DOCSLIB.ORG

Slope Stability Reference Guide for National Forests

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Slope Stability Reference Guide for National Forests United States Department of Slope Stability Reference Guide Agriculture for National Forests Forest Service Engineering Staff in the United States Washington, DC Volume I11 August 1994 While reasonable efforts have been made to assure the accuracy of this publication, in no event will the authors, the editors, or the USDA Forest Service be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from any defect in, or the use or misuse of, this publication. Cover Photo CAMP 5 SLIDE, Willamette National Forest, Region 6, Eugene, OR This photo shows the toe of a 250,000 cubic yard landslide that was initiated by a 15-foot horizontal road realignment. The mechanics of failure were largely controlled by excess pore-water pressures at the base of a clay soil having only residual shear strength. The slide was stabilized by installing 7,000 linear feet of horizontal drains which lowered the piezometric surface 14 feet. This photo point is located at milepost 0.1 on Forest Service Road 1926, approximately 13 miles northeast of Oakridge, Oregon. Photo by Michael Long, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program infona- tion (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at 202-720-5881 (voice) or 202-720-7808 (TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretaly of Agriiulture, US. Depattment of Agriculture. Washington, D.C. 20250 or call 202-720-7327 (voice) or 202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opporlunity employer. United States Department of Slope Stability Reference Guide Agriculture for National Forests Forest Sewice Engineering Staff in the United States Washington, DC EM-7170-1 3 Volume I11 August 1994 Coordinators: Rodney W. Prellwitz Thomas E. Koler John E. Steward Editors: David E. Hall Michael T. Long Michael D. Rernboldt SECTION 6 EVALUATION OF STABILIZATION ALTERNATIVES Principal contributors: Mike Burke, Geotechnical Engineer Mike Rembolt, Assistant Forest Engineer (Section Leader) USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Payette National Forest San Juan National Forest Supervisor's Office 701 Camino Del Rio P.O. Box 1026 Durango, CO 81301 McCall, ID 83638 Cliff Denning, Geotechnical Engineer Red Renteria, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Semce Mt. Hood National Forest Regional Office Engineering 2955 NW Division Street 324 25th Street Gresham, OR 97030 Ogden, UT 84401 Ken Inouye, Geotechnical Engineer Ed Rose, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Regional Office Engineering Klamath National Forest 2245 Morello Avenue 1312 Fairlane Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Yreka, CA 96097 Gordon Keller, Geotechnical Engineer John Steward, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Semce USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest Washington Omce Engineering 159 Lawrence Street 201 14th Street, S.W. Quincy, CA 95971 Washington, DC 20250 Mike Long, Engineering Geologist Ted Stuart, Regional Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Willamette National Forest Regional Office Engineering P.O. Box 10607 2245 Morello Avenue Eugene, OR 97440 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Jim McKean, Engineering Geologist Richard VanDyke, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Regional Office Engineering Siskiyou National Forest 2245 Morello Avenue Westside Engineering Zone Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 93976 Ocean Way Gold Beach. OR 97444 Rod Prellwitz, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station 1221 S. Main Moscow, ID 83843 Page 6A Stabilization Considerations ............................................733 6A.I Introduction .................................................. 733 6A.2 Prestabilization Analysis Considerations ..............................733 6A.3 Selection of Feasible Stabilization Techniques ..........................734 6A.4 Analysis of Stabilization Alternatives ................................734 6A.5 When Does "Safe" Become "Unsafe"? ...............................736 6A.5.1 Litigation .............................................736 6A.5.2 Review of Designs by Others ...............................736 6B Modification of Geometry .............................................737 6B.1 General Information ............................................737 6B.2 Necessary Redesign Information ...................................737 6B.3 The Stability of Design ..........................................738 6B.3.1 Modification of Road Cross-Section ...........................738 6B.3.1.1 Flattened Slopes .................................738 6B.3.1.2 Steepened Slopes .................................739 6B.3.1.3 Lightweight Embankments ..........................740 6B.3.2 Shift in Horizontal Alignment ...............................741 6B.3.3 Modification of Vertical Alignment ...........................741 6B.3.3.1 Sag Vertical Curve ................................742 6B.3.3.2 Crest Vertical Curve ...............................742 6B.4 Construction and Preconstruction Considerations ........................ 743 6B.5 Relative Costs ................................................744 6B.6 Sample Problems ..............................................744 6C Surface and Subsurface Drainage ........................................767 6C.1 General Information ............................................767 6C.2 Surface Drainage ..............................................767 6C.3 Subsurface Drainage ............................................768 6C.3.1 Cutoff Trenches .........................................768 6C.3.2 Horizontal Drains ........................................781 6D Horizontal Drains ...................................................783 6D.1 General Information ............................................783 6D.2 Predesign Information-Investigation Techniques ........................784 6D.2.1 Area Reconnaissance .....................................784 6D.2.2 Ground Control Survey ....................................784 6D.2.3 Subsurface Interpretation ...................................785 6D.2.4 Drive Probe Exploration ...................................785 6D.2.5 Electrical Resistivity Profiling ............................... 785 6D.2.6 Drilling Exploration ......................................785 6D.2.7 Permeability Testing ......................................786 6D.2.8 Ground Water Tracing ....................................786 6D.2.9 Water Surface Contours ...................................786 6D.2.10 Test Drain Installation .................................... 787 6D.3 Drainage System Design .........................................788 6D.3.1 Ground Water Recharge Capacity ............................788 6D.3.2 Number of Drains Needed .................................789 6D.3.3 Slot Width and Spacing ...................................790 Table of Contents Page 6D.3.4 Effective End Spacing and Drawdown ..........................790 6D.3.5 Collector System .........................................797 6D.4 Construction Considerations .......................................797 6D.4.1 Suggested Construction Practices .............................797 6D.4.2 Inspector Duties .........................................798 6D.4.3 Alternative Construction Method ..............................799 6D.5 Post-Construction Monitoring ......................................799 6D.6 Case History Summaries ..........................................800 6D.7 Design Example-< amp Five Slide ..................................802 6E Buttresses .........................................................803 6E.1 General Information .............................................803 6E.2 Rock Buttresses ................................................803 6E.2.1 General ...............................................803 6E.2.2 Foundation Bearing Capacity ................................804 6E.2.3 External Stability ........................................804 6E.2.4 Drainage ..............................................805 6E.2.5 Construction ............................................805 6E.3 Earth Buttresses ................................................805 6E.3.1 General ...............................................805 6E.3.2 Internal Stability .........................................806 6E.3.3 Drainage ..............................................806 6E.3.4 Construction ............................................806 6E.4 Retaining Walls ................................................807 6E.4.1 General ...............................................807 6E.4.2 Foundation Bearing Capacity ................................807 6E.4.3 External Stability ........................................807 6E.4.4 Internal Stability .........................................807 6E.4.5 Drainage ..............................................807 6E.4.6 Construction ............................................807 6E.5 Buttress Sample Problem .........................................808 6E.5.1 Description of Area .......................................808 6E.5.2 Background ............................................808 6E.5.3 Field Survey ............................................809 6E.5.4 Field Investigation ........................................810
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heavy Equipment
    Heavy Equipment Code: 5913 Version: 01 Copyright © 2007. All Rights Reserved. Heavy Equipment General Assessment Information Blueprint Contents General Assessment Information Sample Written Items Written Assessment Information Performance Assessment Information Specic Competencies Covered in the Test Sample Performance Job Test Type: The Heavy Equipment assessment is included in NOCTI’s Teacher assessment battery. Teacher assessments measure an individual’s technical knowledge and skills in a proctored prociency examination format. These assessments are used in a large number of states as part of the teacher licensing and/or certication process, assessing competency in all aspects of a particular industry. NOCTI Teacher tests typically oer both a written and performance component that must be administered at a NOCTI-approved Area Test Center. Teacher assessments can be delivered in an online or paper/pencil format. Revision Team: The assessment content is based on input from subject matter experts representing the state of Pennsylvania. CIP Code 49.0202- Construction/Heavy Career Cluster 2- 47-2073.00- Operating Engineers Equipment/Earthmoving Architecture and Construction and Other Construction Equipment Operation Equipment Operators NOCTI Teacher Assessment Page 2 of 12 Heavy Equipment Wrien Assessment NOCTI written assessments consist of questions to measure an individual’s factual theoretical knowledge. Administration Time: 3 hours Number of Questions: 232 Number of Sessions: This assessment may be administered in one, two, or three
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanically Stabilized Embankments
    Part 8 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EMBANKMENTS First Reinforced Earth wall in USA -1969 Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSEs) utilize tensile reinforcement in many different forms: from galvanized metal strips or ribbons, to HDPE geotextile mats, like that shown above. This reinforcement increases the shear strength and bearing capacity of the backfill. Reinforced Earth wall on US 50 Geotextiles can be layered in compacted fill embankments to engender additional shear strength. Face wrapping allows slopes steeper than 1:1 to be constructed with relative ease A variety of facing elements may be used with MSEs. The above photo illustrates the use of hay bales while that at left uses galvanized welded wire mesh HDPE geotextiles can be used as wrapping elements, as shown at left above, or attached to conventional gravity retention elements, such as rock-filled gabion baskets, sketched at right. Welded wire mesh walls are constructed using the same design methodology for MSE structures, but use galvanized wire mesh as the geotextile 45 degree embankment slope along San Pedro Boulevard in San Rafael, CA Geotextile soil reinforcement allows almost unlimited latitude in designing earth support systems with minimal corridor disturbance and right-of-way impact MSEs also allow roads to be constructed in steep terrain with a minimal corridor of disturbance as compared to using conventional 2:1 cut and fill slopes • Geotextile grids can be combined with low strength soils to engender additional shear strength; greatly enhancing repair options when space is tight Geotextile tensile soil reinforcement can also be applied to landslide repairs, allowing selective reinforcement of limited zones, as sketch below left • Short strips, or “false layers” of geotextiles can be incorporated between reinforcement layers of mechanically stabilized embankments (MSE) to restrict slope raveling and erosion • Section through a MSE embankment with a 1:1 (45 degree) finish face inclination.
    [Show full text]
  • Porosity and Permeability Lab
    Mrs. Keadle JH Science Porosity and Permeability Lab The terms porosity and permeability are related. porosity – the amount of empty space in a rock or other earth substance; this empty space is known as pore space. Porosity is how much water a substance can hold. Porosity is usually stated as a percentage of the material’s total volume. permeability – is how well water flows through rock or other earth substance. Factors that affect permeability are how large the pores in the substance are and how well the particles fit together. Water flows between the spaces in the material. If the spaces are close together such as in clay based soils, the water will tend to cling to the material and not pass through it easily or quickly. If the spaces are large, such as in the gravel, the water passes through quickly. There are two other terms that are used with water: percolation and infiltration. percolation – the downward movement of water from the land surface into soil or porous rock. infiltration – when the water enters the soil surface after falling from the atmosphere. In this lab, we will test the permeability and porosity of sand, gravel, and soil. Hypothesis Which material do you think will have the highest permeability (fastest time)? ______________ Which material do you think will have the lowest permeability (slowest time)? _____________ Which material do you think will have the highest porosity (largest spaces)? _______________ Which material do you think will have the lowest porosity (smallest spaces)? _______________ 1 Porosity and Permeability Lab Mrs. Keadle JH Science Materials 2 large cups (one with hole in bottom) water marker pea gravel timer yard soil (not potting soil) calculator sand spoon or scraper Procedure for measuring porosity 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Soils
    Section 3C Geology and Soils 3C.1 Summary The following is a summary of the proposed project’s potential impacts to geology and soils, any necessary mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measure(s) after Mitigation SANTIAGO HILLS II PLANNED COMMUNITY Potential Impact 3C-1. 2000 SEIR 1278 mitigation measures that continue to be applicable: Less than Exposure of People or MM G-1. All Grading Subject to City Grading Manual Regulations. significant Structures to Potential MM G-2. Removal of Unsuitable Earth Materials. Substantial Adverse Effects Including the Risk of Loss, MM G-3. Further Slope Stability Investigations. Injury, or Death Involving MM G-4. Detailed Geotechnical and Soil Engineering Reports. Rupture of a Known MM G-5. All Structures Designed and Constructed in Accordance Earthquake Fault; Strong with Seismic Safety Design Criteria. Seismic Ground Shaking; Seismic-related Ground MM 3C-1. Slopes Will Be Limited to 2:1. Failure, including MM 3C-2. Slopes Will Be Stabilized. Liquefaction; or Landslides MM 3C-3. Standard Grading Codes Will Be Applied. Potential Impact 3C-2. Location of Structures on a MM 3C-4. Compressible Soils Will Be Identified. Geologic Unit or Soil that is MM 3C-5. Compressible Soils Will Be Mitigated. Unstable, or that Would Become Unstable as a Result of the Project and Potentially Result in On- and Offsite Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse Potential Impact 3C-3. No mitigation was included in 2000 SEIR 1278. Less than Substantial Soil Erosion or significant Loss of Topsoil MM 3C-6.
    [Show full text]
  • AAHS New Objective Grading System to Provide Prognostic Value To
    New Objective Grading System to Provide Prognostic Value to Cubital Tunnel Surgery Cory Lebowitz, DO; Lauryn Bianco, MS; Manuel Pontes, PhD; Mitchel K. Freedman, DO; Michael Rivlin, MD INTRODUCTION TABLE 1: ELECTRODIAGNOSTIC GRADING SYSTEM RESULTS CONCLUSION • The use of electrodiagnostic (EDX) • • 101 patients; 60 male & 41 Electrodiagnostic studies is well documented on its female studies not only aid a value as diagnostic tool, however, little clinical diagnosis of is known about its prognostic value for • Overall quickDASH went from 38 to 41 CuTS but can cubital tunnel surgery (CuTS) provide a framework • We report which EDX results yield • Discovered a cut off of a for the outcome of prognostic value for the surgical Sensory Amplitude of 38 treatment for CuTS based on patients surgery • We form an EDX based grading quickDASH improvement • system for CuTS that is predictive of • Patients with a sensory Specifically when outcome amplitude that was looking at the considered normal MCV across the METHODS based off the literature elbow with the but abnormal (i.e <38) sensory • Patients with CuTS were treated based off our data amplitude surgically with an ulnar nerve failed to improve in decompression +/- transposition their quickDASH • The grading system • Pre & Postoperative quickDASH scores is reproducible and scores and demographics reviewed • 97 patients (96%) fit in to can aid in following • Preoperative EDX reviewed: similar patient for • EMG the grading system • 93.8% inter-observer outcome evaluation • Motor Amplitudes and clinical studies • Motor Conduction Velocities reliability to use the • Sensory Amplitude grading system • Conduction Block • Those with a grade 3 had • Grading system constructed solely on the largest quickDASH EDX: nerve conduction studies and improvement electromyography variable.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 13: Earth Materials
    Earth Materials Lecture 13 Earth Materials GNH7/GG09/GEOL4002 EARTHQUAKE SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD Hooke’s law of elasticity Force Extension = E × Area Length Hooke’s law σn = E εn where E is material constant, the Young’s Modulus Units are force/area – N/m2 or Pa Robert Hooke (1635-1703) was a virtuoso scientist contributing to geology, σ = C ε palaeontology, biology as well as mechanics ij ijkl kl ß Constitutive equations These are relationships between forces and deformation in a continuum, which define the material behaviour. GNH7/GG09/GEOL4002 EARTHQUAKE SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD Shear modulus and bulk modulus Young’s or stiffness modulus: σ n = Eε n Shear or rigidity modulus: σ S = Gε S = µε s Bulk modulus (1/compressibility): Mt Shasta andesite − P = Kεv Can write the bulk modulus in terms of the Lamé parameters λ, µ: K = λ + 2µ/3 and write Hooke’s law as: σ = (λ +2µ) ε GNH7/GG09/GEOL4002 EARTHQUAKE SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD Young’s Modulus or stiffness modulus Young’s Modulus or stiffness modulus: σ n = Eε n Interatomic force Interatomic distance GNH7/GG09/GEOL4002 EARTHQUAKE SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD Shear Modulus or rigidity modulus Shear modulus or stiffness modulus: σ s = Gε s Interatomic force Interatomic distance GNH7/GG09/GEOL4002 EARTHQUAKE SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD Hooke’s Law σij and εkl are second-rank tensors so Cijkl is a fourth-rank tensor. For a general, anisotropic material there are 21 independent elastic moduli. In the isotropic case this tensor reduces to just two independent elastic constants, λ and µ.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Pavement Foundation Stiffness Using Cyclic Plate Load Test
    Assessment of Pavement Foundation Stiffness using Cyclic Plate Load Test Mark H. Wayne & Jayhyun Kwon Tensar International Corporation, Alpharetta, U.S.A. David J. White R.L. Handy Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa ABSTRACT: The quality of the pavement foundation layer is critical in performance and sustainability of the pavement. Over the years, various soil modification or stabilization methods were developed to achieve sufficient bearing performance of soft subgrade. Geogrid, through its openings, confine aggre- gates and forms a stabilized composite layer of aggregate fill and geogrid. This mechanically stabilized layer is used to provide a stable foundation layer for roadways. Traditional density-based QC plans and associated QA test methods such as nuclear density gauge are limited in their ability to assess stiffness of stabilized composite layers. In North America, non-destructive testing methods, such as falling weight de- flectometer (FWD) and light weight deflectometer (LWD) are used as stiffness- or strength-based QA test methods. In Germany and some other European countries, a static strain modulus (Ev2) is more commonly used to verify bearing performance of paving layers. Ev2 is a modulus measured on second load stage of the static plate load test. In general, modulus determined from first load cycle is not reliable because there is too much re-arrangement of the gravel particles. However, a small number of load cycles may not be sufficiently dependable or reliable to be used as a design parameter. Experiments were conducted to study the influence of load cycles in bearing performance.
    [Show full text]
  • MECHANIC I/II Application Deadline: September 16, 2020
    INYO COUNTY PERSONNEL SERVICES (760) 878-0377 P. O. BOX 249 FAX (760) 878-0465 INDEPENDENCE , CA 93526 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND DISABLED ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY) ANNOUNCES AN OPEN RECRUITMENT FOR: HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANIC I/II Application Deadline: September 16, 2020 DEPARTMENT: Road LOCATION: Countywide SALARY: Mechanic I: Range 58 $3583 $3761 $3945 $4146 $4346 (+ 2-1/2% tool allowance) Mechanic II: Range 60 $3758 $3941 $4139 $4350 $4564 (+2-1/2% tool allowance) (The above monthly salary is paid over 26 pay periods annually.) **BENEFITS: CalPERS Retirement System: Existing (“Classic”) CalPERS members hired prior to January 1, 2013 (2% at 55) – Inyo County pays employee contribution of 7% for current CalPERS members; New (“PEPRA”) CalPERS members hired after January 1, 2013 (2% at 62) will be required to pay employee portion of retirement. Medical Plan – Inyo County pays a portion of employee and dependent monthly premium on PERS medical plans; 100% of employee and dependent monthly premium paid for dental and vision; $20,000 term life insurance policy on employee. Vacation – 10 days per year during the first three years; 15 days per year after three years; 1 additional day for each year of service after ten years to a maximum of 25 days per year. Sick leave – 15 days per year. Flex (personal days) – 5 days per fiscal year. Paid holidays – 11 per year. ESSENTIAL JOB DUTIES: Maintains, repairs, and overhauls gasoline and diesel-powered construction, maintenance, and automotive equipment; examines and locates mechanical defects in a wide variety of automotive, road construction, and maintenance equipment, including diesel and gasoline-powered trucks, tractors, and motor graders; makes a variety of mechanical repairs including engine tune-ups, brake relining, electrical system repair; maintains records of time and materials used on each job; uses welding equipment to fabricate, rebuild, and strengthen various equipment parts; operates a variety of vehicles and equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrophysiological Grading of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Electrophysiological Grading of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome MUHAMMAD WAZIR ALI KHAN ABSTRACT Background: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy caused by a conduction block of distal median nerve at wrist. Women are affected more commonly than men. Clinical signs are quite helpful in diagnosis but electrophysiological tests yield accurate diagnosis and severity grading along with follow-up and management. Aim: To utilize nerve conduction studies (NCS) to diagnose carpal tunnel syndrome and further classify its severity according to the AAEM criteria. Methods: This descriptive study was conducted at the Department of Neurology, Sh. Zayed Medical College/Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan from June 2013 to Dec 2014. Overall, 90 patients and 180 hands were evaluated through nerve conduction studies. Patients with clinically high suspicion of CTS were included for NCS. Clinical grading was done using the AAEM criteria for CTS. Other variables like duration of symptoms, handedness, bilateral disease and gender were noted. Mean and median were calculated for age of the patients. Results: Ninety patients and 126 hands were identified with carpal tunnel syndrome. Most patients (80%) were females with age range from 19 to 75 years. More than one third had bilateral disease. Dominant hand was involved in majority of the patients. Most patients had (42.8%) severe CTS as per AAEM criteria. Also duration of symptoms directly correlated with severity of disease. Conclusion: Nerve conduction study is a valuable tool in accurate diagnosis and grading of carpal tunnel syndrome. Keywords: Phalen sign, Tinel Sign, electrophysiology, median nerve INTRODUCTION 4,5,6 electrophysiological findings, are quite valuable .
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Soil Compaction: Causes and Management
    October 2010 Agdex 510-1 Agricultural Soil Compaction: Causes and Management oil compaction can be a serious and unnecessary soil aggregates, which has a negative affect on soil S form of soil degradation that can result in increased aggregate structure. soil erosion and decreased crop production. Soil compaction can have a number of negative effects on Compaction of soil is the compression of soil particles into soil quality and crop production including the following: a smaller volume, which reduces the size of pore space available for air and water. Most soils are composed of • causes soil pore spaces to become smaller about 50 per cent solids (sand, silt, clay and organic • reduces water infiltration rate into soil matter) and about 50 per cent pore spaces. • decreases the rate that water will penetrate into the soil root zone and subsoil • increases the potential for surface Compaction concerns water ponding, water runoff, surface soil waterlogging and soil erosion Soil compaction can impair water Soil compaction infiltration into soil, crop emergence, • reduces the ability of a soil to hold root penetration and crop nutrient and can be a serious water and air, which are necessary for water uptake, all of which result in form of soil plant root growth and function depressed crop yield. • reduces crop emergence as a result of soil crusting Human-induced compaction of degradation. • impedes root growth and limits the agricultural soil can be the result of using volume of soil explored by roots tillage equipment during soil cultivation or result from the heavy weight of field equipment. • limits soil exploration by roots and Compacted soils can also be the result of natural soil- decreases the ability of crops to take up nutrients and forming processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Water-Level Variations on Slope Stability
    ISSN: 1402-1757 ISBN 978-91-7439-XXX-X Se i listan och fyll i siffror där kryssen är LICENTIATE T H E SIS Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering1 Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering Jens Johansson Impact of Johansson Jens ISSN 1402-1757 Impact of Water-Level Variations ISBN 978-91-7439-958-5 (print) ISBN 978-91-7439-959-2 (pdf) on Slope Stability Luleå University of Technology 2014 Water-Level Variations on Slope Stability Variations Water-Level Jens Johansson LICENTIATE THESIS Impact of Water-Level Variations on Slope Stability Jens M. A. Johansson Luleå University of Technology Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering Printed by Luleå University of Technology, Graphic Production 2014 ISSN 1402-1757 ISBN 978-91-7439-958-5 (print) ISBN 978-91-7439-959-2 (pdf) Luleå 2014 www.ltu.se Preface PREFACE This work has been carried out at the Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering at the Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources, at Luleå University of Technology. The research has been supported by the Swedish Hydropower Centre, SVC; established by the Swedish Energy Agency, Elforsk and Svenska Kraftnät together with Luleå University of Technology, The Royal Institute of Technology, Chalmers University of Technology and Uppsala University. I would like to thank Professor Sven Knutsson and Dr. Tommy Edeskär for their support and supervision. I also want to thank all my colleagues and friends at the university for contributing to pleasant working days. Jens Johansson, June 2014 i Impact of water-level variations on slope stability ii Abstract ABSTRACT Waterfront-soil slopes are exposed to water-level fluctuations originating from either natural sources, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight
    RAIL FACT SHEETS South Palo Alto Tunnel with At-Grade Freight About the Tunnel with At-Grade Freight For the tunnel alternative, the railroad tracks will be lowered in a trench south of Oregon Expressway to approximately Loma Verde Avenue. The twin bore tunnel will begin near Loma Verde Avenue and extend to just south of Charleston Road. The railroad tracks will then be raised in trench to approximately Ferne Avenue. The new electrified southbound railroad tracks will be built at the same horizontal location as the existing railroad track, however, the northbound track will be moved to the east within the limits of the tunnel to accommodate the spacing required between the twin bores. The railroad tracks in the trench and tunnel will carry only passenger trains. The freight trains will remain at-grade. The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road remain at their existing grade and will have a similar configuration that exists today with the addition of Class II buffered bike lanes on Charleston Road. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the overpass of the railroad. By the numbers Neighborhood Considerations • Diameter of twin bores is 30 feet. • Alma Street will permanently be reduced to one lane • Railroad track is designed for 110 mph. in each direction from south of Oregon Expressway to Ventura Avenue and from Charleston Road to Ferne • Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are Avenue. designed for 25 mph. • The train tracks will be approximately 70 feet below the Proposed Ground Level View - Looking Southwest • Maximum grade on railroad is 2%.
    [Show full text]