PHD Full Text

Doctoral Thesis at NTNU 2006:66
ISBN 82-471-7881-8 (electronic) ISBN 82-471-7882-6 (printed)
Krishna Prasad Aryal
Slope Stability Evaluations by Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology Department of Civil and Transport Engineering
Krishna Prasad Aryal
Slope Stability Evaluations by Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods
Trondheim, April 2006
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology in partial fulfilments of the requirements for the degree of philosophiae doctor in civil engineering.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology Department of Civil and Transport Engineering Geotechnical Division, Trondheim, Norway
Thecommitteefortheappraisalofthisthesiswascomprisedofthe followingmembers: ProfessorDr.SvenKnutsson DepartmentofCivil,MiningandEnvironmentalEngineering LuleUniversityofTechnology,Sweden Dr.ing.SigneKirkeb Multiconsult,Oslo,Norway ProfessoremeritusKreSenneset(administrator) NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,Trondheim,Norway
ThethesiswassupervisedbythefollowingProfessors: AssociateProfessor,dr.ing.RolfSandven(mainadviser) NTNU,GeotechnicalDivision,Trondheim Professor,dr.ing.LarsGrande(coadviser) NTNU,GeotechnicalDivision,Trondheim Professor,dr.ing.SteinarNordal(coadviser) NTNU,GeotechnicalDivision,Trondheim
Thethesisisdedicatedtomyparents.
Acknowledgement
TheworkpresentedinthisthesishasbeencarriedoutattheGeotechnicalDivision,Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU underthesupervisionofAssociateProfessorRolfSandvenasthemainadviserandProfessors Lars Grande and Steinar Nordal as coadvisers. I am very grateful to their valuable guidance, discussions and encouragement throughout the study period. All kinds of contributions from them for this study are highly appreciated. Appreciation by words is not sufficient to adviser RolfSandvenwhonotonlyencouragedtoapply,butalsomadethestudysuccessfullycomplete. I would also like to thank Assistant Professor Arnfinn Emdal for his valuable feedbacks, suggestions and comments during the PhD seminars and study period. Assistance from Kjell Roksvg and Jan Jnland during the laboratory investigations is highly appreciated. Without their cooperation, the laboratory investigation works would have been incomplete. I am also thankfultoPhDcolleaguesinthedivision,includingShaoliYang,TewodrosTeferaandGustav Grimstadfortheircooperationandcreatingagoodworkingenvironment. I am very much thankful to Marit SkjkBrk, administrative adviser in the division, for facilitatingallkindofpracticalandpersonalmatters.Herkindnessandexcellent management skillsareremarkable.Moreover,Iwouldliketoexpressmythankstoallthestaffinthedivision andSINTEFgeotechnicalengineeringforspendingtimeinagoodenvironment.Thus,thestudy period in the University, in particular the memorable time at the Division, has been very interestingandmostvaluableinmyprofessionalandacademiccarrier. The author would like to appreciate the permission given by then Project Director Mr. Shashi RajShrestha,NEA,andthenProjectManagerMr.MartinBuchli,FichtnerJV,forthecasestudy from the MMHEP Nepal. The Fichtner JV Project Manager, Engineers and Engineering Geologists are appreciated for their cooperation. Feedbacks from Dr. Mike Long, University CollegeofDublin,aregreatlyacknowledged.Theauthorisalsothankfultothosewhosenames arenotmentionedhere,buthavetheirdirectorindirectcontributionstothisstudy. ThisstudywasmadepossiblebythescholarshipgrantfromtheFacultyofEngineeringScience andTechnology,NTNU.AspecialappreciationgoestotheFacultyDirector,ErikLundandto theadviser,RolfSandvenwhoselectedmeasaresearchfellowintheGeotechnicalDivision. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Nirmala for her encouragement for the study. Her patienceandhardshipoftakinghomeresponsibilityarehighlyappreciable.Similarly,myson, Sanjayanddaughter,Seemaareacknowledgedfortheirgoodunderstandingabouttheirfathers absenceandlatearrivalhomefromtheUniversity.
KrishnaPrasadAryal Trondheim,Norway April2006

SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
AbstractoftheThesis
Thisthesisdealswithslopestabilityevolutionscarriedoutbycommonlyusedlimitequilibrium (LE)andfiniteelement(FE)methods.ThestudyutilizestwoLEbasedsoftware(SLOPE/Wand SLIDE) and one FE based software (PLAXIS). The principal difference between these two analyses approaches is that the LEmethodsare based onthe static of equilibrium whereasFE methodsutilisethestressstrainrelationshiporconstitutivelaw. Tofulfiloneoftheaimsofthestudy,theLEbasedmethodsarecomparedbasedonthefactorof safety (FOS) obtained for various load combinations. The comparison is mainly based on simplifiedslopegeometryandassumedinputparameters.AmongtheLEmethods,theBishop simplified (BS), Janbu simplified (JS) and Janbu GPS methods are compared with the MorgensternPrice method (MPM). The two latter methods satisfy both force and moment equilibriums. In addition, MPM allows a variable interslice force function. These LE methods arewellestablishedformanyyears,andthussomeofthemarestillcommonlyusedinpractice forstabilityanalysis.Simplicityandrelativelygoodresultsaretheadvantagesofthesemethods. ThecomparativestudyamongtheLEmethodsshowsthatBSMisasgoodasMPMfornormal conditionincircularshearsurface(SS)analysis.Similarly,JSMisasgoodasMPMforplaneSS analysis. Moreover, the study shows that BSM is insensitive to interslice forces in circular SS analysis,whereasJSMisinsensitivetointersliceforcesinplaneSSanalysis.Thisistrueforthe analyseswithoutanyexternalforcesactinginslopes.Withsomeexternalforces,bothmethods may be sensitive to the interslice force function, and thus the analyses may result in either higher or lower FOS compared with MPM. Even if the MPM assumes an interslice force functioninanalysis,themethodisfoundsuitable,becausethemethodsatisfiesbothforceand momentequilibriumconditions.ThecomparisonbetweenJanbusGPSmethodandtheMPM showsaverygoodagreementwithnominaldifference(<2%)intheFOS. Moreover,theMPMhasbeencomparedwithresultsfromtheFEanalyses.Comparedwiththe FE(PLAXIS)analyses,theLE(MPM)analysesmayestimate514%higherFOS,dependingon the conditions of a dry slope and a fully saturated slope with hydrostatic pore pressure distributions.Forfullysaturatedconditionsintheslope,inaccuratecomputationofstressesin LEmethodsmayhaveresultedinlargerdifferenceinthecomputedFOS. Since, the FE software is based on stressstrain relationship, stress redistributions are surely bettercomputedevenforacomplicatedproblem.Thishasbeenfoundoneoftheadvantagesin FEsimulations.AparameterstudyshowsthattheapplicationofapositivedilatancyangleinFE analysiscansignificantlyimprovetheFOS(410%).Oncontrast,theshearsurfaceoptimization inLE(MPMinSLOPE/W)analysisresultsinlowerFOS,andthusminimizingthedifferencein FOS compared with FE analysis. Thus, the optimisation of the circular SS in LE analyses and applicationofdilatancyangleinFEanalysesmayprovideverygoodagreementinFOSkeeping thevariationslessthan5%. ii
Abstractofthethesis
Instabilityofnaturalandbuiltinslopeshasbeenaseriousgeotechnicalchallenge,particularly in mountainous countries like Nepal, where a large number of waterinduced disasters are experiencedeveryyear.Sincethecountryliesinarelativelyactiveearthquakezone,earthquake events may adversely affect the longterm stability of slopes along the highways, around hydropowerinstallationsandelsewhere.TheselectedcasestudyfromtheMiddleMarsyangdi Hydroelectric Project (MMHEP) in Nepal was carried out, focusing on both the groundwater andearthquakeeffectsonlongtermstabilityofslopes.Inaddition,theanalyseswereperformed forporepressuredistributionsbyseepageanalysesandpseudostaticanddynamicearthquake eventsimposedinthecaseslopes. Another important contribution of this study has been the investigations of the shear strength parametersforthecasestudyslopes.Theinvestigationrangesfromthebasicindextests,which werecarriedouttocharacterizematerialpropertiesandestablishabasisforbuildinginthetest specimens, to the most advanced triaxial tests. Additionally, both consolidated drained and undrained triaxial tests were conducted, aiming to find any differences in the strength parameters.Atotaloftwentyfourtriaxialtestsfromfourdifferentsoilsamples,takenfromthe case study slopes, were conducted to define the MohrCoulomb failure envelope, and thus obtainedtheeffectiveshearstrengthparameters(c,)forstabilityevaluations.Inaddition,the coefficientsofpermeabilitywereinvestigatedasanimportantinputforseepageanalyses. Twoslopes,onelocatedatthedamsiteandtheotheratthepowerhouseoftheMMHEP,were evaluated for longterm stability conditions. The study, carried out using the monitored groundwater table, reveals that the groundwater is the potential destabilizing factor in the slopes. Both hydrostatic pore pressure distributions with phreatic surface correction and seepageanalysiswerecarriedoutinthestabilityanalysis.Theporepressuredistributionsfrom the seepage analyses indicated critically stable slopes particularly at the toe areas. However, a significantimprovementintheFOSwasfoundwithloweredgroundwatertable.Moreover,the study, carried out for the pseudostatic analysis with the selected earthquake acceleration coefficient, shows that otherwise stable slopes become critical in earthquake events. However, thecaseslopeswerefoundtohavehigherFOSthantherecommendedminimumvalueforsuch conditions.Thedynamicearthquakesimulationsindicatebothpositiveexcessporepressureand suctiondevelopedduringtheearthquakes.Theappliedearthquakeaccelerationof0.15g(35%of PGA, where PGA = 4.2 m/s2)) shows critical conditions in the slopes. Moreover, larger accumulateddisplacementswerefoundclosetotheslopesurfacecomparedtotheinnersideof theslopes.Inaddition,thedynamicanalysesfurtherindicateplasticpointsallovertheslopes andincreasedshearstrainsinaparticularlocation. Nevertheless,thedifferenceinFOSfoundfromtheLEandFEanalysesmayhavealittleinterest, if there is a large uncertainty in the input parameters. Therefore, priority should be given to investigate the shear strength parameters and precise mapping of the slope geometry before selecting an appropriate analysis method. Most preferably, a slope should be analyzed by FE methods,elseotherwisebyLEbasedMPMorGPSmethodwithinvestigatedinputparameters. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
iii
ListofSymbolsandAbbreviations
Greeksymbols
h t 1 3 a f q r v ' d w c s 1 3 3 a r v
angleoftheslidingplane Rayleighcoefficient horizontalearthquakecoefficient angleofinclinationofthelineofthrustdefinedinGPSmethod Rayleighcoefficient slopeinclinationangle majorprincipalstrain,axialstraininatriaxialtest minorprinciplestrain,radialstraininatriaxialtest axialstraininatriaxialtest axialstrainatfailureinatriaxialtest shearstrain radialstraininatriaxialtest volumetricstrain angleoffriction effectiveangleoffriction angleindicatingrateofincreaseinshearstrengthrelativetothematrixsuction bulkunitweightofsoil(kN/m3) dry unitweightofsoil(kN/m3) unitweightofwater(kN/m3) scalefactor dimensionlessfactordefinedinJDM Poissonsratio massdensityofsoil(g/cm3) graindensityofsolids(g/cm3) dilatancyangle effectivenormalstress(kPa) totalmajorprincipalstress((kPa) effectivemajorprincipalstress((kPa) totalminorprinciplestress(kPa) effectiveminorprincipalstress((kPa) totalaxialstress(kPa) totalradialstress(kPa) totalverticalstress(kPa)
Listofsymbolsandabbreviations
iv
av
averagetotalnormalstress(kPa) shearstressormobilizedshearstress(kPa) shearstrengthofsoil(kPa) angleofinclinationofintersliceresultantforce naturalangularfrequency dampingratio
f
n
Romansymbols
a b c c e f f(x) g g h ht k l n nmax nmin p pe pd q q ru u ua uw w x z attractiondefinedasc/tan (kPa) widthofaslice apparent(total)cohesion(kPa) effectivecohesion(kPa) voidratio yieldfunctionofMohrCoulombmodel intersliceforcefunction accelerationduetogravity(m/s2) plasticpotentialfunction averageheightofaslicefromtheSS heightfromthemidpointoftheslicebasetodE permeabilitycoefficient(m/s) lengthofasliceorlengthofaspecimen porosityofsoils maximumporosityofsoils minimumporosityofsoils effectivemeanstress(kPa) effectivestressinJDM(kPa) totalstressinJDM(kPa) deviatoricstress(ar)(kPa) stressduetosurchargeload(kPa) porepressureratio porepressure(kPa) poreairpressure(kPa) porewaterpressure(kPa) moisturecontent lengthofmomentarm depthofaslicetotheSS v
C Cc D Dr E
E50 Eoed
dampingmatrix(ordampingcoefficient) criticaldampingcoefficient drainedtriaxialtest(consolidatedisotropically) relativedensityofsoil interslicenormalforce(kN) modulusdefinedbyfiftypercentstrength(kPa) oedometermodulus(kPa) Youngsmodulusatreferencestress(v=100kPa)(kPa) dynamicforce(kN) factorofsafety factorofsafetyforforceequilibrium factorofsafetyformomentequilibrium shearmodulusatreferencestress(v=100kPa)(kPa) totallengthofslidingsurfaceorplane depthofsoillayer totalheightofaslopefromthetoe stiffnessmatrix(orstiffnessasspringconstant)(kN/m) inertiamatrix(ormassofsoilbody) incrementalmultiplierusedinPLAXIS basenormalforceactingonSS(kN) effectivebasenormalforceactingonSS(kN) stabilitynumberdefinedinJDM relativeporosityofsoil shearforceactingatthebaseofaslice(kN) availableshearforce(kN) mobilizedshearforce(kN) degreeofsaturation intersliceshearforce(kN) undrainedtriaxialtest(consolidatedisotropically) compressionwavevelocity(m/s) shearwavevelocity(m/s) weightofeachsliceortotalslidingmass(kN)
Eref F F Ff Fm Gref L H H K M Msf N N Ncf Pr S Sa Sm Sr T U Vp Vs W
vi
Abbreviations
d1/d2 El. masl p1/p2 ASTM BSM CD CES CSS CU DHMN DMGN DPTCN DUT FE FEM FOS GLE GPS GWh GWT ICLD JCM JDM JGM JSM JV KHP LB LE LEM MIT MMHEP MPM MWR soilsamplesorlayersfordamsiteslope elevationofgroundsurfaceorgroundwatertable meterabovesealevel soilsamplesorlayersforpowerhouseslope AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials Bishopssimplifiedmethod consolidateddrainedtriaxialtest(D) ConsultingEngineersSalzgitter,GmbH,Germany criticalshearsurface consolidatedundrainedtriaxialtest(U) DepartmentofHydrologyandMeteorology,Nepal DepartmentofMinesandGeology,Nepal DevelopmentProjectTechnicalCentre,Nepal DelftUniversityofTechnology,theNetherlands finiteelement finiteelementmethod factorofsafety generalizedlimitequilibrium generalprocedureofslices gigawatthour(aunitofenergy) groundwatertable InternationalCommissiononLargeDams Janbuscorrectedmethod Janbusdirectmethod Janbusgeneralizedmethod Janbussimplifiedmethod jointventure KhimtiHydropowerPlant leftbankofdamsitesloperelatedtoMMHEP limitequilibrium limitequilibriummethod MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject MorgensternPricemethod MinistryofWaterResources
vii
NEA NGI NS NTNU OGL OM OMC PI PGA PLAXIS PP SEEP/W SINTEF
NepalElectricityAuthority NorwegianGeotechnicalInstitute NorwegianStandard NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology originalgroundlevel Ordinarymethod(FelleniusorSwedishmethod) optimummoisturecontent plasticityindex peakgroundacceleration finiteelementsoftwareforgeotechnicalcomputations porepressure finiteelementsoftwareforgroundwater(seepage)analysis Stiftelsen for industriell og teknisk forskning ved Norges Tekniske Hgskole(English:FoundationforScientificandIndustrialResearchatthe NorwegianInstituteofTechnologyinNorway) limitequilibriumsoftwareforgroundwaterandslopestabilityanalyses limitequilibriumsoftwareforslopestabilityanalysis Spencersmethod shearsurface geotechnicalsoftwareforslopestabilityanalysis TribhuwanUniversity,Nepal
SLIDE SLOPE/W SM SS STABLE TU
viii
TableofContents
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................. i Abstractofthethesis.............................................................................................................. ii Listofsymbolsandabbreviations ....................................................................................... iv Tableofcontents..................................................................................................................... ix Listofappendices.................................................................................................................. xii Listoffiguresandtables ....................................................................................................... xiii Authorspublications ............................................................................................................ xvi Chapter1Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Background............................................................................................................. 1 Scopeandobjectiveofthestudy ......................................................................... 2 Briefintroductionofthecasestudy .................................................................... 4 Presentationofthethesis...................................................................................... 5
Chapter2ReviewofStabilityAnalysisMethods 2.1 2.2 Limitequilibriumprinciples ................................................................................ 7 Limitequilibriummethods .................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 TheOrdinarymethod ............................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Bishopsmethods ....................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Janbusmethods......................................................................................... 11 2.2.4 LoweKarafiathsmethod ....................................................................... 15 2.2.5 CorpsofEngineersmethod...................................................................... 15 2.2.6 Sarmamethod ............................................................................................ 15 2.2.7 MorgensternPricemethod....................................................................... 16 2.2.8 Spencersmethod....................................................................................... 16 2.2.9 Generallimitequilibriumprocedure ...................................................... 17 2.2.10 SummaryoftheLEmethods.................................................................... 18 Softwareusedforstabilityanalysis .................................................................... 19 2.3.1 SLOPE/Wsoftware .................................................................................... 19 2.3.2 TheSLIDEsoftware................................................................................... 22 2.3.3 ThePLAXISsoftware ................................................................................ 22
2.3
Chapter3ComparisonofAnalysisMethods 3.1 Idealisedslope........................................................................................................ 26 3.1.1 Geometryandinputparameters ............................................................. 26 3.1.2 Loadcombinationforanalysis................................................................. 27
ix
3.2
3.3
3.1.3 Selectedmethodsforanalysis .................................................................. 27 Stabilityanalysesandresults ............................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Applicationofstabilitycharts .................................................................. 27 3.2.2 Applicationofsoftwareprograms .......................................................... 28 Comparisonofmethods ....................................................................................... 34 3.3.1 LEmethods ................................................................................................. 34 3.3.2 FEandLEmethods.................................................................................... 36 3.3.3 Parameterstudies ...................................................................................... 37 3.3.4 Summaryofthecomparativestudy........................................................ 41
Chapter4DataCollectionforCaseStudy 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Sitevisitforcasestudy.......................................................................................... 42 Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 44 Drainagesystems................................................................................................... 44 Soilsampling .......................................................................................................... 44 Climaticconditions................................................................................................ 45 Groundwaterrecords............................................................................................ 46 Seismicstudy.......................................................................................................... 48 Previoustestresults............................................................................................... 48 4.8.1 Indextests ................................................................................................... 49 4.8.2 Directshearboxandtriaxialtests ........................................................... 49 Previousstabilityevaluations .............................................................................. 52 4.9.1 Soilstratification ........................................................................................ 52 4.9.2 Groundwatercondition ............................................................................ 52 4.9.3 Shearstrengthparameters........................................................................ 52 4.9.4 Stabilityanalysesandresults .................................................................. 53
4.9
Chapter5LaboratoryInvestigations 5.1 5.2 5.3 Soilphasediagram ................................................................................................ 55 Insitutesting .......................................................................................................... 56 Laboratorytesting.................................................................................................. 57 5.3.1 Indextests ................................................................................................... 57 5.3.2 Mineralogicalinvestigations .................................................................... 61 5.3.3 Compactionandpermeabilitytests ........................................................ 63 5.3.4 Triaxialtests................................................................................................ 66 Selectionofstrengthparameters ......................................................................... 74
5.4
Chapter6StabilityEvaluationsofCaseStudy 6.1
x
Descriptionofcasestudyproject......................................................................... 75 6.1.1 Damsiteleftbankslope............................................................................ 75

Tableofcontents
6.2
6.1.2 Powerhouseslope ...................................................................................... 77 Slopestabilityevaluations.................................................................................... 78 6.2.1 Selectedmethodsforanalysis .................................................................. 78 6.2.2 Selectedinputparameters ........................................................................ 78 6.2.3 Simplifiedslopemodels............................................................................ 79 6.2.4 Selectedloadcasesforstabilityevaluation ............................................ 81 6.2.5 Generalinputparameters......................................................................... 81 6.2.6 Analysesofthedamsiteslope................................................................. 82 6.2.7 Analysesofthepowerhouseslope.......................................................... 92 6.2.8 Discussionondynamicsimulations........................................................ 100
Chapter7DiscussiononAnalysisMethodsandResults 7.1 Slopestabilityevaluations.................................................................................... 101 7.1.1 ComparisonofLEmethods...................................................................... 101 7.1.2 ComparisonofLEandFEanalyses......................................................... 104 Stabilityconditionsofthecasestudyslopes ..................................................... 106 7.2.1 Casestudy:DamsiteLBslope ................................................................ 106 7.2.2 Casestudy:Powerhouseslope................................................................. 108 7.2.3 Investigatedstrengthparameters............................................................ 109 7.2.4 Additionalanalysisconsiderations ......................................................... 111
7.2
Chapter8ConclusionsandRecommendations 8.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 113 8.1.1 Evaluationoftheanalyticalmethods...................................................... 113 8.1.2 Applicationoftheanalyticalmethods.................................................... 115 Furtherresearchandrecommendedworks....................................................... 116
8.2
ListofReferencesandLiteratures ..................................................................................... 118
xi
ListofAppendices
ALaboratoryTestingProcedures A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 Hydrometeranalysis ............................................................................................. 125 Permeabilitytestprocedure ................................................................................. 126 Compressiontestingapparatus ........................................................................... 127 Triaxialtestprocedure .......................................................................................... 128
BSpecimenBuildinProcedures B.1 Specimenforpermeabilityandtriaxialtests ..................................................... 130 B.1.1 Builtinprocedure..................................................................................... 130 B.1.2 Compactioncontrol ................................................................................... 131 Specimenforcompressiontest ............................................................................ 132
B.2
CIndexParametersofBuiltinSpecimen C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 Classificationofspecimen .................................................................................... 133 Specimensforpermeabilitytest .......................................................................... 133 Specimensforcompressiontest........................................................................... 134 Specimensfortriaxialtest..................................................................................... 134
DCorrectionsforTriaxialtestandStresses D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 Areacorrection....................................................................................................... 137 Membranecorrection ............................................................................................ 138 Stressrelationship.................................................................................................. 138 Developmentofporepressureinundrainedtest ............................................ 139
ESeepageAnalysisResults E.1 E.2 Damsiteslope:Seepageanalysisresults............................................................ 140 Powerhouseslope:Seepageanalysisresults ..................................................... 142
FAdditionalAnalysisResults F.1 F.2 Damsiteslopeanalysisresults ............................................................................. 143 Powerhouseslopeanalysisresults...................................................................... 144
GForceandMomentEquilibriums G.1 G.2 ForceequilibriumFOS .......................................................................................... 146 MomentequilibriumFOS..................................................................................... 148
HAffectingParametersonShearStrength
xii
List of appendices
ListofFiguresandTables
ListofFigures
Fig.1.1HighwayslopefailureatKrishnabhir,TribhuwanhighwayNepal ................................... 2 Fig.1.2Importantstructuresbuiltatthebaseoftheslope(KHP) .................................................... 3 Fig.1.3LocationmapofMMHEPinNepal........................................................................................... 5 Fig.2.1Variousdefinitionsofthefactorofsafety(FOS) ..................................................................... 8 Fig.2.2SlopegeometryillustratingJanbusdirectmethod............................................................... 14 Fig.2.3Presentationofthemostcommonmethods........................................................................... 17 Fig.2.4EffectsonFOSduetoa)f(x)andb)externalloads ............................................................. 18 Fig.2.5GridandradiusoptionusedtosearchforcircularCSS ....................................................... 20 Fig.2.6EntryandexitoptionusedtosearchforcircularCSS .......................................................... 21 Fig.3.1Idealisedslopegeometryformodelwithtwosoillayers ................................................ 26 Fig.3.2CSSbyMPMandFOSfromSLOPE/WforCase1............................................................... 28 Fig.3.3CSSbyMPMandFOSfromSLIDEforCase1 ..................................................................... 29 Fig.3.4CSSandFOScomputedfromPLAXISforCase1 ................................................................. 30 Fig.3.5CSSandFOSfromSLOPE/WforCase2a(hydrostaticpp) ................................................. 30 Fig.3.6CSSandFOSfromSLOPE/WforCase2b(ppfromSEEP/W) ............................................ 31 Fig.3.7FlowfieldandequipotentlinesfromSEEP/W ...................................................................... 31 Fig.3.8CSSandFOScomputedinPLAXISforCase2a(hydrostaticporepressure).................... 32 Fig.3.9CSSandFOScomputedinPLAXISforCase2b(seepageanalysis) ................................... 32 Fig.3.10FlowfieldgeneratedbysteadystatecalculationsinPLAXIS ........................................... 32 Fig.3.11CSSandFOSfromLEanalysis(SLOPE/W)forCase3....................................................... 33 Fig.3.12CSSandFOSfromLEanalysis(SLIDE)forCase3 ............................................................. 33 Fig.3.13CSSandFOSfromFEanalysis(PLAXIS)forCase3........................................................... 34 Fig.3.14Forcesactingonslice#2fromLEanalyses(SLOPE/W) ..................................................... 34 Fig.3.15OptimisedFOSandCSSfromLEanalysis(SLOPE/W) ..................................................... 35 Fig.3.16FOSplot(nonoptimised)forCase1andCase3 ........................................................... 36 Fig.3.17FOSfortheloadconditionsanalysedfromPLAXIS........................................................... 36 Fig.3.18ComparisonofFOSbetweenLEandFEanalyses............................................................... 37 Fig.3.19EffectofthedilatancyparameteronFOS............................................................................. 38 Fig.3.20ImprovementinFOSbypositive( = 200, 150 forlayers1,2) ....................................... 38 SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
xiii
Fig.3.21IntersliceforcefunctionforLoadCase3 .............................................................................. 39 Fig.3.22CriticalSSfromFEandLEmethodsforLoadCase3......................................................... 40 Fig.3.23LocationofthelineofthrustfromFEandLEmethodsforLoadCase3......................... 40 Fig.4.1DamsiteLBslope(MMHEP)inNepal ................................................................................... 42 Fig.4.2Powerhouseslope(temporary)atMMHEPinNepal........................................................... 43 Fig.4.3LocationofraingaugesaroundtheMMHEP ........................................................................ 45 Fig.4.4Averagemonthlyrainfalldistributionfromnearbystations .............................................. 46 Fig.4.5GroundwatervariationsonthedamsiteLBslope................................................................ 46 Fig.4.6Groundwatervariationsinpowerhouseslope ...................................................................... 47 Fig.4.7Resultsfromdirectshearboxtestonmudflowmaterial ................................................. 50 Fig.4.8Previoustriaxialtestresultsformudflowandalluvialdeposits .................................... 51 Fig.5.1Schematicphasediagramfornaturalsoils............................................................................. 55 Fig.5.2Grainsizedistributioncurves .................................................................................................. 58 Fig.5.3Relativeintensity,counts(%)andangle(2 )forsamplep2.............................................. 61 Fig.5.4Drydensityandmoisturecontentofsamples ....................................................................... 63 Fig.5.5Coefficientofpermeabilityfortestedspecimens .................................................................. 64 Fig.5.6Oedometermodulusforp2andd2materials........................................................................ 66 Fig.5.7Componentsoftheutilisedtriaxialequipment ..................................................................... 68 Fig.5.8ShapeofthespecimenaftershearinginUandDtests ........................................................ 69 Fig.5.9Determinationofshearstrengthparameters ......................................................................... 71 Fig.5.10Triaxialtestsresultsforthed1soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams) ....................... 71 Fig.5.11Triaxialtestsresultsforthed2soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams) ........................ 72 Fig.5.12Triaxialtestsresultsforthep1soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams) ........................ 72 Fig.5.13Triaxialtestsresultsforthep2soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams) ........................ 73 Fig.6.1ViewofthedamsiteLBslope(photofromNovember2004) ............................................. 76 Fig.6.2Viewofthepowerhouseslope(photofromNovember2004) ............................................ 77 Fig.6.3ModelforthedamsiteLBslope .............................................................................................. 80 Fig.6.4Modelforthepowerhousepermanentslope ......................................................................... 80 Fig.6.5DryseasonGWT:FOSandCSSfromSLOPE/W.................................................................. 82 Fig.6.6DryseasonGWT:FOSandCSSfromPLAXIS ..................................................................... 82 Fig.6.7WetseasonGWT:FOSandCSSfromSLOPE/W ................................................................. 83 Fig.6.8WetseasonGWT:FOSandCSSfromPLAXIS ...................................................................... 83 Fig.6.9FOSandCSSaftertheseepageanalysisinSEEP/W ............................................................ 84 Fig.6.10FOSandCSSaftertheseepageanalysisinSLIDE .............................................................. 85 xiv Listoffiguresandtables
Fig.6.11FOSandCSSafterseepageanalysisinPLAXIS .................................................................. 85 Fig.6.12GroundwatereffectsonFOSfromPLAXIScomputations ................................................ 86 Fig.6.13FOSandCSSafterintroductionoftwowellsinSLIDE...................................................... 86 Fig.6.14FOSandCSSafterseepageanalysisinSEEP/WandstabilityinSLOPE/W.................... 87 Fig.6.15CSSandFOSfrompseudostaticanalyses(SLOPE/W)...................................................... 87 Fig.6.16ExtendeddamsiteLBslopemodelusedfordynamicanalysesinPLAXIS.................... 88 Fig.6.17Inputaccelerogramfordynamicanalyses............................................................................ 88 Fig.6.18Shearshadingafterthephase#5simulations(damsiteLBslope) .................................. 90 Fig.6.19Permanentdisplacementintheslopeatselectedpoints.................................................... 90 Fig.6.20OutputofaccelerationtimeseriesatpointsAandD....................................................... 90 Fig.6.21Excessporepressure(negativesideindicatessuction) ...................................................... 91 Fig.6.22DryseasonGWT:CSSandFOSfromSLOPE/W................................................................. 92 Fig.6.23DryseasonGWT:CSSandFOSfromPLAXIS .................................................................... 93 Fig.6.24WetseasonGWT:FailuresurfaceandFOSfromSLOPE/W ............................................. 93 Fig.6.25WetseasonGWT:FailuresurfaceandFOSfromPLAXIS ................................................. 94 Fig.6.26FOSandCSSafterseepageanalysisinSLIDE ..................................................................... 94 Fig.6.27FOSfrompseudostaticanalysesinSLOPE/W.................................................................... 95 Fig.6.28Extendedpowerhouseslopemodelusedfordynamicanalysis ....................................... 96 Fig.6.29Shearshadingafterthedynamicanalysisofpowerhouseslope ...................................... 96 Fig.6.30OutputofaccelerationtimeseriesatpointsAandD......................................................... 97 Fig.6.31Permanentdisplacementtimeseriesatselectedpoints(undampedsystem).................. 97 Fig.6.32Excessporepressure(negativesideindicatessuction) ...................................................... 98 Fig.6.33Accumulateddisplacementtimeseriesatselectedpoints................................................. 99 Fig.6.34Excessporepressure(negativesideindicatessuction)inadampedsystem.................. 99 Fig.7.1ComparisonofLEmethodsforcircularSSanalysis(powerhouseslope) ....................... 102 Fig.7.2AnalysisfortheassumedplaneSSinSLOPE/W................................................................. 103 Fig.7.3TheFfandFmcurvesaftertheplaneSSanalysis.................................................................. 103 Fig.7.4ComparisonofLEmethodswithMPM(circularSS) ........................................................ 104 Fig.7.5ComparisonofLEmethods(circularSS)withtheFEsoftwarePLAXIS ......................... 105 Fig.7.6FOScomputedbythreesoftwareprogramsforthedamsiteslope ................................. 107 Fig.7.7FOScomputedbythreesoftwareprogramsforpowerhouseslope ................................. 108
xv
ListofTables
Table2.1SummaryofLEmethods ......................................................................................................... 9 Table2.2SensitivityofFOSincircularSSanalysis ............................................................................ 19 Table3.1Inputparametersforanalyses............................................................................................... 27 Table3.2AnalysesresultsbyJDM........................................................................................................ 27 Table3.3EffectsofoptimisationonFOS.............................................................................................. 35 Table4.1Samplinglocationandadoptedsymbols ............................................................................ 44 Table4.2Rainfallrecordsinnearbythreestations ............................................................................. 45 Table4.3Inputparametersforthegroundwatertable ...................................................................... 47 Table4.4Summaryofpreviousindextests ......................................................................................... 49 Table4.5Summaryofdirectsheartests ............................................................................................... 49 Table4.6Previoustriaxialtestresults .................................................................................................. 50 Table4.7Strengthparametersfromprevioustests ............................................................................ 51 Table4.8Summaryofpreviousstabilityanalyses.............................................................................. 54 Table5.1Indextestresultsfrominsitumeasurements..................................................................... 57 Table5.2Soilindexparameters ............................................................................................................. 60 Table5.3Mineralcompositionsin% .................................................................................................... 62 Table5.4Summaryofconductedtriaxialtests.................................................................................... 67 Table5.5Frictionanglerelatedtodifferentplots ............................................................................... 71 Table5.6Shearstrengthparametersfromtriaxialtests ..................................................................... 73 Table6.1Inputparametersforstaticanalysis .................................................................................... 78 Table6.2Additionalinputparametersfordynamicanalysis........................................................... 79 Table6.3Selectedloadcasesforstabilityevaluation ......................................................................... 81 Table6.4Calculationstagesinthedynamicearthquakesimulations ............................................. 89 Table6.5ThecomputedRayleighdampingcoefficientsfordynamicanalyses............................. 98
Authorspublicationsduringthestudyperiod
1. Aryal, K. Sandven, R. and Nordal, S. (2005). Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods. Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. And Geotech. Engineering, 16 ICSMGE, Osaka, Japan,pp.247176. 2. Aryal,K.andSandven,R.(2005).Riskevaluationofaslopeandmitigationmeasures:Acasestudy fromNepal.LandslidesandAvalanches,ICFL2005,Norway,pp.3136. 3. Aryal,K.,Rohde,J.K.andSandven,R.(2004).SlopeStability,StabilizationandMonitoring:A CaseStudyfromKhimtiPowerPlant,Nepal.Int.Conf.onGeosyntheticsandGeoenvironmental Engineering,ICGGE2004,Bombay,India,pp.10005.
xvi
Listoffiguresandtables
Chapter1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Instabilityrelatedissuesinengineeredaswellasnaturalslopesarecommonchallengestoboth researchers and professionals. In construction areas, instability may result due to rainfall, increase in groundwater table and change in stress conditions. Similarly, natural slopes that havebeenstableformanyyearsmaysuddenlyfailduetochangesingeometry,externalforces andlossofshearstrength(Abramsonetal.2002).Thielenetal.(2005)say,Thecombinationof intense rainfalls, steep topography and soil conditions are critical. Nepal has been facing challenges of large number of waterinduced disasters such as landslides or slope failures mainlyalongtheHighways.Likewise,Tayler&Burns(2005)say,Earthquakesarethegreatest threattothelongtermstabilityofslopesinearthquakeactivezones.Inaddition,thelongterm stability is also associated with the weathering and chemical influences that may decrease the shearstrengthandcreatetensioncracks.Insuchcircumstances,theevaluationofslopestability conditionsbecomesaprimaryconcerneverywhere. Theengineeringsolutionstoslopeinstabilityproblemsrequiregoodunderstandingofanalytical methods, investigative tools and stabilisation measures (Abramson et al. 2002). According to Nash (1987), a quantitative assessment of the safety factor is important when decisions are made. Likewise, Chowdhury (1978) says, The primary aim of slope stability analyses is to contribute to the safe and economic design of excavation, embankment and earth dams. Developmentactivitiesmayfacegreatchallengesduetounstablegrounds.Similarly,theslope failuremayinterrupttheestablishedimperativeservicesliketrafficmovement,drinkingwater supply, power production and similar infrastructures. In this way, the main motivation of stability analyses is to save human lives, reduce property damages and provide continuous services. Therefore, the most suitable and reliable stability analysismethods have great scope and thus, they are increasingly demanding. The chosen method should be able to identify the existingsafetyconditionsandsuggestfortechnicallyfeasibleandeconomicallyviablesolutions. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
1.2 Scopeandobjectiveofthestudy
Like other mountainous countries, Nepal has large variations in its topography. The High Himalayas in the north, the gentle to steep mountains in the middle and the flat land in the south have provided both opportunities and challenges. Most of the development activities todayarecentredmainlyinthecitiesandinthesouthernpartofthecountry.Ononehand,the infrastructures, such as roads, have been a great challenge to build and maintain, mainly because of the rugged topography with the steep slopes. Though there are many roads under constructionandthus,Nepalmayberegardedasamuseumofmountainroads(Deoja2000), thecountryhasnotbeenabletoprovideintegratedroadaccessnetworkinmountainousregion. Ontheotherhand,thesuitabletopographyandnumerousriversfedbyglacialmeltwaterhave providedthecountrywithhugepotentialofmorethan42GWtechnicallyfeasiblehydropower installations (MWR 2003). Looking into the present developments, less than 2% of the hydro resourceshavebeenharnessedsofar.Inaddition,thehighenergydemandinsideandoutside the country will increase the construction activities in the years to come. All types of development activities are interdisciplinary and slope instability in general will be a common challengeinmanycountriesaroundtheworld.
Kathmandu
Fig.1.1HighwayslopefailureatKrishnabhir,TribhuwanhighwayNepal(photofrom2003) Fig.1.1illustratesoneofthebiggestlandslidescausedbytheyearlymonsooninNepal.Thisisa highwayslopefailure,whichwaspotentiallyactiveforseveralyears.Thehighwayistheonly entrypointtoKathmandu,thecapitalcityofNepal.Thoughtheslopeseemsrelativelystablein the dry period, it suffers substantial stability problems in the monsoons. When the first slide 2
Chapter1Introduction
occurred, it created a shortage of daily supplies to the capital due to the traffic stoppage for several weeks. As discussed above, the monsoon rain is one of the triggering mechanisms of slope failures in several mountainous countries in this region. Due to rainwater, the erosion potentialisincreasedandweatheringprocessesareactivated.Moreover,waterinfiltratesthesoil and groundwater table rises in the slope. About the causes of such landslides, Edgers and Nadim(2004)say,Developmentofpositiveporepressure,andinsomecasesthereductionin suction,maybesufficienttocausealandslide. Generally, hydropower intallations are located at the base of hill slopes. Fig. 1.2 shows such installationsmadefortheKhimtihydropowerplant(KHP)inNepal,wherethestructureswere builttodiverttheriverflowintothetunnelforpowergeneration.Insuchenvironment,thereis alwaysapotentialriskoflandslides,definedastheproductofprobabilityofslopefailureand the consequences, during the monsoon, and particularly during the events of earthquakes. However,periodicalmonitoring,riskevaluationandroutinemaintenanceworksmaylowerthe associatedriskoflargescaleslopefailures(Aryal&Sandven2005,Aryaletal.2004).Iftheslope failswithintheoperationperiod,theeconomicconsequenceswillbeenormous.
Fig.1.2Importantstructuresbuiltatthebaseoftheslope(KHP)(Aryal&Sandven2005) The major hydropower plants in Nepal, like Kali Gandakai (144 MW), Khimti (60 MW) and Bhotekoshi (36 MW) may be prone to risk of slope failure in the future. Postconstruction damage of the important hydropower structures due to slope failure may cause several times higher economic loss than the loss caused by such failures during the construction period. Detailedanalyticalstudiesinthedesign stagearethusveryimportanttoalleviatetheadverse factorsthatmaycauseslopeinstabilityinthelongtermbasis. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 3
The scope of this study: Slope stability evaluations by LE and FE methods is expected to addresssuchinstabilityproblems.Theanalyticalsolutionstotheinstabilityproblems,including the effects of groundwater variations and earthquake effects, are expected to contribute to improve the knowledge of these processes, both with respect to the benefit of engineering in Nepalandtheinternationalsociety. The aim of the study has been to fulfill three main objectives. The first objective has been to compare the most common limit equilibrium (LE) methods. Moreover, the most accurate LE methodshavebeenselectedforcomparisonwiththemoreadvancedfiniteelement(FE)method. The second objective has been to evaluate the stability conditions of the slopes situated at the Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project as a case study. The third objective has been to determinetheappropriateshearstrengthparametersforstabilityanalysisatthesite.Withinthis framework,thestudyhasfocusedonthefollowingtopics: Comparisonandevaluationofslopestability(LEandFE)methods, Evaluationtothelongtermstabilityconditionofnaturalslopes,and Investigationsofshearstrengthandotherrelevantparametersforstabilityanalyses. Availableapproachesareutilisedtoachievetheoutlinedobjectivesinthisstudy.Thefirsttwo objectivesarefulfilledusingfollowingthreecomputerbasedgeotechnicalsoftwarecodes: SLOPE/W,basedonLEprinciples, SLIDE,alsobasedonLEprinciples,and PLAXIS,basedonFEprinciples. Among the most common LE based methods, which are incorporated in both SLOPE/W and SLIDE software, Bishop and Janbus simplified methods, Janbus generalised method and the MorgensternPricemethodareconsideredforcomparisonpurposes.Thefactorofsafety(FOS) fromthesemethodsisfurthercomparedwiththeFOSobtainedbytheFEMcodePLAXIS.The comparisonsarebasedonasimplifiedslopeanalysedforvariousloadcombinations.Moreover, thelongtermstabilityofnaturalslopeshasbeenevaluatedunderthesecondobjectivewiththe mostadverseloadcombinations.Thestabilityevaluationsofrealslopesareagainbasedonthe selected LE methods from the simplified slope analyses and FE software PLAXIS. The third objectiveisachievedfromthefieldandlaboratoryinvestigations.Severaltestswereconducted to determine the relevant input parameters. Finally, the shear strength parameters were investigatedusingadvancedtriaxialtests.
1.3 Briefintroductionofthecasestudy
ThecasestudywiththerelevantslopeswastakenfromtheMiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectric Project(MMHEP)inNepal.Theproject,whoselocationmapisgiveninFig.1.3,isnowinthe constructionstageandaimstogenerate470GWhannualenergyafter2007(CES2005).Besides 4
MMHEP, there are two other projects shown in Fig. 1.3, the Lower Marsyangdi Hydropower Project (LMEHP), which is in the operation stage, and the Upper Marsyangdi Hydropower Project(UMHEP),whichiscurrentlyintheplanningstage.ThewaterresourcesofMarsyangdi River are glaciers from the Annapurna Himalayan range along the China (Tibet) boarder, as showninFig.1.3.
Fig.1.3LocationmapofMMHEPinNepal(Nepal&Olsson2001) Two slopes as the case study from the MMHEP project were considered for detailed stability analysis.Onewasfromthedamsiteleftbankandanotherfromthepowerhousearea.Detailsof the case study slopes and a corresponding site description are given in Chapters 4 and 6. By linkingthebackgroundtheoreticalconsiderationsofdifferentstabilitycalculationapproachesto this local project in Nepal, the research work may contribute to the understanding of slope stabilityanalysisasanintegratedapproachtotheconditionsrepresentativetoNepalandother regionswithsimilargeologicalandclimaticconditions.
1.4 Presentationofthethesis
Presentation of this thesis has been organised in several Chapters and Appendices. A brief descriptionisgivenhere.Chapter2describestheliteraturereviewonstabilityanalysismethods. The review focuses on the LE principles in FOS determination. Moreover, most of the LE methods are discussed with highlights on their fundamental differences and limitations in practicalapplications.Besides,atheoreticalcomparisonoftheLEmethodshasbeenpresented. Finally,thechapterendswithintroducingbriefworkingprinciplesofthreecomputersoftware codes(SLOPE/W,SLIDEandPLAXIS)thatareappliedinthepresentstudy.Comparisonsofthe LE and FEmethodshave been given in Chapter 3, wherea simplified and idealised slope has SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 5
been analysed by the given software. Three following conditions have been considered to comparetheselectivemethods: dryslope, fullysaturatedslope,and theslopeexposedtocombinationsofearthquakesandsurchargeloads. Finally,therespectiveFOSobtainedfromtheLEandFEanalyseshasbeencompared. Chapter4includesdatacollectionforthecasestudyslopeslocatedinNepal.Abriefdescription ofthecasestudyhasbeengiven,togetherwithrelevantinformation.Detailsofthesamplingfor subsequentlaboratoryinvestigationsarealsopresented.Furthermore,theclimaticconditionhas beendiscussed,and10yearsofrainfalldataarepresented.Likewise,abriefcoverageofseismic events around the project area and groundwater records from the sitespecific slopes is included. The shear strength parameters determined by the previous laboratory investigations are presented as reference soil data. Finally, the chapter concludes with a review of previous stabilityanalysesoftheselectedcasestudyslopes. Chapter 5 includes the relevant in situ and detailed laboratory investigations carried out to characterisethematerialsandidentifyshearstrengthparametersforslopestabilityanalyses.A shortdescriptionoflaboratorytestproceduresusedhasbeengivenforsomeofthetests.Results from index tests, permeability tests and compression tests are presented. Likewise, the results from mineralogical tests are summarised. This chapter, however, focuses on the results from numerous triaxial tests that were conducted in drained and undrained conditions, and the resultsarepresentedanddiscussedattheendofthischapter. The stability analyses of the case study slopes have been presented in Chapter 6. Two slopes, one from the dam site and another from the powerhouse site have been analysed for various load conditions. Some of the critical load cases, including groundwater seepage analyses and earthquake conditions have been studied in closer details. This chapter hence provides both comparisons of the selected approaches and the stability conditions of the slopes in different loading conditions. The same methods and computer codes as used in Chapter 3 are used for stabilityanalysesofthestudiedslopes. Chapter 7 includes discussions and comments on the applied methods, specific stability conditionsduetovariousloadsandcomparisonofLEandFEmethods.Thediscussionisalso related back to the theoretical study in Chapter 2 and the highlights from the comparisons carried out in Chapter 3. Some discussions have been carried out on the shear strength parameters investigated in the laboratory and presented in Chapter 5. Similarly, the stability analysesresultsofthecasestudyslopesarediscussed,referringbacktothefindingspresented in Chapter 6. Finally, the main findings on the slope stability evaluations from the study are summarizedinChapter8,includingrecommendationsforfurtherstudy.
Chapter2
ReviewofStabilityAnalysisMethods
2.1 Limitequilibriumprinciples
All limit equilibrium methods utilise the MohrCoulomb expression to determine the shear strength(f)alongtheslidingsurface.Theshearstressatwhichasoilfailsinshearisdefinedas theshearstrengthofthesoil.AccordingtoJanbu(1973),astateoflimitequilibriumexistswhen themobilisedshearstress()isexpressedasafractionoftheshearstrength.Nash(1987)says, Atthemomentoffailure,theshearstrengthisfullymobilisedalongthefailuresurfacewhen thecriticalstateconditionsarereached.TheshearstrengthisusuallyexpressedbytheMohr Coulomblinearrelationship,wherethe f andaredefinedby: Shearstrength(available):
f = c '+ ' tan ' or (a + ') tan '
(2.1)
Shearstress(mobilised): where,
f
F
c '+ ' tan ' F
(2.2)
a,cand=attraction,cohesionandfrictionanglerespectivelyineffectivestressterms,and F=factorofsafety(FOS). Theavailableshearstrengthdependsonthetypeofsoilandtheeffectivenormalstress,whereas themobilizedshearstressdependsontheexternalforcesactingonthesoilmass.Thisdefines theFOSasaratiooftheftoinalimitequilibriumanalysis(Janbu1954),asdefinedinEq.(2.2). However, the FOS can be defined in three ways: Limit equilibrium, force equilibrium and momentequilibrium(Abramsonetal.2002).ThesedefinitionsaregiveninFig.2.1.Asexplained above,thefirstdefinitionisbasedontheshearstrength,whichcanbeobtainedintwoways:A total stress approach (suanalysis) and an effective stress approach (a analysis). The type of strength consideration depends on the soil type, the loading conditions and the time elapsed SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
after excavation. The total stress strength is used for shortterm conditions in clayey soils, whereastheeffectivestressstrengthisusedinlongtermconditionsinallkindsofsoils,orany conditionswheretheporepressureisknown(Janbu1973,Grande1977).Thesecondandthird definitions are based on force equilibrium and movement equilibrium conditions for resisting anddrivingforceandmomentcomponentsrespectively.
Limitequilibrium:
Limit equilibrium
f/F
s F= u
(Total stress)
F=
c '+ ' tan '
(Effective stress)
Forceequilibrium:
F= Sa/F
Sum of resisting forces Sum of driving forces

Sa cL+Ntan = W sin Wsin
Force equilibrium
F=
where,
o R
L=totallengthoftheslidingplane Momentequilibrium:
su W
Moment su equilibrium
F=
Sum of resisting moments Sum of driving moments R s u dl

L 0
su su F=
W.x
Fig.2.1Variousdefinitionsofthefactorofsafety(FOS)(Abramsonetal.2002)
The last two definitions may sometimes be confusing while defining the terms, whether the forceormomentcomponentsarecontributing onresistingordriving sides.Thereasoncanbe explainedwithsimpleexamples.Thesupportforcecomponentalongtheslidingsurfacecanbe consideredontheresistingsideasapositivecontribution,sinceitincreasesresistancecapacity againstthemovement.Atthesametime,thiscomponentcanalsobeconsideredondrivingside as negative contribution, since it decreases the driving tendency. Similarly, the moments from theselfweightofsliceslocatedatthetoearesometimesresistingandthus,consideredeitheron theresistingsideaspositivecontributionoronthedrivingsideasnegativecontribution.These twodifferentconsiderationsresultindifferentFOS.Butthisisnotacaseinthefirstdefinition. 8 Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods
2.2 Limitequilibriummethods
Several limit equilibrium (LE) methods have been developed for slope stability analyses. Fellenius(1936)introducedthefirstmethod,referredtoastheOrdinaryortheSwedishmethod, for a circular slip surface. Bishop (1955) advanced the first method introducing a new relationshipforthebasenormalforce.TheequationfortheFOShencebecamenonlinear.Atthe same time, Janbu (1954a) developed a simplified method for noncircular failure surfaces, dividingapotentialslidingmassintoseveralverticalslices.Thegeneralisedprocedureofslices (GPS)wasdevelopedatthesametimeasafurtherdevelopmentofthesimplifiedmethod(Janbu 1973). Later, MorgensternPrice (1965), Spencer (1967), Sarma (1973) and several others made furthercontributionswithdifferentassumptionsfortheintersliceforces.AprocedureofGeneral limit equilibrium (GLE) was developed by Chugh (1986) as an extension of the Spencer and MorgensternPrice methods, satisfying both moment and force equilibrium conditions (Krahn 2004,Abramsonetal.2002).Thesedevelopmentsarereviewedinthefollowingsection,which aimstofindoutthekeydifferencesinthevariousapproachesforFOSdetermination. All LE methods are based on certain assumptions for the interslice normal (E) and shear (T) forces, and the basic difference among the methods is how these forces are determined or assumed. In addition to this, the shape of the assumed slip surface and the equilibrium conditionsforcalculationoftheFOSareamongtheothers.AsummaryofselectedLEmethods andtheirassumptionsarepresentedinTable2.1.
Table 2.1 Summary of LE methods (Abramson et al. 2002, Nash 1987)

Methods Ordinary Bishopsimplified Janbusimplified JanbuGPS LoweKarafiath CorpsofEngrs. Sarma Spencer Morgenst.Price Circular Noncir. M=0 F=0 AssumptionsforTandE (*) (*) (*) (***) (**) NeglectsbothEandT ConsidersE,butneglectsT ConsidersE,butneglectsT ConsidersbothEandT,actatLoT Resultantinclinesat,=( +) Resultantinclinesat, =(+2) Intersliceshear, T = ch + E tan Constantinclination,T=tan E Definedbyf(x),T=f(x)..E
(*)
Can be used for both circular and non-circular failure surfaces,
(**) satisfiesverticalforceequilibriumforbasenormalforce,and (***) satisfiesmomentequilibriumforintermediatethinslices(Janbu1957,Grande1997)
The interslice forces depend on a number of factors, including stressstrain and deformation characteristics of the materials. Their evaluation, however, becomes complicated in the LE methods.Therefore,simplifiedassumptionsaremadeinmostmethodseithertoneglectbothor to one of them. Nevertheless, the most advanced methods consider these forces in the LE analyses.Someofthebasicprinciplesbehindthemethodsarebrieflydescribedbelow.
2.2.1 TheOrdinarymethod
The Ordinary method (OM) satisfies the moment equilibrium for a circular slip surface, but neglects both the interslice normal and shear forces. The advantage of this method is its simplicityinsolvingtheFOS,sincetheequationdoesnotrequireaniterationprocess.TheFOS isbasedonmomentequilibriumandcomputedby(Abramsonetal.2002,Nash1987):
Fm =
(c ' l + N ' tan ') W sin

(2.3) (2.4)
N ' = (W cos ul )
Where, u=porepressure,
l=slicebaselengthand =inclinationofslipsurfaceatthemiddleofslice
Insummary,OM satisfiesmomentequilibriumcondition, neglectstheinterslicenormalandshearforces, givesthemostconservativeFOS,and isusefulonlyfordemonstrations. TheforcesconsideredinOMareshowninthesketch.
W S N
2.2.2
Bishopsmethods
Bishops simplified method (BSM) is very common in practice for circular shear surface (SS). This method considers the interslice normal forces but neglects the interslice shear forces (Abramson et al. 2002). It further satisfies vertical force equilibrium to determine the effective basenormalforce(N),whichisgivenby:
N'=
10
1 c ' l sin W ul cos m F
(2.5)
Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods
where,
m = cos (1 + tan
tan ' ) F
(2.6)
SincetheBSMalsoassumesacircularfailuresurface,thesameEq.(2.3)isutilisedtodetermine the FOS. However, computation requires an iterative procedure because of the nonlinear relationshipastheFOSappearsonbothsides. Insummary,BSM satisfiesmomentequilibriumforFOS, satisfiesverticalforceequilibriumforN, considersinterslicenormalforce, morecommoninpractice,and appliesmostlyforcircularshearsurfaces. TheforcesconsideredinBSMareshowninthesketch. The Bishop rigorous method (BRM) considers the interslice shear forces (T) in addition to interslicenormalforces(E).Themethodfurtherassumesauniquedistributionoftheirresultant forcesandsatisfiesmomentequilibriumofeachslice.TheintersliceTandEforces,andhence theFOSaredeterminedbyaniterationprocedure(Abramsonetal.2002).
E1 W S N E2
2.2.3
Janbusmethods
Thesimplifiedmethod,generalisedmethod(GPS)anddirectmethoddevelopedbyJanbu(1954, 1968)areverycommoninstabilityanalysis.Thefundamentaldifferencesinthesemethodsare brieflyreviewedbelow. 2.2.3.1 Janbussimplifiedmethod
Janbus simplified method (JSM) is based on a composite SS (i.e. noncircular) and the FOS is determinedbyhorizontalforceequilibrium.AsinBSM,themethodconsidersinterslicenormal forces(E)butneglectstheshearforces(T).Thebasenormalforce(N)isdeterminedinthesame wayasinBSMandtheFOSiscomputedby:
Ff =
( c ' l + ( N ul ) tan ') sec W tan + E
(2.7)
where,
E = E2 E1 = net interslice normal forces (zero if there is no horizontal force).
11
ThederivationsoftheFOSbasedonbothforceandmomentequilibriumisgiveninAppendix G.InstresstermsoriginallypresentedbyJanbu(1954),theEq.(2.7)iswrittenas:
b ( c '+ ( p u ) tan ') n Fo = p.b tan n = cos 2 (1 + tan

where,
(2.8)
tan ' ) F
(2.9)
p=W/b=totalverticalstressandb=widthofslice Insummary,JSM
satisfiesbothforceequilibriums, doesnotsatisfymomentequilibrium, considersinterslicenormalforces,and iscommonlyusedforcompositeshearsurface.

TheforcesconsideredinJSMareindicatedinthesketch.
E1 W S N E2
Janbuintroducedacorrectionfactor( f o ),intheoriginalFOS( Fo ),toaccommodatetheeffects of the interslice shear forces. With this modification, Janbus corrected method (JCM) gives higherFOS,as:
F f = fo .Fo
(2.10)
Thecorrectionfactordependsonthedepthtolengthratio(d/L)ofthefailuresurface.TheFOS, withthiscorrectionfactor,canincreaseby512%,givingthelowerrangeinfrictiononlysoils, i.e.thesoilswithoutcohesionandthehigherrangeforclayeysoils(Abramsonetal.1996,2002). 2.2.3.2 Janbusgeneralisedmethod
Janbusgeneralisedmethod(JGM)orJanbusgeneralisedprocedureofslices(GPS)(Janbu1973) considers both interslice forces and assumes a line of thrust to determine a relationship for interslice forces. As a result, the FOS becomes a complex function with both interslice forces (Nash1987):
Ff =
{W (T2 T1 )} tan + ( E2 E1 )
{c ' l + ( N ul ) tan '} sec
(2.11)
Similarly,thetotalbasenormalforce(N)becomesafunctionoftheintersliceshearforces(T)as: 12
N=
1 m
1 W (T2 T1 ) (c ' l ul tan ') sin F
(2.12)
This is the first method that satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. The moment equilibriumforthetotalslidingmassisexplicitlysatisfiedbyconsideringaninfinitesimalslice width (dx) and taking moments about the mid point of the slice base (Janbu 1957, 1973). The infinitesimalslicewidthwasintroducedtoavoidtheconfusionaboutthepointofapplicationof base normal force. This equilibrium condition in fact gives the relationship between the intersliceforces(EandT)as:
T = tan t E
where,
dE ht dx
(2.13)
tant =slopeofthelineofthrust,and ht=heightfromthemidpointoftheslicebasetodE. The interslice force relationship obtained in Eq. (2.13) is the same as Janbu first established, except for the interslice shear force direction, which is assumed here counterclockwise for a slide occurring from left to right as shown in the sketch. The last term in Eq. (2.13) cannot be ignoredbecauseofthegradientofinterslicenormalforcewithrespecttodistance. Thelineofthrustfollowsthecentroidoftheearthpressure(Janbu1973,Nash1987).However, forstaticallydeterminatesolutions,theactuallocationissearchedforbyaniterationprocedure untilthetotalequilibriumissatisfied(Abramsonetal.2002).Sincetheoverallforceequilibrium issatisfiedbytheintersliceforces,themomentequilibriumautomaticallyfulfilsforthesliding mass(Nash1987,Grande1997).
Insummary,JGM(GPS)
considersbothintersliceforces, assumesalineofthrustforintersliceforces, satisfiesbothforceandmomentequilibriums, handlescomplexgeometryandfailuresurfaces, isanadvancedmethodamongLEmethods.

Theforcesconsideredareindicatedinthesketch.
T1 E1 W S N T2 E2
ThederivationsoftheforceandmomentequilibriumsarepresentedinAppendixG.
13
2.2.3.3
Janbusdirectmethod
Janbusdirectmethod(JDM)isbasedondimensionlessparametersandseriesofstabilitycharts (Janbu 1954a). These charts provide a powerful tool to carry out slope stability analysis, also including various load conditions such as groundwater, surcharge and tension cracks. In additiontothis,themethodcanbeusedforbothtotalandeffectivestressanalyses. TheFOSforcohesiveandfrictionalsoilscanbecomputedby(Janbu,1954a,1996):
c , F = Ncf pd
where,
c =
pe tan and c
p e = (1 ru ) pd
(2.14)
p d =H=totalstress, p e =effectivestress,
N cf =stabilitynumber,whichdependsondimensionlessfactor( c ),and
ru = u z =porepressureratio.
AsillustratedinFig.2.2,firsttherotationcentre(X0,Y0)forthecriticalcircleisidentifiedinJDM withrespecttothetoeoftheslope.Thiscentre,whichisalsoamomentequilibriumpoint,isa function of the slope angle and a dimensionless factor ( c ). The latter can be read directly fromJanbusstabilitycharts.ThismethodissimplerandtheFOScanbecomputedforacircular SSgeometryinashorttime.
O R X = xoH Y = yo H GWT b 1 u/w z c H
Fig.2.2SlopegeometryillustratingJanbusdirectmethod
14
2.2.4 LoweKarafiathsmethod
LoweKarafiathsmethod(1960)satisfiesonlyforceequilibriuminFOScomputation.Similar toothermethods,LKMassumestheintersliceforceinclinationwhichisequaltotheaverageof theslopesurfaceinclination()andtheslicebaseinclination(),i.e. =( + ),where isthe inclinationoftheintersliceresultantforce.Thus,theintersliceforcescanbewrittenas:
T = E tan
(2.15)
Insummary,LKM
considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesonlyforceequilibrium,and assumesinclinationfortheresultantintersliceforce.
2.2.5 CorpsofEngineersmethod
TheCorpsofEngineers(1970)methodissimilartoLKM,exceptfortheassumptionofinterslice force inclination. According to this method, the angle of the interslice resultant force can be assumedintwoways.First,itcanbeassumedparalleltothegroundsurface,i.e.=,where is theslopeangle.Two,itcanbeequaltotheaverageslopeanglebetweentheentryandexitpoints ofthecriticalSS.
Insummary,CEM: considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesonlyforceequilibrium,and assumesinclinationsintwoways.
2.2.6 Sarmamethod
Sarma (1973) developed a method for a nonvertical slice or for general blocks. This method satisfies both equilibrium conditions (Abramson et al. 2002). In addition, the interslice force relationshipisassumedasalinearMohrCoulombexpression:
T = ch + E tan
(2.16)
where, c, =shearstrengthparameters,andh=sliceheight.
TheintersliceforcesareadjusteduntiltheFOSforforceandmomentequilibriumissatisfied. Insummary,Sarmasapproach:
considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesbothmomentandforceequilibrium,and relatestheintersliceforcesbyaquasishearstrengthequation.

15
2.2.7 MorgensternPricemethod
TheMorgensternPricemethod(MPM)alsosatisfiesbothforceandmomentequilibriumsand assumestheintersliceforcefunction.AccordingtoMPM(1965),theintersliceforceinclination canvarywithanarbitraryfunction(f(x))as:
T = f ( x)..E
where,
(2.17)
f(x)=intersliceforcefunctionthatvariescontinuouslyalongtheslipsurface,
= scale factor of the assumed function.

Themethodsuggestsassuminganytypeofforcefunction,forexamplehalfsine,trapezoidalor userdefined.Therelationshipsforthebasenormalforce(N)andintersliceforces(E,T)arethe sameasgiveninJGM.Foragivenforcefunction,theintersliceforcesarecomputedbyiteration procedureuntil, F f isequalsto Fm inEqs.(2.18)and(2.19)(Nash1987).Thederivationsofthe forceandmomentequilibriumsFOSarepresentedinAppendixG.
Ff =
Fm =
{W (T2 T1 )} tan + ( E2 E1 )
(c ' l + ( N ul ) tan ') W sin

{c ' l + ( N ul ) tan '} sec
(2.18)
(2.19)
Insummary,MPM
considersbothintersliceforces, assumesaintersliceforcefunction,f(x), allowsselectionforintersliceforcefunction, computes FOS for both force and moment
equilibrium. Theforcesconsideredareshowninthesketch.
T1 E1 W S N T2 E2
2.2.8 Spencersmethod
Spencersmethod(SM)isthesameasMPMexcepttheassumptionmadeforintersliceforces.A constant inclination is assumed for interslice forces and the FOS is computed for both equilibriums(Spencer1967).Accordingtothismethod,theintersliceshearforceisrelatedto:
T = E tan
16
(2.20)
Insummary,SM
considersbothintersliceforces, assumesaconstantintersliceforcefunction,and satisfiesbothmomentandforceequilibrium,and computesFOSforforceandmomentequilibrium.

Theforcesconsideredareshowninthemarginsketch.
T1 E1 W S N T2 E2
2.2.9 Generallimitequilibriumprocedure
The general limit equilibrium (GLE) procedure incorporates all the assumptions and development made by the latest LE methods. In fact, this is an extension of Spencer and MorgensternPricemethodswhere,theintersliceslope,tan=.f(x)isassignedtodeterminethe intersliceforces(Krahn2004,Abramsonetal.2002).Inthisway,theGLEprocedureisgoodto comparethemostcommonmethodsinaFOSversus diagramasshowninFig.2.3.Themost likelyinclinationsofforceequilibriumFOS( F f )andmomentequilibriumFOS( Fm )hasbeen indicatedparticularlyforcircularSSanalysis.TheplaneSSanalysismayhavereveredposition of F f and Fm (Krahn2004).However,morediscussiononthismatterispresentedinChapter7.
F O S
BSM
SM
M-PM
Ff Fm
JGM JSM
JCM
Scale factor lambda ()

Fig.2.3Presentationofthemostcommonmethods(FredlundandKrahn1977) When = 0, the FOS is obtained for BSM and JSM, as indicated in Fig. 2.3. Similarly, the intersection point gives the FOS for SM or MPM. According to Fredlund and Krahn (1977), Janbuscorrectedandgeneralisedmethodsareclosetotheintersectingpoint(seeFig.2.3).Thus, theGLEprocedurehasanadvantageofmakingcomparisonsofFOSinthesamediagram. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
17
StabilityanalysisforbothcircularandcompositeSSispossibleinthisprocedure(Fredlundetal. 1981, Chugh 1986). A variable interslice force function, as related to Eq. (2.17), defines the inclinationoftheintersliceforcesaftersubsequentiterations(Nash,1987). Insummary,GLEprocedure:
considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesbothmomentandforceequilibriums, allowsselectionforintersliceforcefunction,and showscomparisonofmostcommonandadvancedLEmethods.
2.2.10 SummaryoftheLEmethods
TheOMislimitedtohandcalculationsanddemonstrationpurposesonly,whereasBSandJSMs havebeenwidelyusedforstabilityanalysesinmanyyears.Thesemethodsarecommonbecause theFOSinmostcasescanbecalculatedwithadequateaccuracy.However,thesemethodshave limitationsinsatisfyingbothforceandmomentequilibrium.Abramsonetal.(2002)recommend BSM to use only for the circular shear surface analysis. Similarly, JSM is more flexible in evaluating the FOS for noncircular surfaces. The main advantage over JGM is that it can effectivelyhandlebothirregularslopesandfailuresurfaces.Momentequilibriumforslicesgives thecompletesolutionforforceequilibriumFOS,whichisclosetotheFOSfromMPmethod. For circular SS, BSM always gives higher FOS than JSM and falls within 5% of the FOS obtainedfromthemorerigorousmethods.However,theFOScandifferby15%ascompared withtheresultscalculatedbySpencerandMorgensternPricemethods(Abramsonetal.2002).
F O S
Ff Fm F, f(x) =B
BSM F O S M-PM
Ff
F, f(x) =A
JSM
Fm
a) Effect on FOS due to f(x) Scale factor lambda ()
b) Effect on FOS due to external loads Scale factor lambda ()
Fig. 2.4 Effects on FOS due to a) f(x) and b) external loads (SLOPE/W 2002)
18
Fig.2.4showsthepossiblevariationinFOSduetof(x)andapplicationofpointloadsoranchor forces(SLOPE/W2002).TheFOSfromtheforceequilibriumisseentobemoresensitivetof(x) than from the moment equilibrium (see Fig. 2.4a). This is the case probably for circular SS. However, an investigation carried out by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) shows that the FOS is insensitivetothechoiceoff(x).Inthecaseofpointloadsoranchors,themomentequilibrium FOShasconsiderableshiftingtowardslowerFOS(seeFig.2.4b).ThisshowsthattheFOS,from moment equilibrium, is more sensitive to the application of external forces. Due to the point loads or anchor forces, the interslice shear force is increased. This further reduces the base normalforce(seeEq.(2.12))andconsequentlytheshearstrengthisreduced.Theeffectsofthe interslice force function and applied external forces on FOS in circular SS analysis are summarisedandpresentedinTable2.2.
Table 2.2 Sensitivity of FOS in circular SS analysis (SLOPE/W 2002)

Parameter ForceequilibriumFOS Moresensitive(FOSvsplot Scalefactor() showssteeperslope,seeFig.2.3) MomentequilibriumFOS Insensitive,(relativelyflat slopeisfound,referringto Fig.2.3) Significantlyaffectedastheplot showsconsiderableshifting (referringtoFig.2.4a) TheFOSgradientisfoundalmost unchangedasinFig.2.4b Foundverysensitiveand largelyaffected(referringto Fig.2.4b) Minereffect,notmuchshifting isfound(referringtoFig.2.4a)
Intersliceforcefunction (f(x))
Pointloadoranchor force(Q)
2.3 Softwareusedforstabilityanalysis
Slopestabilityanalysestodaycanbeperformedbyusingvariouscomputerbasedgeotechnical software. Software utilizing LE formulations has been used for many years. Similarly, finite element (FE) software, based on constitutive laws and appropriate soil models, has drawn growinginterestbothofresearchersandofprofessionals.Today,bothLEandFEbasedsoftware arecommonlyusedingeotechnicalcomputations.Abriefintroductionandworkingprinciples ofthesoftwarethatareusedinthisstudyisbrieflyintroducedinthefollowingsections.
2.3.1 SLOPE/Wsoftware
SLOPE/W,developedbyGEOSLOPEInternationalCanada,isusedforslopestabilityanalysis. This software is based on the theories and principles of the LE methods discussed in the previous sections. In this study, SLOPE/W has been applied separately and together with SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
19
SEEP/W, other software program, which computes the pore pressure distributions, based on finiteelementsmeshandgroundwaterseepageanalyses.Finally,theporepressuredistributions were coupled with slope stability analysis and FOS was determined. The software SLOPE/W computes FOS for various shear surfaces, for example circular, noncircular and userdefined surfaces(SLOPE/W2002,Krahn2004).However,onlythecircularSSisautomaticallysearched. 2.3.1.1 ComputationofFOS
A simple model presented in Chapter 3 and the case study from MMHEP given in Chapter 6 were analysed to find the critical SS and minimum FOS using different search options. The selectedsearchoptions(gridandradius,entryandexitandautolocate)wereusedinthestudy. TheproceduredescribedhereisrelatedtotheanalysescarriedoutinChapters3and6. TheGridandradiusoptionwasselectedtodefinetherotationcentresandtangentlinesasshown inFig.2.5.ThecircularCSSwassearchedamongthenumberoftrialsurfaceswithinthetangent lines.Similarly,momentequilibriumwassatisfiedatapointwithinthegrid,whichwasalsothe rotationcentreoftheCSS.Furtherrefinementsingridandtangentlinesimprovedtheaccuracy infindingtheminimumFOS.
Circular failure
15
Radius
Gridfor centres
Elevation, m
10
Tangentlines
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance, m
Fig. 2.5 Grid and radius option used to search for circular CSS
TheEntryandexitoptionwasappliedonthesurfaceofthemodelasindicatedinFig.2.6.The softwaresearchedforthecircularCSSamongthenumberoftrialsurfaceswithinthegivenentry and exit ranges. The FOS is indicated at the axis of rotation, around which, the moment equilibriumissatisfied.Unlikelyinthepreviousoption,thecentreofthecircleandthemoment equilibriumpointarenotthesameinthisoption(seeFig.2.6).
20
Centre ofcircle Entry

15
0.898
Axis of rotation
Elevation, m
10
Exit
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Distance, m
Fig.2.6EntryandexitoptionusedtosearchforcircularCSS Thestabilityanalysismethodssatisfyingonlymomentequilibriummaybeaffectedbymanual selectedrotationpoint(Krahn2004).Insuchcase,iteithershouldbespecifiedclosetothecentre ofthepossibleCSSorshouldbelefttolocateautomatically.However,FOSisinsensitivewith therotationpointforthemethodsthatsatisfybothmomentandforceequilibriums. The Autolocate option was selected to check theposition of CSS and the FOS computed by the abovetwooptions.Moreover,thisoptionisthecombinationofentryandexit,andoptimisation, whichresultsinslightlynoncircularCSS.Allthreeoptions,whichwererefineduntilaconstant FOSwasfound,producedthesameFOSfortheCSSwithoutoptimisationinthisstudy. 2.3.1.2 Shearsurfaceoptimisation
The CSS searched by GLE procedure for MPM can be optimised and slightly lower FOS is found.AfterfindingtheCSSbyoneofthefirsttwooptionsabove,theoptimisationwascarried outbytheautolocateCSSoption.Accordingly,thesoftwaredividestheCSSintonumberofline segmentsandtheendsofthesegmentsaremovedtowardsthelowerFOSresultinginslightly noncircularCSS,seeFig.3.15inChapter3. 2.3.1.3 ComparisonofLEmethods
The LE methods in SLOPE/W can be compared in two ways. The first is based on the CSS searchedbyeachmethodandthecorrespondingFOS;theotherisbasedontheCSSsearchedby GLE procedure and the corresponding FOS. The first comparison can be done directly by looking into the minimum FOS for the selected methods. This appears immediately after completionofthecomputation.Thesecondcomparisoncaneitherbedonebythe versusFOS plotorbytheFOSfoundundertheslipsurfacewithforcedataavailable(optimisedornon optimisedFOS).ThecomparisonsofLEmethodshavebeencarriedoutinChapters3,6and7.
21
2.3.2 TheSLIDEsoftware
SLIDE software, developed by Rocscience Inc Toronto Canada, is also used for slope stability analysis for soil and rock slopes. The software is also 2DLE based computer program, which canbeappliedtoevaluatethestabilityforcircularornoncircularfailuresurfaces(SLIDE2003). In fact, SLIDE is found similar to the SLOPE/W though there are few additional features, for examplegroundwateranalysisandbackanalysisforsupportforces.Inaddition,JCMhasalso beenincludedinthesoftware. Modelling in SLIDE for the study was possible for external loading, groundwater and forces, likesurchargeandfrompseudostaticearthquakes.ThecircularCSSwaslocatedautomatically andthecorrespondingFOSwascomputedbythesoftwareinthesimilarwayasinSLOPE/W. The idealised slope presented in Chapter 3 and the case studies presented in Chapter 6 were analysed by SLIDE software. The groundwater module was used to simulate and compute groundwater analysis based on finite element mesh, and the pore pressure distributions from the seepage analysis were used for the stability analysis. The analytical results are compared withSLOPE/WandPLAXISinChapters3,6and7.
2.3.3 ThePLAXISsoftware
PLAXISisafiniteelementcodeforsoilandrockanalyses(PLAXIS2004),developedbyPLAXIS BV in cooperation with several universities including DUT in the Netherlands and NTNU in Norway. The computer program is applicable to many geotechnical problems, including stabilityanalysesandsteadystategroundwaterflowcalculations.Thissoftwarecontainsseveral FE models and four main subroutines. These routines are inputs, calculations, outputs and curveplots.TheFOSversusdisplacementisplottedfromthecurveplotssubroutine. TheslopemodelsanalysedinChapters3and6werecreatedbytheinputsubroutine.Material propertiesincludingshearstrengthparametersweredefinedforeachsoillayer.Aplainstrain modelof15nodedtriangularelementswasusedtogeneratethefiniteelementmesh.Similarly, porepressuredistributionsweregeneratedbasedonphreaticlevelwithandwithoutcorrections andthesteadystategroundwatercalculation.Moreover,aMohrCoulombmaterialmodelwas selectedforthestabilityanalyses. The selected MC model is based on the elasticperfectly plastic theory of soil mechanics. Accordingly,bothelasticparameters(E, )and plasticparameters(c, , )are utilisedinthe model. Similarly, in addition to the yield function (f), the model has incorporated plastic potentialfunction(g),wherethedilatancyangle()isassociatedwiththeplasticbehaviourof soils.TheformulationoftheMCmodelconsistsofsixyieldfunctionsandsixplasticfunctions. Oneofeachfunctionisgivenbelowfordemonstrationpurposes(PLAXIS2004)only:
1 1 f1 = ( '2 '3 ) + ( '2 + '3 ) sin c cos 0 2 2

22
(2.21)
g1 =
1 1 ( '2 '3 ) + ( '2 + '3 ) sin 2 2
(2.22)
The terms are defined under the list of symbols in the beginning of the thesis.
2.3.3.1 ComputationofFOS
FOS was computed by using the c reduction procedure. According to PLAXIS (2004), this approach involves in successively reducing the soil strength parameters c and tan until the failureoccurs.Thestrengthparametersareautomaticallyreduceduntilthefinalcalculationstep results in a fully developed failure mechanism. Further, Nordal and Glaamen (2004) say, By lowering the strength incrementally, a soil body is identified to fail after a certain strength reduction.Inthisway,PLAXIScomputestheFOSastheratiooftheavailableshearstrengthto thestrengthatfailurebysumminguptheincrementalmultiplier(Msf)asdefinedby:
FOS =
2.3.3.2
available shear strength = value of M sf at failure shear strength at failure

Pseudostaticanalysis
(2.23)
The pseudostatic analysis was carried out in PLAXIS by introducing the earthquake forces in termsoftheaccelerationcoefficient().Inthegeneralsettingsoftheinputprogram,fullvalueof gravity(g)wasused,andtheselectedvalueof wasappliedasthemultiplier(Maccel)inthe calculationroutine.Thegravitycontrolsthetotalmagnitudeoftheaccelerationappliedinthe calculationphase.Thepseudostaticforcescanonlybeappliediftheweightofthematerial,M weight = 1 is active in the model. Moreover, application of an acceleration component in a particular direction results in a pseudostatic force in the opposite direction. The application of withnegativesignwasfoundresultinginthecriticaldirectionintheslope.Computation fortheFOSwasthenfollowedbythecreductionprocedureasexplainedabove. 2.3.3.3 Dynamicanalysis
ThecaseslopesinChapter6werestudiedforthedynamicresponsefortheselectedhorizontal acceleration.Thesourceofearthquakeloadingwascreatedalongthebaseofthemodelresulting toupwardspropagatingshearwaves.Accordingly,thedynamicsourcewascreatedintermsof the prescribed horizontal displacement at the base of the model aiming to study the response generated by the soil mass. The problem was simulated using a plane strain model with the standardmaterialdampingusedinPLAXIS.
Dynamicloading
Thebasicequationforthetimedependentmovementundertheinfluenceofadynamicloadis givenby(PLAXIS2004,Kramer1994): F=M+C +Ku (2.24) 23
where, F=dynamicload, M=inertiamatrix(ormassofsoilbody), C=dampingmatrix(ordampingcoefficient)and K=stiffnessmatrix(orstiffnessasspringconstant). Thedisplacement(u),thevelocity()andtheacceleration() aretimedependentvariables.The massofthematerials(soil+water+deadweight)isincludedintheinertiamatrix,whereasthe dampingmatrixrepresentsthematerialdamping,whichcausesdissipationofenergyduetothe friction, plasticity and viscosity of the soil. The last term (F = Ku) corresponds to the static deformation.InFEelasticmodels,dampingisthusformulatedunderCasafunctionofinertia andstiffnessmatricesrelatedtotheRayleighcoefficients, andasfollows(PLAXIS,2004):
C = M + K
(2.25)
Thelowfrequencyvibrationsaregenerallydampedininertiadominantstructures,whichmean higher value. However, high frequency vibrations are damped in stiffness dominant structures;thismeanshigher value.These and coefficientsareusedinPLAXISforplane strain elastic models. However, the standard setting in PLAXIS ( = = 0) are used in the dynamicanalysisinChapter6,thoughthefrequencydampingcanbeexpectedinrealcase.
Determinationofandcoefficients
Accordingtotheresonancecolumntheory,theresonance(natural)frequencycanbedetermined based on the shear wave velocity (Nordal and Kramer 2003). For the purpose, the following relationshipsareusedtocomputetheRayleighcoefficients, and:
n = n
Vs 2H
(2.26) (2.27)
2 + n = 2n
where,
n=dominatingresonance(natural)frequencyatlowfrequencyrange,
n=1,3,5. Vs=shearwavevelocity,and H=heightofthesoilcolumnorlayer.
=dampingratioofdampingcoefficient(C)tocriticaldampingcoefficient( Cc = 2 ( KM ) ).
The energy dissipates in soils by several mechanisms, including friction, hysteresis generation and plastic yielding. The value of can either be obtained experimentally by means of the resonancecolumntest((Das1995,Kramer1994),oranalternativedampingratiovaluemightbe 24 Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods
chosen based on diagrams of damping versus cyclic shear strain. According to Vucetic and Dobry (1991), the damping ratio () is dependent on the plasticity index and the cyclic shear strain.Foraselectedorexperimentallyobtainedvalueof , theRayleighandcoefficientsare determinedfromEq.(2.27)usingtwodominatingfrequenciesatlowfrequencyrange.
PandSwavevelocities
Earthquake produces p and swaves in the ground. Once the material parameters(E, and ) are entered into the input model, the wave velocities are automatically generated. The compression wave velocity (Vp) in the confined onedimensional soil is a function of the oedometer stiffness (Eoed) and the mass density ().Similarly, the shear wave velocity (Vs) is a functionoftheshearmodulus(Gref)andthemassdensity(),asexpressedby:
Vp =
where,
Eoed
, Vs =
Gref
(2.28)
Eoed =
(1- ) Eref (1 + )(1- 2 )
(2.29)
Eref =Youngsmodulusatreferencestress(v=100kPa),
=Poissonsratio,and =densityofsoil(=/g).
RayleighandLovewaves
Theencounterofbodywaves,i.e.VpandVs,intoasolidboundarygenerateanewtypeofwaves called Rayleigh waves. These waves (defined as VR = /kR, where kR is the wave number) propagate on the ground surface and cause the largest disturbances in the earthquake events. Similarly, Love waves are generated in a soil layer overlain by a material with lower body waves. These waves are actually horizontal shear waves (SHwaves) that are trapped by multiplereflectionswithinthesuperficiallayer(Kramer,1994).
Absorbentboundariesandanalysisresults
Absorbent boundaries, as the vibration dampers, are applied to stop the rebound of stresses caused by wave propagations during the dynamic simulations, in addition to the standard fixities.Themodelgeometryismadesowidethattheboundariescouldbeappliedsufficiently farawayfromthestudiedarea. The displacement and acceleration time series and excess pore pressure are the main output results from the dynamic analyses. Similarly, excess pore pressures are generated when undrainedsoilissubjectedtodynamicloading.TheseresultsarediscussedinChapter6. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 25
Chapter3
ComparisonofAnalysisMethods
3.1 Idealisedslope
A simple example with an idealised slope model is analysed aiming to compare the most commonlimitequilibrium(LE)methods.Inaddition,thestudycomparesthemostaccurateLE method with finite element (FE) analyses for three different load conditions. Finally, some parametersarestudiedtounderstandpossibledifferencesincomputationsofthefactorofsafety (FOS).
3.1.1 Geometryandinputparameters
Fig.3.1showstheidealisedslopeof10mheightwithaninclinationof1:2(V:H).Twosoillayers with different strength parameters are assumed. Furthermore, the same effective stress parametersareusedindryandwetconditions.Similarly,twounitweightsofsoils,oneabove the GWT (d), the other below the GWT (), are considered. Moreover, the same permeability coefficient (k) is assumed in both layers for the seepage analysis. The parameters used in the studyareshowninFig.3.1,withthecompletesetofinputparametersgiveninTable3.1.
15
Height (m)
10
c = 10 kPa = 300 c = 5 kPa = 250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.1Idealisedslopegeometryformodelwithtwosoillayers 26
Chapter 3 Comparison of analysis methods
Table 3.1 Input parameters for analyses

Soillayers Upper Lower c(kPa) (0) 10 5 30 25
(0)
0 0
(kN/m3)
20 20
d(kN/m3) Eref (kPa)

18 18 5000 5000
0.3 0.3
k(m/s) 1x10-5 1x10-5
3.1.2 Loadcombinationforanalysis
Three different conditions; Dry slope, Wet slope and Dry slope with external loads are consideredforthestabilityanalyses.Theloadconditionsanalysedaredefinedas:
Case1:Completelydryslope,i.e.noGWTinsidethemodel, Case2a:Completelysaturatedslope,i.e.GWTonthesurface(hydrostaticporepressure), Case2b:Completelysaturatedslope(porepressurefromseepageanalysis),and Case3:Dryslopewithexternalforces,i.e.q=50kPaandearthquakecoefficient, h =0.25.
3.1.3 Selectedmethodsforanalysis
Stabilitychartmethods,LEandFEbasedsoftwareareselectedforanalysesandcomparisonof the FOS. The basic theory and different assumptions made in the LE methods are given in Chapter2.Theselectedmethodsandsoftwareare:
LEmethods:StabilitychartsfromJDM,twosoftwareSLOPE/WandSLIDE,andtheselected methodsareBSM,JSM,JGMandMPMorGLE.
FEmethod:SoftwarePLAXIS.
3.2 Stabilityanalysesandresults
3.2.1 Applicationofstabilitycharts
Amongthedirectmethods,whicharebasedontheslopestabilitychartsdevelopedbyseveral authors, Janbus direct method was selected in this study. This method is well known for stabilityanalysis.Themethodwasselectedtodemonstrateitssimplicityanduserfriendliness. Moreover, it was also aimed to compare the results with other LE based methods for dry and saturatedslopeconditions.TheanalysesresultsarepresentedinTable3.2.Themethodhasbeen reviewedinSection2.2.3.3inChapter2,wheretheappropriatesymbolsaredefined.
Table 3.2 Analyses results by JDM

LoadCases 1:Dryslope 2a:Wetslope
c
13 7
40 25
pe (kPa) 180 100
pd (kPa) 180 200
FOS 1.778 1.000
27
The factors c and Nc were obtained from the stability charts for the effective stress (c) analysis.ThecircularCSSpassesthroughbothlayers,andhencethedistributionwasassumed as 60% in the upper layer and 40% in the lower layer, based on the CSS located by MPM in SLOPE/W(seeFig.3.2).Accordingly,thefactorcwascomputedbyweightedaverage:
c =
pe p tan 1 tan 2 tan = e (l1 ) + l2 c l c1 c2
(3.1)
The averaging of c was used to make computation practically possible. However, the weighted average of the product of the effective normal stress (pe) and tan would have been theoretically more correct. The FOS was compared with MPM (dry slope: FOS = 1.737) and foundmoderatevariation,whichmightinfacthaveresultedfromtheparameterreadingsfrom the charts. In addition, the assumption made for the failure surface in the twosoil layer slope mayalsohaveminordifferences.However,thedifferenceisminimal.TheadvantageoverJGM isthattheFOScanbecomputedmoreeasilybyhandcalculationstocheckthestabilityinsimple conditions.
3.2.2 Applicationofsoftwareprograms
3.2.2.1 LoadCase1:Dryslope
SLOPE/Wsoftware
ThestabilityofthedryslopewasfirstanalysedinSLOPE/W.TheminimumFOSandcriticalSS searchedbyentryandexitoption(referSection2.3.1.1inChapter2)aregiveninFig.3.2.
1.737
15
Height (m)
10
Minimum FOS 1) BSM = 1.758 2) JSM = 1.590 3) JGM = 1.716 4) M-PM = 1.737
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.2CSSbyMPMandFOSfromSLOPE/WforCase1
The CSS was searched from thousands of possible SS by defining the input of 15 slices, 1500 iterations,and15incrementsforentry,10incrementsforexitand5incrementsforradius.These parameters are consecutively chosen until the further increments do not change the FOS. 28
Similarly,aMohrCoulombsoilmodelwaschosen,withoutthefeatureoftensioncracks.Ahalf sinefunctionwasselectedtocomputetheintersliceforceswithtoleranceerrorof1%.Moreover, theselectionofahalfsinefunctionwasbasedontheassumptionthattheintersliceshearforces couldbeatmaximuminthemiddleoftheCSSandzeroattheentryandexitpoints. SLOPE/W computes the FOS in two ways. In the first approach, the rigorous GLE procedure identifiestheCSS,whereastherestofthemethodscomputetheFOSbasedonthesameCSS.In thisway,theaccuracyofthemethodscanbecompared.Inthesecondapproach,eachmethod identifiesitsownCSSandcomputesthecorrespondingFOS.Inthelatterapproach(usedinthis study), SLOPE/W computes lower FOS for some methods, and thus the FOS is termed as minimumFOS.
SLIDEsoftware
AsinSLOPE/W,theanalysiswascarriedoutinSLIDEforthesameinputparametersandmodel geometry.TheresultsfromtheanalysesarepresentedinFig.3.3.
Minimum FOS 1) BSM = 1.763 2) JSM = 1.595 3) JCM = 1.715 4) M-PM = 1.739
Fig.3.3CSSbyMPMandFOSfromSLIDEforCase1 InSLIDE,theCSSwasselectedfromtheautorefinedsearchoptionbydefiningassimilarinputs as before in SLOPE/W. The input parameters were increased until further increments had no changeintheFOS.Inthisway,theCSSandtheminimumFOSwereobtained. The FOS from SLIDE was found very similar to SLOPE/W. In addition, the FOS from JCM in SLIDE and JGM in SLOPE/W was found to be the same. Moreover, the FOS from JGM was foundonly1%lowerthanthatfromMPMfortheCSSidentifiedbyeachmethod.
PLAXISsoftware
TheanalysisalsoincludeduseofPLAXISwiththesameMohrCoulombsoilmodelandstrength parametersasgiveninTable3.1.Aplainstrainmodelwasdefinedbyusing15nodedelements and a wellrefined mesh of about 3000 elements with 450 mm average size, no tension cracks and 1% tolerance. Further mesh refinement had no change in FOS. The FE based software
29
PLAXIS computes FOS by the c reduction procedure, a detailed description of which can be foundinChapter2.TheCSSlocatedbyPLAXISandthecorrespondingFOSaregiveninFig.3.4.
FOS = 1.654
Fig.3.4CSSandFOScomputedfromPLAXISforCase1 PLAXISidentifiestheCSSbasedonthestrainlocalisationintheslope.Theincrementalstrains areexcessivelyconcentratedinsidethesoilbody(seeFig.3.4)fromwhichafailuremaypossibly initiate.ComparedtotheFOSobtainedfromPLAXIS,theLEmethod(MPM)overestimatesthe FOSby5%fordryslopeconditionsinthisidealisedslopeanalysis. 3.2.2.2 LoadCase2:Wetslope
TheriseinGWTuptothesurfaceandtheeffectonFOSwasstudiedinthesimilarwayasfor thedryslope.Inthiscase,theporepressureswereappliedintwowaysfromhydrostatic(Case 2a)andfromseepageanalyses(Case2b).TheFOSinbothcaseshasbeencomparedaccordingly.
SLOPE/W
TheCSSandminimumFOSarepresentedinFig.3.5,whichrepresentsthecomputationsrelated tothehydrostaticporepressuredistributions.
0.898
15
Height (m)
10
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.5CSSandFOSfromSLOPE/WforCase2a(hydrostaticpp)
30
For Case 2b, the pore pressure profile obtained from the seepage analyses was used. Accordingly,theporepressuredistributionswerefirstanalysedseparatelyinSEEP/W,andthen the analysed pore pressure was used in SLOPE/W for compilation of the corresponding FOS. The resulting CSS and the FOS obtained from the analysis are shown in Fig. 3.6. The SEEP/W softwarecomputestheporepressureusingfiniteelementmesh,whichcanbeseeninFig.3.6.
0.979
15
Height (m)
10
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.6CSSandFOSfromSLOPE/WforCase2b(ppfromSEEP/W)
Taking the LE methods, the FOS was found 9% higher from seepage analyses than for hydrostatic distributions. SLIDE produced almost identical results, and they are hence not included here. The reason of higher FOS in Case 2b can be explained by the unchanged CSS evenaftertheseepageanalysis.Thisresultedinhighereffectivenormalstressduetothelower averageporepressuresalongtheCSS. TheflowfieldandequipotentiallinesgeneratedbytheseepageanalysisinSEEP/Wareshown inFig.3.7.Thehydraulicboundaries,forexamplerestrictionofdischargealongthebaseandthe rightsideofthemodel,15mheadontheleftsideboundaryandzeropressurealongthesurface, wereassumed.ThehydraulicconductivitygiveninTable3.1wasusedintheseepageanalysis. Thesteadystateflowconditionwasassumedintheseepageanalysis.Thismeans,theinflowof waterintheslopewillremainunchanged.
15
Height (m)
10
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.7FlowfieldandequipotentlinesfromSEEP/W SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
31
PLAXIS
Similar pore pressure conditions were also studied in PLAXIS. The use of hydrostatic pore pressuredistributionresultedinalowerFOScomparedtosteadysategroundwatercalculation. TheresultedCSSandFOSaredepictedinFig.3.8andFig.3.9forporepressurefromhydrostatic distributionsandseepageanalyses,respectively.
FOS = 0.786
Fig.3.8CSSandFOScomputedinPLAXISforCase2a(hydrostaticporepressure)
FOS = 0.884
Fig.3.9CSSandFOScomputedinPLAXISforCase2b(seepageanalysis)
InPLAXIS,aFOSlessthanunitywascomputedusingamanipulationinstrengthparametersto avoid numerical instability during the simulations. In this procedure, the real strength parametersweremultipliedbyascalingfactorandthecomputedFOSwasdividedbythesame factor. Fig. 3.10 shows the flow field and phreatic surface obtained after the seepage analysis. ThephreaticsurfacelooksmorerealisticinPLAXIScomparedtothoseobtainedinSLEEP/W.
Fig.3.10FlowfieldgeneratedbysteadystatecalculationsinPLAXIS 32
The steadystate seepage analysis was conducted by locating the GWT on the surface and applyingclosedflowboundariesatthebaseandtherightsideofthemodel.Waterflowssolely into the soil from the left vertical boundary. In the slope, water may enter also through the horizontalterrainsurface,whichhasnotbeenconsideredinthemodel. ComparedwiththetwoporepressureconditionsinPLAXIS,theFOSfromseepageanalysiswas found12.5%higherthanthatfromhydrostaticdistributions.Similarcomparisonwasalsomade betweenLEandFEanalysesforexactlythesamecondition.Accordingly,LE(MPM)computed 10.6%higherFOSthaninFE(PLAXIS)fortheseepageanalyses.Furthermore,thedifferencewas foundaslargeas14.2%forhydrostaticporepressuredistribution,whichmaybeunrealisticin realsituations.However,theassumptionofahydrostaticporepressuredistributionincreases thedifferencebetweenLEandFEanalyses. 3.2.2.3 LoadCase3:Externalforces
Thelastloadcasewasanalysedbythesamesoftwareprograms.Fig.3.11showstheCSSandthe minimumFOSobtainedfromSLOPE/W.Similarly,theanalysesresultsfromSLIDEaregiven Fig.3.12.TheFOSfrombothSLOPE/WandSLIDEisfoundalmostidentical(1%)comparedto themethodtomethod.

1.019
15
Height (m)
10
2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.11CSSandFOSfromLEanalysis(SLOPE/W)forCase3
Minimum FOS 1) BSM = 1.013 2) JSM = 0.886 3) JCM = =0.954 4) M-PM = 1.001
Fig.3.12CSSandFOSfromLEanalysis(SLIDE)forCase3 SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 33
InadditiontotheCSSinFig.3.12,thelineofthrust,wheretheinterslicenormalforceacts,can be seen. This line of thrust generated by SLIDE for MPM was found at about 0.33h from the bottom of slices at the upper end (active side), nearly 0.6h in the middle and very high at the lower (passive side) where, h is the height of the slices. This broadly agrees with the Janbu (1973)assumptionforthelineofthrustinhisGPSmethod. The CSS and minimum FOS from PLAXIS are shown in Fig. 3.13. Due to the same external forces, the difference in FOS is found 9.6% between LE (MPM) and FE (PLAXIS) analyses. Moreover,theCSSinFEanalysiswasfoundcompositeratherthancircularasinLEanalysis.
FOS = 0.930
Fig.3.13CSSandFOSfromFEanalysis(PLAXIS)forCase3
3.3 Comparisonofmethods
3.3.1 LEmethods
The FOS has already been compared and discussed under each case analysis. Here, a more detailedstudyontheforcescomputedbySLOPE/WispresentedfortwoidenticalLEmethods (JGandMP).Theforcesactingonslice#2(seeFig.3.11)havebeenindicatedinFig.3.14.
88.681
72.722
21.052
139.15
6.5219
98.605
53.287 34.789 121.87
45.283 24.651 112.28
95.758 121.62 98.364
31.795 120.68 92.435
a) JGM (b = 1.77 m, h = 4.36 m)

34
b) M-PM (b = 1.45 m, h = 3.77 m)
Fig.3.14Forcesactingonslice#2fromLEanalyses(SLOPE/W)
The CSS shown in Fig. 3.11 is from the MP method and this surface is shallower than in JG method. This can be observed by comparing the slice height in Fig. 3.14. The forces (kN/m) cannotbecompareddirectlysincebothwidthsandheightsaredifferent.However,themethods considerthesimilarforcesactingonthesliceinthesameway.Inaddition,onlythedeadweight hasbeenconsideredinbothmethodswhilecomputingtheseismicforcewith h =0.25.Hence, theeffectofq=50kPahasnotbeenconsideredtocomputethehorizontalseismicforce. OptimisationinSLOPE/WgeneratesgenerallyanoncircularCSSandlowerFOS.Thecircular CSS(seeFig.3.11)becomesnoncircular,whichcanbeseeninFig.3.15.Similarly,theoptimised CSS in SLOPE/W looks almost identical to the CSS in PLAXIS (see Fig. 3.13). However, even aftertheoptimisation,theFOSinLEMishigherthaninFEM.
0.986
15
Height (m)
10
Optimised FOS 1) BSM = 1.024 2) JSM = 0.884 3) JGM = 0.966 4) M-PM = 0.986
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m)
Fig.3.15OptimisedFOSandCSSfromLEanalysis(SLOPE/W) Table3.3showsthedifferenceinFOS(Diff.)fromnonoptimised(NoOpt.)CSSidentifiedbyM Pmethodtooptimised(Opt.)CSS.TheFOSfromJGmethodrelatestothesameCSS.Herenon optimised and optimised refer to a circular CSS and noncircular CSS respectively. The study wascarriedoutinmoredetailsforthreeloadCases.
Table 3.3 Effects of optimisation on FOS

FOSforCase1 Methods Noopt. JG MP
FOSforCase2a Noopt. 0.882 0.898 Opt. 0.854 0.897 Diff. 3.3% 0%
FOSforCase3 Noopt. Opt. 1.002 1.019 Diff
Opt. 1.635 1.701
Diff. 5.0% 2.1%
1.716 1.737
0.966 3.7% 0.986 3.3%
The study shows that the optimisation generally results in lower FOS for the most rigorous methods. The methods that satisfy either force (JS) or moment (BS) equilibrium show no changes,andhencethesemethodsarenotpresentedinTable3.3.AlsoCase2a(hydrostaticpore pressure)showsconstantFOS,evenafteroptimisationintheMPmethod. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 35
Fig. 3.16 shows the comparison among LE methods, which are indicated in the FOS versus diagram.AccordingtoGLEprocedure,theFOSiscomputedforthecommonCSSforseveral values. In this way, the accuracy of the LE methods can be compared. The FOS for BS and JS methodscanbefoundwhen iszeroasindicatedinFig.3.16.Similarly,acertainvalueof , whichsatisfiesbothforceandmomentequilibrium,givestheFOSforMPMandSM.
Fig.3.16FOSplot(nonoptimised)forCase1andCase3 IncircularCSSanalyses,theforceequilibriumFOS(Ff)isfoundmoresensitivetotheinterslice shearforcethanthemomentequilibriumFOS(Fm).ThisisthereasonwhytheFOSfromBSM doesnotvarymuchcomparedtoJSM,asshowninFig.3.16.
3.3.2 FEandLEmethods
Fig.3.17showsthecomputedFOSbyPLAXISfortheloadconditionspresentedbefore.
1.6
Factor of safety
1.4
Case 1: F =1.654
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Case 3: F =0.930 Case 2b: F = 0.884 Case 2a: F =0.786
Deformation (Ux), m
Fig.3.17FOSfortheloadconditionsanalysedfromPLAXIS 36
SincethePLAXISsoftwareisbasedontheconstitutivelaw(stressstrainrelationship),theCSS hasbeenconsideredasthemostcriticalone.Similarly,theFOSinthePLAXISanalysisshouldbe close to the absolute minimum. Under these considerations, further comparison of LE (MP) methodhasbeencarriedoutwithrespecttoFE(PLAXIS)(0%).
Higher FOS (%) by LE (M-PM)
18 15 12 9 6 3 0
2.8 5.0 6.0
Opt.
Nonopt.
10.6 9.2
14.1
14.2
9.6
Case1 (Dryslope)
Case3 (Externals)
Case2b (Seepagepp)
Case2a (Hydrost.pp)
Fig.3.18ComparisonofFOSbetweenLEandFEanalyses
ThecomparisonofFOScomputedbyLE(MPM)foroptimised(Opt.)andnonoptimised(Non opt.)CSSisshowninFig.3.18.TheFOSfromLE(MPM)analysisisfoundhigherinallcases thanthatfromFEM(PLAXIS)analysis,bothforoptimisedandnonoptimisedCSS.InloadCase 1,theLEanalysiswithoptimisationreducesthedifferencebetweeninFOS.Incontrasttothis,a largedifferenceisfoundinthesaturatedslopeforhydrostaticporepressuredistributions.As theexternalloadsandGWTincreaseinaslope,thedifferenceinFOSincreasessimultaneously. Moreover,theFOSisleastaffectedbyoptimisationofthehydrostaticconditions.Thisindicates that LE analysis cannot adjust the changes in stresses with the change in strains during the simulation,whichtheFEmethodcanhandlemoreeffectively.
3.3.3 Parameterstudies
3.3.3.1 Dilatancyparameter
ApositivecontributiontotheFOSwasfoundbyintroductionofthedilatancyparameterinthe FE analyses. This parameter describes the volume expansion of soils under plastic flow, particularly found in sand, silty sand and overconsolidated clays. The dilatancy angle () is related to the volumetric strain ( v ) and axial strain ( a ) in plastic conditions (Nordal 2002), anditisexpressedby:
p p
p a
2 sin sin 1
(3.2)
37
According to Nordal and Glaamen (2004), a modest improvement in FOS of about 6% can be foundifthedilatancyangleisintroducedintheFEanalysis.Intheirstudy,theimprovement was found for about 100 less than the friction angle (). Also in this study, the use of (= 100)inFEsimulationsgavesignificantincreaseintheFOS.Threeloadcasesweresimulated in PLAXIS and a range of the magnitude increase was found accordingly. The FOS from the PLAXISanalysesarecomparedinFig.3.19,wheretheFOS(legend)relatestothecurvesfrom toptobottomrespectively.PLAXIS(2004)hasincorporatedasaplasticpotentialfunction(g), whichwasdiscussedinSection2.3.3.
1.8 1.6
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
(1*): F =1.716 (1): F =1.654 (3*): F =0.995 (3): F =0.930 (2a*): F =0.866 (2a): F =0.786
Factor of safety
1.6
2.0
Deformation (Ux), m
Fig.3.19EffectofthedilatancyparameteronFOS(*with = 200, 150forlayers1,2) Fig. 3.20 shows a range of improved FOS due to the application of . As indicated, the improvementrangesfrom4%inadryslopeto10%inasaturatedslope.Itmeans,thedifference betweenFOSfromLEandFEanalysescanbeminimalifadilatancyangleisintroducedinthe FEanalyses,andanoptimisationiscarriedoutintheLEanalyses.
12
Improved FOS (%)
10.2 7.0 3.7
9 6 3 0 Case 1 (Dry slope)
Case 3 (Externals)
Case 2a (Hydrostatic pp)
Fig.3.20ImprovementinFOSbypositive( = 200, 150 forlayers1,2) 38
ForCase3,theuseofadilatancyangleinPLAXISandthecorrespondingFOS(F=0.995,seeFig. 3.19)isdirectlycomparabletotheFOS(F=0.986,seeFig.3.15)obtainedfromCSSoptimisation inSLOPE/W(MPM).

3.3.3.2 Intersliceforcefunction
ThePLAXISsimulationwasalsousedtocomparetheintersliceforcefunction,definedasT/E= .f(x).Theinterslicenormalforce(E)andshearforce(T)weredeterminedat1mintervalsand plotted together with similar results obtained from SLOPE/W and SLIDE for theMP method. Fig.3.21showsthecomparisonoftheintersliceforcefunctionforCase3.Theslopeprofileand theSSidentifiedbyPLAXISarealsoplottedontherightaxis,andindicatedbythedottedlines.
1.2
PLAXIS SLIDE SLOPE/W SS from PLAXIS
15
Interslice force function (T/E)
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
35
40
Distance (m)
Height (m)
Slope profile
Fig.3.21IntersliceforcefunctionforLoadCase3 The selected halfsine function in SLIDE and SLOPE/W results in almost identical shape. SLOPE/Wfindsexactlythesameshapeashalfsinefunctionat=0.8,whereasSLIDEshowsa marginal difference in shape at a lower value of . In contrast, PLAXIS finds an irregular functionwithconsiderabledifferenceatthecrestandtoeoftheslope.Thehigherintersliceshear force at thecrest found in PLAXIS is the result of surcharge load. In the middle of the SS, the function is almost constant except few peaks. However, this may vary with the change in geometry and the load conditions, and thus cannot be generalised for all conditions. Nevertheless,thestudyshowsthattheintersliceforcesarenotthesameinLEandFEanalyses, especiallyatthecrestandtoeoftheslope.
3.3.3.3 Criticalshearsurfaceandlineofthrust
ThecriticalSSobtainedfromFEandLEanalysesarecomparedinFig.3.22againforCase3.The FE analysis finds the SS at more shallow depths compared to the LE analysis. Both SLOPE/W and SLIDE (MPM) have identified almost the same SS. In contrast, the PLAXIS analysis has SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 39
identifiedaslightlydifferentshapeThus,itcanbeconcludedthattheCSSobtainedfromtheLE andFEanalysesarenotthesame.Thisresultsinfurtherdifferenceinnormalandshearstresses, andsubsequentlyintheFOS.Furthermore,theCSSfromPLAXISisfoundcompositeSS(plane inthemiddleandcircularatends),asfirstdefinedbytheGPSmethod(Janbu1973).
Distance (m)
0 0 5 10 15 20
PLAXIS
25
30
35
Depth of critical SS (m)
-2 -4 -6 -8
SLIDE SLOPE
Fig.3.22CriticalSSfromFEandLEmethodsforLoadCase3
Likewise, the lines of thrust obtained from SLIDE (MPM) and PLAXIS are compared in Fig. 3.23.TherightsideaxisisagainrelatedtoCSSandslopeprofileasinFig.3.21.Thecomparison shows that the application points of interslice normal force in FE and LE analyses are not the same.However,thelocationmayvarywiththechangeingeometryandtheloadconditions.
0.90
Location of thrust line from base (of h)
15
0.75 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 PLAXIS SLIDE (M-PM) Slope Profile SS (PLAXIS) 0
10
Distance (m)
Height (m)
Fig.3.23LocationofthelineofthrustfromFEandLEmethodsforLoadCase3
40
In thisanalysis, MPM gives the line of thrust lower at thecrest; slightly higher inthe middle andunreasonablyhighatthetoe(seeFig.3.23andFig.3.22).Thisfindingindicatesthatthesine function does not represent the static situation very well particularly in the toe region. Ideally the thrust line, for example in Janbus GPS method, should be located between 0.2h and 0.4h fromthebaseoftheSS,wherehistheheightoftheslices(Abramsonetal.2002).Janbu(1973) also states, the line of thrust should be located somewhat lower than h/3 from the SS in the active zone (crest) and higher than h/3 in the passive zone (toe) for cohesive soils. Thus, the unlike line of thrust and the interslice force function in the LE and FE analyses may further explainthedifferencesinbasenormalforceandhencethedifferenceinFOS.
3.3.4 Summaryofthecomparativestudy
TheLEandFEanalysismethodsarebasedontwodifferentprinciples,andhencetheanalysis approachesresultindifferenceincommutatedFOS.Theconductedstudyofthesimpleslope analyses with various load conditions shows that LE (MP) analysis always computes higher FOS ranging from 5 14% compared to the FE (PLAXIS) analysis. However, the difference in FOSmaybelimitedtowithin5%evenintheworsecase,i.e.fullysaturatedconditions,iftheFE analysis is performed with a positive dilatancy angle about 10 less than the angle of friction, andtheLEanalysiswithoptimisationofthecircularCSS.Moreelaborateddiscussionsonthe comparisonsbetweentheLEandFEmethodshavebeenpresentedinChapter7.
0
41
Chapter4
DataCollectionforCaseStudy
4.1 Sitevisitforcasestudy
Site visits were performed for the case study taken from Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project(MMHEP)inNepal.Thepurposeofthevisitswastocollectnecessarydata,reports,and soil samples for subsequent laboratory investigations. However, the final aim was to use the investigatedshearstrengthparametersinslopestabilityevaluations.Inaddition,theaimofthe visits was to evaluate existing conditions in the slopes situated at dam site left bank (LB) (see Fig.4.1)andpowerhousearea(seeFig.4.2).Theprojectwith76MWinstalledcapacityaimsto generate470GWhofannualenergyfromyear2007(CES2005).
Fig.4.1DamsiteLBslope(MMHEP)inNepal(photofrom2003)
42
Chapter4Datacollectionforcasestudy
At the time of the first site visit in June 2003, the dam site LB slope was graded permanently, vegetationswereplantedanddrainagesystemswereconstructedasshowninFig.4.1. Primarily, two types of soil origins were found in the dam site LB slope. The upper layer consists of alluvial material, whereas the lower layer originates from mudflow deposit from a suddenlargescalemudflowevent(Yamanaka&Iwata1982).Thoughthereisnotaverydistinct layer boundary, the upper layer is assumed to reach up to El 633 masl in the present study. Likewise,thelowerlayerisassumedtoreachEl.589masl,fromwhereastiffersoilisexpected. Similarly,thepowerhouseslope(seeFig.4.2)wasexcavatedtemporarily,andcoveredpartlyby plastic to minimise surface erosion. Besides this, there were drainage systems in the slopes furtherrightofthepenstockalignment.Thesoilboundaryisdominatedbyalluvialdepositson the upper terrace up to El. 540 masl. The lower terrace consists of glaciofluvial deposits approximatelydowntoEl.520masl(Fichtner2003).
Fig.4.2Powerhouseslope(temporary)atMMHEPinNepal(photofrom2003)
Thevisitsweresuccessfulwithrespecttocollectionofthefollowingdataandinformationfrom theprojectsite: relevantgeological,geotechnicalandhydrologicaldata, previoustestresults,designparametersandcalculationsforslopestabilityanalyses, informationaboutgroundwaterandinstalledinstrumentationintheslopes, collectionofsoilsamplesfromtheslopesforsubsequentlaboratoryinvestigations,and insituindextests,sitephotographs,drawings,standpipesandpiezometerrecords,etc. 43
4.2 Instrumentation
ThedamsiteLBslopehasbeeninstrumentedwithfiveopentypestandpipespiezometersclose tothedamaxis(seeFig.4.1).Thepurposeofthesepiezometersistomonitorthegroundwater table(GWT),variationsduringconstructionperiodaswelllaterduringoperation.Inaddition, fivepressurereliefwellsareplannedforinstallationalongthebaseoftheslopeasindicatedin Fig.4.1.Likewise,therewillbeinclinometersinstalledintheslopetomonitordeformationsand slope movement. The powerhouse slope is instrumented with two piezometers installed as showninFig.4.2.Furtherpiezometerandinclinometerinstallationsareplanned.Therecorded GWTforbothcasestudiesarepresentedlatersectionsinthisChapter.
4.3 Drainagesystems
BothsurfaceandsubsurfacedrainagesystemshavebeenconstructedinthedamsiteLBslope. Accordingly, 1525 m long perforated horizontal drainage pipes have been installed. In addition, surface runoff has been channelled along the berms that have been constructed at every 7 m height on the slope (refer Fig. 4.1). Moreover, vegetation has been planted on the slope to minimise surface erosion and reduce percolation during the monsoon period. As a result,acertainlevelofsuctioncanbeexpectedabovetheGWT. Similarly,thepermanentslopesinthepowerhouseareawillhavethesameprovisionasinthe damsiteLBslope.However,moreseepagewaterwasseenfromthepowerhouseslopesabove theswitchyardareaandadditionaldrainagepipeswerebeinginstalledduringthefirstvisit.
4.4 Soilsampling
Four disturbed soil samples, but representative to the case slopes were collected from the locationsmarkedinFig.4.1(d1,d2)andFig.4.2(p1,p2).Assaidabove,thepurposeofsampling was to obtain samples for subsequent laboratory investigations. These investigations were carried out to characterise the materials and determine relevant parameters for slope stability analyses. The sampling locations and symbols are summarised in Table 4.1. The laboratory investigationsofthesoilsampleshavebeenpresentedinChapter5.
Table 4.1 Sampling location and adopted symbols

Site Damsite LBslope Powerhouse slope Sample d1 d2 p1 p2 Location SlopeatEl.640masl SlopeatEl.626masl SlopeatEl.561masl SlopeatEl.540masl Samplingmethod Disturbed(bag)sampleswere collectedfromnaturalsoil depositsabouthalfameter belowtheexistingground surface.
44
Chapter 4 Data collection for case study
4.5 Climaticconditions
ThecasestudyareawithitstropicalclimatehasstrongmonsoonrainfallsinthemonthsofJune, July and August. According to the altitude, the temperature varies from place to place and season to season. The dam site and powerhouse area is located between elevations 500 700 masl. The temperature can be experienced up to 40 0C in the summer, whereas it may drop down to 5 0C in the winter. Similarly, spatial variations in rainfall can be experienced. The eastern part of the country gets more rain compared to the western. The maximum annual rainfall (>4000 mm) has been recorded at a place called Lumle near Pokhora, which is not far fromtheMMHEPsite.Table4.2showsaverageannualrainfallforbotha10yearperiod(1994 03)andyear2003recordedatthenearestthreerainfallstationsinLamjungdistrict(DHM2004).
Table 4.2 Rainfall records in nearby three stations (DHM 2004)

Stationname KudiBazar Kunchha District Lamjung Lamjung IndexNo 0802 0807 0823 Elevation(masl) 823 855 1120 10yravg(mm) 3526 2794 3204 Yr2003(mm) 3849 2620 3665
Gharedhunga Lamjung
30 km
Fig.4.3LocationofraingaugesaroundtheMMHEP(DHM/N2004)
TherainfallsstationslocatedaroundtheprojectsiteareshowninFig.4.3.TheMarsyangdiRiver valley is close to the Annapurna Himalaya range along the China boarder and thus, a lot of rainfalloccursinthemonsoon.Thetenyearsaverageannualrainfall(3200mm)indicatesthat theprojectareawillhaveasubstantialamountofraineveryyear(datasource:DHM/N2004). Out of this, nearly 70% rainfall occurs in the monsoon period. During this period, geohazards SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
45
duetothelandslidesandfloodsareexperiencedalloverthecountry.Fig.4.4showstheaverage monthlyrainfallvariationswithapeakofmorethan1100mmintheyear2003,whereasthe10 yearsaverageisslightlylower.Thisshowsthatnotonlythemonthlyrainfallvariationislarge, buttheyearlyvariationinthemonsoonperiodmayalsobehigheraroundtheprojectarea.

1200
Averagerainfall(m m )
Yr03(3st.avg.)
1000
Yr9403(3st.avg.)
800 600 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months(1=January) Fig.4.4Averagemonthlyrainfalldistributionfromnearbystations
4.6 Groundwaterrecords
The groundwater records for the slopes were obtained from the piezometer installations. Fig. 4.5showstheGWTinthedamsiteLBslope.Theelevationshownreferstothegroundelevation wherethepiezometersareinstalled.Thepiezometer,DPZ3hassomemissingrecordsduetoa fault. Even higher GWT especially at the toe of the slope can be expected when the reservoir levelisincreasedtoEl.626maslduringthepowerplantoperationalstage.
628 624
GWT(m)
620 616 612 608 604 600 596 592 01.10.02
DPZ1 (El. DPZ5 (El. DPZ2 (El. DPZ3 (El.
647m) 635m) Damsite Left Bank Slope 633m) 619m)
29.01.03
29.05.03
26.09.03
24.01.04
23.05.04
20.09.04
18.01.05
18.05.05
15.09.05
Dates(dd.mm.yy)
Fig.4.5GroundwatervariationsonthedamsiteLBslope(Fichtner2005)
46
554 550 546
PPZ1 (El. 561m) PPZ6 (El. 533m)

Powerhouse Slope
GWT(m)
542 538 534 530 526 522 20.03.03
18.06.03
16.09.03
15.12.03
14.03.04
12.06.04
10.09.04
Date(dd.mm.yy)
Fig.4.6Groundwatervariationsinpowerhouseslope(Fichtner2005) Similarly,twopiezometerreadingsfromthepowerhouseslopeareshowninFig.4.6.Theupper piezometer has no recordings after March 2004 due to some technical problems of the equipment.ComparedtothedamsiteLBslope,thereareverylittlefluctuationsinGWTinthis slope.Thisindicatesthatthereisacontinuoussourceofgroundwaterintheslope.Groundwater springswerealsoobservedinthenearbyareasduringthesitevisitinJune2003. TheGWT,whichhasbeenincludedintheslopestabilityanalyses,issummarisedinTable4.2. Amongthefivepiezometersatthedamsite(seeFig.4.1),fourarefunctional(seeFig.4.5)and out of them, three (except DPZ5), are considered useful to define the GWT and pore pressure variations for stability analyses. DPZ5 is located further upstream and is not relevant for the consideredslopeprofiles.
Table 4.3 Input parameters for the groundwater table (GWT) (Fichtner 2005)
Slopelocation Piezometer Reference DamsiteLB Powerhouse ThehighestGWTrepresentsthewetseasonconditions,whereasthelowestGWTindicatesthe dryseason,anddefinedaccordinglyinslopestabilityanalysesinChapter6. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 47 DPZ1 DPZ2 DPZ3 PPZ1 PPZ6 GroundEl. (masl) 647 633 619 561 533 GWT(masl) Dryseason 623 605 595 553 524 Wetseason 628 615 605 555 527
4.7 Seismicstudy
Nepalliesinaseismicallyactivezonewheretheseismiceventsareresultsoftectonicsettingsin theHimalayas.ThenorthwardmotionoftheIndianplateunderneathTibetcontinuestodayat an estimated rate of about 30 mm per year (Dixit et al. 1999). This induces wide spread deformation, faulting and thrusting of rocks, giving rise to the mountains. Moreover, seismic activity in the Himalayan range is particularly related to the faulting and thrusting caused by theMainCentralThrust(MCT),theMainBoundaryThrust(MBT)andtheMainFrontalThrust (MFT)(NSCN1994). Historicalearthquakesofhighermagnitudehaveoccurredduetothefaultsandthrusts.Recent studiesindicatethatdevastatingearthquakesareinevitableinthelongterm(Dixitetal.1999). Theprojectsitespecificseismichazardstudyhasreportedmajorearthquakeswithmagnitudes betweenM6.4andM8occurredwithin200kmdistance(Nepal&Olsson2001). Seismic forces travel some distance from the origin before their effects can be seen on the ground. Sitespecific hazards depend on the intensity of ground shaking, the frequency of the ground and the structure, duration of shaking and the magnitude of earthquakes. Moreover, earthquakesareconsideredasrandomeventsandthustheassociatedgroundresponse,i.e.peak ground acceleration (PGA), is assumed to be lognormal distributed (SILT 2001). The level of continuous ground shaking is usually in the order of 60% of PGA, but the seismic design coefficientsaresuggestedtoscaledownto35%ofPGAbasedontheriskanalysis(ICOLD1989). Accordingtotheriskanalysis,seismicdesigncoefficientsfortheprojectweresuggestedfortwo levelsofearthquakes.Oneisoperatingbasisearthquakes(OBE)andtheothermaximumdesign earthquakes (MDE). Accordingly, horizontal seismic design coefficients ( h ) for bedrock were recommended for two levels; as 0.16 for OBE and 0.25 for MDE conditions. Moreover, the recommendation for OBE level was based on a return period of 200 years, whereas the MDE levelwasbasedonareturnperiodof1000years(SILT2001). Basedonthesitespecificseismicstudy,avalueof h =0.15wasselectedforpseudostaticslope stabilityanalyses(Fichtner2000).However,forthespillwayfoundationdesign,ahighervalueof thehorizontal( h =0.33)andverticalcoefficients( v =0.16)wererecommended,basedonthe MDElevelandthelocalgroundconditions(Nepal&Olsson2001).
4.8 Previoustestresults
Extensive geotechnical investigations were carried out during the detailed feasibility study for the project (Fichtner, NEA, NGI, SILIT 2000/2001). In the field investigations for the dam and powerhouse sites, several boreholes were drilled and test pits were excavated for subsequent laboratoryinvestigations.Theselectedtestresultsaresummarisedinthefollowingsections.
48
4.8.1 Indextests
TwotestsfromdamsiteLBarea(DPT8,DPT11)andtwotestsfrompowerhousearea(PTP2, PTP4b)wereselectedamongmanyothers.TheirindexpropertiesaregiveninTable4.4.These samples carried more fines compared to the others, and hence could be representative to silty sandsimilartothesoilsfoundinthepresentstudy.
Table 4.4 Summary of previous index tests (Fichtner, NEA, NGI and SILT 2000/2001)
Test no. w(%) DTP8 DTP11 PTP2 PTP4b Thetestsampleswerecollectedfromtheexcavatedpitsclosetothegroundsurface.Asaresult, other tests (not included here) showed coarser fractions, and accordingly the soils were classifiedaseithergravellysandorsandygravel(Fitchner2001).Therefore,theindexproperties giveninTable4.4canberegardedasindicatorstodescribethenonhomogeneouspropertiesof the soils. The permeability coefficients are similar to those obtained in the present tests (refer Chapter5). 13.0 9.0 10.0 13.4 Moisture content Compactiontest (d(max))(OMC) (kN/m3) 20.1 20.7 18.1 17.4 w(%) 10.4 8.5 12.8 7.5 Perme ability k(m/s) 210-7 810-7 710-5 Grain density s (g/cm3) 2.67 Grainsizedistribution(%) FinesSandGravel <75m <2mm 31 26 19 35 49 33 39 44 >2mm 20 41 42 21
4.8.2 Directshearboxandtriaxialtests
4.8.2.1 Directshearboxtests
Table 4.5 shows the shear strength parameters obtained from the direct shear box tests. The compactiondetailswerenotavailable.Thestrengthparametersfromdirectshearboxtestsare generallyhighercomparedtothetriaxialtests,whichisdiscussedinthefollowingsection.
Table 4.5 Summary of direct shear tests (Fichtner and NEA 2001)
Testno. DTP8 DTP11 Fig. 4.7 also shows the results from direct shear box test on samples of the mudflow deposit fromthedamsiteLBslope(Nepal&Olsson2001).Thecohesionrangesfrom12to14kPaand the friction angles from 32 to 42, depending on the strain levels. The lower range parameter SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods c(kPa) 20 20 (0) 40.5 40.5 Testno. PTP2 PTP4b c(kPa) 0 0 (0) 41.7 51.6
49
values are very close to the results obtained from drained triaxial tests in this study; see the triaxialtestresultsinChapter5.Thedirectboxsheartestsforalluvialmaterials(notpresented herein)showedevenhighervariationsinthestrengthparameters.Exceptionallyhighvariations werefoundinthecohesion(0to50kPa)andfrictionangles(27to460)(Fichtner,2001).
400 350
c=14kPa, =420 c=12kPa, =390 c=13kPa, =320
ShearStress(kPa)
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Normalstress(kPa)
Fig.4.7Resultsfromdirectshearboxtestonmudflowmaterial(Nepal&Olsson2001)
4.8.2.2
Triaxialtests
Previous triaxial tests results with consolidation stresses are presented in Table 4.6. Two samples, DTP9 from the dam site LB (mudflow deposits) and PTP4 from the powerhouse (alluvialdeposits),weretestedinanisotropicallyconsolidated(K0 =0.43),undrainedconditions fordisturbedsamples(NGI2001).Inaddition,thetestswereconductedatlowaxialstrainrates (1 1.5 %/hr) for larger size specimens (A = 40 cm2, h = 14 cm). Based on the grain size distribution of PTP4 sample (34 % fines, 56 % sand and 10 % gravel), the material was accordinglyclassifiedassiltysand,thesameasthematerialinvestigatedinChapter5.
Table 4.6 Previous triaxial test results (NGI 2001)

Testno. DTP9.1 DTP9.2 DTP9.3 PTP4.1 PTP4.2 PTP4.3 50 wi(%) 10.7 10.7 10.9 14.7 16.0 15.4 (kN/m3) 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.1 22.0 22.1 1(kPa) 467 736 939 170 290 470 3(kPa) 198 316 404 72 122 198 (%) 97.2 90.8 95.2 98.5 98.5 97.2 4 34 20 40 c(kPa) (0)
Theeffectivestresspathsandthefailureenvelopforeachtestweredrawnat =2%strainby NGI(2001).Thesummaryplotsweredrawnfromindividualstresspaths,andthetestresultsfor DTPsampleandPTPsamplearegiveninFig.4.8.Thestrengthparametersobtainedfromthese plotsaregiveninTable4.6.
1800 1500 1200 900

Failure at 2%
250
= 1/2( 1 ' - 3 '), kPa
= 1/2( 1 ' - 3 '), kP a
c' = 20.0 kPa 0 ' = 40.0
200 150 100 50 0 0 50
c' = 4.0 kPa ' = 34.0

0
600 300 0 0 400 800
DTP9.1 DTP9.2 DTP9.3
Failure at 2% PTP4.1 PTP4.2 PTP4.3
1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
100 150
200 250 300
350 400
'av =1/2( 1' + 3'), kPa
'av = 1/2( 1 ' + 3'), kPa
a)Mudflowdeposits(damsiteLBslope)
b).Alluvialdeposits(powerhouseslope)
Fig.4.8Previoustriaxialtestresultsformudflowandalluvialdeposits(NGI2001)
Basedonthetriaxialtestresults,theshearstrengthparameterswereselectedforpreviousslope stabilitycomputations.Despitethesaturatedspecimens(seeTable4.6),thehighcohesionfound in the mudflow material was neglected assuming that this might have appeared due to the suctionpresentedinunsaturatedcondition(Fichtner2001).Thestrengthparametersfromdirect shear box tests (not effective) and previous triaxial tests (effective) are compared in Table 4.7. TheselectedstrengthparametersforthestabilityanalysesarealsogiveninTable4.7.
Table 4.7 Strength parameters from previous tests (Fichtner 2001, Nepal & Olsson 2001)
Parameters Directshearboxtest Triaxialtest Selectedparameters
Mudflowdeposits(damsite) (kN/m3) 21.5 23 23 c(kPa) 25 20 0 () 40 40 40
Alluvialdeposits(powerhouse) (kN/m3) 21.5 22 22 c(kPa) 5 4 0 () 41 34 35
The strength parameters from the previous triaxial tests are on higher side for the mudflow deposits than the present triaxial tests (refer Chapter 5). The present undrained triaxial tests SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 51
showthecohesionintherangeof510kPaandfrictionangle30330.However,theseparameters areslightlyhigher(c=1014kPaand =32340)indrainedtriaxialtestsathigherstrainlevels.
4.9 Previousstabilityevaluations
4.9.1 Soilstratification
Inthepreviousstabilityanalyses,thetopsoillayeratthedamsiteLBwasassumedabout1015 m deep (see Fig. 4.1). Moreover, the layer had originated from alluvial deposits of silty sand, which contain subrounded to subangular pebbles of quartzite, gneiss and schist. The middle layer was identified as mudflow deposits, which was assumed to extend to the bedrock or stiffersoils.Themudflowhadfractionsofsiltyfinesandandgravelwithcalcareouscementation (Fichtner2000).Insuchmaterials,itwasdifficulttogetundisturbedsamples.Nevertheless,the material seemed to be high cohesion, low porosity and low permeability from the visual inspection(Brauns2000). Similarly,thepowerhouseslope(seeFig.4.2)wasfoundtoconsistofalluvialdepositsabout15 mthick,reachinguptoEl.554masl.Below,greycolouredglaciofluvialdepositsof25mthick wasassumeduptotheEl.530masl,whereabout10mthicksandlayerwasfound.Thislayer wasfollowedbythebedrockatapproximatelyEl.520masl.Theslopeareaingeneralwasfound to consist of fine to mediumgrained sand and silt with the presence of boulders, cobbles and pebbleswithfewclayeypockets(Fichtner2000).
4.9.2 Groundwaterconditions
In the damsite LB slope, the GWT was considered at themaximum daily poundage level (El. 626 masl) for the previous stability analyses. However, more details of the pore pressure distributionsusedinthepreviousanalyseswerenotfound.Ithasbeenfoundfromthepresent analyses (refer Chapter 6) that the assumptions of porepressure distributions, for example horizontalGWTandhydrostaticdistributionsorinclinedGWTandphreaticlevelcorrectionor seepage analysis, have large variations in both location of CSS and FOS. Similarly, the GWT, whichwasfound8mbelowthegroundsurfaceatthecrestand3mbelowatthetoe,wasused to analyses the powerhouse slope (Fichtner, 2001). The present recordings of GWT have been foundcoupleofmetershigherthanthepreviousGWTassumptions,referringtothestandpipes readings(DPZ1andPPZ1,seeTable4.3).
4.9.3 Shearstrengthparameters
The selected shear strength parameters given in Table 4.7 were used in the stability analyses. The parameters for both mudflow and alluvial deposits were considered for the dam site LB slopestabilityanalyses.However,thepowerhouseslopewasassumedtoconsistofasinglesoil layerandanalysedusingthestrengthparametersapplicabletoalluvialdeposits.Thereasonfor 52
this simplification was the erratic distribution of silt and sand with some minor gravel and clayeypocketsbetweentheupperandlowerterraces(Fichner2001).Thisassumptionprovedto berepresentative,sincetheshearstrengthresultsforthesamplesp1andp2,obtainedfromthe presentstudy,turnedouttobethesame(seeTable5.6inChapter5).
4.9.4 Stabilityanalysesandresults
Previous static stability analyses were performed with three different computer programs: SLIDE,XSTABLandSTABLE.Similarly,dynamicanalysiswascarriedoutinPLAXIS(Fichtner, NGI 2001). Bishops simplified method and MohrCoulomb failure criterion for the shear strengthwereconsideredintheanalyses.Inaddition,bothdeepandshallowcircularCSSwere analysed and accordingly, the minimum FOS was limited to 1.5 and 1.25, respectively. Similarly,theFOSof1.05wasregardedastheabsoluteminimumforthepseudostaticanalysis (Fichtner2001). SincetheCSSisnotcircularinthefrictionalsoils,thestabilityoftheslopeswasalsoevaluated by handcalculation methods. Accordingly, an infinite slope was assumed and the following relationshipswereusedinthecomputations(Abramsonetal.2002,Fichtner2001). Withoutanyexternalforces,i.e.selfweight(static):
F=
tan ' tan
(4.1)
Withearthquakeinadditiontoselfweight(pseudostaticanalysis):
F= tan ' (1 h tan v ) tan (1 + h cot v )
(4.2)
Seepageparalleltotheslopeinclination:
F= tan ' tan ' ' ( '+ w ) tan 2 tan
(4.3)
Seepageinhorizontaldirection:
F=
( ' w tan2 ) tan ' tan ' ( '+ w ) tan 2 tan
(4.4)
where,
=effectivefrictionangle, =slopeinclinationangle, h/v =seismiccoefficientsinhorizontal/verticaldirections, = w=submergedoreffectiveunitweightofsoils,and

53
w=unitweightofwater.
The Eqs. (4.3) and (4.4) show that the stability of a slope in cohesionless soils is significantly reduced due to the presence of groundwater. However, the effect of pore pressure in the mudflowdepositswillbenegligiblesincedeepseatedfailuresarenotexpected(Fichtner2001). Inaddition,thefailuresurfaceabovetheGWTinthemoistzonewillinvolveapparentcohesion orsuctionduetoporewaterairpressure,whichincreasesthesafetyoftheslope.However,this situationmaynotexitduringthemonsoonperiod,whenthetopfewmetersissaturateddueto therainwater.TheresultsfrompreviousstabilityanalysesarepresentedinTable4.8.
Table 4.8 Summary of previous stability analyses (Fichtner 2001)

Slope Loadscases Static,local DamsiteLB slope Static,global Pseudostatic Powerhouse slope Static,local Static,global Pseudostatic SLIDE software 1.33 1.63 1.17 1.36 1.53 1.08 Handcalculation methods 1.22 1.59 1.14 1.33 1.61 1.12 Recommended minimumFOS 1.25 1.50 1.05 1.25 1.50 1.05
TheFOSobtainedfromhandcalculationswasregardedasindicativevalue.Thefrictionangle (400) for the mudflow materials was used for the dam site LB slope, whereas the powerhouse slopewasanalysedassumingalluvialsoilconditions,whichhaslowerfrictionangle(350).The analysescarriedoutbytheproperuseofsoillayers,asexplainedinSection4.9.1,andproperties inSLIDEwasalsofoundsimilartothehandcalculations,andhence,boththeslopesatdamsite LBandpowerhouseweredesignedaccordingly(Fichtner2001).
54
Chapter5
LaboratoryInvestigations
5.1 Soilphasediagram
Naturalsoilsconsistofthreephases;solids,liquidsandgas.Amixtureofthesephaseshasbeen showninFig.5.1byaschematicphasediagram,whichshowsacomplexsoilskeleton.Basicsoil properties are important parameters not only to classify and identify the soils, but also to understandthesoilbehaviour.Moreover,thediagramisconvenientforderivationofimportant phaserelationshipssincetheweightandvolumeofeachphasecannotbedirectlymeasured. Weight Volume
Va Vv V Vw V
Volume
Weight Gas
Wa = 0 Ww W
Liquid
Vs
Solids
Ws
a)Naturalsoils
b)Phasediagram
Fig.5.1Schematicphasediagramfornaturalsoils V = total volume, Va = air volume, Vw = water volume, Vs = solid volume, W = total weight, Wa=airweight,Ww=waterweight,andWs =solidweight. The relevant phase relationships are defined and presented under the corresponding in situ testingandlaboratoryinvestigationscarriedoutforthecasestudies. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
55
5.2 Insitutesting
A few index tests were conducted by the author at the field laboratory. The purpose of conductingsuchtestswastoidentifytheinsituindexpropertiesofsoilsamplesandcompare themwithbuiltinspecimensusedforthepermeabilityandtriaxialtests.Moreover,thebuiltin specimens were based on the Standard Proctor test. Thus, the in situ index test results were directlycomparedwiththeresultsfromthoseobtainedinthistest.
Densitytest
Asimplewatervolumetestwasconductedtofindindicativevaluesoftheinsitudensityofthe soils.Accordingly,theloosesoilsonthegroundsurfacewereremovedfirst,andthesoilsamples werecollectedfromapproximately10cmdepthina10cmdiameterhole.Similarly,thevolume oftheholewasdeterminedbyfillingwaterinathinplasticbag.Thus,thebulkdensityofthe soils()wasdeterminedbyEq.(5.1):
total mass of sample m = total volume of sampe V
(5.1)
Moisturecontent
Theinsitumoisturecontentwasdeterminedbydryingthesamplefor24hours,andthemassof waterwasthereafterdetermined.Thus,themoisturecontent(w)wascomputedbyEq.(5.2):
w=
mass of water mw 100% = mass of solids ms
(5.2)
Drydensity
The in situ dry density (d) was obtained based on the in situ bulk density and the moisture contentbyEq.(5.3):
d =
m dry mass of sample = s = total volume of sample V 1 + w
(5.3)
Porosity
Theinsituporositywascomputedfromdensityofsoilgrains(s)andthemaximuminsitudry densitybyEq.(5.4):
n = 1- d s
Unitweight
(5.4)
The in situ unit weights of soils; both bulk () and dry (d), were computed as the product of respectivedensityandtheaccelerationofgravity(g).
56
Chapter 5 Laboratory investigations
Summaryoftestresults
TheinsitutestresultsoftheinvestigatedfoursamplesarepresentedinTable5.1.Theseresults are compared with the index test results obtained from the Standard Proctor test, which is presentedlaterinthisChapter.
Table 5.1 Index test results from in situ measurements

Sample d1 d2 p1 p2
w(%) 9.5 6.1 6.0 8.7
n (%) 25.5 24.8 32.7 27.3
(kN/m3)
d (kN/m3)
20.0 20.2 18.1 20.1
S r (%)
22.0 21.5 19.2 21.9
76.0 50.7 33.7 65.3
TheinsitutestresultsarefoundmoderatelylowerthantheProctortestvalues.Thisindicates that the in situ soil is consolidated close to the Standard Proctor test at optimum moisture contentlevel.Moreover,allthesoilsampleswerefoundpartiallysaturatedinthedryseason.
5.3 Laboratorytesting
Four test samples (refer Table 4.1, Chapter 4) were investigated by the author at NTNU, Geotechnical Division. The main purpose of the investigations was to determine the relevant materialparametersrequiredforslopestabilityevaluations.
5.3.1 Indextests
The following index tests were carried out to identify and define the material characteristics. Moreover,thepurposewasalsotoclassifythesoilsbasedontheirgrainsizedistributions.
5.3.1.1 Grainsizeanalysis
Since,allfoursoilsamplesobtainedatthecasestudyslopescontainedbothfiner(d<75m)and coarser(d>0.75m)soilgrains,bothsievingandhydrometeranalyseswerecarriedoutonthe samples.Thehydrometeranalysiswasimperativebecausethecontentoffinergrainsexceeded 5%ofthetotalsoilsample(Kezdi1980).
Sieveanalysis
Accordingtothelaboratoryprocedure,about600govendriedmaterialwassievedthroughthe standardsievesizes(8mm,4mm,2mm,1mm,500 m,250 m,125 mand75 m).Washing for wet sieving was carried out by using distilled water. The dry mass of the grains from individualsievingwasusedtofindthepercentpassingandaccordinglypercentretainedfrom thesievesize.
57
Hydrometeranalysis
Acalibrated(ASTM152H)hydrometerwasusedtoanalysethefinergrains(d<75 m)inthe laboratory.Accordingtotheprocedures,adrysoilsamplewassoakedindistilledwaterfor24 hoursandmixedproperlyinastirrerwithadispersiveagentaddedtoavoidflocculationofthe grains.Thenthesuspensionwaspouredintoa1litrecylinder,andmixedbeforethesoilgrains wereallowedtosedimentinthesuspension.Thecylinderwasplacedinaconstanttemperature water bath during this procedure. Finally, the grain diameter was computed referring to the calibratedcurves.ThehydrometeranalysisprocedureisgiveninAppendixA.
Resultsofgrainsizeanalyses
The results from both analyses were combined for all four samples as shown in Fig. 5.2. The given distribution however does not include the larger gravels and boulders present in the naturalsample.Thesefractionsweretakenoutfromthesamplesatthetimeoftransportation. However,thesefractionsonlycontributedafewpercentofthetotalmassofthesample.
SILT FINE
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
CLAY
SAND COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE
GRAVEL MEDIUM COARSE
MEDIUM
RO CK
0 10
Percent passing by weight (%)
30 40 50
d1
60 70
d2 p2
p1
80 90 100 100
Equivalent grain diameter (d), mm
Fig.5.2Grainsizedistributioncurves
Soilclassification
Thegrainsizedistributioncurvesshowthatthesoilsamplesconsistofallfractionsrangingfrom medium gravel to clay. The clay content is found between 3 % and 8 % in all soil samples. However, the content of finer grains (<75 m) are more up to 40 % in d1 and 20 % in p1. Moreover, the sand fraction, which dominates the distribution, contributes nearly 50 % of the total grains. The gravel content is the maximum in p1 (27 %) and the minimum in d1 (17 %). Similarly,thegradingnumber(Cu=d60/d10)variesfrom40to75forthesoilsamples.Basedon theseparameters,allsoilsamplesareclassifiedaswellgradedgravely,siltysandaccordingto theUnifiedSoilClassificationSystem(ASTMD2487901992). 58
Percent retained by weight (%)
20
5.3.1.2
Graindensitytest
Thedensityofthesoilgrainswasdeterminedbymeansofacalibratedpycnometer.Thetestwas carriedoutaccordingtothestandardlaboratoryproceduresinNTNU(NS80121982).Thegrain densityofsoilsample(s)wasthencomputedastheratioofmassandthevolumeofsolidsas:
s =
mass of soil solids ms ms = = volume of solids Vs ( mpw + ms mpt ) / w
(5.5)
where, ms=drymassofthesoilsampleusedinthepycnometer, mpw=massoffilleduppycnometerbydistilledwater, mpt =massofthepycnometerwithtestsampleanddistilledwater,and

w =densityofwater.
5.3.1.3 Porositylimits
The purpose of investigating the porosity limits of the soil samples was to define the relative porosityofthebuiltinspecimensforsubsequentpermeabilityandtriaxialtests.Theminimum andmaximumporositiesweredeterminedinthelaboratorybytheStandardProctorcompaction tests and dry filling respectively. However, the minimum porosity was also attempted to investigatebysubmergedvibrationprocedure,whichwasfoundunsuitableforthewellgraded soilsampleswithlargefinescontent.Theporosity(n)wasobtainedby:
n=
Volume of voids Vv e = = Total volume V e +1
(5.6)
Since the porosity and void ratio are related parameters, only the porosity determination is explained here. However, the procedure for laboratory investigations is the same for both parameters(Sandven2003).
Minimumporosity
Theattemptmadetodeterminetheminimumporosity(nmin)byawetvibrationmethodwasnot suitableforthewellgradedsiltysandsampleswithfinesof2040%.Duetothefines,thewater mixedwiththesoilsampleswasnotabletodrainoutafterthevibrations,whichresultedinless compaction.However,knowingtothemaximumdrydensity(d((max))fromtheStandardProctor testsandthedensityofsoilgrains(s)theminimumporositylimitwasdeterminedas:
nmin = 1
d(max) s
(5.7)
Nevertheless, for verification purposes, the wet vibration method was carried out for the d2 sample according to the utilised laboratory procedure. As a result, the minimum porosity of 39.1% was obtained. This value was found much higher than the minimum porosity of 23.4%
SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 59
obtained from the Standard Proctor test. Therefore, the values from the Standard Proctor test wereconsideredrepresentativetotheminimumporosity,whichwasfoundclosetotheinsitu minimumporosityofthetestedsoils(seeTable5.2).
Maximumporosity
As said above, the maximum porosity (nmax) was determined by dry filling method. Accordingly,drygrainsofthesoilweredroppedgentlythroughafunnel,avoidingfreefallof thegrains.Thecylinderwascompletelyfilledandthedrysoilmass(Ms)wasobtained.Thus,the volumeofvoids(Vv=VVs)wascomputedfromtheknownvolume(V)ofthecylinderandthe computedvolumeofdrysoil(Vs=Ms/s).Thus,thenmaxforthematerialswascalculatedas:
V nmax = v 100% V
(5.8)
5.3.1.4
Relativeporosity
Therelativeporosity(Pr)wasusedtorelatetheporosityvaluesofthebuiltinspecimenstothe obtainedporositylimits.Insteadoftherelativedensity(Dr),mostlyusedforsands,therelative porositywasconsidered.Therelativeporositywascomputedby:
Pr =
n nmin * 100% nmax nmin
(5.9)
Therelativedensityisaccordinglygivenby:
Dr = emax e * 100% emax emin (5.10)
Thebuiltinspecimensforpermeabilityandtriaxialtestsareclassifiedaccordingtotherelative porosity.TheclassificationofspecimensbasedontherelativeporosityisgiveninAppendixC.
5.3.1.5 Resultsofindextests
TheindexparametersobtainedfromtheinsituandlaboratorytestsaresummarisedinTable5.2 forthedifferentsoils.Theinsitutestswerecarriedoutinduringthesecondvisittotheproject.
Table 5.2 Soil index parameters

Insitutest Sample w (%) d1 d2 p1 p2
60
StandardProctortest n (%) 25.5 24.8 32.7 27.3 OMC (%) 8.5 8.5 12.5 7.5
Grain
Sr
Porosity P r (%) 8.1 5.8 9.2 21.3
d (kN/m3) 20.0 20.2 18.1 20.1
d
(kN/m3) 20.6 20.6 18.6 21.3
nmin
density s nmax (g/cm3) 2.74 2.74 2.73 2.82 (%) 49.2 47.6 55.4 42.8
(%) 23.4 23.4 30.4 23.1
(%) 76.2 76.2 78.1 70.4
9.5 6.1 6.0 8.7
TheinsituindexparameterswerefoundquiteclosetothevaluesobtainedfromtheStandard Proctortest,althoughtheinsitudensitytestwascarriedoutbyanapproximationmethod.The givenPrvaluesarebasedtheinsituporosity,whichindicatesthedensesoilsinthefield.
5.3.2 Mineralogicalidentification
Minerals influence the physical and chemical properties of soil grains, including the size and shape.Thepurposeofthetestwastoidentifythemineralcontentspresentinthesoilsamples. Asaresult,identificationwasconductedforthreesoilsamples(d1,p1andp2)atNTNU,Rock and Mineral Testing Laboratory, using an Xray diffraction method. The method is based on Braggslaw(Perkins1998):
n = 2d sin
where,
(5.11)
n=numberofwavelength(counts),
=wavelength, d=distancebetweentherefractionplanes(A0),and =diffractionangle. According to Perkins (1998), the intensity of the strongest peak was assigned to 100% and referencedatasetswereusedtoidentifythepresenceofminerals.Thetestswereconductedbya mineralogist in the presence of the author. The recorded data were interpreted to identify the presence of various types of minerals. Fig. 5.3 shows the measured peaks as the relationship betweenthecounts(0100%)andangle2(0600)forthep2sample.Thecountsrepresentthe relativeintensitiescomparedtothestrongest(reference)intensity.
Fig.5.3Relativeintensity,counts(%)andangle(2 )forsamplep2
SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 61
For the test, powdered samples were prepared by hand grinding and were placed inside the diffractionapparatus,whichmeasuredthepeakintensitiesanddiffractionangles(2).
5.3.2.1 Testresults
The minerals identified for three soil samples are presented in Table 5.3. Calcite, potassium feldspar and plagioclase were found in dominant presence in the slope materials. Other minerals,forexamplequartzandmicawereseentoaverysmallextent.
Table 5.3 Mineral compositions in %

Sample d1 p1 p2 The dominating presence of calcite (CaCO3) was found in the p2 sample, which was collected from the glacial deposit in the area of the powerhouse slope. The calcite must originate from various sources, for example limestone, chalk, dolostone and marble (Wenk & Bulakh 2003, Mitchell1993).AccordingtoHurlbutandSharp(1998),calciteisfoundinnaturemorethanany other mineral. It absorbs water and transmits faster than other minerals. Despite the similar grainsandindexproperties,p2samplewasfoundmorepermeablethanothers(seeFig.5.5).
5.3.2.2 Somepropertiesofcalcite
Calcite 26 2 81
Plagioclase Kfeldspar 1 56 0 40 28 15
Quartz 12 12 2
Mica 3 1 1
Calcitedisintegratesandproducescalciumhydroxideandcarbondioxidewhenitisexposedto rainwater.Moreover,therainwaterisalsoapartofacidwater,whichisveryactiveinchemical reactions(Skinner&Porter2000)as:

CaCO3 + H2O => Ca(OH)2 + CO2
5.12)
(calcite)
(water)
(calciumhydroxide)(carbondioxide)
Rainwater and carbon dioxide again produce carbonic acid (H2CO3) which further reacts with calciteanddissolutionprocessofcalcitecontinuesas:
H2O + CO2 => H2CO3
(5.13)
2(HCO3)-
(carbondioxide)
CaCO3 + H2CO3
(carbonicacid)
=> Ca2+ +
(5.14)
(calcite)(carbonicacid) (calciumion) (bicarbonateion) The above chemical reactions show that the dissolution of calcite mineral is proactive in the presence of water. Moreover, the soils containing calcite are susceptible to erosion. In the dissolutionprocess,formationofpiping,caverns,sinkholesandotherfeaturesareconsequently
62
developedasthemajorengineeringchallenges(Goodman1993).Therefore,acalcitedominated areashouldbeprotectedagainstinfiltrationofwaterandanyotherformsofacidsolutions. The rest of the identified minerals (see Table 5.3) pose no significant problem in stability of slopes,andhencetheirpropertiesareexcludedfromfurtherdiscussions.
5.3.3 Compactionandpermeabilitytests
5.3.3.1 StandardProctortest
The Standard Proctor test was carried out to determine the maximum dry density, optimum moisturecontent(OMC)andminimumporosityofthematerials.Sinceallsoilsampleswereless than4.0kg,onlygrainspassingthe8mmsievewereusedinonelitrecylindertestaccordingto the standard (Statens Vegvesen 1997). The bulk density () of the soil samples was computed from the known volume of the Proctor cylinder and the following relationship was used to computethedrydensity(d): d =
(1 + w)
(5.15)
Fig.5.4showsthetestresultsplottedasthedrydensityversusthemoisturecontent.TheOMC referstomaximumdrydensityobtainedatthepeakofthesmoothedcurve.Twosaturationlines (Sr=80%):Oneforthed1,d2andp1samples(lowerline)andanotherforthep2sample(upper line)arealsoplottedinFig.5.4.

2.4 p2 2.3 d1 d2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 p1 p2_Sr = 80% p1_Sr = 80%
Dry density (d) (g/cm3)
Moisture content (w) (%)
Fig.5.4Drydensityandmoisturecontentofsamples Thesaturationlinedependsonthegraindensity(s)anddegreeofsaturation(Sr )as:
d =
1 + w(Gs / Sr )
w Gs
(5.16)
where, SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 63
Gs =
s wGs , Sr = and e = s 1 e w d
(5.17)
Themaximumdrydensity(d(max)),OMCandthenminfromtheStandardProctortestweretaken as the recommended values for builtin permeability and triaxial test specimens in the laboratory.TheresultsfromtheStandardProctortestwereselectedbecauseofthesimilarindex propertiesfoundinthesitelaboratorytests(seeTable5.2)andconsolidatedsoils.
5.3.3.2 Permeabilitytest
Permeability tests were carried out based on the laboratory procedure established by NTNU, Geotechnical Division for finegrained materials (Sandven & Svaan 1993). The purpose of the testwastodeterminethepermeabilitycoefficientasaninputparameterinPLAXISsimulations forgroundwaterflowandsubsequentslopestabilityanalyses.Thefollowingrelationship,based onDarcyslawandcontinuityequation,wasusedtofindthepermeabilitycoefficient(k)as: k= Ql Ath (5.18)
where, Q=watervolume(cm3), l=samplelength(cm), A=crosssectionalareaofthesample(cm2), t=timerequiredforspecificwaterflow(s),and h=differenceinpotentialhead(cm). Anairpressurecontrolledapparatuswasusedtoconductthepermeabilitytests.Detailsofthe testproceduresandtestapparatusaregiveninAppendixA,SectionA.2.Boththecoefficientof permeability versus the relative porosity, and the corresponding dry density of the tested specimens,arepresentedinFig.5.5.
9
Perm. Coefficient (k) 10-7 (m/s)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 d1 d2 p1 p2
Perm. coefficient (k) 10-7 (m/s)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85
d1 d2 p1 p2
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
Relative porosity (Pr) (%)
Dry density (d) (g/cm3)
Fig.5.5Coefficientofpermeabilityfortestedspecimens 64
The test samples were builtin in a controlled way in the laboratory to assure homogeneous conditionsforthespecimen.Anundercompactionmethod,whichisdescribedinAppendixB, was adopted for the purpose. The index parameters of the builtin specimens are given in AppendixC. The coefficient of permeability of the three samples was showing a gentle variation for an increasedrelativeporosity.However,thepermeabilityingeneralmaybeaffectedalsobyother parameters.AsSandven(2003)states,Thepermeabilitycoefficientmainlydependsonthesize and shape of the soil grains and the degree of compaction, i.e. density of the soil. Moreover, thisstudyshowsthatthepermeabilitymayalsobeaffectedbythepresenceofcalcitemineral. The p2 soil sample with 81% calcite mineral (see Table 5.3) was found much more permeable thanothersoilsamples,despiteasimilarrelativeporosity(Pr)andhigherdrydensity(d).No significant variation in finer grains (see Fig. 5.2) was found in the soil. Repeated results were foundinaverificationstudy,performingadditionalpermeabilitytestonthisparticularmaterial. Moreover, plastic flow behaviour was observed around a moisture content of 15 % for this material.
5.3.3.3 Compressiontest
Thecompressionpropertiesofthesoilswereinvestigatedbytheoedometertest.Thepurposeof thetestwastoobservethestressstrainpropertiesofthesiltysandanddeterminetheoedometer modulus(Eoed)asaninputtotheFEanalyses(PLAXIS).However,thisisausefulparameterfor settlement calculations. The oedometer test is based on onedimensional consolidation theory, and is the most common way to determine the stiffness of soils in the laboratory (Janbu 1963, Sandven 1992). The testing apparatus has been presented in Appendix A, Fig. A.2. The test sampleswerebuiltininthelaboratoryandassuredtohavehomogeneousdensitythroughout thespecimen.Thedimensionsofthespecimenwere3cmheightand50cm2crosssectionalarea. ThedetailedspecimenbuiltinproceduresaregiveninAppendixB.
Testprocedure
The builtin specimens were tested in a floatingring oedometer with an incremental loading procedure.Anincrementallyincreasedverticalstress,startingat78kPaandendingat706kPa was applied and deformation with time was recorded. After completing the test, the eigendeformations of the system (filter, top cap, etc) was measured for the same equipment componentsandloadingstepsasappliedforthesoiltest.Testdatawererecordedautomatically andthetestrecordsusedtodeducethedeformationparametersofthesoil.
Testresults
Therecordedsoildeformationdatawereanalysedforoedometermodulus,andthetestresults forp2andd2materialsaregiveninFig.5.6.Bothmaterialsweretestedattwodifferentbuildin porosities.
65
30 p2.2_Pr = 25.4% 25 20 y = 26x + 11 15 y = 31x + 5 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Eoed = m v + b P2.1_Pr = 40.6%
30 d2.2_Pr = 29.4% 25 20 15 y = 24 x + 2 10 5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 y = 22 x + 0 Eoed = m v + b d2.1_Pr = 49.2%
E oed (MPa)
v (kPa)
Eoed (MPa)
V (kPa)
Fig.5.6Oedometermodulusforp2andd2materials From the bestfit line, a relationship between the oedometer modulus (Eoed) and the modulus number(m)wasestablishedasafunctionoftheverticalstress(v).Themodulusnumberwas foundhigherthan20(seeFig.5.6).Thisrepresentssimilarpropertyasstiffclayeysoils(Janbu 1963,Sandven2002).TheEoeddependsonparameterslikeverticalstress,porosityanddegreeof saturation or moisture content (Emdal 1994, Janbu 1970, 1963). The relative porosity for each test has also been indicated in Fig. 5.6 and the specimens were builtin at the respective OMC level.Thematerialsp1andd1showedalmostidenticalresultsasobtainedforthed2material. The Eoed obtained from these tests can be considered as a guideline for selection of input parameters for the PLAXIS calculations. Compared to the triaxial modulus (E50), the Eoed was found to be low. For example, the Eoed at v =100 kPa was found to be 13 MPa for the p2.2 specimen(Pr =25.4%inFig.5.6).However,forthep2.4specimenintriaxialtest,thevalueofE50 was obtained around 30 MPa, which could be found in the oedometer test at v =700 kPa (see Fig.5.6).Similardifferenceswerealsoobtainedford2.2specimen.Thereasonofalmostdouble differencecanbeexplainedpartlyduetothedifferencesinrelativeporosities(seeTable5.2)and moisturecontents(referAppendixC,TablesC.5andC.7)andthecompletelydifferentloading stress pattern. Therefore, the latter (E50) was selected in PLAXIS simulations, considering the stiffersoilsduetooverconsolidationandlowrelativeporosityasinnaturalconditions.
5.3.4 Triaxialtests
Themainpurposeofconductingtriaxialtestswastoinvestigateshearstrengthparametersfor thestabilityanalyses.Inthetriaxialtest,thenaturaleffectivestressconditionscanbesimulated toobtainrelevantstrengthcharacteristicsofthesoil.Thetriaxialtestspecimenissurroundedby a waterproof membrane inside a pressurised chamber, which enables pore pressure inside the sample to be measured during the test. Moreover, a specimen can be consolidated for an anisotropicstress(1>2>3),orinanisotropicstress(1 =2=3)conditions(Coduto1999). 66
Total 24 specimens were investigated both consolidated undrained (CU) and consolidated drained (CD) conditions. These abbreviated terms are referred by U and D in the later expressions. Table 5.4 shows the conducted tests in this study. Three tests of one type of soil were conducted at three different stress levels to define precisely the MohrCoulomb failure envelope.
Table 5.4 Summary of conducted triaxial tests

Sample Testtypes U p1.1 Symbols p1.2 p1.3 TheaimofcarryingoutbothUandDtestswastoinvestigatethedifferenceinshearstrength parameters, and use them accordingly for various situations in the stability analyses. For example, undrained conditions may be related to earthquakes events and the corresponding undrainedstrengthparametersarehencemorerelevantintheanalyses. TheprincipledifferencebetweenUandDtestwasrelatedtothemodeofshearingandthepore pressures developed. The dissipation of pore pressure during shearing was not allowed in U tests,whereasdrainagewaspermittedinDtests.Moreover,higherstrainrateinUtests(2%/hr) andlowerinDtests(0.5%/hr)wereapplied.TheslowerstrainrateintheDtestswasselectedto allow sufficient time to dissipate pore water from the specimen during shearing. The applied strainrateswerecheckedaccordingtotherelationshipstatedbyKezdi(1980)andfoundinthe recommended limit. The test procedures are otherwise the same for both tests. The builtin procedureofspecimens,whichisdescribedinAppendixB,SectionB.1aimedatobtainingthe targeted and consistent porosity. The obtained index parameters at three stages (building, consolidationandfailure)ofthespecimenshavebeengiveninTablesC.4C.7inAppendixC.
5.3.4.1 Triaxialtestequipment
p1 D p1.4 p1.5 p1.6 U p2.1 p2.2 p2.3
p2 D p2.4 p2.5 p2.6 U d1.1 d1.2 d1.3
d1 D d1.4 d1.5 d1.6 U d2.1 d2.2 d2.3
d2 D d2.4 d2.5 d2.6
The triaxial test equipment used in this study is shown in Fig. 5.7. In this equipment, both isotropically and anisotropically consolidated U and D tests can be performed in static condition, where the test procedures can be controlled directly by a closedloop computer program. Axial displacement, load cell and pressure transducers are used to record the test results. The pore pressure is recorded at bottom of the specimen. The load cell, which is attachedtotheloadframe,recordstheverticalappliedforce(P)onthespecimen.
67
Componentsofequipment: 1:Triaxialcell, 2:PCfordataloggingandtest control, 3:Loadframecontroller, 4:Cellpressuresupply, 5:Cellpressureandback pressurecontrolunits, 6: Burette for saturation and volumechangemeasurements 7:Axialdisplacement,and 8:Loadframewithloadcell. Fig.5.7Componentsoftheutilisedtriaxialequipment
5.3.4.2
Testprocedures
The testing procedure involves three main operations: Saturation, consolidation and shearing. TheinstallationandsaturationproceduresareexplainedindetailsinAppendixA,SectionA.4.
Saturationcontrol
Thesaturationofthespecimenwascarriedoutintwostepsbyusingbackpressuresupto800 kPa.Afurtherincreaseinbackpressurewasnotpossibleduetothelimitingcapacity(1MPa)of theequipment.However,thesaturationconditionwascheckedby conductingBtestbasedon thechangeinporeandcellpressuresas: B= u uo u = c c oc (5.19)
where,
u=u uo=changeinporepressure,and c= c oc=changeincellpressure.

TheBvaluedependsontheporosityofthesoil,thecompressibilityoftheporewaterandsoil structure(Bishop&Henkel1962,Head1985),asisgivenby:
B= 1 Cw (1 + n ) Cs (5.20)
where,n=porosityofsoil,and Cw,Cs=compressibilityofporewaterandsoilstructuresrespectively.
68
Chaney and Mulilis (1978) states: The Bvalue will be close to unity for smaller values of Cw than Cs and less porous soils. For stiff soils, lower values could be obtained even in fully saturated condition. The recorded values during the tests with the applied backpressure are given in Appendix C, Tables C.4 C.7. The obtained values range between 0.80 and 0.97. A higher Bvalue was hard to achieve for the specimens of wellgraded composition. In earlier studies(notbytheauthor),theuseofCO2 was triedwithoutsatisfactoryresults. Theminimum Bvalueforaclassifiedsaturatedresponseshouldnormallybe0.96,andabackpressureashigh as1500kPamayberequiredforaspecimenwith70%initialdegreeofsaturation(Head1989). Thedegreeofsaturationatbuiltinofspecimensrangesfrom5080%asgiveninAppendixC, TablesC.4C.7.
Consolidationandshearing
TheproceduresusedforconsolidationandshearingofspecimensareelaboratedinAppendixA, Section A.4. The failure pattern of undrained and drained shearing for p2 specimen has been compared in Fig. 5.8. The failure in undrained shearing was found very brittle (see also Fig. 5.13). Moreover, significant strain softening at low axial strain level (<1%) was also observed beyondthepeakstrengthcomparedtothespecimensfromtheothersoils.
Undrained shearing
Drained shearing
Fig. 5.8 Shape of the specimen after shearing in U and D tests

Astraincontrolapproachwasusedtoshearthespecimens.Asmentionedbefore,twodifferent strain rates were used in the U and D tests. The specimens were sheared at three different consolidationstresslevels(100,150and200kPa)todefinepreciselytheMohrCoulombfailure envelopeoveralarger,relevantstressrangefordeterminationoftheshearstrengthparameters.
69
5.3.4.3
Axialandradialstresses
Theautomaticallyrecordeddatawereanalysedseparatelyforaxialandradialeffectivestresses. ThecomputationshavebeengivenasanexampleinAppendixC,TableC.8.Theeffectiveaxial stress(a)andtheradialstress(r)werecomputedusingthefollowingrelationship:

a =
P + c ub and r = c ub Ad
(5.21)
where, P=verticalloadrecordedbyloadtransducer, Ad=correctedspecimenareafordrainedtestandAuforundrainedtest, c=appliedcellpressuremeasuredbypressuretransducer,and ub=appliedbackpressuremeasuredbypressuretransducer.
In order to compute actual stresses applied in the specimen, the initial reading of the vertical load(P)wasfirstsettozeroatthestartofshearing.However,asmalleffectivestress(<5kPa), which was computed considering the weight above the middle of the specimen, was not recordedbytheloadcell.Infact,thisunrecordedstressshouldhavebeenaddedtotheinitial readings.However,alittlefrictioninthepistoncannotbeignoredevenafteritslubrication,and thustheunrecordedsmallstresswasneglectedassumingthatthefrictioncancompensateit. Moreover,thespecimenareachangesdueto volumechangeduring consolidation,anddue to compressionduringshearing.Thus,theoriginal(builtin)areawascorrectedmanuallyforboth the change in cross sectional area and the constraining effect of the rubber membrane. The correctionproceduresarepresentedinAppendixD.Inthisway,thecorrectedaxialandradial stressesactingonthespecimenwereusedtodeterminetheshearstrengthparameters.
5.3.4.4 Shearstrengthparameters
The effective shear strength parameters (c, ) are determined from the p q relationship. However, these parameters can also be determined either by 3 (NTNU) or av (NGI, MIT)plot.Therelationshipsofthesymbolsp,qandavaregiveninAppendixD,SectionD.3. The latter plot was used in the previous triaxial tests given in Chapter 4, Section 4.8.2.2. The MohrCoulombfailureenvelopeintheplotsisdefinedbyatangentlinedrawnatthreeextreme deviatoric or shear stress levels. The p q and 3 plots are illustrated in Fig. 5.9 and the relatedexpressionfortheslopeisgiveninTable5.5.
70
a) pq plot
b) 3 plot
M 1 1
Sf
c a p a
c
3
Fig. 5.9 Determination of shear strength parameters
Table 5.5 Friction angle related to different plots

Plots Slope pq M=6sin/(3sin)
3
Sf =sin/(1sin)
av sin
5.3.4.5
Triaxialtestresults
The triaxial test results are presented together with p q and 1 q diagrams. Similarly, the results from both U and D tests for one sample are plotted in the same diagram. The shear strength parameters are found from the first diagram, where the stress paths are also shown. Theseconddiagraminthesamefigureisusedtocomparetheaxialstrainsdevelopedduringthe tests.Toexemplify,thediagramsforthed1samplearegiveninFig.5.10.
Drained test c' = 12.6 kPa
0 ' = 32.3
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50
q (kPa)
failure (D) d1.6 d1.5 d1.4 failure (U) d1.3 d1.2 d1.1
D
D
Undrained test U
c' = 5.9 kPa
0 ' = 30.4
d1.6 d1.5 d1.4 d1.3
d1.2 d1.1
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
10
12
14
16
p' (kPa)
1 (%)
Fig.5.10Triaxialtestsresultsforthed1soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams)
71
Similardiagramsforthed2samplesaregiveninFig.5.11.Theshearstrengthparametersinthe U test are found slightly lower than in the D tests. Similarly, marginal differences in strength parameters were found in D tests for the d1 and d2 samples. The test results show that both samples have contractive behaviour. However, these soils can be expected to be overconsolidatedinthenaturalconditions,referringtoChapter6,Section6.1.1.
600 500 400
q (kPa)
failure (D) d2.6 d2.5 d2.4 failure (U) d2.3 d2.2 d2.1

0 ' = 34.0
0 0 0
D
0 0
300 200
d2.6 d2.5 d2.4 d2.3 d2.2 d2.1
U
100 0 0 50
Undrained test c' = 6.0 kPa ' = 31.0

0
0 0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
12
16
20
p' (kPa)
1 (%)
Fig.5.11Triaxialtestsresultsforthed2soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams)
Fig.5.12showstheeffectivestress pathsandstrengthparametersforthesoilsamplep1taken from the powerhouse slope. This material originated from alluvial deposits. The previous triaxialtestresults(NGI2001)arealsoplottedinFig.5.12andshownbythethinnerlines.
600

0 ' = 33.1
p1.6 p1.5 p1.4 p1.3 p1.2 p1.1
500
400
q (kPa)
300
200
Undrained test
100
c' = 10.2 kPa
U
0 0 50 100 150 200 250
0 ' = 32.0
300
350
400
450
p' (kPa)
1 (%)
10
12
14
16
Fig.5.12Triaxialtestsresultsforthep1soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams) 72
As seen from Fig. 5.12, the previous test results for the alluvially deposited soils show a good agreementwiththepresenttestresults.However,theprevioustestsonthemudflow(seeFig.4.8 inChapter4)showhigherstrengthparameterscomparedtotheresultsford1andd2samples.
600 500 400
failure (D) p2.6 p2.5 p2.4 failure (U) p2.3 p2.2 p2.1

0 ' = 33.0
D
p2.6 p2.5 p2.4
q (kPa)
300 200 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Undrained test c' = 5.2 kPa 0 ' = 33.0
p2.3 p2.2
U 0 2 4 6 8 10
p2.1
12
p' (kPa)
1 (%)
Fig.5.13Triaxialtestsresultsforthep2soilsample(pqand 1 qdiagrams)
Finally, Fig. 5.13 represents the soil from the lower terrace of the powerhouse slope. This soil contains 81% calcite and shows different behaviour compared to the rest of the samples. The observedfailurepatternwasnotonlyfoundbrittle,butalsothematerialshowedshearstrength unaffectedbytheincreasingmeanstress(p)inUtests(seeFig.5.13).Unliketheothermaterials, strainsofteningbehaviouratlowstrainlevels(<1%)wasfoundinUtests(seealsoFig.5.8).This indicatesthatthedominatingpresenceofcalcitehassignificantinfluenceonthesoilproperties.
5.3.4.6 Summaryoftriaxialtestresults
TheshearstrengthparametersobtainedfromthetriaxialtestsaresummarisedinTable5.6.The cand arethecurvefittingparametersandhencehavefoundmoderatevariationsinUandD testsexceptforthep1soilsample.
Table 5.6 Shear strength parameters from triaxial tests

Samples Test c (kPa) d1 d2 p1 p2 U 5.9 6.0 10.2 5.2 (0) 30.4 31.0 32.0 33.0 f (%) 0.71.0 0.61.0 3.04.5 0.71.0 E50 (MPa) 30 30 25 50 D Test c (kPa) 12.6 13.5 10.5 10.5 (0) 32.3 34.0 33.1 33.0 E50 (MPa) 15 15 15 30 f (%) 15 15 15 12
73
Thetriaxialtestresultsshowedthatthepeakstrengthoccursataround12%axialstraininthe Utests.However,intheDtest,thepeakstrengthoccursatmuchhigherstrains,morelikelyto 1215%,wheretheMlinedenotedbyDhasbeendrawn.Inp2soilsample,thefailurewasseen brittle and the soil became more plastic around 15% moisture content. Moreover, a strain softening behaviour was observed after 1% strain and the soil gradually looses the shear strengtharound5%strainsintheUtests(seeFig.5.13).However,theDtestsshowedsomewhat morestablebehaviour,wherethepeakstrengthwasretainedwiththeincreasingaxialstrain.As giveninTable5.6,thestiffnessmodulus(E50)wasfoundhigherinUtestscomparedtoDtests.
5.4 Selectionofstrengthparameters
The effective stress parameters (c, ) from U and D tests are not identical. The U test shows slightlylowervaluesthanintheDtest,particularlywithrespecttothecohesion.Thestrengthin theDtestshasbeentakenatahigheraxialstrainlevel.However,ifthemaximumaxialstrainis limitedto5%intheDtests,nearlythesamestrengthparametersasinUtestscanbetraced.The differenceinappliedstrainratesintwodifferent(UandD)testsdoesnotexplainthedifference instrengthparametersfortheinvestigatedsiltysandmaterials.AccordingtoLeroueilandHight (2003), the effect of strain rate is negligible for cohesionless materials. However, for natural clays, the undrained shear strength decreases by 10% for decreasing strain rates by unit log scale.Thereasonisthattheporepressureincreasesasthestrainratedecreasesinundrainedtest. Head(1985)states,thedifferenceintheeffectivestrengthparametersisduetothetwodifferent nature of the test. He further explains, the sample volume changes in the D test during shearing,andifthematerialdilatesatfailure, itgivesan increaseinthemeasured strengthas the contribution of the dilatancy. The opposite applies to a soil which contracts at failure. However, the two approaches can be treated as equal in many applications. In this study, all tested specimens except the p1 sample (see Fig. 5.10 5.13) showed contacting behaviour, but contrarilytotheexpressionabove,theDtestsshowslightlyhigherstrength.Atthesametime,a littledilatingp1sample(seeFig.5.12)hasalmostthesameparametersinbothtests.Moreover, thep2samplehassamefrictionangleinbothtests,butalowercohesionisfoundintheUtest. Consideringseveralfactors,thestrengthparametersinvestigatedfromtheDtestswereselected forthestabilityevaluations.Oneofthereasonswastheslightlyhigherrelativeporosityofthe builtin specimens. Since the recommended saturation levels of the densely compacted specimensforwellgradedsiltysandwerenotpossibletoachieve,thespecimenswerebuiltinat slightly higher porosity level than the in situ porosity (refer Appendix C, Tables C.4 C.7). It means, the builtin specimens were medium dense to dense, which may have resulted in the conservativeparameters.However,overtheshearinginDtests,theporositywasfoundcloseto theinsitulevel,whichwasconsideredasthebasisforselection.Moreover,removalofseveral metresoftopsoilsfromtheslopeshasresultedinoverconsolidation,whichislaterdiscussedin Chapter6.ThiswasanotherreasonforselectingthestrengthparametersfromDtest. 74
Chapter6
StabilityEvaluationsofCaseStudy
6.1 Descriptionofcasestudyproject
TheMiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject(MMHEP)inNepal,locatedonthemiddlereach of the Marsyangdi River, was designed as a runofriver plant with anupstream daily storage for 1.6 million m3 of water. The project is under construction since 2001 and is expected to be completedin2007.Thepowerplantwith76MWinstalledcapacityaimstogenerateanaverage annual energy of 470 GWh (CES 2005). A concrete gravity dam with spillway facilities, underground desilting caverns, a concrete lined tunnel and a semiunderground powerhouse are some of the important structures in the project. The waterway facilities were designed for 120mgrossheadand80m3/swaterflowforthepowerproduction(Fichtner2001,CES2005). There are high natural slopes in the projects, mainly at the dam site left bank and in the powerhouse area. The previous analyses and design of the slopes were based on geotechnical investigationscarriedoutduringthedetaileddesignstageoftheproject(Fichtner2001). Thedamsiteleftbankslopeandthepowerhousepermanentslopewereselectedascasestudies for stability evaluations through parameter studies. These slopes were chosen not only due to theimportanceoftheprojectstructures,buttheavailabilityofgroundwatermeasurementsand other relevant parameters required for the academic research in the real cases. The collected dataforthecasestudiesaregiveninChapter4.Similarly,resultsfromlaboratoryinvestigations conductedonfoursoilsamplestakenfromtheslopes,arepresentedinChapter5.
6.1.1 Damsiteleftbankslope
Fig.6.1showstheviewofthedamsiteleftbankslope,whichwastakenatthesecondvisitin 2004.Thedesigned,reshapedandvegetatedslopeviewfromthefirstvisitisshowninChapter 4,indicatingthelocationsofpiezometersandpressurereliefwells.Inaddition,surfaceandsub surfacedrainagesystems,whichwereinstalledintheslope,arealsodescribedinChapter4. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods
75
Fig.6.1ViewofthedamsiteLBslope(photofromNovember2004)
ThedottedlineshowninFig.6.1 indicatestheassumedboundaryusedfortheslopemodelling. The upper soil layer (d1) originated from alluvial river deposits, whereas the lower soil layer (d2) was formed from mudflow deposits as explained in Chapter 4. Based on the present laboratoryinvestigations,bothsoilsintheslopesareclassifiedassiltysandmixedwithfractions ofgravelandbouldersseeChapter5,Section5.3.1.1forsoilclassification. Beside the concrete dam, a rockfill dam has been planned at the base of the upper part of the slope,asindicatedin Fig.6.1.Thetoeoftheslopeishencenotonlysupposedtocarrytheload from the dam, but it should also function as a water retaining structure for daily impound. Theseimportantfunctionscanonlybeguaranteedifthesloperemainsinastablecondition. Before the excavation works, the natural slope was steeper (350) near the dam location than further downstream (280). The slope was excavated to a variable depth of about 1525 m. The existingslopecanhencebeassumedoverconsolidatedwithapreconsolidationpressureofabout 300400 kPa. At present, the designed slope remains with 3 m wide intermediate berms at intervalsof7mheight.Thebermtoberminclinationis350 (1:1.45),whereastheoverallslopeis flatter(280,1:1.90).Accordingtothedesign,theslopewillremain65mhighasshowninFig.6.1. Theexistingslopehasbeenfoundstableovertheperiodsince2003.Inclinometersareplanned to be installed later to monitor the slope movements. The results from Limit equilibrium (LE) andfiniteelements(FE)stabilityanalyseshereinindicateaccordinglythattheslopewillremain stablefornormaldesignconditions.Thisconclusionisbasedontheinvestigatedshearstrength parameters for builtin triaxial specimens (Aryal et al. 2005). The LE and FE stability analyses andtheirresultshavebeenpresentedlaterinthisChapter. 76
Chapter 6 Stability evaluations of case study
6.1.2 Powerhouseslope
ThepowerhouseareaislocatedontherightbankoftheMarsyangdiRiverdownstreamofthe damsite.Fromthislocation,theriverflowwillbedivertedthroughanapproximately6kmlong undergroundwaterway,withtunnelsandpenstockpipes.Thefoundationofthepowerhouseis locatedatelevation508masl,whichisabout7mbelowtheexistingriverbed.Fig.6.2showsthe constructionofthepowerhouseinanexcavatedpitatthebaseofa60mhightemporaryslope.
Fig.6.2Viewofthepowerhouseslope(photofromNovember2004)
According to the previous analysis (Fichtner 2003), the indicated temporary slope will be backfilleduptoelevation(El.)532maslandregradedattheendoftheconstructionperiod.The permanentslopewillbeflatter(1:2.30)withanoverallinclinationof240,whichwillbe70flatter thantheoriginalslope.Similartothedamsiteslope,therewillbe3mwidebermsatevery7m height,andthebermtoberminclinationwillbe280.Moreover,thetopographyflattensattheEl. 569masl,whichmeansthatthepermanentslopewillremain37mhighasindicatedinFig.6.2. For this slope also, two types of soil were investigated. Accordingly, the soil boundary was assumedatEl.554maslasshowninFig.6.2.Theupperlayer(p1)consistsofalluvialdeposits, whereasthelowerlayer(p2)originatesfromglacialdeposits.Thebedrock,whichispoortofair class phyllite, was identified around El. 520 masl by exploratory drilling and excavations (Fichtner2003).Resultsfromlaboratoryinvestigationsofsoilsamplesfromp1andp2aregiven inChapter5.Thegroundwatertable(GWT)andtheassociateporepressuredistributioninthe slopes, representing wet and dry season conditions respectively, were recorded by standpipes (piezometers).ThepiezometerlocationsandGWTrecordingsaregiveninChapter4.
77
6.2 Slopestabilityevaluations
The case study slopes were evaluated by LE methods, the computer software SLOPE/W and SLIDE,andfinallytheFEmethodusingthesoftwarePLAXIS.Thebasicprinciplesoftheutilised softwareandthereviewoftheLEmethodsaredescribedinChapter2. The slope profiles indicated by the double arrows in Fig. 6.1 and 6.2 were considered for stabilityevaluations.Theaimofthestudywasnotonlytoevaluatethestabilityconditions,but alsotoevaluatethevariouscombinationsofloadsand/ornaturalconditionsthatmayinfluence thestabilityinthefuture.Moreover,thestudyaimstocomparetheselectedLEandFEmethods thatarecommonlyusedinpractice.ThestudyfocusesontheeffectofGWTvariationsindry andwetseasonsandthepseudostaticloadfromearthquakes.First,theporepressurebasedon phreaticlevelandsecond,advancedgroundwaterseepageanalyseswerecarriedout.
6.2.1 Selectedmethodsforanalysis
The most vigorous LE methods, for example Janbu generalised (JG), MorgensternPrice (MP) andgenerallimitequilibrium(GLE)procedurewereselectedforanalyses.Inaddition,Bishops simplified (BS) and Janbus corrected (JC) methods were chosen due to their common use in practice. The BS method was also used in the previous analyses, and thus it was possible to comparethecorrespondingFOSobtainedinthepresentstudyforsimilarconditions.
6.2.2 Selectedinputparameters
Theshearstrengthparametersobtainedfromdrainedtriaxialtestswereselectedasinputforthe stability analyses. The reasons for the selections are discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.4. The selectedinputparametersusedinthestabilityevaluationsaresummarisedinTable6.1.
Table 6.1 Input parameters for static analysis

Soil layers d1 d2 p1 p2 bedrock The given reference stiffness values at 100 kPa vertical stress (Eref) were determined from the stressstrainrelationshipofdrainedtriaxialtests.AsgiveninTable6.1,asmalldilatancyangle (),exceptforthep2sample,wasusedinthePLAXISsimulations.Similarly,arealisticvaluefor the Poisson ratio () was assumed. The first five input parameters given in Table 6.1 were 78 c (kPa) 12.6 13.5 10.5 10.5 5 (0) 32.3 34.0 33.1 33.0 40 ( 0) 5 5 10 0 0 Eref (MPa) 15 15 15 30 100 () 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 (kN/m3)
d (kN/m3) 21 21 20 22 23
k (m/s) 210-7 110-7 410-8 810-7 110-6
22 22 21 23 23
essential for the chosen MohrCoulomb model in the FE analyses. Likewise, the permeability coefficientkwasusedforseepageanalysis,forwhichtheappropriatecoefficient valueforthe bedrockwasestimated. NearlydoublestiffnessvaluesthangiveninTable6.1wereobtainedfromtheundrainedtriaxial tests.Accordingly,differentelasticparameters,asgiveninTable6.2,wereappliedfordynamic simulations in PLAXIS, expecting a stiffer response in the undrained conditions during the earthquakeshakings.
Table 6.2 Additional input parameters for dynamic analysis

Soillayers d1 d2 p1 p2 bedrock Eref (MPa) 30 30 30 60 200 () 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 Gref (MPa) 13 13 13 26 91 Vp (m/s) 122 122 125 168 295 Vs (m/s) 78 78 80 108 197 () 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 0
A theoretical background of the dynamic analysis in PLAXIS is given in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3.3,wherethelastfiveparameters,giveninTable6.2,arealsodefined.Alowervalueofthe Poissons ratio was assumed in undrained conditions. After entering the first two elastic parameters in the input module of PLAXIS, the middle three parameters in Table 6.2 were obtainedautomatically.Theseparametersareincludedhereforreferencepurposesonly.Apart fromthezeroRayleighcoefficients and,andthefirsttwoinputparametersinTable6.2,the dynamicanalysisutilisestherestoftheinputparametersfromTable6.1.
6.2.3 Simplifiedslopemodels
Both the dam site and the permanent powerhouse slopes were modelled with two soil layers and bedrock or a stiffer layer at the base. The slope modelling was simplified based on the investigatedsoilstratificationandgeometricalparametersexplainedinSections6.1.1and6.1.2.
6.2.3.1 Modellingofthedamsiteslope
Theboundariesbetweendifferentsoilsintheslopeweredefinedwithasimplifiedapproach,as saidabove.Accordingly,theentireslopewasdividedintothreelayersasshowninFig.6.3.The top and middle layers in this simplification relate to the soil properties of d1 and d2 samples, respectively.Similarly,thebottomlayerwasassumedastifferlayerorthebedrock. In addition, the GWT, as indicated by the dotted lines for dry and wet seasons, were located from the standpipe (piezometer) recordings given in Chapter 4. It was assumed that a similar phreaticsurfaceappearsinthechosenslopeprofileatthesameelevation.
79
El. 654 m
650
d1 layer
630
El. 633m
Elevation (m)
610
d2 layer El. 589m bedrock
590
570 0 40 80 120 160 200
Distance (m)
Fig.6.3ModelforthedamsiteLBslope
6.2.3.2 Modellingofthepowerhouseslope
For simplicity, this slope was also modelled with three soil layers as shown in Fig. 6.4. The approximate boundary between alluvial river deposits (p1 sample) and glaciofluvial deposits (p2sample)waslocatedatEl.554masl.Similarly,thepropertiesofthebackfillmaterialswere assumedthesameasforthep1sample. Moreover,themiddlelayerwasrelatedtothepropertiesofp2sample,whichhadamineralogy dominatedbycalcite.Inaddition,themodelshowstheseasonalvariationsofGWTasindicated bythedottedlines.TheGWTclosetothecrestwasdefinedbytheupperpiezometerrecording, but the GWT close to the toe of the slope was estimated based on the lower piezometer recordingsgiveninChapter4.
570
El. 569 m
560
p1 layer
Powerhouse
550
Elevation (m)
540
p2 layer backfill bedrock

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
El. 532 m
530
520
510
500 160 170
Distance (m)
Fig.6.4Modelforthepowerhousepermanentslope 80
Two unusual characteristics, namely higher permeability and strain softening behaviour were foundforthebuiltinspecimensrepresentingthemiddlelayer.Referringtothetriaxialtestsin Chapter5,thebrittlefailureofthesoilinadditionindicatesafailureatlowstrainlevelsinthe undrainedconditions.Thebottomlayerisbedrock,locatedaroundEl.520masl(Fichtner2003).
6.2.4 Selectedloadcasesforstabilityevaluation
Since the effect of groundwater variations is focused on in this study, the selected cases for analyses are related to the GWT for both dry and wet season conditions. In addition, pseudo staticanddynamicearthquakesarealsoconsideredintheanalyses,asdescribedinTable6.3.
Table 6.3 Selected load cases for stability evaluation

Case1: VariationsinGWT:Dryseasonandwetseasonporepressuredistribution modelledbyaphreaticlevel,correctedforinclinedGWT(correctedas:u= w hw cos2, where isthe inclinationofGWT)andseepageanalyses Case2: Pseudostaticearthquakesanalyses,combinedwithdryseasonGWT,usinga horizontalaccelerationcoefficient, h =0.15 DynamicearthquakeanalysescombinedwithdryseasonGWT,usingPLAXISto studythepermanentdisplacements,accelerations,etcintheslopes.
Case3:
6.2.5 Generalinputparameters
6.2.5.1 TheSLOPE/Wsoftware
Thegeneralinputparameters,asusedfortheidealisedslopeinChapter3,wereusedtosearch andrefinethecircularCSSinSLOPE/W.Theentryandexitsearchoptionwasusedtoidentify the CSS, and this was verified by the autolocate option. The MohrCoulomb soil model and failurecriterion,togetherwithahalfsinefunctionforintersliceforceswereselected.Moreover, the minimum FOS was computed based an assumption of 20 numbers of slices, no tension cracksand nooptimisationofthecircularCSS.Thereaderisreferred tothedescriptionofthe SLOPE/WsoftwareinChapter2formoreinformationabouttheCSSsearchoptions.
6.2.5.2 TheSLIDEsoftware
Computations of FOS in SLIDE were also based on the MohrCoulomb failure criterion. Similarly, a halfsine function was used to compute the interslice forces. Exactly the same numberofslicesasinSLOPE/Wwasused,togetherwiththeassumptionsofnotensioncracks. AnautorefinesearchoptionforacircularCSSwasdefinedasthegeneralinputparametersin themodel.TheCSSwassearchedamongthousandsofshearsurfacesinSLIDE.
6.2.5.3 ThePLAXISsoftware
The slopes were modelled in the input module of PLAXIS, based on 15 noded elements in a plane strain model. A sufficient, wellrefined mesh for the upper two layers was generated to
81
obtain the least possible FOS. Similarly, the soil properties in each layer were defined using a MohrCoulombsoilmodel.Moreover,theinitialstressesduetosoilandGWTconditionswere computed in the calculation module of PLAXIS. In addition, the computation for steadystate groundwater seepage analyses and the external loads from earthquakes were carried out. Finally, the FOS was computed for separate and combination of loads, based on the c reduction procedure. The simulation procedures for pseudostatic analyses and dynamic earthquakeanalysesaredescribedinChapter2,Sections2.3.3.2and2.3.3.3respectively.
6.2.6 Analysesofthedamsiteslope
6.2.6.1 DryseasonGWT
ThedryseasonGWTrecordedfromthreepiezometerstationswasdefinedthesameforallthree models. Fig. 6.5 shows the CSS and FOS computed by SLOPE/W, where similar results were obtained from the analyses by SLIDE. These results are summarized in Appendix F. The simulationresultsfromPLAXISareshowninFig.6.6.
650
630
Elevation (m)
610
GWT
FOS (SLOPE/W) 1) BSM = 1.54 2) M-PM = 1.54
CSS
590
3
570 0 40 80 120 160 200
Distance (m)
Fig.6.5DryseasonGWT:FOSandCSSfromSLOPE/W
FOS = 1.47
Fig.6.6DryseasonGWT:FOSandCSSfromPLAXIS
SincetheCSSisfoundabovetheGWTandsuctionhasnotbeenconsideredintheanalysis,the locatedGWThasnoeffectontheFOS.LEmethodscomputedthevaluesofFOShigherthan1.5 82
whereas, slightly lower FOS, mainly because of the composite CSS deepened at the toe was computedinLEanalysis.Theporepressureatthetoecausesreductionintheeffectivenormal stresses, and hence the shear strength. The CSS in PLAXIS simulations is defined by the concentrationofincrementalortotalstrainsintheslopeprofileasindicatedinFig.6.6.
6.2.6.2 AnalysesforwetseasonGWT
The GWT was raised in the model to represent wet season conditions. The phreatic level was correctedinSLOPE/WandSLIDE.InSLOPE/W,theoptionforthephreaticlevelcorrectionwas activatedtocomputethecorrected porepressuredistribution.InSLIDE,theautomatic Hu (u = whwHu) option was chosen. Using this option, the software computes the Hu factor between 1 and0accordingtothewatersurfaceinclinationintheslope(SLIDE2003).Thisisrelatedtothe equipotentiallines,beingperpendiculartotheflowlinesintheinclinedGWT. The results obtained from SLOPE/W are depicted in Fig. 6.7, whereas the FOS from SLIDE is giveninAppendixF.Moreover,thePLAXISresultsareshowninFig.6.8.Asbefore,theFOSin LEanalysesishigherthantheFOSinFEanalysescomparingbothfigures.
650
630
Elevation (m)
610
590
2
570 0 40 80 120 160 200
Distance (m)
Fig. 6.7 Wet season GWT: FOS and CSS from SLOPE/W
GWT CSS FOS = 1.35
Fig. 6.8 Wet season GWT: FOS and CSS from PLAXIS
PLAXIS utilises either phreatic level pore pressure, which means hydrostatic distribution, or pore pressures obtained from a steadystate seepage analysis. However, the same option, as appliedintheLEanalysesforphreaticlevelcorrection,wastriedtosimulateinPLAXISbysome
83
adjustments.Accordingly,theporepressuredistributionwasgeneratedusingthephreaticlevel with slightly reduced unit weight of water (w) depending on the inclination of the GWT. The watersurfaceinclination()wascomputedaround200,andanequivalentreductionfactorwas obtainedbywcos2.Inthisway,thecorrectporepressuredistributionwascorrectlyappliedin the PLAXIS analyses, as suggested by Grande and Waterman (2005) by personal communications.ItwasdecidedtousetheoptionforinclinedGWTinslopestabilityanalyses.
6.2.6.3 Groundwaterseepageanalyses
The effects of groundwater flow and seepage were studied further to evaluate the stability conditions. Accordingly, seepage analyses were carried out in SEEP/W, SLIDE (groundwater module)andPLAXIS(steadystategroundwatercalculationscheme).Theresultsoftheseepage analysesfromthecomputationsarepresentedinAppendixEforcomparisonandvisualisation oftheflowpatterns. In the SEEP/W software, the hydraulic functions were estimated based on the grain size distributionoftheuppertwosoillayers.Inaddition,thesaturatedpermeabilityobtainedfrom the laboratory tests, a suggested coefficient of compressibility (mv = 0.1), which is the value of slope of the water content function (SEEP/W 2005), and an assumed volumetric water content (w = 0.45) were used as input parameters for the seepage analyses. Moreover, the boundary conditions for water flow were defined according to the water head and GWT. Similarly, the same hydraulic functions and boundary conditions were defined in SLIDE. In PLAXIS, closed flowboundariesweredefinedatthebase,whereaswaterheadswerelocatedatthesidesofthe model. Likewise, dense meshes were used in all analyses to obtain precise pore pressure distribution. The pore pressure distribution obtained was then used in the slope stability analyses, and accordinglytheFOSwascomputed.Fig.6.9showstheresultsobtainedfromthecomputationin SLOPE/W.ThebreaksonthephreaticsurfaceindicatetheappliedzeropressurepointsasGWT.
650
1
1.242
630
610
590
3
570 0 40 80 120 160 200
Fig.6.9FOSandCSSaftertheseepageanalysisinSEEP/W 84
FOS (SLIDE) 1) BSM = 1.09 2) JCM = 1.09 3) M-PM = 1.10
Fig.6.10FOSandCSSaftertheseepageanalysisinSLIDE
Fig.6.10showstheresultsfromSLIDEanalyses.Thefailurewaslocalisedatthetoeoftheslope inthecompletelysaturatedzone.TheseepageanalysesshowmuchlowerFOS,andindicatethat failuremayinitiatefromthetoeoftheslopeforthegivenconditions.ThelowFOSisrelatedtoa reductioninnormalstressesandfrictionalresistanceoversubmergedpartsoftheslipsurface. Similarly, the FOS computed by PLAXIS is given in Fig. 6.11, which shows a limiting equilibrium condition. In addition, the CSS was found to be located at the toe, somewhere in betweenthoseobtainedbySLOPE/WandSLIDE.BoththeLEandFEanalysesshowthatthetoe remains the critical part of the slope, from where failure may initiate in saturated conditions. Any remedial measures applied to lower the groundwater at the toe will have substantial improvementinFOS.
FOS = 1.00
Fig.6.11FOSandCSSafterseepageanalysisinPLAXIS
Fig.6.12demonstratestheeffectofgroundwaterontheslopestability.Thisfurtherindicatesthat the seepage flow is a critical factor, particularly for permeable materials. The seepage analysis withthewetseasonGWTasinputtoPLAXISshowsthattheslopereachesacriticalequilibrium state. However, the FOS was improved from 1.0 to 1.2 by introducing a horizontal drainage
85
system in the model, as indicated by the analysis results given in Appendix E, Fig. E.4. Moreover, the drainage pipes in the real slope may have contributed to lower the GWT, and mayalreadyhaveinfluencedthepiezometerlevels.
1.6 1.5 1.4
FOS = 1.47 FOS = 1.35
FOS
1.3 1.2 1.1

FOS = 1.00
Dry season_GWT Wet season_GWT Wet_seep
1.0 0.9 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Deformation,Ux (m)
Fig.6.12GroundwatereffectsonFOSfromPLAXIScomputations
In addition, some pressure relief wells are planned to install at the bottom of the slope (see Chapter4,Fig.4.1).TheimprovementinFOSduetosucharrangementswasalsostudiedinthe SEEP/WandSLIDEanalyses.ItwasalsoattemptedtosimulatetheoptionwithwellsinPLAXIS, butdueto nonconvergenceofthesteadystategroundwatercalculations,furthercomputation fortheFOSwasnotpossibletocarryout. Fig.6.13revealsasignificantimprovementinFOSaftertheintroductionofthepressurerelief wells,whichareassumedtolowerthepressureatthetoeoftheslope.Torepresenttheplanned conditions,twopointsaroundthetoe,asindicatedinFig.6.14,weregivenzeroporepressureto simulatefulldrainageconditions.ThestabilityanalyseswerethencarriedoutinSLIDE.
FOS (SLIDE) 1) BSM = 1.47 2) JCM = 1.45 2) M-PM = 1.47
Fig.6.13FOSandCSSafterintroductionoftwowellsinSLIDE 86
ExactlythesameboundaryconditionswereappliedinSEEP/W,andthestabilityanalyseswere carriedoutaccordingly.Alsointhisanalysis,theFOSwasfoundsignificantlyimproved,aswas thecasewithSLIDE.TheCSSandthecorrespondingFOSareshowninFig.6.14.

650
1.460
630
610
590
570
40
80
120
160
200
Fig.6.14FOSandCSSafterseepageanalysisinSEEP/WandstabilityinSLOPE/W
Comparedtothesituationswithandwithoutwells,thephreaticsurfacewasfoundmuchlower at the toe after application of the wells. This shows that the pressure relief wells will have significantimprovementinFOSaslongasthedrainagewellsfunctionsatisfactory.
6.2.6.4 Pseudostaticanalyses
Load Case 2 was analysed combined with dry season GWT and a horizontal earthquake coefficient h =0.15.TheresultsfromtheSLOPE/WanalysisaregiveninFig.6.15.Furthermore, similar FOS was obtained from the analysed in SLIDE, and the results are presented in AppendixF,Fig.F.3.
650
630
Elevation (m)
610
FOS =1.12
590
3
570
40
80
120
160
200
Distance (m )
Fig.6.15CSSandFOSfrompseudostaticanalyses(SLOPE/W) The pseudostatic analyses show that the FOS is higher than the minimum value (FOS >1.05), referring to the design limit applied in the previous stability analyses, (see Chapter 4, Section 4.9.4).However,thewetseasonGWTresultedinlimitingequilibriumconditions.
87
6.2.6.5
Dynamicearthquakessimulations
Load Case 3, defined in Table 6.3, was simulated in PLAXIS in order to study the effects of dynamicearthquakevibrations.Forthispurpose,theextendedmodelwasusedasshowninFig. 6.16. The reason for extending the model horizontally was to minimise the effects of return wavesfromtheboundaries.Inthedynamicanalysis,theoutgoingseismicwavesweresupposed tobeabsorbedbytheappliedboundariesatbothsidesofthemodel.
(50,662) (40, 654) A(40,652)
B(105,617) (164,589) E(66,589)

~
(240,589)
C(155,591)
~
(50,570)
D(66,570)
(240,570)
Fig.6.16ExtendeddamsiteLBslopemodelusedfordynamicanalysesinPLAXIS
The study aimed to investigate the influence of dynamic effects, particularly permanent displacement, acceleration and excess pore pressure at the selected points A, B and C in Fig. 6.16. In addition, a base point D and an intermediate point E were also selected to verify the inputaccelerationsandcomparetheporepressures.Theanalyseswereperformedusingthefirst twosoilparametersfromTable6.2andtherestoftheparametersfromTable6.1.Inaddition,the accelerationtimeseries,giveninFig.6.17,wasappliedastheinputparameterforsimulations.
Fig.6.17Inputaccelerogramfordynamicanalyses(PLAXIS2004) 88
TheinputaccelerationtimeserieswastakenfromthePLAXISmanual(2004).Theaccelerogram wasrecordedat5kmdistancefromtheepicentreforanearthquakeofmagnitudeM5.4,which produced2.40m/s2PGAwith200Hzfrequency(seeFig.6.17).Sometheoreticaldiscussionsof thedynamicsimulationsinPLAXIShavealsobeenpresentedinChapter2,Section2.3.3.3. ReferringtoChapter4,Section4.7,thedesignhorizontalaccelerationduringanearthquake(h) shouldbe0.15gforthecaseslopes.Accordingtotheseismicstudiescarriedoutfortheproject area,thedesignaccelerationwasconsideredto35%ofPGA.Thismeans,thePGAshouldhave tobeashighas4.20m/s2togenerate0.15ghorizontalaccelerationastherecommendedvaluefor simulations. This information was utilised to determine the prescribed displacements, which wasappliedatthebaseofthemodel. Intheinitialstagesofsimulations(notpresentedhere),aprescribeddisplacementof1cm(Ux = 0.01m)wasimposedatthebaseofthemodelandthePGAatpointDwasverifiedbyoutputs andfound1.75m/s2.Infact,itshouldhaveproducedthesamePGAastheinput,i.e.2.40m/s2 (seeFig.6.17).FurtheruseofUx=0.02m,adoublePGAatpointDwasfound,i.e.3.50m/s2.In this way, the prescribed displacement (Ux = 0.024 m) was selected to apply at the base of the model.ThisprescribeddisplacementproducedthesamePGA(4.2m/s2)asforthedesignvalue.
Table 6.4 Calculation stages in the dynamic earthquake simulations

Identification Mweight DryseasonGWT Undrainedmaterials Pres.displ.(0.024m) Dynamicanalyses
Phaseno 1 2 3 4 5
Startfrom 0 1 2 3 4
Calculation Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic Dynamicanalyses
Loadinginput Totalmultipliers
Stagedconstruction Stagedconstruction Stagedconstruction TotalMultiplier
The stages involved in dynamic analyses are given in Table 6.4. First, the initial stresses were computedbygravityloading(mweight)inthecalculationroutine.Next,thedryseasonGWT wasdefinedinthemodelandtheporepressuresfromthephreaticlevelweregenerated.Inthe following stage, the input model was defined by undrained materials to simulate earthquake events. Moreover, the prescribed displacement (Ux = 0.024 m) was applied by staged construction in the input module. Finally, the given accelerogram was defined for dynamic analysisasatotalmultipliertoperformthesimulationforaperiodof10sec. Fig.6.18showstheoutputofthesimulations,whichindicatetheshadingoftotalshearstrains concentratedintheslope.TwolightcolouredsectionscanbeseeninFig.6.18:Oneonthetop layer, the other in the deep strata. This is the likely situation during earthquakes of similar magnitude.Moreover,plasticpointswereobservedallovertheslopeduringthesimulations.It indicatesthatthematerialswillreachtotheplasticstageontherightsideoftheyieldsurface. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 89
Fig.6.18Shearshadingafterthephase#5simulations(damsiteLBslope)
Fig. 6.19 shows the permanent displacements for the selected points. The points close to the surface (i.e. A, B, C) have experienced large permanent displacement compared to the points insidethemodel.Similarly,thebasepointDwasfoundtheleastdisplaced,whichwaslogical.
Displacement, Ux (m) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Point A
Point B
Point C
Point E
Point D
Fig.6.19Permanentdisplacementintheslopeatselectedpoints
Acceleration, ax (m/s2) 10
Point A
Point D
-5
-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Fig.6.20OutputofaccelerationtimeseriesatpointsAandD 90
Furthermore,theoutputresults(seeFig.6.20)werestudiedintermsofaccelerationtimeseries attwoselectedpointsAandD.PointDwasselectedtoverifytheinputaccelerationproduced by the applied prescribed displacements. Similarly, point A was chosen to observe the horizontal acceleration close to the surface. As indicated in Fig. 6.20, the base acceleration at pointDwasfoundthesameasfortheinputaccelerogramwithUx=0.024m.However,pointA wasfoundtohavehigherpeakacceleration.SimilarvalueswerefoundforpointsBandC.This indicatesthatboththecrestandtoeoftheslopemaybecomecriticalduringearthquakesevents. Fig.6.21showstheexcessporepressure(totalminushydrostatic)atthefiveselectedpoints.The positive side of the excess pore pressure for points D and E indicates additional (excess) pore pressure generated due to the dynamic undrained loading. Similarly, the negative side shows thesuctiondevelopedintheslope.Thelegendsaregiveninchronologicalorderindicatingthe pointBwiththehighestsuction.
Excess PP (kPa) 200 150 100
Point E Point D
50 0 -50 -100
Point B Point C
Point A
-150 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Fig.6.21Excessporepressure(negativesideindicatessuction)
PointBindicatesthehighestsuction,whereaspointC,whichislocatedclosetotheGWTatthe toe,showsthelowestamongthethreeselectedpointsabovetheGWT.Thesimulationindicates thatsuctionislikelytogenerateabovetheGWT,whereastheslopebelowtheGWTislikelyto experienceexcessporepressure.Thisisalogicalresponseforundrainedloadingconditions.The materialswith40%finescaneasilysustainthedevelopedsuctionintheslope. The suction will have a positive contribution to the slope stability. A small suction at point C meansthatthetoeareasmayexperiencecriticalconditionsduringearthquakes.Moreover,the shearshadinginFig.6.18indicatesthatafailure,ifitoccurs,islikelytoinitiateeitherfromthe crestorfromthetoe.Liquefaction(v<0)couldbeanotherprobleminearthquakeeventsatthe toearea.However,withthesuctionatpointC,whichislocatedveryclosetothetoe,theriskof liquefactionisveryuncommonfortheanalysedslopeatthedamsiteLB. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 91
6.2.7 Analysesofthepowerhouseslope
Theanalyseswereperformedinexactlythesamewayasinthepreviouscasestudy,usingthe soilparametersfromTable6.2.Similarly,allsimulationsfollowthedefinedloadcasesinTable 6.3.ThegeneralinputparametersinSLOPE,SLIDEandPLAXISsimulationsremainthesame as explained in Section 6.2.5. Therefore, only the analyses results for various load cases are presentedanddiscussedherewith.
6.2.7.1 Analysesfordryseasonconditions
The dry season GWT was defined in the models by locating the two available piezometric readings.Sincethepermanentslopewillbegradedattheendoftheconstruction,theGWTin the slope may change from what is recorded today. However, the aim here is to find the FOS withtheappliedGWTintheslope. Similar to the dam site slope analyses, the pore pressure distribution was computed from the corrected phreatic level in SLOPE/W and SLIDE. The CSS and corresponding FOS from SLOPE/WarepresentedinFig.6.22.
FOS (SLOPE/W) 1) BSM = 1.61 2) M-PM= 1.62
560
Elevation (m)
540
GWT CSS
520
500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (m)
Fig.6.22DryseasonGWT:CSSandFOSfromSLOPE/W
Application of exactly the same GWT and selection for automatic Hu (u = whwHu) in the pore pressurecomputations,theSLIDEanalyseshadalmostthesameFOSaspresentedinAppendix F,Fig.F.4.Asexplainedbefore,thesoftwarecomputesthevalueofHu automaticallybasedon the inclination of the water surface. This option is the same as the phreatic level correction in SLOPE/WforaninclinedGWT.BothLEanalysesproducedidenticalCSSandthesameFOS. ThereducedunitweightofwaterwasusedinPLAXISfortheporepressurecomputations,and theporepressuredistributionwasgeneratedusingthephreaticlevel.Basedontheinclinationof theGWTfortheinclinedsection,theunitweightofwater(w)wasloweredbythecos2term, with being around 200 for both dry and wet GWT. The reduction was applied only for the inclined GWT in the static analyses. Similarly, the dilatancy angle, as given in Table 6.1, was introducedinthematerialpropertiesforthep1soillayer. 92
TheCSSandtheFOSfromthePLAXISanalysesaregivenFig.6.23.TheFOSisslightlylower thanthatobtainedintheLEanalyses,butgreaterthan1.5,whichwasusedasalimitingvalue fortheslopedesign.
CSS
FOS = 1.55
Fig.6.23DryseasonGWT:CSSandFOSfromPLAXIS
6.2.7.2
Analysesforwetseasonconditions
All simulations were carried out for similar conditions as for dry season conditions, the only differencebeingtheGWTrepresentativeforwetseasonconditions.TheCSSandtheFOSfrom SLOPE/WanalysesareshowninFig.6.24,whichiscomparabletotheSLIDEanalysesgivenin AppendixF,Fig.F.5.
570
560
550
Elevation, m
540
GWT CSS
530
520
510
500 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Distance, m
Fig.6.24WetseasonGWT:FailuresurfaceandFOSfromSLOPE/W
The rise in GWT from dry to wet season conditions was also analysed by PLAXIS, which produced slightly lower FOS, as shown in Fig. 6.25. Comparisons between the dry and wet seasonconditionsshowthattheFOSmaybereducedby10%inLEand13%intheFEanalyses, with the FOS for dry season conditions being the reference conditions. The analyses actually showthatstableconditionsprevailintheslopeforbothdryandwetseasonconditions. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 93
FOS = 1.35
Fig. 6.25 Wet season GWT: Failure surface and FOS from PLAXIS
6.2.7.3 Groundwaterseepageanalyses
The seepage analyses for the powerhouse slope were carried out using the wet season GWT. First,theanalyseswereperformedwithoutanydrainagemeasures,whichimpliedtoolowFOS values(seeFig.E.7inAppendixE).Next,asituationrepresentingtheapplicationof20mlong horizontal drainage pipes was analysed. The, FOS was then improved, approaching the equilibrium level (see Fig. E.8). Finally, the analyses with the two pressure relief wells at elevation520maslwerecarriedout,showingthattheFOSimprovedtoanacceptablelimit,as showninFig.6.26.
FOS = 1.54
Fig.6.26FOSandCSSafterseepageanalysisinSLIDE
The points indicated in Fig. 6.26 are the combinations of 20 m long horizontal drainage pipes and two pressure relief wells. Seepage analysis reveals an unstable slope in wet season 94
conditions, and hence the drainage systems as indicated in the analysis are highly recommendable.
6.2.7.4 Pseudostaticanalyses
ThepseudostaticanalyseswerecarriedoutfortheloadcombinationsgiveninTable6.3.Since the CSS was found below the GWT, the pore pressure was computed by phreatic level correctionasexplainedearlier.TheresultsfromtheanalysesaregiveninFig.6.27. ThetheoreticalbackgroundofthepseudostaticanalysishasbeendescribedinChapter2under thePLAXISsection.Thedirectionofthegroundmotionwasassumedtowardstherivervalley, beingthemostcriticalcondition.
560
FOS (SLOPE/W) 1) BSM= 1.13 2) M-PM = 1.14

4 3
Elevation (m)
540
1 520
7 5 500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (m)
Fig.6.27FOSfrompseudostaticanalysesinSLOPE/W
TheresultsobtainedbySLIDEaregiveninAppendixF,Fig.F.6.Asbefore,boththeLEsoftware SLOPE/W and SLIDE were found to produce similar FOSvalues. The pseudostatic analyses showthattheFOSmaybereducedbyasmuchas30%bysimilarintensityofearthquakes(4.2 m/s2 PGA). Moreover, the analyses carried out by FEM show that a critical condition may appearintheslopeforthegivenPGA.
6.2.7.5 Dynamicearthquakesimulations
Dynamic analysis were performed in exactly the same way as in the previous case, using the first two elastic soil parameters from Table 6.2 and the rest of the parameters from Table 6.1. Likewise,thecalculationstepsdefinedinTable6.4werefollowed,usingundrainedconditions to simulate the earthquake events. In addition, the dry season GWT was introduced in the model.Asforthedynamicinputparameters,theaccelerationtimeseriesgiveninFig.6.17,and a prescribed displacement of 2.4 cm were used for simulations. The reason of selecting 2.4 cm displacementhasbeenexplainedinthepreviouscasestudy.Thedisplacementwasappliedat thebaseofthemodeltoproduceanequivalentPGAof4.2m/s2.
95
Fig.6.28showstheextendedmodel,whichwasusedfortheanalyses.Asinthepreviouscase study, the study was aimed to find the influence of dynamic effects in terms of permanent displacement, acceleration and excess pore pressure at selected locations. Accordingly, three points closer to the surface (A, B and C) and three points (D, E and F) inside the model were chosen.
(50,575) (30,569) A(28,567)
B(70,549) (112,532) C(109,531) E(70,520) (220,532)
F(47,549)
(50,500)
D(70,500)
(220,500)
Fig.6.28Extendedpowerhouseslopemodelusedfordynamicanalysis
As one of the simulation outputs, Fig. 6.29 shows the shear shading (concentration of shear strains)ofthetotalstrains.Therearetwolightcolouredsections,whichindicatepossiblefailure inbothsoillayers.Moreover,thebaseofthepowerhouseisalsoseenstrainedcomparedtothe sides.FurtherincreaseinGWTduringrainyseasonmayhaveinstabilityproblematthetoe.
Fig.6.29Shearshadingafterthedynamicanalysisofpowerhouseslope
TheaccelerationoutputsatpointAandDarecomparedinFig.6.30.Similartothepreviouscase study, the acceleration at point D was found identical, which indicates the response of the applied prescribed displacement and accelerationtime series. However, the surface point A shows the highest acceleration amplitude, peaking up to nearly full gravity acceleration. Two surfacepointsBandCalsoshowedsimilaraccelerationvaluesasofpointA. 96
Acceleration, ax (m/s2) 10
Point A
0
Point D
-5
-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Fig.6.30OutputofaccelerationtimeseriesatpointsAandD
Moreover, the permanently accumulated displacements at theselected points are compared in Fig.6.31.ThelegendsshowdisplacementsinchronologicalorderindicatingthesurfacepointB asthemostdisplaced.Moreover,thepointsA,C,DandEinFig.6.31showthesimilartrendof displacementcomparedtothecorrespondingpointsinthepreviouscasestudy(seeFig.6.19).
Displacement, Ux (m) 0.5
0.4
Point B
0.3
Point A
0.2
Point C
0.1
Point E
Point D
-0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Fig.6.31Permanentdisplacementtimeseriesatselectedpoints(undampedsystem) Thedynamicanalysesassumeundampedsystem,inwhichtheRayleighdampingcoefficients andareassignedtozerovalues.However,therealconditionsmayhavesomedamping,and thus the results may be on conservative side. The damping ratio () can be obtained experimentallybymeansoftheresonancecolumntest(Das1995).Similarly,with thevalueof
97
and resonance frequencies, the values of the damping coefficients and can obtained (PLAXIS2004,Bathe1996).
Excess PP (kPa) 150
100
Point D
50
Point E
Point C
Point B
-50
Point A
-100 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Fig.6.32Excessporepressure(negativesideindicatessuction)
Finally, the excess pore pressures are compared in Fig. 6.32 to the selected points. Again, the legendsaregiveninchronologicalorderindicatingthebasepointDwiththemaximumexcess porepressure.Allthreesurfacepointsindicatesuction(negativeexcessporepressure)beingthe highestabout50kPaatpointA,whichisfurtherawayfromtheGWTcomparedtoothers.
Effectofdampingindynamicanalyses
Further, dynamic analyses of the last case study was conducted for an assumed 5% damping ratio()for theuppertwosoillayers.Thepurposeoftheadditionalstudywastoobservethe effect of the Rayleigh damping coefficients, which are the input parameters in the dynamic simulations. The computed damping coefficients are given Table 6.5. The computations are basedonEqs.(2.26)and(2.27)giveninChapter2,wherethetermsarealsodefined.
Table 6.5 The computed Rayleigh damping coefficients for dynamic analyses
Layer p1 p2 rock
H(m) 15 35 20
Vs(m/s) 1(rad/s) 3(rad/s) 80 108 197 8.4 4.8 15.5 25.1 14.5 46.4
(%) 5 5 0
() 0.628 0.360 0
() 0.002 0.005 0
Few simulation results from the material damped system are verified and reviewed herewith. Theshearshadingwasfoundmoreorlessthesameasintheundampedsystem(seeFig.6.29). However,thedisplacementinthedampedsystem(seeFig.6.33)wasfound1015cmlessthan intheundampedsystem(seeFig.6.31).Similarly,theaccelerationatpointAwasfoundless. 98
Displacement, Ux (m) 0.4
0.3
Point B
0.2
Point C
0.1
Point A
0
Point D
-0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Fig.6.33Accumulateddisplacementtimeseriesatselectedpointsinadampedsystem
Excess PP (kPa) 120
80
Point D
40
Point E
Point F
-40 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dynamic time (s)
Point A
Fig.6.34Excessporepressure(negativesideindicatessuction)inadampedsystem Fig.6.34showstheexcessporepressure(PP)againatselectedpoints.ApointFinthep2layer (seeFig.6.28)waschosen.Thispointliessufficientlydeepinsidetheslope(12mbelowfromthe ground surface) and just 1.5 m above GWT. Contrarily, the result shows excess porepressure evenabovetheGWT.Fromtheseanalyses,itcanbeconcludedthatsuctionmaydevelopcloser to the ground surface, but excess pore pressure can be expected deep inside the soil body, no matterwheretheGWTislocated.Theexcessporepressureatotherlocationswasalsocompared withtheresultsfromearlieranalyses.Allsurfacepoints,whicharelocatedacoupleofmeters below the ground surface, were found to have a similar trend (i.e. suction), but with reduced quantity. For example, at point A, the suction was about 35 kPa in Rayleigh damped system, whereasitwasfoundequalto50kPaintheundampedsystem. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 99
6.2.8 Discussionondynamicsimulations
ApartfromthelastverificationsimulationswithRayleighdampingparameters,therestofthe simulations utilise zero Rayleigh damping. However, the total material damping has been covered under utilized damped Newmark method in the simulations. Some conclusions from the dynamic analyses can be drawn. First, both case study slopes indicate similar patterns of permanent displacements, accelerations and excess pore pressures, with a few exceptions. Second,thelocationsneartheslopesurfacearemorelikelytodisplacepermanentlycompared to the locations inside the soil body. The reason is that the soils can move freely close to the surface.Thesameconclusionisvalidfortheaccelerationwithhigheramplitudeonthesurface. Concerningtheporepressure,theanalysesshowincreasedexcessporepressureatthebaseof themodel,anditdecreasestowardstheGWT.Thereisnocontractionclosetothebottomofthe model. However, the excess pore pressure may have developed because of horizontal stresses thatpossiblycouldincreaseinthelowerlayersduringcyclicloading.Itmeansthattheexcess porepressureisexpectedtoincreaseduringundrainedcyclicloadinginsidethesoilbody.The difference in excess pore pressure between two simulations at point D, see Fig. 6.21 and Fig. 6.32, can be explained by the difference in total vertical and horizontal stresses after shaking. Similarly, the simulations show increased suction closer to the ground surface. Suction may resultfromthedilatancyinthesoilmodellingoftheupperlayers. Inaddition,suctioncanalso result from unloading, in this case stress release due to a reduction in the total horizontal stressesduringshaking. Likewise, some conclusions regarding slope stability can be brought forward. Development of suction close to the slope surface is a good sign of a stable slope. However, this conclusion is valid only if the critical SS falls within this zone. This may not be the case during or after earthquake events. In contrast, a significant increase in excess pore pressure may have the adverse effect on the stability, particularly if the critical SS falls inside the GWT. The development of positive pore pressure along the SS will result in a reduced FOS by reducing botheffectivenormalstressandfrictionproperties.Therefore,thestabilitywilllargelydepend onthedevelopedlevelofsuctionorpositiveexcessprepressure. Moreover,ahighexcesspore pressure may result in instability due to possible liquefaction (v<0) in the slopes. Such possibilityisgenerallyhigheraroundthetoeoftheslopes. LookingintotheshearshadinggiveninFig.6.18andFig.6.29,thestrainconcentrationsinthe slopesindicateaweaksurface,fromwherefailuremayinitiate.Furthermore,animationofthe simulationoutputsshowedplasticpointsfloatingallovertheslope.Theplasticpointsindicate that the mobilised shear stresses reached the MC failure envelope. In addition, the soil properties may further extend towards the right side of the yield surface, which indicates the soil properties in the plastic region. Unrecoverable plastic strains are developed in the plastic region.Moreover,thesoilmayremainwiththeresidualstrength,whichisgenerallylowerthan thepeakstrength. 100
Chapter7
DiscussiononAnalysisMethodsandResults
7.1 Slopesstabilityevaluations
Analysisofslopeshastraditionallybeencarriedoutbylimitequilibrium(LE)methods,which arebasedontheprinciplesofstaticequilibriumofforcesandmoments.AccordingtoFredlund and Rahardjo (1993), LE methods are important mainly because of two reasons. First, the methods have proved to be reasonably reliable in assessing the stability of slopes. Second, the methodsrequirealimitedamountofinput,butcanquicklyperformanextensivetrialanderror search for the critical shear surface (CSS). However, Krahn (2003) says, LE methods are missing the fundamental physics of stressstrain relationship, and thus they are unable to compute a realistic stress distribution. In spite of these limitations, the LE methods are still commoninpracticebecauseoftheirsimplicityandthereasonablyaccurateFOSobtained. Inrecentyears,finiteelement(FE)methods,especiallytheFEprogramPLAXIS,arebecoming increasingly popular (Nordal & Glaamen 2004). The FE program PLAXIS is widely used in manyEuropeancountriesanditsapplicationisspreading.Today,computationalsoftwarebased ontheFEprinciplesaredevelopedandfrequentlyappliedinpractice.SincetheFEmethodsare based on compatibility relationship, and thus can handle the stressstrain behaviour of soil, a more realistic stress situation can be computed. Thus, FE analyses have an advantage over LE analysesforevaluationofthestabilityofslopes.
7.1.1
ComparisonofLEmethods
ThefundamentaldifferencesamongLEmethodsaregiveninCapter2,Table2.1.AsNash(1987) states, The significant difference among the methods is the assumptions made about the position and inclination of the interslice forces. Janbus GPS method, for example, assumes a line of thrust where the interslice forces act, whereas the MorgensternPrice (MP) method assumes a variable interslice force function. Moreover, some methods compute FOS by force equilibrium(e.g.Janbussimplified(JS)method)ormomentequilibrium(e.g.Bishopsimplified SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 101
(BS)method).Similarly,theadvancedLEmethodssatisfybothforceandmomentequilibriums (e.g.JanbusGPS,MPandSpencermethods).Furthermore,thegenerallimitequilibrium(GLE) formulation, which is a modified expression of MP or Spencer method, provides a basis for comparisonofthemostcommonLEmethodsasdiscussedinChapter2,Section2.2.9. AcomparisonmadebyGLEprocedureisillustratedinFig.7.1forthecircularSSanalysisofthe casestudygiveninChapter6,Section6.2.7.TheBSandJSmethodsarecomparedwithreference to MP method for the two load cases (dry season GWT without and with pseudostatic analysis)asshowninFig.7.1.
Fig.7.1ComparisonofLEmethodsforcircularSSanalysis(powerhouseslope)
As indicated in Fig. 7.1, the FOS from BSM is found almost equal compared to MPM. The reasonisthatthemomentequilibriumFOS(Fm)curveismostlyunaffectedforacircularSS.As Krahn(2003)says,Generallytheslopeof FmcurveisfoundnearlyhorizontalforacircularSS, andforsuchconditions,thereisnoeffectoftheintersliceforcefunction(f(x)).Thisisbecause the whole sliding mass can rotate without any significant movement of slices. However, BSM mayoverestimateFOSiftheexternalloads,forexampleanchorsandsupportforces,areapplied referring to Fig. 2.4b in Chapter 2. In this situation, the Fm curve will have a downward gradient.Incontrast,JSMhascomputed68%lowerFOScomparedtotheFOSfromMPM. The larger difference indicates the sensitivity of the force equilibrium FOS (Ff) due to the interslice forces. A substantial amount of interslice movement is required in this case before slidingtakesplace. The pseudostatic analysis carried out for the powerhouse slope (see Fig. 7.3) for an assumed plane SS shows the Fm curve as downward sloping and sensitive to the interslice shear force, whereastheFfcurveiscompletelyindependentonlambda(),i.e. theintersliceforcefunction. 102
Chapter 7 Discussion on analysis methods and results
560
Elevation (m)
540 4 3
1 520
7 5 500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (m)
Fig.7.2AnalysisfortheassumedplaneSSinSLOPE/W
1.55
1.54
F O S
Fm
1.53
1.52
1.51
Ff
1.50 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Scale factor lambda ()

Fig.7.3TheFfandFmcurvesaftertheplaneSSanalysis
AccordingtoKrahn(2003),reversepositionsoftheFfandFmcurvesarefoundforaplanefailure inaverticalslopefacecomparedtothecircularfailure(seeFig.7.1).However,inthisstudyof plane SS analysis, the JSM computes identical FOS to MPM, whereas BSM over or underestimates depending on negative or positive gradient of the Fm curve. Moreover, an assumed composite SS was also analysed (see Appendix F, Fig. F.7) and the differences were studied. As a result, the gradient of both Ff and Fm curves remains positive (see Fig. F.8), and bothBSandJSmethodsunderestimatetheFOScomparedtoMPmethod.Unliketotheresults from this study, Krahn (2003) presents a negative gradient of the Fm curve for a steeper slope face.Inhisstudy,BSMcomputeshigherFOSthanMPM.
103
The most common LE methods are also compared in Fig. 7.4 using the MMP as a reference (0%). The comparison is based on the analyses for four different load cases (refer Chapter 3, Section3.1.2)ofanidealisedslope,whichwasanalysedinSLIDEforthecircularSS. As in the previous discussion, BSM computes consistent FOS with minor variations (~1 %) on the higher side, and the reason has already been discussed above. Similarly, JGM (GPS) also shows minor variations (<2 %), but on the lower side. However, both JG and MP methods result in exactly the same FOS (not shown here) if a particular, circular SS is analysed. This indicates that both methods compute the FOS with the same accuracy. In addition, the lower FOSinJGMfortheCSSidentifiedbyitselfmeansthatthemethodisabletosearchfortheCSS more accurately than MPM. Nevertheless, the marginal variations in the FOS show that both methodsareequallygoodamongtheLEmethodsevenfortheindividualcircularSSanalysis.
LoadCases
Case1 3%
1%
Case2a
1%
Case2b
1% 1%
Case3
DifferenceinFOS
0% -3 % -6 % -9 % -12 % -15 %
-13 % -8 % -11 % -12 % -1 % -2 % -2 % -2 %
BSM JSM JCM JGM
Fig.7.4ComparisonofLEmethodswithMPM(circularSS) Likewise,JCMseemstobeunderestimatingtheFOSfrom15%,asseeninFig.7.4.Moreover, JSMshowsthelargestvariationonthelowerside,rangingfrom813%.Abramsonetal.(2002) say,FOSvaluesmaygenerallydifferby15%uponcomparisonwiththeresultscalculatedby theMPmethod.Inthisstudyalso,thevariationsarefoundwithintherangeoftheprevious studiesforCSSanalysis.Moreover,theFOSfromLEanalysisinSLOPE/WandSLIDEarefound mostlythesamewithamarginalvariation(1%)comparedtotheresultsforthesamemethod.
7.1.2
ComparisonofLEandFEanalyses
As discussed above, LE and FE analyses have fundamental difference in the basic principles. Thefirstisbasedonthelimitequilibriumformulations,whicharedependentonstaticforceor momentequilibrium. Thesecondisbasedonastressstrainrelationship,whichcaneffectively accommodate the change in stresses. The FE analysis in PLAXIS, for example finds the CSS, wheretheexcessivestrainsarelocalised,andcomputestheFOSbyac reductionprocedurefor theMohrCoulombsoilmodel.Inthiscontext,theliketolikecomparisonbythecomputedFOS
104
can reveal the inherent difference between LE and FE methods. In addition, the fundamental differencewithintheanalysismethodsexplainsthedifferenceincomputedresults(FOS). The FE analysis computes FOS for each element along the CSS, whereas a single, weighted average FOS is computed in the LE analyses. Moreover, Krahn (2004) states, A dynamic FE analyses can handle variations in FOS due to ground shaking in earthquakes, without any difficulty of convergence, i.e. stress redistributions for change in loading conditions. The conversionofsimulationsinLEisfoundproblematicforsteepCSS,whereasFEovercomessuch difficulties.ThisiswhythecomputedFOSfromtheFEanalysisisregardedasamorereliable valuefortheanalysedslopesandhencethemethodsarecomparedaccordingly. Using the FOS computed from PLAXIS as a reference (0%), a comparison of the LE and FE methods is presented in Fig. 7.5. The FOS, obtained from the analysed for the circular SS by SLOPE/WinChapter3,isusedforthecomparison.AllcommonlyusedLEmethods,exceptthe JSM,arefoundtooverestimatetheFOS.Thesmallestdifferenceisfoundforthedryslope,i.e. Case1,whereasthemaximumdifferenceoccurswhentheslopeisinfullysaturatedconditions, i.e.Case2a. ThelargerdifferenceinCase2aindicatesthatLEanalyseshavedifficultiestoestimatearealistic pore pressure distribution, and further changes in the effective normal stresses along the CSS. However,theseepageanalyses,i.e.Case2binSEEP/W,whichcomputestheporepressureusing finiteelements,havereducedthedifferenceinFOS.Thismeans,moreaccuratestressescanbe computedinFEanalysesthaninLEanalyses.
15 % 12 %
15 %
14 % 11 % 11 % 10 % 10 %
Difference in FOS
9% 6% 3% 0% -3 % -6 % -9 %
6%
5%
BSM
-5 % -5 % -7 % -5 %
JSM JGM
Case1
Case2a
Case2b
Case3
MPM
Load Cases
Fig.7.5ComparisonofLEmethods(circularSS)withtheFEsoftwarePLAXIS The study shows that the advanced LE (MP) method may overestimate FOS in saturated conditionasmuchas14%,whichisasignificantdifference(seeFig.7.5).However,thevariation isquitelow(5%)foracompletelydryslope.Similarly,JGMmayoverestimateFOSby412%.
105
Incontrast,JSMmayunderestimateFOSfrom57%.Nevertheless,thedifferencesinFOSmay varyfromcasetocase,andtherefore,itcannotbegeneralisedforallkindsofshearsurfaces. ThereasonforthedifferenceinFOSisprimarilyrelatedtothenormalstressdistributionalong the CSS. According to a study carried out by Krahn (2004), a significant difference in normal stressdistribution,particularlyinthetoearea,canbefoundbetweenFEandLEanalysesfora particular SS. This difference results in from the shear stress concentrations, which are not capturedintheLEanalyses,wherethenormalforcesatthebaseareprimarilyderivedfromthe weightoftheslidingmass.Krahn(2004)furtherconcludes,Thenormalstressdistributionfora deeperCSSismuchcloser,andthustheFOSfromFEandLEanalysesisnotmuchdifferent. Janbu(1973)alsosuggestsstudyingtheshearstressconcentrationsincriticalzonesbyusinga stressstrainrelationship,insteadoftheLEequations.Thesewidespreadexperienceshighlight the computational difficulty of a realistic stress distribution, which can be more precisely computedbythemodernFEanalyses. SeveralothershavealsoexperiencedthelimitationsoftheLEmethods.AsChowdhury(1978) states,ItisdifficultinLEanalysistoevaluatetheintersliceforces,whichdependonanumber of factors including the stressstrain and deformation characteristics of the materials in the slope. Likewise, Nash (1987) comments as follows, LE methods are not well situated to the analysisofdynamicstabilityofslopes,forexample,debrisflowsandslopesunderearthquakes loading. Thus, the dynamic effects on the pore pressure distributions and shear strength parametersaredifficulttomodelinLEmethods.Inthisstudyalso,nosimilarityintheinterslice forces,lineofthrustandcriticalshearsurfacewasfoundcomparedtotheanalysesinLEandFE methodsgiveninChapter3,Sections3.3.3.2and3.3.3.3.Theseparametersmayhaveinfluenced theFOSintheanalysis.
7.2 Stabilityconditionsofthecasestudyslopes
TwocaseslopesfromNepalwereanalysedforvariousstaticanddynamicconditionsinorderto evaluatethecriticalconditionsintheslopes.Thedetailedstabilityanalyseshavebeenpresented in Chapter 6, where detailed discussions on the computed FOS can be found. However, the stabilityconditionsofthesecaseslopesarealsobrieflydiscussedinthefollowingsections.
7.2.1
Casestudy:DamsiteLBslope
ThesummaryofthecomputedFOSispresentedinFig.7.6.TheslopewasanalysedbybothLE andFEmethodsforvarious loadandgroundwaterconditions.TheLE(SLOPE/WandSLIDE) analyses are based on circular SS and the presented FOS is related to MP method. The FOS from SLOPE/W and SLIDE is quite comparable, except for those obtained according to the seepageanalyses.However,PLAXIShascomputedslightlylowerFOS,andthereasonsforthis have been discussed above. The FOS from seepage analysis in SLIDE and SLOPE/W has disagreement as indicated in Fig. 7.6. The reason is the low effective stress due to the CSS, 106
which is located near the toe of the slope, compared to the CSS obtained in SLOPE/W (refer Chapter6,Section6.2.6.3).
1.6 1.5 1.4 SLOPE/W SLIDE PLAXIS
FOS
1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 Dry season GWT Wet season GWT Dry season + a = 0.15 Wet season + seepage
Fig.7.6FOScomputedbythreesoftwareprogramsforthedamsiteslope
The computed FOS, which are compared in Fig. 7.6, shows that the case slope is stable for all seasonalconditions.However,thelasttwocases(reada=h)indicatethattheslopemayhave criticalconditionasidentifiedbyPLAXIS(F=1.0).TheCSSinFEanalysisisfoundslightlynon circular (i.e. composite) compared to LE analysis. In contrast, a circular CSS is automatically searched for and analysed by the LE (SLOPE/W and SLIDE) software. However, a stability analysisforacompositeSSispossibleintheLEbasedsoftwareforauserdefinedSS,whichmay notnecessarilybethecriticalone. Theseepageanalysesindicatethattoeoftheslopemayhavecriticalconditionsinthemonsoons. The analysis further shows that any pressure relief measure around the toe of the slope will havesignificantimprovementintheFOS(seeFig6.13,Chapter6).Inaddition,wellfunctioning horizontaldrainsintheslopewillhaveapositivecontributiononFOS. The dynamic analyses of the case slope show that larger permanent displacements may result closetothesurface,indicatingacriticalconditionduringearthquakes(seeFig.6.19,Chapter6). Similarly, earthquakes may generate suction above the GWT and increased pore pressures belowit,asindicatedinFig.6.21.Thesoilsintheslopemayapproachtoplasticlimitduetothe dynamic shaking. This indicates that the strength of the soil will be fully utilised if such an earthquake event occurs. In addition, earthquakes may correspond to the undrained triaxial condition, in which the maximum shear strength attains at low axial strain levels, referring to the triaxial test results given in Figs. 5.10 and 5.11, Chapter5. The significant strain softening beyondthepeakstrength,andconsiderablereductioninshearstrengthatlargestrains,areboth indicatorsofunstableconditions.Elaborateddiscussionsonthedynamicsimulationshavebeen alreadypresentedinpreviousSection6.2.8. SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 107
7.2.2
Casestudy:Powerhouseslope
As in the previous case study, the FOS for three load cases are summarised in Fig. 7.7 for the powerhouseslope.The computedFOSinLE(SLOPE/W,SLIDE)analysesisbasedontheMP method,andtheFOScanbecomparedtotheresultsfromPLAXISanalyses.
1.7 1.6 1.5 SLOPE/W SLIDE PLAXIS
FOS
1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 Dry season GWT Wet season GWT Dry season + a = 0.15
Fig.7.7FOScomputedbythreesoftwareprogramsforpowerhouseslope The FOS from the PLAXIS analyses is found higher than unity, but slightly on the lower side comparedtoLEanalysesforthefirsttwoloadcases.However,pseudostaticanalysisinPLAXIS (reada=h)showstheequilibriumstateandhencedoesnotappearinFig.7.7. As in the previous case study, the comparison of FOS shows that both the LE based software SLOPE/WandSLIDEcomputealmostidenticalFOSinallconditions.However,aslightlyhigher FOSfromLEanalysescanbeseencomparedtotheFEanalyses.Moreover,ahigherFOSthan theminimumrequiredvaluedefinedforvariousconditions(normalF>1.5,earthquakeF>1.05), indicatesthattheslopewillremainstableforallseasonalconditions.However,theFEanalyses indicatethattheslopemayreachtothelimitingequilibriumcondition.AsstudiedinChapter3 (seeSection3.3.3.1),theFOScanbeincreasedbyapplicationofapositivedilatancyangle()in the FE analysis. The analysis utilises a small dilatancy angle in the p1 layer (see Table 6.1 in Chapter 6). According to the literature, overconsolidated slopes in silty sand materials may howevershowsignificantdilatancybehaviour. Seepage analyses by locating the wet season GWT shows considerably low FOS (see Fig. E.7, AppendixE).Thereasonisthereductioninnormaleffectivestressandcorrespondingeffecton theshearstrengthpropertiesofsoils.However,theapplicationofhorizontaldrainagesystems increased the stability close to the equilibrium state (see Fig. E.8). Similar to the previous case study, the slope was found unstable, particularly in the lower parts. However, the FOS can significantly be increased by utilising the lowered pressure at the toe as indicated in Fig. 6.26, Chapter 6. Thus, the seepage analysis shows that lowering of the GWT at the toe is highly 108
recommended.TheGWTregimemaydifferatthetoeafterregradingoftheslope.Evenifthere isuncertaintyabouttheGWTatthetoe,thestabilitysituationwillnotbemuchdifferentfrom thepresentanalyseswithrespecttotheseepageconditions. On one hand, the dynamic simulations carried out in PLAXIS indicate a similar risk as in the previouscasestudy.Thereasonsaretheshearstraindevelopment,permanentdisplacementand high acceleration close to the surface. Moreover, substantial amounts of plastic points were observedinanimationasinthepreviouscasestudyslope.However,thesuctionobservedclose tothesurfacemayimprovestability,ifthesuctionappearscloseorattheCSS. Ontheotherhand,thep2materialwiththedominatingpercentageofcalcite(81%)hasdifferent properties than others. A brittle behaviour at failure was revealed in the undrained triaxial shearing(seeFig.5.13).Thedynamicearthquakeeventsmayresembleanidenticalsituationas in the undrained triaxial test, which indicates the significant strain softening after 1 % axial strain. However, earthquake exerts a dynamic loading, whereas the strength parameters are referredtoastaticloadingintriaxialtesting.Inaddition,porepressureincreasesandthus,the shear strength nullifies at around 5 % axial strains in undrained conditions (see Fig. D.1, AppendixD).Thesefeaturesindicatethatinstabilityconditionsmayappearduringearthquakes. However, the probability of failure may be reduced by installing some pressure release measuresatthetoearea.Thiswillreduceapossibleriskofliquefactionaroundtheslopebase.
7.2.3
Investigatedstrengthparameters
Broadlyspeaking,theslopestabilityevaluationsareirrelevantunlessproperinputparameters areutilisedinthecomputations.Manyauthorshavehighlightedtheimportanceofthequalityof theinputparameters.Forexample,Janbu(2001)states,Theshearstrengthofsubsoilhastobe known before the analysis can be performed. Likewise, Nash (1987) points out, The soil propertiesandgroundwaterconditionsincludingothersaretheprinciplesourcesofuncertainty in slope stability. Thus, the investigation of relevant soil parameters is a vital work prior to performslopestabilityevaluations. Accordingly, fullscale laboratory investigations from index tests to the advanced triaxial tests werecarriedoutinthisstudy.Anemphasiswasgiventoinvestigatetheeffectiveshearstrength parametersfor the casestudy slopes. The specimens werebuiltin from the representative soil samples taking the reference to the index properties obtained from the Standard Proctor test. Moreover,someoftheindexpropertieswereverifiedlaterbyinsitulaboratorytesting,andonly marginallydifferentresultswerefoundcomparedtotheStandardProctortest(seeTable5.2in Chapter 5). Therefore, the specimens for permeability and triaxial tests were builtin based on themaximumdrydensityfoundbytheStandardProctortests. Though attempts were made to saturate the triaxial specimen by applying backpressures, the recommended Bvalue was not possible to attain for the wellgraded silty sand materials. To increasesaturationlevel,thespecimenswerethusbuiltinatslightlylowerdrydensitythanthe
109
Standard Proctor maximum dry density (see index properties in Appendix C, Section C.4). However, this attempt was also not sufficient to get full saturation as recommended. Accordingly,theshearstrengthparametersweredetermined.TherecordedBvaluesaregiven inSectionC.4.Inthepreviousstudiescarriedoutbyotherresearchers,theuseofCO2wastried withoutsatisfactoryresults.
Shearstrengthaffectingparameters
Thepreviousstudiescarriedoutforsiltyclayandsiltysoilsshowthatshearstrengthparameters aredependentonthedensityofthespecimen,themoisturecontentanddegreeofsaturation(see Appendix H, Figs. H.1 H.3). According to Andrei et al. (2001), a dense specimen will have higher cohesion than a medium dense specimen will at a lower moisture content level, as indicated in Figs. H.1 and H.3. Their study further shows that friction angle decreases as the water content increases in the soils. However, the study further indicates that friction angle is independentonthedrydensity,i.e.porosityofthespecimen.Thus,ahigherstrengthindense soilscanbefoundatalowmoisturecontentlevel.Contrarily,bothstrengthparametersshowa decreasingtrendinsaturatedconditionsevenifthedensityremainsconstant.Thisis(oneof)the reasonswhytheslopefailureoccursattheincreasedsaturationstage. Another study, carried out by Melinda et al. (2004) in direct shear tests, conducted for sandy leanclaymaterials(49%ofsand,25%ofsiltand26%ofclay),showsthatcohesionbecomes higherduetotheincreasedsuction,whereasthefrictionangleisalmostconstant.Theconducted directsheartestsresultsarepresentedinAppendixH(seeFig.H.4).Thetestswerecarriedout forbothwettinganddryingcycleswithvaryingmatricsuction.Thespecimenswerecompacted at2.0g/cm3ofdrydensityalmostsameasinthepresentstudy.Theirstudyfurthershows13kPa of cohesion and 300 of friction angle at zero suction (fully saturated condition). The partial saturated specimens in the present study may have small suction, and thus the cohesion parametermayhavebeentheoreticallyonthehigherside.However,theinvestigatedcohesions werefoundinlowrange(510kPainundrainedtriaxialtestsand1013kPaindrainedtriaxial tests).Moreover,eveniftheBvaluesshowedlowersaturationlevel,thetestresultswerefound closercomparedtothepreviousfullsaturatedadvancedtriaxialtests(seeFig.5.12,Chapter5). Eventhecohesionof20kPawasfoundinoneoftheprevioustests(seeFig.4.8,Chapter4).In supports that the investigated cohesion represents the true value even if the Bvalues were recordedlowerthanrecommendedones.
Dilativebehaviour
Dilative behaviour in soils is related to the plastic volumetric strains increments. As Bolton (1986) states, Dilatancy in sand depends on density and on the friction angle. According to Nash (1987), overconsolidated materials tend to dilate on shearing and the shear strength reaches a peak at small strains. Even if the builtin specimens did not reveal the dilative properties, i.e. volume increase during shearing in the triaxial tests, the overconsolidated case slopesmayhavethispropertyinsitu.Sincethepresentstabilityevaluationsutiliseverysmall 110
dilatancy, higher value will increase the FOS. It is noteworthy that the dilatancy can only be usedforsoilsshowingvolumeexpansionindrainedshearing,suchassandorsiltysandorOC clayeysoils.
7.2.4
Additionalanalysisconsiderations
Presentstabilityevaluationsofthecasestudyslopesarebasedoncommonanalyticalapproach, in which the negative pore pressure (suction) above the GWT is ignored. As Fredlund (1987) states,Itisareasonableassumptiontoneglectsuctionformanysituationswherethemajorpart of the CSS passes through a saturated soil. According to the principles of saturated soils, the applied LE and FE analyses utilise the saturated shear strength parameters, which have been discussedinpreviousSection7.2.3.Moreover,heavyrainfalloccursinthecasestudyareafrom June to July (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5) and there is hence a high possibility of a diminished suctionintheunsaturatedzoneduringthemonsoonperiod.Thisexplainsthereasonofsuction, beingatemporaryfeature,anditgenerallyisneglectedinslopestabilityevaluations. Actually, the approach of neglecting the suction results in a conservative FOS. Therefore, for situations where the GWT is deep, or a shallow failure occurs above the GWT in the partially saturated zone, the stability of slopes are better analysed using an assumption of unsaturated soils. Accordingly, the effect of suction is incorporated in the extended MohrCoulomb failure criteriaandtheshearstrengthatfailureasproposedbyFredlund(1987)isgivenby:
f = c '+ (ua uw ) tan b + ( n ua ) tan '

where,
(7.1)
f =shearstrengthofunsaturatedsoilatfailure
cand=effectivecohesionandinternalfrictionangle, n =normalstress ua =poreairpressure uw =porewaterpressure (uauw)=matricsuctionatfailure b=angleindicatingrateofincreaseinshearstrengthrelativetothematrixsuction(~150)
Shearstrengthofsoilreliesontheeffectivestresses,whateveristheconditionofdrainage.The suction results in positive effective stresses and hence increases the shear strength of the soil (Nash1987).Thus,thesuctionabovetheGWTwillhaveadditionalimprovementinFOS,ifthe investigatedparametersareutilisedintheanalyses. The steep slopes encountered in tropical regions, for example in Nepal, are capable of maintainingthestabilityduetothesuctioneffectsinthedryseason.Thesoilsaretypicallyinan
111
unsaturated state with negative porewater pressure since the groundwater tables in steep slopes are often deep. Many slopes that are stable in dry seasons become unstable just at the middleorattheendofthewet(monsoon)seasons.Thelossinsuctionisthemainreasonofthe majority of slope failures just after the monsoon. As saturation is reached due to the rainfall infiltrationandriseinGWT,theporeairpressurebecomesequaltotheporewaterpressure(i.e.
ua=uw),andthus,thelastterminEq.(7.1)disappearsresultingtothelowershearstrength.
Nevertheless, the suction existing above the GWT may be utilised in the design if the applied suction level in analysis can be maintained by some means all the year round. This is an interesting topic for further research, which requires special equipment to measure suction in laboratoryandcontrolthesimilarconditionsinthefield. Moreover,thepresentstudycoversthe2DanalysesofslopesforacircularSSinLEanalysesand acompositeSSinFEanalyses.Alargenumberofpreviousstudiesshowthatthe3Danalysisof slopesgivesgreaterFOSthanthe2Danalyses(Duncan1996).Infact,the3Danalysesofslopes werebasedonthecurvedSS,withloadsinalimitedextentandaconstrainedfailuresurfaceby physicalboundaries.TheconclusionfromthosestudieswasparticularlyvalidforthecircularSS andthe2Danalysiscarriedoutforthemostcriticalsectionofaslope.However,asHutchinson and Sharma (1985), and Leshchinsky and Baker (1986) pointed out, the 2D and 3Danalyses shouldgivethesameFOSforslopesinhomogeneouscohesionlesssoils,becauseinsuchsoils, theSSisusuallyashallowplaneparalleltothesurfaceoftheslope.Furthermore,Azzouzetal. (1981), and Leshchinsky and Huang (1991), noted that if 3D effects are neglected, the back calculated strength parameters (from 2Danalysis) will be too high (Duncan 1996). Further application of the calculated strength parameters in 3Danalysis gives the FOS greater than unity, and if so the slope would never have failed. Back analysis means the analyses of previouslyfailedslopes,wheretheFOSislessthanunity.Thisindicatesaconsiderable3Deffect onFOS.Moreover,thestabilityanalyseswith3DconsiderationsnotonlyincreasetheFOSand optimisethedesign,butsubstantialresourcescanbesavedifthereliableinputparametersare investigatedandappliedintheanalyses. The performed dynamic analyses for the case study are based on the undamped vibrations, exceptforthelatterfewresultsgivenattheendofChapter6.Forsuchvibrations,thetermofthe dampingmatrixinEq.(2.24)(giveninChapter2)iszero(Kramer,1994).However,thedamped Newmark method with the applied coefficients ( = 0.3025 and = 0.6) considers an artificial damping even if Rayleigh damping is neglected. Moreover, the consideration of undamped Rayleighsystemresultedinaconservativesolution.Inreality,soilswillhavecertaindamping property. Therefore, dynamic analysis should be performed using proper damping ratios (), which can be determined experimentally by a resonance column test. The damping ratio () dependsonplasticityindex(PI)andcyclicshearstrains.AccordingtoVuceticandDobry(1991), the soil with lower PI will have higher damping ratio and vice versa at the same cyclic shear strain.Intheirstudy,forexample,ifPI=0,thevalueof canbeashighas 24%,whereasatPI =100,thevalueof canbereduceddownto 10%at1%cyclicshearstrain. 112
Chapter8
ConclusionsandRecommendations
8.1 Conclusions
Today, the two approaches of stability analyses, one based on limit equilibrium (LE) formulationsandtheotherbasedonfiniteelement(FE)principlesarewidelyusedinpractice. The basic physics of stressstrain relationship, which is lacking in LE methods, has been well covered by the FE methods. As a result, complicated geotechnical computations can easily be performed.Inaddition,FEanalysiscansimulatestressconcentratedproblemsanddeformation compatibility, which have been experienced problematic in LE analysis. This has been one of theadvantagesofFEcalculations.Ontheotherhand,LEmethodshavebeenappliedformany years. Hence, they are wellestablished and common in practice. Userfriendliness, simplicity andrelativelygoodFOSforaparticularcasearetheadvantagesoftheLEmethods. Thescopeofthisstudywastocomparevariousstabilityevaluationmethods.Accordingly,most common LE approaches were compared with the advanced LE (MP) method. Similarly, the differencesinFOScomputedfromLEandFEanalyseswerecomparedbasedonasimpleslope consideringvariousloadcases.Inaddition,tworealslopesinacasestudywereanalysedforthe recorded minimummaximum GWT, pseudostatic and dynamic conditions. Moreover, the stabilityevaluationsoftheseslopeswerebasedonbothLE(MP)andFE(PLAXIS)calculation approaches, which both utilised shear strength parameters from advanced triaxial tests. Similarly,MohrCoulombmodelwasappliedinbothapproaches.Thefollowingconclusionsare hencederivedbasedonthereportedworkonbothidealizedandrealslopes.
8.1.1 Evaluationoftheanalyticalmethods
TheconclusionsaremainlybasedonthecircularSSanalyses.However,planeSSandcomposite SSwereanalysedinSLOPE/Wforoneofthecasestudies,asanadditionalcomparativestudy.
113
The main findings from the studies are summarised as follows for the application of LE methods. The simplified Bishop (BS), generalised Janbu (GPS), MorgensternPrice (MP) and SpencermethodsyieldinmostcasesidenticalFOSforcircularSSwithoutanyexternal loadsontheslopes.However,thesimplifiedJanbu(JS)methodmayunderestimatethe FOSfrom813%forthecircularCSSobtainedbythismethod. TheJS,GPSandMPmethodsresultinthesameFOSforplaneSSwithoutanyexternal loads.However,theBSmethodeitheroverorunderestimatestheFOSfortheplaneSS. TheGPSandMPmethodscomputeidenticalFOSforcomposite(noncircular,i.e.partly circularandpartlyplane)SSanalysis.Inaddition,bothmethodswerefoundcomputing thesameFOSforaparticularcircularSS. TheMPmethod,orgenerallimitequilibrium(GLE)procedure,isrecommendedtouse inanykindofSSanalyses,includingexternalforces,unlessFEmethodsareavailable. TheFOScomputedfromforceequilibriummethods(e.g.JS)issensitivetotheinterslice force function (f(x)), one exception occurs for plane SS analyses. Similarly, the FOS computedfrommomentequilibriummethods(e.g.BS)issensitivetothef(x),exceptfor circular SS analyses. Moreover, the sine function used for interslice shear force computation is inappropriate, particularly for computation of interslice shear forces at thetoeandcrestareasoftheslopes. The two LE based software, SLOPE/W and SLIDE, compute identical FOS within 1% variationscomparedwithmethodtomethodexceptinseepageanalyses.Otherwise,both software programs are found reliable for slope stability evaluations. Moreover, SLIDE hasbothgroundwatercalculationfeature(seepageanalysis)andslopestabilityanalysis, i.e.twoinonepackage,whereasSLOPE/Wrequiresseparatesoftware,suchasSEEP/W forseepageanalysis. Similarly, further conclusions are derived from the comparative study between the LE based software(SLOPE/WandSLIDE)andtheFEbasedsoftware(PLAXIS).Thecomparativestudies weremadeusingthePLAXIScalculationsasreference.ThisprogramsearchesfortheCSSand computes the effective base normal stress utilising the stressstrain relationship, also for non circulargeometries. All LE methods, except the Fellenius (Ordinary) and JS methods, estimate higher FOS than FE analysis in PLAXIS. The JS method may underestimate FOS from 5 7 % compared to FE. However, the correction factor applied in JS method (i.e. JCM) computesalmostidenticalFOScomparedwiththeFEanalysis. 114
Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations
ThemostrigorousMPmethodorGLEproceduremayoverestimateFOSwithasmuch as14%infullysaturatedslopeswithhydrostaticporepressuredistributions.However, theoverestimationmaydropaslowas5%fordryslopes.
The FE methods are best suited for external loads, complicated geometry and more realistic normal stress distributions and resulting FOS. Hence, the FE analysis is recommendedtouseinstabilityevaluationswithinvestigatedrelevantsoilparameters.
TheporepressuredistributionfromseepageanalysesinPLAXISarefoundcomparable to those obtained in SEEP/W and groundwater calculations in SLIDE using a finite element approach. Even in this case, the LE (MPM) analysis may overestimate FOS as highas11%comparedtotheFEanalysis.
Where appropriate, application of a positive dilatancy angle ( = 100) in the FE analysismayimprovetheFOSintherangeof410%dependingontheporepressure conditions. Similarly, the analyses with optimisation (slightly noncircular SS) in SLOPE/W (MPM) and with the application of in PLAXIS may result in the identical FOS. However, the difference in FOS between LE (MPM) and FE analyses may sometimesrisetomoderatevariations(<5%)eveniftheseparametersareconsidered.
The interslice forces, line of thrust and the base normal stresses are not identical in FE and LE analyses, which explain the differences in FOS computed from LE and FE methodsinthesestudies.
8.1.2 Applicationoftheanalyticalmethods
In addition to the FE software (PLAXIS), the LE software (SLOPE/W and SLIDE) with the selected BS and MP methods were utilised for the case stud slopes from Nepal. Based on the analyses,whichstudiedmainlytheeffectofgroundwatervariations,seepageanalyses,pseudo staticanddynamicearthquakes,thefollowingconclusionsaremade. Both SLOPE/W and SLIDE software is found computing identical FOS for the selected MP method even for various load combinations and complicated slope geometry. Concerningtheparticularcasestudy,theslopesarefoundstableforallseasons,andwill remainstableunlesstheGWTorotherdestabilisingforcesareincreased.Theconclusion is based on the analyses utilising the recorded GWT, which are expected as low as possible, even in the wet season, due to the installed drainage system. Any fault or blockageinthedrainagemaydecreasethestabilityoftheslopes. Stability evaluations by using the pore pressure distribution from seepage analyses indicate that the toe of the case study may have critical conditions in wet seasons. Further analyses of the particular case study, using a subsurface horizontal drainage SlopestabilityevaluationsbyLEandFEmethods 115
system,indicateanimprovedFOS.Similarly,significantimprovementinFOSwasfound due to the introduction of pressure relief wells around the toe of the slopes. Based on thesefindingsfromtheresearchstudy,itisconcludedthatthetoeofaslopeingeneralis the most critical part in the wet season concerning the seepage. Considering the particular case study, any measures carried out to lower the pore pressures, especially aroundthetoeoftheslope,willhavesubstantialimprovementintheFOS. Limited to the case study, it is concluded that the slopes are found stable from the pseudostatic analyses, using the recommended horizontal seismic acceleration (h = 0.15g)fromtheLEmethods.However,FEanalysesindicatethatbothcasestudyslopes mayreachcriticalconditionsduringearthquakeevents. Basedonthedynamicanalyses,itisconcludedthatthecrestofthestudiedslopesmaybe permanently displaced some centimetres, and thus may have critical conditions. Moreover, the unusual properties of p2 material in the powerhouse slope were investigated in the undrained triaxial tests, which may simulate the conditions during the earthquake events. Among them, a significant strain softening behaviour (at ~1 % axialstrain)andzeroshearstrength(at~5%axialstrains)mayinitiatecriticalconditions duringearthquakes.However,theworstcasescenario,whichassumestheacceleration across the river and out of the slopes, was used in both pseudostatic and dynamic earthquakeanalyses.Thisconditionmaynotnecessarilyappearduringearthquakes. The computed FOS herein may be the absolute minimum, since the analyses neither utilise the suction in the unsaturated SS above the GWT, nor consider higher positive dilatancyparameter,whichcanbeexpectedinthestiff,overconsolidatedmaterialsinthe naturalslopes.Moreover,the3Danalysiseffect,ascommentedonbye.g.Duncan(1996), shouldalsobeconsidered,resultinginanadditionalimprovementintheFOS.
8.2 Furtherresearchandrecommendedworks
Thestabilityevaluationsofthecasestudyslopesutilisethecommonanalyticalapproachbased ontheprinciplesofsaturatedsoils.Thisapproachisrealisticfortheslopeswherethemajorityof the CSS falls within the saturated zone. However, for situations where a failure occurs above the GWT in the partially saturated zone, the stability of slopes are better evaluated using an assumption of unsaturated soil. The advantage of such analysis will have both cost effective solutionandadvancedunderstandingofthesuctioncontributionintheslopestability. Similarly, the studies of 3Dslope stability analyses show better FOS than in 2Danalyses (Duncan1996).Therefore,suchstudiesnotonlyincreasetheFOSandoptimisethedesign,but substantial saving on resources can also be assured with reliable input parameters in the analyses.Withintheseperspectives,furtherstudiesonthefollowingareasarerecommended: 116
Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations
Furtherresearchonslopestabilityanalysisinunsaturatedsoilsisrecommended,focusingon particularmeasuresthatcanincreaseormaintainsuctionduringrainfallinfiltration.Inthis respect, in situ and laboratory investigations for suction measurements, and the measurements of theadditional strength parameters (e.g.ua and b) are most essential for subsequentstabilityevaluationinunsaturatedslopes.
3Dslope stability analyses are recommended to compare the FOS obtained from 2D analyses,whicharegenerallyconsideredprovidingconservativeresults(i.e.lowFOS).With the expected higher FOS in 3Danalyses, a costeffective steeper slope may be designed maintainingadequatestability.
Adetailstudyondynamicresponseisrecommendedbyconductingresonancecolumntest for sitespecific damping ratio (). The performed dynamic analyses utilise mainly undamped force vibrations except the last verification analyses. The Rayleigh undamped condition was found resulting in conservative solutions especially at the surface, where large acceleration time series and more permanent displacements have been observed. Therefore,furtherresearchonthisareawillhaveadditionaladvantage.
Particularly focusing on the case study slopes, the following remedial measures are recommended for the improvement of the stability in critical conditions, like monsoons and earthquakes. The recommended measures may be useful also for general slopes if these conditionsarefoundascriticalevents. Since, the lowering of the GWT at the toe of the slopes was found providing substantial improvement on FOS, such installations are strongly recommended to keep the slopes stableincriticalconditions.Thisappliestobothcasestudyslopes. Plantation of vegetation will not only control surface erosion and reduce rainwater infiltration, but also maintain suction in the unsaturated part of the slopes during the monsoons.Itisthereforestronglyrecommendedtocontinuesuchmeasuresintheslopes. Additional instrumentations, for example inclinometers or tiltmeters and in situ suction measurementsystemsarerecommendedtoinstallforfuturemonitoringandevaluationsof thestabilityconditions.
117
ListofReferencesandLiteratures
ListofReferences
1. Abramson, L. W., Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G. M. (2002). Slope Stability Concepts. Slope Stabilisation and Stabilisation Methods, Second edition, published by John Willey & Sons,Inc.,pp.329461. 2. AlKhafaji, A. W. and Andersland, O. B. (1992). Soil Compaction. Geotechnical Engineering andSoilTesting,SaundersCollegePublishing,pp.113131,486,559. 3. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D248790 (1992). Standard test methods for classificationofsoilsforengineeringpurposes.ASTMStandards,Vol.04.08,Sec.4,pp.32636. 4. Andrei, S., Antonescu, I., Manea, S. and Paunescu, D. (2001). Guide for using the systematization, storing and predicting the geotechnical parameters. Technical University, Bucharest,(inRomanian). 5. Aryal, K. Sandven, R. and Nordal, S. (2005). Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods. Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Engineering, 16 ICSMGE, Osaka, Japan,pp.247176. 6. Aryal,K.andSandven,R.(2005).Riskevaluationofaslopeandmitigationmeasures:Acasestudy fromNepal.Proc.ofthe11thConf.andfieldtriponLandslides.LandslidesandAvalanches, ICFL2005,Norway,pp.3136. 7. Aryal,K.,Rohde,J.K.andSandven,R.(2004).SlopeStability,StabilizationandMonitoring:A Case Study from Khimti Power Plant, Nepal. Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics and GeoenvironmentalEngineering,ICGGE2004,Bombay,India,pp.10005.
8. Athanasiu,C.(2005).Discussionsoninfluencingfactorsonshearstrengthparameters.Norwegian UniversityofScienceandTechnology,Trondheim. 9. Azzouz,A.S.,Baligh,M.M.,andLadd,C.C.(1981).Threedimensionalstabilityanalysesoffour embankment failures. Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. ad Found. Engg., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,Thenederlands,3,pp.34346. 10. Bathe,K.J.(1996).Finiteelementprocedures.PrenticeHall. 11. Bishop,A.W.andHenkel,D.J.(1962).Themeasurementofsoilpropertiesintriaxialtest.Eward Arnold,London,p.228. 12. Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of slip circles in stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique, Vol. 5 No.1,pp.717. 13. Bolton,M.D.(1986).TheStrengthandDilatancyofSands.Geotechnique,Vol.36(1),pp.6578. 14. Brauns, J. (2000). Additional comments upon site visits. Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project,Nepal,Geotechnicalreport. 118
Listofreferences
15. Chaney, R. and Mulilis, P. J. (1978). Suggested method for soil specimen remoulding by wet raining.ASTMGeotechnicaltestingJournal,Vol.1,No.2,pp.10708. 16. Chowdhury,R.N.(1978).SlopeAnalysis.DevelopmentsinGeotechnicalEngineeringVol22, pp.13753. 17. Chugh, A. K. (1986). Variable Interslice Force Inclination in Slope Stability Analysis. Soils and Foundation,JapaneseSocietyofSMFE,Vol26,No.1,pp.11521. 18. Coduto, D. P. (1999). Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices. Price Hall, upper SaddleRiver,NJ07458,pp.464517. 19. Corps of Engineers (1970). Slope Stability manual. EM 111021902, Washington, DC: DepartmentoftheArmy,OfficeoftheChiefEngineers. 20. Consulting Engineers Salzgitter (CES) GmbH, (2005): Hydropower / Hydroelectric Schemes (PDF). Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project, Nepal. Nepal Electricity Authority, DurbarMarg,Kathmandu.http://www.ces.de/05/01/229901ec.pdf. 21. Das, B. M. (2002). Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual. Sixth Edition, Published by Oxford UniversityPress. 22. Das,B.M.(1995).Fundamentalsofsoildynamics.Elsevier,UniversityPress. 23. DeGroff, W., Donaghe, R., Lade, P. and Rochelle, P. L. (1988). Correction of Strength for MembraneEffectsinTriaxialTest.GeotechnicalTestingJournal,ASTM,Vol.11(1),pp.7882. 24. Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) (2004). Rainfall recordings data in LamjungDistsrict.BabarMahal,POBox406,KathmanduNepal. 25. Deoja, B. B. (2000). Mountain roads developments in Nepal: Engineering geological concerns. JournalofNepalGeologicalSociety,Vol.22,p.167. 26. Dixit, A. M., Samant, L. D., Nakarmi, M., Tucker, B. and Pradhang, S. B. (1999). The KathmanduValleyEarthquakeRiskManagementActionPlan.PublishedbyNationalSocietyfor EarthquakeTechnology,NepalandGeohazardsInternational,USA. 27. Duncan,J.M.(1996):StateoftheArt:LimitEquilibriumandFiniteElementAnalysisinSlopes. JournalofGeotechnicalEngineering,Vol.122(7),pp.57796. 28. Edgers, L. and Nadim, F. (2004). Rainfall induced slides of unsaturated slopes. Landslides EvaluationsandStabilization.Proc.ofthe9thInt.Symp.onLandslides,RioDeJaneiro,Vol. 2,p.1091. 29. Emdal,A.(1994).Setninger.KompendiumI,Geoteknikk,InstituttforGeoteknikk,NTH(In Norwegian),pp.9496. 30. Fellunius, W. (1936). Calculations of the Stability of Earth Dams. Proceedings of the Second CongressofLargeDams.Vol.4,pp.44563,WashingtonD.C. 31. Fredlund, D. G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993). Slope Stability. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated soils.Wiley:pp.32045.
119
32. Fredlund, D. G. (1987). Slope Stability Analysis Incorporating the Effect of Soil Suction. Slope Stability,Chapter4.M.G.AndersenandK.S.Richards,Eds.NewYork:Wiley,pp.11344. 33. Fredlund,D.G.,Krahn,J.andPufahl,D.E.(1981).TherelationshipbetweenLimitEquilibrium SlopeStabilityMethods.Proc.Ofthe10thICSMFE,Vol.3,Stockholm,Sweden,pp.40916. 34. Fredlund, D. G. and Krahn, J. (1977). Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis. CanadianGeotechnicalJournal,Vol.14,pp.42939. 35. Fichtner J. V. (2005). Piezometer records for Dam site LB and Powerhouse slopes. Middle MarsyangdiHydroelectricProject. 36. FichtnerJ.V.(2003).Revisedconstructiondrawings.MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject. 37. Fichtner J. V. (2001). Tender Design Report Vol. 5. Geological Report, Middle Marsyangdi HydroelectricProject. 38. Fichtner J. V. (2001). Stage 2 Detailed Design, Powerhouse area. Middle Marsyangdi HydroelectricProject. 39. FichtnerJ.V.(2000).BasicDesignMemorandum.MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject. 40. Fichtner J. V. (2000). Detailed Engineering Study, Geotechnical Investigations. Report on Soil Investigation,MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject. 41. Goodman, R. E. (1993). Soluble Rocks: Limestone, Dolomite and Evaporates. Engineering Geology,RockinEngineeringConstruction,PublisherJohnWiley&Sons,Inc.,pp.14358. 42. Grande, L. (1997). Skrningsstabilitet. Kompendium Geoteknikk 2, grunnkurs. Norges teknisknaturvitenskapeligeuniversitet,NTNU(InNorwegian). 43. Grande, L. and Waterman, D. (2005). Phreatic level correction in PLAXIS. Personal communicationsanddiscussionsforadjustmentofphreaticsurfaceofinclinedgroundwater tableforstabilityanalysis(lars.grande@ntnu.no,support@plaxis.nl). 44. Head,K.H.(1989).SoilTechniciansHandbook.Pentech,Press,London,JohnWilley&Sons, NewYork,Toronto. 45. Head, K. H. (1985). Manual of Soil Laboratory testing. Vol. 3, Effective stress tests, Pentech, Press,London,JohnWilley&Sons,NewYork,Toronto. 46. Hurlbut, C. S. and Sharp, W. E. (1998). Danas Minerals and How to Study Them. Fourth Edition,pp.19799. 47. Hutchinson,J.N.andSarma,S.K(1985).Discussionof3Dlimitequilibriumanalysisofslopes, byH.R.Chenand.L.Chameau.Geotechnique,London,35(2),pp.21516. 48. ICOLD(1989).SelectingSeismicParametersforLargedam.DesignGuidelines,Bulletin72. 49. Janbu,N.(2001).SlopeStabilityProceduresusedinLandslideEvaluationsinPractice.Landslide JournaloftheJapaneseLandslideSociety,Vol.38,No3,pp.16168. 50. Janbu, N. (1996). Slope Stability Evaluations in engineering practice. 7th International SymposiumonLandslides,Trondheim,Norway,Vol.1pp.1734. 120
Listofreferences
51. Janbu, N. (1973). Slope Stability Computations. Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume,pp.4786. 52. Janbu, N. (1970). Beregning av relativdeformasjonen. Grunnlag i geoteknikk (In Norwegian). TapirForlag,pp.18182. 53. Janbu, N. (1968). Slope Stability Computations. (Geoteknikk, NTH). Soil Mechanics and FoundationEngineering,TechnicalUniversityofNorway. 54. Janbu,N.(1963).Soilcompressibilityasdeterminedbyoedometerandtriaxialtests.IIIEuropean Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ECSMFE), Wiesbaden, Germany.Proceedings,Vol.2(1),pp.12936. 55. Janbu, N. (1957). Earth pressure and bearing capacity calculations by generalised procedure of slices.Proceedingsofthe4th InternationalConference,SMFE,London,2,pp.20712. 56. Janbu, N. (1954a). Stability analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters. Thesis for the Doctor of Science in the Field of Civil Engineering, Harvard University Soil Mechanics Series,No.46. 57. Janbu, N. (1954b). Application of Composite Slip Surface for Stability Analysis. European ConferenceonStabilityofEarthSlopes,Stockholm. 58. Kezdi, A. (1980). A Hand book of Soil Mechanics. Vol 2, Soil Testing, Elsevier Scientific PublishingCompany,Amsterdam,Oxford,NewYork. 59. Kezdi, A. (1974). A Hand book of Soil Mechanics. Soil Physics Vol 1, Elsevier Scientific PublishingCompany,Amsterdam,Oxford,NewYork,p.32. 60. Krahn,J.(2004).StabilityModellingwithSLOPE/W.AnEngineeringMethodology,Published byGeoSlopeInternational. 61. Krahn, J. (2003). The limits of limit equilibrium analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40,pp.64360. 62. Kramer,S.(1994).Dampingandsurfacewaves.GeotechnicalEarthquakeEngineering. 63. Ladd, R. S. (1978). Preparing Test Specimens Using Undercompaction, Geotechnical testing Journal,GTJODJ,Vol.1,No.1,pp.1623. 64. Leroueil, S. and Hight, D. W. (2003). Behaviour and properties of natural soils and soft rocks. International Workshop on Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, Singapore,23Dec.2002.Proceedings,Vol.1,p.133. 65. Leshchinsky, D., and Baker, R. (1986). Three dimensional slope stability: end effects. Journal SoilsandFoundations,26(4),pp.98110. 66. Leshchinsky, D., and Huang, C. (1992). Generalised three dimensional slope stability analyses. JournalGeotech.Engg.,ASCE,118(11),pp.174864. 67. Lowe,J.,andKarafiath,R.V.(1960).StabilityofEarthDamuponDrawdown.Proceedingsof the of the first Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, MaxicoCity,pp.53752.
121
68. Melinda,F.,Rahardjo,H.,Han,K.K.,andLeongE.C.(2004).ShearStrengthofCompactedSoil underInfiltrationCondition.JournalofGeotechnicalandGeoenvironmentalEngineering,Vol. 130(8),pp.80717. 69. Ministry of Water Resources (MWR) (2003). Nepal Country Report presented by Minister for WaterResources.The3rdWorldWaterForum,Kyoto. 70. Mitchell, J. K. (1993). Soil Mineralogy and Behaviour of Minerals. In Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour,Secondedition,PublishedbyJohnWiley&Sons,Inc. 71. Morgenstern,N.R.andPrice,V.E.(1965).TheAnalysisoftheStabilityofGeneralSlipSurfaces. Geotechnique,Vol.15,No.1pp.7793. 72. Nash,D.(1987).ComprehensiveReviewofLimitEquilibriumMethodsofStabilityAnalysis.Slope Stability,Chapter2.M.G.AndersenandK.S.Richards,Eds.NewYork:Wiley,pp.1175. 73. NEA Lab. (2001). Report on Additional Soil Investigation. Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project.Soil,RockandConcreteLaboratory,NEA,Kathmandu. 74. NEA Lab. (2000). Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project. Detail Engineering Study, Geo technical Investigation, Report on Soil investigation. Soil, Rock and Concrete Laboratory, NEA,Kathmandu. 75. Nepal,K.M.andOlssonR.(2001).GeologicalandFoundationStudiesforSpillwayDam.Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project, Central Nepal. Workshop on Rock Mechanics and TunnellingTechniques,Kathmandu,Nepal,1012September,2001. 76. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) (2001). Seismic slope stability. Technical Note 2, MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject,Nepal. 77. NorwegianGeotechnicalInstitute(NGI)(2001).LaboratoryTestResults.MiddleMarsyangdi HydroelectricProject,Nepal. 78. Norwegian Standard (NS) (1982): Geotekniske proving. Laboratoriemetoder Jords oppbygning.Begreper,terminologiogsymboler(NS8010),ogKorndensitet(NS8012). 79. Nordal, S. (2002). Elastoplasticity. Course materials for Geotechnical Constructions, GeotechnicalDivision,NTNU,Norway. 80. Nordal, S. and Glaamen, M. G. (2004). Some examples of slope stability evaluations from Norwegian geotechnical practice. Geotechnical Innovations, Edited by Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Schad,H.,Schweiger,H.F.andWilland,E.,pp.34763. 81. Nordal,S.,andKramer,S.(2003).Geodynamics.TeachingmaterialsforPhDCourseBA8300. GeotechnicalDivision,NTNU,Norway. 82. NSCN(1994).NationalSeismologicalNetworkNepal.MinistryofIndustry,DMG,Nepal. 83. Perkins,D.(1998).XrayDiffraction.Mineralogy,UniversityofNorthDakota,PrenticeHall, NewJersey,pp.25877. 84. PLAXIS (2004). Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses. PLAXIS2D Version 8, ReferenceManual,EditedbyBrinkgreve,etal.,DUT,theNetherlands.www.plaxis.nl. 122
Listofreferences
85. Sandven, R. (2003). Geotechnical field and laboratory tests. Geotechnics, material properties, CoursematerialSIB2020,GeotechnicalDivision,NTNU. 86. Sandven,R.andSvaan,O.(1993).LaboratoriumforGeoteknikk.VeiledingforGejennomfring avPermeabilitetsforsk,Utstyrsbeskrivelse,Forsksrutiner(InNorwegian). 87. Sandven, R. (1992). Incremental Oedometer test. Test routines, Application of software, InstituteforGeotechnic,NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology. 88. Sarma,S.K.(1973).StabilityAnalysisofEmbankmentandSlopes.Geotechnique,Vol.23(3),pp. 42333. 89. SLEEP/W(2005).Seepageanalyses.SoftwarepermittedforlimitedperiodofusebyGeoSlope Office,Canada,(lorin@geoslope.com),www.geoslope.com. 90. SILT Consultant (2001). Additional Soil Investigation. Middle Marsyangdi Hydroelectric Project,Nepal. 91. SLIDE (2003). Stability analysis for soil and rock slopes. Slide, Users Guide, Geomechanics SoftwareSolutions,RocscienceInc.,Canada.www.rocscience.com. 92. SLOPE/W (2002). Stability Analysis. Users Guide Version 5, GeoSlope Office, Canada. www.geoslope.com. 93. Spencer, E. (1967). A method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments, Assuming Parallel IntersliceForces.Geotechnique,Vol.17,pp.1126. 94. Skinner B. J., Porter S. C. (2000). The Dynamic Earth. An Introduction to Physical Geology, 4thEdition,PublishedbyJohnWilleyandSons,Inc.,pp.74,12526. 95. Statens vegvesen (1997). Laboratory Investigations. Handbook 014 and 015 (in Norwegian), PublishedbyNorwegianRoadAuthorities. 96. Thielen, A., Friedel, S., Plotze, M. and Springman, S.M. (2005). Combined approach for site investigation in terms of the analysis of rainfall induced landslides. Proceedings of the 16th Int. Conf.onSoilMechancisandGeotechnicalEngineering,OsakaJapan,p.2591. 97. Taylor,M.J.andBurns,S.F.(2005).SlopeandseismicstabilityofCastleLakeDebrisDam,St. Helens, Washington. Landslide and Avalanches: ICFL 2005 Norway, Edr. Senneset, Flaate andLarsen. 98. Wenk, H. R. and Bulakh, A. (2003): Minerals, Their Constitution and Origin. Cambridge UniversalityPress,pp.36575. 99. Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics. Soil testing: Stress and strainvariables,CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.1625. 100. Yamanaka,H.andIwata,S.(1982).RiverterracesalongthemiddleKaliGandaliandMarsyangdi Khola,CentralNepal.JournalofNepalGeologicalSociety,Vol.2,SpecialIssue,pp.95111. 101. Vucetic, M. and Dobry R. (1991). Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of GeotechnicalEngineering,ASCE,Vol117No1,pp.89107.
123
Listofliteratures
102. Andersen,M.andRichards,K.S.(1987).Modellingofslopestability:thecomplimentarynature of geotechnical and geomorphological approaches. Slope Stability, Geotechnical Engineering andGeomorphology,PublishedbyJohnWiley&Sons,Inc,pp.19. 103. Deer, W. A., Howie, R. A. and Zussman, J. (1996). An Introduction to the Rock Forming Minerals.SecondEdition,PrintedinHonkong. 104. Lahmeyer International (1998). Upgrading of Feasibility Study Report. Addendum No.3, GeologyandGeotechnics,MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject,Nepal. 105. Lahmeyer International (1997). Upgrading of Feasibility Study Report. Vol.3.6, Geology and Geotechnics,MiddleMarsyangdiHydroelectricProject. 106. Larsen, J. O. (2002). Some aspects of physical and weather related slope processes. A Doctoral ThesissummatedtotheNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology. 107. Larsen, J. O., Okamoto, T., Matsuura, S., Grande, L. and Asano, S. (2002): Slope stability related to weather parameters in a quick clay deposit. An article submitted to the Canadian GeotechnicalJournal,(Article4,andDoctoralThesisbyLarsen). 108. Larsen, J. O., Okamoto, T., Matsuura, S., Grande, L. and Asano, S. (1999). Slide activity in Quick clay related to Porepressure and Weather parameters, (Article 3, Doctoral Thesis by Larsen). 109. Okamoto,T.S.,Asano,S.MatsuuraS.andLarsen,J.O.(1999).MonitoringofSlopeFailurein aQuick clayDepositArea.JournalofJapanLandslideSociety,362(InJapanese),(Article2, DoctoralThesisbyLarsen2002). 110. Olsson,R.(2001).Fjellsprengningskonferansen.BergmekanikkdagenogGeotecknikkdagen,(In Norwegian),pp.381to19. 111. Pandey, M. R., Chitrakar, G. R., Kafle, B. Sapkota, S. N., Rajaure, S. and Gautam, U. P. (2002). Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal. Department of Mines and Geology, National SeismologicalCentre,Kathmandu,Nepal. 112. Pascual,P.(2001).OverviewofaMicroscaleStudyoftheCausesandEffectsofLandslidesinthe HighHimalaya.NewsletterNo40publishedby,andICIMOD,NEPAL. 113. TadesseS.(2000).BehaviourofSaturatedSandunderDifferentTriaxialLoadingandLiquefaction. PhDthesis.NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,NTNU. 114. Tianch,L.(2001).Risk,HazardandVulnerability.NewsletterNo40,ICIMOD,Nepal. 115. Wille Goetechnikk GmbH (1999). Operating Instruction Manual. Triaxial equipment, preparedbyWilleGeoteknikkGmbH,Germany. 116. Yang, S. (2004). Characterization of the properties of sandsilt mixtures. A Doctoral Thesis NTNU,pp.5358. 117. Youngs, R. R. et al. (1997). Strong ground motion attenuation relationship for subduction zone earthquakes.SeismologicalResearchLetters,Vol.68,No.1,pp.5973. 124
Listofreferences

PHD Full Text

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

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

PHD Full Text

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Doctoral Thesis at NTNU 2006:66

ISBN 82-471-7881-8 (electronic) ISBN 82-471-7882-6 (printed)

Krishna Prasad Aryal

Slope Stability Evaluations by Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods

Krishna Prasad Aryal

Slope Stability Evaluations by Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods

Trondheim, April 2006

ThethesiswassupervisedbythefollowingProfessors: AssociateProfessor,dr.ing.RolfSandven(mainadviser) NTNU,GeotechnicalDivision,Trondheim Professor,dr.ing.LarsGrande(coadviser) NTNU,GeotechnicalDivision,Trondheim Professor,dr.ing.SteinarNordal(coadviser) NTNU,GeotechnicalDivision,Trondheim

KrishnaPrasadAryal Trondheim,Norway April2006

averagetotalnormalstress(kPa) shearstressormobilizedshearstress(kPa) shearstrengthofsoil(kPa) angleofinclinationofintersliceresultantforce naturalangularfrequency dampingratio

Eref F F Ff Fm Gref L H H K M Msf N N Ncf Pr S Sa Sm Sr T U Vp Vs W

NEA NGI NS NTNU OGL OM OMC PI PGA PLAXIS PP SEEP/W SINTEF

SLIDE SLOPE/W SM SS STABLE TU

Descriptionofcasestudyproject......................................................................... 75 6.1.1 Damsiteleftbankslope............................................................................ 75

ListofReferencesandLiteratures ..................................................................................... 118

ESeepageAnalysisResults E.1 E.2 Damsiteslope:Seepageanalysisresults............................................................ 140 Powerhouseslope:Seepageanalysisresults ..................................................... 142

FAdditionalAnalysisResults F.1 F.2 Damsiteslopeanalysisresults ............................................................................. 143 Powerhouseslopeanalysisresults...................................................................... 144

GForceandMomentEquilibriums G.1 G.2 ForceequilibriumFOS .......................................................................................... 146 MomentequilibriumFOS..................................................................................... 148

f = c '+ ' tan ' or (a + ') tan '

c '+ ' tan ' F

c '+ ' tan '

Sum of resisting forces Sum of driving forces

Sum of resisting moments Sum of driving moments R s u dl

Table 2.1 Summary of LE methods (Abramson et al. 2002, Nash 1987)

Can be used for both circular and non-circular failure surfaces,

(**) satisfiesverticalforceequilibriumforbasenormalforce,and (***) satisfiesmomentequilibriumforintermediatethinslices(Janbu1957,Grande1997)

(c ' l + N ' tan ') W sin

Insummary,OM satisfiesmomentequilibriumcondition, neglectstheinterslicenormalandshearforces, givesthemostconservativeFOS,and isusefulonlyfordemonstrations. TheforcesconsideredinOMareshowninthesketch.

1 c ' l sin W ul cos m F

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

Thesimplifiedmethod,generalisedmethod(GPS)anddirectmethoddevelopedbyJanbu(1954, 1968)areverycommoninstabilityanalysis.Thefundamentaldifferencesinthesemethodsare brieflyreviewedbelow. 2.2.3.1 Janbussimplifiedmethod

( c ' l + ( N ul ) tan ') sec W tan + E

E = E2 E1 = net interslice normal forces (zero if there is no horizontal force).

b ( c '+ ( p u ) tan ') n Fo = p.b tan n = cos 2 (1 + tan

satisfiesbothforceequilibriums, doesnotsatisfymomentequilibrium, considersinterslicenormalforces,and iscommonlyusedforcompositeshearsurface.

Thecorrectionfactordependsonthedepthtolengthratio(d/L)ofthefailuresurface.TheFOS, withthiscorrectionfactor,canincreaseby512%,givingthelowerrangeinfrictiononlysoils, i.e.thesoilswithoutcohesionandthehigherrangeforclayeysoils(Abramsonetal.1996,2002). 2.2.3.2 Janbusgeneralisedmethod

{c ' l + ( N ul ) tan '} sec

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

1 W (T2 T1 ) (c ' l ul tan ') sin F

considersbothintersliceforces, assumesalineofthrustforintersliceforces, satisfiesbothforceandmomentequilibriums, handlescomplexgeometryandfailuresurfaces, isanadvancedmethodamongLEmethods.

O R X = xoH Y = yo H GWT b 1 u/w z c H

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesonlyforceequilibrium,and assumesinclinationfortheresultantintersliceforce.

Insummary,CEM: considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesonlyforceequilibrium,and assumesinclinationsintwoways.

considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesbothmomentandforceequilibrium,and relatestheintersliceforcesbyaquasishearstrengthequation.

= scale factor of the assumed function.

{c ' l + ( N ul ) tan '} sec

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

considersbothintersliceforces, assumesaconstantintersliceforcefunction,and satisfiesbothmomentandforceequilibrium,and computesFOSforforceandmomentequilibrium.

Scale factor lambda ()

considersbothinterslicenormalandshearforces, satisfiesbothmomentandforceequilibriums, allowsselectionforintersliceforcefunction,and showscomparisonofmostcommonandadvancedLEmethods.

a) Effect on FOS due to f(x) Scale factor lambda ()

b) Effect on FOS due to external loads Scale factor lambda ()

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

Table 2.2 Sensitivity of FOS in circular SS analysis (SLOPE/W 2002)

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

Centre ofcircle Entry

1 1 f1 = ( '2 '3 ) + ( '2 + '3 ) sin c cos 0 2 2

Chapter 2 Review of stability analysis methods

1 1 ( '2 '3 ) + ( '2 + '3 ) sin 2 2

available shear strength = value of M sf at failure shear strength at failure

Thebasicequationforthetimedependentmovementundertheinfluenceofadynamicloadis givenby(PLAXIS2004,Kramer1994): F=M+C +Ku (2.24) 23

() satisfiesverticalforceequilibriumforbasenormalforce,and (*) satisfiesmomentequilibriumforintermediatethinslices(Janbu1957,Grande1997)