Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Case 1 - At a setback of 65 feet, the resulting safety factor of 1.59 exceeds the MLRB <br /> minimum requirement of 1.50 for an embankment adjacent to a critical structure. The <br /> resulting safety factor of 1.30 is equal to the MLRB minimum requirement of 1.30 for an <br /> embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in <br /> the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 3.10 under static loading and 2.11 under <br /> earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 65 feet from the wetland is satisfactory. <br /> Case 2 - At a setback of 150 feet, the resulting safety factor of 1.92 exceeds the MLRB <br /> minimum requirement of 1.50 for an embankment adjacent to a critical structure. The <br /> resulting safety factor of 1.43 exceeds the MLRB minimum requirement of 1.30 for an <br /> embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in <br /> the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 3.55 under static loading and 2.22 under <br /> earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 150 feet from the river bank is satisfactory. <br /> Case 3 - At a setback of 150 feet, the resulting safety factor of 2.89 exceeds the MLRB <br /> minimum requirement of 1.50 for an embankment adjacent to a critical structure. The <br /> resulting safety factor of 2.07 is above the MLRB minimum requirement of 1.30 for an <br /> embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in <br /> the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 4.62 under static loading and 2.84 under <br /> earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 150 feet from the river bank is satisfactory. <br /> Case 4 - At a setback of 50 feet, the resulting safety factor of 1.52 exceeds the MLRB <br /> minimum requirement of 1.50 for an embankment adjacent to a critical structure. The <br /> resulting safety factor of 1.30 is equal to the MLRB minimum requirement of 1.30 for an <br /> embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in <br /> the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 2.61 under static loading and 1.79 under <br /> earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 50 feet from the gas line easement is <br /> satisfactory. <br /> Case 5 - At a setback of 50 feet, the resulting safety factor of 1.60 exceeds the MLRB <br /> minimum requirement of 1.50 for an embankment adjacent to a critical structure. The <br /> resulting safety factor of 1.30 is equal to the MLRB minimum requirement of 1.30 for an <br /> embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in <br /> the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 2.96 under static loading and 2.04 under <br /> earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 50 feet from the gas line easement is <br /> satisfactory. <br /> Case 6 - At a setback of 60 feet, the resulting safety factor of 1.56 exceeds the MLRB <br /> minimum requirement of 1.50 for an embankment adjacent to a critical structure. The <br /> resulting safety factor of 1.31 is above the MLRB minimum requirement of 1.30 for an <br /> embankment subject to earthquake loading. Using a normal water surface elevation in <br /> the reservoir provides greater safety factors, 2.91 under static loading and 1.97 under <br /> earthquake loads. The proposed setback of 65 feet from the right-of-way is satisfactory. <br /> J-2 Contracting Company-DPG Pit <br /> J&T Consulting, Inc. Slope Stability Analysis <br /> Page <br />