My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-09_PERMIT FILE - M2010049
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2010049
>
2011-06-09_PERMIT FILE - M2010049
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:21 PM
Creation date
6/9/2011 11:35:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2010049
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
6/9/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Review- 06
From
DRMS
To
Varra Companies, Inc.
Email Name
MAC
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.
/
3
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
Slope Stability - Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project <br />Page 2 <br />June 8, 2011 <br />shows only Bishop Method results. Please provide some discussion of, and <br />results for, if appropriate, for the other methods simulated. <br />3. References: What is the purpose of including the "Schneider, P.A., 1983" reference? It does <br />not appear to be referenced in the report text. <br />4., Attachment A - PCSATBL Model Results: Please label the three figures for future <br />reference. <br />a. Please provide an explanation for the "Soils" column in the upper left table on <br />each figure. For example, what is the meaning of "CIRCLE", "0" and "130"? <br />Also, a color copy of the figures would be helpful in interpreting which soils are <br />where in the simulation. Please provide color copies of the analyses if possible. <br />b. Please provide some rationale as to how the phreatic surface/water table was <br />determined for the first two simulation results. <br />c. Please provide some discussion on the different Factors of Safety shown on the <br />first two simulation figures. Both appear to be drawn-down conditions, but with <br />differing Factors of Safety: 1.298 and 1.267. <br />5. Appendix B - Laboratory Testing: Page 3 and Direct Shear Test Results: The material <br />tested (Boring No. 2 at 25 feet) is classified as a GP. The effective cohesion is reported to be <br />731 psf. Please explain how a typically cohesionless material can have such a high value. <br />mAmin\tc1\m-2010-049 great western\stabilitycomments_mem08jun11.docx
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.