Part 1: Simple method

The Culman’s method is the simple method which was selected. This method assumes a
failure plane with linear slip surface. An angle α is assumed and then using the appropriate
equations, the factor of safety (FoS) can be calculated. After plotting the relation between
angle α and the FoS, the minimum value of α can be identified. Alternative methods are by
trial and error and by differentiation. The dimensions of the slope and the assumed cut are
presented in figure 1 (to scale).

Figure 1 Slope for Culman's method

After intensive research on publications related to the specific slope failure as well as on soft
to firm glacial-marine clays, it is assumed that γ is 18kN/m3. For conservative reasons it is
also assumed that the slope is full of water; hence the value of effective cohesion c’=10kN/m2
will be used in all calculations. Also φ’ is assumed to be 27°, again for conservative reasons.
In general resisting parameters were assumed to me smaller and acing parameter larger than
the actual (average) values.
For the slope seen in figure 1, two combinations were used according to BS EN1997-1,
Annex A, table 4.1: Combination 1 and Combination 2. More analytically for both
combinations the results are presented in tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Combination 1 for Culman's method

Table 2 Combination 2 for Culman's method

It can be seen that in both combinations using the Culman’s method, the factor of safety is
around 1.5-1.7 for angles 20-20.5°.
Part 2: Bishop’s method

A more detailed and accurate method of slope analysis than simple methods is the Bishop
method. The values for c’, γ and φ’ are assumed to be the same as those used in Culman’s
method. The level of water is assumed to be the highest possible. It could be wiser to use
even fully waterlogged slope conditions but in this case it seems to be exaggerating. The
selected slices are presented in figure 2.

Figure 2 Slope for Bishop’s method

The drawing is to scale and all dimensions are the actual ones. The connection between slice
2 and 3 is at the lowest point of the arc. The connection of slice 6 and 7 is at the point where
the slope ends (crest). The in-between distances are divided equally. This is why slices 1 and
2 have the same width. Similarly for slices 3, 4, 5 and 6. Slice 7 is assumed to have no
cohesion due to existence of tension cracks so c’=0. However, φ’ is taken as minimum. It is
also assumed that throughout the whole circular slip surface, c’ and φ’ have the minimum
possible values (27° and 10kN/m2). The results from both combinations are presented in
Table 3.
Table 3 Combination 1 and 2 for Bishop’s method
Both combinations are based on BS EN1997-1, Annex A, table 4.1. It is noted that in the
table of combination 2, the weight of slices 1 and 2 is multiplied with a safety factor of 1
(favourable) while the weight of slices 3 to 7 with 1.35 (unfavourable). All results of loads
are assumed per metre width of the slope.

Part 3: Discussion

It is clear that slope stability analysis is a very complicated process which requires
consideration of many aspects and parameters. Although a satisfactory slip surface can be
obtained there are infinite possible surfaces. Even the best possible analysis cannot be
accurate because soils are not as homogeneous and isotropic as other materials.

Culman’s method is a more general approach for the determination of the slope safety factor.
It requires less time compared to other methods but it is not always convenient. Under both
combinations, the slope seemed to be safe. FoS-values of 1.5 to 1.7 could provide some
confidence to the designer about the safety of the slope. It is worth mentioning that
combination 1 gave higher FoS than combination 2.

However, after using the Bishop’s simplified method of slices (1955), the slope was proved
to be unsafe. For combination 1, the FoS was 0.97 but combination 2 was more critical giving
a FoS= 0.82. Imagining that a worst case of slope definitely exists (than from those provided
in the coursework), it can be realised that the factor of safety is even smaller. If less
conservative values for c’, φ’ and γ were assumed the slope would still be unsafe based on
calculations for combination 2. A sufficient FoS would be greater or equal to 1.2.
Part 4: Serviceability issues

Based on EN -1997:1, Sections 11.2 and 12.2:

 deformations in the slope leading due to excessive settlements or cracks;
 settlements and creep displacements leading to damages or loss of
serviceability in nearby the road or utilities (pipes and services)
 loss of serviceability of serviceability by climatic influences such as freezing
and thawing or extreme drying
 creep in the slope during the freezing and thawing period
 degradation of base course material due to high traffic loads during operation
of the road (vibrations)
 deformations caused by hydraulic actions (change of water-table level)

Based on EN -1997:1, Sections 11.6, 11.7, 12.6 and 12.7:

 It is compulsory to show that the deformation of the slope will not cause a
serviceability limit state in the slope itself or in the road, pavements or services (such as pipes
for gas or sewage, wires for electricity or communications) sited on, in or near the slope.
 The settlement of the slope on compressible ground should be calculated using
the principles of 6.6.1. Special attention should be paid to the time dependency of the
settlements due to both consolidation (clayey soil) and secondary effects.
 The possibility of deformations due to changes in the ground-water conditions
should be taken into account. Even if the water table is assumed to be at maximum level to
satisfy extreme ultimate limit state conditions, the variation of waster table can cause gradual
settlement.
 If the deformations are difficult to predict, the method of pre-loading should
be considered. Monitoring of ground-water levels or pore-water pressures in the ground, so
that effective stress analyses can be carried out or checked and observation of movements and
specifying actions to reduce or stop them might be necessary.
Part 5: Ultimate limit States

As specified by EN -1997:1, Sections 11.2-11.5 and 12.2-12.5

 The stability of the slope shall be checked against translational and rotational
modes of failure, loss of overall site stability, failure in the embankment slope or crest, failure
caused by internal erosion, surface erosion or scour.
 Particular attention shall be given to the pressure caused by blocked seepage
water in fissures such as tension cracks.
 Loss of overall stability of the ground and associated structures;
 Account should be taken of the fact that failure of slopes, with a well defined
pattern of discontinuities (for example layering), will generally involve sliding, depending on
the orientation of the slope face in relation to that of the discontinuities.
 When considering the long-term stability of the slope, the detrimental effects
of vegetation and environmental or polluting agents on the shear strength of discontinuities
should be taken into account.
 Where lightweight fill materials such as expanded polystyrene, expanded clay
or foamed concrete are used, the possibility of buoyancy effects shall be considered (see
Section 10).
 Special attention should be paid to the spatial interaction of the various
structural elements.
 When analysing the stability of improved ground, the effect of the improving
process, e.g. the disturbance of soft sensitive clay, should be considered. As the effect of the
improvement is time-dependent, it should not be taken into account until a steady state has
been reached.
 Excessive movements in the ground due to shear deformations, settlement,
vibration or heave caused during operation of the road.
 The following actions shall be considered:
 Imposed loads from pavement
 Variable loads from traffic
 During construction processes (temporary works, machinery,
compaction of pavement layers)
 Additional dynamic loads (vibrations due to machinery, traffic or
blasting)
Part 6: Design proposal and slope stabilization

The construction of an access road near the crest is impossible at its current state due to the
low FoS value and stabilization is vital.
Based on EN -1997:1, Sections 11.4 and 12.4 some possible methods are the following:
 concrete cover (shotcrete)
 anchorage
 ground nailing
 vegetation
 drainage system (surface or sub-surface)
 Excavation at crest
 Geo-materials (geotextiles, geogrids)
 Load the toe of the slope
 Combination of above

It is not recommended to use shotcrete due to aesthetic impacts. Anchorage is less efficient
when concrete cover is not applied and ground nailing is mainly applied in rocks or highly
cemented soils, so both methods are excluded. The average depth from the slope surface to
the assumed slip surface is more than 6 metres. For this reason it would not be very efficient
to use vegetation as roots will take long to reach the slip surface and reinforce the slope.
Geomaterials are also not recommended here as they are usually applicable to artificially
formed slopes and require extensive excavations and embankments.

The proposed solution involves excavations and application of drainage system. Cut and fill
processes will take place. The excavated material from the area around the crest will be used
as fill material for the toe. This way part of the weight which acts unfavourably will become
favourable. Proper piping system will also be installed inside the slope so that the largest part
of the water pressure is released. The proposed solution is presented in figure 3. At locations
where a river crosses the slope, proper surface drainage system will be constructed to avoid
water from penetrating into the soil. Moreover the access road will be constructed the farthest
possible from the crest in order to apply minimum variable and imposed loads on the slope. If
the cut and fill is impossible due to space restrictions, then further load will be applied on the
toe of the slope.
 Figure 3 Proposed solution for stabilization of the existing slope

The red line in figure 3 represents the existing unstable slope while the blue line a possible
stabilized slope. There are many ways of cut-and-fill and the final solution is based on the toe
and crest allowances. The black pipes in the same figure represent the drainage system which
is useful for improvement of both ULS and SLS conditions.