Bank Stability Resulting from Rapid Flood Recession Along the Licking River, Kentucky
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date:___________________ I, _________________________________________________________, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in: It is entitled: This work and its defense approved by: Chair: _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ BANK INSTABILITY RESULTING FROM RAPID FLOOD RECESSION ALONG THE LICKING RIVER, KENTUCKY A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Department of Geology Of the College of Arts and Sciences 2004 by Ana Cristina Londono G. B.S., Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1995 Committee Chair: Dr. David B. Nash ABSTRACT River bank instability has been linked with changing land use, deforestation and channel meandering. Fluctuations in water level, either seasonal or more frequent, have also been related to instability. Increased pore water pressure has been correlated with flooding. When, the level of water decreases rapidly, the pore water pressure within the soil remains high, thereby decreasing the soil’s effective shear strength. This reduction in shear strength may result in bank failure. The banks of the Licking River near Wilder, Kentucky were selected as a study site because they exhibit instability features: tension cracks, circular and wedge failures, slumps and piping, some of which developed after a major flooding event in 1997. Tensiometers were installed at depth from 4 ft to 10 ft and a piezometer was installed at a depth of 12 ft. The bank material is clay with low plasticity (CL) with total cohesion and friction angle of 27 kPa and 13o respectively. Although soil suction was found to respond rapidly to wetting and drying, the results demonstrate the importance of antecedent events in the saturation of the slope and in the reduction of matric suction. High values of the factor of safety for slope failure were found when modeling the slope under steady-state conditions but lower values were found for rapid drawdown cases. Modeling of the slope indicates that cohesion and hydrostatic confining pressure are critical parameters in evaluating the bank stability. i Thus, riverbanks are sensitive to the history of water elevation changes. soil suction fluctuates greatly due to rainfall and flooding episodes. Because this parameter is so variable, including it in the calculation of the stability of the slope may lead to overestimation of the factor of safety. Therefore, assumption of saturated conditions is more conservative. Prolonged periods of flooding or flood events with significant antecedent rainfall or other flood events cause saturation of the slope. This increases the likelihood of failure when water stage lowers rapidly. The critical water elevation was found to be below 140 m for rapid drawdown conditions after flood recession on to the Licking River. Key words: Matric suction, bank instability, Licking River, cohesion, floods ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to extend my gratitude to the Geology Department for electing me to be the recipient of the Wycoff Scholarship that allowed me to conduct this research and for the summer research grant to complete the fieldwork. The members of my committee, Drs. David B. Nash, Thomas V. Lowell, Barry J. Maynard in the Geology Department and Mark T. Bowers from the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department for their advice, for sharing their wisdom with me and for the discussions to improve the results of this work. Great appreciation to my friends, Rick Bullard for introducing me to the Frederick’s Landing Park and its instability problems and help in the field; Ji-Yeon Shin for being an awesome field assistant; Alejandra Bonilla for her help in the field and Alexander Stewart for his hard work in the equipment installation and critical revisions of this manuscript. Thanks to Terry Vance, City of Wilder Administrator for letting me installing the equipment at Frederick’s Landing Park. Rich Pohana for lent me the current transducers. Mike Menard for putting together the datalogger- tensiometer set up; Ken for finding an awesome protecting box for the datalogger. This work would have not been possible to complete without the generosity of HC Nutting Co.: George Webb for providing me of free drilling and sampling, for facilitating the Soil’s laboratory for testing, Steven Xao for his supervision and advice during testing and for his observations of test results and the help of both Lab technicians, Fred and Steve for actually running the tests. iii My Gratitude to Howard Meisner and Tom Dryer at the Cincinnati rowing team for taking me on a boat ride along the Licking River. Swaminathan Srinivasan and Olusegun Akomolede for their recommendations in the data analysis. Finally, special thanks to my family and friends at home for their constant support, for cheering me up in the low times and for encouraging me to pursue my dreams. iv DISCLAIMER Mentioning of company names and commercial products does not imply endorsement or recommendation by the University of Cincinnati. v NOTE TO READER The complete laboratory analysis and failure surface files can be obtained on PDF format contacting the author at the Geology Department, University of Cincinnati. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS BANK STABILITY RESULTING FROM RAPID FLOOD RECESSION ALONG THE LICKING RIVER, KENTUCKY....................................................................... i ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................iii DISCLAIMER........................................................................................................ v NOTE TO READER..............................................................................................vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................ix LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................xiii CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM..................................................................... 2 1.2. LOCATION................................................................................................. 2 1.3. HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................ 4 1.4. PREVIOUS WORKS.................................................................................. 6 1.5. LOCAL FAILURE CONDITIONS.............................................................. 14 CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................... 18 SETTING............................................................................................................ 18 2.1. NORTHERN KENTUCKY EROSIONAL HISTORY ................................. 21 2.2. GEOLOGY............................................................................................... 23 2.2.1. BEDROCK......................................................................................... 27 2.2.2. UNCONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS...................................................... 29 2.2.2.1. PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS........................................................ 29 2.2.2.1.1. Outwash Deposits ................................................................ 29 2.2.2.1.2. Terraces ............................................................................... 30 2.2.2.2. HOLOCENE................................................................................ 30 2.3. Soils ......................................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................... 38 METHODS AND MATERIALS ........................................................................ 38 3.1. TENSIOMETERS AND PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION.......................... 38 3.2. SAMPLING .............................................................................................. 41 3.3. SOIL TESTING ........................................................................................ 42 3.3.1. MOISTURE CONTENT ..................................................................... 42 3.3.2. SPECIFIC GRAVITY ......................................................................... 45 3.3.3. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS.................................................................... 45 3.3.4. ATTERBERG LIMITS........................................................................ 47 3.3.5. CONSOLIDATION TEST................................................................... 49 3.3.6. UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTING ...................................... 49 3.3.7. TRIAXIAL TESTING.......................................................................... 52 CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................... 56 THEORETICAL