DOCSLIB.ORG

Wo Em7170 13 Vol2.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wo Em7170 13 Vol2.Pdf United States Department of Slope Stability Reference Guide Agriculture for~ationalForests Forest Service Engineering Staff in the United Washington, DC EM-7170-13 Volume I1 August 1994 Coordinators: Rodney W. Prellwitz Thomas E. Koler John E. Steward Editors: David E. Hall Michael T. Long Michael D. Remboldt For wlr hy the U.S. Gwcrnmcnt Printing Ofticc Supcrinlcndcnl 4 Ihcumenl\. Moil Smp: SSOP. W%hingllln. I)[' ?04112~9i?X Vol. I ISBN 0-16-045364-X Vd I1 ISBN 0-1 6-045365-8 VdIII ISBN 0-1 6-045366-6 Sct ISBN 016-045307-0 SECTION 4 PARAMETERS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS Principal contributors: Cliff Denning, Geotechnical Engineer (Section Leader) USDA Forest Service Mt. Hood National Forest 2955 NW Division Street Gresham, OR 97030 Rod Prellwitz, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station 1221 S. Main Moscow, ID 83843 RenC Renteria, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service Regional Office Engineering 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 Ed Rose, Geotechnical Engineer USDA Forest Service Klamath National Forest 1312 Fairlane Road Yreka, CA 96097 Section 4 . Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis Table of Contents Page 4A Fundamental Stress-Strain Relationships ....................................331 4A.1 Introduction. .................................................. 331 4A.2 Definit~ons................................................... 331 4A.3 Stress at a Point ...............................................333 4A.4 Common States of Stress ......................................... 336 4A.5 Effective Stress Principle ......................................... 337 4A.6 Shear Strength Parameters and Failure Criteria ..........................341 4A.6.1 Angle of Internal Friction, 9 ................................ 341 4A.6.2 Cohesion .............................................. 341 4A.7 Conclusion ...................................................343 4B Soil WeighWolume Relationships ........................................345 4B.1 Introduction. ..................................................345 4B.2 Defin~t~ons................................................... 345 4B.3 Example Problems ............................................. 346 4B.4 Estimating Soil Unit Weight ...................................... 352 4B.5 Compaction .................................................. 362 4B.5.1 Introduction ............................................ 362 4B.5.2 Compaction Curve .......................................364 4B.5.3 Compaction Factors (Earthwork Adjustment Factors) ............... 365 4B.5.4 Tables ................................................ 370 4C Strength and Behavior of Soil ............................................377 4C.1 Shear Strength of Non-Cohesive Soils ................................ 377 4C.l .l Angle of Repose ........................................377 4C.1.2 Behavior of Sands During Drained Shear ....................... 377 4C.1.3 Behavior of Sands During Undrained Shear ...................... 378 4C.1.4 Factors That Affect the Shear Strength of Granular Soils ............. 379 4C.1.5 Typical Shear Strength Values for Non-Cohesive Soils .............. 380 4C.2 Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils ................................... 383 4C.2.1 Consolidation State-Stress History ........................... 383 4C.2. 1.1 Normally Consolidated Soils ......................... 383 4C.2.1.2 Overconsolidated Soils ............................. 384 4C.2.2 Shear Strength of Saturated Cohesive Soils ...................... 385 4C.2.2.1 Consolidated-Drained (CD) .......................... 385 4C.2.2.2 Consolidated-Undrained (CU) ........................ 386 4C.2.2.3 Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) ...................... 387 4C.3 Unique Shear Strength Situations ................................... 390 4C.3.1 Apparent Cohesion ....................................... 390 4'2.3.2 Shear Strength of Compacted Soil Embankments .................. 390 4C.3.3 Shear Strength of Rockfill Embankments ........................394 4C.3.4 Residual Strength ........................................ 397 4C.3.5 Anisotropy .............................................400 4C.4 How to Measure Shear Strength ....................................401 4C.4.1 Analytical Methods-Laboratory Tests ......................... 401 4C.4.1.1 Direct Shear Test ................................. 401 Table of Contents (continued) Page 4C.4.1.2 Triaxial Shear Test ................................ 402 4C.4.1.3 Sample Drainage ..................................404 4C.4.1.4 Curved Mohr-Coulomb Strength Envelope ............... 409 4C.4.2 Empirical Methods-Field Tests ...............................410 4C.4.2.1 Vane Shear Test ..................................412 4C.4.2.2 Dutch Cone Penetrometer ............................413 4C.4.2.3 Standard Penetration Test ............................ 416 4C.4.2.4 Iowa Borehole Shear Test ............................419 4C.4.2.5 Pressuremeter ....................................420 4C.4.2.6 Torvane ........................................421 4C.4.2.7 Pocket Penetrometer ............................... 422 4C.4.2.8 Williamson Drive Probe .............................422 4C.4.2.9 Hand Tools ......................................423 4C.4.3 Back Calculating Strength Values .............................. 424 4C.5 Seismic Behavior ...............................................426 4D Strength and Behavior of Rock ...........................................427 4D.1 Introduction ...................................................427 4D.2 Strength of Rocks .............................................. 427 4D.2.1 Friction ................................................ 427 4D.2.2 Friction Angle ...........................................431 4D.2.3 Peak and Residual Strength .................................. 433 4D.2.4 Effect of Water on Rock Strength .............................436 4D.2.5 Shear Strength of Discontinuities ..............................437 4D.2.5.1 Role of Discontinuity in Slope Failure ...................437 4D.2.5.2 Sliding Due to Gravitational Loading ...................440 4D.2.5.3 Shearing on an Inclined Plane .......................443 4D.2.5.4 Surface Roughness ...............................445 4D.2.5.5 Estimating Joint Compressive Strength and Friction Angle .....448 4D.2.5.6 Size Dependent Joint Properties .......................456 4D.2.5.7 Shear Strength of Filled Discontinuities ..................457 4D.2.6 Large Losses of Shear Strength Due to Displacements ...............460 4D.2.7 Shear Strength Determination by Back-Analysis of Slope Failures .......462 4D.3 Measurement of Rock Strength .....................................463 4D.3.1 Laboratory Tests .........................................463 4D.3.1 .1 Unconfined Compression Test .........................463 4D.3.1.2 Direct Shear Test ................................. 464 4D.3.1.3 Ring Shear Test ..................................465 4D.3.1.4 Brazilian Test (Splitting Tension) ......................465 4D.3.1.5 Four Point Flexural Test .............................466 4D.3.1.6 Triple Core Tilt Test ...............................466 4D.3.2 Strength of Intact Rock .....................................466 4D.3.2.1 Point-Load Test ...................................467 4D.3.2.2 Schmidt Hammer Test ..............................471 4D.3.2.3 Field Direct Shear .................................472 4D.3.3 Geophysical Methods ......................................473 4D.3.3.1 Seismic Methods ..................................473 4D.3.3.2 Resistivity Surveys ................................475 Table of Contents (continued) Page 4F Root Strength and Tree Surcharge .........................................543 4F.1 Root Strength and Root Morphology .................................543 4F.2 Root Strength After Timber Harvest ..................................547 4F.3 Tree Surcharge ................................................548 References ...................................................551 4A. Fundamental Stress-Strain Relationships Cliff Denning, Geotechnical Engineer, Mt. Hood National Forest 4A.1 In this section, the significant stress-strain parameters used in mechanical ("rational") Introduction slope stability analysis will be discussed. Included are parameter definitions and common methods for quantifying them. The intent of section 4A is to introduce some basic definitions and concepts concerning stress and strengths in soil and rock. Section 4A is followed by sections on soil weighr/volume relationships, soil and rock shear strength, ground water, root strength, and tree surcharge. Figure 4A.1 illustrates that section 4 pertains to the level I11 data base within the three-level stability analysis process. LEVEL l I ANALYSIS H Dk:zLE\AE LANDSLIDEINVENTORY I PROJECT 7- "I LEVEL Ill ANALYSIS SITE Figure 4A.l.Section 4 pertains to the level 111 data base in slope stability analysis. 4A.2 Force (LxMITZ) load in pounds (Ib), newtons (N), or kilonewtons (kN) Definitions 1 N = 1 kg-m/sZ 1 lb = 4.4482 N Stress (MLxT2) force per unit area in pounds per square foot (psf), pounds per square inch (psi), or kilopascals (kPa) 1 psi 1 144 psf 1 psi = 6.9 kPa I psf = 0.0479 kPa 1 kPa = 1 kNlm2 Normal Stress, o stress perpendicular to a plane Shear Stress, T stress tangent to and within the plane Pressure a stress acting uniformly in all directions, such as from a fluid (i.e., air or water). Force per unit area. Strain, E deformation per unit length. E is dimensionless (e.g., idin. or mmlmm). Deformation is normally in response
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1411 9 Predicting Earthquake-Induced Landslide Displacements Using Newmark's Sliding Block Analysis RANDALL W. }IBSON A principal cause of earthquake damage is landsliding, and the peak ground accelerations (PGA) below which no slope dis­ ability to predict earthquake-triggered landslide displacements is placement will occur. In cases where the PGA does exceed important for many types of seismic-hazard analysis and for the the yield acceleration, pseudostatic analysis has proved to be design of engineered slopes. Newmark's method for modeling a landslide as a rigid-plastic block sliding on an inclined plane pro­ vastly overconservative because many slopes experience tran­ vides a workable means of predicting approximate landslide dis­ sient earthquake accelerations well above their yield accel­ placements; this method yields much more useful information erations but experience little or no permanent displacement than pseudostatic analysis and is far more practical than finite­ (2). The utility of pseudostatic analysis is thus limited because element modeling. Applying Newmark's method requires know­ it provides only a single numerical threshold below which no ing the yield or critical acceleration of the landslide (above which displacement is predicted and above which total, but unde­ permanent displacement occurs), which can be determined from the static factor of safety and from the landslide geometry. Earth­ fined, "failure" is predicted. In fact, pseudostatic analysis tells quake acceleration-time histories can be selected to represent the the user nothing about what will occur when the yield accel­ shaking conditions of interest, and those parts of the record that eration is exceeded. lie above the critical acceleration are double integrated to deter­ At the other end of the spectrum, advances in two-dimensional mine the permanent landslide displacement.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Maximum Road Friction Coefficient and Optimal Slip Ratio Based on Road Type Recognition
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·1018· Vol. 27,aNo. 5,a2014 DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2014.0725.128, available online at www.springerlink.com; www.cjmenet.com; www.cjmenet.com.cn Identification of Maximum Road Friction Coefficient and Optimal Slip Ratio Based on Road Type Recognition GUAN Hsin, WANG Bo, LU Pingping*, and XU Liang State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control, Jilin University, Changchun 130022, China Received November 21, 2013; revised June 9, 2014; accepted July 25, 2014 Abstract: The identification of maximum road friction coefficient and optimal slip ratio is crucial to vehicle dynamics and control. However, it is always not easy to identify the maximum road friction coefficient with high robustness and good adaptability to various vehicle operating conditions. The existing investigations on robust identification of maximum road friction coefficient are unsatisfactory. In this paper, an identification approach based on road type recognition is proposed for the robust identification of maximum road friction coefficient and optimal slip ratio. The instantaneous road friction coefficient is estimated through the recursive least square with a forgetting factor method based on the single wheel model, and the estimated road friction coefficient and slip ratio are grouped in a set of samples in a small time interval before the current time, which are updated with time progressing. The current road type is recognized by comparing the samples of the estimated road friction coefficient with the standard road friction coefficient of each typical road, and the minimum statistical error is used as the recognition principle to improve identification robustness. Once the road type is recognized, the maximum road friction coefficient and optimal slip ratio are determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Short-Lived Increase in Erosion During the African Humid Period: Evidence from the Northern Kenya Rift ∗ Yannick Garcin A, , Taylor F
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 459 (2017) 58–69 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl Short-lived increase in erosion during the African Humid Period: Evidence from the northern Kenya Rift ∗ Yannick Garcin a, , Taylor F. Schildgen a,b, Verónica Torres Acosta a, Daniel Melnick a,c, Julien Guillemoteau a, Jane Willenbring b,d, Manfred R. Strecker a a Institut für Erd- und Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Potsdam, Germany b Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, Telegrafenberg Potsdam, Germany c Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile d Scripps Institution of Oceanography – Earth Division, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The African Humid Period (AHP) between ∼15 and 5.5 cal. kyr BP caused major environmental change Received 2 June 2016 in East Africa, including filling of the Suguta Valley in the northern Kenya Rift with an extensive Received in revised form 4 November 2016 (∼2150 km2), deep (∼300 m) lake. Interfingering fluvio-lacustrine deposits of the Baragoi paleo-delta Accepted 8 November 2016 provide insights into the lake-level history and how erosion rates changed during this time, as revealed Available online 30 November 2016 by delta-volume estimates and the concentration of cosmogenic 10Be in fluvial sand. Erosion rates derived Editor: A. Yin −1 10 from delta-volume estimates range from 0.019 to 0.03 mm yr . Be-derived paleo-erosion rates at −1 Keywords: ∼11.8 cal.
    [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]
  • Deformation Characteristics of the Shear Zone and Movement of Block Stones in Soil–Rock Mixtures Based on Large-Sized Shear Test
    applied sciences Article Deformation Characteristics of the Shear Zone and Movement of Block Stones in Soil–Rock Mixtures Based on Large-Sized Shear Test Zhiqing Li 1,2,3,*, Feng Hu 1,2,3, Shengwen Qi 1,2,3, Ruilin Hu 1,2,3, Yingxin Zhou 4 and Yawei Bai 5 1 Key Laboratory of Shale Gas and Geoengineering, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China; [email protected] (F.H.); [email protected] (S.Q.); [email protected] (R.H.) 2 College of Earth and Planetary Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 3 Innovation Academy of Earth Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China 4 Yunnan Chuyao Expressway Construction Headquarters, Chuxiong 675000, China; [email protected] 5 Henan Yaoluanxi Expressway Construction Co. LTD, Luanchuan 471521, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13671264387 Received: 27 July 2020; Accepted: 15 September 2020; Published: 17 September 2020 Abstract: Soil–rock mixtures (SRM) have the characteristics of distinct heterogeneity and an obvious structural effect, which make their physical and mechanical properties very complex. This study aimed to investigate the deformation properties and failure mode of the shear zone as well as the movement of block stones in SRM experimentally, not only considering SRM shear strength. The particle composition and proportion of specimens were based on field samples from an SRM slope along national highway 318 in Xigaze, Tibet. Shear zone deformation tests were carried out using an SRM-1000 large-sized geotechnical apparatus controlled by a motor servo, considering the effects of different stone contents by mass (0, 30%, 50%, 70%), vertical pressures (50, 100, 200, 300, and 400 kPa), and block stone sizes (9.5–19.0, 19.0–31.5, and 31.5–53.0 mm).
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability Back Analysis Using Rocscience Software
    Slope Stability Back Analysis using Rocscience Software A question we are frequently asked is, “Can Slide do back analysis?” The answer is YES, as we will discover in this article, which describes various methods of back analysis using Slide and other Rocscience software. In this article we will discuss the following topics: Back analysis of material strength using sensitivity or probabilistic analysis in Slide Back analysis of other parameters (e.g. groundwater conditions) Back analysis of support force for required factor of safety Manual and advanced back analysis Introduction When a slope has failed an analysis is usually carried out to determine the cause of failure. Given a known (or assumed) failure surface, some form of “back analysis” can be carried out in order to determine or estimate the material shear strength, pore pressure or other conditions at the time of failure. The back analyzed properties can be used to design remedial slope stability measures. Although the current version of Slide (version 6.0) does not have an explicit option for the back analysis of material properties, it is possible to carry out back analysis using the sensitivity or probabilistic analysis modules in Slide, as we will describe in this article. There are a variety of methods for carrying out back analysis: Manual trial and error to match input data with observed behaviour Sensitivity analysis for individual variables Probabilistic analysis for two correlated variables Advanced probabilistic methods for simultaneous analysis of multiple parameters We will discuss each of these various methods in the following sections. Note that back analysis does not necessarily imply that failure has occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil and Rock Properties
    Soil and rock properties W.A.C. Bennett Dam, BC Hydro 1 1) Basic testing methods 2) Soil properties and their estimation 3) Problem-oriented classification of soils 2 1 Consolidation Apparatus (“oedometer”) ELE catalogue 3 Oedometers ELE catalogue 4 2 Unconfined compression test on clay (undrained, uniaxial) ELE catalogue 5 Triaxial test on soil ELE catalogue 6 3 Direct shear (shear box) test on soil ELE catalogue 7 Field test: Standard Penetration Test (STP) ASTM D1586 Drop hammers: Standard “split spoon” “Old U.K.” “Doughnut” “Trip” sampler (open) 18” (30.5 cm long) ER=50 ER=45 ER=60 Test: 1) Place sampler to the bottom 2) Drive 18”, count blows for every 6” 3) Recover sample. “N” value = number of blows for the last 12” Corrections: ER N60 = N 1) Energy ratio: 60 Precautions: 2) Overburden depth 1) Clean hole 1.7N 2) Sampler below end Effective vertical of casing N1 = pressure (tons/ft2) 3) Cobbles 0.7 +σ v ' 8 4 Field test: Borehole vane (undrained shear strength) Procedure: 1) Place vane to the bottom 2) Insert into clay 3) Rotate, measure peak torque 4) Turn several times, measure remoulded torque 5) Calculate strength 1.0 Correction: 0.6 Bjerrum’s correction PEAK 0 20% P.I. 100% Precautions: Plasticity REMOULDED 1) Clean hole Index 2) Sampler below end of casing ASTM D2573 3) No rod friction 9 Soil properties relevant to slope stability: 1) “Drained” shear strength: - friction angle, true cohesion - curved strength envelope 2) “Undrained” shear strength: - apparent cohesion 3) Shear failure behaviour: - contractive, dilative, collapsive
    [Show full text]
  • Weathering, Erosion, and Susceptibility to Weathering Henri Robert George Kenneth Hack
    Weathering, erosion, and susceptibility to weathering Henri Robert George Kenneth Hack To cite this version: Henri Robert George Kenneth Hack. Weathering, erosion, and susceptibility to weathering. Kanji, Milton; He, Manchao; Ribeira e Sousa, Luis. Soft Rock Mechanics and Engineering, Springer Inter- national Publishing, pp.291-333, 2020, 9783030294779. 10.1007/978-3-030-29477-9. hal-03096505 HAL Id: hal-03096505 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03096505 Submitted on 5 Jan 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Published in: Hack, H.R.G.K., 2020. Weathering, erosion and susceptibility to weathering. 1 In: Kanji, M., He, M., Ribeira E Sousa, L. (Eds), Soft Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 1 ed, Ch. 11. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland. ISBN: 9783030294779. DOI: 10.1007/978303029477-9_11. pp. 291-333. Weathering, erosion, and susceptibility to weathering H. Robert G.K. Hack Engineering Geology, ESA, Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] phone: +31624505442 Abstract: Soft grounds are often the result of weathering. Weathering is the chemical and physical change in time of ground under influence of atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and nuclear radiation (temperature, rain, circulating groundwater, vegetation, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Correlating Foreland Basin Subsidence with Eclogite Metamorphism
    ATI..ANTic GEOLOGY 79 Loading the Laurentian margin: correlating foreland basin subsidence with eclogite metamorphism 2 3 4 John WF. Waldron•, R.A. Jamieson , G.S. Stockmal and L.A. Quinn 1Geology Department, Saint Mary '.S' University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3, Canada 'Department ofEarth Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3J5, Canada 1Geological Survey of Canada (Calgary), 3303-33rd Street Northwest, Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A 7, Canada 'Department ofGeology, Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba R7A 6A9, Canada Paleozoic loading of the former Laurentian continental de Lys Supergroup) are exposed in the Baie Verte Peninsula margin is recorded both in the subsidence history of the Ap­ and elsewhere. These units record Barrovian metamorphism palachian foreland basin and in metamorphic rocks now ex­ with peak temperatures around 700 to 750°C at 7 to 9 kbar; humed in internal parts of the Newfoundland Humber zone. isotopic data indicate that peak temperatures were reached in The Cambrian-Ordovician passive margin ofLaurentia Early Silurian time ('Salinian orogeny'), followed by rapid ex­ underwent a transition to a foreland basin setting beginning humation. Amphibolite facies metamorphism overprints an in Early Ordovician time. Middle Ordovician ('Taconian ') foreland earlier eclogite facies assemblage, for which minimum pres­ basin sediments (Table Head and Goose Tickle groups), in sures of 1.2 GPa at 500°C require burial of the Laurentian part derived from the Humber Arm Allochthon, are relatively margin beneath at least 40 km of overburden, which may have thin (ca. 250 m in offshore industry seismic data, thinning to included thrust sheets of continental margin rocks and the west).
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Approach for Tunnel Support Design Through Q and Rmi Systems in Fractured Rock Mass
    applied sciences Article An Empirical Approach for Tunnel Support Design through Q and RMi Systems in Fractured Rock Mass Jaekook Lee 1, Hafeezur Rehman 1,2, Abdul Muntaqim Naji 1,3, Jung-Joo Kim 4 and Han-Kyu Yoo 1,* 1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan 426-791, Korea; [email protected] (J.L.); [email protected] (H.R.); [email protected] (A.M.N.) 2 Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Baluchistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences (BUITEMS), Quetta 87300, Pakistan 3 Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Baluchistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences (BUITEMS), Quetta 87300, Pakistan 4 Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176 Cheoldobangmulgwan-ro, Uiwang-si, Gyeonggi-do 16105, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-400-5147; Fax: +82-31-409-4104 Received: 26 November 2018; Accepted: 14 December 2018; Published: 18 December 2018 Abstract: Empirical systems for the classification of rock mass are used primarily for preliminary support design in tunneling. When applying the existing acceptable international systems for tunnel preliminary supports in high-stress environments, the tunneling quality index (Q) and the rock mass index (RMi) systems that are preferred over geomechanical classification due to the stress characterization parameters that are incorporated into the two systems. However, these two systems are not appropriate when applied in a location where the rock is jointed and experiencing high stresses. This paper empirically extends the application of the two systems to tunnel support design in excavations in such locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Undergraduate Research on Conceptual Design of a Wind Tunnel for Instructional Purposes
    AC 2012-3461: UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH ON CONCEPTUAL DE- SIGN OF A WIND TUNNEL FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES Peter John Arslanian, NASA/Computer Sciences Corporation Peter John Arslanian currently holds an engineering position at Computer Sciences Corporation. He works as a Ground Safety Engineer supporting Sounding Rocket and ANTARES launch vehicles at NASA, Wallops Island, Va. He also acts as an Electrical Engineer supporting testing and validation for NASA’s Low Density Supersonic Decelerator vehicle. Arslanian has received an Undergraduate Degree with Honors in Engineering with an Aerospace Specialization from the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore (UMES) in May 2011. Prior to receiving his undergraduate degree, he worked as an Action Sport Design Engineer for Hydroglas Composites in San Clemente, Calif., from 1994 to 2006, designing personnel watercraft hulls. Arslanian served in the U.S. Navy from 1989 to 1993 as Lead Electronics Technician for the Automatic Carrier Landing System aboard the U.S.S. Independence CV-62, stationed in Yokosuka, Japan. During his enlistment, Arslanian was honored with two South West Asia Service Medals. Dr. Payam Matin, University of Maryland, Eastern Shore Payam Matin is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering and Aviation Sciences at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES). Matin has received his Ph.D. in mechanical engi- neering from Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., in May 2005. He has taught a number of courses in the areas of mechanical engineering and aerospace at UMES. Matin’s research has been mostly in the areas of computational mechanics and experimental mechanics. Matin has published more than 20 peer- reviewed journal and conference papers.
    [Show full text]