My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP30739
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP30739
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:01:14 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 5:42:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/9/1981
Doc Name
Surface Facilities Sability Analyses
From
Merrick & Copany
Permit Index Doc Type
STABILITY REPORT
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.
/
19
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 />1 Reclamation Alternatives at a Cross Section at <br /> Access Road Station 60+83 with <br /> Corresponding Factors of Safety <br /> Refer Dewatering Degree Upslope Minimum <br />Cese to Exhibit System left of Retaining wall Factor of <br />' <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 1.044 <br />4 2 Yes• 85% No 1.691 <br />S 2 Yes 95% No 1.6?5 <br />' <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-place 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. Hoth 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 of 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 Faetor 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 end 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 an stability is neglible. Ie 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 as"0+83, the following procedure is <br />recommended for reclamation to ensure a Stability Factor of Safety of 1.3 or greater. <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.