Laserfiche WebLink
- 11 - <br /> <br />Foundation Conditions: the subsoil conditions encountered within <br />additional test holes drilled at Pori locations 3 and 4 were consistent <br />with those previcusly encrountered and discussed in a.~r original retort. <br />At Fond 2P., the subsoils were similar and generally consist of 5 to <br />13 feet of stiff clay soils anal weathered bedrock unaorlain by hard to <br />very hard claystone bedrock with occasicnal interbodded sandstone <br />layers to the maximum depth investigat~3, 4C Feet. soil cover is <br />generally shallow within abutment areas and deepest near the center of <br />the drainage. A highly weathered mal cram was crcountered in most <br />Elole 28 at G to 9 feet near the dou~rstrexn too. Basal on the o~>t test <br />hole information, this coal sears appears to be discontinuous. Free <br />• water was encountered at approximate depth 9 to 17 feet, near bedrock <br />surface at the center of the drainage. F:esults of shear strength anal <br />consolidation tests within the upper soils and bedrock indicate <br />engineering properties to be similar to those previously described fcr <br />Fonds 3 and 4. <br />Stability Analysis: P.esults of our field and laboratory investigations <br />and the proposed embanim.~ent sections indicate Pond 4 to be most <br />critical from a shear failure statility point of view. F~sults of <br />stability analysis on'the maximum enbanlaient section, prosent~d on <br />Fig. 6C, indicate a minimum safety factor of 1.53 for static conditions <br />and 1.31 for earthquake loading using a reduced do~mslope section of <br />2.5:1. :'his analysis assumes a hcnogeneous anbankxnt with/shear <br />strength parameters of the embankment fill equal tc those for Pond 1 <br />• . <br /> <br />