DRC-2023-001047 - 0901a06881179131

~
--------ENERGYSOLUTIONS --------
February 1, 2023
Mr. Doug Hansen, Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
CD-2023-025
Re: Responses to Federal Cell Facility Application Request for Information -DRC-
2022-023940
Dear Mr. Hansen,
EnergySolutions hereby responds to the Utah Division of Waste Management and
Radiation Control's December 19, 2022 Request for Information (RFI) on our Federal
Cell Facility Application.1 A response is provided for each request using the Director's
assigned reference number. A revised copy of Appendix D, Geotechnical Seismic
Engineering Evaluations of the FCF and associated references reflecting responses to the
Director's request are attached. This revised Appendix is not subject to the Permanent
Claim of Business Confidentiality previously asserted.2
Appendix 0: Erosion Modeling
0-2: After downloading SIBERIA from the public website, it did not compile, it may be
because it has not been revised for modern architecture. The Division requests that
EnergySolutions please provide: (1) Information pertaining to the operating system on
which the SIBERIA code was run, (2) Information pertaining to the complier used to
compile the SIBERIA source code, (3) SIBERIA compiled version of the code
currently being run to support Clive DU PA v2.0, and (4) SIBERIA source code
currently being run to support Clive DU PA v2.0. These will greatly expedite our review
of the erosion modeling:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request 0-2 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
1 Hansen, DJ. "Federal Cell Facility Application Request for Information." via DRC-2023-000525 from
the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers ofEnergySolutions,
January 19, 2023.
2 Rogers, V.C. "Radioactive Material License Application for a Federal Cell Facility Submitted under
Permanent Claim of Business Confidentiality." (CD-2022-142), Letter from EnergySolutions to Doug
Hansen of Utah's Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, August 4, 2022.
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 • Salt Lake City, Utah 841 11
(801 ) 649-2000 • Fax: (801 ) 880-2879 • www.energysolutions.com
DRC-2023-001047
~
ENERGYSOLUTIONS Mr. Doug Hansen
February 1, 2023
CD-2023-025
Page 2 of7
0-3: In order to conduct an independent review on the SIBERIA modeling, please
provide the SIBERIA input/output files used for the Clive DU PA v2.0.:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request 0-3 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
0-4: A single value is specified for many of the parameter values input to SIBERIA
that are uncertain. For example, NUREGICR-7200 explores a range of values ofnl
and ml. Whereas Clive DU PA v2.0 uses one set ofnl and ml values and a very
limited range of beta] values. Please conduct a quantitative sensitivity analysis on the
parameters that are most uncertain and that the results are most sensitive to:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request 0-4 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
0-5: NUREGICR-7200 discusses how a SIBERIA model is calibrated using
regressions of beta], ml, and nl values. Please describe quantitatively how the
SIBERIA model was calibrated to measured data for the Clive DU PA v2.0:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request 0-5 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
0-6: Some parameters can be grid resolution dependent (e.g., the hills/ope diffusivity
parameter). Please describe whether any grid convergence testing was performed and,
if not, how the grid spacing in the SIBERIA model was determined to be sufficiently
small:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request 0-6 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
0-7: The DU PA v2.0 uses a mean flow in the analysis but refers to threshold flow.
Somewhat outdated literature is cited in this discussion. Thresholds are important in
gully formation and considering the full distribution of events, particularly events of
significance changes as the landscape changes. Please clarify the role of mean flow
assumptions versus threshold in the SIBERIA modeling:
Energy Solutions is developing information in response to Request 0-7 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
~
ENERGY SOLUTIONS Mr. Doug Hansen
February 1, 2023
CD-2023-025
Page 3 of7
0-8: It is unclear whether a roughness value for the initial topography was assigned in
the SIBERIA model Formation of rills/gullies often require some roughness to initiate
( otherwise the channelization process has a hard time initiating). Please clarify
whether a roughness value was assigned in the initial topography, and if not, provide
the justification for not including the roughness and if it was included, please justify
the assigned value.:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request 0-8 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.
Appendix D: Geotechnical and Seismic Engineering Evaluations
D-2: Evaluate Uncertainty in Engineering Properties. The geotechnical analyses
presented in Appendix, D as a basis for the proposed Federal Cell have evaluated
expected conditions using engineering properties obtained during past geotechnical
explorations at the site and from the literature. Geotechnical properties are inherently
spatially variable, and the spatial variability will affect the outcomes of the analyses.
Understanding the impact of spatial variability on geotechnical stability is necessary to
evaluate the efficacy of the Federal Cell The Division requests a quantitative
evaluation of the sensitivity of each of the geotechnical analyses to uncertainty in the
engineering properties by varying the engineering properties used in the analyses two
standard deviations above and below the mean.:
To evaluate the uncertainty in engineering properties for geotechnical stability
and account for spatial variability in the subsurface, EnergySolutions directed
Geosyntec to perform a statistical analysis of data collected across the Clive
Facility during past geotechnical explorations. The statistical analysis of the
various geotechnical material properties for the subsurface units (Unit 1 through
4) relied on in situ measurements and observations and geotechnical laboratory
testing results from samples collected during drilling for the following borings:
• B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2004);
• SC-1 , -7, -8, -10 & SLC-84 (D&M, 1984);
• GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -24, -27, -29, -36, -37, -38, -41 , -55, DH-33,
-48, -51 (Bingham Environmental, 1992); and
• DH-1 (AGRA, 1999).
These borings were selected based on their relative location to the Federal Cell
and the availability of meaningful data (i.e., SPT blow counts, laboratory testing).
Where robust laboratory testing was limited, the development of material
~
ENERGY SOLUTIONS Mr. Doug Hansen
February 1, 2023
CD-2023-025
Page 4 of7
properties for the statistical analysis relied on applicable empirical correlations
published in literature.
In response to this request, a statistical evaluation of the engineering properties
using mean ±2 standard deviations for sensitivity analyses is developed to
consider the potential for underestimating the actual average value of the
parameter due to the limited dataset analyzed, assess the potential for lower
average values, and evaluate the sensitivity of the geotechnical analyses to these
variable properties. A statistical evaluation of data using median and percentile
values ( or combining median and standard deviation) yields representative values
for real physical data with limited number of data points, because median is the
50th percentile data corresponding to an actual data point.
Mean central value estimates using ±2 standard deviations (which statistically
captures 95% of the data within the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile range) are highly
affected by the presence and number of very large or very small magnitude values
in datasets and generally not representative of realistic conditions when
conducting sensitivity analyses (i.e., produces negative values, significantly lower
than physically reasonable minimum values, or not values uncharacteristic for
associated soil types). By contrast, it is common geotechnical engineering practice
to consider distributions based on central values ± 1 standard deviations (which
corresponds to 16th and 84th percentile -applicable to sensitivity analyses) in
analysis of extreme conditions.
The use of± 1 standard deviation is more characteristic of the typical range of soil
properties and the subsurface conditions across the Clive Facility, while still
sufficiently conservative to run produce meaningful sensitivity analyses for the
associated geotechnical evaluations (i.e., stability and settlement). Following
development of the material property data set, each estimated value is plotted by
depth and adjacent the median,± 1 standard deviation, 33rd percentile (or 66th
percentile for compressibility parameters), and the previously selected parameter
value for the subsurface unit (Unit 1 through 4). The visual representation of the
statistical analysis for each material property is presented on Figures 3 -10 of the
revised Report in Appendix D to the Application (see "GEOTECNICAL
ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS FOR FEDERAL CELL AT THE CLIVE
FACILITY -CLIVE, UTAH," dated revised on January 18, 2023). Discussion
related to the statistical analysis is found in Sections 4.2.1 and 5.8 of Appendix D,
with the associated slope stability and settlement sensitivity analyses results
summarized in Section 4.8.1, 4.9.1, and 5.8 and Attachment B2 and D2 of the
revised Report in Appendix D.
~
ENERGYSOLUTIONS Mr. Doug Hansen
February 1, 2023
CD-2023-025
Page 5 of7
Additional liquefaction triggering analyses is also performed of the sand-like Unit
3 soils during a groundwater rise event to account for spatial variability beneath
the proposed Federal Cell by performing the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method
with SPT-blow counts documented in boring logs GW-17A, -18, 19-A, -19B, -25,
-26, -27, and -28 (Bingham Environmental, 1992). The previous analysis only
included data from logs GW-36, -37, and -38 drilled directly beneath the proposed
Federal Cell. The additional logs were selected based on proximity to the Federal
Cell and availability of data (i.e., SPT blow counts, rig and sampler information
for correction, groundwater elevation, etc.). Results of the extended liquefaction
triggering analysis are documented in Section 6.3, Figure 11 , and Attachment El
of the revised Report in Appendix D. In addition to the extended liquefaction
triggering analysis, the liquefied residual strength of Unit 3 was also analyzed for
a post-earthquake slope stability analysis, documented in Section 4.12 and
Attachment B of the revised Report in Appendix D.
Additional seismic slope stability or deformation analyses with lower bound
sensitivity parameters do not inform understanding of the sensitivity for decision
making. As presented in Section 4.2 of the revised Report in Appendix D, the
shear strength parameters are conservative for stability and seismic analyses
because the undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils increases as the waste is
placed and the fine-grained soils consolidate. For example, the minimum effective
stress on top of Unit 4 and Unit 2, fine-grained soils, will be approximately 6,300
and 7,900 pounds per square foot (psf) at final build-out and assuming only 90%
consolidation takes place, which is anticipated to occur within 1 year of waste
placement, prior to the design earthquake the preconsolidation pressures on top of
these units would be 5,670 and 7,110 psf. Using SHANSEP's formulation for
estimating shear strength of fine-grained soils, the undrained shear strength on top
of these layers is estimated as 1,475 and 1,850 psf, respectively. These values are
significantly greater than the undrained shear strength values, 1,000 and 1,500
psf, as summarized in Table 2-1 in the revised Report in Appendix D. Therefore,
additional sensitivity analyses of seismic slope stability are unnecessary.
::::::=-
ENERGYSOLUTIONS Mr. Doug Hansen
February 1, 2023
CD-2023-025
Page 6 of7
D-3: Evaluate Static and Seismic Stability o(Internal Slopes. The geotechnical
analyses in Appendix D have been conducted in the context of global stability using the
build out geometry. Case histories have shown, however, that stability failures in waste
containment systems often occur within internal slopes during operations (e.g., during
filling). The potential for internal slope failures needs to be evaluated, and any
vulnerable internal slope geometries identified. Please evaluate quantitatively the static
stability of a range of likely scenarios for internal slopes. Identify critical internal
slopes geometries, if any, that are prone to stability failure:
Based on planned waste placement activities and configuration of the proposed
Federal Cell, the critical geometry for interim stability is the excavation into
native soils prior to waste placement. Interim slope stability analyses for short­
term (undrained strengths for clay-like soils) were performed to address item D-3.
The analysis is summarized in Section 4.8.2 with supporting results provided in
Attachment B3 of the revised Report in Appendix D. Since this analysis evaluates
a temporary slope, seismic deformation is not evaluated. If a seismic event occurs
during a temporary slope condition, deformation and resulting deficiencies will be
corrected by Energy Solutions prior to continued construction of the Federal Cell.
D-4: Evaluate Blow Counts Using Appropriate Hammer Correction Factor and Re­
evaluate Geotechnical Analyses. The standard penetration testing (SPT) hammer
correction factor used to adjust the blow count data may not have been appropriate for
the hammer used for the geotechnical exploration activities. Determine the type of
hammer (specifically that of a rope and cathead or one using an automatic system)
used for standard penetration testing in the past geotechnical exploration activities and
the appropriate hammer correction factor to be used to adjust the blow counts for the
hammer that was employed. If necessary, re-compute the blow counts used in the
analyses and re-conduct the geotechnical analyses using blow counts updated with a
revised hammer correction factor. In addition, if geotechnical parameters were
developed from empirical relationships using SPT blow counts, confirm the
appropriate SPT blow counts were utilized in developing those geotechnical
parameters.:
As discussed in Section 4.2 of the revised Report in Appendix D, the material
properties used in the analyses are based on review of available geotechnical lab
data, boring logs, and previous parameterization of the adjacent Class A West.
Therefore, those parameters are not strictly based on Standard Proctor Test
(SPTD) blow counts. As part of the statistical analysis completed for Request
Item D-2, SPT blow count data were collected for nearby borings:
• B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2004); and
,. ' ~
ENERGY SOLUTIONS Mr. Doug Hansen
February I, 2023
CD-2023-025
Page 7 of 7
• GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -24, -27, -29, -36, -37, and -38 (Bingham
Environmental, 1992).
The SPT blow counts provided from these borings are used to estimate material
properties, including friction angle, undrained shear strength, and effective
cohesion using published empirical correlations with N-value, N6o, or (N1)6o-To
do this, the appropriate information from the boring logs is used to correct SPT
blow counts with the characteristic correction factors (i.e., hammer efficiency,
borehole diameter, rod length, etc.). This data and the selected value of the
analyses are provided in Figure 3 through 10 of the revised Report in Appendix
D. It is noted that the selected values in the analyses typically fall below the
median value for each of the parameters, therefore, Geosyntec did not identify a
need to re-conduct the geotechnical analyses. To further support a conclusion that
the sensitivity analyses are conservative when using ±1 standard deviation
property values for slope stability and settlement, additional liquefaction
triggering analyses for the sand-like Unit 3 soils, and post-earthquake stability
analyses with residual strengths for Unit 4, Unit 3, and Unit 2 soils capture the
potential for uncertainty and variability in the native soils' material
parameterization.
Additional references reflected in these responses and the revisions to Appendix
D are also attached.
If you have further questions regarding the responses to the director's requests ofDRC-
2022-023940 and revision of Appendix D to the Federal Cell Facility Radioactive
Material License Application, please contact me at [phone].
~ f. ~kV-)
Vern C. Rogers
Director, Regulatory Affairs
enclosure
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry
of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submittingfalse information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 ▪ Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 [phone] ▪ Fax: [phone] ▪ www.energysolutions.com
February 1, 2023 CD-2023-025 Mr. Doug Hansen, Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880 Re: Responses to Federal Cell Facility Application Request for Information - DRC-2022-023940

Dear Mr. Hansen, EnergySolutions hereby responds to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control’s December 19, 2022 Request for Information (RFI) on our Federal
Cell Facility Application.1 A response is provided for each request using the Director’s
assigned reference number. A revised copy of Appendix D, Geotechnical Seismic
Engineering Evaluations of the FCF and associated references reflecting responses to the Director’s request are attached. This revised Appendix is not subject to the Permanent Claim of Business Confidentiality previously asserted.2
Appendix O: Erosion Modeling O-2: After downloading SIBERIA from the public website, it did not compile, it may be because it has not been revised for modern architecture. The Division requests that
EnergySolutions please provide: (1) Information pertaining to the operating system on
which the SIBERIA code was run, (2) Information pertaining to the complier used to
compile the SIBERIA source code, (3) SIBERIA compiled version of the code currently being run to support Clive DU PA v2.0, and (4) SIBERIA source code currently being run to support Clive DU PA v2.0. These will greatly expedite our review of the erosion modeling:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-2 and will submit it to the director under separate cover.
1 Hansen, D.J. “Federal Cell Facility Application Request for Information.” via DRC-2023-000525 from the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions, January 19, 2023. 2 Rogers, V.C. “Radioactive Material License Application for a Federal Cell Facility Submitted under Permanent Claim of Business Confidentiality.” (CD-2022-142), Letter from EnergySolutions to Doug Hansen of Utah’s Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, August 4, 2022.
Mr. Doug Hansen February 1, 2023 CD-2023-025 Page 2 of 7
O-3: In order to conduct an independent review on the SIBERIA modeling, please provide the SIBERIA input/output files used for the Clive DU PA v2.0.:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-3 and will submit it to the director under separate cover. O-4: A single value is specified for many of the parameter values input to SIBERIA that are uncertain. For example, NUREG/CR-7200 explores a range of values of n1
and m1. Whereas Clive DU PA v2.0 uses one set of n1 and m1 values and a very
limited range of beta1 values. Please conduct a quantitative sensitivity analysis on the parameters that are most uncertain and that the results are most sensitive to: EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-4 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover. O-5: NUREG/CR-7200 discusses how a SIBERIA model is calibrated using regressions of beta1, m1, and n1 values. Please describe quantitatively how the SIBERIA model was calibrated to measured data for the Clive DU PA v2.0:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-5 and will submit it to the director under separate cover. O-6: Some parameters can be grid resolution dependent (e.g., the hillslope diffusivity
parameter). Please describe whether any grid convergence testing was performed and,
if not, how the grid spacing in the SIBERIA model was determined to be sufficiently small:
EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-6 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover. O-7: The DU PA v2.0 uses a mean flow in the analysis but refers to threshold flow. Somewhat outdated literature is cited in this discussion. Thresholds are important in
gully formation and considering the full distribution of events, particularly events of
significance changes as the landscape changes. Please clarify the role of mean flow assumptions versus threshold in the SIBERIA modeling: EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-7 and will
submit it to the director under separate cover.

Mr. Doug Hansen February 1, 2023 CD-2023-025 Page 3 of 7

O-8: It is unclear whether a roughness value for the initial topography was assigned in the SIBERIA model. Formation of rills/gullies often require some roughness to initiate (otherwise the channelization process has a hard time initiating). Please clarify whether a roughness value was assigned in the initial topography, and if not, provide
the justification for not including the roughness and if it was included, please justify
the assigned value.: EnergySolutions is developing information in response to Request O-8 and will submit it to the director under separate cover.
Appendix D: Geotechnical and Seismic Engineering Evaluations D-2: Evaluate Uncertainty in Engineering Properties. The geotechnical analyses
presented in Appendix D as a basis for the proposed Federal Cell have evaluated
expected conditions using engineering properties obtained during past geotechnical explorations at the site and from the literature. Geotechnical properties are inherently spatially variable, and the spatial variability will affect the outcomes of the analyses. Understanding the impact of spatial variability on geotechnical stability is necessary to
evaluate the efficacy of the Federal Cell. The Division requests a quantitative
evaluation of the sensitivity of each of the geotechnical analyses to uncertainty in the engineering properties by varying the engineering properties used in the analyses two standard deviations above and below the mean.:
To evaluate the uncertainty in engineering properties for geotechnical stability
and account for spatial variability in the subsurface, EnergySolutions directed Geosyntec to perform a statistical analysis of data collected across the Clive Facility during past geotechnical explorations. The statistical analysis of the
various geotechnical material properties for the subsurface units (Unit 1 through
4) relied on in situ measurements and observations and geotechnical laboratory testing results from samples collected during drilling for the following borings:
• B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2004);
• SC-1, -7, -8, -10 & SLC-84 (D&M, 1984);
• GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -24, -27, -29, -36, -37, -38, -41, -55, DH-33, -48, -51 (Bingham Environmental, 1992); and
• DH-1 (AGRA, 1999).
These borings were selected based on their relative location to the Federal Cell and the availability of meaningful data (i.e., SPT blow counts, laboratory testing). Where robust laboratory testing was limited, the development of material
Mr. Doug Hansen February 1, 2023 CD-2023-025 Page 4 of 7
properties for the statistical analysis relied on applicable empirical correlations published in literature. In response to this request, a statistical evaluation of the engineering properties using mean ±2 standard deviations for sensitivity analyses is developed to
consider the potential for underestimating the actual average value of the parameter due to the limited dataset analyzed, assess the potential for lower average values, and evaluate the sensitivity of the geotechnical analyses to these variable properties. A statistical evaluation of data using median and percentile values (or combining median and standard deviation) yields representative values
for real physical data with limited number of data points, because median is the 50th percentile data corresponding to an actual data point. Mean central value estimates using ±2 standard deviations (which statistically captures 95% of the data within the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile range) are highly
affected by the presence and number of very large or very small magnitude values
in datasets and generally not representative of realistic conditions when conducting sensitivity analyses (i.e., produces negative values, significantly lower than physically reasonable minimum values, or not values uncharacteristic for associated soil types). By contrast, it is common geotechnical engineering practice
to consider distributions based on central values ±1 standard deviations (which
corresponds to 16th and 84th percentile - applicable to sensitivity analyses) in analysis of extreme conditions. The use of ±1 standard deviation is more characteristic of the typical range of soil
properties and the subsurface conditions across the Clive Facility, while still
sufficiently conservative to run produce meaningful sensitivity analyses for the associated geotechnical evaluations (i.e., stability and settlement). Following development of the material property data set, each estimated value is plotted by
depth and adjacent the median, ± 1 standard deviation, 33rd percentile (or 66th
percentile for compressibility parameters), and the previously selected parameter value for the subsurface unit (Unit 1 through 4). The visual representation of the statistical analysis for each material property is presented on Figures 3 – 10 of the revised Report in Appendix D to the Application (see “GEOTECNICAL
ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS FOR FEDERAL CELL AT THE CLIVE
FACILITY – CLIVE, UTAH,” dated revised on January 18, 2023). Discussion related to the statistical analysis is found in Sections 4.2.1 and 5.8 of Appendix D, with the associated slope stability and settlement sensitivity analyses results summarized in Section 4.8.1, 4.9.1, and 5.8 and Attachment B2 and D2 of the
revised Report in Appendix D.

Mr. Doug Hansen February 1, 2023 CD-2023-025 Page 5 of 7
Additional liquefaction triggering analyses is also performed of the sand-like Unit 3 soils during a groundwater rise event to account for spatial variability beneath the proposed Federal Cell by performing the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method with SPT-blow counts documented in boring logs GW-17A, -18, 19-A, -19B, -25, -26, -27, and -28 (Bingham Environmental, 1992). The previous analysis only
included data from logs GW-36, -37, and -38 drilled directly beneath the proposed Federal Cell. The additional logs were selected based on proximity to the Federal Cell and availability of data (i.e., SPT blow counts, rig and sampler information for correction, groundwater elevation, etc.). Results of the extended liquefaction triggering analysis are documented in Section 6.3, Figure 11, and Attachment E1
of the revised Report in Appendix D. In addition to the extended liquefaction triggering analysis, the liquefied residual strength of Unit 3 was also analyzed for a post-earthquake slope stability analysis, documented in Section 4.12 and Attachment B of the revised Report in Appendix D.
Additional seismic slope stability or deformation analyses with lower bound sensitivity parameters do not inform understanding of the sensitivity for decision making. As presented in Section 4.2 of the revised Report in Appendix D, the shear strength parameters are conservative for stability and seismic analyses because the undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils increases as the waste is
placed and the fine-grained soils consolidate. For example, the minimum effective stress on top of Unit 4 and Unit 2, fine-grained soils, will be approximately 6,300 and 7,900 pounds per square foot (psf) at final build-out and assuming only 90% consolidation takes place, which is anticipated to occur within 1 year of waste placement, prior to the design earthquake the preconsolidation pressures on top of
these units would be 5,670 and 7,110 psf. Using SHANSEP’s formulation for estimating shear strength of fine-grained soils, the undrained shear strength on top of these layers is estimated as 1,475 and 1,850 psf, respectively. These values are significantly greater than the undrained shear strength values, 1,000 and 1,500
psf, as summarized in Table 2-1 in the revised Report in Appendix D. Therefore,
additional sensitivity analyses of seismic slope stability are unnecessary.
Mr. Doug Hansen February 1, 2023 CD-2023-025 Page 6 of 7

D-3: Evaluate Static and Seismic Stability of Internal Slopes. The geotechnical analyses in Appendix D have been conducted in the context of global stability using the build out geometry. Case histories have shown, however, that stability failures in waste containment systems often occur within internal slopes during operations (e.g., during
filling). The potential for internal slope failures needs to be evaluated, and any
vulnerable internal slope geometries identified. Please evaluate quantitatively the static stability of a range of likely scenarios for internal slopes. Identify critical internal slopes geometries, if any, that are prone to stability failure:
Based on planned waste placement activities and configuration of the proposed
Federal Cell, the critical geometry for interim stability is the excavation into native soils prior to waste placement. Interim slope stability analyses for short-term (undrained strengths for clay-like soils) were performed to address item D-3. The analysis is summarized in Section 4.8.2 with supporting results provided in
Attachment B3 of the revised Report in Appendix D. Since this analysis evaluates
a temporary slope, seismic deformation is not evaluated. If a seismic event occurs during a temporary slope condition, deformation and resulting deficiencies will be corrected by EnergySolutions prior to continued construction of the Federal Cell.
D-4: Evaluate Blow Counts Using Appropriate Hammer Correction Factor and Re-
evaluate Geotechnical Analyses. The standard penetration testing (SPT) hammer correction factor used to adjust the blow count data may not have been appropriate for the hammer used for the geotechnical exploration activities. Determine the type of hammer (specifically that of a rope and cathead or one using an automatic system)
used for standard penetration testing in the past geotechnical exploration activities and
the appropriate hammer correction factor to be used to adjust the blow counts for the hammer that was employed. If necessary, re-compute the blow counts used in the analyses and re-conduct the geotechnical analyses using blow counts updated with a
revised hammer correction factor. In addition, if geotechnical parameters were
developed from empirical relationships using SPT blow counts, confirm the appropriate SPT blow counts were utilized in developing those geotechnical parameters.:
As discussed in Section 4.2 of the revised Report in Appendix D, the material
properties used in the analyses are based on review of available geotechnical lab data, boring logs, and previous parameterization of the adjacent Class A West. Therefore, those parameters are not strictly based on Standard Proctor Test (SPTD) blow counts. As part of the statistical analysis completed for Request
Item D-2, SPT blow count data were collected for nearby borings:
• B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2004); and
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-1 Appendix D January 31, 2023
Revision 4 (DRC-2022-023940)

APPENDIX D

FEDERAL CELL FACILITY

GEOTECHNICAL AND SEISMIC ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-2 Appendix D January 31, 2023
Revision 4 (DRC-2022-023940)

EnergySolutions’ Federal Cell Facility design is primarily an above-grade landfill embankment. The Federal
Cell Facility will be constructed using materials native to the site or found near the site. Synthetic materials
are also used in the construction of the mixed waste embankment. Engineered features of the embankments
are designed based upon State of Utah regulations, NRC guidance, Environmental Protection Agency
guidance, and EnergySolutions’ experience at this location. UAC R313-25-23 requires principal design
features to be selected for the Federal Cell Facility that promote long-term stability. The geotechnical stability
of the Federal Cell Facility has been evaluated by Geosyntec (report presented in this Appendix).

215 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 [phone]
www.geosyntec.com

1

Mr. Vern Rogers
Director of Regulatory Affairs
EnergySolutions, LLC
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Subject:

Response to DWMRC RFI (DRC-2002-024035) dated 19 December 2022
Federal Cell at Clive Facility
Clive, Utah

Dear Vern,
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) has prepared this transmittal letter in response to the Request
for Information (RFI) from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC)
dated 19 December 2022 regarding the Federal Cell Facility Application dated 4 August 2022. The
following sections of this letter provide Geosyntec’s response to requests for Appendix D of the
application. The requests for Appendix D are numbered as D-2, D-3, and D-4 in the RFI.
Geosyntec provides each request and our response to each request below. We refer the reader to
the appropriate section of the revised Appendix D, “Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for
Federal Cell at the Clive Facility,” (Geosyntec, 2022) calculation package, where additional
analyses are provided. The revised calculation package is appended to this letter.
GEOSYNTEC’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
DWMRC Request Item D-2:
“Evaluate Uncertainty in Engineering Properties. The geotechnical analyses presented in
Appendix D as a basis for the proposed Federal Cell have evaluated expected conditions using
engineering properties obtained during past geotechnical explorations at the site and from the
literature. Geotechnical properties are inherently spatially variable, and the spatial variability
will affect the outcomes of the analyses. Understanding the impact of spatial variability on
geotechnical stability is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of the Federal Cell. The Division
requests a quantitative evaluation of the sensitivity of each of the geotechnical analyses to
uncertainty in the engineering properties by varying the engineering properties used in the
analyses two standard deviations above and below the mean.”

EnergySolutions
Federal Cell RFI Response
25 January 2023

2

Geosyntec Response to Item D-2:
To evaluate the uncertainty in engineering properties for geotechnical stability and account for
spatial variability in the subsurface, Geosyntec performed a statistical analysis of the existing data
collected across the Clive Facility during past geotechnical explorations. The statistical analysis
of the various geotechnical material properties for the subsurface units (Unit 1 through 4) relied
on in situ measurements and observations and geotechnical laboratory testing results from samples
collected during drilling for the following borings:
 B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2004);
 SC-1, -7, -8, -10 & SLC-84 (D&M, 1984);
 GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -24, -27, -29, -36, -37, -38, -41, -55, DH-33, -48, -51
(Bingham Environmental, 1992); and
 DH-1 (AGRA, 1999).
These borings were selected based on their relative location to the Federal Cell and the availability
of meaningful data (i.e., SPT blow counts, laboratory testing). Where robust laboratory testing was
limited, the development of material properties for the statistical analysis relied on applicable
empirical correlations published in literature.
RFI Item D-2 requests a statistical evaluation of the engineering properties using mean ±2 standard
deviations for sensitivity analyses. The purpose of statistically evaluating the engineering
properties used for geotechnical evaluations is to consider the potential for underestimating the
actual average value of the parameter due to the limited dataset analyzed, assess the potential for
lower average values, and evaluate the sensitivity of the geotechnical analyses to these variable
properties. The statistical evaluation of data can be done by using mean and standard deviation
terms. However, statistical analyses using median and percentile values (or combining median and
standard deviation) generally yield more realistic values for real physical data with limited number
of data points because median is the 50th percentile data corresponding to an actual data point
whereas mean is affected by the presence and number of very large or very small magnitude values
in the dataset that may not be realistic. It is common in geotechnical engineering practice to
consider a 33rd percentile data point as the lower bound or conservative estimate for the average
value of the parameter. It is also common to consider mean (or median) ±1 standard deviation
which corresponds to 16th and 84th percentile for extreme condition analyses which can be
considered applicable to a sensitivity analysis. The use of a range corresponding to ±2 standard
deviations statistically captures 95% of the data within the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile range.
Considering mean -2 standard deviation for estimating the lower bound average value of a
parameter for a sensitivity analysis is not realistic in our opinion. Geosyntec checked the +2
EnergySolutions
Federal Cell RFI Response
25 January 2023

3

standard deviations over median for several of the parameters. Due to the large value of the
standard deviation, ±2 standard deviations did not represent meaningful parameter values for the
subsequent engineering evaluations and was not relevant to the data set (i.e., the value was negative
in value, significantly lower than the minimum value, or not characteristic of the soil type).
The use of ±1 standard deviation was more characteristic of the typical range of soil property
values and our understanding of the subsurface conditions across the site, while still conservative
enough to run meaningful sensitivity analyses for the associated geotechnical evaluations (i.e.,
stability and settlement). Following development of the material property data set, each estimated
value was plotted by depth and adjacent the median, ± 1 standard deviation, 33rd percentile (or 66th
percentile for compressibility parameters), and the previously selected parameter value for the
subsurface unit (Unit 1 through 4). The visual representation of the statistical analysis for each
material property is presented on Figures 3 – 10 of the revised calculation package appended to
this letter. Discussion related to the statistical analysis can be found in Sections 4.2.1 and 5.8, with
the associated slope stability and settlement sensitivity analyses results summarized in Section
4.8.1, 4.9.1, and 5.8 and Attachment B2 and D2 of the revised package.
Geosyntec performed additional liquefaction triggering analyses of the sand-like Unit 3 soils
during a groundwater rise event to account for spatial variability beneath the proposed cell by
performing the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method with SPT-blow counts documented in boring
logs GW-17A, -18, 19-A, -19B, -25, -26, -27, and -28 (Bingham Environmental, 1992). The
previous analysis only included data from logs GW-36, -37, and -38 drilled directly beneath the
proposed Federal Cell. The additional logs were selected based on proximity to the Federal Cell
and availability of data (i.e., SPT blow counts, rig and sampler information for correction,
groundwater elevation, etc.). Results of the extended liquefaction triggering analysis are
documented in Section 6.3, Figure 11, and Attachment E1 of the revised package. In addition to
the extended liquefaction triggering analysis, Geosyntec estimated the liquefied residual strength
of Unit 3 for a post-earthquake slope stability analysis, documented in Section 4.12 and
Attachment B of the revised package.
Geosyntec did not identify the need to conduct additional seismic slope stability or deformation
analyses with lower bound sensitivity parameters resulting from the data statistics. As discussed
in Section 4.2 of our report, the shear strength parameters used are considered conservative because
the undrained shear strength of fine-grained soils will increase as the waste is placed and the fine-
grained soils consolidate. These parameters are especially conservative for a long-term seismic
analysis. For example, the minimum effective stress on top of Unit 4 and Unit 2, fine-grained soils,
will be approximately 6300 and 7900 psf at final build-out and assuming only 90% consolidation
EnergySolutions
Federal Cell RFI Response
25 January 2023

4

takes place, which is anticipated to occur within 1 year of waste placement, prior to the design
earthquake the preconsolidation pressures on top of these units would be 5,670 and 7,110 psf.
Using SHANSEP’s formulation for estimating shear strength of fine-grained soils, the undrained
shear strength on top of these layers is estimated as 1,475 and 1,850 psf, respectively. These values
are significantly greater than the undrained shear strength values, 1,000 and 1,500 psf, used in our
analyses as summarized in Table 2-1 in our report. Therefore, additional sensitivity analyses of
seismic slope stability are not considered necessary
DWMRC Request Item D-3:
“Evaluate Static and Seismic Stability of Internal Slopes. The geotechnical analyses in Appendix
D have been conducted in the context of global stability using the build out geometry. Case
histories have shown, however, that stability failures in waste containment systems often occur
within internal slopes during operations (e.g., during filling). The potential for internal slope
failures needs to be evaluated, and any vulnerable internal slope geometries identified. Please
evaluate quantitatively the static stability of a range of likely scenarios for internal slopes. Identify
critical internal slopes geometries, if any, that are prone to stability failure.”
Geosyntec Response to Item D-3:
Based on conversations with EnergySolutions regarding their waste placement activities and
configuration of the proposed Federal Cell, the critical geometry for interim stability was identified
as the excavation into native soils prior to waste placement. Interim slope stability analyses for
short-term (undrained strengths for clay-like soils) were performed to address this RFI item. The
analysis is summarized in Section 4.8.2 with supporting results provided in Attachment B3 of the
revised calculation package. Since this is a temporary slope condition, seismic deformation is not
typically evaluated. In the event that a seismic event occurs during the temporary slope condition,
deformation and resulting deficiencies shall be corrected prior to continued construction of the
cell.
DWMRC Request Item D-4:
“Evaluate Blow Counts Using Appropriate Hammer Correction Factor and Re-evaluate
Geotechnical Analyses. The standard penetration testing (SPT) hammer correction factor used to
adjust the blow count data may not have been appropriate for the hammer used for the
geotechnical exploration activities. Determine the type of hammer (specifically that of a rope and
cathead or one using an automatic system) used for standard penetration testing in the past
geotechnical exploration activities and the appropriate hammer correction factor to be used to
EnergySolutions
Federal Cell RFI Response
25 January 2023

5

adjust the blow counts for the hammer that was employed. If necessary, re-compute the blow
counts used in the analyses and re-conduct the geotechnical analyses using blow counts updated
with a revised hammer correction factor. In addition, if geotechnical parameters were developed
from empirical relationships using SPT blow counts, confirm the appropriate SPT blow counts
were utilized in developing those geotechnical parameters.”
Geosyntec Response to Item D-4:
As discussed in Section 4.2 of our report, the material properties used in our analyses were based
on our review of available geotechnical lab data, boring logs, and previous parameterization of the
adjacent CAW performed. Therefore, those parameters were not strictly based on SPT blow
counts. As part of the statistical analysis completed for RFI Item D-2, Geosyntec gathered all SPT
blow count data from the following nearby borings:
 B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2004); and
 GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -24, -27, -29, -36, -37, and -38 (Bingham Environmental,
1992).
The SPT blow counts provided from these borings were used to estimate material properties,
including friction angle, undrained shear strength, and effective cohesion through the use of
published empirical correlations with N-value, N60, or (N1)60. To do this, Geosyntec used
appropriate information from the boring logs to correct SPT blow counts with the characteristic
correction factors (i.e., hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, rod length, etc.). This data and the
selected value of our analyses are provided in Figure 3 through 10 of the revised report. We noted
that the selected values in our analyses typically fall below the median value for each of the
parameter, therefore, Geosyntec did not identify a need to re-conduct the geotechnical analyses.
To further bolster this conclusion, the sensitivity analyses with conservative ±1 standard deviation
property values for slope stability and settlement, additional liquefaction triggering analyses for
the sand-like Unit 3 soils, and post-earthquake stability analyses with residual strengths for Unit
4, Unit 3, and Unit 2 soils capture the potential for uncertainty and variability in the native soils’
material parameterization.

EnergySolutions
Federal Cell RFI Response
25 January 2023

6

CLOSING
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this submittal, please contact
Madeline Downing at [phone] or Keaton Botelho of Geosyntec at [phone].

Madeline Downing Bora Baturay, Ph.D., P.E., G.E.
Engineer Principal

Keaton Botelho, P.E.
Principal

ATTACHMENTS:
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for the Federal Cell at the Clive Facility – Revision 2
(Geosyntec, 2023)

Federal Cell Engineering Evaluations REV January 2023

COMPUTATION COVER SHEET

Client:
Energy
Solutions Pro ect: Federal Cell at Clive Facilit Pro ect No.: SLC1025

Title of Computations GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS

Computations by: Signature 3/11/2021
Printed Name Madeline Downing Date
Title Enginee

Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Signature 3/17/2021
Printed Name Bora Batura , PhD, G.E. Date
Title Principal

Computations
Checked by:
Signature 3/17 2021
Printed Name Bora Baturay, PhD, G.E. Date
Title Principal

Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Signature 3/18/2021
Printed Name Madeline Downing Date
Title Enginee

Approved by:
(pm or designate) Si nature 3/18/2021
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P.E. Date
Title Senior Enginee

Approval notes:

Revisions (number and initial all revisions)

No. Sheet Date B Checked b Approval

1 ALL 10/7/22 MD MD MD
2 ALL 1/18/23 MD BB KB

Page 1 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS
FOR FEDERAL CELL AT THE CLIVE FACILITY
CLIVE, UTAH
Table of Contents
1. Objective ................................................................................................................................4 
2. Background ............................................................................................................................4 
3. Site Characterization ..............................................................................................................5 
3.1 Document Review ....................................................................................................5 
3.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy ...........................................................................................6 
3.3 Groundwater .............................................................................................................8 
3.4 Seismic Hazard Evaluation ......................................................................................8 
4. Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................9 
4.1 Federal Waste Cell Geometry ..................................................................................9 
4.2 Subsurface Material Properties ................................................................................10 
4.2.1 Subsurface Material Properties – Statistical Analysis ..........................11 
4.2.1.1 Friction Angle .......................................................................................13 
4.2.1.2 Effective Cohesion ................................................................................14 
4.2.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength .....................................................................14 
4.3 Federal Cell Cover and Base Liner System Material Properties ..............................15 
4.4 Federal Cell Waste Material Properties for Stability ...............................................16 
4.5 Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................17 
4.6 Design Criteria .........................................................................................................17 
4.7 Analyses Scenarios ...................................................................................................18 
4.8 Short-Term Stability .................................................................................................18 
4.8.1 Short-Term Stability Analysis – Sensitivity Analysis ..........................19 
4.8.2 Short-Term Stability Analysis – Interim Grading ................................20 
4.9 Long-Term Stability Analysis ..................................................................................20 
4.9.1 Long-Term Stability Analysis – Sensitivity Analysis ..........................21 
4.10 Pseudostatic Stability ...............................................................................................22 
4.11 Post-Earthquake Stability .........................................................................................23 
4.12 Post-Earthquake Stability – Unit 3 Liquefied Residual Strength .............................24 
4.13 Seismic Deformation ................................................................................................26 
5. Settlement Analysis ...............................................................................................................27 
5.1 Previous Analyses ....................................................................................................27 
5.2 Compressibility Properties of Foundation Soils .......................................................28 
5.3 Federal Cell Loading and Geometry ........................................................................29 

Page 2 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

5.4 Elastic Settlement (Immediate) of the Sand-Like Units (1 and 3) ...........................30 
5.5 Primary Consolidation ..............................................................................................31 
5.6 Secondary Compression ...........................................................................................32 
5.7 Consequences of Settlement .....................................................................................33 
5.8 Consequences of Spatial Variability for Settlement .................................................34 
6. Liquefaction ...........................................................................................................................36 
6.1 Previous Analyses ....................................................................................................36 
6.2 Seismic Design Parameters ......................................................................................37 
6.3 Liquefaction of Sand-Like Soils ...............................................................................37 
6.3.1 Additional Liquefaction Analyses for Unit 3 ........................................38 
6.4 Cyclic Softening of Clay-Like Soils ........................................................................38 
7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................39 
7.1 Global Static, Seismic Slope Stability and Deformation .........................................39 
7.2 Settlement .................................................................................................................39 
7.3 Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening ...........................................................................39 
8. References ..............................................................................................................................41 

Figures
Figure 1: Site Layout and Exploration Map
Figure 2: Subsurface Stratigraphy
Figure 3: Friction Angle Statistical Analysis
Figure 4: Effective Cohesion Statistical Analysis
Figure 5: Undrained Shear Strength Statistical Analysis
Figure 6: Virgin Compression Index Statistical Analysis
Figure 7: Recompression Index Statistical Analysis
Figure 8: Secondary Compression Index Statistical Analysis
Figure 9: Initial Void Ratio Statistical Analysis
Figure 10: Overconsolidation Ratio Statistical Analysis
Figure 11: Liquefaction Triggering Results for Sand-Like Unit 3 Soils

Attachments
Attachment A Supporting Documents
Attachment B Global Static and Seismic Slope Stability Results
Attachment B2 SLOPE/W Sensitivity Analysis Results

Page 3 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Attachment B3 SLOPE/W Interim Stability Analysis Results
Attachment C Seismic Deformation Analysis
Attachment D Settlement Analysis
Attachment D2 Settlement Sensitivity Analysis Results
Attachment E Liquefaction Analysis
Attachment E2 Supplemental Liquefaction Analysis of Unit 3

Page 4 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

1. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the geotechnical engineering mechanisms related to
the performance of the proposed Federal Cell at the EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions)
Clive Facility in Clive, Utah. The geotechnical analyses performed for the Federal Cell include
static and seismic stability, foundational soil settlement, and liquefaction triggering for the
proposed embankment. The evaluations presented herein have been based on conservative
approaches to evaluate this facility and are designed to capture the potential long-term changes
over the design life. The analyses were performed in accordance with our proposal dated February
17, 2021.
A Request for Information (RFI) from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC) regarding the Federal Cell Facility Application dated 4 August 2022 was submitted to
EnergySolutions on 19 December 2022. Geosyntec has prepared this revised report (Revision 2)
to address the requests for Appendix D (Item D2 through D4) of the application.
2. BACKGROUND
Based on our understanding of the Federal Cell design, the intended waste to be placed in the
containment cell includes depleted uranium (DU) stored in cylinders and drums and controlled
low strength material (CLSM); a flowable fill which will be placed in between and around the
cylinders and drums. According to the Radioactive Waste Inventory for Clive DU PA Model v1.4
(Neptune, 2015b), approximately 690,000 metric tons of the DU filled drums and cylinders are
intended to be placed in the proposed cell. Existing grades at the proposed cell location range
between 4,268 and 4,270 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The Design Drawings
(EnergySolutions, 2020) suggest the average subgrade elevation of the proposed cell is
approximately 4,261 feet amsl, which would be achieved by excavating approximately 7 to 9 feet
below ground surface (bgs).

To support the design of the proposed Federal Cell, EnergySolutions and Neptune and Company,
Inc. (Neptune) developed the Final Report for the Clive Depleted Uranium Performance
Assessment (DU PA) and the DU PA Model v1.4 in 2015 and submitted it to the Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) for review. The DWMRC provided a
review of the DU PA and documented their feedback in their Technical Report dated January 28,
2021 (DWMRC, 2021). EnergySolutions requested that Geosyntec provide assistance to respond
to DWRMC’s feedback and demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives of the Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R313-25-19 through 23 and 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Page 5 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

61.41 through 44, specifically the geotechnical stability evaluations. Geosyntec performed a
review of the referenced Technical Report and has subsequently completed the following
engineering evaluations to help address the technical issues identified by the DWMRC:

 Global static slope stability of the proposed Federal Cell: Short- and long-term stability
including analysis of the various groundwater elevation conditions (current and potential
groundwater level rise);
 Seismic slope stability of the proposed Federal Cell: Pseudostatic stability and deformation
analysis of the most critical stability section;
 Settlement of the proposed Federal Cell foundational soils: Immediate and long-term
settlement analysis including evaluation of embankment response to foundation settlement
over the design life; and
 Liquefaction: Liquefaction triggering analysis caused by potential rise in groundwater
elevation.

3. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The subsurface conditions and proposed Federal Cell liner and cover system components were
characterized based on our review of existing explorations, previous parameterizations performed
for adjacent existing waste cells, and available data provided for our review. The following
sections summarize the documents reviewed, subsurface stratigraphy characterization,
groundwater conditions, and seismic design parameters used to perform our engineering
evaluations presented in this calculation package.
3.1 Document Review
Extensive subsurface explorations have taken place at the Clive Facility dating back to 1984 and
extending through 2020 (Figure 1 presents a site layout of the explorations used in this
evaluation). The following reports provided to us for review were utilized to characterize the
subsurface stratigraphy beneath the proposed Federal Cell, define the groundwater levels critical
for the engineering evaluations, and define the seismic hazard parameters at the facility:
 Hydrogeologic Report for the Clive Facility prepared by Bingham Environmental
(Bingham) dated 1992 (including Addendum 1 and 2);

Page 6 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 Combined Embankment Study for Class A Waste Embankment (CAW) (just North of the
proposed Federal Cell) prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental (AMEC) dated
December 2005;
 Geotechnical Update Report for CAW prepared by AMEC dated February 2011;
 Seismic Hazard Evaluation/Seismic Stability Analysis Update for CAW prepared by
AMEC dated April 2012; and
 Phase 1 Basal Depth Aquifer Study for Clive Facility prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc. (Stantec) dated September 2020.
3.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy
Based on our review of the referenced Hydrogeologic Report (Bingham, 1992), three exploratory
drill holes were excavated beneath the proposed Federal Cell in 1991 by Overland Drilling under
the direction of Bingham personnel. Drill hole logs for GW-36 through GW-38 (Attachment A)
were reviewed to develop a generalized subsurface stratigraphy beneath the proposed Federal Cell
(Bingham, 1992). In general, the geologic units include the following from top to bottom:
 Unit 4 Silty Clay – silty clays, classifying as CL in accordance with Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), containing some fine silt layers and is generally dry near
surface with increasing moisture with depth, and medium stiff to stiff consistency.
 Unit 3 Silty Sand – dense to medium dense silty sands and silts containing few thin clay
layers.
 Unit 2 Silty Clay – interbedded clay and silt layers with a few isolated sand layers up to 2-
feet thick, generally stiff, and saturated clays.
 Unit 1 Silty Sand with interbedded clay/silt lens – generally dense to very dense sands.

As mentioned previously, existing grades beneath the cell range between 4,268 to 4,270 feet above
mean sea level (amsl). The Design Drawings (EnergySolutions, 2020) suggests the average
subgrade elevation of the proposed cell is approximately 4,261 feet amsl. This will result in
excavations ranging between 7 to 9 feet into native Unit 4. Minimal portions of the Unit 4 will
therefore be left in the subgrade. We assume that soft spots of these silty clays will be reworked
and compacted prior to construction of the Federal Cell clay liner. Conservatively we have
assumed approximately 2 feet of Unit 4 silty clay with medium stiff consistency remains beneath
the Federal Cell for the engineering evaluations presented herein. For the purposes of this

Page 7 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

calculation package, the subsurface geology and Federal Cell is idealized as shown in Figure 2
below.

Figure 2 Subsurface Stratigraphy

The subsurface conditions beneath the Federal Cell and CAW embankment are generally
consistent, with the exception of Unit 2 extending on average only 45 feet bgs as opposed to the
approximated 64 feet bgs for the CAW. Conditions documented from various explorations are in
general agreement with the hydrogeologic cross sections across the Clive Facility (Attachment
A). The same geologic unit numbers used in the hydrogeologic characterization (Bingham, 1992)
are used herein for consistency. The importance of this finding is the subsurface conditions are
sufficiently uniform and therefore a single idealized profile is appropriate for the Federal Cell.

Page 8 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

3.3 Groundwater
The latest static groundwater levels were collected during the referenced Aquifer Study (Stantec,
2020). Depth to water in wells I-1-30, I-1-50, I-1-100, and I-1-700 ranged between 28 to 31 feet.
Groundwater depth reported on well logs GW-36 through GW-38 (used for subsurface stratigraphy
characterization beneath the Federal Cell) was encountered at approximately 20 feet bgs.
Groundwater records for these wells report a depth of approximately 20 feet between 2016 and
2020. A depth of 20 feet was therefore used to represent the existing conditions in our stability and
settlement analyses.
Based on available historical records, no significant groundwater elevation rises have occurred at
the Facility. However, DWMRC has requested that the proposed Federal Cell be evaluated for
potential geotechnical instabilities over the design life caused by future hypothetical groundwater
rise events. Therefore, we also evaluated a design groundwater level elevation synonymous with
the ground surface elevation as a bounding scenario as requested by DWMRC. The extreme-case
groundwater rise condition was used to evaluate liquefaction triggering and long-term stability of
the proposed Federal Cell.
3.4 Seismic Hazard Evaluation
DMWRC accepted an updated assessment of the seismic hazard for the Clive Facility consistent
with the requirements of the Utah Code of Regulations R313-25-8(5) to justify a 2012 licensing
action (AMEC, 2012). The previously accepted seismic hazard analysis for the site was therefore
used in this analysis. The seismic hazard assessment was based on deterministic assessment of the
84th percentile peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with the Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE) for known active and potentially active faults in the site region and the PGA
obtained from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) considering a 5,000-year return
period to assess the seismic hazard for earthquakes that may occur on unknown faults in the area
surrounding the site. The largest PGA from the assessment was 0.24g which was same for both
deterministic and probabilistic methods. The maximum magnitude (Mw) identified was 7.3. Based
on our review of the seismicmap.org tool created by Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) and California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and
a review of Unified Hazard Tool (UHT) by the US Geologic Survey (USGS), the PGA obtained
using current fault and ground motion estimation models is 0.22g. Therefore, the seismic
parameters previously accepted by DMWRC are considered reasonable estimates of the seismic
hazard for the site and were utilized in Geosyntec’s seismic hazard analyses documented in this
package.

Page 9 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

4. SLOPE STABILITY
The evaluation of global slope stability of the Federal Cell waste embankment was identified as
an unresolved requirement in the referenced Technical Report (DWMRC, 2021). Analyses
presented herein for global stability consider the geotechnical response of the site for the 10,000-
year design life (or compliance period). Deep-seated global slope stability analyses were
performed for both static and seismic conditions. In addition, the stability analyses include
groundwater modeling at current conditions and at the existing ground surface that represents
extreme case bounding future scenario in terms of pore pressures for stability. The following
sections summarize the methods and analyses performed to demonstrate global static and seismic
stability of the proposed Federal Cell. The graphical output files for the analyses are presented in
Attachment B, B2, and B3.
4.1 Federal Waste Cell Geometry
Based on our review of the Design Drawings for the Federal Cell dated February 2021
(EnergySolutions, 2021), the proposed cell will retain the waste previously described in Section 2
with maximum side slopes of 20 percent (%). For slope stability analyses, the cell geometry has
been summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of Federal Cell Design Dimensions
Description Dimension and Unit
Length 1,920 feet
Width 1,225 feet
Height 52 ½ feet, maximum at crest
Base Elevation 4,262 to 4,263 feet
Crest Elevation 4,314.5 feet
Shoulder Side Slopes 20%
Shoulder Side Slope Width 175 feet
Shoulder Side Slope Height 32.5 feet

Page 10 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Description Dimension and Unit
Cover Top Gradient 2.4%

4.2 Subsurface Material Properties
The material properties of the subsurface soils used to evaluate slope stability reflect our review
of available geotechnical lab data, boring logs, and previous parameterization of the adjacent CAW
performed and compiled for DWMRC’s 2012 Class A West licensing decision (AMEC 2005 &
2011). The subsurface units are generally consistent beneath the CAW and the proposed Federal
Cell, therefore, Geosyntec considers previous material property assignment of the units to be
generally applicable for the analyses presented herein. Based on review of the geotechnical lab
data summarized in 2005 (AMEC, 2005) and the DWMRC’s 2012 licensing action, and the boring
logs available within the Federal Cell footprint, Geosyntec made more conservative assumptions
for the undrained shear strength of clay units. The undrained shear strengths test results reflect the
in-situ conditions during the previous explorations. These selections are considered potentially
conservative as consolidation of the underlying clay units are expected to occur during
construction of the cell, resulting in strength gain overtime with pore pressure dissipation. The
material properties for use in slope stability analyses are summarized in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1: Summary of Subsurface Material Properties for Slope Stability
Unit Material
Classification
Depth
Total Unit
Weight,

Undrained Drained
Undrained
Shear
Strength,
Su
Friction
Angle, '
Effective
Cohesion, c'
(f -s) (pcf) (psf) (de ) (psf)
4 CL/ML 0 - 9 118 1,000 29 0
3 SM 9 - 23 120 - 34 0
2 CL-ML 23 - 45 121 1,500 29 1,000
1
SM with
Interbedded thin
lifts of CL-ML
45 - 100 120 - 29 0

Page 11 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

4.2.1 Subsurface Material Properties – Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis of the native soil material properties was performed in response to the
DWMRC’s Request for Information (RFI) dated 19 December 2022 Item D-2. To account for the
inherent spatial variability of geotechnical properties, a more focused review of the available
exploration data collected across the Clive Facility was performed to develop reasonable
sensitivity ranges for each slope stability parameter based on data statistics. The statistical analysis
relied on in situ measurements and observations and geotechnical laboratory testing results from
samples collected during drilling for the following borings:
 B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2005);
 SC-1, -7, -8, -10 & SLC-84 (D&M, 1984);
 GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -24, -27, -29, -36, -37, -38, -41, -55, DH-33, -48, -51
(Bingham Environmental, 1992); and
 DH-1 (AGRA, 1999).

These boring logs were selected based on proximity to the Federal Cell and the availability of
meaningful data (i.e., SPT blow counts, drill rig information, laboratory testing). The logs and
laboratory testing summary are provided in Attachment A. In the occurrence where robust
laboratory testing was limited, the development of material properties for the statistical analysis
relied on applicable empirical correlations published in literature.

The DWMRC RFI Item D-2 requests a statistical evaluation of the parameters and estimation of
the parameters for mean ± standard deviations for sensitivity analyses. The objective of a standard
statistical evaluation of data in geotechnical evaluations is to consider the potential for
underestimating the actual average value of a parameter because of a limited dataset analyzed as
part the project and to assess potential for presence of lower average strength zones and perform a
sensitivity analysis. The statistical evaluation of data can be done by using mean and standard
deviation terms. However, often, the statistical analysis using median and percentile values (or
combining median and standard deviation) would yield more realistic values for real physical data
with limited number of data points because median is the 50th percentile data corresponding to an
actual data point, whereas mean is affected by the presence and number of very large or very small
magnitude values in the dataset and may not be realistic. It is common in engineering practice to
consider 33rd percentile data point as the lower bound or conservative estimate for the average

Page 12 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

value of the parameter. It is also common to consider mean (or median) ±1 standard deviation
which corresponds to 16th and 84th percentile for extreme condition analyses which can be
considered applicable to a sensitivity analysis. The use of a range corresponding to ± 2 standard
deviations statistically captures 95% of the data within the range, 2.5th and 97.5th percentile.
Considering mean minus two standard deviation for estimating the lower bound average value for
a sensitivity analysis is not realistic in our opinion. Geosyntec checked the two-standard deviation
above/below median for several of the parameters. Due to the large value of the standard deviation,
±2 standard deviations did not represent meaningful parameter values for the subsequent
engineering evaluations and was not relevant to the data set (i.e., the value was negative in value,
significantly lower than the minimum value, or not characteristic of the soil type).

The use of ±1 standard deviation was more characteristic of the typical range of soil property
values and our understanding of the subsurface conditions across the site, while still conservative
enough to run meaningful sensitivity analyses for the associated geotechnical evaluations (i.e.,
stability and settlement). Following development of each material property data set, each
estimated value was plotted by subsurface elevation and adjacent the median, ± 1 standard
deviation, 33rd percentile, and the previously selected parameter value for the subsurface unit
(Unit 1 through 4). Results of the statistical analysis for material properties related to slope stability
are shown on Figure 3 through Figure 5. The minus 1 standard deviation value was selected as
the lower bound sensitivity value for slope stability; intended to capture the potential for spatial
variability beneath the proposed Federal Cell that could impact its stable condition. One exception
was made for undrained shear strength of Unit 4, as the -1 standard deviation value resulted in a
negative value due to the large standard deviation value of the data set, thus the minimum value
was selected for the sensitivity analysis. The material properties for use in the sensitivity analysis
of slope stability are summarized in Table 2-2 below.

Table 2 - 2: Summary of Lower Bound Sensitivity Strength Properties for Slope Stability
Unit Material
Classification
Depth
Undrained Drained
Undrained
Shear Strength,
Su
Friction
Angle, '
Effective
Cohesion, c'
(f -s) (psf) (de ) (psf)
4 CL/ML 0 - 9 500 27 0
3 SM 9 - 23 - 31 0
2 CL-ML 23 - 45 750 29 80

Page 13 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Unit Material
Classification
Depth
Undrained Drained
Undrained
Shear Strength,
Su
Friction
Angle, '
Effective
Cohesion, c'
(f -s) (psf) (de ) (psf)
1 SM with Interbedded
thin lifts of CL-ML 45 - 100 - 29 0

The following sections briefly summarizes the development of each material property data set for
statistical analysis and subsequent sensitivity parameter selection for slope stability.

4.2.1.1 Friction Angle
Sand-like Soils in Unit 3 & 1

The effective stress friction angle (𝜙’) for the sand-like soils in Unit 3 and 1 was estimated by
selecting the minimum correlated value from the following four published empirical correlations
with SPT blow counts:

 Hatanaka and Uchida (1996) in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2002)

𝜙 15.4 ∗ 𝑁20
 Schmertmann (1975)

𝜙 tan 𝑁/12.2 20.3 ∗𝜎
2116 .

 Peck (1953)

𝜙0.3 ∗ 𝑁 27

 Peck et. al. (1974)

𝜙27.1 0.3 ∗ 𝑁0.00054𝑁

Page 14 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

The Peck (1953) correlation resulted in the minimum friction angle value for all blow counts
representing the Unit 3 and Unit 1 soils. Figure 3 presents the estimated friction angle values
plotted by subsurface elevation used to complete the statistical analysis and select lower bound -1
standard deviation sensitivity values.

Clay-like Soils in Unit 4 & 2

The effective stress friction angle for clay-like soils in Unit 4 and 2 was estimated by the following
empirical correlation with plasticity index (PI) presented by Sorensen (2013):

𝜙45 14log𝑃𝐼

Plasticity index testing results used to develop the friction angle data set for Unit 4 and 2 was based
on laboratory testing data provided in Attachment A. Figure 3 presents the estimated friction
angle values plotted by subsurface elevation used to complete the statistical analysis and select
lower bound -1 standard deviation sensitivity values.

4.2.1.2 Effective Cohesion
The effective cohesion (or drained cohesion, c’) for the clay-like soils in Unit 4 and 2 was estimated
by the following empirical correlation with undrained shear strength (Su) presented by Sorensen
(2013):
𝑐0.2 𝑆𝑢

Figure 4 presents the estimated effective cohesion values for Unit 4 and 2 clay-like soils plotted
by subsurface elevation used to complete the statistical analysis and select lower bound -1 standard
deviation sensitivity values.

4.2.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength
Due to the lack of direct laboratory testing of the undrained shear strength for the clay-like soils in
Unit 4 and Unit 2, the undrained shear strength for the clay-like soils relied on three main bases
summarized as follows:

Page 15 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 Limited vane shear testing performed on Unit 2 clay-like soils by AGRA (1999).
 SHANSEP equation used by AMEC (2005):

𝑆𝑢
𝜎 𝑚 𝑂𝐶𝑅
Where, the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) was based on limited consolidation data
collected by D&M (1984), Bingham Environmental (1992), AGRA (1999), and AMEC
(2004) and m & n based on lab testing of Bonneville Clay from various projects in the Salt
Lake Valley.
 Correlations with corrected blow counts (N60) presented in the MDT Geotechnical
Manual (2008).

Figure 5 presents the resulting estimated undrained shear strength values plotted by subsurface
elevation used to complete the statistical analysis and select lower bound -1 standard deviation
sensitivity values. One exception was made for undrained shear strength of Unit 4, as the -1
standard deviation value resulted in a negative value due to the large standard deviation value of
the data set, thus the minimum value was selected for the sensitivity analysis.
4.3 Federal Cell Cover and Base Liner System Material Properties
The material properties for the cover and base liner system components of the Federal Cell were
selected based on review of embankment cell designs, gradations and specifications presented on
the design drawings, a review of estimated properties from literature, and our previous experience
with similar type materials. The material properties for the liner and cover system components for
use in slope stability analyses are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Summary of Liner and Cover System Material Properties for Slope Stability
System
Component
Material
Classification
Thickness

Total Unit
Weight,


Friction
Angle, '

Apparent
Cohesion, c'
Undrained
Shear
Strength
(inches) (pcf) (de ) (psf) (psf)
Side Rock Rip Rap 18 135 40 - -
Top Slope
Cover
Silty Clay from
Native Unit 4
amended with 15%
ravel
12 120 30 200
-

Page 16 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

System
Component
Material
Classification
Thickness

Total Unit
Weight,


Friction
Angle, '

Apparent
Cohesion, c'
Undrained
Shear
Strength
(inches) (pcf) (de ) (psf) (psf)
Filter Zone
Mix of
Gravel/Sand/Fines
(GM-GC)
12 130 34 0
-
Frost
Protection
Cobble/Gravel/Soil
Mixture (GM-GC) 18 130 38 0 -
Radon Clay 24 123 0 1,000 -
Evaporative
Zone
Silty Clay from
Native Unit 4 12 120 29 300 -
Clay Liner Clay 24 123 28 0 1,0001
Liner
Protective
Cove
Silty Sand 12 118 38 250 -
Notes:
1. Undrained strength properties assigned to Clay Liner only. All other materials expected to exhibit drained
strength under the analyzed loading conditions.
4.4 Federal Cell Waste Material Properties for Stability
The Federal Cell waste fill material properties for stability are based on our understanding of the
planned waste placement methods and a review of readily available literature on the shear strength
of CLSM. The stability analyses presented herein assume that the proposed Federal Cell will be
filled with DU in the form of LLRW cylinders and drums surrounded by flowable fill (CLSM) at
a ratio of approximately 1.9 CY of CLSM per CY of DU placed below grade and beneath the
embankment top slope. While the compressive strength is typically used to define specifications
for CLSM (150 psi specified for the neighboring LARW embankment), a long-term degraded
condition over the 10,000-year compliance period is better represented by the residual shear
strength resulting from shear zone failures between the waste cylinders and drums and solidified
CLSM. Alternative characterizations for the waste were considered, however the residual strength
approach is considered to be an appropriate representation. According to a study titled “Flowable
Backfill Materials from Bottom Ash for Underground Pipeline,” UU triaxial testing of CLSM
suggests that residual strength of CLSM may exhibit strength properties of 36 to 46 degrees for
effective friction angle and an effective cohesion of 49 to 140 kPa (Lee, K-J, Kim, S-K and Lee,
K-H, 2014). Conservatively, the Federal Cell waste for stability was assigned a friction angle of

Page 17 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

30 degrees and unit weight of 120 pcf (consistent with unit weight selected for the LARW) with
no effective cohesion. This characterization is conservative and represent the potential long-term
degradation of the CLSM and DU fill over the compliance period.
4.5 Analysis Methodology
Slope stability analyses for Federal Cell was performed using the two-dimensional computer
program SLOPE/W version 10.2.0.19483 (GEO-STUDIO International, Ltd, 2019).
GEOSTUDIO programs are a widely used for geotechnical and geo-environmental modeling and
has been in employed by industry geotechnical engineers since 1977 and used in over 100
countries. SLOPE/W is the leading slope stability software for soil and rock slopes. GEOSTUDIO,
maker of SLOPE/W, reports that several US Federal clients using their software include USACE,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), United States Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS), Federal Bureau of Reclamation, and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The SLOPE/W program can effectively analyze a
variety of slope surface shapes, pore-water pressure conditions, soil properties, and loading
conditions. The selected SLOPE/W analyses were based on the Morgenstern-Price method of
slices, which satisfies both moment and force equilibrium stability on circular sliding surfaces.
The method of slices analysis is consistent with guidelines presented by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Engineering and Design Slope Stability Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-
1902 (USACE, 2003). The results of the slope stability analyses are typically presented in terms
of a factor of safety (FS) defined as the ratio of the total stabilizing forces/moments along an
assumed sliding plane divided by the total sum of internal and external driving forces/moments
acting on the sliding mass. SLOPE/W stability analysis graphical results include the assumed
critical sliding surface and corresponding rotation center and resulting sliding mass divided into
slices for computational purposes, and material properties.
4.6 Design Criteria
The design criteria for global static and seismic slope stability evaluations presented herein were
adopted from the DWMRC’s CAW licensing action. The accepted criteria are commonly used for
evaluating embankment and dam stability and are consistent with Geosyntec’s experience with
similar projects. The criteria and associated literature references are summarized in Table 4 below.

Page 18 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 4: Geotechnical Design Criteria Summary
Analysis Criteria Reference
Static Stability FS>1.5 USACE (2003)
Seismic Stability
Seismic coefficient (kh) = ½ PGA Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G.
(1984) and USACE (2003).
Pseudostatic, FS > 1.2 Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G.
(1984)1
Pseudostatic FS = 1, Post-
earthquake cover deformations
150 300 mm allowable
Makdisi, F.I., and H.B. Seed (1978)
1. FS of 1.2 was conservatively adapted in previous analyses in 2011 accepted by DWMRC for CAW licensing
action based on a review of Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G. (1984).
4.7 Analyses Scenarios
The following conditions were analyzed to evaluate global static slope stability of the Federal Cell.
Upon review of the North-South and East-West geometries and adjacent features of the Federal
Cell and existing groundwater levels, two cross-sections were found to be representative of the
cell embankment for stability analyses: one section adjacent the proposed ditch and inspection
road and one section adjacent an existing waste cell [11(e) or CAW] as shown on the referenced
drawings (EnergySolutions, 2020):
 Short-term with existing groundwater, undrained strength of clay-like soils.
 Long-term with existing groundwater, drained strength.
 Long-term with groundwater rise, drained strength.
Each scenario was also analyzed utilizing lower bound sensitivity properties presented in Table 2-
2 to account for the impacts of spatial variability and inherent uncertainty in geotechnical
engineering properties.
4.8 Short-Term Stability
Short-term loading conditions represent temporary construction conditions where pore water
pressures generated by the loads associated with waste embankment construction have not
dissipated in the clay-like soils and soil behavior can be characterized as undrained.

Page 19 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

The various modes of failure (i.e., circular failures, block failures, deep-seated, and shallow)
commonly seen in embankments of similar design and geology were evaluated to identify the
critical case for each scenario analyzed. The most critical failure surface is herein reported for each
section and loading condition. The results of short-term stability analyses are presented in terms
of FS as presented in Attachment B and summarized in Table below. The FS for both sections
exceed the design criteria of 1.5 for static conditions. The proposed cell geometry is therefore
considered stable under short-term conditions.
Table 5-1: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Short-Term Conditions
Section Groundwater
Factor
of
Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of Safety
Figure
Adjacent Road/Ditch
Existing
Conditions at 20
feet s
2.7
Block Failure
Through Undrained
Unit 2 Native
1.5 B-1
Adjacent Cell 11(e)
Existing
Conditions at 20
feet b s
2.6
Block Failure
Through Undrained
Unit 2 Native
1.5 B-2

4.8.1 Short-Term Stability Analysis – Sensitivity Analysis
The various modes of failure (i.e., circular failures, block failures, deep-seated, and shallow)
commonly seen in embankments of similar design and geology were evaluated to identify the
critical case for each scenario analyzed using sensitivity properties summarized in Table 2 - 2.
The most critical failure surface is herein reported for each section and loading condition. The
results of short-term stability analyses using sensitivity properties are presented in terms of FS as
presented in Attachment B2 and summarized in Table 5-2. The FS for both sections exceed the
design criteria of 1.5 for static conditions. The proposed cell geometry is therefore considered
stable under short-term conditions even with lower bound sensitivity strengths.

Page 20 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 5-2: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Short-Term Conditions with Lower
Bound Sensitivity Properties
Section Groundwater
Factor
of
Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of Safety
Figure
Adjacent Road/Ditch
Existing
Conditions at 20
feet s
1.8
Block Failure
Through Undrained
Unit 2 Native
1.5 B2-1
Adjacent Cell 11(e)
Existing
Conditions at 20
feet b s
1.7
Block Failure
Through Undrained
Unit 2 Native
1.5 B2-2

4.8.2 Short-Term Stability Analysis – Interim Grading
Based on input provided by EnergySolutions regarding their waste placement and cell
configuration for the proposed Federal Cell, the critical geometry for interim stability was
identified as the excavation into native soils prior to waste placement. The base of the cell is
expected to sit approximately 7 feet below current grade with native side slopes excavated at
2H:1V serving as the subgrade for the overlying liner system. The critical scenario for this interim
grading condition is short-term loading scenario (undrained strength of clay-like soils) with
existing groundwater conditions (20 feet bgs). The result of the interim stability analysis is
presented in terms of FS presented in Attachment B3. The FS exceeds the recommended value of
1.5. Therefore, the proposed excavation is considered stable.
4.9 Long-Term Stability Analysis
Long-term slope stability was evaluated considering the two design groundwater levels, existing
conditions (20 feet bgs) and the extreme-case groundwater rise conditions (base elevation), and
drained soil material properties. The drained shear strength of the foundation soils, liner, and cover
materials were selected for a Mohr-Coulomb SLOPE/W material model. Materials are expected to
exhibit drained strength properties in the long-term condition where pore pressures have dissipated
over time, following construction completion of the cell.
The various modes of failure (i.e., circular failures, block failures, deep-seated, and shallow)
commonly seen in embankments of similar design and geology were evaluated to identify the
critical case for each scenario analyzed. The most critical failure surface is herein reported for each
section and loading condition. The results of the long-term stability analysis are presented in terms

Page 21 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

of FS summarized in Table below and presented in Attachment B. The FS for all scenarios
analyzed exceed the recommended value. Therefore, the proposed Federal Cell design is
considered stable under long-term conditions.
Table 6-1: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Long -Term Conditions
Section Groundwater Factor of
Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
Groundwater Level at Existing 20
feet bgs 3.4 Block Failure
Through Clay Liner 1.5 B-3
Groundwater Level during Future
Rise Event (modeled at base
elevation)
3.4
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
ative
1.5 B-4
Adjacent Cell
11(e)

Groundwater Level at Existing 20
feet bgs 3.3 Block Failure
Through Clay Liner 1.5 B-5
Groundwater Level during Future
Rise Event (modeled at base
elevation)
3.3
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
ative
1.5 B-6

4.9.1 Long-Term Stability Analysis – Sensitivity Analysis
The various modes of failure (i.e., circular failures, block failures, deep-seated, and shallow)
commonly seen in embankments of similar design and geology were evaluated to identify the
critical case for each scenario analyzed using sensitivity properties of native soils summarized in
Table 2 - 2.

The most critical failure surface is herein reported for each section and loading condition. The
results of long-term stability analyses using sensitivity properties of the native soils are presented
in terms of FS as presented in Attachment B2 and summarized in Table 6-2. The FS for both
sections exceed the design criteria of 1.5 for static conditions. The proposed cell geometry is
therefore considered stable under long-term conditions even with lower bound sensitivity
strengths.

Page 22 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 6-2: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Long -Term Conditions with Lower
Bound Sensitivity Properties
Section Groundwater Factor of
Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
Groundwater Level during Future
Rise Event (modeled at base
elevation)
3.3
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
ative
1.5 B2-3
Adjacent Cell
11(e)
Groundwater Level during Future
Rise Event (modeled at base
elevation)
3.1
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
ative
1.5 B2-4

4.10 Pseudostatic Stability
Pseudostatic slope stability procedures are commonly used to evaluate the likely seismic
performance of embankment and dam slopes. The pseudostatic analysis presented in this section
is based on the previously accepted analyses by DWMRC and guidelines presented in the Hynes-
Griffin and Franklin method (Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G, 1984). In
pseudostatic analyses, the effects of an earthquake are evaluated by applying a static horizontal
inertial force to the potential sliding mass. This horizontal inertial force is expressed as the product
of the seismic coefficient (k) and the weight of the potential sliding mass. If resulting forces
including the inertial forces are greater than the resisting forces, then seismic deformations will
take place. In accordance with the design criteria adopted from adjacent cell designs based on
Hynes-Griffin and Franklin method (Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G, 1984), a
seismic coefficient equal to 50% of the PGA was used for the pseudostatic analysis and a FS of
1.2 was adapted as a limiting factor of safety for large deformations. The analysis also used
groundwater conditions that represent the extreme-case groundwater rise event and undrained
material properties for the clay liner and foundational units.
Various modes of failure are evaluated to identify the critical case for each scenario analyzed. The
most critical failure surface has been reported herein for each section and loading condition. The
results of the pseudostatic stability analysis are presented in terms of FS summarized in Table
below and presented in Attachment B. The FS for the scenarios analyzed meet the design criteria.
Therefore, the proposed Federal Cell design is not expected to experience large deformations
during seismic loading. Simplified seismic deformation analyses for the range of anticipated
deformations are presented in Section 4.13.

Page 23 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 7: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Pseudostatic
Section Loading Condition Factor
of Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
k = 0.12 g
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.3 Block failure through
Unit 4 Native
1.2

B-7

Adjacent
Cell 11(e)

k = 0.12 g
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.3 Block failure through
Unit 4 Native
1.2

B-8

4.11 Post-Earthquake Stability
To demonstrate the potential effects of cyclic softening in native soils discussed further in Section
6, the proposed Federal Cell was analyzed in SLOPE/W with the potential strength degradation of
the clay-like soils following an earthquake event. To model this in SLOPE/W, the foundational
clay-like soils (Units 2 and 4) and clay liner were modeled with reduced undrained strength
properties. An undrained shear strength degradation of 50% was used to model this phenomenon.
This strength reduction is a lower bound estimate to the strength reduction, if any cyclic softening
were to happen. Justification for this conservative assumption is provided in Section 6. A
minimum FS for stable static conditions of 1.5 was considered acceptable per design criteria
and criteria found in published literature summarized in Section 4.6 above.
Various modes of failure (i.e. failures through deeper clay Unit 2, clay liner, and shallower clay
Unit 4) are evaluated to identify the critical case for each section analyzed. The most critical failure
surface has been reported here for each section and loading condition. The results of the post-
earthquake stability analysis are presented in terms of FS summarized in the Table below and
presented in Attachment B. The minimum FS of 1.5 was achieved for the sections analyzed and
is therefore considered stable in a post-earthquake scenario where clay-like soils have undergone
significant shear strength degradation. A discussion on cyclic softening of clay-like soils is
provided in Section 6 of this package.

Page 24 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 8-1: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Post-Earthquake Cyclic Softening
Section Loading Condition Factor
of Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.8
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
Native
1.5

B-9

Adjacent
Cell 11(e)

Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.6
Block Failure
Through Unit 4
Native
1.5

B-10

4.12 Post-Earthquake Stability – Unit 3 Liquefied Residual Strength
To demonstrate the potential effects of liquefaction of the sand-like soils in Unit 3 discussed further
in Section 6, the proposed Federal Cell was analyzed in SLOPE/W with the potential residual
strength of the soils following an earthquake event in the event that groundwater rises in the future.
To model this in SLOPE/W, the foundational sand-like soils in Unit 3 were modeled with residual
strength properties. As discussed further in Section 6, there is a potential for liquefaction of
localized medium dense silty sand pockets in Unit 3, assuming a groundwater rise condition.
Results of the liquefaction triggering analysis discussed in Section 6 were used to inform the
selection residual strength for Unit 3 by estimating a liquefied undrained shear strength through
correlation with the minimum (N1)60-CS from the liquefaction analysis results (Attachment E2)
and use of an empirical relationship presented by Seed and Harder (1990) shown in the figure
below. The resulting minimum (N1)60-CS for Unit 3 sand-like soils has a value of 20, correlating to
a liquefied shear strength of at least 50 kPa (or ~1000 psf).

Page 25 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Various modes of failure (i.e. failures through deeper clay Unit 2 and shallower Unit 4 and 3) were
evaluated to identify the critical case for each section analyzed. The most critical failure surface
has been reported here for each section and loading condition. The results of the post-earthquake
stability analysis with liquefied residual strengths are presented in terms of FS summarized in the
Table below and presented in Attachment B3. The minimum FS of 1.5 was achieved for the
sections analyzed and is therefore considered stable in a post-earthquake scenario where sand-
like soils have liquefied, and clay-like soils have undergone significant shear strength degradation.
A discussion on liquefaction of the sand-like soils is provided in Section 6 of this package.
Table 8-2: Federal Cell Slope Stability Results for Post-Earthquake Liquefaction and
Cyclic Softening
Section Loading Condition Factor
of Safety
Critical Failure
Mode
Minimum
Required
Factor of
Safety
Figure
Adjacent
Road/Ditch
Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
2.0
Block Failure
Through Unit 3
Native
1.5

B-11

Adjacent
Cell 11(e)

Groundwater Level during
Future Rise Event (modeled at
base elevation)
1.9
Block Failure
Through Unit 3
Native
1.5

B-12

Page 26 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

4.13 Seismic Deformation
The seismic deformation analysis for the Federal Cell was performed using the Makdisi and Seed
(1978) simplified method for estimating seismically induced deformations for earthen
embankments and geosynthetics. The site-specific seismic design parameters such as PGA and
Mw required for estimating seismically induced slope deformations were based on the referenced
seismic hazard analysis that justified DWMRC’s 2012 license action and as discussed in Section
3.4, are as follows:
 PGA = 0.24g
 Mw = 7.3
The seismic deformation analysis includes performing a pseudostatic stability analysis and
determining the yield coefficient, ky, resulting in an FS equal to 1. The ky is next compared with
the maximum estimated inertial force, kmax, to empirically estimate the anticipated embankment
deformations based on the earthquake magnitude. In accordance with the current state of practice
and previous analyses for the adjacent cells, seismically induced deformations of 150 to 300 mm
are considered acceptable. The seismic deformation analysis results are summarized in Table 9
and presented in Attachment C.
Table 9: Federal Cell Seismic Deformation Results
Case/Description ky ümax y
(ft)
H
(ft) y/H kmax/ümax kmax ky/kmax
Estimated
Deformation
(mm)
Critical Section Failure
Through Unit 4 Native, Entire
Slope Face (y/H=1), Adjacent
Cell 11(e)
0.18 0.58 52 52 1 0.34 0.2 0.91 4
Notes:
1. y is depth of sliding mass under evaluations
2. H is average height of the potential sliding mass

Results of the permanent deformation analyses (using undrained strengths and groundwater
rise elevation), estimate seismically induced deformations to be negligible. Therefore, the
performance of the Federal Cell under the provided earthquake ground motions, is considered to
be acceptable in terms of seismically induced deformations.

Page 27 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

5. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
The DWMRC raised concerns for the uncertainty in the parameters used for geotechnical analysis
of the proposed Federal Cell foundation settlement and subsequent embankment response in the
referenced Technical Report (DWMRC, 2021). The following sections describe the method of
analysis and results of estimated elastic, primary consolidation, and secondary compression
settlement of the Federal Cell foundational soils and the consequences of these estimates.
Settlement calculations presented herein are considered conservative as the condition modeled
assumes a “wished into place” scenario. In reality, construction of the proposed cell is likely to be
slow enough (on the order of ±10 years) to allow for dissipation of pore pressures in the underlying
fine-grained soils, resulting in near completion of primary consolidation settlement by the end of
waste placement and start of cover construction. Conservatively we assumed primary
consolidation settlements would go on another year following final placement of waste. This is
considered conservative due to the presence of consistent interbedded sandy layers observed in the
subsurface. Sandy soils act as drainage layers that allow for pore pressures to dissipate and expedite
consolidation of the fine-grained soils. Over the course of construction, these fine-grained soils are
expected to experience this consolidation and be nearly complete by end of waste placement. This
phenomenon has been modeled and predicted for the other adjacent cells (AMEC, 2005). Based
on the analysis, Geosyntec’s opinion is that predicted settlement of the cell would not have an
adverse impact on the stable slope conditions as magnitude of settlement is expected be limited
and would cause only limited flattening of the top slopes. The flattening slopes and potential
differential settlements could reduce the drainage slopes over the cover locally and affect
infiltration. This is something that should be considered during design and construction.
5.1 Previous Analyses
While other adjacent cells varied in geometry and waste fill types, findings of previous settlement
analyses and models for other cells were reviewed for comparison and consistency. The load and
geometry may vary, but the subsurface conditions beneath the adjacent cells are generally
consistent with that of the Federal Cell. Settlements of the foundational soils due to embankment
loading are projected to be on the order of 12 to 16-inches with secondary settlements calculated
over 500-year compliance period on the order of 8-inches. The analysis justifying DWMRC’s
license action for the CAW predicted and modeled these settlements for an embankment height of
approximately 100 feet for various waste types including compressible debris, incompressible
debris, and CLSM. The proposed waste and cover materials for the Federal Cell may have a greater
average unit weight than the CAW (120 pcf versus 100 pcf), but the proposed embankment is

Page 28 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

almost half the height of the CAW. Therefore, Geosyntec predicts that the expected foundation
settlement for the Federal Cell will likely be less than the CAW models.
5.2 Compressibility Properties of Foundation Soils
The compressibility properties of the subsurface soils used to evaluate the foundation settlement
were estimated from laboratory testing results for the fine-grained soils and derived from typical
values for the coarse-grained soils at specified in-situ confining pressures. Correlations from
published literature were also used to supplement the laboratory data.
2005 interpretation of various explorations across the Clive Facility (Bingham 1992, AGRA 1999,
and AMEC 2004) has been provided in Attachment A. In these previous studies, consolidation
tests were performed on fine-grained soil units (Units 2 and 4) that have been consistently
encountered in the subsurface across the Clive Facility. Geosyntec used the interpreted results
provided to evaluate consolidation properties (Cc, Cr, OCR) of these soils that also underlie the
proposed Federal Cell.

Initial void ratios (eo) from the consolidation tests were not provided in the aforementioned lab
summary data table (Attachment A), therefore Geosyntec used in-situ water content (w) laboratory
test results for the underlying soils to estimate the initial void ratio of the fine-grained soils through
the use of published empirical correlations. The eo of the materials was estimated using the
following relationship between water content and the specific gravity for saturated soils:
𝑒 𝐺𝑠 𝑤/100
Where Gs is the specific gravity of the soils; assumed to equal 2.65.
The modified secondary compression index (Cαε) is typically calculated through interpretation of
the consolidation test results and defined as the slope of the compressive strain plotted against
logarithm of time observed post primary consolidation during the test. A correlation was used that
relates Cαε to the estimated in-situ moisture content. Cαε of the materials was estimated using the
following relationship between water content:

Cαε 0.0001𝑤
Elastic settlement of the coarse-grained materials (Units 1 and 3) are typically estimated through
use of the constrained modulus (Ms) of the soil. The sandy subsurface materials in Unit 3 are
assumed to have an elastic modulus of approximately 1,800 psi and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.25. The

Page 29 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

subsurface materials in the Lower Sand Unit 1 are assumed to have an elastic modulus of
approximately 2,300 psi and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.38. The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratios
were selected based properties of similar soils types are equivalent confining pressures (Qian et al.
2002). The Ms was calculated with equation presented above.
𝑀 𝐸 1 𝑣
1 𝑣1 2 𝑣
where:
vs = Poisson’s ratio of soil, ft; and
Es = elastic modulus of soil, lb/ft2.

The unit weights of geologic units are consistent with the assignments used in the slope stability
analyses discussed earlier.
A summary of the resulting settlement material properties used in our settlement analysis is
provided in Table 10.
Table 10: Summary of Properties for Foundation Settlement Analysis
Unit
Thick
ness
Unit
Weight
γ
Constrained
Modulus
Ms
Primary
Compression
Index
Cc
Recompression
Index
Cr
Modified
Secondary
Compression
Index
Cαε
OCR Water
content
(%)
Initial
Void
Ratio
eo
(ft) (pcf) (psf) (psf)
4 2 118 - 0.25 0.02 0.004 5 40 1.06
3 14 120 311,040 - - - - - -
2 22 121 - 0.20 0.025 0.0045 1.5 45 1.2
1 55 120 531,560 - - - - - -

5.3 Federal Cell Loading and Geometry
For this calculation package, the settlement evaluation is based on the geometry presented in Table
1. For simplification the load was calculated as the maximum height (52.5 feet) of fill with an
average unit weight of 120 pcf. The loading shape was approximated with a rectangular loading

Page 30 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

shape for the purposes of settlement analysis. This is considered representative of the average unit
weight of CLSM, the waste, and the various cover and liner materials. This results in a load over
the foundational soils of approximately 6,300 psf applied at the base of the Federal Cell.
A stress distribution model was developed to assess elastic and consolidation settlement. The
change in stress () is due to the Federal Cell height above the ground surface approximated to
be 6,300 psf. The change in stress in the underlying soils is calculated as the difference between
the existing overburden stress and the overburden pressure due to the Federal Cell. The distribution
of the total stress with depth assumes that the Federal Cell is an infinite embankment. The increase
in stress at depth ((z)) is equal to the change in stress at the surface () distributed over an
effective base area that increases with each depth interval below the surface, this is determined
with the following equations:
(z) = ( * Areabase)/Areaeffective
Areaeffective = (B +z)*(L+z) and
B = Base width of the cell (ft)
L = Base length of the cell (ft)
z = interval depth below ground surface (ft)
The change in stress within the geologic units was evaluated for each 1-foot interval bgs. The stress
distribution calculations are presented in the settlement analysis calculations presented in
Attachment D.
The magnitude of loading estimated here are the average loading beneath the top deck portion of
the embankment where the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease
linearly over the top slopes to essentially to no loading at the toe of the embankment.
5.4 Elastic Settlement (Immediate) of the Sand-Like Units (1 and 3)
Because of the coarse-grained nature of sand-like units (Units 1 and 3), the settlement of these
layers is anticipated to be primarily the result of elastic or immediate settlement. To evaluate the
potential effects of elastic settlement of the sand units, the units are assumed to behave as an elastic
and homogeneous medium. The foundation settlement is calculated using the Elastic Settlement
Equation, which is:

Page 31 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

𝑍∆𝜎
𝑀 𝐻
where:
Ze = elastic settlement of soil layer, ft;
Ho = initial thickness of soil layer, ft;
Δchange in stress, psf (discussed in Section 5.3); and
Ms = constrained modulus of soil, lb/ft2 (provided in Table 9, discussed in Section 5.3).

The change in stress at each 1-foot interval in Units 1 and 3 and the corresponding constrained
modulus were then used to calculate the elastic settlement with the equation presented above for
each layer interval. The results of each interval where then summated to a cumulative estimate for
elastic settlement of Units 1 and 3. The elastic settlement for each unit is summarized in the Table
below and presented in Attachment D. The elastic settlements are expected to occur during
construction of the Federal Cell and be complete prior to cover construction. The elastic settlement
reported herein is therefore not expected to adversely impact the long-term stability of the cover
and will likely not need to be considered or accounted for during cover construction.

Table 11: Foundation Soil Elastic Settlement
Unit Material Description Estimated Elastic
Settlement (inches)
3 Upper Silty Sand 3
1 Deeper Silty Sand with CL/ML
lens 8

5.5 Primary Consolidation
Because of the fine-grained nature of Units 2 & 4, the settlement of these layers is anticipated to
be a result of consolidation. The subsurface stratigraphy is discussed in Section 3.2 above with
the material properties summarized in Table 10. To calculate the consolidation settlement (Sc),
Units 2 and 4 were broken into 1-foot-thick intervals. The total consolidation settlement within
each unit was the summation of the consolidation settlement in the individual 1-foot-thick layers.
Based on the consolidation lab data discussed in Section 5.2, the soils are likely overconsolidated.

Page 32 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) for Units 2 and 4 are presented in Table 10. The equation for
consolidation settlement for overconsolidated soil is as follows:

𝑆𝐶
1 𝑒 𝐻 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝜎′
𝜎′ 𝐶
1 𝑒 𝐻 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝜎′ 𝛥𝜎
𝜎′

where,
eo = See Table 10 initial void ratio
H = 1 thickness of the compressible layer interval (ft)
Cc = See Table 10 compression index
Cr = See Table 10 recompression index
OCR = See Table 10 overconsolidation ratio
’p = OCR *’vo maximum past pressure (psf)
’vo = varies initial vertical effective stress (psf). Groundwater was assumed at a
depth of 25 feet below the ground surface (existing level)
 = varies change in stress due to overburden loading (psf) (See Section 5.3
for discussion and Attachment C for stress distribution
calculations)
Calculation of primary consolidation settlement of Units 2 and 4 is provided in Attachment D and
summarized in Table 12 below.
5.6 Secondary Compression
Secondary compression is typically observed after primary settlement is substantially complete.
For the purpose of calculations, this is often assumed as the time at which the material reaches
95% degree of consolidation. As discussed earlier, because the waste embankment placement takes
place relatively slowly, the primary consolidation is expected to be substantially complete as the
filling is complete and by the time cover materials are placed. With this assumption and using the
secondary compression parameter presented in Table 10, secondary compression during the
compliance period of 10,000 years was estimated through the following relationship:

Page 33 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

𝑆𝑠 Cαε ∗ 𝐻100
𝑡2
𝑡1

Where
Ss time dependent secondary settlement occurring between t1 and t2
Cαε = See Table 9 modified secondary compression index
H100 = varies total thickness of compressible layers at the end of primary
consolidation (for each 1-foot interval in Units 2 and 4)
t1 = 1-year time between the placement of last significant waste in the cell and
cover construction (assumed to be 1 year based on review of
previous analyses and conservative assumptions regarding the pace
of construction)
t2 = 10,000 years time for which secondary settlements are estimated for (compliance
period of 10,000 years)

Summation of the secondary compression of each 1-foot interval of Units 2 and 4 was performed
to estimate the cumulative secondary compression of each unit. The calculations for secondary
compression are presented in Attachment D and summarized in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Foundation Soil Consolidation and Secondary Compression Settlement
Unit Material Description
Estimated Primary
Consolidation
Settlement (inches)
Estimated Secondary
Compression
Settlement (inches)
4 Upper CL-ML 3 <1
2 Deeper CL-ML 9 5

5.7 Consequences of Settlement
Based on our understanding of the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the proposed Federal Cell and
review of other adjacent cell studies (AMEC, 2005 & 2011), there are two principal geologic units
(Units 2 and 4) which may be subject to long-term settlements. These long-term settlements
estimated in this calculation package are principally a result of consolidation settlements of fine-
grained soils. The upper sand unit (Unit 3) and lowermost sequence of sands with thin lifts of
clays and silts (Unit 1) are not anticipated to impact long-term settlements. The elastic

Page 34 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

settlements of those layers were reported in this package to provide a complete picture of the total
estimated settlement in the foundational soils of the proposed Federal Cell. It is the primary
consolidation and secondary compression settlements, however, that should be considered during
design and construction of the cell cover. Based on the results presented in Table 12, 12 inches
of primary consolidation settlement and 6 inches of secondary compression settlement may
result from construction of the Federal Cell. Considering the loading rate, the primary
consolidation settlement will likely occur simultaneously during waste placement and will be
substantially complete by the time the waste reaches its final elevation. We assumed 1 year after
completion of waste placement for completion of primary consolidation, as a conservative estimate
discussed previously. Secondary compression settlements which are relatively small in magnitude,
however, should be considered in cover design to ensure proper drainage is achieved because these
settlements will occur after the cover construction. The analyses assumed a secondary compression
time period of 10,000 years per compliance period requirements. A conservative assumption of
zero secondary compression at the edge of the cell and the maximum magnitude of 6 inches
at the center would result in an average settlement gradient of 6 inches over approximately
600 feet as 0.1 %. Therefore, the current design gradient of 2.4% maybe reduced to 2.3% in an
average sense which is considered negligible.
The magnitude of settlements estimated here are for the top deck portion of the embankment where
the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease linearly over the top
slopes to essentially no settlement at the toe of the embankment. Therefore, settlement of the
foundational soils as a result of construction of the Federal Cell are not expected to adversely
impact the adjacent cells.
Settlement plate instrumentation may be used during cell construction to monitor consolidation
settlements, project substantial completion of consolidation settlements, and confirm design
assumptions prior to construction of the cover. These results may be useful for future waste cell
designs and construction. Overbuilding the cover and performing inspections and routine
maintenance over the monitoring period may help to mitigate the effects of long-term settlement.
5.8 Consequences of Spatial Variability for Settlement
In response to DWMRC’s RFI dated 19 December 2022 Item D-2 requesting sensitivity analyses
for the geotechnical engineering evaluations to account for spatial variability and inherent
uncertainty of the subsurface conditions, a statistical analysis was performed on the available
laboratory testing data available from the following explorations:

Page 35 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

 B-1 & B-2 (AMEC, 2005);
 SC-1, -7, -8, -10 & SLC-84 (D&M, 1984);
 GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, (Bingham Environmental, 1992); and
 DH-1 (AGRA, 1999).

The statistical analysis was focused on the compressibility parameters of the clay-like soils, since
the nature of how these soils may consolidate over a long time period compared to immediate
settlement of sand-like soils impact the design and construction of the Federal Cell. As mentioned
previously in Section 5.4, Unit 3 and 1 sand-like soils are expected to undergo elastic settlements
that will likely occur during construction of the Federal Cell and be complete prior to cover
construction. Therefore, these elastic settlements are not expected to adversely impact the long-
term stability of the cover and thus a sensitivity analysis of the compressibility parameters for Unit
3 and 1 soils was not performed.
The laboratory testing summary table is provided in Attachment A. Following assembly of the
compressibility data set for Unit 4 and Unit 2, each value (i.e., Cc, Cr, eo) was plotted by
subsurface elevation and adjacent the median, ±1 standard deviation, 33rd or 66th percentile, and
the previously selected parameter value for the subsurface unit (Unit 4 and Unit 2). Results of the
statistical analysis for compressibility properties related to consolidation settlement are shown on
Figure 7 through Figure 10.
The driving factor for considering impacts of long-term settlement on a stable condition for the
proposed Federal Cell is the potential for final cover slope reversal that could adversely impact the
drainage design and lead to unwanted ponding. Thus, the key consideration for spatial variability
under the proposed cell is the potential for differential settlement. To quantitatively assess the
potential for differential settlement, the statistical analysis results (Figures 7 - 10) for were used
to evaluate primary and secondary compression of Unit 4 and 2 soil layers by using +1 (maximum
settlement) and -1 (minimum settlement) standard deviation compressibility values. The result of
this calculation is provided in Attachment D2 and summarized in the Table below.

Page 36 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Table 13: Minimum and Maximum Estimated Settlement
Unit Material
Description
Estimated
Minimum
Primary
Consolidation
Settlement
(inches)
Estimated
Minimum
Secondary
Compression
Settlement
(inches)
Estimated
Maximum
Primary
Consolidation
Settlement
(inches)
Estimated
Maximum
Secondary
Compression
Settlement
(inches)
4 Upper CL-ML 1 <1 6 <1
2 Deeper CL-ML 3 1 22 5

As mentioned previously, secondary compression settlements should be considered in cover
design to ensure proper drainage is achieved, because these settlements will occur after the cover
construction. Results in Section 5.7 indicated a maximum differential settlement of 6 inches may
occur in response to secondary compression. Results of the sensitivity analysis, using minimum
and maximum secondary compression estimates in Table 13 above, indicate similar results (~6
inches of differential settlement), thus conclusions in Section 5.7 are unchanged.
6. LIQUEFACTION
Based on our understanding of the Technical Report (DWMRC, 2021), we understand the 10,000-
year compliance period for the proposed Federal Cell presents a need for conservative approaches
to analyzing the geotechnical stability mechanisms. The following sections summarize the
liquefaction analyses performed for the proposed Federal Cell that support this need. The analyses
presented are based on an extreme groundwater level rise resulting in a groundwater elevation
equal to the current existing ground surface (a 25 feet groundwater rise event).
6.1 Previous Analyses
A groundwater level of 26 feet bgs was used in previous liquefaction analyses for the Clive Facility
(AMEC 2005, 2011, and 2012). Therefore, the upper sand Unit 3 was not considered during their
liquefaction triggering analysis. Previous calculations indicated that liquefaction of the saturated
soil layers below the site (Units 1 and 2 at the time) was not a design issue for the adjacent waste
cells. For the seismic design event analyzed, majority of the soils in the upper 30 to 60 feet of the
subsurface, Unit 2, consist of cohesive deposits, which have a low probability of liquefaction due
to their high clay content. It was also found that the interbedded cohesionless silt and silty sand
deposits in Unit 1 would be also unlikely to liquefy due to their relatively high density. Geosyntec

Page 37 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

generally agrees with this prediction for Unit 1 and considers it applicable to the Federal
Cell Unit 1 soils, however consideration for the upper sand Unit 3 was included in the current
analysis to reflect the groundwater level rise condition that would saturate the cohesionless soils.
6.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site-specific seismic design parameters such as PGA and Mw required for estimating
liquefaction triggering were based on the referenced seismic hazard analysis that justified
DWMRC’s 2012 license action and as discussed in Section 3.4, and are as follows:
 PGA = 0.24g
 Mw = 7.3
6.3 Liquefaction of Sand-Like Soils
The liquefaction triggering analysis was performed following the procedures outlined in Idriss and
Boulanger (2008) for the sand-like soils in Unit 3. Sand-like soils are referred to soils which
primarily consist of coarse-grained particles more than 50 percent by weight or very low plasticity
fine-grained soils (i.e., low plasticity silts). The soils classified as clay were not considered
susceptible to liquefaction and their evaluation is discussed in following section.
Boring logs for GW-36 through GW-38 (Bingham, 1992) which were excavated with a hollow-
stem auger (HSA) and extended to depths of 30 feet bgs into proposed Federal Cell area limits
were used to complete the analysis (logs are provided in Attachment A). Due to the limitations of
HSA drilling methods in keeping the drilled hole stable for drilling at or below groundwater level,
SPT blow counts recorded at or below groundwater do not provide a meaningful representation of
the subsurface soil density. Therefore, the liquefaction triggering analysis herein only presents
results for soils with SPT blow-counts above the groundwater readings; approximately 18 to 20
feet bgs. Fines content results were not available for Unit 3 samples collected from GW-36 through
GW-38. The fines content was therefore assumed to represent a silty sand with the lower bound
fines content of 15%.
Detailed calculations for the liquefaction triggering analysis are presented in Attachment E.
Results indicate that sand-like soils within the upper 20 feet below ground surface are not
anticipated to liquefy under the design seismic loading with the exception of a thin layer between
14 and 16 feet bgs encountered in GW-38 that resulted in a FS greater than 1.0 but less than 1.1,

Page 38 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

which indicates there is potential for localized liquefaction to occur in this layer. The potential for
seismic settlement in this layer is less than ½ an inch and localized to the location of GW-38
(Figure 1). Considering the dense nature of the sands in Unit 3, localized liquefaction will likely
induce a dilative behavior and not adversely impact the strength of the sands. Therefore, these
affects are not anticipated to undermine the stable conditions of the proposed Federal Cell.
6.3.1 Additional Liquefaction Analyses for Unit 3
In response to DWMRC’s RFI dated 19 December 2022 Item D-2 requesting sensitivity analyses
for the geotechnical engineering evaluations to account for spatial variability and inherent
uncertainty of the subsurface conditions, additional boring logs (GW-16, -17, -18, -19A, -19B, -
24, -27, -29, -36, -37, -38, included in Attachment A) were used to perform a focused liquefaction
triggering assessment of the Unit 3 sand-like soils. The additional boring logs were selected based
on proximity to the proposed Federal Cell and availability of meaningful data (i.e., groundwater,
rig information, borehole diameter, etc.). Adding more SPT blow count data to the liquefaction
triggering assessment is intended to capture the probable variability of the Unit 3 sand-like soils
and reduce uncertainty in our liquefaction triggering results. Detailed calculations are presented in
Attachment E2 with results presented on Figure 11. Results indicate that sand-like soils in the
upper 26 feet are not anticipated to liquefy under the design seismic loading, with the exception of
4 out of 56 blow count data points (Figure 11) around 14 to 16 feet and 18 to 20 feet bgs suggesting
the potential for localized liquefaction with resulting FS calculated as less than 1.0. The potential
for seismic settlement in these layers is less than ½ an inch cumulatively. These effects are not
anticipated to undermine the stable conditions of the proposed Federal Cell. As an additional
conversative measure, the minimum (N1)60-CS value from the liquefaction triggering analysis for
Unit 3 sand-like soils was used to estimate a residual liquefied strength for a post-earthquake slope
stability analysis discussed in Section 4.12. Results indicated that residual liquefied strengths will
still yield a stable condition post-earthquake.
6.4 Cyclic Softening of Clay-Like Soils
Cyclic softening is a phenomenon where fine-grained soils do not undergo liquefaction, but
experience reduction in strength and stiffness caused by cyclic deformations due to increase in
pore pressures during seismic shaking. Previous analysis concluded that cyclic softening is highly
unlikely, presenting a very low related risk of cyclic softening (of Units 2 and 4 clay-like soils)
(AMEC, 2012). Considering that most clays in upper Unit 4 will be removed as part of construction
of the proposed Federal Cell and given the stiff nature of Unit 2 clays, Geosyntec generally agrees

Page 39 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

with this conclusion from the DWMRC’s prior licensing decisions. Geosyntec has evaluated the
global stability of the Federal Cell for a post-earthquake event that results in 50% strength
reduction of all clay-like soils, clay-liner included representing a conservative and less likely
strength reduction scenario. The results of this stability condition are discussed in Section 4.11.
Results indicated that even a strength reduction of 50% in the clay-like soils and liner will still
yield a stable condition post-earthquake.
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Global Static, Seismic Slope Stability and Deformation
Based on the results of Geosyntec’s slope stability analyses, the design of the proposed Federal
Cell will remain stable for global static short-term (including interim), long-term, seismic, and
post-earthquake conditions presented in this package. Results are presented in Attachment B, B2,
and B3. Based on the results of the seismic deformation analysis, the design of the proposed
Federal Cell slopes and cover will not experience significant seismic induced deformations (<5
mm). Results are presented in Attachment C.
7.2 Settlement
Based on the results of the settlement analyses, the current load of the proposed Federal Cell may
result in up to 11-inches of elastic settlement of sand-like soils, 12-inches of primary consolidation
of clay-like soils, and 6-inches of secondary compression settlement of clay-like soils. Elastic
settlement and primary consolidation settlement presented in this package should be complete
within one year after the embankment waste placement (within the required settlement monitoring
period) and is not interfere with the post-construction performance of the cover. The 6-inches of
secondary compression settlement of clay-like foundation soils should occur over a compliance
period of 10,000 years and are not projected to impact the long-term performance of the cover and
embankment. The magnitude of settlements estimated here are for the top deck portion of the
embankment where the maximum embankment height is experienced and expected to decrease
linearly over the top slopes to essentially no settlement at the toe of the embankment. Therefore,
settlement of the foundational soils as a result of construction of the Federal Cell are not expected
to adversely impact the adjacent cells. Results are presented in Attachment D & D2.
7.3 Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening
Based on the results of liquefaction triggering analyses and seismically induced cyclic softening,
these hazards are not projected to undermine the stable condition of the proposed Federal Cell.

Page 40 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Seismically-induced settlements of the sand-like soils are negligible (<1 inch.) In the event that
sand-like soils liquefy, liquefied residual strengths would still yield a stable slope condition post
earthquake. Cyclic softening of the clay-like soils is highly unlikely to occur as a result of the
design seismic event (0.24g PGA and 7.3 Mw), nevertheless a 50% strength degradation of the
clay-like soils would also still yield a stable slope condition post-earthquake. Results of the sand-
like soils liquefaction analysis are presented in Attachment E & E2 and the post-earthquake
softened clay stability analyses are provided in Attachment B.

Page 41 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

8. REFERENCES
AGRA (1999). Geotechnical Site Characterization for Proposed New LARW Embankment, Clive,
Utah, October 1999.
AMEC (2005). Combined Embankment Study for Class A Waste Embankment, Clive, Utah,
December 2005.
AMEC (2011). Geotechnical Update Report for Class A Waste Embankment, Clive, Utah,
February 2011.
AMEC (2012). Seismic Hazard Evaluation/Seismic Stability Analysis Update for Clive Facility,
Clive, Utah, April 2012.
Bingham Environmental (1992). Hydrogeologic Report Part 1 & 2 for Clive Facility and
Addendum 1&2, Clive, Utah.
Das, B.M. (2016), “Principals of Foundation Engineering,” 8th Edition
Division of Waste Management and Radioactive Control (DWMRC) 2012 Class A West licensing
decision (2005 & 2011
DWMRC (2021). Technical Report for Performance Objective R313-25-23 Stability of the
Disposal Site after Closure, Federal Cell, Clive, Utah.
EnergySolutions (2020). Drawings 14004 C01-05 for Federal Waste Cell, Clive Facility, Utah,
January 2020.
Energy Solutions (2021). Drawings for Federal Waste Cell – Revised Waste Limits, Clive Facility,
Utah, February 2021.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2002), “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5,
Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties.”
GEO-STUDIO International, Ltd. (2019). “SLOPE/W,” version 10.2.0.19483, Calgary, Canada.
Hatanka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical correlation between penetration resistance
and internal friction angle of sandy soils,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 4,
pp. 1-9.

Page 42 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Hynes-Griffin, Mary E. and Franklin, Arley G. (1984). Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient
Method. Paper GL-84-13, Geotechnical Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, US
Corps of Engineers.
Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W., [2008], Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Monograph 12.
Lee, K-J, Kim, S-K and Lee, K-H, 2014. (2014). Flowable Backfill Materials from Bottom Ash
for Underground Pipeline. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5453207/
Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) (2015a). Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model v1.4,
November 2015.
Neptune (2015b). Radioactive Waste Inventory for Clive DU PA Model v1.4, November 2015.
Makdisi, F.I., and H.B. Seed [1978] “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment
Earthquake-Induced Deformation," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT7, 1978, pp. 849-867.
Peck (1953). Foundation Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
Peck et al. (1974). “Relation of N-Values and Friction Angles.”
Qian, et al. (2002). Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and Construction.
Schmertmann (1975). “Measurement of In Situ Shear Strength,” Conference on In Situ
Measurement of Soil Properties, Raleigh, NC.
Seed, Raymond B., and Harder, Leslie F. Jr. (1990). “SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure
Generation and Undrained Residual Strength.” Proceedings of Memorial Symposium for
H. Bolton Seed, J Michael Duncan ed., BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, B. C., Canada, Vol.
2, pp. 351-376.
Sorensen K.K. and Okkels N. (2013) “Correlation between drained shear strength and plasticity
index of undisturbed overconsolidation clays” International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering.

Page 43 of 43

Written by: M. Downing Date: 3/11/2021 Reviewed
:
B. Baturay Date: 3/17/21

Client: ES Project: Federal Cell Project/ Proposal No.: SLC1025 Task No.: 01

Stantec (2020). Phase 1 Basal Depth Aquifer Study for Clive Facility, Clive, Utah, September
2020.
Seismicmaps.org
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003). Engineering and Design Slope Stability,
Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1902, October 2003.

FIGURES

SITE LAYOUT AND EXISTING EXPLORATIONS
FEDERAL CELL AT CLIVE FACILITY
CLIVE, UTAH
FIGURE NO. 1
PROJECT NO. SLC1025
DATE: MARCH 2021
Notes:
1. Base image from the Hydrogeologic Report (Bingham,
1992)
2. Other explorations are known to exist across Section 32 of
the Clive Facility. Explorations shown here were used for
the Federal Cell geotechnical engineering evaluations.
SC-7 SC-8
GW-36
GW-37
GW-38
SC-1
SC-10
B-2
GW-18
GW-17A
GW-16
CPT-6
CPT-2
CPT-1
CPT-5
CPT-3
CPT-4
B-1
GW –
(Bingham Enviro, 1992)
SC –
(D&M, 1984)
B –
(AMEC, 2005)
CPT –
(AMEC, 2005)
GW-19A/19B
GW-27 GW-28 GW-25
GW-28
Figure
3
FRICTION ANGLE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
33RD PERCENTILE
Ground Surface Elevation
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Effective Friction Angle (degrees)
φ' Unit 4 (Sorrensen, 2013)φ' Unit 2 (Sorrensen, 2013)
φ' Unit 3 (Peck et al , 1974)φ' Unit 1 (Peck et al, 1974)
Figure
4
EFFECTIVE COHESION STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
33RD PERCENTILE
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Ground Surface Elevation
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
0 500 1000 1500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Effective Cohesion, c' (psf)
c' Unit 4 (c' = 0.2Su)c' Unit 2 (c' = 0.2Su)
Figure
5
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
33RD PERCENTILE
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Ground Surface Elevation
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Undrained Shear Strength, Su (psf)
Su Unit 4 Su Unit 2
Figure
6
COMPRESSION INDEX STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
66th PERCENTILE
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Ground Surface Elevation
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Virgin Compression, Cc
Cc Unit 4 Cc Unit 2
Figure
7
RECOMPRESSION INDEX STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
66th PERCENTILE
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Ground Surface Elevation
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Recompression Index, Cr
Cr Unit 4 Cr Unit 2
Figure
8
SECONDARY COMPRESSION INDEX STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
66th PERCENTILE
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Ground Surface Elevation
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Secondary Compression, Cαε
Cαε Unit 4 Cαε Unit 2
Figure
9
INITIAL VOID RATIO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
33RD PERCENTILE
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Ground Surface Elevation
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Initial Void Ratio, eo
eo Unit 4 eo Unit 2
Figure
10
OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
MEDIAN
SELECTED VALUE
+- 1 STANDARD DEVIATION
LEGEND:
33RD PERCENTILE
4160.0
4180.0
4200.0
4220.0
4240.0
4260.0
4280.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR
OCR Unit 4 OCR Unit 2
Figure
11
LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING OF UNIT 3 SAND-
LIKE SOILS
CLIVE FACILITY FEDERAL CELL
CLIVE, UTAH
Project No: SLC1025 JANUARY 2023
4240
4245
4250
4255
4260
4265
4270
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Factor of Safety
NLL
Notes:
1. L = Liquefiable
2. NL= Non-liquefiable
3. Liquefaction triggering of Unit 3 sand-like
soils is based on the occurrence of a
groundwater rise condition of 20 feet.
4. Analysis is based on “Idriss and Boulanger
(2008), Soil Liquefaction During
Earthquakes, EERI Monograph MNO-12.”
5. Evaluation reflects SPT-blow counts from
borings GW-17A, -18, 19-A, -19B, -25, -26,
-27, -28, -36, -37, -38 (Bingham
Environmental, 1992).

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B

2.7
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Unit 2 Adjacent Road Short Term
Project No.SLC1025
Short Term Undrained GW @ Current Conditions Figure

B-1
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit
Weight(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 121 1,500 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 34 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
2.6
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Unit 2 Adjacent 11e Short Term
Project No.SLC1025
Short Term Undrained GW @ Current Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit
Weight(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 121 1,500 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 34 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
Figure
B-2
3.4
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
Distance
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Clay Liner Adjacent Road
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Current Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap)Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Figure

B-3
3.4
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
Distance
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Long Term Drained
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
Figure

B-4
3.3
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/26/2021
Clay Liner Adjacent 11e
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Current Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap)Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Figure
B-5
3.3
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
245
265
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/19/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Long Term Drained
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 29 1
Figure
B-6
1.3
Distance (ft)
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Distance
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Seismic
Project No.SLC1025
Pseudostatic Undrained GW @ Rise Conditions Figure

B-7
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 118 1,000 1
1.3
Distance (ft)
750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Distance
750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Seismic
Project No.SLC1025
Figure

B-8
Pseudostatic Undrained GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 118 1,000 1
1.8
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
Distance
0 100 200 300 400
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Softened
Project No.SLC1025
Undrained Clay Like Soils GW @ Rise Conditions (Cyclic Softening)
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Clay Liner Undrained Cyclic
Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 123 500 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface
Layer
Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
Figure
B-9
1.6
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
P:\
P
R
J
\
S
D
W
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

t
o

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
g
s
z
03/17/2021
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Softened
Project No.SLC1025
Undrained Clay Like Soils GW @ Rise Conditions (Cyclic Softening)
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Figure
B-10
Color Name Model Unit Weight(pcf)
Cohesion'(psf)Phi'(°)Cohesion(psf)PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable) 1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Clay Liner Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 123 500 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
2.0
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400 500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
P:\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

R
o
a
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

-
s
en
s
.
g
s
z
01/20/2023
Unit 4 Unit 3 Adjacent Road
Project No.SLC1025
Post EQ Residual Strengths GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Slope Stability Material Model Unit Weight
(pcf)
Effective Cohesion
(psf)
EffectiveFriction
Angle
(°)
Total Cohesion
(psf)
PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Clay Liner Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 123 500 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 3 SM Liquefied
Residual Strength
Undrained (Phi=0) 120 1,000 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
Figure
B-11
1.9
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-74
-54
-34
-14
6
26
46
66
86
106
126
146
166
186
206
P:\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

1
1
e

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

-

s
en
s
.
g
s
z
01/20/2023
Unit 4 Unit 3 Adjacent 11e
Project No.SLC1025
Post EQ Residual Strengths GW @ Rise Conditions
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Slope Stability Material Model Unit Weight
(pcf)
Effective Cohesion
(psf)
EffectiveFriction
Angle
(°)
Total Cohesion
(psf)
PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Undrained)Undrained (Phi=0) 123 1,000 1
Compacted Clay Liner Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 123 500 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 3 SM Liquefied
Residual Strength
Undrained (Phi=0) 120 1,000 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Cyclic Softening
Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
Figure
B-12

ATTACHMENT B2

1.8
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400 500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400 500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
\\S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
-
0
1
\
d
a
t
a
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
e
l
l

R
o
a
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

-
s
e
n
s
.
g
s
z
01/25/2023
Unit 2 Adjacent Road Short Term - S
Project No.SLC1025
Short Term Undrained GW @ Current Conditions Sensitivity
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Total
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle
(°)
Piezometric
Line
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner
(Drained)
Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained - S Undrained (Phi=0) 121 750 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained - S Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 31 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained - S Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
Figure
B2-1
1.7
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-100
0
100
200
\\S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
-
0
1
\
d
a
t
a
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
e
l
l

1
1
e

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

-

s
e
n
s
.
g
s
z
01/25/2023
Unit 2 Adjacent 11e Short Term - S
Project No.SLC1025
Short Term Undrained GW @ Current Conditions Sensitivity
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Total
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle
(°)
Piezometric
Line
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner
(Drained)
Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained - S Undrained (Phi=0) 121 750 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained - S Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 31 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained - S Undrained (Phi=0) 118 500 1
Figure
B2-2
3.3
Distance (ft)
0 100 200 300 400 500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
Distance
0 100 200 300 400 500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
225
\\S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
-
0
1
\
d
a
t
a
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
e
l
l

R
o
a
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

-
s
e
n
s
.
g
s
z
01/25/2023
Unit 4 Adjacent Road Long Term Drained - S
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Rise Conditions Sensitivity
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Slope Stability Material Model Unit Weight
(pcf)
Effective Cohesion
(psf)
EffectiveFriction
Angle
(°)
PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained - S Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 27 1
Figure
B2-3
3.1
Distance (ft)
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
Distance
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
-75
-55
-35
-15
5
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
185
205
\\S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
-
0
1
\
d
a
t
a
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W

S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
e
l
l

1
1
e

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

-

s
e
n
s
.
g
s
z
01/25/2023
Unit 4 Adjacent 11e Long Term Drained - S
Project No.SLC1025
Long Term Static Drained GW @ Rise Conditions Sensitivity
Energy Solutions Federal Cell
Color Name Slope Stability Material Model Unit Weight
(pcf)
Effective Cohesion
(psf)
EffectiveFriction
Angle
(°)
PiezometricLine
Block Spec Bedrock Bedrock (Impenetrable)1
Compacted Clay Liner (Drained)Mohr-Coulomb 123 0 28 1
Compacted Fill Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Evaporative Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 300 29 1
Filter Zone Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 34 1
Frost Protection Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 38 1
Liner Protective Cover Mohr-Coulomb 118 250 38 1
LLRW with CLSM Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 30 1
Radon Clay Cover Mohr-Coulomb 123 1,000 0 1
Roadbase Mohr-Coulomb 130 0 36 1
Side Rock (Rip Rap) Mohr-Coulomb 135 0 40 1
Top Slope Surface Layer Mohr-Coulomb 120 200 30 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Drained - S Mohr-Coulomb 118 0 27 1
Figure
B2-4

ATTACHMENT B3

5.5
Distance (feet)
0 50 100 150
4,220
4,320
Distance
0 50 100 150
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
4,220
4,320
P:\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
L
C

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

C
l
i
v
e

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
\
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

C
a
l
c
s
\
S
l
o
p
e
W
\
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
l
l

-

I
n
t
e
r
i
m
.
g
s
z
01/20/2023
Interim Slope Stability
Project No.SLC1025
Interim Short Term Figure

B3-1
Energy Solutions
Color Name Slope Stability
Material Model
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Total
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Cohesion
(psf)
Effective
Friction
Angle (°)
Piezometric
Line
Unit 1 SM/SC with ML/CL Lens (45-100) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 29 1
Unit 2 CL/ML (23-45) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 121 1,500 1
Unit 3 SM (9-23) Drained Mohr-Coulomb 120 0 34 1
Unit 4 CL/ML (0-9) Undrained Undrained (Phi=0) 118 1,000 1
FEDERAL CELL EXCAVATION

ATTACHMENT C

SLC1025
Earthquake Deformation AnalysisMakdisi & Seed Simplified Method
Case/Description ky ümax y (ft) H (ft) y/H kmax/ümax kmax ky/kmax Deformation
(cm)
Deformation
(mm)
Allowable
Deformation
(mm)
FS 1 Critical Section Failure Through Unit 4, entire slope face (y/h =1), adjacent 11(e) 0.180 0.580 52.0 52.0 1.0 0.34 0.20 0.91 0.4 4 150-300
Mw:7.3
PHGA (g):0.24 -
-
umax= 0.58
Makdisi and Seed - deformation analysis md

ATTACHMENT D

Site:CLIVE FEDERAL CELL Project No.:SLC1025
Location:CLIVE UTAH
Client:ES Date:17‐Mar‐21
Prepared by:M.Downing Reviewed by:B.Baturay
Theory
Total settlement made up of three (3) components:
Total Settlement st = Immediate Settlement (si) + Primary Consolidation (sc) + Secondary Settlement (ss)
Primary Consolidation sc
S = Cr Ho(1+eo) log['c/'vo] + Cc Ho1+eo log[('vo + v)/'c]
where Cr =recompression index
Cc = compression index
Ho = initial soil layer thickness'c = effective preconsolidation pressure = OCR 'vo    'vo = initial effective vertical stressv = change in vertical effective stress
eo=initial void ratio
Secondary Settlement ss
ss = C H100 log(t2/t1)
where C = secondary compression index
Ho = thickness of compressible layer at end of primary consolidation
t2 = time for which secondary settlements are calculated (500 years for design life, assume settlement after that is minimul due to log scale projection of creep)
t1 = t100 for primary consolidation - 1 year - estimated by previous analyses of Unit 2 and 4 clay layers (AMEC)
Elastic (Immediate)Ze=Δσ/Ms *Ho
wher Z =elastic settlement of soil layer
Ho= initial thickness of soil layer
Δσ= change in stress in layerMs = constrained modulus of soil estimated with E and v of the insitu soil
CALCULATIONS
Height of Waste and Cover Materials=52.5ft at the tallest point, including coverNew Load for Foundation Average Unit Weight of Cover and Waste=120.0pcf
width B v from Loading =6300.0psf
Depth (FT BGS)B =1225.0ft Based on Cell Limits v Unit 4 L =1920.0ft
CL/ML 2 Unit 4 Unit Weight 118.0pcf
Unit 3 Unit 3 Unit Weight 120.0pcf
SM 16 Unit 2 Unit Weight 121.0pcf
Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit Weight 120.0pcf
CL/ML Unit weight of water 62.4pcf
38 Depth to Water =18.0ft gw @ 25' below current grade, approximately 7 feet of upper material to be removed = 16 feet bgs for modeling
Unit 1
SM Unit 4 Cc =0.250Unit 4 eo =1.1 Unit 3 Ms =311,040
Unit 4 Cr =0.02Unit 2 eo =1.2 Unit 1 Ms=531556
100 Unit 4 Cαε =0.004Unit 4 OCR =5
t1 (t100 for primary
consolidation)1
Unit 2 OCR =1.5
 (comp ance 
period of 10,000 
years f)10000
Unit 2 Cc= 0.2
Unit 2 Cr =0.025Unit 2 Cαε =0.00450
Depth (ft)
Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effective Mat 
Area
(sf)
v (psf)
'vo +v (psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
0.0 6300.0
1.0 0.5 59.0 59.0 2353572.8 6295.8 6354.8 5.0 295.0 1.0 no 0.160 0.840 0.013 0.173
2.0 1.5 177.0 177.0 2356719.8 6287.4 6464.4 5.0 885.0 1.0 no 0.104 0.896 0.014 0.118
3.0 2.5 297.0 297.0 2359868.8 6279.0 6576.0 1.0 0.020
4.0 3.5 417.0 417.0 2363019.8 6270.6 6687.6 1.0 0.020
5.0 4.5 537.0 537.0 2366172.8 6262.3 6799.3 1.0 0.020
6.0 5.5 657.0 657.0 2369327.8 6253.9 6910.9 1.0 0.020
7.0 6.5 777.0 777.0 2372484.8 6245.6 7022.6 1.0 0.020
8.0 7.5 897.0 897.0 2375643.8 6237.3 7134.3 1.0 0.020
9.0 8.5 1017.0 1017.0 2378804.8 6229.0 7246.0 1.0 0.020
10.0 9.5 1137.0 1137.0 2381967.8 6220.7 7357.7 1.0 0.020
11.0 10.5 1257.0 1257.0 2385132.8 6212.5 7469.5 1.0 0.020
12.0 11.5 1377.0 1377.0 2388299.8 6204.2 7581.2 1.0 0.020
13.0 12.5 1497.0 1497.0 2391468.8 6196.0 7693.0 1.0 0.020
14.0 13.5 1617.0 1617.0 2394639.8 6187.8 7804.8 1.0 0.020
15.0 14.5 1737.0 1737.0 2397812.8 6179.6 7916.6 1.0 0.020
16.0 15.5 1857.0 1857.0 2400987.8 6171.5 8028.5 1.0 0.020
17.0 16.5 1978.0 1978.0 2404164.8 6163.3 8141.3 1.5 2967.0 1.0 no 0.042 0.958 0.017 0.05918.0 17.5 2099.0 2099.0 2407343.8 6155.2 8254.2 1.5 3148.5 1.0 no 0.040 0.960 0.017 0.05719.0 18.5 2220.0 31.2 2188.8 2410524.8 6147.0 8335.8 1.5 3283.2 1.0 no 0.039 0.961 0.017 0.056
20.0 19.5 2341.0 93.6 2247.4 2413707.8 6138.9 8386.3 1.5 3371.1 1.0 no 0.038 0.962 0.017 0.05521.0 20.5 2462.0 156.0 2306.0 2416892.8 6130.8 8436.8 1.5 3459.0 1.0 no 0.037 0.963 0.017 0.055
22.0 21.5 2583.0 218.4 2364.6 2420079.8 6122.8 8487.4 1.5 3546.9 1.0 no 0.036 0.964 0.017 0.05423.0 22.5 2704.0 280.8 2423.2 2423268.8 6114.7 8537.9 1.5 3634.8 1.0 no 0.036 0.964 0.017 0.05324.0 23.5 2825.0 343.2 2481.8 2426459.8 6106.7 8588.5 1.5 3722.7 1.0 no 0.035 0.965 0.017 0.052
25.0 24.5 2946.0 405.6 2540.4 2429652.8 6098.6 8639.0 1.5 3810.6 1.0 no 0.034 0.966 0.017 0.05226.0 25.5 3067.0 468.0 2599.0 2432847.8 6090.6 8689.6 1.5 3898.5 1.0 no 0.034 0.966 0.017 0.051
27.0 26.5 3188.0 530.4 2657.6 2436044.8 6082.6 8740.2 1.5 3986.4 1.0 no 0.033 0.967 0.017 0.05028.0 27.5 3309.0 592.8 2716.2 2439243.8 6074.7 8790.9 1.5 4074.3 1.0 no 0.032 0.968 0.017 0.05029.0 28.5 3430.0 655.2 2774.8 2442444.8 6066.7 8841.5 1.5 4162.2 1.0 no 0.032 0.968 0.017 0.049
30.0 29.5 3551.0 717.6 2833.4 2445647.8 6058.8 8892.2 1.5 4250.1 1.0 no 0.031 0.969 0.017 0.04931.0 30.5 3672.0 780.0 2892.0 2448852.8 6050.8 8942.8 1.5 4338.0 1.0 no 0.031 0.969 0.017 0.048
32.0 31.5 3793.0 842.4 2950.6 2452059.8 6042.9 8993.5 1.5 4425.9 1.0 no 0.030 0.970 0.017 0.04733.0 32.5 3914.0 904.8 3009.2 2455268.8 6035.0 9044.2 1.5 4513.8 1.0 no 0.029 0.971 0.017 0.04734.0 33.5 4035.0 967.2 3067.8 2458479.8 6027.1 9094.9 1.5 4601.7 1.0 no 0.029 0.971 0.017 0.046
35.0 34.5 4156.0 1029.6 3126.4 2461692.8 6019.3 9145.7 1.5 4689.6 1.0 no 0.028 0.972 0.017 0.04636.0 35.5 4277.0 1092.0 3185.0 2464907.8 6011.4 9196.4 1.5 4777.5 1.0 no 0.028 0.972 0.017 0.045
37.0 36.5 4398.0 1154.4 3243.6 2468124.8 6003.6 9247.2 1.5 4865.4 1.0 no 0.027 0.973 0.018 0.04538.0 37.5 4519.0 1216.8 3302.2 2471343.8 5995.8 9298.0 1.5 4953.3 1.0 no 0.027 0.973 0.018 0.04439.0 38.5 4639.0 1279.2 3359.8 2474564.8 5988.0 9347.8 1.0 0.011
40.0 39.5 4759.0 1341.6 3417.4 2477787.8 5980.2 9397.6 1.0 0.01141.0 40.5 4879.0 1404.0 3475.0 2481012.8 5972.4 9447.4 1.0 0.011
42.0 41.5 4999.0 1466.4 3532.6 2484239.8 5964.6 9497.2 1.0 0.01143.0 42.5 5119.0 1528.8 3590.2 2487468.8 5956.9 9547.1 1.0 0.01144.0 43.5 5239.0 1591.2 3647.8 2490699.8 5949.2 9597.0 1.0 0.011
45.0 44.5 5359.0 1653.6 3705.4 2493932.8 5941.5 9646.9 1.0 0.01146.0 45.5 5479.0 1716.0 3763.0 2497167.8 5933.8 9696.8 1.0 0.011
47.0 46.5 5599.0 1778.4 3820.6 2500404.8 5926.1 9746.7 1.0 0.01148.0 47.5 5719.0 1840.8 3878.2 2503643.8 5918.4 9796.6 1.0 0.011
SETTLEMENT ANALYSES
Depth (ft)Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effective Mat 
Area
(sf)
v (psf)
'vo +v (psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
49.0 48.5 5839.0 1903.2 3935.8 2506884.8 5910.8 9846.6 1.0 0.011
50.0 49.5 5959.0 1965.6 3993.4 2510127.8 5903.1 9896.5 1.0 0.011
51.0 50.5 6079.0 2028.0 4051.0 2513372.8 5895.5 9946.5 1.0 0.01152.0 51.5 6199.0 2090.4 4108.6 2516619.8 5887.9 9996.5 1.0 0.011
53.0 52.5 6319.0 2152.8 4166.2 2519868.8 5880.3 10046.5 1.0 0.01154.0 53.5 6439.0 2215.2 4223.8 2523119.8 5872.7 10096.5 1.0 0.011
55.0 54.5 6559.0 2277.6 4281.4 2526372.8 5865.2 10146.6 1.0 0.011
56.0 55.5 6679.0 2340.0 4339.0 2529627.8 5857.6 10196.6 1.0 0.01157.0 56.5 6799.0 2402.4 4396.6 2532884.8 5850.1 10246.7 1.0 0.011
58.0 57.5 6919.0 2464.8 4454.2 2536143.8 5842.6 10296.8 1.0 0.01159.0 58.5 7039.0 2527.2 4511.8 2539404.8 5835.1 10346.9 1.0 0.011
60.0 59.5 7159.0 2589.6 4569.4 2542667.8 5827.6 10397.0 1.0 0.011
61.0 60.5 7279.0 2652.0 4627.0 2545932.8 5820.1 10447.1 1.0 0.01162.0 61.5 7399.0 2714.4 4684.6 2549199.8 5812.6 10497.2 1.0 0.011
63.0 62.5 7519.0 2776.8 4742.2 2552468.8 5805.2 10547.4 1.0 0.01164.0 63.5 7639.0 2839.2 4799.8 2555739.8 5797.8 10597.6 1.0 0.011
65.0 64.5 7759.0 2901.6 4857.4 2559012.8 5790.4 10647.8 1.0 0.011
66.0 65.5 7879.0 2964.0 4915.0 2562287.8 5783.0 10698.0 1.0 0.01167.0 66.5 7999.0 3026.4 4972.6 2565564.8 5775.6 10748.2 1.0 0.011
68.0 67.5 8119.0 3088.8 5030.2 2568843.8 5768.2 10798.4 1.0 0.01169.0 68.5 8239.0 3151.2 5087.8 2572124.8 5760.8 10848.6 1.0 0.011
70.0 69.5 8359.0 3213.6 5145.4 2575407.8 5753.5 10898.9 1.0 0.011
71.0 70.5 8479.0 3276.0 5203.0 2578692.8 5746.2 10949.2 1.0 0.01172.0 71.5 8599.0 3338.4 5260.6 2581979.8 5738.9 10999.5 1.0 0.011
73.0 72.5 8719.0 3400.8 5318.2 2585268.8 5731.6 11049.8 1.0 0.01174.0 73.5 8839.0 3463.2 5375.8 2588559.8 5724.3 11100.1 1.0 0.011
75.0 74.5 8959.0 3525.6 5433.4 2591852.8 5717.0 11150.4 1.0 0.011
76.0 75.5 9079.0 3588.0 5491.0 2595147.8 5709.7 11200.7 1.0 0.01177.0 76.5 9199.0 3650.4 5548.6 2598444.8 5702.5 11251.1 1.0 0.011
78.0 77.5 9319.0 3712.8 5606.2 2601743.8 5695.3 11301.5 1.0 0.01179.0 78.5 9439.0 3775.2 5663.8 2605044.8 5688.0 11351.8 1.0 0.011
80.0 79.5 9559.0 3837.6 5721.4 2608347.8 5680.8 11402.2 1.0 0.011
81.0 80.5 9679.0 3900.0 5779.0 2611652.8 5673.6 11452.6 1.0 0.01182.0 81.5 9799.0 3962.4 5836.6 2614959.8 5666.5 11503.1 1.0 0.011
83.0 82.5 9919.0 4024.8 5894.2 2618268.8 5659.3 11553.5 1.0 0.01184.0 83.5 10039.0 4087.2 5951.8 2621579.8 5652.2 11604.0 1.0 0.011
85.0 84.5 10159.0 4149.6 6009.4 2624892.8 5645.0 11654.4 1.0 0.011
86.0 85.5 10279.0 4212.0 6067.0 2628207.8 5637.9 11704.9 1.0 0.01187.0 86.5 10399.0 4274.4 6124.6 2631524.8 5630.8 11755.4 1.0 0.011
88.0 87.5 10519.0 4336.8 6182.2 2634843.8 5623.7 11805.9 1.0 0.01189.0 88.5 10639.0 4399.2 6239.8 2638164.8 5616.6 11856.4 1.0 0.011
90.0 89.5 10759.0 4461.6 6297.4 2641487.8 5609.6 11907.0 1.0 0.011
91.0 90.5 10879.0 4524.0 6355.0 2644812.8 5602.5 11957.5 1.0 0.01192.0 91.5 10999.0 4586.4 6412.6 2648139.8 5595.5 12008.1 1.0 0.011
93.0 92.5 11119.0 4648.8 6470.2 2651468.8 5588.4 12058.6 1.0 0.011

ATTACHMENT D2

Site:CLIVE FEDERAL CELL Project No.:SLC1025
Location:CLIVE UTAH
Client:ES Date:20‐Jan‐23
Prepared by:M.Downing Reviewed by:B.Baturay
Theory
Total settlement made up of three (3) components:
Total Settlement st = Immediate Settlement (si) + Primary Consolidation (sc) + Secondary Settlement (ss)
Primary Consolidation sc
S = Cr Ho/(1+eo) log['c/'vo] + Cc Ho/1+eo log[('vo + v)/'c]
where Cr =recompression index
Cc = compression index
Ho = initial soil layer thickness
'c = effective preconsolidation pressure = OCR 'vo    
'vo = initial effective vertical stress
v = change in vertical effective stress
eo=initial void ratio
Secondary Settlement ss
ss = C H100 log(t2/t1)
where C = secondary compression index
Ho = thickness of compressible layer at end of primary consolidation
t2 = time for which secondary settlements are calculated (500 years for design life, assume settlement after that is minimul due to log scale projection of creep)
t1 = t100 for primary consolidation - 1 year - estimated by previous analyses of Unit 2 and 4 clay layers (AMEC)
Elastic (Immediate)Ze=Δσ/Ms *Ho
wher Z =elastic settlement of soil layer
Ho= initial thickness of soil layer
Δσ= change in stress in layer
Ms = constrained modulus of soil estimated with E and v of the insitu soil
CALCULATIONS
Height of Waste and Cover Materials=52.5 ft at the tallest point, including cover
New Load for Foundation Average Unit Weight of Cover and Waste=120.0 pcf
width B v from Loading =6300.0 psf
Depth (FT BGS)B =1225.0 ft Based on Cell Limits v Unit 4 L =1920.0 ft
CL/ML 2 Unit 4 Unit Weight 103.0 pcf
Unit 3 Unit 3 Unit Weight 109.0pcf
SM 16 Unit 2 Unit Weight 100.0pcf
Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit Weight 123.0pcf
CL/ML Unit weight of water 62.4pcf38Depth to Water =16.0ft gw @ 25' below current grade, approximately 7 feet of upper material to be removed = 16 feet bgs for modeling
Unit 1
SM Unit 4 Cc =0.075 Unit 4 eo =1.12 Unit 3 Ms =311,040
Unit 4 Cr =0.005 Unit 2 eo =1.275 Unit 1 Ms=531556
100 Unit 4 Cαε =0.00258 Unit 4 OCR =8
t1 (t100 for primary
consolidation)1
Unit 2 OCR =1.6
t2 (compliance 
period of 10,000 
years f)10000
Unit 2 Cc= 0.069
Unit 2 Cr =0.010
Unit 2 Cαε =0.00123
Depth (ft)Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effec ve Ma  
Area
(sf)
v (psf)
'vo +v (psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
0.0 6300.0
1.0 0.5 51.5 51.5 2353572.8 6295.8 6347.3 8.0 412.0 1.0 no 0.044 0.956 0.010 0.054
2.0 1.5 154.5 154.5 2356719.8 6287.4 6441.9 8.0 1236.0 1.0 no 0.027 0.973 0.010 0.038
3.0 2.5 263.5 263.5 2359868.8 6279.0 6542.5 1.0 0.020
4.0 3.5 372.5 372.5 2363019.8 6270.6 6643.1 1.0 0.020
5.0 4.5 481.5 481.5 2366172.8 6262.3 6743.8 1.0 0.020
6.0 5.5 590.5 590.5 2369327.8 6253.9 6844.4 1.0 0.020
7.0 6.5 699.5 699.5 2372484.8 6245.6 6945.1 1.0 0.020
8.0 7.5 808.5 808.5 2375643.8 6237.3 7045.8 1.0 0.020
9.0 8.5 917.5 917.5 2378804.8 6229.0 7146.5 1.0 0.020
10.0 9.5 1026.5 1026.5 2381967.8 6220.7 7247.2 1.0 0.020
11.0 10.5 1135.5 1135.5 2385132.8 6212.5 7348.0 1.0 0.020
12.0 11.5 1244.5 1244.5 2388299.8 6204.2 7448.7 1.0 0.020
13.0 12.5 1353.5 1353.5 2391468.8 6196.0 7549.5 1.0 0.020
14.0 13.5 1462.5 1462.5 2394639.8 6187.8 7650.3 1.0 0.020
15.0 14.5 1571.5 1571.5 2397812.8 6179.6 7751.1 1.0 0.020
16.0 15.5 1680.5 1680.5 2400987.8 6171.5 7852.0 1.0 0.020
17.0 16.5 1780.5 1780.5 2404164.8 6163.3 7943.8 1.6 2848.8 1.0 no 0.014 0.986 0.005 0.019
18.0 17.5 1880.5 1880.5 2407343.8 6155.2 8035.7 1.6 3008.8 1.0 no 0.014 0.986 0.005 0.01919.0 18.5 1980.5 156.0 1824.5 2410524.8 6147.0 7971.5 1.6 2919.2 1.0 no 0.014 0.986 0.005 0.01920.0 19.5 2080.5 218.4 1862.1 2413707.8 6138.9 8001.0 1.6 2979.4 1.0 no 0.014 0.986 0.005 0.019
21.0 20.5 2180.5 280.8 1899.7 2416892.8 6130.8 8030.5 1.6 3039.5 1.0 no 0.014 0.986 0.005 0.01922.0 21.5 2280.5 343.2 1937.3 2420079.8 6122.8 8060.1 1.6 3099.7 1.0 no 0.013 0.987 0.005 0.018
23.0 22.5 2380.5 405.6 1974.9 2423268.8 6114.7 8089.6 1.6 3159.8 1.0 no 0.013 0.987 0.005 0.01824.0 23.5 2480.5 468.0 2012.5 2426459.8 6106.7 8119.2 1.6 3220.0 1.0 no 0.013 0.987 0.005 0.018
25.0 24.5 2580.5 530.4 2050.1 2429652.8 6098.6 8148.7 1.6 3280.2 1.0 no 0.013 0.987 0.005 0.01826.0 25.5 2680.5 592.8 2087.7 2432847.8 6090.6 8178.3 1.6 3340.3 1.0 no 0.013 0.987 0.005 0.018
27.0 26.5 2780.5 655.2 2125.3 2436044.8 6082.6 8207.9 1.6 3400.5 1.0 no 0.013 0.987 0.005 0.01728.0 27.5 2880.5 717.6 2162.9 2439243.8 6074.7 8237.6 1.6 3460.6 1.0 no 0.012 0.988 0.005 0.017
29.0 28.5 2980.5 780.0 2200.5 2442444.8 6066.7 8267.2 1.6 3520.8 1.0 no 0.012 0.988 0.005 0.01730.0 29.5 3080.5 842.4 2238.1 2445647.8 6058.8 8296.9 1.6 3581.0 1.0 no 0.012 0.988 0.005 0.017
31.0 30.5 3180.5 904.8 2275.7 2448852.8 6050.8 8326.5 1.6 3641.1 1.0 no 0.012 0.988 0.005 0.01732.0 31.5 3280.5 967.2 2313.3 2452059.8 6042.9 8356.2 1.6 3701.3 1.0 no 0.012 0.988 0.005 0.01633.0 32.5 3380.5 1029.6 2350.9 2455268.8 6035.0 8385.9 1.6 3761.4 1.0 no 0.011 0.989 0.005 0.016
34.0 33.5 3480.5 1092.0 2388.5 2458479.8 6027.1 8415.6 1.6 3821.6 1.0 no 0.011 0.989 0.005 0.01635.0 34.5 3580.5 1154.4 2426.1 2461692.8 6019.3 8445.4 1.6 3881.8 1.0 no 0.011 0.989 0.005 0.016
36.0 35.5 3680.5 1216.8 2463.7 2464907.8 6011.4 8475.1 1.6 3941.9 1.0 no 0.011 0.989 0.005 0.01637.0 36.5 3780.5 1279.2 2501.3 2468124.8 6003.6 8504.9 1.6 4002.1 1.0 no 0.011 0.989 0.005 0.016
38.0 37.5 3880.5 1341.6 2538.9 2471343.8 5995.8 8534.7 1.6 4062.2 1.0 no 0.011 0.989 0.005 0.01639.0 38.5 4003.5 1404.0 2599.5 2474564.8 5988.0 8587.5 1.0 0.011
40.0 39.5 4126.5 1466.4 2660.1 2477787.8 5980.2 8640.3 1.0 0.011
SETTLEMENT ANALYSES (MINIMUM)
Depth (ft)
Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effec ve Ma  
Area
(sf)
v 
(psf)
'vo +v 
(psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
41.0 40.5 4249.5 1528.8 2720.7 2481012.8 5972.4 8693.1 1.0 0.011
42.0 41.5 4372.5 1591.2 2781.3 2484239.8 5964.6 8745.9 1.0 0.01143.0 42.5 4495.5 1653.6 2841.9 2487468.8 5956.9 8798.8 1.0 0.011
44.0 43.5 4618.5 1716.0 2902.5 2490699.8 5949.2 8851.7 1.0 0.01145.0 44.5 4741.5 1778.4 2963.1 2493932.8 5941.5 8904.6 1.0 0.011
46.0 45.5 4864.5 1840.8 3023.7 2497167.8 5933.8 8957.5 1.0 0.01147.0 46.5 4987.5 1903.2 3084.3 2500404.8 5926.1 9010.4 1.0 0.011
48.0 47.5 5110.5 1965.6 3144.9 2503643.8 5918.4 9063.3 1.0 0.01149.0 48.5 5233.5 2028.0 3205.5 2506884.8 5910.8 9116.3 1.0 0.011
50.0 49.5 5356.5 2090.4 3266.1 2510127.8 5903.1 9169.2 1.0 0.011
51.0 50.5 5479.5 2152.8 3326.7 2513372.8 5895.5 9222.2 1.0 0.01152.0 51.5 5602.5 2215.2 3387.3 2516619.8 5887.9 9275.2 1.0 0.011
53.0 52.5 5725.5 2277.6 3447.9 2519868.8 5880.3 9328.2 1.0 0.01154.0 53.5 5848.5 2340.0 3508.5 2523119.8 5872.7 9381.2 1.0 0.011
55.0 54.5 5971.5 2402.4 3569.1 2526372.8 5865.2 9434.3 1.0 0.01156.0 55.5 6094.5 2464.8 3629.7 2529627.8 5857.6 9487.3 1.0 0.011
57.0 56.5 6217.5 2527.2 3690.3 2532884.8 5850.1 9540.4 1.0 0.01158.0 57.5 6340.5 2589.6 3750.9 2536143.8 5842.6 9593.5 1.0 0.011
59.0 58.5 6463.5 2652.0 3811.5 2539404.8 5835.1 9646.6 1.0 0.01160.0 59.5 6586.5 2714.4 3872.1 2542667.8 5827.6 9699.7 1.0 0.011
61.0 60.5 6709.5 2776.8 3932.7 2545932.8 5820.1 9752.8 1.0 0.01162.0 61.5 6832.5 2839.2 3993.3 2549199.8 5812.6 9805.9 1.0 0.01163.0 62.5 6955.5 2901.6 4053.9 2552468.8 5805.2 9859.1 1.0 0.011
64.0 63.5 7078.5 2964.0 4114.5 2555739.8 5797.8 9912.3 1.0 0.01165.0 64.5 7201.5 3026.4 4175.1 2559012.8 5790.4 9965.5 1.0 0.011
66.0 65.5 7324.5 3088.8 4235.7 2562287.8 5783.0 10018.7 1.0 0.01167.0 66.5 7447.5 3151.2 4296.3 2565564.8 5775.6 10071.9 1.0 0.011
68.0 67.5 7570.5 3213.6 4356.9 2568843.8 5768.2 10125.1 1.0 0.01169.0 68.5 7693.5 3276.0 4417.5 2572124.8 5760.8 10178.3 1.0 0.011
70.0 69.5 7816.5 3338.4 4478.1 2575407.8 5753.5 10231.6 1.0 0.01171.0 70.5 7939.5 3400.8 4538.7 2578692.8 5746.2 10284.9 1.0 0.011
72.0 71.5 8062.5 3463.2 4599.3 2581979.8 5738.9 10338.2 1.0 0.01173.0 72.5 8185.5 3525.6 4659.9 2585268.8 5731.6 10391.5 1.0 0.011
74.0 73.5 8308.5 3588.0 4720.5 2588559.8 5724.3 10444.8 1.0 0.01175.0 74.5 8431.5 3650.4 4781.1 2591852.8 5717.0 10498.1 1.0 0.01176.0 75.5 8554.5 3712.8 4841.7 2595147.8 5709.7 10551.4 1.0 0.011
77.0 76.5 8677.5 3775.2 4902.3 2598444.8 5702.5 10604.8 1.0 0.01178.0 77.5 8800.5 3837.6 4962.9 2601743.8 5695.3 10658.2 1.0 0.011
79.0 78.5 8923.5 3900.0 5023.5 2605044.8 5688.0 10711.5 1.0 0.01180.0 79.5 9046.5 3962.4 5084.1 2608347.8 5680.8 10764.9 1.0 0.011
81.0 80.5 9169.5 4024.8 5144.7 2611652.8 5673.6 10818.3 1.0 0.01182.0 81.5 9292.5 4087.2 5205.3 2614959.8 5666.5 10871.8 1.0 0.011
83.0 82.5 9415.5 4149.6 5265.9 2618268.8 5659.3 10925.2 1.0 0.01184.0 83.5 9538.5 4212.0 5326.5 2621579.8 5652.2 10978.7 1.0 0.011
85.0 84.5 9661.5 4274.4 5387.1 2624892.8 5645.0 11032.1 1.0 0.01186.0 85.5 9784.5 4336.8 5447.7 2628207.8 5637.9 11085.6 1.0 0.011
87.0 86.5 9907.5 4399.2 5508.3 2631524.8 5630.8 11139.1 1.0 0.01188.0 87.5 10030.5 4461.6 5568.9 2634843.8 5623.7 11192.6 1.0 0.01189.0 88.5 10153.5 4524.0 5629.5 2638164.8 5616.6 11246.1 1.0 0.011
90.0 89.5 10276.5 4586.4 5690.1 2641487.8 5609.6 11299.7 1.0 0.01191.0 90.5 10399.5 4648.8 5750.7 2644812.8 5602.5 11353.2 1.0 0.011
92.0 91.5 10522.5 4711.2 5811.3 2648139.8 5595.5 11406.8 1.0 0.01193.0 92.5 10645.5 4773.6 5871.9 2651468.8 5588.4 11460.3 1.0 0.011
Site:CLIVE FEDERAL CELL Project No.:SLC1025
Location:CLIVE UTAH
Client:ES Date:20‐Jan‐23
Prepared by:M.Downing Reviewed by:B.Baturay
Theory
Total settlement made up of three (3) components:
Total Settlement st = Immediate Settlement (si) + Primary Consolidation (sc) + Secondary Settlement (ss)
Primary Consolidation sc
S = Cr Ho/(1+eo) log['c/'vo] + Cc Ho/1+eo log[('vo + v)/'c]
where Cr =recompression index
Cc = compression index
Ho = initial soil layer thickness
'c = effective preconsolidation pressure = OCR 'vo    
'vo = initial effective vertical stress
v = change in vertical effective stress
eo=initial void ratio
Secondary Settlement ss
ss = C H100 log(t2/t1)
where C = secondary compression index
Ho = thickness of compressible layer at end of primary consolidation
t2 = time for which secondary settlements are calculated (500 years for design life, assume settlement after that is minimul due to log scale projection of creep)
t1 = t100 for primary consolidation - 1 year - estimated by previous analyses of Unit 2 and 4 clay layers (AMEC)
Elastic (Immediate)Ze=Δσ/Ms *Ho
wher Z =elastic settlement of soil layer
Ho= initial thickness of soil layer
Δσ= change in stress in layer
Ms = constrained modulus of soil estimated with E and v of the insitu soil
CALCULATIONS
Height of Waste and Cover Materials=52.5 ft at the tallest point, including cover
New Load for Foundation Average Unit Weight of Cover and Waste=120.0 pcf
width B v from Loading =6300.0 psf
Depth (FT BGS)B =1225.0 ft Based on Cell Limits v Unit 4 L =1920.0 ft
CL/ML 2 Unit 4 Unit Weight 103.0 pcf
Unit 3 Unit 3 Unit Weight 109.0pcf
SM 16 Unit 2 Unit Weight 100.0pcf
Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit Weight 123.0pcf
CL/ML Unit weight of water 62.4pcf38Depth to Water =16.0ft gw @ 25' below current grade, approximately 7 feet of upper material to be removed = 16 feet bgs for modeling
Unit 1
SM Unit 4 Cc =0.300 Unit 4 eo =0.68 Unit 3 Ms =311,040
Unit 4 Cr =0.017 Unit 2 eo =0.326 Unit 1 Ms=531556
100 Unit 4 Cαε =0.004 Unit 4 OCR =2.81
t1 (t100 for primary
consolidation)1
Unit 2 OCR =1
t2 (compliance 
period of 10,000 
years f)10000
Unit 2 Cc= 0.186
Unit 2 Cr =0.030
Unit 2 Cαε =0.00480
Depth (ft)Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effec ve Ma  
Area
(sf)
v (psf)
'vo +v (psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
0.0 6300.0
1.0 0.5 51.5 51.5 2353572.8 6295.8 6347.3 2.8 144.7 1.0 no 0.298 0.702 0.011 0.309
2.0 1.5 154.5 154.5 2356719.8 6287.4 6441.9 2.8 434.1 1.0 no 0.214 0.786 0.013 0.226
3.0 2.5 263.5 263.5 2359868.8 6279.0 6542.5 1.0 0.020
4.0 3.5 372.5 372.5 2363019.8 6270.6 6643.1 1.0 0.020
5.0 4.5 481.5 481.5 2366172.8 6262.3 6743.8 1.0 0.020
6.0 5.5 590.5 590.5 2369327.8 6253.9 6844.4 1.0 0.020
7.0 6.5 699.5 699.5 2372484.8 6245.6 6945.1 1.0 0.020
8.0 7.5 808.5 808.5 2375643.8 6237.3 7045.8 1.0 0.020
9.0 8.5 917.5 917.5 2378804.8 6229.0 7146.5 1.0 0.020
10.0 9.5 1026.5 1026.5 2381967.8 6220.7 7247.2 1.0 0.020
11.0 10.5 1135.5 1135.5 2385132.8 6212.5 7348.0 1.0 0.020
12.0 11.5 1244.5 1244.5 2388299.8 6204.2 7448.7 1.0 0.020
13.0 12.5 1353.5 1353.5 2391468.8 6196.0 7549.5 1.0 0.020
14.0 13.5 1462.5 1462.5 2394639.8 6187.8 7650.3 1.0 0.020
15.0 14.5 1571.5 1571.5 2397812.8 6179.6 7751.1 1.0 0.020
16.0 15.5 1680.5 1680.5 2400987.8 6171.5 7852.0 1.0 0.020
17.0 16.5 1780.5 1780.5 2404164.8 6163.3 7943.8 1.0 1780.5 1.0 no 0.091 0.909 0.017 0.109
18.0 17.5 1880.5 1880.5 2407343.8 6155.2 8035.7 1.0 1880.5 1.0 no 0.088 0.912 0.018 0.10619.0 18.5 1980.5 156.0 1824.5 2410524.8 6147.0 7971.5 1.0 1824.5 1.0 no 0.090 0.910 0.017 0.10720.0 19.5 2080.5 218.4 1862.1 2413707.8 6138.9 8001.0 1.0 1862.1 1.0 no 0.089 0.911 0.017 0.106
21.0 20.5 2180.5 280.8 1899.7 2416892.8 6130.8 8030.5 1.0 1899.7 1.0 no 0.088 0.912 0.018 0.10522.0 21.5 2280.5 343.2 1937.3 2420079.8 6122.8 8060.1 1.0 1937.3 1.0 no 0.087 0.913 0.018 0.104
23.0 22.5 2380.5 405.6 1974.9 2423268.8 6114.7 8089.6 1.0 1974.9 1.0 no 0.086 0.914 0.018 0.10324.0 23.5 2480.5 468.0 2012.5 2426459.8 6106.7 8119.2 1.0 2012.5 1.0 no 0.085 0.915 0.018 0.103
25.0 24.5 2580.5 530.4 2050.1 2429652.8 6098.6 8148.7 1.0 2050.1 1.0 no 0.084 0.916 0.018 0.10226.0 25.5 2680.5 592.8 2087.7 2432847.8 6090.6 8178.3 1.0 2087.7 1.0 no 0.083 0.917 0.018 0.101
27.0 26.5 2780.5 655.2 2125.3 2436044.8 6082.6 8207.9 1.0 2125.3 1.0 no 0.082 0.918 0.018 0.10028.0 27.5 2880.5 717.6 2162.9 2439243.8 6074.7 8237.6 1.0 2162.9 1.0 no 0.081 0.919 0.018 0.099
29.0 28.5 2980.5 780.0 2200.5 2442444.8 6066.7 8267.2 1.0 2200.5 1.0 no 0.081 0.919 0.018 0.09830.0 29.5 3080.5 842.4 2238.1 2445647.8 6058.8 8296.9 1.0 2238.1 1.0 no 0.080 0.920 0.018 0.097
31.0 30.5 3180.5 904.8 2275.7 2448852.8 6050.8 8326.5 1.0 2275.7 1.0 no 0.079 0.921 0.018 0.09732.0 31.5 3280.5 967.2 2313.3 2452059.8 6042.9 8356.2 1.0 2313.3 1.0 no 0.078 0.922 0.018 0.09633.0 32.5 3380.5 1029.6 2350.9 2455268.8 6035.0 8385.9 1.0 2350.9 1.0 no 0.077 0.923 0.018 0.095
34.0 33.5 3480.5 1092.0 2388.5 2458479.8 6027.1 8415.6 1.0 2388.5 1.0 no 0.077 0.923 0.018 0.09435.0 34.5 3580.5 1154.4 2426.1 2461692.8 6019.3 8445.4 1.0 2426.1 1.0 no 0.076 0.924 0.018 0.094
36.0 35.5 3680.5 1216.8 2463.7 2464907.8 6011.4 8475.1 1.0 2463.7 1.0 no 0.075 0.925 0.018 0.09337.0 36.5 3780.5 1279.2 2501.3 2468124.8 6003.6 8504.9 1.0 2501.3 1.0 no 0.075 0.925 0.018 0.092
38.0 37.5 3880.5 1341.6 2538.9 2471343.8 5995.8 8534.7 1.0 2538.9 1.0 no 0.074 0.926 0.018 0.09239.0 38.5 4003.5 1404.0 2599.5 2474564.8 5988.0 8587.5 1.0 0.011
40.0 39.5 4126.5 1466.4 2660.1 2477787.8 5980.2 8640.3 1.0 0.011
SETTLEMENT ANALYSES (MAXIMUM)
Depth (ft)
Depth of 
Midpt (ft)vo (psf)u (psf)'vo (psf)
Effec ve Ma  
Area
(sf)
v 
(psf)
'vo +v 
(psf) OCR 'c (psf)Ho (ft)'vo +v < σ'c Sconsolidation (ft) H100 Ssecondary (ft)S c+s (ft) Ze (ft)
41.0 40.5 4249.5 1528.8 2720.7 2481012.8 5972.4 8693.1 1.0 0.011
42.0 41.5 4372.5 1591.2 2781.3 2484239.8 5964.6 8745.9 1.0 0.01143.0 42.5 4495.5 1653.6 2841.9 2487468.8 5956.9 8798.8 1.0 0.011
44.0 43.5 4618.5 1716.0 2902.5 2490699.8 5949.2 8851.7 1.0 0.01145.0 44.5 4741.5 1778.4 2963.1 2493932.8 5941.5 8904.6 1.0 0.011
46.0 45.5 4864.5 1840.8 3023.7 2497167.8 5933.8 8957.5 1.0 0.01147.0 46.5 4987.5 1903.2 3084.3 2500404.8 5926.1 9010.4 1.0 0.011
48.0 47.5 5110.5 1965.6 3144.9 2503643.8 5918.4 9063.3 1.0 0.01149.0 48.5 5233.5 2028.0 3205.5 2506884.8 5910.8 9116.3 1.0 0.011
50.0 49.5 5356.5 2090.4 3266.1 2510127.8 5903.1 9169.2 1.0 0.011
51.0 50.5 5479.5 2152.8 3326.7 2513372.8 5895.5 9222.2 1.0 0.01152.0 51.5 5602.5 2215.2 3387.3 2516619.8 5887.9 9275.2 1.0 0.011
53.0 52.5 5725.5 2277.6 3447.9 2519868.8 5880.3 9328.2 1.0 0.01154.0 53.5 5848.5 2340.0 3508.5 2523119.8 5872.7 9381.2 1.0 0.011
55.0 54.5 5971.5 2402.4 3569.1 2526372.8 5865.2 9434.3 1.0 0.01156.0 55.5 6094.5 2464.8 3629.7 2529627.8 5857.6 9487.3 1.0 0.011
57.0 56.5 6217.5 2527.2 3690.3 2532884.8 5850.1 9540.4 1.0 0.01158.0 57.5 6340.5 2589.6 3750.9 2536143.8 5842.6 9593.5 1.0 0.011
59.0 58.5 6463.5 2652.0 3811.5 2539404.8 5835.1 9646.6 1.0 0.01160.0 59.5 6586.5 2714.4 3872.1 2542667.8 5827.6 9699.7 1.0 0.011
61.0 60.5 6709.5 2776.8 3932.7 2545932.8 5820.1 9752.8 1.0 0.01162.0 61.5 6832.5 2839.2 3993.3 2549199.8 5812.6 9805.9 1.0 0.01163.0 62.5 6955.5 2901.6 4053.9 2552468.8 5805.2 9859.1 1.0 0.011
64.0 63.5 7078.5 2964.0 4114.5 2555739.8 5797.8 9912.3 1.0 0.01165.0 64.5 7201.5 3026.4 4175.1 2559012.8 5790.4 9965.5 1.0 0.011
66.0 65.5 7324.5 3088.8 4235.7 2562287.8 5783.0 10018.7 1.0 0.01167.0 66.5 7447.5 3151.2 4296.3 2565564.8 5775.6 10071.9 1.0 0.011
68.0 67.5 7570.5 3213.6 4356.9 2568843.8 5768.2 10125.1 1.0 0.01169.0 68.5 7693.5 3276.0 4417.5 2572124.8 5760.8 10178.3 1.0 0.011
70.0 69.5 7816.5 3338.4 4478.1 2575407.8 5753.5 10231.6 1.0 0.01171.0 70.5 7939.5 3400.8 4538.7 2578692.8 5746.2 10284.9 1.0 0.011
72.0 71.5 8062.5 3463.2 4599.3 2581979.8 5738.9 10338.2 1.0 0.01173.0 72.5 8185.5 3525.6 4659.9 2585268.8 5731.6 10391.5 1.0 0.011
74.0 73.5 8308.5 3588.0 4720.5 2588559.8 5724.3 10444.8 1.0 0.01175.0 74.5 8431.5 3650.4 4781.1 2591852.8 5717.0 10498.1 1.0 0.01176.0 75.5 8554.5 3712.8 4841.7 2595147.8 5709.7 10551.4 1.0 0.011
77.0 76.5 8677.5 3775.2 4902.3 2598444.8 5702.5 10604.8 1.0 0.01178.0 77.5 8800.5 3837.6 4962.9 2601743.8 5695.3 10658.2 1.0 0.011
79.0 78.5 8923.5 3900.0 5023.5 2605044.8 5688.0 10711.5 1.0 0.01180.0 79.5 9046.5 3962.4 5084.1 2608347.8 5680.8 10764.9 1.0 0.011
81.0 80.5 9169.5 4024.8 5144.7 2611652.8 5673.6 10818.3 1.0 0.01182.0 81.5 9292.5 4087.2 5205.3 2614959.8 5666.5 10871.8 1.0 0.011
83.0 82.5 9415.5 4149.6 5265.9 2618268.8 5659.3 10925.2 1.0 0.01184.0 83.5 9538.5 4212.0 5326.5 2621579.8 5652.2 10978.7 1.0 0.011
85.0 84.5 9661.5 4274.4 5387.1 2624892.8 5645.0 11032.1 1.0 0.01186.0 85.5 9784.5 4336.8 5447.7 2628207.8 5637.9 11085.6 1.0 0.011
87.0 86.5 9907.5 4399.2 5508.3 2631524.8 5630.8 11139.1 1.0 0.01188.0 87.5 10030.5 4461.6 5568.9 2634843.8 5623.7 11192.6 1.0 0.01189.0 88.5 10153.5 4524.0 5629.5 2638164.8 5616.6 11246.1 1.0 0.011
90.0 89.5 10276.5 4586.4 5690.1 2641487.8 5609.6 11299.7 1.0 0.01191.0 90.5 10399.5 4648.8 5750.7 2644812.8 5602.5 11353.2 1.0 0.011
92.0 91.5 10522.5 4711.2 5811.3 2648139.8 5595.5 11406.8 1.0 0.01193.0 92.5 10645.5 4773.6 5871.9 2651468.8 5588.4 11460.3 1.0 0.011

ATTACHMENT E

LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: SLC Federal Cell Clive Fa Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by:
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date: 3/11/2021
Boring: GW-36 Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (ground surface): 0.24 g
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 20.6
Depth Elevation Soil Unit
Weight
Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)
0 0.0
12.0 -12.0 118 Unit 4 Silty CLAY CL 108.0 SPT 72 9 1416 1416 667 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 9
14.0 -14.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 55 1656 1656 782 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 56
16.0 -16.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 61 1896 1896 898 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 62
18.0 -18.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 32 2136 2136 1013 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 33
Notes:
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3]amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] ``
[5]Estimated to result in Cenergy of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6]Crod accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7]Cenergy accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8]Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9]s accounts or t e e ect o t e ners n t e samp er a e ,
[10]CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11]m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12]CN=(Pa/σ'v)1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
23-Dec-91
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 1 GW-36
Boring: GW-36 (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
Fines
Content [11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
%m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC (N1)60CS-Sr FS γlim Fα γmax ΔHi εv Δsi Cum Settle
0.00
100.0 Est 0.477 1.21 10 5.5 16 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.115 1.100 0.16 0.277 5 15 0.59
15.0 Est 0.264 1.07 60 3.3 63 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.274 1 61 182.15
15.0 Est 0.264 1.03 64 3.3 67 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.272 1 65 183.97
15.0 Est 0.324 1.00 33 3.3 36 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.275 1.100 1.32 0.269 1 34 4.90
Settlement 0.00 ft
Settlement 0.0 in
[13](N1)60=N60*CN is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))2] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15](N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18]rd=exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19]Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20]K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21]M7.5,'vc s t e er ve corre at on etween an correcte penetrat on res stance quat on ,
[22]CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')rd(1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 170 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
23-Dec-91
Fines
Content
Method
Page 2 GW-36
LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: SLC Federal Cell Clive Fa Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by:
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date:
Boring: GW-37 Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (ground surface): 0.24 g
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 19.2
Depth Elevation Soil Unit
Weight
Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)
0 0.0
7.0 -7.0 118 Unit 4 Silty CLAY CL 108.0 SPT 72 11 826 826 389 0.75 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 10
10.0 -10.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 27 1186 1186 562 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 26
12.0 -12.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 25 1426 1426 677 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 24
14.0 -14.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 29 1666 1666 792 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 30
16.0 -16.0 120 CLAY lens CL 108.0 SPT 72 22 1906 1906 908 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 22
17.0 -17.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 30 2026 2026 965 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 31
Notes:
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3]amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] ``
[5]Estimated to result in Cenergy of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6]Crod accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7]Cenergy accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8]Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9]s accounts or t e e ect o t e ners n t e samp er a e ,
[10]CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11]m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12]CN=(Pa/σ'v)1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
23-Dec-91
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 3 GW-37
Boring: GW-37 (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
Fines
Content [11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
%m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC (N1)60CS-Sr FS γlim Fα γmax ΔHi εv Δsi Cum Settle
0.00
100.0 Est 0.437 1.51 15 5.5 20 -0.08 0.01 0.99 0.136 1.100 0.21 0.282 5 20 0.75 0.00
15.0 Est 0.332 1.21 31 3.3 35 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.257 1.100 1.04 0.278 1 32 3.73
15.0 Est 0.357 1.15 28 3.3 31 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.212 1.100 0.55 0.275 1 29 1.99
15.0 Est 0.328 1.08 32 3.3 35 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.266 1.100 1.17 0.273 1 33 4.29
100.0 Est 0.372 1.04 23 5.5 29 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.192 1.100 0.42 0.270 5 28 1.55
15.0 Est 0.334 1.01 31 3.3 34 -0.28 0.03 0.95 0.252 1.100 0.96 0.269 1 32 3.59
Settlement 0.00 ft
[13](N1)60=N60*CN is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)Settlement 0.0 in
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))2] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15](N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18]rd=exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19]Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20]K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21]M7.5,'vc s t e er ve corre at on etween an correcte penetrat on res stance quat on ,
[22]CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')rd(1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 170 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
23-Dec-91
Fines
Content
Method
Page 4 GW-37
LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: SLC Federal Cell Clive Fa Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by:
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date:
Boring: GW-38 Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (ground surface): 0.24 g
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 20.7
Depth Elevation Soil Unit
Weight
Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)
0 0.0
7.0 -7.0 118 Unit 4 Silty CLAY CL 108.0 SPT 72 15 826 826 389 0.75 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 14
10.0 -10.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 21 1186 1186 562 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 20
12.0 -12.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 63 1426 1426 677 0.80 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 60
14.0 -14.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 31 1666 1666 792 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 32
16.0 -16.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 20 1906 1906 908 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 20
18.0 -18.0 120 Unit 3 Silty Sand SM 108.0 SPT 72 25 2146 2146 1023 0.85 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 26
Notes:
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3]amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] ``
[5]Estimated to result in Cenergy of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6]Crod accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7]Cenergy accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8]Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9]s accounts or t e e ect o t e ners n t e samp er a e ,
[10]CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11]m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12]CN=(Pa/σ'v)1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
24-Dec-91
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 5 GW-38
Boring: GW-38 (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
Fines
Content [11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
%m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC (N1)60CS-Sr FS γlim Fα γmax ΔHi εv Δsi Cum Settle
0.02
100.0 Est 0.399 1.46 20 5.5 25 -0.08 0.01 0.99 0.164 1.100 0.29 0.282 5 25 1.04 0.02
15.0 Est 0.375 1.24 25 3.3 28 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.188 1.100 0.40 0.278 1 26 1.43
15.0 Est 0.264 1.11 67 3.3 70 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.275 1 68 181.73
15.0 Est 0.315 1.08 34 3.3 37 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 1.91 0.273 1 35 7.02
15.0 Est 0.404 1.04 21 3.3 25 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.160 1.100 0.28 0.270 1 22 1.03 9.4% 0.26 3.2% 2.0 0.8% 0.02 -0.02
15.0 Est 0.373 0.99 25 3.3 29 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.190 1.100 0.41 0.268 1 26 1.53
Settlement 0.02 ft
[13](N1)60=N60*CN is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)Settlement 0.2 in
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))2] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15](N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18]rd=exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19]Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20]K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21]M7.5,'vc s t e er ve corre at on etween an correcte penetrat on res stance quat on ,
[22]CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')rd(1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 170 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
24-Dec-91
Fines
Content
Method
Page 6 GW-38

ATTACHMENT E2

LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY EVALUATION[1]
Project: Federal Cell Project Number: SLC1025 Checked by: B.Baturay
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Prepared By: M.Downing Date: 1/19/2023
Boring: Multiple Hammer Type: Automatic 140 lb./30-in. amax (round surface): 0.24 g[3]
Date: Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Earthquake Magnitude: 7.3 [3]1288
By: Overland Drilling Ground Elevation (ft)[2]: 0.00 MSF: 1.05 [4]
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of earthquake (ft)[24]: 0.0
Assumed depth to groundwater at time of drilling (ft)[24]: 20.0
Depth Elevation Soil Unit Weight Borehole
Diameter ER[5]Nfield v
v', during
drilling
v', during
EQ[24]N60
Fines
Content
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (mm) (%) (blows/ft) (psf) (psf) (psf)Crod[6]Cener [7]Cb[8]Cs[9]CSPT[10](blows/ft)%
0 0.0
10.0 4259.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 54 1160 1160 536 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 67 15.0
12.0 4257.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 19 1392 1392 643 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 24 15.0
14.0 4255.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 19 1624 1624 750 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 25 15.0
16.0 4253.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 32 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 42 15.0
18.0 4251.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 21 2088 2088 965 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 28 15.0
20.0 4249.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 12 2320 2320 1072 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 18 15.0
22.0 4247.84 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 59 2552 2427 1179 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 87 15.0
19.8 4256.7 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 12 2297 2297 1061 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 18 15.0
21.8 4254.73 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 23 2529 2416 1168 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 34 15.0
23.8 4252.73 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 19 2761 2524 1276 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 28 15.0
10.0 4264 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 14 1160 1160 536 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 17 15.0
15.0 4259 120 Silty Sand SM 196.0 SPT 82 36 1740 1740 804 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 48 15.0
20 4248.9 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 18 2320 2320 1072 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 27 15.0
25 4243.9 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 38 2900 2588 1340 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 56 15.0
8 4266 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 32 928 928 429 0.75 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 37 15.0
10 4264 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 57 1160 1160 536 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 71 15.0
12 4262 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 29 1392 1392 643 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 36 15.0
16 4258 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 21 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 28 15.0
18 4256 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 22 2088 2088 965 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 29 15.0
22 4252 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 21 2552 2427.2 1179 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 31 15.0
24 4250 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 21 2784 2534.4 1286 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 31 15.0
12 4258 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 33 1392 1392 643 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 41 15.0
14 4256 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 39 1624 1624 750 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 52 15.0
16 4254 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 51 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 68 15.0
18 4252 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 13 2088 2088 965 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 17 15.0
20 4250 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 21 2320 2320 1072 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 31 15.0
24 4246 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 93 2784 2534.4 1286 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 138 15.0
26 4244 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 30 3016 2641.6 1394 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 44 15.0
14 4255.36 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 92 1624 1624 750 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 122 15.0
16 4253.36 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 17 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 23 15.0
20 4249.36 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 110 2320 2320 1072 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 163 15.0
22 4247.36 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 36 2552 2427.2 1179 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 53 15.0
24 4245.36 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 18 2784 2534.4 1286 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 27 15.0
10 4262 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 25 1160 1160 536 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 31 15.0
12 4260 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 38 1392 1392 643 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 47 15.0
14 4258 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 125 1624 1624 750 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 166 15.0
16 4256 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 51 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 68 15.0
18 4254 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 38 2088 2088 965 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 50 15.0
22 4250 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 106 2552 2427.2 1179 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 157 15.0
24 4248 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 72 2784 2534.4 1286 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 107 15.0
26 4246 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 17 3016 2641.6 1394 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 25 15.0
8 4260 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 27 928 928 429 0.75 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 32 15.0
10 4258 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 25 1160 1160 536 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 31 15.0
12 4256 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 29 1392 1392 643 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 36 15.0
14 4254 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 22 1624 1624 750 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 29 15.0
16 4252 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 30 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 40 15.0
18 4250 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 13 2088 2088 965 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 17 15.0
20 4248 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 19 2320 2320 1072 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 28 15.0
8 4260 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 21 928 928 429 0.75 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 25 15.0
10 4258 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 63 1160 1160 536 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 79 15.0
12 4256 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 31 1392 1392 643 0.80 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 39 15.0
14 4254 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 20 1624 1624 750 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 27 15.0
16 4252 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 25 1856 1856 858 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 33 15.0
18 4250 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 29 2088 2088 965 0.85 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 38 15.0
20 4248 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 21 2320 2320 1072 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 31 15.0
22 4246 120 Silty Sand SM 196 SPT 82 18 2552 2427.2 1179 0.95 1.37 1.14 1.00 1.00 27 15.0
Notes:
Evaluation reflects SPT-blow counts from borings GW-17A, -18, 19-A, -19B, -25, -26, -27, -28, -36, -37, -38 (Bingham Environmental, 1992) for Unti 3 sand-like soils
[1]Evaluation is based on: "Idriss and Boulanger (2008), Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes , EERI Monograph MNO-12"
[2] Boring location known to exist somewhere in Section 32 of the Clive Facility
[3] amax and earthquake magnitude based on parameters presented in the seismis hazard analysis by AMEC 2012
[4] Magnitude scaling factor, (6.9 e^-Magnitude/4)-0.058, up to 1.8.
[5] Estimated to result in Cener of 0.8 assuming Autohammer
[6] Cro accounts for short rod correction (<1 if rod length < 10 meters) (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[7] Cener accounts for rod energy delivered to sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[8] Cb accounts for the effect of the size of the borehole (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[9] Cs accounts for the effect of the liners in the SPT/MODCAL sampler (Table 3, I&B 2008)
[10] CSPT is a correction factor to adjust the blow counts recorded with MOD-CAL samplers to equivalent SPT blow count values.
CSPT is assumed to be 1.0 for SPT samples and 0.60 for MOD-CAL samples based on an outside diameter of 3.0 inches
and an inside diameter of 2.4 inches (Burmister, 1948)
[11] m=0.784-0.0768sqrt((N1)60cs)0.264 is iteratively calculated until (N1)60cs converges (Equation 33 and 39, I&B 2008)
[12] C =(Pa/σ')m1.7 accounts for effective overburden stress (Equation 33, I&B 2008)
-
Soil Unit USCS
Class Sample
Type
Nfield Correction Factors
Page 1 Sensitivty
Boring: Multiple (continued from previous page)
Date:
By: Overland Drilling
[11] [12](N1)60[13](N1)60cs[15][16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [25]
m CN (blows/ft) (blows/ft) rd Cσ KCRRM7.5,'vc CSRM7.5,'vc Δ(N1)60-FC% (N1)60CS-Sr FS
Est 0.264 1.17 79 3.3 82 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.285 1 80 2.00
Est 0.358 1.16 28 3.3 31 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.211 1.100 0.54 0.283 1 29 1.91
Est 0.357 1.10 28 3.3 31 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.212 1.100 0.55 0.281 1 29 1.97
Est 0.264 1.04 44 3.3 47 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 101.20 0.278 1 45 2.00
Est 0.355 1.00 28 3.3 31 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.215 1.100 0.58 0.276 1 29 2.00
Est 0.438 0.96 17 3.3 20 -0.35 0.04 0.94 0.135 1.092 0.21 0.276 1 18 0.76
Est 0.264 0.96 84 3.3 88 -0.40 0.04 0.93 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.271 1 85 2.00
Est 0.437 0.96 17 3.3 20 -0.34 0.04 0.94 0.136 1.094 0.21 0.276 1 18 0.77
Est 0.324 0.96 33 3.3 36 -0.39 0.04 0.93 0.277 1.100 1.36 0.272 1 34 2.00
Est 0.366 0.94 26 3.3 30 -0.44 0.05 0.92 0.200 1.100 0.47 0.269 1 27 1.73
Est 0.397 1.27 22 3.3 25 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.166 1.100 0.30 0.285 1 23 1.06
Est 0.264 1.05 50 3.3 54 -0.24 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.280 1 51 2.00
Est 0.370 0.97 26 3.3 29 -0.35 0.04 0.94 0.194 1.100 0.43 0.274 1 27 1.58
Est 0.264 0.95 53 3.3 57 -0.47 0.05 0.92 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.267 1 54 2.00
Est 0.264 1.24 47 3.3 50 -0.10 0.01 0.98 0.300 1.100 537.05 0.287 1 48 2.00
Est 0.264 1.17 83 3.3 87 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.285 1 84 2.00
Est 0.275 1.12 41 3.3 44 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 18.51 0.283 1 42 2.00
Est 0.347 1.05 29 3.3 32 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.228 1.100 0.69 0.278 1 30 2.00
Est 0.346 1.00 29 3.3 33 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.230 1.100 0.71 0.276 1 30 2.00
Est 0.343 0.95 30 3.3 33 -0.40 0.04 0.93 0.235 1.100 0.75 0.271 1 31 2.00
Est 0.346 0.94 29 3.3 33 -0.45 0.05 0.92 0.229 1.100 0.70 0.269 1 30 2.00
Est 0.264 1.12 46 3.3 49 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 369.99 0.283 1 47 2.00
Est 0.264 1.07 55 3.3 59 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.281 1 56 2.00
Est 0.264 1.04 70 3.3 73 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.278 1 71 2.00
Est 0.435 1.01 17 3.3 21 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.137 1.100 0.21 0.276 1 18 0.77
Est 0.340 0.97 30 3.3 33 -0.35 0.04 0.94 0.241 1.100 0.82 0.274 1 31 2.00
Est 0.264 0.95 131 3.3 135 -0.45 0.05 0.92 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.269 1 132 2.00
Est 0.268 0.94 42 3.3 45 -0.50 0.06 0.91 0.300 1.100 33.96 0.266 1 43 2.00
Est 0.264 1.07 131 3.3 134 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.281 1 132 2.00
Est 0.385 1.05 24 3.3 27 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.177 1.100 0.35 0.278 1 25 1.24
Est 0.264 0.98 159 3.3 162 -0.35 0.04 0.94 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.274 1 160 2.00
Est 0.264 0.96 51 3.3 55 -0.40 0.04 0.93 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.271 1 52 2.00
Est 0.376 0.93 25 3.3 28 -0.45 0.05 0.92 0.187 1.093 0.39 0.271 1 26 1.45
Est 0.295 1.19 37 3.3 41 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.300 1.100 4.94 0.285 1 38 2.00
Est 0.264 1.12 53 3.3 56 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.283 1 54 2.00
Est 0.264 1.07 178 3.3 181 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.281 1 179 2.00
Est 0.264 1.04 70 3.3 73 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.278 1 71 2.00
Est 0.264 1.00 51 3.3 54 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.276 1 52 2.00
Est 0.264 0.96 152 3.3 155 -0.40 0.04 0.93 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.271 1 153 2.00
Est 0.264 0.95 102 3.3 105 -0.45 0.05 0.92 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.269 1 103 2.00
Est 0.390 0.92 23 3.3 26 -0.50 0.06 0.91 0.172 1.072 0.33 0.273 1 24 1.20
Est 0.280 1.26 40 3.3 43 -0.10 0.01 0.98 0.300 1.100 12.94 0.287 1 41 2.00
Est 0.295 1.19 37 3.3 41 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.300 1.100 4.94 0.285 1 38 2.00
Est 0.275 1.12 41 3.3 44 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 18.51 0.283 1 42 2.00
Est 0.329 1.09 32 3.3 35 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.264 1.100 1.13 0.281 1 33 2.00
Est 0.272 1.04 41 3.3 45 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 24.52 0.278 1 42 2.00
Est 0.435 1.01 17 3.3 21 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.137 1.100 0.21 0.276 1 18 0.77
Est 0.360 0.97 27 3.3 31 -0.35 0.04 0.94 0.208 1.100 0.52 0.274 1 28 1.90
Est 0.327 1.31 32 3.3 35 -0.10 0.01 0.98 0.269 1.100 1.22 0.287 1 33 2.00
Est 0.264 1.17 92 3.3 95 -0.14 0.02 0.98 0.300 1.100 50.00 0.285 1 93 2.00
Est 0.264 1.12 43 3.3 46 -0.17 0.02 0.97 0.300 1.100 67.57 0.283 1 44 2.00
Est 0.347 1.10 29 3.3 32 -0.22 0.02 0.96 0.227 1.100 0.68 0.281 1 30 2.00
Est 0.312 1.04 35 3.3 38 -0.26 0.03 0.96 0.300 1.100 2.16 0.278 1 36 2.00
Est 0.287 1.00 39 3.3 42 -0.30 0.03 0.95 0.300 1.100 8.03 0.276 1 40 2.00
Est 0.340 0.97 30 3.3 33 -0.35 0.04 0.94 0.241 1.100 0.82 0.274 1 31 2.00
Est 0.373 0.95 25 3.3 29 -0.40 0.04 0.93 0.190 1.100 0.41 0.271 1 26 1.51
[13] (N1)60=N60*C is the overburden corrected penetration resistance (Equation 31, I&B 2008)
[14](N1)60=exp[1.63+(9.7/(FC+0.1))-(15.7/(FC+0.01))] represents the change in (N1)60 with fines content (Equation 76, I&B 2008)
[15] (N1)60cs=(N1)60 + (N1)60 is the equivalent clean-sand SPT penetration resistance (Equation 75, I&B 2008)
[16](z) = -1.012-1.126sin((z/11.73)+5.133) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 23, I&B 2008)
[17](z) = 0.106+0.118sin((z/11.28)+5.142) in which z is depth in meters (Equation 24, I&B 2008)
[18] r =exp[α(z)+β(z)M] is shear stress reduction coefficient (Equation 22, I&B 2008)
[19] Cσ=1/(18.9-2.55sqrt[(N1)60cs]0.3 is the coefficient for K (Equation 56, I&B 2008)
[20] K = 1-Cσln(vo'/Pa)1.1 is the overburden correction factor (Equation 54, I&B 2008)
[21] CRRM7.5,'vc is the derived correlation between CRR and corrected penetration resistance (Equation 70, I&B 2008)
[22] CSRM7.5,'vc=0.65(amax/g)(v/v')r (1/MSF)(1/Kσ) is the equivalent CSR for the reference values of M=7.5 and 'vc=1 atm (Equation 69, I&B 2008)
[23] NL = non-liquefiable; L = potentially liquefiable
[24] Groundwater assumed to be at a depth of 20 feet below ground surface during the field investigation (for blow count correction)
[25] Fines content correction for liquefied shear strength from Seed 1987 (Table 4, pg 126, I&B 2008)
[26] MOD-CAL refers to 2.5-inch ID sampler
[27]γlim = 1.859[1.1 - sqrt((N1)60cs/46)]3 > 0 but less than 50% = limiting shear strain (Equation 86, I&B, 2008)
[28]Fα = 0.032 + 0.69sqrt[(N1)60cs] - 0.13(N1)60cs, where (N1)60cs is limited to values > 7 (Equation 93, I&B, 2008)
[29]γmax = min[γlim, 0.35(2-FS)((1-Fα)/(FS-Fα)] for 2 > FS > Fα; if FS < Fα, γmax = γlim (Equations 91 & 92, I&B, 2008)
[30]ΔHi = Layer thickness (ft)
[31]εv = 1.5exp(-0.369sqrt[(N1)60cs] x [min(0.08, γmax )] = post liquefaction volumetric strain (Equation 96, I&B, 2008)
[32]ΔSi = (Δhi)(εv)
Δ(N1)60[14]
-
Fines
Content
Method
Page 2 Sensitivty