Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - FDP - FDP130015 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT 418 LINDEN STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1112066 Prepared for: Mr. Jonathan O’Neil 324 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 c/o Pinnacle Consulting Group, Inc. 5110 Granite Street, Suite C Loveland, Colorado 80538 Attn: Mr. Rich Shannon Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 October 25, 2011 Mr. Jonathan O’Neil 324 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 c/o Pinnacle Consulting Group, Inc. 5110 Granite Street, Suite C Loveland, Colorado 80538 Attn: Mr. Rich Shannon Re: Subsurface Exploration Report 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1112066 Mr. Shannon: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel for the proposed building and associated pavement development at 418 Linden Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. This study was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated October 5, 2011. In summary, the subsurface materials encountered in the six (6) exploration borings completed on the site generally consisted of approximately 4 to 8-feet of existing fill overlying native sand and gravel with intermittent apparent cobbles. A fill depth of approximately 14-feet was observed in the south corner of the site in the general vicinity of boring B-3. The native sand and gravel with intermittent cobbles extended to sandstone bedrock at approximate depths of 10 to 18-feet below existing site grades. The bedrock extended to the depths explored, approximately 18 to 25-feet. Groundwater was encountered in only one of the soil borings (boring B-6) at an approximate depth of 14-feet below site grade at the time of drilling. Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, it is our opinion the proposed lightly loaded building could be supported on a conventional spread footing foundation system bearing on the native granular subsoils or on approved engineered fill material which SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT 418 LINDEN STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1112066 October 25, 2011 INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration you requested for the proposed development of 418 Linden Street in Fort Collins, Colorado has been completed. As a part of that exploration, six (6) soil borings extending to depths of approximately 18 to 25-feet below present site grades were advanced on the development parcel to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. 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 on the referenced parcel with potential for a restaurant and possible residential condominiums on upper level(s) of the structure. The proposed building could include a full-depth basement or walk-out “basement” to the east. We anticipate maximum wall and column loads for the building would be on the order of 3 klf and 150 kips, respectively, along with light floor loading conditions. The on-site pavement improvements are currently planned as a part of the development. Specific information concerning proposed site grading was not available to us at the time of this report. We are basing the recommendations, herein, on assumed cuts and fills of less than 5 feet. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the six (6) soil borings completed on the site, analyze and evaluate the test data and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of the foundations and support of floor slabs and pavements. EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring locations were established in the field by a representative of Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site features. Those approximate boring locations are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations of the borings should be considerate accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 2 The borings were performed using a truck-mounted, CME-45 drill rig equipped with a hydraulic head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced using 4-inch nominal continuous flight augers and samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split-barrel and California barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D-1586 and D-3550, respectively. In the split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are driven into the ground by means of a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the samplers 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. Moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. The unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. The quantity and plasticity of the fines in the subgrade were determined by washed sieve analysis and Atterberg limits tests on selected samples. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets. 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. An existing metal building remains in the south corner of the site. The site grades consist of an “upper Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 3 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 “steep” slope. The surfacing at the site is predominately gravel on the upper portion with a concrete pad/drive on the lower area. Photographs of the site were taken during the subsurface exploration and are included in the Appendix of this report. An EEC field engineer was on site during the 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. Approximately 3½-inches of concrete pavement was encountered at the surface in boring B-5 with up to 6-inches of gravel base course material observed at the surface at the other boring locations. The materials below the concrete/gravel surfacing generally consisted of fill and apparent fill soils, predominately silty and/or clayey sands. The fill soils contained varying amounts of gravel. The fill and apparent fill soils generally extended to depths of approximately 4 to 8 feet below current site grades; however, extended to a depth of approximately 14 feet near the southeast corner of the site in the general vicinity of boring B-3. The consistency of the fill soils was variable, ranging from medium dense to very loose. The site apparent fill soils 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 fines. The sands and gravels extended to depths of approximately 10 to 18 feet and were underlain by sandstone/siltstone bedrock. The bedrock was typically cemented/hard and contained zones of well cemented materials. Auger refusal was encountered in boring B-4 at a depth of approximately 18 feet on apparent well cemented sandstone bedrock. The borings were terminated at depths of approximately 18 to 25 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. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 4 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of boring to detect the presence and depth to apparent groundwater. Groundwater was encountered only in boring B-6 at a depth of approximately 14 feet as the boring was being advanced. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operation; therefore stabilized/subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained. 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. The location and amount of perched water can also vary over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Considerations Precautions will be required in the design and construction of the new building and new pavements to address the existing fill material, the removal/excavation of cobbles at increased depths, penetration of the underlying well cemented sandstone bedrock lenses, and shoring/protection of adjacent properties during excavation for a basement level of site, if appropriate. It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. However, if excavations penetrating the well-cemented sandstone bedrock are required, the use of specialized heavy-duty equipment such as a rock hammer or core barrel to achieve final design elevations may be necessary. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult excavation in the contract documents for the project. Depending upon the depth and proximity to the property line of lower level construction, a shoring plan may be necessary to protect the adjacent sidewall slopes. The project design team should use the subsurface information provided herein to properly design a mechanism for shoring protection. EEC is Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 5 available to provide supplemental design criteria or details such as but not limited to secant piles or piers, soldier piers, or a tie-back/bracing concept. Site Preparation Final site grades were not available at the time of this report. We are basing the recommendations in this report on an assumption that cuts and fills of less than 5 feet will be necessary to achieve design grades. All of the existing fill material should be removed in the new building areas and either stockpiled for reuse as fill material or hauled off-site. In-place fill materials could remain in pavement and landscape areas with the acknowledgement that some future settlement could occur in the remaining fill areas and that future settlement could result in differential movements in the overlying improvements. The majority of the fill material generally consisted of clayey and/or silty sand with gravel and intermittent cobbles. It is our opinion the site fill soils could be stockpiled for reuse as engineered fill material. After stripping, over-excavating as necessary and completing all cuts, and prior to placement of any fill material or site improvements, we recommend the exposed subsoils be scarified to a minimum depth of 12-inches, adjusted in moisture content to within ±3% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 98% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698. Fill soils required to develop the building, pavement and site subgrades, after the initial subgrade zone, (i.e., the layer beneath any over-excavation requirements) has been stabilized, where applicable, should consist of approved, low-volume-change materials, which are free from organic matter and/or debris. We recommend structural fill materials be placed and compacted within the building footprint and consist of essentially granular soils. The site silty and/or clayey sands or underlying sands and gravels excluding cobble sized material could be used for fill in these areas. We recommend fill materials be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and adjusted in moisture content, generally ± 3% of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 98% of the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698, the standard Proctor procedure. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 6 Care should be exercised after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from the structure to avoid wetting of subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to construction of the site structure can result in unacceptable performance. Foundations – Conventional Type Spread Footings Based on results of field borings and laboratory testing as outlined in this report, it is our opinion the proposed building could be supported on conventional type spread footing foundations bearing on the native granular stratum, or on a zone of engineered fill material extending to the native granular subsoils. In no case should any foundation system be placed on the existing on-site fill material. Footings bearing on approved native granular subsoils or on engineered fill material extended to the granular strata could be designed for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. A minimum dead load pressure would not be required in the low swell potential subsoils as described herein. If fill material is required to achieve foundation bearing elevations, the engineered fill material should consist of structural fill placed in uniform lifts; properly moisture conditioned, and mechanically compacted to at least 98% of standard Proctor density (ASTM D-698). Overexcavation for placement of the structural fill should extend to the native granular subsoils, and should extend at least eight (8) inches beyond the edges of the foundations for each 12 inches of structural fill placed beneath the footing. Exterior footings and foundations in unheated areas must be protected from frost action. The normal depth of frost protection in this location is a minimum depth of 30-inches. Continuous wall footings generally have a width of at least 12-inches. Isolated column pads generally require dimensions of at least 24-inches by 24-inches. Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. Proportioning on the basis of equal total settlement is recommended; however, proportioning to relative constant dead-load pressure will also reduce differential settlement between adjacent footings. Total settlement resulting from the assumed structural loads is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement should be on the order of 1/2 of the estimated total settlement. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 7 foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction. Care should be taken during construction to see that the footing foundations are supported on suitable strength native subsoils or approved fill material. Previously placed backfill materials may be encountered beneath the foundation bearing levels in the areas of former site structures. Extra care should be taken in evaluating the in-place soils in these areas as the backfill materials are commonly not placed for future support of foundations. If unacceptable materials are encountered at the time of construction, it may be necessary to extend the footing foundations to bear below the unacceptable materials or removal and replacement of a portion or all of the unacceptable materials may be required. Those conditions can best be evaluated in open excavations at the time of construction. No unusual problems are anticipated in completing the excavation required for construction of the footing foundations. Care should be taken during construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities or materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be removed and replaced prior to placement of foundation concrete. Seismic The site soil conditions consist of approximately 10 to 20-feet of overburden granular subsoils overlying cemented to well-cemented sandstone bedrock. For those site conditions, the 2006 International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 8 Lateral Earth Pressures The proposed building may include a full-depth basement or a “walk-out” basement as a part of the new building. Site retaining walls may also be desirable with the grade changes across the site. Basement walls of the building and/or site retaining walls would be subjected to unbalanced lateral earth pressures. Passive lateral earth pressures may help resist the driving forces for retaining wall or other similar site structures. The values presented herein are for approved material placed and compacted adjacent to the site structures. Active lateral earth pressures could be used for design of structures where some movement of the structure is anticipated, such as retaining walls. The total deflection of structures for design with active earth pressure is estimated to be on the order of one half of one percent of the height of the down slope side of the structure. We recommend at-rest pressures be used for design of structures where rotation of the walls is restrained such as basement walls. Passive pressures and friction between the footing and bearing soils could be used for design of resistance to movement of retaining walls. Coefficient values for backfill with the anticipated types of fill/backfill soil for calculation of active, at rest and passive earth pressures are provided in the table below. Equivalent fluid pressure is equal to the coefficient times the appropriate soil unit weight. Those coefficient values are based on horizontal backfill with backfill soils consisting of essentially granular materials with a friction angle of a 30 degrees. For the at-rest and active earth pressures, slopes down and away from the structure would result in reduced driving forces with slopes up and away from the structures resulting in greater forces on the walls. The passive resistance would be reduced with slopes away from the wall. The top 30-inches of soil on the passive resistance side of walls could be used as a surcharge load; however, should not be used as a part of the passive resistance value. Frictional resistance is equal to the tangent of the friction angle times the normal force. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 9 Soil Type – ONLY FOR APPROVED MATERIALS Medium Dense Granular – On-site or Approved Imported Fill Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 135 Saturated Unit Weight (pcf) 140 Friction Angle () – (assumed) 30° Active Pressure Coefficient 0.33 At-rest Pressure Coefficient 0.50 Passive Pressure Coefficient 3.00 Surcharge loads or point loads placed in or on the backfill can also create additional loads on below grade walls. Those situations should be designed on an individual basis. The outlined values do not include factors of safety nor allowances for hydrostatic loads and are based on assumed friction angles, which should be verified after potential material sources have been identified. Care should be taken to develop appropriate drainage systems behind below grade walls to eliminate potential for hydrostatic loads developing on the walls. Those systems would likely include perimeter drain systems extending to sump areas or free outfall where reverse flow cannot occur into the system. Where necessary, appropriate hydrostatic load values should be used for design. Floor Slab Subgrades All existing vegetation/topsoil and/or existing pavement and associated site fill materials should be removed from beneath the new building floor slab area(s). The subgrades should be prepared as outlined under “Site Preparation” in this report. Floors could be supported directly on the place structural fill soils. After preparation of the subgrades, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities will require removal and replacement or reworking in place prior to placement of the overlying floor slabs. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 10 Positive drainage should be developed away from the proposed building addition to avoid wetting the subgrade or bearing materials. Subgrade or bearing materials allowed to become wetted subsequent to construction can result in unacceptable performance of the improvements. Pavement Subgrades Within the pavement improvement areas, any existing vegetation/topsoil and/or existing pavement should be removed. Existing gravel surfacing could remain in-place to be incorporated into the underlying subgrade through scarification and recompaction. It is our opinion existing fill materials could remain in-place beneath the new pavements. Soft/loose zones in the existing fills suggest a potential for post-construction settlement in areas where the fill materials remains in-place. The risk of future settlement cannot be eliminated without removing and replacing the fill or implementing other stabilization measures such as surcharge, pressure grouting, vibro flotation or other positive means of densification. We would be pleased to discuss approaches to reducing the risk of future settlement in these areas, if desired. Fill materials required to develop the pavement subgrades should consist of approved, low-volume change materials which are free from organic matter and debris. The site silty/clayey sand near surface fill soils or underlying native sand and gravel could be used for fill in these areas. Fill materials beneath any pavement improvement areas should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content, and compacted to at least 98% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. After preparation of the subgrades, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities will require removal and replacement or reworking in place prior to placement of the overlying pavement sections. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 11 Pavement Design Sections We expect the site pavements will be used predominately by automobile and light truck traffic with possible access areas for heavier duty use such as trash trucks. Heavy-duty areas we have assumed an equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 25 and automobile areas an EDLA of 10. Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling operations should be undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, we would assume an imported fill material would generally consist of a CDOT Class 7 aggregate base course type material having a minimum R-Value equivalency of 25. Pavement design methods are intended to provide structural sections with adequate thickness over a particular subgrade such that wheel loads are reduced to a level the subgrade can support. The support characteristics of the subgrade for pavement design do not account for long-term settlement characteristics of the existing fill material. Thus, the pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still experience cracking and deformation due to related movement of the underlying subsoils. Recommended pavement sections are provided below in TABLE I. The hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement should be grading S (75) or SX (75) with PG 58-28 oil. The aggregate base should be Class 5 or Class 6 base. Portland cement concrete should be a pavement design mix with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and should be air entrained. HMA pavements may show rutting and distress in truck loading or turning areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 12 TABLE I – RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Automobile Parking Heavy Duty Areas EDLA ESAL’s – Based on 20-Year Design Life Reliability Resilient Modulus – Assume R-Value = 25 PSI Loss –(Initial = 4.5, Terminal = 2.5) 10 73,000 75% 5816 2.0 25 182,500 85% 5816 2.0 Design Structure Number 2.21 2.71 Composite: Alternative A Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Aggregate Base Course (ABC) – CDOT Class 5 or 6 Design Structure Number 4" 6" (2.42) 4-1/2" 7" (2.75) PCC (Non-reinforced) 5” 6″ The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance should be expected. Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the final pavement geometry. Timing for cutting of control joints should be in accordance with ACI criteria. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. Depending upon the final decision as to the extent and/or limits for removal of the existing fill material, EEC can provide additional preventive maintenance suggestions and/or recommendations upon request. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 13 Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance, rutting, or excessive drying. If disturbance has occurred, pavement subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement, the area is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that EEC be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization, or a change in the pavement section. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed away from the structure and pavement areas with a minimum slope of 1-inch per foot for the first 10-feet away from the improvements in landscape areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping adjacent to the building and parking and drive areas to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the pavement, foundations or stemwalls. Placement of plants which require irrigation systems or could result in fluctuations of the moisture content of the subgrade material should be avoided adjacent to site improvements. Lawn watering systems should not be placed within 5 feet of the perimeter of the building and parking areas. Spray heads should be designed not to spray water on or immediately adjacent to the structure or site pavements. Roof drains should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structure and away from the pavement areas. Excavations into the on-site soils may encounter a variety of conditions. Excavations extending into the on-site fill zone and native granular strata may encounter loose and caving conditions. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom and taking into account the site subsurface conditions as described herein. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 October 25, 2011 Page 14 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 that 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 and foundation construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use for representatives with Mr. Jonathan O’Neil c/o Pinnacle Consulting Group, Inc., 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 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: 418 LINDEN STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF 6" BASE GRAVEL _ _ 1 SAND with GRAVEL pieces (SP) (POSSIBLE FILL) _ _ brown 2 medium dense _ _ 3 _ _ 4 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) CS 5 38/9" -- 1.6 122.3 brown _ _ medium dense to dense 6 with cobbles _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 32 -- 2.2 _ _ 11 SANDSTONE _ _ grey 12 cemented to well cemented _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 Bounce -- 13.4 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 zones of well cemented sandstone _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 Bounce 1000 14.5 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF 4" BASE GRAVEL _ _ 1 CLAYEY SAND (SC) (APPARENT FILL) _ _ brown 2 medium dense _ _ 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 27 -- 3.3 NL NP 9.8 <500 psf None _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) 6 brown to reddish brown _ _ medium dense 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ occasional apparent cobbles SS 10 50 -- 2.3 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE 14 brown / grey / rust _ _ cemented CS 15 50/3" 6000 13.3 109.4 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 50/4" -- 12.5 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF 3" GRAVEL BASE _ _ 1 CLAYEY SAND (SC) (FILL) _ _ brown 2 medium dense _ _ CS 3 11 -- 8.3 108.5 <500 psf None _ _ 4 _ _ SILTY SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) (FILL) SS 5 2/18" -- 7.0 brown to dark brown _ _ loose to very loose 6 _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ CS 10 5 -- 9.0 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM-SC) SS 15 8 5000 19.3 grey / brown _ _ loose to medium dense 16 _ _ trace organics 17 _ _ 18 SANDSTONE _ _ grey 19 cemented _ _ CS 20 50/3" 1000 12.4 103.5 _ _ 21 occasional well cemented zones _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ SS 25 50/7.5" 9000+ 17.8 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _ 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF GRAVEL / BASE _ _ 1 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) (FILL) _ _ brown / rust 2 dense _ _ with gravel CS 3 30 9000 19.1 104.7 NL NP 39.5 <500 psf None _ _ 4 _ _ SILTY SAND (SM) (APPARENT FILL) SS 5 5 -- 14.3 brown / rust _ _ loose 6 _ _ 7 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) 8 tan to brown _ _ medium dense 9 _ _ SS 10 16 -- 4.4 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 13 brown / grey / rust _ _ cemented 14 _ _ CS 15 50/5" 9000+ 13.4 114.8 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ Auger Refusal on Apparent Well Cemented Sandstone 18 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 18.0' _ _ SS 19 -- -- 3.5 _ _ 20 _ _ 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF 3.5" CONCRETE PAD _ _ 1 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM) (APPARENT FILL) _ _ brown to dark brown 2 loose to medium dense _ _ 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 8 4000 22.1 102.1 _ _ 6 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) 7 tan to brown _ _ dense 8 occasional apparent cobbles _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 50/9" -- 2.0 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ SANDSTONE 13 grey _ _ cemented 14 _ _ CS 15 50/3" 3000 10.5 106.8 _ _ 16 _ _ occasional well cemented zones 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 30/0.5" -- 9.3 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF ROCK GRAVEL _ _ 1 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM) (APPARENT FILL) _ _ brown / grey 2 medium dense _ _ with trace gravel 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 20 9000+ 11.0 118.6 29 17 44.7 <500 psf None _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) 8 tan _ _ very dense 9 with cobbles _ _ SS 10 50/11" -- 2.1 _ _ 11 _ _ with apparent cobbles 12 _ _ 13 _ _ SANDSTONE 14 grey _ _ cemented CS 15 50/5" 9000+ 11.4 113.6 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _ grey / brown / rust SS 20 50/7" 7000 18.2 cemented _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: 1112066 October 2011 Swell Pressure: <500 psf 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado None Beginning Moisture: 3.3% Dry Density: 111.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 16.5% Material Description: Sample Location: Liquid Limit: NL Plasticity Index: NP Brown Clayey Sand (SC) Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' % Passing #200: 9.8% -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado 1112066 October 2011 Beginning Moisture: 8.3% Dry Density: 113.1 pcf Ending Moisture: 13.9% Swell Pressure: <500 psf None Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: % Passing #200: Material Description: Silty Sand & Gravel (SP-GP) -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: Material Description: Brown / Rust Silty Clayey Sand (SC) Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: NL Plasticity Index: NP % Passing #200: 39.5% Beginning Moisture: 19.1% Dry Density: 106.5 pcf Ending Moisture: 18.2% Swell Pressure: <500 psf None 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado 1112066 October 2011 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS % Swell @ 500: Project: Project #: Date: Material Description: Brown / Grey Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM) Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 29 Plasticity Index: 17 % Passing #200: 44.7% Beginning Moisture: 11.0% Dry Density: 124.2 pcf Ending Moisture: 13.6% Swell Pressure: <500 psf None 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado 1112066 October 2011 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Percent Movement Load (TSF) Water Added Consolidation Swell Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: B-1, S-2, at 9' Date: October 2011 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 29 23 100 97 Sieve Size 2 1/2" 2" Percent Passing 100 100 No. 8 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 92 88 75 63 48 1/2" 3/8" 35 No. 4 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 16 Plastic Limit Plasticity Index -- -- -- 16 No. 200 10.5 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: B-1, S-2, at 9' Date: Fort Collins, Colorado October 2011 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: 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 Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: B-4, S-3, at 9' Date: October 2011 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 24 19 84 79 Sieve Size 2 1/2" 2" Percent Passing 100 100 No. 8 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 74 71 59 50 40 1/2" 3/8" 30 No. 4 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 16 Plastic Limit Plasticity Index -- -- -- 13 No. 200 8.1 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: B-4, S-3, at 9' Date: Fort Collins, Colorado October 2011 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: 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 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 April 10, 2012 Mr. Jonathan O’Neil 324 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 c/o McWhinney 2725 Rocky Mountain Avenue, Suite 200 Loveland, Colorado 80538 Attn: Mr. Jeff Jensen - jeffj@mcwhinney.com Re: Subsurface Exploration Report – Addendum No. 1 Alternative Foundation Recommendations River District Block One Mixed Use Development - 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1112066 Mr. Jensen: Our geotechnical exploration report for the proposed new building at 418 Linden Street in Fort Collins was submitted on October 25, 2011. At the time of that report, the building and site design were in preliminary stages with anticipated light foundation and light floor loading criteria assumed, with no specifics developed on proposed site grading. At this time, additional design work has been completed with the current designed concept including below grade parking with four (4) overlying stories on the west portion of the building and one to two story construction over below grade parking on the east portion of the site. A building cross section as provided by RB+B Architects is included with this report with superimposed boring log information. The current design results in somewhat higher foundation and floor loads than outlined in our October 25, 2011, report with maximum column loads currently anticipated on the order of 200 kips and floor loads in the range of 100 to 200 psf. Based on current site grades, we expect cuts on the west end of the building may extend to depths on the order of 10 feet below existing surface with the east portion of the site currently at approximate bearing elevations for the lower level garage. Existing subsurface materials as observed in the test borings include approximately 4 to 7 feet of fill and potential fill material overlying coarser grain sands and gravels with sandstone/siltstone bedrock at depths of approximately 10 to 13 feet below existing site Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 April 10, 2012 Page 2 grades. Fill materials are also anticipated in the area where the former ready mix plant building was located near the center of the site on the south edge of the proposed building. Based on the presently anticipated foundation loads and expected site grading, it is our opinion the proposed 2 to 4-story office/retail/residential structure could be supported on drilled pier foundations extending to bear in the siltstone/sandstone bedrock or on footing foundations supported on placed and compacted fill materials developed between foundation bearing level and the underlying sandstone bedrock. Recommendations for both types of foundations are provided below. Drilled Pier Foundations Concerning drilled pier foundations, we recommend the drilled piers extend to bear at least 5 feet into the siltstone/sandstone bedrock. For design of drilled pier foundations extending a minimum of 5 feet into competent sandstone bedrock, we recommend using a total end bearing pressure not to exceed 30,000 psf. In addition, a skin friction value of 3,000 psf could be used for that portion of the drilled piers extending into competent or better bedrock. To satisfy forces in the horizontal direction, piers may be designed for lateral loads using a modulus of 75 tons per cubic foot (tcf) for the portion of the pier in the fine to course granular subsoils, and 400 tcf in bedrock for a pier diameter of 12 inches. The coefficient of subgrade reaction for varying pier diameters are as follow and generally conform to the formula of, (kh = 75/D, or 300/D respectively for cohesionless soils and bedrock, in which D = pier diameter): Pier Diameter (inches) Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (tons/ft3) Engineered Fill or Granular Soils Bedrock 18 50 267 24 38 200 30 30 160 36 25 133 When the lateral capacity of drilled piers is evaluated by the L-Pile computer programs, we recommend that internally generated load-deformation (P-Y) curves be used. To satisfy forces Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 April 10, 2012 Page 3 in the horizontal direction using L-piles computer programs, shafts/piers may be designed using the following lateral load criteria: Parameters Native Granular Soils or Structural Fill Bedrock Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) 130 (1) 125(1) Average Undrained Shear Strength (psf) 0 5,000 Angle of Internal Friction  (degrees) 35 25 Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, ks & kc (pci) 800-static 500 – cyclic 2,000 – static 800 - cyclic Strain, 50 (%) (2) --- 0.004 *Notes: 1) Reduced by 62.4 PCF below the water table 2) The 50 values represent the strain corresponding to 50 percent of the maximum principal stress difference. The modulus of subgrade reaction for static (ks) and cyclical (kc) are used by the L-Pile computer programs to generate the slope of the initial portion of the “p-y curves.” All piers should be reinforced full depth for the applied axial, lateral, and uplift stresses imposed. The amount of reinforcing steel for expansion should be determined by the tensile force created by the uplift force on each pier, with allowance for dead load. Drilling caissons to design depth should be possible with conventional heavy-duty single flight power augers equipped with rock teeth on the majority of the site. However, areas of well- cemented sandstone bedrock lenses may be encountered throughout the site at various depths where specialized drilling equipment and/or rock excavating equipment may be required. Excavation penetrating the well-cemented sandstone bedrock may require the use of specialized heavy-duty equipment, together with rock augers and/or core barrels. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult caisson excavation in the contract documents for the project. With granular soils at approximate depths of 4 to 7 feet below site grades, maintaining shafts may be difficult without stabilizing measures. We expect “mudding” and temporary casing will be required to adequately/properly drill and clean piers prior to concrete placement. Groundwater, if encountered, should be removed from each pier hole prior to concrete Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 April 10, 2012 Page 4 placement. Pier concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. A maximum 3-inch depth of groundwater is acceptable in each pier prior to concrete placement. If pier concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions, a tremie should be used for concrete placement. Due to potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes. Pier concrete with slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches is recommended. Casing used for pier construction should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining a sufficient head of concrete to prevent infiltration of water or the creation of voids in pier concrete. Variable cobbles may be encountered in the granular materials overlying the sandstone bedrock. We suggest using larger diameter drilled piers to allow for extraction of cobbles through the drilling process. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should inspect the bearing surface and pier configuration. If the soil conditions encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations may be required. Footing Foundation To develop acceptable bearing for footing foundations, we recommend the existing in-place fill materials and underlying sands and gravels be removed to the surface of the sandstone bedrock. Excavation depths on the order of 12 to 13 feet below garage finish floor level are anticipated in the east portion of the building. The granular and essentially granular materials removed from this area could be replaced as structural fill for support of footing foundations. We recommend structural fill materials be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to a workable moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the material’s maximum modified Proctor density, ASTM Specification D-1557. Overexcavation and replacement should extend 5 feet beyond the outside edge of the footing foundations. Removal and replacement of the in-situ fill soils will be required to develop subgrade support for the garage floor slab. Those excavations may extend to depths on the order of 7 feet Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 April 10, 2012 Page 5 below top of subgrade for the east portions of the site. If the new structure will be supported on drilled pier foundations as previously outlined in this letter, those fill materials could be removed and replaced as suggested in our October 25 report. If those materials are removed and replaced to develop foundation bearing, higher degree of compaction will be required to develop appropriate bearing materials for footing foundations in addition to support of the floor slabs/parking garage pavements. For design of footing foundations supported on suitably placed and compacted fill soils as outlined above, we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 3,000 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounded overburden pressure. In the west portion of the building, footing foundations may be supported on or immediately over in-situ sandstone bedrock. Differential settlement may occur between footing foundations supported on sandstone bedrock and footing foundations supported on fill materials as outlined above. Anticipate that differential settlement would be on the order of ½ inch or less. Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located at least 30 inches below adjacent exterior grades providing frost protection. We recommend form continuous footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches. 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 that comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF 6" BASE GRAVEL _ _ 1 SAND with GRAVEL pieces (SP) (POSSIBLE FILL) _ _ brown 2 medium dense _ _ 3 _ _ 4 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) CS 5 38/9" -- 1.6 122.3 brown _ _ medium dense to dense 6 with cobbles _ _ 7 _ _ 8 _ _ 9 _ _ SS 10 32 -- 2.2 _ _ 11 SANDSTONE _ _ grey 12 cemented to well cemented _ _ 13 _ _ 14 _ _ CS 15 Bounce -- 13.4 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 zones of well cemented sandstone _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ SS 20 Bounce 1000 14.5 _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF GRAVEL / BASE _ _ 1 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC) (FILL) _ _ brown / rust 2 dense _ _ with gravel CS 3 30 9000 19.1 104.7 NL NP 39.5 <500 psf None _ _ 4 _ _ SILTY SAND (SM) (APPARENT FILL) SS 5 5 -- 14.3 brown / rust _ _ loose 6 _ _ 7 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) 8 tan to brown _ _ medium dense 9 _ _ SS 10 16 -- 4.4 _ _ 11 _ _ 12 _ _ SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE 13 brown / grey / rust _ _ cemented 14 _ _ CS 15 50/5" 9000+ 13.4 114.8 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ Auger Refusal on Apparent Well Cemented Sandstone 18 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 18.0' _ _ SS 19 -- -- 3.5 _ _ 20 _ _ 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 (%) PRESSURE % @ 500 PSF ROCK GRAVEL _ _ 1 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM) (APPARENT FILL) _ _ brown / grey 2 medium dense _ _ with trace gravel 3 _ _ 4 _ _ CS 5 20 9000+ 11.0 118.6 29 17 44.7 <500 psf None _ _ 6 _ _ 7 _ _ SAND & GRAVEL (SP-GP) 8 tan _ _ very dense 9 with cobbles _ _ SS 10 50/11" -- 2.1 _ _ 11 _ _ with apparent cobbles 12 _ _ 13 _ _ SANDSTONE 14 grey _ _ cemented CS 15 50/5" 9000+ 11.4 113.6 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 SANDSTONE / SILTSTONE _ _ grey / brown / rust SS 20 50/7" 7000 18.2 cemented _ _ BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 20.5' 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET 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 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 www.earth-engineering.com December 6, 2012 Jensen Consulting 37154 Dickerson Run Windsor, Colorado 80550 Attn: Mr. Jeff Jensen (Jeff@jensenconsulting.info) Re: Global Stability of MSE Wall River District Block One Mixed Use Development 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1112066 Mr. Jensen: A report titled Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report, completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC), was submitted to your attention on September 13, 2012. That report provided an analysis of the existing stability of the slope adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River as well as the slope subsequent to proposed site improvements. Based on the findings of that report, we understand the client has selected to incorporate a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall within the slope which traverses a portion of the slope in the vicinity of the proposed building. To facilitate the construction of the MSE wall, EEC was requested to provide a design section of the MSE wall which was based on the civil plans provided by FlyWater, Inc., emailed to our attention on November 19, 2012. The MSE Wall Design prepared by EEC was submitted in a separate document dated December 6, 2012. As part of the MSE Wall Design, a global stability analysis of the slope with the MSE wall was carried out to confirm an appropriate safety factor was attained. The purpose of this report is to provide the results of our evaluation of the MSE wall’s global stability analysis. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 December 6, 2012 Page 2 Based on the site civil diagram provided by FlyWater, Inc., we understand the MSE wall would be constructed at the mid-point of the slope and transverse the approximate length of the proposed building. The MSE wall will be a two-tier wall with each tier not to exceed an exposed wall height of 3½ feet. The ground surface appears to be shallower than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) both above and below the MSE walls. The MSE Wall Design indicates the earthen slope is reinforced with a geosynthetic which incorporates a segmental stone block facia. The Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report identifies the slope subgrades generally consist of medium dense to dense sands and gravels underlain by bedrock. Results of direct shear testing on the site overburden soils indicate Mohr-Coulomb shear strength parameters shown in Table 1. Table 1 Shear strength parameters of overburnden soils Material Description Wet Unit Weight ′ Sand and Gravel 125 pcf 34 Based on the slope and MSE walls geometries and soil information outlined above, EEC performed a stability analysis of the slope where the MSE wall is present. In our analysis, cohesion was conservatively neglected for the overburden soils and the bedrock was assumed to be impenetrable. Our analysis assumes the exposed slopes are protected per the recommendations of FlyWater, Inc. Global stability was evaluated based on three hypothetical conditions including (1) a horizontal piezometric surface at the base of the slope (condition at low river flow), (2) a varying piezometric surface within the slope (condition following a draw-down in the river), and (3) a horizontal piezometric surface at high water level (full river flow). The stability was analyzed using Bishop’s method of slices. Based on our analyses, a factor of safety ranging from 1.30 to 1.32 was found at the critical slip surface in the three cases analyzed. Based on the results of the stability analayis, the saftey factor was determined to meet the commonly used long-term stability requirements of at least 1.3. Our analysis is detailed on the attached summary sheets. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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: Jensen Consulting Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: MSE Wall - 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 ..... 11\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: 12/4/12 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 R e i n f o r c e m e n t Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name Ultimate Strength, Tult Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc Coverage Ratio, Rc [lb/ft] 1 Geosynthetic 7400.00 1.10 1.10 1.60 0.26 I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name == Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ==== Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha 1 Geosynthetic 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80 Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 0.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50 Design method for Global Stability: Comprehensive Bishop. 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 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 = 100.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 37.80 and ends at X1e = 39.62 [ft]. .Surcharge ................load, .........Q2 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q3 ..........................................None ... STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 2 100.00 100.00 3 110.00 105.00 4 110.10 107.50 5 114.50 109.00 6 114.60 111.50 7 123.50 114.40 Top of Layer 2 8 0.00 100.00 9 100.00 100.00 10 122.50 100.00 11 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 13 0.00 100.00 14 86.00 100.00 15 106.00 100.00 16 116.00 100.00 17 122.00 100.00 18 200.00 100.00 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 3 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 4 106.00 103.00 100.00 100.00 5 110.00 105.00 100.00 100.00 6 110.10 107.50 100.00 100.00 7 114.50 109.00 100.00 100.00 8 114.60 111.50 100.00 100.00 9 116.00 111.96 100.00 100.00 10 122.00 113.91 100.00 100.00 11 122.50 114.07 100.00 100.00 12 123.50 114.40 100.00 100.00 13 200.00 114.40 100.00 100.00 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE STRENGTH ALONG EACH REINFORCEMENT LAYER Tavailable Tfe T A B L1 L3 L2 A = Front-end of reinforcement (at face of slope) B = Rear-end of reinforcement AB = L1 + L2 + L3 = Embedded length of reinforcement Tavailable = Long-term strength of reinforcement Tfe = Available front-end strength (e.g., connection to facing) L1 = Front-end 'pullout' length L2 = Rear-end pullout length Tavailable prevails along L3 Factor of safety on resistance to pullout on either end of reinforcement, Fs-po = 1.50 Reinforcement Layer # Designated Name Height Relative to Toe [ft] L [ft] L1 [ft] L2 [ft] L3 [ft] Tfe [lb/ft] Tavailable [lb/ft] 1 Geosynthetic 0.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 336.58 336.58 (*) 2 Geosynthetic 2.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 447.36 447.36 (*) 3 Geosynthetic 3.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 600.50 600.50 (*) 4 Geosynthetic 5.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 782.57 782.57 (*) 5 Geosynthetic 6.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 552.51 552.51 (*) 6 Geosynthetic 8.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 492.09 492.09 (*) 7 Geosynthetic 9.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 515.76 515.76 (*) 8 Geosynthetic 11.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 282.13 282.13 (*) (*) This Tavailable is dictated by the pullout resistance capacity, which is smaller than the long-term strength of the reinforcement that is related to its specified ultimate strength Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 . 1 125.50 114.40 100.29 100.19 102.96 124.92 24.88 1.32 . On extreme X-entry 2 128.00 114.40 100.13 100.19 101.47 132.00 31.84 1.35 3 130.50 114.40 100.28 100.18 100.36 139.24 39.06 1.45 4 133.00 114.40 100.08 100.17 99.55 146.62 46.45 1.57 5 135.50 114.40 100.23 100.17 98.43 155.49 55.34 1.70 6 138.00 114.40 99.98 100.16 96.89 166.28 66.20 1.83 7 140.50 114.40 100.11 100.16 94.80 179.63 79.65 1.97 8 143.00 114.40 100.24 100.17 91.93 196.49 96.68 2.11 9 145.50 114.40 99.90 100.14 90.82 209.23 109.47 2.24 10 148.00 114.40 100.02 100.14 86.26 234.34 134.90 2.38 11 150.50 114.40 100.13 100.16 84.41 251.93 152.59 2.52 12 153.00 114.40 100.25 100.16 76.82 291.84 193.10 2.65 13 155.50 114.40 99.80 100.11 73.64 317.81 219.27 2.78 14 158.00 114.40 99.89 100.11 59.88 388.16 290.81 2.92 15 160.50 114.40 99.98 100.13 53.83 431.21 334.29 3.04 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 73.65 100.36 145.50 114.40 104.96 130.96 43.79 7.52 2 76.92 100.01 143.00 114.40 104.98 130.08 41.13 7.37 3 79.74 100.10 140.50 114.40 105.20 128.15 37.88 7.20 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS X1 X2 Xa Xb Xc Toe Results in the table below represent critical two-part wedges identified between specified starting (X1) and ending (X2) search points. Wedges along all reinforcement layers and at elevation zero are reported. The critical two-part wedge, one for each predetermined elevation, is defined by Xa, Xb and Xc where Xa is the front end of the passive wedge (slope face), Xb is where the passive wedge ends and the active one starts, and Xc is the X-ordinate at which the active wedge starts. Critical two-part wedge along each interface: Interface Height Relative to Toe [ft] ( Xa, Ya ) [ft] ( Xb, Yb ) [ft] ( Xc, Yc ) [ft] Fs STATUS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... At toe elevation 0.00 100.00 100.00 105.16 100.00 130.10 114.40 3.76 OK . Reinf. Layer #1 0.60 101.20 100.60 109.39 100.60 129.10 114.40 1.. 37 Minimum on Edge Reinf. Layer #2 2.10 104.20 102.10 110.81 102.10 129.75 114.40 1.43 OK Reinf. Layer #3 3.60 107.20 103.60 113.81 103.60 128.68 114.40 1.54 OK Reinf. Layer #4 5.10 110.00 105.10 115.13 105.10 127.93 114.40 1.68 OK Reinf. Layer #5 6.60 110.06 106.60 115.26 106.60 126.82 114.40 1.78 OK Reinf. Layer #6 8.10 111.86 108.10 115.38 108.10 120.53 113.43 1.89 OK Reinf. Layer #7 9.60 114.52 109.60 118.36 109.60 126.67 114.40 2.39 OK Reinf. Layer #8 11.10 114.58 111.10 119.26 111.10 124.75 114.40 2.62 OK Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical two part-wedge was identified within the specified search domain. 'Minimum on Edge' means the critical result corresponds to a minimum on the edge of the search domain; i.e., either on X1 or X2 or the internally preset limits on Xc. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 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 8 of 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:06:45 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE.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 = 1.32 Critical Circle: Xc = 102.96[ft], Yc = 124.92[ft], R = 24.88[ft]. (Number of slices used = 55 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.37 Critical Two-Part Wedge: (Xa = 101.20, Ya = 100.60) [ft] (Xb = 109.39, Yb = 100.60) [ft] (Xc = 129.10, Yc = 114.40) [ft] (Number of slices used = 30 ) Interslice resultant force inclination = 28.26 [degrees] 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 9 of 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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: Jensen Consulting Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: MSE Wall - 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 ..... 066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD GW.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: 12/4/12 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 R e i n f o r c e m e n t Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name Ultimate Strength, Tult Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc Coverage Ratio, Rc [lb/ft] 1 Geosynthetic 7400.00 1.10 1.10 1.60 0.26 I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name == Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ==== Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha 1 Geosynthetic 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80 Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 0.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50 Design method for Global Stability: Comprehensive Bishop. 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 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 = 100.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 37.80 and ends at X1e = 39.62 [ft]. .Surcharge ................load, .........Q2 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q3 ..........................................None ... STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 34 5 6 7 8 91011 12 13 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 2 100.00 100.00 3 110.00 105.00 4 110.10 107.50 5 114.50 109.00 6 114.60 111.00 7 123.50 114.40 Top of Layer 2 8 0.00 100.00 9 100.00 100.00 10 122.50 100.00 11 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 13 0.00 100.00 14 108.00 100.00 15 117.00 105.00 16 126.00 107.00 17 131.00 108.00 18 200.00 108.00 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 2 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 108.00 104.00 100.00 100.00 4 110.00 105.00 100.00 101.11 5 110.10 107.50 100.00 101.17 6 114.50 109.00 100.00 103.61 7 114.60 111.00 100.00 103.67 8 117.00 111.92 100.00 105.00 9 122.50 114.02 100.00 106.22 10 123.50 114.40 100.00 106.44 11 126.00 114.40 100.00 107.00 12 131.00 114.40 100.00 108.00 13 200.00 114.40 100.00 108.00 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE STRENGTH ALONG EACH REINFORCEMENT LAYER Tavailable Tfe T A B L1 L3 L2 A = Front-end of reinforcement (at face of slope) B = Rear-end of reinforcement AB = L1 + L2 + L3 = Embedded length of reinforcement Tavailable = Long-term strength of reinforcement Tfe = Available front-end strength (e.g., connection to facing) L1 = Front-end 'pullout' length L2 = Rear-end pullout length Tavailable prevails along L3 Factor of safety on resistance to pullout on either end of reinforcement, Fs-po = 1.50 Reinforcement Layer # Designated Name Height Relative to Toe [ft] L [ft] L1 [ft] L2 [ft] L3 [ft] Tfe [lb/ft] Tavailable [lb/ft] 1 Geosynthetic 0.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 335.64 335.64 (*) 2 Geosynthetic 2.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 445.24 445.24 (*) 3 Geosynthetic 3.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 586.76 586.76 (*) 4 Geosynthetic 5.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 752.57 752.57 (*) 5 Geosynthetic 6.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 523.31 523.31 (*) 6 Geosynthetic 8.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 455.23 455.23 (*) 7 Geosynthetic 9.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 474.38 474.38 (*) 8 Geosynthetic 11.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 257.17 257.17 (*) (*) This Tavailable is dictated by the pullout resistance capacity, which is smaller than the long-term strength of the reinforcement that is related to its specified ultimate strength Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 . 1 125.50 114.40 100.29 100.19 102.96 124.92 24.88 1.30 . On extreme X-entry 2 128.00 114.40 100.29 100.18 102.45 130.09 29.99 1.33 3 130.50 114.40 100.31 100.18 103.24 133.13 33.08 1.40 4 133.00 114.40 100.22 100.19 103.61 137.30 37.27 1.50 5 135.50 114.40 100.03 100.20 103.37 143.27 43.20 1.60 6 138.00 114.40 100.34 100.18 103.72 148.22 48.16 1.70 7 140.50 114.40 100.25 100.19 104.08 153.44 53.39 1.81 8 143.00 114.40 100.15 100.19 104.46 158.91 58.88 1.92 9 145.50 114.40 100.04 100.20 104.86 164.63 64.61 2.03 10 148.00 114.40 99.93 100.21 105.28 170.60 70.59 2.14 11 150.50 114.40 99.84 100.21 104.58 180.79 80.73 2.25 12 153.00 114.40 100.28 100.18 104.95 187.74 87.68 2.37 13 155.50 114.40 100.19 100.19 105.32 194.94 94.89 2.48 14 158.00 114.40 100.09 100.19 105.71 202.40 102.36 2.60 15 160.50 114.40 100.19 100.18 104.44 217.18 117.08 2.72 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 73.96 100.04 145.50 114.40 104.78 131.87 44.31 7.39 2 76.75 100.16 143.00 114.40 104.79 130.94 41.64 7.23 3 79.64 100.20 140.50 114.40 105.20 128.15 37.88 7.05 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS X1 X2 Xa Xb Xc Toe Results in the table below represent critical two-part wedges identified between specified starting (X1) and ending (X2) search points. Wedges along all reinforcement layers and at elevation zero are reported. The critical two-part wedge, one for each predetermined elevation, is defined by Xa, Xb and Xc where Xa is the front end of the passive wedge (slope face), Xb is where the passive wedge ends and the active one starts, and Xc is the X-ordinate at which the active wedge starts. Critical two-part wedge along each interface: Interface Height Relative to Toe [ft] ( Xa, Ya ) [ft] ( Xb, Yb ) [ft] ( Xc, Yc ) [ft] Fs STATUS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... At toe elevation 0.00 100.00 100.00 104.16 100.00 129.10 114.40 3.89 OK . Reinf. Layer #1 0.60 101.20 100.60 109.39 100.60 129.10 114.40 1.. 38 Minimum on Edge Reinf. Layer #2 2.10 104.20 102.10 110.81 102.10 129.75 114.40 1.44 OK Reinf. Layer #3 3.60 107.20 103.60 113.81 103.60 128.68 114.40 1.56 OK Reinf. Layer #4 5.10 110.00 105.10 115.13 105.10 128.42 114.40 1.69 OK Reinf. Layer #5 6.60 110.06 106.60 115.26 106.60 127.27 114.40 1.78 OK Reinf. Layer #6 8.10 111.86 108.10 115.38 108.10 126.29 114.40 1.92 OK Reinf. Layer #7 9.60 114.53 109.60 118.46 109.60 126.77 114.40 2.28 OK Reinf. Layer #8 11.10 114.86 111.10 119.76 111.10 125.47 114.40 2.36 OK Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical two part-wedge was identified within the specified search domain. 'Minimum on Edge' means the critical result corresponds to a minimum on the edge of the search domain; i.e., either on X1 or X2 or the internally preset limits on Xc. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 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 8 of 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:04:48 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_RDD 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 = 1.30 Critical Circle: Xc = 102.96[ft], Yc = 124.92[ft], R = 24.88[ft]. (Number of slices used = 56 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.38 Critical Two-Part Wedge: (Xa = 101.20, Ya = 100.60) [ft] (Xb = 109.39, Yb = 100.60) [ft] (Xc = 129.10, Yc = 114.40) [ft] (Number of slices used = 30 ) Interslice resultant force inclination = 28.25 [degrees] 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 9 of 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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: Jensen Consulting Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: MSE Wall - 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 ..... 66 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High GW.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: 12/4/12 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using GEOSYNTHETIC as reinforcing 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 R e i n f o r c e m e n t Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name Ultimate Strength, Tult Reduction Factor for Installation Damage, RFid Reduction Factor for Durability, RFd Reduction Factor for Creep, RFc Coverage Ratio, Rc [lb/ft] 1 Geosynthetic 7400.00 1.10 1.10 1.60 0.26 I n t e r a c t i o n P a r a m e t e r s Type # Geosynthetic Designated Name == Direct Sliding == ==== Pullout ==== Cds-phi Cds-c Ci Alpha 1 Geosynthetic 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.80 Relative Orientation of Reinforcement Force, ROR = 0.00. Assigned Factor of Safety to resist pullout, Fs-po = 1.50 Design method for Global Stability: Comprehensive Bishop. 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 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 = 100.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 37.80 and ends at X1e = 39.62 [ft]. .Surcharge ................load, .........Q2 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q3 ..........................................None ... STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 2 100.00 100.00 3 110.00 105.00 4 110.10 107.50 5 114.50 109.00 6 114.60 111.00 7 123.50 114.40 Top of Layer 2 8 0.00 100.00 9 100.00 100.00 10 122.50 100.00 11 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 13 0.00 114.00 14 86.00 114.00 15 106.00 114.00 16 116.00 114.00 17 122.00 114.00 18 200.00 114.00 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 114.00 2 86.00 100.00 100.00 114.00 3 100.00 100.00 100.00 114.00 4 106.00 103.00 100.00 114.00 5 110.00 105.00 100.00 114.00 6 110.10 107.50 100.00 114.00 7 114.50 109.00 100.00 114.00 8 114.60 111.00 100.00 114.00 9 116.00 111.53 100.00 114.00 10 122.00 113.83 100.00 114.00 11 122.50 114.02 100.00 114.00 12 123.50 114.40 100.00 114.00 13 200.00 114.40 100.00 114.00 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE STRENGTH ALONG EACH REINFORCEMENT LAYER Tavailable Tfe T A B L1 L3 L2 A = Front-end of reinforcement (at face of slope) B = Rear-end of reinforcement AB = L1 + L2 + L3 = Embedded length of reinforcement Tavailable = Long-term strength of reinforcement Tfe = Available front-end strength (e.g., connection to facing) L1 = Front-end 'pullout' length L2 = Rear-end pullout length Tavailable prevails along L3 Factor of safety on resistance to pullout on either end of reinforcement, Fs-po = 1.50 Reinforcement Layer # Designated Name Height Relative to Toe [ft] L [ft] L1 [ft] L2 [ft] L3 [ft] Tfe [lb/ft] Tavailable [lb/ft] 1 Geosynthetic 0.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 168.44 168.44 (*) 2 Geosynthetic 2.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 223.87 223.87 (*) 3 Geosynthetic 3.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 295.51 295.51 (*) 4 Geosynthetic 5.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 377.18 377.18 (*) 5 Geosynthetic 6.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 261.99 261.99 (*) 6 Geosynthetic 8.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 227.81 227.81 (*) 7 Geosynthetic 9.60 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 238.05 238.05 (*) 8 Geosynthetic 11.10 8.50 0.00 8.50 0.00 130.12 130.12 (*) (*) This Tavailable is dictated by the pullout resistance capacity, which is smaller than the long-term strength of the reinforcement that is related to its specified ultimate strength Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 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 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 . 1 125.50 114.40 100.29 100.19 102.96 124.92 24.88 1.31 . On extreme X-entry 2 128.00 114.40 100.13 100.19 101.47 132.00 31.84 1.32 3 130.50 114.40 100.28 100.18 100.36 139.24 39.06 1.40 4 133.00 114.40 100.08 100.17 99.55 146.62 46.45 1.52 5 135.50 114.40 100.23 100.17 98.43 155.49 55.34 1.65 6 138.00 114.40 99.97 100.15 95.47 170.05 70.04 1.78 7 140.50 114.40 100.11 100.16 94.80 179.63 79.65 1.92 8 143.00 114.40 100.24 100.17 91.93 196.49 96.68 2.06 9 145.50 114.40 99.90 100.13 87.93 218.38 118.85 2.19 10 148.00 114.40 100.02 100.14 86.26 234.34 134.90 2.33 11 150.50 114.40 100.13 100.15 79.68 268.61 169.70 2.47 12 153.00 114.40 100.25 100.16 76.82 291.84 193.10 2.61 13 155.50 114.40 99.80 100.11 73.64 317.81 219.27 2.71 14 158.00 114.40 99.89 100.11 59.88 388.16 290.81 2.85 15 160.50 114.40 99.95 100.09 -181.99 1428.51 1358.01 2.98 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 73.98 100.02 150.50 114.40 106.76 136.38 48.96 13.60 2 76.55 100.03 158.00 114.40 88.74 268.92 169.33 12.61 3 79.12 100.05 155.50 114.40 90.39 250.57 150.94 11.45 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS X1 X2 Xa Xb Xc Toe Results in the table below represent critical two-part wedges identified between specified starting (X1) and ending (X2) search points. Wedges along all reinforcement layers and at elevation zero are reported. The critical two-part wedge, one for each predetermined elevation, is defined by Xa, Xb and Xc where Xa is the front end of the passive wedge (slope face), Xb is where the passive wedge ends and the active one starts, and Xc is the X-ordinate at which the active wedge starts. Critical two-part wedge along each interface: Interface Height Relative to Toe [ft] ( Xa, Ya ) [ft] ( Xb, Yb ) [ft] ( Xc, Yc ) [ft] Fs STATUS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... At toe elevation 0.00 100.00 100.00 102.18 100.00 127.12 114.40 4.13 OK Reinf. Layer #1 0.60 101.20 100.60 107.81 100.60 131.71 114.40 1.56 OK . Reinf. Layer #2 2.10 104.20 102.10 109.23 102.10 130.54 114.40 1.. 54 OK Reinf. Layer #3 3.60 107.20 103.60 109.08 103.60 127.78 114.40 1.55 OK Reinf. Layer #4 5.10 110.00 105.10 113.56 105.10 129.66 114.40 1.84 OK Reinf. Layer #5 6.60 110.06 106.60 113.68 106.60 127.19 114.40 1.88 OK Reinf. Layer #6 8.10 111.86 108.10 113.80 108.10 124.71 114.40 1.94 Minimum on Edge Reinf. Layer #7 9.60 114.53 109.60 119.93 109.60 128.25 114.40 2.32 OK Reinf. Layer #8 11.10 114.86 111.10 122.41 111.10 127.12 114.40 2.37 OK Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical two part-wedge was identified within the specified search domain. 'Minimum on Edge' means the critical result corresponds to a minimum on the edge of the search domain; i.e., either on X1 or X2 or the internally preset limits on Xc. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 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 8 of 9 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: Wed Dec 05 11:05:42 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066 418 N LInden\MSE Wall\Section 1_MSE_High 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 = 1.31 Critical Circle: Xc = 102.96[ft], Yc = 124.92[ft], R = 24.88[ft]. (Number of slices used = 55 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.54 Critical Two-Part Wedge: (Xa = 104.20, Ya = 102.10) [ft] (Xb = 109.23, Yb = 102.10) [ft] (Xc = 130.54, Yc = 114.40) [ft] (Number of slices used = 30 ) Interslice resultant force inclination = 25.68 [degrees] 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 9 of 9 www.GeoPrograms.com 4 82.77 100.00 160.50 114.40 91.65 269.08 169.31 10.04 5 85.57 100.01 155.50 114.40 93.08 240.59 140.79 8.75 6 88.22 100.02 150.50 114.40 94.63 214.32 114.48 7.50 7 91.56 100.00 143.00 114.40 95.94 183.43 83.54 6.02 8 94.14 100.01 143.00 114.40 97.28 179.53 79.58 4.57 9 97.07 100.01 130.50 114.40 98.89 141.83 41.85 3.15 . 10 100.29 100.19 125.50 114.40 102.96 124.92 24.88 1.31 . OK 11 103.24 101.65 125.50 114.40 105.57 123.39 21.86 1.36 12 106.18 103.11 125.50 114.40 108.19 121.86 18.86 1.45 13 108.95 104.58 128.00 114.40 109.53 126.84 22.27 1.59 14 112.04 108.17 125.50 114.40 113.37 122.98 14.86 1.70 15 114.96 111.15 125.50 114.40 115.31 128.77 17.62 1.77 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 7 of 9 www.GeoPrograms.com 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 9 www.GeoPrograms.com 4 82.61 100.01 150.50 114.40 91.54 225.23 125.54 6.35 5 85.63 100.00 155.50 114.40 93.08 240.59 140.79 5.71 6 88.47 100.01 143.00 114.40 94.72 186.87 87.08 4.96 7 91.56 100.00 143.00 114.40 95.94 183.43 83.54 4.10 8 94.14 100.01 143.00 114.40 97.28 179.53 79.58 3.30 9 97.07 100.01 130.50 114.40 98.89 141.83 41.85 2.39 . 10 100.29 100.19 125.50 114.40 102.96 124.92 24.88 1.30 . OK 11 103.07 101.68 125.50 114.40 106.48 121.81 20.41 1.36 12 106.05 103.14 125.50 114.40 109.66 119.34 16.59 1.48 13 109.12 104.57 125.50 114.40 110.56 120.75 16.24 1.64 14 112.04 108.17 125.50 114.40 113.37 122.98 14.86 1.82 15 114.99 111.15 125.50 114.40 113.83 133.56 22.44 1.94 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 7 of 9 www.GeoPrograms.com 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 9 www.GeoPrograms.com 4 82.58 100.01 150.50 114.40 91.54 225.23 125.54 6.54 5 85.57 100.01 140.50 114.40 93.03 183.60 83.92 5.80 6 88.31 100.03 135.50 114.40 94.33 164.95 65.20 5.03 7 91.33 100.02 135.50 114.40 95.85 161.16 61.31 4.13 8 94.34 100.01 135.50 114.40 97.49 157.06 57.14 3.35 9 97.13 100.01 128.00 114.40 98.72 136.92 36.94 2.39 . 10 100.29 100.19 125.50 114.40 102.96 124.92 24.88 1.32 . OK 11 103.03 101.68 125.50 114.40 106.48 121.81 20.41 1.37 12 106.16 103.11 125.50 114.40 108.72 120.95 18.01 1.48 13 109.12 104.57 125.50 114.40 110.56 120.75 16.24 1.64 14 112.04 108.17 125.50 114.40 113.37 122.98 14.86 1.86 15 114.94 111.63 125.50 114.40 115.00 132.93 21.30 2.22 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 7 of 9 www.GeoPrograms.com 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 9 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 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-6 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING 14.0' FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 4954.6 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 4953.2 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV 4963.3 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-6 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING 14.0' FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-5 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1112066 OCTOBER 2011 LOG OF BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH START DATE 10/14/2011 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 10/14/2011 AFTER DRILLING N/A SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A A-LIMITS SWELL 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