AD A105 337 HOSKINS-WESTERN-SONOEREGGER INC LINCOLN NE F/S 13/13

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM. WELLINGTON - NAPOLEON WATERSHED ST--ETC(U)

SEP 78 H P HOSKINS OACW43-78-C-0155

UNCLASSIFIED NL

* END

..... M , IS 5 URI

*I MISSOURI-IANSAS CITY BASIN

U kDA1O5 3 3 7

I WELLINGTON- NAPOLEON WATERSHED STRUCTURE C-21

I LAFAYETTE COUNTY, MISSOURI

* I MO 10284 iTlO*, .v.CTF- E

OC 9 191~I '.4o, "1

I PHASE 1 INSPECTION REPORT* NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAMI

I _,.,.,~m~2

--- AkppIV~ for publte

I "

PREPARED BY: HOSKINS-WESTERN-SONDEREGGER, INC.

FOR: STATE OF MISSOURI

SEPTEMBER, 1978

81 10 8 6-10

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("ohen Date E,.ered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION VAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE 2F REPOR T .& PERIOD COVERED

Phase I Dam Inspection Report .. R R I

National Dam Safety Program1 Final /epewt,

Wellington-Napoleon Wtrshd Structure C-21 6. PERFORMING OP. REPORT NUMBERLafayette County, Missouri (MO 10284)

7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

Hoskins-Western-Sonderegger, Inc. /

DACW43-78-C-Qi559. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS tO."IOGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Dam Inventory and Inspection Section, LMSED-PD

210 Tucker Blvd., North, St. Louis, Mo. 63101

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS I

U.S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis ep 78

Dam Inventory and Inspection Section, LMSED-PD ,S. NUMBER OF PAGES

210 Tucker Blvd., North, St. Louis, Mo. 63101 Approximately 80

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if dllferent from Controlling office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thle report)

UNCLASSIFIEDSDECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

116. DISTRIBUTIONSTT dN(of Vile Repast) K~

Approved for release; distribution unlimited. . JNational Dam Safety Program. W .

Wellington - Napoleon Watershed

Structure C-21,"(MO i@284), Missouri o'

- Kansas City Basin, Lafaye tte County,issouri. Phase I Inspecty iOn ept._

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Continue on revered aide It neceseary and Identify by block number)

Dam Safety, Lake, Dam Inspection, Private Dams

2L AESTUACT (Ctf. a revw 0 N roneeY ad Idefdlfy by block number)

This report was prepared under the National Program of Inspection bf

Non-Federal Dams. This report assesses the general condition of the dam with

respect to safety, based on available data and on visual inspection, to

determine if the dam poses hazards to human life or property.

WO J '" 43 EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OSSOLETIE ( V UNCLASSIFIED

3 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

SECURITY CLASSFICATION OF THI1S PAGg(Whom Dae t() *Fo

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PASEL(ftef Data Enteed)

OEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYsr. LOUI DouMi, cos or 63a101

210 ORTh t2r. ST PETSTr, L.OUlk MIMlOURI 62,101

SUBJECT: Wellington-Napoleon Watershed Structure C-21 Dam(Mo. 10284) Phase I Inspection Report

This report presents the results of field inspection andevaluation of the Wellington-Napoleon Watershed Structure C-21Dam:

It was prepared under the National Program of Inspection ofNon-Fe3eral Dams.

This dam has been classified as unsafe, non-emergency by theSt. Louis District as a result of the application of thefollowing criteria:

1) Spillway will not pass 50 percent of the Probable

Maximum Flood.

2) Overtopping could result in dam failure.

3) Dam failure significantly increases the hazard to lossof life downstream.

SUBMITTED BY: 2 ADOc$2&Chief, Engineering Division

A BI .Y.. 13 APR 1979APPROVED BY: , y 1, 1 .- I

Colonel, CE, District Engineer Date

U' Innou1 ced

Justlficaton7 ____

Distribution/

AviaiiyCodes IT501-Aal and/orDlzt :

PHASE I REPORT

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

Name of Dam Wellington-Napoleon Watershed Structure C-21State Located MissouriCounty Located Lafayette CountyIStream Tributary to Missouri RiverDat~ of September 15, 1978

Ipection

I Wellington-Napoleon Watershed Structure C-21 was inspected by aninterdisciplinary team of engineers.f*erom Ne&kn-n-Wr---td~g~-~Iaa. The purpose of the inspection was to make an assessment of thegeneral condition of the dam with respect to safety, based upon avail-able data and visual inspection, in order to determine if the dam poseshazards to human life or property.

The guidelines used in the assessment were furnished by the Depart-ment of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers and developed withthe help of several Federal and State agencies, professional engineeringorganizations, and private engineers. Based on these guidelines, thisdam is classified as a small size dam with a high downstreamhazard potential. Failure would threaten life and property. TheI estimated damage zone extends one mile downstream of the dam. Withinthe first one-half mile downstream of the dam are four to five houses,a r4jtsouri-Pacifi c railroad crossing and a Highway 24 crossing.

Our inspection and evaluation indicates that the spillways do notmeet the criteria set forth in the guidelines for a dam having the abovesize and hazard potential. Because of the number of houses and the rail-road and highway crossings within the first one-half mile downstream ofthe dam the spillways should be capable of passing the probable maximumflood without overtopping the dam and possibly causing failure of thedam. The spillways will pass a 100-year flood (flood having a onepercent chance of being exceeded in any one year) without overtoppingthe dam. The spillways will also pass 40% of the Probable MaximumFlood without overtopping the dam. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) isdefined as the flood that may be expected from the most severe combinationof critical meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are reasonablypossible in the region.

Seepage and stabiii. analyses comparable to the requirements of the"Recommiended Guidelines fb r Safety Inspection of Das were not available,which is considered a deficiency. These analyses should be obtained inthe future.

Other deficiencies visually observed by the inspection team wereseveral rather large rodent holes in the upstream slope, seepage out-cropping in both left and right abutment/embankment groins approximatelyeight feet above principal spillway outlet, and some erosion near theoutlet end of the emergency spillway.

4. _

I.

Several items of preventive maintenance need to be initiated by theowner. These are described in detail in the body of the report.

Ha~old P. Hoskins, P.E.Hoskins-Western-Sonderegger, Inc.Lincoln, Nebraska

I ..-

.go.-0

4 ' -c

.~LL.

-4;v

,,.' -

-4r, U S

le,. - ~ -

PHASE I INSPECTION REPORTNATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM

WELLINGTON-NAPOLEON WATERSHED STRUCTURE C-21ID NO. MO. 10284

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph No. Title Page No.

SECTION 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 General 11.2 Description of Project 11.3 Pertinent Data 2

SECTION 2 - ENGINEERING DATA

2.1 Design 52.2 Construction 52.3 Operation 52.4 Evaluation 5

SECTION 3 - VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 Findings 63.2 Evaluation 7

SECTION 4 - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

4.1 Procedures 84.2 Maintenance of Dam 84.3 Maintenance of Operating Facilities 84.4 Description of Any Warning System in Effect 84.5 Evaluation 8

SECTION 5 - HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC

5.1 Evaluation of Features 9

SECTION 6 - STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 Evaluation of Structural Stability 11

SECTION 7 - ASSESSMENT/REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 Dam Assessment 127.2 Remedial Measures 12

APPENDIX A -MAPS

Plate 1 Vicinity TopographyPlate 2 Location Map

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs of Dam and Lake (No. 2 through No. 14)

APPENDIX C -PLANS AND REPORTS

Phase I. Plan, Section & ProfileSoil Conservation Service Sheet 2 of 16Soil Conservation Service Sheet 3 of 16Soil Conservation Service Sheet 4 of 16Soil Conservation Service Sheet 14 of 16Soil Conservation Service Sheet 15 of 16Soil Conservation Service Sheet 16 of 16Soil Conservation Service Soils ReportSoil Conservation Service Geology Report

APPENDIX D -HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS

Soil Conservation Service Sheet 1 of 3Soil Conservation Service Sheet 2 of 3Soil Conservation Service Sheet 3 of 3Plate Dl Inflow HydrographsSheets 1, 2 and 3 of 12 Input Data (PMF, O.5PMF, 100 YEAR)Sheets 4 and 5 of 12 output Data (PMF)Sheet 6 of 12 Output Data (0.5 PMF)Sheet 7 of 12 Output Data (100 Year)Sheets 8, 9 and 10 of 12 Principal Spillway RatingSheet 11 of 12 Flow Over EmbankmentSheet 12 of 12 Total Rating

SECTION 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 GENERAL

a. Authority. The National Dam Inspection Act, Public Law 92-367,authorized the Secretary of the Army, through the Corps ofEngineers, to initiate a program of safety inspection of damsthroughout the United States. Pursuant to the above, the St.Louis District, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer directedthat a safety inspection of Wellington-Napoleon WatershedStructure C-21 be made.

b. Purpose of Inspection. The purpose of the inspection was tomake an assessment of the general condition of the dam withrespect to safety, based upon available data and visual in-spection, in order to determine if the dam poses hazards tohuman life or property.

c. Evaluation Criteria. Criteria used to evaluate the dam werefurnished by the Department of the Army, Office of the Chiefof Engineers, in "Recommended Guidelines for Safety Inspectionof Dams." These guidelines were developed with the help ofseveral Federal agencies and many State agencies, professionalengineering organizations, and private engineers.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

a. Description of Dam and Appurtenances.

(1) The Wellington-Napoleon Watershed Structure C-21 is arolled earth fill approximately 465 feet in length withmaximum height of 37 feet. The dam is constructed inthe Missouri River loess hills.

(2) The principal spillway is uncontrolled and consists of areinforced concrete (RIO) riser with a 24 inch diameterRIO pipe conduit outlet.

(3) The emergency spillway is a vegetated channel cut intoloess soils on the left (west) abutment. It has a bottomwidth of 70 feet and side slopes of 3H on 1V.

b. Location. The dam is located in the northwestern portion ofLafayette County, Missouri, as shown on Plate 2. The darn isshown on Plate 1 in the SE 1/4 of Section 19 and the SW 1/4of Section 18, T5ON, R28W. The lake formed by the dam isshown on Plate I in the previously mentioned 1/4 sections aswell as the NW 1/4 of Section 29, T5ON, P28W.

c. Size Classification. Criteria for determining the size classi-fication of dams and impoundments are presented in the guidelinesreferenced in paragraph l.lc above. Based on these criteria,this dam and impoundment is in the small size category.

d. Hazard Classification. Guidelines for detemnining hazard classi-fication are presented in the same guidelines as referenced inparagraph c above. Based on referenced guidelines, this dam isin the High Hazard Classification. The estimated damage zoneextends one nvile downstream of the dam. Within the firstone-half mile downstream of the dam are four to five houses,a Missouri-Pacific railroad crossing and a Highway 24 crossing.

e. Ownershio. The dam is owned by the Wellington-Napoleon ;'ater-shed Subdistrict, 120 Iest 19th Street, Higginsville, MO 64037.Attention: Chester Temple, Chairman.

f. Purpose of Dam. The dam was constructed as a grade stabiliza-tion, sediment detention and flood water retarding structure.

g. Design and Construction History. The dam was constructed in1969. The design ano. plans for construction were prepared bythe Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Columia, >issouri.Portions of these data are included witn this report asAppendix C.

h. Normal Operatino Procedure. There are no operating facilitiesfor this cam. The lake level is controlled by rainfall, runoff,evaporation and the capacity of the spiliway.

1.3 PERTINENT DATA

a. Drainage Area - 333 acres (0.52 sq. mi.)

b. Discharge at Damsite.

(1) All discharge at the damsite is through an uncontrolledreinforced concrete box drop inlet and reinforced concretepipe principal spillway and a grassed earth channelungated emergency spillway.

(2) Estimated maximum flood at damsite - unknown.

(3) The principal spillway capacity varies from, 0 c.f.s. atelevation 758.0 feet to 56 c.f.s. at the crest of theemergency spillway (760.5 feet).

-2-

(4) The principal spillway capacity at maximum pool elevation(763.6 feet) is 60 c.f.s. Maximum pool elevation is thatdesign value for freeboard pool level as furnished onSCS as-built plans.

(5) The emergency spillway capacity at maximum pool elevationis 1,000 c.f.s.

(6) The total spillway capacity at maximum pool elevation is1,060 c.f.s.

c. Elevation (Feet Above M.S.L.).

(1) Top of dam - 765.0 (SCS plans) - 764.7 (survey 15 September1978). The settled top of dam as planned by SCS is 763.6.

(2) Principal spillway crest - 758.0 (SCS plans) - 757.8(survey 15 September 1978).

(3) Emergency spillway crest - 760.5 (SCS plans) - 760.5(survey 15 September 1978).

(4) Streambed at center line of dam - 728t.

(5) Maximum tailwater - unknown.

d. Reservoir. Length of maximum pool - 3800 feet -.

e. Storage (Acre-feet).

(1) Top of dam - 297t.

(2) Emergency spillway crest - 196.

(3) Principal spillway crest - 150.

f. Reservoir Surface (Acres).

(1) Top of dam - 29t.

(2) Emergency spillway crest - 20.2.

(3) Principal spillway crest - 16.5.

g. Dam.

(1) Type - Earth embankment.

(2) Length - 465 feet -.

(3) Height - 37 feet +.

-3-

(4) Top width - 14 feet.

(5) Side Slopes.

(a) Downstream - 2.5H on IV.

(b) Upstream - 2.5H on IV with 20 foot berm at principalspillway elevation.

(6) Zoning - None shown on the plans.

(7) Impervious Core - All embankment material reported to belean clay (CL) as shown in Appendix C.

(8) Cutoff - Plans show a cutoff varying in depth from 4 to10 feet with 12 foot bottom width and sideslopes of 1H on IV.

(9) Grout Curtain - None.

(10) Drains - None.

(11) Wave Protection - Vegetated berm.

h. Diversion and Regulation - None.

i. Spillways.

(1) Principal.

(a) Type - Standard SCS 2' x 6' x 10' R/C drop inlet anda 24-inch R/C pressure pipe.

(b) Length of weir - 12 feet (2 x 6')

(c) Crest elevation - 758.0 feet M.S.L.

(2) Emergency.

(a) Type - Standard SCS grassed earth channel.

(b) Control section - 70 foot bottom width, 3:1 sideslopes, 30 feet length.

(c) Crest elevation - 760.5 feet M.S.L.

(d) Upstream channel - clear and well grassed (tall).

(e) Downstream - clear and well grassed (tall).

j. Regulating Outlets - None.

-4-

SECTION 2 - ENGINEERING DATA

2.1 DESIGN

Data on the geologic investigation, hydraulic/hydrologic computa-tions, construction plans, and the soil mechanics/soil engineeringreport were supplied by the Soil Conservation Service, Columbia,Missouri. This information is shown in Appendix C and Appendix D.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION

No construction data were readily available; however, it is reportedthat the dam was constructed with SCS engineering supervision andstandard inspection and quality control procedures.

2.3 OPERATION

No information was available on the maximum loading on the dam.

All spillways are uncontrolled.

2.4 EVALUATION

a. Availability. The engineering data shown in Appendix C wasreadily available from the SCS, Columbia, Missouri.

b. Adequacy. The available data and reported information areconsidered adequate to assess the design and stability of thestructure. Seepage and stability analyses comparable to therequirements of the "Recommiended Guidelines for SafetyInspection of Dams" were not available which is considereda deficiency. These seepage and stability analyses shouldbe performed for appropriate loading conditions (including

earthquake loads) and made a matter of record.

c. Validity. The available data and analyses conform withaccepted practice. Parameters for embankment strength werebased upon conservative values obtained from detailed testingof similar (loess) materials used to construct similar embank-ments in the same watershed.

SECTION 3 -VISUAL INSPECTION

3.1 FINDINGS

a. General. A visual inspection of Wellington-Napoleon WatershedStructure C-21 was made on September 15, 1978. Engineers fromHoskins-Western-Sonderegger, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska makingthe inspection were: Rey S. Decker, Geology and Soil Mechanics;Garold Ulmer, Civil Engineer; Richard Walker and Gordon Jamison,Hydrology. Results of the inspection are summuarized below.Photographs are shown in Appendix B.

b. Dami. Rough measurements of the profile along the crest ofte~i dam and emergency spillway and cross sections of theembankment and spillway indicate that the structure wasconstructed according to the plans shown in Appendix C.

The dam is covered with an excellent growth of adapted grassesand legumes.

No cracks, slides or abnormial defor'mations were noted on theembankment or abutments.

No significant erosion was noted on the upstream face of thedam. However, several rather large rodent holes were observedon the upstream slope.

Surface materials in the dam and abutments consist of leanclays (CL).

A very wet area was noted in the west abutment/embankment groindownstream from about Qstation 3+75. Seepage in this area wasoutcropping at about elevation 750 which is some 8 feet abovethe elevation of the principal spillway outlet conduit. Seep-age was also noted in the right abutment groin at about thesame elevation as on the right abutment. Seepage in bothabutments seemed to be ponded in the heavy vegetative coverand appeared to be clear.

c. Project Geology. See Appendix C for geology report.

d. Appurtenant Structures.

(1) Principal Spillway. The concrete in the spillway appearsto be in good condition. The lake level was 0.2 footbelow the spillway crest elevation at the time of theinspection.

(2) Emergency Spillway. The emergency spillway is wellvegetated with brome grass and vetch. It looked verygood with no evidence of erosion in the bottom or sidesl1opes.

-6-

Same gully headcutting was noted at the outlet end of thediversion along the west (left) side of the spillway.

d. Reservoir Area. No wave wash, excessive erosion or slideswere observed along the shoreline of the reservoir.

e. Downstreami Channel. The channel downstream from the emergencyspillway is overgrown with trees and brush. However, spillwaydischarges from this dam are collected in the reservoir justdownstream from this structure.

3.2 EVALUATION

None of the conditions observed indicate a need for immediateremedial action. Additional studies would be required toevaluate the affects of seepage on the stability of the structure.Erosion at the outlet of the west spillway diversion couldencroach on the emergency spillway if left uncontrolled. Treesin the channel downstream from the emergency spillway should notaffect the operation of the spillway. The discharges from thisdam are impounded by a downstream reservoir in which high waterlevels will almost impinge upon the downstream toe of this

structure.

-7-

SECTION 4 - OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

4.1 PROCEDURES

The pool level is controlled by rainfall, runoff, evaporation and

capacity of the uncontrolled spillways.

4.2 MAINTENANCE OF DAM

The dam is reasonably well maintained. Action should be taken tocorrect the minor deficiencies noted in Sections 3 and 7.2.

4.3 MAINTENANCE OF OPERATING FACILITIES

There are no operating facilities at this dam.

4.4 DESCRIPTION OF WARNING SYSTEM IN EFFECT

The inspection team is not aware of any existing warning systemfor this dam.

4.5 EVALUATION

The dam and appurtenances appear to be well maintained with theexception of some laxity in controlling erosion near the outletof the emergency spillway.

-8-

SECTION 5 - HYDRAULIC/HYDROLOGIC

5.1 EVALUATION OF FEATURES

a. Design Data. Detailed plans for the structure were furnishedby the SCS. Pertinent hydraulic and hydrologic data whichwere taken from as-built plans furnished by the SCS aretabulated in Sections 1, 1.3 and in Appendix 0 as hydrologiccomputations. The supporting computations are attached.

b. Experience Data. The drainage area, reservoir water surfaceareas, and elevation-storage data were taken from the SCS as-built plans. The hydraulic computations for the spillwaydischarge ratings were based on data taken from the as-builtplans. The hydraulic computations for the dam overtoppingrating were based on data collected during the field inspec-tion in order to reflect settled conditions.

c. Visual Observations.

j (1) Principal and emergency spillways are in good condition.

(2) The emergency spillway does not appear to have ever beenused.

(3) The emergency spillway and exit channel are in the lefthillside at the end of the dam. Spillway use should notendanger the integrity of the dam.

d. Overtopping Potential. The spillways are too small to pass50% of the probable maximum flood without overtopping. Thespillways will pass 40% of the PMF without overtopping. The100-year (I percent) peak outflow discharge is approximately37% of spillway capacity. The results of the routing throughthe reservoir are tabulated in regards to the followingcondi ti ons.

Peak Peak Freeboard TimeInflow Outflow Maximum Top of Dam Dam

Discharge Discharge Pool Min. Elev. OvertoppingFrequency c.f.s. c.f.s. Elevation 763.4 Hrs.

100-Year 690 360 762.0 +1.4 -

1/2 PMF 1630 1290 764.0 -0.6 1.0PMF 3310 3200 765.3 -1.9 3.8

0.40 PMF 1290 970 763.4 0 -

-9

According to the recommnended guidelines from the Department ofthe Amy, Office of the Chief of Engineers, this dam isclassified as having a high hazard rating and a small size.Therefore, the PMF is the test for the adequacy of the damand its spillways.

The St. Louis District, Corps of Engineers, in a letter dated11 August, 1978 has estimated the damage zone as extendingone mile downstream from the dam. Within the damage zoneare four to five houses, one railroad crossing and one StateHighway crossing.

110

SECTION 6 - STRUCTURAL STABILITY

6.1 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL STABILITY

a. Visual Observations. Minor maintenance features that couldaffect the long timie safety of the damn are discussed inSection 3.2. Additional studies are required to evaluatethe affects of seepage in the downstream abutment groinsupon structural stability of the dam.

Hydraulic/Hydrologic analyses presented in Section 5 indicatethat the dam will be overtopped by the probable maximum flood.Under those conditions, water would flow over the top of thedam to a depth of 1.9 feet ± for about 3.8 hours.

b. Design and Construction Data. The engineering data, analyses,and plans supplied by the SCS conform with accepted practiceand are considered adequate to assess the structural stabilityof the dam.

There is no reason to question the adequacy of constructionsupervision and quality control.

c. Operating Records. There are no appurtenant structures thatrequire operational functions.

d. Post Construction Changes. The inspection party is not awareof any post construction changes.

e. Seismic Stability. This damn is located in the Zone I seismicprobability classification area. An earthquake of this mag-nitude is not expected to cause structural failure of this dam.

SECTION 7 -ASSESSMENT/REMEDIAL MEASURES

7.1 DAM ASSESSMENT

a. Safety. The probable maximum flood (PMF) will overtop thedam, however, the spillways are adequate to pass the floodresulting from 40% of the PMF without overtopping. Seepageobserved at the downstream toe could affect the long-timestability of the structure. Rodent holes on the upstreamslope could lead to potential of failure if left uncontrolled.

b. Adequacy of Information. The information presented in thisreport is considere 4 adequate to assess the safety of thestructure. Seepage analysis were not found, which is adeficiency that should be corrected in the future.

c. Urgency. There does not appear to be an immediate urgencyto accomplish the remedial measures discussed in Paragraph7.2.

d. Necessity for Phase II. Phase II investigations are notconsidered necessary for this dam.

e. Seismic Stability. An earthquake of the magnitude to beexpected in this area should not be hazardous to this structure.

7.2 REMEDIAL MEASURES

a. Alternatives.

(1) The size of the present emergency spillway should beenlarged or a supplemental spillway constructed on theright abutment to pass the probable maximum floodwithout overtopping the dam.

(2) Additional analyses should be made to assess the affectsof seepage on the stability of the structure.

(3) The owner should engage the services of an engineerexperienced in the design of dams to design an adequatespillway system and to evaluate the affects of seepageon the structural stability of the dam.

b. 0 & M Maintenance and Procedures.

(1) A program of regular inspection and maintenance should beinitiated. The program should include measures to repairand control rodent holes and to control future tree growth(none observed at this time) on the embankment and toevaluate the progress and possible future affects of gullyerosion near the outlet of the present emergency spillway.The grass on the embankment should be routinely mowed toenable early detection of rodent holes.

*1

*1

I

I II a

i I

APPENDIX AMAPS

a-

I - I

-A

I 726

IZO

R 7/~-00

3t7 pm;;

:71 71 7y

I reek

WELLINGTON -NAPOLEON

=44 0d r WATERSHEDI I ISTRUCTURE C-21

A70W VCIMYT' T090PMAP/ Y

I - PL.reI

WELLINGTON -NAPOLSON

* WATERSHED

STRUCTURE C-71

VICINITY MPSCALP- IN MILIS "

FZ

WATERSHED HIGGINSVILLEz

STRUCTURE C-210Q

LAFAYETTE COUNTY

J OHN SO0N

SCALE IN MILLS LOCATION M/AP0 PLATE 2

APPENDIX BPHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO0 No. 2

PHO T*; R "

PROTO NO. 4~ DA1 AND LAKEZ TA1s,:I

FROM1 LET, SIDE

* PHOTO :41o.Z

' ~U ~-N~~% £~EENCY ~.~,r

OKI .. 2p

Z~ .4

V42

AIL_ ~PHOiTO N0. 7

r" - PE

FROM APPROX~iMATECENTER L:NE

PHOTO NO. 08CREST OF DAM1TAKEN FROMRI GHT ABUTMENT

0A

- if"PHOTO NO. 9~4.2 ~ -~ ~RODENT HOLE

.e.~ IN UPSTREANM SLOPE.

.4 1 .APPROX. STATION 3+00

S14.;

7, me N i

Jtt

~ ~ 4'~ ~PHOTO NO. 10,.~ .. ,PRINCIPAL SPLLWAY

I _ , ~RISER

a 4w

PHOTO NO. 11LOOKING UPSTREAM1FROM4 CREST

PH'OTO NO. 12LOOKING DOOMSTREAMFROM CREST

- "WI PHOTO NO. 13.. .,OUTLET END OF

.~ 'Z' ~PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY- ~7-

DO..a) .0 WN

4 ,

PHOTO NO. 14

UPPER END OF SEEPAGE

SPOT AT STATION 0450±

I

III1IIIIIIII1

APPENDIX CPLANS AND REPORTS

Note: Reproductions of plans and reports included in Appendix Care the best possible from copy furnished by Soil ConservationService. Unreadable portions on the reproduced sheets are alsounreadable on sheets from which the copies were made.

I ~. ~:i~17TEiI

-ii~0!

- ~I-'-:1 ~I = ~, ~

$ ~~1 '~d1

I . - ~I . -'

V I' 1~

-~' ., I

I /~

I H-L~$-.~- I-I' -.Nf~

~ ~'

I r..i,.

.'-. -

I I

J/ki /1>1,'

~ *"",//I

4 ~~~ ~I,.I

1. ~I S

-I '\N ..

-'I -, I . -

-. *.,A~ S.

I - '9.', 7'I ,~ \''~ '4

'4 V

.9

N

)I S

~1

- -q -

5' i-1~IS.ju..I. ~fl t!~U *I

.4.. -* ~ ~ II :j

__ is4

~- 5- ~ 1 '

I ,1

-J -

~ K1 0.;- -

I - - - --

-5

- '5 a~j~

~

C N

I~-

5.

.~ '5

* . 4 5-, .*.~ -

-51*

2 .C.

'5'

5. ~ 54~

i *° F "'4..'.

I ! J gi

-'?I

'" 1

_______

_.___

._ ,-!'.J* , ,

1

.-- ,

:' -"

.

..

, \ ,',

4'

i

rI.... .

..

..

i i

4 . .... . . .... .. .. . . _ ,, . ; . . . . .

*

4"~~ 4'. * . m

a i*lO- . .. . . . _ E I idl i -- _ • _ , . . . . _ . . , I

it]

E3 OF., Titif it it P o" cl St JO B , iZi" i .

11 ,, ,1 ,,ji---!l l ;I i III iI " 'i.'i. I'= " l

!+ + + + i! , ! ,,< h iitll Ih l,i ,+ "!i - i i - - ,L a +" :

fI.,,,UIe.aiJzL I !~ t . !! . + ," : -

a.I I"I ,,....

/ + ,,,,,,,,,,,,. ,, 1i!

N -4

i, .- ."

t+ti

_______ 'i.'. "

il K

• O ,.. T 0 o . G , O,01 I K

"-I ,., , "% j..,,-" , __. .

..... I... ........~ .... . .. . ... ... a d

IIla.. .. ...I

J 77,

43W4

s->~F -

I Fg.

it:!___t

I _____:=___Z__

I ... ... .. ...

V .~ ............

.. . .. . .. .... J

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

.. -. . . ..........

.77 L=L F.....

... . . ...

IFI

7 I- . . . .. .

0 :ILU

00

IF WIL

V'091V

I IZ

OPTION"UL V nMNO I0 SD00-..0

48A GEN . Q. 7O J?

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENrT

MemorandumTO : James M. Dale, State Conservation Engineer, DATE: October 28, 1966

SCS, Columbia, Missouri 65201

FROM Roland B. Phillips, Acting Head, Soil Mechanics Laboratory,

SCS, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

SUBJECT: FJG 22-5, Missouri WP-08, Wellington-Napoleon, Site No. C-21 (Lafayette Co.)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Form SCS-354, Soil Mechanics Laboratory Data, 4 sheets.

2. Form SCS-127, Soil Permeability, 2 sheet.Form SCS-128, Consolidation Test, 5 sheets.Form SCS-128A, Log Time Consolidation, 3 sheets.

3. Form SCS-355A, Triaxial Shear Test, 1 sheet.4. Form SCS-352, Compac-tion and Penetration Resistance, 4 sheets.5. Form SCS-357, Summary - Slope Stability Analysis, 2 sheets.6. Investigational Plans and Profiles.

REVIEW AND =PRETATION OF DATA

FOUNDATION MAT=IALS

A. Classification: The site consists of Loess in the abutments that classesas CL and alluvium in the valley bottom that classes as CL and ML withsome deep sands. There is a CH at about a 30 ft depth.

An area of organic silt as thick as 20 ft is noted from the channeltoward the left abutment.

B. Dry Unit Weight (Blow Count): Four undisturbed core samnles were sub-mitted. Three were from the surface ML and CL alluvium and ranted indry unit weight from 1.37 g/cc to 1.56 g/cc with blow count from 2 to5 blows per foot. One was from the deeper organic silts and ranged

from 1.07 g/cc to 1.08 g/cc but at 14 blows per foot.

All the blow counts ranged from 2 to 11 blows per foot in the alluvium,from 9 to 20 blows per foot in the organic silt and from 18 to 20 blowsbelow those silts.

C. Consolidation: Consolidation tests were made on the CL sample 67W326

from a 10 ft to 11 ft depth and on the ML (organic silt) sample 67W323from a 22 ft to 23 ft depth.

The CL was at an initial density of 1.47 g/cc and a consolidation potentialof abou' .025 ft/ft is indicated under the fill at floodplain level.

WHOM-

2 -- James M. Dale -- 10/28/66

Roland B. PhillipsSubj: ENG 22-5, Missouri WP-08, Wellington-Napoleon, Site No. C-21

The ML was at a density of 1.18 g/cc and a consolidation potential ofabout .020 ft/ft is indicated. The potential would be very high undera high fill. The sample may have been slightly disturbed in samplingso its potential is actually assumed as .015 ft/ft. This indicates atotal foundation consolidation of 0.65 ft at Station 4+50. A maximumhorizontal strain of .007 ft/ft is ccmpu ted with b = 200 ft, h = 36 ft,and d = 32 ft for the 2 1/2:1 slopes ana 10 ft berm as proposed.

D. Permeability: Rates were determined for the CL and the organic MLduring consclidation. They are K = .024 ft/day for CL and K = .0035 ft/dayfor the ML. These rates were obtained by extrapolating values foundafter consolidation to the in-place density of tie_ sampled materials.

Rates for the sands will be higher. The SP may correlate to the SP-SMfrom sites No. B-21 and C-22 for which rates of K = 10.0 ft/day wereestimated.

E. Shear Stren th: A consolidated, undrained triaxial shear test on theCL sample, bTW326 (301-9), yielded shear parameters of 1 1, c = 750psf at a test density of 1.49 g/cc. This is considered to be a limitingfoundation strength.

EMBANKAENT MATERIALS

A. Classification: Borrow samples submitted all class as CL though surfacematerials are more silty.

B. Compacted Dry Densities: Standard Proctor compaction tests, (ASTf4 D-693-A)yielded maximum dry densities from 103.0 pcf to 105.0 pcf.

C. Permeability: No tests were made. Based on classification, compactedmaterials will have low permeability rates.

D. Shear Strength: Shear strength for the embankment CL materials iscorrelated to like materials from sites B-21 and C-23 with 0 = 0,c = 1150 psf for the most plastic and 0 = 170, c = 925 psf for theless plastic material.

E. Consolidation: No tests were made. Based on the classification ofmaterials residual settlement within the fill should not exceed 2 1/2%of the fill height.

I3 -- James M. Dale -- 10/28/66

Roland B. PhillipsSubj: ENG 22-5, Missouri WP-08, Wellington-Napoleon, Site No. C-21

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Slopes stability was checked by a circular failure method both for a 35.3ft embankment only and for 23 ft of foundation. The :ost critical casewas found for failure through the foundation but a minimum upstream safetyfactor of 1.67 was computed for the 2 1/2:1 slope under full drawdouneffects. This is a very rigorous analysis and the results indicate the2 1/2:1 slopes are satisfactory.

SETFLZET STRA2I1S

Settlement strains should not cause high differentials if steep banks aresloped to 3:1 or flatter and no soft material is left under the fill.

CONCLUSIONS A(D RECC14KIDATIONS

A. Cutoff: A shallow cutoff trench (3 ft - 6 ft) is recommended to inter-cept the surface XL and any surface disturbances such as root holes andanimal burrows.

Backfill with CL placed at 95% of standard.

B. Principal Spillway: The pipe cradle can be set on relatively firmsilty CL without over excavation. The trench should have a wide bottomand 3:1 side slopes or flatter.

SBackfill at high density near the pipe but feather out away from it tofit the 95% of standard used in the fill.

Base pipe joints on a maximum horizontal strain of .007 ft/ft.

Use = 25* for conduit loading computations.

C. Drainage: Drainage is not needed for slope stability. It is notrecommended.

D. Embanknent Design: Provide a homogeneous fill of the available CLborrow placed at 95% of standard density. Control moisture at twopercentage points below optimum to three above.

Use 2 1/2:1 slopes with the proposed 10 ft upstream berm at aboutelevation 75 0.

Provide overfill of 1.4 ft from t Station 4+00 to 5+50 to compensate forresidual settlement of 0.65 ft in the foundation and-0.75 ft within the fill.

cc:James M. Dale (2) E. S. AllingGerald McElhiney D. S. McVicker

III

I- v

It~

Ii I I_

e". -4

t, I I I I

. j ~ ! I - -__________

7j__~T_

_ _ _ I Lmcm N42

cjtfj

In

Iz

V I t::z~-'-t -f I I

I ______

--- 1-1 -- 4 _______________________

___ j i 1

-- - r I~I~i '1- - - - _ _ I I

I - -H-~ I - - - - -a- __

-~ ~ I I~~I - .-- i -

tHKH-----_____~~1l1.1~I~iI1I4 - - _____

.-.- - _ _- f - - - -~-.--- - i- ~

j-i I-

I'

.~3 ~'~~~1 Iz±i ___

2>

1~~*~ - -N/__

- V

I k

* -- o a a-~ -'- C .4,

- ~1.5 -i

- t

z___ -- I- -_47kL~: ~~ztz:I_

7 -

.-

2 -

_ -

- -:- '---- K -

-_ I

!-

. ,'I

'_

_| .- - -7

LASCRA!-Ry N,:

I LATE H L A 1 U. S. DE:PARTM~ENT of AGRICULTURE<C N O IA INTSI TESTING HI111EPO1i~ SOIL CONSERN'kACtN SERVICE C N O IA INT S

FIELD SAMPLE NO. DEPTH, G. EOLOG4C ORIGNe

TYP VsA.MPLE TESTED AT APPROVED BY A7

CLASSIFICAIO.N /*LTEST SPECIFiCAT IONS1

G~ L L "17 PI /2 , ' a ' 7

INITIAL DENSITY -fd7

INITIAL VOID RATIO, e0 C,COMPRESSION INDEX, Cc g

o 0.1 .0101

o.B~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ t . _______________________

I~ ~~> --------- _ __ __

I -:77

0

.1 0~2 O3 0A 0s 1.0 zo s0 '0 50 10 20 30 4 so 100

I REMARKSCONSOL lDATING PRESSURE .SI

P , St$8A • LAS. ACAY -

,MATERIALS U.S. DEPARTM INT of AGI;1UCTCI'r.E1 LOG TIMETESTING REPORT SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE1 CONSOLI DATIONPROJECT a. SrE $AMPLE LOCAT;CN

FI LD SA 'PLE NO. OEPTH GEOLOGIC ;:N

-~ - , ' - - GEO1 _ " _I . G.I

TYPE F SMPE T S E ATAPPROVED By D0ATE_ _ _ __ _

k I

I !I l i] i i *i'

;

-

<I 0Ij

-J ], -. ,- ,. - -

,it; i : i I '

j Iu

'i ' Ii IIi LU;

'I. , IX . ,

IiI .- --...-..- ,,"..-.-JC

I':

j jII 1 J

_____ ____ ___ -----.- r,

MATER~IALS LT. S. DETARTMENT of AGRICULTURE I LO0G T IT I"STI N( . I EI~1,1Tj SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICEJ C NSdOT LI DATIONPROJECT wo V7ATE SAMPLE LOCATION

FIELD SAMPLE NO, DEPTH GEOLCO;C ORION,

TYPE OFP SAMALE TESTED AT APPROVED BY DATE

0001B

w --.. _______.

. - -.------- i---. - __2

IIL

00a P

Cu) NCV8III

.11AT EIZI ALS IU. S. DEPARTMENT of AGRZICULTURE LO0G TMTESTING 1IEPORT~ SOIL CONSEIZVATION SEIZVICE f CONSOLIDTOPROJECT cm STATE SML OA,.

FIELD SAMPLE NO GELOI ORIGIN1.L~

T YPE F SA P LE ESTE D AT APPROVE O Y DATE

Ix'

I I __________

~I -.- - -. ----. ooc

-J

/'or-L IA:ilI 1 rIIl J

v -r

L~LJ

MATERIALS U. S. DEPARTMENT of AGR[CULTURE S TTESTING EPoIT SOIL PERMEABILRTYPROJECT TAd TTE SAMLE LOCAICN

FIELD SAMPLE No. OEPTH , / GEOLOGIC ORGN_ 301-0,i /0 - 1- 11

TYPE OF SA.%4PLE j TESTED AT APPROVED BY DATE

CLASSIFICATION S E F G AI

LL -__PI_ SPECIFIC GRAVITY

TEST NO 4 , 4 4

INITIAL MOISTURE %o __ IG ' Gs __)

_4

CRY DENSITY " . I I G!(8ui)(*

VOID RATIO 10.7,0/ l .7 b; &0. 7:. i TEST SPECIFiCATIOnS

PERMEAB!LITY COEF V 4 C.- ; l 0 0 'a 71 C.

PERCOLATION COEF T,.

H/L DURING TEST

s - - ,"-'

- I . ' ! -+_ _ '_ , -j , , i

c~~i -~r '*-H--- -I-T 7.__0.701.,r ,-

_ _ _---.-_--__.-__ _ I - . ..*;

P B , ( k)

-- I + tH!l r - - -

0 .0t"', , 0

REMARK<S

ma n l ' i 7i:

tv. SCI ..'aV-64LABORATOkY NO)

MATERI1ALS 1U.S. DEPATMENT of ACRICULTUR E CONSOLIDATION T STESTING REPOR~T SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICEI

*PROjECT am STATE SAMPLE LOCATION

.f/ - 4" c-e ^ l 7"'t F1/ ' 4m e/., vFIELD SAMPLE NQ OEPTM GE G ORGI

TYPE OF S.I..Ip TESTED AT A E YDT

CLASSIFICATION TEST___SPECIFICATIONS:___

Gs I LL __ _ _ P1 __

INITIAL DENSITY Yd /

INITIAL VOID RATIO, e0 /o ~COMPRESSION INDEX. Cc ___________________________

0.1 [.0 10 100

4:

0 1 f

w a-

-H4

0.1 02 01 403 1.0 20 30 .0 5D to 20 30 40 50 100

CONSOLIDATING PRESSURE

REMARKS

MATERIALS U. S. D1 RMIENT of AGRICULTUR", LOG T"IIMETESTING IWPDIITi SOIL CONSERIVATION SER1VICEi CONSOLIDATIIONPROJECT cri STATE SAMPL.E LOCATION~

NAP/ena r -. 21 '4"~~v

FIL AML 4, I j IPA OI

L6I t

0,I

LIJ t

00

I~ a. 10

CU!) SNIOV36 IVIa ____-'a

MATERIALS U. S. DEPARTMEXT of AGIICULTUREI LO0G T1 -%IMrETESTING HZEPORTj SOIL CONSE11VATION SERVICE1 CONSOLI DAT-IONPROA~CT a, ST-%-E SAMPL.E LOCATZcd

FIELD SAMPLE N3. DEPTH GEOLOGiC ORIGN4

___ __ (4:__ -' 4U - b A7C 7DT

0009

00Il

000jowef

in'

(n)

a I

NO ) NIGV3N IVIC

- '

. ~~LABORATORY N.O ___

M1ATEIHIA LS L'.S. Dr*PARTMIENT o-* AGRICULTURET .\I"~EPOIIITjSOIL ,.S: SEIW.TIoN IR[CC E SOIL PERMEABILITYTESTIING; REl 0i,;l '' i SOIL CON FI°'INSER{\'ICE I, ,

PR04ECT -a STATE SAMPLELOCATION

FIELD SAPL NO DET C ORGI

LL __P1 _TEST N I I3 I GG(-)'0 ,c 'p

VOiD RATIO I.UNzol 1.//77 . oP'l, TEST SPECIFICATIONS

PERMEABILITY CCE:, t.oos ,27 .LPERCOLATION COEF I _

TE DURING TEST 4 GINITIAL MOIST , % G,- (1-),-"-

r---t _______-_ ' :

DRY ' DE ST a, q/, G,,u + ,4

P .R_,ATIO __ ___

_____ l:'I '_" __

HI~

p It

," 1.10 :- -"-, "____, I I

I -I .1

I-o s

PERMEABLITY COEF (k) F W '.:

REMARKS

" E .. . .

Fo~ SCS 3,5'A / .. /

.Fta, S6 , LABORATORY Sirf MATERI ALS U. S. DEPARTMIENT of AGICULTUR~E TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST'TESTIN( 1ZEPO1,TiSO!L CONSEh\'TION S'IERICE

PROACT o.4 STa tATE SAMPLE LOCATION

FIELD SAMPILC NO. CEPTN GEC~OLOGIC 3RI~lNS - -s / :, -'/..5 " I _________________

TYPE OF SAMPLE TESTED AT IAPPROVED BY DATE¢/...-,-, # . . . . .- / .... 1' !

INDEX TEST DATA SPECIMEN DATA TYPE OF

USCS Z/ LL ,_____ Pl ,_-__ HEIGHT Df . IAMETER /. f" TEST

% FINER (mm): 0.002 / 0.005 MATERIALS TESTED PASSED *' SIEVE UU -

0.074 (' 200) METHOD OF PREPARATION u ' "

Gs (-4) _2 --- . Gs 4) '_ i.. '. .. ... ".. ... '

STANOARD: Yd MAX. Pcf; wo % MOLDING MOISTURE _%

MODIFIED: "d MAX.. . pcf, wo__ % MOLDED AT % OF d %AX;,Vl UM

DRY DENSiTY I MO.STURE CONTENT, % TiME OF MINOR }DEVIATOR AX:AL

INITIAL CONSOL;- START ;EG. F SAT END CONSOLl- PRiNCIPAL' STRESS STRA,\ ,AT'

pcf - DATD OF AT START OF DATION STRESS Or -. FAILURE,

gcc / TEST OF TEST TEST (hrs.) a3 (psi) (psi) E i%)

_ _. _" I/ :- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . :-, i/ "-" "" _ - ' . ....,v 1t, .'' , /I..-' ___i _ I .' " . I'*. : -." ' ' ' " I . -A , ,- 'z . - -1 717 77

,__ - -.____ '___ [ ' :: __________ __________ :: __ ."____" "__" I - ' " ______" ___" __/ [ " I " .

DEVIATOR STRESS (o' -a), psi

00 :.2.0 .... - ?,."_ V ....... . .... ... ........ .. . .. .. .........

_ .u~~.. ,. . . . . .- i-- .. . ... \... -- '- . . ..2 .... .2...... . .. ..Z 6 :... . .' ......... .. . . .. - .. . T , " . . . . ..... . -7. .. . . . .

. . ... , - _ _ -* _ _ _ _ _, _ -- A- - . .-... . ... . _ _... . . .. . .

--- _-- _- _____. . . ..___-___-___, k -''- -- - . . .. -.~ . . .. - .- . .. . . . . . . .'< .. . .[.. ... . . . . . '- - ' -'] ' ... - . . -.-.. .. . . . . . . . . . .

U. ' -'1" " " " f-. . .- ,. .. .

.....*~~* 'T:5.T-. : z- .. . -. ----- "-2.,.. ... . .. . . . .

- 0 ... ..... . ... .. . . . .

SHRREMARKSR ! i

'°" ' . ... -----i. - -- ... . . . . .._

W :' :- : - __ ____- _ ___ __ L . ! ::: :: .___ _. . .

,,, _ _ _ _ _ _ __- - ,

I, _"_"- -- -'- _ ----- - - ... . .. .

<r r t_____ __,__" ...... ,I -\- : . . . . . . .

NORMAL STRESS (a'), PSI C", ',

REMARKS "7,:- -. 0 .- ",/;;. .= ,..... . , - '

~ . -

SA A TE R A.. .. T o, SSG ,ECU,!ETU ,. C O : :? .C T:U, .' D

iTESTIXG ?~3LCN~lA~~ :vc~?1U2JN23ACQOJECT a' STAE /

FiELD SAMPLE AQ LCCAT,CN -

GEOLOG:C CRhI" ESE A. 2.PPROvED BY A-

CLASS:FICATION (L L L /Pt I P 1 CURVE NO. / OF __ ___

MAX. PARTICLE SIZE INCLUDED IN TEST < " TD.IASM - r T 0{ MINUS NO. 4 . ' YCO.(AST.M D-I557 E__; M ,;. -SPECIFIC GRAVITY ( ,G ) PLUS NO. 4_OTHER TEST C (SEE (Sr - '-AR

2 500 , , '.

2,:J 000 !

' .

."

~~7v -

.7

S , - ------

9L< oz .

t --- ..

S ' I ' . . . .. "i ICA---

(i i t J, ' ' ' ' , . *,t .( - " 2- -t:

2-i ,

1L _ __',:

l-: -" - - -

o L 4 -

/ ---- + - _. .. . .T - _- .. .. __. __l__ _ . . .. _ . ..

C\T" ......

",. . . -.... u r -- : -- - . . ... ' - __T. . , .. . .I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .- -- -- - --- -- - - --- . n. t r- S - z- -. . . ..- : r ., . . ... . .

7!.u.. A...NT , A,ULRE COZ.Cl A-D LCNSA'

FICLO SAMP TOLE N. :L-.-PT L/ , V .

/O ./ - I --14GEOLCGAC MRG~t TESr.ED AT APPROVED ay Z4

. - L C _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CLA SSIFICATION C L ICURVE INO. - ~ c;7_____

MAX. PARTICLE SiZE INCLUDED IN TEST < 4" I STD.(ASTM Z-695, 7,; >, ET.;,D .

r MINUS NO. 4 .400 ---.(ASTM 0-i55?2; METhCOSPECIFIC GRAVITY (GS) PLUS ,O. 4 OPLSNO OTHER TEST _ (SEE RMRS

-- 2500

aoo .. ' ... .z

_ _ _ _ _! . .. - - - - --,_-;-_ T "

z 000 ' 1...

!-I' '- I 4 -,-----. -500i _ -

, 0----

/44- .;i - . • . 7_, - . _ -". , .

515

5 .._ 5 -, .. . . . I../ - - ,_ - -- ; ,.- .... .. .. .,...

o -- ,-- --i " .- .. I.... - --- - - - -

" / .r , , - ._

. V/04 ' ..40.

o. // i , -f. . * .. . ..... .---- .. ,0- -\ / _. ..,.- .. .. .

i- - -- - .07

IT~0

J# , .. , ~ - . i-- ... . . . .-- .-----.- ----.... ..-..-. - - ... .. . -

1 *_ _ .,., -'. . -

~ -4-

51 1TZ. S. D PARTM- T of AGU'k. CULTU a' tl .T. ,

TESTING "?-0-i T;5%0L CG " -V. 'O S'I'2I S . -' ZPROACT c s T AT / / -

IELD SAMPLE NO. O,AT," :,." -

EOL . /= ORI, - - TS, EO AT APPROVt aY .-. .

CLASSIFICATION _ _ -- _LL I CURVE NO. 3 4-

MAX. PARTICLE SIZE iNCLUDE0 IN TEST K- STD. CASTM 0 - 6 S8) 2:; ~ A{MINUS NO. 4 Z.~ MO0.(AST" 0-1557)''; VH0_ ___

SPECIFIC GRAVITY (G5) PU O ______ TE ETC(E E4RS

2300.

2U 2000

S3500,

2 1000 ___

41 500 ___ _

a7.

IOO Aj _ _ _ . __ ,

* I i { _

:-01 ___ __,_ _,

,#; _____

00 . I - -- ._ :L: - -- - / .. - --- --- - .T ".. T _ ,--_ -..

' i I , _ . _ . _ _ - _ _+ _ _ _ _ _ ; _ -] p " : • , _ _ ____ _ ' _ __ ; , , .. . ,._, ., ._

*~'Q/ / 4

- - - r -L---/.. .. ' - - - ' --I - - - - - ' - - - - .. I / ~

LL- 7

REMARKS,:' "'

lAt -; i ....<> - / - - _ ; _ - - . . . .. . .

.A7EI~A U. S.! DtflAfl"W'M of AGRICULTUR~E,, -

ITESTING RZ?OP .T SOI*L CCO"SEVAT3'r N~~C 52,, !"' 27,N77,-A-L.APRO.CCT cm~ S-.A7E

PICO. SAMPLE N. LOCATiON ;EP7, -

I E0L0GC OAIG.N% 1TE57EOAT APPAOVZD By DT

CLASSIFICATION CL LL 4.0 PI /7 CURVE NO. O

MAX. PARTICLE SIZE INCLUDED IN TEST j .. 2 ST(ASTM 0-698) Z; ~T~~~MINUS NO. 4 _______ IMCD.(AST.. D-1557)E:; .~c____

SPCII GRVTY(3 PLUS NO. 4 ________ THER TEST C(SEEC R!AR.Sz

1 500 .~__ _ _ _

.tw ~~~-i--+--I7--:7 ______7___________L____

10 _ _ _0_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

go L

JJ

0~I..............._

LL._ ____0_

o'

0 1

u "110 -'

RE.-!A--R- -i -- -- - -

.Perm SCS 337

MATERIALS JU. S. DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTUREI SUMMI"IARY - SLOPEfTESTING HIEPORTI SOIL CONSERVATION SEIVCE SAIIY AAYIPN.4dCT end STA~TE O-F

METHGO OF ANA..YSAS ANALYZED AT . APPROVED By

FF

4U

1~ 20 0

0 ;V__ I4_____oj;:- ') I0

I I q -

I .. .~ '.j

4 l

"'02.~Ijz~I,.j

4<

-'Inj

0 N

z~V ki'

~ ,I~J 0~ x> Y-0 *i".: ________________________'A_

cj7 ~ ,7

I I..

- - - - - - - - . - .*. - -. W6Z~hVc. 2' t/- ~ ~-Z/

-.-.-- i

, .

-. \ /

- - U ~-- .--.. .

-. -~ . -%~~/- -

- - - - -- - ---.--. -. - -- -. ---.- - -. -. .- -

/

I* . I

IiN>7 II

11.11111777

__-- N I

* I.

__

I - I

___ 'A

~'

I%r~* '~

±45' *12

Sheet I e....f. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURESOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

DETAILED GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF DAM SITES

GENERAL

stete ; a -county , Sec. 2 0 . T 5CN R "; wifterehtlingtn-apo oSuiwatershed-_-Fund classw. - W - 1) - Site number 0-2]. Site group I Structure class b

(FP-2. WP-1, etc.)

Investigated by XI 61

S. .1-o-. r ,l Equipment used N-L 1,4 J='41) Date 6- 1 ,-6(signature and title) b (Type, size, make, model, etc.)

SITE DATAStabiLization, Sedimcnt.,

Drainage area size -2 sq. mi.. 33 3 acres. Type of structure DI 21" RC Purpose D)2tenticna z W

Direction of valley trend (downstream) 11 Maximum height of fill 15- feet. Length of fill 425 feet.

Estimated volume of compacted fill requed 201 yards

STORAGE ALLOCATION

Volume (ac. ft.) Surface Area (acres) Depth at Dam (feet)

Sediment YL5 T"- 16- 2R_______6 _

Floodwater h 3.5 . 20.0 32.3

SURFACE GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

Physiographic description 1-10, River LoeSs HiLlS.r Topography ROin.i"t . Attitude of beds: Dip Strike_"_"__

Steepness of abutments: Left . percent' Right -.. 5 percent. Width of floodplain at centerline of dam 0 feet

4eneral geology of site: The Site iS located in the Hissouri River loess hills in rol.iz'., to

strozLv rolling tope-rap -, Tte undcr1jing bedrock is the Upocx Desmoinesixn Series

of the PennrLvnnian System and is characterizad as cyclic dznoits predominately

114mm eadsio

Form Sj.37, USOA.SCS

DETAILED GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF DAM SITES

fEATURE.Centorline of D=i Principal Spilluay, Borrou Area(Centedine of Dam, Principal Spillway, Emergency Spillway, the Stream Channel, Investigations for Drainage of Structure. Borrow Ares. Reservoir Basin. etc.j

DRILLING PROGRAMNumber of Samples Taken

Equipment Used Number of Holes Undisturbed DisturbedExploration Sampling (state type) Large Small

F1A4" 6 3 4 L. Bag

Sp.T 4 19 Jar

Tube 3 - 4 3 _ _ Shelby-,

Total 6 8 4 4 19

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS(include only factual data)

The abutments are deep Loess classified CL belcw the developed soil prfile. In

test hole # 2 the loess was 30 feet deep and uwderiain with material classified as

a stiff CH. 'he cen-ral section of the foundation adjacent to the channel is described as

alluvium or a modified loess and is underlain with sand classified S? and SW at dcoth.s of

35 to 14 feet. The thickness of the sandy material rangcs from 3 to 6 fact. Lens ofmaterial classified SI4 occurs in test holes 5 and 3A1. The weakest material in t--e fouaa-

tion is the alluxium which had a blow count of 2 fro= 15 to 16 fcot in test hole # 301.

The foundaticn of the principal spilluay is the alluvial material which had blow countsMaZUUin from 2 to 5, The alluviua is undarLain with a stiff 11L descriied as an organic

silt. SP or SW material was found at depth in all test holes on the centerline of the

principal spillway. In test hole # 3At, the S? was underlain with stiff clay classified

CH. The emergency spillway cuts are shallou and wiLl be in the loess soil. The CuLl; at

the centerline is active and cuttih; into undisturued materiaL. There is sufficient

borrow available within 700 feet of the centerline of the fill.

I

1

For 1A-Serviceos*e nW

DETAILED GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF DAM SITES10-59

Wo.llngton-

stet, .ISoui Caunt La±ayette wltelhelda4o Leon Subwatershod

Ste number C 21- Site group I Structure clast b inestigated bY Uu,. . Ed.=,onDs. ( -op. 6at 6(signature andtitle)

INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The abutments are deep loess and present no goolo ;ic probLems. The b.oess below thedeveloped soil profile has sufficient clay content to be ciaz Xied (loj) CL. Thematerial in the central part of the £ounaation , uescribed as alluvium, between aproximatecenterline stations 4+UO and 5+50, is variacle in texture ana strern4th. The weakestmaterial in test hole # 3)l had a blow count of 2 and is intcpreted to extend beneaththe channel and to anroxi.mate centerLina station 5+0O. The underl: ing material describedan stiff organic silt externda to approximate ", the s=e distance. The albvi-am in testhole # 4 to the right of the channel had bl o cvants of 6 in tha upper part ana ranjedfrom 11 to 20 in the Lower part. The fowndation of the prinuipal spilluay is the softto medium alluvt~z which x tends to a diuth of about 15 feet. This is underlain with amedium IML and the orianio silts, The 3II 3? and SW zateriai occurred consistently in alltest holes through the alluvium and at a relatively uniform elevation. The 5? materialin test hole # 304 was underlain uith a stiff clay and is azssued to underlie the sandencountered in the other test holes, Undisturbed samples of the different materiaL3 weretaken in test hole # 301.

The channel is active at the centertine and to a £ foot overfall appro:=imately 50feet upstream and has cut to undisturbed material. Above the cverfall the cnhanenaverages 2 feet Amp deep and 30 feet wide and ta= appro z,-ateLy 3 feet of soft silt anddebris in the bottom. The overfall is active and couia move tiough the foandation areabefore construction time. Since emergency spil.,ay cuto are shalluw and in a Lwess soil,it was not necessary to drill or sample.

Borrow are2o3 is a loess soil and will be the best source of material for the core.Area 102 is high bottom or terrace allavium and clasified QL. ikcrrow area .I3 ismodern alluvium classified 14L and was soft and vot below 6 feet. Estimated amuAnts ofborrow availables

Hole No. Gu/!ds Topsoil Cu/yds C~oacted Fill

01 6o"o -102 243 750o103 -- 6000

Emergency Spillway 1250 1250Total 85oo 14,750

APPENDIX DHYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS

Note: Reproductions of Sheets I through 3 of 3 included in AppendixD are the best possible from copy furnished by Soil ConservationService. Unreadable portions on the reproduced sheets are alsounreadable on sheets from which the copies were made.

!

!

II

I1

HYDROLOGI C COMPUTATIONS

I. The Mockes dimensionless standard curvalinear unit hydrograph andthe SCS TR-20 program were used to develop the inflow hydrographs(see Plate Dl). The inflow hydrograph for the 100-year flood wasalso generated by the consultant using the TR-20 program.

a. Six-hour, twelve-hour, and twenty-four hour 100-year rainfallfor the dam location was taken from NOAA Technical Paper 40.The 24-hour probable maximum precipitation was taken from thecurves of Hydrometeorological Report No. 33 and current Corpsof Engineers and St. Louis District policy and guidance forhydraulics and hydrology.

b. Drainage area = 0.52 square mile; 333 acres (SCS).

c. Time of concentration of runoff = 20 minutes (SCS).

d. The antecedent storm conditions were heavy rainfall and lowtemperatures which occurred on the previous 5 days (SCSAMCIII). The initial pool elevation was assumed at the crestof the principal spillway.

e. The total 24-hour storm duration losses for the 100-yearstorm were 1.77 inches. The total losses for the 24-hourduration 1/2 PMF storm were 1.96 inches. The total lossesfor the PMF storm were 2.05 inches. These data were based onuse of soils group B; pasture/range and row crop weighted toproduce SCS input runoff curve No. 70 from SCS AMCII convertedby TR-20 to computed curve No. 85 SCS AMCIII.

f. Average soil loss rates = 0.05 inch per hour approximately.

2. The drop inlet and conduit discharge ratings were developed usingstandard formulas and criteria from SCS publication design manualEWP-5 taken from Corps of Engineers publication, "Hydraulic Char-acteristics of Reservoir Outlet Works". The emergency spillwayrating was developed using the SCS emergency spillway computerprogram "RESIN"; the results compared closely with data shown onthe SCS as-built plans. The flows over the 3da crest were basedon the broad-crested weir equation Q = CLH 3/2 where H is thehead on the dam crest; the coefficient C, which varies with head,was taken from the USGS publication "TWRI, Book 3, Chapter 5,Measurement of Peak Discharge at Dams by Indirect Methods" (C valuedvaries from 2.52 to 3.00). Sample calculations are attached.

3. Floods were routed through the reservoir using the TR-20 program todetermine the capabilities of the spillways and dam embankment crest.The unit hydrograph computation duration interval is computed as 0.17TCby the TR-20 computer program. Copies of the input-output datafrom the TR-20 program used to develop the hydrographs for the PMF,0.5 PMF, and 100-year flood are attached. The storm rainfall patterns,inflow hydrographs and routed outflow hydrographs are shown on Plate Dl.

77J . ... .. .

Il) I4~I . al. .

f: inj~ F

I I Of

....__..._... ... . I i 7.. :.

I Iit ~ ir1~fl.4t "*

_______________ a: :%ode" 1;::

Ifit

ItI

,MR I~~~

r I

I:I I It 7!:1

VI i I

i; it It! i k :

(~~ II.KI

- " 4 7 -'-7 7I

!7.: ......

I j

1r I "I I

. . . . . ... •........

- .. . .. ... z .It

; .1 __,_._.__ ,

................ .. ".-...

I ~ I: .

-7 - 1.

- - _ _.__ _ 4 -._ . . ... -

- '-r ,-- .-..----.- ,' ,

IFI

, , ,, -,

i al ". I "

fq . .j,

',I*** , , - v L

,.,,,,.I ''' t : , '

II

, uI• ' - I

-9 Ii

bE *| ...

: . . . ..

.. . .. . . . .. . ' "-

, ~ , ~I -;~ :.o : "* - , - '

NN

00

Ik

44

II

4v..

== oo == = 'D= N

- c~cc~~cc c TO 0eccc=z0o=c 000 0=zoe. z~

1:4 C;0 .1ex 0 0 U ' ~ ~

* . =...................... C .................................. . .. .. .. .................* ~ =oO0000=.==o= ~ = 0e==~z=0000 0000C20= zlmz====.=-

Z- (4 '4

p..-o OOOOOCGOCO - I 0000000000C eoc coca 1 ccocaocof -

* 4 * 47 4 00~ 0~e a~o z oo 0~' 0 ' ~t-flN~") '4 O 0C0 00~ -nC" I~ C'4Z C~o cc 1 c?'..eN 0C I.-o c~c; ccoc oc00 ZDC O =ccC')' C.:V0 0

x j ' 4 0 C ? 4 ' 5~ 0 ~ 0 ) 4 9 ~c cc . C

Q 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 o o a o.0~ z 2

~)4- 4 '4..-- L~'4z

iv

qf 0

- Al

~~77 a 6 6 -, _______

* S a a a * a a a a a .~ * * a

a

U-0

-4

C.-A

5

~ - -.4

0* C..

zoo4

4

000

.00:~.

4

4

-00e. o

.4, 00*.

~

5- ...I.-~ :4

4-* C~z (I~:4

.. 14o zcjoo~4-0-

03L4 )..C.D

340

4 I~~q.A4-

roe4-3

'- - tIi S..

.1.'-.4.0e- 0II\ ~ :4r

£ 8 8 8 ~ S L ~ * * A A & a a a a a a a *

-lipl

UI.0

15 V CnZ"

U. -a -r N- It

I-- zz-'' 7 - r

-N.N -- 4W - -i- -

==Q COCO =0I oo oC r

0=0000= =000oU

v- * 5* -

0 t

84, - Ca -n l. N- In

a. ow : 0 0 3z :.- -ZCI-~41 f I --

L.J(J0~ 4o z0 0 = =0,000 j=*J .4- ~ 3

0- 0v alp-,O'V. =Jl0 0 6- n rv

)(C-f 0-- ('.N-'. FNNFP N Nn P,- Q2~ NT .

N N

00J06J0LL00 000O0-.j..Z .c *Z,Ci7*- N - NO.- 0*0 ZI0 xu' .V- >-

c7oo 7oe ~ 0 oc ml tl0L -,~.*: -r IV t c V r-- V- V '00 00 ==00 00 0 L. - = ; - - - - -00000 Z00 -000 00 I- c- 7 O-~ Q _*

0 ~ *(~'-~ CP'f.

0~~~~n .0f14j n I ah '

N~~~ ~ 406~9-C 4

U . . C)IIIIf I * - C '.k) a- "-

Li.0

ro.c - noIL rC 9

-00. f4 I

"! i:U

* .- ~.n cc Ina 9

rp. .L ig -

10

U,,

04 00 n.9 0.0 -AD

of-. q- 9. f-

to . 0.7 .O to 0 -

i-N 0'- C f00

4 C"

C-" X!- *:n T ...~~O 00 ZN T N @ * S S SLn -n wD 4- n i lz X r:Lic -3Q r If .- o - 111 P ?I P. c I

6bt.

L) G cyr 00: 0 N 'n~ ON --4CIJ -4 130 Ul0

lo ID F - -I fl * W~* 00 - Nn N

Z1, C llo f lncc OI'- '> ~ ." 11 Do f . .N F 0 M'f 0 op- .v l4 0 IVtcQ ? . . Ill .N 0'fn P.- . o. - . . -. . p

0- mIzlaN ,'4 czzr 11 .Jlc Lr CO .3.0 C,' N7 It~

nN 0I N4 9-- - p-

4e4

If w (4.-0 Or -. OP Ow 0' ON N .0- N ,fl p- * .w 0i- P- No Cr z . C O P

It - - -& rto .711 4.D W) -0 O' :Q M 4 N 0 , O'D C'10 'A.Ln ul r- .

Ic 11wo 0- 1- N< O 0 .0 4

Cc; 21 , 0 W -= NOCNY ccif AI L4 'Y =O C. . .. .. . :: " . -;

U- (.4000) a.NP- zz .N 1.19 -04 0 a ,Z 0, r 0v I c "- Pw N 4... 0 ".7 AfroN I) . ~ C .. C'-4 0((4 '.t. 410 (CC 0'0 .4

C* -e .2 .40-. C C IC -(A6 6J .w0C . .4

LA. (4 . a ~ ^-.21 N OOf0 . .- 'O N CIA 0 o 0 &C NN 0'0 u N - *0 . -

=d0 OCOW)OLM NC = .0 u-N '.00 N.0 CIO 4m. 00 c fi nin 000 MW n % CC0 VC 4,

CD&44-- WI2''.l 0t .. 0 00 NO 34'4'4 sma) 9,0 mm u-Os r4IA a 0~lI0 %4. c ooo-'.goz P' u 'no 0 0 w0.0 ,elin

99;0%6 z C.0 N~ Nl N) 00 C cn 0C N no Nr N .0

c; 0 % W ov ti- 0 r6 \ . 41 1 I l r.Do. ?. P. p1r of 0r .

Of W, .I' P.Tl0J

a Q. .4 C. .1

waozc wo 00 (.0 00 0* W*z 40C.. .. Z.'.0 -JII 0

NN0 NN NNC. NI Q (* ZN0I0 .. 1NC.N'00-4 4 092 N (490 1

2.4 400 '4 .0 0.4 4.. 10 3 .

U*. .0 1 01 . 0(* 0 0( 00 '.. 2' " N ' .04A-.. .

0

NoC .3a N- C"' z 714 Pi . z C) 31

p ri*. n . ."1 7 NIL- n': .nn z - -.

-4 4? z C V - 0P. 7.O -Z j1= 3- T Z11 .e-p -N N. 3'.. Np p. -Z. NP z .

r- -.- -If N l N N N . 1

C3O..4

sCN xC J.34 'A C 10Z .N N-, 7,n n

Li 1 I3~ A' No al .7. Z 1-' ( Z' no n

e) WI N ' II P.o N -j .I j. n. 4J zP za3 , z m

.. 11

0 ..Cf. ]IC 1z 1 1 TC ill:- ~7* P'CC! CC NN 'Z CC: L'O N-I C i..3 C . tCC' CC ?1

0 .1 Z-0 0.. NC loin 0O 4 fl0 011 . in4 J) .1 p====== I.-N l-lN P p- P Si Nrh r'. ?I3 C P.3pn fl l

01

'Z. I I u'f 1, N N -n O.4- 010 CN0 mc W)1 1, 2hJNL.0 \ L4QwNwN.. no N.C N zN I.47 10Z 4r' i C -C r

I4 * .

oc zC N4 &. a, m C 20 N -1

".0 -4 -~ at N14(C 0- C <1 I-C

00 41 MOaOno F-CF .l Do r.

-- N oz

!2 240 NI m T, 4;; .1;-

^4 - -o. N W0 0 .............. ............. .............

P U. W 6i C.j

*Cw C

0a =0 N~ ONNN& z O) N .

40-Z =CD MtV.4,0 OCK In %n.l C .4t. INkO U, * 4. IDuf P . 1 W r.i '1-tZ CaP. 'C N 10 p- P p- . pr)?. "P. P ~ P~

1

A . r

.ONCC'If4 00 CC Nc )C C Y CY "-t 090 0. (44

CaOV 4a 2 P-- 4C N r N N 7 = - N In N N N0.0 . , z k:w to F.j r- m .C? - P .

lil P- 92 X

* 0 C CPNC PO'.C N I C' NKm

*= C 1. . . COII.Q.PC 0- C0 a. ..C 0- PC N.' QO a N . CC C

CII~ mrW CN N-pl mm3 X N N N 'N ..IN NN r N N F, 3f.) CL .3 :4 ; .I 1.cy NN NN NN NNI

-; W .

lo %P. go ~ 0' I&0 CC w. w" " ' ' 0 'C O

* ~~COMPUTIM BY .. 7Z. ATE ' SHEET NO. .. L....OFfl JSXlNS-YWESTERN-SONDEREGGER ______ z_____

* ~~~~CHECKED BY_______DATE _________Jos NUMBER Qr

rALCLATIONS FOR -- - / ,, PROJECT

L-

- -'2- 7

4-A -S 9 -II 12,- /7 Si-io~Z,-. ,3 / ___________________T

____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ ___ J=

COMUTE rYq11DT N.

OSKINS-WNESTERN-SONDEREGGER COBPUTE. _______DATE - SHET NO. " F .___-

CALCULATIONS FOR

.p.. 's -1 1 -7 , 1 --- -2 t / ,,,, '" -- C ' J - 2 ,,

'- , - - , i ' 7,~ . , I,.I_ :1#- ,. ' F 'I...:," l

,I " .'' ,=i ' " ! I .; " I,

_ _

.• Aye 7,

A, r -/-K,, X Z.I F,2,,."~ / A. -'""- ,,

;r'-, z , 4:74 i '0x - x< + /g, c

, - -____. __ ...

~I

_,__________________ I I

I I I I , ,

i ' I' , , ' , , i I ,I,'

-- "_ _ _ _ I

a I ,01

-- ZI2L +

. .... 'e 7 ' -V. . .77 1

_p "P Z 46-I ,, ' ,.+

1-

HOSKINS-WES TERN-SONDEREGGER COMPUTIED IVy.AI. JDATE L SHEET NYO. .CHEcCE BY -O______ATE ______ _ Joe NIJMGER --

CALCO.LATIONS FORPRtOJECT

--

4i

7A&~ 1

61I

G _ _ I-7~)_ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __7

I I

4c INS-WESTERN-SONDEREGGER CO"WOU~~J~T ~- - ~HU 4 . O

CpNCCXEO §Y _ DATE Joe_____ HumeC R ______

4., 1 14

f- 2--

________ (a, -,1-

1_ -7~~ _

S3-~- c 4 7 JS__ __ _

_____ _2R_ i fi Of a 2.

6 TT -_

* ~~~~~~~ ~4 -R.-d~ -7-~~j,3 _____

OSKINS-WESTERN-SONDEREGGER compu-s Sy DATE SHEET PC. OF

CHECKED Y , DATE NJOS NUMSE ! e '

CALCULATIONS FORPROJECT

7 S 7" IS , . !*~"o 7

2-7 7 Z7-., .,.

-~~~ 4 f _ _ __ _-_ _ _-- .4. ./ 4. , . , ,

;o ,8 o 8 2-o L7 -

7 5"I . 2. (0.- . 7 2. 1 . ' 3-

. ".- _______b1__- _

7(., E7,, 4--7 & _ ___,.7 ._"7_ 7

- -4 T . 7 D 6p, 97 , '- .

'7 4. a .___,_ _ __"_ _ _ __-_

74 1/ R L 0__Al_ Z'7 .. q . :&, L,,/L _.4. / ,

_ 7C S.* 7 , _ _ e.,J,- ,2 ZiLv / I . ? J &_ ,

, t !! i iI '

I I

*I ! ','1 1 -

- F, -- F ,F "

F FF_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _lI F, , l F