My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-08-10_PERMIT FILE - C1980007 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2007-08-10_PERMIT FILE - C1980007 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:17:39 PM
Creation date
1/23/2008 11:28:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/10/2007
Doc Name
Design Report for Alteration of Monument Dam
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 76 Report April 2007
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.
/
115
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 7 Summary of Unit Weights for Dam Stability Modeling <br /> Unit Wei ht <br />Material Sat ~ motsc ~ <br />Existing Materials <br />Embankment Material 132 110 <br />Soft Sediment 119 90 <br />Colluvium 130 108 <br />Failure Surface Material 130 108 <br />Weathered Bedrock* - <br />Pro osed Materials <br />Buttress 132 110 <br />Downstream Drains a Blanket 130 120 <br />U stream Cla Blanket 132 110 <br />~- i nis maienai was assumes to ~e mtmitely strong In the model, <br />thus unit weights were not assigned. <br />8.2.2.2 Embankment Material <br />The shear strength of the embanlanent material was obtained from triaxial (TX) and direct shear (DS) <br />tests. Figure 7 shows the undrained shear strength envelope measured in the triaxial test with pore- <br />water pressure measurements. For comparison purposes, the envelope used in the previous analysis <br />is shown in Figure 7. The value used for stability modeling is ~~„ of 25.8 degrees with no cohesion. <br />This value is considered conservative because it yields lower strength than using cohesion and <br />friction (i.e. dashed line in Figure 3). Therefore, the embankment material was modeled with a ~~„ of <br />25.8 degrees for the USSA. <br />Figure 8 shows the drained shear strength envelope based on triaxial and direct shear tests. It can be <br />seen from Figure 8 that the drained failure envelope yields a drained friction angle of 32.2 degrees. <br />The results from both the triaxial and direct shear tests display fairly consistent results. Therefore, <br />the embankment material was modeled with a friction angle of 32.2 degrees for the ESSA. <br />8.2.2.3 Soft Sediment <br />The shear strength of the soft sediment was measured in the triaxial (TX) and direct shear (DS) <br />apparatus. The results of the triaxial tests yield an undrained failure envelope of ~~~ 29.4 degrees <br />with c=0.43 tsf. This value is considered high and non-representative of material with soft <br />consistency. A further review of the stress-strain relationship from the triaxial tests revealed that the <br />tested material exhibited dilative behavior and negative shear induced pore-water pressures were <br />developed during shear. Soft sediment material showing low blow counts from SPT in the range of 0 <br />(weight of hammer) to 7 blows/ft, with typical values between 3 and 6 blows/ft, is expected to exhibit <br />P:\Mpls\06 CO\26\0626067\WorkFiles\DesignReport\FINAL\DesignReportFINAL.doc 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.