chem waste kettleman closure plan appendices vol 2 … - rbiliw evaltrofion. kettleman hills...
Post on 12-May-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
TABLES
.S lo~>~ ~ l ~ r i i f ! . I ~ v ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ f i ~ ~ ~ ~ . h~c~fflt,i?1i18z ilil/.~ l ~ ~ r ~ i / ~ f ~ ~ . .ll.Sll' / . ~ ~ ~ r ~ l / i l l ( ~ r i f l j -19. Li1ix.s ( , , J I , ~ ~ , . , . ('<!l!l~>ri~if~
Table 1 - Selected Material Properties for Static and Seismic Stability Analyses
(1) R.lodclcd [IS ;t l a y in sitc d?namic rcspansc ;lnalysis l o include cWcts orso l ic i cla! Iahcr in isal;~tiiig grolind molion. ( ? I I<usl l:nviri~nrncnlal & liili;~slructurc. Inc. (1')')7). A l l rcl2rcnccs arc listed iii I ;~hlc 3 nl l lost 's IlIO7 l l c p o ~ includcd in Appendix A. (31 I ~ t y r c South. Inc. (2003). (icoSyntcc ( 19')')). I lcndron. I).hq.. I:cr~~andc,. (i.. I'n)~iimcr. ['..I.. (iirood. 1.1'. ;md O r o ~ o . 1.1,'. i 1'10')). K;~\;~/nii.iian. I:. . I F . I lcndron.
I1.M.. :lnd ('orct1r;ln. 1i. l ' . (2001). M;~taso\ic. N. and I:. Ki~vamiian .Ir ( IC)'IX). (4) (irlldcr Associi~lcs. Inc. (2003). (51 (ialdcr Associ;ilcs. lnc. (2006).
k latcr ial l lnterfare
XlSW '
I3innlacIor MSLY '
ll\\?
('lay l.incr '
\lodulus Retluction & {)amping Curves
Scc l.'igurc I I1 (~I;II;Iw\ ic and Ka\ii,:~~i,iit~n lc)L)X)
S;iinc ;IS h l S \ I
Scc IFigurc 10 l l c l i ~ ~ i \ c l y dciisc sand (Scc~l ct al..
I1)XJ: Scud ; I I I ~ ldiiss. IL)70)
see I.ig:irc 11) (Vucclic and llohr!. I')')I: Sun el
al. IC)K81
l l n i t \+'eight
ice l : i y ~ ~ r c 7 Avcl-;lyc - X j pcl'
scc 1:l:urc 7 A \ crilsc - I l l5 pel.
115pcV
125 pcl'
See I.'iforc 10 11)O Conipaclcd l.'iil ' 33 ( V ~ c c t i c ilntl Ilohr!. 1001: SLUI c l
(I l:~rdin ;111<l I ) r cn~ ic l~ . 1972) :I[. l9XXl
Hcdlou l ' - I'hasc I;\ I3ollom l.iticr l i~ ter l i~cc '
1'h:irc l A Side Slope I.incr Inlcri;~cc ' Phasc l l ~ / l l / l l l 130ttoim l.incr lnlcr~i lcc '
l'hssc II31II/III Side Slope I.incr Intcrl jcc ' I IWIMSW Separation I. incr'
l i nn l C O V C ~ Soil and lnrcrlbcc I'ropcriics
Shear \l'ave Velocity (V.) or
Shear \lodulus ( G ) Relation
See l i yo rc ( i i ~ o d i l i c ~ l ;~l icr K:~v~v:~nj i :~~, el ill. l~Ic)6)
Siunc as I\IS\\
(i = lllllll K: la.m\ K, - 00 li,r rclaii\cl! ilcnsc \;~nds (Sccd
~ i n d ldriss. I97111
l2.3lll 2 97 Y, I 2 (; . 10~~lllh nc
I i e ( I lnrdin and l l r c n ~ i c h . 1972)
S h w r Strength Properties
I50 pel.
....
-...
.-..
....
....
I I 0 pc f
Angle (degree)
3 3
ZX
3 1
20
Cohesion
0 '~ f )
I l l0
150
O
1.1511
40
X
7
X
8.5
17
Scc Appendix ('
800
0
100
I1
O
100
Scc A p p c n d i ['
V, - 7500 lps
....
....
....
..-.
.-..
S~I~IL. as compaclcd lill
(Schn;~hi'l ct ill. 1072)
....
....
-...
....
.... .
Siltiic as co~~ip;~clcd lill
Slr rbilliy Evnlirnrion Kelllemnn Htlls Facrlrly, MSI~'LandJil1 L2nrt B-19. Kzngs Cc Calrjornra - Table 2a - Summary of Static Slope Stability Analysis Results
A1hlun!H4l~r~cr-2OO3lKeIlIen~0n-2OO3lkrlt/en1nn-rpl wpd November 2003
Cross Section
A- A'
B-B'
D-D'
G-G'
H-H'
1-1'
1-1'
K-K'
( I ) Factor of Safety was
Failure Plane Number Description
(2) 4 value was estimated using Ianbu Method. Spencer Method did not converge for thc analysis.
(3) For Cross Section G-G', Failure Plane No. IlI (Buttress Stability Evaluation) a pseudostatic FS of 1 .I5 was calculated for a horizontal acceleration of 0.1 5.
I
I1
111
IV
1
11
I
I
I1
111
IV
I I0 ft North of G-G'
100 ft South of G-G'
I
I1
111
1
I
I
11
calculated using Janbu Method.
Static Factor of Safety Yield Acceleration
k,
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Circular Failure through Bioreactor
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Circular Failure through Buttress Fill
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Circular Failure through Bioreactor
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Spencer Method did not converge for the analysis.
1.85'
2.19
2.33
3.21
2.44
3.13
3.85
2.22
2.67
1.50
1.70
2.12
2.11
1.94
2.34
2.29
2.04
2.34
2.11
2.71
0.214
0.298
0.124
0.409
0.126
0.332
0.207'
0.126
0.302
---
0.240
0.175'
0.269'
0.153
0.149
0.322
0.157
0.130
0.121
0.302
SIC rbiliw Evaltrofion. Kettleman Hills Faciliiy. MSlV Landfill L'nir B-19, K i n ~ s Cr Coifinria - - Table 2b - Summary of Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analysis Results
Cross Section
A-A'
B-B'
Failure Plane Number
D-D'
G-G'
H-H'
1-1'
I-I'
2 Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner 2.86 0.290 11 (I ) Factor of Safety was calculated using Janbu Method. Spencer Method did not converge for the analysis. (2) For Cross Section G-G', Failure Plane No. 3 (Buttress Stability Evaluation) a pseudostatic FS of 1 . I 5 was calculated for a horizontal acceleration of 0.15.
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
K-K'
Arhion'~HAliprglea-2OO3lKe1fiem0n-2003Ike111en~0n-1pr llpd November 2003
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
I
1
Yield Acceleration
k. Description
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bonom Liner
Circular Failure through Bioreactor
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
1
Static Factor of Safety
2.94
2.94
2.23
2.47
2.46
3.29
2.45
3.13 ~- - --
0.168'
0.125
0.298
2 ---
0.190'
0.145
0.141
0.322
0.148
0.126
~- - p~p-p
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Circular Failure through Buttress Fill
Relatively Deep Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Circular Failure through Bioreactor
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
I 11 - - - --
Deep Block Fa~lure through Bottom Liner
(9)
0.130
0.139
0.298
0.121
0.124
0.355
0.126
0.335
4.48
2.22
2.67
1.50
1.71
1.94
2.22
2.28
2.07
2.47 - p p
2 36 0 121
& rbilrty Evahmtzon Ketlienia~? H ~ l l s Facrl~ty MSlY I.mdfill L111rt B-19 K~ngs Cc Cai~fornza - Table 3 - Seismically-Induced Permanent Displacements from Newmark Deformation Analyses
ALlonlHAl~rq'~ct-2OO3lKet1Ieman-2003lkl~len~~n-~p~ wpd November ZOO3
Cross Section
A-A'
9-B'
G-G'
H-H'
K-K'
Failure Plane Number
I
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
2
I
2
3
1 ~p
2
Static Factor of Safety
2.94
2.94
2.23
2.47
2.46
3.29
2.45
2.22
2.67
1.94
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.86
Description
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Circular Failure through Bioreactor
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Lincr
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom L iner
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner
Circular Failure through Bioreactor
Deep Block Failure through Bottom Liner ~p -
Shallow Block Failure through Separation Liner
Yield Acceleration
k, (9)
0.130
0.139
0.298
0.121
0.124
0.355
0.126
0.125
0.298
0.145
0141
0.322
0.121
0.290
Maximum Acceleration
k,,, (g)
0.25
0.27
0.68
0.22
0.23
0.68
0.25
0.27
0.67
0.34
0.33
0.24
0.80 ~p~
0.63
- Permanent
Displacement (in)
3.5
3.7
4.2
2.9
3.1
3.5
4.0
4.6
approx. 6
5.3
1.9
7.8
approx. 6 -
5.9
FIGURES
-2-
0 loo 200 - FEET
NOTES:
1) BASE mmww FROM ADVANCED DIGITAL MAPS, INC., DATE OF PHOtbGRAPHY 1/26/90.
2) BASE CONTOURS FOR U N D f l U 0-19 WERE GENERATED FROM AS-BUILT NRMYS FOR TOP OF OPERATIONS U K R OM BASE AND TOP Of SECONDARY CUI FOR SIDE SLOPES.
3) onKirtm DRAWING REFEREWE; COLDER *SSOCUTES (1991). UNIDflLL 0-19 BASE COUNTROUS AND SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY, DRAWING YO. 2. REV. 0.
HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES INC. coob&&& kltbqmk. lad bvkommaaW U w r l
AND CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS
0 100 POD . FEET
BEDROCK t 700 SECTION B-B'
o 400 a00 1200 1600 zoo0 2400 1000 1000
900 900
800 800
BOO
700 -
600
-1 BEDROCK --
BEDROCK I 700
BEDROCK
I I I I 1
- 700
SECTION A-A' 600
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
SECTION D-D'
----.-- SEPARATION LINER
------- STATIC FAILURE PLANE
------- PSEUDO-STATIC FAILURE PLANE
D l STATIC PLANE NUMBER
@ PSEUDO-STATIC PLANE NUMBER
0 0
0 m
0 L 0' 50' 100' 200'
SCALE l H = 2 O O '
Project No. oz-0207 ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS A-A', B -B' ,
D-D' AND POTENTIAL FAILURE PLANES
Kettleman hills Facility - Unit B-19 KetUeman City, m g s count^^ Califoma Figure
4 HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES INC. -4 hrmqwk8 8nd b-W mdnwn
HAZARDOUS TASTE-----: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.-a
7001
BEDROCK
-01 BEDROCK t 700
SUMMARY OF SWPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
--.-am- SEPARATION LINER
- - - - - - - STATIC FAILURE PLANE
------- PSEUDO-STATIC FAILURE PLANE
STATIC PLANE NUMBER
@ PSEUDO-STATIC PLANE NUMBER
0 0
0 u3
0 i!!- 0' 50' 100' 200'
SCALE lw=20O'
900 -
BUTRESS FILL
800-
BEDROCK
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Project NO. 02-0207
SECTION H-H'
ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS G - G' , H-H' , K-K' AND POTENTIAL FAILURE PLANES
Kettleman hills Facility - Unit B-19 Kettleman City. mgs county, California
SECTION 1-1'
Figure
5 &+,J HUSHMAND G=.bahica l,arolprurr ASSOCIATES .ad Er,-d En&6ezw INC.
SECTION G-G'
BEDROCK t 700
7 0 0 1 BEDROCK BEDROCK 1 700
SECTION K-K'
SECTION J-J'
SubfMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
-.--*-- SEPARATION LINER - - - - - - - STATIC FAILURE PLANE
------- PSEUDO-STATIC FAILURE PLANE
STATIC PLANE NUMBER
O PSEUDO-STATIC PLANE NUMBER
0
0
0' 50' 100' 200'
SCALE 1 "=ZOOy
Project NO. 02-0207
Kettleman hills Facility - Unit B-19 Kettleman City, County, California ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS J -J' , K-K'
AND POTENTIAL FAILURE PLANES HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES INC. G W b o b h L Mqn.ke .nd ~~W thdtmun
Figure 6
· Unit Weight (kN/m3)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 280 <, --\ - ...... i I
, 0
" .... , I30 ... I 'I 10
), 1\~60 I- 1\ ', I, \ 20
90 I , \ - --- -- -
I 30
, 120 I
4? I 40 l:lC1l~
"0s: 150 I -- ::T0.
IQ) 50 "3Cl ~
180 1I 60
210 I
I I70
I240 l- I
I! II 80
270 l-I
I I I , I, , , 90300!
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Unit Weight (pet)
KAVAZANJIAN ET Al. (1995)MSW--_. (USEDINTH'SSTUDY)
- - - - • BID·REACTOR MSW(USEDIN THIS STUDY)
-- - -_. AVERAGE MSW(65 pc~
- - - - • AVERAGE BID-REACTOR MSW (105 pc~
EPARECOMMENDATION (1995)
-- - - EARTH TECHNOLOGY (1966)
Project No.02·0207 I Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit 8-19
Kettleman City, Kinas County. California
HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES INC.Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineers
UNIT WEIGHT PROFILE FOR MUNICIPAL SOLIDWASTE (MSW) AND BIO-REACTOR MSW
Figure
7
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 31 NORMAL STRESS (kPa)
Source: Kavazanjian et al. (1995) I '
Project No. 02-0207
Kettlernsn Hills Facility- Unit B-19 Kettleman Cjry, Kings County, California MSW SHEAR STFUZNGTH Figure
8
Shear Wave Velocity ( d s )
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 I600 1800
Shear Wave Velocity (fps)
I-I---- After Kavazanjian et al. (1996) (used in this study)
€PA ( 4 995) ------ Kavazanjian et al. (1 994) (8 sites) - - - - after Earth Technology (1988) (downhole)
after Earth Technology (I 988) (crossbo~e) - - - - - after Carey et al. (1 993)
Project No. 02-0207
Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 Kettleman City, Kings County, California SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY OF MSW HUSHMANU ASSOCtA TES INC.
Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineers
Figure
9
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Cyclic Shear Strain ( 7 0 )
0.0001 O.OOt 0.01 0.1 I 10 Cyclic Shear Strain (%)
-------- Augello et al. (1998) - - . - ldriss e l ol. (1995) - - -+ Morochnik et 01. (1998)
Motasovic and Kovazan jion ( 1 998)
w
Project No. Keltteman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 02-0207 Kettleman City, Kings County, California CoMPARISON BETWEEN SHEAR Figure
INC. MODULUS REDUCTION AND DAMPING CURVES FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 10A
h I I - - - \
- -
,-
F
- MATASOVIC AND KAVAtANJIAN (1998). MSW - - SEED €7 AL. (1984.86). AVERAGE SAND - - SEED AND IDRISS (1970). CLAY
I I I I
I I I I
MATASOVlC AND KAVAZANJIAN (t998). MSW - - - SEED ET Al. (198468). AVERAGE SAND - - - SEED AND IDRISS (1970). CLAY
-
- -
-
-
- -
1
0.8
0.6 i!
B C3
0.4
0.2
0
0.000 1 0.00 1 0.0 1 0.1 1 10
Cyclic Shear Strain (%)
30 -
s 20 w
0 .- ..d
2 cn C . - i?
10
0
0.000 1 0.001 0.0 1 0.1 1 10
Cyclic Shear Strain (%)
Note: Hazardous waste dynamic material properties are modeled as sand. Buttress compacted soil and soil liner properties are modeled as clay.
Project No. 02-0207
Kettlemen H~lls F a c ~ l ~ t y - Unit B-19 Kettleman City. Kings County, Calrfornla
USHMAND A SSOCIA TES INC. !eotechnIcaI and Earthquake Engineers
SHEAR MODULUS REDUCTION AND DAMPING Figure CURVES FOR MSW, SAND, AND CLAY
USED IN THIS STUDY 1 OB
1300
1200-
1100-
1000-
900 -
BOO -
700 -
800-
500 0
0 400 800 1200 1800 2000 I I I I I
NORTH + Bio-Reactor Separation Line Between Bio-Reactor k MSW
Failure Plane 1 Municipal Solid Waste
Failure Plane 3 Failure Plane 2
Separation Liner Hazardous Waste
Buttress Limit
Soil Buttress
Failure Plane 5 Failure Plane 4
I I I I I 400 800 1200 1800 2000
2400 1300
- 1200
- 1100
- 1000
- 900
- 800
- 700
- 800
500 2400
Project No. I Kettleman Bills Facility - Unit B-19 02-0207 l~ettleman City, Kinpa County. California
"SHMAND --..1-WmZa.=. ASSOCIATES INC. SECTION A-A'
FINITE ELEMENT (QUAD~M) MESH Figure
11
SOUTH + 1300
- 1200
- 1100
- 1000
- 900
- 800
- 700
- 600
500 1800
0 1300
1200-
1100-
1000 -
QOO-
800 -
700-
600-
500
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
Separation Line Between Bio-Reactor & MSW
Municipal Solid Waste
Failure Plane 1 Bio-Reactor Separation Liner
Hazardous Waste Buttress Limit
Soil Buttress Buttress Limit
Soil Buttress
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Figure 12
Project No. Kettleman Bills Facility - Unit B-19 02-0207 Kettleman City, Kinga County, California I HusHwD hotmhba-mAd-mda..n AssOcuTEs I N C
SECTION B-B' FINITE ELEMENT (QUADIM) MESH
EAST
1300
1200 -
1100-
1000 -
900 -
a00 -
700 -
600 -
500 0
0 500 1000 I I I I I I I I
Pallure Plane 4 Municipal SoUd Waste Separation h e Between
Uo-Reactor k MSW
Separation Ihm
Failure Plane 2 Bio-Reactor
Soil Buttress Buttress Limit
Hazardous W a d e
Failure Plme 1
I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 r I I 500 1000 1500
Project No. 02-0207
1500 1300
- 1200
- 1100
-
- 1000
- 900
- 800
- 700
Kettleman Hills Facility - Unit B-19 Kettleman City, Kings County, California
- 600
500
a- w t d d d . ~ m d - m w m
SECTION G-G' Figure
FINITE ELEMENT ( Q u A D ~ M ) MESH 13
EAST
Failure Plane 1-
Fallwe Plane 3 Bio-Reactor
Buttress Wmit Failure Plane 2 Soil Buttress
/ \
Clay Liner /' Separation &er
Hazardous Waste
1500 1300
- 1200
- 1100
- 1000
-
- 900
- 800
- 700
- 600
-
500
1300
1200 -
1100 -
1000 -
900 -
800 -
700 -
600 -
500
0 500 1000 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I t I 1 I I I I 1
0 500 1000 1500
Figure 14
Project No. 02-0207
Kettleman hills Facility - U d t B-10 Kettleman City, Kin- County, California SECTION H-H' (Revised)
ASSOCVLTES INC. --&-111-
FINITE ELEMENT (QUAD4M) MESH
12,00o 18001300+-------'------'---------L-------'------'---------L-------'- -'--- ---L ---'- '---- ..1- ---'- '---- .1- ---'-- -----''--- + 1300
NORTH1200-
-~f- 1200
1100- f- 1100Separation line Between Bio-Reactor & MSW
Municipal Solid Waste--__
1000-Failure Plane 1--_ ---Bio-Reactor
f- 1000
Failure Plane 2--_
900- Buttress limit f- 900
800
Soil Buttress
f- 800
700Hazardous Waste
Separation liner f-700
Clay liner
600- f- 800
I300 8~0
Project No.02-0207
Kettleman hills Facility - Unit B-19KetUeman City, KinKS County. California
HUSHMAND ASSOCIATES INC.GeotIoaIiIdnJo IuOlqub u;ul~ta1~
FINITESECTION K-K'
ELEMENT (QUAD4M) MESHFigure
15
12.0
10.0
-
- -
-- Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Flipped) - C - Castaic, CH-i (Original) .- V
C C E 8.0
8 m - a V) . - (3
P 6.0 a3 0 3 -0 C - 6 x m
4.0 D 6 L 3 . 5 - - - - l3
2.0
I
0 .o 0.f3
V
0.09 0. 1 0.1 1 0.12 0.1 3 0.14 0.15 0.1 6
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section A-A' - Failure Plane 1
I I I
I
I Cross Section A-A' - Failure Plane 1 -
Project No. 02-0207
Kettleman Hills Faciliry- Unit B-19 Kettleman City, Kings County, California
-, Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original)
- Modified Seed-Hayward (Original) - Modified Seed-Hyward (Ripped)
HU A 0 T IN ~ ~ E d i c f : Z ~ ~ h F ~ ~ e ~ ~ g ~ n ~ ~ s
-
EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS Figure SECTION A-A' - FAILURE PLANE I
2-D QuAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS 16
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope AIong Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section A-A' - Failure Plane 2
Project No. 02-0207
Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 Ketllcman City, Kings County. California
k$#!d EEf:Y2SS,"f2ZZf11F;S EARTHQUAKE INDIKED DISPLACEMENTS Figure
SECTION A-A' - FAILURE PLANE 2 2-D Q U A D ~ M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS 17
10.0
8.0 - C , .- - * C
E ln 0 m 6.0 - a UI
ii D a,
-
-
0 3 r, 4.2 C - d, 4.0 Y rn 3 r + w"
2.0
0.0 0.298
0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Circular Failure Plane vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section A-A' - Faiure Plane 3
I I I
Project No.
Cross Section A-A' - Failure Plane 3
----B---- Northridge. Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original) Norlhridge. Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Flipped) -
Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit 6-19
-
-
02-0207 Kettleman City, Kings County, California EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS SECTION A-A' - FAILURE PLANE 3
2-D QUm4MDyNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS I E &&d $ 2
Figure
18
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope AIong Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section A-A' - Failure Plane 4
Project No. Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 02-0207 Kettleman City, Kings Coalnty, California EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS Figure
SECTION A-A' - FAILURE PLANE 4
-- -
19
*
. .
--- Modified Seed-Hayward (Original) -- Modified Seed-Hyward (Flipped) - Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original)
Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Flipped) - Castaic. CH-1 (Original)
I
0.124 0.09 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.13 0.14 0.1 5 0.16
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section A-A' - Failure Plane 5
Project No. 02-0207
Kettleman Wills Facility- Unit B-19 Kettleman City. Kings County, California
N -E5 EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS Figure
SECTION A-A' - FAILURE PLANE 5 2-D QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS 20
0.32 0,33 0.34 0.35 0'355 0.36
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Separation Liner vs, Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section A-A' - Faiure Plane 6
Projcc~ No. 02-0207 EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
SECTION A-A' - FAILURE PLANE 6 2 - 0 QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 Kettleman City. Kings County, California Figure
2 1 I m. e%!f:ft$ t."i,"U'i~$~Bi!%~S
10.0 I I
- Cross Section 0-B' - Failure Plane I - Modified Seed-Hayward (Original) - Modified Seed-Hyward (Flipped)
-
s, Norlhridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original)
-- Northridge. Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Flipped) - C - Castaic, CH-3 (Original) .- u Castaic, CH-1 (Flipped)
- u C
0.126 0.09 0.1 0.1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.1 5 0.1 6
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section B-B' - Failure Plane 1
Project No. 02-0207 EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
SECTION B-B' - FAILURE PLANE 1 2-D QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Kettleman Hills Facility- Unit 8-19 Kcltlcrnan City, Kings County, California Figure
2 2 H N SOCl TESIN . G~E?E;~,!,,A Earthpu:c Engine%
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section G-G' - Failure Plane 1
Project No. Kenlernan Hills Facility- Unil B- 19 02-0207 Kettleman City, Kings County, California EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS Figure
SECTION G-G' - FAILURE PLANE 1 23
0.0 - 0.3 0.3 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Separation Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section G-G' - Failure Plane 2
Figure
24
Project No. 02-0207
Kenleman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 Kettleman City, Kings county, California EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
H A A SO /A E I C. c + e U o S E c E n d $arth$akT,l&teers
SECTION G-G' - FAILURE PLANE 2 2-D QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
I 1 i *
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section H-H' - Failure Plane 1
Cross Section H-H' - Failure Plane 1
Modllid Seed-Hayward (Original) - Modified Seed-Hyward (Flipped)
-
Northridge. Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original)
Northridge. Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Fl~pped) - Cadaic. CH-I (Original) - -- Castaie. CH-I (Flipped)
0.145 ,09 0.1 0.1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18
Project No. Kcnlcman Hills Facility- Unit B-19 02-0207 Kettlcman City, Kings County, California EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
SECTION H-H' - FAILUIUl PLANE 1 QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Figure
25
#
10.0
8.0 ? C .- V
4-
ti Q)
6.0 +! .P n
I Cross Section H-H' - Failure Plane 2
Modified Seed-Hayward {Original)
,- Modified Seed-Hyward (Flipped]
--. Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original) ,--&- Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Flipped) - Castaic, CH-1 (Original]
Castaic, CH-1 (Flipped)
-0 a 0 3 u C - 6 4.0 x 3 F m W
2.0 7.9
0.0 0.741
0.09 0.1 0.1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.1 5 0.16
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section H-H' - Failure Plane 2
-
Project No. Kettleman Hills Facili~y- Unit B-19 02-0207 Kettleman City, Kings County, California EmTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
SECTION H-H' - FAILURE PLANE 2
Y
Figure
26 A
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Circular Failure Plane vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section H-H' - Faiure Plane 3
Figure
27
EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS SECTION H-H' - FAILURE PLANE 3
2-D QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Project No. 02-0207
Kcnlernan Hills Facility- Unit B-19 Kettleman City, Kings County, California
k%& 2~~!222!2~.",51~!25?2f2~
-
12.0
-
i 1 Cross Section K-K' - Failure Plane 1 - Modified Seed-Hayard (Original) - Modified Seed-Hyard (Flipped) -
.- Northridge, Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Original) - Northridge. Kagel Canyon CH-3 (Flipped) h
ci - ------&---- Castaic. CH-I (Original) -
.- w *.r
-------)------ Castaic. CH-I (Flipped) C
0 (II - - a - m fi 6.f
L] 3 u
I
0.721 0.09 0.1 0.1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.1 5 0.16
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section K-K' - Failure Plane 1
-
Project No. Kc~tlernan Hills Facility- Unit B-19 02-0207 I Kettleman City, Kings County, California
H 0 !ATE IN ~.U.$,!%zfl,A Z f f l h E a k e Z g i n z ~
EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS SECTlON K-K' - FAILURE PLANE 1
QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Figure
28
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Separation Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section K-K' - Failure Plane 2
Project No. 02-0207
Kcltlemsn H~lls Facility- Unrt B-19 Kcttlcman City, Kings County, California
&&J ! ,
EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS Figure SECTION K-K' - FAILURE PLANE 2
2-D QUAD4M DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS 29
I
16.0
D~stant Earthquake 14.0
Caltech A-I Synthet~cRemrd (Orlglnal)
2 12.0 .- - C
E 10.0 0
-fi .Y 0 V 8.0 8 3 v C -
6.0 m 3 z 6! 4.0
2.0
0.0
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.1 1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
Yield Acceleration Coefficient Ky (g)
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bonom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section H-H' - Failure Plane 1
Distant Design Earthquake
P q a l No Kettleman Hnlls Faclltty- UnllB-19 02-0207 ( Kctllcrnan c ~ t y . ~ l n g s county. ~sltfornla
H D I G22?~t2a2~f2$i~$?~~2~ EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
SECTION H-H' - FAILURE PLANE 1 DISTANT DESIGN EARTHQUAKE
Figure
30
Earthquake-Induced Displacement of Landfill Slope Along Bottom Liner vs. Yield Acceleration Coefficient, Ky (g), Cross Section K-K' - Failure Plane 1
Distant Design Earthquake
Project No. Kenleman Hills Facilily- Unit B-19 02-0207 K ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ritw ~i".. r o a n w rn~ifnrnia EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS
APPENDIX A
Figures from Rust E&I 1997 Report (Landfill Final Fill Plan, Analysis Cross Sections, Liner Systems, and Design Earthquake Ground
Motions)
APPENDIX A
FIGURES FROM RUST E&l1997 REPORT (LANDFILL FINAL FILL PLAN, ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS, LINER SYSTEMS, AND DESIGN EARTHQUAKE
GROUND MOTIONS)
A number of figures from the Rust E&l 1997 stability report are presented in this appendix for reference to more clearly illustrate modifications applied to geometry of the B-19 landfill 1997 final f i l l plan and perimeter stability buttress to arrive at the 2006 revised fill plan and buttress configuration presented and discussed in this report and in the landfill closure plan report prepared by Golder Associates, Inc. (2006). These figures show plan view and cross sections of the 1997 (old) final fill plan geometry (Figures 5, 13, 14, 15, and 16), liner and cover systems used in the 1997 stability analyses (Figures 6, 7, 8. 9, 1 I, and 12), configuration of the perimeter stability buttress (Figure lo), and information on the design earthquake and selected earthquake ground motions used in the landfill dynamic response analyses (Figures 29 through 33). The only changes applied to the landfill design are those shown in the final fill plan and the buttress geometry (Figures 3, 4. 5, and 6 of this report). Therefore, Figures 5, 10, and 13 thru 16 of the 1997 Rust E&I report are not anymore applicable. I-lowever. the 1997 landfill liner and final cover configurations and design earthquake ground motions shown in the rest of figures in Appendix A remain unchanged and are used in the 2006 stability analyses for the new landfill final fill plan geometry.
LANDFILL FINAL FILL PLAN, ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS, AND LINER SYSTEMS
A
2' OPERATIONS LAYER
16 OZ NON-WOVEN 1' LCRS DRAINAGE ROCK
2' PRIMARY SOlL LINER (K I 1 x1 0-7 CM/SEC) (ADD CLAY TO EXISTING SOlL LINER) 80 MIL HDPE
6" 8 HDPE LEACHATE GEOMEMBRANE (TOP COLLECTION PIPE AND B O l l O M TEXTURED)
3.5' EXISTING SECONDARY SOlL LINER (K ~lx10-7cm/sec)
NOTE: BASE LINER DETAIL
NTS 60 MIL HDPE SEE TABLE 3 FOR GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE PROPERTIES (TOP AND BOTOM K : HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL LINER SMOOTH)
FIGURE
6 200444
PREPARED BY:
Rurr. Rust Environment 8 infrastructure Inc.
4
MODIFIED PHASE IA BOTTOM LINER INTERFACE DETAILS
(INTERFACE 1)
5-19 CLASS 11/11l LANDFILL K e t t l e m a n Hil ls Fac i l i ty
K e t t l e m a n City, Kings County, Cali fornia
G EOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE LAYER
2' OPERATIONS LAYER 80 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE (TEXTURED BOTTOM, SMOOTH TOP)
1 3.5' EXISTING CtAY LINER (REPAIR CRACKS BY FILLING WITH LOW PERMEABILITY MATERIAL)
SDESLOPE L E R NTS N 0 TE:
SEE TABLE 3 FOR INTERFACE PROPERTIES
PREPARED B Y
WWT RUStmdmnmmt&-!n~.
G:\IiTRR\PRO-JECT\KETTI FMAN\DETATLS.TIWG
MODIFIED PHASE IA SDESLOPE LNER NlEFFACE ETALS
(INTERFACE 2)
B-19 CLASS Il/lll LANDFILL
Fl GURE
Ket t lemon H i l l s Focility
7 tleman City, Kings County, California 444
B-
16 OZ NON-WOVEN 2' OPERATIONS LAYER
1' LCRS DRAlNAGE ROCK
1.5' PRIMARV SOIL LINER (K I? 1 ~ 1 0 ' ~ CM/SEC)
60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE (SMOOTH TOP AND BOTTOM SIDES)
16 OZ NON-WOVEN
3.5' SECONDARY SOIL LINER (K 5 1 x10" CM/SEC)
60 MIL HDPE
BASE LINER DETAIL GEOMEMBRANE NOTE: (SMOOTH TOP AND
SEE TABLE 3 FOR NTS BOITOM SIDES) INTERFACE PROPERTIES
PREPARED BY:
RSWl ~ E n v b w w n e n t & ~ ~ ~ r e k r c .
EXISTING PHASE IB BOTTOM LIhER INTERFACE DETAILS
(INTERFACE 3)
0-19 CLASS ll/lI1 LANDFILL Ket t leman Hills Focitity
Ket t leman City, Kings County. California
FIGURE
8 200444
T; \ I ITR?\PRn IFrT\ KTTTI TMdhl\ TITTAT1 T n\.lC
J
40 MIL HDPE PROTECTIVE HDPE GEOMEMBRANE (SMOOTH TOP AND BOTTOM) 16 OZ NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE GEONET
2' OPERATIONS LAYER 60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE (SMOOTH TOP AND BOTTOM SIDES)
GEONET
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE (SMOOTH TOP AND B O l l O M SIDES)
3.5' CLAY LINER
SIDESLOPE LINER NOTE: SEE TABLE 3 FOR
NTS INTERFACE PROPERTIES
PREPARED BY: EXISTING PHASE 1B/11/111 SIDESLOPE FIGURE
LINER INTERFACE DETAILS (INTERFACE 4)
0-19 CLASS II/III LANDFILL Rust hnment & htrast~cture inc. K e t t l e m a n Hills Facility
9
FINAL COVER 7
STRUCTURAL FILL 3
1 ' DRAINAGE GRAVEL PERIMETER CHANNEL DETAIL
6" 0 HDPE LCRS COLLECTION PIPE
SEPARATION LINER OVER CLASS f WASTE 2' OPERATIONS LAYER
EXISTING GROUND
EXlSTlNG ANCHOR TRENCH
PERIMETER BERM DETAIL ,
NTS PREPARED BY: I PROPOSED PHASE B/W11 FIGURE
PERMETER BERM DETAILS (INTERFACE 5)
6-79 CLASS H/lII LANDFILL Kettleman Hills Facility
Kett leman City, Kings County, Catifornia
2' OPERATIONS LAYER
GEOCOMPOSlTE DFUINACE LAYER 60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE (TEXTURED TOP AND BOTTOM SIDES)
2' FOUNDATION LAYER WASTE FILL J
(EXISTING CLASS I COVER, K 5 1x10-5 CM/SEC)
SEPARATION LINER OVER CLASS I WASTE NTS
NOTE: SEE TABLE 3 FOR INTERFACE PROPERTIES
FIGURE
11 200444
PREPARED BY:
RlKT Rutst b w b m m a & hhsbwtwe Inom
PROPOSED PHASE IB/II/lI-HW/MSW SEPARATION LINER INTERFACE DETAILS
(INTERFACE 6)
B-19 CLASS 1l/III LANDFILL Kett leman Hills Facility
Kett leman City, Kings County, California
r 2.5' VEGETATIVE SOlL
12 OZ NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
40 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE (TEXTURED TOP AND BOlTOM SIDES)
I L 1 ' INTERMEDIATE COVER SOlL
L 1' LOW PERMEABILITY SOlL FOUNDATION LAYER (K s 1x10-5 CM/SEC)
FINAL COVER NTS
Section Bearing = N 33' W
0 200 SCALE IN FEET
m - I
m
----- Proposed separation Liner (see Figure 1 1 )
Proposed Final Cover (see Figure 12)
--------- Existing/Modified Bottom and Sideslope Liner (see Figures 6 to 9)
Phase II - Phase 16 1 . Phase IA - -
'Phase Ill -
CROSS SECTION A-A'
B-19 CLASS 11/IIl LANDFILL
cn 7
t rn
REFERENCES: + Golder Associates, "Existing Landfill 8-19 Base Contours and Surrounding ~ o p o ~ r a ~ h y " . Drawing No. 2. Rev. 0, Dated 4/15/91
RUST €&I, CWMl Kettleman Hills Facility, 0-1 9 Class Il/tll Londfill, dated August 1997.
Kettlemoo ills Facility Kettleman City. Kings County, California
1 PREPARED BY: FIGURE
Section Bearing = N 05' W
2000
C'1000
800
900
ProposedButtress Fill(See Figure 10
Bedrock
c;::J-o
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet)
I
Phose IA
1500
A
A
Phase IB
1000
JE
Existing HW Fill
Phose III
.coc
"
Bedrock
-t---.,----------,--1---+,-----+-,--+-----,-I--,--,---t---,.------,-------h----,----,----,-L-700
900
800
(J)
Im~
c::J- 0 F0
~
C.~-'
1000
7000 a 5000
--' FJ""o1=
'"~ 0 E G JHORIZONTAl
0
0 200SCALE IN FEET
LEGENDREFERENCES:
• Golder Associates. "Existing Landfill B-19 Bose Contours and Surrounding Topography", Drawing No, 2. Rev. 0, Dated 4/15/91• RUST E&I, CWMI Kettleman Hills Facility, 8-19 Class II/III Landfill, doted August 1997,
PREPARED BY: FIGURE
- - - - - Proposed Separation Liner (see Figure 11)
Proposed Final Cover (See Figure 12)
--------- Existing/Modified Bottom andSideslope Liner (See Figures 6 to 9)
Rust .....w..-ta... I ...........
CROSS SECTION c-cB-19 CLASS I!jill LANDFILL
Kettleman Hills FacilityKettleman City. Kings County, California
15200444
EARTHQUAKE DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS
I AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION I
0 0 0 0 0 , 6 Qee3O I d r iss ( 1994) 4 lwssa Abraharnson ( 1995)
2 m G e o r n a t r ix ( 1992) W'WO Compbe I I / B o z o r g n l a
1 OCOO , I I I -. . r -4- A v e r a g e ! ? e ~ a L : o n s h u
I N 1.000 years T---3
PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (g) - ROCK SITES
.Seismic Hazard Evaluation, Landfill Unit B-19, Kettleman Hills Facility
At tenuat ion re lat ions f o r bl ind th rus t fau l ts a n d rock sites.
PREPARED BY: I PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION IN ROCK I FIGURE
W R Q ~ W & VERSUS AVERAGE RETURN PERIOD
m m u m 6 - 1 9 CLASS II/III LANDFILL
KETTLEMAN HILLS' FACILITY KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
L
0.3 I 0.2 m L 0.1 0 .- C
0.0 i3 - ffl 0 -0.1 0 <
-0.2
-0.3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time -sec
(a) Caltech A- 1 Synthetic Record Scaled to 0.2 1g Peak Acceleration
2.0
1.5 0)
I
C
1
0 rE e al - a, u 1.0 U Q - 0, .+- 0 a, a V)
0.5
0 .o 2 0.1
2 5 2 5 1 0.0 1 10 Period - sec
(b) Comparison of Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum of Caltech A- 1 Synthetic Earthquake Record and Target Design Spectrum (Peak Acceleration Scaled to 0.2 1g)
FIGURE
30 200444
PREPARED BY-
ENvIRONhmw & I I ! @ ~ u ~
"
CALTECH A-1 SYNTHETIC ACCELERATION RECORD
AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM
- DISTANT DESIGN EARTHQUAKE - B-19 CLASS II/III LANDFILL
Kettleman Hills Facility Kettleman City. Kings County. California
0.6
0.4 0 I
S 0.2 .- C
9 0.0 Q, - aJ
-0.2 0 4
-0.4
-0.6 0 10 20 30 4 0
Time -sec
I (a) Modified Seed-Hayward Synthetic Record Scaled to 0.57g Peak Acceleration
0.0 2 0.1 2 5 2 5 1 0.0 1 10
Period - sec
(b) Comparison of Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum of the Modified Seed-Hayward Synthetic Earthquake Accelerogram and Target Design Spectrum peak Acceleration of Synthetic Record Scaled to 0.57g)
FIGURE
31 PREPARED BY:
ENvIR~bbfENT& I I 'mwaRm . -
Kettleman ills Facility Kettlemon City. Kings County, Colifomia
MODtFlED SEED-HAYWARD SYNTHETIC ACCELERATION RECORD AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM SCALED
TO TARGET MCE RESPONSE SPECTRUM
- LOCAL DESIGN EARTHQUAKE - 6-g9 CLASS II/lIi LANDFILL
200444
- Castaic Spectr
t
. 0.6 - 0.4
- U)
- 1
r 0.2 -
0 - .- + P 0.0 QJ - - a, 0 -0.2
- U 4
- -0.4
- -
-0.6 0 10 20 30 40
Time -sec
(a) Northridge Castaic Old Ridge Route CH 1 Record Scaled to 0.57g Peak Acceleration
2.0
1.5 0, t
6 G=
2 a, - Q) L) 1.0 9 - E C
0 a, L1. m
0.5
0.0 2 0.1 2 5 2 5 1 0.0 1 10
Period - sec
(b) Comparison of Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum of M6.7 January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake Castaic - Old Ridge Route, CHN 1:90 DEG Record and Target Design Spectrum (Peak Acceleration Scaled to 0.57g)
FIGURE
32 200444
PREPARED BY:
ENVIRO- & ~ u m
CASTAIC ACCELERATION RECORD' AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM - LOCAL DESIGN EARTHQUAKE -
- B-19 CLASS II/III LANDFILL Kettleman Hills Facility
Kettleman ~ ~ t y , Kings ('mnty, CaIifornia
0.6
0.4 0
; 0.2 0 .- C e 0.0 ar - (I) u -0.2 2
-0.4
-0.6 0 10 20 30 40
Time -sec
(a) Northridge Pacoima - Kagel Canyon CH 3 Record Scaled to 0.57g Peak Acceleration
2.0
1.5 0 I
C 0 . - C
n a, - Q, 0 1.0 1: - 2 C
0 (1) Q
V)
0.5
0.0 2 0.1 2 5 1 2
0.0 1 10 Period - sec
(b) Comparison of Pseudo-Acceleration Response Spectrum of M6.7 January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake Pacoima - &gel Canyon, CHN 3:360 DEG Record and Target Design Spectrum (Peak Acceleration Scaled to 0.57g)
FIGURE
33- 200444
PREPAREO BY:
~ R o m m &C w m , m
PACOIMA-KAGEL CANYON ACCELERATION RECORD AND DYNAMIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM - LOCAL DESIGN EARTHQUAKE -
B-19 CLASS lllllt LANDFILL Kettlemon Hills Facility
Kettleman City, Kings County, California
. ~ d 3
Available Material and Interface Propenlea u a d for Seiectlon of Deslgn Parameters
Cahorlon mr) o
360 100 500
uoo 0
?,OM 5CO 6W
0 410
3,6W f 2 W 1,300 i.156
n t r r . Inca
F4. W
MSW
E h l b l d ProposN
Llnrr cmtt.t.cilon
Waste F,T C h r l / W a r W O p m k n ~ Lryor
C / r r l # / / I f wash
B K I ~ C L ~ u b g r n d b ~ ~ r v i m w s ~ & ~ r n d & n a - c r o r t . e r ~ n u Perk Shear Slmnplh C l b y ~ ~ I I a ~ a n d , b w . A b n p B r M w Pbak Shear Smnolh Ena lnwnd FUI *a#? SlnxbmlFlR (bp Mmp.cled maledab bum dsslflkpnlod brdmckj
Compaelrd Chy Uner (rhofl I s m at low confining s h a d
Rlmrrks
Oerp Srp Swllcer ShaRow Sip SIlnpcss
Oar# Slp Sdaces Shaaw Slp Swlacos
DS lash DS and TXUU h r l f
TrUU
Benn maletinla. ~ b i v t a l ~ d DS felts Brnn mrlsdalx, nalwal mdslm.DS lor16
T X ~ U
I fC4prl [P.rk), 000 pf (mSldmr) 1 x . c ~ kr lx , m m c i u s d d n t e u ~ l d f l ly lmne
CAI (19dO. 1901). ESI(I093) QAI (I*#% 1D911, E S I ( ~ ~ # S )
REI. ~ ~ m r r ( r # 0 4 j ESI (10031
' REI, K ~ ( l D 9 4 1 ESl(fP91)
RE1 ESf(t992) ESI llO92J
ESI(1992) ESl(fO90)
Kormw flQa6) Glnma (tO80)
ESI (190)
OAl ( m e IPDO)
RE1 K o e m r (1994J ESI (fs9$
REI. K w m r ( l 9 9 4 J &Sf (19DJ)
ESl(1BPQ
ESI (1902) ESt (t992) SMS (1908)
SMS ( M ~ I ) ' SMS (1980)
OAI (1960)
RE!, Kwmrr( lPV4)
REI. KMm+t(lO@l)
SMS ( r m o
RE1
2
Thkkmsr Rohnncr
CAI (1989. ~ D P O , ESl(fS93) GAl (1949, lDQlJ, ESl(l99JJ
Kava lodrn @I rl. 199s ~ r v r z r ~ r f i n r l of, 1996
OM PA. 19dM9), ESI (1900) D4A P A . i * I IJ . ESl(1990)
ES111980) EMCON (19611)
DM (1089 WA (1989)
~ s r (rP90) SMS f1988J OAl (1#8$ €51 (19901
cIr*: IMII W s t a OprmblD~ Sdl L a p r
Q.o(rxUh F/Mr (12 o m spunband mmrovln m d n I I42 pSCR
Prlmr~/ LCRS UmnulrrLryrr
O m k l k C w h ~ n ( fa o m y ~pwlbandiwnvmvan, f m ~ r a 1153 F(SCI)
PdnUry HDPE Geonwmbnne (DDubfa T e ~ l u q d FlSCDl
Pdmrry C h y U w r
Geokrab Flker (12 or&y spwnb0ndnan~ve0. Tmvlm I ~ S S PSCfl
S r w n d r q LCRS Clnwi r r Layer
Q w b x U h C W (11 a d ~ y / J I W M ~ ~ ~ oeowonn, T ~ H * t 155 W C D
( i rwn l ORInrpr L r p r flrr.Ur1 TN 3002, QeosompasIta PN 3000, pSCD
S u u n d r y HOPE Qoomrmbnne (Oaubl* Smalh pSC8
S r w r y G t w Urnr V ldosr Zonr Monbr lnp Syrr*m ( I i ~ b o t ~ w M . bp t.6-loocda*p lmnCh ')
(7 rnneh nd a r b r u b p r r l Oaohr#f# FlMr (16 o w cpvrdmd nonwov#n, T n W i 1156 WSCJ
D n m r p . R W n w r Lawr
UObhxa* CLUhhU (18 o t n y d p ~ n & n d i w m w l m , 1155 WSCD
HOPE O w m m b n n r (&&lo Smwm PunaBD
Phaor U S i d a s b p d U o s r / ~ r f n c r
On11 W ~ / p h l &I)
115
5
130 I30
I25
125
125
Ch: IUll WIIN
ShbrrS l rh#h FrkW
idaomrr)
31 27 3J 0
40 36
30 I t 21 33 J g 0 0 0 20
P P
r
P
P
P
P
E P E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E '
E
t feel
o.faainch
80 W l
3.5 toel
2 Re1
2tonm1
1 loo1
2jOnirs
0.2lmh
SO d l
1.5 1011
110 WI;
11wr
2100d11
60 W l
3.5 leal
? I O w r
I fool
2101Ws
ao HIS
? k@l 4 0 M
tfOnw*
0.2lneh
60 nYI
? I 0 mirr
0.2 mch
dOmN
1.8 h* l
1010 13 reel 15 /eel
40 WIS
VIII.IR
2 he1
0.3OSImh
60 M i
2 l r a l ?ha1
2.5 Ire1
165 d l 8
P P
P
P
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
w P P
P
P
P P
P
P
P P E
P P
P
o p . m m S d l L l l r r
O r b m w l r onkr rga~ryor ( rar&cr l TNSW2 M C D
Sfnvlr laxhmd WDPE G w m m b m n r pSC] ( l r r lund rlda Dam)
I
2 1101
165 Ox&
1 foal
? f o r n u
SO d l
I.5 hof L O h r l 165 f n h
1401
2 t o /HIS
0.305lmh
60 IWl
3.5 h r l
2 l o W I ~
1 locl
2fOOxIs
00 nW$
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- -
- -
- - - - - - -
- -
-. -
-
-
- bas* rutwmd HOPE Gbommbnn* WSCl
~ r w # ~ P O V K k ~ Sdl L.yvr glru Wi WaM I )WJ rmd Claar I ( l o r )
vpOullr,mr*c
6 n Flguns 6 b 12 brlnlwfaw CWonsnl
- -
J
4
a
:
:
6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--. -
23
6
la 7 9 0 I? 26 10
J I
8
%JD
.JO
r t 2
a s
0 6
24
.50
r 3 0
- 4 0
o - 8 0
2
' 3 0
l a 0
- 8 0
4
L P O
8 5
9
r 20
0.3
0
- 8 0
2s
25
Chy War (AW-, lllh d w b a n ~ l a s m p d In tmthr ovor s b w )
Pharr/8n&lll eanom L lnr rb l r t tb t * C h l r I W r $ h
O ~ ~ U M I &I ~ b p r
Olohrb7. kNhr (10 4-y ~ p u n b o n d n o ~ v m Tmvln 1 195 flSCB
PIInuW LCRS Q n n J 8 r L 1 y r
~ ~ * n r r y OmhxY* Cv&n ( fa ot*y spunbond mmugwo. ~ m d n 1 155 NSCD
P d n Y 0-1 Ipp?mrl PN10M. PSCD
P#WW HW ~ m m b r m w ~ u b h snag8 ~ l i ~ r ~
Pdmn Chy Unrr tAddx)
S m W y Owbath Fl#er (I0 o m spunbondnoevmwn. ~ m d m 1 155 p s C p
Srcvndrfy LCRS Qmnulrr Lryrr
Sowmury OWtxUb Cushion ( I 4 o ~ 4 y s+wnbqndiwmwwn. Tmnm 1155 l W C #
S u o h r ) . HOPE O w m m b n n e ( h b k SrtvoL? p W a J
Ereondry C b v U w r (Adnbd
Vsdor* Zonm Yvnmdflg 9ralmm ( r l . l a o r ~ l d o Oy ?.&kolderp imnch 'I (7 Tmnch wl brlow rubgnda
OaollrUlr F l h r (18 orhy ¶Punbond mmnown, hn'n 1133 PSCD
h h r p . Roclvr)mwlL4y.r
Oeohrrh CuJhlM ( f a ~ L h y x p u n b o n d n o n ~ r m , r n b i n 1155 WSCd
rmpr o m - lmvbk smwm PWWOD SuWRdO
Phrcr la4MIf Sldallopr Llnrr lnrrr l rcr mu 1 W.rk O ~ U W S M I * ~ H mu- HDPP a~mswmn (awbie smoom~ wmq Gwla*ah (16 ornrtpunbond m w n . mr(~ 115s pscj
Pdnuy owmr P J l y m f PNJWO. lNScp Wmry UWle G m m b n n m (=oa2ln 8mwn PWbD
8-ryQ.o(~dh ( I8 ~Lhvxwnbondnenwawn, T m ~ m 1755 FISCD
s ~ b ~ b r l y a m ( P & ~ I PNJOOQ. INSCD
SrcMdrty HOPE O w m m b n n e (Douhlr ~mrn f f v n d b
C ~ Y * Ph4sa IBnMIIPrrImrtmr Berm (0.25H:lV Butrrra FNV LlnarfCov*r
Ch** 1 Walk Srhot Fowwrdon Sd l L.yor Srh& FlI COW
HOPE &)oUbkTb#hmd Cowr (NSC)
P
P P
I
- I
'I<
,'
I
for%
f loo1
31 27
25 .Id
2d . ~ r
I 5 14 Id
9 o 27 26 20
21
25 * 1 4
25 , I4
19
11 9
8.5
0
- 4 0 H O
25
13
- 1 0
11
0
0
0 100 400
3,600 0 0
1,1*
0
0
0
0
0
o
900 0
b
0
0
900
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
900
#
IW
IW
25 32
1 Ffl S M Phrsr lMMl l - HWlYSW Seprr8llon Lln~rlnlmrlOtr
~ 1 1 1 b l w l r W r r h . Opmucdt S o l l b y r r
13- OnmrvaAayr r ( l * l -Ne l THlbd2 iNSC8
Doua* TawhmdHaPE OromrmbnrH p S C I
ConlplUKI LoWrmmrWSCSdlL syvr F w W SOU L 4 9 r C k u ~ r k
HWmSW Unl18.10 Nn11 Closure Coverlnrrdsce C h U IYlll wasla V W t r l u r SW C4Wr
Q.ohrvh Onlnapr L.ybt(12 o m y spnbond nonwovso. T m ~ m 1142 NSCJ
Raaldunf 106 0
0 3w
0 0
0 o
f h ) 0 0
4W 3.aw
0 0
1,150
0
0 0
(1
0
I S
IW 605 0
OW .
0
0
0
REI GAI (109OJ
RsrlduaI
R ~ l d u a l MI coodruon (onrbu.den r 600 psO RUldy* WOI conduon (avoauden r 600 PSI)
0 s tosf$ (Oundh HOPE), Shon Term TrVU k f ls , 8hOn Ann b r d n a o r ) o w c o n R n i ~ ~ s s u m
Tx-CU t*sLI, Long Term
Ganeric avakteUon ol KHF IanMll cbsums
R ~ l ~ r ~ wet ~ I I o o
Rw:ldubl. mlcone9bion
Rorlh4l. 8 1 h k d C l l y eondi~on Resldunl, dry c o ~ U o n (Wml mnd. hW * 56 bell
Reslbunl, w l Combon
Rmsldvel. un vancution
Rerldurl, $ a m f e d clay c o n a l ~ n (HW r $8 taeu Rol#Uwrl. dry cantWon for ml Cond. hW * 54 Ieey
Resldvrl, -1 M B o n
RsaWavrI. ml condUon
~ s d ~ s r , WI eondidon
Rauuual, rby w o n
Abddu.1 dycenol'Yoo
Rosi&rl. &y ~ w d m
RrdoUal, cly conMUon
, Rmsldvrl, ~y o r m r mndiuon
Rd(Iu*l, rrhmfsdclevccrr6'Uon
ReJldvrl, dry coWtion (of wrr mnd.. HN * 68 h a 0
23
75
23
22
24
A s ~ u n m d ~ u m 6 . n s 6 CI&WY srnd
D I r p SYp Sulfacar snrtmw slip s ~ r c r r s .
AssumdhlOhsrlhra waohvUWey
~ssunmd h l p n a r ~ l m p . o r r ~ u ~ e i r y
Rrsldurl Ta Trait. G u m HOPLgmdad GeoIexUh
Tx T r s B G w W HwWnDonddd GeomxUlo
DSMSh (GvndhHOPE), ShDnTerm huu lasts, shod fern b r a n o orbw canfining omsruro
?x.CU hsls. Long f e n
Aasumd M r r Inon peolrrBIeh-fey
Assumvd hlgnermrn p o ~ e ~ n l w a y
OS 10~1s Mael W e d p~olexUIn)
as 14Sb l~vnme HDPE) DS @sf$ (C iudr H O P ~ b I e . b l d s d 9 b 0 ~ 3 i l 8 J
Rbdrdual
Rssldual, w l canbU00 (W hickrr Lhan 58 lesfJ Resldusl, dry m M l b n (of wvl mnd., HW 58 /beg
Rrsldurl. m l mndVon
Realdurl. m l cuncUtian
E----.5-
RE1
SMS (1984)
OFH (IOVP GFW(10B6) ESI 11992) ESI (t09OJ
Kornur(lO8S) G v d (fPlW
ESl(190)
GAI (1988)
SMS (1988)
SMS (1OII). ESI (IPPOJ'
SMS (1ar81, €31 (lQDOI*
SM* (1Dda) SMS (198s)
SMS (ID88J
SMS (198al
SMS f1988~ SMSflDUEJ
SMS (1968)
SMS (1Q84J
SMS rfona)
SMS f1944J
SMS (TO@&
SWS ( l V I I l
SMS (188S)
.$I&? (1088)
SMS (lldQ)
SMS (1900~
RE1 Korrnlrlr994)
RE/, U O ~ m r ( t 9 0 4 ) .
ReUdual
Rrlldual
Re W m l
M C- 0 8nU 30 l b r d ~ O P mMSh~Ilow 1Yp sur0cIS1 mSpcWwly
0
100
0
rbd
0 ID
RE/
RE!
RE1
OAl(l900)
GAI (i990), ESI (19901
F~p-eu~ , : : L - 1S-r Gem PrelitirL~ury S~rrhiliry E~~ulurr~iorr. AdSII' Latrd/ill Ur,if B- 19, Kenlernan Hills Faciliy, Kings Counly. Calfornia e a 3 , 6.0 REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A. and W.J. Silva (1997), Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relationsfor Shalloiv Cr~r.s/al Earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, Number 1 JanuarylFebruary.
Achilleos, E. (I 988). User's Guidejor PCSTABL 5M, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, - pp. 132.
Blake, Thomas, F. (1 996), Eqseurch-A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acccleratio17 Fro177 Calfor-nia Historical Earthquake Catalogs, January.
Bray, J.D., A.J. Augello, G.A. Leoiiards, P.C. Repetto, and R.J. Byme (1995) Seismic Stability Proc~.dt~r~~..s,fi~r Solid M/u.~te Landjills, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No.2, February.
California Division of Mines and Geology (1975), Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maxin7111n C~.edihle und M U X ~ I I ~ U I I I Probable Earthquakts, Note 43.
California Strong Motion instrumentation Program, CSMIP (1994a,b,c,d,e'), First through Fifih' Quick Rcporls on CSA4IP Slrong-Motion Data from the Sun Fernando Valley Earthquake of Janualy 17. 199%
Caltech Blue Book Series (1969-74), Volume 2: Strong Motion Earthquake Accelerograms - Correc/ed Accclerogra177s, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technolog)/, Pasadena, California, (25 reports).
Campbell, Kenneth W. (1 997), E~l~j?irical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and I'erlical Coml~onents of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo- Absolu~e Accelero/iort Response Spectra, Seismological Research Letters, Vo1.68, Number 1, Januar)dFebruary.
Carey, P.J., N. Koragappa and J.J. Gurda (1993), A Case Study of the Brookhaven Landfill-Long Island, A'eil~ J'ork, Wasle Tech'93, pp. 15, Marina Del Rey, California.
CHZM I-Iill (1985). Final Environnrental Itnpact Report, CWM, Inc., for Kings County Planning Agency, Hat?/brd, Cal~forr7ia. October
Dames & Moore (1 986), Faultirrg/Seisnziciiy Report, Kettleman Hills Facility for CWM, Inc., November 19.
Duncan (1 992), Slate-of-the-Art: Static Stability and Deformation Analysis, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 3 1, Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments-11, pp. 222- 266.
g: Irw~asfciker~le1i1a17I200444Iklrfseis4. wpd 6-1 July, 1997
Preli1rii17ar)~ Slubililjr Elralua~iorr, A4SM' Lo17djill Unit 0-19, Kellleman Hills Focilily. Kings Caunfy. California
Earth Technology (1988), In-Place Stability of Landfill Slopes, Puente Hills, Los Angeles, California, Rep011 No. 88-614-1, Long Beach, California.
Environmental Solutions, Inc. (1994), Unpublished Resultsfiom the Drive Tube Density Tests in 011 ReJiuse. Technical Meluorandum No. 7, January.
Franklin, A. G. and F. K. Chang (1977), Permanent Displacements of Earth Embankments by Neu1nzar.k Sliding Block Analysis, Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams, Report 5, U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, November.
GeoSyntec Consultants (1996), Seisntic Exposure Evaluation, 011 Landfill, Monterey Park, Cal(foro,.r?ia, Report No. SWP-1, Iluntington Beach, California.
Hall, J.F. (Editor, 1995). Norlhridge Earthquah ofJanuary 17, 1994 Reconnaissance Report, Volurile 1." Earthquake Spectra, Supplement C to Volume 11, April 1995.
Hart, E. (1992), Falilt Ru1~lur.e Hazard Zone in California, Revised 1992, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Hudson, M., I.M. Idriss, and M. Beikae (1994), A Computer Program To Evaluate the Seismic Respon.re qf Soil Slruclurcs Using Finite Element Procedures and Incorporating A Compliant Base, Report from the Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environ~nental Engineering, University of California, Davis.
Hushmand Associates (1994), Landfill Response to Seismic Events, Report Prepared for EPA- Region IX, Irvine, California.
Hynes-Griffin, M.A. and A.G. Franklin (1 984), Rationalizing the Seismic Coeficient, Miscellaneous Pal~er GL-84-13, Geotecllnical Laboratory, U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, pp. 37, July.
Idriss, I.M. ( I 993), Procedures for Selecting Earthquake Ground Motions at Rock Sites, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST GCR 93-65, pp. 7.
ldriss, I.M., et al. (1973), QUAD-4, A Computer Program for Evaluating the Seismic Response of . Soil Structures bj) i/ariable Danzping Finite Elements, Report No. EERC 73 16, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, June.
Idriss, I.M. and Sun, (1991), A Computer Program for Conducting Equivalent Linear Seismic Response AI?U/J~.YCS of Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits- Program modified based on the Original SHAKEprogram published in December 1972 by Schnabel, Lysmer and Seed.
Idriss, I.M., Fiegel, G.L, Hudson, M.B., Mundy, P.K., and Herzig, R. (1995), Seismic Response of the Operating 11idu.vtries Landfill. ASCE Special Technical Publication No. 54, edited by M.K.
Preli~lti~ra,)~ Slubililj~ Evul~ia~io~r, Ad.7lI' Lu~,dJll Uiril B-19, Kellleisan Hills Faciliy, Kings Counfy, Calijornia
Yegian and W.D. Liani Finn. Proceeding of the ASCE Convention in San Diego, California of October 23-27, 1995.
Kavazanjian E., Jr., Matasovic, N., Bonaparte, R., and Schmertman, G.R. (1995), Evaluation of MSW Proj~criies for Seis~nic Analyses, Proceedings of the Geoenvironrnent 2000 Specialty Conference, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 1126-1 141, New Orleans, Louisiana, 24-26 February 1995.
Lin, J.S. and Whitman, R.V. (1983), Decoupling Approximation to the Evaluation of Earthquake Induced Plastic Slip in Earilz Dams, J. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, Vol. 11, pp.667-678.
Makdisi, F. I . and H. B. Seed (1978), Simplified Procedurefor Estimating Dam and Embankment Earil7cluake-l17d11ced Dcforn~aiion. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104. No. GT7. July. 1q1. 849-868.
Morochnik, V., Bardet, J.P., and Huslimand, B. (1996), ldentrjication of the Dynamic Properties of rhe 011 L~/ldfi/l , Submitted for publication in tlle Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE.
Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L. (1 992), Peak Accelerationfrom Maximum Credible Earthquakes in Cal~fornia (Rock and S~iff-Soil Siies), Prepared for Internal Use by Caltrans, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 92-1.
Newark , N. M. (1 965), Effecls of Earthquakes on Danzs and Embanhents, 5th Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139-160.
Sadigh, K., Chang C.-Y., Egan, J.A., Youngs, R.R. (1997), Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crus/ol Eurihquakes Based 0 1 1 California Strong Motion Data, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, Number 1, January/February.
Sadigh, K., Chang, C.-Y., Abrahamson, N.A., Chiou, S.J., and Power, M.S. (1993), Specification of Long-period ground Motio~ts: Updated Attenuation Relationships for Rock Site Conditions and Aciiusirneni Faciors Near-Fault Efects: Proceedings of ATC-I 7-1 Seminar on Seismic lsola/ion, Passii~e Energy Dissipation, andActive Control, San Francisco, Califomia, pp. 59-70.
Schnabel, P.B., 1. Lysme~. and H.B. Seed (1972), SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Respor7se Analysis of Horisonially Layered Sites. Report No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley.
Seed, H.B. and Bonaparte, R. (1992), Seismic Analysis and Design of Lined Waste Fills: Current Praclice. Proceeding of S/abiIi@ and Performance of Slopes and Embankments-11. Vol, 2, ASCE Geoteclinical Special; Publication No.3 1, Berkeley, California, pp. 1521-1545.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1970), Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response . Analyses, Report No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
o~lrwn~r~lkn/ / l~rnn11l700444IkI1f~ni .~4 wnd 6-1 h l v . 1997
Preli~r7i~7arj~ S10hililjz El~aluo1io~7, AtS1.l' La17dfill Unit B-19, Keltleman Hills Faciliry. Kings Counly. Cali jonia
Seed, H.B., Mal-tin, G,R. (1966), The Seisnzic Coefjicient In Earth Dam Design, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM3, Proc. Paper 4824, May 1966, pp. 25-58.
Seed, N. B., Wong, R.T., Idriss, 1. M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1984), Moduli and Damping Factorsfor Dynamic Analyses ofCol7esionless Soils, Report No. EERC 84-14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califomia, Berkeley, CA, September.
Shanna, H.D., M.T. Dukes, and D.M. Olsen. (1990), Field Measurements ofDynamic Moduli and Poissor7 's Ra/io ofRefuse arid Underlying Soils at a Landfill Site, Geotechnics of Waste Fill- Theory and Practice, ASTM STP 1070, pp. 57-70.
Silva, W.S. and I<. Lee, (1987), Stale of tile Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United S/a/es, M'ES RASCAL Code for Synthesizing Earthquake Ground Motions, Report 24, Prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for Department ofthe Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Contract No. DACW39-85-M-1585.
Southern California Earthquake Center, SCEC, Working Group on Califomia Earthquake Probabilities (1995), Seisn7ic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994 to 2021, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 379-439, April.
Stewart, J.P., Bray, J.D., Seed, R.B. and Sitar, N. (Editors, 1994), Preliminary Report on the Priricij?rrl Gcotccl7~7ical Asj~ecls of the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Report No. UCIEERC-94108, June.
Sun, J.I., Golesorkhi, R., and Seed, H.B. (1988), Dynamic ModuliandDamping Ratios for Cohesive Soils, Report No. EERC 88-15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), RCRA Subtitle D (258) (1995), Seismic Design Guidance For A4u1~icij~al Solid Cl'asle Facilities, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1987), Seisniic Stabiliw Evaluation for the Toe Butlress Cor?struc/ion-Oj~eming Industries, lnc. Site, Monterey Park, Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
U. S. Geological Su~vey (1 988), Digitized Strong-Motion Accelerograms ofNorth America Through 1986, Open-File Report 89-83, December.
Vucetic. M. and Dobry, R. (1991), Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 1, pps. 89-107.
Wesnouski, S.G. (1 986), E~rrtl7quakes, Qua~ernary Faults, and Seisnric Hazard in California, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 12,587-12,631, November.
Yegian, M.K. and W.D. Finn (1995), Earthquake Design andPer/omance ofSolid Waste L a n d ' , Geotechnical Special Publication No. 54, American Society of Civil Engineers, December.
Prcli~~linor)~ Slahilil)r Ei~allmiio17, II6W Landjill Unil B-19, Kelrlcman Hills Facilify, Kings County, Caiifornia
7.0 PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTATION REPORTS ON KETTLEMAN HILLS FACILITY
Donohue 8( Associates, Inc. (1 988), "Engineering Report, Kettleman Hills Facility, LandfiNB- 19, PI7~.ses I l und 111, Kirigs County, California': Donohue Project No. 16149, dated October. 1988.
EBA Wastechnologies (1 995), "Kings County Integrated Waste Management Plan," adopted by the Kings County Board of Supervisors, dated April 1995.
Einarson, Fowler & Watson ( 1 996), "Site-Sl~ecific Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Kettleman Hi1l.s fi~cilil)~. Ki17g.~ Counl~l, California, Project No. KHF 102. " Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (Revised October, 1996).
Emcon (1 999, "Rc]~orl of l4'~ale Discliurge, Mustang Hills Landfill, Kings County, California, 1~ol~111ie 2, Prqjecl A1o. -70390-010.001. " Appendix A: Seismicity Report by Norman A. Abral~a~nson. RWD prepared for Kings Waste and Recycling Authority, dated October 25, 1995.
Environmental Solutions, Inc. (1990), "EngineeringandDesign Report, Landfill Unit B-18, phase.^ I and I1 ulid Final Closure, Kcttlenzan Hills Facility, Kings County, California, h7cludir7g Al~l1o7dices A lhrough F." Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWMI), Pro.jecl No. 89-977, dated August, 1990.
Environmental Solutions, Inc. (1993), "Revised Intermediate Waste Fill Plan, Landfill Unit B-18, Pliuscs 1, Ke//lernu17 Hills Facilify, Kings County, California. " Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWMI), Project No. 92-222, dated August, 1993.
GeoSyntec Consultants (1991), "Final Report, Landjil B-19 Phase IA Investigation, Kettleman Hills Fc~clci/ilj~, Kelllernan City, California." Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management, Inc., dated 25 March 1991. Volume I: Main Test and Appendices A tluough E Volunle 11: Appendices F tllluugh K
Golder Associates lnc. ( I 987), "Tesl Fill and lnfilrronzeter Test Results, Kettleman Hills Facility, Ke//lc177crn Cil)~. Col(fornia, Projecl No. 863-1092. " Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management Inc., dated January, 1987.
Golder Associates Inc. (1 988), "Updated Evaluation ofsite Design Ground Motions for the Ke~~lo~~rrr i Hills Facilil)~, Kettleman City. California, Project No. 883-7010. " Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management Inc., dated September, 1988.
Golder Associates Inc. (1989), "Geologic Conditions of the Subgrade, Landfill B-19, Phase N and 111 ~vi /h Sumniary of Geology and Engineering Properties of Landfill B-19, Ketileman Hills Focili/)i Ket/lcntar7 City, California. " Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management Inc., Project No. 883-1462, dated February, 1989.
Preliff~ifiafy S~ohililj~ Eimlualiorr, MSW Landfill Unit 8-19, Kertlman Hills Facility. Kings County, California
Golder Associates Inc. (1 990), "Direct Shear Testing Program for Landfill Cover Design, Ke/tlo~lu~i Hills Facilit)]; " Project No. 893-7015.340. Report prepared for Chemical Waste Management Inc., dated June 29, 1990. Included is also a laboratory test data report dated April 1990, I'roject No. 892-2078.
Colder Associates Inc. (1 99 I), "LundjN B-19, Phase IA Redesign and Closure, Kettleman Hills Fucilit)~. K~'//le111un Cirj~, Cali$ornia, Project No. 903-1343.610. " Report prepared for Chemical M'asle Management Inc., dated April 15, 1991. Volume 1: Design Report and Design Drawings, Revision 0. Volunie 11: Materials Specifications and Construction Requirements, Revision 0. Volume 111: Appendices Supporting Calculations and Laboratory Testing Summary.
Apj~endices A-l through A-14, Revision 0. Volulne 1V: Appendices Supporting Calculations and Laboratory Testing Summary.
Appendices A-15 through A-26, Revision 0.
Seed, R.B.; .I.I<. Mitchell and H.B.Seed (1988), "Slope Stability Failure Investigation: Landfill Uhi/ 8-19. /'hu.re /-A, Ckc~nical JVasre Management, Inc. Facility, Kettleman Hills, C~fll/o~,ni(~." Rel~ort dated June 29,1988.
Volume I: Report of Investigation Volumc 11: Appe~idix A: Result of Direct Shear Interface Tests.
Wahler Associales (1 988). "Gco/cch~~icai inl~cstigation, Kettleman ifills Facility, Landfill Unit 0-19 - Phuses I1 and 111, Kings Co~inry, California." Report prepared for Donohue and Associates, Project DAA-IOSH, dated January 16, 1989.
Wahler Associates (1 988), " S ~ r / ~ ~ ~ l e ~ ~ i e ~ i ~ a l Geotec/inical Investigation, Kettleman Hills Facility, Lund/ill Uni/ B- 19 - Phases I1 uttd III, Kings Couniy, California." Report prepared for Donohue and Associates, Project DAA-103H, dated January 31, 1989.
Wahler Associates (1988), "As-Built Sections, Landfill Unit B-19 - Phases IIandIIl, Kettleman Hills Focililj), Kings County, Cal@r77ia." Report prepared for Donohue and Associates, Prqject DAA-104H, dated February 2, 1989.
Wahler Associates (I 989), "Georechnical bz\~estigation for Confirmation of Design, Kettleman Hills Fucilil)~, Landfill Unit B-19 - Phases II and 111, Kings County, California." Project DAA-I 0 11-1; Report dated August 5 , 1988.
top related