SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Lesson 06

Chapter 6 Slope Stability

Testing

Theory

Experience

Topics
g Topic g Topic

1 (Section 6.0 6.8) 2 (Section 6.9)

- Stability analysis of slopes - Improving the stability of embankments

SLOPE STABILITY

Lesson 06 - Topic 1 Stability analysis of slopes

Section 6.0 6.8

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will be able to:

- Recall modes of slope failure - Explain effects of water on slope stability - Discuss slope stability circular and block analyses Compute safety factor by chart solution

Stability Problems
g Shallow

translational failure (Infinite Slope)

g Circular

Embankment Fill

Firm Soil

Failure

Stability Problems
g Sliding

block failure

g Lateral

squeeze

- Lesson 7

Effect of Water on Slope Stability

g Frictional

Soils

- Below Water Table, Buoyancy Reduces Shearing

Resistance
g Clays

- Cohesive Strength Decreases as Water Content

Increases
Cohesive Strength

Water Content

Effect of Water on Slope Stability (Contd)

g Fills

on Clays and Silts

- Soil Consolidates as Water is Squeezed Out Factor of Safety Increases With Time
g Cuts

in Clay

- Soil Absorbs Water When Overburden Pressure

Removed - Factor of Safety Decreases With Time

Effect of Water on Slope Stability (Contd)

g Shales,

Claystones, Siltstones, Etc.

- Weak Rock Materials Slake When Exposed to

Water - Embankments Undergo Internal Settlement or Failure

Design Factor of Safety

g Minimum g Use

FS = 1.25 for highway side slopes

FS = 1.3 to 1.5 for critical slopes such as end slopes under abutments, slopes containing footings, major retaining structures

Design Factor of Safety

g Selection

of FS depends on:

- Method of stability analysis - Method used to determine shear strength - Degree of confidence in reliability of subsurface
data

- Consequences of failure - Criticality of the application

Infinite Slope Analysis

g Slope

that extends for a relatively long distance and has consistent subsurface profile can be considered as infinite slope g Failure plane parallel to slope surface

Embankment Fill

Firm Soil

Infinite Slope Analysis in Dry Sands

b Slope Surface

W=bh N = W cos
N T S N h W T = W sin N S

S = N tan
Force S N tan tan Polygon FS = = = T W sin tan

Failure Surface

g FS

is independent of slope height h g FS is a function of only and

c- soils with Water

Slope Surface b

Seepage Flow h cos2

T N'+U Pore Water Force U = wbh cos Failure Surface

FS =

c' + h ( sat - w ) cos 2 ( ) tan ' sat h sin cos

For c' = 0

FS =

' tan ' sat tan

Circular Arc Failure

Resi stan ce

F orc

Circular Arc Failure

Resisting Moment FS = Overturnin g Moment

Total Shear Strength LS FS = Weight Force L W

Simple Rule-of-Thumb for FS

g Only

for preliminary guestimate for FS

6c FS Fill H Fill

c = cohesion of foundation soil Fill = unit weight of fill HFill = Height of fill
g No

water

What is the FS for following case?

(6)(1100 psf) FS = = 1.69 (130 pcf)(30 ft)

Circular Arc Stability Analysis (ORDINARY METHOD OF SLICES)

le c r i C R s u i Rad

O R

Fill

Firm Soft Firm

Slip Surface

Step by Step Procedure

1. 2. 3. Draw cross-section to natural scale Select failure surface Divide the failure mass into 10-15 slices using suggestions on Page 6-14

Forces on a Slice
Without Water With Water

Failure Mass Divided into Slices

O 2:1 R
16

= +

60

R 5 4 32
+5 4

7
42

6
+5

49 3 5 15 14 13 12
2 3

9 10 1 1

8
+3
+ 25

+4

+9

+16

+1

24

15

Note that slices 1 through 9 have positive angles and contribute to the driving force. Slices 10 through 16 have negative angles and reduce the net driving force.

Step by Step Procedure

4. Compute total weight ( WT ) of each slice 5. Compute frictional resisting force for each slice N Tan - ul 6. Compute cohesive resisting force for each slice Cl 7. Compute tangential driving force (T) for each slice 8. Sum resisting and driving forces for ALL slices and compute FS
Resisting Forces N tan + c 1 FS = = T Driving Forces

Example of One Slice w/o Water

Assume: g total = 120 pcf, slice height = 10 slice width = 10, = 25, = 20, l =11, C = 200 psf.
g Find:

Resisting and Driving Forces

Compute Slice Weight and Normal Force

W T = total x slice area (x 1 thick) = 120 pcf x 10 x 10 = 12,000 lbs N = WT cos - ul = 12,000 lbs x cos 20 = 11,276 lbs

Compute Resisting and Driving Forces

N Tan = 11276 x Tan 25 = 5,258 lbs Cl = 200 psf x 11 x 1 = 2,200 lbs T = Wt Sin = 12,000 lbs x Sin 20 = 4,104 lbs

Group Exercise
g Assuming

the water is 5 above the slice base, which of the force components change in this exercise?

Solution
g The

water will affect the normal force, N

N = WT Cos - ul = 12,000 lbs x Cos 20 - 5 x 62.4 x 11 = 11,276 lbs 3,432 lbs = 7,844 lbs (N=11,276 lbs for original water level)

Tabular Form for Calculations

g Figure

6-11 g Figure 6-12

Recommended Stability Methods

g Limit

equilibrium methods

- Summation of moments, vertical and horizontal

forces
g Ordinary

Method of Slices (OMS) ignores both shear and normal interslice forces and considers only moment equilibrium

Recommended Stability Methods

g Variations

of OMS are Bishop method, Simplified Janbu method, Spencer method, etc. method

g Bishop

- Also known as Simplified Bishop method - Includes interslice normal forces - Neglects interslice shear forces - Satisfies only moment equilibrium

Recommended Stability Methods

g Simplified

Janbu method

- Includes interslice normal forces - Neglects interslice shear forces - Satisfies only horizontal force equilibrium
g Spencer

method

- Includes both normal and shear interslice forces - Considers moment equilibrium - More accurate than other methods

Recommended Stability Methods

g OMS

is conservative and gives unrealistically lower FS than Bishop or other refined methods g For purely cohesive soils, OMS and Bishop method give identical results g For frictional soils, Bishop method should be used as a minimum g Recommendation: Use Bishop, Simplified Janbu or Spencer

Slope Stability Guidelines for Design

g Table

6-1

g Computer

analysis is now-a-days commonly performed by use of slope stability software

- XSTABL, UTEXAS, ReSSA, SLOPE/W, etc

Remarks on Safety Factor

g Minimum g Use

FS = 1.25 using OMS

FS = 1.3 to 1.5 for critical slopes such as end slopes under abutments, slopes containing footings, major retaining structures FS = 1.5 for cut slopes in fine-grained soils which can lose strength with time

g Use

Critical Failure Surface

Critical Failure Surface

g Check

multiple failure surfaces and compare the lowest safety factors g Search all areas of slope to find the lowest safety factor g Be careful of secondary features such as thin weak layers g Evaluate all loading and unloading conditions, e.g., rapid drawdown g Use stability charts to develop a feel for the safety factor

Stability Charts
g Assumptions

- Two-dimensional limit equilibrium analysis - Simple homogeneous slopes - Circular slip surfaces only
g Useful

for preliminary analysis prior to computer analysis to develop a feel for safety factor

Taylors Stability Charts

g Stability

Number

c Ns = Fc H
g In

terms of Fc

See Figure 6-15

c Fc = N s H
g FS

= Fc = F
Slope Angle,

Taylors Stability Charts

g Chart

For > 53, use Figure 6-14

= 53

for =0 conditions and <54

Determination of Factor of Safety

c tan = + FS FS FS

d = c d + tan d
; d = FS c ; c d = FS tan tan d = FS

d = FS

Example 6-1
g 30-ft

high slope g Slope angle, = 30 g Total unit weight, = 120 pcf g Effective cohesion, c = 500 psf g Effective friction angle, =20
g Determine

the Factor of Safety, FS

Example Computation
g Assume

FS = 1.6 g FS = Fc = F
20 o o = = = 12 . 5 d FS 1 .6
g For

d=12.5 and = 30, the stability factor, Ns, is 0.06. Thus, 500 psf 0 . 06 = ( 1 . 6 ) ( 120 pcf ) ( H )

500 psf H = = 43 . 4 ft > 30 ft ( 1 . 6 ) ( 120 pcf ) ( 0 . 06 )

Taylors Stability Charts

0.075 0.06

Slope Angle,

Example Computation
g Since

43.4 ft > 30 ft, the actual FS is higher than 1.6. g Assume FS=1.9
g FS

= Fc = F= 1.9 =>

20o = = 10.5o d= FS 1.9

=> Ns 0.075

500 psf H = = 29 . 2 ft ( 1 . 9 ) ( 120 pcf ) ( 0 . 075 )

g Computed

- Therefore, FS 1.9

H is close to actual height of 30 ft

Janbus Stability Charts

g Account

for:

- Surcharge loading at top of slope - Submergence - Tension cracks - Seepage

g Section

6.6.3

Sliding Block Failure Types

1
Fill Shallow Weak Soil Layer Firm Soil

Fill

Thin Seam Weak Clay Firm Soil Firm Soil

Fill

Lens of Silt or Sand w/o Frictional Resistance Impermeable Clay Clay Clay

After Slide
C L SR 42 Oregon Fill

18 12

Sandstone Silty Clay

24

Sliding Block Analysis

Soft Clay Seam

Active Wedge

Central Block

Passive Wedge

Fill

Pa Pp
Sand

Sand

cL

Pa = Active Driving Force = H2Ka Pp = Passive Resisting Force = H2Kp cL = Resisting Force Due To Clay Cohesion

Resisting Forces Pp + cL = FS = Driving Forces Pa

Example 6-3
g Find

the Safety Factor for the 20 high embankment by the simple sliding block method using Rankine pressure coefficients, for the slope shown below
2

20

T = 110 pcf = 30 T = 110 pcf = 30

10

Soft Clay C = 400psf Firm Material

Example 6-3
g Add

solution

Student Exercise 2
g Using

a Rankine sliding block analysis, determine the safety factor against sliding for the embankment and assumed failure surface shown
2 30 Sand Fill = 120 pcf = 30 45 - /2
30

1 OGS 45 + /2 C = 250 psf

OGS

10 5 16

Sand = 120 pcf = 30 Soft Clay

Sand = 60 pcf = 30

Solution
K a = tan 2 ( 45 ) = tan 2 ( 45 30 ) = 0.33 2 2 Kp = tan 2 ( 45 ) = tan 2 ( 45 + 30 ) = 3.0 2 2 ( per ft.) Pa = 1 H 2 K a = 1 (0.120kcf )( 40ft )2 (0.33)(1ft ) = 32 Kips 2 2 Pp = 1 H 2 K p = 1 (0.120kcf )(10ft )2 (3.0)(1ft ) = 18Kips 2 2 cL = (0.250ksf )(60ft )(1ft ) = 15Kips

Resisting Forces Pp + cL 18Kips + 15Kips FS = = = Pa 32 Kips Driving Forces

F.S. = 1.03 TOO LOW!!

Student Exercise
g Same

as previous exercise except that water table rises of 10 ft to OGS

Solution
Pa1 = 1H1K a1 = (0.120kcf )(30' )(0.33) = 1.2ksf ( per foot ) PaFill = (1.2 Ksf )(30' )( 1 )(1' ) = 18Kips 2 Pa 2 = 1.2ksf + (0.060kcf )(10' )(0.33) = 1.4ksf ( per foot ) (1.2ksf + 1.4ksf ) (10' )(1' ) = 13Kips 2 PaTotal = 18Kips + 13Kips = 31Kips Pp = 1 b H 2 K p = 1 (0.060kcf )(10' )2 (3) = 9 Kips << 18Kips Previous 2 2 cL = (0.250ksf )(60' )(1' ) = 15Kips Pp + cL 9 Kips + 15Kips FS = = = 0.77 Pa 31Kips PaSand =
g 10

ft rise in water lowers the FS from 1.03 to 0.77

Use of Computer Programs

g Several

methods for stability analysis

- Consideration of interslice forces, irregular

failure surfaces, seismic forces, external forces, tieback forces, piezometric level, heterogeneous soil systems, etc.
g User

friendly input and output g User documented and verified program g XSTABL, UTEXAS, SLOPE/W, ReSSA

Be Careful with Computer Programs

g Place

emphasis where it belongs

- Investigation - Sampling - Testing - Development of soil profile - Design soil strengths - Water table location
g Garbage

in Garbage out

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will be able to:

- Recall modes of slope failure - Explain effects of water on slope stability - Discuss slope stability circular and block analyses Compute safety factor by chart solution

Any Questions?
THE ROAD TO UNDERSTANDING SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

SLOPE STABILITY

Lesson 06 - Topic 2 Improving the stability of embankments

Section 6.9

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will be able to:

- Recall methods for stabilizing fill slopes - Describe reinforced soil slopes - List techniques to improve cut slopes

Mitigating Slope Stability Problems

g Table

6-2

Solutions to Slope Stability Problems

g Change

alignment g Lower grade g Counterweight berm g Excavate and replace weak soil

Solutions to Slope Stability Problems (Contd)

g Displace

weak soil g Stage construct fill g Lightweight fill g Ground improvement g Reinforcement of embankment soils

Reduce Grade

Fill Firm Soft Firm Slip Surface

Foundation Overstressed

Reduced Load

Effect: Reduces Driving Weight

Counterweight Berm
Additional Resisting Weight Fill Soft Firm Effect: Provides Resisting Weight Berm Slip Surface

Excavate and Replace Weak Soil

Fill Fill
Granular Fill Shear Key

Soft Firm

Effect: Stronger Soil Resists Sliding

Displacement of Weak Soils

Direction of Work
Water Table Mud Wave Soft, Weak Compressible Soil Rolling Surcharge Desired Grade Water Table

Embankment
Good Material Replacing Displaced Poor Material

Firm Bottom

Fill Stage Construction

FILL STAGE 2

STAGE 1 WEAK SOIL

Lightweight Fill
Lightweight Fill Granular Fill

Soft Firm

Slip Surface

Effect: Reduce Driving Weight

Examples of Lightweight Fill Materials

g Wood

Fiber g Shredded Tires g EPS

Cut Slope Stability

g Deep-Seated

Failure (clays) g Shallow Surface Sloughs in Saturated Slopes of Clay, Silt and/or Fine Sand

Ground Improvement
g Grouting g Vertical g Soil

Wick Drains g Stone Columns g Vibro Compaction g Dynamic Compaction

Mixing g Soil Nailing g Reinforced Soil Slopes g Micropiles

Ground Improvement Stone Columns

Reinforced Soil Slopes

Preliminary Design of RSS

g Figure

6-28

Solutions to Cut Slope Stability Problems

Table 6-3 g Flatten or Bench Slope g Bench slope g Buttress Toe g Lower Water Table g Reinforcement (e.g., soil nail, biotechnical)

Cut Slope Stability

Before Before Cut Cut After After Cut Cut Seepage Seepage
W Wa atte er T Ta r ab blle e
W Wa atte T Ta er ab r blle e

Failure Failure

e ce ac fa urrf Su pS ip Slli S

Toe Toe Clay Clay Soil Soil

Toe Toe

Swelling Swelling

Undrained Undrained Clay Clay in in Cut Cut Gradually Gradually Weakens Weakens And And May May Fail Fail Long Long After After Construction Construction

Factor of Safety for Cut Slopes

Minimum Recommended Safety Factor = 1.50 Cut slopes may deteriorate with time as a result of natural drainage conditions that embankments do not experience

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will be able to:

- Recall methods for stabilizing fill slopes - Describe reinforced soil slopes - List techniques to improve cut slopes

Any Questions?
THE ROAD TO UNDERSTANDING SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

Interstate 0 Apple Freeway Note: Scale shown in Station Form

S.B. Apple Frwy N.B. Apple Frwy

Baseline Baseline Stationing Stationing

90 90

91 91

92 92

93 93

Interstate Interstate 0 0

Proposed Proposed Toe Toe of of Slope Slope Proposed Proposed Final Final Grade Grade
2

Existing Existing Ground Ground Surface Surface

Proposed Proposed Abutment Abutment

Apple Freeway Exercise

g Appendix

Subsurface Explorations

Terrain reconnaissance Site inspection Subsurface borings Visual description Classification tests Soil Profile Po diagram Test request Consolidation results Strength results

Design soil profile Circular arc analysis Sliding block analysis Lateral squeeze analysis

Basic Soil Properties

Laboratory Testing

A
Approach Roadway Settlement

- Section A.5
Spread Footing Design

Slope Stability
Design soil profile Magnitude of settlement Rate of settlement Surcharge Vertical drains Design soil profile Pier bearing capacity Pier settlement Abutment settlement Surcharge Vertical drains Design soil profile Static analysis pier Pipe pile H pile Static analysis abutment Pipe pile H pile Driving resistance Lateral movement - abutment Wave equation Hammer approval Embankment instrumentation

Driven Pile Design

Construction Monitoring

Design Soil Profile (East Approach Embankment)

= 90 pcf w = 120%

2:1

= 130 pcf = 40 C=0

3 Organic

30' Fill

10' 25'

5'

= 110 pcf

= 36

C=0 = 125 pcf =0 C = 1100 psf

7' Sand 35' Clay

= 130 pcf = 43 C=0

Dense Gravel

Compute FS Against Circular Arc Failure Rule of Thumb Analysis

6C Factor of Safety ( F .S .) = Fill H Fill
30 Soft Clay

Fill = 130 pcf

C = 1100 psf Bedrock

( 6 )( 1100 ) F .S . = = 1.69 ( 130 )( 30 )

Compute FS Against Circular Arc Failure Normal Method (Hand Solution)

O R 2:1 33' Fill 10' 25' 7' Sand 35' Clay R

Dense Gravel

For deep clay subsoil, the critical (min FS) failure surface will generally pass deep into the weakest clay layer. The center of the circle usually lies above the fill slope

Compute FS Against Circular Arc Failure Normal Method (Hand Solution)

O R 2:1 R
8 9 16 10' 15 7 6 5 4 32 =+6 0 1 33' Fill

3 5 49
14

10

+ +554 1

3 +4

4 +3

+25

13

12

11

3 2

24

25'

2 4

7' Sand

+9

+16

+1

15

35' Clay

= 0

Note that slices 1 through 9 have positive angles and contribute to the driving forces. Slices 10 through 16 have negative angles and reduce the net driving forces

Dense Gravel

u ul

ul u

Compute FS Against Circular Arc Failure Normal Method (Hand Solution)

F.S. Normal = 1.36
O R 2:1 10' 25' 33' Fill 7' Sand 35' Clay Dense Gravel R

Comparison of Factors of Safety

O R 2:1 R

Critical circle
10' 25'

33' Fill 7' Sand 35' Clay

Dense Gravel

g g g

FS = 1.36 Normal method (hand solution) FS = 1.63 Bishop method (computer program) Remember that Normal method is very conservative when the soil profile has friction soil and the Bishop method is more theoretically correct.

Sliding Block Analysis East Approach Embankment

g Estimate

FS (assume failure surface as shown)

Active Wedge

2:1
Passive PP Wedge Central Block

= 130 pcf

PA

= 40o 33' Fill C=0

10' 25'

= 110 pcf

= 36 C=0 7' Sand

L = 60'
Assumed Failure CL Surface

= 125 pcf 35 =0 Clay C = 1100 psf Dense Gravel

Sliding Block Analysis East Approach Embankment

Active Wedge

PP = 18 K
10'

2:1
Passive Wedge Central Block

PA = 24 K

33' Fill

7' Sand

25'

CL = 66 K

35' Clay = 125 pcf C = 1100 psf Dense Gravel

Compute F.S. :

F.S. =

Horiz. Resisting Forces Horiz. Driving Forces 18 K + 66 K 24 K = 84 K = 3.5 (O.K.) 24 K

g Circular

Arc Failure More Critical

Summary of Embankment Slope Stability

g Design

soil profile arc analysis

- Soil layer unit weights and strengths estimated

g Circular

- Approach embankment slope stability safety

factor of 1.63 against circular failure
g Sliding

block analysis

- Approach embankment slope stability safety

factor of 3.5 against sliding failure

Any Questions?
THE ROAD TO UNDERSTANDING SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS