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
As can be seen in Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6, all of the five cases which were investigated for r: <br />the slope above the Portal Turnout share one characteristic. 'Che entire critical failure tt <br />surface at this cross section takes place only within the steep slope above the upslope <br />retaining •+vall of the Portal Turnout The critical failure surface, in the 5 cases studied <br />was always in this steep upper slope portion; in not one case dicl the failure surface shear <br />through or under the area to be backfilled (refer to the Exhit~its 3, 4, 5 and 6). It is <br />evident that the dewatering system is the only variable having arty important effect on the <br />absolute minimum factor of safety for the area above the portal turnout ' <br />The conclusion !or this case is that the dewatering system for and above the Portal <br />Turnout should always be operating to ensure a stable slope after reclamation. <br />The immediate area below this steep upper slope and within the Portal Turnout itself was <br />also investigated for stability in the post reclamation state. The modeling of the full <br />cross section at Station 65+00 indicates, as noted previously, that the critical failure <br />surfaces (those with the minimum Factors of Safety), in fact, lie above the Portal Turnout <br />on the steep upper slope. By using this same model and selecting only those failure <br />surfaces which intercepted the backfill zone of the Portal Turnout, one can compare the <br />stability of this one part of the cross section with the stability of the overall section, <br />especially that of steep upper slope above the Porto! Turnout The minimum Stability <br />Factors of Safety for this isolated part of the cross section are much higher than those of <br />the steep upper slope. These Factors of Safety are summarized in Table 3 below. <br />TABLE 3 <br />Reclamation Alternatives at Access Road Station 65+00 <br />portal Turnout) with Corresponding Factors of Safety . <br />Refer Dewatering Degree IIpslope 4linimum <br />Case to Exhibit System left of Retaining wall Factor of <br />Number Number In Place Compaction Left in place Safety <br />13 6 Yes 85% No 1.547* <br />14 6 Yes 95% No 1.546 <br />15 6 Yes 85% Yes 1.807 <br />* Result from linear interpolation <br />These results show that the degree of compaction has little effect on the stability of the <br />backfilled zone of the immediate Portal Turnout area. A significant increase in the <br />stability of that region was realized, however, by leaving in place and burying the upslope <br />retaining wa1L This is in contrast to the situation at Access Road Station 60+83 which <br />showed that leaving the upslope retaining wall in place had no appreciable effect on post <br />reclamation slope stability. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.