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
achieved. The resultant back-calculated shear strength was a friction angle of 17.5 degrees, which is <br />reasonably close to the reversal direct shear value and the Stark and Eid correlated value. As a <br />result, the failure surface at Cross-Section C was modeled with a friction angle of 17.5 degrees. <br />The back-calculated residual friction angle at Cross-Section A is described in Section 9.1.3.3. <br />8.2.2.6 Buttress <br />Because the buttress will comprise compacted colluvium just as the embankment material, the same <br />shear strength of 32.2 degrees was used for the buttress in the ESSA. Direct shear testing of <br />compacted colluvium at Lambert and Associates (2006) confirmed this as the appropriate strength <br />value. Two samples of colluvium, collected from test pits, were compacted to 100% standard Proctor <br />density and sheared. The resulting failure envelopes were ~'=30.0 degrees with c'=522 psf and <br />~'=34.0 degrees with c'=255 psf. Neglecting the cohesion intercepts, the friction angle of 32.2 <br />degrees was confirmed. <br />It was assumed. that using better equipment than likely used originally to compact the embankment <br />material and specifying compaction requirements, the undrained strength envelope would be higher <br />than the strength used for the embankment material. Thus, a ~~° of 32.2 degrees was used with no <br />cohesion intercept. Neglecting any cohesion intercept for the USSA case is considered conservative. <br />8.2.2.7 Downstream Drainage Blanket <br />Due to the granular nature of the drainage blanket, the strength envelopes selected for both the USSA <br />and ESSA are the same. A friction angle of 30 degrees with no cohesion was chosen as a typical <br />value. This is likely somewhat conservative, considering that the material will be well-compacted in <br />the field. <br />8.2.2.8 Upstream Clay Blanket <br />The upstream blanket will comprise compacted colluvium just as the material that will be used for <br />construction of the buttress. Therefore, a shear strength of 32.2 degrees was used for both the USSA <br />and ESSA cases. <br />8.2.3 Modeling <br />The slope stability analyses were conducted using SLOPE/W, acomputer-modeling program <br />developed by GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd. SLOPE/W uses limit equilibrium theory to compute a <br />factor of safety for earth and rock slopes. It is capable of using a variety of methods to compute the <br />factor of safety of a slope while analyzing complex geometry, stratigraphy, and loading conditions. <br />As previously mentioned, SLOPE/W allows the user to import the groundwater head file from the <br />seepage analysis to compute effective stresses. <br />P:\Mpls\06 CO\26\0626067\WorkFiles\DesignReport\FINAL\DesignReportFINAL.doc 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.