Text

Submits List of Staff Concerns Re Chemetron Bert Avenue Cell Construction
	ML20211Q202
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/26/1998
From:	Landsman R; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Jorgensen B; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20211Q152	List: IA-99-281, Informs That NRC Staff Employee Submitted Differing Professional Opinion Re Chemetron Corp Project at Burt Avenue in Newburgh Heights,Oh; ML20211Q155; ML20211Q162; ML20211Q168; ML20211Q202; ML20211Q360; ML20211Q383; ML20211Q469; ML20211Q475; ML20211Q504;
References
	FOIA-99-281 NUDOCS 9909150011
	Download: ML20211Q202 (98)
	v • d • e

'g ., NUCLEAR REhd f05 ~ COMMISSION

, Rf 010N El t f 9 s01 WARRENVfLLE R04D 4

1 4 L

'- USLE,ILLINots s05324351 e....

> tiarch 26, 1998 j

S .

MEMORAN UM Todruce (. Jorgensen, Chief Decom,missioning Branch y FROM: Ross B. Landsman ProjectEngineer

SUBJECT:

CHEMhTRON SERT AVENUE CEL CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS

1. A portion of the clay I er was placed into the cell without prior acceptance by Ohio EPA.

The EPA subsequently" flunked' the test fill used to justify this portion of the liner (i.e., the method of placement, type of equipment use:f). This fill must be removed from the cell, 2.

' . "---"9 placed on the slopes of the cell on a 2:1 gradient. This is unique; not placing fdl on a horizontal surface. It is not possible to compact material on that great of a slope, because every pass of the compactor tips'up the previous passes work. The contractor's own expert consultant's report (from their Dr. Dirt) states a minimum slope of 2.5i1; better 3:1. My personal opinion is that compacting clay on any slope will not succeed. Regardless, the aufsting material" compacted" on a 2:1 slope must be twmoved. (Note: Tim. Harris of NRC:HQ also holds the view that compacting on a slope is unacceptable) 1

3. Th's new liner test fill material in the cell also must be removed, because the permeability tests which have been conducted on this liner material are destructive in nature; they make the !!ner material water soaked.

4. The original slope stabtLity study for the East slope needs to be reviewed, but it wouldn't be provided; this is susp:dous. The new analysis shouJ i be compared to the original, but this !s not possible without the original bctog available. lNe need to see the orfginal slope stability analysis.

5. My opinion is that the waste materf alls not going to be compactable (the 95% specified i the specs and 16 cense) based on observation of activities and conditions at the site. I think whatever value they can get will prove unacceptable when used in the new east slope stability study. This will have to be addressed in the ucense.

6. From try observations of the groundwater conveyance layer, it appears to not meet the intent of the EPAs spec. There should be an inplace permeabuity toat run if the sahdstone was compacted in place as spedfied (the partides/ rocks do not appear to haye survived any kind of mechanical egitation). From observations of the upper surfa

. of the ltyer, there appears to be to many fines in the material to adequatefy convey water.

4 unos 4 Y1 CF7 /TD o / t .

n ,

+

Sute of Ohio Dwironmenul Protectar. Agency numo AcoREns rf ADDREES P.O. Box 1N9 J WcterMark Onve itu +4 94.n'c rAx (si4*4:m Columbus. OH 4321G-1049 Columbus, OH 432151099 l

l INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: y Jerry Parker, DSIWM-NEDO fd FROM: A Doug Evans, DSIWM-CO

SUBJECT:

Slope Stability Comments for Bert Avenue Site DATE: May is, 1990 Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the slope stability analysis portion of the report titled, Waste Stabilization Studr Report, dated March 27,1998, and the report titled Eastern Slope

(

Stability Evaluation .f ddendum, dated April 13,1MS, Both reports were prepared by Dames &

Moore and address stability issues with the proposed design of the waste containment cell at the Bert Avenue Site.

BACKGROUND Ohio EPA evaluates the adequacy of slope stability factors of safety (FOS) based on the consequences of a slope failure and the contidence in the slope stability analysis (SS A) input parameters. The following table is a condensed version of the performance criteria contained in DSIWM Guidance # 180 Factors of Safety For Slo;'e Stabihty.Inalysis. The guidance document is included as Attachment i Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety Consequences of Failure input Parameter Uncertainty Small Larce Limited danger or 1.25 1i environmentalimpact (1.2)* (1.3)

~

Potential danger or 1.5 2.0 environmentalimpact (l.3) (1.7)

Numbers with pareniaeses are for dynamic conditions RECEOVED George V. Voinoven, Govemor g jg g f4ancy P. Holhster, Lt. Govemor ,,w.n

...,,,,-,a., n.w.~ ru4 si e m a

I Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site Page2 i

l The design of the containment cell incorporates a yeasynthenc clay liner (GCL) as part of the l liner system. Ohio EPA has issued an advisory regarding these products. Advisory on Structura/ l Considerationsfor Incor;> orating Geosynthetic Clar 1.iners in Sohd Innte Facihty nesign, and l

is included as Attachment 2. The advisory provides owners, operators and cor.sultants with detailed concerns over the use of these products and specific recommendations to a!!eviate the l l

concerns. The recommendations include specific testing procedures and performance criteria.

The specific contents of a SS A are sensitive to the panicular conditions present at an individual site. However, there are a number ofitems that should " typically" be included in any SSA in order for DSIWM to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the evaluation. The SSA l should contain both a narrative and supporting infonnation. {

l e The narrative should include.

- The scope, extent, and findings of the subsurface investigation;

The scope, extent, and findings of the laboratory material testing program;

- Logic and rationale for the selection of the analysis input parameters

- Logic and rationale for the selection of the critical cross-sections;

- Graphical depictions of the San and profile views of the critical cross-sections.

- A discussion of the failure nudes and conditions analyzed; The results of the e.a:uatie: Mr the mest critical cases of both static and dynamic conditiens for bot : ceep-seated and shallow failures mechanisms.

The supporting data and c 'rmath should mciude

- Field data from the sub3utfa;e mvestigation,

- Laboratory data from the material testing program,

- The actual calculanons and er computer output-COMM ENTS

1. A. Due to the close proximity of homes, a roadway, and the possible use of the area as a park, the potential danger to human life from a deep-seated failure cannot be disregarded. In addition, due to the presence of the " groundwater conveyance layer" and its connectivity to the sterm sewer sy stem, the potential exists for contaminates to be rapidly transponed otT-site if a derp-seated slope failure were

- to occur. Finally, most of the SS A strength paramet ers have been assumed using correlative in'fonnation or generic manufacturer sur plied data. These types of

~

strength data are considered to have a large degree of uncertainty associated with their use for the purposes of SS A Based on the available information, the recommended minimum FOS for deep-seated slope failures at this site are 2.0 and 1.7 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively.

4

~

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

'ortheast District Office

.110 E. Aurora Road T winsburg. Ohio 44087-1969 George V. Voinovich Governor (330) 425-9171 FAX (330) 487 0769 May 18,1998 RE: Bert Avenue Landfill Cuyahoga County Waste Stabilization Report Notice of Deficiency Mr. Theodore G. Adams, Vice-President B. Koh & Associates, Inc.

11 West Main Street {

Springville, NY 14141-1012

Dear Mr. Adams:

On March 26,1998, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)-Division of Solid and infectious Waste Management (DSIWM)-Northeast District Office (NEDO), received a Waste Stabilization Study Report for the Bert Avenue Landfill in the Village of Newburgh Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Due to the problems encountered in complying with Condition Ten (10) of the closure plan approval dated July 24,1996, Dames & Moore prepared the report on behalf of B. Koh and Associates as alternative to the closure picn condition.

After a cursory review of the report by the OEPA-DSIWM, a conference call was conducted between representatives of the following organizations: the OEPA-DSIWM, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC), B. Koh and Associates and Dames & Moore. Due to the issues that were discussed during this call, an addendum to this reported was created by Dames & Moore and submitted to the OEPA-DSIWM-NEDO on April 13,1998. The OEPA-DSIWM has completed a review of the original report and the addendum. A copy of the review is enclosed.

If you have any questions, I can be contacted at (330) 963-1186.

Sincerely,

~

)

Je y L. Parker, R.S., E.I.T.

Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management enclosure cc: Mr. Kurt Princic, DSIWM-NEDO Mr. Herb Davidson, AWSR Mr. Doug Evans, DSIWM-CO Mr. Brien Kilkenny, AWSR Mr. John Romano, CCHD Mr. Steve Kilper, AWS Mr. Tim Johnson, NRC Mr. Larry Chintella, Dames & Moore Mr. Bruce Jorgensen, NRC Mr. Fred Erdman, Dames & Moore Mr. Pete Smith, Dames & Moore i p l l

Mr. Doug Perisutti, Solar Testing Mr. Rich Lacey, Geotechnics Mayor Ed Kohlar, Newburgh Heights .k. \ c !

FILE:[ LAND /Bert Avenue LF/ COR/18] .~

J

Page 3 Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site B. Due to the limited danger or emironmentalimpact that would likely occur from a slope failure of the cover system and the large degree of uncertainty in SSA strength parameters, the recommended ininimum FOS for shallow slope failures are 1.5 and 1.3 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively.

[ Note: By obtaining highly accurate project-specific strength data on project-specific waste, soils and geosynthetics, the recommended minimum FOS can be reduced to 1.5 and 1.3 for deep-seated failures, and 1.25 and 1.2 for shallow failures, for static and dynamic conditions, respectively.]

2. The incorporation of a GCL in the facility's design significantly heightens DSIWM's concerns over slope stability. It is recommended to test the GCL in accordance with the attached GCL advisory to alleviate these concerns. By following the advisory it is possible to reduce the FOS for failure surfaces passing through or along the GCL to 1.3 and 1.1 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively. Should the advisory not be l

followed, the appropriate FOS for failure surfaces invohing the GCL are 2.0 and 1.7 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively, using a shear strength parameter equivalent to hydrated bentonite.

3. The scope, extent and a summary of the findings of the laboratory material testing I program as it pertains to the slope stability of the proposed facility should be provided in the SSA narrative. The actuallaboratory data should be included in an appendix.

4. The logic, rationale and specific data used for the selection of the analysis input parameters should be documented in the SS A narrative A. The waste material has been shown to be very weak at high moisture contents (approximately greater than 17%). As a result, the stabilization report proposes to control moisture content of the waste by the addition of an admixture. !

Unconfmed compression tests on amended waste specimens yielded a minimum undrained shear strength of 4300 psf. 2000 psf was assumed for this layer in the SSA. However, the 2000 psf value may be unconservative at low normal stresses because of the non-linear stress-dependent shear behavior of many soils.

The shear strength of the amended and unamended waste should be determined using a consolidated undrained triaxial procedure, and should be tested over the entire range of normal stresses that will be present in the field due to the design.

In addition, the laboratory shear specimens should adequately model and be representative of field fill placement, including material composition, moisture content, and unit weight.

B. The slope stability addendum evaluates the stability of the GCL using a generic shear strength of 500 psf supplied by the manufacturer. Shear strength test data submitted to Ohio EPA on comparable material indicates this value may be unconservative at low normal stresses (see Attachment 3). As previously stated, it is recommended that the project-specific GCL and the ma'terials that it interfaces with, be tested for shear strength in accordance with the GCL advisory.

V' Page 4 Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site C.

The interface friction angle between the textured geomembrane and the recompacted clay barrier layer of the cover system has been assumed to be 27) from generic manufacturer data. The submittal also indicates this value may be as low as 25 Since 27 is at the low- range of acceptability, e g FOS = 1.53, this value should be verified through proa ct-specide testing.

D. The shear strength of the compacted clay in the liner and cap systems has been estimated from textbook literature to be 1600 psf. This value may be unconservative at low normal stresses and should be veri 6ed through project-specine testing E. The shear strength of the select backfill of the cover system has been selected from the literature to be 1600 psf. This value appears to be unconservative. The material will be exposed to winter freeze / thaw and summer desiccation. Thus, contributions to shear strength from " cohesion" will be negligible due to cracking of the soil The shear strength of the select backfill should be changed to a frictional rather than a cohesional base, and a crack zone should be specified in the computer model 5.

A discussion of the following failure modes should be included in the SSA narrative.

The supporting calculations and data should be included in an appendix.

A It is not clear if deep-seated >tatic and dynamic rotational failures within the waste have been analyzed In:ermation should be included in the proposal addressing this failure mode B The hand calculanons :cr sutic and dynanue translational failures involving the GCL may not adequately n:cdel the complex stability issues. It is recommended to include the GCL into the computer analysis model.

To illustrate the failure modes requested by 'mm;nts 5 A. and B., a rudimentary SSA as Attachment 4. In addition, the analys6 depicting possible failure surfaces is include ptilizes minimal parameter values that will probably be exceeded by the testing requested in comment 4. based on our experiences with the materials in question. Also note that, pending parameter verincation. the analysis should meet the performance criteria ou in comments 1 and 2 Please note that Attachment 4 is ofTered for illustrative purposes only, and the accuracy of the calculations is neither expressed or implied.

C. The potential for seepage-induced slides of the cover system has not been

~

evaluated. A signi6 cant number of failures have occurred across the nation due to inadequate evaluation and design of these systems. At the facilities where these failures occurred, the drainage layers were unable to adequately relieve the pore water pressure that can build-up in the cover system during heavy downpours.

Potential pore water pressure build up in the drainage layer must be taken into ;

Page 5 Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site account when investigating the stability of the final cover system. Consideration of seepage forces should include an investigation of the maximum pore water pressure that may build up in the drainage layer of the cover system based on the maximum fluid flux through the cover soils that could occur during saturated conditions and a major rain event.

If you have comments or questions, please call me at (614) 728-5371.

DE/dk i

I i

I e

0

1 I

I Attac1 ment

~

1 l

l I

I 4

s State of Ohis Environuntatil Protection Agency l

Maaur.o wordss ST8EET AcoFEss:

mtasu)w.un rAxqcumm PO. Box lo49 10 Watermark Dnve Columous. OH 43216-1o49

,sumbus, OH 4321s-1099 DSIWM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT (614)644-2621 FAX: (614) 728-5315

SUBJECT:

Factors of Safety For Slope Stability Analysis GUIDANCE #: 0180 Municipal Solid Waste Industrial Solid Wasts Residual Solid Waste

REFERENCES:

l OAC 3745-27-06(C)(4)(i) OAC 3745 29-06(C)(4)(i) OAC 3745-29-05(C)(5)(i)

OAC 3745-29-06(C)(4Kj) OAC 3745-29-06(C)(4)(j) OAC 3745-29-05(C)(5)(i)

CROSS

REFERENCES:

" Location Restriction Demonstrations: Unstable Areas", Ohio EPA guidance # 0133. issued June 1,1994.

" Location Restriction Demonstrations: Seismic impact Zones".

Ohio EPA guidance :! 0129, issued May 24,1994.

I DATE- November ?!.. 1995 (Supersedes document titled " Slope S1 ability Analv:,is" dated Feb. 6,1995)

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 i

l

1. PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the factors of safety for slope stability analyses for both static and earthquake conditions.

II. APPLICABILITY This guidance applies to permit applicants of municipal, industrial, and residual solid waste facilities who must present an analysis for slope stability.

(

111. BACKGROUND i I

Since the 1990 rules a slope stability analysis has been included in the permit application process as part of the engineering design. The analysis includes both static and earthquake conditions fo i l

areas in seismic impact zones, and only static conditions outside of seismic impact zones. Even with the advent oflocation restriction demonstrations addressing seismic impact zones and unstable areas due to RCRA Subtitle D, DSIWM's engineering design requirements for slope stability did not change in the 1994 rules. However, the factor of safety required is not specified in rule.

Goorge 'f. Voinovich, Governor Nancy R Holkster, Lt. Governor Donald R. Schregardus, Director

Page 2 Slope Stability Analyses Theoretically a factor of safety (FS) < 1 is unstable, a FS > 1 is stable, and a FS = 1 is at equilibrium. .This FS is developed from many components affecting the stability of a s These components include: failure plane geometry, anisotropy of soil, tension cracks, d loading or earthquakes, and pore water pressure. The differing combinations of these e produce a degree of uncertainty which cannot be fully accounted for in the slope s analysis. Therefore due to uncertainties with the quantity and quality of data, the ac assumptions, and the risks to public health & safety and/or the environment associa slope failure, DSIWM recommends a FS a 1.5 for static conditions and a FS a 1.3 f conditions. These recommended values were obtained from the U.S. EPA Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities, see Table 1. Alternative values will be evaluated if the owner or operator can satisfactorily show that lower factors of safety are ba on the quality of data, conservative assumptions, and consequences of a slope failure.

it should be noted that if the slope being analyzed presents imminent danger to human li environment and the quality of soil data is poor. DSIWM may choose to increase the FS to at least 2.0 for static conditions and at least 1.7 for seismic conditions, as depicted in Table 1.

Additionally,in Ohio EPA guidance #0133," Location Restriction Demonstration: Unstab Areas", the recommended FS is 1.5 for static conditions and 1.3 for earthquake conditions.

Also,in Ohio EPA guidance #0129," Location Restriction Demonstration: Seismic Impact Zones", the recommended FS is 1.3 for earthquake conditions.

IV. PROCEDURE For Facilities Outside of Seismic Impact Zones--Only static conditions need be addres the slope stability analysis. Each side of the landtill may be investigated separat less than the recommended 1.5 for static conditions, the owner or operator can propose an alternative FS based on the quality of data, conservatis e assumptions, and consequen l

failure. However, if an imminent danger to human life or the environment is present andI quality of data is poor. DSIWM may choose to either increase the FS to at least 2.0 that the owner or operator improve the quality of data.

~

For Facilities Located in Seismic Impact Zones--Both static and earthquake conditions mus be addressed in the slope stability analysis. Each side of the landfill may be investigated f separately. If the FS is less than the recommended 1.5 for static conditions or than the recommended 1.3 for earthquake conditions, the owner or operator can propose an ,

alternative FS based on the quality of data, conservative assumptions, and consequenl failure. However, if an imminent danger to human life or the environment is present a/

quality of data is poor, DSIWM may choose to either increase the FS to at le conditions and to increase the FS to at least 1.7 for earthquake conditions, or reques owner or operator improve the quality of data.

V. POINT OF CONTACT Engineering - Policy Unit, Supervisor, (614) 728-5373 Filename: WP 6.0\FSSLOPE. DOC 'l

~

Slope Stability Analyses Page 3 3

re&a%%m.36y@s:6 .g ue U

.MORff'fW5WCiRh.??@#b;

4 tTdblP1FyF4ra*0Mwd.

W ...)< M&,,.l.

2 n. .. #1 1,- < u. e .r.:... # .. h d * . ..J %M .6!t.m..v,4. . - < c. q. , ,- >C. , m. +a G '

. .m.c L,gd9 iMiiilin % %;' h ..es:o m v. ;alu fw . n.;kf,f

. w.Fsetor $

r'M~ 4

. m. M W/T.

,.Vd;in)4.lm,,.

.U p p cw e. o e," w,m[#

A... .o Rec..o..mme5d

% for Slope' m.

ww w t

~,

b,

. .ng erem Sta ility Analysesy.Y@a &

- i, Q .,n 5h

-u..,wl m::;r.m;m,dw.y.

ve,.. s weyg e;;p i$ gr l ' O D, , h%+lg.h*l; hen 0,N'N:"', )b.:<4 W 2 .a e - ,

yNpysyi s ,

.sr.:.y.

j Uncertam gth Measure

!$$M:Y d ,

?. Cons.fN4.d3 equences of Slope MEN @T' ure! mall s g a &;? ' V;8.dw.H g lI YWpp

$. .~w1..idert.1 ent y

n,,ajge #,,en,gpn im 5,

opeVa:Isq f.(N.n;W3 dF pe n 3;

~

7; wc p.y ngnt'dap,ggyp h;uman ife ?,/-pJ.gE, ..j m}

major environmental tmpacTN ,

le3)m n rz ,

' slope' fails Qg,,,,, .

.. w x.3nm.~.{h{;jr , a

k. & Nr..

.. mx

h. [.,. f x[. ..]hhs'N" 4,g; wa

,P ~ :1

~. :./ . fe4 - t sic;,.4 .

p :ghp .. .

, . . &: w.y r.s >

gth.=.me.asurem c,: .,v o .n, 4

...- sot m

.1c'W:dhe uncer.tamty of.stre.n.4.., data provide a consistent,-comple,tet;andfloen. t

.m % 4 ,.

th' test icture [the.Istren r.~+

high quality

' characteristics. streng$$j$ . ~ '

' , i'3 b3M'* ~

ea ya x , '34W 4.i-;r v ' '.MN) 3 N , ll ;ry k.?

.. .: #: .ug ,, :,v . .M2igK,p. . ' t" ,\ <

l 2-n jcon ,.y are mp The and when: strength uncertainty ytrength measurements of; data'do'not sistent, complete,<and!io,gical provide a con, icture'of' '

stren ygreatest

. O!

.ile characteristics.

'kf-[ .:h;.W.5% m k.I,; -h s.-

,,n.y...

a

4,v.v.

...,.. p -

. ,%e . . . g +;& )

...,. <cn., Numbe.rs...w;thout

,i seismic Conditlons:t , *

.. .~.

l.ia.;re,.e'th;es.'.n

. q.

n y :a. e.s apply

, to static.c,ondition.s es,e.sfa

, and tho

' '1 pp %

. , J.

N

. m.,h ..,1 say.D ....

g , 9.', p...

' : ~ c? -.9;M.

c-eSourecs f is it 7

d. 4:, . .,4 q :yEPA ' , . Guide.to/IEchnichl G, Wii . ppg Resou;rces fo:;r the g Desig /pfg l

l 1

l l

l Filename: WP 6.0\FSSLOPE. DOC Ohio EPA /DSIWM

l I

l l

Attachment 2

a I

. l 1

l State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency MAILIM AODA[SS statti Aooetss P.O. Dos 1049 1800 Watermark Dnve TELE: N14) 644-3020 F AX: N14) C44 2329 Colurnbus, OH 43216-100 Cc!urnbus.OH 4321s 1099 MEMORANDUM TO: All Solid Waste Landfill Facility Owners / Operators, Approved Health Departments, and Design Enuineers u n y

\Wgr FROM: Doug' Evans, Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management (DSIWM)

SUBJECT:

Advisory on Structural Integrity Considerations for Incorporating Geosynthetic Clay Liners in Solid Waste Landfill Facility Design DATE: september .,, 1997 1,0 Introduction Ohio's selid waste lanJ611 regulations allow : geosy nthetic clay liner (GCL) to be used in lieu of the recompacted soil barrier layer of the compasite cap sy stem or in lieu of a portion of the recompacted soillayer of the composite bottom liner system. Nevertheless. GCLs are a relative newcomer to the evolving field of waste containment. and signi6 cam concerns remain over their ability to be appropriately incorporated into wage contairment designs. These concerns include inherent stability shortcomings, hydraulie equivaleney, and long term performance. Many of these issues continue to be investigated by manufacturers anJ researchers alike who have. over time, offered changing, conflicting, and ambiguous information on GCl.s. thus creating uncertaintv regarding the appropriate use of these products.

Recent information suggests that there are special considerations which must be taken into account when utilizing a GCL in certain applications, including use on side slopes and in areas oflandfills where localized non-unifomi stresses may be encountered.

The purpose of this document is to provide owners, operators, and consultaats with the detailed concerns that DSIWM has for the use of GCLs in solid waste landGli design, as well as specific recommendations to allay these concerns.

r 2.0 Background initially, issues regarding GCLs centered on hydraulic conductivity, equivalence to - ompacted clay liners, and internal shear strength. More recently, interface shear strength, bearing capaity, and overall long term performance have come to the forefront of concern. Oluo's solid waste regulations i

have addressed the hydraulic conductivity and equivalence issue by sett ng forth specific criteria George y vo.nouch. Gosemor ibncy P Hothver, Lt Governo r EPA 1613 ( rev 5/96) Dona d R Schregardus.,Drrector

$) p ..w n , 4,%

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 2 regarding the thickness of clay which a GCL can replace, based on its specific mass of bentonite.

However, significant issues remain regarding stability and long term performance associated with use of GCLs in landfill design.

The use of a GCL is a double edged sword; the bentonite contained in the GCL provides low hydraulic conductivity, and yet it probably has the least shear resistance or bearing capacity of any soil. Add 13 this a significant number of engineering failurcs and a lack oflong term performance data, and concern regarding designs incorporating GCLs is heightened. It is our thought that by sharing our concerns and recommendations with owners, operators, and consultants, that GCLs can be properly incorporated in landfill designs and a considerable amount of time and energy can be conserved by all involved in the DSIWM permitting process.

While the advantages of GCLs are numerous, they are beyond the intended scope of this advisory.

This document is intended to make our concerns about GCLs known and to provide design and testing recommendations to alleviate these concerna. This document will explain DSIWM's concerns regarding GCLs in more detail, provide recommendations for incorporating GCLs in landfill design.

and offer guidance for determining appropriate crength parameters to use in the necessary design calculations. The concerns containeJ in this adwrv mu<t be addressed by owner / operators proposing to use GCLs. The recommendation made in this document should be considered the preferred method for alleviating th- li ted concems. but sh su!d not be interpreted as regulatory requirements. Ily following the recommendatians of this advisory, owner / operators will benefit from a raightforward review which will be 's hkeh 'elayed by revisions during the review process.

I Conversely, if ahernative procedures ce used t address the concerns outlined in this document, the alternative procedures will have to be evaluated on a case ny case basis for their technical merit, and will probably result in a longer review period.

Please note that ahhough this inform 6n is be.ng provided to interested parties in a proactive effort ta clarify regulatory concerns and expee 'e permit :eview, these issues are exceedingly complex and research is ongoing. Therefore the information a subject to update and revision as more research is conducted and more issues arise.

For the purposes of this document, GCLs can be grouped into two broad categories, reinforced and unreinforced. Reinforced GCLs are basically comprised of three components, a bentonitic clay soil sandwiched between two geotextiles with reinforcement to provide additional strength. The seinforcement is accomplished by intermittently stitching the three components together (stitch bonding), or by punching fibers throughout the three components (needle punching). Both types of reinforcement provide additional bending and strength qualities to the product. Unreinforced GCLs consist of a bentonitic clay soil sandwiched bemeen two peotextiles with no reinforcement, or bentonitic clay soil adhered to a geomembr'ane. _x-Stability characteristics are unique to each GCL. This is due to the differing geosynthetic components which are combined in indisidual GCLs and the methods by which the components are joined.

Reivorced GCLs have greater shear strength characteristics than unreinforced GCLs. In addition, reinforced GCLs constructed with non-woven geotextiles are more stable over a larger range of applications than those constructed with a woven geotextile. This is because the woven geotextiles

p i s.

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 3 allow bentonite to extrude more readily than non-woven textiles. The extruded bentonite essentially lubricates the interface (s) between the GCL and adjacent materials, greatly reducing the shear resistance of the composite system.

3.0 Regulatory Considerations The following Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) references are useful for the purposes of this advisory.

The municipal, industrial, and residual solid waste (MSW, ISW, RSW) regulations require that a permit applicant demonstrate the stability of the landfill. OAC 3745-27-06(C)(4)d)in the MSW regulations states;

"(C) Thefollowin<> information shall be ji esutted in narrativeform in a report divided accordmg to paragraphs (C)(1) to (C)(9) ofthis ride.

H) Thefollowing design calctdations with references to equations used showing site specific input and assumptions:

(i) Slope stab;i:n analysis" Requirements identical to these in the MSW rules are found in OAC 3745-29 06(C)(4)(j) and OAC 3745-30-05(C)(5)0) for ISW and RSW facilities. respectively.

The MSW and ISW regulations require that a GCL be negligibly permeable to fluid migration and contain a specine mass of bentonite per area. OAC 3745-27-08(C)(3)(a) and (c) and OAC 3745 08(C)(3)(a) and < c) state. respectively. for the MSW and ISW regulations;

"(3) A Geosynthetic clay liner used in lieu ofpart of the recompacted soilliner pursuant to paragraph (C)(1)(j) of this rule, or in lieu ofpart ofthe recompacted soil barrier hiyer, pursuant to paragraph (C)(15) or (C)(16) ofthis rule, shall have thefollowing characteristics:

('a) He negligibly permeable tofluid migration; and (c) Have a bentonite mass per unit area ofat least one poundper squarefoot"

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 4 4.0 Concerns and Recommendations DSIWM has two main areas of concern with incorporating a GCL in a landfill design:

Defining performance standards which can account for unecrtainties associated with the use of a relatvely new and developing product without a proven long term performance record; and

Determining accurate and appropriate design parameters to fully account for the exceptionally weak nature of hydrated bentonite.

These two main areas of concern have a number of specific concerns which are discussed in the following.sub-sections.

4.1 Assuring Long Term Performance Very little is known about the long term performance of GCl.s. This issue is discussed at length in U.S. EPNs recently released Re;wrt or Hn Irurbiw;> on < icosynthetic Clay Lin rs. dated June 1996.

and also in the American Societ'. u l'esune and Materials ( ASTM) Special Testing Publication No.

1308, Tesung an./.lcceptance ( 'rit< r. tor i ic.mnhenc ( ' lay Liners. published in January of 1997.

Additionally, there appears to be a m.m. sing opmion among eminent researchers in the GCI arena that it may be more fruJent to eu!ua e r -pea. strength conJitions than peak conditions. This is due to uncertaintie.s .surrounjine the p:oa ~ . tha. .na, imtiate defarmations in composite lining systems during construction, naste placeme- and the n ote's subsequent settlement. I hese processes may result in the development of poc-r t . or residual shear strength conditions which are weaker than peak strength values Ohio EPA guidance document num?: i sn. Fa::ars of S.acn'for Slope Stability .lnalysis, dated November 24,1W5. explains the me' .a,iolog that DSIWM uses for the selection of an appropriate recommended factor of safety for a s Cid wa<te landtill, based on imminent danger to human life or major environmental impact if the siore we:e to L and the degree of certainty in the assumed parameters. Ilowever, the incorporanon ot a GCn .n the solid waste landfill design adds an additional unknown to the factor of safety selection process. Therefore, due to uncenainties and a lack oflong term performance data, DSIWM recommends designing for post-peak conditions with a 1.3 static factor of safety and a 1.1 dynamic factor of safety for designs incorporating GCLs, see Table 1.

_x h

r Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 5 Table 1 i

l Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety Post Peak Static Stability t2 1.30 Post-Peak Pseudo-Static Stability " 1.10

1. Potential pore water pressure build up in the drainage layer must be taken into account when investigating the stability of the final cover system. Consideration of seepage forces should include an investigation of the maximum pore water pressure that may build up in the drainage layer of the cover system based on the maximum fluid flux through the cover soils which could occur during saturated conditions and a major rain event.

IComment: Seepage forces are important because a significant number of laridfili final cover failures have occurred across the nation 'due to inadequate design of the drainage layer.

Drainage layers have been unable to adequately relieve the pore water pressure that can bui!d up in cap systems during heavy downpours, The design inadequacies include underestimating ,

the volume of water that can permeate through the cover soik during a major rain event and/or inadequate controfs for keeping the dratnage !ayer from becoming partially or i l

completely cloggcu throughout the life and post closure of the landfill.1

2. Post peak shear strength should be determined utO:ng a shear displacement of at least 50 l

mm (2 in). I w

3. Should a deformational approach tse cnosen over a pseudo-static analysis, deformation in the composite cap system stoo!d not exceea 15 cm i6 in) and deformation in the composite liner system should not exceca 10 cm (' ini.

l 4.2 Accounting for the Weak Nature ofIlydrated Bentonite ,

The bentonite component of the GCL usually controls the strength characteristics of the composite bottom liner and cap sy stem. Hydrated bentonite has the lowest peak and residual shear strengths of any soil. Bentonitic soils also have an extremely high af6nity for moisture and will wick significant amounts of moisture from even the driest subgrade. In other words, GCLs will hydrate. Bentonite's affinity for moisture results in extraordinarily large swell pressures which can cause the hydrated bentonite to extrude from the GCL into the interfaces between the GCL and adjacent materials, essentially lubricating these interfaces, thereby weakening the structural integrity of the composite

~

system. -

~

Hydrated bentonite also exhibits an extremely low bearing capacity. Thus localized non-uniform stresses can cause the bentonite in GCLs to Row or migrate away from higher stress concentrations allowing the GCL to thin in localized areas. This bentonite thinning results in GCLs no longer mee the regulatory requirements on speciGc mass per unit area, and greatly increases Guid Oux throu

GCL

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 8 E. Test Method -

Currently the most common method used for detennining intemal shear strengths and interface shear strengths of GCLs is ASTM D-5321 utilizing a 300 mm square shear box. DSIWM recommends this procedure for determining the shear strength of Geosynthetic/Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic/ soil interfaces, and the internal shear strength of GCLs.

4.2.2 Avoiding GCL Thinning After GCLs have hydrated and stresses have been applied, the bentonite has been observed to migrate away from high stress concentrations, resulting in localized thinning of the GCL. This phenomenon is ecpecially.likely to occur in areas of composite bottom lining systems where non-uniform stress concentrations typically develop. This includes areas in the immediate proximity of wrinkles, in and around sumps, and beneath leac' ate collection piping. Thinning of the GCL due to migration of the bentonite has been observed at one facility here in Ohio.

One-dimensional compression tests show that the thickness of a hy drated GCL can decrease signiGcantly due to bentonite migration. 'I his phenomenon has been evidenced in exhumed GCLs and has been noted by numerous authors including Fox et al. (1997), Richardson (1997L Anderson (1996).

Koerner and Narejo (1995 L and Anderson and Allen (1995). According to l'ox et al. (1997 h bentonite migration seems to be more pronounced in unreinforced GCLs than in reinforced GCLs. Anderson and Allen (1995) and Anderson i19% mo show that the thickness of a GCL can be signi6cantly reduced in the vicinity of a wrinkle in the ows ing geomembrane due to hydrated bentonite tiowing up into the air space of the wrinkle. which nuy change shape but does noi necessarily disappear according to Koerner ( 1996).

Thinmng of the GCl has senous unpiianons for meeting the regulatory requirements, which include criteria for specitie nu3s ofi entomte fer umt area and hydraulic performance. GCLs are allowed to replace a portion of the recompactesi : oil lay er based on their hydrauhc performance. However, the hydraulic performance or Guid Oux liuough a GCL is directly related to the thickness or speciGe mass of bentonite per unit area. Thus, if the bentonite thins, the Guid 11ux tluough the GCL will increase, and the requirements for hydraulic performance and speciRc mass of bentonite per unit area may no longer be satisned. It is therefore recommended that the sump areas and areas directly beneath leachate collection piping not incorporate GCLs, and that wrinkling of the geomembrane be kept to an absolute minimum. DSIWM recognizes that there will be design and construction difRculties associated with this recommendation and that there are attemative approaches. Unfortunately, insufGcient information currently exists for DSIWM to make any other recommendation.

5.0 Concerns and itecommendations Unique to Unreinforced GCLs:

Unreinforced GCLs lack any added reinforcement to resist shear stresses, such as needle punching or stitch bonding. As a consequence, these products have intemal shear strength and bearing capacity characteristics approxin.ately equivalent to hydrated bentonite. USEPA (1996) comments that shear data on unreinforced GCLs show friction angles of about 10 degrees. Richardson (1997) estimates the

F 1 Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs l ,

Page 9 bearing capacity of a hydrated unreinforced GCL to be 40 kPa (825 psf) and the internal shear strength I to be less than 5 kPa (100 psf) for low normal stresses such as those associated with caps.

For low normal stresses such as those in cap systems, unreinforced GCLs will hydrate fully under confining stresses significantly less than the swell pressure of the GCL. Furthennore, these products have a severely limited shear resistance which essentially corresponds to hydrated bentonite. These products may also undergo significant creep due to the time-dependent deformational characteristics hydrated bentonite, resulting in extremely low post-peak or residual strength conditions. Additionally, the extremely low bearing capacity of unreinforced GCLs may result in thinning of the GCL from bentonite migration due to non-uniform stress concentrations, such as wheel loads, that may be applied to a cap during closure and post closure. For these reasons, it is recommended that composite cap system designs do not incorporate unreinforced GCLs and that unreinforced GCLs be restricted to us on bottom lining slopes ofless than 10%.

)

6.0 Procedural Considerations The recommended testing procedures anJ factors of safety for GCLs are a component of the slope stability analysis required in the DSIWM permitting process. The first Ohio Administrative Code cite in Section 3.0, Regulatory Considerations points out that a slope stability analysis is to be included in the narrative section of the permit to install application. This requirement applies to all permit l

applications or alteration requests proposing to use a GCL, initially; and may apply to alterations or l

other changes proposing to exchange one ( K1 for another. Additionally, this requirement may algo apply to permit applications, alteration wquests. or other changes already incorporating a GCL, b proposing to change materials or thicknesses of materials for individual components of the c bottom liner and composite cap system. or any other circumstance that may cause uncertainty in the validity of previously submitted slope suNh". calculations.

The specific contents of a slope staHhty an.4 sis can be sensitive to particular conditions present at a individual site and often need to be assewed on a case by case basis. Ilowever, in general, a slope stability analysis for a landfill should ineh:de the following A. The rationale, crossoections and plan views, for critical slope conditions

which may occur during the excavation and construction of the landfill *

B. The rationale, cross-sections, and plan views, for critical slope conditions

which may occur during the operation and filling of the landfill *

j C. The rationale, cross-sections, and plan views, for critical slope conditions

which may '

occur during final closure and post closure care of the landfill.

l I.

The rationale for the selection of soil and geosynthetic strength characteristics, j r

I includmg detailed information from a site specific subsurface exploration, and detaile inforraation from a project specific materials shear strength testing program.

i E. A di3cussion of the methodology used for the determination of the factors of safety. !

I 1

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 10 F. The physical calculations and/or computer output for the critical conditions of the excavation, intermediate or interim waste slopes. and tinal slopes.

Determining critical slope conditions includes investigating both static and dynamic cases for both deep-seated and shallow failure surfaces for both rotational and translational modes of failure. .

- Operational and construction practices can have a profound impact upon the integrity of the enginected components of waste containment facilities and should not be overlooked in the design process. Recommendations for operational and construction practices relating to geosynthetics have been provided in a previous memorandum titled Unstable Slopes Advisoryfor Salid Waste Landfill Facilities, dated December 2, 1996. Specific terms and conditions of a permit to install may be necessary in order to limit waste placement to a maximum slope height and inclination during the filling of a phase or unit to maintain thiinteeri.y of the engineered components of the landfill.

7.0 Summary In summary, Ohids solid waste regulations allow a UCL to i e used in lieu of the recompacted soil layer of the composite tinal cap system or for a portion of the recompacted soillayer of the composite bottom liner system. llowever, any hner or cap system utilizing one of these products must perfonn adequately. DSIWhl has signiticant reservations regarding the ability of GCLs to perform as safely and durab!y as compacted clay soils in some appheauons I hese concerns are due to the inherent low strength characteristics of bentonitic soils and a lack of long term perfonnance data on these products.

t he low strength characteristics of bentonite preclude GCLs from being used on some slopes and allow GCLs to thin when subjecte J to non-uniform stresses in an etfort to provide direction to interested parties in alleviating DSIWh1 s concems and to expedite review of proposals incorporating these products, DSIWh1 oliers the following recommenbuon<

- Project-specific geo3yntheties anJ soils should be tested appropriately for internal and interface shear strengths over the entire range of normal stresses which will be encountered for a particular application, and the results incorporated into the required slope stability calculations.

- 'Ihe recommended minimum factors of safety for GCl.s are listed below and should be satistied using a post-peak shear strength with a shear displacement of at least 50 mm (2 in).

Post-Peak Static Stability 1.30 -

Post-Peak Pseudo-Static Stability 1.10

- Prior to shearing, the GCL should be allowed to fully hydrate in a free swell condition until primary swell is complete. The moisture content should be verified upon completion of the shear test.

)

i l Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 11 l'

DSIWM recommends that the rate of shear for direct shear tests on GCLs be determined using ASTM D-30SO, and that it not exceed 0.04mm/ min.

! - DSIWM recommends determining internal and interface shear strengths of GCLs by ASTM D-5321 utilizing a 300 mm square shear box.

Wrinkling of the geomembrane should be kept to an absolute minimum, and any sump areas and areas directly beneath leachate collection piping should not incorporate GCLs.

1

- Unreinforced GCLs should only be used on slopes with a grade ofless than 10%, and should not be used in composite cap systems.

The recommendations made above apply to all permit applications or alteration requests initially proposing to use a GCL, and may apply to alterations or other changes proposing to exchange one l ;

GCL for another. Additionally, these recommendations may apply to permit applications, alteration !

l

equests, or other changes already incorporating a GCL but proposing to change materials or thicknesses of materials for individual components of the composite bottom liner or composite cap system, or any other circumstance that may cause uncertainty in the validity of previously submitted

)

slope stability calculations.

i A substantial portion of the infonnation contained in this advison will be incorporated into a comprehensive policy statement on slope cability. A draft copy of the policy will be distributed to interested parties for review and comment if you have any comments or questions concerning the information contained in this advisory or v. auld hke information regarding the forthcoming slope l

l stability policy, please contact me at (614) 728 5371. If you would like to be included on the

! interested party list for the slope stability palicy please fax me your name, address, company /af61iation. telephone an i fas nr urs at mio 728-5315.

DE/dk Attachmei.t: References !

I

=e

F References 1 -

Anderson, J. D., (1996), "Are Geosynthetic Clay Linerr Really Equivalent to Compacted Clay Liners",

Geotechnical News, BiTech Publishing, Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, Vol.14, No. 2, June, pp. 20-23.

I Anderson, J. D.; S. R. Allen,(1995),"What Are The Real Considerations When Using a Geosynthetic Clay Liner", Proceedings of the 9th Annual Municipal Solid Waste Afanagement Conference, Austin, l

TX.

j ASTM (1997)," Testing and Acceptance Criteria for Geosynthetic Clay Liners American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Test Publication No.1308", American Society for Testing and Materials, Well, L. W., Ed.,268 p.

Fox, P. J., D. J. llattista, S.-H. Chen (1997), "A study of the CBR bearing capacity Test for Hydrated l Geosynthetic Clay Liners", Testing and Acceptance Criteriafor Geosynthetic Clay Liners, American Societyfor 7'esting and Afaterials, Special Test Yublication No.1308, Larry W. Well, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 251-264.

l Gilbert, R.11., i1. II. Scranton D. E. Daniel (1997). " Shear Strength festing for Geosynthetic Clay Liners", Testing and Acceptance Criteriafhr Geosynthetic t 'lav Liners, American Societyfor Testing and Materiah. O x; i !cs: l'u!'iieat; c .W !.M I.arr. B W ". Ed . American Society for Testing and Materials. pp ill-!"

Koerner. R. \1 and l' Narcio i 1W5 - He.nine C maeuy of J 1:.Jra'ed Geosynthetic Clay 1 iners" Journai or Geotechn:c.. ' Aceme .m nene m Sxiety o: i bi Engineers, Vol.121, No.1, pp.82-85.

Moerner, R. M. (lo9m. 'l'he GSI Ne.. - euer Repert". Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Philadelpina. P.\. Vo! !- n 2. June.

Richardson, G. N. t 1"vi. ' ( WI Ina . Shear Nrength Requaements". Geou nthetics Fabrics Report, March IV. pp 2e-25 Stark, T. D. (1997a), "Ef fect et Sv.eh Prmure on GCL Cos er Stability", Teating and Accepta..ee Criteriafbr Geosynthetic Clay Liner, .unerwan SocietyJbr Testing and Afaterials, Special Test Publication No.1308. Larrv W. Well. Ed.. American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 30-44.

Stark, T. D.,11. T. Eid (1997). " Shear 13ehavior of Reinforced Geosynthetic Clay Liners",

Geosynthetics Internationa!. Vol.3. No 6. pp. 771-786.

U. S. EPA (1996)," Report of lo95 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay I iners", United States Environmental Protection Agency. Cmeinnati, Ohio,96 p. n t

m Attachment 3

O e

6

i l l i1l,l ,-

. l Il NC WC oT n<$8 oT .

L n c o o 1 1 2 2 1' n 5 0 5 0 5 0 wpm c

- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oa vc et 0 :.

,n ed '

e Gcl Ma y y.

aA N N C WT I

E C G

C

- l L /

g in ee 2,

, G C NRW -

o ,r UAG L GL C mW er MG L r -

bw a

r o

4 - C L F n

ee v

,n A . a i

N a l

G o L

C r m

a 6

u r

o

- l g S e t r

o e s

y s s 8 n

t h

(

p s - E e

t i

c f

x 1

n cl a

0 0

1 0

A

v y

l i

n

)

0 el

,r e

1 2

8 p

o 1

4 e

1 6

\

o Attachmen:

z .

m.

0

s 0

,0 2

5

, 7 1

1 3 4 l l l o

i o

i 0

S S S ,

5 1

/ ' , 2 5

1

/ )

t 25 e l l e ii f oo 0(

SS ,0S 1 I X .

A X

,5 7

E L

I F .

O _

R ,0 P 5 E

V f

/

A _

T ,5 R 2 E _

B _

~

0 .

~

0 5 0 _

5 0 5 7 5 5 2 0 7 1 1 1

_ 1 m*e* vn N J.

e . _

1 Soil Material Type " Wet" Unit Cohesion Friction

Weight (psf) Angle 1 Ground Water Conveyanca Mater;al 130 0 30 2 Recompacted Soil Liner 137 0 27 3 Recompacted Soil Barrier and 137 0 27 Protective Material 4 Waste 135 0 25 5 GCL 110 non- non-linear linear GCL Non-L:near S"ength Parameters Normal Stress csf! ; Shear Stress (psf) 0 l 0

'50 100 300 l 150 500 200 3000 l 500 6000 800 l

e

i l

I 1

. XSTABL File: SPECIR 5-18-98 9:34

XSTABL *

Slope Stability Analysis *

using the

1

Method of Slices

l

Copyright (C) 1992 s 97 *

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

l

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *

All Rights Reserved

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605

- - - - \

Problem Description BERT AVE. Static Rotational i

1

_.3 ,

. .:r. . . .. . v. =

1 E 2 *:~ ~ ' :E - !

.ght y-r:ght Sola Unit Se g:r.e nt .=: _- _.

Eeicw Segment

. it) (ft) ,

No. f. f i

^5.3

100.0 1 1

25. 1._ 40.0 105.0 2 2 l 1 40. .:E 49.0 105.0

137.J '37.5 3

_i 49.' .

3 5 137 _'" _ 200.0 138.7 i

7 SUBSURFACE bour in . agments i

x-right y-right Soil Unit Segment x-left /-left Below Segment

,ft) (ft) (ft)

No. (ft) 75.0 106.3 2 1 49.0 105.0 78.0 109.3 5 2 75.0 1C2.3 140.1 130.0 4 3 78.0 109.3 131.2 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 200.0 110.5 5

-5 78.0 109.3 200.0 109.6 2 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 106.6 1 7 40.0 105.0 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED

= 3.00 (feet)

Depth of crack below ground surface

23 134.89 129.08 7.52 2.01 48.90 18.42 2072.

24 136.75 131.36 5.86- 1.70 52.86 18.42 1367.

~1 52.86 1.10 444,

-25. 137.96 132.95 4.55 26 138.67 133.9,8 3.55 72 56.82 1.10 351.

Nonlinear M-C Iteratior.IJumber - 1 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Iter # Theta FOS force FOS moment 2 14.4273 1.5562 1.6010 3 14.7116 1.5595 1.5562 4 14.7009 1.5594 1.5595

-ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER' S METHOD Iter ." Theta FOS _f c 'cre F0F y.o~'e r.

.. : :2 c

....- . c .

. . ...~..

'f - t c p P-tcr ; .;ta

. . y - ;,

51. ;t .. i -

.- - .r ..

. . -., ,, . O L.

.' -"' . :7..' 0. 0. .00

. . .- 7.,,,.

"1

.' .00 5 '. 5.

~

: .00

. .m . .

d . Lm,,./

L 2 .,,'I S m s.

i ..-= . .. . . , -. , .

4 x

9 17' . 14 .:4 ;. J. .00 a, . a ~. ~ _

.v . .: = s ..

.. n.

v .00 10 197s s . .4 . 4 - O. .00 11 2001.4 14. .

. 54 0. D. O. .00 12 2082.4 25.00 0. O. O. .00 13 2055 B

~

25.00 0. O. O. .00 14 2009.2 25.00 0. G. O. .00 15 1925.6 25.00 0. O. D. .00 16 1811.2 25.00 0. O. .00 O. C2 . ,00 17 1669.7 . . 25.00 0.

18 15C4.1 .: 25.00 0. O. O. .00 19 1318.3 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00

' 2 0. 1116.3 .0 25.00 0. O. O. . 00 21 902.2 .0 25.00 0. O. U. .00 22 751.3 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. . 00 23 647.9 . 0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 24 474.3 . 0 27.00 0. O. O. 00 25 368.7 . 0 27.00 0. O. O. .0f 26 267.6 . 0 27.00 0. O. O. .00

.---*8 .8 ... p en , e e ,,,,,g, ,,n. . ..

m ...g. gp .e. sh . . p . . ge .m .

..P - ..-g. ...h h

up

F.

SPENCER'S (1973) - TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base Slice Base Normal Vertical Pore Water Shear

x-coord Stress Stress Pressure ~ Stress (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) i 1 68.96 280.9 18?.7 .0 . 91.8 2 72.71 766.7 550.5 .0 250.5 3 76.54 1155.0 Est.E .0 377.4 l

4 79.23 1355.1 1090.9 .0 ~ 442. 8 l

5 81.20 1503.9 1229.3 .0 449.7 l 472.9 6 83.09 1581.4 1355.4 .0 l

7 85.08 1599.9 1471.5 .0 212.9 8 88.38 1734.5 1645.3 .0 223.3 9 92.38 1872.6 1828.7 .0 233.9 10 96.37 1973.8 1981.3 .0 241.7 11 98.86 2001.4 2063.3 .0 243.8 12 100.84 2082.4 2110.3 .0 G22.7 13 104.25 2058.8 2169.5 .0 615.6 14 108.11 2009.2 2201.1 .0 600.6 1925.6 21:3.3 .0 575.8 15 111.89 16 115.56 1811.3 1146 2 .0 541.6

,f._.,

.0 4

a.:

mm e

3 0 c- .

a s .4..

,+-

r22 _

339.8 .

I 19 :25.82 1318.3 177'.' .0 394.2

.; . - .nv , e_, ,) . vp

. 5,r

.,2

+_

21 1. 9F : .~' _ ..;-

~

0 269.S

-_2.._,

. c, ,,3.7 .

..,,..,1

. - s ..i y

_.. p 93,

- ~~~.

4~4,2 s :~. 2 . 5 .0 155.0 24 12- E es ' 522 . .0 120.5 25 1_- . 3 6 c

~

465 ~ .0 87.5 26 1.: s . G ~

j SPENCER'S :1973'- -

'.ag.i ade t. L:: m ::- of " r.t e r s l ic e Forces Slice Riaht Fir:+ ! ".t e r 3 ' c e- F o r e.1 Sc@ag He $t l t; .;-coord . D: F o r c e. : aight Height Ratio j

,ft) - d : g i -:.; (ibi ift) (ft) 14.~; 733. 1.25 2.75 .452 1 70.81 .342 2 74.60 14.7c 2778. 1.81 5.28 5482. 2.43 7.57 .321 3 78.48 14.7C 6568. 2.65 8.35 .318 4 79.99 14.70 3391. 3.04 9.61 .317 5 82.41 14.70 14.70 9319. 3.23 10.22 .316

. 6 83.78 .336 7 86.38 14.70 10385. 3.83 11.39 11631. '4.58 12.90 .355 8 90.38 14.70 l

14.70 12412. 5.22 14.14 .369

9 94.38 14.70 12648. 5.76 15.09 .383 10 98.36 11 99.37 14.70 12561. 5.92 15.26 .388 l

102.31 14.70 13418. 5.83 15.76 .370 12 14.70 13944, 5.71 16.14 .354 13 106.20 .343 14 110.02 14.70 13858. 5.56 16.22 14.70 13202. 5.36 16.02 .334 15 113.75 16 117.37 14.70 '

12048. 5.09 15.53 .327_

17 120.87 14.70 10495. 4.73 14.75 .321

.18 124.22. 14.70 8661. 4.29 13.68 . 3 ~. 4 19- 127.42 14.70 6681. 3.76 -12.34 .305 20 130.44 14.70 465-6. 3.14 10.72 .293 21 133.27 14.70 2850. 2.41 8.84 .273 2444. 2.22 8.33 .266 22 133.88 14.70 1340. 1.54 6.70 .229 23 135.90 14.70 E_: 77 5.02 .153 24 137.60- 14.70-25 138.31 '14.70 243 .46 4.09 .112 1.19 3.00 .298 26 139.03 .00 .

AVERAGE VALUES ALONG-FliILURE SURFACE Total Normal Stress = 1397.19 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf)

Shear Stress = 362.20 (psf)

Total Length of failure surface = 81.32 feet ge : :. .: :

., - : *ne s_ng.e .. : : a r e u;; une assumea angte

, . . . . . , . . . , ,c,,.,,,

. .. M** .

- . * .3 , . -

~

. :.'. ' .,/.'

_ : ' *" L

' ~ . i ' , 3 . a y ;. ~

. , . . + -

- \ w.

4 .

'h1 . .~

.1 .n' A.. 'g . C 2 C i *. . - .11

-; - ~1E-02 lb O

rD

i

+ !

1 I

i l

l

.O O

-4 l 4 ,

\ k i j e _

i ,

0

' O O D O l ' -

N .N

/ - O -

'/ -

a m

' E

- e o ;

4 i U f

' II l

' O O OM ,

I OO O

C 5 m M ,

og -

o b

. - o O G x C2 O l I tn

u. >

5 cn C X @ ,

g '

O d 4 _ O O i _

U

] \

N 4

f.

,"7 C0 ,

M .

- *- l ll Q Ns - 0 .

y ~

L C 1 g H 1 O l U

~ w C -

GU l 0 w O

- -. . . - ... ._ ._. O _._n,,

d LA 3

C O O O C

C 0

I c.. m - O- @

sde) ;3 ,gc3 y ; (6sp) ;3 igny 39303 ].-

O +

.+ 4 *~

D

~ ' ' ! Q

, y r l

~ 1 k 1

0 0 o J - +

et lN 0 cm

/ l To oO

'. ,i ,

= u_ !

y I

w 0 !

t je + .

y t - _

O Om Oo h

- 1' ' - O O

E s'

N OO "x

Zp H t -

a o O o

4 g

\

i

-s V

4 I o U =Wr O 2 W}

l e l

) c* ~

x W I.,

4 N.x 0 W,

m

-- ~ O ~

H

\ (0 -l oI NN N

N CO

>Z

<( u W +

I O

o j -

.2l

- s

,,- )_ Z T

i j

hl

> Z t 4J f I WA h

i i :

\ i O

e ym i . .,, ,i. .i.

O g

CD W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 M N - O O I

- - - - in o LO O to l N N s- e-L (1001) SG8000-A (;sd) S3SS381S 3SV8 . ,

l e

4D

0 s

i 0

-_. 2

=

.- = .

9 -

5 i7 5 - =. .

1 5 - _ ..

1

=-

= .

- =

=

_ 0 e i5 c 1 a

f r -

u S -

=

5 d , 12 i

e -

, )

f -

, t e

i c ,

e e f p '

(

S - - 0 r

o

, 0 S 1 I l

f X

a A nS _ -

oO , .

i t F -

~ X t

a ,

5 7

oD R O . -

cH T

/

i t

aE -

S t

M , r0 5

S E R _

VE .

4 A C 4: T N '

5 1

R E 2 1 E P BS -

8 9 .

8 1

5 -

1l

, 0 _

0 5 5 0 _

R 5 7 5 I

7 5 2 C 1 1 1 E 3 P

S m%cn '- m, i>

i _

- XSTABL File: SPCIREQ 5-13-98 9:39

.v. _c .

c.

n o a v *

Slope Stabi'.*y Analysis .

. 3 .4 . ,. - . -...

..,u,., .; : .

. .m .. ...c..

1

Copyright rc) 1992 1 97

l

Interactive Software Designs, Inc. l

Moscow, :D 53643, U.S.A.

l

All Rights Reserved

1 l

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605 Problem Descr:ption EEET AVE. Dynam.: Rotational

- a m.s . . .,,~ .,... ..

e. ., , 7 . . - - , . . .

t p ey. .y...--

2 %. . t \ ~ .a a f

Segment . - :. - -r;; : y-i gnt Soil Unit No. 'it

fr (ft) Below Segment t

J. 100.0 1 1 .

l ' -

4. 105.0 1 i ,

,. .3 l

., ,. . .v: .

.: s .-

.-,: ,-o .$

c.,

,- ..- . ,. =. ,- 3 j i

i i

7 SL,_:3 .5 A. . r. ., . ..:. c ; .. ' _ :-ent s Segment < . .rf .." -- r w !"_

v-riaht-Soil Unit l 4

No.

.ft - ift> .ft) Below Segment l l

.,c

,a . ,. , 0 8 . ,.

. 1

, ,; ; g .- loo 5 3 ha'.b [:3.5 140[5 13b.3 0 4 I 200 0 131.2 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 110.5 5 5~ 78.0 109.3 200.0 109.6 2 ;

6 75.0 108.3 200.0 106.6 1 7 40.0 105.0 1

i A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

'=

~

Maximum depth of water in-crack .00 (feet)

- Unit weight'of water in crack :62.40- (pcf)

Failure surfaces.will have a vertical side equal to the specified depth of crack and be affected by a-hydrostatic force according;to the specified dept'- rf anter in the-crack .

ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified' Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Fore Pressure Water Unit Moist ' Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) l(pcf) (psf) 'deg) Ru (psf) No.

I 130.0 130.O .0 30.00 .000 .~ 0 0 2 137.0 ;37.J .O 27.'^ .000 .0 0 s 3.. , ,. .v

- a - _-

e.,v-nn .ns u s

.7. q . - .. t. . n.

...np ,' a -

3

~

..e.

..1np -- 1 s

p=v...m . . .,_ .-.w.;

i.- , ., . ; f ., 3. .a. r. n ,.

o, s :.1. -

801. '11

,5 - ., *

~ ; .3 g e

--,~-

-.eq

,. . q.

't . .

5 5:

a n. ,. u, A horizontal a rthquake .:;iing ref" .

er-

. of .150 has been assigmi A vertical earthquake leading ce-ti.c: .:

of

.000 has been assigned A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE Hiss BEE'; SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial f ailt re surf ace is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 57.89 feet Center at x= 90.99 ; y= 166.76 ; Seg. Length = 4.00 feet

The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by-

- the following 23 coordinate points :

L Point. x+ surf y-surf (ft) ;ft)

No.

1 67.11 114.03 2 70.81- 112.51 3 74.60 111.24 4 78.48 110.24 5 82.41 109.51 6 86.38 109.06 7 90.38 108.88 8 94.38 106.97 9 98.36 109.35 10 102.31 109.99 11 106.'20 110.91 J 12 110.02 112.09 13 113.75 113.54 14 117.37 115.24 15 120.87 117.18 16 124.22 119.36 17 12' 42 1:1.77

.S '. 3 ; 4 4 124.39

, .a,i.a. no 20 135 ;; 13:.23

,; : :. , . ,4

_9 ,. . . _ _ _

22 12. C '- 134.53 13L ;2~.53 13

- - - - ..****..........*.........5*****.**********..

pencer (1973)

SELECTED ME'i:D Or A:.'.Li5:5-i i

l

- - - - ............. ..................... i

SUMMARY

OF :SDIV10UAL EL;2E :SFORMAT CN alpha beta weight x' base y-tase height width-Slice -

(ft)

(1b) ift: (f_ .ft)

-22.38 13.42 698.

113.27 1s 36 3.70 1 68.96 18.42 2089.

72.71 .1. 27 4.02 3.79 -18.42 3410.

2 3.37 -14.46 18.42 3 76.54 110.74 6.43 18.42 1650.

110.10 7.96 1.51 -10.50 4 79.23 2.42 -10.50 18.42 2976.

5- 81.20 109.74 8.98

-6.54 18.42 1858.

83.09 109.44 9.92 1.37 3831.

6 10.81 2.60 -6.54 18.42 7 85.08 109.21 18.42 6575.

12.14 4.00 -2.58 8 88.38 108.97 1.38 18.42 7313.

108.93 13.52 4.00 9 92.38 3.98 5.34 18.42 7891.

10- 96.37- 109.16 14.61 2072.

109.43 15.17 1.00 9.30 18.42 11 98.86 9.30 18.42 6211.

100,84 109.75 15.51 2.94 12 1F. 2 6 18.42 8447.

l 104.25 110-.45 15.95 3.89 I 13 16.18 3.82 17.22 18.42 8410.

14 108.11 111.50 .

L

r 16,12 21.18 18.42 8181.

15 111.89 112.82 3.73 7772.

16- 115.56 114.39 15.78. - 62 25.14 18.42 3;50 29.10. 18.42 7201.

17- .119.12 116.21' 15.14 6489.

18 122.55 118.27 14.21 3.35 33.06 18.42 37.02 13.42 5663.

19' 125.82 120.57' 13.01 3.17, 16.42 4750. I 20 128.93 123.0B 11 52 3 -- 40.98 9.7E :~ 44 94 15.42 3785. l 21 131.s5, 125.81. .-

726.

8.59 48.90 16.42

.22 133.-58 127.57 . .;

2072.

129.06 7.52 2... 49.90 15.42 23 134'.69 1367.

131.36 5.B6 . . -' 1 52.66 13.42 24 136.75 444, 25 137.96 132-95 . 4.55 ~' l 52.86 1.10 26 138.67 133.98 3.55 72 56.82 1.10 351.

Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number - 1 ITEPATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD

. Iter h Theta FD.5 rorce FOS moment

,1 -q,U403

. w.

e . . o.

4 * --..

3 ; ; , . 7 :- - 4. . . ..

'[ .^

. A .

, "I'

\ ..g

's 5 1. *f b .1 . r

,,.+3

.5*.**".. .

-~ .. ..--.

e be[ . :' J

~

_bebmea am ab 3 . OM 'S *"t E '

a cL 7 t,., . n. - .... ..

. . . . .c

'Rpa a_ -: 1-tcp r -:: p Delta Slice -

> 1 b '; _ri crf' .

0. C. .00 1

3H.S

...r,. -

.~ .'

V.

m J. .00

. nJ ,-

J

. 't 4 7 . M J +.

n.

V .

n.

o, . . 0 0,

.s...

= 1 0. . .00 5 173~ 0 ,

.00 o

A rL ,e . .. : ._.

sc

. . . . . . . . u

..o ..p

. .. a . - _

6.R4 0. .00 e 1724.5 140.~ ^

6.e4 : O. .00 9 1830.6 140.0 140.0 6.84 :. O. O. .00 10 - 1900.2 .00 140.0 6.94

0. O.

11 1900.1 .00 25.00 O. O.

12 2064.5 .0 .

.00 25.00 3. O. O.

13 1997.1 .0 25.00 0 0. C. .00 14 1909.6 .0 O. O. .00 15 1795.1 .0 25.00 C.

.00 25.00 C. O. O.

16 1657.6 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 17 1500.9 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 18 1328.6 .0 O. .00 19 1144.6 .0 25.00 0. O.

i

0. O. O. .00 20 952.6 .0 25.00 O. .00 1

0. O.

21- 756.7- .0 25.00 O. .00

0. O.

22~ 619.1 .0 25.00- O. .00 D. O.

'23 533.0 ~ .0 27.00- O. .00 27,00 O.

24 383.1 .0 '.

O. O. .30 25 297.8 .0 -27.00 .

O. .00 26 212.6 . 0. 27.00 :. O.

f1 i

SPENCER'S (l'973) -1 TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base 5'ertical Fore Water Shear Slice Base Normal Pressure Stress x-coord Stress Stress

(psf)

(ft) .( psf). (psf) .(psf) 188.7 0 194.5 1 68.96 398.8 .0 490.9 2 72.71 1006.7- 550.5 695.6 76.54 1426.4 880.5 .0 776.4 3

1090.9 .0 4 79.23 1592.2 .0 772.1 81,20 1730.0. 1229.3 781.8 5

1355.4 .0 6 83.09 1751.9 ..,. .v 3,0.,2 e

.-,u,.:

24 ,2.:-

o n . 3. o rec 332.0

~. 6 4 5 . ' .0 99.39 1724.5 , .. ,

3 1- ,a

,OJV.-

,c.

4- dO .- .V n

J44 3gn.,s

.~

") .4.Js

a. . . .. <

,. o. r. ev . -- -cr...:

.s a . n. -

's 5 ' . 2 ';

_' a. n. i. . .-

.0 ~.

4.5..6 '.;-'..'_

.. , c) ,4.1

't I

'.5. ' .

,- .. . ,, ' .. V

. n. ..

. ..c. .- e,2.

. . . , O 'S 7 *!

..-. f . ,_ ;. .. ._

.3 a a. r . ,. .

.i

,g

'*c-v ., .

.0 80'.~ .

'. . '. . .c .a . ~ ~. ... : ~ ..-

'739.6 l

.' 5 114f. .0 16 115.56 li s ' .

.. ..ag. -

.n. 6.60..s I

., ..g..- .a .;.. -. .

S o. ~^ . ".

'. 9- ' t. . ;. .O ,

,.;.5 ..?;. . " . 10.9

3

.,< _. .0 3 l

.,,o .... , . , . .:. !

.-./ . .. : : r:

f1 ,c. . .-

a : . . ;.

w

., .,:..2 u . .#

e.-

.J lo :

3 .- - . s oa .

m,

. 5

- e .a. 3-o -

,- ,/ ; . .;

. ,. / :. . . <-

m

,, --,>-.o O

,3..

. n. nca.a na.

-.. , >. . a o. . n n. . e.

302.5 .0 186.8 '

24 136.75 363.. .0 145.2 137.96 297.5 623.9 25 .0 103.7 L

133.67 212.6 485.7 26 l

j

- Magnitude & Locati:n Of Interslice Forces SPENCER'S (1973) ...........................

[ ..................................

Force Boundary Height Right Force Interslice Ratic Slice Force Height Height

- x-coord Angle (ft)

!. lb) (ft)

(ft) (degrees) 1.43 2.75 .520 70.81 21.48 1313. .393 1

4346. 2.07 5.28 2 74.60 21.48 2.81 7.57 .371 78.48 21.48 8223 .369 3 3.08 8.35 79.99 21.48 9699. .371 4 3.57 9.61 21.48 12062. .373 5 82.41 13210. 3.81 10.22 6 ' 83.78 21.48 11.39 .408 86.38 21.48 14008. 4.64

-7 .

8 90,38.' 21 48 -14709. 5.69 112.90 .441

- l9- 94.38. :21.48 14820, 6.58 -14.24 .466 10 98.36 21.48 .14296. 7.39 15.09 .490

'll 99.37 21.48 '14007. 7.59 15.26 .498-12- 102.31 21.48 l'485_. .20 .15.76 .463 13 106 20 21.46 15250. ' 02 16.14 434 14 110.02 21.45 14964. 6 72 16.22 .414

.15 - 113 75 21.48- '14069 42 16.02 401 16- 117.37~ ~21.48 1266P. .

. 06 15.53 390 17 120.87 21.48 10997. 5.62 14.75 .381 18: "124.22 21.48 8862. 5.11 13.68 .373 19 127.'42 21'.48 6740. 4.50 12.34 .365 20 130.44 21.48 4669. 3.80- 10.72 .355 21 133.27- 21.48 2789. 3.01 8.84 .340 22 133.88 21.43 2384. ;2.80 8.33 .336 23 135.90 21.48 1292. 2.04 6.70 .305 24 137.60 21.48 4S7. 1.21 5.02 .242

.25- 138.31 21.48 226. .85 4.09 .208 26 139.03 00 -2. .07 3.00 .023 M. Ru, c n.,r 2 ,vn . L,J r. ::.. ., . . ,

m.. nv .=. u . . . . . ,: . _ u r. : _..,r._.-ur. .w -:

Tc t a l 2;rr'.a l .c _1 = : 13 6 ; . .; 9 (psf Fore later Prea. . :_ ' psf' Shear Streat. 2 527 92 : psf.

, . _s -_ . . . ..g.

- ; . _: -. e ._-..m For the sing: -

_- r f r; - and th- assumed an~;c

.._< n_ '._:, ~~c.:

J. , , _ .

..._.v.-.. ~qj3.)

. . . .:...LL.. . ..

p ra c dt.: e :i- ~ i

?. ~.- w. .+

. .- u - :. : =. -- _.,. .

t=s Total snear strer.n. _

. . .: l e along'specified fa _ure s rface _ = 449,56E+02 lb

t o

i-l-

,o4 -n j

j -

1-

,s .

.j J

/

/. . f 2

U) a D ,

,o 7 -m to

- ca

- m -

' 9 m t

N T

- N o

l i v 11 J.

l l

jo .g O -

oW oo x

D W

l lo ~ O g Or o j- O i I .

O H o O U")

E i _.

y - I 4 o i

> n Cn X

! u i c o.

u i o m .1 ._ o "

i 0 \ i m l -

, o 2 -

M

\x 2 o, b' ll i

2 u _

i -

" ,) -

D

c. 5 l O L '

t

" - </, u 8 O m

_g _ . _ _ , , - - . 7 .,. -! g 7 o 3 ;

o o e a o n o in w

o in in m to , n - -

e4 -

V

,5:sp) S310NV 3080J

~

i i

(sdp,) S3 3dCJ K l'?. .D o -

r 14 t

! - ,,, l- o

[

r-2,. / 1 e i w.

7 O f ,/

- -M O L

', ~

9 lo C O

- c4

, s.

- .o %

l \

a m -~ D

( -

L,

~

o OO l H,

.o O Lt. )

L- v Z

~

[ -0 n i 1 IoW OO

~

\ b

-o o

Ei if

' ioo o r

i 6_

r g

g 1 -

ul o-1 im 0 E 1 4 3 - s o O t-0 \ t c! 4 s _J i

o C LiJ l o ; I >2 t

" s L \\ -

X O

}

\ 1

,M u lo i '

\ (

a Z \ _ o UZ 6 CO

>W

.

CO -1 N s.

" s

\

\ Ct \

r '

,0 ' N 4g W \ -

s 'j '" -l

7. N j f- - A l

%W

~

m 5l I

/ } wa H \ \

4 o l' 'i' 'i- 'i 'i 'ie o O@

r i i i ie o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 4 F) N - o en o LO o LO e - -

e- e N N - -

heaj) S08003-A (;sd) S3SS381S' 3SV8 .

),

f' f

a

3.73 21.18 18.42 8181.

15 111.89- 112.82 16.12 7772.

114.39 15.78 3.62 25 14 18.42 16 115.56 29.10 18.42 7201.

116.21 15.14 3.5) 17 119.12- 3.35 33.06 18.42 6489.

.18 122.55 118.27 14.21 5663.

120.57 13.01 3.19 37.02 18.42 19 125.82 3.02 40.98 18.42 4750 20 128,93 123.08 11.53 18.42 3785.

9.79 2.63 44.94 21 131.85 125.81 18.42 726.

127.57 8.59 .62 48.90 22' 133.58 48.90 18.42 2072.

23 134.89 .129.08 7.53 2.01 1367.

131.36 5.26 1.70 52.86 18.42 24 136.75 .71 52.86 1.10 - 444 25 137.96 132.95 4.55 56.82 1.10 351.

133,98 3.55 .72 26~ 138.67 1

Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number -

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD FOS fcrce FOS moment Iter # Theta .9706 2 23.1535 1.01CE

- --- 1.0109 3 21.3511 ..

.3:- ,

m.

s ,- r-

~t +.

a -.-

v..,,,.-.....

1 ._ . . . .._

_ -.. . , . . ~ -

~

t: _ FCS moment

ter = '- -

~ .~ .. 0009 STw I u"=. ".'.'r"~~..a'..~~

1 " a .3 = U_+ P-tcp Delta Slice Sia-a a. .

1: .i

.c.

C. O. .00 1 421,3 O. .00

~

0 0.

2 1042.5 ~

0. O. .00 1470.5

~: .00 3

O. O.

1628.2 27 .

.00 4 .

O. O. O. .

1762.6 25..: .00 5 .

~

25,-~ C 0. O.

6 1775.2 0. 3. J .00 140.; - 4 7 1619.2 0 0 C. .00 1719.3 140.- 6.54 .00 8

0 c. O.

1821.5 140.C +3.E4 .00 9

0. O. O.

1887.4 140.0 6.94 30 0. C. O. .00 1884.2 140.0 6.84 .00 if O. C.

12 2060.2 .0 25.00 0 O. .00 25.00 0. O.

13 1987.4 .C .00

0. O. O.

14 1895.6 .0 25.00 .00

0. O. O.

15 1777.8 .0 25.00 .00

0. O. O.

16 1638.0 .0 25.00 .00

0. O. O.

17 1480 0 .0 25.00 .00

0. O. O.

18 1307.5 .0 25.00 .06 0.

O. O.

19 1124.2 .0 25.00

20 933.9 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 21- 740.5- .0 -25.00 0. O. O. .00 22 604.8 .0 ' 25.00 0. O. O. .00 520.5 .0 .27.00 - 0. O. O. .00 23 24 373.4 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 25 290.3 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 27.00 0. O. O. .00 26 207.2 .0 SPENCER'S (1973) - TOTAL Stresses at' center of slice base Slice Base Normal Vertical Pore Water Shear

x-coord Stress Stress Pressure Stress (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) 1 68.96 421.6 188.7 .0 214.5 2 72.71 1048.8 550.5 .0 533.6 76.54 1470.5 S80.5 .0 748.1 3

79.23 1628.2 1990.9 .0 828.4 4

31.20 1762.6 1229.3 .0 820.7 5

6 33.04 1'75 0 135E 4 .0 826.5 7 95.36 ifli 2 14S'.5.

.0 333.8 8 ;; .25 1719.3 164~.3 .0 345.8 2 s; 1?2: : 1:26.7 .0 358.0 9

. .?;~ 1961.3 .0 365.9 10 4 11 5 . 5. .:;- ;:C'.3 .0 365.6 l ...- , a r.s .n . ,_-

i 3 .

,c.,. n_ ,.

. . w. .0 -

t

.3 ..,. .7 , - -.

. . . .._ .ns a. n a . n.

~,

pa. .. -o

..,. - n

,a. .. a . ,_ .; .._ ... .t 15 1.1.:~ . -

2133.2 .0 S27.5

46.3 .0 762.7 f 16 115.56 .-

7' : .; ; 2:r .3 .0 689.1 17 18 12.2.5E .: ~ ^ 1935.6 .0 608.8 i lo " .'. .c . A_ '.

_ .. .~ c1 . '.'^...'+

.0 5'3.5 j

,- . o. ,4 3 ,e . o i .9 . ,a.

. 2_ 7 . . - ;

1325 7 .0 344.5 i 21

". 3 1 . 5 E. '4 l .0 281.6 j 22 123.5; 11~E.!

j

24.59 :~ 1029.: .0 264.B !

j 23 24 136.75

~

4 902.5 .0 190.0 25 137.96 ^: : 623.9 .0 147.7 26 133.67 ::~.; 485.7 .0 105.4 SPENCER'S (1973) -

.agnitude & Location of Interslice Forces Interslice Force Boundary Height Slice Right Force Angle Fcrce Height Height Ratio

. x-coord (ft) (degrees) (1b) (ft) (ft) ,

1421, 1.45 2.75 .527 1 70.81 22.10 4655. 2.11 5.?8 .400 2 74.60 22.10 8742. 2.87 7.S7 .379 3 78.48 22.10 10284. 3.15 8.35 .377

4. 79.99 22.10 12736. 3.65 9.61 .379 5 82.41 22.10 -

83.78 22.10 13919. 3.90 10.22 .381_

6 .418 86.38 22.10 14676. 4.76 11.39 7

8 90.38- 22.10 15296:. 15,86 12.9C .454

'9 94.38 22.10- 15311. 6.78 .14.14 .460

-- 10 198~.36. 22'.10 14679. 7.62 15.09' .505 11 99.37 22.10 14360. 7.84 15,.26 .514 12- 102'.31 22.10- .15196. 7.52 15.76 .477 13' 106,20 22.10' .15565. 7.20 16.14 .446 14 1110.02 22.10 15242. 6.91 16.22 .426 15 113.75- 22.10 14 3 C '_ . 6.59 16.02 .411 16 .117 37 22'.'10- 12852 6.21 15.53 .400 17 120.87- 22.10 11024. 5.77 14.75 .391 s -18 124.22 22.13 3957 5.24 13.66 .383 19J 127.42 22.10 6801. 4.62 12.34 .375 20 130.44 ' 22.10 4702. 3.91 10.72 .364 21 133 27 22.10 2804. 3.10 B.84 .350 22 133.88 22.10 2396. 2.89 8.33 .347 23 135.90 22.10 1296'. 2.12 6.70 .316 24 137.60 22 10 488. 1.28 5.02 .254 25 138.31 22.10 225. 91 4.09 .221 26 139.03- .00 -4. .10 3.00 .033 AVERAGE VALUES ALON3 FAILUEE 5URFA2E .......-.

T 0 0 3 '. . 21'.~. Tt 1 St? 1335.1! f,5 f I' PCr8 . . $ " *f '.

'* ' ' ** = EEf)

~

~' 2.

b.'d3r .

70031 M ; ..!- ..f2 " .51 '~ feet

.5C T E '.'d ~ . . . . . . s r .. . '. d J C S U E'3 C 3 F.310

,3

.. .4

..,t.,

s .

. r..=. :r. e

.a, <

.

o, g _; \,

' E r O C 'd .*y I

. e w e..

+ . ., 4 g e e < gr alor.g operil.- - ..

rfa;_ = 4 4 94 E-0 2 l'r

.O

. O I O -4

- q e t -

l i ' -

t < .

s

! t 0) e q)

' O ~O O l ' -

N N l

' e Q e-l

a ~. n, -

' N O

! i - N - O t

v 4

ll s

' O O OM O .

OO

" O M'

W l

, o- o U~ I O E i - F- c) o -

O '

W n -m i O w <

c x

@q o.

U l O _ o O i _

CO C ** m

-J . y C M y 0 II g

i e ,

4

~

YC ~i, o U, m o U i

MU i O l O o . , .- m

, . , . _ _ . . , . , . , _ - _ . - _ _ _ . , r.

7__

D C l1 O D O O c: o D C ',

ro :J - - (f)

N .-. - M r4 t

(scP.) S3380;l 3DP' (Sep) 3310NY 33'dOJ

- o V .t G

~ , ,

~

u

\ j m

/ O u O ,.' -

l'O N O O+

cs

._ *- D

+

n

?

- ,- , -m i D .- 0 i

i o >- L.

+

' I v -

o O e

- - \i Om

[

- o O' C 9 x O E

\ -

Oo

,o__ O r

1 - - N

-e I o o +-

U C o O Hw

+-

O o

J '

\ \\ l O1 l

\ FN s x U

t {, -

( .W z O s O W.

>Ew

-J 1m 'N N m

\ _l N

r ~~

J Ol

.9 \ 4 Q

@ j N -

D l J -l s- rc e a!

> %W I w o_

IO O CC ic I' 'i' 'i' ' 'i' 'i' 'iQ l 6 i i_.

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

% A N e- O O

- e- - - nt) O O O e- N e e-N (40e3) SOB 000-A (Jsd) S3SS381S"3SV8 I

e 0

,0

. - - - 2 1

r 5 1

- , 7 0 . -

- 1 0

=

1

=

= _

0 i 5 e _

1 c _

f a _

r f u -

S /, /

=

_ 5 d

e

/ t 2

1 i - )

f t i

c e

e f e

p (

S 0 o r i 0S 1 I C o X A

f d '

l S -

i eO X Y F : 5 l 7 a D ,

n ,

oO -

i t H t

aTE -

0 R

oM -

1 5

.S E 'R .

VE A C 1

4: T N -

752 1

R E

1 B - -

8 9

8 1

N

_ O 5 _

5 0 5 0 5 7 5 D 7 5 2 L 1 1 1 Y

R I

C nT> a$ n. c I

' r

7 1

The FOS (1.05) for deep-seated rotational failures through the waste is less than the regulatory minimum recommended value of 1.3. However, a simplified Newmark deformation analysis indicates that no deformation will occur due to the design earthquake.

Ear: 1c ua <e-Inc ucec De'ormations ('6.5 M After Makdisi and Seed (1978) 100 a a !

' ___g i

q _4 1

u _ _ ._ _ _._4 j p { 4 7 ..-_y_._a_______4._..

_ _ - .._ _ __.a. _ ; >

p _ .. - -

i._ , _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _

_ _ . . . _ _ . , - .._._.__....-._.--_.4__

E S

E 10 - - - - -

E N

k 11

( ' . . _ . _ . . . . _ .

4 e -

~ -

1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 Ky/Kmax

The yield acceleration for this failure scenario is calculated to be 0.17g.

The maximum seismic acceleration has been estimated to be 0.169 .

Since the maximum acceleration for the design earthquake is less than the acceleration required to induce displacement, no deformation should occur in the event of an earthquake equal to or less than the magnitude of the design earthquake.

I

et e

\.

i .

s I

d l

+

9 1

F XSTABL File: SPECNC 5-18-98 9:~1 l

XSTAEL

l Slope Stability Analysis using the i Method of Sll es I

l Copyright 'C) 1992 s 97

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.

I t *

All Rights Reserved Ver. 5.202 96 6 1605

Problem Description 3ERT AVE. Static Translational I

1

-- n..e.,.,_....

i... .

,,_..,._......r.;

, :- . = .

..-=

Se ame:,: -- -

-:_ : v-right Soil Unit No. .;i : ;f- (ft) Below Segment 1 J. 100.0 1

, .,;_ _.0 .

- 4. 109.0 2

.3 .

.3 7.a 3 e -. - .. . , , -, 2 3 -

S O. I a l

7 SUBSURFACE bouniary se ~ents Segment :-lef t v . eft x-right y-right Soil Unit No. if f t '. (f (ft) Below Segment l

l l 1 49.- 1:B.C 75.- 108.3 2 l "r -

.;E 7 ~5 109.3 5 l 3 76.0 109.3 140.1 130.0 4 '

4 140.1 130.0 200.0 131.2 4 5- 79.0 103.3 200.0 110.5 5 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 109.6 2 i 7 40.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet) l L.

i

-(feet) iMaximum depth'of water in. crack .00

=

(pcfi Unit weight'of. water in crack-

= 62.40 Failure surfaces _will hdve a vercical side equal to the specified depth of crack and be'affected by a hydrostatic force.according to the.specified depth af . eater in the crack ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters

.... ..................... l 5 Soil unit (s) specified Pore Pressure Water Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Surface Moist -Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Unit No.

No. -(pcf) (pcf) (psf)- .(deg) Ru (psf)

.0 30.CO .000 .0 0 1 130.0 1 .- 0

.0 .0 137.0 .0 .000

'2 137.0 :'. 7 ..;0.. 0 ,y .

D

,;7.4

.< . .J s G u

..., .s v . <., .

-e

-a..- . s.00 . e. Cs 2 : . o. .. .n. . --

"rg p,

.s . c. .

. . . n. ...

.as c +- _ acified for i noil?s)

? C:!-L:::EA

.'~ - .- -

Soil "::.: -

. ....: .: 5 :. * :- : .re cs

.a.

j

....u

' =[ }$

O -

. b l'

7 e':: ' B00.0 FOR ANALYSIS A SINGLE FA:L'.?RE SUEFACE HAS BEE:: SPEC:F:E Trial failure surface specified by the following 11 coordinate points :

Point X-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 68.04 114.34 2 68.35 114.15 3 76.88 108.93 4 77.00 108.80 5 125.43 109.27 6 125.93 109.77 .

7 131.30 118.21

~

8 136.68 126.64 9 138.47 129.46 10 141.61 134.58 11 141.61 137.58 SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973) 1 1

1

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight (ft) (ftt (ft) (ft) (lb)

68.19 1.4 24 .1E .31 -31.44 18.42 G.

,+ c,. ,, z- cne, a <~9 . a ., ...

,. . s. .

. 3 - s, ,a . n,-u au-,

ze.94 10 5 . - - E 44 11. -47.29 18.42 136.

4 77.5 10E i 9.65 1.00 .56 18.42 1181.

5 1:1.' ~. ? 16.51 '7.42 .56 18.42 105934.

5.63 109.52 24.01 .5C 45.00 18.42 1629. j 7 125.': ..-

.51 ,3 ". 57.53 18.42 14961.

a

, . ~ -

. 0.;

D. 25 1 8 .se n.6.

.s.

j

.1 , .t .

~~

J -.n D/ D, ,a.94 iv

,1Z e c.'

J c. I 10 .:. - _ .: -

' ' ~

i~ 57.59 1.10 1040.

11 140.04 111 3 1 55.48 1.10 2377.

Ncnlinem :' .c: n. . - e: - .

.s,.,-..,,

-.-- ........"..............-. . . , .:w A7 Ab !M L . ,w s e h

. . . . ' . b t ". . . . L .*

? ,.

lI Iter # Theta FCS force FOS moment {

..,.0,., -

,. . S ,i n,,s :

l 1

2. ., 7 a. ' 4047 ;

4 .,

n: ...,.,,

.: , .n17q -

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S :.'.ETHOD !

..--......-.........--..... g l . I Iter # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment 1 11.9.37 1.4173 1.4179 ;

l SLICE INFORMATION . continued - !

Slice Sigma c-value phi U-b se U-top P-top Delta (psf) (psf) (1b) (1b) (lb) l l- J

(:

p

'o . O. .00

.0 27.00 n.

' 1.E . 3 41.'9 27.00. 0; :. 3. .00

. - 2. 1031.3 . 0 .-

'O. O. .00 3 1939.O' 140.0 6.84 0.

~

O. .00 9.

' 1219.2' 140.0 .6. 84 0.

'4- 0. O. .00 5- .2287.8' 140.0 6. 64 ;

O. O. .00 6" 2482.9 140.0 6.84. ..

.00 25.00 : 2.

72 -1565.4 .0-

J. .00

<8 1063.0 .0 25.00 0 O. .00 25.00 ~0. D.

9 765.5 .0 O. .00 25.00 0. G.

10 670.8 .0- O. .00 27.00 0. O.

11- 408.3 .0 t

......- -. .. ............. .........-... - TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base SPENCER' S -(1973) ............... ... ..

Vertical Pore Water Shear Slice Ba'se Normal Stress Stress Pressure

x-coord Stress (psf)

(ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) 20.1 .0 12.5 1 66.1' 34.9 .0 <O.7 J,

~. ,; , ..

4

. .u. . . .: c. 9 7. ^

^^'. .. . 0

"'.~-/, ' . ;_ .; . '. * .: /. . -

.v n,m.nv

_-.an.. .os

.3 - ,

.- .u my- .

n.

, .c

,c..

5 . .

- ;,- . . rJ: n c. . .

,; . - - . . ~ . .

a.

m .~

/ ;. .. , , n. ,a,-. c..

t

. s: . .. -.-

ans,7

. . . . . .m, . .s.2 .0 q , ,e.

-.=.,...

n. . :. . ;<

. . n . ,.

. ., ,s .a=. ,-

, ,,, .., - =, ,. .0 . c . -.

. ....._ . .. ... .. ._. .... .. I I::a ; v :f Ir.terslice Forces SPE.'CER'S

nter.31;r.e Force B ou r.d a r ,/ Height

- Slice E r F:rc~

Height Ratio 4 F ol ::e Height

s x-n ori (c - 3

,wi i c r ).

.)

.m

-.. , . _ ..~. ..

..> . ,' 7 A-2r ... 1. 3 9 Jc..sJ Oi .

8.36 .421 76.88 l '. . h E 3749. 3.52 2

9032. 3.56 B.52 417 3 77.00 l '. ?E 3.95 416 1: 9' 92?7 3.68

. 4

,79.00 ,,,-,..a>.. 8 . 3 c- u ..,1 . . c. .ne2.-

> .a: n . . ,. 3 .,..:-

, . . .; ; e, , , , , a. . .a n.

.. . 4

.1 -. p Ao 1,c.n.3 s

~ . _ . . .

.- . .s ; 30c.,as . n_ . , ., . /. : .

7 1s,1.30 . .

.278 2.94 10.55 8 136.68 11.95 3304.

9.41 .270 11.95 2407, 2.54 9- 137.60 8.06 .276 10 138.47 11.95 1664. 2.23

-1 .04 3.00 - .012 11 141.61 .00 AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE Total Normal Stress = 1722.00 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf)

. Shear Stress = 31- 71 (psf)

Total Length of failure surface = 39.03 feet For the single specified surface and the assumed angle of the interslice forces, the SPE.'!CER'S (1973) procedure gives a FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.417 Total shear strength available along specified' failure surface = 402.14E+02 lb

/

9 4

t o o- l

-e n .- -

,e ,

- cn

.O, o - .a.

/ > - v , ::

t

'* ; l

. -1 i i 1

e T

' ;o -

ioe

.i -a am- U I c- ll 'l O ! m

, ~

i d .E O d '

o 9H o O O ' -o - .

oO N e l

~ ~O O

u. .

C, Stn .I e-.

. . c x y W '

m. 4 o , e- ,

d

< 'o eCc L.,

,,.o o l m > m e_, .

e s .. , n w

s,

,-. _- 2 -

o

- ~ :. a U i ..)

o

._-.. . _ . . _ - . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ o ,

4. . .

, , o - .,.

o a o - -

- - - - w n ~ - -

i (sdn) 533dC'i 1.T' 50p) 23 oNr20303 7 ;

p .e -

o t

e Q.

- LO s--e

' in

.. o _

N - c o

.O

+-- n y _9 o o e ma

. n-- c o -

m L. O O \

i o H- o p :

- 1 o O 4 ; * ..L

- . O_ g o .

-o0 -+-

o ow O !

- -u a

(3 I

LJ .,.

- k, ,

w W.u a

H l .o m o

co yW oI

-m o .-

,1 j

=lm

%a's~ s >

4o e

5

,/[j,* ; $l ',

$I W ct

\ '

\ o CD W i i f3 r*' i' ' ';..i, ,

o o o o e 3 o o o 9 N o o O O o o

" " - 0 O LO o ul N N e -

Qaaj) sagoo3_A (;sd) S3SSJBIS 3SV8

0

= _

2

- =..

= 5 7 -

1 . -

=

T7 1 4

1

=

e

- 0 i 5 c 1 f

a _

r u _/ .

S

/ _,

=_ 5 d _ r 2 e 1 i

f )

i

~/ e i

c e .

e p _'

f S - 0(

l a r -

r 0 S 1

n o I

- X i

of A S

t aO .

l sF n

5 X

a ,

i 7 r .,

T i

c t

a 0

t 1

S 5 E -

V r -

A 5 -

4

': T 1 R 1 5

2 1

E 8

B -

9 ,

8 _

1 5

_ o 5 5 0

5 0 7 5 7 5 2 1 1 1

i S n^oe3 9 1 >

. XSTABL File: SPNCEQ 5-18-98 9: 20

XSTABL *

Slcpe Stability Analysis

using the

*'ethod of Slices

Copyright (C) 1992 s 97 l

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Mosccw, ID B3843, U.S.A.

All Rights Reserved

Ver. 5.202 96 6 1605

- - - - .** l 4

Problem Description SERT AVE. Cynamic Translational

^ .*.t,...,

-.41 . .._:<...__ ~

& , e .

Segmer.t .::- . :-: .. -right Soil Unit.

No. .f

. (ft) Below Segment

_ . ., c ,

. . . 2vv.o .

105.0

' ~

2 'E _

-- 1 a .

.o _- .

I 4 4F. -

2' 137.5 3 1

- , , a. . ,.

7 SUBS'JRFACE crur m , .; gra r.t :

Segment :-lef t ..f :< - : : g h t f-right Soil Unit No. (ft) ;ft ft) (ft) Belc. Segment i 1 49.0 _ : 6 . :. 75.0 108.3 2 2 75.0 1^5 - 78.0 109.3 5 3 78.0 109.~2 140.1 130.0 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 131.2 4 5 78.0 109.3 230.0 110.5 5 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 109.6 2 7 40.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 A CRACKED 7.ONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

Maximum' depth of water in crack = . 00 (feet)

- Unit weight of water in crack = 62.40 (pcf)

Failure surfaces will ,have a' vertical s'ide equal to the specified depth of crack and be affected by a hydrostatic force accordin,c to the so.ecified deo.t? f water in the crack ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit ~ Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.

.0 30.C0 .000 .0 0 1 130.0' 130.0 2 137.0 137.0 .0 27.0: .000 .0 0 137,- .; .. 27 : :SC 0 :

3 .

.s: . -

u s. ,a .2 :- . ...

m a

.e _ .

NON-LINEAR "':~

~ - '

_- 5. - - -

f i m: fe: 1 coilis' y 1.

^ '

..: .L

- . r ,z .

ss

.:n ;

. , n_v n . ,.

7 5 600.0 6

^

, 800.3 A horizontal earthquar;: '. caning coefficient of .150 has been as.igned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface specified by the following 11 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf

No. (ft) (ft) 1 68.04 114.34 2 68.35 114.15 3 76.88 106.93 4 77.00 108.80 5 125.43 109.27 6 125.93 109.77 7 131.30 118.21 8 136.6S 126.64 -

9 138.47 129.46 10 141.61 134.58 11 141.61 137.58 SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973) m u . ...n. .; .,,..

q...,.. :.,, ...p

...D....,. u, . .n. . _....r.

_ ,,. ....,c.,.,..

.s .. . ..

I I

.31. : - .Ase .sc. _.; alpha be'a teight

.. c. .

,_g;

. _ ^7 a . . J, ,a ' a . ;. .'. ;

. ..m . . . . .

-a1.n6 ,8.4.

1 au:2 .

7+ ?4 :C' - .12 -47.29 18.42 136.

. " " ~ '

A

. eJ r3 o

'1 0 . ' t '.'

Ci.

'T . " ' ,

... a. . 5 r.2 18 . 's n '. ,, n m. . .'..

6 125 6s .

, .E: 45.00 18.42 1629.

... . - :~ -.

2-- z, .,/.D. ,. , p . '.s..

.tL0 q-,

3 122 . 3: 1 : .. 4; -

5.36 57.45 18.42 10166.

., . 3_ ., . .... .

. 57.59 ,8.s.,

. .vc.

. os 16 13F C4 '~ ; -

. : -~ 57.59 1.1C 1040.

3. a.

1,.,,s.,.,.

.. , 5 8 . "s e^ '. . '. O ' 's i 1 1

1 l

l Nonlinear M-C ' tera *.a * ' u"i e : - i ITERATIONS FOR SPENCEF.'5 v.ETHOD

. Iter # Theta FOS force FOS moment 2 16.6972 .9503 .9662 3 16.9370 .9648 .9503 4 16.9024 .9542 .9548 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER' S METHOD Iter # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment

l' -16.9029 .9542 .9548 SLICE INFORMATION . continued :

Slice Sigma C-value. phi .';- h w e U-top P-top Delta (psf) (psf) .'., (ib) (ib) 1 58.8 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 2 1739.4 .0 27.00 C. O. -0. .00 3 _2628.,8 14 C' . 0 6.64 C. 0. -0. .00 4 1211.5 140.0' 6.34 0. O. O. .00 5 2251.5 140.0 6.84 0. O. O. .00 6 2157.2 140.0 6.24 0. O. O. .00

7. 1268.2 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 8 861.5 .0 25.00 3. O. O. .00 9 620.0! .0- 25.00 0. O. O. .00 10 543.3 .0 25.00 0. 0. O. .00 11- 328.4 .0 . 27.00- 0. O. O. 00 SPENCER'S (1973) . T:TAL Stiessec st center of clice base . _ . . . . _ . . . . .

Slice E a .M :. r: a . ~ - r ~. _ ; i _ Fcic ~.la t e r Shear h

1 - - ~.. Pressure Stress

. 'rn f' csf 4

1 5 7e -

.. 0 47~.3

% t 'i ,~

? .. .

,2s.B r _ v .- .9

4

.1p ,. 3. e. . qu

7. .

..~..-

n. -.7 ..

).

8'- 13 ;- . - .: 42'.C 3 ,-,

.s ,. ,,

su-.n n,

.01

.,s .

sn. ,. .. .

, a -. c: .

11 14.: 4

~' 5 C 175.4 SPENCER'S (1973 - i j:.;;ude s 1.ccation of Interslice Forces Slice Right Fc r. e :r.tersl; e Force Ecundary Height

.# x - cc or:i 3+ . Force Height Height Ratio (ft) . a.e g r - e s ;1b) (ft) (ft) l' 68.35 16 90 21. .14 .29 .473 2' 76.88 .6.90 17003. 3.81 6.36 .456 3 77.00 16.?0 17391. 3.88 8.52 .455 4 78.00 16.30 17506. 4.10 8.85 .464 5 125.43 16.90 21124. 9.59 24.16 .397 6 125.93 16.90 19958. 9.64 23.84 .404 7- 131.30 16.9. 9905. 6.71 17.19 .390

'8 136.68 16.99 3088. 3.61 10.55 .342 i 9 137.60 16 . *.: ] 2243. 3.14 9.41 .334 10 138.47 16.90 1544. 2.75 8.06 .341^

11 141.61 .00 -10. .20 3.00 .067 AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE ,

........................................................ l Total Normal Stress = 1714.41 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf)

Shear Stress = 480.55 (psf) .

Total Length of failure surface = 89.03 feet For the single specified surface and the assumed angle of the interslice forces, the SPENCER'S (1973) l j

procedure gives a ,

i FACTOR OF SAFETY = .954 l i

Total shear strength available j along specified failure surface = 408.23E+02 lb l

l l

i 4

\

t 6

o

,oc. -@

a t t

.it

.I i .

to G . o

.t -y e -

/' i-

~J O

l lv l

s cn ,s j (O o

' Io *- o 0 1

~' Oj jj l

~

$D o n

" Q m

O W u , o- 0 0 O i _

8 I .

oO

-O W -o <

i - F-O

, I n CD I D

W i -

c X (J) u i < 1, m< .

U hC k

J. o y , 4o m M U O '

{* y x -.ss C, ac u - T r '

. - n

,- o W'

= J q

_ _ . . , . .. _ . _ . - - . .. ... --.- ~ g ] ..

a '

o --

z c. : .., o D

w, - - +- ,

3, , p. .- ,

_.ggv3 r O 3,

g o

4M i -

g O

O CL CW

. o .O u

.9. -.--

O

- p

~ -

, mw 7~ 3 CO m

o e4 -

o P_

J ,v F-- -

Z 7J ! M OO O ,

'l O -

e- O W

w-a o

'i

'e l

o O c3 o r i OH O

O -

-o -

\

-4

'oO - O CW J t \ i t O

>2 j X u ,

\ .D 2 \ ,

~

J i _l W '%

r 1, Jo O

.9 j

\ 1 o

'> W m :. , 'M g\ -A N

4 O

'D 'Cl y g z

.' l, ?I N xw

@ i w o_

r i

!o o CD W r i o re m T- 4 i i- '1 e o o o o o o o o o o n c4 o o o o o o o

.- .- o o o o o in m n m - -

(;eal) SOBOOO-A- (Jsd) 33ss3313,3sva _

0

=_ .. .

, 0 2

=_

=__

=_

4

=_

_ i7 5

5 ,

1 9

= -

0 e i 5 c - 1 f

a r -

u -

S

//

d .

i 2

e -

1 i

f

~

)

t i

_. e c -

e e

l _ _

a p .

f nS -

- 0(

o i

t l

af r

o / _ _

n0 S 1 I X

A sS .

nO X

_ aF r

5 T ,

i 7 cD O

i mH aT -

nE

'f yM -

n0 D 5

. S

' y E R r VE -

6 A C 4

T N ,5 1

1 R E 2 E P 8 B S 9 ,

8 1

5 o i _

5 0 5 0 O 5 0 7 5 E 7 5 2 0 1 1 C. 1 1

)

. CeD fNI

(

i

The FOS (0.95) for deep-seated translational failures involving the GCL is less than the regulatory minimum recommended value of 1.1. However, a simplified Newmark deformation analysis indicates that minimal deformation will occur due to the design earthquake.

Ear:hc ua <e- nc ucec Jeforma: ions l' 6.5 V t After Makdisi and Seed (1978) 100 --- - - - . . - - - _ _ . -. - _ - _ _ . . _ ~ . _ _ _. . _ _ _ .

____4__ _ ._._ _._ _. ____ _ _ . . __ _

. _ _ . . _ . _ . . .. _. _. ____ _ . _ . _ i_______..___ .__. _

S S

15

$ 10 g . _ . . _ . . _ _

l A ~

l .9 l

O 4

! N

\

l 1 . . ._.

I 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 03 0 35 0.4 0 45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 Ky:Kmax I

The yield acceleration for this failure scenario is calculated to be 0.125g.

The maximum seismic acceleration has been estimated to be 0.16g.

Ky/Kmax= 0.83.

Less than 2 cm of displacement can be expected to occur from an earthquake equal to or less than the magnitude of th" design earthquake. This exceeds the criteria outlined in Ohio EPA's GCL advisory.

RECE0VED .

MAY I 91998 OH10 EPA N.E.0.0.

p.

..XSTABL File: TRANYLD 5-18-98 9:41

XSTABL

l

Slope Stability Analysis *

using the

Method of Slices ,

Copyright (C) 1992 s 97 *

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.

All Rights Reserved

96 s 1605 *

Ver. 5.202 l

Problem Description BERT AVE. Translational Yield Co.

I

_......_ .............. ..... i

^ !

SEG"r._r.N~. m n '" . , " ' . r. . ". .~". r..'. .T.".n' ~._r e i

I i

5 =

SC. V ' ~ .~ . ; 3

.S f - :- r ig .t ,-right

' Soil Unit !

Segment ._uf:

Below Segment

.ft) (ft) ,

No. ft it. I m

,- ,n,n.v

.- 1 40.' 105.0 1 2 ;E . .::.:

49.: 108.0 2 3 : _:E 137.C 137.5 3 4 4: - 1^9..

139 ' 3 5 ;I~ _ :~ 200.2 7 SUBSURFACE bcu..dar', segments y.left x-right y-right Soil Unit Segment x-left Below Segment (ft) (ft)

No. .ft) (ft) 75.0 106.3 2 1 49.0 105.0

~8.0 109.3 5 2 75.0 103.3

3 78.0 109.3 140.1 130.0 4 200.0 131.2 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 110.5 5 5- 78.0 109.3 200.0 109.6 2 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 106.6 1 7 40.0 105.0 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

L

Maximum ~ depth of waterLin crack

= .00 (feet)

-- Unit weight.of: water in crack - 62.40 (pcf)

Failure surfaces'will'have a vertical side equal to the specified' depth of crack and be affected by a hydrostatic force according to the specified dep:! cf water in the crack ISOTROPIC' Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion' Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit . Moist Sat. . Intercept Angle Parameter -Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.

1- 130.0 130-.0 .0 3 r. 10 . 000 .0 0 2 137.0 <.0 .0 2$.C .000 .0 0

.. 4-_r , . n. .- . . nn0 O-n e-

,. ..;u . - . -- ,

.. ;. 7,

_:.- . . vu u O

a. ,- . -

n.eo .a 0

.r.. . . . . , - .. --

w ... v . .. . r.n ;s

...;1- a.. . . pr

. .u .. ,a.c; -u a

, c a o'

. S o d.1. I o '<'

.. 2 3 - -- -

$21. *11 ' .

.~ _ ' '

il 521 330 9

. s .,

-=c,-

e

? : :0..

. 500.0-

-A horizontal earthcuak= _:adina aceff : lent of .125 has been 'assly;e:i a vertical earthqua.xe . aa ng ccetticient of .000;has been assigned A' SINGLE FAILURE' SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface specified by the following 11 coordinate points

-Point x-surf y-surf

,r k_

r 1

No. (ft) (ft) 1 68.04 114.34 l

2 68.35 114.15 3 76.88 103.93 4 77.00 108.80 5 125.43 109.27 i 6 125.93 109.77 7 131.30 113.21 8 136 68 126.64 4 9 138.47 129.46 10 141.61 134.58 11 141.61 137.58 SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973)

- - - - we***,e*******we,wa** ****

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFOR:'ATIC:.

1

.cicht w d;r altha ceta weight i Slice ::- b a s.: v-case -

t,D/ s r5 ... . s -

\

l t

, j* . , . - ...n.g

q 6.

1 ,.

. 5... - 1.46

6.42 5054 2 72.62 -

( 3 76 .4

< ;?.:. 4.44 . '. 2 - 47 2; 18.42 136.

m ^ ;

? 1.: .56 18.42 1181.

4 , 7'. .50 ,.,.,.:

_n.nc m 1 0:sssn,.

.u..... .n 5 .:.

4.01 .5: 45.0C 13.42 1629.

6 125.65 10' = .1 -

. z . n4 ~, ,nq-a.

.c 7 1 s o, . e a, ...: - . . .- _- .c.- . v . :- - vi.c:: .

8 1 7 '. . a 3 '_'.J..'.

_ .' l . s '<

. .+:

r- 7; 7 . J :-

_ '. 3 . t*~' 10'6r. a

'+-1 7 . '. e, 4 ?. ..4'. r ~. -

'. . e s~

9 .' '~ 5 5 .

..^'

9 .~ .

~- -~ =" . 6 7- 1.10 1040.

10 138.04 ; .7 2 s

~.53 3 .1 - : .45 1.10 2377 11 140.~4 13^._

Nonlinear " '; : terat c:- :. umber - 1 !

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER's ':ETHO2 I-t e r # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment 16.1150 .9974 1.0247 2

16.4692 ---- .9974 3

3 16.2921 1.0007 -----

16.4251 1.0032 1.0007 4

16.4085 1.0029 1.0032 5

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD

................................ G 4

i

. Iter #- Theta FOS force FOS moment 1- 16.4085' 1.0029 1.0032

' SLICE INFORMATION ... continued'.

Slice . Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top P-top' Oe.ita (psf) '(psf) ilb- i l b') (lb) 1 53.7- .0 '27.'00 :. O. O. .CJ 2' '1588;1- .0- 27.00' O. O. O. .00 3 2526.1- 140.0 6.84 0. O. O. .00

4. 1215.1 -140.0' 6.84 0. O. O. .00 5 -2261.6- 140.0 L6.84 0. O. O. .00 1

-6 2200.1 140.0 6.54 0. O. O. .00 7 1305.0 .0- 25.00 0. O. O. .00 8 886.5 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 9' 638.0 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 10 559.1 .0 25.00 -0. O. O. .00 11 338.0 .0 27.0.

. D. O. .00 SPE:CER'c . ? -' . ' T:2Ti.1 St res ses a ; center of slice base i

Slice East. ::c: ~ 31 /ertica_ Pore Water Shear h : - cbo r 5. .c risa Stress Pressure Stress P- .

x- ; r.. s f : ; t'; s i

. , -, n,. . .

. . . . . . .. .. eJ 2 '2.62 1E; .1 5 ?+ 2 . 4 .0 806.5

.. ,. .O. ,. ., 1 . .

.i <.-

. : :c '

. n 7 c" Ca.

~

,, _. .q r n j 3 n z- -._. . -... . . _ _ . .u -s..

6 ' .7 5 . +: :

. ..- .1 3251.- .0 402.9 7 126. 1 1: r ' 2756.' .0 606.6 3 133.v; a ' .' 1899 5 .0 412.2 .

c.

+. .: j - .

. a c. .

r. co-wD-10 135. 4 ' 'r~.1 1195.4- 0 260.3 11 140.34 23 : 757.4 .0 171. -'

SPENCER'S t19 3 -

a gn n ude s Locatior of Interslice Forces Slice RigP- Force Interslice Force Boundary Height 4 x-coord Angle Force Height Height Ratic (ft) (degrees) (lb) (ft) (ft) 1- 68'.35 16.41 19. .14 .29 469 2 76.88 16.41 15181. 3.78 8.36 .452 3 77.00 16.41 15553. 3.84 8.52 .451 4 78.00 16.41 15684. 4.05 8.85 .458

5

'125.43 16.41 21077. 9.33 24.18 .386 6' 125.93 16.41 19926. 9.37 23.84 .393 7 '131.30 16.41 9893. 6.51 17.19 .379 8 136.68 .16.41 3089. 3.49 10.55 .330

r l '. . ,

a.

16.41' 2246. 3.03 9.41 .322 9' 137.60' 8.06 .329 138.47' '16.41 1E'8. 2.65 l 10 3.00 .038 l

'~

11 141.61 .00 -3. .12 l

AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE 1

I Total Normal Stress = ~.711.20 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf) r i Shear Stress = 453.10 (psf)

Total Length of failure surface = 89.03 feet l

For the single specified surface and the assumed angl'e of the interslice forces,.the SPENCER'S (1973) procedura .gives a

n- c r. n =... n.: u n : - . v. .

- ..n.u.

, ~2 Total shear strength a/allable along specified fa;1ure suiface = 404.55E+02 lb i

l 1

i I

I t

i l

1 l

l l

I l

l l

I l

l l

o o

-o -c

~

l l~

i '

t ,

o m o

-t = -,

,' - m -

l

. -r. n_ -

. e l. .! e i

jr4o -

j ioe J N U*

4

{l 1 8

l

~

O m m i, o ,_ 1 a w

,' e o i

.o

.o ;~ l I o o x.

, ,o -

n 2

. i oo

-o m o

a i

i-i u, cn - i O u

4 c x o, m4 L) . -

_-J

._ o eC L. o u :.

i m , w w e - II w .>

_Z x'-.' . r

p. - 3 o

g

_ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ . , o %

O L o o o ,' - -

e -

a a n n -

w (sdn) S3DdOJ 3Cr ' 3: ~~ C' 303OJ t a

o -

o ,t o

. o OQ

~

OW m , _. O g L

'J' O

.O

>W m

, ~

~-

v - O o o O L_

- es - r-

.v -

o ,

o \ : l m *T

Q r ) O

, m -O O.

O o M I

_. 2 ;

,I O O C H-g >

'\ : N 2 0 0w l \ 1 -2 W ) N . x H

= ,

. W J , _

\ I Uk s

m

. o e

c u \, _j o w >W 4

~

\\ l o

W 1 CD W i- i ;@ r,,r g-,pm , .,. .;.

o o o o o o o o o o v N o o o o o o o

- - - o o o e o o m m n - -

(1001) S08000-A (;sd) S3SS381S JSv8 TW

1 1 , .

' 0 0

=_ 2

= .

=

5 3 , 7 0 -

1 0 ,

1 - ==.

= - _.

_ _. - 0 e i 5 c =_ 1 a =

f r ) =

=

u , = ..

S d / -: .

72 5

/

i e -

1

)

f - -

t i -

e c

e y .

f e

o p CS - - 0(

r0 S 1

d ro l

I X

i ef A Y S -

l O

X _

aF '

5 n .

7 o ,

i t D .

l aO _ r sH '

nT aE r M

/ ,

0 5

T

. S E R .,

i VE 7 A C 4: T N 5 1

1 RE E P

'/ -

7 2

8 B S -

9 8

1 5

{

_ 0 s . _

0 5 0 D 5 0 5 5 L 2 0 7 Y 7 5 1 1

J -

1 r,. 1

>> C -

't oo5 n ( < I

y ,

The FOS (0.95) for deep-seated translational failures involving the GCL is less than the regulatory minimum recommended value of 1.1. However, a simplified Newmark deformation analysis indicates that minimal deformation will occur due to the design earthquake.

l Ear: 1cua<e- ncucec Jeforma: ions (6.5 V)

After Makdisi and Seed (1978) 100 .u c t.._-.._.___.

r 7 2 1::x t:n.ur u r.

____ r - __ _.

-.,-. - .-..- - _--- . - _ _ -.1 + . . - - . - . . . -

- - . - ~ . . - . - - - .

7

, - . - . . ~ . . - - . . . . - . - ---_ _ a . - . - - . - . . _ .

E 3.

2

$ 10 ..- --. .. - - . . . .

O N

1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 k3 0 35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 KyeKmax

The yield acceleration for this failure scenario is calculated to be 0.125g.

The maximum seismic acceleration has been estimated to be 0.16g.

Ky/Kmax= 0.83.

Less than 2 cm of displacement can be expected to occur from an earthquake equal to or less than the magnitude of tN design earthquake. This exceeds the criteria outlined in Ohio EPA's GCL advisory.

RECE0VED MAY I 9 898 OH10 EPA N.E.0.0.

- /) ,' ) ~

5 C * ** IMP 4 pu,e e .

E, ,,. O t r . r \\'2. 95 .

3 T- 'T 72 65 2.0 . i i 4

ug -

s ,z us z. ~ , . .. .

4 L y iic -

g 1 o 9b 32 Cb 3 +u vw c_

i *, 'r ?

?! 55 3 44, 2 Pc 3 c. 7, 3

4 4^1

~

2.50 y ,,,.

--t I i-A t e,o o 2*50 o

2-b

1. 3 9

1. O D

^

WAER t ~_ . _ $ j c.-aw

= \ ? '- > :. '- . d 3 ]

\\? *~: *~

s.p- .tr A \\D -

1 c'

1

~ ^

='

I o s 2_ uo zoo Y u c. my s m =* A

. o 2. o

' 2 "

\ . \ Io o zs {

l l

l 1

p l

E>

W' 4 /

N'2 e

M d ._

i o 9 T

C

'W .

ES A H

0 S de ,

RR S

O SY-C c S A n N =

E _

R G I, %

u?to y r

G r o u _

t S C & -

F w 8 .

Wn E A o

r e

N E

A 6

Y A

Z 3

T L _ _

S m e

A h _

E C _

2 _ _

_~

'I 3 R q 3, _

E e s d 1 _

- Y^

k e

y y -

- A R _

- p L Y

E A _

- L

- p

,2; _

t

, 5 t ;- .

v2 a wveA ,-

u1 -

0 0 o o 0

3, H

'l ( W 6

4 3-7_\

im hews c%6 dwg TAewt CEPA cwsu bug b'MS C59A c,ao l su beam, Dta 1

\m deacu,o t

O EPA Tese. stove. T s . = 1. 3 1

\ %Y sacuto i) - w r = cess a wsaco swm [y asia enomaM

_ mcmo_ - -

M TCOL Pete h te reccedu 9<Admo EA% l FWgrrev

- Metyoos m coomet PP ser h wD \u b>t

- T .s . veo, t , c, tw Fecm uref 'o twenuecs So vT nze n Ao ME.

w ACC iTCCARC7

\E MH TAtr s:. em MN W, sensch3 i uc 6.OR , 3(o*M 3 MW b. D P_e-zon 4 Awo W sacT

3) onwAmen m sw.ecsra A) eccca ca vmees nowh

= Discosseo amec. cam ssece

p l 4 bv[(Ek am$As i=tus van Hui1 suors murvt aacews 500 PGF

<EpCL- Iki BOTTDM (tlCT COpstDecco t4 5%S @ w stJ

-DM ivac Vs = t z. i Aovtsosq scL muse (en cad

@ Deep semeo suom suocx m wis13 ?

dim tws ww wAuoureo 't s eseer ADO Text

@ Emren Ca.L 2 7, gt.o e s (e eteswAt ct_osotec)

D '! M 1% st cee. e.-w ~ 2 fo cM on w tut. Rese m a w.s douto Se, tMpc N W SLACN9'- ~BlocJL %\WM

@ tussw vm 25 s twu. sw4 3 by en s,m n me ca asus m caeces.

R00 (Oe d 0Sr(FtCAT\od tttpes av wAems nw [aamom A9Atmw?4 + co a s w W[C M AlW j U C. sr E w Aoo om USED Y2 \lAt. des e m _

coew, .07 t-ov eA.

[ose. Mitec-

c:

l bss weo . voo -

Ch ~[ TZoss ,'Doog

& EQ0\R CM tM W WW C.,

w/ T n

@ \AJASTE GuesmoW w[ M0enu SQ O smeb

@ 5Mtwa sm%Ta w[ Aoomos h) Whsweb cA NE 3 W ee Ns % Les P AEnce

@ h = /

wr yx , ,m 3*-

te.3 t o 2. . e, sou sfo we ic7 3/

te 10 5 "A v[ Aceavturu, 70 -907o psig h 6 Lope.

STAssttg - S u s e sstm suo i

I l

l

u. I

r .

i CW cAu. 4/e Fest> Isa!fMA4 w/ bt4 Tec Ao ms -/ cAe>wmod CeFA

. te,see 3 - tocc ar - ucieeesce. . \ssee 4 wea a m MOT O m Weas RtEMolecs F5 CSHA suis LLs OP NE D ( M a = w / m t.2. su,)

Pec% DAuse.c noT ccosseece:o oret3

1560 6 2 - Aus a/ ss* F S ecT c h eo e issue \ - Peee- azss.oe.e <c A

- 1N Pteve Feice 'To ceostecc.we i see nee. ( e.te.mc, es rm se encemoc 4 oceecersw) dea m FS = 15 J { 5 m caceao en wec.e PS % \. o wJ5et u.atw T; pac 0@h1 WM esoose h w, l

@ 'b2 N a cem esw g Desie eo x cer>w eeo vs c i. o F.s. MM m tem Etwu \.5 l

Fi h cove <2. z% es. s"7.

MCC 2eccerned FLAG Fog, L-T t%Eo 5\o4 e

I

. 5 /g ?Q,? . ;~ ~ C (T h {E ~'(.'

t' A

-q s

\s l l "-l ,, _ ( ,; , - - W y as 1'., c?

,. .. ' N i

. Xet

\

l \) (-- 'T: '. . #"

-- 1 y _y ~~,. . , ,,

Q( }Ly A. *~

f. i ' ( "- T.' g,W W & 'l "5 htl'C Ne t.' : 7 .

~ L t: / f i '- /. . . . ~ '? Ad. , t/sg y,'( C -O V' ICO , i C .:-4[

Q Q%QQ .$' T' ' / 'A

$J7 F d.--

g - - -

g. <

g- .g r. ,

i C' i-26 l y)$ t vC. 5 f.g c ' '* ,b3' C lD-h O 2.t v ca D1v33 sw-sb si- ta:>~c~

4 l

l i

I I

I f e' I

,,_.,i t' y.'V

'* w /Ross dmEsb !

G%swaa U

o. j <_Au.

Davy &w R.on 5tove STAe.

(mu3 sce.rracs ggcocoa, r

SPEL. ou DEAthG4 10

cm,f3 wen.

Wpie 3000 Nes 1T~~ Zo Mr Virs D%wDem. CW \S Y\k

- hrie l SoOct E } l 1

e DATA To screek w sw ae. .

@ - wusts 4- w.,ses -mweeo m ic o % 'hte*M TW\ _ Test der e_eecese~b4 tot

-UC WT ter AWEofEtd

- Leawat.iq 2.5* STe_socTw c ,= u.asts now m ,e w{ O3 Loettecklo~

6

7,

W l t

-. -(M D / l A e a ;' ]

1 I

) ']$7 y a s %* _ ,

j Id

~

. ~_ / - ,

e/ ,,

- t

' ~

.' t .' '-v w 's 0e & L s, " ~

, . L y

,z t :. "

W!.Y : .~1yc -

C. 7_ c;.4 .to M P P,.E i m -- crcq { C t.L 1 -

m rs a ., -

< c

-w ,

j t L N ' -: / 5. Au,, ; *

~h %. ,e.4'..( Ac 4*., g s._

/d ! CV L t A-&.W L.A M k

SA 1

- g- Iw 1e- . . . .. ,

\N .t , O_ ?#

e.e

_f

~ CA t b ' O '.%

s

,-, ./ ,7- i a

(.'l. L

---~ha ,

rm-t.,4. ,

I s., g 4 y { \ G (_ ~A J *YN . ~n s i

-v syrue;qtv M cun- c' d >^ ~ /m i e a

- \ %Q \,/(C.%2r 4

1

!F I SS,** *?_ %. i tg-](. t

'aM M "T~~O kdCO I

% _s

- b_ - e .* , ,

_.,. : .; X'T %'GW

- ._ , cm a c, -

n .. ._. r .u c e up t 'f.,_. vat.r t.J-t c h .'

t't.'" .x d c: p N

% .s. 2-m ,, m,__ ;

a 1

S Cb '

' b '

Cdd

\ 8 4,A F 7 u) {Jfa i r /CQQ m I

& oca., sax ~ swa 0

1 Y

i

0D \

ces um an.cee JUST IN WAsTt T swz /m ue 2dc) PA' FOC (%CL sTP_cra es, DWb ac.

B l 3[-) A C=5=cevemau AvAcyse >

m

\ & O P C / 5 A>- @

'50' So - 39 wope. / c aT Y ucc:ts h4 c: too y=ts.9 omeda c, a o '"#

woo AM 4. u,,

M C A <1 e d

.se c3o g = 42. UC#

0 ^ D% YC M

~2rr W O G usew e r w 6c.L /Swo iw% sw2.c._ courn:cw GCL- tNA no , coa ese UMomu - 7md d o~c W- 61 [Ct Ay (aC.G wrc49t<w CAmcat P $ o w ovt. l .'2.8 Swc C . T2 D Y Nic,, c O .l 3 hecbWme b*V6C MT tn/DRC C t h t.

Based on the above, Chemetron hereby requests OEPA approval of the placement of the radioactive and nonradioactive waste at the Bert Avenue site. This request is based on the recommendations presented in the Waste Stability Report and is contingent upon Chemetron meeting the OEPA slope stability requirements and related factors of safety, as contained in the OEPA letter dated May 18, 1998.

As discussed in the telephone conferences, our contractor AWS Remediation, will be ready to place waste starting the end of the week of June 8,1998. If we can not obtain OEPA approval on the waste placement and slope stability issues by that date or soon thereafter, it will be Therefore, necessary to curtail site operations and release a number of contractor personnel.

your review of the preliminary SSA and approval request in a timely manner is requested.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

We would be happy to discuss with you the preliminary SSA and the geotechnical data received to date sometime early next week. If you have a'ay questions, please give me a call at (716) 592-3431.

Very truly yours, 1

h Theodore G. Adams Technical Manager Enclosure cc: D. Nelson, w/o enclosure J. Romano, w/ enclosure B. Koh, w/o enclosure H. Davidson, w/o enclosure P. Smith, w/o enclosure L. Chintella, w/o enclosure B. Kilkenny, w/o enclosure l S Kilper, w/o enclosure D. Raffel, w/o enclosure D. Fannin w/o enclosure Mayor Kolar w/o enclosure DA98-064 CHE Chemetron

Chemre.out .

" PCSTABLS " j by Purdue University 1

-Slope Stately Analysis-Simpiined Jantu, S6mphned Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices

' Run Date: 08-12-99 Time of Run: ' 1:07pm Run By: Tim Harris input Data Filename A:CHEMRE.IN Output Filename: A:CHEMRE.OUT Plotted Output Filename: A:CHEMRE. PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Chemetron East Slope Revised BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 Top Boundaries -

10 Total Boundt.rles Boundary X Left Y-Left X-Right Y Right - SoilType No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 61.50 32.00 61.50 1 2 32.00 ' 61.50 112.00 95.00 1 3 112.00 95.00 200.00 95.00 1 4 . 72.00 65.00 115.00 89.00 .2 5 115.00 89.00 200.00 89.00 2 6 72.00 65.00 200.00 67.00 1 7 .00 58.00 32.00 58.00 3 8 ' 32.00 58.00 ' 48.00 63.00 3 9 48.00 63.00 200.00 63.00 3 10 .00 40.00 200.00 50 00 4 1-ISOTROPlc SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type (s)of Soil Soll Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Preseure Piez.

Type Unit W1. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) . (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.

1 137.0 137.0 250.0 24.0 .00 -.0 1 2 124.0 124.0 .0 20.0 .00 .0 1 3 128.0 128.0 .0 37.0 .00 .0 1 4 118.0 118.0 50.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 1

1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE (S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Page 1

p- .

Chemre.out Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No.1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 51.00 2 200.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf 1

A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.

400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.

20 Surfaces initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 00 ft.

and X = 32.00 ft.

! Each Surface Terminates Between X = 110.00 ft.

l and X = 200.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations were imposed. The Minimum Elevation j At Which A Surface Extends is Y = .00 ft.

10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

1 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Cntical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered Most Critical f irst.

Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method *

Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X Surt Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.32 61.50 2 40.24 60.29 3 50.24 60.03 4 60.21 60.73 5 70.08 62.38 Page 2

s Chemre.out 6 79.74 64.97 7 89.11 68.47 8 98.10 72.85 9 106.63 78.06 10 114.62 84.07 11 122.01 90.81 12 125.79 95.00 1.057 "*

Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.53 61.50 2 28.39 59.85 3 38.37 59.15 4 48.36 59.40 5 58.29 60.59 6 68.06 62.73 7 77.58 65.78 8 86.77 69.72 9 95.55 74.52 10 103.83 80.12 11 111.54 86.49 12 118.61 93.57 13 119.79 95.00 1.080 '"

1 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surt Y Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.26 61.50 2 35.15 60.03 3 45.15 59 64 4 55.12 60.35 5 64.96 62.14 6 74.55 64.98 7 83.77 68.86 8 92.51 73.72 9 100.67 79.50 10 108.15 86.13 11 114.86 93.54 12 115.92 95.00 1.089 *"

Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y Surf No. (ft) (ft)

Page 3

p 1 1

l l Chemre.out 1 28.63 61.50 l 2 38.56 60.30 l 3 48.56 60.24 4 58.50 61.32 5 68.25 63.54 6 77.69 66.85 l- 7 86.68 71.23 8 95.11 76.60 9

10 102.87 109.86 82.91 90.06

)

11 113.69 95.00 1.091 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.53 61.50 2 28.35 59.64 3 38.31 58.76 4 48.31 58.87 5 58.25 59.98 6 68.03 62.06 7 77.56 65.10 8 86.74 69.07 9 95.48 73.93 10 103.69 79.63 11 111.31 86.11 12 118.24 93.32 13 119.56 95.00 1.103 "* ,

1 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points I

Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.32 61.50 <

2 40.19 59 89 3 50.17 59.25 4 60.16 59.58 5 70.08 60.88 6 79.82 63.13 7 8929 66.33 8 98.42 70.42 9 107.10 75.39 10 11525 81.17

, 11 122.81 87.72 12 129.70 94.97 13 129.72 95.00 1.131 Page 4

Chemre.out Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.21 61.50 2 30.00 59.47 3 39.96 58.53 4 49.96 58.67 5 59.88 59.90 6 69.61 62.21 7 79.03 65.57 8 08.03 69.93 9 96.50 75.24 10 104.34 81.45 11 111.46 88.48 12 116.76 95.00 I

9,334 ...

i Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points i

i Point X Surf Y Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.32 61.50 2 40.11 59.47 3 50.07 58.60 4 60.07 58.89 5 69.96 E0.34 6 79.62 62.94 7 88.90 66.65 8 97.70 71.41 9 105.87 77.17 10 113.32 83.84 11 119.95 91.33 12 122.49 95.00 1.140 "*

i i

1 Fallure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Sud No. (ft) (ft) 1 5,05 61.50 2 14.85 59.51 3 24.78 58.34 4 34.78 57.98 5 44.77 58.44 6 54.68 59.73 7 64.46 61.82 8 74.04 64.70 9 83.34 68.37 10 92.32 72.78 11 100.90 77.91 12 109.03 83.73 13 116.66 9020 14 121.45 95.00 Page 5

1 I

Chemre.out i 1.141 '"

Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X. Surf Y-Surf ;

No. (ft) (ft) i 1 32.00 61.50 2 41.86 59.81- i 3 51.85 59.49

~4 6120 60.53 5 71.51 62.93 6 80.80 66.63 7 89.49 71.56 8 97.43 77.64 9 104.46 84.75 l 10 110.46 92.76 '

11 111.61 94.84 1.148 *"

1

)

Y A X l S F T j

.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 X .00 : -+-----W**---+ *

+ +

9

. .. 92

. .. 7 25.00 + 9.3

. .. 21

. . 3*

.-. . . 2 l

- .. 71..

! . . 93.

! A 50.00 + 71*

. - 3.

- 14

.. . 09...

. 2.

. . 61

X 75.00 + .. 3. .

.614.

. 93..

. . 120

. 3

. 824 i 100.00 + 61.93..

- -.8240

- .61.93.4.

. 52.0*

. 6.1.*23 6182 S 125.00 + . .1 6

Page 6

r Chemre.out 150.00 +

F 175.00 +

9 T 200 00 + *

W*

l l

1 l

l l

Page 7

I Chemre.out

" PCSTABL5 "

by ~

Purdue University.

1

-Slope Stabaity Analysis-Simpned Janbu, Simplified Bishop ,

or Spencers Method of Slices Run Dete: 08-12-99 Time of Run: - 1:09pm Run By: Tim Harris Input Data Filename: A:CHEMRE.IN Output Filename: A:CHEMRE.OUT Plotted OutpuiFilename: A:CHEMRE. PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Chemetron East Slope Revised BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 Top Boundaries 10 Total Boundarles Boundary X-Left . Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soit Typo ,l No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 1 .00 61.50 32.00 61.50 1 2 32.00 61.50 - 112.00 95.00 1 3 112.00 95.00 1 200.00 95.00 1 4 72.00 65.00 115.00 - 89.00 2 5 115.00 89.00 200.00 89.00 2 6 72.00 65.00 200.00 67.00 1 ,

I 7 .00 58.00 32.00 58.00 3 8 32.00 58.00 48.00 63.00 3 9 48.00 63.00 200.00 63.00 3 to' .00 ' 40.00 200.00 50.00 4 1

i ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS I

4 Type (s) of Soll j l

' Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.

Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.

. 1 137.0 137.0 250.0 24.0 .00 .0 1 2 124.0 124.0 .0 25.0 .00 .0 1 3 128.0 128.0 .0 37.0 .00 .0 1 4 118.0 118.0 50.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 1

1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE (S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Page 1

r-

, -w Chemre.out Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometnc Surface No.1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 - 51.00 2 200.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of.150 Has Been Assigned I A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf 1

A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces Has Been Specifed.

400 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.

I 20 Surfaces initiate From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = .00 ft.

and X = 32.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X = 110.00 ft.

and X = 200.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends is Y = .00 ft.

10.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

1 i Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.

, *

Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method *

Failure Surface Specified Dy 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y Surt No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.32 61.50 2 40.24 60.29 3 50.24 60.03 4 60.21 60.73 5 70.00 62.38 Page 2

Chemre.out 6 79.74 64.97 7 89.11 68.47 8 98.10 72.85 9 106.63 78.06 10 114.62 84.07 11' 122.01 90.81 12 125.79 95.00 1.162 ***

Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 28.63 61.50 2 38.56 60.30 3 48.58 60.24 4 58.50 61.32 5 68.25 63.54 6 77.69 66.85 7 86.68 71.23 8 95.11 76.60 9 102.87 82.91 10 109.86 90.06 11 113.69 95.00 1.177 ***

1 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.26 61.50 2 35.15 60.03 3 45.15 59.64 4 55.12 ' 60.35 5 64.96 62.14 6 74.55 64.98 7 83.77 68.86 8 92.51 73.72 9 100.67 79.50 10 108.15 86.13 11 114.86 93.54 12 115.92 95.00 3,3 77 ...

Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.53 61.50 2 28.39 59.85 Page 3

.l

(

)

Chemre.out

. 3 ' 38.37 59.15

~4 48.36 59.40 5 5829 60.59 6 68.06 E 62.73 7 '77.58 65.78

.8 86.77 69.72 9 -- 95.55 74.52 110' 103.83 - 80.12-11 111.54 86.49 i

-12 ^ 118.61 - 93.57 13 119.79 95.00 1.180 ***

1 1 1 Failure Surface SpeclRed By 13 Coordinate Points Point X Surf- Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1- 18.53 61.50 2 28.35 59.64 3 38.31 58.76 4 48.31 58.87 5 58.25 59.98

-6 68.03 62.06 -

7 77.56 65.10 8 86.74 69.07 9 95.48 73.93 10 103.69 ' 79.63 11 111.31 86.11 12 118.24 93.32 13 -119.56 95.00 1.196 ***

Failure Surface Specined By 12 Coordinate Points Point X Surf ' Y Surt No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.21 61.50 2 30.00 59.47 3 39.96 58.53 4 49.96 58.67 5 59.88 59.90 6 69.61 62.21 7 79.03 65.57 8' 88.03 69.93 9 96.50 75.24 10 104.34 81.45 11 111.46 88.48 12 116.76 95.00 I

1.217 ***

1 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points I Page 4 j

i

i Chemre.out Point X-Surf Y Surf No. (ft) . (ft) 1 32.00 61.50 2 41.86 59.81 3 51.85 - 59.49 4 61.80 60.53 5 71.51 62.93 6 80.80 C6.63 7 89.49 71.56 8 97.43 77.64 9 104.46 84.75 10 110.46 92.76 11 111.61 94.84 3,gg5 .-

Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.32 61.50 2 40.11 59.47 3 50.07 58.60 4 60.07 58.89 I 5 69.96 60.34 6 79.62 62.94 7 88.90 66.65 8 97.70 71.41 9 105.87 77.17 10 113.32 83.84 11 119.95 91.33 12 122.49 95.00 1.228 "*

l 1

Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30.32 61.50 2 40.19 59.89 3 50.17 59.25 4 60.16 59.58 5 70.08 60.88 6 79.82 63.13

. 7 89.29 66.33

'8 98.42 70.42 9 107.10 75.39 10 115.25 81.17 11 122.81 87.72 12 129.70 94.97 13 129.72 95.00 1.229 "*

Page 5

r s

i

)

Chemre.out i l

Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.05 61.50 2 14.85' 59.51 3 - 24.78 58.34 4 34.78 57.98 5 44.77 58.44 6 54.68 59.73 I 7 64.46 61.82 l 8 74.04 64.70 9 83.34 68.37 10 92.32 72.78 11 100.90 77.91 12 109.03 83.73 13 116.66 90.20 14 121.45 95.00 1.242 "*

1 1

Y A X 1 S F T

.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 X .00 +- *

-W * * +-

- 0

.[.04

. . .. 6 25.00 + .. 0.3

. .. 41

. 3'

- 2

_ _61..

. .03. i A 50.00 + .. 61 *.-

l

. .3.

- 12

. . . 70...

. . 2.

81' X 75.00 + 3..

- 812...

03..

. .127

- 3.

- . 642 1 100.00 + .91.03..

8427

- 91.03.2.

- 54.7*

.9.1 *33

. .9184 S 125.00 + .1

- .. 9 Page 6

m I

Chemre.out 150.00 + ]

F 175.00 + ...,

T 200.00 + *

"W* **

i

)

i i

Page 7

m e

$00NO V ,

-( p ft ,.. UNITED 8TATESi

} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, WASHINGTON, o.C. 30e06 0001 s., e ...

.1 / ,,

April 3,1998[

3: a l David C. Fannin N Vice President Chemetron Corporation r !-

l Suite 200 1615 South Congress Avenue

{

)

Delray Beach, FL 33445 j l

1

SUBJECT:

GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AT THE BERT AVENUE SITE I

Dear Mr. Fannin:

We have been following the geotechnicalissues raised (by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and your waste compaction tests intended to demonstrate compliance with our license conditions. One of our geotechnical engineers raised some technical concems regarding these issues. I'm enclosing a copy of his concems. It's my understanding that most of the concems are being resolved through your interactions with OEPA. To ensure that these issues are resolved, please provide your position on each of these technical eters. We'd appreciate your response by.',oril 17,1998, if you have any questions, please contact me at 301415-7299.

Sincerely imothy C. Jo nson, Section Chief Facilities Decommissioning Section Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch I DMslon of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated Docket No. 040-08724 License No. SUB-1357 ff R C1 C CCN IP

"80

~

' - UMTED sTAits t

f \ - F NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION MrotoN CI soi wAnneuvitte no4a,

' T* o *

'i lisle, stuNots s053H351 f

esee >

- * - March 26, 1998 l

y :

- 7 r 5 MEMORANbUM Todruce hJorgensen, Chief Deconynissioning Branch j FROM: Ross B. Laridsman Project Engineer .

v. :

SUBJECT:

CHEMETRON BERT AVENUE CELT. CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS

1. A portion of the clay I er was placed into the cell without prior acceptance by Ohio epa.

The EPA subsequenny " flunked" the test fill used to justify this portion of the liner (i.e., the method of placement 3 t ype of equipment used). This fill must be removed from the cell.

2.

" '. . "--- -s placed on the slopes of the cell bn a 2:1 gradient. This is unique; not placing fill on a horizontal surface. It is not possible to compact material on that great of a slbpe, because every pass of the compactor rips up the previous passes work. The contractor's own expert consultant's report (from their Dr. Dirt) states a minimum slope of 2.5h; better 3:1. My personal opinion is that compacting clay on any slope will not succeed. Regardless, the existing material " compacted" on a 2:1 slope must be j removed. (Note: Tim,Herris of NRC:HQ also holds,the view that compacting on a slope is unacceptable) y 'l

3. The new liner test fHI material in the cell also must be removed, because the permeability tests which have been conducted on this liner material are destructive in l nature; they make the liner material water soaked.

4

4. The original slope stablLity study for the East slope needs to be reviewed, but it wouldn't (

be provided; this is suspicious. The new onetysis should be compared to the original. but this is not possible without the original being available. We need to see the original slope stablHty analysis.

5. My opinion is that the waste materiells not going to be compactable (the 95% specified in the specs and l6 cense) based on observation of activit6es and conditions at the site. I think whatever value they can get will prove unacceptable when used in the new east slope stability study. This will have to be addressed in the l6 cense.

~

6. From my observations of the groundwater conveyance layer, it appears to not meet the intent of the EPAs spec. Thors should be en inplace permeability test run if the sahdotone was compacted in place as specified (the particlestrocks do not appear to hake survived any kind of mechanical egitation). From observations of the upper surface

. of the layer, there appears to be to many fines in the material to adequatety convey water.

Enclosure AGM %v a 4p :

.w p

rp l

, 4 .

h' April 3, 1998

-t . David C. Fannin

Vice President ;V l{

'~

Chemetron Corporation

.. Suite 200 B '

1615 South Congress Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33445 ^ y

SUBJECT:

GEOTECHNICAL i SUES AT THE BERT AVEhUE SITE

Dear Mr. Fannin:

f We have been following the geotechnical issues raised by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency I,OEPA) and your waste' compaction tests intended to demonstrate compliance with our license conditions. One of our geotechnical engineers raised some technical concems regarding these issues. I'm enclosing a copy of his concems. It's my understanding that most of the concems are being resolv,ed through your interactions with OEPA. To ensure that these issues are resolved, please provide your position on each of these technical matters. We'd appreciate your response by April 17,1998.

,e: i.'

If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-7299,

r. , r.

[ Sincerely, f '

[0RIGINALSIGNE6'BY:]

Timothy C. Johnson, Section Chief Facilities Decommissioning Section

, Low-LevelWaste and Decommissioning Projects Branch )

DMalon of Waste Management

. Office of Nuclear Material Safety B and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated l ,

Docket No. 040-08724 F License No. SUB-1357 DISTRIBUTION: C2riffifFile 4 Chemetron Distribution List LLWM r/f NMGS r/f JGreeves PLohaus/OSP MFederline RFonner/OGC JGoldberg/OGC DNelson/ Reg 111 BJorgenson/ Reg lil RCanlano/ Reg ill TMadden/OCA HThompson/DEDOS Gagner/OPA Mark Small Boxes in Concurrence Block to Define Distribution Copy Preference.

In small Box on "OFC" line enter: C = Cover; E = Cover & Enclosure; N = No Copy OFC LLDP r k LLDP Reg 111 ._. LLk ! k NAME TCJ b 1 MHood 7O borgNsb JHhey DATE 3/r1/98 3 /p/98 3 /77/9 8 d/8/98 / /98 PCth & File Name: S:tDWMtLLDPtTCJtCHEMLAND OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on *DATE"line enter: M = E Mail Distribution Copy; H = Hard Copy PDR: YES _ NO _ Category: Propr$tary _ or CF Only _

hpN i

ACNW: YES _ NO _

IG: YES _ NO _ Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No

mig FH CIETB COPY s#

9409'ceeeg _fp 1

't

. ChieEFA Stste of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

'ortheast District Office

.110 E. Aurora Road ,

Twinsburg. Ohio 440071969 George V. Voinovich l (330) 425 9171 FAX (330) 487-0769 Governor May 18,1998 RE: Bert Avenue Landfill Cuyahoga County ,

Waste Stabilization Report i Notice of Deficiency Mr. Theodore G. Adams, Vice-President B. Koh & Associates, Inc.

11 West Main Street Springville, NY 14141-1012 l

Dear Mr. Adams:

On March 26,1998, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)-Division of Solid and infectious Waste Management (OSlWM)-Northeast District Office (NEDO), received a Waste Stabilization Study I

Report for the Bert Avenue Landfillin the Village of Newburgh Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Due to the problems encountered in complying with Condition Ten (10) of the closure plan approval dated July f 24,1996, Dames & Moore prepared the report on behalf of B. Koh and Associates as alternative to the closure plan condition.

After a cursory review of the report by the OEPA-DSlWM, a conference call was conducted between representatives of the following organizations: the OEPA-DSIWM, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency '

(NRC), B. Koh and Associates and Dames & Moore. Due to the issues that were discussed during this call, an addendum to this reported was created by Dames & Moore and submitted to the OEPA-DSIWM-NEDO on April 13,1998. The OEPA-DSIWM has completed a review of the original report and the addendum. A copy of the review is enclosed.

If you have any questions, I can be contacted at (330) 963-1186.

Sincerely, f l

Je y L. Parker, R.S., E.I.T.

Division of Solid and infectious Waste Management enclosure cc: Mr. Kurt Princic, DSIWM-NEDO Mr. Herb Davidson, AWSR Mr. Doug Evans, DSIWM-CO Mr. Brien Kilkenny, AWSR Mr. John Romano, CCHD Mr. Steve Kilper, AWS Mr. Tim Johnson, NRC Mr. Larry Chintella, Dames & Moore Mr. Bruce Jorgensen, NRC Mr. Fred Erdman, Dames & Moore a Mr. Doug Perisutti, Solar Testing Mr. Rich Lacey, Geotechnics Mr. Pete Smith, Dames & Moore Mayor Ed Kohlar, Newburgh Heights

\[

.k. \

FILE:[ LAND /Bert Avenue LF/ COR/18] .

n.,

state of Ohio Environmental Protecticr. Agency WAUNG ADORES $

TT ADORIES.

rtu toow4-m ruqoo sums P.O. Box 1(M9 J Watermark Dnv0 Columbus. OH 43216-1049 Columbus, OH 4321s-1099 INTEROFFICE COAIAIUNICATION TO: 'i Jerry Parker, DSIWM-NEDO

-}.v '

FROM: jw. Doug Evans, DSIWM-CO

SUBJECT:

Slope Stability Comments for Bert Avenue Site DATE: May 18, 1990 Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the slope stability analysis portion of the report titled.

Waste Stabilization Study Report, dated March 27,1998, and the report titled Eastern Slope Stabdity Evaluation-Addendum, dated April 13,1948. Both reports were prepared by Dames &

Moore and address stability issues with the proposed design of the waste containment cell at the Bert Avenue Site.

BACKGROUND Ohio EPA evaluates the adequacy of slope stability Octors of safety (FOS) based on the consequences of a slope failure and the confidence in the slope stability analysis (SSA) input parameters. The following table is a condensed version of the performance criteria contained in DSIWM Guidance # 180 Factors of Safety For Slo;>e Stability Analysis. The guidance document isincluded as Attachment 1 1

l Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety B Consequences of Failure Input Parameter Uncertainty Small Larne l

Limited danger or 1.25 1.5 '

environmentalimpact (1.2)* (1.3)

~

Potential danger or 1.5 2.0 environmentalimpact (1.3) (1.7)

Numbers with parenGeses are for dynamic conditions RECE0VED George V. Voinovch, Governor gy j g g Nancy P. Hollister, Lt Governor DortW A Schrecardus, Director (lHIO fpA . N C & A

Page 2 .

Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site The design of the containment cell incorporates a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) as pan of the liner system. Ohio EPA has issued an advisory regarding these products Advisory on Structural Considerationsfor incorporating Geosynthetic Ckn Liners in Solid Hinte Facility Design, and is included as Attachment 2. The advisory provides owners, operators and consultants with detailed concerns over the use of these products and specific recommendations to alleviate the concerns. The recommendations include specific testing procedures and performance criteria.

The specific contents of a SSA are sensitive to the particular conditions present at an individual site. However, there are a number ofitems that should " typically" be included in any SSA in order for DSIWM to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the evaluation. The SSA should contain both a narrative and supponing information.

e The narrative should include:

- The scope, extent, and findings of the subsurface investigation;

The scope, extent, and fmdings of the laboratory material testing program;

Logic and rationale for the selection of the analysis input parameters;

+ Logic and rationale for the selection of the critical cross-sections;

- Graphical depictions of the plan and profile views of the critical cross-sections;

A discussion of the failure modes and conditions analyzed; The results of the evaluation for the most critical cases of both static and dynamic conditions for both deep-seated and shallow failures mechanisms.

The supporting data and information should include:

- Field data from the subsurface investigation,

- Laboratory data from the material testing program;

The actual calculations and or computer output.

COMM ENTS

1. A. Due to the close proximity of homes, a roadway, and the possible use of the area as a park, the potential danger to human life f'om a deep-seated failure cannot be j disregarded. In addition, due to the presence of the " groundwater conveyance layer" and its connectivity to the storm sewer system, the potential exists for contaminates to be rapidly transponed oft-site if a deep-seated slope failure were to occur. Finally, most of the SS A strength parameters have been assumed using correlative information or generic manufacturer supplied data. These types of strength data are considered to have a large degree of uncertainty associated with their use for the purposes of SSA Based on the available information, the recommended minimum FOS for deep-seated slope failures at this site are 2.0 and 1.7 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively.

l f .t '

l l

Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site Page 3 B. Due to the limited danger or environmental impact that would likely occur from a slope failure of the cover system and the large degree of uncertainty in SS A strength parameters, the recommended ininimum FOS for shallow slope failures are 1.5 and 1.3 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively.

[ Note: By obtaining highly accurate project-specific strength data on project-specific waste, soils and geosynthetics, the recommended minimum FOS can be reduced to 1.5 and 1.3 for deep-seated failures, and 1.25 and 1.2 for shallow failures, for static and dynamic conditions, respectively.]

2. The incorporation of a GCL in the facility's design significantly heightens DSIWhrs concerns over slope stability. It is recommended to test the GCL in accordance with the attached GCL advisory to alleviate these concerns. By following the advisory it is possible to reduce the FOS for failure surfaces passing through or along the GCL to 1.3 and 1.1 for static .md dynamic conditions, respectively. Should the advisory not be followed, the appropriate FOS for failure surfaces involving the GCL are 2.0 and 1.7 for static and dynamic conditions, respectively, using a shear strength parameter equivalent to hydrated bentonite.

3. The scope, extent and a summary of the findings of the laboratory material testing program as it pertains to the slope stability of the proposed facility should be provided in the SSA narrative. The actuallaboratory data should be included in an appendix.

4. The logic, rationale and specific data used for the selection of the analysis input parameters should be documented in the SSA narrative.

A. The waste material has been shown to be very weak at high moisture contents (approximately greater than 17%). As a result, the stabilization report proposes to control moisture content of the waste by the addition of an admixture.

Unconfmed compression tests on amended waste specimens yielded a minimum undrained shear strength of 4300 psf. 2000 psf was assumed for this layer in the SSA. However, the 2000 psf value may be unconservative at low normal stresses because of the non-linear stress-dependent shear behavior of many soils.

The shear strength of the amended and unamended waste should be determined using a consolidated undrained triaxial procedure, and should be tested over the entire range of normal stresses that will be present in the field due to the design.

In addition, the laboratory shear specimens should adequately model and be representative of field fill placement, including material composition, moisture content, and unit weight.

B. The slope stability addendum evaluates the stability of the GCL using a generic shear strength of 500 psf supplied by the manufacturer. Shear strength test data submitted to Ohio EPA on comparable material indicates this value may be unconservative at low normal stresses (see Attachment 3). As previously stated, it is recommended that the project-specific GCL and the materials that it interfaces I with, be tested for shear strength in accordance with the GCL advisory. l l

Page 4 Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site

~

C.

The interface friction angle between the textured geomembrane and the recompacted clay barrier layer of the cover system has been assumed to be from generic manufacturer data. The submittal also indicates this value may b low as 25 . Since 27* is at the lower range of acceptability, e g. FOS = 1.53, this value should be verified through project-specific testing.

D. The shear strength of the compacted clay in the liner and cap systems has been estimated from textbook literature to be 1600 psf. This value may be unconservative at low normal stresses and should be verified through project-specific testing.

E.

The shear strength of the select backfill of the cover system has been selected The from the literature to be 1600 psf. This value appears to be unconservative.

material will be exposed to winter freeze / thaw and summer desiccation. Thus, contributions to shear strength from " col esion" will be negligible due to cracking of the soil. The shear strength of the select backfill should be changed to a frictional rather than a cohesional base, and a crack zone should be specified in the computer model 5.

A discussion of the following failure modes should be included in the SSA narrative The supportin e calculations and data should be included in an appendix.

A It is not clear if deep-seated static and dynamic rotational failures within the waste have been analyzed Information should be included in the proposal addressing this failure mode B.

The hand calculanons for static and dynamic translational failures involving the GCL may not adequately model the complex stability issues. It is recommended to include the GCL into the computer analysis model To illustrate the failure modes requested by imments 5A. and B., a rudimentary SSA as Attachment 4. In addition, the analys6 depicting possible failure surfaces is includt utilizes minimal parameter values that will probably be exceeded by the testing reques in comment 4, based on our experiences with the materials in question. Also note that, pending parameter verification. the analysis should meet the performance criteria in comments 1 and 2 Please note that Attachment 4 is offered for illustrative purposes only, and the accuracy of the calculations is neither expressed or implied.

C. The potential for seepage-induced slides of the cover system has not been evaluated. A significant number of failures have occurred across the nation due to inadequate evaluation and design of these systems. At the facilities where these failures occurred, the drainage layers were unable to adequately relieve the pore water pressure that can build-up in the cover system during heavy downpours.

Potential pore water pressure build up in the drainage layer must be taken into

Page 5

- Slope Stability Comments for the Bert Avenue Site account when investigating the stability of the nnal cover system. Consideration of seepage forces should include an investigation of the maximum pore water pressure that may build up in the drainage layer of the cover system based on the maximum fluid flux through the cover soils that could occur during saturated conditions and a major rain event.

If you have comments or questions, please call me at (614) 728-5371.

DE/dk 1

- l

e e

Attachment 1

I l

.D

Statr of Ohio Environmtatal Protretion Agtncy i

WAJUM AffMSS, STREET ADDRESS.

P.O. Box 1049 X) Watermark Dnve itLE: (614) 64L3000 FAX: (614) 64+2 r9 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 Jumbus. OH 43215-1099 DSIWM GUIDANCE DOCUMENT (614) 644-2621 FAX: (614) 728-5315 j

SUBJECT:

Factors of Safety For Slope Stability Analysis i

GUIDANCE #: 0180 Industrial Solid Waste Residual Solid Waste REFERENCES [ Municinal Solid Waste OAC 3745-27-06(C)(4)(i) OAC 3745-29-06(C)(4)(i) OAC 3745-29-05(C)(5)(i)

OAC 3745-29-06(C)(4)(j) OAC 3745-29-06(C)(4)(j) OAC 3745-29-05(C)(5)(i)

" Location Restriction Demonstrations: Unstable Areas", Ohio EPA CROSS

REFERENCES:

l guidance # 0133, issued June 1,1994.

" Location Restriction Demonstrations: Seismic Impact Zones",

Ohio EPA guidance # 0129, issued May 24,1994.

DATE- November 24, 1995 (Supersedes document titled " Slops _ Stability Analvsis" dated Feb. 6,1995) l TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: 3 l

L PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the factors of safety for slope stabi analyses for both static and earthquake conditions.

O. APPLICABILITY This guidance applies to permit applicants of municipal, industrial, and residual solid waste facilities who must present an analysis for slope stability.

III. BACKGROUND Since the 1990 rules a slope stability analysis has been included in the permit application process as part of the engineering design. The analysis includes both static and earthquake c areas in seismic impact zones, and only static conditions outside of seismic impact zones. Ev with the advent oflocation restriction demonstrations addressing seismic impact zones and unstable areas due to RCRA Subtitle D, DSIWM's engineering design requirements for slope stability did not change in the 1994 rules. However, the factor of safety required is not in rule.

George V.Voinovich, Govemor Nancy P. He41ister, Lt.Govemor Donald R.Schregardus, Director O e- -a<v: ore,

F' Page 2 Slope Stability Analyses l

Theoretically a factor of safety (FS) < 1 is unstable, a FS > 1 is stable, and a FS = 1 is at equilibrium. .This FS is developed from many components affecting the stability of a slope.

These components include: failure plane geometry, anisotropy of soil, tension cracks, dynam loading or earthquakes, and pore water pressure. The differing combinations of these elements produce a degree of uncertainty which cannot be fully accounted for in the slope stability analysis. Therefore due to uncertainties with the quantity and quality of data, the accuracy assumptions, and the risks to public health & safety and/or the environment associated with a slope failure, DSIWM recommends a FS a 1.5 for static conditions and a FS a 1.3 for seism conditions. These recommended values were obtained from the U.S. EPA Gui Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities, see Table 1. Altemative values will be evaluated if the owner or operator can satisfactorily show that lower factors of safety are based on the quality of data, conservative assumptions, and consequences of a slope failure. However, it should be noted that if the slope being analyzed presents imminent danger to human life or the environment and the quality of soil data is poor. DSIWM may choose to increase the FS to at least 2.0 for static conditions and at least 1.7 for seismic conditions, as depicted in Table 1.

Additionally,in Ohio EPA guidance #0133," Location Restriction Demonstration: Unstable Areas", the recommended FS is 1.5 for static conditions and 1.3 for earthquake conditions.

Also, in Ohio EPA guidance #0129," Location Restriction Demonstration: Seismic Impact Zones", the recommended FS is 1.3 for earthquake conditions.

IV. PROCEDURE For Facilities Outside of Seismic impact Zones--Only static conditions need be addressed in the slope stability analysis. Each side of the landfill may be investigated separately. If th less than the recommended 1.5 for static conditions, the owner or operator can propose an alternative FS based on the quality of data, conservative assumptions, and consequences of failure. However,if an imminent danger to human life or the environment is present and the quality of data is poor, DSIWM may choose to either increase the FS to at least 2.0, or requ that the owner or operator improve the quality of data.

For Facilities Located in Seismic impact Zones--Both static and earthquake conditions must be addressed in the slope stability analysis. Each side of the landfill may be investigated separately. If the FS is less than the recommended 1.5 for static conditions or if the F than the recommended 1.3 for earthquake conditions, the owner or operator can propose an altemative FS based on the quality of data, conservative assumptions, and consequences of failure. However, if an imminent danger to human life or the environment is present and the quality of data is poor, DSIWM may choose to either increase the FS to at least 2.

conditions and to increase the FS to at least 1.7 for earthquake conditions, or request that the l

owner or operator improve the quality of data.

l l V. POINT OF CONTACT ,

) Engineering - Policy Unit, Supervisor, (614) 728-5373 Ohio EPA /DSIWM ,

Filename: WP 6.0\FSSLOPE. DOC -

Slope Stability Analyses Page 3 1

$ hhN f Yhhh b'k M khk;p*. k 3&$..&hqw.hhh.w$h[hk&Wkh' d,,wux;.

... c. , ; . m,4 a g4g.u i

y

, , ,yy.4 f f .. .w s.a u.

- (l-

, QNh .:.%qWW* .

i4a

?yJ, a ~ %.

n'v o.

> r, ar . e. . ..

r i

l,%. u., .'rPyggyh..s,c..o.,mmendediMishnunnm%.v% w, ym~.y.n .

Valu.e,saofiFactoriofcSafet TpteW%,..;,. 3dw.for;.~

wdAt ~.

cRe;=,

g Wir s wy .

Slope Stalillity. Analyses<re m ,a e

- ;m

$.X i OMn.M"'CW..

y

' e e.';&%j.Te

~

q hK aN d,Oy..>.dl4d

.CC9.a!,0,:;

t: 4G1' g;<* fg.jpf'41G%dEM -

Jibc.

c 9.r

% Id

..m e p p r: pv4byW pl!M 1,yM3Mgr V :-

1 o W' nce gth Measureme i g.J.Wv A .gErJ W ~ .k w e.

1

+J onsequences o . ope _; e i y:fi::.-%4.M&:.'h lyu 'O.'A, . ,,,

Y $$$ '

PIAN minent g % ,r a 6 e.4_.,t giro n

A lswt

.7,m e : .- - ~

%..t@ m$F,..

II M. J Lm. ~ ;. , . .

M.

u. . . .

e i.lminin w. . . . . i, p.i fu j{ . .w.yr p.w,.ent".da..rigegt,o.

. '... hum, .s g d .

t .%- s . <. ~ . < . it.3)tn'

.., u .

.m. wajor e.nv, iron. men.#.al impact.:

d. c7;

% f .,_ he.W6Wy

/

', slope'.

.h 9% fails M i, M'-GgN @$h t.ak. . @ 6K., i .h

.c3 9M,,M - de 5

. ,r v ,. c

~%.

A

^48~ . , y .8, ltC @.nr.s:n...@C,.? %m,254- .,,g:

) l s ." . .

.lf4rli&. The unc.ertam. ty of streng

.'.m.~~e,a..s.u.

. . ~. . rem,en..ts s . ~. . . is;s,.m,.Allest.dh,eni.t.he.,a.

ss sot.

, ... . .ww e. .

ta provide.a cons,i stent',-completet,andalo .- ictur f;theistren

-:w.Wh. h quah,ty ig strength 1tes

- : characte'ristics. 9@ %r 4[g.@u;.:EU$ i i ..I . p)L'

?; @:p:'%

. ~

p:-

.7I@@';i;.:

1;. , k E ,

. , . ., .e 'r' k Ws n,Q Uddig r 5' :% k ,

, 2 e. ..... , The unce?rtamty ofs

- 'ength measurementseatest is)V.. .cen. :co are,co 4 1 7 and when: strength!ditail5"notirovide'a' cidisi'si$grnticoinpbie'/aN1?fo'gibd13I$tYt'r% p T. W 'h

~

@l characteristics.

Md}@i

.2:v ;MId'%wt5M'y,@a .%c < y D.P

. 9; n

} <. L'- Numbers.w,.ithout'paren' theses. a...

y,rn .y . ;g ic condit. J34%q,+.:s1,.y - eses a

~.]::

,,&c.d>o ions and thosepw

T 'seismiEio~nditioni.#U " pply " Z,b to $ stat;..

2!E - A! - 19

~~

~'.'.. ; .. ;'? ' ::

'f* ? )n 14

,UEffi.'d. I5d r 'd's ~ p Oj'j :; 13 V, % :

. So,f' $'.y2.urce 'M.l.' S 4 EPA S/M Guideitoffe'chnichl ourcestfor,the'Res$$i.M. si f; .. is ilit 4,' '%- QQR'u :;g .@.glQy: +QQggy,y fx g Filename: WP 6.0\FSSLOPE. DOC Ohio EPA /DSIWM

o Attachment 2

m I

state of Ohio Environment.al Protection Agency MAtu% ADDnt%

STREET ADORESS-PO. Box 1049 1800 Watermark Dnve TELE:(614)644-3020 FAX:(C14)t44 2323 Colurnbus. OH 43216104]

Columbus,OH 432151099 MEMORANDUM TO: All Solid Waste Landfill Facility Owners / Operators, Approved IIealth Departments, tmd Design Engineers u p

/

3 0-FROM: Doug vans, Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management (DSIWM)

SUBJECT:

Advisory on Structural Integrity Considerations for Incorporating Geosynthetic Clay Liners in Solid Waste Landfill Facility Design DATE: september .<, 1997 1.0 Introduction Ohio's solid waste landfill regulations allow a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) to be used in lieu of the recompacted soil barrier layer of the composite cap system or in lieu of a portion of the recompacted soil layer of the composite bottom liner system. Nevenheless. GCLs are a relative newcomer to the evolving field of waste containment, and significant concerns remain over their ability to be appropriately incorporated into wete containment designs. These concerns include inherent stability shortcomings, hydraulic equivalency, and long tenn performance. Many of these issues continue to be investigated by manufacturers and researchers alike who have, over time, offered changing, conflicting, and ambiguous information on GCLs, thus creating uncertainty regarding the appropriate use of these products.

Recent information suggests that there are special considerations which must be taken into account when utilizing a GCL in certain applications, including use on side slopes and in areas oflandfills where localized non-uniform stresses may be encountered.

The purpose of this document is to provide owcers, operators, and consultaats with the detailed concerns that DSIWM has for the use of GCLs n solid waste landfill design, as well as specific recommendations to allay these concerns.

_r 2.0 llacky,round initially, issues regarding GCLs centered on hydraulic conductivity, equivalence to compacted clay liners, and internal shear strength. More recently, interface shear strength, bearing capacity, and overall long term performance have come to the forefront of concern. Olno's solid waste regulations i

have addressed the hydraulic conductivity and equivalence issue by sett ng forth specific criteria George V voinowch. Governor Nancy P Hothster. Lt Governor EPA 1613 ( rev 5/96) Donald R Schregardus, Director Parned on occ.,nca pag.,

. Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs

- Page 2 l

regarding the thickness of clay which a GCL can replace, based on its specific mass of bentonite.

However, significant issues remain regarding stability and long term performance associated with use of GCLs in landfill de';ign.

The use of a GCL is a double edged sword; the bentonite contained in the GCL provides low hydraulic conductivity, and yet it probably has the least shear resistance or bearing capacity of any soil. Add to this a significant number of engineering failures and a lack oflong term performance data, and concern regarding designs incorporating GCLs is heightened. It is our thought that by sharing our concerns an recommendations with owners, operators, and consultants, that GCLs can be properly incorporated in landfill designs and a considerable amount of time and energy can be conserved by all involved in the DSIWM permitting process.

While the-advantages of GCLs are numerous, they are beyond the intended scope of this advisory.

This document is intended to make our concerns about GCLs known and to provide ~ design and testing recommendations to alleviate these concern 1 This document will explain DSIWM's concerns regarding GCLs in more detail, provide recommendations for incorporating GCLs in landfill design, and offer guidance for determining appropriate strength parameters to use in the necessary design calculations. The concerns contained in this advisory must be addressed by owner / operators proposing to use GCLs. The recommendations made in this document should be considered the prefened method for alleviating the listed concems, but should not be interpreted as regulatory requirements. By following the recommendations of this advisory, owner / operators will benefit from a craightforward review which will be less likely delayed by revisions during the review process.

Conversely, if alternative procedures are used to address the concerns outlined in this document, the alternative procedures will have to be evaluated on a case t y case basis for their technical merit, and will probably result in a longer review period.

Please note that although this information is being provided to interested parties in a proactive effort to '

clarify regulatory concerns and expedite permit review, these issues are exceedingly complex and research is ongoing. Therefore, the information is subject to update and revision as more research is conducted and more issues arise.

For the purposes of this document, GCLs can be grouped into two broad categories, reinforced and unreinforced. Reinforced GCLs are basically comprised of three components, a bentonitic clay soil sandwiched between two geotextiles, with reinforcement to provide additional strength. The reinforcement is accomplished by intermittently stitching the three components together (stitch bonding), or by punching fibers throughout the three components (needle punching). Both types of reinforcement provide additional bonding and strength qualities to the product. Unreinforced GCLs consist of a bentonitic clay soil sandwiched between two geotextiles with no reinforcement, or -

bentonitic clay soil adhered to a geomembrane.

Stability characteristics are unique to each GCL. This is due to the differing geosynthetic components which are combined in individual GCLs and the methods by which the components are joined.

Reivorced GCLs have greater shear strength characteristics than unreinforced GCLs. In addition, reinforced GCLs constructed with non-woven geotextiles are more stable over a larger range of applications than those constructed with a woven geotextile. This is because the woven geotextiles

,,,,,,,ia

1 Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 3 l allow bentonite to extrude more readily than non-woven textiles. The extruded bentonite essentially lubricates the interface (s) between the GCL and adjacent materials, greatly reducing the shear resistance of the composite system.

3.0 Regulatory Considerations l The following Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) references are useful for the purposes of this advisory.

The municipal, industrial, and residual solid waste (MSW, ISW, RSW) regulations require that a permit applicant demonstrate the stability of the landfill. OAC 3745-27-06(C)(4)(j) in the MSW regulations states; l

\

"(C) Thefollowine information shall be p'i esc nted in narrativeform in a report divided t according to paragraphs (C)(1) to (C)(9) ofthis ride.

(4) Thefollowing design calculations with references to equations used, showing site specific input and assumptions:

0) Slope stability analysis" i Requirements identical to these in the MSW rules are found in OAC 3745-29-06(C)(4)(j) and OAC 3745-30-05(C)(5)(j) for ISW and RSW facilities, respectively.

The MSW and ISW regulations require that a GCL be negligibly permeable to fluid migration and !

contain a specific mass of bentonite per area. OAC 3745-27-08(C)(3)(a) and (c) and OAC 3745 08(C)(3)(a) and (c) state, respectiveN. for the MSW and ISW regulations; ,

j

"(3) A Geosynthetic clay liner used in lieu ofpart ofthe recompacted soilliner pursuant to paragraph (C)(1)f) of this rule, or in lieu ofpart ofthe recompacted soil barrier layer, pursuant to paragraph (C)(15) or (C)(16) of this rule, shall have the following characteristics:

(a) Be negligibly permeable tofluid migration; and (c) Have a bentonite mass per unit area of at least one poundper squarefoot" r

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 4 4.0 Concerns and Recommendations DSIWM has two main areas of concern with incorporating a GCL in a landfill design:

Defining performance .,tandards which can account for uncertainties associated with the use of a relatively new and developing product without a proven long term performance record; and

Detemiining accurate and appropriate design parameters to fully account for the exceptionally weak nature of hydrated bentonite.

These two main areas of concern have a number of specific concerns which are discussed in the following.sub-sections.

4.1 Assuring Long Term Performance Very little is known about the long term performance of GCLs. This issue is discussed at length in U.S. EPA's recently released Report of / W5 Iforkshop on (ieasynthetic Clay Liners, dated June 1996, and also in the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) Special Testing Publication No.

I308, Testing and Acceptan:e Criteria thr (icos) nthetic ( ' lay Liners. published in January of I 997.

Additionally, there appears to be a growing opinion among eminent researchers in the GCL arena that it may he more prudent to evalua:e p, ;t-peak strength conditions than peak conditions. This is due to uncertainties surrounding the pwes,es that may initiate deformations in composite lining systems during construction, waste placemem and the waste's subsequent settlement. These processes may result in the development of post-peak or residual shear strength conditions which are weaker than peak strength values Ohio EPA guidance document numNr 1 SO, l' actors o/Sgtyjor Slope Stability Analysis, dated November 24,1995, explains the methodology that DSIWM uses for the selection of an appropriate recommended factor of safety for a solid waste landfill, based on imminent danger to human life or major environmental impact if the slope were to fu and the degree of certainty in the assumed parameters. However, the incorporation of a GCL .n the solid waste landfill design adds an additional unknown to the factor of safety selection process. Therefore, due to uncertainties and a lack oflong term performance data, DSIWM recommends designing for post-peak conditions with a 1.3 static factor of safety and a 1.1 dynamic factor of safety for designs incorporating GCLs, see Table 1.

I-Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 5

! Tabfe 1 Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety Post-Peak Static Stability " 1.30 2a 1.10 Post-Peak Pseudo-Static Stability

1. Potential pore water pressure build up in the drainage layer must be taken into account when investigating the stability of the final cover system. Consideration of seepage forces should include an investigation of the maximum pore water pressure that may build up in the drainage layer of the cover system based on the maximum fluid flux through the cover soils which could occur during saturated conditions and a major rain event.

' IComment: Seepage forces are important because a significant number of landfill final cover f ailures have occurred across the nation tfue to inadequate design of the drainage layer.

Drainage layers have been unable to adequately relieve the pore water pressure that can bui'd up in cap systems during heavy downpours. The design inadequacies include underestimating ,

the volume of water that can permeate through the cover soils during a major rain event and/or inadequate controls for keeping the drainage layer from becoming partially or completely clogged throughout the life and post closure of the landfill.]

2. Post peak shear strength should be determined util: ring a shear displacement of at least 50 mm (2 in).

3. Should a deformational approach be cnosen over a pseudo-static analysis, deformation in the composite cap system should not exceed 15 cm (6 in) and deformation in the composite liner system should not exceed 10 cm N in).

4.2 Accounting for the Weak Nature of Ilydrated llentonite The bentonite component of the GCL usually controls the strength characteristics of the composite bottom liner and cap system. Hydrated bentonite has the lowest peak and residual shear strengths of any soil. Bentonitic soils also have an extremely high affinity for moisture and will wick significant '

amounts of moisture from even the driest subgrade. In other words, GCLs willhydrate. Bentonite's affinity for moisture results in extraordinarily large swell pressures which can cause the hydrated bentonite to extrude from the GCL into the interfaces between the GCL and adjacent materials, essentially lubricating these interfaces, thereby weakening the structural integrity of the composite system. l Hydrated bentonite also exhibits an extremely low bearing capacity. Thus localized non-unifomi stresses can cause the bentonite in GCLs to now or migrate away ftom higher stress concentrations allowing the GCL to thin in localized areas. This bentorite thinning results in GCLs no longer meeting the regulatory requirements on speci6c mass per unit area, and greatly increases Guid flux through the GCL. .

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs fage 6 It is the low hydraulic conductivity of hydrated bentonite that makes the GCL useful and it is also the hydrated bentonite that makes the GCL so weak. Focusing on the weakness issue, some designer have suggested encapsulating the GCL between two geomembtanes to prevent hydration. While this will minimize widespread hydration, localized zones of hydrated bentonite and ensuing weakened conditions are still a possibility owing to imperfections in geomembrane installation. A U.S. EPA sponsored test section of an encapsulated GCL recently failed due to such localized zones of hydra 4.2.1 Determining Shear Strength Characteristics Many times in the past, slope stability calculations required in the permitting process have been submitted to DSIWM utilizing manufacturer-supplied generic shear strength data. While this data may be useful in preliminary design evaluations, it is inadeauate for the stability calculations required in the DSIWM permitting process. Typically, manufacturer's data is accompanied by disclaimers which state that the information should not be relied upon to , determine final design parameters and that project-specinc shear testing should be conducted for this purpose. DSIWM emphatically recommends testin the shear strength of project-specific materials under appropriate conditions, including ..stmal stress, moisture content, and shearing procedure.

Currently, no established or otherwise universally accepted test method exists for determining the internal shear strength and interface shear strength of a GCL ' Appropriate" shear testing has proven to be a highly subjectiu and conuoversial issue around the state and nation. This is to be expected when one considers the array of products. each with distinctive':. *terent characteristics, and the reality that any inaccuracies inads ertently introduced into sample selection. sample preparation, or actual shearing may falsely increase the measured shear resistance With this in mind. DSIWM is outlinma some o: the more ;wrtinent aspects of shear testing a GCL and recommending the following speciGe testing pmcedures A. Sample Selection ideally the shear samples should be selected from rolls that are delivered to the site.

Ilowever, this is often impractical. The next best alternative is to obtain identical product samples from another site. If either of the preceding options are unavailable, samples from the manufacturer may be used, if the manufacturer will certify that the samples are representative of materials shipped to the Geld. This is important because the amount of reinforcement can vary significantly in the manufacturing process.

B. 11ydration

- According to U.S. EPA (1996), GCLs will hydrate when placed in contact with typical construction subgrade soils and will probably hydrate signiGeantly within the Erst few days (moisture contents as high as 50 % were measured after 10 days). Stark (1997a) reports that this hydration typically occurs under a free swell condition and that the swell pressure of a reinforced GCL can be on the order of 35 to 40 kPa (730 - 835 psf).

A conGning stress of this magaitude, equivalent 2.1 to 2.5 m (7 - 8 ft) of soil, is

I

}

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs l Page 7 l l ,

typically never applied to a cap system and it is usually a number of weeks if not months before a confining stress capable of preventing GCL swell is applied to the composite bottom liner system. In addition, this swell pressure is capable of destroying the reinforcement of GCLs and/or forcing hydrated bentonite into the interfaces, thereby l greatly decreasing the integrity of the bottom liner or cap system. Cons equently, DSIWM recommends that project-specific GCLs and adjacent materials be allowed to i fully hydrate, as a single unit, in a free swell condition until vertical ext ansion has essentially ceased (an inconsequential confining stress of no more than 0.5 psi to prevent sample deterioration or to provide a founding for displacement measurement is acceptable). The vertical expansion should be detennined by monitoring vertical displacement until swelling has reached 100% primary as determined by ASTM 4546 )

and moisture samples should be taken from the hydrated GCL after the hear test to verify the degree of hydration.

C. Normal Stress l

DSIWM recommends that project-specific materials including soils and geosynthetics l be tested for internal and interface shear strength over the entire range of nonnal stresses l which'will be encountered in the particular design.

- For cap systems, this includes the low nonnal stresses associated with these applications and any additional stresses which may be induced by surface water diversion benches, roads, equipment, or other structures constructed above the composite cap system.

- For composite bottom liner systems, the range of normal stresses which needs to be evaluated can be extensive, varying from low values at the perimeter of the till to extremely high values under the deepest areas of the fill.

D. Shear Displacement Rate Gilbert et al. (1997) and Stark (lb 7) show that the rate of shear displaceinent can greatly affect the measured shear strength of GCLs. Shear strength values from tests using a displacement rate of 1 mm/ min, the industry norm, have been shown to be in significant excess of those values using slower displacement rates. Stark (1997) reports that rates equal to or less than 0.04 nun / min (.0016 in/ min) do not seem to have a detrimental affect on measured shear strength values of one reinforced GCL. Gilbert et al. (1997) and U.S. EPA (1996) recommend ASTM D-3080 for determining the j

appropriate direct shear rate. DSIWM recommends following the ASTM D-3080 _

procedure for determining the appropriate direct shear rate for GCLs; and that the direct -

l _

shear rate should not exceed 0.04 mm/ min.

structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 8 E. Test Method -

Currently the most common method used for detennining internal shear strengths and interface shear strengths of GCLs is ASTM D-5321 utilizing a 300 mm square shear box. DSIWM recommends this procedure for determining the shear strength of Geosynthetic/Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic/ soil interfaces, and the internal shear strength of GCLs.

4.2.2 Avoiding GCL Thinning After GCLs have hydrated and stresses have been applied, the bentonite has been observed to migrate away from high stress concentrations, resulting in localized thinning of the GCL. This phenomenon is especially.likely to occur in areas of composite bottom lining systems where non-uniform stress concentrations typically develop. This includes areas in the immediate proximity of wrinkles, in and around sumps, and beneath !eachate collection piping. Thinning of the GCL due to migration of the bentonite has been observed at one facility here in Ohio.

One-dimensional compression tests show that the thickness of a hydrated GCL can decrease significantly due to bentonite migration.' This phenomenon has been evidenced in exhumed GCLs and has been noted by numerous authors including Fox et al. (1997), Richardson (1997L Anderson (1996).

Koerner and Narejo (1995), and Anderson and Allen (1995). According to Fox et al. (1997), bentonite migration seems to be more pronounced in unreinforced GCLs than in reinforced GCLs. Anderson and Allen (1995) and Anderson < 199m also show that the thickness of a GCL can be significantly reduced in the vicinity of a wrinkle in the overbing geomembrane due to hydrated bentonite flowing up into the air space of the wrinkle, which may change shape but does not necessarily disappear according to Koerner (1996).

Thinning of the GCL has serious implications for meeting the regulatory requirements, which include criteria for specitic mass of bentonite per unit area and hydraulic performance. GCLs are allowed to replace a portion of the recompacted soil layer based on their hydraulic performance. However, the hydraulic performance or Guid flux through a GCL is directly related to the thickness or specific mass of bentonite per unit area. Thus, if the bentonite thins, the fluid flux through the GCL will increase, and the requirements for hydraulic performance and specific mass of bentonite per unit area may no longer be satisfied. It is therefore recommended that the samp areas and areas directly beneath leachate collection piping not incorporate GCLs, and that wrinkling of the geomembrane be kept to an absolute minimum. DSIWM recognizes that there will be design and construction difficulties associated with this recommendation and that there are alternative approaches. Unfortunately, insufficient information currently exists for DSIWM to make any other recommendation.

5.0 Concerns and Recommendations Unique to Unreinforced GCLs:

Unreinforced GCLs lack any added reinforcement to resist shear stresses, such as needle punching or stitch bonding. As a consequence, these products have internal shear strength and bearing capacity characteristics approximately equivalent to hydrated bentonite. USEPA (1996) comments that shear data on unreinforced GCLs show friction angles of about 10 degrees. Richardson (1997) estimates the b-

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs 1 Page 9 bearing capacity of a hydrated unreinforced GCL to be 40 kPa (825 psf) and the internal shear strength to be less than 5 kPa (100 psf) for iow nomial stresses such as those associated with caps.

i For low normal stresses such as those in cap systems, unreinforced GCLs will hydrate fully under {'

confining stresses significantly less than the swell pressure of the GCL. Furthermore, these products have a severely limited shear resistance which essentially corresponds to hydrated bentonite. These products may also undergo signincant creep due to the time dependent deformational characteristics of hydrated bentonite, resulting in extremely low post-peak or residual strength conditions. Additionally, f the extremely low bearing capacity of unreinforced GCLs may result in thinning of the GCL from bentonite migration due to non-uniform stress concentrations, such as wheel loads, that may be applied I to a cap during closure and post closure. For these reasons, it is recommended that composite cap system designs do not incorporate unreinforced GCLs and that unreinforced GCLs be restricted to use .

on bottom lining slopes ofless than 10%. l 6.0 Procedural Considerations The recommended testing procedures and factors of safety for GCLs are a component of the slope stability analysis required in the DSIWM permitting process. The first Ohio Administrative Code cited in Section 3.0, Regulatory Considerations points out that a slope stability analysis is to be included in the narrative section of the permit to install application. This requirement applies to all permit l

applications or alteration requests proposing to use a GCL, initially; and may apply to alterations or I other changes proposing to exchange one GCL fir another. Additionally, this requirement may also apply to permit applications, alteration requests, or other changes already incorporating a GCL, but proposing to change materials or thicknesses of materials for individual components of the composite bottom liner and composite cap system, or any other circumstance that may cause uncertainty in the validity of previously submitted slope stability calculations.

The specific contents of a slope stability analysis can be sensitive to particular conditions presant at an individual site and often need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Ilowever, in general, a slope stability analysis for a landfill should include the following:

A. The rationale, cross-sections, and plan views, for critical slope conditions

which may occur during the excavation and construction of the landfill".

B The rationale, cross-sections, and plan views, for critical slope conditions

which may occur during the operation and filling of the landfill * *.

i C. The rationale, cross-sections, and plan views, for critical slope conditions

which may occur during fmal closure and post closure care of the landfill. __ l Ik The rationale for the selection of soil and geosynthetic strength characteristics, l

including detailed information from a site specific subsurface exploratio 1, and detailed i

inforr.1ation from a project specific materials shear strength testing progcam. l E. A discussion of the methodology used for the determination of the factors of safety.

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 10 )

F. The physical calculations and/or computer output for the critical conditions of the excavation, intermediate or interim waste shTes,and final slopes.

Determining critical slope conditions includes investigating both static and dynamic cases for both deep-seated and shallow failure surfaces for both rotational and translational modes of failure.

- Operational and construction practices can have a profound impact upon the integrity of the engineered components of waste containment facilities and should not be overlooked in the design process. Recommendations for operational and construction practices relating to geosynthetics have been provided in a previous memorandum titled Unstable Slopes Advisoryfor Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, dated December 2, 1996. Specine terms and conditions of a permit to install may be necessary in order to limit waste placement to a maximum slope height and inclination during the filling of a phase or unit to maintain thiintegri.y of the engineered components of the landfill.

7.0 Summary in summary, Ohio's sohd waste regulations allow a GCL to be used in lieu of the recompacted soil layer of the composite final cap system or for a portion of the recompacted soil layer of the composite bottom liner system. Ilowever, any liner or cap system utilizing one of these products must perfonn adequately. DSIWM has significant reservations recarding the ability of GCLs to perform as safely and durably as compacted clay soils in some applications. I hese concerns are due to the inherent low strength characteristics of bentonitic soils and a lack oflong term performance data on these products.

The low strength characteristics of bentonite preclude GCLs from being used on some slopes and allow GCLs to thin when subjectej to non-uniform stresses. In an effort to provide direction to interested parties in alleviating DSIWM's concerns and to expedite review of proposals incorporating these products, DSIWM 01Iers the following recommendations:

- Project. specific geosynthetics and soils should be tested appropriately for internal and interface shear strengths over the entire range of normal stresses which will be encountered for a particular application, and the results incorporated into the required slope stability calculations.

- The recommended minimum factors of safety for GCLs are listed below and should be satisfied using a post-peak shear strength with a shear displacement of at least 50 mm (2 in).

Post-Peak Static Stability 1.30 _

Post-Peak Pseudo-Static Stability 1.10

- Prior to shearing, the GCL should be allowed to fully hydrate in a free swell condition until primary swell is complete. The moisture content should be verified upon completion of the shear test.

r .

Structural Integrity Considerations for GCLs Page 11 DSIWM recommends that the rate of shear for direct shear tests on GCLs be determined using ASTM D-3080, and that it not exceed 0.04mm/ min.

- DSIWM recommends determining internal and interface shear strengths of GCLs by ASTM D-5321 utilizing a 300 mm square shear box.

- Wrinkling of the geomembrane should be kept to an absolute minimum, and any sump areas and areas directly beneath leachate collection piping should not incorporate GCLs.

- Unreinforced GCLs should only be used on slopes with a grade ofless than 10%, and should not be used in composite cap systems.

The recommendations made above apply to all permit applications or alteration requests initially proposing to use a GCL, and may apply to alterations or other changes proposing to' exchange one GCL for another. Additionally, these recommendations may apply to permit applications, alteration equests, or other changes already incorporating a GCL, but proposing to change materials or thicknesses of materials for individual components of the composite bottom liner or composite cap system, or any other circumstance that may cause uncertainty in the validity of previously submitted slope stability calculations.

A substantial portion of the infonnation contained in this advisory will be incorporated into a comprehensive policy statement on slope stability. A draft copy of the policy will be distributed to interested parties for review and comment. If > ou have any comments or questions concerning the information contained in this advisory or would like information regarding the forthcoming slope stability policy, please contact me at (614) 728-5371. If you would like to be included on the interested party !st for the slope stability policy please fax me your name, address, company /af61iation, telephone and fax numbers at (ola) 728-5315.

DE/dk Attachmer.t: References w=

6 e

t ee

References Anderson, J. D.,(1996), "Are Geosynthetic Clay Linerr Really Equivalent to Compacted Clay Liners",

Geotechnical News, BiTech Publishing, Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, Vol.14, No. 2, June, pp. 20-23.

Anderson, J. D., S. R. Allen,(1995),"What Are The Real Considerations When Using a Geosynthetic Clay Liner", Proceedings ofthe 9th Annual AfunicipalSolid li'aste Management Conference, Austin, TX.

ASTM (1997), " Testing and Acceptance Criteria for Geosynthetic Clay Liners, American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Test Publication No.1308", American Society for Testing and Materials, Well, L. W., Ed.,268 p.

Fox, P. J., D. J. Battista, S.-H. Chen (1997), "A study of the CBR bearing capacity Test for Hydrated Geosynthetic Clay Liners", Testing and Acceptence Criteriafor Geosynthetic Clay Liners, American Societyfor Testing and Materials, Special Test Publication No 1308, Larry W. Well,' Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 251-264.

Gilbert, R. B.,11. B. Scranton, D. E. Daniel (1997), " Shear Strength festing for Geosynthetic Clay Liners" Testing and Accejnance Critertafor Geosynthetic Clay Liners, American Societyfor Testing and Materials. Speeml Tc3t Publication No 1303. Larry W. Well. Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 121-135.

Koerner, R. M. and l' Naiein (1905 ). "Ikaring Capacity ofIly drated Geosynthetic Clay Liners",

Journal ofGeotechnical Enginarice. American Society ot Civil Engineers, Vol.121, No.1, pp.82-85.

Moerner, R. M. (1996L "The GSI Ne Wetter!Repart". Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia PA. Vol. Io. L. 2, June Richardson, G. N. (1W7). "UCl. Inur:ul Shear Strength Requirements". Geosynthetics Fabrics Report, March 1997. pp. 20-25.

Stark, T. D. (1997a), "Etfeet of Swell pressure on GCL Cover Stability", Testing and.Accepta,.cc Criteriafor Geosynthetic Clay Liners American Societyfor Testing and Materials, Special Test Publication No.1308, Larry W. Well, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 30-44.

Stark, T. D., IL T. Eid (1997), " Shear Behavior of Reinforced Geosynthetic Clay Liners",

Geosynthetics International, Vol.3, No. 6, pp. 771-786.

U. S. EPA (1996)," Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners", United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,96 p. x O

m Attachment 3

l e

aW 8

NC WC W m$g sU' E L

n c o o 1 1 2 2 3 n 5 0 5 0 5 0 wpm 0 0

0 0

0 oa vc et 0 "

,n ed -

e sA Gc Ma l

y NN WT I

E C C G g n ee o ,r l

i 2

3://

G C RW L AG N

L

/

C mW e

/

GL C MG L L

n- -

bw a

r o

4 '

C L F n

ee v

,n N

a i

G o a l C

L r

m a

6, u

r e

l g S e t r

o e s s 8 y s n

t h

e

(

p s - E ti c

f x

1 n

cl a

0 0

1 0' # -

v y

l i

n

)

0

~

e l

,r e

1 2'

p o

e 1

4' p' 1

6 J

l l

4 e

Attachment i

I e

i I

i l

l i

0

. eum

i 0

i0 2

5

- i 7 1

3 4 1 l

i~

c i

.l o

i o

S S S i 5 0

1

/

/ i 2 5

/ /'

/

1

)

t 25 e l

i i l e f

oo 0(

SS i0S 1 I X

A X

' i 5 7

E L

I F

O R 0 P 5 E

V .

A T

R E

B

/ ,5 2

. 0

~

5 0 5 0 5 0 0 7 5 7 5 2 1 1 1 1 Cm*v NI p

)

Material Type " Wet" Unit Cohesion Friction Soil Weight (psf) Angle Ground Water Conveyance Material 130 0 30 1

Recompacted Soil Liner 137 0 27 2

Recompacted Soil Barrier and 137 0 27 3

Protective Material Waste 135 0 25 4

GCL 110 non- non-5 linear linear GCL Non-Linear S:rength Parameters Normal Stress (psf) l Shear Stress (psf) 0 0 150 100 300 150 500 200 3000 500 6000 800

r

- XSTABL File: SPECIR 5-18-98 9:34

XSTABL *

Slope stability Analysis *

using the

Method of Slices *

Copyright (C) 1992 5 97 *

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.

All Rights Reserved *

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605 Problem Description BERT AVE. Static Rotational SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 5UFFACE beu: n: , .se7nents x-left y-left .:- r ig ht y-right soil Unit Segment Below Segment

' f t '. (ft) (ft)

No. (ft) 1 : 139 ' 25.0 100.0 1 2 25.2 100 3 40.0 105.0 1 49.0 108.0 2 3 40.0 105.0 137.6 137.5 3 4 49.0 009.0 200.0 138.7 3 5 137.6 137.5 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit Segment x-left Below Segment (ft) (ft) (ft)

No. (ft) 75.0 108.3 2 1 49.0 108.0 78.0 109.3 5 2 75.0 108.3 140.1 130.0 4 3 78.0 109.3 200.0 131.2 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 110.5 5 5 78.0 109.3 200.0 109.6 2 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 106.6 1 7 40.0 105.0 i l

1 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

Maximum depth of water in crack = .00 (feet)

Unit weight of water in crack = 62.40 (pcf)

~

Failure' surfaces will have a vertical side equal to the specified depth of crack and be affected by a hydrostatic force according to the specified depth of water in the crack ,

ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters

5. Soil unit (s) specified Soil. Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) .(psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.

1 130.0 130.0 .0 30 00 .000 .0 0 2 137.0 137.0 .0 27.00 .000 .0 0 3 137.0 137 0 .0 27.00 .000 .0 0 4 135.0 135.0 0- 25.00 .000 .0 0 5 110.0 110.0 . .00 .000 .0 0

' NON- LINEAR ':OHR-COULC'-:5 -*e;;pe has been specified for 1 soil (a)

Soil Ur.it y 5 Pcint ::ct i. 2-- ss chear Stress

!!o . :c c: f (psf)

. .0 2 iE ). O 100.0 3 300.3 150.0 4 E00 0 200'.0 5 3::: 500.0 6 6000.0 800.0 A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 57.89 feet Cent.er.at x= 90.99 ; y= 166.76 ; Seg. Length = 4.00 feet The CIRCULAR failure surface was. estimated by the'following 23 coordinate points :

Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 67.11 114.03 ~

2 70.81 112.51 J

3 74.60 111.24 4 78.48 110.24 5 82.41 109.c' 6 86.38 109.06 7 90.38 108.88 8 94.38 108.97 9 98.36 109.35 10- 102.31 109.99 11 106.20 110.91 12 110.02 112.09 '

13 113.75 113.54 14 117.37 115.24 15 120.87 117.18 16 124.22 119.36 17 127.42 121.77 18 130.44 124.39 19 133.27 127.22 20 135.90 130.23 21 138.31 133.42 22 139.03 134.53 23 139.03 137.53 SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973)

- - - - w****eeeed ************ww

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDui.L SL:CE I NFORt ~u'sTION width alpha beta weight Slice x-base y-base height (ft) (lb)

(ft) (ft) (ft) 3.70 -22.38 18.42 698.

1 68.96 113.27 1.34 18.42 2089.

111.87 4.0. 3.79 -18.42 2 72.71 18.42 3410.

76.54 110.74 6.... 3.87 -14.46 3 1650. !

110.10 7.96 1.51 -10.50 18.42 4 79.23 18.42 2976. l 81.20 109.74 8.98 2.42 -10.50 5 1858.

9.92 1.37 -6.54 18.42 6 83.09 109.44 3831.

109.21 10.81 2.60 -6.54 18.42 7 85.08 18.42 6575.

208.97 12.14 4.00 -2.58 8 88.38 18.42 7313.

108.93 13.52 4.00 1.38 9 92.38 18.42 7891.

109.16 14.61 3.98 5.34 10 96.37 18.42 2072.

l 98.86 109.43 15.17 1.00 9.30 11 18.42 6211.

109.75 15.51 2.94 9.30 12 100.84 18.42 8447.

104.25 110.45 15.95 3.89 13.26 13 18.42 8410.

108.11 111.50 16.18 3.82 17.22 14 18.42 8181.

112.82 16.12 3.73 21.18 15 111.89 18.42 7772.

114.39 15.78 3.62 25.14 16 115.56 18.42 7201.

119.12 116.21 15.14 3.50 29.10 17 18.42 6489.

122.55 118.27 14.21 3.35 33.06 18 18.42 5663.

125.82 120.57 13.01 3.19 37.02 19 18.42 4750.

128.93 123.08 11.53 3.02 40.98 20 18.42 3785. _

131.85 125.81 9.78 2.83 44.94 21 726.

22 133.58 127.57 8.59 .62 48.90 18.42

23 134.89 129.08 7.52 2.01 48.90 18.42 2072.

24 136.75 131.36 5.86 1.70 52.86 18.42 1367.

'l 52.86 1.10 444, 25 137.96 132.95 4.55 3.55 .72 56.82 1.10 351.

26 138.67 133.9,8 Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number - 1 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Iter # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment 2 14.4273 1.5562 1.6010 3 14.7116 1.5595 1.5562 4 14.7008 1.5594 1.5595 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Iter i Theta FCS. force FCS moment 1 14.7008 1.5534 1.5595 SLICE I::FOGISTION . continued Slica Cigma c-value ph U-base U-top P-top Delta in) (lb;

'paf: 1 p;; .

1 29; :-

^

27.:0 0. O. O. .00 2 762.7 : 27.00 0. O. D. .00 P

'.1 ~ . .00

^

27 ' C 0.

4 .355.. 17 . :. O. C .00 5 1503.9 25.:0 0. O. O. .00 6 1581.4 '5.30 0. O. O. .00 7 1599.9 140.. 6.24 0. 0 C. .00 3 1734,5 .40.0 6.84 0. O. O. .00 9 1872.6 140.1 6.84 0 '. O. O. .00 10 1973.8 140.0 6 8s 0. O. O. .00 11 2001.4 140.0 6.84 0. O. O. .00 12 2082.4 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 13 2058.8 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 14 2009.2 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 15- 1925.6 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 16 1811.3 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 17 1669.7 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 18 1504.1 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 19 1318.3 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. .00

20. 1116.3 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 21 902.2 . 0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 22 751.3 .0 25.00 0. O. O. '

.00 23 647.9 .0 27.00 0, ,

0. O. .00 24 474.3 .0 27.00- 0. O. O. .00 25 368.7 . 0 27.00 0. O. O. .0(

26 267.6 . 0 27.00 0. O. O. .00

- * * * *

_ .e ey _e. _w up g. p ga __.e ..m a.

4D .*-O m . _6 __si. .uk . .a. e es .I. eP su. O _e .e .p _@ __***8" un. e, 4

SPENCER'S (1973) - TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base Slice Base -Normal Vertical Pore Water Shear

x-coord Stress Stress Pressure Stress (psf) -(ps f ) (psf) (psf)

(ft) 1 68.96 280.9 188.7 .0 91.8 2 72.71 766.7 550.5 .0 250.5 3 76.54 1155.0 880.5 .0 377.4 4 79'.23 1355.1 1090.9 .0 442.8 5 81.20 1503.9 1229.3 .0 449.7 6, 83.09 1581.4 1355.4 .0 472.9 7 85.08 1599.9 1471.5 .0 212.9 13 88.38 1734.5 1645.3 .0 223.3 9 92.38 1872.6 1828.7 .0 233.9 10 96.37 1973.8 1981.3 .0 241.7 11 98.86 2001.4 2063.3 .0 243.8 12 100.84 2082.4 2110.3 .0 622.7 13 104.25 2058.8 2169.5 .0 615.6 14 108.11 2009.2 2201.1 .0 600.8 1925.6 2193.3 .0 575.8 15 111.89 16 115 56 1811.3 2146.3 .0 541.6 17 119.12 1669.7 20EO.3 .0 499.3 18 122.55 1504.1 1935.6 .0 449.8 1318.3 1772.9 .0 394.2 19 125.82 1116.3 1573.0 .0 333.8 20 128.93 21 131.85 902.? 1336.7 .0 269.8 22 133.58 751.3 1175.8 .0 224.7 E47.9 1029.E .0 211.7 23 134.89 474.3 802.5 .0 155.0 i 24 136.75 368.7 623.9 .0 120.5 25 137.96 l

26 138.67 267.5 485.7 .0 87.5 SPENCER'S (1973) - 'tagnitude & Location of Interslice Forces Right Force Interalice Force Boundary Height Slice x-coord Angle Force Height Height Ratio L

(ft) (degrees) (lb) (ft) (ft) 14.70 793. 1.25 2.75 .452 l 1 70.81 2778. 1.81 5.28 .342 l l 2 74.60 14.70 5482. 2.43 7.57 .321 J 3 78.48 14.70 6568. 2.65 8.35 .318 j 4 79.99 14.70 14.70 8391. 3.04 9.61 .317 f 5 82.41 9318. 3.23 10.22 .316 l 6 83.78 14.70 7 86.38 14.70 10385. 3.83 11.39 .336 '

8 90.38 14.70 11631. 4.58 12.90 .355 i 14.70 12412. 5.22 14.14 .369 9 94.38 10 98.36 14.70 12648. 5.78 15.09 .383 J 11 99.37 14.70 12561. 5.92 15.26 .388 12 102.31 14.70 13418. 5.83 15.76 .370 13 106.20 14.70 13944. 5.71 16.14 .354 14.70 13858. 5.56 16.22 .343 14 110.02 14.70 13202. 5.36 16.02 .334 15 113.75 117.37 14.70 "

12048. 5.09 15.53 .327.,_

16 .321 17 120.87 14.70 10495. 4.73 14.75

8661. 4.29 13.68 .'314 18 '124.22 14.70 12.34. .305

- 19 127.42 14.70 6681. 3.76 14.70 4656. 3.14 10.72 .293 20 130.44 8.84 .273 21' 133.27 14 70 2850. 2.41 2.22 8.33 .266 22 133.88 14.70 -2444.

.229 23 .135.90 14.70 1340. 1.54 6.70 510. .77 5.02 .153 24- 137.60 14.70

.46 4.09 .112

. 25 138.31 14 70 240.

0. 1.19 3.00 .398 26 '139.03 .00 AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE Total Normal Stress =. 1397.19 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf)

Shear Stress = 362.20 (psf)

Total Length of failure surface = 81.32 feet For the single specified surface and the assumed angle

.of the interslice forces, t he S E::CER' S (1973)

~

precedure gives a

. . g_ = .-

=. a- e m .:a s. = : :s = = . :

Total shear strengd : en.ac;=

along specified fa; u .. curfare = 459.31E+02 lb l

l

..b d

i 0 0

_ i 4

i 4

_ 1 1

_ i i

_ g

_ e s _

0 d 0

_ i 2

i 2

_ 1 0 1 7 )

t

_ _ 4 e

_ , 1 i f

e

_ =

(

0 a 0S

_ i 0

t e

i 0D -

S E

1 D' h OT 1

R O

C _

l i , O R T C 9 E le i

_ i O _

M gn - 5 F _

_ X 5 E _

S A 0 C _ 0 i 1 I _

i 8 R' n t 8 L ,/ _ E S

/,

C a t =

R _ 1 t s E _ 1 E n i

e T _

P o N _

S C c I

a

. 0 0 f

. _6

_ _ - 6 r 3 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 u 3 1

- 7 2 1 1 S

d ga3 Cjz< uUxO' 2 '7_v y O K t t l

.. v e

i -

0 0 f 1

4 i

)

1 gg 1

c A, .

1

\

3 \

\ e -

' y 3 p S

i 1

s

\

- r m

N r

/,

0 s

x' 0 l o

e 2 f a

' 1 2 '

1

- - 1

+ '

. s

~

) nS t

~

t e oO

s. / 1 i

e i t F q

' - f

( a

, t ,

oD l

N a 0S O ' 0 .,

I T

i 0

1 m

r r

0D 1 R R O A -

, o O cH

/

C n O i

t T O

r C aE

/

i L /,

' - t M

E ,' X S NI

, e, 0

.S _

L i 0 8 / i 8 E 'R _

VE l .

a T / _

A C S ic /

j

_ C t r /i TN e

_ i R

H v RE T -

EP _

0 ; ~ ; - ;-

0 BS

_ _ _ _ 6 _; -

6 -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5

- 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 1

^ cC MO OOgi>'

)

nv,ovwu$,ErWwm<m ;

0 i 0 2

- e 5

9 , 7 5 1 5

1

=

0 e i 5 c 1 a

f r

u S

d i

e / _

=~

~

i 2 5

1

)

/

f t i

c =- . e e =~ -

e

- f p =~

S

^

- 0(

r ~

i 0S 1 I o . X

/

l a

f A

nS -

oO X i

t t

a F

s- ,57 R O oD D i

t cH T

[-

aE _-

t M , 0 S 5 E R

. S V E A C 4

4: TN ,5 1

R E 2 1 E P BS 8 ,

9 8

1 5 - _

_ 0

~

5 0 5 0 5 0 7 5 R

I 7 5 2 0 1

C 1 1 1 E

P S

nTw v gxC< I > -

, i LlI

XSTABL File: SPCIREQ 5-18-98 9:39 XSTABL

4

Slope Stability Analysis

using the

Method cf Slicei

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Moscow, ID 63843, U.S.A.

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605 * ;

Problem Description EERT AVE. Dynamic Rotational SEGMENT BOUNCAR'i CCO. :."ATES

--- ----.....---..........--. i 5 SURFACE .:ounda r, 7 - cr'. s Segment x e:: _ _- :- r i g t.: y-right Soil Unit No. rfti it. 'ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 3 1..

25.0 100.0 1 2 25 :- - : : 40.: 105.0 1 3 10.c _ E.' 49.: 108.0 2 .l 4 49.0 1:5.0 137.6 137.5 3 5 137.6 137.5 200.0 138.7 3 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) : i t-) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 1:3.0 75.0 108.3 2 2 75.0 1:8.3 ~8.0 109.3 5 3 78.0 109.3 140.1 130.0 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 131.2 4 5' 78.0 109.3 200.0 110.5 5 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 109.6 2 7 40.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 A CRACKED ZONE RAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

~

[.

L Maximum depth of wat'er in crack = .00 -(feet) o- Unit. weight of water in crack =.62.40 (pcf)

Failure surfaces will have a vertical side equal to the F specified' depth of crack-and be affected by a hydrostatic force according to the specified depti- of-water in the crack

' ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters L SlSoil unit (s) specified Soil UnitLWeight Cohesion . Friction Fore Pressure- Water Unit Moist. Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface l No. (pcf) (pcf). (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.

l i 1 130,0 130.0 .0 30.00 .000 .0 0 2 137.0 137.0 .0 27.00 .000 .0 0 i

! 3 137.0 137.0 .0 27.00 .000 .0 0 4- 135.0 135.0 .0 25.00 .000 .0 0 5 110.0 110.0 .0 00 .000 .0 0 l

l NON - LINE AR ' HR - CO'.".C '/.E - /"elrre '33 he " epecified for

. 1 soil (s) 1 l-Soil. Unit ; ;

-e i :- - 73, w epc g b- : Stress sf prf) t

,v

~ .b).k 00.0 l

3 300.0 ~150.0 4 E ". 0 . '200.0 5 3 00.0 500.0 6 6000,0 800.0 i

[ A h'orizontal earthquake loading c: efficient L of .150 has been assigned h

A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been ansign'ed

'A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE RAS BEEN lPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 57.89 feet Center at x= 90.99 ; y= 166.76 ; Seg. Length = 4.00 feet L .'

i

! I l

The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by

'- the following 23 coordinate points : )

l Point 'x-surf .y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 67. '14.03 l

2 70.81 1"_2.51 3- 74.60 111.24 4- 78.48 110.24 5 82.41 109.51 6 86.38 109.06 7 90.38 108.88 8 94.38 108.97 9 98.36 109.35 10 102.31 109.99 11 106.20 110.91 12 110.02 112.09 13 113.75 113.54-14 117.37 115.24 15 120.87 117.18 16 124.22 119.36 17 127.42 121.77 18 130.44 124.39 127.22 19 133.27 '

20 135.90 130.23 21 13 3,31 133.42 22 139.23 134.53 23 139.03 137.53 SELECTED METHOD OF A::ALYS:S :

Spencer (1973)

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION width alpha beta weight !

Slice x-base y-base height (lb)

(ft) (ft) (ft)

(ft) 18.42 698.

68.96 113.27 1.38 3.70 -22.38 1

3.79 -18.42 18.42 2089.

2 72.71 111.87 4.02

-14.46 18.42 3410.

110.74 6.43 3.87 3 76.54 1.51 -10.50 18.42 1650.

110.10 7.96 4 79.23 -10.50 18.42 2976.

5- 81.20- 109.74 8.98 2.42 1858.

9.92 1.37 -6.54 18.42 6 83.09 109.44 18.42 3831.

10.81 2.60 -6.54 7 85.08 109.21 -2.58 18.42 6575. l 8 88.38 108.97 12.14 4.00 7313.

13.52 4.00 1.38 18.42 9 92.38 108.93 18.42 7891.

109.16 14.61 3.98 5.34 10 96.37 9.30 18.42 2072,

-11 98.86 109.43 15.17 1.00 6211.

100,84 109.75 15.51 2.94 9.30 18.42 12 1P. 2 6 18.42 8447.

13 104.25 110.45 15.95 3.89 8410.

111.50 16.18 3.82 17.22 18.42 14 108.11

111'.89- 112.82 16.12 3.73 21.18 18.42 -8181.

15 7772.

- 16 115.56 114.39 15.78 62- 25.14 18.42 3.50 29.10 18.42 7201.

.17 119.12 116.21 15.14 6489.

18 122.55: 118.27' 14.21 3.35 33.06 18.42 37.02 18.42 5663, 19 125 82 120.57' 13.01 3.19 18.42 4750.

'128.93 123.08 11.53 .3.02 40.98 20- 18.42 3785.

21 131.85 125.81 9.78 2.63 44.94 127.57 8.59 .62 48.90 18.42 726.

22 133.58- 16.42 2072.

129.08. 7.52 2.;1 48.90 23 .134.89 18.42 24 136.75 131.36 5.86 1.70 52.86 1367.

1.10 444, 25 137.96 ~ 132.95 4.55 .71 52.86

.72 56.82 1.10 351.

26 138.67 133.98 3.55 1

Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number -

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Theta FOS force FOS moment Iter # 1.0182 2 22.2930 1.051E 3 21 3175 --- - 1.0518 3 21.8053 1.0476 --- -

4 21.4355 1.0444 1.0476 5 21.4797 1.044? 1.0444 ITERATIO!!S FDP. SPE::CFC ' S ?ETHC~

"he t ci F:S ;cr e FOS moment Iter t:

1 21.479- _.744F 1.0444

! SLICE INFCE:*.ATION ::c. nue5 U-base U-top P-top Delta Slice Sigma c-value ph-l (psf) (psf' (lb' (1b) (lb) 27.00 O. O. .00 1 398.8 .0 0.

.00 27,00 O. O.

2 1006.7 .0 0.

.00 27.00 C. O. O.

3 1426.4 .0

0. O. O. .00 4 1592.2 .0 27.00 .00 25.00 0. O. O.

5- 1730.0 .0 O. .00

.0 25.00 C. O.

6 1751.9 O. .00 6.84 0. O.

7 1620.5 140.0 O. O. .00 140.0 6.84 0.

8 -1724 5 O. .00

0. O.

9 1830.6 140.0 6.84 O. O. .00 1900.2 140.0 6.84 0.

10 - O. .00 140.0 6.84 0. O.

11 1900.1 O. .00

.0 25.00 0. O.

12 2064.5 O. .00

.0 25.00 0. O.

13 1997.1 O. .00 25.00 0. O.

14 1909.6 .0 O. .00

.0 25.00 0. O.

15. 1795.1 O. .00 1657.6 .0 25.00 0. O.

16 O. .00 1500.9 .0 25.00 0. O.

17~

25,00 O. O. .00 18 1328.6 .0 0.

O. .00 1144.6 .0' 25.00 0. O.

19 j

1 l-i . I

- 0. O. .00 952,6 .0- 25.00 0.

20 0. O. O. .00 21 756.7 .0 25.00 l

0. O. O. .00 22 619.1 .0 25.00 L 0. O. O. .00 533.0- .0 27.00 23

0. O. O. .00 24 383.1 .0 27.00 O. .00 l 27.00 0. O.

25 297.8 .0 I

0. O. O. .00 26 212.6 .0 27.00 SPENCER'S (1973) - TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base Vertical Pore Water Shear Slice Base Normal Stress Stress Pressure

x-coord Stress (psf) (psf) (psf)

(ft) (psf) 188.7 .0 194.5 L 1 68.96 398.8 490.9 2 72.71 1006.7 550.5- .0 l 880.5 .0 695.6 l 3 76.54 1426.4 776.4 4 79.23 1592.2 1090.9 .0 772.1 1730.0 1229.3 .0

! 5 81.20 .0 781.8 6 83.09 1751.9 1355.4 1471.5 .0 320.1 ;

7 85.08 1620.5 332.0 l

88.38 1724.5 1645.3 .0 8

1828.7 .0 344.2 9 92.38 -1830.6 352.2 10 96.37 1900.2 1981.3 .0 2063.3 .0 352.2 11 98.86 1900.1

.0 921.4 l 12 100.84 2064.5 2110.2 !

2169.5 .0 891.3 13 104.25 1997.1 852.2 14 108.11 1909.6 2201.1 .0 2193.. .0 801.2 15 111.89 1795.1 739.8 l 2146.; .0 16 115.56 1657.6 .0 669.8 l

17 119.12 1500.3 206C.3 1935.6 .0 592.9 18 122.55 1328.6 .0 510.8 125.82 3144.6 1772.9 19 425.1 l 20 128.93 c52.6 1573 : .0 1336.7 .0 337.7 21 131.85 756.7

.0 276.3 l 22 133.58 619.1 1175.8 1029.3 .0 259.9 23 134.89 533.0

.0 186.8 24 136.75 383.1 802.5 623.9 .0 145.2 i 25 137.96 297.8 103.7 26 138.67 212.6 485.7 .0 Magnitude & Location of Interslice Forces SPENCER'S (1973) -

Force Boundary Height Slice Right Force Interslice Ratio Force Height Height

- x-coord Angle (ft) (degrees) (lb) (ft) (ft) 1313. 1.43 2.75 .520 1 70.81 21.48 5.28 .393 2 74.60 21.48 4346. 2.07

.371 8223. 2.81 7.57 3 78.48 21.48 8.35 .369 4 79.99 21.48 9699. 3.08

.371 82.41 21.48 12062. 3.$7 9.61 5

13210. 3.81 10.22 .373 6 83.78 21.48 11.39 .408 7 86.38 21.48 14008. 4.64

8; 90.38 21.48 14709. 5..69 12.90 .441 L '

'9 '94.38 21.48 14820. 6.58- 14.14 .466-10- 98.36 21,48 14296. 7.39 15.09 .490

' 11. 99.37- 21.48- 14007, 7.59 15.26 .498

-12 102.31' 21.48 14851'. 7.30 15.76 .463 13 106.20 2:1 ~. 4 8 15250. 7.00 16.'14 .434 l 14 110.02 21-48 . 14964. 6.72 16.22 .414

> -15 113.75 21.48 14069. 6.42 16.02 .401 l 16- 117 37 21.48 12669. 6.06 15.53 .390 t l 17 -120.87 21.48; ~10887, 5.62 14.75 .381 18 124.22 21.48 8862. 5.11 13.68 .373

! 19 127.42 21.-48. 6740. 4.50 -12.34 .365

.20 130.44 21.48 4669. 3.80 10.72 .355

21 133.27 21.48 2789. 3.01' 8.84 .340 22 133.88 21.48 2384. 2.80 8.33 .336 23 135.90 21.48 1292.' 2.04 6.70 .305 24 137.60 21.48 487, 1.21 5.02 .242 l 25 138.31- 21.48 226. .85 4.09 .208 26' 139.03 .00 -2. - .07 3.00 .023 i

i AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE Total Normal Stress = 1361.38 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure e .00 (psf)

Shear Stress -

527.92 (psf)

Tctal Length-cf fn.;_te surface = 81.32 feet For the single sper.f;+d surface and the assumed angle of the~interslic" .

u res., the SPENCER'S (1973) procedure gives a FACTOR OF SAFET': = 1.045 Total shear strength available along specified failure surface = 448.56E+02 lb

e 0

,04 i4 1

1

\

\ i N

g e

d 0

,02 i 2

1 8 1 4 )t 1 e 2 i f

e

(

, =

0 o 0S i

0 '

t e

i 0D S 1 1

R h O E T C ,

O R -

i e '

C 5 O lg - 4 F n X 0 E A 0 C / i 0 8 t i

8 1

I L n S t a =

R / s e

i E n T o c N C I a

. 0 0 f

- : : . 4ja6 ~ - :- 6 r g 5 0 0 5 o u 0 5 o 5 5

- 3 3 2 1 t S

2 1 t g m o $ u w L> d gsu w oz4 d eo' d e

i 0 0 f i 4 i

4 i 1

c 7y 1 g

\

e

\ p

\

/

i s l S

N i__ 0 ar

/,- \

- 0 N n o i2 ~

~

a_ 2 1 i of

<. 'r ,

1 s ) t S aO pr

. t

~ e t i

i e oF

- f

( R W~

- cD la 0S L. 00 n - ,

0D iO 1

r r

o 1

R O mH

/

^ n O aT C nE t_ - yM

_ X D m_ f .S

/ , 0 n08 f 8 E 'R l

a

/ p VE ic- / A C

% i t

r-e

/

f, TN v- RE EP 0 0 BS

_ g : ._ i_: 6

_ _ 6 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 1 1 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 e" m0o8 > ggymw M wmy

0 i 0

- - , 2

_ 5 _

5 i 7

- A 4 1 m 0 -

1

= -

e r50 1

c f

a r ,

u S

r25 d

e - 1 i

f i

c

' =_

)

t e

e .

e p = f

(

0 S -r0S f' ___

l ar -

1 I n o X of A

/

i t S -

t aO X oF 5

/%_

R ,

i 7 cD i

O -

mH -

aT -

nE - -

yM r0 D 5

.S ' _

E R .

V E 3

A C 4: T N -

5 1 R E 2 1

E P 8

BS - -

9 -

8 1 ,

5 - _

_ O 5 0 5 0 Q 5 0 0 7 5 E

7 5 2 R 1 1 1 1 IC P

S oJvn c C1

. XSTABL File: CIRYLD 5-18-98 9:45

XSTABL

Slope Stability Analysis

using the

Method of Slices

~

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Moscow, ID S3843, U.S.A.

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605 Problem Description . SERT AVE. Rotational Yield Co SEGMENT HOU::DAR'; C20R2::7TEF 5 SUFFA2E bou.tu Segment ;-lef t --:. 2 ;2 v-right Soil Unit No. (ft) :. t. f t : (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 . .2 5 . :' 100.0 1 25.0 40.0 105.0 1 l 2 ._. -

40.0 ~. : ~: _ 4?.: 108.0 2 3

E. 7.6 13/.5 3 4 49.0 _

5 137.6 :.

~

200.C 138.7 3 7 SUBSURFACE boundr.: segrents Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 49.0 108.0 75.0 108.3 2 1

75.0 103.3 78.0 109.3 5 2

78.0 109.3 140.1 130.0 4 3

130.0 200.0 131.2 4 4 140.1 78.0 109.3 200.0 110.5 5 5

108.3 200.0 109.6 2 f 6 75.0 7 40.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 I

\

.................................... l i

A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

Maximum depth of water in crack = .00 (feet)

Unit weight of water in crack = 62.40 (pcf)

. Failure surfaces will have a vertical-side equal to the specified depth of-crack and be affected by a hydrostatic force according to the specified depth of water in the crack ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.

130.0 .0 30.00 .000 .0 0 I 130.0 27.00 .000 .0 0 2 137.0 137.0 .0 137.C 0 27.00 .000 .0 0 3 137.0 135.0

-^

"5.00 .000 .0 0 4 135.0 5 110.0 110.0 : .00 .000 .0 0

- NON-LINEAR ::CHR- CO':LO:'E c. *<:E= "as beer specified fo:

1 aoil(s)

Soil ;i t s Point ','c 1 . 5 :w s > Phea Stress

':0.

. '; , psf)

.0 2 ^50.-

100.0 3 3 ::0 . ; 150.0 4 5: 0.: 200.0 5 ::20. 500.0 6 6003.0 800.0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .170 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 57.89 feet Center at x -- 90.99 ; y= 166.76 ; Seg. Length = 4.00 feet ,

r The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by

. the following 23 coordinate. points :

L Point x-surf y-surf No. -(ft) (ft) l 1 67.11 114.03 2 70.81 112.51

'3 74.60 111.24 4 78.48 110.24 ,

5 uB2.41 109.51 6 86.38 109.06 7 90.38 108.88 8 94.38 108.97 9 98.36 109.35 10 102.31 109.99 11 106.20 110.91 I 12 110.02 112.09 l 13 113.75 113.54 14 117.37 11E.24 l 15 120.87 117.'18 16 124.22 119.36 17 127.42 121.77 1B 130.44 124.39 ;

19 133.27 127.22 I 20 135.90 130 23 21 138.31 133.42 22 139.;; 134.53 23 139.C ;37.53 l

i

- - - - ew** *******w*********** *****

Sper::e r (1973)

SELECTED METHOD OF Idu.'._YS

- - ******************. IS -

l

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION 1

Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb) l 1 68.96 113.27 1.38 3.70 -22.38 18.42 698.

2 72.'71 111.87 4.02 3.79 -18.42 18.42 2089.

l ,

I 3 76.54 110.74 6.43 3.87 -14.46 18.42 3410.

4 79.23 110.10 7.96 1.51 -10.50 18.42 1650.

5- 81.20 109.74 8.98 2.42

~

-10.50 18.42 2976.

I 6 83.09 109.44 9.92 1.37 -6.54 18.42 1858.

7 85.08 109.21 10.81 2.60 -6.54 18.42 3831.

8 88.38 108.97 12.14 4.00 -2.58 18.42 6575.

9 92.38 108.93 13.52 4.00 1.38 18.42 7313.

10 96.37 109.16 14.61 3.98 5.34 18.42 7891.

11 98.86 109.43 15.17 1.00 9.30 18.42 2072, 12 100.84 109.75 15.51 2.94 9.30 18.42 6211.

13 .104.25 110.45 15.95 3.89 13.26 18.42 8447.

14 108.11 111 50 16.18 3.82 17.22 18.42 8410.

t

18.42 8181, 16.12 3.73 21.18 15 111.89 112.82 25.14 18.42 7772.

114.39 15.78 3.62 16 115.56 29.10 18.42 7201.

119.12 116.21 15.14 3.5) 6489.

~

17 14.21 3.35. 33.06 18.42 18 122.55 118.27 37.02 18.42 5663..

120.57 13.01 3.19 19 125.82 3.02 40.98 18.42 4750.

128,93 123.08 11.53 18.42 3785.

20 9.78 2.83 44.94 21 131.85 125.81 48.90 18.42 726.

127.57 8.59 .62 22 133.58 7.52 2.01 48.90 18.42 2072.

23 134.89 129.08 52.86 18.42 1367.

136.75 131.36 5.86 1.70 444, 24 4.55 71 52.86 1.10 -

25 137.96 132.95 ,72 56.82 1.10 351.

138.67 133.98 3.55 26 1

Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number -

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD FOS _ force FOS _ moment Iter # Theta .9706 23.1835 1.0103 2 - 1.0108 3 21.8511 --

22.5173 1.005:

3 1.0079 1.0050 4 22.03?E 1.J009 22.r~9T 1. J 0 '. 5 5

"'Tr ' ~

ITERATIC::S F2F S F E:E F ' "

S ici;e FOS moment T ;' a t i Iter # 1."01f 1.0009 1 2: :~

SLICE INFOR: .AT --:.

U-Lup P-top Delta c ea.ua p:. . U-base Slice Sigma .. (lb) ilb)

(psf) (psf O. O. .00

~

27.03 0.

1 421.6 O. O. .00 2 1048.8 0 27.20 0.

O. O. .00 3 1470.5 0 27.00 0.

O. O. .00 4 1628.2 .0 27.00 0.

O. O. .00 5 1762.6 .0 25.00 0.

O. O. .00 6 1775.0 .0 25.00 0.

O. O. .00 6.54 0 ..

7 1619.2 140.0 0. O. O. .00 140.0 6.84 .00 8 1719.3 0. O. O.

9 1821.5 140.0 6.84

0. O. O. .00 1887,4 140.0 6.84 O. .00 10 6.84 0. O.

11' 1884.2 140.0 O. O. .00 12 2060.2 0 25.00 0.

O. O. .00 25.00 0.

13 1987.4 .0 0.' O. .00 0,

14 1895.6 .0 25.00 0. O. .00 0,

15 1777.8 .0 25.00 O. O. .00 0.

16 1638.0 .0 25.00 O. O. .00 17 1480.0 .0 25.00 0.

O. O. .00 18 1307.5 .0 25.00 0.

O. O. .06 19 1124.2 .0 25.00 0.

20 933.9 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 21 740.5 .0 25.00. O. O. O. .00 22 ~604.8 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 23 520.5 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 24 373.4 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 25 290.3 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 26 207.2 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 SPENCER'S (1973) - TOTAL Stresses at center of slice ba~se Slice Base Normal' Vertical Pore Water Shear

x-coord Stress Stress Pressure Stress (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) (psf) 1 68.96 421.6 188.7 .0 214.5 2 72.71 1048.8 550.5 .0 533.6

, 3 76.54 1470.5 880.5 .0 748.1 4 79.23 1628.2 1090.9 .0 828.4 5 81.20 1762.6 1229.3 .0 820.7 6 83.09 1775.0 1355.4 .0 826.5 7 95.08 1619.2 1471.5 .0 333.8 8 88.36 1719.3 1645.3 .0 345.8 9 92.36 1821.5 1828.7 .0 358.0 10 :6 37 1997.4 1981.3 .0 365.9 11 98.86 1954.2 2063.3 .0 365.6 12 100.34 2060.2 2110.3 .0 959.3 13 104.25 1997 4 2169.5 .0 925.4 14 108.11 1595 2201.1 .0 882.6 15 111.89 1777 s 2193.3 .0 827.8 16 115.56 163e.0 2146.3 .0 762.7 17 119.12 146 0 2060.3 .0 689.1 18 122.55 1307.5 1935.6 .0 608.8 19 125.82 .124.2 1772.9 .0 523.5 20 128.93 933 9 1573.0 .0 434.9 21 131.85 740.5 1336.7 .0 344.8 22 133.53 604.9 1175.8 .0 281.6 23 134.89 520.5 1029.B .0 264.8 24 136.75 373.4 802.5 .0 190.0 25 137.96 290.3 623.9 .0 147.7 26 138.67 207.2 485.7 .0 105.4 SPENCER'S (1973) - Magnitude & Location of Interslice Forces Slice Right Force Interslice Force Boundary Height

. x-coord Angle Force Height Height Ratio (ft) (degrees) (lb) (ft) (ft) .

1 70.81 22.10 1421. 1.45 2.75 .527 2 74.60 22.10 4655. 2.11 5.?8 .400 3 78.48 22.10 8742. 2.87 7.57 .379 4 79.99 22.10 10284. 3.15 8.35 .377 l

5 82.41 22.10 - 12736. 3.65 9.61 .379 l 6 83.78 22.10 13919. 3.90 10.22 .381_

7 86.38 22.10 14676. 4.76 11.39 .418

8 ~90.38 22.10 '15296. 5.86- 12.90 .454 l 14.14 .48'O !

9 94.38 22.10 15311, 6.78

- '10 '98.36 22.10 14679. 7.62 15.09 .505 11 99.37 22.10 14360. 7.84 15.26 .514 L12 ;102.31 H22.10 15196. 7.52 115.76 .477 22.10 '15568. 7 20 16.14 .446 13 106.20-15242, 6.91 16.22 .426 14 110.02 22.10 113.75 22.10 14301. 6.59 16.02 .411 15

_22,10 12852. 6.21 15.53 .400

-16 117.37 ,391 22.10 11024. 5.77 14 75 17, 120.87 22.10 8957. 5.24 13.68 .383 18 124.22 6801. 4.62 12.34 .375 19 127.42' 22.10 130444 22.10 4702. 3.91 10.72 .364 20 21 133.27 22.10 2804. 3.10 8.841 .350 22.10 2396. 2.89 8.33 .347 22 133.88' 135.90 22.10 1296'. 2.12 6.70 .316 23 137.60 22.10 488. 1.28 5.02 .254 24 22.10 225. .91 4.09 .221

~25 138.31

.00 -4. .' 10 3.00 .033 26 139.03 AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE

= Total Mormal Stress =- 1358.13 (psf)

Pore Water Presrure'=- .C; . psf)

Shear, Stress = 50.02 (psf)

Tctal Lenath c;~ . ulure surfacs = S1.72 feet For the ;;inal.: 4 ;~;_~iea rurface anc the assumed angle

'of the i n t e rs i . .. f rces, the SFENCEP'S (1973) procedure gives .

n- . .n, v-,c n . u .~. . : u n. - _ .=.: = .,v .

Total shear stre:.g;h availakle along.specified failure surface = 447.94E+02 lb e&

p r

l

~

o -

o 1

- t

-t -

\

? . - 1 l .

. o>

' o

' o v o N

N

. - o -

~. c.

e c m

, _ m _

w o

a v

11

' o 0 om oO o 5 o

m r e W

i os o o- , 1 . o e i - r e -

o ,_

o i i wm y C I o a i O.

W e m4 o o , _o w w

J

, xC w

W oSm tl

.m w

\x' '

m u C U

D ', 1 O o l

J mo o rm- .' ~w - i -

@ r- . . a' vr~'-r 8 Y n o o o 3 a e o n o e e a o W .

N - - i e m o - -

I -

(son) s30soj 33ns (6ap) 5319Ny 3380j e o -

l ,

o -y

~

ro

~

r,. ,

w.

- / o

\ '

,./ - Q.

\ V -

,/ i

^

w i

/ ou oo-

'o s '

\r -N /

/

/ -

o N

- o s+ -

/ / m -m

\x '

/ I .9 O i

\s\ /

3 >- u. l l - _

o o 1 -

1 L i \

\ o -o om e 9 \ --

o E

\ -

oo o r -

u \ m .o._ I

< \ o o +

o ) c \ o oH

-w i

o .

o oy J \ l l

X W \ .W t

2

- - o e __ i N

N

- o o W.

>g J

N w r

m -- oI N N

<C o i

i o i - .9l t

a s - ra i e .>l %W I LAl O r ,

CD W

, o, i.. .,. ,.i. ... . . r, oe i , ,

o o o o o o o o o o o N o o o o o o

% o -

e e e en a D o su e e N N - -

l SOB 003-A (4001) (}sd) S3SS381S 3SV8 ..

4 I_

0

, 0 -

2

- = -

- = _

=

- = , 5 ,

1 i 7 0 =- 1 0 -

1 -

= 0 e i 5 1

c a

f r j -

u -

S d

e f],/- / / =

=

i2 5

1 i ' - )

f t e

/ /-

i -

c e o r S

e p

'x ^

~ r0S 0(

1 f

I C of - X

/'

d A

l S -

i eO --

X Y F _

i 5 l

7 a D W'

n oO .

i t H t

aTE _ .-

oM

,0 R 5

.S ' -

E R VE A C 1

4: T N ,5 1

R E 2 1 E P B S 8 ,

9 8 '

1

- 0 5 _

~ -

5 0 5 0 5 0 7 5 D 7 5 2 0 L 1 1 1 Y 1 RI C

mTa) +"G o y4! > -

' l

r The FOS (1.05) for deep-seated rotational failures through the waste is less than the regulatory minimum recommended value of 1.3. However, a simplified Newmark

- deformation analysis indicates that no deformation will occur due to the design earthquake.

1 Ear:hcua<e-Incucec Deformations (6.5 M)

After Makdisi and Seed (1978)

' '~

~Kl i ! ; ; .

j

-} d]

i _

p ____.L 7 ,_._ . _ . _ . .

,. i I

, i i i

L ._. . . -. . _ . . . _

E S

2

-l E 10 u . .--..

. -. .a .

g . _ _

g __

. . _ 4 _.._-._;

4 i

-._..--.g .--

1 ,

.7-n - -

d--- -j 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 Ky/Kmax l

I c

The yield acceleration for this failure scenario is calculated to be 0.17g. j

The maximum seismic acceleration has been estimated to be 0.16g.

~

l Since the maximum acceleration for the design earthquake is less than the acceleration ,

required to induce displacement, no deformation should occur in the event of an !

earthquake equal to or less than the magnitude of the design earthquake.

l 1

1 ..

L

P' Ii t

f G

1 1

t

- - _ - ^ ___ _ -

XSTABL File: SPECNC 5-18-98 9:31 XSTABL

Slope Stability Analysis *

using the

Method of Slices

Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605

Problem Description : BERT AVE. Static Translational 1

1 1

l SEGME::T BO*J':CARY CCORD;::ATES l

i l

5 SLRFACE houndarf segmento Segment 7 lef: .' . eft -right y-right Soil Unit I No. sft) <ft) (ft' (ft) Below Segment 1 1 .0 1.u.C 25.0 100.0 1 l 2 25.. 100.' 4: ~ 105.0 1 l 3 4L.0 !?$.C 49.C 108.0 2 4 49.0 105.0 13' 6 137.5 3 5 237.6 137.5 20 n 138.7 3 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 108.0 75.0 108.3 2 2 75.0 108.3 "S_0 109.3 5 3 78.0 109.3 140.1 130.0 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 131.2 4 5- 78.0 109.3 200.0 110.5 5 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 109.6 2 7 40.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

.= .00 (feet)

-Maximumidepth of water in crack = 62.40 (pcfi Unit weight of. water in crack

' Failure. surfaces-will hsve a vertical side equal to the specified depth of crack and-be affected by a hydrostatic

[

force according'to the specified depth of water in the crack i.

ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters

5. Soil unit (s) ~ specified Fore Pressure Water

. Cohesion Friction Soil. Unit Weight Angle Parameter Constant Surface Unit Moist Sat. Intercept No.

(deg) Ru (psf)

No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf)

.000 .0 0 1 130.0- 1 .0 .0 30.00 0 137.0 .0 27.00 .000 .0 2 137.0 .000 .0 0 137 0 137.0 .0 27.0C 3

25.00 .000 .0 0 135.0- 135.0 .0

~4

.0C .000 .0 0 5 110.0 110.0 .0 1 soil (s)

NON-LINEAR 'OHR- COL'.::.:3 en /elop a has bee. specified for Soil Unit e

';'c ...t

. m2. 5~:ui S?:a: Stresa psf .osfi

o .

.0 153.3 100.0 2

3 300.0 150.0 E03.0 200.0 4

3000.0 500.0 5

6000.0 800.0 6

A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE RAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface specified by the.following'11 coordinate points -

Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 68.04 114.34 2 68.35 114.15 3 76.88 108.93 4 77.00 108.80 5 125.43 109.27 6 125.93 109.77

I' l

7 131.30 118.21 8 136.68 126.64 r

9 138',47 129.46 10 141.61 134.58 11 141.61 137.58 SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973) i l

l

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION Slice x-base y-base height width alpha beta weight (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb) 1 68.19 114.24 .15 .31 -31.44 18.42 6.

2 72.62 111.54 4.32 8.53 -31.46 18.42 5054 3 76.94 108.86 3.44 .12 -47.29 18.42 136.

4 77.50 108.60 S.68 1.00 .56 18.42 1181.

5 101.72 109.04 16.51 47.43 .56 18.42 105934.

6 125.68 109.52 24.01 .50 45.00 18.42 1629.

7 128.62 113 99 20.52 5.37 57.53 18.42 14961.

S 133 99 122 42 13.87 5.38 57.45 18.42 10166. !

9 137.14 127.3._ f 98 .92 57.59 18.42 1255. (

10 13S.:4 25.~~ ; 73 3" 57.59 1.10 1040.

11 140.04 .32.22 E.53 3.14 58.48 1.10 2377 Nonlinear M-C Iterit:. n Nud er - 1 l ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Iter # Theta FOS force FOS moment 2 11.4295 174047 175744 l 3 11.9726 1.4179 1.4047 4 11.9497 1.4173 1.4179 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Iter # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment 1 11.9"97 1.4173 1.4179 SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :

l Slice Sigma c-value phi. U-base U-top P-top Delta (psf) (psf) (1b) (lb) (lb) l l

O. O. .00-34 9 .0 27.004 0.

C. O. .00 1 'O.

1031.3L 0 27.00 O. O. .00 2 6.84 0.

'3 1939.0 140.0 0 O. .00 1219.2 140.0 6.84 0.

D. O. .00 4' 6.84 0.

5 2287.8 140.0 O. O. .00 2482.9 14 0 . 0~ 6.84 0.

C. O. .00 6 C.

1565.4 0 25.00 0 0. .00 7 0, 8, 1063.0- 0 25.00 O. O. .00 9 765.5 .0 25.00 0.

O. O. .00 670.8 .0 25.00 0.

O. O. .00 10 27.00 0.

11- 408.3 .0

- TOTAL Stresses at center............... of slice base SPENCER'S (1973)

......-.....................-................ Shear Normal Vertical Pore Water Slice Base Pressure Stress Stress Stress (psf)

.# x-coord (psf) (psf)

(ft) (psf)

.0 12.5 34.9 20.1 370.7-1 68.19 592.4 .0 2- 72.62 1031.3- .0 262.9 1939.0 1154.0 202.0 3 76.94 1180.9 .0 4- 77 50 1219.2 .0 292.5 101.71 2287.S 2233.5 309.0 5 3251.9 .0 6 125.68 24B2.9 .0 515.0 2766,6 7 125.62 15G5.4 .0 349.7 1063.0 1889.5 8 133.99 1364.3 .0 251.9 137.14 ~~5.5 .0 220.7 9 1195.4 10 138.94 2"2.3 .0 146.8 4:5.3 757.4 11 140.04 SPENCER'S ,;973) - agn

.. nude 1 Location :f Interslice Forces Boundary Height Interslice Force Slice Right Fcree Height Height Ratio Angle Force x-coord (ft)

(ft) (degrees) (lb) (ft)

.13 .29 .436 11.95 11.

.421 1 68.35 3.52 8.36 (

76.88 11.95 8740. .417 !

2 3.56 8.52 77.00 11.95 9032. .416 f 3 3.68 8.85 78.00 11.95 9227. .342 4 8.28 24.18 125.43 11.95 22330. .348 5

21317. 8.30 23.84 6 125.93 11.95 5.71 17.19 .332 131.30 11.95 10541. .278 7

3304. 2.94 10.55 8 136.68 11.95 2407, 2.54 9.41 .270 1 137.60 11,95 .276 9- 1664. 2.23 8.06 10 138.47 11.95 .04 3.00 .012

.00 -1.

11 141.61 AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE Total Normal S;ress = 1722.00 (psf)

y- -

l.

.00- ~(psf)

~

Pore Water Pressure-=

. Shear Stress = 31'. .71 .(psf) l l

B l

! . Total. Length of failure.' surface = 89.03 feet For the-single'specified surface and the assumed angle of the interslice forces, the SPENCER'S (1973) procedure gives a

~ FACTOR OF SAFETY = 1.417 Total shear strength available along specified failure surface =- 402,14E+02 lb i !

l l J I

i I

1 l

1

o o m e -e I

l.

a 4-I l i I l 8

io O "

lo-t -

- <t O "

f" V

-t

' Q e 1 .

W @

t s-o e oD N

- I

~

ND e

i o m

] *

O m

' o- e o O W . OC oO O 4 -

8 I .

-O h

-O s

i y -c I "

y a i

3 Q C X 4 m4 W i

-U l 'e C o d i ..O y _.

S m

e

'S u, o 11 W

b P)- o z

v' o

c. J o

__,_.___._o __ o +

u

, _ , e . _ _ ,, e

c e n , -o- r e -- 3 o o o o e - - - (f) tq N - -

6 (6op) g31oNy 39303 m (sd! :,) 53380J 3 ng e o

1 2,- -e

=g

' D +

1

_M

', Fj ou (mws .' s i

--- - co

- o

~, /

, ;w n_

s

+

x -

e- i,

!oo o _o_

m u_

t o 1 o

\ { , ~0 1 "NC

,' O -

-c m uo E'

N s

1

@ HO p_ 1 O I

< Bl o O R ct So ; H aw

.-ox

\s o e g -s J

W \g j' W^

.M Z_ ,

_; \ w&

J

\ ao 0 o >w t-m 'S I s x

<o -

D-e

.9l r s F- e-I el o_ w H w o_

o CD W

, , o, ... ,,. .. .i. ,

e o o o o o o o o o N O O o a o o

-t

- - - e o o o n N N - -

(;eej) gagoo3_A (Jsd) S3SS381S 3SV8 u-

0 _

i 0 _

- 2 r

7 _ 5 1 _- i 7 1

4 .

1

=

0 e i 5 c 1 f

a r -

u S

5 d i 2 e -

1 i

f - ; )

t i

c ' e _

e e

p ' - f S

0(

/

l a r r 0 S n o --

1 I X

i of -

- A S

t _. -

l aO X sF . _

n

- r5 _

a , 7 r D N- _

T O -

cH -

i t T _

aE _

~

t M i 5 0

S

. S E R VE ,

5 A C 4: T N , 5 1 R E 2 1

E P 8

BS 9

8 1

5 _ _

0 5 0 5 0

5 0 7 5 7 5 2 0 1

1 1 1 i

S mEq) n(

yC 1

E I l

' I i

I

. XSTABL File: SPNCEO 5-18-98 9: To j

\

l

X'S T A 3 L

Slope Stability Analysis

using the

Method of Slices

j

~

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

1

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.

1

N

Ver. 5.202 96 n 1605 *

)

- - - - 1 1

! 1 Problem Description BERT AVE. Dynamic Translational {

l l

SEGMENT EO'":DARY COCR2 ":A~.~ES 5 SURFACE boundal, c c ~. . . t s Segment x-left ,

.s (- .ght f-right Soil Unit No. (ft> f; ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 ; .-

.0 100.0 1 2 25.0 10; : 40.0 105.0 1 3 40.0 1::.' 4? ^- 108.0 2 4 49.0 10s.O '7' A 137.5 3 5 137.6 '. 3 ' ; 2'.0.0 138.7 3 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 108.0 75.0 108.3 2 2 75.0 108.3 78.0 109.3 5 3 78.0 109.3 140.1 130.0 4 4 140.1 130.0 200.0 131.2 4 5 78.0 109.3 200.0 110.5 5 6 75.0 108.3 200.0 109.6 2 7 40.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 A CRACKED ZONE RAS BEEN SPECIFIED

~

Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

Maximum depth of water in crack. = .00 (feet) 4

- Unit weight of water in crack = 62.40 (pcf) .

. Failure surfaces will ,have a vertical side equal.to the specified depth of crack and be affected by a hydrostatic force according to the specified depth of water in the. crack l

ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 5 Soil unit.(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit' Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. -(pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.

.0 30.00 .000 .0 0 1 130.0 130.0

.0 27.00 .000 .0 0 2 137.0 137.0

.C 27.Ou .000 .0 0 3 137.0 137.0

.0 25.0C .000 .0 0 4 135.0 135.0-5 110.0 110.0 .0 0: 000 .0 0

' NON- LINEAR '*.GiR- CCULT 'E - /e1cOe has te.en snecified for 1 soil (s)

Soil'* ._t = :

F s i: i 1_ _- 5:'. ear Stress

a . ps: ' (p;f)

.0 2 150.: 10^ 2 3 300.0 150.0 4 503.: 200.0 5 ^000.J 500.0 6 6000.0 800.0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .150 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR> ANALYSIS

. Trial failure surface specified by the following 11 coordinate points -

Point x-surf y-surf

No. (ft) (ft) l 1 68.04 114.34 2 68.35 114.15 3 76.88 108.93 4 77.00 108.80 5 125.43 109.27 j 6 125.93 109.77 i 7 131.30 118.21 8 136.68 126.64 9 138.47 129.46 i I

10 141.61 134.58 11 141.61 137.58 SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973) l l

- - - - r******4****w***************** 1

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION

- ***.********,*****...+**,..,*********

Slice x-base y-base 'eign

. wicth alpha beta weight .

lft) (ft' (fr (ft) (lb) f i

1 65.19 114.24 . 15 .31 -31.44 18.42 6.

2 72.62 111.54 4.3; 8.53 -31.46 18.42 5054.

3 76.94 108.E- 5 44 .12 -47.29 18.42 136.

4 77.5C 103.5~ 3.32 1.00 .56 18.42 1181.

E 101.71 109 .4 16.51 47.43 .56 18.42 105934.

6 125.68 109.52 24 :: .50 45.00 18.42 1629.

7 128.62 113.9? 20.52 5.37 57.53 18.42 14961.

8 133.99 122.42 13.67 5.38 57.45 18.42 10166.

9 137.14 127.3: 9.93 .92 57.59 18.42 1255.

10 138.04 128.'7 8.73 .87 57.59 1.10 1040.

11 140 04 132.02 5.53 3.14 58.48 1.10 2377.

Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number - 1 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD

. Iter # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment 2 16.6972 .9503 .9662 3 16.9370 .9548 .9503 4 16.9024 .9542 .9548 ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD Iter # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment

1 '16.'9024- .9542 .9548 SLICE INFORMATION-... continued :

. Slice. Sigma c-value. phi- U-base: U-top P-top . Delta (psf) .( psf) (Ib) (lb) (lb) 1- -58.8 .0- 27 00 0. O. O. .00

-2

'1739.4 .0- 27.00 0. 0. O. .00 3' 2628.8 140.0: 6.84. 0. O. -0. .00 4 1211.5 140.0. 6.94' O. O. 0. .00 5 2251.5- 140.0 6,84 0. O. O. .00 6 2157.2- 140.0 6.84 0. O. O. .00

7. 1268.2 .0 25.00 0. .0. O. .00

0. O. O. .00

'8- 861.5 .0 25.00

'9 620.0~ .0 -25.00 '0. O. O. .00 10 543.L3 .0' 25.00 0. .0. O. .00

-11 .328.4 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 SPENCER'S (1973). .- TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base Slice Base ' cr .al Vertical Fore Water Shear

:-ccord S t re s.c Stress Pressure Stress

'fr'

.3fi p5f (psf) (psf) 1 69.19 is - ..' .0 31.4 e

.u w- 3.a 3' 76 94 _',' 2 115 .0 477.3 4 -- 7 7 , b .: .1.1." 11F^ :- .0 299.1 5 101,71 I'.- 22~ 5 .0 429.8 6 125 65 .E~. 31:_ ? .0 418.0 7 126.62 .4s.2 275i i .0 619.7 8' 133 39 -

r . 1363.5 .0 421.0 9 137.14 :^:.. 1364.3 .0 303.0

'10 138.04'- '543.3 1195.4 .0 265.5 11 140.04 126.4 75'7.4 .0 175.4 SPENCER'S (1973)

.'..agnitude & Location of Interslice Forces Slice Right Force Interslice Force Boundary Height

x-coord Angle Force Height Height Ratio (ft) . (degrees) (lb) (ft) (ft) 1 68 35 16.90 21. .14 .29 .473 2- 76.88 16.90 17003. 3.81 8.36 .456 3 77.00 16.90 17391. 3.88 8.52 .455 4 78.00 16.90 17506. 4.10 8.85 .464 5 125.43 16.90 21124. 9.59 24.18 .397 6 .125.93 16.90 19958. 9.64 23.84 .404 7 131.30 16.9c 9905. 6.71 17.19 .390 8 136.68 16.99 3088. 3.61 10.55 .342 9 137.60 16.90 2243. 3.14 9.41 .334

10. .138.47 16.90 1544. 2.75 8.06 . 3 41~'

ry 11 141.61 .00 -10. .20 3.00 .067 l

AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE Total Normal Stress = 1714.41 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf)

Shear Stress = 480.55 (psf) .

Total Length of failure surface = 89.03 feet For the single specified surface and the assumed angle of the interslice forces, the SPENCER'S (1973) i procedure gives a FACTOR OF SAFETY = .954

{

Total shear strength ava ilab le along specified failure surface = 408.23E+02 lb

, I D

4

0 _

0 ,

6 i6 1

, 1

_ m g

0 0

e 4 i

1_ 4 1

_1 d .

_ 0 ,

m 9 )

t

_ 6 e 0 1 i

0 e i2 21 (f

_ 1 =

_ o S t D e R S

_ D' OT h 0 O E

C 0

0 H ,

i 0O C

i 1

R _ 1 T e 4 E lg -

O _

M X 5 F _ n 9 E _ S A C _. R' t 0

E n I

L 0 i 8

S a8 C a t =

R / N s E /

E n _

e T /

P o . c N

I S C .

. a -

. 0 f ^

b - ! l:i! O ,J jiiiIj! 1_ 6 r 5 0 s~ U 5 u g 0 0 0 0 ' S 1 3 2 2 i 3 ' 1 l

d 3 i. " ' u' C' U nu d o'-

29d e i

$ f'k ._ 1, i l

i 0 f 0 i6 i 6

1 1

c l e ap nS 0

0 i o r j

\' o N \ u_ 4 4 1 t

1

\

l af

\

. s s ,\ ) sS nO

' t 0

2

,\

' i m_e 0T 2f (

1 e ar f 1 j ,

N la - S cD

' D O 2 i

O I m r / R mH

/

T -

A -

o ,

, 0 O aT C L00 n i 0O C nE O

L

,~ -- 1

/

1 D

yM

/ j X E _

.S N - m I

E'R L

T S -

i 0

8 l

i a

c [ ,

/

i 0 8 VE A C U

t r

e

/ T N R '

RE H %' v EP T

f -

0 6 _- g _;- - : ;- ;-

0 6

BS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 1 1 1 0 5 0 5 3 2 2 1 1 m3 m oU[ eEvm mw$M u* m '

i

e 0

i 0 2

4 5 5 ,,7 1

9

=

0 e 5 c 1 f

a r

u

/

S d -

i 2 i

e _.

- 1 f )

/

i t c e l e . e a p f nS o

0(

i r -

, 0S o

_ 1 I t

af X l

A sS .

nO X aF r - i 5 T ,

3 7

cD O

i mH aT nE yM 0 D , 5

. S E R V E .

6 4

A C TN y

1 R E - ,5 9 2 E P 8 B S 9 ,

8 1

5

~

0 O 5 0 5 0 5 0 E 7 5 2 0 7 5 1 1 C. 1 1

. nT) a v xC< I -

i

..XSTABL File: TRANYLD 5-18-98 9:41

XSTABL *

Slope Stability Analysis

using the

Method of Slices *

Interactive Software Designs, Inc.

Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.

Ver. 5.202 96 s 1605

Problem Description BERT AVE. Translational Yield Co.

SEGMENT BOU' EARY CC:RDINATES 5 SURFAG tourdn,' segments

<-right y-right Soil Unit Segment : . eft . eft Below Segment No. (ft) ft! (ft) (ft) 1 -

^

1,: _ 25.0 100.0 1 40.0 105.0 1 2 25.0 100.0 105.0 49.0 108.0 2 3 4C.0 109.0 137.6 137.5 3 4 4r.0 137.5 200.0 138.7 3 5 137.6 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments x-left y-left x-right y-right soil Unit Segment (ft) (ft) Below Segment No. (ft) (ft) 75.0 108.3 2 1 49.0 108.0 108-.3 ~8.0 109.3 5 2 75.0 140.1 130.0 4 3 78.0 109.3 200.0 131.2 4 4 140.1 130.0 110.5 5 5- 78.0 109.3 200.0 108.3 200.0 109.6 2 6 75.0 105.0 200.0 106.6 1 7 40.0 A CRACKED ZONE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED Depth of crack below ground surface = 3.00 (feet)

1 g

Maximum depth of water in. crack = .00 (feet)

- ' Unit weight of-water in crack - 62.-40 .(pcf)

Failure surfaces.will have a vertical side equal to the specified depth of-crack and be_affected by a hydrostatic force according to'the specified depth of water in the crack

. ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters.

5 Soil unit (s) 'specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water

~ Unit Moist Sat. Intercept . Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf)- '(psf) (deg) Iba (psf) No.

.0 3C.00 .000 .0 0 1 130.0 ~ 130.0

.0 2 '/ . 0 0 .000 .0 0 2 l'37.0 i.0 3' 137.0 137.0 .0 27.0C .000 .0 0 135.0 25.C: .000 .0 0 4 135.0 .0

.00 .000 .0 0 5: 110.0 110.0' O NON-LINEAR MOHP-COULCX5 envelope .as bee:' specified for 1 soil (s)

Soil Unit - 5 Poin. ' c. m . .- -

az a: Stress N' ^af ' psi)

.0 0 2 15C.0 100.0

.3 300.0 150.0 i 500,~_ 200.0 a :::2 0 500.0 6 6000.0 800.0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of ,125 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of- .000 has been assigned A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE RAS'BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS Trial failure surface specified by the following 11 coordinate points Point x-surf y. surf

i

~

No. (ft) (ft) 1 68.04 114.34 2 68.35 114.15 3 76.88 108.93 4 77.00 108.30 5 125.43 109.27 6 125.93 109.77 7 131.30 118.21 8 136.68 126.64 i 9 138.47 129.46 10 141.61 134.58 11 141.61 137.58 i

SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spencer (1973)

I

- - - - =

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION Slice x-bar.e y-base r.eight wicit h alpha beta weight (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb) 1 68.12 11.. 24 .12 'l -31.44 18.42 6. ,

2 72.62 11'. 24 4 . 3. 5.53 -31.46 18.42 5054. l 3 76.94 105.66 6.44 .12 -47.29 18.42 136.

4 77.50 109.s^ 8.69 1.00 .56 18.42 1181.

5 101.71 109. 4 ;~.51 47.4. .56 18.42 105934. ,

6 125.G8 109.52 24.01 .50 45.00 18.42 1629. !

7 128.62 113.99 20.52 5.37 57.53 18.42 14961.

8 133.99 122.42 13.87 5.38 57.45 13.42 10166.

I 9 137.14 127.36 9.98 .92 57.59 18.42 1255. ;

10 138.04 128.77 B.73 .87 57.59 1.10 1040.

5.53 3.14 56.48 1.10 2377. l 11 140.04 132.02 Nonlinear M-C Iteration Number - 1 l

l ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER'S METHOD l ................................

l It e r # Theta FOS _ force FOS _ moment 2 16.1150 .9974 1.0247 3 16.4692 ----- .9974 3 16.2921 1.0007 -----

4 16.4251 1.0032 1.0007 5 16.4085 1.0029 1.0032 f

ITERATIONS FOR SPENCER' S METHOD

Iter # Theta FOS force FOS moment 1- 16.4085 170029 170032 SLICE-INFORMATION ... continued -

Slice- Sigma c-value phi U-base U-top P-top Delta (psf) (psf) (1b) (lb) (lb) 1 53.7 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00

2. 1588.1 .0 27.00 0. O. O. .00 3 2526.1 140.0- 6.84 0. O. O. .00 4 1215.1~ 140.0 6.84 0. O. O. .00 5 2261.6 140.0 6,84 0. O. O. .00 O. O. .00

~

6- 2200'.1 140.0 6.84 0.

7 1305.0 .0 '25.00 0. O. O. .00 8 886.5 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 9 638.0 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 10 559.1 .0 25.00 0. O. O. .00 11 338.0 .0 2*?.00 0. O. O. .00 SPENCER'S (1973) - TOTAL Stresses at center of slice base Slice Base Normal Vertical- Pore Water Shear

x-coord Stress Stress Pressure Stress

'ftl ' psf' (psf' (psf) (psf:

1 68.1.9 ~3.7 20.1 .0 27.3 2 73.62 15EE.1 592.4 .0 806.6 3 76. 4 2526.1 1154. .0 441.c 4 77.50 1215.1 1180.9 .0 285.0 5 101.71 226' 6_ 2233.5 0 410.2 6 125.68 222:.1 3251-.9 .0 402.8 7 128.62 13CE.0 2786.6 .0 606.8 8 133.99 896.5 1889.5 .0 412.2 9 137.14 E3E.0 1364.3 .0 296.7-10 138.04 553.1 1195.4 .0 260.0 11 140.04 336.0 757.4 .0 171.7 SPENCER'S (1973) - Magnitude & Location of Interslice Forces Slice Right Force Interslice Force Boundary Height

.x-coord Angle Force Height Height Ratio (ft) (degrees) (lb) (ft) (ft)

-1 68.35 16.41 19. .14 .29 .469 2 76.88 16.41 15181. 3.78 8.36 .452 3 77.00 16.41 15553. 3.84 8.52 .451 4 78.00 16.41 15684. 4.05 8.85 .458

'5 125.43 16.41 21077. 9.33 24.18 .386 6 125.93 16.41 19926. 9.37 23.84 .393 7 131.30 16.41 9893. 6.51 17.19 .379 8' 136.68 16.41 3089. 3.49 10.55 .330

~'

16.41- 2246, 3.03 9.41 .322 9 - 137.60 8.06 .329 10 138.47 16.41. If'8. 2.65

.00 -3. .12 3.00 .038

- 11' 1141.'61 AVERAGE VALUES ALONG FAILURE SURFACE, Total Normal Stress = 1711.20 (psf)

Pore Water Pressure = .00 (psf)

Shear Stress = 453.10 (psf)

Total ~ Length of failure surface = 89.03 feet For the single specified surface and the assumed angle of the interslice forces, the SPENCER'S (1973)

'procedura gives a-FACTOR OF SAFETY - 1.003 Total shear strength available along specified failure surface = 404.55E+02 lb v

\ --_ - _ _ _

o o 1 c ,o 3

4 f" ,

f" i

f I i . i

' ,o O lo

,/i '

jg

- - . . o g -,.,_

/ '

- i.

~

l ' I, ! n f

i l e !

I

' ~

i o o O 4 N -

N "v

- ll i

l 2 m o

m ,' O e

<- x lo 9 o O e '

Ho

~

1oO ~U o tG L

l i

C, m

I o U

i 4 ^c x

,' l M -t O.

U , -

d i I a- "

i o w C o m i ;O y D~ _,;O a , -.

ll u s. , - ., <

H N1 3 . U C E,.' _ g I G J V

O

' " C;; -i O r ---- -- F T i

~ ~ ~ ~ - - ' ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ '

" ~ - P

{

,o, o o o C : C n.~ C sn 3

" ~ - -

Ln (sdn) g333oj 33n7 5x, ~ 70:3 20BOJ V e

O -

w '+-

i j . e O o_

, , O Ln c,

, . , :: m '-

e. o v

8

, n / tn 3 i ; _o s

\

i

=>

4

, o o

-i N '+-

o u.

r-

~ ~"

2 \ 7 o -

o i, .

' i m ;o p ! c o _o o 4

i

\

< u ; a O \

I l o O

' \' o O V) I

\ C H

-o 1oO o

a \ - \ -

U oW U \ '

\ ! i H

- s

\ J X

= LA

\

J H \ l _4 o

_i oi

\

\s _ o d

> U W ~.- I ' O Ui CO A

\/ il!

> 'N. s 2E

&W Ltl 3 I i O r' U ""rT 7' - i- i o o o o o o o o o o 9 N O o o o o o o

" - e- o O o o o to m N N - e

(;oaj) SG8003-A (jsd) g333331g 33yg

0 i 0

- 2

-= ,

3 -

5 c

7 0

0 - 1

=

1 = .

=

= _

_ 0 e = i 5 c = 1 a

f r = _

u /,

S

=_ 5 d i 2 e .. 1 i )

f t i

c e .

e - e _

f o p C S -

0(

, 0 S d r - -

1 I

l ef o X i

A Y S - -

O

/' - X l -

aF -

n .

o , m5 7 i

t D z -

lao sH / -

T nT aE r M / ,

0 5

. S E R VE A C 7

4 1

1 T N R E E P

/ , 5 2

8 B S 9 -

8 1

5 3 _

[

O D 5 0 5 0 L 5 0 0 7 5 Y 7 5 2 1 1 W, 1 1

-i 3'D C i F

The FOS (0.95) for deep-seated translational failures involving the GCL is less than the regulatory minimum recommended value of 1.1. However, a simplified Newmark deformation analysis indicates that minimal deformation will occur due to the design earthquake.

Ear: 1cua<e- ncucec Jeforma: ions (6.5 V)

After Makdisi and Seed (1978) 100- . :r : , ,- n . z: __: = = z .r__

.#_ i___ 1__ 1_._.1 1 11_ 3 l-~T ~, .1Z _T 1:11E

_ _p. .. . _ . _ _

_ . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ ._p . .. ;. _ . _ _ . . . . _ _

m.-. - 7

-- . - _ . - .. . . -_ a--. . .L. _--. _.

E S

E

$ 10 h

O N

\

1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 08 Ky/Kmax

The yield acceleration for this failure scenario is calculated to be 0.125g.

The maximum seismic acceleration has been estimated to be 0.16g.

~

Ky/Kmax= 0.83.

Less than 2 cm of displacement can be expected to occur from an earthquake equal to or less than the magnitude of1N> design earthquake. This exceeds the criteria outlined in Ohio EPA's GCL advisory.

RECE0VED ,

MAY I 9 898 OH10 EPA . N.E.D.i A

ML20211Q202

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Adams:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

, :- . = .

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Fannin:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Fannin:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Adams:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCES:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu