My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-04-15_REVISION - M1980244 (195)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2008-04-15_REVISION - M1980244 (195)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:52:03 PM
Creation date
5/6/2008 3:52:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/15/2008
Doc Name
VOL IV APP 7 Stability Evaluation for East Cresson & Squaw Gulch Overburden Storage Areas
From
CC & V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM9
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.
/
64
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
• SMITH WILLIAMS CONSULTANTS, INC. <br />3.0 Stability Analyses <br />3.1 Methodology <br />For all the potential failure modes considered in this study, slope stability was evaluated <br />according to the Spencer's Method of Analysis (Spencer's Method). Spencer's Method <br />considers potential failure masses as rigid bodies divided into adjacent regions or "slices" <br />separated by vertical boundary planes and is based on limit equilibrium, i.e., the method <br />calculates the shear strengths that would be required to just maintain equilibrium, and then <br />calculates a Factor of Safety (FOS) by dividing the available shear strength by the required shear <br />strength. Consequently, the FOS calculated by Spencer's Method indicates the percentage by <br />which the available shear strength exceeds, or falls short of,-that required to maintain <br />equilibrium. Therefore, an FOS equal to or in excess of 1.0 indicates stability and those less than <br />1.0 indicate instability. The greater the mathematical difference between the FOS and 1.0, the <br />larger the "margin of safety" (for an FOS in excess of 1.0), or the more extreme the likelihood of <br />failure (for an FOS less than 1.0). <br />• The stability analyses were conducted using SLIDE V5.0 (RocScience, 2007), a commercially <br />available computer program, with the input parameters presented in this section. For both the <br />wedge and the circular failure modes, the SLIDE critical surface search routine was initially used <br />to determine the least stable failure surface. The program automatically iterates through a <br />variety of potential failure surfaces, calculates the safety factor for static and pseudo-static <br />conditions for each surface according to Spencer's Method, and selects the surface with the <br />minimum FOS, commonly referred to as the critical surface: Static analyses were conducted <br />with no applied horizontal forces, while pseudo-static analyses modeled design seismic <br />conditions by incorporating a constant horizontal force. For the pseudo-static analyses, a <br />conservative design coefficient of 0.08g (which is equal to the currently approved PGA for the <br />Cresson Project) was used in the slope stability models, which is consistent with that used for <br />Amendment Nos. 6, 7, and 8 (CC&V 1993, 1998, 2000). <br />3.1.1 Input Parameters <br />3.1.1.1 Conceptual Model <br />A representative conceptual model, incorporating the areal distribution and engineering <br />properties of the foundation materials that underlie the SGOSAE and ECOSA, was developed <br />from the results of field investigations. The critical stability cross sections analyzed are shown <br />• on Drawings A100 and A110. It is important to note that the OSA configurations shown have <br />S:\PROJECTS\1125C CC&V CRESSON OSA\H2 -DESIGN\OSA STABILITY FINAL REPORT V3.DOC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.