Laserfiche WebLink
~~ 3.0 Existing Condition <br />3.1 General <br />The analyses of the existing condition was performed using the information from the previous <br />analyses. First, a check was made of the previous analysis with the 2H:1 V slopes to compare the <br />results of the two analyses. Afterwazd, a stability analysis of the expanded pad was completed <br />with the as-built slopes of 1.38H:1 V, including a rock buttress. The soil unit weight, friction <br />angle, and cohesion aze assumed to be the same in both of the analyses. In addition, the <br />foundation soil is also considered to be above the water table, as in the previous analyses. This is <br />judged to be reasonably based upon the gravel layer below the foundation soil which would drain <br />the soil mass. The fact that the R.O.M. pad is above the water table allows the drained sheaz <br />strength pazameters to be used. <br />• <br />3.2 Factor of Safety <br />The fill-slope was compacted as per laboratory compaction test results using a maximum dry <br />density equal to 116.5 pcf and an optimum moisture content of 12.5 percent. According to the <br />field compaction records, 95 compaction tests were completed, with a mean compaction neaz <br />95.8 percent and. a standard deviation equal to approximately 3.16. <br />The fill-slope of the expanded pad was found to have a factor of 1.55 with a 2H:1 V (see <br />Figure 3) and is compazable to the 1.49 determined by Westec. The factor of safety for the <br />as-built 1.38H:1 V slope is 1.31, as shown on Figure 4. Table 3 shows a comparison of the <br />factors of safety for the previous analyses and the existing condition. <br /> <br />P:~06~26W30~ROMpile~etter.doc 4 <br />