Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Purdue e-Pubs
JTRP Technical Reports Joint Transportation Research Program
1977
Recommended Citation Boutrup, E. Computerized Slope Stability Analysis for Indiana Highways, Vol. I. Publication FHWA/ IN/JHRP-77/25. Joint Highway Research Project, Indiana Department of Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1977. doi: 10.5703/1288284313961.
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.
IS
HfilllEEfiltiG JJBiMii
BRARIES
LIBRARIES
S3iavaan
SBiavaai
N* &
*0j
%
ES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
saiavaan
saiavau
"
ft
&>*
'&*
CO
&
fi
LIBRARIES
ES
LIBRARIES
saiavaan
saiavaan
saiavaa
RARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
saiavaan
saia
1133
^
0*
RARIES s*
LIBRARIES
f
V
0*
s*
LIBRARIES
Sdld Vdtii
saiavaan
saii
**-*
*0y N
SfSVV
-1/- 'c
&"r>~
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
^
RAklES
ft
saiavaan
saiavaan
S 31
I*
i~m
"0
http://www.archive.org/details/computerizedslopOObout
SCHOOL OF
30.57
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
!
UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
JUN7
1978
JOIN^WGmVAY
RESEARCH PROJECT
JHRP-77-25
J 7!
X~~
(6
UNIVERSITY
HIGHWAY COMMISSION
Final Report
TO:
December, 1977
Project:
C-36-36L
FROM:
L.
File:
6-14-12
Attached is the Final Report "Computerized Slope Stability Analysis for Indiana Highways", submitted for acceptance in fulfillment of the objectives The research and of the approved JHRP Research Study of the same title. report were performed by Ms. Eva Boutrup, Graduate Instructor on our staff, under the direction of C. W. Lovell and W. D. Kovacs of our staff.
The report presents results of continuous work on the computer program, This includes STABL, developed under a previous JHRP Study (JHRP- 7 5-8 ) results of a parametric study conducted on the STABL program, comparisons with other methods of slope stability analysis, and corrections and modifications of the original program. The corrected and improved STABL program, named STABL2, is a valuable tool for geotechnical engineers in the evaluation of the stability of highway slopes.
.
This Report is in two volumes with Vol. II consisting primarily of the STABL2 Program and having such a subtitle.
Copies of the The Report is submitted for approval and acceptance. report will also be submitted to ISHC for their review, comment and similar acceptance.
Respectfully submitted,
,^/
7k^^^
G.
D.
K.
K.
M.
E. R. F.
M.
Final Report
by
Project No.
File No.
C-36-36L
6-14-12
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
want to express
ray
Thanks also goes to people from the Indiana State Highway Commission
for their participation and cooperation in the improvements of the STABL
program.
Mr. Sisiliano and Mr. Reeves from the Division of Materials and
Tests provided material for the comparisons reported in Chapter VI, and
Mr. McKey from the ISHC Computer Center, Indianapolis, were very helpful
This included a
Further
questions
,
comments
Thanks, finally goes to Ms. Edith Vanderwerp and Ms. Jan Bollinger
for typing draft and parts of the final report, and to Ms. Peggy McFarren who drafted the figures.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
xiv
xxv
HIGHLIGHT SUMMARY
CHAPTER
I
xxxiii
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1
2
h h
1.2
II
Organization of Report
General Description
2.2
6
6 7
Early Development
The
cf>
2.2.2
Method
2.2.3
2.2.1*
11
11
2.2.5
Method of Slices
2.2.5.1
13
17
2.2.5-2 2.2.5.3
2.2.5.H
2.2.6
18
18
Other Procedures
20
21 22
2.2.7 2.2.8
2.3
Probabilistic Approach
Comparison of Methods
Stability Analysis
2U
Page
III
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
3.1
28
28
Introduction
Procedure for Analysis
Cases Studied
3.3.1
3.2 3.3
28 29
...
29
31
Analysis by STABL
Results of Stability Analysis of
3.3.1.2
Homogeneous Slopes
3.3.1.3
33
3.3.1.1*
60
3.3.2
3.3.2.1
3.3.2.2
Sensitivity Analysis
Results of Stability Analysis for
3.3.2.3
Embankments
3.3.2.1*
69
Analysis of Embankments
3.3.2.5
IV
89 95
96 96
1.1
98 99 99
U.1.2
1*.2
Program Modifications
Change in Data Cards
101
U.2.2
1+.2.3
102
.
102
k.3
lOo
106 108
Program Modifications
CIHCL2 and SURBIS
U.3.2
vi
Page U.U
U.5
108
110 110
Preliminary Analysis
Use of STABL
J
Stability Charts
U.5.2
123
.5.2.1
Search Routines
123
H.5-2.2
Direction Limits
1+.5-3
H.5.I*
12**
126 126
126
129 131
U.5.U.2
U.5.1+.3
k. 5 .h.k
i*.5-5
Cavitation Pressure
Illustrative Example
Dynamic Earthquake Analysis
13
1*
13^ 137
Description of Problem
Types of Analysis
137
5.2
5.3
137
1^2
Methods of Analysis
5.3.1
1^2
ll+2
5.3.2
Morgenstern-Price Analysis
5.3.3
5.k
1U3
lUU
lM
ikk
5.U.2
5.5
1^5
1^5
5.5.2
157
157
166
vii
Page
VI
COMMISSION (ISHC)
6.1
170
171
171
Problem 1 Problem 2
6.2 6.3
6.k 6.5
VII
Problem Problem
183
188
200
20U
20^+
Parametric Study
20U 20U
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.2
Modifications of STABL
Comparative Study
205
206
207
LIST OF REFERENCES
....
211 297
Method of Slices
C.l.l
Introduction
Position of Line of Thrust
C.1.2
C.1.3
C.II
322
32U
32^
Introduction
C.2.2
and
3F
c
3y
326
viii
Page
D.2
Debugging of STABL
D.2.1
D.2. 2
373
Generator
D.2. 3
D.2.1*
37^
376
377 378
D.3
Generator (RANDOM)
D.3.2
D.3.
3
378
. . .
380
380 381
Format Statements
....
3. 3
3.1*
D.3.
D.3.
3. 5
383
393
39!*
399
1+03
l+ol*
Subroutine Subroutine
Subroutine
PROFIL
ANISO
l+il+
WATER
LOADS
I+18 1*22
Subroutine
Subroutine Subroutine
Subroutine
Subroutine
EQUAKE LIMITS
INTSCT
SURFAC
1+26
1*27
1*30 1+32
1*35
1*51
Subroutine Subroutine
RANDOM
RANSUF
BLKSUF
Subroutine
1*63
ix
Page
Appendix E (cont.
Subroutine Subroutine Subroutine Subroutine Subroutine Subroutine Subroutine
Subroutine
BL0CK2
SORT
1+gS
w^
EXECUT
SLICES
^
l^r
ItSo
WEIGHT
SOILWT
FACTR
^66
1^88
^93
1^95
Subroutine
Subroutine
501
Subroutine
POSTN
506
508
Introduction
F.2
F.3
F.3.1
F.3. 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1
Page
15
2.2
23
2.3
Comparison of STABL with Modified Bishop Method after Wright (1969), Using Failure Surfaces Obtained by the Modified Bishop Analysis
Factors of Safety for Homogeneous Slopes
27
*0
3.1
3.2
52
3.3
62
3.h
67
3-5
7"
3.6
i+.l
92
10 111
k.2 U.3
132
5.1
15
5.2
in Zones A, B, C and D for 95$ Consolidation in Zones A, B, C and D for 100$ Consolidation
160
16U
5.3
xi
Table
5.J+
Page
Results of Stability Analyses from MIT-Report (After Ladd, 1975) Results of Stability Analyses performed with STABL
167
5.5
....
168
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.h
Appendix Table
A.l
AF
-r-j-7
212
A. 2
T7
AF
AF
213
A. 3
.( C*
21 k
A.h
AF
p-
215
A. 5
Sensitivity Analysis, Homogeneous Soil, Vertical Slope Actual Change in the Factor of Safety F, (6 = 90). due to Changes in the Independent Variables
Sensitivity Analysis, Homogeneous Soil, Slope 1/2 Actual Change in the Factor of Safety F, (3 = 63.h). due to Changes in the Independent Variables Sensitivity Analysis, Homogeneous Soil, Slope 1/1 Actual Change in the Factor of Safety F, (6 = U5 ). due to Changes in the Independent Variables
216
A. 6
217
A. 7
218
A. 8
Sensitivity Analysis, Homogeneous Soil, Slope 2/1 Actual Change in the Factor of Safety F, (8 = 26.6). due to Changes in the Independent Variables
Sensitivity Analysis, Homogeneous Soil, Slope 3/1 Actual Change in the Factor of Safety F, (6 = l8.U). due to Changes in the Independent Variables
219
A. 9
220
xii
Appendix Table
Page
A. 10
y T
for Homogeneous
,
dopes
{%)
221
AF
A. 11
c
222
AF
A. 12
Y~?
AF
h F
223
A. 13
.J
22*4
A.lU
225
B.l
Example of Input Data for Preliminary Design Analysis, Circular Search Example of Input Data for Preliminary Design Analysis, Sliding Block Search
298
B.2
299
B.3
Example of Input Data for Final Design Analysis, Sliding Block Search
Cases Investigated by STABL for the Comparative Design Study
300
B.k
302
C.l
Subroutine FACTR, Modified to Calculate Factor of Safety by the Modified Bishop Method (Used only for Circular Arc Failure Surfaces)
Subroutine FACTR Substituted in Program STABL to Calculate the Factor of Safety by Spencer's Method
333
C.2
....
33
1*
C.3
Subroutine FACTR, Modified to Calculate Interslice Sideforces E, and Effective Normal Force and Stress at Bottom of each Slice for Normal STABL Procedure (Janbu), Specified Surface
Examples of Input Data for Problem 1, Comparative Study Examples of Input Data for Problem 2, Comparative Study
Examples of Input Data for Problem 3, Comparative Study Examples of Input Data for Problem h, Comparative Study
. .
338
C.U
339
3^0
3^1
3^2
xiii
Appendix Table
C.8
P age
Interslice Forces, Effective Normal Stress at Bottom of Slices, and Line of Thrust for Spencer Analysis, Problem 2, Circle 5
Line of Effective Thrust and Interslice Shear Factors of Safety, Spencer Analysis, Problem 2, Circle 5
3^3
C.9
3hk
CIO
Interslice Forces and Normal Stress at Bottom of Slices for STABL Stability Analysis (Janbu Method), Problem 2, Circle 5
3U8
C.ll
Factor of Safety, Interslice Forces, and Line of Thrust for Spencer Analysis, Problem 3, Surface BL0CK2-1+
Interslice Shear Factors of Safety for Sliding Surface BL0CK2-H, Problem 3, Spencer's Method
3^9
C.12
350
C.13
Factor of Safety and Interslice Forces for STABL Stability Analysis (Janbu Method), Problem 3, Surface BL0CK2-U
Variables Used in Calculation of Line of Effective Thrust, Interslice Stresses, and Interslice Shear Strength for Spencer's Method
351
C.lU
352
35 1*
C.15
D.l
....
38U
D.2
389
->12
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1
Page
Principle of the
<f
Method
2.2
10
2.3
2.h
12
lit
2.5
3.1 3.2
16
30
32
3.3
3^
3.k
35
3.5
36
3.6
37
3.7
38
3.8
Relationship between Slope Parameters, Critical Failure Surface and Factor of Safety for Homogeneous Slopes ....
Isometric Plot of Factor of Safety vs. Slope 1/2
((J)',
^2
3.9
-r-)
I
for
**3
3.10
(J)'
for Various
T
c'
.
,
. . .
kk
**5
3.11
for Various
<J>'
Slope 1/2
....
3.12
^6
'
XV
Figure
AF
;
Page
3.13
vs.
Slope Angle
f?
for Various
<}>'
1*7
3.1 1*
AF
vs
vs.
4)
U8
A(%)
3.15
ttt
AF
-r-77-
AF
<f>'
1*9
3.16
vs.
(J)
50
3.17
AF
AcQt s
to 0.3
51
AF Xi 3.18
Relative Sensitivity
55
AF X
3.19
56
3.20
57
3.21
58
3.22
59
3.23
Variables for an Embankment Built on a Foundation Soil with a Weak Soil Layer
A Sliding Block Type of Failure Surface is most
61*
3.2l*
Critical
3.25
TO
Comparison between Failure to Left and Failure to Right Side of Embankment, D = 10 ft a = 5-7,
,
<t>
72
3.26
Comparison between Failure to Left and Failure to Right = Side of Embankment, D = 10 ft a = 11. 3
, ,
<J>
73
3.27
Change in Critical Failure Surface when Strength of Weak Soil Seam Increases
7^
3.28
Seam
76
xvi
Figure
3.29
PaEe
Example of F
vs. c
feet, Inclined
77
79
3.31
80
3.32
Variation of k Coefficients with Depth D for Constant a = 0 Variation of k Coefficients with Depth D for Constant a = 5-7
Variation of k Coefficients with Depth D for Constant a = 11.3
8l
3.33
82
3.3^
83
3.35
81+
3.36
85
3.37
Variation of F vs.
Ratios of
c
5
F
C
D =
87
3.38
Example of Variation of the Factor of Safety with Geometry of Weak Soil Layer Sliding Block Failure Surface with Rankine Active and Passive Zones
88
!*.l
97
k.2
100
I+.3
1Q 3
105
H8
11 9
xvii
Figure
k.J
Page
<J>
120
1+.8
Stability Chart of the Taylor Type for Homogeneous Slopes based on Results from STABL Program
,
121
1*.9
Comparison between STABL and Taylor Stability Chart for Homogeneous Slopes
Illustration of Clockwise and Counterclockwise Direction Limitations for Initiation of Failure Surfaces
122
It.
10
125 128
U.ll
....
U.12
130
U.13
Critical Failure Surfaces for Slopes Analysed for Influence of Earthquake Loadings
Soil Profile, Geometry and Design Criteria for Embankment (after Ladd, 1975)
133
5.1
138
5.2
Relationship between Total and Effective Strength for a Factor of Safety Larger than One
Stress vs. Strain from CK U Tests with Different
o
1^0
5.3
1^6
Input Data and Results of Preliminary, Undrained, Total Stress Analysis, Circular Failure Surfaces
lU8
5-5
1^9
5.6
Anisotropic Undrained Strength Parameters for Use in Total Stress Analyses (after Ladd, 1975)
Undrained Total Stress Analysis of Embankment with SHANSEP Anisotropic Strengths, Preliminary Design
Different Types of Critical Failure Surfaces Generated by STABL
151
5-7
152
5.8
15
1*
5.9
Frequency Distribution Curves for the Factor of Safety, Cases 1A, 2B, 3B, HB Estimated Soil Profile and Cross Section for Embankment on Varved Clay after Construction
155
5.10
158
xviii
Figure
5.11
P age
SHANSEP Strength Data for Total Stress Analyses at 95$ Consolidation (after Ladd 1975)
,
159
5.12
l6l
5.13
162
5.1k
163
5.15
165 172
6.1
6.2
Critical Failure Surfaces from Analysis by NYSTAB Circular Arc, and Hand Calculated Sliding Wedges Critical Failure Surfaces from Analysis by STABL, CIRCLE, RANDOM and BL0CK2
-
173
6.3
17
1*
6.14
177
.... ....
178
l8l
l8 2
l81
6.8 6.9
....
185
6.10
6.11
....
186
l8 9
6.12 6.13
190
G
,
192
Q
6.1U
193
'
xix
Figure
6.15
Pa ^ e
Factor of Safety F
r = 5h, c
= 2c
F
vs. Moment Center y for Various 9
,
19U
6.16
Factor of Safety F
r = 2.5h,
c
= 0.5c
p
c
195
F yh
6.17
Stability Number
I96
Fjh
6.18
Stability Number
c
197
F yh
6.19
Stability Number
cO
198
Correction Factors for the Simplified Janbu Procedure (after Janbu et al., 1956)
203
Appendix Figure
A.l
<t>
'
for Various
c'
233
A. 2
A. 3
for Various
<\>
<f>',
Vertical Slope
23
1*
'
for Various
c
'
235
-r-
A.k
A. 5
for Various
<j>
(f)',
Slope 1/2
....
236
'
for Various
c'
237
A. 6
~
V Yh
Slope 1/1
....
238
A. 7
for Various
c'
239
A. 8
A. 9
for Various
<f>
<J>',
Slope 2/1
....
2U0
'
for Various
c'
2kl
'
Appendix Figure
A. 10 A. 11
Page
c'
for Various
<f>'
Slope 3/1
....
2^2
2^3
A. 12
2kk
A. 13
2^5
A.lU
2U6
A. 15
2^7
A.l6
ft
for Various
<J>',
Yn
~r~ = 0,
2^8
ft
A. IT
for Various
<J>
'
,
Yn
c
c'
....
. .
2^9 250
251 252
A.18
A. 19
<J>'
ft
<}>'
c'
A. 20 A. 21
A. 22
for Constant
Vertical Slope
Slope 1/2 Slope 1/1 Slope 2/1
for Constant $
for Constant
<j>
253
25
1*
A. 23
for Constant
for Constant
<J>
255
A.2H
A. 25
<f>
Slope 3/1
...
256
= 0
257
A. 26
<J>
258
A. 27
A. 28
= 30
260
'
'
'
xxi
Appendix Figure
A. 29
Page
r
A. 30
= ^0
261
<S>'
AF
,
262
A. 31
AF -7
%>
vs.
<J>'
263
A. 32
AF -7AF , At 5 !-)
vs.
c
1
for Various
<t>'
Yh Slope 1/2
A. 33
vs.
Yh
c
for Various
(J)',
265
Yh
A.
3!+
A(S-) Yh AF
*~7T
vs. rr
Yh
for Various
<j>,
Slope 3/1
266
A. 35
1
(J)
= 0,
Theoretical Solution
A. 36 A. 37
267
<J>'
vrr ttt
AF
AF
268
c'
:~r
= 0, Theoretical
Solution
A. 38
A. 39
269
<J>'
AF
-rj-7-
vs. vs.
270
e ;V- =
AF
ttt
Af
Atp
<t>'
0.1 to 0.3
271
A.Uo
-rrr
p -r!
Vertical Slope,
272
A.
1+1
Txy
AF .^ Atan Ac
Ac
.
^r Yh
f r Various
(f>
'
273
27
A.U2
A. 1+3
7
<J)
, '
'
1*
A.Ult
A-^5
^ ~ Acot
vs.
for Various
<f>',
^ ~=
r-
= 0.1
275
276
0.2
g B
<f>',
Yh
" 0.3
27T
'
' '
xxii
Appendix Figure
A kG
'
Page
"
Acot B
Vs
"
6 for
Various
*'.^=0to0.3
278
A.U7
AcQt g
vs.
<t>'
for Various
A.U8
i
Acot g
AF Acot B
AF AcQt g AF AcQt g AF AcQt
o
~
c
Vertical Slope
Slope 1/2 Slope 1/1 Slope 2/1 and 3/1
279
280
281
Vs
'
*'
A. 50
vs.
<t>'
for Various
for Various for Various for Various for Various
c
'
282
A. 51
vs.
A. 52
vs.
A. 53
AF AcQt
vs.
c
c
'
cf>
Vertical Slope
Slope 1/2 Slope l/l
Slopes 2/1 and 3/1
283
28U 285
<$>'
(J)',
A.5
Acot g
vs.
<J>'
....
286
A. 55
CIRCLE Search with STABL, Embankment Founded on Soil with a Weak Seam RANDOM Search with STABL, Embankment Founded on Soil with a Weak Seam
BLOCK Search with STABL, Embankment Founded on Soil with a Weak Seam
287
A. 56
2 88
A. 57
289
A. 58
BL0CK2 Search with STABL, Embankment Founded on Soil with a Weak Seam
290
.
A. 59
291
292
A. 60
A. 6l
293
A. 62
Critical Failure Surfaces for Embankment with = 0 Underlying Weak Seam, c = 2c,
<t>
29*
A. 63
<j>
<f>
A.6U
296
xxiii
Appendix Figure
B.l
p age
303
B.2
30U
B.3
305
B.U
306
B.5
307
B.6
Sliding Block2 Search, Preliminary Design Analysis, Effect of Varying Horizontal Elevation on Factor of Safety
.
308
B.T
309
B.8
310
B.9
311
B.10
312
B.ll
313
B.12
31
B.13
315
B.lU
Circular Search by STABL, Final Design Analysis, 100% Consolidated, Assumed Undrained Shear
316
B.15
Random Search by STABL, Final Design Analysis, 100% Consolidated, Assumed Undrained Shear
31
'
xxiv
Appendix Figure
B.16
Page
Sliding Block Search by STABL, Final Design Analysis, 100? Consolidated, Assumed Undrained Shear
318
B.17
Sliding Block2 Search by STABL, Final Design Analysis, 100? Consolidated, Assumed Undrained Shear
Circular Search by STABL, Problem
1
319
357
C.l
C.2
C.3
358
359
C.k
C.5
360
36l
C.6
C.T
362
363
C.8
36h
C.9
It
365
CIO
C.ll
366
Calculation of Effective Line of Thrust, Interslice Stresses and Interslice Shear Strength for Spencer's Method
Line of Effective Thrust for Spencer Analysis, and Effective Normal Stress along Shear Surface for Spencer and for Normal STABL ( Janbu) Analysis
367
C.12
370
C.13
Factor of Safety and Line of Thrust for Surface BL0CK2-U, Problem 3, Spencer Analysis
371
C.lU D.l
372
390
D.2
391
D.3
392
Note:
Symbols used exclusively in Appendix C are listed in Tables C.lU and C.15 of Appendix C.
Abbreviations
ASCE
ATFC
CDC
CK U
o
Consolidated
DSS
IBM
ICES-LEASE
Accounting System.
ISHC
JHRP
MP
NYSTAB
Stability Analysis.
OCR
PI
Plasticity Index.
Plane Strain Active.
Plane Strain Passive.
PSA PSP
SHANSEP
xxvi
Special Symbols
Symbols
a
-
a.
to a
A1
,A ,A
factor of safety.
A,B,C,D.E
b B
c,
c'
c,
to e
n
-
c
c c
n
-
w (=
I
r
-
C, C
r
-
dl
A(-er)
The change in
due
to a change
Ac'
in c'
(= ^jj"~)'
xxvii
A(-^-)
The change in
(c
'
due
C
yh
to a change Ly in y
V
'
(Y + ^y) h
Yh^h
"
The chan Se in
(v "
c'
~ due
C'
v
to a change Ah
in h
Y <h + Ah)
"
Yh
ff
f
f f g f P f
f,
f(x)
Factor of safety.
xxviii
F^
The value of F
(=
l^m F
F
F
n
-^C
).
E
<j).
AF(Ax
AF
Ax.
1
AF(Ax
i
Ax.
1
x.
i
curves,
= = = = = = -
c'
AF(Ac')
AF(Ah)
AFU
AFg
AF(A6)
AF(Ay)
AF(A4>')
AF^
AF,,
EAF
h, H
H
i
EAF(Ax.),
1
1, n.
J
k,
In
to k
o
k,
K
1
dl
xxix
L -
N N
'
Total and effective normal forces acting on a shear surface, Center of a circular or log. spiral failure surface.
q.
;r
(a, - a) 1 3 f
).
Q r
r
r
Q -
r R
Resultant of normal stress (force) and normal stress dependent limiting shear stress (force) on a shear surface.
Ranf(0.).
Ranf(x)
R
R.
s
s
__ -
S, S
XXX
u u
U U
c
Degree of consolidation.
Water force acting on base of a slice.
W
W, W'
x.
Ax
X y
nun
Greek Alphabet
Inclination of shear surface with respect to the horizontal. Inclination of weak soil layer. Inclination of shear surface at intersection with top of
s
ct-
lope
6
Bj.,
Slope inclination.
Y
6
Angle between r
xxxi
Q-r
9q
A0
AG
mm
.
(=
t~
0,0'
o,
h v
'
o a
vo
'
vc
a
T T
'
vm
xxxii
$> *'
(<f>)
and effective
(<J>')
*1 t0 ^n
<J>
~
_
"
r
-
<J>
xxxiii
HIGHLIGHT SUMMARY
and
have the
surfaces, and the modified Bishop factor of safety for circular failure
surfaces.
Results by
than
1055.
strength defined mainly in terms of a strength intercept c, the simplified Janbu method of slices normally applied in the STABL solution may
XXXIV
form compatible vith the IBM 360 (or 370 ) computer system.
sions are verified.
INTRODUCTION
slope stability solutions to meet the needs of the ISHC for efficient,
1.1
(3)
solutions
consultant on computer conversions of the STABL program from the CDC 6500
1.2
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
The report is arranged as follows.
Chapter II gives a short introduction to slope stability analysis
in general, and presents some of the methods that are being used.
It
illustrations in Appendix A.
Related computer
Included
STABL program from the CDC 6500 computer to an IBM 360 (or 370)
computer system.
then the tables in consecutive order, followed by the figures in consecutive order.
This was done to avoid interrupting the text, and
because most of the text readily can be interpreted apart from the
tables and figures.
II
2.1
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Earthen masses located beneath a sloping ground surface, whether
a landslide
of the geotechnical engineer. The investigation of the stability of a slope has three main
steps
(1) (2)
(3)
The forces acting on the slope depend on the profile and density of the soils; the position of the phreatic surface, and associated seepage
forces
;
The shear strength of a particular soil depends upon its type and
origin, water content, prior stress history, method and type of
tan
<J>
(2.1)
where
<j>
and a
is
the stress normal to the shear plane. The equation commonly used today is modified to express T
in
terms of effective stresses rather than total stresses and has the
form
T f
= c'
(a
- u)
tan
<J>'
or
t
c'
= c"
+ a*
tan
<f>'
(2.2)
where
and
<J)'
and a*
= (o
- u)
and
<J>
= c.
and is independent of the height of the slope, provided the slope is not
subjected to seepage forces.
In contrast, a slope in a clayey soil has a
critical height, which depends on the slope inclination and the soil
properties
ir,
determined
the laboratory triaxial and direct shear tests and the field vane test.
is to
investigate
failure along an assumed slip surface, and express the stability in terms
of a safety factor F, defined as the ratio of the available shearing
forces along the slip surface, S
,
static equilibrium, S
F = <T r
(2.3)
2.2
2.2.1
Early Development
strictly frictional, i.e., a slope was stable if the slope angle was
less than the angle of repose of the material.
=
c
k y
[-
cos .^ 1 - sin
J
<f>
(2.10
where H
<J>
is the
sloping bank.
ti
H
c
_ if "
r [
< ]
(o k\ (2 5)
'
where
surface and a
<J>
value of zero.
2.2.2
The
<ft
Method
<J>
method.
strength T_ equals
o o I
I-
o
H
I h o
id _j cl
Id
o z
a:
CM Id
L.
u.
h
i
failure surface pass through the center of the circle and do not con-
tribute to the moment, hence the shear stress required for equilibrium
(c
)
investigated to determine F
gives the stability number depth factor n.
min
c
r yli
The
<}>
2.2.3
When
4>
'(<!>)
the normal stress O'(a) along the potential failure surface, and a dis-
To over-
failure surface.
tan
4>'
Consequently moment
equilibrium around the center will only involve the body forces and
strength intercept force (C) of the soil as in the Figure 2.2.
The equation of a logarithmic spiral can be expressed in polar
<j)
method.
See
coordinates as
r = r
etanO'/FJ
<j>
(2 6)
.
10
11
is
and radius r,
(J)
is the effective
gives F
In most cases, however, one will require an F larger than unity for both
<J>'
and c'.
Assuming F
o
= F
c
initial radius r
min
have to be varied.
2.2.U
Hence the
moment about the center of the circle will involve the normal stress dis-
resultant of all normal stresses and frictional shear stresses also lies
that the normal stresses are concentrated at a single point [Wright (1969)]
The
for the stability J number =-rr based on the friction circle method. FyH
Figure U.6.
2.2.5
Method of Slices
The methods described thus far are particularly suited to simple
12
13
For problems
there are (2n - 2) more unknowns than equations, and the problem is
indeterminate.
The differences
2.2.5.1
Remaining are
slice.
(a)
base of each slice, which directly gives the normal forces N, and (b)
overall moment equilibrium around the center of the circle forming
the slip surface, which directly gives the shear strength required for
in
-i
in
S
u.
o > 2
a
15
Table 2.1
Equations
n
2n
n
ln
Unknowns
1
n
n n
Position of N.
Shear force at base of each slice S. Horizontal interslice forces E.
n - 1
n - 1
n - 1
6n - 2
16
A X
line of
thrust
FIGURE 2.5
17
equilibrium.
average value (summing over the n slices) of the shear strength available divided by the shear strength required.
Hence the
2.2.5.2
Bishop's Method
no. of eq.
1
n n n
3n + 1
(3)
(h)
18
no. of eq.
(1)
(2) (3)
(1+)
Factor of safety F
V.
n
n n - 1
(5)
n - 1
Un - 1
that satisfy the two overall interslice force equations (E can be expressed
in terms of X from the force equation parallel to the base of a slice)
.
2.2.5.3
the interslice forces as for the ordinary method of slices, but using
Other Procedures
19
equilibrium.
of thrust.
zero.
procedure.
Carter found
that the value of the factor of safety was independent of the x-coordinate
of the moment center, but varied with the y-coordinate, and reached a
20
#
lie
concluded that y =
surface.
2.2.6
investigate
the shear stresses imposed under the slope by means of the theory of
elasticity [Perloff and Baron (1976), Romani (1970), Romani, Lovell and
Harr (1972)].
The criterion is that the shear stress at any point does The factor of safety is defined as the
shear strength divided by the shear stress at the point where this ratio
is the least, hence it gives the safety at the most critical point, whereas
On the other
hand, it does not take into account the redistribution of stress which
occurs, when the stress level at a point approaches the strength.
In a case with concentrated surface loads
,
methods based on an
elastic model can take into account the distributional effect of the
slope material.
*Further investigations by the author show that this is not always true, see Chapter VI and Appendix C.II.
21
may-
2.2.7
Probabilistic Approach
All the methods presented thus far have been discussed from a
deterministic viewpoint, as if the parameters involved in the slope
stability analysis were single fixed values.
This is a gross simplifi-
cation of the real situation, where uncertainties exist with respect to soil properties as well as the soil profile.
slope stability analysis, which make use of slip surface and limiting
was found to be approximately 0.3% with zero pore pressure and 1% for a
*The significance of varying soil properties may be investigated within the deterministic model by a sensitivity study (see Chapter III)
22
2.2.8
Comparison of Methods
others [Bishop (1955), Lowe and Karafiath (1967)], that for homogeneous
Table 2.2.
the line of thrust, together with soil properties, to judge whether the
following results:
23
Table 2.2
Factor of Safety for Different Methods of Slope Stability Analysis
cot 6
Method
1 2
3 h
1.5/1 1.171
1.125
2.5/1
1.1*85
3.5/1
1.768
1.659
1.71
1*
1.102
l.lVf
1.103
5
1.M3
1.351
1.595
3.095
1
2
3
h
1.831
2.U80
2.33
1*
1.738
1.785
2.91 1*
3.008
2.1*09
1.703
8
2.277
3.399
2.850
1.333
1
2 3
k
3.210
3.309
3.15
1*
U.105
k.226
't.0U5
1 2
3
U
20
2.309 2.197
2.257 2.176
3MU
3.268
3.3'+7
U.503
U
1
.332
1
*.
425
3.2U2
U.307
1+.035
1
2
3
h
50
1.93U
2.988
1.863
1.902 1.855
2.901
3.936
3.991
3.928
2.9^8
2.893
X ~
c/yh
'
P =
slope ansle
F
>
'
2k
(1)
The distribution of normal stress along the failure surface was approximately identical for the two methods.
(2)
(3)
2.3
STABL can handle almost any problem with respect to boundary geometry and loading, soil conditions including anisotropic soils, equilibrium
or excess of equilibrium pore pressures and pseudo-static earthquake
forces.
It has routines that search for the more critical failure sur-
It can as well
sis, which is the case with almost all methods available today.
*For an evaluation of 3-dimensional effects on slope stability analysis, see Baligh and Azzouz (1975)-
25
interslice forces.
(2.7)
(U
sin a - S cos a) =
(2.8)
Mohr-Coulomb relationship
C
From (2.7) and (2.9)
(N = N
+ N'
tan
d>'
F
1
(2.9)
N = W/cos a - S tan a _
(2.10)
, x
K-u.i
(W tan a - S/cos a)
=0
(2.12)
rif
[W tan a -
C* + W tan r=, -
<j)'/cos
-i
_ n
Rearranging gives
W cos g (F tan a - tan 4>') cos a (F + tan a tan <t>')
j,
<j>'
- F tan a)
1
2 13
(b
26
A similar expression including surface loads, water table and earthquake forces is presented by Siegel (1975a); see also Chapter IV,
Equation
(*+.l).
This method was chosen for its simplicity and because it can be
It is usually conservative
A com-
and may in some cases give factors of safety which are too low.
parison was made with the modified Bishop method from Wright (1969).
STABL gave values of F from 2.3% to 8.8% lower than those obtained by
the modified Bishop method, the largest difference occurring for low
cedure and found a maximum difference of 15% for steep slopes and high
values of A, with a pore pressure parameter r
= 0.5, STABL giving the
lower value.
In most slope stability problems, however, there is an uncertainty
in the determination of the input data such as the soil profile and
The
is
27
Table 2.3 Comparison of STABL with Modified Bishop Method after Wright (1969),
Using Failure Surfaces Obtained by the Modified Bishop Analysis
cot 6 2.5/1
1.1*85
Factor of Safety
Mod. Bishop
1.5/1
3.5/1
1.171 1.106
5-9
1.768
STABL
% difference
1.367
8.6
2.1*80
1.625
8.8
Mod. Bishop
1.831
3.095
STABL
% difference
1.720
6.5
8 2.1*30
2.318
7.0
2.890
7.1
1+.333 1+.099
Mod. Bishop
3-399 3.209
5-9
3 -UlU
STABL
% difference
2.290
6.1 20
5.7
1+.503
Mod. Bishop
2.309
2. 201*
1+.8
STABL
% difference
3.275
U.3U6
3-6
1*.035 3.91+5
U.2
Mod. Bishop
50
1.931+
2.988
STABL
% difference
1.873
3.3
2.912
2.6
2.3
X =
*?*
4*
,
6 = slope angle
20
III
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
A sensitivity study was performed on the STABL program to assess
An
article by Singh (1970) concludes that the factor of safety for slope
3.2
follows
(l)
For a given slope (geometry, soil profile, water table, seepage, load conditions), a STABL searching routine is used to
generate a failure surface, which will be close to the critical one, and the safety factor is calculated.
29
(2)
Using this specified surface, the factor of safety is calculated for a small change in an input parameter equal to the
3.3
CASES STUDIED
The sensitivity analysis was performed for the idealized case of
3.3.1
to 6 inde-
Height
h
6
Slope angle
30
STEP
Slope geometry
Soil
characteristics
Locate
STABL
Water conditions
critical
failure
surface
Loads
STEP
Variation
in
'STABL
critical
w
surface
Variation
in
problem variables
Factor of Safety
STEP 3
AF(Axi)
vs.
AF(Axj)
STEP 4
Restrictions
on
Ax
to
limit
AF(Ax:)
FIGURE
3.1
IN
ANALYSIS
'
'
31
by-
Y
c'
(J>
This parameter
and unit weight (y) were chosen arbitrary as 100 feet and 100 pcf, respectively.
However, the results can be applied to any values of h and
Taylor ( 1937)
The slopes
<f>')
the exception of those where a combination of low strength intercept low strength angle
<f>' ,
Analysis by STABL
less than
<J>
infinite depth.
32
Vertical
Slope
Slope 1/2
Slope
l/l
Slope
2/1
Slope 3/1
Height of slopes
Soil
100
feet
characteristics;
unit
weight
y* 100
c'-
pcf
strength intercept
1000-3000
0-50
psf
strength angle
<
FIGURE 3.2
RANGE
33
The most critical failure surfaces generated by STABL for each par-
ticular problem were plotted for comparison with the others, as shown
on Figures 3.3 to 3.7.
from the logical position with respect to the other failure surfaces
more reasonable trial surface was introduced by the author and analysed
as a specified surface. If this surface was significantly more critical
(lower factor of safety) than the most critical surface generated by STABL, the former surface was used.
randomly within the defined limits, and selects the 10 most critical of
the surfaces generated.
3.2, critical failure surfaces (Figures 3.3 to 3.7) were used as speci-
fied surfaces
c
'
and
<f
'
)*
is to plot F vs.
x^
keeping
other parameters constant. This method has the advantage that it also
reflects changes in F due to a slight change in the critical failure
The change in the factor of safety due to a change in x other parameters constant.
keeping
3^4
J*--
0.2
yfc'--
FIGURE 3.3
VERTICAL SLOPES
SOIL
IN
HOMOGENEOUS
35
7% -0.1
7%-02
7^ = 0.3
FIGURE 3.4
HOMOGENEOUS
SOIL
36
j-o.
3^-0.2
^-0.3
FIGURE 3.5
IN
HOMOGENEOUS SOIL
37
rh -o
rh-o.2
^K-o.3
<o
FIGURE 3.6
HOMOGENEOUS
SOIL
38
rh
=20'- 50
rh
-o.i
7R-0.2
FIGURE 3.7
HOMOGENEOUS
SOIL
39
rfr-o.3
4>'-o
E Xh 0'
NolS
Dashed
circle
same as
For
yfi
surface
is
at limit
of boundaries. (Theoretical
infinite
surfaces extend to
FIGURE 3.7
(CONT.)
1+0
Table 3.1
Nscot
Yh
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.757
10
.787
.677
.792 .915
.936
1.152
1.388 2.087
0.1
20
30
.987
1.210
1.531+
1.618
2.181+
1.196
1.1+31
2.871
3.806
40
50
1.883
2.808
3.61+2
1.057
.801
1.719
2.331
1.106
1.575
5.011
1.11+3
1.088
1.31+7
1.129
10 0.2
20 30
.967
1.817
2.039
2.819
3.620
1+.582
1.120
1.261+
1.577
1.818
1.891 2.230
2.366
2.928
3.587
1+.519
40
50
1.1+08
2.087
2.1+26
2.622
3.115
1.598
1.202
5.879
1.711+
1.633
1.886
2.11+1+
I.658 2.232
2.51+1
1.707
2.1+37
3.021+
10
2.67I+ 3.1+90
1+.351+
0.3
20
30
2.1+06
2.888
3.303 3.901
3.631
1+.327
40
50
2.701
3.066
5.331
5-232
6.627
Note
The underlined results are obtained from specified failure surfaces, shown
Ui
The dimensionless
number
is
c'
<p'
and 8.
variables, while other independent variables (one in this case) are held
constant, see Figure 3-9.
To determine AF(Ax.
AF ^
was determined
x.
curves at particular
Since these curves are based on empirical values, the values are subjected to some uncertainty.
AF Examples of variations of -^
i
with x
J
1*2
Q)
O
cfl
<H
>H
3
CO
3
rH
<H
-p
<L)
<m
O
fc -P
a;
a)
<H
H
o
H
a)
i *
"*-
o
(h
E O
a>
P
u o
p o
a
fc
C5
p
ft
o ^
a; d)
H
C
ai
p
H
.c
<u
H be
3
p
be
p
X! b0
aJ
ft
a>
W p
1
0)
d)
& o H CO p
Jh d)
p
CO
c 0) u
x p be
c
H
0)
>
+3 H
p
CO
I) Jh
w
0)
&
ft
Pi
H
H
CO
'O
6-
V)
>
W Ll < <n
Ll
en
\-
o u 2
\-
LU
LiJ
cn
ii
0>
J AidJDS
JO
JOPDJ
kh
4.0
FIGURE 3.10
>5
2.0-
rh
FIGURE
3.11
yfi
FOR
1*6
same
critical
surface lines
^0.3
20
<p',
30
degrees
FIGURE 3
12
17
Valid
in
the range
0.08
J^ 0.35
(range
AF
*(*)
theoretical
infinite
solution for
depth
only
y^O.2
10
20
30
40
Slope Angle
70 50 60 degrees @,
80
90
FIGURE
3.13
AF
vs.
SLOPE ANGLE
/3
FOR VARIOUS
Jlfi
Valid
in
the range
0.08^^^0.35
not investigated)
(range
^ > 0.35
FIGURE 3.14
^1
AF
vs.
</>'
FOR DIFFERENT
SLOPE ANGLES
U9
UK
Average over range
0.1*^0.3
0.10
0.08
\\
\
\jOt\ *
Yfc.
0.06
&.
0.04
0.02
1,1
40 50
10
20
30
60
70
80
90
FIGURE 3.15
4^
vs.
SLOPE ANGLE
FOR
VARIOUS $'
50
0.12
o.i^y^ ^o.3
0.08
0.02
10
20
4>
30
,degrees
40
50
FIGURE 3.16
jM^- vs.
51
2.0
AF
Acot/3
1.0 *
10
20
30
40
50
/B,
60
degrees
70
80
90
Slope Angle
AF
FIGURE 3.17
Acot
y
=
VS.
FOR VARIOUS
<,
TO 0.3
52
r\ rH
r. <D
p
tS
c
n
bC
r-i
13
aj
,^
CM
-3-
c
r-l
P
10
tn
bJ CJ
u o
-H H H
td to
O E
J
faP
II
<
(U
-P U"\
^
bfi
aa H
fe
CJ
c o u >> O iH <w T3
H
P. <M
o
CO
rH
O
<M
r-
3-^
Cd
r,
O
r.
b^ >, ft
H
p
aj r<
m
0)
f-.
H
H
rH
X!
b H rH
10
P M C O p H H p
CJ
0)
ft
rH
.
>
jr bO H ,C
00
0) Jh
c C
%H
in 0)
Ih CJ
03
.p
<D
3
b
>
o
tO
a1
ro
o
<fH
IH
-H
O
O
bO V- T3 -H
h O
P
M
a.'
rn
O
Vc
o nT> m < o\
.
CO
tn
0)
U O
Ml
ft
H
to
r. cd 0)
p
t-
r-i-a-
S
X, bD H
10
<U
bd V bd c c H H W e- (D
a!
<1)
tr
-e-
II
H
to a)
P
03
<
K
Ih to (D
rH Vh
Ih
ft -P
c8
a!
r<
<fH
(l)
10
h'H
r< CJ 0)
o u
Q
=8
o c mI
U O
H -P
OJ
ai ih
U c
o
<h
ft p*
0)
3
far
-H
r-
CM
00
P
to
V
~
o|
CM
c o
()
r> rH
H a
to
O E
ir\
<
o p H
LT\
-e-
m<
M
u o
tM
H O 3o
II
h
a! 0)
-H
CM
C
"3 ot 0)
bC
H H P P
m
E
CtH
ctf
V ft c O
to
<
-P
ir.
rH
3
Hp
to
a>
Ih
ai r-
u c
HH
c
a]
rl
u CJ c
>-<
&
ht
u c o o Uh O
H
U-
fafl
H 43
(h
td
>
'
53
(x
c
<j>
'
or cot 8) is
c
'
Yh
for values of
Yh
larger
An exception is the t
AF
75-
For
a
'
values between
AF
;
At*
1
increases with
c'
Yh
whereas
A( cl }
Yh
c'
parameter as well as
$'
for relatively
For
angles up to
1+5
w^
Wh
;
,
AF
Also ttt
AF _
,
AF
decreases with increasing value of 8; however, conthe decrease is large for 8 angles up to U5
to 50,
trarily to a/C\
^Yh
For values of
,
Acot p
5AF
Yh
c'
AF Acot 8
increases with
yh
c
'
as well as with p.
, ,
.,
follows
A<(>'
(constant)
=T~ c
0.20
20
'
5U
^
n
0.05
5%
0.05
5%
Acot 6 -
rrf
0.10
=
I
10*
- - 1
- - 1 cot
or
^2t6=
cot
8
~-
20$
gives
A(^-)
=
c
205$
At ,
gives
M ^) h
<>,
5*
A(
Yh
<>"
Li.05
1 - 0.2 _ 2 "
- 0.271.
^
5
27?,
5 +
= 30$).
Hence the
In prac-
55
Vertical Slope
100%
ZAF
F
=
24
to
33%
av.
28%
0.8 to 3
w
>
'5
<3
c
a*
50%
> O
a>
*'
/ondh
0%
jL
01
0.2
_c_
0.3
0.4
FIGURE 3.18
ARXj SAF
FOR
56
Slope 1/2
-=^^ =26
to
37%
av.
31%
100%
0.8
to
>
c
</>
50%
c^__
> o
a*
cr
^^\^
-^_*^
0%
0.1
///i///v
0.3
c'
w,
0.4
0.2
FIGURE
3.19
RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
SLOPE
1/2
>7
Slope
l/l
SAF
100%
29
to
39%
av.
31%
0.8
to
>
$ 50%
0>
>
D
CC
0%
RGURE 3.20
RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
SLOPE
l/l
Slope 2/1
ZAF
100%
28
to
41%
av.
33%
F =0.8
to
7U-
<
50%
0%
0.4
FIGURE 3.21
RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
SLOPE
2/1
59
Slope 3/1
-^E =30
to
43%
av.
33%
100%
F
=
0.8 to 3
to
0%
FIGURE 3.22
RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
EAF FOR
SLOPE
3/1
60
1*5
and
> 0.1,
c*
is the
Yh
c
'
/C
,
( yh
'
< 0.1
cot 8),
in F.
There
AF
may be obtained.
Very little information was found in the literature about actual variances in soil parameters as obtained from field and/or laboratory tests. Singh (1970) uses maximum variances of 50$ for c' and 10 for
<f>',
which
shifts the results in the direction of c' being most significant with
<J>*.
variables.
Yh
c
'
> 0.1,
<j>*.
c'
<
61
= 20, whereas
^ Y
and
~
h
5*.
the value of the safety factor F should lie in the range of 1.2 to 1.5
for slope stability.
These values, although they are based on experiThis depends on how reliable
tion in some parameters has more effect on the result than variation in
others.
and
<j>'
(f.
are 1.5
and 1.2, respectively, indicating that c' is the one of the two parameters believed to have the most uncertainty and the highest influence on
the result.
c'
'
lab
c
62
Table 3.3
Geotechnical Designs*
Symbol
formal
Extraordinary
1.0
1.5
g
f
Dead
1.0
1.5 1.5
P
f
Live loads
V
*
Wind loads
Friction (stability & earth pressures)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.25
1.15
1.5
l.i
1.75 2.0
1.6
1.8
2.0
<
1.8
63
For a particular problem, the variances Ac' and A<K should be estimated
from the different possibilities of interpreting the test data (different ways of fitting the Mohr-Coulomb envelope to the test data).
The
same curves may also be used to determine the maximum variation in the
c' and
<J>
'
in Figure 3.1).
3.3.2
Independent variables x.
The 16 variables
variables, e.g., the soil parameters, certain limits in the values can
easily be established.
6k
<>;<:,<**
Variables
Height and width of embankment
"ymbols
h, B D
Depth to weak layer from base of embankment measured at center line of embankment
a
6
L>eR
(Y,c,(f>)
]
(Y,c,*)
]
(Y,c,(f>)
FIGURE 3.23
65
depth will a weak seam in a foundation soil have no effect on the sta-
bility of an embankment?
Because of the excessive number of possible combinations of the
= l+3,0U6,72l)
The variables that are held constant are mainly those with respect
to geometry, particularly those which are easy to get information about
in a real situation, such as the surface profile (i) and the geometry
as equal to zero.
remain as variables:
D
y
(c,
<{>)
(c,
<)>)_,
66
The relationship between the factor of safety F and the unit weight
Y is relatively simple, which means that y can he held constant, leaving
seven variables
In this study, c
w
p
Ten combinations
of (c,
<J>)
and (c,
<J>)
3.3.2.1
0),
(b)
If the factor of safety becomes larger than either (a) or (b), the weak
expressed as
F = F
c
+ P.
<p
(3.1)
where
F
c
^[^tkj
a, 1
^
tan
<f>
...
* n
ej
tan $
(3.2)
and
F.
<p
tan
<J>,
+ a
+ + a
(3.3)
67
Table 3.k Range in Variables Studied for an Embankment on a Foundation with a Weak Layer
Variable
Height of embankment
Symbol
h B D
Range
20 feet
HO feet
Width of
embankment
to 60 feet
to 11.3
33.7
V*R
Y
130pcf
(100 to lUOpcf)
<J>
F' ^F
30:
C
200psf, 30
,
32
200 to lOOOpsf
68
(J>
k.
to a
Geometry dependent variables constant for a certain slope geometry and soil profile.
,
3.3.2.2
Sensitivity Analysis
Using the above expression for the safety factor F, it may be seen
that F, is independent of the unit weight y as well as h, the height of
the embankment.
AF
-r
F
=
-
(3.h)
77-
AF Ah
F
=
:
(3.5)
and
<f>.
can be defined as
#
Ac
.
ST*. i yh
a.
i
(3.6)
AF A(tan
=
<f>.
(3.7)
69
AF
= E
~
3F
3k.
i
3F,
Ak.
i
+ I
s-*
3a.
1
Aa,
i
E Yh
c,
l
Ak. + I tan
l
<J>,
Aa.
l
(3.8)
3.3.2.3
problem to locate the shape and position of the most critical failure
surfaces.
It was found, as expected, that the sliding block mode of
failure was the most critical, with the base of the block located along
the weak soil seam. See Figure
3. 2U
However, this was also the case for homogeneous soil, see Table A. 1^4
and Figures A. 59 and A.60.
obtained in the comparative analyses, Chapters V and VI, it may be concluded that the method of slices used in the STABL program (Janbu's
1+5
<j>'/2
- <J>'/2 for
block with randomly generated active and passive portions of the failure
surface (Figures A. 57 and A. 58).
TO
weak seam
FIGURE 3.24
MOST CRITICAL
71
When the weak soil layer is inclined with the horizontal, the sta-
This
was done in a few cases, but in most cases the stability was investi-
gated only to the side of the embankment where the weak layer is dipping
down, since this is most difficult to change.
both sides show, that for foundation soil of the same strength as the
embankment soil, failure is more critical towards the down-dipping weak
seam.
In the case of stronger foundation soil, it may be more critical
,
see Figures
the embankment soil, so that failure towards the side where the weak
layer dips down is the most likely.
The failure surfaces remain the same, or very close to the same,
for different foundation soils within a relatively large range in soil
parameters (y, c,
<J>),
But
portions of the failure surface move closer to each other. involved in the failure decreases, as shown in Figure 3.27-
The volume
Despite
(3.2),
(3.3)] can still be applied to some extent, because the change in shape
Exceptions to
Embankment 20
max
Failure
Failure
to left
to
right
200
400
600
800
cw
1000
psf
Strength of
Weak Seam
FIGURE
3.25
COMPARISON BETWEEN FAILURE TO LEFT AND FAILURE TO RIGHT SIDE OF EMBANKMENT, D= 10 FT, a = 5.7, <*>0
73
Embankment 20
3
pmox
>
t u
'
Failure to left
r
Failure to right
200
400
Strength of
600
800
c
1000
psf
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.26
COMPARISON BETWEEN FAILURE TO LEFT AND FAILURE TO RIGHT SIDE OF EMBANK= MENT, D=IOFT, a-H.3?
<*>
7^
Type
weak seam
surface
Type 2 surface
FIGURE 3.27
CHANGE IN CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE WHEN STRENGTH OF WEAK SOIL SEAM INCREASES
75
this are the situations where the active part of the failure surfaces
intersects the ground surface beyond the crown of the embankment, see
problem changes so much that new values of "a" and "k" parameters apply
in equations (3.2) and (3.3).
small relative depths of the weak soil layer and small inclinations of
a.
Type 2 surfaces occur for larger relative depths of the weak soil
From the results (Table A.ll+), curves are plotted showing variations of the normalized factor of safetv F
n
c
where F
= n
Fyh
'
and
w
c
These curves
show a very obvious change when the failure surface changes from type 1
to type 2, as a break appears in the otherwise linear relationship
between F
and
Curves of "k" and "a" values are plotted vs. a for constant depth D
(Figures 3.30 and 3.31) and vs. depth D for constant a (Figures 3.32
soil has a larger influence on the stability than has the strength
angle
<$>
with the overburden, and the overburden is larger for the part of the
failure surface that passes through the foundation soil.
76
FXh
cw
5
N O
E
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Normalized Strength of
Weak Seam
cn
cn
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
CF
CE
Fn
Fn Cn
^n
3.73
5.35
0.1
4.29
5.93
0.2
4.69
6.47
0.3
4.92
6.93
0.4
5.13
7.23
0.5
1000
I
3.39
3.72
4.02
4.29
4.54
2000
FIGURE 3.28
NORMALIZED FACTOR OF SAFETY Fn VS. NORMALIZED STRENGTH c FOR EMBANKMENT 20 FEET HIGH SLOPES 1.5/1 DEPTH TO WEAK SEAM 5 FEET, INCLINED AT a= 11.3 TO HORIZONTAL
, ,
77
FXh
Fn * 5.85
Fn
+ 1.14 c n
"2.75+ 2.93 c n
N o i o
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
cn
0.2
0.4
3.91
0.6
4.31
0.8
1.0
cE
-C7
*E
0
*r
10
Fn
cn
3.34
0.4
4.54
1.6
4.75
2.0
0.5
08
6.76
1.2
Fn
5.67
728
7.73
8.12
10
10
FIGURE 3.29
EXAMPLE OF Fn VS. c n FOR EMBANKMENT SLOPES 1.5/1 DEPTH 20 FEET HIGH TO WEAK SEAM 5 FEET, INCLINED AT
,
78
Table 3.5
Surface type*
D
ft
tan a
(2)
1 1
5 5
0.20 0.20
2.1+1
2.1+1+
1.01+ 1.1+7
2.80
1.57
0.71 0.65
0.86 0.72
2.71+
1.06 I.69
1
1
0.10
2.31+
0.83
0.1+7
0.51+
1.01
1.51+
5
5
0.20
0.20
1.90 1.50
1.99
(2)
1
10
10
10
0.82 0.59
0.1+5
1 2
1.69
1.15
1.05
1.51+
2
1
15 20
0.88
1.07
0.61+
0.1+7
2.25
3.01
2
2
20
30
i+o
0.20 0.20
0.83
2.82
3.28
3.
31+
0.33
0.58
O.56
2 2
2
0.5!+
0.1+1+
0.12
1+.73
i+o
0.20
0.1+1
3.60
3.9*+
0.08
(5.1+3)
50
0.20
0.27
0.3!+
79
D C
o
s
u
'
0)
E o
Type
surfaces
Type 2 surfaces
(for </>soils
mainly
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.20
Inclination of
FIGURE 3.30
VARIATIONS OF
Ro
15
o c
D
o
8.
Type
surfaces
Type 2 surfaces
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.20
Inclination of
Weak Seam
tan
FIGURE
3.31
81
D k.
0>
Type
surfaces
0.25
0.50
Depth Ratio
--
|.o
to
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.32
82
tan a
0.10 (a -5.7)
b.
tt
<D
E o c o
Z
E
Type
surfaces
0.25
0.50
"pf ro
1.0
Depth Ratio
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.33
tana
0.20
(a-ll.3)
4>
O
0.25
Type
surfaces
Type 2 surfaces
0.50
Depth Ratio
-^
to
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.34
VARIATION OF
COEFFICIENTS WITH
a -11.3
8U
tan a
(
A-tana
-0.10)
Type
surfaces
Type 2 surfaces
V.
5!
01
E 2
S.
I
o
01
0.5
1.0
2.0
"h~
Depth Ratio
to
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.35
VARIATION OF
"a"
COEFFICIENTS WITH a * 0
85
tana
0.20
o
</>
Type
surfaces
Type 2 surfaces
S E 2 o
a*
Depth Ratio -^
to
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.36
86
of the founda-
Comparing k^ and k
of
the weak seam has a larger influence on the stability than has the
larger angles a,
c,, r
the strength of the foundation soil relative to the embankment soil, and to some extent on the relative strength of the weak soil seam.
For
for
F E
= 1
D occurs
at
depths D between 0.25h and 2h for a foundation soil of the same strength
as the embankment soil.
87
a = 0
U.
Embankment 20
feet high
1.5/1
Slopes
200
400
600
800
cw
1000
psf
Strength of
Weak Seam
FIGURE 3.37
FT
88
Embankment 20
c E = cF =
1000
psf
<f>
2.0
c
>
w -600 psf
o
in
cw
200
psf
11.3
inclination
of
weak seam
10
20
Depth of Weak
30
Soil
40
Seam
D,
ft
50
60
FIGURE
3.38
EXAMPLE OF VARIATION OF THE FACTOR OF SAFETY WITH GEOMETRY OF WEAK SOIL LAYER
89
3 2
.
. '*
Example
:
-r
<**>
intercept F
=1.2, and
=
.
& Ay
L
120
_ o U,U1 oi
or
f-
= ~
f-
lf|o
2 1%
'
>
or F = 1 115 to 1>225,
-
Ah
Example
:
1 -r h
(3 5)
-
AZ
Ah
1^2
20
0>o6
we
0.3 = 0.9,
90
instead of 20 feet.
AF =
-
0.06-1 =
f~ Ac
.
ik
Yh
(3.6)
Example
and inclined
3
=1.20.
AF Ac
AF_
Ac_
E
AF_
Ac F
=
AF.
Ac
J.
yh
E
w,
5.08
125'20
0.002
If the embankment is
c
may
91
<j>
AF
AltalT^T
E xample
:
a
i
(3 T)
-
<J>.
A(tan
and for
-
<f>
= 0.123
AF = 0.27
<j.
10 to 15,
A(tan
(J).)
= 0.092
AF = 0.20,
<J>.
From Tables 3.5 and 3.6 it can be seen that although k, k and k
h
r
vary with location of the weak soil layer (as represented by a and D),
the sums of the k parameters vary only a little. Hence the result for
AF(Ac) is almost independent of the problem geometry, and depends mainly on the values of Ac.
a-j,
AF(A<}>)
as
de-
AF
-r Yh
E c.
1
Ak.
1
+ I tan
<J>.
Aa.
1
(3.8)
92
Table 3.6
statistical Analysis of Geometry Parameters k and a
D ft
tan a
*? + ku
+ k
\l
*F
0.20 0.20
5
5 5 5
3.81+
3.01+
6.25
5.1t8
1.57 1.37
1.81+
1 1 1
(2)
1+.03
It.
2.01
1.1+6
1 1 2
2 1 2 2
10 10 10
15
5.21 5.08
5.1+0
3.51*
3.96
3.
31+
5.00
1+.88
20 20
30
1*0 1+0
i+.oo
2.72
3.31+
0.20
3.65
3.89
3.92
U .72
1+.50
1+.1+1+
It. 1+5
0.20
3.86 3.90
1+.85
2 2
2
3.88
It.Olt
0.20
0.20
1+.01
(5.51)
-
50
U.21
3.78
it.
28
U.55
Mean
Variance
3.66
0.21+
5.12
0.29
2.32
1.03
0.08
Standard
Dev.
0.28
0.1+9
0.53
1.01
Variance
Coef.
iM
13.3$
10.lt*
1+3.75?
93
Example
+ F, corresponding to c^ = 1000 E
(J)
=
=
J:
1.U9.
+1.6 tan
10
+0.05
We are
Further, k
On the
+ F
will
Therefore both
AF
lg c. go
+ 0.2^ tan 10
91*
For AD =
- 2
feet, the
changes in the "a" and "k" parameters are of opposite sign, but of the same magnitude, so AF = + 0.02.
in-
2.
Ak
AF
+0.09 tan
Atan q = - 0.05
Ak
10
AF
2 c. g0
(0.19-1000
=
0.19-500 + 0.03'200)
_
- 0.16
tan 10
0.01+
0.03 = 0.01,
95
The above results are based upon a rather limited study, particularly with respect to the range in the a angles investigated.
For very
problem becomes almost impossible when moving from the simple case of
slopes in homogeneous soils to more practical, but also more complica-
factors, occupy ten tables, compared to one for homogeneous slopes, and
even so they cover only a small range in the possible combinations of
ity and changes therein are determined by the soil strength parameters
c
and
(j)
However, the neglect of a weak soil seam may have a large in-
failure of a slope that otherwise would have been stable with a safety
factor of F = 1.2 to 1.5.
correct c parameter (or
cf>
parameter).
96
IV
Other
k.l
THE MODIFIED SLIDING BLOCK ROUTINE (BL0CK2) During the sensitivity analysis of an embankment founded on a soil
(1+5
<j>'/2)
and
U5
- <j>'/2)
of safety.
active and passive portion of the sliding block more randomly, it was
felt that a sliding block using the Rankine theory for active and
passive portions of the failure surfaces would be useful in the analysis of relatively simple slope stability problems.
The original sliding block, on the other hand, was still felt to
be a better solution for cases of soil profiles that are complex.
97
weak
soil
seam
FIGURE
4.1
ZONES
98
1 1
.
The passive portion of the failure surface starts from the point
of the failure surface chosen randomly within the first box defined,
see Siegel (1975a, p. 96).
mined, the soil type below is known, and the direction of the first
line segment of the passive wedge is determined as (U5
<f>'
/2
with
4>'
boundaries is investigated.
angle to use.
and from the point chosen within the last box specified.
from the horizontal is
(1*5
The angle
- 4>72).
The
<!>'
99
active and passive zones of the sliding block BL0CK2 will still be
<J>'
<f>'
angle.
<j>'
parameter.
between approximately + ^5 and + 65, and in the passive wedge range between approximately - 15 and 1*5
If
(J)'
differs
considerably from the active to the passive regions, one may have to
divide the anisotropic soil into two soil types, one in the active
region, and another in the passive region.
tropic
<(>'
searching routine.
U.1.2
k.2
OPTION OF SEVERAL PIEZOMETRIC SURFACES The original STABL program had three possibilities for defining the
100
Anisotropic
direction ranges
I
and 2
90
soil
FIGURE 4.2
101
excess pore water pressures due to shear; and finally the pore pressure
constant u
allows different piezometric levels to be assigned to different layers of soil, was proposed by the Division of Materials and Tests, ISHC.
Using the r
were proportional to the total overburden from the soil layer considered to the gound surf ace
,
second
1+.2.1
Program Modifications
The option of defining more than one phreatic surface required
WATER
102
is the subroutine that reads, checks and stores the data for the
that the correct unit weight, moist or submerged, is used for each soil
Only the piezometric surfaces that apply to the top soil and
bottom soil of a slice are used in the calculation of the water forces
U
a
and U
8
where U
and U
H.2.2
Also the data cards for WATER are changed to allow up to 10 piezometric
surfaces to be defined.
U.2.3
clayey soil, the water pressure on the bottom as well as on the top of a
slice will be calculated as the hydrostatic pressure corresponding to the
103
I H 2 m o
K Q.
UJ -j
or
ij-
o
cn en >_J
< _i z m < ?
>1_i
UJ
in
b < m 1 hw Q UJ O t o _I UJ
ft!
en
0.
ro <f UJ cc
3
u.
e>
10U
on the surface of the slope is removed, the water pressure within the em-
This
The modified assumption used in the above is that within the clayey soil
core no change in water pressure occurs during the rapid drawdown, whereas
in the outer shell consisting of granular soil of very high permeability,
The
stability analysis is performed defining the drawdown water table for the
outer shell of granular material, and the original high reservoir water
table for the impermeable core material.
<t>'
and c'.
sence of one or several water tables does not influence the result
unless the water table that applies to the top soil extends above the
ground surface
acting as a surcharge
105
shell of
granular
material
(a)
Embankment With
Full
Reservoir
(b)
Water
(approximation)
FIGURE 4.4
106
This may also be seen directly from the expression for the factor
of safety (Section U.3, Equation k.l), where the water force at the
bottom of a slice, U
<f>'
= 0,
it.
MODIFIED BISHOP FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACES During the comparative analysis described in Chapter VI, it was
discovered that the simplified Janbu method of slices used in the STABL
program does not always provide conservative results compared to other
methods.
In fact it may give erroneous and unconservative results
where a failure surface intersects the ground surface at the top of the
slope at very steep angles
,
(or c').
steep angles are seldom the most likely failure surfaces, so in most
where deep circular failure surfaces are analysed, e.g., for an embankment on a soft foundation. This problem is investigated in Section 6.k.
1+.3.1
Program Modifications
The modification of the program was relatively simple. The Janbu
-FA
'
107
where
A.,
cos a U
tan
<J>*
(W (1 - k
- k,
tan a]
A
d.
W {(1 - k
tan a +
k,
+ U (tan a cos
f>
- sin B)
Q (tan a cos
sin 6)
tan a tan
(J)'
[see
Siegel (1975a)
This equation is derived by taking the moment of the forces acting
A,
-PA
around the center of the circle, y = r cos a (see, e.g., Figure 0.1*0,
and Equation k.2 becomes
A
E
r cos a
- F A - - - 2
108
or since r = constant,
A
Z cos a
x
- F A
- -
(U.3)
which is the equation used for the modified Bishop factor of safety-
calculation
Wright (1969).
U.3.2
failure surface search, one should use the command word CIRCL2 in place
of CIRCLE.
It may also be applied to a specified surface by using the
k.k
trate the data setup and output for the revised STABL program.
Figure
6.k shows the problem with soil parameters and positions of piezometric
surfaces.
Table U.l shows the data setup for a sliding BL0CK2 analysis.
Note
that the unit weight of water (the second variable defined under the com-
mand word WATER) is specified as 0., which means that the default value
of 62. k pcf is used.
109
Table h.l
1
1
SDIL
5 125. 125. 125. 122. 122.
125. 0. 35. 0. 0. 125. 0. 33. 0. 0. 125. 0. 35. 0. 0. 122. 320. 29. 0. 122. 740. 16. 0.
1
1
1
0. Q.
2
2
UATER
2 5
0. 0.
320. 47.
-?
45. 56. 45. 126. 51. 136. 60. 150. 64. 250. 112. 320. 110.
0.
BLQCK2 50 2 50.
50. 29. 90. 26. 8. 140. 26. 280. 26. 6.
110
The computer
This problem illustrates the use of the BL0CK2 sliding block search,
and of the WATER command.
in Chapter VI, Section 6 .h
,
*t.
frequently have been raised by users of the program. First it should be emphasized that a computer program gives results
that are no better than the input data.
But let us assume that we have
1+.7.
found, however, that charts constructed from equal contour lines of factors
of safety F = 2 and F =
3
contours.
Ill
Table k.2
Output of Example Problem
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
X-LEFT
<FT>
Y-LEFT
<FT)
X-RIGHT
<FTJ
Y-RIGHT
<FT>
2 3
4
5 6 7
8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19
46.00 46.00 42.00 42.00 46.00 45.00 56.00 75.00 76.00 105.00 108.00
76. 00
56.00 45.00
38. 00
36.00
36. 00
20
21
22 3
46.00 42.00 42.00 46.00 45.00 56.00 75.00 76.00 105.00 108.00 108.00 78.00 53.00 38.00 43.00 36.00 29.00 32.00 8.00 2.00 17.00 22.00 22.00
4
1
2
2
1 1 1
2
1
4
4
5 5 5 4
1
1 1
SOIL TYPE
NO.
FRICTION ANGLE
<DEG)
PRESSURE CONSTANT
<PSF>
PIEZQMETRIC SURFACE
NO.
1 1
320 740
112
UNITUEIGHT OF WATER =
62.40
SPECIFIED BY
5 COORDINATE POINTS
X-UATER
<FT>
Y-UATER
<FT>
45.00
56.00 126.00 216.00 320.00
45. 00 51. 00
2 3
4 5
47.00 47.00
2 SPECIFIED BY
7 COORDINATE POINTS
X-WATER
<FT)
Y-UATER
<FT>
45.00
56.00 126.00 136.00 150.00 250.00 320.00
45. 00
2
3 4 5 6 7
USING A RANDOM TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING SLIDING BLOCK SURFACES? HAS BEEN SPECIFIED.
A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD*
THE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PORTIONS DF THE SLIDING SURFACES ARE GENERATED ACCORDING TO THE RANKINE THEORY.
LENGTH OF LINE SEGMENTS FOR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PORTIONS OF SLIDING BLOCK IS 50.
BOX
NO.
X-LEFT
<FT>
Y-LEFT
<FT>
X-RIGHT
<FT>
Y-RIGHT
<FT>
WIDTH
<FT)
50.00 140.00
29.00 26.00
90.00 280.00
26.00 26.00
8.00 6.00
113
9 COORDINATE POINTS
X-SURF
<FT)
Y-SURF
<FT)
3
4 5 6 7
8 9
9 COORDINATE POINTS
X-SURF
<FT>
Y-SURF
<FT>
3 4 5 6 7
8
9
39.19 59.85 69.02 212.99 218.17 221.92 231.78 242.55 258.62 1.673 ***
9 COORDINATE POINTS
X-SURF
<FT>
Y-SURF
<FT)
2 3 4 5
6 7
8
Ill*
Table
cont
9 COORDINATE POINTS
X-SURF
(FT)
Y-SURF
(FT)
2 3 4 5 6
7
45.39
34. 07 3. 56
8 9
X-SURF
(FT)
Y-SURF
(FT)
2 3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10
58.03 59.59 80.83 86.95 225.52 30.13 34.51 44.11 54.90 70.93
1.697
*'**
103.00
X-SUPF
<FT)
Y-SURF
(FT)
3
4 5 6
7
8 9 10
57.38 77.26
103. CO
75.09
1.701 ***
115
9 COORDINATE POINTS
X-SURF
<FT)
Y-SURF
<FT>
39.15
59.81 67.11 8.59 30.78 35.19 44.73 55.57 71.59 1.710 ksk
3 4
5
6 7 8 9
*
9 COORDINATE POINTS
m.
J
X-SURF
<FT>
8. SO
Y-SURF
<FT>
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
43.80
5.7<*
116
X-SURF
<FT)
Y-SURF
<FT>
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
56.32 56.56
77.71 84.40 238.81 241.41 246.38
255. ?4
266.55 282.51
1.725 ***
45.10 44.98 32.52 27.48 27.56 31.02 39.46 57.44 77.35 108.00
*xx
9 COORDINATE PDINTS
X-SURF
<ft;>
Y-SURF
<FT>
45.95
33. 85
117
Table h .2
cont
fl*
M*
kk
+ 00 "OSS
6
S
0C083
e MI
5 6 2
i
6 9 66
+ 00"0v3
S9 e eas i 3 e M * *13
t>
+ 00 "003
+ 00'09l
rt
+ 00 "031
ST e
I" 3'
,#
+ oo "03
S 3fr * WIS" e 3
*t>
+ 00"01>
mm
+
+ +
+
~ ~
*M+*
00
a-*
+ 00
"
00 "003
00 '091
00"03l
s
00*08
'Ofr
00"
118
a s
'
'
119
0.35
-
-r1
11
IMIT
Tl~i
T
-f-
rn
-<< ?gje_
__
nH
::
_/7-:
Typical Cross Sec-.
tion Failure Arc In Zone A. Critical Circle Passes through Toe and
-+"1
>s^
^-*ag_ 3
_ '
0.30
Considered
Cose
I:
in
Zone
8.
['
Z " -
The Most Dangerous of The Circles Passin through The Toe; Represented by Full Lines in Cha rt. Where Full Lines do not Appear, This Case Is not
Appreciably Different from Case 2.
.. --j
Stability
"
-
Number
In
Represented
Lines
Chart by Full
0.25-
Case 2: Surface of Ledge or a Strong Stratum c -r The Elevation of The Toe (n = I), Represented by Q3 * Short Dashed Lines in Chart i> \ V
1
\_*
~?
yt-
cf
in
Chart.
I
0.20
JIH
'il
Where Long Dashed Lines do not Appear, The Critical Circle Passes Through The Toe.
1
-L* o ~z
y" ^2 / -, /___Z
II II
,
II
jT
<
n co
""
rT
=i"
1
r~^
ri
T.> X^Y
<r
1
Ipf
t?' X^"
^Z. 7
A- ^ y\ sOX
/ H7 /
7
>^
?
/
u
i
v>
.< D
4i
J5
.
*/
7
^
"Z.
0.15
i
o
if)
/
~4 ' I
i
7
/
*
!
^/y
^ 5^
>
^
/
^"
-
^p"
j?
t
\ /
L*
_^
,
V
1
,
tz T> xr T'y
/I
/ t
*l * /
^
1
xt ' ^T
XI
0.10
*R
t
'
p,/ff
*-
y ^r u
i i
-r
yk:
/
.
/i
>/
i,
, '
/
!/V
t/l
Hi/'
jx
,4y Y
7+i
i
! i
tC-
'^
V
1
'
f
"
i
/ f
,'/
y
/
A
1
'
H
1
'y^
'1
if
0.05
1
<
V
<\
~7\
j/f
'
h
la -?
'
/
,
XI XI
1
'
|
,
*
'
'
1
1
1
1
"~*
f
o
/
-
y
;
//
l/i*
!/T
0.0
yi
1 1
J_-
_J_
10
20
30
Slope
40
Angle
50
i
60
(Degrees)
70
80
90
FIGURE 4.6
120
mM FTT
orJ DTPTtf
Lm\TAT\oN
,
bh
-p-
W|H
LOTS
33
FIGURE 4.7
IN
HOMOGENEOUS
(AFTER
121
0.30
cr
4> r
0.25
10
20
30
40
/3
,
50
60
70
80
90
Slope Angle
degrees
FIGURE
4.8
122
0.30
Cr
required strength intercept
required
%
0.25
strength angle
0.20
cr
Xh
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
(B
60
70
80
90
Slope Angle
(degrees)
FIGURE 4.9
COMPARISON BETWEEN STABL AND TAYLOR STABILITY CHART FOR HOMOGENEOUS SLOPES
123
slopes with slope angles 3 < 50, the GTABL solution is conservative
'
Taylor's chart
give a more accurate result than the conventional friction circle method
some troubles that frequently occur when problems having very low safety
it.
5. 2
Use of STABL
The next step is to set up the data for the GTABL analysis. The
basic steps are described in the GTABL User Manual [Giegel (1975b)],
but some additional information may be useful.
H.5.2.1
where the most critical failure surfaces pass through the toe of the slope.
If our problem is located here
,
failures, hence the left as well as the right limitation point for
12U
initiation of the failure surfaces should he specified as the xcoordinate to the toe of the slope.
The dashed line on the chart divides the problem into zone
zone R.
A
and
limitations accordingly.
are - ^5 for the clockwise direction limit, and B - 5 for the counter-
clockwise direction limit, the use of these values for problems located
in zone A of Taylor's stability chart does not provide the most efficient
search limitations.
2 2
.
C lockwise
that has arisen with respect to the use of the term "clockwise" and
10(a)
See Figure
it.
10 (b)
wise with respect to the positive X-axis, so they are both negative.
1P5
positive angle
* X-axis
negative angle
(a)
Definition of positive
Clockwise
direction limitation
-60
-
->
X-axis
limitation
-40
<
soft clay
(b)
FIGURE 4.10
ILLUSTRATION OF CLOCKWISE AND COUNTER CLOCKWISE DIRECTION LIMITATIONS FOR INITIATION OF FAILURE SURFACES
126
1+.5.3
boundary between two soil layers, assuming that the program will analyse the stability for both types of soils and give the most critical
factor of safety.
It must be clearly understood that this is not the case.
If a
tween two types of soil, the strength parameters of the soil above the
failure surface will be used in the stability analyses, independent of
k.5. U
For example, why is the vertical earthWhat value for the cavi-
tation pressure should be used, and how does it affect the stability?
k 5 k .1
Specifying a vertical
earthquake coefficient k
yd
- k
).
'
127
in
c'
Where
c'
see
F decreases with
<ji
4 0.
pressure.
and
4>'
,
c'
forces, for the part of the soil that is under the water table.
again means that a granular soil (c' = 0) that is submerged will react
(<t>
Figure
l+.ll
illustrates the
120
(a)
to
base of
slice:
AU
K H sina
K v cosa
(b)
Vertical
force equilibrium
AUcosa
AS r sina
Kv
FIGURE
4.
129
solved directly with respect to the change in the pore pressure force
All.
5.^.2
Cavitation Pressure
The pressure in the pore water between soil particles that are
be about -
U5
force parallel to the base of the slice, which acts as a driving force.
It is most likely that this driving force will decrease the stability
of the slope until the point of failure, long before the component normal to the base of the slice will create a pore water pressure that
reaches the cavitation pressure.
If, however, the pore pressure does reach the cavitation pressure,
the soil particles will have to "carry" the remaining unloading. This
130
a(+)
Ct(-)
AU -K M sina>0
+)
Wk h
W-
weight of slice
FIGURE
4.12
131
will result in a decrease in the effective normal stresses, and a decrease in the normal stress dependent strength
h 5 k 3
. .
(<b
strength).
Illustrative Example
A slope kO feet high, inclined 26.6 with the horizontal (slope 2/1),
intercept
only
((f)
= 0).
The slopes are first analysed for normal conditions with no earth-
remained the same or very close to the same for all analyses.
The results agree with the previous considerations.
C the
(dry-
case)
132
Table
It.
Factors of safety
Case A
Case B
c*
Case C
Earthquake loadings
0=0
c =
lOOOpsf
= 0, *' = 35
dry soil
water table
(1)
k k
= k
= h
1.2U
=
1.1+2
1.21
(2)
(3) (h)
(5)
(6)
= 0.1,
^
h
1.38
1.U2
1.1*2
1.33
k
k
k
= - 0.1, k = y h
1.13
0.86 0.92
1.11
= o, k
= o.i
1.12
1.09
l.llt
0.98
1.05 0.92
-
v
y
=k h=0 .l
= -o.l, k
= 0.1
0.80
-
A(3) in % of (1)
A(l)
9 - 21
- 23
-
in % of (1)
- 31 - 26 - 35
- 19 - 13 ~ 2k
A(5) in % of (1)
A(6) in % of (1)
1
20
133
Case A
Case B
Case C
c'0
</>'
35
FIGURE
4.13
13U
vertical force increases the safety compared to the case where only a
and may be due to some of the assumptions made in the analytical model,
e.g.
,
k.5.h.k
However, in recent years dynamic earthquake analyses have been introduced, which more accurately similates the forces that are involved
^5-5
output with the comment that the factor of safety for a failure surface
is misleading.
135
with a factor of safety which is either very high or very low (below
unity).
low factor of safety, the program was modified to define the initial
value of the factor of safety for the iteration process to 1.2 instead
of 1.5 (arbitrarily defined in the program), and this change made it
work [Maunsell
8c
is zero or
This may happen for deep failure surfaces, where the angle a
(see Figure U.12) has a relatively large negative value for some of the
slices.
The normal force on the base of a slice will thus become very
large or negative.
the result is not reliable. The STABL program therefore always checks for the sign of
(F +
tan a tan
<j>'
136
<f>')
result.
In no case should a factor of safety that is labeled as "misleading
1
be used as a result.
These
If some of these
D,
Section D.3.3.2.
If all results by STABL are misleading, another method of analysis has to be used.
137
A comparison was made among results obtained by STABL and those obtained by other methods of analysis for an example design problem posed
by Ladd
(1975).
marized in Tables
5.1
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
The problem is stated in Figure 5.1.
A 30 feet high embankment
for a four lane highway is to be constructed over 80 feet of medium to soft varved clay.
The design process includes a consolidation-settlement-preload analysis, influenced by drains to satisfy requirements of maximum
However only
5.2
TYPES OF ANALYSIS
construction.
(2)
consolidation is completed.
138
rr
ui
O t 2
rj
0)
<P
>
<
rr LU
D
cm ^r
Al
c 3 O
O 0J
~
>
CD
v|
c
0)
e c
o z
UJ
or
t
in
-o
.fa
ii
I u
IT)
Sl*i
E
_p *
E
UJ
o ^
o|G
CVJ
C C o c c .2 2 2 '^ U
W|
MP
:
M
uj .3
< Q
I
Q
<=*J
3<S'
ro
o
o
UJ
<
(M
o 2
o
o
Q_
u c
a>
ui h_j u. UI
v>
a>
o GO
</>
Z < _j a) 2 O uj
rr iu
O
in
e8
<t ro
m
UJ
8 CD
o to o
o n
IJ
o g
o CO
o
CD
'UOIjOAdG
139
(3)
will be different for the two types of analysis unless the factor of
safety equals one.
This point is illustrated in Figure 5.2:
= c
a. tan
f
d>
(5.1)
d>
=0,sos u =c;s u u
1
- a
3 f
)
is normally defined as
= q
= l/2(a
(5.2)
where l/2(a
- a
) is the
s
In this
u
<J>'
= q _ cos *' f
(5.3)
where q. cos
failure.
_, = c* + a' el i f
tan
<J>*
(5.M
where a' is the effective normal stress on the potential failure plane,
and c' and
<f>'
iUo
</>
> UJ Z OO z u. U. <
Lil
Id
UJ
I-
Z*
-
z
III
u.
<
en
mo a. iO
Iu. UJ
-I oc UJ a: g:
j.
ssaJis Joans
cm id
in
tu a:
u.
c'
= 0, hence s
ell
__ = a'
I
tan
<f>'
and
= q cos f
1
gff
+ a^
tan
<t>'
= T
ff
(J)
= s
(5-5)
where a'
failure, and T-_ is the shear stress on the failure plane at failure.
In design situations, however, we require F > 1.
l/2(l
.
sin
(J)').
For A
> 1/2
(l -
plane.
state of effective stress and then sheared undrained, the sample will
fail when the effective stress conditions given by circle 2 is reached.
This gives a value of
s
= q cos f
s
(J)'.
larger than
T
,
will in most cases yield a lower factor of safety than effective stress
analysis. The above considerations apply to the ideal case, where un<j>'.
Fre-
equal to 21 and 9 .^
respectively.
lU2
5.3
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
In the report by Ladd (1975) two methods of analysis were applied:
the simplified Bishop method with corrected field vane strengths (see
Section 5-^.1)
5-3.1
and applies the method of slices with the simplifying assumption that
side forces between slices are zero. The method satisfies overall
ICES LEASE**.
5.3.2
Morgenstern-Price Analysis
The Morgenstern-Price (MP) method of slices analyses failure sur-
Various assump-
tions can be made with respect to interslice forces, and the analysis
thrust and the magnitude of interslice forces are examined to judge the
System.
1U3
mended for problems where the simplified Bishop circular arc does not
provide reasonable results.
This may be the case when dealing with
5.3.3
method of slices in which overall horizontal force equilibrium is satisfied instead of overall moment equilibrium.*
This modification
method, provided the same (or approximately the same) most critical failure surface is found.**
The advantage of the STABL program is most significant when dealing with cases that require failure surfaces of irregular shape.
In
this example design problem, the RANDOM and BLOCK search routines were
used in connection with the SHANSEP anisotropic soil strength parameters where the Morgenstern-Price analyses were used in Ladd's report.
RANDOM generates
that it searches for the more critical failure surfaces, whereas the
engineer has to conduct this search himself when using the MP-analysis.
**
This method is also known as Janbu's simplified procedure (Wright, 1969) Exceptions, see Chapter VI, Problem 3 and h, and Appendix C.II.
ikk
From the results obtained in this comparative study, it is seen that the
STABL program gives results very close to those obtained by the MP-
procedure
5.U
based upon case studies of embankment failures and y was plotted versus
Plasticity Index (Pi).
However, many other case studies show a wide de-
How far
would develop in
fied Bishop method and corrected field vane shear strengths was made by
5.U.2
method is described
The
H*5
Determine the stress history of the clay foundation, i.e., variation with depth of the effective overburden stress a' vo
,
the maxi1
a'
vm
vm
/a
vo
Perform K
/a*
vc
failure from the stress history and normalized strength data ob-
5.5
5.5.1
Preliminary analyses were performed on the initial design crosssection (Figure 5.1) for undrained end-of-construction stability and
drained long term stability using the simplified Bishop circular arc
analysis with corrected field vane strengths.
various embankment heights were investigated with 2:1 and k:l slopes,
in order to determine the maximum height that could be constructed
IhC
03
V
L.
to
o
0;
i_
JZ Ul
0.1
o
a*
Varved
clay
"5
E -0.2
(gy-^h)
PSP
0.3
)
4
Shear Strain /,
10
et. al.
In
(1972)
<7
'
4.1
TSF,
situ
m =3.5
TSF
FIGURE
5.3
STRESS VS. STRAIN FROM CKoU TESTS WITH DIFFERENT MODES OF FAILURE (After Ladd, 1975)
1U7
How-
slightly lower factor of safety than the simplified Bishop method in the
showed very good agreement with the result obtained by the simplified
Bishop method with corrected field vane strengths.
The anisotropic
procedures in the STABL program, where the RANDOM routine randomly generates irregular failure surfaces and analyses their stability, and the
are equal to or slightly lower than the one obtained by the Morgenstern-
ll*fl
m
(VI
jo o>
If)
if)
ifimmmifimmm
in UJ rr
i^'uo!it>Aai3
O
Ll
'
1^9
r^m^
_l
Z
UJ
CO ro in CD
CD
< K
CO
Ll.
HCM 2C
^^
a.
O
" v
ji
2 < GO
-
o i CO m
u.
~o
UJ
CD
CJ r-
u "
< o f_i CO
c
*
<D
si
<
/
/
v
.
~ w
ro
ftl
CM
"> oj
o
UJ CO
(/) (/)
UJ CO
< o
CJ
w o
$ S
y \ /// \ ^i/ y
/
Siu> to
/
E
UJ
<
<
>J
< z <
</)
c\
'
<~
a c
cr
a.
fV// \ \y7 v y y ^^
\
o
E o
a>
en UJ rr h-
is
'/
O
ii
Si
Guj
UJ Ll U. UJ
u
\
UJ CO
ro CM
S
y
c*J
"
Q
UJ
< o
uj "9CO
<
QQ.
1 1
in CM
If)
m
If)
CD
if)
If)
'uoiiDAaig
UJ f
150
IA
O O
rH
rH
On
OO
ON J
ON J-
0\ J-
U) IA
VO
oj w
o o o
p - >
J
o o o o
It)
VO
On
0\
OJ
VO
OJ
On t
LTN
VD
On
VO
VO
CO
ON
3
3
I
O O O C
EOJ
>
w
A,'
OO
CO
o o On o o O O o o O o o o H rH
OJ
LTN
VD
t-
-3-
on t
On
VO
H o
0O
a:
rH
W\
ON
"
O
Ox
oo
vo
LTN itn
D-
vo
-*
oo
00
LTN
LTN
OO
OJ
a,
r
OJ
vo
OJ
NO
OJ
OJ
PC
OJ
LTN
OO
t oo
-3LTN
-3-
CO
rH
OJ
Ll^
Ol
-3-
VC
OO
rH
ON
OJ
00
rH
VO
OJ
rH
rH
H
O
-3" l/N
e >
*-<
in
a;
o O O o o O o On VO VO o
l/N
LTN
J-J-
O
On
-3-
VO
-s-
on
00
00
-3-
b
1 j
> m
as
<w
o
OJ
o
ON
rH
rH
LPv
ON
l/n ir\
LT\
LTN
LfN
On
h00
0J
OO
OJ
UA r
OJ
ITN
00 C 00
UA On
rH
-3"
o
c
o
H H
CO
00
H
O
CO
IS\
VO
ON
o rH Ol H H H
00
rH
c o
H
2 ed
u\
>
LTN
+j
OJ
oo
H W
<U
rH
o O O o o o o CM H H 3 c On CO r VO
t
CM
1
151
DSS
<
OCR
FIGURE
5.6
o~y
/<rvc
ANISOTROPIC UNDRAINED STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR USE IN TOTAL STRESS ANALYSES (After Ladd 1975 )
,
15?
8 ro
X
WIT
ESIGN
ENT
D
VIBANKM
INARY
<^-
O O
CM
ixl
5
_i
[7j
jp
U-
F c o
o
<o -
&
o
erf
c
S c
k.
o o
0>
E o L.
*TOTAL
ISOTRO
0*
u o
Q Z < rr Q z 3
in
z <
</>
z < x
C/>
ID
CVi
ID CM CM
m O
mm s
00
in
m
CJ
IT)
m
00
m
CO
UJ rr
Jj'U0UDAd|3
g
u.
153
Figure 5.8 shows the most critical failure surfaces and correspond ing factors of safety found by
of surfaces.
The STABL program normally prints out only the factors of safety
for the ten most critical surfaces.
In this study, however, a modifi-
cation provided output of the factors of safety for all surfaces investigated.
A histogram was made with intervals of AF equal to 0.1 (F =
1.0 includes values of F from 0.950 to I.0H9, etc.) for each of the four
From a statistical point of view, the peak value is the value that
is most likely to occur, whereas the variance gives an indication of
ison, only B cases should be compared with each other, as soil parameters
are changed from Case A to Case B.
behavior.
The frequency distribution curve can also be interpreted in terms
of likelihood of failure.
have a factor of safety less than 1.0, which means that the probability
>
15U
UJ
z: *:
CO 2 CO
>_i ex
z
en
CD
CL
LU
to
>X) t
Q UJ
2
ex ce CD
P
ft
wtro
CO
z
en
co UJ
Q
>
>-
X)
JOP
uj
UJ
i
5
CI _J
c_>
-low
I ex
cr ex
Q_ s:
e_)
uj
a
>
ex o a: >
"si
312 5m a
1J/U0IJDA9I3
155
Factor of Safety
FIGURE
5.9
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION CURVES FOR THE FACTOR OF SAFETY, CASES IA, 2B,3B,4B
156
of failure is
The
but distributed
around mean values with a certain variance that can be estimated from
laboratory tests.
5-
5-2
From preliminary stability analyses it was found necessary to improve the stability of the design cross-section by placing berms 15
feet high and approximately 60 feet wide on both sides of the embank-
ment.
installed under the embankment and additional load applied by a temporary surcharge.
It was found,
were followed.
It was
of the final design is based unon the \2 feet of fill, with stability berms as mentioned above.
final design:
157
5.5-2.1
The
5.10.
Table 5.2.
STABL was applied with all four types of analyses and aniso-
For the long term stability the embankment is analysed for a final
design soil profile corresponding to
feet of settlement and a final
h
feet of material
Total stress analyses were also applied with SHAH SEP anisotropic
strengths corresponding to stresses under the embankment at 100% consolidation, see Figure 5-1^ and Table 5-3.
of safety obtained with the four procedures of STABL (Cases IE. 2 through
158
u
<^J
c
D
(
E n
1
-O
-
q:
O O ho
uj
</>
b_
$
(m)
-i
01
T>
>
9
0)
r-
1
3
1
UJ
o "
'
c.
c
a>
5 o
it
_
E c o
\
(S
St <
O
>-
\|
UJ
<*-
>)
a>
c c
83 <V
UJ -1 HI
t/> </>
V)
i
01
"
1
a>
E
a*
1-
o c o
i
<
c o
0;
"
o
01
*'
E
in
c o
b o ? o
i i
u c
rvi
Si ^
V) \-
2
ANKME
5 5)
<
cL
u
MATED
/
i
/-
N V t
a
o o
O
in
CVJ
FS? 5
(T)
UJ UJ
o
-
10
' i i
in
m
<D
c^
f ^ n o u 52
in 4J
^
<^
ID
It!
'U0!iDA9|3
159
4j'UO!4DAd|3
D
Ll
It!
i6o
CO
o
OJ
O
CVI
On
CO CO
C\J
LTN
NO
LTN
OJ
o ON
NO
NO
NO f
CO CJ CO
ITS
CO
CM
CO
NO
CO NO
co
o o
NO
co
OJ OJ
On
CO o\
o u
%1
i/n
O < CO
o o
OJ
LfN
CO
OJ
r 00
ON
OJ
u o
CO
PQ CO
CO
a
Eh
Q
l
CO
-a-
CO
on
On
rH
o H
<-\
<
PQ CO Cm
o H H
CV
H H H
LTN
O
-a-
rH
H O
O o H
OJ
NO
r^
LT\
O
On rn
OJ
P~>
l/N ITS
\s\
OJ
rH
H o H
-3
UN
rH
O
c
(0
ctf
T3
CO < <
p*
LT\
_3
OJ
O
.H rH
On
PO
OJ rH
tCO
OJ
^t
m m
rH
-3
o O H
<D
l/N
ITN
-P
01
NO -3
rH
LTN
tLTN
T3
rH
H rH
O
to
C o o
>*i
to
a
CO
o
IA
CO
rH
-P
Ul
H H
o
NO
CO
On
O H
H H
OJ rH
m rH
C a H
o
c o
H
IA
l/N
s
CtJ
+J
m H
OJ
r
OJ
o
C\J
rH
o H
l-\
O O H
ON
CO
O
fr-
NO
H a
>
161
V)
in
(VJ
q: LU CD
o o
H-
4>
fc
J X)
c o
X K Z UJ S *
1-
LU
O
0
c
c
m S LU
U_
k_ a* a;
O
<n LU
_i
o o
E o
-
o c o
2? LU
<2
DRA
8
STRESS
PARTIALLY
TOTAL
CVj
io
i^'U0jiDAd|3
LU or
Ll.
1&
o o
fO
2
UJ
o
\D OJ
< m 5
UJ
_ >*-
_i
o o
f\l
c
JL 1
< z
u_ u.
E C E
o
en UJ 01
UJ <-
o c
c
If)
h <
V) UJ q:
o
8
a;
E o
u
c o
l/t
UJ
>
1EFFEC
u 8
BERMS
ED
o
DRAIN
WITH
if)
UJ or
4J/ U0!iDA3|3
u_
163
in
lCh
a, Pw Oh
CO
o o o vo vo o
(J\
CO CO
VO
o CO o UN o
UN
UN
VO
UN On
t~-
t CO
t-
VO
CO
CO
ON
On
4
o o c
cq CO CO
c o
CJ
< CO
H O
OJ
CNJ
UN
UN
CM
CO CO
CO
O H
VO CO CO
VO
on
c\ t
vo
CNJ
ON
O O O
CO
00
rH
< pq co
a,
1A
CM CM
VO W H H
UN
UN
-3-
O o UN H H
UN
CM
CUN
1A
CM CM
UN
t
CM
UN _*
on
O O
-3-
UN
VO J-
O
CM
rH
UN
UN VO UN
on
VO
rH
UN
VO
CO
ON
p
cS (U
-P
rH
165
UJ
<
CD UJ
<
!5J
U.
O
UJ
(J)
LJ
2 _l O
if) -z.
<o
UJ a: \(j)
o o
O
I-
UJ
io
m ro
in
CVJ
m 5
m N
4J
in
in
c\j
m O
m
00
m
CO
in UJ a:
'U0.UDA9I3
u.
166
consolidated
100/*.
case, is the large difference between the factor of safety by the total
vs.
2.25).
5.6
SUMMARY Aim CONCLUSION Results of stability analyses obtained by STARL for a design
example problem (Figure 5.1) were compared with results obtained by programs based on the simpli fied Bishop method and Morgenstern-Price procedures. The results are summarized in Tables $.h and
5- 5-
Most of
plots in Appendix
3.
For the same type of failure surfaces, GTABL gave lower values of
the factor of safety than the other programs.
most cases less than 10$, with a maximum of l6% (0.83 vs. 1.05 for the
Considering the
167
H >;
CJ
--Pl,
o o
a ^
I
a,
-H
C
CD
H
y,
w oo p < o s
o
co
P,
0\
CO
O ft h O a x
t On
u o
p<
Vh
H O
O E
C\J
K
u
CO
a;
a)
p
rH
p
CO
H H
ni
<v
<) V,
,0
<P
CO
rH
p o H
ed
P
O
C-l
cd
T3
<d
i
C
H
<P
O
cd Jh
o h
c o
168
p
u o
ft
o>
aS
C
H tCD
oo 00
r J-
h
1
Eh
-P
CO
(X H ft co
CJ
W S
O
03
w'
CO
,0
B)
="*
O h
<M
C3
o CO c O o o
-p
H ft
J-
H -h
W o K
i-q
^
a?
OJ
P
a>
(1)
3'
T3
a)
o
u
aS
fr
o m
u
rH
O
>~
ft
ft
en
en
X P
<v
c
H
CD CO as CD
W)
U
P
CO o>
c
0)
J-.
P
aS CO
0) (h
-p
CO ai
<
H
P H
a)
>
H
-p
CJ cd
>
H -P
CJ (D
a c
H
>-.
W
T)
a.
1
<M Vh
<w <M
CJ
H H
o
CO CJ
<iH
CD
T3
K)
O
i-l
c
H
a)
T3
01
c
H
-P
s)
O o
H o c 3
O U -P o
CO
ft
H ft
e c
CD CD
o u
p
,o
CO as
al tn
o
CO
CO 0>
co
S
CVJ
5
Ch
P H
0)
2
gj oj J3 -P H
5 O
cj CJ aS
<tH
bD
CO CD
-h p O 3 S Q
CO CO
a>
Ch
>
*
*
P B
169
2.3).
value of the factor of safety, other methods of slices may be incorporated in the CTABL program (see Chapter VI; the modified (or simplified]
170
VI
Four problems from the Division of Materials and Tests, ISHC, have
been analysed for stability by existing ISHC procedures and by STABL.
The first problem involves analyses by
a)
method, and
b)
NYSTAB,
b)
c)
hand calculation.
NYSTAB - New York State, Department of Transportation, Slope Stability Analysis ** ATEC = American Testing and Engineering Corporation, Indianapolis, Indiana.
*
171
6.1
PROBLEM
tan
tli
<t>'
'
where *
F = 1.23. This result was also found by STA3L, circular search with no
shallow circle.
with forced deep failure surfaces, both circle and sliding block shapes.
The result from NYSTAB is F
mm =1.32
. .
mm =1.26
= l.l6
for a deep
Figures 6.2 and 6.3 show the failure surfaces investigated and
than the one found by hand calculation for the same depth (l.l8 vs.
1.26), whereas the deeper sliding block found by STABL is more critical
{Q% lower, 1.16 vs. 1.26).
6.2
PROBLEM 2
The soil profile and strength data for problem 2 are shown in
n?
'I
O
ii
a O O g o
S!
ii
o
CO
3
O o
CM
8
ii
o o
173
17*1
175
^ pq < Eh
to
.C
t)
-*
cm rH
on
-a-
VO
JrH
CO
rH rH
V>
^
a) tu to
on
CM rH
Vt
CM rH
1
rH
rH
t3
to
J a
ST
tu
-H .h
spec
* a> o
<t-t
* *
VD VD
CM
l/\
rH m rH
H
to
sur
o
pq
rH
<m
<H
fi
H ,0
a<
<L)
o m Ti o
Xi -p
0)
5
5
<H
< H
rn
>fe
o
a;
O U
rH
c o
H
t3
:>,
rQ
t3
*r
P
aj
VO
* >, T3
P C
<v
rH
rH
-d
M3
CM
r-I
E-t
&.
-31
a 3
CJ
i-H
o
<M
-=c
(1)
rH
H
fl
n)
0)
Q)
a)
-P CO
<H Vn
c o
1>
Eh
>
H
Q
Cm
P
h
& -p
rC Eh CO >H
H rO
o
rH
Ph
a)
a)
ft
-P
^
ai a)
LA
-d
CM
>J^
on
H
>
rH
cd
+J
o
!/)
o w
Vh
rH
3
tu <U
O
rH
w
bD
-P
o
-p
C
(1)
o o
T1 H
u
cd
W
H
rH
to
E>H
o
(Tj
<D
S
0)
o
aj
<H
0) 0) 0)
(1)
ft
<H
rH 10
tu to
rH
CJ
rH
o
CD n)
M 3
CO <H
tu
H
gt
o o
crj
H a
Cl>
bD
6 O o
<(h
3 c
H
-p
o
01
M
(U
tU
t3
<u
r*
be
rH
T3
(U
& w
T3
-H
o
tu
H
H
M 3 3
H rH
o
ft
> o
rH
ft
m
tu
s p
H
T3
>
P0> a>
a)
O C
rt
h Eh H CO >h
a
a
T3
ci>
-p
3
to tu rH
to
H
S-H
O
3
H
C)
a o
rH
cd
H lS
>> 6?
Ix,
.c CO
,c CO
tu
ft
176
The free groundwater table is represented by piezometric surface The distance between piezometric surface #
1
and # 2 represents
the excess pore water pressure induced by the embankment in the clayey
foundation.
The ATEC program with modified Bishop circular arc analysis gave
for the three circles (l, 2 and 3) values of F from 1.86 to 2.20, see
Figure 6.5-
STABL was modified to handle more than one water surface (see
Chapter
IV"),
from the ATEC analyses as well as for STABL circular search and sliding
block searches.
The circular arc failure surface proved to be reasonable for this
177
178
Br- - -
-'
$S! CM
CM
CM
o|-
10
"I f
<?>
^JcMCVi
1
o o E
^
in
cm ro
179
Chapter IV). The FACTR subroutine used in the present STABL program is
included in the listing of the program, Appendix
E.
minimum value (1.66 vs. 1.86). STABL with the modified Bishop procedure
gives the same value of F
min
circle (see Figure 6.5). STABL with Spencer's procedure gives a value
nun
result for the sliding block analysis with Spencer's procedure is 16$
larger than the result for the normal STABL procedure (1.95 vs. 1.63). This may indicate that the factor of safety by STABL is too low for
the sliding block analysis. The sliding block failure surfaces are
For the Spencer result, circle 5, the lines of total and effective
thrust are shown in Figure 6.7- They look reasonable except for the
right termination. Also, interslice factors of safety with respect to
shear have been calculated. The minimum value was 2.12, compared to an
effective line of thrust and interslice factors of safety, and for more
180
Table 6.2
Surface
1
Method of Analysis
2
3 U
STABL
STABL Spencer
1.86
1.T5
1.95
2.13
2.20
1.80
1.T5
2.16
2.15
2.01 1.88
1.86
1.98
1.85
1.66 1.68
1.83
BL0CK1-1
"
2.01
1.63
2.09
1.61+
1-2
1.95
BL0CK2-1
"
2-2
2.01
Max. Diff.
0%
-12%
0%
- 2%
Circle
Circle
It
3 &
*+.
BL0CK1-2 and 2-2 from STABL, sliding block search in soil layer no. 5, case 2.
181
CM
1
9
\_
Q.
o
_l
GQ
fi (A
9 CO _
-i-
O
CM
CO
_
CM
(VJ
CM
_
CM
i 1 CD QD
P
CD
CD
182
if)
>
a
E o
tj
183
6.3
PROBLEM
Figure C.13.
The results for circular arc analysis by ATEC and STABL are shown
in Figure 6.9.
safety 1% lower than the ATEC value (2.15 vs. 2.32), whereas a circular search by STABL results in a failure surface having a STABL factor of
safety 16% lower than the ATEC value.
If the safety factor is calcu-
lated by the modified Bishop method, the same two surfaces result in
factors of safety 1% to 3% higher than the ATEC value.
which is 3k% lower than the ATEC minimum (see Figure 6.10).
In applying the Spencer procedure to the same failure surfaces
,
all
cases except one did not converge in the iteration process for the fac-
equal to l.k (see Appendix C, Table C.12), hence the value of 2.80 is
not correct.
18U
1 l
to
IT)
<\i
/
/(
1
3 8 E
CVJ
< f
// / / / /
%
1
"-
'8
/
/
to n
'A 8
/ M
b m
ii
/*
/
a
8
o v, o
M
1
d
f
*-i
U
i
i
X
Ml
00
Q s
to
^^
Kfe* 1*
\
i"
I
ID CM 8.
$ m
soil
to
yj
z
lies
pplies
H
\
1 I
1 1
in
o o &
s
"=*
O
> xi
n
"
\.
S 8
surf
t
su
ric
H
l 1
o u
c
(VI
ft
35
or
@ @
.1
1
8
U
O o
o m
185
fO
fO
If
-if
II
m Jg <tu
00 ro
CM
<t ro CM
r- t>
!
^%
o
IO
<\i
v>
d
V) LL
m
0)
U
UJ
CM fO
LL
U o <u
(7?
(L>
CM
81
4
IT)
A
0>
CM
a
jl>
o O
8
**
u k,
i_
o o
O s
U-
186
187
Table 6.3
Surface
1
Method of Analysis
2
3 k
STABL
STABL Spencer
Circle 1
2
2.32
2.15
1.95
2.38
2.3<+
BL0CK2-1
"
1.72 1.63
_2
"
"
-3
-1+
2.80**
-
"
_2*
Max. Diff.
-3k%
1%
Fi
l.k,
108
6.k
PROBLEM k
The problem with soil profile and strength data is shown in Figure
6.11.
This sur-
Taylor (from Figure U.7, page 120), for a similar slope geometry, but
homogeneous soil with
<J>
ence in results, and the fact that the STABL program gave an unconser-
by the
circle
=
<f>
method.
Finally, STABL
with the modified Bishop method was applied to the same failure surface,
189
o
uJ
O
fO
u
JO
o CM
(0
LU cr
to
O
if)
o
to
o
u
1
190
4;
3& 0Q.C
<t him
"-
^
u.
lO
<fr
<
V) id _l
^S c
-J
CD o <~ 3
K_52
CM
(VJ
p N
n-S
<
-_ "
m
ho) >-
<
t u
u_
<*-
u o
o>
(VJ
a>
k.
u k>
u k.
hi
u o o
to
o
CM
191
Bishop procedure, contradicts Carter's conclusion (1971) that the factor of safety reaches a minimum value when the moment center (y) goes
towards infinity.
and
c =
and =
3y
can be found.
Derivation of
3f
It is found that
or_ a
-r
(zero) for y
-*
hence F
9F
~
reaches a minimum
C
.
maximum for
F
c
and
-r^
<3y
Defining F
lim F
it is found that
is positive,
> 60 to 80 surface with a steep angle at the top of the slope (a_ U
3F
-r
is negative
Since F
in the case
and F
It is seen
that whereas
192
Fc Xh
FIGURE
6.13
vs.
MOMENT
0.,r=2.5h,
193
10
Fc /h
FIGURE 6.14
c E =2c F
c
19
1*
Fc Xh
FIGURE
6.15
195
Fc Xh
FIGURE 6.16
Cj-O.Scp
196
F.
moment around
center of circle
(modified Bishop)
20
Eo
horizontal
(simplified
Janbu)
R-Xh
_
10
F"
l
r-2.5h
F-
F.
1
r
F.
r-IOh
F.
E.
10
O
,
20
degrees
30
FIGURE
6.I7
STABILITY NUMBER
F c Xh
VS. 9.
FOR VARIOUS
RADII,
CIRCULAR
*-0
197
Fc
~ ~
of circle
20
F^
horizontal
(simplified
force equilibrium
Janbu)
r=IOh
10
O,
20
degrees
30
FIGURE
6.18
STABILITY NUMBER
yh
VS.0 O FOR
SURFACES. c e 2c*0
198
F.
rsj
of circle
20
Fee
Janbu)
Fc Xh
rIOh
LL
20
30
0.
r2.5h
10
9a ,degrees
FIGURE 6.19
STABILITY
NUMBER Fc^ h VS
FOR
199
Fco = F
oo
= F
c
approaching 90
(0
or,
= 0).
> 80
max
c
for 8
<
10 corresponding to
,
ger than the foundation material, e.g., an embankment on a soft foundation, as in this problem, the result by the simplified Janbu method
(F
co
)
).
For the embankment soil being twice as strong as the foundation soil
3F
(o
r>
= 2c-,),
r
t-5
dy
is positive and F m = F
O
maX
C
for a_ > 60
U
If, on the other hand, the foundation soil is stronger than the
values of 8. (< 5 for the foundation soil being twice as strong as the
= 60
reliable solution.
for circular
Since F
POO
variations in a^
The slid-
= h^
intersecting the ground surface at the top of the slope with a steep
angle, coincident with a relatively large total strength in the zone of
intersection.
6.5
10/5.
larger variation in the factor of safety that may result from variable
soil strength data, see Chapter III.
In one case, however, a STABL sliding block surface gave a result
3h% lower than a circular surface analysed with the modified Bishop
method.
did not converge for this failure surface, and the Bishop method only
applies to circular surfaces.
'
201
o
,c pq
ft
03
ro
H
T3
t3
co
o e
-j
p
cd
-i
H o
cd
3 o
> '5
cd
1-5
On
-3
On
CM
T3
cd
<
Ch
c
(0
W
H
(0
C 3
-H
CO
o
Jto
o
LT\ -HII
>.
e
CO
o
,G P
rH ,0
3 5
o
CO
Ha-
H
1
vs.
CO
M
-3PL,
*
^ P
C
<Vh
(1>
p
3
ft
vo
o
>A CO pq -h PQ Eh CO
H
&
id
CO
>> TJ
0) (h
c o
LP>
rQ
CO
P
CO
<D
<H H
<
rn
LTN
UA
H -a
H
m
-=t
H
fes.
p
3 O
CO
rH
<1J
Eh
rH
rH
rH
rH
>
H P>
cd
h O
>, p
CD
o E 3 3
O M
H CJ
CO cd CO
cd
^ H
CO >H
u
cd
P j
E-i
^
P
O
B*
E o
<M
a)
^
CO
H
CM CM
Cn
-3-
O
t
rH
o
Cm
-a-
-3
CM
cj
CO
H
ft H
CO
CM
VI
rH
T3
(1)
U 3
to
fjj
O
u o p o
cd
M
cd
^-^
ft
o
pq
o o
&
to
&
rH
,c -h Eh Pq CO >H -d
<
en
s Cm
OJ
to
-=H
feS.
(I)
H\
3
rH
erj
C E i> 3 E
to
CD CD
P>
bo
o
E
> E E
H
,C
CJ
* P
10
W
CD
C
-H H
co CJ cd
-C
CJ
Ch
U 3
CO CO
* *
U
cd
H
cd OJ
*
Ch"
C H
Cm
H H
C_>
cd co
E a
fi)
cd
-p
CD
rH
CM
CO
CO
1
co
1*
CD
C M
(D
CO CJ
fc
0)
&
rH -H
m
H
H o
h
H
CO
H
CJ
CO
w
Ml o 02
CM
M
H
C_>
W CJ
H 13
rH
-p
O m
Cm m "3
<2
Eh
H o
s
pq
1
CO
pq
ctj
202
).
They
203
shear surface
F-f
F
F.
FIGURE 6.20
CORRECTION FACTORS FOR THE SIMPLIFIED JANBU PROCEDURE (AFTER JANBU et al., 1956)
20*4
VII
7.1
All inves-
7.1.1
STABL program to assess the precision with which input data need to be
defined.
parameters
(c') and
1 (J)
((J)
7.1.2
Modifications of STABL
In addition to the three original surface generators, which are
the circular arc, the irregular, and the sliding block type surface, a new sliding block surface was introduced, which generates the active and passive portions of the surface according to Rankine's theory,
(1*5
<f>'/2)
<J>'/2)
The new
205
This was
done because of erroneous results obtained with the Janbu method for deep circular failure surfaces in soils with
<|>
= 0.
7.1.3
Comparative Study
Results of analyses performed with STABL (simplified Janbu method)
are normally less than 10$, but a value as high as 3h% was obtained.
The conservatism seems to be larger for sliding block type failure surfaces, than for failure surfaces of circular shape.
206
7.?
sion for the last two years, during which period (1976-77) more options
have been added to the program, and comparisons have been made with
problems, only a fraction of the program is actually used, even though the total program has to be loaded into the computer memory. This is
overlay structure.
and only those overlays that are needed for a particular problem are
This improvement
Janbu
The task still remains to develop an analytical model for slope stability analysis that combines the simplicity of the Janbu method
with the higher accuracy of, for example, the Morgenstern and Price
procedure, and does not have the problems related to misleading factors
of safety.
LIST OF REFERENCES
207
LIST OF REFERENCES
Note:
ASCE
Athanasiou-Grivas, D. S. (1976), "Reliability of Slopes of Particulate Materials", Ph.D. Thesis Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1976.
,
Baligh, M. M. and Azzouz, A. S. (1975), "End Effects on Stability of Cohesive Slopes", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division , ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT11, Proc. Paper 11705, November, 1975, pp. 1105-1117.
Bishop, A. W. (1955), "The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes", Geotechnique , Vol. 5, No. 1, March, 1955,
pp. 7-17.
Bishop, A. W. and Morgenstern, N. (i960), "Stability Coefficients for Earth Slopes", Geotechnique , Vol. 10, No. 4, December, i960, pp. 129-150.
BJerrum, L. (1972), "Embankments of Soft Ground", Proc. ASCE Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures , Vol. 2, Purdue University, June, 1972, pp. 1-54.
Carter, R. K. (1971), "Computer Oriented Slope Stability Analysis by Method of Slices", MSCE Thesis , Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1971.
Catalan, J. M. and Cornell, C. A. (1976), "Earth Slope Reliability by a Level-Crossing Method", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division , ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT6, Proc. Paper 12214, June, 1976, pp. 591-604.
Chen, W. F. and Giger, M. W. (1971), "Limit Analysis of Stability of Slopes", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SMI, Proc. Paper 7828, January, 1971, pp. 19-26.
Collin, A. (1846), "Landslides in Clays", Translated by W. R. Schriever, University of Toronto Press, 1956.
Coulomb, C. A. (1776), "Essai sur une application des regies des maximis et minimis a quelques problemes de statique", Memoires Academie Royale des Sciences , Vol. 7, Paris, 1776.
208
Pvinoff, A. H. and Harr, M. E. (1971), "Phreatic Surface Location after Drawdown" Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 97, Mo. SMI, Proc Paper 7806 January, 1971, pp. J+7-58
,
, .
Eellenius, W. (1926), "Erdstatische Berechnungen mit Reibung und Kohasion", Ernst und Sohn Berlin, 1926.
,
Janbu, N. (l95Ua), "Application of Composite Slip Surfaces for StabilityAnalysis", Proceedings of the European Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes Stockholm, 195 1*, Vol. 3, pp. +3- *9.
1 1 ,
Janbu, N. (l95^b), "Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters", Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No. H6, 195**.
,
Janbu, N., BJerrum, L. and KJaernsli, B. (1956), "Veiledning ved lasning av fundamenteringsoppgaver - 2. Stabilitetsberegning for fyllinger, skjaeringer og naturlige skraninger" (Soil Mechanics Applied to Some Engineering Problems - Chapter 2. Stability Calculations for Embankments, Cuts and Natural Slopes), Publication 16, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, 1956, pp. 17-26.
Ladd, C. C. and Foott R. (197 *), "New Design Procedure for Stability of Soft Clays", Journal of the Oeotechnical Engineer i ng Division ASCE, Vol. 100, No. 0T7, Proc. Paper 1066U July, 197 *, pp. 763-786.
,
1
Ladd, C. C. (1975), "Foundation Design of Embankments Constructed on Connecticut Valley Varved Clays", Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Research Report R75-7 , Oeotechnical Publication 3^3, June, 1975.
Ladd, C. C.
(1976), Personal Correspondence.
Lowe, J. and Karafiath, L. (i960), "Stability of Earth Dams upon Drawdown" , Proceedings of First Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Mexico City, Vol. 2, i960 pp. 537-552.
,
Lowe, J. (1967), "Stability Analysis of Embankments", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM^, Proc. Paper 9305, July, 1967, pp. 1-33.
,
Lundgren, H. and Brinch Hansen, J. (1965), "Geoteknik" Teknisk Forlag, Kerbenhavn, 1965, P- 180.
2.
udgave,
Maunsell & Partners Pty. Ltd., Consulting Engineers, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1977: Correspondence.
Morgenstern, N. R. and Price, V. E. (1965), "The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip Surfaces", Geotechnique , Vol. 15, No. 1, March, 1965, pp. 79-93.
209
Newmark, N. M. (1965), "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments", Oeotechnique Vol. 15, No. 2, June, 1965, pp. 139-159,
Perloff, W. H. and Baron, W. (1976), "Soil Mechanics, Principles and Applications", The Ronald Press Company, New York, 1976, Chapter 12. Stability of Slopes.
te Mars 19l6", Petterson, K. E. (1916), "Kajraset i Goteborg den 5 Teknisk Tidskrift , Vol. U6, 1916, pp. 281-287, 289-291.
Rankine, W. J. M. (1857), "On the Stability of Loose Earth", Philosophic Transactions of the Royal Society London, Vol. lU7, 1857, pp. 9-27.
,
Romani, F. (1970), "Dependence of Stability of Slopes on Initiation and Progression of Failure", Ph.D. Thesis , Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1970. Romani, F., Lovell C. W. and Harr M. E. (1972), "Influence of Progressive Failure on Slope Stability" Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM11, Proc Paper 93^9, November, 1972, pp. 1209-1223.
, , , ,
.
Seed, H. B. (1966), "A Method for Earthquake Resistant Design of Earth Dams", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SMI, Proc. Paper U6l6, January, I966, pp. 13-Ul.
,
Seed, H. B. and Lee, K. L. (1967), "Undrained Strength Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM6, Proc. Paper 56l8, November, 1967, pp. 333-360.
Lee, K. L., Idriss, I. M. and Makdisi, F. I. (1975), "The Seed, H. B. Slides in the San Fernando Dams during the Earthquake of February 9, 1971", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division , ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT7, Proc. Paper IIUU9 July, 1975, pp. 651-688.
, ,
Siegel, R. A. (1975a), "Computer Analysis of General Slope Stability Problems", MSCE Thesis Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
,
1975.
Siegel, R. A. (1975b), "STABL User Manual", Technical Report, Joint H ighway Research Project, No. 75-9 , Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, June, 1975Singh, A. (1970), "Shear Strength and Stability of Man-made Slopes", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM6, Proc. Paper 7652, November, 1970, pp. 1879-1892.
Skempton, A. W. (I9U6), "Alexandre Collin (I808-I890) and his Pioneer Work in Soil Mechanics", Foreword to the English Translation of Landslides in Clays by Alexandre Collin (see Collin).
210
Spencer, E. (1967), "A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming Parallel Inter-Slice Forces", Geotechnique , Vol. 17, No. 1, March, 1967, pp. 11-26.
Taylor, D. W. (1937), "Stability of Earth Slopes", Contributions to Soil Mechanics 1925-19^0, Boston Society of Civil Engineers , Boston, 19^0.
Taylor, D. W. (I9U8), "Stability of Slopes", Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics , John Wiley and Sons , Inc , New York, 19^8, pp. Uo6-*+79
.
Whitman, R. V. and Bailey, W. A. (1967), "Use of Computers for Slope Stability Analysis", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SMU, Proc Paper 5327, July, 1967, pp. U75-H98.
.
Wright, S. G. (1969), "A Study of Slope Stability and the Undrained Shear Strength of Clay Shales", Ph.D. Thesis , University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Wright, S. G., Kulhawy, F. H. and Duncan, J. M. (1973), "Accuracy of Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SM10, Proc. Paper 10097, October, 1973, pp. 783-791.
Wu, H. T. and Kraft, L. M. (1970), "Safety Analysis of Slopes", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , ASCE, Vol. 9%~, No. SM2, Proc. Paper Ulk, March, 1970, pp. 609-630