HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211616.tiffCIVIL RES PURCES, LLC
ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
May 10th, 2021
VIA: Certified Mail
RE: Structure Owner Agreements
Dear Structure Owner/Representative:
RECEIVED
JUN 16 2021
COMMISSIONERS
Ready Mixed Concrete Company plans to amend the Nix Mine Permit M-2001-046 to include the northern part of the
property in the mining and reclamation plan. Per the Colorado State Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS)
Ready Mixed Concrete Company is required to issue structure agreements to all structure owners within two -hundred
feet of the permit boundary. Please read the information attached and sign and return the agreement using the self-
addressed stamped envelope. Should you require an additional stability analysis submitted to the DRMS please contact
Kyle Regan at (303) 833-1416 x210.
Sincerely,
CIVIL RESOURCES, LLC
Kyle Regan
Project Geologist
attachments:
Structure Agreement
J:1Brannan\Nix\DRMS-AMENDMENT \Structure Agreementslstructure owner letter.doc
323 FIFTH STREET • FREDERICK, COLORADO 80530 • PHONE: 303.833.1416 • FAX: 303.833.2850
Publ ;C Re v; ecJ «'•PLf'rP) roam/ER/cHki4)
06/287.21 06/21/2i
2021-1616
NOTARY FOR STRUCTURE OWNER
ACKNOWLEGED BY:
Structure Owner
Date
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Name
Title
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 20, by
as of
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
as �t �1, � ,,,�-- of
CERTIFICATION
The Applicant, Ready Mixed Concrete Company, LLC
(print applicant/company name),
by Curt Marvel (print representative's name), as President (print
representative's title), does hereby certify that Weld County Public Works (structure owner) shall
be compensated for any damage from the proposed mining operation to the above listed structure(s)
located on or within 200 feet of the proposed affected area described within Exhibit A, of the Reclamation
Permit Application for Nix Gravel Mine (operation name),
File Number M-2001 _046
This form has been approved by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board pursuant to its
authority under the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials and
the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act for Hard Rock, Metal, and Designated Mining Operations.
Any alteration or modification to this form shall result in voiding this form.
ACKNOWLE . I BY:
Applicant
Date fV\.Q
NOTARY FOR PERMIT APPLICANT
Representative Name
Title Pr-c,Sk-e-j*
STATE OF
) ss.
COUNTY OF (�,4_.A.O )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of V\/ , ,
My Commission Expires: ',,z1 -a;
APRIL DALEY
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20184033354
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 08/21/2022
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS.DWG
z
3
IV PIEZOM
NEW PIETON
42499OIL/ AS
ELL P&A S BACK
16. bEWATEDING WE
R24.99'
5 p- OIL/GAS WELL
,J FAA SETBACK
AINAGE 1Iv
TCH ALONG NI
RT ROAD
SLURRY
WALL
)
2H:1V MINE
SLOPE TYP
H:1V MINE ) NA
SLOPE TYP r
0149.9;
OIL/GAS WELL
SETBACK i -
DRAINAGE
DITCH
CONCRETE
0. LINED
DITCH 0 149.98
yHRRV 1 pOG cc ... WELL
III A. S.TBAC' \
LURRV
/ WALL
R24.99' OIL/GAS
WELL P&A SET8CK
/
R24)99' OIL. GAS
gel WE P&A S
DEW«aNG WELL,3e FTDEE%
OPPOSED SMOOT WAIL AUGMENT
wWELL cro EEw,Ooo
B. oewaremxo WELL 00Er 0E,
AFFECTED LANDS:
NIX SAND AND GRAVEL MINE,
ERAS PERMITM-2001-046
TOTAL DRMS PERMIT AREA: 128.5 ACRES
EXISTING VEGETATION:
AGRICULTURAL FARM LAND
SURVEY INFO:
KING SURVEYORS, INC
650 E GARDEN DR, WNOSOR, CO
80550 970-686.5011
www.Iond poht:net/k"ng-surveyors/
• APPLICANT:
READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY, LLC
2500 EAST BRANNAN WAY
DENVER, CO 80229
NOTE:
CIVIL RESOURCES, LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY, IN, ON, OR ABOUT THE
PROJECT SITE, NOR FOR COMPLIANCE BY THE APPROPRIATE PARTY OF ANY
REGULATIONS THERETO.
THESE MAPS WERE PREPARED BY CIVIL RESOURCES, LLC. IN COOPERATION WITH
HUNT WATER, LLC. HUNT WATER, LLC WILL KEEP THE DIVISION OF RECLAMATION
MINING AND SAFETY INFORMED OF ANY CHANGES TO THE MINING OR RECLAMATION
PLANS THROUGH ANNUAL REPORTS AND FILE TECHNICAL REVISIONS AND
AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS AS NECESSARY THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE MINE.
MAP LEGEND:
DENOTES MEASURED BEARING AND/OR DISTANCE
DENOTES RECORD BEARING AND/OR DISTANCE
SET 24" //5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP "PONT LS38311"
SET NAIL & BRASS DISK "LS38311"
FOUND GOVERNMENT CORNER
FOUND CHISELED CROSS / CUT X
FOUND NAIL & DISK
FOUND IRON PIPE
FOUND REBAR
BUILDING/STRUCTURE
SOIL TYPE
MONITORING WELL
GAS WELL
EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE
OLD EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE
OLD EXPLORATORY BOREHOLE
PERMIT BOUNDARY
SLURRY WALL
MINE HIGHWALL
SECTION LINE
RANGE LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE
EASEMENT LINE
FEMA DESIGNATION LINE
WATER LINE
-n- STORM LINE
SANITARY LINE
— ex—Ten-me- IRRIGATION LINE
GAS LINE
ELECTRIC LINE (UNDERGROUND)
ELECTRIC LINE (OVERHEAD)
COMMUNICATION LINE
FIBER OPTIC LINE
MISCELLANEOUS/UNKNOWN LINE
— - /o /E Go-
- MSC MSc MSC —
NORTH
0 150 c
1 IR rase)
CIVIL RES' URCES
323 5th STREET
P.O. Box 680
FREDERICK, CO 80530
303.833.1416
WWW.CIVILRESOURCES.COM
W.CIVILRESOURCES.COM
READY MIXED CONCRETE
COMPANY, LLC
2500 EAST BRANNAN WAY
DENVER, CO 80229
303-534.1231
CONTACT: JOE LAMANNA
READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY, LLC
NIX GRAVEL MINE
WELD COUNTY, CO
REVISIONS
NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
DESIGNED BY: BLH
DRAWN BY: KR
CHECKED BY: BLH
JOB NO.: 302.001.01
DWG NAMF:SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS.DW
DATE: 1/14/20
SCALERS NOTED
AS NOTED
MINE PLAN
SHEET:
1
January 14, 2020
Mr. Joe Lamanna
Ready Mixed Concrete Company
11778 Highway 52
Fort Lupton, CO 80621
Re: Stability Analysis for the Nix Gravel Mine
Dear Mr. Lamanna:
This letter has been prepared to address the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) Construction Materials Rule 6,
Section 4, Subsection 19, Exhibit S - Permanent Man -Made Structures (6.4.19, Exhibit S) for the proposed Nix Gravel
Mine located in Weld County, Colorado. This letter describes the project and slope stability analyses utilized to evaluate
the minimum distance between the edge of mining and adjacent structures to avoid damage to the structure.
The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 66 and Weld County Road 19,
approximately 3.3 miles west of the town of Platteville, Colorado. More specifically, the mine is within part of Section 28,
Township 3 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The site is 0.6 miles east of the Saint Vrain River in an
area of agricultural land with common oil and gas wells and related infrastructure. The mine plan is shown on Figure 1.
The site will be mined in three cells located on the southwest (Cell 1), south central (Cell 2) and the northeast (Cell 3)
parts of the site. The Cells 2 and 3 will be lined with soil-bentonite slurry walls and will be reclaimed as below grade
reservoirs. Cell 1 will receive wash fines from the processing of mined sand and gravel.
Based on the stability analyses, this report indicates that the setbacks and perimeter slopes in the mining plan are
sufficient to protect structures within 200 feet of the permitted mining boundary. Actual setbacks may be greater due to
permit limitations, zoning requirements, construction issues, agreements with owners, and extent of economically
mineable aggregate or other issues.
GEOLOGY
The Site is located approximately 20 miles east of the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountain Front Range. Younger
sedimentary strata dip eastward off the Pre -Cambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks that form the core of the Front
Range into the Denver Structural Basin. The Denver Basin is an asymmetrical downwarp of sedimentary strata with a
steeply dipping west limb and a gently dipping east lint.
Bedrock does not crop out at the site, however regional geologic mapping of the area (Colton, 1978) indicates the near
surface bedrock at the site is most likely either the Fox Hills Sandstone and/or the Laramie Formation. Colton (1978)
describes the Fox Hills Sandstone as cross bedded sandstone that grades downward to a fine grained silty sandstone
interbedded with gray fissle shale. Colton (1978) describes the Laramie as mostly claystone, shale, sandy shale, and
lenticular sandstone with common coal beds in its lower section. The regional mapping indicates the bedrock is overlain
by the Piney Creek and Broadway Alluviums. The Piney Creek is mapped over most of the site. The Broadway is
mapped on the southeast part of the site. Colton (1978) describes these alluvial deposits as sandy to gravelly alluvium.
The Piney Creek Alluvium is usually covered in flood waters. The Broadway Aluvium forms the adjacent higher terrace
that is typically 20 to 40 feet above major streams.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Based on the site investigations, the natural site stratigraphy generally consists of three main units: 1) Overburden
generally consisting of clayey and silty sands; 2) sand and gravel alluvial deposits that underlie the overburden and
Mr. Joe Lamanna
January 14, 2020
Page 2
overlie the bedrock; and 3) bedrock usually consisting of sandstone with local areas of claystone. These units are
described in more detail below.
3.5.1 Overburden Unit
The overburden at the site typically consists of two sub -units; a surficial brown clayey to silty sand that overlies a buff
silty sand. These sub -units are described below.
Surficial brown clayey to silty sand with local sandy clay. The surficial brown clayey to silty sand sub -unit is
typically approximately 1 to 2 feet in thickness but locally is as thick as 8 feet. This sub -unit is usually slightly
moist to moist, medium dense to dense with the top 6 to 8 inches containing significant organics. Of the
samples tested, the percent passing the No. 200 sieve ranged from 16.6% to 74.7%. Atterberg Limits testing
resulted in Liquid Limits of 19 to 31 and Plasticity Indices of 3 to 11.
Buff silty sand: The brown surficial sub -unit is underlain by the buff silty sand sub -unit. The buff silty sand sub-
unit ranges from approximately 4 to 14 feet thick and is slightly moist to moist becoming wet at the water table.
The silty sand is very loose to medium dense and locally becomes clayey with depth. Of the samples tested,
the percent passing the No. 200 sieve ranged from 10.9% to 39.1%. Atterberg Limits testing indicated the
material was granular non -plastic.
3.5.2 Sand & Gravel Unit
The sand and gravel is present throughout the site underlying the overburden and overlying the bedrock. This unit
typically consists of gravelly, fine to coarse grained sand locally grading to sandy gravel. Where gravels were
encountered, the size was typically 1/4 to 2 inches. This unit is typically medium dense to dense, but is also locally very
loose to loose. This deposit ranges in thickness from approximately 26 feet to 60 feet. The sands are clean with fines
content (silt and clay) generally ranging from approximately 2.0 to 4.1 percent averaging 3.0 percent (Big Rock
Exploration, 2019). Local clay lenses were reported within the deposit by Big Rock Exploration (2019).
3.5.3 Bedrock
The bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings was generally weathered in the upper one to two feet typically
became harder in unweathered zones. The bedrock consisted of silty, fine to medium grained, sandstone with local
claystone seams. For the sandstone samples, the percent passing the minus No. 200 sieve ranges from approximately
13.4% to 26.7% averaging 21.6%. For the claystone seams, the percent passing the No. 200 sieve ranges from
approximately 53.3% to 74.1% averaging 64.5%. The approximate top of bedrock contours are presented on Sheet 4 of
the plans.
3.5.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings at approximately 7 to 12 feet below ground surface. The groundwater
levels will vary seasonally and will typically rise during the irrigation season. Groundwater will be controlled with the
proposed below grade slurry wall. After slurry wall construction, groundwater mounding is anticipated on the upgradient
(west and south) side of the site and a groundwater shadow (deeper water table) is anticipated on the downgradient
(north and east) side the site.
From a geotechnical standpoint, the sand and gravel will form the majority of the mine slopes. These soils are generally
strong and stable, particularly when dewatered. Dry mining is planned as the slurry wall will control water level in the
main cell and mining will be above the water table in the other cell.
STRUCTURES WITH 200 FEET OF DISTURBED AREAS
The known, permanent, man-made structures within 200 feet of the proposed mine areas that are not owned by Ready
Mixed Concrete Company are listed below:
Mr. Joe Lamanna
January 14, 2020
Page 3
• KERR MCGEE/ANADARKO GAS LINE SOUTH OF CELL 3 - 58.9'
• KERR MCGEE/ANADARKO GAS LINE SOUTH OF CELL 3 - 64.46'
• CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WATER LINE SOUTH OF CELL 3 - 72.39'
• KERR MCGEE/ANADARKO GAS LINE SOUTH OF CELL 3 - 77.91'
• KERR MCGEE/ANADARKO GAS LINE SOUTH OF CELL 3 - 152.30'
• COUNTY ROAD 28 -150.88'
• KERR MCGEE/ANADARKO GAS LINE WEST OF FRESH WATER POND - 30'
• VARRA CONVEYOR WEST OF FRESH WATER POND - 37.44'
• CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WATER LINE WEST OF FRESH WATER POND - 47.8
• COUNTY ROAD 17 - 71.8'
• COLLINS CONSTRUCTION, 13187 CO RD 17-151.66'
• KERR-MCGEE/ANADARKO O&G SEPARATOR - 71.83'
• KERR-MCGEE TANKS -112.58'
• VARRA FENCE NORTH OF FRESH WATER POND - 84.39'
• COUNTY ROAD 19 - 106'
• MILLER FARM BUILDING 191'
• BARN -188'
• RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY 183'
• HOUSE AT 8567 CO RD 30 - 167'
• HOUSE AT 8680 COLORADO 66- 178'
• XCEL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC NORTH OF COLORADO 66- 154'
• COLORADO 66- 101'
• KERR-MCGEE WELL SOUTH EAST CELL 2- 30'
• KERR-MCGEE GAS LINE SOUTH EAST CELL 2 - 30'
• XCEL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EAST OF CELL 2 - 75'
• XCEL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EAST OF CELL 2 - 137'
• XCEL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC WEST OF CELL 2 - 67'
*Oil and gas structures planned for removal have not been included in this list.
STABILITY ANALYSES
Recently, Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety (DRMS) staff drafted a policy regarding stability analyses of
neighboring structures. The draft summarizes adequate factors of safety (FOS) for non -critical and critical structures.
The structures around the Nix mine are, for the most part, considered critical structures. Discussions with the author of
the memo, Mr. Tim Cazier, indicate the FOS will be adopted by the MLRB. The FOS are for both static and seismic
(from an earthquake) stability analyses. For generalized strength assumptions and critical structures, a FOS of 1.5 is
considered sufficient for static conditions and a FOS of 1.3 is considered suitable for seismic conditions.
The stability of structures within 200 feet of the proposed mining limits was evaluated at three sections. The sections
evaluated were at the tallest high wall in each mine cell under anticipated loading conditions around the perimeter of the
site as discussed below. The computer program XSTABL was used for the analysis. The method for selecting the
critical failure surface for each analyzed loading condition is the following. The Modified Bishop's Method of Analysis is
used to find the critical failure surface by randomly searching with 20 termination points and 20 initiation points (400
failure circles) with 7 foot line segments over the slope surface and at the structure in question to determine the lowest
factor of safety. Both static stability under anticipated mining conditions and seismic stability under peak ground
acceleration loads were performed. Seismic loading was obtained from the U.S.G.S. Unified Hazard Tool. Review of
the Hazard Tool indicated a maximum horizontal acceleration of 0.091 g with a return period of 2,475 years for the site.
Mr. Joe Lamanna
January 14, 2020
Page 4
The three cross section locations were selected and analyzed as described below. The locations are shown on Figure 1.
► Cell 1: This section is on the northwest side of Cell 1 and considers the tallest mine highwall of this cell. The
stability analysis for this section assumes a mine highwall sloped at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1 V). The
nearest structure is a gas line located approximately 30 feet to the west. The stability analysis on this section
was run with potential failure circles initiating at the gas line and terminating in the area near the base of the
mine highwall.
► Cell 2: This section is on the south side of cell 2 and considers the tallest highwall in this cell. The stability
analysis for this section assumed a 30 foot offset from the slurry wall and a mine slope of 2 horizontal to 1
vertical (2H:1V). The stability analysis on this section was run with potential failure circles initiating at the slurry
wall and terminating in the area near the base of the mine highwall.
► Cell 3: This section is on the north side of cell 3 and is the tallest highwall in the cell. This section will be
capped with approximately 2 -feet of compacted overburden fill. The stability analysis for this section assumed a
30 foot offset from the slurry wall and a mine slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1 V). State Highway 66 is
approximately 100 feet to the north. The stability analysis on this section was run with potential failure circles
initiating at the slurry wall and terminating in the area near the base of the mine highwall.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The material index and engineering strengths assumed in this slope stability report are discussed below.
Overburden
The strength properties for the insitu silty to clayey sand overburden were based on field testing data and on our
engineering judgment; the following parameters have been used to model the overburden.
Dry Unit
Weight (pct)
Moist Unit
Weight (pct)
Saturated Unit
Weight (pct)
Cohesion C' psf
Friction Angle 0'
Native 103
114
126
50
29
Comp. Fill 108
118
128
70
30
Alluvial Sand and Gravel
The sand and gravel is generally a medium to coarse -grained sand that is medium dense to dense and locally gravelly.
The alluvial sand and gravel was modeled as follows:
Dry Unit
Weight (pct)
Moist Unit
Weight (pcf)
Saturated Unit
Weight (pct)
Cohesion C' psf
Friction Angle 0'
119
129
130
0
35
Bedrock
Bedrock below the alluvium is predominately sandstone with local claystone and interlaminated to interbedded claystone
and sandstone bedrock. Sandstone is typically stronger than claystone. Claystone is generally a weak bedrock. To be
conservative, we modeled the bedrock as claystone. For the claystone bedrock, two potential strength conditions were
considered. These strength conditions are referred to as: 1) peak strength, and 2) residual strength.
Peak strength is the maximum shear strength the claystone bedrock exhibits. The shear strength is made up of both
cohesion (diagenetic bonding) and internal friction. Under short-term conditions for unsheared claystone, peak strength
governs behavior. If a sheared surface or sheared zone is present within claystone as a result of faulting, slippage
between beds due to folding, past shrink -swell behavior, stress relief, weathering, or from a landslide, the cohesion along
Mr. Joe Lamanna
January 14, 2020
Page 5
the sheared surface is reduced to zero, and the angle of internal friction is decreased, due to alignment of clay minerals
parallel to the shear plane. Under these conditions a claystone exhibits its lowest strength known as residual strength.
Residual strength bedrock occurs in discrete zones, parallel with the sheared surface or zone, whereas fully softened
strength occurs over a broader area (not used in this modeling). Based on data from other recent projects and
engineering judgment, the residual strength claystone was modeled in a one -foot thick layer overlying the peak strength
bedrock as follows:
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf)
Moist Unit
Weight (pcf)
Saturated Unit
Weight Oct)
Cohesion C' psf
Friction Angle 0'
116
Peak =126
Residual = 110
Peak =135
Residual = 133
Peak =100
Residual = 0
Peak = 27
Residual = 15
Soil-Bentonite Slurry Wall
The proposed slurry wall will consist of a mix of the overburden clayey to silty sand, alluvial sand, and imported
bentonite. The resulting mix will produce a non -Newtonian fluid with some shear strength characteristics based on a
reduced friction angle of the overlying overburden. Based on engineering judgment, we modeled the slurry wall as
follows:
Dry Unit
Weight (pcf)
Moist Unit
Weight (pcf)
Saturated Unit
Weight (pct)
Cohesion C' psf
Friction Angle O'
NA
112
115
0
0
STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS
The stability analyses assumed the mining will be per the mine plan. The plan includes dewatering with a series of
perimeter drains to in Cell 1. Dry mining will occur in cells 2 and 3 as the water level in these cells will be controlled by
slurry walls. The perimeter mine slopes of both cells will be no steeper than 2H:1 V.
Setbacks listed in Table 1 (below) indicate the setback from the structure to the mining limits. The setback distance can
be increased as needed to address other restrictions such as weaker than anticipated soils, deeper mining, or
unanticipated groundwater.
The factor of safety shown below is the minimum factor of safety of the three conditions listed above.
TABLE 1 - SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS AND SETBACKS
Location
Critical
Structure
Structure
Setback From
Mine Limit (ft)
Static Factor of
Safety at
Structure
Seismic Factor of
Safety at Structure
(0.091g hor)
DRMS Draft FOS
Requirement
Static/Quake
Cell 1
(northwest, most
critical section)
Gas Line
30
1.6
1.3
1.5/1.3
Cell 2 (south,
most critical
section)
Slurry Wall
30
1.6
1.3
1.5/1.3
Cell 3 (north,
most critical
section)
Slurry Wall
30
1.6
1.3
1.5/1.3
CONCLUSIONS
Mr. Joe Lamanna
January 14, 2020
Page 6
The mining setback will be 30 -feet from the high wall to the slurry wall or nearest structure. Based on the Factors of
Safety listed in the table above, the mine will not be a hazard to neighboring structures provided the structure and slurry
wall offsets, as well as the perimeter mine slopes, follow the mine plan.
LIMITATIONS
Our review is based on regional geologic mapping, present mining plans, and in part borehole data by Civil Resources
and others. Stability analyses were performed using typical strength parameters for the various strata in the critical
sections. Should the mining plans change or subsurface conditions vary from those portrayed in this letter, we should be
contacted in order to re-evaluate the potential affects on permanent man-made structures. Stability analyses were run at
the structure in question and were not run on failure surfaces closer to the highwall. Note also that surcharge loads due
to temporary material stockpiles and overburden berms were not considered in the analysis.
Please call with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Civil Resources, LLC
Gary Linden, P.G.
Senior Engineering Geologist
Attachments: Figure — Mine Plan showing boring locations and sections used.
XSTABL Model Outputs: Sections 1, 2, and 3
J:\Brannan\ix\Stability Analysis\Stability analysis report - Nix.doc
XSTABL MODEL OUTPUTS:
XSTABL File: MAXCEL1Q 1-13-20 39:50
******************************************
*
XSTABL
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
* *
*
*
*
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
* *
*
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.206 96 -1952 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Nix CELL 1 MAX 2:1 SEISMIC
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 4800.0 80.0 4798.0 1
2 80.0 4798.0 94.0 4791.0 1
3 94.0 4791.0 180.0 4748.0 4
4 180.0 4748.0 480.0 4748.0 5
3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 4791.0 94.0 4791.0 4
2 .0 4748.0 480.0 4748.0 5
3 .0 4747.0 480.0 4747.0 6
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
6 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.
1 114.0 126.0 50.0 29.00 .000 .0 1
2 118.0 128.0 70.0 30.00 .000 .0 1
3 112.0 115.0 .0 .00 .000 .0 1
4 119.0 129.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1
5 110.0 133.0 .0 15.00 .000 .0 1
6 126.0 135.0 100.0 27.00 .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 .00 4765.00
2 100.00 4755.00
3 178.00 4750.00
4 182.00 4749.00
5 480.00 4749.00
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .091 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .000 has been assigned
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
20 Surfaces initiate from each of 20 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 170.0 ft
and x= 210.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 45.0 ft
and x = 50.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = 4710.0 ft
7.0 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 := -5.0 degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 28 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 210.00 4748.00
2 203.58 4745.20
3 197.02 4742.77
4 190.33 4740.70
5 183.54 4739.01
6 176.66 4737.70
7 169.72 4736.78
8 162.74 4736.24
9 155.75 4736.09
10 148.75 4736.34
11 141.78 4736.97
12 134.85 4737.99
13 128.00 4739.39
14 121.23 4741.17
15 114.57 4743.33
16 108.04 4745.85
17 101.66 4748.73
18 95.45 4751.97
19 89.43 4755.54
20 83.62 4759.45
21 78.04 4763.67
22 72.70 4768.20
23 67.62 4773.01
24 62.82 4778.10
25 58.30 4783.45
26 54.09 4789.05
27 50.20 4794.87
28 47.88 4798.80
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.274 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Nix CELL 1 MAX 2:1 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. 1.274
2. 1.275
3. 1.277
4. 1.278
5. 1.279
6. 1.280
7. 1.282
8. 1.282
9. 1.289
10. 1.290
156.57
157.36
154.73
158.59
159.17
150.90
154.21
153.66
155.18
4861.84
4865.22
4858.82
4868.72
4870.53
4848.78
4859.56
4858.11
4865.54
154.85 4865.30
125.76
127.65
122.92
130.40
131.10
112.80
123.80
122.74
128.82
125.50
210.00
207.89
207.89
207.89
205.79
201.58
207.89
207.89
207.89
199.47
47.88 2.883E+07
48.30 2.802E+07
47.56 2.852E+07
48.55 2.795E+07
49.53 2.696E+07
49.90 2.566E+07
46.36 2.923E+07
46.18 2.933E+07
45.04 3.011E+07
48.48 2.619E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
0
60 120 180 240 300
360
420
480
µAXCEL1Q 1-13-20 39:50
Nix CELL 1 MAX 2:1 SEISMIC
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.274
X—AXIS (feet)
XSTABL File: MAXCEL1S 1-13-20 39:54
******************************************
*
*
*
XSTABL
*
Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
Method of Slices
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002
*
*
*
*
Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
* *
All Rights Reserved
* *
*
* Ver. 5.206 96 - 1952 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Nix CELL 1 MAX 2:1 STATIC
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 4800.0 80.0 4798.0 1
2 80.0 4798.0 94.0 4791.0 1
3 94.0 4791.0 180.0 4748.0 4
4 180.0 4748.0 480.0 4748.0 5
3 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 4791.0 94.0 4791.0 4
2 .0 4748.0 480.0 4748.0 5
3 .0 4747.0 480.0 4747.0 6
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
6 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.
1 114.0 126.0 50.0 29.00 .000 .0 1
2 118.0 128.0 70.0 30.00 .000 .0 1
3 112.0 115.0 .0 .00 .000 .0 1
4 119.0 129.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1
5 110.0 133.0 .0 15.00 .000 .0 1
6 126.0 135.0 100.0 27.00 .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 .00 4765.00
2 100.00 4755.00
3 178.00 4750.00
4 182.00 4749.00
5 480.00 4749.00
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
20 Surfaces initiate from each of 20 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 170.0 ft
and x= 210.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 45.0 ft
and x = 50.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = 4710.0 ft
7.0 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 := -5.0 degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 27 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 201.58 4748.00
2 195.23 4745.05
3 188.71 4742.50
4 182.05 4740.36
5 175.26 4738.64
6 168.38 4737.34
7 161.44 4736.47
8 154.45 4736.03
9 147.45 4736.03
10 140.46 4736.46
11 133.52 4737.33
12 126.64 4738.62
13 119.85 4740.34
14 113.19 4742.48
15 106.67 4745.02
16 100.32 4747.97
17 94.16 4751.30
18 88.23 4755.01
19 82.53 4759.08
20 77.10 4763.50
21 71.95 4768.25
22 67.11 4773.30
23 62.59 4778.65
24 58.41 4784.26
25 54.59 4790.13
26 51.14 4796.22
27 49.90 4798.75
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.627 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Nix CELL 1 MAX 2:1 STATIC
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. 1.627 150.90 4848.78 112.80 201.58 49.90 2.664E+07
2. 1.628 159.17 4870.53 131.10 205.79 49.53 2.802E+07
3. 1.629 157.36 4865.22 127.65 207.89 48.30 2.911E+07
4. 1.630 156.57 4861.84 125.76 210.00 47.88 2.995E+07
5. 1.631 158.59 4868.72 130.40 207.89 48.55 2.905E+07
6. 1.633 154.73 4858.82 122.92 207.89 47.56 2.961E+07
7. 1.640 154.85 4865.30 125.50 199.47 48.48 2.721E+07
8. 1.640 154.21 4859.56 123.80 207.89 46.36 3.035E+07
9. 1.641 153.66 4858.11 122.74 207.89 46.18 3.045E+07
10. 1.646 149.92 4851.14 115.35 201.58 47.19 2.827E+07
0
360
420
480
* * * END OF FILE * * *
MAXCEL1S 1-13-20 39:54
Nix CELL 1 MAX 2:1 STATIC
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.627
60 120 180 240 300
X—AXIS (feet)
XSTABL File: MAXCEL2Q 1-13-20 36:11
******************************************
*
*
* XSTABL
* *
Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
Method of Slices
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002
*
*
*
*
*
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.206 96 - 1952 *
*
******************************************
Problem Description : Nix CELL 2 MAX 2:1 SEISMIC
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
8 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 4810.0 25.0 4810.0 1
2 25.0 4810.0 34.0 4808.0 1
3 34.0 4808.0 126.0 4807.0 1
4 126.0 4807.0 129.0 4807.0 3
5 129.0 4807.0 159.0 4807.0 1
6 159.0 4807.0 183.0 4795.0 1
7 183.0 4795.0 271.0 4751.0 4
8 271.0 4751.0 480.0 4750.0 5
15 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 126.0 4807.0 126.1 4795.0 1
2 129.0 4807.0 129.1 4795.0 3
3 .0 4796.0 126.1 4795.0 4
4 129.1 4795.0 183.0 4795.0 4
5 126.1 4795.0 126.2 4751.0 4
6 129.1 4795.0 129.2 4751.0 3
7 .0 4751.0 126.2 4751.0 5
8 129.2 4751.0 271.0 4751.0 5
9 126.2 4751.0 126.3 4750.0 5
10 129.2 4750.0 129.3 4750.0 3
11 .0 4750.0 126.3 4750.0 6
12 129.3 4750.0 480.0 4750.0 6
13 126.3 4750.0 126.4 4747.0 6
14 129.3 4750.0 129.4 4747.0 3
15 126.4 4747.0 129.4 4747.0 6
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
6 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.
1 114.0 126.0 50.0 29.00 .000 .0 1
2 118.0 128.0 70.0 30.00 .000 .0 1
3 112.0 115.0 .0 .00 .000 .0 1
4 119.0 129.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1
5 110.0 133.0 .0 15.00 .000 .0 1
6 126.0 135.0 100.0 27.00 .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 .00 4802.00
2 126.00 4801.00
3 127.50 4755.00
4 271.00 4753.00
5 480.00 4751.00
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .091 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .000 has been assigned
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
20 Surfaces initiate from each of 20 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 260.0 ft
and x= 320.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 124.0 ft
and x= 130.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = 4710.0 ft
7.0 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 := -5.0 degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 31 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 307.37 4750.83
2 301.02 4747.88
3 294.53 4745.26
4 287.91 4742.99
5 281.17 4741.07
6 274.35 4739.50
7 267.46 4738.29
8 260.51 4737.44
9 253.53 4736.95
10 246.53 4736.83
11 239.53 4737.08
12 232.56 4737.69
13 225.63 4738.66
14 218.75 4739.99
15 211.96 4741.68
16 205.27 4743.72
17 198.69 4746.11
18 192.24 4748.84
19 185.94 4751.90
20 179.82 4755.29
21 173.88 4758.99
22 168.14 4762.99
23 162.61 4767.29
24 157.32 4771.88
25 152.27 4776.73
26 147.49 4781.84
27 142.98 4787.19
28 138.75 4792.77
29 134.82 4798.56
30 131.20 4804.55
31 129.89 4807.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.288 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Nix CELL 2 MAX 2:1 SEISMIC
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-Ib)
1. 1.288 247.74 4870.88 134.04 307.37 129.89 3.715E+07
2. 1.291 253.31 4884.90 148.41 316.84 127.04 4.218E+07
3. 1.291 255.88 4889.15 152.52 320.00 127.46 4.285E+07
4. 1.292 256.39 4892.87 154.41 316.84 128.01 4.123E+07
5. 1.293 252.66 4885.82 149.52 316.84 125.62 4.328E+07
6. 1.294 251.99 4884.09 148.25 316.84 125.43 4.353E+07
7. 1.295 257.88 4897.11 157.76 316.84 128.31 4.097E+07
8. 1.295 258.16 4898.72 158.00 313.68 129.44 3.907E+07
9. 1.297 246.50 4873.85 137.26 307.37 126.63 3.956E+07
10. 1.298 244.16 4867.68 131.37 304.21 127.75 3.790E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
MAXCEL2Q 1-13-20 36:11
4920 _
4860 _
a 4800 _A-
m
X
< 4740 _
>-
4680 _
4620
Nix CELL 2 MAX 2:1 SEISMIC
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.288
1
60 120 180 240 300 360
X-AXIS (feet)
XSTABL File: MAXCELL2 1-13-20 36:04
******************************************
*
XSTABL
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
* *
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
420
480
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
* All Rights Reserved
*
* Ver.5.206
*
*
*
96 -1952 *
*
******************************************
Problem Description : Nix CELL 2 MAX 2:1 STATIC
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
8 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1
2
3
4
5
.0 4810.0 25.0 4810.0 1
25.0 4810.0 34.0 4808.0 1
34.0 4808.0 126.0 4807.0 1
126.0 4807.0 129.0 4807.0 3
129.0 4807.0 159.0 4807.0 1
6 159.0 4807.0
7 183.0 4795.0
8 271.0 4751.0
183.0 4795.0
271.0 4751.0
480.0 4750.0
15 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
1
4
5
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 126.0 4807.0
2 129.0 4807.0
3 .0 4796.0
4 129.1 4795.0
5 126.1 4795.0
6 129.1 4795.0
7 .0 4751.0
8 129.2 4751.0
9 126.2 4751.0
10 129.2 4750.0
11 .0 4750.0
12 129.3 4750.0
13 126.3 4750.0
14 129.3 4750.0
15 126.4 4747.0
126.1 4795.0 1
129.1 4795.0 3
126.1 4795.0 4
183.0 4795.0 4
126.2 4751.0 4
129.2 4751.0 3
126.2 4751.0 5
271.0 4751.0 5
126.3 4750.0 5
129.3 4750.0 3
126.3 4750.0 6
480.0 4750.0 6
126.4 4747.0 6
129.4 4747.0 3
129.4 4747.0 6
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
6 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.
1 114.0 126.0 50.0 29.00 .000 .0 1
2 118.0 128.0 70.0 30.00 .000 .0 1
3 112.0 115.0 .0 .00 .000 .0 1
4 119.0 129.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1
5 110.0 133.0 .0 15.00 .000 .0 1
6 126.0 135.0 100.0 27.00 .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 .00 4802.00
2 126.00 4801.00
3 127.50 4755.00
4 271.00 4753.00
5 480.00 4751.00
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
20 Surfaces initiate from each of 20 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 260.0 ft
and x = 320.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 124.0 ft
and x = 130.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = 4710.0 ft
7.0 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 := -5.0 degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 31 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 307.37 4750.83
2 301.02 4747.88
3 294.53 4745.26
4 287.91 4742.99
5 281.17 4741.07
6 274.35 4739.50
7 267.46 4738.29
8 260.51 4737.44
9 253.53 4736.95
10 246.53 4736.83
11 239.53 4737.08
12 232.56 4737.69
13 225.63 4738.66
14 218.75 4739.99
15 211.96 4741.68
16 205.27 4743.72
17 198.69 4746.11
18 192.24 4748.84
19 185.94 4751.90
20 179.82 4755.29
21 173.88 4758.99
22 168.14 4762.99
23 162.61 4767.29
24 157.32 4771.88
25 152.27 4776.73
26 147.49 4781.84
27 142.98 4787.19
28 138.75 4792.77
29 134.82 4798.56
30 131.20 4804.55
31 129.89 4807.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.645 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Nix CELL 2 MAX 2:1 STATIC
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. 1.645
2. 1.655
3. 1.657
4. 1.658
5. 1.658
6. 1.659
7. 1.659
8. 1.660
9. 1.660
10. 1.661
247.74 4870.88 134.04
251.77 4890.54 149.22
258.16 4898.72 158.00
244.16 4867.68 131.37
242.44 4871.78 130.48
242.99 4860.32 125.43
243.35 4863.72 128.24
246.50 4873.85 137.26
247.58 4883.45 142.97
256.39 4892.87 154.41
307.37 129.89 3.859E+07
304.21 128.18 3.894E+07
313.68 129.44 4.062E+07
304.21 127.75 3.934E+07
291.58 129.15 3.464E+07
304.21 129.48 3.827E+07
304.21 128.42 3.896E+07
307.37 126.63 4.107E+07
301.05 126.84 3.900E+07
316.84 128.01 4.286E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
MAXCELL2 1-13-20 36:04
4920
4860 _
w 4800
t!)
X
Q 4740 _
4680 _
4620
Nix CELL 2 MAX 2:1 STATIC
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP F0S = 1.645
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
X-AXIS (feet)
XSTABL File: SEC12TO1 1-13-20 11:31
******************************************
*
*
*
XSTABL
* *
Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
Method of Slices
* *
*
*
*
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.206 96 - 1952 *
*
******************************************
Problem Description : Nix max Section 2:1 highwall
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 .0 4799.0 40.0 4799.0 1
2 40.0 4799.0 60.0 4794.0 1
3 60.0 4794.0 75.0 4796.0 1
4 75.0 4796.0 95.0 4796.0 1
5 95.0 4796.0 99.0 4798.0 2
6 99.0 4798.0 118.5 4798.0 2
7 118.5 4798.0 121.5 4798.0 3
8 121.5 4798.0 151.5 4798.0 2
9 151.5 4798.0 155.5 4796.0 2
10 155.5 4796.0 167.5 4790.0 1
11 167.5 4790.0 287.5 4730.0 4
12 287.5 4730.0 480.0 4730.0 5
19 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 118.5 4798.0 118.6 4796.0 2
2 121.5 4798.0 121.6 4796.0 3
3 95.0 4796.0 118.6 4796.0 1
4 121.6 4796.0 155.5 4796.0 1
5 118.6 4796.0 118.7 4790.0 1
6 121.6 4796.0 121.7 4790.0 3
7 .0 4789.0 118.7 4790.0 4
8 121.7 4790.0 167.5 4790.0 4
9 118.7 4790.0 118.8 4730.0 4
10 121.7 4790.0 121.8 4730.0 3
11 .0 4730.0 118.8 4730.0 5
12 121.8 4730.0 480.0 4730.0 5
13 118.8 4730.0 118.9 4729.0 5
14 121.8 4730.0 121.9 4729.0 3
15 .0 4729.0 118.9 4729.0 6
16 121.9 4729.0 480.0 4729.0 6
17 118.9 4729.0 119.0 4726.0 6
18 121.9 4729.0 122.0 4726.0 3
19 119.0 4726.0 122.0 4726.0 6
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
6 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.
1 114.0 126.0 50.0 29.00 .000 .0 1
2 118.0 128.0 70.0 30.00 .000 .0 1
3 112.0 115.0 .0 .00 .000 .0 1
4 119.0 129.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1
5 110.0 133.0 .0 15.00 .000 .0 1
6 126.0 135.0 100.0 27.00 .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 .00 4788.00
2 118.60 4788.00
3 119.50 4734.00
4 287.50 4731.00
5 480.00 4731.00
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
20 Surfaces initiate from each of 20 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 265.0 ft
and x = 310.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 118.5 ft
and x= 122.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = 4710.0 ft
7.0 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 := -5.0 degrees
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
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 33 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 310.00 4730.00
2 303.50 4727.41
3 296.88 4725.12
4 290.16 4723.16
5 283.36 4721.51
6 276.49 4720.19
7 269.56 4719.19
8 262.59 4718.53
9 255.60 4718.19
10 248.60 4718.19
11 241.60 4718.51
12 234.63 4719.17
13 227.71 4720.16
14 220.83 4721.48
15 214.02 4723.11
16 207.30 4725.07
17 200.68 4727.35
18 194.18 4729.94
19 187.80 4732.83
20 181.57 4736.02
21 175.50 4739.50
22 169.60 4743.26
23 163.88 4747.30
24 158.37 4751.61
25 153.06 4756.17
26 147.97 4760.98
27 143.12 4766.03
28 138.51 4771.30
29 134.16 4776.78
30 130.07 4782.46
31 126.25 4788.33
32 122.72 4794.37
33 120.82 4798.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.631 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Nix max Section 2:1 highwall
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. 1.631
2. 1.631
3. 1.635
4. 1.635
5. 1.637
6. 1.637
7. 1.638
8. 1.639
9. 1.639
10. 1.639
252.05 4865.83
254.18 4872.03
259.35 4886.16
252.04 4867.39
254.14 4874.55
249.60 4859.85
255.46 4878.69
254.16 4875.49
257.80 4884.47
248.95 4858.55
147.68
151.76
164.17
148.21
154.96
143.21
158.38
155.84
163.05
142.31
310.00
307.63
310.00
307.63
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
120.82 5.549E+07
121.65 5.405E+07
120.85 5.599E+07
120.97 5.459E+07
119.38 5.708E+07
120.47 5.589E+07
119.06 5.744E+07
118.89 5.757E+07
119.54 5.722E+07
120.23 5.613E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
SEC12T01 1-13-20 11:31
4860 -
4800
Nix max Section 2:1 highwall
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.631
a 4740 _
(/)
X
Q 4680 ->-
4620 _
4560
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
X—AXIS (feet)
XSTABL File: SEC12T1Q 1-13-20 11:18
******************************************
XSTABL
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
* *
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 2002 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
* *
* All Rights Reserved
* *
* Ver. 5.206 96 - 1952 *
*
******************************************
Problem Description : Nix max Section 2:1 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 .0 4799.0 40.0 4799.0 1
2 40.0 4799.0 60.0 4794.0 1
3 60.0 4794.0 75.0 4796.0 1
4 75.0 4796.0 95.0 4796.0 1
5 95.0 4796.0 99.0 4798.0 2
6 99.0 4798.0 118.5 4798.0 2
7 118.5 4798.0 121.5 4798.0 3
8 121.5 4798.0 151.5 4798.0 2
9 151.5 4798.0 155.5 4796.0 2
10 155.5 4796.0 167.5 4790.0 1
11 167.5 4790.0 287.5 4730.0 4
12 287.5 4730.0 480.0 4730.0 5
19 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 118.5 4798.0 118.6 4796.0 2
2 121.5 4798.0 121.6 4796.0 3
3 95.0 4796.0 118.6 4796.0 1
4 121.6 4796.0 155.5 4796.0 1
5 118.6 4796.0 118.7 4790.0 1
6 121.6 4796.0 121.7 4790.0 3
7 .0 4789.0 118.7 4790.0 4
8 121.7 4790.0 167.5 4790.0 4
9 118.7 4790.0 118.8 4730.0 4
10 121.7 4790.0 121.8 4730.0 3
11 .0 4730.0 118.8 4730.0 5
12 121.8 4730.0 480.0 4730.0 5
13 118.8 4730.0 118.9 4729.0 5
14 121.8 4730.0 121.9 4729.0 3
15 .0 4729.0 118.9 4729.0 6
16 121.9 4729.0 480.0 4729.0 6
17 118.9 4729.0 119.0 4726.0 6
18 121.9 4729.0 122.0 4726.0 3
19 119.0 4726.0 122.0 4726.0 6
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
6 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.
1 114.0 126.0 50.0 29.00 .000 .0 1
2 118.0 128.0 70.0 30.00 .000 .0 1
3 112.0 115.0 .0 .00 .000 .0 1
4 119.0 129.0 .0 35.00 .000 .0 1
5 110.0 133.0 .0 15.00 .000 .0 1
6 126.0 135.0 100.0 27.00 .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 .00 4788.00
2 118.60 4788.00
3 119.50 4734.00
4 287.50 4731.00
5 480.00 4731.00
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .091 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .000 has been assigned
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
20 Surfaces initiate from each of 20 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 265.0 ft
and x= 310.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 118.5 ft
and x= 122.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = 4710.0 ft
7.0 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 := -5.0 degrees
************************************************************************
-- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48)
************************************************************************
Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice.
This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self
weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such
cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.
************************************************************************
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 33 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 310.00 4730.00
2 303.50 4727.41
3 296.88 4725.12
4 290.16 4723.16
5 283.36 4721.51
6 276.49 4720.19
7 269.56 4719.19
8 262.59 4718.53
9 255.60 4718.19
10 248.60 4718.19
11 241.60 4718.51
12 234.63 4719.17
13 227.71 4720.16
14 220.83 4721.48
15 214.02 4723.11
16 207.30 4725.07
17 200.68 4727.35
18 194.18 4729.94
19 187.80 4732.83
20 181.57 4736.02
21 175.50 4739.50
22 169.60 4743.26
23 163.88 4747.30
24 158.37 4751.61
25 153.06 4756.17
26 147.97 4760.98
27 143.12 4766.03
28 138.51 4771.30
29 134.16 4776.78
30 130.07 4782.46
31 126.25 4788.33
32 122.72 4794.37
33 120.82 4798.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.297 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Nix max Section 2:1 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. 1.297
2. 1.300
3. 1.301
4. 1.301
5. 1.301
6. 1.301
7. 1.302
8. 1.302
9. 1.302
10. 1.303
252.05 4865.83
254.18 4872.03
254.14 4874.55
249.60 4859.85
255.46 4878.69
259.35 4886.16
252.04 4867.39
254.16 4875.49
248.95 4858.55
257.80 4884.47
147.68
151.76
154.96
143.21
158.38
164.17
148.21
155.84
142.31
163.05
310.00
307.63
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
307.63
310.00
310.00
310.00
120.82 5.343E+07
121.65 5.203E+07
119.38 5.497E+07
120.47 5.384E+07
119.06 5.531E+07
120.85 5.390E+07
120.97 5.257E+07
118.89 5.544E+07
120.23 5.407E+07
119.54 5.509E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
SEC12T1Q 1-13-20 11:18
4860 _
4800
4740 -
(1)
X
< 4680 _
4620 _
4560
Nix max Section 2:1 seismic
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.297
0 60 120 180 240 300
X-AXIS (feet)
360
420
480
Mariah Higgins
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Good morning,
Mariah Higgins
Monday, June 21, 2021 10:26 AM
'kyle@civilresources.com'
Chloe Rempel
Structure Agreement - Ready Mixed Concrete Company - Nix Gravel Mine
The Clerk to the Board's Office received your structure agreement for Colorado Division of Reclamation,
Mining, and Safety (DRMS) Reclamation Permit M-2001-046. Weld County will not be executing this
agreement. Upon request, Weld County can provide our template structure agreement for execution, which
requires a slope study.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Mariah Higgins
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Clerk to the Board's Office
Weld County
1150 O Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Tel: (970) 400-4225
Email: mhiggins(a)weldqov.com
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the
taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than
the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
1
Hello