Laserfiche WebLink
January 9, 1996 -6- 943-?847.001 <br />calculated for the case of a purely frictional interlace having zero cohesion. The stability <br />results (presented in Attachment B) are as follows: <br />Configuration Friction Angle Static FOS Pseudo-static <br /> (degrees) FOS <br /> (0.14g) <br />Stability section through Phase II 21 1.5 1.0 <br />Toe Berm and through the Phase I <br />Toe-Berm <br />The purely frictional interface was selected a: the basis for comparison because many of <br />the tested configurations produced low valt:es of cohesion and igh friction angles. <br />However, total. shear strength, whether attributable to measured cohesion, friction angle, <br />or both, will govern the results of the stability analysis. Therefore, an interface with high <br />cohesion and low friction angle or an interface with intermediate cohesion and friction <br />angle may also be acceptable. <br />On reviewing the interface shear strength parameters for the various configurations tested <br />(numbers 1 through 7), all configurations meet the minimum friction angle except for the <br />Low Volume Solution Collection Fill / 100 mil textured geomembrane 1 Area No. 2 Soil <br />Liner Fill configuration. Golder used the interface shear strength results for this <br />configuration and incorporated both the consolidated and unconsolidated interface shear <br />strength parameters into the critical stability model. The results from the stability analysis <br />are presented in Attachment B and are summarized below as follows: <br />Configuration Static FOS Pseudo-static FOS <br /> (O.I4g) <br />100 mil textured HDPE and Area No. 2 sample 1.5 1.0 <br />TP-20 (unconsolidated sample) <br />100 mil textured HDPE and Area No. 2 sample 1.7 I.I <br />TP-20 (consolidated sample) <br />Therefore, based on the test results presented above, Golder recommends that the Area <br />No. 2 material is suitable for use as Sail Liner Fill. <br />i <br />Golder Associates <br />