lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Lecture notes, lectures 10-12 - Stability of slopes

Geotechnical Engineering 1 (University of Sheffield)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Stability of Slopes

Limit Equilibrium Analyses of Methods of Slices

Translational Slip Analyses

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 2

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 3

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 4

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

12 1 Introduction
12.1
•GGravitational
it ti l and
d seepage fforces ttendd tto cause
instability in natural slopes, in slopes formed by
excavation and in the slopes off embankments.

• The most important types of slope failure are

illustrated in Figure 12
12.6.
6

• In rotational slips the shape of the failure surface

in section may be a circular arc or a non-circular
non circular
curve.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 5

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12.6 Types of slope failure

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 6

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

In general, circular slips are associated with

homogeneous isotropic soil conditions and
homogeneous,
non-circular slips with non-homogeneous
conditions.
Translational and compound slips occur
where the form of the failure surface is
influenced by the presence of an adjacent
stratum of significantly different strength,
strength most
of the failure surface being likely to pass
through the stratum of lower shear strength.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 7

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The form of the surface would also be

influenced by the presence of discontinuities
such as fissures and prepre-existing
existing slips.
slips

Translational slips
p tend to occur where the
adjacent stratum is at a relatively shallow
depth below the surface of the slope,
slope the
failure surface tendingg to be pplane and
roughly parallel to the slope.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 8

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Compound slips usually occur where the

adjacent stratum is at greater depth, the
failure surface consisting of curved and plane
sections.

IIn mostt cases, slope

l stability
t bilit can be
b
considered as a two-dimensional problem,
p ,
conditions of plane strain being assumed.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 9

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12.6 Types of slope failure

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 10

Design is based on the requirement to maintain
lOMoARcPSD|6068704

stability rather than on the need to minimize

deformation.

Limiting equilibrium methods are normally

used in the analysis of slope stability in which it is
considered
id d that
th t failure
f il i on the
is th point
i t off occurring
i
along
g an assumed or a known failure surface.

In the traditional approach the shear strength

required
q to maintain a condition of limiting g
equilibrium is compared with the available shear
strength of the soil giving the average (lumped)
factor of safety along the failure surface.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 11
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

ANALYSIS FOR THE CASE OF u=0

This analysis, in terms of total stress, covers

the case of a fully saturated clay under
undrained conditions,
conditions i.e.
i e for the condition
immediately after construction.

Only moment equilibrium is considered in the

analysis. In section, the potential failure surface
is assumed to be a circular arc.

A trial failure surface (centre O, radius r and

length La) is shown in Figure 12.8.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 12
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12.8 Limit equilibrium analysis in undrained soil

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 13

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Potential instability is due to the total weight of

the soil mass (W per unit length) above the
failure surface. For equilibrium the shear
strength which must be mobilized along the
failure surface is expressed as
 f cu
 mob  
F F
where F is the factor of safety with respect to
shear strength. Equating moments about O:
cu
Wd  La r
F
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 14
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Therefore
cu La r
F
Wd
The moments of anyy additional forces must
be taken into account. In the event of a
tension crack developing,
developing the arc length La is
shortened and a hydrostatic
y force will act
normal to the crack if it fills with water.

It is necessary to analyse the slope for a

number of trial failure surfaces in order that
the minimum factor of safety can be
determined. Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 15
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Based on the principle of geometric similarity,

Taylor (1937) published stability coefficients
for the analysis of homogeneous slopes in
t
terms off total
t t l stress.
t

For a slope of height h the stability coefficient

(Ns) for the failure surface along which the
factor of safety
y is a minimum is
cu
Ns  (12 16)
(12.16)
Fh

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 16

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

th case off u = 0,
FFor the 0 values
l off Ns can be
b
y
obtained from Taylor’s chart. The coefficient
Ns depends on the slope angle  and the
depth factor D,
D where DH is the depth to a
firm stratum.

Gibson and Morgenstern (1962) published

stability coefficients for slopes in normally
consolidated
lid t d clays
l i which
in hi h the
th undrained
d i d
strength
g cu (u=0)) varies linearlyy with
depth.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 17

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 18

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example
p 12.1
A 45 cutting slope is excavated to a depth of 8
m in a deep layer of saturated clay of unit
weight 19 kN/m3: the relevant shear strength
parameters kN/ 2 and
t are cu = 65 kN/m d u = 0.
0
Determine the factor of safetyy for the trial
failure surface specified in Figure 12.10.

In Figure 12.10,
12 10 the cross
cross-sectional
sectional area
ABCD is 70 m2.

Weight
g of soil mass = 70 x 19 = 1330 kN/m
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 19
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The centroid of ABCD is 4.5m

4 5m from O.
O The angle
AOC is 89.5o and radius OC is 12.1 m. The arc
length ABC is calculated as 18.9 m.

Figure 12.10 Example 12.1

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 20
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

cu La r
F
Wd
65  18.9  12.1
= = 2.48
1330  4.5
This is the factor of safety for the trial
failure surface selected and is not
necessarily the minimum factor of safety.
safety
The minimum factor of safety can be
estimated by using Equation 12.16.
F
From T l ’ chart,
Taylor’s h t  = 45o and d assuming
i
that D is large, the value of Ns, is 0.18.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 21
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Then
cu
F
N sh
65
  2.37
0.18  19  8

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 22

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

THE METHOD OF SLICES

In this method the potential failure surface,
in section,
section is again assumed to be a circular
arc with centre O and radius r.
The soil mass (ABCD) above a trial failure
surface (AC) is divided by vertical planes
into a series of slices of width b, as shown
i Figure
in Fi 12 11
12.11.
The base of each slice is assumed to be a
straight line.
For any i-th
i th slice the inclination of the base
to the horizontal is αi and the height,
measured on the centre-line, is hi.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 23
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12
12.11
11 The method of slices
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 24
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The analysis is based on the use of a lumped

factor of safety (F), defined as the ratio of the
available shear strength (f) to the shear
strength (mob) which must be mobilized to
maintain
i t i a condition
diti off limiting
li iti equilibrium
ilib i
along g the slip
p surface,, i.e.
f
F
 mob
The factor
Th f off safety
f i taken
is k to be
b the
h same for
f
each slice, implying that there must be mutual
support between slices, i.e. forces must act
b t
between th slices.
the li
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 25
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The forces (per unit dimension normal to the

section) acting on a slice are:

1. The total weight of the slice, Wi= b hi, (sat

where appropriate).
appropriate)
2. The total normal force on the base, Ni (equal to
I li). 
In general this force has two components
components, the
effective normal force N′i (equal to ′I li) and the
b
boundary d pore water
t force
f Ui (equal
( l tto ui li),
)
where ui is the p pore water p
pressure at the
centre of the base and li the length of the base.
base Ti = mob li.
3 The shear force on the base,
3.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 26
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 27

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

4 The
4. Th total
t t l normall fforces on the
th sides,
id E1
and E2.
5. The shear forces on the sides, X1 and X2.
Any external forces must also be included in
th analysis.
the l i
The problem is statically indeterminate and
in order to obtain a solution assumptions
must be made regarding the interslice
forces E and X; in general the resulting
solution for factor of safety is not exact.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 28

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Considering
C id i moments t about
b t O, O the
th sum off
the moments of the shear forces Ti on the
failure arc AC must equal the moment of the
weight of the soil mass ABCD.
ABCD For any slice
the lever arm of Wi is ri sin i, therefore

 Tiri   Wiri sin  i

i i
N
Now
 f,i
Ti  mob , ii  ( ) i
F
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 29
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12
12.11
11 The method of slices
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 30
 
lOMoARcPSD|6068704

( )i   Wi sini

f ,i

i F i
 f , i i
F  i

 W i sin  i
i
For an effective stress analysis (in terms of
parameters c and ):
 ( ci' i' tan i' )i
F i (12.18a)
 Wi sin i
or i
c' La  tan '  Ni'
F i (12.18b)
 Wi sin i
i Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 31
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

where La is the arc length AC (i.e.,

(i e length of
the whole slip
ppplane).
)

Equation 12 18b
12.18b is exact
exact, but
approximations are introduced in
determining the forces Ni.

For a given failure arc the value of F will

depend on the way in which the forces Ni
are estimated.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 32

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The Fellenius (or Swedish) solution

In this solution it is assumed that for each slice

the resultant off the interslice forces
f is zero.
The solution involves resolving the forces on
each slice normal to the base, i.e.
Ni'  Wi cos i  uii
Hence the factor of safety in terms of effective
stress (Equation 12.18b)
12 18b) is given by
c' La  tan '  ( Wi cos i  uii )
F i
(12.19)
 Wi sin i
i
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 33
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Felleni s Method
Fellenius

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 34

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The components Wi cos i and Wi sin i can

be determined graphically for each slice.
Alternatively the value of Wi and i can be
Alternatively,
measured or calculated.

Again, a series of trial failure surfaces must

be chosen in order to obtain the minimum
f t off safety.
factor f t

This solution underestimates the factor of

safety: the error,
error compared with more
accurate methods of analysis, is usually
within the range 5-20%.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 35
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

For an analysis in term of total stress,stress

parameter of cu is used in Equation 12.18b
(with u = 0). The factor safety then becomes
cu La
F
 Wi sin i
i

As N does not appear in the equation, an

exact value of F is obtained.
obtained

Use of the Fellenius method is not now

recommended in practice.
practice
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 36
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example
p 12.2

Using the Fellenius method of slices, slices

determine the factor of safety, in terms of
effective stress, of the slope shown in Figure
12 12 for the given failure surface using peak
12.12
strength parameters c' = l0 kN/m2 and ' =
29° The
29°. Th unit it weight
i ht off the
th soilil both
b th above
b
and below the water table is 20 kN/m3.

The factor of safety is given by Equation 12.19.

The soil mass is divided into slices 1.5m
1 5m wide.
wide
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 37
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12.12 Example 12.2

6.0 m

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 38

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Th weight
The i ht (Wi) off each
h slice
li iis given
i b
by
Wi = bhi = 20 x 1
1.5
5 x hi = 30 hi kN/m
kN/
The height hi for each slice is set off below
the centre of the base, and the normal and
tangential components hi cos i and hi sin i,
respectively are determined graphically,
respectively, graphically as
shown in the following figure. Then

Wi cos i = 30hi cos i

Wi sin i = 30hi sin i
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 39
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Wi
hi
i

i hi cos i
hi

hi sin
i i
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 40
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example 12.2 Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 41

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The pore water pressure at the centre of the

base of each slice is taken to be wzw,
where zw is the vertical distance of the
centre point below the water table (as
shown in the figure).

This procedure slightly overestimates the

pore water
t pressure which
hi h strictly
t i tl should
h ld be
b
wze, where ze is the vertical distance below
the point of intersection of the water table
and the equipotential through the centre of
the slice base.
The error involved is on the safe side.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 42
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Used in calculation:
u = w.zw
Correctly:
u = w.ze
ze<zw

 Slightly overestimates u in
calculation

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 43

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Table 9
9.1
1
Slice hi cos i hi sin i ui ℓi(m) uiℓi
No
No. (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m)
1 0.75 -0.15 5.9 1.55 9.1
2 1.80 -0.10 11.8 1.50 17.7
3 2 70
2.70 0 40
0.40 16 2
16.2 1 55
1.55 25 1
25.1
4 3.25 1.00 18.1 1.60 29.0
5 3.45 1.75 17.1 1.70 29.1
6 3 10
3.10 2 35
2.35 11 3
11.3 1 95
1.95 22 0
22.0
7 1.90 2.25 0 2.35 0
8 0.55 0.95 0 2.15 0
17 50
17.50 8 45
8.45 14.35
14 35 132.0
132 0
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 44
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The arc length

Th l th (La) is
i calculated
l l t d as 14
14.35m.
35
The results are ggiven in Table 9.1.
 Wi cos  i   30hi cos i  30 hi cos i
i i i

 30 17.50  525 kN / m
 Wi sin i   30hi sin i  30 hi sin i
i i i

 30  8.45  254 kN / m
 Wi cos i  uili    Wi cos i   uili
i i i

 525  132  393 kN / m

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 45

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

c La  tan   Wi cos i  uii 

' '

F i

 Wi sin  i
i


10  14.35  0.554  393
254
143.5  218
  1.42
254

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 46

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

PROBLEM 2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 47

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

PROBLEM 2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 48

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

PROBLEM 2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 49

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Slip Surface of Example 12.2

9.00 m

2.50 m
O
r=
9.5
3.15 m 0m

Water table
6 00 m
6.00

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 50

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Slip Surface of Example 12.2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 51

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Slip Surface of Example 12.2

9
8
7
6
5
1 2 3 4

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 52

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The Bishop routine solution

In this solution it is assumed that the resultant

forces on the sides of the slices are horizontal, i.e.
X1  X 2  0
For equilibrium the shear force on the base of any
slice is  f ,i
Ti  i
F
1
Ti  ( ci' i  i' i tan i' )
F
1
Ti  ( ci' i  Ni' tan i' )
F Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 53
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Bi h M
Bishop Method
th d

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 54

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Resolving forces in the vertical direction:

1
Wi  Ni' cosi  uii cosi  Ti sini  Ti  ci' i  Ni' tani' 
F
ci' i Ni'
Wi  Ni' cosi  uii cosi  i i  tan
sin t i' sin
i i
F F
 tani' sini   ci' i 
Wi  Ni' cosi     sini  uii cosi
 F   F 
 Ni' 
Wi  ci' i / Fi  sini  uii cosi 
(12 20)
(12.20)
cosi  tani' sini  / F 
It is
i convenient
i t to
t substitute
b tit t
i  b sec i
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 55
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

i i i

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 56

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

From Equation 12
12.18b,
18b after some rearrangement
rearrangement,

ci' La  tan i'  Ni'

F i

 Wi sin  i
i

1
  ci' i  tan i' Ni' 
 Wi sin i i
i

1  Wi  ci' i / F  sin i  uii cos i 

  ci' i  tan i'  
 Wi sin i i   cos i  tan i' sin i  / F 
i

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 57

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

1  Wi sec i  ci ' b sec i / F  tan i  uib sec i 

F  ci ' b sec i  tan i ' 
  
 Wi
i
sin  i i   1  tan i ' tan  i / F 

1  ci ' b sec i  tan i ' tan i  / F ci ' b sec i 

 i  1  tan i ' tan i  / F
i
Wi sin  i 

tan i 'Wi sec i  tan i ' tan i  / F ci ' b sec i   uib sec i tan i ' 
 
1  tan t i  / F
t i ' tan 

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 58

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

1  sec i 
F  { ci' b  ( Wi  uib ) tan i' } 
i i 
 Wi sin i 1  tan i' tan i  / F 
i

(12.22)

Bishop (1955) also showed how non-

zero valuesl off the
h resultant
l f
forces (X1 –
X2) could be introduced into the analysis
but this refinement has only a marginal
e f f e c t o n t h e f a c t o r o f s a f e t y.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 59

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The pore water pressure can be related to the

t t l ‘fill pressure’’ att any point
total i t by
b means off the
th
dimensionless p pore p pressure ratio,, defined as
u
ru 
h (12.23)

(sat where appropriate). For any slice,

ui
ru 
Wi / b

u ib  ruWi
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 60
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Hence Equation 12
12.22
22 can be written as

1  sec i 
F  { ci' bi  Wi( 1  ru , i ) tan i' } 
 Wi sin  i  1  tan  i tan i' / F  
i

(12 24)
(12.24)
Ass tthe
e factor
acto oof sa
safety
ety occu
occursso
on bot
both ssides
des
of Equation 12.22 and 12.24, a process of
s ccessi e approximation
successive appro imation must
m st be usedsed to
obtain a solution but convergence
g is rapid.
p
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 61
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Due to the repetitive nature of the

calculations
l l ti and
d the
th need d to
t select
l t an
q
adequate number of trial failure surfaces,,
the method of slices is particularly suitable
for solution by computer.
computer More complex
slope geometry and different soil strata
can be introduced.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 62

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

In most problems the value of the pore

press re ratio ru is not constant over
pressure o er the
whole failure surface but, unless there are
isolated regions of high pore pressure, an
average value (weighted on an area basis)
is normally used in design.

Again, the factor of safety determined by

Again
this method is an underestimate but the
error is unlikely to exceed 7% and in most
cases is less than 2%.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 63
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Spencer (1967) proposed a method of

analysis
l i in
i which
hi h the
th resultant
lt t interslice
i t li
forces are p
parallel and in which both force
and moment equilibrium are satisfied.

Spencer showed that the accuracy of the

Bishop routine method, in which only
moment equilibrium is satisfied,
satisfied is due to
the insensitivity of the moment equation to
the slope of the interslice forces.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 64

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Free body diagram of

Spencer Method

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 65

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Dimensionless stability coefficients for

homogeneous slopes, based on Equation
12.24 have been published by Bishop and
Morgenstern (1960). It can be shown that
f
for a given
i slope
l angle
l and d given
i soilil
properties
p p the factor of safetyy varies linearlyy
with r u , and can thus be expressed as
F  m  nru (12 25)
(12.25)
where m and n are the stability coefficients.
The coefficients m and n are functions of , ’,,
depth factor D and the dimensionless factor
c'/'/H.
H
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 66
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example of the Bishop routine method

Using the Bishop routine method of slices,
determine the factor of safetyy in terms of
effective stress for the slope detailed in the
following figure for the specified failure surface.
surface
The value of ru is 0.20 and the unit weight of the
soilil is kN/ 3. Characteristic
i 20 kN/m Ch t i ti values
l off the
th
shear strength parameters are c' = 0 and  =
33°.

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 67

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 68

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

 1
 
 2
 2
 
 5
 1
 
 2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 69

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Answer:
1  sec i 
F  { Wi( 1  ru , i ) tan i' } 
 Wi sin  i i  1  tan  i tan i' / F  
i

  33
'
ru  0.20
Wi  bhi  20  5  hi  100 hikN/m

1  ru  tan  '
 0.80 tan 33  0.520

First trial, assume F = 1.10

tan  '
tan 33
  0.590
F 1.10
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 70
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Referring to the figure

Slice h i W i= bhi i Wi sin i Wi(1-ru)tan  sec αi Product
 tan αi tan i' 
No. (m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) 1   (kN/m)
 F 

1 1.5 75 4 5 20 0.963 19

2 3.1 310 9 48 161 0.926 149

3 4.5 450 15 ½ 120 234 0.892 209

4 5.3 530 21 190 276 0.873 241

5 6.0 600 28 282 312 0.862 269

6 5.0 500 35 287 260 0.864 225

7 3.4 340 43 232 177 0.882 156

8 1.4 28 49 21 3 0.908 3

1185 1271
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 71
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

1271
F  1.07
1185

The trial value was

1 10 therefore take
1.10,
F to be 1.08.

 1
 
 2
 2
 
 5
 1
 
 2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 72

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example of the Bishop routine method

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 73

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example of the Bishop routine method

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 74

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example56 of the Bishop routine method

52
1.11
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
Y (m)

16
8
12
7
8
6
4 5
0 3 4
-4
1 2
-8
-12
12
-16
-20
-24
-24 -20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 2 4 6 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56

X (m)
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 75
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

TRANSLATIONAL SLIPS
It is assumed that the potential failure surface
is parallel to the surface of the slope and is at
a depth that is small compared with the length
of the slope.
slope

The slope can then be considered as being of

infinite length,
length with end effects being ignored.
ignored

The slope
Th l i inclined
is i li d att angle l  to t the
th
horizontal and the depth
p of the failure pplane is
z, as shown in section in Figure 12.13.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 76
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Figure 12.13 Plane translational slip

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 77

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

The water table is taken to be parallel to

the slope at a height of mz (0<m<1) above
the failure plane.
Steady seepage is assumed to be taking
place
l i a direction
in di ti parallel
ll l to
t the
th slope.
l
The forces on the sides of anyy vertical slice
are equal and opposite, and the stress
conditions are the same at every point on
the failure plane.
In terms of effective stress, the shear
strength of the soil along the failure plane
is
 f    u  tan 
'

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 78

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

W cos 
 
1 / cos 

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 79

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

and the factor of safety is

f
F (12 26a)
(12.26a)
mob
The expressions for ,, and u are
W  z  mz   mz sat 1  1  m   m sat z
W cos  1  m   m sat z cos 
 
1 / cos  1 / cos 
  {(1  m )  m sat }z cos  2

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 80

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

W cos 
 
1 / cos 

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 81

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

W sin  {(1  m )  m sat }z sin 

mob  
1 / cos  1 / cos 
mob  {(1  m )  m sat }z sin  cos 

u  m w z cos 2 

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 82

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 83

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Factor of Safety

 f   u ta
tan '
F 
mob mob

F
1 m  m z cos   mz w cos  tan'
sat
2 2

1 m  m satz sin  cos

F
1 m  m sat   w  tan '
(12.26b)
1 m  m sattan 
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 84
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

If the soil between the surface and the failure

plane is not fully saturated (i.e. m=0) then
m0

 tan  '
F
 tan 

ttan  '
F
tan 
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 85
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

If the water table coincides with the

surface of the slope (i.e. m=1) then
m 1

F
 sat   w  tan  '
 sat tan 

 ' tan  '

F
 sat tan 

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 86

 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

For a total stress analysis the shear

strength parameter cu is used (with u=0).
=0)

f cu
F 
mob mob

cu
F
1 m  m satz sin  cos

(
(12.26c)
6c)
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 87
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Example 12.3
A long
l natural
t l slope
l i an overconsolidated
in lid t d
fissured clay of saturated unit weight 20
kN/m3 is inclined at 12 to the horizontal.

The water table is at the surface and

seepage is roughly parallel to the slope.

A potential slip surface on a plane parallel to

the surface is at a depth of 5m.

Determine the factor of safety along the slip

plane using ′ = 28°.
Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 88
 lOMoARcPSD|6068704

Answer:

E
Equation
ti iin tterms off effective
ff ti stress:
t

 ' tan  '

F
 sat tan 

( 20  9.8) tan 28

F  1.28
20 tan 12

Downloaded by Anthony Mulenga ([email protected]) 89