Laserfiche WebLink
The results of the various cases are shown in the following table: <br />Soil 1 /Soil 2 <br />Cohesion F. Angle Density Pore Press Geometry Safety <br />Run # lb /sq.ft Degrees lb /cu.ft. Ratio Case # Factor <br />#1 300/200 35/45 110/102 0 1 1.20 <br />#2 300/200 35/45 110/102 1.0 1 0 <br />#3 200 45 102 .01 2 1.40 <br />#4 200 45 102 1.0 2 0 <br />#5 1500 0 102 .01 2 1.56 <br />#6 1500 0 102 .50 2 1.56 <br />#7 500 45 102 .50 2 0.83 <br />#8 500 45 120 .50 2 0.71 <br />#9 1000 42 110 .75 2 1.22 <br />#10 1000 42 110 .75 2 0.75 <br />#11 1400 42 110 .75 2 1.10 <br />#12 800/700 40/45 120/110 .50 1 0.81 <br />Run #1 uses Case 1 geometry with two soils. It is fairly stable but <br />a pore pressure of zero is assumed. When it is changed to 1.0, a <br />safety factor of zero is the result, as shown in Run #2. Runs #3 <br />and #4 use Case 2 geometry and vary the pore pressure from .01 to <br />1.0 with huge impacts on the safety factor. Runs #5 and #6 show <br />that if the soils are misinterpreted as very plastic clay type <br />soils with high cohesion and no friction angles, a safety factor of <br />above 1.5 would result. This would be a very dangerous conclusion. <br />12 <br />