Chapter 5 PDF

102
Chapter 5
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS
5.1 GENERAL
Modeling and analyses of the landslides has been carried out for various
slope stability conditions. The parameters required for the modeling of the
landslides have been obtained by conducting of the laboratory tests and use of the
correlation. In the following sections modeling and analyses of the landslides at
KM 11 and KM 26 under various scenarios are discussed.
5.2 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 11 UNDER

UNSTABLE CONDITION
Landslide modeling has been carried out using Plane Failure Analysis
Module computer software. The model showing detailed profile with 100 x 50 m
cross-section is shown in Fig. 5.1. Material properties of the landslide have been
determined by the performance of laboratory tests (Table 4.2). The shear strength
of landslide material is also verified by Roclab (computer software) and through
case studies. Since it is a rockslide and a planar type of failure is taking place in
the slide area, therefore modeling is carried out in the Plane Failure Analysis
Module computer software.
103
Weathered
Limestone
100 m
59o
10 m 85o
Road
50 m
FIG. 5.1. Model (Landslide KM 11)
5.3 ANALYSIS OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 11 UNDER

UNSTABLE CONDITION
For the analysis of the slope at KM 11, Plane Failure Analysis Module
computer software has been used. The software is used for the analysis of planar
type of rockslides. Different field conditions and scenarios can be incorporated in
the analysis. The inputs required and the outputs received through the software are
shown in Fig. 5.2. Planar type of landslide at KM 11 has been analyzed for seven
different field conditions ranging from simple to worst case. The details are given
in succeeding paragraphs.
104
FIG. 5.2. Schematic of Plane Failure Analysis
5.3.1 Dry Discontinuity

This is the simplest of the cases. If the discontinuity present in the planar
slide is dry and there is no tension crack as well, then the factor of safety is
approximately close to 1.5. In case of slopes the factor of safety of 1.5 is
considered to be safe. The input data required includes slope height, slope face
angle, upper slope angle, cohesion, friction angle of discontinuity surface,
discontinuity angle, unit weight of rock and unit weight of water. The parameters /
data calculated by the software include crest location, discontinuity length and the
weight of rock block. Finally, the factor of safety is calculated. The detailed
analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.3.
105
Slope Height = 10 m
Slope Face Angle = 85 0
Upper Slope Angle = 59 0
Cohesion = 60 kPa
Friction Angle = 20 0
Discontinuity Angle = 60 0
Unit Weight of Rock = 26 KN / m3
Unit Weight of Water = 9.81KN / m3
Crest Location = 0.87 m
Discontinuity Length = 252.14 m
Weight of Rock Block = 13905.6 KN
Factor of Safety = 1.466

FIG. 5.3. Dry Discontinuity
5.3.2 10 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

This is the second case that has been considered. If the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 10 % filled with water and there is no tension crack as
well, then the factor of safety is approximately close to 1.5, i.e. 1.426. The input
data includes slope height, slope face angle, upper slope angle, cohesion, friction
angle of discontinuity surface, discontinuity angle, unit weight of rock, unit weight
of water and % of discontinuity filled with water. The parameters / data calculated
by the software include uplift water pressure on discontinuity, crest location,
discontinuity length and the weight of rock block. Finally, the factor of safety is
calculated. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.4.
106
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 60 kPa
Percent of Discontinuity Filled with Water = 10 %
Uplift Water Pressure on Discontinuity = 1350.3 kPa
FIG. 5.4. 10 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

This is the third case that has been considered. If the discontinuity present
in the planar slide is 50 % filled with water and there is no tension crack as well,
then the factor of safety is 0.445. The input data required is the same as of
previous case. Two major changes have been observed in this scenario compared
to the previous one. The factor of safety in this case has drastically reduced to
0.445, as compared to 1.426 when discontinuity was 10 % filled with water. This
indicates that water plays a major role in the stability of this particular slope. The
second change as compared to previous case is the amount of uplift water pressure
on discontinuity, which has been increased to 33751.1 kPa as compared to 1350.3
kPa. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.5.
107
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 60 kPa

This is the fourth case that has been considered. If the discontinuity present
in the planar slide is 85 % filled with water and there is no tension crack as well,
then the factor of safety is 0.024. The input data required is the same as of
previous case, except the value of cohesion and friction angle, which are 20 kPa
and 3o respectively. These values have been dropped because of saturated
conditions. The factor of safety in this case has further reduced to 0.024, as
compared to 0.445 when discontinuity was 50 % filled with water. This further
substantiates that water plays a major role in the stability of these slopes. The
amount of uplift water pressure on discontinuity has increased to 97557.9 kPa as
compared to 33751.1 kPa, when discontinuity was 50 % filled with water. The
tremendous amount of uplift water pressure on the discontinuity is a major factor
in the stability of slope thus initiating landslides. The detailed analysis for this
case is shown in Fig. 5.6. A comparison of factor of safety between the above-
described four cases is shown in Fig. 5.7. It is evident from Fig. 5.7. that the factor
of safety is 1 when the discontinuity is 30 % filled with water. However, when
discontinuity is more than 30 % filled with water, the factor of safety reduces
108
drastically. It indicates that 30 % discontinuity filled with water is a threshold

value for stability of this slope.
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 20 kPa
1.6
1.4
1.2
FOS 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% OF DISCONTINUITY FILLED WITH WATER
FIG. 5.7. Comparison of Factor of Safety

109
5.3.5 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and a Dry Tension Crack

This is the fifth case that has been considered. If the discontinuity present
in the planar slide is 50 % filled with water and there is a tension crack as well,
then the factor of safety is 0.845. The input data required is similar as of previous
case except that tension crack location and whether it’s dry or % filled with water.
Similarly, data calculated is more than the previous case because of the tension
crack. The distance of tension crack from crest as well as depth of tension crack is
calculated. If a comparison is drawn between the two cases, when 50 %
discontinuity is filled with water with no tension crack, and with a dry tension
crack, few important features are observed. In first case when 50 % discontinuity
was filled with water with no tension crack then the uplift water pressure on
discontinuity was 33751.1 kPa, discontinuity length was 252.14 m, weight of rock
block was 13905.6 KN and factor of safety was 0.445, whereas, in second case it
was 234.3 kPa, 21 m, 2138.6 KN and factor of safety 0.845 respectively. This
indicates that a dry tension crack is comparatively more stable compared to
presence of no tension crack with 50 % discontinuity filled with water. The
detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.8.
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 60 kPa
Distance of Tension Crack from Crest = 9.63 m
Tension Crack Depth = 7.8 m
Percent of Tension Crack Filled with Water = 0
Discontinuity Length = 21 m
FIG. 5.8. 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and a Dry Tension Crack
110

This is the sixth case that has been considered. If the discontinuity present
in the planar slide is 85 % filled with water and there is a tension crack as well,
then the factor of safety is 0.238. The input data required is same as of previous
case. If a comparison is drawn between the two cases, when 85 % discontinuity is
filled with water with no tension crack and with a dry tension crack, then few
important aspects are observed. In first case when 85 % discontinuity is filled with
water with no tension crack, the uplift water pressure on discontinuity was 97557.9
kPa, discontinuity length was 252.14 m, weight of rock block was 13905.6 KN and
factor of safety was 0.024, where as in second case it was 677 kPa, 21 m, 2138.6
KN and 0.238 respectively. It indicates that in this case a dry tension crack is
slightly more stable compared to no tension crack with 85 % discontinuity filled
with water. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.9.
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 20 kPa
Uplift Water Pressure on Discontinuity = 677 kPa
Horizontal Water Force on Tension Crack = 0
Discontinuity Length = 21 m
111
5.3.7 100 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and 50 % Tension Crack Filled
with Water
This is the seventh case that has been considered. If the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 100 % filled with water and tension crack is 50 %
filled with water, the factor of safety is found to be 0.248. The input data is same
as of previous case. In this particular case a very minor uplift pressure of 36.4 kPa
is present on the discontinuity. The distance of tension crack from the crest is zero
and a horizontal water force of 88.3 kPa is acting on the tension crack. The weight
of rock block is 96.5 KN. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.10.
A comparison of factor of safety between the above-described three cases is shown
in Fig. 5.11.
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 20 kPa
Distance of Tension Crack from Crest = 0
Horizontal Water Force on Tension Crack = 88.3 kPa
Percent of Tension Crack Filled with Water = 50 %
FIG. 5.10. 100 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and 50 % Tension Crack
Filled with Water
112
0.8
0.6
FOS 0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
AND TENSION CRACK
FIG. 5.11. Comparison of Factor of Safety

UNSTABLE CONDITION
Landslide modeling has been carried out using Geo-Slope Office (2002)
computer software. The model showing detailed profile with 110 x 75 m cross-
section is shown in Fig. 5.12. Material properties of the landslide are shown in the
Fig. 5.12 and have been determined by conducting laboratory tests (Table 4.2) and
using correlation (Appendix I, Table 1.14). The total stress parameters are used in
the modeling of the landslide, besides the elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship.
113
KUNDLA
C = 20 kPa SLIDE
E = 175000 kPa
 = 20
C =20.8 kPa

E = 175000 kPa
 = 2.2 deg
55
 = 0.4 M
 = 26
10 M Road
C = 200 kPa
E = 250000 kPa 40 M
 = 290
 55
M
10 M
75 M

UNSTABLE CONDITION
For the analysis of the slope at KM 26, Sigma/W (Geo-Slope Office, 2002)
computer software is used for the determination of stresses and strains generated
within the slope. The discussions regarding use of the software for analysis of the
landslide is carried out in following section:
5.5.1. Sigma/W
Sigma/W is a finite element software. It is used to perform stress and
deformation analysis of earth and rock structures. It is possible to analyse both
simple and highly complex problems with the help of this software. The
114
progressive failure concept (strain softening) of the slope stability problem can be
modeled in Sigma/W. The concept helps locate stress concentration, large strains
and large relative deformations. This concept is not taken into account by the limit
equilibrium analysis methods resultantly the factor of safety in that case depends
on the average mobilized shear strength over the slip surface. The decrease in
mobilized shear strength because of shear stress exceeding shear strength over
some sections of the slip surface are ignored in case of limit equilibrium analyses
methods, Chowdhury (1995). To account for this Sigma/W has been used. The
boundary conditions applied for Sigma/W with a view to simulate the
confinements at the expected locations is shown in shown in Fig. 5.12, these
confinements would ensure that the slope movement is restrained at these
locations.
The maximum shear strain contours for landslide at KM 26 show that, at a
height of only 5 m from the road level, maximum shear strains were recorded up to
6.5 percent (Fig. 5.13). This concentration of the strain at this location is due to
the steep nature of the slope i.e. 70o and the ingress of water into strata, due to
which the shear strength of the material has been reduced. The progressive failure
concept (strain softening) can be seen in Fig. 5.13 where maximum strain of 6.5
percent is indicated at one particular location. The failure will initiate from the
point of maximum strain and will expand to other points gradually, resulting in
failure of the entire slope.
The maximum shear stress contour of 550 kPa is at the bottom left corner
of the slope as shown in Fig. 5.14. These stresses are quite less once compared to
the unconfined compression strength of the rock sample i.e. 12 MPa determined in
the laboratory. From these results it can be concluded that the failure would not
result due to the stress concentration but would be a function of reduced shear
strength and weathering due to hydrological conditions.
115
C =20.8 kPa
E = 175000 kPa
15
0 .0
0.0
1
25
= 2.2 deg
0 .0
2
0 .0
3
0 .0
5
0 .03 4
0 .0
5
55 M
0 .04
0 .05
0.05
Max Shear Strain 6.5 % 45

0 .0
0 .06
0 .05
Road 0.065
5
0.04 0 .03
0.0
25
0 .02
0 .015
0.0
1
0.005
55 M
0 .00
5
05
0 .0
75 M
FIG. 5.13. Maximum Shear Strain Contours (Landslide at KM 26)

116
C =20.8 kPa
E = 175000 kPa
 = 2.2 deg
 = 0.4 55 M
 = 26
50
Road
100
150
2 00
2 50
3 00
350
55 M
400
Max Shear Stress

4 50
550 kPa
5 50
45
5 00
5 00
3 00
15 00
3 50 4 00
0
2 00
1
75 M
FIG. 5.14. Maximum Shear Stress Contours (Landslide at KM 26)

117

STABILIZED CONDITION
Landslide modeling has been carried out using Plane Failure Analysis
Module computer software. The model showing detailed profile with 100 x 50 m
cross-section is shown in Fig. 5.1. Material properties of the landslide are
determined by performing laboratory tests (Table 4.2). The shear strength of
landslide material is also verified by Roclab (computer software) and through case
studies. Since it is a rockslide and a planar type of failure is taking place in the
slide area, therefore, modeling has been carried out in the Plane Failure Analysis
Module computer software.

STABLIZED CONDITION
Landslide at KM 11 took place due to steep slope and weathering. The
survey of the landslide helped determine details about vegetative cover, the surface
geometry and geological setup. Vegetation at this location is sparse; therefore, the
ground surface is exposed to weathering effects. The ingress of water into the
subsurface strata is also high. The landslide geology shows that the slope is
formed of limestone. The slope face angle is very steep i.e. 85 degrees up to a
height of 10 m and then the slope reduces to 59 degrees for the entire height.
There are also discontinuities in between limestone layers and slide takes place
along the discontinuities.
For the analysis of the slope at KM 11, Plane Failure Analysis Module
computer software has been used. Different field conditions and scenarios have
been incorporated in the analysis. Stabilization of landslide has been carried out
for the seven unstable conditions as discussed earlier. The Plane Failure Analysis
stabilizes landslide through two major techniques, one with reduction in slope face
angle and second through use of anchors. Although anchors have few
disadvantages vis-à-vis cost and life / durability however analyses have been
carried out using anchors also. The minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is considered
for the stabilization of landslide. The details are given in succeeding paragraphs.
118
5.7.1 Dry Discontinuity

This is the simplest of the cases. Once the discontinuity present in the
planar slide was dry and there was no tension crack as well, then the factor of
safety was 1.466. The factor of safety is approximately close to 1.5; however,
slope face angle can be reduced marginally (84o from 85o) to increase factor of
safety to 1.513. There will be a change in crest location, discontinuity length and
weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. Under unstable condition
crest location was at 0.87 m, discontinuity length was 252.14 m and weight of rock
block was 13905.6 KN. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.15.
Similarly, anchors can be used as an alternate arrangement to improve factor of
safety to 1.5. Artificial support load of 420 KN at an angle of 25o has to be applied
for desired factor of safety.
Slope Height = 10 m
Cohesion = 60 kPa
FIG. 5.15. Dry Discontinuity

This is the second case that has been considered. When the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 10 % filled with water and there is no tension crack,
119
the factor of safety was 1.426. If slope face angle is reduced to 82o, it improves
factor of safety to 1.511. By reducing the slope face angle, there will be a change
in slope height, uplift water pressure on discontinuity, crest location, discontinuity
length and weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. The detailed
analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.16. Similarly, anchors can also be used as
an alternate to improve factor of safety to 1.5. Artificial support load of 930 KN at
an angle of 25o has to be applied to achieve factor of safety of 1.5.
Slope Height = 10.5 m

Cohesion = 60 kPa

This is the third case considered. When the discontinuity present in the
planar slide is 50 % filled with water and there is no tension crack as well, then the
factor of safety is 0.445. Slope face angle has to be reduced to 70o to improve
length and weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. The uplift
water pressure on discontinuity is reduced to 10350.4 kPa as against 33757.1 kPa
120
under unstable condition. Similarly, weight of rock block has been reduced to
4024.8 KN as against 13905.6 KN under unstable condition. The detailed analysis
for this case is shown in Fig. 5.17. Anchors can be used as an alternate to improve
factor of safety to 1.5. Artificial support load of 13171 KN at an angle of 25o is to
be applied to achieve factor of safety of 1.5.
Slope Height = 12 m
Cohesion = 60 kPa

This is the fourth case that has been considered. When the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 85 % filled with water and there is no tension crack as
well, then the factor of safety is 0.024. Slope face angle if reduced to 63o improves
length and weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. The uplift
water pressure on discontinuity is reduced to 6947.9 kPa as against 97557.9 kPa
and discontinuity length is reduced to 67.29 m as against 252.14 m, under unstable
condition. Similarly, weight of rock block is reduced to 770.7 KN as against
121
13905.6 KN under unstable condition. The detailed analysis for this case is shown
in Fig. 5.18. The improved factor of safety by reducing slope face angle for the
four above-described cases is shown in Fig. 5.19.
Similarly, anchors can be used as an alternate to improve factor of safety to
o
1.5. Artificial support load of 26086 KN at an angle of 25 has to be applied to
obtain factor of safety of 1.5. The improved factor of safety by use of anchors for
the four above-described cases is shown in Fig. 5.20.
Slope Height = 15 m
Cohesion = 20 kPa

122
90
85
80 FOS 1.5
SLOPE
75
FACE
ANGLE
70
65
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
FIG. 5.19. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Reducing Slope Face Angle
30000
25000 FOS 1.5
20000
ANCHOR 15000
(KN)
10000
5000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
FIG. 5.20. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Using Anchors

123

This is the fifth case that has been considered. Once the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 50 % filled with water and there is a tension crack as
well, then the factor of safety is 0.845. Slope face angle is to be reduced to 70o to
improve factor of safety to 1.543. By reducing the slope face angle, there will be a
change in slope height, uplift water pressure on discontinuity, crest location,
distance of tension crack from crest, tension crack depth, discontinuity length and
weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. The uplift water pressure
on discontinuity will increase to 647.6 kPa as against 234.3 kPa and discontinuity
length will increase to 34.92 m as against 21 m, under unstable condition.
Similarly, weight of rock block will reduce to 1610.6 KN as against 2138.6 KN
under unstable condition. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.21.
Anchors can also be used as an alternate arrangement to improve factor of safety to
1.5. Artificial support load of 1260 KN at an angle of 25o is to be applied to
enhance factor of safety to 1.5.
Slope Height = 12 m
Cohesion = 60 kPa
124

This is the sixth case that has been considered. When the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 85 % filled with water and there is a tension crack as
well, then the factor of safety is 0.238. Slope face angle is to be reduced to 62.5 o
to bring factor of safety to 1.516. By reducing the slope face angle, there will be a
change in slope height, uplift water pressure on discontinuity, crest location,
distance of tension crack from crest, tension crack depth, discontinuity length and
weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. The uplift water pressure
on discontinuity will increase to 1612.9 kPa as against 677 kPa and discontinuity
length will increase to 32.42 m as against 21 m, under unstable condition.
Similarly, weight of rock block will reduce to 438.1 KN as against 2138.6 KN
under unstable condition. The detailed analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.22.
Anchors can also be used as an alternate arrangement to enhance factor of safety to
o
1.5. Artificial support load of 3432 KN at an angle of 25 is to be applied to
obtain factor of safety of 1.502.
Slope Height = 16 m
Slope Face Angle = 62.5 0
Cohesion = 20 kPa
Horizontal Water Force on Tension Crack = 0
Tension Crack Depth = 1 m
125
5.7.7 100 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and 50 % Tension Crack Filled
with Water
This is the seventh case that has been considered. Once the discontinuity
present in the planar slide is 100 % filled with water and tension crack was 50 %
filled with water, then the factor of safety is 0.248. Slope face angle if reduced to
63.5o will improve factor of safety to 1.52. By reducing the slope face angle, there
will be a change in slope height, uplift water pressure on discontinuity, crest
location, horizontal water force on tension crack, tension crack depth, discontinuity
length and weight of rock block as compared to unstable condition. The detailed
analysis for this case is shown in Fig. 5.23. The comparison of factor of safety by
reducing slope face angle for the above-described three cases is shown in Fig. 5.24.
Similarly, anchors can be used as an alternate arrangement to improve factor of
safety to 1.5. Artificial support load of 235 KN at an angle of 25o is to be applied
to obtain factor of safety of 1.502. A comparison of factor of safety by use of
anchors for the above-described four cases is shown in Fig. 5.25.
Slope Height = 15.5 m

Slope Face Angle = 63.5 0
Cohesion = 20 kPa
Distance of Tension Crack from Crest = 0
Horizontal Water Force on Tension Crack = 5.5 kPa
Percent of Tension Crack Filled with Water = 50 %
FIG. 5.23. 100 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and 50 % Tension Crack
Filled with Water
126
72
70
68 FOS 1.5
SLOPE 66
FACE
ANGLE 64
62
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% OF DISCONTINUITY FILLED WITH
WATER AND TENSION CRACK
FIG. 5.24. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Reducing Slope Face Angle
4000
3500 FOS 1.5
3000
2500
ANCHOR 2000
(KN) 1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% OF DISCONTINUITY FILLED WITH

WATER AND TENSION CRACK
FIG. 5.25. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Using Anchors

127
5.7.8 Allied Methods of Stabilization

Apart from the stabilization methods described above, few other methods
can be used to supplement the stability. These methods can be used /
supplemented to stabilize such type of landslides along the Road. These are
described in succeeding paragraphs.
a. Hydrological / Drainage Control Measures

Ingress of water into the strata has since been identified as one of the main
contributor to the slope stability problem, therefore, drains are considered useful
for the channelization of the rainwater for the surface drainage control. The
subsurface water in this area exists because of the water percolation and seepage
from surface runoff. In this area the perennial seepage is not the major
contributing source, with this in view control measures are mainly for the control
of surface runoff. The uses of drains help control ingress of water into the slope
mass. It is clearly shown by the analyses that when the discontinuity is less than
50 % filled with water, there is very little slope stability problem, however, when
the discontinuity is more than 50 % filled with water, the factor of safety reduces
drastically. If water can be controlled to percolate into the strata by providing
cutoff drains the slope stability problem can be reduced.
b. Permeable or Impermeable Surface Coatings

To prevent erosion or saturation of the affected soil mass. The water
ingress can also be controlled by providing impermeable coatings like spraying of
concrete or bitumen, vegetation in the form of plants and grass, shotcrete, chunam
plaster (mixture of cement and lime), masonry and rip-rap etc. Vegetation (grass,
shrubs, and trees) is highly effective and advantageous for soil stabilization.
Removal of earth to construct cuts and embankments inevitably removes the
vegetative covering and the surface soils are left exposed and susceptible to runoff
and wind attack. Vegetation stabilizes the soil surface by the intertwining of its
roots, minimizes seepage of runoff into the soil by intercepting rainfall, and retards
runoff velocity. In addition, vegetation may have an indirect influence on deep-
seated stability by depleting soil moisture, attenuating depth of frost penetration,
128
and providing a favorable habitat for the establishment of deeper-rooted vegetation

(shrubs and trees). Vegetation is multifunctional, relatively inexpensive, self-
repairing, visually attractive, and does not require heavy or elaborate equipment for
its installation. With the help of permeable or impermeable surface coatings, water
can be controlled to enter in the discontinuity, resulting in less problems regarding
stability of slopes.
c. Rock Bolting and Soil Nailing

Rock bolting and soil nailing can be used to stabilize the slopes. Soil
nailing and dowelling are a form of passive reinforcement, which means no
prestressing is involved. Rock bolt action can be passive or active. Rock bolts can
be considered a method of reinforcement, rather than just anchoring, where its
main purpose is not transferring the load into a stable zone, but confining a jointed
and fragmented rock mass in such a way as to mobilize the frictional strength
between individual blocks. Rock bolts are inserted into boreholes and fixed in
position by wedges or grout. Tightening a nut against the faceplate may tension
them. Grouting after installation is essentially for corrosion protection. Soil nails
provide primarily tensile reinforcement in a soil mass.
d. External Restraints
In areas where flattening of the slopes is not possible, external restraints in
the form of retaining walls, breast walls, gabions, crib walls and toe walls can be
provided to stabilize the slopes. Gabion walls can be transformed into an
internally reinforced soil structures by attaching horizontal layers of mesh
embedded in the backfill. Gabions are wire baskets filled with rock. Crib and bin
walls are box like lattice structures filled with soil.
e. Drilling of Holes
For bedded limestone layers in order to prevent pore pressures to develop,
holes must be drilled through the discontinuities. However, drilling of holes
require sound rock with better strength and less weathering. Rocks with less RQD
values will disintegrate during drilling of holes.
129

Landslide modeling has been carried out using Geo-Slope Office (2002)
computer software. The model showing detailed profile with 110 x 75 m cross-
section is shown in Fig. 5.26. Material properties of the landslide are shown in
the Fig. 5.26 and are determined by performing laboratory tests (Table 4.4) and
using correlation (Appendix I, Table 1.14). The total stress parameters are used in
the modeling of the landslide, besides the elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship.
KUNDLA SLIDE
C =20.8 kPa
C = 59 kPa
E = 175000 kPa E = 175000 kPa
 = 2.2 deg  = 170

 = 0.4
55
 = 26 M
10 M Road
C = 200 kPa
E = 250000 kPa
 = 290 40 M

55
M
10 M
75 M

130

Landslide at KM 26 occurred due to steep slope, ingress of water and
weathering. Vegetation at this location is sparse; therefore, the ground surface is
exposed to weathering effects. The ingress of water into the subsurface strata is
also high. The landslide geology shows that the slope is formed of limestone. The
slope face angle is very steep i.e. 70 degrees up to a height of 55 m from the road
level and then reduces to 60 degrees for the remaining height.
For the analysis of the slope at KM 26 under stabilized condition, Sigma/W
(Geo-Slope Office, 2002) computer software has been used. Stabilization of
landslide is carried out through hydrological / drainage control measures and
retaining / restraining measures. The discussion on these methods of rehabilitation
for landslide at KM 26 is carried out in the following sections:
5.9.1 Stabilization Methods
a. Stabilization Through Hydrological / Drainage Control Measures

Ingress of water into the strata has since been identified as one of the main
contributor to the slope stability problem, therefore, cutoff drains are considered
useful for the channelization of the rainwater for the surface drainage control. The
subsurface water in this area exists because of the water percolation and seepage
from surface runoff. In this area the perennial seepage is not the major
contributing source, with this in view control measures are mainly for the control
of surface runoff. The drains will help to reduce the ingress of water into the slope
mass and reduce the water level / head. The computer software Sigma/W
(Geo-Slope Office, 2002) has been used to incorporate the effect of modification /
improvement in terms of strength / stiffness parameters as shown in Fig. 5.26. The
improved value of shear strength has been calculated in the laboratory under in-situ
moisture content. The maximum shear strain and maximum shear stress contours
after stabilization through hydrological / drainage control measures are shown in
Fig. 5.27 and Fig. 5.28.
131
c = 59 kPa
E = 175000 kpa
 = 17 deg
 = 0.35
 = 26
0.0
01
55 M
0.0
0.
00
01
0.
25
00
5
2
0.0
0.0
04
03
5
Max Shear Strain 0.55 %
0.0
05
45
0.00
0.0
055
03
Road 0.0
0.
0.
00
00
25
3
0.0
02 0.00
0.0
01
35
5
55 M
0.001
005
0.001
0.0
75 M
FIG. 5.27. Maximum Shear Strain Contours After Stabilization

(Landslide at KM 26)
132
c = 59 kPa
E = 175000 kpa
 = 17 deg
60
 = 0.35
 = 26
80 55 M
10
0
14 12
0 0
16
0
Road 180
200
220
240
24 Max Shear Stress

0
340 kPa
0
22
26
200 0
180
160
340
55 M
320
120
280
140
300
0
10
80 100
40
60
75 M
FIG. 5.28. Maximum Shear Stress Contours After Stabilization

133
It can be seen from Fig. 5.27 that the maximum shear strain contour for
landslide at KM 26 is located at a height of only 5 m from the road level. The
value of maximum shear strains located on the slope has been reduced to almost
zero i.e. 0.55 %. Before stabilization through hydrological / drainage control
measures maximum shear strains recorded were 6.5 %. It indicates that effect of
stabilization has improved the slope stability.
The other criterion for the stability of the slopes is through the reduction of
stress levels on the slope. The maximum shear stress contours on the slope body
with the help of Sigma/W were computed as shown in Fig. 5.28. This shows
reduction in the value of the shear stress after the stabilization effects have been
incorporated into the computer software. The maximum value of shear stress
recorded on the slope body is 340 kPa, which is 210 kPa less than the previous
case i.e. the existing worst condition (without stabilization).
b. Stabilization Through Restraining / Retaining Measures

The weathering of rock material is another causative factor for triggering of
landslide at KM 26. Apart from drainage / hydrological measures, stabilization
can be done with the help of a retaining wall constructed close to the road edge. A
10 m high retaining wall is required to stabilize the landslide at KM 26. Back
filling of the wall to be done with granular material to allow water to pass through
the weep holes. The simulation of the retaining wall for the computer modeling
was done with the help of Sigma/W. The use of Sigma/W incorporates the
boundary conditions i.e. restraining the slope at given location. Therefore, the
slope restraint blocks the movement of slope against sliding. The other boundary
conditions are the restrictions of the slope movement in the horizontal and vertical
direction. Fig. 5.29 shows placement of the retaining wall at the roadside location.
The maximum shear strain and maximum shear stress contours after stabilization
through restraining / retaining measures are shown in Fig. 5.29 and Fig. 5.30.
KUNDLA SLIDE AFTER
134
STABILIZATION
WITH 10 M HIGH RETAINING WALL
15
0.0
15
0.0
2
0.0
25
0.0
55 M
0.
03
Max Shear Strain 4 %
25
0.
0.0
03
5
4
0.0 0.02
15
0.0
Retaining Wall
Road 0.0
1
0.0
05
55 M
75 M
FIG. 5.29. Maximum Shear Strain Contours After Stabilization

135
55 M
Retaining Wall 50
Road
100
250
Max Shear Stress
300
400 kPa
150
0
20
0
350 40
150
55 M
10
0
50
75 M
FIG. 5.30. Maximum Shear Stress Contours After Stabilization

136
It is evident from Fig. 5.29 that the maximum shear strain contour for
landslide at KM 26 is located at a height of 15 m from the road level. The value
of maximum shear strain has been reduced to 4 % through restraining / retaining
measures. Before stabilization through restraining / retaining measures maximum
shear strains recorded were 6.5 % and were located at a height of 5 m above the
road. It indicates that effect of stabilization has improved the slope stability.
The maximum shear stress values on the slope determined with the help of
Sigma/W, show reduction in shear stress on the application of stabilization
methods (Fig. 5.30). The highest value of the maximum shear stress recorded on
the slope body is 400 kPa, which is 150 kPa less than the previous case i.e. the
existing worst condition (without stabilization).

Chapter 5 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Chapter 5 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

102

5.2 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 11 UNDER

FIG. 5.1. Model (Landslide KM 11)

5.3 ANALYSIS OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 11 UNDER

FIG. 5.2. Schematic of Plane Failure Analysis

5.3.1 Dry Discontinuity

Factor of Safety = 1.466

5.3.2 10 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

Factor of Safety = 1.426

FIG. 5.4. 10 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

5.3.3 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

FIG. 5.5. 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

5.3.4 85 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

drastically. It indicates that 30 % discontinuity filled with water is a threshold

FIG. 5.6. 85 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

% OF DISCONTINUITY FILLED WITH WATER

FIG. 5.7. Comparison of Factor of Safety

5.3.5 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and a Dry Tension Crack

Factor of Safety = 0.845

5.3.6 85 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and a Dry Tension Crack

Factor of Safety = 0.238

Factor of Safety = 0.248

FIG. 5.11. Comparison of Factor of Safety

5.4 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 26 UNDER

FIG. 5.12. Model (Landslide KM 26)

5.5 ANALYSIS OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 26 UNDER

Max Shear Strain 6.5 % 45

FIG. 5.13. Maximum Shear Strain Contours (Landslide at KM 26)

Max Shear Stress

FIG. 5.14. Maximum Shear Stress Contours (Landslide at KM 26)

5.6 MODELING OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 11 UNDER

5.7 ANALYSIS OF LANDSLIDE AT KM 11 UNDER

5.7.1 Dry Discontinuity

Factor of Safety = 1.513

FIG. 5.15. Dry Discontinuity

5.7.2 10 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

Slope Height = 10.5 m

Factor of Safety = 1.511

FIG. 5.16. 10 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

5.7.3 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

Factor of Safety = 1.533

FIG. 5.17. 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

5.7.4 85 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

Factor of Safety = 1.501

FIG. 5.18. 85 % Discontinuity Filled with Water

FIG. 5.19. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Reducing Slope Face Angle

25000 FOS 1.5

% OF DISCONTINUITY FILLED WITH WATER

FIG. 5.20. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Using Anchors

5.7.5 50 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and a Dry Tension Crack

Factor of Safety = 1.543

5.7.6 85 % Discontinuity Filled with Water and a Dry Tension Crack

Factor of Safety = 1.516

Slope Height = 15.5 m

Factor of Safety = 1.52

FIG. 5.24. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Reducing Slope Face Angle

% OF DISCONTINUITY FILLED WITH

FIG. 5.25. Comparison of Factor of Safety by Using Anchors

5.7.8 Allied Methods of Stabilization

a. Hydrological / Drainage Control Measures

b. Permeable or Impermeable Surface Coatings

and providing a favorable habitat for the establishment of deeper-rooted vegetation

c. Rock Bolting and Soil Nailing