Laserfiche WebLink
BRAY, RATHJE, AUGELLO AND MERRY D Seismic Design for Lined Solid-Waste Landfills <br />215GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1998, VOL. 5, NOS. 1-2 <br />In these comparisons, the MHEA or MHA from the 1-D analyses was calculated for <br />several 1-D columns and weighted by their respective percentage of the total sliding <br />mass. Results shown in Figure 7a indicate that the seismic loading predicted by 1-D <br />analyses for deep sliding surfaces within the waste are generally conservative when <br />compared to 2-D results. Therefore, the seismic coefficient estimated by a weighted <br />1-D analysis can be used in a simplified seismic stability evaluation of base sliding. <br />While a 1-Danalysis also provides a rough estimate of the MHA acting along the top <br />deckofalandfill, ittendstounderestimate accelerations atpointsalongthecoverslope, <br />especially at the crest, because of topographic amplification (Figure 7a). However, the <br />MHA calculated atthecrest ofthecoverslopeneednotbeapplied astheseismic loading <br />Figure 7. Results from SHAKE91 and QUAD4M: (a) comparison of seismic loading <br />predicted by 1-D and 2-D analyses; (b) variation of MHEA along the cover system. <br />0.1 <br />1 <br />10 <br />0.0 <br />0.2 <br />0.4 <br />0.6 <br />0.8 <br />1.0 <br />0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 <br />MHA <br />Along <br />slope <br />MHA <br />Near <br />crest <br />MHA <br />Deck <br />kmax <br />Deep <br />surfaces <br />Median values <br />Ratio of seismic loading (1-D/2-D)Normalized slope coversliding mass length,L/LsNorthridge landfills <br />(1V:1.9H to 1V:5.5H) <br />Baseline configurations <br />(1V:2H to 1V:5H) <br />Best fit (R <br />2 = 0.79) <br />Expected range <br />MHEA /MHACrest <br />(a) <br />(b)