View Document Here - Hanford Site

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix D - Slope Stability Analysis for poEIRL-2001-11 I Environmental Cap Rev. 0 1 Draft a ^ Redline/Slrikeout I a return period of approximately 2.000 years. The design earthquake magnitude is estimated at 2 6.5, based on site-specific deaggregation information from the U.S. Geological Survey seismic 3 hazards web site (httn://@eohazards.cr.usgs. fov/eq) . 4 5 D.2.7 Acceptable Factors of Safety 6 7 For long-term static slope stability, the desired factor of safety is 1.5 or higher. For short-term 8 construction loading when no waste is in place, the desired minimum static factor of safety is 9 1.3. These minimum factors of safety are consistent with standard geotechnical engineering 10 practice. The performance goal under long-term seismic loading is to maintain the integrity of 12 the engineered barrier over any waste and to keep the post-earthquake static factor of safety at 12 1.5 or higher. 13 14 Because the amplification of the base acceleration is very high for the environmental cap under 15 Alternatives 3 and 4 ( and particularly for the engineered surface barrier), it is judged that there 16 would likely be some amount of movement ( i.e., the factor of safety under seismic loading is less 17 than 1.0) for any reasonable environmental cap configuration. Such movement is acceptable as 18 long as the goals listed above are met. It was judged that 2.5 or 5.0 cm (1 or 2 in.) of 19 deformation that is primarily horizontal within the silt barrier layers and does not penetrate the 20 bottom of the layer is acceptable. Deformations of several centimeters occurring outside of the ^21 boundaries of the engineered barsier, within engineered fill, would commonly be considered 22 acceptable in design of engineered barriers. For example, in a summary of current practice for 23 seismic design of liner and cover systems for waste fills, Seed and Bonaparte ( 1992) note that 24 seismic deformations less than 15 cm (6 in.) are viewed by designers as being acceptable levels 25 of seismic displacement. Studies conducted on seismic stability of surface barriers for waste 26 disposal sites in the 200 East Area of the <strong>Hanford</strong> <strong>Site</strong> have also concluded that seismically 27 induced deformations less than 15 cm (6 in.) are considered to be acceptable levels of 28 displacement ( Saleh and Daniel 1994). For the purposes of this pre-conceptual design for 29 Alternatives 3 and 4, the maximum allowable deformation for the environmental cap was 30 conservatively set at that 2.5 or 5.0 cm ( I to 2 in.). This judgement is consistent with current 31 engineering practice. 32 33 34 D3 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 35 36 D3.1 Stability Analyses 37 38 Slope stability was evaluated by one of two methods. The stabilitX of the cap layers under 39 drained conditions (no cohesion) was evaluated using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet employing 40 the method of Druschel and Underwood ( 1993). This two-dimensional method employs a fixed 41 failure surface along a predetermined interface, which extends over the entire length of the slope. ^42 Buttressing effects from the cover soils are considered. ° Miaosoft Is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington. Final Feasibility Study for the Canyon Disposition Initiative ( 221•U Facility) it•+ D-5
(^N Appendix D- Slope Stability Analysis for poFlRL-2001-11 I Environmental Cap Rev.At riftA Rcdfinc/Strikcout 1 2 Stability of the cover veneer under undrained conditions and the entire embankment under all 3 loading conditions was evaluated in a two-dimensional analysis by the method of slices using the 4 computer program STABLSM, initially developed by Purdue University and the Federal 5 Highways Administration. The modified Bishop and Janbu methods were used to evaluate the 6 factor of safety. Multiple runs of the model were performed for both circular failure surfaces and 7 random failure surfaces radiating from straight lines between user-defined blocks, and the 8 computer model was allowed to search for the failure surface with the minimum factor of safety. 9 10 D3.2 Seismic Deformation Analyses 11 12 The peak ground acceleration at the crest of the embankment was estimated from the site- 13 specific response spectra using the method of Makdisi and Seed (1979). Based on engineering 14 judgment, an estimation of the maximum shear wave velocity of 340 rn/sec (1,110 ft/sec) was 15 assumed. A peak horizontal acceleration of 1.3 g at the top of the environmental cap was 16 determined using the Makdisi and Seed (1979) method. 17 18 Permanent deformation was estimated by a method outlined by Makdisi and Seed (1978). First, 19 stability analyses for the portion of environmental cap or slopes in question were performed to 20 determine the yield acceleration, or horizontal acceleration at which the factor of safety is 1.0. '^21 The location of the failure surface relative to the top of the environmental cap was then used to 22 determine the average acceleration throughout the location of the failure surface (accelerations 23 decrease with depth below the crest of the environmental cap). The ratio of the yield 24 acceleration to this average acceleration is then used to estimate deformation based on the 25 Makdisi and Seed (1978) empirical charts that consider the magnitude of shaking and the first 26 natural period of ground motion. The Makdisi and Seed (1978) method is generally considered 27 to conservatively predict deformations, but can only predict them to within a few inches. 28 29 30 D.4 SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS 31 32 D.4.1 Results for Alternative 3 33 34 Based on the results of the stability analyses, the layout for Alternative 3 (as well as 35 Alternative 4) involves a relatively flat upper slope for the engineered barrier and a steeper slope 36 for the erosion protection layer. Thus, based on results of stability analyses, the finished 37 environmental cap configurations were based on two modes of slope movement: 38 39 • Slippage within the engineered surface barrier layers 40 41 • A more deep-seated failure into the engineered fill and roughly parallel with the erosion 42 protection layer. t0"1143 44 Final Fcaribility Stvdyfor the Canyon Dl rpoatiioar Intthtive (221-U Facility) June z003 D-6
Page 1 and 2: AR TARGET SHEET The following docum
Page 3 and 4: (^N r^ r Proposed Plan for the Cany
Page 5 and 6: i^ f 1 2 3 S 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15
Page 7 and 8: (^N (0-^, (^N 1 2 3 r• • .`•
Page 9 and 10: ^ (^N t^ the steHitFths+amedielaeti
Page 11 and 12: o"N DOF/RIr2001-29 Draft D Redline/
Page 13 and 14: (^N i0,"% / ' DOF/RL-2001-29 Draft
Page 15 and 16: fO'^, ^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Page 17 and 18: I f^ ^ DOE!RL-2001-29 Ikaft D Redli
Page 19 and 20: ^ ^ ^ 1 1 119 12 13 14 15 19 17 1 I
Page 21 and 22: ! ' t^ Project Prepare the existing
Page 23 and 24: f ' ^ rN 100 I Noise, Visual, and A
Page 25 and 26: ^ POINTS OF CONTA CP ^ U.S. Drnartm
Page 27 and 28: f^ n DOF/RL-2001-29 Draft D Redlinc
Page 29 and 30: noFIRL-2001-11 Rev. p 1 1)raft P ^
Page 31 and 32: ^ ^ 1 2 DOFJRL-2001-11 Rev.A 1 Dra(
Page 33 and 34: . . .,.. Appendix C - Risk Modeling
Page 35 and 36: n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 37 and 38: t^ Appendix C - Risk Modeling of an
Page 39 and 40: (_^% ^ ^ 11 Appendix C - Risk Model
Page 41 and 42: (0"% t^ DOFJRL-2001-1 l Rev. N 1 Dr
Page 43 and 44: 1 ' ^ ^ DOEJRL-2001-1 t Rev.H1 nraf
Page 45 and 46: Appendix D- Slope Stability Analysi
Page 47: Appendix D - Slope Stability Analys
Page 51 and 52: Appendix D - Slope Stability Analys
Page 57 and 58: • Appendix D-Slope Stability Anal
Page 59 and 60: ^• r^, r^ 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appendix D-
Page 61 and 62: ^ Appendix D-- Slope Stability Anal
Page 63 and 64: ^ (00h^' ^ 2 DOFIRI^2001-I I Rev. J
Page 65 and 66: t^` ^ ^ 1 2 DOFJRL-2001-11 Rev. JDr
Page 67 and 68: Appendix E - Detailed Description o
Page 71 and 72: Appendix E- Detaiied Description of
Page 73 and 74: t^' Appendix E -Detailed Descriptio
Page 79 and 80: f,^N Appendix E - Detailed Descript
Page 87 and 88: (0^s 1,^N Appendix E - Detailed Des
Page 89 and 90: i^ r^'. ^ 1 2 DOFJRL-2001-11 Rev. 8
Page 91 and 92: ^ ^ t^ 2 DOEIRL-2001-11 Rev. H Ihaf
Page 93 and 94: Appendix F - Detailed Description o
Page 95 and 96: Appendix F -Detailed Description of
Page 97 and 98: Appendix T- Detailed Description of
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix F - Detailed Description o
Page 101 and 102:
Appendix F -Detailed Description of
Page 103 and 104:
(O^N Appendix F - Detailed Descript
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix E- Detailed Description of
Page 109 and 110:
..^•. , Appendix F- Detailed Desc
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
(^, Appendix F - Detailed Descripti
Page 117 and 118:
(^N f ` Appendix F - Detailed Descr
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix F-Detailerl Description of
Page 121 and 122:
^`} Appendix F - Detailed Descripti
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
^ (10^' (^N DOF/RL-2001-11 Rev. AjD
Page 127 and 128:
^N r^ 1 n DOF/RLr2061-1 l ' Rev. I
Page 129 and 130:
1 ^ (^N ^ DoFJRL-M-t t ^ Rev. I Dnf
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix G -Detailed Description of
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix G - Detailed Description o
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix G- Detailed Description of
Page 141 and 142:
... ,. Appendix G - Detailed DescrI
Page 143 and 144:
o"^, Appendix G - Detailed Descript
Page 145 and 146:
- •s. t .W ;. . Appendix G - Deta
Page 147 and 148:
.. . .,. .. . Appendix G- Detailed
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Appendix G -Detailed Description of
Page 153 and 154:
i^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Page 155 and 156:
^ . , , ,... Appendix G - Detailed
Page 157 and 158:
^• f f 2 3 Appendix G- Detailed D
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix G- Detailed Description of
Page 163 and 164:
^• ^ Appendix G - Detailed Descri
Page 165 and 166:
^ ^ t"'^N 1 2 DOElRL-2001-I1 Rev. 9
Page 167 and 168:
t^N (M"N Final Feasibifity Stady ja
Page 169 and 170:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 171 and 172:
(00^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1
Page 173 and 174:
,.r.. . Appendix H - Detailed Descr
Page 175 and 176:
(^\ Appendix H - Detailed Descripti
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix H - Detailed Description o
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Appendix N- Detailed Description of
Page 183 and 184:
1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1
Page 185 and 186:
Appendix It - Detailed Description
Page 187 and 188:
(^N 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16
Page 189 and 190:
^. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Page 191 and 192:
^N i ' (0-1% C Appendix H- Detailed
Page 193 and 194:
^ (' ^ Appendix H- Detailed Descrip
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Appendix H-Detailed Description of
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
f^ ^ DOFJRL-2001-I I Rev. N raft Rc
Page 203 and 204:
f^ ^ 1 2 DOFlRI.-2001-11 Rev. pI af
Page 205 and 206:
I ,.,. , ... . DOFJRI.-2001-11 Appe
Page 207 and 208:
^ DOF/RL-2001-11 I Appendix I - Dec
Page 209 and 210:
DOFJRI.-2001-11 I Appendix I- Decom
Page 211 and 212:
^ DOFlRI.•2001-11 Appendix I -Dec
Page 213 and 214:
^'. DoEIR1.-2001-11 Appendix I-Deco
Page 215 and 216:
^ n ^ DOF1RG2001-11 Appendix I - De
Page 217 and 218:
^ ("` ^ DOFJRI.2001-11 Rev. G I. Dr
Page 219 and 220:
^ r^, TABLES DOFJRIr2001-11 • Rev
Page 221 and 222:
^ Appendix J- Applicable or Relevan
Page 223 and 224:
t^ ^ Appendix J-Applicable or Relev
Page 225 and 226:
^ Appendia J- Applicable or Relevan
show all

View Document Here - Hanford Site

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?