1.

0 INTROCDUCTION
1.1 Slope Failure
Slope failure, also referred to as mass wasting, is the down slope movement of rock
debris and soil in response to gravitational stresses. Three major types of mass wasting
are classified by the type of down slope movement: falls, slides, and flows and also
represents one of the most active processes in modifying the landscape in areas of
significant relief. Mass wasting involves material other than weathered debris (notably in
rock slides) but most mass wasting phenomena occur in a thick mantle of regolith, the
rock and mineral fragments produced by weathering. The general term landslide is used
to describe all rapid forms of mass wasting. Some of the Slope failure factors are :
a) Slope Gradient
Slope gradient is probably the major cause of mass wasting. Generally speaking,
the steeper the slope, the less stable it is. Therefore, steep slopes are more likely
to experience mass wasting than gentle ones. A number of processes can
oversteepen a slope. One of the most common is undercutting by stream or
wave action. This removes the slope's base, increases the slope angle, and
thereby increases the gravitational force acting parallel to the slope. Wave
action, especially during storms, often result in mass movements along the
shores of oceans or large lakes. Excavations for road cuts and hillside building
sites are another major cause of slope failure. Grading the slope too steeply, or
cutting into its side, increases the stress in rock or soil until it is no longer strong
enough to remain at the steeper angle and mass wasting ensues. Such action is
analogous to undercutting by streams or waves and has the same result, thus
1

explaining why so many mountain roads are plagued by frequent mass

movements.
b) Water Content
The amount of water in rock or soil influences slope stability. Large quantities of
water from melting snow or heavy storms greatly increase the likelihood of slope
failure. The additional weight that water adds to a slope can be enough to cause
mass movement. Furthermore, water percolating through a slope's material
helps to decrease friction between grains, contributing to a loss of cohesion. For
example, slopes composed of dry clay are usually quite stable, but when wet,
they can quickly lose cohesiveness and internal friction and become an unstable
slurry. This occurs because clay, which can hold large quantities of water,
consists of platy particles that easily slide over each other when wet. For this
reason, clay beds are frequently the slippery layer along which overlying rock
units slide down slope.
c) Overloading
Overloading is almost always the result of human activity and typically results
from dumping, filling, or piling up of material. Under natural conditions, a
material's load is carried by its grain-to-grain contacts, and a slope is thus
maintained by the friction between grains. The additional weight created by
overloading increases the water pressure within the material, which in turn
decreases its shear strength, thereby weakening the slope material. If enough

material is added, the slope will eventually fail, sometimes with tragic
consequences.
1.2 Slope stability
Slope stability is the potential of soil covered slopes to withstand and undergo
movement. Stability is determined by the balance of shear stress and shear strength. A
previously stable slope may be initially affected by preparatory factors, making
the slope conditionally unstable. Slope stability is based on the interplay between two
types of forces which is driving forces and resisting forces. The driving forces promote
downslope movement of material while the resisting forces deter movement. When
driving forces overcome resisting forces, the slope is unstable and results in mass
wasting. The main driving force in most land movements is gravity and the main for
resisting force is the material's shear strength.
Safety Factor (SF) = The ratio of resisting forces to driving forces:
SF =

If SF > 1 then safe

If SF < 1 then unsafe
1.3 Retaining wall
Retaining structures are built for the purpose of retaining or holding back a soil mass
(Cheng and Jack, 2005). A simple retaining wall simply depends on its weight to achieve
stability hence as call as the gravity wall. In case of taller walls, large lateral pressure
tends to overturn the wall, and for economical reasons, cantilever walls are more
3

preferable. As for a cantilever wall, it has a part of its base extending underneath the
backfill and the weight of the soil above this part of the base to help prevent overturning
(Craig, 1993). The material placed behind the retaining wall is highly desirable to be free
draining and granular material. Clayey soils make extremely objectionable backfill
material because of the excessive lateral pressure they create.

Figure 1.3.1 : Simple retaining wall

Figure 1.3.2 : Cantilever retaining wall

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Slope stability is a way to protect any slope from sliding or side collapse, or against
weather conditions and erosions. So it is very important for the engineer to analyses the
slope stability before any construction are being carried out to ensure the slope is safe
and does not risk any human life.
According to (Chandler, 1991), during site investigation, which is in the relation to the
slope stability, the main aims of site investigation are : a) to obtain an understanding of
the development and nature of natural slopes, and of the processes which have
contributed to the formation of different natural features; b) to assess the stability of
various forms of slopes under given conditions; c) to assess the risk of instability in
natural or artificial slopes, and to quantify the influence of engineering works or other
modifications to the stability of an existing slope; d) to facilitate the redesign of failed
slopes, and the planning and design of prevention and remedial measures; and e) to
analyze slope failures which have occurred and to define the causes of failure.
Site investigations can be consider under 3 main headings which are: a) desk study; b)
field study; and c) laboratory work. For desk study, the aim here is to obtain all available
information with regard to the site and its geological environments. It will involve a
search through records, maps, (topographical and geological), and any other
information which is relevant to the geology, history and present condition of the site.
As for field study, it is to record accurately the topography of the site, to determine the
precise nature of the geological deposits underlying the site and to determine their
engineering properties, either by the collection of good quality samples which can be
tested subsequently in the laboratory, or by performing tests in-situ. And lastly is the

laboratory works which is done to obtain information, additional to that obtained

from in situ tests, on the composition and properties of the materials encountered on
any site. Laboratory tests can be grouped under three main headings: a) tests
for classification and identification; and b) tests for engineering properties (Bromhead,
1992). The first group include tests to determine the particle-size distribution of the
material, index property tests (Liquid and Plastic Limits), specific gravity tests, and tests
to determine the bulk density and water content of the soils. While the second group of
tests includes those to determine the engineering properties of the soils such as
permeability, compressibility and shear strength.
According to (Leventhal, 1987) the accurate measurement of the shearing resistance or
shear strength of a material is essential in attempting to predict future instability or to
assess the present or past stability condition. As stated previously, shear strength tests
must be performed on samples of the highest quality if reliable information is to be
obtained. Even when this condition is satisfied, however, there may still be cases where
the shear strength measured in the laboratory differs from that mobilised in situ. Shear
strength properties of soils are defined by two parameters, apparent cohesion c and the
angle of shearing resistance .
The shear box was probably the first type of apparatus used for the measurement of the
shearing resistance of soils. The apparatus consists essentially of a square brass box
split horizontally at the level of the centre of the soil specimen which is held between
metal grills and porous stones. The horizontal force acting on the upper part of the box
is gradually increased until the specimen fails in shear. The shear force at failure s f is
divided by the cross-sectional area A to give the shearing stress t f at failure. The
vertical stress sn is provided by a vertical load on the sample, normally by dead-weights
6

and a lever system. The horizontal load is applied by pushing the lower part of the box
by means of an electric motor and gearbox. Volume changes are monitored by a dial
gauge mounted to show the vertical movement of the top loading platen.

Figure 2.0.1 : Shear test example

Figure 2.0.2 : Results of shear box test

The factor of safety of a slope in soil possessing cohesion and friction can be written as

Where the factor safety for retaining wall is if it is more than 2, it is considered unsafe
and if it is less than 2, it is considered safe.

3.0 Problem details

3.1 Problem Statement

Prelude:
Kinabalu Times, 18 Jan 2013
Kota Kinabalu: Villagers of a small kampong at suburban of Kota Kinabalu city
have alarmed the authority of a possible slope failure located next to their housing
area.
The slope was cut during the construction of a road two years ago but the
contractor failed to provide adequate measures to ensure the safety of the
villagers.
Its village chief, Mr. Ali Rahman said they feared the safety of schoolchildren going
to and back from nearby secondary school. During rainy seasons, the soil becomes
wet and soggy, and tragedy can happen in any minute he added.
Upon contacted, the Public Work Department (JKR) representative, Ir. Lim
confirmed of receiving the public complain. Ir. Lim said a geotechnical company
has been commissioned to assess the slope stability, to determine the soil
properties in that area and to purpose the retaining wall structure design. Upon
receiving their technical report, the department will ensure swift suitable measures
are taken to solve this problem he assured.

3.2 Objective
a) To assess the slope stability
b) To determine the soil properties in that area
c) To propose the retaining wall structure design

3.3 Slope details

Location : Jalan Bantayan Minintod, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.
Slope physical properties :
a) Steep slope
b) Clayey looks
c) Place is currently under construction to improve the safety of factor

14m
mm

=63.435

7m
Figure 3.2 .1 : Slope of location
10

Based from the sketching of the slope;

15.653
sin 90

14
sin

x = 63.435 m
3.4 Work Flow Chart
Site Visit

Soil Sampling

2) Compaction Test

1) Sieve analysis

3) Atterberg Limit Test

Soil Classification

4) Direct Shear Test

Soil Engineering Properties

Cullman Method

Slope Stability Analysis

GeoStudio

Rankine Method

Retaining Wall Design

QuickRWall 4.0

Recommendation of Retaining Wall

11

4.0 Methodology, Results & Discussion

4.1 Experiment 1: Sieve Analysis
Objective:
To classify soil sample according to USCS standard based on its grain size distribution.
Results:
Mass of oven-dry specimen, = 2500
Sieve

Sieve

Sieve weight Mass

Mass Cumulative

Opening

weight

+ weight of retained

retained

(mm)

before

soil retained (g)

sieving (g)

after sieving

% Finer

mass

retained

(g)

3.35

2.36

1.4

0.6

1017

1039

1077

979

928

1563

1253

1121

1114

1147

546

214

44

135

219

27.43718

27.437185

72.562

593

93

814

10.75376

38.190954

61.809

884

77

045

2.211055

40.402010

59.597

276

05

99

6.783919

47.185929

52.814

598

65

07

11.00502

58.190954

41.809

513

77

045

12

0.425

0.3

0.15

0.075

793

827

790

795

872

1192

1007

936

79

365

217

141

3.969849

62.160804

37.839

246

02

196

18.34170

80.502512

19.497

854

56

487

10.90452

91.407035

8.5929

261

18

648

7.085427

98.492462

1.5075

136

31

377

100

1.507537
Pan

1004

1034

30

688

Table 4.1.2: Data from Sieve Analysis

=
= 2500 1990
= 510
Since the mass loss of soil after sieving is less than 2% of total weight of soil before, the
data is acceptable.
Analysis of Data:
The soil will be classified according to USCS standard step by step.

13

a) The soil is a coarse-grained soils because more than 50% of the soils is retained
on No. 200 sieve. (The percentage retained of soils on No. 200 sieve is, 100%
1.5075% = 98.4925%)
b) Thus, in accordance to plasticity chart, the fraction of soil is low plasticity clay.
(The analysis using the plasticity chart is explained

further in the next

experiment; The Atterberg Limits)

Conclusions:
Based on the classification of soils using USCS standard, the type of soils that was
experimented is low plasticity clay. Thus, the type of soil is coarse with a fraction of low
plasticity clay. Since the soil if of coarse type, the experiment to determine the soils
angle of internal friction and its cohesion is by shear box testing.

4.2 Experiment 2: Atterberg Limits Test

Objective
To determine the liquid limit and plastic limit of sample
Results
The equations used to obtain the result are:
Mass of water = Mass of container + wet soil - (Mass of container + dry soil)
Mass of dry soil = (Mass of container + dry soil) - (Mass of container)

14

Moisture content (%) =

Test Number

Penetration (mm)

Mass of water
100%
Mass of dry soil

28 2

28 21 20 23

20 21 20 27

25 26 33 32

34

.9

.5

.1

.7

.9

.6

.2

.3

.7

.2

.7

.7

.8

.7

Average
Penetration (mm)

28.13

21.7

20.667

26.7

33.8

8.119

7.928

22.501

21.058

19.575

10.9113

9.735

24.222

26.132

24.410

+ Dry Soil (g)

10.261

9.348

23.856

24.974

23.216

Mass of Water (g)

0.649

0.387

0.3663

1.158

1.194

2.141

1.419

1.354

3.916

3.640

30.342

27.265

27.051

29.573

32.797

Mass of Container
(g)
Mass of container
+ Wet Soil (g)
Mass of container

Mass of Dry Soil

(g)
Moisture

Content

(%)

Table 4.2.1: Data for Casagrande Method

Container Number

Mass of Container (g)

8.059

87.7212 7.6516 87.2409

Mass of Container + Wet Soil

8.8985 89.2477 9.4797 89.6503

15

(g)
Mass of Container + Dry Soil
(g)

8.7561 89.0148 9.1579 89.2081

Mass of water (g)

0.1424 0.2329

0.3218 0.4422

Mass of Dry Soil (g)

0.6971 1.2936

1.5063 1.9672

Moisture Content (%)

20.427 18.004

21.364 22.4786

Table 4.2.2: Data for Plastic Limit

Analysis
a) To determine the liquid limit of the sample by using Casagrande method, the
graph of moisture content against number of blows is plotted on the semi-log
graph. The value of liquid limit (LL) is the correspondent value of moisture
content when the number of blows is 25.
40
35

Penetration (mm)

30
25
20
15
10
5
Moisture Content (%)

0
0

10

15

20

25

Figure 4.2.1: Graph of Moisture Content Vs Number of Blows

30

35
16

Therefore, the value of liquid limit for the sample is 26.80%

b) The average value of plastic limit:

20.427+18.004 +21.364+22.479

PL

20.568%

c) The value of Plastic Index:

PI

= LL - PL

= 26.80-20.568
= 6.232%

17

Figure 4.2.3: Plasticity Chart

d) Based on the plasticity chart above, the value of Liquid Limit and Plastic Index
fall at the region of CL or OL. Since the sample does not contain organic matter,
the sample can be classified as CL which means low plasticity clay or lean clay.
Conclusion
Therefore, the sample taken has a liquid limit of 26.80%, plastic limit of 20.0568% and
plastic index of 6.232%. This sample is classified as low plasticity clay or lean clay.

4.3 Experiment 3: Shear Box Test

Objective:
18

To determine the cohesion and angle of internal friction of a dry granular soil.
Results:

a) Loose States
Table for Shear Load versus time (Loose States) with corresponding weights
Times

Shear Load (N)

(s)

5.5kg

15.5kg

25.5kg

20

0.6

40

2.9

60

6.7

4.3

80

10.8

12.4

100

5.1

120

13.9

Table for Vertical Displacement versus time (Loose States) with corresponding weights
Times

Shear Load (N)

(s)

5.5kg

15.5kg

25.5kg

20

7.2

2.1

40

50.8

27.5

6.8

60

91.1

61.9

8.1

86.2

9.5

80
100

35.2

19

120

68.8

Table for Horizontal Displacement versus time (Loose States) with corresponding
weights
Times

Shear Load (N)

(s)

5.5kg

15.5kg

25.5kg

20

1.6

40

6.9

29.1

60

69.2

12.5

24.8

34.1

21.2

80
100

19.3

120

17.1

140

-28.1

b) Dense States
Table for Shear Load versus time (Dense States) with corresponding weights
Times

Shear Load (N)

(s)

5.5kg

15.5kg

25.5kg

20

3.2

40

4.6

5.8

2.8

20

60

6.8

8.4

5.8

80

8.8

8.4

9.8

10.2

11.8

100

Table for Vertical Displacement versus time (Dense States) with corresponding weights
Times

Shear Load (N)

(s)

5.5kg

15.5kg

25.5kg

20

34.2

17

40

84.4

20.2

60

94

33.2

80

94

48.4

70

100

89.6

110

120

134.2

17

Table for Horizontal Displacement versus time (Dense States) with corresponding
weights
Times

Shear Load (N)

21

(s)

5.5kg

15.5kg

25.5kg

20

4.2

40

10

60

24.4

9.8

80

33.4

11

100

13.2

120

Calculation:
a) Loose States

For case no. 1 where the mass of the hanger is 5.5kg:

The value of Normal stress, =

=
= 14987.5 Nm-2
The value of Shear stress, =

.
. .

= 3000 Nm-2

For case no. 2 where the mass of the hanger is 15.5kg:

22

The value of Normal stress, =

=
= 42237.5 Nm-2
The value of Shear stress,

.
. .

= 3444.444 Nm-2

For case no. 3 where the mass of the hanger is 25.5kg:

The value of Normal stress, =

=
= 69487.5 Nm-2
The value of Shear stress,

.
. .

= 3861.111Nm-2
Data for shear stress and normal stress (loose states)
Shear stress, (kN/m2)

Normal stress, (kN/m2)

3.000

14.9875

23

3.444

42.2375

3.861

69.4875

b) Dense States

For case no. 1 where the mass of the hanger is 5.5kg:

The value of Normal stress, =

=
= 14987.5 Nm-2
.

= . .

The value of Shear stress,

= 2444.444 Nm-2

For case no. 2 where the mass of the hanger is 15.5kg:

The value of Normal stress, =

=
= 42237.5 Nm-2
The value of Shear stress,

.
. .

24

= 2833.333 Nm-2

For case no. 3 where the mass of the hanger is 25.5kg:

The value of Normal stress, =

=
= 69487.5 Nm-2
The value of Shear stress,

.
. .

= 3277.780 Nm-2
Data for shear stress and normal stress (dense states)
Shear stress, (kN/m2)

Normal stress, (kN/m2)

2.444

14.9875

2.833

42.2375

3.278

69.4875

a) Loose Soil

= c + tan
From graph, the apparent cohesion, c = 2000 N/m2
tan = ( c)/
25

= (3861.111 - 2000) Nm-2/ 69487.5 Nm-2

= 0.0268
Angle of internal friction, = 1.534
b) Dense Soil

= c + tan
From graph, the apparent cohesion, c = 1875 N/m2
tan = ( c)/
= (3277.78 1875) Nm-2/ 69487.5 Nm-2
= 0.020
Angle of internal friction, = 1.160

80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000

10000
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Figure 4.3 .1 : Loose ( Shear stress vs normal stress )

26

70000
60000
50000
40000

30000
20000
10000
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Figure 4.3 .1 : Dense ( Shear stress vs normal stress )

Discussion
a) Based on the result obtained, the angle of internal friction, for loose state is
1.534 and for dense state is 1.160. Conclusion:
The cohesion for loose is 2000 N/m2 and dense state is 1875 N/m2 while angle of
internal friction for loose and dense state is 1.534and 1.160respectively.

4.4 Experiment 4: PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

Objective :
27

To determine the maximum dry unit weight of compaction of soils.

Results :
Mass of dry soil used

: 2.5 kg

Classification of soil

: SW (USCS Classification)

Measurement of mould

:d=100 mm, h=100 mm

Volume of mould

:7.85x10-4 m3

Mass of base

: 3.242 kg

Trial No

Mass of wet soil + mould + 5.22

5.312

5.242

5.192

5.169

base (kg)
Mass of wet soil (kg) = W

1.378

1.47

1.381

1.342

1.327

Buld density of soil, (kg/m3)

1869.74

1994.57

1873.81

1820.9

1800.54

Container No

Mass of container (g)

84

28

28

26

27

Mass of wet soil + container 104

(g)
Mass of dry soil + container (g)

10.62

24.02

23.53

21.52

22.07

Mass of water (g)

3.38

3.98

4.47

4.48

4.93

Mass of dry soil (g)

16.62

16.02

15.53

14.52

15.07

Water content (%), w

0.169

0.199

0.224

0.236

0.247

1663.53

1530.89

1473.22

1443.9

Dry density of soil, d(kg/m3) 1599.44

28

=/(1+w)
Table 4.4.1: Results of the Standard Proctor Compaction Test.

Proctor Curve
1700
Dry Density of soil

1650
1663.53 kg/m^3
1600
1550
1500
1450

1400
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Water Content (%)

Graph 4.4.1: Graph of Proctor Curve for the soil sample.

From graph 4.4.1,

, = 1663.53

, = 0.19%
, = 9.81
= 1663.53 9.81
= 16.32 / 3
Conclusion :
29

The maximum dry density is 1663.53 kg / m3. Therefore, the unit weight is 16.32 kN/m3
.
4.5 Determination of Factor of Safety (FOS) for Slope
To determine the factor of safety for the slope, the group are using manual calculation
and software.
I.

Manual Calculation (Culmann Method)

For the manual calculation, the equation used is;

4 sin cos
(1 cos( )
cd =

c
F. Sc

tan =

tan
.

From the shear box testing result, = 1.160

From graph, the apparent cohesion, c = 1875 N/m2
Safe depth of cut = 14m
Unit weight of the soil, = 16.32 kN / m2
Angle of horizontal to cut surface, = 63.435
(The angle of friction, used is the result from the dense soil because it has lower value
of compared to loose sample and this will result in lowest possible value of the factor
of safety for the slope.)

30

Calculation
F.S

cd

F.Sc

1.16

16.59

0.113

0.58

16.87

0.111

0.38

16.96

0.11

4
F.Sc

0
0

F.S

Figure 4.4.2 : F.Sc vs F.S

= 0.111

31

Significance Factor of Safety for Design,

Safety Factor

Significance

Less than 1.0

Unsafe

1.0 - 1.2

Questionable safety

1.3 1.4

Satisfactory for cuts, fills; questionable for dams

1.5 1.75

Safe for dams

Source: Liu C. & Evett J. B., (2005). Soils and Foundations. Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall

From the above table, since the = 0.111 which is less than 1.0,
therefore the slope is unsafety and a retaining wall is needed to avoid slope failure.

II.

Software Calculation

For software calculation, the group is using software called Geoslope Design. By
inputting the necessary parameter such as the slopes height, angle, angle of internal
friction, unit weight and cohesion. The result is as follows.

32

The green coloured area is the critical area where the slope failure may occur. The
factor of safety for the slope is 0.109 which is less than 1.0. Thus, the slope is unsafe.
There is also other possible slope failure but since the slope failure is the most critical.

Comparison for manual calculation and software calculation

Manual

Software

Factor of safety = 0.111

Factor of safety = 0.109

33

5.0 RETAINING WALL DESIGN

5.1 Proposed Wall Retaining Structure (Manual)

6
7
3

Kh

1 sin
1 + sin

Kp

= 0.960
Ph

= 1/2 Kh H2
= 1/2 (0.960) (16.5)2(16.32)

1+ sin
1 sin

= 1.041
Pp

= 1/2 Kp H2
= 1/2 (1.041) (12.5)2(16.32)

34

= 2132.698 kN/m

= 1327.275 kN/m

Noted that for the calculation of active and passive pressure, the cohesion is
considered cohesion less.
Component Weight Component (kN/m)

Moment arm (m)

Righting moment
kN.m/m

14x15x23.5x0.5 = 822.5

7.83

6440.175

2x14x23.5 = 658

10.5

6909

13.167

10829.583

14x15x23.5x0.5 = 822.5

21x2.5x23.5 = 1233.75

10.5

12954.375

2x10x23.5 = 470

10.5

4935

14x5x16.32x0.5 = 571.2

14.83

8472.8

4.5x16.32x14 = 1028.16

18.75

19278

Total

Mv = 5606.11

Mr = 69818.928

Noted that the passive pressure at toe is not considered in the manual
calculation.

Analyse the factor of safety for Sliding.

F.S sliding =

()(V) + Pp

0.55 5606 .11 +1327 .275

2132 .698

= 2.068 > 1.50 Safe against sliding

Analyse the factor of safety for Overturning.
Mo = Ph (H/3) = (2132.698) (16.5/ 3)
= 11729.9367 kN.m/m

35

F.S overturning =

Mr

Mo

69818 .928
11729 .9367

= 5.95 > 1.50 Safe against overturning

Analyse the factor of safety for Bearing Capacity Failure.
x=

MA

Mr Mo
V

69818 .92811729 .937

5606 .11

= 10.362 m
e=

Base

21

x=

10.362 = 0.138< L/6 (i.e. 21/6 = 3.5)

My = Qe = 5606.11 (0.138) = 775.064 kN.m

Base

X=

Iy =

12

21

= 10.5 m

1(21)3
12

= 771.75 m4

A = bh = (1)(21) = 21 m2
q=

qL =

5606 .11

qR =

5606 .11

21

21

775 .064 (10.5)

775 .064 (10.5)

771 .75

771 .75

= 277.503 /^2

= 256.413/^2

F.S bearing capacity failure 277.503/^2 < 620/^2

(Assumed allowable

pressure bearing)
620
277 .503

= 2.234 > 1.5 Safe against bearing capacity

36

5.2 Proposed Wall Retaining Structure (Software)

For the design of the retaining wall using software, QuickRWall is used. The following
picture is the recommended retaining walls.

37

5.3 CONLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

For conclusion, the slope is unsafe since the factor of safety (FOS) is considered
in manual calculation or from using software is less than 1. The slope is considered fail
and unsafe. The soil has a liquid limit of 26.80%, plastic limit of 20.0568% and plastic
index of 6.232%. This sample is classified as low plasticity clay or lean clay known from
the previous experiment. Thus, a retaining wall is recommended to be built to avoid
slope failure in the future. Based from all the data obtained, a retaining wall for the
slope is assumed. It is assumed by using the Rankine method including using the
software known as QuickRWall 4.0 to get the most suitable retaining wall for the slope.
Since The allowable pressure bearing for the structure is 620 kPa which for the design
assumed is only 277.530 kPa thus making the structure safe against failure. The friction
coefficient assumed in the manual calculation and software is 0.55. As for the calculation
of active and passive pressure, the cohesion is considered cohesion less soil, thus using
the equation of a cohesion less soil of Rankine Theory while the software's calculation
includes the cohesion. Also, the active pressure's height is from top structure to bottom
of foundation while the passive pressure is from bottom structure to top of foundation.
Noted that the passive pressure at toe is not considered in the manual calculation as it is
calculated separately from the manual. That is why the answer for factor of safety of
overturning is different from software's calculation. The selection criteria is not based on
the cost, difficulty in building the retaining wall and other factors. Since the most
important factor in this project is only to avoid slope failure, other factor such as the
cost of building and the difficulty in building the retaining wall will not be discussed.

38

6.0 REFERENCE
Bromhead, E.N. 1992. The stability of slopes. Blackie, London.
Chandler, R.J. 1991. Slope stability engineering. Thomas Telford, London.
Craig, R. F. Mekanik Tanah . Johor Darul Ta'zim: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Leventhal, A.R. and Mostyn, G.R. 1987, Slope stabilisation techniques and their

application in Slope Instability and Stabilisation, ed. by B. Walker and R. Fell,

Balkema, Rotterdam.
Liu, C. and Evett, J. B. (2005). Soils and Foundations. Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.

39