Laserfiche WebLink
1O �k <br /> tlMl}M WILLIAMS l4NtUliANTt_INC <br /> Table 4 <br /> Slope Stability Analyses <br /> Phase 5 VLF <br /> Section Type of Failure Static Factor of Pseudostatic Factor of Safety <br /> Modeled Safety 0.14 g 0.08 g <br /> A Circular 1.7 1.2 1.4 <br /> Block 1.6 1.1 1.3 <br /> B Circular 1.5 1.1 1.3 <br /> Block 1.5 1.2 1.3 <br /> C Circular 1.8 1.3 1.5 <br /> Block 1.8 1.2 1.3 <br /> p Circular 1.6 1.2 1.3 <br /> Block 1.7 1.3 1.4 <br /> E Circular 1.5 1.1 1.2 <br /> Block 1.6 1.2 1.3 <br /> F Circular 1.6 1.1 1.3 <br /> Block 1.5 1.1 1.2 <br /> G Circular 1.7 1.2 1.4 <br /> Block 1.5 1.1 1.2 <br /> H Circular 1.5 1.1 1.3 <br /> Block 1.8 1.3 1.5 <br /> l Circular 1.6 1.2 1.3 <br /> Block 1 1.6 1.2 1.3 <br /> 'See Drawings A700,A710.and A720 for section locations. <br /> The lowest factor of safety for Cross Section G is 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for pseudo- <br /> static using a .14g acceleration and 1.2 factor of safety for an acceleration of 0.08g. Both of <br /> these scenarios are for the block model failure type. For circular failure, the factors of safety are <br /> higher, as shown in the SWC Table 4 above. <br /> The lowest factor of safety for Cross Section H is 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for pseudo- <br /> static using a .14g acceleration and 1.3 factor of safety for an acceleration of 0.08g. Both of <br /> these scenarios are for the circular model failure type. For block failure, the factors of safety are <br /> higher, as shown in the SWC Table 4 above. <br /> The slope of the VLF was designed to have to be 1.6H:LOV. The actual overall slope from the <br /> base of the facility to the crest, as reported by Jay Moore, P.E. in his Annual Report of December <br /> 2015, is 1.81-1:LOV to 2.011:LOV. Therefore, the actual construction is more conservative than <br /> the amended design. <br /> 43 <br />