Laserfiche WebLink
joints within 6 ft of the base of the slope (i.e. within reach, without the use of special <br />~~ equipment such as a Bosun's chair). <br />1 The 34 joint orientations collected for Hazard Zone 2 are plotted in Figure 7. The <br />i <br />combined plots for Hazard Zones 1 through 4 are shown in Nigure 8. 'T'here is a marked <br />similarity between the two sets of plots since the 34 joint orientations in Hazard Zone 2 <br />comprise the majority of joints collected for the combined hazard zones. The same <br />1 combined plot (for Hazard Zones 1 through 4) was used in the slope stability analysis of the <br />individual hazard zones 1, 2, 3 and 4. <br />The Schmidt plot in Figure 8 has defined three strong joint sets with a <br />l concentration of 6% or more (set 1 at 354/7, set 6 at 226/83, set 7 at 199/84), and one weak <br />set which is set 2 at 133/86. <br />1 <br />l 4.3.3 Hazard Zone 5 <br />1~ <br />The scatter diagram and Schmidt plots presented in Figure 9 show three strong sets <br />] with concentrations of 6% or more (Set 1 at 335/6, Set 2 at 156/80, Set 3 at 201/56), and <br />_ three weaker sets (Set 4 at 228/52, Set 5 at 23/43, a set at 252/53, and another set at 66/86). <br />4.3.4 Hazard Zone 6 <br />The scatter diagram and Schmidt plot for this hazard zone is shown in Figure 10. <br />There are three dominant joint sets present, with a concentration of 8% or more. Set 2 is at <br />1 142/78, Set 4 at 228/50, and Set 5 at 30/45. The other joint sets are hardly represented, and <br />there is a complete absence of bedding plane joints (this means bedding plane joints are rare <br />1 since none were mapped within 6 ft of the base of the slope). <br />1 <br />1 • 18 <br />