evaluationofusbrcyclicsimple shearandcyclictriaxial apparatus fortestingdynamic properties · 2016....
Post on 07-Feb-2021
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
GR-85-11
EVALUATION OF USBR CYCLIC SIMPLESHEAR AND CYCLIC TRIAXIAL APPARATUS
FOR TESTING DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
by
Jack Rosenfield
Geotechnical BranchDivision of Research and laboratory Services
Engineering and Research CenterDenver, Colorado
December 1985
IIUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
-
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of theInterior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned publiclands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use ofour land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preser-ving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks andhistorical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through out-door recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineralresources and works to assure that their development is in the bestinterests of all our people. The Department also has a major respon-sibility for American Indian reservation communities and for peoplewho live in Island Territories under U.S. Administration.
The research covered by this report was funded under the Bu-reau of Reclamation PRESS (Program Related Engineering andScientific Studies) allocation No. E-6, "Soil Performance DuringSeismic Activity."
The information contained in this report regarding commercial prod-ucts or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional pur-poses and is not to be construed as an endorsement of any productor firm by the Bureau of Reclamation.
-
CONTENTS
Glossary of symbols....................................................................................................................
Introduction ., """""""""""""" , ,.........
Conclusions .,... ., .., . ,.. .................
Equipment .........Cyclic simple shear apparatus...................................................................................................Cyclic triaxial apparatus............................................................................................................
Stress conditions .Cyclicsimple shear test...........................................................................................................Cyclic triaxial test....................................................................................................................
State of stress and strain.............................................................................................................Cyclic simple shear test ,.........Cyclic triaxial test....................................................................................................................
Comparison of results of cyclic simple shear and cyclic triaxial properties testing.............................
Current practice .....
Bibliography ........
FIGURES
Figure
12345
Approximate strain range of laboratory tests used to obtain dynamic response..................Conceptual in situ conditions due to earthquake loading....................................................Characteristic soil elements in typical in situ loading conditions..........................................Cyclic loading simple shear test.......................................................................................Cyclic loading triaxial compression test ,
iii
Page
iv
1
2
224
446
779
9
9
10
15567
-
a
0
E
Hz
Ko
as
ac
a dcj2
ad
av
a/'
a/;
a;
'hv
'msx
GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS
principal stress axis rotation
damping Ratio
Young's modulus
hertz
coefficient of earth pressure at rest
ambient consolidation stress
consolidation stress in triaxial test apparatus
cyclic deviator stress
effective overburden stress
vertical stress
effective major principal stress
effective major principal stress at failure
effective minor principal stress
shear stress (on horizontal and vertical planes)
maximum shear stress
iv
-
Resonan T Column
Cyclic Simple Shear
I
Cyclic Triaxial
INTRODUCTION
A variety of laboratory test apparatus have been developed to replicate the stresses in soil sub-
jected to earthquakes. Of these, the most common are the cyclic simple shear, the resonant
column, and the cyclic triaxial devices. The resonant column test is used to obtain dynamic re-
sponse properties in the 10-5to 10-2percent strain range. The cyclic simple shear and the cyclic
triaxial tests are used to obtain dynamic response properties in the 10-2 to 5.0 percent strain
range, as shown on figure 1.
The purpose of this study was to examine and evaluate the use of the cyclic simple shear and
the cyclic triaxial tests to obtain dynamic response properties.
The Engineering and Research Center geotechnical laboratory has both the cyclic simple shear
apparatus and cyclic triaxial equipment. However, the cyclic simple shear device needs modification
to become a state-of-the-art apparatus. Therefore, shear modulus and damping ratio has routinely
been determined by use of the cyclic triaxial equipment.
To evaluate the cyclic simple shear and the cyclic triaxial tests, it is important to consider the
complexity and system compliance of the testing apparatus, the sample preparation procedure,
and the ability of the equipment to simulate in situ stress conditions.
/0-5 /0-4 /0-3 /0-2 10-1 /00 10
SHEAR STRAIN, Percent
Figure 1. - Approximate strain range of laboratory tests used to obtain dynamic response. From [20. 21].
1
-
CONCLUSIONS
The USBR (Bureau of Reclamation) cyclic simple shear apparatus should not be modified. This
apparatus needs several modifications to make it a state-of-the-art testing apparatus. Some of
the most important of these modifications involve adding a confining chamber, reducing "free
play" in the apparatus, and strengthening the frame for reduced system compliance. Because the
cyclic triaxial apparatus produces data adequate for the 10-2 to 5.0 percent strain ranges (fig. 1),
it is impractical to modify or to continue using the cyclic simple shear device.
The USBR now uses only the cyclic triaxial apparatus for evaluating dynamic properties. These
test results have provided adequate information for analyses. Because previous investigations have
indicated that modulus and damping data obtained from either cyclic simple shear or cyclic triaxial
test methods are acceptable, the USBR should continue to use cyclic triaxial testing to obtain
modulus and damping values in the 10-2 to 5.0 percent strain range.
EQUIPMENT
Cyclic Simple Shear Apparatus
The cyclic simple shear apparatus was developed to evaluate the shear modulus of soil under
stress conditions that attempted to replicate those believed to occur during an earthquake. During
a test, shear strains are applied to the specimen, and the shear modulus is calculated from the
ratio of shear stress to shear strain.
The Swedish direct shear apparatus [1]* was one of the first simple shear devices. A cylindrical
sample was confined by a rubber membrane, and a series of thin, evenly spaced rings were placed
over the specimen to uniformly distribute the lateral deformations over the height and cross section
of the test specimen.
Later, in 1953, Roscoe [2] developed a modified simple shear apparatus that accepted square
specimens. Instead of using a rubber membrane to confine the specimen, he used a solid box.
His modifications were intended to eliminate the "edge effects" of the standard shear box then
available. More recently, Ansell et al. [3] simplified the end plate mountings by eliminating the
external hinges.
.Numbers in brackets refer to entries in the bibliography.
2
-
The original NGI (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute) apparatus [4], developed in 1965, was a direct,
simple shear apparatus developed for testing Norwegian quick clay. The 8-cm-diameter by 1-cm-
high sample was confined by a wire-reinforced rubber membrane around its circumference, which
allowed vertical deformations and horizontal displacements with no change in diameter. A cap and
a base completed the confining components.
The apparatus most commonly used today is of the NGI-type. The original NGI apparatus was
modified to accept different specimen sizes to investigate the effects of various specimen diameter-
to-height ratios on test results. Modifications by Dyvik et al. [5] permitted application of cyclic
stress-controlled tests with square wave loading at a frequency of 0.25 Hz. The specimen, confined
by a membrane, was located in the load frame and secured by the bottom plate. The cap was
attached to a specimen carriage to allow application of vertical and horizontal forces. (Details of
the stress conditions applied to the specimen are discussed later.) An MTS Systems Corp. closed-
loop servohydraulic system allowed stress- or strain-controlled testing in a variety of waveforms
and frequencies.
The BAW (Bundesantalt fUr Wasserbow - Federal Institute for Waterways Engineering) cyclic
simple shear apparatus was developed in 1979, in an attempt to eliminate the effects of the rubber
membrane [6]. Instead of using a rubber membrane or rigid side plates, an automatic measuring
and regulating system was used.
The cyclic simple shear apparatus developed at the Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute [7] uses
a rubber membrane and a stack of steel rings attached to the end plates by tapered sleeves. The
vertical and horizontal loads are applied pneumatically.
The cyclic simple shear apparatus used by the USBR was developed by M.S. Silver. The test
apparatus uses a wire-wound membrane to confine the soil specimen. The test can be performed
using either a stress- or strain-controlled loading sequence. It is normally conducted at a frequency
of 0.5 Hz with continuous monitoring of load and deformation. The current apparatus has a good
deal of equipment "free play," poor system compliance, and no method of applying or varying a
confined stress.
In general, the complexity of the simple shear apparatus and the intricacy of specimen preparation
and testing procedures are the major disadvantages of this type of testing. Use of a membrane
to confine the specimen requires skill and experience to ensure that a good seal exists along the
edges of the membrane, that the membrane does not draw away from the sides of the machine,
3
-
and that membrane bursting is avoided without using a membrane so thick as to contribute toshear resistance [8].
Cyclic Triaxial Apparatus
The cyclic triaxial test method has been widely used to evaluate soil liquefaction and the dynamic
shear modulus and damping ratio. This is primarily due to the availability and familiarity with the
triaxial test procedure and equipment.
The cyclic triaxial test consists of a cylindrical specimen subjected to a confining stress and
repeatedly loaded by a series of axial compression and extension loads while the vertical defor-
mation is monitored. The axial load can be either strain- or stress-controlled.
The configuration of the test specimen in the cyclic triaxial test is standard; however, there are
many methods of loading and controlling'the equipment. Much of the equipment now used to test
for properties of the soil uses strain-controlled devices. However, a servosystem usually applies
cycles of controlled load. Pore pressure, vertical load, and vertical deformation are recorded as a
function of the number of cycles of the load. Some of the common load-control systems are
pneumatic, hydraulic, electro-hydraulic, and pneumatic-hydraulic.
The USBR cyclic triaxial test apparatUs uses a pneumatically actuated loading system that produces
a sine wave loading. The test specimen is typically subjected to a loading pattern in the form of
a O.5-Hz sine wave after consolidation. The load and deformation are continuously monitored.
STRESS CONDITIONS
Cyclic Simple Shear Test
The stress conditions desired in the cyclic simple shear apparatus are intended to simulate those
that a soil element is subjected to in situ. Many researchers have analyzed actual stress conditions
applied by the various cyclic simple shear apparatus using numerical methods and by instrumen-
tation.
The loading conditions and resulting stresses that occur in situ are shown on figures 2 and 3.
During an earthquake, the forces resulting from upward propagation of shear motions result in the
sequence of stress applications for a horizontal ground surface shown on figure 2. For in situ
4
-
,(To
,(To (T'0
,KOOO
,KO (TO
(0) (b) (c)
Figure 2. - Conceptual in situ conditions due to earthquake loading: (a) before earthquake. (b) and (c) shear stress reversal duringearthquake.
7/1/\.\Y/~/)~> /
,CT,
,(T3
(0 ) (b)
Figure 3. - Characteristic soil elements in typical in situ loading conditions: principal stress directions during consolidation andfailure.
conditions in which the ground surface is sloping, the orientation of the principal stress directions
is rotated, as shown on figure 3.
The cyclic simple shear test simulates in situ loading conditions (fig. 2) more closely than the cyclic
triaxial test. For both the field loading condition (fig. 2) and the cyclic simple shear test laboratory
loading condition (fig. 4), the soil element is subjected to an effective overburden stress, ao'. The
specimen is restrained from lateral deformation by the sides of the shear box or by a wire-reinforced
membrane; thus, a lateral pressure equal to Koao'develops, as shown on figure 4 condition 1. To
simulate the application of shear stresses imposed by an earthquake loading, an application of a
horizontal and vertical shear stress, 'Z'hv,results in condition 2 shown on figure 4. Because of the
initial stress conditions, the maximum shear stress imposed on the soil element is 'Z'max,
5
-
CONDITION I,
0-0
,KOOO
I ,"Kdo-o CTO
I i1 1I 1I II
III I, IICONDITION 211 I,
0-0 I 1I I r moJC1
,KOCTO
,"
Figure 4. - Cyclic loading simple shear test: Condition 1 - stress conditions due to consolidation; Condition 2 - stress conditionsdue to shear stress application.
where:
'Cmax2= 'Ch} + [Go' (1 - Ko)
2 rOrientation of the principal stress directions rotates through a small angle of less than 40" on each
side of the vertical.
The cyclic simple shear test attempts to simulate the above stress conditions. The ability of the
cyclic simple shear apparatus to replicate those conditions depends on the state of stress, state
of strain, and system compliance.
Cyclic Triaxial Test
In the cyclic triaxial test, shown on figure 5, soil is consolidated under an ambient stress, Ga, to
simulate a soil element under a horizontal ground surface. Then, to simulate earthquake conditions,
a cyclic load is applied by increasing the axial stress, Gdc/2, and simultaneously reducing the lateral
stress an equal amount. This results in an unchanged normal stress on a 45" plane in the sample.
6
-
CToCONDITION I
CTO
CToIII
0-:CT.r dea 2 CONDITION 2
CTozCldc
2
CT0: ---I1La 2
CTo:+~a 2
Figure 5. - Cyclic loading triaxial compression test: Condition 1 - stress conditions due to consolidation; Condition 2 - stressconditions due to application of a cyclic deviator stress.
The direction of shear stress on this 45° plane is reversed when the above axial and lateral stresses
are reversed. Conditions on the 45° plane simulate those on the horizontal plane for the in situ
condition.
The cyclic triaxial test is commonly performed with the lateral stress held constant, while the axial
stress is cycled by :!: adc; the same effective stress conditions are produced for saturated soil
samples. Only under true isotropic stress conditions (Ko= 1)does this relationshiphold true. Under
anisotropic stress conditions (Ko -+ 1), the desired symmetrical changes in shear stress required
to simulate those in the field for a horizontal ground surface do not occur on any plane. Thus, the
cyclic triaxial test can simulate field conditions for a horizontal ground surface only under isotropic
stress conditions, and only while rotating the direction of principal stresses through a 45° angle.
STATE OF STRESS AND STRAIN
Cyclic Si'mple Shear Test
For the cyclic simple shear test apparatus to simulate in situ conditions, ambient and shear stresses
must be applied. Simulation of the ambient or consolidation stress is possible with an apparatus
7
-
that has a confining chamber around the soil specimen; the USBR apparatus does not have this
ability. Seed et al. [9] have shown that the value of Ko greatly affects the stress required to cause
failure. This stress increases with increasing values of Ko and, thus, necessitates careful control
of Ko.
Application of a uniform shear stress is much more difficult. The uniformity depends on the stress
transfer mechanism between the cap and base and the specimen [9].
For proper simulation of shear stresses occurring in situ, the soil specimen must be subjected to
complementary shear stresses at the vertical boundaries of the specimen. Because these stresses
cannot be applied in the simple shear apparatus, the effects are minimized by using a large diameter-
to-height ratio for the specimens. Kovacs [10] conducted a detailed investigation of the effect of
sample configuration in simple shear testing. Based on tests of a mixture of kaolinite and bentonite,
he found that a sample diameter-to-height ratio of at least 6: 1 was necessary to reduce or eliminate
boundary effects. Assuming that soil behaves as an elastic-plastic material, Prevost et al. [11]
determined the effects of partial boundary slippage between the soil and loading platen interface.
Shear and normal stresses developed in the soil specimen are greatly affected by these slippages.
Dyvik et al. [5] measured the lateral stresses that developed in the soil specimen by using calibrated,
wire-reinforced membranes in tests on three types of clay. The membranes measured the average
lateral stress within the soil specimen by monitoring the electrical resistance of the reinforcing
wire, which changed as a result of the elongation. The calibrated membranes successfully meas-
ured the lateral stresses that developed. These measurements compared favorably with those
from other indirect and experimental determinations of Ko, using the measured values of Ko allowed
by definition of the complete Mohr's circle state of stress, stress paths, and lateral stress ratios.
By using the measured values of Ko, results of the cyclic simple shear test can be compared with
those obtained in other testing apparatus, such as the cyclic triaxial apparatus.
Shen et al. [12, 13] performed a finite element analysis to determine stress and strain states within
a soil specimen restrained by a wire-reinforced rubber membrane and tested in the NGI simple
shear apparatus. They assumed soil to be a linear, elastic-isotropic cylindrical solid and concluded
that shear stress or strain distribution developed in the NGI simple shear apparatus was far from
uniform. The applied strain was not equal to the actual strain in the soil specimen. This nonuni-
formity is the result of the creation of an external moment from application of a uniform horizontal
displacement and a vertical loading to the soil specimen. Large horizontal displacements develop
at the soil-platen interface. Shen et al. concluded that the state of shear strain in the soil specimen
8
-
is nonuniform and asymmetric. This results in an error ranging from 5 to 15 percent in shear
modulus measurements. This range is on the conservative side because the measured shear
modulus is always lower than the actual shear modulus of the soil.
Cyclic Triaxial Test
Stress and strain conditions in the triaxial test are reasonably well known [14, 15, 16, 17]. The
dynamic properties, Young's modulus, E, and damping ratio, 0, are measured by strain-controlled
tests. Several authors have cited limitations of the cyclic triaxial test for testing soil properties
[14, 17, 18]. Some of these limitations are (1) shear strain measurements of 10-2percent or less
are difficult to obtain; (2) the extension and compression cycles may produce different results
affecting the hysteresis loop and, therefore, modulus values; (3) void ratio redistribution occurs
during testing because of the cyclic loading; and (4) the specimen configuration induces stress
concentrations at the top and bottom specimen contact surfaces.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF CYCLIC SIMPLE SHEARAND CYCLIC TRIAXIAL PROPERTIES TESTING
Several studies have compared the testing of dynamic properties by the cyclic simple shear and
by the cyclic triaxial apparatus. The dynamic properties measured by both tests are affected by
shear strain amplitude, density (unit weight), and confining pressure.
Generally, shear modulus values resulting from a simple shear test are lower than those from a
cyclic triaxial test at any strain amplitude, for a given pressure of ae = av. But, the vertical stress
applied in the simple shear test is not a good index of confinement of the sample. Similarly, damping
ratio values obtained from cyclic triaxial tests are slightly lower than those from simple shear tests
[19,20,21,22].
Some investigators have developed correlations between cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear
test results. When the correlation equations have been used, the damping ratio values agree
reasonably well, as do the modulus values [21, 22].
CURRENT PRACTICE
The current method for determining the shear modulus and damping ratios for soil varies throughout
the geotechnical community. Use of the cyclic simple shear apparatus is not widespread; it is
9
-
limited to some Government organizations, a few universities, and a small number of private
consultants. This apparatus is generally used for research activities.
Most production-oriented geotechnical laboratories test dynamic properties using the cyclic triaxial
apparatus. This is primarily due to the availability of the triaxial equipment and the amount of
experience with its test procedures. Shear modulus and damping ratio values obtained using
properly instrumented cyclic triaxial equipment are adequate for most geotechnical applications.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Kjellman, W., "Testing the Shear Strength of Clay in Sweden," Geotechnique, vol. 2, pp. 225-235,June 1950.
[2] Roscoe, K.H., "An Apparatus for the Application of Simple Shear," Proceedings of the Third Inter-national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1, Sessions 1-4, pp. 186-191,Switzerland, August 1953.
[3] Ansell, P., and S.F. Brown, "A Cyclic Simple Shear Apparatus for Dry Granular Materials," GeotechnicalTesting Journal, GTJODJ, vol. 1, No.2, pp. 82-92, June 1978.
[4] Bjerrum, L., and A. Landva, "Direct Simple-Shear Tests on a Norwegian Quick Clay," Geotechnique,vol. 16, No.1, pp. 1-20, March 1966.
[5] Dyvik, R.. and T.F. Zimmie, "Lateral Stress Measurements During Static and Cyclic Simple ShearTesting," Norwegian Geotechnicallnst., 8 pp., Oslo, Norway, 1983.
[6] Franke, E., M. Kiebusch, and B. Schuppener, "A New Direct Simple Shear Device," Geotechnical TestingJournal, GTJODJ, vol. 2, No.4, pp. 190-199, December 1979.
[7] Wei, R.L., T.L. Guo, and Y.M. Zuo, "Pore Pressure in Silty Sand Under Cyclic Shear," Proceedings,International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,vol. 1, pp. 59-64, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 1981.
[8] Pickering, D.J., "Drained Liquefaction Testing in Simple Shear," Journal of the Soil Mechanics andFoundations Division, ASCE, vol. 99, SM12, pp. 1179-1184, December 1973.
[9] Seed, H.B.. and W.H. Peacock, "Test Procedures for Measuring Soil Liquefaction Characteristics,"Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, vol. 97, No. SM8, pp. 1099-1119,August 1971.
[10] Kovacs, W.D., "Effect of Sample Configuration in Simple Shear Testing," Behavior of Earth and EarthStructures Subjected to Earthquakes and Other Dynamic Loads, vol. 1, pp. 82-86, Roorkee, India, March1973.
[11] Prevost, J.H., and K. Hoeg, "Reanalysis of Simple Shear Soil Testing," Canadian Geotechnical Journal,vol. 13, pp. 1-12, 1976.
[12] Shen, C.K., K. Sadigh, and L.R. Herrmann, "An Analysis of NGI Simple Shear Apparatus for Cyclic SoilTesting," Dynamic Geotechnical Testing, ASTM STP 654, American Society for Testing and Materials,pp. 148-162, 1978.
10
-
[13] Shen, C.K., L.R. Herrmann, and K. Sadigh, "Analysis of Cyclic Simple Shear Test Data," ASCE Geo-technical Engineering Speciality Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, vol. 2, pp.864-874, Pasadena, CA, June 1978.
[14] Thiers, G.R., and H.B. Seed, "Cyclic Stress-Strain Characteristics of Clay," Journal of the Soil Mechanicsand Foundations Division, ASCE, vol. 94, No. SM2, pp. 555-569, March 1968.
[15] Kovacs, W.D., H.B. Seed, and C.K. Chan, "Dynamic Moduli and Damping Ratios for a Soft Clay,"Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, vol. 97, No. SM., pp. 59-75.8, January1970.
[16] Peacock, W.H., and H.B. Seed, "Sand Liquefaction Under Cyclic Loading Simple Shear Conditions:'Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, vol. 94, No. SM, pp. 689-708, May1968.
[17] Finn, W.D.L., "Liquefaction Potential: Developments Since 1976:'
[18] Martin, G.R., W.D.L. Finn, and H.B. Seed, "Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under Cyclic Loading:' Journalof the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 101, No. GT5, pp. 423-438, May 1975.
[19] Kokusho, T., "Cyclic Triaxial Test of Dynamic Soil Properties for Wide Strain Range," Japanese Societyof Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 20, No.2, June 1980.
[20] Budhu, M., "On Comparing Simple Shear and Triaxial Test Results:' ASCE Journal of the GeotechnicalEngineering Division, vol. 110, No. 12, December 1984.
[21] Park, T.K., and M.L. Silver, "Dynamic Triaxial and Simple Shear Behavior of Sand:' ASCE Journal ofthe Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol. 101, No. GT6, June 1975.
[22] Saada, A.S., G. Fries, and C. Ker, "An Evaluation of Laboratory Testing Techniques in Soil Mechanics:'Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 23, No.2, June 1983.
11
-
/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false /Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice
top related