Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - PDP - PDP120020 - REPORTS - DRAINAGE REPORT (3)CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BANK STABILITY EVALUATION River District Block One Mixed Use Development Larimer County, Colorado Prepared by: FLYWATER, inc. 200 S. College Ave. St. 12 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 SEPTEMBER 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Background/Site Description .............................................................................................. 1 Description of Study Area .............................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Development Related Disturbances ................................................................................ 2 Stability Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 3 Slope Stability ..................................................................................................................... 3 Bank Stability .................................................................................................................... 4 Stabilization Design Recommendations ......................................................................................... 5 Attachment: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development, Earth Engineering Consultants, September 13, 2012. River District Block One Page 1 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BANK STABILITY EVALUATION Introduction FlyWater has prepared the following report to present information, assessment, and results for the Block One Cache la Poudre River Bank Stability Evaluation. Report organization includes a project background, description of study area, summary of proposed development related disturbances, stability assessments, and stabilization design recommendations. Project Background/Site Description The River District Block One project is located along the west bank of the Cache la Poudre River immediately south of Linden Street (Figure 1). The one acre site contains two level terraces, the lowest being approximately 20 feet above the river. The site was previously used as a concrete batch plant and, while the associated buildings have been removed, a significant amount of concrete paving slabs remain. In general, the Block One property does not include the bank or channel of the Cache la Poudre River. The river and bank property is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed project will convert the Block One site to a mixed use development including office space, apartments, and a restaurant. Figure 1. Vicinity Map River District Block One Page 2 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation Proposed Development Related Disturbances To open river views from the proposed Block One development, it was proposed to remove three non-native Siberian Elms from the Cache la Poudre River Embankment. Due to the proposed tree removal, embankment stability questions were raised during preliminary development review with the City of Fort Collins. Additional potential disturbances to the embankment could include establishing an outlet for the Block One development water quality pond. Other Block One development features such as a water quality pond, removal of existing concrete paving slabs, and landscaping will not occur on the embankment or alter its current condition. Additionally, almost all of the site stormwater is expected to be captured for controlled runoff and minimal sheet flow over the river embankment is anticipated. Description of Study Area The evaluation study area is located adjacent to the Block One property, on City of Fort Collins property. It includes the west bank of the Cache la Poudre River from the top of the embankment to the slope toe. (see Figure 2). The area for potential bank disturbance due to tree removal and the water quality pond outlet structure, and the limit of the study area, extends approximately 85 feet along the embankment northeast of the proposed Block One buildings. Figure 2. Study Area The study area is located immediately downstream of the Linden Street Bridge and on the inside bank of a shallow Cache la Poudre meander. In this area of the river, a braid runs along the toe of the study area embankment and a well vegetated island, that begins upstream of the bridge, River District Block One Page 3 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation separates the study area embankment from the main river channel. The Cache la Poudre 100-year floodplain in the study area extends to near the top of the river bank. Within the study area, several trees are rooted on the side or near the top of the embankment. Most of the trees have been identified as non-native, Siberian Elm. Two large willow trees, rooted near the embankment toe, are located adjacent to each end of the study area. A large majority of the study area embankment is also covered with concrete. While the old batch plant was actively operating, concrete appears to have been dumped down the side of the embankment, likely to dispose of excess concrete and/or attempt to armor the river bank against erosion. While the concrete is apparently three to as much as 18 inches thick, much of the concrete mass has been undercut near the embankment toe. Stability Assessment The study area stability assessment included two different types of evaluations. First, the stability of the embankment against slope failure was evaluated. These evaluations (EEC 2012) provide an indication of potential slope sliding or slumping in a mass material movement. These types of failures can occur independently from the effects of the river or erosion, resulting strictly from the weight of the slope material and the instability of the embankment material below. Additional evaluations addressed the bank stability relative to erosion forces or lateral channel migration. These stability evaluations consider erosion affects from both stormwater runoff and river flows, including 100-year flood flows. Bank failures from erosion forces are typically caused from under cutting, or material being removed from the toe of the bank, causing the upper bank surface to collapse. Erosion forces during flooding events, when river flows contact areas not normal inundated, can scour away large amounts of bank material in addition to undercutting. Slope Stability In August 2012, Earth Engineering Consultants (EEC) performed a geotechnical evaluation of the study area to determine general soil conditions and comment on the stability of the overall embankment slope material and soils (EEC 2012). Below the concrete cover, it was estimated that the embankment slope is approximately 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical). Slope failure analyses using a 1.0 factor of safety calculated that flattening the slope to 1.3H:1V creates a marginally stable slope. The 1.0 factor of safety suggests that the calculations determined the slope to be stable, but it does not provide a margin for error. Therefore, a significant risk of failure still exists. Raising the factor of safety to 1.3, the analysis calculated that flattening the slope to 2H:1V creates a considerably more stable slope. The 1.3 factor of safety increases confidence in the slope stability and substantially reduces the risk of failure, an important consideration due to the close proximity of the proposed development structures. The 2H:1V slope provides stable River District Block One Page 4 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation conditions even during material saturation, rapid groundwater drawdown, or while adding the planned additional loads to the top of the embankment. If the embankment slopes in the study area are not flattened to reduce the risk of slope failure, engineered embankment stabilization techniques can be used to reduce the failure risk. These methods include constructing a solid wall using sheet pile or caissons near the top of the embankment or driving soil nails through the embankment surface and into the underlying material. Since the analyzed slope failures generally occur within or along the face of the slope, these techniques add to the slope stability by anchoring the surface material to the stable material behind. Bank Stability In June 2012, FlyWater, inc. conducted a review to assess the Cache la Poudre bank stability within the study area. In contrast to slope stability, which addresses the general failure of an embankment due to soil conditions, bank stability addresses the ability to resist erosive forces exerted by overland flow and riverine flood events. As previously mentioned, the concrete batch plant that formerly occupied the Block One site periodically dumped concrete over the river bank within the study area. In its existing condition, the bank appears to be stable since it was essentially slope-paved and, if left alone, would likely resist scour from overland sheet flow and flood flows well. However, along the toe of the slope, the river flows have undercut the concrete mass and eroded pockets several feet deep. To stabilize the concrete mass in its existing condition, the toe would need to be reinforced with hard armoring like large riprap or boulders. With the results of the slope stability analysis (EEC 2012), which indicate that the soil conditions within the embankment are not stable at the existing slope, the preliminary bank stability assessment is no longer applicable. Whether the embankment is left at its existing slope and structurally stabilized, or flattened to a more stable slope, the concrete mass will need to be removed and the resulting slope will need to be stabilized. Even with the concrete in place, adequate toe protection was recognized as being essential for bank stabilization in the study area. After removal of the concrete, undercutting of new bank stabilizing materials is likely without armoring at the embankment base. The study area river bottom and embankment toe are on a hard sandstone/siltstone bedrock material (EEC 2012) that should prevent substantial future downcutting of the river. The toe armoring, therefore, can be keyed into the bedrock to prevent lateral river migration. Keying hard armoring materials into the bedrock will also secure the materials and shifting or longitudinal movement of the materials. The rest of the embankment will require a combination of hard armoring and woody vegetation planting to reduce adjacent velocities during riverine inundation and provide stability. These materials will also provide resistance to overland flow erosion. Lower on the bank, aggressive armoring should be used due to more periodic flooding and increased inundation. Techniques River District Block One Page 5 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation such as geotextile fabric and riprap/large rock ground covering, or buried riprap covered with soil and geotextile fabric, provide immediate protection from flood flow forces while still allowing opportunities for riparian plantings such as willows. Higher on the slope, where flood flows and inundation are still possible yet less frequent, less aggressive bank stability and erosion protection techniques can be considered depending upon flood flow frequencies and velocities. Less aggressive techniques higher on the bank slopes could include short rockery walls (dry stacked boulders), flatter slopes, soil and grass stabilization with geotextile fabric, and multiple woody vegetation plantings. These bank stabilization techniques, individually or in combination, can provide the necessary bank stabilization for the study area. Depending on the methods used, the bank stabilization will also greatly improve the aesthetic value of the study area and adjacent site. Stabilization Design Recommendations Although many options are available for slope and bank stabilization in the study area, certain stabilization techniques are preferred. Structurally stabilizing the embankment at its existing slope limits effective bank stabilization methods. In this case, hard armoring methods are more applicable, because the steepness of the slope limits possible vegetation planting and growth potential. Additionally, although the embankment has been structurally stabilized, the bank surface soils are less stable than on flatter slopes. To increase stability in the study area, regrading the embankment to a flatter slope is recommended. A 2H:1V slope, or calculated slope with an appropriate factor of safety for the adjacent structures and risks, is suggested. The flatter slope allows the use of more passive and bioengineered bank stabilization methods compared to the existing slope. To excavate the slope, the concrete mass will need to be removed and trees on the the embankment may need to be taken out. The lost trees, however, can be replaced with desirable native species that provide added soil stabilization. Even with creation of a 2H:1V slope, careful excavation can preserve desirable trees near the bottom of the embankment. Since toe stabilization can be keyed into bedrock, preventing shifting and movement of the armoring material, the interlocking characteristics of large riprap is not essential and design should consider appropriately sized large rock boulders. Using appropriate geotextile fabric and backfill to stabilize the subgrade while still allowing the drainage of bank material, additional boulders can be dry stacked at the toe to provide added protection along areas of more frequent inundation. On the lower embankment, where bank material remains saturated through most of the year, design should take advantage of willow plantings through the use of transplants, wattles, or stakes. Since the willow plantings will take time to establish and provide adequate bank stability, the lower embankment area will also require immediate stability protection through hard armoring. The design can incorporate willow plantings into either surface or buried riprap covering. During design, riprap should be sized based on scour velocities during flood flows up River District Block One Page 6 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation to the 100-year storm event. Again, backfill and geotextiles should be included in the design to stabilize the subgrade and/or soil covering while allowing free drainage of embankment materials. Further up on the 2H:1V embankment, fill placed behind single or stacked boulders should also be used to create localized flatter slopes for grass or woody vegetation plantings. Design of single or dry stacked boulders on the embankment needs to ensure that the added weight of the boulders and fill does not compromise the slope stability. If localized slopes need to be significantly flattened with large amounts of fill, crib walls or mechanically stabilized earth walls should be considered instead of dry stacked boulders. All study area embankment subject to inundation by the 100-year storm event should be designed to provide stability for anticipated scouring forces. Geotextiles should be considered during design for stabilization of all soil and grass seeding. Depending upon anticipated scour velocities, hard armoring bank protection using ground covering or buried riprap should be considered in all areas subject to inundation. The section in Figure 3 illustrates a potential overall bank stabilization strategy for the study area. Figure 3. Bank Stabilization Strategy The design considerations presented are consistent with methods recommended in the City of Fort Collins Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan (Ayres 2002) and the City of Fort Collins Poudre River Enhancement Project – Linden Street to Lincoln Avenue and College River District Block One Page 7 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation Avenue to BNSF Railroad Bridge (Ayres 2003). These reports identified several areas of lateral instability along the Cache la Poudre River corridor, including near the study area. For restoration of the right river bank, recommended methods included sloping at 2H:1V, toe stabilization, and hard and bioengineered armoring to the 100-year storm event inundation elevation. The Master Drainageway Plan (Ayres 2002) also calls for a grade control structure in the Cache la Poudre River approximately 200-300 feet downstream from the Linden Street Bridge and just downstream of the study area. This in-channel feature will need to be constructed from within the channel near the study area. The City of Fort Collins contractor will be able to access the control structure location from the City’s Buckingham Park property on the east side of the river, preventing the need to disturb stabilization activities in the study area. In-channel and river bank restoration work is commonly accessed and performed from within the river channel. Bank stabilization work within the study area will likely use this access and construction method for parts of the stabilization. The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife acknowledges the advantage of accessing and performing river restoration and bank stabilization work from within the river channel. Remaining in the river channel limits disturbances to river banks and riparian areas, minimizing stormwater runoff concerns. Additionally, as opposed to fragile river banks and riparian areas, the river channel quickly recovers from construction disturbances. River District Block One Page 8 of 8 Bank Stability Evaluation REFERENCES Ayres Associates, 2002. Final Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan, prepared for City of Fort Collins. Ayres Associates and EDAW, October 2003. Poudre River Enhancement Project, Linden Street to Lincoln Avenue and College Avenue to BNSF Railroad Bridge, prepared for City of Fort Collins. Earth Engineering Consultants, September 13, 2012. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development, prepared for Jensen Consulting. ATTACHMENT Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development Prepared for: Jensen Consulting Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants September 13, 2012. 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 September 13, 2012 Jensen Consulting 37154 Dickerson Run Windsor, Colorado 80550 Attn: Mr. Jeff Jensen (Jeff@jensenconsulting.info) Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development - 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1112066 Mr. Jensen: This report presents the results of the supplemental geotechnical subsurface exploration/evaluation completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel for the proposed development project at 418 Linden Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The intent of the supplemental exploration was to provide a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the existing Cache La Poudre River slope/embankment along the east edge of the development parcel. This supplemental evaluation was carried out in general accordance with our proposal dated July 25, 2012. INTRODUCTION As a part of the exploration for the slope evaluation, three (3) test borings extending to depths of approximately 19½ feet below present site grades were advanced along the top of the embankment at the east edge of the proposed development parcel to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions in this area. Individual boring logs and a diagram indicating the approximate boring locations are included with this report. We understand this project involves the construction of a new office building with potential for a restaurant and possible residential apartments on upper level(s) of the structure. The proposed building will include a walk-out “basement” toward the east. Based on the subsurface conditions as described in our October 2011 exploration report regarding the proposed building construction planned for the site, we expect the new building will be supported on straight shaft driller piers extending into the underlying bedrock formation. As part of the proposed development, on-site Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 2 pavement improvements are also planned with additional associated site improvements as indicated on the enclosed schematics/renderings prepared by the project architects. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the three (3) supplemental test borings completed along the eastern boundary of the proposed development parcel adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the stability of the Cache La Poudre River bank adjacent to the property. SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES As part of this supplemental study, three (3) additional borings, identified herein as B-1A, B-2A, and B-3A, were located along the eastern edge of the proposed development parcel within areas accessible to our drilling equipment. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached site diagram. The supplemental borings extended approximate depths of 19½ feet below existing site grades and were advanced by nominal 4¼-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split barrel sampling procedures. In conjunction with the subsurface drilling operations, EEC personnel also conducted a cursory thickness evaluation of the existing concrete slurry/wash-out material observed along the face the existing embankment (further descriptions/findings along with photographs are included herein). In the split barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are advanced into the ground by means of a standard 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the split barrel sampler is recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Laboratory moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. Selected soil samples were tested for in-situ dry density, unconfined compressive strength, plasticity, and grain- size distribution. Two (2) representative composite samples of the overburden soils (identified herein as Sample “A” – Upper 5-feet and Sample “B” – Lower 5-feet) were tested for moisture- density relationship using standard Proctor compaction effort (ASTM D698) and direct shear (ASTM D3080). Results of the outlined tests are shown on the attached boring logs and/or presented on the enclosed summary sheets. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 3 As part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory by an engineer and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System, based on the soil’s texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief description of that classification system is included with this report. Classification of the bedrock was based on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed development lot is located west of the Cache La Poudre River, southeast of Linden Street, and northeast of an extension of Poudre Street near downtown Fort Collins. This property previously contained a concrete batch plant which was recently decommissioned and removed. The concrete slurry/wash-out material encountered along the existing embankment face presumably occurred over time when the parcel operated as a concrete batch-plant. The site grades consist of an “upper level” on the southwest portion of the site and a “lower level” to the northeast. Grade change is estimated to be on the order of 5 to 10 feet over a short relatively steep slope between the two levels. The surfacing at the site is predominately gravel on the upper portion with a concrete pad/drive on the lower area. Along the eastern portion of the site, in the area in which the three (3) supplemental test borings were positioned, a small sand berm was present. Photographs of the site taken during the supplemental subsurface exploration and are included with this report. EEC personnel were on site during the supplemental drilling operations to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and direct the drilling activities. Field logs prepared by EEC site personnel were based on visual and tactual observation of auger cuttings and disturbed samples. The boring logs included with this report may contain modifications to the field logs based on results of laboratory testing and engineering evaluation. Based on results of the field boring and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. An approximate layer of 6 to 8 inches of existing sand material was encountered at the surface of each of the supplemental test borings. The materials below the sand/gravel surfacing generally consisted of fill material, which was predominately characterized as silty sand with gravel and Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 4 miscellaneous concrete pieces. The existing fill zone extended to depths of approximate 6 to 11 feet below site grades. The consistency of the fill soils ranged from medium dense to dense as evident by the recorded SPT results as shown on the enclosed boring logs. The fill materials were underlain by medium dense to dense, native sands and gravels. The granular soils were typically tan in color and contained apparent cobbles and variable sand, gravel and fine contents. The sands and gravels extended to depths of approximately 13½ to 15 feet and were underlain by sandstone/siltstone bedrock. The bedrock was typically cemented/hard and contained well cemented zones. The supplemental borings were terminated at depths of approximately 19½ feet in the bedrock materials. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and rock types; in-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. Existing Concrete Slurry Surfacing As part of our supplemental evaluation, we were requested to determine the thickness of the existing concrete slurry/wash-out material encountered on the surface of the embankment/slope of the referenced project. Visual observations were made by EEC personnel as well as random thicknesses determination by use of a hammer drill equipped with an approximate 16-inch long masonry drill bit. A diagram illustrating the cross-sectional view of three (3) random locations across the embankment are presented as Figure No. 2 at the conclusion of this report. In the areas where the hammer drill was used, the concrete thickness varied from approximately 3 inches to 9 inches. Visually, the thickness of the concrete slurry/wash-out material appeared to vary from 0 inches to as thick as 18 inches or more. Photographs of the existing embankment are presented at the conclusion of this report. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of boring to detect the presence and depth to groundwater. During drilling operations, groundwater was encountered in supplemental boring Nos. B-2A and B-3A at depths of approximately 13 to 13½ feet below site grades. Those depths generally correspond to the depth to the underlying bedrock surface. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operation and subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 5 Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. In addition, zones of perched and/or trapped water may be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable areas within the subgrade materials. Perched water is commonly observed in more permeable soils above lower permeability bedrock. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Moisture Density Relationship and Classification On two (2) composite overburden samples, EEC personnel completed standard Proctor (ASTM D698), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) and wash sieve analysis (ASTM C117 and C136) tests to evaluate the materials’ compaction characteristics and to classify the materials. The results of the standard Proctor density and classification tests are summarized below and are also included at the conclusion of this report. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISITCS AND CLASSIFIATION OF SOILS Sample ID Standard Proctor Density Soil Classification Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Liquid Limit Plastic Index Passing No. 200 Sieve (%) Description Upper 5-Feet “A” 10.0 125.5 NL NP 25.1 Silty Sand with Gravel with Concrete Debris Lower 5-Feet “B” 8.5 127.5 NL NP 25.3 Silty Sand with Gravel Direct Shear Strength Tests Two (2) direct shear (ASTM D3080) tests were performed on representative samples of the overburden/existing fill materials. The direct shear testing was carried out by subcontracted Advanced Terra Testing of Denver, Colorado. The test specimens were remolded to approximately 95% of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density at approximately optimum moisture content. Each direct shear test was conducted with three (3) passes at approximate loading schemes of 1000 psf, 2000 psf, and 5000 psf. The results of the laboratory direct shear testing were used to determine the materials’ shear strength parameters (friction angle,  and cohesion, c). Laboratory Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 6 test results are summarized in the table below, and shown on the plots at the conclusion of this report. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample ID Friction Angle Cohesion, psf (1) Average Percent Compaction (2) Approximate Moisture Differential Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress Normal Stress vs. Ultimate Shear Stress Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress Normal Stress vs. Ultimate Shear Stress 1 33.8 33.4 295.2 72.1 95.1% (-) 0.2% 2 39.6 43.7 727.5 118.0 95.0% (-) 0.1% (1) The percent compaction is based on the material’s standard Proctor density results of 125.5 pcf for Sample “A” and 127.5 pcf for Sample “B.” (2) The approximate moisture percent differential is based on the overburden material’s standard Proctor density results having an optimum moisture content of 10.0% for Sample “A”, and 8.5% for Sample “B”. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The existing subsurface soils at this site include approximately 14 feet of granular and essentially granular soils overlying sandstone bedrock. The bed of the adjacent Cache La Poudre River appears to be in the sandstone bedrock. The friction angle of the overburden soils varies from approximately 34° to 40° at a peak stress state. Based on our review of the proposed development plans, additional surcharge loads including fills for developing grades to the east of the new building, and new floor and vehicle loads within the building area will be applied to existing ground surface at the top of the slope. A schematic approximation of the applied loads is shown on the attached calculation sheets. The new construction, at the closest point, appears to be about 19 feet from the current top of embankment. A friction angle of 34° was used for evaluation of the entire depth of the existing granular and essentially granular soils on the site. Using a factor of safety of 1.0, the existing subgrade soils calculate that slopes as steep as 1.3:1 (horizontal:vertical) could appear stable, although that factor of safety implies slopes on this order are only marginally stable. The calculated slope failure surfaces are generally within or along the face of the slopes so that the additional surcharge loads from the proposed construction do not greatly impact the slope stability as calculated. In this analysis, we have ignored potential contributions, both positive and negative, of tree growth along the face of the embankment. A factor of safety of 1.3 would, in our opinion, be appropriate in evaluating the slope in the vicinity of the new structure assuming appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent loss of Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 7 material along the slope and at the toe of the slope and given the subsurface conditions observed in the test borings. As indicated on the attached calculation sheets, an embankment slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) yields a factor of safety slightly over 1:3 for both static perched water on the bedrock and a rapid drawdown after a flood event. A water quality pond is proposed for construction to the south of the new building, adjacent to the top of embankment. We understand the water quality pond will not be lined allowing infiltration into the subgrade at the top of the slope. We suggest provisions be made to prevent direct flow from the water quality pond to the face of the adjacent embankment. Forcing vertical flow with lining on the east side of the pond or construction of a “cut off” could be used to prevent direct flow. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until further exploration or construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jensen Consulting for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is made. In the event that any 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 the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D. unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Level WS : While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty sand, trace gravel, medium dense (SM). CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf Consistency < 500 Very Soft 500 - 1,000 Soft 1,001 - 2,000 Medium 2,001 - 4,000 Stiff 4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff 8,001 - 16,000 Very Hard RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: N-Blows/ft Relative Density 0-3 Very Loose 4-9 Loose 10-29 Medium Dense 30-49 Dense 50-80 Very Dense 80 + Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change. Moderate Some decomposition and color change throughout. High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: LOT 1 LINDEN STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1112066 JULY 2012 PHOTO #3 PHOTO #2 PHOTO #1 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME45 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) OPT. MOIST. MAX. DD _ _ APPARENT FILL MATERIAL 1 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and Concrete Debris _ _ brown, gray, dry , medium dense to dense 2 _ _ 3 3 4 -- 3.0 _ _ 3 FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 4 6 _ _ 5 _ _ 6 _ _ 6 7 6 -- 7.6 _ _ 11 8 11 _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 9 _ _ 9 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM / SC) 10 7 9000+ 14.6 brown _ _ 9 dense 11 30 with gravel _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 40 GRAVELS (GP) 14 27 -- 4.6 NL NP 16.5 very dense _ _ 22 15 40 _ _ SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE / CLAYSTONE 16 grey _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 50/3" 9000+ 11.5 BOTTOM OF BORING - Approximate Depth 19.5' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET DATE: RIG TYPE: CME45 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) OPT. MOIST. MAX. DD _ _ APPARENT FILL MATERIAL 1 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and Concrete Debris _ _ brown, gray, dry , medium dense to dense 2 _ _ 3 45/6" -- 10.5 _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 4 _ _ 5 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 7 9 9000+ 19.6 NL NP 24.9 _ _ 6 8 8 _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 9 _ _ 8 10 7 -- 4.7 _ _ 5 SILTY SAND (SM) 11 3 brown / rust _ _ 12 GRAVEL (GP) _ _ very dense 13 _ _ 23 14 17 6000 12.2 NL NP 21.5 _ _ 15 15 40 SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE _ _ grey 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 50/2" 9000+ 131.0 BOTTOM OF BORING - Approximate Depth 19.5' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET DATE: RIG TYPE: CME45 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) OPT. MOIST. MAX. DD CONCRETE - 6" _ _ 1 APPARENT FILL MATERIAL _ _ CLAYEY SAND / SANDY LEAN CLAY 2 stiff to very stiff, with traces of gravel _ _ 10 3 11 _ _ 9 9000+ 10.0 FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 4 11 _ _ 5 _ _ 6 _ _ 10 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM / SC) 7 6 brown _ _ 3 -- 6.2 NL NP 26.3 loose to medium dense 8 2 with traces of gravel _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 9 _ _ 3 10 5 _ _ 5 -- 6.6 11 10 _ _ 12 silty gravelly seam _ _ 13 _ _ 9 14 24 SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ 35 9000+ 16.1 grey 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 50/3" 9000+ 15.8 BOTTOM OF BORING - Approximate Depth 19.5' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET Project: 418 Linden St Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Date: July 2012 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) Percent Moisture Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 Material Designation: Sample Location: Description: Sample "A" Upper 5-feet Silty/Clayey Sand with Gravel & Concrete Fragments Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318) Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: NL NP NL Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 25.1% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture Content: 125.5 pcf 10.0% Project: 418 Linden St Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Date: July 2012 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) Percent Moisture Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 Material Designation: Sample Location: Description: Sample "B" Lower 5-feet Brown Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel & Concrete Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318) Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: NL NP NL Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 25.3% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture Content: 127.5 pcf 8.5% 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Material A Date: August 2012 Plasticity Index Plastic Limit NP NP EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 48 99 97 Sieve Size Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Percent Passing 100 100 93 NL 88 78 70 61 35 25.1 52 44 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Material A Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Material B Date: August 2012 Plasticity Index Plastic Limit NP NP EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 49 100 97 Sieve Size Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Percent Passing 100 100 93 NL 89 82 75 65 35 25.3 54 44 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Material B Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 1A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 100 80 75 68 59 49 23 16.5 41 31 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 36 93 87 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 1A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 2, at 6' Date: August 2012 100 80 75 67 62 56 34 24.9 50 42 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 46 94 87 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 2, at 6' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 100 80 77 70 63 55 37 21.5 47 42 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 44 92 88 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 3A, Sample 3, at 9' Date: August 2012 100 84 81 76 70 63 37 26.3 56 48 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 52 90 87 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 3A, Sample 3, at 9' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT ASTM D 3080 CLIENT: Jensen Consulting PROJECT: Block One - 418 Linden Street - Fort Collins, Colorado PROJECT NO. SAMPLE LOCATION: Comp. Sample of Existing Upper 5-feet of East Embankment Material SOIL CLASSIFICATION: NORMAL ULTIMATE SHEAR PEAK SHEAR MOISTURE DRY STRESS STRESS STRESS CONTENT DENSITY (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) ( % ) (PCF) 1 2 3 TANGENT INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE COHESION - PSF PEAK ULTIMATE 0.670 0.659 3642 Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SM-SW). Sample remolded to Approximately 95% Standard Proctor Density at or near Optimum Moisture Content 1399 119.4 119.4 119.4 33.8 33.4 295.2 72.1 953 1652 3364 9.8 9.7 9.8 SAMPLE NO. 1112066 1000 2000 5000 724 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS PSF NORMAL STRESS - PSF Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS (PSF) DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT ASTM D 3080 CLIENT: Jensen Consulting PROJECT: Block One - 418 Linden Street - Fort Collins, Colorado PROJECT NO. SAMPLE LOCATION: Comp. Sample of Existing Lower 5-feet of East Embankment Material SOIL CLASSIFICATION: NORMAL ULTIMATE SHEAR PEAK SHEAR MOISTURE DRY STRESS STRESS STRESS CONTENT DENSITY (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) ( % ) (PCF) 1 2 3 TANGENT INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE COHESION - PSF PEAK ULTIMATE 0.828 0.964 4950 Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SM-SW). Sample remolded to Approximately 95% Standard Proctor Density at or near Optimum Moisture Content 1999 121.5 121.2 121.2 39.6 43.9 727.5 118.0 1797 2063 4950 8.7 8.4 8.4 SAMPLE NO. 1112066 1000 2000 5000 1118 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS PSF NORMAL STRESS - PSF Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS (PSF) Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Report created by ReSSA(2.0): Copyright (c) 2001-2006, ADAMA Engineering, Inc. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Title: River District Block One Mixed Use Project Number: 1112066 - Client: Mr. Jonathan O'Neil Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: Section 1 Description: Company's information: Name: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Street: 4396 Greenfield Drive Winsor, CO 80550 Telephone #: 970-545-3908 Fax #: 970-663-0282 E-Mail: www.earth-engineering.com Original file path and name: S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Jul 12 18:30:38 2012 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using NO reinforcement material. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 1 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT) SOIL DATA =========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³] Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c [lb/ft ²] γ φ .....1 ........Sand .........and .......Gravel .............................................. 125.0 34.0 0.0 .....2 ........Bedrock .............................................................. 135.0 20.0 2250.0 REINFORCEMENT Analysis of slope WITHOUT reinforcement. WATER Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis. SEISMICITY Not Applicable Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 2 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input -- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates. -- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on. -- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface. GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page) WATER GEOMETRY Phreatic line was specified. UNIFORM SURCHARGE Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 34.75 and ends at X1e = 38.40 [ft]. Load Q2 = 1000.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X2s = 38.40 and ends at X2e = 40.84 [ft]. Load Q3 = 500.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X3s = 40.84 and ends at X3e = 60.96 [ft]. STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 4 56 78 9 SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 3 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. # Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 3 114.00 114.00 4 200.00 114.00 Top of Layer 2 5 0.00 100.00 6 100.00 100.00 7 122.50 100.00 8 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 10 0.00 100.00 11 86.00 100.00 12 106.00 105.00 13 116.00 107.00 14 122.00 108.00 15 200.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 4 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. Y values are tabulated in the right most column. # X Y1 Y2 Yw (phreatic) 1 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 100.00 107.00 100.00 103.50 4 106.00 110.00 100.00 105.00 5 114.00 114.00 100.00 106.60 6 116.00 114.00 100.00 107.00 7 122.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 8 122.50 114.00 100.00 108.00 9 200.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 5 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point # E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS . 1 116.00 114.00 86.37 100.22 89.27 132.73 32.64 1.35 . On extreme X-entry 2 118.18 114.00 86.40 100.22 90.11 135.21 35.18 1.37 3 120.36 114.00 86.30 100.23 90.49 138.87 38.86 1.42 4 122.54 114.00 86.10 100.24 90.29 144.30 44.25 1.48 5 124.72 114.00 86.41 100.22 90.66 148.54 48.51 1.55 6 126.89 114.00 86.32 100.22 91.04 152.95 52.94 1.60 7 129.07 114.00 86.17 100.23 90.62 160.11 60.04 1.63 8 131.25 114.00 86.07 100.24 90.97 165.20 65.15 1.66 9 133.43 114.00 85.97 100.25 91.34 170.48 70.44 1.72 10 135.61 114.00 86.38 100.22 91.72 175.94 75.91 1.80 11 137.79 114.00 86.29 100.22 92.12 181.58 81.56 1.90 12 139.96 114.00 86.19 100.23 92.52 187.39 87.39 1.99 13 142.14 114.00 86.17 100.23 91.60 198.81 98.73 2.11 14 144.32 114.00 86.08 100.23 91.95 205.50 105.43 2.21 15 146.50 114.00 85.99 100.24 92.31 212.37 112.31 2.30 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. ************************* Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points) Exit Point # E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS 1 59.96 100.04 144.32 114.00 97.34 136.06 51.90 6.07 2 62.23 100.39 139.96 114.00 96.08 135.86 49.03 5.99 3 64.64 100.05 139.96 114.00 75.79 250.17 150.53 5.70 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.35 Critical Circle: Xc = 89.27[ft], Yc = 132.73[ft], R = 32.64[ft]. (Number of slices used = 53 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 7 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Report created by ReSSA(2.0): Copyright (c) 2001-2006, ADAMA Engineering, Inc. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Title: River District Block One Mixed Use Project Number: 1112066 - Client: Mr. Jonathan O'Neil Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: Section 1 Description: Company's information: Name: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Street: 4396 Greenfield Drive Winsor, CO 80550 Telephone #: 970-545-3908 Fax #: 970-663-0282 E-Mail: www.earth-engineering.com Original file path and name: S:\Outgoin ..... 011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Jul 12 18:30:38 2012 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using NO reinforcement material. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 1 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT) SOIL DATA =========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³] Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c [lb/ft ²] γ φ .....1 ........Sand .........and .......Gravel .............................................. 125.0 34.0 0.0 .....2 ........Bedrock .............................................................. 135.0 20.0 2250.0 REINFORCEMENT Analysis of slope WITHOUT reinforcement. WATER Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis. SEISMICITY Not Applicable Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 2 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input -- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates. -- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on. -- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface. GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page) WATER GEOMETRY Phreatic line was specified. UNIFORM SURCHARGE Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 34.75 and ends at X1e = 38.40 [ft]. Load Q2 = 1000.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X2s = 38.40 and ends at X2e = 40.84 [ft]. Load Q3 = 500.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X3s = 40.84 and ends at X3e = 60.96 [ft]. STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 4 56 78 9 SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 3 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. # Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 3 114.00 114.00 4 200.00 114.00 Top of Layer 2 5 0.00 100.00 6 100.00 100.00 7 122.50 100.00 8 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 10 0.00 100.00 11 86.00 100.00 12 106.00 100.00 13 116.00 100.00 14 122.00 100.00 15 200.00 100.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 4 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. Y values are tabulated in the right most column. # X Y1 Y2 Yw (phreatic) 1 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 100.00 107.00 100.00 100.00 4 106.00 110.00 100.00 100.00 5 114.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 6 116.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 7 122.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 8 122.50 114.00 100.00 100.00 9 200.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 5 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point # E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS . 1 116.00 114.00 86.41 100.21 57.66 200.56 104.39 1.37 . On extreme X-entry 2 118.18 114.00 86.31 100.19 68.33 185.36 87.05 1.44 3 120.36 114.00 86.08 100.16 73.80 179.95 80.73 1.53 4 122.54 114.00 86.12 100.18 76.62 180.09 80.47 1.62 5 124.72 114.00 86.09 100.18 77.51 185.04 85.29 1.72 6 126.89 114.00 86.04 100.19 80.60 183.62 83.61 1.80 7 129.07 114.00 86.42 100.21 85.08 177.22 77.02 1.84 8 131.25 114.00 86.25 100.22 87.75 175.69 75.49 1.89 9 133.43 114.00 86.07 100.23 89.14 177.97 77.81 1.96 10 135.61 114.00 86.42 100.21 90.61 179.93 79.82 2.07 11 137.79 114.00 86.29 100.22 92.12 181.58 81.56 2.19 12 139.96 114.00 86.19 100.23 92.52 187.39 87.39 2.30 13 142.14 114.00 86.17 100.23 91.60 198.81 98.73 2.42 14 144.32 114.00 85.99 100.22 88.52 219.90 119.70 2.53 15 146.50 114.00 85.99 100.24 92.31 212.37 112.31 2.65 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. ************************* Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points) Exit Point # E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS 1 59.96 100.04 144.32 114.00 97.34 136.06 51.90 6.25 2 62.23 100.39 139.96 114.00 96.08 135.86 49.03 6.17 3 64.64 100.05 139.96 114.00 75.79 250.17 150.53 5.87 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.37 Critical Circle: Xc = 57.66[ft], Yc = 200.56[ft], R = 104.39[ft]. (Number of slices used = 54 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 7 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Report created by ReSSA(2.0): Copyright (c) 2001-2006, ADAMA Engineering, Inc. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Title: River District Block One Mixed Use Project Number: 1112066 - Client: Mr. Jonathan O'Neil Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: Section 1 Description: Company's information: Name: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Street: 4396 Greenfield Drive Winsor, CO 80550 Telephone #: 970-545-3908 Fax #: 970-663-0282 E-Mail: www.earth-engineering.com Original file path and name: S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Jul 12 18:30:38 2012 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using NO reinforcement material. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 1 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT) SOIL DATA =========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³] Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c [lb/ft ²] γ φ .....1 ........Sand .........and .......Gravel .............................................. 125.0 34.0 0.0 .....2 ........Bedrock .............................................................. 135.0 20.0 2250.0 REINFORCEMENT Analysis of slope WITHOUT reinforcement. WATER Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis. SEISMICITY Not Applicable Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 2 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input -- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates. -- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on. -- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface. GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page) WATER GEOMETRY Phreatic line was specified. UNIFORM SURCHARGE .Surcharge ................load, .........Q1 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q2 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q3 ..........................................None ... STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 3 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. # Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 100.00 2 96.00 100.00 3 114.00 114.00 4 200.00 114.00 Top of Layer 2 5 0.00 100.00 6 100.00 100.00 7 122.50 100.00 8 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 10 0.00 100.00 11 96.00 100.00 12 116.00 105.00 13 126.00 107.00 14 131.00 108.00 15 200.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 4 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. Y values are tabulated in the right most column. # X Y1 Y2 Yw (phreatic) 1 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 96.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 100.00 103.11 100.00 101.00 4 114.00 114.00 100.00 104.50 5 116.00 114.00 100.00 105.00 6 122.50 114.00 100.00 106.30 7 126.00 114.00 100.00 107.00 8 131.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 9 200.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 5 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point # E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS . 1 118.00 114.00 95.98 100.01 53.71 190.90 100.24 1.03 . On extreme X-entry 2 120.75 114.00 95.94 100.00 55.20 201.21 109.09 1.17 3 123.50 114.00 95.83 99.97 52.56 219.61 127.23 1.31 4 126.25 114.00 95.98 100.02 28.10 286.81 198.74 1.45 5 129.00 114.00 95.78 99.95 -22.76 426.54 347.44 1.59 6 131.75 114.00 95.89 99.99 -1040.09 3059.86 3170.38 1.73 7 134.50 114.00 96.04 100.04 -308.19 1274.12 1241.71 1.86 8 137.25 114.00 95.76 99.95 -448.24 1775.27 1761.43 2.00 9 140.00 114.00 95.87 99.99 -536.07 2167.68 2162.10 2.13 10 142.75 114.00 95.86 100.06 97.47 180.46 80.42 2.26 11 145.50 114.00 95.82 100.06 97.63 189.12 89.08 2.38 12 148.25 114.00 95.75 100.06 96.07 204.65 104.60 2.51 13 151.00 114.00 95.82 100.05 93.91 223.72 123.68 2.63 14 153.75 114.00 95.89 100.05 87.62 261.26 161.43 2.76 15 156.50 114.00 95.96 100.05 76.64 322.18 222.97 2.89 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. ************************* Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points) Exit Point # E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS 1 69.75 100.23 140.00 114.00 99.97 132.14 43.95 7.53 2 72.12 100.45 137.25 114.00 99.88 130.29 40.77 7.39 3 75.11 100.09 134.50 114.00 99.64 129.11 38.00 7.24 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.03 Critical Circle: Xc = 53.71[ft], Yc = 190.90[ft], R = 100.24[ft]. (Number of slices used = 51 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 7 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com 4 77.78 100.00 140.00 114.00 86.96 204.48 104.88 6.66 5 80.05 100.03 137.25 114.00 88.33 190.26 90.61 6.01 6 82.67 100.03 140.00 114.00 89.73 195.67 95.91 5.37 7 85.64 100.00 134.50 114.00 90.83 174.16 74.34 4.58 8 87.75 100.03 137.25 114.00 92.36 178.38 78.49 4.03 9 90.76 100.01 129.00 114.00 93.56 151.60 51.67 3.16 10 93.17 100.01 123.50 114.00 94.74 136.49 36.51 2.24 . 11 95.98 100.01 118.00 114.00 53.71 190.90 100.24 1.03 . OK 12 98.64 102.07 118.00 114.00 64.04 179.88 85.16 1.07 13 101.24 104.09 118.00 114.00 72.61 171.66 73.38 1.11 14 103.88 106.13 118.00 114.00 79.49 166.53 65.13 1.19 15 106.39 108.13 118.00 114.00 88.11 158.68 53.76 1.31 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-exit' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 6 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com 4 67.55 100.03 137.79 114.00 77.33 234.40 134.72 5.47 5 70.33 100.01 142.14 114.00 78.42 249.81 150.02 4.98 6 72.60 100.03 137.79 114.00 79.79 225.56 125.74 4.42 7 75.56 100.02 133.43 114.00 81.26 203.15 103.29 3.96 8 78.40 100.00 135.61 114.00 82.27 208.08 108.15 3.41 9 80.77 100.01 129.07 114.00 83.92 179.54 79.59 3.03 10 83.67 100.00 124.72 114.00 84.90 163.59 63.60 2.36 . 11 86.41 100.21 116.00 114.00 57.66 200.56 104.39 1.37 . OK 12 88.94 101.50 116.00 114.00 62.44 194.40 96.61 1.37 13 91.65 102.84 116.00 114.00 71.07 179.90 79.76 1.38 14 94.28 104.16 116.00 114.00 78.44 168.03 65.81 1.38 15 96.93 105.48 116.00 114.00 86.67 154.08 49.66 1.38 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-exit' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 6 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com 4 67.35 100.03 146.50 114.00 77.14 275.78 176.02 5.27 5 70.33 100.01 142.14 114.00 78.42 249.81 150.02 4.77 6 72.60 100.03 137.79 114.00 79.79 225.56 125.74 4.24 7 75.56 100.02 133.43 114.00 81.26 203.15 103.29 3.80 8 78.40 100.00 135.61 114.00 82.27 208.08 108.15 3.24 9 80.77 100.01 129.07 114.00 83.92 179.54 79.59 2.88 10 83.67 100.00 124.72 114.00 84.90 163.59 63.60 2.22 . 11 86.37 100.22 116.00 114.00 89.27 132.73 32.64 1.35 . OK 12 88.94 101.50 116.00 114.00 62.44 194.40 96.61 1.37 13 91.65 102.84 116.00 114.00 71.07 179.90 79.76 1.38 14 94.28 104.16 116.00 114.00 78.44 168.03 65.81 1.38 15 96.93 105.48 116.00 114.00 86.67 154.08 49.66 1.38 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-exit' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 6 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com NORMAL STRESS - PSF Normal Stress vs. Ultimate Shear Stress NORMAL STRESS - PSF Normal Stress vs. Ultimate Shear Stress FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 AUGUST 2012 LOG OF BORING B-3A SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 7/27/2012 WHILE DRILLING 13.0' FINISH DATE 7/27/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A 118 A-LIMITS STND. PROCTOR RESULTS SS SS SS SS SS 33 44 8.5 127.5 UPPER 5-FEET LOWER 5-FEET DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS 10 125.5 72 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 AUGUST 2012 LOG OF BORING B-2A SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 7/27/2012 WHILE DRILLING 13.5' FINISH DATE 7/27/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A 118 A-LIMITS STND. PROCTOR RESULTS SS SS SS SS SS 33 44 8.5 127.5 UPPER 5-FEET LOWER 5-FEET DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS 10 125.5 72 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 AUGUST 2012 LOG OF BORING B-1A SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 7/27/2012 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 7/27/2012 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A 118 A-LIMITS STND. PROCTOR RESULTS SS SS SS SS SS 33 44 8.5 127.5 UPPER 5-FEET LOWER 5-FEET DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR RESULTS 10 125.5 72 Limestone and Dolomite: Hard Difficult to scratch with knife. Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife. Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. Shale, Siltstone and Claystone: Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be scratched with fingernail. Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail. Hard Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with fingers. Sandstone and Conglomerate: Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. Cemented Cemented Can be scratched with knife. Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers. Cemented