Laserfiche WebLink
January 9, 1996 -6- 943-2847.001 <br /> calculated for the case of a purely frictional interface having zero cohesion. The stability <br /> results (presented in Attachment B) are as follows: <br /> Configuration Friction Angle Static FOS Pseudo-static <br /> (degrees) FOS <br /> (0.14g) <br /> Stability section through Phase H 21 1.5 1.0 <br /> Toe Berm and through the Phase I <br /> Toe Berm <br /> The purely frictional interface was selected as the basis for comparison because many of <br /> the tested configurations produced low values of cohesion and high friction angles. <br /> However, total, shear strength, whether attributable to measured cohesion, friction angle, <br /> or both, will govern the results of the stability analysis. Therefore, an interface with high <br /> cohesion and low friction angle or an interface with intermediate cohesion and friction <br /> angle may also be acceptable. <br /> On reviewing the interface shear strength parameters for the various configurations tested <br /> (numbers 1 through 7), all configurations mee, the minimum friction angle except for the <br /> Low Volume Solution Collection Fill / 100 mil textured geomembrane J Area No. 2 Soil <br /> Liner Fill configuration. Golder used the interface shear strength results for this <br /> configuration and incorporated both the consolidated and unconsolidated interface shear <br /> strength parameters into the critical stability model. The results from the stability analysis <br /> are presented in Attachment B and are summarized below as follows: <br /> Configuration Static FOS Pseudo-static FOS <br /> (0.14g) <br /> 100 mil textured HDPE and Area No. 2 sample 1.5 1.0 <br /> TP-20 (unconsolidated sample) <br /> 100 mil textured HDPE and Area No. 2 sample 1.7 <br /> TP-20 (consolidated sample) <br /> Therefore, based on the test results presented above, Golder recommends that the Area <br /> No. 2 material is suitable for use as Seil Liner Fill. <br /> 3 <br /> Gelder Associates <br />