My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE108501
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE108501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:00:58 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 4:57:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
April 1981 Report
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 14 Landslide Study
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
N. ~,ST.ABILITY INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE RECLAMATIOt7 OF FACILITIES WITHIN <br />~ lriL AN SLIDE r1REA ~• <br />A. Introduction:' <br />The portal bench, portior~ of the main access road, the shop warehouse pads end <br />thE: substation all lie within the Landslide Boundary and are characterized by an <br />upslope cut and a downslope fill, both of which must be retained. There are a <br />number of available construction alternatives for returning these areas to their <br />approximate original contours (AOC). This investigation has focused on <br />determining which variation or coc~struction combination would lead to the most <br />stable reclaimed slope. The possible variations which were considered were the <br />following: <br />L Backfill of cut areas <br />a. Backfi7l to be compacted to 95% o! maximum standard proctor <br />density <br />b. Backfill to be compacted to 85% of maximum standard proctor <br />density <br />2 Dewatering system <br />a. No dewatering provisions alter reclamation <br />b. Dewatering system to be left for permanent operation alter <br />reclamation <br />3. Retaining wall system <br />a. Retaining walls to be removed and salvaged <br />b. Retaining walls (for cut slopes only) to be buried in place to improve <br />~ final slope stability. <br />~, <br />To allow the retaining wall system on the downslope (for Pill side) of the road or <br />building site embankments to remain in place would be contrary to the <br />requirements of returning those areas to their approximate original contours. <br />Therefore, this study considered burying in place only those retaining walls on the <br />upslope (or cut side) of the excavated areas. <br />B. Stability Program Description: <br />The stability analyses for these reclamation alternatives was performed using a <br />slope stability computer program (Slope In developed by Geo Slope Programming, <br />Ltd., Regina, Soskatchewan. The simplified Bishop Method of slices was used to <br />solve for the factor of safety in each case. <br />The computer can assume any failure surface for the analyses. A circular failure <br />surface is normally assumed unless bedrock is encountered. If a slip circle <br />intercepts bedrock, the failure is assumed to proceed along the top boundary of the <br />bedrock for that portion within the boundary of the failure circle. <br />The computer automatically divides the failure section into slices and solves for <br />the factor of safety against sliding along that failure surface. Many possible <br />failure surfaces are evaluated within an established grid. The critical failure <br />surface is that which produces the lowest factor of safety. Initially, a course grid <br />is used to establish a general vicinity of the critical radu coordinates. The grid is <br />then refined and centered in this area to converge on the absolute minimum factor <br />of safety. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.