Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> surface roughness varied according to conditions observed and meast red during <br /> site visit. Coefficients of resistance were estimated from the progra n manual. <br /> We modeled potential rock fall of rocks of 1 foot, 5 foot and 10 foo diameter. <br /> ' Statistical analysis indicated 0 of 100 potential rocks past the analysis oint along <br /> the critical path (0 of 100 potential rocks came within 100 feet of a cess gate <br /> area). <br /> 1 <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> Embankment fill materials encountered in each explorato test pit <br /> ' included fractured sandy gravel with cobbles. We calculated a factor of safety <br /> against movement for 1.4 to 2.1 for the embankment fill. These alculated <br /> factors of safety against movement can be compared to the factors of safety <br /> presented (in the October 6, 2000 letter by DMG) of between 1.25 a d 2.0 or <br /> greater. Based on results of our investigation, we do not believe dditional <br /> investigation is warranted at this time. <br /> We did not identify potential rock roll out concerns at the emban ment fill <br /> area. We do not believe potential of rock roll out in this area is greater han that <br /> of the natural slope condition. <br /> 1 <br /> II <br /> Rhino Engineering, Inc. <br /> ' Unaweep Quarry <br /> GEG Job No.593 9 <br />