|
1
<br />t
<br />
<br />1
<br />t
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />1
<br />1
<br />
<br />
<br />1
<br />1
<br />1
<br />TASI.e 3.2
<br />SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
<br /> Safety Factor
<br /> XSTABL Pseudostatic
<br />Case file Parameters Static k =0.01
<br />l DSPCNP DownStreant analysis, circular Bishop, post Construction, 1.45 1.38
<br /> saturated tails, I4o Phreatic surface within embankment, :^
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion.
<br />2 DSHCNP pownStream analysis, circular Bishop, Half Capacity, 1.45 1.38
<br /> saturated tails, I~lo Phreatic surface within embankment,
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion.
<br />3 DSFCNP Downstream analysis, circular Bishop,Full Capacity, 1.45 1.38
<br /> saturated tails, I3o Phreatic surface within embankment,
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion.
<br />4 DSFCPS Downstream analysis, circular Bishop, Eull Capacity, ].32 1.25
<br /> saturated tails, Phreatic Surface within embankment,
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion.
<br />5 USPCNP IIpStream analysis,~circular Bishop, Post Construction, 1.20 1.14
<br /> saturated [ails, ZIo Phreatic surface within embankment, -,
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion. o
<br />6 USHCNP IlpStream analysis, circular Bishop, Half Capacity, 1.61 1.53
<br /> saturated tails, I~lo Phreatic surface within embankment,
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion.
<br />7 USFCNP Upstream analysis, circular Bishop, Eull Capacity, 4.4 3.4
<br /> saturated tails, Il'o Phreatic surface within embankrrtent,
<br /> static/pseudostatic ground motion.
<br />8 USFCPS Upstream analysis, circular Bishop, Eul] Capacity, 4.2 3.6
<br /> saturated tails, Plvea[ic Surface within embankment,
<br /> static/ seudostatic eround motion.
<br />Note: 1
<br />2
<br />1
<br />
<br />.~
<br />~~~~~
<br />buttressing of the upstream face of the embankment raise will begin to be developed and the stability of the
<br />structure will be enhanced.
<br />Potential deformation of the embankment under seismic loads was also evaluated. The analysis
<br />indicates that the yield acceleration, lS, is larger than the seismic coefficient of horizontal acceleration,
<br />kn=0.028, for all cases analyzed. Therefore, deformation will most Itkely not occur in the facility under the
<br />design earthquake.
<br />Failure surfaces were limited to ranges that would cause breach of the embankment and loss of the
<br />crest, therefore no thin 'sliver failures' were considered.
<br />Material properties were assumed using engineering judgement based on published characteristics of
<br />similar material types. See Table 3.1 for assigned material properties.
<br />l/0\ 11 ~/ \~
<br />
|