DOCSLIB.ORG

Geologic Hazard Assessment Addendum Proposed Residential Short Plat 1014 – 23Rd Avenue Southwest Puyallup, Washington PN: 7065000020 Doc ID: Mkwest.23Rdavesw.Ghaa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geologic Hazard Assessment Addendum Proposed Residential Short Plat 1014 – 23Rd Avenue Southwest Puyallup, Washington PN: 7065000020 Doc ID: Mkwest.23Rdavesw.Ghaa June 23, 2020 MK West, Inc 2701 – 13th Street Place Southwest Puyallup, Washington 98371 (253) 222-0255 Attn: Mr. Michael Kerschner [email protected] Geologic Hazard Assessment Addendum Proposed Residential Short Plat 1014 – 23rd Avenue Southwest Puyallup, Washington PN: 7065000020 Doc ID: MKWest.23rdAveSW.GHAa This addendum to our Geologic Hazard Assessment addresses the erosion hazard areas at the site and the slope stability of the proposed permanent cut slopes associated with the proposed development. We understand the City of Puyallup is requiring an update to our Geologic Hazard Assessment to address the presence of an erosion hazard area at the site. Additionally, we understand that permanent cut slopes are now proposed at the site, which will need to meet the performance standards per Puyallup Municipal Code (PMC) 21.06.1230. The proposed site grading and the locations of our previous subsurface explorations are shown on the Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 1. We previously prepared a Soils Report dated April 24, 2019 and a Geologic Hazard Assessment dated November 14, 2019 for the proposed residential short plat at the site. Our soils report included the subsurface explorations and descriptive logs of 4 test pits excavated across the site. We also reviewed the Geotechnical Study Report Update by Pacific Geo Engineering dated December 8, 2016, which included 4 previous hand auger explorations at the site. We did not perform any additional subsurface explorations or laboratory testing a part of our original Geologic Hazard Assessment or this addendum. This addendum address comments from the Landau Associates, Inc, as the City of Puyallup third-party geotechnical engineering reviewer dated February 7, 2020. Landau’s only comment was that our report indicated that the site soils as mapped meet the criteria of an erosion hazard per title 21.06.1230 of the Puyallup Municipal Code. ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our site observations and data review, subsurface explorations and our engineering analysis, it is our opinion the development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the project plans. MKWest.23rdAveSW.GHAa June 23, 2020 page | 2 Erosion Hazards per PMC 21.06.1210(3)(a) The PMC defines erosion hazard areas as those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or identified by a special study as having a “moderate to severe,” “severe,” or “very severe” erosion potential. The majority of the site is mapped by the NRCS soils map as underlain by Kitsap silt loam (20C and 20D). Where the Kitsap silt loam is on slopes of 15 to 30 percent (20D soil type), it is designated as having a “moderate to severe” erosion hazard when exposed. Based on the above, the portion of the site sloping at steeper than 15 percent does meet the definition of an erosion hazard area per the PMC. Alteration of Erosion Hazard Area The proposed development includes regrading portions of the site that meet the definition of an erosion hazard area. Title 21.06.1230, lists the various criteria that needs to be satisfied in order to allow alteration of the portion of the site that are underlain by the Kitsap silt loam (20D) soils. As stated in our previous reports, the site does not have slopes steeper than 40 percent and the result of our slope stability analysis demonstrates that proposed development will not have factors of safety below 1.5 and 1.2 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively. Additionally, the proposed alterations will not increase the geologic hazards to neighboring properties or increase the required buffers/setbacks. Between this report, our previous reports, and the civil drawings, short plat documents, and codes, covenants, and restrictions should satisfy the other remaining criteria for alteration of an erosion hazard area. We anticipate regrading is required, in part, to construct a common access drive with grades of 10 percent or less to meet emergency vehicle access requirements. The proposed site grades will still meet the existing erosion hazard area designation, which should be mitigated through permanent erosion control measures. As discussed below, the proposed site grading meets the required slope factors of safety per the PMC. Slope Stability Analysis We analyzed the stability of the existing and proposed slope geometries using subsurface profiles A-A’ and B-B’, as shown on Figure 1. These subsurface profiles were selected as the most critical given the configuration of the proposed grading and development. The slope stability results for the existing and proposed configurations are included as Appendix A. Seismic loading of 0.254g was added to the stability models based on ½ of the mapped site modified peak ground acceleration with a 2% probability of exceedance within a 50-year period, retrieved from the ATC Hazards by Location website. We used the computer program Slide2, from RocScience, 2020, to perform the slope stability analyses. The computer program Slide2 uses a number of methods to estimate the factor of safety (FS) of the stability of a slope by analyzing the shear and normal forces acting on a series of vertical “slices” that comprise a failure surface. Each vertical slice is treated as a rigid body; therefore, the forces and/or moments acting on each slice are assumed to satisfy static equilibrium (i.e., a limit equilibrium analysis). The FS is defined as the ratio of the forces available to resist movement to the forces of the driving mass. A FS of 1.0 means that the driving and resisting forces are equal; an FS less than 1.0 indicates that the driving forces are greater than the resisting forces (indicating failure). We used the Generalized Limit Equilibrium method using the Morgenstern-Price analysis, which MKWest.23rdAveSW.GHAa June 23, 2020 page | 3 satisfies both moment and force equilibrium, to search for the location of the most critical failure surfaces and their corresponding FS. The most critical surfaces are those with the lowest FS for a given loading condition, and are therefore the most likely to move. Soils at the site were modeled using Mohr-Coulomb strength properties. Table 1, below, summarizes the estimated soil parameters used in our stability analyses. In our opinion, based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations, the assumed values below are appropriate. TABLE 1: Mohr-Coulomb Strength Parameters Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion Soil Type (pcf) (degrees) (psf) Lacustrine silt (ML) 115 28 100 Weathered recessional outwash (SP-SM) 120 34 25 Based on our analyses, the current and proposed site configurations are stable and have the factors of safety shown in Table 2, below. The factors of safety meet the requirements of PMC 21.06.1230, of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. TABLE 2: Global Stability Analyses Results Cross Section Condition Loading Condition Factor of Safety Static 6.1 Existing Dynamic 1.9 A-A’ Static 2.0 Proposed Dynamic 1.2 Static 3.2 Existing Dynamic 1.4 B-B’ Static 2.1 Proposed Dynamic 1.2 Recommended Buffers and Setbacks Buffers and setbacks are typically used to protect critical areas from disturbance and also to protect the proposed development from damage due to the potential hazard. The following discussions regarding critical area buffers and structure setbacks are based on PMC 21.06 and International Building Code (IBC) 1808.7, respectively. Vegetated Buffers Buffers typically consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation, retained, or established, that extend from the edge of the critical area or hazard. The width of the buffer should be based on the potential hazard and associated risks. Buffer widths are generally measured from the edge of MKWest.23rdAveSW.GHAa June 23, 2020 page | 4 the critical area being protected, in this case toe of slope. Per PMC 21.06.1240, the required landslide or erosion hazard areas buffer width for slopes with a vertical elevation of more than 10 but less than 25 feet, shall be equal to the height of the slope divided by two. The proposed 2H:1V cut slopes at the site have heights of between about 10 to 16 feet. Therefore, the required vegetated buffer from the toe of slopes at the site will be between 5 and 8 feet, depending on the height of the adjacent cut slope. Building Setbacks We recommend that building setbacks from slopes steeper than 33 percent be established in accordance with the 2015 IBC. The 2015 IBC Section 1808.7 requires a building setback from slopes that are steeper than 3H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) unless evaluated and reduced and/or a structural setback is provided by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. The typical IBC setback from the toe of the slope equals one half the height of the slope, with a maximum setback of 15 feet from the toe of the slope. The IBC setback requirement is equal to the above requirement for vegetated buffer. Therefore, structures located outside the 5 to 8 feet buffer will also meet the required IBC setback. If these setbacks are not feasible, the IBC does allow the use of a “structural setback” where the foundations are deepened, or the daylight basement/stem wall are extended such that the setback distance is determined by measuring from the lowest/highest point of the foundation. Where there is insufficient space the top of the daylight basement/crawl space wall or stem wall should be elevated such that the level backfill extending from the wall to the slope meets the required toe of slope Erosion Control Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding are natural processes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I/ General Description and Characterization of the NBS Entity
    Objects/shapes/ physical projects > On the ground > system for erosion control “vegetation engineering systems for slope erosion control” STRONG SLOPE REVEGETATION (Steeper than 2:1) I/ General description and characterization of the NBS entity I.1 Definition and different variants existing Definition • Stabilizing soils structure on steepened slopes through revegetation in order to minimize or prevent the erosion of soil by wind or rain and landslides, avoiding sedimentation problems Smart slope-vegetated-retaining-wall, Dakota. Furbish 2013. © United Themes. When the slope is really steeped, the most common slope stabilization and erosion prevention method is some kind of retaining slopes method joined with revegetation. The origin of unstable slopes can be natural because of the soil geotechnical properties, or as consequence of human activities that create new cutting slopes or embankments during construction works. When soil is disturbed at a construction site, or the natural vegetation cover is retired, the erosion rate may increase significantly. Proper planning and use of erosion control prevention and mitigation measures can reduce the impact of human-caused erosion. In order to stabilize steepened slopes, some kind of soil retention method is nevertheless needed; joining it with a well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion in unstable slopes steeper than 2H:1V. The retention method keeps the soil meanwhile vegetation protects soil surfaces from rain generated splash erosion and can help to slow runoff flows across a disturbed ground. 1 / 11 In addition, plant roots hold their soil in place, keeping it from washing away during rainstorms. Lastly, trees help to prevent high winds from blowing away top soil because the trees provide windbreaks, which can prevent high winds.
    [Show full text]
  • Cellular Confinement Systems
    Cellular Confinement Systems EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUE Revegetation [1] Temperate Climates ✔ Short-Term [2] Non Vegetation ✔ Wet Tropics ✔ Long-Term [2] Weed Control Semi-Arid Zones ✔ Permanent ✔ [1] Vegetation, such as grasses, can be established within the cells. [2] Can be used for short-term erosion control, but is most commonly used as a permanent treatment. Symbol Photo 1 – Cellular confinement system Photo 2 – Cellular confinement system used to restrict gravel movement on a used to retain soil and assist in the permanent car park establishment of grass on a steep slope Key Principles 1. Critical design parameters are the size and depth of the cells, choice of cell wall texture (smooth or rough, solid or perforated), type of anchorage system (applicable to slopes and concave surfaces), and the choice of infill material. 2. It is critical to ensure the top of the cellular confinement system (CCS) is set flush with, or slightly below, the adjacent terrain to avoid stormwater run-on water being diverted along the edge of the matrix. Design Information The following design information applies to applications not within a drainage channel. For use as a channel/chute lining, refer to the separate fact sheet within the ‘Drainage Control’ section. Step 1 Determine the type of cell wall: smooth, textured, or perforated. Textured or perforated surfaces (Photo 4) are required when the honeycomb matrix is installed with a concave profile that may cause the matrix to lift from the ground. Perforated cell walls are required when it is necessary for water flow to pass laterally through the cell walls (Photos 5 & 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Specifications, Special Provisions and Supplemental Terms and Conditions HALDEMAN CREEK WEIR REPLACEMENT
    Technical Specifications, Special Provisions and Supplemental Terms and Conditions For HALDEMAN CREEK WEIR REPLACEMENT Collier Co. Project No.: 60103 Collier Co. Work Order No.: 4500158645 Atkins Project No.: 100045545 Date: October 20, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ..........................................................1 ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ..................................................................... 2 SECTION 101 - MOBILIZATION ..............................................................................3 SECTION 110 - CLEARING AND GRUBBING ......................................................6 SECTION 120-SPECIAL – DITCH FINISH GRADING .........................................7 SECTION 400.1-SPECIAL – DEWATERING .........................................................8 SECTION 425 - INLETS, MANHOLES, AND JUNCTION BOXES .....................9 SECTION 515 – PEDESTRIAN/BICYLE RAILINGS, GUIDERAILS, AND HANDRAILS ...................................................................................................10 SECTION 570 - PERFORMANCE TURF .............................................................13 SECTION CF-SPECIAL – COCONUT FIBER EROSION CONTROL FABRIC ...........................................................................................................14 SECTION ELEC-SPECIAL – ELECTRICAL WORK ...........................................18 SECTION GATE-SPECIAL – HINGED CREST GATES ....................................24 SECTION GW-SPECIAL – GEOWEB STABILIZATION ....................................36
    [Show full text]
  • Triple Crown Line Development Inc
    Triple Crown Line Development Inc. Revised Slope Stability Analysis Triple Crown Line Residential Development Airport Road and Cranston Drive City of Caledon East, Ontario Project Number BRM-00235186-G0 Prepared By: EXP Services Inc. 56 Clark Boulevard Brampton, Ontario, Canada L6T 4V1 Date Submitted September 11, 2018 Slope Stability Analysis Update BRM-00235186-G0 Triple Crown Line Residential Development Caledon East, Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 2 Site Visit 4 3 Slope Conditions 5 4 Subsurface Conditions 6 4.1 Subsoil ................................................................................................................. 6 4.1.1 Section 2 (Borehole 14) ............................................................................ 6 4.1.2 Section 9 (Borehole 61) ............................................................................ 7 4.1.3 Section 10 (Borehole 62) .......................................................................... 8 4.1.4 Section 12 (Boreholes 64 and 65) ............................................................ 9 5 General Slope Stability Analyses 11 5.1 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 11 5.2 Results of Stability Analyses .............................................................................. 13 5.2.1 Section 2 (Figures 1 and 2) .................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Section 9 (Figures 3 and 4) ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Geoweb Slope Protection System Technical Overview
    PRESTO GEOWEB® SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW MULTILAYER GEOWEB PROTECTION OF CUT SLOPE VEGETATED GEOWEB SLOPE PROTECTION EMBANKMENT FILL SOIL NAIL REINFORCEMENT NATIVE SOIL GEOMEMBRANE / GEOTEXTILE GEOWEB SLOPE AND UNDERLAYER CREST PROTECTION GEOTEXTILE UNDERLAYER VEGETATED GEOWEB INFILL CONTAINED FLUID INTEGRAL POLYMER REINFORCED EARTHFILL TENDON CONTAINMENT DIKE PRESTO GEOSYSTEMS 670 N PERKINS STREET, APPLETON, WISCONSIN, USA 54914 Ph: 920-738-1707 or 800-548-3424 ■ Fax: 920-738-1222 e-mail: [email protected] WWW.PRESTOGEO.COM/ GWSLTO 25-AUG-08 PRESTO ® GEOWEB SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1 Examples of Geoweb Slope Surface Stabilization........................................................................................1 Surface Instability - Identifying Problems and Defining Causes ...................................................................1 General Surface Erosion Problems...........................................................................................................1 Localized Surface Instability Problems......................................................................................................1 General Slope Cover Instability Problems.................................................................................................2 Geoweb Slope Stabilization Systems - The Key Components .....................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study Job Owner Dr
    Case Study job owner Dr. Lyle and Esther Kraugh application Landslide Repair engineer Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. location Jordan, MN installer Rachel Contracting product Miragrid® 5XT Geogrid TenCateTM develops and produces materials Gale-Tec Engineering selected a reinforced soil through a sand vein near the middle/upper ele- that function to increase performance, reduce slope (RSS) to repair the failed riverbank. The vation of the slope. costs and deliver measurable results by working RSS consisted of Miragrid® 5XT and Miragrid® with our customers to provide advanced solu- 8XT geogrid reinforcement layers placed in con- THE DESIGN tions. junction with a compacted granular backfill. The design included two phases (lower slope The geogrid provides high tensile strength and and upper slope stabilization). The lower slope THE BACKGROUND high interface friction when embedded in soil. was simple cut/graded to a consistent slope A landslide comprising approximately 400 ft The stability afforded by the interaction angle while trying to minimize any changes to along the banks of the Sand Creek in Jordan, between the geogrids and granular backfill the existing angle of the slope. Then it was sta- Minnesota occurred in March of 2006. A single allowed for re-construction of the slope at a bilized by placing a layer of 4” cellular confine- family residence was located 50 ft away from 1H:1V angle. Figure 1 shows the Gale-Tec plan ment over the entire surface. The 4” cellular the top of slope. The failure resulted in a slump constructed by Rachel Contracting, Inc. confinement was filled with topsoil barrow, of 30 ft deep occurring in the top of the 75 ft seeded and covered with a Cat.
    [Show full text]
  • Geofabrics Rail Brochure Aug2020 DIGITAL.Pdf
    GENERAL BROCHURE RAIL & TRACK SPECIALIST GEOFABRICS IS THE ONLY GEOTEXTILE MANUFACTURER IN AUSTRALIA. As Australia’s geotextile supplier of choice we pride ourselves in providing the best service to customers throughout the country. Proud member of the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia INDEX 5 THE RAIL CORRIDOR 6 MUD PUMPING SOLUTION 7 SEPARATION SOLUTION 8 BALLAST STABILISATION 10 SUB - BALLAST STABILISATION 11 SUBSOIL DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS 12 WALL SYSTEMS 13 ROCKFALL PROTECTION 14 EROSION CONTROL FOR SLOPES 16 SMARTER INFRASTRUCTURE 16 WHERE YOU NEED US Geofabrics offers a range of solutions for new track construction as well as renewal or maintenance of existing railway tracks which can deliver both construction savings and life-cycle optimisation. Our solutions incorporate control of track geometry and rail alignment, stabilisation of the ballast and capping layers and complete drainage systems. 4 GEOFABRICS.CO THE RAIL CORRIDOR A rail track is made up of the rail, the fastening system, sleepers, ballast and capping/structural layer. The system needs to survive the trafficking and climate so that the subgrade is adequately protected and that the performance of the track is effectively supported during the design life. A primary function of the capping/structural fill layers is to distribute forces to make sure that the stresses in the subgrade are at a satisfactory level. The use of geosynthetics within the ballast and capping/structural fill layers can significantly reduce track substructure renewal costs as well as enhancing its performance, reducing maintenance costs and increasing the lifetime of the design. In order to understand which materials will enhance the system we must first examine the track sub-structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoweb Earth Retention Technical Overview
    PRESTO GEOWEB® EARTH RETENTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW GEOWEB GRAVITY WALL GEOWEB ZONED GRAVITY WALL GEOWEB BACKFILL RETAINED GEOWEB BACKFILL RETAINED LAYERS SOIL SOIL LAYERS SOIL SOIL FOUNDATION SOIL FOUNDATION SOIL GEOCOMPOSITE GRAVITY WALL GEOWEB FACIA STRUCTURALLY STABLE GEOWEB BACKFILL RETAINED GEOWEB SOIL OR ROCK LAYERS SOIL SOIL LAYERS GEOSYNTHETIC BACKFILL SOIL FOUNDATION SOIL FOUNDATION SOIL FREE-STANDING FREE-STANDING GEOCOMPOSITE WALL GEOWEB WALL GEOWEB GEOWEB LAYERS LAYERS GEOSYNTHETIC FOUNDATION SOIL FOUNDATION SOIL PRESTO GEOSYSTEMS 670 N PERKINS STREET, APPLETON, WISCONSIN, USA 54914 Ph: 920-738-1707 or 800-548-3424 ■ Fax: 920-738-1222 e-mail: [email protected] WWW.PRESTOGEO.COM/ GWERTO 15 FEB-08 PRESTO GEOWEB® EARTH RETENTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL OVERVIEW Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1 Vegetated Wall ................................................................................................................... 1 Table 1 Geoweb Earth Retention Structure Selection Guidelines.................................................... 2 Geoweb® System Advantages..................................................................................................................... 2 Durability ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Performance.............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Geocells
    The History of Geocells In the late 1970's Presto co-invented the technology known as cellular confinement with the US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES). The early applications of cellular confinement or geocells consisted primarily of stabilised, expedient sand roads for military vehicles. What many people may not know about the early development of the geocell cellular confinement system is that the material wasn’t always black in colour or plastic? In fact the early testing of a grid confinement system included wax coated craft paper; a plastic drainage pipe matrix fastened with staples; paper-thin, hexagonal glued aluminium; low and medium density recycled materials; pure polyethylene without UV stabilisation; and square cells similar to old fashioned egg carton separators. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contacted Presto Products, a plastics manufacturer, for assistance in developing a stronger grid confinement system that would maintain strength under heavy loads. Working with Steve Webster at the WES Presto’s Gary Bach devised a method to weld polyethylene strips to form a cellular structure that became known as “Sandgrid” and was used by the military primarily for road applications. Side by side cost/performance testing of a plastic geocell (termed “roadbase”) and aluminium geocells at The Waterways Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Circa 1979. After testing various blends of resin, High Density Virgin Polyethylene worked best for weld consistency and structural strength. Since early development with the Corps of Engineers, geocells have been further improved for many other soil stabilisation applications, including the rapid construction of fortified walls in the U.S’s Middle East combat zones starting with Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • GEC 11 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
    U. S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024 Federal Highway Administration FHWA GEC 011 – Volume I November 2009 NHI Courses No. 132042 and 132043 Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I Developed following: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with with 2008 and 2009 Interims. 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Interims. NOTICE The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect policy of the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. ACCESSION NO. FHWA-NHI-10-024 FHWA GEC 011-Vol I 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE November 2009 Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Ryan R. Berg, P.E.; Barry R. Christopher, Ph.D., P.E. and Naresh C. Samtani, Ph.D., P.E. 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Ryan R. Berg & Associates, Inc. 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 2190 Leyland Alcove DTFH61-06-D-00019/T-06-001 Woodbury, MN 55125 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Cellular Confinement Systems
    Cellular Cellular Confinement System Confinement TYPAR TYPAR Systems GEOCELL GEOCELL GS Physical 250/ 350/ Properties Units DT1 DC2 150 150 Cell Diameter in 24 20 10 14 Cell Depth in 20 20 6 6 Panel Length in 194 197 197 197 Panel Width in 24.0 54.0 275 275 Panel Coverage ft2 32 73 376 376 Area Panel 3 Volume ft 52 96 200 205 A Cells in Length No. 8 8 34 24 B Cell in Width No. 1 2 29 20 Color Tan Tan Dark Dark Grey Grey Panel Weight lbs 9.5 15 55 37 Panels Per Pallet No 70 44 10 10 Geosynthetics you can trust For more info, call 800-441-2760 A. Stabilize Soil, Control Floods or visit www.typargeosynthetics.com Geosynthetics you can trust B. Control Erosion and Sediment GEOCELLS™ GEOCELL GS™ TYPAR® is a registered trademark of Fiberweb, Inc. GC09_0712 TYPAR GEOCELL TYPAR GEOCELL panels are available in varying widths for effective project design. Capable of withstanding rugged terrain and conditions, the 20” high units can be stacked to create self- Geosynthetics you can trust supporting walls and filled with sand, stone, mulch or other materials. GEOCELLS Flood and Water Control Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Cellular Confinement System TYPAR GEOCELLS panels can be brought TYPAR GEOCELL panels provide superior TYPAR GEOCELL and GEOCELL in by hand, on equipment or dropped sediment control for stormwater runoff. GS panels utilize the strength and from helicopters in emergency situations. The cells offer excellent structural strength permeability of geotextile fabric to The cellular system and durability, while the permeable material create a three dimensional confinement is quicker to fill than allows water to filter through blocking system.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Improvement and Ground Modification Methods Soil Improvement and Ground Modification Methods
    SOIL IMPROVEMENT AND GROUND MODIFICATION METHODS SOIL IMPROVEMENT AND GROUND MODIFICATION METHODS PETER G. NICHOLSON AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SYDNEY • TOKYO Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann: Butterworth Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
    [Show full text]