Slope Stability 1

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
Civil engineering is the professional engineering discipline that deals with the design,
construction, and maintenance of public and private infrastructure within the natural
environment. Geotechnical engineering is a field within civil engineering that focuses on the
behavior of natural geological materials. Geotechnical engineers recognize that soil and rock
are the cheapest and most abundant building materials on earth, and consequently play a major
role in the construction and performance of every type of civil engineering structure.
Slopes, either natural or engineered slopes, that have been stable for many years may
suddenly fail because of changes of topography, seismicity, groundwater flows, loss of strength,
stress changes and weathering. Slope failures are usually due either to a sudden or gradual
loss of strength by the soil to a change in geometric conditions. Factors that tend to increase the
shear stresses or decrease the shear strength increase the chances of failure of a slope. These
present a special set of considerations that a geotechnical engineer must address. Where
landslides or slopes failures occur, there is often a need to identify quickly the likely cause of
failure and to develop short- or long-term methods of mitigating the failure.
Slope failures is one of the common problem encountered in geotechnical engineering.
It may cause serious losses and damages in many areas around the world. Slope stability
problem may arise due to various reasons such as natural phenomena, including typhoon,
earthquake and heavy rains, human activities such as land cultivation and urbanization,
weathering and soil erosion.
The slope stability analysis is concerned with identifying critical geological, material,
environmental, and economic parameters that will affect the project, as well as understanding
the nature, magnitude, and frequency of potential slope problems. This also requires
establishing strength and groundwater conditions for each soil layer identified during the field
exploration program.
Several methods are commonly used to analyze and access the stability of slopes.
Result of slope stability analysis is very important to assess the safety of existing slopes against
sliding and to determine whether the slope is stable or not.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Talisay, Batangas, being located at the foot of mountainous part of Tagaytay City have a
lot of sloping areas. Talisay is bounded in the east by at least 10km of lakeshore of Taal Lake, in
the south by municipality of San Nicolas, separated by Pansipit River, on the west by
municipality of Lemery and on the north by the municipality of Laurel.
The main topographic feature of Batangas Province is the Taal Volcano, which is part of
the Western Luzon Volcanic Front that extends northward to Mariveles, Mt. Natib and Mt.
Pinatubo. The volcano, which is surrounded by a lake has a crater island in it. Locally, the
rugged and undulating terrain is common on all slopes form the Tagaytay Ridge down to the
lake of Talisay. Talisay is suited along the lakefront and its topography is a longitudinal
traversing of many minor ridges and drainage basins (valleys).
Local lithology is the result of various eruptions of Taal Volcano. The oldest rock is a
Pliocene to recent solidified lava of basaltic to andesitic composition and pyroclastic rocks that
are composed of blocks or fragment of volcano rocks embedded in volcanic ash or fine ejecta.
Pleistocene sedimentary rocks overlie the volcanic rock and are composed of tuff
(lithified volcanic ash) and mixture of pumice and cinders.
The youngest rock formation is the recent alluvium which consist of unconsolidated
gravel, sand, silt and clay in varying proportion deposited in rivers and their tributaries as well in
the low-lying lakeshore.
There are generally two types of soil area. The Taal Loam found along the lakeshore
areas and the Tagaytay Loam in the steeper terrains. They are generally characterized as
having considerable amount of Volcanic Ejecta.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study aimed to analyze the slope stability of the hillside area along Talisay national
highway by using the different slope stability analysis methods and to suggest the appropriate
design for slope stabilization.
Specifically, the researchers aims to answer the following questions:
1. What are the different factors being considered to determine the stability of the existing
slope?
2. How to determine the factor of safety of the slope under study?
2.1 Manual Computation
2.2 Computer-generated computation: GeoStructural analysis software
3. Based on the result slope stability analysis, what type and design of slope stabilization is
most suitable for the slope?
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study are as follows:
1. To know the different factors being considered to determine the stability of the existing
slope.
2. To determine the factor of safety of the slope under study and to assess the stability of
slopes under short-term (often during construction) and long-term conditions.
3. To suggest the design of slope stabilization that is most suitable for the slope and to
contribute to the safe and economic design of excavation, embankments, earth dams,
landfills and heaps.
4. To understand failure mechanisms and the influence of environmental factors.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study was conducted to determine the effective design of slope located in Talisay,
Batangas. The results of the study could be significant to the transportation sectors, municipality
leaders, public transportation operators, land owners, community and future researchers.
Transportation sector especially the Department of Public Works and Highways would
benefit from the results since they were responsible to provide an efficient means of
transportation to the community.
Public transportation operators could also benefit from this study. They will be able to
have knowledge as to when the slope is dangerous and when it is dangerous to pass through
along the area since the slope is located along the national highway.
The community would also benefit from this study because it will enlightened them the
possible causes of slope failure and at the same time the thing they can provide to protect the
existing slope.
The results could also be significant to the future researchers who would conduct
investigations related to the present one.
Especially, this study will be beneficial to the researcher as it will provide researcher to
gain knowledge about slope stability and a preparation in dealing with problems in geotechnical
engineering.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study focuses on the effective design of slope that prevent erosion that may occur
along the highway of Talisay, Batangas. This is in connection with the ongoing project of DPWH
District III.
Since all laboratory data is provided, this study involved actual site investigation and all
the computation are based on the parameters provided and the analysis of factor of safety is
done through computer software (Geoslope) and manual computation for comparison.
This study also included a proposal of slope stability design if the slope is found to be
unstable.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
To allow readers to better understand this study some technical terms are presented
herein together with their concept and definition.
Angle of internal friction. A measure of the ability of a unit of rock or soil to withstand s shear
stress. It is the angle (), measured between the normal force (N) and the resultant
force (R), that is attained when failure occurs in response to a shearing stress.
Angle of repose. Angle for cohesionless soils.
Base Failure. The failure occurs in such a way that the surface of sliding assess at some
distance below the toe of the slope.
Bishops Simplified Method of Slices. The effect of forces on the sides each slice is
accounted for some degree.
Cohesion. A component of shear strength of a rock or soil that is independent of interparticle
friction.
Critical Surface. The one for which the ratio of Cu to Cd is a minimum.
Culmanns Method. The analysis is based on the assumption that the failure of the slope
occurs along a plane when the average shearing stress that tends to cause the slip is
greater than the shear strength of the soil.
Depth Function. Vertical distance from the top of the slope to the firm base over height of the
slope.
Direct shear test. This is a test used for the determination of the consolidated drained (or
undrained) shear strength of soils. The test is performed by deforming a specimen at a
controlled rate on or near a single shear plane.
Factor of safety (FS). A term describing the capacity of a system beyond the expected loads
or actual loads. Also, this determines how much longer the system is than it usually
needs to be for an intended load.
Finite slope. The value of Hcr approaches the height of the slope.
GeoStructural analysis software. A software that addresses a wide range of geotechnical
design and analysis challenges from foundation and wall design to stability and
settlement analyses.
Infinite slope. One which H is much greater than the slope height.
Landslide. The falling or sliding of rock, debris or earth in a slope which are due to natural
phenomena or man activity. This is the result from the failure of earth materials which
are driven by force of gravity.
Mass Procedure. The mass of soil above the surface of sliding is taken as a unit. This
procedure is useful when the soil that forms the slope is assumed to be homogenous,
although this is hardly the case in most natural slopes.
Methods of Slices. The soil above the surface of sliding is divided into a number vertical
parallel slices. The stability of each of the slices is calculated separately. This is a
vertical technique in which the non-homogeneity of the soil and pore water pressure can
be taken into consideration. It also accounts for the variation of the normal stress along
potential failure surface.
Michalowskis Solution. Use the kinematic approach of limit analysis to analyze slopes with
steady state seepage.
Midpoint Circle. The failure circle in case of base failure.
Most Critical Plane. The one that has the minimum ratio of the average shearing stress that
tends to cause failure to the shear strength of the soil.
Ordinary method of slices. Trials are made by changing the center of trial circle to find the
minimum factor of safety.
Parameters. A numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system
or sets the conditions of its operation.
Shear strength. The strength of a material or component against the type of yield or structural
failure where the material or component fails in shear.
Shear strength parameters.
Slope. An elevated geological formation.
Slope Circle. Failure circle that passes the above the toe of the slope.
Slope Failure. Failure occurs in such a way that the surface of sliding intersects the slope at or
above its toe.
Slope stability analysis. This is performed to assess the safe design of a human-made or
natural slopes and the equilibrium conditions. It involves determining and comparing the
shear stress developed along the most likely rupture surface with the shear
strength of
the soil.
Soil classification. In this study, this refers to the separation of soil into classes or groups each
having similar characteristics and potentially similar behavior.
Spencers Solution. A method to determine factor of safety FS s by taking into account the
interslice forces which does satisfy the equation of equilibrium with respect to the
moment and forces.
Toe Circle. The failure circle that passes through the toe of the slope.
Unrestrained slope. An exposed ground that stands at an angle with the horizontal.
ACRONYMS USED
To minimize redundancies and emphasize simplicity, the researchers opted to use the
following acronyms throughout the course of this study.
AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASTM. American Society for Testing of Materials
DPWH. Department of Public Works and Highways
SPT. Standard Penetration Test
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents the conceptual and related literature gathered by the researchers to
serve as a guide in their study.
Conceptual Literature
Mechanical Analysis of Soils
Mechanical analysis is the determination of the size range of particles present in a soil,
expressed as a percentage of the total dry weight. There are two methods generally used to find
the particle-size distribution of soil: (1) sieve analysis - for particle sizes larger than 0.075 mm in
diameter, and (2) hydrometer analysis - for particle sizes smaller than 0.075 mm in diameter.
Sieve Analysis
Sieve analysis consists of shaking the soil sample through a set of sieves that
have progressively smaller openings. Table 1 lists the U.S. standard sieve numbers
and the sizes of openings.
Sieve Number
Opening (mm)
4.750
3.350
2.360
10
2.000
16
1.180
Particle size distribution curve
20
0.850
30
0.600
40
0.425
50
0.300
60
0.250
80
0.180
100
0.150
140
0.106
170
0.088
200
0.075
270
0.053
Principle of Effective Stress

Ground movements and instabilities can be caused by changes in total stress (such as
loading due to foundations or unloading due to excavations), but they can also be caused by
changes in pore pressures (slopes can fail after rainfall increases the pore pressures).
In fact, it is the combined effect of total stress and pore pressure that controls soil
behavior such as shear strength, compression and distortion. The difference between the total
stress and the pore pressure is called the effective stress:
Effective stress = total stress - pore pressure
or s = s u
Direct Shear Test

A direct shear test is a laboratory or field test used by geotechnical engineers to measure
the shear strength properties of soil or rock material, or of discontinuities in soil or rock masses.
It is used for determination of the consolidated drained (or un-drained) shear strength of soils.
The test is performed by deforming a specimen at a controlled rate on or near a single shear
plane.
STANDARDS
o
BS 1377-7:1990
ASTM D3080 - 04 Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under
Consolidated Drained Conditions
Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils

The shear strength of an unsaturated soil is written in terms of two independent stress
state variables. One form of the shear strength equation is
The transition from a saturated soil to an unsaturated soil is readily visible. A second form
of the shear strength equation is
Properties of Soil
Between the soil particles there are the internal forces that the soil can be offer to resist
failure and sliding a long any plane inside it. One of there is cohesive strength (C) and the other
is angle of internal friction ().
The cohesive strength appear clearly in cohesive soil, more than the cohesion less soil is called
by this forces ..
Cohesive soil
Cohesion less soil
called C soil and

called soil
But the soil in general called C soil.

Determination of soil properties (shear strength)
There are several laboratory methods now available to determine the shear strength
parameters of various soil specimens in the laboratory. They are as follows: a.) Direct shear test
b.) Triaxial test c.) Direct simple shear test d.) Plane strain triaxial test.
1.
Direct shear test:
This is the oldest and simplest form of shear test. The normal stress can be calculated as:=
= normal stress =
normal force
areaof cross section of sample
P
A
and shear stress can be calculated as :
= shear stress =
1 =
P1
A
shear force
areaof cross section of sample
T
A
1 =
T1
A
The shear strength value can be determined as shown, where
= Angle of internal friction.
= Cohesive stress or adhesion stress
The equation for the average line obtained from experimental results called coulomb law.
S
Where :
S
: Shear strength
: Adhesion stress
: Friction angle
: Normal stress
= C + tan
2.
Tri-axial Compression Test:
Tri-axial compression test is one of the most common methods for determination
the shear strength parameters or C and for soil.
The sample dimensions are 1.5 in and 3 in diameter and length, As shown in fig (4)
the sample is encased by a thin rubber membrane and placed inside plastic cylindrical
chamber that is usually filled with water which is under pressure, the sample is
effected with axial load which caused axial stress. The axial stress increment until the
sample fails, and the axial deformation is measured by a dial gauge , as shown in
fig (5), the soil sample is subjected to an all-around confining pressure 3.
Where:
3 = Pore water pressure on confining stress
1 = Total axial stress at failure
3 = 3 + C1
Fig (5) : Stress Application
Where:
3
: Pore water pressure on confining stress
: Total axial stress at failure
= 3 +
in tri-axial test 1 is the major principle stress and 3 is the minor stress several test on
similar samples can be conducted by varying the confining pressure, with the major and minor
principle stress at failure for each envelop can be obtained the following relation show fig. (6)
and fig. (7)
Mohr's Circle
As shown in fig (6) the plan of failure inclination with the major principle plane.
= 45 +
Where:
: An angle of internal friction
And the shear strength equation can be written as

S
= C + tan
3 . Unconfined Compression Test:

This special type of test used for clay sample as shown in fig (9) , where = 0 in
that test the confining pressure 3 is zero, axial load is rapidly applied to cause failure, at
failure the minor principal stress 3 = 0 and the major principal stress is 1. So unconfined
cohesive strength is (Cu).
Unconfined Compression Test

Cu
Where:
1 = minor stress called unconfined stress qu
Stresses relations for unconfined compression test
Alternative methods of slope stability analysis:

The quantitative determination of the stability of slopes is necessary in a number of
engineering activities, such as:
(a) The design of earth dams and embankments,
(b) The analysis of stability of natural slopes,
(c) Analysis of the stability of excavated slopes,
(d) Analysis of deep seated failure of foundations and retaining walls.
Quite a number of techniques are available for these analyses and in this chapter the
more widely used techniques are discussed. Extensive reviews of stability analyses have been
provided by Chowdhury (1978) and by Schuster and Krizek (1978). In order to provide some
basic understanding of the nature of the calculations involved in slope stability analyses the
case of stability of an infinitely long slope is initially introduced.
Culmanns Method
A technique for the calculation of slope stability based upon the assumption of a plane
surface of failure through the toe of the slope has been proposed by Culmann (see Taylor,
1948).
The forces acting on the wedge QRS are indicated on the figure as the weight of the
wedge W, the mobilized cohesive force Cm and the mobilized frictional force P. fm is the
mobilized angle of shearing resistance. These three forces are placed in equilibrium to yield the
following expression:
Cm rgH = cos (i + fm - 2q) - cos (i - fm) 4 cos fm sin I
where the symbols are indicated in Fig. 11.2. The term on the left hand side of this
equation is known as the stability number. Since QS is an arbitrarily selected trial plane inclined
at an angle q to the horizontal, it is necessary to find the most dangerous plane along which
sliding is most likely. This is done by setting the first derivative with respect to q of the
expression above equal to zero.
The F = 0 Method of Slope Stability Analysis
Since the surfaces of sliding for many slope failures have been observed to follow
approximately the arc of a circle, most of the commonly used analytical techniques for
calculation of slope stability involve the assumption of a circular failure arc. Most of the
techniques discussed in this chapter are based upon this assumption. For composite failure
surfaces, analyses have been developed by Morgenstern and Price (1965) and by Janbu
(1973).
Ordinary Method of Slices

In cases where the effective angle of shearing resistance is not constant over the failure
surface, such as in zoned earth dams where the failure surface might pass through several
different materials, the friction circle method cannot be used. A 'slices' method, is more
appropriate in this situation.
Bishop Method of Slices
A slices method of slope stability analysis which involves a different procedure and gives
different answers compared with the Ordinary Method of Slices has been proposed by Bishop
(1955). With this method, the analysis is carried out in terms of stresses instead of forces which
were used with the Ordinary Method of Slices. The stresses and forces which act on a typical
slice and which are taken into account in the analysis are shown in Fig. 11.8. The major
difference between the Bishop Method and the Ordinary Method of Slices is that resolution of
forces takes place.
RELATED STUDIES
The following studies discuss articles related to slope stability and its analysis.
Based on the research of Stephen G. Wright entitled Evaluation of Soil Shear Strength
for Slope and Retaining Wall Stability Analysis with Emphasis on High Plasticity of Clays, the
majority of slope problems were governed by the drained, rather than undrained strength of the
soil. It has also led to the conclusion that the fully-softened shear strength is the controlling
shear strength in most cases but the residual shear strength may be applicable once a slide has
occurred. Most failures of embankment have been restricted to the portion of the compacted fill
above the level of the toe of the slope, with relatively few failures involving that natural
foundation soils. However, when failures do involves the foundation, the undrained, rather than
drained strength controls the stability and must be evaluated. Undrained shear strength values
can vary widely and depend on the past stress history at a particular site. The Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) seeks to update its Geotechnical Manual and provide improved
guidance on the appropriate shear strength properties to be used for stability analyses of slopes
and retaining walls.
On the study of Jarec Jakubec, International Slope Stability Research, the significance
of using the appropriate geological and structural model is not always appreciated in
characterizing the geotechnical rock mass, which is often undertaken by engineers, not by
geologists.
In addition, a study conducted by A. Totsev and J. Jellev, Slope Stability Analysis using
Conventional methods and FEM, results to the comparison between two different directions in
slope stability analysis for a particular example and the way the results can affect various
parameters. The calculation of the safety of factor were made using the conventional methods
of Bishop, Fellenius and Bell. The results of applying these conventional methods were
compared with the calculations performed by the FEM analysis and assessment of the results
obtained when applying different methods for solving the same problem is an important factor
us designing building's on steep slope.
The study, The July 10, 2000 Payatas Landfill Slope Failure by N. Jafari, T. Stark S.
Merry, states that slope stability analyses indicate that the raised leachate level, existence of
landfill gas created by natural aerobic and anaerobic degradation, and a significantly oversteeped slope contributed to the slope failure. The study presents a description of the geological
and environmental conditions, identification of the critical failure surface and slope stability
analyses to better understand the failure and present recommendations for other landfills in
tropical areas. In addition, the case history is used to evaluate uncertainty in parameters based
in back-analysis of a landfill slope failure.
Based on the Landfill Slope Stability Risk Agreement by M. Ali Jahanfar, landfill is an
engineered slope and should be classified as an involuntary risk society tolerates less risk while
it is man-made structure .However, catastrophic landfill and dumpsite failures have proven that
considering merely the lowest factor of safety (only hazard) is not an encompassing criterion for
designing, and the probable vulnerability as a result of failure may have to be considered in the
decision. This study includes the hazard and vulnerability in designing the landfill slope stability.
Moreover, a research study conducted by N. Huvaj-Sarihan, Timothy D. Stark titled

Back-Analyses of the Landfill Slope Failures suggests that the shear strength of MSW
decreases with age, i.e., decomposition (Stegel et al. 1990, Brandal 1998, Gabr et al. 2002,
Reddy and Bogner 2003, Gonzales-Garcia and Espinoza-Silva 2003. Lovelace and Ziehmann
2004). There is a continuing debate on whether both cohesion and friction angle decreases with
time, or only friction angle decrease with time, or only cohesion decreases. It is therefore
reasonable to assume cohesion intercept is equal to for a 300 years old MSW-demolition debris
mix, and back-calculate the friction angle.
The Seismic Slope Safety- Determination of Critical Slip Surface using Acceptability
Criteria by Ding Tan states that the design of earth dams and embankment under earthquake
loading, the seismic- displacement approach provides better criteria than the load-based
approach. Based on pseudo-static analysis within the limit equilibrium framework to obtain the
slip surface with an acceptable stress field within the surface.
On the study of Dexter M. Tornado, Slope Stability Analysis for Remediation Project
along the Catanduanes Circumferential Road Network System, aims to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the slope stability along the areas covered by the circumferential
road network system, to be able to determine the slope percentage/coverage along the
roadways of circumferential road network system covering 215 km of rugged and mountainous
terrains; provide a range of features of SLIDE software in analyzing slope stability problems;
provide a technical and comprehensive solutions of the identified unstable slopes confronting
the road network system for remediation analysis; and provide landslide decision support tools
that rapidly landslide potential alerts for disaster mitigation activities on a global basis for end
users.
On the study conducted by Fritz Gerald Castillo, et.al. entitled Stability Analysis of
Slopes Along the Southern Shoreline of Tingloy Island states that one of the most important
natural defense structures in the world is the shoreline because it protects land areas form the
effect of wave forces. Therefore, if it is eroded, it should be given enough attention and
consideration for protection and mitigation from total degradation. The municipality of Tingloy is
an island in the province of Batangas, and many of its residence are living near the coastal
areas. Since there are many residence who will be affected if the coastal areas are eroded, the
researchers proposed to analyze the factors that contribute to the shoreline erosion and
recommended a design of an effective protection structure which is reliable and effective both
from an engineering and environmental perspective. In the analysis, the geometry of the slope,
geotechnical properties of material, hydraulic forces such as seepage and wave impact forces,
and the human protection structures, the external stability was considered by computing the
factor of safety against sliding and overturning. Based on the results of the analysis,
experiments and surveys, the geometry of the slope and its geotechnical properties, and
hydraulic forces affect the stability of the slopes along the shoreline. Since the earth forces are
relatively larger than the wave forces, the design of shoreline protection structure was analyzed
as a cantilever retaining wall and not as vertical sea wall. (May 2015)
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
In this study, the descriptive research design was used in analyzing the slope stability of
the hillside area along Talisay national highway. Although the research design is primarily
descriptive by conducting actual observation on the selected hillside, the data needed for further
analysis of hillside erosion were taken through tests and surveys conducted by CADDKO Geo
Engineering and Drilling Services as initiated by the Department of Public Works and Highways
District III.
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE
a. Determining the Soil Profile

The soil investigation underwent field and laboratory tests involving both simple and
complex techniques for the site characterization that are necessary to formulate geotechnical
study for the engineering design of the project.
b. Field test
The boring was accomplished using a rotary-drilling rig. In between sampling sections,
the hole was advanced using the rotary wash method. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is
carried out by using a standard split-spoon sampler, mounted on a drive rod of sufficient
strength to prevent whipping from blows delivered by 140 pound (63.5kg) hammer free-falling
from a height of 30 in. (76 cm). The value of N is reported as the resistance to penetration. It is
the number of blows required to drive the tube to the last 300 mm (12 in) of penetration
distance.
After the sample and tube are brought to the surface and separated, the sample is
removed from the tube and properly preserved and sealed using a moisture tight plastic bag for
further testing in the laboratory.
Correlation of SPT data with other soil parameters have been developed foe estimates
of stiffness of a soil and is a very useful supplementary classification as shown in the tables
below:
c. Laboratory Test
Selected soil samples were subjected to the following specific tests.
Soil Particle Size Analysis
The size and quantity of individual particles found in particular soil is

indicative of the performance characteristics of the soil. The percentage by
weight of the material passing through each succession sieve is recorded.
The Atterberg Limits

The liquid limit and the plastic limit tests define the upper and lower
moisture content points at which a particular soil ceases to perform as a plastic.
The use of this test is restricted to cohesive soils.
Moisture Content of Soils

It is based on the weight of the water in the soil. This indicates imperative
behavior of different soil types at various levels of moisture.
Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes

Based on the results of visual observations and prescribed laboratory
tests, a soil is catalogued according to the basic soil groups, assigned a group
symbol(s) and name and thereby classified. This standard classifies soils from
any geographic location into categories representing the results of prescribed
laboratory tests to determine the particle-size characteristics, the liquid limit, and
the plasticity index.
The various groupings of the classification system have been devised to
correlate in a general way with the engineering behavior of soils.
d. Soil Profile
There are generally two types of soil area. The Taal Loam found along the lakeshore
areas and the Tagaytay Loam in the steeper terrains. They are generally characterized as
having considerable amount of Volcanic Ejecta.
Taal loam is the biggest type of the Taal series. This comprises the rolling lands, hills and
mountains east, north and west of Taal, covering portions of the towns of Lipa, Tanauan, Taal
and Calaca.
Tagaytay loam is dark-brown to nearly black friable and granular sandy loam soil with
considerable amount of volcanic sand. The subsoil is dark brown to very dark brown, and varies
in texture from clay loam to clay. This is a sub-clay or volcanic stuff. The tuffaceous material
varies in depth according t the topography of the place.
In some places, especially near the ridge, there is a zone of volcanic ash accumulation
just below the surface of the soil. This zone, however, disappears in well-cultivated or highly
eroded areas.
ANALYSIS OF DATA
A. Slope Stability Analysis
The slope stability of the slope was determined using the analysis of finite slope
with plane failure surface .The researchers computed manually the factor of safety and
the critical height for the comparison of actual height and critical height of the slope to
determine its stability.
B. Soil classification
Based on the soil borings conducted for each abutment areas, the underlying soil
comprises mainly of upper sand-silt materials (SM, SC, ML). The said materials are extending to
nearly 6m depth. Subsequent deposits of sandy soil (SM, SP-SM) are supporting the area
extending under exploration depth of 14.70m along two locations.
Along the location of BH-1, sandy silt (ML) is only medium stiff for nearly 4m thick as
implied by standard penetration test N-values varying from 5 to 7. It increases to stiff and very
stiff condition on subsequent levels as described by consecutive SPT N-values of 14 and 38.
Lower formation of sandy soil (SP-SM) is very dense having SPT N-values 43, and
encountering SPT refusals after nearly 10.35m level.
Along the vicinity of BH-2, clayey sand (SC) covers the area for at least 1m thick. The
soil is medium dense as indicted by initial SPT N-value of 17. Subsequent layers of sand and
silt materials (SM, ML) extends to more than 6m depth, varying from medium stiff to very stiff as
implied by SPT N-values ranging from 7 to 22. Increase in resistance has been observed on
lower area with dense material of sand extending to nearly 9m depth as described by SPT Nvalues of 30 and 31. Very dense condition is located on subsequent level having SPT N-values
50. SPT refusals were located after 11.70m depth.
Static water levels were encountered, measuring -7.40m and -7.30m along locations of
BH-1 and BH-2 respectively at the time of observation.
Other sources of information:

Computer software analysis
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Depth
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
8.9
10.35
11.70
13.20
14.70
Soil
Classificatio
n
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
CLASSIFICATION
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM
STIFF
HARD
VERY HARD
N
Value
LL
PI
PL
Frictiona
l Angle
7
7
5
14
38
43
50
50/15
50/15
50/15
50/15
33.7
30.4
29.5
31.3
28.1
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
10.1
7.6
6.8
8.3
5.7
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
23.6
22.8
22.7
23
22.4
-
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
SPT, N
<2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
>30
Su
<12
12-25
25-50
50-100
100-200
>200
Unit
Weight
(dry)
15.67
15.67
15.67
15.67
15.67
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
Cohesion
(c)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASSIFICATION
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
SPT, N
<4
4-10
10-17
17-32
>32
RELATIVE DENSITY
0-15
15-35
35-65
65-85
85-100
MIXES SOILS: SLIGHTLY CLAYEY SAND AND SILTY SAND

SPT, N
4-8
8-15
APPROXIMATE
COHESION
(kg/m2)
1500-2050
2050-3000
APPROXIMATE
FRICTIONAL ANGLE
UNIT WEIGHT (DRY)

(kg/m3)
10-16
16-20
1437-1577
1577-1756
CLAYEY SAND. CLAYEY/SANDY SILT AND CLAYEY SILT

SPT, N
4-8
8-15
15-30
APPROXIMATE
COHESION
(kg/m2)
2050-3000
3000-4000
4000-5000
APPROXIMATE
FRICTIONAL ANGLE
UNIT WEIGHT (DRY)

(kg/m3)
7-12
12-16
16-20
1437-1597
1597-1756
1756-1916
SANDY CLAYS/ SILTY CLAYSAND LEAN CLAY

SPT, N
4-8
8-15
15-30
APPROXIMATE
COHESION
(kg/m2)
4100-5100
5100-6100
6100-8200
APPROXIMATE
FRICTIONAL ANGLE
UNIT WEIGHT (DRY)

(kg/m3)
2-5
5-8
8-10
1437-1597
1597-1756
1756-1916
ANGLE OF FRICTION (COHESIONLESS SOIL)

=0.36N +27
=0.45N +20 general cases
=0.15Dr +28
ANGLE OF FRICTION (COHESIVE SOIL)
=6
FOR CLAY FRACTION >50%
=10-18
FOR CLAY FRACTION 25% TO 45%
=18-32
FOR CLAY FRACTION <20%
COMPUTATIONS
MANUAL
c=0
=15.67
KN
m3
=33
c=0
=18.81
KN
m3
=34
=29.24
FSs=
c'
tan '
+
2
H cos tan tan
FSs=
1
0
tan 33
tan 34
+
+ 0+
2
2 15.67 ( 1.5 ) ( cos 29.44 ) tan 29.24 tan 29.24
tan 29.24
FSs=1.16
][
FS=
f
c' + ' tan '
=
d c ' d + ' tan ' d
' 1=15.67 ( 1.5 )=23.505 KPa

' 2=23.505+ ( 18.81 )( 1.97 ) =60.5607 KPa
INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND RESULTS
Slope stability analysis
Input data
Project
Task :
Author :
Analysis of Slope Stability

BSCVENG CE-4201 (Slope Stability)
Date :
Unit weight of water is considered :
3/10/2016
9,81 kN/m3
Settings
USA - Safety factor
Stability analysis
Verification methodology :
Safety factors (ASD)

Safety factors
Permanent design situation
SFs =
Safety factor :
1.50 []
Soil parameters - effective stress state

No.
Name
Pattern
ef
cef
[]
[kPa]
[kN/m3]
Silty Sand
33.00
0.00
15.68
Sandy Silt
34.00
0.00
18.80
Soil parameters - uplift

No.
Name
Pattern
sat
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[]
Silty Sand
15.68
Sandy Silt
18.80
Soil parameters
Silty Sand
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Angle of internal friction :
Cohesion of soil :
Saturated unit weight :
Effective
ef
cef
sat
15.68 kN/m3
=
=
=
33.00
0.00 kPa
15.68 kN/m3
Sandy Silt
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Cohesion of soil :
effective
ef
cef
sat
18.80 kN/m3
=
=
=
34.00
0.00 kPa
18.80 kN/m3
Settings of the stage of construction

Design situation : permanent
Results (Stage of construction 1)

Analysis 1
Circular slip surface
Slip surface parameters
Center :
Radius :
x=
40.28 [m]
z=
58.16 [m]
R=
Angles :
63.13 [m]
The slip surface after optimization.
Slope stability verification (Bishop)
Sum of active forces :

Sum of passive forces :
Fa =
Fp =
0.10 kN/m
0.11 kN/m
Sliding moment :
Ma =
Mp =
6.18 kNm/m
Resisting moment :
7.15 kNm/m
1 =
-29.66 []
2 =
-28.99 []
Factor of safety = 1.16 < 1.50

Slope stability NOT ACCEPTABLE
Optimization of circular slip surface (Bishop)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Center
x [m]
-40.28
-6.27
-9.88
-6.27
-9.78
-9.51
-6.87
-7.24
-9.79
-7.24
-9.71
-9.56
-7.78
-7.89
-9.74
-7.89
-9.65
-9.60
-8.36
-8.33
-9.71
-8.33
-9.63
-14.87
-8.69
-9.71
-14.87
-8.69
-9.65
-9.80
-9.03
-9.73
-9.80
-9.03
-9.82
-9.67
-9.44
-9.31
-10.08
-9.43
-9.76
-9.31
-9.36
-9.43
-9.74
-109.39
z [m]
58.16
3.61
3.96
3.61
9.67
18.96
9.67
3.61
3.87
3.61
5.34
11.54
5.34
3.61
3.81
3.61
3.77
7.90
3.77
3.62
3.78
3.62
6.05
33.92
3.77
3.78
33.92
3.77
5.07
6.52
4.06
3.79
6.52
4.06
3.32
4.54
3.32
4.27
4.40
4.58
3.84
4.27
3.55
4.58
3.62
181.18
Radius
R [m]
63.13
0.52
3.78
0.52
6.73
16.02
6.73
0.52
2.72
0.52
2.40
8.60
2.40
0.52
2.02
0.52
0.82
4.96
0.82
0.53
1.56
0.53
3.11
31.19
0.65
1.28
31.19
0.65
2.13
3.40
0.94
1.12
3.40
0.94
0.40
1.60
0.40
1.19
1.61
1.50
1.06
1.19
0.69
1.50
0.84
204.24
FS
1.16
17511.51
3.92
17511.51
3.33
6.13
55.32
17511.51
3.40
17511.51
1.83
4.27
28.57
17511.51
2.74
17511.51
1.34
3.06
16.52
108.29
2.24
108.29
2.28
3.19
5.31
1.89
3.19
5.31
1.80
2.07
2.40
1.63
2.07
2.40
1.17
1.51
1.95
1.76
1.27
1.71
1.47
1.76
1.92
1.71
1.53
1.16
Verification
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Center
x [m]
-9.76
-9.68
-9.51
-9.13
-10.23
-9.97
-9.84
-9.54
-9.13
-10.23
-9.97
-9.84
-9.74
-9.69
-9.57
-9.47
-10.70
-10.84
-10.03
-9.81
-9.47
-10.70
-10.84
-10.03
-83.57
-83.57
-9.73
-9.69
-9.62
-9.98
-11.34
-12.44
-10.35
-10.22
-9.98
-11.34
-12.44
-10.35
-9.72
-9.70
-9.65
-10.82
-12.47
-16.15
-10.89
-10.92
-10.82
-12.47
-16.15
-10.89
z [m]
3.42
4.23
3.42
3.52
4.69
5.48
4.00
3.90
3.52
4.69
5.48
4.00
3.51
4.05
3.51
4.11
5.66
7.06
4.47
4.40
4.11
5.66
7.06
4.47
135.38
135.38
3.58
3.94
3.58
5.03
6.89
10.11
5.13
5.19
5.03
6.89
10.11
5.13
3.63
3.87
3.63
6.61
9.01
17.27
6.18
6.50
6.61
9.01
17.27
6.18
Radius
R [m]
0.48
1.29
0.48
0.62
1.89
2.48
1.15
0.96
0.62
1.89
2.48
1.15
0.57
1.11
0.57
1.10
2.93
4.25
1.61
1.46
1.10
2.93
4.25
1.61
151.66
151.66
0.64
1.00
0.64
2.08
4.29
7.67
2.31
2.31
2.08
4.29
7.67
2.31
0.69
0.93
0.69
3.83
6.68
15.72
3.46
3.77
3.83
6.68
15.72
3.46
FS
1.26
1.36
1.62
2.49
1.22
1.45
1.33
1.44
2.49
1.22
1.45
1.33
1.30
1.32
1.48
1.48
1.18
1.35
1.24
1.28
1.48
1.18
1.35
1.24
1.16
1.16
1.30
1.32
1.40
1.31
1.17
1.31
1.20
1.23
1.31
1.17
1.31
1.20
1.31
1.32
1.37
1.26
1.16
1.28
1.17
1.21
1.26
1.16
1.28
1.17
Verification
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
No.
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
Center
x [m]
-9.72
-9.70
-9.67
-12.41
-15.09
-31.01
-11.91
-12.19
-12.41
-15.09
-31.01
-11.91
-9.71
-9.70
-9.68
-16.07
-22.67
-13.97
-14.88
-16.07
-22.67
-13.97
-9.71
-9.71
-9.69
-30.79
-19.29
-23.05
-30.79
-19.29
-9.71
-9.71
-9.70
-51.29
-51.29
-9.71
-9.71
-9.70
-40.28
z [m]
3.67
3.83
3.67
9.62
13.95
46.18
8.14
8.90
9.62
13.95
46.18
8.14
3.69
3.80
3.69
16.64
28.13
12.03
14.01
16.64
28.13
12.03
3.71
3.78
3.71
44.85
22.04
29.48
44.85
22.04
3.72
3.77
3.72
82.15
82.15
3.73
3.76
3.73
58.16
Radius
R [m]
0.73
0.89
0.73
7.21
12.27
48.21
5.66
6.47
7.21
12.27
48.21
5.66
0.75
0.86
0.75
15.11
28.35
10.06
12.23
15.11
28.35
10.06
0.77
0.84
0.77
46.92
21.38
29.72
46.92
21.38
0.78
0.83
0.78
89.47
89.47
0.79
0.82
0.79
63.13
FS
1.30
1.32
1.35
1.24
1.18
1.27
1.18
1.21
1.24
1.18
1.27
1.18
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.31
1.31
1.33
1.24
1.20
1.22
1.24
1.20
1.31
1.31
1.32
1.21
1.21
1.31
1.31
1.32
1.16
Verification
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
Since the verification and the slope factor of safety is not acceptable there is a need for
slope protection design.
COMMON SLOPE PROTECTION DESIGN
DESIGN OF A GABION WALL
GABION
Gabion baskets are large, multi-celled, welded wire or wire mesh boxes. Gabions are
useful if a vertical wall is required or if larger rock is needed for construction than is available
locally.
CONDITIONS WHERE GABIONS ARE APPLIED
Gabion baskets are used here to mechanically protect stream banks or steep slopes
from erosion. On stream bank applications, the foundation is an important design feature of the
structure. As an alternative, riprap can be used along stream banks (and is generally preferred)
if appropriate rock is available and banks are not vertical.
CONSTRUCTION
The following requirements shall be met when constructing with gabions:
Gabion baskets shall be wired together to manufacturers specifications.
The bed on which gabion cages are to be laid before they are filled with rock shall be so
leveled as to present an even surface at the depth shown on the drawings or as directed.
The lower gabion basket will be excavated into the channel bottom a minimum of 1/3 the
height of the gabion.
The gabion will be stretched to remove any kinks and to gain a straight alignment and carefully
filled with rock that is larger than the wire openings (smaller stone may be used in the interior of
the basket); ensuring that a compact mass of rock with minimal void spaces is installed within
the basket.
The baskets shall be filled in layers and in stages so that the depth of stone placed in any cell
does not exceed the depth of the stone in an adjacent cell by more than 30 centimeters.
Stacked gabion baskets used for bank stability shall be tilted towards the soil they are
protecting by a minimum of 6 degrees from vertical.
Stones placed against the outside mesh of the basket must be larger than the basket
openings.
Internal connecting cross-tie wires shall be placed in each gabion.
Along the exposed faces, rock shall be placed by hand to ensure a uniform and neat
appearance.
Each basket shall be full prior to closing and fastening of basket lids. The uppermost layer of
rock shall completely fill the gabion basket and shall be uniformly leveled to the top edges of the
basket so that the lid will bear on the rock when it is secured. Lids shall be stretched tight over
the rock filling using only approved lid closing tools as necessary. The use of crowbars or other
single point leverage bars for lid closing is prohibited as they may damage the baskets. The lid
shall be stretched until it meets the perimeter edges of the front and end panels. The gabion lid
shall then be secured to the sides, ends, and diaphragms per manufacturers specifications.
Gabions shall be placed to 30 cm above average bank height. Baskets placed on top of each
other shall be offset horizontally like a brick wall. Baskets will be stepped vertically so as not to
form a sheer face. Average offset shall be 1/3 depth of gabion.
Gabion walls placed along stream banks must be keyed in to the bank on both upstream and
downstream ends. Length for the keys (tiebacks or key-ins) on the end of a gabion wall shall be
at least equal to the bank height plus the anticipated scour depth. Extend gabion walls 5 m
beyond point of visible erosion.
Any damage to the wire or coatings during assembly, placement and filling shall be repaired
promptly in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations or replaced with undamaged
gabion baskets.
Gabion analysis
Input data
Project
Task
Author
Date
Unit weight of water is considered
:
:
:
:
Proposed Design of Gabion Wall

3/11/2016
9,81 kN/m3
Name : Project
Stage : 1
+x
0.61
0.61
0.91
1.50
0.61
+z
0.61
0.61
1.22
4.12
0.61
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
0.61
1.97
0.61
0.61
+z
0.61
Settings
USA - Safety factor
Wall analysis
Active earth pressure calculation :
Passive earth pressure calculation :
Earthquake analysis :
Shape of earth wedge :
Safety factor for overturning :
Coulomb
Mazindrani (Rankin)
Mononobe-Okabe
Calculate as skew
Safety factors
SFo =
1.50 []
Safety factors
SFs =
1.50 []
Safety factor for bearing capacity :
SFb =
2.00 []
Safety factor for mesh strength :
SFn =
1.50 []
Safety factor for sliding resistance :
Reduction coefficients
Reduction coeff. of friction between blocks :
f =
1.50 []
Soil parameters
Silty Sand
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
effective
=
ef
Cohesion of soil :
Angle of friction struc.-soil :
Soil :
15.68 kN/m3
33.00
cef
=
0.00 kPa
=
33.00
cohesionless
=
15.68 kN/m3
sat
Sandy Silt
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Cohesion of soil :
Angle of friction struc.-soil :
Soil :
effective
=
ef
cef
=
=
cohesionless
=
sat
18.80 kN/m3
34.00
0.00 kPa
34.00
18.80 kN/m3
Terrain profile
Terrain behind the structure is flat.
Verification No. 1
Forces acting on construction
Fhor
Name
Weight wall
Active pressure
[kN/m]
0.00
28.26
App.Pt.
z [m]
-1.85
-1.24
Verification of complete wall

Check for overturning stability
Resisting moment
Mres
102.61 kNm/m
Overturning moment
34.97 kNm/m
Movr
Safety factor = 2.93 > 1.50

Wall for overturning is SATISFACTORY
Fvert
[kN/m]
87.56
14.92
App.Pt.
x [m]
0.94
1.38
Design
Coefficient
1.000
1.000
Check for slip

Resisting horizontal force Hres = 70.74 kN/m
Active horizontal force
Hact = 17.39 kN/m
Wall for slip is SATISFACTORY
Forces acting at the centre of footing bottom
Overall moment M = -3.71 kNm/m
Normal force
N = 104.87 kN/m
Shear force
Q = 17.14 kN/m
Overall check - WALL is SATISFACTORY
Bearing capacity of foundation soil

Forces acting at the centre of the footing bottom
No.
1
Moment
[kNm/m]
-3.71
Norm. force
[kN/m]
104.87
Shear Force
[kN/m]
17.14
Bearing capacity of foundation soil check

Eccentricity verification
Max. eccentricity of normal force e
=
0.0 mm
Maximum allowable eccentricity ealw = 402.3 mm
Eccentricity of the normal force is SATISFACTORY
Footing bottom bearing capacity verification
Max. stress at footing bottom
= 86.02 kPa
Bearing capacity of foundation soil Rd = 220.00 kPa
Bearing capacity of foundation soil is SATISFACTORY
Overall verification - bearing capacity of found. soil is SATISFACTORY
Eccentricity
[m]
0.00
Stress
[kPa]
86.02
Name : Bearing cap.
Stage : 1
4.12
Dimensioning No. 1
Active pressure behind the structure - partial results
Laye
r
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Thickness
[m]
0.61
0.57
0.32
0.26
0.61
[]
-6.00
-6.33
-6.33
-6.33
-6.00
[]
33.00
33.00
33.00
34.00
34.00
cd
[kPa]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
[kN/m3]
15.68
15.68
15.68
18.80
18.80
Ka
[]
33.00
33.00
33.00
34.00
34.00
Comment
0.224
0.222
0.222
0.213
0.215
Active pressure distribution behind the structure (without surcharge)

Layer
Start [m]
Pressure
Hor. comp.
Vert. comp.
No.
End [m]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
1
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.61
9.50
9.51
0.00
0.00
2.13
2.11
1.90
1.88
0.97
0.95
1.18
18.51
0.00
4.10
3.67
1.84
Layer
No.
3
Start [m]
End [m]
1.18
[kPa]
18.51
[kPa]
0.00
1.50
23.51
1.50
4
5
Pressure
Hor. comp.
Vert. comp.
[kPa]
[kPa]
[kPa]
4.10
3.67
1.84
0.00
5.21
4.66
2.34
23.51
0.00
5.00
4.43
2.32
1.76
1.76
28.31
28.31
0.00
0.00
6.02
6.08
5.33
5.37
2.80
2.86
2.36
39.71
0.00
8.53
7.53
4.01
Forces acting on construction

Fhor
Name
Weight wall
Active pressure
[kN/m]
0.00
8.66
App.Pt.
z [m]
-0.96
-0.66
Verification of construction joint above the block No.: 3

Check for overturning stability
Resisting moment
Mres = 50.02 kNm/m
Overturning moment Movr = 5.69 kNm/m
Joint for overturning stability is SATISFACTORY
Check for slip
Resisting horizontal force Hres = 29.25 kN/m
Active horizontal force
Hact = 3.38 kN/m
Joint for slip is SATISFACTORY
Forces acting at the centre of footing bottom
Overall moment M = -13.45 kNm/m
Normal force
N = 50.66 kN/m
Shear force
Q =
3.31 kN/m
Maximum pressure on the bottom block
Red.Coeff. by offset of top block
Average value of pressure on face
Shear force transmitted by friction
= 41.55 kPa
= 1.00
= 19.69 kPa
= 19.50 kN/m
Bearing capacity against transverse pressure:

Joint bear.capacity
= 26.77 kN/m
Computed stress-state = 3.98 kN/m
Transverse pressure check is SATISFACTORY
Joint btw. blocks check:
Mesh material bear.capacity = 43.78 kN/m
Computed stress-state
= 3.98 kN/m
Fvert
[kN/m]
45.53
4.49
App.Pt.
x [m]
0.96
1.39
Design
Coefficient
1.000
1.000

Joint between blocks is SATISFACTORY

Input data
Project
Settings
USA - Safety factor
Stability analysis
Verification methodology : Safety factors (ASD)
Safety factors
SFs =
Safety factor :
1.50 []

No.
Name
Silty Sand
Pattern
ef
cef
[]
[kPa]
[kN/m3]
33.00
0.00
15.68
No.
Name
Pattern
Sandy Silt
ef
cef
[]
[kPa]
[kN/m3]
34.00
0.00
18.80

No.
Name
Pattern
sat
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[]
Silty Sand
15.68
Sandy Silt
18.80
Soil parameters
Silty Sand
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Cohesion of soil :
= 15.68 kN/m3
effective
ef = 33.00
cef =
0.00 kPa
sat = 15.68 kN/m3
Sandy Silt
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Cohesion of soil :
= 18.80 kN/m3
effective
ef = 34.00
cef =
0.00 kPa
sat = 18.80 kN/m3
Rigid bodies
No.
Name
Sample
[kN/m3]
Wall material
18.85

Analysis 1
Center :
Radius :
x=
-2.67 [m]
z=
0.29 [m]
R=
Angles :
4.75 [m]
1 =
-37.67 []
2 =
86.50 []

Fa = 103.04 kN/m
Sum of passive forces : Fp = 187.89 kN/m
Sliding moment :
Ma = 489.46 kNm/m
Resisting moment :
Mp = 892.49 kNm/m
Factor of safety = 1.82 > 1.50
Slope stability ACCEPTABLE
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Center
x [m]
z [m]
-1.32
2.50
-1.32
2.50
-42.12
237.20
0.37
4.20
0.18
5.02
3.09
1.57
-20.39
37.13
-0.33
7.22
-42.03
87.56
-66.60
293.22
-1.32
2.50
-16.88
70.23
-6.02
25.76
-0.55
4.99
-0.36
4.23
1.10
2.50
0.65
0.18
-4.97
7.83
-5.59
8.69
-2.23
0.71
-27.47
88.59
-6.86
19.04
-1.19
1.93
-1.23
2.07
0.19
0.71
-5.18
3.37
-6.58
4.65
-1.56
3.14
0.31
0.39
-45.75
112.70
-62.27
249.80
-2.23
0.71
-4.76
11.37
-2.72
6.17
-1.72
2.06
-1.58
1.63
-0.62
0.71
-4.01
2.36
-3.39
1.78
-1.79
2.29
-0.65
0.80
-41.28
82.01
Radius
R [m]
7.40
7.40
242.71
9.84
10.38
6.37
43.37
12.01
98.02
302.88
7.40
74.53
29.36
9.95
9.43
7.40
7.41
11.33
12.38
5.50
94.57
22.78
7.10
7.18
5.50
6.87
8.72
7.86
5.35
122.88
259.52
5.50
14.88
9.75
6.87
6.62
5.50
6.10
5.31
7.01
5.55
92.55
FS
2.71
2.71
366.11
4.00
3.80
598.38
519.04
3.44
660.51
236.59
2.71
221.25
147.72
3.25
3.41
4.70
5.47
201.28
198.00
2.20
297.46
172.35
2.88
2.84
3.87
395.19
406.76
2.56
4.17
467.88
252.50
2.20
168.68
136.10
2.47
2.60
3.01
204.76
204.66
2.41
2.96
983.36
Verification
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Center
x [m]
z [m]
-51.53
154.80
-39.67
82.01
-2.23
0.71
-1.10
0.57
-3.22
5.45
-2.22
3.47
-1.96
1.79
-1.80
1.33
-1.16
0.71
-3.35
1.76
-2.78
1.22
-2.60
0.03
-3.59
4.27
-2.58
2.44
-2.31
0.92
-2.18
0.59
-1.53
0.03
-3.69
0.90
-3.13
0.44
-2.32
0.94
-1.57
0.13
-42.87
92.34
-49.73
140.87
-41.80
92.34
-2.59
0.02
-1.90
0.06
-3.10
2.34
-2.50
1.44
-2.44
0.69
-2.32
0.41
-1.88
0.03
-3.30
0.60
-2.89
0.26
-2.41
0.63
-1.93
0.14
-40.80
78.87
-45.11
107.40
-40.08
78.87
-2.59
0.02
-2.17
0.14
-2.88
1.41
-2.50
0.90
-2.50
0.49
-2.42
0.28
-2.12
0.03
-3.06
0.41
-2.77
0.17
-2.47
0.42
-2.16
0.12
-41.48
83.27
Radius
R [m]
164.75
92.55
5.50
5.43
9.28
7.38
6.51
6.25
5.50
5.78
5.08
4.75
8.04
6.30
5.61
5.44
4.75
4.85
4.23
5.62
4.80
102.73
150.87
102.73
4.74
4.76
6.41
5.55
5.35
5.21
4.75
4.78
4.33
5.32
4.80
89.47
117.63
89.47
4.74
4.80
5.68
5.21
5.16
5.05
4.75
4.75
4.45
5.12
4.79
93.79
FS
358.47
336.11
2.20
2.72
127.05
120.75
2.31
2.46
2.64
145.40
150.57
2.03
149.26
131.01
2.12
2.25
2.41
204.98
198.11
2.11
2.36
652.83
390.22
380.35
2.03
2.23
132.11
97.32
2.05
2.17
2.25
157.04
160.09
2.08
2.19
1120.90
524.66
546.32
2.03
2.10
60.33
26.89
2.03
2.12
2.16
73.87
68.57
2.06
2.11
919.18
Verification
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
No.
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
12
0
12
1
12
2
12
3
12
4
12
5
12
6
12
7
Center
x [m]
z [m]
-44.36
102.29
-41.01
83.27
-2.59
0.02
-2.33
0.14
-2.77
0.89
-2.52
0.58
-2.28
0.77
Radius
R [m]
112.56
93.79
4.74
4.80
5.31
5.03
5.14
562.21
582.09
2.03
2.06
16.73
1.87
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
FS
Verification
-2.93
1.80
6.00
83.31
ACCEPTABLE
-2.49
1.24
5.43
61.27
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
1.20
5.61
9.76
ACCEPTABLE
-1.99
0.10
4.79
2.19
ACCEPTABLE
-2.58
0.92
5.45
1.94
ACCEPTABLE
-2.20
0.58
5.03
1.97
ACCEPTABLE
-2.39
0.47
5.21
2.11
ACCEPTABLE
-2.43
0.21
4.59
9.60
ACCEPTABLE
-3.03
1.04
5.29
86.63
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.71
4.88
91.59
ACCEPTABLE
-2.83
-2.70
-2.77
-2.52
-2.99
-2.73
-2.74
-2.65
-2.45
-2.46
0.57
0.28
0.43
0.60
1.42
1.06
0.82
0.61
0.43
0.15
5.02
4.86
4.94
5.03
5.64
5.30
5.27
5.15
4.94
4.93
18.03
1.91
1.85
1.86
87.40
62.78
5.96
1.91
1.93
2.11
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.06
4.51
13.85
ACCEPTABLE
-3.10
0.72
4.98
98.16
ACCEPTABLE
-2.91
0.55
4.77
99.44
ACCEPTABLE
-2.88
0.25
4.72
22.42
ACCEPTABLE
-2.78
0.01
4.61
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.84
0.14
4.67
5.98
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.73
5.22
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.49
0.53
4.99
1.89
ACCEPTABLE
No.
12
8
12
9
13
0
13
1
13
2
13
3
13
4
13
5
13
6
13
7
13
8
13
9
14
0
14
1
14
2
14
3
14
4
14
5
14
6
14
7
14
8
14
9
15
0
15
1
15
2
15
3
15
4
15
5
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-41.95
86.28
96.75
812.54
ACCEPTABLE
-43.87
98.96
109.27
592.83
ACCEPTABLE
-41.63
86.28
96.75
605.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.77
0.43
4.94
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.55
5.01
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.91
1.06
5.37
57.25
ACCEPTABLE
-2.74
0.84
5.17
40.59
ACCEPTABLE
-2.75
0.69
5.16
5.94
ACCEPTABLE
-2.42
0.12
4.79
2.04
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.55
5.08
1.89
ACCEPTABLE
-2.56
0.43
4.94
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.56
0.24
4.93
2.02
ACCEPTABLE
-2.71
0.19
4.65
9.17
ACCEPTABLE
-2.99
0.62
4.96
60.73
ACCEPTABLE
-2.86
0.50
4.82
54.78
ACCEPTABLE
-2.85
0.31
4.80
13.10
ACCEPTABLE
-2.78
0.15
4.72
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.05
4.59
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.81
0.24
4.76
5.98
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.12
4.62
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.52
0.23
4.67
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.36
0.35
4.73
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.79
0.97
5.24
59.18
ACCEPTABLE
-2.49
0.63
4.89
44.37
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.62
5.04
9.15
ACCEPTABLE
-2.57
0.46
4.95
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.31
0.23
4.67
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.44
0.17
4.80
2.00
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
15
6
15
7
15
8
15
9
16
0
16
1
16
2
16
3
16
4
16
5
16
6
16
7
16
8
16
9
17
0
17
1
17
2
17
3
17
4
17
5
17
6
17
7
17
8
17
9
18
0
18
1
18
2
18
3
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.87
0.52
4.83
62.45
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.30
4.55
61.56
ACCEPTABLE
-2.73
0.23
4.67
17.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.06
4.59
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.15
4.63
5.91
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.54
4.99
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.34
0.30
4.70
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-42.23
88.17
98.62
710.75
ACCEPTABLE
-43.51
96.61
106.95
605.74
ACCEPTABLE
-42.02
88.17
98.62
617.74
ACCEPTABLE
-2.52
0.23
4.67
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.42
0.32
4.72
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.71
5.04
36.18
ACCEPTABLE
-2.50
0.49
4.81
29.05
ACCEPTABLE
-2.60
0.49
4.91
9.80
ACCEPTABLE
-2.29
0.03
4.57
1.98
ACCEPTABLE
-2.55
0.38
4.86
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.38
0.23
4.67
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.47
0.19
4.76
1.95
ACCEPTABLE
-2.48
0.07
4.48
5.39
ACCEPTABLE
-2.75
0.43
4.77
41.36
ACCEPTABLE
-2.58
0.28
4.59
40.73
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.23
4.67
9.73
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.12
4.62
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.18
4.64
5.45
ACCEPTABLE
-2.46
0.03
4.46
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.58
0.44
4.88
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.48
0.53
4.93
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
18
4
18
5
18
6
18
7
18
8
18
9
19
0
19
1
19
2
19
3
19
4
19
5
19
6
19
7
19
8
19
9
20
0
20
1
20
2
20
3
20
4
20
5
20
6
20
7
20
8
20
9
21
0
211
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.76
0.94
5.27
36.75
ACCEPTABLE
-2.56
0.71
5.03
27.24
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.71
5.13
9.92
ACCEPTABLE
-2.35
0.23
4.77
1.97
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.60
5.07
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.44
0.44
4.88
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.53
0.39
4.96
1.95
ACCEPTABLE
-2.54
0.28
4.69
5.79
ACCEPTABLE
-2.81
0.65
4.99
42.40
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.49
4.80
41.36
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
0.44
4.88
9.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.50
0.07
4.64
1.94
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.32
4.82
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.50
0.18
4.64
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.59
0.14
4.73
1.93
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.38
4.85
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.60
0.47
4.90
5.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.88
0.87
5.23
38.64
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.65
5.00
27.33
ACCEPTABLE
-2.78
0.64
5.10
12.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.47
0.17
4.75
1.96
ACCEPTABLE
-2.73
0.54
5.04
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.56
0.38
4.85
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.34
4.94
1.94
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.22
4.66
12.57
ACCEPTABLE
-2.93
0.58
4.96
46.36
ACCEPTABLE
-2.76
0.43
4.77
41.41
ACCEPTABLE
-2.84
0.38
4.85
17.51
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
21
2
21
3
21
4
21
5
21
6
21
7
21
8
21
9
22
0
22
1
22
2
22
3
22
4
22
5
22
6
22
7
22
8
22
9
23
0
23
1
23
2
23
3
23
4
23
5
23
6
23
7
23
8
23
9
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.62
0.02
4.62
1.93
ACCEPTABLE
-2.79
0.27
4.79
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
0.13
4.61
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.71
0.09
4.71
1.93
ACCEPTABLE
-2.82
0.33
4.82
9.35
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.18
4.64
5.45
ACCEPTABLE
-2.76
0.59
5.07
5.93
ACCEPTABLE
-2.58
0.43
4.88
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-40.72
81.20
91.76
613.08
ACCEPTABLE
-41.55
86.52
96.99
562.84
ACCEPTABLE
-40.58
81.20
91.76
565.28
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.38
4.85
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.63
0.44
4.88
5.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.82
0.70
5.09
27.73
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.55
4.94
21.77
ACCEPTABLE
-2.75
0.55
5.01
9.92
ACCEPTABLE
-2.54
0.24
4.78
1.91
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
0.48
4.98
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.38
4.85
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.35
4.91
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.27
4.72
9.76
ACCEPTABLE
-2.85
0.52
4.92
31.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.74
0.41
4.80
27.16
ACCEPTABLE
-2.79
0.38
4.85
13.31
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.13
4.69
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.59
0.08
4.63
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.76
0.31
4.81
5.96
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.21
4.69
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
24
0
24
1
24
2
24
3
24
4
24
5
24
6
24
7
24
8
24
9
25
0
25
1
25
2
25
3
25
4
25
5
25
6
25
7
25
8
25
9
26
0
26
1
26
2
26
3
26
4
26
5
26
6
26
7
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.71
0.18
4.75
1.90
ACCEPTABLE
-2.78
0.35
4.83
9.28
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.24
4.71
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.74
0.52
5.00
5.54
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
0.41
4.87
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-41.93
87.19
97.65
655.46
ACCEPTABLE
-42.49
90.87
101.27
617.68
ACCEPTABLE
-41.84
87.19
97.65
625.01
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.38
4.85
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.42
4.87
5.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.78
0.59
5.01
20.16
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.50
4.91
17.77
ACCEPTABLE
-2.74
0.50
4.96
9.17
ACCEPTABLE
-2.60
0.29
4.80
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
0.45
4.93
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.38
4.85
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.36
4.89
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.31
4.77
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.80
0.47
4.90
21.91
ACCEPTABLE
-2.73
0.40
4.81
23.52
ACCEPTABLE
-2.76
0.38
4.85
9.14
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.21
4.74
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
0.18
4.70
1.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.74
0.33
4.83
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.27
4.74
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.25
4.78
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.75
0.36
4.84
5.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.75
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
26
8
26
9
27
0
27
1
27
2
27
3
27
4
27
5
27
6
27
7
27
8
27
9
28
0
28
1
28
2
28
3
28
4
28
5
28
6
28
7
28
8
28
9
29
0
29
1
29
2
29
3
29
4
29
5
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.63
0.33
4.77
5.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.75
0.50
4.91
21.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.40
4.81
17.65
ACCEPTABLE
-2.71
0.40
4.86
5.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.57
0.20
4.70
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.36
4.83
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.61
0.29
4.75
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.27
4.79
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.22
4.67
9.02
ACCEPTABLE
-2.77
0.38
4.80
21.77
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.31
4.71
21.54
ACCEPTABLE
-2.73
0.29
4.75
9.81
ACCEPTABLE
-2.63
0.13
4.64
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.59
0.09
4.60
1.87
ACCEPTABLE
-2.71
0.24
4.73
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.63
0.18
4.65
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.16
4.68
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
0.27
4.74
5.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.20
4.66
5.81
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.38
4.85
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
0.31
4.76
5.47
ACCEPTABLE
-42.02
87.80
98.25
652.24
ACCEPTABLE
-42.40
90.25
100.66
630.13
ACCEPTABLE
-41.96
87.80
98.25
620.68
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.75
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.32
4.76
5.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
0.43
4.85
17.76
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.37
4.79
13.71
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
29
6
29
7
29
8
29
9
30
0
30
1
30
2
30
3
30
4
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
30
9
31
0
311
31
2
31
3
31
4
31
5
31
6
31
7
31
8
31
9
32
0
32
1
32
2
32
3
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.69
0.37
4.82
9.09
ACCEPTABLE
-2.60
0.23
4.72
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.34
4.81
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.63
0.29
4.75
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.28
4.78
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.24
4.69
9.03
ACCEPTABLE
-2.74
0.35
4.78
19.88
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.30
4.73
13.70
ACCEPTABLE
-2.71
0.29
4.75
9.79
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.18
4.68
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
0.16
4.65
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.26
4.73
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.21
4.68
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.20
4.71
1.86
ACCEPTABLE
-2.71
0.28
4.74
9.79
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.23
4.69
5.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.35
4.81
5.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.63
0.30
4.76
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-41.59
85.50
95.98
648.55
ACCEPTABLE
-41.84
87.10
97.56
631.05
ACCEPTABLE
-41.55
85.50
95.98
636.91
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.75
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.31
4.76
9.05
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.38
4.82
12.68
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.34
4.78
9.06
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.34
4.80
5.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
0.25
4.73
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.32
4.79
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
32
4
32
5
32
6
32
7
32
8
32
9
33
0
33
1
33
2
33
3
33
4
33
5
33
6
33
7
33
8
33
9
34
0
34
1
34
2
34
3
34
4
34
5
34
6
34
7
34
8
34
9
35
0
35
1
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.64
0.29
4.75
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.28
4.77
1.85
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.26
4.71
9.75
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
0.33
4.77
12.67
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.30
4.73
13.69
ACCEPTABLE
-2.70
0.29
4.75
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.22
4.70
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.20
4.68
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.27
4.74
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.24
4.70
5.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.23
4.72
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.28
4.74
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.25
4.71
5.47
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.33
4.79
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.30
4.75
9.04
ACCEPTABLE
-41.63
85.77
96.25
642.53
ACCEPTABLE
-41.80
86.83
97.30
629.03
ACCEPTABLE
-41.61
85.77
96.25
630.47
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.75
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.30
4.76
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.35
4.80
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.32
4.77
9.06
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.32
4.78
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.64
0.26
4.74
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.31
4.77
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.29
4.75
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.28
4.76
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.27
4.73
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
35
2
35
3
35
4
35
5
35
6
35
7
35
8
35
9
36
0
36
1
36
2
36
3
36
4
36
5
36
6
36
7
36
8
36
9
37
0
37
1
37
2
37
3
37
4
37
5
37
6
37
7
37
8
37
9
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.70
0.32
4.76
13.72
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.30
4.74
13.69
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.29
4.75
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.24
4.72
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.23
4.71
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.28
4.74
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.26
4.72
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.25
4.73
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.28
4.75
5.48
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.26
4.72
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.32
4.78
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.30
4.75
9.04
ACCEPTABLE
-41.66
85.94
96.42
643.77
ACCEPTABLE
-41.77
86.66
97.12
635.69
ACCEPTABLE
-41.64
85.94
96.42
628.77
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.75
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.30
4.75
9.05
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.33
4.78
9.07
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.31
4.76
9.06
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.31
4.77
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.27
4.74
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.30
4.77
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.29
4.75
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.76
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.28
4.73
9.76
ACCEPTABLE
-2.69
0.31
4.76
9.07
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.74
5.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.29
4.75
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
38
0
38
1
38
2
38
3
38
4
38
5
38
6
38
7
38
8
38
9
39
0
39
1
39
2
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.66
0.26
4.73
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.65
0.25
4.72
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.28
4.75
5.48
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.27
4.73
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.26
4.74
1.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.29
4.75
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.27
4.73
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.68
0.31
4.77
5.84
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
0.29
4.75
1.83
ACCEPTABLE
-41.68
86.06
96.54
632.52
ACCEPTABLE
-41.75
86.54
97.01
631.15
ACCEPTABLE
-41.67
86.06
96.54
629.89
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
0.29
4.75
1.82
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
DESIGN OF CANTILEVER WALL
Cantilever wall analysis

Input data
Project
Task
Author
Date
Unit weight of water is considered
:
:
:
:
Proposed Design of Cantilever Wall

3/11/2016
9,81 kN/m3
Settings
USA - Safety factor
Materials and standards
Concrete structures : ACI 318-11
Wall analysis
Active earth pressure calculation :
Passive earth pressure calculation :
Earthquake analysis :
Shape of earth wedge :
Base key :
Coulomb
Mazindrani (Rankin)
Mononobe-Okabe
Calculate as skew
The base key is considered as inclined footing bottom
Safety factors
SFo =
1.50 []
Safety factor for sliding resistance :
SFs =
1.50 []
Safety factor for bearing capacity :
SFb =
2.00 []
Safety factor for overturning :
Material of structure
Unit weight = 23.50 kN/m3
Analysis of concrete structures carried out according to the standard ACI 318-11.
Concrete : Concrete ACI
Compressive strength
Tensile-bending strength
fc' = 20.68 MPa

fr = 2.83 MPa
Longitudinal steel : A616/60

Tensile strength
fy = 413.69 MPa
Terrain profile
Terrain behind the structure is flat.
Resistance on front face of the structure
Resistance on front face of the structure is not considered.
The wall is free to move. Active earth pressure is therefore assumed.
Name : Analysis

Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
Wall material

Input data
Project
Settings
USA - Safety factor
Stability analysis
Verification methodology : Safety factors (ASD)
Safety factors
Safety factor :
SFs =
1.50 []

No.
Name
Pattern
ef
cef
[]
[kPa]
[kN/m3]
Silty Sand
33.00
0.00
15.67
Sandy Silt
34.00
0.00
18.81

No.
Name
Pattern
sat
[kN/m3]
[kN/m3]
[]
Silty Sand
15.67
Sandy Silt
18.81
Soil parameters
Silty Sand
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Cohesion of soil :
= 15.67 kN/m3
effective
ef = 33.00
cef =
0.00 kPa
sat = 15.67 kN/m3
Sandy Silt
Unit weight :
Stress-state :
Cohesion of soil :
= 18.81 kN/m3
effective
ef = 34.00
cef =
0.00 kPa
sat = 18.81 kN/m3
Rigid bodies
No.
Name
Sample
[kN/m3]
Wall material
23.50

Analysis 1
Center :
Radius :
x=
-2.46 [m]
z=
6.45 [m]
R=
Angles :
11.59 [m]

Fa = 188.93 kN/m
Sum of passive forces : Fp = 310.99 kN/m
Sliding moment :
Ma = 2189.69 kNm/m
Resisting moment :
Mp = 3604.38 kNm/m
Factor of safety = 1.65 > 1.50
1 =
5.15 []
2 =
56.18 []
Slope stability ACCEPTABLE

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Center
x [m]
-2.48
6.59
-14.75
0.08
6.59
1.93
2.91
-4.49
-3.30
5.36
-7.49
-0.17
5.36
1.40
2.91
-3.30
-1.01
-2.51
4.54
-4.76
-0.29
4.54
1.03
2.91
-2.49
-0.83
-1.94
4.54
-13.64
4.00
-3.27
-0.40
4.00
0.66
-4.07
2.91
-1.94
0.53
0.15
0.49
-0.76
-1.57
4.00
3.49
-5.62
3.30
z [m]
6.61
61.42
58.52
7.88
0.53
1.55
1.30
4.73
19.42
6.10
28.34
6.77
0.53
2.14
0.58
4.77
0.46
13.66
3.16
17.57
5.98
0.53
2.56
0.55
4.77
1.65
10.26
0.18
36.68
2.04
12.24
5.49
0.53
2.99
8.78
0.54
4.77
0.17
0.84
0.19
2.55
8.24
0.37
0.46
16.44
1.93
Radius
R [m]
11.75
61.57
63.90
13.40
4.36
9.12
1.45
9.33
24.07
7.48
33.14
11.96
4.36
8.56
1.96
9.39
5.81
18.31
5.36
22.24
10.94
4.36
8.25
2.75
9.39
6.64
14.90
4.33
42.75
4.79
16.86
10.31
4.36
8.23
13.47
3.28
9.39
5.62
6.06
5.65
7.36
12.87
4.34
4.49
21.33
5.05
FS
1.65
5370198.66
77.70
2.77
7366277.83
4.15
19506.01
99.51
150.27
6407566.50
108.78
2.48
15537748.63
3.44
884987.00
118.62
1.81
141.41
8437860.14
146.71
2.37
7366277.83
3.05
165.30
1.80
120.19
17543704.27
110.64
162.46
2.33
2.72
121.07
165.99
2.70
2.36
2.71
4.49
115.42
134.72
20180.09
Verification
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Center
x [m]
-2.39
-0.51
3.46
0.32
-2.91
2.69
-1.58
-0.04
-0.07
0.33
-0.75
-1.32
3.46
0.32
-6.73
-0.19
-4.27
1.50
-1.88
0.95
-1.07
0.41
-4.20
-0.37
-3.00
-0.59
1.40
-1.18
1.01
-0.72
-1.97
0.72
-2.88
0.64
0.37
-4.87
0.10
-3.64
1.16
-2.05
0.79
-1.46
0.43
-3.62
-0.03
-2.84
-1.07
1.12
z [m]
9.34
5.20
0.73
3.39
7.28
0.79
4.77
1.47
1.94
1.17
3.21
7.00
0.68
4.66
15.64
5.76
10.99
2.09
6.47
3.29
4.96
2.80
8.69
4.29
6.65
2.67
0.89
3.56
1.64
2.78
4.90
2.20
8.37
3.95
4.18
11.63
4.77
9.39
2.48
6.49
3.29
5.41
2.96
7.98
3.88
6.65
3.69
1.57
Radius
R [m]
13.94
9.94
4.56
8.37
11.91
3.90
9.39
6.72
6.86
6.28
7.93
11.62
4.55
8.75
21.30
9.79
16.27
6.56
11.57
7.53
10.09
6.93
13.98
8.31
11.80
7.81
5.42
8.69
5.97
7.97
10.00
6.42
13.51
8.10
8.31
17.02
8.86
14.61
6.86
11.59
7.53
10.51
7.12
13.21
7.95
11.80
8.79
6.00
FS
160.18
2.24
2.59
163.62
139.13
2.26
2.29
2.51
28.29
115.80
176.47
65.20
137.39
36.84
213.37
1.81
189.64
2.06
184.61
51.83
107.83
26.96
2.01
240.42
1.91
210.89
2.04
1.67
197.49
8.61
181.80
188.31
44.76
192.48
27.50
208.32
1.76
196.87
1.86
195.53
37.20
187.13
18.69
1.88
225.74
Verification
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
Solution not found
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
No.
95
96
97
98
99
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
12
0
12
1
12
2
12
3
12
4
12
5
12
6
12
7
x [m]
-1.52
0.83
-1.12
-2.11
0.63
Center
z [m]
4.42
2.16
3.73
5.42
2.55
Radius
R [m]
9.52
6.45
8.85
10.53
6.78
1.75
207.53
1.86
1.66
204.89
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
-2.76
7.78
12.92
6.68
ACCEPTABLE
0.59
3.72
7.90
192.26
ACCEPTABLE
0.41
3.87
8.04
203.49
ACCEPTABLE
-3.93
9.64
14.91
31.44
ACCEPTABLE
0.25
4.22
8.35
197.02
ACCEPTABLE
-3.24
8.41
13.60
18.87
ACCEPTABLE
0.93
2.74
7.07
211.53
ACCEPTABLE
-2.18
6.52
11.63
1.73
ACCEPTABLE
0.68
3.29
7.53
204.61
ACCEPTABLE
-1.76
5.76
10.86
1.79
ACCEPTABLE
0.44
-3.24
0.16
-2.73
-1.46
0.92
-1.80
0.71
-1.47
-2.23
3.07
7.52
3.66
6.65
4.51
2.08
5.07
2.52
4.51
5.80
7.26
12.72
7.78
11.80
9.61
6.44
10.17
6.79
9.61
10.92
205.82
22.93
200.74
11.06
1.78
218.64
1.72
211.15
1.78
1.67
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
0.58
2.79
7.02
208.95
ACCEPTABLE
-2.67
7.39
12.53
6.62
ACCEPTABLE
0.55
3.58
7.78
201.85
ACCEPTABLE
0.43
3.67
7.86
207.02
ACCEPTABLE
-3.40
8.51
13.74
18.73
ACCEPTABLE
0.33
3.88
8.05
208.07
ACCEPTABLE
0.78
2.92
7.22
213.70
ACCEPTABLE
-2.28
6.55
11.67
1.70
ACCEPTABLE
FS
Verification
No.
12
8
12
9
13
0
13
1
13
2
13
3
13
4
13
5
13
6
13
7
13
8
13
9
14
0
14
1
14
2
14
3
14
4
14
5
14
6
14
7
14
8
14
9
15
0
15
1
15
2
15
3
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
0.61
3.29
7.53
210.56
ACCEPTABLE
-1.98
6.03
11.13
1.76
ACCEPTABLE
0.45
3.14
7.34
207.09
ACCEPTABLE
-3.00
7.22
12.41
15.82
ACCEPTABLE
0.27
3.52
7.68
208.01
ACCEPTABLE
-2.66
6.65
11.80
8.78
ACCEPTABLE
0.78
2.45
6.77
219.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.01
5.55
10.65
1.70
ACCEPTABLE
0.63
2.77
7.03
211.39
ACCEPTABLE
-1.76
5.12
10.22
1.75
ACCEPTABLE
-2.32
6.07
11.19
1.67
ACCEPTABLE
0.54
2.95
7.19
213.29
ACCEPTABLE
-2.62
7.14
12.28
3.93
ACCEPTABLE
0.52
3.48
7.69
208.39
ACCEPTABLE
0.44
3.54
7.75
212.90
ACCEPTABLE
0.38
3.67
7.86
209.65
ACCEPTABLE
0.67
3.04
7.32
215.39
ACCEPTABLE
0.56
3.29
7.53
212.96
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.19
7.40
208.22
ACCEPTABLE
0.34
3.44
7.62
209.90
ACCEPTABLE
-1.99
5.60
10.71
1.72
ACCEPTABLE
0.68
2.72
7.01
215.60
ACCEPTABLE
0.57
2.94
7.19
214.44
ACCEPTABLE
-1.98
5.58
10.69
1.71
ACCEPTABLE
0.51
3.06
7.30
213.41
ACCEPTABLE
0.50
3.41
7.63
210.22
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
15
4
15
5
15
6
15
7
15
8
15
9
16
0
16
1
16
2
16
3
16
4
16
5
16
6
16
7
16
8
16
9
17
0
17
1
17
2
17
3
17
4
17
5
17
6
17
7
17
8
17
9
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
0.45
3.46
7.67
212.44
ACCEPTABLE
0.41
3.54
7.75
213.91
ACCEPTABLE
-2.72
7.14
12.30
6.50
ACCEPTABLE
0.60
3.12
7.39
217.50
ACCEPTABLE
0.53
3.29
7.53
215.94
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.22
7.44
214.42
ACCEPTABLE
-2.73
6.90
12.06
8.80
ACCEPTABLE
0.38
3.39
7.59
213.06
ACCEPTABLE
0.61
2.90
7.17
217.76
ACCEPTABLE
0.54
3.05
7.30
214.52
ACCEPTABLE
0.50
3.14
7.37
213.38
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.37
7.60
213.51
ACCEPTABLE
0.45
3.40
7.62
214.06
ACCEPTABLE
0.43
3.45
7.67
213.96
ACCEPTABLE
0.56
3.18
7.43
214.52
ACCEPTABLE
0.51
3.29
7.53
215.40
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.24
7.47
216.96
ACCEPTABLE
0.41
3.35
7.57
216.32
ACCEPTABLE
0.56
3.03
7.29
215.20
ACCEPTABLE
0.51
3.13
7.38
216.11
ACCEPTABLE
-2.45
6.47
11.61
1.67
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.19
7.42
213.63
ACCEPTABLE
0.48
3.34
7.57
214.67
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.36
7.59
214.29
ACCEPTABLE
0.44
3.40
7.62
213.76
ACCEPTABLE
0.53
3.21
7.46
215.56
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
18
0
18
1
18
2
18
3
18
4
18
5
18
6
18
7
18
8
18
9
19
0
19
1
19
2
19
3
19
4
19
5
19
6
19
7
19
8
19
9
20
0
20
1
20
2
20
3
20
4
20
5
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
0.49
3.29
7.53
214.82
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.26
7.49
217.14
ACCEPTABLE
0.43
3.33
7.55
214.54
ACCEPTABLE
0.53
3.11
7.37
218.82
ACCEPTABLE
0.50
3.18
7.43
218.24
ACCEPTABLE
-2.47
6.53
11.67
1.65
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.31
7.54
217.61
ACCEPTABLE
0.44
3.34
7.57
218.75
ACCEPTABLE
0.52
3.16
7.41
218.62
ACCEPTABLE
-2.45
6.54
11.68
1.66
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.23
7.47
218.06
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.20
7.44
216.94
ACCEPTABLE
0.43
3.28
7.50
214.08
ACCEPTABLE
0.53
3.06
7.32
218.40
ACCEPTABLE
0.50
3.13
7.38
217.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.46
6.45
11.59
1.65
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.26
7.49
217.14
ACCEPTABLE
0.44
3.29
7.52
216.92
ACCEPTABLE
0.52
3.11
7.36
218.17
ACCEPTABLE
-2.44
6.46
11.60
1.67
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.18
7.42
215.63
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.15
7.39
216.48
ACCEPTABLE
0.43
3.22
7.45
215.97
ACCEPTABLE
0.53
3.01
7.27
217.97
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.08
7.33
217.03
ACCEPTABLE
0.48
3.12
7.36
218.23
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
No.
20
6
20
7
20
8
20
9
21
0
211
21
2
21
3
21
4
21
5
21
6
21
7
21
8
21
9
22
0
22
1
22
2
22
3
22
4
22
5
22
6
22
7
22
8
22
9
23
0
23
1
x [m]
Center
z [m]
Radius
R [m]
FS
-2.51
6.58
11.72
1.66
ACCEPTABLE
0.47
3.22
7.46
217.45
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.23
7.47
218.59
ACCEPTABLE
0.45
3.25
7.49
220.14
ACCEPTABLE
0.50
3.13
7.38
217.82
ACCEPTABLE
-2.45
6.47
11.61
1.67
ACCEPTABLE
0.48
3.18
7.42
217.42
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.16
7.40
217.95
ACCEPTABLE
0.44
3.21
7.44
216.20
ACCEPTABLE
0.50
3.07
7.32
217.30
ACCEPTABLE
0.48
3.11
7.36
218.31
ACCEPTABLE
0.47
3.14
7.38
216.73
ACCEPTABLE
0.47
3.21
7.45
217.36
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.21
7.45
217.03
ACCEPTABLE
0.45
3.23
7.47
218.63
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.15
7.40
217.68
ACCEPTABLE
0.47
3.18
7.42
218.46
ACCEPTABLE
0.46
3.17
7.41
216.66
ACCEPTABLE
0.45
3.20
7.44
218.47
ACCEPTABLE
0.49
3.10
7.35
217.17
ACCEPTABLE
-2.44
6.38
11.52
1.66
ACCEPTABLE
0.48
3.14
7.38
217.05
ACCEPTABLE
-2.47
6.43
11.57
1.66
ACCEPTABLE
0.47
3.15
7.39
216.82
ACCEPTABLE
0.47
3.20
7.44
217.27
ACCEPTABLE
-2.46
6.45
11.59
1.65
ACCEPTABLE
Verification
RIPRAP SLOPE PROTECTION:

STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR RIPRAP SLOPE PROTECTION
RIPRAP
A layer of stone designed to protect and stabilize areas subject to erosion.
Purpose
To protect the soil surface from erosive forces and/or improve the stability of soil slopes
that are subject to seepage or have poor soil structure.
Design Criteria
Gradation Riprap should be a well-graded mixture with 50% by weight larger than the
specified design size. The diameter of the largest stone size in such a mixture should be 1.5
times the d50 size with smaller sizes grading down to 1 inch. The designer should select the
size or sizes that equal or exceed that minimum size based on riprap gradations commercially
available in the area.
Thickness The minimum layer thickness should be 1.5 times the maximum stone diameter,
but in no case less than 6 inches.
Quality Stone for riprap should be hard, durable field or quarry materials. They should be
angular and not subject to breaking down when exposed to water or weathering. The specific
gravity should be at least 2.5.
Size The sizes of stones used for riprap protection are determined by purpose and specific
site conditions:
1. Slope Stabilization Riprap stone for slope stabilization not subject to flowing water or wave
action should be sized for the proposed grade. The gradient of the slope to be stabilized should
be less than the natural angle of repose of the stone selected.
Angles of repose of riprap stones may be estimated from Figure 5B.26.
Riprap used for surface stabilization of slopes does not add significant resistance to sliding or
slope failure and should not be considered a retaining wall.
Slopes approaching 1.5:1 may require special stability analysis. The inherent stability of the soil
must be satisfactory before riprap is used for surface stabilization.
2. Outlet Protection Design criteria for sizing stone and determining dimensions of riprap
aprons are presented in Standards and Specifications for Rock
Outlet Protection.
3. Streambank Protection Design criteria for sizing stone for stability of channel bank are
presented in
Standard and Specifications for Structural Stream bank Protection.
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FINDINGS
Based on the data gathered from the study, and the results of the analysis conducted the
following findings were drawn:
1. Factors Affecting the Stability of the Slope
1.1Geometry of the slope

Based on the preliminary survey conducted the geometry of the slope under
study is elevated at a height of 3.47 meters and has an inclination of 29.24 degrees
from the horizontal.
1.2 Soil profile and Shear strength parameters
The soil under study has two strata which has the following properties: (1)
silty sand with c=0

with
=15.67
KN
,=33
3
m
KN
c=0 , =18.81 3 , =34
m
with a height of 1.5 meters and (2) sandy silt
with a height of 1.97 meters.
2. Factor of safety of the slope
2.1 Manual Computation
Based on manual computation the slope under study has a factor of safety of 1.2 which
is not acceptable.
2.2 Computer-generated computation: GeoStructural analysis software
Using the application of geo-slope the calculated factor of safety is also equals to 1.2
which is not acceptable.
3. Most suitable design of slope stabilization
The researcher presented two applicable design for slope stabilization: the construction
of cantilever wall and the gabion.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon the thorough analysis, the researchers came up with the following conclusions:
1. The following characteristics of the slope affect its slope stability:
1.1. With a soil classification of silty sand and sandy silt the general subgrade rating is
the slope isnt stable enough to hold forces during typhoon or other natural disasters.
1.2. Lower values of soil parameters limits the soils shear strength, resulting to a lesser
factor of safety in the analysis compared to soils with high values of parameters.
2. Since factor of safety values resulted to 1.2 which is less than 1.5, the slopes were
considered unstable. There is also a similarity between manual computation and computerbased computation.
3. The researchers recommend a cantilever type of wall for the slope. This is to avoid stability
failure during extreme climate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings and conclusions that the researchers obtained in the analysis of the slope
stability, the researchers recommend the following:
1. The slope under study is prone to toppling on the roadway and must be subjected to slope
protection activity. In addition, the researchers encourage the construction of the cantilever-type
retaining wall, considering the results of analysis and design aspects discussed in this study.
2. For future researchers, the researchers recommend other methods to use when considering
the same study.
3. This study was limited by the data obtained in the geotechnical investigation which involve
borehole drilling, to obtain a detailed description of the soil profile.
DOCUMENTATION
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name
: Calanog, John El Harold R.
Address
: Brgy. Gulod Lemery, Batangas
Contact Number
: 0910-373-4541
Date of Birth
: January 27, 1996
Place of Birth
: Brgy. Gulod Lemery, Batangas
Civil Status
: Single
Parents Name:
Father:
Estanislao R. Calanog
Mother:
Elnora R. Calanog
Email Address :
elharold-calanog@yahoo.com
Educational Attainment
Tertiary
: Batangas State University

Gov. Pablo Borbon Main Campus II
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Alangilan, Batangas City
2012- Present
Secondary
: Gov. Feliciano Leviste Memorial National High School

Igualdad St. Lemery, Batangas
March 2012
Primary
: Gulod Elementary School

Brgy. Gulod Lemery, Batangas
March 2008
Seminars and Trainings

National Civil Engineering Summit 2015
Character References
Mr. Wilson T. Ojales
Principal,
Gov.
Feliciano
Leviste
Memorial
National High School, Igualdad St. Lemery,

Batangas
Engr. Erwin Rafael D. Cabral
Instructor- Batangas State University, Alangilan

Campus, Alangilan, Batangas City, Batangas
Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name
: Cueto, Aivi A.
Address
: Balintawak, Lipa City
Contact Number
: 09275142743
Date of Birth
: May 27, 1995
Place of Birth
: Lipa City
Civil Status
: Single
Parents Name:
Father:
Victor G. Cueto
Mother:
Ailene A. Cueto
Email Address :
cuetoaivi27@gmail.com
Tertiary

2012- Present
Secondary
: Canossa Academy
San Carlos, Lipa City
March 2012
Primary
: Teodoro M. Kalaw Memorial School

Lipa City
March 2008

Mr. Joselito Pagcaliwangan
Barangay Captain, Barangay Balintawak, Lipa City

Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name
: Enila, Christine Joy G.
Address
: Brgy. Gulod Itaas, Batangas City
Contact Number
: 09272284432
Date of Birth
: June 4, 1996
Place of Birth
: Batangas City
Civil Status
: Single
Parents Name:
Father:
Eduardo S. Enila
Mother:
Marife G. Enila
Email Address :
christinejoyenila@yahoo.com.ph
Tertiary

2012- Present
Secondary
: Batangas National High School

Rizal Ave., Batangas City
March 2012
Primary
: Gulod Elementary School

Brgy. Gulod Itaas, Batangas City
March 2008

Mrs. Cirila de Ocampo
Barangay Chairwoman Brgy. Gulod Itaas,

Batangas City
Adviser- Batangas State University, Alangilan

Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name
: Garcia, Glady C.
Address
: Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Rosario, Batangas
Contact Number
: 09124899177
Date of Birth
: April 10, 1996
Place of Birth
: Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Rosario, Batangas
Civil Status
: Single
Parents Name:
Father:
Irenio T. Garcia
Mother:
Marites C. Garcia
Email Address :
gladness_010@yahoo.com.ph
Tertiary

2012- Present
Secondary
: Rosario National High School

San Roque, Rosario, Batangas
March 2012
Primary
: Binacas Elementary School

Binacas, Lubang Island, Occidental Mindoro
March 2008

Engr. Rosalinda M. Comia
Associate Dean- Batangas State University, Rosario

Campus, Rosario, Batangas
Engr. Mario G. Bukas
Adviser- Batangas State University, Alangilan

Curriculum Vitae
Personal Data
Name
: Manalo, Gilbert D.
Address
: Solo, Mabini, Batangas
Contact Number
: 09757377327
Date of Birth
: June, 9, 1996
Place of Birth
: Batangas City
Civil Status
: Single
Parents Name:
Father:
Gregorio N. Manalo
Mother:
Roberta D. Manalo
Email Address :
gabit_03@ymail.com
Tertiary

2012- Present
Secondary
: Saint Francis Academy

Poblacion , Mabini, Batangas
March 2012
Primary
: Solo Elementary School

Solo, Mabini, Batangas
March 2008


Mrs. Cleotilde A. Basilan
Physics teacher Saint Francis Academy
Mr. Braulio Napenas
Principal Tingloy Elementary School

Slope Stability 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Slope Stability 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Specifically, the researchers aims to answer the following questions:

2. How to determine the factor of safety of the slope under study?

2.1 Manual Computation

2.2 Computer-generated computation: GeoStructural analysis software

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Particle size distribution curve

Principle of Effective Stress

Direct Shear Test

Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils

Cohesion less soil

called C soil and

But the soil in general called C soil.

Direct shear test:

and shear stress can be calculated as :

The shear strength value can be determined as shown, where

= Angle of internal friction.

= Cohesive stress or adhesion stress

Tri-axial Compression Test:

Fig (5) : Stress Application

: Pore water pressure on confining stress

: Total axial stress at failure

: An angle of internal friction

And the shear strength equation can be written as

3 . Unconfined Compression Test:

Unconfined Compression Test

Stresses relations for unconfined compression test

Alternative methods of slope stability analysis:

Ordinary Method of Slices

Moreover, a research study conducted by N. Huvaj-Sarihan, Timothy D. Stark titled

a. Determining the Soil Profile

Soil Particle Size Analysis

The size and quantity of individual particles found in particular soil is

The Atterberg Limits

Moisture Content of Soils

Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes

Other sources of information:

MIXES SOILS: SLIGHTLY CLAYEY SAND AND SILTY SAND

UNIT WEIGHT (DRY)

CLAYEY SAND. CLAYEY/SANDY SILT AND CLAYEY SILT

UNIT WEIGHT (DRY)

SANDY CLAYS/ SILTY CLAYSAND LEAN CLAY

UNIT WEIGHT (DRY)

ANGLE OF FRICTION (COHESIONLESS SOIL)

FOR CLAY FRACTION >50%

FOR CLAY FRACTION 25% TO 45%

FOR CLAY FRACTION <20%

' 1=15.67 ( 1.5 )=23.505 KPa

INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND RESULTS

Slope stability analysis

Analysis of Slope Stability

Safety factors (ASD)

Soil parameters - effective stress state

Soil parameters - uplift

Settings of the stage of construction

Results (Stage of construction 1)

Slope stability verification (Bishop)