ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

Soil Reinforcement Vegetation Effect
An analysis applied to the Earth moving volume of California High
Speed Railway System

Luis Fort Lpez-Tello, Laboratorio de Geotecnia, Centro de Estudios y Experimentacin de Obras Pblicas, Spain,
Luis.Fort@cedex.es
Carmen Fort Santa-Mara, EPTISA, S.I Divisin de Infraestructura del Transporte, Spain, cfort@eptisa.com



ABSTRACT

The revegetation growing on a mass of soil brings about in this, an important increase of its shear
strength.
On the one hand, in the superficial zone of itself, in whose inside concentrates the great density of roots,
the additional soil shear strength
vr
, due to themselves, in the depth z
r
reached by the main packet of
roots, depends on radicular density and is Known as vegetation reinforcing effect. On the other hand,
beyond the reinforced zone, as far as z
3
depths at those the moisture of soil belongs to suctions equal or
larger than pF3, is well-Known the increment of soil shear strength
vd
, vegetation drying effect.
The soil masses limited for a sloping surface (be sloped land with native vegetation or cutting slope with
implanted vegetation), and therefore yielded to shear stresses on the slide surface that they can produce
inside them, will be stable with a definite safety coefficient FS, if the soil shear strength along of these
slide surfaces surpass in this ratio the shear sliding stresses leaded to by the gravity force.
The expected average growth of vegetation (native or implanted) on a slope, during a period of time
(total biomass production UG (underground)+ AG (above ground)), may be estimated beginning with
production climatic rates WUE (water use efficiency) and LUE (light use efficiency), depending on the
hydric balance of the slope (BH= P-E), its orientation () and inclination () that in turn have influence
between them. Depending on the magnitude of vegetation development achieving on a definite slope
(height H and inclination ), function from the climatic characteristics on site and from the solar
orientation (obligates by functional layout) the additional soil shear strength that may be mobilized in
front of a potential instability, it will depend on its geometry and on the vegetative development of its
surface. Learning on the mentioned phytoclimatic characterizations, and in the use, for example, of the
Taylor abacus which estimation of the critical sliding circle, it is analysed, for soils from coulombian
behaviour, the stage of reinforcement achieved at them, according, the importance of vegetation growth
in its surfaces.
As an example, and reducing the accuracy of data by the approximate generalization from global aspects,
it is applied this type of analysis to an important and nearly future civil work construction with larger
earth-moving volume and cuts length from moderate heights the California High Speed Railway System
(CHSRS) in U.S.A.
This type of point of view can be of interest for the geoenvironmental design of linear works
infrastructures and for the financing of green works that carries with themselves.

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE COYOTE PROJECT OF THE CHSRP
The California High-Speed Railway Program (CHSRP) foreseens the stage high speed system
development, that in its COYOTE alternative, with a 1.288 km length, which will operate in a 15 year
term, at 380 km/h top speed and 350 km/h operational speed, connecting the Bay Area, the Central
Valley, Sacramento and the Southern of California. The journey time between San Francisco and Los
Angeles will be 2h 30 m.
This option assumes that the construction of the system is divided in ten geographic sections, grouped in
three phases as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
IV-95
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

Table 1: Description of CHSRS COYOTE Alternative
Phase Project Section
Length
(km)
Earth Moving
(included
tunelling)
(Mm)
Estimated
Cost
(M$)
Journey
time
(h.m)
I Initial Central Valley I Fresno-Bakersfield 157 43,82 1.889 0,29
II Fresno-Merced 99 7,94 853 0,19
Connection Bay Area III Fresno-San Jos 222 39,46 4.938 0,46
Connection Los Angeles Basin IV Bakersfield-Los Angeles Airport 166 39,20 6.458 1,00
Extension to San Francisco Airport V San Jos- San Francisco Airport 52 6,50 2.027 0,13
Extension to Anaheim VI Los Angeles Airport-Anaheim 62 8,65 2.177 0,12
TOTAL PHASE I: San FranciscoAirport-Anaheim 758 145,57 18.342
II Extension to Sacramento Airport VII Merced-Sacramento Airport 191 31,66 2.933 0,36
Extension to San Diego Airport & VIIIa Anaheim-San Diego Airport 117 26,48 4.666 0,30
Inland Empire VIIIb Branch line to Riverside 55 7,54 1.969 0,14
TOTAL PHASE II: Ampliation system to Sacramento & San Diego 363 65,68 9.568
III Bay Crossing IX San Francisco Airport -Vallejo 57 3,67 4.291 0,14
Completion system to Sacramento X Vallejo-Sacramento Airport 110 56,59 2.619 0,22
TOTAL PHASE III: Closing system through San Fco. Bay 167 60,26 6.910
TOTAL SYSTEM 1.288 271,51 34.820



Figure 1: CHSRS Plan & Thornthwaite Index
IV-96
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

2. GEOPHYTOCLIMATIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STUDY
ZONES
In the Table 2 it carries out to calculate the Thornthwaite index in twelve points of the CHSRS, beginning
with the information of the monthly values of basic climatics variables from corresponding
meteorological stations of the California network. In the Figures 2a and 2b are included, as an example,
the corresponding information to the Fresno Station.
Table 2: Geophytoclimatical Characterization of the zone (CHSRS COYOTE Alternative)
Latitude Altitude
Thornthwaite
Index
_ _ _ _ _
T P H T
v
P
v
E
v
( Fe )
v
H
v

v
( y
o
)
v
h ETP I pF q
u
( N) ( C ) (mm/yea ( % ) ( C ) (mm) (mm) ( mmHg) ( % ) ( KPa ) 10
4
(m) (mm) (MPa)
KFAT
723890
KBFL
723840
KMCE
724815
307
749179
KLAX
722950
KSFO
724940
KSMF
724839
KNKX
722930
COPIA
NAPA
KNFG 722926
KOKB 722934
TSP
74917
KBUR
722880
Max 38,8 18,4 700 77 22,4 465 425 20,32 68 1,402 106,28 1210 902 8,4 3,7 0,411
Min 32,7 11,9 325 53 14,3 119 198 12,22 41 0,628 101,33 3 705 -39,0 2,5 0
0,142 157 788 -12,8 3,0 15,5 53 1,018 103,29 203 320 15,56
34,2 576 56 16,27 41 17,2
525 65 17,9
Average
California
HSR
Med
14,2
15,5
16,2
38,8
38,2
33,2
35,1
18,4
16,0
13,7
16,3
119 302
13,9
15,4
11,9
131 291 69
77 241
Meteorological
Station
36,6 430 17,7
CHSR Station
FRESNO 56 21,5 219 323 19,23 51 1,402 101,75 81 894 -29,3 3,4 0,220
35,4 325 53 22,4 193 232 20,32 52 1,300 101,78 154 902 -39,0 3,7 0,411
37,3 435 64 19,9 163 346 17,43 51 0,163
36,9 495 74 15,4 238 340 13,12
1,139 101,68
101,33 72
-24,3 3,2 47 828
33,9 587 67 17,2 160 346 14,75 46 1,063 105,53 27 770 -7,1 2,8 0,075
37,6 618 72 15,9 159 325 13,55 49 1,103 102,47 3 705 5,0 2,6 0,058
545 66 19,2 159 332 16,63 48 1,154 101,57 34 802 -8,9 2,8 0,081
32,7 330 71 17,2 193 198 14,71 68 0,628 106,28 3 803 -35,3 3,5 0,299
726 -2,6 2,7 0,070 13,99 46 1,008 101,46
375 14,53 57 0,834 106,03 9 747 8,4
0,668 104,36 1210 715 465 425 12,22 59
-10,2 2,9 0,088
2,5 0,054
1,281 105,28 236 842
10
6,8 2,6 0,058
18,8
56
573
700
689
17,0
16,4
14,3
35,8
VALLEJO
OCEANSIDE
TEHACHAPI/
(Bakersfield-LA)
BURBANK /
(Bakersfield-LA)
LOS ANGELES
Airport
SAN FRANCISCO
Airport
SACRAMENTO
Airport
SAN DIEGO
Airport
BAKERSFIELD
MERCED
GILROY 724 -17,1 3,1 0,124 64 0,630

Months
Climate
Caracteristics
101,75
10
4
kcal/m
2
0,60
8,60
acc. Potencial losses
Monthly (12h w)
Iluminatio index
ETP (mm)
P (mm)
P- ETP
T /C)
i= (T/5)
1,514
Monthly Heat index
Average daily
apl (mm)
etp adjust less
Stored Water
ST (mm)
Variation Storage
ST (mm)
ETR (mm)
Y
o
(cal/cm
2
d)
BH (mm)
72,00
Year
37,40 35,00 30,90 291,00 25,60 25,00
S
0,70
J F M D O N M J J A
38,00
12,00 38,00
175,00
15,00
A
110,00
-66,00
23,00
12,00
36,50
- -94,00
23,00
0,00
-23,00 38,00
511,00
0,00 12,00
23,00
242,00
49,00
2,27 4,45
25,90
-39,00
25,50 30,90
-
0,90
-
33,00
24,00
36,80
13,40 11,00
3,30
28,50 15,00 18,40
5,28 7,19
2,40 3,80
10,75 14,02 12,28 10,01
3,60
26,20 22,90 18,00 14,30 9,50 17,70
6,95 2,64 84,05
50,00 35,00 72,00 430,00
35,00
1,40
15,00 40,00 52,00 87,00 139,00 151,00 157,00
1,30
9,00 30,00 53,00 40,00 90,00 6,00 10,00 0,00 35,00
38,00 0,00 38,00 -81,00 -129,00 -151,00 -148,00 -81,00 -16,00 0,00 54,00 -464,00
-175,00 -304,00 -455,00 -603,00 -684,00 -700,00 - -
98,00 110,00 148,00 82,00 43,00 20,00 9,00 6,00 6,00 6,00 60,00
54,00 -11,00 -3,00 0,00 0,00
54,00
20,00 33,00 50,00 35,00
-11,00 38,00
18,00 430,00
254,00 182,00
0,00 0,00
150,00 446,00
-66,00
532,00 525,00
-39,00 -23,00
18,00 894,00 111,00 66,00
STATION: FRESNO (723890 K FAC)
n= 55 years Latitude 36,6N Altitude 81m Longitude 119,8W
2,30 4,50 1,60
4,91
40,00
362,00
52,00
468,00 380,00
-3,00

Figure 2a: Climatologic information Fresno Station. ETP & ETR Calculation (Thornthwaite Method)
IV-97
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect


Figure 2b: Climodiagram Fresno Station (WCOAST data from P.E. Waggoner (A.A.A.S.)
The soils of the Central Valley and those coming from the decay of the rocky chain which are crossed by
the Projects of the CHSRS (COYOTE Alternative), for connection of the initial Central Valley line with
the Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin and by extension to Sacramento and San Diego, might be classified
according to the French Guide Technique 92 as Soils type A2, soils fines, sensitives to the water and
from texture intermediate between sands and clays. Therefore for those type of soils the proposal is use a
curve as well intermediate to those given by Aitchinson and Richards as a relation between the
Thornthwaite index and the matrix suction, with measurements of this one to 3m depth (Figure 3), given
the lack of measurements over samples directly extracted in the zones from study.


Figure 3: Thornthwaite Index Suction Relation (I-pF) (Aitchison, Richards, 1965)
IV-98
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

Carrying in this way, columns from Table 2 are completed as well as the geotechnic characterization of
the strength of the soils representatives of each one of the locations, in conditions of moisture content
refered to 3m depth (
z
50 kPa), according with the suction (pF) estimates by correlation with the
Thornthwaite index, calculated beginning with the metheorologic information used.
3. ESTIMATION OF THE EXPECTED VEGETATION GROWTH ON
SLOPES
The CHSRS in its COYOTE Alternative, projects sections in open air, in addition to a large number of
long tunnels and great viaducts, with enormous lengths of embankements, mainly in the Central Valley,
and also cutting sections with a total length of 146,25 Km, 7,65 m of average height and 26,374 Mm3 of
excavation volume.
In the table 3, with the averages directions ( ) c of the different sections, indicated in the Figure 4, the solar
radiaction coefficients are estimated from the graphics in Figure 5, beginning with the corresponding
directions, the values ( D + = 90 , where D =sun declination, variable long the year between
approximately 23, = average latitude of each section) and the slopes grade ( 45 for this purpose).
The potential biomass productions, total (BM) and airy (AG), on horizontal land and on slopes inclinated
with orientations , North (N) or South (S), are given in the Table 3, beginning from averages values of
climatic variables (obtained for each section from the values in Table 2 for each station).
Table 3. Biomass production on slopes of CHSRS COYOTE Alternative
Latitude av. Direction av.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
( T )v ( Fe )v ( H)v v ( Yo)v ( BM )o ( E )o ( AG )o
N

S
( BM )
N
( BM )
S
( AG )
N
( AG )
N

( N) ( ) ( C ) ( mmHg) ( % ) ( KPa ) 10
4
Kcal/m g/m (mm) g/m (g/m) (g/m) (g/m) (g/m)
70
(E-70 S)
59
(W-59 N)
14
(W-14 N)
39
(W-39 N)
58
(E-58 S)
72
(E-72 S)
74
(E-74 S)
3
(E-3 S)
69
(W-69 N)
49
(E-49 S)
75
(E-75 S)
28
(E-28 S)
51
(E-51 S)
Max 38,5 75 21,9 19,71 62,5 1,275 106,16 532 364 362 0,90 1,21 494 557 323 379
Min 33,0 3 15,7 13,37 43,5 0,731 101,52 318 278 184 0,42 1,02 285 327 175 198
Sub-Section
36,0
37,0
37,0
37,5
35,3
34,7
34,0
33,8
38,0
33,5
33,0
38,5
21,9
20,7
18,4
15,7
18,3
16,6
18,0
17,2
19,6
17,1
17,1
17,8
19,71
14,68
51,5 1,275 101,77 318 278 184 0,83 1,16 303 327 175
18,31 51,0 1,197 102,31 389 335 236 0,70 1,19 356 408 216
15,87 57,5 0,900 101,54 479 332 311 0,42 1,14 285 511 185
13,37 56,5 0,776 101,90 532 333 362 0,54 1,21 367 557 250
15,77 55,5 0,936 103,08 466 329 297 0,73 1,18 430 485 274
14,17 50,0 0,945 104,82 498 364 325 0,87 1,14 480 514 314
15,48 43,5 1,167 105,41 391 324 234 0,89 1,13 381 402 228
14,75 46,0 1,063 105,56 443 346 275 0,42 1,02 296 444 184
17,10 50,0 1,141 102,23 424 236 409 339 251 0,79
14,62 51,5 0,946 105,78 496 361 322 0,66 1,18 447 516 290
62,5 0,731 106,16 506 287 331 0,90 1,10 494 519 323
15,28 47,0 1,080 101,52 400 312 244 0,46 1,20 312 418 190
335
339
255
309
336
241
276
I
II
III-a
260
198
247
322
379
1,16 385
III-b/V
IV-a
IV-b
IV-c
VI
VII
VIII-a
VIII-b
GILROY - SAN FRANCISCO
BAKERSFIELD - TEHACHAPI
TEHACHAPI - BURBANK
BURBANK - LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES - ANAHEIM
MERCED - SACRAMENTO
ANAHEIM - OCEANSIDE
OCEANSIDE - SAN DIEGO
Average California HSR
X VALLEJO - SACRAMENTO
Med 35,7 18,2 15,76 328 281 0,68 51,9 1,013 103,51 444
Sub-Project
FRESNO - BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO - MERCED
FRESNO - GILROY
291 1,15 378 460 239

( BM )o =
( BM )
N

=
( BM )
S

=
UG =
AG =
Fe =
( K, ) =
Aboveground actual yearly production =Fe
K (Fw / ) (Fw / )= g( (Tr / )= E / Trl
3
2,7
=Transpiration rise by moisture content reduction
Specific rate portencial production of slope vegetation
Biomass total productivity horizontal surface = (UG)
0
+ (AG)
0
Biomass total productivity North Orientation, direction , surface inclination (BM)
N

= (UG)
N

+ (AG)
N

Biomass total productivity South Orientation, direction , surface inclination (BM)

S

= (UG)
S

+ (AG)
S

Underground biomass allocation = We-Fe We = Y

0

IV-99
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect


Figure 4: Orientation (Direction) of the Sections in CHSRS (Coyote Alternative)

Figure 5: Solar radiation factor values (Fort, 1.975)
4. SHEAR STRENGTH OF THE SOIL REINFORCED IN VEGETATED
SLOPES
The Table 4, goes on the development of the initiated calculation in the Table 3, to be able to estimate, as
is indicated, the increments of shear strength of the soil
vr
, due to the reinforced effect of the roots into
the depth z
r
(zone with the major radicular profusion) on slopes with vegetation, and
vd
till depth z
3
,
reached by its dryer effect, that in addition to the shear strength of the soil
n
, allows to assign a shear
strength of the reinforced soil on vegetated slopes
v
, according depths, with that it can be study the
possible landslide instabilities.
IV-100
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

Table 4: Vegetation reinforcement effect on slopes of the CHSRS COYOTE Alternative
qu C tn
(we) (Fe) srgr ( UG ) Z
0
3 ( UG )
N
Z
N
3 ( UG )
S
Z
S
3
0
vr
N
vr
S
vr tvd
(KPa) ( ) (Kpa) (Kpa) g/m g/m ( %) g/m ( m) g/m ( m) g/m ( m) (Kpa) (Kpa) (Kpa) (Kpa)
(Horizontal) (Horizontal) (North orientation)
(North
orientation)
(South orientation)
(South
orientation)
(Horizontal)
( North
orientation)
( South
orientation)
Zr < Z < Z3
Max 315 43 68 115,0 708 362 73 175 10,5 171 9,8 209 11,0 32,5 32,1 35,9 45,8 143,4 142,8 143,8 160,8
Min 65 0 32 32,0 678 184 47 134,0 6,3 100,0 5,6 138,0 6,5 28,4 25,0 28,8 12,8 64,4 62,7 65,1 44,8
Seasonal
roots
growth
rate
Underground
biomass
product
708 87
38
61
32
153
706 322
331
682 251
683
678
174
53
Shear
Strength of
the Soil
WUE
704
705
688
700
275
40
LUE
679
83
78
45
115
96
38
28,9 32,1
244 678
32,4 30,7 33,1 54
30,6 27,2 31,3 15,2
92,1 9,1 31,3 163 8,8 139 7,5 24,3 139 281 59 171 48 62,5 691
Average California HSRS
X VALLEJO - SACRAMENTO
Med
LOS ANGELES - ANAHEIM
MERCED - SACRAMENTO
ANAHEIM - OCEANSIDE
OCEANSIDE - SAN DIEGO
GILROY - SAN FRANCISCO
BAKERSFIELD - TEHACHAPI
TEHACHAPI - BURBANK
BURBANK - LOS ANGELES
VI
VII
VIII-a
VIII-b
III-b/V
IV-a
IV-b
IV-c
35,0 119,5
64 156 7,9 122 6,2 163 8,3 68,6
64,4
175 10,0 171 9,8 180 10,3 32,5 32,1 33,0
12,8
164 8,4 30,8
10,2
29,9 31,4
9,8 157 8,8 181
31,8 15,2 69,8
63 158 8,1 149 16,3 71,8 7,6
70,7
61 168 8,7 112 5,8 168 8,8 31,8 26,2
30,7 30,3 31,1 16,0
32,8 14,8 69,3
67 157 7,7 153 7,5 161 7,9
127,9
53 173 9,8 166 9,5 178 10,1 32,3 31,6
31,9 30,6 32,6 38,4 156 8,5 176 9,6
32,0 26,7 32,8 18,0 117 7,2 178 11,0
31,8 25,0 35,9 31,2
31,1 33,4 113,3
54 168 9,5 100 5,6 209 10,1
140 7,0
27,8
161 8,1 30,3 29,0
28,8 45,8 143,4 6,0 138 6,5 28,4
65
75
184
236
311
362
297
325
234
122 10
65 0
176
Sub-
Section
315
191
172
Strength of the soil
Coulombian
parameters
43
Sub-Project
II
III-a
91
234
73
81
134 6,3 128 I 73
0
0
0
FRESNO - BAKERSFIELD
25
0
FRESNO - MERCED
FRESNO - GILROY
28
75
0
14
68
57
55
45
61
37
40
35
38
51
32
55
37
Depth
with pF3
7,7
47 170 10,5
57 169 9,2
680
Underground
biomass
product
Depth
with pF3
Underground
biomass
product
Depth
with pF3
Aditional Shear Strength of the
Soil
Reinforcement
Drying effect
Soil Shear Strength in vegetated
slopes
tv
Kpa
Z<Zr
142,8
44,8
109,8
77,0
112,0
103,0
71,7
126,6
68,6
70,3
64,2
70,9
62,7
119,1
65,2
143,8
114,1
113,9
77,8
128,6
69,8
71,1
57,3
69,8
72,4
65,1
134,4
51,8
56,0
53,2
160,8
116,4
109,2
63,0
122,0
53,2
85,2 89,8 93,0
69,3
120,0
38
25
WUE = Water Use efficiency (production rate Fe)
LUE = Sun Ligth efficiency (production rate We)
t
vr
=
t
vd
=
q
u
=
=
c =
z
r
=
z
3
= 3 Soil deepth reducing the moisture of the soil to pF
cohesion
rooting deepth
Shear strength rise for vegetation reinforcement root effect
Shear strength rise for vegetation drying effect
Unconfined stress compression
Friction angle

=
e
c e
W
F W
srgr
r
g
3
T K
BM
z
A
=
>

5. LANDSLIDE STABILITY IN SLOPES WITH VEGETATION
This increment of soil shear strength by the double effect of the vegetation, can be taken into account by
an average global shape in the slope stability calculations, assigning an equivalent unitary shear strength
uniform along of the sliding line and using, for example, the friction circle method.
As an application of what has been said before, you can find in the Table 5 the analysis of a slope type
(Figure 6) representative of each of the nine subsections of the CHSRS. There are cuts with variables
accumulated lengths fron 1,67 Km to 34,00 Km and 146,25 Km of lump sum; average subsections
heigths fron 3,59 m to 18,25 m, and 7,65 m global average height.
IV-101
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

Table 5: Summary of considerations on soil reinforcement due to vegetation effect on slopes in cut zones
(CHSRS COYOTE Alternative)
T
r
i
a
l

N
v
s
e
q

S
v
s
e
q

v
s
e
q
(
m
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
N
/
m
)
(
K
N
/
m
)

n
s

n
s

n
s
L
(

v
d
)
S

s
v
r

N
v
e
q

S
v
e
q
(
H

<

5
m
)
(
5
m
<
H
<
1
0
m
)
(
1
0
m
<
H
<
1
5
m
)
(
1
5
m
<
H
<
2
0
m
)
(
H
>
2
0
m
)
(
m
)
(
m
)
(
m
)


(
%
)
(
m
)
(
m
)
(
m
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
P
a
)
(
K
P
a
)

(
%
)

(
%
)
Z
r

<

Z

<

Z
3
I





9
,
6
0
1
2
,
5
2
2
9
,
4
0
I
V
-
a
1
8
,
2
5
2
0
,
0
I
V
-
b
3
,
1
9
7
3
8
,
0
I
V
-
c
(
8
,
4
0
)
1
4
,
1
1
3
0
,
6
0
3
4
,
0
0
3
,
5
0
2
9
,
0
0
1
8
7
,
5
4
1
9
2
,
7
1
3
,
5
9
1
9
,
5
3
1
,
4
6
3
2
,
3
0
2
,
3
9
1
3
8
,
0
(
4
1
,
2
8
)
3
,
5
0
3
1
,
1
0
1
2
,
4
5
8
,
4
5
2
5
,
0
0
3
2
4
,
3
9
4
7
3
,
1
8
8
,
9
1
1
7
,
3
2
1
,
9
2
3
1
,
9
7
2
,
7
6
3
3
6
,
7
(
1
6
,
4
2
)
1
2
,
3
7
3
5
,
9
0
2
6
,
9
0
1
4
,
0
9
2
6
,
7
0
3
1
0
,
2
2
3
2
3
,
1
6
7
,
1
0
0
,
0
1
9
,
1
5
1
9
,
9
4
4
,
4
1
2
3
0
,
0
(
1
3
,
0
8
)
1
4
,
0
9
3
2
,
8
0
1
,
6
7
1
9
,
1
9
2
6
,
9
5
3
7
5
,
6
8
4
8
7
,
7
6
1
2
,
1
0
0
,
0
1
3
,
6
0
1
7
,
6
9
0
,
7
0
9
2
7
,
7
(
7
,
6
7
)
2
5
,
4
1
3
2
,
0
5
2
,
3
3
1
7
,
1
4
2
7
,
2
0
3
1
8
,
1
9
4
5
7
,
6
1
1
2
,
5
3
0
,
0
1
1
,
1
2
1
5
,
9
9
0
,
8
3
3
2
5
,
3
(
7
,
4
1
)
2
5
,
7
4
3
1
,
3
0
7
,
4
0
7
,
6
3
2
6
,
2
0
1
7
1
,
5
2
1
8
3
,
4
0
4
,
2
7
0
,
0
1
7
,
5
9
1
8
,
8
1
0
,
6
4
0
2
5
,
3
(
2
1
,
7
8
)
7
,
6
3
3
1
,
8
0
2
5
,
9
0
4
,
7
3
2
9
,
9
0
1
4
5
,
4
4
1
4
8
,
8
5
3
,
7
1
6
,
7
2
0
,
7
7
2
1
,
2
6
1
,
8
9
4
3
4
,
0
(
1
2
,
4
3
)
4
,
7
3
3
1
,
4
0
2
6
,
0
0
2
1
,
0
5
3
1
,
4
0
5
7
2
,
2
7
5
9
6
,
2
4
1
3
,
1
7
8
,
4
2
3
,
6
8
2
4
,
6
7
9
,
5
3
5
2
9
,
0
(
9
,
4
9
)
2
1
,
9
0
3
3
,
0
5
1
4
6
,
2
5
1
0
,
4
7
2
8
,
6
5
7
,
6
5
1
0
,
0
0
(
7
0
,
4
6
)
2
6
,
3
7
4
3
3
,
1
5
(
1
4
,
8
7
)
1
1
,
0
6
3
2
,
2
4
(
7
4
,
4
3
)
L
O
S

A
N
G
E
L
E
S

-

A
N
A
H
E
I
M
(
6
2

k
m
)
M
E
R
C
E
D

-

S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
(
1
9
1

k
m
)
S
A
N

F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
-

R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
(
5
1

k
m
)
R
I
C
H
M
O
N
D
-
S
A
C
R
A
M
E
N
T
O
(
1
1
6

k
m
)
3
9
,
9
2
3
8
,
4
4
4
1
,
4
1
S
u
b
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

l
e
n
g
t
h
)
2
0
,
8
6
3
8
,
4
1
3
4
,
5
4
4
3
,
4
2
3
7
,
7
0
3
9
,
8
0
2
1
,
9
9
3
8
,
9
2
4
0
,
9
9
4
4
,
3
1
4
2
,
6
3
4
2
,
0
8
4
9
,
5
0
2
9
,
2
6
1
9
,
7
4
3
5
,
6
7
4
7
,
8
9
5
1
,
2
5
5
1
,
8
5
4
0
,
6
3
1
0
9
,
9
7
6
4
,
9
4
3
7
,
9
0
2
8
,
1
0
4
2
,
5
3
3
2
,
7
7
4
6
,
2
9
5
0
,
6
6
4
1
,
4
6
5
,
1
9
L
e
n
g
t
h
,

d
e
e
p

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

o
f

s
o
i
l

s
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
n
g
h

v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
L

(

v
r
)
Z
N
3
Z
S
3
L
(

v
d
)
N

s
v
r

v
d

N
v

S
v
2
6
5
5
2
6
4
5
3
7
5
4
0
,
8
5
1
,
2
5
2
,
0
0
1
1
,
5
0
0
,
3
3
--
0
,
3
0
0
,
7
0
F
R
E
S
N
O

-

L
O
S

A
N
G
E
L
E
S
(
3
2
3

k
m
)
F
R
E
S
N
O

-

M
E
R
C
E
D
(
9
9

k
m
)
0
,
4
0
2
5
,
0
0
-
9
,
5
0
1
,
9
0
1
8
,
0
0
S
u
b
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
,
2
0
1
6
,
0
0
2
,
1
5
---
5
,
4
0
5
,
9
6
2
6
,
5
0
7
,
3
6
7
,
9
8
0
,
6
5
2
9
,
6
3
0
,
5
0
2
,
7
0
3
8
5
6
7
,
0
0
8
,
1
0
1
0
3
,
9
3
8
3
,
0
1
1
4
,
4
6
8
6
,
8
5
0
7
,
6
3
1
7
,
1
3
5
6
5
,
8
1
1
9
,
0
9
1
4
,
8
0
1
2
,
5
9
1
0
,
1
0
9
9
,
9
2
7
8
,
0
3
1
,
2
5
,
6
0
1
1
,
0
0
6
4
,
1
4
4
5
,
0
1
6
,
2
1
1
1
,
4
6
7
,
2
0
1
8
,
0
6
,
7
0
9
,
6
5
4
5
2
7
,
6
3
1
9
,
5
4
2
8
,
6
1
2
0
,
2
3
6
,
2
0
8
,
3
0
5
3
,
9
9
3
8
,
0
5
5
,
1
0
5
9
,
1
9
4
1
,
5
5
5
,
5
9
5
6
,
8
1
3
8
,
0
6
,
8
9
5
,
8
0
8
,
8
0
2
6
4
5
9
,
7
5
6
1
,
7
7
6
2
,
2
6
5
,
3
4
7
,
6
0
8
,
4
0
1
6
,
4
4
1
,
0
2
,
2
7
4
9
2
4
,
1
7
L

(
K
m
)
L

(
K
m
)
L

(
K
m
)
3
2
4
9
7
,
0
0
2
6
4
5
1
8
,
3
6
9
,
3
0
1
0
,
2
5
2
,
2
7
8
3
,
1
8
8
4
,
1
7
2
3
,
8
5
9
,
5
XV
I
V
I
I
-
9
,
0
0
1
6
,
9
0
F
R
E
S
N
O

-

G
I
L
R
O
Y
(
1
7
2

k
m
)
G
I
L
R
O
Y

-

S
A
N

F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
(
1
0
2

k
m
)
I
I


I
I
I
-
a


I
I
I
-
b
/
V
I
X
6
7
,
8
0
A
N
A
H
E
I
M

-

S
A
N

D
I
E
G
O

&


B
r
a
n
c
h

t
o

R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E

(
1
7
2

k
m
)
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a

H
S
R
S
V
I
I
I
T
o
t
a
l

/

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
3
5
,
2
5
0
,
5
0
(
1
.
2
8
8

k
m
)
2
,
3
0
2
4
,
0
3
1
1
,
8
7
4
,
3
0
3
2
,
6
5
0
,
2
1
4
,
3
7
1
1
,
2
3
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

c
u
t

z
o
n
e
s
8
2
,
6
1
8
4
,
3
8
2
4
,
3
0
2
2
,
9
4
2
4
,
7
1
5
9
,
6
7
7
,
3
8
9
,
2
9
L

(
K
m
)
L

(
K
m
)
-
0
,
7
5
0
,
5
2
-
0
,
4
0
-
3
,
5
5
-
-
1
0
,
3
0
3
7
---
-
--
3
3 S
l
i
p

C
u
r
v
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
(

)
C
a

(
K
p
a
)

a
(

a
(

)
























L
c

























R




















1
5
,
2
2
,
4
9

L





(
k
m
)
V
(
M
m
3
)
2
,
4
6
2
,
4
3
2
,
1
2
2
,
1
2
2
,
1
2
2
,
1
2
1
6
,
6
1
5
,
2

N
v
s
e
q

S
v
s
e
q
3
4
,
7
3
3
,
2
1
1
5
,
3
0
1
0
5
,
8
9

n
s
4
9
,
1
2
(
)
m
H

IV-102
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect


Figure 6: Slope Type Scheme, indicating the meaning of every one calculation magnitudes
The graphic (figure 7a) defines the angles
0
and
0
, taking up with the value:

a
=
|
.
|

\
|
FS
tg
arctg
|

(1)
(FS1,5, trial effect),
that determines the center O, the R radius and the length Lc of the sliding curve. Beginning with z
r

(depending of the vegetation type, z
r
1,5 m) it deduces L(
vr
) and
vr
by expression:

vr
0,1z+1,5 (UG/z) (z(m), UG (Kg/m2)
vr
(Kp/cm2)) (2)

Figure 7a Figure 7b
Figure 7a: Curves of auxiliary angles
0
&
0
for determination of the most probably slip circle.
Figure 7b: Taylor abacus (G y C III. Jimnez Salas)
The z
3
depths are estimated beginning with the corresponding characteristic curves soil-water (SWCC),
making equal the yearly evapotranspirated water to the necessary water volume to reduce the soil
moisture from suction pF 2,7(natural average moisture ) to pF = 3 ( retention moisture ), as minimun,
saying
r
/
3
2,7
, what in this type of soils can be consider W 6% , 60mm/year).
IV-103
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect

Function of the estimated values for z
3
in plain and in slopes with North and South orientations, can be
obtained the corresponding supposed slide circle L (
vd
) (Figures 6 and 8d), lengthwise can be consider
an shear strength increment
vd
by vegetation drying effect, and therefore, together with those estimated
in the rooting zone (L(
vr
) x
vr
), they imply a supplementary strength force T
v
, that theoretically it is
uniformely distributed lengthwise of the slide circle is equivalent to an increment
vr
.
These equivalents soil shear strength increments, added to the owned by the soil (
ns
) with natural
moisture (pF 2,7), giving the equivalent vegetated soil shear strength
vseq
.
In the case of this example (CHSRS slopes),
vseq
oscillate between 49,12 Kpa (North)/53,99 Kpa (South)
in the Section Richmond-Sacramento, to 114,46 Kpa (North)/115,30 Kpa (Souh) in the Section Fresno-
Merced, with respectives (North/South) averages values vs t , for the system 82,61 Kpa and 84,38 Kpa.
Regarding the average shear strength of the soil without vegetation reinforcement ns =59,67 Kpa, the
averages values ns , imply increments of 38,44% (North) and 41,41% (South).
It will be concluded that the influence of vegetation in the soil shear strength may be based on an
approximately law (Figure 8a):

vseq
/
ns
0,550,020(H-2) (3)
therefore for the CHSRS an average increase of 40%.
On regards to the value of the average equivalent cohesion
s
c of the soil without reinforcement
(51,63Kpa system average, 68,50Kpa the highest average value of the system, corresponding to the
average value of section Fresno-Los Angeles, and the smallest 32,00Kpa in the section San Francisco-
Richmond) may it be seen in the Table 6 that due to the vegetation effect the values of the soil reinforced
cohesion
sv
c , raise 39% average, to come in the average to 71,81 Kpa and to values of 87,59 Kpa
(+27,87%) on the slopes oriented to the South in the section Fresno-Los Angeles, and 45,60 Kpa
(+42,50%) in those oriented to the North in the section San Francisco- Richmond.
The larger relative increment (58,19%) takes place im the section Fresno-Gilroy,which has the direction
nearest to the W-E ( c 14), overlooking the average soil cohesion value from 55,00 Kpa to 86,97Kpa.
The increment
vd
is evaluated starting with the expression, that for soils type A2 it could be established
from results of test carried out on samples from spanish soils, (tertiary and holocen sediments).
) )( 5 , 0 ( log
1
1
pF pF a
q
q
u
u
~ =
(4)
For pF = 0,3(2,7 to 3) q
u
= 10
0,15
q
u1
1,41 q
u1
As for coulombian soils: ( )
u
q f , | t = .Agreeing that | remains almost invariable in the intervalle
pF=0,5/4,5.
( ) |
|
|
| tg
tg
f
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
2
45 cos
2
45 2
1
2
(5)
( ) ( ) ( )
ns vd
f pF pF t | t t t 41 , 0 7 , 2 3 ~ = A (Eq.6). (6)

IV-104
ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012
Lpez-Tello Soil reinforcement vegetation effect





Figure 8: a) Influence of vegetation in the soil shear strength / cohesion
b) Excavation volume reduction
c) Vegetated area Sv versus excavation volume reduction

d) Fractions of sliding curve with rooting/drying effect
IV-105