin the units, and a Cat 916 front-end loader with operator to remove the sand. This five-man crew took 2 hr and 41 min (total 13.4 man-hours) to disassemble and remove the levee.

Disassembly consisted of removing all cable ties, removing the top cover (Figure 2-89), unhinging the inner and outer walls held with pins in each center partition (Figures 2-90 and 2-91, manually pulling each wall apart (Figures 2-92, 2-93, and 2-94),

removing the sand pile (Figure 2-95), and restacking the units onto a pallet (Figure 2-96).

The sand was stockpiled for reuse, and the folded units were placed on Wooden pallets for reuse. The only nonreusable items were the fabric panels at either end of the 12-ft units. During disassembly, the panels were slit with a knife to facilitate separation after the center partition pin was pulled out. The fabric end panels would then be repaired or replaced prior to reuse.

Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 77

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 89 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-89. Cutting cable ties and removing top cover

-. A Figure 2-90. Preparing to remove center partition pin 78 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 90 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-91. Removing center partition pin Figure 2-92. Preparing to pull unit apart Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 79

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 91 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-93. Pulling unit apart Figure 2-94. Outer wall removed from one unit on right wall 80 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 92 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 2-95. Removing sand pile Figure 2-96. Stacked units ready for reuse Environmental aspects From an environmental standpoint, when the HESCO Bastion Concertainer is used as designed, the barrier does not present any threats to the environment. Material Safety and Data Sheets provided by Hesco indicated no exposure hazards due to everyday usage of the construction materials. The wire baskets are constructed from galvanized steel. If modifications are made to the baskets that involve welding of the wire mesh, then precautions should be made to prevent inhalation of the particulates created while welding. The baskets are constructed primarily of iron, greater than 90 percent, but do contain other metals, less than 3 percent, such as chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc. Since some of these metals are considered carcinogens, some form or respiratory protection should be used when welding the baskets.

Sand is placed in the baskets using machinery such as front-end loaders or bobcats.

This machinery can damage the soil or foundation around the structure. Care should be Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers 81

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 93 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis taken when filling the baskets so that minimal damage is done to the area around the structure and repairs should be made to prevent erosion.

While being used as a flood barrier, the HESCO Bastion Concertainer does not pose any environmental hazards. Upon completion of the use of the barrier there are several issues that need to be addressed to ensure that no environmental hazards occur. Should the floodwater be contaminated with waterbome bacteria or pollutants, it may be possible for the sand fill inside the units to also become contaminated. The outer fabric should provide filtering and physical barrier protection, especially for nonwater-soluble contaminants such as floating oil, but water-soluble and suspended contaminants would likely be adsorbed by the sand fill. Should the levee materials (fabric and/or sand) become contaminated due to flood water contaminants, measures to properly decontaminate and/or dispose of those materials would be necessary. Like the sandbag structure, ,the sand used to fill the basket does not pose an environmental threat and should be disposed of in the appropriate manner. If the floodwater was contaminated the sand would have to be tested before disposal. The geotextile filter cloth would probably filter out most of the fine soil particles where most of the contamination is found. Still the sand would have to be tested to ensure no contaminants were in the sand that could present an environmental hazard. The filter cloth would have to also be disposed of in an appropriate manner. The wire baskets present the most danger to wildlife if left in the field. Small animals could become trapped in the mesh if left in the field. Also, if the baskets are left where water covers them, fish could become trapped in the mesh, similar to any other wire debris present in water bodies.

RDFW Levee Tests Design The Rapid Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW) was originally developed from the concept of expandable plastic grid system ("sand grid") which was invented at ERDC-GSL in the 1980s (U.S. Patent 4,797,026). The original RDFW proponents licensed the sand grid patent from the Corps and developed a refined version of the technology which was later researched at ERDC with a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) in 1996.

The RDFW system is commercially available through the Geocell Systems Corporation (http://www.geocellsystems.com) and is also sold through the GSA procurement schedule #GS-07F-0340M, with a unit price of $100 (Geocell 2004).

Figure 2-97 is a sketch of the unit grid dimensions. Each unit is a modular, lightweight, and collapsible plastic grid that allows for several stacking configurations and connections. The plastic material is a polyester polymer manufactured by Eastman Inc.

(EastarTM copolyester 5445).

82 Chapter 2 Laboratory Testing and Evaluation of Expedient Flood-fighting Barriers

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 94 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Table 3-2 Costs for Sandbag Structure Item J Sandbag Structure Product $0.25 per bag for 120,000 bags = $30,000 Shipping No $ estimated Installation Laborers Built by volunteer labor = $0 Operators 1 man for 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> = $480 Equipment Sandbagger 1 loader for 5 days = $1,650 Fill 800 cu yd = $6,400 Removal Laborers None required Operators 3 men for 8 hr = $288 Equipment 2 loaders for I day = $650 2 dump trucks for 1 day = $650 Training by vendor for installation and removal By volunteers Technical support during installation and removal By volunteers Based on the field testing, strengths and weaknesses of each product were observed.

The strengths of the sandbag structure include low cost primarily because sandbag structures in a real-world flood are generally constructed by volunteer and/or prison labor. Because of the small size of the individual bags, sandbags conform well to varying terrain. For the field tests, the sandbag structure performed well with low seepage rates.

Also, sandbag structures can be raised if needed by simply placing additional sandbags.

The weaknesses of a sandbag structure are that they are labor intensive and time-consuming to construct. Also, sandbags are not reusable. All the sandbags used in the field-testing were disposed. For the field tests, the sandbags structure was constructed during the middle of May 2004 and removed during the middle of July 2004. Therefore, the structure was exposed to the elements for 2 months. During that time, the sandbags began to deteriorate. In fact, at the time of removal, walking on the bags would easily tear them and if you picked one up by the open end, the weight of the sand in the bag would tear the closed end out of the bag. The Vicksburg District Emergency Management personnel have determined that the bags used for the field test did not meet.

their sandbag specifications for weave count.

Field Installation and Performance of Hesco Bastion Concertainer Introduction The Hesco Bastion Concertainers are manufactured in the United States by Hesco Bastion - USA of Hammond, LA. The concertainers are described by Hesco as "a prefabricated, multi-cellular system, made of galvanized steel Weldmesh and lined with non-woven polypropylene geotextile." In common terms, the concertainers are granular-filled, geotextile-lined wire baskets. The Hesco Bastion Concertainers have several uses but primarily have been used since the early 1990s (Persian Gulf War) as military force protection.

214 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 95 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis The Hesco Bastion Concertainers are manufactured in a wide range of sizes. For the Vicksburg Harbor field test, units 3-ft wide by 3-ft high by 12-ft long were used to provide the required 3-ft flood protection. For the required 1-ft raise, units 3-ft wide by 2-ft high by 12-ft long were placed on top of the 3-ft high base row units. Since the concertainers are a multicellular system, each unit contained four individual 3-ft-long cells. The units were pinned together to form a u-shaped structure with a riverward face of 98 ft with tieback sections of 48 ft.

Field construction The concertainer units as delivered to the Vicksburg Harbor were stacked flat on wood pallets and wrapped with plastic (Figure 3-67). Prior to installation, concertainer pallets were prepositioned adjacent to the construction site. The construction crew*

included a Hesco Bastion representative, four government-furnished laborers, and two government-furnished equipment operators. The government also furnished two tracked Bobcat front-end loaders. None of the government laborers or operators had any prior knowledge of the Hesco Bastion product.

Construction of the Hesco Bastion Concertainer structure began on the morning of 12 May 2004, in constant rain and mild temperatures. Figure 3-68 is a photograph of the Hesco Bastion site prior to construction. Because the Government laborers and operators were unfamiliar with the product, the Hesco Bastion representative conducted a 23-min training session on the installation process (Figure 3-69). At the completion of the training session, the workers began placing the base row units along the desired alignment (Figure 3-70). In accordance with the construction protocol, about half of the site was graded to bare ground while the other half was left undisturbed with the natural grass and weeds (Figure 3-71). The units were installed according to Hesco instructions as follows.

Figure 3-67. Hesco Bastion as Figure 3-68. Hesco Bastion field site delivered to Vicksburg prior to construction Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 215

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 96 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PM F Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-69. Hesco Bastion training session Figure 3-70. Installation of base row units Figure 3-71. Structure constructed on graded ground and grass/weeds Units were pinned together to form a continuous barrier by inserting joint pins through the coils of adjacent units (Figure 3-72); The units also were connected with zip ties placed along the top of adjacent unit end panels. Riverward face units of the structure were placed first, followed by the tieback sections (Figure 3-73). Each unit has a 5-in. liner flap on the bottom. Care was taken to ensure that these flaps were turned to the inside of each unit prior to filling, so that the weight of the sand on the flaps secured the units in place. Once the base row units were placed, the units were filled with sand to within approximately 5 in. of the top (Figure 3-74). The units were not completely filled because the bottom flaps on the top row are turned down and buried into the sand in the base row units. The sand had previously been stockpiled adjacent to the Hesco Bastion site and was placed in the units by two tracked front-end loaders. The laborers spread the sand within the units with shovels and manually compacted the sand by walking on it.

Sand was placed in the concertainers primarily from the protected side of the structure.

However, due to the location of the seepage-collection tank in the northeast corner of the structure, the sand in the vicinity of the tank was placed from the riverside.

216 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 97 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-72. Installation of joint Figure 3-73. Construction of base row tieback section pins Figure 3-74. Filling base row with sand Once the base row was filled, the required 3-ft-high structure was finished. -The construction crew of one Hesco Bastion representative, four government laborers, and two government equipment operators took 5.1 hr and 34.7 man-hours to construct the 3-ft-high structure. The only equipment used to construct the base row was shovels and the two tracked Bobcats.

Once the required 3-ft-high structure was finished, work began on installing the 1-ft raise required by the construction protocol. Hesco Bastion accomplished the raise by adding a second row of units on top of the base row (Figure 3-75). The units for the second row were 3 ft wide by 2 ft high by 12 ft long. Due to the natural ground slope at the Hesco Bastion site, the top row tieback sections were only 27.6 ft and 15.25 ft long.

The construction crew installed two of the top row units before work ended on the afternoon of 12 May. Work on the required raise resumed on the morning of 13 May.

The weather that morning was sunny and humid. Since the tieback sections were placed on sloping ground, the top row was only needed on the riverward face and portions of the Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 217

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 98 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis tieback sections. The top units were unfolded and placed directly on top of the base row units. Joint pins were added to the top row and these units were zip-tied together at the top of the end panels of adjacent units. The top row and base row units were also zip-tied together. Once the top-row units were secured, sand was placed in the units. Initially, the sand was placed in the top row units from the protected side except for the northeast comer, to avoid the seepage collection tank.

During the time that the units were being filled, the ground around the structure was extremely muddy and slick. Because the riverward front of the structure was constructed on sloping ground, the Hesco Bastion representative was concerned that during filling, the Bobcats would slide into and damage the structure.

Figure 3-75. Installing top row units (required raise)

Therefore, he requested and was granted permission to fill portions of the riverward front from the riverside (Figure 3-76). Since the top row units were 2 ft high and the required raise was only I ft, the top row units were not completely filled. The amount of fill varied in the top row units but averaged about 18 in. (Figure 3-77).

Figure 3-76. Filling top row units with sand Figure 3-77. Sand fill in top row units The construction crew of one Hesco Bastion representative, four government laborers, and two government equipment operators took 3.8 hr and 22.8 man-hours to construct the required raise. The total time to construct the Hesco Bastion structure was 8.9 hr or 57.5 man-hours. Construction of the Hesco Bastion structure was completed 218 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 99 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis just prior to noon on 13 May. The equipment used to construct the top row was the same shovels and the two tracked Bobcats that were used to construct the base row.

. The Hesco Bastion Concertainer units used at the Vicksburg Harbor test site were 3 ft wide when empty. However, as sand was placed in the units, the units began to expand.

The cells within the units ranged from 40 to 48 in. wide when the structure was finished.

Therefore, the units used for the field test have a footprint of 4 ft. The Hesco Bastion structure required 91 cu yd of sand fill. Also, Hesco Bastion was allowed a 25-ft right of way to construct their structure. Because the structure was filled from the side with tracked Bobcats, the entire 25-ft right of way was used. Figures 3-78 and 3-79 are photographs of the completed Hesco Bastion structure. Once the construction was completed, the Hesco Bastion representative signed a certification that the structure was constructed according to his onsite directions and in accordance with Hesco Bastion's installation specifications.

Figure 3-78. Riverward face of Figure 3-79. Completed structure from completed structure protected side Testing The Hesco Bastion Concertainer structure was constructed during a time when the river levels were falling. However, by early June, as predicted, the river had begun to rise and by the morning of 5 June approximately 0.3 ft of water was standing against the structure. Figures 3-80 through 3-87 show the Hesco Bastion structure during field testing. As the river continued to rise, the Hesco Bastion structure was subjected to higher water levels. The daily water levels against the structure are given in the figure captions. These water levels were based on 8 a.m. readings for the Mississippi River at the Vicksburg gage. The testing of the Hesco Bastion structure ended on 11 June 2004.

The river never rose high enough to overtop the top row units. However, sand in five of the riverside top row cells was at the level to provide exactly 4 ft of protection. On 11 June, the river level rose high enough to overtop the sand in those five cells. The decision was made in collaboration with the Hesco Bastion representative to stop the tests at that point even though the pump capacity had not been exceeded.

Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 219

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 100 Plant FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-80. 4 June 2004, no water against Figure 3-81. 5 June 2004, 0.3 ft of water structure against structure Figure 3-82. 6 June 2004,1.3 ft of water Figure 3-83. 7 June 2004, 2.1 ft of water against structure against structure Figure 3-84. 8 June 2004, 2.7 ft of water Figure 3-85. 9 June 2004, 3.1 ft of water against structure against structure 220 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 101 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-87. 11 June 2004, 4.0 ft of water against structure During the field test, seepage was collected in a buried concrete tank located on the protected side of the structure. Seepage rates were determined by computing the change in volume in the tank over a specific time. As the water level rose against the structure, seepage rates increased. Figure 3-88 shows two photographs of the Hesco Bastion structure seepage tank. The first photograph was taken on 6 June 2004 while the seepage rate was low. The second photograph was taken on 10 June 2004 when the seepage rate had increased noticeably. Figure 3-89 is a photograph of the seepage observed through the joint between adjacent units. Figure 3-90 shows the seepage water on the protected side of the structure. To determine seepage rates, the wetted area for each structure for a given water surface elevation was computed. Table 3-3 provides the seepage rates for the Hesco structure. The seepage rates for the Hesco Bastion structure were high. The seepage rates were high enough that the Hesco Bastion representative attempted repairs to try to reduce through seepage.

a. 6 June 2004 b. 10 June2004 Figure 3-88. Hesco Bastion seepage collection tank Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 221

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 102 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-89. Seepage through joints Figure 3-90. Seepage on protected side Table 3-3 FieldTest Seepage Rates - Hesco Bastion Wetted Area of Structure Seepage Rate (sq ft) (gal/hr) 100 300 200 2,300 300 3,900 400 6,000 The first repair was made on 8 June and included the addition of plastic sheeting to the riverward face of the structure (Figure 3-91). This repair was made with 2.5 to 3.0 ft of water against the structure. The plastic sheeting was rolled out and attached to the top of the top layer units with zip-ties. The sheeting was weighted and held against the bottom of the base row units with sandbags. At the time that the repair was made, the seepage rate was approximately 4,000 gal/hr. The repair temporarily reduced seepage, with the rate falling to approximately 3,000 gal/hr. The repair was made on the afternoon of 8 June. By the morning of 9 June, the seepage rate had risen to approximately 4,300 gal/hr with only a few tenths of a foot rise in the river level.

222 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 103 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PM F Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-91. Attaching plastic sheeting to riverward face of Hesco Bastion structure The second repair was made on 9 June. This repair consisted of attaching half sections of 4-in. PVC sewer pipe across the unit joints with zip ties. Bentonite slurry, dry powder, and pellets along with sand was poured into the top of the pipes and packed down (Figure 3-92). Hesco representatives expected the bentonite in the pipes to swell and seal the joints. This repair was made with just over 3 ft of water against the structure.

After the pipes were installed, the seepage rate continued to increase. Once the river levels dropped after the testing was completed, the Hesco Bastion structure was visually inspected. Apparently, an excess of bentonite was packed into the pipes. As the bentonite swelled, the pipes were pushed away from the joints thus providing no sealing of the joints.

Removal Removal of the Hesco Bastion structure was initiated on the morning of 14 July. The weather was hot and humid with a heat index near 105 deg F. Due to the extreme heat, the work crew took frequent breaks. Only the time that the crew was physically working to remove the structure was included in the removal time (the clock stopped during breaks). The removal began with a three-man Hesco Bastion crew removing the top row layer. Hesco Bastion requested and was allowed to remove the top row layer since the government-furnished crew was unavailable at that time.

The first action in the removal process was removing the joint connection pins between the units and the center connection pins within each unit. To remove the center connection pins from the unit ends, the liner material had to be cut to expose the pins.

Prior to reusing the units, this liner material has to be replaced. The removal of the center connection pins is required to break each unit into a front face half and a back face half.

The pins were removed by two men using a pin removal bar and a chain (Figure 3-93).

Once the pins were removed, the zip-ties between the top row units and the bottom row units were cut (Figure 3-94). This allowed the work crew to lift and pull the half units from the sand (Figure 3-95).

Figure 3-96 is a photograph of the riverward face of the structure after the outer half unit sections were removed from the top row. Once the top row units were removed, the sand from those units was scraped off of the base row units with a front-end loader Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 223

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 104 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

b. Bentonite slurry c. Bentonite pellets V

d. Pipe with bentonite e. Packing bentonite into pipes

f. Bentonite-filled pipes after water receeded Figure 3-92. Attempt to reduce seepage using bentonite 224 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 105 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis MOP Figure 3-93. Removing center connection Figure 3-94. Removing pins zip ties Figure 3-95. Removal of top row half Figure 3-96. Riverward face of units structure (Figure 3-97). This sand was then removed from around the base row units so that they could be removed (Figure 3-98). The base row units were removed by a crew of two Hesco Bastion representatives and four government laborers plus a government equipment operator. The same process was used to remove the base row units that were used to remove the top row units. Most of the base row half units were physically lifted and pulled from the sand by hand (Figure 3-99). However, when the joint-connection pins were pulled from the riverward face of the base row, two half sections were pushed over by the weight of the sand because these units were on sloping ground. The removal crew used the front-end loader and four chains to remove these half sections (Figure 3-100). They also used the front-end loader to pull some of the joint-connection and center-connection pins from the base row units (Figure 3-101).

Once the units were removed, the front-end loader was used to remove the sand to a disposal site on the extreme west end of the Vicksburg Harbor testing site. The average haul distance from the Hesco Bastion structure was approximately 550 ft. By the end of the day (14 July), most of the structure had been removed. The remainder of the structure was removed during the early morning on 15 July. Since the weather that day was extremely hot and humid, work began at 6:10 a.m. The entire structure including the sand fill was removed from the site by late morning. The removal of the Hesco Bastion structure and sand fill took a total of 8.7 hr or 36.3 man-hours. The equipment used to remove Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 225

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 106 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis the Hesco Bastion structure included shovels, a joint-pin-removal bar and chain, and a front-end loader. Once the structure was removed, the Hesco Bastion representative signed a certification that the structure was removed according to his onsite directions and in accordance with Hesco Bastion's removal specifications.

I- ____

Figure 3-97. Removal of top row sand Figure 3-98. Removal of sand from Figure 3-99. Removal of base row around base row units half units 226 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 107 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Figure 3-100. Removal of half units with front-end loader Figure 3-101. Removal of joint-connection pins with front-end loader Reusability Once removed, the Hesco Bastion units were inspected for damage, folded, and placed on pallets for transport offsite. All of the Hesco Bastion units used for field testing were folded and strapped to four pallets (Figure 3-102). The removed units were stacked to a height of 36 in. on three pallets and to 40 in. on the fourth pallet. All four pallets were loaded onto a standard 16-ft trailer (Figure 3-103) for transport back to the Hesco Bastion plant.

Figure 3-102. Removed units on pallet Figure 3-103. Removed units on trailer (pallets 48 x 40 in.)

Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 227

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 108 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis None of the top row units (2 ft x 3 ft x 12 ft) sustained any damage. Some limited damage was noted to base-row units. Each of the Hesco Bastion base row units was made up of eight side panels (36 in. x 36 in.), 10 cross panels (36 ft x 18 in.) and 20 coils.

Table 3-4 provides an inventory of the damage.

Table 3-4 Hesco Bastion Damage No. Side Panels Cross Panels Coils Units I Units Used Damaged Used Damaged Used Damaged 3ftx3ftxl2ft 16 128 9 160 10 6320 2ftx3ftxl2ft 11 8

__0___220 0 0 Table 3-4 shows that the Hesco Bastion units received limited damage with over 95 percent of the side panels, over 96 percent of the cross panels, and over 98 percent of the coils reusable. Damaged or cut pieces can be replaced, making the unit reusable. All damage to the Hesco Bastion units occurred during removal. The damage can be directly attributed to the use of heavy machinery. Once the top row units were removed, a front-end loader was used to scrape the remaining sand from these units off of the bottom row units, which damaged some panels and coils. Also, the front-end loader and chains were used to hoist some of the bottom row sections that were heavily weighted with sand.

This lifting damaged some panels to which the chains were attached. Figure 3-104 provides examples of the damage that the units experienced during the removal process.

F -

Figure 3-104. Units damaged during removal process 228 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 109 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis The units can be cleaned by washing the sand, mud, and debris off the units with a garden hose. If the units are washed, the liner should be completely dry before folding and storing. If the soil on the units is dry, the soil can be swept off the liner with a broom. In this project, the units were not cleaned at the field site, but were packed for shipping immediately after disassembly.

Summary For the field testing, various construction, removal, and performance parameters were evaluated. Table 3-5 provides a summary for the field testing of the Hesco Bastion Concertainer structure.

Table 3-5 Hesco Bastion Field Testing Summary Item Hesco Bastion ROW Used (ft) 25 Footprint Width (ft) 4 (includes bulge in 3-ft wide units)

Structure Length (ft)

Riverward Face 98 East Tieback 48 West Tieback 48 Ease of Construction Time (hr) 8.9 Effort (man-hours) 57.5 Manpower (no. men) 7 Equipment Shovels 2 Bobcat Loaders Fill (cu yd) 91 Durability The Hesco Bastion structure stayed in the field for 2 months and was subjected to hot, wet weather. The structure showed no signs of deterioration.

Varying Terrain The field test site was relatively fiat with a mild slope from the protected side of the Hesco Bastion structure to the riverward side.

Ease of Removal Time (hr) 8.7 Effort (man-hours) 36.3 6

Manpower (no. men) Shovels Equipment Pin Removal Bar Front End Loader Forklift Seepage (gal / hr)

For 100 sq ft Wetted Area 300 For 200 sq ft Wetted Area 2,300 For 300 sq ft Wetted Area 3,900 For 400 sq ft Wetted Area 6,000 Repairs All Minor - Structural Integrity Not Threatened Attempted to Seal Joints with Plastic Sheeting and Bentonite Reusability (percent) > 95 Even if a product performs well, the flood-fighting community is not likely to use the product unless it is cost-effective. In order to. make a fair comparison of costs, each Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 229

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 110 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis product vendor was asked to submit the cost of constructing and removing 1,000 Ift of their product, 3 ft high in Vicksburg, MS. This cost included the purchase of the product plus fill material, labor, and equipment based on Vicksburg rates. The cost for shipping the products were not provided. For this cost determination, sand fill delivered to the site was estimated at $8 per cu yd. Labor rates were $8/hr for laborers and $12/hr for equipment operators. Table 3-6 provides a summary of the costs furnished by Hesco Bastion. The Hesco Bastion Concertainers are reusable. However, Hesco Bastion does not provide a guarantee that would provide for no cost replacement of damaged units.

Table 3-6 Costs for Hesco Bastion Concertainer Item Hesco Bastion Provided Cost Product 67 3'x3'x15' units at $394/unit = $26,398.

Shipping No $ provided Installation Laborers 6 men for 20 hr = $960 Operators 2 men for 20 hr = $480 Equipment 2 loaders for 2 days = $1,300 Fill 425 cu yd = $3,400 Removal Laborers 6 men for 20 hr = $960 Operators 2 men for 20 hr = $480 Equipment 2 loaders for 2 days = $1,300 Training by vendor for installation and removal No charge for initial installation Technical support during installation and removal No charge for initial installation Based on the field testing, strengths and weaknesses of each product were observed.

Hesco Bastion's strengths include ease of both construction and removal for time and manpower. The field testing showed that a Hesco Bastion structure can be constructed quickly and with a limited labor force as compared to a comparable sandbag structure.

Another of Hesco Bastion's strengths is low product cost. The cost for a Hesco Bastion concertainer structure is comparable to the cost of a sandbag structure. That comparison includes labor to construct a Hesco Bastion structure and only limited labor for a sandbag structure since during real-world flood events, sandbags are typically constructed by volunteer and/or prison labor. However, with all the products tested, the cost of the product is the large majority of the total cost. The installation cost including labor, equipment, and materials is minor as compared to the purchase price of the products. A Hesco Bastion structure can be raised if required by placing additional units to the top of the structure. If the required raise is more than 1-2 to 2 ft, then stability becomes an issue. In that instance, the structure should be raised by first placing a second row of units along the original base row to increase the width of the structure. A second row can be placed in a pyramid shape on top of the base rows. Hesco Bastion units proved in the field tests to be reusable. Inspection of Hesco Bastion units subsequent to completion of the removal process showed that over 95 percent of the unit pieces were reusable. A small number of panels and coils were damaged during the removal process. However, these pieces are easily replaced. The observed weaknesses of the Hesco Bastion product include the need for significant construction right of way. Hesco Bastion structures are granular filled. At present, the fill material is placed in the units with a loader that works perpendicular to the structure. This operation results in additional right of way needed to 230 Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 111 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 2 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis fill the units. The Hesco Bastion structure tested in the field had high seepage rates relative to the other structures. Since completion of the testing, Hesco Bastion has evaluated their seepage rates. Their evaluation concluded that they installed the concertainer units incorrectly. Their standard installation protocol includes removing the permeable liner from the ends of adjoining units so that the sand fill can flow freely between the adjacent cells. For the field testing, the liner was not removed. If installed correctly, the seepage rates for a Hesco Bastion structure should be significantly reduced.

Field Installation and Performance of Rapid Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW)

Introduction Rapid Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW) units are manufactured in the United States by Geocell Systems, Inc. The RDFW is described by Geocell as "a modular, collapsible plastic grid." In common terms, the units are plastic grids filled with granular material, interlocked and stacked together to form a wall.

Field construction One RDFW unit is 41.5 lin. and holds approximately 0.3 cu yd of fill material. Each unit contains 35 individual cells. For the Vicksburg Harbor field test, the units were connected end to end by the interlocking tabs. A structure high enough to hold back 3 ft of water was accomplished by stacking five units (40 in.) to form the wall. In accordance with the construction protocol, a raise of the structure to hold back 4 ft of water was required. RDFW accomplished the raise by adding a single row of units (8 in. high) on top of the initial 40-in.-high structure.

The RDFW units were delivered to the Vicksburg Harbor in crates. Six crates were delivered containing 100 units each. Figure 3-105 shows the RDFW units as delivered to the field testing site. Prior to installation, the crates were prepositioned adjacent to the construction site. The construction crew included a Geocell representative, four government-furnished laborers, and two government-furnished equipment operators. The government also furnished two tracked Bobcat front-end loaders. None of the government laborers or operators had any prior experience with the RDFW product.

Construction of the RDFW structure began on the morning of 13 May 2004.

During site preparation, the RDFW testing area was left partly undisturbed (grass and weeds remaining) and partly graded to bare ground. Because of the rainy weather conditions on the day of construction, the testing area was back-dragged with a Bobcat front-end loader to bring the moisture to the surface to assure direct contact with the ground and proper seating of the product (Figure 3-106).

Chapter 3 Site Selection, Characterization, Instrumentation, and Field Testing 231

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 112 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 3 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 3 Amendment A: Re-Test of HESCO Bastion (Reference 2.3)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 113 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 3 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis AMMENDMENT A Re-Test of HESCO Bastion By Don Ward, ERDC-CHL, October25, 2005 During the 2004 tests of flood fighting structures, seepage rates through the HESCO Bastion ConcertainerTM barrier were higher than seepage rates through the other structures being tested. CHL was therefore requested by HESCO Bastion to retest the ConcertainersTM in the laboratory for seepage rates to demonstrate the effectiveness of an alternate construction method. A Testing Evaluation Agreement was prepared between CHL and HESCO Bastion, with HESCO Bastion paying for all costs of the retesting. The alternate construction method consisted of wrapping plastic sheeting around the river-side wall of the structure.

A double line of putty roofing tape was placed on the floor around the outer edge of where the ConcertainersTM would be erected. Plastic sheeting was placed over the putty and carefully folded at the corners to allow a single roll of sheeting to extend around the outer perimeter of the ConcertainersTM. At the corners, 12-in-wide duct tape was placed over the folds in the plastic. The ConcertainersTM were then erected on top of the plastic, and the plastic sheeting was folded up over the outer face of the ConcertainersTM and down inside the ConcertainersTM prior to filling with sand. The plastic sheeting was cut where the wire mesh extended between the inner and outer walls of the ConcertainersTM so the plastic could be folded inside the baskets. Plastic wire ties secured the plastic sheeting to the top of the ConcertainersTM. Expanding foam sealed the ConcertainersTM to the wing walls and duct tape sealed the plastic sheeting to the wing walls.

Laboratory Testing - Results The following three tables (Tables Al -A3) present the pertinent laboratory testing results. Construction of the Concertainer TM wall with plastic sheeting took slightly longer than construction without the sheeting. Other differences in construction were that the 2005 structure was assembled by an experienced HESCO Bastion team (the 2004 structure was built by laborers under the supervision of HESCO Bastion), and the 2005 structure was not covered during the large wave tests.

No repairs were made to the 2005 structure during testing.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 114 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 3 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Table A-1. Effort Required to Construct, Repair, and Remove The Flood-Fighting Structures Construction Repairs Removal Structure (man-hrs) (man-hrs) (man-hrs)

HESCO Bastion 20.8 1.8 13.4 HESCO Bastion retest 23.2 N/A 4.72 Seepage rates with the plastic sheeting were reduced by about 90 percent.

Small holes in the plastic caused by the debris impact tests had no noticeable impact on seepage rates.

Table A-2. Seepage Rates During Static Head Tests 1 ft Head 2 ft Head 95% Head Average Structure (gpm / ft) (gpm / ft) (gpm / ft) (gpm / ft)

HESCO Bastion 0.39 0.94 1.81 1.05 HESCO Bastion retest 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.09 gpm /ft = gallons per minute per linear foot of structure Table A-3. Structure Damage During Laboratory Testing Structure Observed Damage HESCO Bastion Minor Sand Settling and Washout, Some Bending of Wire During Debris Impact HESCO Bastion Minor Sand Settling and Washout, Retest Some Bending of Wire and Minor Tears in Plastic I Sheeting During Debris Impact

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 115 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 4 TVA Calculation "Modify Dams - Dam Safety" Fort Loudoun & Tellico (Reference 2.5)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 116 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis TVA 10697 IOE-4.851 OE CALCULATIONS TITLE PLANT/UNIT

ý

'Jir'- DhwS - AMv SAEC71Y--l:-WIN4XTw:ý PREPARING ORGANIZATION KEY NOUNS (Consult RIMS DESCRWPTORS)ýIST)

BRANCH/PROJECT IDENTIFIERS Each time these calculations are lued, preparers must ensure that the or~l0nal IROI RIMS l ccesslon number Is filled In.

Rev (for RIMS' use) RIMS accession number no 880923F0078 B66 '88 0122, 102 APPLICABLE DESIGN DOCUMENTIS) -

R-SAR SECTIONIS) UN ID SYSTEMISI Revision 0 Ri R2 R3 Statement of Problem ECN No. (Indicate it Not Applicable)

~fE2~T c " 1 -

• Prepa Ch ked/ Z 7-~ v~ P wedR we*

0651/A(ý T6 ApLproved' J3T,'971C' PAý65Ltee--5-*.

Date tý0-X-6 -70  %~

List all pages added 7CT* 7" E 07)d-?

<, by this revision. ____'_-- ___ _ q Li'CA/'a/V Z C 0P , t List all pages deleted 5- "__

E of this revision. ___.q _,_"___l_ _

sI List all pages changed /.Lt/L.. .

by this revision. _ _ _ _ _ Zt.c.z ppce:jq/p(, 54,DG-'. A-r Abstract 7,WCo--LC, WQL- AT 6vb c~

c:RIMS, S120 C-K

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 117 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis F.-

Title:

TOO DIFY( DA, 115 I REVISION LOG Revision No. DESCRIPTION OF REVISION* Approved Daote TVA 10534 (EN 1ES*4.79)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 118 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis XPIDjFY P*iý4-OMV TEO 6W C~ FAT CHECKEO -- -- -

-ro O - 'z5 n - - 1.1L 5-qes ZC 0r 0F 1 t-. & - 30 40-34e C 4,'LcY7-1014 (etulie e5i-r 8L6-Ivo& ~ )- 35 o I9 0,A4.C0.-0 7-10 (W,14-~ ' &W~u 7w 6>St 0

0)

'-I

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 119 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis CHECKED i3,n ~F, u i, ADO K4a 2- 0ý?c Tv?$

-rc rar amseM,&L)) kl kc2- *'** ,

VW Pr7- awe~ x1~IL 4A4 ~

....

AFC *,*,/ 0w , . .. . . . .. .

• /* .* * -,/ 4--f, ..

- P/'P T> ~JP~ #-d

-I

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 120 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

+/-

F*;oApL.tu(E)J& 67 4#4~,

,>rjj LiLŽ 1.>-.. II .A~fr1JNTh C~~)MfbtE44!0 IýA 5~ 7 I r.e~V VJ wA iT f Lý v40;c- orrvP7 r )s3 .5' 401-wn 19 r_____41" _k".

/1 fop{er-0

'0 11/2-e I'

82~~

0 ;A 0

cI -

0 1,gr g'

& Xr

- / i I~%.

3v1 1.4, ,0 1.11 I.1~.

,141 U,

w.~ 2.L-,6 r 1.4 0

0

'~ *

-i

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 121 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 4

4qrA *wM

.A4

...... /g&,QS A/6~ jt16. ~ O 4 COMfu1EDAV-4t DArE ~)I_1 "4'. 6P , "h~prO'JQ) 57 A~1

• U1A

.1Ž- ~*iA(

.~

,~gx.49-4~ ~XIM-4 A~ p~4~%

p~L~

(,)dA '&Tea)

A"fl 1, Mpv; ýP fwf-04tyw5 "17c~

W;TA Výrrvjwvr 0

-I *1

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 122 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

~5Tr~ //~*5~o +/- - (.CM ,TEOD~ ltI Ld7E l AJ.4 lg CC K~-;~E - -

-en~ ~ ~~ 7nr!'~)

3" 411n,,j Af 0 b4J4ý- ./

pFop I I p0 Wd,5ir p 5~L

-1 ARYW INA /I j/

/

0 61i~ Ltr f ý IAI

,5,4 14,

,X.3 4~8 1.77 :2.10 4,14 fs4 -- Y, 1,54. 0 111-11114.1 17-I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 123 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis L

III,,

r

-1i LT41

---

---

..

-- ..... 7 '~ Q

~ i 9AE/

7

&.4. -- COMPUTrEr4

-6#4"D DrL PAod3'

• ,**)

11G)ý(AWW IW y) -q~*~j ~r4~j' Z,5 --7!

? +

4

.22.~- i

.~'0 1 'ii N

~RI'4VA jS~ j4.(o <

~g~/ f~:~q -~

W+ý 0 , %.Vý , "YI

,qP/

44r- vot 66,14 0

0 I-

-i

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 124 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

-K-F -ý - - - AI ow) t I,$ US ý()r3

~- - 2.),-

Ott-Q-, CA*..-, Ao UV-,SLý Ri 41

&~ ~~-~IeZ

.5

• ZJ'24 ~

$4) -

'F, - ~tE~7 ~

~2~J

-'Pp 0

~ 1?~-e~~q~i3

~Y'~ ~~&4 frbZ~I~.

U X 01 , .

?,, " 0?i,4A 913 7J 1- '

JA-=V// s qyaC) C e49L

,qv , 4,+9 n 0

0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 125 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis m

I I,ýopwqXla-4 4L D~;4c 0O

• 57A~ /~5O2'>

L~L~L7~hr;

(~.I'

/~'#'4~

~ kfr~

co, CffCKV 1rp [)AT~

E~jiv iAr ?4 U

~oIf -ko

-J Iot, -- J, P5f 41- (1.11 -.71 4Rý )k:1 t.i 0

+

4Woas14) I A'

/k;'

4 -IPItoI eLi7)I, AZ 41+A) a,-,15 *- -ýý ":v-1~>  !;hýz 6, ý - do-4 a x 0

410w/ JW41AY -ýv70-ýL-I.- ~ .O~aL~-Uoi-N,Q or-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 126 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 2

-~ ~~ ~-ý7 AU;

//tS?)7b "I71 CHECKLO 7-Z~ 6JP A'33 2'P

~ ,.

~t '1 j~5~ i~~) /

/

/

ok., zý, 4 du r, .4,;.,,

F(I4

• (,* / * (,#

/i St 4CAfr~s.L LJr

,d~

q.

61ILI

%j I'%

.27 .7,

.3.1.

-

2.4' .. ig ,/,AD

+/-:r4.% ,afl.?Jv"4_)

0- i/Ad- II~%l4~' 2-I4~ ~

- IU III~

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 127 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- lpb Pk.".Dt.*'

iA//.75O+/-L9 2{t COMPLI DAT -WL 7 CHECKEG OjAII p-ý A I' ~7iZ~//~ (Alk,111AWr IýYj -

'

A

---

~

rp 5lgr-)W

-f7 0 0,4 0*

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 128 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 1/ ____

/~75~-b. 7.43t' 1,24+/-.eQ -coMPuTE14e. UATE WJý4 WiAi- rw xqa

-pi;7 A, kF V1, V

~. ~ ),,i I.,,-

dpi, ,, " I ~Z

'.53 1,4~ .4 .47

'.2/7

'6~ .os6~/z.5~~37 2,*'7.* .52.  ;,1o

/,xs/

hJ3 Apre .p9j (1,1o1z((Io)0.q, 3,9 1:14or .~ hr 4,7(2.9 -3 1, 97 1 ~ ~ 4eIP 1t Aw ýý pt~$~ P fkw,~o 944tAbfl ko -Vet-  %'Wor ew-144

,)-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 129 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis CW)ozwy ~j>\c'('$ FO RT 40v 0L r? -

rCMFcLf TE ,

.". /*-?",

or s(hll ZY" 0"")

d&.(.rvi,_i7ýýny-vý _7i*bý, 4-6 >"OVI'd-u ncCtAQ-1:ý) 0LCrt3__,_S, uo cl- f I. -tipIL 1"If lav"

'Y~

Q_ 5,1ýý A26

~3= ~ =

1.2 7S - /75

- /Lo'

-~

/egj'-

• ~57w

~, , ~ ~ /ci ' kdC~5~r/ A F~or -)9

~,77 G&;

0 M

0 11,11.7a -1ren")_f

~4k'2~d.

I-

= ý_ ME

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 130 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

'T k OF ________-

0 A ~~ i*) COMPUJTED ARi~

D~~ATE pf~a Cý", *z~9 7

3' I. ~

.5 XvwfU

~cG~)J4-~ 72~¶-

2,,4,

.Oa&s(Zz:7,)51'0 25$ S

-72,L _ .247i 1'eg oI 7,.

I.1L1t F,,,"0,A0

/41ý649>+ 11(

A //

P~. LA~~

490en /,ý, pw-,ýAc -

~'

w ~1,;A 0 J

&bLzx['( .O0(pZ4~)3.75 4' ( 0( Y,5 j Z '(/), 5]

,I~1 0 14 F5LuD pG,2 (a 3 09. 4r~oA/ PtyrF 4/1/

H

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 131 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis E7 k0AQLOQr4 A,(_CEs P-zvnP.....&T.....

CHECKo~nf. k 0 ...-

-AA t K L "ii LwI 3'ý,jPL +/- &hkA4 kA' V&J,~L~1~

)~'fV~d 3

'? P> -!ý N-z-,a, (4.2-v) 70TALý ý(,u zm ), 4, t*=~~~~ 4AJ* Z'°-'(4*"=,5)'

0 ~~

.,' 'ýZ Cvz 3IL1~ &c$C

-p= mci n1 v~- P24~

,.24~ =

6 /7 .Z4+"

t3 IZ- (/4 lY'2 Z.5X 22,)

~J~o*-

,*,-.:/.5,-/ g,*

.3'.

31-5w '4ew, 0

0 I-75*

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 132 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis gL/4~

~ ~

0 C' IAM;ALj Tr.D Trouý-.)

G&bP-/0/,,

G k Z0,a./rp

/4th "5 0 rrW -I io6L ,,j A, 4q car-ccd.

%6j, ad o,(R 5 -

/ if=

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 133 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4, Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis I= IIN II SHEETC ./Z OF _________

ktlfte'e

-  ! m COMPUTEJ$&g DATE10)df C~gtn lk P flAvc -, t

'fI' i o ,~6?~Xh'1~%~ j4~i. 3,11o'

.52

.~3(lZS).f7

/4.

m,13 .41

• l5(.~).'+a ~i~"

'-45.

© -~~(46i> 46'

'pt 14

.OLk~)I,5&3 ~'k .12 4,P'7 C

M 0

(

• I- i$'

I-.--

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 134 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- ~ ~

.2..J..L..7

.....

...- COMP1IIE& ý ri

-0~* L 8) 7 r~cm FC* R ia Axic*

S --

ol- CI I) 11J A C5 i- 6 (IT

&6 4 , 07ý(s5ej) 4 64f AP

- C Je~~ t~S~ 0~'~

66 4 0-T-)

0 U, I-0 0

4 I-.

' I II I I I II l I

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 135 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis a

Ald, ,'~% ZeVc'ou'V 0 IM

~. ~ AA~ '~S 53.5CrnW Ugq /e F~ruLz fo4 0 &~+o pi~p~J

°C , = /.

.lno

• . =.2.8.

.02. ~

~ .o4 I,a,,

z 1,01 04)'

2 0-2s

~QLL l/03 1KL / 2Z?

,5O4

'7 C

C 0*-

/1

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 136 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 0 f-I4PL'ii~~COMPLITEDJ(44 TLJ4 0

%- eo111 Az11

1. I '6 I

is. $ ý' Kk 4.9)

A(

rAY -- 7 48 Z?

A,,&ý uwfl& ýP,46 411TA --rkeg w,-fkS 0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 137 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

... .. ... OF

-- - 7717i!. i.I.. ~ ......... )pA '

r~r~o ,At8 .J~j-I, PDli LF *I 3.14

• 4g. .38

'it 2P~ ,pb2 ,11 DC - "3' 0 V/3)

I~31' 2.z7 ~49* 924

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 138 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification Stability Analysis ROGGCDX00033320090003

/657 S -

CHECKED [M

..

. a(jxg)Z-"

5,q ' .o II Or-i v~16~$ j4q~

1.- bWO, LAO or, 0

0

)

(A -r PIA6e) 010

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 139 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis m

r - ~7 k'g~4~ vAJ ~ ~2L) 4~

• - ~1 -- COMPIEL v~ir*ea-rl 0) p=2 -), olv'i erA)

)#/Vj( 6 72~1~

4

-0m.4n 1$1' 1P)

• z 5 714 ÷,-

0 cawwýý __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

YC1'wf?2f4a ,*LL 0

n r1

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 140 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis IV 4

S ~ (i-AErflc) COMFIVJTEDý DATE CHECKED -nArt

~.

IV~p e,

0 1-1 +  ;

F1- 4 J~b'i'

- - -. 1.

~ ~ A II J/I P

4- 2X pf;1 7

__ - I~

'.5 1 1.5?

,5,9 '- j"71 C~i'~U ~

C 0

tý e =I P S~r+ýrrrN ~o,di ,OL

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 141 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- U

---

-~" A

• ~ ~ ...- - ~ ~TCOMPUTE.A

-¶~K 1,111 4~41L Yt97 oL

<JI.

,,,:, ý,a-f (P0-7s- 22-113 17V 2S 4. f

/~'f7 419ý x1v %4a-4 I Joe= 4I'), 4-.IZ - ,0ý,1,J

~~27K

,9 )r . -a3.i/1 C

M 0

I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 142 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis f, T

..... ~ E) DA1F. 2-7JLd 1 I.

Li '4 -.

, ;.I wi %

/AJ 'N o~c- -,I

- N

-7 -4 N A,

-. 7 N 7; ----

ALI z:~

" ~L"""~T 6-J 4 V/94 L A N

~'1 0

I- to

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 143 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- ~l- ~AJ2Th~L)*2e

.~ ... ..

~p/ZC-77~w wrpmIE p~r~7pýA, wifi5 CA~*C4~~ h~V~

A f.Po-32)1 17/77'7

&i(zrw IT z~)A _ __ __7__

7= M, Pb7TJ'ONK;Z (ý THE LDNti4Zl(OI

'~ IL) A~A' & 7P~~vAVfh I- 0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 144 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

~-G'C~4 ~44~7o4) - -# "ev4.Ae TA3V/t_

Dh~'1'A4D 'Tookee

- ~-/4L2-hV c~' ~-V cý-',

a~s~

Ait~ ~~'i44Jd ~4o~r Mf4

- ~rJs7~

1' 7'1 0 -F, r4 R A (ý*A *.

0*

/ý, 4^1jde-40 0<

1-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 145 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis NOIAP0ýr'< IDOAr

....

.... ....

c wLlF MuYkAIS ~otA Toý

-C-4, eý ,t ) A -4 X16

-I

ýcN ~ zZZAii

g, ~:

~

,0 . VkwoA, vAVý P6=

S:/,9 k z

- - - - - -

- ~(boil 0

rot:0 wi A4- '?;7 0

oVW 00- 0 vra I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 146 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

).oel~j405/

.... ... .. OMIP7 E rE.3D //AVr0E sce 5W. 75 roz 96111 A i oeD )

pirV A~ %fl*oa k w 41

¶1;,

41v 0

v5K *%%e 0#z if 72) $j.1,r .1.41 071-fL I.- 0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 147 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis M

-ý7- *TP w ITL$A !k-P16, W't)A) .. Aoe. ji;*D D'TE~OAJOV Bi~

0 CuMI~J ei' r~~ii ~ 2285 5c .W.2S Fl,,Pt W1 klQLJ tr/o?4, Jy

(~X'~) '.4

'4.

• i3~~ ~ 4~

56,vI 4,;Sj ~*p~* ~I4- 1,0 4-5.1c

.J Ci Y~i) z ~ "4. '57'dI 2~4 "4 i.1 ts. .~W (q.sV~

2-2.

eD. ii 2IJ. j,VA kf ::: 6.,9 (s.v:ý-) -ý1,4 (IF) -- p ~ 4'44 k'11 0.6-

~ ~P/~eA'E~P4AW A

~pcd4 4O~/ e-a Vp e ,,I 0

0 fr ZIA

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 148 Plant FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- ~ c4~sr~~ em .. . . . .. .

Ae~6e~ ~3fJ~

Cl0 C41-p DATE

-- C'- V IO 8~3' I' -

- 1 0 kr .0 opp 4 1' LP ý,

.Iz(814ui)-=1.Y if1. i

£72'

.1,1V6 4Yi): .L.a& ~-43.) v.4 -f~i* -'

'-.~-~'* [+ vqc

ýA4.,

IA' jf (8AB) :2.4 37+l 7'

C ~IL all 9z r6S 2D-- 3, r - >)14 S&

5bL- - 1f 0

rXIAO"aVrAqýk V0449i 4 -) + AM, 7, I'S5 04. >1'5 I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 149 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- - - I A~e~ ~A1~ COPF 79 DAE jr CHECKED D tIKfr

Ž

~ 7

_______ ~

~

/J I I QL.~z$4 .1 ~

J~~. e~4 0

4-I A2, l3 ý

'1~ I ~

(5~ ~. , I

~1 ý7.52' A ,) .

Z20,47' 113 "V#_

5.5

'A.) ~ 4.

0

. 4.0 ro-0 f,;(*-

4.!r34 4:

I- '44 - ; i

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 150 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- -..-- ~COMPUTE0-&P- .DATEt; kit-JY9 CHECKn .. DATF

/

~67Z~/#~ ~42~

Z) 67Z 0 vg(, y.F4%-

41 i5-333 -

z~2 C%)'1~~o6 ezý r

/7(/3/~/~/7 4/x A

'fri.,

00 .c53(3I,(Zi5 41

.

C tot~i~.0.

0 zv 21 e0l;v

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 151 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

-. ........ . ..... ThU 1 4Q/~,I

-OPE - - D~I~a i..q 1-0aom 0 CHECKED-A,eq,. Cý Q11 EL - )

4q,~f

/ Z)+ 3) c* 17" 9(.9

~2A& A/A= 33'~~ &

J~Ly ~j~A Tf/-o,%? ý I~T4 ~Fk .. = I11

.4:ýT --

eq04 Fýr> :

7- --'zPP tT-r = 0"5 F

/V 56 4=~c*%a~Jzz~j la%

-,. *a 0

0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 152 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis RARWNPAk6EA u CHECKE DI N V, P"'S 54w, (

0 0.kafu-, xec )J4*

.7 -'

,4<,ij)7-.B4.

57.4

• 0 tAot)d 0k tjCr 7C &43) /4~3A s L*I:-, L 64 /13 7A

~

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 153 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

.;Ii?E __+__ ____F___

. . . . . . . . . ................ 0 OF . . .

~ ~i4)(-~ -CGMPUTED~k4 CATE-~4~'?.

_______________________________________________________________________IHCCHECKED-- - -

%~'C'7 4 ~H40~*

A4

1. 4c~jt&Ai

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 154 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis itor

~&D~~O~j~WE 4 lokm'tj 8 A'>

(  !'A4j4q

.

'ý4'OK wpe PF

'ýAfo w*15 -rw 0

d I 1:4

~z7~ ~

/'

2.427 ,

824-0 o.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 155 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 4 - COMI9P-2L DATE 90je CO~f-

-J 0

4 U.

4 lt

'4 I,;'

>~ - -~.

YE, I'

1-J 9 >~

• ~ *~h 4- '11 0 a J-1

.%I%

0 S "4

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 156 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 35! r) .

..

....

~ ....

~7d.

i Si 'LII 44t 80,01.

I,-

I~ (35.15 t7~-~O4J41 5

~ j?~ e9

~

a N' a, ; -~ J45~*

//

/

/ S. I

'~'

/

-U 0

0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 157 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- K4Ph1~ Pk~1'~~

4&~&~Q&~ ~Fb/'

$i~4zi~L4iJ- - ~44N~S COMPUT[446ArE ___-dv-

- *-

7s, 7-jr~L' N-ý OD*

11=Zip 4

7~~pi4~

1101 N~/i~7 I -

LI -A (L

i~ (~rz~ ~ C7~ - ~

,j7~ ~ acl 01)b Lk(~~

N, ),# =

c.Zc)I j ) z e-&RvcT/

/k.

vT/ /7/A$.Ao A #ZV~~y F/~b ~LZ~iQ~7/o , 1 0 mU-fPV" FCke 607-HJ AlJr0'C

-0(

Pu-e., b)5 7-0 M

0 p..

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 158 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis F¶ VkJ

)- QK ýg.4I-i-Q 3.4Pcd7 0

ZPMFq, /

• eviwhvpý IJA 4o roc.

'n0, 0,

BJ'~.I'l (v

'V I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 159 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

~~Q~~ Pal.-~~ ---------- c ~~Jd~

......... OMW4Lf OArL, OW,,007 CHECKEFD F) F ZPt4I 956~

J, I -")0 a6jQ 40

'pr. e F)Ir VU

'9.1 C&+3r Z__

_ _ _ - s V 6 '

-j A ed)

.S

+0

- +/- )~L (C/

2. fl)

£L .777 a"? . IV 449" F

A. * *d*

I--

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 160 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc#: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

.. . .. . .. ]1 _ E j .. 1 f_

9X 0,10W4 10e 15, P7

~ ~244Z -. I.

04 0/., -7, ....

I--

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 161 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

---

PU__4 -___Y.-

• ......... . . . .... .. ~ COME O~V 7 Fj4Lvro I1 b 0 144 L' Pw~*  %, ~,1k

~

V b

l7 L4s0

$

C1

-,Ppj 5, MA ;: C,

ý-x -

a f 8)

LAXA pal

'C

~Ils S4; A*1:, + P.

p x 0 31 y ry i-Tf - txoo 0

"1 0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 162 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis CEK __

XL

• PýA 0'

ýeý ,110ý ,

x's iA "0 4 1DV 4*(9to 4

• P3O*~~ 5~.~ ZAýX,5, 4A iozf AI -

S.-77"

-*.13J A4 4~ - 0*

. 13 S

,,a*, a , ,*

A0 7'*,, *> (y ,*. .,!.>

.,

4g,~-j~

• " );;0,w _~

( ~

3

'rig p

6-0 rn 0

6,vAf #avowelpys

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 163 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

---

-.... Cf)MVI'iý-.~~ DATE Ci0ECKED DAIFý 131 3,i9 3-! +i ' alr

/

/

/

/-

g + * - /14 . - )1,7! /

(

/ /7,F

/,

i*4- , V. 191ý - /-

t -'lip 4,1 - ./

Ile e.

0 A. ________ .~

b 9X;20 -'s) 40

- " 04ý- 0 4L -4,0,9 = 0 a) -- .'0,99 ).4 S. m 4 '--7 ý

/S

-~ ~

0 0-I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 164 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis A41 4PIMA.

cOMPIJT~~9AL0Ar CHUXECD WAh 2?8

~4~*2s) k '. 1 4.2.~

, y~e20.ý0ý '.L

, f 1-7 it.) 1ýý*) 4 1 01 r-0

/ v..~ 'Pa

.4'~

0 40 r 0 t 4

/ 4,441- 1 1 dp-pý? /ý I PO/

oofý.

'0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 165 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

.D......

.. ....

...

............

CHECKEO IýýJ' flAi. C .4~3 (f 12-)%31 I'fCM Q-S.- t.J/f c* o.* 52.t. h'?,u I%.v O- *Y.,

v 4 -rc, xi ý 2, -V 0-f!-;(*~~* (

e -1,,4.

4; (M

+4

70 o, ~-

S 4 d0

-*.O (

'~ ---- ,

e76 6- _0ý kIi; 4*6~i) III 94P i04,1÷*

• o7 0

0 I-.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 166 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

- - - II-' _ OF--

... .. ... ... .. ... ... DATE~ '~

0 c"cYo S6Pi~

zx2., 1 r;A'44,5- -/v- -';gv4 "10.

A-/0 4x2 <-7ýa ý& VC70 . ý"-Av4s

-- 7 lAg' N

krA',p 4 jffga

,ý,Y=

0 ZJ=2

..r

'6931 41 '0 k-I> _____

4 ,7oo 0lZ _

2 rf-le- =- p .6 o 11 62)71 /kave _.s'fA6-4/4Yi4

-ýV'1 d9$6 wa~do#-0 7 0~

Ao-1VA' r~ 4) 9 i

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 167.

Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

z. .o . . ..... ..

CH. CKr c

............ --- Lair

-tt7%00/ prwou 'C~,a~ 4-- 4Ak 1kYI, 6f~(AY1 Cdni~ArL &~oi~anm~o. 7kk p(-Vwioos~ "0," QVO(cV\q hcw ct "n" d-ckuur~ 0f cuom.o. 79 1042 ýI0 .71, 1 ,-Pr C

• - . 4_, .y/L ) ý,I,,,,-o

.=.~~~~ 8o.a,,o, o5~~ k

/),,1A A-o./ 0 Z3-4-6a 10i7.

7~ of~ *~UJ n e11/~dLJ/6/,2Xe +0o 7P&(= r&,i 7 ,*/z,&

,.** *,u. = .,+,)(z.> Z,5 -. ,*

• ,

3D '-

-4, c ' r  ? , 5pbI,-*,4L-*Jo) O ,

0 0

-5re 7k-. /ý 7ý 6 Vr.

h

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 168 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 1C~dmcre-+/-c 453 7'?Ž51--eclo PgcThCT.

0

~,

it-Th

>Jr~j-)C'-,cpPI

/w k'JA

~kf)(I I-7~W7 I-I

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 1694 Attachment TITLE Plant: FLH, PMF Temporary Modification Calc #: Stability Analysis ROGGCDX00033320090003 X2vY1 c/k ac ;l,)A

- .,u*../-Jo . .~ 8...

.... -7:

. t1(6 -

...,,.,,,** *P . .*3 d.* _' .

............ U; '1-,ill,/ A,*,,*1, 4.112 Vexl. .

....... t w,e r-4' 1111

. .ý3 'b450 (Y)O- M.

D~=I '(-r)t = £2,4ftm 4.2"- 7, 5.6 I2.4

/0' )54(.

[5.4"7.

/3,7 5

• .'_3,. &/,/,,, *-. *,,,,qr.., 14, 3 .2,f-0

9,1 0 .2.2 2,JO

• . I-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 170 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

-cc/%o Sck&/&O'l ALQ/-4 72'LWw P(j~t JAT/,/Z1Q

7) A - .2d7

/0

=17.4 7S# 31) 7,- old 012 00 -S A 55 (C?- 20,7 ok-ký -9 7 1- /-2. 7 L1,~

L 4a&lakAs efLG CZ~. ELbE211Ij

.ce00.7) 5?" A,22 -

/A7(-2). / 9( -k = b q-C.IZ).9 iro V1 4 3.3,: 9.- N 22 ( le,01 ( /Sj = 1-5. S "ý

~. .~($92K/&6O CD

~~ 4 ar. JaK 4~

4A sx-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 171 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 1

4~/6o,~~ 7 c~

• ~ ~ Ik~

~~- )ý05.~

.7ýfl4/60 POEC6-.-

. lo4*~ 1, 7 ok-l2=, =- .077 L4 7-

= .oo/8 OIL 0

3:Foo-75 AFcAJ, dtcLJaa

. 0/.3,/3 Pl~o,'-

• 4e(,9

• OO3z (:= Xoo°")

PM0033

--. s4-P i ~~.;.~~ ./6e/12- oL.) &X,~ 7ý6 &IhtJAI 1,14r'iwo in M.

0 0-

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 172 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 4 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis

-014-9 or MODIFY SAPPLJL- , AM -I TELLtCO. -FJ-0.JeGT.,.

-%

0 COMPUEED DATE .Aý Cj.

CHEM(EnF G04C, F~-.AM LINP61R.. Q4E-G SPItLLWI6Y a Dvs-rReAA r-9c*6 OF AF'ZýOtJ, P-C C L; PS OiýEE SPILL-.WAY

- S'-4onl, L-:,4 CorvA sec.+LL~n st-,vc~s asaýb A N-0 6v- +L4-f 14f+ -,;fk RIc r arv &-5~L wede-rbi~e-.

0 14- ts co)-PA~ by e~-~.-~ ~oC~aric* by 1~

As';5ume ra,4%o of As fu Ac.

h~d6O~ 45 - o.oo-v,24)(45;) ý 24 rI ;lo .,e.f As- 6(o,44 ) =3-92 ;n%-1 LP-5 5-01s 0

0

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 173 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 5 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 5 Table 6.3 from Reference 2.7

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 174 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 5 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis 22 INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOILS Table 6.3 Porosity, Void Ratio, Density, and Unit Weight of Typical Soils in Natural State Density Unit Weight Water (Mg/m 3) (kN/m 3)

Porosity, Void content, Description n (%) ratio (e) w (%) pd pt 'Yd Y

1. Uniform sand, loose 46 0.85 32 1.43 1.89 14.0 18.5

2. Uniform sand, dense 34 0.51 19 1.75 2.09 17.2 20.5

3. Mixed-grained sand, loose 40 0.67 25 1.59 1.99 15.6 19.5

4. Mixed-grained sand, dense 30 0.43 16 1.86 2.16 18.2 21.2

5. Glacial till, very mixed-grained 20 0.25 9 2.12 2.32 20.8 22.7

6. Soft glacial clay 55 1.2 45 1.77 12.0 17.4

7. Stiff glacial clay 37 0.6 22 2.07 16.7 20.3

8. Soft slightly organic clay 66 1.9 70 1.58 9.1 15.5

9. Soft very organic clay 75 3.0 110 1.43 6.7 14.4

10. Soft bentonite 84 5.2 194 1.27 4.2 12.5 w = water content when saturated, in percent of dry weight.

Pd = density in dry state.

p,= density in saturated state.

"Yd unit weight in dry state.

-ýt= unit weight in saturated state.

2. Asample ofhardpan had a weight of 129.1 g and a volume ARTICLE 7 CONSISTENCY OF FINE-of 56.4 cm 3 in its natural state. Its dry weight was 121.5 g. GRAINED SOILS The specific gravity of the solid constituents was found to be 2.70. Compute the water content, the void ratio, and degree 7.1 Consistency and Sensitivity of Undisturbed of saturation. Soils Ants. w = 6.3%; e = 0.25; S, = 67%. The consistency of clays and other cohesive soils is usu-

3. The density of a sand backfill was determined by field ally described as soft, medium, stiff, or hard. The most measurements to be 1.75 Mg/m 3. The water content at the direct quantitative measure of consistency is the load per time of the test was 8.6%, and the specific gravity of solid unit of area at which unconfined prismatic or cylindrical constituents was 2.60. In the laboratory the void ratios in the samples of the soil fail in a compression test. This quantity loosest and densest states were found to be 0.642 and 0.462, is known as the unconfined compressive strength of the respectively. What were the void ratio and the relative density soil. Values of the compressive strength corresponding to of the fill? the various degrees of consistency are given in Table 7.1.

AM. e = 0.616; D, = 14%.

4. A dry quartz sand sample weighs 1.54 Mg/m 3. What is Table 7.1 Consistency of Clay in Terms of its density when saturated? Unconfined Compressive Strength 3

Ants. p = 1.96 Mg/m .

5. A sample of silty clay had a volume of 14.88 cm3. its Unconfined Compressive weight at the natural water content was 28.81 g and after oven- Consistency Strength, q,(kPa) drying was 24.83 g. The specific gravity of solid constituents was 2.70. Calculate the void ratio and the degree of saturation of the sample. Very soft Less than 25 Soft 25-50 Ans. e = 0.617; S, = 70%. Medium 50-100

6. Given the values of porosity n for the soils in Table 6.3, Stiff 100-200 check the values of void ratio e, water content w,density p, Very stiff 200-400 and unit weight -. For soils I to 5, G, = 2.65; for soils 6 to Hard Over 400 10, G, = 2.70.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 175 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 6 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 6 PMF Headwater and Tailwater Elevations

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 176 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 6 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Long, J. Justin From: Hasan, Husein A Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:10 PM To: 'Booth, Paul'; 'Nathan.Mathis@bwsc.net'; 'Zimmerman, Peter'; Duncan, Johnathan D; Long, J. Justin; Hoskins, Coleman E; 'McClung, Nicholas'; Lennon, Kendal R; Dodd, Charles B Jr; Lowe, Mark Christopher; Chaffee, Duane E Cc: Tompkins, Russell W; Lowe, Gregory W; Maddux, Perry D; chris.triplett@bwsc.net

Subject:

RE: New HW/TW PMF Elevations Sensitivity: Private FYI - See e-mail from Greg Lowe below: We will use WBH TW elevation 739.0 as recommended by Greg. With this, we have all the information we need to proceed with final stability calculations and design. We need to finalize all design calculations within the next few days as we are starting construction Monday.

Husein From: Lowe, Gregory W Sent: Wed 09/30/2009 4:56 PM To: Hasan, Husein A Cc: Maddux, Perry D; 'Chris Triplett'

Subject:

RE: HW/TW PMF Elevations - Watts Bar Husein, We have taken a look at available data. Our best estimate for Watts Bar with HW at elevation 768.27 is a TW of 739.0.

If you get any indication that this is creating an instability please let us know. We will confirm the final TW at Watts Bar as soon as the information is available.

Thanks Greg From: Hasan, Husein A Sent: Tue 09/29/2009 6:17 PM To: 'Booth, Paul'; 'Nathan.Mathis@bwsc.net'; 'Zimmerman, Peter'; Duncan, Johnathan D; Long, J. Justin; Hoskins, Coleman E; 'McClung, Nicholas'; Lennon, Kendal R; Dodd, Charles B Jr Cc: Tompkins, Russell W; Lowe, Gregory W; Maddux, Perry D; chris.triplett@bwsc.net

Subject:

RE: New HW/TW PMF Elevations In a meeting this afternoon, Perry, Greg, and Chris have provided us with the HW and TW elevations for the following dams:

Dam HW TW FLH 835.65 821.2 WBH 768.27 will be provided on 9/30 TEH 833.34 820.3 CRH 1090.68 981.5 The stability analyses that you are performing that are related to the Temporary Modifications should be based on the above elevations.

Husein Hasan Project Manager, Dam Safety 865-632-4194 423-751-7340 1

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 177 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 6 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis From: Hasan, Husein A Sent: Tue 09/29/2009 12:59 PM To: 'Booth, Paul'; 'Nathan.Mathis@bwsc.net'; '7immerman, Peter'; Duncan, Johnathan D; Long, J. Justin; Hoskins, Coleman E; 'McClung, Nicholas'; Lennon, Kendal R; Dodd, Charles B Jr Cc: Tompkins, Russell W; Lowe, Gregory W

Subject:

WH/TW PMF Bevations To help finalize the design of the Temporary Modifications, Greg provided us with the elevations shown below this morning. He will provide us with the CRH (HW/TW) elevations and TW elevations later today.

Dam HW TW FLH 835.65 Later Today WBH 768.27 Later Today THE 833.34 Later Today CRH Later Today Later Today Husein Hasan Project Manager,Dam Safety 865-632-4194 (knoxville Office) 423-751-7340 (knoxville Office) 2

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 178 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 7 Moisture-Density Relationships for Sand Utilized in the Temporary Dams Modification Project

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 179 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Moisture-Density Relationships for Sand Utilized in the Temporary Dams Modification Project October 29, 2009 Samples Collected and Calculations Performed By: John Lane Calculations Reviewed and Report Written By: J. David Lane Jr.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 180 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc#: PM F Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Moisture-Density Relationships for Sand Utilized in the Temporary Dams Modification Project Purpose The determination of moisture-density relationships of sand utilized in conjunction with 14ESCO Concertainers at Cherokee, Fort Loudoun, Tellico, and Watts Bar Dams. The moisture-density relationships calculated will provide an optimum moisture content percentage to maximum unit weight.

After the optimum moisture content is reached, the unit weight of sand decreases as the moisture content increases for well-graded sands. In the case of poorly-graded sands, the optimum moisture content is not able to be determined because of their free-draining nature. Sand gradation was not performed in this study because it was beyond the scope of work, but plays a role in the differing results between sand types.

Methods Sand samples were collected onsite at Cherokee and Watts Bar Dams for laboratory analysis.

The Fort Loudoun and Tellico Dam sand was collected from the Vulcan Materials quarry located on Watt Road. Initial moisture content was obtained by ASTM D 2216-05 "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass."

Moisture-Density relationships for each type of sand were established using Method A of ASTM D 698-07 "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600 kN-m/m 3 ))."

Report Organization This report will be divided into sections by dam location with results, moisture-density graph, and analysis of results. A summary and conclusion of results will be presented prior to the Appendices.

Appendices Appendix A contains information submitted from two quarries about the gradation of the material delivered to Watts Bar Dam, Fort Loudoun, and Tellico Dams. There is no data pertaining to the density of either sand material.

Appendix B contains calculations for the determination of data points for the moisture-density curve plots. This includes the moist density, dry density, and dry unit weight calculations.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 181 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Cherokee Dam Material Obtained onsite, delivered from Vulcan Materials Morristown (River Bend) quarry, Morristown, TN.

Results Initial moisture content of sand: 4.1% 3 Unit weight at initial moisture content: 127.6 lbf/ft Optimum moisture content: 8.7% 3 Unit weight at optimum moisture: 134.9 lbf/ft Dry unit weight: 108.6 lbf/ft3 Moisture -Density Relationship for Sand Utilized at Cherokee Dam 136 135 2

I *~~~~~~~/o -t + 6.0782x + 108.56 y =-0.3505xR=0.99 2I 134 133 O0 Compaction Data 132 V=

131 Points 130 T -T T--" -Compaction

!777 Curve 129 128 127 126 0 2 4 6 8 8.7% 10 12 Water Content (%)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 182 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Analysis of Results Although a specific test to determine sand gradation was not performed, the results obtained from the compaction test show that the sand is well-graded and therefore an optimum moisture-density relationship is obtained. The compaction curve is determined from a second-order polynomial function to best fit the compaction data points. The R2 value of 0.99 shows that the regression compaction curve fits the actual data points well. The equation can then be used to determine additional unit weights of this sand at various moisture contents with confidence.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 183 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Fort Loudoun and Tellico Dams Material Obtained from Vulcan Materials quarry located on Watt Road, Knoxville, TN.

Results Initial moisture content of sand: 3.5%

Unit weight at initial moisture content: 111.8 lbf/ft3 Optimum moisture content: 11.9%

Unit weight at optimum moisture: 128.1 lbf/ft3 Dry unit weight: 95.5 lbf/ft3 Moisture -Density Relationship for Sand Utilized at Fort Loudoun and Tellico Dams 130 129 10 R-l*-lhf/R-3*

rf-rd 1+/- Oý y -0.2293x 2 + 5.4652x + 95.518 128 R2 = 0.89 127 126 125 124 II J I

• Compaction Data Points 123 Compaction Curve 122

.+H.H 121 I~~~FT11Jj_ V-120 119 118 11.9%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Water Content (%)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 184 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Analysis of Results Although a specific test to determine sand gradation was not performed, the results obtained from the compaction test show that the sand is well-graded and therefore an optimum moisture-density relationship is obtained. The compaction curve is determined from a second-order polynomial function to best fit the compaction data points. The R2 Value of 0.89 shows that the regression compaction curve fits the actual data points with relative confidence. The equation can then be used to determine additional unit weights of this sand material at various moisture contents.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 185 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Watts Bar Dam Material Obtained onsite, delivered from Vulcan Materials quarry located in Dayton, TN.

Results Initial moisture content of sand: 4.7%

Unit weight at initial moisture content: 112.8 lbf/ft3 Optimum moisture content: NA Unit weight at optimum moisture: NA Dry unit weight: 106.2 lbf/ft3 Moisture -Density Relationship for Sand Utilized at Watts Bar Dam 128 1271 I 126 *-,f--'-F 125,--Y = 0.0089x 2 + 1.3635x + 106.2 124 R= 0.95

• 123 S122 121 F1 1111F _

119 . . . .... ...

• Compaction Data Points II I I I II I I I I II I I I I I I I I Compaction Curve 117 116 115 114 113 112 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Water Content (%)

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 186 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Analysis of Results Although a specific test to determine sand gradation was not performed, the results obtained from the compaction test point toward sand that is poorly-graded and therefore an optimum moisture-density relationship cannot be obtained. The graph presented above is indicative of free draining sand that does not compact at optimum moisture content.

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 187 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Conclusions The table of results presented below was established conforming to ASTM D 2216-05 "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass." Moisture-Density relationships for each type of sand were established using Method A of ASTM D 698-07 "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lb/ft3 (600 kN-m/m 3))."

The laboratory tests performed on the sand located at the Cherokee Dam indicate an in-situ unit weight of over 128,1 lbf/ft3 on the day of sampling. The laboratory tests performed on the sand located at Fort Loudoun and Tellico Dams indicate an in-situ unit weight of 111.8 lbf/ft3 . The laboratory tests performed on the sand located at Watts Bar Dam indicate an in-situ unit weight of 112.8 lbf/ft3. The moisture content is indeterminate on the sand located at Watts Bar Dam due to its free-draining, poorly-graded nature.

Unit Unit Optimum Weight at Initial MosueaIita Weight Location of Dry Unit Weight Moisture Optimum Moisture at Initial Sand Obf/t) Content Content Moisture

(%))Content (%) Content (bf/ft 3) (lbf/ft3)

Cherokee Dam 108.6 8.7 134.9 4.1 127.6 Fort Loudoun FteLodams 95.5 11.9 128.1 3.5 111.8

& Tellico Dams 1 4 Watts Bar Dam 1 106.2 NA* NA* 4.7 112.

Moisture Content Indeterminate

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 188 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Appendix A STATE OF TENNIEBEE SE E W2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND TESTS REPORT ON SAMPLES FOR FINE AGGREGATE SeilNo. _______cfvt No. ___________Late Sam pled ,i/dC19 RaoNu- ______ Plant Le~tte ____.DaW Rec-wvec_______________

Pit No oPIT _ ... .... County Located In . . ... _5umltKeCl by .

prouiuo c jj ý Sam otea by Produce LoaioxIa~ ý Sampf~d Item

xat Lonatlon In Quarry where sample obtaia__,

Type of Consiruction lo be useo in SCREEN ANALYSIS SOUNDNESS TEST WEE W.RE1  % k' E A WT. WT, NET LOut* --. ~

- /.Y- -$ _ _______ o C(31mpgei*swvE &-TILNGTM Pi*t WPM,- -____i._____

The ma"-rial he raquirementa ot the snecillfiationni t____________ fer________

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 189 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis WNIrt L'?1q<

Vulcun Mo Materials Company Material Inspection Report Summary 10i2312009 Plant: Dayton Product: 30090-10 Sieve Size . Average % Passing Specifications 3/8"' (9.5rrmm) 100.0 100-100 44 (4.75mm) 9Z.9 85-100

1. 8 (2.36mm) 64.9

1. 16 (1.18mm) 41.0

1. 30 (0.6mm) 26.2

1. 50 (0.3mm) 17.5

1. 100 (0.15mm) 12.9 10-30

1. 200 (75urn) 10.55

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 190 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 7 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Appendix B 1L2,2° Mois* Dens tv:

(M+- M*)

K::

K,(' V (4)

Pjrz = nmoist density of conpacted subspecimen (cornpac-tion painl), four significant digits. glcrn or kplni'.,

I, = mass of nmoist ;oil in mold and mnotd, nearest g, M;,f = mass of compactioa mold. nearest g, V = voluhme of compaction mold, cm3 or m3 (see Annex K = conversion. constant, depending on density units andd vo]unze units.

Use I for g/cnil and Vkolume in en-3.

Use 1000 for Ekjmn and vohime in mjn.

Use 0.001 for ,gk/cini aid vOIunle in m:.

Use 1000 for ke*/n arid volume ia cm3 1Lt.2.22 Dry Densilv:

Pd-whmere:

pd dry density, of com{,auton point, four ~significant digits, g/zra" or kg/m', and w = mnolding water content of compaction point. nearest 0°1 % 0 11 2.23 Dryv Unit 1V"e'iItl:

' = Kt > Pd in Ibffft3 (6) or y = K), x Pd in kPM/nl There:

Y*d = dry nit weight of compacted specimen, four sign cant digits, in lbf/fmoor kN/nu3 ,

v= conversion constant, depend *ig on density uneits, Use 62.428 for denisity in g/cmv, or Use 0.062428 for density in kg&n,

= conversion constant, depending on density unIts.

Use 98066 for density in g/cm", or Use 0.0098066 for density in kg/mr' Reference ASTM D 698-07, "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 fo-lbf/ft 3 (600 kN-C/m3 ))" pp. 8-9

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 191 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 8 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 8 Applicability of Fort Loudoun Dam Calculation to Tellico, Cherokee, and Watts Bar Dams

CALCULATION SHEET Page: 192 Plant: FLH TITLE Attachment 8 Calc #: PMF Temporary Modification ROGGCDX00033320090003 Stability Analysis Attachment 8:

Applicability of Fort Loudoun Dam Calculation to Tellico, Cherokee, and Wafts Bar Dams 1.0 Introduction Of the four projects that require temporary modification to meet their new PMF headwater elevations, Fort Loudoun is the only project that has atypical applications of the Hesco Concertainer flood walls. Therefore, the purpose of this attachment is to address the applicability of the Fort Loudoun calculation to Tellico, Cherokee, and Watts Bar Dams.

2.0 Tellico Dam As shown on drawings 10W222-1 and 10W222-2, the temporary flood wall at Tellico Dam is composed of approximately 6,500-feet of 4-foot tall Concertainers. A survey of the route performed of September 25, 2009, showed that the minimum ground surface elevation along the flood wall route was 829.75-feet. As shown in Section 6.1 of this calculation, the single 4-foot Concertainer flood wall has adequate stability to withstand a pool elevation up to its full 4-foot height. Therefore, the Concertainer flood wall at Tellico Dam can withstand a headwater elevation of 833.75-feet which exceeds the PMF headwater elevation of 833.34-feet.

3.0 Cherokee Dam As shown on drawings 10W222-1 and 10W222-2, the temporary flood wall at Cherokee Dam is composed of approximately 7,000-feet of 3-foot tall Concertainers. A survey of the route showed that the minimum ground surface elevation along the flood wall route was 1,088.54 -feet. As shown in Section 6.2 of this calculation, the single 3-foot Concertainer flood wall has adequate stability to withstand a pool elevation up to its full 3-foot height.

Therefore, the Concertainer flood wall at Cherokee Dam can withstand a headwater elevation of 1,091.54-feet which exceeds the PMF headwater elevation of 1,090.68-feet.

4.0 Watts Bar Dam As shown on drawing 1 0W222-1, the temporary flood wall at Watts Bar Dam is composed of approximately 1,800-feet of 3-foot tall Concertainers. A survey of the route performed of August 31, 2009, showed that the minimum ground surface elevation along the flood wall route was 766.65-feet. As shown in Section 6.2 of this calculation, the single 3-foot Concertainer flood wall has adequate stability to withstand a pool elevation up to its full 3-foot height. Therefore, the Concertainer flood wall at Watts Bar Dam can withstand a headwater elevation of 769.65-feet which exceeds the PMF headwater elevation of 768.27-feet.

The use of Concertainers as additional weight on the heel of the existing flood wall on the lock side of Watts Bar Dam is shown in calculation RSOWBHROGCDX00033320090006.

5.0 Conclusion In conclusion, the temporary flood wall configurations at Tellico, Cherokee, and Watts Bar Dams have adequate stability to withstand their site specific PMF headwater elevations.