Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Additional Geotech Study <br />page 3 <br /> <br />to analyze the actual projected configurations. As an alternative, typical <br />encountered situations could be analyzed assuming a range of reclaimed <br />slope gradients and bench configurations. <br />Page 2 <br />As in their earlier laboratory analyses of specimens collected at the site, <br />Maxim Technologies has chosen to perform unconsolidated-undrained (U-U) <br />triaxial tests. In my earlier adequacy memorandum I commented; <br />"The report author correctly observes that the best course of action <br />in analyzing the stability of the landslide mass is to assume worst <br />case conditions. Further, the author observes that consolidated- <br />drained (C-D) materials testing is often preferred for geotechnical <br />design and analysis. The author states; "Our approach was to <br />conduct U-U (Unconsolidated-Undrained) tests, review the results, <br />and determine if C-D testing would likely obtain different or more <br />conservative results." With no discussion of comparative U-U and C- <br />Dlaboratory and\or analytical results, however, Maxim Technologies <br />states that the U-U results were satisfactory. This conclusion will <br />require complete justification." <br />Maxim Technologies, having not addressed my earlier inquiry, still has not <br />justified its selection of laboratory methodology. <br />Maxim Technologies completed comparative analyses to determine the <br />recompacted soils sensitivity to varying degrees of compaction. <br />Specifically, Maxim analyzed the shear strength of this material at 85% <br />and 90% relative density. <br />Page 2; "Slope Stability Analysis" <br />In analyzing the projected stability of the reclaimed cut benches, Maxim <br />Technologies limited it's analysis to a "conventional circular stability <br />