2005 Prigiarto Yonathan Hokkal Drenaje y Subdrenaje

UNIVERSITY GHENT
UNIVERSITEIT
GENT
INTERUNIVERSITY PROGRAMME
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
PHYSICAL LAND RESOURCES
Universiteit Gent
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Belgium
Drained and undrained slope stability

analysis using GIS on a regional scale
September 2005
Promotor:
Prof. F. De Smedt
Master dissertation in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in
Physical Land Resources
by: Prigiarto Hokkal Yonatan
Most true it is, that I have looked on truth

Askance and strangely; but, by all above,
These blenches gave my heart another youth,
And worse essays proved thee my best of love.
Shakespeare CX
Het is zeker waar: ik zag oprechtheid, deugd
met een scheel oog, maar hemel, alsjeblieft,
dit dwalen bracht mijn hart een nieuwe jeugd,
en jij bleek op mijn pad mijn zoetste lief.
Shakespeare CX
Il est vrai que jai regard ce qui est vrai,
etrangement de travers, mais aprs tout,
ces faux regards ont donn une autre jeunesse
mon coeur; et les pires essays te montrent le meilleur.
Shakespeare CX (Pierre Jean Jouve)
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis on Slope Stability Analysis Using GIS on a Regional Scale is the final output of
my advanced study in Physical Land Resources organized by Free University Brussels (VUB)
and University of Gent (RUG). I would like to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to
my promoter, Prof. Dr. Ir. F. De Smedt, for his encouragement, comments, suggestions and
constant support throughout my study period and research work. It has been a privilege and a
pleasure to be supervised by leading researcher in the department.
I would like to express my best appreciation to Prof. Marc Van Molle for his valued support
in giving direction for this thesis work. My sincere thanks also go to Mr. W. Solomon Tuccu,
Mr. Corluy Jan and Mr. Hung Le Quock for their valuable support, criticism, guidance and
help to make this manuscript finished. I have also been fortunate to have the support of Mr. Y.
P. Chandra especially for sending me information and materials needed for finishing my
thesis.
My gratitude also goes to Anja Cosemans for her valuable support during my study. She has
been a computer IT advisor, a good friend and also an advisor for many technical questions
related to my study.
This has been a wonderful year for me to have an experience studying in Belgium. This
experience has been more colourful with many friends that support me during my study. My
special thanks go to all my colleagues, especially Mr. Michael Ndemo Bogonko, for sharing
computer room and accompanying me during my thesis work. I would like also to express my
special gratitude to my best friend Mr. Pascal Nottet for encouragement, valuable support and
especially sharing good and bad time together. Live in Belgium has never been wonderful
without all of you.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude also to my aunt, Mrs. Menny Indrawaty, for
making everything possible and supporting me for studying in Belgium. My special gratitude
also goes to my beloved brothers, Mr. Tjaja Hokmoro Jonatan and Mr. Sugiarto Hoklay
Yonatan for their love and encouragement.
Drained and Undrained Slope Stability Analysis Using GIS on a Regional Scale
Abstract
ii
ABSTRACT
This study is the continuation of the previous study done by Ram Lakhan Ray, 2004, that
applied stability model on an area of 341 km2 of Dhading district, Nepal. In this study, a
spatial distributed physically based slope stability model was presented and applied on 84 km2
of cohesive soil, covered about 25% of the original study area. Two methods of analysis were
performed, i.e. total and effective stress analyses and Taylor and infinite slope methods were
applied on the analysis. Critical height and safety factor maps were produced based on those
analyses. Steady state and quasi dynamic conditions were considered for the present study
with varying soil thickness. For quasi dynamic conditions, wetness index was applied based
on direct rainfall infiltrations. Slope angle of 38 and 17 can be considered as the average
mean slope angle to cause instability and the lower most slope angle for stable conditions,
respectively. This value was derived from the analysis based on half saturated conditions. It
was also concluded that this case can serve as general conditions of safety factor map at the
site where this case also has a similar result with models based on different return periods.
Taylor method was not applicable for this study area since this method is only applicable for
assessing safety factor with high slope angle. For short term safety factor map, completely dry
conditions resulted from infinite slope method can be used as a short term applications. Half
saturated case can be considered as general and long term safety factor map as this condition
reveals similar result as given by various return periods. This study has proved that models
developed with infinite slope models have given the best result even with some assumption.
Keywords: stability, total stress analysis, effective stress analysis, Taylor method, infinite
slope method, critical height, safety factor, steady state condition, quasi dynamic condition,
short term safety factor map, long term safety factor map.
Table of Contents
iii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1
1.1 General ..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Introduction to Study Area.............................................................................................2
1.3 Scope of the Study .........................................................................................................4
1.4 The Objective of the Study ............................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................5
2.1 General ..........................................................................................................................5
2.2 Slope Failure Mechanism...............................................................................................6
2.2.1 Internal Factors Effecting Slope Instability.........................................................8
2.2.1.1 Slope and Gravity Force ......................................................................9
2.2.1.2 Influence of Groundwater ....................................................................9
2.2.2 External Triggering Events.................................................................................9
2.3 Fundamentals of Soil Parameters .................................................................................10
2.3.1 Principle of Effective Stress .............................................................................10
2.3.2 Failure Criterion...............................................................................................11
2.3.3 Drained and Undrained Strength.......................................................................11
2.3.3.1 Undrained Strength ............................................................................12
2.3.3.2 Drained Strength................................................................................14
2.3.3.3 Residual Strength...............................................................................15
2.3.4 Choice Between Total and Effective Stress ......................................................16
2.4 Stability Analysis Methods ..........................................................................................17
2.4.1 Infinite Slopes ..................................................................................................19
2.4.1.1 Cohesive Material in Dry Condition...................................................19
2.4.1.2 Cohesive Material with Groundwater Effect ......................................21
Table of Contents
iv
2.4.1.3 Cohesionless Material in Dry Condition.............................................21

2.4.1.4 Cohesionless Material with Groundwater Effect ................................22
2.4.2 Total Stress Analysis ........................................................................................22
2.4.3 Wedge Analysis ...............................................................................................25
2.4.4 Non-Linear Methods ........................................................................................25
2.4.5 Model Based on Root Cohesion .......................................................................26
2.5 Landslide Hazard Analysis with GIS............................................................................26
2.5.1 Model Concept.................................................................................................27
2.5.1.1 Using Infinite Slope with Total and Effective Stress ..........................28
2.5.1.2 Using Taylor Method.........................................................................28
2.5.1.3 Assessment of Stability Classes .........................................................29
2.5.2 Hydrological Model .........................................................................................30
CHAPTER 3 : MATERIALS AND METHOD.................................................................32
3.1 General ........................................................................................................................32
3.2 Data Availability..........................................................................................................33
3.2.1 Available DEM and Raster Maps .....................................................................33
3.2.2 Available Hydrological Data ............................................................................37
3.3 Applied Methodology ..................................................................................................37
3.3.1 Soil Parameters Determination .........................................................................38
3.3.2 Model Development.........................................................................................41
CHAPTER 4 : RESULT AND DISCUSSION...................................................................46
4.1 General ........................................................................................................................46
4.2 Ground Condition at the Study Area ............................................................................46
4.3 Critical Height Maps....................................................................................................48
4.3.1 Based on Total Stress Analysis (TSA) ..............................................................48
4.3.1.2 Using Infinite Slope Method ..............................................................50
4.3.2 Based on Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) ........................................................52
4.4 Safety Factor Maps ......................................................................................................55
4.4.1 Total Stress Analysis ........................................................................................55
4.4.1.2 Using Infinite Slope Method ..............................................................57
Table of Contents
4.4.2 Effective Stress Analysis ..................................................................................59

4.4.2.1 Completely Dry Condition .................................................................60
4.4.2.2 Half Saturated Condition....................................................................63
4.4.2.3 Fully Saturated Condition ..................................................................65
4.4.2.4 Based on Different Return Periods .....................................................68
4.5 Discussion ...................................................................................................................71
4.5.1 Total and Effective Stress Analyses..................................................................71
4.5.2 Influence of Depth............................................................................................73
4.5.3 Slope Angle .....................................................................................................73
4.5.4 Selection of Maps.............................................................................................74
4.5.4.1 Critical Height Map ...........................................................................74
4.5.4.2 Safety Factor Map..............................................................................76
4.5.5 Comparison with Root Cohesion Method .........................................................78
CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................82
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................82
5.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................84
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... ix
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Figures
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Sensitive Landslides Area (Ray, 2004) ...............................................................3
Figure 2 :
Simplification Mass on Slope .............................................................................7
Figure 3 :
Results of Undrained Triaxial Tests on Saturated Clay .....................................12
Figure 4 :
Relationship between su/ ' and plasticity Index (Bjerrum and Simons, 1960) ..13
Figure 5 :
Relationship between the Natural Shear Strength of Undisturbed Clays and

Liquidity Index (Carter and Bentley, 1991) ......................................................14
Figure 6 :
Correlation between Effective Friction Angle and Plasticity Index for FineGrained Soils (NAVFAC DM-7)......................................................................15
Figure 7 :
The Concept of Residual Shear Strength...........................................................16
Figure 8 :
Forces on element of infinite slope (Cernica, 1995) ..........................................20
Figure 9 :
Total Stress Analysis ........................................................................................23
Figure 10 : Taylor's Stability Coefficients for u = 0 (after Craig, 2004) .............................24

Figure 11 : Location of the Study Area (Ray, 2004) ...........................................................32
Figure 12 : Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Study Area (Ray, 2004)........................34
Figure 13 : Slope Map of the Study Area............................................................................34
Figure 14 : Soil Map of the Study Area (Ray, 2004)...........................................................35
Figure 15 : Clayey Soil in the Study Area...........................................................................35
Figure 16 : Land Use Map of the Study Area (Ray, 2004) ..................................................36
Figure 17 : Flow Chart for the Present Study......................................................................42
Figure 18 : Previous and Present Study Assumption on Soil Thickness ..............................43
Figure 19 : Map Calculation for Stability Coefficient (Ns) .................................................43
Figure 20 : Map Calculation for Critical Height with Taylor Method..................................44
Figure 21 : Map Calculation for Critical Height with Infinite Slope....................................44
Figure 22 : Map Calculation for Safety Factor with Infinite Slope and TSA .......................45
Figure 23 : Map Calculation for Safety Factor in Dry Condition.........................................45
Figure 24 : Percentage Area of Each Soil Type for each Land Use Types...........................47
Figure 25 : Slope Magnitude within the Land Use Type .....................................................48
Figure 26 : Stability Coefficient Map for Taylor Method....................................................49
Figure 27 : Critical Height based on Taylor Method...........................................................50
List of Figures
vii
Figure 28 : Area of Critical Height for Each Soil Types Using Lower Undrained Shear
Strength............................................................................................................51
Figure 29 : Area of Critical Height for Each Land Use Types Using Lower Undrained Shear
Strength............................................................................................................51
Figure 30 : Critical Height Map with TSA..........................................................................52
Figure 31 : Area of Critical Height based on ESA ..............................................................53
Figure 32 : Area of Critical Height for Each Soil Types under Different Steady State
Conditions........................................................................................................54
Figure 33 : Area within Safety Factor Class with Taylor Methods ......................................56
Figure 34 : Safety Factor Map of Taylor Method with H = 5 m ..........................................56
Figure 35 : Area of Stability Class under Different Soil Thickness for Infinite Slope Method
with TSA..........................................................................................................57
Figure 36 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness with Infinite Slope and
TSA .................................................................................................................58
Figure 37 : Range of Slope Angle against Stability Class for Different Soil Thickness .......58
Figure 38 : Safety Factor Map with Infinite Slope Method (TSA) for H = 2 m ...................59
Figure 39 : Area of Stability Class for Dry Condition with ESA.........................................60
Figure 40 : Relationship between Area Occupied by Stability Class and Soil Thickness.....61
Figure 41 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness in Dry Condition ......61
Figure 42 : Range of Slope Angle against Stability Class under Different Soil Thickness
(Dry) ................................................................................................................62
Figure 43 : Safety Factor Map of Completely Dry Condition for H = 4 m ..........................62
Figure 44 : Area of Stability Class for Full Saturated Condition with ESA .........................63
Figure 45 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness in Half Saturated
Condition .........................................................................................................64
(Half) ...............................................................................................................65
Figure 47 : Safety Factor Map of Half Saturated Condition for H=5m................................65
Figure 48 : Area of Stability Class for Full Saturated Condition with ESA .........................66
Figure 49 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness in Full Saturated
Condition .........................................................................................................67
List of Figures
viii
(Full)................................................................................................................67
Figure 51 : Safety Factor Map of Full Saturated Condition for H = 6 m..............................68
Figure 52 : Wetness Index for Various Soil Thickness and Soil Types ...............................69
Figure 53 : Rainfall Intensity with Various Return Periods.................................................69
Figure 54 : Area of Safety Factor with Various Return Periods...........................................70
Figure 55 : Stable Area with Various Soil Types and Return Periods with Soil Thickness of
2m....................................................................................................................71
Figure 56 : Comparison between Various Method Results..................................................72
List of Tables
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 :
Classification of Landslides (Varnes, 1975)........................................................7
Table 2:
Consistency-Strength Relationship from Field Inspection (BS 8004: 1986) ......13
Table 3 :
Methods of Analysis.........................................................................................18
Table 4 :
Stability Clases.................................................................................................30
Table 5 :
Various Types of Soils and Corresponding Slope Angle...................................36
Table 6 :
Rainfall Prediction of Study Area with SMADA 6 Software (Ray, 2004) .........37
Table 7 :
Index Properties of Soil Based on Deoja et al. (1991) .......................................39
Table 8 :
Undrained Shear Strength from Various References .........................................39
Table 9 :
Effective Stress Parameters for the Study Area.................................................40
Table 10 :
Soil Parameter Used for the Analysis ...............................................................41
Table 11 :
Tabulated Area of Soil Types for each Land Use Types ...................................46
Table 12 :
Summary of Critical Height Using Taylor Method ...........................................49
Table 13 :
Summary of Critical Height using Infinite Slope Method .................................51
Table 14 :
Range of Critical Height, Area and Slope Angle...............................................52
Table 15 :
Critical Height and Slope Angle under Different Steady State Condition..........54
Table 16 :
Range of Mean Slope Angle.............................................................................74
Table 17 :
Slope Angle for Unstable and Stable Conditions ..............................................74
Table 18 :
Summary of Critical Height..............................................................................75
Table 19 :
Percentage of Total Area of Safety Factor for TSA Result................................77
Table 20 :
Percentage of Total Area of Safety Factor for ESA Result................................78
Table 21 :
Previous Study Assumption on Soil Thickness for Cohesive Soil .....................78
Table 22 :
Lower Most Slope Angle Causing Instability for Previous and Present Study...80
Table 23 :
Summary Comparison between Previous and Present Study .............................80
List of Abbreviations
List of Abbreviations
DEM
Digital Elevation Model
DoR
Department of Roads
ESA
Effective Stress Analysis
FS
Safety Factor
GIS
Geographical Information System
Inf.
Infinite Slope Method
Mod.
Moderately
Mst.
Moderately Stable
Qst.
Quasi Stable
RCM
Root Cohesion Method
St.
Stable
TSA
Total Stress Analysis
Ust.
Unstable
Chapter 1 : Introduction
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
Slope stability is a term used to explain the general immovability performance of a slope
under natural conditions or man-made slope. A slope may be laterally unsupported earth
mass, natural or man-made, whose surface forms an angle with the horizontal. Hills and
mountains, riverbanks and coastal formations, earth dams, highway cuts, trenches and the like
are examples of slopes. Every slope experiences gravitational forces and it may also possibly
be subjected to earthquakes, glacial forces or water pressures. In turn, these phenomena may
be direct influences on the stability of the slope.
A distinction should be made between natural and man-made slopes where both of the slopes
might have different effect on the stability performance. Man-made slopes are usually underhuman controlled where dimensions, material characteristics and strength are controlled by
several site tests and designs to adapt favourable slope. Natural slopes, on the other hand, are
mainly natural occurrence of slopes where materials characteristics and strengths are
generally un-controlled. Thus, in man-made slopes, the slope is designed in such a way to
fulfil the characteristics and strengths of the materials, while for natural slopes, an attempt is
used to maintain the slope from failure, which is caused by external triggering factor.
Basically, the performance of immovability of a slope, safety factor, for both man-made and
natural slopes is evaluated in relative terms of forces ratio that withstands the slope from
movements against that of causes failure. Among many internal and external forces,
gravitational and seepage forces are the internal factors that mainly cause imbalance forces in
soil or rock structures. Gravity is the force that acts everywhere on the earths surface, pulling
everything in a direction toward the centre of the earth. While seepage or pore water pressure
causes failure due to the rapid build up of pore water pressure.
For an embankment, the evaluation is based on the controlled characteristics of the materials
used for the embankment and an investigation of the underlying sub soils. However, the
situation becomes complicated when the evaluation of stability incorporates huge areas or
regional areas. The evaluation of safety factor or landslide over a huge areas is generally
called as Landslide Hazard Evaluation or Mapping. Complexity of the terrain and uncertainty
in factors affecting failure of the slope are more substantial compared to local slopes. Thus,
the need of evaluating landslide hazard has led to the use of Geographical Information
Systems (GIS), which are capable to analyze regional areas based on spatial distribution.
However, the principle used for the evaluation of landslide hazard remains the same as in
conventional local slope, which evaluates imbalance in forces. The different is that in spatial
analyzes the safety factor is evaluated in a pixel. Despite the difference, many deterministic
methods can be applied for evaluating landslide hazard and one of the most common methods
is so-called limit equilibrium approach. In this method, a slope may be divided into a number
of slices and the factor of safety is computed by solving the static equilibrium equations based
on a set of assumptions (Ray, 2004). The parameters required for analysis includes slope
geometry and conventional soil mechanics parameters. In most cases, the accuracy generally
depends on a proper estimation of soil parameters, hydrogeology conditions and geometric
conditions (Burton, 1998). However, consideration on the type of analysis either drained or
undrained cases should be carefully taken into account, because these cases determined the
chosen of parameters to be used in the analyses and the use of the outcome safety factor map.
As the type of analysis shows different effect on the stability result, a decision must be made
whether to use a total or an effective stress analysis especially, in clayey soils. The choice
generally follows from the classification of a stability problem as short or long term. Slope
failures generally result from a change of loading on the soil and if this occurs quickly, which
is the case in hilly or mountainous areas, the stability during and immediately after the change
may need to be assessed. This will be particularly important if the change of loading results in
a change of pore-water pressure in the soil mass and the change is rapid compared to the
consolidation time for the soil (Nash, 1987). Thus, in principle a total or an effective stress
approach could be used to analyze any slope, although, in practice, the short term stability
problems often simpler and regardless the fluctuation of groundwater table.
1.2
Introduction to Study Area
This study is a part of study that has been conducted by Ram Lakhan Ray as a part of his
fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Physical Land
Resources in Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Thus, materials and data used for this study are
basically collected and re-used from the previous study done by Ram Lakhan Ray.
The study area is located at Dhading district, Nepal. Nepal is located in the heart of the
Himalayan arc and occupies nearly one third of the mountain range (Ray, 2004) with the
longitude of 8004 to 8812 easting and latitude of 2622 to 3027 northing. The previous
study is a part of a project called Slope Stability Analysis using GIS on a Regional Scale,
which lies in the Dhusa Village in Dhading district along the Prithvi Highway leading from
the Western and Eastern parts of the country to Kathmandu, the national capital of Nepal. The
study area itself is located in the mountainous district in Nepal where national road
connecting major towns in some parts of Gorkha and Chitwan districts lies within this
mountainous area with latitude of 2745 to 275230 northing and longitude of 843730 to
845230 easting. The latitude varies from about 242 to 1922m above sea level. Detail
explanation related to the study area can be found in Slope Stability Using GIS on a
Regional Scale by Ram Lakan Ray, 2004. Figure 1 presents the sensitive area where
landslides are frequently occurred.
Figure 1: Sensitive Landslides Area (Ray, 2004)
This area has been reported as the most critical area where many major landslides occurred.
One of the major landslides in this area had been located at Krishna Bhir of Dhusa along with
the Prithvi Highway. It was also reported that every year landslide occurs during the rainy
season and, because of that, the major national road that connects other major districts is
closed for several weeks. Due to the frequently occurrence of landslides within this area, the
government has decided to develop mitigation plan for this area.
1.3
Scope of the Study
This study is mainly focused on to which extend the used of total stress analysis and effective
stress analysis applicable for the proposed study area. Since, the study area is covered both by
cohesive and cohesionless soil, while the total stress analysis is mainly applicable for
cohesive soil. Thus the study is conducted only on cohesive soil presented in the study area.
Two types of analysis was performed, i.e. total and effective stress analysis, using Taylor and
infinite slope method. Critical height and safety factor maps were produced based on those
analyses. Steady state and quasi dynamic conditions were considered for the present study
with varying soil thickness. For quasi dynamic conditions, wetness index was applied based
on direct rainfall infiltrations.
1.4
The Objective of the Study
Stability analysis on a regional scale have been investigated and studied by many researcher.
However, the methods and assumption used are not well explained. Therefore, the present
study aims to find a better approach for stability analysis over a regional area. The outcome of
the study will be helpful in planning, designing and implementing the development paradigms
of landslide area.
The landslide hazard as an outcome of this study could then be used as a guidance to assists
planners and administrators in making decisions related to the landslide area. Furthermore, it
can be used as an indication of stability conditions over the study area. Risk assessment and
measurement can be interpreted based on the outcome. This will certainly provide useful
information of stability on a project site in the early stage where necessary remedial action
and design can be taken to avoid slope failure. In return, a good design and remedial action
will reduce budget and also provide security on a project and society living nearby the project.
Chapter 2 : Literature Review
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1
General
Slides may occur in almost every conceivable manner, slowly or suddenly and with or
without any apparent provocation. The term landslide is commonly used to denote the
downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials along surfaces of separation
by falling, sliding, and flowing at a faster rate. Although landslides are primarily associated
with mountainous regions they can also occur in areas of low relief, especially in surface
excavations for highways, buildings and open-pit mines. The geological history and human
activities often cause unstable conditions that lead to slope failure.
A quantitative assessment of the stability of a slope is clearly important when a judgement is
needed about whether the slope is stable or not, and decisions are to be made as a
consequence. The quantitative assessment of the stability is referred to safety factor, which is
calculated as a ratio between forces that withstand the structural soil mass from falling or
resisting forces and forces that causes the structural soil to failure or driving forces.
The safety factor evaluation is depended on a number of factors and the evaluation itself
depends on the types of analysis used. The factors affecting slope instability are generally
influenced by gravity forces and seepage forces (Craig, 2004), while type of analysis to be
used is depended on whether the safety factor is considered as short or long term applications.
According to Nash (1987) both of analysis type can be applied for any slopes, eventhough,
the consideration taken for short term application is much simpler and regardless the seepage
forces.
Deterministic, or physically based, models are based on physical laws of conservation of
mass, energy or momentum. The parameters used in these models can be determined in the
field or in the laboratory. Most deterministic models are site-specific and do not take into
account the spatial distribution of the input parameters. Models which take into account the
spatial distribution of input parameters are called distributed models (Van Westen, 1994).
Deterministic distributed models require maps which give the spatial distribution of the input
data. The application of deterministic models for the zonation of landslide hazard in larger
areas, however, has never seen a more extensive development, due to the regional variability
of geotechnical variables such as cohesion, angle of internal friction, thickness of layers, or
depth to groundwater. Furthermore, the calculation of safety factors over larger areas involves
an extremely large number of calculations, which could not be executed without the use of
GIS.
2.2
Slope Failure Mechanism
The slope failure occurs because of instability forces acting on a soil or rock mass. As all
masses on earths surface are affected by gravity forces, the slopes, which are geometrically
elevated above certain latitude and have a certain degree of slope, tends to slide to lower
latitude. Once the balance of the forces is disturbed by internal changes or external triggering
events, the mass structures are no longer able to withstand the forces that push the mass to a
lower position. The movements of the mass from the original positions due to imbalance
forces is called landslide.
The imbalance forces occurring on the soil or rock mass can be taken place due to internal
forces or external forces. The internal forces include strengths between particles and pore
water pressure, while external forces are the forces that act on the structural masses due to
triggering events such as earthquakes. The strengths between soil or rock particles are the
forces that generally withstand the soil mass from failure. Thus, in case of gravitation force
only that acts on the structural mass, the tangential components of gravity force to the slope
and the shear stress are the two forces that act inversely each other. Thus, if the shear stresses
are larger than the tangential gravity force, the structural mass will not move or deform as
illustrated in Figure 2.
Not Moved
Moved
gt
gt
gp g
gp g
(a) Gentle Slope
(b) Steep Slope
Figure 2 : Simplification Mass on Slope
Based on the type of mass movements, Varnes (1958) classified gravity-induced movements,
which was based on two variables, type of materials and type of movement. Movement types
are divided into falls, topples, slides, flows and a combination of those movements, while the
materials are divided into two classes, i.e. rocks and engineering soils, as listed in Table 1.
Table 1 : Classification of Landslides (Varnes, 1975)

Type of Material
Type of Movement
Bedrock
Unconsolidated Sediment or Soil

Coarse
Fine
Falls
Rock Fall
Debris Fall
Earth Fall
Topples
Rock Topples
Debris Topples
Earth Topples
Rotational
Rock Slump
Debris Slump
Earth Slump
Transitional
Rock Block Slide
Debris Slide
Earth Slide
Rock Flow
Debris Flow
Earth Flow
Slides
Flows
Complex
Combination of two or more types
In fall movements, the movements occur by free fall or a series of leaps and bounds down the
steep slope. The movements are relatively free and lack of a slide plane. Depending upon the
type of slope materials involved, it may be a rock-fall, soil fall, debris fall, earth fall, boulder
fall, etc.
Slide type of movements occurs when the materials move as a block mass along the failure
plane. The failure plane is created as a result of imbalance forces that act in the plane in such
away that the shear stresses of the particles are no longer capable to resist the soil or rock
mass. There are two types of slides as depicted in Table 1, i.e. rotational and translational
slides. The difference between those types is the type of the failure plane, translational slides
occur when the failure plane is a planar parallel to the surface, while rotational slides occur
when the failure plane is a circle.
The other two movements, topple and flow, are considered less sliding because the
movements are progressively. Topple type of movements occurs as a result of overturning of
the blocks rather than sliding, while flows are the movements of materials progressively
downward.
A distinction should be made between the factor that affects the slope stability and the
triggering factors that caused imbalances in forces. Both of the factors are explained in the
following sections.
2.2.1 Internal Factors Effecting Slope Instability

It is very important to recognize the factors that effect instability of a slope in order to know
the mechanism of failure and possible assessment of landslides. The factors that are those
which lead to a slide without any change in surface conditions, which involve unaltered
shearing stresses in the slope material (Ramiah and Chickanagappa, 1990) is called internal
factors. The cause of such a condition is the decrease in shearing resistance brought about by
excess pore water pressure, material softening, breakage of cementation bonds and ion
exchange. Thus, landslides caused by only internal factors are affected by two major forces,
i.e. gravity force and pore water pressures.
2.2.1.1
Slope and Gravity Force
The angle at which material slopes is the major determining how much of the force of gravity
is directed downslope. If a block of rock or soil is placed on a flat surface, gravity acts
vertically and perpendicular to the flat surface and the full force of gravity is directed
downward onto the surface. If the slope is rotated, some of the force of gravity is directed, or
resolved, perpendicular to the sloped surface, called normal force, and part is resolved parallel
to the surface, called shear force. As the angle of the sloped surface increases, the force of
gravity remains the same however the amount of that force resolved as shear force increases
and the amount resolved as normal force decreases as shown in Figure 2. At some point the
ratio of shear or normal force, called the coefficient of sliding friction, reaches a critical level
and the block begins to slide down the slope. Every material and slope type has an inherent
angle at which the material becomes unstable, called the angle of repose. Most unconsolidated
materials, such as soil or sediment, have angles of between 30 and 40 degrees. The angle of
repose for solid rock materials depends on the smoothness of the sloped surface and the nature
of the rock material, and can vary from 20 45 degrees.
2.2.1.2
Influence of Groundwater
Pore water is the water held within the void spaces, or pores, in the rock or sediment. Pore
fluid has two distinct effects on mass wasting risk. Pore water has a tendency to liquefy and
disaggregate unconsolidated materials, such as sediment or soil. Pore water tends to
destabilize rock layers on sloped surfaces. When pore water is under pressure it reduces the
normal force holding rock layer stable on the sloped surface without reducing the shear force
that causes the downward motion of the rock.
2.2.2 External Triggering Events

External causes are those which produce an increase of the shearing stresses at unaltered
shearing resistance of the material. They include steepening of the slope, deposition of
material along the edge of slopes and earthquake forces.
Earthquakes have been reported by many researchers as the most destructive environment
phenomena. During an earthquake, the sudden ground shaking builds up rapid imbalance
forces in the soil or rock structures in such away that reduction in normal stress and
10
consequently also shear strength may occur. In rock materials, breaking of cementation in
discontinuities or of intact rock may also occur.
Steepening of the slope is considered as human interaction rather than environmental effect. It
can be occurred when a mountainous area is cut for road, tunnel, aesthetic of residential, etc.
Modification of a slope causes changing in slope angle so that it is no longer at the angle of
repose. Then, the mass-wasting event happens in order to restore the slope to its angle of
repose.
2.3
Fundamentals of Soil Parameters
A soil can be visualized as a skeleton of solid particles enclosing continuous voids which
contain water and or air. For the range of stresses usually encountered in practice the
individual solid particles and water can be considered incompressible; air, on the other hand,
is highly compressible. The volume of the soil skeleton as a whole can change due to
rearrangement of the soil particles into new positions, mainly by rolling and sliding, with a
corresponding change in the forces acting between particles. The actual compressibility of the
soil skeleton will depend on the structural arrangement of the solid particles. In a fully
saturated soil, since water is considered to be incompressible, a reduction in volume is
possible only if some of the water can escape from the voids. In a dry or a partially saturated
soil a reduction in volume is always possible due to compression of the air in the voids,
provided there is scope for particle rearrangement.
The stress-strain relationship for any material is used for analyzing the stability of structures,
slope, foundation, etc. Shear stress can be resisted only by the skeleton of solid particles, by
means of forces developed at the interparticle contacts. Normal stress may be resisted by the
soil skeleton through an increase in the interparticle forces. If the soil is fully saturated, the
water filling the voids can also withstand normal stress by an increase in pressure.
2.3.1 Principle of Effective Stress

Effective stress in any direction is defined as the difference between the total stress in that
direction and the pore-water pressure. The term effective stress is, therefore, a misnomer, its
meaning being a stress difference (Simons and Menzies, 1977). Stresses are transmitted
through a soil both by the soil skeleton and by the pore fluid. The soil skeleton can transmit
11
normal stresses and shear stresses through the interparticle contacts, but the pore fluid can
exert only all-round pressure. It is the stresses transmitted by the soil skeleton through the
inter particle contacts that control the strength and deformation of the soil. Where stresses
applied to the soil are wholly supported by the pore fluid pressure, they are not felt by the
contacts between particles and hence the soil behaviour is not affected. The effective stress
() acting on any plane is defined by the following equation :
= - u
(1 )
in which is the total stress acting on the plane and u is the pore pressure.
2.3.2 Failure Criterion

Numerous failure criteria have been proposed for the stability analysis of soil mass, but most
of them are borrowed from basic mechanics. Since soil is a complicated material, some stressstrain-time behaviour is highly non-linear. However, for practical uses the linear elastic model
and Mohr-Coulomb criterion and their shear equation are commonly used as expressed below:
= c + tan
(2 )
where is the shear strength, c is the cohesion, is the total stress and is the angle of
internal friction. Depending on the type of analysis, total or effective stress analysis, the
parameters of c, and should be substitutes with c, and .
2.3.3 Drained and Undrained Strength

A distinction should be made between drained and undrained strength of cohesive materials.
As cohesive materials or clays generally posses less permeability compared to sand, thus, the
movement of water is restricted whenever there is change in volume. So, for clay, it needs
years to dissipate the excess pore water pressure before the effective equilibrium is reached.
Shortly, drained condition refers to the condition where drainage is allowed, while undrained
condition refers to the condition where drainage is restricted. Besides, the drained and
undrained condition of cohesive soils, it should be noted that there is a decline in strength of
cohesive soils from its peak strength to its residual strength due to restructuring.
(a) Triaxial Undrained Test
12
(b) Triaxial Drained Test
Figure 3 : Results of Undrained Triaxial Tests on Saturated Clay
2.3.3.1
Undrained Strength
It has been found empirically that the strength of a saturated soil is constant if its volume
remains unchanged. This description is given in Figure 3(a) which shows the result of testing
several identical specimens of saturated clay in a triaxial apparatus with different confining
pressures. If no drainage is allowed, the specimens have the same undrained shear strength
and it appears that the clay is purely cohesive. The different by an amount equal to the
difference in confining pressures, and hence the effective stresses are the same. This
behaviour is in contrast to what happens if the drainage is not restricted; the specimens would
have different drainage strengths as shown in Figure 3(b).
Normally, the drained and undrained strength are derived by laboratory test by testing a
specimen on a triaxial compression test. Then, the drainage condition is applied on the
specimens whether drained or undrained, the strength result is comparable to drainage
condition.
However, to derive drained and undrained strength from the laboratory test takes a long time
and costs a large amount of budget. To overcome this problem, some researchers proposed
correlation for undrained shear strength, one of them are proposed by Skempton (1957). The
following correlation between the ratio cu/ and plasticity index, Ip, for normally
consolidated clays was proposed by Skempton (1957):
13
cu
= 0.11 + 0.0037 I p
'
(3 )
British Standard gives a rough guide of undrained shear strength in relationships with the
consistency as shown in Table 2. Bjerrum and Simons (1960) proposed the same correlation
as proposed by Skempton in the form of chart as shown in Figure 4. Another correlation
proposed by Carter and Bentley (1991) correlates natural undrained shear strength and
Liquidity Index (LI) as shown in Figure 5.
Table 2: Consistency-Strength Relationship from Field Inspection (BS 8004: 1986)
Consistency
Field Indications
Undrained Shear
Strength (kPa)
Very Stiff
Brittle or very tough
Stiff
Con not be moulded in the

fingers
Can be moulded in the fingers
by strong pressure
75 - 150
Soft
Easily moulded in the fingers
20 - 40
Very Soft
Exudes between the fingers

when squeezed in the fist
Firm
> 150
40 - 75
< 20
Figure 4 : Relationship between su/

' and plasticity Index (Bjerrum and Simons, 1960)
14
The undrained shear strength usually uses when a total stress analysis is used. This correlation
explains that the relationships between undrained shear strength increases to the depth.
Figure 5 : Relationship between the Natural Shear Strength of Undisturbed Clays and Liquidity Index
(Carter and Bentley, 1991)
2.3.3.2
Drained Strength
When the water movement is not restricted, a specimen placed on triaxial compression test
will show different strengths for different confining pressures as shown in Figure 3. By
referring to a triaxial test, the strength parameters of cohesive soils can be obtained by means
of consolidated-drained tests or by means of consolidated-undrained tests with pore pressure
measurement. Correlation given by Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC),
1986, gives a good estimation on the effective angle of shearing resistance as shown in Figure
6.
15
Figure 6 : Correlation between Effective Friction Angle and Plasticity Index for Fine-Grained Soils
(NAVFAC DM-7)
2.3.3.3
Residual Strength
For analysis of shear characteristics of overconsolidated soils relating to stability problems,

ordinary shear tests are not suitable because they give too high a shear value. Skempton
(1964) showed that the strength remaining in laboratory samples after large shearing
displacement corresponded closely with the computed strength from actual landslides;
therefore, he proposed a residual strength concept as shown in Figure 7. Because of the peak
or residual shear parameters are relatively time consuming and expensive, for practical uses
some simple experimental equations and correlations for estimating these strength parameters
have been proposed by numerous in investigators such as proposed by Jamiolkowski and
Pasqualini as cited by CRRI (1979) as below:
r = 453.1 (LL-0.85)
(4 )
16
Figure 7 : The Concept of Residual Shear Strength
2.3.4 Choice Between Total and Effective Stress

A decision must be made when analysing slope stability whether to use a total or an effective
stress analysis. The choice generally follows from the classification of a stability problem as
short or long term. Slope failures generally result from a change of loading on the soil and if
this occurs quickly, the stability during and immediately after the change may need to be
assessed. This will be particularly important if the change of loading results in a change of
pore-water pressure in the soil mass and the change is rapid compared to consolidation time of
the soil or if the loading is a natural fluctuation of groundwater levels as occurs in natural
slopes the problem is considered to be long term.
Theoretically, both total and effective stress analyses could be applied to analyze any slope,
although since soils are predominantly frictional materials an effective stress analysis seems
inherently more logical especially for the analysis of long-term problems. In practice for
short-term stability problems a total stress analysis is often simpler and more convenient as
there is usually difficulty in predicting pore-pressure changes.
In specifying the shear strength parameters for a total stress analysis it is assumed that for
saturated soils u = 0 and cu is the undrained shear strength, i.e. the soil behaves as if it were
purely cohesive. In an effective stress analysis the effective strength parameters, cand , are
used and the pore pressure must be specified as an independent variable.
17
Another explanation related to total and effective stress is given by the permeability of the soil
structure. If the permeability of the soil is low, a considerable time will elapse before any
significant dissipation of excess pore water pressure will have taken place. At the end of
construction the soil will be virtually in the undrained condition and a total stress analysis will
be relevant. In principle an effective stress analysis is also possible for the end-of-construction
condition using the appropriate value of pore water pressure for this condition. However,
because of its greater simplicity, a total stress analysis is generally used. It should be realized
that the same factor of safety will not generally be obtained from a total stress and an effective
stress analysis of the end-of-construction condition. In a total stress analysis it is implied that
the pore water pressures are those for a failure condition, while in an effective stress analysis
the pore water pressures used are those predicted for a non-failure condition.
2.4
Stability Analysis Methods
The stability analysis methods are categorized into two basic approaches, i.e. (1) Limit
Equilibrium Analysis and (2) Deformation analysis, and It is also depended on the type of
analysis used, i.e. (1) Total Stress Analysis and (2) Effective Stress Analysis. So far, limit
equilibrium methods are the most common used for assessing slope stability, while the type of
analysis can be used both total and effective stress analysis.
Limit equilibrium approach postulates that the slope might fail by a mass of soil sliding on a
failure surface. When the failure occurs, the shear strength is fully mobilized all the way along
the failure plane, and the overall slope and each part of it are in static equilibrium. In the
analysis of stable slopes the shear strength mobilized under equilibrium conditions is less than
the available shear strength, and it is conventional to introduce a factor of safety F defined by:
FS =
Available Shear Strength

Shear Strength required for stability
(5 )
Equation (5) is the basic formula in assessing safety factor in limit equilibrium methods.
Depending on the method used, the slip surfaces are usually defined and the safety factors are
calculated based on the selected slip surface. The smallest safety factor from the defined
failure planed is considered as the safety factor of the slope. The failure plane itself can be
18
curve or plane section, thus, it is necessary to consider the likely shape of the failure surface.
Table 3 presents the various method of limit equilibrium and their formed of failure planed.
The chosen of analysis type determines the shear strengths should be used for the analysis.
The shear strength of the soil is normally given by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion as
follow :
s = cu = s u
(for undrained total stress analyses)
s = c + tan (for drained effective stress analyses)
(6 )
(7 )
where, cu or su are the undrained shear strengths and c and are the effective cohesion and
the effective friction angle, respectively.
Table 3 : Methods of Analysis

Method
Circular
Non-Circular
Assumption about
Interslice force
Infinite Slope
Parallel to Slope
Wedge Analysis
Defined Inclination
Total Stress Analysis
Ordinary or Swedish
Method
Bishop's Method of Slices
(*)
Horizontal
Janbu Simplified
Horizontal
Spencer's Method
(*)
Janbu Rigorous
Resultant parallel to
base of each slice
Constant Inclination
Define thrust line
As listed in Table 3, there are many limit equilibrium methods available; however, only linear
and total stress analysis methods are discussed in detail. The methods of analysis which are
most amenable to hand calculation are the infinite slope analysis, total stress analysis and the
wedge or sliding block analysis. These methods are simple to use since in each there is a
linear equation for the factor of safety and thus it is considered as linear methods.
19
2.4.1 Infinite Slopes

Infinite slope is one of the simplest approaches for slope stability analysis. According to
Skempton and Delory, 1957, a landslides of a planar mass of soil occurs in slip surface which
is approximately parallel to the ground surface can be analyzed effectively using the infinite
slope analysis. The name infinite-slopes is given to earth masses of constant inclinations of
unlimited extent and uniform conditions at any given depth below the surface. Thus, in this
analysis the soil is assumed to slide on a plane slip surface which is parallel to the ground
surface and the slope is assumed to be infinite in extent at a certain inclination to the
horizontal (Nash, 1987). Even though, such assumptions adopted by infinite slopes are
realistically never taken place, infinite slope method provides a good general idea about the
stability of a slope. Based on the type of materials and groundwater occurrence, infinite slope
can be determined in several cases as elaborated below.
2.4.1.1
Cohesive Material in Dry Condition
As shown in Figure 8, a case of slope with slip failure parallel to the ground surface is applied
with the slope is infinite extent and no seepage is assumed. The gravity force (W) of a column
soil mass with thickness b is given by Hb. As a consequence of angle i, the weight of the
column mass can be divided into two components namely S, the force along the inclination of
the block and N, the force normal to the inclination of the block. Both of the force can be
expressed as follow, while forces acting parallel to the slip surface, F1 and F2 are assumed
equal and opposite, and are therefore ignored in the analysis.
Normal Force (N) = W cos i = Hb cos i
(8 )
Shear Force (S) = W sin i = Hb sin i
(9 )
20
Figure 8 : Forces on element of infinite slope (Cernica, 1995)
Resolving the two forces in Equation (8) and (9), the normal and shear stress can be derived
by dividing the two forces by the width of the soil mass on a plane failure, which is b/cos i.
Thus, the normal stress is given by :
N
= H cos 2 i
b cos i
(10 )
S
= H sin i cos i
b cos i
(11 )
and the shear stress is given by :
where, is the unit weight of soil.

In case of dry condition, where pore water pressure does not present, the shear resistance
shown in Equation (7) becomes as follow :
s = c + tan
(12 )
21
where, c and are the cohesion and internal friction angle, respectively. Thus, substituting
Equation (11) and (12) into Equation (5), the safety factor for this condition becomes as
follow:
FS =
c + tan
tan
c
=
+
H sin i cos i H sin i cos i tan i
(13 )
For clayey soil, it is interesting to defined a critical height (Hc) of the clay stratum, which can
be expressed by the formula :
Hc =
2.4.1.2
c
sec 2 i
tan i tan
(14 )
Cohesive Material with Groundwater Effect
For a condition with groundwater effect, the pore pressure at a depth H equals w Hw cos2i.
The effective pressure is ( H - w Hw) cos2i, where w is the unit weight of water and Hw is the
height of water above the failure plane. Assuming that the thickness of water above the failure
plane equals to mH, then the shear resistance is given by :
s = c + ( H - w Hw) cos2i tan
s = c + ( H - w mH) cos2i tan = c + ( - w m) H cos2i tan
(15 )
The factor m, in the above equation termed as the wetness index gives the condition of
saturation of the soil. If m equals to one, the soil is in a completely saturated condition while
the value zero indicates dry conditions of the soil. Similar to the procedure described above,
the safety factor in this condition is calculated by the following relationship.
FS =
2.4.1.3
c + ( w m ) H cos 2 i tan
H sin i cos i
(16 )
Cohesionless Material in Dry Condition
Cohesionless soils are completely different with cohesive soil in terms of cohesion.
Cohesionless soils do not exhibit cohesion characteristics as in cohesive soil. Thus, in the case
22
of cohesionless soil in dry condition, the c and m in Equation (16) become zero and the safety
factor for this condition is given by :
FS =
tan
tan i
(17 )
Equation (17) expresses that for cohesionless soil the critical angle of the slope is equal to the
internal friction angle under dry condition.
2.4.1.4
Cohesionless Material with Groundwater Effect
Looking at Equation (16), for this condition, the wetness index, m, is no longer zero because
there is an effect of groundwater table. Thus, solving Equation (16) for this condition, the
safety factor becomes,
FS =
( w m ) tan
tan i
(18 )
2.4.2 Total Stress Analysis

The permeability of clays is very much less than that of sands and this inhibits the movement
of water if there is tendency to change volume. As a result it may take years after a change of
surface loading on a deposit of clay for excess pore pressures to dissipate and for the effective
stresses to reach equilibrium. In this case, the condition of the soil is undrained where the
excess pore water pressures are unable to dissipate. However, the shear strength of a soil is
dependent on the effective stresses whatever the condition of drainage. Thus, when movement
of the pore water is restricted, the pore pressure increases in a soil which is trying to contract
and decreases in one trying to dilate. The change of pore pressure directly affects the effective
stresses and hence the shear strength.
When considering the field problems in which the loading or unloading occurs sufficiently
rapidly that drainage does not occur, the undrained shear strength may be applied in the
stability analysis when a total stress analysis is used (Nash, 1987) for clayey soil. The
undrained shear strength of clay may be determined in the laboratory, or in-situ in the field.
23
The stability analysis calculated by infinite slope for cohesive soil can be applied on total
stress analysis by assuming the internal friction angle () equals to zero. The explanation
about this analysis is given in Section 2.5.1.1. Another method for total stress analysis is
developed by Taylor (after Craig, 2004), which is assumed fully saturated clay under
undrained conditions as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9 : Total Stress Analysis
As shown in Figure 9, only moment equilibrium is considered in the analysis and undrained
shear strength are used. 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 9. Thus, the safety
factor can be expressed as follow,
FS =
cu La r
Wd
(19 )
where, cu is the undrained shear strength, La is the total length of the failure plane, r is the
radius of the failure plane, W is the weight of the block and d is horizontal distance of the
weight force to the centre of the circle.
24
Based on the principle of geometric similarity, Taylor (after Craig, 2004) published stability
coefficients for the analysis of homogeneous slopes in terms of total stress. For a slope of
height H the stability coefficient (Ns) for the failure surface along which the factor of safety is
a minimum is as follow,
Ns =
cu
FS H
(20 )
and the safety factor can be expressed as follow:
FS =
cu
Ns H
(21 )
The coefficient Ns depends on the slope angle and the depth factor D, where DH is the
depth to a firm stratum. Figure 10 shows the Taylors stability charts.
Figure 10 : Taylor's Stability Coefficients for u = 0 (after Craig, 2004)
The use of undrained shear strength in this analysis implies that pore pressures and effective
stresses in the soil have not had time to reach equilibrium under an applied loading. Thus it
can be applied appropriately for natural slopes, where generally, slope instability are caused
by heavy rain that the rapid increases of groundwater table are not able to dissipate the excess
25
pore water pressure. However, this method should be used with caution due to generalization
in pore water pressures. It might be possible to use this method with assumption that the
clayey soils are heavily impermeable and thus, the groundwater pressures are not easily
dissipated.
2.4.3 Wedge Analysis

There are situation in which the slip surface can be approximated by two or three straight
lines. This may occur when the slope is underlain by a strong stratum such as rock or there is
a weak stratum included within or beneath the slope. In these circumstances an accurate
assessment of the stability may be made by splitting the slope into several blocks of soil and
examining the equilibrium of each block.
In this method, the trial sliding mass is divided into two or three large sections or wedges. The
upper wedge is called the driving or active wedge, while the lower wedge is called the
resisting or passive wedge. In a three-wedge system, the middle segment is sometimes
referred to as the sliding block. The potential failure surface is simplified to a series of planes.
2.4.4 Non-Linear Methods

There are numerous non-linear methods, however, all of those non-linear methods has the
same assumption of failure plane that this method considers non-linear failure planes. One of
these methods is called as Method of Slices. There are also many methods of slices developed
by researcher such as General Formulation developed by Fredlund and Krahn, Bishops
Routine Method, Janbus Simplified Method, etc.
Despite the fact that there are many methods of slices, however, they share the same principle
that the slope being analyzed is divided into a number of slices. First of all, an assumed nonlinear failure plane is determined either circular or a combination between block and circular.
Then, the slices are determined within the ground surface and the defined failure plane. The
forces are resolved for every slice with the same principle as in infinite slope.
Depending on the method of slices, some of them are only considers vertical forces, while
horizontal forces occurred on both side of a slice are assumed to be equal and thus, it was
neglected such as Bishops routine method. Method of slices also considers moment balance
26
based on an assumed central point of sliding. The safety factor is then determined as the
balance between forces that causing sliding against the central point and that of withstanding
the block against failure.
2.4.5 Model Based on Root Cohesion

This method is adapted by Montgomery and Dietrich (1994), Van Westen and Terlien (1996)
and de Vleeschauwer and De Smedt (2002), which combined the stability analysis with the
cover type of the land. Since, stability of a slope is not only depended on the internal factor
but also external factors, the method adopt the effect of external factor such as surcharge
pressure and root cohesion. By applying root cohesion, it means that the method also take into
account the possibility of translational failure because of land cover type. This method can be
expressed by the following formula:
FS =
Cs + C r
tan
+ 1 m w
e D sin i
e tan i
(22 )
where, FS is the safety factor, Cs and Cr are the effective soil and root cohesion governed by
the vegetation type, respectively; D is the depth of the soil above failure plane; is the angle
of internal friction; i is slope angle; w is the unit weight of water and e is the effective unit
weight of soil as defined by Westen and Terlien (1996).
Actually, this method was developed based on infinite slope, however there are differences in
assumption and the philosophy behind the formula. First, the assumption of soil depth is taken
as the thickness of soil above the failure plane and it is perpendicular to the failure plane,
while in ordinary infinite slope the soil depth is the vertical depth against failure plane.
Secondly, there is a new parameter introduced in the formula that is root cohesion. By
introducing this parameter, the formula are no longer satisfy ordinary infinite slope equation,
but it serves as a method that takes into account erosions as a factor causing instability of
slope.
2.5
Landslide Hazard Analysis with GIS
Landslide hazards assessment tools are becoming a popular tool not only for the disaster
prevention or mitigation purposes but also for land use planning, resources development and
27
infrastructure development (Joshi, 2002). The landslide potential mapping are becoming
useful for watershed management and they are proving themselves a good assistant to help
decision makers for careful development of hill slope which eventually can reduce the
economic and social losses, reducing the damage potential. Protection plans require the
description of scenarios that can be defined by means of simulation with mathematical
models, which incorporates the occurrence conditions of the failure including the triggering
mechanism
Regional landslide evaluation and mapping have been actively pursued by research
institutions and government agencies for a long time. Among different techniques of landslide
hazard model such as statistical approach, one widely used technique now a day is
deterministic approach. This approach seems to be superior because it has direct linkage to
physics. Evolution of fast processing computers and Geographic Information System (GIS)
has enhanced its capacity of mapping. GIS technologies could provide a powerful tool to
model the landslide hazards for their spatial analysis and prediction. This is because the
collection, manipulation and analysis of the environmental data on landslide hazard can be
accomplished much more efficiently and cost effectively (Carrara and Guzzetti, 1999 and
Guzzetti et al., 1999). Many GIS-based analysis models and quantitative prediction models of
landslide hazard have been proposed since the beginning of GIS application in geohazards
research in the late 1980s (Carrara, 1983; Van Westen, 1994; Carrara et al., 1991; Carrara et
al., 1995; Carrara and Guzzetti, 1999; Jade and Sarkar, 1993; Chung et al., 1995; Chung and
Fabbri, 1998 and Chung and Fabbri, 1999).
2.5.1 Model Concept

The analysis of slope stability using GIS requires the overlying of various thematic maps such
as slope map derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), land use map and soil map.
While for rainfall-triggered landslides, there are two main approaches for rainfall-triggered
landslide prediction: (1) use statistical correlations and forecasting techniques to establish the
empirical relationships between rainfall and landslide; (2) use a deterministic model coupling
mechanistic slope stability model with a hydrological model to model groundwater recharge
and pore water pressure changes caused by rainfall. Many researchers have been engaged in
the slope failure or landslide hazard analysis with models similar to second approach (Dietrich
28
et al., 1995; Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; Wu and Sidle, 1995 and Pack et al., 1998).
However, most models are valuable for certain applications and certain region.
The following sections discuss how the methods explained in Section 2.4 are applied for the
analysis of stability. The study mainly focuses on the stability for cohesive soil with emphasis
on Infinite Slope Method and Taylor Method by applying two stress cases, i.e. total and
effective stress.
2.5.1.1
Using Infinite Slope with Total and Effective Stress
The difference between total and effective stress analysis is the use of strength parameters and
the used of pore water pressures. For cohesive soil under effective stress analysis, the
cohesion should be replaced by effective cohesion (c) and if the cohesive soil is subjected to
internal friction angle, then it should be replaced by effective internal friction angle (). On
the other hand, for cohesive soil under total stress analysis, undrained shear strength (cu)
might be used and angle of internal friction () equals to zero (Nash, 1987) with pore pressure
being zero. Thus, the formulas for cohesive soil in dry condition (Total Stress Analysis)
becomes :
FS =
cu
H sin i cos i
(23 )
and, the cohesive soil with groundwater influence (Effective Stress Analysis), the formula
becomes:
FS =
c'+ ( w m ) H cos 2 i tan '

H sin i cos i
(24 )
For effective stress analysis, m is the soil wetness index, which is defined the relative height
of water above the slip plane. So, if m equals to one, then the water table is at the ground
surface, while if m equals to zero, then the water table is at the slip plane.
2.5.1.2
Using Taylor Method
For Taylor Method, the formula shown in Equation (21) has shown the used of total stress
analysis because there is no effect of pore water pressure. Thus, by using Taylor Method, the
29
consideration is only for total stress analysis. Equation (21) can be used to estimate the safety
factor by applying stability coefficient as shown in Figure 10, which is depended on angle of
the slope and thickness of the stratum.
2.5.1.3
Assessment of Stability Classes
There is no general rule on how the safety factor should be classified. For instance, Van
Westen and Terlien, 1996, categorized safety factor into 3 classes, below one, which means
unstable, between 1 and 1.5, which means moderately stable, and above 1.5, which means
stable. SINMAP, Stability Index Mapping, an extension computed added modelling for slope
stability in ArcView, uses 6 classes for safety factor including division of safety factor below
1.
In the design of slopes, the factor of safety on shear strength traditionally has several
functions :
1. To take into account uncertainty of shear strength parameters due to soil variability, and
the relationship between the strength measured in the laboratory and the operational field
strength.
2. To take into account uncertainties in the loading on the slope such as surface loading, unit
weight, pore pressures, etc.
3. To take into account the uncertainties in the way the model represents the actual
conditions in the slope, which includes (a) the possibility that the critical failure
mechanism is slightly different from the one which has been identified, and (b) that the
model is not conservative.
4. To ensure deformation within the slope are acceptable.
Thus, a safety factor of 1 does not indicate that failure of a slope is necessarily imminent. The
real safety factor is strongly influenced by minor geological details, stress-strain
characteristics of the soil, actual pore-pressure distribution, initial stresses, progressive failure
and numerous other factors. However, in the practice, it is convenient to assume that a safety
factor of 1 is defined as the critical condition where the forces in the condition of balance.
However, all of the classification proposed by researcher has a certain threshold safety factor,
which is FS=1 and FS=1.5, the first explains the critical conditions and the former explains
30
the stable conditions. Safety factor classes used by Westen and Terlien (1996) is strictly
categorized a slope being unstable, moderately stable or stable, however, for analysis, it is
necessary to quantify the area falls in safety factor between 1 to 1.5. Thus, it is convenient to
classify the safety factor in four classes as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 : Stability Clases
Safety Factor
Slope Stability Class
Remarks
FS >1.5
Stable
1.25 < FS < 1.5
Moderately Stable
Moderate destabilising factors lead to

instability
1 < FS < 1.25
Quasi Stable
Minor destabilising factors can lead to

instability
FS < 1
Unstable
Only major destabilising factors lead to

instability
Stabilising factors are needed for stability
2.5.2 Hydrological Model

One of the possible triggering mechanisms of slope failure is caused by the rapid increase of
ground water table, which finally affect the increasing pore water pressure. Beven and
Kirkby, 1979, developed soil saturation in function of hill slope topography as the wetness
index as follow,
m = ln
a
tan
(25 )
where a is the contributing area per unit contour length and is the slope of the pixel.
However, this equation does not consider the hydrological characteristic of the soil and
rainfall events, which are in the case of slope stability, very important. Thus, the following
formula is more appropriate to be used because it expresses the rainfall intensity.
31
D
+ R S
m= 2
D
(26 )
where, D is depth of soil [m], R is recharge or maximum daily rainfall [m], and S is Specific
Yield of soil [-].
Chapter 3 : Materials and Methods
32
CHAPTER 3 : MATERIALS AND METHOD

3.1
General
As this study is the continuation of the previous study done by Ram Lakan Ray, 2004, thus,
the necessary data for the analysis is collected by the previous analysis. In general, the study
area shown in Figure 11 has shown active landslides as reported by Ram Lakan Ray at
Krishna Bhir. It is covered not only by soil but also rocks (cliff), however, the existence of
rock is very small compared to soil. Besides, due to this study mainly focuses on clayey soils,
thus the existence of rock does not affect the result.
Figure 11 : Location of the Study Area (Ray, 2004)
The study mainly focuses on the applicability of total and effective stress analysis method by
applying infinite slope and Taylor methods on the study area. To be able to compare
objectively between the two analyses cases, the study is only conducted on a clayey soil. Even
though, effective stress analysis is also applicable for non-cohesive soil.
This chapter discusses the materials used and the method applied on the study area. It is
covered how the available data derived by previous study and also how both of the analyses
cases are applied on the study area.
3.2
33
Data Availability
Analyzing slope stability on a regional area requires two types of data, i.e. geotechnical
including topographical and hydrological data. Both of the data are equally important since
the geotechnical data represent the characteristics of the materials, while the hydrological data
represent the amount of rainfall in the area. However, sometimes it is difficult to collect such
information especially in rural area of a developing country, where information on earth
resources is always connected to the budget provided and development priority given by the
government. It is also the case that research and collection of data in a developing country are
not well organized.
Unfortunately, the situation is the same in Nepal for the study area. There is no soil map, land
use map, records of soil parameter and meteorological station inside the study area. The soil
map was then interpreted based on the Project Report prepared by Department of Roads
(DoR), Ministry of Works and Transport, Nepal. For land use map, it was produced by aerial
photographs prepared by Department of Survey. While for hydrological data, it was derived
from four meteorological stations around the study area, which is located at Dhading, Aru
Ghat, Gorkha and Rampur.
Since there is no actual measurement on soil parameters for this study area, thus, the soil
parameters were interpreted and adapted from various relevant books and papers. Even
though, the interpretation for soil parameters from various publications is quite useful to be
used for the analysis; however, the approach might not be accurate and involve a big
assumption due to the variation of soil parameters on the site.
For this study, the available data used from the previous study consist of four maps and a set
of hydrological data. The maps are DEM, slope map, land use map and soil map, while the
hydrological data has been calculated using statistical software as explained in Section 3.2.2.
3.2.1 Available DEM and Raster Maps

The available DEM map has a grid size of 20 m covering an area of 341 km2 with an
elevation ranging from 245 m to 1895 m as shown in Figure 12. From the slope map, the
study area has a slope ranging from 0.011 to 61 as shown in Figure 13. The maps have 701
34
rows and 1237 columns, covering the area between 561524m to 586264 m Easting and
3070318 m to 3084338m Northing. The unit of the map is in meters.
Figure 12 : Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Study Area (Ray, 2004)
Figure 13 : Slope Map of the Study Area
35
From the soil map, it was identified that the study area is covered by 11 soil types as shown in
Figure 14. There are three types of cohesive soil in the study area, i.e. Inorganic Silt, Organic
Silt and Sandy Clay as shown in Figure 15, covering a total area about 84.057 km2.
Figure 14 : Soil Map of the Study Area (Ray, 2004)
Figure 15 : Clayey Soil in the Study Area
36
Table 5 : Various Types of Soils and Corresponding Slope Angle
Clayey Sand
241513
96.6052
Angle (degree)
Min
Max
0.0591
49.9658
Poorly G. Sand
82881
33.1524
0.3526
51.0144
Silty Gravel
107882
43.1528
0.1908
59.7071
Gravelly Sand
20053
8.0212
0.0106
50.925
Sandy Clay
117980
47.192
0.2843
60.945
Rock
1408
0.5632
1.7308
46.4667
Inorganic Silt
85819
34.3276
0.0193
57.7121
Poorly G. Gravel
35238
14.0952
0.244
57.958
Organic Silt
6344
2.5376
1.2014
43.4273
10
Silty Sand
84749
33.8996
0.1215
52.2431
11
Clayey Gravel
68815
27.526
0.3208
60.4487
Total
852682
341.0728
Soil-Code
Soil Type
Count
Area (km2)
From the land use map, it was identified that the study area is covered by 9 types of land use
as shown in Figure 16. The study area is covered majority by three types of land cover,
agricultural land, bush land and forest with percentage of 48 %, 29 % and 20 %, respectively.
Figure 16 : Land Use Map of the Study Area (Ray, 2004)
37
3.2.2 Available Hydrological Data

There are four meteorological stations surrounding the study area. Of the four meteorological
stations surrounding the study area, only three of them were analyzed for developing
hydrograph. The data derived from meteorological stations at Rampur was not considered
because it is located in a plain area where climate and rainfall patterns are completely
different than the study area. However, only the closest rainfall stations to the study area were
considered, i.e. Dhading. The rainfall data collected from the Department of Hydrology,
HMG, Nepal, consists of yearly rainfall data from 1956 to 1996. The rainfall frequency
analysis is developed using SMADA 6.0 software with a Log Pearson Type III distribution.
Table 6 presents the results for the study area.
Table 6 : Rainfall Prediction of Study Area with SMADA 6 Software (Ray, 2004)
3.3
Exceedence
Probability
Return Period
(years)
Daily Rainfall
(mm)
Standard
Deviation (mm)
0.995
200
370
102
0.990
100
322
74
0.980
50
277
52
0.960
25
235
35
0.900
10
185
20
0.800
150
13
0.667
124
0.500
103
Applied Methodology
As explained in the previous chapters, the safety factor for a regional area can be derived with
the use of GIS where the information related to the spatial data is stored in various map such
as topography, soil and land use map. The spatial information of a map in GIS is stored in
attribute tables of the respective map. Then the calculation of the safety factor for every grid
cell is done by applying the method in every grid.
As the study is mainly focused on cohesive soil, two methods are used for determining the
safety factor of cohesive soil in the study area. The methods are the Taylor method and the
infinite slope method. The Taylor method is only applicable for total stress analysis, while the
infinite slope method can be applied to both total and effective stress analysis. As the method
is applied on the same cohesive soil, a comparison between the methods is easy.
38
As explained in Chapter 2, the Taylor method is a total stress analysis where the safety factor
is calculated based on a stability coefficient (Ns) expressed in Equation (21). The stability
coefficient developed by Taylor (1948) is expressed in terms of slope angle with different
thickness of soil. For this study, the thickness of the soil is assumed to be infinite and thus
only one line of the stability coefficient developed by Taylor is used, i.e. the line with D = .
To be able to calculate the stability coefficient in spatial analysis, the stability coefficient for
D = was first digitized. The data were then correlated using polynomial regression to be
able to derive the mathematical equations. As shown in Figure 10, the stability coefficient for
D = can be divided into two parts, i.e. constant and a polynomial function, for slope angle
of 0 to 52.8 and above 52.8, respectively. The mathematical equations derived from the
polynomial regression for stability coefficient of D = are as follow:
Ns = 0.183
for 0 < 52.8
(27 )
Ns = 6.10-7 3 10-4 2 + 0.0079 - 0.0263
for > 52.8
(28 )
For infinite slope methods, both total and effective stress analysis are applied with different
soil parameters. Total stress analysis applied on infinite slope uses undrained cohesion and
= 0, while effective stress analysis applied on infinite slope uses effective shear strengths.
3.3.1 Soil Parameters Determination

As explained previously, soil parameters for the study area were not available, thus, to
estimate the soil parameters, published references were used. There are many references
related to soil parameters of cohesive soil. Three strength parameters should be determined
using the available references, i.e. undrained shear strength (su), effective cohesion (c) and
effective angle of internal friction (), for three cohesive soil types identified in the study
area. The three cohesive soils identified in the study area are Sandy Clay (CL), Inorganic Silts
(ML or MH) and Organic Silts (ML).
For undrained shear strength (su), the available correlations explained in Chapter 2 are based
on either Liquidity Index (LI) or Plasticity Index (PI), given by Deoja et al. (1991). For the
three cohesive soils, the liquid limit (LL) ranges from 30% to 68% with plastic limit (PL)
39
ranging from 17 % to 38 % and thus, the plasticity index (PI) ranges from 4 % to 30 % as
shown in Table 7.
Table 7 : Index Properties of Soil Based on Deoja et al. (1991)
Unit Weight
Soil
Code
Soil Type
Sandy
Clay
Inorganic
Silts
Organic
Silts
Atterberg Limit (%)
Water
Content
Total
Dry
Liquid
Limit
(LL)
Plastic
Limit
(PL)
Plasticity
Index
(PI)
Liquidity
Index
(LI)
(%)
(kN/m3)
(kN/m3)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(-)
CL
19
18.50
15.55
33
17
16
0.1 - 0.4
ML
27
18.50
14.60
30
26
0.2 - 0.4
MH
48
17.00
11.49
68
38
30
0.3 - 0.5
OL
24
13.50
10.89
42
29
13
0.4 - 0.7
Classification
Table 8 : Undrained Shear Strength from Various References
Soil
Code
Soil Type
Sandy
Clay
Classification
Liquidity
Index
(LI)
Soil
Thickness
(%)
(%)
(m)
(kN/m2)
(kN/m2)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3.13
6.26
9.39
12.52
2.31
4.62
6.93
9.24
1.59
3.18
4.77
6.36
0.58
1.17
1.75
2.34
3.24
6.48
9.71
12.95
1.85
3.70
5.55
7.40
1.66
3.31
4.97
6.62
0.59
1.18
1.78
2.37
CL
16
0.1-0.4
ML
0.2-0.4
MH
30
0.3-0.5
OL
13
0.4-0.7
Inorganic
Silts
Organic
Silts
Undrained Shear Strength (su)

Bjerrum
Carter &
&
Skempton
Bentley
Simons
(1959)
(1953)
Plasticity
Index
(PI)
3
4
(kN/m2)
20 - 60
20 - 40
15 - 30
10 - 20
40
Based on the atterberg limit derived from Deoja et al. (1991), the undrained shear strengths
were determined using the available correlations. Undrained shear strengths given by Bjerrum
and Simons (1960) and Skempton (1957) share the same correlation based on the effective
overburden pressures. However, those correlations show very low value as shown in Table 8
compared to the one given by Carter and Bentley (1959). This is caused by the fact that both
of correlations are mainly applicable only for normally consolidated clay or marine clay,
which is not applicable for this mountainous area. Thus, the correlations developed by Carter
and Bentley (1991) are more appropriate to be used.
The effective internal friction angle () was determined from the correlation chart explained
in Chapter 2 and compared to the one given by Deoja et al. (1991). Again, the correlations
given by NAVFAC DM7 are higher compared to the one given by Deoja et al. (1991).
However, the effective internal friction angle given by Deoja et al. (1991) seems to be at the
lower bound of the correlations given by NAVFAC DM7. Thus, the average values of the
correlations between both are used for further analysis. Table 10 presents the parameters of
the soil used for the analysis of safety factor.
Table 9 : Effective Stress Parameters for the Study Area
Soil
Code
Soil
Type
Sandy
Clay
Inorganic
Silts
Organic
Silts
Note:
Plasticity
Index
Classification
(PI)
Effective Strength
from Deoja, et. al
(1991)
Friction
Cohesion
Angle
Effective
Friction
Angle *
Used
Effective
Friction
Angle
(%)
(kN/m2)
()
()
()
CL
16
20
28
32
30
ML
32
35
MH
30
10
25
28
OL
13
10
25
33
* Determined from NAVFAC DM7
30
28
41
Table 10 : Soil Parameter Used for the Analysis
Soil
Code
Soil
Type
Sandy
Clay
Inorganic
Silts
Organic
Silts
Total
Unit
Classification
Weight
CL
ML
MH
OL
Undrained Effective Strength

Shear
Strength
Friction
Cohesion
(su)
Angle
Specific
Yield
Conductivity
(kN/m3)
(kN/m2)
(kN/m2)
()
18.5
20 - 60
20
30
0.12
1.E-08
18.5
20 - 40
10
30
0.18
1.E-05
13.5
10 - 20
10
28
1.E-06
(m/day)
3.3.2 Model Development

The current study follows the flow chart illustrated in Figure 17. Basically, there are 2 groups
of map produced, i.e. the critical height (Hc) maps and safety factor (FS) maps. The critical
height maps are determined based on total and effective stress analysis by applying either
taylor method on total stress analysis (TSA) or infinite slope method on total and effective
stress analysis (ESA). However, the critical height maps for ESA are only calculated for
conditions of dry, half saturated and fully saturated. For safety factor maps, the same analyses
are also applied with TSA for Taylor and infinite slope methods and ESA for infinite slope.
The assumption of soil depth for the present study is that the base of the soil or the top surface
of the rigid layer is infinite. With this assumption, the slip plane may occur within the ground
surface and the top surface of the rigid layer. Since the calculation of stability requires a
thickness of soil where the slip plane takes place, thus the calculation of safety factors for the
present study was done by assuming various depth of slip planes. The various depths of slip
planes were expressed by taking various soil thicknesses. The calculation of the safety factor
was then stopped when all of the study area became unstable. Figure 18 explains the
difference between the previous and the present study related to the assumption taken for the
soil thickness.
42
For effective stress analysis, besides safety factor maps for dry, half saturated and completely
saturated conditions, the safety factor maps for different return periods were also calculated.
The wetness index (m) for the infinite slope method was developed on the basis of Equation
(26).
The calculation of safety factor and critical height maps was done with the help of ArcView
3.2. The development of both maps in the environment of ArcView is a kind of repetition
process where different scenarios were conducted using map calculator in ArcView. Some of
the calculation using map calculator are shown in Figure 19 to Figure 23.
! "
!
#
#
!
#
&
!
#
!
$
!
#
Figure 17 : Flow Chart for the Present Study
43
(a) Previous Study Assumption
(b) Present Study Assumption
Figure 18 : Previous and Present Study Assumption on Soil Thickness
Figure 19 : Map Calculation for Stability Coefficient (Ns)
Figure 20 : Map Calculation for Critical Height with Taylor Method
Figure 21 : Map Calculation for Critical Height with Infinite Slope
44
Figure 22 : Map Calculation for Safety Factor with Infinite Slope and TSA
Figure 23 : Map Calculation for Safety Factor in Dry Condition
45
Chapter 4 : Result and Discussion
46
CHAPTER 4 : RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1
General
There were two types of maps produced in the current study that focuses on cohesive soil, i.e.
Critical Height (Hc) maps and Safety Factor (FS) maps. Both of the maps were developed by
total and effective stress maps by applying Taylor and infinite slope methods on TSA and
applying infinite slope methods on ESA. For the development of safety factor maps in quasi
dynamic condition, the hydrological model based on rainfall direct infiltration was used for
calculating wetness index of different return periods. While steady state conditions on ESA,
three conditions were considered with completely dry conditions (m = 0), half saturated soils
(m = 0.5) and completely saturated conditions (m = 1). Since the depth of the rigid base in this
study was assumed to be infinite (see Figure 18), thus the calculation for the safety factor
maps was based on different depth of slip plane, i.e. different soil thicknesses. The calculation
was stopped until the area being studied was completely unstable or until the maximum
critical height identified by TSA was reached.
4.2
Ground Condition at the Study Area
Three types of cohesive soils were identified at the study area as presented in Table 10. In
total, the three soil types covered about 25 % of the total area of 341 km2. Of the three soil
types, sandy clay and inorganic silts have the biggest area of 47 km2 and 34 km2, respectively,
while only about 3 km2 of the study area is covered by organic silts. The rest of the study area
of 257 km2 is covered by granular soils.
Table 11 : Tabulated Area of Soil Types for each Land Use Types
Land use Type

Built up Area
Agricultural
Land
Forest
Sandy
Clay
0
Area (km2)
Inorganic
Organic
Silts
Silts
0
0.1
Total
0.1
28.1
24.4
1.0
53.5
0.6
5.7
1.4
7.8
Grass
0.1
0.1
Bush
18.4
4.1
22.5
47.2
34.3
2.5
84.1
Barren Land
Total
47
Based on the land use type, there were 9 types of land use, however only 6 types of land use
were present on the cohesive soil. These were built up area, agricultural land, forest, grass
land, bush and barren land as listed in Table 11. Among the 6 types of land use, agricultural
land has the biggest area of 53.5 km2, while bush land use type is only about 22.5 km2. Forest
land use type found in the study area was only about 8 km2 and the rest of the land use was
less than 1 km2.
Agricultural land has the biggest area on the study area and most of this land use type falls
within cohesive soil as shown in Figure 24. Forest land use type is mainly covered by organic
silts, while bush land use type is covered by sandy clay. As much as 24 % of the total area of
cohesive soil falls within the slope angle of 20 to 30 as shown in Figure 25. This slope
magnitude occurs within agricultural land cover. However, higher slope magnitudes were also
Ba
rr e
n
La
nd
Organic Silts
Bu
sh
G
ra
ss
Inorganic Silts
ul
tu
Ag
ric
Bu
il t
ra
lL
an
d
Ar
ea
Sandy Clay
Fo
re
st
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
up
Percentage of Area against Total

Area of Each Soil Type (%)
identified with less percentage within forest, bush and agricultural land cover.
Land Use Type
Figure 24 : Percentage Area of Each Soil Type for each Land Use Types
Percentage Area against Total

Area of Cohesive Soil (%)
48
50
Built up Area
Forest
Bush
40
Agricultural Land
Grass
Barren Land
30
20
10
0
0 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50
Slope Range (degree)
50 - 60
> 60
Figure 25 : Slope Magnitude within the Land Use Type
4.3
Critical Height Maps
The critical height (Hc) maps can be used as an indication on how the slope behaves without
support and it also explains the ability of a slope to withstand imbalances. The critical height
can be assumed as the height when safety factor equals to 1. For this study, the critical height
maps were determined using TSA and ESA with the Taylor and the infinite slope methods.
4.3.1 Based on Total Stress Analysis (TSA)

The critical height maps produced by means of TSA were based on Taylor and Infinite Slope
Methods. The map produced by Infinite Slope Method was analyzed by taking the angle of
internal friction as zero. However, these maps were only produced for steady state conditions,
and the results are explained below.
4.3.1.1
Using Taylor Method
The critical height under TSA shows that the critical height for the cohesive soil ranges from
4 m to 6 m and from 8 m to 18 m using lower and upper undrained shear strength,
respectively. However, most of the area falls within critical height of 5.5 m to 6 m for lower
undrained shear strength and 10 m to 11 m and 17 m to 18 m for upper undrained shear
strength as shown in Table 12. Due to the majority occurrence of the slope magnitude in
cohesive soils falls below 52.8, the stability coefficient (Ns) becomes constant throughout the
study area as shown in Figure 26. As a consequent the critical height did also show a constant
49
value throughout the area with some small variation due to different lower undrained shear
strength used as shown in Figure 27.
Table 12 : Summary of Critical Height Using Taylor Method
Critical Height
Class (m)
Undrained Shear
Strength Used
Area (km2)
4.0 - 4.5
Lower
2.5
4.5 - 5.0
Lower
5.0 - 5.5
Lower
0.1
5.5 - 6.0
Lower
81.4
8.0 - 9.0
Upper
2.5
9.0 - 10.0
Upper
10.0 - 11.0
Upper
34.3
14.0 - 15.0
Upper
15.0 - 16.0
Upper
0.1
16.0 - 17.0
Upper
17.0 - 18.0
Upper
47.1
Figure 26 : Stability Coefficient Map for Taylor Method
Total stress analysis is very good in giving an indication to which extends the analysis should
be conducted in terms of soil thickness. Usually, the effective stress analysis gives lower
50
safety factor, thus the analysis conducted with infinite soil thickness can be done within the
critical height derived from total stress analysis.
Figure 27 : Critical Height based on Taylor Method
4.3.1.2
Using Infinite Slope Method
The critical height derived with the infinite slope method shows that for cohesive soil the
critical height ranges from 1 m to greater than 10 m for both lower and upper undrained shear
strength. However, most of the cohesive soil has a critical height between 2 m to 4 m using
lower undrained shear strength. Total areas covered by this critical height are about 40 km2
within sandy clay soil, about 45% total area of cohesive soil, and about 25 km2 present within
inorganic silts soil, about 30% of total area of cohesive soil. Lower and higher critical height
than this range also occurred with total area less than 20 km2. While using upper undrained
shear strength, the critical height ranges mostly between 6 m to 8 m with significant areas
falling within critical height of 4 m to 6m and 8 m to greater than 10 m. Figure 28 presents the
area of critical height for each soil types using lower undrained shear strength.
Agricultural and bush land have a critical height of 2 m to 4 m with area of about 40 km2 and
20 km2, respectively, as shown in Figure 29. Figure 30 presents the map of critical height
using lower undrained shear strength.
51
Table 13 : Summary of Critical Height using Infinite Slope Method
Critical Height
Class (m)
Area (km2) using Undrained Shear

Strength
Lower
1.5
66. 6
9.5
2.7
1.
2.6
Area (km )
1-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8 - 10
> 10
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Sandy Clay
Upper
6.4
18.1
31.5
12.6
15.4
H = 1 - 2m
H = 2 - 4m
H = 4 - 6m
H = 6 - 8m
H = 8 - 10m
H > 10m
Inorganic Silt
Organic Silts
Soil Type
Bu
sh
ra
ss
G
Fo
re
st
Land Use Type
H = 2 - 4m
H = 6 - 8m
H > 10m
Ba
rre
n
Ag
ric
ul
tu
up
Bu
ilt
ra
lL
an
d
H = 1 - 2m
H = 4 - 6m
H = 8 - 10m
La
nd
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ar
ea
Area (km2)
Figure 28 : Area of Critical Height for Each Soil Types Using Lower Undrained Shear Strength
Figure 29 : Area of Critical Height for Each Land Use Types Using Lower Undrained Shear Strength
52
Figure 30 : Critical Height Map with TSA
Table 14 presents the summary of critical height class and their respective area and slope
angle using lower undrained shear strength. As shown in the table, about 66.5 km2 of the
study area is occupied by critical height of 2 m to 4 m with slope angle ranging from 11 to
61. About 13 km2 of the study area is occupied by critical height of 4 m to 10 m and only
about 2.5 km2 of the area is occupied by critical height of greater than 10 m with slope angle
ranging from 0 to 6.
Table 14 : Range of Critical Height, Area and Slope Angle
Range of
Critical Height
(m)
Area (km2)
1-2
Angle (degree)
Min
Max
1.539
23.9125
43.4273
2-4
66.558
10.8803
60.945
4-6
9.530
7.195
16.3685
6-8
2.690
5.3424
10.5664
8 - 10
1.190
4.3061
7.8435
> 10
2.550
0.0193
6.2438
4.3.2 Based on Effective Stress Analysis (ESA)

The critical height for effective stress analysis was developed only for steady state conditions
with completely dry condition (m = 0), half saturated condition (m = 0.5) and fully saturated
53
condition (m = 1). The shear strength parameters, i.e. cohesion and angle of internal friction,
use effective stress parameters, i.e. effective cohesion and effective angle of internal friction.
The critical height based on ESA ranges from 1 m to greater than 10 m for all steady state
cases. The calculation of critical height with ESA results in negative value of the critical
height because the term (tan i tan ) in Equation (14) becomes negative when the slope
angle is less than the angle of internal friction. In this case, the negative value should be
considered as infinite critical depth, because if the slope angle is less than the angle of internal
friction, the failure is unlikely to occur. As shown in Figure 31, most of the study area for
completely dry and half saturated conditions, almost 60% and 40%, respectively, has an
infinite critical height. For fully saturated condition, most of the study area has a critical
height between 2 m to 4 m. The figure also shows that the area with infinite critical depth
decreases when the soil becomes more saturated. For instance, completely full saturated
condition has a larger area for critical depth between 2 m to 4 m than that of infinite critical
depth.
60
Dry
Area (km 2)
50
Half
Fully
40
30
20
10
m
10
m
H
>
0
-1
H
6
=
H
-8
-6
m
-4
H
1
=
H
In
-2
fin
ite
Critical Height Class (m)
Figure 31 : Area of Critical Height based on ESA
Under different soil types, most of the soil types have an infinite critical height as shown in
Figure 32. For sandy clay under different steady state conditions, the critical height ranges
from 2 m to greater than 10 m. As shown in Table 15, the range of slope angle in which the
critical depth is infinite decreases from dry to fully saturated conditions. Thus, the most
unstable condition is fully saturated conditions.
H=
H=
H=
H>
20
30
H = 1 - 2m
H = 4 - 6m
H = 8 - 10m
H=
H=
H=
H>
25
15
10
20
~
2 - 4m
6 - 8m
10m
H = 1 - 2m
H = 4 - 6m
H = 8 - 10m
15
10
5
0
0
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silt
Sandy Clay
Organic Silts
Inorganic Silt
Organic Silts
Soil Type
Soil Type
(a) Completely Dry Condition
(b) Half Saturated Condition
30
H=
H=
H=
H>
25
Area (km 2)
Area (km )
25
~
2 - 4m
6 - 8m
10m
Area (km 2)
30
54
20
~
2 - 4m
6 - 8m
10m
H = 1 - 2m
H = 4 - 6m
H = 8 - 10m
15
10
5
0
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silt
Organic Silts
Soil Type
(c ) Completely Saturated Condition

Figure 32 : Area of Critical Height for Each Soil Types under Different Steady State Conditions
Table 15 : Critical Height and Slope Angle under Different Steady State Condition
Slope Angle (degree)

Half Saturated
Critical
Height
Class (m)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Infinite
30.0
0.0
23.0
0.0
15.2
1-2
52.8
57.7
42.8
57.7
33.4
57.7
2-4
38.6
60.9
30.5
60.9
19.5
60.9
4-6
35.5
52.7
26.2
42.8
15.6
33.4
6-8
33.6
42.1
24.2
34.6
13.7
26.4
8 - 10
32.4
38.6
23.1
31.4
12.6
23.4
> 10
28.0
36.7
18.7
29.6
8.3
21.6
Dry Condition
Full Saturated
4.4
55
Safety Factor Maps
The safety factor maps are used as an indication for slope stability, which can be used by
planner and government official as a preliminary judgment when construction is needed in a
certain area. However, different safety factor maps may indicate different usages of the maps
depending on the type of analysis, method and assumption used for developing the maps.
In this study, two types of analyses were used with two different methods. The analyses being
used were total and effective stress analysis with the Taylor and the Infinite Slope Methods.
For effective stress analysis where groundwater effect presented, two conditions were
considered, i.e. steady state conditions and quasi steady state conditions with different return
periods as discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Total Stress Analysis

For total stress analysis, Taylor and Infinite Slope Methods were used for developing safety
factor maps. The Taylor Method follows Equation (21) with stability coefficient developed by
Taylor, shown in Figure 10. On the other hand, Infinite Slope Method follows equations (23)
with cu (= su) as undrained shear strength.
4.4.1.1
Using Taylor Method
The safety factor under Taylor Method is completely governed by thickness of the soil due to
the stability coefficients (Ns) are almost constant throughout the study area because areas
having slope angle larger than 52.8 are limited. While the other parameters, su and unit
weight, are constant for a certain soil type. Thus, the results show that for the soil thickness up
to 3 m, the study area is mostly in stable condition and only a small area being in moderately
stable condition because of the small undrained shear strength used. On the other hand, for a
soil thickness of 6 m, the entire study area becomes completely unstable.
The total stress analysis is very good in defining the influence depth of stability due to its
simplicity. Thus, this method can be used to determine the extent to which the analysis should
be conducted. For this study area, it is shown in Figure 33 that the stability should be
analyzed at least up to 5 m depth, where at this soil thickness the study area is quasi stable.
This critical height was produced using lower undrained shear strength. Figure 34 presents
56
one of the safety factor maps by the Taylor Method with soil thickness of 5 m using lower
undrained shear strength.
90
80
Area (km 2)
70
60
50
H=
H=
H=
H=
H=
H=
1m
2m
3m
4m
5m
6m
40
30
20
10
0
Unstable
Quasi Stable
Mod. Stable
Stable
Safety Factor Class
Figure 33 : Area within Safety Factor Class with Taylor Methods
Figure 34 : Safety Factor Map of Taylor Method with H = 5 m
However, total stress analysis based on Taylor method does not express the safety factor in
terms of slope angle for slope magnitude less than 52.8. Thus, the effect of slope angle in
57
medium magnitude of 20 to 52.8 is not taken into account in the calculation. So, this
calculation should be used with caution whenever the slope magnitude in the area is medium,
the calculation might lead to over estimation since this range of slope angle might also cause
failure.
4.4.1.2
Using Infinite Slope Method
Infinite Slope Method with total stress analysis might result in more reliable safety factor
map, since the method takes into account the slope magnitude. As shown in Equation (23), the
slope magnitude inversely affects the safety factor. Thus, the smaller the slope the higher the
safety factor will be.
Based on the Infinite Slope Method with TSA using lower bound of undrained shear strength,
the slope tends to be unstable whenever the soil thickness is greater than 2 m as shown in
Figure 35. The study area is in completely stable conditions for soil thickness of 1 m, however
if the soil thickness becomes larger, the area exponentially decreases in stable, quasi stable
and moderately stable conditions. When using upper bound of undrained shear strength, the
slope starts to be unstable from soil thickness of 4 m and the slope is completely stable for
soil thickness of 1 m and 2 m as shown in Figure 35(b).
H = 1m
H = 3m
H = 5m
Area (km 2)
80
70
60
90
H = 2m
H = 4m
H = 6m
H = 1m
H = 3m
H = 5m
80
70
Area (km 2)
90
50
40
30
20
10
60
H = 2m
H = 4m
H = 6m
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unstable
Quasi Stable Mod. Stable
Stable
Stability Class
(a) Using Lower bound Undrained Shear Strength
Unstable
Quasi Stable Mod. Stable
Stable
Stability Class
(b) Using Upper Bound Undrained Shear Strength
Figure 35 : Area of Stability Class under Different Soil Thickness for Infinite Slope Method with TSA
Figure 36 presents area of each stability class for each soil type using lower bound undrained
shear strength. The safety factor for sandy clay tends to be greater than 1 for soil thickness up
to 2 m, while for inorganic silts and organic silts, the safety factor tends to be less than 1
58
when the soil thickness is 3 m as shown in Figure 36. The shifting from quasi stable condition
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
to unstable conditions seems to exponentially increase for all types of soil.
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Organic Silts
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Soil Types
(b) H = 3 m
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Soil Types
(c) H = 4m
Organic Silts
Soil Types
(a) H = 2m
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
Soil Types
(d) H = 5 m
Figure 36 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness with Infinite Slope and TSA
Figure 37 : Range of Slope Angle against Stability Class for Different Soil Thickness
59
Figure 37 presents typical range of slope angle for various stability class developed using
lower bound undrained shear strength. The mean angle causing unstable conditions are about
30 for different soil thickness as shown in Figure 37. Under quasi stable, moderately stable
and stable conditions, the mean angle causing those conditions exponentially decreases. The
slope angle below 6 can be considered as a limit line for all stability class under different soil
thickness. Figure 38 shows an example of safety factor map developed with the Infinite Slope
Method and TSA for soil thickness of 2 m using lower bound of undrained shear strength.
Figure 38 : Safety Factor Map with Infinite Slope Method (TSA) for H = 2 m
4.4.2 Effective Stress Analysis

Effective stress analysis is used when considering long-term applications where slope failure
is usually caused by the movement of water. It is also the case in natural slope where the
changing of loading results in a change of pore water pressure in the soil mass. The changing
itself is rapid compared to the consolidation time for the soil, particularly in cohesive soil
where permeability is very small. Thus, the excess pore water pressure is not able to be
dissipated and causes decreasing shear strength. In the long term, the pore pressures will
increase to their equilibrium values, thus resulting in a further reduction in the effective
stresses in the clay, and hence a reduction in its strength and thus in the stability of the slope
(Nash, 1987).
60
In this study, the effective stress analysis was conducted for steady state and quasi dynamic
conditions. For steady state condition, three cases were considered with completely dry, half
saturated and fully saturated conditions. Quasi dynamic conditions were considered by
applying wetness index with different return periods of rainfall.
4.4.2.1
Completely Dry Condition
Theoretically, the completely dry condition is not realistic in a hilly area with tropical climate
such as Nepal. However, this condition can be considered as the most stable condition as there
is no effect of excess pore water pressures that decreases the soil strength. Under this
condition, the safety factor is governed only by cohesion, angle of internal friction, slope
magnitude and soil thickness. Among those three parameters within one soil type, only slope
angle and soil thickness can be different from one to another location. Thus, the slope
magnitude and soil thickness might govern the safety factor for the study area. A very steep
slope, under very low effective soil strength parameters, can result in a very low safety factor
and large thickness of soil will also result in a very low safety factor.
As there is no saturation influencing the slopes, the parcels with stable condition occupy the
largest area. However, the area occupied by stable condition reduces, due to the effect of soil
thickness as shown in Figure 39. This is caused by the fact that soil thickness governs the
safety factor for dry condition. The larger the soil thickness, the smaller the safety factor will
be.
90
Area (km 2)
80
70
60
H=
H=
H=
H=
1m
4m
7m
12m
H=
H=
H=
H=
2m
5m
8m
15m
H=
H=
H=
H=
3m
6m
10m
20m
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unstable
Quasi Stable
Mod. Stable
Stable
Stability Class
Figure 39 : Area of Stability Class for Dry Condition with ESA
61
The relationship between area occupied by stability class and the respective soil thickness is
best described by Figure 40. As shown in the figure, for stable condition, the relationship
decreases exponentially towards infinite.
90
80
Area (km 2)
70
Unstable
Quasi Stable
Mod. Stable
Stable
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Soil Thickness (m)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
Figure 40 : Relationship between Area Occupied by Stability Class and Soil Thickness
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Organic Silts
(b) H = 3m
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
(a) H = 2m
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Soil Types
(c) H = 4m
Organic Silts
Soil Types
Soil Types
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
Soil Types
(d) H = 5m
Figure 41 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness in Dry Condition
62
Under dry condition, sandy clay becomes unstable when the soil thickness is greater than 4 m,
while inorganic silts tend to be unstable when the soil thickness is greater than 2 m. On the
other hand, organic silts were found to be the most unstable in the study area in which for soil
thickness of 2 m the safety factor start to be less than 1 as shown in Figure 41.
Figure 42 : Range of Slope Angle against Stability Class under Different Soil Thickness (Dry)
Figure 43 : Safety Factor Map of Completely Dry Condition for H = 4 m
63
The mean angle causing unstable conditions is about 42 for different soil thickness as shown
in Figure 42. Under quasi stable, moderately stable and stable conditions, the mean angle
causing those conditions decreases for different soil thickness. The slope angle below 24 can
be considered as a safe limit line for all stability class under soil thickness up to 6 m. Figure
43 shows an example of safety factor map under dry condition with soil thickness of 4 m.
4.4.2.2
Half Saturated Condition
Half saturated condition may describe the real condition at the site, where the rise of ground
water from other parcels or direct infiltration of rain from the surface occurs. This case is also
more reliable for tropical areas such as Nepal. However, the assumption of wetness index
being half for the entire study area seems to be illogical. Thus, the analysis result will only
serve as an indication of slope failure under the influence of groundwater being half saturated.
With half saturated condition, the lower and upper most safety factor ranges from 0.564 to
1.554 and 1985 to 3326, respectively, for soil thickness ranging from 1 m to 6 m. About 27.5
km2 of the cohesive soils are associated with stable condition under 6 m soil thickness as
shown in Figure 44. This value accounts for about 55.6%, 43.2% and 1.3% within sandy clay,
inorganic silts and organic silts, respectively.
90
Area (km 2)
80
70
60
H = 1m
H = 2m
H = 3m
H = 4m
H = 5m
H = 6m
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unstable
Quasi Stable
Mod. Stable
Stable
Stability Class
Figure 44 : Area of Stability Class for Full Saturated Condition with ESA
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
64
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Organic Silts
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
(b) H = 3m
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
(a) H = 2m
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Soil Types
(c) H = 4m
Organic Silts
Soil Types
Soil Types
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
Soil Types
(d) H = 5m
Figure 45 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness in Half Saturated Condition
Sandy clays are the strongest cohesive soils in the study area in which the safety factor
becomes less than 1 when the soil thickness is greater than 3 m for half saturated condition.
This value accounts for less than the one show by dry condition case. Inorganic silts and
organic silts, on the other hand, are not able to support imbalances for soil thickness greater
than 2 m as some parcel tend to be unstable for soil thickness of 2 m as shown in Figure 45.
An average mean slope angle of 38 will cause unstable conditions for different soil thickness
as shown in Figure 46. Under quasi stable, moderately stable and stable conditions, the mean
angle causing these conditions decreases for different soil thickness. The slope angle below
17 can be considered as a safe limit for all stability class under soil thickness up to 6 m. An
example of safety factor map under half saturated condition with soil thickness of 5 m is
given in Figure 47.
65
Figure 46 : Range of Slope Angle against Stability Class under Different Soil Thickness (Half)
Figure 47 : Safety Factor Map of Half Saturated Condition for H=5m
4.4.2.3
Fully Saturated Condition
Once more, fully saturated condition is not a real condition, especially in mountainous areas
where failure usually occurs before saturation is reached. Thus, this condition serves as the
worst condition ever happening in mountainous areas. This condition will then only serve as
the lower limit of safety factor for the study area. Thus, the safety factor in reality should be
larger than the safety factor shown by this condition.
66
Under fully saturated condition, the cohesive soil shows moderately stable and stable
condition for soil thickness of 1 m. The cohesive soil becomes unstable when the soil
thickness is 2 m or higher as shown in Figure 48. However, up to 6 m height of soil thickness,
the cohesive soil still shows stable condition with an approximate area of about 14 km2. This
area belongs to sandy clay, inorganic silts and organic silts with approximate percentage of 10
%, 7 % and less than 1 % of the total area of cohesive soil, respectively.
90
Area (km 2)
80
70
60
H = 1m
H = 2m
H = 3m
H = 4m
H = 5m
H = 6m
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unstable
Quasi Stable
Mod. Stable
Stable
Stability Class
Figure 48 : Area of Stability Class for Full Saturated Condition with ESA
Although sandy clays are the strongest cohesive soils in the study area, the capability of
supporting its weight under fully saturated condition is no longer superior. The safety factor
becomes less than 1 showing this phenomenon when the soil thickness is 3 m or higher as
shown in Figure 49. This value accounts for the lowest value for all steady state conditions.
Inorganic silts and organic silts, on the other hand, are not able to support imbalances for soil
thickness of 2 m or higher as some parcel tend to be unstable for soil thickness of 2 m.
As this condition serves as the worst case, the average mean slope angle causing unstable
condition also shows the lowest value of 34 than the other two steady state cases as shown in
Figure 50. Under quasi stable, moderately stable and stable conditions, the mean angle
causing these conditions decreases for different soil thickness. The slope angle below 10 can
be considered as a safe limit line for all stability class under soil thickness up to 6 m. An
67
example of safety factor map under half saturated condition with soil thickness of 6 m is
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
given in Figure 51.
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Organic Silts
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Soil Types
(b) H = 3m
Quasi Stable
Stable
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Soil Types
(c) H = 4m
Organic Silts
Soil Types
(a) H = 2m
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unstable
Mod. Stable
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Quasi Stable
Stable
Organic Silts
Soil Types
(d) H = 5m
Figure 49 : Stability Area under Different Soil Types and Thickness in Full Saturated Condition
Figure 50 : Range of Slope Angle against Stability Class under Different Soil Thickness (Full)
68
Figure 51 : Safety Factor Map of Full Saturated Condition for H = 6 m
4.4.2.4
Based on Different Return Periods
This section deals with the analysis of safety factor using wetness index based on different
rainfall return periods explained in the preceding chapters. The analysis incorporates wetness
index with return periods of 2, 10, 25 and 50 years. The wetness index is developed using
formulas based on direct infiltration of rainfall.
The difference between steady state condition and quasi dynamic condition is the wetness
index (m) that is calculated by means of direct rainfall infiltration. For this analysis, the
wetness index controls the safety factor calculation. Unfortunately, the wetness index for the
study area is not very much different for various soil thicknesses as shown in Figure 52. The
highest and lowest wetness index occurs in inorganic silts and organic silts soils with m value
ranging from 0.52 to 0.56 and 0.5 to 0.505, respectively, under different return periods. These
insignificant differences are caused by the fact that the calculated rainfall values based on
statistics are also not significantly different for the return periods as shown in Figure 53. This
wetness index was not different from the wetness index for steady state condition with half
saturated condition, for which the m value is 0.5.

0.57
H= 1m
H= 3m
H= 5m
H= 1m
H= 3m
H= 5m
0.56
Wetness Index
0.55
0.57
H=2m
H=4m
H=6m
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.55
H= 2m
H= 4m
H= 6m
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.5
10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0.5
80 90 100 110
10 20
30 40
Return Periods (years)
50 60
70 80
(a) Sandy Clays
(b) Inorganic Silts
0.57
H=1m
H=3m
H=5m
0.56
Wetness Index
0.55
H=2m
H=4m
H=6m
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.5
0
10 20
30
40 50
60 70
80
90 100 110
(c) Organic Silts

Figure 52 : Wetness Index for Various Soil Thickness and Soil Types
400
350
Rainfall (mm)
Wetness Index
0.56
69
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 53 : Rainfall Intensity with Various Return Periods
90 100 110
70
Although there are differences between wetness indices of different return periods, the
difference is not significant to affect drastically the safety factor. As shown in Figure 54, the
difference in area occupied by various stability classes with various return periods and with
various soil thicknesses is relatively small. However, the effect of soil thickness still
consistently shows that the higher the soil thickness the higher the safety factor will be, shown
by the amount of area occupied by that safety factor. Significant decrease of area occupied by
stable condition is also noticed for soil thickness of 1 m to 3 m as shown in Figure 54(d).
120
H = 2m
H = 6m
H = 3m
H = 4m
120
100
80
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
100
H = 1m
H = 5m
60
40
20
H = 4m
RP 10 yr
RP 25 yr
Return Periods (year)
RP 50 yr
80
60
40
RP 10 yr
RP 25 yr
RP 50 yr
RP 2 yr
(a) Unstable Condition

H = 1m
H = 5m
H = 2m
H = 6m
H = 3m
(b) Quasi Stable Condition

120
H = 4m
100
80
Area (km 2)
Area (km 2)
H = 3m
0
RP 2 yr
100
H = 2m
H = 6m
20
120
H = 1m
H = 5m
60
40
H = 1m
H = 5m
H = 2m
H = 6m
H = 3m
H = 4m
RP 10 yr
RP 25 yr
RP 50 yr
80
60
40
20
20
0
RP 2 yr
RP 10 yr
RP 25 yr
(c) Moderately Stable Condition
RP 50 yr
RP 2 yr
(d) Stable Condition
Figure 54 : Area of Safety Factor with Various Return Periods
The same tendency also shows if the area of each soil type is plotted against stability class for
various return periods that insignificant difference occur. Figure 55 shows relatively small
differences of area occupied by stable condition with various return periods for soil thickness
of 2 m. This is caused by the fact that there are relatively small differences between safety
factors using various return periods.
50
RP 2 yr
RP 25 yr
40
Area (km 2)
71
RP 10 yr
RP 50 yr
30
20
10
0
Sandy Clay
Inorganic Silts
Organic Silts
Soil Types
Figure 55 : Stable Area with Various Soil Types and Return Periods with Soil Thickness of 2m
Compared to the result given by steady state with half saturated condition in which the
wetness index was 0.5, the calculations of safety factor based on various rainfall return
periods give similar result. Thus, the steady state with half saturated condition can serve as a
general safety factor map for this study area with various return periods. The wetness indices
for various return periods of rainfall are not significantly different from the one obtained with
half saturated condition. The differences are only about 0.06.
4.5
Discussion
Owing to the ever-increasing capabilities of hardware and software, electronic geographical

data processing is becoming a common tool in a wide range of research or production
activities. This technology has brought GIS for evaluating natural hazards such as land slides.
However, the extent to which this technology is applicable still remains a big issue for users
and researchers. Actually, the crucial issue in hazard assessment is the input data which
remain fundamentally inadequate in quantity and quality for the task to be accomplished.
Thus, a good understanding of geology, hydrology, and soil properties is central to applying
slope stability principles properly. Analyses must be based upon a model that accurately
represents site subsurface conditions, ground behavior, and applied loads. Good judgments
regarding acceptable risk or safety factors must be made to assess the results of analyses.
4.5.1 Total and Effective Stress Analyses

It is clear from the theory of the difference between total and stress analysis that total stress
analysis does not take into account pore water pressure effect in the calculations. This also
72
means that loss of strength in time does not take that into considerations, as there is possibility
of strength loss in time due to fluctuation of groundwater or dissipation of excess pore water
pressure. Therefore, both safety factor and critical height based on this principle should result
in a higher value.
However, the calculation for total stress analysis shown above with lower bound undrained
shear strength (TSA-Inf.-Lower) gives lower result compared to effective stress analysis as
indicated in Figure 56(a). The reason behind this phenomena is that the undrained shear
strengths are used as a constant value when applying into Equation (23), while the
denominator ( H sin i cos i) can increase with depth and thus give lower value of safety
factor or critical height.
As shown in Figure 56(a), the result given by total stress analysis with infinite slope and using
upper bound undrained shear strength is higher than effective stress with completely dry
condition. However, after a certain soil thickness, the area for stable condition becomes less
than for completely dry condition. The same tendency is also seen for the Taylor Method if
higher values of undrained shear strength were used. However, the result was not shown in
Figure 56.
120
100
Taylor
TSA-Inf.-Upper
ESA-Inf-Half
TSA-Inf.-Lower
ESA-Inf-Dry
ESA-Inf-Full
80
60
40
20
0
H = 1m H = 2m H = 3m H = 4m H = 5m H = 6m
Soil Thickness
(a) Stable Condition
140
Percentage of Unstable Area (%)
Percentage of Stable Area (%)
140
120
100
Taylor
TSA-Inf-Upper
ESA-Inf-Half
TSA-Inf.-Lower
ESA-Inf-Dry
ESA-Inf-Full
80
60
40
20
0
H = 1m H = 2m H = 3m H = 4m H = 5m H = 6m
Soil Thickness
(b) Unstable Condition
Figure 56 : Comparison between Various Method Results
Hence, the Taylor Method might be not applicable since it is giving very high values of safety
for small soil thickness, while in reality, failure reported in this study area occurs for small
soil thickness. Therefore, it is only applicable for identifying the depth of influence for further
analysis. On the other hand, the results given by the Infinite Slope Method with TSA
73
produces lower and higher safety factors if lower and upper undrained shear strengths are
used. In this case, this model can only be applied as the uppermost and lower most safety
factor for the area. The two models should also be confirmed with landslide occurrence at the
site. However, it was not possible to calibrate the two models because there is no information
about failure on cohesive soil that was recorded. Failure occurring at this study area happened
on the granular soils.
The three models resulting from effective stress analysis showed a good result with a
tendency of decreasing stability with soil thickness. Completely dry condition gives the
highest value compared to the other two conditions. It is also confirmed by the results that
fully dry conditions and infinite slope with upper undrained shear strength of TSA are close
together, except for soil thickness higher than 4 m.
4.5.2 Influence of Depth

The stability analysis has been found to be directly influenced by the depth of the soil.
Generally, all the models consistently show that the safety factor decreases against soil
thickness as also shown in Figure 56. Especially the result given by Taylor method is clearly
shown in this relationship; the slope is safe up to soil thickness of 3 m, however, when the soil
thickness is larger than 3 m, the safety factor becomes completely unstable.
The model given by the Infinite Slope Method with TSA (TSA-Inf.-Upper) also clearly shows
the influence of depth as shown in Figure 56(a). The results indicate that up to 4 m soil
thickness, the relationship between safety factor and soil thickness gradually decreases.
However, for soil thickness greater than 4 m, the decrease of safety factor becomes very large
as the line of this model is crossing the other models. The reason is that the soil thickness
plays a major role in total stress analysis with infinite slope. In Equation (23) the numerator is
a constant value and the denominator increases with depth.
4.5.3 Slope Angle

Range of mean slope angle for various stability class and analyses methods are presented in
Table 16. In general, the Infinite Slope Method with completely dry conditions gives the
highest values of mean slope angle, while total stress analysis with infinite slope give the
lowest mean slope angles. The mean slope angle is also observed decreasing from dry to fully
74
saturated conditions. The same tendency is also observed for average mean angle to cause
instability and lower most slope angle for stable condition that it decreased from fully dry to
completely saturated conditions as summarized in Table 17.
Table 16 : Range of Mean Slope Angle
Mean Angle (degree)
Stability
Class
Unstable
Quasi
Stable
Mod. Stable
TSA-Inf.Lower
28 - 32
TSA-Inf.Upper
42 - 37
12 - 36
Stable
ESA-Inf-Dry
ESA-Inf-Half
ESA-Inf-Full
41 - 55
37 - 45
32 - 38
33 - 29
35 - 42
29 - 37
22 - 33
9 - 42
42 - 34
30 - 36
24 - 49
18 - 40
5 - 26
26 - 24
18 - 26
14 - 26
10 - 25
Table 17 : Slope Angle for Unstable and Stable Conditions
TSA-Inf.Lower
TSA-Inf.Upper
ESA-InfDry
ESA-InfHalf
ESA-InfFull
Average mean slope

angle causing Instability
30
37
43
38
34
Lower most slope angle

causing instability
24
36
26
16
Lower most slope angle

for stable Condition
14
24
17
10
Description
4.5.4 Selection of Maps

This section deals with the choice of critical height maps and safety factor maps that are
applicable for the study area. As there are many methods that can be applied for landslide
assessment, the issues still remains which of those represent general conditions for the study
area and to which extend these maps can be used. The selection itself depends on several
factors such as the application of the map and method used for developing the map.
4.5.4.1
Critical Height Map
A critical height map can serve as a general guidance to facilitate planners and administrators
to construct correct decisions at the planning stage of a development project. This map
explains the behavior of the ground under no supporting structure to which extend the soil is
75
able to withstand imbalance forces. It can serve also as a general guidance to decide to which
height a slope can be cut without failure. Furthermore, the analysis can also identify under
which magnitude the slope will not fail.
In this study two methods have been used for assessing critical height map: the Taylor
Method and the Infinite Slope Method with total and effective stress analysis. Under total
stress analysis, two method were used, i.e. the Taylor and the Infinite Slope Methods, while
under effective stress analysis, the Infinite Slope Method was applied as summarized in Table
18.
Table 18 : Summary of Critical Height
Type of Stress
Analysis
Total Stress
(Lower su)
Effective Stress
Critical Height, Hc (m)
Method
Case
Taylor
Infinite Slope
>10
Dry
Infinite
Half Saturated
Infinite
Fully Saturated
Infinite Slope
Most
Occurrence
Ranges
The result for all type of analyses shows that the critical height ranges from 1 m to infinite.
However, the infinite critical depth resulting from the effective stress analysis when the slope
magnitudes are less than the angle of internal friction results in an infinite critical height value
as for a flat area also. Thus, the infinite critical height should not be considered as a general
rule for assessing critical height in this area.
Generally, the critical height for cohesive soil in this study area ranges from 2 m to 4 m and 4
m to 6 m based on result given by the Infinite Slope and Taylor Methods, respectively, as
shown in Table 18. Although there are differences in applying stress analysis, a critical height
of 2 m to 4 m can be used as a rule of thumb for critical height of cohesive soil in the study
area. Meanwhile, the result given by the Taylor Method can be used as a general guidance to
which extent the analysis of safety factor should be conducted.
76
Even though general guidance given by the Taylor Method is very useful, the methods were
not able to explain any spatial distribution of critical height. An infinite slope maps give a
better description of the distribution of critical height over the study area. Comparison result
between the Infinite Slope with total and effective stress analyses shows that the result given
by total stress analysis is the most conservative. Finally, it is concluded that this map can
serve as base map of critical height for the study area as shown in Figure 30.
4.5.4.2
Safety Factor Map
Stability conditions of a slope on a regional scale can be accessed through safety factor map.
Planners and administrators both from government or private offices might use this map for
early planning of a project. This will certainly provide useful information of the stability on a
project site in the early stage where necessary remedial action and design can be taken to
avoid slope failure. In return, a good design and remedial action will reduce the budget and
also provide security for the project and society living nearby the project.
The same simulations as for critical height map have been applied for the safety factor map.
The result from total stress analysis can be considered as a short term safety factor map. Short
term safety factor map refers to stability factors within a short time frame, as for instance
short term construction periods. While the result from effective stress analysis can be
considered as long term safety factor map due to its nature that allows decreasing of soil
strengths in long term periods.
Short term safety factor map resulted from the Taylor Method is considered inapplicable
because it does not take into account slope angle less than 52.8. On the other hand, the
Infinite Slope Method is more reliable as slope magnitudes are taken into account. However,
both of the methods express the same depth of influence of about 6 m in which the entire
study area becomes unstable as shown in Table 19.
77
Table 19 : Percentage of Total Area of Safety Factor for TSA Result
Soil
Thickness
Infinite Slope Method (Lower Bound Su)
Taylor Method
Unstable
Quasi
Stable
Mod.
Stable
Stable
Unstable
Quasi
Stable
Mod.
Stable
Stable
H = 1m
100
100
H = 2m
37
23
38
100
H = 3m
62
16
14
97
H = 4m
81
97
H = 5m
89
97
H = 6m
92
100
Long term safety factor maps should be developed with effective stress parameters and
performed by effective stress analysis. Three steady state conditions were performed with
varying soil thickness, while under quasi dynamic conditions, the result is considered similar
as the one showed by steady state condition with half saturated case. The summary of the
results from steady state condition are shown in Table 20.
In general, the three conditions can serve as a base map for practical used as the safety factor
will not exceed this range, i.e. within dry and fully saturated condition. However, it should be
noted that this is under hypothesis that the assumption taken related to soil strength
parameters and soil types are reliable. In this case, dry and fully saturated conditions serve as
the upper and lower limit of safety factor in the study area, respectively. On the other hand,
half saturated safety factor map can be used as a general safety factor map in the study area.
78
Table 20 : Percentage of Total Area of Safety Factor for ESA Result

Completely Dry
Half Saturated
Fully Saturated
H (m)
Ust.
Qst.
Mst.
St.
Ust.
Qst.
Mst.
St.
Ust.
Qst.
Mst.
St.
100
100
95
91
10
82
11
18
63
16
76
16
21
56
21
27
18
34
14
19
64
14
24
19
43
40
23
12
25
19
19
56
23
24
16
37
52
18
10
20
21
19
51
30
23
14
33
60
15
17
Note :
H
Ust.
Qst.
= Soil Thickness
= Unstable
= Quasi Stable
Mst.
St.
= Moderately Stable
= Stable
4.5.5 Comparison with Root Cohesion Method

The previous study conducted by Ray (2004) was based on the model with root cohesion
developed by Montgomery and Dietrich (1994), Van Westen and Terlien (1996) and de
Vleeschauwer and De Smedt (2002). This model combines cohesion between soil and root
cohesions as explained in Equation (22). The study also assumed constant soil depth
according to a depth factor of 1, 0.75 and 0.5 for slopes up to 30, 30 to 45 and 45 to 61,
respectively. Thus, as shown in Table 21, soil thickness assumption for the previous study
ranges from 1 m to 2 m. This means almost 73% of cohesive soil falls within soil thickness of
2 m. Moreover, it can be concluded that the previous study was conducted with effective
stress analysis with different steady state conditions and quasi dynamic conditions.
Table 21 : Previous Study Assumption on Soil Thickness for Cohesive Soil
Soil Depth
Coverage
Maximum
Area
(m)
2
(km )
Total
Area
(km2)
Minimum
(m)
Sandy Clay
47. 2
18.4
28.8
Inorganic Silts
34.3
4.2
30.1
Organic Silts
2.5
2.5
2.5
Soil Type
Coverage
Area
(km2)
79
The difference between the previous and the present study besides the model being used is the
assumption of the soil depth as depicted in Figure 18. The previous study assumed constant
soil depth, while the present study assumed infinite soil depth. As a consequence, the
evaluation of the safety factor for both of the studies was also different. As the depth of the
soil was assumed to be constant for the previous study, then the safety factor was evaluated at
the base of the soil layer. Contrary, as the depth of the soil was assumed infinite for the
present study, so the evaluation of safety factor was based on different slip plane or soil
thickness. Therefore, in order to compare the previous and the present studies, the
comparisons conducted in this study were only done for soil thickness of 2 m as this soil
thickness covered almost 73% of cohesive soil in the previous study. The comparison was
done by evaluating the area occupied by a certain stability class within cohesive soil only
under various steady state conditions.
In completely dry condition, about 42 km2, 32 km2 and 2 km2 for sandy clay, inorganic silts
and organic silts respectively, were reported previously to be in stable conditions. It was also
concluded that clayey sand and sandy clay types of soils are more stable even on steep slope
with unmanaged cultivation practice (Ray, 2004). The present study also indicates the same
tendency, where in completely dry condition the area occupied by sandy clay is about 47 km2
with soil thickness of 2 m. However, slightly differences in area occupied by sandy clay were
observed of about 5 km2. It was also confirmed by the present study that the sandy clay soil
were more stable due to the fact that up to 5 m soil thickness about 60% of sandy clay soil
was still in stable condition (Figure 41).
However, the previous study concluded that the slope angle causing instability is 37 for all
soil types, while the present study concluded that the average mean slope angle is 43 for
cohesive soil only. However, the lower most slope angle causing instability identified in this
study is very similar with the previous study as shown in Table 22.
The difference becomes significant when half and fully saturated conditions are compared. As
shown in Table 23, about 20% and 26% of differences are observed for half and fully
saturated conditions, respectively, on sandy clay soils. However, the difference observed in
inorganic silts was less than 10% for both of cases. A significant difference of stable area in
80
sandy clay soils might be caused by the low value strength parameters used by the previous
study. Thus when pore water pressure was considered, the shear stresses become less than the
normal stress. Hence, this would result in low safety factor for the previous study.
Table 22 : Lower Most Slope Angle Causing Instability for Previous and Present Study
Lower Most Slope Angle

Causing Instability
Steady State
Conditions
Previous
Study
Present
Study
Dry
37
36
Half Saturated
27
26
Fully Saturated
21
16
In terms of slope angle causing instability, according to previous study, slope angle of 27 and
21 was observed for half and fully saturated conditions. The present study indicates that
average mean slope angle of 37 and 34 causes instability of slope for half and fully
saturated conditions. However, the lower most slope angle causing instability give similar
result for half saturated but not in fully saturated case as shown in Table 22.
Table 23 : Summary Comparison between Previous and Present Study
Soil
Types
Total
Area
(km2)
Stable Area Occupied for Each Steady State Conditions

Fully Dry Condition
Half Saturated Condition
Full Saturated Condition
Ray
(2004)
Present
Study
%
Difference
Ray
(2004)
Present
Study
%
Difference
Ray
(2004)
Present
Study
%
Difference
Sandy
Clay
47.192
42
47
30
46
20
17
38
26
Inorganic
Silts
34.3276
32
27
27
21
15
14
Total
Area
81.5196
Both results from the present and the previous study share the same tendency that models
developed based on direct infiltration produced similar result with model based on half
saturated condition. As the rainfall intensity for various return periods developed with
statistical software does not significantly different, so the wetness index was not significantly
81
discrete also. As a consequence, the safety factor resulted from this wetness index is not
significantly different. Thus, it is concluded that for present study area, the wetness index
does not significantly affect the safety factor, since the amount of rainfall is not significantly
discrete.
Another explanation of similar result between models based on various return periods and half
saturated conditions is basically due to the concept and philosophy of cohesive soil.
Theoretically, cohesive soil is different than cohesionless soil in terms of shapes and reaction
against water. These two important differences distinguish the behaviour of the soils in shear.
Cohesive particles are normally plate-formed, while cohesionless particles are normally
rounded-formed. As the shape between these two particle types is different, it constitutes
different phenomena whenever there is a movement of water. The movement of water inside
of soil particles is determined by its permeability. In terms of permeability, cohesive soil
reserves a lower value than cohesionless soil. As the permeability of cohesive soil is very
small, the movement of water in clay particles is very slow. In hydrology, the movement of
water affected only by gravitation force is explained by its specific yield, which also shares
the same tendency as permeability.
Shortly, specific yield phenomenon in cohesive soil has a very small affects on the movement
of water from rainfall to reach the groundwater. This caused the amount of rainfall falls
within clayey soil is reduced by the specific yield to reach the groundwater. As a
consequence, the wetness index is not very much different.
Chapter 5 : Conclusion and Recommendation
82
CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1
Conclusions
Natural slope instability is a major concern in a mountainous area where failures might cause
catastrophic destruction on the surrounding area. The failures might be triggered by internal
or external factors that cause imbalance natural forces. Internal triggering factor is the factor
that causes failure due to internal changes, such as increasing pore water pressure and or
imbalance forces developed due to expansion of soil mass. External triggering factor, on the
other hand, might be either caused by human activities or natural events, such as earthquakes.
This study is the continuation of the previous study done by Ram Lakhan Ray, 2004, that
applied stability model on an area of 341 km2 of Dhading district, Nepal. In this study, a
spatial distributed physically based slope stability model was presented and applied on 84 km2
area located in the same study area. It covered only about 25% of the original study area as
the present study was mainly conducted only on cohesive soil present in the study area. Two
methods of analysis were performed, i.e. the total and effective stress analyses and the Taylor
and the Infinite Slope Methods were applied on the analysis. Critical height and safety factor
maps were produced based on those analyses. Steady state and quasi dynamic conditions were
considered for the present study with varying soil thickness. For quasi dynamic conditions,
wetness index was applied based on direct rainfall infiltrations.
It is concluded that total stress analysis give a good indication of the depth to which extend
the analysis should be conducted. Theoretically, a total stress analysis should give the most
critical case, however, due to lack of soil strength parameters, the analysis resulted in strongly
varying results if the lower or upper bound of undrained shear strength was used and applied
on the Infinite Slope Method. In this case, the model can be used to find the upper most and
lower most of safety factor. On the other hand, the Taylor Method which also applied on this
study area, produce a very large safety factor for very small soil thickness. This means that
the method is not useful to examine stability when failure normally occurs with shallow
depth. Effective stress analysis with steady state conditions gave more realistic results with a
tendency of decreasing safety with increasing soil thickness. Complete dry condition gives the
83
highest safety factor, while fully saturated condition gives the lowest safety factor, as
expected.
In general, all models consistently show decreasing safety factors with increase of soil
thickness. However, the influence of soil thickness is more strongly shown in total stress
analysis than in effective stress analysis. Again, due to lack of soil parameters, the
assumptions taken for the strength parameters might not represent natural conditions at the
site, which in return will affect the safety factor considerably.
Slope angles of 38 and 17 can be considered as the average mean slope angle to cause
instability and the lower most slope angle for stable conditions respectively. These values
were derived from the analysis based on half saturated conditions. It is also concluded that
these cases can serve as general conditions for a safety factor map because similar results are
obtained with models based on different return periods.
The root cohesion method conducted by the previous study gave lower results compared to
the present study. The comparison was conducted only for cohesive soil with a soil thickness
of 2 m. The difference between the previous and the present study might be caused by the
different concept and principle. The root cohesion method uses small values of soil cohesion,
but in addition it adds root cohesion. Even though, there are differences in the concept, the
result shown for completely dry conditions gave similar result.
This landslide hazard map is made based on the Infinite Slope Method, which is predominantly
applied only for translational slides on the contact of the upper soil and the underlying bedrock.
Hence, this map is only applied for determining translational slides hazard within the study area.
In reality, any forms of sliding might happen due to natural activities, such as block sliding,
circular sliding or topple. Consequently, the resulting map should be used with caution. Any
sliding occurring within the study area should be carefully examined whether it is correlated to
this map and further study is required in order to determine appropriate land slide hazard maps.
Furthermore, soil strength parameters in this study were taken to be constant for certain soil
types. Even though, this assumption was useful in predicting slope instability, this does not
represent the spatial variability of strength parameters throughout the study area or even
84
within one soil type. Although, this assumption might give conservative values for the safety
factor due to conservative soil parameters being used, the results will be over estimated.
Conservative value used in the analysis might also lead to in-correct conclusions that the
effect of other factors might not be seen due to the fact that their effect is masked.
5.2
Recommendations
Detailed soil explorations and hydrological investigations are strongly recommended this
active landslide area. Detailed soil explorations should include developing soil maps and soil
parameter data-bases, while hydrological studies should include spatial variability of rainfall
data.
However, for a detailed exploration, large amount of budgets are needed. Therefore, soil
exploration could be organized with only shallow depths of 2 m to 4 m, which was indicated
by the present study as the major critical depth within cohesive soil. Laboratory test on
undisturbed soil samples may be conducted to determine soil strength or can be replaced by
in-situ measurements as the Standard Penetration Test or Cone Penetration Test. In-situ
measurement of soil consistency does not measure strength parameters such as performed in
the laboratory by means of triaxial compression tests. However, there are many correlations
that have been scientifically proved, such as correspondence between Standard Penetration
Test and undrained shear strength.
Landslide inventory throughout the area is also very important to identify the behaviour and
type of sliding occurring within the area. Occurring landslides should be compared with the
available safety factor models for obtaining a more accurate safety factor map for the study
area.
Natural hazard, such as earthquakes, has been widely reported as a cause of slope failure.
Even though, the occurrence of an earthquake is exceptional, the damage caused by
earthquakes is tremendous and sometimes hazardous to human life, especially in a
mountainous area such as Nepal. Hence, for a good hazard map the effects of earthquakes
should be included in the hazard map (Van Westen and Terlien, 1996).
References
ix
REFERENCES
Acharya, G., 2003. GIS approach for slope stability risk analysis: a case study from Nepal.
MSc. thesis in Physical Land Resources, Vrije Universiteit Brussels: 114 pp.
Beven, K.J. and Kirkby, M.J., 1979. A physically based variable contributing area model of
basin hydrology. Hydrological Science Bulletin, 24(1): 43-49.
Bjerrum, L. and Simons, N.E., 1960. Comparison of shear strength characteristics of normally
consolidated clays. Proceedings of Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive
Soils, Boulder, Colorado. ASCE, pp. 711-724.
Burton, A. & Bathurst, J.C., 1998. Physically based modelling of shallow landslide sediment
yield at a catchment scale. Environmental Geology 35(2-3): 89-99.
British Standards Institution. BS 8004: 1986. British standard code of practice for
foundations. BSI, London.
Carrara, A., 1983. Multivariate methods for landslide hazard evaluation. Mathematical
Geology 15, pp. 403426.
Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Detti, R., Guzzetti, F., Pasqui, V. and Reichenbach, P., 1991. GIS
techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide hazard. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 16, pp. 427445.
Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F. and Reichenbach, P., 1995. GIS technology in
mapping landslide hazard. In: Carrara, A. and Guzzetti, F., Editors, 1995. Geographical
Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 135175.
Carrara, A. and Guzzetti, F., 1999. Use of GIS technology in the prediction and monitoring of
landslide hazard. Natural Hazards 20, pp. 117135.
Carter, M. and Bentley, S.P., 1991. Correlations of Soil Properties. Pentech Press Limited.
London.
Cernica, J.N., 1995. Geotechnical Engineering: Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
USA. 453 pp.
Chung, C.F., Fabbri, A.G. and Van Westen, C.J., 1995. Multivariate regression analysis for
landslide hazard zonation. In: Carrara, A. and Guzzetti, F., Editors, 1995. Geographical
Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 107133.
References
Chung, C.F. and Fabbri, A.G., 1998. Three Bayesian prediction models for landslide hazard.
In: Buccianti, A., Editor, 1998. Proceedings of International Association for
Mathematical Geology 1998 Annual Meeting (IAMG.98), Ischia, Italy, October 37,
1998, pp. 204211.
Chung, C.F. and Fabbri, A.G., 1999. Probabilistic prediction models for landslide hazard
mapping. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing (PE&RS) 65 12, pp.
13881399.
Craig, R. F., 2004. Craigs Soil Mechanics, Seventh Edition. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis
Group, London and New York, pp. 347-372.
Chinese Railway Research Institute (CRRI), 1976, 1979. Collected Papers on Landslides.
Vol. 1 and 2. Chinese Railway Research Institute, Lanzhou, China.
De Vleeschauwer, C. and De Smedt, F., 2002. Modelling slope stability using GIS on a
regional scale, Proceeding of the first Geological Belgica International Meeting,
Leuven, 11-15 September 2002. Aardkundige Mededelingen, 12: 253-256.
Deoja, B.B., Dhital, M., Thapa, B. and Wagner, A., 1991. Mountain risk engineering
handbook. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),
Kathmandy: 875 pp.
Dietrich, E.W., Reisss, R., Hsu, M.L. and Montgomery, D.R., 1995. A process-based model
for colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding using digital elevation data.
Hydrological Processes 9, pp. 383400.
Gibson, R.E., 1953. Experimental Determination of the True Cohesion and True
Angle
of
Internal
Friction
in
Clays.
Proceedings
of
3rd
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, pp 126-130

Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M. and Reichenbach, P., 1999. Landslide evaluation: a
review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy.
Geomorphology 31, pp. 181216
Jade, S. and Sarkar, S., 1993. Statistical models for slope stability classification. Engineering
Geology 36, pp. 9198.
Joshi J., 2002. Shallow Landslide Hazard Mapping Based on Slope Stability Analysis Using
GIS, Ph. D. Thesis, Kyushu University, Japan.
Montgomery, D.R. and Dietrich, W.E., 1994. A physically based model for the topographic
control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research 30 4, pp. 11531171.
References
xi
Nash, D., 1987. A Comparative Review of Limit Equilibrium Methods of Stability Analysis.
In : Anderson, M.G. and Richards, K. S (Editors), Slope Stability Geotechnical
Engineering and Geomorphology, 1. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 11-75.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), 1986. Design Manual 7. Virginia, USA.
Pack, R.T., Tarboton, D.G. and Goodwin, C.N., 1998. The SINMAP approach to terrain
stability mapping. In: Proceedings of 8th Congress of the International Association of
Engineering Geology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 11571165.
Ramiah, B. K., and Chickanagappa, L. S., 1990. Handbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. A. A. Balkema, Roterdam, pp. 390-413.
Ray, R. L., 2004. Slope Stability Analysis Using GIS on Regional Scale : A Case Study from
Dhading, Nepal. MSc. Thesis in Physical Land Resources, Vrije Universiteit Brussels:
99 pp.
Simons, N. and Menzies, B., 1977. A shourth course in Foundation Engineering. Second
Edition. Thomas Telford Ltd., London
Skempton, A.W., and Delory, F.A., 1957. Stability of natural slopes in London clay.
Proceeding 4th International Conference SMFE, London, 2, 378-81.
Skempton, A.W., 1964. Long-term stability of clay slopes. Geotechnique, v. 14, no. 2, pp. 77102.
Skempton, A.W., 1985. Residual Strength of Clays in Landslides, Folded Strata and the
Laboratory, Geotechnique, 35, 1-18.
Van Westen, C.J., 1994. GIS in landslide hazard zonation: a review with examples from the
Colombian Andes. In: Price, M.F. and Heywood, D.I., Editors, 1994. , Taylor and
Francis, London, pp. 3565.
Van Westen, C. J. and Terlien, M. T. J., 1995. An Approach Towards Deterministic Landslide
Hazard Analysis in GIS. A Case Study from Manizales (Colombia). Earth Surface
Processes and Land Forms, Vol. 21, pp. 853-868.
Van Westen, C.J., and Terlien, M.T.J., 1996. An approach towards deterministic landslide
hazard analysis in GIS: a case study from Manizales (Colombia). Earth Surface Process.
Landforms 21: 853-868.
Varnes, D.J., 1958. Landslide types and processes, in Eckel, E.B., ed., Landslides and
engineering practice: Highway Research Board, Special Report 29, NAS-NRC
Publication 544: 20-47.
References
xii
Varnes, D.J., 1975. Slope movements in the western United States, in Mass Wasting:
Geoabstracts, Norwich: 1-17 pp.
Wu, W. and Sidle, R.C., 1995. A distributed slope stability model for steep forested
watersheds. Water Resources Research 31 8, pp. 20972110.
Appendices
xiii
APPENDICES
Appendices
xiv
Critical Height (Hc) Map based on Infinite Slope Method with Total Stress Analysis
Appendices
xv
Safety Factor Map based on Infinite Slope Method with Total Stress Analysis for H = 2 m
Appendices
xvi
Safety Factor Map of Completely Dry Condition for H = 4 m
Appendices
xvii
Safety Factor Map of Half Saturated Condition for H = 5 m
Appendices
xviii
Safety Factor Map of Full Saturated Condition for H = 6 m

2005 Prigiarto Yonathan Hokkal Drenaje y Subdrenaje

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2005 Prigiarto Yonathan Hokkal Drenaje y Subdrenaje

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

UNIVERSITY GHENT

Drained and undrained slope stability

Master dissertation in partial fulfilment

Most true it is, that I have looked on truth

2.4.1.3 Cohesionless Material in Dry Condition.............................................21

4.4.2 Effective Stress Analysis ..................................................................................59

Sensitive Landslides Area (Ray, 2004) ...............................................................3

Simplification Mass on Slope .............................................................................7

Results of Undrained Triaxial Tests on Saturated Clay .....................................12

Relationship between the Natural Shear Strength of Undisturbed Clays and

The Concept of Residual Shear Strength...........................................................16

Forces on element of infinite slope (Cernica, 1995) ..........................................20

Total Stress Analysis ........................................................................................23

Figure 10 : Taylor's Stability Coefficients for u = 0 (after Craig, 2004) .............................24

Classification of Landslides (Varnes, 1975)........................................................7

Consistency-Strength Relationship from Field Inspection (BS 8004: 1986) ......13

Various Types of Soils and Corresponding Slope Angle...................................36

Index Properties of Soil Based on Deoja et al. (1991) .......................................39

Undrained Shear Strength from Various References .........................................39

Effective Stress Parameters for the Study Area.................................................40

Soil Parameter Used for the Analysis ...............................................................41

Summary of Critical Height Using Taylor Method ...........................................49

Summary of Critical Height using Infinite Slope Method .................................51

Range of Critical Height, Area and Slope Angle...............................................52

Range of Mean Slope Angle.............................................................................74

Slope Angle for Unstable and Stable Conditions ..............................................74

Summary of Critical Height..............................................................................75

Percentage of Total Area of Safety Factor for TSA Result................................77

Percentage of Total Area of Safety Factor for ESA Result................................78

Previous Study Assumption on Soil Thickness for Cohesive Soil .....................78

Summary Comparison between Previous and Present Study .............................80

Digital Elevation Model

Effective Stress Analysis

Geographical Information System

Infinite Slope Method

Root Cohesion Method

Total Stress Analysis

Introduction to Study Area

Figure 1: Sensitive Landslides Area (Ray, 2004)

Scope of the Study

The Objective of the Study

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Slope Failure Mechanism

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

(a) Gentle Slope

(b) Steep Slope

Figure 2 : Simplification Mass on Slope

Table 1 : Classification of Landslides (Varnes, 1975)

Unconsolidated Sediment or Soil

Rock Block Slide

Combination of two or more types

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

2.2.1 Internal Factors Effecting Slope Instability

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Slope and Gravity Force

2.2.2 External Triggering Events

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

Fundamentals of Soil Parameters

2.3.1 Principle of Effective Stress

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

2.3.2 Failure Criterion

2.3.3 Drained and Undrained Strength