See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282860367

Design and Construction of a Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall in Variable Ground

Conditions

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATION READS

1 3,306

4 authors, including:

Erik Newman
AECOM
16 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Erik Newman on 01 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SECANT-PILE CUTOFF WALL IN
VARIABLE GROUND CONDITIONS
Erik Newman, PhD, PE1
Michael Forrest, PE 2
Kylan Kegel, PE3
Kenneth Pattermann, PE, GE4

ABSTRACT

The Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project is being undertaken to increase the spillway
capacity of Folsom Reservoir in order to meet the demands imposed by an updated
assessment of the probable maximum flood. The auxiliary spillway consists of an
approach channel, a control structure, and a spillway chute and stilling basin that
discharge spillway flows into the American River downstream of the existing spillway.
Staged construction allowing the gated control structure, spillway chute and stilling basin
to be completed without impacting operation of Folsom Reservoir was accomplished by
leaving a rock plug between the reservoir and the gated control structure.

A design was selected in which a temporary embankment will be constructed on the

upstream side of the rock plug to form a cofferdam together with the upstream portion of
the rock plug. A secant-pile seepage cutoff wall was constructed through the
embankment portion of the cofferdam and into the underlying weathered quartz diorite to
reduce seepage through pervious soil and decomposed rock into downstream work areas.

The secant-pile cutoff wall is 1170 feet long with a maximum depth of 102 feet, totaling
about 98,000 square feet, with a minimum specified thickness of 12 inches. The pile
shafts were required to be cased through fill and native soil with concrete placement
occurring ahead of casing withdrawal. Shaft drilling challenges included joint-controlled
weathering present at the site, involving unweathered granodiorite core stones surrounded
by decomposed granite.

The specification required that core borings and water pressure testing be performed by
the contractor every 50 feet along the wall alignment to better define the conditions
before production began. QC procedures during construction included verticality and
diameter surveys of each shaft, a review of foundation materials at the base of the shafts,
as well as monitoring placed concrete quantities for comparison with the theoretical
quantities. Drilling and concrete placement began in early March 2014 and the wall was
completed on August 1, 2014.

1
Project Engineer, URS Corporation, 1333 Broadway, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 874-3296,
erik.newman@urs.com
2
Project Manager, URS Corporation, 1333 Broadway, Suite 800, Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 874-3012,
michael.forrest@urs.com
3
Technical Lead, US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, CESPK-JFPO, 1325 J Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922, (916) 557-7775, Kylan.A.Kegel@usace.army.mil
4
Geotechnical Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District, CESPK-JFPO, 1325 J Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922, Kenneth.R.Pattermann@usace.army.mil

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 127

 INTRODUCTION

The Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP) is being undertaken to increase the spillway
capacity of Folsom Reservoir in order to meet the demands imposed by the updated
assessment of the probable maximum flood, and to allow more control of releases for
other flood events. The auxiliary spillway consists of an approach channel, a control
structure, and a spillway chute and stilling basin that discharge spillway flows into the
American River downstream of the existing spillway (see Figure 1). Staged construction
will allow the gated control structure, spillway chute and stilling basin to be completed
without impacting operation of the existing Folsom Dam by keeping intact an existing
rock plug, including a seepage cutoff wall, between the reservoir and the control structure
until the control structure is operational. All elevations in this paper are referenced to the
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

The work discussed in this paper is part of Phase IV of the project, which continues from
Phases I through III. Phases I through III, which included excavation of the new spillway
chute and control structure foundation, began in 2008. Excavation for the control
structure foundation was completed in May 2012. The excavation for the control
structure foundation stopped about 100 feet upstream of the control structure, terminating
with a temporary 120-foot-high face. This face created a rock plug retaining Folsom Lake
(see Figure 2) with a minimum width of about 200 feet at the high lake level elevation
and a width of over 1000 feet at the channel invert elevation. This rock plug met
permanent dam safety design criteria, and performed well with only minor seepage
observed through joints in moderately weathered or better rock. However, the Phase IV
excavation reduces the width of this rock plug, and a cutoff wall is necessary to meet
permanent dam safety criteria during Phase IV.

Existing Folsom Main Dam

New control structure

New spur dike

Existing left wing dam

New spillway chute

New approach channel Existing shoreline

Figure 1. Rendering of completed Folsom Auxiliary Spillway

128 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

The Phase IV rock plug and temporary embankment discussed below were designed to
maximize in-the-dry excavation of the remainder of the approach channel without
impacting operation of Folsom Lake and to minimize interference with the construction
of the control structure by the Phase III contractor, whose schedule overlaps with the start
of Phase IV excavation.

Temporary embankment

Cutoff wall
drilling in
progress

Upstream extent of
Phases I – III excavation

Control Structure

Figure 2. Overview of project site, March 2014

MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions

The Folsom Dam JFP Auxiliary Spillway is located in the western foothills in the
northern portion of the Sierra Nevada physiographic province. The predominant rock
type in the project area is described as a light gray and white speckled, medium-to-
coarse-grained, strong to very strong quartz diorite (the terms “granodiorite” and
“granite” are used interchangeably in this paper instead of quartz diorite, which is the
rock classification used by the USACE). Mapping from the Phase III excavation,
supplemented with core borings drilled for Phase IV design identified four major joint
sets striking in different directions, with dips varying from 27 to 81 degrees. Three of the
four joint sets daylight on the face of the rock plug. There are also a significant number
of randomly-oriented joints.

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 129

The granodiorite bedrock exhibits variable weathering, fracture spacing and aperture,
strength, and associated seismic P-wave velocities. In a very broad sense, the weathering
grade decreases with depth, except where shears or joints are present and the weathering
extends deeper. This type of weathering along joint surfaces, where the geometry of the
joints creates joint-bounded rock masses in the subsurface, has led to the formation of
resistant, hard unweathered “core stones” surrounded by highly weathered to
decomposed rock.

In some locations, weathering grade changes gradually, often with alternating zones of
more and less weathered rock, usually associated with joints or shears. In other places the
transition is more abrupt, occurring over less than a 1-foot-wide zone, and occasionally
skipping a weathering grade, i.e. decomposed rock abruptly becoming moderately or
slightly weathered. Decomposed to highly weathered rock typically has P-wave velocities
below 9,000 feet/sec and moderately weathered rock has P-wave velocities between
9,000 and 14,000 feet/sec. Slightly weathered and fresh rock have P-wave velocities
above 14,000 feet/sec. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of decomposed and
highly weathered rock at the site is on the order of 1000 psi or less, moderately weathered
rock is up to about 5000 psi, and slightly weathered or better rock had UCS values as
high as 20,000 psi.

Overlying the decomposed granite (DG) are natural soils (alluvium, colluvium, and
residual soil) and artificial fill placed during construction of Folsom Dam in the 1950s.
The natural soils are generally less than 10 feet thick. The thickness of the existing fill
overlying the natural soil ranges from 5 to 45 feet, but is generally less than 20 feet.

Engineering Properties for Analysis

The hydraulic conductivities of the rock materials for use in seepage analyses were
selected on the basis of results from in-situ testing performed during the field
explorations for Phase IV. The hydraulic conductivity of the soil materials
(alluvium/colluvium) was selected based on the USCS soil classification types
corresponding to these materials (i.e., SM, SC-SP, SC-SM), while the hydraulic
conductivity of the original fill materials was obtained from Phase III characterization
studies.

The hydraulic conductivity values assigned to each material are summarized in Table 1.
To consider the effect of discontinuities in the seepage analysis, the hydraulic
conductivities in the direction of the discontinuities are assumed to be 10 times greater
than the rock mass as a whole. The preferred orientation for seepage was assumed to
coincide with Joint Set D (see Newman et al. 2014), which presents an apparent dip of
14° along the rock plug design section, dipping in the downstream direction. Both
isotropic and anisotropic hydraulic properties were assigned to the decomposed
granodiorite and weathered granodiorite; only isotropic properties were used for the other
materials. Properties for the cutoff wall were developed before the type of wall was
selected and are therefore conservative for a concrete wall.

130 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

 The cutoff wall is located in a temporary fill and rock plug within the approach channel
and provides seepage control through the rock plug between the excavation upstream of
the control structure and Folsom Lake. The 1,170-foot-long cutoff wall consists of a
concrete wall installed across the width of the future approach channel as shown on
Figure 3. The cutoff wall alignment shown on Figure 3 corresponds to a configuration
that maximizes in-the-dry excavation for the approach channel. The cutoff wall depth
was expected to vary between approximately 25 feet at the north abutment tie-in to a
maximum of 100 feet. The depth was intended to penetrate through fill and DG,
extending at least five feet into highly weathered (or better) rock. This requirement was
developed with input from stakeholders and was required for long-term dam safety
criteria to be met during construction.

Table 1. Hydraulic Conductivities

Isotropic Anisotropic Condition

Condition
K Kx Ky Direction
Material (cm/sec) (cm/sec) (cm/sec) Ky/Kx (º) *
Existing fill 5 x 10-2 5 x 10-2 5 x 10-2 1.0 N/A
Colluvium/Alluvium 1 x 10-3 1 x 10-3 1 x 10-3 1.0 N/A
Temporary embankment – rockfill 10 10 10 1.0 N/A
-3 -3 -3
Temporary embankment - earthfill 1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 1.0 N/A
Decomposed granodiorite 1 x 10-4 1 x 10-3 1 x 10-4 0.1 -14
-5 -4 -5
Highly weathered granodiorite 3 x 10 3 x 10 3 x 10 0.1 -14
Moderately weathered granodiorite 3 x 10-5 3 x 10-4 3 x 10-5 0.1 -14
-6 -6 -6
Cutoff wall 1 x 10 1 x 10 1 x 10 1.0 N/A

* Measured as the angle between the horizon and the preferential flow direction (dipping in the downstream direction).

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 131

 Control
Structure N

Figure 3. Cutoff wall alignment in temporary embankment

During design, the wall alignment was shifted 90 to 100 feet upstream with the addition
of a temporary fill placed over the existing reservoir shoreline. This resulted in more in-
the-dry excavation and less in-the-wet excavation, reducing cost and schedule. This
change also reduced the amount of wall installation through the existing loose fill
containing hard boulders because loose fill with boulders would pose significant
constructability challenges. Additionally, the realignment results in less interference with
the control structure contractor because the cutoff wall work is farther away from their
work area.

Temporary Embankment

The temporary embankment was constructed of materials referred to as Zone 1 and Zone
2. Both are crushed rock obtained from on-site and nearby off-site sources. The typical
temporary embankment and cutoff wall geometry are shown in section on Figure 4
together with the soil and rock profiles. Zone 1 is finer, with a uniform gradation
between one inch and three inches, intended to make drilling of the cutoff wall piles
easier. Zone 1 was initially designed as an earthfill. Zone 2 is coarser, with a uniform
gradation between one and six inches. It was anticipated that the lower portion of Zone 2
might be dumped underwater if the lake level was high at the start of construction. Filter
compatibility between the Zone 2 and Zone 1 materials was also checked to confirm that
the gradation of the Zone 1 material would prevent material in Zone 2 from piping
downstream during normal seepage conditions, and to confirm that the gradation of the
Zone 2 material would prevent material in Zone 1 from piping upstream under rapid
drawdown conditions.

132 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

 Figure 4. Typical temporary embankment and cutoff wall section

Cutoff wall

Two types of cutoff walls were considered: a secant pile wall and a slurry panel wall.
Specialist contractors were contacted to gain information on the preferred cutoff wall
type, constructability issues in ground with boulders, and productivity and cost
information.

Construction of a slurry wall through loose fill with boulders would involve the potential
for slurry loss, resulting in caving. Also, some shifting/settling of boulders may occur
during drilling activities. Slurry loss could be controlled by pre-treatment, such as by
grouting, along the sides of the cutoff wall, which would add to cost and schedule. Due to
this potential for slurry loss and caving, a panel wall, or any wall system relying on slurry
for ground support, was discounted as a potential option for seepage control. As such, a
secant pile wall with casing was adopted. A secant wall would be cased through the
existing fill, so drill fluid loss would not be an issue for ground support.

The secant pile shaft diameters were to be selected by the contractor, with the diameter
required to be greater than three feet. Vertical tolerance was required to be within 0.5%
of vertical. Column continuity was required to achieve a 12-inch minimum overlap
(perpendicular to the plane of the cutoff wall) at any point between the primary and
secondary shafts. A downhole survey of each shaft was required to verify verticality,
diameter, and overlap.

Planned Instrumentation and Monitoring

Geotechnical monitoring of the rock plug was required to confirm that the temporary
embankment and downstream slope of the rock plug perform in accordance with design
expectations. Because the embankment and rock plug are temporary features, the
instrumentation will only need to be sufficient for a limited period of time (up to 18
months). As such, a limited instrumentation plan was developed that included vibrating
wire piezometers, survey monuments, and inclinometers, all located at the crest of the
temporary embankment. The piezometers were installed both at the wall tip elevation
and about 30 feet above the wall tip elevation to confirm the water levels calculated from

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 133

the seepage analysis described below. Inclinometer casings extend below the final
channel invert elevation.

The instrumentation will be monitored by the contractor and instrumentation readings

will be taken weekly to show that the temporary embankment and plug are performing in
accordance with design expectations. Seepage and erosion monitoring will also be
performed where seepage is observed in the excavation.

An instrumentation and inspection manual was prepared to indicate frequency of

instrument readings, data recording, reporting, and evaluation protocols. Threshold
values for the instruments were also included in the manual.

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Steady-state seepage analyses were performed using the computer program SEEP/W
(Geo-Slope 2007). SEEP/W is a two-dimensional finite element model and was used to
estimate the phreatic surface, hydraulic gradients, and flow quantities for the proposed
cutoff wall and plug configuration. It was assumed that the materials can be modeled
according to Darcy’s Law. The section used for the seepage analyses is shown on Figure
4.

Boundary Conditions

The following boundary conditions were assumed for the seepage analyses:

• The lake level was assigned as a constant head boundary condition to all surface
nodes on the upstream side of the plug. Water levels corresponding to the high water
reservoir level (El. 468.34 feet) and the low water reservoir level (El. 428.34 feet)
were used.
• The water level at the downstream end of the models was assumed to be at the
approach channel invert (El. 362.34 feet). This constant head boundary condition was
applied to the nodes on the downstream border.
• A “potential seepage face” boundary condition was applied to the downstream slope.
• A “no flow” boundary condition was applied at the bottom of the model (elevation
240 feet was used as the bottom of the model).
• The cutoff wall was not applied as a boundary condition but was modeled explicitly
using the properties described above.
Results

Results for the worst-case analysis including the high reservoir level and the effect of
anisotropy in the rock are shown in Figure 5. The calculated phreatic surfaces show
sharp drops at the cutoff wall for all analyzed cases. Estimates of unit flow rates for the
two reservoir levels considered are summarized in Table 2. The estimated magnitude of
seepage flow for the different conditions considered varies between 10 and 85 gallons per
minute (gpm). These flow rates were used to specify the required capacity of the
excavation dewatering system. While rock joints were not modeled explicitly, they were

134 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

accounted for in the measured hydraulic conductivities and the assumed degree of
anisotropy, and it is anticipated that seepage will occur through joints in the moderately-
weathered or better rock below the cutoff wall tip elevation.

Figure 5. Seepage analysis results

Pore pressures calculated from the seepage analyses were used in the stability analysis of
the rock plug and temporary embankment slopes and in the design of rock reinforcement
and drainage measures for the downstream slope of the rock plug, as required by the
seepage shown to be daylighting on the face of the excavation in Figure 5. Note that this
phreatic line on the downstream face of the rock plug is an artifact of the analysis;
seepage near the downstream face of the rock plug is likely to be concentrated in joints.

CONSTRUCTION

The design was required to make a number of assumptions to accommodate uncertainty

in the lake level because reservoir operations were not allowed to be modified for
construction. However, unusually low lake levels during the winter of 2013-2014
allowed all of the excavation at the upstream end of the approach channel (upstream of
the temporary embankment) to be completed in-the-dry and ahead of schedule. This
excavation had originally been anticipated to occur in the wet and at the end of the
project, so this change represents a significant gain in the schedule.

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 135

 Table 2. Summary of calculated seepage flow rates

Reservoir Water Seepage Total unit flow Total flow rate

Elevation (ft) Condition rate (ft3/sec per ft) (gpm)*
Isotropic 6.1 x 10-5 20
468.34 -4
Anisotropic 2.6 x 10 85
Isotropic 3.0 x 10-5 10
428.34 -4
Anisotropic 1.5 x 10 50

* based on an approach channel width of 700 feet.

The low lake level also allowed the contractor to excavate and replace all of the existing
loose, bouldery fill (to a maximum depth of about 20 feet below the pre-construction
ground surface) that was present along the cutoff wall alignment before construction of
the temporary embankment. The replacement of this existing fill reduced much of the
potential for delays associated with difficult drilling conditions.

Construction Exploration Program and Update of Design Wall Profile

The design exploration program included ten exploratory core borings drilled within 100
feet of the 1170-foot-long cutoff wall alignment, with only four of them less than 30 feet
from the alignment. The preliminary design cutoff wall profile that was the basis for bids
was developed from these design exploratory borings. This was accomplished by
interpolating an idealized surface representing the contact between DG and highly-
weathered (HW) granite. The cutoff wall was designed to penetrate five feet below the
HW granite surface. However, as described above, weathering at the site is joint-
controlled, and thus the depth of the DG/HW contact interpreted from the widely-spaced
design borings was only an approximation.

The core drilling and water pressure testing program required by the contract was begun
by the Phase IV contractor (Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.) in December 2013 and
completed in January 2014. Core borings were drilled every 50 feet along the planned
cutoff wall alignment (starting at Station 1+00, see Figure 9) to supplement the design
borings. Borings were logged by USACE geologists and all rock core was boxed for later
inspection. Water pressure testing was performed in each of the exploratory borings with
the goal of confirming that the hydraulic conductivity of the material near the wall tip
elevation was consistent with the properties assumed during design. Results from the
water pressure testing were interpreted following the recommendations of Houlsby
(1976) and Quiñones-Rozo (2010).

After completion of the borings and water pressure testing, logs, core photos, and water
pressure test data were provided to the designer to refine the preliminary cutoff wall
profile. Field visits were also made by engineers and geologists to observe the drilling
and water pressure testing, and to inspect the core as borings were completed. The
construction core borings showed depths to the DG/HW contact in general agreement

136 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

with the design borings, but with some significant local variation. They also showed
areas where slightly weathered to unweathered core stones were present above DG or
HW material, consistent with observations from the design borings. These core stones
were of particular interest because, while not as difficult to drill through as the hard
boulders encountered in the loose existing fill, they were still likely to present drilling
difficulties during installation of the cutoff wall. There were also areas where highly
weathered or DG seams were encountered at depths greater than the preliminary cutoff
wall depth.

A number of factors were considered in selecting the final target cutoff wall depth. In
general, the target wall tip elevation is five feet below the interpreted bottom of DG in
each exploratory boring, with the following exceptions:

1. The target wall tip elevation is not a strict requirement; drilling may be stopped at
a higher elevation if hard drilling conditions are reached above, but close to, the
target elevation.
2. If the bottom of DG is more than five feet above the preliminary design line, then
the target cutoff wall tip elevation is set at the original design line unless water
pressure testing, inspection of the core, or consideration of overall geometry show
that hydraulic conductivities in the material above the original design line are low
and that the potential for piping through the rock plug is low. Note that the target
tip elevation may not be reached at every location if hard drilling conditions are
encountered as noted in exception 1.
3. If the bottom of DG is below the preliminary design line then the target depth
may be limited to the preliminary design line if inspection of the core and
consideration of overall geometry suggest that DG present below the wall tip
elevation is not subject to erosion and piping through the rock plug based on its
gradation.

Consideration of the overall geometry is mainly relevant at the south end of the alignment
(see Figure 2). South of that point, seepage passing beneath the wall has to flow through a
greater distance of soil and rock before it reaches the excavation face, which reduces
gradients and the potential for erosion to acceptable levels. At the north end of the
alignment, the cutoff wall is closer to the excavation and, therefore, there is no increase in
distance that can be counted on to reduce the potential for piping through pervious DG.

The design intent was not for the cutoff wall to be drilled through a significant amount of
moderately weathered or better rock to cut off relatively thin zones of DG at great depths.
Inspection of core in the borings where this condition is present showed that the DG at
depth, after being broken down by hand, has the appearance of a coarse sand or fine
gravel with little to no fines. As such, for piping to occur, flow velocities would have to
be high and the flow would have to reach a relatively wide, open joint which would have
to be persistent enough to daylight on the downstream face of the rock plug. Even if flow
velocities are high enough to erode DG at depth, a joint that is neither persistent nor wide
enough would trap the eroded particles and stop the incipient piping. The likelihood of
piping occurring in this situation decreases with depth because the distance from the
cutoff wall to the face of the excavation increases.

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 137

Based on this, it was determined that drilling of the cutoff wall shafts may be halted after
the drilling has advanced two feet into hard drilling conditions. The criteria used to
define hard drilling would be based on rate of progress or on some other measure of
drilling resistance, to be developed with input from the contractor. The intent was that
the contractor not spend a great deal of time advancing the shafts unnecessarily into
moderately weathered or better rock.

The designer was notified if hard drilling conditions were encountered more than 10 feet
above the target wall tip elevation in production shafts. A shallower wall depth at those
locations may be acceptable depending on the conditions, or additional measures may be
required to probe ahead of the current depth and determine how deep the hard rock might
extend below the current depth. The worst-case condition in this scenario is where
drilling stops after encountering a core stone at a relatively high elevation with DG still
present below it.

Cutoff Wall Drilling

Construction of the cutoff wall began with the construction of an unreinforced concrete
guide wall in March 2014; drilling was completed in July 2014. The cutoff wall
subcontractor was Malcolm Drilling.

The wall was constructed with the drilling equipment situated approximately
perpendicular to the centerline of the wall (equipment straddled the centerline on another
secant wall on the project) . Two rigs (Bauer BG 40) were used at the beginning and a
3rd rig (Liebherr LB44) was brought in for a short period of time to get the wall
completion date back on schedule. The general layout of the drilling operation is visible
on Figure 2. Shaft diameters were generally 3.3 ft, with spacings of 27 to 30 inches on-
center. Diameters were increased to 3.9 ft spaced 35 inches on-center over a limited
reach where the wall depth was about 100 feet.

The specifications originally required that the guide wall be reinforced, but the contractor
was allowed to build it without reinforcement so that any supplemental shafts did not
have to be drilled through reinforcing bars. The unreinforced guide wall experienced
severe cracking in some areas and made it difficult to maintain the centerline of the wall.
Measuring the verticality of the shafts was a critical specification requirement (<0.5%) in
calculating the minimum overlap. The plans and specifications required a minimum
overlap of 12-inches as measured perpendicular to the wall.

During the test section, the contractor tried several methods to accurately determine the
verticality of the shafts. These included the SoniCaliper (manufactured by Loadtest) and
the PRAD TLK system (manufactured by Lutz). The contractor also attempted to use an
inclinometer down the shafts, but it became apparent that the amount of time required to
conduct this procedure would have been prohibitive. The contractor also used a smart
level to check the verticality of the steel casings as they were being added to the shafts.

The SoniCaliper was tried several times at the beginning of the construction of the wall,
but did not work well. Occasionally, there were abrupt changes measured in the casing

138 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

alignment which seemed unusual for rigid steel shafts. It was suspected that the errors
were due to the fact that the holes (or shafts) were dry. SoniCaliper data sheets indicate:
"The SoniCaliper is a profiling sonar device, specially adapted to function in drilling
fluids. Because the properties of drilling fluids vary widely, a calibration must be
performed for each shaft to determine fluid wavespeed.”

The Lutz system (PRAD sensor) was used and placed right above the auger as shown in
Figure 6. The PRAD sensor measures the deviation and the bottom pressure and uses
technologies based on accelerometers and gyroscopes. The VR28 (Lutz) was also used to
measure rotation and speed of the Kelly. The detection element creates a high frequency
electromagnetic field at the tip of the sensor and its amplitude is dampened by the
presence of a nearby metal mass. This system seemed to function well and provided shaft
deviation measurements both perpendicular and parallel to the wall centerline every 5
feet in depth.

PRAD sensor

Figure 6. Lutz PRAD above auger.

The Phase IV prime contractor was responsible for quality control (QC) for the wall
construction. In this capacity, the contractor performed all measurements of depth,
inclination, and overlap, as well as ensuring that piles conformed to specified tolerances
and that ultimately a functional seepage barrier was constructed (by calculating overlap).
The responsibility of USACE is that of quality assurance (QA) and engineering during
construction. QA generally consists of overseeing the contractor’s QC procedures and
spot-checking specific aspects of the work. For the Phase IV cutoff wall, these items
included checking depth and hole cleanliness for every pile, observing excavation and
foundation conditions at depth, monitoring groundwater levels, a nearly continuous
presence of USACE QA personnel during the drilling and concrete operations, and
involvement in ongoing discussions related to challenges presented during the work.

Several challenges were encountered during the construction of the cutoff wall. First and
foremost was the presence of unweathered core stones and variable elevation of hard

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 139

bedrock near the design tip of the cutoff wall. The contractor made the decision to
employ one Liebherr LB44 drill rig and two Bauer BG-40 rigs with soil augers, rock
augers, and core barrels to execute the work. This equipment was selected in spite of the
fact that the contract documents indicate that higher-strength core stones (up to 20,000
psi unconfined compressive strength) would likely be encountered. These tools were
efficient in drilling through material up to around 4,000 psi in strength, but productivity
slowed significantly in material of higher strength (in some cases, from one foot per
minute to one foot per hour or less).

As the work progressed, a system was developed between USACE and the contractor to
identify drilling conditions that indicated that competent rock (and not a core stone) was
encountered above the design line. A USACE point-of-contact was contacted on each
occasion, and based on criteria related to the depth of the specific pile in relation to
material encountered at a similar depth in adjacent piles, a decision would be made
whether to continue drilling through the hard material or to stop drilling at the current
depth. Overall, this iterative and intensive process saved the contractor many hours of
work in drilling through material ultimately deemed to be massive bedrock, and
associated equipment damage.

Figure 7 shows the as-built wall profile compared to both the preliminary design profile
and the final target profile developed based the core drilling and water testing program.
Note that the final target wall depth was shallower than the design profile at the south end
of the wall (past Station 10+50) because it was determined based on the criteria discussed
above that the DG present at depth did not represent a seepage and piping risk. Also note
the high spot in the wall between Station 0+00 and 1+00 and between Station 3+00 and
3+50. The wall was shortened in these areas based on observations from some initial
shafts that were drilled to the design depths and encountered slightly weathered to
unweathered rock with no DG.

Figure 7. Comparison between design and as-built cutoff wall profiles

Performance

At the time of writing, the Phase IV excavation has advanced to only about 50% of the
height of the rock plug, and the lake level remains very low (at or below the wall tip
elevation). As such, only limited conclusions can be drawn about performance. Initial
piezometer readings show groundwater within the rock plug to be slightly higher than the
reservoir elevation, and falling over time. This appears to be due to trapped water within
the rock mass or existing fill. Inclinometers show negligible movements into the

140 USSD 2015 Annual Conference

 excavation with no indications of shearing concentrated on a slip surface. Survey
monuments also show negligible movements.

CONCLUSIONS

The rock plug, temporary embankment, and cutoff wall were designed to meet permanent
dam safety criteria taking into account geologic conditions at the site and construction-
related considerations. Seepage analyses showed acceptable conditions. Exploratory
data collected during construction allowed the preliminary cutoff wall design profile to be
refined and procedures developed to speed up coordination between the contractor, the
USACE, and URS to minimize the impact of difficult drilling conditions on the
construction schedule. The timely sharing of engineering data between the contractor
and the design engineers and geologists made it easier to make decisions quickly. Low
lake levels during construction allowed the project to save cost and schedule when
possible. The variable geologic conditions encountered during cutoff wall construction
required efficient and timely collaboration between all interested parties.

REFERENCES

Geo-Slope International Ltd. (2007). Seepage Modeling with SEEP/W 2007: An

Engineering Methodology. Second Edition.

Houlsby, A. (1976). Routine Interpretation of the Lugeon Water-Test. Q. J. Engineering

Geology, Vol. 9, pp. 303-313.

Newman, E., M. Forrest, C. Jaramillo, K. Kegel, J. Wisniewski (2014). Rock Mechanics

Considerations in the Design of Folsom Auxiliary Spillway Approach Channel, 48th
Annual US Rock Mechanics Symposium, paper 14-7629.

Quiñones-Rozo, C. (2010). Lugeon Test Interpretation, Revised, USSD Annual

Conference Proceedings, pp. 405-414.

Secant-Pile Cutoff Wall 141

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s