Slope Stability Analysis1

ISSN: 2348 9510
International Journal Of Core Engineering & Management (IJCEM)

Volume 2, Issue 3, June 2015
Slope Stability Analysis

Vivek
Assist. Professor, Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, India
Mandeep Multani
Head of dept., Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, India
Pooja Rani Sinha

Assist. Professor, Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional University
Phagwara, India
Rohit Tripathi
Student, Civil engineering,
Lovely professional university
Abstract
Slope stability issue becomes one of the main problems in construction industry due to
nature of the topography and the weather conditions. The wide variety of applications of
slope engineering include excavations, hill roads, railway lines, embankments, earth dams,
reservoirs, open-cut mines and coastal slope stability. Slope failure has been acknowledged
as one of the most frequent natural disaster that can lead to great loss in property and life.
The project “Slope Stability Analysis” Provides analysis of Jammu, Himachal and Punjab
region soil using Geo Studio 2007 Slope/w software. SLOPE/W has been designed and
developed to be a general software tool for the stability analysis of earth structures. In
order to undergo the mountainous region project, the most important thing that must be
taking care of is the slope stability. The study is focus on slope stability analysis for Jammu,
Himachal and Punjab State soil slope using Slope/w. Slope failure has become one of the
most frequent geological catastrophes along the road network in the hilly terrain of
Himalayan regions that lead to huge loss of life, property and above all the environment.
Hence, the analysis of slope stability is very important in order to protect the slopes from
fail and minimize the likelihood of slope failure. By using the Geo Studio2007 Slope/w
software, the slope stability will be analyzed and the FOS of the slope will be determined.
Keywords: Topography, Embankment, Excavation
121
ISSN: 2348 9510
I. Introduction
Indian citizens are increasing rapidly year by year. India is the second most populous country
in the world, with over 1.27 billion people (2014), more than a sixth of the world's
population. Already containing 17.5% of the world's population, India is projected to be the
world's most populous country by 2025.As the population growth, we will need more land
which mean that more civil engineering project will be carried out in mountainous regions. In
order to undergo the mountainous region project, the most important thing that must be
taking care of is the slope stability.
Slope stability issue becomes one of the main problems in construction industry due to nature
of the topography and the weather conditions. The wide variety of applications of slope
engineering include excavations, hill roads, railway lines, embankments, earth dams,
reservoirs, open-cut mines and coastal slope stability. Slope failure has been acknowledged as
one of the most frequent natural disaster that can lead to great loss in property and life. The
stability of slope depends more on the resisting force than the driving force because the
driving force is greater than the resisting force which actually causes slope failures.
The state of Himachal Pradesh is inherently prone to disasters, more so as it is a part of the
Himalayan mountain system. The state has a long history of disastrous natural events
(Chandel and Brar, 2010, 2011, 2012) and frequent natural disasters of varying intensity
hamper the development of the state. Slope failure has become one of the most frequent
geological catastrophes along the road network in the hilly terrain of Himalayan regions that
lead to huge loss of life, property and above all the environment. Hence, the analysis of slope
stability is very important in order to protect the slopes from fail and minimize the likelihood
of slope failure.
The purpose of this study is to analyze slope stability by using Geo Studio 2007 Slope/w
software. SLOPE/W has been designed and developed to be a general software tool for the
stability analysis of earth structures. SLOPE/W can be used to assess the sliding stability of a
gravity retaining wall, or to find the active earth forces on the wall. SLOPE/W can be used to
analyze the stability of a wedge of soil that has been reinforced with a structural component
such as a pre-stressed anchor, a soil nail, geo-fabric or some other material. The software will
analyze data in order to get slope stability by inserting the data to the software. The data of
the slope, which used in analyzing the slope stability using Slope/w, was obtained from
laboratory test on soil lab at Lovely Professional University, Punjab by us.
II. Objective Of The Study

The analysis on slope stability using Geo Studio 2007 Slope/w software has three specific
objectives which are:
1. To produce slope stability analysis for Jammu, Himachal and Punjab State soil slope
using Slope/w.
122
ISSN: 2348 9510
2. To determine the factor of safety of slope stability of Jammu, Himachal and Punjab
soil slope using Slope/w.
III. Methodology
In this study we have taken soil sample of Jammu, Punjab and Himachal state regions. And
study of slope stability done by using the computer based geotechnical software code
Slope/w (Geo-slope 2007). The factor of safety (FOS) has been determined using the limit
equilibrium within the Morgenstern–Price method along with Mohr-Coulomb expression.We
have conducted laboratory test on soil to get the Cohesion, Unit weight and Phi value of all
three sample of soil.
The following laboratory test has been conducted:

1) Modified Proctor Test
2) Direct Shear Test
3) Sieve Analysis
IV. Morgenstern-Price Method

This method was developed by N.R. Morgenstern,E. Spencer, which consider not only the
normal and tangential equilibrium but also the moment equilibrium for each slice in circular
and non-circular slip surfaces. It is solved for the factor of safety using the summation of
forces tangential and normal to the base of a slice and the summation of moments about the
center of the base of each slice. The equations were written for a slice of infinitesimal
thickness. The force and moment equilibrium equations were combined and a modified
Newton-Raphsonnumerical technique was used to solve for the factor of safety satisfying
force and moment equilibrium. The solution required an arbitrary assumption regarding the
direction of the resultant of the interslice shear and normal forces.
V. Results and Discussion
5.1 Laboratory Test Result of Jammu Soil
5.1.1 Modified Proctor Test

Soil sample taken = 5kg , Weight of the mould + base plate = 5.7kg
• TRIAL 1:-
Weight of the mould with base plate + soil = 10.034kg
Weight of soil alone = 10.034- 5.7 = 4.334kg = 4334 g
Weight of the soil sample taken for moisture content = .033kg
Weight of the soil sample after oven dry = .029kg
Moisture content = (.033-.029)/.029 * 100 = 13.79%
123
ISSN: 2348 9510
Density = 4334/2250 = 1.92g/cm3

Dry density = 1.92/(1+0.138) = 1.65g/cm3
• TRIAL 2:-
Weight of soil alone = 10.452-5.7= 4.752kg= 4752g
Weight of the soil sample taken for moisture content= .032kg
Moisture content = (0.004*100)/.028 = 14.28%
Density = 4752/2250 = 2.11g/cm3
Dry density = 2.11/1.143 = 1.85g/cm3
• TRIAL 3:-
Weight of the mould with base plate + soil= 10.226kg
Weight of soil alone = 10.226-5.7= 4.526kg =4526g
Weight of the soil sample taken for moisture content= 0.044kg
Moisture content= (0.008*100)/.036= 22.22%
Density = 4526/2250= 2.01g/cm3
Dry density = 2.01/ 1.222 = 1.64g/cm3
• TRIAL 4:-
Weight of the soil sample after oven dry =0.034kg
Moisture content= (0.012*100)/.034= 35.29%
Density = 4416/2250= 1.96g/cm3
Dry density =1.96/1.363= 1.44g/cm3
Figure 1.1: Compaction Curve (Jammu region sample)
MDD = 1.85g/cm3 = 16.77kN/m3
124
ISSN: 2348 9510
5.1.2 Direct Shear Test
Dimensions of the soil container = 6cm*6cm

a)
Table 1.1 At 0.05N/mm2:-
Horizontal gauge reading Proving ring reading Load (N) Stress (N/mm2)
50 2.2 5.5 0.0153
100 4.6 11.5 0.0319
Maximum shear = 0.0319 N/mm2
b) Table 1.2 At 0.1N/mm2:-

Horizontal gauge reading proving ring reading Load (N) Stress (N/mm2)
50 6.2 15.5 0.0431
100 12.6 31.5 0.0875
150 16.1 40.25 0.1118
200 20 50 0.1389
250 20.32 58 0.1411
Maximum shear = 0.1411N/mm2
c) Table 1.At 0.15N/mm2:-
50 13.6 34 0.0944
100 18 45 0.125
150 20.8 52 0.1444
200 27.2 68 0.1889
250 32.4 81 0.225
300 35 87.5 0.2431
Figure 1.2: Normal Stress Vs Shear stress (Jammu region sample)
125
ISSN: 2348 9510
Value Of ф = 64.66o
Value Of C= 0.0319 N/mm2 =31.9 KPa
1.4.1.3 Table 1.4 Sieve analysis
Sieve size(mm) Wt retained(kg) Percent retained Percent Passing
4.75 .016 3.2 96.8
2 .114 22.8 74
600 .174 34.8 39.2
425 .056 11.2 28
300 .036 7.2 20.8
150 .070 14 6.8
75 .032 6.4 .4
Pan .001 .4 0
Total Mass taken(Wt) = 0.500 kg
Total Mass retained(Wi) = 0.499kg
Mass lost = (Wt – Wi)/Wt * 100 = 0.2% which is < 2% Hence it is OK.
Figure 1.3: Sieve Analysis (Jammu region sample)

Well Graded Soil
D10 = 0.18 D30 = 0.45 D60 = 1.39
CU = 7.72 % Gravel = 3.2 % Fines = 0.4
CC = 0.81 % Sand = 96.4 Unified Classification of Soil: SW
5.2 Laboratory Test Result of Himachal Soil

Soil sample taken = 5kg
Weight of the mould + base plate = 5.7kg
• TRIAL 1:-
126
ISSN: 2348 9510

Moisture content= (0.006*100)/0.150= 4%
Density = 4700/2250= 2.09g/cm3
Dry density =2.09/1.04= 2.009g/cm3
• TRIAL 2:-
Weight of soil alone = 10.700- 5.7 = 5 Kg
Weight of the soil sample taken for moisture content = 0.200kg
Weight of the soil sample after oven dry = 0.192kg
Moisture content = (0.200-0.192)/0.192 * 100 = 4.16%
Density = 5000/2250 = 2.22g/cm3
Dry density = 2.22/(1+0.42) = 2.13g/cm3
• TRIAL 3:-
Moisture content = (.014*100)/0.232 = 6.03%
Density = 4834/2250 = 2.15g/cm3
Dry density = 2.15/1.06 = 2.02g/cm3
• TRIAL 4:-
Weight of soil alone = 10.272-5.7= 4.572kg =4572g
Moisture content= (0.016*100)/0.240= 6.67%
Density = 4572/2250= 2.032g/cm3
Dry density = 2.032/ 1.067 = 1.90g/cm3
127
ISSN: 2348 9510
Figure 1.4: Compaction Curve (Himachal region sample)
MDD = 2.13g/cm3 =19.31kN/m3

a) Table 1.5 At 0.05N/mm2

50 4.2 10.5 0.0291
100 6 15.0 0.0416
150 7.4 18.5 0.0514
b) Table 1.6 At 0.1N/mm2

Horizontal gauge reading proving ring reading Load (N) Stress (N/mm2)
50 9.2 23 0.0639
100 12.0 30 0.0833
150 15.0 37.5 0.1042
200 15.32 38.3 0.1064
250 15.68 39.2 0.1089
c) Table 1.7 At 0.15N/mm2
Horizontal gauge reading Proving ring reading Load(N) Stress(N/mm2)
50 12.6 31.5 0.0875
100 15.4 38.5 0.1069
150 17.4 43.5 0.1208
200 19.0 47.5 0.132
250 20.6 51.5 0.1431
300 21.8 54.5 0.1514
350 23.4 58.5 0.1625
Figure 1.5: Normal Stress Vs Shear stress (Himachal region sample)

Value Of ф = 48o
128
ISSN: 2348 9510
Value Of C= 0.0514 N/mm2 =51.4 KPa
1.6.1 Table 1.8 Sieve analysis

4.75 .012 2.4 97.6
2.36 .036 7.2 90.4
2 .022 4.4 86
1 .058 11.6 74.4
600 .078 15.6 58.8
425 .064 12.8 46
300 .000 0 46
150 .026 5.2 40.
75 .176 35.2 5.6
PAN .026 5.6 0
Figure 1.6: Sieve Analysis (Himachal region sample)

Well Graded Soil
D10 = 0.082 D30 = 0.115 D60 = 0.162
CU = 1.97 % Gravel = 2.4 % Fines = 5.6
CC = 0.995 % Sand = 92 Unified Classification of Soil: SW
5.3 Laboratory Test Result of Punjab Soil

Soil sample taken = 5kg
Weight of the mould + base plate = 5.7kg
• TRIAL 1:-
129
ISSN: 2348 9510

Moisture content= (0.004*100)/0.042= 9.52%
Density = 4516/2250= 2.01g/cm3
Dry density =2.01/1.095= 1.83g/cm3
• TRAIL 2:-
Weight of soil alone = 10.646- 5.7 = 4.946kg = 4946g
Weight of the soil sample taken for moisture content = 0.026kg
Moisture content = (0.026-.022)/0.022 * 100 = 18.18%
Density = 4946/2250 = 2.2g/cm2
Dry density = 2.2/(1+0.1818) = 1.86g/cm2
• TRIAL 3:-
Weight of the mould with base plate + soil = 10..40kg
Moisture content = (.004*100)/0.014 = 28.57%
Density = 4700/2250 = 2.08g/cm3
Dry density = 2.08/1.2857 = 1.62g/cm3
Figure 1.7: Compaction Curve (Punjab region sample)

MDD = 1.86g/cm3 =18.24kN/m3
130
ISSN: 2348 9510
a) Table 1.9 At 0.05 N/mm2:-

50 30 75 0.021
100 53 132.5 0.037
150 64 160 0.044
200 75 187.5 0.052
250 76 190 0.053

b) Table 2.1 At 0.10 N/mm2:-
Horizontal gauge reading proving ring reading Load Stress
50 12 30 0.008
100 37 92.5 0.026
150 48 120 0.033
200 53 132.5 0.037
250 89 222.5 0.061
300 131.04 327.6 0.091
c) Table 2.2 0.15 N/mm2:-
Horizontal gauge reading Proving ring reading Load Stress
50 60 150 0.042
100 95 237.5 0.066
150 125 312.5 0.087
200 138 345 0.096
250 150 375 0.104
300 157 392.5 0.109
350 166 415 0.115
400 172 430 0.119
450 177 442.5 0.123
500 179 447.5 0.124
550 182 455 0.126
600 185 462.5 0.128
650 187 467.5 0.128
131
ISSN: 2348 9510
Figure 1.8: Normal Stress Vs Shear stress (Punjab region sample)
Value Of ф = 36.86o
Value Of C= 0.053 N/mm2 =53 KPa
1.7.3 Table 2.1 Sieve analysis
4.75 .042 8.4 91.6
2.36 .036 7.2 84.4
1 0.66 13.2 71.2
0.60 0 .046 9.2 62
0.30 0 .042 8.4 53.6
0.21 2 .080 16 37.6
0.15 0 .066 13.2 24.4
0.07 5 .078 15.6 8.8
PAN .040 8.8 0

Figure 1.9: Sieve Analysis (Punjab region sample)
Well Graded Soil

D10 = 0.081 D30 = 0.18 D60 = 0.52
CU = 0.642 % Gravel = 8.4 % Fines = 8.8
CC = 0.77 % Sand = 82.8 Unified Classification of Soil: SW
132
ISSN: 2348 9510
5.4 Slope/W Analysis

5.4.1 Slope/W Analysis Of Jammu Region Soil
File Information
Revision Number: 6
Date: 4/26/2015
Time: 2:57:37 AM
File Name: jammu region soil.gsz
Directory: E:\capastone\geo studio work\
Last Solved Date: 4/26/2015
Last Solved Time: 3:09:59 AM
Project Settings
Length(L) Units: meters
Time(t) Units: Seconds
Force(F) Units: kN
Pressure(p) Units: kPa
Strength Units: kPa
Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³
View: 2D
Analysis Settings
SLOPE/W Analysis
Description: jammu soil analysis
Kind: SLOPE/W
Method: Morgenstern-Price
Settings
Apply Phreatic Correction: No
Side Function
Interslice force function option: Half-Sine
PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line
Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No
Slip Surface
Direction of movement: Left to Right
Use Passive Mode: No
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Critical slip surfaces saved: 1
Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No
Tension Crack
Tension Crack Option: (none)
FOS Distribution
133
ISSN: 2348 9510
FOS Calculation Option: Constant

Advanced
Number of Slices: 30
Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 X (m) Y (m)
Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m 0 10
Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 22.444444 7
Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007
Starting Optimization Points: 8 34 7
Ending Optimization Points: 16
Complete Passes per Insertion: 1
Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °
Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Materials
upper soil layer Table 2.3 Regions
Model: Mohr-Coulomb Material Points Area (m²)
Unit Weight: 16.77 kN/m³
Cohesion: 31.9 kPa Region 1 upper soil layer 1,2,3,4,5,6 332
Phi: 64.6 °
Phi-B: 0 °
Pore Water Pressure
Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Left Projection: Range
Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.7, 14) m Table 2.4 Points
Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (1, 14) m
Left-Zone Increment: 4 X (m) Y (m)
Right Projection: Point Point 1 0 14
Right Coordinate: (33, 5) m Point 2 10 14
Right-Zone Increment: 4 Point 3 26 5
Radius Increments: 4
Point 4 34 5
Slip Surface Limits Point 5 34 0
Left Coordinate: (0, 14) m Point 6 0 0
Right Coordinate: (34, 5) mPiezometric Lines
Piezometric Line 1
134
ISSN: 2348 9510
Table 2.2 Coordinates

Cohesive
Slip Base Normal Frictional
X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa) Strength
Surface Stress (kPa) Strength (kPa)
(kPa)
1 23 1.4829265 13.303515 -34.341517 3.2661932 6.8785869 31.9
2 23 2.448779 11.998745 -22.811899 19.199076 40.43316 31.9
3 23 3.4146315 10.851725 -12.828567 33.637064 70.839493 31.9
4 23 4.380484 9.831465 -4.0892621 46.905358 98.782454 31.9
5 23 5.377069 8.89091 3.8283937 60.317559 118.96591 31.9
6 23 6.404387 8.020236 11.020087 73.687529 131.97733 31.9
7 23 7.431705 7.238684 17.338319 85.980685 144.56049 31.9
8 23 8.459023 6.5362725 22.880079 97.460965 157.06698 31.9
9 23 9.486341 5.9052745 27.722161 108.31665 169.7316 31.9
10 23 10.51852 5.337204 31.940015 114.69727 174.28637 31.9
11 23 11.555555 4.8277085 35.577263 116.42052 170.2555 31.9
12 23 12.59259 4.375704 38.650305 117.43695 165.92429 31.9
13 23 13.62963 3.9778795 41.192341 117.72353 161.1743 31.9
14 23 14.66667 3.631529 43.230442 117.26648 155.91953 31.9
15 23 15.703705 3.3344425 44.784568 116.01558 150.01216 31.9
16 23 16.74074 3.084825 45.872675 113.89266 143.24976 31.9
17 23 17.77778 2.8812345 46.510104 110.81072 135.41678 31.9
18 23 18.814815 2.722538 46.707349 106.70366 126.35193 31.9
19 23 19.85185 2.607879 46.472138 101.46151 115.80735 31.9
20 23 20.88889 2.5366515 45.810923 95.00262 103.59747 31.9
21 23 21.925925 2.508485 44.72841 87.266973 89.586006 31.9
22 23 23.037035 2.527575 43.861269 81.381241 79.016878 31.9
23 23 24.22222 2.600625 43.145019 77.093737 71.495834 31.9
24 23 25.407405 2.73036 41.872403 70.916381 61.166474 31.9
25 23 26.5 2.898827 40.219956 63.720727 49.492509 31.9
26 23 27.5 3.098655 38.260053 60.152931 46.106294 31.9
27 23 28.5 3.341352 35.880812 55.495669 41.308793 31.9
28 23 29.5 3.6282225 33.067207 49.777071 35.190892 31.9
29 23 30.5 3.960879 29.804725 43.044779 27.88349 31.9
30 23 31.5 4.3412915 26.074399 35.366821 19.569796 31.9
31 23 32.5 4.7718535 21.851684 26.824469 10.472659 31.9
135
ISSN: 2348 9510
Figure 2.0: Slope/w Analysis (Jammu region sample)
Figure 2.1: Pore pressure from a piezometric line (Jammu region sample Slope/W Analysis)
Figure 2.2: Factor of safety and slip surface results of Morgenstern-Price analysis computed
by SLOPE/W
136
ISSN: 2348 9510
5.4.2 Slope/W Analysis Of Himachal Region Soil

File Information
Revision Number: 5
Date: 4/26/2015
Time: 3:02:07 AM
File Name: HIMACHAL REGION SOIL.gsz
Project Settings
Force(F) Units: kN
Strength Units: kPa
View: 2D
Analysis Settings
SLOPE/W Analysis
Description: HIMACHAL SOIL
Kind: SLOPE/W
Settings
Side Function
Slip Surface
Tension Crack
FOS Distribution
Advanced
137
ISSN: 2348 9510
Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Table 2.5

Coordinates
Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m
Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 X (m) Y (m)
Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 0 10
Starting Optimization Points: 8 22.8 6
Ending Optimization Points: 16 34 6
Materials
UPPER SOIL LAYER
Model: Mohr-Coulomb Table 2.6 Regions
Cohesion: 51.4 kPa
Material Points Area (m²)
Phi: 48 °
Phi-B: 0 ° Region 1 UPPER SOIL LAYER 1,2,3,4,5,6 316
Pore Water Pressure
Piezometric Line: 1
Slip Surface Entry and Exit
Left Projection: Range
Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.96, 14) m
Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (1, 14) m Table 2.7 Points
Left-Zone Increment: 4
Right Projection: Range
Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (32.82, 4) m X (m) Y (m)
Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (33, 4) m Point 1 0 14
Right-Zone Increment: 4 Point 2 10 14
Point 3 26 4
Slip Surface Limits
Point 4 34 4
Left Coordinate: (0, 14) m
Right Coordinate: (34, 4) m Point 5 34 0
Piezometric Lines Piezometric Line 1 Point 6 0 0
138
ISSN: 2348 9510
Table 2.8 Critical Slip Surfaces

Slip Surface FOS Center (m) Radius (m) Entry (m) Exit (m)
1 103 4.552 (22.805, 27.758) 25.782 (1, 14) (32.82, 4)
Frictional Cohesive
Slip Base Normal
X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa) Strength Strength
Surface Stress (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa)
1 103 1.498052 13.267645 -34.623254 -1.5552208 -1.7272477 51.4
2 103 2.494156 11.897485 -22.900179 19.804641 21.995283 51.4
3 103 3.49026 10.69587 -12.82952 38.631456 42.904578 51.4
4 103 4.486364 9.6288005 -4.0785601 55.562225 61.708102 51.4
5 103 5.4859745 8.670451 3.6001477 71.632337 75.557401 51.4
6 103 6.4890915 7.805221 10.359607 86.895992 85.002266 51.4
7 103 7.492208 7.024649 16.288894 100.97462 94.053031 51.4
8 103 8.4953245 6.319438 21.479245 114.15798 102.93016 51.4
9 103 9.4984415 5.682333 26.001081 126.66712 111.80096 51.4
10 103 10.533335 5.0912615 30.017453 133.6564 115.10271 51.4
11 103 11.6 4.545072 33.538354 134.93353 112.61076 51.4
12 103 12.666665 4.0594645 36.465126 135.40175 109.88026 51.4
13 103 13.733335 3.6307705 38.834721 135.04181 106.8488 51.4
14 103 14.8 3.255995 40.674562 133.80552 103.43241 51.4
15 103 15.866665 2.93269 42.010069 131.62457 99.526983 51.4
16 103 16.933335 2.658862 42.860299 128.39285 94.99352 51.4
17 103 18 2.432903 43.241386 124.0034 89.695308 51.4
18 103 19.066665 2.253538 43.164413 118.35104 83.503213 51.4
19 103 20.133335 2.119787 42.640961 111.30661 76.260935 51.4
20 103 21.2 2.0309375 41.677115 102.79394 67.877115 51.4
21 103 22.266665 1.986524 40.277477 92.721054 58.244493 51.4
22 103 23.333335 1.986317 39.362034 84.927139 50.605175 51.4
23 103 24.4 2.0303155 38.930866 79.371956 44.914381 51.4
24 103 25.466665 2.118747 38.063258 72.060865 37.758168 51.4
25 103 26.568335 2.25799 36.697799 64.029891 30.355364 51.4
26 103 27.705 2.4519125 34.795933 60.061549 28.06031 51.4
27 103 28.841665 2.6988695 32.373888 54.58598 24.669027 51.4
139
ISSN: 2348 9510
28 103 29.978335 3.0004515 29.416487 47.665322 20.267385 51.4

29 103 31.115 3.358689 25.903077 39.400925 14.990879 51.4
30 103 32.251665 3.7761275 21.809419 29.923695 9.0118165 51.4
Slices of Slip Surface: 103
Factor of Safety (Himachal Soil) =4.552 (Morgenstern-Price Method)

Factor of Safety (Himachal Soil) =4.225 (Ordinary)
Factor of Safety (Himachal Soil) =4.552 (Bishop)
Factor of Safety (Himachal Soil) =4.270 (Janbu)
Figure 2.3: Pore pressure from a piezometric line (Slope/w Analysis Himachal sample)
Figure 2.4: Factor of safety and slip surface results of Morgenstern-Price analysis computed
by SLOPE/W Slope/w Analysis Himachal sample
5.4.3 Slope/W Analysis Of Punjab Region Soil

File Information
Revision Number: 9
140
ISSN: 2348 9510
Date: 4/27/2015
Time: 1:42:38 AM
File Name: PUNJAB region soil.gsz
Project Settings
Force(F) Units: kN
Strength Units: kPa
View: 2D
Analysis Settings
SLOPE/W Analysis
Description: PUNJAB soil analysis
Kind: SLOPE/W
Settings
Side Function
Slip Surface
Tension Crack
FOS Distribution
Advanced
Optimization Tolerance: 0.01
141
ISSN: 2348 9510
Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m Table 2.9Coordinates

Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 X (m) Y (m)
Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-
0 10
007
22.444444 7
Starting Optimization Points: 8
34 7
Ending Optimization Points: 16
Materials
Table 3.0 Regions
upper soil layer Material Points Area (m²)

Model: Mohr-Coulomb Region 1 upper soil layer 1,2,3,4,5,6 332
Cohesion: 53 kPa Table 3.01Points
X (m) Y (m)
Phi: 36.86 °
Point 1 0 14
Phi-B: 0 °
Point 2 10 14
Pore Water Pressure
Point 3 26 5
Piezometric Line: 1
Point 4 34 5
Slip Surface Entry and Exit Point 5 34 0
Left Projection: Range Point 6 0 0
Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.7, 14) m
Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (1, 14) m
Left-Zone Increment: 4
Right Projection: Point
Right Coordinate: (33, 5) m
Right-Zone Increment: 4
Slip Surface Limits

Left Coordinate: (0, 14) m
Right Coordinate: (34, 5) m
Piezometric Lines
Piezometric Line 1
142
ISSN: 2348 9510
Critical Slip Surfaces

Slip Radius
FOS Center (m) Entry (m) Exit (m)
Surface (m)
1 24 4.279 (19.861, 19.672) 19.695 (1, 14) (33, 5)
Base Frictiona
Slip Cohesive
Normal l
Surfac X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa) Strength
Stress Strength
e (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa)
12.72329
1 24 1.4827335 -28.65114 -6.1428531 -4.605482 53
5
10.52741
2 24 2.448201 -8.3816007 29.187754 21.882938 53
6
8.842433
3 24 3.435868 6.8484414 58.046047 38.384387 53
5
7.440289
4 24 4.4457345 19.275394 83.051121 47.814583 53
5
6.261569
5 24 5.455601 29.511307 103.89481 55.76755 53
5
6 24 6.4654675 5.250195 38.106329 121.94228 62.85434 53
7 24 7.475334 4.372447 45.390105 138.02132 69.448414 53
3.606167
8 24 8.4852005 51.581401 152.65269 75.776192 53
5
9 24 9.495067 2.935908 56.830896 166.20436 82.000578 53
2.324627
10 24 10.556625 61.434458 174.53978 84.79847 53
5
11 24 11.669875 1.771384 65.401087 177.51934 84.058428 53
12 24 12.783125 1.302221 68.542685 179.40979 83.120404 53
0.910797
13 24 13.896375 70.922095 180.22437 81.947208 53
85
0.592308
14 24 15.009625 72.58643 179.92952 80.478346 53
65
0.343133
15 24 16.122875 73.57059 178.43205 78.617796 53
5
0.160606
16 24 17.236125 73.901497 175.63758 76.274602 53
91
0.042863
17 24 18.349375 73.59661 171.39464 73.322129 53
21
18 24 19.383475 0 72.661609 167.30768 70.95901 53
19 24 20.338425 0 71.409184 158.17628 65.051909 53
0.028230
20 24 21.223035 69.973087 152.78817 62.088964 53
145
143
ISSN: 2348 9510
0.101736
21 24 22.037305 68.18444 145.21065 57.748873 53
25
0.243887
22 24 23.037035 66.256814 138.06938 53.840042 53
2
0.475391
23 24 24.22222 63.987079 130.60048 49.942076 53
25
0.784032
24 24 25.407405 60.959645 120.56084 44.684808 53
85
1.137139
25 24 26.5 57.496889 110.2132 39.523004 53
2
1.526726
26 24 27.5 53.676349 103.04119 37.010308 53
5
27 24 28.5 1.981387 49.217111 94.126421 33.669863 53
2.506314
28 24 29.5 44.069588 83.460346 29.532438 53
5
29 24 30.5 3.108224 38.166404 71.042973 24.648554 53
30 24 31.5 3.795926 31.422539 56.899619 19.100934 53
4.581239
31 24 32.5 23.720612 41.062011 13.001369 53
5
144
ISSN: 2348 9510
Figure 2.5: Pore pressure from a Figure 2.6: Factor of safety and slip surface
results
piezometric line of Morgenstern-Price analysis
(Slope/W Analysis Punjab region sample)
( Slope/W Analysis Punjab region sample)
VI. Conclusion
PUNJAB SOIL HIMMACHAL JAMMU SOIL
SOIL
ф 36.86o 48o 64.66o
F.O.S.(Morgenstern- 4.279 4.552 6.625
Price Method)
 The results show that the factor of safety of the slope stability increases with an
increase in cohesion and internal friction angle
 Since the value of F.O.S. > 1.5, So all the structures are safe.
 Jammu Region soil is having greater stability as compare to Punjab and Himachal
region as FOS and internal friction are maximum as compare to others.
 The study of slope stability problems by using the computer based geotechnical
software code Slope/w provides more understanding viewing all the detailed forces on
each slice, to understand failure mechanisms, and the distribution of a variety of
parameters along the slip surface with respect to the factor of safety.
145
ISSN: 2348 9510
 Morgenstern-Price Method consider not only the normal and tangential equilibrium but also
the moment equilibrium for each slice in circular and non-circular slip surfaces. It is solved
for the factor of safety using the summation of forces tangential and normal to the base of a
slice and the summation of moments about the center of the base of each slice.
 SLOPE/W is the leading software product for computing the factor of safety of earth
and rock slopes. With SLOPE/W, both simple and complex problems can be analyzed
for a variety of slip surface shapes, pore-water pressure conditions, soil properties,
analysis methods and loading conditions. Using limit equilibrium, SLOPE/W can
model heterogeneous soil types, complex stratigraphic and slip surface geometry, and
variable pore-water pressure conditions using a large selection of soil models.
References
 A Report Of Faculty Of Civil & Earth Resources University Malaysia Pahang
 Base Document On Geoscientific Investigations CGPB Committee IX
 Geo-Slope International Ltd., WWW.GEO-SLOPE.COM
 Morgenstern, N. R., And Price, V. E. (1965), ―The Analysis Of The Stability

General Slipsurfaces.‖, J. GEOTECH. , 1, 79-93.
 Proccedings Of Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC-2014,,Kakinada ,India
 Soil Mechanics And Foundation Engineering By Kr Arora ,Reprint Edition 2010
 Stability Analysis Of An Embankment Dam-Poomala Dam Case Study , IJSRD -

International Journal For Scientific Research & Development| VOL. 2, ISSUE 10,
2014
 Stability Analysis Of Earth Dam By Geostudio Software Volume 3, Issue 2, July-

December (2012), PP. 437-446 © IAEME: WWW.IAEME.COM/IJCIET.ASP
 Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.com\stability_of_ slope
146

Slope Stability Analysis1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slope Stability Analysis1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slope Stability Analysis1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN: 2348 9510

International Journal Of Core Engineering & Management (IJCEM)

Slope Stability Analysis

Pooja Rani Sinha

Keywords: Topography, Embankment, Excavation

II. Objective Of The Study

The following laboratory test has been conducted:

IV. Morgenstern-Price Method

V. Results and Discussion

5.1 Laboratory Test Result of Jammu Soil

5.1.1 Modified Proctor Test

Density = 4334/2250 = 1.92g/cm3

Figure 1.1: Compaction Curve (Jammu region sample)

MDD = 1.85g/cm3 = 16.77kN/m3

5.1.2 Direct Shear Test

Dimensions of the soil container = 6cm*6cm

b) Table 1.2 At 0.1N/mm2:-

Maximum shear = 0.2431N/mm2

Figure 1.2: Normal Stress Vs Shear stress (Jammu region sample)

Figure 1.3: Sieve Analysis (Jammu region sample)

5.2 Laboratory Test Result of Himachal Soil

Weight of soil alone = 10.400-5.7= 4.700kg= 4700g

Figure 1.4: Compaction Curve (Himachal region sample)

MDD = 2.13g/cm3 =19.31kN/m3

5.2.2 Direct Shear Test

a) Table 1.5 At 0.05N/mm2

b) Table 1.6 At 0.1N/mm2

Figure 1.5: Normal Stress Vs Shear stress (Himachal region sample)

Value Of C= 0.0514 N/mm2 =51.4 KPa

1.6.1 Table 1.8 Sieve analysis

Figure 1.6: Sieve Analysis (Himachal region sample)

5.3 Laboratory Test Result of Punjab Soil

Weight of the soil sample after oven dry =0.038kg

Figure 1.7: Compaction Curve (Punjab region sample)

5.3.2 Direct Shear Test

Dimensions of the soil container = 6cm*6cm

a) Table 1.9 At 0.05 N/mm2:-

Maximum shear = 0.053 N/mm2

Figure 1.8: Normal Stress Vs Shear stress (Punjab region sample)

Total Mass taken(Wt) = 0.500 kg

Figure 1.9: Sieve Analysis (Punjab region sample)

Well Graded Soil

5.4 Slope/W Analysis

FOS Calculation Option: Constant

Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Table 2.2 Coordinates

Figure 2.0: Slope/w Analysis (Jammu region sample)

5.4.2 Slope/W Analysis Of Himachal Region Soil

Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Table 2.5

Table 2.8 Critical Slip Surfaces

28 103 29.978335 3.0004515 29.416487 47.665322 20.267385 51.4

Factor of Safety (Himachal Soil) =4.552 (Morgenstern-Price Method)

5.4.3 Slope/W Analysis Of Punjab Region Soil

Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m Table 2.9Coordinates

upper soil layer Material Points Area (m²)

Cohesion: 53 kPa Table 3.01Points

Slip Surface Limits

Critical Slip Surfaces

 Base Document On Geoscientific Investigations CGPB Committee IX