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