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
TABLE 1 ~• <br />Reclamation Alternatives at a Cross Section at <br />Access Road Station 60+83 with <br />Corresponding Factors of Safety <br />Refer Dewatering Degree IIpslope Minimum <br />Case to Exhibit System left of Retaining wall Factor of <br />Number Number In Place Compaction Left in place Safety <br />1 1 No 85% No 1.045 <br />2 1 No 95% No 1.058 <br />3 1 No 85% Yes 1.D44 <br />4 2 Yes 85% No L69I <br />5 2 Yes 95% No 1.675 <br />6 2 Yes 85% Yes 1.676 <br />It is concluded from these analyses, as shown in this table, that, in order to meet the <br />requirement for the minimum factor of safety of 1.3, the dewatering system must be fully <br />operable. This is not unexpected since this area has been deemed as a potential slide area <br />and the Factor of Safety in its natural in~lace saturated state has been shown by Geo <br />Hydro to be slightly above 1.0. This supports the recommendation by Geo-Hydro <br />concerning the need for dewatering in this area. <br />Other conclusions which can be made from these results concern the effect of extra <br />'•) compaction and the effect of burying in place the upslope retaining wall, Both cases had <br />'` negligible effect on the minimum factor of safety. In fact, for the dewatering cases, both <br />the higher degree of compaction and the buried upslope retaining wall produced a <br />reduction in the minimum factor oY safety. It should be pointed out, however, that for <br />this type of analysis only two significant figures, or perhaps three significant figures in <br />the most tightly controlled areas, are appropriate for comparing results. <br />Therefore, to ensure a stability Factor of Safety of at least 1..3 at Access Road Station <br />60+83, the full cross section of dewatering system must be in effect. To return this <br />section to its approximate original condition and contours, the downslope retaining wall <br />must be removed and the section should be backfilled in uniform lifts to approximately <br />85% of the maximum standard proctor density. The upslope retaining wall can be removed <br />or left in place since its affect on stability is neglible. If it is left in place, the top <br />segment should be removed so that the top soil depth will not be intercepted by any <br />binwall material An attempt should be made to protect all piezometers so that the <br />dewatering system can be monitored after all reclamation procedures have been <br />completed. Any areas not being effectively dewatered should be delineated and the <br />horizontal drains should be re-drilled in theses areas. <br />Therefore, at the cross section at Access Road Station 60+83, the following procedure is <br />recommended for reclamation to ensure a Stability Factor of Safety of 1.3 or greater. <br />U <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.