PERMFILE126762 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 6. Conclusions Case 1 shows a scenario where the embankment has conservative strength parameters but the foundation material has a conservative cohesion and friction angle but a slightly higher density than that measured on the site. The safety factor of 2.19 shows the good stability of the pond dam. Case 2 uses the most conservative values in the ranges given for both soil types from Table 1. The results still show a factor of safety (1:73) well above the required amount of 1.3. This is strong evidence that the ponds will not fail. Case 3 uses parameters for both soil types which are far weaker than even the lowest values from Table 1. This could be considered beyond worse case and the factor of safety (1.52) is still significantly above the required limit. Case 4 is the most likely case using middle of the road strength parameters from Table 1 and densities measured from actual samples of the material. The safety factor of 1.95 is very good. Note that no cohesion was used for the foundation material and it is possible that some cohesion will exist here. The failure circle, center and radius for this case have been added to Drawing 1 of this report. Case 5 uses conservative strength parameters for both soils except a low cohesion value was given to the foundation material assuming some clays will be present. The safety factor of 2.46 shows that any cohesion in the foundation greatly increases the strength of the embankment, although it is not needed to pass the requirements. • Case 6 is the same as Case 5 except that a higher cohesion was assumed for the embankment material. The safety factor of 2.54 shows that a much higher cohesion of this material does not greatly increase the factor of safety over the previous case. Nevertheless, any cohesion in the foundation material causes the factor of safety to go up significantly over any case that assumes it is zero. • REVISED Mr,RCx zoos Attachment 2.05.3(3)-15-6