Laserfiche WebLink
<br />it was understood that a toe buttress-only portion of this model will yield similar results. I fence, <br />this step was skipped and in the next step, the spoil strength parameters were lowered while <br />keeping the phreatic surface the sank. <br />With lower spoil strength parameters (i.e.. Spoil ?) assigned to the toe-buttress till, the FS <br />value against slope failure dropped to 1.43, marginally lower than the mininnrm value required <br />for long-term stability of such a structure (Figure 4b). It nlav be noted that this value lift' ers <br />sll,,Iltly from the FS value obtained during analysis of a similar model tar the Mid section, which <br />Illay be attributed to differences in geometry and phreatic surface elevation hetween both the <br />models. <br />In the next stage of analysis, the two must-likely seepage conditions were simulated <br />while keeping the spoil strength low (i.e., Spoil ?). For both the models with phreatic surface at <br />the top of the mudstone flour layer and at the top of the overburden layer, the FS values against <br />slope tailurc were found to be the identical at 1.91 (Figure 4c and 4d). This FS value may also <br />¦ he regarde d as adequate for long-term stability of the buttress. <br />1 a B. <br /> Shoe, Strain <br /> Re,e Contours <br /> <br /> 0000= <br /> 00003 <br /> 0000+ <br /> 00005 <br /> - - - - - - - - ?? Factor of Safety: 2 48 <br /> ? - Phreatic Surface <br />3a) Spoil 1, h-Pit Model, Phreatic Surface Horizontal from G-Pit Crest <br />1 <br />B B' <br />' Sheer Strom <br />Rate Contours <br />r X010 <br />GJ020 <br />000^.5 <br />' v'S <br />000030 <br />- - - - - - - - - - - `- - - - a Factor of Safety. 2.46 <br />- Phrseec Surface <br />]0 15.00 40 '10 ar.nc on, <br />31)) Spoil 1, Toe Area Model, Phreatic Surface Horizontal from G-Pit Crest <br />Agapito Associates, Inc.