The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081229.tiff • SLOPE STABILITY REPORT FOR NCCI PIT#1 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2006 PREPARED FOR: / ror .4411.10� S W NORTHERN COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 9075 WCR 10 FORT LUPTON, CO 80621 PREPARED BY: J&T Consulting, Inc. ha 1 1400 W. 122ND AVENUE-SUITE 120 WESTMINSTER, CO 80234 PHONE: 303-457-0735 EXHIBIT • FAX: 303-920-0343 1O 2008-1229 • CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify this slope stability analysis for Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc., the NCCI Pit #1, located in Weld County, Colorado was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. 6 Ito 3684 James C. York Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 36846 • • NCCI P##1 Slope Stability Analysis Page i Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Overview III. Geotechnical Data IV. Design Analysis and Criteria V. Methodology VI. Slope Stability Results VII. Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices Appendix A Slope Stability Case Location Map Appendix B Slope Stability Case Cross-Sections I• Appendix C Slope Stability Case Xstabl Output Appendix D Terracon 1999 Boring Location Map, 1999 Bore logs, 2002 Gravel Pit Liner Evaluation Appendix E USGS Map, Oct. 2002 revision — "Peak Acceleration (%g) with a 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs" • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis Page ii • I - INTRODUCTION Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. (NCCI) currently operates the NCCI Pit#1 aggregate mine located in the Northeast '/ of Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, Sixth P.M. in Weld County. The property is bounded by private property on the west and north, WCR 25 on the east, and WCR 18 on the south. United States Highway 85 is approximately one half mile east of the subject property. The mining operation will extract gravel reserves from locations adjacent to man-made structures. The rules and regulations of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) require that any mining within a setback of 200 feet of a man-made structure show through engineering analysis that the proposed mining will not cause damage to these structures. The accepted method of demonstrating this is through a slope stability analysis. This report contains an overview of the prior geotechnical investigation results by Terracon and the methodology used in the analysis of the mining slopes and their estimated affects on all man- made structures. Recommendations regarding acceptable setbacks from man-made structures have also been included. II - OVERVIEW NCCI plans to mine the property in one contiguous cell. The future use for this property is expected to be a lined water storage reservoir. The mined slopes will be reclaimed with a 3h:1v embankment constructed from clay shale and overburden. Concurrent reclamation is planned such that the reclaimed embankment will be constructed as the mining progresses. The reservoir cell will cover an estimated 55 surface acres when full. Actual surface area will depend on the final configuration of the reservoir after reclamation is complete. • III -GEOTECHNICAL DATA A preliminary geotechnical investigation and subsequent liner evaluation have been performed by Terracon. J&T Consulting, Inc. (JT) estimated soil strength parameters based on the information from the Terracon report and liner evaluation, which was provided to JT by NCCI, and other stability analyses that have been performed on gravel mining operations along the front range. Table 1 represents a summary of the soil strength parameters that were used in this stability analysis. Table 1 - Soil Properties Description . . Saturated Density Cohesion Internal Friction .c 's Anile Overburden 110 150 BallES Sand and Gravel 110 Weathered 0Illnala Mal Bedrock 100 Stable Bedrock mommiLtammardam 2000 20 • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis Page 1 • IV- DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA The proposed mining slopes were analyzed using the XSTABL v5 computer program. XSTABL was designed to analyze the slope stability of earth embankments subjected to several critical situations that may occur during the life of the embankment. Static and pseudo-static conditions were analyzed in each case. Pseudo-static peak acceleration factors were taken from USGS information for the western United States. The 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (the most conservative) was used. Surface loading equivalent to an HS 20 highway load was applied adjacent to each area to simulate heavy equipment loading that could be present at that location for maintenance or construction activities. There are existing oil and gas wells located in the areas where mining will occur. A surface use agreement with the Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Company (KMRMC) has been obtained for the wells, transmission lines, and production areas located on the west boundary of the property and in the northeast corner of the property. The setbacks from these wells, transmission lines, and production areas that are specified in this agreement will be maintained throughout the course of the mining activity. A surface use agreement with the KP Kaufman Company (KPK) is currently being negotiated but has not yet been finalized for the well and transmission line located approximately in the center of the property. The slope stability for the mining slope around the KPK well and adjacent to the transmission line has been analyzed in Case 3 below. NCCI will maintain the larger of the setbacks from these structures as specified in either the draft surface use agreement or from the slope stability analysis results. • For this project, five (5) cases were identified as critical during the mining operation: Case 1 — Existing Sand Hill Reservoir discharge channel to the south. The mining operation is adjacent to the Sand Hill Reservoir discharge channel in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 70 feet from the top of the north bank of the channel. The mining depth was assumed to be 37 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and liner investigation. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1 v for the top half of the slope. Case 2 — Existing Little Dry Creek to the west. The mining operation is adjacent to Little Dry Creek in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the top of the east bank of the creek. The mining depth was assumed to be 29 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and liner investigation. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1 v for the top half of the slope. Case 3 — Existing KPK Oil\Gas well and transmission line. The mining operation surrounds a KPK oil\gas well and is adjacent to the well's transmission line in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 60 feet around the well and 60 feet adjacent to the transmission line. The mining depth was assumed to be 37 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and liner investigation. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1 v for the top half of the slope. • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis Page 2 • Case 4 — Existing overhead electric transmission line and WCR 25 right-of-way to the east. The mining operation is adjacent to an overhead electric transmission line and the WCR 25 right-of way in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 60 feet from the transmission line and right-of way. The mining depth was assumed to be 37 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and liner investigation. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1 v for the top half of the slope. Case 5 — Existing overhead electric transmission line to the west. The mining operation is adjacent to an overhead electric transmission line in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the transmission line. The mining depth was assumed to be 27 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and liner investigation. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1 v for the top half of the slope. The cross-sections located in Appendix B show the proposed mining slope geometry, estimated phreatic surface, location of the man made structures relative to the mining slope, and location of the most critical slope failure surface for each case. V - METHODOLOGY The mining embankment configuration shown in the computer analysis represents the estimated conditions for this site. If mining conditions differ from the estimated conditions, the slope stability will need to be re-evaluated on a case by case basis. The Bishop Method was used in • the computer analysis for determining safety factors. The procedure searches for circular shear failures and automatically searches for the lowest safety factor. 1,000 separate failure surfaces were analyzed for each case. The required minimum safety factors are based on the current standards used by the Colorado State Engineer's Office (SEO) in evaluating embankment dams, and industry accepted standards for the evaluation of temporary structures during construction. VI -SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS The SEO requires minimum factor of safety of 1.25 for static condition analyses and 1.0 for pseudo-static (earthquake loading) condition analyses for Class I (high hazard) embankment dams. This design criteria was used to establish the desired minimum factors of safety for this project and should be considered as highly conservative for evaluating alluvial mining high walls. The calculated factors of safety are within the design criteria specified for this project and can be considered indicators of the high wall performance under the various conditions. The results of the static condition and pseudo-static condition slope stability analyses are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis Page 3 • Table 2 -Static Condition Slope Stability Analysis Results Required Calculated Factor Minimum Factor Description Of Safety Of Safety Case 1 1.25 1.25 Case 2 1.29 1.25 Case 3 1.26 1.25 Case 4 1.28 1.25 Case 5 1.28 1.25 Table 3 - Pseudo-Static Condition Slope Stability Analysis Results Required Calculated Factor Minimum Factor Description Of Safety Of Safety Case 1 1.07 1.00 Case 2 1.12 1.00 Case 3 1.09 1.00 Case4 1.11 1.00 Case 5 1.11 1.00 VII -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Case 1 -The resulting safety factor of 1.25 meets the SEC) minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.07 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 70 feet from the top of the north bank of the discharge channel is satisfactory. Case 2 -The resulting safety factor of 1.29 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.12 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the top of the east bank of Little Dry Creek is satisfactory. Case 3 -The resulting safety factor of 1.26 meets the SEC) minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.09 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 60 feet from the KPK oil\gas well and transmission pipeline is satisfactory. Case 4 - The resulting safety factor of 1.28 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.11 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 60 feet from the transmission line and WCR 25 right-of-way is satisfactory. Case 5 - The resulting safety factor of 1.28 meets the SEC) minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.11 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the transmission line is satisfactory. • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis Page 4 • The following recommendations for monitoring of slope stability should be followed: 1. A visual inspection of the excavated high walls should be done on a weekly basis for the first 6 months of mining. This inspection should consist of walking the existing ground and looking for any signs of stress cracks or other potential signs of slope failure. Some minor sloughing of high walls is expected on any mine site. The intent of this inspection is to locate potential major slope failures that could extend back into a structure. 2. A visual inspection should be done after a major precipitation event that has saturated the ground using the same procedures. A major precipitation event would be defined as a storm that produces an intensity level reached once in 50 years on the average. 3. If a visual inspection detects signs of a potential slope failure, qualified personnel should be contacted to evaluate and recommend remediation work to stabilize the area. 4. If no visible signs of slope failure are detected within the first 6 months, then the inspection period could be reduced to once per month or after every major precipitation event. • NCO Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis Page 5 • APPENDIX A • • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis ..._� 8 • ii I I I liI / I III NCCI PIT #1 I I I lk IIII I • CI II '1I \ � � ; ��'C CASE 5 m h" III II rG—, li l \ I I I Ca o It illI KERR McGEE I II; I OIL/GAS WELL ' / I I u r, / d 1 CA E 4 I ,o illIIi8 '/ KPK OIL/GAS -- I o II iIt ( WELL/ I i i • J 1 CASE 3 / II III LITTLE CDRY ASE 2REEK\ \ \ I I SAND HILL < \ \ I II I '1 I RESERVOIR V \ \ I t I DISCHARGE ® 1 CHANNEL — — — I I LEGEND: - - - - PROPERTY LINE flo CASE LOCATION EXISTING DITCH - - - - - MINING LIMIT - -o- - - OIL/GAS PIPELINE 400 200 0 400 - -r- - - EXISTING POWER I EXISTING R.O.W. SCALE IN FEET Date: 1 1/29/06 • v l UT Consulting, Inc. Northern Colorado Constructors, Inc. Jab No: 06109 1400W 122nd Avenue-Suite 120 NCCI PIT #1 Drown: WSS Westminster,CO 80234 NCCI Slope Stability Case Location Scale: 1" = 400' 303-457-0735 Sheet: 1 Of: 1 • APPENDIX B • • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis • • • 1-NCC 11 -27-s* 18:17 . ' 64 ' pa. Consulting, Inc. Case 1 — Sand Hill Channel 180 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .246 70' 150 _ Z � Z � s 5 = --- w1 / ______,-. '-,, ..------. a 120 - � - le Q 90 _ I 60 _ 30 I , I I , T , I I ' I I 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 X-AXIS (feet) • \U 1 -NCC-EQ 11 -27-** 18:20 qui JlT Consulting, Inc. V CASE 1 - SAND HILL CHANNEL - SEISMIC 180 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .071 70' 150 _ Z � Z H w a� 120 _ N Q 90 _ >- 60 _ 30 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 X—AXIS (feet) 2-NCC 11 -27-** 18:50 - J&T Consulting, Inc. V CASE 2 — LITTLE DRY CREEK 170 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .292 r 55' 140 _ " _ _ z � m J D O / 1 /1 m110 _ // X a 80 _ 1 >- 50 _ 20 II ' i T r i I I i I i i 1 185 215 245 275 305 335 365 395 425 X-AXIS (feet) • • • NI 2-NCC-EQ 11 -27-** 18:52 ' Js'I Consulting, Inc. CASE 2 - LITTLE DRY CREEK - SEISMIC 170 - 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 118 55' 140 _ 2 ~ �_ J O O -.w1 -tin () _ a) 4— (r) - X a 80 _ >- 50 _ 20 T ' T I ' I ' 185 215 245 275 305 335 365 395 425 X—AXIS (feet) • • 3-NCC 11-27-** 19:31 4 • J&I Consulting, Inc. CASE 3 - OIL\GAS WELL 180 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .255 60' - 150 _ z Z O 3 5 7i w1 IT) 120 _ - ' a) _ F f x < 90 _ >-- 60 _ 30 ' 1 ' 1 ' T 1 I ' I I I 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 X—AXIS (feet) • • • 3-NCC-EQ 11 -27-n 19:32 • JaT Consulting, Inc. id ' CASE 3 - OIL\GAS WELL - SEISMIC 180 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .093 60' - a 150 _ Z �� Z O 3 _w 6 120 _ a) in < 90 _ 60 _ 30 I I 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 X—AXIS (feet) • • • \U 4-NCC 11 -27-n 19:33 u � Jx I' Consulting, Inc. • CASE 4 - CR25 180 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .278 r 60' --0 o cr, So _ z � � IiU , wocco 5. J w w 1 eTh m 120 _ ___ 1e in - y it w x w >G Q 90 _ I >- 60 _ 30 , I I I I I I ' I 1 I I 1 I I 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 X-AXIS (feet) • • \V 4-NCC-EQ 11 -27-** 19:34 . id ' Jsl Consulting, Inc. CASE 4 - CR 25 - SEISMIC 180 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 113 f 60' -0 0 150 _ Z o o 0 - R Ls,LU 0 0_ cc w � z � B 8 � J w wt /1 120 _ mi/ X < 90 _ 60 _ 30 t I 1 ' I 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 X-AXIS (feet) • • ! 5-NCC 11 -27-** 20:03 WI Ji I Consulting, Inc. CASE 5 — POWER LINE 175 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .275 I 55' I � 140 z Z I I w d c-!mow 1 105 _ cn X Q 70 _ >- 35 _ 0 170 205 240 275 310 345 380 415 450 X—AXIS (feet) \A 5-NCC-EQ 11 -27-** 20:04 JsT Consulting, Inc. SI ' CASE 5 - POWER LINE - SEISMIC 175 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 113 551 140 _ z c c Z J J W m / w w- =w 1 IIIseCeal" 105 _ �Ul Q 70 _ >- 35 0 170 205 240 275 310 345 380 415 450 X—AXIS (feet) • APPENDIX C • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis 1-NCC.OPT XSTABL File: 1-NCC 11-27-** 18:17 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem. Description : Case 1 - Sand Hill Channel SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 16 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 121.5 2 7 292.2 121.5 299.8 137.0 2 8 299.8 137.0 301.3 140.0 1 9 301.3 140.0 344.3 140.0 1 10 344.3 140.0 351.7 143.0 1 11 351.7 143.0 370.6 143.0 1 12 370.6 143.0 372.2 142.0 1 13 372.2 142.0 380.2 137.0 1 14 380.2 137.0 397.7 137.0 1 15 397.7 137.0 406.1 142.0 1 16 406.1 142.0 420.0 142.0 1 8 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 299.8 137.0 367.2 137.0 2 2 367.2 137.0 375.4 137.0 2 3 375.4 137.0 380.2 134.0 2 4 380.2 134.0 397.7 134.0 2 5 397.7 134.0 406.1 139.0 2 • 6 406.1 139.0 420.0 139.0 2 Page 1 1-NCC.OPT 7 292 .1 106.0 420.0 106.0 3 • 8 292 .0 103.0 420.0 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 8 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, **********************************• Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292.10 106.00 5 365.00 137.00 6 372.20 142.00 7 406.10 142.00 8 420.00 142.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 358.0 359.0 20000.0 .0 2 364.0 365.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed • force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 1-NCC.OPT • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 370.0 ft and x = 400.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : • The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.02 103.53 2 296.02 103.42 3 300.02 103.48 4 304.01 103.71 5 307.99 104. 11 6 311.95 104.69 7 315.88 105.43 8 319.77 106.33 9 323.63 107.41 Page 3 1-NCC.OPT 10 327.43 108.64 • 11 331.18 110.04 12 334.86 111.60 13 338.48 113.31 14 342.02 115.18 15 345.47 117.19 16 348.84 119.35 17 352.11 121.66 18 355.28 124 .10 19 358.34 126.67 20 361.29 129.37 21 364 .12 132.20 22 366.83 135.14 23 369.41 138.20 24 371.86 141.36 25 372.27 141.95 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.246 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Case 1 - Sand Hill Channel FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) • 1. 1.246 296.60 197.03 93. 61 292.02 372.27 1.194E+07 2. 1.307 303.33 182.13 77.96 292.07 370.71 9.996E+06 3. 1.343 301.42 189.15 84 .68 292.07 371.88 1.108E+07 4. 1.433 308.18 188.50 84 .70 292.08 376.93 1.155E+07 5. 1.439 299.54 187.99 85.15 292.01 371.46 1.280E+07 6. 1.576 305.73 194 .18 88.85 292.10 375.89 1.279E+07 7. 1.583 300.63 212 .70 107.32 292.09 378.02 1.567E+07 8. 1.587 312. 19 188.66 85.70 292.08 380.57 1.279E+07 9. 1.607 298. 12 198.65 96.24 291.87 374.77 1.629E+07 10. 1.635 297. 65 183.75 83.53 291. 16 370.60 1.572E+07 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 1-NCC-EQ.OPT XSTABL File: 1-NCC-EQ 11-27-** 18:20 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * * using the * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 1 - SAND HILL CHANNEL - SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 16 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103. 0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 121.5 2 7 292.2 121.5 299.8 137. 0 2 8 299.8 137.0 301.3 140. 0 1 9 301.3 140.0 344.3 140. 0 1 10 344 .3 140.0 351.7 143. 0 1 11 351.7 143.0 370.6 143. 0 1 12 370.6 143.0 372.2 142. 0 1 13 372.2 142.0 380.2 137.0 1 14 380.2 137.0 397.7 137.0 1 15 397.7 137.0 406.1 142.0 1 16 406.1 142.0 420.0 142.0 1 8 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 299.8 137.0 367.2 137.0 2 2 367.2 137.0 375.4 137.0 2 3 375.4 137.0 380.2 134.0 2 4 380.2 134 .0 397.7 134.0 2 5 397.7 134 .0 406.1 139.0 2 • 6 406.1 139.0 420.0 139.0 2 Page 1 1-NCC-EQ.OPT • 7 292.1 106.0 420.0 106.0 3 8 292.0 103.0 420.0 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 8 coordinate points ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292.10 106.00 5 365.00 137.00 6 372.20 142.00 7 406.10 142.00 8 420.00 142.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified • Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) Page 2 1-NCC-EQ.OPT • 1 358.0 359.0 20000.0 .0 2 364 .0 365.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 370.0 ft and x = 400.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft • * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4 .0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) • 1 292.02 103.53 Page 3 1-NCC-EQ.OPT • 2 296.02 103.42 3 300.02 103.48 4 304.01 103.71 5 307.99 104.11 6 311.95 104.69 7 315.88 105.43 8 319.77 106.33 9 323.63 107.41 10 327.43 108.64 11 331.18 110.04 12 334.86 111.60 13 338.48 113.31 14 342.02 115.18 15 345.47 117.19 16 348.84 119.35 17 352.11 121.66 18 355.28 124.10 19 358.34 126.67 20 361.29 129.37 21 364.12 132.20 22 366.83 135.14 23 369.41 138.20 24 371.86 141.36 25 372.27 141.95 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.071 **** • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 1 - SAND HILL CHANNEL - SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.071 296. 60 197.03 93.61 292.02 372.27 1.156E+07 2. 1.125 303.33 182.13 77.96 292.07 370.71 9.684E+06 3. 1.154 301.42 189. 15 84.68 292.07 371.88 1.075E+07 4. 1.207 308. 18 188.50 84.70 292.08 376.93 1.123E+07 5. 1.250 299.54 187. 99 85.15 292.01 371.46 1.250E+07 6. 1.320 301.51 258.84 155.60 292.02 399.97 2.380E+07 7. 1.322 312.19 188.66 85.70 292.08 380.57 1.248E+07 8. 1.333 300.63 212.70 107.32 292.09 378.02 1.528E+07 9. 1.335 305.73 194.18 88.85 292.10 375.89 1.247E+07 10. 1.350 304. 11 247.99 144.24 292.04 396.24 2.193E+07 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 2-NCC.OPT • XSTABL File: 2-NCC 11-27-** 18:50 * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 2 - LITTLE DRY CREEK SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292. 1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 117.5 2 7 292.2 117.5 297.8 129.5 2 8 297.8 129.5 299.1 132.0 1 9 299.1 132.0 353.6 132.2 1 10 353.6 132.2 354.9 131.2 1 11 354.9 131.2 357.8 129.1 1 12 357.8 129.1 370.5 129.1 1 13 370.5 129.1 373.0 131.1 1 14 373.0 131.1 423.0 132.0 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 297.8 129.5 352.8 129.7 2 2 352.8 129.7 357.8 126.6 2 3 357.8 126.6 370.5 126.6 2 4 370.5 126.6 373.0 128.6 2 5 373.0 128.6 423.0 129.5 2 6 292.1 106.0 423.0 106.0 3 • 7 292.0 103.0 423.0 103.0 4 Page 1 2-NCC.OPT • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 7 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) • 1 200.00 100.00 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292.10 106.00 5 352.80 129.70 6 354.90 131.20 7 423.00 131.20 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 341.0 342.0 20000.0 .0 2 347.0 348.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 2-NCC.OPT • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 353.0 ft and x = 358.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 3.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : • Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 26 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.04 104.26 2 295.01 103.80 3 297.99 103.48 • 4 300.99 103.31 5 303.98 103.28 Page 3 2-NCC.OPT • 6 306.98 103.40 7 309.97 103.66 8 312.94 104.06 9 315.89 104.61 10 318.81 105.30 11 321.70 106.13 12 324.54 107.09 13 327.33 108.19 14 330.06 109.42 15 332.74 110.79 16 335.34 112.28 17 337.87 113.89 18 340.32 115.62 19 342.68 117.47 20 344.95 119.43 21 347.13 121.50 22 349.20 123.67 23 351.17 125.93 24 353.02 128.29 25 354.76 130.74 26 355.01 131.12 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.292 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces • Problem Description : CASE 2 - LITTLE DRY CREEK FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.292 303.07 165.70 62.42 292.04 355.01 5.378E+06 2. 1.311 306.08 156.75 53. 63 292.07 353.72 4.609E+06 3. 1.321 301.80 166.97 62.74 292.07 353.87 5.398E+06 4. 1.355 295.25 185.71 81.52 292.04 355.47 7 .161E+06 5. 1.376 300.70 180.05 76.65 292.03 357.93 6.843E+06 6. 1.381 306.13 159.95 56.03 292.09 354 .42 4 .882E+06 7. 1 .408 298.95 181.50 77. 18 292.05 356.47 6.890E+06 8. 1.423 305.22 166.68 62.73 292.08 356.24 5.568E+06 9. 1.423 309.12 152.31 49.06 292.10 353.77 4 .329E+06 10. 1.432 297.62 189.35 85.27 292.04 357.93 7.722E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 2-NCC-EQ.OPT XSTABL File: 2-NCC-EQ 11-27-** 18:52 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 2 - LITTLE DRY CREEK - SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES • 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 117.5 2 7 292.2 117.5 297.8 129.5 2 8 297. 8 129.5 299.1 132.0 1 9 299. 1 132.0 353.6 132.2 1 10 353. 6 132.2 354.9 131.2 1 11 354 . 9 131.2 357.8 129.1 1 12 357.8 129.1 370.5 129.1 1 13 370.5 129.1 373.0 131.1 1 14 373.0 131.1 423.0 132.0 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 297.8 129.5 352.8 129.7 2 2 352.8 129.7 357.8 126.6 2 3 357.8 126. 6 370.5 126.6 2 4 370.5 126.6 373.0 128.6 2 5 373.0 128.6 423.0 129.5 2 6 292.1 106.0 423.0 106.0 3 7 292.0 103.0 423.0 103.0 4 • Page 1 2-NCC-EQ.OPT • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131 .0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 7 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) • 1 200.00 100.00 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292.10 106.00 5 352.80 129.70 6 354 .90 131.20 7 423.00 131.20 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 341.0 342.0 20000.0 .0 • 2 347.0 348.0 20000.0 .0 Page 2 2-NCC-EQ.OPT • NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 353.0 ft and x = 358.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 3.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. • ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface • is specified by 26 coordinate points Page 3 2-NCC-EQ.OPT • Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.04 104 .26 2 295.01 103.80 3 297.99 103.48 4 300.99 103.31 5 303.98 103.28 6 306.98 103.40 7 309.97 103. 66 8 312 .94 104 .06 9 315.89 104 . 61 10 318 .81 105.30 11 321.70 106. 13 12 324 .54 107.09 13 327 .33 108. 19 14 330.06 109.42 15 332.74 110.79 16 335.34 112.28 17 337.87 113.89 18 340.32 115.62 19 342.68 117.47 20 344 .95 119.43 21 347.13 121.50 22 349.20 123.67 23 351.17 125.93 24 353.02 128.29 25 354 .76 130.74 26 355.01 131.12 is **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.118 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 2 - LITTLE DRY CREEK - SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.118 303.07 165.70 62.42 292.04 355.01 5.223E+06 2. 1.138 306.08 156.75 53.63 292.07 353.72 4 .476E+06 3. 1.149 301.80 166.97 62.74 292.07 353.87 5.244E+06 4. 1.173 295.25 185.71 81.52 292.04 355.47 6.968E+06 5. 1.175 300.70 180.05 76.65 292.03 357.93 6.658E+06 6. 1.194 306.13 159.95 56.03 292.09 354.42 4 .746E+06 7. 1.211 298.95 181.50 77.18 292.05 356.47 6.708E+06 8. 1.221 305.22 166.68 62.73 292.08 356.24 5.420E+06 9. 1.224 297.62 189.35 85.27 292.04 357.93 7.522E+06 10. 1.231 306.39 165.24 61.58 292.08 356.77 5.349E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 3-NCC.OPT . XSTABL File: 3-NCC 11-27-** 19:31 * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 3 - OIL\GAS WELL SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 10 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit 4111 No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 121.5 2 7 292.2 121.5 299.3 136.0 2 8 299.3 136.0 301.2 140.0 1 9 301.2 140.0 360.0 140.2 1 10 360.0 140.2 420.0 140.5 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 299.3 136.0 377.4 136.3 2 2 377.4 136.3 420.0 136.5 2 3 292.1 106.0 420.0 106.0 3 4 292.0 103.0 420.0 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified • Page 1 3-NCC.OPT Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water • Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pc£) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131 .0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141 .0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141 .0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 2 291.00 100. 00 3 292 .00 103.00 4 292 .10 106.00 5 377 .40 136.30 • 6 420.00 137.50 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 348.0 349.0 20000.0 .0 2 354 .0 355.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft • and x = 292.2 ft Page 2 3-NCC.OPT • Each surface terminates between x = 360.0 ft and x = 370.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.02 103.53 2 297.00 103.15 3 302.00 103.13 4 306.99 103.45 5 311.95 104. 12 6 316.84 105. 14 7 321. 65 106.50 8 326.36 108.19 9 330.93 110.21 10 335.35 112.54 11 339.60 115.18 12 343.65 118. 11 • 13 347.49 121.32 Page 3 3-NCC.OPT 14 351.09 124.79 • 15 354.44 128.50 16 357.52 132.44 17 360.31 136.59 18 362.41 140.21 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.255 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 3 - OIL\GAS WELL FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.255 299.90 174.37 71.28 292.02 362.41 8.354E+06 2. 1.373 298.95 178.02 73.36 292.07 361.75 8.902E+06 3. 1.376 299. 18 183.31 79.37 292.04 365.83 9.789E+06 4. 1.394 300.88 184.46 81.05 292.03 368.77 1.018E+07 5. 1.405 304.82 173.07 69.63 292.05 366.17 8.596E+06 6. 1.409 303. 13 181.33 78.23 292.03 369.69 9.885E+06 7. 1.430 303. 10 178.91 75.10 292.05 367.45 9.414E+06 8. 1.455 303.31 181.05 77 .25 292.05 368.89 9.806E+06 9. 1.464 297.06 192.31 87.83 292.05 367.74 1.126E+07 . 10. 1.476 298.29 184.59 79.48 292.08 364.20 1.010E+07 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 3-NCC-EQ.OPT • XSTABL File: 3-NCC-EQ 11-27-** 19:32 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 3 - OIL\GAS WELL - SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 10 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292. 1 106.0 292.2 121.5 2 7 292.2 121.5 299.3 136.0 2 8 299.3 136.0 301.2 140.0 1 9 301.2 140.0 360.0 140.2 1 10 360.0 140.2 420.0 140.5 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 299.3 136.0 377.4 136.3 2 2 377.4 136.3 420.0 136.5 2 3 292.1 106.0 420.0 106.0 3 4 292.0 103.0 420.0 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit (s) specified Page 1 3-NCC-EQ.OPT Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water • Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292. 10 106.00 5 377.40 136.30 . 6 420.00 137.50 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 348.0 349.0 20000.0 .0 2 354 .0 355.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 3-NCC-EQ.OPT • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 360.0 ft and x = 370.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : • Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.02 103.53 2 297.00 103.15 3 302.00 103.13 • 4 306. 99 103.45 5 311. 95 104.12 Page 3 3-NCC-EQ.OPT 6 316.84 105.14 7 321.65 106.50 8 326.36 108.19 9 330.93 110.21 10 335.35 112.54 11 339.60 115.18 12 343. 65 118. 11 13 347.49 121.32 14 351.09 124 .79 15 354 .44 128.50 16 357.52 132.44 17 360.31 136.59 18 362.41 140.21 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.093 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 3 - OIL\GAS WELL - SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.093 299. 90 174 .37 71.28 292.02 362.41 8.099E+06 Illi 2. 1. 189 299. 18 183.31 79.37 292.04 365. 83 9.513E+06 3. 1. 195 300.88 184.46 81.05 292.03 368.77 9.689E+06 4. 1.198 298.95 178.02 73.36 292.07 361.75 8.651E+06 5. 1.205 303.13 181.33 78.23 292.03 369. 69 9.611E+06 6. 1.209 304.82 173.07 69.63 292.05 366.17 8.355E+06 7. 1.228 303. 10 178.91 75.10 292.05 367.45 9.154E+06 8. 1.245 303.31 181.05 77.25 292.05 368. 89 9.539E+06 9. 1.261 297.06 192.31 87.83 292.05 367.74 1.096E+07 10. 1.270 304.14 179.68 75.67 292.07 368.70 9.389E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 4-NCC.OPT XSTABL File: 4-NCC 11-27-** 19:33• ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83643, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 4 - CR 25 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit IIINo. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 121.5 2 7 292.2 121.5 299.7 137.0 2 8 299.7 137 . 0 301.2 140.0 1 9 301.2 140.0 348.0 140.3 1 10 348.0 140.3 358.0 140.3 1 11 358.0 140.3 369.6 140.3 1 12 369.6 140.3 378.9 141.7 1 13 378.9 141.7 401.0 141.7 1 14 401.0 141 .7 418.0 141.4 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 299.7 137.0 348.0 137.3 2 2 346.0 137.3 376.0 137.3 2 3 376.0 137.3 418.0 137.3 2 4 292.1 106. 0 418.0 106.0 3 5 292.0 103.0 418.0 103.0 4 • Page 1 4-NCC.OPT ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 • 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292. 10 106.00 5 376.00 137.30 6 418.00 137.30 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 346.0 347.0 20000.0 .0 2 352 .0 353.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. Page 2 4-NCC.OPT • 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 358.0 ft and x = 368.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees • ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) +*++************************************************************+*+****+ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.04 104 .26 2 297.03 103.96 3 302.03 104 .02 4 307.01 104 .44 5 311. 95 105.21 6 316.83 106.34 • 7 321.60 107.82 8 326.26 109. 63 Page 3 4-NCC.OPT 9 330.78 111.78 • 10 335.13 114 .25 11 339.29 117.02 12 343.24 120.08 13 346.96 123.42 14 350.44 127.02 15 353.64 130.85 16 356.56 134.91 17 359.18 139. 17 18 359.77 140.30 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1 .278 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 4 - CR 25 FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.278 298.70 173.47 69.53 292.04 359.77 8.034E+06 2. 1.283 298.92 178.65 75.43 292.02 363.87 8.938E+06 3. 1.331 302.68 174.74 71.65 292.03 365.45 8.652E+06 4. 1.346 296.90 186.95 83. 19 292.03 365.76 1.016E+07 5. 1 .355 302.88 176.81 73.72 292.03 366.87 9.025E+06 • 6. 1.380 303.68 175.55 72.24 292.04 366.68 8.873E+06 7. 1.401 301. 62 181.58 77.91 292.04 367.66 9.696E+06 8. 1.428 305.77 173.58 70.31 292 .05 367.68 8.747E+06 9. 1.429 308.56 160.81 57.50 292.09 362.25 6.908E+06 10. 1.434 306.89 171.71 68.71 292.05 368.00 8.556E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 4-NCC-EQ.OPT XSTABL File: 4-NCC-EQ 11-27-** 19:34 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 4 - CR 25 - SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 SURFACE boundary segments • Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit Bel ow(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 121.5 2 7 292.2 121.5 299.7 137.0 2 8 299.7 137.0 301.2 140.0 1 9 301.2 140.0 348.0 140.3 1 10 348.0 140.3 358.0 140.3 1 11 358.0 140.3 369.6 140.3 1 12 369.6 140.3 378.9 141.7 1 13 378.9 141.7 401.0 141.7 1 14 401.0 141.7 418.0 141.4 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 299.7 137.0 348.0 137.3 2 2 348.0 137.3 376.0 137.3 2 3 376.0 137.3 418.0 137.3 2 4 292.1 106.0 418.0 106.0 3 5 292.0 103.0 418.0 103.0 4 • Page 1 4-NCC-EQ.OPT • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (ps£) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 • 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292.10 106.00 5 376.00 137.30 6 418.00 137.30 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 346.0 347.0 20000.0 . 0 2 352.0 353.0 20000.0 .0 • NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. Page 2 4-NCC-EQ.OPT • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 358.0 ft and x = 368.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : • The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) • Page 3 4-NCC-EQ.OPT 1 292.02 103.53 • 2 297.01 103.24 3 302.01 103.28 4 307.00 103.65 5 311.95 104 .35 6 316.84 105.37 7 321.65 106.72 8 326.37 108.39 9 330.96 110.36 10 335.42 112. 63 11 339.71 115.20 12 343.82 118.04 13 347.74 121. 15 14 351.44 124.51 15 354.91 128. 11 16 358.14 131. 93 17 361.10 135. 95 18 363.79 140. 17 19 363.87 140.30 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1. 113 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 4 - CR 25 - SEISMIC • FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.113 298.92 178.65 75.43 292.02 363.87 8.673E+06 2. 1.119 298.70 173.47 69.53 292.04 359.77 7.797E+06 3. 1.149 302.68 174.74 71.65 292.03 365.45 8.402E+06 4. 1.164 296.90 186.95 83.19 292.03 365.76 9.873E+06 5. 1.166 302.88 176.81 73.72 292.03 366.87 8.768E+06 6. 1.187 303.68 175.55 72.24 292.04 366.68 8.624E+06 7. 1.203 301.62 181.58 77.91 292.04 367.66 9.428E+06 8. 1.224 305.77 173.58 70.31 292.05 367. 68 8.508E+06 9. 1.227 306.89 171.71 68.71 292.05 368.00 8.323E+06 10. 1.239 308.56 160.81 57.50 292.09 362.25 6.719E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 5-NCC.OPT XSTABL File: 5-NCC 11-27-** 20:03 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 5 - POWER LINE SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 116.5 2 7 292.2 116.5 297.3 127.0 2 8 297.3 127.0 298.8 130.0 1 9 298.8 130.0 350.0 130. 1 1 10 350.0 130.1 432.0 130.4 1 11 432.0 130.4 442.5 132.4 1 12 442.5 132.4 447.3 132.4 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 297.3 127.0 350.0 127. 1 2 2 350.0 127. 1 365.2 127.2 2 3 365.2 127.2 432.0 127.4 2 4 432.0 127.4 443.5 129.4 2 5 443.5 129.7 447 .3 129.4 2 6 292.1 106.0 447 .3 106.0 3 7 292.0 103.0 447.3 103.0 4 • Page 1 5-NCC.OPT • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 7 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 • 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292. 10 106.00 5 365.20 127 .20 6 432.00 127 .40 7 447.30 127.40 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 338.0 339.0 20000.0 .0 2 344 .0 345.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. • Page 2 5-NCC.OPT • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 350.0 ft and x = 360.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees • ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 10 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 292.01 103.17 2 296.00 103.03 3 300.00 103.12 4 303.99 103.44 5 307.95 103.98 6 311.88 104.76 • 7 315.75 105.76 Page 3 5-NCC.OPT • 8 319.56 106.98 9 323.29 108.42 10 326.94 110.06 11 330.48 111.92 12 333.91 113.98 13 337.22 116.23 14 340.39 118.67 15 343.41 121.28 16 346.28 124 . 07 17 348.99 127.01 18 351.52 130.11 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.275 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 5 - POWER LINE FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.275 296.45 172.56 69.53 292.01 351.52 5.530E+06 2. 1.423 297.42 180.72 77.38 292.02 355.93 6.521E+06 3. 1.428 306.25 154.85 51.49 292.08 351.36 4.234E+06 • 4. 1.438 302.33 167.06 63.28 292.05 353.66 5.270E+06 5. 1.441 300.91 170.13 66. 11 292.05 353.48 5.506E+06 6. 1.497 302.93 171.97 68. 94 292.03 357.69 5.940E+06 7. 1.606 305. 96 168.72 65.59 292.05 358.99 5.771E+06 8. 1.610 305.31 163.76 59.00 292.10 353.74 5.086E+06 9. 1.625 303.66 173.93 69.92 292.07 358.11 6.131E+06 10. 1.627 296.24 185.88 80.64 292.08 354 .46 7.085E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 5-NCC-EQ.OPT XSTABL File: 5-NCC-EQ 11-27-** 20:04 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : CASE 5 - POWER LINE - SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 200.0 103.0 285.0 103.0 4 2 285.0 103.0 286.0 100.0 4 3 286.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 4 4 291.0 100.0 292.0 103.0 4 5 292.0 103.0 292.1 106.0 3 6 292.1 106.0 292.2 116.5 2 7 292.2 116.5 297.3 127.0 2 8 297.3 127.0 298.8 130.0 1 9 298.8 130.0 350.0 130. 1 1 10 350.0 130.1 432.0 130.4 1 11 432.0 130.4 442.5 132.4 1 12 442.5 132.4 447.3 132.4 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 297.3 127.0 350.0 127.1 2 2 350.0 127.1 365.2 127.2 2 3 365.2 127.2 432.0 127.4 2 4 432.0 127.4 443.5 129.4 2 5 443.5 129.7 447.3 129.4 2 6 292.1 106.0 447.3 106.0 3 7 292.0 103.0 447.3 103.0 4 • Page 1 5-NCC-EQ.OPT ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters II 4 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 7 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 200.00 100.00 • 2 291.00 100.00 3 292.00 103.00 4 292.10 106.00 5 365.20 127.20 6 432.00 127.40 7 447.30 127.40 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 338.0 339.0 20000.0 .0 2 344 .0 345.0 20000.0 .0 • NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed Page 2 5-NCC-EQ.OPT force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 291.0 ft and x = 292.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 350.0 ft and x = 360.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. • ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf • No. (ft) (ft) Page 3 5-NCC-EQ.OPT • 1 292.01 103.17 2 296.00 103.03 3 300.00 103.12 4 303.99 103.44 5 307.95 103.98 6 311.88 104 .76 7 315.75 105.76 8 319.56 106.98 9 323.29 108 .42 10 326.94 110.06 11 330.48 111.92 12 333.91 113.98 13 337.22 116.23 14 340.39 118 .67 15 343.41 121.28 16 346.28 124 .07 17 348.99 127.01 18 351.52 130.11 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.113 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : CASE 5 - POWER LINE - SEISMIC • FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.113 296.45 172.56 69.53 292.01 351.52 5.372E+06 2. 1.226 297.42 180.72 77.38 292.02 355.93 6.350E+06 3. 1.241 306.25 154 .85 51.49 292.08 351.36 4.119E+06 4. 1.244 302.33 167.06 63.28 292.05 353.66 5.130E+06 5. 1.248 300.91 170. 13 66.11 292.05 353.48 5.361E+06 6. 1.278 302.93 171.97 68. 94 292.03 357.69 5.789E+06 7. 1.360 305.96 168 .72 65.59 292.05 358.99 5.631E+06 8. 1.382 303.66 173.93 69.92 292.07 358.11 5.985E+06 9. 1.390 305.31 163.76 59.00 292.10 353.74 4.965E+06 10. 1.409 304.20 175.42 71.47 292.07 359.49 6.205E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 APPENDIX D • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis • I. _. IRRIGAr Nvtrut � I _ . 1 • /..../®�Z\ . V I nrorcm '1 I °°R°u .1 j DP-2 I /.1 O it / re-5 //: I II • —,\.1., IV .� /� 7 -4 N / i ./ii 6 I i! ❑ ❑ �� Ire �.1'.\,, � ❑ I 4 1 i to tent* wet-LAND Aeen \DP G \\1 12 I I re,--,5 IIII I ' II / II I / I O i. I j / / 1 Ij roe • S j TD e .\. \ Pre IO: • Cleo,,il ®DTs I1 • DP-7 I - I .•— —•.._ _IPRIGAWN DIrCJt WCLD COUNTY ROAD IS LCSCND .ro xo zoo .1b o +ao aao A PROXIrlAWC LOGn770N Or B TCCT DOPING DRILLCD ON ROLLIN CONSULTING nnr F4 820,1,99 SRAM 5TUDY MPROXmurr LOCATION Or WELD COUNTY ROAD518 829 NattOf Plr5 CXGMArCD WELD GOUNIY,COLORADO FIAT 14,P99 r`XiURC I:DOPING LOGA ONPIM r Propel Pair, C W Project Ho. Z2993081 • ores!r GCD lrctl,p racon se- P-4001 Owned N riW 1242 )Tenon.Rec@ mtr: 6/2/99 DisSA n at mree LCCRpNOWLz,MC V RI CEB 5-19-99 la.p.u.t, cebrem sa1 90 NOrMIHAmpOICONDIRIcIUNPURrOtn R0 CAS 1-22-98 *proud 11, P W 303-776-3921 Sheet Ho. Jell I • • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-2 Page 1 of 1 • OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting I =Northwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS I gggq u DESCRIPTION , pI�--' � i ' O C i �c y = d h G oc § 6 gu m a. I o Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. O D z i- aura s M c -- J U» C.4 g5, I ',IC', 0-5`TOPSOIL ed. °'._t = 4.-.4 _ o:• . 5 - SP SS 6/12 I Q.:e. °Q: o� o'1 !-;0.:O4 .t _ . I Q4. D.-O.:' . 10 - SS 5/12 u . _ Q.a nQ ! — .D 0 - 14.a _' — 5!o..;-..° 15 — SS 20/12 "?.;0..I — °';x _ I :0.-..: SAND Wrru GRAVEL, slightly silty, more ip .Oe. and larger gravel with increasing depth, _ °' •D.A rusty brown,orange,moist to wet,loose Qe 20- I °d ! to dense. _ ° 'e Qty: SS 31/12 .0-.46...1 25 I Qqqe I j::0-::$ ° ' Q P. 30= G'O':! e c _ o� -• 33.0 - 35.0 Si AYSTONF,silty, moderate plasticity, 35= gray, slightly moist. / IBOTTOM OF BORING flies SrRATIPICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LIMPS BETM'F.EN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-14-99 AikWL 2 5/14/99 3' T. 3/21/99 3' lir acon BORING COMPLETED 5-1499 IV ° RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN ND WL APPROVED FSW JOB# 22995081 • • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-3 Page 1 of 1 • OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting SIT4lorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit I SAMPLES TESTS 2 Zg O ki DESCRIPTION b po � al i minx in= V�9 a. a ,, in u m a Z3 3 2(' 8f? 7yge gE 0 Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c 0 Z I- tiro 2 c. GG it%5 g.I: 0.5\LtaP$i1n C— I j Far SS 5/12 j LEANT FAT CLAY WITH SAND, Silty Sand lenses,with gravel below 5',gray — brown,rust,moist to wet,medium stiff - - I j 10.0 to very soft. — 10 SS 1/12 9.0 o. — RD. _ — t'' :. — SP SS 14/12 #..,f).: IS — Q.e ty,,slightly° — iipQ,6 - - SAND WITH GRAVF.Isil 2U Q. : , more r v:45.:, 4 and larger gravel with increasing depth, .p`Yj / rusty brown,orange,wet,medium — !Si.,;.., dense. — SS 25/12 tta.4 25 !e i.-;‘° _ 0Q .4 — o:. .e Q9 f.0.--. — � 30.5 30.0 — i AYSTONF,silty, 30 s moderate plasticity, / gray, slightly moist. BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES NES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU.THE TRANSITION MAY RE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-1499 dlr. 4 5/14199 3' 7 5/21/99 3' 1 BORING COMPLETED 5-1499 WL ` err acon RIG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DID WL APPROVED ESW JOB H 22995081 • • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-4 Page 1 of 1 • OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting =Northwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS el DESCRIPTION m t= ui v. Z vii 2- O a 9z I '55E t� j �,7 y.� ca m 41 6g.,,` GJ < 6 rj g 6 z m YE Ux� t cm�.7� u Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. o a 21.2 o v{—e ` s C %4 o s`TorsoII. cb t x LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND, dark -SM 4.0 rusty brown, very moist. _ I -.6a \ST1,TY SAND,slightly clayey,gray,pink — SP SS 5/12 44'; brown,rust,moist to wet. / 5 bCc - — It - o s l0 5S-7/12 nQ.. _ v': v - °o: P 15 SS 32/12 6 - 4: Q.r 20— o a -9:O:0:,„.-. 7 RAND WITH GRAVEL, slightly silty, nn 4 slightly more and larger gravel with _ -??..4*,'v a increasing depth,rusty brown,orange, 25 o D a.. wet, loose todense. — 0'o `4 d 30-z o:ei i -_ me: '4 ` o': F -Q s0.:'.I - o<o 35_ u.Q.t o - .o Q:IC _ b `o - -.Q.o: 40.0 - BOTTOM OF BORING 40 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSMON MAY BE GRADUAL WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-1499 ism. U5/14/99 3' g S/21/99 3' ¢99 BORING COMPLETED 5.1 Wl. y ir erracon RI° Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD WL APPROVED ESW JOBS 22995081 I • • I • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-5 Pagel of • OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting I slT4iorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROTECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS I g 2 O DESCRIPTION f I- = z la f.,' r, tt7 � D. < Y U 60 N� UfW 3u� �is �' u Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. o a z V.m z g k E85 5 ;C.°, i /� 0.5 O - 2.0 LEE CLAY WITH SAND, silty,dark CL�CH — °a e 0.4:4 brown,rusty, moist to very moist. _ a-'t SP SS 14/12 I a d': , 5 to.::a7. I .0 y>. 10 SS 21/12 .....0':4 _ 4 I — 5. :- C _ �s:e SS 32/12 a j' $AND WITH GRAVEL, more and larger 15 5..t7- ' gravel with increasing depth,rusty — D4 brown,orange, wet, medium dense to 9' ec-�1 dense.' WQ _ o ': c I Q.e 20- d.Q.tl c n De - o.0ra I u41 25 : SS 39/12 A' d Q'e 27.0 SS 50/6 30.0 CLAYSTONE,silty,moderate plasticity, \ gray,slighlty moist to moist,hard. c— 30- BOTTOM OF BORING I I I THE S17UITiICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 54 99 wt. 4 5/20199 2' T 5/21/99 2' iferracon BIG BORING COMPLETED 5-FOREMAN. WL g Mobile B-57 DJD WL APPROVED ESW JOB k 22995081 • • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-6 Page 1 of 1 • OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER I Rollin Consulting slT4iorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS IC Z * G�g I tJ DESCRB'110N t 1 �, F Z LL`Z'F 5 a P CB M m GC y 4 C Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. - o '6_ zz IL s i c E E g,t ;h I g 1= I ' 0.5 \TOPSOIL r-- 3.0 LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND, silty, CbCH oay. ` dark brown, gray brown,moist to wet. 7 _ . In.'s: 5 — SP SS 4/12 46::,,,, 0 . U. v - :4 — . ri10 SS 26/12 O oaa- — I — O e. .s.-4:' SS 24/12 o:o 15 _ cp / '..4;:° 411:4.•< — p'ev SAND WITH GRAVEL.slightty silty, more = b-0'! and larger gravel with increased depth, 20- e. ,c . ; v rusty brown,orange,wet,loose to 11.4 . < medium dense. — A'o — O 0 aA. 25 — tra:1 oa. 'L _ .e _ 9 .:1 _ a -.O _ :e. _ :4 d.. .< 30 o.e — ea.a _ u ,.v — — a e. _ ap'1 34.0 — ISS5 35.0 CLAYSTONE,silty,moderate plasticity, 35— 1 gray, slightly moist. 1 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATWICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: DI-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5.14-99 g 5/14/99 3' a 521/99 3. ir icon BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99 WL n R!G Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD WL APPROVED ESW JOB# 22995081 i • • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-7 Page 1 of 1 • OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting sTorthwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS I O m G Z V DESCRIPTION g ,. g l- = zi z w= q.£ a Cl m i gS y N, uf, um mgt. Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c § Z " d s X o. 7 8, i l g 2 g_ 1 2.5\'LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND,silty,' - SP, - .a... \ dark gray brown,moist to wet. �- E. t, � SP SS 14/12 "" e $ o _ — O:e. — 14; f — ki • SS 24/12 aG ]0 _ 04 _ aQ 7:0.-•%e SS 39/12 SAND WITH GRAVEL,slightly silty,more j$ bp_i - I a .. and larger gravel with iocrcasing depth, Q.o: a424. :i rusty brown,orange, wet,medium dense o to dense.Mr - .. N e..Q.b..p 20 to.Y :0.4 - 4.. - 'a 7° � - 26.0 SLAYSTONF,silty,moderate plasticity, — 30.0\ gray, slightly moist. 30= BOTTOM OF BORING • THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETwffia SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE MAMMON MAY BE GRADUAL. ' WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5_14.99 AWL W 51141992' Y 5/211992' BORING COMPLETED 5-14-99 �'L e= 1 Derr aeon RIO Mobile B-57 FOREMAN Dip wt. APPROVED ESW JOB 22995081 I • • LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-8 Page 1 of 1 OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting an-Northwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS I .7 DESCRIPTION , !: w y Zinx yis pc W I 0. _ W E+3 ° a ue p� z • w N = Y W O C y 20g yr CId a o Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. ° ° z I- d s I °m own n st @ a to I; %�n1 i o.s\TOPSOt �— to LEAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND, silty,= — SP Pi?, ! ` dark gray brown,moist to wet. �— I ?0:! 5 - SP SS 19/12 .t).-.6.i a .a — :o d. _— i ar - Q.a 10 — SS 24/12 A 6.i �Q 4 eQ.l e '-s 0: — — o.Q.a SS 31!12 .a _15 o' la Q.e: — ab _ O 4 SAND WITH GRAVEL, slightly silty, more °0'_! and larger gravel with increasing depth, 20— o ;� .O.b„I o6;e rusty brown,orange,wet, medium dense ti- en to dense- 4y;':7 — I o SS 39/12 _ gi . ,40'.....;4 _ : _ .9-6a — Ill e. v — a :.412x1 302 .g FQ.-I _ I Q . 4 e'Q'' 34.0 1664 35.0 CLAYSTONE, silty, moderate plasticity, 35I — \ gray,slightly moist to moist. ' BOTTOM OF BORING I ITHE STRATIFICATION(DIES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES r BETWER1 SOB.AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSRION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-20-99 , liktn. S 5/20/99 2.5'ig 5/21199 2.5' BORING COMPLETED 5-20-99 en. a ii BORING MG Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD �yl, APPROVED Espy JOB x 22995081 I «! LOG OF TEST BORING NO. TB-9 Page 1 of 1 OWNERJCLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Rollin Consulting sITgsiortbwest corner of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Proposed Gravel Pit SAMPLES TESTS 4' a DESCRIPTION g M f- m h "= O k 6 g 3 - °C 85Iu figgm, c C Approx. Surface Elev.: Grade ft. c 6 z i m f 2R E u°F ,745 l i& 0.5\TOPSOIT CE CH j 3.5 1 FAN TO FAT CLAY WITH SAND,silty, ' dark gray brown, moist to wet. a e. I SP SS 5/12 -0tlt 5 _ . 0°: . ': _ o .e — O:e. - o 10 SS 17/12 .e: - ri b. - c r . - ' 15 _ a A:b — aj o a — n dv SAND WITH GRA VF1, slightly silty, more - aand larger gravel with increasing depth, 20— — ?.2 ea rusty brown, orange, wet,loose to *4 t medium dense. — '4 - I °.4e.‘"? 25 — SS 21/12 'ea n0.:.1 _- - i:!6,.:.c.„. _ 't.)-6-•? a: :v O e. 4q:1 30= O P _ _ I nd.e 33.0:.o - o 35.0 CI.AYSTONE,silty,moderate plasticity, — ' gray, slightly moist to moist. 35— BOTTOM OF BORING I THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN.SrTG,TILE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 54499 IWI. S/14/99 2' __ 5121/99 2' BORING COMPLETED 5-1499 �� 1 Derr acon iti Mobile B-57 FOREMAN DJD IWL APPROVED ESW JOB 22995081 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GRAVEL PIT LINER EVALUATION NCCI PIT#1 WELD COUNTY ROAD 18 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 25 ' FORT LUPTON, COLORADO TERRACON PROJECT NO. 21025057 May 14, 2002 I Prepared for. Rollin Consulting ' 840 Eagle Drive Eaton, Colorado 80615 ' Attn: Mr. Ken Rollin, P.E. Prepared by: Terracon 10625 West I-70 Frontage Road North, Suite 3 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Phone: 303-423-3300 Fax: 303-423-3353 1 I j 11erracon Form 101-1-07 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ' GRAVEL PIT LINER EVALUATION NCCI PIT#1 ' WELD COUNTY ROAD 18 AND WELD COUNTY ROAD 25 FORT LUPTON, COLORADO TERRACON PROJECT NO. 21025057 May 14, 2002 ' INTRODUCTION ' This report contains the results of our geotechnical engineering exploration at the proposed gravel pit to be located at the northwest corner of Weld County Road 18 and Weld County Road 25 in Fort Lupton, Colorado. This study was performed in general accordance with our Proposal Number 21025074 dated April 2, 2002. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: • subsurface soil and bedrock conditions; ;ID • groundwater conditions; and • evaluation of the claystone bedrock materials for use as a potential liner material for the proposed water storage pond. The conclusions contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory ' testing, engineering analyses, and experience with similar soil and/or bedrock conditions. A previous study was performed by Terracon addressing the development of the proposed gravel pit, Terracon Project No. 22995081 dated June 2, 1999. Information from the Ireferenced report was used in supplementing this study. ' PROJECT INFORMATION Based on the information provided, we understand that the site is to being considered as a ' gravel pit, and subsequently as a water storage pond. The claystone bedrock materials are being considered for use as a clay liner for the proposed storage pond to isolate the proposed storage pond from existing groundwater. Maximum water levels within the proposed pond are expected to be on the order of about 30 feet. I. I 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Rollin Consulting Terracon Project No. 21025057 ' SITE EXPLORATION ' The scope of the services performed for this project included site reconnaissance by an engineering geologist, a subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing and engineering analysis. ' Field Exploration: A total of 5 test borings were drilled on April 12, 2002 to depths of about ' 38 to 51 feet below existing site grade at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Map, Figure 1. All borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drilling rig, utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow stem auger. The borings were located in the field by pacing from property lines and/or existing site features. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used. Lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the engineering geologist during the drilling operations. The subsurface materials overlying the claystone bedrock were visually classified. At selected intervals, samples of the bedrock materials were taken by driving ring barrel samplers. Representative bulk samples of the claystone bedrock materials were also obtained from the borings. ' Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the ring barrel into the subsurface bedrock materials with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index of hardness of the bedrock materials encountered. ' Groundwater measurements were made in each boring at the time of site exploration. ' Laboratory Testing: All samples retrieved during the field exploration were retumed to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer, and were classified in ' accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. Samples of bedrock were classified in accordance with the general notes for Rock Classification. At that time, an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering ' properties of the subsurface bedrock materials. Following the completion of laboratory testing, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and Logs of Borings were prepared and are presented in Appendix A. ' Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, and were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the earthwork recommendations. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. I. 2 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Rollin Consulting Terracon Project No.21025057 Selected bedrock samples were tested for the following engineering properties: ' • Grain size • Maximum dry density—optimum • Plasticity Index moisture content relationship • Remolded flexible wall permeability SITE CONDITIONS ' Several existing buildings, oil tanks, and access roads occupy portions of the site. The site was bounded on the north and west by irrigation ditches, on the east by Weld County Road ' 25, and on the south by Weld County Road 18. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil and Bedrock Conditions: As presented on the Logs of Borings, surface soils to ' depths of about 28 to 42 feet consisted of native soils comprised of sands with varying amounts of silt, gravel and cobbles, and clays with varying amounts of sand, gravel and cobbles. Claystone and/or sandy siltstone bedrock was encountered beneath the native soils and extended to the full depth of exploration. Field and Laboratory Test Results: Field test results indicate that the claystone bedrock is ' medium hard to very hard in hardness. Upon review of the physical properties of the subsurface claystone and sandy siltstone ' materials, clay and silt fines ranged from about 61 to 98 percent, liquid limits (LL) ranged from no value to 52, and plasticity indices (PI's) ranged from non-plastic to 29. The no ' value liquid limit and non-plastic value is associated with the claystone/sandy siltstone sample from Boring No. 5. The claystone materials classified as fat clay (CH), lean clay (CL), and sandy silt (ML) according to the Unified Soils Classification System, and A-4, A-6, ' and A-7-6 according to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification system with group indices ranging from 0 to 32. ' The claystone bulk samples from the borings were combined and submitted for additional laboratory testing. A maximum dry density of 107.5 pound per cubic feet (pcf) and an optimum moisture content of 18.0 percent was determined for the combined claystone ' sample according to ASTM D698/ AASHTO T-99. The graphical results are included in Appendix B. ' A remolded flexible wall permeability test was performed on the combined claystone materials. The claystone sample was remolded to approximately 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698/ AASHTO T-99 and conditioned near I 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Rollin Consulting Terracon Project No. 21025057 optimum moisture content. A water head of 30 feet (equivalent pressure of 13 pounds per square inch (psi) or 1,872 pounds per square foot (psf)) was used in determining the confining pressure of the permeability test. The remolded permeability test was performed in accordance with ASTM D5084 — Back Pressure Saturated — Flow Pump Method. The results of the remolded permeability test indicated a value of 3.7x10$cm/sec. Groundwater Conditions: Groundwater was observed in test boring at depths ranging from about 3 to 5 feet at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times or at other locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may also occur at times in the subsurface soils overlying bedrock, on top of the bedrock surface or within permeable fractures in the bedrock materials. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or ' adjacent to the site,fluctuations in water features, seasonal and weather conditions. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS This analysis is based upon review of field and laboratory testing of the claystone bedrock ' materials and the criteria outlined by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources — Division of Minerals and Geology (Guide, 2000). ' As outlined by the Division of Minerals and Geology, the liner fill materials should contain at least a minimum of 20 percent fines, with PI's of at least 10 (although some materials with lower PI's may be considered acceptable), gravel not exceeding 10 percent, and no stones ' or rocks greater than 2 inches. Additionally, the liner fill, when compacted according to specifications, should have a permeability of less than 1 x104 cm/sec. Based on the physical properties of the claystone bedrock materials encountered in the borings, results of the remolded permeability test, and the minimum requirement outlined by ' the Division of Minerals and Geology, it is our opinion that these materials could be considered as potential fill liner materials for the proposed water storage pond. However, the use of the sandy siltstone bedrock materials encountered in Boring No. 5 should to be ' re-evaluated when the bedrock materials are exposed to confirm the suitability of these materials. ' ' September 2000. Guide to Specification Preparation for Slurry Walls and Clay Liners as a Component of a Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Permit, Colorado Department of Natural Resources - Division of Minerals and Geology. 4 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Rollin Consulting Terracon Project No. 21025057 Other construction requirements outlined by the Division of Minerals and Geology should be followed. ' GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to ' provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, and construction phases of the project. ' The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information ' discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations ' appear, we should be notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include, either specifically or by implication, any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous ' materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. ' This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended ' or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report, are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. 1 1 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report Terracon Rollin Consulting Terracon Project No. 21025057 We have appreciated being of service to you in the geotechnical engineering phase of this • project. If you have any questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and consulting services, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, = R_**.Rfr'�sl�`i TERRACON ,s,.• �.E•gryp'•.61 i,, • v a� 11. p , :331468tre T s Mohammed H. Abusalih, E.I.T. Michael E. Anderson, P.E. "- Staff Engineer Geotechnical Department Manager Copies to: Addressee (3) • 1 6 I IIRRIGATION DITCH I I • 7B-2 %A BP-2 I O O 1 •1 , I •TB-3 I • TB-4 •2 ' COSTINGcv BUILDINGS ID ElQ w o Z G III K t z $ TB-6 Ill z F I g i// E o TB-5 BP-6 I it a • •3 L 1 OIL •4 I ' TB-9 • DOSINGI O •5 �� OIL TANK TB-7 BP-9 • TB-B „A I I BP-7 IRRIGATION DITCH I WELD COUNTY ROAD 1B N I BP-7if //// APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PITS EXCAVATED ON MAY 14, 1999 TB-6 • APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING DRILLED ON MAY 14 6 20, 1999 •1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION AS PART OF THIS CURRENT STUDY NOT Iv SCN4 FIGURE 1 BORING LOCATION MAP I NCCI PIT NO. 1 FT. LUPTON, COLORADO � 2MMICR NANO!2101:5037 DIIfl2W WY L 2002 OM WS 1ky A •/ ■ LOG OF BORING NO. 1 Pagel of 1 CLIENT Rollin Consulting I SITE PROJECT Ft. Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES rr TESTS IU' JO C S O n w o DESCRIPTION E w 3 It .4 -,a U N w > in rew z zz W Ox a , w m w O- 3 tw-z r ow 3 woo K w uVi z asy w a0 On z� coKo�O (� O O Z F- K m 3U Ors m16 azoUNJ j SANDY LEAN CLAY,dark brown,moist I /3 - SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained,with _ gravel,some cobbles,brown,moist to wet 4 9- I 10 ' 15- 20- 25- ' 30 - - CLAYSTONE, hard to very hard, blue to grey,moist — 1 RS 7 50/7' _ I 35_ 1g `a 41 40 2 Rs 5 50/5 r IStopped boring 41 feet i c I •The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines k- between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 b; : Y 5 WDIL lrerraco n RIG GBORING COMPLETEDME55FFOREMAN 4-12-02 MH ' m WL APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057 I LOG OF BORING NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 Ill CLIENT Rollin Consulting ' SITE PROJECT Ft.Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES TESTS Ic9 OJat c G W 2 DESCRIPTION co m > r= F Zr 1 c "- ¢ ' _ = 0 w > m KW 5 Zz w O2 Q • a. N m a 8 g F Z Y OK y OZKQ Ko o _3 D cc m <O [et Dm e0UvO,� SANDY LEAN CLAY,with gravel and _— 118 cobbles, dark brown,moist to wet - SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained,with Igravel,brown,moist to wet 10— _.: ' 15- lb . - 20- I - I 25- 28 - I . CLAYSTONE,medium hard to hard,blue — to grey,moist 30 - 1 RS 7 50/7 ' 35 1 Ne S 39 — 2 RS 8 50/8 a Ii; Stopped boring at 39 feet u u a rc The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines I S between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 7. BOPLET -02 lir WL I 4 WD X lierracon R GRING COMPLETED OREMAN 4-12 MI-I II WL APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057, 1 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 Page 1 of 2 le CLIENT Rollin Consulting SITE PROJECT Ft.Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES TESTS t J C w - DESCRIPTION c E LLr Q ' a f es mmw W O 3 wW D Ow w NUp rz > v z¢ 0 w N z ya w ai aO Ca � mOo00 O 7 Z Y K m 3U On Um aeODUJJ LEAN CLAY,with sand,dark brown, moist ' to wet 3 SILTY SAND, fine to coarse grained,with - gravel,some cobbles, brown, moist to wet 5— 1 • ' 10 • • 15 • 20- 25— • 30— o . V w Continued Next Page u The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 -02 z WL y 3 WD lierracon RGRING CO ME55EFFOREMAN 4 12MFI WL APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057 I • LOG OF BORING NO. 3 Page 2 of 2 lib CLIENT Rollin Consulting I SITE PROJECT Ft. Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES TESTS IDESCRIPTION r s ,i U- Y ix w 1- z ~ LLr J Ja 2 cc = to W > W Kw Z Z2 W 02 I a a u CO w o 3 WI- r °w 3 zoo W N• 2 a W OJ <O ZCC NfY070 0 0 ; z o m 3� ok Drn a oum9, SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained,with — I gravel, some cobbles,brown,moist to wet 35— I 40 _ 42 — I CLAYSTONE, hard to very hard, blue to — grey, moist 1 RS 7 50/7 Ill 45- _ 91 50 - 2 RS 3 50/3 Stopped boring at 51 feet a 0 0 z g i rc r The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. s WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 T.F WLCt, 3 WD Y lierracon RIG GRING COMPLETEDME55FOREMAN 4 12-02 MH WL APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057 I • \ LOG OF BORING NO. 4 Page 1 of 1 III CLIENT Rollin Consulting I SITE PROJECT Ft. Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES TESTS J C ClO t 4 w DESCRIPTION s r z ill It J rc U ' a H 0 Wmin O 3 WI- D Ow w NUO W vi J T W OJ <O Ky ZI NKODaO O 0 D Z I- K CO 30 Ca Dw 000rAJ LEAN CLAY,trace sand,dark brown, moist = 1 /4 to wet 4 - SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained,with 5- 1 gravel, brown, moist to wet I to= 15C 20 I 25 _ 28 - CLAYSTONE,with sand, hard to very hard,I _- blue to grey,moist 30 1 RS 8 50/8 ' 35- 38 - 2 RS 5 50/5 I a a Stopped boring at 38 feet Io 0 Q C ' 25 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines PG between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. Sa WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 ili -02 rd WL 2.3 WD 32 lrerracon RIG ING CO CME55E FFOREMAN BORMPLETD4 12MH Im:L APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057, 1 LOG OF BORING NO. 5 Page 1 of 2_ lip CLIENT Rollin Consulting 1 SITE PROJECT Ft.Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES TESTS 1 o = oa a DESCRIPTION to = z= CD 2 H r t 1 v = y w > y mw Z zz iu O]Z a H N CO w p 3 WI- Ow rnUO a U a p �z > ow w zma w u!D2 w aO re- zr OOpp C7 p J 2 cc m 3o O a DO g00(/) i LEAN CLAY,some sand,dark brown, — moist to wet 3 F —{ 1 SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained,with gravel,brown,moist to wet 5-- • 1 1 15- 20- 25— • i? 0 30— 1 Continued Next Page The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines r between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. 5 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 WL 4 3 WD , BOPLETD lierracon RGRING CO ME55EFFOREMAN 4 12 -02 WL MH Y Y m WL APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057 I LOG OF BORING NO. 5 Page 2of2 ill CLIENT Rollin Consulting I SITE PROJECT Ft.Lupton,Colorado NCCI Pit#1 SAMPLES TESTS 1 0 oa S DESCRIPTION >- d r- z� o ,x U } ,x w -- z Z i0 J �Q ' D_ ol Or F. N CO d OU WI- L--- OU WR' N Zp_'Q K W N J } W 9 aO K Zf ,x070 c o , 3�z , m m oo. ow eoow_, _ SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained,with — • gravel,brown, moist to wet 35— ' 40— 42 — I �- CLAYSTONE,very hard,blue to grey,moist,varies to SANDY SILTSTONE - 1 RS 4 50/4 45 _ . - 51 2 RS 4 50/4 Stopped boring at 51 feel g a I- 0 0 i 0 u gr rc w The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines a,, between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual, t o WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 4-12-02 N WL 4 3 WD RING CO lie rr aeon R G ME 4 12 o' WL 3 y E55FFOREMAN MH Y S WL APPROVED MEA JOB# 21025057 I 145 \ '. ill . \ , , 140 1 v 1 \ , ` I 135 \ ` \\ \ Source of Material COMP 0.0ft 1 Description of Material 130 \ \ •' Test Method ASTM D698 Method A I v\N°,'� 125 I .c TEST RESULTS \ 1 Maximum (optimum)Dry Unit Weight 107.5 PCF I 120 \\ , Optimum Water Content 18.0 % n I \ I LT, \ ATTERBERG LIMITS 115 \ N. 2 \ ` } LL PL PI ill o \ s. \ ` 110 \ \ \ Curves of 100% Saturation I \ for Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 105 471.---\\ � ` 1 2.70 . \ - 2.60 I 100 _ \ '. \ N. I 95 \ N. 1 P. 90 \ N. o 0z \ N. U \ ` p ' W 85 i i \ 0 5 10 15 20 25 I 30 ^ 35 E WATER CONTENT.% V MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP iii 1f1rracon Project: NCCI Pit#1 Site: Ft. Lupton, Colorado 3 Job#: 21025057 Date: 5-14-02 05/09/2002 00: 35 303-232-1579 ADVANCED TERRA TESTG PAGE 01/03 I • PERMEABILITY TEST-BACK PRESSURE SATURATED-FLOW PUMP METHOD ASTM D 5084 CLIENT Terracon JOB NO. 2261-49 IBORING NO. Pit#1 SAMPLED DEPTH TEST STARTED 04-29-02 CAL SAMPLE NO. TEST FINISHED 05-06-02 CAL I SOIL DESCR. Project#25025057 CELL NUMBER 4P LOCATION NCCI SATURATED TEST Yes CONF. PRES. PSF 1872 TEST TYPE TX/Pbp MOISTURE/DENSITY BEFORE AFTER DATA TEST TEST ' Wt. Soil+ Moisture(g) 432.2 454.8 Wt. Wet Soil Pan (g) 447.4 469.9 Wt. Dry Soil 8 Pan (g) 381.8 381.8 I Wt. Lost Moisture (g) 65.5 88.1 Wt. of Pan Only (g) 15.2 15.2 Wt. of Dry Soil (g) 366.7 366.7 Moisture Content% 17.9 24.0 gill Wet Density PCF 120.6 128.9 Dry Density PCF 102.3 104.0 I Init. Diameter (in) 2.409 (cm) 6.119 init. Area (sq in) 4.558 (sq cm) 29.407 Init. Height (in) 2.996 (cm) 7.610 I Vol. Bet Consol. (cu ft) 0.00790 Vol. After Consol, (cu ft) 0.00778 Porosity% 40.00 IFLOW PUMP CALCULATIONS ' I Pump Setting(gear number) 11 Percentage of Pump setting 100 0(Cc/6) 1.69E-05 Height 2.954 Diameter 2.407 Pressure(psi) 1.672 Area after consol.(cm'cm) 29.346 I Gradient 15.667 , Permeability k(cm/s) 3.7E-08 • Back Pressure (psi) 68.0 . ICell Pressure(psi) 81.0 Ave. Effective Stress(psi) 12.164 ill. Data entry by: SR Date: 05/08/2002 I Checked by: Cat Date: /o9/oz FIIeName: TAPOPIT1 ADVANCED TERRA TESTING. INC. ' 05/09/2002 BE:35 303-232-1579 ADVANCED TERRA TESTS PAGE 02/03 TRIAXAL COMPRESSION TEST DATA I CLIENT Terracon JOB NO. 2261-49 ' BORING NO. Pit a1 SAMPLED DEPTH TEST STARTED 04-29-02 CAL SAMPLE NO. TEST FINISHED 05-06-02 CAL I SOIL DESCR. Project*25025057 SETUP NO. 4P LOCATION NCCI SATURATED TEST Yes CONF. PRES. PSF 1872 TEST TYPE TX/Pbp ' SATURATION DATA . Cell Back Burette Pore I Pres. Pres. Reading Pressure (PSI) (PSI) (CC) (PSI) Change B Close Open Close Open I 40.0 38.0 2.2 7.8 50.0 48.0 0.5 2.2 38.2 46.9 8.7 0.87 60.0 58.0 2.2 3.5 48.4 57.4 9.0 0.90 70,0 68,0 3.9 4.9 58.3 67.7 9.4 0.94 80.0 5.2 5.2 68.3 77.9 9.6 0.96 lb . I CONSOLIDATION DATA I Elapsed SQRT Burette Volume Time Time Reading Defl. (Min) (Min) (CC) (cc) I0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 0.25 0.50 8.45 -3.25 0.5 0.71 9.15 -3.95 1 1.00 10.00 -4.80 2 1.41 10.90 -5.70 4 ZOO 11.80 -6.60 9 3.00 12.80 -7,60 I 18 . 4.00 13.45 -8.25 50 7.07 14.90 -9.70 60 7.75 15.05 -9.85 90 9.49 15.40 -10.20 I • 240 15.49 16.00 -10.80 360 16.97 16.15 -10.95 I Initial Height (in) 2.996 Init. Vol. (CC) 223.81 Height Change (in) 0.042 Vol. Change(CC) 14.90 . Ht. After Cons. (in) 2.954 Cell Exp. (CC) 11.31 11. Initial Area (sq in) 4.558 Net Change (CC) 3.59 Area After Cons. (sq in) 4.549 Cons. Vol. (CC) 220.23 I Data entry by: SR Date: 05/08/2002 Checked by: Cat Date: oS/p9/.T ADVANCED TERRA TESTING, INC. FileName: TAP0PIT1 m UI• 0 co i..3m m CONSOLIDATION DATA - N m Pit 01,, co 0J u1 2 o-i O LI I I I N I Fn• In l0 -2 U Z o p. F- •+ _ w 0. J ui ui 5 a D W U 2 D ° �\ o - �\ m A A 16 '....„ I 3> ��\ in a in .7p 50 6_�60 _ 91 90 -8 240 360 •12 — I 0 5 10 15 20 SQUARE ROOT OF TIME IN MINUTES a Time in Minutes O ll I m co ca O lJ w wooer .mon dr MB OM I_ ti MINI ti ti c i_ • PHYSICAL PROPERTIES GRAVEL PIT LINER EVALUATION - NCCI PIT #1 - FORT LUPTON, COLORADO TERRACON Project No. 21025057 Particle Size Distribution,3'. Passing by Weight Atterberg Moisture-Density Relationship Permeability' Limits Boring Depth Soil Class. Dry Optimum Specific Dry K Corrected Remarks No. (ft) 3" #4 #10 #40 #200 LL PI Density Moisture Method Gravity Density Cm/Sec R•Value (pcf) (%) (PO 1 32 A-7.6(32)CH 97 52 29 3 3 43 A-7.6(29)CL 98 44 28 . _ 3 4 29 A-6(12)CL 87 30 15 3 5 43 A-4(0)ML 61 NV NP 3 r — Comp -- 107.5 18.0 A 3.8x10' _ 4 I I I Sample Remolded to approximately 95 percent of maximum dry density and near optimum moisture content determined by ASTM D698/ AASHTO T-99. REMARKS: Classification/Particle Size Moisture-Density Relationship Specific Gravity Permeability R-Value 1. Visual 4. Tested ASTM D698/AASHTO T99 6. Minus#4 8. Constant Head 10. Expansion Pressure_psf 2. Laboratory Tested 5. Tested ASTM D1577/AASHTO Ti B0 7. Pius#4 9. Falling Head 11. Exudation Pressure 300 psi 3. Minus#200 Only Note: NP=non-plastic lierracon • APPENDIX E • • NCCI Pit#1 Slope Stability Analysis S Peak Acceleration (%g) with 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years USGS Map, Oct. 2002rev 125° 50° W 120'W 100°W 95°W N 115°W 110°W 105W 50`N t~`\ Q �' 300 ►�4 - er.� __�` Ap IL' �� I :: r ii .4 120 • N_ 45°N . ,1 t flq 'f � 45N 80 60 50 ° t I O /ees, p+• .$ 40 ,-) 1p 40°N '-" - l , ►p) 1`lit,';', jr: AlIP k�� 40°N 30 . lINlie D i . ,4, ' fl g3�!`t nor ® 14 12 e -35°N � � ' �.` velftil ,�:Irn-N 35°N 10%-) \ •Ak '-'-‘ ••• \‘‘' a Ca° I7P\51N ---.V,:: ;<.7C \i .. • 6 11 30'N • 0 C3014 0 tr All 25'N 25`N 125'w 95°W 120°W „°, 100'W • SLOPE STABILITY REPORT FOR THE RANKIN PROPERTY GRAVEL PIT EXPANSION PROJECT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO OCTOBER 2006 • PREPARED FOR: ZADEL FAMILY, LLLP. 4200 WCR 19 FORT LUPTON, CO 80621 PREPARED BY: d&T Consulting, Inc. 1400 W. 122ND AVENUE-SUITE 120 WESTMINSTER, CO 80234 PHONE: 303-457-0735 • FAx: 303-920-0343 • CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify this slope stability analysis for Zadel Family, LLLP, the Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project, located in Weld County, Colorado was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. p0 RE,,S;--. • '> 36846 ^: e James C. York Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 36846 • • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page i Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Overview III. Geotechnical Data IV. Design Analysis and Criteria V. Methodology VI. Slope Stability Results VII. Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices Appendix A Slope Stability Case Location Map Appendix B Slope Stability Case Cross-Sections • Appendix C Slope Stability Case Xstabl Output Appendix D Terracon Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Addendum, Maps and Bore logs Appendix E USGS Map, Oct. 2002 revision — "Peak Acceleration (%g) with a 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs" • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page ii • I - INTRODUCTION Zadel Family, LLLP (ZF) proposes to mine the property located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, Sixth P.M. in Weld County. The property is bounded by private property on the west and north, WCR 25 on the east, and an aggregate mine (NCCI Pit #1) on the south. United States Highway 85 is approximately one half mile east of the subject property. The proposed mining operation will extract gravel reserves from locations adjacent to man-made structures. The rules and regulations of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) require that any mining within a setback of 200 feet of a man-made structure show thorough engineering analysis that the proposed mining will not cause damage. The accepted method of demonstrating this is through a slope stability analysis. This report contains an overview of the prior geotechnical investigation results by Terracon and methodology used in the analysis of the mining slopes and their estimated affects on all man-made structures. Recommendations regarding acceptable setbacks from man-made structures have also been included. II - OVERVIEW ZF proposes that the property will be mined in two cells. The future use for this property is expected to be a lined water storage reservoir. The mined slopes will be reclaimed with a 3h:1v embankment constructed from clay shale and overburden. Concurrent reclamation is planned such that the reclaimed embankment will be constructed as the mining progresses. The two reservoir cells will cover an estimated 35 surface acres when full. Actual surface area will • depend on the final configuration of the reservoir after reclamation is complete. III - GEOTECHNICAL DATA A preliminary geotechnical investigation and amendment have been performed by Terracon. J&T Consulting, Inc. (JT) estimated soil strength parameters based on the information from the Terracon report and amendment, which was provided to JT by ZF, and other stability analyses that have been performed on gravel mining operations along the front range. Table 1 represents a summary of the soil strength parameters that were used in this stability analysis. Table 1 -Soil Properties Description Max dry density Saturated Density Cohesion Internal Friction (pcf) (pct) (psf) Angle Overburden 110 131 150 22 Sand and Gravel 110 131 0 35 Weathered 125 141 100 18 Bedrock Stable Bedrock 125 141 2000 20 • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page 1 • IV - DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CRITERIA The proposed mining slopes were analyzed using the XSTABL v5 computer program. XSTABL was designed to analyze the slope stability of earth embankments subjected to several critical situations that may occur during the life of the embankment. Static and pseudo-static conditions were analyzed in each case. Pseudo-static peak acceleration factors were taken from USGS information for the western United States. The 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (the most conservative) was used. Surface loading equivalent to an HS 20 highway load was applied adjacent to each area to simulate heavy equipment loading that could be present at that location for maintenance or construction activities. There are existing oil and gas wells located in the areas where mining is proposed. The oil/gas companies that own the wells require that a surface use agreement between the oil/gas company and the mine operator be signed before mining can be done adjacent to their wells. Normally the mining setback from any well that the oil/gas companies require is much larger than slope stability would dictate. Therefore, no slope stability analysis has been done for these areas. For this project, eight cases were identified as critical during the mining operation: Case A — Proposed irrigation pipeline, proposed gas line, existing overhead electric transmission line, WCR 25, and existing building to the east. The mining • operation is adjacent to numerous man made structures in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the proposed irrigation pipeline, 75 feet from the WCR 25 right-of-way, and 105 feet from the property line. The mining depth was assumed to be 34 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1v for the top half of the slope. Case B — Proposed irrigation pipeline, proposed gas pipeline, existing underground electric service line, and existing building to the north. The mining operation is adjacent to numerous man made structures in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the proposed irrigation pipeline and 120 feet from the property line. The mining depth was assumed to be 34 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1v for the top half of the slope. Case C — Proposed gas pipeline, two existing gas pipelines to the north. The mining operation is adjacent to numerous man made structures in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the proposed gas pipeline and 100 feet from the property line. The mining depth was assumed to be 31 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1v for the top half of the slope. • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page 2 • Case D — Existing overhead electric transmission line to the west The mining operation is adjacent to an existing overhead electric transmission line in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the transmission line. The mining depth was assumed to be 29 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:ly for the top half of the slope. Case E — Existing irrigation ditch, existing overhead electric transmission line to the east. The mining operation is adjacent to an existing irrigation ditch and an existing overhead electric transmission line in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the west bank of the ditch and 85 feet from the property line. The mining depth was assumed to be 30 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1v for the top half of the slope. Case F — Existing gas pipeline, existing overhead electric transmission line to the south. The mining operation is adjacent to an existing gas pipeline and an existing overhead electric transmission line in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 55 feet from the existing gas pipeline. The mining depth was assumed to be 30 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1v for the top half of the slope. Case G — Existing overhead electric transmission line to the west. The mining operation is adjacent to an existing overhead electric transmission line in this area. The • proposed setback for mining is 58 feet from the transmission line and 60 feet from the property line. The mining depth was assumed to be 30 feet in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:lv for the top half of the slope. Case H — Existing irrigation ditch to the west. The mining operation is adjacent to an existing irrigation ditch in this area. The proposed setback for mining is 58 feet from the east bank of the irrigation ditch. The mining depth was assumed to be 31 in this area based on bore log information in the Terracon report and addendum. The mining side slope in this location will be near vertical for the bottom half of the slope and 0.5h:1v for the top half of the slope. The cross-sections located in Appendix B show the proposed mining slope geometry, estimated phreatic surface, location of the man made structures relative to the mining slope, and location of the most critical slope failure surface for each case. • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page 3 • V- METHODOLOGY The mining embankment configuration shown in the computer analysis represents the estimated conditions for this site. If mining conditions differ from the estimated conditions, the slope stability will need to be re-evaluated on a case by case basis. The Bishop Method was used in the computer analysis for determining safety factors. The procedure searches for circular shear failures and automatically searches for the lowest safety factor. 1,000 separate failure surfaces were analyzed for each case. The required minimum safety factors are based on the current standards used by the Colorado State Engineer's Office (SEO) in evaluating embankment dams, and industry accepted standards for the evaluation of temporary structures during construction. VI - SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS The SEO requires minimum factor of safety of 1.25 for static condition analyses and 1.0 for pseudo-static (earthquake loading) condition analyses for Class I (high hazard) embankment dams. This design criteria was used to establish the desired minimum factors of safety for this project and should be considered as highly conservative for evaluating alluvial mining high walls. The calculated factors of safety are within the design criteria specified for this project and can be considered indicators of the high wall performance under the various conditions. The results of the static condition and pseudo-static condition slope stability analyses are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. • Table 2 - Static Condition Slope Stability Analysis Results Required Calculated Factor Minimum Factor Description Of Safety Of Safety Case A 1.28 1.25 Case B 1.27 1.25 Case C 1.28 1.25 Case D 1.25 1.25 Case E 1.26 1.25 Case F 1.30 1.25 Case G 1.27 1.25 Case H 1.26 1.25 • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page 4 . Table 3 - Pseudo-Static Condition Slope Stability Analysis Results Required Calculated Factor Minimum Factor Description Of Safety Of Safety Case A 1.12 1.00 Case B 1.11 1.00 Case C 1.11 1.00 Case D 1.06 1.00 Case E 1.10 1.00 Case F 1.12 1.00 Case G 1.10 1.00 Case H 1.09 1.00 VII -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Case A - The resulting safety factor of 1.28 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.12 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the proposed irrigation pipeline, 75 feet from the WCR 25 right-of-way, and 105 feet from the property line is satisfactory. • Case B -The resulting safety factor of 1.27 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.11 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the proposed irrigation pipeline and 120 feet from the property line is satisfactory. Case C -The resulting safety factor of 1.28 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.11 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the proposed gas pipeline and 100 feet from the property line is satisfactory. Case D -The resulting safety factor of 1.25 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.06 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the transmission line is satisfactory. Case E -The resulting safety factor of 1.26 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.10 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the west bank of the ditch and 85 feet from the property line is satisfactory. Case F - The resulting safety factor of 1.30 meets the SEO minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.12 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 55 feet from the existing gas pipeline is satisfactory. • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page 5 • Case G -The resulting safety factor of 1.27 meets the SEC) minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.10 is above the SEC minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 58 feet from the transmission line and 60 feet from the property line is satisfactory. Case H -The resulting safety factor of 1.26 meets the SEC) minimum requirement of 1.25 for an embankment during construction. The resulting safety factor of 1.09 is above the SEO minimum requirement of 1.0 for an embankment subject to earthquake loading. The proposed setback of 58 feet from the east bank of the irrigation ditch is satisfactory. The following recommendations for monitoring of slope stability should be followed: 1. A visual inspection of the excavated high walls should be done on a weekly basis for the first 6 months of mining. This inspection should consist of walking the existing ground and looking for any signs of stress cracks or other potential signs of slope failure. Some minor sloughing of high walls is expected on any mine site. The intent of this inspection is to locate potential major slope failures that could extend back into a structure. 2. A visual inspection should be done after a major precipitation event that has saturated the ground using the same procedures. A major precipitation event would be defined as a storm that produces an intensity level reached once in 50 years on the average. • 3. If a visual inspection detects signs of a potential slope failure, qualified personnel should be contacted to evaluate and recommend remediation work to stabilize the area. 4. If no visible signs of slope failure are detected within the first 6 months, then the inspection period could be reduced to once per month or after every major precipitation event. • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis Page 6 • APPENDIX A • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis • i • i ii ��°y/ /l `I 1 ., 1 X 3 I it " cnseo I 11 t x 1 ,! wsaE iI I{ LEGEND: i V 1 - PROPERTY LINE a. �� CASE LCCATICN p 0% 11 _E—— L it —— EXISTING ELECTRIC SI / — — — ■1[� --- -- - ---- EXISTING DITCH Y. e / —� 0 --a--- EXISTING GAS `3� 1 " ✓" - - MINING LIMIT i C v f I f 0 0- PROPOSED GAS N ■C■ _ r L _ _ —r' i.. .... ti -- _ - ------------ PROPOSED IRRIGATION PIPE G NT$ t. I ,\ d r�lse A d — I E �� I u ° I III ! IIMIMrlini•Min gg CASE 0 U L 1 II , , t it I ,4 300 150 0 300 v wu & I SCALE IN FEET 5Nroe R 1 1 • APPENDIX B • • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis • • • RANK-A 10-09-s* 18:36 Il - ilill ' J�,I Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case A 200 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .278 105' - r-- 75. W a a 0 \ j w z 160 _ U z � a a Xz u� o 0 M11 55' —� w cr aLi2 3 f. ��-- 1 d(166.00000.7iel _ ------ Iv- 120 _ _V X 4 80 _ I >- 40 _ 0 i - i • s- • T 1 T l 1 l 70 110 150 190 230 270 310 350 390 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-AEQ 10-09-*. 18:36ll . Jx'1' Consulting, Inc. Rankin -- Case A — Seismic 200 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 1 15 105' 75' ao 0 z 160 _ I- U Z- V p d w p 5 Z 55.___....o 0 W aZ N CC O I I 0 W 1 .....- 46120 _ �� i a) V) r Q 80 _ >- 40 _ 0 ' I ' I ' I ' I 1 I 1 I 70 110 150 190 230 270 310 350 390 X—AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-B 10-12-** 11:10 U - i ill Consulting, Inc. Rankin -- Case B 175 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .271 120' 0 Z 0 I_ rc w U w Xa w Z2 Ctn. cc, u Oz m 55' a7, 145 .E w1 — / _____--- --- m 115 _ --a) i 4- ii - X 4 85 _ I 55 _ 25 I T I T 1 r 1 1 T I 95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-BEQ 10-12-.. 11:12 • ,fix 1 Consulting, Inc. id Rankin — Case B — Seismic 175 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 106 120' - o z 0 w o w a CCa z2 Ixa o w ow 0 55' a -J 145 _ 8I _Y+ _w 1 �� m 115 _ a) —' 4- uitw-�i _N X Q 85 _ I >- 55 _ 25 I I 1 T I I ' t I 95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-C 10-12-** 11:21 I ' .1&T Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case C 175 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .285 100' w a a Q a ow ? 145 _ 55' w1 ID1 15 _ 4 * ,.mac litlit4lea3/ (n 5<- < 85 _ 55 _ 25 75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 X-AXIS (feet) i • • RANK-CEQ 10-12-** 11:22 U - i&T Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case C — Seismic 175 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 114 `.. 100' 0 W z, z� w 145 a i<c(11 1(1) JCL° 55' w1 115 _ a) (!) X < 85 _ >- 55 _ 25 I F I I I 75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 X—AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-0 10-10-** 9:06 4 ' ha ' J&l_ Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case D 170 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .256 ZH Z� J 140 _ 55' 'y' w1 m110 _ Q 80 _ >- 50 _ 201 I i i 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 X-AXIS (feet) • . • RANK-DEQ 10-10-** 9:04 id ' J&"I' Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case D — Seismic 170 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .058 0 J 140 _ - 55' -�' 18 w1 m 110 _ 4- < 80 _ >- 50 _ 20 80 110 140 170 200 230 260 290 320 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-E 10-09-s* 18:39 4 ' J&T Consulting, Inc. illd ' Rankin — Case E 165 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .264 85' a - Z, y = U V a Z U W m. o -J LQ 140 _ 5s I I 1 r-ti a 115 _ a) 4— Cu 1 X < 90 _ I >- 65 _ 40 `1 I 1 1 1 1 T ' / f 1 I T T I 90 115 140 1 165 190 215 240 265 1 290 X-AXIS (feet) 0 • • RANK-EEO 10-09-** 18:40 iJx"I' Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case E — Seismic 165 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 102 85' 0- zH Y = U U d �� a I -I w aZ M= n o u dM 55' 140 a115 a) _ ��/ 4— --- (r) 5-<- 4::C 90 _ I >- 65 40 , I , I i I I I 1 I 90 115 140 165 190 215 240 265 290 X—AXIS (feet) RANK-F 10-09-** 18:40 V ' laConsulting, Inc. Rankin — Case F 170 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .296 115' U 'C W 140 _ 55' 1 m 110 _ a) ( 1 - X Q 80 _ >- 50 _ 20 ' IT T I I I I I I 95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-FEQ 10-10-=+ 9:25 II ' IA ' J&T Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case F — Seismic 170 - 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 118 ■ 115' 0 J W 140 _ 55' I if w1 a 110 _ N 4- (f} >'-- < 80 _ I >- 50 _ 20 I ` 1 I , 1 T t , 1 , 1 ' 95 125 155 185 215 245 275 305 335 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-G 10-09-** 18:41 WI ' .I&'1' Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case G 165 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .274 60' C.)c'w _Jxz Z— W aJ 140 _ 5s' w1 a 115 - X ii: 90 65 _ 40 i 65 90 115 140 165 190 215 240 265 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-GEQ 10-09-** 18:42 ind J&i' Consulting, Inc. Rankin — Case G — Seismic 165 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 . 105 60' - w 00- 2 ctZ W dJ 140 _ 58 WW1 4orairjorlier33./N 115 _ N in X i9o _ >- 65 _ 40 i I 1 1 T I ' I 1 65 90 115 140 165 190 215 240 265 X—AXIS (feet) RANK-H 10-09-•* 18:42 J&T Consulting, Inc. uI Rankin — Case H 170 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .262 74' — 58' ? 145 _ Z� Y CD _ 1 a) 120 _ < 95 _ >- 70 _ 45 95 120 145 170 195 220 245 270 295 X-AXIS (feet) • • • RANK-HEQ 10-09-•* 18:42 - .h i Consulting, Inc. id 1 Rankin — Case H — Seismic 170 _ 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .093 74' 58' 0 _ z� 145 _ Z z F mz a s CD ___w1 a 120 _ �� n> i-- - � N x �e X < 95 _ i >- 70 _ 45 I I i I I I i I I 95 120 145 170 195 220 245 270 295 X-AXIS (feet) • APPENDIX C • • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis RANK-A.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-A 10-09-** 18:36 * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case A SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment . 1 100.0 103.0 180.0 103.0 4 2 180.0 103.0 181.0 100.0 4 3 181.0 100.0 186.0 100.0 4 4 186.0 100.0 187.0 103.0 4 5 187.0 103.0 187.1 106.0 3 6 187.1 106.0 187.2 120.0 2 7 187.2 120.0 192.6 131.0 2 8 192.6 131.0 195.6 137.0 1 9 195.6 137.0 278.6 137.5 1 10 278.6 137.5 287.3 139.1 1 11 287.3 139.1 319.2 139.0 1 12 319.2 139.0 327.8 137.4 1 13 327.8 137.4 388.9 137.4 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 192.6 131.0 278.6 131.5 2 2 278.6 131.5 388.9 131.4 2 3 187.1 106.0 388.9 106. 0 3 4 187.0 103.0 388.9 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit(s) specified Page 1 RANK-A.OPT Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface • No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ***4444444444444444*******44444444 PHREATIC SURFACE, *******++++++:++*+++..++*.++.+*+++ Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 186.00 100. 00 2 187.00 103.00 3 187.10 106.00 4 271.60 134. 90 5 388.90 134. 90 • BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 240.0 241.0 20000.0 .0 2 247.0 248.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 186.0 ft and x = 187.2 ft • Each surface terminates between x = 250.0 ft and x = 260.0 ft Page 2 RANK-A.OPT • Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface • is specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 187.04 104.26 2 191.03 103. 96 3 195.03 103.89 4 199.03 104.06 5 203.01 104 .47 6 206.95 105.11 7 210.86 105.99 8 214.70 107.09 9 218.47 108.43 10 222.16 109.98 11 225.75 111.75 12 229.22 113.73 13 232.58 115.91 14 235.79 118.28 15 238.87 120.85 16 241.78 123.58 17 244 .53 126.49 18 247. 10 129.56 19 249.48 132.77 20 251. 67 136. 12 21 252.37 137.34 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.278 **** • Page 3 RANK-A.OPT The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces • Problem Description : Rankin - Case A FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.278 194.14 171.32 67.44 187.04 252.37 7.071E+06 2. 1.287 191.11 183.46 80.39 187.01 256.95 8.670E+06 3. 1.333 199.14 164 .72 61.30 187.05 253.99 6.555E+06 4. 1.334 193.57 182.00 78.75 187.02 258.41 8.662E+06 5. 1.347 193.60 183.36 80.10 187.02 259.19 8.879E+06 6. 1.358 192.99 184 .89 81.57 187.02 259.71 9.100E+06 7. 1.384 198.00 174 .01 70.60 187.04 258.35 7.831E+06 8. 1.389 194.89 182.85 79.35 187.03 259.91 8.908E+06 9. 1.392 201.96 161.77 58.71 187.07 255.32 6.390E+06 10. 1.392 201.77 159.21 55.48 187.09 252.74 5.974E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 RANK-AEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-AEQ 10-09-** 18:36 0 ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5. 105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case A - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment all1 100.0 103.0 180.0 103.0 4 2 180.0 103.0 181.0 100.0 4 3 181.0 100.0 186.0 100.0 4 4 186.0 100.0 187.0 103.0 4 5 187.0 103.0 187.1 106.0 3 6 187.1 106.0 187.2 120.0 2 7 187.2 120.0 192.6 131.0 2 8 192.6 131.0 195.6 137.0 1 9 195.6 137.0 278.6 137.5 1 10 278.6 137.5 287.3 139.1 1 11 287.3 139.1 319.2 139.0 1 12 319.2 139.0 327.8 137.4 1 13 327.8 137.4 388.9 137.4 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 192.6 131 .0 278.6 131.5 2 2 278.6 131.5 388.9 131.4 2 3 187.1 106.0 388.9 106.0 3 4 187.0 103.0 388.9 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit(s) specified Page 1 RANK-AEQ.OPT Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface • No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 186.00 100.00 2 187.00 103.00 3 187.10 106.00 4 271.60 134.90 5 388.90 134. 90 • A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 240.0 241.0 20000.0 .0 2 247.0 248.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. Page 2 RANK-AEQ.OPT 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced • along the ground surface between x = 186.0 ft and x = 187.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 250.0 ft and x = 260.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4 .0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees • Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 187.01 103.17 2 191.00 103.06 3 195.00 103.16 4 198.99 103.45 5 202.96 103.94 6 206.90 104. 63 7 210.80 105.51 8 214.66 106.59 9 218.45 107.85 10 222.18 109.31 11 225.83 110.95 12 229.39 112.76 13 232.86 114.75 14 236.22 116. 92 15 239.48 119.24 16 242.61 121.73 17 245.62 124.37 • 18 248.49 127.15 19 251.22 130.07 20 253.80 133.13 Page 3 RANK-AEQ.OPT 21 256.23 136.31 22 256.95 137.37 • **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.115 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case A - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.115 191.11 183.46 80.39 187.01 256.95 8.414E+06 2. 1.118 194. 14 171.32 67 .44 187.04 252.37 6.857E+06 3. 1. 152 193.57 182.00 78.75 187.02 258.41 8.413E+06 4. 1. 159 199. 14 164.72 61.30 187.05 253.99 6.362E+06 5. 1. 161 193.60 183.36 80.10 187.02 259.19 8.626E+06 6. 1. 169 192.99 184.89 81.57 187.02 259.71 8.842E+06 7. 1.192 198.00 174.01 70.60 187.04 258.35 7.611E+06 8. 1. 193 194.89 182.85 79.35 187.03 259.91 8.659E+06 9. 1.205 201.96 161.77 58.71 187.07 255.32 6.209E+06 10. 1.213 201.77 159.21 55.48 187.09 252.74 5.801E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-B.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-B 10-12-** 11:10 • * XSTABL * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case B SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 15 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 165.0 103.0 4 2 165.0 103.0 166.0 100.0 4 3 166.0 100.0 171.0 100.0 4 4 171.0 100.0 172.0 103.0 4 5 172.0 103.0 172.1 106. 0 3 6 172. 1 106.0 172.2 120. 0 2 7 172.2 120.0 177.6 131. 0 2 8 177.6 131.0 180.6 137.0 1 9 180.6 137.0 250.9 136. 9 1 10 250.9 136.9 253.4 137. 6 1 11 253.4 137.6 257.6 137. 6 1 12 257.6 137.6 265.7 137.3 1 13 265.7 137.3 271.2 137.2 1 14 271.2 137.2 290.3 138.2 1 15 290.3 138.2 330.8 138.2 1 6 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 177.6 131.0 250.9 130. 9 2 2 250.9 130.9 271.2 131.2 2 3 271.2 131.2 290.3 132.2 2 4 290.3 132.2 330.8 132.2 2 5 172.1 106.0 330.8 106.0 3 6 172.0 103.0 330.8 103.0 4 • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters Page 1 RANK-B.OPT • 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 171.00 100.00 2 172.00 103.00 3 172.10 106.00 . 4 251.20 134.70 5 290.30 135.70 6 330.80 135.70 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 225.0 226.0 20000.0 .0 2 232.0 233.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. • 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 171.0 ft Page 2 RANK-B.O PT and x = 172.2 ft • Each surface terminates between x = 235.0 ft and . x = 245.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 172.04 104.26 2 176.03 103.96 3 180.03 103.89 4 184 .03 104 .06 5 188.01 104.46 6 191.95 105.10 7 195.86 105.97 8 199.71 107.07 9 203.48 108.39 10 207.17 109.93 11 210.76 111.69 12 214.25 113.66 13 217.61 115.83 14 220.84 118.19 15 223.92 120.74 16 226.85 123.46 17 229.61 126.36 18 232.19 129.41 19 234.59 132.61 20 236.80 135.94 • 21 237.37 136.92 Page 3 RANK-B.OPT **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.271 **** • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case B FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.271 179.17 171.73 67.85 172.04 237.37 7.024E+06 2. 1.277 176. 12 184.05 80.99 172.01 241.96 8.615E+06 3. 1.324 184.16 165.03 61.61 172.05 238.98 6.498E+06 4. 1.336 178.64 183.95 80.69 172.02 244.18 8.814E+06 5. 1.356 178.64 183.30 79.68 172.03 243.40 8.710E+06 6. 1.378 179.93 183.41 79.90 172.03 244.91 8.836E+06 7. 1.382 178.06 187.32 83.65 172.03 244.70 9.272E+06 8. 1.404 183.11 175.10 71.34 172.05 243.34 7.847E+06 9. 1.432 187.57 164.07 60.73 172.08 241.85 6.633E+06 10. 1.448 186.90 160.35 55.99 172.10 237.72 6.076E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-BEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-BEQ 10-12-** 11:12 ****************************************** • * XSTABL * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case B - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 15 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 165.0 103.0 4 2 165.0 103.0 166.0 100.0 4 3 166.0 100. 0 171.0 100.0 4 4 171.0 100.0 172.0 103.0 4 5 172.0 - 103.0 172.1 106.0 3 6 172.1 106.0 172.2 120.0 2 7 172.2 120.0 177.6 131. 0 2 8 177.6 131.0 180.6 137.0 1 9 180.6 137.0 250.9 136. 9 1 10 250.9 136.9 253.4 137.6 1 11 253.4 137. 6 257.6 137.6 1 12 257.6 137. 6 265.7 137.3 1 13 265.7 137.3 271.2 137.2 1 14 271.2 137.2 290.3 138.2 1 15 290.3 138.2 330.8 138.2 1 6 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 177.6 131.0 250.9 130.9 2 2 250.9 130. 9 271.2 131.2 2 3 271.2 131.2 290.3 132.2 2 4 290.3 132.2 330.8 132.2 2 5 172.1 106.0 330.8 106.0 3 6 172.0 103.0 330.8 103.0 4 • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters Page 1 RANK-BEQ.OPT • 4 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 171.00 100.00 2 172.00 103.00 3 172.10 106.00 • 4 251.20 134 .70 5 290.30 135.70 6 330.80 135.70 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 225.0 226.0 20000.0 .0 2 232.0 233.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random Page 2 RANK-BEQ.OPT technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 171.0 ft and x = 172.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 235.0 ft and x = 245.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees • Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 172.01 103.17 2 176.00 103.06 3 180.00 103.16 4 183.99 103.45 5 187.96 103.93 6 191.90 104.61 7 195.81 105.49 8 199.66 106.56 9 203.46 107.82 10 207.19 109.26 11 210.85 110.88 12 214.42 112.69 • 13 217.89 114 .66 14 221.27 116.81 15 224.53 119.12 Page 3 RANK-BEQ.OPT 16 227.68 121.59 17 230.70 124 .21 • 18 233.59 126.98 19 236.34 129.89 20 238.94 132.93 21 241.38 136.09 22 241.96 136.91 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.106 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case B - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.106 176.12 184.05 80.99 172.01 241.96 8.360E+06 2. 1.111 179.17 171.73 67.85 172.04 237.37 6.813E+06 3. 1.150 178.64 183.95 80.69 172.02 244.18 8.561E+06 4. 1.150 184.16 165.03 61.61 172.05 238.98 6.307E+06 5. 1.168 178.64 183.30 79.68 172.03 243.40 8.464E+06 6. 1.182 179.93 183.41 79.90 172.03 244. 91 8.589E+06 7. 1.187 178.06 187.32 83.65 172.03 244.70 9.014E+06 8. 1.207 183.11 175.10 71.34 172.05 243.34 7.629E+06 9. 1.232 187.57 164.07 60.73 172.08 241.85 6.449E+06 • 10. 1.260 182.30 176.80 72.18 172.08 242.43 7.822E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * i Page 4 RANK-C.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-C 10-12-** 11:21 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case C SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 180.0 103.0 4 2 180.0 103.0 181.0 100.0 4 3 181.0 100.0 186.0 100.0 4 4 186.0 100.0 187.0 103.0 4 5 187.0 103.0 187.1 106.0 3 6 187.1 106.0 187.2 118.5 2 7 187.2 118.5 193.3 131.0 2 8 193.3 131.0 194.8 134.0 1 9 194.8 134.0 283.8 133.5 1 10 283.8 133.5 290.4 135.0 1 11 290.4 135.0 305.9 135.4 1 12 305.9 135.4 313.9 135.4 1 6 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 194.3 131.0 283.8 130.5 2 2 283.8 130.5 290.4 132.0 2 3 290.4 132.0 305.8 132.4 2 4 305.8 132.4 313.9 132.4 2 5 187.1 106.0 313.9 106.0 3 6 187.0 103.0 313.9 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit (s) specified Page 1 RANK-C.OPT Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water • Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water . No. (ft) (ft) 1 186.00 100.00 2 187.00 103.00 3 187.10 106.00 4 250.70 129.20 5 313.90 129.20 • BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 240.0 241.0 20000.0 .0 2 247.0 248.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 186.0 ft and x = 187.1 ft • Each surface terminates between x = 250.0 ft Page 2 RANK-C.OPT and x = 260.0 ft • Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4 .0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * • The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 187.03 103.99 2 191.02 103.69 3 195.02 103.61 4 199.02 103.76 5 203.00 104.13 6 206.96 104.73 7 210.87 105.55 8 214.73 106.59 9 218.53 107.84 10 222.25 109.31 11 225.89 110.98 12 229.42 112.86 13 232.84 114.93 14 236.14 117.19 15 239.31 119.64 16 242.33 122.25 17 245.20 125.04 18 247.91 127.98 19 250.45 131.07 20 252.36 133.68 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.285 **** • Page 3 RANK-C.OPT The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces • Problem Description : Rankin - Case C FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-1b) 1. 1.285 194.39 174.56 70.95 187.03 252.36 6.639E+06 2. 1.327 199.91 165.97 62.97 187.04 253.93 6.000E+06 3. 1.346 193.84 186.49 83.44 187.01 258.40 8.189E+06 4. 1.375 193.24 190.69 87.58 187.01 259.68 8.708E+06 5. 1.403 203.52 156.74 53.34 187.10 251.59 5.118E+06 6. 1.403 195.23 187.31 84.06 187.02 259.88 8.406E+06 7. 1.411 203.02 159.98 56.61 187.09 253.11 5.455E+06 8. 1.453 197.73 182.55 78.95 187.04 259.66 7.942E+06 9. 1.457 199.34 173.79 69.56 187.08 256.12 6.867E+06 10. 1.466 193.52 179.40 74.02 187.09 251.73 7.325E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 RANK-CEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-CEQ 10-12-** 11:22 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case C - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 180.0 103.0 4 2 180.0 103.0 181.0 100.0 4 3 181.0 100.0 186.0 100.0 4 4 186.0 100.0 187.0 103.0 4 5 187.0 103.0 187.1 106.0 3 6 187. 1 106.0 187.2 118.5 2 7 187.2 118.5 193.3 131.0 2 8 193.3 131.0 194.8 134.0 1 9 194.8 134 .0 283.8 133.5 1 10 283.8 133.5 290.4 135.0 1 11 290.4 135.0 305.9 135.4 1 12 305.9 135.4 313.9 135.4 1 6 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 194.3 131.0 283.8 130.5 2 2 283.8 130.5 290.4 132.0 2 3 290.4 132.0 305.8 132.4 2 4 305.8 132.4 313.9 132.4 2 5 187.1 106.0 313.9 106.0 3 6 187.0 103.0 313.9 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit (s) specified Page 1 RANK-CEQ.OPT Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water • Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PHREATIC SURFACE, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 186.00 100.00 2 187.00 103.00 3 187.10 106.00 4 250.70 129.20 5 313.90 129.20 • A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 240.0 241.0 20000.0 .0 2 247.0 248.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. • 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. Page 2 RANK-CEQ.OPT • 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 186.0 ft and x = 187.1 ft Each surface terminates between x = 250.0 ft and x = 260.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees • Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 187.03 103.99 2 191.02 103.69 3 195.02 103.61 4 199.02 103.76 5 203.00 104.13 6 206.96 104.73 7 210.87 105.55 8 214 .73 106.59 9 218.53 107.84 10 222.25 109.31 11 225.89 110.98 12 229.42 112.86 13 232.84 114 .93 14 236. 14 117.19 15 239.31 119.64 16 242.33 122.25 • 17 245.20 125.04 18 247.91 127.98 19 250.45 131.07 Page 3 RANK-CEQ.OPT 20 252.36 133.68 • **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.114 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case C - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.114 194.39 174.56 70.95 187.03 252.36 6.441E+06 2. 1.143 199.91 165.97 62.97 187.04 253.93 5.823E+06 3. 1.150 193.84 186.49 83.44 187.01 258.40 7.955E+06 4. 1.171 193.24 190.69 87.58 187.01 259.68 8.464E+06 5. 1.193 195.23 187.31 84.06 187.02 259.88 8.174E+06 6. 1.214 203.52 156.74 53.34 187.10 251.59 4.967E+06 7. 1.216 203.02 159.98 56. 61 187.09 253.11 5.299E+06 8. 1.233 197.73 182.55 78. 95 187.04 259.66 7.728E+06 9. 1.247 199.34 173.79 69.56 187.08 256.12 6.679E+06 10. 1.253 197.66 179.71 75.46 187.07 257.43 7.332E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-D.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-D 10-10-** 9:06 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case D SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 200.0 103. 0 4 2 200.0 103.0 201.0 100.0 4 3 201.0 100.0 206.0 100. 0 4 4 206.0 100.0 207.0 103. 0 4 5 207.0 103.0 207.1 106. 0 3 6 207.1 106.0 207.2 117. 5 2 7 207.2 117.5 211.3 126. 0 2 8 211.3 126.0 214.3 132. 0 1 9 214.3 132.0 260.4 132.3 1 10 260.4 132.3 266.2 131. 1 1 11 266.2 131.1 273.3 132.7 1 12 273.3 132.7 318.5 132. 1 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 211.3 126.0 260.4 126.3 2 2 260.4 126.3 318.5 126. 1 2 3 207.1 106.0 318.5 106. 0 3 4 207.0 103.0 318.5 103. 0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Page 1 RANK-D.OPT Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. • 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 206.00 100.00 2 207.00 103.00 3 207.10 106.00 4 265.00 126.20 5 318.50 126. 10 • BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 258.0 259. 0 20000.0 .0 2 265.0 266.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 206.0 ft and x = 207.1 ft • Each surface terminates between x = 270.0 ft and x 280.0 ft Page 2 RANK-D.OPT Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation • at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points 411 Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 207.02 103.66 2 211.02 103.47 3 215.02 103.51 4 219.01 103.76 5 222.98 104.22 6 226.92 104.91 7 230.82 105.80 8 234.67 106.91 9 238.44 108.22 10 242.14 109.74 11 245.76 111.46 12 249.27 113.37 13 252.68 115.47 14 255.96 117.75 15 259.12 120.21 16 262.14 122.83 17 265.01 125.62 18 267.72 128.55 19 270.28 131.63 20 270.62 132.10 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.256 **** • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Page 3 RANK-D.OPT Problem Description : Rankin - Case D • FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.256 212.42 176.97 73.51 207.02 270.62 6.285E+06 2. 1.314 212.16 181.55 78.40 207.01 273.45 6.991E+06 3. 1.357 215.84 173.18 69.41 207.04 271.98 6.201E+06 4. 1.449 212.47 195.31 92.14 207.01 279.96 8.790E+06 5. 1.463 211.38 193.50 89.61 207.03 277.13 8.422E+06 6. 1.480 224 .23 157.28 54.07 207.10 272.24 4.951E+06 7. 1.496 214.72 179.62 74.69 207.08 272.70 6.921E+06 8. 1.511 220.63 169.03 64.80 207.09 274.25 6.002E+06 9. 1.528 217.59 185.37 81.73 207.04 279.98 7.884E+06 10. 1.538 220.20 174.24 70.15 207.08 276.66 6.624E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-DEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-DEQ 10-10-** 9:04 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * * using the * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case D - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 200.0 103.0 4 2 200.0 103.0 201.0 100.0 4 3 201.0 100.0 206.0 100.0 4 4 206.0 100.0 207.0 103.0 4 5 207.0 103.0 207.1 106.0 3 6 207.1 106.0 207.2 117.5 2 7 207.2 117.5 211.3 126.0 2 8 211.3 126.0 214 .3 132.0 1 9 214.3 132.0 260.4 132.3 1 10 260.4 132.3 266.2 131.1 1 11 266.2 131.1 273.3 132.7 1 12 273.3 132.7 318.5 132.1 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 211.3 126.0 260.4 126.3 2 2 260.4 126.3 318.5 126.1 2 3 207.1 106.0 318.5 106.0 3 4 207.0 103.0 318.5 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters • 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Page 1 RANK-DEQ.OPT Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. . 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PHREATIC SURFACE, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 206.00 100.00 2 207.00 103.00 3 207.10 106.00 4 270.00 126.20 5 318.50 126.10 • A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 260.0 261.0 20000.0 .0 2 267.0 268.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. ill1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. Page 2 RANK-DEQ.OPT 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 206.0 ft • and x = 207.1 ft Each surface terminates between x = 270.0 ft and x = 280.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4 .0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees • Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 207.02 103.66 2 211.02 103.47 3 215.02 103.51 4 219.01 103.76 5 222.98 104.22 6 226.92 104.91 7 230.82 105.80 8 234.67 106.91 9 238.44 108.22 10 242.14 109.74 11 245.76 111.46 12 249.27 113.37 13 252.68 115.47 14 255.96 117.75 15 259.12 120.21 16 262.14 122.83 17 265.01 125.62 18 267.72 128.55 • 19 270.28 131.63 20 270.62 132.10 Page 3 RANK-DEQ.OPT **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.058 **** • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case D - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.058 212.42 176.97 73.51 207.02 270.62 5.962E+06 2. 1.111 215.84 173.18 69.41 207.04 . 271.98 5.763E+06 3. 1.117 212.16 181.55 78.40 207.01 273.45 6.757E+06 4. 1.216 214.72 179.62 74.69 207.08 272.70 6.451E+06 5. 1.233 212.47 195.31 92.14 207.01 279.96 8 .649E+06 6. 1.250 211.38 193.50 89.61 207.03 277.13 8.292E+06 7. 1.267 224 .23 157.28 54 .07 207.10 272.24 4.875E+06 B. 1.283 220. 63 169.03 64 .80 207.09 274.25 5.913E+06 9. 1.298 217.59 185.37 81.73 207.04 279.98 7.766E+06 10. 1.304 220.20 174.24 70.15 207.08 276.66 6.527E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-E.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-E 10-09-** 18:39 * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case E SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 17 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 180.0 103.0 4 2 180.0 103.0 181.0 100.0 4 3 181.0 100.0 186.0 100.0 4 4 186.0 100.0 187.0 103.0 4 5 187.0 103.0 187.1 106.0 3 6 187.1 106.0 187.2 118.0 2 7 187.2 118.0 194.3 132.5 2 8 194.3 132.5 194.5 133.0 1 9 194.5 133.0 215.3 133.1 1 10 215.3 133.1 225.7 134.3 1 11 225.7 134.3 239.8 134.4 1 12 239.8 134.4 247.6 133.7 1 13 247.6 133.7 254.4 131.3 1 14 254.4 131.3 259.4 131.2 1 15 259.4 131.2 271.1 133.0 1 16 271.1 133.0 279.8 133.7 1 17 279.8 133.7 285.8 133.7 1 11 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 194 .3 132.5 215.3 132.6 2 2 215.3 132.6 225.7 133.8 2 3 225.7 133.8 239.8 133.9 2 4 239.8 133.9 247.6 133.2 2 5 247.6 133.2 254.4 130.8 2 • 6 254.4 130.8 259.4 130.7 2 7 259.4 130.7 271.1 132.5 2 8 271 . 1 132.5 279.8 133.2 2 Page 1 RANK-E.OPT 9 279.8 133.2 285.8 133.2 2 10 187.1 106.0 285.8 106.0 3 . 11 187.0 103.0 285.8 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110. 0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125. 0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125. 0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** • Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 186.00 100.00 2 187.00 103.00 3 187.10 106.00 4 251.60 132.30 5 285.80 132.30 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 232.0 233.0 20000.0 .0 2 239.0 240.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 RANK-E.OPT 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. • 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 186.0 ft and x = 187.1 ft Each surface terminates between x = 248.0 ft and x = 258.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees • ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 187.03 103.99 2 191.03 103.79 3 195.03 103.82 4 199.02 104.08 5 202.99 104.57 6 206.93 105.28 • 7 210.82 106.21 8 214.65 107.37 9 218.40 108.74 Page 3 RANK-E.OPT 10 222.08 110.32 11 225.65 112.11 • 12 229.12 114 .10 13 232.47 116.29 14 235.69 118.66 15 238.77 121.21 16 241.70 123.94 17 244.47 126.82 18 247.07 129.87 19 249.48 133.04 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.264 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case E FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.264 192.51 173.86 70.09 187.03 249.48 6.249E+06 2. 1.305 197. 19 163.33 59.21 187.07 248.29 5.281E+06 3. 1.393 199.42 163.76 59.72 187.08 250.40 5.478E+06 4. 1.404 201.51 157.28 53.28 187.10 249.00 4.855E+06 5. 1.489 192.97 184.86 80.09 187.07 252.99 7.683E+06 6. 1.509 196.70 185.67 81.92 187.04 257.89 7.998E+06 • 7. 1.519 203.85 156.58 53.61 187.09 251.63 5.179E+06 8. 1.534 190.83 188.79 83.55 187.08 252.17 8.152E+06 9. 1.542 203.07 157.95 55.00 187.08 251.69 5.482E+06 10. 1.558 191.44 172.13 69.61 186.89 249.12 8.157E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 RANK-EEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-EEQ 10-09-** 18:40 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case E - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 17 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 180.0 103.0 4 2 180.0 103.0 181.0 100.0 4 3 181.0 100.0 186.0 100.0 4 4 186.0 100.0 187.0 103.0 4 5 187.0 103.0 187.1 106.0 3 6 187.1 106.0 187.2 118.0 2 7 187.2 118.0 194.3 132.5 2 8 194.3 132.5 194.5 133.0 1 9 194.5 133.0 215.3 133.1 1 10 215.3 133.1 225.7 134.3 1 11 225.7 134.3 239.8 134.4 1 12 239.8 134.4 247.6 133.7 1 13 247.6 133.7 254.4 131.3 1 14 254.4 131.3 259.4 131.2 1 15 259.4 131.2 271.1 133. 0 1 16 271.1 133.0 279.8 133.7 1 17 279.8 133.7 285.8 133.7 1 11 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 194 .3 132.5 215.3 132.6 2 2 215.3 132.6 225.7 133. 8 2 3 225.7 133.8 239.8 133. 9 2 4 239.8 133.9 247.6 133.2 2 5 247.6 133.2 254.4 130.8 2 • 6 254.4 130.8 259.4 130.7 2 7 259.4 130.7 271. 1 132.5 2 8 271.1 132.5 279.8 133.2 2 Page 1 RANK-EEQ.OPT 9 279.8 133.2 285.8 133.2 2 10 187.1 106.0 285.8 106.0 3 IP11 187.0 103.0 285.8 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, • Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 186.00 100.00 2 187.00 103.00 3 187.10 106.00 4 251.60 132.30 5 285. 80 132.30 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 232.0 233.0 20000.0 .0 • 2 239.0 240.0 20000.0 .0 Page 2 RANK-EEQ.OPT NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. • A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 186.0 ft and x = 187.1 ft Each surface terminates between x = 248.0 ft and x = 258.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4 .0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. • ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf • No. (ft) (ft) 1 187.03 103. 99 Page 3 RANK-EEQ.OPT 2 191.03 103.79 3 195.03 103.82 • 4 199.02 104.08 5 202.99 104.57 6 206.93 105.28 7 210.62 106.21 8 214.65 107.37 9 218.40 108.74 10 222.08 110.32 11 225.65 112.11 12 229.12 114.10 13 232.47 116.29 14 235.69 118.66 15 238.77 121.21 16 24]..70 123.94 17 244.47 126.82 18 247.07 129.87 19 249.48 133.04 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.102 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case E - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment • (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.102 192.51 173.86 70.09 187.03 249.48 6.071E+06 2. 1.139 197.19 163.33 59.21 187.07 248.29 5.133E+06 3. 1.206 199.42 163.76 59.72 187.08 250.40 5.333E+06 4. 1.220 201.51 157.28 53.28 187.10 249.00 4 .727E+06 5. 1.274 196.70 185.67 81.92 187.04 257.89 7.802E+06 6. 1.279 192.97 184.86 80.09 187.07 252.99 7.495E+06 7. 1.307 203.85 156.58 53.61 187.09 251.63 5.057E+06 8. 1.324 190.83 188.79 83.55 187.08 252.17 7.962E+06 9. 1.330 203.07 157. 95 55.00 187.08 251.69 5.358E+06 10. 1.331 204.06 167.59 64 .54 187.08 257.39 6.146E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 RANK-F.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-F 10-09-** 18:40 alp ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * **********.******************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case F SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 100.0 103.0 190.0 103.0 4 2 190.0 103.0 191.0 100.0 4 3 191.0 100.0 196.0 100.0 4 4 196.0 100.0 197.0 103.0 4 5 197.0 103.0 197.1 106.0 3 6 197. 1 106.0 197.2 118.0 2 7 197.2 118.0 202.8 129.5 2 8 202.8 129.5 204.6 133.0 1 9 204.6 133.0 332.8 133.3 1 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 202.8 129.5 332.8 129.8 2 2 197.1 106.0 332.8 106.0 3 3 197.0 103.0 332.8 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface • No. (pcf) (pcf) (psi) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 Page 1 RANK-F.OPT 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, ****.>+++:+::..++*************.+** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 196.00 100.00 2 197.00 103.00 3 197.10 106.00 4 255.90 129.10 5 332.80 129.10 BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 250.0 251.0 20000.0 .0 2 257.0 258.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 196.0 ft and x = 197.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 260.0 ft and x = 270.0 ft • Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft Page 2 RANK-F.OPT * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) • 1 197.04 104.26 2 201.02 103.83 3 205.01 103.63 4 209.01 103.66 5 213.01 103.92 6 216.98 104 .41 7 220.91 105.12 8 224.80 106.06 9 228.63 107.22 10 232.39 108.59 11 236.06 110.18 12 239.63 111.97 13 243.10 113.97 14 246.45 116.16 15 249.66 118.54 16 252.74 121.10 17 255.66 123.83 18 258.42 126.72 19 261.02 129.76 20 263.43 132.95 21 263.55 133.14 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.296 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces • Problem Description : Rankin - Case F Page 3 RANK-F.OPT FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-16) 1. 1.296 206.48 173.54 69.93 197.04 263.55 6.387E+06 2. 1.330 202.60 184 .66 81.69 197.01 265. 95 7.897E+06 3. 1.344 202.70 192.69 89.71 197.01 269.77 8.588E+06 4. 1.374 210.93 166. 15 62.35 197.08 263.80 5.795E+06 5. 1.376 205.52 183. 19 79.38 197.04 267. 13 7.526E+06 6. 1.384 209.11 176.58 73.32 197.04 268.16 6.989E+06 7. 1.405 213.83 160.28 57.08 197.09 264.00 5.347E+06 8. 1.416 210.36 176.51 73.47 197.04 269.64 7.107E+06 9. 1.423 210.84 174.22 70.95 197.05 268.66 6.828E+06 10. 1.429 200.73 200. 12 96.29 197.03 269.91 9.383E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-FEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-FEQ 10-10-** 9:25 * XSTABL * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case F - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 190.0 103.0 4 2 190.0 103.0 191.0 100.0 4 3 191.0 100.0 196.0 100.0 4 4 196.0 100.0 197.0 103.0 4 5 197.0 103.0 197.1 106.0 3 6 197.1 106.0 197.2 118.0 2 7 197.2 118.0 202.8 129.5 2 8 202.8 129.5 204.6 133.0 1 9 204.6 133.0 332.8 133.3 1 3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 202.8 129.5 332.8 129.8 2 2 197.1 106.0 332.8 106.0 3 3 197.0 103.0 332.8 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface • No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 Page 1 RANK-FEQ.OPT 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 • 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PHREATIC SURFACE, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 196.00 100.00 2 197.00 103.00 3 197.10 106.00 4 255. 90 129.10 5 332.80 129. 10 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient • of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 250.0 251.0 20000.0 .0 2 257.0 258.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced • along the ground surface between x = 196.0 ft and x = 197.2 ft Page 2 RANK-FEQ.OPT Each surface terminates between x = 260.0 ft • and x = 270.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft • * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * • The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 197.04 104.26 2 201.02 103.83 3 205.01 103.63 4 209.01 103.66 5 213.01 103.92 6 216.98 104.41 7 220.91 105.12 8 224.80 106.06 9 228.63 107.22 10 232.39 108.59 11 236.06 110.18 12 239.63 111.97 13 243. 10 113.97 14 246.45 116.16 15 249.66 118.54 16 252.74 121.10 17 255.66 123.83 18 258.42 126.72 19 261.02 129.76 20 263.43 132.95 21 263.55 133.14 • **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.118 **** Page 3 RANK-FEQ.OPT • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case F - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.118 206.48 173.54 69.93 197.04 263.55 6.197E+06 2. 1.143 202.70 192.69 89.71 197.01 269.77 8.344E+06 3. 1.146 202.60 184 .66 81.69 197.01 265.95 7.682E+06 4. 1.176 205.52 163.19 79.38 197.04 267.13 7.315E+06 5. 1.177 209.11 176.58 73.32 197.04 268.16 6.792E+06 6. 1.181 210.93 166.15 62.35 197.08 263.80 5.628E+06 7. 1.198 210.36 176.51 73.47 197.04 269.64 6.911E+06 8. 1.205 213.83 160.28 57.08 197.09 264.00 5.195E+06 9. 1.206 210.84 174.22 70.95 197.05 268.66 6.639E+06 10. 1.215 200.73 200.12 96.29 197.03 269.91 9.133E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-G.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-G 10-09-** 18:41 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case G SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 10 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 185.0 103.0 4 2 185.0 103.0 186.0 100.0 4 3 186.0 100.0 191.0 100.0 4 4 191.0 100.0 192.0 103.0 4 5 192.0 103.0 192.1 106.0 3 6 192.1 106.0 192.2 121.5 2 7 192.2 121.5 197.6 132.5 2 8 197.6 132.5 197.8 133.0 1 9 197.8 133.0 239.2 133.3 1 10 239.2 133.3 261.0 133.1 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 197.6 132.5 239.2 132.8 2 2 239.2 132.8 261.0 132.6 2 3 192.1 106.0 261.0 106.0 3 4 192.0 103.0 261.0 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified • Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. Page 1 RANK-G.OPT 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 • 2 110.0 131.0 .0 100.035.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, *****************a.*************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 191.00 100.00 2 192.00 103.00 3 192.10 106.00 4 261.00 131.00 BOUNDARY LOADS • 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 245.0 246.0 20000.0 .0 2 252.0 253.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 191.0 ft and x = 192.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 255.0 ft and x = 261.0 ft • Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50. 0 ft Page 2 RANK-G.OPT • * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) • 1 192.03 103.89 2 196.02 103.59 3 200.02 103.52 4 204 .01 103.67 5 208.00 104.05 6 211.95 104.66 7 215.86 105.50 6 219.72 106.55 9 223.51 107.83 10 227.22 109.32 11 230.85 111.01 12 234.36 112.92 13 237.77 115.02 14 241.05 117.31 15 244 .19 119.78 16 247.18 122.44 17 250.02 125.25 18 252.70 128.23 19 255.20 131.35 20 256.47 133.14 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.274 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case G Page 3 RANK-G.OPT FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment • (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.274 199.32 173.50 69.99 192.03 256.47 6.404E+06 2. 1.313 204.35 164.94 61.91 192.04 257.47 5.754E+06 3. 1.316 198.55 181.61 78.35 192.02 260.08 7.375E+06 4. 1.328 199.74 180.66 77.51 192.02 260.92 7.350E+06 5. 1.332 197.94 184 .76 81.45 192.02 260.81 7.726E+06 6. 1.342 204.31 167 .90 64.82 192.04 258.96 6.098E+06 7. 1.361 204.08 170.51 67.34 192.04 260.04 6.394E+06 8. 1.398 208.37 155.99 52.85 192.09 256.03 4.995E+06 9. 1.405 207.34 162.74 59.74 192.07 259.17 5.701E+06 10. 1.407 207.04 160.35 56.65 192.09 256.71 5.344E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-GEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-GEQ 10-09-** 18:42 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case G - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 10 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 185.0 103.0 4 2 185.0 103.0 186.0 100.0 4 3 186.0 100.0 191.0 100.0 4 4 191.0 100.0 192.0 103.0 4 5 192.0 103.0 192.1 106.0 3 6 192. 1 106.0 192.2 121.5 2 7 192.2 121.5 197.6 132.5 2 8 197.6 132.5 197.8 133.0 1 9 197.8 133.0 239.2 133.3 1 10 239.2 133.3 261.0 133.1 1 4 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 197.6 132.5 239.2 132.8 2 2 239.2 132.8 261.0 132.6 2 3 192.1 106.0 261.0 106.0 3 4 192.0 103.0 261.0 103.0 4 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 4 Soil unit(s) specified • Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. Page 1 RANK-GEQ.OPT 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 • 2 110.0 131.0 .0 100.035.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 191.00 100.00 2 192.00 103.00 3 192.10 106.00 4 261.00 131.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned • A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 245.0 246.0 20000.0 .0 2 252.0 253.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. • 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 191.0 ft and x = 192.2 ft Page 2 RANK-GEQ.OPT • Each surface terminates between x = 255.0 ft and x = 261.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := -1.0 degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * • The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 192.03 103.89 2 196.02 103.59 3 200.02 103.52 4 204.01 103.67 5 208.00 104 .05 6 211.95 104 .66 7 215.86 105.50 8 219.72 106.55 9 223.51 107.83 10 227.22 109.32 11 230.85 111.01 12 234 .36 112.92 13 237.77 115.02 14 241.05 117.31 15 244. 19 119.78 16 247.18 122.44 17 250.02 125.25 18 252.70 128.23 19 255.20 131.35 20 256.47 133. 14 • **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.105 **** Page 3 RANK-GEQ.OPT • The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case G - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.105 199.32 173.50 69.99 192.03 256.47 6.210E+06 2. 1. 131 198.55 181.61 78.35 192.02 260.08 7.159E+06 3. 1. 134 204.35 164.94 61.91 192.04 257.47 5.582E+06 4. 1.138 199.74 180.66 77.51 192.02 260.92 7.136E+06 5. 1.143 197.94 184.76 81.45 192.02 260.81 7.503E+06 6. 1. 153 204.31 167.90 64. 82 192.04 258.96 5.919E+06 7. 1. 167 204.08 170.51 67.34 192.04 260.04 6.209E+06 8. 1.204 207.34 162.74 59.74 192.07 259.17 5.539E+06 9. 1.208 208.37 155.99 52.85 192.09 256.03 4.845E+06 10. 1.210 202.15 177.53 73.60 192.05 260.80 6.890E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-H.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-H 10-09-** 18:42 * XSTABL * * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case H SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment . 1 100.0 103.0 185.0 103.0 4 2 185.0 103.0 186.0 100.0 4 3 186.0 100.0 191.0 100.0 4 4 191.0 100.0 192.0 103.0 4 5 192.0 103.0 192.1 106.0 3 6 192. 1 106.0 192.2 118.5 2 7 192.2 118.5 197. 1 128.6 2 8 197.1 128. 6 199.8 134.0 1 9 199.8 134 .0 241.4 135.0 1 10 241.4 135.0 248.7 136.4 1 11 248.7 136.4 263.4 132.2 1 12 263.4 132.2 275.6 131.0 1 13 275.6 131.0 281.8 133.8 1 14 281.8 133.8 293.1 133.9 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 197.1 128.6 241.4 130.0 2 2 241.4 130.0 275.6 125.9 2 3 275.6 125.9 293.1 128.9 2 4 192.1 106.0 293. 1 106.0 3 5 192.0 103.0 293.1 103.0 4 • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters Page 1 RANK-H.OPT 4 Soil unit (s) specified • Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 191.00 100.00 2 192.00 103.00 3 192.10 106.00 4 262.50 132.40 5 293.10 132.40 • BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 243.0 244.0 20000.0 .0 2 250.0 251.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 191.0 ft • and x = 192.2 ft Page 2 RANK-H.OPT Each surface terminates between x = 255.0 ft and x = 265.0 ft • Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero • Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 192.01 103. 17 2 196.00 103.03 3 200.00 103. 10 4 203.99 103.36 5 207.97 103.84 6 211.91 104.51 7 215. 81 105.39 B 219. 66 106.46 9 223.46 107.73 10 227. 18 109. 19 11 230.83 110.84 12 234.38 112.67 13 237.84 114 .68 14 241.19 116.86 15 244 .43 119.22 • 16 247.54 121.73 17 250.52 124 .40 18 253.35 127.22 Page 3 RANK-H.OPT 19 256.04 130.18 20 258.58 133.27 • 21 258.77 133.52 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.262 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case H FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.262 196.71 181.42 78.40 192.01 258.77 7.593E+06 2. 1.368 207.63 156.53 53.15 192.09 255.91 5.177E+06 3. 1.454 201.89 184 .20 80.54 192.04 263.40 8.308E+06 4. 1.466 197.88 179.10 73.62 192.09 256.23 7.536E+06 5. 1.484 196.63 174 .90 72.11 191.98 256.17 8.467E+06 6. 1.500 199.53 179.77 74 .43 192.09 257. 99 7.681E+06 7. 1.525 205.43 174.03 69.61 192.09 261.44 7.175E+06 8. 1.540 202.04 172.66 67.08 192.10 256.88 7.052E+06 9. 1.581 195.67 173.29 71.33 191.69 255.48 9.317E+06 10. 1.586 196.62 200.09 95.21 192.07 263.36 1.023E+07 * * * END OF FILE * * * • • Page 4 RANK-HEQ.OPT XSTABL File: RANK-HEQ 10-09-** 18:42 • ****************************************** * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices * * * * Copyright (C) 1992 A 96 * * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * * All Rights Reserved * * * * Ver. 5.105a 95 A 1483 * ****************************************** Problem Description : Rankin - Case H - Seismic SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 14 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment • 1 100.0 103.0 185.0 103.0 4 2 185.0 103.0 186.0 100.0 4 3 186.0 100.0 191.0 100.0 4 4 191.0 100.0 192.0 103.0 4 5 192.0 103.0 192.1 106.0 3 6 192.1 106.0 192.2 118.5 2 7 192.2 118.5 197.1 128. 6 2 8 197.1 128.6 199.8 134.0 1 9 199.8 134 .0 241.4 135.0 1 10 241.4 135.0 248.7 136.4 1 11 248.7 136.4 263.4 132.2 1 12 263.4 132.2 275.6 131.0 1 13 275.6 131.0 281.8 133.8 1 14 281.8 133.8 293.1 133.9 1 5 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 197.1 128.6 241.4 130.0 2 2 241.4 130.0 275.6 125.9 2 3 275.6 125.9 293.1 128. 9 2 4 192.1 106.0 293.1 106.0 3 5 192.0 103.0 293.1 103.0 4 • ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters Page 1 RANK-HEQ.OPT 4 Soil unit(s) specified • Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 110.0 131.0 150.0 22.00 .000 .0 1 2 110.0 131.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1 3 125.0 141.0 100.0 18.00 .000 .0 1 4 125.0 141.0 2000.0 20.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PHREATIC SURFACE, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 191.00 100.00 2 192.00 103.00 3 192.10 106.00 4 262.50 132.40 5 293. 10 132.40 • A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .070 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 2 load(s) specified Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 243.0 244 .0 20000.0 .0 2 250.0 251.0 20000.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. A critical failure surface searching method, using a random • technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. Page 2 RANK-HEQ.OPT 1000 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. • 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 100 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 191.0 ft and x = 192.2 ft Each surface terminates between x = 255.0 ft and x = 265.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * * 4.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ -1.0 degrees ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 21 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 192.01 103.17 2 196.00 103.03 3 200.00 103.10 4 203.99 103.36 5 207.97 103.84 6 211.91 104.51 7 215.81 105.39 • 8 219.66 106.46 9 223.46 107.73 10 227. 18 109.19 Page 3 RANK-HEQ.OPT 11 230.83 110.84 12 234.38 112.67 • 13 237.84 114.68 14 241.19 116.86 15 244.43 119.22 16 247.54 121.73 17 250.52 124.40 18 253.35 127.22 19 256.04 130.18 20 258.58 133.27 21 258.77 133.52 **** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.093 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : Rankin - Case H - Seismic FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 1.093 196.71 181.42 78.40 192.01 258.77 7.370E+06 2. 1.189 207.63 156.53 53. 15 192.09 255.91 5.028E+06 3. 1.235 201.89 184.20 80.54 192.04 263.40 8.089E+06 4. 1.280 197.88 179.10 73.62 192.09 256.23 7.346E+06 5. 1.300 199.53 179.77 74.43 192.09 257.99 7.490E+06 • 6. 1.300 205.43 174.03 69.61 192.09 261.44 6.991E+06 7. 1.308 196.63 174.90 72.11 191.98 256.17 8.290E+06 8. 1.341 202.04 172.66 67.08 192.10 256.88 6.883E+06 9. 1.350 196.62 200.09 95.21 192.07 263.36 9.983E+06 10. 1.381 208.35 172.81 68.45 192.10 263.44 7.084E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * • Page 4 • APPENDIX D • • Rankin Properly Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GRAVEL EVALUATION NORTHWEST OF WELD COUNTY ROADS 18 AND 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TERRACON PROJECT NO. 21035117 January 9, 2004 Prepared for: Rollin Consulting 840 Eagle Drive Eaton, Colorado 80615 Prepay-d by: Terracon 1289 First Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Telephone (970) 351-0460 Fax (970) 353-8639 lferracon January 9, 2004 1 lerracon • 1289 First Avenue Post Office Box 1744 Greeley,Colorado 80632-1744 (970)351-0480 Fax:(970)353-8639 Rollin Consulting 840 Eagle Drive • Eaton, Colorado 80615 Attn: Mr. Ken Rollin Re: Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21035117 • Terracon has completed a geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed gravel pit to be located northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 in Weld County, Colorado. I - The results of our engineering study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory test results, t test boring records, and our findings needed to aid in the evaluation of the site as an economic source of sand and gravel are attached. The overburden soils at the site generally consisted of approximately six inches of topsoil underlain by lean clay soils with varying amounts of silts and sands that extend to depths of 3 to 6 feet. Silty 1 sands and fine-grained poorly graded sands with silt were encountered in test borings B-1 through B- 3 at depths of 3 to 7 feet. Sand and fine gravel underlies the overburden in the majority of the site and extends to the bedrock below. Claystone bedrock was encountered at depths of 26 to 28 feet 1 below the surface. The results of our field exploration and laboratory testing indicate that good quality sand and fine gravel suitable for use in some construction materials were encountered in small to moderate quantities at the site. Based on our engineering analyses, approximately 1,775,353 cubic yards of sand and fine gravel exist at the site. Approximately 541,266 cubic yards of overburden would have to be removed to obtain the sand and fine gravel for this area. Since the majority of the aggregate is below groundwater, dewatering of the site will be required to mine the material. We appreciate being of service to you in the gravel evaluation phase of this project, and are prepared to assist you during the further testing and mining phases as well. If you have any questions • Arizona•Arkansas■California■Colorado■Georgia■Idaho t Illinois■Iowa■Kansas IN Kentucky i Minnesota■Missouri Montana■Nebraska IN Nevada■New Mexico■North Carolina■Oklahoma NI Tennessee t Texas ON Utah II Wisconsin N Wyoming Consulting Engineers&Scientists Since 1965 www.terracon.com 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report di Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21035117 Terracon concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and consulting services please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, REGI4'% TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC. ono•d• PIEXA�OF tat 4. 365129 7i *%:,..12,..004 Andrei Bedoya, E.I. Ty G. Alexander, E. i'f Wes ii /0NAL P. n e�o`�� Staff Engineer Office Manager Copies to: Addressee (3) • III • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Letter of Transmittal INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE EXPLORATION 1 Field Exploration 1 Laboratory Testing 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 Soil and Bedrock Conditions 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results 3 Groundwater Conditions 3 EVALUATION 3 • GENERAL COMMENTS 4 APPENDIX A Boring Location Plan Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C General Notes Unifiea Soil Classification • • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GRAVEL EVALUATION NORTHWEST OF WELD COUNTY ROADS 18 AND 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TERRACON PROJECT NO, 21035117 JANUARY 9, 2004 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of our gravel evaluation for the proposed gravel pit to be located northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 in Weld County, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: • Subsurface soil and bedrock conditions • Groundwater conditions • Approximate quantity of overburden • • Approximate quantity of sand and gravel • Visual evaluation of quality of sand and gravel The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and experience with similar soil conditions, and our understanding of the proposed project. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding the site is to be mined for sand and gravel which is to be used as aggregate for commercial use in construction materials such as structural fill, base course, concrete and asphalt. SITE EXPLORATION The scope of the services performed for this project included a site reconnaissance by a geotechnical engineer, a subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Field Exploration !zour s[!t ' onngs . ere ifleC at the site o'1 December 19. 2003. The borings were drilled to • 're Site Plan endix Alborings approximate depths of 30 to 3:, feet at the ocatiors i shown on , pp were advanced with a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing 4-inch diameter solid stem augers. Geotechnicai Engineering Rep.erc 49 Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County,Colorado Terracon Project No. 21035117 Terracon The borings were located in the field by the owners. Ground surface elevations at each boring location were not obtained. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used. Lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken from auger cuttings. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in each boring at the time of site exploration. Laboratory Testing All samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation by the_ project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. Samples of bedrock were classified in accordance with the general notes for Bedrock Classification. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Boring logs were prepared and are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil and bedrock samples and are; presented on :the boring logs and in Appendix B. The test results were used for the gravel evaluation. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable local or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples were tested for the following engineering properties: • Moisture Content • Grain Size • Plasticity Index SITE CONDITIONS The site was located in an agricultural area and appeared to be cultivated for hay. There was an existing residence on the west portion of the site as well as two oil and gas pump jacks, one on the west portion of the site and one on the east. The site was vegetated in large part with short grasses and ih various portions with tail nat:ve weeds. Several deciduous trees were observed near `re existing residence. The site was bordered by a bluff to the west. agricultural `and to the north. Weld County Road 25 to the east. and by an existing grave! mining operaton to the south • 2 Geccechnical Engineering Rdport Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21035117 Terracon SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil and Bedrock Conditions As presented on the Logs of Boring, surface soils to depths of 6 to 7 feet consisted of overburden materials. The upper 6 inches of the overburden consisted of topsoil. The underlying overburden consists of silty sand, lean clay soils with varying amounts of silt and sand, and fine-grained poorly graded sands with silt. A layer of well graded sand with gravel varying in thickness from 20 to 22 feet was encountered below the overburden. Bedrock underlies the sand and gravel at depths of 26 to 28 feet below the surface. The bedrock consists of claystone. Laboratory Test Results Laboratory test results indicate that the sand and gravel are well graded and non plastic. Maximum gravel sizes encountered ranged from 1 to 1%inches. Groundwater Conditions • Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 4 to 6 feet in the test borings at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions. Evaluation Based on the test borings drilled at the site by Terracon, approximately 1,775,353 cubic yards of sand and gravel is the estimated quantity at the site. Approximately 541,266 cubic yards of overburden would have to be removed to obtain the sand and gravel in this area. The above quantities are based on the average thickness of overburden and sand and gravel obtained from the test borings drilled by Terracon as outlined in our site plan, Appendix A, and on the area boundary based on the information provided by the client. Because of physical property boundaries such as roads and property lines, the quantity that can be removed is less than what is stated above. Based on the test borings, the average overburden thickness was approximately 61/4 feet and the average sand and gravel thickness was approximately 20'/2 feet. This gives a ratio of sand and gravel to overburden of approximately 3.3 to 1. 1tm c labora ory tests run on auger sa,-.72Ies _ ='': :'^ O::r V15�.� fit::af'Jc: 'rJr C.,"ink drlilif,c an% one^ lic.. c. ail. the granular materials encountered consist of gocc quality aggregate suitable for use in cons7uctio-, • s grave; ,anger than 1' 2 inch i;. ., ar:, :�r were r.c. ^:c'.�d ,,�.ir the g-enu12. ��:aiGrialj. .,OChtc (J� era�e 3 • Gectechnical Engineering Report • Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21035117 Terracon stratum. However, estimated gravel sizes are limited by the sampling method utilized and are based on field observations of the auger cuttings. Lenses of larger particle sizes may be encountered which were not observed in the samples obtained. In order to use this material for typical construction materials such as base course, concrete, and asphalt aggregate, extensive screening may be required. This may generate large amounts of reject sand material. The material may be used without processing for structural fill and subbase material. To more accurately evaluate the quality of the granular material as well as the size of the particles, test pits should be dug at the site and detailed laboratory tests should be performed. Since the sand and gravel is below groundwater, dewatering of the pit will be required to excavate the sand and gravel, or a drag line will be needed to remove the overburden and aggregate. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed by Terracon at the indicated locations. This report does not reflect variations, which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may • not become evident until mining operations are performed. These variations may effect the quantity and or the quality of the materials encountered. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report, are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. • 4 • • • Area Boundary for Volume, Calculation A ' s t3 I in SB-2 SBg I If GEND T15if GORIIIGS (?I --- IlllVV / FIGURE I. SITE PLAN GRAVEL STUDY NW OF WCR IB AND 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Project Mngr. TCC Project Na. 210.;5:11 lf�rr�con scale:Designed By: e 1' `` 400' --- I'I. I " , '. r)I - II EL Io>tATION O14 Checked By: ICA 71. 1 n111III I IJ I`1;,1 O1Kli:W: I II IIJFP'OSF5. 1209 1:11"0 esi AvewnR Dole; 12/3O03Approved By T0A GREEIET. Gx.oleeon 0031 Drawn By: JSD File Name: 21035117.dwg Figure No. 1 LOG OF BORING NC. E-1 _ .-_ _ Page 1 of 1 CLIENT _. .—� Rollin Consulting • SITE NW of WCR 18 and 25 j PROJECT Weld County,Colorado i Gravel Evaluation j I SAMPLES TESTS ' + i O ' Vim = 0Q S• ! DESCRIPTION co 1 ~ i I Z h � II- 0 I � W , w rn ; WW ' zz a v Q �z Y v� 1x• y w cn > >- w - 136 a 3 z f- O 1 l 0 ) Z H tz m >c) 0 a D r/i •"' '10.5 \TOPSOIL CL 1A1 GAR +27.4 SANDY SILTY CLAY,moist,brown =ML (CL-ML) 3.5 • — POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT, 1 — • moist to wet,brown (SP-SM) 5^SM 2AUGER 14.9 . 17 777 WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, - gravel 1" max,wet,redddish/brown (SW) - :. 10-SW 3AUGER 14.7 15_SW 4A�JGER 15.0, ,......:..:. :: _ f_ • • _ . . • • ( gravel lens at 18' — ) 20_SW 5AUGER 11.1 25--SW GAUGER 14.4 27 (gravel lens at 26' ) I BEDROCK, claystone,moist, gray — —• 130 ( 30 1 7A(JGER 22.4 --r END OF BORING ` . i I • Tea stratif,cat on Imes represer: the axroxime;e bourc ry lines _=;:.een SJ'aria r'CCx;YpeS -S'ttrantrans:'.!-Die trans:'.!-Di rna, yrac;:a • 0 \/,:"A7-ER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 12--.9-( WL 4.0 WD.7 BORING COMPLETED 12-19 WL 'Y T erracon RIG CME-75 I FOREMAN JE WL L - JOB # 21035' LOG OF FORING NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT i .. i Rollin Consulting • SITE NW of WCR 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Evaluation I I SAMPLES ! TESTS ca o 1 � � 715 CL o DESCRIPTION l Ice F- I �F- T• } f ul w I > N OCw Z Z z T I- U) - uw p ?� Lu►- a p uJ CY w O .j D C. O O a0 tea . zI- O p O i Z 1- Q: CI SU O aI 7v) ''I0.5 \TOPSOIL (-- J" — CL 1AUG!~R 19.0 LEAN CLAY,moist, dark brown (CL) - 3 _ SILTY SAND, moist, brown(SM) —77 1 I. 5- -SM 2A JGR 8.5 ,6 I •••••• WELL WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, gravel 1 1/2"max,wet, reddish/brown — — (SW) — 10�SW 3A'JGE1R 11.5 _ 15 _SW1 4AUG R 13.9 - I I • - I '� 20 -SW 5AUGER 13.O • :iI _ I I 25 _SW 6AUGER 10.5 '126 BEDROCK, claystone, moist,gray • -130 1 30 — 7AIJGER 116.9 I ! END OF BORING 1 I 1 i I w . 3 stria: `c:3r.ilr'Ss •eprase"' .te 3::.'^'. ,:ate^c....7.2i il' -e weer scr and roc-s types: : -s"u. the t a'.sition r be gr3cial. . _ BORING STARTED 2-19-C WI_ :� 4.5 WD ;-T BORING COMPLETED 12-19-( J WL IT 1= err acon RIG CME-75 FOREMAN JE _. WL . JOB Y 2':0251' T LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 Pay' 1 of CLIENT i - Rollin Consulting • SITE NW of WCR 18 and 25 I PROJECT Weld County, Colorado ! Gravel Evaluation SAMPLES TESTS I I ' � I 0 c { DESCRIPTION I m ( r w o _ ! I s w ! z T _ C w 'l > Cw Z { Utu P Ow L-2a vI i o N z I o u 1 cn } w -1 Q o j ; z I- a D Z I— te m S O Co. D cn J' ' 0.5 \TOPSOIL _ ! r_~ — CL 1AUGER 27.2 ✓U�� LEAN CLAY,moist,dark brown (CL) _ 3 I f POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT, — I moist,light brown to reddish(SP-SM) -SP 2A G9R 3.3 11. 6 5-- -SM I WELL GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, — I i ! gravel 1"max,wet,brown (SW) - 10-SW 3AUGE1R 10.3 { 15 -SWI 4AjJG R 10.0 O . ••••••• I ;i ,,0 -SW 5A.JG R 8.0 -1 -SW 6AUG R I 12.5 25 I -SW 7AUG R ( 9.7 '•••••:j28 -SW 8AUG R I 15.81 .__; BEDROCK, claystone, moist, gray 30— _ I I i ' — • 135 — i 9AUGER 25.9 1 35 8 I END OF BORING ! I I " I I I i • i _.s'ratif. : n lines r?3rese::9-le app rr :mate bc:,^;ary lines -..aa_r. .. . anc roc' :3es' r-s r-, the ,. silica. . oe 7,1-e.:4;..::...: • 'R ATER LEVEL 0BSERVAT'ONS, ft BORING STARTED 12-19-0 4-` •6. .i- 5 'N'D ;I BORING COMPLETED 12-19-0. WL '� '� ierracon RIG CME-75 i FOREMAN .1St J`LVL `JOB# 2103511 LOG OF BORING NO. B . . Page 1 of 1 _� CLIENT I • Rollin Consulting • SITE NW of WCR 18 and 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado I Gravel Evaluation ' ( SAMPLES I TESTS J j nI n 1 j 9j DESCRIPTION • } ct w — E K I- _ X. Ni u� > rn ow � Z Zz a m 1 m w 0 30 i-Z } occLL X w CVO D } w .-� <0 a 3 z i- C9 C .:,1 Z I-- X O 5O+o . Zrn "0.5 \TOPSOIL /-----/----- -- CL 1AUG�R 22.9 2 SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist, brown (CL) j LEAN CLAY, moist,black with organics (CL) — 5� CL 2AJGER 35.1 /i%6 V — j WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND — •: ;•: GRAVEL, gravel 1 1/2"max,wet, brown --- :: (SW-SM) - 1{:: -SW 3AUGER 18.9 i� i0 -SM i - SW 4AUG1R 25.8 15-+SM wl::: il = i;l 20_SW 5AUG R 18.7 i^ --SM 11. (gravel lenses at 22'-26') - ( 1"- 1112" gravels) — :: if)J —SW' 6ALJGIR 15.6 • 1.,26 _ 5 --SM BEDROCK, claystone, moist, gray - -_130 30 — i 7AUGO'R 29.5 END OF BORING I � C I f -at: lines ....�ezer;i -� appnz)..m.s:s beJ -a.'/line- `cr;.e„I,sc-c rock .:-es: in-s:u. :he !ra-:s;.ion may,e gradual. .,i:. ER LE..'EL OE'SERV;:.T'.',iNS. ' B R';��_ STARTED '9-,l VvL 6.0 WO . BORING COMPLETED ':9-d3 WL ' err aeon R1G CME-75 FOREMAN JSO WL : ,JOB r 21035117 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN iNCHES I U.S.sieuE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6. .. „ 2 _ ' ,. 1.'',;F 3 1 P ,1C .I.:'.-.' 33 ,r, 7 6^ I00.,,,..2C.0 G ri'4ii !. ::i :_ , ,. .:7 : i • : 1 : •: : • , ' • .:I 1 0 :I i I I I I I ,;! I l t ,{ I t 11 ' i i 1 ' C '� 'I i 1i 1 1 3 I I1 1 "I 1 i . t .' I ' ' f 90 tC I ii1 j 1 ' I . i I ! I I I'.' 85 11 1" III I f ��; I' 1 ! ii l ? ( I _l I VID I I I;i1 '1 i , 1 I I I I I I` vy ; 1 1 I! i i l s •f I ;i 1 I Ii j I l 1 f ,` I I 11‘. h ! I: I I I I I I f: , ` i i I I I III: ' I ' ' I ;,S • I I II ; � _ E '11•1111 1 111 ` l 1 75 .I e ! ' I• `;II`y .,l IjIl l .1 11 ' 1 III 7o I III I i I I I I I .1:, 'I I Ili:I 1 i 1 . I'I . I !IL 1 �' Ii 65 f y" — I &I i i I � 'III 1 S t 11111 5-1° 60 I 41 a f 1 1 l W 50 . • i , ,I I- • 11 II I I: _ i- 45 ,‘ l I 1 I. z I I 1 ^ If I 1I 40 I 1 cc a. i I If!I i (; i • I ' 1 it i . 30 1 I f 1 J I � . I I 25 1! `f ' . ., I It 20—I 1 I k 15 � � ,o I \\so__ 1 I I I _1._ 11 1 5 1 i _i . _ ► I . ijl� I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS i GRAVEL SAND {COBBLES SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification I Classification LL PL I PI Cc I Cu • B-1 14.0ft { WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP NP 1 NP 1.33 10.69 CD B-1 24.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP NP I NP 1.62 113.02 ril B-2 9.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP NP I NP 1.40 111.17 * B-2 19.0ft 1 WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP NP I NP 1.02 1 8.88 -'1 B-3 14.0ft i WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP I NP ! NP 1 1.11 111.95 Specimen Identification I D100 I D60 1 D30 I D10 %Gravel! %Sand '. %Silt %Clay •l B-1 14.0ft '. 19 1 3.202 i 1.129 0.3 ' 25.9 ' 70.3 3.8 I° B-1 24.0ft 19 3.807 ' 1.344 0.292 32.2 64.1 3.8 ♦ 3-2 9.0ft 19 3.251 1.151 0.291 26.8 69.4 3.8 * 3-2 19.0f! 25 3.909 1.326 0.44 33.9 64.1 2.0 B-3 14.0ft 19 3.585 1.091 0.3 31.2 • 66.3 2.4 ill _ GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Gravel Study n lierracon Site: NW of WCR 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado . Job-#. 21035117 ! Date: 1-7-04 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES i U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER rr G 2 1 c 1/2,..,,,, 2 4fi 1; ,4 16 20 30 4,0 :0 6 100 140 200 1001ti, i' ' * i! , 11 i i I I i I : . ki I 1 I 1 III ' I , , ' 95 f I ;I I !��,i i { I i' , I __ III I I I 0 90 I i !iI:, I►'lf �� ! I i ' 'I ! I I iII I I 85 ` 1111 � i II 'I !�I ill I I , ' I I ii I ' i I i i� I i il,i ; i II i III1 ' ' � ' I I I I IIIi � I I i ; I I ! II , , I 1;, 1 I. i Il I IIIIII i I IIIIII ao � ;; i ill l ; � , , , i I i I I IIII I \I II II I I H I ; , III I 75 ;.Ii ii ; I I :l ! i I I. � � z � I .j � I � � ' I.I I ji 70 i I I:II I II I II ' I , jii l I _ 1 I F- 65 I I l is I I I I I I I 11 I I i I j ' w50 1 I I I , II I _ ,, I. I I ` , : 55 I I, I I I, co I II X 50 III: . _ 1 , \i \ r45 I III 1 _ _ I i I �� Z LI 40 I ' , w o. I \ 35 , • ' � r' I I - 30 I II I � 1 25 I . I . i \ _ III _ I I iI I l '\ \ : 11I 1 20 ICI I � �, �. _ ; _ 15 I � '{-- � I --- - • fI I , I 10 , I 5 ' I i j i 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND i SILT OR CLAY coarse l fine coarse f medium I fine , Specimen Identification Classification LL I PL PI Cc I Cu •I B-3 24.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP NP NP 1.05 I 7.3: xi B-4 14.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with SILT(SW-SM) NP NP NP 11,79 : 18,0 Ai B-4 24.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SW) NP I NP NP 1 1.17 111.3 i i I I I I I ' Specimen Identification I D100 D60 i D30 I D10 j%Gravel I %Sand I %Silt I %Clay ♦i B-3 24.0ft I 19 3.188 . 1.21 I 0.435 I 25.1 72.5 2.4 _, B-4 14.0ft ' 9.5 1.283 0.403 6.4 83.4 10.3 4. B-4 24.0ft 19 2.599 0.832 0.228 23.6 71.6 4.7�- • GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Gravel Study 1 f�rr��n Site: NW of WCR 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado s Job#: 21035117 _ l Date: 1-7-04 r1O/nj,Luy14 14: 1.J y/;:4�4'B47 ROLL IN PAG 12 Jury 20, 2004 llerracon Consulting Engineers&Scientists 1289 First Rollin Consulting Past ow..Hoy 1744 1744 840 Eagle Drive Greeley,Colorado 80632-1744 Phone 970.351.0460 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Fax 970.353.8539 www.twincaz.can Attn: Mr. Ken Rollin Re: Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21035117 Mr. Rollin, Please accopt this letter as an addendum to our original Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above referenced project in Weld County, Colorado, The purpose for this addendum Is to provide a revised assessment of the estimated overburden and sand and gravel volumes and gravel sizes based upon additional test borings drilled at the site. Four additional test borings were drilled at the site on June 30, 2004. The borings were drilled to approximate depths of 29 to 33 feet at the locations shown an the attached Site Plan. Ail borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing 6-inch diameter solid stern augers. The borings were located in the field by the owners. Llthologlc logs of each boring were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken from auger cuttings. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in each boring at the lime of site exploration. Evaluation Based on the additional test borings drilled at the site by Terracon, we estimate approximately 2,655,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel is contained within the boundaries outlined on the site plan. Approximately 714,000 cubic yards of overburden would have to be removed to obtain the sand and gravel n this area. The above quantities are based on the average thickness of overburden and sand and gravel obtained from the current test borings in addition to the original test borings drilled by Terracon as outlined in our site plan and on the area boundary based on the information provided by the client. Because of physical property boundaries such as roads and property lines, the quantity that can be removed is less than what is stated above. Based on the current test borings in addition to the original test borings, the average overburden thickness is approximately 6 feet and the average sand and gravel thickness is approximately 22 feet. This gives a ratio of sand and gravel to overburden of approximately 3.7 to 1. Based on our visual observation during drilling and the limited laboratory tests run on auger samples, the granular matenals encountered consist of good quality aggregate suitable for use in construction materials, Cobbles (3 inches in diameter or larger materials) were not noted within the granular stratum. However, estimated gravel sizes are limited by the sampling method utilized and are based on Delivering Success for clients and Employees Since 1985 Mum Than 80 Offices Nationwide I 08/03/2004 14:13 9704542847 ROLLIN PAGE 03 • • Gravel Evaluation Northwest of Weld County Roads 18 and 25 Weld County,Colorado Terracon Project No,2.1035117 Terracon field observations of the auger cuttings. Lenses of larger particle sizes may be encountered which were not observed in the samples obtained. In order to use this material for typical Construction materials such as base course, concrete,and asphalt aggregate, extensive screening may be required. This may generate large amounts of reject sand material. The material may be used without processing for structural fill and subbase material. To more accurately evaluate the quality of the granular material as well as the size of the particles, test pits should be dug at the site and detailed laboratory tests should be performed. Since the sand and gravel is below groundwater, dewatering of the pit will be required to excavate the sand and gravel,or a drag line will be needed to remove the overburden and aggregate. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this letter are supplemental and are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed by Terracon at the indicated locations_ This letter does not reflect variations, which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until mining operations are performed. These variations may affect the quantity and or the quality of the materials encountered. The scope of services for this project does not Include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or • conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or Implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined In this report, are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained In this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes,and either verifies or modifies the Conclusions of this report in writing. if you have any questions regarding this letter, or If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at(970)351-0460. Sincerely, toe RFG/g�Me, TERRACON CONSULTANTS, Inc. /e O,titiEXgl* sk r o: :__36512 An re/d i 8edoya, E.I. Ty G. Alexander, P.& ` t 4.0� Staff Engineer • 9( ?y .°' g Office Manager -� Y1 a� M e Copies to: Addressee (3) 0 • • • 9. a 6 L 0-5 I- e A tl a a ro B-6 A B Access Road B-2 6-363 ry 5-8 al B-4 B-7 LEGEND S TE5T DOKING5 DRILLED ON 12/f 9/03 ® TEST BORINGS DRILLED ON 06/3004 FIGURE F' SITE PLAN GRAVEL STUDY NW DF#R10 AND 25 MII D COJINTf, CaAOC PrSct Wqr. TGA PN}tl lb. 21035117 DIAGRAM BASED ON 4NFORMATON PROVIDED BY THE CUENT7413 Uerracon pairedBr •e' -O AND INFORMATION GATHERED DURING 51TE VISITChocked. Of. TCA MN: C7/IM/Oe NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PLRP05E5. 1289 FIEEl AVENUE ao *need lip TG GFEELEY,C9uMw 85631 Drew Br EDS Home, 2163:5117b.thpg i'qun No. 2 ratio r..blc4 14:13 9764542247 Rlt_LIN PAGE 05 LOG OF BORING NO. 8-5 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT • Rollin Consulting SITE WCR 18 and WCR 25 PROJECT Weld County, Colorado Gravel Evaluation SAMPLES TESTS LI DESCRIPTIONell 2 y Z W C,' /n 1 F tY m r U in S s�, .r TO SOIL i -.; f DY LEAN CLAY,moist,dark brown - f (CL) POORLY TO WELL GRADED SAND ---. r: — WITH GRAVEL, gravel 2"max,wet, reddish brown(SP/SW) -- "SW 1AUGf R (gravel lens from 15 to 18 feet. ) 15 — I 0 .:::::: -SW 2AUG R �-- �o t (gravel lens et 22 feet. ) 25— z8 faEQROC}C,clayntone, moist,gray �' T2 30 t 30 END OF BORING c z 0 Y 1 1 v The rtratincatton lines represent the apprvx:mate bo,indary linos • between soil and rock typat: In-s tu.the transition may be gradual. r - 2 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 6-30-04 >~ WL 2 3 5 WD — BORING COMM.ETED ti-30-04 Wt_ rL 1Z -- lierracon RIG GME-55 FOREMAN AB c`WL , — ,JOE3# 21035117- • „•sw%),/cuo4 14: 1i y?naba1u4/ ROLLIN PAGE 06 • - LOG OF BORING NO. B4 Page of CLIENT • • Rollin Consulting SITE WCR 18 and WCR 25 PROJECT Weld County.Colorado Gravel Evaluation SAMPLES TESTS ki DESCRIPTION ig se ty w n o kkx x ' ffi = �Z I rii 0 D L7 co m WJ co few ii-2 UZ mild V O 2O C Z� O 7 Z , K m ICJ O is Din `0s ,TOPSOIL /_ — l POORLY TO WELL GRADED SAND — W WITH GRAVEL,gravel 1'max,wet, V reddish brovin (SP/SW) _ 5— 10-- E: 15— ( :::: (gravel lens at 16 feet. ) 20-5W 1AUGER L: 25— 22 (gravel lens at 26 feet.) _ 9EDROGK,daystone,moist,gray - 29 — END OF BORING _ i s ud 6 The stratification lines moment the approximate boundary lines ti between soil and rock types: in-situ,the transition may be gradual. a WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED WL 2.0 WD I 5-30-04 BO WL Sr .Y lrerracon RIIGRING COMPLETE B 30AS 2 WLl JOB# 21035117 • OWkla 211d4 14:1d 97004542847 ROLL Il-I PAGE 07 \ LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 Paget of 1 CLIENT • Rollin Consulting SITE WCR 18 and WCR 25 PROJECT Weld County,Colorado Gravel Evaluation SAMPLES TESTS J = o DESCRIPTION r W w x F _ z z w id al w CWe Z 2(3 E W �8 O In` Y 8 g t] 2 I- re m }'U 'al w ac:.r TOP OI SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,dark brown (CL) — 5 — POORLY TO WELL GRADED SAND - WITH GRAVEL,gravel 1 1/2"max,wet, — reddish brown(SP/SW) ta- 1d-SW 1AJGER • (gravel lens at 18 feat.) —SW 2AUGE R 20------ I — I (gravel lens at 25 feat. ) 25- 2$ — BEDROCK,claystone, moist gray — 30 — i END OF BORING 30— 0 v 2 ,- The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soi and rock types: Inshr.,the transition may be gradual, .' WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS.ft BORING STARTED 6-30-04 LL WL 2 3.0 WD BORING COMPLETED 6-30-04 k' JYL Y Y ml terracon RIO CME-55 FOREMAN AS WL JOB# 21035117 • '.r'-4 Vt.,/CVVY 1v: 1,1 7/tJ4JZb9/ POLL 1N PAGE 66 — LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 Pagel of CLIENT • Rollin Consulting SITE WCR 18 and WCR 2s PROJECT Weld County,Colorado _ Gravel Evaluation ' SAMPLES TESTS I t S DESCRIPTION l c w i z �- �,p2 i (o W > C) i ru g t' `%' W N 63 § yyn 8 g Qg Kq R' t',...T D J Z F K O %u O 3 �6 I C.5 \TOPSOIL ,--- p SANDY LEAN CLAY,moist,dark brown (CL) Y - 4 b 5— POORLY TO WELL GRADED SAND - WITH GRAVEL,gravel 3"max,wet, — reddish brown(SP/SW) - • 10- 1 _ 15-SW 1AJGER X.'. (gravel lens from 18 to 20 feet. ) _SW 2A JGE R :? 20 ill, :1 _ 25— _ :'J — ..31 30 _ E •,. BEDROCK,olaystune,moist,gray • I t33 _ I. END OF BORING u The stratification Ines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: Irvsitu,the transdlen may be gradual. $ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS,ft BORING STARTED 6-30-04 L' WL �� 2.5 WOJZ 1 rerrac®� RIG w0 COMPLETED OM LE EFOREMAN 6-30-04 AS 1111'0 JOB# 21035117 0 "or u.J[UCi4 1q:a.a '3!04342947 POILIN PAGE 7'3 J.S.SIEVE OPENING IN IN HE$ I (J SIGV6 NLIPAP.ASL I HYUROI/ETHZ 8 4 3 2 1 4 123 3 4 8 51C 14 tC 2'3 30 40 °0 60 100,40 200 100 - _ I I . — 8D ��1 0 �— .-. - �-90 . ` _ - II -�. 80 - � r ! T -T..-- 75 ---- -- r f- 1 I I i 1 70 - I ^p 1 il 1 - 6 ' , ► [ 0 55 - 4 ' ; N 1 - — t . , ca 50 I 1� z III 40 I 1 1lillir T 35 - J I __ I -� I` * ---I - 25 f - I it i• I 20 -, � • 15 - ^1 !L , • 50 I .' 0 . l 1 I __- . 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND l coarse L fine coerce rnedl im f tine _ SILT OR CLAY �j Specimen Identification Ciassification LL FL PI ' Cc Cu ! • B-S 15.0ft WELL-GRADED GRAVEL with SAND(GW) _ NP NP NP 2.19 12.63 1 B-5 15.0ft I POORLY GRADED GRAVEL(GP) NP NP NP 1.05 1.93 • B.9 22.0R POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SP) NP NP NP 1.00 10.77 * 8-7 15.0ft WELL-GRADED SAND with GFzAVEL(SW) NP NP NP 1.05 7.10 g O 6.1 20.0ft POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SP) NP NP NP 1.07 5.74 ,=_Specimen Identification D100 060 D3D _ D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt L 0/%Clay i 0 B-5 15.0ft 37.5 11.032 4.592 0.874 69.5 28.4 2.1 - I B-5 18.0ft 60.8 29.605 21.879 15.328 97.0 2.0 1.0 i • 8-6 22.0ft 25 4.918 1.498 0.457 40.9 57.5 1.6 * 8-7 15.0ft 19 3.144 1.212 0.443 f 24.7 72.3 3.1 2 O 8-7 20.0ft 37.5 5.721 2.473 0.996 1 46,8 61.8 1.3 A _ GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Z N Prejact: Gravel Evaluation z Ilerracon Site: WCR 18 and WCR 25 Weld County,Colorado c, Job#J: 21035117 �4 Date. 7-16-04 uo,u.3;-:r1U4 14:13 9704542347 ROLL IN PAGE 10 J.3.SI VE OPENING IN I' 1Es U.a SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 2 1 3/41(23/3 3 4 4 810 14 16 0 30 40 50 60 100..,40 WO • 100 I Illr I T . I: T -1- 1 1 • I I 95 .• 90 , I I 85 I AD I i - 1lilhir I ' Ii I 1 P 60 i © 55--- ■ ;+ • i 5D I �:. _.. )-- 45 ■ ' :I ill I ` w 4D 111 ; M X35 I! 1 3D I .-.--__ ,.____ _.__ 15 1111 1 _ !!► _. 10 ` 1111� i�11�'1 I • 5L-- . 111 . I I . ' D ! 111 . . ` ---, .-� 100 10 1 0.1 D.01 C.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND -- COBBLES - SILT OR CLAY coarse j fine coarse L medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu • B-8 1i0ft POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(W) NP NP NP 0.62 13.49 I B-8 20.0ft POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND(GP) NP NP NP 5.0527.81 aI Specimen Identification D100 060 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt [ %Clay §- O. B-S 15.Qft 37.5 5.875 1.281 0.436 43.7 54.2 2.0 i i—• CC B-8 20.0ft 76.2 29.543 12693 1.062 78.9 20.0 0.9 I GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION F. 1 i rer � �Plt�eCt: 13revel Evaluation rcon ,Site: WCR 18 and WCR 25 Weld County, Colorado JJob#: 2'.035117 Date: 716-04 • • APPENDIX E • • Rankin Property Gravel Pit Expansion Project Slope Stability Analysis 0 • • Peak Acceleration (%g) with 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years USGS Map, Oct. 2002rev 125 50°N W 120'W 115'W 110'W 105°W 100°W 95'W50°N ��7.701:4 X11linl ar ��'na' zoo i ' 120 45'N � 45'N1 160 (� 80 • ilir 60 Q .6 1 0 ! 50 "e ALI!I O �� `1 40 `y^ `�,r1 30 40°N ,�;` ' I ^ — Yp\ � „I \' 40°N ° 11. ' 1 0O esi 20 ° 1 (� e ' 18 ev 16 %"'. - lea 12 35'N \ � 1 • 1a�1% C, • Art O 35 14 10 n -C[i� 4 30'N Of( \ 30 N 0 25°N 25°N 125°W 95°W 1 owl,., m 00°W Hello