Laserfiche WebLink
a ~ • • • <br />Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Geotech Study <br />page 5 <br /> <br />in mind. The appropriate material strengths will have to be used in determining <br />the slope stability of reclaimed facilities, cuts and fills. <br />Page 11 <br />The report author correctly observes that the best course of action in <br />analyzing the stability of the landslide mass is to assume worst case <br />conditions. Further, the author observes that consolidated-drained (CD) <br />materials testing is often preferred for geotechnical design and analysis. <br />The author states; "Our approach was to conduct UU (Unconsolidated- <br />Undrained) tests, review the results, and determine if CD testing would <br />likely obtain different or more conservative results." With no discussion <br />of comparative UU and CD laboratory and\or analytical results, however, <br />Maxim Technologies states that the UU results were satisfactory. This <br />conclusion will require complete justification. <br />Page 12 <br />As stated here above, the author observed that the expansive soil <br />materials will likely significantly degrade in performance if wetted. One <br />of the anticipated wet spots in which Maxim projects the likelihood of <br />encountering significant ground water is in the area of the portal bench, <br />where the highest cuts and slopes are projected to be constructed. <br />Obviously, extensive detail will have to be provided to describe the <br />collection and diversion of these ground waters and the long term <br />stabilization of the potentially effected 80 foot high cut slopes and 50 <br />foot high fill embankments. This will constitute both a significant <br />operational facility and reclaimed configuration design challenge. <br />Page 13 <br />In order to minimize consolidation/settlement in embankment fills, <br />Maxim Technologies recommends the use of modified Proctor moisture- <br />density compaction criteria. Generally, this standard will result in higher <br />