Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 1 We made several analysis iterations, based on the conditions w modeled. <br /> Failure surfaces from the analysis were contained within the a bankment <br /> 1 material. A typical model failure surface is depicted on Fig. 9. We m deled the <br /> 1 embankment fill material with a cohesion value of 0 psf and intern I angle of <br /> friction value of 35 to 45 degrees. Ground water was not encountered at the site. <br /> 1 The material encountered was virtually free draining. For these reaso is, we did <br /> 1 not consider groundwater in the analysis models. Calculated factor of safety <br /> against movement in this drained condition ranged from 1.4 to 2.1. <br /> 1 <br /> 1 <br /> ROCK ROLL OUT ANALYSIS <br /> 1 <br /> 1 Observations and measurements from site visit, our experienc and the <br /> "Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program", version 4.0 dated March 2000 by <br /> 1 Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado School of Mines and Colorado <br /> 1 Geological Survey were used to analyze potential of rock roll out impact . <br /> 1 Our analysis considered the existing site access gate to bet a critical <br /> distance for the impact of rock roll out to Highway 141. Potential roc roll out <br /> 1 would need to be contained prior to that distance. We considered a cri ical path <br /> of shortest distance and steepest slopes. We estimated rock size, surface <br /> 1 roughness and coefficients of restitution and frictional resistance. Rock size and <br /> 1 <br /> Rhino Engineering,Inc. <br /> 1 Unaweep Quarry <br /> GEG Job No.593 8 <br />