GCotechnique
37, No. 1, 107-l I1
TECHNICAL
NOTES
The aim of Technical Notes is to bring to the notice of readers current topics which are not directly related
to recent papers or letters already published in Giotechnique.
The articles should not only be original and
topical but also essentially short and concise. Each Technical Note should be limited to 1000-2000 words,
together with only essential equations and illustrations. The content of Notes should be of interest to the
general reader and might comprise such information as
(a) details of new experimental techniques of direct interest to other workers
(b) reports of novel geotechnical investigations not sufficiently complete or extensive to warrant a full
paper
(c) field measurements and observations
(d) examples of the application of new ideas or of techniques developed in other disciplines to the consideration of particular geotechnical problems.
KEYWORDS:
s=qL
F + Bi
F = x{[cb
sin a
(3)
(2)
(4)
B = tan CItan 4
(5)
s=c
w sin a
(6)
If a horizontal
load Kw which acts at the
centre of gravity of each slice is included in the
problem, the resulting equation will be similar to
equation (2) except that
(1)
The subsequent
values of F can be obtained by
linear interpolation.
However, the determination
of the factor of
safety involves overcoming
some computational
difficulties which arise from the method of slices.
Whether the slip surface is a circular or a noncircular arc and whether the method of solution is
a simplified or a rigorous method, except for the
simplified solutions of Fellenius (1936) or Skempton & Hutchinson
(1969), the determination
of
the factor of safety requires the solution of an
equation of the kind
S=zwsincr+Kw(cosor-i)
(7)
- DX tan 41 set a
B = tan a tan 4
107
(8)
(9)
108
TECHNICAL
NOTES
KC
F=
/(--
0
1
---
Fs
(10)
The presence of the interslice shear force differential DX does not make any difference to the
form of the equation but the final solution will
depend on its values. The following discussion is
therefore valid for all methods of stability analysis
that use the method of slices which involves an
equation of similar form to equation (2).
The solution to equation (2) can be represented, graphically,
as the points of intersection
of
two curves, plotting F versus Y, where Y is given
by
Y=S
(11)
Y=4L
F + Bi
(12)
-B,
(13)
I\
i\
i\
TECHNICAL
equilibrium
and is therefore unacceptable.
The
only solution which is acceptable
is the largest
value of F which exceeds F,. The value of S
changes with the applied horizontal load Kw; the
critical acceleration
factor K, is obtained from
the value of S corresponding
to a factor of safety
of unity.
For realistic failure surfaces, the value of F, is
usually significantly less than unity and therefore
the solution of K,, i.e. the critical acceleration
factor, is physically meaningful. This implies that,
if a horizontal load larger than K, w is applied, a
slide should occur. However, when F, > 1, the
critical acceleration factor for F = 1, as obtained
from Sarma (1973) or by using any other method
of slices, is physically meaningless. The solution
may correspond
to the discarded
portion
of
Fig. 2, i.e. Y < 0 or, if the solution corresponds
to
Y > 0, an acceleration factor greater than K, on
these assumed
slip surfaces will not produce
failure. The reason for this is that for the same
acceleration factor there is another solution of F
which is greater than F, and therefore greater
than unity. The surface is therefore safe. Slip surfaces which have F, very close to but less than
unity will yield large values of K, but will be
found to produce solutions which are unacceptable from other criteria. From the stress conditions, the exit angle at the toe end of a slip surface
close to the free horizontal ground surface should
be equal to x = -(45 - &/2) which gives a value
of F, = tan 4 tan (45 - 412) which is very
much smaller than unity.
With Sarmas (1979) solution, which cannot be
written in the form of equation (2), the use of
F = F, to reduce the shear strength properties on
the slip surface may not produce a large value of
K, but instead will yield results which will be
unacceptable
from considerations
of the directions of the interslice forces.
The function S varies linearly with the horizontal load factor K. Therefore, the curve of F versus
K as shown in Fig. 1 is also a rectangular hyperbola of higher order for values of F > F,. This
hyperbola has an asymptote at F = F, and the
rectangular
asymptote at K = K,. The value of
K, will depend on the kind of function S which in
turn depends
on the method
of solution.
In
Sarmas and in Janbus method
(14)
while in Bishops method
c w sin a
K = - 1 w(cos a - h/R)
The value of K, is a negative
number.
(15)
109
NOTES
K - K, + (K - K,)
P
+ (K _ K,)3 + ...
(16)
- K,)
(17)
- K,)
(19)
- K,)*
- M(K, - Ko)
(20)
N
M
K - K, + (K _ K,)*
(21)
- Ko)3
can be
K,--2
(22)
TECHNICAL
110
NOTES
EXAMPLE
Figure 3 shows a slope with a rock toe. A slip
surface ABCDEF
is also shown. The material
properties are given in the table. The point B of
the slip surface is chosen to give a value for F,
which is very close to unity. The point B is moved
slightly up or down to produce the following two
cases. Sarmas (1973) method is used for the solution.
Fig. 3. Cross-section of a slope and rock toe with an
assumed slip surface
M, = (F, - FJK,
-
(F,
F,,,XK,
Kd3
(23)
K,
M=
- Ko)3
K3
MI-M,
KI -
(24)
K3
N = M, - M(K, + K, - 2K,)
P = (F, - F,J(K,
(25)
- K,J3
(26)
F given by
N
F=F,+&+
Case 1
In case 1, F, = 0.998. For a factor of safety of
unity, the critical acceleration factor is 12.33. The
factor of safety for zero acceleration
is 1.47 and
the variation in the factor of safety with other
acceleration
factors is shown in Fig. 4(a). A
detailed examination
of the solution shows that
the interslice forces are unacceptable
for the critical acceleration case.
(K - Kc,)
P
+ (K - K,J3
Case 2
In case 2, F, > 1. K, is not computed
F = 1. In step 1, an arbitrary value of
F=F,=F,+l
for
(28)
is the
Case 2
In case 2, Fm = 1.002. For a factor of safety of
unity, the critical acceleration
factor is - 10.08,
which is meaningless. The factor of safety for zero
acceleration level is 1.59 and the variation in the
factors of safety for other acceleration factors are
shown in Fig. 4(b). The differences in the factor of
safety for the two cases are considerable
even
though point B is moved by an insignificant
amount; this shows the approach to a singularity.
The solution to the problem was also obtained
by the Sarma (1979) method which gave a critical
acceleration
of 1.00 with vertical slices but the
resulting interslice forces were unacceptable.
No
acceptable solution was found with inclined slices.
In conclusion, the value of F, should always be
checked before any stability analysis is performed
on a slip surface and if this value is found to be
greater than or equal to unity the slip surface
should be rejected.
1 .o
0
1
(a)
1.5
(b)
Fig. 4. Variation in factor of safety with horizontal acceleration factor for two insignificantly
different positions of point B in Fig. 3
TECHNICAL
REFERENCES
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the
stability analysis of slopes. Giotechnique 5, No. 1,
7-17.
Fellenius, W. (1936). Calculation
of the stability of earth
dams. Trans. 2nd Congr. Large Dams, Washington
DC 4,445-459.
Janbu, N. (1957). Earth pressures and bearing capacity
calculations
by generalized procedure of slices. Proc.
4th Int. Conf: Soil Mech. Fdn Engng, London 2,207212.
Sarma, S. K. (1973). Stability analysis of embankments
NOTES
111