SDMS US EPA Region V Imagery Insert Form Document ID: Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable in SDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below: Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Includes COLOR or RESOLUTION variations. Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than the images. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Confidential Business Information (CBI). This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are not available in SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Unscannable Material: Oversized X or Format. Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: Document is available at the EPA Region 5 Records Center. Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments: EPA Region 5 Records Ctr 232494 Page 1
148
Embed
SDMS US EPA Region V · Investigation (RI): the initial site reconnaissance, groundwater monitoring well installation, groundwater and surface water sample collection and monitoring
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
SDMS US EPA Region VImagery Insert Form
Document ID:
Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable inSDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below:
Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Includes COLOR or RESOLUTION variations.Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than theimages.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Confidential Business Information (CBI).This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are not available
in SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Unscannable Material:Oversized X or Format.Due to certain scanning equipment capabili ty limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
Document is available at the EPA Region 5 Records Center.
Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr
232494
Page 1
3 9Q
Rollins Environmental Services ffsj Inc.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SLOPE EROSION STUDY (TASK 490)
MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL
Prepared byRollins Environmental Services (FS), Inc.
Technical ServicesJanuary 1988
Rollins Environmental Services IFSJ Inc.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SLOPE EROSION STUDY (TASK 490)
MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL
INTRODUCTION
A slope erosion study was performed to qualitatively assess thecredibility and hence, the stability of the existing landfill slopes at theMaster Disposal Service Landfill (MDSL) in Brookfield, Wisconsin (seeFigure 1). This study consisted of the following:
a field reconnaissance to visually inspect the landfill slopes,
a topographic survey to identify drainage features andelevations across the site relative to mean sea level (MSL),
sample collection and analysis to determine soil properties,
an analysis of landfill slope characteristics to determine slopestability factors-of-safety, and
a slope incline analysis to determine the locations of areas ofthe landfill slopes potentially most susceptible to erosion.
The information obtained from the above activities was evaluated todetermine if the slopes of the landfill appear stable enough to maintain asoil and vegetative cover without additional contour site work. Theinformation obtained from these activities and conclusions drawn from theassociated data evaluation are presented below.
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
The field reconnaissance consisted of walk-through inspections of theoutboard landfill slopes during several phases of the RemedialInvestigation (RI): the initial site reconnaissance, groundwater monitoringwell installation, groundwater and surface water sample collection andmonitoring well water level determinations. The field reconnaissancespanned six months, June, 1987 through December, 19S7. A summary ofthe field reconnaissance observations is presented below:
The predominant cover on the outboard slopes of the landfill iscomposed of common fill, sand and some silty clay. Fillmaterial was observed being delivered to the site by a localdeveloper, the McCoy Brothers Contractors, throughout the RI.
No visual evidence of chemical seeps from any of the landfillslopes was observed during the field reconnaissance.
The north, west, and southwest slopes were graded and seededbefore and during the RI. September field observationsindicated that a partial vegetative cover was established—On the
Rollins Environmental Services wine.
\N
EAST SLOK
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS). INC.MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL
FIGURE 1. SITE MAP; SLOPE DESIGNATION
Rollins Environmental Services IFSJ Inc
north and southwest slopes of the landfill. November andDecember field observations indicated that a vegetative coverwas not established on the west slope of the landfill.
The east slope exhibited fairly complete vegetative cover at theonset of site activities, although coke slag, construction and/ordemolition debris were visible at the surface of the slope.Vegetation included brush, shrubs and early successional trees,such as birch and willow. It appeared as if the east slope wasthe oldest, most undisturbed face of the landfill.
The north slope appeared to be the next most stable landfillslope (ranked below the east slope) based on average slopeincline, amount of visible erosion and extent of establishedvegetative cover. Some construction debris and coke slag wereapparent in the surface fill on the north face of the landfill;however, the presence of this material did not seem to havehad an adverse affect on the establishment of a vegetativecover.
The west landfill slope exhibited the steepest grade of all theoutboard slopes. The west face exhibited the greatest amountof erosion, the least amount of vegetative cover and thegreatest number of gullies of all the landfill slopes. Thegullies generally ranged in size from six (6) inches toapproximately three (3) feet in depth and six (6) inches toapproximately ten (10) feet in width. Talus was evident atportions of the toe of the west slope and at the dischargepoints of some of the gullies, indicating that landfill slopesloughing and general erosion had occurred.
A partial grass cover was observed on the upper portion of thesouthwest slope of the landfill during a December site visit.Observations made during the site visit also indicated that thesouthwest slope potentially will be the site of a large amountof snow-melt runoff in the spring.
The southeast slope exhibited general erosion, caused in partby ongoing use of the area for truck access to the portion ofthe landfill that has remained in use as a solid waste transferstation. The main access road to the transfer area is locatednorth of the southeast slope and the transfer area occupies asignificant portion of the southeast corner of the landfill.These conditions have promoted extensive erosion in the areaand have resulted in the need for repairing culverts, shouldersand the landfill sideslope cover along the access road to thelandfill.
Rollins Environmental Services IF® Inc.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A topographic survey of the MDSL site was completed in July, 1987. Thesurvey identified drainage features, above-grade utilities, and siteelevations relative to mean sea level (MSL). The data collected duringthe survey were incorporated into a topographic site map that presentson-site elevations at 1-foot contour intervals. (Refer to Attachment A.)
The only significant above-ground utility feature present on-site is apower line that parallels the site access road to mid-site, then extends tothe western slope of the landfill. The power line is elevated at least 15feet above landfill grade and should not impact any potential remedialactions.
The topographic survey identified the following major landfill drainagefeatures:
The highest point on-site is located in the northeast corner ofthe site at an elevation of approximately 854 ft. (MSL).
The second highest point is located in the southwest corner ofthe site at an elevation of approximately 853 ft. (MSL).
A drainage channel, or gully has formed in a westerlydirection in the middle of the site between the two high pointsmentioned above. This gully directs a significant portion ofsite runoff toward the western slope of the landfill.
These three major drainage features control the general drainage patternof the entire site. The majority of rainfall that is intercepted by thenorthern one-third of the landfill drains to the west, and a smalleramount to the south. The majority of the rainfall intercepted by themiddle third of the landfill drains to the south and southeast; only aminor amount drains to the west. The southern third of the landfilldrains to the southwest and to the south. (See Figure 2.)
These site drainage patterns result in the majority of on-site rainfallrunoff discharge to occur across the west and south-southwestern landfillslopes. Therefore, based on the site topography, the west and south-southwest slopes potentially should exhibit the greatest amount of erosionat the MDSL site.
The 100-year flood elevation of the Fox River, which borders thesouthwest portion of the landfill site, was obtained from the City ofBrookfield Department of Public Works. The data obtained weredeveloped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) andwere incorporated into the FEMA Flood Insurance Maps for theBrookfield area on August 19, 1986. Two 100-year flood elevations wereobtained:
an upstream, 100-year flood elevation of 827.9 ft. (MSL) hasbeen established for a cross-section of the Fox River that is
Rollins Environmental Services (FSJ Inc.
\N
»sr SLOPE
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS). INC.MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILL
FIGURE 2. APPROXIMATE DRAINAGE PATHWAYS
Rollins Environmental Services IFSI Inc.
located approximately 2000 feet to the north-northwest of theMDSL site, and
a downstream, 100-year flood elevation of 827.0 ft. (MSL) hasbeen established for a cross-section of the Fox River that islocated approximately 1500 feet south of the Capitol Drivebridge, which is immediately to the south of the MDSL site.
The occurrence of a 100-year flood will impact the south-southwest, westand part of the north face of the outboard landfill slopes, based on acomparison of the flood elevation with topographic contours developed inthe topographic survey. The elevations of the toes of the aforementionedslopes vary from approximately 823 ft. (MSL) to 828 ft. (MSL), indicatingthat flood water would come into contact with, and potentially erode thebase of these landfill slopes.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Two representative soil samples were obtained from each side slope onJuly 1, 1987. The samples were obtained with a hand spatula, from adepth of 0 to 6 inches (0" to 6"). The two samples from each side slopewere composited, resulting in 4 samples. The samples were submitted toLaw Engineering, located in Houston, Texas, and analyzed for cohesion(consolidated, drained), angle of internal friction (consolidated, drained),and wet weight. (See Table 1 and Attachment B.)
SAFETY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Factors of safety for rotational (overturning and resisting momements)stability were determined for the east, north, west and southwest slopesat each sampling point. The "Geotechnical Analysis for Review of DikeStability" (GARDS) software program was utilized for this analysis.Acceptable safety factors are included as Table 2. In all cases, thecalculated safety factors exceeded the recommended minimum safetyfactors (see Attachment B).
(Note: Because of the non-homogeneity of the slopes, the confidence ofthe strength measurements for each slope should be considered "low", asindicated on Table 2.)
SLOPE INCLINE ANALYSIS
Data from the topographic survey were used to calculate slopeinclination angles at 250-foot intervals along the east, north, west andsouthwest faces of the landfill. Slope inclination angles were notcalculated for the southeast slope of the landfill. (The southeast slopesupports the main access road for the landfill and is the principallocation of solid waste transfer operations. As such, the slope has beenmodified repeatedly during the course of the RI by road-workingequipment to maintain site access and to facilitate solid waste transferoperations.)
TABLE 1
MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILLSLOPE EROSION STUDY
SOIL PARAMETERS
LOCATION LOCATIONNO. (SITE GRID
COORDINATES)
1 NORTH SLOPE(13SON 529W)
2 WEST SLOPE(11 SON 985W)
3 SOUTHWEST SLOPE(34ON 562W)
4 EAST SLOPE(775N 103W)
SOILDESCRIPTION
DARK YELLOWISHBROWN SILTY FINETO MEDIUM SAND
DARK YELLOWISHBROWN SILTY FINE
SAND W/ CLAY BALLS
YELLOWISH BROWNSILTY CLAY
YELLOWISH BROWNCLAYEY SILTY FINETO MEDIUM SAND
WET WEIGHT(LBS/CU FT)
1O6.6
112.4
123.0
111.7
COHESION(LBS/SO FT)
3OO
O
2OO
100
ANGLE OFINTERNALFRICTION
(DEGREES)
39
50
15.5
43
I
TABLE 2
MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE LANDFILLRECOMMENDED MINIMUM FACTORS OF SAFETY
FOR SLOPE STABILITY (1)
00
SHEAR STRENGTH CONFIDENCE OF RECOMMENDEDPARAMETER STRENGTH MINIMUM
MEASUREMENT FACTOR OFSAFETY
CU (2)
CD (3) (LONG-TERM. NOSEISMIC EFFECTS)
CD (3) (LONG-TERM. W/SEISMIC EFFECTS)
LOW (4)HIGH (5)
LOW (4)HIGH (5)
LOW (4)HIGH (5)
1.501.3O
1.6O1.40
1.5O1.30
1) OBTAINED FROM THE "GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR REVIEWOF DIKE STABILITY" (CARDS) VERSION 2.0, SOFTWARE PROGRAM
2) CU - CONFINED, UNDRAINED
3) CD - CONFINED. DRAINED
4) THE CONFIDENCE OF THE STENGTH MEASUREMENTS IS LOWEST WHENTHE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE COMPLEX AND WHEN THE AVAILABLESTRENGTH DATA DO NOT PROVIDE A CONSISTENT. COMPLETE ANDLOGICAL PICTURE OF THE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS.
5) THE CONFIDENCE OF THE STRENGHT MEASUREMENTS IS HIGHESTWHEN THE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE UNIFORM AND HIGH QUALITYSTRENGTH TEST DATA PROVIDE A CONSISTENT. COMPLETE ANDLOGICAL PICTURE OF THE STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS.
Rollins Environmental Services PS) Inc.
Table 3 presents a summary of slope inclination angles with respect toeach landfill face.
The data presented in Table 3 indicate that the western slope (see Figure1) exhibits the greatest angle of incline, therefore this slope shouldpotentially exhibit the greatest amount of erosion (all other conditionsbeing equal). This hypothesis has been supported to date by fieldobservations.
The landfill slope that exhibits the smallest average slope angle, thesouthwest face, should potentially exhibit the least amount of erosion.However, this has not been found to be the case, based on fieldobservations.
The southwest and south slopes have experienced erosion almost to thesame extent as the west face. Therefore, because all of the averagelandfill slopes are within a small range (21.78% to 23.97% or 12.29 to13.48 degrees) slope incline angle does not appear to be the majordetermining factor for predicting erosion potential for landfill faces atMDSL.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of data obtained during the field reconnaissance, thetopographic survey and the incline analysis, the drainage features andvolume of water intercepted and discharged across portions of the landfillhave been determined to be the most significant factors affecting on-siteerosion. Therefore, the landfill slopes anticipated to experience thegreatest amount of erosion induced by natural causes in the future arethe west and southwest slopes. The southeast slope also exhibits thepotential for continued erosion, however the principal causes of erosionin this area of the landfill are truck traffic and solid wastetransfer/disposal activities.
Any on-site remedial alternative evaluated as part of this project shouldinclude provisions to:
Recontour the landfill cover to reduce the overland flow ofrunoff in a westerly direction.
Improve the west and southwest landfill faces by repairing thegullies and establishing a vegetative cover.
Modify the slope incline in the southeast portion of the landfillto promote slope stability and the growth of a grass cover.
Improve the vegetative cover of the east slope by sodding andreseeding surface areas that display the presence of slag and/orconstruction/demolition debris.
Stabilize the toe portions of the landfill slopes that will bepotentially impacted by the occurrence of a 100-year flood.
LANDFILL SLOPE AVERAGE SLOPESLOPE LOCATION LANDFILL SURFACE(COORDINATES) ELEVATION (MSL)
EAST FACE
200 NORTH450 NORTH700 NORTH950 NORTH1200 NORTH
NORTH FACE
250 EAST500 EAST750 EAST
WEST FACE
1200 NORTH950 NORTH700 NORTH
SOUTHWEST FACE
900 EAST, 650 CAST1 400 EAST
838840841843845
845846843
842842842
841841837
LANDFILL TOEELEVATION (HSL)
830.17830.17830.17830.17830.17
831828828
832829828
824824823
LATERAL SLOPEDISTANCE (FEET)
3755404772
657569
405067
878057
INCLINATIONSLOPE X (DEGREE ANGLE)
21.1617.8727.0827.3020.60
21.5424.0021.74
25.0026.0020.90
19.5421.2524.56
(11.95)(10.13)(15.15)(15.27)(11.64)
(12.16)(13.50)(12.27)
(14.04)(14.57)(11.80)
(11.06)(12.00)(13.80)
INCLINATIONSLOPE X (DEGREE ANGLE)
22.80 (12.84)
22.43 (12.64)
23.97 (13.48)
21.78 (12.29)
NOTE: LANDFILL SLOPE ANGLE (EXPRESSED AS PERCENT) = (LANDFILL SURFACE ELEVATION • LANDFILL TOE ELEVATION) * 100 / LATERAL DISTANCE
BETWEEN SURFACE AND TOESLOPE INCLINATION ANGLE (EXPRESSED AS DEGREE) = arc tan OF [SLOPE ANGLE (PERCENT) / 100)
Rollins Environmental Services IFSJ Inc.
ATTACHMENT A
TOPOGRAPHIC SITE MAP
* ** C A R D S S U M M A R Y ** ** Project: MDSL DIKE STABILITY ** File: MDSL-N ** #-* CARDS Version 2-00 ** developed by ** Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering ** Un i v e r s i t y o f C i n c inna t i ** under contract to ** U«S- Environmental Protection Agency ** Land Pollution Control Division ** Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory ** *
Site Characteristics
* ** The seismic coefficient is 0-07 ** ** The design earthquake magnitude is 6-10 ** ** The maximum flood elevation in this case is O ** ** The elevation of the seasonal high ground water is. • 0 ** ** The design waste elevation in the cell is O ** ** The soil number representing the clav liner is. ... 0 ** *
Section Geometry
**
•*
**
•»
•*#*
*
**
*
*****
The number of soil
Line 1 Point
1•->
Line 2 Point
1j3
Line 3 P o i n t
12
Line 4 Point
12T*•_'
45
boundary lines for
X
90185
X
901751S5
X
90.145
X
90100145173135
this section is 4
Y
825325
Y
S27£27S27
Y
OTc1>_• •-• •_•
i-; "*. 1
Y
S45S45o =;
;I; •"• ~!
327
*#
*
**
*
***
*
*•*
#
*****
Soil 1 Properties
******
*******#****
Un c o n s o 1 i da t e d ConsolidatedUndrained Undrained
There were no fac to rs of safe ty less than 2-5**
ZolhK. EfhironmenLfj; Ser>,:.?^ -s
ATTACHMENT B
GEOTECHNICAL RESULTS/WORKSHEETS/GARDS PRINTOUT
Ml
0.3 KSFCOHESION, c -SHEAR ANGLE,* 390
KU,
r^2
V>6.
<stw>Ultc.
AR \
5 0 \-1.0 2.0 3.0
NORMAL STRESS, o. IN KIPS PER SQ. FT.
2.0
INITIAL PROPERTIES: AVG.
U N I T W F I G H T , V 59.9WATER CONTENT," w 6.5vnin R A T i n , P 0.655SATURATION^ 26.2
100. C6.6
0.65J26.8
loo.;6.:
0.64J25.3
100.2671
0.65(726. T
SAMPLE nP.rPTPTTHN. Park Yel lowish
Rrnu/n, «;iUy Finp tn Mpdiiim
As recievea moisiure content. O . D A
DIRECT SHEAR TESTRevised 11/2/87
SAMPLE NO..DEPTH
BORING NO.._ JOB NO. HT-2264-B7G
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANYDIRECT SHEAR TEST
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE M.D.S.L.- MILWAUKEE, HT-2264-87GSAMPLE NUMBER 1, NORTH SIDE SLOPESAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAh
SAMPLE PROPERTIESCONSOLIDATION PRESSURESTRAIN RATEHEIGHTDIAMETER OR SIDEWET UNIT WEIGHTMOISTURE CONTENTDRY UNIT WEIGHTINITIAL VOID RATIOINITIAL SATURATION
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE M.D.S.L.- MILWAUKEE, HT-2264-87GSAMPLE NUMBER 1, NORTH SIDE SLOPESAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAb
SAMPLE PROPERTIESCONSOLIDATION PRESSURESTRAIN RATEHEIGHTDIAMETER OR SIDEWET UNIT WEIGHTMOISTURE CONTENTDRY UNIT WEIGHTINITIAL VOID RATIOINITIAL SATURATION
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE M.D.S.L.- MILWAUKEE, HT-2264-87GSAMPLE NUMBER 1, NORTH SIDE SLOPESAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS DARK YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SA
A complete data set for a given case consists of defining the basicgeometry, soil properties, seepage conditions to be analyzed and thestability analysis options to be performed.
Forms for each of these criteria are provided. Use as many soilboundary line sheets as necessary to define the geometry, one soilboundary line per sheet. Also, use as many soil property sneets asnecessary, one soil per sheet.
Sneet of
A. DIKE GEOMETRY
Number of soil boundary lines for this section: t"'
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: 1
Number of points on soil boundary line II :
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORO Y-COORD
1 ^02 'S r3
4
5
6
7-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3**~ 21
S"2S 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: _
Nunoer of points on soil boundary line *_1— : 2
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORO POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORO
1 **2 'IT
3 /irr
4
5
6
7
8
Q
10
1112
13
72- - 21
S"2.1- 22
S->* 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
14 34
15
16
17
18
35
36
37
38
19 39
20 40
Snee: of
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: ?
Number of points on soil boundary line *_•»_ : 2.
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
i *,o s- r" 212 !J*£~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
***~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
SOIL 33'JNDARY LIME NO: S
Nun&er of points on soil Doundary line f*_T_ : r^
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-C003D Y-COO?Q
Average standard penetration resistance: (blows/ft)
Sheet of
C. DRAINAGE SPECIFICATION
Metnod of Input: Internal Generation of Piezometric Surface
Manual Input of Piezometric Surface
INTERNAL GENERATION OF PHREATIC SURFACE
1. DEEP STATIC
Elevation of deep static groundwater table
2. SHALLOW SEEPAGE
Elevation of shallow seepage groundwater table
Soil number representing clay liner (0 if none)
3. FREE POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximium upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner (0 if none)
4. SHALLOW CONFINED SEEPAGE
Maximum shallow groundwater elevation
Design waste elevation in the cell
Soil nunber representing clay liner_
5. CONFINED POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximun upstream pool
Design waste elevation in the cell
Soil number representing clay liner_
6. DRAWDOWN POOL
Elevation of maximun upstrean pool
Soil number representing clay liner_
Sheet of
MANUAL INPUT OF PHREATIC SURFACE
POINT NO. X-COORD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
••" '•••"" , - • — / —i ; /1 i /
/; • /1 ] /' /
-*
<5>
5
Cfl^^ gil -2
• S^>^ <J
J.-ft. -»-U
o
^-fr' ( 3
"V7
-cv
O-o- e- - - o o.
4/2..'
IS"
r
COHESION, c _SHEAR ANGLE,»
0.0 KSF
INITIAL PROPERTIES:AVG.
UNIT WEIGHT, WATER CONTENT,VOID RATIO, eSATURATION, £
S9.9w 6.50.655
100. C6.6
0.65;26.2 26.*
loo.;6.
0.64.25.3
100.2prf6.5x
0.65026.1 t
u.• 2
tcUlft.
V»
2
X
1
H
ec
Ul //9
7
//
.J
CAuni r nrcrot DTtrtu far K TCI luwibii
Rrflkin *\ i l tv FinP tn Mprliim "-ianH
As reclevW mdHtur'e COrttertt: 6.5i
1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL STRESS, o, IN KIPS PER SQ. FT.
SAMPLE NO..
DEPTH
BORING NO.._ ,JOB NO. HT-2264-B7G
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
* ** T R A N S L A T I O N A L F A I L U R E R E S U L T S ** ** ** Translational failure analysis was not performed. ** *
* RECOMMENDED MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR SLOPE STABILITY*+************#*#****#***+***##**#*****#+**************###****-***+*-**i* Shear Strength Confidence of Recommended* Parameter Strength Measurement Minimum F-S.
* UU (end of construction, no low 1 .40* waste or pool containment) high 1 • 2O** CU low 1.50* high 1 .3O
* CU (drawdown pool condition) low 1-4O* high 1.20** CD (long-term, no seismic low l.tO* effects) high 1-40** CD (long—term with seismic low 1-50* effects) high 1-30** If the dike > 3O feet in height, add 0.1O to the F.S- in each case.
* ** S E T T L E M E N T R E S U L T S ** ** Settlement analysis was not performed- ** *
* •** L I Q U E F A C T I O N R E S U L T S ** ** Liquefaction analysis was not performed. ** *
**#****
*
*
*
*
File: MDSL-NProject: MDSL
G
DIKEHydraulic Condition
Rotat
T P «i n s
Sett 1
i o n a 1
1 a t i o n
A P. D S S U M M A R Y
Date: 11-20-1987 Time: lt:4l:0lSTABILITY7: User Defined
Failure Safety Factor . . . . >= 2-50
****•**#
*
*
•£
*
1.00
0.75
lo 0.50
0.25
. = 0.2
Formulas:
tan c( = sin
C = Tf~~
0 = 15.5°
C = 0.2
0.25 0.50 0.75 1 7 0 0 1 > 2 5 i.50 1.75
P (ksf)
Sample Number 3Yel lowish Brown Silty CLAY
LAW ENGINEERING
HOUSTON TEXAS
M.D.S.L. - Milwaukee
Law Engineering Project No. HT-2264-87G
EFFECTIVE COHESION.c'JIKSL.EFFECTIVE SHEAR ANGLE, f .35.1TOTAL COHESION, c _JL_LJiSE_TOTAL SHEAR ANGLE, f2_L
READING SIG1 PWP EFF EFF TOTAL EFF Q P Q/PNUMBER (KSF) (KSF) SIG1 SIG3 STRESS STRESS (KSF) (KSF)
(KSF) (KSF) RATIO RATIO MIT PARAMETERS123456789
1.302.652.722.802.782.882.962.963.03
.00
.29
.43
.50
.59
.63
.66
.63
.60
1.302.362 .292.302.192.252.292.322 . 4 2
1.301.01
.86
.79
.71
.66
.63
.66
.69
1.002.042.102.162.152 .222.282.282.34
1.002.342.652.903.103.393.623.513.50
.00
.67
.71
.75
.74
.79
.83
.83
.87
1.301.681.581.551.451.451.461.491.56
.00
.40
.45
.49
.51
.54
.57
.56
.5610 3.07 .59 2.48 .71 2.37 3.51 .89 1.59 .56
Sheet 1 of
C A R D S
Input Data Format
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Identification^
Data File Name: F\O*>L - 3
Seismic Coefficient:
Design Earthquake Magnitude: £• /
A complete data set for a given case consists of defining the basicgeometry, soil properties, seepage conditions to be analyzed and thestability analysis options to be performed.
Forms for each of these criteria are provided. Use as many soilboundary line sheets as necessary to define the geometry, one soilboundary line per sheet. Also, use as many soil property sheets asnecessary, one soil per sheet.
Sneet of
A. DIKE GEOMETRY
Number of soil boundary lines for this section: -*
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: 1
Number of points on soil boundary line II : ^
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
1 Oto *>l° 21
2 f7T ZT-*3
4
5
6
7-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
9 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sne-r.
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: 2-
Nunber of points on soil boundary line /»_£_ : -^
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORO POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
1 '3 s2 ( 30
3 /?:4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sli" 21
*»•*••/ 22
r *f 2324
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sneet of
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: _J_
Number of points on soil boundary line * : $»
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-CQORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-C003D
1 ^2 rtf
3 'fsr4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
*2-<r 21-8Z5~ 22
S'ZS" 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sneet of
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: ^
Number of points on soil boundary line ^ H : ^_
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-C003D
Average standard penetration resistance: (blows/ft)
Sheet of
C. DRAINAGE SPECIFICATION
Method of Input: Internal Generation of Piezometric Surface
Manual Input of Piezometric Surface
INTERNAL GENERATION OF PHREATIC SURFACE
1. DEEP STATIC
Elevation of deep static groundwater table
2. SHALLOW SEEPAGE
Elevation of shallow seepage groundwater table
Soil nunber representing clay liner (0 if none)
3. FREE POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximium upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner (0 if none)_
4. SHALLOW CONFINED SEEPAGE
Maximum shallow groundwater elevation
Design waste elevation 1n the cell
Soil nunber representing clay liner_
5. CONFINED POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximum upstream pool
Design waste elevation in the cell
Soil number representing clay liner_
6. DRAWDOWN POOL
Elevation of maximum upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner
Sheet of
MANUAL INPUT OF PHREATIC SURFACE
POINT NO. X-COORD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sheet of
D. ROTATIONAL FAILURE SEARCH SCHEMES
| x j Internally generated grid search
Grid Point No.
1
2
3
I | User defined grid search
X-Coordinate
Number of divisions between points #1 and #2:
Number of divisions between points 12 and #3:
X-increment for search:
Y-increment for search:
IZ~I User defined point search
Number of centers to be analyzed:
Point No. X-Coordinate
1
2
3
4
5
X-increment for search:_
Y-increment for search:
Y-Coordinate
Y-Coordinate
Sheet of
E. TRANSLATION FAILURE (WEDGE) SEARCH SCHEMES
|~n Automatic wedge search
| | User defined wedge
X-coordinate left side of central blockX-coordinate right side of central block
F. SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
u u I i unconsolidated - undrained
CU |"~| consolidated - undrained
CD j"~| consolidated - drained
G. OTHER STABILITY ANALYSES
|~~| settlement
| j liquefaction
?0
//{
P£oi ILCL- _?o<j7jj r^-uri _ . .ZOIL_?
X
/CD
F,
u)j-*
'A
#•
a.
3.
-rvN:
Iw y
160
dJfZ* , 7
a
c.c
T
o
i'
0
/c/
*r
a
-is:
/07
/ /S"
* ** C A R D S S U M M A R Y ** ** Project: MDSL DIKE STABILITY #* File: MDSL-S . ** ** CARDS Version 2.00 ** developed by ** Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering ** University of Cincinnati ** under contract to ** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ** Land Pollution Control Division ** Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory ** *
Site Characteristics*#***•**•*•***•»•**•**#*#•**•*•#•*••*•<
* ** The seismic coefficient is • 0-07 ** ** The design earthquake magnitude is 6-10 ** ** The maximum flood elevation in this case is . . . . . O ** ** The elevation of the seasonal high ground water is. • O *» ** The design waste elevation in the cell is O ** ** The soil number representing the clay liner is- ... 0 ** *
S e c t i o n G e o m e t r y
**
****
**#**
##***
****
***#***
The number of soil boundary
Line 1 Point
12
Line 2 Point
123
Line 3 Point
123
Line 4 Point
12
Line 5 Point
1•-i1
34
^
1 ines
X
90185
X
175ISO185
X
901751S5
X
90150
X
901001501751S5
for this section is 5
Y
82082O
Y
82582482 a
Y
825825825
Y
83O83O
Y
84084083O825825
**
****
*****
****#
****
#******
Soil 1 Properties
******
*#***•***
*»*•>
Un consolidate'! ConsolidatedUn dra i n e d Un dra i n e d
Cohesion 0 0Phi Angle 0 0
Over con so lidation Ratio • • • •
Standard Penetration Number . .h******-************-**********-*******-*-***-*
* U s e r D e f i n e cl ** Piezomett-i c Surface for Hydraulic Condition ** 7! User Defined *
* #* Point X Y ** ** 1 90 325 ** 2 185 S25 *
Hydraulics Results**********-**-***********-tH
* ** Seepage In O-OOO (cu-ft/yr) ** ** Seepage Out 0-000 (cu-ft/yr) ** ** Critical Exit Gradient . . . 0-000 ** ** For this hydraulic condition there is no liner uplift- *
********•*•*
**
**
#
*
***u
»
R
The siareas
.£..£..£..*..£..£.£..£..£.
Co-ord.
XY
TheTheThe1 IIC
Thei i i t?
O T A T I O N A L
Automat
opes were analyzeddefined by the fol4t .g. 4t 4t .£ .g .£ 4t 4t .£ 4t .£. ,)t t 4t £. 4t 4t
Point 1
10O344
F A I L U R E
ic Grid Search
for f ai lure arcslowing parallelogr.£..£..£.£.£..£..£..£.£..*..*..£..£..£..*..£..£..£
UU (end of construction, nowaste or pool containment)
CU
CU (drawdown pool condition)
CD ([long-term, no seismiceffects)
CD (long-term with seismiceffects)
If the dike > 30 feet in height,
1 owhigh
lowh igh
lowhigh
1 owhigh
1 owh i g h
add O.10 to the F-S.
Re commendedMin imum F • S •
11
11
11
11
11
in each
• dO
• 20
. 50
. 3O
.dO• 2O
. SO
.dO
. 50
. 30
case •
**
***#*•*•*»#*#*•*#**
» ** S E T T L E M E N T R E S U L T S ** #* Settlement analysis was not performed- ** *
* ** L I Q U E F A C T I O N R E S U L T S ** ** Liquefaction analysis was not performed. ** *
**#****
*
£.
4t
£.
£.
4t
#
C A R D S S U M M A R Y
File: MDSL-S Date: 1 1-20-1987 Time:Project: MDSL DIKE STABILITYHydraulic Condition 7: User Defined
Rotational Failure Analysis Safety Factor
It.: 53: 27
Pin-,P 1 t Ti
1 . SS
P 1 | \;
P i in
Run
**#****
*
.£
>
•K.
-£.
*
#
rii
|-JO /so (60
Sheet 1 of
G A R D S
Input Data Format
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Identification: ftM^SL- 1>ix£
Data File Name: AlG?S*- - ^
Seismic Coefficient:
Design Earthquake Magnitude:
A complete data set for a given case consists of defining the basicgeometry, soil properties, seepage conditions to be analyzed and thestability analysis options to be performed.
Forms for each of these criteria are provided. Use as many soilboundary line sheets as necessary to define the geometry, one soilboundary line per sheet. Also, use as many soil property sheets asnecessary, one soil per sheet.
Sheet of
A. DIKE GEOMETRY
Number .of soil boundary lines for this section: 5
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: 1
Number of points on soil boundary line II : 2^
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
1 ^O
2 l<*0
3
4
5
6
7-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?a5~~ 21
SvXS""" 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Snee:
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: £
Number of points on soil boundary line t 2. : 'S.
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
Average standard penetration resistance: (blows/ft)
Sheet of
C. DRAINAGE SPECIFICATION
Method of Input: Internal Generation of Piezometric Surface
Manual Input of Piezometric Surface
INTERNAL GENERATION OF PHREATIC SURFACE
1. DEEP STATIC
Elevation of deep static groundwater table
2. SHALLOW SEEPAGE
Elevation of shallow seepage groundwater table
Soil number representing clay liner (0 if none)_
3. FREE POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximium upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner (0 if none)_
4. SHALLOW CONFINED SEEPAGE
Maximum shallow groundwater elevation
Design waste elevation in the cell
Soil nunber representing clay liner_
5. CONFINED POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximum upstream pool
Design waste elevation 1n the cell
Soil number representing clay liner_
6. DRAWDOWN POOL
Elevation of maximum upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner
Sheet of
MANUAL INPUT OF PHREATIC SURFACE
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sheet of
D. ROTATIONAL FAILURE SEARCH SCHEMES
| x | Internally generated grid search
Grid Point No.
1
2
3
| | User defined grid search
X-Coordinate
Number of divisions between points #1 and #2:
Number of divisions between points #2 and #3:
X-increment for search:
Y-increment for search:
| | User defined point search
Number of centers to be analyzed:
Point No. X-Coordinate
1
2
3
4
5
X-increment for search:
Y-increment for search:
Y-Coordinate
Y-Coordinate
Sheet of
E. TRANSLATIONAL FAILURE (WEDGE) SEARCH SCHEMES
| | Automatic wedge search
1 | User defined wedge
X-coordinate left side of central blockX-coordinate right side of central block
F. SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
U U 1 j unconsolidated - undrained
CU |j consolidated - undrained
C D j | consolidated - drained
G. OTHER STABILITY ANALYSES
|| settlement
| I liquefaction
COHESION, c_^SHEAR ANGLE,*
KSF
43°
c^2
**•
V»
Ul
1.0 2.0 3.0
INITIAL PROPERTIES: AVG.
UNIT HEIGHT! Xf "*9
WATER CONTENT, wli 7VOIP RATIO, f 0 £*>*SATURATION, $ 47.3
99T.4
1? 4Q.66'49.5
99". 4
i? 10,663
49.2
TO* f
i? i t0.66148. 7 t
(_//
y•y
(•*//
// QJAMPIF nFsrRlPTTQN. Yellowish Brown Clayeybiity nne to Medium band
As recieved Moisture Lontent: 11. /X
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
NORMAL STRESS, o, IN KIPS PER SQ. FT.
SAMPLE N0.__i_ BORING NO
DEPTH JOB NO. HT-2264-87G
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANYDIRECT SHEAR TEST
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE M.D.S.L.- MILWAUKEE, HT-2264-87GSAMPLE NUMBER 4, EAST SIDE SLOPESAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS YELLOWISH BROWN CLAYEY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND
SAMPLE PROPERTIESCONSOLIDATION PRESSURE = .20STRAIN RATE = .0096HEIGHT = .99DIAMETER OR SIDE = 2.50WET UNIT WEIGHT = 111.6MOISTURE CONTENT = 11.69DRY UNIT WEIGHT = 99.9INITIAL VOID RATIO = .655INITIAL SATURATION = 47.3
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE M.D.S.L.- MILWAUKEE, HT-2264-87GSAMPLE NUMBER 4, EAST SIDE SLOPESAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS YELLOWISH BROWN CLAYEY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND
SAMPLE PROPERTIESCONSOLIDATION PRESSURESTRAIN RATEHEIGHTDIAMETER OR SIDEWET UNIT WEIGHTMOISTURE CONTENTDRY UNIT WEIGHTINITIAL VOID RATIOINITIAL SATURATION
PROJECT NAME & NO. ARE M.D.S.L.- MILWAUKEE, HT-2264-87GSAMPLE NUMBER 4, EAST SIDE SLOPESAMPLE IDENTIFICATION IS YELLOWISH BROWN CLAYEY SILTY PINE TO MEDIUM SAND
SAMPLE PROPERTIESCONSOLIDATION PRESSURE = 1.00STRAIN RATE = .0096HEIGHT = .99DIAMETER OR SIDE = 2.50WET UNIT WEIGHT = 111.7MOISTURE CONTENT = 12.31DRY UNIT WEIGHT = 99.4INITIAL VOID RATIO = .663INITIAL SATURATION = 49.2
A complete data set for a given case consists of defining the basicgeometry, soil properties, seepage conditions to be analyzed and thestability analysis options to be performed.
Forms for each of these criteria are provided. Use as many soilboundary line sheets as necessary to define the geometry, one soilboundary line per sheet. Also, use as many soil property sheets asnecessary, one soil per sheet.
Sheet of
A. DIKE GEOMETRY
Number .of soil boundary lines for this section: S
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: 1
Number of points on soil boundary line II : ^~
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
1 So
2 /SiT
3
4
5
6
7-
8
9
IQ
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
*2:T 21
Tii'" 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Snee: of
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: _%_
Number of points on soil boundary line * 2- : 3
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
1 /So ? *
2 /rV **'3 W *;4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 21
*« 22
^ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Snee:
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: J_
Number of points on soil boundary line *J _ : *-__
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
1 4o 33®
2 (*><=> f 2»<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sneet
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO: ^
Number of points on soil boundary line t *v : 2-
POINT NO. X-COORO Y-COORO POINT NO. X-COORO Y-COORD
I ?&
2 /Z/3-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
% 5£~ 21
S ?S~ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
SOIL BOUNDARY LINE NO:
Number of points on soil boundary line #_
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORO Y-COORD
Average standard penetration resistance: (blows/ft)
Sheet of
C. DRAINAGE SPECIFICATION
Method of Input: Internal Generation of Piezometric Surface
Manual Input of Piezometric Surface
INTERNAL GENERATION OF PHREATIC SURFACE
1. DEEP STATIC
Elevation of deep static groundwater table
2. SHALLOW SEEPAGE
Elevation of shallow seepage groundwater table
Soil nunber representing clay liner (0 if none)
3. FREE POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximium upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner (0 if none)_
4. SHALLOW CONFINED SEEPAGE
Maximum shallow groundwater elevation
Design waste elevation 1n the cell
Soil nunber representing clay liner_
5. CONFINED POOL SEEPAGE
Elevation of maximum upstream pool
Design waste elevation 1n the cell
Soil number representing clay liner_
6. DRAWDOWN POOL
Elevation of maximum upstream pool
Soil number representing clay liner
Sheet of
MANUAL INPUT OF PHREATIC SURFACE
POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD POINT NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Sheet of
D. ROTATIONAL FAILURE SEARCH SCHEMES
| x | Internally generated grid search
Grid Point No.
1
2
3
| | User defined grid search
X-Coordinate
Number of divisions between points #1 and #2:
Number of divisions between points #2 and #3:
X-increment for search:
Y-increment for search:
| I User defined point search
Number of centers to be analyzed:
Point No. X-Coordinate
1
2
3
4
5
X-increment for search:_
Y-increment for search:
Y-Coordinate
Y-Coordinate
Sheet of
E. TRANSLATIONAL FAILURE (WEDGE) SEARCH SCHEMES
| | Automatic wedge search
| | User defined wedge
X-coordinate left side of central blockX-coordinate right side of central block
F. SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
UU l~"j unconsolidated - undrained
CU |~"j consolidated - undrained
CD L~| consolidated - drained
G. OTHER STABILITY ANALYSES
|~"| settlement
|~l liquefaction
JL 0/1/M
t"-
/O 121
01
02A 37
o
30 IOO
- 10
**
********
C A R D S S U M M A P. Y
Project: MDSL DIKE STABILITTYFile: MDSL-W
i 00CARDS Version :developed by
Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUn iversity of C i n c i n n a t i
under contract toU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Land Pollution Control DivisionHazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
*•******•**#**
Site Characteristics
****#****•w-#*
Thie seismic coefficient is
The design earthquake magnitude is
The maximum flood elevation in this case is •
The elevation of the seasonal high ground water is
The design waste elevation in the cell is • • • •
The soil number representing the clay liner is. •
-r-*.» #**##**
*
•**••**•*•***•*•*
O . O7
fc - 10
0
o
o
*******
*
***••••"
»
*•»••<•*-'
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
•*
*
*
*
*
*
#
•*
*
fr-***-******-**-** *•***•••*******-**•••*•<
Section
The number of soil boundary
Line 1 Point
1•7'
Line 2 Point
123
Line 3 Point
1
^3
Line 4 P o i n t
12
L i n e 5 Point
1•".'
TJ
4e-
(•**-»*** ..*.H«.i
Geometry*•#•****•*•*•-*•*-'
lines f o r
X
90185
X
1501541S5
X
90150185
X
90127
X
901 001271501S5
(.****** .*** + . *.-*-)(-**
(.*.*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..**..*..*..*.•*
this section is
Y
S25i-. --1 e1
Y
S3OS29S29
Y
S3083083 O
Y
8 3 5835
Y
841841I-' "
830830
•*•-*•*****•*••**•*.*
#5 *
*
*
*
*
***
*
**•*
*
*
*
•«•
***•**
Soil 1 Properties[••*•«• *•*•*•* *•*•#*••* #*
*
•ft•ft•ft•ft•ft*
•ft•ft•ft•ft•ft-•ft•ft•ft•ft•ft•ft•ft
Un con so 1 i da t ed Con so 1 i da tedUn d r a i n e d U n d r a i n e d
C o h e s i o n 0 0Phi A n g l e 0 0
U n i t W e i g h t 1
O v e r - c o n s o l i d a t i o n R a t i o . . . .
P l a s t i c i t y I n d e x
S tandard P e n e t r a t i o n N u m b e r - •
Con so 1 i da tedD r a i n e d
0 < 1 b / 5 q . f t >50 ( d e g r e e s )
12.400 < l b / c u . f t )0-000 (%)0 - 000O • 0000 • 000o . oooO-OOO ( f t / y r - >0 • 000 ( mm >0 • 000 ( % ;•0 • OOO ( % )O - O O O ( ' b l o w s / f t ' . )
* User Defined ** Piezometric Surface for Hydraulic Condition ** 7: User Defined *
* ** Point X Y *
* 1 90 330 ** 2 135 S30 *
Hv d r a ulies Results«•*•****#**#**•*•****•*••*•
* Seepage In O-OOO (cu-ft/yr) ** ** Seepage Out 0-000 (cu-ft/yr) *» ** Critical Exit Gradient • . . O-OOO ** ** For this hydraulic condition there is no liner uplift. ** *
*•*•**•*#**•*•#****&
*#
•*##•g.
4t
*
#**
R
—
The siareas
•*•#•* #*•***#
Co-ord •
XY
TheTheThe1 IIC
TKo1 I * C
0 T A T I 0 N A L
Automat i
opes were analyzeddefined by the foil
Point 1
100844
F A I L U R E R E S U .L T S
c Grid Search
for failure arcs having centers inowing parallelograms:
Slope 1
Point 2 Point 3 Point 4
150 Ifcl 111S33 S52 S63
number of divisions between points 1 and 2 were 4number of divisions between points 2 and 3 were 4X "" i ri c i~* s m s v*i t 1 1 s G >rl xY~- i \"\ r !"• P rti P TI t" 1 1 o i*i ix i P L. i cr 111 tr 1 1 i/ I.L a cr '_i A
***###*
****
*
*
•****#•*
•*•••*
***^ -M M- .K****
*****
**#
**
__R 0 T A T I
„ w . < ^ > L L M. M* M-Tf TTT^ TT TT TUP " IF TT TF TF TP IP TP TP
Hydraul
SafetyFactor-
2 . 292 • 40
0 N A L F
^ u ^L L^ ^ ^^ TP 'JPTPIPIPIPIPIP
ic Condition
Consol idateSeismic Coe
FailureRadius
13.4lfc-0
A I L LI R E RE
, L . ^ ^L^ <Mi -Up -A 4fc > A -A . JTTTP1PTPTPTpTriHP^**^WTP'ff-^*Tp1
7: User Defined
d Drained (CD) Casefficient = 0-07
X-C o - o r d
105-3105.3
S U L T S
Y-Co-or d
843.3845 • 3
*»*
<. " M r *****
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
* •** T R A N S L A T I O N A L F A I L L I R E R E S U L T S ** ** ** Translational failure analysis was not performed. ** *
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR SLOPE STABILITY
UU (end of construction, nowaste or pool containment)
CU
CU (drawdown pool condition)
CD (long-term, no seismiceffects)
CD (long-term with seismiceffects)
If the dike > 30 feet in height,
1h
1h
1h
1h
1h
add 0
owigh
owigh
owi gh
owi gh
owigh
.1C to the F.S.
Re commendedMin imum F • S-
11
11
11
11
11
in each
.40
. 2O
. 5O
. 30
. 40
.20
.to
.40
.50
.30
case .
##
******#•****•*#***
* ** S E T T L E M E N T R E S U L T S ** — ** Settlement analysis was not performed- ** *
* ** L I Q U E F A C T I O N R E S U L T S ** ** — Liquefaction analysis was not performed. ** *
* ** C A R D S S U M M A R Y ** — ** File: MDSL-W Date: 11-20-1937 Time: 17:05:17 ** Project: MDSL DIKE STABILITTY ** Hydraulic Condition 7: User Defined ** **. *.* Rotational Failure Analysis Safety Factor ** ** Unconsolidated Undrained Case Not Run ** Consolidated Undrained Case Not Run ** Consolidated Drained Case 2-29 *y _[ ^^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^ .^^ __ _B __ , t|_ _r J_l » ••i 10. __ _ ^ __ ^ ^^ •—^^«™ «_^^^ ^ ,• _« .1- - - _ _ _ _mm ^^ . _-_ „ _ _
* Trans lat i onal Failure Analysis Not Run ** ** Settlement Analysis • • Not Run *