Michigan Soil Consultants 800 Hayward Street Ann Arbor, Mi 48109

To: G.G. Brown Engineering Manager From: Max Kondrath Soil Testing Engineer Date: November 4, 2012

RE: Permeability tests and seepage analysis for Leslie Park Dam project Please find the report on the Permeability tests and Seepage analysis for the Leslie Park Dam project.

Attachment

Michigan Soil Consultants 800 Hayward Street Ann Arbor, Mi 48109

November 4, 2012 Roger A. McNulty, P.E. City of Ann Arbor Parks Department 10 Main Street Suite 105 Ann Arbor, Mi 48104 RE: Leslie Park Dam Permeability Tests and Seepage Analysis Dear Mr. McNulty, 1.0 Summary The results of the seepage analysis show that the initial dam design with no impermeable wall has a seepage of 604 cubic feet per day while the design with the 8ft impermeable wall has a seepage of 492 cubic feet per day. Each proposed design is safe but the initial design is most economical so it is recommended to use that design although the impermeable wall design allows less overall seepage. The permeability tests showed that the hydraulic conductivity of the fine grained sand to be 0.000291 cm/s and 0.0049 for the coarse grained sand. 2.0 Introduction The Ann Arbor parks Department (AAPD) wants to plan construction of a new pond in Leslie Park. A concrete dam will be put in place to hold back the water from a nearby creek. AAPD would like Michigan Soil Consultants to analyze possible seepage underneath the dam. AAPD would also like us to perform permeability tests to estimate values for the hydraulic conductivity of the soils. We need to perform seepage analysis for two different dam designs that are being considered. One is a traditional design while the other has an 8ft impermeable cut-off wall that will hopefully reduce flow quantities even more. Using the flow net method we will perform seepage analysis. Also using constant head tests and falling head tests, we will find the experimental hydraulic conductivities of the fine and course grained soils in question. 3.0 Soil Description The fine grained soil is post-glacial silty fine sand while the second soil in question is a course sand. 4.0 Methodology The following ASTM standards were used in preparing this report: ASTM D2434-68(2006): Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head).

5.0 Data Results and Analysis See Appendix A for Seepage analysis See Appendix B for Constant Head Test results See Appendix C for Falling Head Test results 5.1 Permeability Tests To test the fine grained sand we must use a Falling Head Test. It has been found that the hydraulic conductivity of the fine grained sand is 0.00029 cm/sec. To test the coarse grained sand we must use a Constant Head Test. It has been found that the hydraulic conductivity of the course grained sand is 0.0049 cm/sec. It can be seen that the hydraulic conductivity of fine grained soils is much lower than that of coarse grained soils. This means that fluids can travel much more easily through coarse grained soils. 5.2 Seepage Analysis Numerical methods via Excel spreadsheet have been used in Michigan Soil Consultants seepage analysis. By setting up boundary value problems seepage losses and exit gradients can be calculated much more quickly and accurately. For the initial dam design with no cut off wall the calculated seepage was 604 cubic feet per day. The exit gradient is 0.67 and the critical gradient is 1.1. Thus, the safety factor is 1.64 which is greater than one so this design can be reported as safe. For the alternate dam design with an 8ft impermeable cut off wall the calculated seepage was 492 cubic feet per day. The exit gradient is 0.5. Thus, the safety factor is 2.2 which is also greater than one so the dam is safe. 6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations: The permeability of the fine grained sand and the course grained sand was experimentally found to be (respectively) 0.00029 cm/sec and 0.0049 cm/sec. The seepage calculated from the initial dam design with no cut off wall was 604 cubic feet per day. The seepage calculated from the alternate dam design with an 8ft cut off wall was 492 cubic feet per day. Both designs meet safety requirements. The design with the 8ft impermeable cut off wall is the safer design; although this design is safer it is recommended to use the initial design because that design is also safe. The initial design will be the most cost and time effective method to safely dam off the water flow.

Michigan Soil Consultants appreciates your business. We hope this information is useful for your project. Please contact us at 1-800-000-000 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

G.G. Brown, Engineering manager

Appendices Appendix A: Seepage Analysis Appendix B: Constant Head Test Appendix C: Falling Head Test