Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER DISTRICT BLOCK ONE MIXED-USE (ENCOMPASS) - FDP - FDP130015 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTCACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BANK STABILITY EVALUATION AND DESIGN REPORT River District Block One Mixed Use Development Larimer County, Colorado Prepared by: FLYWATER, inc. 200 S. College Ave. St. 12 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 SEPTEMBER 2012 REVISED DECEMBER 2012 REVISED JANUARY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Project Background/Site Description ................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Description of Study Area .................................................................................................................. 2 4.0 Proposed Development Related Disturbances ................................................................................. 2 5.0 Stability Assessment ................................................................................................................. 4 5.1 Slope Stability .............................................................................................................. 4 5.2 Bank Stability ....................................................................................................................... 5 6.0 Bank Stabilization and Improvement Design ................................................................................... 6 6.1 Design Summary .......................................................................................................... 7 6.2 Demolition and Slope Preparation ...................................................................................... 7 6.3 Toe Protection .............................................................................................................. 8 6.4 Riprap Revetment ......................................................................................................... 8 6.5 Geotextiles .................................................................................................................. 10 6.6 Vegetated Reinforces Soil Slopes (VRSS) ...................................................................... 11 6.7 Mechanically Stabilizated Earth (MSE) Walls ............................................................... 12 6.8 Turf Reinforced Matting (TRM) ....................................................................................... 12 6.9 Plantings .................................................................................................................... 13 6.10 Permits ....................................................................................................................... 13 6.11 Construction Considerations ............................................................................................ 13 7.0 References........................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendices Appendix A – Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Appendix B – HEC-RAS Modeling Results Appendix C – Riprap Sizing Calculations Appendix D – Geotextile Calculations Appendix E - Earth Engineering Consultants Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Design River District Block One Page 1 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER BANK STABILITY EVALUATION 1.0 Introduction FlyWater has prepared the following report to present assessment results and preliminary design information for the Block One Cache la Poudre River Bank Stability Evaluation. Report organization includes a project background, description of study area, summary of proposed development related disturbances, stability assessments, and bank stabilization and improvement design. 2.0 Project Background/Site Description The River District Block One project is located along the west bank of the Cache la Poudre River immediately south of Linden Street (Figure 1). The one acre site contains two level terraces, the lowest being approximately 20 feet above the river. The site was previously used as a concrete batch plant and, while the associated buildings have been removed, a significant amount of concrete paving slabs remain. In general, the Block One property does not include the bank or channel of the Cache la Poudre River. The river and bank property is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed project will convert the Block One site to a mixed use development including office space, apartments, and a restaurant. Figure 1. Vicinity Map River District Block One Page 2 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report 3.0 Proposed Development Related Disturbances To open river views from the proposed Block One development, it was proposed to remove three non-native Siberian Elms from the Cache la Poudre River Embankment. Additional potential disturbances to the embankment include establishing an outlet for the Block One development water quality pond. Due to the proposed tree removal, embankment stability questions were raised during City of Fort Collins preliminary development review. The City of Fort Collins expressed two different types of embankment stability concerns. The stability of the embankment against slope failure, or mass material movement due to the weight of the existing slope material and proposed development elements was the first concern noted. Embankment stability concerns in regard to potential bank failure from stormwater and river erosion, including the Cache la Poudre River 100-year flood flows, were also expressed by the City of Fort Collins. The concerns raised by the City of Fort Collins included the stability of the embankment during and after construction of the proposed development. Due to the proposed disturbances and stability questions, the embankment area was identified for further assessment and improvement design. 4.0 Description of Study Area According to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the Block One project is located in the River Downtown Redevelopment District. In substitution for the provisions contained in Article III, Section 3.4.1(E) (Natural Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of natural area buffer zones, Section 4.17(D) states that the developer shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the Cache la Poudre River. For most of the Block One project, the existing river bank landscape buffer shall be preserved and not disturbed by development activities. In the study area, where minor disturbances to the river bank landscape buffer will occur, improvements are proposed to mitigate the disturbance. The potential bank disturbances due to tree removal and water quality pond outlet structure are located adjacent to the Block One property, on City of Fort Collins property. Based on these disturbances, the study area includes the west bank of the Cache la Poudre River from the top of the embankment to the slope toe (see Figure 2). The limit of the study area initially extended approximately 100 feet along the embankment northeast of the proposed Block One buildings. The limit of study and potential slope stability improvement was initially established based on the area of proposed bank disturbances. However, following development review with the City of Fort Collins, the study area and improvements were extended upstream to the Linden Street Bridge to provide additional slope protection and consistency with future adjacent bank improvement work. The study area was changed to include approximately 160 feet located immediately downstream of the Linden Street Bridge. This area of the river is on the inside bank of a shallow Cache la Poudre meander. A braid runs along the toe of the study area embankment and a well vegetated island, that begins upstream of the bridge, separates the study area embankment from the main River District Block One Page 3 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report river channel. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain and 0.5-foot Floodway for the Cache la Poudre River extends to near the top of the river bank within the study area. City of Fort Collins preliminary development review requires that a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) be obtained from FEMA prior to slope improvement construction in order to ensure that the project will not result in any increases in 100-year flood elevations. Upon completion of construction, a letter of map revision (LOMR) is required verifying that the project was built according to proposed plans, and officially recognizing the modified flood boundary within the FEMA national flood insurance program (NFIP). Northern Engineering prepared a CLOMR application (dated January 25, 2013) for the project that will be submitted to FEMA upon approval by the City of Fort Collins. The supporting hydraulic modeling and mapping reflect proposed project conditions and will ultimately modify the current flood insurance study (FIS) panel 08069C0979H issued May 2, 2012. Figure 2. Study Area Within the study area, several trees are rooted along the toe, on the side, or near the top of the embankment. Many of the trees have been identified as non-native, Siberian Elm. A large majority of the study area embankment is also covered with concrete. While the old batch plant was actively operating, concrete appears to have been dumped down the side of the embankment, likely to dispose of excess concrete and/or attempt to armor the river bank against erosion. While the concrete is apparently three to as much as 18 inches thick, much of the concrete mass has been undercut near the embankment toe. River District Block One Page 4 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report 5.0 Stability Assessment The study area stability assessment included two different types of evaluations. First, the stability of the embankment against slope failure was evaluated. These evaluations (EEC 2012) provide an indication of potential slope sliding or slumping in a mass material movement. These types of failures can occur independently from the effects of the river or erosion, resulting strictly from the weight of the slope material and the instability of the embankment material below. Additional evaluations addressed the bank stability relative to erosion forces or lateral channel migration. These stability evaluations consider erosion affects from both stormwater runoff and river flows, including 100-year flood flows. Bank failures from erosion forces are typically caused from under cutting, or material being removed from the toe of the bank, causing the upper bank surface to collapse. Erosion forces during flooding events, when river flows contact areas not normally inundated, can scour away large amounts of bank material in addition to undercutting. Other Block One development features or activities will not occur on the embankment or disturb its current condition. Additionally, almost all of the site stormwater is expected to be captured for controlled runoff and minimal disturbance from sheet flow over the river embankment is anticipated. Some of the development infrastructure such as the water quality pond, parking lot pavement, and landscaping will, however, be located above the unimproved embankment downstream of the study area. The developer understands that, while preserving this area of the river landscape buffer, the bank stability has not been evaluated and potential failure of the embankment could affect the adjacent development infrastructure. 5.1 Slope Stability In August 2012, Earth Engineering Consultants (EEC) performed a geotechnical evaluation of the study area to determine general soil conditions and comment on the stability of the overall embankment slope material and soils (EEC 2012). The EEC report is presented in Appendix A. Below the concrete cover, it was estimated that the embankment slope is approximately 1H:1V to 1.3H:1V (horizontal:vertical). Slope failure analyses using a 1.0 factor of safety calculated that a 1.3H:1V slope under the existing conditions is a marginally stable slope. The 1.0 factor of safety suggests that the calculations determined the slope to be stable, but it does not provide a margin for error. Therefore, a significant risk of failure still exists. Raising the factor of safety to 1.3, the analysis calculated that flattening the slope to 2H:1V creates a considerably more stable slope. The 1.3 factor of safety increases confidence in the slope stability and substantially reduces the risk of failure, an important consideration due to the close proximity of the proposed development structures. The 2H:1V slope provides stable conditions even during material saturation, rapid groundwater drawdown, or while adding the planned additional loads to the top of the embankment. River District Block One Page 5 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report If the embankment slopes in the study area are not flattened to reduce the risk of slope failure, engineered embankment stabilization techniques can be used to reduce the failure risk. These methods include constructing a solid wall using sheet pile or caissons near the top of the embankment or driving soil nails through the embankment surface and into the underlying material. Since the analyzed slope failures generally occur within or along the face of the slope, these techniques add to the slope stability by anchoring the surface material to the stable material behind. 5.2 Bank Stability In June 2012, FlyWater, inc. conducted a review to assess the Cache la Poudre bank stability within the study area. In contrast to slope stability, which addresses the general failure of an embankment due to soil conditions, bank stability addresses the ability to resist erosive forces exerted by overland flow and riverine flood events. As previously mentioned, the concrete batch plant that formerly occupied the Block One site periodically dumped concrete over the river embankment within the study area. Since it was essentially slope-paved, most of the bank in its existing condition appears to have resisted scour from overland sheet flow and flood flows. However, along the toe of the slope, the river flows have undercut the concrete mass and eroded pockets several feet deep. To stabilize the concrete mass in its existing condition, the toe would need to be reinforced with hard armoring like large riprap or boulders. With the results of the slope stability analysis (EEC 2012), which indicate that the soil conditions within the embankment are marginally stable at the existing slope, the preliminary bank stability assessment is no longer applicable. Whether the embankment is left at its existing slope and structurally stabilized, or flattened to a more stable slope, the concrete mass will need to be removed and the resulting bank will need to be stabilized. Even with the concrete in place, adequate toe protection was recognized as being essential for bank stabilization in the study area (Figure 3). After removal of the concrete, undercutting of new bank stabilizing materials is likely without armoring at the embankment base. The study area river bottom and embankment toe are on a hard sandstone/siltstone bedrock material (EEC 2012) that should prevent substantial future downcutting of the river. The toe armoring, therefore, can be keyed into the bedrock to prevent lateral river migration. Keying hard armoring materials into the bedrock will also secure the materials and shifting or longitudinal movement of the materials. As illustrated in Figure 3, the rest of the embankment will require a combination of hard armoring and woody vegetation planting to reduce adjacent velocities during riverine inundation and provide stability. These materials will also provide resistance to overland flow erosion. Lower on the bank, aggressive armoring should be used due to more periodic flooding and increased inundation. Techniques such as geotextile fabric and riprap/large rock ground covering, or buried riprap covered with soil and geotextile fabric, provide immediate protection from flood flow forces while still allowing opportunities for riparian plantings such as willows. River District Block One Page 6 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report Figure 3. Bank Stabilization Strategy Higher on the slope, where flood flows and inundation are still possible yet less frequent, less aggressive bank stability and erosion protection techniques can be considered depending upon flood flow frequencies and velocities. Less aggressive techniques higher on the bank slopes could include flatter slopes, soil and grass stabilization with geotextile fabric, and multiple woody vegetation plantings. These bank stabilization techniques, individually or in combination, can provide the necessary bank stabilization for the study area. Depending on the methods used, the bank stabilization will also greatly improve the aesthetic value of the study area and adjacent site. 6.0 Bank Stabilization and Improvement Design Based on development project needs, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and Poudre River Enhancement Project, and discussions with City of Fort Collins staff, the Block One Cache la Poudre River embankment stabilization and improvement design is intended to support three primary goals:  Provide aesthetically enhanced views of the Cache la Poudre River corridor from the Block One facilities,  Create an improved river bank landscape buffer between the river and development, and  Prevent bank erosion and stabilize the bank in a manner adequate to withstand the hydraulic force of the 100-year flood event. River District Block One Page 7 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report These goals are achieved using a combination of hard engineering and bioengineering design techniques. 6.1 Design Summary Existing bank conditions, the need to keep improvements within the boundaries of the current embankment, slope stability considerations, and working within the FEMA 100-year floodway all influence major components of the Cache la Poudre bank stabilization and improvement design. It is speculated that the land form and river bank was created from a combination of native deposits and fill material during previous site development and use, creating an embankment near its natural angle of repose (1.3H:1V to 1H:1V). Additionally, concrete was poured over the embankment creating a slope-paved condition. Although mature trees are present on the embankment, the concrete covering prevents the growth of new trees or grasses. To create a more natural, vegetated, and stabilized slope, the concrete covering that currently provides some protection from bank erosion needs to be removed. Slope grading to facilitate slope stabilization will also require removal of existing trees within the improvement area. To create flatter final slopes over most of the area, but not significantly increase the bank width, mechanical stabilization provides limited areas of near vertical slope. With most of the embankment located within the FEMA 100-year floodway, bank stabilization and improvement cannot increase the water surface elevation of the 100-year storm event. This restriction limits options for the final bank configuration. During the design, established 100-year event hydrology and hydraulic modeling was used to evaluate final slope configurations for effects on flood water surface elevation. Design 100-year water surface elevations and velocities used to size riprap are based upon the CLOMR analysis prepared by Northern Engineering (NE 2013). In addition to FEMA hydrology and hydraulics, information from the City of Fort Collins Master Plan (Ayres 2003) was consulted in the preliminary phases to assess 2-year velocities and water surface elevations before the CLOMR information was finalized. The Master Plan was used for reference information only and is not the basis of design. Flood flow calculations along with determination of an appropriate overbank Manning’s n value are presented in Appendix B. This information allowed evaluation of design elements such as riprap size, geotextile material selection, vegetation plantings, and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall design. 6.2 Demolition and Slope Preparation To prepare the embankment for design improvements, the concrete covering shall be removed from the area of disturbance associated with the bank stabilization. The extent, thickness, and quality of the concrete are not known, but upon demolition and removal the concrete shall be recycled. At the downstream boundary of the bank stabilization disturbance the concrete cover shall be cut or scored and broken in such a way as to provide a relatively straight edge perpendicular to the slope and to prevent disturbance to the remaining downstream concrete. River District Block One Page 8 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report Proper care and preparation in this area is important to provide a stable transition between the designed slope stabilization improvements and downstream concrete cover material. Large voids shall not be left along the edge of the concrete, but shall be filled with excavated slope material prior to stabilization. The adjacent stabilization improvement surface shall be higher, but not more than 2 inches higher than the top of the adjacent concrete cover. Once the slope concrete cover has been removed, trees along the stabilization disturbance area shall be removed. The majority of the trees have been identified as non-native Siberian Elm. These, and other trees shall be removed, including the tree tap root and root system to the maximum practical extent. Generated woody debris shall be recycled. Prior to work at the upstream end of the embankment stabilization area, existing riprap from the stormwater rundown and Linden Street Bridge downstream riprap reinforcement will be removed and stockpiled for reuse. Only the existing riprap meeting new riprap design standards shall be reused. Following clearing of the concrete cover, riprap, and trees, areas to receive bank stabilization work can be excavated to the necessary depth and slope as designed. The excavated material shall be tested to evaluate its use as structural backfill and/or bedding for stabilization structures. Non-conforming material shall be used, as appropriate, for other fill needs on or off the site. 6.3 Toe Protection Slope toe protection shall incorporate natural river rock for areas where the hard armoring will be visible. Rock shall have a D50 of 2.5 feet and a preferred specific gravity of 2.65 or greater, but in no case shall the specific gravity less than 2.50. The rock boulders shall have color to match the surrounding Cache la Poudre River bed and bank material in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (Fort Collins 2011). The river bed and slope toe are near or on hard sandstone/siltstone bedrock material (EEC 2012), therefore, bedrock shall be ripped to provide a key for the toe protection stability. The bedrock shall be ripped 1.5 feet to prepare the key for rock boulder placement. If bedrock is not encountered during key excavation, the bed shall be over excavated an additional 2 feet and the key trench filled with riprap (D50 = 18 inch) prior to boulder placement. 6.4 Riprap Revetment All riprap, including stormwater outlet rundowns and the Linden Street Bridge downstream riprap reinforcement, shall be buried from view. The riprap revetment is designed to provide temporary protection from the Cache la Poudre 100-year flood event in the case where all surface stabilization and landscape structures fail. The riprap is designed to extend from the embankment toe to the 100-year flood event water surface elevation. In limited areas along the improved embankment, design and placement of the riprap revetment is spatially constrained by River District Block One Page 9 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report surface stabilization structures such as vegetated reinforced soil slopes (VRSS) and MSE walls (see descriptions below). In areas where space allows, the revetment follows the embankment slope at 2H:1V below the stabilized surface soils. Where spatial constraints exist, riprap revetment may be horizontal below surface stabilization structures or at 1.5H:1V slopes. From approximately station 10+75 to 11+25, the riprap revetment cannot reach the 100-year water surface elevation at 1.5H:1V slopes due to proximity of the proposed building. In this area, the revetment extends vertically against the building foundation to the 100-year water surface elevation. In the event that a large flood exposes this riprap, it is meant to provide temporary armoring. Riprap placed vertically against the building can be seen in the plan set at sections 11+00 and 11+25. If exposed in a flood event, this riprap might slump to a degree and need repair. All revetment has been designed to supplement surface stabilization structures and not as a long term exposed embankment. If exposed, the steep rock-lined side slopes could present an additional safety and maintenance considerations. Although calculated riprap size does not need to be increased for channel side slopes flatter than 2.5H:1V (UDFCD 2001), the stability of larger riprap should be considered when side slopes become steeper. Several riprap sizing calculations are available to estimate riprap size with adjustments for side slope angle. The HEC-11 method was developed for use on natural streams or rivers with a flow greater than 50 cfs. It is limited to straight or mildly curving reaches with relatively uniform cross sections. This method calculates a D50 based on average channel velocity, side slope, riprap angle of repose, specific gravity of the stone, and average channel depth NRCS 2007a). However, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Drainage Design Guidelines uses this method with no application limitations on channel flow (CDOT 2004). It is CDOT’s preferred method because it uses a riprap design relationship that is based on tractive force theory, yet has velocity as its primary design parameter. Tractive force theory is formulated on the basis that the stability of both bed and/or bank material is a function of the ability of the bed and bank to resist erosion due to the drag force exerted on them by the moving water. The HEC-11 method estimate for riprap size was checked using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Maynord Method (NRCS 2007a) which also incorporates side slope angle into the calculation. Results of riprap sizing calculations are presented in Appendix C. The riprap rock shall be hard, durable, angular in shape (approximate angle of repose 40 degrees), and free from cracks, overburden, shale, and organic matter. Rock shall be free of calcite intrusions. Neither breadth nor thickness of a single stone should be less than one-third its length, and rounded stone should be avoided. The rock should sustain a loss of not more than 40% after 500 revolutions in an abrasion test (Los Angeles machine – ASTM C-535-69) and should sustain a loss of not more than 10% after 12 cycles of freezing and thawing (AASHTO Test 103 for ledge rock procedure A). Rock having a minimum specific gravity of 2.65 is preferred, however, in no case should rock have a specific gravity less than 2.50 (UDFCD 2008). River District Block One Page 10 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report All riprap within the stabilized embankment is to be buried. However, riprap that has the potential to be exposed shall, as much as is practical, be produced locally and have color to match the surrounding Cache la Poudre River bed and bank material in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (Fort Collins 2011). Each load of riprap shall be reasonably well graded from the smallest to the largest size specified. Stones smaller than the two-to-ten percent (2-10%) size will not be permitted in an amount exceeding ten percent (10%) by weight of each load. Control of gradation shall be by visual inspection. However in the event Project Construction Engineer determines the riprap to be unacceptable, the Project Construction Engineer shall pick two (2) random truckloads to be dumped and checked for gradation. Soil riprap is specified for all buried riprap. The soil material shall be native and mixed with sixty five percent (65%) angular or fractured rock and thirty five percent (35%) soil by volume. Soil riprap shall consist of a uniform mixture of soil and riprap without voids. Bedding material is not required for soil riprap. Adjacent stockpiles of riprap and soil shall be created and mixing done at the stockpile location, not at the location where soil riprap is to be placed. The mixture shall be consolidated on the slope by large vibratory equipment or backhoe bucket to create a tight, dense, interlocking mass (UDFCD 2008). 6.5 Geotextiles Geotextile material is implemented in the design for use as physical separator and filter between materials of various gradations. Due to proximity of the building to the top bank of the river, the horizontal extent of the MSE tie-back zone, and maximum slope constraints on the riprap, geotextile was selected as an alternative to using a graded granular material. The design calls for separator geotextile to be placed between the bottom of the riprap and the native excavated slope, and between the top of the riprap and the structural backfill beneath the MSE walls. CDOT Physical requirements for separator fabric were used to determine the specification for the geotextile (CDOT 2004, see Appendix D). Class A drainage geotextile was selected for use as separator, and TenCate Mirafi 1120N or equivalent was specified in the design plans. A coconut fiber synthetic composite coir geotextile is called for in the design to be used to construct the VRSS. The coir composite is intended to provide temporary erosion control following initial construction until vegetation planting takes hold. This material was selected in order to provide adequate tensile strength to contain soil within the VRSS lifts and also provide drainage and the ability for rooting and growth of the vegetation treatment. Nedia Koir Wrap 1000 or equivalent was specified in the design plans. This material has an estimated functional longevity of 2-3 years which should be an adequate period to establish vegetation. River District Block One Page 11 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report 6.6 Vegetated Reinforced Soil Slopes (VRSS) The VRSS system is made up of layers of soil wrapped in natural fiber geotextile with live cuttings or rooted plants installed in between the wrapped soil layers. As with brush layering or branch packing, the branches or rooted plants protrude beyond the face of the bank. The live cuttings contribute to soil reinforcement along with the geotextile. To resist shear forces at the face of the VRSS, Nedia Koir Wrap 1000 or equivalent shall be used for the natural fiber geotextile. VRSS is commonly used to stabilize steep banks of 1H:1V or even steeper). Live cuttings 3/4 to 3 inches in diameter and 5 to 15 feet in length shall be used so that the branches can be embedded at least 3 feet between the wraps and the growing tips protrude from the face of the bank by 6 to 18 inches. Ideally, the basal end of the live branches should be in contact with undisturbed native soil at the back of the excavation, but this will not be possible because of the riprap revetment below. The soil riprap revetment shall not just be below the VRSS layer, but shall be incorporated into the geotextile wraps. It is recommended to collect and soak the live cuttings for 14 days, or install them the day they are harvested. Leave the side branches intact. The foundation for the VRSS wraps will be the boulder toe protection and soil riprap revetment. Above the installed foundation and toe protection, ensure that the constructed bench slopes back into the bank, making the back of the constructed bench at least 6 to 12 inches lower than the front edge. As wraps are added, a temporary batter board along the front edge of the previously constructed bench may be used to determine the steepness and shape of the finished bank face. Install the geotextile according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Position the geotextile from the back of the constructed bench excavation, across the bench, and up the temporary batter board, with the remainder draping down the bank towards the river. Securely anchor the geotextile in place at the back of the bench and along the front with stout stakes. Burlap can be installed inside the geotextile to help hold fine soils until the live cuttings or rooted plants are established. Place and compact soil riprap and fill soils on the geotextile layer to the specified depth. The soil riprap mixture shall be consolidated by vibratory equipment or backhoe bucket to create a tight, dense, interlocking mass. The soil riprap shall contain no voids. Pull the loose geotextile back over the front and top of the soil lift. Use a lever bar or the knuckle of an excavator to drag the geotextile towards the back edge of the bench to achieve adequate tension. Anchor the geotextile using stout stakes. It is important that wrap benches slope to the back into the bank. Lay live cuttings on the constructed bench with the cut basal ends in the back of the trench and the growing tips oriented and protruding over the front edge. The tips of the branches should protrude 6 to 18 inches beyond the front edge of the bench. Lay the live cuttings in layers with a few inches of soil in between each. With each layer, vary the direction that the tips face, some slightly upstream, some slightly downstream, and some straight out towards the river. Generally, River District Block One Page 12 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report 5 to 15 cuttings per linear foot of bank shall be used. Container plants may also be used in place of live cuttings. The top bench is finished off so that the geotextile is buried under a soil layer with erosion control fabric or other materials as needed to finish the final grade. If installed correctly, the VRSS system serves the purpose of providing a base for seeded and transplanted vegetation where regular or annual inundation and flooding occurs. The VRSS approach to bank stabilization has proved to be effective and stable during most flooding events. The Natural Resource Conservation Service Technical Supplement 141, Stream Bank Soil Bioengineering, (NRCS 2007b) states that permissible shear stresses for banks improved with VRSS techniques are 3 to 5 lb/ft 2 during initial conditions and 7 lb/ft 2 or more for established conditions. With regards to velocity, the VRSS method is stable under velocities of 4 to 9 ft/s at initial conditions and 10 ft/s or more at established conditions. Along the stabilized embankment, the estimated 100-year flood flow shear stress in the Cache la Poudre channel is 1.63 lb/ft 2 (NE 2013). Along the same reach, the Cache la Poudre River 100-year velocities are 10.5 ft/s, 4.63 ft/s, and 1.56 ft/s for the center of the channel, left bank, and right bank, respectively (NE 2013). Therefore, based on the available reference material, the established VRSS improvement system should be able to establish landscape materials in areas regularly inundated by high water and provide embankment stability during most Cache la Poudre River flood flow events. 6.7 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls The MSE wall units shall be constructed as per the Earth Engineering Consultants (EEC) design plans (Appendix E) and manufacture guidelines. Wall units shall be Redi-Rock Ledgestone fascia (as produced by a licensed manufacturer) or equivalent as approved by City of Fort Collins and Design Engineer. Exterior block dimensions shall be uniform and consistent. Maximum dimensional deviations shall be 1%, excluding architectural surface. Exposed face shall be finished as specified. Leveling pad shall be crushed stone. Wall toe drainage shall be supplied by 6 inch perforated drain line, wrapped in filter fabric to prevent influx of fines, and sloped to drain. The drain line shall daylight to front side of wall every 30 feet or less. Drainage and reinforced backfill material shall be as specified on plans or approved by geotechnical engineer. The lower level MSE wall shall be three (3) blocks tall with a minimum burial depth of 12 inches. The upper wall shall be two (2) blocks tall with a 12 inch burial depth. Detailed wall plans and toe drain details as designed by (EEC) are presented in (Appendix E). 6.8 Turf Reinforced Matting (TRM) Turf reinforcement mat is to be placed between the MSE walls and above the upper MSE wall to the top bank in order to provide temporary erosion protection from sheet flow and flooding events that may occur before adequate vegetation is established. The Project Landscape Architect (BHA Consultants) shall provide landscape design and further detail for TRM. River District Block One Page 13 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report 6.9 Plantings The plantings for the bank stabilization were selected by choosing native Colorado vegetation, providing increased potential for establishment within the improvement area. Willows and grasses installed shall be irrigated during establishment, but are not expected to require long term irrigation. Variability of plant growth and height is anticipated, but selected plants are not anticipated to reach 90% of the specified USDA mature plant height. The established vegetation is also anticipated to increase the aquatic and terrestrial habitat value of the bank stabilization riparian zone. 6.10 Permits Additional permits necessary for construction of the bank stabilization include:  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 13 for Bank Stabilization.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall also be notified regarding the Oxbow Levee on the opposite side of the Cache la Poudre River for potential impacts.  The Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) reviews and issues Water Quality Certifications under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) for projects or actions that are applicable to the provisions of the Colorado 401 Certification Regulation. However, under the Colorado 401 Certification Regulation, all nationwide permits are certified by statute and do not require a certification by the WQCD. Applicants for Nationwide Permits do not need to submit any information or documents to the WQCD.  City of Fort Collins Construction Permit and Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Permit.  City of Fort Collins Floodplain Use Permit  Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Discharge Permitting System, Construction Dewatering Permit. Although no permit is necessary, it should be noted that a Technical Removal Site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act known as the Willow Street Landfill is located immediately upstream of the project. The site includes a containment wall to isolate seepage from historic underground fuel storage tanks. The downstream limit of the site is the upstream side of Linden Street (Zoccali 2012). Work within the site (upstream of Linden Street) shall be avoided 6.11 Construction Considerations Timing is critical to the construction performance and ultimate success of the bank stabilization. Construction shall be performed during the vegetative dormant season and Cache la Poudre low flow period. This construction period (ideally October to March) will provide easy access to the River District Block One Page 14 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report toe of slope and river bed for installation of toe protection, riprap revetment, and VRSS materials. The season will also increase the potential success of transplanted willows in the VRSS. Construction timing shall also be coordinated with other Block One development activities to allow room for material stockpiles and staging at the top of embankment. Embankment stabilization improvement construction will be more efficient and cost effective if performed prior to the Block One building construction. The duration of the bank stabilization construction is estimated to be six to eight weeks. Construction materials and stockpiles shall be located outside of the Cache la Poudre River 100-year floodplain at all times. The only exception is construction of a coffer dam within the river channel. The coffer dam shall divert river flows around the entire length of embankment construction area and be constructed prior to excavation and disturbance of the river bed. The coffer dam shall be designed by the contractor and approved by the City of Fort Collins. In addition to the coffer dam, the site is prepared by installation of silt fence around the perimeter of all potentially disturbed areas. The embankment shall be prepared by first removing all concrete, trees, stumps, and debris from the slope. Tree material and concrete shall be removed from the site and, as much as is practical, recycled. Excavation and grading the embankment surface to the designed slope shall only occur after all clearing, grubbing, and removal of waste concrete is complete. Material generated from the excavation and grading shall be stockpiled and, if not appropriate for use in embankment structures or other site grading, removed from the site. In general, the graded surface should not deviate from the specified slope line by more than six inches. However, local depressions larger than this can be accommodated because initial placement of filter material and/or rock for the revetment will fill these depressions. In addition, any large boulders or debris found buried near the edges of the revetment should be removed. Following rough grading of the embankment, toe protection boulders shall be set into the river bed along designed stationing locations and elevations. From the toe protection, soil riprap revetment and VRSS layering is placed creating final design slopes and elevations. Geo-textile fabric is placed under the toe protection and soil riprap as specified in the design. Riprap placement options to be considered are machine placing such as from a skid, dragline or excavator bucket or hand placing. The steep slopes called for in the design exclude dumping from trucks and spreading by bulldozer. If machine placing does not produce the desired quality of placement, hand placement should be considered. Each VRSS lift shall be constructed sequentially as per the design drawings and standards. The geo-textile coir mat is laid out to begin each layer, shingled upstream so that overlaps are facing downstream. A minimum one foot overlap of the coir mat is required as per the design plans. The ends and seams are anchored to the slope and the bed by hand using the coir manufacturer’s staples before placement of soil riprap on the mat. One layer of soil riprap, approximately 18 inches thick, is placed at the back of the VRSS wrap with at least one foot of topsoil at the River District Block One Page 15 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report front of the wrap. After the topsoil is placed and seeded the coir mat is folded back to the slope and again stapled down as per specifications in the design plans. After each VRSS layer has been built, a course of willows cuttings is laid on top of the lift with a thin layer of topsoil. The next layer begins with geo-textile coir mat laid on the willow cuttings and topsoil. The lower embankment VRSS treatment is constructed in this manner until reaching the lower MSE wall base. The MSE walls do not extend completely to each end of the improvement reach. The slope upstream and downstream of the walls is constructed with a continuation of the VRSS lifts until reaching final grade. Once construction of the MSE walls begins, and the VRSS treatment is at least to the lower wall height upstream and downstream of the walls, remaining construction activities should be above the river and outside of the river channel. At this point, the coffer dam can likely be removed. Constructing the MSE wall starts with installing a layer of geo-textile fabric on top of the soil riprap revetment, overlapping with the VRSS layer at the base of the wall. A bed of drainage backfill (including seepage drain piping) is installed, leveled, and compacted to prepare a pad for the MSE wall blocks. Behind the blocks and on top of the drainage material, structural backfill is placed with each lift of blocks and attached geogrid tie-back straps. Near the top of the lower wall, the structural backfill begins to extend back under the base of the upper wall. Additional drainage backfill (including seepage drain piping) is installed, leveled, and compacted on top of the structural fill to prepare a pad for the upper MSE wall blocks similar to the lower wall blocks. Structural fill is again placed with each lift of the upper wall blocks and attached geogrid tie-back straps. At the top of the lower and upper walls, topsoil is placed on top of the final layer of structure fill for seeding and treatment with TRM. River District Block One Page 16 of 16 Bank Stability Evaluation and Design Report 7.0 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): T85-Standard Method of Test for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, T96-Standard Method of Test for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, T103-Standard Method of Test for Soundness of Aggregates by Freezing and Thawing, T104-Standard Method of Test for Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate, T248-Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate Test Size. American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM): D698-Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). Ayres Associates, 2002 (Ayres 2002). Final Cache la Poudre River Master Drainageway Plan, prepared for City of Fort Collins. Ayres Associates and EDAW, October 2003 (Ayres 2003). Poudre River Enhancement Project, Linden Street to Lincoln Avenue and College Avenue to BNSF Railroad Bridge, prepared for City of Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins, March 1997 (Fort Collins 1997). City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. City of Fort Collins, December 2011 (Fort Collins 2011). City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Adopted December 2011 with Ordinance 174, 2011. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2004 (CDOT 2004). Colorado Department of Transportation Drainage Design Manual, Chapter 17 – Bank Protection. Earth Engineering Consultants (EEC 2012), September 13, 2012. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development, prepared for Jensen Consulting. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2007 (NRCS 2007b). Streambank Soil Bioengineering Technical Supplement 141. National Engineering Handbook Part 654. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2007 (NRCS 2007a). Stone Sizing Criteria Technical Supplement 14C. National Engineering Handbook Part 654. Northern Engineering, January 2013 (NE 2013), Hydraulic Analysis for the Cache La Poudre River Bank Stabilization Associated with the River District Block One Development (In Support of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision), prepared for Jensen Consulting. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, June 2001, Revised April 2008 (UDFCD 2008). Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual – Volume 1. Zoccali, Matt, November 2012 (Zoccali 2012). Personal Communication between Corey Engen (FlyWater, inc.) and Matt Zoccali (City of Fort Collins) on November 7, 2012. APPENDIX A Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development Prepared for: Jensen Consulting Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants September 13, 2012. 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 September 13, 2012 Jensen Consulting 37154 Dickerson Run Windsor, Colorado 80550 Attn: Mr. Jeff Jensen (Jeff@jensenconsulting.info) Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Report Existing Cache La Poudre River Embankment River District Block One Mixed Use Development - 418 Linden Street Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1112066 Mr. Jensen: This report presents the results of the supplemental geotechnical subsurface exploration/evaluation completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel for the proposed development project at 418 Linden Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The intent of the supplemental exploration was to provide a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the existing Cache La Poudre River slope/embankment along the east edge of the development parcel. This supplemental evaluation was carried out in general accordance with our proposal dated July 25, 2012. INTRODUCTION As a part of the exploration for the slope evaluation, three (3) test borings extending to depths of approximately 19½ feet below present site grades were advanced along the top of the embankment at the east edge of the proposed development parcel to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions in this area. Individual boring logs and a diagram indicating the approximate boring locations are included with this report. We understand this project involves the construction of a new office building with potential for a restaurant and possible residential apartments on upper level(s) of the structure. The proposed building will include a walk-out “basement” toward the east. Based on the subsurface conditions as described in our October 2011 exploration report regarding the proposed building construction planned for the site, we expect the new building will be supported on straight shaft driller piers extending into the underlying bedrock formation. As part of the proposed development, on-site Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 2 pavement improvements are also planned with additional associated site improvements as indicated on the enclosed schematics/renderings prepared by the project architects. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the three (3) supplemental test borings completed along the eastern boundary of the proposed development parcel adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the stability of the Cache La Poudre River bank adjacent to the property. SUPPLEMENTAL EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES As part of this supplemental study, three (3) additional borings, identified herein as B-1A, B-2A, and B-3A, were located along the eastern edge of the proposed development parcel within areas accessible to our drilling equipment. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached site diagram. The supplemental borings extended approximate depths of 19½ feet below existing site grades and were advanced by nominal 4¼-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split barrel sampling procedures. In conjunction with the subsurface drilling operations, EEC personnel also conducted a cursory thickness evaluation of the existing concrete slurry/wash-out material observed along the face the existing embankment (further descriptions/findings along with photographs are included herein). In the split barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are advanced into the ground by means of a standard 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the split barrel sampler is recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Laboratory moisture content tests were completed on each of the recovered samples. Selected soil samples were tested for in-situ dry density, unconfined compressive strength, plasticity, and grain- size distribution. Two (2) representative composite samples of the overburden soils (identified herein as Sample “A” – Upper 5-feet and Sample “B” – Lower 5-feet) were tested for moisture- density relationship using standard Proctor compaction effort (ASTM D698) and direct shear (ASTM D3080). Results of the outlined tests are shown on the attached boring logs and/or presented on the enclosed summary sheets. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 3 As part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory by an engineer and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System, based on the soil’s texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief description of that classification system is included with this report. Classification of the bedrock was based on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings. Coring and/or petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed development lot is located west of the Cache La Poudre River, southeast of Linden Street, and northeast of an extension of Poudre Street near downtown Fort Collins. This property previously contained a concrete batch plant which was recently decommissioned and removed. The concrete slurry/wash-out material encountered along the existing embankment face presumably occurred over time when the parcel operated as a concrete batch-plant. The site grades consist of an “upper level” on the southwest portion of the site and a “lower level” to the northeast. Grade change is estimated to be on the order of 5 to 10 feet over a short relatively steep slope between the two levels. The surfacing at the site is predominately gravel on the upper portion with a concrete pad/drive on the lower area. Along the eastern portion of the site, in the area in which the three (3) supplemental test borings were positioned, a small sand berm was present. Photographs of the site taken during the supplemental subsurface exploration and are included with this report. EEC personnel were on site during the supplemental drilling operations to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and direct the drilling activities. Field logs prepared by EEC site personnel were based on visual and tactual observation of auger cuttings and disturbed samples. The boring logs included with this report may contain modifications to the field logs based on results of laboratory testing and engineering evaluation. Based on results of the field boring and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. An approximate layer of 6 to 8 inches of existing sand material was encountered at the surface of each of the supplemental test borings. The materials below the sand/gravel surfacing generally consisted of fill material, which was predominately characterized as silty sand with gravel and Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 4 miscellaneous concrete pieces. The existing fill zone extended to depths of approximate 6 to 11 feet below site grades. The consistency of the fill soils ranged from medium dense to dense as evident by the recorded SPT results as shown on the enclosed boring logs. The fill materials were underlain by medium dense to dense, native sands and gravels. The granular soils were typically tan in color and contained apparent cobbles and variable sand, gravel and fine contents. The sands and gravels extended to depths of approximately 13½ to 15 feet and were underlain by sandstone/siltstone bedrock. The bedrock was typically cemented/hard and contained well cemented zones. The supplemental borings were terminated at depths of approximately 19½ feet in the bedrock materials. The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and rock types; in-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. Existing Concrete Slurry Surfacing As part of our supplemental evaluation, we were requested to determine the thickness of the existing concrete slurry/wash-out material encountered on the surface of the embankment/slope of the referenced project. Visual observations were made by EEC personnel as well as random thicknesses determination by use of a hammer drill equipped with an approximate 16-inch long masonry drill bit. A diagram illustrating the cross-sectional view of three (3) random locations across the embankment are presented as Figure No. 2 at the conclusion of this report. In the areas where the hammer drill was used, the concrete thickness varied from approximately 3 inches to 9 inches. Visually, the thickness of the concrete slurry/wash-out material appeared to vary from 0 inches to as thick as 18 inches or more. Photographs of the existing embankment are presented at the conclusion of this report. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of boring to detect the presence and depth to groundwater. During drilling operations, groundwater was encountered in supplemental boring Nos. B-2A and B-3A at depths of approximately 13 to 13½ feet below site grades. Those depths generally correspond to the depth to the underlying bedrock surface. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operation and subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained. Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 5 Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. In addition, zones of perched and/or trapped water may be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable areas within the subgrade materials. Perched water is commonly observed in more permeable soils above lower permeability bedrock. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Moisture Density Relationship and Classification On two (2) composite overburden samples, EEC personnel completed standard Proctor (ASTM D698), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318) and wash sieve analysis (ASTM C117 and C136) tests to evaluate the materials’ compaction characteristics and to classify the materials. The results of the standard Proctor density and classification tests are summarized below and are also included at the conclusion of this report. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISITCS AND CLASSIFIATION OF SOILS Sample ID Standard Proctor Density Soil Classification Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Liquid Limit Plastic Index Passing No. 200 Sieve (%) Description Upper 5-Feet “A” 10.0 125.5 NL NP 25.1 Silty Sand with Gravel with Concrete Debris Lower 5-Feet “B” 8.5 127.5 NL NP 25.3 Silty Sand with Gravel Direct Shear Strength Tests Two (2) direct shear (ASTM D3080) tests were performed on representative samples of the overburden/existing fill materials. The direct shear testing was carried out by subcontracted Advanced Terra Testing of Denver, Colorado. The test specimens were remolded to approximately 95% of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density at approximately optimum moisture content. Each direct shear test was conducted with three (3) passes at approximate loading schemes of 1000 psf, 2000 psf, and 5000 psf. The results of the laboratory direct shear testing were used to determine the materials’ shear strength parameters (friction angle,  and cohesion, c). Laboratory Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 6 test results are summarized in the table below, and shown on the plots at the conclusion of this report. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample ID Friction Angle Cohesion, psf (1) Average Percent Compaction (2) Approximate Moisture Differential Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress Normal Stress vs. Ultimate Shear Stress Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress Normal Stress vs. Ultimate Shear Stress 1 33.8 33.4 295.2 72.1 95.1% (-) 0.2% 2 39.6 43.7 727.5 118.0 95.0% (-) 0.1% (1) The percent compaction is based on the material’s standard Proctor density results of 125.5 pcf for Sample “A” and 127.5 pcf for Sample “B.” (2) The approximate moisture percent differential is based on the overburden material’s standard Proctor density results having an optimum moisture content of 10.0% for Sample “A”, and 8.5% for Sample “B”. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The existing subsurface soils at this site include approximately 14 feet of granular and essentially granular soils overlying sandstone bedrock. The bed of the adjacent Cache La Poudre River appears to be in the sandstone bedrock. The friction angle of the overburden soils varies from approximately 34° to 40° at a peak stress state. Based on our review of the proposed development plans, additional surcharge loads including fills for developing grades to the east of the new building, and new floor and vehicle loads within the building area will be applied to existing ground surface at the top of the slope. A schematic approximation of the applied loads is shown on the attached calculation sheets. The new construction, at the closest point, appears to be about 19 feet from the current top of embankment. A friction angle of 34° was used for evaluation of the entire depth of the existing granular and essentially granular soils on the site. Using a factor of safety of 1.0, the existing subgrade soils calculate that slopes as steep as 1.3:1 (horizontal:vertical) could appear stable, although that factor of safety implies slopes on this order are only marginally stable. The calculated slope failure surfaces are generally within or along the face of the slopes so that the additional surcharge loads from the proposed construction do not greatly impact the slope stability as calculated. In this analysis, we have ignored potential contributions, both positive and negative, of tree growth along the face of the embankment. A factor of safety of 1.3 would, in our opinion, be appropriate in evaluating the slope in the vicinity of the new structure assuming appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent loss of Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. EEC Project No. 1112066 September 13, 2012 Page 7 material along the slope and at the toe of the slope and given the subsurface conditions observed in the test borings. As indicated on the attached calculation sheets, an embankment slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) yields a factor of safety slightly over 1:3 for both static perched water on the bedrock and a rapid drawdown after a flood event. A water quality pond is proposed for construction to the south of the new building, adjacent to the top of embankment. We understand the water quality pond will not be lined allowing infiltration into the subgrade at the top of the slope. We suggest provisions be made to prevent direct flow from the water quality pond to the face of the adjacent embankment. Forcing vertical flow with lining on the east side of the pond or construction of a “cut off” could be used to prevent direct flow. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until further exploration or construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jensen Consulting for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, express or implied, is made. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D. unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Level WS : While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty sand, trace gravel, medium dense (SM). CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf Consistency < 500 Very Soft 500 - 1,000 Soft 1,001 - 2,000 Medium 2,001 - 4,000 Stiff 4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff 8,001 - 16,000 Very Hard RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: N-Blows/ft Relative Density 0-3 Very Loose 4-9 Loose 10-29 Medium Dense 30-49 Dense 50-80 Very Dense 80 + Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change. Moderate Some decomposition and color change throughout. High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: LOT 1 LINDEN STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1112066 JULY 2012 PHOTO #3 PHOTO #2 PHOTO #1 DATE: RIG TYPE: CME45 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) OPT. MOIST. MAX. DD _ _ APPARENT FILL MATERIAL 1 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and Concrete Debris _ _ brown, gray, dry , medium dense to dense 2 _ _ 3 3 4 -- 3.0 _ _ 3 FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 4 6 _ _ 5 _ _ 6 _ _ 6 7 6 -- 7.6 _ _ 11 8 11 _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 9 _ _ 9 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM / SC) 10 7 9000+ 14.6 brown _ _ 9 dense 11 30 with gravel _ _ 12 _ _ 13 _ _ 40 GRAVELS (GP) 14 27 -- 4.6 NL NP 16.5 very dense _ _ 22 15 40 _ _ SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE / CLAYSTONE 16 grey _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 50/3" 9000+ 11.5 BOTTOM OF BORING - Approximate Depth 19.5' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET DATE: RIG TYPE: CME45 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) OPT. MOIST. MAX. DD _ _ APPARENT FILL MATERIAL 1 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and Concrete Debris _ _ brown, gray, dry , medium dense to dense 2 _ _ 3 45/6" -- 10.5 _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 4 _ _ 5 _ _ 6 _ _ 7 7 9 9000+ 19.6 NL NP 24.9 _ _ 6 8 8 _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 9 _ _ 8 10 7 -- 4.7 _ _ 5 SILTY SAND (SM) 11 3 brown / rust _ _ 12 GRAVEL (GP) _ _ very dense 13 _ _ 23 14 17 6000 12.2 NL NP 21.5 _ _ 15 15 40 SILTSTONE / CLAYSTONE / SANDSTONE _ _ grey 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 50/2" 9000+ 131.0 BOTTOM OF BORING - Approximate Depth 19.5' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET DATE: RIG TYPE: CME45 FOREMAN: DG AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -200 TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL PI (%) OPT. MOIST. MAX. DD CONCRETE - 6" _ _ 1 APPARENT FILL MATERIAL _ _ CLAYEY SAND / SANDY LEAN CLAY 2 stiff to very stiff, with traces of gravel _ _ 10 3 11 _ _ 9 9000+ 10.0 FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 4 11 _ _ 5 _ _ 6 _ _ 10 SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM / SC) 7 6 brown _ _ 3 -- 6.2 NL NP 26.3 loose to medium dense 8 2 with traces of gravel _ _ FRT. ANGLE COEHSION 9 _ _ 3 10 5 _ _ 5 -- 6.6 11 10 _ _ 12 silty gravelly seam _ _ 13 _ _ 9 14 24 SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE / CLAYSTONE _ _ 35 9000+ 16.1 grey 15 _ _ 16 _ _ 17 _ _ 18 _ _ 19 _ _ 20 50/3" 9000+ 15.8 BOTTOM OF BORING - Approximate Depth 19.5' _ _ 21 _ _ 22 _ _ 23 _ _ 24 _ _ 25 _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants 418 LINDEN STREET Project: 418 Linden St Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Date: July 2012 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) Percent Moisture Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 Material Designation: Sample Location: Description: Sample "A" Upper 5-feet Silty/Clayey Sand with Gravel & Concrete Fragments Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318) Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: NL NP NL Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 25.1% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture Content: 125.5 pcf 10.0% Project: 418 Linden St Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Date: July 2012 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Dry Density (Pounds per Cubic Foot) Percent Moisture Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship Curves for 100% Saturation For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 Material Designation: Sample Location: Description: Sample "B" Lower 5-feet Brown Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel & Concrete Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318) Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: NL NP NL Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve (ASTM C-117): 25.3% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) Maximum Dry Density: Optimum Moisture Content: 127.5 pcf 8.5% 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Material A Date: August 2012 Plasticity Index Plastic Limit NP NP EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 48 99 97 Sieve Size Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Percent Passing 100 100 93 NL 88 78 70 61 35 25.1 52 44 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Material A Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Material B Date: August 2012 Plasticity Index Plastic Limit NP NP EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 49 100 97 Sieve Size Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 & T90/ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Percent Passing 100 100 93 NL 89 82 75 65 35 25.3 54 44 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Material B Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 1A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 100 80 75 68 59 49 23 16.5 41 31 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 36 93 87 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 1A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 2, at 6' Date: August 2012 100 80 75 67 62 56 34 24.9 50 42 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 46 94 87 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 2, at 6' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 100 80 77 70 63 55 37 21.5 47 42 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 44 92 88 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 2A, Sample 4, at 13' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 2 1/2" (63 mm) 2" (50 mm) 1 1/2" (37.5 mm) 1" (25 mm) 3/4" (19 mm) 1/2" (12.5 mm) 3/8" (9.5 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 8 (2.36 mm) No. 16 (1.18 mm) No. 30 (600 m) No. 40 (425 m) No. 50 (300 m) No. 100 (150 m) No. 200 (75 m) Project: 418 Linden Street Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project No: 1112066 Sample Desc.: Boring 3A, Sample 3, at 9' Date: August 2012 100 84 81 76 70 63 37 26.3 56 48 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Sieve Analysis (AASHTO T 11 & T 27 / ASTM C 117 & C 136) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 100 52 90 87 Sieve Size Percent Passing 100 Project: 418 Linden Street Project Number: Sample Desc.: Boring 3A, Sample 3, at 9' Date: August 2012 Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Coarse Fine EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1112066 Coarse Medium Cobble Fine Sand Silt or Clay Gravel Location: Fort Collins, Colorado 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Finer by Weight (%) Grain Size (mm) 5" 3" 1" 1/2" No. 4 No. 16 No. 40 No. 100 6" 4" 2" 3/4" 3/8" No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT ASTM D 3080 CLIENT: Jensen Consulting PROJECT: Block One - 418 Linden Street - Fort Collins, Colorado PROJECT NO. SAMPLE LOCATION: Comp. Sample of Existing Upper 5-feet of East Embankment Material SOIL CLASSIFICATION: NORMAL ULTIMATE SHEAR PEAK SHEAR MOISTURE DRY STRESS STRESS STRESS CONTENT DENSITY (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) ( % ) (PCF) 1 2 3 TANGENT INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE COHESION - PSF PEAK ULTIMATE 0.670 0.659 3642 Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SM-SW). Sample remolded to Approximately 95% Standard Proctor Density at or near Optimum Moisture Content 1399 119.4 119.4 119.4 33.8 33.4 295.2 72.1 953 1652 3364 9.8 9.7 9.8 SAMPLE NO. 1112066 1000 2000 5000 724 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS PSF NORMAL STRESS - PSF Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS (PSF) DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT ASTM D 3080 CLIENT: Jensen Consulting PROJECT: Block One - 418 Linden Street - Fort Collins, Colorado PROJECT NO. SAMPLE LOCATION: Comp. Sample of Existing Lower 5-feet of East Embankment Material SOIL CLASSIFICATION: NORMAL ULTIMATE SHEAR PEAK SHEAR MOISTURE DRY STRESS STRESS STRESS CONTENT DENSITY (PSF) (PSF) (PSF) ( % ) (PCF) 1 2 3 TANGENT INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE COHESION - PSF PEAK ULTIMATE 0.828 0.964 4950 Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SM-SW). Sample remolded to Approximately 95% Standard Proctor Density at or near Optimum Moisture Content 1999 121.5 121.2 121.2 39.6 43.9 727.5 118.0 1797 2063 4950 8.7 8.4 8.4 SAMPLE NO. 1112066 1000 2000 5000 1118 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS PSF NORMAL STRESS - PSF Normal Stress vs. Peak Shear Stress 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRESS (PSF) Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Report created by ReSSA(2.0): Copyright (c) 2001-2006, ADAMA Engineering, Inc. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Title: River District Block One Mixed Use Project Number: 1112066 - Client: Mr. Jonathan O'Neil Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: Section 1 Description: Company's information: Name: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Street: 4396 Greenfield Drive Winsor, CO 80550 Telephone #: 970-545-3908 Fax #: 970-663-0282 E-Mail: www.earth-engineering.com Original file path and name: S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Jul 12 18:30:38 2012 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using NO reinforcement material. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 1 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT) SOIL DATA =========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³] Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c [lb/ft ²] γ φ .....1 ........Sand .........and .......Gravel .............................................. 125.0 34.0 0.0 .....2 ........Bedrock .............................................................. 135.0 20.0 2250.0 REINFORCEMENT Analysis of slope WITHOUT reinforcement. WATER Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis. SEISMICITY Not Applicable Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 2 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input -- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates. -- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on. -- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface. GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page) WATER GEOMETRY Phreatic line was specified. UNIFORM SURCHARGE Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 34.75 and ends at X1e = 38.40 [ft]. Load Q2 = 1000.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X2s = 38.40 and ends at X2e = 40.84 [ft]. Load Q3 = 500.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X3s = 40.84 and ends at X3e = 60.96 [ft]. STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 4 56 78 9 SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 3 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. # Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 3 114.00 114.00 4 200.00 114.00 Top of Layer 2 5 0.00 100.00 6 100.00 100.00 7 122.50 100.00 8 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 10 0.00 100.00 11 86.00 100.00 12 106.00 105.00 13 116.00 107.00 14 122.00 108.00 15 200.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 4 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. Y values are tabulated in the right most column. # X Y1 Y2 Yw (phreatic) 1 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 100.00 107.00 100.00 103.50 4 106.00 110.00 100.00 105.00 5 114.00 114.00 100.00 106.60 6 116.00 114.00 100.00 107.00 7 122.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 8 122.50 114.00 100.00 108.00 9 200.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 5 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point # E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS . 1 116.00 114.00 86.37 100.22 89.27 132.73 32.64 1.35 . On extreme X-entry 2 118.18 114.00 86.40 100.22 90.11 135.21 35.18 1.37 3 120.36 114.00 86.30 100.23 90.49 138.87 38.86 1.42 4 122.54 114.00 86.10 100.24 90.29 144.30 44.25 1.48 5 124.72 114.00 86.41 100.22 90.66 148.54 48.51 1.55 6 126.89 114.00 86.32 100.22 91.04 152.95 52.94 1.60 7 129.07 114.00 86.17 100.23 90.62 160.11 60.04 1.63 8 131.25 114.00 86.07 100.24 90.97 165.20 65.15 1.66 9 133.43 114.00 85.97 100.25 91.34 170.48 70.44 1.72 10 135.61 114.00 86.38 100.22 91.72 175.94 75.91 1.80 11 137.79 114.00 86.29 100.22 92.12 181.58 81.56 1.90 12 139.96 114.00 86.19 100.23 92.52 187.39 87.39 1.99 13 142.14 114.00 86.17 100.23 91.60 198.81 98.73 2.11 14 144.32 114.00 86.08 100.23 91.95 205.50 105.43 2.21 15 146.50 114.00 85.99 100.24 92.31 212.37 112.31 2.30 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. ************************* Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points) Exit Point # E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS 1 59.96 100.04 144.32 114.00 97.34 136.06 51.90 6.07 2 62.23 100.39 139.96 114.00 96.08 135.86 49.03 5.99 3 64.64 100.05 139.96 114.00 75.79 250.17 150.53 5.70 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:34:18 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.35 Critical Circle: Xc = 89.27[ft], Yc = 132.73[ft], R = 32.64[ft]. (Number of slices used = 53 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 7 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Report created by ReSSA(2.0): Copyright (c) 2001-2006, ADAMA Engineering, Inc. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Title: River District Block One Mixed Use Project Number: 1112066 - Client: Mr. Jonathan O'Neil Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: Section 1 Description: Company's information: Name: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Street: 4396 Greenfield Drive Winsor, CO 80550 Telephone #: 970-545-3908 Fax #: 970-663-0282 E-Mail: www.earth-engineering.com Original file path and name: S:\Outgoin ..... 011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Jul 12 18:30:38 2012 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using NO reinforcement material. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 1 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT) SOIL DATA =========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³] Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c [lb/ft ²] γ φ .....1 ........Sand .........and .......Gravel .............................................. 125.0 34.0 0.0 .....2 ........Bedrock .............................................................. 135.0 20.0 2250.0 REINFORCEMENT Analysis of slope WITHOUT reinforcement. WATER Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis. SEISMICITY Not Applicable Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 2 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input -- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates. -- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on. -- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface. GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page) WATER GEOMETRY Phreatic line was specified. UNIFORM SURCHARGE Load Q1 = 250.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X1s = 34.75 and ends at X1e = 38.40 [ft]. Load Q2 = 1000.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X2s = 38.40 and ends at X2e = 40.84 [ft]. Load Q3 = 500.00 [lb/ft²] inclined from verical at 0.00 degrees, starts at X3s = 40.84 and ends at X3e = 60.96 [ft]. STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 4 56 78 9 SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 3 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. # Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 3 114.00 114.00 4 200.00 114.00 Top of Layer 2 5 0.00 100.00 6 100.00 100.00 7 122.50 100.00 8 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 10 0.00 100.00 11 86.00 100.00 12 106.00 100.00 13 116.00 100.00 14 122.00 100.00 15 200.00 100.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 4 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. Y values are tabulated in the right most column. # X Y1 Y2 Yw (phreatic) 1 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 86.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 100.00 107.00 100.00 100.00 4 106.00 110.00 100.00 100.00 5 114.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 6 116.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 7 122.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 8 122.50 114.00 100.00 100.00 9 200.00 114.00 100.00 100.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 5 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point # E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS . 1 116.00 114.00 86.41 100.21 57.66 200.56 104.39 1.37 . On extreme X-entry 2 118.18 114.00 86.31 100.19 68.33 185.36 87.05 1.44 3 120.36 114.00 86.08 100.16 73.80 179.95 80.73 1.53 4 122.54 114.00 86.12 100.18 76.62 180.09 80.47 1.62 5 124.72 114.00 86.09 100.18 77.51 185.04 85.29 1.72 6 126.89 114.00 86.04 100.19 80.60 183.62 83.61 1.80 7 129.07 114.00 86.42 100.21 85.08 177.22 77.02 1.84 8 131.25 114.00 86.25 100.22 87.75 175.69 75.49 1.89 9 133.43 114.00 86.07 100.23 89.14 177.97 77.81 1.96 10 135.61 114.00 86.42 100.21 90.61 179.93 79.82 2.07 11 137.79 114.00 86.29 100.22 92.12 181.58 81.56 2.19 12 139.96 114.00 86.19 100.23 92.52 187.39 87.39 2.30 13 142.14 114.00 86.17 100.23 91.60 198.81 98.73 2.42 14 144.32 114.00 85.99 100.22 88.52 219.90 119.70 2.53 15 146.50 114.00 85.99 100.24 92.31 212.37 112.31 2.65 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. ************************* Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points) Exit Point # E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS 1 59.96 100.04 144.32 114.00 97.34 136.06 51.90 6.25 2 62.23 100.39 139.96 114.00 96.08 135.86 49.03 6.17 3 64.64 100.05 139.96 114.00 75.79 250.17 150.53 5.87 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:36:19 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_level GW.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.37 Critical Circle: Xc = 57.66[ft], Yc = 200.56[ft], R = 104.39[ft]. (Number of slices used = 54 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 7 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Report created by ReSSA(2.0): Copyright (c) 2001-2006, ADAMA Engineering, Inc. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Title: River District Block One Mixed Use Project Number: 1112066 - Client: Mr. Jonathan O'Neil Designer: Earth Engineering Consultants Station Number: Section 1 Description: Company's information: Name: Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Street: 4396 Greenfield Drive Winsor, CO 80550 Telephone #: 970-545-3908 Fax #: 970-663-0282 E-Mail: www.earth-engineering.com Original file path and name: S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Original date and time of creating this file: Thu Jul 12 18:30:38 2012 PROGRAM MODE: ANALYSIS of a Complex Slope using NO reinforcement material. Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 1 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 INPUT DATA (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT) SOIL DATA =========== Soil Layer #: =========== Unit weight, [lb/ft ³] Internal angle of friction, [deg.] Cohesion, c [lb/ft ²] γ φ .....1 ........Sand .........and .......Gravel .............................................. 125.0 34.0 0.0 .....2 ........Bedrock .............................................................. 135.0 20.0 2250.0 REINFORCEMENT Analysis of slope WITHOUT reinforcement. WATER Unit weight of water = 62.45 [lb/ft ³] Water pressure is defined by phreatic surface in Effective Stress Analysis. SEISMICITY Not Applicable Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 2 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 DRAWING OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY - COMPLEX - Quick Input -- Problem geometry is defined along sections selected by user at x,y coordinates. -- X1,Y1 represents the coordinates of soil surface. X2,Y2 represent the coordinates of the end of soil layer 1 and start of soil layer 2, and so on. -- Xw,Yw represents the coordinates of phreatic surface. GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers (see details in next page) WATER GEOMETRY Phreatic line was specified. UNIFORM SURCHARGE .Surcharge ................load, .........Q1 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q2 ..........................................None ... .Surcharge ................load, .........Q3 ..........................................None ... STRIP LOAD ............................None ........................................... Toe point 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 3 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF QUICK SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. # Xi Yi Top of Layer 1 1 0.00 100.00 2 96.00 100.00 3 114.00 114.00 4 200.00 114.00 Top of Layer 2 5 0.00 100.00 6 100.00 100.00 7 122.50 100.00 8 200.00 100.00 Top of Phreatic Line 10 0.00 100.00 11 96.00 100.00 12 116.00 105.00 13 126.00 107.00 14 131.00 108.00 15 200.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 4 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 TABULATED DETAILS OF SPECIFIED GEOMETRY Soil profile contains 2 layers. Coordinates in [ft.] Water was described by phreatic line. Y values are tabulated in the right most column. # X Y1 Y2 Yw (phreatic) 1 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 96.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 3 100.00 103.11 100.00 101.00 4 114.00 114.00 100.00 104.50 5 116.00 114.00 100.00 105.00 6 122.50 114.00 100.00 106.30 7 126.00 114.00 100.00 107.00 8 131.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 9 200.00 114.00 100.00 108.00 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 5 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSIS Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each entry point (considering all specified exit points) Entry Point # E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS . 1 118.00 114.00 95.98 100.01 53.71 190.90 100.24 1.03 . On extreme X-entry 2 120.75 114.00 95.94 100.00 55.20 201.21 109.09 1.17 3 123.50 114.00 95.83 99.97 52.56 219.61 127.23 1.31 4 126.25 114.00 95.98 100.02 28.10 286.81 198.74 1.45 5 129.00 114.00 95.78 99.95 -22.76 426.54 347.44 1.59 6 131.75 114.00 95.89 99.99 -1040.09 3059.86 3170.38 1.73 7 134.50 114.00 96.04 100.04 -308.19 1274.12 1241.71 1.86 8 137.25 114.00 95.76 99.95 -448.24 1775.27 1761.43 2.00 9 140.00 114.00 95.87 99.99 -536.07 2167.68 2162.10 2.13 10 142.75 114.00 95.86 100.06 97.47 180.46 80.42 2.26 11 145.50 114.00 95.82 100.06 97.63 189.12 89.08 2.38 12 148.25 114.00 95.75 100.06 96.07 204.65 104.60 2.51 13 151.00 114.00 95.82 100.05 93.91 223.72 123.68 2.63 14 153.75 114.00 95.89 100.05 87.62 261.26 161.43 2.76 15 156.50 114.00 95.96 100.05 76.64 322.18 222.97 2.89 Note: In the 'Status' column, OK means the critical circle was identified within the specified search domain. 'On extreme X-entry' means that the critical result is on the edge of the search domain; a lower Fs may result if the search domain is expanded. ************************* Results in the tables below represent critical circles identified between specified points on entry and exit. (Theta-exit set to 50.00 deg.) The most critical circle is obtained from a search considering all the combinations of input entry and exit points. Critical circles for each exit point (considering all specified entry points) Exit Point # E x i t P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] E n t r y P o i n t ( X , Y ) [ft] C r i t i c a l C i r c l e ( Xc , Yc , R ) [ft] Fs STATUS 1 69.75 100.23 140.00 114.00 99.97 132.14 43.95 7.53 2 72.12 100.45 137.25 114.00 99.88 130.29 40.77 7.39 3 75.11 100.09 134.50 114.00 99.64 129.11 38.00 7.24 Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA -- Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis River District Block One Mixed Use Present Date/Time: Mon Aug 20 11:59:59 2012 S:\Outgoing\2011\1112066\Slope Stability\Section 1_FS1.0.MSE Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 CRITICAL RESULTS OF ROTATIONAL AND TRANSLATIONAL STABILITY ANALYSES Rotational (Circular Arc; Bishop) Stability Analysis Minimum Factor of Safety = 1.03 Critical Circle: Xc = 53.71[ft], Yc = 190.90[ft], R = 100.24[ft]. (Number of slices used = 51 ) Translational (2-Part Wedge; Spencer), Direct Sliding, Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D Three-Part Wedge Stability Analysis N O T C O N D U C T E D REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT: DRAWING SCALE: 0246810[ft] Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 ReSSA Version 2.0 River District Block One Mixed Use Copyright © 2001-2006 ADAMA Engineering, Inc. www.GeoPrograms.com License number ReSSA-200512 Page 7 of 7 www.GeoPrograms.com APPENDIX B HEC-RAS Modeling Results HEC RAS output for Representative Section (228494) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El Max Chl Dpth Hydr Depth C W.S. Elev Vel Chnl Vel Left Vel Right Shear Chan Shear LOB Shear ROB (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (lb/sq ft) (lb/sq ft) (lb/sq ft) Reach-1 228637 PF 4 13700 4940 13.8 10.02 4953.8 7.04 0.8054087 Reach-1 228494 PF 4 13700 4939.5 13.26 12.83 4952.76 10.5 4.63 1.56 1.63153 1.1 0.63 Reach-1 228117 PF 4 13700 4937.5 14.25 11.12 4951.75 10.13 1.82 1.615692 0.28 Reach-1 227437 PF 4 13300 4934.9 12.24 6.34 4947.14 13.66 3.518092 APPENDIX C Riprap Sizing Calculations Part 654 National Engineering Handbook Technical Supplement 14C Stone Sizing Criteria TS14C–6 (210–VI–NEH, August 2007) National Cooperative Highway Research Pro- gram Report 108 This method (Anderson, Paintal, and Davenport 1970) is suggested for design of roadside drainage channels handling less than 1,000 cubic foot per second and a maximum slope of 0.10 foot per foot. Therefore, this application can be used for high- or low-energy appli- cations. Photo documentation shows that most of the research was done on rounded stones. This method will give more conservative results if angular rock is used. τ o = γ RS e (eq. TS14C–2) τc = 4 D 50 (eq. TS14C–3) therefore, D RSe 50 4 = γ (eq. TS14C–4) τc = critical tractive stress γ = 62.4 lb/ft 3 R = hydraulic radius (ft) S e = energy slope (ft/ft) D 50 = median stone diameter (ft) A similar approach has been proposed by Newbury and Gaboury (1993) for sizing stones in grade control structures. This relationship is: tractive force (kg/m 2 ) = incipient diameter (cm) USACE—Maynord method This low-energy technique for the design of riprap is used for channel bank protection (revetments). This method is outlined in USACE guidance as provided in EM 1110–2–1601, and is based on a modification to the Maynord equation: D FS C C C d V S v T K g d W S w 30 0 5 1 2 5 = × × × × × −    CDOT Drainage Design Manual Bank Protection 17-17 ds = 12 ft for D50 < 0.06 in (17.2) ds = 8.55 D50 -0.11 for D50 ≥ 0.06 in (17.3) where: ds = estimated probable maximum depth of scour, ft D50 = median diameter of bed material, in Note: If D50 is in feets, then ds = 6.51 D50 -0.11. The depth of scour predicted by Equations 17.2 and 17.3 (see HEC 11) must be added to the magnitude of predicted degradation and local scour (if any) to arrive at the total required toe depth. 17.6 DESIGN GUIDELINES 17.6.1 Rock Riprap This Section contains design guidelines for the design of rock riprap. Guidelines are provided for bank slope, rock size, rock gradation, riprap layer thickness, filter design, edge treatment and construction considerations. In addition, typical construction details are illustrated. In most cases, the guidelines presented apply equally to rock and rubble riprap. Concrete rubble may be used as riprap, provided that it is clear of asphalt and that any protruding reinforcing steel is cut off flush with the surface. 17.6.2 Bank Slope A primary consideration in the design of stable riprap bank protection schemes is the slope of the channel bank. For riprap installations, normally the maximum recommended face slope is 1V:2H. Although it is generally not recommended, the steepest slope acceptable for rubble revetment is 1V:1.5H. To be stable for a given wave or tractive force, a rubble revetment with a steep slope will need larger rubble sizes and greater thicknesses than one with a flatter slope. 17.6.3 Rock Size The stability of a particular riprap particle depends, in part, on its size, expressed either in terms of its weight or equivalent diameter. In the following Sections, relationships are presented for evaluating the riprap size required to resist particle and wave erosion forces. Resistance to Particle Erosion Two methods or approaches have been used historically to evaluate a material’s resistance to particle erosion. These methods are the permissible velocity approach and the permissible tractive force (shear stress) approach. Under the permissible velocity approach, the channel is assumed stable if the computed mean velocity is lower than the maximum permissible velocity. The tractive force (boundary shear stress) approach focuses on stresses developed at the interface between flowing water and materials forming the channel boundary. Design Relationship A riprap design relationship that is based on tractive force theory, yet has velocity as its primary design parameter, is presented in Equation 17.4. The design relationship in Equation 17.4 is based on the assumption of uniform or gradually varying flow. Figure 17.4 presents a graphical solution to Equation 17.4. Equation 17.5 can be solved using Figures 17.5 and 17.6: D50 = 0.00594 C 3 V a /( 0 . 5 d avg 1 . 5 K 1 ) (17.4) CDOT Drainage Design Manual Bank Protection 17-18 Figure 17.4 Riprap Size Relationship CDOT Drainage Design Manual Bank Protection 17-19 Figure 17.5 Bank Angle Correction Factor (K1) Nomograph CDOT Drainage Design Manual Bank Protection 17-20 Figure 17.6 Angle of Repose of Riprap in Terms of Mean Size and Shape of Stone where: D50 = the median riprap particle size, m; C = Csg; Cswf = correction factor (described below); Va = the average velocity in the main channel, m/s; davg = the average flow depth in the main flow channel, m. K1 is defined as: K1 = [1 − (sin2 θ/sin2 φ)]0.5 (17.5) where: θ = the bank angle with the horizontal; φ = the riprap material’s angle of repose. The average flow depth and velocity used in Equation 17.4 are main channel values. The main channel is defined as the area between the channel banks (see Figure 17.7). Equation 17.4 is based on a rock riprap specific gravity of 2.65 and a stability factor of 1.2. The stability factor (SF) is defined as the ratio of the average tractive force exerted by the flow field and the riprap material’s critical shear stress. If the stability factor is greater than 1, the critical shear stress of the material is greater than the flow-induced tractive stress, and the riprap is considered to be stable. Equations 17.6 and 17.7 present correction factors for other specific gravities and stability factors: CDOT Drainage Design Manual Bank Protection 17-21 Figure 17.7 Definition Sketch; Channel Flow Distribution Csg = 2.12/(Ss − 1)1.5 (17.6) where: Ss = the specific gravity of the rock riprap. Csf = (SF/1.2)1.5 (17.7) where: SF = the stability factor to be applied. Figure 17.8 provides a direct solution for the correction factor, C, based on Equations 17.6 and 17.7. The stability factor is used to reflect the level of uncertainty in the hydraulic conditions at a particular site. Equation 17.4 is based on the assumption of uniform or gradually varying flow. In many instances, this assumption is violated or other uncertainties come to bear; for example, debris and/or ice impacts or the cumulative effect of high shear stresses and forces from wind and/or boat generated waves. The stability factor is used to increase the design rock size when these conditions must be considered. Table 17.3 presents guidelines for the selection of an appropriate value for the stability factor. Application Application of the relationship in Equation 17.4 is limited to uniform or gradually varying flow conditions that are in straight or mildly curving channel reaches of relatively uniform cross section; however, design needs dictate that use of the relationship may be necessary in non-uniform, rapidly varying flow conditions often present in natural channels with sharp bends and steep slopes and in the vicinity of bridge piers and abutments. To fill the need for a design relationship that can be applied at sharp bends and on steep slopes in natural channels and at bridge abutments, it is recommended that Equation 17.4 be used with appropriate adjustments in velocity and/or stability factor as outlined in the following Sections. CDOT Drainage Design Manual Bank Protection 17-22 Figure 17.8 Correction Factor For D50 Riprap Size HEC-11 Method Excel Output (*Don’t Touch!) (1) D50 = D50' *Cf*Cs (2) D50' = .005943 Va 3 / [K1.5 *d0.5] (3) Cf = [SF / 1.2]1.5 (4) Cs = 2.12 / [Gs - 1]1.5 Where: SF = 1.5 factor of safety (1.5 suggested maximum for this method) Va = 3.20 average channel velocity (m/s) Gs = 2.65 specific gravity of stone d = 3.91 average water depth in channel (m) K = 0.505274 side slope correction factor = [1-sin2 /sin2 )]0.5 33.69 angle of side slope to horizontal (1.5H:1V) 40 angle of repose for stone D50' = 0.27 riprap size (m) uncorrected for angle of side slope Cf = 1.40 Cs = 1.00 D50 = 0.38 riprap size (m) that which 50% of the riprap material is finer D50 = 15.09 riprap size (in) that which 50% of the riprap material is finer LEGEND User Input US Army Corps of Engineers - Maynord Method Excel Output (*Don’t Touch!) D50 = FS*Cs*Cv*Ct*d*[{g/(gs-g)}0.5*V/(g*d*K)0.5]2.5 Where: d = 3.91 average water depth in channel (m) FS = 1.5 factor of safety (1.5 suggested maximum for this method) V = 3.2 local depth averaged velocity (m/s) g = 9.81 acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2) g = 1000 unit weight of water (1000 kg/m3) gs = 2649 unit weight of stone (kg/m3) Cs = 0.3 stability coefficient = 0.30 for angular stones Cv = 1 vertical velocity distribution coefficient = 1.0 for straight channels Ct = 1 thickness coefficient = 1.0 for riprap thickness equal to d100 K = 0.505274 side slope correction factor = [1-sin2 /sin2 )]0.5 33.69 angle of side slope to horizontal (1.5H:1V) 40 angle of repose for stone D50 = 0.42 riprap size (m) than which 50% of the riprap material is finer D50 = 16.70 riprap size (in) than which 50% of the riprap material is finer LEGEND User Input APPENDIX D Geotextile Calculations APPENDIX E Earth Engineering Consultants Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall Design  × × ×         γ γ γ . . (eq. TS14C–5) where: D m = stone size in ft; m percent finer by weight d = water depth (ft) FS = factor of safety (usually 1.1 to 1.5), suggest 1.2 C s = stability coefficient Z=2 or flatter C=0.30, (0.3 for angular rock, 0.375 for rounded rock) C v = velocity distribution coefficient (1.0 for straight channels or inside of bends, calculate for out- side of bends) C T = thickness coefficient (use 1.0 for 1 D 100 or 1.5 D 50 , whichever is greater)) γw = specific weight of water (lb/ft 3 ) γs = specific weight of stone (lb/ft 3 ) V = local velocity; if unknown use 1.5 V average g = 32.2 ft/s 2 K 1 = side slope correction as computed below K1 2 = 1 − 2 sin sin θ φ (eq. TS14C–6) where: θ = angle of rock from the horizontal φ = angle of repose (typically 40º) Note that the local velocity can be 120 to 150 percent of the average channel velocity or higher. The outside bend velocity coefficient and the side slope correction can be calculated: C R V = −  W    1 . 283 0 . 2 log (eq. TS14C–7) where: R = centerline bend radius W = water surface width In the analysis used to develop this formula, failure was assumed to occur when the underlying material became exposed. It should be noted that while many of the other techniques specify a D 50 , Maynord (1992) specifies a D 30 which will typically be 15 percent small- er than the D 50 . This assumes a specific gradation of: 1 . 8 D 15 < D 85 < 4 . 6 D 15 (eq. TS14C–8) The USACE developed this method for the design of riprap used in either constructed or natural channels which have a slope of 2 percent or less and Froude numbers less than 1.2. As a result, this technique is not appropriate for high-turbulence areas. Maynord’s side-slope and invert equation is for cases where the protective blanket is constructed with a relatively smooth surface and has no significant pro- jections. It is appropriate for use to size stone-toe protection. However, it has been suggested that with some adjustment to the coefficients (typically using a velocity coefficient of 1.25 and a local velocity equal to 160% of the channel velocity), Maynord’s method can 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