Slope Stability Dari Teori Ke Praktek - Ardy Arsyad-Compressed

HATTI MENGAJAR VIII:
STABILITAS LERENG DARI TEORI KE

PRAKTEK
ARDY ARSYAD
Departemen Teknik Sipil Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar
1
Prinsip Analisis Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas Lereng
Pengantar SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equilibrium Stabilitas Lereng Gempa
2
3
4
5
6
Pemahaman yang benar mengenai Stabilitas

lereng
• Memahami penyebab lereng mengalami kelongsoran.
• Mendesain dan membuat lereng baru: harus dapat mengatisipasi: Perubahan
sifat tanah dalam rentang waktu tertentu akibat adanya pembebanan dan
kondisi aliran air permukaan atau bawah permukaan.
• Memperbaiki lereng yang sudah longsor: harus memahami hal-hal yang
membuat lereng tersebut longsor, agar kejadian longsor tidak berulang.
• Pengalaman adalah sangat penting, dalam mendesain, membangun

lereng baru, dan memperbaiki lereng longsor.
7
Prinsip Dasar Stabilitas lereng

• lereng stabil jika: Kuat geser tanah lereng lebih besar dari tegangan
geser yang dibutuhkan untuk mencapai kesetimbangan.
• Lereng tidak stabil jika: kuat geser tanah lereng lebih kecil dari
tegangan geser yang dibutuhkan untuk mencapai kesetimbangan.
• Menurunnya kuat geser yang dimiliki tanah lereng.
• Meningkatnya tegangan geser pada tanah lereng.
8
Penurunan Kuat geser tanah lereng

• Meningkatnya tekanan airpori, menurunnya tegangan efektif tanah.
• Retakan, cracking.
• Swelling, angka pori tanah meningkat.
• Peningkatan slickenside.
• Dekomposisi clayshale dan claystone.
• Creep akibatnya adanya beban tetap.
• Leaching.
• Strain softening.
• Pelapukan.
• Beban siklik.
9
Peningkatan tegangan geser pada tanah

• Beban pada tanah lereng.
• Tegangan air dalam crack lereng, umumnya pada kepala lereng.
• Peningkatan berat lereng karena meningkatnya kadar air.
• Adanya penggalian pada kaki lereng.
• Penurunan muka air tanah pada dasar lereng.
• Goyangan gempa.
10
Drained dan Undrained.

• Konsep drained dan Undrained.
• Drained: kondisi dimana air terdrainase secara cepat untuk keluar dari massa
tanah pada kondisi loading, dan mengalir masuk ke massa tanah pada kondisi
unloading.
• Drained: loading dan unloading tidak menimbulkan perubahan tekanan airpori.
• Undrained: kondisi dimana tidak ada drainase air masuk atau keluar dari massa
tanah pada saat loading – unloading terjadi.
• Undrained: perubahan beban menyebabkan perubahan tekanan airpori.
• Kondisi undrained pada tanah bisa bertahan dalam mingguan atau
bulanan tergantung dari sifat dan volume tanah.
• Seiring waktu, kondisi undrained akan menuju drained (transisi).
11
time
not estimate
uld for for that
undrained
formed any
usingsignificant
ttests.
thin would
drained Drained
specimens amount
be
throughout2.0
sodirectof
hours.
that water
theshear
D isOne to
small,
test. flow
tests
second
Direct are
and out
using
shear of
per- the
where
tests are not
𝜎 is the
good total 𝜎0 = pressure.
water
stress (force per 2
= 1.2
Consider
unit of
the
kPacondition before
area), W is the
any loa
(3.3)
99 Prinsip Analisis Limit The effective stress
Metode Analisis plied is equal to
to0.0103 the
theLereng
Stabilitas total
m SNI
specimen stress(whenminus the
P = 0): If the specimen
clay.
e new
med a
using It
slow is
Pengantar
loads true
rate
thinwere of that
shearing
applied,
specimens
for even
undrained
Mekanika so in
sothethat
Tanahthata
tests period
the specimen
testDbecause
specimen of
is small,
Stabilitas one is
thewould
Lereng second
essentially
and
only using
way there weight
to prevent
Equilibrium of
water drainage the
pressure.
Stabilitasupper
Consider
Lereng half of
the the specimen,
condition
Gempa before 8460-2017
porous
any load stone,
is ap- Kesimpulan
metal
drained
would be throughout
some small the test.
amount Direct of shear
flow, tests
but arethis good be pliedThe
notwould to the
effective
specimen
stressP is=time
enough
(when
equal
0):
to come
If the
tospecimen
the to total
a drained
has
stress
had
minus the wat
condition,
rained.
ow rate After
forof
2 hours,
shearing is toso or
thatany
apply thelonger
the loads
specimen time,isthe
very quickly, test
which
essentially can result
plate,water in
and thehigher steel ball surethrough
wouldthe which
becondition the load
hydrostatic, is
andapplied,
its valueP iswould
undrained testsall because the only way to prevent drainage pressure. Consider before any load is ap-be g
insignificant.
Tegangan total dan tegangan efektif
For practical purposes the clay would be
measured strength due to strain rate effects. enough
Triaxial time
tests to
are come to a drained condition, the water pres-
en
nedwould is tobe
throughout applydrained.
theloads
the test.veryDirect
quickly, shearwhichtests are not
can result good applied
in higher sureplied normal
would to the
be
load
specimen
hydrostatic,
(F),the
by and
and depth
(when
its
isof
Avalue P the
water
=would
total
0): in
If
be
area
the
the (L ). For
2
reservoir
specimen
governed
a had
around
has the she
undrained
nthetically, immediately
it should better
bedue noted after
suited that the
torate loads
undrained
the use were changed.
testing
ofTriaxial
the direct because drainagedirect can beshear apparatus, 2 shear box,
undrainedmeasuredtests because
strength the only
to strain way to
effects.prevent drainage
tests are typical by the depth of water For
in the a reservoir
typical with a 0.0103
direct
around shear
the m
apparatus
shear box. the depth of w
Ifbetter
the loads P and
suited toprevented T were
undrained held
completely
testing constant
because for
by sealing a
drainage longer
the period,
can test
be specimens enough in time
im- to come to a drained condition, the water pres-
est as
o apply an
the example of drained and undrained condi- W would be about 12.4
in N.
Figure 3.1) would be about 0.051 m. The corresp
oneloads very quickly, thewhich canUndrained
resultwould in triaxial
higher For a typical direct shear apparatus the depth of water (h
sayprevented day,completely
the state
permeable of sealing
by membranes.claythe specimen
test specimens in change
im- tests can Ptherefore
sure = would
0, W =be 12.4 N, A = 0.0103
hydrostatic, and m2value
its . would be governed
not meant
sured Tegangan
fromstrength to indicate
undrained total
due to=that
to jumlah
strain therate
drained.
direct
seluruh
This
shear
effects.
is gaya apparatus
pada
Triaxial
because, tanah
withintestsis are Before
a period
in Figureany 3.1)loadwould hydrostatic
is beapplied
about 0.051 to water
the pressure
m.specimen
The at
corresponding the level
(when P =of0),the horizont
eerfor
permeable
both drained
be
membranes.
and
performed
Undrained
undrained
slowly enough
triaxial
shear
tests can
tests on
to therefore
eliminate
soils. by
undesirable the
Teganan
hydrostatic depth
rate
water of
normal water
pressure
would sebelum
at in the reservoir
belevel adanya
the ofplane
the horizontal around
bebanplane the shear box.
termasuk
suited
of be today,
oneperformed gaya
undrained
there kontak
would
slowly testingantar
bestill
enough butiran
because
sufficient
tobe eliminate tanah
drainage
time (solid),
for water
undesirable canrate the
tobeflow would normal stress on the horizontal is
effects and undrained. Forbea typical direct shear apparatus the depth of water (h
shear
vented tests
dan
effects are
gaya
outcompletely suitable
and pada
of the clay. bystill be for
airpori drained
undrained.
sealing
Within (void),
this the shear
dibagi
timetest tests
total
thespecimens on
volume of in soils,
luasan. theim- voids in Figure 3.1) would u
12.4 =
03 Nw 𝛾 h = (9.81 kN∕m 3
)(0.051 m) = 0.5 kPa
for undrained tests. Drained u0 = 𝛾w h = (9.81 𝜎 =
0 kN∕m )(0.051 be about = 0.051
1.2
m) = 0.5 kPa kPa m. The(3.4) corresponding
(3.3)
meablewould decrease
membranes. and comedirect
Undrained sheartests
essentially
triaxial tests aretherefore
to equilibrium.
can per- It is 0.0103 m 2
using thin
Tegangan specimens
efektif = so
gaya that kontak
D is small,
antar and
butiran using
tanah hydrostatic
where u is the waterwhere
initial pressure
water
u0 isat
pressure
thethe
in
initial
thelevel water
of thepressure
specimen, 𝛾 horizontal
is
in the specime
plane
true thatslowly
performed equilibriumenough would be approached
to eliminate
Recapitulation undesirableasymptotically,rate The effective
0
stress the isunit
equal weight to ,theof total =
water stress
9.81 minus
w
kN/m , the
3 and h is the h
dibagi
rateand
of total
Recapitulation
shearing luasan.
so that the specimen is essentially Tinggi
thewould
unit be
weight mukaof water air, =h9.81 = 0.051kN/m3m and h is the height of
strictly speaking equilibrium would only be approached water = 0.051
cts and still
Tegangan
be undrained.
efektif = tegangan total – tegangan waterpressure.
above the Considerhorizontal the
waterplane abovecondition
= 0.051 m.before any
the horizontal plane load is ap-m.
d throughout
closely • The the
but test. •Direct
never
difference The
bebetween shear
difference
reached. undrainedtests
However, are drained
between
and not
for good
undrained
allcon- andplied
practical drained
Withto thecon- =
𝜎u0=specimen
1.2𝛾w h =and
kPa, (9.81
u0 = kN∕m
With
(when 𝜎P=kPa,
0.5 =1.2
3
0):)(0.051
kPa,
theIfeffective
the m)
andspecimen == 0.5
u0stress kPa had
0.5is has
kPa, (3.4)
the effective
rainedairpori.
testsditions
because is time.the ditions
only way is time.to prevent drainage enough
equal totime 0.7 kPa:toiscome equal to 0.7 kPa:
to a drained condition, the water pres- 𝛾 is
• Undrained • Undrained
signifies
ply the loads very quickly, which can resultMetal a condition signifies
where a condition
changes
in higher in where where
changes u
in 0 the initial water pressure in the specimen, w
plate sure would ′
=
Tegangan
𝜎 𝜎 be − hydrostatic,
u =
efektif1.2 kPa 𝜎 −′and
=0.5𝜎
0 = 9.81
its
kPa− value
=
u =
0.7 would
1.2
kPa3 kPa be
− governed
0.5
(3.5) kPa = 0.7 kPa
Recapitulation
ed strengthloads due to occurstrain moreloads
rate rapidly
occur
effects. than water
more
Triaxial cantests
rapidly flowthan intowater can flow
are the 0unitinto weight of water
0 0 0 kN/m
0 , and h is the height of
ThePorous stone bywhere
the depth of water
𝜎0′ ditambahkan
= initial in the reservoir around theNshearis Ifbox.
suited to undrained
or out of the soil. or The
testing out pore
of the
because
water
soil. pressures
drainage pore
can
increase
water
be pressures water
Jika
increase above effective
the horizontal
where beban 𝜎0′ = plane
stress. If
P =a load
initial 200 N.= 200m.
=effective
P
0.051 stress. a load P = 2
•edThe or
difference decreasebetween in
Normalresponse
undrained
load Pto the changes
and in
Shear
drained loads. box
con- For a
applied typical direct
to the specimen, shear
the change apparatusin specimen, the
normal stress depthwould of water
be in normal(h stress w
completely
• Drained by signifies or
sealinga the decrease
condition
in response
test specimens
where changes
to the
ininim- changes
load
in loads. With 𝜎 = 1.2 applied
kPa, and to the
u = 0.5 kPa, the
00.051 m. The corresponding thechange
effective stress is
ditions isaretime. • Drained signifies a condition where changes in Figurein load 3.1) would be
200 about
N
ble membranes. slowUndrained
enough ortriaxial remain tests in place canlong therefore
enough, equal to 0.7 Δ𝜎kPa: = = 19.4 kPa 200 N(3.6)
hydrostatic water pressure
0.0103 at
m 2the level Δ𝜎 of= the horizontal = 19.4
planekPa
•ormed Shear loadsignifies
Undrained T aare slow enough
condition
slowly enough to eliminate undesirable rate where or changes
remainh in = in placeoflong enough,
height
′ 0.0103 m 2
0 = 𝜎total
water abovewould be 𝜎and the0 − = 1.2after
u0meningkat
total stress kPa the − 0.5 loadkPa = 0.7 kPa
is applied would be(3.5)
loads occur
and still be undrained. more rapidly than water can flow into
shear plane Tegangan menjadi
3
or out of the soil. The pore water pressures increase 0 = 𝛾w𝜎
uwhere h′ ==
0
𝜎 (9.81
=initial
𝜎 0
kN∕m
+ Δ𝜎
effective= )(0.051
1.2 kPa stress.m)
+ 19.4 =If 0.5
akPa kPa
load= 20.6P =(3.4)
200 N (3.7)
kPa is
Clay test specimen
or decrease in response to the changes in loads. where applied
u0 is the to the specimen,
initial water the change
pressure in in
the normal
specimen, stress𝛾 would
is be
Shear plane The values of total stress are defined without reference w to
•apitulation
Drained signifies a condition where changes in load the unit weight = 9.81 200 N 3
12
how of much water of the forcekN/m might,be and h is the
carried byheight
contacts ofbetween
the applied
specimen
(2) knowledge
shape,
load.
of geology
does cannot
not
and sitechange
change untiland
conditions,
volume, water flows
(3) knowl-
and carries out.
none InIf this
the loads
of thecon-new
P and T were increased quickly, say in one
totalbe area.
edge
Prinsip of the properties
Under these
Analisis of the soils
conditions at the
Limit site.
the This
increase chapter
Metode in water
Analisissecond,
pressurethe clay
Stabilitas isspecimen
Lereng would in an undrained state
Pengantar dition,
applied the added
load. load is carried entirely by increased water
Gempa of time.3.3
SNI 8460-2017
•Within
Effective
DRAINED stress Kesimpulan
is equal to t
Mekanika Tanah
deals with theStabilitas
principles Lereng Equilibriumthat are needed
of soil mechanics Stabilitas Lerengfor some period the period ofANDone UNDR
second
equal
pressure. to
andThe
the change
soilconditions in
skeleton total
analyses(the
stress:
framework or involved
assemblage and water
T, therepressure.
to understand Under tothese
formulate the increase
of slope stabilityin water pressure is
in increasing P STRENGTHS would not be It enough
is the fo
3.3 DRAINED AND UNDRA
of particles
problemsequalcorrectly. in
to the change Δu
Undrained, drained
contact with
in total
shape, does not change volume, and carries noneclay.
3.1.1applied
Drained and Δu = in
one
stress:
= Δ𝜎 = 19.4 kPa
Δ𝜎water
another)
= 19.4
does
kPa duewould
not
time
of the
change
for any
It isnew
be some
significant
(3.8)
amount
true that evenSTRENGTHS
(3.8)small amount
Shear
stress of
of
particle water
strength
in a period
flow,
to
contacts,flow
of oneissecond
thebut soilthis
out
defined
of the by
divided
would
there
be
as th
whereload. Δu Undrained
is the increase Conditions pressure to the change
insignificant. For all practical
that
Shearpurposes
strength theisclay
can
defined
withstand
would be as th
Under
The conceptsin loadof these
in the
drained conditions
undrained
and undrained the increaseThe
condition.
conditions in water undrained
are of pressure is
after izontal
stress thethat
plane
loadsthe
in
soil
thecan
direct shear
withstand.
where Undrained:
Δu is the increase in water pressure due to the immediately
change after
3.3is equal
DRAINED were changed.
ANDforce UNDRA
fundamental
equal the importance
to
loadthe ischange in thein
applied mechanical
istotal
equal behavior
stress:
to the of soils,water pressure,
initial If the loads plus
P and T were held
izontal to
constant
plane thefor
in shear
a longer
the period,
direct divid
shear
Perubahan
in load intothe tegangan
undrained airpori
condition. = tegangan
The water say total
pressure after
and it is worthwhile
this change
review
in
these concepts
pressure:
at the beginning one day, the stateSTRENGTHSof the clay specimen would change
the load is
of this examination applied
of soil mechanicsis equal to
principles. the initial water pressure, plus is equal to the shear force divide 𝜏=
Δu = Δ𝜎 = 19.4 kPa from undrained(3.8) to drained. This is because, within a period
The laythis definitions
change of drained
inΔu pressure: and undrained (drained = Shear strength is defined
there would be sufficient time for water to flow T
as the
u
dry or emptied, undrained= u 0 + = 0.5 kPa +
= not dry or not emptied) do not 19.4 kPa = 19.9 ofkPa
one day, (3.9)
𝜏 =is c
where Δu is the increase in water pressure due toout theofchange
the clay. Within stress
thisThe thatshear
time thevolume
the soil
strengthcan of withstand.
of soils
the voids
describe the way these words are0.5 used in + soil mechanics. A
The in u =
effectiveu + Δu = kPa 19.4 kPa = 19.9 kPa
would (3.9)
decrease and izontal
come plane
essentially in
to the direct
equilibrium. shear
It is t
in load
The definitions used soil stress
theinundrained
0
mechanics iscondition.
equal
are related to to the
Thethe total
ease stress
water pressure [Eq.after (3.7)] noThe matter
shear whether
strength failure
of soils occur
is c
true that equilibrium would is equal be approached
to the The shear asymptotically,
force dividedb
the minus
and speed load
with is the
applied
which waterwater pressure
is equal
can move
The effective stress is equal to the total stress to[Eq.the
in or (3.9)]:
initial
out of water
soil, pressure, plus conditions. relationship
and [Eq.
strictly(3.7)] no matter
speaking equilibrium wouldwhether
only befailureapproached occurs
in comparison
thisminus
change with the
thein′water
length
pressure:
DRAINEDof
pressure
time involved
AND[Eq. UNDRAINED in
(3.9)]:
loading
SHEAR STRENGTHS closely but 21 effective
conditions.
never be reached. However,stress
Theforcan be repres
relationship
all practical Tb
or unloading the soil.𝜎The = crux
20.6 ofkPa − 19.9
the issue kPa =or0.7
is whether not kPa (3.10) strength envelope, as 𝜏
shown =
he load is applied would be changes inuload After 2 hours, the specimen will have achieved 99 percent effective stress can be represe Ai
= u0 +cause
𝜎 ′Δuchanges= 0.5kPa
=increase
20.6
in the
kPa +
water
−water
19.9
pressure
19.4 kPa kPa ==
in the
0.719.9
kPakPa (3.9)
(3.10) shipshear between s orplate and is𝜎 ′co
𝜏 soils s
voids or Because
pores within the the soil. This inpressure pressure
is
equilibrium, the volume change will be essentially complete, called caused
pore by the 200-N strength
The envelope,Metal
strength as
of shown in
Pa + 19.4 kPa = 20.6 kPa (3.7) load Drained
or simply expressed as Porous 𝜎 ′ sh
waterThepressure
andis
effective
Because equal
the pore
the to
pore
stress thepressure.
isincrease
pressure
increase equal
in theto
onwater inhorizontal
total
the total
pressure stress, thewill
stress
plane
caused effective
[Eq.
by bethe (3.7)]
equal stress
200-Nto noship
matter between
whether s or 𝜏 and
stone
failure occurs
Draineddoes Tegangan
is thenot condition airpori
under which=water teganganis able hidrostatik
to flow Shear box s = c′ + 𝜎
minus the change.
water pressure [Eq. (3.9)]: = 0.5orkPa. Normal load P
expressed
conditions. as
The relationship be
s are defined without reference ofthe
intotoor outload a is hydrostatic
massequal of soil to asthehead atasthat
increase
rapidly thein level,
total
soil u stress,
is loaded the effective stress
′ ′
unloaded.does
ght be carried by contacts between The
Under Innot effective
this
′ change.
drained drained stress
condition,
conditions after the
changes loaddoisnotapplied
in effective
load stress is [Eq. (3.10)] effective
where sstress
is the can
shear bes =
strength, +
represen
c 𝜎 c
ff
cause is
changes the in𝜎same
pore = pressure
20.6
as kPa
the within − 19.9
effective the kPa
stress
soil. = before
0.7 kPathe load
Alternatively,
Shear load
is(3.10) T
applied strength envelope,
′ as
h = height of
shown
above in
s transmitted through water pres- The effective 𝜎 ′
= stress
20.6 kPa after
− 0.5 thekPa load= is applied
20.1 kPa [Eq. (3.11)(3.10)] sion, 𝜎sffisisthe
where theshear water
effective
strength,
shear
stress′
plane′ c
a soil can
me for the undrained and the drainedBecause [Eq.
is the(3.5)].
reach a drained
same
the This
as the
increase is effective
conditionbecause
in
over
water the
time
stressspecimen
after
pressure
loading,
before
causedis
theundrained.
byload the is200-N Water ship
applied ure, between
and′ is 𝜙 ′ iss or the and 𝜎 stre
𝜏effective sho
as changes in pore pressures caused by loading dissipate. sion, 𝜎 the effective stress
loaddoes notall have
and(3.5)]. of This
tothe time
200-N toloaddrain as the
is carried load
by theissoilquickly
skeleton. applied, so expressed
tal stress depends only on equilib- ff as
Describing [Eq.
is equal
a soil as being the is because
increase
drained shouldin notthetotal specimen
stress,
be interpreted asis undrained.
the effective Water
stress ure, and 𝜙stress
Effective ′ is Clay
the
test specimen
envelopes
effective may
stres
al of all normal forces divided bydoes
saying there
does
that is
not
notsoil
the no
change.
ishave
dry.volume
Atime tochange
completely drain in the
as
saturated thesoilsaturated
loadcanisbequicklyspecimen.applied, Assoa This curvature,
Shear
most
plane
s = c ′
+
important 𝜎 ′
Effective stress envelopes may ff
drained,The result
although
there the
its soil
voids
is no volume
effective skeleton
are completely
stress after change does not
filled
theinload strain.
with water.
the saturated The load
is appliedspecimen. carried
[Eq. (3.10)] As aby
Figure 3.1 Direct shear test
in Chapters 5 and 6. apparatus. 13
Recapitulation This curvature,
where moststrength,
s is the shear important
c′ ai
r of soils,
eginningapart say If the loads P and T were held constant for a longer period,
on average, in a loose assemblage. As a loose soil enough toDRAINED prevent any drainage. As shown by Eq.21(3.11)
AND UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTHS
Pengantar one day, the statePrinsip
of the clay specimenAnalisis
would change Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas Lereng
SNI 8460-2017plane at Kesimpulan
isand
sheared,
the
fromtotal particles
stress
undrained after
toMekanikatend
drained. Thisto
the
Tanah load move
is into
applied
Stabilitas
is because, within the
would
Lereng
a period gaps between After
beEquilibrium the effective
hours, thestress
Stabilitas2Lereng specimen
Gempa on the willhorizontal
have achieved 99 percent equilibrium
drained =
d) do notadjacent of one day, there would be sufficient time for water to flow
particles, andthis thetime
volume of the soil decreases. under thethe
equilibrium, 200-N
volume load, before
change willthe
be shear load complete,
essentially was increased
Kuat geser pada Kondisi Drained dan Undrained

𝜎 = 𝜎0 + Δ𝜎 = 1.2 kPa + 19.4 kPa = 20.6 kPa
out of the clay. Within the volume of the voids (3.7)
echanics. The lower
would the and
decrease density and thetohigher
come essentially equilibrium. theIt effective
is stress, andwould the pore bepressure
20.1 kPa. onThe pore pressure
the horizontal planebefore
will bethe
equalshear
to loa
o the ease
theThe
t of soil, moretrue that equilibrium
likely
values of the wouldis
totalsoilstress be to
approached
arecompress
defined asymptotically,
when sheared.
without referenceCon- to thewas increased
hydrostatic headwould
at thatbelevel,
0.5 kPa,
u = as
0.5shown
kPa. by Eq. (3.4).
and strictly speaking equilibrium would only be approached
n loading versely,
how closely
much thebut
ofhigher
the bethe
neverforce density
might
reached. andforthe
be carried
However, allbylower
contacts
practical thebetween
confining As the
In this shearcondition,
drained load T was theapplied
effectivewithout
stress isallowing time fo
her or not
pressure,
particles and the more
how much likelyisthe soil is to through
transmitted dilate. In clays,
water pres-den- drainage, ′ the pore water pressure would increase because th
ure in the
Drained 𝜎 = 20.6 kPa − 0.5 kPa = 20.1 kPa (3.11)
lled poresity
sure.isTotal
governed
stress is primarily
the same by Metal plate
highest effective
for the undrained stress to
and the drained clay is normally consolidated under
of the normally consolidated clay would be the 20.1 kPa effectiv
Porous stone
condition.
which the The
clay value
has of
been total stress
subjected depends
in the only on equilib- andstress.
all of the 200-N load is carried by the soil skeleton.
le to flow Normal load P Shear box past. s = c′ + 𝜎ff′ tan 𝜙′ = 0 + (20.1)(0.58) = 11.6 kPa (3.14)
loaded orrium; it is equal
A normally to the total soil
consolidated of all is normal
one thatforces has not divided
been bysub- As the shear load T is increased, the pore pressure withi
ad do not
the total
Sheararea.
load T h = height of a where c′ isof0 and
specimen a typical tan 30∘ = consolidated
tan 𝜙′ isnormally 0.58. clay unde
jected to an effective stress higher thanwater
rnatively, the present effective
above
When theitsload P is applied rapidlypossible
andplane
shear the forspecimen is Recapitulation
these conditions would increase by about 12 kPa, and th
loading,stress, and density is the lowest any given
dissipate.
undrained, the pore pressure changes. The specimen is con- 3.3.3 normal
effective Volume stress Changes on During
the Drained
failure planeShear at failure (𝜎 ′
effective
preted as stress. As a result, normally consolidated
Clay test specimen clays tend • Total stress is the sum of all forces, including those ff
fined
24 within
3 SOILthe shear
MECHANICS
to compress when sheared.
oil can be box and
PRINCIPLES cannot deform.
Shear plane
The clay is would decrease
Whether a soil by the
tends same
to amount.
compress
transmitted through particle contacts, and those or The
expand effective
(dilate) stress
when o
th water.saturated (theFigure voids3.1 are filled with water), so the volume of sheared depends on itswater
density and the effective
thetransmitted
failure plane atAt failure would thus is equalstress
bedivided to that kP
by 20.1
Direct shear test apparatus.
An overconsolidated clay is one that has been subjectedparts, to as shown in Figure through
3.2a. high pressures,
stresses, the clay
the specimen
15 effective cannot change
stressuntil water flows out. =In
19ϕ′ a this con- normally minus confines
consolidated,12 kPa,it. In
and or
the dense
about soils
8
high-pressure kPa. thepartparticles
The of are packed
undrained
the en- shear tightly
strengt
higher stress previously,
Effective envelope and thus has higher
30° den-
undrained total area.
dition, Uclay= 12
together, kPa.
and tight s’ =packing
20.0 - 12 =4.6
results 8.0in kPa
a great deal of inter-
thanthea added load
c′ = 0 is carried entirely by increased water
Shear stress, τ (kPa)
sity normally ϕ′ = 30°

consolidated soil at the same effective of
• the
velope extends back
Effective would
through
stress the
isthusequal be to
origin. about
At low
the kPa:
stresses,
total stresstheminus the
pressure. The soil skeleton (the framework Drainedor Strength ference between
assemblageclay is overconsolidated. The particles
strength wheninthey
envelope this move
range relative to one
stress.
10 As a result, overconsolidated soils scompress = 11.5 Kpa less when water pressure.
′ In very ′ Itdense
is
′ the force transmitted through
of particles in contact with one another) does not change of pressures doess =
another.c
not +
extend𝜎 tan 𝜙
through = the +
soils,
0 (8.0)(0.58)
particles
origin. =
cannot 4.6move
kParelative(3.15
sheared than do normally consolidated soils, particle
or, if the previ-The values oftotheeach contacts,
otherstressunlessdivided by
theystrength total
ride up area.
over each other, which
shape, does not change volume, and carries nonestress
Drained of the new ′ effective shear parameters
ous maximum effective stress, Undrained the preconsolidation
Strength path pressure,c and 𝜙′ thusFigure
causes 3.4
depend on showsthethe
dilation.
whether clayeffective
is normallynormal consol- stress and shea
applied
5 load. su = 4.6 kPa
stressHigher on theeffective
horizontal failure plane forofdilation
both drained
because an
wasUnder
high these
enough, the clay will dilate during shear.
Initial stress idated or overconsolidated, as wellstresses
as the tendproperties
basic to prevent
conditions
Undrained the increase in σ′water = 20 kPapressure isthe clay such
Stress path τ
3.3undrained
work
as is failure
the type
DRAINED required
ofAND oftomineral
clay the direct
cause
UNDRAINED the shear
and soil test
toSHEAR
the void specimen.
expand
ratio. against The shea
the ef-
equal to the change in total stress: = 0
If the clay fective
is tested
stress at in confining
a rangeisofpressure.
failure the shearIf the
pressures where effective
strength. it is Forconfining
nor- pressurecase
the drained
0
3.3.4 0Pore Pressure STRENGTHS
5 10 Changes 15 During
20 Undrained
25 Shear
the is
mally consolidated, high
effectivec′ enough,
is equal
normal thezero,
to soil
stress willon
and ′ is dilate.
𝜙not theconstant. Instead,
failure If plane as14shearing
is constan
Δu = Δ𝜎 = 19.4
Effective stress, σ′ (kPa) kPa (3.8) the clayShear
is testedstrength
takesin aplace,
rangeis individual
defined
of pressures asparticles
the maximum
where itwill value of shear
be broken.
is overcon-
Shear st
ϕ′oc
Kuat geser efektif pada Clay dan sand c2

c1
ϕ′oc Low preconsolidation
pressure
Effective stress, σ′
22 3 SOIL MECHANICS PRINCIPLES (a)
For pressures > preconsolidation

Envelopes are slightly
pressure, envelope extends back
curved, more so at
through origin (c′ = 0) ϕ′NC higher density
ϕ′dense
Shear stress, τ
Shear stress, τ
High preconsolidation Dense ϕ′loose

pressure
ϕ′oc Loose
ϕ′oc Low preconsolidation

c2
c1 pressure
Effective stress, σ′ Effective stress, σ′

(a) (b)
SAND
CLAY Figure 3.2 Effective stress shear strength envelopes: (a) for
15 clay
Envelopes are slightly
Analisis pada Kondisi drained

• Analisis kondisi drained dilakukan jika:
• perubahan beban terjadi lambat, atau tanah sudah mencapat kondisi
equilibrium.
• Tidak ada excess porepressure akibat beban.
• Ada rembesan air namun tidak menyebabkan perubahan porepressure.
• Tidak perubahan muka air tanah pada lereng.
• Parameter yang digunakan :
• Berat volume total.
• Kuat geser pada tegangan efektif.
• Tegangan pori didapatkan dari tegangan hidrostatik MAT.
• Analisis aliran air tanah dalam kondisi steady.
16
Analysis pada Kondisi Undrained

• Kondisi undrained conditions adalah kondisi dimana perubahan
beban terjadi dengan cepat, dan oleh karenanya air tidak sempat
mengalir masuk atau keluar dari tanah.
• Parameter yang digunakan:
• Berat volume total.
• Kuat geser dari tegangan total.
17
his would be done. So
Pengantar
Prinsipthe answer to the question
Analisis Limit is yes.
Metode Analisis Stabilitas Lereng
SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
trengths related to total stresses and strengths related to
Faktor waktu
ffective stresses can be used in the same analysis.
28 3 SOIL MECHANICS PRINCIPLES
.4.3 How Long Does Drainage Take? Drainage path length, m
• Perbedaan
As discussed kondisi undrained
earlier, the difference dan and
between undrained
Years
10,000
0.3 1.0 3.0 10 30
drained
rained conditions adaThe
is time. pada faktor
drainage waktu. of the
characteristics 1,000
2 /yr
Waktu
oil mass,•and ditentukan
its size, olehlong
determine how karakteristik
will be required 100
m
2 /hr
= 1 0 ft
1c
drainase
or transition air pada to
from an undrained tanah.
a drained condition. As Months
10 100 CV
=
s
2 yr
ft /
y 0
hown by Eq. (3.18), 1 10 Days
Cla
2 /hr
=1
00
100 cm
1 00 2 yr
ft /
D2 1 C V
=
Sil t s
00,
00 0
t99 =4 (3.18) 10 Hours
100 2 /hr
= 1
cv t99 1 0,0
00
c m
a vel
s
= 1 G r
10 CV and
where t99 is the time required to reach 99 percent of drainage nd s
• Analisis Short-term (undrained

quilibrium, D is the length of drainage path, and cv is the
1
Sa
loading)
oefficient of consolidation.
1 2 4 10 20
Drainage path length, ft
40 100
• Analisis
Values of Long-term
cv for clays vary from(drained loading)
about 1.0 cm 2 per hourFigure 3.8 Time required for drainage of soil deposits (t based on Terzaghi’s theory
of consolidation).
99
10 ft2 per year) to about 100 times this value.load.Values ofifcconstructing

For example, v a sand embankment on a related to total stress in the total stres
18 these pore pre
or silts are on the order of 100 times the values for clays,
clay foundation takes two months, the short-term condition
for the embankment would be the end of construction,
unnecessary to specify
computer programs subtract pore pr
Analisis Stabilitas Lereng

• Stabilitas lereng dipengaruhi oleh kondisi Ketika terjadi:
• Perubahan beban yang bekerja pada lereng;
• Perubahan kuat geser tanah seiring waktu.
• Analisis dilakukan terkait dengan kondisi-kondisi yang terjadi pada lereng, dimana
kestabilitas lereng dapat meningkat atau menurun.
• Analisis stabilitas lereng pada akhir konstruksi (short-term).
• Digunakan analisis undrained atau drained, tergantung permeabilitas tanah.
• Pada tanah lempung, digunakan analisis pada kondisi undrained, dan kuat gesernya dari
tegangan total.
• Pada analisis kondisi drained, digunakan kuat geser dari tegangan efektif dimana tegangan
pori didasarkan dari tekanan hidrostatik dari kondisi MAT atau rembesan.
• Analisis stabilitas lereng long term
• Analisis menggunakan kuat geser berbasis dari tegangan efektif.
• Tegangan pori dari analisis MAT dan seepage selama lereng itu berdiri.
19
Duncan c04.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 3:55 P.M. Page˜32
Analisis Stabilitas Lereng

32 4 STABILITY CONDITIONS FOR ANALYSIS
Ground water
level
P τ
Height of fill
Average shear stress τ on a given surface through P
Time
0
Pore pressure
Due to groundwater level

u
Time
0
ϕu = 0 method applicable here

Factor of safety
Factor of safety against foundation failure (cʹ, ϕʹ method)
Time
Pore pressure dissipation Pore pressure equilibrium 20
Rapid construction
Mekanika Limit Equilibrium

• Ketika kuat geser tanah, tekanan airpori, geometri lereng, dan
karakteristik mekanik tanah sudah dapatkan, maka perhitungan
stabilitas lereng dilakukan.
• Perhitungan dilakukan untuk memastikan gaya tahanan lereng lebih
besar dari gaya yang menyebabkan lereng longsor.
• Perhitungan biasanya menggunakan Faktor keamanan (Safety factor)
berdasarkan beberapa analisis limit equilibrium.
21
The factor of safety, F, is defined with respect and on
Pengantar
Prinsip Analisis Limit
strength
Metode Analisis 𝜏
of the soil = c
Stabilitas das +
Lereng 𝜎 tan 𝜙 d
SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
s calcula
6.1 DEFINITION where OF THE FACTOR OF SAFETY F=
Limit Equilibirium c
𝜏 assume
The factor of safety, F,where is defined s is the with respect
available cd =shear shear and assume
to thestrength 𝜏 is the
F
• Faktor keamanan adalah
strength perbandingan
of the soil as shear kuat stress.geser yang ada dengan
The equilibrium shear stressHowev is the
tegangan geser untuk equilibrium. required sto maintain a tan 𝜙
just-stable sliding
F= tan 𝜙d = (6.1)slope and fro
may be 𝜏
expressed as F is desig
The quantities c and 𝜙 represent the sdevelopedThe (or f
where s is the available shear strength d andd 𝜏 is the equilibrium 𝜏=
• Tegangan
gth properties, poregeser yang
watershearpres-stress.dibutukan lized) agar lereng
cohesion and “just stable”.
friction angle, F
respectively.
The equilibrium shear stress is the shear stress along t
• Faktor
other soil keamanan
and slope propertiesmerupakan If pembagi
the The
shear dari
equilibrium kuat
strength
required to maintain a just-stable slope and from Eq. (6.1) geser
isshear agar
stress
expressed kuat geser
isinequal
terms to orthe
of av
eff
over
equilibrium
ty calculations need to dengan
be per- tegangan geser.strength
stresses (limiting
(e.g., drained equilibrium)
divided shear(factored)
strengths by the arefactor
beingto ofused
safe
occu
may be expressed as tor of safety represents the factor by which the sh
esisting forces are sufficiently Total Stress only change𝜏 from =
s the above
Effective Stress is that Eq. (6.3) isat all
(6.2)
writ po
stresses, Eq.
g to cause a slope to fail. Calcu- (6.2) is written as must be
terms of effectiveF stresses as divided so that the reduced strength is
c + 𝜎 tan 𝜙 librium with the shear stress (𝜏) (i.e., the the fact
slope
mputing a factor of safetyThe using 𝜏= (6.3) c ′ + (𝜎 − u) tan 𝜙′
equilibrium F shear of stress is equal
just-stable 𝜏 = to the available
limiting equilibrium).shear The slope proced is
um proceduresorof analysis. All
strength divided (factored) by the factor of safety. F The fac-
c 𝜎 tan 𝜙 perform such computations are known sliplimit
as sur
sis employ the same definition 𝜏= +
where ′ and 𝜙′ (6.4)
tor of safety represents procedures.
F F c the factorrepresentby which the theshear
shear strength 22paramet
strength not be o
mpute the factor of safety
where c and 𝜙 using
are the cohesionterms and friction angle for the
of effective stresses, and u is the pore water pres
Prosedur Mekanika Limit Equilibrium

• Prosedur Single Free Body
• Prosedur Lereng tidak hingga
• Prosedur Log spiral
• Metode Lingkaran Swedia, f = 0
• Prosedur Irisan untuk bidang gelincir circular
• Ordinary method
• Simplified Bishop
• Prosedur irisan untuk bidang gelincir non-circular
• Prosedur keseimbangan gaya-gaya
• Metode Janbu
• US ARMY Corps
• Prosedur keseimbangan gaya dan momen
• Metode Spencer
• Metode Morgensten Price 23
The shear and F= normal stresses c 2 the
on γ+ [cot shear plane
on the ends of the block exactly balance each other and (𝛾 − 𝛾 F)z
Submerged=sin(2𝛽) β slopes—no flow:
𝛽] tan 𝜙 are consta
Prinsip N = W
Analisis cosz 𝛽 Limit
The (6.10)
Metode
shear
Analisis
and
wStabilitas
normal
Lereng
z sin(2𝛽)on
𝛾stresses SNI the shear plane are const
ignored in the equilibrium equations. βand
Summing forces
Pengantar 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
Figure 6.1 Mekanika Tanahslope
Infinite Stabilitas
planeLereng
slip surface. for
Equilibrium an infinite
Stabilitas slope
Lereng ′ and ′ are
Gempa ′ obtained by c, ϕ
dividing Eqs. (6.1
ctions perpendicular and A
parallel to the slip planeW gives Effective Stresses: s = c + 𝜎 tan 𝜙 c ′ 2
where 𝛽 is the angle of inclination of the Bʹ slope for anby infinite
Submerged
and(subaerial
slip slope
slopes and(𝜙Fare ==0 obtained
only): byto or dividing+ [cot Eqs. (6.𝜙
𝛽] tan
and (6.13) the area of the plane (𝓁 ⋅ 1) ʹ ϕʹ give
Prosedur Single Free Body (1)
owing expressions for the shear force, andhorizontal,
normal General case slope): (𝛾 − 𝛾w )z sin(2𝛽) c , , u
plane, measured fromS,the S and W is the and (6.13)
weight [ by the area of
the c plane ] (𝓁 2 ⋅ 1) to give
N, on the plane: c ′ 2 Total Stresses: F =
forces on the of theendsblock.
of the For block a exactly
block of balance each otherFinand
unit thickness =the direction + cot 𝛽 −Subaerial 𝜏us==(cot c +𝛽 cos
𝛾z +tan
slope—seepage
𝜎
(𝛾
𝜏 = 𝛾z slopes:
− 𝛽𝜙
tan 𝛾𝛽) sin
)z
cos 𝛽 sin[𝛽
w 𝛽
sin(2𝛽)
tan 𝜙′ parallel to slope(6.1 fac
(6.
can be ignored S = in W the
perpendicular sin equilibrium
𝛽Aʹ to the plane equations.
of Nthe(6.9)Summing
cross section forcesin 𝛾z sin(2𝛽)
Figure Subaerial (not𝛾z
6.1, submerged)
′
]
Effective Stresses:F s= = 2c +2 𝜎2tan 𝜙+ cot 𝛽 − 𝛾w (cot 𝛽) ta
′ ′ ′
in directions the perpendicular
weight
N = W cos 𝛽 is and parallel
expressed as to the slip plane
(6.10)
gives
Submerged slopes—no flow:𝜎 = 𝜎𝛾z=cos
=
c
𝛾z 𝛽+ [cot
cos 2
𝛽 (6.1
(6.
• Prosedur
the following expressions Lerengfor the Tidakshear force, HinggaS, and normal (Taylor 1948)
General
′
case F(subaerial
PROCEDURES 𝛾 z sin(2𝛽)
2 83
[
𝛾z sin(2𝛽)
slope): 𝛽] tan 𝜙 𝛾
]
=and c
SINGLE FREE-BODY
Figure 6.1 Infinite slope W and planecos
𝛾𝓁z slip surface. (6.11)
slip 𝛽 Substituting = these expressions + [cot for ′
the
u the stresses intoEq.
stresses into ′ (6
𝛽 is theforce,angle
N, on of the
inclination
plane: of the slope F
Substituting
Submerged ′
these
csin(2𝛽) Subaerial
2 expressions
slopes 𝛽] tan 𝜙
slope—horizontal
(𝜙 = 0 only): for seepage: Eq. (6
(𝛾 − F 𝛾 = )z + cot 𝛽 − (cot 𝛽 + tan 𝛽) tan 𝜙
measured from where the horizontal, and W
𝛾 ℓ is theStotal B
unit is weight
the weight of the soil, for isthe
thefor distance
w [
block. For aforces block of unit thickness= W insinthe𝛽 direction
𝓁(6.9)
Subaerial
factor
the
slope—seepage
of
factor safety
𝛾z of sin(2𝛽)
parallel
z
for
safety
F to
=c slope2face: 2 gives
total
for
′ c stresses
total stresses
𝛾z gives𝛾w
between
on the ends the oftwo ends exactly
the block of thebalance block,each measured
other andparallel to γ
F = (𝛾 − 𝛾 )z +
sin(2𝛽) cot 𝛽 − (cot 𝛽 + tan 𝛽
Submerged [ slopes—no 𝛾z𝛾z flow:
c sin(2𝛽)
+cos ] 2 𝜙 𝛾
dicular to thecan plane of the cross Nsection in Figure 6.1, + 𝛾z 2cos 𝛽 tan
w
be ignored
the slope,
β
inandthe z=zisWthe cos
equilibrium 𝛽 equations.
depth of theSummingshear (6.10) β ′
forces measured
plane, c 2 c 𝛾
F =cs′ =(cot 𝛽 tan 𝜙 (6.
ght is expressed
A as
in directions perpendicular
W and parallel to the slip Total
plane stress
F
gives = Effective + c,F cot =
ϕ 𝛽 −
Stresses:
Subaerial
w
c′ +
𝛽)𝜎2′tan
𝛾z cos
𝛾 𝛾z slope—pore
tan𝜙𝜙′
𝛽+sin
′
water
𝛽 𝛽] tan pressures (6.1
defined
where 𝛽 vertically. Substituting Eq. of (6.11)the into
slopeEqs. and(6.9)slip and𝛾z(6.10) sin(2𝛽) 𝜙′
or
the W
is the angle
following
of inclination
expressions
Bʹ
for the shear force, S, and normal General F, u=
cʹ,case
ϕʹ (subaerial
(𝛾 −
cos
𝛾[w )zof
slope): 𝛽 sin u 𝛽 [cot
plane,force, gives
measured = 𝛾𝓁zfrom cos 𝛽theS
horizontal, (6.11)
and W is the weight
Subaerial For effective
slope—horizontal
stant
stresses,
seepage:
value the ru = 𝛾z : for the ]factor of saf
sin(2𝛽)
equation
N, on the plane: For effective
Total Stresses: s = c + 𝜎 tan 𝜙
stresses,c ′ 2 the equation u ] for the factor ′of safe
of the
𝛾 is the total unitblock. For
weight a
of block
the of
soil, unit
𝓁 is thickness
the distance in the direction ′ becomes
Subaerial
F [= slope—seepage + cot 𝛽 −parallel (cotto 𝛽+ slope
tan 𝛽)face:tan 𝜙
Aʹ N
=WS = 𝛾𝓁z cos 𝛽 Subaerial
sin 𝛽 (not submerged)
c 2
slopes:
(6.12) 𝛾z sin(2𝛽) 𝛾 c ′ 2 𝛾z
n the perpendicular
two ends of the to theblock, ofSthe
planemeasured sin
cross 𝛽section
parallel to in Figure becomes
(6.9)
=
F6.1, c 2 + cot 𝛽 − w ′
c= +𝛽 (𝛾z
F(cot + [tancos 𝛽) 2 𝛽+tan −[cot
𝜙 u)′ 𝛽 − r] ′(cot 𝛽 + tan 𝛽)
tan′𝜙u
= cos 2 Effective
F = 𝛾z sin(2𝛽) stress
+ [cot 𝛽] tan 𝜙F
Submerged c ′′
F = cslopes—no 𝛾 2
=+ (𝛾z cos 𝛾z 2
sin(2𝛽)
+flow: 𝛽 𝛽−−u) tan 𝛾 w
(cot 𝜙𝛽) tan 𝜙′ (6.
pe, and theFigure
z weight
is the is expressed
6.1 depth of the as slip
shear N
=W
Nplane, 𝛾𝓁z 𝛽 cos 𝛽
measured (6.13)
𝛾 z sin(2𝛽) cot
Infinite slope and plane surface. (6.10)
Subaerial = 0 only): F water
slopes (𝜙slope—pore = 𝛾zpressures sin(2𝛽) 𝛾z
defined
cos 𝛽 sin
by a𝛽𝛾 con-
𝛽 (6.1
lly. Substituting Eq. (6.11) into Eqs. (6.9) and (6.10) Submerged c′𝛾z cos 2𝛽 sin
where The𝛽 shear
is theand angle = of
Wnormal 𝛾𝓁z cos 𝛽 on
stresses
inclination of the
the shear
slopestant(6.11)
plane
and are
slip constant = 𝛾z :
of ruSubaerial u F =
Figure 6.2 Equations + [cot
for 𝛽] tan
computing 𝜙 ′
the factor of
value
F =
c 2 slope—horizontal
(𝛾 − 𝛾 )z sin(2𝛽) seepage:
plane,
forces on the ends formeasured
of the an infinite
block exactly from
slopetheand
balance horizontal,
each are obtained
other and and Wby is dividing
the weight Eqs. (𝛾 −(6.12)
𝛾w )z sin(2𝛽) infinite slope.
w
[ ]
can bewhere 𝛾inis
ignoredof the
=and
S the
the total
equilibrium
block.
cosFor
unit weight
equations.
a the
block of
Summing
of of the
unit soil,
forces 𝓁 is the distance Subaerial ′ slope—seepage parallel 𝛾 to slope face:
𝛾𝓁z (6.13) 𝛽 by sin 𝛽 area thethickness
(6.12) (𝓁
plane in⋅ the
1) to
Effective
direction
give
Stresses:
′
sc= c′ +2𝜎 ′ tan F 𝜙=′ c 2
+ cot − w
(cot ′ 𝛽 + tan 𝛽) tan 𝜙′
between
in directions the
perpendicular
perpendiculartwo andends
parallelof the
to the slipblock,
plane gives
to the plane of the cross section measured parallel
in Figure F =
to
6.1,𝛾z sin(2𝛽) + [cot 𝛽 − r u (cot 𝛽 + [ tan𝛽 𝛽)] tan 𝜙 ]
the following expressions for the
2 shear force, S, and normal General case (subaerial slope): 𝛾z sin(2𝛽)
c ′ 2 𝛾 𝛾w
the slope,N=
the 𝛾𝓁z zcos
and
weight isisexpressed
the
𝛽 depth as of𝜏 the
= 𝛾zshear (6.13)
cos 𝛽plane,
sin 𝛽 measured [ (6.14) F = ] + cot 𝛽− (cot tan 𝜙′ of safety fo
𝛽) factor
force, N, on the plane: c′ 2 u Equations
𝛾z𝛽)sin(2𝛽) for computing 𝛾 the
vertically. Substituting Eq. (6.11) into Eqs. (6.9) = (6.10) + cot 𝛽 −Subaerial
F and (cot 𝛽 + tan slope—pore tan 𝜙′ water pressures defined by a con-
ear and normal stresses on the
S = W sin 𝛽 shear plane
W =𝜎𝛾𝓁z are
= 𝛾z constant
cos cos
(6.9)
𝛽 𝛽 2 𝛾z
Figuresin(2𝛽)
(6.11)
6.2 Equations(6.15)𝛾z for slope
computing are u factor of safety for an 6.2 24
summarized in Figure for both tot
gives stant
Subaerial value of ru =the𝛾z
slope—horizontal : seepage:
nfinite slope and are obtained by dividing Eqs. (6.12) Submerged slopes—no flow:
u In the according
Logarithmic
accordingtotothe Spiral procedure, the slip surface
theexpression
expression
. Thus, shearu stress (𝜎 Analisis
tion of the Prinsip tan 𝜙d ) act alongLimita line through
pe pro- Pengantar
the center rof
Mekanika = u
the
Tanahspiral and produce
Stabilitas Lereng no sumed
(6.20)
net moment
Equilibrium to be
about a
Metode Analisis
Logarithmic
Stabilitas Lereng
Stabilitas Lereng
r
Gempa = r Spiral,
𝜃etan 𝜙d d as shown in
𝜃 tan 𝜙8460-2017
SNI KesimpulanFigu
(6.21)
ru =′ 𝛾z
u (6.20) r = r0 e 0 (6.21)
ot 𝛽for+ tanthe tan 𝜙 (6.19)only forces on(Frohlich, 1953). A developed
center point, an initial radius,
ents
causethe
ause
dent of
Prosedur Single Free Body (2)
thefactor
factor
the
𝛽)]center
ofofproduce
that
depth
safety
of
of the
safetyfor
the
for
𝛾z spiral. The
a acohesionless
moments
slip
cohesionless
about theslope
surface, a slip
slope
center isisof
surface
inde-
inde-
the slip surface
the spiral where
value of
that
where
are those
𝜙d define
depends
𝜙 is
onthe
the
the
thefriction
frictionspiral.
friction
angleof The
ofthe
angle.
𝜙d dis the developed friction angle. The value of 𝜙d d
theradius
The
andof
soiland
value
the
the
of 𝜙
spiral
factor
r0
of
rent pressure
of the depth coefficient
due of the slip suggested
to the surface, a slipby
developed cohesion. An equilibrium
surface that depends
equation on angle soil the factor of
only infinitesimally
may be deep
written has by the same
summing factor
moments of with
safety
about the the angle
safety,
safety,
center ofasasshownof
shown rotation,
by byEq. Eq.(6.7).
(6.7).
𝜃, about
The the
Thestresses
stresses center
alongthe
along of
the the
slip
slip
(1960).
nly
•The
infinitesimally value
Prosedur deep has of rthe is
Logaritma same
uinvolves defined factor of safety
Spiral (Frochlich, 1953)
surface consistofofthe thenormal
normalstress stress(𝜎) (𝜎)andandthe theshear
shearstress
stress
that for deeper the surfaces.
spiral, whichThus
hat for deeper surfaces. Thus the infinite slope analy- the infinite
the slope
factor of according
analy-
safety as surface
the to
only
(𝜏).For
the
consist
Fortotal
expression
totalstress
stressanalyses,
analyses,the theshear
shearstress
stresscan
canbebeexpressed
expressed
procedure is the appropriate procedure for any slope in (𝜏).
srocedure u is the1 appropriate procedure for any slope in interms
termsofofthe thenormal
normalstress,stress,the the
𝜃 tanshear strengthparameters
parameters
in-
u =
rsionless
esionless soil.
soil. 1
Center point (6.20) in
(c and 𝜙), and the factor
r = of
r 0 e
safety.
shear𝜙d strength
FromEq. Eq.(6.4),
(6.4),
thus
he 𝛾z
infinite slope analysis is also applicable to slopes in (c and 𝜙), and the factor of safety. From
eions
infinite slope analysis is also applicable to slopes in
tyesivesoils
sive for soilsprovided
a providedthat
cohesionless thata afirmer
firmerstratum
slope stratumparallel
is inde- paralleltotothe where
the
r 𝜙 d is the developed 𝜏 = c c friction
+ tan
𝜎
tan𝜙𝜙 angle. The value
(6.22)
eofofthe theslope
slopelimits
limitsthethedepth
depthofofthe the θ
rfailure ϕ surface.IfIfsuchsuch
0
𝜏 = + 𝜎 (6.22)
FF FFthe soil and the fa
tan
he oce- slipexists
surface, a slip
r =failure
0e d
surface. θ depends on the friction angle of
tratum
atum at a depth that surface
is small compared that to the orininterms
termsofofdeveloped
developedshear shearstrengths,
strengths,
ided exists at a depth that is small compared to the or
safety, as shown by Eq. (6.7). The stresses along t
al ep
ral has
extent
extent
lim- ofthe
of the same
slope,ananfactor
theslope, infiniteslope
infinite of
slope safety
analysisprovides
analysis provides
𝜏==c cd++𝜎𝜎tan tan𝜙𝜙d (6.23)
uitable
es.
teral Thus
table approximation
the
approximation for
infinite stability
for stability slope calculations.
analy-
calculations. surface consist of the 𝜏normal d stress d (𝜎) and the shear
(6.23)
heinfinite
e
opriate
infiniteslope slopeequations
procedure
equationswere
for
werederived
any
derivedbybyconsider-
slope in
consider-(𝜏). For A Alog
totallogstress
spiralhas
spiral hasthe theproperties
analyses, properties
the thatthe
shear
that the radius
stress
radius can extended
be exp
extended
equilibriumofofforces
sfies
equilibrium forcesinintwo twomutually
mutuallyperpendicular
perpendicular τin terms fromthe thecenter
centerofofthe thespiral
spiraltotoa apoint pointononthe theslip
slipsurface
surface
ections and thus satisfy all force equilibrium require-
from of the the
intersects normalslip stress,
surface at theangle,
an shear𝜙 strength
, to the para
normal
ctions and thus satisfy all force equilibrium require- σ intersects the slip surface at an angle, 𝜙d , to the normal d
nts.Moment
ysis
ts. Moment equilibrium
is alsoequilibrium
applicable wasnot
was tonotslopes
considered
considered in explicitly. (c
explicitly. and 𝜙),
(Figure
(Figure
and 6.3).
the
6.3). factorofofofthis
Because
Because
safety.
this property,
property,
From Eq. (6.4),
theresultant
the resultant forces
forces
wever, theforces
forcesononthe thetwotwoends endsofofthe theblock
blockare arecollinear
collinear producedbybythe thenormal
normalstress stress(𝜎) (𝜎)and andthe thefrictional
frictionalpor-por-
hatever, the
anormal
firmer stratum parallel tothe theblock. Thus, produced c tan 𝜙
the force acts at the center
the normal force acts at the center of the block. Thus, of tionofofthe
tion theshear
shearstress 𝜏 =(𝜎(𝜎tan
stress +
tan𝜙𝜙 𝜎d ) act along a line through
d ) act along a line through
mentdepth
ment of the failure
equilibrium
equilibrium
that pass isissatisfied, surface.
satisfied, andthe
and theIf suchSlope
Infinite
Infinite Slopepro- pro- thecenter
the centerofofthe thespiral
spiraland Fproduce
and produceF nononetnetmoment
momentabout about
ure can ϕd requirements for 25
th
re can
ress, that
and bebeconsidered
isconsidered tosatisfy
small tocompared satisfyallallthe the
torequirements
the or in terms
for thecenter
the center ofofthe
of developed thespiral.
spiral.The Theonly
shear only forcesononthe
strengths,
forces theslip
slipsurface
surface
bility analysis. actual driving moment M = 𝜏𝓁rthe circular slip surface is subdi- (6.25
cohesion
ce rotation of the soil yields
cthe
aboutPrinsip center of theAnalisis
circle is
c𝓁r surface
TheLimit
Swedish and Metode
Circle isAnalisis
amethod the
cohesion
can horizontal
varies.
beStabilitas
derived
If rc varies,
Lereng distance
by starting with between the c
ven by Pengantar Mekanika Tanah
Md = Wa
Wa = Lereng
Stabilitas
F
(6.24) theEq.Referring
Equilibrium
where
circle
(6.29)
(6.27)
as 𝓁
and the
the to
Stabilitas
is the
definition the
vided
Lereng
length
each center
of slope
into
the
an
of
factor and
appropriate
Gempa
the
ofother
of
with a corresponding
circular
circular
gravity
safety, and
SNI
number 8460-2017
of
arc
averageof
this slip
segments
and
strength, r surface
the soil
of
is
Kesimpulan
length,
the
ci (Figure
Δ𝓁 sh
radius
mass;
i
6.6).
,
Figure For 6.5, the The driving (overturning) moment tending

Prosedur Single Free-Body (3)
or, after rearranging, approach is sometimes
equilibrium, used. There are
the resisting
expression also
for theand definitions
overturning
resisting moment moments
becomes mus
ere W is the weight of the soil mass above the circular slip
c𝓁r of moment
that have beenarm.
balance.
suggested
Thus,
The for theresisting
factor of safety,moment ∑ are is provided by t
and these
face and a is the horizontal distance between theF= center duce
discussed rotation
(6.28)
later in Section of6.12.the soiltheabout
However, authors preferthe
(ci Δ𝓁center
i r) of the c
circle and the center of gravity of the soil mass; a Wa is the to begin with(𝜏)
stresses actingof the
the definition along
factor of the
Wasafety=
Mcircular
=
r in
𝜏𝓁rterms F of arc. For a unit (6.30)
(6.26 th
oment arm. The resisting moment is provided by the shear given
shear strengthby given by Eq. (6.1) rather than Eq. (6.29).
• Metode Swedish Circle, Fellenius
esses (𝜏) acting along the circular arc. For a unit thickness ofBecause
theThe cross
(1922) section shown in Figure 6.5, the resisting
d = Wa
Mcomplete
theshear
Swedish Circle in
stress method
thisis equation
a special casecanof thebe expressed in term
the cross section shown in Figure 6.5, the resisting
given by
a moment
isequilibrium.
given
Logarithmic
of the by
Spiral
Both shear
method, it also
strengthSpiral
the Logarithmic
satisfies
andandfactor
𝜙 = 0 methods
static
of safety using Eq. (6.1
Mr = 𝜏𝓁r (6.25) where
use only theW
Introducing is theEq.
equilibrium weight
(6.1)
equation of the
for and Mreplacing
summation
r =
soil 𝜏𝓁rmass
of moments the shear above the circu
strength by th
about the center point of the slip surface, but all conditions of
ere 𝓁 is the length of the circular arc and r is the radius. surface
static
cohesion and
equilibrium a
are is the satisfied.
yields
c implicitly horizontal The 𝜙 = distance
0 method between the ce
r equilibrium, the resisting and overturning moments must
ance. Thus,
where
the
achieves
circlea𝓁 is and
staticallythe length
the
determinate
center of
solution the
of
Wa by = circular
c𝓁r that arc and r is the
gravity
assuming
of the soil mass;
(6.27
RIUM PROCEDURES Wa = 𝜏𝓁r r (6.26) For equilibrium, the resisting
𝜙 is equal to zero, and the slip surface is a circular
andF overturning
r
arc.
mome
moment
No assumptions
theor, afterarm. are madeThe
rearranging, resisting
about the unknown momentforces that is provided by th
eHowever,
impler than
the shear
theinequilib-
shear stress this equationEquation
those for
strength anda factorSwedish
(6.28) is in
can be expressed
of safetyCircle
used
Eq. W
using method.
terms
(6.1).
balance.
to compute
contribute
τstresses
factor
to
Equation (6.28)
Thus,
of safety
equilibrium.
(𝜏) was acting
by the
derivedalong thevalue
for a constant circularof cohe- arc. For a unit th
c𝓁r
roducing
thus the Eq. (6.1) and
Swedish Cir-replacingThe
the shear strength
term c𝓁r bynumerator
in the the of Eq.
sion,
of thebut(6.28)
cross represents
the equation
section the extended to
is easily
shown Wa
Fin cases =where
=Figure 𝜏𝓁r
c
the
6.5, the resisting (6.28 m
hesion c yields method.
be a separate available resisting moment; the cohesion
term Wa varies.
in the If c varies, the circular slip surface
denominator Wa i
is subdi-
c𝓁r
ms to have preceded the Wa = represents the driving(6.27)
F ℓ
is
The given
vided
moment. Therefore, into an
shear by
theappropriate
factor of safety
stress number of segments of length,∆ℓ
in this equation i
Δ𝓁i ,
canforbethe expressed
l method for slope sta- each with
in this case is equal to the available a corresponding
resisting moment, Maverage where
, thestrength,
summation ci (Figure 6.6).
is performed segments along
after rearranging, Figure 6.5 Slope and slip surface for the Swedish
divided by the driving moment, ofThe the
:expression
MdCircle, shear
or 𝜙 =for0, thestrength
r
resisting
the slip
Figure moment
6.6 and
surface. MThefactor
becomes
Circular =surface
𝜏𝓁r
rslipequation∑of safety using E
for the factorinto
subdivided of safety is then
segments when
∑
inF = c𝓁r
slip surface shownprocedure. (6.28) resisting moment the undrained shear
(ci Δ𝓁i r) a strength varies.
r (ci Δ𝓁i )
moment tending to pro- Wa F=
available
where 𝓁 is theIntroducing Eq. (6.1) and replacing the shear strengt
=length of the circular
Mr (6.29)
F
F = (6.30)
Wa arc and r is the
(6.31)
actual driving moment
center of the circle is
The Swedish Circle method canFor equilibrium,
be derived cohesion c yields
the
by starting with
The term Wa in Eqs. (6.28) and (6.31) represents
resisting and overturning the driv-
26momen
ing moment due to the weight of the soil. To compute the mo-
surfaces shaped
itrarily separately. (noncircular) slip c06.tex between andizontal.
the Positive values are indicated
summation is ∑ in Figure
performed for 6.7. The angle
all slices. Thetoshear
e others assume an arbitrarily
Prinsip
shaped (noncircular)
Duncan
Analisis
slip rium
V3 - 07/21/2014
a
of
between
Limit line
4:38moments extended
P.M. Page˜87
a line
Metode
about M
extended the
Analisis
d from
= center
from r the
the Wof
Stabilitas i center
the
sin
center
Lereng
circle.
𝛼of
i of
the the
Referring
circle circle
to to
(6.34)
the the
base of ea
sume a circular
Pengantar
ace. Procedures slip
that assume surface
Mekanika circularcon-
a Tanah slip surface
Stabilitas Lerengcon-
center force
the slope
Equilibrium
of the
center is ofand
the
base product
thecircular
Stabilitas
of
base Lereng
the
of theofslice
slip
slice theand
surface
andshearashown
Gempa
a stress,
inline
vertical
vertical i ,also
and
SNI 8460-2017
𝜏isline
Figure 6.7,
is the area
the
also
equal equal of produ
Kesimpulan
thus
r equilibrium
nts
CEDURESabout OF of moments
the center about
SLICES: the circle
ofCIRCULAR
the center ofSLIP The
the circle overturning
the tobase radius
the angle, inthe
ofmoment𝛼Eq. (6.34)
can be
slice,
(Figure has
which
6.7). been
expressed
Thus, moved
forthe aasmoment
slice outside
ofarmunit the
(ai ) summa-
thickness
can is is
slices
(a )
Prosedur Irisan to the angle, 𝛼 (Figure 6.7). ∑ Thus, the moment arm can
i
he entire free body composed of all slices. In contrast, tion because i the by radius is= constant for a circle.
S
mposed of all slices. In contrast, Δ𝓁 bei ⋅ 1. Thus,
expressed M W∑ a (6.32)
i
procedures that assume noncircular slip surfaces usually be expressed
88 The6 resisting
88 6by MECHANICS moment
d
OF LIMIT
=
i
is rprovided
EQUILIBRIUM
i
byPROCEDURES
the shear stresses
noncircular
sider
based equilibrium
on a circular slip surfaces
in terms
slip surface usually
of the individual
consider slices.
equilib- It is MECHANICS OF MaLIMIT
i r = sin
r 𝛼i 𝜏 Δ𝓁
EQUILIBRIUM
i i
PROCEDURES (6.33) (6.36)
(𝜏)where
on the base of each
shearaibecomesslice.
= r on The
sinthe normal stress
𝛼i base of the ith slice (6.33) (𝜎) on the
opriate tothe
consider the procedures for It
circular and non- i is the
Sdriving force Eq. (6.31)
ms
ments ofabout individual
the center of slices.
the circle. is
Referring
PROCEDURES OF SLICES: CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACES to where and
base
The the
Sofitheis
andshear 87
each the moment
shear
slice
stress
summation is force
acts
can through
be∑expressed
performed onthe the
for allbase
center in of
ofterms
slices. the the
Thecircle,
of ith
shear slice
and
the gravity ofE
shear
ular
nd slip surfaces
circular slipfor separately.
surface shownand in Figure 6.7, the andthus
procedures circular non-
a and the the produces
driving
strength
force summation
isandthemoment
theno factor
product moment.
isof
M =the
dbecomes
ofr The
performed Wtotal
safety
shear sinby
i stress, 𝛼resisting
for 𝜏all
i Eq. (6.1)
i , and
moment
slices.
thetoarea The
give
(6.34) for all slip surfac
of shear g
moment can be expressed as i
slices is of
ately. ∑ force the
The is base
the
radius in
the slice,
product
Eq. ofwhich
(6.34) the
has ∑ ∑ for a slice
shear
been ∑ moved stress,
s ∑ Δ𝓁
of unit
outside 𝜏i , thethickness
and the isarea of If the fr
summa- sl
PROCEDURES OF SLICES: CIRCULAR SLIP Δ𝓁i ⋅ 1. Thus, MM =M i 𝛼i
RFACES
Md = Wi a i (6.32) the base tion of
because the slice,
the radius
d r =
which
is rr = ∑ rS
r
for
constant Wi =for
a
i sin
rslice
a Sii of unit thickness
circle. (6.34)
(6.35) quires that
(6.37)
is
Mr = 𝜏i Δ𝓁by
rprovided i F the shear stresses(6.36) known. Th
Δ𝓁i ⋅ 1. Thus,
The resisting moment is
∑ ically q
inde
rSLIPαi
cedures based on a circular slip surface
SLICES: CIRCULAR consider The
equilib- radius
where
(𝜏) in
TheonshearEq.
sitheisbase(6.34)
the ofstrength
stress has
eachbeslice.
can been
ofThe
expressed moved
thenormal
soil
in terms atoutside
the
stressof(𝜎) the
base
the summa-
of slice i.
onshear
the
m of moments about the center of the circle. Referring to Equating M = r 𝜏 Δ𝓁
rthrough the icenteri of the circle, and (6.36) be made kin
tion becausestrengththe
base of andradius
the
each resisting
slice
the acts
factorisofconstant
moment
safety by Eq. for(6.1)
[Eq. a(6.37)]
circle.
to giveand the driving nary Meth ic
slope and circular slip surface shown in Figure 6.7, the thus produces no moment. The total resisting moment for all
turning moment can be expressed as The shear
moment
The resisting stress
[Eq. can
(6.34)] be
and
momentM is= rprovided expressed
∑
rearranging, in terms
the of
following
si Δ𝓁i by the shear stresses the shear
equation
describedbi
slices is (6.37)
ular slip surface consider ∑ equilib- (𝜏) strength
oncanthe and
bebase
writtenthe
of factor
for
eachtheof r∑
safety
factor
slice. ofby
The ∑Eq. (6.1) to give
safety:
F normal stress (𝜎) on assumption
the n
Md = Wi a i Wi(6.32) M r = rS ∑
i = r S i (6.35) slices and,
center of the circle. Referring to base of whereeach si is the strength of ∑
slice acts through the soil at the base of slice i.
ssi Δ𝓁
the center ofthe
thedriving
circle, and d
Equating the resisting M =
moment r [Eq. i Δ𝓁
(6.37)]i i and
(6.37)
surface shown in Figure 6.7, the αi moment [Eq.
thus produces no moment.
(6.34)] and
rF = ∑
The totalFthe
rearranging, resisting
followingmoment
equation for(6.38)
all Or
6.5.1 as
expressed as Sslices
i whereiscansibeiswritten for the factor
the strength of ofthe safety:i sinat𝛼ithe base of slice i.
Wsoil sl
∑ ∑∑ ∑ The Ordin
= Equating
The radius the hasresisting
been moment
canceled [Eq.ri (6.37)]
from both
Si the andnumerator
the driving and
r =F = ∑ rSisi=
Wi a i (6.32) M Δ𝓁 (6.35)neglects th
Figure 6.7 Circular slip surface with overlying moment mass [Eq.
subdi-(6.34)] (6.38) Method of 6
soil
denominator of thisand rearranging,
equation. W However,
sin 𝛼
the following
the equation
equation is still
vided into vertical slices. can be written
i i Method of
valid only forfor the factor
a circular ofsurface.
slip safety: 27 should notT
The radius has been canceled ∑from both the numerator and
At this point the subscript i will be dropped from use with
Slices and the Simplified Bishop procedures W sin 𝛼 with the Mohr–Coulomb strength equation, we can write
nextThetwonormal
sections
Pengantar make
force twoPrinsip
expresseddifferent
by Eq.
This sets
alternative ofAnalisis
(6.43) is the same
expression for as
the the
Limit
factor of Metode Analisis
safety by the Stabilitas Lereng 1 SNI ′ 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
′
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equilibrium Stabilitas Lereng Gempa S = [c Δ𝓁 + (N − u Δ𝓁) tan 𝜙 ] (6.
obtain the normal
normal force thatstress on the
would baseif of
exist
Ordinary the the
Methodresultant force
of Slices doesofnotthe Equation (6.66) is the equation
result in negative effec- F for the factor of safety fo
Prosedur Irisan
quently,
forcesthe
onfactor
the sidesof safety. tive stresses
of the slice acted in on athe slip surface
direction as long as the pore Simplified
parallel water Combining Eqs. (6.60) and (6.63) and solving for the norm
Bishop procedure.
to the base of the slice (Bishop, pressures are less
1955). than the total
However, it is vertical
im- overburden pres- force, N, we obtain
sure, a condition that must clearly exist for any reasonably
Equation (6.66) was derived with the shear strength
′ Δ𝓁 − u Δ𝓁 tan 𝜙′ ) sin 𝛼
possibleoffor
y Method this to occur and all forces on the slices to be in
Slices W − (1∕F)(c
stable slope. pressed in terms N = of effective stresses. ′ The only differ (6.
equilibrium unless the interslice forces are zero. cos 𝛼 + (sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙 )∕F
ethod of Slices is a procedure of slices that between total and effective Duncan stresses
c06.texthat
V3 - is made4:38
07/21/2014 inP.Md
and the effective normal stress on the base of the slice is giv
• Metode Irisan
es on the sides of the slices. The biasa, Fellenius
Ordinary
Recapitulation
ing any equation
by for the factor of safety is in whethe
s has also been referred to as the “Swedish shear strength is expressed in𝜎 ′terms =
N of total stresses or e
−u (6.
s” and the “Fellenius method.” This method • The Ordinary Method of Slices assumes a circular Δ𝓁
tive stresses [e.g., Eq. (6.3) vs. Eq. (6.8)]. An equatio
slip surface and sums moments about the center of Combining Eqs. (6.64) and (6.65) and introducing them i
ever, be confused with the U.S. Army Corps the factor of safety based on total stresses can be obta
the circle. The method only satisfies moment equi- the equation for equilibrium of moments about the center
odified Swedish method, which is described librium. from the aequation
circle forOFeffective
for effective stresses stresses
[Eq. (6.46)],by wereplacing th
can write,89af
PROCEDURES SLICES: CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACES
the method should not be confused with
• For 𝜙 = 0, the Ordinary Method of Slices gives ex- Duncan c06.tex
fective stress V3 -
strength parameters (c and 𝜙 ) by
07/21/2014
shearterms,
rearranging
4:38 P.M. Page˜89 ′ ′
of slices that Fellenius The normal stress
developed, includ-
actly on
the the
samebase
Neglect valueoffor
a the
slice is obtained
factor of safety by as does [ ′ Δ𝓁 (c b ]
Wthe Swedish total stress ∑
equivalents c cos and
𝛼 + 𝜙)
(W −and
u Δ𝓁 setting
cos 𝛼) the
tan 𝜙pore
′ w
dividing
slices that fully satisfies the equilibrium
static normal forceforces
byCircle
the area of the base of the slice
method.
(1
Neglect ⋅ Δ𝓁) to give• The here Method of SlicesEffective
Ordinary permits stress
the pressure term (u) to zero.
factor cosThus,
𝛼 + (sinthe
𝛼 tanequation
𝜙′ )∕F for the f
). F= ∑ (6.
forces of safety to W cos 𝛼
be calculated directly. All of the other of safety in terms of total stresses W for𝛼 the Simplified Bi
sin
he slice shown inhere Figure 6.8 and resolving 𝜎= (6.44)
ular to the base of the slice, the normal
procedures of slices
force Δ𝓁 described subsequently require procedure is
Substituting this S
an expression
iterative solution
for for the
the factor force
normal of safety.
into Thus, [ 89 ]
Method of Slices can be expressed as PROCEDURES
the method is convenient for hand calculations.
OF SLICES: CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACES
∑ c Δ𝓁 cos 𝛼 + W htan 𝜙
Eq. (6.41), derived above for the factor of safety from
ess on N the= base • The Ordinary Method of Slices is less accurate b than
W cosof𝛼 amoment
slice isequilibrium,
obtained N by
(6.43) gives the following equation for the cos 𝛼 + (sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙) ∕F
al force by the area of the of
factor base are
of the slice
safety:
other procedures of slices. The accuracy
Total stress is less F= ∑ (
e expressed by Eq. (6.43) is the same foraseffective
∑ the stress analyses and decreases as the W sin 𝛼
Figure exist
at would 6.8 Slice
if 𝛼thewith forces force
resultant considered
pore
of water(cinΔ𝓁
the the+Ordinary
pressures 𝛼 Method
W cosbecome tan 𝜙)larger. Ei + 1
W cos W
𝜎=
of Slices. (6.44) ∑the Ordinary Method of Slices
F• =Accuracy can Inbe many problems, the Eshear strength for one layer wi
des of the slice Δ𝓁acted in a direction parallel of (6.45) i ∆ℓ
improved by using W sinEq.𝛼 (6.59) rather than Eq. (6.48) expressed in terms of total stresses (e.g., strengths
28 from
heexpression
slice (Bishop,for 1955). However,
the normal itforisinto
force im-
effective stress analyses.
the equation for equilibrium of moments about the center of
sure,
direction atocondition
a circle
satisfy that
for effective mustc06.tex
stresses
equilibrium
Prinsip clearly
Duncan [Eq.
in (6.46)], exist
we
V3 - 07/21/2014
this directionfor
can
Analisis any
4:38write,
reasonably
after
P.M. Page˜90
and to obtain
Limit W − (1∕F)(c
Metode Analisis ′ Δ𝓁 −
Stabilitas 𝜙′ )8460-2017
u Δ𝓁 tanSNI
Lereng sin 𝛼
s ex- Pengantar
rearranging
stable slope. terms,
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equation
Equilibrium N =
(6.66) is the
Stabilitas Lereng equation
Gempa for the factor of safety for Kesimpulanthat
the
(6.64) fu
does an expression [for the normal stress on the base ]of each slice.
∑ c′ Δ𝓁 cos 𝛼 + (W − u Δ𝓁 cos 𝛼) tan 𝜙′ cos 𝛼 + (sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙 )∕F ′
Referring to theDuncan slice c06.texshownV3 -in07/21/2014
Figure
Simplified Bishop procedure.
6.10 and resolving
and K
Simplified Bishop cos 𝛼 + (sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙 ′ )∕F4:38 P.M. Page˜90 and the effective
Equation (6.66) wasnormal stress with
derived on thethe
baseshear
of thestrength
slice is given
ex- (1973
ctor forces Fin=the vertical direction, ∑ the following equilibrium (6.66)
Recapitulation by
ther W sin
equation can be written for forces in the vertical direction: 𝛼 pressed in terms of effective ′
stresses.
N The only difference Simpl
uire 𝜎
between total and effective stresses = − u (6.65) 5 perc
• The Ordinary Method Duncan c06.tex V3 - 07/21/2014 4:38 P.M. Page˜90
of Slices assumes a circular Δ𝓁 that is made in deriv-
hus,
direction to satisfy equilibrium N cos 𝛼 +direction
in this S sin and 𝛼 −toWobtain =0 (6.60) comp
slip surface and sums
an expression for the normal stress on the base of each slice. moments about the center of ing any equation
Combining for(6.64)
Eqs. the factor of safety
and (6.65) is in whether
and introducing the
them into
than Forces
Referring to thearethe
sliceconsidered
circle.
shown The positive
in Figuremethod 6.10 onlywhen
and they act
satisfies
resolving upward.
moment The
equi- shear strength
Effective
the is expressed
Stress
equation in terms
for equilibrium of totalabout
of moments stresses
the or effec-
center of The p
less shear
in the force indirection,
librium. Eq. (6.60) the is relatedequilibrium
to the shear stress by proce
forces
the
vertical following tive stresses [e.g.,
a circle for Eq. (6.3)
effective vs.[Eq.
stresses Eq.(6.46)],
(6.8)].we Ancanequation for
write, after
equation can be • written
For 𝜙 for = forces
0, theinOrdinary
the verticalMethoddirection:of Slices gives ex- rearranging
the factor terms,
of safety based on total stresses can be obtained
atisfy equilibrium in this directionS and = 𝜏toWΔ𝓁 obtainEi + 1 (6.61) [ ′ ]
Nactly
cos 𝛼 the
+ S same
sin 𝛼 −value
W = 0for the factor
(6.60) of safety as does ∑ c Δ𝓁
from the equation forcos
effective
nforbe the normal stress on the Ei base of each slice. 𝛼 + (Wstresses by replacing
− u Δ𝓁 cos 𝛼) tan 𝜙′ the ef-
.48) orarein terms of thewhen
theinSwedish shear
Circle strength
method. upward.and The factor of safety ′ ′ Re
the
ion
slice
Forces
to
shown
considered
satisfy equilibrium
Figure
positive
in
6.10
this
and
they resolving
act
direction and fective stress shear strength (sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙′(c
cos 𝛼 +parameters )∕Fand 𝜙 ) by their
shear [Eq. •Eq.The
(6.2)],
forcedirection,
vertical in we
(6.60) Ordinary
thecan
is write
related
following Method
to the shear ofstress
equilibrium by obtain
Slices to permits the factor F = equivalents (c and ∑ 𝜙) and setting the pore (6.66)
pression for theofnormal safety stress
to on the
be calculated base ofS each
directly. slice.
All of the other
total stress water •
be written for forces in
S the
= vertical
Δ𝓁 Δ𝓁
direction:
s (6.61) W sin 𝛼
ring to the slice shown 𝜏
in Figure
procedures of slices described S = 6.10 and resolving
subsequently require (6.62) pressure term (u) to zero. Thus, the equation for the factor
sorinN inthe
terms
cos vertical
𝛼 +ofSan sindirection,
the 𝛼 − Wstrength
shear the
0 following
=solution and factor F N equilibrium
of safety
(6.60) of safety in terms of total stresses for the Simplified Bishop
iterative for the factor of safety. Thus,
[Eq.
idescan
ion Forbeshear
(6.2)],
of we can strengths
written for forcesexpressed
write in the vertical in terms of effective stresses
direction:
onsidered
o shearwithpositive the method
when they is convenient
act upward. for
Thehand calculations. procedure
Total Stressis
the Mohr–Coulomb
Figure 6.10 Slice
=
s Δ𝓁 with strength
forces forequation,
the Simplified we can write
Bishop
[ ]
N• cos
Eq. (6.60) procedure.
vertical The 𝛼 + S
Ordinarysin 𝛼
is related to theFshear stress by− W
Method = 0 of Slices (6.62)
is(6.60)
less accurate than ∑ c Δ𝓁 cos 𝛼 + W tan 𝜙
areexpressed
other 1procedures
′terms of effective
ofactslices. The ′
accuracy is(6.63)
less
sForare
shear strengths
consideredS = 𝜏 Δ𝓁 F S =
positive [c
in
when Δ𝓁 +
they (N − u Δ𝓁) tan
stresses
upward. The𝜙 ] •
for effective strength stress analyses
(6.61)
and cos 𝛼 + (sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙) ∕F
with
forcetheinMohr–Coulomb
Eq. (6.60) is related equation,
to the shear we can write
stress by decreases as the F= ∑ (6.67)
of the Combining
shear pore Eqs.
1strengthwater (6.60)
and and (6.63)
factor
pressures andlarger.
of′ safety
become solving for the normal Ei + 1
S = [c′ Δ𝓁 +
S = 𝜏of (N − u Δ𝓁) tan
Δ𝓁the Ordinary Method𝜙 ] (6.63)
(6.61) W sin 𝛼W
e canforce, Fwe obtain
write •N,Accuracy of Slices can be E
Combining
terms ofEqs. the(6.60)
improved
sW Δ𝓁−and(1∕F)(c
shear (6.63)
by using
strength and
′ Δ𝓁 solving
andEq. for the of
− factor Δ𝓁 tan
u(6.59) normal
rather ′ ) sin
safety
𝜙 than𝛼 Eq. (6.48) In many problems, thei shear strength for one layer will be
force, N, weN S=
obtain (6.62) (6.64)
6.2)], we can write for Feffective cos stress
𝛼 + analyses.
(sin 𝛼 tan 𝜙 ′ )∕F expressed in terms of total stresses (e.g., strengths from UU
W − (1∕F)(c′ Δ𝓁 − u Δ𝓁 tan 𝜙′ ) sin 𝛼
engthsandN =
expressed
the effective in terms
cos 𝛼 S+ = s𝛼Δ𝓁
normal
(sin
of effective
tan 𝜙stress
′ )∕F on stresses (6.64)
the base(6.62) of the slice is given triaxial tests for a clay layer) and for another
S layer in terms of
r–Coulomb strength equation, F we can write effective stresses (e.g., strengths from CD or CU triaxial tests29 •
and theby effective
6.5.2 normal stress on the
Simplified base ofProcedure
Bishop the slice is given
Prosedur Irisan u/ bidang gelincir non-circular

• Prosedur single free-body dan prosedur irisan, didasarkan pada
bentuk slip surface yang sederhana.
• Pada banyak kasus, slip surface berbentuk lebih complex, dengan
lapisan interface yang lunak..
• Dalam kondisi ini digunakan prosesur irisan untuk bidang gelincir non-
circular.
• Prosedur kesetimbangan gaya
• Prosedur kesetimbangan gaya dan momen.
30
Z2 Figurefor 6.17 Force equilibrium
the previous polygon (vector
slice, the interslice force ondiagram)
the rightofof forces
the
∆ℓ where
acting Z and
on Analisis
the 𝜃
second
i slice represent
slice for the
aThis respective
forceprocess
equilibrium magnitudes
solution and
by bythe
Pengantar
cʹdPrinsip Analisis Limit second
Metode isi calculated.
Stabilitas Lereng is repeated
SNI 8460-2017 slice
Kesimpulan
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equilibrium inclinations of the interslice
Stabilitas Lereng
graphical
slice formethod. Gempa force at the left of the slice, Zi+1
the rest of the slices from left to right until a force on
andthe𝜃i+1 represent the corresponding values
right of the last slice is calculated. If the force, Zi+ 1 , onat the right of
Prosedur Irisan u/ bidang gelincir non-circular
R
W thethe
inthe
slice,
Figure right
vertical
PROCEDURES
tor
and
of safety
Fv represents
of the
6.19.
direction,
isOF
last slice isof
Summation including
SLICES:
correct
the sum of zero,
essentially
forces
the
NONCIRCULAR
because
in
weight
there
all known
the
is SLIP
vertical
noof“right
forces fac-
the assumed
the slice.
SURFACES
in
direction
side”Inonthe 99
the
Figure 6.18 Force equilibrium
for an individual
absence
polygon of any
(vector
sliceofproduces
surface
diagram) loads and
forces acting
the following equilibrium
reinforcement forces, Fv
last
Equations slice, which
(6.79) is triangular.
and (6.80) If the force
can be combined is not zero, a new
with the
equation:
• Prosedur kesetimbangan Gaya Z3
6 is equal
on the last slice for a force equilibrium
Mohr–Coulomb
to −W.
trial solution
value by the
is Forces
graphical
assumed
equation
are
for
considered
the factor ofpositive
method.
for
the shear
Figure
safety, and
force
6.18 Force[Eq.
whenthethey
(6.63)]
equilibrium
pro-
to (vect
polygon
actF upward.
cess is Summation
repeated until of
the forces
force in
on the
the horizontal
right of the direction
last slice is
v+Z 𝜃i − and + + 𝛼 =obtain
5
eliminate i sin
the shear sin 𝜃i+1forces
Zi+1normal on N cos
(S
the last 𝛼and
slice forS sinand
a force
N) 0 solution
equilibrium
4 yields the following,
acceptably small. second equation of force equilibrium: (6.79)
the following equation for the interslice force, Z
i+ l , on the
1 2 3 whereF Z
+ iZ and
cos 𝜃
Line
𝜃i −represent
of thrust
Z cos 𝜃the respective
− N sin 𝛼 + magnitudes
S cos 𝛼 = 0 and
Zi+1 right side
h ofi a slice:
i
Janbu’s Generalized
Figure 6.17 Force equilibrium polygon (vector diagram) of forces inclinations
i+1 i+1
Procedure ofthe
Slices At this point it
of the interslice force at left of the slice, Z
(6.80)
solutionθi+1
i+1
acting on the second slice for a force equilibrium by the is𝜃 appropriate to return to the procedure Zi+1known as Janbu’s
graphical method.
Fh and represent
i+1 Fv sin
The quantity 𝛼 + Fh costhe
the
Fh represents 𝛼+
corresponding cos(𝛼
netZisum − 𝜃)
values
of all θ
at the right
known forcesof
Generalized Procedure of Slices (GPS) (Janbu, 1954a, 1973).
i+1
the slice,
acting onand the F slice
− represents
v [F incos the𝛼horizontal
− the
F sum
sin
Fh of all known forces in
direction;
𝛼 + u Δ𝓁 forces acting
θi There has been vsome debate h as to whether this procedure
Z Fv
acting ofZi forces in the vertical direction to the
the vertical
rightdirection,
are considered including the weight
positive. If′ thereofare the no
′ Δ𝓁∕Fslice. In the
seismic
on (vector diagram)
in Figure of forces
6.19. Summation 3
θ3
satisfies all +Z sin
conditionsθ
i Theor (𝛼 −
of equilibrium
𝜃)](tan F 𝜙 ∕F)or +
only c force equilib-
solutionfor
by the graphical method. absence
forces,
Z rium. = of
In any
external
Figure
the surface
loads,
6.20
GPS
i
Zloads
line
procedure, and
reinforcement
of thrust:
the
the reinforcement
v
forces,
locations
vertical
of thethe forces,
force,
interslice
components
forces
of F
Fhthe
,v
an individual sliceW produces the followingS equilibrium i+1 i
θ will
is equal be on
zero.
to cos(𝛼
slice
−W.For −
boundaries.
seismic
Forces 𝜃 i+1 ) +
loading
are [sin(𝛼 alone,
considered − S
interslice forces are assumed based on ah numerical approxi- on sli
𝜃 F
i+1 )= tan
−kW.
positive 𝜙 ′ ]∕F
when they
Figur
equation:
2
(6.81)
Z2 N act upward.
mation ofSummation
the followingofdifferential forces in the horizontal
equation direction
for equilibrium
Fv + Zi sin 𝜃i − Zi+1cdsin ∆ℓ𝜃i+1 + N cos 𝛼 + S sin 𝛼 = 0 By
Metodefirst
yields assuming
Janbu
the
of moments for aaslice
(1954,
following, trialof value
1973)
second equation
infinitesimal forN of the factor
force
width of safety,
5 :equilibrium:
Line of thrust Figure 6.19

(6.79)
Slice with forces for force equilibrium Eq. (6.81)equilibrium
procedures. isFigure
used6.19to calculate
rigorously
Slice with in
the
this interslice
discrete dEform; force,
only i+ l , onequil
Eq.Z(6.82)
R(= N) Fh + Zof i cos i − Zslice
the 𝜃first X= cos −E
forces
𝜃tan
i+1 𝜃 −Ztrigorously.
for force equilibrium
+ + S cos 𝛼 =(6.82)
N hsin 𝛼Proceeding procedures.
to0thesatisfi
i = t0.
where Zi and 𝜃i represent the respective magnitudes and the right satisfies moment where
equilibrium
dX The other proce-
i+1
inclinations ofwritten
the interslice forceform
in difference at the
as left of the slice, Zi+1 next The dures
slice,quantities
where of slices
written Z is that areform
equal
inXidifference
considered
to asthe the later inof
value thisZi+chapter (6.80)dures
satisfy
calculated
complete and E represent
equilibrium rigorously for vertical
a−of
discrete and horizontal
1 of slices. comp
set
and 𝜃i+1 represent the corresponding values at −the
Ei+1 Ei−1 The
right of for the quantity
previous F h represents
slice, the the
interslice net sum
force
E on
E alltheknown
right forces
of theThus
Z 2 X = −Esum
tan 𝜃of +all
ht known forces in (6.83) components,
Thus, respectively,
they are =
considered
X −E of
tan the+
complete
𝜃 interslice
h
i+1 forces.
i−1
equilibriumforces The quan-
procedures,
(6.83)
the slice, and
cʹd ∆ℓ F v represents the t
Xi+1 − Xi−1 acting on the slice in the horizontal t t direction;
Xi+1 − Xi−1 acting
second tityslice is calculated.
represents
htwhereas the GPStheprocedure Thisofprocess
height is the
not. lineisofrepeated
thrust above slicethe bywher
the vertical direction, including the weight of the slice. In the to the right Equation arefactor
considered
(6.83) positive.
is based Ifin imaginary
there
on considerations areof no
momentseismic
31
Equation (6.83) is based on considerations of moment slice slip
for surface.
the rest
The ofThe theofline
slicesof
safety thrust
from
is computed is the
left to right
the GPS until line
a force
procedure byon The
drawn
absence of any surface loads and reinforcement forces, F equilibrium. However, Eq. (6.83) does not satisfy moment perfo
0
is zero and yQ = yb .9 Each of the quantities in the summation (6.90)
Equations (6.87) for y and (6.90) for Q can be substituted
2 6 Prinsip EQUILIBRIUM
MECHANICS OF LIMIT
Pengantar
Mekanika Tanah
Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
slice. The subscript i
Limit the value for an
shown in Eq. (6.86) represents
PROCEDURES
Equilibrium
has been omitted for
Metode
simplicity and
Analisis
individual
will v
Stabilitas Lereng
N + F cos 𝛼 − F sin 𝛼 − Q sin(𝛼 − 𝜃) = 0
Stabilitas Lerengequations with two Gempa h
Q
into the equilibrium equations [(6.84) andSNI 8460-2017
(6.86)] to give two Kesimpulan (6.88)
be omitted in subsequent discussion with the understanding unknowns: the factor of safety, F, and the
S + F for + F cos 𝛼 + − 𝜃) =6.23).

interslice force inclination, 𝜃. Trial-and-error procedures are
that the quantities Q, xb , yb , and so on, represent values for
equilibrium sin 𝛼individual Q cos(𝛼
slices (Figure 0 (6.89)
Summing
Prosedur Irisan non-circular
individual slices. vused to solve Eqs. h(6.84) and (6.86) for F and 𝜃. Values of
F and 𝜃 are assumed repeatedly until these two equations
Q The expression for Q in the equilibrium equations
[(6.84) and (6.86)] is obtained from the equations of force
forces in directions
The quantities F and perpendicular
F represent alland parallel
known to the and
horizontal base of
are satisfied within acceptable levels of convergence (force
and momenth imbalance). v 10 Once the factor of safety and
the slice gives
vertical forces the following
on the two equilibrium
slice, including the weight equations:
of the slice,
interslice force inclination are computed, the equations of
yb force and moment equilibrium for the individual slices can
yQ seismic
N + loads,
F cosforces 𝛼 − Fdue sinto𝛼 distributed
− Q sin(𝛼 and
be used to calculate the values of the normal force (N) on the
− 𝜃)concentrated
=0 (6.88)
vbase of the slice, the individual
h interslice force resultants (Z)
surface loads, and reinforcement forces. Combining these
• Metode Spencer x Fv y
between slices, and the location (yt ) of the interslice forces
+ Fvequilibrium
two Sforce sin 𝛼 + Fhequations cos 𝛼 + [(6.88)
on the vertical boundary between theDuncan
Q cos(𝛼 and−(6.89)]
𝜃) = 0with the
(6.89)
slices. c06.tex V3 - 07/21/2014 4:38 P.M. Page
b
Q
Fh Mohr–CoulombMorgenstern equation for the The
and Price’s Procedure shear force,
Morgenstern and S [Eq. (6.63)]
Figure 6.22 Coordinates for noncircular slip surface used in The
andquantities forF
Price
solvingslices
(1965) andto theFnormal
procedure
gives
Qhrelated
are v represent
assumes that the
forces as
shear all known horizontal and
forces between
Spencer’s procedure. Q
θ vertical forces on the slice, X = 𝜆fincluding
(x)E the(6.91)
weight of the slice,
−Fwhere 𝛼 E−areFtheh vertical ′
yQ v sin cos 𝛼
α seismic loads, forces due to distributed and concentrated
X and and− (c Δ𝓁∕F)
horizontal forces between
𝜙′ ∕F)
slices, is an unknown scale factor that is evaluated together
+(F − + Δ𝓁)(tan
𝜆
S
surface loads,with and
the v cos
other 𝛼
unknowns, F
reinforcement h
and f sin
(x) is 𝛼
an u
forces.
assumed function Combining these
102 6 MECHANICS OF LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM PROCEDURES Q = that has prescribed values at each slice boundary. In the Mor- ′
xb to reinforcement, the momentyMN 0
and any internal forces due two force equilibrium gensterncos(𝛼
and Price equations
−procedure,
𝜃) + [sin (𝛼[(6.88)
the location −of𝜃)thetan and
𝜙 ∕F]
normal (6.89)] with the
y equilibrium for individual slices (Figure 6.23). Summing(6.90)
force on the base of the slice is also explicitly or implicitly
is zero and yQ = yb .9 Each of the quantities
Figurein6.23the summation
Slice with all known and unknownMohr–Coulomb assumed. In equation for the
the original formulation of the shear
Morgenstern force,
and S [Eq. (6.63)]
gure 6.22 forcesforces for
Equations in directions
(6.87) perpendicular
for and (6.90)
yQ linearly and parallel to
for(Morgenstern the base of
Q can be substituted
shownCoordinates forrepresents
noncircular
the slip surface procedure.used inall known forces Price procedure, stresses were integrated across each slice as-
in Eq. (6.86) Spencer’s
value for an F = sum of
individual and
hin
solving
the horizontal
the slice
direction, and F = sum of all known forces in the vertical for
suming Q
that gives
(x) varied across
direction.gives the following two equilibrium equations:
f the slice
encer’sslice.
procedure. into the equilibrium equations [(6.84) and (6.86)] to give two
y
and Price, 1967). This implicitly fixed the distribution of the
The subscript i has been omitted for simplicity and will ′
The forces W, S, and N all act through a common pointequations
9
N +of−F
at the center Fvwith
vcos sintwo
𝛼 − −h sin
F
𝛼 Funknowns: 𝛼cos
− Qcan𝛼the
hthreshold − factor
sin(𝛼 (c− Δ𝓁∕F)𝜃) of = 0safety,(6.88) F, and the
be omitted in subsequent discussion with the
the base of theunderstanding
slice, and thus Q must also act through this point unless there 10
The selection of the error be important in the final value
intersliceS + Fvforce
are additional forces on the slice. In Spencer’s (1967) original derivation M
that the quantities Q, xb , yb , and so on, was
represent values for
0
+(F
sin 𝛼14.inclination, 𝛼𝛼−+F QhTrial-and-error
𝜃. sin 𝛼−+𝜃)u=Δ𝓁)(tan 0 procedures
of factor of safety calculated. This will be discussed in greater detail in
+v Fcos 𝜙′ ∕F)are
h cos cos(𝛼 (6.89)
zero, and thus y = y . Q b Chapter
individual slices. used Q= to solve Eqs. (6.84) and (6.86) for F and 𝜃. Values of
Q
d any internal forces due to reinforcement, the moment M0 The
F andquantities
𝜃 are Fassumedand Fv−represent
hcos(𝛼 𝜃) + [sin
repeatedly (𝛼 − these
all until
known tantwo
𝜃)horizontal 𝜙′ ∕F]and
equations
The expression for Q in the equilibrium equations vertical forces on the slice, including the weight of the slice, (6.90)
zero and yQy= 9
b yb . Each of the quantities in the summation are satisfied within acceptable levels of convergence (force
[(6.84) and (6.86)] is obtained from the yQ equations of force seismic loads,
Equations (6.87) forces fordue yQ toand 10distributed
(6.90) and Q
for concentrated
can be substituted
own in Eq. (6.86) represents the value for an individual and
surface moment
loads, imbalance).
and reinforcement Once forces. the factor
Combining of safety
these and
ce. The subscript i has been omitted xfor simplicity and will into the equilibrium
interslice force equations
inclination are [(6.84)
computed, andthe (6.86)] to give
equations
32 of two
y two force equilibrium equations [(6.88) and (6.89)] with the
b
equations
force andwith moment two equilibrium
unknowns: for thethe factor of safety,
individual slices and the
F, can
ly difference in terms of unknowns is that
Limit base of theAnalisis
slice, the individual interslice force resultan
re as implemented
Pengantar in
Prinsip
most computer
Analisis
pro-
Stabilitas Lereng of the seismic
Chen Metode
coefficient
and Stabilitas
Morgenstern’sLereng
required to
Procedure
SNI 8460-2017
produc Thef
Kesimpulan
Mekanika Tanah Equilibrium
between slices, and the location (yt ) of the interslice
Stabilitas Lereng Gempa
single unknown interslice force inclina- on Morgenstern (1983)between procedure represents a re

rgenstern Fand vProsedur Irisian non-circular
Price’s procedure involves safety is computed.
the
the
vertical
Morgenstern
boundaryUsually,
and Price
PROCEDURES OF SLICES: REPRESENTATION OF INTERSLICE FORCES (SIDE FORCES)
the the
procedure
factor
slices.
109 that
of is
saf
abl
n of side force Fh
inclinations and a single to be 1.0 and for
better
Morgenstern thethe and seismic
stresses
Price’s Case atcoefficient
2the ends of a slip
Procedure thatsurfac
The Morgenstern is
ameter, 𝜆. If the function f (x) is assumed represents Price the
Morgenstern
(1965) seismic
procedure suggested coefficient
assumes that that atthe required
theshear
ends of the
forces to
bet
• Metode Morgensten-Price
Morgenstern and Price’s procedure, it pro- slices (1965)
the are interslice
related to forces
the normal must
Case 1 become
forces as parallel to the
Q• Metode
ntially identical θto Sarma
those achieved with referred
us- to in
60 ft
Chapter
is achieved30 by
10
usingX the
as the
following
seismic yield
relationship(
= 𝜆f (x)E
Sarma’s procedure shear (X) and the shear(E)force forces between
on the side os
ft
cedure.11 The major difference between horizontal
s is that Morgensternαand(a)Price’s proce- where X and E are the vertical and horizontal forces bet
to the available shear
30 ft 1force2.5
X = on
[𝜆f (x)the + fslice
(x)]E boun
ed flexibility inS the assumptions for the slices, 𝜆 is an unknown scale factor
cʹ = 100 psf, ϕʹ =that
20°, is0 evaluated tog
linations. The added flexibility allows relationship
the with
where
the other
f (x)
unknowns,
and f (x) are
and γ = 128 pcf
two
f (x) is an assumed fun
separate functions th
0
U that has prescribed values at each slice boundary. In the
E i+1 Figure 6.28 Submerged slope analyzed with total and effective
ing the interslice forces to be changed. = (x)S
Eʹ
X
N X
X i
i+1 i+1
distribution
stress representations
genstern and
of
Price
of the interslice
X
the interslice
procedure,
forces.
𝜆f the
force inclinations.
location of the no
T
i i+1
v
E i
U Eʹ
i i
X i+1
f (x)onisthe
force zero base at of each the end sliceof is the
alsoslip surface,
explicitly and
or impl
ng Choice of f(x) SLOPE/W and SLIDE assumed. (x) orisIn
f0force equal to theforce tangent of asof
the slope inclina
e with all known (b)and unknown forceswhere isforcean unknown scaling parameter,
the water pressure is considered a known
ty of f (x) ofselections including

for
constant Price
𝜆 end ofThethe
the
separately
original
from the unknown
slip surface.
formulation the
force due to effective
Morgenstern
wereThe variations be ofeach bothslicf
(c)
re. Fh = sum all known forces in the horizontal procedure,
stress. submerged stresses
slope shown inintegrated
Figure across
6.28 can
s method), Figure 6.26 (a) Slope and slice, (b) representations
= sum of allforcestrapezoid
known forces
as total
(varies
forces,inandthe
linearly
vertical direction.
(c) representation
assumed
from of interslice
of interslice forces assuming
function
between
used to illustrate
that f the
(x) with
two
this.
varied Theends prescribed
factor
linearly ofofsafety
the
across forslip values
surface
this slope
the slice (Morgenare a
was calculated two different ways using Spencer’s proce-
effective forces and water pressure forces.
slice boundary. andthe
Price,
dure.user.
In the The
1967).
first caseThisavailable
the implicitly
factor of safety was shear
fixed
the interslice forces representing the total forces between
theforce,
calculated distribution
with 33 Sv ,o
PROCEDURES OF SL
Metode manakah yang tepat? Waste Slip surface
Liner system
• Metode Spencer lebih sederhana dengan (a)
memenuhi semua kesetimbangan gaya dan
momen.
• Metode Morgensten Price lebih fleksible dan High-capacity
memenuhi semua kesetimbanagn gaya dan anchor
momen. Lebih cocok jika dipakai jika gaya
interslice mepengaruhi kestabilan lereng.
• Pada banyak kasus, gaya interslice hanya berefek
kecil pada factor keamanan yang dihitung. (b)
• Gaya interslice menjadi penting dan berefek pada

factor keamanan jika
• Ketika slip surface berubah arah pada geometri
lereng.
• Ketika lereng mendapatkan perkuatan, dan terdapat
perubahan gaya secara signifikan.
(c)
34
Figure 6.25 Slope and slip surface conditions where the assump-
106 6 MECHANICS OF LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM PROCEDURES
Table 6.2 Assumptions, Equilibrium Conditions, and Unknowns in Limit Equilibrium Procedures
Procedure Assumptions Equilibrium Equations Satisfied Unknows Solved for
Infinite Slope A slope of infinite extent; 1 Σ Forces perpendicular 1 Factor of safety (F)
slip surface parallel to to slope 1 Normal force on shear
slope face.
1 Σ Forces parallel to slope surface (N)
2 Total equations 2 Total unknowns
(Moment equilibrium is
implicitly satisfied)
Logarithmic Spiral The slip surface is a 1 Σ Moments about center 1 Factor of safety (F)
Logarithmic Spiral. of spiral 1 Total unknown
1 Total equations
(Force equilibrium is
Swedish Circle (𝜙 = 0) The slip surface is circular; 1 Σ Moments about center 1 Factor of safety (F)
the friction angle is zero. of circle 1 Total unknown
1 Total equations
(Force equilibrium is
Ordinary Method of Slices The slip surface is circular; 1 Σ Moments about center 1 Factor of safety (F)
(also known as the forces on the sides of of circle 1 Total unknown
Fellenius’s Method; or the slices are neglected.
Swedish Method of 1 Total equations
Slices)
Simplified Bishop The slip surface is circular; 1 Σ Moments about center 1 Factor of safety (F)
the forces on the sides of of circle n Normal force on the
the slices are horizontal n Σ Forces in the vertical base of slices (N)
(i.e., there is no shear
direction. n + 1 Total unknowns
force between slices).
n + 1 Total equations
Force Equilibrium (Lowe The inclinations of the n Σ Forces in the 1 Factor of safety (F)
and Karafiath, Simplified interslice forces are horizontal direction n Normal force on the
Janbu, Corps of assumed; assumptions n Σ Forces in the vertical base of slices (N)
Engineer’s Modified vary with procedure.
Swedish, Janbu’s GPS direction n − 1 Resultant
procedure) 2n Total equations interslice forces (Z)
2n Total unknowns
35

PROCEDURES OF SLICES: REPRESENTATION OF INTERSLICE FORCES (SIDE FORCES) 107

Table 6.2 (continued)
Procedure Assumptions Equilibrium Equations Satisfied Unknows Solved for
Spencer Interslice forces are n Σ Moments about any 1 Factor of safety(F)
parallel, (i.e., all have the selected point 1 Interslice force
same inclination). The
n Σ Forces in the inclination (𝜃)
position of the normal
force (N) on the base of horizontal direction n Normal force on the
the slice is assumed, n Σ Forces the vertical base of slices (N)
usually at the center of direction n − 1 Resultant interslice
the base. forces (Z)
3n Total equations
n − 1 Locations of side
forces (line of thrust)
3n Total unknowns
Morgenstern and Price Interslice shear force is n Σ Moments about any 1 Factor of safety (F)
related to interslice selected point 1 Interslice force
normal force by n Σ Forces in the inclination “scaling”
X = 𝜆f (x)E; the position
horizontal direction factor (𝜆)
of the normal force (N)
on the base of the slice is n Σ Forces in the vertical n Normal force on the
assumed, usually at the direction base of slices (N)
center of the base. n − 1 Horizontal interslice
3n Total equations
forces (E)
n − 1 Location of
interslice forces
(line of thrust)
3n Total unknowns
Chen and Morgenstern Interslice shear force is n Σ Moments about any 1 Factor of safety (F)
related to interslice selected point 1 Interslice force
normal force by
n Σ Forces in the inclination “scaling”
X = [λf (x) + f0 (x)]E; the
position of the normal horizontal direction factor (𝜆)
force (N) on the base of n Σ Forces in the vertical n Normal force on the
the slice is assumed, direction base of slices (N)
usually at the center of n − 1 Horizontal
the base. 3n Total equations
interslice forces (E)
n − 1 Location of
interslice forces
(line of thrust)
3n Total unknowns 36
(continued overleaf )
usually at the center of interslice forces (E)
Prinsip Analisis the base. Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas Lereng
Pengantar n − 1 Location of SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
forces (line of thrust)
Summary metode LE, dan kegunaannya

3n Total unknowns
Table 6.3 Summary of Procedures for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis and Their Usefulness
Procedure Use
Infinite Slope Homogeneous cohesionless slopes and slopes where the stratigraphy restricts the slip surface to
shallow depths and parallel to the slope face. Very accurate where applicable.
Logarithmic Spiral Applicable to homogeneous slopes. Accurate. Potentially useful for developing slope stability charts
and used in some software for design of reinforced slopes.
Swedish Circle; 𝜙 = 0 Applicable to slopes where 𝜙 = 0 (i.e., undrained analyses of slopes in saturated clays). Relatively
method thick zones of weaker materials where the slip surface can be approximated by a circle.
Ordinary Method of Applicable to nonhomogeneous slopes and c − 𝜙 soils where slip surface can be approximated by a
Slices circle. Very convenient for hand calculations. Inaccurate for effective stress analyses with high
pore water pressures. Has been applied to noncircular surfaces in some commercial software but is
inappropriate and inaccurate for noncircular slip surfaces.
Simplified Bishop Applicable to nonhomogeneous slopes and c − 𝜙 soils where slip surface can be approximated by a
procedure circle. More accurate than Ordinary Method of Slices, especially for analyses with high pore water
pressures. Calculations feasible by hand or spreadsheet. Has been applied to noncircular surfaces
in some commercial software but is inappropriate and inaccurate for noncircular slip surfaces.
Force Equilibrium Applicable to virtually all slope geometries and soil profiles. The only procedures suitable for hand
procedures (Lowe calculations with noncircular slip surfaces. Less accurate than complete equilibrium procedures
and Karafiath’s side and results are sensitive to assumed inclinations for interslice forces.
force assumption
recommended)
Spencer’s procedure. An accurate procedure applicable to virtually all slope geometries and soil profiles. The simplest
complete equilibrium procedure.
Morgenstern and An accurate procedure applicable to virtually all slope geometries and soil profiles. Rigorous,
Price’s procedure well-established complete equilibrium procedure.
Chen and Essentially an updated Morgenstern and Price procedure. A rigorous and accurate procedure
Morgenstern’s applicable to any shape of slip surface and slope geometry. Side forces forced to be parallel to
procedure ground surface at the ends of the slip surface
Sarma’s procedure An accurate procedure applicable to virtually all slope geometries and soil profiles. A convenient
complete equilibrium procedure for computing the seismic coefficient required to produce a given
factor of safety. Side force assumptions are difficult to implement for any but simple slopes. 37
Prinsip Analisis Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas
Pengantar
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Stabilitas Lereng SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
Equilibrium Lereng Gempa
Metode Analisis Kestabilan Lereng

• Methode untuk Analisis kestabilan lereng:
• Persamaan sederhana
• Slope Stability Chart
• Spreadsheet
• Program computer
• Persamaan sederhana digunakan untuk hitungan awal, program
computer untuk hitungan detail.
• Atau, program computer digunakan, sementara slope stability chart,
dipakai untuk memvalidasi hasil program computer.
38
c 2c others, such as the W equationsℓ used to estimate the stabi
F= = (7.4) of a vertical
H slope, αWτ
represent some
𝜏 = 1
𝛾H sin
degree 𝛼 cos 𝛼
of approximati
𝜏 𝛾H sin 𝛼 cos 𝛼
Prinsip Analisis Limit Metode Analisis H Stabilitas τ 2
7 Pengantar
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng
e minimum factor of safety, the inclination of the
Equilibrium Several
Stabilitas Lereng simple
Figure 7.1 Vertical
methods
Lereng
For a slope
cohesive
SNI
and ℓplane
8460-2017
Gempa are described below.
ℓ slip
soil (𝜙 surface.
Kesimpulan
= 0) the factor of sa
α
ds Metode
Methods
ERof7 Analyzing
CHAPTER
degrees. Substituting Analisis
for this
analyzing
Slope Kestabilan
is varied. The minimum factor of safety is found
7 value for 𝛼stability
into Eq. (7.4)
wherestability
equations, charts, spreadsheet software, and slope
Lereng
of slopes include simple7.1.1 Vertical
𝛼 is the inclination of the slip plane,
as
α
Slope in Cohesive Soil
H is= the slope c 2c
Figure 7.1 Vertical slope F =plane
and slip surface.
y computerF programs.
=
4c In many cases height, and
(7.5) more than one method
W For
is a vertical
the weight
the Figure
factor of
slope
of
7.1safety
theinsoil
cohesive
mass.
is obtained
Vertical
soil
𝜏
The
slope and based
aweight,
simple
𝛾H expression
sin
W,𝛼 cos 𝛼
on asurface.
plane slip planar slip surf
used 𝛾H is expressed as 7.1 To
f Analyzing Slope
can be• Metode to evaluate hitungan the stability
ip surfaces give a slightly lower value for the factor
sederhana for a particular
where
Figure
slope. like
𝛼 isalong
the
thethe
Vertical
one
find
shown
inclination
slip
slope
the
1 𝛾H
plane
in
and plane slip
minimum
Figure
isof
2 7.1.
the slip
varied.
The
The
surface.
factor of safety,
average
plane,
minimum
shear
H isfactor
the
stress
the slo
ds
F = of Methods
For example,
Analyzing
3.83c∕𝛾H. ofsimpleAnalyzingequations
Slope Slope
or charts may be used to make W
slip
where 𝛼 is the inclination
=plane
245tan is expressed
of
𝛼 the as (7.2)
slip plane, H is the slope
a preliminary estimate of slope stability, and height,
later,
where a 𝛼 and
com-
is the W is the
for
inclination 𝛼 weight
= of theof
degrees.the
slip soil
plane, mass.
Substituting
H The The
is the this weight,
value f
2 slope
n (7.5) Stability
can also
126 be rearranged
7 METHODS to calculate
OF ANALYZING the crit-
SLOPE STABILITY height, and
which when substituted into W is the weight
W sin of
𝛼 the Wsoil
Eq. (7.2)=and rearranged sinmass.
𝛼 Wsin weight,
gives W, (7
𝛼
y(Hcritical
puter ) ofprogram
a vertical may be used
slope (i.e., for detailed
the height of a
where 𝛾 is the unit weight of the soil in the embankment;
analyses. is Also,
expressed
height, and
is
where
a isasthegives
ifexpressed
W
u is theas pore
𝜏 =
weight of𝓁the soilH∕
water pressure at
mass.
the
22
sin 𝛼
depth
=
The weight,
of the Hslip
4c
W,
has acomputer
factor of program
safety of unity).is used,
The another
critical height computer is
program,expressed
slope as 𝜏 = 1
𝛾H sin 𝛼 cos1
1 𝛼 𝛾H
𝛾H F = (7.3)
1 =𝛾H
𝛾H represents the maximum vertical stress produced by the surface. (7.2) (
al slope in cohesive soil is
2
WW = 2 𝛾H
stability charts,
embankment. orEquation
a spreadsheet should beequation
(7.8) is an equilibrium usedFor to averify
cor- re-
For effective stress analyses,
cohesive soil (𝜙 = 0) = factor
W the Eq.2
2 of tan
tansafety
(7.12) 𝛼 can also be written
𝛼 is expressed(7.2)
responding 4c to ultimate conditions, that is, with the shear as
which when Circular substitutedslip 2into
tan
sults. The
r analyzing various
Hcritical =
stability ofmethods
slopes used
include to compute
(7.6)simple a factor
as of safety
which when substituted into surfaces
Eq.
Eq. 𝛼 (7.2) give
(7.2) and a slightly
and rearranged
rearranged lowergiv
gives v
strength of the𝛾 soil fully mobilized.
W If, instead, only some
arespreadsheet
presented in this chapter. which when F=
substituted of c[cot 𝛽 − ruEq.
into
safety, (cot
F 2c
= +3.83c∕𝛾H.
𝛽(7.2) tan and
𝛽)] tan 𝜙′
rearranged gives
charts, software, and slope τ stability F = = = sin cos (7.4) (7.3)
fraction of the shear strength is developed, that is, the factor 1
H 𝜏 𝛾H 𝛼 𝛼
sin
2
cos
1=
rograms.
aring Inofmany
Capacity safety iscases
Equations greatermore thana one
than unity, factormethod
of safety can be intro- 𝜏 𝜏 𝛾H
Equation 1
𝛾H 𝛼
(7.5) ′
sin
c can 𝛼
𝛼𝛼cos also 𝛼 be rearranged to(
For a cohesive 𝜏+ =(cot
soil 𝛽
(𝜙
𝛾H+ =2tan
sin
0)𝛽)𝛼
thecos factor of safety (7.13)
is (7.3)
expressed
duced into the equilibrium equation ℓ (7.8) and we can write 𝛾z the inclination of the
donsto used
evaluate
7.1 to SIMPLE
Methods
the
calculate
stability
theMETHODS
for analyzing bearing
for a particular
α ofOF
capacity
stability
slope.
cANALYSIS
ofslopes
foun- include simple
To find the minimumical factor 2 of safety,
height (H critical ) of a vertical slope (i.e
e, simple equations or charts may
𝛾H be = 5.53
used to make slipFor
(7.9)
For a a
plane
as
cohesive
where
cohesive r
is varied. is soil
the
u soilThe (𝜙 pore
slope =(𝜙 0)=
that 0)
pressure
minimum the
c has the
ratio
factor
factor
a factor
defined
of
2c
factor
by
ofsafety ofsafety
safety
of safety
Bishop andis expres
isexpressed
is found
of unity).
n also be used to estimate the stability
equations, charts, spreadsheet software, of embank-
F and slope stability Cohesive soil u/ f =(1960)
Morgenstern 0 as =
F = (7.4) T
lyzing
rry
eep The
estimate
analyzing stability
deposits
computer simplest
ofof
In slope
stability
saturated
this ofstability,
methods
equation
programs. slopes
of
clay.
In slopes
For
is
F many of
the include
aand analysis
later,
include
saturated
factor
cases ofmore asimple
clay
safety employ
com-
simple
thanwithone
respect for
toas
method as
a single 𝛼 = simple
the 45 degrees. Substituting
of acvertical 𝜏 thisslope
value
𝛾H
u sinin 𝛼for
cos𝛼 𝛼into Eq.soil
cohesive (7.4)is
spreadsheet software, and slope stability gives c ru = 2c 2c (7.14)
am
harts,
ned may
loading be
algebraic (𝜙used
spreadsheet=
shear for
equation
strength
0), the detailed
software,
of to
the
ultimate analyses.
compute
and
foundation,
bearing slope
andAlso,
the
capacity,
can be used to evaluate the stability for a particular slope. if
factor
stability
the term a
c∕F of safety.
represents Solving
To find theFminimum = F = = =
factor
4c
𝛾zof safety, the inclination(7.4) of the (
4c
ms.ogram
on aFor
ograms. In Bearing
is
circular
these many
In the
used,
example,slip
equations
many capacity,
mobilizes
another
surface
cases
simple cases is1undrained
cohesion,
computer
requires
more more
equations c
than .
at
than
dor loading,
Equation
program,
most
oneone
charts a fhand
(7.9)=be0 used
method
maymethodcan
slope be rearranged
calculator.
to LerengSimple
make dengan
slip
Values aof=ru0iscan
plane be𝜏Fdetermined
varied. =
The sin
𝜏𝛾Hminimum 𝛾Hfor𝛼 sin 𝛼𝛼 cos
cosfactor
specific H of𝛼 safety
seepage = is found
(7.5)
condi-
Figure
to give 7.1 Vertical slope and plane slip surface. 𝛾H parallel critical
arts, orpreliminary
a spreadsheet
to aevaluate
equations q the =estimate
exist should
for
stability
valuate the ultstability for a Fparticular
5.53c
= 5.53 offor
slope. beaused
slope
computing to verify
stability,
the
particularc(7.7) and
stabilityre-
later,ofaacom-
slope. To find slope
vertical
To
(7.10)
for
tions.
the
findpressure = 45
For
𝛼minimum
the minimum degrees.
example, forSubstituting
factor seepage
of safety, thisto
factor of safety, the inclination
39 of value
the for 𝛼theinto
theinclination
slope, poreof𝛾 the
Eq. (7.4)
arious methods
puter used
program maytobecompute
used foradetailed safety Also,Circular
factor ofanalyses.
𝛾H if a slip surfaces give
gives u ratio, r , is given by
a slightly lower value for the factor
urface.
SLOPE It Infinite
STABILITY
7.1.3 is possible Slope for a slip surface to form at alines) small and horizontal. For the special case of horizontal seep-
nough depth that the requirementsPrinsip for anwere infinite
Analisis age (𝜃
slope are =Limit •
0), the expression for ruAnalisis
Simple
Metode reduces
equations to can be used to SNI
Stabilitas compute the factor
In Chapter
Pengantar
soil in the embankment; 6, the equations for an
Mekanika Tanah
infinite slope
where uStabilitas is theLerengpre-
pore water pressure at the
Equilibrium depth
Stabilitas𝛾wLereng of the Lereng
slip Gempa 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
met,
cal stress
regardless
sented. For these
produced
of the lateral
equations
by the
toextent of thethe
be applicable,
surface.
slope.
depthTherefore,
of an ofru safety
= for several slope (7.17) and shear strength con-
Metode Analisis Kestabilan Lereng

the slip surface must be small compared to the lateral ex- 𝛾
nfinite
equilibrium slope
tentSTABILITY
of the slope.
analysis
equation However,
is rigorous
cor- in the case ofFor
and valid
effective
cohesionless
for cohesionless
stress
soils, analyses, Eq. (7.12) ditions,
can also including
be written a vertical slope in cohesive soil,
G SLOPE
s,lopes.
thatthe The
factor
is, with infinite
of safety slope
thedoes shearnotanalysis
depend on asprocedure
the depth of the isslipalso applica- Recapitulation
an embankment on a deep deposit of saturated clay,
ble
ed.e soil to cases
in
surface.
If, theIt where
instead, embankment;
is possible
only there
for a is
some
slipa surface
stronger
where u layer
to form is atthea of pore
small soil parallel
water pressure at the depth and an of infinite
the slip slope.
ical
o the
enough depth that the requirements for an infinite slope
stress
slope produced
at shallowby the depth, surface.
for example, = [cot a𝛽 −
F whereare
layer (cot 𝛽equations
• rSimple + tan •
can
𝛽)] be
tanused𝜙′to compute the factor
of safety for several slope and shear strengthparticular
Depending on the slope conditions and
veloped, that is,ofthe u
met, regardless the factor
lateral extent of the slope. Therefore, an con-
n equilibrium equation iscor-
of
ctor
G
ns,
relatively
SLOPE
unweathered
infinite
of
that
safety
STABILITY
slopes. is, The
•
slope
with Lereng
weak
can beweathered
analysis
the
infinite
material.
intro-
shear
slope
Tak
rigorous and
analysis
Hingga
soil
as
For
procedure
iseffective
valid underlain
for
is also
stress
cohesionless
applica-
by analyses,
+
stronger,
(cot 𝛽 + an
Eq. (7.12)
ditions,
tan 𝛽)
embankment
c′ canaequations
including
on a
also beslope
vertical
deep
written
deposit
used,
of
the accuracy
in cohesive
(7.13)
saturated
soil,
clay,
ranges from excellent,
SLOPE ST
n (7.8) ble and
to cases wewhere can there
writeis a stronger layer of soil parallel 𝛾z slope. (e.g., for a homogeneous slope in cohesionless soil)
ezed. soil If,
in instead,
the only
embankment; some where is the pore water pressure andatanthe infinite
cThetogeneral
the slope equation at shallow depth, for the for factor
where
u
example, ofwhere
r safety
Fis a=the forpore
[cot
layer an
𝛽 −infinite
ru •(cot
pressure 𝛽 +ratio
Depending tandepth
on the
of
to
tan
𝛽)]defined 𝜙the′ slip
relatively
by
particular Bishop
slope imprecise
and
conditions and(e.g., for bearing capacity of
eveloped,
cal stress that
produced is, the
by factor
(7.9)
the surface. u
lope
F ofwith
relatively Total
the weak Stress
shear strength
weathered soil isexpressed
underlain by in
Morgenstern terms of
stronger,
(1960) as totalequations ′ used, thean embankment
accuracy ranges fromon saturated clay). β
excellent,
actor of
equilibrium safety can
equation be intro-
cor- For effective stress analyses, Eq. (7.12)c can also be written
tresses
safety
unweathered material.
is
with respect to the + (cot 𝛽 + tan 𝛽) (e.g., for a homogeneous slope in cohesionless
(7.13) soil) z
s, that
on (7.8)Theis,and with
generalwethe canshear
equationwrite as of safety for an infinite
for the factor 𝛾z u imprecise (e.g., for bearing capacity of
to relatively
nd ed.ctheIf, term
instead,
slope withc∕F only
the represents
some
shear strength expressed in terms of c total =
ruembankment (7.14) hw
3 (7.9) stresses
F = cot 𝛽(7.9)
is is,
tan 𝜙 + (cot where 𝛽 +rutanF is=𝛽) the
[cot pore (7.11)
𝛽 − rupressure
(cot
an
𝛽 + tan ratio
𝛽)] 𝛾zdefined ′ on saturated
tan 𝜙 by Bishop and
clay).
eveloped,
on that
can be the factor
rearranged 𝛾z 7.2specific
SLOPE STABILITY
F
ctor of safety canF =be intro-
cot 𝛽 tan 𝜙 + (cot 𝛽
Morgenstern
Values
+ tan 𝛽)
c of r(1960) can be
u (7.11)
as determinedc′ for seepage condi- CHARTS
where
fc safetyz with is the vertical
respect to the depth oftions. the slip 𝛾z surface
For + (cot 𝛽 below
example, + for
tan 𝛽) the
7.2rseepage
SLOPEu parallel
STABILITY to (7.13)
the
CHARTSslope, the pore (a)
on (7.8) and we can write =
𝛾z The stability of homogeneous
(7.14) slopes can be analyzed us-
andace of
the
where the
term z slope.
isc∕F For
the represents
vertical(7.10)
shear
depth ofstrengths
the slip surfaceexpressedbelow the by effective
u
𝛾z
Hc face of Effective Stress pressure
whereexpressed
ru is the ratio,
by pore
r u , is
pressure given
The ratio by defined
stability of ingby slope
Bishopstability
homogeneous and
slopes cancharts
be analyzed us-
as described in Chapter 6. Fellenius
ion
tresses (7.9) the canthe slope.
be
equation For(7.9)
rearranged shearthe
for strengths
factor of safety effective
can be written as
F Values
Morgenstern of r
(1960) can asbe determined
ing slope for specific
stability charts seepage
as described condi-
in Chapter 6. Fellenius β
imate the the
stresses factor [[ of safety
equation for the factor of safety can beu] written as 𝛾 w h w (1936) was one of the first
2 first to recognize that factors of safetyto recognize that factors of safety θ
safety
c with respect to the u u ]
tions. For example, ru =
(1936)
for seepage was
u parallel one of
costhe 𝛽 slope, the pore(7.15)
to the
embankment F F on soft
==represents clay.
𝛽−−𝛾z (cot(cot
cot 𝛽(7.10)
cot 𝛽 + tan𝛽+ 𝛽) tan 𝜙 tan 𝜙 ru =
tan 𝛽) ′ ′ could be𝛾 z
expressed couldcharts.
by be (7.14)
expressed
His work wasby charts.
followed His work was followed by the
by the
nd
𝛾H the term c∕F pressure ratio, r , is given by
𝛾z
tive(7.9)
on
where estimate
u
can be of
is the pore the factor
water
rearranged
𝛾z ′ where h is the height of the freework
pressure at the depth of the slipu work of Taylor (1937) and
water
Janbu
of Taylor (1954b).
surface (1937)Since
vertically
the pioneer-
and Janbu (1954b). Since the pioneer-
surface. c
Values ′ of r w be
can determined ing work
for of these
specific authors,
seepage numerous
condi- others have developed
stimate
e itFor ignores the factor the + of safety
(cot
strength 𝛽 + of
tan 𝛽) c u (7.12) 𝛾 h
effective stress + (cot
analyses,𝛽 + Eq.tan 𝛾z𝛽) above
(7.12)
tions. canFor also the slipfor
be written
example, surface ru =charts
seepage
w
(Figure
(7.12)
w
7.2a).
cos
for slope
parallel to
2 ing
𝛽 If work
seepage
stability.
the slope, The
the
of these
exits
charts
pore
authors,
the slope
(7.15)
developed by Janbunumerous
are others have developed
c
nthe embankment
as foundationon insoft
compar-
(7.10) clay. 𝛾z
face at an angle (Figure 𝛾7.2b),z the charts value of forruslope stability.
is given by The charts developed by Janbu are
𝛾H
vative estimate of the factor pressure ratio, r u , is given by (b)
AlternativeFbearing = [cot 𝛽 −capac- ru (cot 𝛽 + tan 𝛽)] wheretan 𝜙′hw is the height of 𝛾 the free water surface vertically
usetimate the factor
it ignores embankments
reinforced of safety
the strength of ′ above the slip surface r(Figure 𝛾 h
w w w 2 1 Figure 7.2 Infinite slope with seepage: (a) parallel to slope face and (b) exiting
c r = u = 7.2a).
cos 𝛽 If seepage exits
(7.15)the
theslope (7.16)
slope face.
embankment
the foundation
nted in Chapter 8.
on soft
+in clay.
compar-
(cot 𝛽 + tan 𝛽) (7.13)
u
𝛾 z
𝛾z face at an angle (Figure 7.2b), the value of r is given by
𝛾 1 + tan 𝛽 tan 𝜃 40
ative estimatebearing
of the factor u
Alternative capac- where h is the height of the free water surface vertically
tween the factor of safety toand
tween
surface.use.other
the parameters
In factor
addition, of safety that
the chartsand describe
other parameters
provide than athat
the minimum describe
plane,factorespecia
the slope geometry,Limit soil theshear slope
of safety strengths,
geometry, andsoil
and eliminate porethe water
shear
Stabilitas need pres-
strengths,
to searchand pore
generally
for water
a critical usedpres-
slip for an
Pengantar
Prinsip Analisis
Stability
Metode
charts
Analisis
rely on dimensionless SNI 8460-2017 relationships
Kesimpulan be-
Mekanika Tanah sures.
Stabilitas LerengFor example,
Equilibrium the surface.
infinite
Stabilitasslope
sures. ForLereng equation
example, Lereng for
theGempa
infiniteeffective slope equation for effective
A complete set of ch
tween the factor of safety and other parameters that describe
Metode Analisis Kestabilan Lereng stresses presented earlierstresses [Eq. (7.13)] can rely
be written as(7.13)] canrelationships
Stability charts
presented earlieron[Eq. dimensionless be written
nations and asbe-
foundati
thetween
slopethe geometry,
factor of soil
safety shear
and strengths,
other parametersand pore
that water
describe pres-
tan ′
𝜙 example, the ′ ′
c tan 𝜙slope equation Procedures ′
c effectiveare also
F = [1 − ru (1 + tan 𝛽)] sures.
2 For + r(1
= [1geometry,
− ++tan 2 2 infinite 2 for
theFslope u (1 tan𝛽)shear
soil 𝛽)] strengths, (7.18) + (1and + tan pore𝛽)waterwith
strengths (7.18)
pres- the ch
stresses tan 𝛽
presented earlier 𝛾z tan
[Eq. (7.13)] 𝛽 can be written 𝛾z as
sures. For example, the infinite slope equation Forfor slopes
effective with b
or or
• Stabilitas lereng dapat dianalisis F = stresses tan 𝜙′presented
AF = [1 −+rBu (1 + tan
c′ earlier2
F =𝛽)]
[Eq.tan
A tan 𝜙(7.19)
𝜙𝜙′ ′ can
tan(7.13)]
′ + +B (1 c′ bedimensionless
+ tan
writtencas
2
𝛽)
′ param
(7.18)
(7.19)
′
dengan Slope Stability Chart. tan 𝛽 𝛾z
F = [1 − ru (1 + tan 𝛽)] 2 tan
tan 𝛽 𝛽 𝛾z
+ (1 + tan 𝛽)
showed
2 c 𝛾zthat the facto
(7.18)
where orwhere tan 𝛽 𝛾z
• Metode Slope Stability Chart: or
F = A
tan 𝜙
′
′
+ B ′
c ′
(7.19)
A = 1 − ru (1 + tan 𝛽) FA = 2
= A1 − tanr 𝜙(1 (7.20)+ tan 2
c 𝛾z
𝛽) (7.20)
• Fellenius (1936). tan u 𝛽 +B (7.19)
2
tan 𝛽 𝛾z where Ncf is a dime
• Taylor (1937). B =
where
1 + tan 𝛽 B = 1 + tan 2
(7.21)
𝛽 (7.21)
where ity number depends
• Janbu (1954). A and B are dimensionless A andparameters
B are dimensionlessA =
(stability
1 − r (1
numbers) +
parameters tan 2 pressures,
2 𝛽)(stability numbers) and the
u, (7.20)
A = 1 − ru (1 + tan 𝛽)
u (7.20)
that depend only on thethat slope angle,only
depend andon in the
the slope
case 2of angle,A, and defined in the case as of A,
• Slope stability chart:the hubungan
dimensionless pore water pressure coefficient, B
B= = 11water
++rtantan 2 𝛽
coefficient, ru .(7.21) (7.21)
the dimensionless pore u . Simple
𝛽
pressure Simple
non-dimensi antara Faktor charts for A and B as Afunctions charts
AandandBfor of
Bare Athe
are and slope
B asangle
dimensionless
dimensionless functions and pore
of the slope
parameters
parameters angle
(stability
(stability and pore
numbers)
numbers)
kemanan dan parameter water pressure coefficient, water
that
thatdepend are presented
rudepend
, pressure only
only on in
on theAppendix
coefficient,
the ru , are
slope
slope A.
angle,
angle, presented
andand in
theAppendix
inStability
in the charts
casecase of A, A.
ofempl
A,
geometri lereng, kuat For geser, cohesive (𝜙
purelydan f=dimensionless
thethe = 0)
For soils and
0 purely
dimensionless pore(𝜙
homogeneous
cohesive pore f=
water
water slopes,
0)pressure
soils
> 0 and
cpressure homogeneous
factorruof
coefficient,
coefficient, slopes,
rsafety
. Simple are p
> 0, u . Simple
the factor of safety can be the expressed
factorforAof as B as
safety can be expressed as
tekanan air pori. charts
charts for and
Aand B as functions
functions ofofthe the slope
slopecan
angle beand
angle used pore
and for
poresoi
water c cpresented
water Npressure
F =pressure 0
coefficient,Frr=
coefficient, uu, ,are
N are
(7.22)
0
presented in Appendix
as ina variety
Appendix A.
of pore
(7.22) A.
ForForpurely
purely cohesive (𝜙
𝛾Hcohesive (𝜙 ==0)0)soils soils 𝛾H and
and homogeneous
conditions.
homogeneous slopes,
41 slopes,
the factor of safety can be expressed as
Pengantar
Lereng tanah f = 0 dan tegangan normal seragam

Duncan bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜275
SOILS WITH 𝜙 = 0 275
Figure A.1 Slope stability charts for 𝜙 = 0 soils (after Janbu, 1968).
42
METODE JANBU
Steps for the use of 𝜙 > 0 charts are: calculation represent average values for the circle consid-
Prinsip Analisis Limit ered. The following
Metode Analisis steps are performed for each circle.
Stabilitas
Pengantar Step 1. Estimate
Mekanika Tanah the location of the criticalEquilibrium
Stabilitas Lereng circle. For most Stabilitas Lereng SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
Lereng
Step 2. Calculate Pd : Gempa
conditions of slopes in uniform soils with 𝜙 > 0, the criti-
Lereng dengan beban surcharge q

𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw
cal circle passes through the toe of the slope. The stability Pd = (A.8)
numbers given in Figure A.5 were developed by analyzing 𝜇 𝜇 𝜇
q w t
β=0 Surcharge, q
1.0 Slope circle
30° b:1
β
Factor μq
0.9
60°
0.8 Toe and 90°

Slope circles
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Surcharge, q

Ratio q/γH Toe circle
b:1
β
d=∞
1.0
1.0
Surcharge, q
Factor μq
0.9 0.5 Deep circle

0 d = D/H
b:1
0.8 Deep circles β H
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 D

Ratio q/γH
43
Figure A.2 Surcharge adjustment factors for 𝜙 = 0 and 𝜙 > 0 soils (after Janbu, 1968).
Pengantar
Lereng dengan f > 0, dengan Hw dan Hw’ 1.0

β=0
Slope circle
SOILS WITH 𝜙 > 0 277
30°
Factors μw and μ′w

b:1
60° Hw β H′w
0.9
Toe and 90°

0.8
Slope circles
0 0.5 1.0
Ratios Hw/H and H′w/H
Toe circle
b:1
d=∞ β H′w
Hw
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.9
0
0.8 Deep circles

Deep circle
d = D/H
0 0.5 1.0 b:1
Ratios Hw/H and H′w/H Hw β H′w H
D
μw = submergence factor, depends on Hw
μ′w = seepage factor, depends on H′w
Figure A.3 Submergence and seepage adjustment factors for 𝜙 = 0 and 𝜙 > 0 soils (after Janbu, 44
1968).
No water in crack d=∞
1.0
1.0
Prinsip Analisis LimitDuncan Metode
bapp01.tex V2 0.9 Stabilitas
Analisis 4:03 P.M. Page˜278
- 06/24/2014
Pengantar
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Stabilitas
0.5 SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
Equilibrium 0.8 Lereng Lereng Gempa0
Factor μt
Lereng dengan Tension Crack
0.7 Deep circles
Toe circle
No water in
0.6 b:1 Ht
crack β
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
STABILITY CHARTS Ratio Ht/H
β=0 Crack filled with water β=0

No water in crack 1.0
1.0 Deep circle
0.9 30° d = D/H b:1 Ht
0.9 30° β H
Factor μt
0.8 60°
Factor μt
0.8 Toe and

Toe and 60°
0.7 slope circles 90° D
0.7 slope circles 90° Crack filled
0.6
0.6 No water in with water
crack 0.5
0.5 Slope circle 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ratio Ht/H
b:1 Ht
Ratio Ht/H β
Crack filled with water d = ∞
No water in crack d=∞ 1.0
1.0
1.0 0.9 0.5
1.0
Factor μt
0.9 0.5 0.8
0
Factor μt
0.8 0 0.7 Deep circles

Crack filled
0.7 Deep circles 0.6
Toe circle with water
No water in
0.6 b:1 Ht 0.5
crack β 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.5 Ratio Ht/H
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ratio Ht/H Figure A.4 Tension crack adjustment factors for 𝜙 = 0 and 𝜙 > 0 soils (after Janbu,
1968).
Crack filled with water β=0
1.0 Deep circle
0.9 30° d = D/H b:1 Ht
β ReturnH to step 4 with these average values of the shear The example problems in Figures A.11 an
Factor μt
0.8 Toe and 60° strength parameters and repeat this iterative process until the use of these methods for total stress an
45
0.7 slope circles 90° the valueDof 𝜆c𝜙 becomes constant. One iteration is usually analyses.
Crack filled
Pengantar
Lereng pada tanah f > 0 100

INFINITE SLOPE CHARTS 279
300 3.0
50
200
30 y0
100 20
80 15 λcϕ = 100
60 10
8 2.0 20
Stability number Ncf 6 10
Unit coordinates x0 and y0

40
4 5
2
20 2 0 10
5
λcϕ = 0 20
2
1
10 1.0 100
8 0 x0
6
4
Values of λcϕ
2 0
X0 = x0H
1 Y0 = y0H
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slope ratio b = cot β
–1.0
c γH + q – γwHw 0 1 2 3 4 5
F = Ncf
Pd
Pd = μq μw μt Slope ratio b
Pe tan ϕ γH + q – γwHʹw
λcϕ =
Stability numbers and center coordinates for
Pe =
c μq μʹw circles passing through the toe of the slope.
Figure A.5 Slope stability charts for 𝜙 > 0 soils (after Janbu, 1968). 46
6 0
30 0.0
Pengantar 28 Prinsip Analisis Limit Metode Analisis 4 Stabilitas SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
merged slope Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equilibrium Stabilitas Lereng Lereng Gempa
26 2
Contoh analisis pada kondisi Undrained, f = 0
ilure
er outside slope 24 0
p fa
90 60 30 0
Stability number, N
22 β (degrees)
Dee
y submerged slope 20
EXAMPLES 2
18 lur
e Figure A.8 Slope stability charts for 𝜙 = 0 soils, with strength increasing with
fai
16 ow depth (after Hunter and Schuster, 1968).
all .00
14 +20 SM = 2 1.7550
h
1. .25
δ1 = 22°
12 1 0
1.0 5 δ2 = 62°
10
+10
0.7
0 γ = 120 pcf
EXAMPLES
8 0.5
Hw 12
8 ft
2 5 c = 600 psf = = 0.33
Elevation (ft)
0 . u
6
Example A.1. Figure A.9 0 .0 0
shows a slope in 𝜙 = 0 soil. There H 24
4 Using the charts at the bottom of Figure A.1, with
are three layers,
0 each with different strength. There is water β = 50° γ = 100 pcf
2 the slope. Two circles were analyzed for this slope:
outside Hw = 8 ft 50 degrees and d = 0: 12 ft
cu = 400 psf
0 circle tangent to elevation −8 ft and a deep circle
shallow
‒10
90 60 30 0
−20 ft. x0 = 0.35 and y0 = 1.4
tangent to elevation
β (degrees) γ = 105 pcf
The shallower circle, tangent to elevation −8 ft, is analyzed = (H)(x ) = 12 ft
(24)(0.35) = 8.4 ft
cX
u =
0 500 psf0
bility charts for 𝜙 = 0first.
‒20 strength increasing with
soils,For this circle,
with
Schuster, 1968). Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (24)(1.4) = 33.6 ft
Circle0tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive

Figure A.9 D soil
Plot the 𝜙 = 0.on the slope. The circle is show
with circle
critical
d= = =0
H 24 Figure A.9.
Hw 8
= = 0.33
Measure the
= 0 soil. There central angles of arc in each
H layer
24 using a pro- Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
47
actor.is Calculate
There water the weighted-average
Using strength
the charts at the bottom Figure A.1, with 𝛽 =
of parameter
1. .25
S
12 1 0
1.0 5
10 0.7
0
0.5
8 5
0.2
6 0
0.0
4
2
0
90 60 30 0
β (degrees)
ability charts for 𝜙 = 0 soils, with strength increasing with

d Schuster, 1968).
Hw 8
= = 0.33
= 0 soil. There H 24
There is water Using the charts at the bottom of Figure A.1, with 𝛽 =
for this slope: 50 degrees and d = Figure
0: A.1 Slope stability charts for 𝜙 = 0 soils (after Janbu, 1968).
b = 50˚
d a deep circle
x0 = 0.35 and y0 = 1.4
8 ft, is analyzed
d=0 X0 = (H)(x0 ) = (24)(0.35) = 8.4 ft
Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (24)(1.4) = 33.6 ft 48
Pengantar
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Stabilitas Lereng SNI 8460-2017
EXAMPLES Kesimpulan
283
EXAMPLES 283
+20 δ1 = 22° EXAMPLES 2
+20 δ2 = 62°
δ1 = 22° γ = 120 pcf
+10 12 ft
cu = 600 psf
δ2 = 62°
Elevation (ft)
γ = 120 pcf
+20 0
+10
δ1 =
β =22°
50° γ = 100 pcf cu = 600 psf
12 ft
Elevation (ft)
Hw = 8 ft 12 ft
cu = 400 psf
‒10 δ2 = 62° β = 50° γ = 100 pcf
γγ
0
+10 = 120
Hw = 8 ft = 105 pcf pcf 12 ft
c = 12
cu = 500 psf u
400ft psf 12 ft
cu = 600 psf
Elevation (ft)
‒20 ‒10
γ = 105 pcf
12 ft
cu = 500 psf
β = 50°
Circle tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive soil with 𝜙 = 0.
γ = 100 pcf
0 Figure A.9
‒20 12 ft
Hw = 8 ft cu = 400 psf
Measure the central angles of arcFigure
in eachA.9
layerCircle
using tangent
a pro- to elevation −8 ftthe
forfactor
cohesive soil with = 0.(A.7):
using𝜙Eq.
‒10
Calculate of safety
Nγ0 c= 105
tractor. Calculate the weighted-average strength parameter pcf
cav using Eq. (A.1): (5.8)(452) 12 ft
F= c = = psf = 1.14
∑ Pdu 500 2302
Measure the 𝛿i ccentral angles of arc in each layer using a pro- Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
‒20 cav =Calculate
tractor. ∑
i (22)(600) + (62)(400)
= the weighted-average=strength
452 psf parameter
𝛿 22 + 62 N0 c (5.8)(452)
cav using Eq. (A.1):
i Example A.2. Figure A.10 F = shows = the same slope
= 1.14
as in
FromFigure ∑A.9withCircle
Figure A.3, 𝛽 = 50tangent to elevation
degrees and −8 ft for
Hw ∕H = 0.33, cohesive
Figure A.9. The soil with
deeper circle,P= 2302
d 0. to elevation −20 ft,
𝜙 tangent
find 𝜇w = 0.93. i i
𝛿 c (22)(600) + (62)(400) is analyzed as follows. For this circle,
cav = ∑ = = 452 psf
Use layer thickness 𝛿i to average + 62unit weights. Unit
22 the D 12 A.10 shows the same slope as in
weights are averaged only to the bottom of the critical circle: Example A.2. d = Figure
= = 0.5
H 24
From ∑ A.3, with 𝛽 = 50 degrees and H ∕H = 0.33,
Figure Figure A.9. The deeper circle, tangent to elevation −20 ft,
Measure the central angles of arc in each
𝛾 i hi layer using a pro-
(120)(12) + (100)(12)
w Calculate is
the factor
analyzed
Hw of8 safety using Eq. (A.7):
as=follows. For this circle,
find 𝜇𝛾wav = 0.93.
= ∑ = = 110 = 0.33
actor. Calculate the weighted-average h
Use layer thickness strength 12 +parameter
12
to average the unit weights. Unit
H 24
N 0 cbottomd(5.8)(452)
i
D 12 49
= = =
av using Eq. (A.1): F= = 0.5 =
24 = 1.14
weights are averaged only to the bottom of
Calculate the driving force term Pd as follows:the critical Using
circle: the charts at the of Figure A.1, with 𝛽
H
‒10 i
γ = 105 pcf
Example A.2. Figur
β=0 12 ft
From Figure
‒20 A.3, with
1.0 𝛽 = 50 degrees
cu = 500 psf
and H w ∕H = 0.33,
Slope circle Figure A.9. The deep
ral angles of arc in each layer using a pro- Calculate
30° the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7)::1

find 𝜇w =
he weighted-average 0.93.
Figure strength parameter
A.9 Circle tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive soil with 𝜙 = 0.
60°
b
β
is analyzed
H′
as follows
0.9 N0 c (5.8)(452) H w w
:
Use layer thickness to average theF =unit P d
=
weights.2302
=Unit
1.14
sure the central angles of arc in each layer using a Toe
pro- and Calculate
90° the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
= weights
(22)(600)
Calculate + are averaged
(62)(400)
the weighted-average 0.8
only
strength parameter
= 452 psf to the bottom
Slope circles of the critical circle:
N c (5.8)(452)
ng Eq. (A.1): 22 + 62
∑ ∑ 0 0.5
F=
P
= 0
d 2302
= 1.14
Example A.2. Figure A.10 shows the same slope as in
1.0
𝛿c (22)(600) + (62)(400) 𝛾 h Hw
ipsf0.33,(120)(12) + H′(100)(12)
i i
= ∑𝛽 ==50 degrees and H =∕H
with i =
452 Figure
Ratios H /H and
w A.9. The deeper circle,
/H w
Toetangent to elevation −20 ft,
𝛾av = ∑ = =thissame
v circle
+ w
𝛿i
22 62
Example A.2. Figure
is analyzed as follows.
A.10 shows Forthe 110
circle,
slope as in
H
ness to average the unit weights. h Unit is analyzed
Figure A.3, with 𝛽 = 50 degrees and H ∕H = 0.33, w 12
Figure A.9.
d=∞ +
The 12
deeper circle, tangent to elevation −20 ft, b:1
β H′
w = 0.93. i D
as follows. For this circle, 12 w H w
ed only
layer to the tobottom
thickness averageofthethe
1.0
critical
unit circle:
weights. Unit =d= = 0.5
1.0 D 12 H 24 Using the charts at
Calculate the driving force term

s are averaged only to the bottom of the critical circle:
hi ∑ (120)(12) + (100)(12)
Pd as
d=
follows:
=
H H 24
= 0.5
8
50 degrees and d = 0.
0.5 w
= 𝛾 i hi =
(120)(12) + (100)(12)
0.9
110 Hw
=
8
=
= = 0.33
𝛾av = ∑ =12 + 12 = 110 0 0.33 24
h 12 + 12 H 24 H
=
i
P
i
0.8 Deep circles Using the charts at theof bottom
Figure A.1,ofwith 𝛽=
Figure A.1, with 𝛽 =
x0 = 0.3
ulate the driving force term Pd as follows: Using the charts at the bottom
ving force term Pd as follows: d
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t50 50 degrees and d = 0.5: Deep circle
𝛾H + q − 𝛾 H degrees and d = 0.5: d = D/H
+ Pqd −
= 𝛾 w Hw w w
0 0.5
x0 = 0.35 and
1.0
y0 = 1.5 b:1
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t β H
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇(110)(24) (110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8) Ratios Hw/H and H′w/H
x = 0.35 = 1.5
and Hw
0 0 ) = (24)(0.35) = 8.4 ft y0
H′w
X0 = (H)
=
t
=
+ 0 − (62.4)(8)
= 2302 =
X0 = (H)(x
2302
μ =(1)(0.93)(1)
(1)(0.93)(1)
0)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8) Y = X0 on
(H)(y = H(H)(x0 ) =
) = (24)(1.5) (24)(0.35)
= 36 ft = 8.4 ft D
Y0 = (H)
submergence factor, depends
Figure A.1, with d = 0 and =𝛽 2302
w 0 0 w
= 50 degrees, find
(1)(0.93)(1) Y0H′= (H)(y0 ) = (24)(1.5) = 36 ft
5.8. μ′ = seepage factor, depends on
Plot the critical circle on the slope as shown in Figure A.10.
From Figure A.1,
with d = 0 and 𝛽 = 50 degrees, find with d = 0 w
and 𝛽 = 50 degrees, find w
N0 = 5.8. Figure A.3 Submergence

1968).
Plot and
the seepage
criticaladjustment
circle onfactors
the slope
for 𝜙 as
= 0shown in0Figure
and 𝜙 > Plot
A.10.
soils (after the critical
Janbu, 50 circle
∑ EXAMPLE
Pengantar 𝛾 i hi
Prinsip
(120)(12) Equilibrium
+ (100)(12)
Analisis Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas
SNI 8460-2017 Hw
Kesimpulan
𝛾av = ∑ = = 110
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Stabilitas Lereng Lereng Gempa
SOILS WITH 𝜙 = 0 275
12 + 12 H
+20hi δ1 = 22°
Calculate the driving force term Pd as follows:

δ2 = 62°
Using the charts at th
+10 γ = 120 pcf
ft d = 0.5
50 degrees12and
𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw cu = 600 psf
Elevation (ft)
Pd =
0 𝜇 𝜇 𝜇
q w t β = 50° γ = 100 pcf x0 = 0.35
Hw = 8 ft 12 ft
cu = 400 psf
(110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8)
‒10
X0 = (H)(x
= = 2302 γ = 105 pcf
(1)(0.93)(1) cu = 500 psf
12 ft
Y0 = (H)(y
‒20
From Figure A.1, with d = 0 and 𝛽 = 50 degrees, find
N0 = 5.8. Plot
Figure A.9 Circle tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive soil with 𝜙 =the
0. critical circle o
Measure the central angles of arc in each layer using a pro- Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
tractor. Calculate the weighted-average strength parameter
N0 c (5.8)(452)
cav using Eq. (A.1): +20 F=
δ = 16°
= 1 = 1.14
∑ Pd δ2 = 2302
17°
𝛿i ci (22)(600) + (62)(400)
γ=
51
c = ∑ = = 452 psf δ3 = 84°
(110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8) X0 = (H)(x0 ) = (24)(0.35) = 8.4 ft
= = 2302
Pengantar (1)(0.93)(1)
Prinsip
Mekanika Tanah
Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
Limit
Equilibrium
Metode Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
Stabilitas
Y0 = (H)(y
Lereng Gempa0 )
SNI 8460-2017
= (24)(1.5) = 36 ftKesimpulan
EXAMPLES 283
N0 = 5.8. Deep circleδ2 = 62°
δ1 = 22°
Plot the critical circle on the slope as shown in Figure A.1
γ = 120 pcf
cu = 600 psf 12 ft
β = 50° γ = 100 pcf

12 ft
+20 δ1 = 16°
= 8 ft cu = 400 psf
γ = 105 pcf δ2 = 17°

12 ft
cu = 500 psf
δ3 = 84° γ = 120 pcf
+10 cu = 600 psf 12 ft
Elevation (ft)
9 Circle tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive soil with 𝜙 = 0.
each layer using a pro-

0
Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7): β = 50° γ = 100 pcf 12 ft
ge strength parameter
Hw = 8 ft cu = 400 psf
N0 c (5.8)(452)
‒10
F= = = 1.14
γ = 105 pcf
Pd 2302
(400) 12 ft
= 452 psf cu = 500 psf
‒20
es and Hw ∕H = 0.33, Figure A.9. The deeper circle, tangent to elevation −20 ft,
is analyzed as follows. For this circle,
e unit weights. Unit Figure DA.1012 Circle tangent to elevation −20 ft for cohesive soil with 𝜙 = 0.
m of the critical circle: d= = = 0.5
H 24
00)(12) Hw 8
= 110 = = 0.33
2 H 24
as follows: Using the charts at the bottom of Figure A.1, with 𝛽 = 52

50 degrees and d = 0.5:
+10 γd= 120 pcf
yzed as+follows.
2)(600) (62)(400)For this circle, cu = 600 psf 12 ft
Elevation (ft)
= 452 psf
22 + 62 0 β = 50°
Example γ = A.10
A.2. Figure 100 pcf shows the same slope as in
D 12 12 ft
d =
𝛽 = 50 degrees and HwH∕H = 24 = = 0.5
Hw = 8 ft
0.33,
cu = 400 psf
Figure A.9. The deeper circle, tangent to elevation −20 ft,
‒10
is analyzed as follows.γ =For
105 this
pcf circle,
12 ft
theHunit 8 c = 500 psf
to average ‒20 w weights. Unit u
= = 0.33 d =
D 12
= = 0.5
ly to the bottom H 24
of the critical circle:
H 24
Figure A.9 Circle tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive soil with 𝜙 = 0.
(120)(12)
the charts at the bottom of Figure A.1, with 𝛽H=
+ (100)(12)
= 110
w
=
8
= 0.33
rees and12 + = of0.5:
d 12 H 24
the central angles arc in each layer using a pro- Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
lculateterm
force Pd as follows: strength parameter Using the charts at the
the weighted-average bottom of Figure A.1, with 𝛽 =
N0 c (5.8)(452)
q. (A.1):x = 0.35 and y0 = 1.5 = =0.5: =
50 degrees and d F = 1.14
−∑𝛾w Hw 0 Pd 2302
𝛿i ci (22)(600) + (62)(400)
𝜇
∑
w t
X
= 0 = (H)(x0 ) = (24)(0.35)
= 452 psf = 8.4 ft x0 = 0.35 and y0 = 1.5
𝛿i 22 + 62
4) + 0 −Y(62.4)(8) = (H)(x 0 ) circle,
= (24)(0.35) = 8.4 ft
0 = (H)(y ) =and
(24)(1.5) = 36 ftFigure A.9. X0 The tangent to elevation −20 ft,
re A.3, with 𝛽= 50 = 2302
0
degrees Hw ∕H = 0.33, deeper
1)(0.93)(1)
0.93. is analyzed
Y0as=follows.
(H)(y0 For
) = this circle, = 36 ft
(24)(1.5)
er d = 0 and
eh critical
thickness 𝛽 =on
circle
to average the
50the slope
unit
degrees, as shown
weights.
find Unit in Figure A.10. d = D = 12 = 0.5
e averaged only to the bottom of the critical circle: Plot the critical circle on theHslope
∑ 24 as shown in Figure A.10.
𝛾 i hi (120)(12) + (100)(12) Hw 8
= ∑ = = 110 Figure A.1 = charts
Slope stability for 𝜙 = 0 soils (after Janbu, 1968).
= 0.33
hi 12 + 12 H 24
b = 50˚
e the driving force term Pd as follows: Using the charts at the bottom of Figure A.1, with 𝛽 =
+20𝛾H + q − 𝛾 H
= 16° δ50
1 =degrees
16° and d = 0.5:
Pd =
17° w w δ2 = 17°
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t = 0.5
d x0 = 0.35 and y0 = 1.5
δ3 = 84° γ = 120 pcf
+10(110)(24) + 0 −γ(62.4)(8)
= 120 pcf X0 = (H)(x 0 ) = psf
cu = 600 (24)(0.35)
12 ft = 8.4 ft
= cu = 600 =psf 2302 12 ft 53
(1)(0.93)(1) Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (24)(1.5) = 36 ft
(110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8) X0 = (H)(x0 ) = (24)(0.35) = 8.4 ft
= = 2302
Pengantar (1)(0.93)(1)
Prinsip 283
EXAMPLES
Mekanika Tanah
Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
Limit
Equilibrium
Metode Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
Stabilitas
Y0 = (H)(y
Lereng Gempa0 )
SNI 8460-2017
= (24)(1.5) = 36 ftKesimpulan
N0 = 5.8. Plot the critical circle on the slope as shown in Figure A.1
γ = 120 pcf
cu = 600 psf 12 ft
284 A SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS
γ = 100 pcf 284 A SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS Measure the central angles of arc in each layer usin
12 ft
cu = 400 psf
tractor. Calculate the weighted-average strength p
γ = 105 pcf
12 ft
+20 Measure the centralδ1angles
= 16° of arc in each layercusing
av usingaEq.
pro-
∑
(A.1): There is no water outsi
cu = 500 psf δ2 =weighted-average
tractor. Calculate the 17° strength parameter𝛿 c
i i
a toe circle is calculated
cav using Eq. (A.1): cav = ∑ Use the layer thickne
δ3 ∑
= 84° γ = 120 pcf 𝛿
+10 weights are averaged d
i
ive soil with 𝜙 = 0. 𝛿i ci cu = 600 psf (16)(600) 12 ft + (17)(400) + (84)(500)
= ∑ unit weight of the = mate
Elevation (ft)
cav Duncan bapp01.tex =V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜284 499

+ 17 + 84
16stability:
𝛿i
From Figure A.3, with d = 0.5 and ∑Hw ∕H = 0.3
β = 50° γ = 100 0.95.
he factor of safety using Eq. (A.7): 0 (16)(600) + (17)(400) + (84)(500) pcf Use layer 12
thickness to average the𝛾unit
ft i hi
weigh
(1
N0 c (5.8)(452) Hw = 8 ft = =
cu = 400 psf499
the psf
material below the toe of
𝛾 the= ∑
slope is a 𝜙== 0m
F= = = 1.14 16 + 17 + 84 av
the unit weight is averaged only down to the h toe of th
Pd 2302 i
‒10 From Figure A.3, with d = 0.5 and Hw ∕H =The 0.33, 𝜇w = below the toe has no influence on st
unit weight
284 A SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS 0.95. Use layer thickness to average theγ unit = 105 𝜙 =
pcf Since
weights.0:
∑
Since there is no surcha
cisu = 500 12 ft water above the toe, 𝜇w
. Figure A.10 shows the same slope as in the
Measure the central angles of arc in each layer using material There
a pro- belowis the toe ofoutside
no water the slope
the slope.a The
𝜙 0psf
=factor
material,
of safety𝛾iforhi (120)(12) + (100)(12)
𝛾av = ∑ =1; since there are no = 11t
‒20
The deeper circle, tangent to elevation −20 ft, the unit weight is averaged only down to the toe of the slope.
tractor. Calculate the weighted-average strength parameter a toe circle is calculated as follows. h 12 + 12
follows. For this circle,
if Unit driving force term:
i
cav using Eq. (A.1): The unit weight Usebelow the toe
the layer has notoinfluence
thickness average theonunit
stability
weights.
∑ Calculate the driving force term Pd as follows:
D 12 𝜙 = 0: weights are averaged down to the toe of the slope since the 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w
d=
H
=
24
= 0.5 Figure
𝛿i ci A.10 Circle tangent to elevationunit ∑ −20 ft for
weight of cohesive
the material soil with
below the toe𝜙has=little
0. effect 𝛾Hon + q − 𝛾w HPw =
cav = ∑ P = d
Hw 𝛾i hi
stability: (120)(12) + (100)(12)
d
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t 𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t
8 𝛿i
= = 0.33 𝛾av = ∑ =
∑ = 110 (110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8)
H 24
(16)(600) + (17)(400) + (84)(500) hi 𝛾i hi 12 + 12
(115)(20) + (110)(20) = Calculate Pe as = follows
2253
= = 499 psf 𝛾av = ∑ = = 112.5 pcf (1)(0.95)(1)
arts at the bottom of Figure A.1, with 𝛽 = 16 + 17 + 84 20 + 20
Calculate the driving force hi term Pd as follows: From Figure A.1, with d = 0.5 and𝛾H 𝛽 =+ − 𝛾w
50qdegree
d d = 0.5: From Figure A.3, with d = 0.5 and Hw ∕H = 0.33, 𝜇w = P =
54
5.6. Calculate the factor of safety
e using Eq. (A.7):
0.95. Use layer thickness to average the unit weights. Since Since𝛾H + qis −
there w Hw
no𝛾surcharge, 𝜇q = 1; since there is no external 𝜇q 𝜇w′
N c (5.6)(499) ′
0.95. Use layer thickness to average the unit weight
Pengantar
Prinsip
Mekanika Tanah
Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
Limit
Equilibrium the material
Metode Analisis
Stabilitas Lereng
Stabilitas
below
Lereng Gempathe toeSNI of8460-2017 a𝜙=0m
the slope isKesimpulan
275
the unit weight is averaged SOILS WITH 𝜙 = 0
only down to the toe of th
The unit weight below the toe has no influence on sta
𝜙 = 0:
∑
𝛾i hi (120)(12) + (100)(12)
𝛾av = ∑ = = 11
h 12 + 12
i
Calculate the driving force term Pd as follows:

Pd =
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t
(110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8)
= = 2253
(1)(0.95)(1)
From Figure A.1, with d = 0.5 and 𝛽 = 50 degree
5.6. Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
N0 c (5.6)(499)
F= = = 1.24
Pd 2253
This circle is less critical than the circle tangent
55 to e
Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (40)(1.5) = 60 ft
Pengantar
Example A.3.Mekanika
FigureTanah
A.11 shows a slope
Stabilitas in soils with
Lereng both
Equilibrium Plot the Lereng
Stabilitas critical circle
Lereng the givenSNIslope,
onGempa 8460-2017 Duncan Kesimpulan
as shown in
bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2
c and 𝜙. There are three layers, each with different strength. Figure A.11.
Contoh analisis pada kondisi undrained, c, f Duncan bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜284
284 A SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS
Measure the central angles of arc in each layer using a pro- There is no water outside the slope. The factor of safety
δ1 = 20°
tractor. Calculate the weighted-average strength parameter a toe circle is calculated as follows.
+40
cav using Eq. (A.1): δ2 = 31°Duncan bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜284Use the layer thickness to average the unit weights. U
A SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS ∑ δ3 = 44° γm = 115 pcf
𝛿i ci ϕu = 8° weights 20 are averaged down to the toe of the slope since
ft
sure the central angles of arc in eachDuncan layer using
bapp01.texa pro- cav There
V2 - 06/24/2014= 4:03
∑ is no
P.M. water
Page˜284 1.5 outside the slope. The factorcof=safety
u 800 unitforweight of the material below the toe has little effect
psf
. Calculate the weighted-average strength parameter Elevation (ft) +20 a toe circle
𝛿i is calculated as follows. stability:
1
ng Eq. (A.1): 284 A SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS Use the layer thickness to average the unit γm = 110Unit
weights. pcf ∑
∑ (16)(600) + (17)(400) + (84)(500) ϕu =since
𝛾h
6° the𝛾 =20 ft i i = (115)(20) + (110)(20) = 112.5 pcf
Measure the central angles of arc in each layer using a pro- =
weights are averaged down to the toe=
There is no water outside the slope. The factor of safety for 499
of psf
the slope ∑
𝛿i ci 16 + 17 +as84follows. cu = 600 psf av hi 20 + 20
= ∑
tractor. Calculate the weighted-average strength parameter
0 unit weight of the material below the toe has little effect on
a toe circle is calculated
cav using Eq. (A.1): From Figure A.3, Use thewith d = 0.5to and
layer thickness average w ∕H
Hthe unit=weights.
0.33, Unit𝜇w =
𝛿i ∑ stability:
weights
0.95. Use layer thickness are averaged down to the toe of the slope since theγm = 120 Since
pcf there is no surcharge, 𝜇q = 1; since there is no exter
𝛿i ci
unit ∑ of thetomaterial
weight
average the unit weights. Since
below the toe has little effect onϕ = 0 20 ftthe toe, 𝜇w = 1; since there is no seepage, 𝜇w′
cav = ∑ = u water above
(16)(600) + (17)(400) + (84)(500) the material below
stability: the 𝛾 i h
toei of the slope is a 𝜙
(115)(20) + (110)(20) cu = 800 1; 0 material,
= There is no water outside 𝛿the i
slope. The = 499 psf
‒20
factor of the
safetyunit for 𝛾av =
weight is ∑ ∑
averaged =
only down to the toe of the = 112.5 pcfpsfsince there are no tension cracks, 𝜇t = 1. Calculate
slope.
16 + 17 + 84 (16)(600) + (17)(400) + (84)(500) h𝛾iihi toe (115)(20) +20 + 20
(110)(20) driving force term:
a toe circle is calculated = as follows. = The
499 psfunit weight 𝛾below
= ∑the = has no influence=on 112.5stability
pcf if
FigureUse A.3,thewith = 0.5 and
dthickness
layerFrom Hw ∕H =the
16
to average
+ 17 + 840.33,
unit w =
𝜇weights. av
hi 20 + 20
Figure A.3, with d = 0.5 and Figure
Hw ∕H =𝜙A.11= 0:
0.33, 𝜇Unit
=Total there
w Since stress isanalysis
no of a toe
surcharge, 𝜇 circle
= 1; sincein soils with
there both
is no c and 𝜙. 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw (112.5)(40)
external
Use layer thickness to average the unittotoe
weights. Since ∑ there is no surcharge, 𝜇q = 1;q since there is no external ′ = Pd = = = 4500 psf
Since
weights are averaged
0.95. Usedown to the
layer thickness of the
average slope
the unit sinceSince
weights. the =
terialunit
below the toe
theof the
material slope
below the is a
toe 𝜙
of =
the 0 material,
slope is a 𝜙 = 0 material, waterwater
above h
𝛾above the thetoe,
toe, 𝜇𝜇
(120)(12)ww = 1; 1;
since since
+cracks,
there isthere
(100)(12)
is
no seepage, no
𝜇w′ seepage,
= 𝜇 w 𝜇 q 𝜇 w 𝜇 t (1)(1)(1)
weight of the material below the toe has little effect 𝛾on i i
𝜇t = 1. =
av = = are t = 1. Calculate the
the unit weight is averaged only down to the toe of the slope. 1; 1;∑
since since
therethere are nonotension
tension cracks, Calculate
𝜇110 the
t weight is
stability:averaged only down to the toe of the slope. driving force term: 12 + 12 Calculate Pe as follows:
The unit weight below the toe has no influence on stability if
driving force hi term:
it weight below ∑the𝜙toe = 0: has no influence on stability if 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw (112.5)(40)
𝛾i hi ∑
(115)(20) 𝛾i hi +(120)(12)
(110)(20) Calculate the driving Pd = force term P= as follows:
𝛾H + 𝜇qq𝜇w− 𝜇t 𝛾 Hd (1)(1)(1)
= 4500 psf
(112.5)(40) 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw′ (112.5)(40)
∑av𝛾 = ∑ = 𝛾av = ∑ =
+ =
(100)(12)
112.5
= 110pcf Pd 𝛾H = +P qas−follows: w w
= = 4500 psf P e = ′
= = 4500 psf
h 20
h + 20 12 + 12 Calculate 𝛾
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇tH (1)(1)(1) 𝜇 q 𝜇 w (1)(1)
𝛾i hi (120)(12)
i + (100)(12)
i
Pd = e w w
𝛾av =Since
∑there=is noCalculate the driving force term=Pd110
surcharge,
as follows:
𝜇q = 1; since there is no external
𝜇 𝛾H 𝜇 + 𝜇
Pe = q w t ′ w w =
q − 𝛾 H ′
(112.5)(40)
Estimate cav = 700 psf and 𝜙av = 7 degrees, and calcu
hi 12 + 12 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw Calculate P e as follows:
𝜇 𝜇 (1)(1)
= 4500 psf
water above the toe, 𝜇wPd== 1; since there is no seepage, 𝜇w = ′ (110)(24) + 0 − (62.4)(8)
q w
𝜆c𝜙 as follows: 56
𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t = cav =+700 q− = 2253
H𝜙′ av = 7(112.5)(40)
ate the
1; driving
since there force
areterm P as follows:
no tension cracks, 𝜇 = 1. Calculate the Estimate𝛾H psf𝛾and degrees, and calculate
∑
Pd as follows: 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw′ (112.5)(40) (16)(600) + (17)(400) + (84)(500) 𝛾i hi (115)(20) + (110)(20)
Pe = ′
= = = 4500 psf =
499 psf 𝛾 = ∑ = = 112.5 pcf
𝜇q 𝜇w (1)(1) 16 + 17 + 84 av
20 + 20
hi
From Figure A.3, with d = 0.5 and Hw ∕H = 0.33, 𝜇w =
Estimate cav = 700 psf and 𝜙av = 7 degrees, and calculate Since there is no surcharge, 𝜇q = 1; since there is no exter
0.95. Use layer thickness to average the unit weights. Since
(62.4)(8) 𝜆c𝜙 as follows: water above the toe, 𝜇w = 1; since there is no seepage, 𝜇w′
= 2253 the material below the toe of the slope is a 𝜙 = 0 material,
1) Pe tan 𝜙 (4500)(0.122)
the unit weight is averaged only down to the toe of the slope. 1; since there are no tension cracks, 𝜇t = 1. Calculate
and 𝛽 = 50 degrees, N0 = 𝜆c𝜙 = = The unit weight = below
0.8 the toe has no influence on stability if driving force term:
c 700 INFINITE SLOPE CHARTS 279
y using Eq. (A.7): 𝜙 = 0: 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw (112.5)(40)
From Figure A.5, with b 100 = 1.5 and 𝜆c𝜙 = 0.8: ∑ Pd = = = 4500 psf
(499) 300 𝛾i hi 50(120)(12)3.0
+ (100)(12) 𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t (1)(1)(1)
= 1.24 = ∑ = = 110
53 200 x0 = 0.6 and y0 𝛾=av1.5
hi 30 12 + 12 y0 Calculate Pe as follows:
he circle tangent to elevation
100 X0 = (H)(x0 ) = (40)(0.6) = 24 ft 20
80 15 term Pd as
Calculate the driving force λcϕfollows:
= 100 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw′ (112.5)(40)
P = = = 4500 psf
60 10
Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (40)(1.5) = 60 ft𝛾H + q8− 𝛾 H 2.0 20 e b = 1.5
𝜇 q 𝜇 ′
w (1)(1)
Stability number Ncf
w w
Pd = 6 10

40
ws a slope in soils with both Plot the critical circle on the given slope, as 𝜇shown q𝜇4w 𝜇t in 5 Estimate cav = 700 psf and 𝜙av = 7 degrees, and calcul
2
each with different strength.
20 Figure A.11. (110)(24)2 + 0 − (62.4)(8) 0 10 𝜆c𝜙 as follows: l = 0.8
= = 2253
5
(1)(0.95)(1) λcϕ = 0 20
2
1 P tan 𝜙 (4500)(0.122)
10 1.0 100
8 From Figure A.1, with0 d = 0.5 and 𝛽x0= 50 degrees, N0 = 𝜆c𝜙 = e = = 0.8
6
c 700
5.6. Calculate the factor of safety using Eq. (A.7):
4 From Figure A.5, with b = 1.5 and 𝜆c𝜙 = 0.8:
N0 c (5.6)(499)
Values of λcϕ
δ1 = 20° F= = = 1.24
2 Pd 22530 x0 = 0.6 and y0 = 1.5
0
δ2 = 31°
δ3 = 44° γm = 115 pcf X 0 = x0 H
This circle is less critical than the circle tangent to elevation X0 = (H)(x0 ) = (40)(0.6) = 24 ft
1 ϕu = 8°
1.5 0 1 2 c = 800 psf 3 −8 20ftftanalyzed
4 previously.
5 Y 0 = y0 H
u Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (40)(1.5) = 60 ft
0
1 Slope ratio b = cot β
γm = 110 pcf Example A.3. Figure A.11 shows a slope in soils with both
–1.0 Plot the critical circle on the given slope, as shown
ϕu = 6° γH + 20–ftγ𝜙.
q 0 with1different
2 strength.
3 4 5
c c and wHThere
w are three layers, each Figure A.11.
μq μw μt
F = Ncf cu = 600
Pd psf
=
Pd Slope ratio b
γm = 120 pcf
Pe tan ϕ ϕu = 0 γH + q20– ftγwHʹw
λcϕ =
Stability numbers and center coordinates for
Pe =
c cu = 800 psf μq μʹw circles passing through the toe of the slope.
0
ure A.11 Total stress analysis of a toe circle inFigure A.5both

soils with Slope
c andstability
𝜙. charts for 𝜙 > 0 soils (after Janbu, 1968). δ1 = 20°
57
+40
δ2 = 31°
δ = 44° γ = 115 pcf
c and 𝜙. There are three layers, each with different strength. Figure A.11.
Calculate cav , tan 𝜙av , and 𝜆c𝜙 as follows: Acc
∑ instab
𝛿i ci
cav = ∑
Calculate cav ,𝛿tan 𝜙av , and 𝜆c𝜙 as follows: According
Examto
δ1 = 20°
i ∑ instability.
𝛿i ci in Fig
+40 (20)(800)
= + (31)(600) + (44)(800)
δ2 = 31° c ∑
δ3 = 44° = av γm = 115 𝛿i pcf ExampleshownA.4.
ϕu = 8° 20 + 31 + 44 in Figureeffecti
A.11
20 ft
1.5 c (20)(800)
= 800 + (31)(600) + (44)(800)
psf
+20
= 735 = upsf shown in seepag
the fi
Elevation (ft)
20 + 31 + 44
1 ∑γ = 110 pcf Duncan bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜285 effective stresse
Use
=𝛿 m735tan
psf𝜙 seepage within t
ϕ∑ i
u = 6°
i 20 ft weigh
tan 𝜙av = c∑ Use layer thi
u=𝛿 600
i tan psf
𝜙 i weights are aver
0 tan 𝜙av = ∑𝛿i
∑
γm = 120 𝛿i pcf
∘
ϕu = 0 8 ) ∘+ (31)(tan
(20)(tan ∘
20 ft 6 ) + (44)(tan
∘
8 ) + (31)(tan 6∘ ) + (44)(tan ∘) 0 ) 𝛾av = ∑
= =cu(20)(tan= 800 psf
0 285
20+ 31 ++4444
EXAMPLES
‒20 20 + 31
Calculate cav , tan 𝜙av , and 𝜆c𝜙 as follows: According to this calculation, the slope is on the verge of For this For slope,th
∑ = = 0.064
0.064
instability.
Figure A.11 𝛿i ci Total stress analysis of a toe circle in soils withPeboth c and 𝜙.
tan 𝜙 (4500)(0.064)
cav = ∑ 𝜆 P =tan 𝜙 =(4500)(0.064)= 0.4
𝛿i = c𝜙 e A.4.c Figure
𝜆c𝜙Example = A.12735 = 0.4
shows the same slope as shown
FrominFigure c
FigureA.5, b = 1.5 and
withEffective
A.11. 735
stress = 0.4: parameters are
𝜆c𝜙 strength
(20)(800) + (31)(600) + (44)(800)
= From Figure A.5, xwith
shown in the b = and
figure,
= 0.65 1.5 and
and the c𝜙 = is
y0 =𝜆1.45
analysis 0.4:
performed using
Since there is no
20 + 31 + 44 0
effective stresses. There is water outside the slope and
circles, with Hw
= 735 psf x0 =Xwithin
seepage 00.65
= (H)(xthe and y0 = 1.45
0 ) = (40)(0.65)
slope. = 26 ft Since
0.96. Using Figu
∑ Use layer thickness to average the unit weights. Unit
𝛿i tan 𝜙i Y0 = (H)(y0 )only = (40)(1.45) = 58 ftof the slope: 𝛽 = 33.7circles
degree
tan 𝜙av = ∑ X
weights =are(H)(x
averaged ) = (40)(0.65)
down to the= 26
toe ft cracks, 𝜇0.96.
t = 1. U
0 0 C
𝛿i This circle is close ∑to the previous iteration, so keep 𝜆 =
𝛾 i hi (115)(20) + (115)(20) c𝜙
𝛽 = 𝛾H
∘ ∘ ∘ 0.4 andYc0av 𝛾=
= (H)(y
735
= ∑psf.0 )From
== (40)(1.45)
Figure A.5, =with
58 bft== 1.5
115and P =
33
(20)(tan 8 ) + (31)(tan 6 ) + (44)(tan 0 ) av
+ 20of safety: d
= 𝜆c𝜙 = 0.4, Ncf = 6.0. Calculate
hi the 20
factor cracks
20 + 31 + 44 This circle is close to the previous ( iteration,
) so keep 𝜆 =
c𝜙 58
For this slope, c 735 (1
= 0.064 0.4 and cav = 735 psf.cfFrom
F = N =
Hw Figure
6.0
10
=
A.5, with
1.0 b = 1.5 and =
= 0.064 = 735 psf
∑Hw 10
Pe tan 𝜙 (4500)(0.064) = = 0.25 INFINITE SLOPE CHA
𝜆c𝜙 = = = 0.4 Hc𝛿avi tan
Calculate 40𝜙𝜙iav , and 𝜆c𝜙 as follows:
, tan
c 735 100 tan 𝜙av = ∑∑
′
50 Hw 3.0
300
𝛿i30
𝛿i ci
From Figure A.5, with b =200
1.5 and 𝜆c𝜙 = 0.4: cav = =∑ = 0.75
H
30 (20)(tan 40
8∘𝛿)i + (31)(tany0 6∘ ) + (44)(tan
x0 = 0.65 and
100 y0 = 1.45 =
20
Since there is no surcharge, 𝜇q = 1. Using Figure A.3 for
(20)(800) 20+ + 31 +
(31)(600)44+ (44)(800)
= andλcϕ 𝛽 ==20
80 15 100
60 circles, with Hw ∕H10 = 0.25 33.7
+ degrees,
+ find 𝜇
X0 = (H)(x0 ) = (40)(0.65) = 26 ft =
8 0.064 2.0 20 31 44
′
0.96. Using Figure 6A.3 for toe circles,10with Hw ∕H = 0.75

40 = 735 psf
4 P tan ∑ = (4500)(0.064)
𝛽 = 33.7 degrees, ′ 𝜙 0.95.
= e𝜇w =
5
Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (40)(1.45) = 58 ft 𝜆c𝜙 find Since
2 there =
are0.4
no tens
20 cracks, 𝜇t = 1. Calculate
2 𝛿i tan 𝜙i 0735
c the driving force term: 10
This circle is close to the previous iteration, so keep 𝜆c𝜙 = tan 𝜙 = ∑
5
From Figure1A.5, λcϕ = 0c𝜙 = 0.4:
av with b = 1.5 and 𝜆 20
2
0.4 and cav = 735 psf. From 10 Figure A.5, with b = 1.5 and 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w H 𝛿
1.0
w i 100
Pd = 0 x08∘ ) +y0(31)(tan
= 1.456∘ ) + (44)(ta
𝜇qx𝜇0 w=𝜇=t0.65
8 and
(20)(tan
𝜆c𝜙 = 0.4, Ncf = 6.0. Calculate
6 the factor of safety:
4 ( ) X0 =+(H)(x ) = (40)(0.65) = 26 ft 20 + 31 + 44
c 735 (115)(40) 0 − 0(62.4)(10)
Values of λcϕ
F = Ncf = 6.0 = 1.0 = = 0.064 = 4141 psf
Pd 2 4500 Y0(1)(0.96)(1)
= (H)(y
0 0 ) = (40)(1.45) = 58 ft
Pe tan 𝜙 (4500)(0.064)
𝜆c𝜙 =
= X0 = =
x00.4
H
This circle is close to thec previous iteration,
735 so kee
1 Y0 with
= y0Hb =
0 1 2 3 c5av =Figure
4 0.4 andFrom 735 A.5,
psf. with
Fromb =Figure
1.5 andA.5,
𝜆c𝜙 = 0.4:
Slope ratio b = cot β 𝜆c𝜙 = 0.4, Ncf = 6.0. Calculate the factor of safety:
x0 = 0.65 and y0 = 1.45
–1.0c (
735
)
γH + q – γwHw F = NXcf0 = 0(H)(x 1
= 6.0 2 =3= 4
c 0 ) = (40)(0.65) 1.026 ft
F = Ncf
Pd
Pd = μq μw μt Pd 4500
Slope ratio b
δ1 = 19°
Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (40)(1.45) = 58 ft
Pe tan ϕ γH + q – γwHʹw
λcϕ =
Stability
This circle numbers
is close and center
to the previous coordinates
iteration, so ke
Pe =
c μq μʹw 59
circles passing through the toe of the slop
δ = 42° 0.4 and cav = 735 psf. From Figure A.5, with b =
0 0 0.96. Using Figure A.3 for toe circles, with Hw′ ∕H = 0.75 and
Y0 = (H)(y0 ) = (40)(1.45) = 58 ft 𝛽 = 33.7 degrees, find 𝜇w′ = 0.95. Since there are no tension
cracks, 𝜇t = 1. Calculate the driving force term:
This circle is close to the previous iteration, so keep 𝜆c𝜙 =
0.4 and cav = 735 psf. From Figure A.5, with b = 1.5 and 𝛾H + q − 𝛾w Hw
Contoh Analisis dengan Hw dan Hw’

Pd =
𝜆c𝜙 = 0.4, Ncf = 6.0. Calculate the factor of safety: 𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t
( ) (115)(40) + 0 − (62.4)(10)
c 735 Duncan bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜285
F = Ncf = 6.0 = 1.0 = = 4141 psf
Pd 4500 (1)(0.96)(1)
EXAMPLES 285
Calculate cav , tan 𝜙av , and 𝜆c𝜙 as follows: Accordingδ1to
= 19°
this calculation, the slope is on the verge of
∑ instability.
𝛿i ci δ2 = 42°
cav = ∑ +40
𝛿i A.4.285Figure A.12 shows the same γslope
Example
EXAMPLES as shown
m = 115 pcf
in Figure A.11. Effective stress strength ϕʹ parameters
= 35° are
(20)(800) + (31)(600) + (44)(800)
According to this calculation, the slope isshown on theinverge
1.5
of cʹ = 100 psf
20 ft
= the figure, and the analysis is performed using
20 + 31
instability. + 44 +20 1
effective stresses. There is water outside the slope and
Elevation (ft)
= 735 psf γm = 115 pcf

seepage within the slope. Hʹw = 30 ft
ϕʹ = 30° 20 ft
∑ Example A.4. Figure A.12 shows the same slope Use layer thickness to average the unitcʹweights.
𝛿i tan 𝜙i Hw = 10 ft
as shown = 150 psf Unit
∑in Figure A.11. Effective 0 stress strengthweights are averaged
parameters are only down to the toe of the slope:
0) tan 𝜙av = ∑
shown
𝛿i in the figure, and the analysis is performed using𝛾 h γm = 120 pcf
i i (115)(20) + (115)(20) ϕʹ ==10° 20 ft
effective stresses. There is water outside the slope 𝛾av = and =
(20)(tan 8∘ ) + (31)(tan 6∘ ) + (44)(tan 0∘ ) ∑
20 + 20
115
cʹ = 700 psf
= seepage within the slope. h
20 + 31 + 44 ‒20
i
Use layer thickness to average the unitForweights. this slope,Unit
= 0.064 weights are averaged only down to the
Figure A.12toeEffective stress analysis of aHtoe circle in soils with both c′ and 𝜙′ .
of the slope: w 10
Pe tan 𝜙 (4500)(0.064)∑ = = 0.25
𝜆c𝜙 = = 𝛾i hi= 0.4(115)(20) + (115)(20) H 40
c 𝛾av = 735∑ = = 115 Hw′
(tan 0∘ ) 20 + 20 =
30
= 0.75
rom Figure A.5, with b = 1.5 and 𝜆c𝜙 h=i 0.4: H 40 60
For this
x0 = 0.65 andslope,
y0 = 1.45 Since there is no surcharge, 𝜇q = 1. Using Figure A.3 for toe
Hw 30
Since there is no surcharge, =𝜇q ==1.0.75
Using Figure A.3 for toe
H 40
circles, with Hw ∕H = 0.25 and 𝛽 = 33.7 degrees, find 𝜇w =
SinceUsing
there Figure
is no surcharge, = 1. Using
A.3 for toe𝜇qcircles, Figure
′ A.3 for toe
0.96. with H w ∕H = 0.75 and
SOILS WITH 𝜙 > 0 277
𝛽circles,
= 33.7with Hw ∕H =𝜇 0.25
′ and 𝛽 = 33.7 degrees, find 𝜇w =
degrees, find w = 0.95. Since there are no tension
β
′ ∕H = 0.750 and
=
0.96. Using Figure A.3 for toe circles, with
cracks, 𝜇t = 1. Calculate the driving force term:
1.0 H w Slope circle
′
𝛽 = 33.7 degrees, find 𝜇w = 0.95. Since there are no tension 30°

b:1
𝛾H + q − 𝛾 H β
= 1. Calculatewthew driving0.9force term:
cracks,P𝜇dt = 60° Hw H′w
𝜇 𝜇 𝜇
𝛾H +qq w− 𝛾t w Hw
Pd = (115)(40) + 0 − (62.4)(10) 0.8 Toe and
90°
= 𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t = 4141 psf
Slope circles
(1)(0.96)(1)
(115)(40) + 0 − (62.4)(10) 0 0.5 1.0
= = 4141 psf
Ratios Hw/H and H′w/H
(1)(0.96)(1) Toe circle
b:1
d=∞ β H′w
Hw
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.9
0
0.8 Deep circles

Deep circle
d = D/H
0 0.5 1.0 b:1
γm = 115 pcf Ratios Hw/H and H′w/H Hw β H′w H
ϕʹ = 35°
20 ft
γm==100
cʹ 115psf
pcf μw = submergence factor, depends on Hw
D
ϕʹ = 35°
μ′w20 ft
γcʹ =
= 100
115 psf
= seepage factor, depends on H′w
m pcf
Hʹw = 30 ft
ϕʹ = 30° 20 ftSubmergence and seepage adjustment factors for 𝜙 = 0 and 𝜙 > 0 soils (after Janbu,
Figure A.3
γm = 115 pcf1968).
cʹ = 150 psf
Hʹw = 30 ft
ϕʹ = 30° 20 ft
61
5) = 58 ft
w
𝛽 = 33.7 degrees, find 𝜇w′ = 0.95. Since there are no tension
∑ Duncan bapp01.tex V2 - 06/24/2014 4:03 P.M. Page˜286
𝛿i ci
teration, so keep 𝜆c𝜙 =
cracks, 𝜇t = 1. Calculate the driving force term: X = (H)(x
0 ) =
0 cav = ∑ (40)(0.02) = =(19)(100)
0.8 ft + (42)(150) 100 = 134 psf
A.5, with b = 1.5 286
and A SLOPE 𝛾H + q −
Pd = STABILITY CHARTS
𝛾 H
w w
300
𝛿i 19 + 42 50
actor of safety: 𝜇q 𝜇w 𝜇t Y0 = (H)(y200 0 ) = (40)(1.85) ∑ = 74 ft
30 Fo
5
) Calculate
286 P :
eA SLOPE (115)(40)
STABILITY + 0CHARTS
− (62.4)(10) Example A.5.𝛿i tan 𝜙iFigure A.13 shows a slope where a rela- 20
0
= 1.0 286 A =SLOPE STABILITY
𝛾H + q − 𝛾w(1)(0.96)(1)
Hw ′ This
CHARTS = 4141 psf
circle is close to the
100
tan previous
tively
𝜙 =thin
80 av A.5. Figure ∑
layer iteration,
of soil so
overlies keep
firm 𝜆
soil. The = critical
c𝜙a rela- failure 15
Pe = Pe :
Calculate Example A.13
𝛿this shows a slope where Note
a plane paral- 10that t
Calculate P𝛾H e : 𝜇+q 𝜇q
′
w − 𝛾 H ′ 13.3 and c
av = 134 psf. From
60
Example
tively
mechanism
thin A.5.Figure
layer Figure
of
for
soil A.5,
A.13
i
overlies
example
showswith
firm asoil.
slope =
isb sliding
The 1.5
where along
aand
critical rela-
failure 8

P286 = 𝛾H + q −
w w′
𝛾 H tively lel
thinto the
layer slope,
of soil at
overliesthe
∘ )is+top
firm of
soil. the
The firm layer.
a∘plane
critical This
failure slopeslope
can is
6 sm
= =
A 40 for(19)(tan
13.3, N 35. mechanism
Calculate this example
the factor of (42)(tan
sliding
safety: along ) paral-
SLOPE STABILITY CHARTS
e
P(115)(40)
= 𝜇 +
𝜇 ′
0
w w
− 𝜆
(62.4)(30)
c𝜙 cf Example A.5. 35 30
e q
=Calculate Pe : 𝜇q 𝜇w′
w
= 2870 psf
mechanism
lel tobeFigure =for shows
theanalyzed
slope,
A.13 this example
at using
the topthe
a slope ofis the
where sliding
firmalong
infinite
a rela- slope
layer. a This
plane =paral-
stability chart
0.62
slope can shown to in slop
the 4
𝛾H(1)(0.96)
(115)(40) + q+− 0 𝛾w−Hw(62.4)(30)
′ tively thin lel
layertoof
be the
Figure
analyzed (using
soil slope,
overlies
A.7. at
firmthe
Calculate
the )
soil.top
Theof +failure
19thethe
critical
infinite slope42
firm layer.ofThis
factor
stability slope
safety
chart canseepage
for
shown in paral- 2
= Pe(115)(40)
= + 0 − (62.4)(30) = 2870 psf c 20 134
F = lelNtocfthe slope, = = slope
mechanism befor this
analyzed example is
using sliding
the along
infinite a plane
slope paral-
stability chart shown in
from the 1 Fro
′
Estimate cav = 120 = psf and (1)(0.96)
𝜇 𝜇
q w
𝜙av = 33 degrees:
(1)(0.96)
= 2870 psf Figure lel 35
A.7.
at thetotoptheof(2870)(0.62)
Calculate
slope
the the This
and
firm layer. factor
for 1.13 ofcan
horizontalsafety for seepageemerging
seepage paral-
δ = 19°
Estimate cav = 120 (115)(40) + 0 − (62.4)(30)
= psf and 𝜙av = 33 degrees:
Figure
Plel
lel 𝜆 A.7.
toslope.
the = 4141
Calculate
slope and
slope for
the factor
horizontal =seepage
of 13.3
safety for seepage paral-
emerging from the and
Example A
1
= 2870 psf be analyzed
d 10
using c𝜙infinite
the stability chart shown in
Estimate cav P tan psf
=e 120 𝜙 and (2870)(0.64)
𝜙av = 33 degrees:
(1)(0.96) to
Figure A.7.slope. the
Calculate
8 slope
the and
factor of 134
for horizontal
safety for seepage seepage
paral- emerging from the 0
𝜆 = P tan 𝜙 = (2870)(0.64) = 15.3 For seepage parallel
emerging to thethe slope:
= with F = with 𝜙 =
δ = 42°
2 c𝜙
𝜆c𝜙 =cav =ceP120
Estimate
𝜆 = e
tan av =120
= 𝜙(2870)(0.64)
psf𝜙and
1.13, thelel
33 degrees:= 15.3
= 15.3 slopeFromslope.
to the slope
would
6Figure
and
For seepageA.5,
for
be
horizontal
very
with
seepage
parallel to the =
bclose 1.5
from
slope: to
and 𝜆c𝜙 = 13.3:
failure.
c𝜙 cPe tan 𝜙 120
(2870)(0.64) slope. For seepage parallel to the slope:
𝜆c𝜙 = bc= 1.5 = and120 𝜆𝜆c𝜙 == 4 = 8 ft andftTft= 11.3
FromFrom
Figure A.5,A.5,
with = 15.3
15.3:
with bcγ=m =1.5 X slope: Tand y0 =ft1.85
For seepage parallel to the
X = 8 ftx0 = 0.02
Values of λcϕ
Figure 115and
pcf
120 15.3: and = 11.3
From Figure A.5, with bϕʹ = 1.5 and c𝜙 = 15.3:
𝜆 X = 8 ft and T = 11.3
1.5
x0 =
= 35°
From Figure A.5, with b = 1.5 and 𝜆c𝜙 c𝜙
=
= 15.3: X = 8 ft and T = 11.3 ft
𝛾w ( 8 ) ( 62.4 )
x0x0= = 0 andandcʹ = 100 yy =
psf 1.9
1.9 20 ft
X 𝛾 ( X ) 8
2 ( 62.4 ) 2
w=0cos = 2 (H)(x =
82 =0𝛽)0.325 (40)(0.02) = (0.94) = 0.325
000 ==1.91.9 X 𝛾w 2 r2 = X r w
cos
x = 0 and
0 00
and yy
ru = =
8𝛾X
u 62.4 2
𝛽 =
(0.94) 62.4 (0.94)
2
2
= 0.8
0.325 ft
T 𝛾 ru = 11.3 𝛽𝛾= 11.3 120 (0.94)120 = 0.325
0 cos u𝛽 cos
1 T 𝛾 T
120 11.3
X0 X=0X(H)(x= X(H)(x 0 )0γ)=0=
0 = (H)(x = (40)(0)
115 pcf = 0 ft
) =(40)(0)
(40)(0) ==0 ft 0 ft T 𝛾 11.3 120
Surface of seepage
Hʹw = 300 ft= (H)(xm0 ) = (40)(0) = 0 ft From Figure A.7, with
From Figure
1From ru = 0.325
Y0 with
A.7,
Figure =A.7,
and
with(H)(y
cotr𝛽 ==2.75,
with ) =
0.325
r (40)(1.85)
A = and
=0.62 cot 𝛽 = 2.75,
0.325 and =cot74 =
ft
= 0.62
A𝛽 0.62 2.75, A = 0.62
Y0 = (H)(y ϕʹ =0 ) 30°
= (40)(1.9) = 7620 ft ft From Figure A.7, r u= 0.325
0 uand cot 𝛽 = 2.75, A =
Y
Y =Y(H)(y = (H)(y ) = (40)(1.9) = 76 ft and B = 3.1. 0
Calculate the factor of 1
safety:
u 2 3 4 5
0 = (H)(y0 )cʹ= (40)(1.9)
0=)on150
= (40)(1.9) == 76 76 ftft and B = 3.1. = Calculate the factor of safety:
0 0
Plot 0the critical
psf andtanBand = B
3.1. 3.1.
Calculate (Calculate
the ) factor the
of factor
safety: of safety:
=)cot β
ft circle the given slope as shown in ′ ′
Plot the critical
Figure A.12. circle
Calculate onc , the
tan 𝜙 given
, and 𝜆 slope
as as
follows: shown in This
F
𝜙
= A circle
c
+ B is= close
tan 0.62′
𝜙′
0.577
to theSlope
0.364c′c′′
previous ( b)iteration,
(′ratio
0.577 ( so
) keep 𝜆c𝜙 =
Plot
Plot Figure the
the critical critical
circle circle on the given
∑ on the given slope as shown in
av av c𝜙 slope as shown in tan 𝛽
F =c
𝛾H
=AA = tan 𝜙 tan
+Bpsf.
B𝜙 =From =0.62
0.62 0.577
c Figure A.5, 0.577 No
A.12. Calculate c γm, =tan 120𝜙 pcf, and 𝜆 as follows: 13.3 and
[F
avFtan=
] 134
tan +
A 𝛾H =+1.63B 0.364
𝛽 𝛾H = 0.62
0.364 with b = 1.5 and
Figure Figure
A.12. A.12. Calculate , tan 𝜙avav
cav(19)(100) +,(42)(150)
and 𝜆c𝜙 as follows:
c
γH0.364
+ q – γwHw
𝛿i i av 300
Calculate
∑ = ∑cav= ,ϕʹtan
= 10° 𝜙19av ,+and 𝜆20c𝜙=ftas
134follows: + 3.1 =𝛽0.98 + 0.65
[ tan 𝛽 ] 𝛾H slo
cav∑
∑ 𝛿i c𝛿ii ci𝛿i (19)(100) cʹ = 700 psf+42
c𝜙 psf
𝜆 = 13.3,
(120) N
(12) [ = 35. c
Calculate
] the factor of safety:
(42)(150)
∑ = (19)(100) + (42)(150) = 134 psf For horizontal seepage emerging
c𝜙
+3.1
cf F =
3.1from 300
N cf[P
300
=0.98
P
]+ 0.65
d =
= μq μw μt to
= =𝛿∑
cavcav c
∑ =
𝛿i(19)(100) + (42)(150) = 134 psf + slope,
(120)
𝜃 d= 0=degree:
(12) 300 (
0.98 + 0.65 =) 1.63
1.63
12 ft
cav = ∑
i i
tan 𝜙av = 𝛿i=
tan 𝜙i
19++42
19 42 = 134 psf 𝛾 1 +(120) c
3.1(12) = 35 134 = 0.98=+1.13 0.65 = 1.63
𝛿i∑ ru = w F = N (120) ϕ (12) γH + – γwHʹw
γ
′
19 +
′
42 + cfPemerging
tan = q
λcϕ
2 Effective stress analysis of a toe circle in∑ soils with both
𝛿 c and 𝜙 . For 𝛾 1
horizontal
For horizontal tan 𝛽 tan
seepage
𝜃
seepage Pd from slope, from slope,
4141 0 degree:
𝜃= = 0 tdegree:
𝜃 St
𝛿∑ i
[= 120 pcf=]emerging
e
P f Ex
μq μʹw𝜃 = 0 degree:
i 𝛿 tan 𝜙 ∘
𝛿i tan 𝜙
i(19)(tan i ) + (42)(tan 30 )
∘ 62.4
=Forcʹhorizontal
1 𝛾
seepage 1c1 emerging
e
ft from 8 slope, cir
𝜙av𝜙∑
i 35 𝛾wwpsf
tantan = = =∑
∑ = 0.62 with F = 1.13, = 300 =
ruu= the slope would
+r (0.364) (0)
= 0.52
. 3
1 be very close to failure. wi
𝜃1
120 1
𝛿i tan𝛿𝜙i𝛿ii 19 + 42 ϕʹ
av
From Figure A.7, with r == 30°
0.52 and
1++𝛽tan
𝛾𝛾 1cot =
tan
𝛾 2.75,
tan
𝛽 𝛽tanA =
𝜃0.41
1
(2870)(0.62) w
tan 𝜙av = [[ Figure
= A.5 ] ]Slope stability charts for 𝜙 > 0 soils (af
ϕʹ
∑
𝜆c𝜙 =
∘
= 13.3
∘
u
and B = 3.1. Calculate the factor62.4 rsafety:
(19)(tan
(19)(tan 134
3535) + ∘ ) +(42)(tan
(42)(tan30 ∘
30 )) tan = of
0.577
u
62.4 𝛾 1 1+1 tan 𝛽 tan 𝜃0.52 62
= =Figure𝛿A.5,
From i with b = 1.5 and 𝜆c𝜙 = 13.3: ==0.62
0.62 F=A
tan 𝜙′
+B
c=′=
120 11++(0.364)
120 [ (0)(0)
(0.364)
== 0.52
]
1919++4242
Pengantar
Program Komputer Metode Elemen Hingga (MEH)

• Keuntungan MEH dibandingkan LE (limit Equilibrium) adalah:
• MEH tidak perlu membagi lereng dalam irisan-irisan vertical.
• MEH tidak membutuhkan asumsi gaya-gaya antar sisi irisan.
• MEH menentukan bidang gelincir dari perhitungan tegangan, tanpa membutuhkan
pencarian bidang gelinciri ang kritis sebagaimana pada LE.
• Untuk analisis stabilitas lereng, tidak dibutukan complex soil stress–strain
models.
• Tanah dimodelkan dalam elastic-perfectly plastic (elastoplastic) memenuhi
Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria.
• Hanya dibutuhkan 6 parameter untuk analisis: c = cohesion, 𝜙 = friction
angle, 𝛾 = unit weight, 𝜓 = dilation angle, E = Young’s modulus 𝜈 = Poisson’s
ratio
63
Pengantar
Program Komputer untuk Limit Equilibrium (LE)

• UTEXAS4 (Wright, 1999), SLOPE/W (Geo-Slope, 2013), and SLIDE
(RocScience, 2010).
• Ada 2 jenis program computer untuk LE.
• Progam Analisis:
• user menginput data: slope geometry, soil properties, pore water pressure
conditions, external loads, dan soil reinforcement, dan kemudian menghitung factor
keamanan pada kondisi bidang gelincir yang sudah diketahui.
• Digunakan satu atau lebih prosedur irisan.
• Program Desain:
• Menentukan sendri kondisi-kondisi slope dengan target nilai factor keamanan
tertentu.
• Biasanya sudah menentukan perkuatan slope dalam program ini: geogrid, soil nailing,
dsb.
• User menginput data: slope geometry, external loads, termasuk soil properties.
•
64
22 ft on one side
combination of paths involved and 31.5
in any ingaverage
ft on the other side. The
particular
examples illustrate the various methods described in the which often underestimate the shear strength. Thus, it is the Simplified
was part Bishop
of a temporary excavationprocedure, and
and was designed withusing the
curved strength envelopes used in Example 5. The eight an unusually low factor of safety to minimize construction 2
ay to practical problems. likelyunconfined
analysis.
previous chapters, through application compressive strength of the clay from an inves-
that the undrained shear strength of the clay was 2ac-element strength reduction method, with Phase .
cases summarized in Table 7.2 provide
Prinsip a useful collection of
Analisis Limit
greater than what Metode Analisis time,Stabilitas
ht = 120 pcf 31.5 ft tigation nearby waswas reported to be 1.05same
tons/ft costs.
(tsf) and theDuring construction, a portion of the excavated slope
Pengantar A drawingSNI 8460-2017 in psf (=
Kesimpulan
tually assumed. At the For
Tanah and • safety undrained
an shear
slopestrength,
cross sectionsisu of 1050
psf
problems for verifying computer Mekanika
programs Someofindependent
Stabilitas
methods Lereng check
Equilibriumshould
unitthe
because weight
slope of be made
Stabilitas
theexcavated,
was clay on
wasthe
120 the (pcf).
Lereng
lb/ft3
unloading toLereng
due Factors
failed.
ex- ofGempa
of the shown
Figure 7.9. The undrained shear strength profile is presented
representing problems in (0, 0)analyses. results of slope stability were
cavation calculated
cause for
calculations,
would the
soildeeper
the regardless of gradually
to swell the
oftwo cuts losethe 7.6)
and (Figure factor
us- of safety for a plane slip surface is calculate
Menvalidasi Hasil Program Komputer

Recapitulation in Figure 7.10. The original design factor of safety based
ing the
strength withequation for ita is
time. Also, vertical slope
possible that with a planar
vertical cracksslip surface
on undrained shear strengths was(4)(1050)
how the calculations may areandperformed.
(‒40, 0)
reported by Duncan and
have using
openedthe slope stability
to substantial charts
depths. presented
It is possible in Appendix
to imag- A. 4c
7.7.1 Example 1: Unbraced
• Because of the large number of possible paths
Vertical Cut in Clay Buchignani F=
to be 1.17. = = 1.11
through most computer programs, it is likely that ine that
UU tests
the undrained
Calculations
would have
strength
were measured in using
also performed
been considerably
more appropriate
higher
the limit equilibrium
than and
the shear
In 2003, revised slope 𝛾H (120)(31.5)
stability calculations were per-
most programs have not been tested for the precise computer programs (UTEXAS4, SLIDE, SLOPE/W) us- by the writers, using UTEXAS4 with Spencer’s
formed
Tschebotarioff
136
(1973)
7 METHODS OF ANALYZING
described the failure of a vertical exca- strength used, while losses of strength due to swell and theUsing Janbu’s charts for 𝜙 = 0 presented in Appendix
SLOPE STABILITY
combination of paths involved in any particular ing the Simplified Bishop procedure, and using the finite procedure. The minimum factor of safety calculated also was
vated slope that wasinmadesaturatedfor aFigure two-story basement inforvarved development of deep tension cracks could have reduced the
7.7 EXAMPLES FOR VERIFICATION factors.factor ofSlope Stability Chart
Duncan
botarioff’s (1973) vertical cut slope 2
analysis. 7.8 Shear strain contours SRF analysis of Example 1. element
stability by a strength
substantialreduction
amount. method, with Phase
These offsetting
1.17. safetyUTEXAS4,
The slope is
was calculated
later reanalyzedas using the limit equilib-
clay. The excavation was•made Somewithout bracing to ashould
depthbeofmade on the Rumus Sederhana
(‒100, 31.5) (‒40, 31.5)
For an undrained shear ofstrength, of 1050 psf (= qu ∕2),
su significantly, rium programs SLOPE/W, and SLIDE. Two po-
22 ft on one side and 31.5 results ft on the
independent
otherstability OF
check
side. The STABILITY
average regardless of COMPUTATIONS could have affected the stability the slope
the factor of safety for a plane slip surface is calculated as tential failure c
surfaces were determined, 1050
and these are shown
of slope calculations, F=N
in Figure 7.11
0 along = (3.83)
with the calculated = 1.06
factors of safety.
unconfined Varved compressive
Clay strength
how the of the clay Slope
calculations from
are anstability
performed. inves- analyses of eight example problems (4)(1050)
= of are
𝛾H (120)(31.5)
Safetyde-
4c The F = 1.17 failure surface that does not intersect the de-
ure resulted inUnit a lower
Weightfactor of safety,
= 120 pcf the equation for the factor of safety (assuming a planar slip
2 (tsf) Table 7.3 VariationF in =the Factor on=the
1.11Slip (7.27)
tigation nearby was reported to be 1.05
31.5 ft tons/ft and the
Depth(120)(31.5)
bris dike is more realistic because the Bay Mud beneath the
7.8 shows the shearsu = strain
1050 contours
psf for the surface) becomes
3 scribed cand discussed in this section.
Surface Assumed𝛾H
with theThese examples of Tensionwere Crack Calculations with circular slip surfaces using the limi
unit weight of the clay was 120 lb/ft (pcf). Factors
ich indicate a failure surface that is very F = 2.67 of safety (7.29) Using Janbu’s charts for 𝜙 = 0 presented in Appendix debris
A, the dike would have consolidated somewhat under the
ained with the limit equilibrium programs.
were calculated selected 𝛾Hwith two purposes Assumed in mind:
factor ofFirst,
safety to illustrateasvarious libriumweight analysis
of the dike,computer
but this was programs
not taken into employing
account in the S
regoing calculations, aside for
fromthe deeper
the7.7
SRF EXAMPLES of the twoFOR cuts VERIFICATION
(Figure
Thus, for the slope described
7.6)
above,
(0, 0)
us-
Crack Depth
is calculated the analysis. Also, the critical circle on the water side (with
ing the equation
ose agreement, they may notfor OFre-STABILITY
a vertical
correctly slope with COMPUTATIONS
a planarmethods slip surface
(2.67)(1050)
for computing the(ft)factors ofUTEXAS4 safety
c that have
SLOPE/W 1050been
SLIDE= 1.06 Phase2
fied Bishop
F = 1.17) more procedure resulted
closely matches the shape in and
a factor
position of
of safety o
or of safety of the slope. Terzaghi (1943)
(‒40, 0)
F =in Appendix = 0.74 F = N = (3.83) (7.28)
a ver- stability analyses ofdiscussed inA.problems
the preceding
are de- sections of this𝛾H chapter.(120)(31.5)
Second, The thecritical
and using the slope stability charts presented (120)(31.5)
(7.30) 0 observedfailure circle
failure surface. An isSRF shown in Figure
analysis was also con- 7.7. The
he upper part of the soil adjacent to Slope eight example 0 1.06 1.06 1.06 0.96 2
ducted using the program Phase . A factor of safety of 1.03
nsion.Calculations
If the soil cannotwerewithstandalso
and the factor of safety will be reduced.
performed
scribed
tension, andwhich using
would the
discussed
A computed
inlimit
clearly to
this equilibrium
illustrate
section.
indicate
factor of safety
These
that the
less than
slope several
1.0tofor
examples important
were
was not stable.
this case seems
1details and
Calculations withfeatures
1.04 circular
136 slipof
1.03 7 slope
surfaces
1.04 using
METHODS thedinates equi-of
limitSLOPE
OF ANALYZING
was the
STABILITY
determined center
for this of
analysis,the
with critical
a mechanism circle
as shownare x = 5
computer programs (UTEXAS4,
that if one conservatively estimates that a
selected with SLIDE,
two purposes and
reasonable because the
SLOPE/W)
in mind:
stability First, us-
slope failed. analyses.
illustrate
Another important
various
For librium
2 analysis
1.01 computer
con-example, one problem addresses the
(‒100, 31.5)
programs1.02
1.01 employing the Simpli-
y =of70
(‒40, 31.5) ft, with
in Figure 7.12. TheR= 83 ft,zone
calculated forof the coordinate
high shear strain ap- system
ingequal
theto Simplified methods
Bishop for
procedure,computing and the factors
using the of safety
finite that have been 3 Bishop procedure
fied 0.99 0.98 in a0.99
resulted factor of safety 1.06.
pears to be strongly influenced by the lower-than-realistic
a depth one-half the slope height, sideration is that the unconfined compression tests that were
element strength reductiondiscussed in the with
method, precedingPhase
use 2 of submerged
sections
. of this chapter.unit Second,weightsThe 4 versus
criticaltotal
0.96 unit
failure circleweights
0.96
is shown 0.96 and
in Figure 7.7.inThe Figure
coor- 7.6.
strength beneath the dike that was assumed in the analyses.
Figure 7.6 Tschebotarioff’sto(1973) vertical cut slope in saturated =
shear strength, su of 1050phreatic psf (= qsurfaces. Several other problems illustrate theUnit differ- The chart calculations result in the same factor of
illustrate several important details and features
Figure 7.8 of slope
Shear strain dinates
contours for of the
SRF center
analysis ofof the
Examplecritical
1.
Varved circle
Clay are x 5 ft and
For an undrained u ∕2), addresses the
clay—Example
theProgram
factor of safety
1.
computer for136 a plane 7 LE,slip UTEXAS
stability analyses. For example, one problem
METHODSsurface is ences
OF ANALYZING SLOPE among
calculated as unit
STABILITY various Program
procedures
y =computer
70 ft, with R =MEH 83 ft, for
of slices. These and other (PHASE2)
u
the
s =
Weight = 120 pcf
coordinate
1050 psf system shown 31.5 ft
as the computer programs. The analyses with circul
use of submerged unit weights versus total weights and in Figure 7.6.
Tension
4.5 ft
4cphreatic
(‒100, 31.5) (4)(1050)
surfaces. Several other
(‒40, 31.5)examplesproblemsillustrate
illustrate the thediffer-importance The chart of calculations
locating result the critical
in the same factor surface
of safetyresult in a slightly lower factor of safety th
F = ences = among various = procedures
1.11 (7.27) (0, 0)
in a lower factor ofslip surface

𝛾H (120)(31.5) of slices.accurately.
These and other Most as of the
thecomputer
examples are presented
programs. The analyses with circular analysis
(‒40, 0) slipusing a planar slip surface. Finite element st
reduction procedure resulted examples illustrate the safety, the equation for the factor of safety (assuming a planar slip
Varved Clay 31.5 ftimportance of locating the critical surface result in a slightly lower factor of safety than the
F = 0.96.
Using Janbu’s
Figurecharts7.8 shows for the
𝜙 = 0
shear
Unit presented
strain
Weight = in
contours
slip surface accurately. Most of the
120 pcf Appendix
for the A, the
surface)
31.5examples
ft
becomes
are presented analysis using a planar slip surface. Finite element strength
SRF c
factoranalysis,
of safety which indicate a sfailure
is calculated = 1050 surface
uas psf that is very F = 2.67 (7.29)
similar to that obtained with the limit equilibrium programs. 𝛾H
c 1050
F =the
Although N0foregoing = (3.83)
calculations, aside from = 1.06 the SRF (7.28) Thus, for (0,the
0)
slope described above,
𝛾H Compression
(120)(31.5)
analysis, are in close agreement, they may not correctly (‒40, 0) re-
Figure 7.6 Tschebotarioff’s (1973) vertical cut slope in saturated Figure 7.8 Shear strain contours for SRF an
flect the true factor (2.67)(1050) clay—Example 1.
Calculations withofcircular
safety ofslip thesurfaces
slope. Terzaghi
using (1943)
the limit equi- F=
(120)(31.5)
= 0.74 (7.30)
pointed out that the upper part of the soil adjacent to a ver-
librium analysis computer programs employing the Simpli-
tical slope is in tension. If the soil cannot withstand tension, which would clearly indicate that the slope was not stable.
fied Bishop procedure resulted in a factor of safety of 1.06.
cracks will form and the factor of safety will be reduced. A computed factor of safety less than 1.0 for this case seemsprocedure resulted in a lower factor of safety,
reduction the equation for the 65
factor of safety (assu
The critical
Figure 7.7 failure
Unbraced
Terzaghi showed that if one circle
vertical cut is
in shown
clay in
described
conservatively by Figure 7.7.
Tschebotarioff
estimates
(1973)that
The
(1973). coor-
a cut slope
reasonable because the slope failed. Another F = 0.96.
contoursimportant con-
Figure 7.6 Tschebotarioff’s vertical in saturated Figure 7.8 Shear strain for SRF analysis
Figure 7.8 shows the shear strain contours for the
of Example 1. surface) becomes
The critical slip circle determined by UTEXAS4 is shown, indicating compressive
dinates
crack willof form thetocenter of thetocritical
a depthclay—Example
equal one-half
1. circle
the slope x = 5 ft and
areheight, sideration is that the unconfined compression testsSRF thatanalysis,
were which indicate a failure surface that is very c
Pengantar
Slope Stability dalam Kondisi Gempa

• Akselerasi gempa menyebabkan tanah mendapatkan beban siklik.
• Gaya gempa juga menyebabkan timbulnya regangan siklik yang
menyebabkan kuat geser tanah menurun.
• Jika kuat geser berkurang tidak lebih dari 15%, maka dilakukan
analisis pseudostatic dimana gaya gempa diasumsikan sebagai gaya
horizontal pada massa lereng yang berpotensi tergelincir.
• Jika kuat geser turun lebih dari 15%, maka dilakukan analisis dinamik
untuk memperkirakan deformasi lereng akibat gempa.
66
pseudodynamic; however, the term pseudostatic has been that the is Sheffield
included inDam, the changing the location
various equilibrium of the pseudostatic
equations. of the slice.
used for manyMekanikaPrinsip
years and is common Analisis
in the Limit lit- This
geotechnical is illustrated
force
Metode from the
Analisis in Figure 10.1
Stabilitas
centers for an infinite
of gravity theslope
to8460-2017 with of the
bottoms reduce
slicesthe m
Pengantar
Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Stabilitas SNI Kesimpulan
Equilibrium shearLereng Lereng Gempa seismic forc
erature. The vertical components of the earthquake acceler- the reduced strength expressed
the factor of safety in terms of total stresses.
from 1.32 to 1.21 for a center seismic of gra
Metode Pseudostatik
ations are usually neglected in the pseudostatic method, and
the seismic coefficient usually represents a horizontal force.
coefficient of 0.1.
Dynamic analyses of the response of many dams to
be expected t
earth-
results of Se
Application of a seismic coefficient and pseudostatic quakes (Makdisi andℓ Seed, 1978) β
indicate that peak acceler-
that the facto
z locatedtobelo
force in limit equilibrium slope stability analyses is rela- ations increase (i.e., they are amplified) from the bottom
kW
the top of a dam. Thus, the location of the resultant that the pseu
seismic
• Prosedur pseudostatik merupakan prosedur
tively straightforward from the perspective of mechanics:
The pseudostatic force is assumed to be a known force
dimana gaya gempa
force would be expectedW to Tbe above the center of dams.
ity of the sl
gravityThus,
that direpresentasikan
is included in the variousoleh gayaequations.
equilibrium static yangof sama the slice. dengan In the case of massa
circular sliptanah
surfaces, thisreasonable.
would F
This dikalikan
is illustrated indenganFigure 10.1koefisien
for an infinitegempa,
slope with k ataureduceks. the moment about the center of the circle due to the
force is assu
the shear strength expressed in terms of total stresses. seismic forces, in comparison N to applying the forceslice. If a for
at the
centerforces
Resolving of perpendicular
gravity ofto the slice, and the factor of safetycation
slip plane: would of the
= W cos β – kW β safety compu
beNexpected tosin
increase. This reasoning is consistent
(1) with the
For many y
Resolving force parallel to slip plane:
results of Seed (1979) for the Sheffield Dam,(2)which on
T = W sin β + kW cos β
showed
empirical
ℓ thatofthe factor
block: of safety decreased when the seismic force was u
coefficients
β z
Weight sliding
located
W = γℓ z below
cos β the center of gravity of the slice. (3) Assuming
1979; Hynes
kW that the
Substituting (3) pseudostatic
into (1) and (2): force acts through the center of 1997).
grav-Howe
cos2 β – kγℓ z cos β sin β analyses, par
W ityN =ofγℓ zthe slice is probably slightly conservative (4) for most
T = γℓ z cos β sin β + kγℓ z cos2 β ing block ana
T dams. Thus, it appears that Terzaghi’s (1950) (5)
suggestion
can be is made
For the stresses on the slip plane:
reasonable. For most pseudostatic analyses the pseudostatic
earthquake a
σ = — = γz cos2 β – kγz cos β sin β
N
(6)
forceℓ is assumed to act through the center of gravity Most of each
seismic
τ = γzIf
slice. sin β + kγz
cosaβforce cos2 β
equilibrium (only) procedure(7)is used,and theresults
lo- fr
N
Finally, for the factor of safety (total stresses):
cation of the pseudostatic force has no effect on the factor of
s c + σ tan ϕ c + (γz cos2 β – kγz cos β sin β) tan ϕ
Resolving forces perpendicular to slip plane: 10.1.3 Slid
F = τ = computed.
safety = (9)
N = W cos β – kW sin β (1) τ γz cos β sin β + kγz cos β
2 67
For many years, seismic coefficients were estimated based (1
Newmark
seimic hazard analysis yang arah gempanya dibalik atau dengan cara mengalikan
dengan -1 (minus
Prinsip Analisis 1), hal Limit
ini untuk Metode
mendapatkan
Analisis respons
Stabilitas Lereng dinamik yang paling
SNI 8460-
Pengantar Kesimpulan
signifikan.
Mekanika Tanah UntukLereng
Stabilitas lokasi bendungan
Equilibrium yang dekat
Stabilitas Lereng denganGempasumber gempa nilai gempa
2017
vertikal sama dengan nilai gempa horizontal. Sedangkan untuk lokasi bendungan
Kriteria Perancangan lereng (SNI 8460-2017)
yang jauh nilainya 2/3 dari gempa horizontal.
12.2.7 Persyaratan gempa untuk lereng
Percepatan puncak di permukaan tanah dapat mengakibatkan gaya-gaya inersia signifikan

pada lereng atau timbunan dan gaya tersebut dapat mengakibatkan ketidakstabilan atau
deformasi permanen. Analisis performa lereng dan timbunan terhadap beban seismik dapat
dilakukan menggunakan 2 (dua) pendekatan:
“Hak cipta Badan Standardisasi Nasion

a) Metode kesetimbangan batas (limit equilibrium methods) menggunakan gaya
SNI seismik
8460:2017
yang direpresentasikan dalam model pseudostatik. Koefisien seismik yang digunakan
adalah percepatan puncak di permukaan (PGA) dengan faktor keamanan minimum
terhadap gempa (FK > 1,0). Koefisien seismik horizontal, kh, ditentukan sebesar 0,5
dari percepatan puncak horizontal
© BSN 2017 dengan
278 dari 303 penentuan kelas situs dan faktor
amplifikasi.
b) Analisis berbasis perpindahan (displacement-based) menggunakan konsep blok
keruntuhan Newmark (Newmark sliding block) atau metode pemodelan numerik.
Persyaratan gempa untuk lereng merujuk pula pada penjelasan yang diberikan di dalam
7.5.1.1.
68
12.2.8 Persyaratan gempa untuk struktur tertanam (buried structure)
faktor keamanan, maka dapat dilakukan penurunan muka air tanah dengan bor horizontal
yang berfungsi sebagai drainase untuk mengalirkan air keluar dari massa batuan. SNI Tabel 26
8460-
Pengantar memberikan rekomendasi nilaiEquilibrium
faktor keamanan untukLereng
lereng batuan. Kesimpulan
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Stabilitas Gempa 2017
Tabel 25 - Nilai faktor keamanan untuk lereng tanah

Tingkat ketidakpastian
Biaya dan konsekuensi dari kegagalan lereng kondisi analisis
Rendaha Tinggib
Biaya perbaikan sebanding dengan biaya tambahan
1,25 1,5
untuk merancang lereng yang lebih konservatif
Biaya perbaikan lebih besar dari biaya tambahan
1,5 2,0 atau lebih
untuk merancang lereng yang lebih konservatif
a
Tingkat ketidakpastian kondisi analisis dikategorikan rendah, jika kondisi geologi dapat
dipahami, kondisi tanah seragam, penyelidikan tanah konsisten, lengkap dan logis
terhadap kondisi di lapangan.
b
Tingkat ketidakpastian kondisi analisis dikategorikan tinggi, jika kondisi geologi sangat
kompleks, kondisi tanah bervariasi, dan penyelidikan tanah tidak konsisten dan tidak dapat
diandalkan.
Tabel 26 – Rekomendasi nilai faktor keamanan untuk lereng batuan

Kondisi lereng Rekomendasi nilai faktor
batuan keamanan
Kondisi permanen 1,5
Kondisi sementara 1,3
69
b) kondisi steady state seepage;
c) kondisi sudden drawdown;
Prinsip Analisis Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas Lereng SNI 8460-
Pengantar d)Stabilitas
kondisi gempa
Lereng (earthquake). Kesimpulan
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equilibrium Gempa 2017
“Hak cipta Badan Standardisasi Nasional, copy standar ini dibuat untuk Sub Komite Teknis 91-01-S2 Rek
CATATAN – Kondisi a) sampai dengan c) merupakan kondisi pembebanan statis, sedangkan kondisi
SNI 8460:2017 d) merupakan kondisi pembebanan dinamik.
konstruksi, sedangkan pada metode numerik seperti elemen hingga yang dibantu dengan 7.6.1 Metode empirik dan grafis
menggunakan program, pemodelan dapat dilakukan secara kompleks serta dapat
menampilkan tahapan konstruksi. Faktor keamanan dari kedua metode ini dapat Metode empiris dan grafis dapat dilakukan untuk analisis kestabilan lereng untuk kondisi
memberikan hasil yang berbeda karena perbedaan metode pendekatan yang digunakan. jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Metode empiris sangat tergantung pada pengalaman
Pada umumnya, metode elemen hingga menggunakan pengurangan kuat geser, sedangkan dan keputusan dari perencana. Metode grafis dapat menggunakan grafik Taylor (1937),
metode kesetimbangan batas menggunakan perbandingan antara gaya-gaya yang menahan Bishop dan Morgenstern (1960), Janbu (1968) Hoek & Bray (1981), Duncan (1987).
lereng terhadap gaya-gaya yang bekerja.
Stabilitas lereng dapat dievaluasi dengan 4 (empat) kondisi perancangan atau kondisi
pembebanan disesuaikan dengan kondisi yang dapat terjadi di lapangan, yaitu: 7.6.2 Metode analitis/numerik
a) kondisi pada saat konstruksi dan pada akhir konstruksi; 7.6.2.1 Analisis berdasarkan konsep keseimbangan batas
b) kondisi steady state seepage;
Metode keseimbangan batas umumnya memperhitungkan keseimbangan gaya dan
c) kondisi sudden drawdown; keseimbangan momen dengan berbagai asumsi yang harus dibuat seperti bentuk dan lokasi
d) kondisi gempa (earthquake). keruntuhan, arah dan gaya antaririsan. Analisis stabilitas dengan cara keseimbangan batas
dapat dilakukan dengan beberapa metode, antara lain: Bishop termodifikasi (1955), Force
CATATAN – Kondisi a) sampai dengan c) merupakan kondisi pembebanan statis, sedangkan kondisi Equilibrium (Lowe dan Karafiat, 1960 dan USCE, 1970), Janbu (1968), Morgenstern dan
d) merupakan kondisi pembebanan dinamik. Price (1965) dan Spencer (1967).
7.6.1 Metode empirik dan grafis 7.6.2.2 Analisis dengan Metode Elemen Hingga
Metode empiris dan grafis dapat dilakukan untuk analisis kestabilan lereng untuk kondisi Metode elemen hingga digunakan untuk masalah stabilitas lereng yang lebih kompleks, yaitu
jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Metode empiris sangat tergantung pada pengalaman dengan memodelkan kondisi statik, pseudo-statik dan dinamik pada sistem pembebanan
dan keputusan dari perencana. Metode grafis dapat menggunakan grafik Taylor (1937), total. Hasil analisis dengan cara elemen hingga, dapat berupa perubahan tegangan dan
Bishop dan Morgenstern (1960), Janbu (1968) Hoek & Bray (1981), Duncan (1987). regangan untuk berbagai sifat elatisitas material, heterogenitas massa tanah dan bentuk
geometri.
Pada analisis dengan metode pseudostatik, pengaruh gempa digambarkan dengan
7.6.2 Metode analitis/numerik percepatan horizontal dan atau vertikal. Analisis ini menunjukkan pengaruh seismik dengan
percepatan pseudostatik yang menghasilkan gaya inersia, Fh dan Fv yang bekerja pada
7.6.2.1 Analisis berdasarkan konsep keseimbangan batas pusat massa keruntuhan. Penentuan nilai koefisien seismik horizontal kh mengacu pada
pasal 12.3.7. 70
Metode keseimbangan batas umumnya memperhitungkan keseimbangan gaya dan
Pengantar
Mekanika Tanah Stabilitas Lereng Equilibrium Stabilitas Lereng Gempa SNI 8460-2017 Kesimpulan
Kesimpulan / Summary
• Pemahaman mekanika tanah merupakan syarat penting dalam melakukan
analisis stabilitas lereng.
• Analisis stabilitas lereng disesuaikan dengan kondisi short-term, long-term,
rapid drawdown, gempa.
• Memahami prosedur limit equilibrium (LE) dengan kekurangan dan
kelebihan-nya, termasuk metode FEM.
• Analitis stabilitas lereng sebaiknya dilakukan dengan minimal dua metode,
computer program untuk hitungan detail, dan slope stability
chart/hitungan sederhana sebagai validasi.
• Stabilitas lereng dalam kondisi gempa dilakukan dengan psudostatic
sebagai screening awal apakah diperlukan analisis dinamik yang detail.
• Praktek analisis dan desain lereng sebaiknya mengacu ke SNI 8460-2017
tentang Perancangan Geoteknik.
71
Acknowledgment
• Materi ini diambil sebagian besar dari Buku
Duncan, J. Michael, Stephen G. Wright, Thomas L. Brandon. 2014.
Soil strength and slope stability. John Wiley and Sons. New Jersey.
72
Terima Kasih
73

Slope Stability Dari Teori Ke Praktek - Ardy Arsyad-Compressed

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Slope Stability Dari Teori Ke Praktek - Ardy Arsyad-Compressed

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HATTI MENGAJAR VIII:

STABILITAS LERENG DARI TEORI KE

Pemahaman yang benar mengenai Stabilitas

• Pengalaman adalah sangat penting, dalam mendesain, membangun

Prinsip Dasar Stabilitas lereng

Penurunan Kuat geser tanah lereng

Peningkatan tegangan geser pada tanah

Drained dan Undrained.

Kuat geser pada Kondisi Drained dan Undrained

sity normally ϕ′ = 30°

Kuat geser efektif pada Clay dan sand c2

For pressures > preconsolidation

High preconsolidation Dense ϕ′loose

ϕ′oc Low preconsolidation

Effective stress, σ′ Effective stress, σ′

Analisis pada Kondisi drained

Analysis pada Kondisi Undrained

• Analisis Short-term (undrained

10 ft2 per year) to about 100 times this value.load.Values ofifcconstructing

Analisis Stabilitas Lereng

Analisis Stabilitas Lereng

Average shear stress τ on a given surface through P

Due to groundwater level

ϕu = 0 method applicable here

Factor of safety against foundation failure (cʹ, ϕʹ method)

Mekanika Limit Equilibrium

Prosedur Mekanika Limit Equilibrium

Figure For 6.5, the The driving (overturning) moment tending

Prosedur Irisan u/ bidang gelincir non-circular

Line of thrust Figure 6.19

S + F for + F cos 𝛼 + − 𝜃) =6.23).

single unknown interslice force inclina- on Morgenstern (1983)between procedure represents a re

ty of f (x) ofselections including

Metode manakah yang tepat? Waste Slip surface

• Gaya interslice menjadi penting dan berefek pada

Prinsip Analisis Limit Metode Analisis Stabilitas Lereng

PROCEDURES OF SLICES: REPRESENTATION OF INTERSLICE FORCES (SIDE FORCES) 107

Summary metode LE, dan kegunaannya

Metode Analisis Kestabilan Lereng

Metode Analisis Kestabilan Lereng

Lereng tanah f = 0 dan tegangan normal seragam

SOILS WITH 𝜙 = 0 275

Lereng dengan beban surcharge q

0.8 Toe and 90°

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Surcharge, q

0.9 0.5 Deep circle

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 D

Lereng dengan f > 0, dengan Hw dan Hw’ 1.0

Factors μw and μ′w

Toe and 90°

0.8 Deep circles

μ′w = seepage factor, depends on H′w

β=0 Crack filled with water β=0

0.8 Toe and

0.8 0 0.7 Deep circles

Lereng pada tanah f > 0 100

Unit coordinates x0 and y0

Contoh analisis pada kondisi Undrained, f = 0

Circle0tangent to elevation −8 ft for cohesive

ability charts for 𝜙 = 0 soils, with strength increasing with

Factors μw and μ′w

Calculate the driving force term

N0 = 5.8. Figure A.3 Submergence