Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2349[}[J&rFJ~£c§{ID~@@@ Susrtna Joint Venture Document Number Please Return To - DOCUMENT CONTROL SUS1TNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT fiRST SPECIALIST C' .. 'NSUL TANTS t'f~NEL :'t1EETI'~G OCTOBER 21 THROUGH 23., 1980 ANCnORAGE, ALASKA REPORT ON MEETINGS REC~IVEO :JEC 2 4 1980 J.J..AS't':.A POWER AUTHORITY Acres American Incorporated 1000 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone (716) 853-7525 I I l i r-,,, .. SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FIRST SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS PANEL MEETING OCTOBER 21 THROUGH 23, i980 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA REPORT ON MEETINGS .. . :~c~-~~7~~~~;i;p;~·--~-:--,~--~. -· e-~~,lF·.~~""·r··c.~--~-.. "·······-~:· .·-1r·~·~-~.--~:=·~--:----~:~···:·~:--7~-.~~--·-··o··-:·-:"·---·~:·-·~·-·----:-. ;.·: . ·: ·:;4.~·: ~ • . ; ·! •..... mm¥ttt.•,, ....... ~~L · . ., TABLE OF CONTENTS . I. Objectives II. General Information III. Agenda f1r October 21, 1980 Activities IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. ' ' Agenda for October 22, 1980 Activities Agenda for October 23, 1980 Activities Notes on October 21 , 1980 Meeting by J. D. Lavwence Notes on October 23, 1980 Meeting by R. Henschel Copies of overhead projector slides presented. Report by Consultants Panel '' ... r·rwK't1iftWPMtPi'G?f'fjff§35't5i$''bWSR!Yf1i?it±tsh*tb,, p; .-.. •. 'U4414 I. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this series of meetings are to familiarize the Specialist Consultants Panel vlith the Susitna Hydroelectric Project feasibility studies currently being undertaken by Acres, to review with the panel the available geological, geotechnical and seismic information, to discuss the·ongoing planned geotechnical and seismic investigations and the preliminary design studies for the Devil CaAyon dam, currently proposed as an arch, and the Watana rockfill dam. Particular items of concern which will be reviewed are: -the upcoming decision on whether or not to adopt an arch dam alternative for the Devil Canyon site. -the scope of geotechnical exploration activities at Devil Canyon and Watana sites in the winter of 1980-81 and summer of 1982. -the method of screening identified sei.~ic features for further examination and the scope of seismic exploration activities in 1981. -the upcoming decision on whether or not to adopt a tunnel alternative development in lieu of the Devil Canyon Dam. II. GENERAL INFORMATION In Attendance: Acres wee Specialist Panel J. Lawrence Dr. Jo Hayden J. Gi 11 APA r.-vould R. Mohn R&M ~Smith J. Brown Dr. W. Savage Dr. J. Lovegreen Dr. R. W. Peck Dr. A. J~ Hendron M. A. Copen D. Wozniak A. Tawil V. Singh J. Henschel M. Bruen Date 1 0/20 .•.......... 1 0/21 ..•......... 10/22 .••.....•••• Time & Location . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:30 A.M., Acr·es Anchorage Office I -:r:·:-.. i ' ~a 1 1 aay J 8:00 A.M. (tentative, weather permitting - all day) Activity Travel to Anchorage, AK Presentation of Geotechnical, Seismic and Civil design in- formation Field visit, Fly Watana camp, inspect Watana site, fly Devil Canyon, inspect Devil Canyon site. Return to Anchorage via Talkeetna to inspect drill cores. Date 10/23 10/24 ........... . Time & Location 8:30 A.M. -Anchor- age office (all day) . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ••<= eu; Activity Panel review and discussion$ Return travel III. OCTOBER 21, 1980 ACTIVITIES Pres entation of geo 1 ogi ca 1 , geotechr;i cal & seismic information Moderator: John D. Lawrence ~genda: 0 • Time 8:30 A.M. 8:45 A.M. 9:15 A.M. 9:30 A. t1. 10:00 A.M. · ·" '_.ammnzrrzmmmnwa nei'fmwe , Topic Background to Susitna Introduction to Acres Plan of Study Speake-r· E. Yould J.D. Lawrence/ J. \•L Hayd : t~ Introduction to geotechnical J.D. Gill Geologic Information/ Previous Work M. Bruen a. Regional Geology 1. Bedr·ock Geo 1 ogy -Csejtey, Turner & Smith and Tunner 2. Glacial Geology -Peue, Karlstrom b. Site Specific 1. Devil Canyon geologic mapping -Kachadoorian, 1957 drilling-U.S.B.R., 1957 Seismic -Shannon & Wilson, 1978 2. Hatana reconnaissance-U.S.B.R., 1950, 1953 Corp of Eng., 1975 geologic mapping-Corp of Eng., 1978 drilling -Corp of Eng., 1975 seismic Dames & Moore, 1975 -Shannon & Wilson, 1978 3. Watana Reservoir geologic mapping-Corp of Eng., 1978 brief description of lithology, structure, joints-fractures-faults, surficial material permafrost Geotechnical Information -V. Singh 1. 2. 3. Lab testing Instrumentation Geotechnical Evaluation of Previous Work ;p;qa Time 10:15 A.M. 10:30 A.M. [ .1:00 P..M. 11:30 A.M. 12:00 Noon 1 :~0 P.M. 2:30 P.M. 3:45 P.M. 4:15 P.M. 4:55 P.M. 5:00 P.M.~ Topic Break 1980 Geologic Mapping Program Objectives A. Confirm previous work Speaker J. Gil1/M. Bruen B. Expand area of geologic mapping C. Providt~ geologic information necessary for optimization of type and location of dams D. Identify potentia 1 pt·ob 1 ems needing further study in 1981 A & B (above) 1. Watana dam site 2. Devil Canyon dam site 3. Watana Reservoir 4. Devil Canyon Reservoir/Tunnel Routes lithology, structures (joints~ fractures, shears), surficial materials, permafrost C & D (above) .- Problem areas, areas of concern 1980 Geotechnical Exploration J.t Gill/R. Hensc~elj Air Photo Interpretation Discussion Lunch Planned Geotechnical Investigations Break ~ .... a~.Gm,~.~ Tn~n~n1~t1"nn I ---... I I o ~I ,0, ,; , '-,; ,_, 1980 Program 1981 Seismic Program Discussions Review of Field Recon- naissance Trip/ October 22 Meeting Adjourns J. Brown V. Singh/R. Henschel W. Savage/J~ Lovegreen . . . . . . . . . . . . J. D. Gill . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . I tl: ' ' . .J l - SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT P5700.13.40 FIRST SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS PANEL MEETING October 21, 1980 SU~1MARY NOTES (by J. Lawrence) In Attendance: Consultants Panel Dr. R. B. Peck Mr. M. D. Copen Dr. A. J. Hendron Jr. Acres American Inc. J. D. Lawrence Dr. J .. w. Hayden J. D. Gill B. Brownfield A. Tawi 1 \f. Singh M. Bruen R. Henschel Alaska Power Authority E. P. Yould R. J. Mohn T. McGuire D. Wozniak Woodward-Clyde W. Savage J. Lovegreen R&M G. Smith R. Brown IV. OCTOBER 22, 1980 ACTIVITIES Field reconnaissance (weather permitting) Organizer & Team Leader: -Panel Members -Other Participants to be Selected V. OCTOBER 23, 1980 ACTIVITIES Noderator: J. W. Hayden Agenda: Time 8:00A.M. 8:30 A.M. 9:00 A.1M. 10:00 A.M. 10:15 A.H. 11:00 A.M. 12:00 Noon 1:00 P.M. 1:30 P.H. 2:00 P.M. Topic Speaker Project Design Considerations -J.D. Lawrence/J.W. Introduction Watana Dam Design V. Singh Discussion Br-eak Devil Canyon D~m J. D. Lawrence Discussion Lunch Tunnel Alternatives J. H. Hayden Discussion Panel Review & Report OCTOBER 24, 1980 ACTIVITIES: Travel ' '1, ' ~'-.. ' , .. ,. 1. Introduction by J. Lawrence 2. Background to Susitna by E. Yould 3. Summary of participating subcontractors, Acres project group structure and Perspective of POS by J. Lawrence 4. Summar~y of Acres POS by J. Hayden 5. Geotechnical field activities (by J. Gill): -Introductions to Anchorage staff Schedule of work (POS slide) List of Task 4 Sub-tasks List Df Task 5 Sub-tasks 5.01 complete -data available from USBR/C of E 5.02 Photointerpretation by R&H in hand 5.03 Complete -review of previous work 5.04 1980 Prpgram complete, evaluation in hand 5.05 In hand (1981 program design) Exploratory program scope -in terms of $ expenditures by activity, excluding design office support and logistical support (see Section VIII page 25) Test pits in borrow areas partly replaced by reversed circulation drilling because of boulder problems 35mm Slides ·BLM permits, etc. •24 hour-day diamond drilling ·Helicopter support Watana Site: •Fins and fingerbuster features ~ diorite -Watana ·Spillway to left of buried valley Devil Canyon Site: ·Left abutment lineament •3 drillholes and USBR data available ·Difficult access conditions ·Denali fault slides •Southerly abutments -50 to 100 feet deep permafrost 6. Presentation of Geologic Mapping Program (by M. Bruen) -(including existing data available from previous work) -Regional geology -Talkeetna Mts. and Susitna area ·Slide of geologic mapping (regional) ·Denali fault 43 miles north tCastle Mountain fault 75 miles south •Susitna fault-questionable? -Devi 1 Canyon geology ( Kachadoori an/USSR/Shannon & Wi 1 son) •Slide showing DC geology •Phillite (Kachadoorian) i.e. metamorphosed argillite and graywacke (brittle) :w,, •Numerous shears, mainly left abutment, up to 2 feet g6uge ~Thin overburden (tills), 85' thick in buried channel -drilling/ geophysical) "Pennafrost not found by USBR -Watana geology (USBR, old/C of E, recent) ·Drilling by C of E 1978 and seismic lines ~OMB criticised C of E for insufficient drilling ($3,000,000 in 1978 including logistics) ·Slides showing \~atana geology ·.·Diorite -Andesite Porphyry Dikes (downstream of dam) •40 -80' thick overburden, generally less than 20' on abutments _t13uried channel postulated by others as a buried fault (WCC). -Reservoir geology map -C of E -slide 7. Presentation of Geotechnical Investi_gations by others (by V. Singh) -Watana: · · ·Slide showing previous Watana exploration ·57 million cubic yards of material needed ·Materials exploration/testing by C of E (slide) •Potential problems identified: -Buried channel -previous zones? left abutment permafrost -artesian pressures -Susitna fault? -Talkeetna thrust ·Recommended exploration: -general river channel/Fog Lakes area -right abutment slide block and overburden 1 eft abutment -pennafrost -borrow areas -Susitna fault -Buried river channel ·Impervious core material -well graded ·Slide of fill quantities required (57.8 million c.y. total) -Devil Canyon: ·Slide showing previous USBR exploration •Earthquakes 8.5@ 40 mi., 7.0@ 10 mi. (i.e. 0.68 peak acceleration at site) · ·Appears to be no rationale for floating earthquake assumption ~Potential problems identified (see Section VIII page 66) ·Recommended exploration: -Pilot tunnels -Detailed foundation/abutment exploration -Curtain/consolidation grouting probably required. 8. Presentation of 1980 Ma in Pro ram (by M. Bruen) -Objectives slide -DC geology (slide) ·No bedding plane strips observed on south side .... rrr·rnmm•mw' P8l ,, ej!LI, .. ~. •Numerous shears, mainly left abutment, up to 2 feet gouge ~Thin overburden (til1s), 85' thick in buried channel -drilling/ geophysical) · "Pennafrost not found by USBR -Watana geology (USBR, old/C of E, recent) ·Drilling by C of E 1978 and seismic line~ --OMB criticised C of E for insufficient drilling ($3,000,000 1n 1978 including logistics) ·Slides showing Watana geology ·.·Diorite -Andesite Porphyry Dikes (downstream of dam) •40 -80' thick overburden, generally less than 20' on abutments _t13uried channel postulated by others as a buried fault (WCC). -Reservoir geology map -C of E -slide 7. Presentation of Geotechnical Investigations by others (by V. Singh) Watana: - ·Slide showing previous Watana exploration ·57 million cubic yards of material needed ·Materials exploration/testing by C of E (slide) 'Potential problems identified: -Buried channel -previous zones? -left abutment permafrost -artesian pressures -Susitna fault? -Talkeetna thrust ·Recommended exploration: -general river channel/Fog Lakes area -right abutment slide block and overburden -left abutment -permafrost -borrow areas -Susitna fault -Buried river channel ·Impervious core material -well graded •Slide of fill quantities required (57.8 million c.y. total) -Devil Canyon: ·Slide showing previous USBR exploration 'Earthquakes 8.5@ 40 mi., 7.0@ 10 mi. (i.e. 0.68 peak acceleration at site) ·Appears to be no rationale for floating earthquake assumption •Potential problems identified (see Section VIII page 66) ·Recorrmended exploration: -Pilot tunnels -Detailed foundation/abutment exploration -Curtain/consolidation grouting probably required. 8. Presentation of 1980 Mapping Program (by M. Bruen) -Objectives (slide} -DC geology (slide) •No bedding plane strips observed on south side :p; , ;p;s;;_ww ·Access problems in area (Chicaloon) ·Wind rose diagrams (see Section VIII, pages 31-33) ·Slides of rock faces, etc. ·Open joints 80' to 90' back from edge of cliff in left abutment ·Example slide of rock slides (in DC reservoir) ·Concerns will be predominantly in rock faces, not overburden Watana geology -(slide) •Wind rose diagrams (Se~ Section IX, pages 37-39) ·Slide of "fins 11 ·Tsusena Creek -oxidized exposures -(Gouge?) - 2 slides ·Borrow area H for till identified if another source needed, 35' thick at exposure ·(se1~Section VIII, page 53) ·Edge of Borrow area D -some outwash (slide) ·Borrow area E -west of Tsusena Creek, evidence of buried channel- (not same as spillway buried channel) ·Numerous mud flows in Watana Creek area (slide) ·Major ice (permafrost) exposures found above DC/Watana reservoir areas Potential Problems -(see slide, Section VIII, page 40) -Note that reservoir beaching/mudslides not as great a concern as rock slopes -Reservoir fluctuation 100' per year -Reservoir fill schedule 2 to 2~ years (C of E) 9. Presentation of Air Photo Interpretation (by J. Brown, R&M) -Land form analysis by color aerial photography Terrain unit method (special purpose term to define land forms to depth of 20 to 25') ·Buried channels ,Permafrost ·Erodible materials -Approach -look at field units and check in field -Chart existing different terrain units -No attempt yet to describe bed-rock areas other than "hard/soft" -ProbJbly not useful for cone material identification -Attempted to note fine/coarse borrow characteristics -Buried channel orientation different from others at Watana Lunch 10. Presentation of 1980 Geotechnical Exploration Results -J. Gill ; ·Program designed before completion of air-photo interpretation and design concept still being finalized ~Introduction to scope of exploration at D.C./Watana ·50% of total di~mond drilling done in 1980 •Less than 50% of total augur drilling done in 1980 ... R. Henschel Watana program, developed with C of E recommendations in mind: ·3 boreholes completed ·Longyear 34 rig used ·All holes water pressure tested, pressures 20/30 psi, max. 200 psi at depth (~psi per foot of depth.) - ' . 4 ••••••••• ,,.. ..... ~ .. ·Slides of borehole logs (prelim.) ·BH-6 no major shear zones found, some small shears identified ·BH -2, Finger burster location -identified as a major shear zone ·No test data available --difficulty with caving even with grouting (Water loss significant-couldn't get packers down.) GBH-8, left abutment (powerhouse) -no shear zone found at contact between andesite/diortie. -· ·A. Hendron suggested we attempt to intersect possible channels in the diorite near the andesite contact which may cause problems with tunnel excavation . ·Geophysical logging done -results not available yet. -Borehole photography unsuccussful ~ -No instruments in at Watana yet -Equipment awaited (Piezometers, thermister string) ·Mixed success in reading old C of E instruments ·Seismic lines completed, indicating buried channel, layers of till, outwash, alluvium ·Quar.ry source B not investigated but considered doubtful. ·Diorite exposures in Deadman Creek ·Borrow Area D-outwash? Need more test data to reliably determine extent usable as core material. ·Borrow Area E -boulder problem restricted boring. High water table (8' depth) will restrict exploitation. More exploration needed up Tsusena Creek. ·R. Peck suggested consideration of Area E material for dam shells. 11 There are few dams this high made of rockfill, which haven't had longitudinal cracks -there are many made with gravels which have not"· -Devil Canyon Program 3 drill holes completed -BH2 -tntersected granodiorite at 63' depth ·BH4 -no shear found -argillites/phillites, some slippage observed along bedding planes -BH1 ~ argillites/phillites (el. 1450) -Dtfffcult access ·Geophysical logging not yet available -Borehole camera unsuccessful ·Instrumentation done (piezometers, thermister strings) • Pe.rmafrost cement used for grouting ·Borrow area -access restricted but not material shortages noted . • seismic lines completed 11. Proposed 1981 Program ~ NQ question ~bout removing Watana riverbed materials, therefore extensive exploration unwarranted . • JQ:.l ratio dam: spillway cost at Hatana -PMF 200,000 cfs (approx. ), 100,000 cfs spillway capacity for 100 year flood ~ Reyets circulation drilling to be done in buried channel and borrow are.as in 1981 (winter) ') -- -Fins at Watana need study -Left bank at D. C. needs study Consider excavating with bulldozers in borrow area E to obtain better samples etc. 12. Presentation of Seismic Program -J. Lovegreen r100 km radius adopted for features ·Castle Mountain to South, Denali to North are known to be 11 Faults \'lith recent dis p 1 acemen ts 11 ·LANDSAT imagery -215 features screened on basis of length and distance more than 10 km from sites. ~~DC -2 features with moderate to high likelihood of displacement (yellow, 11 indeterminate A" concern for seismic and potential for surface rupture ·Watana "indeterminate A11 -ususitna Fault 11 (?) - 11 Talkeetna Thrust'' -Buried channel/11 Fin structure 11 "KD3 -7" (blue) -WCC think this is a figment, but it \aJill be evaluated ·Ranking on basis of likelihood of recent displacement (need to decide level of risk) ·Much more evidence for 11 Talkeetna Thrust" than there 1s.for 11 Susitna Faultu for which no evidence has been found to date ·Low sun angle photograph, to be done next Spring, will allow refinement but probably not change conclusions. W. Savage ·Message not coming through -approach was most conservative -nothing was left out which could be a seismic source ·A. H. Hendron commented that he could not see how the remaining questions can be satisfactorily dealt with in one more year of fie 1 d ~.rork ·10 seismographs installed (including DC/Watana sites) ·Peak ground motion acceleration of 0.75 has come out of very preliminar.t calculations and cannot be eliminated at this time. R. Peck commented that from a deterministic standpoint, a fault is 11 dead' or it isn't. One cannot evaluate it in terms of probability. ihe structure must be designed for· an appropriate ground motion. ·A Ta 1 keetna Fault Report was written by the academic community in May 79, on the Brockson Gulf/Denali intersect (publication due in one year) Differential movement of about 2 em (3-1) is postulated as being taken up by the 11 Talkeetna Fau1t 11 • If discounted, Talkeetna Fault magnitude reduces to about 7.4. ·Recurrence interval should not be a consideration for features which may severely impact project structures. It is more important to i nves ti gate cri ti ca 1 ''ye 11 ow" features to determine whether or not they exist. VII. SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FIRST SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS PANEL MEETING October 23, 1980 SUNMARY NOTES (by R. Henschel) In attendance: Consultants Panel Dr. R. B. Peck Mr. M. D. Copen Dr. A. J. Hendron Jr. Acres American Inc. J. D. Lawrence Dr. J. W. Hayden J. D. Gi 11 B. Brownfield A. Tawil V. Singh M. Bruen R. Henschel a Alaska Power Authority D. Wozniak iJP(£11&;;;:;4'¢4#8 r I I~ ~-' 1 e Presentation by J. Hayden -Brief review of design consideration in site selection and proposed schemes-i.e. combinations of dams, etc. (Subtasks 6.01, 6.02, 6.03~ 6.04) 2. Presentation by V. Singh -Watana Dam Design - Reviewed Corps design and sections ( 2 vi ewgraphs) J. Lawrence raised the question of the need for a cut-off under the coffer dams. General agreement that ·they would probably be necessary. Present Acres thinking about design b~sed on data available (See Section VIII) -Foundation exploration work -Embankment design -Design approach -Liquifaction of foundation materials during earthquake. 3. Presentation by A. Tawil -Proposed cross section of Watana Dam presented -Need to incorporate features to defend against earthquakes -Exploration has indicated: a) Foundation has up to ao• alluvial material pervious, inadequate shear resistance b) Bedrock -Excellent shear strength, moderately high permea9i1ity (lo-4 -lo-6), probable local zones higher than lo-4, weathering of no major consequence, 2 or more shear zones on right abutment c) Construction materials -All required materials are available around the site. Core material is the most serious question, season is very short -Extent of design consi~erations: a) Design is for aboLlt 750 feet of head b) Extent of excavation of overburden materials to be determined. c) Water tightness of coffer dams (100' + high structure) will require upstream till blanket and/or positive cut off plus dewatering of excavation -Important questions on which panel input is solicited: a) Amount of overburden excavation to be performed: -1:1 slope-under most of dam -·1:1.5-remove all of materials b) Treatment of bedrock foundation under core and filter zones: -removal of weathered bedrock under core? (not necessary -other means of treatment, e.g. cleaning, slush grouting and consolidation grouting) -trimming and shaping of abutments required, right abutment in particular c) Geometry of Core: -Slightly sloping upstream? -Width of core should be generous, about 60% of head . • Material is of good gradation, no plasticity, minimal adequate permeability . • Possibility of flaring core at abutments I I I I 1 . 2. Pr·esenta ti on by J. Hayden -Brief review of design conside)~ation in site selection and proposed schemes-i.e. combinations of dams, etc. (Subtasks 6.01, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04) Presentation by V. Singh -Watana Dam Design - Reviewed Corps design and sections (2 viewgraphs) J. Lawrence raised the question of the need for a cut-off under the coffer dams. General agreement that they would probably be necessary. Present Acres thinking about design based on data available (See Section VIII) -Foundation exploration work -Embankment design -Design approach ~ Liquifaction of foundation materials during earthquake. 3. Presentation by A. Tawil -Proposed cross section of Watana Dam presented -Need to incorporate features to defend against earthquakes -Exploration has indicated; a) Foundation has up to so• alluvial material pervious, inadequate shear resistance b) Bedrock -Excellent shear strength$ moderately high permeability (lo-4 -lo-6), probable local zones higher than lo-4, weathering of no major consequence, 2 or more shear zones on right abutment c) Construction materials -All required materials are available around the site. Core material is the most serious question, season is very short -Extent of design considerations: a) Design is for about 750 feet of head b) Extent of excavation of overburden materials to be determined. c) Water tightness of coffer dams (100' + high structure) will require upstream till blanket and/or positive cut off plus dewatering of excavation -Important questions on which panel input is solicited: a) Amount of overburden excavation to be performed: -1:1 slope-under most of dam -·1:1.5-remove all of materials b) Treatment of bedrock foundation under core and filter zones: -removal of weathered bedrock under core? (not necessary -other means of treatment, e.g. cleaning, slush grouting and consolidation grouting) -trimming and shaping of abutments required, right abutment in particular c) Geometry of Core: -Slightly sloping upstream? -Width of core should be generous, about 60% of head. ·Material is of good gradation, no plasticity, minimal adequate permeability • • Possib11ity of flaring core at abutments -~··-·-~~~~&'namtrfflt1fPfMdnW f&'GMttzwrtStEzrt!.l. 0 0 o. 0 0 0 8 ~ ~J 0 0 0 0 0 t'l) 0 0 0 0 ~ . 0 0 tit1 t-t-J tr--N N N -~~ "".:• ~} ~-. i • f 9 ]\' 1£.1.3.!. .y fi\ :;J 0 ~[7 ~ j ·..; 0 I 'Z \J.) ti Q ~ D ~ :r \U -\17 ~ . I '-~ \ -r' ~~~ -I • I 0 0 0 Q () 0 ~ 0 0 0 g.. 0 0 0 0 a 0 Q f"'' ~ 0 0 o-('(I f"" ....0 I.IJ -~ t-l ~ _ __.... _____ ." ... ~,,.__. """"\<'-"""~-~-- ·- "'· ,..r.1i'l1kF'eifte'zeN~WiF*iiitiiiietif@firVGW5M'tiS t ttrttr= t e-.. 'Z 0 ,_ ~ j IJJ lL \.1) ~ I ~ V) r:j_ \4 0 t:i l \.) ~ <t >-' a r:L < 3 <! :Z: z :J ~ UJ <! ~ 3 n.... z Q t- * v \.lJ U? f-<'( ~ D.. w -..J,. ~ t -\1) -:) \./) r CJ :::> 0 J-cO \.1.) C) t "' ci -_j \.!) co co -~ ~ v 0 \l_ '· o~ 0 ~ ~. -o:t u VJ ~ ,. ·~ . . ' d) Water content of core materials: Need some flexibility -place core somewhat above optimum - Design for settlement e) Width of filters -100 feet upstream, 150' downstream f) Filter gradation important -to guard core g) Transit·ion zone-bridge gradation gap bebveen rockfill and filter h) Outside slope on shells-1:2.25 upstream, 1:2 downstream i) Materials for shells -what to use? -rockfill from excavation -Sands and gravels -ease of placement (rockfill placed in winter easier than sand/ gravel) j) Width of crest (C of E 10 feet, probably 2.5 feet necessary) k) Freeboard requirements 1) Pressure relief requirements: -combination of groutir.g and relief holes will be required -work to be performed independently of fill placement 4. Responses by Panel -A. Hendron -Question, \~hy dmvnstream boundary of core is inclined slightly upstream. -A. Tawil -The~e is a tendency toward~ tension in lower core if inclined downstream. -R. Peck -Width and configuration of zones will be dependent on material properties. -A. Hendron -With downstream slope on core -if shell settles it will tend to compress core, rather than place it in tension/ -R. Peck -Dependent on which settles most. -J. Lawrence -Is there a need for grouting and drainage galleries? General agreement that they will be required. -R. Peck -It is correct to assume (at this stage) that the material in the river channel should be removed. ·Materials in dam should be selected for both static and dynamic behavior and then select where to use them in the dam. ·It may be desirable to make at least half of the upstream shell of gravel rounded rather than rockfill -dilitant materials are needed under modest strains. (Rockfill is not dilatant) Use it in downstream shell also, but this is not as important. Heights of dam will justify type of material to be used. It should be primarily a gravel dam, with rockfill in some places, rather than the reverse. ·Spillway location and design -Tsusena Creek totally inadequate -the rock excavation may not be as great as everyone is currently thinking ·Spillway may be much closer to dam, with little rock excavation. ·We should identify construction materials and then develop a section for the dam -concentrate on exploration of river channel as a source of construction materials, and not with intent of defining liquifaction potential for-leaving in place. ·Upstream use cobble fill (dilatant material) in high stress areas ·Downstream -make sure rockfill does not get wet -still better to use cobble fill as much as possible . - -V. Singh -Reviewed material properties (C of E data) Need to compare Acr-es laboratory test data with C of E data Question of internal instability of material (Sherard) -Potential piping problem? -R. Peck -No evidence for this in western tills -should not be a problem: ·These problems developed in materials which were not tills! -were out~a?h materials, gap graded, where piping could develop. ·However, we should assume that it could happen and design for it. ·The gradation curve for Area D is about as good a core material as you could hope to find ·May require processing of material ·PlGSticity characteristics of material<200 sieve -(Area D) - has some plasticity. Need to deter·mine how thick it is and over v1hat area it can be excavated and transported without exposure to rain. A good thickness is essential so that the face of the excavation in the pit can be small. ·Exploration should establish depth and a real extent of steep slopes. ·Need to look for older tills, which would be nearer optimum M.G., and avoid ablation tills and out\IJash ·Regarding placement moisture content, there should not be a problem placing at slightly above optimum, but at or slightly below optimum is preferable. For dam configuration shown, strength of core is immaterial to overall stability of embankment. ·Regarding use of more plastic materials -at abutments, it is desirable to use material which is the same as the core, but more plastic phases of that material. ·Regarding crest details, it is too early at this stage to be specific. ·A fairly wide crest is required. It is beneficial to keep the slope to the crest. The core should be protected from freezing/frost. ·Regarding analysis of data for earthquake, not much emphasis required at this early stage. Concentrate on proper foundation treatment and zoning aspects initially. 5. Presentation on Tunnel Alternatives (by John Hayden) -Reviewed present activities, etc. (see viewgraphs, Section VIII) -A. Hendron expressed concern about a possible channel filled with andesite along the tunnel alignment. -M. Bruen indicated diorite intrusives of tertiary age and older volcanic which may exist, should be elevated and exposed! -Most viable alternative schemes appear to comprise a 200 1 high regulation dam just upstream of Devil Creek with tunnel to just below Portage Creek. Very preliminary comparisons indicate this to be a reasonable alterna- tive to Devil Canyon Dam, but needs considerably more study. No geological explanation is currently available as to why the river gradient is so steep in this section. J. Brown suggested from air photos it might be due to a change from a lake basin area into a bedrock area. J. Lovegreen suggested that in glacial times a -0 ' ~nu!!ti:r$riSl¥i:rtMHtittt&enfi¥t"" fld'Iiti'rlrMMI*tY' f&ytip #lKWi' ·~:y.t~. I 6. I I I __ I I 7. .1 blockage may have prevented flow through D.C. and a change in river course created. Development of a steep gradient occurred to get back down to the required level. This would not be related to the geology in particular. A. Hendron suggested it may be possible to look at the gradient which would have existed with drainage out through Stephan Lake. This would also aid in evaluating the 11 Susitna Fault 11 question (not clear how this would be done!) Presentation on Devi·l Canyon Dam Design (by J. Lawrence) -Sub-task 6.04, Feasibility of arch dam at D. Canyon, to determine: F eas i b i 1 i ty Economic viability -Evaluation Sequence (See Section VIII Viewgraphs) -Geotechnical Information: Early geologic review by Acres led to concer·n about adequately establishing feasibility prior to license application: -Linament in left abutment (lake) requires explanation -Acres internal review panel felt that adits would be required to confirm site prior to license agplication. Plan to cost out adits. (Approximately $1 to 2 x 106 currently indicated.) -Alternatives to arch dam such as a rockfill dam are also being evaluated for comparison. -Review of USBR and C of E Designs - Some concern about energy dissipation of spillway discharge. USBR/ C of E designs are not considered adequate. -Acres has developed a concrete gravity-arch design layout for analysis (Section VIII, pages 104-106) (based on similar Karun Project studies) A long stilling basin with an "over-the-dam 11 spillway is currently proposed for conceptual design purposes. Series of pseudostatic stress analyses performed, using the finite element "ADAP 11 program. -Results of analyses to date and assumptions used (see Section VIII, pages 107-130) -Thin Arch -Stress levels, both tensile and compressive, are locally high in places but can be made acceptable with better design. -Comment by M. Copen -Shaping will help a lot. Temperature loading will be more severe than earthquake loading. The USBR computer program (called 11 HEATFLO") is available to analyze temperature gradient effects Discussion on arch dam design -M. Copen-on the question of adits at D.C., they are not necessary at this time (although they will be later} Drill holes will provide adequate data for licensing purposes. -V. Singh-on geology/geotechnical considerations, the orientation and cha~actefistics of exp~oration progfa~ with ~dits was int~nded to investigate controlling structural features. -M. Copen -stability of the abutments needs detailed work, but not necessary to excavate adits at this time. -R. Peck -How would you propose to go about excavating adits? -M. Copen -What do you have to gain at this stage from adits? -1:, , 444# ... I I 8. -V. Singh-Joint/shear zone conditions, filling, material, etc. -M. Copen - I wou1d prefer more drill holes rather than adits at this time. On the basis of available data there is nothing to prohibit arch dam construction at D.C. May not get data from adits that you want. -A. Hendron -You should use available data for analyses and then take extreme values to check sensitivity. -J. Lawrence -He would use analyses to assess which features cause most concern and orientate adits accordingly. M. Copen -Adits may provide data on continuity of features ( which drill holes would not). -A. Hendron -Adits are more appropriate at Watana if anywhere to investigate shears (e.g. fins, fingerbuster) -R. Peck -Rock conditions at the underground powerhouse need to be evaluated further, if necessary with adits. -A. Hendron -Rock conditions at the 2 sites are quite different. -R. Peck -There is serious concern about the shears at Watana, and their potential impact on the underground powerhouse and permanent support of structures. -A. Hendron -You can excavate an underground powerhouse at Devil Canyon, but maybe not at Watana! Adits are needed to prove feasibility. Additional Comments -E. Yould stated that he is prepared to contest high earthquake accelerations quoted by Kachadoori an if Acres/WCC wor·k shows 1 ower figures appropriate. -E. Yould and M. Copen expressed support for thin/thick arch at D.C. M. Copen would also be prepared to consider an arch alternative at Watana. (!'Thin"= !QQ. ratio 0.2) bottom -J. Lawrence indicated that Acres would base its recommendations on WCC/Acres analyses for earthquakes rather than C of E Reports (0.68g) -E. Yould advised that C of E found that a rockfill dam at D.C. was most expensive of any alternatives (no published information). -. ... ~a...,·w=mwmhi)fi~nswt .... ts-,ymzna~rmts rum-#!!!. .. 1 VIII. COPIES OF PRESENTATION VIEWGRAPHS *'h =-• Drainage Area sq.mi. Average Discharges cfs 1:50 yr Discharges cfs PMF 50 year sediment Accumulative Acft DAM Type Height ft .. cfs Crest Length ft. Crest Elevation ft. Area -Ac Storage Acft Installed Capacity Firm Energy V-,..~ PROJECT DATA Watana 5180 8140 82,600 230,000 204,000 Fill 810 3450 2200 43000 21,000,000 790 mw 3.0xl09 Kwh 1 Devil Canyon 5810 9230 94,400 270,000 252,000 Concrete 650 1370 . 1450 7550 1,100,000 780 mw 3.25 X 10 9 Kwh I I I ,. I I I I I I I TASK 1-O~.)ECT\VES . • -'-.•• ·~· • • •.• r • . . . . . ... -. .. .. . ~ . - i t •·-. • ' I 1 ". • ... . . ..... • .. *' ' . I • ' -• • ' ' e ?REL\M\N~R.'f ~\f~LUf\T\DN QF SE\~M\C. 5\P\~\L\\'f C -,.._----· \ ---· r-:-1 ----· ~ • -· ""'. r··t • " '-~ 0 '-.,, '~ t_· ~-• ~-0 , r t ~ 0 l f t \ \ '• f ' • I • .• 1 • • .. -.... 1_ • • -• • t. • t t_ • •• 1..--• ". ·-· • ~ • '. • \ • .. . • ~ ' •..• e TDEN\\f'i SO\LS S\.)SC.E\)T\BLE T\.) SE ISM \Cf\Ll'f \ N t>UCE.O F ~ \ L UR.E t:\LDMG, TRf1\\\SM\SSlDN L\NE. 11Nt> RD~'O R\b~TS~DF· LU~'{ 1 ltll '1.\~tio \'\C.Sta~ I I. ' Q '-~~ .. r--.. 2 T A ~~ 4: S E I S M I C S T U D I E S SIJBTASK 4.01 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA 4.02 SHORT-TERM SEISMOLOGIC MONITORING PROGRAM 4.03 PRELIMINARY RESERVOIR INDUCED SEISMICITY 4.04 REMOTE SENSING IMAGE ANALYSIS 4.05 SEISMIC GEOLOGY RECONNAISSANCE 4.06 EVALUATION AND REPORTING 4.07 PRELIMINARY GROUND MOTION STUDIES 4.08 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF DAM STABILITY 4.09 LONG-TERM SEISMOLOGIC MONITORING PROGRAM 4.10 RESERVOIR-INDUCED SEISMICITY 4.11 SEISMIC GEOLOGY FIELD STUDIES 4.12 EVALUATION AND REPORTING 4.13 GROUND MOTION STUDIES 4.14 DAM STABILITY CONSULTING SERVICES 4.15 SOIL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SEISMICALLY-INDUCED FAILURE 3 - ;,, 0444 .4 A?PROf\C. \-\. SE\S \ •\ I.C G.XT b s I_) f:. E I Loca.1e. Se\SMtc. SoUJ\ces (~otenttal) I · E.s-tn:Oo..te V..ecW!\e~e I"'ter\fa.\~ At\e:nua.te Motl~1\S t~ 1-\\.e Sltes . E.cs.·hmo.:te SetsvMc. &P.osi..\J\e t>u.n "~ L,~~·hme. c~ f'G.c., ht~ . SURFI\lE R\JPTURf. TtrfEHT~ (;.-L. ,-J • ' 1' , \-<:. • t ,, ' , . . ~--. e .. ' " " I ( , I ~ ". -·· • '0 " .. ! , .. ~ ,. • r , .. · .. o • ~. :-,... 4 .. .. ' ~ . . ~ ......... "" -· -·· .. . .. ' . 'f -.. , ' r .,II' t ....... ... • .,.. .... ,. ... f .. , • :.- • • .. ,. j "# . ' t" ... ~ .. ··-·~· • ... ., '. ·' •t: -~ I I (' f f -~ • ,_ • ' • # • ' • r • ,.~ .. •' • • • t" ~ r •. t f' - • .. \ • ' ' • '\ • • -• .. .. 'I • • ,. ... ... r , r f \ t f r . ,_.r ; • ---~ ·f ~ c. -~ ~ f f' # ~ ; ,..,.. t • • . • • " ".. .. .. • , , • II! • ' \ ~ -• \....., • ~ ' 4 t • ~ · ~ J \ e t , , • \ .. • • • • • .. ._.. • ,..,.._ .. • • .. • ... -• -.. .. • ' ... t • • .. ~ ... .r!: • PD\E~t\ \r~L fO\t fLESEV'-\fO\R l~D\)C.E~ SE\St',\( \'\'( . E~tll~\O:te. L, 't:e.\\ \co d.b~ D cc llJ\}\e_1\C.e {\-:r;e;c; l"~pa.c:\' D't\ <;etstMc.. ~pcc.;UAe \1$.~c; IMpad oT'\ Su . .r~ac..e 'Ruptu.l\D 'Potet\-ha.t 4 E\iALUAt.Io~i··aF .. EARTHQltAkE··sauRtEs 1 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY 1 REGIONAL TECTONICS 1 SEISMIC GEOLOGY -ACTIVE FAULTING e MICROEARTHQUAKE STUDIES 5 ...... , . 4 ;a:; ...... ~ .... tYPEs .. oF .. EARTHQUAkEs SHALLOW EARTHQUAKE . N.A/PACIFIC PLATE CONTACT -SHALLOW WITHIN N~A: PLATE CRUST -DEEP -ORIGINATING IN BENIOFF ZONE 6 ''I ' ' .,.·I I' ~-I l I •• • 0 -0 - •·0 0 -0 - -o ·I ,) ' " I l • ~ E Jt I ···---· ---. ··~·-···· -. ---·· ...... ··------------------. - A • CRUS1Pr !aef\\E IN MILES .. k • • . . . . . . ,. . .8 .;. . I f .. r . ! i ~ • , ISO 10 JUME 10 • . FIELD APPROACH - ... r. , , r:1 '; ., ·--c.:; /J. G Ro U"''D n r:coN· • .. • • • • .... % :.-:. e ·,_,. ~ J-' l &.. e \ ~ • \ I ;j f \ ·~ • DAM SITES I£ .F1XED-11//NG RECON. REGIONAL FEATLIREs·· D1 FIX£0-WII·lG-R£CON IS' (i'UAO.S J\t HELl C OP1.ER i GROVI\JD F~EcorJ .. c;p· ... 7ELEc1·Eo FE.AT·LIRES ~· ~ ( • ·~ , • f • Ill' t'" ' ~ , ' r · ~· I ,-- 1 • , ' ' • I • ' • I , • . .... • \ ! ...... .._ .. .;. ;....... ~ .... • . • ~ • ~ ----·... } " • .. \ ~ ' !t . . \ 9 • I I • SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA 1. Acceptable Seismic Risk 2. Probable Maximum Credible Earthquake -near site event -event related to Denali fault -Beniof~ zone event 3. Design Apprc·.ach -State-of-the-art approach A. Earth Structures -Watana -earthquake resistant features -critical evaluation of material properties -simplified approach of analysis B. Concrete Structures -J:·t;sponse spectra type design -factor "g 11 design -modified time history analysis C. For a Selected Scheme (Structure) -evaluate if earthquake loading governs -detailed analysis will be done 10 ~ ···~:~ :'j,;! "1~\:. I .· ·~·'·! l li r~ ; r . ' : j ! l i I .! I ) . l I ... f 1 I l 6,,. ..... , I .I . I ·.· I t l . I I II o, ( . ! 1 .. ' . 1-' ~ Jl!lj .,.. ""'' " .. A ·u --. • • ... .dJL@ ;:llitl :Jill Jill ~ ~ .. ~ .JJII ~ ·~. ,;~ -a• .. kM .. .. - • FAULT SCREENING CIUTERIA 1).)1 :S 'lUI·: l·'AUL'l' t-mt::'l' • 'Im: 1-l.)l J llll !!!.. . CIU11:tul\ Distance folio i."'lllllll Lcng th OOF'.S 'lUI~ FAUUr CORIU~[J\'l'E IS '111E Fl\tJI,T > 5 km fllJG t:rom Project of FiJult or 1 ~ ~ri BPl\'I'IAf.LY \~ruJCiWBmL ~ ~Np '11'1llitl JQ Ism Of 'UJ~ ~ h t.JJ ADDITIO!l\L SWD'l pi tes( s) (km) Linerurent (km) I·/\H'l11QU\KE~ ---( RF.SEJl\.Q!Jt NO. ~ p ...... ..,_. p 0 to 1 tb t-tinimum 1 to 10 5 10 to 50 10 50 to 100 50 .. . '· ·Ycl YES S . ~) ,. .. ....,.[L ,. .. CJ\NDII.l\'l'E FAUL'l' '10 EVALU\'rE IN '111E FIELD ~ . J., •• 14 658A -4000 10 June 1980 ·. -. ill "£~: • -£.< ~1!~~-~·~ I cF~~;~J . ~~· I }.,l! . ,' •! i 1 ' i -~ j '':>I 1 I l l ") . . . . . . ' 2 ·. --,_ ... . ~ ~ 0 0 0 :E l> :u ~ r -< 0 m 0 0 z (I) c ~ ~ z ~ ... ~ (!) m )> 6 ~ II 3 i ... -lO Ol 0 ~ N ~ ,_ ~ HIGH CONFIDENCE IT DOES NOT ,llJ!!I :Ill Jt::-..N LOW CONFIDENCE WHETHER IT IS OR NOT DOES IT HAVE --·· ..... -... RECENT .Q!§~CFMENT? f LOW CONFIDENCE WHETHER IT DOES OR NOT •II ,lJII .... HIGH CONFIDENCE IT DOES ll!l ,.,. ~ ~ CANDIDATE FAULT IS THE FEATURE A FAULT? HIGH CONFIDENCE IT IS NOT ) . .... • HIGI-t CONFIDENCE IT DOES NOT l(tNOE~eRMINATE ----------- INDETERMINATE INDETERMINATE -·-• rtii1I"--. ;NDETERMINATE' -n .... Q c ~ m ~ a•• A* A* • lndetermlnate A -High to Moderate Probability of Recent' Dlaplacemont •• Indeterminate B -Low Probability of Recent Di~placement Note: Table presents thiS criteria on which confidence levels are based . a•• ~ .... J HIGH CONFIDENCE IT IS DOES IT !-fAVE ~~~1 lll§~bA~~M~NT.? LOW CONFIDENCE WHETHER IT DOESOA NOT .. .. HIGH CONF!DENCE IT DOES fiNoETERMINATE RECENT \:.:._ A* DISPLACEMENT FIELD CLASSIFICATION OF CANDIDATE FAULTS ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ I .. I ' .:1 ·I '·:if & ~ ___ , ,____~ I • • --FP..JLIS AND ·L·\-NE~MENTS l ~-I . . -. -·~ :• ·-""-;-~--. t ----------,. -----· -~·------_.,..-__ _ _l~Nl< I --- 13 1 I I II r -~ ~-I l II I, .~ I I ' . .J . - • M f\ 'i. C RED\ '0l E E ()_ SUM M 1\ R '( vv·.\ TF\N.f\ s \T.t. F~RTUl\E tJ\ST Ml\~ S\JRfF\C.t t\' r ·, NP\ME . ( t..\·\~ C \lED. Rl\ PTUR.E " ! ' .. #. E.~ ~D\Et\\TlAL --- t\tlS-\ cCl~~\e Mt1\ ~5 i.l H~1-J Nckal\lcy St(4nA 4D i.i . KC.~·l 1"1\kee\l\& 1\\r\1~~ 4 1-S Kb3·~ S\lc;t\M Fa.\l\~ 2. ":f.(&, Kl>-\·lb Ltl\eoft\ef'1 '.1. ~.i 1 • K~,-1.1 Fa..u. \~ D. b.i v \-\{\<\·3 l \ n eu. m ..: n 1 ~ 1.1 kD3·2. F~u. \1 1.5 ·1-.D KD~-1 \_ \ " ec.. -.."' "1 (J 1.3 \~~DS • ~ Fa..t.l.. \ -t \ \ 1.1- ' . .ltl 14 ·C ,, MA~. CRED\ \JLE t._() S\JMMi~R1' OEV\L C~N"<DN S\TE ' .. ... . . . .,, ,-. .• ;,ji ~ ' -. ' • • • 0 -• ' ' ' . ·f \ ·• ' . , I . . . ); .' . . " .. . --. (•. . " 1\tlS·I c~~\\e M-t" 1~ l.l H !:,1-1 Mcti•nle~ S\('an~ ~ B.1 Kt<l·l T4\keetvn ~"« ~~ l.S : Kl)S'-~~ llY\eaMe~i 0 1.5 I KOS·'41l,T\ecune~-t 0.~ i., - \1 DS-7 ·'--Fo..u.\i 3. S' 5.~ KOS-3 F""u. \1 ~.S l.i KDS-9 l U'\ €U Me. f\-\ 1~5 6.'} KUS-~1. lH,eaN\e~t l:J.S ~.'t KO~~i l \" eA ""-"' t \ _,_ f..') KD.k,-1 l \ f\ e:t.\"" f 1"\ 1 \.D "i.l 15 ~. . . . . ., .. \ ' . ' ' l ( ' • • " • t t, " ... .. . .. ~ ; ' "' .. ~... J f .. • • .,; 'ZJ A06 SO I I . I •• ~•••c• ......... ••+"'""'"•li••• • • •••+••••••••••+••••••.,••• MICROEARTHQUAKE STUDY OBJECTIVES • LOCATIONS AND FOCAL DEPTHS OF r1ICROEARTHQUAKES 1 STYLE OF FAULTING 1 STRESS ORIENTATION 1 GEOLOGIC ASSOCIATIONS OF ~1ICROEARTHQUAKES o SOURCE AND lt/AVE PROPAGATION CHARACTERISTICS 16 .. , ~. ,. / . . v· ·.. ~ .., s ' •' . ' . . . • ' \7 -· . -... -·---·· ---•• ' " • • • .. ~ II 0 l ~.J :w~c~J 1--l ......... JW~ Jill ::.. l!ll JPJI -. i\1lll!ll ~ ·--~., .Jill ;~ ·~ :5W l!lll .. JM .. 65 .&'\~.&L ts'•·~·-~ 1s2.oo 1so.oo _...J~J!O ttaB.oa 11(5, DEPTH CONTOURS OF BENIOFF. ZONE 0 FAIABANI\ S ~A·n·~R-------­ ffiA A A 01,1.00 (B R A A fil·ffia".oa 154.00 · --- 148.00 l'l5.00 1~5. ® Dl\r-t s tT£:s l'tG.S£~ • .lfObD 10 JOllf I')SO .., .. .. "'" .~ ,- .,..-. . \_. A ~~ ~ + + + + + + + ... I OO'OSl OO'C~ I.W}Q Hld.:;a 18 - + + + + I oo•a:a\: + + + + + f + + + + + OO'OSl DO'C~ ~){1 Hld:m 18 it 4¥41AiiQ¥. + + + + + + + 4 ca·cct Dt~ ltV f<M 0 0 t!ZJ • • o._ • a • ., • 19 • ~; • 0 I» • • 11ft .. • • • 0 ~ 0 • tla • • •r8J.I • •• • a (I ~ 0 • Ct 0 • 0 II • 8 0 (;! •• o •tl• <I \ • IJ 0 ·.) ) ' WF\TER 'JOLUt''\E R\SJ ~VA1t1\ \)tV\~ ~ 260+-----------~----~----~~----------~~--~----~·-------4 L:.,;.41• 240 220 200 180 160· 140 120 '100 80 60 40 20 .32 l..J . r=46 :.g •. s • ...... ~37 l!:Sll r::;-8. ~24 ~34 EXPLANATION: r;::2. 1£=.1 . . .. . . . . g]31 •.£::14 DEVIL ~ . C~~'(ON r=-56 t::. • ~60 • • 39 ~ • rr::=;J.: - ' ••• J~ . . .. . 49 40-:-28 • ~ ",:=a G16 lt.:::.:,48 Approximately 11.000 reservo1rs without reported AIS not plotted • . . ~12 ~7 ~59 l!§dJ 54 •• G ~,30 I'..!...P ~ . . . . . t • • i • 1 ~ .. . . • • . . 100,000 Reservoi~_.9aoacity in 1 o6·m? (logarithmic scale) 500,000 Not•: Thll! followmg r~~ervo1n ~re not l:ilott~d beQuse of in$ufticient dat•= Kinarnn•, Shi!ltavathi. •41 • Nurll!k (USSR) dept" " in excess of 285m. " Deep and/or very large reservoir I@Jj Accepted case of RIS. maximum magnitude 2! 5 @) Accepted casl! of RfS, maximum magnitude '3-5 m .A;;cepted case of R 1St maximum magnitude S 3 t:J, OtJestionable case of R IS • Not RtS . 20 10 .l\hli! \ ~~'{) I il I l II I II WF\TER VOL U t''\E R\5 1 260~----------~~--------------'~----------~--------~~~-------+ g,4, • 240 220 200 180· 160 E'! 140 :sl c. Q,) c 120 • 100 ,.32 ~ r::-46 80 ~ 60 .s 40 20 : • .... 8 11 0 g]31 . . . . •-ct14 DEVIL ;.. ·~ • Cf\~~o~ • r=-56 1..::::.. • r,:::-:60 . • • 39 ~ •• J.@)f -' . . . . . "' . rf2· :-· ~ • 9" , .r-=: e . . r;;;::2. L..~::r 54 •• G . . ~30 r::.:=_~; . . . . . . ·.· . ·~ . . .. · . . .. ~ 23 •• -.. , .~ ::If· 61 50' :!: !1 5 35 •• 47 -•• . ~ ·. ·~ l:.J~ ~ 5o • • 18 !'"=~29 • ' • 5-·r:;:-;J..:Jt .o;:-36 ~4 t=- ~ .... rr:=::l37 l!::@J 8 lm€24 rJ1 49 40-:-28 ... ,....._ •~.::l=~a G16 t.::!; Approxsmately 11.000 reservosrs without reported RIS not p~otted rr,::r;12 1.!.::.1.h7 1~r 9 I • ~ . . . l..-;::'1 21 38~~· 8 21 ,_25 . r.: 1-=::::.~ • 1 ~ OT-~r-•_., __ ~-+~·~~~-·.·"~--~·--·~-··~·~·-·--~~--·~~~~--·--~~~~;-.·~·~~~. --------~---~,---------+ 1 0 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 500,000 Reservoir Caoacit y in 106m3 (logarithmic scale) EXPLANATION: • Deep and/or very large reservoir [@i] Accepted case of RIS, maximum magnitude 2: 5 @I Accepted case of R IS, maximum magnitude '3-5 G Accepted case of R IS, maximum magnitude S 3 A Questionable case of RIS • Not RIS . 20 Note: The following reservotrs were not plotted because of insuffic:ii!nt data! Kinars.an., Sharavathi, ·.-~ • Nurek (USSR) depth 11 in excess of 285 m. PRELIHINARY RESERVOIR INDUCED SEISMICITY PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT RESERVOIR WATANA DEVIL CANYO~~ COMBINED RESERVOIRS AS QUE RESERVOIR '1465SA -4000 ...... -___,__. PROBABILITY 0.9 o.s 0.9 21 10 J1.1ne l98u \\ Ji ' ' .~ l: .. , T A S K 5: G E 0 T E C H N I C A L E X P L 0 R A T I 0 N SUBTASK 5.01 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW 5.02 PHOTOINTERPRETATION 5.03 EXPLORATORY PROGRAM DESIGN (1980) 5.04 EXPLORATORY PROGRAM (1980) 5.05 EXPLORATORY PROGRAM DESIGN (1981) 5.06 EX?LORATORY PROGRAM (1981) 5.07 EXPLORATORY PROGRAr1 DESIGN C1982 -1984) 5.08 DATA COMPILATION 22 ... '"'""f' -···"-. ~--. --·-. . ,. ..,_., . . " J ·-,_'d -' , • 0 p • .. ~ :. c "' i Q ~ ~ •• lit ' .. ... ~ ,. . ~- ,' , ... ~ ll'fi~~ --· ... --...... -, --· __ , ---' ~ ~ ~ ~' '!Ill ... ·-'"""=~~ ,, ' ' i l ' ! '· ·-~ I t l ) { (j I . l ,_ f { I j I I I I TASK DESCRIPTION 1-13 MILESTONES ,/ POWER STUDIES 2 SURVEYS a SITE FACILITIES 3 HYDROLOGY 4 SEISMIC STUDIES 5 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION 6 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT N w 7 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 8 TRANSMISSION 9 COST ESTIMATES a SCHEDULES 10 LICENSING II MARKETING a FINANCING 12 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (4) 13 ADMIN I STRATI ON ,, f ,: i I , J M COMMENCE STUDY A ~ .... :;.---~ l~l:iO M J I J LOAD FORECAST CAMPS DATA REVIEW ' P,»--~.-~,.,~, --~.• • f':,--' • ·~-',-' ~. '- .' •·L .~ ·•~· .<·--•· 198_1_.,,_ • ~, ,, ''" N IDIJ IFIMIA J I J I A I S I 0 I N SUSITNA BASIN GO/ NO-GO AlTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT SELECTION D J F DAM SELECTION M r SELECT ACC.ESS ROUTE Ll ROAD PERMITS CAMP OPERATION I I I I I I 1--Jio I I I ' DATA COLLECTION, PROCESSING a· ANALYSt' CONTINUOUS PROCESS!NG a STUDIES- 19 A M J - I • 1 I I 'MONITORING I I I REFINED PRELiMINARY EVALUATION SYSTEM I .&.. EVALUATION CONSUL TIN DATA REVIEW Pt:ANNING \\ I DATA REVIEW PRELl MINARY DATA TAX EXEMPTION a MARKET ISSUES I DEVELOPMENT SELECTION SUMMER PROGRAM I REPORT Pt.:AN · FEASIBILITY 1 I I I I I I EAlt I ' I I I I I I I I I ' I I I 1 I , ... PERFORM FIELD STUDIES EXHIBIT E , CORRIDOR SFLECTION ROUTE ·sELECTION - DATA SCHEDULE a ESTIMATES .. I I I I I I I 2 I I I· I I I ~RI I I I I ' ~-CONTINUED DATA AQUI SITION -~-,..-~--r.,.-~·~--~·" -EXHIBITS .. ,. i I I I 1- ALTERNATIVES SUS!TNA DRAFT BOND INPUT 70~ · RISK ANALYSIS RISK ANALYSIS DOCUMENTATION LICENSE ~ I I J . . -1 I I I I p w ~~ ..... I APPLY PROCEDURES I I ._,..,. FINAL REVIEW, t , I ,_ 1 ,-"·~.~__.., ·4¢>MIAW!DIIIT¥1 • =~A r s m •• r ·~~'~ 0 '} t,' ·i EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICAL DIAMOND DRILLING SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT EXPLORATION PROGRAM SCOPE TOTAL $ 63,000 1980 $ 39,000 1981 $ 24,000 (INCLUDING INST.) 7625 lf/$564,647 3800 lf/$282,000 3825 1f/$282~647 IN-HOLE GEOPHYSICS$ 25,000 $ 11,000 $ 14,000 AUGER DRILLING TEST PITS/ R.C. DRILLING LAB TESTING (Plus Manhours) AIRBORNE IMAGERY TRANS. LINE ACCESS ROAD CLEARING DRILL SITES TOTAL BUDGET $ 43,800 $ 45,000 $ 15,000 $ 51,500 $ 63,000 $ 85,000 $ 98,000 $1,053,947 FUNDS AVAILABLE $1,053,947 ''( ' > ·', .. •$ 20,000 $ 23,800 $ $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ $ 51,500 $ -· $ 63,000 $ $ 85,000 $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $406,000 $647,947 $445,364 $608,583 24 OBJECTIVES OF 1980 GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM A. Confirm previous work B. Expand area of geoiogic mapping C. Provide geologic information necessary for optimization of type and location of dams D. Identify potential problems needing further study in 1981 25 REGIONAL GEOLffiY GEOLOGIC HISTORY Three Major Periods Glaciation TECTONICS Denali, Castle Mountain~ Talkeetna, Susitna (?) Faults 26 HATM.JA PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS; Reconnaissance: U.S • B . R. ; 1950, 1 953 Corp of Eng.; 1975 Kachadoorian & Moore; 1978 Geologic Mapping: Corp of Eng.; 1978 Drilling,Subsurface Investigations: Corp of Eng.; 1978 Seismic: Dames & Moore, 1975 Shannon & Wilson, 1978 . 27 WATANA LITHOLOGY: Dam Site Diorite, Quartz Diorite, Granodiorite Andesite Porphyry Quarry A Andesite Porphyry Rhyodacite Surrounding Area Volcanic Sediment Basalt Argillite STRUCTURE: Joints: Major: N35°W 73°NE Minor: N70°W 51°NE Shears: 11 Fins 11 to Tsusena Creek 11 Fingerbuster" SURFICIAL MATERIALS: Susitna/Tsusena Confluence -Glaciolacustrine Sands Borrow 'D' & 'H' Till Borrow 'E', River Alluvium RESERVOIR: Overburden in Lower Reservoir -Till, Lacustr1ne Sands and Silts 28 - Watana Right Abutm~nt along center line Major N5°W Hinor N75°W ~ ,. 0 1 5 10 n = 60 29 Watana left Abutment 200' upstream from the fins Major N20°W, N75°E Minor N65°W 30 goo 0 1 5 10 n = 86 Watana Fins /) . /· 0 1 5 10 n = 80 31 .. {f Watana -Tsusena Creek r-r·---=:.,p.---- 0 1 5 10 n = 100 32 WATANA RESERVOIR PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS Geologic Mapping: Corp of Eng.; 1978 LITHOLOGY: Diorite, Argillite Tertiary Sediments, Basalt Flows MetqVOl cani:cs Schist STRUCTURE: Talkeetna thrust SURFICIAL MATERIALS: Till, Outwash, Glaciolacustrine, Sqnds qnd Silts PERMAFROST 33 I DEVIL CANYON PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS: Geologic Mapping: Kachadoorian, 1957 Dri 11 i ng: U.S. B. R. ; 1 957 Seismic: . Shannon & Wilson, 1978 l 34 ., ,_.:_ • • I -........... DEVIL CANYrn LITHOLOGY: Argillite and Graywacke (Phyllite) STRUCTURE: Joints: Major: Minor: Shears: Bedding: N25°W 80°E Sub-parallel Bedding N90°E Steep to north N90°E 15°N to 15°S N°25°W 80°NE to Vertical N90°E 55°-75°S SURFICIAL MATERIALS: River alluvium -estimated 35' -max. depth to rock 85 1 Overburden on abutements: insignificant Buried Channel -up to 90 feet of overburden (1293') Point Bar (Fan) Deposit PERMAFROST 35 I I' I Devils Canyon Right Abutment above Borehole I 2 Major N15°W Minor N75°E \ .. r===a ., 0 1 10 n = 100 36 Devils Canyon Left Abutment Major N25°W Minor N65°E, N25°E 37 ~\ - 01 5 10 n = 93 I I J: Devi 1 s Canyon Right Abutment on the River Major N25°W r~i nor N65°1E, N85°E . 38 0 1 5 10 n = 100 : ~ POTENTIAL PROBiHISJ AHEAS CF crnCERN DEVIL CANYON 1) Accessibility of canyon walls 2) Abrupt bend in the river, bedrock beneath point bar 3) Semi-impervious or impervious material for saddle dam WATANA 1) Exit of buried channel on the Susitna River 2) Potential faults or shears "Fins 11 to Tsusena Creek "Fingerbuster 11 3) Thickness of andesite at Quarry 'A' 4) Alternate source of impervious material 5) Reservoir -mudslumps/permafrost ,-~ 1 ' 1-::<. c.{..r-n .. v 1 : : ,_/ . .:.· ·.,' ., .. • ,, ' ... GEOTECHNICAL. DESIGN CRITERIA lp. Earth/Rock Fill Structures Abutment conditions and treatment -Foundation conditions and treatment (Watana -Relativ~ly deep alluvium) -Construction material .: availability suitability (engineering proper~ies) workability (reoisture) · 2. Concrete Dam -Devil Canyon -· lbutment conditions and treatment Foundation· conditions and treatment .... • 40 - .. ,., ... -~ . . ·. ' I ( I }ffiTANA I. I ' ·' ~~ II - I ( Jj STRUCTURE: . 810' HIGH EARTH DAM INVESTIGATION: 1950-'53J USBRJ RECONNAISSANCE 1975} COEJ RECONNAISSANCE D&MJ 22500LF S E I Sf"l I C 1978 COE 28 ~OREHOLEB 0' TO 6 0' DEEP 27 TEST PITS 18 AUGER HOLES S&W 47665LF SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION 10 PIEZOMETERS 13 TEMP. PROBES SIGNIFICANT FEATURES 300' -600' WIDE VALLEY 30° -60° SLOPES 40' -80' OVERBURDEN 5' -40' WEATHERED ROCK ALLUVIUM -FROZEN TO SOFT RELICT CHANNEL UP TO 454' DEEPi FILLED WITH GLACIAL AND ALLUVIAL MTLS, NEAR VERTICAL SHEAR ZONES THE "FINNS" AND "FINGERBUSTER" 41 -' ' ~·· ,, J . ----............ Ma.KL.T MEJI.. ALASX.. INTP• ltt:POR'f •• I UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASlH . WATANA ' I ~---------~:s•m~•••~r••••••~~-----~·--·----~,.---~~.------------~~--------------·-------··--------~h---~/ 42 0 0 0 I I -..... -... •ot--·--··---··---..!.·-· ...... -·--·· -~--· ""' -·--... . . . " . ... . . : \ t ' I .. ' ; . .. . ',. • .'\ .. . ' :~~~~;;~==~----------------~~~~~~~~--------------=:::;;;;~ ~ .... ..... ..... ..... --- . ' K\:1'01 wa•a•a & .. --........ -.... -.... ------··---..!. ....... ~ .... .-.-. ....... _ .... -·~ .. " ~· . . ' . ·, . .. .. ,, .. .. 43' .. .. :. llll•miM! ' .... & , . \ ' ! .. 0 0 ALASKA POWER·~ .. · SUSITNA HYOROELEC WATA~ DAMSITE I'N·VE!· :, ··t . ~-I -~, tl ~~~ ~I ~: 1 ~ l 0 -1 I -I i I 1 l I I •"-::-J ~ l ""''*¢1- 1 L t l :.J ~1'~ ~ ~~ 2500. 90•00 2400. 2300 • 2:!00 • ~i~O • ~000 1'300 aeo~ • l70Q 1600 90Q • soo . '· .. / ~ ... l>"'""_.,.__. -~ .. ,J '\ ~·oo JIIE --.-.--4 Jt!IIJ "~ : .. .. .;1111 ;-. -:Mil ILl ~ -~ ~,~~ "'0 ,Q· -.. ..... ,.. ... __ 120~00 {),'i {1-,;so •oQ . 1 : •n•oo IU!..9.0~ 100.,.00 IQSt09 110 .. 00 ll~tOO . i GRID eASE STI.T!CNiN!f fOR EMB(+NKII~NT ~ECTIONS ZO SEPT 1971 j N 3,2Z4,B~B-~74 1 /E 7H,'3'~.0~) o 1 ~ I IOO+OQ • , • ~/ ~-R~$.!.__!J.tV~!i~ -......,.....,-~ m "=*-·• .. -=+..,...;.=-=·-.--:-..-..·,..,.,...·--=·-."/ 1 c:.: -·=--· .:.. :;-='C'=;'--...--'"""'"--....--=--=-=;-:;r.;:r.-NCRt.~ ·POOL ··ELEV. zan 17 • GL.ACtAL TILL Dtt·ao ~ 2 1 rT GLACIAL TU. . ' OH-11 ,. __ ~ -.,.. ~·. \ I ' ·~-at.":-· -~-~H·i-1 OH·IZ . OH·· ... · ... QUARTZ DIOitiTE 't 4 --·--·. Ori·2~10' GU.Cil\. TLL 78'0F RIV~R ld GL&c::AL-. DH• . ."wo~R'TE. "'~A't:IESITE 0'1([ •• QUARTZ ;. '· ..... _ -/ ALLUVIU~ TILL -....... ~ ... "1 ' T : 1 0 RITE -.• f ·• .-· • I IO ,__ --·-'. --. 50' OF~ 1 DH•I · /":. ,A!'!t'ESITE { 10 ·.~DH•II SOTTO!V'. 160 DIS _ I ANDESITE/_.....--lo ......_,_. RIVER ., WE.j W;t. g ... , C".OO:Rrzj \\:,_&~Y MO:ltR.\TE:.Y TO ~IGH~o't' FRACTUR;.O • 1 tNl R~s,ory ~ ~-, .• ALLUVIUM 1 : ! 5• G:..act~ ~ . ; ·"' i):~'Rt tE" -;~ . ..;-tLS:TE D!KE oH:2' BOTTOM~ 41»-v... ·1 \ 1 Til.\. ~-c.oRIT£ "\.,~ .... : MIJ:>t:Rt.TE to H:GH:..Y rRt.elVREO zoN , ~7 DIS OIJARTZ '-'. \~ \ 1 ~ /';;' ot"' ~;-HIGHLY FRACTURED·, ·.fELSITE OlKE (H:GHLY fRACTURED) ~ DIORITE : .. : • H·i• ·0 ... 4 . i/ / -' zoNES I :'·cH·t ponoM an' DIS I-.~~. H·5 ./t\..~Y !'W$ !~) ~SITNA RIVE II_ ~;,;.:c.k -·------• --··· • • --.. ,~ r~ ·/ , . ··~ T:S' Q/ e-·--, 1.-li ·· C.. ·, -1 I , I ~·.·OI\tERSIC« Tl:NNEL.S ~'(~··-r-' 'QH•l' BOiTOM 45 DIS • '· ., I ~.~4ST5 ~-~~· • IE 1441S.~J , ARTI LIGHT TO MO~f:RA: \ ·'6:0rl1TE FRACTURED lONt, · .• ANOESlT~ PORPHOftY-.'t. O.Kt ~-D~·tl IOTTOM 70'0/$ SECTION A·A --·- t_A)ATANit CoRP~ t£.-xpt,ot2A 1"1 &~ .-' ., 0 0 0 / WAT ANA EMBANK~ EN T QUAf~ TIT I ES < COE) MATERIAL Q.u!NTlTY (c_yl e.o.s.s..tru...E SouRcE IMPERVIOUS 7.,373.,000 BoRRow AREA 1) ,. : SEMI PERVIOUS 6 077 000 BoRRow PREA ]i) ~~ FINE FlL.TER 5 621 000 BoRROw AREA E -~ C.OARSE F!L.1~ 2.,201.,000 QHARRY L\ B OR ORROW AREA E RocKF 1 LL 36 297 000 QuARRY A oR B RIPRAP 223' ooo·~ QuARR'l' A oR B TOTAL 57 792 000 /\C.r'<.E:6 t ~ ~o Gx.P~A·Tr o~ WATANA EMBANKf1ENT QUAf~TITIES CCOE) 46 ... .. ;~·~--~----~.~--~-·--·-··----------·~·-··._·-----··~···----------------------------------~ t,,.. t " -- I . wi:zi• 0 ·- ' . . ' ' \ .. .... ... .... r ·~ . .... •• til;: _j . • ! -.. •.. .. ' " ' \ AtE l : ' . ·' . ' f \ ' \ I \ ' .. \ 1 • • brllfxp _,II' ,(. •• .... ~' ... . ........ ~ a ' \ 47 ' ~ . .. ~ ... i I . ·-. I-\ .... , , : 4 ., .• c .. .. .. . ,r:· . ~ ... .. . ... ....... - J.. "' .. .....:.. .. ... ·. . .. ·. ,.. ...,., ' --· ·~ ~-. .... ' ~·. --....... ·-···---= ... . ... • ..-. I. ~~ M~ltlC,,_ ''Sb . . . . ''·e··=o .. -+-/~.~ .. ae~w~.--•a•-.~----------~--·--------------•-----·--·----·----------=-·--·•---------~ 48 -------~-:-~----:-~-------T ~--::..~ -·-c:c------------------------------------------------ t 0 0 0 I ...... :.I DR17 e·OR 18· ·() ~"'.tf 11€0 ............._ ___ '"'"'_. ______ ~·lltilli~Wi~l .. t·.rr·IMiilllu ~·&n-........ ·1 -· --·· ·-·-· 0 ....... " --~· ............ ,~'--~~ ....... --~ r--···1-....... ,~ ....... ~ ...... ~..;,...~-~--""-· ··-.. ·---· ..._, _// 49 ,it ~-.. ·-~---i·-·~·r·-=-------------;---·------------~----~~~~ •• I 0 m 2 ... ~ 11 • 3 0 0:: --~ ¥2~.0: 11 ~~ 0 ~ aJ I 0 ~ e ! t-§ ~ -. s I ~-0 i ~ b ' 0 ·i···-·-:T·~-~~--------------~-----------·-----·-·r-·-dJ -r, "'"-' I' ~~ ~~ I I I E I m. II ~ / I ' { )· \ ' -·- -- ... I • 't ... • • .. \ ,~r c (:, ": ~· .. 0 4:C:. CD ~ .... • \ I .al w ... '· I t- ~ -• ~ t4k:U 4 = I .r- ·1 ~ BORHlG 1·. BEARING ANGLE I I . . I ~ DEPTH ~ 1 OVERBURDEN ~ WEATHERING m I ~· ~~ SEDROCK ~ I ~ ;:~.fER lOSS I I I l ~ ' I SPECIAL FEATURES • .,. •. , rzr SUMMARY 1980 DRILLING PROGRA~ -WATANA INTO RIGHT ABUTMENT 401 FT (328 VERTICAl) SFT SHEAR ZONE 90-133 POOR WATER . ClRCtJlATION QUITE HIGHLY . FRACTURED, ... • 53 RIGHT ABUT-.. MENT UNDER RIVER . 740FT (640 VERTICAL) 8 FT ALTERED ZONES: 50-70 FT 150-160 FT 320-335 FT 440-500 FT FRACTURED AND HIGHLY ALTER- ED ZONES QUITE HIGHLY JOINTED AND CALCITE COATED WITH NEARLY TOWARDS R1VER - WET MUSKEG AREA 376 FT (326 VERTICAL) 8fT ALTERED DIORITE ZONE APPROXI- MATELY 50-70 FRACTURE.ZONES APPROXIMATELY 1 FT ~ WATER Cl RCULAT I ON: GOOD Ir4Pt V 1 NG TIGHT~ NO ~lATER P TEST DATA AVAILABlE • VERTICAl ,: ORIENTATION I J 1 aJf · 4111' · iii liM• i .U 'W'b'ifl-1~ - 0 0 I· ~ l II( I I I I m m ~-It ( r~,L\ TER I ALS: ROCKFILL AND AGG, -QUARRY "A" AND/OR "B" CORE -BORROW AREA "n" FILTER/AGG,-BORROW AREA r:g" LAB TESTING BORROW AREA 11 D° COMPOSITE GRADATION TRIAXIAL COMPACTION CONSOLIDATION PERMEABILITY (MINUS l") SPECIFIC GRAVITY BORROW AREA 11 E11 GRADATION PETROGRAPHIC ON SAND PROBLEMS: BURIED CHANNEL -PERVIOUS ZONES PERMAFROST -DISCONTINUOUS) DEEP IN LEFT ABUT.; WITHIN 10 OF FREEZING ARTESIAN PRESSURES SUSITNA FAULT? TALKEENTA THRUST THRU RESERVOIR 54 - ·HATANA q I 'I I i I I I • I I I~ .. I lc I I I I · UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES ROCK CONDITIONS -FAVORABLE SOME SUPPORIS REQUIRED SUMrlARY ADDITIONAL EXPLORATION GENERAL -ROCK STRUCTURE -RIVER CHANNEL -FOG LAKE FAULTINGJ LEAKAGE RIGHT ~BUT,-SLIDE BLOCK (?) -OVERBURDEN THICKNESS LEFT ABUT. -PERMAFROST BORROW AREAS -LAKE DEPOSITS SPILLWAY -BURIED STREAM CHANNEL DOWNSTREAM -SUSITNA FAULT? 55 NAT/-\NA ~~ !'!!!! b!Yi .. ll!ll Alii ~ - 0 0 0 / -. ... .. . .. . ..... "' ..... 0 • • ~-U.S. It~ S&M ~ 14 I\ICictl ~ ~~- • 100 tn~Aml U.S. ST~ StM •w11:~~ ' ~ I ~ 1K I ~ ~ 4 J 4 6 a 10 1.t h 20 30 Ml JO 70 taft ~~ 200 '"'~ II ...... ~ II I ~· I ' ~ I ! " I a I I I I II ' • ~ \0 t 1 .. 20 I 1 .. ,. :I ,.. • IS II ·o:i 50 ~ 1 8 lrO ~ fO ao l I I i •J j 1 I II :: ! ~J a I i so I I ~ f~ ~ 4&0 • ~ I"-1'-oo -........... ~ r--~ """" ~ --r--r---.. .... ........... ,... ............... ,.. ,.. I' ·r-. 1- t" ~ 1'-~ . - 1"'-' ~ ··-1"'-o... """""' " -... ---·-. ··-.• "r--. f\.. 1'-" ... . -< • 1'\.· ~ " . t• . [\ r-.. r-.. -• < .. -\ .. " .. 1'\. ....... --~ --· . 10 i 1'., I .. 00 ~ 30 20 10 ----~ ~ I" ~" "-. ...... -· -,_ f-·· - --. . [\' ~'r--.. . [' 1'. J ' -< .. -.. --·" ~ .... ~ .. -I.- 00 0 I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ULJ J I I I I I I I I I I I I L • I I J J J J. I I I II CIO .sao 1 oo ~o 'o J 1 o. 5 0.1 o.O$ o.o 1 o.oo.s o.oo 1 ORAIN Sill MllliJAETfi\S [ C:OQIW } ccwu OiVI\ fN I CCAASI I IIIIC.IM l.t.NO I fiNI : I ~i ~-~'-... -~ : 1 :-:::::::::.:::~ Envelope of gradation curves derived from tests of samples from test pits 8 thru 19, Borrow area D. . ... ' ... ~ . " • .:!. ...... . I ( I . I I f r J I .,. I ' DEVIL CANYON STRUCTURE: 635' HIGH CONCRETE GRAVITY-ARCH DAM INVESTIGATION: USER 1957-'58; COE 1978 22 BOREHOLES 20'-150' DEEP 19 TRENCHES AND TEST PITS 3300 LF SEISMIC LAB TESTS PETROGRAPHIC ELASTIC PROPERTIES UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SIGNIFICANT FEATURES: 35' + ALLUVIUM OVER BEDROCK SHEAR ZONES AND FAULTS -BOTH ABUTS. 3 JOINT SETS (PROM N25°w) BEDDING DIPS SOUTH 35'-50' WEATHERED ROCK +-8.5 AT 40 MI. OR 7.0 AT 10 MI. EARTH QUAKE ~ ,!:::::..-:.- 57 \~ ... ,,............. \) I ' I I I ~ I •'~·· ~ "' ; . .. ··-1" .-: .. ' CI\'N"/ON 6x PL-01~ T 1 ot-t ,_.-.-~.-...... ~ .... ~~r-.. ~~ .... ~r---·~~--~----------------------~------------------~~~--...... _. .... ~ ... ~, .... ,~u~-.;~• .. ~--~---------.z;-__________ ___ ~ t i • 1 / t ( . i \._ 58 \ SWITCH re-ctO EL. 14I,C.:• .... .4--..---·--,... . .-........ .. ' . . I I I I I 110 11 59 / ___ ...... ... '• --~ ~---:-~--­... "'--CONCRETE AGGREGATE SOURCE ....... !'oo. .. '.:-..... ' \ •"'" -. . · ·. .. .. · .. .. '• . ·-.. ·---.... \ ... __ -~. ·~ ... ... ..... ... .... .-.-ww:.r ... a •--~~,.,.,, ____ ,. ••••••• ·•-•t , .. ~"""" - ..... --- ... __ - .... .. . .. ,. "'· - , .. ..... -. /..(, I ~· ":;~ ... ~ .. ,• l . p··. i;j .. ·~~ .. -.r. U• ... octu l-..ac-a; 1'011 •• ,~,.~ '(.11'\000•~'I:IIt trc-.. &ll:l OUI tUT 1'1TS !'CUTtiC'£:NTRAI.. RA!l.f!E:Lf ~~EA, :. SU?Pt.EW:NTAL f'(AS!fril:ITY ST· . . . . UPPER SUSITUA RIVER Bt.S ·~ ,OEV 1l CANYON 7 " SITE PLAN a (kPLORATIONS ..; ..... - I . I I I .. ' I'~ • 1\ IU . r ~ ~ 1/\ ) I ~u 1 ~ I I ~;0 ~ 1:, t • 1: ' ~ . ! t t . I ; I f .. _ . - ll ~I ;jf .. · . ..... -· . ~· ~ \ \ ' \ ' \ ' ::~-., ' \ \ a.J ... - 60 ·- • I . en U'l > .... < ,.,., -:~:. 0·, .._, trN~tsns (.) I (.) z 0 -1- 0 l&J CJ) ·. I Nl I -t- I I I I· .... .. -.. . .. · ........... •,: .... . · : -~ t:t ··,t ... : ..... · ~ ~}'.--.\ .... ., .. ~· : ·:~~''-~: .. . TPI8 • • TPl9 TP7 •• TPIT A . ' .. --sw-ss------~1 -~ BH13, . . . ~'0;;;;;;::..;'" .• · ~:· •• , ~~~~:;;:~;:~~=====13~A~~~·~s~~~Z~7M:~~~·~~~~.,~~-~·~~" \:I~AB~~~~ AIRSTRtP. :~-a~~~ I ~. TP94a. BH~ :J) 1 . ~ fP •BH15 ·· SH& 140 o ) ' 0 0 : 0 [ ! ('. REF. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEVIL CANYON SITE PLANt AND LOCAl' lOti ctOF DEVIL CANYON CONCRETE GRAVITY DAM SCALE ·- . . i ---' ·---------------------------------------------------------------------------~--~~· or;,,;,.3 w~f~ ~~cr J'l8o (AC.RE}5) --------------------------------------~' 61 - i . . 0 I M I -1- I I I I I 1: ' . s:& BH9 ~ ,.BHrO::::..-__, __ • ':4 ... TPI8 • • TP19 tt&iil • TP7 •• TPi7 A ... ---SW-15 ~------~ 1 ..... ) () ~~ 0 . () ( ad . I, ('. REF. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DEVIL CANYON SITE P[.ANI AND lOCATIO!'-~ ct OF' DEVIL CANYON CONCRETE GRAVITY DAM SCALe ·- I. . . i ~ ' l • r-----------·------------------------------------------------------------~~ 51 o;;llii!3 H4)r~ ~~cr Jt8o (Ac..Re-s) I 0 (; . = . ---. . ' --~___:_:.:.:!:',.: __ -·-·---~...:::;-= ~ -.; !., ~"'--~.:::.:.__.___ ~'-" """ •;•t;.\<---~ ~ IJ /: I j i ! i I t I ' ' ' \ '· 62 I - ' ~·--~"""""""' - - .,..,..,.-. .. ... ... ·::..:·. -.,: ., ... . ... .., .-· _., .... . .. . . ,_:-.--T .... .. . -. ; ~ ~ .. . .. J"& • .••• ;.. ~· .• s.: --.. ·I -~ ~-:-~ . .;'":""-. . . ·--~--· . ,._ . ...;~c:- _____ _.___. , . Tl"·o.... .. ~ , c.., 4 , _.,. EJI I ... liil I I ., ' ' ' ' SOU'fHC[NTIItAl. . IIIAilf!Et.T A s.PPt.EWEtnl.l. R(A • At. AS II\ .A. f'(ASttMJT UPPER S . T STUDT USITNA RIVER BASIN OEVfl CANYON SITE PLAN a EJCPl.ORATIOHS .t4 .uc• tt!f 'UUC:T • CDtf'$ fll •-<-~ (~(~ ·'- ~:" .. -.......,., . ......_... , .. -~----···---·.=-· ---~----··--'"--~-~~-----------·-----.. ·----.. ---- • I ~ I BEARING I ANGLE I r I' I DEPTH II I, I' OVERBURDEN ., ~~ HEATHERING BEDROCK HATER LOSS SPECIAL FEATURES SUNr1ARY .1980 DRILLING PROGRAM -DEVIL CANYON BH-1 S23°E 670 RIGHT ABUTMENT 750 (690 VERT1CAL) 12 FT GRAVEL 25FT PHYLLITE- ARGILLITE, BELOW 385. (355) CONGLDr4ERATE . 55-85 ) 100-130 } 250-265 ) 280-295 ) FRACTURE 460-490 ) ZONES ~ 595-615 ) WITH HIGH 655-670 ) WATER TAKE CONGlONERATE AND POSSIBLE FtOH PODS AREAS ... EXTENT NOT KNOWN BH-2 N 600 RIGHT ABUTMENT 656 (563 VERTICAL) . SHALLOW 2 FT 20 F1 PHYLLITE ~ GRANODIORITE AT 650 FT REHEALED FRACTURES AND FILLED JOINTS THROUGHOUT, HOHEVER WATER CURCULATION GOOD AND LOW PERM- EABILITY TEST RESULTS BH-4 S15°H 60° LEFT ABUTMENT 500 {434 VERTICAl) 12FT 1:5 FT METASEDIMENTARY: ARGILLITE TO GREY WACKE 175-185 INTERMITTENT SHEAR ZONES HARD PHYLLITE FAIRLY GOOD WATER CIRCULATION THROUGHOUT DRillED SUBPARALLEL TO THE BEDDING. -NO MAJOR SHEAR ZONES ENCOUNTERED 0 () 0 1. I I{ I I I I I MATERIAL SOURCES: CONCRETE AGG.~ AND EMBANKMENT MTLSa READILY AVAILABLE 1000' U/S MARGINAL FREEZE/THAW RESISTANCE IMPERVIOUS -PROCESSED PROBLEMS: LEFT ABUT. DEVIL SOUTHERLY DIPPING BEDS REQUIRED EXTENSIVE DENTAL WORK ROCK SUPPORT REQUIRED THRUST BLOCK -ANCHOR (DEEP) RIGHT ABUT. BEDDING DIPS APPROXIMATELY 60° SE (UNFAVORABLE) SHEAR ZONES -PARALLEL TO THE RIVER SADDLE DAt-1 E-W TRENDING BURIED CHANNEL 90' OVERBURDEN PERMAFROST DEEP CUTOFF POSSIBLE SHEAR ZONE UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES: """"' ,. ·' ., '<• # "" \ -· ROCK IMPROVES WITH DEPTH DIVERSION TUNNEL LINING REQUIRED 65 - ' i ' ' ' c.::,i I I I ' •• I ( I I I I I I 1<. I DEVIL SUMMARY: EXTENSIVE GROUTING DETAILED FOUNDATION AND ABUTMENT EXPLORATION REQUIRED PILOT TUNNELS RECOMMENDED AMPLE AGGREGATE AVAILABLE) PROCESSING REQUIRED 66 I· I lc I I VEE CANYON STRUCTURE: 470' HIGH EARTH DAM INVESTIGATION: 1960-'62 USBR 13 BOREHOLES~ 1646LFJ 180' MAX, 16 DOZER TRENCHES SIGNIFICANT FEATURES: VERY STEEP CANYON (800') 125' OVERBURDEN POOR QUALITY ROCK SADDLE DAM 400' OVERBURDEN PERMAFROST TO 60' ROCKLINE BELOW EXISTING RIVER V,C, MATERIAL SOURCES: NOT DELINEATED GLACIO -FLUVIAL FOR EMBANKMENT RIVER CHANNEL FOR AGGc 67 I· I I< I PROBLEMS: ROCK SLOPE STABILITY -EXCAVATION LEFT ABUT -HEAVY TALUS PERMAFROST POOR ROCK QUALITY -HEAVY TUNNEL SUPPORTS 400 1 OVERBURDEN UNDER SADDLE DAM SU~1~1ARY: ADDITIONAL EXPLORATION REQUIRED. SITE UNSUITABLE FOR CONCRETE DAM 68 - VEE I I ( I I DENALI STRUCTURE: 235' HIGH EARTH DAM INVESTIGATION: 1958-'59 USBR 5 BOREHOLES APPROXIMATELY 200' DEEP 14 TEST PITS LAB TESTS CONSOLIDATION GRADATION INDEX TESTS PETROGRAPHIC SIGNIFICANT FEATURES: RELATIVELY LOOSE SANDS AND GRAVELS OF UNKNOWN THICKNESS PERVIOUS STRATA -RIGHT ABUTMENT 100' ±PERMAFROST~ BOTH ABUTS. COMPRESSIBLE STRATA -BOTH ABUTS. MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE 8.5 AT 40 MILES 69 - •• I I< I I I lc I MATERIAL SOURCES: PERVIOUS -ADEQUATE SUPPLY) 0.5 TO 5 ~1ILE HAUL IMPERVIOUS -PROCESS FROM TILL PROBLEf1S: DEEP PERMAFROST COMPRESSIBLE FOUNDATION MTLS, EXCESSIVE FOUNDATION TREATMENT PERVIOUS STRATA -RIGHT ABUT, DEEP CUTOFF LIQUIFACTION SUM~1ARY: MOVE SITE 8000' DIS EXTENSIVE FIELD INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED 70 - DENALI ',;' . 6.01 J{VIEW Pf{VIOOS STI.IHES 6.al lltlfl Pl~TI\6 6.03/G.ffi ALTEml\TI~ IW1 SITES 6. fJI EVJ\l.ll\TE ARm IW1 6.CS Al.lmt'\TI\£ Imi AT IEVILS r.NNm .. : 71 ,, i) •}' o!w, ·~ I ....... N N ~ £#tt+ USBR -~~ ~··· ',. ·--USBR 1952-1953 . 1960 .. KAISER 19"74 ----COE f::;;_.~:»~ COE ' \ 1975 1979 .Y~\. ........ ~' l'\. ., '\ \ \ l, ') ~ J'" . .. , )-' .,J( 't 10 ' I .. I' . \ ;,.-..r '--~J . ..,..,.._,.,.., \o FIGURE I lOCATION OF Df~MSITES PROPOSED BY OTHERS ~--~~~~--­ '-f"""\ .J ~ \1 I <-~"\ \ \ \ ,.,.) ; / PftOPOSEO OAMSIT(S ,s--" • . " . ~ (4 • ' oJi!' :..&:\0'~\' ........ I' . ~-· . . . ''t· . .,. ' ,, · .... :_,f'·l'·. "~~ ~ ' . !~t·;: ~i. ;I ;I I I a: I 1&1 > a: ... z I' ... "' X en 0 0 0 1ft N 0 0 !a· .. .. -.a. '" c w > --a: "' z 0 >-.... 0 0 0 N a: 1&.1 > a: z "' a:: 41( ~ u 4( 2 0 ·o N N -0 0 0 IW) ~ l -- -0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Q 10 N N -0 CD N '!0 3l.LOf! • ~ 0 CQ ., N , -1ft .-N 11'1N30 .,. 0 .. N -----~ ., It) N3~!:>\fW N ----~ -.. 0 ---- ~ N N It) 0 N ~---------._._ __ ~ ~ 33A ~~ 0 0 r-r N 11_1 YN.LISOS ~ ~ -· 0 -.1. 0 liD 0-Q 0 ., 0 -en -0 0 N N N 'tNW.L\fM . 0 ·o ·' II) II) ,.... -..,. -'1:1::) S111\30 .. NOJ.Nv:> 11A30 H51H ~2 ~ 1JA30 ...... ~ S2 Aft.'0$1() -:l;i . f2 Cl) t.r.) 0100 ri u "' C) t! tr 0 Q. 73 ':'¥.' - 0 0 1ft \ N LIJ 0:-:::> (!) -lL 0 CD ~ - 0 !: tal ..J 2 a: 11.1 > -·a: 0 "' 0 0 .. ______ -- !I I I I I li ·~ I I - --.. 1.- fR -c.o ..._, ~ -~ E ..._ ~ ~ ~ I I -,...... :B -... ., ~ I .. t.O '-" .... I tij ... ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ .&. I-.... --r--~ """ ., ~ ~ --a3---c..o I . -.... (.1) ......... ~ ~-~ ..... -~ g !5: ... -..... r ..._ , ....... C2 ~ !:J C2 <C ~ _J lJ.J ~ F2 . l -· _J - 74 -- ... § I '""" ~ .., ( t.O ..._, -~ ~ ~ """' _J 8 --~ c..o ......... ~ ~ <x: I I " I 1tlm. AlTmlAl"IVES (6,a2) I· OOJECTI\fS IN'STJGATE FfA)JBill"N Cf IDm. VS. US OlfS SfJfliE. ADD: SW!.ER CP.PAC11Y rum sam 75 -' ' I I I I 1,~ ~J 1: I· 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,...... et -\.0 ""' ~ -i ~ _J lJ.J z ;§ .. ' I I • 1 I ....:J .I I i~'~:~ fu.t5 0 u~(l') ~t£3·§2 I U~N, 1 ~ • I I ·~· _____ j ~ ...J~ ~§ ~oa u J. I - 76 - ·. TU~UE L loTEwTIAI- ~ kEY: .··---~-~-,-----~~-=---~~---·-----~. -~--., .. _, __ ,_,_, __ ,. I' ·, r:- ......Wt.. >#f•;i~&l~l . • d1 !r' 1 sttt L I I I I TUNNEL AlTERNATIVE STUD¥ METHO~ 1.., DEVElOP GEOILOGY, a. REPORTS. b. MAPS c. EXPtORAliiON 2M SEtE~T POSS]Bl£ T!UNNEl ALIGNMENTS BASED ON GEOLOGY AND liOP() 3. PlOT SECTlONS ALONG TUNNEl ALIGNMENT 4. SELECT TUNNEl· GRADE 5. SELECT TUNNEl SJZE RASED ON ECONOMICS· 6. LOCATE ACCESS ADITS (AT lEAST 2) 7. SELECT SUITABLE TUNNELING METHODS 8. ESTIMATE TUNNELING COST 9. MAKE ADJUSlliENTS IN: {AS MORE INFORMATION· BECOMES AVAilABlE) a. All GNMEr~li b. GRADE c. TUNNEliNG METHODS d. t:OST 78 \,.: I I I . HISTORICAl"PRECEDENCE·~-TUNNEtiNG A. TUNNELING FILE (ENR~ TUNNELS & TUNNEliNG. CE. ETC.)· l. WORLD WIDE 2. l~ETHODS -TECHNIQUES 3. PRODUCTION RATES 4. COSTS B. OTHER JOBS 1. PEPCO -UPH 2. TARP -CHICAGO 3. METRO -WASHINGTO~J 4. MARTA-ATLANTA s. KEMANO -B.C. 6. SWEO:JSHI Oil!. STORAGE. 7. CHURC~llt FAllS -lABRADOR 8. BAT~ €Qi. -VIRGINIA 9. SNOWV Mr.S. -AUSTRALIA 10. NAVAJO C~ TUNNELlN& METHODS 1. DRILL & BlAST 2. MOlE 3. ROAD HEADER 79 .1.' "· •• I 1: - ' J • SNOL~Y MOUNTAIN' -AUSTRAI!.IA\ -· POWERHOUSE ABOU1i 11,..1 00· FF DEEP GRANITE AND~ GRAN,ITE-GNEISS ROCKS TUNNEL LENGTH• ABOUT: 2 MILE.S KEt~NOt -B·. C. TWO TEN MILE TUNNElS. 25 FT EXCAVATED: DIAMETER PORPHYRY.,, ANDES]lE AND QUARTZ DIORITE. ROCK TAR? -CHI CAGQ. 140·MII:.ES Of SEWER TUNNEL 18• FT T0 1 35 fT DJAMETERS TBMt DRIVEN' ~IMESTONE AND DOtOMJTIC ROCKS BAJ.~ CO. -VIRG!N.JA; PEPCO THREE 7·f000· FT LONG, POWER TUNNElS 32 FT DIANETER' TUNNELS DRILL AND BLAST. EXCAVATION SEDIMENTARY ROCKS DEEP UNDERGROUND· EXCAVATION DRILL .~NO BLAST EXCAVATION: lARGE EXCAVATE~ VOLUME METAMORPHIC ROCKS S\4EDISH OIL STORAGE 31.7 ~ 10;6' CY OF EXCAVATION $12/CY. 65· FTt X 65 FT OPEniN& GRAniTE-GNEISS ROCK UNt.!NED BELOW HAlER TABLE CHURCH1tt FAttS -LABRADOR ACRES DESIGN 80 - I I I . . . . . . . . . . .. GEOLOGY A·~· VERY COMPlEX 1. FOLDED 2. FAULTED -THRUSTED -SHEARED 3. INTRUDED lf. JOINTED B. t1TH0l06IES ... 1. IGNEOUS 2-~ SEDIMENTARY 3e METAMORPHIC C. STRUCTURAl TRENU 1. NE-SW 2. NW-SE 81 ' .~ -Vl of-) .,... V) 0 c. CLJ c V) 0' Vl u .,... s:: ct3 u ,__. 0 > "0 QJ 4..) ctS .,... ....., s:: (JJ s.. QJ 4- 4- •t- \:1 s:: ~ > !- ->:t I z '-' A t--•• :~i· CLJ 4..) .,... s.. 0 .,... "'0 0 s:: ctS S-<:.!J QJ "'0 s:: OJ ,..... ..c s:: s.. 0 :I: I OJ 4..) •r- .f.J 0 .,... cc <].) 4..) .,... S-o .,... -c 0 s:: ctS S-t.!:) QJ ....., •r- 4..) 0 .,... co "'0 t:n ..c !- 01 E (I) !- QJ ~ u ct3 :?: >., ctS s.. ~ u .,... .c: .f.J .,... _, "'0 s:: ctS <].) 4..) .,... ,.... ,.... .,... t:n s.. ex: ~ co Ln L{') I co 1""--4-> S-o c.. QJ 0::: QJ ,__,..... •r-ctS 1.J_ .f.J S::<V <].) C.>, OCLJ ..foJ (/) 'I"'"') (..!JQJ U1Vl ::::> u I I l::.l tid I Oj ,, ) . ·-_. A--~· Vc:>Jca;-r,;_~ I ' L ~-~-: f-.!. ! !2 ),.,'! tJ I I f.:_ I A ,0,d+> ":> ,:;'"(_ 2., S foe./::_ s ) .D 1 "f.<.-<!s :B. G,.~aMadl;r~fe l, ~-lov J-1 J,J~·;.,d.~ 'a~c(/or Z.. 141-eJ. t.o C'"a~ ~ .s-~ Vt '-I-V' 1..) cf ~~ R,~ +-, f.~) b va, ·H--e.¢" 0_, .SeC,,; f .J l~ F!~tv -vuQt/ ? l. F/6~ );/ !3 """! d/k .-' -\ o It :3:f1tJ;_ J d~ Jl"" ~o;->.-1 & VD;,ti'~ nc..oq.p .... ~"~''C.-) y I [,-;:;8~1/fcf~d D. 4y.J ,{/1'/-~ J;).,_..e:,( c$;SI/W&,/t.e_ I. fi13J hly /v-cfu n~c/ Z 1 Gv~d~ ·-~-.:, PhyJ/1~ Sl~!--e. ~ -(-. ~ 1.,.) e.~. ~. \J 4? ~~ C.oH-~/~ ')4. . !, 'Fe>/ cf-e c<j r:;a ,Jf.../ . T h Y' tJ j .f.<> c{ 1 ) r? f r U d·<td z, Y?1-e f-a n1 ()., f h; :1 h) f ) v -lo 1'1/ i "" B 11-0 £ :r 5 W n~ vcf I - ; I . : ./--d> (c! S v~ ::' v ·~ ~ (~ "?.ltJ'O)*~ :q 'A) ~ 5 C ::> <> c. o Y> ,,/"' ~) 83 -- . I I I I Reservoir Area (Acres) River Mi'les Flo·oded Tunnel length (Miles) . f.~· Tunnel Volume '· · (Yd 3 ) > J .. . . -. Compensation · · F.l ow ( cfs) Downstream· Reservoir Volume (Acre-Feet) De vi 1 Canyon Powerhouse Discharge · Dam Height {feet) /) . .. 7,500 .• -~ 31.6 . ---:. . -- -~ -- 1,100,000 Constant 520 . TABLE 1 Susitna Tunnel Schemes Physical Factors 320 10,749,000 500 · ·-:: · ·::··to . ~ ... ~ .. . ··tooo 9,.500 Peaking 75 . . 84 - ...... Q- ·' :. -0-. .. '.. 29 11~'545·,000 500 to 1000 -0- Peaking . . 3:t900 :. •.· 15.8_ ·.:·.·· 15.8: -.. : . . . . . . 4,285;000 -500 to:· 1000. . " :· . : - Constant. 245 .. .. . .. . -. .. ...· . ~ .. > • -. 2.9. -~ -~::·:::--:--,.-•. ~ . -.... -:•~. -· ... . -~ . -. -. • r • "' 6~494~000 . . . --~ : ~ :..... .. .. ... 500 -;_ _~. _.:-:-. to · · . . . 1000· ... _._· ~ . ... . : ~. ·, .. . ' .. .. ..... -- •'--: . . ..... . " ·~-.. -o- . ... . ·• Constant . . --. . - .: ... .. . .. . . ~ ... . . . .=-. _:~)-~~ _-:. ~ -~ . . -. .. . . . . -. . ... ; .,, .. ,. -. . I ~ J -~ \. J ~-'/ I I I I I I I I l./ • I ,_,- 1: v I I I I -, • I 9 I l :-, ' i • ~ 0 •' ~ l • ': ,i ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' • ' • 1 ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' • I I ' ,. . ' '; f ' ' '1 f l f I : ~ . f t I 1 • ~ ---' ~ . ;' ·:: ........ J -•• .. ... • • • ! 1 :. • ~ I J -~ j .. ~ oC\ ·-' f' l . I I I- I .. : 1 • -i , . IL I! l l l .. I -· • - • t .,• j '" ·' I ''• . r:-· I IJ .. r:· _I ~~~-~~ ~ v Cll I' ~~ ~J j l'j ~ lEi .. -• a • ,. ~ ·: -.. iJ ~ q ~ ~ ii - -a -~· ·3 fq ,~ ~. • ~ ~ u 4 ~· II 4' Q fa ~ fl • l ~ -! 1 • -~ ~ ~ .... \S) ~ Ul :I "\j ~ ~ Ul 2 ; .if Ill \.1 1-j l ~4 ., I 1 \ < tt ~lid ld ~I .. . ~· -1 ·1 ~ ~ 2 d ~-~ v -. -o l I ! Ill ~ 1 i ......... ,..., ""-'c..IJI'Io.r.-a 86 . -., . ..~ .. uJ\11 jJ .:Zti i~~~ ...... Jlj)I\J ~~-~ 1-pn n.~dut 11J:Z2 usr 2 ·~ Qt-i. u<!hl ~::-,. . Yl I ~r ~. ; ·f l -L L L r!-F--I ; ~ .... ~ :t It 1: ll 'i I ' • J . f 1". j -~ I l I ' i I ' I . I 1 .j l I ' I I l I . • L L L L -L -t t_ I -'- I • -! .I 1 . I - I • •I -· I j ~ . • ·I. . • i 1 .. i .: ' - • I • i • I . . I SUSJlNA HVDROELECTRl C PROJECT llJNNEL ALTERNATIVES COST ASSltPTJONS l1iE FOI...LCWINS ASSlWAliONS HAVE. BEEN USED IN DEVELOPING n-1E COST ESTIMATES FOR lliE ll.tJNEl SOiB-'.E ALTERNATIVES: -nffiEL LENGrrt ~ 29 MilES -~El CROSS SECTIONAL AREA 800 SF; 1250 SF; 1500 SF AND 3325 SF -CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ~V 4 MilES OF 20 X 20 Fr ADlTS (ALL SOiEt-1ES} -12 F1" OF DRILLING DEPm ADVANCES TUNNEL 10 .• 5 FT PER ROLIID -SPECIFIC DRILLING"' 3.16 FT/Cf -SPECIFIC CHARGE"' 1.77 lB/CY -IRI lL PRODUCTlctt "' 5 FT I MINUTE / 87 ' I ... '~;:: ... . ;~ I •"¥.::,: ~\>.: ·:::-:· .. ,~. \• ' . ' ' .. ~~.: .. :, r .l"'•, ~~~1 ·~ .. . ····::.. . 0 C) () a· 8 0 Q () (Q In :r- -' ~" . ,, ,' ;'<'' ... ' . .. ., .. ,., ._, ·t.:,., ,. '!: > ~ . .LSO:J 13NNnJ.. \n f4 a. 0~ ~ 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a tt) (\$ ' ..Lsoo 13NNn..L 88 0 ·~ 0 M 0 "'!;. ~.::,·;· -~· · .... 1; .• . . ": ··" ... ... ".; ... • .. " ' ~-'1'~--L -•·•• !"'" r ~ 'l'. 1:·. . .: :.·.-·. . "~~~ ·' ........ ·~ "'~)...-.~ i : .:: .. ~ rt- 1--! LL.. f _, l&J z z ::s 1- l·. . ~· ., .·~ . ' ':" ,.., ,• ('. ' . . '• . 1: " 2 ., Jl. ~. " 11- =· s I f/J -~ laJ t' :> ::\ u ..,.,. g ;tf1 1-~ -' J ~ '3 2 ·-,. con X c!. •cr ul c-1~ ~ 0 s: J uJ '~ 2 2 ~ 1- • ~. ·!J _.::::.' _.;-.....,''•0' 11 ~ ~ .· ~ 3 f • "" ~ u WI "' ., 0 "' " .J <· ld -p --&1 -s • -e.e ('4 IIi -q-• I I "' --fit w --e-~ :> -!i N::l ~J: 2 I a-d -N ld !i 4( .J .... ~ F .. ;::; rM!;SJ!_ !;_ .. I \D J-1 " US CORPS DAMS TUNNEL SCHEMES (':.f t 47 1. >41 2. '1 r 3. •1t 4. INST. CAP. U/S DIS M~l tiW 790 730 790 550 35 1150 (790) 790 375 35 800 (790) B. 15 MILE HAUL ECONOMICS OF TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES AV. AN. ENER. GWH 6855 5700 4900 6029 5650 CAP COST 6 10 $ 2150 A 2250 B 2300 c 2750 A 2100 B 2200 c 2650 A 1900 B 1950 c 2100 A 2050 B 2100 c 2400 c. SENSITIVITY~ 2 X TUNNEL COST \._":-· ENERGY COST $/1000 kwh 35 45 50 55 50 50 65 35 40 40 40 45 50 ~~ 'lllllilllllf ·~ '"*··~ ~~ ~ I I 11 ~,.t.:t! YOLUt·Y ....... _o ..... F ..... TU.-. ............. NNE.-.l..-Al.-.TE......,.RNA...,..· .....,T.._I Y;..;;;E-.S U.S. Corps·Watana na. Tunne 1 Schemes 1 2 3 4 Dall Yo 1 t.ae 10' Yd 1 -... 57.6 57.6 57.6 62.5* 57.6 Tunne 1 Yo l~~ne 10' Yd 1 -- 12 .. 0 12.9 . 4.4 7.9 ~ NOTE: Includas 4.9 l 10' Yd' for rockfi11 re-regulation du ... 92 1) ', ,, I ' I OBJECTIVES. <6.04> PIRIMINARY ~ Cf FWIBIUlY IF AJDJ n¥1. AT IEVIL.S QlN({J~. 93 •• - -· .. ; ' I ' . ' .. -~ ~LLJ z-J--~ (.!J (I) C/) g --s :X: . -~~~ ~ 'tO ._._.. ~ ~ Q i ~ -·~ & en o --1 -u(73 ~~~~ t5<c~c.. 94 --~ ·~·· SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT EVALUATION OF ARCH DAM AT DEVIL CANYON SITE LOGIC DIAGRAM Geotechnical -Gather Info. (part of s. Task 5.01) -Make recommend- ations specific to arch dam .------------+-·· Seismic Cond. at Site -Gather Info. -Make recommendation as to design para- meters (part of So Task 4.07) (c) I Corps of Engineers 1975 design and USBR design Review of Precedent! Arch Dams in l Seismic Areas l (a) ,, Review of Corps. Design in Light of Avail. Information Make Recommendations for Change Establish Acres Draft Design -Write Draft Report (e) Review by Special Consultants (f) I (d) t I ~--- Cost Estimate Modification as Required (I_ a flit _. ~----- Schedule (g) (e) I ~-----------~.-------·----------~--------------~ Final Report Should study of Arch Dam Continue jvES or NO: _.. --{~) j 95 ,' ;'J ' .. ;; .~ )) -, (i DEviL CANYON .ARCH DAM ~ coNs !DERAil oriS • - 1. STABILITY 2 .. COMPRESS [B [l.l TV i 3. SEISMIC 1 I ,, • )J ,. I ! ' ~ ... ••·u?H+urr:srua. 96 . - .. '0• ":!e; :.. ~ v ~. •· -0 ' • -.. ...._.... . .!I;] ~ !! . . . ll j ... ~ ;. J " .,9 : ! • • I ~ : ~ ; ~J-_ __;.... ~ o .,, ~"' -, 1 :r,lJ .... -.,-., I "" "'""~t ~-.. --, P"'9 ~-e~ .__ --~ \0 . "" ~ CREST BASE H!NlMUH DAM LOCAVJON ••c::s::s:ww • HEIGHT LENGTH THICK. THICK. ---IWI ... I GQkCel'•Y• Turkey ~21 (159) ldikki AlJb1~n·n Paco1ma India S~) Cali rornia 69) California 372 (11l) 1620 (494) 74 20 (22.S) (6) 1200 . 80 ZS 40 4150 S89 (180) 200 99 10.4 (J0.2) (l.~) ":::lii!!IJ! -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ VOtUf.£ 9.H 1 000 (714,000) 613,000 6,Joo,ooo 220,000 (169,000) SEISMIC PARAK:TERS Soven sig- nificant faults within ), 8 miles (6 kH) rgqiuu or thQ Qito, rOUNDATION ABUTMENTS Gneiaaic Qua rtz Jptnt sets di~ido rock into angular bloc ka or approdmatel y 4 • 0" 195l ... Eurth - qiJak~ Qf ~.o R.i.;:kter a 1~ mi. 1971. -San rernondo earthquake 6.6 Rickt~r a 4 m.i,, (Horizontal (Ace, 1.25 9 measur~d (in each · (direction (Vertical Ace , (Oq70 g base rock estimated at 0,6 to 0.8 9 ~ ~ ~ lli\M RE'"RKS CENT. ANGLE Designed by EBASCO 107.4 l circular area Left 4000 ft rod 980' arc Center 1400 ft rod 1810' arc Right 4000 ft rod 127)5 arc -Built around 1930 • Constant. IV'Igle arch -Earthquake loads not considered in design ·~ I. it ,....,., '· --·-Wi"'* '""""""" "JH?-u:•n:;;;•;¥WI!i+lllii44. "''liP Al;ll!\f: .QIU,l4*1f44;; , 1!11 aai'f'!"'"":t&JSl.Q14t& #ijQiJQi JJVMSU:WW£444 WiAJZ 144£$ DP#M:tJBt\ZllLI(i t!IPM!JIIA!¥tCPdlliJZi4PIIkt4¥i4WI.._IP.IJJIIBliiiNZ U ·· t r:::·. ~ t.·211W 'i""laft!t ~ :_.·~~--~ r~... ... ;,_~~ 12~ CREST BASE HINIHLJ.t SEISMIC . CENT, DAH LOCATION HEIGHT LENGTH THICK. THICK. VOLUBE PARAr.t:TERS FOUNDATION ABUH£NTS REMARKS ANGLE a :e:: -¥ I l&at .. I Contra Ticino, 7~~ 1246 861,000 (196~) Switzerland (~iO) ueo> (6~8,000) Hratinje Montenegro, 72Z 879 911 ,ooo (1976) Yugoslavia (Z20) (l66) (74Zr000) Cleo Canyon Arizcna, 710 1560 4,901,000 (1964) USA (216) (47~) (},747,000) luzzone ltcino, 682 17J8 1,7J9,000 (196J) Sw1l1orland (200) (5)0) (1 ,.no,ooo> MohMted Khouzostan, 666 696 647,000 1] Reza Iron (20}) (2U) (497 ,000) Shah·Pahlavi (196J) Almendra Salmanca, 66Z . 1860 2,188,000 (1970) Spain (202) (~67) (1 ,67l,OOO) !nguri Ceorgiat 092 2~1} 282 '' 4,967,000 ENfi' Dec. 14, 1978 .: I I 1.0 (198~) USSR (212) (766) ( 10 1ft) (J,OOO,OOO) + Dava Shondalov lnro (X) Thin Arch Vaiont Veneto, 858 624 . 460,000 .. 'i ,; (1961) Italy (262) (190) (J52,000) Overtopped by ; ·'i f 400 ft high wave on Oct. 9, 196~. Minor chipping or the top l ft due to boulders was the only damage. Sayan. Krasnoyarsk, 79~ )504 11,916,000 ptu!.· r..;.~ Shu sen USSR (242) (1068) < 9, 111, poo > (1?80) I l Chirkei North 764 1109 98 21 1,602,000 . r (1275) Caucusae, (2JJ) ()Je) (JO •) (6,~ $) (1,226,000) i 1 USSR ! j, Hauvoisin Valais, 117 1706 2,655 (19~7) Switzerland (2J7) (520) (2,030) El Cajon Yoro/Cortesp 741 12~} 1,924,000 (1984) Honduras (226) (382) (1,472,000) ;J . I ~ !, 0 >~, '-, :.. '!) ' • ; ·, a ~ ~.... .. ~ • • ~ . • , ~ ~ \. o t , ;·aa. I • o . : ""' .;: ;, -to-fl .. .., •. l • t.' fl . ~ ~' ~;;:. ~ ~t ' 4·.~ .,ij ~;,. ... ~ '< ... _,( ·-·-~---~:J "tw~~---·~ _;~ .. ~~: -ii!DD ....... ~),. '" -.. ... ..:.z ,,..:::_~ ·~ ~i ~ ,.~, ----···· ... ~ ~· . ... ,_ "'""" •'·· -• b~---. ~'~~ ~ "J ~ ~. :, ~ ~:·,.:~ v'~ :"!W ~--~~ ,::~ $<..':',., ~ -;.....·•-... ~ CREST SASE MlNIMIJi SEISMIC CENT. DAM LOCATION HEIGHT LENGTH THICK. THICK. VOLUf£ PARAMETERS rOUNOATlON ABUTK:NlS REMARKS ANGLE El Cajon Yaro/Cortea 741 12$J 1,924,000 (1~)'1t4) Hondurae (226) UOJ) (1 ,472,000) I' Hoover Nevad{J 1 726 1244 660 4~ 4,400,00 Sp6Jced between GravU)' Arch (1936) Aruona, (221) (37~) (J, J6'' ,ooo) two faults u.s.A. ab~ut 900 ft apart (~J l Vidraru-Ranania S48 588 82 20 Earthquake in Measurements after Arnsu• (167) (292) (2).0) (6.0) 197)1 with 111 tho earthquake ..... :~-.... intensity fif showed no 7-8 on the MSk , odi ficat ions to scale ot.tho normal behavior. a ito. 1 f ! '] = 2-1/2 =9· 8 :; ~~ 9· 9 =· 10:e g .. .··· .. ·~ Morrow Colorado 46~ 720 Sl.6S' 12.0 J60,000 In des ig1 it is Point mood 1.4J a point .:. lO Crystal Neatren J40 620 H,s,ooo l f lO Dam Colorado i CJ f Green l&ke Sitka, 210 460 16'ft. 26,000 Hiximum Cred-Compo tent Unsymmetrieal with Oltll Alaska ible earthquak~ massive Magnitude = 0 graywacke Richter a 16 mi, Acceleration = "\ j 0.40 g. Duration = 4~ .. sec. Design Earth- quake Magnitude = 9 Richter Gl J) mi, Accalcratian ;: 0,2) g. Duration ;; 40 sec.c •, I ;r f''r • 1 r ... r j! . :_'- ~-~ ··,v ·- ~) f '.·! ,'-i ..... ~ .. ~ I r·i • 1 f l I I ; l l l I t '! I i ~ I •! i ! I I- I I ,-a 0 0 ~ ~-~ ~ :-::-:.:::::l/.\ ""'--~., ;:..;;:;::-~ l4nn • ·--I I I I ., i • I I I I KEY I I "'" • 12Gol I I k I 1 L I ! ~~~~~:~~::: I ~ IQQQ I I I r I .... 'f',..'"' .... "ml I f.O It: -.. -·~ • -:JI l''t· I :/ I I I -1 e -• ~ w ... ,t< 4\: I t J.<a I j aoo 1 1 A . e I I 7t-I • 2: 2 ~ c 3: 0 0:: <t 600 I I J I ,_'C I / I --= ~ I ~ I ~ I I , y '--'" ....J..C: ~ ~ I I · I ....f 400 i ~ , ~ ~oo • , .. ,c. ---~-~«= • .-···· ··· · · ., , 1 1 , 1 .... ~ y ;n ,->1 ?>"-• 3200 3600 O I -' ' ' al-o -• ·····•-·n 0 400 800 1200 1500 2000 I 2400 2800 4000 4400 CRESt LENGTH (FT.) . . . · ARCH DAM HEIGHt VS. CREST LENGTH ~W:·"•••s~ '*' a& et 14 • 2 ZKJo:;aa .. • J£ •••(•~. Jt..?JifPWA •-:·•e~•• -Z4'J4$WWS .:h.-4-sn•n• ;ttl tt.S£1£&. ;;:a:s;; a au; t.24C .. &t«#.P ttMJtJ. ''~ tzt t U414~St _ 143J4.MiQ_ t : az 11 z ~ t~~ .l il c) .Q. . -.. ! i.J :;t ••• r.., .... ·-= Ji ~¥ " .. .. ... I' ~!-.. .. • ' I /··-. J .~~ .... _ !/ • ~· . I ' • a ~ I . • I ... I ••• I . -• • I 0· ., I ~ : • . , . • 5 ;:. . . . • . ,, . .... 'i ..u ~0 ·~ ., :.· --(; I' •. . .... -• . \ ' 1 • • .,· L . • -w;qca• J,----------~------------~-----_,..-.,,ur'!'I'Plt-ltJ'T'I'j""'"IQ~Ci~JU"'!~C~OI!TliS!"'!E~I ftoarrnmoTrJJ"tc:tra~pumc::-r:III'T:Y...,"I!"F.!!T.:'Tttt~:J:J'Io:r"':, , 1. r:1 , ... A 1 ___ f__ L. e+«ot ~b .... •'··"Mri'tl t" • • --______ ........ ,, ... ___ .... ,... -tb -~ - ( 'fl+\ N ~(2Ct-L J )I~ G>O I' I l) If. [ It' -1~. ~· .I ~ .R;I__ . ' Concrete silo Spiilway plunoa pool ~1.175 ... •' .. ... Jet-f'low oata I - Sec Section through .spiil~ay Section thrqugh outlet works Thrust block Orioinal Assumed line of----" excavation ... \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , .. Reference plane iop of dom·el. 1455 Upstre.a m elevation Ill • •• -~ .. _, ...... _ ... __ 103 - .. Top of porapet·el. 1459 structures -- I J t: ' .. .•. i ·. ~. . · \ooo 4oo· . . , .. .· ·. .. \ .. • I ~ ., -~---~---~ ·- .. . .. .... .. , .. . . .. . ... ... .. . . . ... .. f."'! •. ......... .. . ~.: ·-t ., • .. • .. •!,. .. . •. .. . w •• ·-----~--. ... .. ' }; t7 . ,..,.,._..._. .. . .. ... ~'~ . · ... -i . , .. · ... .} ··:(;: .... .. :. ... t, .. • . . . ' . .. • ·, · . .. : .... . · . . . ........ :t ~··. "'> ... ,. . ... .. ' . -. ~ ~· ; -. .. !. ... "\...,· : ... ·.... ..... ~ " ~~ ('-··· ......... '"s.-.... !"'-.,· ...... .. ~· • . .... .. · .. . . .~ .,, ...... ... : ..... I' r.:' ... -- ' . . ... .. '.I ... (oo ·''0-:-----.,--,-~··--·-,-·----.-~-·-~-..,.. .. ~,-,~-"'-····~·~..,._..~.-. ---·--r;~FC; ~· ' . . -. t• --. . ·• ,· -. . . <# ·. ... .· ; : .. . -· . ._ ~ ... '• . "·· ... :"'. ~ ... .., .. -. .. -· ... --~==---Jr-4::---~~=a.. _;:~ . ' -·. 'tii_ J1i f .. , a. P->to . rn. J ij • ~]· lit : .! ~ ··.·-~:· '. ~( . l. ~ GI"!JJ=...S-. . ·-~ ' 'li:". . ~-.;\~ ... " "~ 1- .. • .. . .. .. . ..... • < .. . ... SpLu.JA.f· Q ~~! C5 s. .-..... -.... ·,• ·"' . ~t:-,;_=io., =. : ··• ... '· . . ·Ae~~ o.,J ·; o;r=~c:;sc~: • · · ... • /. ' ' , •• ~· 1(1 ... ..---~ • .. • • ~ \ • ~ :. ',_.1. _.... • : * .. ~ "•.c ..: : ~ ' . :_j.: · .. . . -.. ... .. ,., .... ~ . . : tc:)i·x;t-o' ·. ( .. .. ~ .•. ... ,. . .~ "' ... • • ;· .• ·' . . ·. ·' .· . . "-·.• .... ·' . ' ·, ... ·. .. .. .. .•· . .. .. . . . .. . ... . . , ·. - •. .· 4" "J)IA. ~I --------------------------------.--------~ ·~ ·-------------------~------------------*------~---------105 J" ·•· IN- .... . . . .. ~-... """ ' .. ft' ·- .. ., .. . .. -. ..· .. .. .• ·- .· .. .- .. t • I t .. · ... . !: .. .. .. ' .. ,, ~· I '· I --------.. -~ •• ----,,.._ 't . ... ..,""' ... I ~ .. .. • ... !t t>~~r ·. s~ 1?( !j• 1!1'\i W . ' ' :. .. : . ... . .. 1 ... ~ ..... ·~ ... -· ,. ··-:: ,. . .• .· . . t. ' .. ,. . -~· : ..... . · .. ... ..... ' .~ ... <I ••,.-•-···"---•- _, ' : ... .• '"'1! .. .~ ' ·-· ·. ... 1 . ! l • .. . . · .. . · . : .. ... . . , . . ~ t • : .. ; :.. . · . ' I .. . ' .• •' . • .. . . ... .. ~ . . . _, ...... : . . ~. . . ..... . . .• .. . .. ~0-· . . .., .. -r ... ... !!·~ . ' .- ... ~ .. t • +' ·.· . . . . ! • . ' $ ·.· .. .. ' '\ .. .. ., .....__ ' I • • 1 t I . ~icoo 1 . t . .i t • -r-{oou·· J• ·. ~ ... I .. ' \ ' \ .. . ..j ... ~ ... ~ =.· #/• .. , ' . . ' I;· .. \-. ', i.· i~0_ . f .· - :a:• ~ ...... · . .... .. .~- ·-· .. .. .. ...... •. ., . .. ~ ' I' ' .. . ' .f/1 •• • . ., ; . •' .'I ·i i .. - ·' ..... "' ct'N~ L,~,~/i­ :i)CI'"NN';:"Tf';'fS.A 1-1 t") •• ~ a. I :s::' tA , I .: ~.:n \ ,, t-\ •• J t k-~ > - ; ' p.{<Ck+ 'D~•M AfJ .N...-'( S {$ ~s u fV'fi"• Ol\l~ i:- c-'1_·<.,~cJ. t -~.,~ ' !-v-!.,(,.,">./\:. -· 107 ' \ !-...., ·~ ( 1" _, J ; . --I • 1 I ~-,.> 1 "!__. .... "' .... r , ......... _ .. ! .;_. ' f .. ,. fl .... , .. -• -.1..;_""1-_\'-<'-·· :v (, 'SCI !i1·1· . ' :; . I t. \ \ \ \ h_. I I ... -"'·- Ir1. '' ,., ' .• j l ~l ' 1.; ·.A PCA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PROGRAM HYDROSTATIC,GRAVITY AND EARTHOUAKECO.SG} ( CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES -2oc. cc -1 2:j. c~ -40. co 40.C8 i20.00 0 0 . 0 ('\J ~ - 0 (.") . 0 (\i !"') - 0 0 -. .o ...... g: L1--- z.g o. -o 1-('\J <= > w _JO wC: 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 ('\J m 0 0 I 0 0 . 0 ('\J '<!" 0 0 . 0 N !"") - 0 0 . 0 N ('\J - 0 0 . 0 ('\J - 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . Q N m 0 0 . . 0 0 N N 00-200.0~ -120.00 -40.CC 40.00 120.~0 EXTRADOS STRESS (PSI> •lOi ; LEGEND: [!] THIN ARCH DAM ~ ARCH GRAVITY DAM f f 109 - (/ (r 6 11- ~ \ ' ' l ,'; I . ., ,,; I l I,, '~ L1 ~ PCA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PROGRAM HYDROSTATIC,GRAVITY AND EARTHOUAKECO.SGl CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES ..tlQl -60.00 o.co 60.00 120.00 180.00 0 0 0 0 . 0 N ,.., - 0 0 -. .o N ~"'-N LJ..-- > w ...JO wo 0 N 0 0 0 . 0 N m 240.00 I ~~ 0 N -.:-- 0 0 . 0 N ,.., - 0 0 lo N N ... 0 0 .. 0 N - 0 0 . 0 N 0 0 0 . 0 N C1'l . . 0 0 N N 00 00 -so.oo o.oo 6o.oo 12o.co t&o.oc 24o.co I NT RADOS STRESS (PSI) *-1 0 i ,. LEGEND: .. ' : THIN ARCH DAM ARCH GRAVITY DAM 110 PCA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PROGRAM HYDROSTATIC,GRAVITY AND EARTHOUAKECO.SG) CROWN ARCH STRESSES ,.. ,., .... V•\.1\.1 oO.OC * 1 0 j i20.00 160.00 20G.00 240.00 0 0 . 0 N "t" - 0 0 . 0 N I"') - 0 0 -. .o N ~~~ z.O o': -o 1-N <= > w ...JO w': 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 • C"J Ol 0 0 . 0 N co o.oo [ 1 dQ.CO 80.00 120.00 160.00 200.00 EXTRA 0 0 S S T RES S rp S I ) • 1 0 i 1 LEGEND: THIN ARCH DAM ARCH GRAVITY DAM 111 - I 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . c N !"') - 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 C\1 - 0 0 . (? C"J 0 - 0 0 . 0 C\J m 0 0 '• 1 ,, _:~ j ,: J I cr PCA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PROGRAM HYDROSTATIC,GRAVJTY AND EARTHOUAKECO.SG) CROWN ARCH s:RESSES • 1 0 1 -so.oc -40.00 c.oc 40.00 BO.OO 0 0 . 0 N v - 0 0 . 0 N n ,_ 0 0 -. .o ~--~ LJ..-- zo 0~ -o ;-N <= > i.J.J _JO wC? 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N Cl 0 0 . 0 N (X) -so.oo -40.00 o.oo 40.00 so.oc INTRADOS STRESS (PS 1) .. 1 0 j. LEGEND: THIN ARCH DAM ARCH GRAVITY DAM f ( 112 - 120.00 0 0 . 0 N v .... . 0 0 . 0 N ,..., - 0 0 . 0 N N - . 0 0 . 0 N -... 0 0 . 0 (\1 0 - 0 0 . 0 ('J 0) 0 0 . 0 N 120.00 co .... , . = r~ l~i f:,; I,~ r: ~ PCA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PROGRAM HYDROSTATIC,GRAVITY AND EARTHOUAKECO.SGj ABUTMENT ARCH STRESSES -so.oo -2c.oo 2o.co 100.00 140.00 180.00 - 0 0 . 0 N -.:- zo o': -o .,._.N <(= > LU ...JO I.JJ~ 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N en I I 0 0 . 0 N ~ 0 0 . 0 N ,.., - 0 0 . 0 N N .... 0 0 . 0 N - 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N m 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 N~--~--~--~--~~--~~~--~--~--~--~--~<"\1 w-so.oo ··2o.oo 2o.co 6o-.oo 1oo.oo t4o.oo iSO.oc 'LEGEND: f EXTRADOS STRESS rps I) •1 0 1 THIN ARCH DAM ARCH GRAVITY DAM 113 - '• j j ,.·1 .,)' r· tJ ·- PCA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PROGRAM HYOROSTATIC.GRAVITY AND EARTHOUAKECO.SG) ( o.oo 0 0 . 0 N "'t' - 0 0 . 0 N ,.., 0 0 -. • 0 N 1-•N IJ_.-- :zO o': -o ..,_N <(= > L1.J _,o LU': 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N ~ 0 0 ABUTMENT ARCH STRESSES 60.00 180.00 240.00 0 0 . 0 N ~ .... 0 0 . 0 •N n 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 C\1 - 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N 0') 0 0 . . 0 0 (\1~·--~--~~--~--~--~--~--~--~N coo • 0 (.,' c.o 60.00 120.00 180.00 240.00 I NT RADOS STRESS CPS I) * 10 1 LEGEND: ( . THlN ARCH DAM ARCH GRAV1TY DAM 114 -w .... . -· . . - ........ -..... ~.,: .... """< ,, •• , ... -------. --'--·--.. --· .. -.. ·-··-- ' - - 1 .. ---· ~·· - I _, .... --"'-·· ---r-•-r. ·-~ --·-.-. . . ' i . -. ' .. ' . --... . .. -...... : ·--... : . -::; "Tt2..E s~ e ~ (_~s~) \J~ \RE.At-\ . -· -. -...... ... ~a~ N~\rt..~~\"-\. h -f--.. -.. ~ l "1 ' ' . --~ I . . . -~.-,_ 1:1 ,.. .. ,.-.... t.t • c.. b... \-.l \" ::t. \.. G:. '\l E..~ CT""'"..~N\:.tt.€~ E~ • ._._..,..yr• • .,_ ... I F\. . /4-55 /'3C.S f\9 5 l03 :r g~D SZ-.o -~ ,--·------. il ') -1l -----... ; ---·~·-·-·· ... -- )\ © ® ® <51 @ @I@ - 0 C> 0 0 0 0 e ,--.. ~; \'t,. 6_=:-f, Z.'30 l~5 9ss: 0 ......__ \SS lD90 42.0 ~0 ~Z,T 5 140 .2.1D 9C 1 340 \35 510 4oo 7 eel 2.45 l'=l5T '2._":f0T \35T ... Z 5.90 7"'--,---r a;;_~', 61~!: i .I ~o ( 0 (1?$. 2.40, 5DO . ~ .........:-_.-' -. . --. ---' . ---· --·----·-----·----------. . . ' . . <i) ~ @ I ® @ . 0 0 0 0 c ,.,..-.--.. . ·:-r ~,.,_ ~ Too-r· <~-J r:u~ .. :--. \.+ 7 '-!, __ {&) 1'2.. i' 3\5 . 4!=)0 . (.0 :; 3-i2..' 4~5 5?0 . -.... . \!.E..t \0 2"35 -r Ca40 (p~O i 30 \c . -2.~--r. (~;0, ~-o_ 0_f:,- ...... -· --- ' ..... ·-1--~ -·-··-----··----------·-.. --:--··-. I ---· -·-----·-'----:--. _____ ____,;~,~---· _jC:: -·· ·----·--. -··-·-····---·-----------·-·-·------··~-. .. : . ·----------·------------ 1~~-~ ~~ ~--~­ .[, 1.:. . ~ :· .. ~ f'.' ' • ,t .· Jj .. - ~1.-e.\J. 14·55 /'.H .. -5 Jt~5 /03'1 S9o ~2.0 115 I 5IRE~~~~ (_ ?S:I.) -· E.'k\R..~~cs _____ c.R~\.)...)N ... h.~'t\ . :'IN'TR.~)?O'::> . C.Rt~w t-J _ .. ~ R..C.l:\ CD -· 5'Z.5. r-:::- S'l.-0 44o z~ z:; ~--/\Z,<l\ •• ~ Q @ ® & uQ f 1.., .. ~ ® <3::> @ @ CD ® (}) @ @ . . . ~~o:· . -· § \2. -r-L~"1? 5 0-r ~10 0 ·3£Do .· '2. rob! 51) b '-...:_. F ~-' '-.::..:... /6oo €>70 \Z:Z.:D ~5 lO 1-~i-450-r 3elr 490 14 '3 T 1210 ~oc:l 71DD ~ ~.,. 1 39" \32.5 "T 75 ll f?_ T 3 ,_':? .. 6 ,-r ci\i: ,.... ---(l~~~r -.,.. ''l-.54-T gss 3:)5 350 1 \ \49-<)i'· j_S~ "'-..! -~ 4.5 13 (s,-r 40-r t2~T ,-o-r (1)7.. -r 'f 3~0 15 JlD "2~3 ~~;: ..... . ------,. \\'~d ,. (00 0~· (LlQ_ u & tc>b 1'2..5 z.to I I ("tt:·~~ \..,...., .,J. -r: ,..,, p . H "i \>~ o "? 1 A 1 • C. -\-~,;14:4J<T' ~ t::.Q.Lo.zo~) 1:\ '(on o 7 ·c '* 1 : c · -+- 2. c. f'tV\.. "-:V \S ~· t ... (.1-n. ft:u f TV -r e. Q. (. o · So C:t") C? -~.0~ -=r 0 @ r,\ ,. • •. --... -~",.. ( ' ep '""..., -'!"" Cl e @ 3o IO 3{o 41- 3(o ~D. -rl·~ ··-·· ' ' ' ~ ---. f ' -. ~L'E\If:\ 'it~~ (. ;:,. ) G) . .. .. 1455 ·o 13'"'5 /4o l\95 13~0~ lD3r:f-1 Soo S 9_o {J_o'"' / . -r, £'2 0 -(.2_~p ~ S-.1~ / 5 \~"E-5:; t..S u ~ ~ \ ~ CJ:...,'t"'"\ ~ • -···---· -+ .. C:.lo..N \ :J: \..:. E.'.) E.~ ® (j) (·D ® ((;) . -... . .. --. -. . C) 0 0 . .. .. ~3e '3~5 CD 5o )D~O I 55t. I 7ftt5 I . . . ~s~, ~ '' 7U . . . 2. ':f 0 \ (.,3 -r 2k5 T -'--~-~~·--~or/ j4()o -r: 1 bClC ~-_.. '--'-.:..:. --. , I I • I _l. ?~:!....) -· 'DD~ ~~-rRe:~~ ~to,\ \":t. '--.c::"' ~ ~ - (!') ® ® ® ® @ ~ -. 0 0 Q 0 .. --· •. : ·-·-J ' ~~c 2-40 330 5Bb 3o 3~Si lSO '3~0 .... -~ G,o 1" v. ~--~ 1ST :7~ ~c (,.~ Z.B5T ~15 1'2 ... 0 ............... -~q: ( l9l.q (DOO . ?..b? .. f:i, . r---~=---· . . ' '{ . ··----·--· --·-------------·------·· ---. -·------------·-·-. -----·· ..... --. -·-··- ___ •• _.., ·--·. • .. » . " ~.,~·--·--- 1! ~~ ... --·-.. u. ~ -··: -- • I -. _t·----~·- . ~.:-·--... 1-,, _;• . ,,.. fs ~~ [~ [ .. l.~ -.. ---~--·- E.\.. ~'.JO..ThN (n). ------ \455 \'3~5 .\\55 \037 ~0 S"l.O S\5 --..,----· .. -· ---·: ·---. I I,--...--+--: __ • ____ : ··-· _ .. : • ...:_ .. ____ .... ____ : __ i ____ j ------------. . ' • · 5\IZ..~S"::>t:...~ L.?'S'Ij I • ·-E::.}..\R.~~ ~ C<to~~ ,b...U,.\\ .. :tf-l:T~ 0 "'> C:..'(2..0"-;lr..l . ~P-Cl-1 <i:) --~--- 730\ ~Art ---.. ~9: fObt() 2.90 ·11or ~--· . I i ~ ~ @ ® @I G::> ·-----· ---. --·: ------···-... ·i2:ro. ----. ,.---... e~ ~~~ -. ------1.90 ......__. ~'-CO \Ze~ 172..4 .. -· --3'2.0 \9t~~c l'Z.Z.5 \4 (.,0 ---"'"" --..., 170 \~90 940 \040 100,... :--...:.-_ row '3oo 3\D . 155 ~--<i§~ --.... ~~_, ~=/0 . -. ® ® ·---·-... -· .. -. 0 1(.50' l?o' ~-- Co4o "'f \\.95 2.'1-0 .----.:\2.5~ ) i.D-<\O"T. ...__, ~ l"3S'T ~~ ~ JS5o-r ~oo @ I . -.... - :..--~ ,, ':JSO . ~../ ~CoO '370 -~~· \15 ~zo l ® ---·--·- ·-···-·· . . - . . . . . @ --··· -----· - ·- .· ----· ,_. -,._ . ·• .. ,. ·-······ ·----<! -..... --.. .. ""---·-----... .,.,._,..,,_, ....... " t-· .~ ... ~ '/1> rz c:-S T A.. "'T t <:.. ~ '1\>V.os-r A,C.. t( '( \) r ~ s 1' A.,l:c + c.;. ~ '-.11. T '1 ~ ~~ut-:: '{ ../.-. q-~ w ~ 7 y 116 A42 I :U r t.. (1 il ' ~. ·. l~ t. [_, l~ ADAP RESULTS~ SUSITNA THIN ARCH DAM CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES INTRADOS •1 0 1 -150.00 -90.00 -30.0~ . 30.00 90.00 150.00 0 0 . 0 N ~ 0 0 . C' N ,., - 0 0 -. • 0 .._~ u...-- zo oC: -o 1-(\1 <= > lJJ _,o w~ 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N m 0 0 . 0 N T (,0 -150.00 -90.00 -30.00 30.00 90.00 150.00 CANTILEVER STRESS (pSI) * 1 0 i LEGEND: HYDRO.+GRAVITY HYD.+GRV.+TE:MP. HYD.+GRV~+E0(0.25Gl HYO.+GRV.+EOrQ.SQG) ( I r· 117 ·- 210.00 I 0 0 . 0 N ~ 0 0 .. 0 N !"') - 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 0 N -- 0 0 . 0 ,"'\J 0 - 0 0 . 0 N m 0 0 . 0 N ~ I c.o 210.0~ it:: t. [J fj {ij ~~ l~ [,, ~~~ AOAP RESULTS~ SUSITNA THIN ARCH DAM CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES INTRADOS .. 1 0 1 -150.00 -90.00 -::so.co . 30.00 90.00 150.00 0 0 0 0 . 0 N n - 0 0 -. ~ 0 ..... ~ ll...-- :z (""...) oC: -o ._N <= > lJJ -JO w<=? 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 ('\J m 0 0 . 0 (\j (.() -150.00 -9o.co -30.00 30.00 90.00 150.00 CANTILEVER STRESS (p s l) * 1 0 1 LEGEND: HYDRO.+GRAVITY HYO.+GRV.+TEMP. HYD.+GRV.+EOr0.25Gl HYD.TGRV.+EOr0.50G) 117 '',., '- 210.00 I 0 0 . 0 N '1:" 0 0 .. 0 N n - 0 0 . 0 N N 0 0 . 0 N - 0 Q • 0 \\J 0 - 0 0 . c N . m 0 0 . a N '"" I (.0 2lO.OC F', .~, I ' !i • '.! w .. , 11 .t ADAP RESULTS= SUSITNA THIN ARCH DAM { CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES EXTRADOS • 1 0 1 -1 so. o~ -t 20. co -so. oo o. oo s·o. oo 0 0 . 0 C\1 ~ - 0 0 . 0 C\1 f") - 0 0 -. • ·o ..... ~ LL..- zo 0~ -o .,_N <= > Li.l .-J ,, l.L.l~ 0 C\1 0 - 0 0 • 0 N Ol 0 0 120.00 I . 0 0 . 0 C\1 oc:- 0 0 . 0 N I"") - 0 0 . 0 C\1 C\1 - 0 0 . 0 C\1 - 0 0 . 0 ~J 0 - 0 0 . 0 C\1 ('1) 0 0 . . 0 0 N4-~~~T-~r---~~---4--~--~--~--~--~N w w -1 80. 00 -1 20. 00 60. 00 1 20. 00 CANTIILEVER STRESS (PSI) •10 1 LEGEND: .. f HYDRO.+GRAV. HYDRO.+GRAV.+TEMP. HYD.+GRV.+EQC0.25G) HYO.+GRV.+EQrQ.SOG) 118 (I - tjj t, r t~ ADAP RESULTS= SUSITNA THIN ARCH DAM CROWN ARCH STRESSES INTRADOS * ·, 01 -1so.oo -120.00 -sa.oo o.oo so.oo o· 0 . 0 N "'~:!" - 0 0 . 0 N f"') - 0 0 -. • 0 1-g: u.-- zo oC:: -o I-N <= > w ....JO wC:: 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N ~ 0 0 120.00 I 0 0 0' 0 N v 0 0 . 0 N ,.., ·- 0 0 0 0 . 0 N -- 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N 0) . . 0 0 0 0 N~~~--~~~~---~--~--~~m---~~N 00 1 00 -1so.oo -12o.ao -so.oo o.oo so.oo 12o.oo ARCH STRESS CPSJ) •10 1 I LEGEND: / [!] H Y D R 0 . ,. G R A V I T Y ~ HYD.+GRV.+TEMP. A HYD.+GRV.+EO C0.25G) + HYO.+GRV.+EQ(Q.SQG) 119 . -•41!111 ,. ' i \ 1 ' l l: l l h L L t r. till. L L . A 0 A P R E S U L T S : S U S I T N A T H I N A R C H .0 AM -40. co o. 00 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 ('J I"') - 0 0 -. .o ~---~ u..-- zo oC: -o ~(\j <= > w _;0 w': . 0 N 0 0 0 • 0 N 0') 0 0 CROWN ARCH STRESSES EXTRADOS 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00 200.00 240.00 I 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N I"') - 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 N - 0 0 . 0 ('\1 0 0 0 . 0 N 0') 0 0 . 4-~~~~~--~--~--~--~--T---~~~~--~--~--~~ LEGEND: ~ HYDRO.+GRAVITY (!) HYO.+GRV.+TEMP. . & HYO.+GRV.+EQr0.25G) +. HYD.+GRV.+EQ(Q.SOG) , 120 - CX) 240.00 . .. AOAP RESULTS= SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES INTRADOS • 1 0 1 -so.oo -4o.oo o.oc 40.00 80.00 - gt- 0 0 . 0 N ,., - 0 0 zo o': -o 1-: ('l <(:: > w _,o wC.: 0 C'\1 0 .- 0 0 . 0 C'\1 '0'1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N ,., - 0 0 .. 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 C\J 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N (1) 0 0 . 0 C'\J• "1-~-----fl-~-+-N ~-so.oo -4o.oo o.oo 4o.oo so.oo w I CANT1LEVEF\ STRESS (PSI) •10 1 LEGEND: . , ~ HYDR.+GRAVITY ~ HYD~+GRV.+TEMP. ~ HYO.+GRV.+E0f0.2SG) + HYO.+GRV.+EQCQ.SOG) - 1 21 l. .o f l j 4 ., ·,' 0 ADAP RESULTS= SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM. CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES EXTRADOS -so.oo -4o.oo " "" V•'iV 40.00 ao:oo 0 0 . 0 N ~ - C:> 0 . 0 ('\) n - 0 0 -. • 0 1-g: !.J. .. -- zo 0~ -o ~.,.. N <::= > l.W _tO w~ 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N en 0 0 . 0 N ..;r - 0 0 . 0 N n - 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 N - 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N .m 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 N N co-so.oo -40.00·.!·• o.oo 40.00 ao.oo co CANTILEVER STRESS (PSI) •10 1 LEGEND: HYDRO.+GRAVITY HYJ.+GRV.+TEMP. HYO.+GRV.+EOC0.25G) HYO.+GRV.+EOCO.SOG) 122 -u;c::;;zu:z 1111 r~ r r-. :, ' . [: ADAP RESULTS= SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM. CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES EXTRADOS • 1 0 1 -so.oo -4o.oc o.qo 4o.oc ao:oo 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N '"" - 0 0 -. .o ~~ u..-- zo o<: -o r-N <(= > LL.J ...JO wC.: 0 N 0 0 0 . 0 N en 0 0 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N '"" - o. 0 . 0 N N ,_ 0 0 . 0 N - 0 0 . 0 N 0 0 0 . 0 N .m 0 0 . . 0 0 N~~~~~~---r~~--~~--~--~--~N 00-so.oo -4o.oa·~·1 o.oo 40.00 80.00 co CANTILEVER STRESS CPSl) •10 1 LEGEND: ~ 8YDRO.+GRAVITY ~ HYO.+GRV.+TEMP. & HYD.+GRV.+EOC0.25G) + HYO.+GRV.+EOC0.50Gl 122 -- i I I [. . . i_ '· ~ . . r .. t r ~- ~· '. 1':1 ~i' L [, [~ [· ll:,,.' t l .. ADAP RESULTS~ SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM CROWN ARCH STRESSES INTRADOS • 1 0 1 -1so.oo -12o.oo -so.oo -4o.oo -o.oo 0 0 . 0 N v - ·o 0 . 0 C\1 ,.., - 0 0 -. • 0 'C\1 1--C\1 u...-- zo oC:: -o 1--N <= > w _JO wO. 0 C\1 0 0 0 . 0 N en 0 0 . 40.00 so.oo ·a 0 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 C\1 ,.., - 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 (\I - 0 0 . 0 N 0 0 0 . 0 ('J 0) 0 0 0 0 N;---~--~~--~--~--~--~--~~·--~~~---+N 00-1Go.oo -120.00 -so.oo -4o.oo -o.oo 4o.oo so.o~ . LEGEND: ( , , ARCH STRESS CPS I) •1 0 1 HYDRO.+GRAVITY HYO.+GRV.+TEMP. HYO.+GRV.+EOC0.25G) HYD.+GRV.+EQCO.SOG) 123 - r . ,, . (· .. ::... ~··· ' -.1·· •, ·'' 1, .. ,. ( ADAP RESULTS: SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM -20.00 0 0 . 0 ('\I ~· - 0 0 . 0 N !"') - 0 0 -. • 0 I-N N LJ...-- :zO 0~ -o I-N <= > UJ _JO LWC: 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N Ol 0 0 . 0 N co-20. 00 20.00 20.00 ARCH CROWN ARCH STRESSES EXTRADOS • 1 0 1 so. co l'"H'' ,.,r. VV•VV j 40.00 60.00 100.00 140.00 STRESS (PSI) • 1 0 i LEGEND: ~ HYDRO.+GRAVITY ~ HYD.+GRV.+TEMP. ~ H Y D • + G R V . ·~< E 0 ( 0 . 2 5 G ) + HYD. +GRV. +EO co. 50G) (' 124 i80.QO 0 0 . 0 N V' - 0 0 . 0 N 1"':1 - 0 0 . 0 C\J C\J 0 0 . 0 N - 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 C\l Ol 0 0 . 0 N lBO.QO cc 6 ~r [· ~ ·: [~' A$AP RESULTS: SUSITNA ARCH~GRAVITY DAM r~ V A.LL EY MOVEMENT STUDY: X DISPLACEMENT r·. INTRAOOS CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES ' r " • 1 0 1 r -10.00 10.00 30.00 so.oo ·70. 00 I 0 0 0 0 . . [ 0 0 N N ~ ~ -- 0 0 [ 0 0 . . 0 0 N N f"') f"') -- [ 0 0 -. . .o 0 .._~ N r N u..--·. ::zO . 0 oC: 0 [ . -o 0 1-N N -=== - > [ LJ.J _JO 0 wC: 0 . 0 0 N N 0 0 r - •' 0 0 0 0 . L; . 0 0 N • N en en 0 0 t., 0 0 . . 0 0 :-. N N co 30.00 co -10.00 10.00 so.oo 70.00 [ CANTILEVER STRESS (PS 1) • 1 0 1 ~~ [ • LEGEND: [!] HYDRO.+GRAVITY . ' (!) HYD.+GRV.+2 CM. OUT 6 HYD.+GRV.+2 CM. IN t ~~. ,: l~ 125 r· }, ' ~~ r f. r. r [ f L r ,. f. r r 1_, L L, L. t> le L. L, A~AP RESULTS: SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM VALLEY MOVEMENT STUDY: X DISPLACEMENT EXTRADOS CROWN CANTILEVER STRESSES •1 0 1 -so.oo -3o.oo -1o.oo 1o.oc 30.00 0 0 . 0 N 'C" - 0 0 . 0 N f"') 0 c -. .o ~---~ u..-- zg o. -o I-(\I <: > LL.J ....JO LU': 0 ('\1 0 0 0 . 0 N en 0 0 • 1 ! I 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N !"') 0 0 . 0 N N 0 0 . 0 N 0 0 . 0 N 0 0 0 . 0 N en 0 0 . . 0 0 N 1 N c.o-so.oo -3o.oo -1o.oo 1o.oo 3o.o~ CANTILVER STRESS (PSI) •10 1 LEGEND: ~ HYDRO.+GRAVITY C) HYD.+GRV.+2 CM. OUT ~ HYO.+GRV.+2 CM. IN 126 ' I I l f''. ~· r r r r [ [ [ t 1 ~~ [" £~· L I~. ADAP RESULTS: SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM VALLEY MOVEMENT STUDY: X DISPLACEMENT INTRADOS CROWN ARCH STRESSES • 1 0 i -so.oo -3o.oo -1o.co to.oo 30.00 so.oo 0 ·O . 0 C'\1 ~ - 0 0 . 0 C'\1 ,..., - 0 0 -. .o ~--~ l.t..-- z:O o<: -o 1-C'\1 <= > UJ _JO w<: 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N en 0 0 0 0 . 0 ('\J ~ - 0 0 . 0 N ...., - 0 0 • 0 N C\1 - 0 0 . 0 N 0 0 . 0 c-..z 0 - 0 0 . 0 N \1) 0 0 . . 0 0 N4-----~~--~~~--~~~--~~--~--~N 00-50. 00 -30. 00 - 1 0. 00 1 0. 00 30. 00 so. o<5' ARCH STRESS <PSI) •1 0 1 LEGEND: ~ HYDRO.+GRAVITY 0 HYO.+GRV.+2 CM. OUT ~ HYD.·~GRV.+2 CM. IN 127 I J r l [ I t ' . [ L ~­ [, r L L ADAP RESULTS= SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM VALLEY MOVEMENT STUDY: X DISPLACEMENT EXTRADOS CROWN ARCH STRESSES -Jo.oo -1o.oo 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N ,..., - 0 0 -. .o t-~ LL..-- zo oC: -o ;-N <= > 1JJ __;0 LJJ~ 0 N 0 6 0 0 0 N 0) 0 0 ~ 1 Q I IO.oOO 30.00 I SOoOO 0 0 0 0 N ~ 0 0 . 0 (\J ,..., - 0 0 . 0 N N - . 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 . 0 N' 0 - 0 0 . 0 N C1l 0 0 • 0 0 0 N N 00 00 -30.00 -10.00 10.00 30.00 so.oc ARCH STRESS CPS I) • 1 0 1 LEGEND: ~ HYDRO.+GRAVITY (!) HYD.+GRV.+2 CM. OUT ~ HYD.+GRV.+2 GM. IN 128 Ji (( r ~ 0 0. ·c 0' 0 n ~­ n U_: [~ [ ·u~ .Q. [ ,l l .· ADAP RESULTS:.SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM u.oo 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N ,.., - 0 0 ·-. .o ~N . N LL-- z:O oC: -o t-N <= > LU _JO wC: 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N C7l 0 0 60.00 so.oo LEGEND: . , MAX. STRESSES INTRADOS CROWN SECTION 120.00 180.00 240.00 120.,00 180.00 240.00 STRESS CPS I) X-DISPLACE.MENT Z-DISPLACEMENT 129 - 300.00 300.00 360.00 0 0 . 0 N ~ - 0 0 . 0 N ,..., - 0 0 . 0 N N - 0 0 . 0 N .... 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N (7) 0 CJ . 0 ('J 360.00 co m'·. :o D D c c 0: 0 D. 0 u_ M . ~~ ADAP RESULTS= SUSITNA ARCH-GRAVITY DAM o.oo 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 N ,., - 0 0 -. .'0 1-N N IJ._- '-' zo a': -o 1-N <= > LLJ _JO LU': 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 (\1 0), . 0 0 . 0 N (X) o.oo MAX. STRESSES EXTRADOS CROWN SECTION 40.00 80.00 i20.00 160.00 40.00 ao.oo 120.00 160.00 STRESS (PSI> L EGEt40: [Tj :X-01 SPLACEf"iENT ~ Z-DlSPLACEMENT ' t ( 130 - 0 0 . 0 N -.:- 0 0 . 0 N ,..., - 0 o· . 0 N (\1 0 0 . 0 N - 0 0 . 0 N 0 - 0 0 . 0 N C1l 0 0 . 0 N CX) ' l l ,- ll M ~- u u u 0 ·u. t~ G. u~ [ [ l t X. REPORT BY SPECIALIST CONSULTANTS PANEL - D 0 n t.i 0 0 fl. . c I E .;i IJ n u -. Mr.· John Lawrance Project .H~_nagsr Acres American Inc. 25 October 1980 900 Liberty Bank Building Buffalo NY 94202 Subj9ct: Susitna Project .. FirstSpecialist Consultants Panel Mesting October 20 through 24, 1980 Dear Mr. Lawr=nce: -- .... Introduction .. ., The .unc1ersigned members of the Panel visited the .site on October 22, were briefed in the office of Acres American In- corporated on October 21 and 23, and had previously reviewBd a package of information dated October 1980. This report pre.!.. sents our consensus of the information obtained and suggestio~s~ regarding future investigations on the project. W'c. consider the Su$it.na Project, as now conceivad, to ba viable and worthy of continued investigation • General Geology and Seismolo~ The wee presentation dealt with the wall kno,'ln fsatures such as the D2:nali fault, the Castle Hountain fault, the Bor- der fault and the Talkeetr1a fault; as well as the hypothesizecl "Susitna fault" and other linears defined in the WCC study tn date. The Dan ali fault, Castle }~ountain fault, and the· Border'~ fault are all wall known, recent, active features that show~ evideJ.JCE: of displacing or offsetting Plsistocena fe.atures. ~he maanituds and minimum distances to the site of credible _, eve.n.ts on these structures are. not controversial and dasign motions predicted from e.vants on these st.ructures are ralativa- ly straigl)tforward. The possible influe.nce of the Talkestna - I r l J I i I ,. j 0 0 r u 0 u n fl itJ u n. ·. t •. ! ' -2-25 October 1980 fault and the Susitna linear on the design motions needs more study. The Talkeetna fault is a relatively old thrust fault which brings Triassic volcanics and Permian strata from the south- east over Cretaceous argillites on the northwest side of the fault. Although this feature does not appear to cut Pleistocene deposits, \\TCC has tentatively as signed to the' feature a magnitude 7. 5 to 7. 9. event at a distance of 4 mi from v~atana Dam. There is a good possibility that this is an old feature that may not be a "capable" structure. Thus it is of very high priority to per- form detailed field work along this structu~e to investigate the age of overlying materials not displaced by this fault or to de- fine the observed offsets of formations of kno~~ age that cross the fault. Observations in the Natana creek area may prove to be of great value since Tertiary deposits appear to cover both the Cretaceous argillites and the Triassic volcanics in this area. Field studies also need to be conducted along the Susitna linear to establish if it is a real feature which has experienc- ed offset and, if so, tvhat is the evidence of the time of las-t: movement and of the magnitude of the offset. Other linears or possible faults close to Watana Dam should be investigated to such an extent that· a statement cc:u1 be made as to whether the feature -~s truncated by Pleistocene or older geo- logic formations. . .. If possible, a statement should be made regarding any pos-- sible structural explanation for the two clusters defined from the micro-earthquake observation£. Engineering Geolo~ and Rock Engineering The "fins" and 11 finger busters" in the 'rerti ary diuri tes as well as other rock ribs exposed in the canyon indicate that the2ce are wide shear zones in the diorite intrusion. More ex- ploration in the form of borings and possibly adits a~e necessary in the right abutment area to confirm that the rock quality is good enough to permit a reasonably accurate estimate of the cost of an underground povTerhouse. Preliminary observations indicate that the construction of an underg:round powerhouse at Watana may be difficult or infeasible due to the wide shear zones. Reorien- tation of the po'·lerhouse to minimize wall and roof instability may lead to unfavorable orientations for the penstocks. _1 ___ , __ .. '. ""'. ,... ·.,..,...,. . . ~ ',.,.,.,. -' ' -=="'"·' I ·~ ·~~ ' - 'I , n_·_· lJ u [} 0 1 t ; j i -~-. c··:_: __ I ' ' . ~ -· r~ kJ . ~ I . u E t fl ll. John Lawrsnce -3-25 October 1980 Additional exploration of the relationship of the Tertiary clastic volcanics and ande;:;ites to the underlying diorite down- stream of the dam on the right abutment is also necessary to s.valuate the possibls~ effscts on the. tailrace ttmnels and on the possible long power t.UJlncl" The andEsites may fill an old buried valley in the diorite. An estimate of the tunneling difficulty for the long powar tunnel alternativa can only be made after the·v~rious formations and the nature of the contacts batwesn format±bns ara mapped from Watana Dam to the downstream end of the tunnel. First priority should be assigned to this mapping for Scheme 3. The argillite formation of Devil Canyon appears suitable for an underground powerhouse. More exploration is needed to delin- eate the rock quality and orientation of fractures and shears to permit an optimization of the orientation and to aid detailed roof and sidewall design. The naturs of the sheared and weath:re.d zone: of the bend in the river just upstream of the Devil Canyon site needs to be stu- died to determine the nature and possible origin of ·::he feature. l-'latana Site General. Although an embankment dam with a height of about 800 ft vlould be comparable to the highest in North Amarica and among the highest in the ~~orld, we consider the topography and a~ailable materials favorable to the construction of ~·1atana D~m. The foundation and abutment conditions, although not yet fully explored, present no known unusual difficulties. t·!e believe that further investigations of seismicity ars most m1likely to indi- cate unfavorable features for which adeauate nrovisions cannot be ... .. made in design. w·e believe that emphasis in the next exploratory phase should be placed on defining the boundaries of the pluton and the nature and effects of its contacts with the adjacent ~~ rocks in the general vicinity of the damsita. Spillt . .;ay. ·we concur that the: spillway should not discharge into or through the buried valley to the right of the dam, and believe that a layout entiraly in rock, closer to the dam, should be adopted. As the geologic situation becomes better de- fine.d, an upstre:am shift in the axis of the dam may prove advi- sable. ~-----,·-:--~·-.---;;;;;-------··--·1·---"··--. -------·--·· . t 1 I ! l l I l ! t l ; 1 . i u c [J (] 0 0 c (J 0 0 [j ·~ 0 u L IJ t ll (( John Lawrence -4-25 October 1980 Reservoir Slides. Our overflight of the reservoir area for sevaral miles upetream of the dam indicated to us that the topo- graphy and the nature of the materials near the reservoir rim are such that major land::;li.des into the reservoir, such as to endan- ger the dam or co:ntrc1l works, is remote even under seismic condi- tions. Therefore, w~.r consider that special investigations of~ · this possibility are not naeded to establish the feasibility of the project. : 1 . . Cross Section and Materials. w·e concur that a conventiohal embankment dam ssction with near-c:ntral core is appropriate. For estimates, the upstream and downstream slopes of 2.25:1 and 2:1 are reasonable. ''7e would prefer that tha do,mstream slops of the core be at least slightly positive to assure that settlement of tha sh~lls would induce compression in the core. We consider that the riverbed alluvium should be removed be- neath the core, filters, and transitions, and within a zone da- fined by lines Extending from the outer sdgcs of the crest down- ward at slopes of 1. 5::1. For the: fc.asibility studies V..'e consider it advisable to assume that the material will be removed beneath the remainder of the embankm=nt axcept where needed to support the coff.t::rdarns. yfuether soma of this material can remain can best bz dscidsd during the required excavation of the central portion. \ve consider rounded grav-els, cobbles 1 and bouldars to be superior to rockfill for 1:he shells of such a high dam and sug- gest that the upstream shell, in particular, should consist pri- marily of rounded material bansath a near-surface zone of rock- fill that may serve as riprap. Such material, whlch does not suffer corner-breakage on saturation, reduces the likelihood of longitudinal cracking near the crest and tends to dilate under small strains. The latter proparty substantially increases the resistance during seismic shakiag. Dovrnstrearn of·~ the core, usa of rounded materials near· the transitions is also advantageous, but compacted rockfill in a substantial portion further down- stream '~ill be satisfactory to accommodate suitable. material from structural or other required excavation. In our judgment, static and dynamic analyses can be deferred until t..~e general quality and availability of borro,·r materials has been established. To this end the emphasis in the ne:x:t ex- ploratory phases should be placed on determining the chara.cte.r of I ! I i·: !: i! 11 I ( L [J ~ I I ' l!.J ~ ~(· LJ n ~~ ....;.) W. ' . a: . ' !!) IJ I} I. r '• John Lawrenca -5-25 October 1980 the riverbed mat.erials, particularly their grain-size 1 and on the extent and thickness of lodgment till deposits that might ba suitable for cora. Attent~on should be given to locating daposits of sufficient thickness to permit exploitation in near-vertical faces so that the moisture content will be increased as little as possible before and during excavation·and transportation. The possibility of routinely processing all or most of the alluvium for optimum use in tha dam should be-considered. Continuing investigations of th~ permafrost conditions in the south abutmant are considered of high priority. Devil Canyon Site We have visited Devil Canyon Site and have examined the en- gineering and geologic data pertinent to it •. We consider the site to be well suited for the construction of an arch dam. Adits are not considersd to be essential for further defini- tion of foundation characteristics prior to a fsasibility datermi~ nation. Additional boring and laboratory investigations will be necessary to define the locations, directions and. characteristics of joints and shears. The possibility of'surface rupture at the Devil Canyon Sita must be resolved. A more sophisticated arch dam design based on ,.,ell formulat- ed critaria should be prspared. Such a design should ba supple- mented by well docum:nted and generally accepted analytical math- ods. This is considered to be necessary to establish th: economic feasibility of ~he project. Yours very sincerely, A. J. Handron, Jr. 11/!_J_ RBP/ajj ' ,,I '(