REP03568 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1 Hardtop Lawson Aawdatea Table 1.0: 5LOPE/R' Slope Stability FOS's for Profile 3 Using Horizontal, S fee! Nigh Perched Water Table. New Refuse Percent Fines Content Static FOS 0.1 Seismic Acceleration Coefficient FOS 10% Fines ~ 1.650 1.316 Further analysis of the HELP model of the LRP indicates the ground water will perch on top of the new/old refuse contact due to the hydraulic conductivity contrast. By moving the perched water table to lie along the new/old refuse contact, the slope stability model produced FOS values that are summarized in Table 2. Table 2.0 SLOPE/W Slope Stability FOS's for Profile 3 Using 5 fee[ High Perched Water Table Located Along New/Old Refuse Contact New Refuse 2-feet Thick 4-feet Thick 5-feet Thick 10-feet Thick Percent Fines Perched Water Perched Water Perched Water Perched Water Content Table (Average Table (Maximum Table (Modeled Table (Worst Encountered) Encountered) Maximum) Case) 7.6% Fines 2.102 2.102 2.102 2.083 (Current Conditions) ] 0% Fines 1.824 1.820 (1.454) 1.819 (1.599) 1.740 (1.248 ) 20% Fines 1.861 1.859 1.859 1.851 30% Fines 2.164 2.163 2.163 2.101 ~ Including Seismic Acceleration Coefficient of 0.1 ~ Su~cial stumpage Table 2 results are higher than Table 1 because a horizontal perched water table is deeper, allowing higher pore pressures to develop in the model. During the slope stability investigation the SLOPE/W search routine produced an FOS of 1.599 for a shallow Surficial failure under the condition of all new refuse containing 10% fines. This type of failure is not considered significant, but the FOS has been included in Table 2. All results surpass requirements stipulated by the DMG. Because this profile represented the most ' critical cross section, modeling of Profiles I and 2 with the newer ground water parameter was deemed unnecessary, though findings indicate the FOS for Profiles 1 and 2 will also increase. 1