Slide

2D limit equilibrium slope stability for soil and rock slopes

Verification Manual Part I

1989 - 2003 Rocscience Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE INTRODUCTION SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #1 Simple slope SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #2 Tension crack SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #3 Non-homogeneous SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #4 Non-homogeneous with seismic load SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #5 Talbingo dam, dry SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #6 Talbingo dam, dry, predefined slip surface SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #7 Water table modeled with weak seam SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #8 Problem 7 with predefined slip surface SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #9 External loading, pore pressure defined by water table SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #10 Pore pressure defined by digitized total head grid SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #11 Pore pressure defined by pore pressure grid SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #12 Pore pressure defined by pore pressure grid, tension crack SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #13 Pore pressure defined by pore pressure grid, two sets of limits 6 7

11

15

19

23

27

31

34

37

42

46

50

54

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #14 Simple slope SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #15 Layered slope, Monte-Carlo optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #16 Simple slope with water table, Monte-Carlo optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #17 Simple slope, Monte-Carlo optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #18 Simple slope, pore pressure defined by Ru value, Monte-Carlo optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #19 Layered slope, optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #20 Layered slope, water table, weak seam, search object, Monte-Carlo optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #21 Simple slope under three different pore pressure conditions, known slip surface

58

61

64

67

70

72

74

77

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #22 78 Simple slope under three different pore pressure conditions, known slip surface, weak seam SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #23 Linearly varying cohesion in one layer SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #24 Layered, undrained slope SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #25 Weightless frictionless slope subjected to vertical load SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #26 Weightless frictionless slope subjected to vertical load SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #27 Layered slope, undulating bedrock, different unit weight of saturated vs. unsaturated layer, tension crack, water table SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #28 Probabilistic analysis, layered slope, probability of failure calculated 80

82

84

86

87

90

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #29 Probabilistic analysis, linearly varying cohesion, underwater slope, reliability index

100

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #30 102 Geosynthetic reinforcement, layered slope, varying undrained shear strength known slip surfaces SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #31 104 Geosynthetic reinforcement, layered slope, varying undrained shear strength, known slip surfaces SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #32 106 Geosynthetic reinforcement, layered slope, varying undrained shear strength, known slip surfaces SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #33 Syncrude tailings dyke, probabilistic analysis, multiple phreatic surfaces SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #34 Clarence Cannon Dam, probabilistic analysis, known noncircular failure surface SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #35 Clarence Cannon Dam, probabilistic analysis, comparison of reliability indices of known circular surfaces SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #36 Probabilistic analysis, reliability index comparison SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #37 Back analysis used for placement of necessary reinforcement SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #38 Finite element analysis of steep cut slope, user-defined hydraulic parameters SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #39 Water-filled tension crack, geosynthetic reinforcement 109

111

113

116

118

121

124

PART TWO SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #40 Strength modeled by power curve, graphing with Slide SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #41 Strength modeled by power curve, pore pressure defined by Ru SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #42 Safety factor contours on dam, pore pressure defined by water table, ponded water SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #43 Planar failure, varied , comparison with RocPlane SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #44 Linear vs. Non-linear envelopes, graphing base normal stress, derivation of power curve parameteres SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #45 Linear vs. Non-linear envelopes, graphing base normal stress, derivation of power curve parameters SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #46 Finite element analysis, three conditions, rapid drawdown, pore pressure contours SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #47 Soil nailed wall, undrained shear strength SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #48 Soil nailed wall, sensitivity of SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #49 Soldier pile tieback wall SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #50 Multiple soil nail properties SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #51 Seismic coefficient, simultaneous use of all analysis methods, user-defined failure surface SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #52 Shallow vs. deep failure surface, wet vs. dry slope, tension crack SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #53 Modeling planar rock failure by using tension crack 127

130

132

135

139

141

143

149

151

153

155

157

159

164

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #54 Stabilizing piles, reinforced vs. unreinforced slope SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #55 Simple slope with water table, compared results with all other SSA programs SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #56 Water table, tension crack, compared results with all other SSA programs SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #57 Water table, tension crack, two layers, compared results with all other SSA programs

166

168

169

170

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #58 171 Water table, multiple layers, grouted tieback, compared results with all other SSA programs SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #59 Arched water table, tieback wall, compared results with all other SSA programs 173

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #60 175 Soil nailed wall, two external loads, varying soil nail properties, compared results with all other SSA programs SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #61 Linear vs. Non-linear envelopes, graphing base normal stress, derivation of power curve parameters SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #62 Seismic loading, wet vs. dry conditions, Monte-Carlo optimization SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #63 Seismic loading, layered slope, Monte-Carlo optimization REFERENCES 177

179

183

185

Introduction
This document contains a series of verification slope stability problems that have been analyzed using SLIDE version 5.0. These verification tests come from: A set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Association for Computer Aided Design), in 1988. The SLIDE verification problems #1 to #10 are based on these ACADS example problems (Giam & Donald (1989)). Published examples found in reference material such as journal and conference proceedings.

For all examples, a short statement of the problem is given first, followed by a presentation of the analysis results, using various limit equilibrium analysis methods. Full references cited in the verification tests are found at the end of this document. The SLIDE verification files can be found in the Examples > Verification folder in your SLIDE installation folder. The file names are verification#1.sli, verification#2.sli etc, corresponding to the verification problem numbers in this document. All verification files run with the Slide Demo, so if you want details which are not presented in this document, then download the demo to view all the input parameters and results.

SLIDE Verification Problem #1

1.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(a) problem. 1.2 Problem Description This problem as shown in Figure 1 is the simple case of a total stress analysis without considering pore water pressures. It represents a homogenous slope with soil properties given in Table 1.1. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure is required. A slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11 circles per gridpoint, generating a total of 4851 circular slip surfaces. Grid is located at (22.8, 62.6), (22.8,42.3), (43.7,62.6), (43.7,42.3). Tolerance is 0.0001. 1.3 Geometry and Properties Table 1.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 3.0 (deg.) 19.6 (kN/m3) 20.0

(50,35)

(70,35)

(20,25) (30,25) (20,20) (70,20)

Figure 1

1.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.990

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.00 [Giam] Mean Bishop FOS (18 samples) = 0.993 Mean FOS (33 samples) = 0.991

Figure 1.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

Figure 1.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 1.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 1.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

10

SLIDE Verification Problem #2

2.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(b) problem. 2.2 Problem description Problem #2 has the same slope geometry as verification problem #1, with the addition of a tension crack zone, as shown in Figure 2. For this problem, a suitable tension crack depth is required and water is assumed to have filled the tension crack. The tension crack depth can be estimated from the following equations [Craig (1997)] :

Depth =

2c ka

, ka =

1 sin 1 + sin

In order to locate the critical slip surfaces, a slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11 circles per gridpoint, generating a total of 4851 slip surfaces. Grid located at (31,49), (47,49), (31,34), (47,34). Tolerance is 0.0001. 2.3 Geometry and Properties Table 2.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 32.0 (deg.) 10.0 (kN/m3) 20.0

Figure 2

11

2.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.596 1.592 1.592 1.489

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.65 [Giam]

Figure 2.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

12

Figure 2.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 2.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

13

Figure 2.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

14

SLIDE Verification Problem #3

3.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(c) problem. 3.2 Problem description Problem #3 is a non-homogeneous, three layer slope with material properties given in Table 3.1. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure surface is required. A slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11 circles per gridpoint, generating a total of 4851 slip surfaces. 3.3 Geometry and Properties Table 3.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0.0 5.3 7.2 (deg.) 38.0 23.0 20.0 (50,35) (54,31) (50,29) (20,25) (40,27) (30,25) (20,20) Figure 3 (52,24) soil #3 (70,20) (70,24) soil #1 soil #2 (kN/m3) 19.5 19.5 19.5 (70,35) (70,31)

Soil #1 Soil #2 Soil #3

15

3.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.405 1.375 1.374 1.357

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.39 [Giam] Mean Bishop FOS (16 samples) = 1.406 Mean FOS (31 samples) = 1.381

Figure 3.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

16

Figure 3.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 3.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

17

Figure 3.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

18

SLIDE Verification Problem #4

4.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(d) problem. 4.2 Problem description Problem #4 is a non-homogeneous, three layer slope with material properties given in Table 4.1 and geometry as shown in Figure 4. This problem is identical to #3, but with a horizontal seismically induced acceleration of 0.15g included in the analysis. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure surface is required. 4.3 Geometry and Properties Table 4.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0.0 5.3 7.2 (deg.) 38.0 23.0 20.0 (50,35) (54,31) (50,29) (20,25) (40,27) (30,25) (20,20) Figure 4 (52,24) soil #3 (70,20) (70,24) soil #1 soil #2 (kN/m3) 19.5 19.5 19.5 (70,35) (70,31)

Soil #1 Soil #2 Soil #3

19

4.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.015 0.991 0.989 0.965

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.00 [Giam] Mean FOS (15 samples) = 0.973

Figure 4.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

20

Figure 4.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 4.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

21

Figure 4.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

22

SLIDE Verification Problem #5

5.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 2(a) problem. 5.2 Problem description Problem #5 is Talbingo Dam as shown in Figure 5. The material properties for the end of construction stage are given in Table 5.1 while the geometrical data are given in Table 5.2. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure surface is required. 5.3 Geometry and Properties Table 5.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) Rockfill 0 45 20.4 Transitions 0 45 20.4 Filter 0 45 20.4 Core 85 23 18.1 Pt.# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Xc (m) 0 315.5 319.5 321.6 327.6 386.9 394.1 453.4 460.6 Yc (m) 0 162 162 162 162 130.6 130.6 97.9 97.9 Table 5.2: Geometry Data Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) 10 515 65.3 11 521.1 65.3 12 577.9 31.4 13 585.1 31.4 14 648 0 15 168.1 0 16 302.2 130.6 17 200.7 0 18 311.9 130.6 Pt.# 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Xc (m) 307.1 331.3 328.8 310.7 333.7 331.3 372.4 347 Yc (m) 0 130.6 146.1 0 130.6 146.1 0 130.6 -

2 3 4 5

21

24

16

18

20 23

26

Rockfill

Core

7 6
Transitions

9 8 10 11

Filter (very thin seam)

1 15 17 19 22 Figure 5 25

12

13 14

23

5.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.948 1.948 1.948 1.949

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.95 [Giam] Mean FOS (24 samples) = 2.0 NOTE: the minimum safety factor surfaces in this case, correspond to shallow, translational slides parallel to the slope surface.

Figure 5.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

24

Figure 5.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 5.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

25

Figure 5.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

26

SLIDE Verification Problem #6

6.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 2(b) problem. 6.2 Problem description Problem #6 is identical to verification problem #5, except a single circular slip surface of known center and radius, is analyzed. See problem #5 for material properties and boundary coordinates. 6.3 Geometry

Figure 6

Table 6.3: Data for slip circle Xc (m) 100.3 Yc (m) 291.0 Radius (m) 278.8

27

6.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 2.208 2.292 2.301 2.073

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 2.29 [Giam] Mean Bishop FOS (11 samples) = 2.204 Mean FOS (24 samples) = 2.239

Figure 6.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

28

Figure 6.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 6.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

29

Figure 6.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

30

SLIDE Verification Problem #7

7.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 3(a) problem. 7.2 Problem description This problem has material properties given in Table 7.1, and is shown in Figure 7. The water table is assumed to coincide with the base of the weak layer. The effect of negative pore water pressure above the water table is to be ignored. (i.e. u=0 above water table). The effect of the tension crack is also to be ignored in this problem. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical non-circular failure surface is required. Note: Default values of 35,65,135, and 155 degrees are used for block search line projection angles. Line should be in the middle of the seam. 7.3 Geometry and Properties Table 7.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 28.5 0 (deg.) 20.0 10.0 (kN/m3) 18.84 18.84

Soil #1 Soil #2

(67.5,40) Soil #2 (seam) Soil #1 (20,27.75) (20,27) (20,26.5) (20,20) Figure 7 Soil #1 (43,27.75)

(84,40)

(84,27) (84,26.5) (84,20)

31

7.4 Results Method Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.258 1.246 1.275

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.24 1.27 [Giam] Mean Non-circular FOS (19 samples) = 1.293

Figure 7.4.1 Solution Using the Spencer Method

32

Figure 7.4.2 Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 7.4.3 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

33

SLIDE Verification Problem #8

8.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 3(b) problem. 8.2 Problem description Problem #8 is identical to verification problem #7, except a single non-circular slip surface of known coordinates is analyzed. 8.3 Geometry and Properties Table 8.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 28.5 0 (deg.) 20.0 10.0 (kN/m3) 18.84 18.84

Soil #1 Soil #2

(67.5,40)

(84,40) Soil #1

(20,27.75) (20,27) (20,26.5) (20,20)

(43,27.75) Soil #2 Figure 8 Table 8.2: Failure Surface Coordinates X (m) 41.85 44.00 63.50 73.31 Y (m) 27.75 26.50 27.00 40.00

(84,27) (84,26.5) (84,20)

Axis of Rotation: (53.3, 45)

34

8.4 Results Method Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.277 1.262 1.294

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.34 [Giam] Mean FOS (30 samples) = 1.29

Figure 8.4.1 Solution Using the Spencer Method

35

Figure 8.4.2 Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 8.4.3 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

36

SLIDE Verification Problem #9

9.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 4 problem. 9.2 Problem description Problem #9 is shown in Figure 9. The soil parameters, external loadings and piezometric surface are shown in Table 9.1, Table 9.2 and Table 9.3 respectively. The effect of a tension crack is to be ignored. The noncircular critical slip surface and corresponding factor of safety are required. A block search for the critical non-circular failure surface was carried out by defining two line search objects within the weak layer, and variable projection angles from the weak layer to the slope surface. A total of 1000 random surfaces were generated by the search. 5000 iterations were done. The results are compared with optimization results. 9.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 9.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 28.5 0 (deg.) 20.0 10.0 (kN/m3) 18.84 18.84

Soil #1 Soil #2

37

Table 9.2: External Loadings Xc (m) 23.00 43.00 70.00 80.00 Yc (m) 27.75 27.75 40.00 40.00 Normal Stress (kN/m2) 20.00 20.00 20.00 40.00

Table 9.3: Data for Piezometric surface Pt.# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Xc (m) Yc (m) 20.0 27.75 43.0 27.75 49.0 29.8 60.0 34.0 66.0 35.8 74.0 37.6 80.0 38.4 84.0 38.4 Pt.# : Refer to Figure 9

Figure 9

38

9.4 Results no optimization Method Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 0.760 0.721 0.734

Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 0.78 [Giam] Mean Non-circular FOS (20 samples) = 0.808 Referee GLE Factor of Safety = 0.6878 [Slope 2000]

Figure 9.4.1 Solution Using the Spencer Method

39

Figure 9.4.2 Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 9.4.3 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

40

9.5 Results Block search with optimization Method Factor of Safety Spencer 0.707 GLE 0.683 Janbu Corrected 0.699 Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 0.78 [Giam] Mean Non-circular FOS (20 samples) = 0.808 Referee GLE Factor of Safety = 0.6878 [Slope 2000]

41

SLIDE Verification Problem #10

10.1 Introduction In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 5 problem. 10.2 Problem description Problem #10 is shown in Figure 10(a) . The soil properties are given in Table 10.1. This slope has been excavated at a slope of 1:2 (=26.56) below an initially horizontal ground surface. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required for the long term condition, i.e. after the ground water conditions have stabilized. Pore water pressures may be derived from the given boundary conditions or from the approximate flow net provided in Figure 10(b). If information is required beyond the geometrical limits of Figure 10(b), the flow net may be extended by the user. Grid interpolation is done with TIN triangulation. The critical slip surface (circular) and the corresponding factor of safety are required. 10.3 Geometry and Properties Table 10.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) 11.0 28.0 20.00 Excavation (15,35) (15,33) (15,26) (15,25) (15,20) Figure 10(a) Grid used to draw waterline (which comes from Figure 10(b)) is identical to the data used in tutorial 5 (tutorial5.sli). The data can be imported from tutorial5.sli or verification#10.sli. Initial Ground Level Initial W.T. Level Final Ground Profile (32,26) (30,25) Final External Water level (95,20) (50,35) (95,35)

42

Figure 10(b) 10.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.498 1.501 1.500 1.457

Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 1.53 [Giam] Mean FOS (23 samples) = 1.464

Figure 10.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

43

Figure 10.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 10.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

44

Figure 10.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

45

SLIDE Verification Problem #11

11.1 Introduction This problem is an analysis of the Saint-Alban embankment (in Quebec) which was built and induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1972 (Pilot et.al, 1982). 11.2 Problem description Problem #11 is shown in Figure 11. The material properties are given in Table 11.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore water pressures were derived from the given equal pore pressure lines on Figure 11. using the Thin-Plate Spline interpolation method. 11.3 Geometry and Properties Table 11.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0 2 (deg.) 44.0 28.0 (kN/m3) 18.8 16.68

Embankment Clay Foundation

(0,12)

(8,12)
Material Barrier (0,8), (14,8)

Embankment (0,8) u=0 kPa (0,7.5) (0,6.5) (0,5.5) (0,4.25) (9,6.75) u=30 kPa (4,6.5) u=60 kPa (4,5.5) u=90 kPa (4,4.25) (14.5,2) Clay Foundation (18,0.75) (22,0.5) (22,0) (15.25,6) (9,6) (9,5) (14.75,4) (18,3.25) (22,3) (18,5.75) (22,5.5) (22,7.5) (14,8) (22,8)

Figure 11

46

11.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.037 1.065 1.059 1.077

Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 1.04 [Pilot]

Figure 11.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

47

Figure 11.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 11.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

48

Figure 11.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

49

SLIDE Verification Problem #12

12.1 Introduction This problem is an analysis of the Lanester embankment (in France) which was built and induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1969 (Pilot et.al, 1982). 12.2 Problem description Problem #12 is shown in Figure 12. The material properties are given in Table 12.1. The entire embankment is assumed to represent a dry tension crack zone. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore water pressure was derived from the data in Table 12.2 using the Thin-Plate Spline interpolation method. Note: 30 slices used. 12.3 Geometry and Properties Table 12.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 30 4 7.5 8.5 (deg.) 31 37 33 35 (kN/m3) 18.2 14 13.2 13.7

Embankment Soft Clay Silty Clay Sandy Clay

Table 12.2: Water Pressure Points

Pt.# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Xc (m) 26.5 31.5 10.5 16 21 26.5 31.5 10.5 Yc (m) 9 8.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 7.5 6.8 8.5 u (kPa) 20 20 40 40 40 40 40 60 Pt.# 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Xc (m) 16 21 26.5 31.5 10.5 16 21 26 Yc (m) 8.5 8.2 6 5 7.5 7.5 5.6 4.2 U (kPa) 60 60 60 60 80 80 80 80 Pt.# 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Xc (m) 31.5 10.5 16 21 26 31.5 Yc (m) 3 6 5 4.5 2.5 1.3 u (kPa) 80 100 100 100 100 100 -

Note: Tension crack depth (hatched region in diagram) is 4 m. (0,14) Embankment (0,10) Soft Clay (0,6) (0,4) Silty Clay Sandy Clay
(0,1.3) (10,1) 3 8 13 18 4 9 14 19 5 10 15 20 1 6 11 16 21 (26,1) 2 7 12 17 22 (31.5,1.3)

(20,14)

(26,10)

(40,10) (40,6) (40,4)

(40,1.3)

Figure 12.1 - Geometry

50

12.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.069 1.079 1.077 1.138

Note: Authors Factor of Safety (by Bishop method) = 1.13 [Pilot]

Figure 12.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

51

Figure 12.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 12.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

52

Figure 12.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

53

SLIDE Verification Problem #13

13.1 Introduction This problem is an analysis of the Cubzac-les-Ponts embankment (in France) which was built and induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1974 (Pilot et.al, 1982). 13.2 Problem description Problem #13 is shown in Figure 13. The material properties are given in Table 13.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore water pressure was derived from the data in Table 13.2 using the Thin Plate Spline interpolation method. 13.3 Geometry and Properties Table 13.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0 10 10 (deg.) 35 24 28.4 (kN/m3) 21.2 15.5 15.5

Embankment Upper Clay Lower Clay

Table 13.2: Water Pressure Points

Pt.# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Xc (m) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 Yc (m) 4.5 5.3 6.8 7.2 3.35 5.2 6.8 7.2 2.3 5.1 6.8 7.2 2.3 5.2 6.8 u (kPa) 125 100 50 25 125 100 50 25 125 100 50 25 125 100 50 Pt.# 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Xc (m) 16 18 18 18 18 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 24.5 24.5 Yc (m) 7.2 2.3 5.3 6.8 7.2 1.15 4.85 6.8 7.2 0 4.4 6.8 7.2 3.75 6.45 u (kPa) 25 125 100 50 25 125 100 50 25 125 100 50 25 100 50 Pt.# 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Xc (m) 24.5 27 27 27 29.75 29.75 29.75 32.5 32.5 32.5 37.25 37.25 42 42 Yc (m) 7.2 3.1 6.1 7.2 1.55 5.55 7.2 0 5 7.2 4.7 6.85 4.4 6.5 u (kPa) 25 100 50 25 100 50 25 100 50 25 50 25 50 25 -

54

(0,13.5) Embankment (0,9) (0,8) (0,6) Upper Clay

4 8 12 16 3 7 11 15 2 6 10 14 1 Lower Clay 5 9 13

(20,13.5) (26.5,9)
20 24 28 19 23 27 18 22 26 17 21 25 35 38 31 30 29 34 33 32 37 36 40 39 42 41

(44,9) (44,8)
44

(44,6)
43

Figure 13 13.4 Results Method Bishop Spencer GLE Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety 1.314 1.334 1.336 1.306

Note: Authors Factor of Safety (by Bishop method) = 1.24 [Pilot]

55

Figure 13.4.1 Solution Using the Bishop Method

Figure 13.4.2 Solution Using the Spencer Method

56

Figure 13.4.3 Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 13.4.4 Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

57

SLIDE Verification Problem #14

14.1 Introduction This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#1 and consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with zero pore pressure. 14.2 Problem description Verification problem #14 is shown in Figure 14.1. The material properties are given in Table 14.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this problem. 14.3 Geometry and Properties Table 14.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) soil 41.65 15 18.82

Figure 14.1 - Geometry

58

14.4 Circular Results using auto refine search Method Bishop Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer Factor of Safety 1.409 1.319 1.414 1.406

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.451

Figure 14.2 Circular failure surface using Bishop simplified method

59

14.5 Noncircular Results using Path search with Optimization Method Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer Factor of Safety 1.253 1.346 1.388

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.265 Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 1.357

Figure 14.3 Noncircular failure surface using janbu simplified method

60

SLIDE Verification Problem #15

15.1 Introduction This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#2 and consists of a layered slope where a layer of low resistance is interposed between two layers of higher strength. A number of other authors have also analyzed this problem, notably Kim et al. (2002), Malkawi et al. (2001), and Greco (1996). 15.2 Problem description Verification problem #15 is shown in Figure 15.1. The material properties are given in Table 15.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this problem. 15.3 Geometry and Properties Table 15.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 29.4 9.8 294 (deg.) 12 5 40 (kN/m3) 18.82 18.82 18.82

Upper Layer Middle Layer Lower Layer

Figure 15.1 Geometry

61

15.4 Circular Results using auto refine search Method Bishop Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer Factor of Safety 0.421 0.410 0.437 0.424

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.417 Kim et al. (2002) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.43

Figure 15.2 Circular failure surface using Bishop simplified method

62

15.5 Noncircular Results using Random search with Optimization (1000 surfaces) Method Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer Factor of Safety 0.394 0.419 0.412

Greco (1996) Spencers method using monte carlo searching = 0.39 Kim et al. (2002) Spencers method using random search = 0.44 Kim et al. (2002) Spencers method using pattern search = 0.39 Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.405 Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 0.430

Figure 15.3 Noncircular failure surface using Spencers method and random search

63

SLIDE Verification Problem #16

16.1 Introduction This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#3 and consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with pore pressure. 16.2 Problem description Verification problem #16 is shown in Figure 16.1. The material properties are given in Table 16.1. The location for the water table is shown in Figure 16.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. Pore pressures are calculated assuming hydrostatic conditions. The pore pressure at any point below the water table is calculated by measuring the vertical distance to the water table and multiplying by the unit weight of water. There is zero pore pressure above the water table. 16.3 Geometry and Properties Table 16.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) soil 41.65 15 18.82

Figure 16.1 - Geometry

64

16.4 Circular Results using auto refine search Method Bishop Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer Factor of Safety 1.117 1.046 1.131 1.118

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.138

Figure 16.2 - Failure surface using Bishop simplified method

65

16.5 Noncircular Results using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization Method Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer Factor of Safety 0.968 1.050 1.094

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.995 Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 1.071

Figure 16.3 Noncircular failure surface using janbu simplified method

66

SLIDE Verification Problem #17

17.1 Introduction This model is taken from Yamagami and Ueta (1988) and consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with zero pore pressure. Greco (1996) has also analyzed this slope. 17.2 Problem description Verification problem #17 is shown in Figure 17.1. The material properties are given in Table 17.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this problem. 17.3 Geometry and Properties Table 17.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) soil 9.8 10 17.64

Figure 17.1 - Geometry

67

17.4 Circular Results using auto refine search Method Bishop Ordinary Factor of Safety 1.344 1.278

Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.348 Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Fellenius/Ordinary Factor of Safety = 1.282

17.2 - Failure surface using Bishop simplified method

68

17.5 Noncircular Results using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization Method Janbu Simplified Spencer Factor of Safety 1.178 1.324

Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.185 Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.339 Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.33

Figure 17.3 Noncircular failure surface using spencer method

69

SLIDE Verification Problem #18

18.1 Introduction This model is taken from Baker (1980) and was originally published by Spencer (1969). It consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with pore pressure. 18.2 Problem description Verification problem #18 is shown in Figure 18.1. The material properties are given in Table 18.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for a noncircular slip surface. The pore pressure within the slope is modeled using an Ru value of 0.5. 18.3 Geometry and Properties Table 18.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) 10.8 40 18 Ru 0.5

soil

Figure 18.1 - Geometry

70

18.4 Noncircular Results using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization Method Spencer Factor of Safety 1.01

Baker (1980) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.02 Spencer (1969) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.08

Figure 18.2 Noncircular failure surface using spencer method

71

SLIDE Verification Problem #19

19.1 Introduction This model is taken from Greco (1996) example #4 and was originally published by Yamagami and Ueta (1988). It consists of a layered slope without pore pressure. 19.2 Problem description Verification problem #19 is shown in Figure 19.1. The material properties are given in Table 19.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for a noncircular slip surface. 19.3 Geometry and Properties Table 19.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) Upper Layer 49 29 20.38 Layer 2 0 30 17.64 Layer 3 7.84 20 20.38 Bottom Layer 0 30 17.64

Figure 19.1 - Geometry

72

19.4 Noncircular Results using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization, convex surfaces only. Method Spencer Factor of Safety 1. 398

Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.40 - 1.42 Spencer (1969) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.40 - 1.42

Figure 19.2 Noncircular failure surface using spencer method

73

SLIDE Verification Problem #20

20.1 Introduction This model is taken from Greco (1996) example #5 and was originally published by Chen and Shao (1988). It consists of a layered slope with pore pressure and a weak seam. 20.2 Problem description Verification problem #20 is shown in Figure 20.1. The material properties are given in Table 20.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for a circular and noncircular slip surface. The weak seam is modeled as a 0.5m thick material layer at the base of the model. 20.3 Geometry and Properties Table 20.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) Layer 1 9.8 35 20 Layer 2 58.8 25 19 Layer 3 19.8 30 21.5 Layer 4 9.8 16 21.5

Figure 20.1 - Geometry

74

20.4 Circular Results using grid search and a focus object at the toe (40x40 grid) Method Bishop Spencer Factor of Safety 1.087 1.093

Greco (1996) Spencer factor of safety for nearly circular local critical surface = 1.08

20.2 Circular failure surface using Bishops method

20.3 Circular failure surface using Spencers method

75

20.5 Noncircular Results using Block search polyline in the weak seam and Monte-Carlo optimization Method Spencer Factor of Safety 1. 007

Chen and Shao (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.01 - 1.03 Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.973 - 1.1

Figure 20.4 Noncircular failure surface using spencer method and block search

76

SLIDE Verification Problem #21

21.1 Introduction This model is taken from Fredlund and Krahn (1977). It consists of a homogeneous slope with three separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressure, 3) pore pressures defined using a water table. The model is done in imperial units to be consistent with the original paper. Quite a few other authors, such as Baker (1980), Greco (1996), and Malkawi (2001) have also analyzed this slope. 21.2 Problem description Verification problem #21 is shown in Figure 21.1. The material properties are given in Table 21.1. The position of the circular slip surface is given in Fredlund and Krahn as being xc=120,yc=90,radius=80. The GLE/Discrete Morgenstern and Price method was run with the half sine interslice force function. Table 21.1: Material Properties c (psf) (deg.) (pcf) 600 20 120 Ru (case2) 0.25

soil

Figure 21.1 - Geometry 21.3 Circular Results Case 1-Dry 2-Ru 3-WT Ordinary (F&K) 1.928 1.607 1.693 Ordinary (Slide) 1.931 1.609 1.697 Bishop (F&K) 2.080 1.766 1.834 Bishop (Slide) 2.079 1.763 1.833 Spencer (F&K) 2.073 1.761 1.830 Spencer M-P (Slide) (F&K) 2.075 2.076 1.760 1.764 1.831 1.832 M-P (Slide) 2.075 1.760 1.831

77

SLIDE Verification Problem #22

22.1 Introduction This model is taken from Fredlund and Krahn (1977). It consists of a slope with a weak layer and three separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressure, 3) pore pressures defined using a water table. The model is done in imperial units to be consistent with the original paper. Quite a few other authors, such as Kim and Salgado (2002), Baker (1980), and Zhu, Lee, and Jiang (2003) have also analyzed this slope. Unfortunately, the location of the weak layer is slightly different in all the above references. Since the results are quite sensitive to this location, results routinely vary in the second decimal place. 22.2 Problem description Verification problem #22 is shown in Figure 22.1. The material properties are given in Table 22.1. The position of the composite circular slip surface is given in Fredlund and Krahn as being xc=120,yc=90,radius=80. The GLE/Discrete Morgenstern and Price method was run with the half sine interslice force function. Table 22.1: Material Properties c (psf) (deg.) (pcf) 600 20 120 0 10 120 Ru (case2) 0.25 0.25

Upper soil Weak layer

Figure 22.1 Geometry

78

22.3 Composite Circular Results - SLIDE Method Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: Dry Ru WT Ordinary 1.300 1.039 1.174 Bishop Simplified 1.382 1.124 1.243 Spencer 1.382 1.124 1.244 GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.372 1.114 1.237 Composite Circular Results Fredlund & Krahn Method Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: Dry Ru WT Ordinary 1.288 1.029 1.171 Bishop Simplified 1.377 1.124 1.248 Spencer 1.373 1.118 1.245 GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.370 1.118 1.245 Composite Circular Results Zhu, Lee, and Jiang Method Case 1: Case 2: Case 3: Dry Ru WT Ordinary 1.300 1.038 1.192 Bishop Simplified 1.380 1.118 1.260 Spencer 1.381 1.119 1.261 GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.371 1.109 1.254

79

SLIDE Verification Problem #23

23.1 Introduction This model is taken from Low (1989). It consists of a slope overlaying two soil layers. 23.2 Problem description Verification problem #23 is shown in Figure 23.1. The material properties are given in Table 23.1. The middle and lower soils have constant and linearly varying undrained shear strength. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for a circular slip surface using both the bishop and ordinary/fellenius methods.

Upper Soil Middle Soil Lower Soil

Table 23.1: Material Properties Cutop (KN/m2) Cubottom (KN/m2) (deg.) 95 95 15 15 15 0 15 30 0

(KN/m3) 20 20 20

Figure 23.1 Geometry

80

22.3 Circular Results Auto refine search Low (1989) Ordinary Factor of Safety=1.36 Method Factor of Safety Low (1989) Bishop Factor of Safety=1.14 Ordinary 1.370 Kim (2002) Factor of Safety=1.17 Bishop 1.192

23.2 Circular failure surface using Ordinary/Fellenius method

23.3 Circular failure surface using Bishops method

81

SLIDE Verification Problem #24

24.1 Introduction This model is taken from Low (1989). It consists of a slope with three layers with different undrained shear strengths. 24.2 Problem description Verification problem #24 is shown in Figure 24.1. The material properties are given in Table 24.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for a circular slip surface using both the bishop and ordinary/fellenius methods.

Table 24.1: Material Properties Cu (KN/m2) (KN/m3) Upper Layer 30 18 Middle Layer 20 18 Bottom Layer 150 18

Figure 24.1 Geometry

82

24.3 Circular Results auto refine search Method Ordinary Bishop Factor of Safety 1.439 1.439 Low (1989) Ordinary Factor of Safety=1.44 Low (1989) Bishop Factor of Safety=1.44

24.2 Circular failure surface using Bishops method

83

SLIDE Verification Problem #25

25.1 Introduction This model is taken from Chen and Shao (1988). It analyses the classical problem in the theory of plasticity of a weightless, frictionless slope subjected to a vertical load. This problem was first solved by Prandtl (1921) 25.2 Problem description Verification problem #25 is shown in Figure 25.1. The slope geometry, equation for the critical load, and position of the critical slip surface is defined by Prandtl and shown in Figure 25.1. The critical failure surface has a theoretical factor of safety of 1.0. The analysis uses the input data of Chen and Shao and is shown in table 25.1. The geometry, shown in figure 25.2, is generated assuming a 10m high slope with a slope angle of 60 degrees. The critical uniformly distributed load for failure is calculated to be 149.31 kN/m, with a length equal to the slope height, 10m. Note: The GLE/discrete Morgenstern-Price results used the following custom interslice force function. This function was chosen to approximate the theoretical force distribution shown in Chen and Shao. x 0 0.3 0.6 1.0 F(x) 1 1 0 0

25.3 Geometry and Properties Table 25.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) soil 49 0 1e-6

25.1 Closed-form solution (from Chen and Shao (1988))

84

25.2 Geometry modeled using Slide 25.4 Results Method Spencer GLE/M-P Factor of Safety 1. 051 1. 009

Chen and Shao (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.05

85

SLIDE Verification Problem #26

26.1 Introduction This verification test models the well-known Prandtl solution of bearing capacity: qc=2C(1+/2) 26.2 Problem description Verification problem #26 is shown in Figure 26.1. The material properties are given in Table 26.1. With cohesion of 20kN/m2, qc is calculated to be 102.83 kN/m. A uniformly distributed load of 102.83kN/m was applied over a width of 10m as shown in the below figure. The theoretical noncircular critical failure surface was used. 26.3 Geometry and Properties Table 26.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) soil 20 0 1e-6

26.1 Geometry modeled using Slide

26.4 Results Method Spencer Factor of Safety 0.941

Theoretical factor of safety=1.0

86

SLIDE Verification Problem #27

27.1 Introduction This model was taken from Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma (2001) who took it from the XSTABL version 5 reference manual (Sharma 1996). It consists of a 2 material slope overlaying undulating bedrock. There is a water table and moist and saturated unit weights for one of the materials. The other material has zero strength. The model is done with imperial units (feet,psf,pcf) to be consistent with the original XSTABL analysis. 27.2 Problem description Verification problem #27 is shown in Figure 27.1. The material properties are given in Table 27.1. One of the interesting features of this model is the different unit weights of soil 1 below and above the water table. Another factor is the method of pore-pressure calculation. The pore pressures are calculated using a correction for the inclination of the phreatic surface and steady state seepage. Both Slide and XSTABL allow you to apply this correction. The pore pressures tend to be smaller than if a static head of water is assumed (measured straight up to the phreatic surface from the center of the base of a slice). The first analysis uses a single slip surface with xc =59.52, yc =219.21, and radius=157.68. The second analysis does a search with the restriction that the circular surface must exit the slope between 38<=x<=70 at the toe and 120<=x<=180 at the crest of the slope. The third analysis uses the same single slip surface as the first analysis but replaces soil 2 with an 11 foot deep tension crack zone instead of a zero strength material. The fourth analysis takes the third analysis and adds 6 feet of water in the tension crack. 27.3 Geometry and Properties Table 27.1: Material Properties c (psf) (deg.) moist (pcf) 500 14 116.4 0 0 116.4 saturated (pcf) 124.2 116.4

Soil 1 Soil 2

27.1 Geometry

87

27.4 Analysis 1 Circular Results single center @ xc=59.52,yc=219.21,radius=157.68 Method Bishop Janbu Corrected Corp. Engineers 1 Corp. Engineers 2 Lowe & Karafiath Spencer GLE/M-P (half-sine) SLIDE 1.396 1.391 1.411 1.414 1.411 1.402 1.398 XSTABL 1.397 1.392 1.413 1.416 1.413 1.403 1.399

27.5 Analysis 2 Circular Results auto search Method Bishop Janbu Corrected Corp. Engineers 1 Corp. Engineers 2 Lowe & Karafiath Spencer GLE/M-P (half-sine) SLIDE 1.376 1.345 1.394 1.396 1.392 1.382 1.378

Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma (2001), in comparing with XSTABL, quote a minimum Janbu factor of safety of 1.255 with the center and radius equal to x,y,r=62.63,160.96,101.02. However it is questionable whether this is the corrected Janbu or the uncorrected. It is also questionable whether they used the correct pore pressure distribution. If in Slide, you use a static pore pressure distribution and uncorrected simplified Janbu, you get a factor of safety of 1.254 (x,y,r=62.53,161.79,101.78) which is almost exactly what Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma calculated.

27.6 Analysis 3 Circular Results single center @ xc=59.52,yc=219.21,radius=157.68 A 11 foot tension crack is added to the analysis, replacing soil 2. The tension crack is dry. The Spencer results are shown in figure 27.2. Method Bishop Janbu Corrected Corp. Engineers 1 Corp. Engineers 2 Lowe & Karafiath Spencer GLE/M-P (half-sine) SLIDE 1.532 1.544 1.555 1.562 1.545 1.532 1.532 XSTABL 1.536 1.569 1.559 1.566 1.549 1.535 1.535

88

27.2 Analysis 3 results for Spencers method

27.7 Analysis 4 Circular Results single center @ xc=59.52,yc=219.21,radius=157.68 The 11 foot tension crack added in analysis 3 is now partially filled with 6 feet of water. Method Bishop Janbu Corrected Corp. Engineers 1 Corp. Engineers 2 Lowe & Karafiath Spencer GLE/M-P (half-sine) SLIDE 1.511 1.520 1.532 1.538 1.522 1.510 1.510 XSTABL 1.509 1.543 1.536 1.542 1.526 1.513 1.513

89

SLIDE Verification Problem #28

28.1 Introduction The set of models in this verification problem were taken from Chowdhury and Xu (1995). The geometry for the first four examples comes from the well-known Congress St. Cut model, first analyzed by Ireland (1954). All the examples in this verification evaluate the probability of failure of slopes given the means and standard deviations of some specified input parameters. 28.2 Problem description The geometry of Examples 1 to 4 in Verification #28 is shown in Figure 28.1. In each example two sets of circular slip surfaces are considered. The first set consists of potential failure surfaces tangential to the lower boundary of the Clay 2 layer, while the second considers slip surfaces tangential to the lower boundary of Clay 3. Both clays have constant undrained shear strength. Chowdury and Xu do not consider the strength of the upper sand layer in Examples 1 to 4. They use the Bishop simplified method for all their analyses. In their paper, Chowdury and Xu do not state the unit weights of the slope materials in Examples 1 to 4. They also do not provide information on the geometry (radii and coordinates of the centers) of the critical surfaces. As a result, for each of these examples, we use material unit weights that enable us to obtain deterministic factor of safety values similar to those indicated in the paper. We then compare probability of failure values determined from Slide with the Chowdhury and Xu values. In Example 5, Chowdhury and Xu examine the stability of an embankment on a soft clay foundation. Again they consider two sets of circular slip surfaces; one set is tangent to the interface of the embankment and the foundation, while the other is tangent to the lower boundary of the soft clay foundation. The Chowdhury and Xu probabilities of failure quoted in this verification problem are calculated using a commonly used definition of reliability index, and an assumption that factors of safety are normally distributed. Slide uses Monte Carlo analysis, with a minimum of five thousand samples to estimate probabilities of failure. The random variables in all Slide analyses were assumed to come from normal distributions. 28.3 Geometry and Properties Table 20.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) 0 0 21

Sand

90

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2 Clay 3

28.1 Geometry for Examples 1 - 4

28.2 Geometry for Example 5 (an embankment on a soft clay foundation) 28.4 Example 1 Input Data (The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.) Soil Layer Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 c2 c3 c1 55 43 56 Mean (kPa) 20.4 8.2 13.2 Stdv. (kPa) 3 21 22 22 (kN/m ) *The unit weight was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

91

Results (Maximum iterations: 100) Chowdhury & Xu Slide Failure Mode Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of (Layer) Safety Failure Safety Failure (Bishop (Bishop simplified) simplified) Layer 2 (Clay 1) Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.128 1.109 0.26592 0.27389 1.128 1.109 0.2461 0.2789

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.3 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

92

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.4 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3 28.5 Example 2 Input Data (The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.) Soil Layer Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 c2 c3 c1 39.3 50.8 Mean (kPa) 68.1 6.6 1.4 1.5 Stdv. (kPa) 3 21 22 22 (kN/m ) *The unit weight was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

Results Failure Mode (Layer) Chowdhury & Xu Slide Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of Safety Failure Safety Failure (Bishop (Bishop simplified) simplified) 1.1096 1.0639 0.0048 0.01305 1.108 1.058 0.0037 0.0175

Layer 2 (Clay 1) Layer 3 (Clay 2)

93

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.5 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.6 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

94

28.5 Example 3 Input Data (The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.) Soil Layer Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 c1 c2 c3 80 102 Mean (kPa) 136 50 15 24 Stdv. (kPa) 3 21 22 22 (kN/m ) *The unit weight was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

Results Failure Mode (Layer) Chowdhury & Xu Slide Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of Safety Failure Safety Failure (Bishop (Bishop simplified) simplified) 2.2343 2.1396 0.01151 0.00242 2.245 2.128 0.00044 0.0007

Layer 2 (Clay 1) Layer 3 (Clay 2)

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.7 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

95

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.8 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3 28.6 Example 4 Input Data Clay 1 Mean Stdv. c1(kPa) 55 20.4 17 Soil Layer Clay 2 Clay 3 7 1.5 22 c3 (kPa) 56 13.2 22

1(o)
5 1

c2 (kPa) 43 8.7

2 (o)

3 (o)
8 1.7

* (kN/m3)

*The unit weight was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of safety close to those in the paper.

Results Failure Mode (Layer) Chowdhury & Xu Slide Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of Safety Failure Safety Failure (Bishop (Bishop simplified) simplified) 1.4239 1.5075 0.01559 0.00468 1.422 1.503 0.0211 0.0035

Layer 2 (Clay 1) Layer 3 (Clay 2)

96

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.9 Critical slip circle tangential to interface of clay layer 2

Sand Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.10 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

97

28.7 Example 5 Input Data Soil Layer Layer 1 Layer 2 o c2(kPa) c1 (kPa) 1 ( ) 2 (o) 10 12 40 0 2 3 8 0 20 18

Mean Stdv. (kN/m3) Results Failure Mode (Layer)

Chowdhury & Xu Factor of Probability of Safety Failure (Bishop simplified) 1.1625 1.1479 0.20225 0.19733

Slide Factor of Probability of Safety Failure (Bishop simplified) 1.16 1.185 0.2117 0.1992

Layer 1 Layer 2

Layer 1 (Embankment)

Layer 2 (Soft clay foundation)

Figure 28.11 Critical slip circle tangential to interface of embankment and foundation

98

Layer 1 (Embankment)

Layer 2 (Soft clay foundation)

Figure 28.12 Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of soft foundation layer

99

SLIDE Verification Problem #29

29.1 Introduction This model is taken from Duncan (2000). It looks at the failure of the 100 ft high underwater slope at the Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) terminal at the Port of San Francisco. 29.2 Problem description Verification problem #29 is shown in Figure 29.1. All geoemetry and property values are determined using the figures and published data in Duncan (2000). The cohesion is taken to be 100 psf at an elevation of -20 ft and increase linearly with depth at a rate of 9.8 psf/ft. A probabilistic analysis using the latin-hypercube simulation technique is performed using 10000 samples to compute both the probability of failure and reliability index of the estimated failure surface defined in Duncan (2000). These values are determined using the Janbu, Spencer, and GLE methods. 29.3 Geometry and Properties Table 29.1: Deterministic Material Properties cohesion Datum Rate of (datum) (ft) change (psf) (psf/ft) San Francisco Bay Mud 100 -20 9.8 Unit Weight (pcf) 100

Table 29.2: Probabilistic Material Properties San Francisco Bay Standard Absolute Absolute Mud deviation Minumum Maximum Unit Weight 3.3 99.1 109.9 Rate of change 1.2 5.8 13.8

Figure 29.1 - Geometry

100

29.4 Results Method Janbu Simplified Janbu Corrected Spencer GLE Deterministic Factor of Safety 1.13 1.17 1.15 1.16 Probability of Failure (%) 18 15 14 13 Reliability Index (lognormal) 1.086 1.0 1.1 1.2

Duncan (2000) quotes a deterministic factor of safety of 1.17 and a probability of failure of 18%. The probability of failure is calculated using the Taylor series technique.

Figure 29.2

101

SLIDE Verification Problem #30

30.1 Introduction This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 1 example. It looks at the stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil. 30.2 Problem description Verification problem #30 is shown in Figure 30.1. The sand embankment is modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained shear strength. The geosynthetic is not anchored, has no adhesion, has a tensile strength of 200 KN/m, and frictional resistance against slip of 33.7 degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used since this best simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation. 30.3 Geometry and Properties Table 30.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0 Cu top (kN/m2) 8.49 8.49 4.725 (deg.) 35 Cu bottom (kN/m2) 8.49 4.725 13.125 (kN/m3) 20 (kN/m3) 17 17 17

Embankment

Upper Clay Middle Clay Lower Clay

Figure 30.1 - Geometry

102

30.4 Results Factor of Safety Circle A (Slide) Circle A (Borges) Circle B (Slide) Circle B (Borges) 1.69 1.77 1.66 1.74 Overturning Moment (kN/m/m) 633 631 523 521 Resisting Moment (kN/m/m) 1071 1115 868 907

Note: Both circle A and B have reverse curvature. Since Slide automatically creates a tension crack in the portion of the circle with reverse curvature, the shear strength contribution in this region is removed. This is most likely the reason for the smaller factors of safety in Slide.

103

SLIDE Verification Problem #31

31.1 Introduction This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 2 example. It looks at the stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil. 31.2 Problem description Verification problem #31 is shown in Figure 31.1. The sand embankment is modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained shear strength. The geosynthetic is not anchored, has no adhesion, has a tensile strength of 200 KN/m, and frictional resistance against slip of 33.7 degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used since this best simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation. 31.3 Geometry and Properties Table 31.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0 Cu top (kN/m2) 33 16 16 18.375 (deg.) 35 Cu bottom (kN/m2) 33 16 18.375 55.125 (kN/m3) 20 (kN/m3) 17 17 17 17

Embankment

Clay1

Clay2 Clay3 Clay4

Figure 31.1

104

31.4 Results Factor of Safety Circle A (Slide) Circle A (Borges) Circle B (Slide) Circle B (Borges) 1.18 1.19 1.16 1.15 Overturning Moment (kN/m/m)
7521

Resisting Moment (kN/m/m)

8847

7667
9463

9133
11002

9540

10972

105

SLIDE Verification Problem #32

32.1 Introduction This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 3 example. It looks at the stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil. 32.2 Problem description Verification problem #32 is shown in Figures 32.1 and 32.2. The sand embankment is modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained shear strength. The geosynthetic has a tensile strength of 200 KN/m, and frictional resistance against slip of 30.96 degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used since this best simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation. There are two embankment materials, the lower embankment material is from elevation 0 to 1 while the upper embankment material is from elevation 1 to either 7 (Case 1) or 8.75m (Case 2). The geosynthetic is at elevation 0.9, just inside the lower embankment material. 32.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 32.1: Material Properties c (kN/m2) 0 0 Cu (kN/m2)

Clay1

Upper Embankment Lower Embankment

(deg.) 35 33 (kN/m3) 18 16.6 13.5 17 17.5

(kN/m3) 21.9 17.2

Clay2 Clay3 Clay4 Clay5

43 31 30 32 32

106

Figure 32.1 Case 1 Embankment height = 7m

Figure 32.2 Case 2 Embankment height = 8.75m

107

32.4 Results Case 1 Embankment height = 7m Factor of Safety Circle A (Slide) Circle A (Borges) Circle B (Slide) Circle B (Borges) 1.23 1.25 1.22 1.19 Overturning Moment (kN/m/m)
32832

Resisting Moment (kN/m/m)

40231

34166
61765

42695
75300

63870

75754

32.4 Results Case 2 Embankment height = 8.75m Factor of Safety Circle C (Slide) Circle C (Borges) 0.98 0.99 Overturning Moment (kN/m/m)
64873

Resisting Moment (kN/m/m)

63846

65116

64784

108

SLIDE Verification Problem #33

33.1 Introduction Verification #33 comes from El-Ramly et al (2003). It looks at the assessment of the probability of unsatisfactory performance (probability of failure) of a Syncrude tailings dyke in Canada. This example does not consider the spatial variation of soil properties and is described in the paper as the simplified probabilistic analysis. 33.2 Problem description The original model from the El-Ramly et al paper is shown in Figure 33.1. The input parameters for the Slide model are provided in Table 33.1. El-Ramly et al considered five probabilistic parameters: the friction angle of the Kca clay-shale, the pore pressure ratio in the same layer, the friction angle of the Pgs sandy till layer, and the pore pressure ratios in this layer at the middle and at the toe of the dyke. In our model we only consider the friction angles of the Kca clay-shale and Pgs sandy till as probabilistic parameters, and we use the phreatic surfaces indicated on Figure 33.1 in place of pore pressure ratios. We tested the influence of the phreatic surfaces (included them as piezometric lines with levels that are normal variables of unit standard deviation) and established that they had minimal impact on the probability of failure for this model. The Slide model is shown on Figure 33.2. As in the El-Ramly et al paper, the Bishop simplified analysis method is used. Slide uses Monte Carlo analysis to calculate the probability of failure. It is assumed in the Slide model that all the probabilistic input variables are normally distributed.

Figure 33.1

Table 33.1: Material Properties Material Tailing sand (TS) Glacio-fluvial sand (Pf4) Sandy till (Pgs) Disturbed clay-shale (Kca) c (kN/m2) 0 0 0 0 (deg.) 34 34 34 7.5 Standard deviation of (deg.) 2 2.1 (kN/m3) 20 17 17 17

109

33.3 Geometry and Properties

Phreatic surface in TS Phreatic surface in Pf4 Critical surfaces analyzed Tailing sand (TS)

Glacio-fluvial sand (Pf4)

Sandy till (Pgs) Disturbed clay-shale (Kca)

Figure 33.2a

Note: Phreatic Surfaces do not intersect at toe

33.4 Results Factor of Safety 1.305 1.31 Probability of Failure 1.54 x 10-2 1.6 x 10-2

Slide El-Ramly et al

110

SLIDE Verification Problem #34

34.1 Introduction This model is taken from Wolff and Harr (1987). It is a model of the Clarence Cannon Dam in northeastern Missouri, USA. This verification compares probabilistic results from Slide to those determined by Wolff and Harr for a non-circular critical surface. 34.2 Problem description Wolff and Harr used the point estimate method to evaluate the probability of failure of the Cannon Dam along the specified non-circular critical surface shown on Figure 34.1 (taken from their paper). From the probability concentrations provided in the paper, we calculated the probabilistic input parameters (cohesion, friction angle, and coefficient of correlation for the Phase I and Phase II fills) shown in Table 34.1. In the table we also provide the unit weights of the fills we had to use to match the factor of safety obtained by Wollf and Harr. Since Wolff and Harr use an analysis method that satisfies force equilibrium only, we compare their results to those obtained from the GLE. We also show results for non-circular Spencer analysis. The Slide model is shown on Figure 34.2. As in the El-Ramly et al paper, the Bishop simplified analysis method is used. Slide uses Monte Carlo analysis to calculate the probability of failure. It is assumed in the Slide model that all the probabilistic input variables are normally distributed.

Figure 34.1

111

34.3 Geometry and Properties

Sand drain Critical failure surface

Phase II fill

Phase I fill

Figure 34.2

Table 34.1: Material Properties* Material Phase I fill Phase II fill Sand drain c (lb/ft2) 2,230 2,901.6 0 Standard deviation of c (lb/ft2) 1,150 1,079.8 (deg.) 6.34 14.8 30 Standard deviation of (deg.) 7.87 9.44 Correlation coefficient for c and 0.11 -0.51 (lb/ft3) 150 150 120

*Information on the non-labeled soil layers in the model shown on Figure 34.2 is omitted because it has no influence on the factor of safety of the given critical surface.

34.4 Results Deterministic Factor of Safety 2.333 2.383 2.36 Probability of Failure 3.55x 10-3 3.55x 10-3 4.55 x 10-2

Slide (GLE method) Slide (Spencer method) Wolff and Harr

112

SLIDE Verification Problem #35

35.1 Introduction This model is taken from Hassan and Wolff (1999). It is a model of the Clarence Cannon Dam in Missouri, USA. This verification problem looks at duplicating reliability index results for several circular failure surfaces specified in the Hassan and Wolff paper. 35.2 Problem description Hassan and Wolff applied a new reliability based approach they had formulated to calculate reliability indices for slopes. The cross-section of the Cannon Dam they used is shown on Figure 35.1. The Bishop simplified method of slices is used in all the cases discussed in this verification problem. We analyze two sets of slip circles, those shown on Figure 7 of the Hassan and Wolff paper and those on Figure 8. (Figures 7 and 8 from the paper are shown on Figure 35.2 below.) Input parameters for the model are given in Table 35.1. Since the paper does not provide all the required input parameters, we selected values for the missing parameters that allowed us to match factors of safety for a few of the circles in Figure 7. We assume all the probabilistic input variables to be normally distributed in performing Monte Carlo simulations. Slide calculates reliability indices based on the mean and standard deviation of the factor of safety values calculated in the simulations. The reliability indices shown in the results section are calculated with the assumption that factors of safety values are lognormally distributed (Hassan and Wolff (1999). Results obtained from Slide are compared to those from the Hassan and Wolff paper in Table 35.2.

Figure 35.1 Authors Geometry

113

Figure 35.2. Figures 7 and 8 from the Hassan and Wolff (1999) paper.

35.3 Geometry and Properties

Sand drain Figure 7 failure circles analyzed Spoil fill Phase II clay fill Foundation sand Phase I clay fill Limestone Foundation sand

Figure 35.3
Sand filter Figure 8 failure circles analyzed Spoil fill Phase II clay fill Phase I clay fill Foundation sand Limestone Foundation sand

Figure 35.4

114

Table 35.1: Material Properties* Material Phase I clay fill Phase II clay fill Sand filter Foundation sand Spoil fill c (kN/m2) 117.79 143.64 0 5 5 Standard deviation of c (kN/m2) 58.89 79 (deg.) 8.5 15 35 18 35 Standard deviation of (deg.) 8.5 9 Correlation coefficient for c and 0.1 -0.55 (kN/m3) 22 22 22 20 25

*Properties of the limestone layer in the models shown on Figure 35.3 and 35.4 are omitted because they do not influence calculated factors of safety.

35.4 Results Surface Fig. 7 Surface A Fig. 7 Surface B Fig. 7 Surface C Fig. 7 Surface D Fig. 7 Surface E Fig. 8 Surface B Fig. 8 Surface F Fig. 8 Surface G Fig. 8 Surface H Slide Results Deterministic Reliability Factor of Safety Index (lognormal) 2.551 10.953 2.820 4.351 2.777 4.263 2.583 11.092 2.692 10.281 2.672 4.858 3.598 5.485 6.074 5.563 11.230 6.394 Hassan and Wolff Results Deterministic Reliability Factor of Safety Index (lognormal) 2.753 10.356 2.352 3.987 2.523 4.606 2.457 8.468 2.602 10.037 2.995 3.987 3.916 4.950 10.576 5.544 6.293 4.838

115

SLIDE Verification Problem #36

36.1 Introduction This model is taken from Li and Lumb (1987) and Hassan and Wolff (1999). It analyzes reliability indices of a simple homogeneous slope. This verification looks at comparing the reliability index of the deterministic global circular failure surface and the minimum reliability index value obtained from analysis of several failure surfaces. 36.2 Problem description The geometry of the homogeneous slope is shown in Figure 36.1 and material parameters are provided in Table 36.1. The Bishop simplified method of analysis is used. Using Monte Carlo analysis that assumes all probabilistic variables to be normally distributed, reliability indices are calculated on the assumption that factors of safety values are distributed lognormally. This is consistent with the reliability index measures used by Hassan and Wolff (1999). The reliability index calculated for the deterministic minimum factor of safety surface (critical deterministic surface), the minimum reliability index (critical probabilistic surface), and the overall reliability index of the slope are compared with reliability indices calculated by Hassan and Wolff in Table 36.2. Figure 36.2 shows the locations of the critical deterministic and probabilistic surfaces calculated by Slide. 36.3 Geometry and Properties

Material 1

Figure 36.1

116

Table 36.1: Material Properties Property c (kN/m2) (deg.) (kN/m3) ru 36.4 Results Table 365.2: Results Slide Results Surface Factor of Reliability Safety Index (lognormal) Deterministic minimum 1.339 2.471 factor of safety surface Minimum reliability 1.367 2.395 index surface Overall slope (no 1.349 2.382 particular surface) Hasssan and Wolf Results Factor of Reliability Safety Index (lognormal) 1.334 2.336 1.190 2.293 Mean value 18 30 18 0.2 Standard deviation 3.6 3 0.9 0.02

Figure 36.2. Slide critical deterministic and critical probabilistic surfaces.

117

SLIDE Verification Problem #37

37.1 Introduction Verification #37 models a slope reinforcement example described in the Reference Manual of the slope stability program XSTABL (1999). It illustrates the use of back analysis to determine the amount of reinforcement required to stabilize a slope to a specified factor of safety level. 37.2 Problem description The solution for this example of a simple slope, consisting solely of non-cohesive soil material, involved two steps: a) Determining the reinforcement force needed to stabilize a slope to a factor of safety value of 1.5, and b) Establishing the minimum required length of reinforced zone. Figure 37.1 describes the slope model. The solution in XSTABL examines failure surfaces that pass through the toe of the slope. To duplicate that in Slide, we placed a search focus point at the toe. In addition, to eliminate very small shallow failure surfaces of the slope face (slip circles that do not intersect the crest), only failure surfaces with a minimum depth of 2m were considered. Since the XSTABL solution considers a triangularly distributed reinforcement load along the slope height, the Slide model applies a concentrated force at a point above the toe that is a third of the slope height. Next we remodelled the slope, but this time included a reinforced zone with a higher friction angle calculated from the formula (XSTABL Reference Manual (1999))

re inf = tan 1 [ Fr tan ( )]

Fmin . Fcrit

where Fr =

We varied the length of the reinforced zone manually until we obtain a factor of safety value very close to 1.5. Again we required all failure surfaces analyzed to pass through the toe and included a minimum slope depth to eliminate shallow, face failures. All our results are provided in Table 37.1

118

37.3 Geometry and Properties

= 36o = 20 kN/m3

Figure 37.1 37.4 Results

Slip surface requiring 350 kN reinforcing force to attain factor of safety = 1.5

Critical slip surface for unreinforced slope

Figure 37.2

119

Reinforced zone

Length of reinforced zone

Figure 37.3

Table 37.1: Results Slide Required reinforcement 350 force (kN) Fr 1.961 o 54.93 reinf ( ) Length of reinforcement zone (m) 7.6

XSTABL 345 2.044 56.04 7.5

120

SLIDE Verification Problem #38

38.1 Introduction Verification #38 models a typical steep cut slope in Hong Kong. The example is taken from Ng and Shi (1998). It illustrates the use of finite element groundwater analysis and conventional limit equilibrium slope stability in the assessment of the stability of the cut. 38.2 Problem description o The cut has a slope face angle of 28 and consists of a 24m thick soil layer, underlain by a 6m thick bedrock layer. Figure 37.1 describes the slope model.

Figure 38.1 Model geometry Steady-state groundwater analysis is conducted using the finite element module in Slide. Initial conditions of constant total head are applied to both sides of the slope. Three different initial hydraulic boundary conditions (H=61m, H=62m, H=63m) for the right side of the slope are considered for the analyses in this section, Figure 38.1. Constant hydraulic boundary head of 6m is applied on the left side of the slope. A mesh of 1621 six-noded triangular elements was used to model the problem. Figure 37.3 shows the soil permeability function used to model the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, Ng (1998).

121

Figure 38.2 Hydraulic conductivity function

The negative pore water pressure, which is commonly refereed to as the matrix suction of soil, above the water table influences the soil shear strength and hence the factor of safety. Ng and Shi used the modified Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for the unsaturated soils, which can be written as

= c ' + ( n u a ) tan ' + (u a u w ) tan b where n is the normal stress, b is an angle defining the increase in shear strength for an
increase in matrix suction of the soil. Table 38.1 shows the material properties for the soil.
*The raw data for Figure 38.2 can be found in verification#38.sli.

Table 38.1 Material properties

c ' (kPa)
10

' (deg.)
38

b (deg.)
15

(kN/m3) 16

Both positive and negative pore water pressures predicted from groundwater analysis engine were used in the stability analysis. The Bishop simplified method is used in this analysis.

122

38.3 Results (tolerance = 0.0001)

Critical slip surface

Pressure head contours

Figure 38.3 Slide groundwater and slope stability results for H=63m

Table 38.2: Factor of Safety results H (total head at right side of slope) 61m 62m 63m 1.616 1.535 1.399 1.636 1.527 1.436 Slide Ng. & Shi (1998)

123

SLIDE Verification Problem #39

39.1 Introduction This model is taken from Tandjiria (2002), their problem 1 example. It looks at the stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil. The problem looks at the stability of the embankment if it consists of either a sand fill or an undrained clayey fill. Both are analyzed. 39.2 Problem description Verification problem #39 is shown in Figures 39.1 and 39.2. The purpose of this example is to compute the required reinforcement force to yield a factor of safety of 1.35. Both circular and non-circular surfaces are looked at. In each case, the embankment is modeled without the reinforcement; the critical slip surface is located, and then used in the reinforced model to determine the reinforcement force to achieve a factor of safety of 1.35. This is done for a sand or clay embankment, circular and non-circular critical slip surfaces. Both cases incorporate a tension crack in the embankment. In the case of the clay embankment, a water-filled tension crack is incorporated into the analysis. The reinforcement is located at the base of the embankment. The model was analyzed with both Spencer and GLE (half-sine interslice function) but Spencer was used for the force computation. The reinforcement is modeled as an active force since this is how Tandjiria et.al. modeled the force. 39.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 39.1: Material Properties Cu/c (kN/m2) 20 0 20 (deg.) 0 37 0 (kN/m3) 19.4 17 19.4

Clay Fill Embankment Sand Fill Embankment Soft Clay Foundation

Figure 39.1 - Clay Fill Embankment

124

Figure 39.2 - Sand Fill Embankment

39.4 Circular Results Clay embankment with no reinforcement Method Factor of Safety Spencer 0.975 GLE/M-P 0.975 Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.981

39.5 Noncircular Results Clay embankment with no reinforcement Method Spencer GLE/M-P Factor of Safety 0.932 0.941

Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.941 39.6 Circular Results Sand embankment with no reinforcement Method Spencer GLE/M-P Factor of Safety 1.209 1.218

Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.219 39.7 Noncircular Results Sand embankment with no reinforcement Method Spencer GLE/M-P Factor of Safety 1.189 1.196

Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.192

125

39.8 Circular Results Clay embankment with reinforcement Method Spencer Reinforcement Force (KN/m) 169 Factor of Safety 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 170 KN/m 39.9 Noncircular Results Clay embankment with reinforcement Method Spencer Reinforcement Force (KN/m) 184 Factor of Safety 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 190 KN/m 39.10 Circular Results Sand embankment with reinforcement Method Spencer Reinforcement Force (KN/m) 44 Factor of Safety 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 45 KN/m 39.11 Noncircular Results Sand embankment with reinforcement Method Spencer Reinforcement Force (KN/m) 56 Factor of Safety 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 56 KN/m

126