Thesis Geotechnical Analysis of Red Mud Srivastava

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon th e quality o f th e

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQ uest Information and Learning

300 North Z eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF RED MUD CLAY
A Thesis
by
DHIRENDRA SRIVASTAVA
Submitted to the College o f Graduate Studies

Texas A&M University-Kingsville
in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f
MASTER OF SCIENCE
August 2002
Major Subject: Civil Engineering
UMI Number: 1411857
__ ___ (ft
UMI
UMI Microform 1411857
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF RED MUD CLAY
A Thesis
by
DHIRENDRA SRIVASTAVA
Approved as to style and content by:
£ph Sai, Ph.D., P.E.

(Chairman o f Committee)
ft/(>odL/
Thomas L. McGehee, Ph.D.
_
fed C. Benson, Ph.D., P.E.
(Member) (Member)
Mohammed A. Fi Pat Leelani, Ph.D., P.E.

(Memb (Head of Department)
C -
lvares, Ph.D.
College o f Graduate Studies)
August 2002
ABSTRACT
Geotechnical Analysis o f Red Mud Clay
(August 2002)
Dhirendra Srivastava, BE, Regional Engineering College, Rourkela, India
Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Joseph Sai
Geotechnical analysis is usually used to determine the essential properties o f a
soil whose behavior is affected under known field-loading condition. The present study
was conducted to determine the feasibility o f dry stacking of bauxite waste with minimal
adverse effect on the integrity o f the disposal facility. Red mud samples obtained from a
disposal facility were analyzed for their geotechnical properties. Tests conducted include
confined consolidation, vane shear, Atterberg limits, specific gravity, moisture content
and pH. Data from these tests were used to predict the stability of different heights and
slopes for stacking the red mud in the storage facility.
Laboratory testing showed the specific gravity o f samples ranged from 2.72 -
3.70, plastic limit from 1 8 -4 9 , liquid limit from 47 - 94, shear strength value from 0 Kpa
- 9 Kpa, pH from 10.30 - 12.20, moisture content from 31.2% - 228.8%, and void ratio
from 1.00 - 2.37 for loading pressure o f 5 Kpa and 0.05 - 2.01 for loading pressure o f 80
Kpa.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
Slope stability analysis using REAME software showed that the disposal facility
is stable under present loading condition, but when the red mud is stacked at the peak
elevation o f 70 feet, the structure would not be stable.
iv
DEDICATION
To my Parents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the support o f several people. I
would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Joseph Sai, who read my numerous revisions, guided
me through all the stages of this project, and assisted me in the field sampling o f the Red
Mud cores. I want to thank Dr. Thomas McGehee, Mr. Robert Wilkinson, Ms. Heidi
Mclntire, and Mr. Javier Perez for assisting me in the field sampling. Also, I want to
thank Dr. Fred Benson, Dr. Mohammed Faruqi, and Dr. Thomas McGehee for agreeing
to be committee members and reviewing the thesis work. Thanks to Dr. Pat Leelani for
all the financial support provided throughout my graduate studies at Texas A&M
University - Kingsville.
I would also like to thank Mr. Kwadwo Sarpong for assisting me in carrying out
the experiments, even at odd hours. Also, thanks to Mr. Victor Diaz-Deleon and Mr.
Chris Peacock for their help.
Thanks also to Mr. Tom Ballou and Mr. Jack Oates for managing the project.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... I
l-1 Disposal of Red Mud .................................................................. 2
1-2 Settling slope o f Red Mud .......................................................... 2
1-2 Effect o f organic materials on slope of tailings ......................... 3
l-4 Effect o f resting time on slope o f tailings ................................ 4
15 Effect o f infiltration o f rainwater on slopeo f tailings ................ 4
1-6 Strength tests ............................................................................... 5
CHAPTER H. SCOPE OF STUDY ..................................................................... 6
2.1 Objective ...................................................................................... 6
2.2 Methodology ................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER HI. TESTS ........................................................................................... II
3.1 Confined consolidation test ......................................................... 11
3.2 Vane shear test ............................................................................. 13
3.3 Atterberg limits test ..................................................................... 14
3.4 Specific gravity test ..................................................................... 15
3.5 Moisture content test ................................................................... 15
3.6 pH test ........................................................................................... 16
3.7 Total unit weight test ................................................................... 17
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 18
4.1 Data entry ...................................................................................... 18
4.2 Software used ................................................................................ 18
vii
4.3 Methods o f analysis ...................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Simplified Bishop method .............................................. 20
4.3.2 Spencer method ............................................................... 21
4.3.3 Modified Spencer m ethod............................................... 22
4.3.4 Janbu method ................................................................... 23
4.4 Input parameters for REAME .................................................... 25
4.5 Results from laboratory analysis ................................................ 27
4.5.1 Confined consolidation test ............................................ 28
4.5.1.1 Void ratio at 5 Kpa .......................................... 28
4.5.1.2 Void ratio at 10 Kpa ...................................... 28
4.5.1.3 Void ratio at 20 Kpa ....................................... 29
4.5.1.4 Void ratio at 40 Kpa ....................................... 29
4.5.1.5 Void ratio at 80 Kpa ....................................... 30
4.5.2 pH test ............................................................................. 30
4.5.3 Moisture content test ....................................................... 31
4.5.3.1 Moisture content test (wet-wet basis) ............ 31
4.5.3.2 Moisture content test(dry weight basis) ........ 32
4.5.4 Atterberg limits test ........................................................ 33
4.5.4.1 Liquid limit test ............................................... 33
4.5.4.2 Plastic limit test ............................................... 33
4.5.5 Shear test ......................................................................... 34
4.5.6 Specific gravity test ........................................................ 35
4.5.7 Total unit weight test ...................................................... 35
4.6 Assumptions used in the modeling ............................................. 37
4.7 Results from slope stability analysis .......................................... 38
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................... 43
4.9 Conclusions................................................................................... 43
4.10 Recommendation ......................................................................... 43
viii
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 45
APPENDIX A. DATA FROM LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF RED MUD
SAMPLES .................................................................................. 48
APPENDIX B. SAMPLE PLOTS OF DATA FROM LABORATORY
ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 59
APPENDDCC. INPUT PARAMETERS FOR REAME .................................... 74
APPENDIX D SAMPLE REAME OUTPUT ..................................................... 78
APPENDIX E LOG OF BORINGS ........................................................................ 107
APPENDIX F EFFECT OF VARIATION IN SHEAR AND TOTAL UNIT
WEIGHT VALUES .......................................................................... 128
VITA ................................................................................................................................ 130
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1 Sampling pipe with check valve at the top ......................................... 8
FIGURE 2 Aerial view of dumping facility and field sampling locations ......... 9
FIGURE 3 Sampling equipment preparation prior to sampling .......................... 10
FIGURE 4 Consolidation ring with soil sample prior to trimming .................... 12
FIGURE 5 Consolidation test equipment ............................................................. 12
FIGURE 6 Vane shear apparatus ........................................................................... 13
FIGURE 7 pH meter ............................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 8 Forces in simplified Bishop method ................................................... 20
FIGURE 9 Forces in Spencer method ................................................................... 21
FIGURE 10 Forces in modified Spencer method .................................................... 22
FIGURE 11 Forces in Janbu method ....................................................................... 24
FIGURE 12 Location o f failure surface for present situation using Janbu
Method ................................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 13 Location o f failure surface for future situation without change of
slope using Janbu M ethod.................................................................. 40
FIGURE 14 Location o f failure surface for future situation with peak elevation
o f 70 feet above mean sea level using Janbu Method ...................... 41
FIGURE B 1 Void ratio at loading o f 5 kPa for soil samples at various depths ... 60
FIGURE B2 Void ratio at loading o f 10 kPa for soil samples at various depths .. 61
FIGURE B6 pH for soil samples at various depths .................................................. 65
FIGURE B7 Moisture content (Wet- Wet) for soil samples at various depths .... 66
FIGURE B8 Moisture content (Dry Weight) for soil samples at various depths .. 67
FIGURE B9 Liquid limit for soil samples at various depths .................................. 68
FIGURE B10 Plastic limit for soil samples at various depths .................................. 69
FIGURE B 11 Shear values for soil samples at various depths ................................ 70
FIGURE B12 Cohesion values for soil samples at various depths ........................ 71
FIGURE B 13 Specific gravity for soil samples at various depths .......................... 72
FIGURE B 14 Total unit weight for soil samples at various depths ....................... 73
FIGURE FI Model cross section ............................................................................ 129
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 Number of equations and unknowns in simplified Bishop method .. 20
TABLE 2 Number of equations and unknowns in Spencer method .................. 21
TABLE 3 Number of equations and unknowns in modified Spencer method .. 23
TABLE 4 Number of equations and unknowns in Janbu method ...................... 24
TABLE 5 Sample parameter values ..................................................................... 25
TABLE 6 Statistical analysis o f laboratory results of soil samples .................. 27
TABLE 7 Factor o f safety from slope stability analysis for all the different
situations .............................................................................................. 38
TABLE AI Void ratios for the soil samples at different loadings ........................ 49
TABLE A2 Shear and cohesion values for soil samples ....................................... 51
TABLE A3 Atterberg limits values for soil samples ............................................. 52
TABLE A4 Specific gravity values for soil samples .............................................. 54
TABLE A5 Moisture content values for soil sam ples............................................. 55
TABLE A6 pH values for the soil samples ............... ,......................................... 56
TABLE A7 Total unit weight values for the soil samples ..................................... 57
TABLE FI Variation o f Cohesion and Total unit weight values on Factor of
Safety ................................................................................................... 129
xil
C h apter I
I n t r o d u c t io n
The red mud landfill facility has been the major area for the disposal o f the
bauxite residue stream from a plant near Corpus Christi. A dry stacking process is
planned for constructing a 70 feet high pyramid-shaped waste disposal structure. This
study determined if the structural integrity of the facility could support the dry stacking of
the red mud to the proposed height o f 70 feet.
The company processes aluminum ore (bauxite) at its main plant using the Bayer
Process. The Bayer process is used for refining bauxite to smelting grade alumina, the
precursor to aluminum. This process involves slurrying ore with a caustic soda solution.
After completion of the process, the resulting high alkalinity residue, “red mud” is
pumped through a belowground pipeline to the red mud storage facility. A typical Bayer
Alumina refinery can generate 10,000 tonnes per day residue, o f which 40-80% are fine
mud solids (red mud), with the remainder being coarse sand (Nguyen & Boger, 1998).
The present trend is towards a ‘semi-dry’ disposal method, which requires the fine mud
to be separated from the sand fraction and dewatered to a solids concentration o f 50-60 %
by weight o f slurry before being transported by pipeline for disposal. The operating
factors that determine the different settling rates o f the sand fraction are not at all clear
(Li & Rutherford, 1996).
This thesis follows the style and format o£ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal
2
1.1 Disposal of red mud
The mud is discharged, spread, and allowed to consolidate and dry in layers at the
disposal site, in manner similarly reported in Nguyen & Boger (1998). Several mud
washings are usually performed to recover the caustic soda added in the Bayer process.
However, the pH value of the red mud slurry that is transported to the storage site is
extremely high, typically 11.0 - 12.5 (Li, 2001). Depending on the quality o f the bauxite
processed, between I to 2.5 tonnes o f bauxite residue are generated per tonne o f alumina
produced (Nguyen & Boger, 1998). Hind et. al. (1999) found that dry disposal o f bauxite
residue enhanced dewatering, evaporative drying, decreased environmental risks and
lowered overall disposal costs.
The current disposal site is surrounded by dikes constructed o f clayey soils excavated
from the bed area and from within and outside the beds. The excavations were controlled
to maintain a ‘natural clay liner’ between the red mud and underlying granular layers
present at some locations.
1.2 Settling slope of red mud
The settling o f red mud is the most important liquid-solid separation procedure, and
directly affects the product efficiency o f an alumina refinery (Yanly et. al. 1995). The
settling behavior o f the tailings is an important economic factor as it controls purity, an
important environmental factor for the red mud-tailing disposal. The main aim o f red
mud stacking is to use minimum space for the disposal o f the residue and to rapidly
obtain consolidated material. The consistency o f the mud slurry plays a key role in the
3
steepness (angle) o f the stacking slope. The slope of the stacked tailings is a key factor
that determines the amount o f tailings that can be disposed in the stacking area.
The consistency o f the tailing has a direct influence on the slope o f the conical shape
deposited pile. The internal angle o f friction o f the slurry overcomes the gravitational
and dynamic forces o f the flow at the discharge point. This slows down the slurry, which
eventually stops at its natural angle of repose. It was established in the laboratory by
Marie-J. Belanger (2001) that the solids concentration, the particle size distribution (+100
mesh size fraction) and remolding history have an effect on the yieldstress values
measured on red mud. Marie-J. Belanger (2001) also showed a directrelationship
between the solids concentration and the slope: slope increases with the increase in the
solids concentration. She also showed that a coarser distribution o f particles would result
in a decrease of the yield stress measured for the same solids concentration. It was also
established that an increase in the concentration o f sand content tends to decrease the
stacking slope and an increase in yield stress in the stacking slope.
1.3 Effect of organic materials on slope of tailings
A study by Yanly et. al. (1995) showed that organic materials have a great influence
on the sedimentation properties o f red mud and that organics with high molecular weight
made the sedimentation rate and solids density o f red mud worse, and difficult to settle.
They found out that the effect o f an organic with low molecular weight on settling o f red
mud is insignificant. Addition o f a flocculent such as A-600 in an appropriate quantity
can eliminate the effect o f organics on the sedimentation properties o f red mud (Yanly et.
al, 1995).
4
1.4 Effect o f resting time on slope of tailings
The influence o f resting time on slope o f tailings was investigated by Marie-J.
Belanger (2001). Data from that study indicated that when the sequence o f deposition
was too rapid, a new layer of mud was deposited on a relatively new layer o f mud
underneath, which is more or less unconsolidated. The real thickness of unconsolidated
material is then equivalent to the thickness of both layers added together. This increase
in thickness o f unconsolidated material may cause the whole slab to slide. The slope
drop could be up to 1% if enough resting time is not given between stacking. But if the
resting time is sufficient enough, the first layer will have time to consolidate, i.e. regain
strength, and a second layer o f mud can be deposited without sliding.
1.5 Effect of infiltration of rainwater on slope of tailings
Many slope stability studies have indicated that the infiltration of rainwater into a
slope decreases the stability o f the slope (Gasmo et. al, 2001), and (Johnson and Sitar,
1990). A numerical study by Gasmo et. al (2001) revealed that the amount o f infiltration
was highest at the crest o f a slope. Gasmo et. al. (2001) conducted a case study, which
revealed that it was difficult to quantify the amount o f infiltration occurring in a slope
with the numerical model. However, the numerical model was able to illustrate the
effect o f infiltration on slope stability through the combined use of seepage and slope
stability analyses. They also found out that a large amount o f infiltration at the crest
would increase the pore-water pressures in the soil and decrease the stability o f the slope
at that location. If the increase in pore-water pressures were large enough, failure o f the
slope might then occur.
5
1.6 Strength tests
The vane shear method allows the yield stress of a soil to be measured directly and
accurately from a single-point determination (Nguyen, 1983; Nguyen and Boger, 1983,
1985). A recent study demonstrated that destruction o f the mud structure by mechanical
agitation could lower the yield stress by several orders o f magnitude (Nguyen and Boger,
1998).
C h a p t e r II
Scope of St u d y
2.1 Objective
A series of field studies within the landfill and around the perimeter o f the site were
conducted to:
• Obtain samples from different depths o f the stacked red mud.
• Determine the geotechnical properties o f the red mud samples.
• Evaluate the slope stability o f the dry stacked red mud.
2.2 Methodology
The soil within the study area was very wet; i.e. water content was so high that it
was impractical to move on this wet soil without a floating device. Swamp buggies
capable o f floating on this wet soil were used to transport and move sampling team and
equipment throughout the sampling location. The location of each sample was recorded
using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. Sampling equipment for the first
phase o f study consisted of 3-inch diameter PVC pipe with a check valve on the top end
as shown in Figure 1. One 20-foot long section o f this sampling pipe was pressed
vertically into the soil. The samples were taken from 16 selected locations, as shown in
Figure 2 throughout the mud disposal site. The selection o f sampling locations was also
affected by the feasibility o f taking sample from each location. If the location was too
dry, it was not possible to manually push the pipe into the mud, and
7
if the location was too wet, it was practically impossible to reach the location with the
swamp buggy. The sampling locations are designated as WP in Figure 2. Samples were
withdrawn from the soil after they reached the maximum depth that was possible through
manual pushing. The ends o f the tubes were capped and the samples labeled prior to
shipment to TAMUK laboratory for geotechnical parameter analyses. The maximum
depth reached through this system was 10 feet. In order to obtain core samples from
depths greater than 10 feet, a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe was vertically pressed into the
mud until it reached the bottom o f the stacked mud. Then a 3-inch diameter PVC pipe
two feet long with the top end sealed with check valve was pushed to obtain two feet o f
core sample. A helical auger was then pushed to clean the soil remaining in the first two
feet section o f the 4-inch pipe, and to a depth o f one foot below the sampling depth. The
next 3 feet o f sample was then taken after the clean out process. This method proved to
be useful and samples as deep as 15 feet were taken. Figure 3 shows the sampling
equipment preparation prior to sampling.
Figure 1 - Sampling pipe with check valve at the top
9
vvw |r
V N «T2
WP#$
Figure 2 - Aerial view o f the dumping facility and field sampling locations
Figure 3 - Sampling equipment preparation prior to sampling
C h a p t e r HI
T e st s
The following tests were conducted on the collected samples:
1. Confined consolidation
2. pH
3. Moisture content
4. Atterberg limits
5. Vane shear
6. Specific gravity
7. Total unit weight
O f these tests, the values obtained from Vane shear test and Total unit weight test
were used for the slope stability analysis. It was found from a slope stability analysis on
a sample model that increase in shear strength of soil by 50% increased the factor of
safety of the model by 1.06%. And, increase in the total unit weight of soil by 13.64%
decreased the factor o f safety o f the model by 2.13%. The details of the study are in
Appendix F.
3.1Confined consolidation test
The Confined Consolidation test (undrained) o f the red mud clay was done on
each sample according to the ASTM D-2346-96 standards. A consolidation ring (Figure
4) filled with soil sample was placed in the consolidation test equipment (Figure 5) and
11
12
the consolidation test o f the soil was performed. The soil was tested at different loadings.
The minimum load used was 5 Kpa, and the maximum load was 80 Kpa, depending on
the performance o f the sample. The Readings were taken at 6 seconds, IS seconds, 30
seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 8 minutes, IS minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2
hours, 4 hours, 8 hours and 24 hours from the time o f application o f the load. Further
readings were taken every 24 hours until the readings stabilized. The void ratios for the
soil samples at different loadings are given in Table A1 in Appendix A.
Figure 4 - Consolidation ring with soil sample prior to trimming
Figure S - Consolidation test equipment
13
3.2 Vane shear test
The Vane Shear testing on the samples was done according to the ASTM D-4648-
94 standards. The vane shear apparatus (Figure 6) was inserted on the top o f the soil and
was rotated clockwise to get the failure. The shear and cohesion values for the soil
samples are given in Table A2 in Appendix A.
Figure 6 - Vane shear apparatus
14
3.3 Atterberg limits test
The Atterberg limits testing based on ASTM D-4318-95a was done on each
sample. The tests included Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit.
The soils used for the liquid limit test were dried out in the oven at 110° Celsius
to determine the moisture content. A graph o f moisture content versus number o f blows
was then plotted in a semi-log scale with the number o f blows as the logarithmic axis.
The equation o f the line was found and the moisture content at 25 blows was determined
to represent the liquid limit. The soils used for the plastic limit test were initially air
dried to let the moisture content of the soil to decrease to workable limits. The average
moisture content was determined and represented the plastic limit. The average liquid
limit and plastic limit values for the soil samples are given in Table A3 in Appendix A.
15
3.4 Specific gravity test
The Specific Gravity test was done according to the ASTM D-854-92 standards.
The test made use o f the oven-dried soil sample, pycnometer, water, weighing scale and
Bunsen burner. Details o f the test are in ASTM D-845-92. The specific gravity values of
the soil samples are given in Table A4 in Appendix A. The specific gravity was then
calculated using Eq 1 below:
Grb = M0 / [M0 + (M a - Mb)] (1)
Where:
G = specific gravity,
M0 = mass o f sample o f oven-dry soil,
Ma = mass o f pycnometer filled with water at temperature Tb,
Mb = mass o f pycnometer filled with water and soil at temperature Tb,
Tb = temperature o f the contents o f the pycnometer where mass Mb was
determined, °C.
3.5 Moisture content test
The Moisture content test was based on ASTM D-2216-92. A portion o f the wet
sample was taken in a container, and placed in the oven at 110° C. The moisture content
values for the soil samples are given in Table A5 in Appendix A. The weight o f the
16
oven-dried soil was then taken and the moisture content o f the soil was determined using
Eq 2 below:
W = [(Mews - MCS)/(MCS- Mc)] x 100 = Mw x 100 / Ms (2)
Where:
W = moisture content %,
Mcws = mass o f container and wet specimen,
Mcs = ma o f container and oven dry specimen,
Mc = mass o f container,
Mw= mass o f water, and
Ms = mass of solid particles.
3.6 pH test
The pH values o f the samples were determined by ASTM D-4972. To measure
pH, a specimen o f the soil was oven dried and then equal portion o f dried soil (25 gram)
and de-ionized water (25 ml) were mixed together and allowed to settle for 1 hour. The
pH was then measured using HACH pH-measuring electrode attached to the pH meter
(Figure 7). The pH values for the samples are given in Table A6 in Appendix A.
17
Figure 7 - pH meter
3.7 Total unit weight test
The consolidation ring, top and bottom plates were weighed prior to filling the
ring with soil sample. The top and bottom o f the ring were then covered with plates. The
weight of the consolidation ring filled with sample together with the bottom and top
plates was also taken. The difference in the weight gave the weight o f the sample, which
was divided by the volume o f the consolidation ring, yielding the total unit weight o f the
sample. The total unit weight values for the soil samples are given in Table A7 in
Appendix A.
C h a p t e r IV
D a t a A n a l y sis
4.1 Data entry
The data entry for all o f the experiments was done in Microsoft Excel. These data
were then used to create tables and graphs as needed. The tables are in Appendix A, and
the graphs are in Appendix B.
4.2 Software used
Rotational Equilibrium Analysis o f Multilayered Embankments (REAME, 1998)
software was used for the slope stability analysis. REAME can be used for slope stability
analysis based on 2D or 3D slip surfaces. In the 2D analysis, six different methods can
be used to determine the factor o f safety based on circular, noncircular, or composite slip
surfaces; while in the 3D analysis, only the first three methods can be used. The
composite slip surfaces are composed partly o f circular and partly o f noncircular surfaces
with a center o f rotation. Because the input of composite and circular surfaces are the
same with the exception o f a single parameter, any discussion on circular surfaces, unless
specifically noted, is also applicable to composite surfaces as well.
A salient feature o f REAME is the use of a simple and efficient method for
numbering the boundary lines and entering the coordinates for different soils. Once the
boundary lines are numbered properly, they are used directly in the computation with no
further need o f rearrangements. Other features that make REAME very efficient for
analyzing circular slip surfaces include the use o f radius control zones to control the
18
19
number o f circles, and an automatic search routine to locate the most critical failure
circle. The user must specify the coordinates o f all possible noncircular slip surfaces and
REAME will compare each factor o f safety and determine which is most critical.
In its present dimensions, REAME can be applied to problems involving a
maximum o f 50 boundary lines, or 49 different soils, 80 slices, and 100 external and
internal forces. A maximum o f 20 noncircular slip surfaces can be specified and run at
the same time to determine which has the lowest factor o f safety. REAME can be used
to analyze slopes o f any configuration with a large number o f different soil layers. The
slope can be subjected to a large number of external line loads applied on the slope
surface as well as internal line loads, such as anchors, soil nails, and geogrids, applied on
the slip surface. Using a soil layer with a large unit weight but no shear strength can
simulate uniformly distributed loads.
4.3 Methods of analysis
The methods utilized in REAME are based on the theory o f limit equilibrium by
assuming that the shear strength along a given slip surface be reduced by a factor of
safety in order to keep the sliding mass in a state o f limit equilibrium. For
nonhomogenous slopes with a large number o f soils, the most widely used procedure in
engineering practice for the 2D analysis is the method o f slices, which can be extended to
a 3 D analysis by the method o f columns. The following methods o f analysis were used
while using REAME:
20
4.3.1 Simplified Bishop method
The simplified Bishop method is the most widely used method recognized by the
engineering profession. By assuming the forces between two slices as horizontal (Figure
8), and considering the vertical equilibrium of each slice, the effective normal force, N \
can be determined even without knowing the magnitude o f the horizontal forces on both
sides of the slice. Since the shear force along the bottom of slice has a component in the
vertical direction, N’ depends on shear force, which varies with the factor o f safety.
Table I shows the number o f equations and unknowns. The factor o f safety can be
determined by using Eq 3 below:
Factor of safety = Resisting Moment / Overturning Moment (3)
El
N’
Figure 8 - Forces in simplified bishop method
TABLE I - Number o f equations and unknowns in simplified bishop method
Equations No. Unknowns No.
Force equilibrium in vertical direction n Effective normal forces N ’ n
Overall moment equilibrium I Factor of safety, F 1
Total n+l Total n+l
21
4.3.2 Spencer method
The Spencer method assumes that the side forces between slices incline at a
DELTA angle with the horizontal, as shown in Figure 9. The method considers the force
equilibrium for each slice and the overall moment equilibrium. The number o f equations
and unknowns are tabulated in Table 2.
Delta
Delta
N’
Figure 9 - Forces in Spencer method
TABLE 2- Number o f equations and unknowns in Spencer method
Sum o f horizontal forces = 0 n Normal forces between slices, E n-l
Sum o f vertical forces = 0 n Effective normal forces, N’ n
Overall moment equilibrium I Factor o f safety, F 1
Angle of side force, DELTA I
Total 2n+l Total 2n-H
22
4.3.3 Modified Spencer method
The modified Spencer method is the most refined method because it satisfies all
the equations o f equilibrium. The assumption that all the side forces incline at a DELTA
angle with the horizontal is the same as in Spencer method but the moment is taken at
midpoint o f each base. To make the number of equations equal to the number o f
unknowns, the height of the side force, h, is considered as an unknown, as shown in
Figure 10. The number of equations and unknowns are in Table 3.
Delta
Moment center
El
Delta
N*
Figure 10 - Forces in modified Spencer method
23
TABLE 3- Number o f equations and unknowns in modified Spencer method
Sum of horizontal forces = 0 n Normal forces between slices, E n-1
Sum o f vertical forces = 0 n Height of forces between slices, h n-l
Sum of moment at mid base = 0 n Effective normal forces, N’ n
Factor of safety, F I
Angle of side force, DELTA 1
Total 3n Total 3n
4.3.4 Janbu method
The Janbu method is similar to the modified Spencer method. The major
difference lies in the way to determine the shear force, S. If the location o f the line o f
thrust is assumed at the bottom third o f the lice interface, then h is given for each slice.
The method used for the analysis in REAME for this project assumes that the rate of
change in the interslice normal force is small and can be neglected, thus enhancing the
convergence. Figure 11 shows the forces in Janbu method. The number o f equations and
unknowns is given in Table 4.
24
Assumed Line
o f thrust
El Moment center
Figure 11 - Forces in Janbu method
TABLE 4- Number o f equations and unknowns in Janbu method
Sum o f horizontal forces = 0 n Normal forces between slices, E n-1
Sum o f vertical forces = 0 n Shear forces between slices, S n-l
Sum o f moment at mid base = 0 n Effective normal forces, N’ n
Factor of safety, F 1
Total 3n Total 3n-l
Since the number of equations is one more than the number o f unknowns, the
equation o f moment equilibrium for the last slice is not used in the analysis. So, the factor
o f safety obtained will be much less than other methods.
4.4 Input parameters for REAME
Parameters used by REAME are listed in Appendix C. Table 5 shows sample
values o f parameters that were input in the program for this study.
TABLE 5 - Sample parameter values
PARAMETER SAMPLE UNIT

VALUES
C 81.89 Psf
DMIN 0
G 100.61 Pcf
GW 62.4 Pcf
INFC 1
LINO 1
MTHD 3
NAC 3
NBL 16
NBP 2
NCASE 3
NCIR 5
ND12 4
ND23 5
NEP j
NFO 0
NLRU 0
NOL 1
NPBL 12
NPRT 0
NPWT 4
NRCZ 2
NSDP 0
NSDW 0
NSLI 10
NSPG 1
NSRCH 0
NSS 0
NSUB 1
PHID 0 degrees
RDEC 0
SEIC 0
26
TABLE 5 continued...
PARAMETER SAMPLE UNIT

VALUES
SSN 0
THREED 0
TITLE Future Projection with water table Modified
Spencer Method
X 3340 feet
XBL 177.14 feet
XINC 800 feet
XWT 67.54 feet
Y 44.1 feet
YBL 17 feet
YINC 800 feet
YWT 22 feet
27
4.5 Results from laboratory analysis
The results o f the laboratory analysis o f soil samples are given in Table 6 and are
summarized as below:
TABLE 6 - Statistical analysis o f laboratory results o f soil samples.
DEPTH VOID RATIO AT LOADING OF LIQUID PLASTIC

5 KPA 10 KPA 20 KPA 40 KPA 80 KPA LIMIT LIMIT
0
2 1.96*0.30 2.08±0.45 1.86*0.37 1.50±0.25 1.03*0.30 66±14 33±4
3 2.17±0.36 1.85*0.28 1.37*0.16 0.87*0.19 62±8 27±1
4 1.98*0.27 1.90*0.20 1.73*0.19 1.46*0.24 1.09±0.32 62±8 35±7
6 2.04±0.47 2.05±0.29 1.79*0.25 1.39±0.28 0.97±0.36 66±10 29=6
8 1.39*0.54 1.33±0.47 1.24*0.35 1.23*0.28 0.87±0.08 64 38
9 1.97±0.53 1.57*0.30 1.16±0.21 0.68±0.13 67±12 28±3
10 2.04*0.1 I 1.87*0.19 l.66±0.28 1.37*0.37 l.03±0.46 59±15 27±13
12 2.68±1.2 2.24*0.81 1.62*0.40 0.87±0.42 58±1 25±5
15 3.10*1.4 2.53*0.90 1.83*0.55 0.93±0.79 7l±20 26±0
DEPTH SPECIFIC PH COHESION SHEAR TOTAL MOISTURE CONTENT

GRAVITY UNIT WT. WET WET DRY
WEIGHT
psf KPA pcf % %
0 11.37±0.45 45.6*5.9 85.5*18.4
2 3.22±0.28 11.64*0.28 78*32 4*2 107.6*6.1 43.4*4.4 77.6*13.2
3 3.22±0.11 11.56*0.33 51*77 2*4 106.2*8.3 44.8*6.0 83.1*19.9
4 3.17±0.13 11.53*0.41 86*38 4*2 109.7*3.2 42.7*2.2 74.8*6.8
6 3.14±0.08 11.70*0.21 78*34 4*2 107.6*4.8 43.7*3.2 78.5*10.3
8 3.06 11.56*0.27 51*14 2*1 124.2*13.6 31.3*10.6 47.3*22.7
9 3.20±0.17 11.43*0.64 107*54 5*3 109.51*8.4 43.3*4.5 77.4*14.4
10 2.89±0.18 11.76*0.06 65*6 3*0 105.4*4.5 45.2±1.1 82.4*3.5
12 3.22±0.25 11.28*0.49 92*25 4*1 103.7*13.8 50.9*13.9 123.0*75.5
15 3.29±0.23 10.48*0.22 82*20 4*1 100.6*12.5 50.8*11.8 110.4*45.0
28
4.5.1 Confined consolidation test
The summary of results from confined consolidation test at various loadings is as
follows:
4.5.1.1 Void ratio at loading of 5 Kpa
The results of void ratio at a loading of 5 Kpa are given in Table A1 in Appendix
A and Figure B1 in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the void ratio ranged from 1.69
to 2.32, with an average void ratio o f 1.96. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from
1.77 to 2.37, with an average void ratio of 1.98. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged
from 1.7 to 2.37, with an average void ratio o f 2.04. At the depth o f 8 feet, the values
ranged from 1.00 to 1.77, with an average void ratio of 1.39. At the depth of 10 feet, the
values ranged from 1.96 to 2.12, with an average void ratio of 2.04.
The results o f void ratio at a loading o f 10 Kpa are given in Table A1 in Appendix
A and Figure B2 in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the void ratio ranged from 1.51
to 2.96, with an average void ratio o f 2.08. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from
1.55 to 2.43, with an average void ratio o f 2.17. At the depth of 4 feet, the values ranged
from 1.66 to 2.22 with an average void ratio o f 1.90. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values
ranged from 1.62 to 2.34, with an average void ratio o f 2.05. At the depth o f 8 feet, the
values ranged from 1.00 to 1.66, with an average void ratio o f 1.33. At the depth o f 9
feet, the values ranged from 1.31 to 2.50, with an average void ratio o f 1.97. At the depth
o f 10 feet, the values ranged from 1.73 to 2.00, with an average void ratio o f 1.87. At the
depth of 12 feet, the values ranged from 1.75 to 4.13, with an average void ratio o f 2.68.
29
At the depth o f 15 feet, the values ranged from 1.55 to 4.26, with an average void ratio o f
3.10.
The results o f void ratio at 20 Kpa are given in Table A l in Appendix A and
Figure B3 in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the void ratio ranged from 1.23 to 2.49,
with an average void ratio o f 1.86. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from 1.37 to
2.06, with an average void ratio o f 1.85. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from
1.47 to 2.13, with an average void ratio o f 1.73. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged
ranged from 0.99 to 1.48, with an average void ratio of 1.24. At the depth o f 9 feet, the
values ranged from 1.14 to 2.06, with an average void ratio of 1.57. At the depth o f 10
of 12 feet, the values ranged from 1.57 to 3.16, with an average void ratio o f 2.24. At the
depth of 15 feet, the values ranged from 1.50 to 3.08, with an average void ratio o f 2.53.
The results o f void ratio at 40 Kpa are given in Table A l in Appendix A and
Figure B4 in Appendix B. At the depth of 2 feet, the void ratio ranged from 0.93 to 1.85,
with an average void ratio of 1.50. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from 1.17 to
1.53, with an average void ratio o f 1.37. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from
1.19 to 2.00, with an average void ratio o f 1.46. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged
30
of 12 feet, the values ranged from 1.24 to 2.27, with an average void ratio o f 1.62. At the
depth o f 15 feet, the values ranged from 1.39 to 2.45, with an average void ratio o f 1.83.
The results of void ratio at 80 Kpa are given in Table Al in Appendix A and
figure B5 in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the void ratio ranged from 0.56 to 1.47,
with an average void ratio o f 1.03. At the depth of 3 feet, the values ranged from 0.80 to
1.07, with an average void ratio o f 0.87. At the depth of 4 feet, the values ranged from
0.76 to 1.96, with an average void ratio o f 1.09. At the depth of 6 feet, the values ranged
o f 12 feet, the values ranged from 0.17 to 1.22, with an average void ratio o f 0.87. At the
depth o f 15 feet, the values ranged from 0.05 to 1.58, with an average void ratio o f 0.93.
4.5.2 pH test
The results o f pH test are given in Table A6 in Appendix A and Figure B6 in
Appendix B. The surface soil has pH that ranged from 10.90 to 11.87, with an average
pH o f 11.37. At the depth o f 2 feet, the values ranged from 11.19 to 12.06, with an
31
average pH o f 11.64. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from 11.15 to 11.97, with
an average pH of 11.56. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from 10.85 to 12.20,
with an average pH o f 11.53. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged from 11.41 to
11.99, with an average pH o f 11.70. At the depth o f 8 feet, the values ranged from 11.37
to 11.75, with an average pH o f 11.56. At the depth o f 9 feet, the values ranged from
10.33 to 11.89, with an average pH o f 11.43. At the depth of 10 feet, the values ranged
from 11.72 to 11.80, with an average pH of 11.76. At the depth o f 12 feet, the values
ranged from 10.94 to 11.97, with an average pH of 11.28. At the depth of 15 feet, the
values ranged from 10.30 to 10.73, with an average pH o f 10.48.
4.5.3 Moisture content test
The results for the moisture content test of soil samples is summarized as below:
4.5.3.1 Moisture content test (wet-wet basis)
The results o f moisture content test (wet-wet basis) are given in Table A5 in
Appendix A and Figure B7 in Appendix B. The surface soil has moisture content that
ranged from 35.8% to 50.5% with an average moisture content of 45.6%. At the depth of
2 feet, the values ranged from 31.1% to 51.4%, with average moisture content o f 43.4%.
At the depth of 3 feet, the values ranged from 37.3% to 52.5%, with average moisture
content o f 44.8%. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from 38.8% to 45.8%, with
average moisture content o f 42.7%. At the depth of 6 feet, the values ranged from 38.8%
to 47.9%, with average moisture content of 43.7%. At the depth o f 8 feet, the values
ranged from 23.8% to 38.8%, with average moisture content of 31.3%. At the depth o f 9
feet, the values ranged from 37.8% to 49.33, with average moisture content of 43.3%. At
32
the depth o f 10 feet, the values ranged from 44.4% to 45.9%, with average moisture
average moisture content of 50.9%. At the depth of 15 feet, the values ranged from
37.3% to 59.1%, with average moisture content o f 50.8%.
4.S.3.2 Moisture content test (dry weight basis)
The results o f moisture content test (dry weight basis) are given in Table A5 in
Appendix A and Figure B8 in Appendix B. The surface soil has moisture content that
ranged from 55.9 to 102.0%, with an average moisture content o f 85.5%. At the depth o f
2 feet, the values ranged from 45.2% to 105.6%, with average moisture content o f 77.6%.
At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from 59.6% to 110.7%, with average moisture
average moisture content o f 74.8%. At the depth of 6 feet, the values ranged from 63.5%
to 94.4%, with average moisture content o f 78.5%. At the depth of 8 feet, the values
ranged from 31.2% to 63.4%, with average moisture content o f 47.3%. At the depth o f 9
feet, the values ranged from 60.8% to 97.4%, with average moisture content o f 77.4%.
At the depth o f 10 feet, the values ranged from 79.9% to 84.9%, with average moisture
average moisture content o f 123.0%. At the depth o f 15 feet, the values ranged from
59.6% to 144.8%, with average moisture content of 110.4%.
33
4.5.4 Atterberg limits test
The results from the laboratory analysis o f soil samples for Atterberg limits are
summarized as below:
4.5.4.1 Liquid limit test
The results o f liquid limit test are given in Table A3 in Appendix A and Figure B9
in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the liquid limit ranged from 47, to 94, with an
average liquid limit o f 66. At the depth of 3 feet, the values ranged from 50 to 70, with
an average liquid limit o f 62. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from 52 to 75,
with an average liquid limit o f 62. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged from 55 to
85, with an average liquid limit o f 66. At the depth of 8 feet, liquid limit was 64. At the
depth o f 9 feet, the values ranged from 49 to 82, with an average liquid limit o f 67. At
the depth o f 10 feet, the values ranged from 49 to 70, with an average liquid limit of 59.
At the depth o f 12 feet, the values ranged from 57 to 59, with an average liquid limit of
58. At the depth o f 15 feet, the values ranged from 57 to 87, with an average liquid limit
o f 71.
4.5.4.2 Plastic limit test
The results o f plastic limit test are given in Table A3 in Appendix A and Figure
BIO in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the plastic limit ranged from 25 to 39, with an
average plastic limit o f 33. At the depth of 3 feet, the values ranged from 26 to 27, with
an average plastic limit o f 27. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from 25 to 49,
with an average plastic limit o f 35. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged from 24 to
44, with an average plastic limit o f 29. At the depth o f 8 feet, plastic limit was 38. At the
34
depth o f 9 feet, the values ranged from 23 to 32, with an average plastic limit o f 28. At
the depth o f 10 feet, the values ranged from 18 to 36, with an average plastic limit o f 27.
At the depth o f 12 feet, the values ranged from 21 to 30, with an average plastic limit o f
25. At the depth o f 15 feet, all of the plastic limit values were 26.
4.5.5 Shear test
The results from shear test are given in Table A2 and Figure Bl I in Appendix B.
At the depth o f 2 feet, the shear value ranged from 2 Kpa to 5 Kpa, with average shear
value o f 4 Kpa. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from 0 Kpa to 9 Kpa, with an
average shear value of 2 Kpa. At the depth of 4 feet, the values ranged from 2 Kpa to 9
Kpa, with an average shear value o f 4 Kpa. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged from
2 Kpa to 5 Kpa, with an average shear value o f 4 Kpa. At the depth o f 8 feet, the values
ranged from 2 Kpa to 3 Kpa, with an average shear value of 2 Kpa. At the depth o f 9
feet, the values ranged from 3 Kpa to 8 Kpa, with an average shear value o f 5 Kpa. At
the depth of 10 feet, all of the shear values were 3 Kpa. At the depth o f 12 feet, the
values ranged from 3 Kpa to 6 Kpa, with an average shear value of 4 Kpa. At the depth
o f 15 feet, the values ranged from 3 Kpa to 5 Kpa, with an average shear value o f 4 Kpa.
35
4.5.6 Specific gravity test
The results from specific gravity test are given in Table A4 and Figure B13 in
Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the specific gravity ranged from 2.72 to 3.70, with
an average specific gravity value of 3.22. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from
3.09 to 3.36, with an average specific gravity of 3.22. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values
ranged from 2.96 to 3.42, with an average specific gravity o f 3.17. At the depth o f 6 feet,
the values ranged from 2.98 to 3.28, with an average specific gravity of 3.14. At the
depth o f 8 feet, the specific gravity was 3.06. At the depth o f 9 feet, the values ranged
from 2.98 to 3.43, with an average specific gravity o f 3.20. At the depth o f 10 feet, the
values ranged from 2.76 to 3.02, with an average specific gravity o f 2.89. At the depth of
12 feet, the values ranged from 2.88 to 3.54, with an average specific gravity o f 3.22. At
the depth o f 15 feet, the values ranged from 3.02 to 3.43, with an average specific gravity
o f 3.29.
4.5.7 Total unit weight test
The results from total unit weight test are given in Table A7 in Appendix A and
Figure B14 in Appendix B. At the depth o f 2 feet, the total unit weight value ranged
from 92.0 pounds per cubic feet to 116.5 pounds per cubic feet, with an average total unit
weight of 107.6 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 3 feet, the values ranged from
99.7 pounds per cubic feet to 119.7 pounds per cubic feet, with an average total unit
weight o f 106.2 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 4 feet, the values ranged from
weight o f 109.7 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 6 feet, the values ranged from
36
weight o f 107.6 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 8 feet, the minimum total unit
weight was 114.6 pounds per cubic feet to 133.8 pounds per cubic feet, with an average
total unit weight o f 124.2 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 9 feet, the values ranged
from 102.4 pounds per cubic feet to 123.4 pounds per cubic feet, with an average total
unit weight o f 109.5 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 10 feet, the values ranged
from 102.3 pounds per cubic feet to 108.6 pounds per cubic feet, with an average total
unit weight o f 105.5 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth o f 12 feet, the values ranged
from 87.0 pounds per cubic feet to 115.6 pounds per cubic feet, with an average total unit
weight o f 103.7 pounds per cubic feet. At the depth of 15 feet, the values ranged from
weight o f 100.6 pounds per cubic feet.
37
4.6 Assumptions used in the modeling
The assumptions used in the model for the scenarios were as follows:
1. The cross section shown in Figure 2 was used. This cross section runs through the
two feeding points, and does not intersect any of the sampling points taken on either
traverse.
2. The average soil properties at each depth were used as input to the model.
3. After the depth of 12 feet, the soil properties for the 15 feet layer were applied to all
the layers below until the natural clay liner.
4. The slope o f the natural clay liner was assumed by finding out the elevations of two
points o f the liner, and drawing a straight line and extending them on both sides.
5. Since there was no data on the friction angle of the soil, it was assumed as zero.
6. The present soil properties were used for the layers in the future scenarios, i.e. the
layer properties from present situation were projected at same depth to top of the
feeding pipe for the future situations.
7. The soil properties of the stiff rigid layers were not sampled because of the limitations
o f the sampling system. Although the author recognizes this heterogeneity, we could
not get these samples until a better sampling system is devised.
38
4.7 Results from slope stability analysis
The slope stability analysis was performed by considering three different
scenarios. These scenarios were:
1. Present situation with the peak elevation o f 38.1 feet above mean sea level.
2. Future situation without the change in current slope trend with the peak elevation o f
44.1 feet above mean sea level, and
3. Future situation with the peak elevation of 70 feet above mean sea level.
These three situations were considered first without any water table, and then with the
water table at the elevation o f 22 feet above mean sea level. Four methods o f analysis
were used for all the above-mentioned situations. The methods o f analysis were:
1. Simplified Bishop method
2. Spencer method
3. Modified Spencer method, and
4. Janbu method.
39
The outputs o f all the cases are given in Appendix D. The factor o f safety
obtained for each case from the slope stability analysis are summarized in Table 7 below:
TABLE 7 - Factor o f safety from slope stability analysis for all the different situations
CASE METHOD FACTOR O F SAFETY PEAK

G r id 1 G rid 2 ELEVATION
Without With Without With Above MSL
in feet
water Water water Water
table table table table
PRESENT Simplified Bishop 4.12 4.12 2.19 2.19 38.1
Spencer 4.12 4.12 2.19 2.19
Modified Spencer 4.12 4.12 2.19 2.19
Janbu 2.58 2.58 2.04 2.04
FUTURE Simplified Bishop 3.31 3.31 1.83 1.83 44.1
WITHOUT Spencer 3.31 3.31 1.83 1.83
CHANGE OF Modified Spencer 3.31 3.31 1.83 1.83
SLOPE Janbu 1.62 1.62 1.71 1.71
FUTURE Simplified Bishop 1.44 1.44 1.63 1.63 70
WITH
70 FEET Spencer 1.44 1.44 1.63 1.63
ELEVATION Modified Spencer 1.44 1.44 1.63 1.63
Janbu 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66
The failure locations for some o f the above cases are shown below, namely,
present situation with Janbu method in Figure 12, future situation without change o f slope
with Janbu method in Figure 13, and future situation with peak elevation o f 70 feet above
Mean Sea Level with Janbu method in Figure 14.
40
Present Water Table Janbu Method

CENTER AT (2840,38) RADIUS- 28.251 SEIS. COEF.- 0.000
FACTOR OF SAFETX (2D) - 2.043 BX JANBU METHOD (METHOD 6)
Texas ASM University
800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4800 5600 6400 7200 8000
DISTANCE IN FEET
Figure 12 - Location o f failure surface for present situation using Janbu method.
41
Future Projection with water table Janbu Method

so
C E N T E R A T ( 2 6 4 0 ,2 4 4 ) R A D IU S — 2 3 4 .2 3 4 S E I S . C O E F .- 0 .0 0 0
9 9 0 H H > < t * r W
FA C T O R O F S A F E T Y (2 D ) - 1 .7 1 3 B X IU M E T H O D ( M E T H O D 6 )
43
3 6
29
21
91 H
14
•4 H M •*
T e x a s ASM U n iv e rs ity
0
0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 00 0 4 80 0 5 6 0 0 6 4 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 0 0 0
D IS T A N C E IN F E E T
Figure 13 - Location o f failure surface for future situation without change o f slope using
Janbu method.
42
Future Projection 70 feet Janbu Method

100
E CEETER AT(2840,70) RADIUS- 60.267 SEIS. COEF.- 0.000
L FACTOR OF SAFETY (2D) 6SS BE JANBU METHOD (METHOD 6)
86
E
V
A 71
T
r
0 37
K
43
I
E
29
P
E
E 14
I Texas University
800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4800 3600 6400 7200 8000
DISTANCE IN FEET
Figure 14 - Location of failure surface for future situation with peak elevation of 70 feet
above mean sea level using Janbu method.
43
4.8 Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was not performed to test the variability o f each
assumption. A further study is recommended to review each parameter.
4.9 Conclusions
It can be seen that the structure will be stable in the future if the present slope
trend is continued and to a peak elevation o f about 44 feet. But, when the peak elevation
is increased to 70 feet, then the factor o f safety according to Janbu method becomes 0.66,
which is much lower than the industry standards of 1.3. Hence, the structure will be
unstable at the peak elevation of 70 feet. It can also be noted that no two soil samples
have similar geotechnical parameters.
4.10 Recommendations
REAME makes use of only three geotechnical parameters namely, total unit
weight, effective cohesion and the friction angle. A slope stability software which uses
more than three geotechnical parameters should be used to check the accuracy o f the
results from REAME. Also, the friction angle values of the red mud samples were not
available at the time o f performing the slope stability analysis, and a default value o f zero
was used for the slope stability analysis. Hence, it is recommended that the tests on the
red mud samples should be performed to find out the friction angle. And, those friction
angle values should be substituted in the REAME to find out the factor o f safety.
44
Most o f the samples were taken around the feeding pipes and very few o f these
samples were taken far from the feed points (Figure 2). More samples should be taken at
different locations along the cross section used in the model.
REFERENCES
Belanger, M.J., “Red Mud Stacking”, Light Metals 2001, pp. 71-77.
D-854-92, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity o f Soils, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Pages 8 8 -9 1 , Section 4, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420
- D 4914, 1998.
D-2216-92, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content o f Soil and Rock, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pages 188 - 191,
Section 4, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420 - D 4914, 1998.
D-2345-96, Standard Test Method for One-dimensional Consolidation Properties o f
Soils, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pages 207 - 216, Section 4, Volume
04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420 - D 4914, 1998.
D-4318-95a, Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index
of Soils, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pages 519 - 529, Section 4,
Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420 - D 4914, 1998.
45
46
D-4648-94, Standard Test method for Laboratory Miniature Vane Shear Test for
Saturated Fine-Grained Clayey Soil, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pages
767 - 772, Section 4, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I): D 420 - D 4914, 1998.
D-4972, Standard Test Method for pH o f Soils, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Section 4, Volume 04.09.
Gasmo, J.M., Rahardjo, H., and Leong E.C., “Infiltration effects on stability of a residual
soil slope”, Journal o f Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 26, 2000, pp. 145-165.
Hind, R.A., Bhargava S.K., and Grocott, S.C., “The Surface Chemistry o f Bayer Process
solids: a review”, Journal of Colloids and Surfaces, vol. 146, 1999, pp. 359-374.
Huang, Y.H., “REAME (Rotational Equilibrium Analysis of Multilayered
Embankments)”, University o f Kentucky, 1998.
Johnson, K.A., and Sitar, N. “Hydrologic conditions leading to debris-flow initiation”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 27, 1990, 789-801.
Li., L.Y., “A study o f iron mineral transformation to reduce red mud tailings”, Journal of
Waste Management, vol. 21,2001, pp. 525-534.
47
Li, L.Y., and Rutherford G.K., “Effect o f bauxite properties on the settling of red mud”,
International Journal o f Mineral Processing, vol. 48. 1996, pp. 169-182.
Nguyen, Q.D., and Boger, D.V., “Application o f rheology to solving tailings disposal
problems”, International Journal o f Mineral Processing, vol. 54, 1998, pp. 217-233.
Yanly, X., Shiwen, B., and Zijian, Lu, “The effect o f organics on the settling o f red mud
slurry”, Light Metals, 2001, pp. 79-82.
APPENDIX A
DATA TABLES
48
49
TABLE A1 - Void ratios for the soil samples at different loadings
VOID RATIO AT LOADING OF:

SAMPLE
# 5 KPA 10 KPA 20 KPA 40 KPA 80 KPA
3-1 2.32 2.14 2.04 1.85
3-2 1.93 1.89 1.76 1.64
3-3 2.37 2.34 2.27 2.17 2.01
3-4 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.93
3-5 2.12 2.00 1.85 1.63 1.35
4-1 1.74 1.62 1.59 1.53 1.44
4-2 1.86 1.76 1.55 1.27 0.91
4-3 1.70 1.62 1.43 1.19 0.86
4-4 1.77 1.66 1.48 1.20 0.81
4-5 1.96 1.73 1.46 1.10 0.70
5-1 1.69 1.51 1.23 0.93 0.57
5-2 2.37 2.22 2.01 2.00 1.96
6-1 2.10 1.83 1.70 1.53 1.47
7-1 2.17 1.70 1.46 1.10
7-2 1.77 1.71 1.55 1.21 0.90
8-1 1.76 1.54 1.21
8-2 1.72 1.48 1.20
8-3 1.86 1.45 0.97
9-1 1.43 1.19 0.89
9-2 2.13 1.72 1.22
10-t 1.56 1.24 0.88
10-2 1.66 1.34 0.99
1 l-l 2.27 1.80 1.25
12-1 1.95 1.63 1.21
12-2 1.74 1.54 1.19
12-3 1.74 1.52 1.19
13-1 2.49 1.72 0.74
13-2 2.05 1.82 1.40 0.93
13-3 2.09 1.76 1.31 0.79
14-1 2.06 1.79 1.43 0.94
14-2 2.06 1.80 1.41 0.96
14-3 2.34 2.12 1.29 0.82
15-1 2.33 2.04 1.63 1.16
15-2 1.66 1.47 1.26 0.92
16-1 2.96 2.45 1.53 0.56
16-2 1.85 1.60 1.19 0.76
16-3 2.25 1.89 1.36 0.87
A-l 2.25 1.93 1.49 0.98
A-2 2.31 1.94 1.49 1.01
A-3 1.99 1.80 1.31 0.88
50
TABLE A1 continued...
A-4 1.75 1.57 1.24 0.86

B-l 2.29 2.06 1.53 1.07
B-2 2.00 1.72 1.33 0.90
B-3 2.50 2.06 1.43 0.65
B-4 4.13 3.10 1.74 0.17
B-5 4.26 3.02 1.65 0.05
C-2 2.15 1.72 1.34 0.98
C-3 2.47 1.52 1.04 0.53
C-4 3.85 3.16 2.27 1.22
C-5 3.49 3.08 2.45 1.58
D-l 2.43 2.04 1.43 0.80
D-2 1.62 1.49 1.24 0.71
D-3 1.56 1.35 1.11 0.67
D-4 1.81 1.71 1.49 1.13
D-5 1.55 1.50 1.39 1.15
F-l 1.55 1.37 1.17 0.92
G-l 2.35 1.84 1.23 0.59
G-2 1.78 1.53 1.12 0.56
G-3 1.31 1.14 0.91 0.67
G-4 1.86 1.66 1.38 0.99
51
TABLE A2 - Shear and cohesion values for soil samples
SAMPLE# SHEAR COHESION SAMPLE# SHEAR COHESION

kPa psf kPa psf
3-1 4.90 102.36 14-2 2.35 49.09

3-2 3.53 73.74 14-3 3.53 73.74
3-3 3.33 69.56 15-1 4.90 102.36
3-4 1.96 40.94 15-2 3.92 81.89
3-5 3.33 69.56 16-1 2.94 61.42
4-1 3.92 81.89 16-2 4.90 102.36
4-2 4.90 102.36 16-3 7.84 163.78
4-3 4.90 102.36 A-1 1.96 40.94
4-4 2.94 61.42 A-2 1.96 40.94
4-5 2.94 61.42 A-3 NO MORE SAMPLE
5-1 3.33 69.56 A-4 5.39 112.60
5-2 3.33 69.56 B-l 1.37 28.62
6-1 3.92 81.89 B-2 1.96 40.94
7-1 4.12 86.07 B-3 2.94 61.42
7-2 4.31 90.04 B-4 2.94 61.42
8-1 4.90 102.36 B-5 3.92 81.89
8-2 9.31 194.49 C-l NO MORE SAMPLE
8-3 1.96 40.94 C-2 3.92 81.89
9-1 7.65 159.81 C-3 2.94 61.42
9-2 4.31 90.04 C-4 3.92 81.89
10-1 1.96 40.94 C-5 2.94 61.42
10-2 2.75 57.45 D-l 0.00 0.00
11-1 1.96 40.94 D-2 4.90 102.36
12-1 2.94 61.42 D-3 7.84 163.78
12-2 2.75 57.45 D-4 5.88 122.83
12-3 3.92 81.89 D-5 4.90 102.36
13-1 1.96 40.94 F-l 8.82 184.25
13-2 3.14 65.59 G-l 0.00 0.00
13-3 2.94 61.42 G-2 3.92 81.89
14-1 2.94 61.42 G-3 6.86 143.31
G-4 3.92 81.89
52
TABLE A3 - Atterberg limits values for soil samples
SAMPLE# AVERAGE LIQUID PLASTICITY

PLASTIC LIMIT INDEX
LIMIT
3-1 32 63 31
3-2 49 53 4
3-3 24 56 32
3-5 18 49 31
4-1 38 60 22
4-2 37 65 28
4-3 44 70 26
4-4 38 64 26
4-5 36 70 34
5-1 38 60 22
5-2 35 63 28
6-1 38 75 37
7-1 32 52 20
7-2 32 52 20
8-1 33 54 21
9-1 29 47 18
9-2 33 52 19
10-1 32 62 30
10-2 34 60 26
1l-l 39 69 30
12-1 35 56 21
12-2 35 61 26
12-3 32 63 31
13-2 31 71 40
13-3 27 79 52
14-1 30 75 45
14-2 44 75 31
14-3 30 85 55
15-1 30 73 43
15-2 30 69 39
16-1 25 94 69
16-2 25 64 39
16-3 26 71 45
A-l 27 66 39
53
TABLE A3 continued....
SAMPLE# AVERAGE LIQUID PLASTICITY

PLASTIC LIMIT INDEX
LIMIT
A-2 23 71 48
A-3 32 73 41
A-4 21 59 38
B-l 27 70 43
B-2 28 66 38
B-3 23 82 59
C-l 26 69 43
C-2 32 58 26
C-3 28 66 38
C-5 26 85 59
D-l 26 63 37
D-2 28 55 27
D-3 27 63 36
D-4 24 57 33
D-5 26 57 31
F-l 27 50 23
G-l 27 56 29
G-2 29 56 27
G-3 30 49 19
G-4 30 58 28
54
TABLE A4 —Specific gravity values for soil samples
SPECIFIC SPECIFIC
SAMPLE# GRAVITY SAMPLE# GRAVITY
3-1 3.18 14-2 3.04
3-2 3.12 14-3 3.12
3-3 3.21 15-1 3.55
3-5 2.76 15-2 3.22
4-1 2.75 16-1 3.70
4-2 3.03 16-2 3.25
4-3 3.15 16-3 3.07
4-4 3.06 A-l 3.09
4-5 3.02 A-2 3.23
5-1 2.72 A-3 3.21
5-2 3.13 A-4 3.35
6-1 3.18 B-l 3.17
7-1 3.17 B-2 3.12
7-2 3.19 B-3 3.43
8-1 3.20 B-4 3.54
8-2 3.18 B-5 3.42
8-3 3.28 C-2 3.17
9-1 3.07 C-3 3.29
9-2 3.29 C-4 2.88
10-1 3.13 C-5 3.43
10-2 3.26 D-l 3.36
11-1 3.55 D-2 3.07
12-1 3.24 D-3 2.98
12-2 2.96 D-4 3.23
12-3 2.98 D-5 3.02
13-1 3.50 F-l 3.19
13-2 3.42 G-l 3.29
13-3 3.17 G-2 3.15
14-1 3.09 G-3 3.10
G-4 3.08
55
TABLE A5 —Moisture content values for soil samples
MO ISTURE MO ISTURE
COIS[TENT % CONITENT %
WET- DRY WET- DRY
SAMPLE# WET WEIGHT SAMPLE# WET WEIGHT
3-1 43.1 75.6 15-2 43.1 75.6

3-2 41.6 71.1 16-1 45.9 85.0
3-3 42.4 73.7 16-2 45.0 81.9
3-4 23.8 31.2 16-3 47.9 92.1
3-5 45.9 84.9 A-IT 35.8 55.9
4-1 42.3 73.2 A-IB 48.3 93.3
4-2 40.3 67.6 A-2 45.9 85.0
4-3 42.5 74.0 A-3 44.9 81.6
4-4 38.8 63.4 A-4 41.3 70.4
4-5 44.4 79.9 B-1T 44.5 80.2
5-1 43.6 77.4 B-IB 48.8 95.3
5-2 41.2 70.1 B-2 43.8 77.8
6-1 46.2 85.8 B-3 49.3 97.4
7-1 41.3 70.5 B-4 62.1 177.6
7-2 42.6 74.2 B-5 59.1 144.8
8-1 41.6 71.3 C-2T 43.0 75.5
8-2 38.8 63.5 C-2B 44.7 81.1
8-3 40.6 68.6 C-3 44.7 80.9
9-1 31.1 45.2 C-4 69.6 228.8
9-2 45.8 84.5 C-5 55.9 126.9
10-1 47.1 89.0 D-1T 48.3 93.4
10-2 45.4 83.3 D-1B 39.1 64.2
11-1 44.8 81.1 D-2 39.0 64.0
12-1 44.6 80.6 D-3 39.9 66.4
12-2 43.9 78.3 D-4 39.7 65.8
12-3 44.1 78.7 D-5 37.3 59.6
13-1 51.4 105.6 F-1T 49.0 96.2
13-2 40.7 68.6 F-1B 37.3 59.6
13-3 48.3 94.5 G-1T 50.5 102.0
14-1 42.5 73.9 G-1B 52.5 110.7
14-2 44.1 79.0 G-2 38.8 63.5
14-3 46.9 88.4 G-3 37.8 60.8
15-1 41.9 72.2 G-4 41.9 72.2
56
TABLE A6 —pH values for the soil samples
SAMPLE# pH SAMPLE# pH
3-1 11.19 15-2 11.68

3-2 11.46 16-1 12.01
3-3 11.53 16-2 10.90
3-4 11.37 16-3 11.85
3-5 11.80 A-IT 10.90
4-1 11.60 A-1B 11.74
4-2 11.37 A-2 11.41
4-3 11.42 A-3 11.42
4-4 11.75 A-4 11.15
4-5 11.72 B-1T 11.55
5-1 11.49 B-IB 11.97
5-2 11.51 B-2 11.97
6-1 11.51 B-3 10.33
7-1 12.06 B-4 10.94
7-2 11.81 B-5 10.42
8-1 11.61 C-2T 11.15
8-2 11.67 C-2B 11.71
8-3 11.99 C-3 11.89
9-1 11.75 C-4 10.75
9-2 12.20 C-5 10.30
10-1 11.87 D-1T 10.90
10-2 12.08 D-IB 11.20
11-1 12.04 D-2 11.76
12-1 11.38 D-3 11.63
12-2 11.54 D-4 11.97
12-3 11.79 D-5 10.73
13-1 11.55 F-1T 11.64
13-2 10.85 F-1B 11.52
13-3 11.43 G-1T 11.87
14-1 11.25 G-IB 11.75
14-2 11.28 G-2 11.73
14-3 11.78 G-3 11.87
15-1 11.58 G-4 11.57
57
TABLE A7 - Total unit weight values for the soil samples
Dia. o f Ring 2.50 inch

Area o f 4.91 inch2
Ring
Ht. o f Ring 0.75 inch
Vol. o f Ring 3.68 inch3
SAMPLE# container wt container weight of Total Total

Unit Unit
+wet soil wet soil wt o f soil wt o f soil
■n
gm gm gm
!
Ib/ftJ
c
3-1 300.40 389.30 88.90 24.2 92.0
3-2 290.10 397.10 107.00 29.1 110.8
3-3 301.10 402.80 101.70 27.6 105.3
3-4 300.60 429.80 129.20 35.1 133.8
3-5 296.10 394.90 98.80 26.9 102.3
4-1 301.10 406.10 105.00 28.5 108.7
4-2 300.57 405.81 105.24 28.6 109.0
4-3 305.85 417.28 111.43 30.3 115.4
4-4 290.93 401.58 110.65 30.1 114.6
4-5 300.59 405.48 104.89 28.5 108.6
5-1 297.09 402.73 105.64 28.7 109.4
5-2 293.80 397.05 103.25 28.1 106.9
6-1 296.76 404.60 107.84 29.3 111.7
7-1 294.82 398.02 103.20 28.0 106.9
7-2 293.63 403.39 109.76 29.8 113.6
8-1 294.80 404.21 109.41 29.7 113.3
8-2 293.88 400.45 106.57 29.0 110.3
8-3 293.05 396.46 103.41 28.1 107.1
9-1 293.11 405.59 112.48 30.6 116.5
9-2 293.89 395.70 101.81 27.7 105.4
10-1 294.76 404.94 110.18 29.9 114.1
10-2 293.12 399.92 106.80 29.0 110.6
ll-l 294.82 396.58 101.76 27.7 105.4
12-1 293.91 395.56 101.65 27.6 105.2
12-2 293.85 399.28 105.43 28.7 109.2
12-3 293.11 398.51 105.40 28.6 109.1
13-1 294.72 391.79 97.07 26.4 100.5
13-2 291.05 395.69 104.64 28.4 108.3
58
TABLE A7 continued...
SAMPLE# container wt container weight o f Total Total

Unit Unit
+wet soil wet soil wt o f soil wt of soil
gm gm gm gm/in3 lb/ftJ
13-3 292.60 395.94 103.34 28.1 107.0

14-1 298.47 402.38 103.91 28.2 107.6
14-2 298.55 402.35 103.80 28.2 107.5
14-3 288.74 391.14 102.40 27.8 106.0
15-1 295.07 401.03 105.96 28.8 109.7
15-2 294.81 408.21 113.40 30.8 117.4
16-1 292.45 393.90 101.45 27.6 105.0
16-2 293.90 397.71 103.81 28.2 107.5
16-3 294.28 391.88 97.60 26.5 101.1
A-l 294.82 391.13 96.31 26.2 99.7
A-2 295.07 393.24 98.17 26.7 101.6
A-3 297.17 401.10 103.93 28.2 107.6
A-4 292.68 403.55 110.87 30.1 114.8
B-l 293.22 398.18 104.96 28.5 108.7
B-2 293.89 394.22 100.33 27.3 103.9
B-3 293.63 392.52 98.89 26.9 102.4
B-4 293.11 380.66 87.55 23.8 90.6
B-5 297.17 384.63 87.46 23.8 90.6
C-2 293.04 395.02 101.98 27.7 105.6
C-3 292.90 393.05 100.15 27.2 103.7
C-4 298.54 382.58 84.04 22.8 87.0
C-5 293.84 387.26 93.42 25.4 96.7
D-l 293.77 392.58 98.81 26.9 102.3
D-2 296.55 406.95 110.40 30.0 114.3
D-3 293.38 400.12 106.74 29.0 110.5
D-4 293.56 405.22 111.66 30.3 115.6
D-5 294.82 405.48 110.66 30.1 114.6
F-i 293.31 408.95 115.64 31.4 119.7
G-l 293.24 390.57 97.33 26.5 100.8
G-2 295.20 405.69 110.49 30.0 114.4
G-3 296.41 415.59 119.18 32.4 123.4
G-4 293.29 399.79 106.50 28.9 110.3
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE PLOTS OF DATA

FROM LABORATORY ANALYSIS
59
60
FIGURE B1: Void ratio at loading o f 5 kPa for soil samples at various depths
VOIDRATIO
1 .5 2 2.5
j
i
SAMPLE#
!
;
12
61
voBmmo
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 250 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
0•
SAMPLE U
♦ 3
■ 4
5
X 6
X 7
• 13
DEPTH FT.
«■ 14
X 15
A 16
A
B
10 - C
0
F
• G
12 -
k A raragt
14 •
16 -
62
VOIDRATIO
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.X 2.50 3.X 3.50
0i
SAMPLE #
« 3
• 4
5
X 6
s 7
• B
9
* 10
<3 11
12
13
14
ax * 15
16
• A
B
a C
4 0
12 • F
G
* Av«rag«
63
VOIDRATIO
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 200 250 3.00
0■
SAMPLE #
• 3
■ 4
5
X 6
X 7
• a
X 9
X 10
o 11
if 12
13
1 8 14
a -A < 15
16
• A
8
A C
O
12 * F
G
A Avtragx
16
VOIORATIO
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
0
SAMPLE#
2 • 3
* 4
5
X 6
4 X 7
• 8
■r 9
6 A 10
X 11
DEPTH FT.
12
13
6 14
< 15
16
• A
10
B
X C
A O
12 » F
G
4 Average
14
16
65
FIGURE B6: pH for soil samples at various depths
pH
12
SAMPLE*
3
■ 4
5
-A — X 6
X 7
• 8
♦ 9
A 10
o 11
DEPTH FT.
12
13
14
T 15
16
10 • A
B
a C
12 X 0
* F
G
A Avaraoe
16 J
66
FIGURE B7: Moisture content (Wet- Wet) for soil samples at various depths
MOISTURE CONTENT %
30 40 $0 60
* 1 A—
SAMPLE#
* x A. • 3
■4
5
X 6
X 7
• a
o 9
X 10
<3 11
12
13
14
* A» * 15
I 16
------ • A
B
X C
X D
« F
G
4 Av«r»Q*
FIGURE B8: Moisture content (Dry Weight) for soil samples at various depths
MOWTUKCONTENT%
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
• 3
• 4
4 5
K 6
X 7
• 8
6 9
A 10
X 11
DEPTH FT.
12
8 13
14
< 15
16
10 • A
B
o C
-2 0
12 * F
G
4 A w figt
14
16
68
FIGURE B9: Liquid limit for soil samples at various depths
MOISTURE CONTENT %
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SAMPLE#
• 3
■ 4
5
X 6
X 7
m 8
6 8
X 10
3
DEPTH FT.
11
12
13
14
15
10 - 16
• A
B
12 - □ C
- D
* F
14 ■ G
* Averaoe
18 •
69
FIGURE BIO: Plastic limit for soil samples at various depths
M OM TURE CONTENT %
10 15 30 35
SAMPLE U
• 3
« 4
5
X 0
V 7
• S
* 0
* 10
- 11
O CPTHFT.
12
13
14
* 15
10
• A
B
C
0
• F
O
A A v tra a *
70
FIGURE B I 1: Shear values for soil samples at various depths
SHEAR kPa
0.00 ZOO 4.00 6.00 8.X 10.00 1Z00 14.00
0i
SAMPLE #
• 3
• 4
5
X 6
* 7
• 8
X 9
X 10
a 11
12
13
14
< 15
16
• A
8
o C
0
• F
G
a Average
14
71
FIGURE B12: Cohesion values for soil samples at various depths
COHESION (PCF)
0 .0 0 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
0
SAMPLE #
2
# 3
• 4
4 5
X 6
X 7
• 8
6 *■ 9
- 10
- 11
DEPTH (FT.)
12
8 13
14
IS
16
10 • A
B
• C
- 0
12 * F
G
A A verage
14
16
72
FIGURE B13: Specific gravity for soil samples at various depths
M o n c GRAVITY
zoo 2.20 2.40 2.60 200 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80
0-
SAMPLE #
» 3
• 4
5
X 6
X 7
• 8
9
10
- 11
12
. 13
14
< 15
i .. 16
10 • A
i B
i C
! - D
12 • F
G
* A v tn g t
16
73
FIGURE B14: Total unit weight for soil samples at various depths
TOTAL U W T M eO fl-ffC F)
aaco 90.00 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Oi
SAMPLE #
• 3
■ 4
-rjj»- 5
X 6
X 7
• 8
9
- 10
11
DEPTH (FT.)
12
13
14
• A' - 15
I 16
10 — ■— ■ A
B
- C
- 0
12 * F
G
4 Atcraoc
14
16
APPENDIX C
INPUT PARAMETERS FOR REAME
74
75
INPUT PARAMETERS FOR REAME
C : cohesion o f each soil in psf (pounds per square feet).
DMIN : minimum depth o f tallest slice.
G : unit weight o f each soil in pcf (pounds per cubic feet).
GW : unit weight o f water in pcf.
INFC identification number for first circle.
LINO boundary line number for radius control.
MTHD method for stability analysis. 1 was assigned for normal method, 2
for simplified Bishop method, 3 for Spencer method, 4 for
modified Spencer method, 5 for Janbu method with rate o f change
term, and 6 for Janbu method without rate o f change term.
NAC number o f additional circles.
NBL : number o f boundary lines.
NBP : beginning point number of a boundary line for use in radius
control.
NCASE : number o f static and seismic cases. 1 was assigned as only the
seismic case was to be run.
NCIR : number o f circles in each radius control zone.
ND12 number o f divisions between grid points 1 and 2.
ND23 : number o f divisions between grid points 2 and 3.
NEP : end point number o f a boundary line for use in radius control.
NFO : number o f forces.
NLRU : number o f boundary lines defining excess pore pressure. If
76
NLRU = 0, the excess pore pressure is based on elevation rather
than the boundary lines.
NOL number oflines defining the boundary at the bottom o f each radius
control zone.
NPBL number o f points on each boundary line,
NPRT type o f printout. 0 was assigned for a summary table only, 1 for
the factor o f safety of each slip surface, 2 for detailed printout, and
3 for very detailed printout.
NPWT number o f points on water table or phreatic surface. Used only
when NSPG = I .
NRCZ number o f radius control zones.
NSDP number o f soils with different pore pressure ratios. If assigned 0,
there was only one pore pressure ratio for the entire slope or only
one water table with no excess pore pressure.
NSDW number o f soils with different water tables. It was assigned as 0,
as there was only one water table for the entire slope.
NSLI initial number o f slices.
NSPG condition o f seepage. 0 was assigned for no seepage.
NSRCH search or grid. 0 was assigned for grid or grid followed by search.
NSS number o f noncircular slip surfaces.
NSUB subdivision of slices. 0 was assigned, as no subdivision was
needed.
PHID angle o f internal friction in degrees for each soil.
77
RDEC : radius decrement. 0 was assigned for uniform spacing over the
entire radius control zone.
SEIC : seismic coefficient. 0 was assigned for static case.
SSN : soft soil number or boundary line as planes o f weakness.
THREED : type o f analysis. 0 was assigned for 2D analysis.
TITLE : title of project.
X x coordinates o f three points defining a grid.
XBL x coordinate o f each point on a boundary line.
XINC x increment.
XWT : x coordinate o f each point on a water table or phreatic surface.
It was used only when NSPG = 1.
Y : y coordinates of three points defining a grid.
YBL : y coordinate o f each point on a boundary line.
YINC : y increment.
YWT : y coordinate o f each point on a water table or phreatic surface.
It was used when NSPG = I .
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE REAME OUTPUT
78
79
REAME (ROTATIONAL E QU ILIB R IUM A NALYSIS OF MULTILAYERED EMBANKMENTS), 3 2 - b i t V .

T H I S 2 0 0 0 V E R S IO N (REAME2k) I S L IC E N S E D BY C I V I L ENGINEERING SOFTWARE CENTER TO
T e x a s A&M U n i v e r s i t y
INPUT F I L E NAME -C :\R E A M E D A T \p sb .D A T
TIT LE -P resen t slo p e d lin e r S im p lifie d B is h o p M ethod
NO. OF S T A T I C AND S E I S M I C CASES (NCASE) = 1
NO. OF NONCIRCULAR S L I P SURFACES (N SS ) = 0
TWO-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS ( THREED = 0 )
CASE NO. 1 S E I S M I C C O E F F IC IE N T (S E IC ) = 0 .0 0 0
NO. OF BOUNDARY L IN E S (NBL) = 16
NO. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 = 2
1 X C O O R D .= - 5 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 0
2 X C O O R D .= 1 1 0 0 0 Y C O O R D .= 0
1 X C O O R D .= 0 Y C OO R D.= 1 1 . 7
2 X C O O R D .= 1 9 2 . 8 6 Y C OO R D.= 1 1 . 5
1 X C O O R D .= 7 6 8 3 . 3 3 Y C OO R D.= 6 . 5
2 X C O O R D .= 8 0 4 0 Y C OO RD.= 6 . 5
1 X C O O R D .= 6580 Y C O O R D .= 7 . 2
2 X C O O R D .= 7 683 .3 3 Y C OO RD.= 6 . 5
3 X C O O R D .= 7700 Y C OO RD.= 9
1 X C O O R D .= 1 6 9 5 Y C O O R D .= 1 0 . 7
2 X C O O R D .= 6 2 7 0 Y C OO RD.= 7 . 3
NO. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 6 = 1 2
1 X C O O R D .= 1190 Y C OO RD.= 1 1
2 X C O O R D .= 1695 Y C OO RD.= 1 0 . 7
3 X C O O R D .= 2640 Y C OO RD.= 1 6
4 X C O O R D .= 2740 Y C OO RD.= 2 0 . 3
5 X C O O R D .= 2780 Y COORD.= 2 0 . 3
6 X C O O R D .= 3360 Y C OO RD.= 1 5
7 X C O O R D .= 4640 Y C OO RD.= 2 3 . 1
8 X C O O R D .= 5840 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 5
9 X C O O R D .= 6270 Y C OO RD.= 7 . 3
10 X C O O R D .= 6580 Y C OO RD.= 7 . 2
11 X C O O R D .= 7700 Y C OO RD.= 9
12 X C O O R D .= 7720 Y COORD.= 1 2
NO. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 7 = 1 1
1 X C O O R D .= 880 Y COORD-= 1 1 - 1 5
2 X C O O R D .= 1190 Y COORD.= 1 1
3 X C O O R D .= 2640 Y C OO RD.= 1 9
4 X C O O R D .= 2740 Y C OO RD.= 2 3 . 3
5 X C O O R D .= 2780 Y C OO RD.= 2 3 . 3
6 X C O O R D .= 3360 Y COORD.= 1 8
80
7 X COORD. = 4 6 4 0 Y COORD. = 2 6 .1
a X COORD. = 5 8 4 0 Y COORD.= 14 .5
9 X COORD. = 6 3 4 0 Y COORD. = 10
10 X COORD. = 7 7 2 0 Y COORD. = 12
li X COORD. = 7 7 3 3 . 3 3 Y COORD. = 14
1 X COORD. = 1 8 8 . 5 7 Y COORD. = 1 3
2 X COORD. = 1 9 2 . 8 6 Y COORD. = 1 1 . 5
3 X COORD. = 7 4 0 Y COORD. = 1 1 . 2
1 X COORD. = 1 8 5 .7 1 Y COORD. = 1 4
2 X COORD. = 1 8 8 .5 7 Y COORD. = 1 3
3 X C O O R D .= 740 Y C OO RD.= 1 1 . 2
4 X COORD. = 880 Y COORD. = 1 1 . 5
5 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 2 1
6 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD. = 2 5 . 3
7 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 2 5 . 3
8 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD. = 2 0
9 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD. = 2 8 . 1
10 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD.= 1 6 . 5
11 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 1 2
12 X COORD. = 7 7 3 3 .3 3 Y COORD. = 14
13 X C O O R D .= 7740 Y COORD. = 15
NO. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 0 = 1 2
1 X COORD. = 1 8 2 .8 6 Y C OO RD.= 15
2 X COORD. = 1 8 5 .7 1 Y COORD. = 14
3 X COORD. = 840 Y COORD.= 1 2
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 2 2
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y C OO RD.= 2 6 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 2 6 . 3
7 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD.= 2 1
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD. = 2 9 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y C OO RD.= 1 7 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 13
11 X COORD. = 7740 Y COORD. = 1 5
12 X COORD. = 7 7 4 6 .6 7 Y COORD. = 1 6
NO. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L I N E 1 1 = 1 2
1 X C OO R D.= 1 7 7 .1 4 Y COORD. = 1 7
2 X COORD. = 1 8 2 .8 6 Y COORD. = 1 5
3 X COORD. = 840 Y COORD. = 13
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 2 3
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD. = 2 7 . 3
6 X C OO R D.= 2780 Y C OO RD.= 2 7 . 3
7 X C O O R D .= 3360 Y COORD. = 2 2
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD. = 3 0 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 1 8 . 5
10 X C O O R D .= 6340 Y C OO RD.= 1 4
11 X C O O R D .= 7 7 4 6 .6 7 Y COORD. = 1 6
12 X C O O R D .= 7760 Y COORD. = 18
NO. O F P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L I N E 1 2 = 1 2
1 X C OO R D.= 1 7 1 .4 3 Y COORD. = 1 9
2 X C O O R D .= 1 7 7 .1 4 Y COORD. = 1 7
3 X COORD. = 840 Y COORD. = 1 5
4 X C O O R D .= 2640 Y C OO RD.= 2 5
5 X C OO R D.= 2740 Y COORD. = 2 9 . 3
6 X C OO R D.= 2780 Y C OO RD.= 2 9 . 3
7 X C O O R D .= 3360 Y COORD-= 2 4
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD. = 3 2 . 1
81
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 20 .5

10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 16
11 X COORD. = 7760 Y COORD. = 18
12 X COORD. = 7773 .3 3 Y COORD.= 20
NO. OF P O INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 13 = 1 2

1 X COORD.= 168 .5 7 Y C OO R D.= 2 0
2 X COORD. = 1 7 1 .4 3 Y COORD. = 19
3 X COORD. = 840 Y C OO R D.= 17
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD.= 2 7
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD. = 3 1 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 3 1 . 3
7 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD.= 2 6
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD.= 3 4 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD.= 2 2 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 1 8
11 X COORD. = 7 773 .3 3 Y COORD. = 2 0
12 X COORD. = 7780 Y COORD. = 2 1
NO. OF P O INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 4 = 12

1 X COORD. = 1 6 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 2 1
2 X COORD. = 1 6 8 .5 7 Y COORD. = 2 0
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 2 8
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD.= 3 2 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD.= 3 2 . 3
7 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD.= 2 7
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD. = 3 5 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 23 . 5
10 X COORD.= 6340 Y C OO R D.= 1 9
11 X COORD. = 7780 Y COORD. = 2 1
12 X COORD. = 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD. = 2 2

1 X COORD. = 160 Y COORD. * 23
2 X COORD. = 165 .7 1 Y COORD. = 2 1
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 2 9
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD. = 3 3 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 3 3 . 3
7 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD. = 2 8
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD.= 3 6 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 2 4 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 2 0
11 X COORD. = 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD. = 2 2
12 X COORD. = 7800 Y C OO RD.= 2 4
NO. OF PO INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 6 = 18

1 X COORD.=-- 5 0 0 0 Y C OO R D.= 1 5
2 X COORD. = 0 Y COORD. = 1 1 . 7
3 X COORD.= 1 2 0 Y C OO RD.= 3 0
4 X COORD. = 1 4 0 Y C OO RD.= 3 0
5 X COORD. = 1 6 0 Y C OO RD.= 23
6 X COORD. = 8 4 0 Y COORD. = 2 1
7 X COORD.= 2 6 4 0 Y C OO R D.= 3 1
8 X COORD.= 2 7 4 0 Y C OO R D.= 3 5 . 3
9 X COORD. = 2 7 8 0 Y C OO RD.= 3 5 . 3
10 X COORD. = 3 3 6 0 Y COORD. = 3 0
11 X COORD.= 4 6 4 0 Y C OO RD.= 3 8 . 1
12 X COORD. = 5 8 4 0 Y C OO RD.= 2 6 . 5
13 X COORD.= 6 3 4 0 Y C OO RD.= 2 2
14 X COORD. = 7 8 0 0 Y C OO RD.= 2 4
15 X COORD.= 7 8 4 0 Y COORD. = 3 0
82
1 5 X COO RD.= 7 8 8 0 Y COORD.= 3 0

1 7 X C OO RD.= 8 0 4 0 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
18 X C OO RD.= 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 5 . 8
L IN E N O. AND SLOPE OF EACH SEGMENT ARE:

1 0 .0 0 0
2 -0 .0 0 1
3 0 .0 0 0
4 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
5 -0 .0 0 1
5 -0 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 - 0 .0 0 9 0 -00S
-0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 1 0 0 .000 0 .0 0 2 0 .1 5 0
7 0 .0 0 0 O .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 6
-0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
8 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 1
9 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 5 0 .043 0.000
-0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
10 -0 .3 5 1 -O . 0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
11 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
12 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .150
13 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
14 -0 .3 5 0 - 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .000 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
15 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .000 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 - 0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .150
16 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 5
0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0 0 .0 0 0 -0 .1 4 7 0 .000
M IN. DEPTH OF T A L L ES T S L I C E (DMIN) = 0

NO. OF RADIUS CONTROL ZONES (NRCZ) = 2
RADIUS DECREMENT (RDEC) FOR ZONE 1 = 0

NO. OF C IR C L E S (N C IR ) FOR ZONE 1 = 5
ID NO. FOR F I R S T C IR C L E (IN F C ) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
NO. OF BOTTOM L I N E S (NOL) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
LIN E NO. (L IN O ) B E G . NO. (NBP) END NO. (NEP)
1 1 2
ID NO. FOR F I R S T C IR C L E (I N F C ) FOR ZONE 2 = 1
NO. OF BOTTOM L I N E S (NOL) FOR ZONE 2 = 1 1
L IN E NO. (L IN O ) B E G . N O. (NBP) END N O. (N EP)
16 1 2
2 1 2
8 2 3
9 3 4
7 1 2
6 1 2
5 1 2
6 9 10
4 1 2
3 1 2
16 17 18
U N IT WEIGHT OF WATER (GW) = 6 2 .4
S O I L N O. C O H E SIO N F R I C . ANGLE U N IT WEIGHT
83
1 1000 0 122
2 1000 0 123
3 1000 0 123
4 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
5 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
6 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
7 9 2 .1 2 0 1 0 3 .6 6
8 9 2 .1 2 0 1 0 3 .6 6
9 6 5 .4 9 0 1 0 5 .4 5
10 1 0 7 .4 8 0 1 0 9 .5 1
11 5 1 .1 8 0 1 2 4 .1 6
12 78 .4 8 0 1 0 7 .5 6
13 8 6 .1 7 0 1 0 9 .7
14 50 .7 6 0 1 0 6 .2 4
15 7 8 .1 0 1 0 7 .5 6
NO SEEPAGE
USE GRID
NO. OF S L I C E S ( N S L I ) = 10
NO. OF ADD. C IR C L E S (NAC) = 3
ANALYSIS BY S I M P L I F I E D B IS H O P METHOD (MTHD=2)
NUMBER OF FORCES ( N F O ) = 0
SOFT S O I L NUMBER ( S S N ) = 0
INPUT COORD. OF G RID POINTS 1 , 2 , AND 3
POIN T 1 X COORD. = - 6 6 0 Y COORD. = 3 2 3 8 .1

PO IN T 2 X COORD. = - 6 6 0 Y COORD. = 3 8 .1
POIN T 3 X COORD. = 3 3 4 0 Y COORD. = 3 8 .1
X INCREMENT (X IN C) = 8 0 0 Y INCREMENT (YIN C) = 800

NO. OF D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN P O IN T S 1 AND 2 (N D12) = 4
NO. OF D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN P O IN T S 2 AND 3 (N D23) = 5
ONLY A SUMMARY TABLE I S PRIN TED (NPRT = 0)
S L I C E S WILL BE SUBDIVIDED
AUTOMATIC SEARCH WILL FOLLOW AFTER GRID
FACTORS OF SAFETY BASED ON GRID
I N THE FOLLOWING TABLE WARNING IN D IC A T E S HOW MANY TIM ES THE

MAXIMUM RADIUS I S LIM ITE D BY THE END PO IN T S OF GROUND L IN E S
ENTER X CENTER Y NO. OF iC IRCLE LOWEST WARNING

OORDINATE COORDINATE TOTAL C R I T I C . RADIUS F .S .
-6 6 0 3 2 3 8 .1 1 1 3 2 3 8 .1 0 0 1 5 3 2 .2 9 6 0
-6 6 0 2 4 3 8 .1 1 1 2 4 3 8 .1 0 0 1533 .4 0 6 0
-6 6 0 1 6 3 8 .1 1 1 1 6 3 8 .1 0 0 1 5 3 6 .6 3 9 0
-6 6 0 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 1 1 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 5 4 5 .6 2 6 0
-6 6 0 3 8 .1 0 0 1 1 1 38 .1 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0
140 3 2 3 8 .1 10 1 3 238 .1 0 0 3 2 .8 3 8 0
140 2 4 3 8 .1 7 1 2 4 3 8 .1 0 0 29 .4 9 5 0
140 1638 .1 7 1 1 6 3 8 .1 0 0 2 6 .4 8 3 0
140 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 6 1 8 3 8 .1 0 0 2 7 .4 3 3 0
140 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 12 3 4 .6 3 4 7 .3 1 5 0
940 3 2 3 8 .1 16 15 3 2 2 5 .9 3 0 2 6 .5 3 5 0
940 2 4 3 8 .1 16 15 2 4 2 5 .9 3 2 2 4 .6 5 5 0
940 1 6 3 8 .1 16 6 1 6 2 6 .9 7 9 2 2 .3 6 6 0
940 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 2 6 .9 7 9 19 .4 0 3 0
940 3 8 .1 0 0 1 15 6 2 6 .9 7 9 2 6 .0 0 3 0
1740 3 2 3 8 .1 16 6 3 2 2 7 .4 3 3 1 2 .8 4 9 0
1740 2 4 3 8 .1 16 6 2 4 2 7 .4 3 3 1 2 .8 7 1 0
1740 1 6 3 8 .1 16 6 1 6 2 7 .4 3 3 1 2 .9 1 9 0
84
1740 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 2 7 .4 3 3 1 3 .0 2 7 0
1740 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 6 27 .434 22 .0 3 0 0
2540 3 2 3 8 .1 16 6 3 2 2 8 .0 2 7 5 .1 7 3 0
2540 24 3 8 .1 16 6 2 4 2 8 .0 2 7 4 .6 4 3 0
2540 1638 .1 16 6 1 6 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .1 8 0 0
2540 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .6 4 7 0
2540 3 8 .1 0 0 1 15 6 2 8 .0 2 8 2 1 .0 9 5 0
3340 32 3 8 .1 16 6 3 2 2 8 .6 2 2 23 .8 5 8 0
3340 2 4 3 8 .1 16 6 2428 .6 2 2 23 .1 8 8 0
3340 16 3 8 .1 16 6 1 6 2 8 .6 2 2 2 2 .0 4 2 0
3340 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 6 828 .6 2 2 1 9 .7 1 4 0
3340 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 14 27 .5 8 7 1 3 .5 7 0 0
LOWEST FACTOR OF SAFETY AT EACH GRID POIN T I S TABULATED BELOW
COORDINATE -6 6 0 .0 0 0 140 .0 0 0 940 .0 0 0 1 7 4 0 .0 0 0 2 5 4 0 .0 0 0 3 3 4 0 .0 0 0

3 2 3 8 .1 0 0 1 5 3 2 .2 9 6 3 2 .8 3 8 26 .5 3 5 1 2 .8 4 9 5 .1 7 3 23 . 8 5 8
2438 .1 0 0 1 5 3 3 .4 0 6 2 9 .4 9 5 24 .6 5 5 1 2 .8 7 1 4 .6 4 3 23 .1 8 8
1 6 3 8 .1 0 0 1 5 3 6 .6 3 9 2 6 .4 8 3 22 .3 6 6 1 2 .9 1 9 4 .1 8 0 2 2 .0 4 2
838 .1 0 0 1 5 4 5 .6 2 6 2 7 .4 3 3 19 .4 0 3 1 3 .0 2 7 4 .6 4 7 1 9 .7 1 4
3 8 .1 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 .3 1 5 26 .0 0 3 2 2 .0 3 0 2 1 .0 9 5 1 3 .5 7 0
MINIMUM FACTORS OF SAFETY OCCUR AT THE FOLLOWING 3 CENTERS
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 4 . 1 8 0 AT ( 2 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 1 5 3 8 . 1 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 7 . 3 1 5 AT ( 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 3 8 . 1 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 3 . 5 7 0 AT ( 3 3 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 3 8 . 1 0 0 )
AUTOMATIC SEARCH WILL BE MADE ONLY ON THE CENTER WITH THE SMALLEST F . S . MORE
SEARCH FROM OTHER CENTER MAY BE NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT MINIMUM F . S . I S OBTAINED.
AT POIN T ( 2 5 4 0 1 5 3 8 . 1 ) RADIUS 1 6 2 8 . 0 2 8
THE MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY I S 4 . 1 8 0
FACTORS OF SAFETY BASED ON SEARCH
I N THE FOLLOWING TABLE WARNING IN D IC A T E S HOW MANY TIM E S THE

MAXIMUM RADIUS I S L IM ITE D BY THE END PO IN T S OF GROUND L IN E S
CENTER X CENTER Y NO. OF C IR CLE LOWEST WARN]

COORDINATE COORDINATE TOTAL iC R I T I C . RADIUS F .S .
2540 1638 .1 16 6 1 6 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .1 8 0 0
3340 1638 .1 16 6 1 6 2 8 .6 2 2 22 .0 4 2 0
1740 1638 .1 16 6 1 6 2 7 .4 3 3 1 2 .9 1 9 0
2540 2438 .1 16 6 2 4 2 8 .0 2 7 4 .6 4 3 0
2540 8 3 8 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .6 4 7 0
2740 1 6 3 8 .1 16 6 1 6 2 8 .1 7 6 5 .6 5 5 0
2340 1638 .1 16 6 1 6 2 7 .8 7 9 1 0 .5 4 3 0
2540 1838 .1 16 6 1 8 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .2 6 6 0
2540 1438 .1 16 6 1 4 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .1 2 4 0
2540 1238 .1 16 6 1 2 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .1 2 2 0
2540 1038 .1 16 6 1 0 2 8 .0 2 8 4 .2 2 8 0
2740 1238 .1 16 6 1 2 2 8 .1 7 6 4 .8 3 9 0
2340 1238 .1 16 6 1 2 2 7 .8 7 9 10-566 0
AT PO INT ( 2 5 4 0 1 2 3 8 .1 ) RADIUS 1 2 2 8 . 0 2 8
THE MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY I S 4 .1 2 2
SUMMARY O F S L I C E INFORMATION FOR MOST C R I T I C A L S L I P SURFACE
85
SL. S O IL S L IC E S L IC E WATER BOTTOM TOTAL EFFEC. R E SIS. D R IV IN G

NO. NO . WIDTH HEIGHT HEIGHT S IN E WEIGHT WEIGHT MOMENT MOMENT
1 15 1 1 .1 3 6 1 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 - .1 7 1 . 121E+04 . 121E+04 . 108E+07 - .2 5 6 E + 0 6
2 14 5 .7 9 9 2 .5 0 4 0 .0 0 0 - .1 6 5 . 156E+04 . 156E+04 . 366E+06 - . 3 15E+06
3 13 5 .9 7 2 3 .5 0 4 0 .0 0 0 - .1 6 0 . 225E+04 . 225E+04 . 640E+06 - -4 4 1 E + 0 6
4 12 1 2 .5 2 9 5 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -.1 5 2 . 677E+04 . 677E+04 . 122E+07 - . 127E+07
5 11 10 .9 0 9 6 .8 2 9 0 .0 0 0 -.1 4 3 .8 1 7 E + 0 4 . 817E+04 .6 9 3 E + 0 6 - .1 4 3 E + 0 7
6 11 2 .5 4 5 7 .8 1 7 0 .0 0 0 -.1 3 7 . 222E+04 . 222E+04 . 161E+06 - . 374E+06
7 10 7 .1 4 1 8 .5 0 5 0 .0 0 0 - .1 3 3 -678E + 04 . 678E+04 . 951E+06 - -1 1 1 E + 0 7
8 9 7 .1 6 0 9 .4 8 5 0 .0 0 0 - .1 2 7 . 756E+04 . 756E+04 . 581E+06 - .1 1 8 E + 0 7
9 7 1 6 .3 4 2 1 1 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 0 -.1 1 8 . 198E+05 . 198E+05 . 186E+07 - -287E +07
10 6 13 . 1 5 7 1 2 .7 4 6 0 .0 0 0 - .1 0 6 . 183E+05 . 183E+05 . 133E+07 - .2 3 8 E + 0 7
11 6 1 5 .4 2 1 14 . 2 6 2 0 .0 0 0 - .0 9 4 .2 3 8E+05 •238E+05 . 156E+07 - . 276E+07
12 5 3 0 .9 2 4 1 6 .3 6 4 0 .0 0 0 - .0 7 5 . 543E+05 . 543E+05 . 3 12E+07 - .5 0 3 E + 0 7
13 5 4 6 .3 4 6 18 . 8 8 7 0 .0 0 0 - .0 4 4 . 931E+05 . 9 3 1E+05 . 467E+07 - . 502E+07
14 5 4 6 .3 4 6 2 0 .3 0 6 0 .0 0 0 - .0 0 6 . 998E+05 . 998E+05 . 466E+07 - . 757E+06
15 5 4 6 .3 4 6 1 9 .9 7 6 0 .0 0 0 .0 3 2 .9 8 2 E + 0 5 . 982E+05 . 466E+07 . 3 81E+07
16 5 3 8 .0 7 1 18 . 1 5 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 6 6 . 737E+05 . 737E+05 .3 8 4 E + 0 7 . 597E+07
17 5 8 .2 7 5 1 6 .6 8 2 0 .0 0 0 .0 8 5 . 148E+05 . 148E+05 -8 3 5 E + 0 6 . 154E+07
18 5 2 6 .5 6 8 15 . 8 2 3 0 .0 0 0 .0 9 9 -4 5 2 E + 0 5 . 452E+05 .2 6 8 E + 0 7 . 550E+07
19 6 19 .7 7 7 14 . 2 9 2 0 .0 0 0 .1 1 8 . 306E+05 •306E +05 .2 0 0 E + 0 7 •443E +07
20 6 1 6 .5 5 2 1 2 .7 8 0 0 .0 0 0 .1 3 3 .2 3 1 E + 0 5 •231E + 05 . 168E+07 -3 76E + 07
21 7 1 8 .9 1 6 1 1 .0 3 8 0 .0 0 0 .1 4 7 •230E +05 . 230E+05 . 216E+07 •416E + 07
22 9 8 .5 2 6 9 .5 0 8 0 .0 0 0 .1 5 8 . 902E+04 . 902E+04 . 694E+06 . 175E+07
23 10 1 .3 8 7 8 .916 0 .0 0 0 .1 6 2 . 138E+04 . 138E+04 . 185E+06 . 275E+06
24 10 0 .9 6 6 8 .752 0 .0 0 0 .1 6 3 . 943E+03 . 943E+03 . 129E+06 . 189E+06
25 10 4 .0 1 0 8 .3 3 8 0 .0 0 0 . 165 . 374E+04 . 374E+04 .5 3 7E+06 . 758E+06
26 11 1 1 .4 8 3 7 .0 1 4 0 .0 0 0 .1 7 2 .8 8 7 E + 0 4 . B87E+04 •733E +06 . 187E+07
27 12 10 . 8 8 6 5 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 .1 8 1 . 588E+04 . 588E+04 . 107E+07 . 130E+07
28 13 5 ,2 4 5 3 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 .1 8 7 . 198E+04 . 198E+04 . 565E+06 ■454E+06
29 14 5 .1 2 6 2 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 .1 9 1 .1 3 8 E + 0 4 . 138E+04 .3 2 6 E + 0 6 . 324E+06
30 15 2 .2 8 4 1 .7 7 4 0 .0 0 0 .1 9 5 -436E+03 . 436E+03 . 223E+06 . 104E+06
31 15 7 .3 1 1 0 .779 0 .0 0 0 .1 9 8 . 613E+03 .6 1 3 E + 0 3 . 715E+06 . 149E+06
SUM .4 5 9 E + 0 8 . 111E+08
AT CENTER ( 2 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 1 2 3 8 . 1 0 0 ) WITH RADIUS 1 2 2 8 . 0 2 8 AND S E I S . C O E F F . 0 .0 0

FACTOR OF SAFETY BY NORMAL METHOD I S 4 . 1 2 2
FACTOR OF SAFETY BY S I M P L I F I E D B I S H O P METHOD I S 4 . 1 2 2
86
REAME (ROTATIONAL E Q U IL IB R IU M A NALYSIS OF MULTILAYERED EMBANKMENTS), 3 2 - b i t V .

T H I S 2 0 0 0 V ERSION (REAME2k) I S L IC E N S E D BY C I V I L E NG IN EER IN G SOFTWARE CENTER TO
IN PUT F I L E NAME -C :\R E A M E D A T \fsp .D A T
TIT L E -F u tu re P ro je c tio n S p e n c e r M eth o d
N O . OF S T A T IC AND S E I S M I C CASES (NCASE) = 1
NO. OF NONCIRCULAR S L I P SURFACES (N SS ) = 0
CASE NO. I S E I S M I C C O E F F IC IE N T (S E IC ) = 0 .0 0 0
NO. OF PO IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 = 2
1 X COORD.=-• 5 0 0 0 Y C OO RD.= 0
2 X C OO R D.= 1 1 0 0 0 Y C OO RD.= 0
1 X COORD.= 0 Y C OO RD.= 1 1 . 7
2 X C OO RD.= 1 9 2 . 8 6 Y C OO RD.= 1 1 . 5
1 X C OO RD.= 7 6 8 3 . 3 3 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
2 X COORD.= 8 0 4 0 Y C OO RD.= 6 . 5
1 X COORD.= 1 8 5 .7 1 Y C OO RD.= 14
2 X COORD.= 1 9 2 .8 6 Y C OO RD.= 1 1 .5
3 X COORD.= 768 3 .3 3 Y C OO R D.= 6 .5
4 X COORD.= 7740 Y COORD.= 15
NO. OF PO INT S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 5 = 1 2

1 X COORD.= 1 7 7 .1 4 Y COORD.= 1 7
2 X COORD.= 1 8 5 .7 1 Y C OO RD.= 1 4
3 X COORD.= 840 Y C OO R D.= 1 2
4 X COORD.= 2640 Y C OO R D.= 2 2
5 X COORD.= 2740 Y COORD.= 2 6 . 3
S X COORD.= 2780 Y C OO R D.= 2 6 . 3
7 X COORD.= 3360 Y COORD.= 2 1
8 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD.= 2 9 . 1
9 X COORD.= 5840 Y COORD.= 1 7 . 5
10 X COORD.= 6340 Y C OO R D.= 13
11 X COORD.= 7740 Y COORD.= 1 5
12 X COORD.= 7760 Y COORD.= 1 8
NO. OF PO IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 6 = 1 2
1 X COORD.= 1 7 1 .4 3 Y COORD.= 19
2 X COORD.= 1 7 7 .1 4 Y C OO RD.= 17
5 X COORD.= 2740 Y COORD.= 2 9 .3
6 X COORD.= 2780 Y COORD.= 2 9 .3
8 X COORD.= 4640 Y C OO RD.= 3 2 .1
9 X COORD.= 5840 Y C OO RD.= 20 .5
87
10 X COORD. = 6 3 4 0 Y COORD. = 16
1 1 X COORD.= 7 7 6 0 Y COORD. = 18
1 2 X COORD. = 7 7 7 3 . 3 3 Y COORD. = 2 0
ro. OF PO IN T S ON BOUNDARY L I N E 7 = 1 2
l X COORD. = 168 .5 7 Y COORD. = 20
2 X COORD. = 1 7 1 .4 3 Y COORD.= 19
3 X COORD. = 840 Y COORD.= 17
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD.= 3 1 .3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD.= 3 1 .3
1 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD. = 26
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD.= 34 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 2 2 .5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 18
11 X COORD. = 7 7 7 3 .3 3 Y COORD. = 20
12 X COORD. = 7780 Y COORD.= 21
10. OF POINTS ON BOUNDARY L I N E 8 = 12

1 X COORD. = 1 6 5 .7 1 Y COORD. = 2 1
2 X COORD. = 1 6 8 .5 7 Y COORD.= 20
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD.= 3 2 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 3 2 . 3
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD.= 3 5 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD.= 23 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 19
11 X COORD.= 7780 Y COORD.= 2 1
12 X COORD. = 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 22
NO. OF P O INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 9 = 1 2

2 X COORD. = 1 6 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 2 1
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD.= 2 9
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD.= 33 .3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD.= 33 .3
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD.= 3 6 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD.= 2 4 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD.= 20
11 X COORD. = 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 22
12 X COORD. = 7800 Y COORD.= 24
NO. OF PO INTS ON BOUNDARY L I N E 1 0 = 1 2

1 X COORD. = 1 5 4 .2 9 Y COORD.= 2 5
3 X COORD. = 840 Y COORD.= 2 1
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD.= 3 1
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD.= 3 5 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD.= 3 5 . 3
8 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD.= 3 8 . 1
9 X COORD.= 5840 Y COORD.= 2 6 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD.= 2 2
11 X COORD.= 7800 Y COORD.= 2 4
12 X COORD. = 7813 .3 3 Y COORD.= 2 6
N O. OF PO IN T S ON BOUNDARY L I N E 1 1 = 1 2
1 X COORD.= 1 5 1 . 4 3 Y COORD.= 2 6
2 X COORD.= 1 5 4 . 2 9 Y COORD.= 2 5
88

4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 33
5 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD. = 3 7 .3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 3 7 .3
7 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD. = 32
8 X COORD. = 4640 Y COORD. = 4 0 .1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 28 .5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 24
11 X COORD.= 7 8 1 3 .3 3 Y COORD. = 26
12 X COORD.= 7820 Y COORD. = 27
NO. O F PO IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 2 = 1 2
1 X COORD.= 1 4 8 .5 7 Y COORD. = 2 7
2 X COORD.= 1 5 1 .4 3 Y COORD. = 2 6
3 X COORD. = 840 Y COORD. = 2 4
4 X COORD.= 2640 Y COORD. = 3 4
5 X COORD.= 2740 Y COORD. = 3 8 . 3
6 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 3 8 . 3
7 X COORD.= 3360 Y COORD. = 3 3
8 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD. = 4 1 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD.= 2 9 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 2 5
11 X COORD.= 7820 Y COORD.= 2 7
12 X COORD.= 7 8 2 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 28
NO. OF PO IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 13 = 1 2
1 X COORD. = 1 4 2 .8 6 Y COORD. = 2 9
2 X COORD.= 148 .5 7 Y COORD. = 2 7
3 X COORD.= 840 Y COORD. = 25
4 X COORD. = 2640 Y COORD. = 35
5 X COORD.= 2740 Y COORD. = 3 9 . 3
6 X COORD.= 2780 Y COORD. = 3 9 . 3
7 X COORD. = 3360 Y COORD. = 34
8 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD. = 4 2 . 1
9 X COORD. = 5840 Y COORD. = 3 0 . 5
10 X COORD. = 6340 Y COORD. = 2 6
11 X COORD. = 7 8 2 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 2 8
12 X COORD.= 7840 Y COORD. = 3 0

1 X COORD.=-- 5 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 15
2 X COORD.= 0 Y COORD. = 1 1 . 7
3 X COORD. = 1 2 0 Y COORD. = 3 0
4 X COORD. = 1 4 0 Y COORD.= 3 0
5 X COORD.= 1 4 2 . 8 6 Y COORD.= 2 9
6 X COORD. = 8 4 0 Y COORD.= 2 7
7 X COORD.= 2 6 4 0 Y COORD. = 3 7
8 X COORD. = 2 7 4 0 Y COORD. = 4 1 . 3
9 X COORD. = 2 7 8 0 Y COORD.= 4 1 . 3
10 X COORD. = 3 3 6 0 Y COORD.= 3 6
11 X COORD. = 4 6 4 0 Y COORD. = 4 4 . 1
12 X COORD.= 5 8 4 0 Y COORD. = 3 2 . 5
13 X COORD. = 6 3 4 0 Y COORD.= 2 8
14 X COORD - = 7 8 0 0 Y COORD.= 3 0
15 X COORD. = 7 8 4 0 Y COORD - = 3 0
16 X COORD.= 7 8 8 0 Y COORD.= 3 0
17 X COORD.= 8 0 4 0 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
18 X COORD. = 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 5 . 8
L I N E N O . AND SLOPE OF EACH SEGMENT A R E :

1 0.000
2 - 0 .0 0 1
3 0 .0 0 0
89
4 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
5 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 - 0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
6 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .043 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
7 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .04 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 - 0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
8 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
9 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
10 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .04 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
11 - 0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
12 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
13 -0 .3 5 0 - 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
14 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6
0 .0 4 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 6 -0 .0 1 0 -0 .0 0 9
0 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 -0 .1 4 7 0 .0 0 0
M IN . DEPTH OF T A L L ES T S L I C E (DMIN) = 0
NO. OF RADIUS CONTROL ZONES (NRCZ) = 2

I D NO. FOR F I R S T C I R C L E (I N F C ) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
L IN E NO. (L IN O ) B E G . NO. (NBP) END NO. (NEP)
1 1 2
NO. OF C IR C L E S ( N C I R ) FOR ZONE 2 = 5
I D NO. FOR F I R S T C IR C L E (IN F C ) FOR ZONE 2 = 1
L IN E NO. (L IN O ) B E G . NO. (NBP) END NO. (NEP)
14 1 2
2 1 2
4 2 3
3 1 2
14 17 18
S O I L NO. COHESION F R I C . ANGLE U N IT WEIGHT

1 1000 0 122
2 1000 0 123
3 1000 0 123
4 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
5 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
5 9 2 .1 2 0 1 0 3 .6 6
7 6 5 .4 9 0 1 0 5 .4 5
8 1 0 7 .4 8 0 1 0 9 .5 1
9 5 1 .1 8 0 1 2 4 .1 6
10 7 8 .4 8 0 1 0 7 .5 6
11 8 6 .1 7 0 1 0 9 .7
12 5 0 .7 6 0 1 0 6 .2 4
13 7 8 .1 0 1 0 7 .5 6
NO SEEPAGE
USE GRID
90
ANALYSIS BY SPENCERS METHOD (MTHD=3)
IN PUT COORD. OF G RID P O INTS 1 , 2 , AND 3
P O IN T 1 X COORD. = - 6 6 0 Y COORD. = 3 2 4 4 . 1
P O INT 2 X COORD. = - 6 6 0 Y COORD. = 4 4 . 1
P O IN T 3 X COORD. = 3 3 4 0 Y COORD. = 4 4 . 1
X INCREMENT (X IN C) = 8 0 0 Y INCREMENT (Y IN C) = 800

NO. OF D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN PO INTS 1 AND 2 (N D12) =4
NO. OF D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN PO INTS 2 AND 3 (N D 23) =5
S L I C E S WILL BE SUBDIV ID ED
I N THE FOLLOWING TABLE WARNING IN DICA TES HOW MANY TIM ES THE
MAXIMUM RADIUS I S L IM IT E D BY THE END P O IN T S OF GROUND L IN E S
CENTER X CENTER Y NO. OF C IR C L E LOWEST WARN!

COORDINATE COORDINATE TOTAL C R I T I C . RADIUS F .S .
-660 3 2 4 4 .1 1 1 3 244 .1 0 0 1 5 3 2 .0 2 0 0
-660 2444 .1 1 1 2 4 4 4 .1 0 0 1 5 3 3 .6 6 4 0
-660 1644 .1 1 1 1 6 4 4 .1 0 0 1 5 3 6 .6 7 5 0
-660 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 1 1 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 5 4 5 .5 6 3 0
-660 4 4 .1 0 0 1 1 1 4 4 .1 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0
140 3244 .1 16 13 3 2 3 3 .1 2 1 1 4 .7 8 3 0
140 2 4 4 4 .1 16 13 2 4 3 3 .1 2 2 1 4 .4 1 4 0
140 1644 .1 10 1 1 6 4 4 .1 0 0 1 3 .0 1 7 0
140 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 10 1 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 1 .0 2 8 0
140 4 4 .1 0 0 1 1 1 44 .1 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0
940 3 2 4 4 .1 16 6 3233 .0 9 8 1 9 .8 9 8 0
940 2444 .1 16 6 2433 .0 9 8 1 8 .6 0 3 0
940 1644 .1 16 6 1 6 3 3 .0 9 9 1 6 .7 6 1 0
940 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 833 .0 9 9 1 4 .1 8 9 0
940 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 33 . 0 9 9 1 9 .0 2 3 0
1740 3244 .1 16 6 3 2 3 3 .6 3 2 9 .3 8 6 0
1740 2444 .1 16 6 2433 .6 3 2 9 .3 9 6 0
1740 1 6 4 4 .1 16 6 1633 .6 3 2 9 .4 4 7 0
1740 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 833 .633 9 .5 5 3 0
1740 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 33 .6 3 3 1 7 .9 5 2 0
2540 3 2 4 4 .1 16 6 3 2 3 4 .1 6 6 4 .6 1 0 0
2540 2444 .1 16 6 2 4 3 4 .1 6 6 4 .0 7 6 0
2540 1644 .1 16 6 1 6 3 4 .1 6 7 3 .5 4 2 0
2540 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 4 .1 6 7 3 .4 0 0 0
2540 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 3 4 .1 6 7 1 7 .3 1 0 0
3340 3 2 4 4 .1 16 6 3 2 3 4 .7 0 0 1 9 .7 5 8 0
3340 2 4 4 4 .1 16 6 2 4 3 4 .7 0 0 1 9 .2 5 3 0
3340 1 6 4 4 .1 16 6 1 6 3 4 .7 0 0 1 8 .3 8 3 0
3340 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 4 .7 0 1 1 6 .6 0 2 0
3340 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 3 4 .7 0 1 1 2 .5 8 4 0
LOWEST FACTOR OF SAFETY AT EACH GRID P O IN T I S 'TABULATED BELOW
COORDINATE -6 6 0 .0 0 0 140 . 0 0 0 940 . 0 0 0 1740 .0 0 0 2 5 4 0 .0 0 0 334C

3 2 4 4 . 100 1 5 3 2 .0 2 0 14 . 7 8 3 19 . 8 9 8 9 .3 8 6 4 .6 1 0 i:
2 4 4 4 .1 0 0 1 5 3 3 .6 6 4 1 4 .4 1 4 1 8 .6 0 3 9 .3 9 6 4 .0 7 6 1 9 .2 5 3
91
1 6 4 4 .1 0 0 1 5 3 S .6 7 5 1 3 .0 1 7 1 6 .7 6 1 9 .4 4 7 3 .5 4 2 1 8 .3 8 3
8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 5 4 5 .5 6 3 1 1 .0 2 8 1 4 .1 8 9 9 .5 5 3 3 .4 0 0 1 6 .6 0 2
4 4 .1 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 9 .0 2 3 1 7 .9 5 2 1 7 .3 1 0 1 2 .5 8 4
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 1 . 0 2 8 AT ( 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 8 4 4 . 1 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 3 . 4 0 0 AT ( 2 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 8 4 4 . 1 0 0 )
FACTOR O F SAFETY = 1 2 . 5 8 4 AT ( 3 3 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 4 4 . 1 0 0 )
AT P O IN T ( 2 5 4 0 8 4 4 . 1 0 0 1 ) RADIUS 8 3 4 . 1 6 7

MAXIMUM RADIUS I S L IM ITE D BY THE END POINTS OF GROUND L IN E S
CENTER X CENTER Y NO. OF CIRCLE LOWEST WARN1

2540 844 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 4 .1 6 7 3 .4 0 0 0
3340 844 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 4 .7 0 1 1 6 .6 0 2 0
1740 844 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 3 .6 3 3 9 .5 5 3 0
2540 1 6 4 4 .1 16 6 1 6 3 4 .1 6 7 3 .5 4 2 0
2540 44 . 1 0 0 1 16 6 3 4 .1 6 7 1 7 .3 1 0 0
2740 8 4 4 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 4 .3 0 0 3 .5 9 4 0
2340 844 .1 0 0 1 16 6 8 3 4 .0 3 3 8 .2 6 1 0
2540 1044 .1 16 6 1 0 3 4 .1 6 7 3 .3 1 0 0
2540 1244 .1 16 6 1 2 3 4 .1 6 7 3 .3 4 7 0
2740 1044 .1 16 6 1 0 3 4 .3 0 0 4 .0 2 6 0
2340 1 0 4 4 .1 16 6 1 0 3 4 .0 3 3 8 .2 1 9 0
AT PO IN T ( 2 5 4 0 1 0 4 4 .1 ) RADIUS 1 0 3 4 . 1 6 7
SUMMARY OF S L I C E INFORMATION FOR MOST C R I T I C A L S L I P SURFACE
SL. S O IL , S L I C E S L IC E WATER BOTTOM TOTAL EFFEC. R E S IS . D RIV IN G

NO. NO. WIDTH HEIGHT HEIGHT SIN E WEIGHT WEIGHT MOMENT MOMENT
1 13 8 .8 4 9 1 .0 1 0 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 2 1 5 . 962E+03 . 962E+03 .7 3 2 E + 0 6 - .2 1 4 E + 0 6
2 12 4 .5 6 3 2 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 - 0 .2 0 9 . 123E+04 . 123E+04 .2 4 5 E + 0 6 - .2 6 5 E + 0 6
3 11 4 .6 6 4 3 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 2 0 4 . 176E+04 . 176E+04 -425E + 06 - .3 7 1 E + 0 6
4 10 9 .6 6 3 5 .0 1 2 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 9 7 . 522E+04 . 522E+04 . 800E+06 - .1 0 7 E + 0 7
5 9 1 0 .1 5 8 7 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 8 8 - 784E+04 . 784E+04 . 547E+06 - . 152E-1-07
5 a 5 .2 9 1 8 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 8 0 . 502E+04 .5 0 2 E + 0 4 . 598E+06 - . 937E+06
7 7 4 .7 5 7 9 .4 4 0 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 7 6 - 500E+04 . 50QE+Q4 .3 2 7 E + 0 6 - .9 0 7 E + 0 6
8 7 0 .6 9 4 9 .9 3 7 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 7 3 .765E-K 03 . 765E+03 . 477E+05 - .1 3 7 E + 0 6
9 6 1 1 .4 2 7 1 1 .0 1 7 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 6 7 . 139E+05 -1 3 9 E + 0 5 . 110E+07 - .2 4 0 E + 0 7
10 5 1 8 .7 7 0 13 . 5 4 4 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 5 2 ■276E+05 .2 7 6 E + 0 5 . 161E+07 - .4 3 6 E + 0 7
11 4 1 7 .0 5 5 1 6 .2 4 7 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 1 3 5 .297E + 05 -297E +05 . 146E+07 - .4 1 6 E + 0 7
12 4 4 7 .9 4 5 2 0 .3 3 7 0 .0 0 0 - 0 .1 0 4 . 103E+06 . 103E+06 .4 0 8 E + 0 7 - . 111E+08
13 4 4 7 .9 4 5 2 4 .4 7 9 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 0 5 7 . 123E+06 .1 2 3 E + 0 6 .4 0 7 E + 0 7 - -732E +07
14 4 4 7 .9 4 5 2 6 .3 8 5 0 .0 0 0 - 0 . 0 1 1 -133E +06 . 133E+06 .4 0 6 E + 0 7 - . 151E+07
15 4 4 7 .9 4 5 2 6 .0 6 7 0 .0 0 0 0 . 0 3 5 . 1 3 I E -*-06 -131E + 06 .4 0 6 E + 0 7 .4 7 9 E + 0 7
16 4 3 9 .4 5 6 23 . 8 3 7 0 .0 0 0 0 . 0 7 8 .9 8 9 E + 0 5 . 989E+05 .3 3 5 E + 0 7 .7 9 4 E + 0 7
17 4 8 .4 8 9 2 1 .9 8 2 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 0 1 . 197E+05 . 197E+05 . 723E+06 .2 0 5 E + 0 7
18 4 4 7 .9 4 5 1 9 .9 4 4 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 2 8 -101E +06 . 101E+06 .4 0 9 E + 0 7 .1 3 4 E + 0 8
19 4 2 1 .4 6 1 1 6 .3 5 5 0 .0 0 0 0 . 1 6 2 .3 7 7 E + 0 5 -377E +05 . 184E+07 .6 3 0 E + 0 7
92
20 5 2 1 .0 8 2 13 . 5 5 7 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 8 2 .3 1 1 E + 0 5 .3 1 1 E + 0 5 . 182E+07 .5 8 5 E + 0 7
21 6 1 .0 2 3 1 1 .9 2 2 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 9 3 . 134E+04 .1 3 4 E + 0 4 . 994E+05 .2 6 7 E + 0 6
22 6 4 .3 7 9 1 1 .4 0 9 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 9 6 . 550E+04 . 550E+04 .4 2 5 E + 0 6 . 111E+07
23 6 4 .7 5 4 1 0 .4 8 8 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 0 0 . 551E+04 -551E +04 -462E +06 . 114E+07
24 7 4 .7 8 5 9 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 0 5 . 506E+04 . 506E+04 .3 3 1 E + 0 6 . 107E+07
25 8 4 .6 7 7 8 .5 0 3 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 0 9 . 444E+04 .4 4 4 E + 0 4 . 532E+06 . 960E+06
26 9 9 .0 5 1 7 .0 1 1 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 1 6 . 698E+04 . 698E+04 .4 9 1 E + 0 6 . 156E+07
27 10 8 .6 8 8 5 .0 1 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 2 4 .4 6 9 E + 0 4 .4 6 9 E + 0 4 . 724E+06 . 109E+07
28 11 3 .6 6 6 3 .5 6 8 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 3 0 .1 4 1 E + 0 4 . 141E+04 .3 3 6 E + 0 6 .3 3 5 E + 0 6
29 11 0 .5 3 6 3 .0 6 6 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 3 2 . 176E+03 . 176E+03 -49 1 E + 0 5 •423E +05
30 12 3 .993 2 .5 0 2 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 3 5 . 107E+04 . 107E+04 . 216E+06 .2 6 0 E + 0 6
31 13 7 .7 9 5 1 .0 0 8 0 .0 0 0 0 .2 4 0 . 845E+03 .8 4 5 E + 0 3 . 649E+06 .2 1 0 E + 0 6
SUM . 403E+08 . 122E+08
AT CENTER ( 2 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 1 0 4 4 . 1 0 0 ) WITH RADIUS 1 0 3 4 . 1 6 7 AND S E I S . C O E F F . 0 .0 0

FACTOR OF SAFETY BY NORMAL METHOD I S 3 . 3 1 0
THRUST IN C L IN A T IO N MOMENT F . S . FORCE F . S .

0 .0 0 0 3 .3 1 0 3 .2 8 0
0 .3 0 0 3 .3 1 0 4 .4 9 3
0 .6 0 0 3 .3 1 0 8 .1 3 2
FROM SPENCER METHOD, IN C L IN A T IO N (DEL) = 0 . 0 4 7 AND FACTOR OF SAFETY = 3 . 3 1 0
93
REAME (ROTATIONAL E Q U IL IB R IU M ANALYSIS OF MULTILAYERED EMBANKMENTS), 3 2 - b i t V .

T H I S 2 0 0 0 V ER S IO N (REAME2k) I S LICENSED BY C I V I L ENGIN EERIN G SOFTWARE CENTER TO
IN PU T F I L E NAME -C :\ R E A M E D A T \2 7 0 r a s w .D A T
T IT LE -F u tu re P ro je c tio n 70 f e e t M o d i f ie d S p e n c e r M ethod
NO. OF S T A T IC AND S E I S M I C CASES (NCASE) = 1
NO. OF NONCIRCULAR S L I P SURFACES (NSS) = 0
CASE NO. 1 S E I S M I C C O E F F IC IE N T (S E IC ) = 0 .0 0 0
NO. OF BOUNDARY L I N E S (NBL) = 16
1 X C OO R D.= - 5 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 0
2 X C OO RD.= 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 0
1 X C OO RD.= 0 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 7
2 X C OO RD.= 1 9 2 . 8 6 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 5
1 X C OO RD.= 7 6 8 3 . 3 3 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
2 X C OO RD.= 8 0 4 0 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
1 X C OO RD.= 1 8 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 15
2 X C OO RD.= 1 9 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 5
3 X C OORD.= 7 6 8 3 .3 3 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
4 X C OORD.= 7740 Y COORD.= 15
1 X COORD.= 1 7 4 .2 9 Y COORD.= 18
2 X COORD.= 1 8 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 15
3 X C OO RD.= 2740 Y COORD.= 5 5
4 X C OO RD.= 2780 Y COORD.= 5 5
5 X C OO RD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 4 2 . 1 7
6 X C OO R D.= 4640 Y COORD.= 5 5
7 X C OO RD.= 7740 Y COORD.= 1 5
8 X C OO RD.= 7760 Y COORD.= 18
1 X C OO RD.= 1 6 8 . 5 7 Y COORD.= 2 0
2 X C OO RD.= 1 7 4 . 2 9 Y COORD.= 1 8
3 X C OO RD.= 2 7 4 0 Y COORD.= 5 8
4 X C OO RD.= 2 7 8 0 Y COORD.= 58
5 X C OO RD.= 3 6 1 3 Y COORD.= 4 5 . 1 7
S X C OO RD.= 4 6 4 0 Y COORD.= 5 8
7 X COORD.= 7 7 6 0 Y COORD.= 1 8
8 X COORD.= 7 7 7 3 - 3 3 Y COORD.= 2 0
1 X C OO RD.= 1 6 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 2 1
2 X C OO RD.= 1 6 8 .5 7 Y COORD.= 2 0
3 X C OO RD.= 2740 Y COORD. = 6 0
94

5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD. = 47 .1 7
6 X COO RD.= 4640 Y COORD. = 60
7 X COORD. = 7773 .3 3 Y COORD. = 20
8 X COORD. = 7780 Y COORD. = 21
10. OF P O INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 8 = 8

1 X COORD.= 1 6 2 . 8 6 Y COORD. = 2 2
2 X COORD.= 1 6 5 . 7 1 Y COORD. = 2 1
3 X COORD.= 2 7 4 0 Y COORD. = 6 1
4 X COORD.= 2 7 8 0 Y COORD. = 6 1
5 X COORD.= 3 6 1 3 Y COORD. = 4 8 . 1 7
6 X COORD.= 4 6 4 0 Y COORD. = 6 1
7 X COORD.= 7 7 8 0 Y COORD. = 2 1
8 X COORD. = 7 7 8 6 . 6 7 Y COORD. = 2 2
JO. OF PO INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 9 = 8

1 X C OORD.= 1 5 7 .1 4 Y COORD. = 24
2 X COORD.= 1 6 2 .8 6 Y COORD. = 22
3 X COORD.= 2740 Y COORD. = 6 2
4 X COORD.= 2780 Y COORD. = 6 2
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD. = 4 9 . 1 7
6 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD. = 6 2
7 X COORD.= 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD. = 2 2
NO. OF PO INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 10 = 8

1 X COORD.= 1 5 1 .4 3 Y COORD. = 26
2 X COORD.= 1 5 7 .1 4 Y COORD. = 24
4 X COORD. = 2780 Y COORD. = 64
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD. = 5 1 .1 7
8 X COORD.= 7813 .3 3 Y COORD. = 26
NO. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 1 = 8
1 X COORD.= 148 .5 7 Y COORD. = 27
2 X COORD. = 1 5 1 .4 3 Y COORD. = 26
3 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD. = 66
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD. = 53 . 1 7
7 X COORD. = 7 8 1 3 .3 3 Y COORD.= 26
8 X COORD. = 7820 Y COORD. = 27
4 0 . OF PO INTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 2 = 8
1 X COORD. = 1 4 5 . 7 1 Y COORD.= 2 8
2 X COORD.= 1 4 8 . 5 7 Y COORD.= 2 7
3 X COORD. = 2 7 4 0 Y COORD. = 6 7
4 X COORD.= 2 7 8 0 Y COORD. = 6 7
5 X COORD. = 3 6 1 3 Y COORD. = 5 4 . 1 7
6 X COORD.= 4 6 4 0 Y COORD.= 6 7
7 X COORD. = 7 8 2 0 Y COORD.= 2 7
8 X COORD.= 7 8 2 6 . 6 7 Y COORD. = 2 8
40. OF P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 13 = 8
1 X COORD. = 140 Y COORD. = 3 0
2 X COORD. = 1 4 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 2 8
3 X COORD. = 2740 Y COORD.= 6 8
4 X COORD.= 2780 Y COORD. = 6 8
5 X COORD. = 3613 Y COORD.= 5 5 . 1 7
6 X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD. = 6 8
95
7 X COORD. = 7 8 2 6 . 5 7 Y COORD. = 28
8 X COORD. = 7 8 4 0 Y COORD. = 30

1 X COORD.= -■5000 Y COORD. = 15
2 X COORD. = 0 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 7
3 X COORD. = 6 7 . 5 4 Y COORD.= 2 2
NO. OF POINTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 5 = 3

1 X COORD.= 7 9 2 7 . 7 Y COORD.= 22
2 X COORD.= 8 0 4 0 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
3 X COORD. = 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 5 . 8

1 X C OO RD.=-■ 5000 Y COORD.= 2 2
2 X COORD.= 6 7 . 5 4 Y COORD.= 2 2
3 X COORD.= 1 2 0 Y COORD.= 30
4 X COORD.= 1 4 0 Y COORD.= 30
5 X COORD.= 2 7 4 0 Y COORD.= 70
6 X COORD.= 2 7 8 0 Y COORD. = 70
7 X COORD.= 3 6 1 3 Y COORD.= 5 7 . 1 7
8 X COORD.= 4 6 4 0 Y COORD. = 70
9 X COORD.= 7 8 4 0 Y COORD. = 30
10 X COORD.= 7 8 8 0 Y COORD.= 3 0
11 X COORD.= 7 9 2 7 . 7 Y COORD . = 22
12 X COORD.= 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 2 2
L IN E NO. AND SLOPE O F EACH SEGMENT ARE:

1 0 .0 0 0
2 -0 .0 0 1
3 0 .0 0 0
4 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
5 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .013
0 .1 5 0
6 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 - 0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
7 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
8 -0 .3 5 1 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
9 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
10 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
11 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
12 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
13 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
14 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 3
15 -0 .1 3 8 0 .0 0 0
16 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 5 2 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5
0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .1 6 8 0 .0 0 0
M I N . DEPTH OF TA L L EST S L I C E (DMIN) = 0

N O . OF RADIUS CONTROL ZONES (NRCZ) = 2

I D N O . FOR F I R S T C IR C L E ( I N F C ) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
N O. OF BOTTOM L I N E S (NOL) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
L IN E N O . (L IN O ) B E G . NO. (NBP) END NO. (N EP)
96

ID NO. FOR F I R S T C IR C L E ( I N F C ) FOR ZONE 2 =
L IN E N O. (L IN O ) BEG. NO. (NBP) END NO. (NEP)
14 1 2
2 1 2
4 2 3
3 1 2
15 2 3
SOIL NO. COHESION F R I C . ANGLE U N IT w e :

1 1000 0 122
2 1000 0 123
3 1000 0 123
4 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
5 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
6 92 .1 2 0 103 .6 6
7 65 .4 9 0 1 0 5 .4 5
8 107 .4 8 0 1 0 9 .5 1
9 5 1 .1 8 0 1 2 4 .1 6
10 78 .4 8 0 1 0 7 .5 6
11 86 .1 7 0 1 0 9 .7
12 50 .7 6 0 1 0 6 .2 4
13 78 .1 0 1 0 7 .5 6
14 0 0 6 2 .4
15 0 0 6 2 .4
USE PH REA TIC SURFACE

USE G RID
ANALYSIS BY M O D IFIE D SPENCER METHOD (MTHD=4)
NUMBER OF FORCES (N FO ) = 0
NO. OF P O IN T S ON WATER TABLE (NPWT) = 4

1 X C OO R D.= - 5 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 22
2 X C OO R D.= 6 7 .5 4 Y COORD.= 22
3 X C OO R D.= 7 9 2 7 .7 Y COORD.= 22
4 X C OO R D.= 11000 Y COORD.= 22
NO. OF S O I L S WITH D IFFE RE N T WATER TABLE (NSDW) = 0

NO. OF S O I L S WITH D IFFEREN T PORE PRESSURE RATIO (NSDP)
IN PUT COORD. OF G RID POINTS 1 , 2 , AND 3
PO IN T 1 X COORD. = - 5 6 0 Y COORD. = 3 2 7 0
PO IN T 2 X COORD. = - 5 6 0 Y COORD. = 7 0
P O IN T 3 X COORD. = 3 4 4 0 Y COORD. = 7 0
X INCREMENT (X IN C ) = 8 0 0 Y INCREMENT (Y IN C) = 800

NO. O F D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN PO INTS 1 AND 2 (N D 12) = 4
NO. O F D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN PO INTS 2 AND 3 (N D 2 3) = 5
S L I C E S W IL L BE SUBDIVIDED
AUTOMATIC SEARCH W ILL FOLLOW AFTER G RID
97

MAXIMUM RADIUS I S L IM ITE D BY THE END PO INTS OF GROUND L IN E S
AND CONVERGE IN DICA TES HOW MANY FACTORS OF SAFETY NOT CONVERGED
CENTER X CENTER Y NO. OF C IR C L E LOWEST WARNING CONVERGE

-560 3270 1 1 3 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 2470 1 1 2 4 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 1670 1 1 1 6 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 870 1 1 8 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 70 1 1 70 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 3270 16 6 3 2 5 8 .5 3 1 7 .9 8 6 0 0
240 2470 16 6 2 4 5 8 .5 3 1 8 .8 1 1 0 0
240 1670 19 6 1 6 5 8 .5 3 1 1 0 .3 5 3 0 0
240 870 22 20 845 .4 2 1 8 .6 3 3 0 0
240 70 16 6 58 . 5 3 1 4 .9 2 9 0 0
1040 3270 16 6 3 2 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 6 0 0 0
1040 2470 16 6 2 4 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 7 0 0 0
1040 1670 16 6 1 6 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 9 1 0 0
1040 870 16 6 8 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .3 3 3 0 0
1040 70 16 6 5 9 .0 6 5 3 .9 0 3 0 0
1840 3270 16 6 3 2 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 6 2 0 0
1840 2470 16 6 2 4 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 7 2 0 0
1840 1670 16 6 1 6 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 8 6 0 0
1840 870 16 6 8 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .7 2 8 0 0
1840 70 16 6 5 9 .5 9 9 3 .7 4 3 0 0
2640 3270 16 6 3 2 6 0 .1 3 3 4 .9 9 4 0 0
2640 2470 16 6 2 4 6 0 .1 3 3 4 .3 4 5 0 0
2640 1670 16 6 1660 .1 3 3 3 .5 8 2 0 0
2640 870 16 6 860 .1 3 3 2 .6 9 8 0 0
2640 70 8 8 6 0 .6 2 7 7 .7 6 0 0 0
3440 3270 16 6 3 2 6 0 .6 6 7 2 .8 8 7 0 0
3440 2470 16 6 2 4 6 0 .6 6 7 2 .6 4 4 0 0
3440 1670 16 6 1 6 6 0 .6 6 7 2 .3 2 2 0 0
3440 870 16 6 8 6 0 .6 6 7 1 .9 1 8 0 0
3440 70 16 6 6 0 .6 6 8 3 .7 2 1 0 0
GRID I S EXPANDED AS FOLLOWS SO MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY FALLS W IT H IN THE GRID
560 4070 1 1 4 0 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 4070 22 6 4 0 5 8 .5 3 1 8 .0 4 1 0 0
1040 4070 16 6 4 0 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 4 9 0 0
1840 4070 16 6 4 0 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 5 4 0 0
2640 4070 16 6 4 0 6 0 .1 3 3 5 .5 7 0 0 0
3440 4070 16 6 4 0 6 0 .6 6 7 3 .109 0 0
560 4870 1 1 4 8 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 4870 16 6 485 8 .530 7 .7 5 9 0 0
1040 4870 16 6 4 8 5 9 .0 6 4 2 .2 4 1 0 0
1840 4870 16 6 4 8 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 4 8 0 0
2640 4870 16 6 4 8 6 0 .1 3 2 6 .1 2 6 0 0
3440 4870 16 6 4 8 6 0 .6 6 7 3 .4 3 5 0 0
560 5670 1 1 5 6 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 5670 16 6 5 6 5 8 .5 3 0 6 .8 0 5 0 0
1040 5670 16 6 5 6 5 9 .0 6 4 2 .2 3 3 0 0
1840 5670 16 6 5 6 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 4 4 0 0
2640 5670 16 6 5 6 6 0 .1 3 2 6 .6 3 6 0 0
3440 5670 16 6 5 6 6 0 .6 6 6 3 .9 1 2 0 0
560 6470 1 1 6 4 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 6470 16 6 6 4 5 8 .5 3 0 6 .5 7 5 0 0
98
1040 6470 16 6 6459 .0 5 4 2 .2 2 7 0 0

1840 6470 16 6 6 4 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 9 0 0
2640 6470 16 6 6 4 6 0 .1 3 2 7 .1 2 9 0 0
3440 6470 1 1 6470 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0 0
560 7270 1 1 7 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 7270 16 6 7 2 5 8 .5 3 0 7 .1 7 2 0 0
1040 7270 16 6 7 2 5 9 .0 6 4 2 .2 1 9 0 0
1840 7270 16 6 7 2 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 4 0 0
2640 7270 16 6 7 2 6 0 .1 3 2 7 .6 1 8 0 0
3440 7270 1 1 7 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
560 8070 2 1 8 0 7 0 .0 0 0 148 .5 5 3 0 0
240 8070 16 6 8 0 5 8 .5 3 0 6 .2 1 0 0 0
1040 8070 16 6 8 0 5 9 .0 6 4 2 .2 1 3 0 0
1840 8070 16 6 8059 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 5 0 0
2640 8070 16 6 8 0 6 0 .1 3 2 8 .0 5 1 0 0
3440 8070 1 1 8 0 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
LOWEST FACTOR OF SAFETY AT EACH GRID PO INT I S TABULATED BELOW
COORDINATE -5 6 0 .0 0 0 240 .0 0 0 1 0 4 0 .0 0 0 1840 .0 0 0 2 6 4 0 .0 0 0 3 4 4 0 .0 0 0

8 0 7 0 .0 0 0 1 4 8 .5 5 3 6 .2 1 0 2 .2 1 3 1 .6 3 5 8 .0 5 1 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0
7 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 .1 7 2 2 .2 1 9 1 .6 3 4 7 .6 1 8 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0
6470 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 6 .5 7 5 2 .2 2 7 1 .6 3 9 7 .1 2 9 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0
5 6 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 6 .8 0 5 2 .2 3 3 1 .6 4 4 6 .6 3 6 3 .9 1 2
4 8 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 .7 5 9 2 .2 4 1 1 .6 4 8 6 .1 2 6 3 .4 3 5
4070 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 .0 4 1 2 .2 4 9 1 .6 5 4 5 .5 7 0 3 .1 0 9
3 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 .9 8 6 2 .2 6 0 1 .6 6 2 4 .9 9 4 2 .8 8 7
2470 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 .8 1 1 2 .2 7 0 1 .6 7 2 4 .3 4 5 2 .6 4 4
1 6 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 .3 5 3 2 .2 9 1 1 .6 8 6 3 .5 8 2 2 .3 2 2
8 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 .6 3 3 2 .3 3 3 1 .7 2 8 2 .6 9 8 1 .9 1 8
7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 4 .9 2 9 3 .9 0 3 3 .7 4 3 7 .7 6 0 3 .7 2 1
MINIMUM FACTORS O F SAFETY OCCUR AT THE FOLLOWING 2 CENTERS
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 . 6 3 4 AT (1 8 4 0 .0 0 0 ,7 2 7 0 .0 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 . 9 1 8 AT (3 4 4 0 .0 0 0 ,8 7 0 .0 0 0 )
AUTOMATIC SEARCH W ILL BE MADE ONLY ON THE CENTER WITH THE SMALLEST F .S . MORE
AT P O INT ( 1 8 4 0 7 2 7 0 ) RADIUS 7 2 5 9 . 5 9 8
FACTORS OF SA FETY BASED ON SEARCH

AND CONVERGE IN D IC A T E S HOW MANY FACTORS OF SAFETY NOT CONVERGED
CENTER X CENTER Y NO . OF C IR CL E LOWEST WARNING CONVERGE

1840 7270 16 6 7 2 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 4 0 0
2640 7270 16 6 7 2 6 0 .1 3 2 7 .6 1 8 0 0
1040 7270 16 6 7 2 5 9 .0 6 4 2 .2 1 9 0 0
1840 8070 16 6 8 0 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 5 0 0
1840 6470 16 6 6 4 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 9 0 0
2040 7270 16 6 7 2 5 9 .7 3 1 1 .6 6 6 0 0
1640 7270 16 6 7 2 5 9 .4 6 4 1 .7 5 0 0 0
1840 7470 16 6 7 4 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 4 0 0
99
1840 7670 16 6 7 6 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 3 0 0
1840 7870 16 6 7 8 5 9 .5 9 8 1 .6 3 4 0 0
2040 7670 16 6 7 6 5 9 .7 3 1 1 .6 9 2 0 0
1640 7670 16 6 7 6 5 9 .4 6 4 1 .7 4 7 0 0
’ P O IN T ( 1840 7670 ]1 RADIUS 7 6 5 9 . 5 9 8
SL. SO IL S L I C E BOTTOM BOTTOM IN T E R S L IC E FORCE R ESISTING D R IV IN G THRUST

NO. NO. WIDTH TANGENT SHEAR NORMAL SHEAR FORCE FORCE HEIGHT
0 .0 0 0 E + 0 0 0 .0 0 0
1 13 1 8 .7 6 7 -0 .0 9 4 9 .0 1 5 E + 0 2 1 . 103E+03 1 . 153E+01 . 15E+04 - -20E +03 0 .9 8 4
2 12 9 .5 4 4 - 0 .0 9 2 2 . 979E+02 1 . 645E+03 1 . 720E+01 . 49E+03 - . 24E+03 1 .4 8 1
3 11 9 .6 5 5 -0 .0 9 1 5 . 115E+02 2 .4 9 9 E + 0 3 2 . 6 1 3 E + 0 1 . 84E+03 - . 34E+03 1 .7 8 9
4 10 1 9 .6 5 9 -0 .0 8 9 9 .4 8 5 E + 0 2 4 .4 2 2 E + 0 3 4 . 624 E + 0 1 . 16E+04 - . 97E+03 2 .5 4 7
5 9 2 0 .1 5 6 -0 .0 8 6 6 . 340E+02 6 .4 3 8 E + 0 3 6 .7 3 2 E + 0 1 . 10E+04 - . 14E+04 3 .4 0 1
6 8 1 0 .2 7 5 - 0 .0 8 4 6 . 787E+02 7 . 966E+03 8 .3 2 9 E + 0 1 . 11E+04 - •85E +03 3 .6 3 3
7 7 1 0 .4 1 6 -0 .0 8 3 4 . 191E+02 9 .3 2 5 E + 0 3 9 .7 5 1 E + 0 1 . 69E+03 - . 94E+03 4 .0 0 9
8 6 2 1 .2 7 3 - 0 .0 8 1 1 . 204E+03 1 . 268E+04 1 . 326E+02 . 20E+04 - . 21E+04 4 .6 4 1
9 5 3 3 .1 1 3 -0 .0 7 7 1 . 665E+03 1 . 821E-t-04 1 . 9 0 4 E + 0 2 . 27E+04 - -39E +04 5 .7 0 6
10 4 1 5 .0 4 7 -0 .0 7 4 7 . 566E+02 2 .090E -I-04 2 . 1 8 6 E + 0 2 . 12E+04 - . 19E+04 6 .1 6 8
11 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 - 0 .0 6 2 8 .4 3 6 E + 0 3 5 .5 4 2 E + 0 4 5 . 7 9 5 E + 0 2 . 14E+05 - •26E +05 1 0 .7 5 8
12 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 -0 .0 4 0 8 .4 2 6 E + 0 3 8 .8 26E + 04 9 . 229E + 02 . 14E+05 - . 24E+05 1 3 .7 1 5
13 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 -0 .0 1 8 8 . 421E+03 1 .1 0 0 E + 0 5 1 . 151E +03 . 14E+05 - .1 3 E + 0 5 1 5 .3 8 5
14 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 0 .0 0 4 8 .4 1 9 E + 0 3 1 . 155E-t-05 1 . 2 0 7 E + 0 3 . 14E+05 .3 0 E + 0 4 1 5 .8 1 7
15 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 0 .0 2 6 8 . 422E+03 1 .0 3 4 E + 0 5 1 .0 8 1 E + 0 3 . 14E+05 . 21E+05 1 5 .0 2 5
16 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 0 .0 4 8 8 . 429E+03 7 .6 5 7 E + 0 4 8 . 0 0 7E + 02 . 14E+05 . 3 5E+05 1 3 .0 1 2
17 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 0 .0 7 0 8 . 440E+03 4 .2 0 8 E + 0 4 4 .4 0 0 E + 0 2 . 14E+05 .43E + 05 9 .7 3 8
18 4 1 6 7 .9 0 4 0 .0 9 2 8 . 455E+03 1 .0 9 9 E + 0 4 1 .1 4 9 E + 0 2 . 14E+05 •40E+05 4 .4 4 0
19 4 28 .4 0 2 0 .1 0 5 1 . 432E+03 7 . 227E+03 7 . 557E+01 . 24E+04 . 52E+04 3 .3 8 7
20 5 3 2 .2 2 2 0 .1 0 9 1 . 625E+03 3 .7 0 6 E + 0 3 3 . 8 7 5 E + 0 1 . 27E+04 . 52E+04 1 .9 4 5
21 6 2 0 .6 8 1 0 .1 1 2 1 . 174E+03 2 . 066E+03 2 .1 6 1 E + 0 1 . 19E+04 . 28E+04 0 .5 5 5
22 7 1 0 .1 2 1 0 .1 1 4 4 . 085E+02 1 . 254E+03 1 .3 1 1 E + 0 1 . 67E+03 . 12E+04 -0 .4 7 4
23 8 9 .9 8 2 0 .1 1 6 6 . 613E+02 8 .2 3 2 E + 0 2 8 . 6 0 8 E + 0 0 . 11E+04 . 11E+04 -2 .0 4 5
24 9 14 . 3 4 5 0 .1 1 7 4 . 527E+02 -7 .4 1 2 E + 0 1 -7 .7 5 1 E -0 1 . 74E+03 . 14E+-04 3 0 .4 3 3
25 9 4 .5 4 4 0 .1 1 9 1 .4 3 4 E + 0 2 - 2 .9 5 8 E + 0 2 - 3 . 093 E + 0 0 . 24E+03 . 3 7E+03 7 .3 1 9
26 10 1 6 .6 6 2 0 .1 2 0 8 .0 6 4 E + 0 2 -5 .6 1 5 E + 0 2 - 5 . 871E+00 . 13E+04 . 11E+04 2 .4 6 7
27 11 8 .2 1 7 0 .1 2 2 4 . 368E+02 - 4 . 978E +02 - 5 .2 0 6 E + 0 0 . 72E+03 .3 8 E + 0 3 1 .8 1 2
28 12 8 .1 4 4 0 .123 2 . 550E+02 - 5 .0 9 2 E + 0 2 - 5 .3 2 5 E + 0 0 . 42E+03 . 27E+03 0 .8 7 0
29 13 2 .4 3 3 0 .1 2 3 1 . 172E+02 - 4 .5 0 9 E + 0 2 - 4 . 7 1 5E + 00 . 19E+03 . 60E+02 0 .6 9 0
30 13 1 2 .1 5 1 0 .1 2 4 5 . 856E+02 6 .5 3 1 E - 0 3 0 -0 0 0 E + 0 0 . 96E+03 . 14E+03 0 .0 0 0
SUM . 14E+06 . 84E+05
AT CENTER ( 1 8 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 7 6 7 0 . 0 0 0 ) 'W ITH RADIUS 7 6 5 9 . 5 9 8 AND S E T S . C O E F F . 0 .0 0

BY M O D IFIE D SPENCER METHOD, DEL ANGLE = 0 . 0 1 0 AND FACTOR OF SAFETY I S 1 .6 3 3
100
REAME (ROTATIONAL E Q U IL IB R IU M ANALYSIS OF MULTILAYERED EMBANKMENTS), 3 2 - b i t V .

T H I S 2 0 0 0 VERSIO N (REAME2k) I S L IC EN SED BY C I V I L ENGIN EERIN G SOFTWARE CENTER TO
IN PUT F I L E NAME -C :\R E A M E D A T \2 7 0 jn w .D A T
TIT LE -F u tu re P ro je c tio n 70 feet J a n b u M ethod
NO. OF S T A T IC AND S E I S M I C CASES (NCASE) = 1
NO. OF NONCIRCULAR S L I P SURFACES (N SS) = 0
CASE NO. 1 S E I S M I C C O E F F IC IE N T (SE IC ) = 0 .0 0 0
1 X C OO R D.=-• 5 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 0
2 X C OO R D.= 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 0
1 X C OO RD.= 0 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 7
2 X C OO RD.= 1 9 2 . 8 6 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 5
I X C OO RD.= 7 6 8 3 . 3 3 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
2 X COORD.= 8 0 4 0 Y COORD.= 6 . 5
NO. OF PO INT S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 4 = 4

1 X C OO RD.= 1 8 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 1 5
2 X COORD.= 1 9 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 1 1 . 5
3 X C OO RD.= 7 6 8 3 .3 3 Y COORD. = 6 . 5
4 X C OO RD.= 7740 Y COORD.= 15
1 X C OO RD.= 1 7 4 . 2 9 Y COORD.= 18
2 X C OO R D.= 1 8 2 . 8 6 Y COORD.= 15
3 X C OO R D.= 2 7 4 0 Y COORD.= 55
4 X COORD.= 2 7 8 0 Y COORD.= 5 5
5 X C OO R D.= 3 6 1 3 Y COORD.= 4 2 . 1 7
e X COORD.= 4 6 4 0 Y COORD.= 55
7 X C OO R D.= 7 7 4 0 Y COORD.= 15
8 X C OO R D.= 7 7 6 0 Y COORD.= 18
1 X COORD.= 1 6 8 .5 7 Y COORD.= 20
2 X COORD.= 1 7 4 .2 9 Y COORD.= 1 8
5 X C OO RD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 4 5 . 1 7
8 X C OO RD.= 7 7 7 3 .3 3 Y COORD.= 2 0
NO. O F P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 7 = 8
1 X COORD.= 1 6 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 2 1
2 X COORD.= 1 6 8 .5 7 Y COORD.= 2 0
101

5 X COORD.= 3S13 Y COORD.= 47 . 17
7 X COORD.= 7 7 7 3 .3 3 Y COORD.= 20

1 X COORD.= 1 6 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 2 2
2 X COORD.= 1 6 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 2 1
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 4 8 . 1 7
8 X COORD.= 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 2 2

1 X COORD.= 1 5 7 .1 4 Y COORD.= 24
2 X COORD.= 1 6 2 .8 6 Y COORD.= 2 2
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 4 9 . 1 7
7 X COORD.= 7 7 8 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 22

1 X COORD.= 1 5 1 .4 3 Y COORD.= 2 6
2 X COORD.= 1 5 7 .1 4 Y COORD.= 24
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 5 1 . 1 7
8 X COORD.= 7 8 1 3 .3 3 Y COORD.= 2 6
NO. OF POINTS ON BOUNDARY L IN E 11 = 8

1 X COORD.= 1 4 8 .5 7 Y COORD.= 2 7
2 X COORD.= 1 5 1 .4 3 Y COORD.= 2 6
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 53 . 1 7
7 X COORD.= 7 813 .3 3 Y COORD.= 2 6

1 X COORD.= 1 4 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 28
2 X COORD.= 1 4 8 .5 7 Y COORD.= 2 7
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 5 4 . 1 7
e X COORD.= 4640 Y COORD.= 6 7
8 X COORD.= 7 8 2 6 .6 7 Y COORD.= 28
2 X COORD.= 1 4 5 .7 1 Y COORD.= 28
5 X COORD.= 3613 Y COORD.= 5 5 . 1 7
102
7 X COORD. = 7 8 2 6 .5 7 Y COORD. = 2 8
8 X COORD. = 7840 Y COORD.= 3 0
1 X C O O R D .=■- 5 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 1 5
2 X COORD. = 0 Y COORD. = 1 1 . 7
3 X COORD. = 6 7 . 5 4 Y COORD. = 2 2
1 X COORD. = 792 7 .7 Y COORD. = 2 2
2 X COORD. = 8040 Y COORD. = 6 . 5
3 X C O O R D .= 11000 Y COORD. = 5 . 8
NO. O F P O IN T S ON BOUNDARY L IN E 1 6 = 1 2
1 X COORD. =■- 5 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 2 2
2 X COORD. = 6 7 . 5 4 Y COORD. = 2 2
3 X COORD. = 1 2 0 Y COO R D.= 3 0
4 X COORD. = 1 4 0 Y COORD. = 3 0
5 X COORD. = 2 7 4 0 Y COORD. = 7 0
6 X COORD. = 2 7 8 0 Y COORD.= 7 0
7 X COORD. = 3 6 1 3 Y COORD. = 5 7 . 1 7
8 X C O O R D .= 4 6 4 0 Y COORD. = 7 0
9 X COORD. = 7 8 4 0 Y COORD. = 30
10 X COORD. = 7 8 8 0 Y COORD. = 30
11 X COORD. = 7 9 2 7 . 7 Y COORD.= 2 2
12 X COORD. = 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 2 2
L IN E NO. AND SLOPE OF EACH SEGMENT A RE :

1 0 .0 0 0
2 -0 .0 0 1
3 0 .0 0 0
4 -0 .3 5 0 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 0
5 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
6 -0 .3 5 0 0 .016 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
7 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
8 -0 .3 5 1 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
9 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 6 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
10 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
11 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
12 -0 .3 5 0 0 .015 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
13 -0 .3 5 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5 0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3
0 .1 5 0
14 -0 .0 0 1 0 .1 5 3
15 -0 .1 3 8 0 .0 0 0
16 0 .0 0 0 0 .1 5 2 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 0 0 -0 .0 1 5
0 .0 1 2 -0 .0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 -0 .1 6 8 0 .0 0 0
M I N . DEPTH OF TALLEST S L IC E (DMIN) = 0

N O. OF R AD IU S CONTROL ZONES (NRCZ) = 2

I D N O. FOR F I R S T C IR C L E ( I N F C ) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
N O. OF BOTTOM L I N E S (NOL) FOR ZONE 1 = 1
L IN E N O . (L IN O ) B E G . N O. (NBP) END NO. (NEP)
103
1 1 2

NO. OF C IR CLES (N C IR ) FOR ZONE 2 = 5
I D NO. FOR F I R S T C IR C L E ( I N F C ) FOR ZONE 2 = 1
NO. OF BOTTOM L IN E S (NOL) FOR ZONE 2 = 5
L IN E NO. (L IN O ) BEG. NO. (NBP) END NO. (NEP)
14 1 2
2 1 2
4 2 3
3 1 2
15 2 3
U N IT WEIGHT OF WATER (GW) =62.4
S O I L NO. COHESION FR IC . ANGLE U N IT WEIGHT

1 1000 0 122
2 1000 0 123
3 1000 0 123
4 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
5 8 1 .8 9 0 1 0 0 .6 1
6 9 2 .1 2 0 1 0 3 .6 6
7 6 5 .4 9 0 1 0 5 .4 5
8 1 0 7 .4 8 0 1 0 9 .5 1
9 5 1 .1 8 0 1 2 4 .1 6
10 7 8 .4 8 0 1 0 7 .5 6
11 8 6 .1 7 0 1 0 9 .7
12 5 0 .7 6 0 1 0 6 .2 4
13 7 8 .1 0 1 0 7 .5 6
14 0 0 6 2 .4
15 0 0 6 2 .4
USE PHREATIC SURFACE

USE GRID
NO. OF S L IC E S ( N S L I ) = 1 0
ANALYSIS BY JANBU METHOD WITHOUT RATE OF CHANGE TERM (MTHD=6)
NO. OF POINTS ON WATER TABLE (NPWT) = 4

1 X COORD.=■- 5 0 0 0 Y COORD.= 2 2
2 X COORD.= 6 7 . 5 4 Y COORD. = 2 2
3 X COORD.= 7 9 2 7 . 7 Y COORD. = 2 2
4 X COORD.= 1 1 0 0 0 Y COORD. = 2 2
NO. OF S O IL S WITH D IF F E R E N T WATER TABLE (NSDW) = 0

NO. OF S O I L S WITH D IF F E R E N T PORE PRESSURE RATIO (NSDP) = 0
IN PUT COORD. OF GRID P O IN T S 1 , 2 , AND 3
PO IN T 1 X COORD. = - 5 6 0 Y COORD. = 3270

PO IN T 2 X COORD. = - 5 6 0 Y COORD. = 70
PO INT 3 X COORD. = 3 4 4 0 Y COORD. = 70
X INCREMENT (XIN C) = 8 0 0 Y INCREMENT (Y IN C) = 800

NO. OF D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN P O IN T S 1 AND 2 (N D 12) = 4
NO. OF D I V I S I O N S BETWEEN P O IN T S 2 AND 3 (N D 23) = 5
ONLY A SUMMARY TABLE I S PR IN TE D (NPRT = 0)
S L I C E S W ILL BE SUBDIV IDED
104
I N THE FOLLOWING TABLE WARNING IN D ICA T ES HOW MANY TIM E S THE

AND CONVERGE IN DICA TES HOW MANY FACTORS OF SAFETY NOT CONVERGED
CENTER X CENTER Y NO. OF C IR C L E LOWEST WARNING CONVERGE

-560 3270 1 1 3 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 2470 1 1 2 4 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 1670 1 1 1 6 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 870 1 1 8 7 0 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0 0
-560 70 1 1 70 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 3270 22 6 3 2 5 8 .5 3 1 7 .6 8 7 0 0
240 2470 16 6 2458 .5 3 1 8 .7 9 7 0 0
240 1670 19 6 1658 .5 3 1 1 0 .3 2 4 0 0
240 870 22 20 845 .4 2 1 8 .6 2 5 0 0
240 70 16 6 58 . 5 3 1 3 .5 0 1 0 0
1040 3270 16 6 3 2 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 5 6 0 0
1040 2470 16 6 2 4 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 6 5 0 0
1040 1670 16 6 1 6 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 7 9 0 0
1040 870 16 6 8 5 9 .0 6 5 2 .2 9 9 0 0
1040 70 16 6 5 9 .0 6 5 1 .7 6 4 0 0
1840 3270 16 6 3 2 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 7 0 0 0
1840 2470 16 6 2 4 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 7 7 0 0
1840 1670 16 6 1 6 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 8 6 0 0
1840 870 16 6 8 5 9 .5 9 9 1 .6 9 7 0 0
1840 70 1 1 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
2640 3270 16 6 3 2 6 0 .1 3 3 4 .6 9 5 0 0
2640 2470 16 6 2 4 6 0 .1 3 3 3 .9 8 4 0 0
2640 1670 16 6 1 6 6 0 .1 3 3 3 .2 6 6 0 0
2640 870 16 6 860 .1 3 3 2 .3 8 1 0 0
2640 70 1 1 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
3440 3270 16 6 3 2 6 0 .6 6 7 2 .8 8 8 0 0
3440 2470 16 6 2 4 6 0 .6 6 7 2 .6 6 3 0 0
3440 1670 16 6 1 6 6 0 .6 6 7 2 .3 1 8 0 0
3440 870 16 6 8 6 0 .6 6 7 1 .8 8 0 0 0
3440 70 22 6 6 0 .6 6 8 0 .8 1 8 0 0
G RID I S EXPANDED AS FOLLOWS SO MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY FALLS WITHIN THE GRID
-560 -730 1 0 7 3 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
240 -7 3 0 1 0 7 3 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
1040 -7 3 0 1 0 7 3 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
1840 -7 3 0 1 0 730 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
2640 -7 3 0 1 0 730 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
3440 -730 1 0 7 3 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
4240 3270 16 6 3 2 6 1 .2 0 1 2 .0 1 0 0 0
4240 2470 16 6 2 4 6 1 .2 0 1 1 .8 0 5 0 0
4240 1670 16 6 1 6 6 1 .2 0 1 1 .6 2 3 0 0
4240 870 16 6 8 6 1 .2 0 1 1 .5 9 0 0 0
4240 70 1 1 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
4240 -730 1 0 7 3 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
LOWEST FACTOR OF SAFETY AT EACH GRID PO IN T I S TABULATED BELOW
COORDINATE -5 6 0 .0 0 0 2 4 0 .0 0 0 1040 .0 0 0 1840 .0 0 0 2 6 4 0 .0 0 0 3 4 4 0 .0 0 0

4 2 4 0 .0 0 0
3 2 7 0 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 7 .6 8 7 2 .2 5 6 1 .6 7 0 4 .6 9 5 2 .8 8 8
2 .0 1 0
105
2 4 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 8 .7 9 7 2 .2 6 5 1 .6 7 7 3 .9 8 4 2 .6 6 3
1 .8 0 5
1 6 7 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 .3 2 4 2 .2 7 9 1 .6 8 6 3 .2 6 6 2 .3 1 8
1 .6 2 3
870 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 8 .6 2 5 2 .2 9 9 1 .6 9 7 2 .3 8 1 1 .8 8 0
1 .5 9 0
70 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 3 .5 0 1 1 .7 6 4 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .8 1 8
1 0 0 0 .0 0 0
-7 3 0 .0 0 0 1 000 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0
1000 .0 0 0
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 .6 7 0 AT (1 8 4 0 .0 0 0 ,3 2 7 0 .0 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 .5 9 0 AT (4 2 4 0 .0 0 0 ,8 7 0 .0 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1 .7 6 4 AT (1 0 4 0 .0 0 0 ,7 0 .0 0 0 )
FACTOR OF SAFETY = 0 .8 1 8 AT (3 4 4 0 .0 0 0 ,7 0 .0 0 0 )
AT POIN T ( 3 4 4 0 7 0 ) RADIUS 6 0 . 6 6 8

MAXIMUM RADIUS I S L IM IT E D BY THE END P O INTS OF GROUND L IN E S
AND CONVERGE IN D IC A T E S HOW MANY FACTORS OF SAFETY NOT CONVERGED
CENTER X CENTER Y NO . OF C IR C L E LOWEST WARNING CONVEI

3440 70 22 6 6 0 .6 6 8 0 .8 1 8 0 0
4240 70 1 1 7 0 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0 0
2640 70 1 1 7 0 .0 0 0 100 0 .0 0 0 0 0
3440 870 16 6 8 6 0 .6 6 7 1 .8 8 0 0 0
3440 -730 1 0 730 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0 0
3640 70 1 1 70 .0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
3240 70 22 6 60 .5 3 4 0 .7 2 0 0 0
3040 70 22 6 60 .4 0 1 0 .6 8 7 0 0
2840 70 22 6 6 0 .2 6 7 0 .6 5 5 0 1
2640 70 1 1 70 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0 0
2840 270 16 6 2 6 0 .2 6 7 1 .7 5 9 0 0
2840 -130 1 0 1 3 0 .0 0 0 1000 .0 0 0 0 0
AT POIN T ( 2840 70 ) RADIUS 6 0 . 2 6 7
S L . SO IL , S L I C E BOTTOM E F F E C . IN T E R S L IC E FORCE BOTTOM R ESISTIN G D R IV IN G

NO. NO- WIDTH TAN WEIGHT NORMAL SHEAR SHEAR FORCE FORCE
.0 0 0 E + 0 0
1 4 1 0 .1 4 9 -2 .2 8 0 . 258E+05 .1 8 9 E + 0 5 - . 140E+05 , 316E+01 . 52E+04 . 27E+05
2 4 1 2 .0 5 0 -1 .0 7 3 . 508E-I-05 . 585E+05 - .2 5 0 E + 0 5 , 221E+01 .2 1 E + 0 4 .4 3 E + 0 5
3 4 1 2 .0 5 0 -0 .6 2 8 . 604E+05 . 968E+05 - -233E +05 , 178E+01 -14E +04 .40E + 05
4 4 1 2 .0 5 0 -0 .3 5 2 . 628E+05 . 124E+06 - .1 1 7 E + 0 5 , 160E+01 . 11E+04 .29E + 05
5 4 1 2 .0 5 0 -0 .1 3 3 . 639E+05 . 134E+06 . 545E+04 , 152E+01 . 10E+04 -12E + 05
6 4 1 2 .0 5 0 0 .0 6 8 .6 3 9 E + 0 5 -126E + 06 .2 2 9 E + 0 5 , 151E+01 . 99E+03 - -62E +04
7 4 1 2 .0 5 0 0 .2 7 8 . 627E+05 . 102E+06 .3 5 7 E + 0 5 , 156E+01 . 11E+04 - .2 3 E + 0 5
8 4 1 2 .0 5 0 0 .5 3 0 . 603E+05 . 641E+05 . 387E+05 , 170E+01 .1 3 E + 0 4 - .3 6 E + 0 5
9 4 1 2 .0 5 0 0 .8 9 8 .5 3 8E+05 . 261E+05 -24 1 E + 0 5 , 202E+01 . 18E+04 - . 35E+05
10 4 1 2 .0 5 0 1 .7 4 7 -3 5 5 E + 0 5 . 3 91E -02 . OOOE+OO , 303E+01 . 40E+04 - .2 0 E + 0 5
SUM . 20E+05 .3 0 E + 0 5
AT CENTER ( 2 8 4 0 . 0 0 0 , 7 0 . 0 0 0 ) WITH RADIUS S O . 2 6 7 AND S E I S . C O E F F . 0 . 0 0

FROM JANBU METHOD WITHOUT RATE OF CHANGE TERM, FACTOR OF SAFETY I S 0 . 6 5 5
APPENDIX E
LOG OF BORINGS
107
LOG OF BORING 3
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpa
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
WEIGHT, pcf
PLASTICITY
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
0
1
2 63 31 75.6 5 102 11.19 3.18 92.0
3
4 53 4 71.1 4 74 11.46 3.12 110.8
5
6 56 32 73.7 3 70 11.53 3.21 105.3
7
8 31.2 2 41 11.37 133.8
9
10 49 31 84.9 3 70 11.80 2.76 102.3
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
MH/OH
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 4
6 T 8.
o x IT
3 K z* 5 S.
U
QJ K Si oz o 3
05 co
UJ
t- CO -I
o z £ UJ UJ a.
g
5a . s O ef— X co (9 O UJ
o co
oo §
22 73.2 4 82 11.60 2.75 108.7
28 67.6 5 102 11.37 3.03 109.0
26 74.0 5 102 11.42 3.15 115.4
26 63.4 3 61 11.75 3.06 114.6
34 79.9 3 61 11.72 3.02 108.6
KEY TO SYMROLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
MH/OH
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 5
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
60 22 77.4 3 70 11.49 2.72 109.4
63 28 70.1 3 70 11.51 3.13 106.9

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERN
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 6
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
WEIGHT, pcf
PLASTICITY
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
I
75 37 85.8 4 82 11.51 3.18 111.7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
MH/OH
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 7
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, Iqw
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH.FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
52 20 70.5 4 86 12.06 3.17 106.9
52 20 74.2 4 90 11.81 3.19 113.6

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERN
TYPE
MH/OH
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 8
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kfN
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
z
O.
54 21 71.3 5 102 11.61 3.20 113.3

3
4 63.5 9 194 11.67 3.18 110.3
5
6 68.6 2 41 11.99 3.28 107.1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 9
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a .
47 18 45.2 8 160 11.75 3.07 116.5
52 19 84.5 4 90 12.20 3.29 105.4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 10
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
Q.
62 30 89.0 2 41 11.87 3.13 114.1
60 26 83.3 3 57 12.08 3.26 110.6

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERN
TYPE
MH/OH
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 11
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
Q.
69 30 81.1 2 41 12.04 3.55 105.4

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNl
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 12
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kp
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
Q.
56 21 80.6 3 61 11.38 3.24 105.2
61 26 78.3 3 57 11.54 2.96 109.2
63 31 78.7 4 82 11.79 2.98 109.1

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 13
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
TOTAL UNIT
WEIGHT, pcf
SOIL TYPE
DEPTH,FT.
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
0
1
2 105.6 2 41 11.55 3.50 100.5
71 40 68.6 3 66 10.85 3.42 108.3
79 52 94.5 3 61 11.43 3.17 107.0

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERN
TYPE
MH/OH
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 14
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, Kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
75 45 73.9 3 61 11.25 3.09 107.6
75 31 79.0 2 49 11.28 3.04 107.5
85 55 88.4 4 74 11.78 3.12 106.0

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 15
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kpi
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
Q.
74 44 72.2 5 102 11.58 3.55 109.7
69 39 75.6 4 82 11.68 3.22 117.4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING 16
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kp
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
WEIGHT, pcf
PLASTICITY
TOTAL UNIT
DEPTH,FT.
MOISTURE
SOIL TYPE
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
a.
94 69 85.0 3 61 12.01 3.70 105.0
64 39 81.9 5 102 10.90 3.25 107.5
71 45 92.1 8 164 11.85 3.07 101.1

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING A
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERNI
TYPE
ML/OL
123
mrm?
LOG OF BORING B
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, Kp)
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
WEIGHT, pcf
UJ
TOTAL UNIT
MOISTURE
a.
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
ii- X
0. a.
UJ o
a w
0 80.2 11.55
1
2
3 42 95.3 1 29 11.97 3.17 108.7
70
4
5
6 66 38 77.8 2 41 11.97 3.12 103.9
7
8
9 82 59 97.4 3 61 10.33 3.43 102.4
10
11
12 177.6 3 61 10.94 3.54 90.6
13
14
15 144.8 4 82 10.42 3.42 90.6
KEY TO SYMBOLS
PATTERN
MH/OH
ML/OL
124
LOG OF BORING C
£ UJ S.
o
a:
3 O' z' yu . tt 1 i
H 0 => K
Q £ <0- 2X oz ca
UJ
zQ. o
uj
5
S
-1
<
X
g
o CO UJ Q_ E
a 5a . oo K 1 <0 CD
K
CO
oo 2 5
69 43 75.5 11.15
58 26 81.1 82 11.71 3 .1 7 105.6
66 38 80.9 61 11.89 3 .2 9 103.7
2 2 8 .8 82 10.75 2.88 87.0
85 59 126.9 61 10.30 3 .4 3 96.7
KEY TO SYMBOLS
PATTERN
ML/OL
125
LOG OF BORING D
£
T S.
g x tr
3 a: z" -u - t 5 8-
9
UJ
a K UJ oz o o
t
5< 3 I—
£ CO x co uj < 5
5 o co UJ n IE
a a. s o
o
IE
H- o co <3
e s
CO o
93.4 10.90
63 37 64 .2 11.20 3.36 102.3
55 27 64.0 102 11.76 3.07 114.3
63 36 66.4 164 11.63 2 .98 110.5
57 33 65.8 6 123 11.97 3.23 115.6
57 31 59.6 102 10.73 3.02 114.6
KEY TO SYMBOLS
PATTERN
ML/OL
LOG OF BORING F
LIQUID LIMIT
STRENGTH, kp
COHESION, psf
CONTENT, %
PLASTICITY
TOTAL UNIT
WEIGHT, pcf
SOIL TYPE
MOISTURE
DEPTH,FT.
SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
SHEAR
INDEX
X
Q.
9 6.2 11.64
50 23 59.6 9 184 11.52 3.19 119.7

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
KEY TO SYMBOLS
PATTERN
ML/OL
127
LOG OF BORING G
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SOIL PATTERN
TYPE
ML/OL
APPENDIX F
EFFECT OF VARIATION IN SHEAR

AND TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT VALUES
128
129
(>nii
E
L
E
V
A 4 00
T
I
(l
H 200
I
H
E
E
T triK.ijf A&H U n i v e r s i t y
-2 0 0
-500 -JUU -XUU 1UU JUll vnn
DISTANCE i n FEET
Figure FI - Model cross section
TABLE FI - Variation o f Cohesion and Total unit weight values on Factor o f Safety
COHESION, psf TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT, pcf FACTOR OF SAFETY
100 110 1.88

150 110 1.90
50 110 1.87
100 125 1.84
100 95 1.94
VITA
Dhirendra Srivastava
1100 W. Corral Avenue # 42,
Kingsville, Texas 78363
Dhirendra Srivastava was bom on November 10th 1977 in Allahabad, India, to Rajendra
Srivastava and Manorama Srivastava. He completed his high school from Arts Science
and Commerce College, Panvel, India in 1994. And went on to receive a Bachelor o f
Engineering degree in Civil Engineering from Regional Engineering College, Rourkela,
India in 1998. He worked for one year as Assistant Engineer before moving to the
United States for his Masters of Science degree in Civil Engineering in January 2000
from Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Texas.
130

Thesis Geotechnical Analysis of Red Mud Srivastava

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Geotechnical Analysis of Red Mud Srivastava

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon th e quality o f th e

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

ProQ uest Information and Learning

Submitted to the College o f Graduate Studies

Major Subject: Civil Engineering

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Approved as to style and content by:

£ph Sai, Ph.D., P.E.

Mohammed A. Fi Pat Leelani, Ph.D., P.E.

Geotechnical Analysis o f Red Mud Clay

Dhirendra Srivastava, BE, Regional Engineering College, Rourkela, India

Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Joseph Sai

Geotechnical analysis is usually used to determine the essential properties o f a

slopes for stacking the red mud in the storage facility.

elevation o f 70 feet, the structure would not be stable.

Chris Peacock for their help.

the red mud to the proposed height o f 70 feet.

(Li & Rutherford, 1996).

1.1 Disposal of red mud

residue enhanced dewatering, evaporative drying, decreased environmental risks and

lowered overall disposal costs.

present at some locations.

1.2 Settling slope of red mud

settling behavior o f the tailings is an important economic factor as it controls purity, an

measured on red mud. Marie-J. Belanger (2001) also showed a directrelationship

stacking slope and an increase in yield stress in the stacking slope.

1.3 Effect of organic materials on slope of tailings

mud is insignificant. Addition o f a flocculent such as A-600 in an appropriate quantity

1.4 Effect o f resting time on slope of tailings

The influence o f resting time on slope o f tailings was investigated by Marie-J.

underneath, which is more or less unconsolidated. The real thickness of unconsolidated

strength, and a second layer o f mud can be deposited without sliding.

1.5 Effect of infiltration of rainwater on slope of tailings

slope might then occur.

1.6 Strength tests

• Obtain samples from different depths o f the stacked red mud.

• Determine the geotechnical properties o f the red mud samples.

• Evaluate the slope stability o f the dry stacked red mud.

shipment to TAMUK laboratory for geotechnical parameter analyses. The maximum

equipment preparation prior to sampling.

The following tests were conducted on the collected samples:

7. Total unit weight

3.1Confined consolidation test

seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 8 minutes, IS minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2

soil samples at different loadings are given in Table A1 in Appendix A.

Figure 4 - Consolidation ring with soil sample prior to trimming

Figure S - Consolidation test equipment

3.2 Vane shear test

samples are given in Table A2 in Appendix A.

Figure 6 - Vane shear apparatus

3.3 Atterberg limits test

sample. The tests included Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit.

3.4 Specific gravity test

calculated using Eq 1 below:

Grb = M0 / [M0 + (M a - Mb)] (1)

M0 = mass o f sample o f oven-dry soil,

Ma = mass o f pycnometer filled with water at temperature Tb,

Mb = mass o f pycnometer filled with water and soil at temperature Tb,

Tb = temperature o f the contents o f the pycnometer where mass Mb was

3.5 Moisture content test

W = [(Mews - MCS)/(MCS- Mc)] x 100 = Mw x 100 / Ms (2)

Mcws = mass o f container and wet specimen,