STABILITY ANALYSIS O F EMBANKMENTS

ON S O F T GROUND
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Bak-Kong Low, 1 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: A simple and convenient semi-analytical procedure is presented to

calculate the factor of safety of embankments constructed on soft clay. Stability
numbers Nt and N2 are developed for the normalized foundation strength and nor-
malized embankment strength, respectively. The factor of safety (in terms of over-
all moment equilibrium) can be computed as the sum of two components, each
equal to the product of the respective stability number and the corresponding nor-
malized strength. The relative importance of the foundation strength and the em-
bankment strength in contributing to the factor of safety can also be assessed during
the computation. The proposed method assumes short term undrained response of
the soft clay foundation. It can deal with cases where the undrained shear strength
of the soft clay varies with depth, and where the embankment possesses both cohe-
sion and internal friction. The application of the method is illustrated by several
examples and the results are compared with those obtained from a computer anal-
ysis.

INTRODUCTION

Embankments constructed on soft clay foundations typically have potential

failure mode in the form of an approximately circular slip surface which
extends into the soft foundation. Given that the potential slip surface may
be represented by a circular arc, it is a matter of geometry and mechanics
to compute the factor of safety corresponding to the slip surface. In Fig. 1,
one can draw an infinite number of slip circles all tangential to a given trial
limiting tangent. Take another trial limiting tangent, as in the lower part of
the figure, again there will be another infinite number of possible slip circles.
Among all these possible slip circles passing through the soft foundation,
the critical circle has the lowest factor of safety. Failure, if it occurs, will
follow the path along which the factor of safety is the minimum. That path
is represented by the critical slip circle. In this paper a procedure is proposed
whereby the lowest factor of safety corresponding to a trial limiting tangent
can be computed directly from a simple equation. By repeating the procedure
for different depths, the overall minimum factor of safety can be obtained.
The relative importance of the embankment strength and the foundation strength
in contributing to the safety can also be assessed by the procedure.

NOTATIONS

The embankment shown in Fig. 2 is characterized by its height H, the

slope angle p, the cohesion Cm, the angle of internal friction <(>„,, and the
unit weight 7. The subscript m stands for embankment. The foundation ma-
terial is characterized by its undrained shear strength C„. The corresponding
angle of internal friction <> | „ has been assumed to be zero. The undrained
'Sr. Lect. in Civ. Engrg., Nanyang Tech. Inst., Singapore 2263.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 1989. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on October 5, 1987.
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 2,
February, 1989. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/89/0002-0211/$1.00 + $.15 per page.
Paper No. 23189.
211

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Trial Limiting
Tangent # 1

Trial Limiting
Tangent # 2
> 1111 > i > 11 > 111 > 11 > 11111 > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FIG. 1. Critical Circle

shear strength Cu of the foundation can vary with depth.

The "trial limiting tangent" shown in Fig. 2 denotes a horizontal line at
the depth D below the top of the clay foundation to which potential slip
circles are tangential.
FACTOR OF SAFETY EQUATION

The factor of safety as shown in Fig. 2 has been derived using a number
of approximations (Low 1985). A brief outline is given below.
Expressions were obtained for the overturning moment M0 and the resist-
ing moment MR corresponding to an arbitrary slip circle that is tangent to a
horizontal plane at a depth D below the top of the clay layer. The coordinates
of the critical circle center were then determined by taking partial derivatives
of the expression for Fs (the ratio of MR to M0). The partial derivatives
showed that the center of the critical circle is located on a vertical line pass-
ing through mid-slope of embankment. By substituting the expressions for
the coordinates of the critical circle center into the expressions for MR and
M0 (Appendix I), the final equation for the minimum Fs was obtained.
Then, as shown in Fig. 2, the minimum Fs corresponding to a trial limiting
tangent at depth D is given by the equation

(F.)D = Nx ~ + Nr ( % + y tan < U (1)

yH \yH /
212

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 cot/3 ^ c
m
H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 n

ey

T r i a l l i m i t i n g tangent
( :

/>// /// /// }>

//?
The value of ( F S ) D may be expressed as:

A / m \
(Fs>D = N l + N 2 - •7i + X tan <f)m)
7H \7H /
where t^ = Nj_ ( — , cot /3 )

N N
2 = 2 ( — ' c°t|S)

X = X ( — , cot ]8 )
v
H I
C A = Average undrained shear strength
within the depth D, computed
using a derived equation.
FIG. 2. Notations for Embankment on Weak Foundation

The coefficients A^, N2, and 7 in Eq. 1 can be determined from the charts
shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Their values depend on D/H and cot p. The symbol
7 stands for embankment unit weight in both terms of Eq. 1. For base circles
the ratio D/H has to be greater than zero. In Figs. 3 and 4 the curves begin
with D/H values of about 0.5.
The term CA in Eq. 1 corresponds to the undrained shear strength of the
foundation material when the soil is uniform. A procedure will be described
later so that Eq. 1 can also be applied to soils with a nonuniform strength
profile.
The subscript "D" associated with the term Fs in Eq. 1 means that the
equation computes the minimum Fs corresponding to a given trial limiting
tangent of depth D. For cases where undrained shear strength of the foun-
dation increases with depth, it may be necessary to consider several different
tangent depths, in order to locate the one that results in the minimum factor
of safety.
Each of the terms on the right hand side of Eq. 1 is dimensionless. The
term CA/yH may be regarded as the normalized foundation strength param-
eter SF, and the term Cm/yH + 7 tan 4>,„ as the normalized embankment

213

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D/H D/H

FIG. 3. Stability Factors N, and N2 for FIG. 4. Coefficient X of tan 4>„,

Embankments on Weak Foundations

strength parameter SM, so that the factor of safety (FS)D is the sum of two
components:
<F.)D = NrSF + N2-SM (2)
Note from Figs. 3 and 4 that, for D/H > 3, the factor of safety is largely
due to the normalized foundation strength SF, unless the normalized em-
bankment strength SM is significantly greater than the normalized foundation
strength SF. Conversely, for D/H < 1 (i.e., shallow base circle), the em-
bankment strength may contribute significantly to the factor of safety, the
more so if SM is greater than SF.
It is perhaps worth emphasizing that the unit weight 7 which appears in
both the normalized foundation strength and the normalized embankment
strength terms in Eq. 1 is the unit weight of the embankment material. For
undrained conditions in the clay foundation, and for a horizontal foundation
surface, the unit weight of the foundation clay has no influence on the factor
of safety and hence does not appear in Eq. 1.

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROCEDURE WITH METHOD OF SLICES

The procedure leading to Eq. 1 assumes circular slip surfaces and con-
siders only moment equilibrium. It differs from the general procedure of
Bishop's simplified method or the ordinary method of slices in that it does
not involve dividing the slope into vertical slices.
Fig. 5 defines the factor of safety as used in Bishop's simplified method.
The numerator and the denominator represent the resisting and the over-
turning moment respectively. The term N' is the effective normal force on
214

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

<4°L
\ N'

B i s h o p ' s Method:
£ ( c ' / + tan (f)' • N')
F
s =
,w s i n a
W — S i n cc - ujtcos cc
F
where: N' = s
+ t a n (t> ' s i n a
c o s cc

£ i n d i c a t e s summation over a l l slices.

FIG. 5. Method of Slices, Bishop's Solution

the slip surface. Bishop's simplified method assumes the interslice forces to
be horizontal. By considering vertical equilibrium, an expression for N' can
be obtained, which is a function of the factor of safety Fs. Since the term
Fs occurs on both sides of the equation in Fig. 5, successive approximation
must be used to evaluate Fs. In addition, an adequate number of trial failure
surfaces have to be examined in order to obtain the minimum value of Fs.
The method is capable of handling complex slope geometry and soil con-
ditions.
In the procedure summarized in Fig. 2, the normal force on the slip sur-
face is considered only for that part of the arc within the embankment. The
approximation used for this normal force is described in Appendix I. No
important discrepancy arises from the different assumptions regarding the
normal force. This may in part be attributed to the fact that the frictional
215

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 force N' tan 4>' acts only along that part of the slip surface in the embank-
ment. The angle of internal friction for the foundation material is taken to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be zero under undrained conditions.

In the special case where ((> is zero both in the embankment and in the
foundation material, the term N' tan cf>' can be omitted from the definition
of Fs in Fig. 5. The definition of Fs then becomes identical to that employed
in the procedure proposed in this paper and also to that of the Ordinary
Method of Slices.
The proposed procedure as summarized in Fig. 2 is much easier to use
than the method of slices, and is particularly convenient in hand computa-
tion. However, the simplicity of the equation is achieved at the expense of
some versatility. For instance, if the friction angle of the foundation material
is not equal to zero, or if the shear strength varies laterally, then a more
general computer method like Bishop's simplified method has to be used.

STABILITY NUMBERS N{ AND N2

The terms N{ and N2 in Eq. 1 are dimensionless stability numbers, anal-

ogous to Taylor's stability factor for slopes in homogeneous clay. In the
case where 4>„, = 0 and C,„ = CA, i.e., when the shear strength of the soil

10.0

embankment

FiG. 6. Plot of {N, + N2)

216

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 in the embankment and in the foundation are the same, Eq. 1 becomes:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Fs)D = (Ni+N2)~ (3)

yH
The term (Nl + N2) is plotted in Fig. 6. This special case affords a com-
parison with Taylor's stability factor Ns for slopes excavated in uniform clay.
[See, for example, figure 35.3 midpoint circle curves in Terzaghi and Peck
(1967)]. The corresponding values between the two figures are almost iden-
tical. For the type of problems under consideration, the values of Ni and iV2
plotted separately as in Fig. 3 are more useful than their combined values
shown in Fig. 6. The stability can be calculated when the shear strength of
the embankment and of the foundation are not the same.
Fig. 6 shows that when cot (3 > 1 and the undrained shear strength is
constant for both the embankment and the foundation, as would be the case
for a cut slope in uniform clay, the critical circle will extend to the bottom
of the uniform clay (i.e., D/H tends to infinity). However, when the shear
strength of the embankment is different from that of the foundation, the
depth of the critical circle will depend mainly on the relative strength of the
embankment and of the foundation material and to a lesser extent on cot (3.
For two embankments resting on the same soft clay, the critical failure circle
will extend deeper down for the embankment with the higher normalized
embankment strength because both N2 and 7 decrease with depth (Figs. 3
and 4).

EQUIVALENT CONSTANT UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

Eq. 1 has been derived assuming a constant undrained shear strength of

the foundation material. In reality, the undrained shear strength of the foun-
dation material usually varies with depth. Nevertheless, Eq. 1 can still be
used provided the variable shear strength can be converted into an equivalent
constant shear strength. In the following discussion the term constant strength
profile refers to a foundation with a constant undrained shear strength, whereas
the term variable strength profile refers to a foundation with an undrained
shear strength which varies with depth. The shear strength is assumed to be
constant in the horizontal direction.
A variable shear strength will be equivalent to a constant shear strength
if both give the same value on the factor of safety. To calculate the equiv-
alent constant strength CA, the variable strength profile is integrated along a
circular arc and divided by the length of the circular arc.
Consider the top diagram in Fig. 7. The shear strength of the soft clay
varies linearly with depth. The strength is equal to CT at the top of the clay
foundation, and CD at the depth D, the level of the trial limiting tangent. It
can be shown (Low 1985) that the equivalent constant strength CA is very
closely approximated by a simple function of CT and CD only
CA = 0.35CV + 0.65CD (4)
The middle diagram in Fig. 7 shows a triangular distribution of the shear
strength. The Astrength is equal to ACT at the surface, and decreases linearly
to zero at a depth Dc. The circular arc extends down to the depth D which
is greater than Dc. The triangular strength profile of depth Dc can be con-
217

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 C A = 0 . 3 5 CT + 0 . 6 5 CD
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

hcA
WWm Trial L
Lii m i t i n g Tangent
g'_ p\

iiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiniiiiiiiiu/ IIIIIWHIIIIIIIHIIIIIUIII,

ACA=0.35(DC/D)1-1 ACT

H hAcT [4 cA^ -AC,

ttcJD
v^J_J?ri
Trial Limiting Tangent

7TT\
iiii/iifiiiiii/iini iiiiniiniuiiiniuiiinun,

C'K = 0 . 3 5 C T + 0 . 6 5 C D + 0.35(Dc/D)l-lACT

CA + ACA
A
HI M

mm• D
1 Trial Limiting Tangent

iiiiDiiiiiniiiim, 77777777777777/7777777777777777;

FIG. 7. Conversion of Bilinear Strength Profile to Equivalent Constant Strength

Profile (for Circular Slip Surface Tangent at Depth D)

verted into an equivalent constant strength LCA extending to depth D. The

shear strength ACA is related to ACT and Dc/D by the equation

ACA = 0.35[ — I ACr (5)

It may be observed that when DjD is equal to 1, Eq. 5 becomes Eq. 4

with CD - 0. The upper two diagrams of Fig. 7 can be combined to develop
a bilinear strength profile and its equivalent constant strength CA, as shown
in the bottom diagram of the figure. Hence

C'A = 0.35CY + 0.65CD + 0.35 ACr (6)

The conversion of a bilinear foundation strength profile into its equivalent

CA (for circular slip surface tangential to a given trial limiting tangent) is
summarized in Fig. 8. Both CT and ACT can be positive (as shown) or neg-
ative.
The procedure can be extended to handle multilinear variation of the shear
strength in the clay foundation, using the principle of superposition. An ex-
218

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 Cm AC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

—-Trial Limiting
Tangent Depth

Firm Soil or Rock

C A = Equivalent shear strength (over a circular

arc), corresponding to a trial limiting
tangent of depth D.

C, = 0.35 C„ + 0.65 C n , for A C T = O.

C R - 0.35 C T + 0.65 C D + 0.35 ( )x•L Ac„ for D > D c

D
C A = 0.35 (C T + 4C T ) + 0.65 C D , for D < D r
Both ,CT and A c T can be positive (as shown),
or negative.

FIG. 8. Procedure for Calculating Equivalent Undrained Shear Strength of Foun-

dation, in Case where Strength Profile is Bilinear

ample is shown in Fig. 9, where subtraction as well as addition of triangular

strength profiles are necessary in the computation of the equivalent strength
CA.
Where the foundation soil consists of a number of strata each possessing
different but constant undrained shear strength, a convenient way of obtain-
ing the equivalent CA (corresponding to a trial tangent depth) is to use the
familiar method of proportional weighting by the angle subtended at the cen-
ter of a slip circle. The computed equivalent CA for the foundation clay will
in general vary with the depth of the trial limiting tangents, but is practically
independent of the height of the center of the circle above the foundation
(Low 1985).

A p p l y Eqn 4 A p p l y Eqn 5

3 l

•A12M+A23K

Trial Limiting Trial Limiting

Tangent I J Tangent

77777777777777777777

FIG. 9. Principal of Superposition for Irregular Strength Profile

219

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 AVERAGING EMBANKMENT PROPERTIES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note that both Eq. 4 and Eq. 5 take into account the curvature of a circular
arc, This can be seen from Eq. 4 where more weight is given to CD than
to CT. These two equations are to be used to average the shear strength of
the foundation clay only.
For averaging the shear strength of the embankment material, a procedure
with proportional weighting over the embankment height H should be used.
This is because that part of a base circle which lies within the embankment
can usually be closely approximated by a straight line. The following ex-
ample will illustrate this point.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

Example Number 1
Three horizontal clay layers each 4.5 m thick are shown in Fig. 10. The
values of c for the upper, middle, and lower strata are, respectively, 30, 20,
and 150 kN/m 2 . The unit weight is 18 kN/m 3 . A cut is excavated with side
slopes of 1V:3H to a depth of 6 m. For the purposes of computation and
the following discussion, the portion of the slope above the bottom of the
cut is treated as the embankment. It may be observed that the contributions
of the embankment and of the foundation material towards the total factor
of safety are 35% and 65%, respectively (Fig. 10). The relatively significant
contribution from the embankment is due to the relatively shallow base circle
(small D/H) and the relatively high normalized shear strength of the em-
bankment which in this case is greater than the normalized shear strength of
the foundation. For comparison, results from computer program (Duncan
and Wong 1984) which systematically locates the critical slip circle are also
shown in the figure. The Ordinary Method of Slices and Bishop's simplified
method are identical in this example because <$> is zero.

4 . 5 m C = 3 0 kN/B
7 = 18 kN/m i-1.5 m C = 20 kN/m 2
3
2~W
V 4 . 5 m c = 150 kN/m 2

C m = (4.5 X 30 + 1.5 x 20J/6.0 = 27.5 kN/mz

By inspection, critical D = 3 m(i.e. base of middle layer)

Then N, 5.1, N, 2.0 (Fig 3)

20 27.5
Minimum F_ 5.1 x (Eq 1)
18 X 6 18 x 6
= 0.944 + 0.509
= 1.45
Compared with computer programs : F s = 1.44 (Ordinary Method of
slices)
F s = 1.44 (Bishop's simplified
method)

FIG. 10. Illustrative Example 1

220

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 2 2
C = 95 k N / m ^ \
8 m 4> = 15° ^ U
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 = 2 0 kN/m J
\ ^ 15 kN/mz

8m K 4m
4m
/ / / / / J / / / / / / / / / / / / / ' s f t * / / / / / " / J * /
\.
3 0 kN/m^

N
C
A »1 2 X < F S>D
D
(FigfS) (Figs 3,4) (Eq 1)

4.0 15.0 4.5 1.8 0.27 0.42 + 1.20 = 1.62

6.0 18.0 4.7 1.3 0.24 0.53 + 0.86 = 1.39
8.0 21.9 4.8 1.1 0.23 0.66 + 0.72 = 1.38 Minimum F==1.3 8
Compared with computer programs:
F s = 1.36 (Ordinary method of slices)(Fs 1.31 if 0 = 0)
F s = 1.14 (Bishop's simplified method) (Fs = 1.31 if (j> = 0)(See text)

FIG. 11. Illustrative Example 2

In practice, it may also be necessary to analyze the cut based on long-

term drained strength of the clay.

Example Number 2
Fig. 11 shows an embankment of stiff clay which has been constructed
on soft clay. The undrained shear strength of the soft clay varies with depth.
The hand-computed value for the factor of safety against circular rotational
failure is 1.38. The contributions of the foundation and of the embankment
materials to the factor of safety are shown in the last column of the table.
Computer program (systematic searching for the critical circle) gives val-
ues of 1.36 and 1.14 based on Ordinary Method of Slices and Bishop's
simplified method, respectively.
The discrepancy between the values given by the Ordinary Method of
Slices and by Bishop's simplified method has been investigated for cj> = 0
in the embankment material. Both methods indicated a factor of safety of
1.31. That both methods give identical value for the factor of safety when
cp = 0 is theoretically consistent. That the value given by the Ordinary Method
of Slices is reduced (from 1.36 to 1.31) when <> j drops to 0 is also reasonable.
It is, however, illogical that the value given by Bishop's simplified method
increases from 1.14 to 1.31 when friction angle for the embankment material
drops from 15° to 0°, all other conditions remain unchanged. The value of
1.14 is therefore misleading.
Errors similar to that associated with the value of 1.14 given by Bishop's
simplified method may arise when there are slices with steeply inclined bases,
or when the embankment material has a high cohesion. In these circum-
stances the computed normal force on the base of some slices may be either
negative or unreasonably large (Chirapuntu and Duncan 1975; Whitman and
Bailey 1967). For the case in Fig. 11, the seeming paradox that the Fs value
given by Bishop's simplified method decreases with increasing angle of in-
ternal friction of the embankment can be explained by considering the
expression for N' in Fig. 5, with no pore pressures. The numerator in the
expression (and hence the normal force N') can be negative for slices in the

221

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 embankment when values of c' and a are high relative to the weight of slice
w. The negative value of JV' will decrease the computed F„ value when <)>'
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is greater than zero, but will have no effect on Fs value when <)>' is equal
to zero. This is evident from the expression for Fs given in Fig. 5. Hence
the unreasonably low Fs value of 1.14 in this case when the angle of internal
friction in the embankment is 15°.
The hand-computed factor of safety of 1.38 by the proposed method (Fig.
11) is therefore in close agreement with the value 1.36 indicated by the
ordinary method of slices.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A simple procedure has been developed to calculate by hand the factor of

safety for embankments constructed on soft clay. The potential slip surface
has been assumed to be circular. The factor of safety Fs which corresponds
to a trial limiting tangent at an arbitrary depth D can be computed directly
from an equation of the form
(Fs)D=NrSF + N2'SM
where Af, and N2 are stability numbers which can be determined from charts
presented in the paper, and SF and SM are the normalized foundation strength
and the normalized embankment strength respectively, Figs. 3 and 4
By repeating the computation for different depths, a minimum value of
Fs can be obtained. The relative importance of the embankment strength and
the foundation strength in contributing to the factor of safety can also be
assessed easily during the computation.
When the undrained shear strength of the soft clay foundation varies with
depth, a simple procedure has been developed whereby an equivalent con-
stant shear strength CA can be computed. This shear strength can then be
used in Eq. 1.
The purpose of this paper has been to present a convenient procedure for
hand computing the factor of safety against base circle slip failure. Several
other factors (Leonards 1982) which may affect stability have not been dis-
cussed. These include a noncircular slip surface, progressive failure, uncer-
tainty concerning the in situ undrained shear strength profile, and possible
tensile cracking in the embankment. These factors may require more atten-
tion than the computational procedure which has been the main emphasis in
this paper. In some circumstances an effective stress analysis accounting for
pore-water pressure may be more appropriate than the procedure described
in this paper which is based on total stress analysis. Judgment is therefore
required in the design of embankments on soft ground.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to thank Professor James K. Mitchell and Professor

Bengt B. Broms for reviewing the draft of this paper. Their comments and
encouragement are most helpful. The guidance of Professor James M. Dun-
can is also acknowledged.
222

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 APPENDIX I. EQUATIONS FOR NU N2, AND 7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Overturning Moments
The factor of safety for rotational failure can be defined in terms of overall
moment equilibrium. In Fig. 12, the origin of the coordinate system lies at
the level of the trial limiting tangent, on a vertical line passing through the
toe of the embankment. The coordinates x and y represent the center of an
arbitrary slip circle. Thus defined, the ordinate y of the center of slip circle
is also equal to the radius of the circle. That the origin of the coordinate
system varies from one trial limiting tangent to another is of no consequence,
since the equation to be derived computes the critical Fs corresponding to a
particular trial limiting tangent. The overall critical Fs for the slope is ob-
tained by comparing the values of critical Fs for a number of trial limiting
tangents.
The overturning moment in Fig. 12 is due to the block ABJE. By inte-
gration, the exact overturning moment M0 of the block ABJE can be ex-
pressed as shown in the figure.

Resisting Moment
The resisting moment MR along IGEJ consists of two components: that
contributed by the available undrained shear strength along arc IGE, and

J
?8 ^ —
y = R
"cot/3 ^ X j B /
H
E 1
1 / A \ /

Trial 1

Limiting Tangent V • •
^ Origin
777 777 777 777 77? 777 777—
Resisting Moment along IGEJ :

« R = y (C-2 d y ) + y (C m +X7Htan <£m) . 0 H y

•j ,D.0.53 , , , D+H 0.53 D 0.53.

^ y 2 C 3 . 0 6 ( ^ ) u - +y2 (Cm+X7Htan <£„,)•!. 53 [(—_> - ^ ]

=H2 (|)l-47 3 . 0 6 £,0.53 ^ _„ ( (D+1) 0 . 53_ { | } 0. 5 3 ] (Cm+XyKtan K ) j

Overturning Moment of ABJE

M„=[ix ( / - x ) - | - / 2 + y (D+lj-itD+fj^^JTH

FIG. 12. General Equations for Resisting and Overturning Moments

223

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Approximation: L/y = 20 & 3.06 t^)0-53

3.14
3.00

1.00

0.00 0.00

FIG. 13. Approximation for the Arc Length

that contributed by embankment cohesion and friction along arc EJ. To ob-
tain the available resisting moment, it is necessary to know the arc length
of the circular slip surface. In Fig. 13, L = 2Qy, where 9 is in radians. The
exact equation for 6 involves the inverse cosine, cos -1 . To facilitate the par-
tial differentiation that will be done later, the angle (in radians) 26 is ap-
proximated by 3.06(D/v)053. The lower plot in Fig. 13 shows that the ap-
proximation is quite accurate. Therefore

Arc length in foundation = 20y = 3.061 —

Arc length in embankment = %Hy = [(6 + %H) 0]v

0-53 / _ N 0.53-
(U + H
= 1.53 y (7)

For foundation material with constant undrained shear strength CA, the
available resisting moment can be expressed as
MR = y • (CA • 26y) + y • (C„, + \yH • tan <|>m) • QHy . (8)
where the notations are as shown in Fig. 12.
The first term on the right comes from the foundation material while the
second term derives from the embankment. The term XyH • tan <f>„, represents
224

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

CASE A CASE B
JE almost vertical JE almost horizontal

F J E =. Frictional force on JE F
JE - Frictional force on JE
= Average an x tan 0 m = Average <7n x tan 0 m

X Length JE x Length JE

1 1
a— y HK„tan 4>m — — Y H tan </>m X Length JE
2 2

X Length JE

1 1
i.e. X = — K 0 i.e X =-
2 2

where K 0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest.

FIG. 14. Upper and Lower Bounds for X

the average frictional stress along that part of the arc length which lies in
the embankment. By considering two extreme possibilities, one can deter-
mine the possible range of the coefficient X which appears in this term. In
Case A of Fig. 14, arc JE is close to being vertical. The average normal
stress on JE is 0.5 K0yH, where K0 = coefficient of lateral earth pressure
at rest. In Case B of the same figure, JE is almost horizontal, with average
normal stress equal to 0.5yH. Therefore the coefficient X lies within the
range KB/2 to 0.5. Parametric studies have been carried out to calibrate X
as a function of D/H and cot p. The equation is shown in Fig. 15. As plotted
in Fig. 4, the value of X varies from 0.19 for deep circles to 0.38 for shallow
circles.
Substitution of 26v and BH v of Eq. 8 by Eq. 7 results in the final expres-
sion for the available resisting moment MR as shown in Fig. 12. Note that
both the available resisting moment MR and the overturning moment M„ in
Fig. 12 are for an arbitrary slip circle with center at (x,y) and tangential to
a trial limiting tangent at depth D. Dividing the resisting moment by the
overturning moment gives an expression for the factor of safety for the par-
ticular circle with its center at (x,y):

MR
Fs(x,y,D,...) = (9)
M„

Stability Numbers A^ and iV2

Expressions for the partial derivatives of Fs, first with respect to x and
then with respect to y, can be obtained and set equal to zero. This leads to
expressions for x and y (i.e., the location of the circle center) which cor-
225

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Trial Limiting Tangent

/ / i i i / /

( F s ) D = N i S + N 2 -7H
(
7i+Xtan^
D,0.53 1 4 7
w h e r e N n = 3 . 0 6 (— "l " /
Q=2

N2=l.53[(l+l)0-53-(|)0-53]^-47/a2
D 1 COt 2 )3 + 1
C K r = 1 . 5 6 4 ( - ^ + i ) + 0 . 1 3 03 -
1+0.5

0.02cot/3
\^0.19+ / o r F i gy . 4
D/H
(For D/H>0.5)

FIG. 15. Equations for F„ ATlf iV2, and X

respond to a stationary value of the Fs for the particular trial limiting tangent.
By the nature of the problem, this stationary value is a minimum. The two
partial derivatives lead to the conclusion that, corresponding to a trial lim-
iting tangent at depth D,

1. The critical circle is a midpoint circle, i.e., x = 1/2 €, where ( is as

defined in Fig. 12.
2. The critical circle has a radius y which depends on cotangent p and D/H,
i.e.

y (cot S)2 + 1 D \
- = 0.1303 ^ — ^ + 1.5638 - + -
H D \ \H 2
+ 0.5
H

Substitution of the above expressions for x and y into Eq. 9 (where MR and
M 0 are as expressed in Fig. 12) leads eventually to the Fs equation and the
stability numbers iV, and N2 as shown in Fig. 15. The minimum Fs corre-
sponding to a trial limiting tangent at depth D is thus given by the equation

226

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227

 (FS)D = Nt • • % + N2 • (% + tan 4>m)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRJ - Universidade Federal Do Rio De Janeiro on 11/12/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The equations of Nlt N2, and X in Fig. 15 have been used to plot the
charts shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES

Chirapuntu, S., and Duncan, J. M. (1975). "The role of fill strength in the stability
of embankments on soft clay foundations." Geotechnical Engineering Report No.
TE 75-3, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Duncan, J. M., and Wong, K. S. (1984). "STABR: A computer program for slope
stability analysis with circular slip surfaces, microcomputer version." Geotechnical
Engineering Report NO. UCB/GT/84-09, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Leonards, G. A. (1982). "Investigation of failures." J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE,
108(GT2), 185-246.
Low, B. K. (1985). "Analysis of the behaviour of reinforced embankments on weak
foundations." Thesis presented to the Univ. of California, at Berkeley, Calif., in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Whitman, R. V., and Bailey, W. A. (1967). "Use of computers for slope stability
analysis." J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 93(SM4), 475-498.

APPENDIX III. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

cA = equivalent undrained shear strength in the foundation soil;

cm = cohesion of embankment soil;
c„ = undrained shear strength;
D = depth of trial limiting tangent in the foundation soil;
Fs = factor of safety;
=
<F,)D lowest factor of safety corresponding to trial limiting tangent of
depth D;
H = height of embankment;
M0 = overturning moment due to embankment;
MR = resisting moment due to embankment and foundation soil;
N, = stability number for the foundation soil;
N2 = stability number for the embankment soil;
£>M = normalized embankment strength, dimensionless;
sF == normalized foundation strength, dimensionless;
p slope angle of embankment;
7 = unit weight of embankment soil;
<t>m = friction angle of embankment soil; and
\ = coefficient of tan <j>M (Fig. 4).

227

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115(2): 211-227