GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc

Offices in Jefferson City, Kansas City Metro and Springfield, MissouriENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LAND - AIR - WATER

GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.

Missouri Waste Control Coalition Conference (2017):

Selection of Geophysical Survey Investigation Method

for Identifying Sand Blows

in the New Madrid Seismic Zone for Siting a Landfill

July 18, 2017

Presented by Travis Doll, R.G., R.E.H.S.

(573) 659-9078 or (866) 892-0727

[email protected]

PURPOSE

▪ Proposed 40-Acre Utility Waste Landfill Siting in Best-Suited 120-Acre Area

▪ MDNR Regulating Agency

▪ Solid Waste Management Program

▪ 10 CSR 80-11.010 – Utility Waste Landfill – Design and Operation

▪ 10 CSR 80-2.015

▪ Preliminary Site Investigation(PSI)

▪ Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) Appendix 1, “Guidance for Conducting and Reporting Detailed Geologic and Hydrologic Investigations at a Proposed Solid-Waste Disposal Area”

▪ Missouri Geological Survey


TOPICS

▪ Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI)

▪ Geologic Setting and History

▪ Seismic Processes

▪ Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) Work Plan

▪ Selection of Geophysical Survey Method

▪ DSI Field Investigation (Phases I – IV)

▪ DSI Findings Through Phase III

▪ Lessons Learned and Conclusions


PSI FINDINGS - SOUTHEASTERN LOWLANDS


PSI FINDINGS

RELATIVELY FLAT


108-Acres ±


PSI FINDINGS - REDUCED AREA

PSI FINDINGS - NEW MADRID SEISMIC ZONE (NMSZ)


NMSZ Showing

Earthquakes > M2.5

Post-1972

Pre-1973

Source: USGS

PSI FINDINGS CONT.

▪ Wilcox Group Considered Uppermost Bedrock

▪ Purported Sand Fissure Within ¼ Mile of Site

▪ 10 CSR 80-11.010(4)(B) – UWL Landfill Setback

of 200 Feet from Fault in Holocene Time

(Last 11,000 Years)

▪ 10 CSR 80-2.010(96) - Seismic Impact Zone

Means Ten Percent (10%) or Greater Probability

that the Maximum Horizontal Acceleration Will

Exceed 0.10g in Two Hundred Fifty (250) Years


GEOLOGIC SETTING and HISTORY

▪ Originally Swamp Land

▪ Little River Ditches Watershed

▪ Early 1900s Artificial Ditches/Canals

▪ Mississippi and Ohio River Alluvial Deposits

▪ Glacial Meltwater Deposits

▪ Crowley’s Ridge – Erosional Remnant

▪ Sikeston Ridge – Natural Levee Deposit


UPPERMOST BEDROCK

▪ Wilcox Group (Tertiary-Age)

▪ Comprises Sequences of Sands, Clay, Thin Beds

of Lignite, and Weakly Cemented Sandstone

▪ Overlain with 100-200 Feet of Holocene-Age

Alluvial Sediments

▪ ~100-feet Deep at Site Based On Well Logs


NORTH-SOUTH GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION

SE LOWLANDS GROUNDWATER PROVINCE

GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc.Source: MGS

NMSZ HARD ROCK GEOLOGY

▪ Seismic Activity Embedded in Deeply Buried

Paleozoic and Precambrian Basement Rocks

Beneath the Mississippi Embayment

▪ Failed Rift System

▪ Low Magnitude Spasmodic Earthquakes Common

▪ Last NMSZ Earthquake?


NMSZ EARTHQUAKE HISTORY

The 1811-1812 New Madrid Sequence

Consisted of Three Large Earthquakes:

M~7.5 On December 16, 1811

M~7.3 On January 23, 1812

M~7.5 On February 7, 1812

Hundreds of Aftershocks Were Felt in

1813.

The Geologic Record of Pre-1811

Earthquakes Reveals NMSZ Has

Repeatedly Produced Sequences of Major

Earthquakes, Including Several of

Magnitude 7 to 8, Over the Past 4,500

Years.

USGS: Source


1811-1812 EARTHQUAKES

LOCALIZED IMPACTS

▪ Sand Blows (Boils) and Fissures

▪ Ground Surface Uplifted/Subsided

▪ Mississippi River Flows Backwards

▪ Tennessee Reelfoot Lake -15,000 Acres


WHAT ARE SAND BLOWS AND FISSURES?

▪ Discerned on Low Altitude Aerial

Photographs as Light-Colored, Circular,

Elliptical, or Curvilinear Shapes Believed

Representative of Extruded Subsurface

Materials (Liu and Li, 2001)

▪ Morphoseismic Features

▪ Knox and Stewart, 1998

▪ Paleoseismic, Paleoliquefaction


SAND BLOWS? NORTH OF NEW MADRID, MO


SEISMIC PROCESSES


Liquefaction Definition (USGS)

Water-saturated, Sandy Sediment Temporarily Loses Its Strength Due to the Buildup of Water Pressure in the Pores Between Sand Grains as Seismic Waves Pass Through the Sediment.

If the Pore-water Pressure Increases to the Point that It Equals the Weight of the Overlying Soil, the Sediment Liquefies and Behaves as a Fluid.

The Resulting Slurry of Water and Sediment Tends to Flow Towards the Ground Surface Along Cracks and Other Weaknesses. Overlying Soil "Floating" On Liquefied Sediments Moves Down Even Gentle Slopes, Causing Fissuring and Lateral and Vertical Displacements.

MECHANICALLY INDUCED LIQUEFACTION


MECHANICALLY INDUCED SAND BLOWS


▪ MDNR-Missouri Geological Survey

▪ 10 CSR 80-2.015 Appendix 1 Guidelines State That:

▪ “If Geologic Structures or Solution Features are Suspected, at Least One Boring Must Be Completed Per Acre of the Proposed Disposal Area…Exploration Pits May Be Substituted if Approved By MGS.”

▪ 1-Acre Grid Requirement – 40-Acre DSI Area

▪ Identify Potential Borrow Source - SWMP

▪ Liquefaction Features

▪ Not Considered a Fatal Flaw (e.g., Fault)

DSI WORK PLAN OVERVIEW


▪ Phased Approach – Why?

▪ Phase I

▪ Geophysical Investigation of108-Acre PSI Area

▪ Phase II

▪ Confirmatory Test Pit Investigation

▪ Phase III

▪ Selection of 40-Acre DSI Area

▪ Phase IV

▪ DSI of 40-Acre Area

DSI WORK PLAN APPROACH


▪ Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves

(MASW)

▪ Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

▪ Electromagnetic Induction (EMI)

▪ Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)

PHASE I DSI EVALUATION

OF GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY METHODS


▪ Uses Surface (Pressure) Waves to Evaluate

Shear Wave Velocity Refraction/Reflection

▪ Measures the Two-way Travel Time of a Wave

Traveling from the Surface to a Subsurface

Reflector and Back to the Receiving

Geophones

▪ Synthetic Seismic Data

▪ Requires Seismograph Receiver and

Deployment of Array of Cabled-Geophones

MULTI-CHANNEL ANALYSIS OF

SURFACE WAVES (MASW)



MULTI-CHANNEL ANALYSIS OF SURFACE WAVES (MASW)

▪ Advantages

▪ Deep Signal Capability

▪ Time and Cost

▪ Disadvantages

▪ Labor Intensive

▪ Time and Cost – Deployment of Array

▪ Unable to Detect Small-Signature

Features

MULTI-CHANNEL ANALYSIS OF

SURFACE WAVES (MASW)


▪ Use Electromagnetic Waves to Measure Dielectric Permittivity of Material

▪ Measures the Two-way Travel Time of a Wave Traveling from the Transmitting Antenna to a Subsurface Reflector and Back to the Receiving Antenna

▪ Function of the Frequency of the Electromagnetic Wave and the Type of Geological Material the Wave Travels Through

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR (GPR)






▪ Advantages

▪ Quick Setup

▪ 2-D Image Identifies Subsurface Reflectors in Real-Time

▪ Time and Cost

▪ Disadvantages

▪ Can Be Labor Intensive

▪ Signal Attenuation

▪ Smooth Terrain/Vegetation



▪ Measures Apparent Electrical Conductivity By

Transmitting Electromagnetic Field (EMF)

▪ EMF Induces Electric Current for

Measurement of Subsurface Conductivity and

Magnetic Susceptibility

▪ Depth of Penetration Determined By the

Separation of the Coils (Transmitting and

Receiving) and the Frequency of the Current

ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION (EMI)




Source: Xenon Geosciences, http://xenongeosci.com

▪ Advantages

▪ Quick Setup

▪ 2-D Real-Time Images

▪ Time and Cost

▪ Disadvantages

▪ Can Be Labor Intensive

▪ Salt Content, Clay Content and Type, Mineralogy, Soil Moisture, Organic Matter and Temperature Can Affect Results

▪ Not Likely to Identify 4” Wide Sand Vent (Poor Resolution)



▪ ERT Characterizes the Subsurface Materials

in Terms of their Electrical Properties

▪ Measures Variations in Electrical Resistivity

▪ Depth of Investigation Depends On the

Electrode Separation and Geometry

▪ Resistivity Control Unit and Deployment of

Array of Cabled-Electrodes

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

TOMOGRAPHY (ERT)


Source: TerraDat http://terradat.co.uk


ERT ARRAY

▪ Advantages

▪ Deep Signal Capabilities

▪ High-Quality 3D-Images of Subsurface

▪ Disadvantages

▪ Time and Cost – Array Deployment/Test

▪ Labor Intensive

▪ Truncated Signal at End of Transects

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY

TOMOGRAPHY (ERT)


▪ Proven Track-Record for Locating

Morphoseismic Features in NMSZ

▪ Large Investigation Area

▪ Relatively Quick Investigation with ‘Real

Time’ Data Results

▪ Smooth/Flat Terrain

▪ Time and Costs


CHOSEN GEOPHYSICAL METHOD


▪ Subcontract GPR Professional

▪ Survey Control Points

▪ Select 200 MHz Antenna

▪ East-West Transects

▪ Record GPS of Transects

▪ Signal Interference Identification

▪ Diesel UTV

▪ Doesn’t Increase Speed, But Increases Production By Limiting Fatigue

PHASE I DSI PLANNING


▪ Backhoe Excavator

▪ Test Pit Safety

▪ 4-feet Max Depth In-Pit Descriptions

▪ Ladder Ingress/Egress Every 25-Feet

▪ Excavate to Water Table or 10’ Max Depth

▪ Utility Locate(s)





▪ Site Conditions

▪ Farm Land - Fallow and Crops

▪ Shallow Water Table

▪ Precipitation and Ponded Water

▪ Initial Setup and Calibration - Walk

▪ Maintain 10-Foot Transect Spacing

▪ Flag ‘Real-Time’ Signal Responses for Trends

▪ Delay/Measure/Flag

PHASE I DSI FIELD WORK


PHASE I DSI GPR SURVEY


▪ GPR Calibration Test Pits

▪ Early in GPR Survey

▪ Focused On Flagged Areas

▪ Resurvey Strong Multiple Reflector Areas

▪ Excavated Four Test Pits

▪ Strong Reflectors

▪ Muted Signal Areas

PHASE I DSI FIELD WORK


PHASE I DSI GPR CALIBRATION TEST PITS



GPR SURVEYTEST PIT – TP4

Sandy ClayFine Sand

Signal Attenuation/Apparent Water Table

Plow Zone


TEST PIT - TP4

Sandy Clay

Fine Sand

▪ Calibration Test Pits (4)

▪ 402 Transects

▪ 1,088 Feet Average Transect Length

▪ 54,658 Transect-Feet/Day, or 12.5 Acres/Day

▪ 437,265 Transect-Feet (~83 miles), 100.4 Acres Total in 8 days

▪ Professional Survey of Test Pit Locations

▪ GPR Post-Processing, Enhancements and Reporting

▪ GPR ‘Control’ Sand Fissure

COMPLETION OF PHASE I DSI

FIELD WORK



GPR SURVEY ‘CONTROL’ SAND FISSURE

SILL?

▪ Two Potential Morphoseismic Features

▪ One Artificial Feature – TP4

▪ Smaller Anomalies

▪ Majority Quiescent (Muted Signal) Areas

PHASE I DSI FINDINGS



Rectangular Artificial Feature




▪ Mapped Confirmation Test Pits Using GPS

Coordinates from GPR Transects

▪ Two Morphoseismic Features

▪ Further ID Artificial Feature

▪ Area Not Accessed By GPR (Water)

▪ Located Test Pits with GPS Handheld

▪ Continued East-West Excavations

PHASE II DSI

GPR CONFIRMATION TEST PITS


PHASE II DSI CONFIRMATION TEST PITS



PHASE II DSI GPR SURVEY ‘SAND FISSURE’ TEST PITS TP5 AND TP5 WEST

Fine Sand

Signal Attenuation/Apparent Water Table

Plow Zone

Silty SandVent


TEST PIT - TP5

Fine Sand

Silty Sand


Fine Sand

Silty Sand

TEST PIT - TP5


VENT - Very Fine Sand

TEST PIT - TP5 WEST

HOST – Fine to Medium Sand


DIKE - Very Fine Sand


TEST PIT - TP5 WEST


HOST – Fine to Medium Sand


TEST PIT - TP5 WEST

PHASE II DSI CONFIRMATION TEST PITS



Sandy Clay

TEST PIT - TP6


PHASE II DSIGPR SURVEY SAND ‘BOIL’ TEST PIT – TP8

HOST – Fine Sand

VENT –Very Fine Sand

Plow Zone


HOST – Fine Sand

VENT –Very Fine Sand

TEST PIT – TP8

Plow Zone


TEST PIT – TP8

Fe-Mn Masses

▪ Preliminary Results

▪ Two Morphoseismic Features Confirmed

▪ Sand Fissure – TP5 and TP5 West

▪ Sand Blow (Boil) – TP8

▪ Artificial Feature – TP7 Further Delineated

▪ No GPR Survey Area – TP6 Sandy Clay

PHASE II DSI

GPR CONFIRMATION TEST PIT FINDINGS



PHASE III DSI - PROPOSED 40-ACRE DSI AREA

PHASE IV DSI PLANNING

▪ Revert to 2-Acre Grid Based On Findings

▪ 10 Borings/10 Piezometers

▪ Potentially More Test Pits

▪ Monthly Water Level Measurements

▪ Hydraulic Conductivity Analysis

▪ DSI Report


LESSONS LEARNED

▪ Institutional Knowledge

▪ Archeological Site

▪ PSI Area Partially Used as Borrow/Fill Area

During Facility Construction

▪ Borrow/Fill Confirmed By Historic Records

Review, But Not Depth

▪ Test Pit Excavations – Loose Sand


CONCLUSIONS

▪ GPR is an Effective Geophysical Survey Method

for Identifying Morphoseismic Features

▪ Understand Site Soil and Geologic Conditions

Prior to Selection of Geophysical Survey Method

▪ Do Your Homework – GPR Not for Every Site

▪ Perform Detailed Review of Past Property Use

▪ Follow Your Gut


Offices in Jefferson City, Kansas City Metro and Springfield, MissouriENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LAND - AIR - WATER


QUESTIONS?

COMMENTS?

Presented by Travis Doll, R.G., R.E.H.S.

(573) 659-9078 or (866) 892-0727

[email protected]

Documents

GREDELL Engineering Resources, Inc