-{

-
A Review of Computation Methods for Stability Analysis of Slopes

by

Mohammad Abdus Salam

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE

DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Civil Engineering

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, DHAKA

Dece~ber, )~98~-
-------
1\1n\11 ~II\\I mllIW\\ IIIII~
#107320#
 CERTIFICATION

The thesis titled "A Review of Computation Methods for Stability Analysis of
Slopes" submitted by Mohammad Abdus Salam Roll No 891263F Session
1987-88 has been accepted as satisfactory in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering on 24'h
December, 1998.
BOARD OF EXAMINERS

1.
4.M<M,S..uJ
Dr. A.M.M Safiullah Chairman
Professor (Supervisor)
Dept. of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka.

2. 10.+~
Dr. Md. Hossain Ali Member
Professor and Head (Ex - Officio)
Dept. of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka. 1

~61 0
"'
3. ~
7
Dr. Abu Siddique Member
Professor
Dept. of Civil Engineering

BUET.~y
....-
4.
Engr. Mesbah Uddin Ahmed Member
Managing Director (External)
M Ahmed & Associate Ltd.
29, Ring Road, Shamolly, Dhaka.

,~
\~:.
ii
 DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that this thesis or any part of it has not been submitted
elsewhere for the award of any degree or diploma.

,
\ Signature of the Candidate

Mohammad Abdus Salam

iii
 DEDICATION

Dedicated to the sweet memory of my beloved father, who was killed by Pak
Army in the liberation war of 1971 and beloved grandmother (mother's side)
whose sacrifice is not forgettable at all.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research work is performed under the supervision of Professor Dr. A.M.M
Safiullah. The author acknowledges his gratitude to him for his guidance
towards completion of this thesis.

The author also expresses his gratitude to Md. Sazzadul Islam, Project Co-
ordinator , Sirajgonj Local Governance Project, Md. Riazul Islam, CEPA,
Sirajgonj, Sayed Hossain Apu and Md. Rezaul Karim, work assistant of
Upazila Engineer's office, LGED, Bagmara, Rajshahi and Md. Parvez Shahid,
accountant, Directorate of continuing Education, BUET for their support in
drawing the figures and preparation of the thesis materials.

The author remembers gratefully all the members of his family for their
sacrifice and support and encouragement. Specially to Mother and sister for
sacrificing a lot of their time. Captain Sayeed helped the author in different
aspect for this thesis work and Mrs. Shaila, who inspired the author always to
complete the thesis work. They are gratefully remembered. Mr. Selim and Alim
are also gratefully remembered for their helping in thesis work.

Above all, all praises belong to almighty Allah, who enabled the author to
complete this research work.

v
 t

ABSTRACT

In this research a review of various computational methods those are available for slope
stability analyses have been performed by considering case studies of three embankment
failures and one landslide. These are embankment of Dhaka export processing zone
(DEPZ) area in savar, at Gonokbari, Dhaka City Flood Protection Embankment, Dhaka-
Narayangonj-Demra (DND) Flood Protection Embankment and Zalesina Landslide,
Zagreb, Yugoslavia. Slope stability analysis methods proposed by Fellenius (1936), Bishop
(1955), Janbu (1956), Morgenstern and Price (1965) and Spencer (1967) have been
reviewed. All these methods are based on limit equilibrium state of the soil at failure.
Computer programs have been developed to evaluate the factor of safety. The programs are
-, developed in GWBASIC and termed as modified programs. Both total stress and effective
stress types of analyses were performed depending on the available data. A comparison of
the results obtained from the various methods of analysis has been carried out. From this
comparison, it has been observed that in case of effective stress analysis Fellenius method
provides the most conservative value of factor of safety. On the other hand in case of <1>=0
analysis, Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods, Morgenstern and Price method and
Spencer's method yield the same values offactor of safety. The other methods provided the
different values of factor of safety. It has been observed that some methods of analyses
give the same critical slip surface for a specific condition. An analysis is performed for
some selected methods of stability analysis using different procedure for determining the
center of critical circle. In this case it is identified whether the same method of analysis
give the same critical slip circle or not for use of different procedure for determining the
center of critical circle. From the study it has been observed that the same method provides
different location of critical circle.
An analysis has also been performed by using PCSTABL5M software developed by
Purdue University. The slip circle searching technique of PCSTABL5M is different from
that of the program developed in this research. In this case Bishop's simplified method and
Janbu's simplified methods have been used. The factor of safety obtained from this case
has been compared with the factor of safety that obtained from the developed program for
the same methods. It has been observed that both the computational techniques provide the
same factor of safety for a common slip surface but provide the different location of critical
slip surface for the same method of analysis.
From the results obtained in this research, it has been observed that in case of Embankment
of DEPZ at Savar and Dhaka City flood protection embankment total stress type (<1>=0) of
analysis simulated closely the failure condition of the embankments. On the other hand in
case of DND embankment the effective stress type of analysis simulated closely the failure
,
(
condition. In case of Zalesina landslide condition of stability and sliding were checked by
determining factor of safety using two different elevations of ground water. It has been
observed that FS obtained from Bishop's simplified method and Fellenius method did not
satisfy the condition of stability and of sliding for all the selected slip surfaces.

Conclusions have been drawn regarding methods of analyses, choice of methods and
computational techniques etc. From the study it has been found that Bishop's simplified
method is very simple and suitable for stability analysis of circular failure surfaces and
Janbu's rigorous method is suitable for noncircular failure surfaces.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No

Certification II

Declaration iii

Dedication iv
Acknowledgment v

Abstract vi
Table of contents VII

List oftables XI

List of figures xv

List of abbreviations oftechnical symbols and terms XX

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Scope of the Work 2
1.3 The Research Scheme 3
, 4
1.3.1 Data Collection
1.3.2 Validation of Data and General Observation about Soil
Condition and Failure Background 5
1.3.3 Development of Computer Program 5
1.3.4 Determination of Location of Center of Critical Circle 5
1.3.5 Determination of Factor of Safety for Each Failure Case Using
Stability Analysis Methods in Limit Equilibrium Condition 6
1.3.5.1 Embankment of Dhaka Export Processing Zone
(DEPZ) at Saver 6
1.3.5.2 Dhaka City Flood Protection Embankment 7
1.3.5.3 Dhaka-Narayangonj-Demra (DND) Flood
Protection Embankment 7
1.3.5.4 Zalesina Landslide, Zagreb, Yuogoslavia 7

1.3.6 Comparison of Factor of Safety Obtained by

Different Methods 8

vii
,,
Page No

1.3.7 Comments Regarding Suitability of Each Method 8

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Objective of Slope Stability Analyses 9

2.3 Natural Slopes and Their Stability 9

, 2.4 Man Made Slope and Their Stability 10

)
2.5 Type of Slope Movement and Landslides 10

2.6 Geotechnical Parameters in Stability Computation II

2.6.1 Shear Strength of Soils II

2.6.2 <1>=0
Concept 12

2.6.3 Field Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength for

Cohesive Soils 13

2.6.4 Laboratory Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength 15

2.6.4.1 The SHANSEP Procedure of Measuring Undrained Shear
Strength in the Laboratory 15
2.6.5 Determination of Shear Strength Parameters and Pore Pressure 16
2.7 Stability Analysis of Finite Slopes 19

2.8 Methods of Slope Stability Analysis for Different Types

of Slope Movement and Landslide 19
2.8.1 Fellenius Method 22
2.8.2 The Taylor (1948) Solution 22
2.8.3 Bishop's Simplified Method 24
2.8.4 Janbu's Simplified Method 28
2.8.5 Janbu's Rigorous Method 30
.'
, 2.8.6 Spencer's Method 32
2.8.7 Morgenstern and Price method 34
2.8.8 Sliding Block Analysis 37

2.9 Other Method of Analyses 37

2.9.1 Finite Element Method 37

2.9.2 Three Dimensional Method of Slope Stability Analysis 39

viii
,
,
Page No

2.10 Methods for Determining the Center of Critical Circle for Cohesive soil 39

2.11 Embankment-Soil Interaction 43

2.12 Prediction of Factor of Safety from Available Methods of Analysis 43

2.13 Stability Analysis by Using Computer Program PCSTABL5M 44

2.14 Summery of Literature Review 45

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR SLOPE

STABILITY ANALYSIS 47

3.1 Introduction 47

3.2 Programming in GWBASIC 47

3.3 Computer Programs Developed for Slope Stability Analysis 48

3.4 Computational Technique Used in Developing the Program 48

3.5 Limitations of the Program 50

4.0 CASE STUDIES OF SLOPE FAILURES 51

4.1 Introduction 51

4.2 Embankment Failure of DEPZ at Savar (Case study-I) 51

4.2.1 Stability Analysis of Embankment ofDEPZ at Savar 54

4.2.1.1 Analysis by Modified Programs 54
4.2.1.2 Analysis of Slope Failure by PCST ABL5M 65

4.3 Dhaka City Flood Protection Embankment (Case study-2) 66

4.3.1 Stabi Iity Analysis of Dhaka City Flood Protection

Embankment (Case Study-2) 66

4.4 Dhaka-Narayangonj-Demra (OND) Flood Protection

Embankment (Case study-3) 74

4.4.1 Stability Analysis ofDND Flood Protection

Embankment (Case study-3) 77
.',
4.5 Zalesina landslide, Zagreb, Yugoslavia (Case study-4) 82

4.5.1 Stability Analysis of Zalesina landslide, Zagreb,

Yugoslavia (Case study-4) 84

4.6. Comments on Results of Analyses 86

4.7 Concluding Remarks 90

ix
 r

Page No

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FUTURE STUDY 91
5.1 Conclusions 91

5.2 Recommendations for Future Study 92

References 94
APPENDICES 97
Appendix-I Flow Chart
Fellenius Method 98
Appendix-2 Program listing 116
List of symbols used in computer programming 117
Appendix-2.1 Fellenius Method 120
Appendix-2.2 Fellenius Method
Modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) 129
Appendix-2.3 Bishop's Simplified Method 138
Appendix-2.4 Janbu's Simplified Method 147
Appendix-2.5 Janbu's Rigorous Method 156
Appendix-2.6 Spencer's Method 168
Appendix-2.7 Morgenstern and Price Method
Procedure Followed Proposed by Fredlund
and Krahn (1977) 178

Appendix-3 Results of stability analysis of embankment of

DEPZ at Sayar 190
Appendix-3.1 Results of stability analysis by modified Programs
Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar 194
Appendix-3.2 Results of stability analysis by PCSTABL5M
West side slope oflocation 1
Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar 222

Appendix-4 Results of stability analysis of Dhaka city flood

protection embankment 233

Appendix-5 Results of stability analysis ofDND flood protection

Embankment. 247

Appendix-6 Results of stability analysis of Zalesina landslide,

Zagreb, Yugoslavia. 256

x
 .. ",

LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page No

I.l Failure cases studied 6

2.1 Methods of stability analysis used for different type of

slope moyement and landslide. 21

2.2 Values of a and 13for determination of center of critical

circle (after Fellenius, 1936). 40
4.1 Factors of safety obtained from different methods for a
common slip surface using circular failure surface,

Total stress (~=O) analysis, West side slope of location

I, Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar. 54
4.2 Critical factor of safety obtained from the selected

methods, Total stress (~=O) analysis, Circular failure

surface, West side slope of location I, Embankment of
DEPZ at Sayar. 55
4.3 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods,
Total stress (c>O,~>O) analysis, Circular failure surface,

West side slope of location I, Embankment ofDEPZ at

Sayar. 55
4.4 Factor of safety and location of center of critical circle
obtained from different methods usmg different
procedure for determining center of critical circle, Total

stress (~=O) analysis, West side slope of location I,

.,~
Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar. 56
4.5 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods,

Total stress (~=O) analysis, Circular failure surface,

South side slope oflocation 2, Embankment ofDEPZ at

Sayar. 57

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page No

4.6 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods,

Total stress (<jl=0) analysis, Circular failure surface,

South side slope of location 3, Embankment ofDEPZ at

Savar. 57

4.7 Factor of safety obtained from two different searching

techniques, West side slope of location 1, Total stress

(<jl=0) analysis, Embankment ofDEPZ at Savar. 65

4.8 Critical factor of safety obtained from two different
searching techniques, West side slope of location 1,

Total stress (<jl=0) analysis, Embankment of DEPZ at

Savar. 66
4.9 Stability analysis of country side slope, circular failure
surface, Effective stress analysis, Considering seepage
and without considering seepage, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment. 69
4.10 Stability analysis of river side slope, circular failure
surface, Effective stress analysis, Considering seepage
and without considering seepage, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment. 69
4.11 Factor of safety obtained by Janbu's rigorous method at
different thrust line position of inter slice forces, River
\ side slope of section at 13+900, Effective stress
analysis, Dhaka city flood protection embankment.. 72

4.12 Factor of safety qbtained from the selected methods,

Total stress (<jl=0) analysis, Circular failure surface,

Stability analysis of river side slope, Dhaka city flood

protection embankment. 73

xii

.,1.
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page No

4.13 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods,

Total stress (~=O) analysis, Circular failure surface,

Stability analysis of country side slope, Dhaka city
flood protection embankment. 73

4.14 Stability analysis of country side slope of section at 6,

Circular failure surface, Effective stress analysis, DND
flood protection embankment. 77
4.15 Stability analysis without considering seepage and
submergence, Critical factor of safety obtained from the
selected methods, Country side slope of section at 6,
Circular failure surface, Effective stress type of
analysis, DND flood protection embankment. 79
4.16 Stability analysis considering seepage but no
submergence, Critical factor of safety obtained from the
selected methods, Country side slope of section at 6,
Circular failure surface, Effective stress type of
analysis, DND flood protection embankment. 79

4.17 Stability analysis of country side slope, Total stress

(~=O) analysis, Circular failure surface, DND flood

protection embankment. 81

4.18 Stability analysis of canal side slope, Total stress (~=O)

\,
analysis, Circular failure surface, DND flood protection
embankment. 81
4.19 Determined shear strength parameters by the authors
regarding condition of stability for Zalesina land slide,
Zagreb, Yugoslavia. 82

xiii

..•.•....
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No Title Page No

4.20 Determined shear strength parameters by the authors

regarding condition of sliding for Zalesina land slide,
Zagreb, Yugoslavia. 82
4.21 Factor of safety determined by Bishop's simplified
method, Zalesina landslide, Zagreb. 84
4.22 Factor of safety determined by Fellenius method,
Zalesina land slide, Zagreb. 84
4.23 Factor of safety determined by using laboratory test
data, Zalesina land slide, Zagreb. 86

xiv

, ,
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page No

2.1 Correction factor to be used for undrained shear

strength obtained by field vane test (after Bjerrum,
1972). 14
2.2 Methods of determining cl and '1/, (a) CD triaxial tests,
(b) CUPP tests (triaxial) (c) CD direct shear tests 17
2.2 (d) Determination of c and <I> (UU tests on non
saturated specimens), (e) Determination of c and <I> (UU
tests on saturated specimens). 18
2.3 Type of failures of finite slope 20
2.4 Forces in the slices method (after Bishop, 1955) 23
2.5 Stability charts for <l>u=O analysis in homogeneous
clay slopes (after Taylor, 1948) 25
2.6 Partially submerged slope (after Bishop, 1955) 27
2.7 Correction factor fo as function of curvature ratio d/L
and type of soil (after Janbu et ai., 1956) 29
2.8 (a) Definitions and notations used for generalized
procedure of slices, (b) Forces acting on the boundaries
of a single slice (after Janbu, 1957). 31
2.9 Definitions of parameters used In generalized
discussion of slope stability (after Fredlund and Krahn,
1977). 33
2.10 Distributions of inter slice force inclinations used in the
Morgenstern and Price method (after Fredlund and
Krahn, 1977). 36
2.11 Sliding block analysis (after Ward et ai., 1955) 38

xv
-\

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page No

2.12 (a) Method for determining center of critical circle by

drawing contours of factor of safety (b) Method for
determining center of critical circle for frictional
cohesive soils (after Jumikis, 1962). 41
2.12 (c) Method for determining the center of critical circle
in cohesive soil (after NAVFAC). 42
4.1 Cross sections of embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar (Failure
locations 1 and 2) 52
4.2 Cross sections of embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar (Failure
location 3) 53
4.3 Critical slip circles obtained from total stress (~=O)
analysis by selected methods of stability analysis,
Figure shows results obtained for west side slope of
location I, Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar. 63
4.4 Critical slip circles obtained from different selected
methods by using different procedure for determining

the center of critical circle, Total stress (~=O) analysis,

West side slope of location I, Embankment ofDEPZ at
Sayar. 64
4.5 Critical slip circles obtained from Janbu's simplified
method and Bishop's simplified method usmg
PCST ABLSM and modified program, Total stress

(~=O) analysis, West side slope of location I,

Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar. 67
4.6 Cross section of Dhaka city flood protection embankment
(Station at 13+900) 68

xvi
 '.~.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page No

4.7 Critical slip circles determined by different method of

stability analysis (a) Bishop's simplified method,
Fellenius method (b) lanbu's simplified method, Total

stress (<1>=0)analysis, Country side slope of section at

13+900, Dhaka city flood protection embankment.. 75
4.8 (a) Cross section ofDND embankment at section 6 76
(b) Cross section ofDND embankment at section 8 76

4.9 Critical slip circles obtained from the selected methods

of stability analysis, Effective stress analysis
considering seepage, Country side slope of section at 6,
DND flood protection embankment. 80
4.10 Cross sections AA, BB and CC, Zalesina land slide,
Yugoslavia. 83

A.2.1 . Definition ofYT, YB, YW and X 119

A.3.1 Partial layout of embankments showing failure spots and
boring locations 191
A.3.2 Isotropically consolidated undrained shear strength
envelope for sample BI, UD-I at 2.5 m depth 192
A.3.3 Isotroically consolidated undrained shear strength
envelope for sample B I, UD-2 at 4 m depth 193
A.3.4 Plotting of factor of safety Ff and Fm with respect to
scaling factor A, Morgenstern and Price method,
Constant function used, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 14, y-coordinate 15 and radius 14,
Embankment of DEPZ at Savar, West side slope of

location I,Total stress( <1>=0)

analysis. 213

xvii
,
,
I

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page No

A.3.5 Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to

inclination angle of resultant inter slice forces 8,
Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 14, y-coordinate 15 and radius 14,
Embankment of DEPZ at Savar, West side slope of
location I,Total stress( ~~O)analysis. 218
AA.1 Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to
inclination angle of resultant inter slice forces 8,
Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka
city flood protection embankment, Effective stress
analysis, Without considering seepage, Country side
slope of section at 13+900. 239
•
J AA.2 Plotting of factor of safety Ff and Fm with respect to
inclination angle of resultant inter slice forces 8,
Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka
city flood protection embankment , Effective stress
analysis, considering seepage, Country side slope of
section at 13+900 240
AA.3 Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to
inclination angle of resultant inter slice forces 8,

.' Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-

coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka
city flood protection embankment, Effective stress
analysis, Without considering seepage, River side slope
of section at 13+900. 242

xviii
""

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No Title Page No

AAA Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to

inclination angle of resultant inter slice forces e,
Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka
city flood protection embankment, Effective stress
analysis, considering seepage, River side slope of
section at 13+900. 243
AA.5 Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to
scaling factor :>C, Morgenstern and Price method"
Location of slip circle center x-coordinate 26, y-
coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis,
Without considering seepage, River side slope of
section at 13+900. 245
AA.6 Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to
scaling factor :>C, Morgenstern and Price method,
Location of slip circle center x-coordinate 26, y-
coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis,
considering seepage, River side slope of section at
13+900. 246
A.5.! Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to
inclination angle of resultant inter slice forces e,
Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 11.58, y-coordinate 12.20 and radius 12.20,
DND flood protection embankment, Effective stress
analysis, Without considering seepage, Country side
slope of section at 6. 255

xix
 LIST OF ABBREVIA TrONS OF TECHNICAL SYMBOLS AND TERMS

Symbols Meaning

Resultant water force at left side of slice.

A, Resultant water force at right side of slice.

BSM Bishop's simplified method

Cohesion (Effective stress)

c Cohesion (Total stress)

DEPZ Dhaka Export Processing Zone
DND Dhaka- Narayangonj - Demra
E Horizontal inter slice force

Ff Factor of safetybased on force equilibrium

FEM Fellenius method
Factor of safety based on moment equilibrium
FTH Fellenius methodModified by Turnbull and,
Hvorslev 1967)
"
/
Factor of safety along interfaces
FS Factor of safety in general
JRM Janbu's rigorous method

JSM Janbu's simplified method

I Length of slice
m meter

Stability parameter.

MPM Morgenstern and Price method

N Number of slices
P Normal force
R Radius
SPM Spencer' method
Shear force required for limiting equilibrium.

u Pore water pressure.

W Weight of the slice

xx
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TECHNICAL SYMBOLS AND TERMS

Symbols Meaning
X Vertical inter slice force

a Angle of inclination of slice base.

Y Unit weight of soil

i Submerged unit weight of soil

Ysat Saturated unit weight of soil

Yw Unit weight of water

Angle of internal friction in degree (Total stress)

Angle of internal friction in degree(Effective

stress)

e Slope of inter slice force (Degree):

\ Symbols used in Computer Programming attached in Appendix-2

xxi
 CHAPTER!
INTRODUCTION

1.1GENERAL

There are at present several methods of stability analysis in existence. These methods
are applicable to both natural slopes as well as to man-made slopes and may be used
to assess the stability of embankments and excavations. Most of these methods are
based on limit equilibrium condition and apply the technique of slices suggested by
Fellenius (1936), Bishop (1955), Kenny (1956), Janbu (1957), Chugaev (1964),
Morgenstern and Price (1965), Spencer (1967), Skempton and Hutchinson (1969) and
Sarma (1973). In these methods the available shear strength is computed on the basis
of Mohr - Coloumb failure criterion. These methods mainly differ in the shape of the
assumed slip surfaces and in the handling ofthc indeterminacy of the problem.

In fact the primary purpose of any analysis in engineering applications is to contribute

to the safe and economic design or to find out the causes of failure (if any) or to
predict the possibilities and pattern of failure of any structure. In that respect it is clear
that the purpose of slope analysis is to make safe and economic design of excavations
or to predict the probability of failure of embankments, earth dams and slopes. As
there are many methods in existence for the analysis so the obtained factors of safety
may differ from each other. It is therefore necessary to identitY an appropriate method
for analysis of slopes. A method by which analysis can be performed simply and more
accurately would prove to be appropriate. The present research is directly related to
identification of a suitable slope stability analysis method for various geological and
environmental situations.

Due to low topographic relief Bangladesh is a flood vulnerable area. As a result it is

the common practice to construct road and flood embankments in Bangladesh.
Besides canals are dug frequently in Bangladesh for irrigation and drainage purpose.
Stability analysis of these embankments and cuts are required for their safe and
economic design. Unsafe design may lead to the failure of these earthen structures and
consequently incur great economic loss and hardship.

"
Slope stability analysis is a part of design of embankments, cuts etc. For sound design
stability of the structures must be checked. Besides, stability analysis is also required
for embankments, cuts for their remedial measures after a failure. As the failure of the
embankments, cuts incur a great loss therefore the stability analysis of these structures
are important. There are a number of methods in existence for stability analysis. One
needs to know appropriateness of these methods for a sound and economic design.

The development of slope stability analysis started a long time back. The earliest
analysis was given by Coulomb in 1773. He gave a solution for earth pressures
against retaining walls using plane sliding surface which was later extended with
soil's shear strength parameters c and ~. This work gave a solution for limiting height
of a vertical cut in cohesive soil. This solution was extended later to slope analysis by
Francis in 1820. He also assumed plane sliding surface. By about 1840 it was
observed that the sliding surface in clay was not plane, but significantly curved. In
1846 Collin argued that the failure in clay can be approximated by cycloids and the
cause of failure was inadequate shear strength. He also added that short term shear
strength was independent of stress level and analysis of curved surface was possible.
In J 927 Fellenius pointed out that the undrained shear strength is entirely cohesive
(~u=O). This was confirmed by Skempton and Golder in 1948. In 1943 Terzaghi and
his co-workers clarified the importance of effcctive stress. They also improved the
equipment used for triaxial testing. As a result it was possible to closely control pore
water pressure. In mid 1950s attention is given in the calculation for circular and non-
circular failure surfaces. This made a way to perform stability analysis by computer.

1.2 SCOPE OF THE WORK

The scope of this work is limited to the study of computational methods in slope
failures in natural and man made slope which are homogeneous and isotropic.
Stability analysis methods are limited to limit equilibrium conditions.

The mam objective of the study is to review the vanous methods available for
stability analysis of slopes and to suggest suitability of these methods under various
geotechnical and environmental conditions. For this purpose the following procedure

of work are followed.

!-
\.
(i) Some cases of embankment failures and land slide were selected for study.
(ii) Geotechnical information along with geometry of the failed sections and
environmental conditions which were subjected to these selected failure cases
were collected.
(iii) The methods of stability analysis have been selected on the basis of literature
review. Computer programs are developed for the selected methods of stability
analysis to carry out the research program.
(iv) Slope stability analysis is performed on the above failure cases by using the
selected methods of stability analysis. Different types of slip circle searching
technique are also used in the analysis.
(v) From the review of results suitability of each method of analysis is commented.

1.3 THE RESEARCH SCHEME

In literature review a number of methods for stability analysis of embankments, cuts

have been described. These methods include the analysis based on limit equilibrium
and some other methods, such as, sliding block analysis, finite element method etc.
These are two dimensional analyses. In literature review it is also described three
dimensional analyses. In this study only two dimensional analyses was performed
using the limit equilibrium technique. The methods used were Fellenius (1936),
Bishop (1955), Janbu (1957), Morgenstern and Price (1965), and Spencer (1967).

In order to estimate efficacy of each of the above methods of analysis three cases of
embankment failures and one land slide were studied. The selected cases of failures
are as follows:
(i) Embankment of Dhaka Export Processing Zone (DEPZ) at Saver
(ii) Dhaka City Flood Protection Embankment
(iii) Dhaka-Narayangonj-Demra (DND) Flood Protection Embankment
(iv) Zalesina Land slide, Zagreb, Yugoslavia.

The following steps were followed to carry out the research program.
(I) Data collection
(2) Validation of data and general observation about soil condition and failure
background.

r,
(
(3) Development of computer program.
(4) Determination of location of center of critical circle.
(5) Determination of factor of safety for each failure case using stability analysis
methods in limit equilibrium condition.
(6) Comparison off actor of safety obtained by different methods.
(7) Comments regarding suitability of each method.

1.3.1 Data Collection

The failure cases were studied by different persons or agencies for different purposes.
All the data including soil condition and geometry of the failure surfaces were
collected from the concerned papers.

In case of embankment of Dhaka Export Processing Zone (DEPZ) at Savar Bureau of

Research Testing and Consultation (BRTC) of BUET performed a study for remedial
measure of failed embankment. It was also performed subsoil investigation both by
Bureau of Research Testing and Consultation (BRTC), BUET and Dhaka Export
Processing Zone (DEPZ) authority. All necessary data for stability analysis were
collected from BRTC report. The shear strength parameters available in the report
were for total stress only.

In case of Dhaka City flood protection embankment it was performed a study for
remedial design by Louis Berger International Inc. Co. Necessary data for stability
analysis was collected from this study report. Both effective stress and total stress
parameters for soil strength were available in this report.

DND embankment was studied in 1977 (Safiullah, 1977). From the concerned
reference the data for soil condition were obtained. The shear strength parameters for
both total stress and effective stress were available.

The land slide of Zalesina was studied by Ervin Nonveiler and Lujo SukIje (1955) to
assess the influence of ground water seepage on factor of safety. For this purpose they
performed geotechnical laboratory investigation using CU triaxial test and ring shear
test. They also determined the shear strength parameters regarding the condition of

", ..•..
stability and condition of sliding at two different ground water levels. All the data for
stability analysis were collected from their report. Only effective stress parameters
were available in this report.

1.3.2 Validation of Data and General Observation about Soil Condition and
Failure Background

There are many factors on which accuracy of factor of safety depends. One of them is
accuracy in data. If the data is not correct then the factor of safety obtained will not be
correct. So in case of slope stability analysis it is the prime task to collect the correct
data which is representative of the field condition. The above failure cases were
studied by different agencies or persons for different purposes. The geotechnical
parameters including all other data for stability analysis were collected from those
concerned papers. So in this research program the author is unable to ascertain the
representativeness of the data as they were taken from field records maintained by
different organizations.

1.3.3 Development of Computer Program

Computer programs were used in the stability analysis. The programs were developed
in GWBASIC. The developed programs were termed as modified programs.
Noticeable that PCSTABL5M a software developed by Purdue University for stability
analysis was also used in the analysis. This software included Bishop's simplified
method, lanbu's simplified method and Spencer's method. Embankment of DEPZ at
Savar was only studied by this software using Bishop's simplified and lanbu's
simplified methods to make a comparison with the results that obtained from the
concerned modified programs. The slip circle searching technique ofPCSTABL5M is
different from the program that developed in GWBASIC.

1.3.4 Determination oflocation of Center of Critical Circle

Selection of center of critical circle is an important factor in case of stability analysis.

Depending on the soil condition different methods such as Fellenius process, mid
point circle principle etc. were used for this purpose. A study was also performed by
using different process of determining center of critical slip circle. By this study it has

5
 been identified whether same method of stability analysis provides the same critical
circle or not when it is used different procedure of determining center of critical

circle.

1.3.5 Determination of Factor of Safety for Each Failure Case Using Stability
Analysis Methods in Limit Equilibrinm Condition

Using the aforesaid data the following study was performed for the selected cases of
embankment failures and land slide. The methods of analysis used in the study
follows the principle of limit equilibrium. The studied failure cases are shown in the
Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Failnre cases studied

Cases of Location of Type of Soil condition Type of
Failures Failure failure Analysis used
I. Embankment Failures occurred Circular There were Total stress
of Dhaka Export at different failure underlying soft analysis (~~O
Processing Zone locations of the soil whose N- and c>O,~>O)
(DEPZ) at Saver embankment, value was zero was
which are shown In some cases . performed.
.•.
in the Figure A.
3.1 in the
appendix.
2.Dhaka City Failures occurred Circular There were Both total
Flood at different failure underlying soft stress and
Protection locations of the soil whose N- effective stress
Embankment embankment. value was zero analysis were
in some cases. performed
3.Dhaka- Circular Both total
Narayangonj- failure stress and
Demra (DND) - - effective stress
Flood analysis were
Protection performed
Embankment
"
,,(
4. Zalesina Circular Effective
Land Slide, failure stress analysis
Zagreb, - - was performed
Yogoslavia. only

1.3.5.1 Embankment of Dhaka Export Processing Zone (DEPZ) At Saver

In case of embankment failure of DEPZ analysis was performed using Fellenius

method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967), Bishop's

'{;' ;:.
." •.
'~',
simplified method, Janbu's simplified and rigorous method, Spencer's method and
Morgenstern and Price method. Total stress type of analysis was performed here.
With the available data both <1>=0 and c, <I> (c>O, <1»0) analysis were performed by
using the modified programs. Three sections of the embankment were analyzed. One
section was studied by using the computer program PCSTABL5M. In this case
Bishop's simplified and Janbu's simplified method were used.

1.3.5.2 Dhaka City Flood Protection Embankment

In case of Dhaka City flood protection embankment analysis was performed using
Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967),
Bishop's simplified method, Janbu's simplified and rigorous methods, Spencer's
method and Morgenstern and Price method. Only one section of the embankment was
studied. Both total stress (<1>=0) and effective stress analysis were performed using the
available data. Effective stress analysis was performed both by considering seepage
and without considering seepage.

1.3.5.3 Dbaka-Narayangonj-Demra (DND) Flood Protection Embankment

DND flood protection embankment was analyzed by using Fellenius method,

Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967), Bishop's simplified
method, Janbu's simplified and rigorous method, Spencer's method and Morgenstern
and Price method. One section of the embankment was analyzed. In this case analysis
was performed both by considering submergence and without considering
submergence. Both total stress (<1>=0) and effective stress type of analysis were
performed using the available data. Effective stress analysis was performed both by
considering seepage and without considering seepage.

1.3.5.4 Zalesina Land Slide, Zagreb, Yuogoslavia

In case of land slide of Zalesina analysis was performed only using Fellenius method
and Bishop's simplified method. Only effective stress type of analysis was performed
here. Three sections were analyzed using the available data.

7
1.3.6 Comparison of Factor of Safety Obtained By Different Methods

The obtained factor of safety from different case studies was compared to each other
regarding the methods of stability analysis. To make a comparison between the
obtained factors of safety for the selected methods, factors of safety were taken from a
common slip surface. Minimum factor of safety given by each method at different soil
and environmental condition were also determined. At the same time attempt has been
made to identify whether all the selected methods give the same critical slip surface or
not for a specific soil and environmental condition. The reasons due to which the
selected methods gave the same results or the variation in results, for a specific
condition were also identified.

1.3.7 Comments Regarding Suitability of Each Method

From the study of the failure cases using the selected methods of stability analysis
attempt has been made to assess which method gives the reliable result for a specific
soil and environmental condition that coincide with the failure condition. At the same
time it was also identified which method was simple and easy usable. It has also been
identified whether the two different searching techniques i.e. the modified program
and PCSTABLSM provide the same critical slip circle or not for the same geometry
and soil condition.

8
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

A large number of methods are available for analysis of stability of slopes. These
include methods proposed by Bishop (1955), Janbu (1957), Spencer (1967), Fellenius
(1936), Morgenstern and Price (1965). These methods are based on limit equilibrium
condition. Besides these, some methods are based on elastic properties of soil using
finite element method of analysis. All the methods mentioned differ from each other
in assumption regarding failure surface, soil property and the handling of the
indeterminacy of the problem.

2.2 OBJECTIVE OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

The primary purpose of slope analysis in most engineering applications is to

contribute to the safe and economic design of excavations, embankments, earth dams
and spoil heaps. The main objective of slope stability analysis is to assess the stability
of different types of slopes under given conditions that is by determining factor of
safety in terms of stability for worst possible slip surface. The analysis therefore aims
at locating worst slip surface and associated factor of safety for that surface. If the
factor of safety is less than or equal to one, the slope is considered to be unstable.

2.3 NATURAL SLOPES AND THEIR STABILITY

Natural slopes, which have been stable for many years, may suddenly fail due to one
or more of the following main causes:
(i) External disturbance in the form of cutting or filling of parts of a slope or of
ground adjacent to it resulting in a change of the balance between forces tending
to cause instability and forces tending to resist it.
(ii) External disturbance in the form of seismic activity.
(iii) Increase in pore water pressures with in a slope due to significant changes in the
surrounding areas such as deforestation, filling of valleys, disturbance of natural

n
 drainage characteristics, urbanization, construction of reservoirs, exceptional

rainfall etc.
(iv) Progressive decrease in shear strength of slope materials (Skempton 1963) and
weathering can also contribute to failure of slope.

2.4 MAN MADE SLOPE AND THEIR STABILITY

Man made slope may be grouped into three categories, such as, cut slopes,
embankment including earth dams and spoil or waste heaps. For all categories of
slopes stability needs to be checked under the following situations.
(i) During construction
(ii) End-of-construction
(iii) Long term condition
(iv) Rapid draw down condition
(v) Under seismic disturbance

2.5 TYPE OF SLOPE MOVEMENT AND LANDSLIDES

Many classifications of land slides have been given e.g. Eckell (1958), Hutchinson
(1968), Skempton and Hutchinson (1969), Zaruba and Menel (1969). Slope
movement can be divided as follows (after Blyth and De Freitas, 1974):

(i) Slides
(ii) Falls and
(iii) Flows

It is important to distinguish between slides, falls and flows. In each category

movement can be and often is extremely rapid, although some slides occur slowly.

Slides involve shear failure and may be translational or rotational in character.

Translational slides often involve movement along marked discontinuities or plane of
weakness. Rotational slips have a failure surface which is concave upwards and occur
in uniform soil. Falls are confined to surface zones in soil (Soil falls) or rock (Rock
falls) and are preceded by the formation and enlargement of cracks and removal of

10
 Ill_

\
base support of individual blocks or masses. Flows range from slow to extremely
rapid and occur mostly in unconsolidated materials.

2.6 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS IN STABILITY COMPUTATION

Most stability computations use the soil shear strength for analysis. Shear strength is
depicted by two parameters, cohesion c/ and angle of internal friction ~l

Parameters c/ and ~/ refer to intergranular stresses. Both terms quite appropriately

refer to the fact that a normal stress can produce frictional resistance only to the extent
that it acts on the solid constituents of the soil. The shear strength is equal to c/+ (p-u)

tan~/, where p is the total normal stress and u the pore water pressure. The concept of

c/ , ~/ is the most fundamental and universal; it applies to sands as well as clays,

saturated as well as unsaturated soils, constant or changing volume and finally, with
or without drainage. The quantification of c/ and ~/ and u for a specific situation is

discussed in 2.6.5.

For clayey soils in saturated state, shear strength is often depicted by parameter So

which is undrained shear strength of soil. The suffix u comes from "undrained",
indicating constant water content and hence constant volume and strength. Then the
value So can be used without regard to the stresses within the soil mass, that is, the
shear So is sometimes referred to as shear strength under ~~O condition.

2.6.1 Shear Strength of Soils

The generally used theory of soil strength is the Mohr-Coulomb theory, which may be
expressed by the following equation.

s = c + p.tan~ (2.1)

In the above equation, s is the shear strength or the shear stress on the failure plane, p

is the normal stress at failure on the failure plane, c is the unit cohesion and ~ is the

angle of internal friction. The above equation can be written in a modified form as

follows:
(2.2)

II
\

In which p/= (p-u) is the effective normal stress on the failure plane when the pore
water pressure is u and effective stress parameters are cohesion cl and angle of internal
"
finctlOn ,hI
'1"

2.6.2 q, = 0 Concept

In clayey soil and silt the rate of dissipation of pore water pressure is so slow that
most failure in these soils occurs in undrained condition.

Undrained strength of a saturated soil is unaffected by changes in total stress unless

accompanied by a change in water content (implying a change in volume). Therefore

such a soil behaves in undrained shears as if it has a value of q, = 0, i.e. the total stress
Mohr-Coulomb envelope is horizontal. Stated another way, the concept implies that a
number of unconsolidated undrained tests (UU tests) on identical samples of the same
saturated soil would give the same undrained shear strength Co regardless of the level
of stresses used for testing (Note that Co is the half of the difference of total principal
stresses or effective principal stresses at failure and is independent of developed pore
pressure). The validity of a q,=0 concept rest on the assumption of no volume change

or change in water content during loading or unloading. Such conditions are prevalent
immediately after loading or unloading of saturated soft clays whose permeability is
often extremely low. Therefore the q,~0concept is of considerable importance in the

analysis of slopes of saturated cohesive soil for short term or end-of-construction

stability. The use ofa q,=0 concept for stability problems in normally consolidated and
lightly overconsolidated soils is widely accepted. However, if the overconsolidation
ratio is higher than about 4 to 8, the volume of the soil tends to increase significantly
during shear with consequent decrease of pore water pressure. Thus the undrained
strength exceeds the drained strength but high negative pore pressures tend to draw
water into the soil with consequent swelling and reduction of strength. Therefore the
undrained strength cannot be relied upon and its use in stability analysis would lead to
results on the unsafe side. On the other hand for normally loaded lightly
overconsolidated soil's tendency to decrease in volume implies that strength would
increase with time and thus use of undrained strengths would lead to results on the

12

'.'
'.
" safe side. According to Terzaghi & Peck (1967) ~=O concept should not be used for
clays with overconsolidated ratios higher than about 2 to 4.

2.6.3 Field Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength For Cohesive Soils

The most common methods of measuring undrained shear strength Su for cohesive
soils in the field are as follows:
(i) The vane shear test
(ii) The static Cone Penetration Test
(iii) Standard Penetration Test

Of these the most reliable is the vane shear test. The resulting Su value must, however,
be corrected by applying an empirical factor whose value depends on the plasticity
index of clay and overburden pressure (Figure 2.1) (Bjerrum, 1972). The need for this
correction factor arises from the fact that tests last only few minutes, whereas a failure
in real problem takes weeks or months. According to Azzouz and Baligh (1981),
corrected values are within 25% of actual values, but Kirkpatrick and Khan (1981)
found discrepancies between Bjerrum's factor and laboratory test results.

Next in reliability after the vane test is the static cone penetration test (CPT). The
value of Su can be estimated from the static cone test by the following equation.

(2.3)

Where, po = yz = Overburden pressure point where q, is measured. This parameter is

in the units of q, and same type of pressure. Nk =Cone factor (a constant for the soil).
Nk has been found to range from 5 to 75; however, most values are in the 10 to 30
range and, further, most values are in the 15 to 20 range. q , = Cone bearing

resistance.

Sometimes results of standard penetration test and dynamic probe are used to interpret
the undrained shear strength. But such evaluations are very unreliable for most

cohesive soils.

13

. ,,'
,

01.0
f--
U
«
LLO.8
z
o
f--
~O.6
a::
a::
8 a ~ 40 6080 100120
PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

Figure 2.1 Correction factor to be used for undrained shear strength obtained by field
vane test (after Bjerrum, 1972).

14
2.6.4 Laboratory Measurement of Undrained Shear Strength

The planning of laboratory strength tests is usually preceded by a division of the

subsurface profile into layers of relatively uniform properties; the separation into
layers is based on field descriptions of soil types, field tests and laboratory
classification tests. From each layer representative undisturbed samples are collected

and from each sample the insitu over burden stress e/vo is estimated. Then one of the
following methods is used to determine the value of undrained shear strength (su).

(i) The unconfined compression test (V)

(ii) The unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test (VV)
(iii) The consolidated undrained triaxial compression test (Denoted by either CV or
one ofCIU and CKoV)
(iv) The undrained direct simple shear tests either without consolidation (VV) or
after consolidating to the natural over burden stress (CKoU).

The main problem with determining shear strength by using of above test is difficulty
of obtaining representative sample. The sampling process involves drilling bore hole,
sampling in a tube, transportation of sample, storage, extrusion of sample and
trimming of specimen for test. All these process induce disturbance. Also even perfect
sampling introduces release in field stress.

To overcome the problem of stress release two methods for determination of Su may

be used.
(i) Recompression method
(ii) SHANSEP procedure

2.6.4.1 The SHANSEP Procedure of Measuring Undrained Shear Strength in

the Laboratory

The SHANSEP (Stress history and normalized soil engineering properties) procedure
takes into full account the effect of past consolidation pressure and tries to overcome
the effects of sampling disturbances due to stress release. In this procedure
undisturbed samples are first consolidated under stresses exceeding the maximum past
consolidation stress, then are allowed to swell under various lower effective stresses
and finally, are sheared undrained. Ladd and Foot (1974) and Ladd et al. (1977)

15
 showed that results of CKoU laboratory shear tests performed on clay samples with
the same overconsolidation ratio (OCR) but different consolidation stresses and
therefore different preconsolidation stresses, generally exhibit very similar strength
and stress-strain characteristics when normalized with respect to consolidation stress.
In this case So is determined by the following expression.
soldv = S. (OCR)ffi (2.4)
Where, s=soldv for normally consolidated clay and the exponent m equals 0.8,,0.05.

2.6.5 Determination of Shear Strength Parameters and Pore Pressure

The use of effective cohesion (J) and effective angle of internal friction (<1/) in a
stability equation is linked with the ability to fix the value of pore water pressure u
along the particular surface at the time of the envisaged failure.

In the great majority of cases c/ and <1/ are determined by laboratory tests. Figure 2.2
shows the three most common ways of arriving at this results, consolidated drained
triaxial compression tests, consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests with pore
,
pressure measurements and drained direct shear tests. For each determination good
practice calls for at least three tests performed under different stresses. Test must be
performed on near identical specimens which are cut from the same sample. The
value of c/ and <1/ are obtained either from Mohr envelopes, in the case of triaxial tests,
or from strength versus normal stress plots in the case of direct shear tests.

It is difficult in practice to obtain undisturbed samples of sand and gravelly soils for
determination of shear strength parameters. For that several approximate correlations
have been developed over the years for the approximate determination of the friction
angle ~ from SPT and CPT results. Such relations are given by Peck et al (1974),
Meyerhof(l956), Robertson and Campanella (1983).

The pore water pressure (u) is equal to the sum of the hydrostatic prcssure below the
water table, Uoplus the change L1u(i.e. u= uo+L1u)caused by the soil stresses which are
induced by surface loading.

16
\

/
<p
Mohr failure envelope

Nonnal stress

(a) CD triaxial tests

Mohr circle for effective stresses

Mohr circle for total stresses
Displacement of Mohr circle to account pore
water pressure at failure.

Nonnal stress

(b) CUPP tests (triaxial)

Normal Stress on Shear Plane

(c) CD Direct shear tests

Figure 2.2 Methods of determining c/ and 4>/

(a) CD triaxial tests
(b) CUPP tests (triaxial)
(c) CD direct shear tests

17
\

c
Total normal stress

(d) UU tests on non saturated specimens

<p=o

Total normal stress

(e) UU tests on saturated specimens

-
..

Figure 2.2 (d) Determination of c and ~ (UU tests on non saturated specimens)
(e) Determination of c and ~ (UU tests on saturated specimens)

18
•
The parameters c and ~ are measured exclusively in the laboratory often by
performing triaxial compression test but more rarely by direct shear tests. Test results

are plotted on Mohr diagram and c, ~ are determined by drawing a common tangent to

the circles or as near a common tangent as possible. When ~ = 0 then c is equal to s,

(Figure 2.2e).

2.7 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF FINITE SLOPES

ln uniform cohesive soils failure of finite slopes occur along a surface, which is a
curve. In stability computations, the curve representing the real surface of sliding is
usually replaced by an arc of a circle or logarithmic spiral.

Three basic types of failure of a finite slope may occur, i) slope failure, ii) toe failure
and iii) base failure. If the failure occurs along a surface of sliding that intersects the
slope above it's toe the slide is known as slope failure and if the sliding surface
intersects at toe then it is termed as toe failure. On the other hand, if the soil beneath
the toe of the slope is weak the failure occurs along a surface that passes at some
distance below the toe of the slopes, such a type of failure is known as base failure.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the different types offailure in finite slopes.

2.8 METHODS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT

TYPES OF SLOPE MOVEMENT AND LANDSLIDE

There are a number of methods available for the stability analysis of slopes. Of them
different methods of stability analysis are used for different types of slope movement
and land slide. In article 2.5 it has been stated two types of slope failures or land slide,
such as, rotational failure and translational failure. Table 2.1 shows a list of different
analysis method for slope stability available for each type offailure.

All the methods showed in the table are based in equilibrium held in the time of
failure. In the next articles different methods of stability analysis are described in
brief. The methods mentioned in case of rotational failure use the technique of limit

equilibrium.

19
 H
Toe failure
Base failure D

Figure 2.3 Type offailures of finite slope

20
The aim of limit equilibrium studies is to analyze the stability of any mass of soil or
rock assuming incipient failure along a potential slip surface. In general a failure
surface of simple shape is assumed and the material above the surface is considered to
be a "free-body". The disturbing and resisting forces above the assumed failure
surface are estimated enabling the formulation of equations concerning force
equilibrium or moment equilibrium (or both) of the potential sliding mass. The
solution of these equations provides quantitative information concerning the stability
of slope. However this information is relevant only to the assumed slip surface and it
is, therefore customary to repeat the calculation to a number of trial slip surface to
find the critical slip surface. Even when there is a well defined discontinuity surface
of weakness or old slip surface along which part of the potential slip surface may be
located, trials are still necessary because the complete practical slip surfaces is rarely
known in advance. However, the number of trials is considerably reduced when
geology and discontinuities and surfaces of weakness have been identified.

In case of limit equilibrium method factor of safety is commonly defined as the ratio
between available unit shear strength to required shear strength Sm also referred to as
mobilized shear strength. The required shear strength is of course equal to the actual
in situ shear stress, which is estimated from calculation. Available shear strength
depends on the real properties ofthe soil, which are measured from laboratory or field
tests.

Table 2.1 Methods of stability analysis used for different type of slope movement
and land slide

Method of stability Type of movement Type of failure surface Remarks

analysis Rotational Transla Circular Noncircular
tional
Fellenius Method
Method (1936) ;J - ;J - of slices
Bishop's
Method (1955) ;J - ;J - ;J
Janbu's simplified
method (1956) ;J ;J ;J ;J ;J
Janbu's rigorous method
(1957) ;J ;J ;J ;J ;J
Morgenstern and Price
method (1965) ;J ;J ;J ;J ;J
Spencer's method (1967) ;J ;J ;J ;J ;J
Taylor's method (1948) ;J - ;J - Graphic-
cal

21
2.8.1 Fellenius Method

Figure 2.4 shows the forees acting on a slice. In this method it is assumed failure
surface is cireular and ignores inter slice forces.

Taking moment about the center of the slip circle the following equation is obtained
for the factor of safety defined as a ratio of resisting and disturbing moments:

L[c/I+tan~/ (W.cosa-u.l)]
(2.5)
LW.sina

In which u is the pore water pressure at the base of any slice and the assumption is
over all the slices.

The term (W.cosa-u.l) may become negative implying negative effective normal
stress on the base of a slice which is unrealistic and unacceptable. This can happen to
any slice with small W or large u or both. In practice the term may be taken as zero
when it's value beeomes negative for any slice. Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) have
proposed a different procedure of calculating the effective normal stress directly by
resolving the effective forces normal to the base of a slice using an effective slice
weight (W -ub), where b is the width of slice. This leads to the following expression
for factor of safety in which the effective normal stress is positive for all reasonable

values of pore water pressure.

L[c/I +tan~/ (W.cosa-u.I. cos2a)]

(2.6)
LW.sina

2.8.2 The Taylor (1948) Solution

From calculation on homogeneous slopes using the friction circle method, Taylor
(1948) observed that for a given angle of shearing resistance in the soil, the stability

ofthe slope decreases

(i) As the slope height h increased

(ii) As the unit weight y increased

(iii) As the cohesion c decreased

22

;f
 (a) Cross Section of Embankment

(b) Forces acting on a slice

+1

tan6=tanqf/F

(c) Force diagram

Figure 2.4 Forces in the slices method (after Bishop, 1955)

23

.'
Taylor introduced the dimensionless stability number yH/c. His original presentation
used total stress strength parameters c and $ throughout a uniform slope. Total stress
is now used in saturated clay soils in which rapid loading causes failure under
undrained conditions with $u =0 only. Figure 2.5 represents the Taylor's results for $u

~oonly. The figure shows values of the stability number yHIc"q at which failure take

place for the slope inclination 13of the given slope and the depth d to an underlying
hard stratum which limits the depth of sliding. The factor of safety against undrained
failure is then given by comparing the available shear strength Cu with the required

average shearing resistance C"q that is

F= CU I creq (2.7)

The solution assumes no free water surface at the toe of the slope, no surcharge or no
tension cracking and that the failure surfaces are circular.

Three particular mechanism of failure can be identified. They are described below.
(i) Slope failure: When the slope height H is relatively large compared with the
undrained shear strength, the toe of the slide emerges from the face of the slope.
(ii) Toe failure: When the slope inclination exceeds 54 degree, all failures emerge at

the toe of slope.

(iii) Base failure: For flatter slopes failure is deep seated and extends to the hard
stratum form ing the base of the clay layer.

2.8.3 Bishop's Simplified Method

Bishop (1955) made the simplifYing assumption that the interslice shear forces Xn and
Xn+l could be ignored. The resultant forces Q" and Qn+l in Figure 2.4 can be
approximated by horizontal forces En and En+l. The method is usually used for
circular failure surfaces and the equation for factor of safety in terms of moment
equilibrium expressed as follows:

L[R {c/.b+tan~/ (W -u.b)} .secal (1 +tan~/tana/F)]

( 2.8)
2:W.R .sina-(AL.aL-A,.a,)+KW.k

24
 L---.J ~ __ .L--~ J, ~_, ~L--l__' _J __ j
-0,5 0.75 1.0 1.'5 2' 3 4 "6 10 c:;

SLOPE (~co[{3)

NOT E. SOLU1'lOf-J FOr, .Ur-JOG i:\lN EO $ Ti"8rL Iry --!,

"(- tl
,n-

Figure 2.5 Stability 'charts for <j> u =0 analysis In homogeneous clay slopes (after
Taylor, 1948).

25
,
-,
Where, KW is earthquake load and k is the distance from center of moment to
earthquake load KW. AI. and A, are the resultant water forces at the left and right of
the section and aL and a, are their respective perpendicular distances from center of
moments. R is radius of the slip circle (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.6 shows the forces acting on a submerged slope. The disturbing moment is

2::(W,+W2)'X and
W,+W2+ X,- X,+, -I (u,.cosa +c/IF.sina)
(2.9)
cosa +tan~/ sina IF

Where u, is the pore water pressure expressed as an excess over the hydrostatic
pressure corresponding to the water level out side the slope; that is
(2.10)

Where Yw denotes the density of water and z denotes depth of the slice below MN

(Figure 2.6a). (Ifno parts ofthe slice is submerged then us=u).

Now for partial submergence the expression for factor of safety stands

-------------------- (2.11)

2: (W,+W2) .sina
The forces between the slices now have to satisfy the conditions:

(2.12)

(2.13)

Where d is the depth of water at toe of the slip, which causes horizontal water thrust
on the vertical section with which the slip terminates.

26
 x
o
M

(a) Cross Section of Embankment

(b) Forces acting on a.slice

E n- E n+ I
tan O=tamp1F

(c) Force diagram

Fig 2.6 Partially submerged slope (after Bishop, 1955)

27
A similar treatment ofthe simplified method lends to the expression

L:[cl.l+tanqi {(W1+W2).cosa- us.b sew}]

(2.14)
L: (W1+W2) .sina

The treatment of the pore pressure leads to consistent results throughout the full range
of submergence (Bishop 1952).

2.8.4 Janbu's Simplified Method

Jamb et al (1956) described a relatively simple analysis for generalized slide surfaces
which again neglects the interstice forces. The expression for factor of safety is given

below.

Fo--- -------- (2.15)

L:W.tana

cl+(W Ib-u )tan~1

s= (2.16)
1+tana.tan~I/F

Factor of safety Fa can be improved by introducing a correction factor to take account

of interslice shear forces, such that
FFfox Fa (2.17)
fa is a correction factor which depends on the geometric ratio d/L, cohesion and angle
of internal friction. As the slip surfaces become elongated d/L decreases and
correction factor approaches to unity. L is the straight line distance between the
intersection points and d is the maximum depth as shown in Figure 2.7.

28
 .•.. i

Shear
surface

t.
- 'f =0

(,,'i' sOil

c=O

0.3
Ratio d/L~

Figure 2.7 Correction factor fo as function of curvature ratio d/L and type of soil
(after Janbu et ai, 1956)

29
2.8.5 Janbu's Rigorous Method

This differs from Janbu's simplified solution by the inclusion of the interslice forces
X nand Xn+1 (Figure 2.8) in the analysis and by the determination of the points where
the resultant interslice forces Q nand Q n+1intersect the sides of the slices. In this way
it identifies the "thrust line" joining the point of action of the inters lice resultants. In
this method the following formulas are used in the calculation of factor of safety for

slices between the limiting parts a and b:

LA
F= -------- (2. I 8)
Ea-Eb+L B

Where B=~Q+ (p+t)b.tana (2.19)

And A~s.b (1 Han2a) (2.20)

Now shear strength's' is determined by the following formula

c/+ (p+t-u)tanqi
s= ------------ (2.21 )
1+(1/F) tanq/I tana

The horizontal interslice force E and the vertical interslice forces are determined by

the following formulas.

E=Ea+L~E (2.22)

Where ~E=B-AIF (2.23)

X=-E tanal +hl dE/dX-Zq dQ/dX (2.24)

Factor of safety along interfaces can be determined by the following formula.

(2.25)
X

30
 p
External
loads

Q
OWL

. __ .----' Line of thrust

Shear surface
b
(a)

b
/',

h ZQ

(b)

Figure 2.8 (a) Definitions and notations used for generalized procedure of slices.
(b) Forces acting on the boundaries of a single slice (after Janbu, 1957).

31
A typical computation is started with considering 10=0. At to=O the corresponding
factor of safety is termed as Fo. Then it is proceeded to evaluate the interslice forces,
working successively, for example, from right to left in the cross section. Thus, by
working from the right of the section towards the left and using equation 2.22, 2.23 &
2.24 alternatively, a distribution ofthe interslice forces can be developed for the thrust
line position defined by the assumed value of ht in equation 2.24. An iterative solution
must be adopted. For slices located away from the ends of the slide where cracks at
the ground surface may affect the result, the thrust line is usually required to lie
between the mid point and lower third point of the side ofthe slices.

It should be noted that because of the indeterminacy of the slices method, it is not
possible to obtain a unique solution. The final answer can only be identified as lying
within a range which is associated with a series of acceptable thrust line positions.

2.8.6 Spencer's Method

Spencer (1967) assumes that the inclinations e (Figure 2.9) of the resultant interslice

forces Q are constant, that is:

tane =X n/E n=Xn+d En+l~constant for all slices. (2.26)

and the (Xn- Xn+l) term in the equation (2.30) ofP can be rewritten as

(2.27)

(2.28)

and (2.29)

32
 k

SLIDE SURFACE

Figure 2.9 Definition of parameters used in a generalized discussion of slope stability

(after Fredlund and Krahn, 1977)

33
 . ,"'~-'1' "..'

Normal force P=[W- ell sinalF+ul tan~1sina/F-( Xn-Xn+Jl]/ma (2.30)

Where, ma= (cosa+ tan~1sina/F) (2.31 )

Indeterminacy implies that the value of 8 is known at the beginning of computation.

This method solves the following equations for F[ and Fm by iteration for several

assumed values of8.

nell cosa+(P-ul) tan~1cosa]
Fr= (2.32)
IPsina+IkW+(Ar-A,)+L cosro

(2.33)

Where,
P=[WIk,+{sina-tan 8.1(k,.cosa)}(u I tan~/-c/l)/F-kW.tan8.1k,]/{ma- tan8

tan~I/(F cosa k,)} (2.34)

And k,=!+tan8 tana (2.35)

The above equation of P is obtained by solving the equations 2.27, 2.28, :2.29, 2.30

and 2.31. The final value of factor of safety is taken at the value of 8 when FFFm•

2.8.7 Morgenstern and Price Method

In this case it is assumed that 8 values (Figure 2.9) vary systematically (Morgenstern

and Price, 1965) across the slide mass. The relationship may be expressed as:

tan8 = X/E=A fix) (2.36)

Where A is a scaling constant to be evaluated in solving for the factor of safety and
fix) is an assumed functional relationship with respect to x. Two special cases can be
mentioned. When f(x)=O the solution is the same as Bishop's Simplified Method and
when f(x)= constant it is the same as Spencer's method. Figure 2.10 shows various
fix) which have been used with the Morgenstern and Price method. The procedure
outlined below is that proposed by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) and differs in details

34
from the original Morgenstern and Price method. The force equilibrium equation 2.32
and moment equilibrium equation 2.33 are used to find out the factor of safety. For
normal force P equation 2.30 is used. The interslice shear forces are determined using
the equation 2.28 and following equation.

(2.37)

In the first iteration, the vertical shear forces are set to zero. On subsequent iterations
the horizontal interslice forces are first computed using equation 2.28 and then the

vertical shear forces are computed at an assumed Ie value and side force function f(x);

that is:
(2.38)

The side forces are recomputed for each iteration and the process continues until
sufficient precision has been reached for Fr and Fm. The computations are then

repeated using the same f(x) but different values of the scaling factor Ie. The safety

factors are then plotted against Ie. The safety factor for the assumed f(x) is taken at the

Ie value where FFFm. Since the interslice function is an assumption, others function
f(x) distribution should be checked. Some of these may produce a thrust line lying out
side the slide masses. While others imply interslice shears which exceed the available
shear strength. Both these results must be considered unreasonable (Whitman and
Bailey, 1967).

For reasonable results the thrust line must lies inside slide mass and the angle ~
required on the sides ofthe slices, that is,
~ceq=arctan{(X-clh)/E} , (2.39)
is noticeably less than angle ~/ of the soil itself.
Where h= height of slice.

35
 f(x)~ constant f(x) sine
AFI.O
AFI.O

1.=0.5 1.=0.5
~

~
"-
x--[> x--[>
LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT

f(x) trapezoidal f(x) non-functional but specifird

AFI.O
AF 1.0

r----\ A=O~
.r:r...(J - '0..
/ \ fr-O' 'Q.
/ \
/ \ '0
x--[> x--[>
LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT

Figure 2.1 0 Distributions of inter slice force inclinations used in the Morgenstern and
Price method (after Fredlund and Krahn, 1977)

36

.'Ii>
2.8.8 Sliding Block Analysis

In this case the slide surfaces cannot be approximated by single straight lines or
circles in two dimensions. Composite surfaces made up of sections of straight lines,
circles or other curves such as logarithmic spiral must be used. Often in this case,
failure is controlled by portions of the soil profile which are either much weaker or
much stronger than neighbouring areas. In Figure 2.1 I sliding block analysis is
shown. It is simplified cross section of a flood control embankment and drainage
channel in Yorkshire, England (Ward et aI., 1955). In this case the factor of safety is
usually defined by the ratio of the activating or disturbing force acting across a plane
in the cross section, to the maximum available resisting force. The equation is given

below.

(PI'+shearing resistance S of horizontal plane)

F= --------------------- (2.40)

Where PI' =Resisting force and P A =Activating force.

2.9 OTHER METHOD OF ANALYSES

A number of methods are in existence beyond the methods of limit equilibrium. Two
of them are described below in brief.

2.9.1 Finite Element Method

The finite element approach to problems of continum mechanics has been very
successful in recent years and has gained the wide acceptance. It is desirable to
mention at the very outset that use of computer is essential for analysis by finite
element method. Several finite element methods have been developed. One feature is
common to all these methods are that a continum is divided into discrete parts called
"elements". The elements are separated from each other by imaginary lines or
surfaces and are assumed to be inter connected only at a finite number of nodal points
situated on their boundaries. In geotechnical applications the most convenient and
popular formulation is the one for a compatible model in which nodal point
displacements are assumed to be the only unknowns. This is generally known as
displacement formulation. When the displacements have been determined the
computer program proceeds to calculate respectively the element strains and the
element stress.

37
 Firm brown clay
S

Surface of peat
=" Soft blue clay

Figure 2.11 Sliding block analysis (after Ward et aI., 1955)

38
2.9.2 Three Dimensional Method of Slope Stability Analysis

Three dimensional (3D) analysis is useful for many common slope stability problems,
such as, narrow failure surfaces, ridges corners, slopes surcharged by loads or cut by
excavations, slope whose geometry, properties or piezometric elevations vary in
transverse direction. In soil mechanics, a universally accepted three dimensional limit
equilibrium is still lacking. Sherard et al. (1963) recommended a procedure based on
the ratio of average resisting to driving forces for several cross sections. However it
neglects increase ofthe resisting force due to wedge effect.

Aggonisti (1969) extended the Morgenstern and Price method (1967) by using wedge
like forms instead of two dimensional (20) slices, factor of safety increases of over
50%. His method is limited to surfaces of somewhat unusual shape.

Several algorithms use the method of columns, a natural version of two dimensional
(20) method of slices. The ordinary method, neglects all intercolumn forces, was
extended into three dimensions by Hovland (1977). Chen and Chameau (1983)
showed Hovland's (1977) method to be conservative and an extension of Spencer's
method. Xing presented a simpler algorithm related to Spencer's method.

Bishop's simplified method (Bishop 1955) neglects vertical intercolumn shear forces.
It's three dimensional (3D) extension requires no assumptions other than those
already made in the 20 original. The resulting method is very simple and efficient.

2.10 METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE CENTER OF CRITICAL

CIRCLE FOR COHESIVE SOIL

Generally the center of the most critical slip circle can only be found by trial and
error. Various slip circles are analyzed and the minimum factor of safety is eventually
obtained. But there are some methods for determination of center of critical slip circle
for circular failure surfaces. One of them is drawing of contours of the factor of
safety. In this case at first factor of safety are determined for some probable slip
surfaces. Then the obtained factor of safety for the considered slip surfaces are plotted
alongside the centers and contours are drawn as shown in Figure 2.12a. The shapes of
the contours are roughly elliptical and their center indicates where the center of the

39
critical circle will be. It is not easy to determine the reasonable position for the center
of the first trial circle, but a study of the various types of slips that can occur is
helpful.

In case of slope made of homogeneous cohesive soil it is possible to determine

directly the center of the critical circle by a method that Fellenius proposed in 1936. It
is the intersection of two lines set off from the bottom and top of the slope at angles a
and P respectively (Figure 2.12b). Fellenius values for a and P are given in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Values of a and P for determination of center of critical circle (after
Fellenius,1936)

SINo Slope Angle of slope Angle a Angle P

1. 1:0.58 60° 29 40
2. I:1 . 45° 28 37
3. 1: 1.5 33.79° 26 35
4. 1:2 26.57° 25 35
5. 1:3 18.43° 25 35
6. 1:5 11.32° 25 37

This technique is not applicable in it's original form to frictional cohesive soils but
has been adapted by Jumikis (1962) to suit them provided that they are homogeneous.
It is necessary first to obtain the center of Fellenius circle (01) as before, after which
a point X is established such that X is 2H below the top of the slope and a distance of
4.5H horizontally away from the toe of the slope (Figure 2.12b). The ccnter of the
critical circle '0' lies on the line XOI extended beyond 01• The distance of 0,
becoming greater as the angle of friction increases.

Another way of finding center of critical circle is the principle of mid point circle.
This principle (Brand and Shen, 1984) states that the center of the critical circle for an
undrained analysis must lie vertically above the mid point of the slope, provided the
shear strength of soft clay does not vary laterally.

In Figure 2. I2(c) it is also provided the way of determining the center of the critical
circle (NAVFAC) for cohesive soil.

40
 Contours of factor of safety

(a)

Possible locations of center of

slip circle starting from '0'
towards right.

H Center of the Fellenius circle

x
4.5H

(b)

Figure 2.12 (a) Method for determining center of critical by drawing contours of
factor of safety.
(b) Method for determining center of critical circle for frictional
cohesive soils (after Jumikis, 1962)

, 41
I
 3

UNIT ORDINATE

\
'\....---
\
. OEC'lRCtES 1 \-0-@ £
,EXAMPLES: a ,

~TOElIRCLES
~
!;:;:,
z1
i5 :~UNIT ABSCISSA Xo
oc
o
o
Z
<C
~
<C
~ SLOPE b 6
~ 1.01.5 I ? 3 4 ' 10
u ;0 O.2S
~ 0: 90 80 70 50 40 30 20 10 0
t: SLOPEANGLE, ~,DEGREES
z
=>

-1
TOE CIRCLE BASE CIRCLE SLOPE CIRCLE
Xo=35H

n
I .

11'5'

I yo=r
~5
I
6'AiXpl'ii 'iaj': 'Ii~'lii': "d';il :5 EXAMPLE@(l=45" d=1.0
J o -L
60'
18'
'EXAMP!'f'it'i'(i ~26'''d~T''''I
Xo =-003, Yo = 1.6 '0 =O.s,Yo= 1.65 xo=I:45 Yo=2.15

Figure 2.12 (c) Method for determining the center of critical circle in cohesive soil
(after NAVFAC)

42
2.11 EMBANKMENT - SOIL INTERACTION

Embankments are usually constructed with the best available materials and also with a
certain degree of compaction. But if the underlying soil is soft and compressible, it
may be undergoing a process of improvement. The embankment -soil interaction is
thus a problem of stresses and displacements at and near the interface of stronger
material on top of a more compressible layer.

The reduction of horizontal compressive stress, with the resulting loosening or

cracking of the embankment, should make us reconsider the strength that is
appropriate for the embankment in computing the factor of safety. If the modulus ratio
is large, the strength of the material should be reduced. One way of dealing with the
problem is by assuming a tension crack of zero strength in the upper, say, third of the
embankment; another way is by reducing the total strength of the embankment by a
uniform factor, say 50%. A third way, which has also advantages of simplifYing the
calculation, is to assume that the embankment has the same strength as the underlying
softer material.

2.12 PREDICTION OF .FACTOR OF SAFETY FROM AVAILABLE

METHODS OF ANALYSIS

An important prediction symposium was held in Kuala lam pur in November 1989
which revolved around 14 trial embankments constructed of compacted sandy clay
on soft soil at Muar flats, west Malayasia. One embankment was built rapidly for
failure and 31 geotechnical specialist from different countries made predictions as to
failure height and failure mode before the results were known. The prediction of fill
thickness at failure ranged between 2.8m and 9.5m, compared with the actual value of
SAm. It is demonstrated that the strength of the fill material played a critical part in
the embankment stability.

From the test data it was observed that the undrained shear strength as measured by
field vane, had a minimum value of about 8 kPa at depth of 3 m and increased

linearly with an su/cr/v ratio in the range 0.27 to 0.37. The base dimension of the test
embankment was 40m wide and 60m long. The embankment was directly constructed
on the top soil and grass that remained after the rubber trees had been uprooted. The

43
fill was compacted in 0.2 m layers at a nominal rate of 004 m per week until failure
occurred. The embankment failed dramatically on day 10 at a fill thickness 5Am. The
failure height above the original ground surface was 4.7 m. So the embankment had
settled 0.7 m at failure. Failure was preceded by a longitudinal crack approximately

along the embankment center line.

The 31 predictor's predictions were different from each other. They used mainly the
Bishop and Fellenius undrained method of analysis to predict the embankment failure.
Some one used the stability charts and other methods. But their prediction could not
coincide with the actual failure pattern of the embankment only except SHEN's
predictions, whose predictions regarding the failure thickness and failure surface was
closest to the actual failure thickness and failure surface. Shen's predicted thickness
was 5.3 m; on the other hand actual failure thickness was 504 m. His predicted failure
surface was almost identical with the actual failure surface. Mr. Shen used a Fellenius
total stress analysis, together with the average vane shear strength corrected by a
factor 0.8. Besides he followed the mid-point circle principle. As a result he was able
to search economically through a large numbers of potential critical failure surfaces.
The principle of Mid-Point circle (Brand and Shen, 1984) states that the center of the
critical circle for an undrained analysis must lie vertically above the mid point of the
slope, provided the shear strength of soft clay does not vary laterally. The application

of this simple principle greatly aids the ~=O analysis of base failures of embankments
and other structures by facilitating the rapid determination of the location of the
critical circular surface. It is notable that the difference between the predictors'

prediction mainly due to the adoption of different vane correction factor, ~ (Bjerrum
1972, 1973) and then different strength ofthe compacted fill.

2.13 STABILITY ANALYSIS BY USING COMPUTER PROGRAM

PCSTABLSM

STABL is a computer program written in FORTRAN IV language for the general

solution of slope stability problems by two dimensional limit equilibrium method. It is
written for the Microsoft FORTRAN compiler package. Method of slices is used in
calculation of factor of safety. The particular method employed in this version of
STABL (peST ABL5M) are the simplified Bishop method, applicable to circular

44
shaped failure surfaces, the simplified Janbu method, applicable to failure surfaces of
general shape and the Spencer method, applicable to any type of surface.

In STABL, random techniques are provided for generation of potential failure

surfaces for subsequent determination of the more critical surfaces and their
corresponding factor of safety. One technique generates circular failure surface;
another, surfaces of sliding block character and third, more general irregular surfaces
of random shape. Using STABL it is possible to solve the stability problem regarding
heterogeneous soil system, anisotropic soil strength properties, excess pore water
pressure due to shear, static ground water and surface water etc.

STABL can generate any specified number of trial failure surfaces in random
fashion.Each surfaces must meet specified requirements. As each acceptable surface
is generated, the corresponding factor of safety is calculated. The ten most critical are
accumulated and sorted by the values of their factor of safety. The STABL searching
routines of greatest interest are BLOCK and RANDOM. It also includes CIRCLE

searching routine.

In this case for running the program for a specific method, at first an input file will be
prepared following the specific rules of PCSTABL5M for that method. Then the
program can be executed. During the period of execution it will be asked for run date,
time of run, name of user, input data file name and output file name. As per asking the
information should be provided. Then the results will be displayed on the screen and
will be stored in the output file.

2.14 SUMMERY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

From literature review it is observed that natural slope which is stable for a long time
that can fail suddenly for different causes, such as external disturbance as cutting etc.
Stability analysis is important for both man made and natural slopes. In case of man
made slope stability should be checked at different phases, such as, during
construction period, end of construction etc. Depending on the soil criteria the failure

of these slopes can be rotational and translational. It is also observed that ~=O
condition exists in case of silt and clayey soils. So it is suggested that in this case

45
during the period of construction or at the end of construction stability analysis will be

performed considering ~=O.

It has been observed that the methods for stability analysis which are described, only
differ in assumptions. Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods consider circular
failure surface and no interslice forces, while Janbu, Spencer and Morgenstern and
Price methods can be used for any shape of slip surface. For the later methods inter
slice forces are considered except for Janbu's simplified method. A correction factor
is used in Janbu's simplified method to consider the impact of the interslice forces.

For circular failure surfaces it is observed that selection of center of critical circle is
an important factor to find out the most critical slip surfaces. From article 2.12
describing Malayasian test embankment it is observed that Mr. Shen used a mid point

circle principle for determining the center of critical circle for ~=O analysis provided
the best factor of safety (Brand, 1991). As a result his prediction regarding the
Malaysian test embankment failure was approximately correct among the 31
predictors.

In literature review it has been described about embankment- soil interaction. In this
case it has been mentioned the ways for selecting the soil shear strength for stability
analysis. E.g. for simplicity of the problem it can be used the properties of underlying
softer soil in stability analysis.

There are varieties of computer software available for stability analysis.

PCSTABL5M software developed by Purdue University is also described in literature
review. This software uses a random technique for slip surface generation and can be
used for both homogeneous and heterogeneous soils.

46
 CHAPTER 3
DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

There are many programs, which are developed by different authors for slope stability
analysis as mentioned in literature review. The programs are developed in different
programming languages, such as, FORTRAN, GWBASIC, QUICK BASIC etc. The
searching technique, data input technique and output technique are different from
each other. Since computational systems mentioned above were not available with the
author computer programs in GWBASIC had to be developed to study stability
analysis methods proposed by Fellenius (1936), Bishop (1955), Janbu (1957),
Morgenstern and Price (1965) and Spencer (1967).

3.2 PROGRAMMING IN GWBASIC

GWBASIC is a good programming language. It is comparatively an easier language

than other programming language, such as FORTRAN. BASIC stands Beginner's all
purpose symbolic instruction code. Though it was at first formulated for the
beginner's yet it is a strong (High level) language and can be programmed for
engineering and other problems successfully. In this language the statements are
provided chronologically by statement numbers, generally at an interval of 10. Also it
can be kept more or less interval as per requirement. For keeping these intervals extra
other statements can be inserted easily. As the individual line or statement is provided
by statement numbers, so it can be easily corrected by listing or editing the lines as
per requirement. Program debugging is a hard task in all the languages. But in this
languagc the syntax errors can be easily removed as the language itself identifies
these errors printing the message "syntax error" including the statement on the screen.
To run the programs in this language only a function key F2 is to be pressed or RUN
to be typed and then to be pressed ENTER.

47
3.3 COMPUTER PROGRAMS DEVELOPED FOR SLOPE STABILITY
ANALYSIS

The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) developed a computer

program using Simplified Bishop method. The author used this method as a reference
for the development of the other programs. At the same time some arithmetical.
corrections and modifications of Bishop's simplified method were performed. The
developed programs are termed as modified programs. The following programs were

developed.

(1) Fellenius method

(2) Fellenius method, Modified by Turnbull & Hvorselev (1967)
(3) Bishop's simplified method
(4) Janbu's simplified method
(5) Janbu's rigorous method
(6) Spencer's method
(7) Morgenstern and Price method

Flow charts were developed for each method. A typical flow chart of Fellenius
method is given in Appendix-I. The listings of the programs are provided in
Appendix-2.

3.4 COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUE USED IN DEVELOPING THE

PROGRAM

In the development of the programs method of slices are used. Homogeneous and
isotropic soil profile is considered in developing the programs. The techniques, which
are used in developing the programs, are described below.
(a) Data Input Technique: Data is accepted by the programs in two ways, such as,
data statements and conversation mode. In case of data statements data is given
in the programs by statement numbers before execution of the programs. On the
other hand in case of conversation mode data is input in the programs during
execution as per asking. As the methods of slices are used in the program, so the
numbers of slices are defined at first. Then data for individual slices are input.

As for example, individual values of c, ~, yare given for each slice as per

48

~.
'11' •
 requirement. To define a point, such as, slip circle center, co-ordinates of the
point are given only. In the same manner to define embankment profile or line
co-ordinates of the consecutive points should be given. To define water table
along the embankment profile, only Y-Coordinates are given depending upon
the number of slice edges. For circular failure surfaces data regarding radius
should be given. For non-circular failure surfaces data regarding individual
slices are input in co-ordinate system. It is citable that all data should be input
starting from the crest of embankment profile or cuts.

(b) Slip Circle Searching Technique: The modified programs can generate both
circular and non-circular failure surfaces within the defined embankment
profile. During the period of execution the programs ask for whether the
calculation for circular or non-circular failure surface is wanted. Any type of slip
surface can be chosen as per requirement. In case of circular failure surfaces it
requires only to input the data regarding the slip circle center and radius. In this
case there are three options regarding the slip surface generation, such as,
Individual point, Grid and Frame. If "Individual point" is selected then the
factor of safety is calculated for only one slip surface. In this option it requires
only to input the data regarding the slip circle center and radius. If the option
"Grid" is selected then a data regarding range is input in addition to slip circle
center and radius. In this case nine slip surfaces are generated and factor of
safety are calculated for these nine slip surfaces if the slip surfaces are within
the defined embankment profile. Individual slice parameters are also calculated.
In case of option "Frame" data regarding minimum and maximum east co-
ordinates, north co-ordinates including step and radius are given. The program
calculates the factor of safety for a large numbers of slip surfaces within the
specified frame. In all the three options if the slip surfaces for the given radius
do not intersect the defined embankment profile at two points then the statement
"Radius is too small" or "Radius is too large" is printed on the screen and the
program ignores the calculation of factor of safety for these slip surfaces. After
completion of the calculation the program asks for whether it is wanted further
calculation for other surfaces or not. If it is wanted then necessary data should
be given as per requirement. Then the program will calculate factor of safety for
the new slip surfaces. If further calculation is not wanted then "N" is typed and

49
-.
then pressed "Enter". Then the execution is terminated. In case of non-circular

failure surface generation in addition to other data (c, <1>, y etc.) individual slice
co-ordinates should be given. Then the program will calculate the factor of
safety for this surface. After completion of the calculation the program will ask
for new surface. If the calculation for new surface is wanted then the necessary
data should be given as per requirement. If it is not wanted then the program's
execution is stopped.

(c) Out Put technique: There are three options regarding the output of the results.
These options are provided in the form "All slice data =A", "Summery only =S"
and "No print out =N". If the option "A" is selected then all the slice data
including factor of safety is printed. In this case for circular failure surface
east(x) co-ordinate, north(y) co-ordinate, radius and factor of safety are
displayed on the screen. If the option "S" is selected then the east(x), north(y)
co-ordinates, radius(R) and factor of safety (FS) are displayed on the screen and
also printed by the printer. If the option "N" is selected then the results will be
displayed on the screen only. In this case the printer will not print any result. In
case of non-circular failure surface if it is wanted printing of the results then the
option "A" must be chosen. In case of circular failure surfaces anyone of the
three options can be used as per requirement. Generally it is advantageous to
select the option "A" for individual point and "S" for Grid and Frame when
printing is wanted.

3.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE PROGRAM

The developed programs which are termed as modified programs in this paper are
suitable for homogeneous and isotropic soil profiles. To use the programs in other
units beyond the units used only unit weight of water should be changed in case of
pore water pressure calculation. If the soil parameters changes from slice to slice yet
the calculation can be performed. Only circular and non-circular failure surfaces can
be generated by the modified programs. In case of non-circular failure surface only
one surface can be generated at a time but a numbers of slip surfaces can be generated
in case of circular failure surface as per selected option. The most critical slip surface
is not identified by the program it self. It is identified by visual observation.

50
,
CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDIES OF SLOPE FAILURES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

To carry out a study into various computations methods for stability analysis of slopes
3 cases of embankment failures and one landslide were selected. The name of the
selected failure cases has been stated in chapter I. The selected cases are described
below in the next articles. Both effective stress and total stress analysis were
performed depending upon the available data. The modified computer programs were
used to determine the factor of safety in all the case studies. Besides, PCSTABL5M
was also used in the stability analysis. The obtained factors of safety are presented
and discussed in details successively in the next articles. To make a comparison
between the results obtained from the selected methods of analysis factors of safety
were considered that obtained from the same slip surface. Also the minimum factors
of safety obtained from the selected methods are tabulated in separate tables.

4.2 EMBANKMENT FAILURE OF DEPZ AT SAVAR (CASE STUDY-I)

This is an embankment, which failed during the period of construction. Embankment

geometry and soil condition prior to failure at two locations are shown in Figure A.3.1
in Appendix-3. A number of tests were performed by different agencies to determine
the subsoil condition of the failed sections. From the concerned report it was observed
that below the embankment it was a very soft to soft clay layer. Thickness of this
layer varied in places. Variation ranged from 7m to Im depending on location. The N-
value of this layer was as low as zero in some locations. It was suspected that low
shear strength of this clay layer contributed to the failure. In fact from the stability
analysis it was well established. The cross sections of the embankment including
necessary data for stability analysis are shown in Figure 4.1 and 4.2.

51
 90m

14m 7m
EL=I4.0m
1
1
EL=7.0m

c=7.6 kN/m2
<p=O
Unit weight of soil y = 17.7 kN/m 3

Failure location 1

IO.Om 7.0m 9.0m IO.5m 7.5m

EL 11.3 m
1
1 7m

EL4.3 m

c=I2.5 kN/m2
<p=O
Unit weight of soil y=I7.7kN/m3

Failure location 2

Figure 4.1Cross sections of embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar (Failure locations 1 and 2)

52
 to.Om 7.0m 9.0m lO.5m

Top
7.0m EL=lO.9m

EL=3.9m

c=12.5 kN/m2
q>=O
Unit weight of soil y =17.7 kN/m3

Failure location 3

Figure 4.2 Cross section of embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar (Failure location 3)

53
4.2.1 Stability Analysis of Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar

Two different computational techniques were used in stability analysis. First one was
the modified program and the second one was PCSTABL5M. The modified programs
were used in factor of safety calculation for all the sections. PCSTABL5M was used
for only one section. The obtained factors of safety are presented and discussed in the
next articles successively.

4.2.1.1 Analysis by Modified Programs

Analysis was performed for all the three sections. In this case study the available data
were concerned to only total stress analysis. The analysis was performed using the
data shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. At first center of the potential slip circles were.
determined. Factors of safety were determined considering a large numbers of slip
surfaces. Some of the results are enclosed in Appendix-3. The obtained factors of
safety for the failure locations 1,2 and 3 are tabulated in the Tables 4.1 to 4.6.

Table 4.1 Factor of safety obtained from different methods for a common slip
surface using circular failure surface, Total stress (</l=O) analysis, West
side slope oflocation 1, Embankment ofDEPZ at sayar

SI. No. Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength FS

Methods center (x and y parameters and unit
coordinates) and weight
radius R
x y R cu y
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
I. FEM 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.43
2. FTH 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.43 .

3. BSM 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.43

4. JSM 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.43
5. JRM 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.42
6. SPM 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.43
7. MPM 15 19 14 7.6 17.7 0.43

54
Table 4.2 Critical factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Total
stress (~=O) analysis, Circular failure surface, West side slope of
location 1, Embankment of DEPZ at saver

Sl. No. Name of Location of center of Shear strength FS

Methods critical failure circle parameters and unit
(x and y coordinates) weight
and radius R
x y R Co y
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
I. FEM 14 18 14 7.6 17.7 0.41
2. FTH 14 18 14 7.6 17.7 0.41
3. BSM 14 18 14 7.6 17.7 0.41
4. JSM 14 15 14 7.6 17.7 0.39
5. SPM 14 17 14 . 7.6 17.7 0.41
6. MPM 14 18 14 7.6 17.7 0.41

Table 4.3 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Total stress
(c>O,~>O)analysis, Circular failure surface, West side slope of location
1, Embankment ofDEPZ at savar

Sl Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength parameters and FS

No Methods center (x and y unit weight
coordinates) and
radius R
x y R Co ~ y
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (degree) (kN/m3)
I. FEM 14 19 14 17.5 7.5 17.7 1.30
2. FTH 14 19 14 17.5 7.5 17.7 1.30
3. BSM 14 19 14 17.5 7.5 17.7 1.36
4. SPM 14 19 14 17.5 7.5 17.7 1.33
5. JSM 14 19 14 17.5 7.5 17.7 1.30
6. MPM 14 18 14 17.5 7.5 17.7 1.24

55
Table 4.4 Factor of safety and location of center of critical circle obtained from
different methods using different procedure for determining center
of critical circle. Total stress (<jl=O) analysis, West side slope of
location 1,Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar

SI. Name of Location of center of Shear strength FS Procedure

No. Methods critical failure circle (x parameters and unit used to
and y coordinates) weight determine the
and radius R center of
x y R Cll Y critical circle
2 3
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m )
1. FEM 12.5 14.00 8.5 7.6 17.7 0.68 Mid point
circle
principle
used

2. FEM 12.5 19.00 12.75 7.6 17.7 0.74 NAVFAC

principle
used

3. BSM 13.5 18.50 13.5 7.6 17.7 0.39 Principle of

contour used

4. JSM 17.5 20.75 17.0 7.6 17.7 0.45 Principle of

contour used

5. BSM 13.0 17.00 11.0 7.6 17.7 0.38 Fellenius

process used

6. FEM 17.5 20.50 17.5 7.6 17.7 0.43 Principle of

contour used

56
Table 4.5 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Total stress (<1>=0)
analysis, Circular failure surface, South side slope of location 2,
Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar

Sl. No. Name of Location of center Shear strength FS

Methods of critical failure parameters and unit
circle (x and y weight
coordinates) and
radius R
x y R cu y
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
1. FEM 14.0 14.5 11.5 12.5 17.7 0.64

2. FTH 14.0 14.5 11.5 12.5 17.7 0.64

3. BSM 14.0 14.5 11.5 12.5 17.7 0.64

4. JSM 14.0 14.5 11.5 12.5 17.7 0.67

5. JRM 14.5 15.0 12.5 12.5 17.7 0.65

6. SPM 13.0 15.0 11.5 12.5 17.7 0.63

7. MPM 14.5 15.0 11.5 12.5 17.7 0.66

Table 4.6 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Total stress (<1>=0)
analysis, Circular failure surface, South side slope of location 3,
Embankment ofDEPZ at Sayar

Sl. No. Name of Location of center of Shear strength FS

Methods critical failure circle parameters and unit
(x and y coordinates) weight
and radius R
x y R cu y
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
1. FEM 16 15 12 12.5 17.7 0.75

2. FTH 16 15 12 12.5 17.7 0.75

3. BSM 16 15 12 12.5 17.7 0.75

4. JSM 16 15 12 12.5 17.7 0.80

From the Tables 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 it can be observed that for any section Fellenius
method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop's
simplified method gave the same factor of safety while Janbu's rigorous method and
Janbu's simplified method gave slightly different values of factor of safety. From
table 4.1 it has been observed that Janbu's simplified method gave the same value as
that of Fellenius methods and Bishop's simplified method but in table 4.5 and 4.6 it

57
gave greater values. In table 4.1 it has been observed that Spencer's method and
Morgenstern and Price method also gave the same value as that of Fellenius methods
and Bishop's simplified method. In Table 4.1 lanbu's rigorous method gave the value
of factor of safety which was slightly smaller than the value obtained by aforesaid
Bishop, Fellenius, Spencer's and Morgenstern and Price methods. The reason for
same in factor of safety by Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull
and Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop's simplified method was, in these three methods the
resisting force against sliding was only equal to cohesion component (c.l) as friction
component was zero(~=O) and the sliding force for all these three methods were
W.sina. So these methods gave the same value of factor of safety in this case.

In lanbu's simplified method, the expression for resisting force stood c.l.seca in case
of ~=Oanalysis, but for Fellenius and Bishop's simplified method it was c.l only. The
value of c.l.seca was always greater than c.l, only except when a=O, where it was
equal to c.1.Again in case of lanbu's simplified method the sliding force was W.tana,
which had a greater value than W.sina. As a result though the resisting force was
greater yet the factor of safety obtained from lanbu's simplified method (Fo) was less
than the factor of safety obtained from Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods.
But in lanbu's simplified method a correction factor was multiplied with Fo to include
the impact of inter-slice forces. The value of correction factor is always greater than
one depending on d/L ratio except when d/L is zero. As a result the factor of safety
was increased and in this case equal to that obtained in Bishop's simplified and
Fellenius methods. But from the study it was observed that in all the slip surfaces the
value of factor of safety obtained from lanbu's simplified method was not equal to the
value that obtained from Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods. It was observed
that in case of some slip surfaces the value of factor of safety were less than that of
Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods and in some cases it was greater than these
methods (Table 4.5 and 4.6).This variation in result was due to the fact that in lanbu's
simplified method final value of factor of safety depends on the d/L ratio and soil
type. From the study it was observed that though the soil condition remained
unchanged yet due to the change in dlL ratio it was obtained different values of factor
of safety. Again it was observed that as the center of slip circles displaced upward
from the embankment profile keeping radius of slip circle unchanged the d/L ratio
reduced and vice versa. Reduction in d/L ratio provided reduced value of correction
factor fo and vice versa. But displacement of center of slip circles either left or right

58
side of a specific point did not make any change in d/L ratio and hence it was the
same value of fa for those slip surfaces. As a result in these cases different values of
factor of safety obtained due to the different values of Fa. From the study it was
observed that d/L ratio was not only the factor due to which Janbu's simplified
method provided different values of factor of safety with respect to Fellenius method,
Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop's simplified
method. It was observed that though the value of fo was comparatively smaller yet it
provided greater value of factor of safety than the aforesaid methods. On the other
hand it provided smaller value of factor of safety though the value of fa was
comparatively greater. It was also observed that with a larger value of Fa and smaller
value of fa provided the greater value. On the other hand reverse case was also
observed. Therefore it was clear that both the values of Fa and fo were responsible for
final value of factor of safety due to which it was obtained different values of factor of
safety with respect to Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and
Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop's simplified method.

In case of Janbu's rigorous method analysis was performed considering inter slice
forces. Besides, its equation regarding factor of safety calculation is different from the
other methods, such as Fellenius and Bishop's simplified methods. As a result the
factor of safety was different from Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods. Again
in case of $=0 analysis the equation for factor of safety of Janbu's rigorous method
stood c.sec2a/(P+t)tana.On the other hand in case of Janbu's simplified method the
equation stood c.l.seca/Wtana. From the analysis of these two equations it was
observed that in the equation of Janbu's rigorous method one additional term "t"
regarding inter slice force was added with sliding force. As a result in case of $=0
analysis comparatively smaller value of factor of safety was obtained in Janbu's
rigorous method than Janbu's simplified method.

Spencer's method also gave the same factor of safcty as that obtained by Bishop's
simplified method and Fellenius methods. In this method resisting moment in case of
moment equilibrium equation stood the same as that of Bishop's simplified method
and Fellenius methods. I.e. in this case as $=0 the expression for factor of safety
calculation stood as ~cll2:Wsina but in case of force equilibrium condition it stood as
~cl.cosaI2:Psina. From the study it was observed that the value of factor of safety
regarding force equilibrium condition decreased as the value of inclination angle of
resultant inter slice forces e increased. This was due to the fact that the value of

59
normal force P was related with e. From the study it was observed that as the value of
e was increased the value of P was increased which in turn increased the value of
LPsina . As a result this increased value of LPsina reduced the value of factor of
safety. Because the resisting force Lcl.cosa remained the same though the value of e
was increased. On the other hand the value of factor of safety regarding moment
equilibrium equation remained unchanged though the value of e was increased.
Because in this case factor of safety was equal to LcllLWsina due to zero value of~.
As a result in this case change in the value of P due to the change in the value of e had
no impact on the value of factor of safety. That is why in moment equilibrium
condition the value of factor of safety remained unchanged with respect to the change
of the value of e. In this method the value of Fr and Fm were plotted with respect to e
(Figure A.3.5). The final value of factor of safety was taken at a value of e where Fr
and Fm were equal. As Fm did not changed with respect to the change of value of e so
when it was plotted Fm with respect to e then it was obtained a straight line which was
parallel to x-axis. As a result this line intersected the Fr line at a value of y-coordinate
which was equal to Fm• So, for Spencer's method in ~=O analysis final value of factor
of safety was equal to Fm. On the other hand as the equation of factor of safety Fm
stood the same for Spencer's method, Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods due
to the zero value of~, so in this case Spencer's method gave the same value as that of
Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods.

Morgenstern and Price method also gave the same value of factor of safety as that
obtained by Bishop's simplified method and Fellenius methods. In Morgenstern and
Price method it was observed that as the value of scaling factor A was increased then
the value of Fr increased. From the analysis it was observed that the value of LPsina
was decreased when the value of A was increased. This decreased value of LPsina
provided the increased value of Fr. In this case value of Fm remained unchanged just
like Spencer's method though the value of A was increased. Because in this case A
had no impact on the equation of factor of safety Fm• A had impact on P. P is the part
offrictional part of resisting moment. As ~=O so frictional part of the equation became
zero. As a result though the value of A was changed yet the value of Fm remained
unchanged. In this case it was also plotted Fr and Fm with respect to A and the final
value was taken at a value of A where Frwas equal to Fm (Figure A.3.4). As Fm did not
changed with respect to change of value of A so when it was plotted Fm with respect to
A then it was obtained a straight line which was parallel to x-axis. This line intersected
the Fr line at a value of y-coordinate which was equal to Fm• So, in ~~Oanalysis final.

60

, ~.
value of factor of safety was equal to Fm• On the other hand as the equation of factor
of safety Fm stood the same for Morgenstern and Price method, Bishop's simplified
and Fellenius methods due to zero value of ~, so in this case Morgenstern and Price
method gave the same value as that of Bishop's simplified and Fellenius methods.
Again from the study it was observed that in case of some slip surfaces convergence
of Fe and Fm line was not obtained. This was observed in the slip surfaces whose
locations were comparatively away from the embankment profile keeping radius of
the slip surfaces unchanged. As in ~=O analysis the final value of factor of safety
stood equal to Fm so in this case the value of Fm can be considered directly as the final
value of factor of safety.

From the Tables 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 it was observed that the embankment was unstable
from ~~O analysis. But from c-~ analysis as shown in Table 4.3 for same soil
indicated that the embankment was stable. The c-~ parameters was taken from
consolidated undrained test results for the same soil, which indicated that there was a
gain in strength of the soil after a certain amount of consolidation had taken place.
This indicated that the said embankment might be made stable if staged filling was
made allowing time to consolidate the lower soft clay layer. From Table 4.3 it was
observed that Fellenius method and Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and
Hvorslev (1967) gave the same value of factor of safety for a common slip surface.
But Bishop's simplified method gave a greater value of factor of safety than that
obtained by those two methods. The reason due to which Fellenius method and
Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) gave the same value of
factor of safety was, in these two methods resisting force became equal to each other
as pore water pressure was zero. On the other hand as the sliding force was same so
both the methods gave the same factor of safety. In case of Bishop's simplified
method, resisting force had a greater value than that of Fellenius methods. As a result,
though the sliding force was same for these three methods, yet the obtained factor of
safety from Bishop's simplified method was greater. The Janbu's simplified method
gave an equal value of factor of safety as that of Fellenius methods. The reason was
described in the previous section.

From Table 4.2 it was observed that in ~=O analyses the Fellenius method, Fellenius
method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop simplified method
provide the same critical slip circle (Figure 4.3). The expressions for factor of safety
calculation were the same due to the zero value of~. As a result it was obtained same

61
critical slip surface from these methods. Morgenstern and Price method gave also the
same critical slip circle. Spencer's method, Janbu's simplified method gave the
different location of critical slip circles. In case of Spencer's method and Morgenstern
and Price method it was obtained a numbers of same slip surfaces as critical slip
circles, because these surfaces provided the same lowest factor of safety. The critical
slip circles are shown in Figure 4.3.

From Table 4.4 it was observed that with <1>=0

analyses the same method provided the
different critical slip circles. The slip circles are shown in Figure 4.4. In this case
factor of safety was calculated by the same method but by using different principle of
determining center of critical circle. The determined center of critical circle by using
different procedure was different from each other. A number of trial circles were
studied to observe whether the same critical slip circles were obtained from the
different center of critical circle by using same method of analysis. But from the
study it was observed that the obtained critical circles did not coincide with each other
though the method of analysis and soil condition was same. Generally there is no
possibility for the critical circles to coincide with each other if the determined center
of critical circle from different procedure and radius of critical circle are not same.

From the above observations it appears that for <1>=0

analysis all the methods give very
close FS. Because of neglecting friction component (<1>=0)in the analysis Fellenius
method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop
simplified method, Spencer method and Morgenstern and Price method all gave same
factor of safety and location of critical circle. Besides, in Spencer method and
Morgenstern and Price method it was obtained a numbers of same critical surfaces.

62
 C
C

C EL 14.0m

EL 7.0m

Scale: I mm=O.2327 m
Legend

@ Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and

Hvorslev(1967), Bishop's simplified method and Morgenstern
and Price method

e Janbu's simplified method

<D Spencer's method

C Center of critical slip circle

R Radius of slip circle

Figure 4.3 Critical slip circles obtained from total stress (~=O) analysis by selected
methods of stability analysis, Figure shows results obtained for West side
slope ofJocation 1, Embankment of DEPZ at Sayar.

63

,
 Legend
o =FS determined by Fellenius method, center of critical
circle determined by using mid point circle principle.

is) =FS determined by Fellenius method, center of critical

circle determined by using NAVFAC principle.

@ =FS determined by Fellenius method, center of critical

circle determined by using principle of contour.

@ =FS determined by Janbu's simplified method, center of

critical circle determined by using principle of contour.
I[J) =FS determined by Bishop's simplified method, center of
critical circle determined by using principle of contour.

@ =FS determined by Bishop's simplified method, center of

critical circle determined by using Fellenius principle.

Figure 4.4 Critical slip circles obtained from different selected methods by using
different procedure for determining the center of critical circle, Total
stress (q,=0) analysis, West side slope of location 1, Embankment of
DEPZ at Sayar.

64
4.2.1.2 Analysis of Slope Failure by Pcstabl5m

In this case the failure location I of the embankment of DEPZ at Savar was analyzed
only. Data was given in FPS system as per program's requirement. Bishop's
simplified method and Janbu's simplified method were used in the analysis. In both
the methods ten most critical surfaces were obtained including their corresponding
factor of safety. The detail results are enclosed in Appendix-3.2. In case of Bishop's
simplified method the obtained factor of safety was 0.365. The slip surface is shown
in Figure 4.5. On the other hand, in case of Janbu's simplified method the obtained
minimum factor of safety was 0.421. The critical slip surface is shown in the same
Figure 4.5.

Citable that, to make a comparison between the obtained factors of safety from two
computational techniques factor of safety was determined using Bishop's simplified
method and Janbu's simplified method of modified programs for the same slip
surface. It was also determined the critical slip surfaces using two computational
techniques. It was observed that the two computational techniques gave the different
critical slip surfaces. The critical slip surfaces are shown in Figure 4.5. The obtained
factors of safety from the two computational techniques for the common slip surfaces
are presented in Table 4.7 and the critical factors of safety obtained from the two
computational techniques are shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.7 Factor of safety obtained from two different searching techniques,
West side slope of location 1, Total stress (<jr=O) analysis, Embankment
ofDEPZ at Savar

SI. Name of FS Remarks

No. Methods PCSTABL5M Modified
Program
1. BSM 0.365 0.370 Factor of safety determined
for the same slip surface
2. JSM 0.421 0.423 Factor of safety determined
for the same slip surface

65
Table 4.8 Critical Factor of safety obtained from two different searching
techniques, West side slope of location 1, Total stress (<jl=O) analysis,
Embankment ofDEPZ at Savar

SI. No. Name of Methods FS

PCSTABL5M Modified Program

I. BSM 0.365 0.392
2. JSM 0.421 0.381

From tables it has been observed that both the searching techniques gave nearly the
same factor of safety for a common slip surface but gave the different location of
critical slip surface and factor of safety.

4.3 DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT

(CASE STUDY-2)

This embankment is constructed surrounding the Dhaka City. Bangladesh water

Development Board implemented the project. The embankment was constructed on
soft ground. In fact the embankment runs through a marshy land. As a result the
embankment subsided at different places along the alignment. A number of agencies
investigated the subsoil condition of the embankment. Cross section at station 13+900
is considered in the analysis. In Figure 4.6 the cross-section of the embankment is
shown. The data used in stability analysis is also shown in figure.

4.3.1 Stability Analysis of Dhaka City Flood Protection Embankment (Case

Stndy-2)

In this case both total stress and effective stress analysis were performed for both river
and country side slope. In effective stress analysis, the analysis was performed both
by considering seepage and without it. Both embankment soil parameters and
underlying soil (Foundation soil) parameters were used to calculate the factor of
safety. The factor of safety obtained by analyzing country and river side slopes in case
of effective stress analysis are shown in Table 4.9 and 4.10. Citable that, data
regarding water level was not available in this case. As a result arbitrary data
regarding water level was considered to assess the impact of seepage.

66
 C C

Scale: I mm= 0.3373 m

Legend

C Center of slip circle

CD Bishop's simplified method
Analysis by modified program
FS=0.392 R Radius of slip circle

Janbu's simplified method

Analysis by modified program
FS=0.381

o Janbu's simplified method

Analysis by PCSTABL5M
FS=0.421

e Bishop's simplifird method

Analysis by PCSTABL5M
FS=0.365

Figure 4.5 Critical slip circles obtained from Janbu's simplified method and Bishop's
simplified method using PCSTABL5M and modified program, Total stress
(<1>=0)analysis, West side slope of location 1, Embankment of DEPZ at
Sayar.

67
 Embankment soil properti~
y020kN/mJ
00:1°0 cr20kN/m'
CU:,loIOo Co 25 kN/m'
240m 421m
J-im
19-im , 16-im
Top ELoIO.Om
Elrl.5m I
EL02.Om
~ ~

UU:t-lI C °lm~/m'
CU: ,1010 c/025.0 kN/m'
0

Unit weigbt of soilYmoI8.8kN/m J

Figure 4.6 Cross section of Dhaka city flood protection embankment (Station at
13+900)

68
Table 4.9 Stability analysis of country side slope, Circular failure surface,
Effective stress analysis, Considering seepage and without considering
seepage, Dhaka City flood protection embankment

SI. Name of Location of slip Shear strength parameters and FS

No Methods circle center (x unit weight
and y
coordinates) and
radius R
x y R c' qi y Con sid- Without
2
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m ) (Degree) (kN/m3) ering Consider
Seepage -ing
Seepage
1. FEM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 3.68 4.79
2. FTH 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 3.81 4.79
3. 8SM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 3.90 5.01
4. JSM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 3.82 4.89
5. SPM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 4.15 5.41

Table 4.10 Stability analysis of river side slope, Circular failure surface,
Effective stress analysis, Considering seepage and without
considering seepage, Dhaka City flood protection embankment

SI. Name of Location of slip Shear strength parameters and FS

No Methods circle center (x unit weight
and y
coordinates) and
radius R
x y R d <pI
Y Consid- Without
(m) (m) m (kN/m2) (Degree) (kN/m3) ering cons ide
seepage -rmg
seepage
1. FEM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.16 2.27
2. FTH 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.17 2.27
3. 8SM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.26 2.37
4. JSM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.23 2.34
5. JRM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.00 2.10
6. SPM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.20 2.33
7. MPM 26 29 31 25 10 18.8 2.28 2.40

From the tables 4.9 and 4.10 it has been observed that the methods which are shown
in the tables gave the different values of factor of safety for the same slip surface. The

69
expressions for resisting forces for these methods were different from each other for
different considered assumptions. But the expressions of sliding forces for some
methods were same and for some methods it was different. In case of Fellenius

methods and Bishop's simplified method sliding forces were same (Wsina). On the
other hand in Janbu's simplified method, Janbu's rigorous method, Spencer's method
and Morgenstern and Price method expressions of sliding force were different. In

Janbu's simplified method it was W.tana and in Spencer's method and Morgenstern

and Price method it was Psina regarding force equilibrium equation and Wsina
regarding moment equilibrium equation. In case of Fellenius method amount of pore
water pressure subtracted from the resisting force was comparatively greater than that
subtracted in case of Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967). As
a result in Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) the resisting
force was greater than that in Fellenius method. In Bishop's simplified method it was
observed from mathematical calculation that in this case resisting force had a greater
value than that of Fellenius methods. For the above reasons Fellenius method gave a
factor of safety which was a little bit less than the factor of safety obtained by
Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) and Bishop's simplified
method gave a greater value than that obtained by Fellenius methods.

In case of Janbu's simplified method the obtained factor of safety was greater than
that of Fellenius methods. The reason was described in the previous case study.

Spencer's method gave a larger value of factor of safety. Because in this case inter
slice forces were considered. Besides, in this case factors of safety Fr and Fm were
determined at the different values of inclination angles of resultant inter slice forces

theta (8). From the analysis it was observed that the value of factor of safety Fm was

increased rapidly and the value of Fr reduced when the value of 8 was increased

beyond the zero value of8. Final value of factor of safety was taken after plotting the

values of factors of safety Fr and Fm with respect to 8 where Fr and Fm were equal

(Figure AA. I to AAA). It was observed that the intersection point of Fr and Fm was

beyond the zero valueof8. So this was another cause due to which Spencer's method

gave a larger value of factor of safety. From the study it was also observed that
normal force P regarding force equilibrium equation increased more than that of

70
normal force regarding moment equilibrium equation though the expression for P was
same. This was due to the fact that equation of P was a function of different factors
such as, e, ex, c and F etc. Of these factors c, ex remained constant for a specific slip
surface. But the value of e, F changed. As the value of e increased the value ofP also
increased. Again iterations were performed to find the actual value of factor of safcty.
Generally in case of iteration initial value of factor of safety was considered 1. At first
iteration P and Fe and Fm were calculated on the basis of this assumption. But when
further iterations were performed to minimize the difference between assumed and
calculated factor of safety then it was considered 'calculated factor of safety of
previous iteration as assumed factor of safety for next iteration. As the expression for
Fe and Fm are different so the calculated factor of safety were different from each
other. As a result though the expression of P was same in these two cases yet it
provided different values of P. So this was another cause due to which final value of
factor of safety varied.

Morgenstern and Price method gave a larger value of factor of safety. Because in this
case it was also considered inter slice forces. Besides, in this case factors of safety Fe
and Fm were determined at the different values of scaling factor of A.. From the
analysis it was observed that both the values of Fm and Ff increased at the different
increased values of A.. The value of Ff increased rapidly than Fm for the same value of
A.. Final value of factor of safety was taken after plotting the values of factors of safety
of Fe and Fm with respect to A. where Feand Fm were equal (Figure A.4.5 and A.4.6).
It was observed that the intersection point ofFf and Fm was beyond the zero value of
A.. So this was another cause due to which Morgenstern and Price method gave a
larger value of factor of safety.

From the tables 4.9 and 4.10 it has also been observed that factor of safety obtained
by considering seepage is less than the factor of safety obtained by without
considering seepage. The reason due to which this difference occurs is, in case of
effective stress analysis with considering seepage the resisting force was reduced due
to pore water pressure which was not occurred when it was not considered seepage.

From table 4.9 and 4.10 it has been observed that factor of safety obtained from river
..
'
side analysis is less than that obtained in country side analysis though the soil .~
"

71
parameters are same. This was due to the fact that country side slope was
comparatively flatter than the river side slope.

Table 4.11 Factor of safety obtained by Janbu's rigorous method at different

thrust line position of interslice forces, River side slope of section at
13+900, Effective stress analysis, Dhaka City flood protection
embankment

SI Location of slip Shear strength parameters Thrust

No. circle center (x and and saturated unit weight line FS F,
Y coordinates) and of soil position
radius R from
bottom
x y R C <p/ Ysal of the slice
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (Degree) (kN/m3)

1. 33 28 26.0 25 10 18.8 v., of slice 3.79 19.75

height

2. 33 28 26.0 25 10 18.8 1/3 3.79 18.79

3. 33 28 26.0 25 10 18.8 2/5 3.78 25.45

4. 33 28 26.0 25 10 18.8 1/2 3.77 28.51

5. 33 28 26.0 25 10 18.8 3/4 3.77 25.69

An analysis was performed in case of Janbu's rigorous method using different thrust
line positions of inter slice forces. The obtained factors of safety at different thrust
line positions for a common slip surface are shown in Table 4.11. Factors of safety
along vertical interfaces (F,) are also shown in Table. From the table it has been
observed that there is a little change in factors of safety (FS) against sliding due to the
variation of thrust line position. But there is a significant change in factors of safety

(F,) along interfaces.

72
Table 4.12 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Total stress
(<jl=O) analysis, Circular failure snrface, Stability analysis of river side
slope, Dhaka City flood protection embankment

SINo Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength FS

Methods center (x and y parameters and unit
coordinates) and radius weight
R
x y R cu Ysat
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)

1. FEM 32 27 28 11.3 18.8 0.89

2. FTH 32 27 28 11.3 18.8 0.89

3. BSM 32 27 28 11.3 18.8 0.89

4. JSM 32 27 28 11.3 18.8 0.95

Table 4.13 Factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Total stress
(<jl=O) analysis, Circular failure surface, Stability analysis of country
side slope, Dhaka City flood protection embankment

SI No Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength FS

Methods center (x and y parameters and unit
coordinates) & radius R weight
x y R cu Ysat
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)

1. FEM 27 28 31 11.3 18.8 1.01

2. FTH 27 28 31 11.3 18.8 1.01

3. BSM 27 28 31 11.3 18.8 1.01

4. JSM 27 28 31 11.3 18.8 1.06

Total stress type of analysis has also been performed for the both side slopes of this
e~bankment. Underlying soil parameters were used in the analysis. The obtained
factors of safety are presented in the tables 4.12 and 4.13. From the tables it has been
observed that Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev
(1967), Bishop's simplified method gave the same factor of safety for a common slip
surface, which was also observed in the analysis of embankment of DEPZ. The
reasons for same factor of safety were also described in that case. Janbu's simplified

73
method gave the different value of factor of safety. This was also discussed in that
case.

Critical slip circles were determined by Bishop's simplified method, Fellenius method
and Janbu's simplified method. The slip circles are shown in Figure 4.7. The center of
critical circles was determined by drawing contour of factor of safety.

4.4 DHAKA-NARAYANGONJ-DEMRA (DND) FLOOD PROTECTION

EMBANKMENT (CASE STUDY-3)

The project area is located in a region by two rivers the Buriganga and the Sitalakhya.
The land is formed by stream deposits and includes some swamp deposits of silt, sand
and clay with coarse sand at greater depth.

The average elevation of the land within the enclosure varies from 1.83 meter to 3.04
meter of PWD level. Before completion of the project most of the area during flood
season used to be submerged beneath 1.83 meter to 2.43 meter of water except for the
homesteads located within the area and construction on artificially raised ground.

The embankment forming the enclosure rises 3.04 to 4.57 meter above the
surrounding ground level except at locations of earlier bridges and culverts.

The embankment failed in 1974 due to flood action. A research work was performed
to find out the causes of failure (Safiullah, 1977). The cross sections of the
embankment including the data used in stability analysis are shown in Figure 4.8.

74
 loUISofFS

EL=10.Om EL=7'sm R
EL=2.Om

FS=O.769

(a)

loUlSofFS

EL=lO.Om
R EL=7'sm
Elr2.Om

FS=O.88
~)

Legend
:1 mm=O.8189m
c Center0 f enb"cal slip CIIC. 1e Scale

R Radiusof slipcircle

Figure 4.7 Critical slip circles determined by different method of stability analysis
a) Bishop's simplified method, Fellenius method b) Janbu's simplified
method, Total stress (~=O) analysis, Country side slope of section at
13+900, Dhaka city flood protection embankment.

75

•
 c=O c=51. 71 KN/m2
qf=30° <p=0
Y,,,=18.82 kN/m'
y' =9.09kN/m'

3.07m 7.06m
~L-J: ~
Top EL6.70m
EL2.75 m
EL 3.506m---

E!:. 0.27 m
---"~- I 5.09 ml -
(a)

~
.
4.826ml -.• ------
Top EL 6.70 m
1

EL. 6.~ ~ EL. 4.12m

e'=O e=51.71 kN!J~ EL. 3.S25m

qf=30° <p=0
Y,,,=18.82 kN/m'
W 1.90Sm
y'=9.03 kN/m' ~ •..••••..• _

(b)

Scale: Imm=0.3405m

Figure 4.8 (a) Cross section ofONO embankment at section 6

(b) Cross section ofONO embankment at section 8

76
 4.4.1 Stability Analysis ofDND Flood Protection Embankment (Case Study-3)

In this case both effective stress and total stress type of analysis were performed using
the available data. Both canal side slope and country side slope were analyzed. In case
of effective stress analysis it was calculated factor of safety considering seepage and
submergence and without considering seepage and submergence condition. Analysis
was also performed considering seepage but no submergence. The obtained factors of
safety from the selected methods of analyses in different conditions are tabulated and
discussed below successively.

Table 4.14 Stability analysis of conntry side slope of section at 6, Circular failure
surface, Effective stress type of analysis, DND flood protection
embankment

Sl ]\ me Location of slip circle Shear strength parameters and FS

No of center (x and y unit weight
method coordinates) & radius R

x y R d $1 Ysat Consid- Cons ide- Without

(m) (m) (m) (kN/m') (degree) (kN/m3) ering ring consider-
seepage seepage ing
and and but seepage
submer- no and
gence subme- submerg-
rgence ence
1. FEM 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.33 0.65 1.33

2. FTH 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.33 0.71 1.33

3. BSM 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.49 0.64 1.49

4. JSM 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.38 0.64 1.38

5. JRM 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.41 0.68 1.41

6. SPM 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.29 0.64 1.29

7. MPM 11.58 12.20 12.20 0 30 18.82 1.73 1.18 1.73

From the Table 4.14 it has been observed that the factor of safety obtained by
considering seepage and submergence is greater than that obtained by considering
seepage but no submergence for the same slip surface. In this case analysis was
performed considering full submergence. As a result seepage became zero. So factor
of safety was increased. When submergence condition was considered then the weight
o of soil was reduced which intern reduced the sliding force. But this has same impact
in resisting force as the parameter W is present in resisting force. As in this case cl =0

77
and u=O due to consideration of full submergence condition so ratio between the
resisting force and sliding force became greater though the numerical values of these
two forces were less than the values when it was considered seepage but not
submergence. That is why in this case it was obtained greater value of factor of safety
than when it was considered seepage but no submergence. On the other hand when
seepage was considered but submergence condition was not considered then sliding
force increased. Again in this case resisting force decreased due to subtraction of pore
water pressure. As a result factor of safety decreased. Again it has been observed that
when seepage and submergence were not considered then the FS was increased for all
the methods. This was due to the fact that resisting force was increased considerably
when it was not considered seepage. So factor of safety increased.

From the Table it has also been observed that FS obtained by "considering seepage
and submergence" and "without considering seepage and submergence" are same for
all the methods i.e. a method gave the same result at these two conditions. This was
due to the reason that when it was considered full submergence condition at both side
of the embankment or a partial submergence condition where there was no head
difference between the country side water level and river side water level then
seepage became zero. Again in this embankment as cohesion cl was zero so the
resisting force stood only for frictional component where there was no reduction for
seepage. In this case only the weight of the slice was reduced due to submergence
which had same impact on the sliding force and resisting force i.e. the value of W in
resisting force and sliding force was same .Besides there was no change in the values
of angle of internal friction 4>1and slope of base of slice u. As a result in case of
analysis with considering seepage and submergence the ratio between the resisting
force and the sliding force became the same as that of when analysis was performed
without considering seepage and submergence i.e. the same value of factor of safety
CFS)was obtained in these two conditions. But ifthere is head difference between the
canal side and river side water level then FS differs from each other at these two
conditions of analysis. From the analysis it has been observed that as the head
difference increases the value of FS decreases and vice versa. From the analysis it has
also been observed that in case of submergence condition maximum value of FS was
obtained when there was no head difference between the country side and river or
canal side water level.

78
Table 4.15 Stability analysis without considering seepage & submergence,
Critical factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Country
side slope of section at 6, Circular failure surface, Effective stress
type of analysis, DND flood protection embankment

SI Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength parameters and FS

No methods center (x and y unit weight
coordinates) and radius
R
x y R c/ ~/ Ysat
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (degree) (kN/m3)
1. FEM 10.36 9.45 7.93 0 30 18.82 1.23
2. FTH 10.36 9.45 7.93 0 30 18.82 1.23
3. BSM 10.36 9.45 7.93 0 30 18.82 1.32
4. JSM 10.97 9.45 7.93 0 30 18.82 1.17
5. JRM 10.97 9.45 7.93 0 30 18.82 1.22

Table 4.16 Stability analysis considering seepage but no submergence, Critical

factor of safety obtained from the selected methods, Country side
slope of section at 6, Circular failure surface, Effective stress type of
analysis,DND flood protection embankment

SI Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength parameters and FS

No methods center (x and y unit wt.
coordinates) and radius R
x y R d ~/ Ysat
2
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m ) (degree) (kN/m3)
1. FEM 10.97 7.62 7.92 0 30 18.82 0.49

2. FTH 10.97 7.62 7.92 0 30 18.82 0.62

3. BSM 11.89 11.89 12.2 0 30 18.82 0.54

4. JSM 11.89 11.89 12.2 0 30 18.82 0.55

5. JRM 10.36 7.62 7.92 0 30 18.82 0.69

From the Tables 4.15 it has been observed that the same critical slip surfaces were
given by Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev
(1967) and Bishop's simplified method. On the other hand Janbu's simplified and
rigorous methods gave the critical slip surfaces which were different from that
obtained by aforesaid three methods. From the Table 4.16 it has also been observed
that the same critical slip surfaces were given by Fellenius method, Fellenius method
modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967). Bishop's simplified method and Janbu's
simplified method gave the same location of critical circle but this was different from

79 \

...
 C

Scale: 1 mm= 0.1467 m

Legend

o Fellenius method, Fellenius method modified by

Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967)
@ Janbu's rigorous method

e Bishop's simplified method and

Janbu's simplified method

R Radius of critical slip circle

C Center of slip circle

Figure 4.9 Critical slip circles obtained from the selected methods of stability analysis
Effective stress analysis considering .seepage, Country'side slope of section
at 6, DND flood protection embankment

'so
Fellenius methods and Janbu's rigorous method. The obtained critical surfaces
considering seepage are shown in Figure 4.9. It has also been observed that the
different critical slip surfaces were obtained in case of analysis with seepage and
without seepage.

Table 4.17 Stability analysis of country side slope, Total stress (<FO) analysis,
Circular failure surface, DND flood protection embankment

SI. No. Name of Location of slip Shear strength FS

methods circle center (x and y parameters and unit
coordinates) and weight
radius R
x y R c Ysat
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
1. FEM 5.64 5.18 4.12 51.71 18.82 7.85

2. FTH 5.64 5.18 4.12 51.71 18.82 7.85

3. BSM 5.64 5.18 4.12 51.71 18.82 7.85

Table 4.18 Stability analysis of canal side slope, Total stress (<1>=0) analysis,
Circular failure surface, DND flood protection embankment

SI. No. Name of Location of slip circle Shear strength FS

Methods center(x and y parameters and unit
coordinates) and radius weight
R
x y R c' Ysat
(m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
I. FEM 9.75 7.93 7.62 51.71 18.82 4.19

2. FTH 9.75 7.93 7.62 51.71 18.82 4.19

3. BSM 9.75 7.93 7.62 51.71 18.82 4.19

Total stress type of analysis was also performed for both canal side and country side
slopes. The obtained factors of safety are shown in tables 4.17 to 4.18. It has been
observed that factors of safety are same for a specified slip surface for the methods
shown in tables. In the previous article it has already been discussed about the reason
due to which the same factors of safety are obtained for the methods shown in the
tables.

81
4.5 ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, YUGOSLAVIA (CASE STUDY-4)

The big landslide at Zalesina on the railway connecting town of Zagreb and Rijeka
(Yugoslavia) is a spontaneous natural phenomenon on which the action of man had no
significant influence. This landslide was studied by Ervin Nonveiller and Lujo Suklje
(1955). They used effective pressures in the stability analysis and for this purpose
shear tests were performed on completely consolidated specimens in a ring shear
apparatus. They found out the shear strength parameters for the condition of stability.
for the identified ground water level as mentioned in the figures by full line. They also
found the shear strength parameters for the condition of sliding assuming a higher
water level, which are marked in figures by dotted line. The geotechnical laboratory
investigation data used in stability analysis is shown in figure 4.10. The shear strength
parameters regarding condition for stability and sliding determined by the authors are
shown in Table 4.19 and 4.20.

Table 4.19 Determined Shear Strength Parameters by the Authors Regarding

Condition of Stability for Zalesina Landslide, Zagreb, Yugoslavia.

Section Ground water level c~O, <I>

necessary <1>=0,c necessary
kN/m2
AA Full line 18u30 249.09
u
BB Full line 24 40 397.18

CC Full line 24"50' 282.44

Average values 2240

.0 "' 309.90

Table 4.20 Determined Shear Strength Parameters by the Authors Regarding

Condition of Sliding for Zalesina Landslide, Zagreb, Yugoslavia.

Section Ground water level c=O, <I>

necessary <1>=0,c necessary
2
kN/m

AA Dotted line 21"10' 219.67

BB Dotted line 27u40' 389.33

CC Dotted line 28uIO' 288.32

'u, "
2540 299.11
Average values

The saturated unit weight of soil is 21.61 kN/m3•

82
 Triaxial test data Ring shear test data

c=46.09 kN/m2 c=O

<1>=11.3° <1>=31.5°

850.

800

750
SECTION AA
700
850
j
800 "'--- -

750
SECTION 88
700
850
1
800

750

700 SECTION CC
50 0 100 200 300m

Figure 4.10 Cross -sections AA, BB and CC, Zalesina landslide, Yugoslavia.

83
4.5.1 Stability Analysis of Zalesina Landslide, Zagreb, Yngoslavia (Case Stndy-4)

In this case using the available data factor of safety was determined in case of some
selected methods. The three. sections shown in Figure 4.10 were analyzed and
compared with the results of the authors. The authors found the data regarding the
condition of stability and the condition of sliding. Both geotechnical laboratory test
data and these data were used in analysis and checked whether the conditions were
satisfied or not. Effective stress type of analysis was performed. The soil of the
concerned landslide was clay and sandy clay. The obtained results are described
below.

Table 4.21 .Factor of safety determined by Bishop's simplified method, Zalesina

land slide, Zagreb.

Sl Section Location of slip circle center FS

No (x and y coordinates) and
radius R
x y R Condition for Condition for
(m) (m) (m) stability sliding
1. AA 200 800 150 2.28 2.40
2. BB 200 800 150 1.20 1.14
3. CC 200 800 100 1.21 1.07

Table 4.22 Factor of safety determined by Fellenins method, Zalesina land slide,
Zagreb.

Sl Name of Section Location of slip circle FS

No methods center (x and y
coordinates) and radius
R
x y R Condition Condition
(m) (m) (m) for for sliding
stability
1. FEM AA 200 800 150 1.30 1.24
2. FEM BB 200 800 150 0.62 0.43
3. FEM CC 200 800 100 0.77 0.43

From the Table 4.21 it has been observed that the factor of safety obtained by using
the data for condition of stability and condition of sliding are greater than one for the
three sections. So the condition of stability is satisfied but the condition of sliding is

84
not satisfied for the three sections shown in the table. Sut the condition of sliding was
satisfied for other slip surfaces. A large numbers of slip surfaces were studied. Some
of them provided the factors of safety which were less than one. Some related results
are shown in appendix-6.

From Table 4.22 it has been observed that factor of safety obtained by using the data
for the condition of stability is greater than one in case of section AA but less than
one incase of sections BB and CC. So in case of section AA the condition of stability
is satisfied, but it is not satisfied in case of sections BB and Cc. On the other hand
factor of safety obtained by using condition of sliding for the two sections BB and CC
are less than one but for section AA it is greater than one. So condition of sliding is
satisfied for the two sections BB and CC but not for section AA. Though the
condition of stability and condition of sliding are not satisfied for the same slip
surfaces as shown in table 4.22 but it satisfied for other slip surfaces. Some related
results are shown in appendix-6.

Again a study was performed for a large numbers of slip surfaces of section BB and
section CC using the data for condition of stability by using Bishop's simplified
method. It was observed that some slip surfaces provided the factors of safety which
were less than one. So from this study it can be concluded that the authors' data
regarding condition for stability and condition for sliding do not satisfY the stable or
failure condition of all the slip surfaces in the same manner. In some cases it satisfies
the stable condition and in some case it satisfies the failure condition.

From the above study it has been observed that seepage has a great impact on the
factor of safety. It reduces the factor of safety. It has been observed that Bishop's
simplified method gave comparatively a greater value of factor of safety than
Fellenius method for the same slip surfaces with same data. The reason due to which
this variation in result occurs has been described in the previous case study. From the
above study it is also clear that all the failure condition and stable condition of a
specific failure surface are not satisfied by all the methods in the same manner. The
factor of safety obtained from two methods varies from 5 to 30% approximately. In
some cases it is more than this limit.

85
Table 4.23 Factor of safety determined by using laboratory test data, Zalesina
landslide, Zagreb.

SI. Section Name of Location of slip circle FS Remarks

No. , methods center (x and y
coordinates) and radius
R
x y R
(m) (m) (m)
1. ee FEM 200 800 100 0.50 Ring shear test data
used
2. ee BSM 210 810 100 0.90 Ring shear test data
used

The factor of safety obtained by using laboratory test data is shown in Table 4.23.
From the table it has been observed that the factor of safety obtained by FEM and
BSM is less than one. So the analysis by FEM and BSM agrees the land sliding.

4.6 COMMENTS ON RESULTS OF ANALYSES

From the analysis of embankment of DEPZ it was observed that the factor of safety

obtained from all the selected methods of stability analysis were less than one (~ =0

analysis). On the other hand in case of c, ~ (c>O, ~ >0) analysis the obtained factor of
safety in all the selected methods were greater than one. The embankment failed
during the period of construction. In this time generally an undrained condition exists
for silt and clayey soil. From the test report it was observed that the underlying soil of

the embankment was clay. Therefore ~ =0 analysis was reliable for estimating factor

of safety at this condition. On the other hand c, ~ analysis is not suitable in this case.

It would (c, ~ analysis) have suit the failure condition if stage loading was performed
in filling allowing time to consolidate. In case of Dhaka city flood protection

embankment it was also observed that ~ =0 analyses gave the factor of safety for all
the selected methods were less than one. But in case of effective stress analysis the

factor of safety for all the methods were greater than one. So in this case ~ =0 analysis

also simulated the failure condition closely.

From the analysis of DND embankment it was observed that in case of ~ ~oanalysis
it was obtained a higher value of factor of safety. In some cases the value of factor of .'
safety was greater than 7. This indicates that the embankment was stable. But

86
practically, the embankment failed. The factor of safety obtained from effective stress
analysis considering seepage was considerably less than one but when seepage was
not considered then the factor of safety was greater than one. Again when it was
considered full submergence then the factor of safety obtained were equal to that
obtained when it was not considered seepage. In this case the value of factor of safety
was greater than one for all the methods. So in DND embankment, effective stress
analysis with considering seepage simulated the failure of the embankment.

In case of Zalesina landslide it has been observed that seepage has a great influence
on factor of safety. Seepage reduces the value of factor of safety. If the water level is
increased keeping shear strength parameters and geometry of the profile same then
factor of safety is reduced and vice versa. In this case study Bishop's simplified
method and Fellenius method gave the factor of safety, which satisfied both the
condition of stability and condition of sliding. But these conditions were not satisfied
for the same slip surfaces by the two methods. It was satisfied in different slip
surfaces. This is due to the fact that generally Fellenius method underestimates the
factor of safety in respect of Bishop's simplified method in case of effective stress
type of analysis. From this case study it can be told that failure condition or stable
condition of any slip surface is not satisfied by all the selected methods in the same

manner.

From the study it was observed that, Fellenius method of analysis underestimated the
factor of safety in respect of Bishop's simplified method and Fellenius method,
Modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967) in case of effective stress type of analysis

but gave the same factor of safety in case of total stress type of ("'=0) analysis. This
method was suitable for circular failure surface and gave fairly accurate value of
factor of safety, which was in safe side, as it under estimated the factor of safety. It's
calculation was very simple and suitable for both effective stress and total stress type
of analysis and no iteration was required. From the above discussion it can be told that
for safe design this method can be used for circular failure surfaces easily.

From the study it was observed that Fellenius method modified by Turnbull and
Hvorselev(1967) also underestimated the factor of safety in respect of Bishop's
simplified method but gave a little bit higher value than that of Fellenius method

87
incase of effective stress type of analysis. It was suitable for circular failure surfaces.
Calculation was very simple and no iteration was required in this method of analysis.

Bishop's simplified method over estimated the factor of safety in respect of Fellenius
methods in case of effective stress type of analysis. It was also suitable for both total
stress and effective stress type of analysis. Iteration was required but convergence was
rapid. This method gave comparatively an accurate result. Calculations were very
simple. So this method can be used reliably and easily to estimate factor of safety for
circular failure surfaces.

In Janbu's simplified method a correction factor was used to get final value of factor
safety. As the correction factor was determined graphically on the basis of geometric
ratio d/L, so inaccuracy may arise either in safe side or in unsafe side. Besides,
additional time was required to determine the correction factor. From the results
presented in this chapter it was observed that this method gave a factor of safety,
which was in some cases a little bit less ,equal or higher than that of Bishop's
simplified method and Fellenius methods depending on the value of Fa and fo. It was
suitable for both total stress and effective stress type of analyses and any type of slip
surfaces. Iteration was required for factor of safety calculation but convergence was
rapid.

In Janbu's rigorous method iteration was required for successive set of inter slice
forces till the convergence was reached. It was suitable for both total stress and
effective stress type of analyses and can be used for any shape of slip surfaces.
Besides, by this method it can be calculated factor of safety (F y) along interfaces. In
some cases it overestimated and in some cases it underestimated factor of safety in
respect of Fellenius methods and Janbu's simplified method.

In Spencer's method analysis by hand calculation was very tedious. Computer was
required for factor of safety calculation .. In ~=O analysis it provided the same value
of factor of safety as that of Bishop's simplified method and Fellenius methods. But
incase of effective stress analysis it provided greater value than these methods. In this
method Fm and Fr were calculated at different assumed values of inclination angle e of
resultant inter slice forces. Then factors of safety were plotted against e to get the

88
actual value of factor of safety. This was an additional work, which was performed for
this method. So it is clear that this method of analysis is not as simple as the methods
described previously and can not be used easily.

In Morgenstern and Price method it has not been obtained a unique value of factor of
safety. The obtained factor of safety depended on the assumptions in selecting the
distribution function of inter slice forces. In ~=O analysis it provided the same value.
of factor of safety as that of Bishop's simplified method and Fellenius methods. But
incase of effective stress analysis it provided greater value than these methods. In this
case it was required to calculate Fe and Fm using different distribution of inter slice
forces at different scaling factor A.. Then the obtained Fm and Fe are plotted against A.
to get the actual value of factor of safety as like Spencer's method. The factor of
safety calculated by this method was equal to Spencer's method in ~=O analysis. As
different distribution of inter slice forces were required to use so it required rnore time
than other methods. Again use of different distribution of inter slice forces provided
different values of factor of safety for the same slip surface. Besides, the calculation
was comparatively complex and required computer for solution. So it can be told that
this method is not easy usable.

From the results presented in the previous articles it has been observed that for a
specific condition (~=O analysis) some of the selected methods, such as, Bishop's
simplified and Fellenius methods Spencer's method, Morgenstern and Price method
gave the same factor of safety for a common slip surface. At the same condition some
other remaining methods, such as, Janbu's simplified method and rigorous method
gave the different value of factor of safety. On the other hand, in case of c, ~ (c>O,
~>O) analysis and effective stress analysis the aforesaid methods gave the different
values of factor of safety. The reasons for these conditions were already described.

From the above case studies it was observed that for short term stability analysis in
case of silt and clayey soil ~=O analysis simulated the failure condition and for long
term stability analysis effective stress analysis gave the reliable results of factor of
safety at failure condition.

89
So from the above discussion finally it can be commented that the value of factor of
safety depended on the different factors, such as, shear strength parameters of soil,
type (Effective stress and total stress) of analysis and method of analysis, different
assumptions considered in the analysis etc. It can also be commented that all the
methods and types of analysis did not simulate the failure condition for a specific

failure.

4.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS

From the research it has been observed that in obtaining of the most critical circle the
following factors should be considered.
(i) Selection of center of critical circle is an important factor in finding factor of
safety, i.e. if the different procedures are used in selecting center of critical
circle then the location of critical circle will differ from each other though the
method of analysis is same.
(ii) Location of critical circle also depends on computational technique. I.e. though
the method of analysis is same yet the location of critical circle may vary due to
different computational or searching technique applied for a specific condition.
e.g. the computational technique i.e. the slip circle searching technique of
modified program and peST ABL5M differs from each other and the obtained
location of critical circle is different (Figure 4.5).
(iii) Some methods of analysis provided the same location of critical circle for a
specific condition. e.g. Bishop's simplified method, Fellenius method, Fellenius
method modified by Turnbull and Hvorslev (1967), Spencer's method and
Morgenstern and Price method provided the same critical circle in case of total

stress type (<1>=0) of analysis.

(iv) Slope stability analysis methods do not give unique or absolute results. From the
present research it has been observed that the obtained results vary for different
considered factors. i.e. the results vary from methods to methods, computational
techniques to computational techniques for different considered factors.
(v) To get comparatively reliable value of factor of safety and location of critical
circle, center of critical circle should be chosen in such a manner, so that
comparatively a large numbers of potential slip circle may be checked.

90
 CHAPTERS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE STUDY

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

In this research program three cases of embankment failures and one land slide were
studied. There were different soil and environmental condition in the selected cases.
Developed computer programs which were termed as modified programs were used to
study the cases. Besides PCSTABL5M, a computer program developed by Purdue
University was also used in the study. Both effective and total stress type of analysis
were performed depending upon the available data. From the study, the major
findings and conclusions regarding method of analysis, choice of process for
determining center of critical circle, type of analysis, computational technique and
choice of method may be summarized as follows:

• For circular failure surfaces Bishop's simplified method can be used reliably and.
for non circular failure surfaces Janbu's rigorous method can be used.
• It has been observed that determination of the most critical circle depends on
choosing of center of critical circle. It has also been observed that the same
method of analysis gives different critical circle depending on the center of critical
circle used. So, in case of stability analysis the center of critical circle should be
chosen properly.
• Selection of type of analysis depends on soil condition and period of analysis i.e
whether the analysis is for short term or long term basis. Ifthe soil is clay and silt
then an undrained condition exists in case of short term analysis. So in this case
total stress (<1>=0
analysis) type of analysis should be performed for reliable result.
On the other hand for long term analysis, effective stress type of analysis will be
performed. From the research, it has been observed.
• In case of Bishop's simplified and Janbu's simplified methods, factor of safety
obtained both from PCSTABL5M and the modified programs have been found
same for a common slip surface. But the critical surfaces obtained from the two
techniques are different from each other. Noticeable that, the searching technique
for critical surfaces in both the computational techniques is different from each

91
 other. So determination of the most critical slip surface depends on the
computational technique also.
• If the slip surface is circular and if the stability of the embankments, cuts are main
consideration in respect of financial factor, then in case of effective stress analysis
Fellenius method of analysis should be adopted as it underestimates the factor of
safety, i.e. the design in safe side. On the other hand for reverse condition in case
of circular failure surface, Bishop's simplified method of analysis can be used.
• If the slip surface is of arbitrary shape then in case of effective stress analysis any
one of the Janbu's rigorous methods and Janbu's simplified method can be used.
Besides, for non-circular failure surfaces Spencer's method and Morgenstern and
Price methods can also be used.
• If the soil is silt or clay and an undrained condition exits i.e. <p = 0 then for circular
failure surface, either Bishop's Simplified method or Fellenius methods can be
used. Because these methods provide the same value of factor of safety in this
case.
• Seepage has negative impact on factor of safety. That is if seepage is considered
in stability analysis then factor of safety has been found to decrease considerably
depending on the water level. So it can be concluded by reducing seepage factor
of safety can be increased.
• From the study it was observed that in case of partial submergence condition with
head difference of water level between country side and canal side the factor of
safety obtained was smaller than that when it was considered full submergence
condition. Therefore, it can be considered that the slopes are comparatively more.
stable in full submergence condition or in partial submergence condition when
there is no head difference than that of partial submergence condition with head
difference of water level between country side and canal side.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

Several aspects of the work presented in this thesis require further study. Some of the
important areas of future research could be as follows:
• In this research program only a few cases of slope failures are studied using the
limit equilibrium methods of analysis only. But there are a numbers of methods in
existence. Such as, finite element method, shear band concept etc., which are not

92
 used in this research program. So it is hard to draw any strong conclusion
regarding the suitability of these methods. It is only possible to suggest the
suitability of these seven methods only, which is already concluded in the
previous article, but which is not sufficient for important design work. So it can be
suggested from the present research that more cases of practical slope failures at
different soil and environmental conditions will be studied using all the available
methods for the strong conclusion regarding the suitability of each individual
method. At the same time computer programs will be developed for all the
remaining existing methods to solve the problems accurately within a very short
time.
• It is also notable that in the present study for simplicity of the problems soil has
been considered homogeneous. But in fact soil is not homogeneous in all the
cases. It may be stratified. So for future study this practical condition should be
considered in the analysis and developing the programs.
• It is notable that the actual failure surfaces of the selected failed slopes were not
known. So it could not be determined which method of analysis provides the
critical surface that coincide with the actual failure surface. So for future study,
the actual failure surfaces will be collected for different cases of failures and will
be studied by using different methods of analysis to identify which method is
appropriate for analysis with respect to field condition.
• In Janbu's simplified method value of correction factor fo was provided manually
from the figure. This was a problem. It would be better if the correction factor was
determined by computer program. Again in case of Spencer's method plotting of
Fr and Fm with respect to e and in case of Morgenstern and Price method plotting
of Fr and Fm with respect to A. were performed manually. As a result it required
additional time. So for future study, in developing computer programs these
factors should be considered.

93
REFERENCES

[I] Anagnosti, P. (1969). Three-dimensional stability of fill dams. Proceedings, th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2, pp.
275-280.
[2] Balagurushami, (1994). Programming in BASIC, Tata Megraw-Hill publishing
company limited, New Delhi, pp. 20-200.
[3] Bishop, A.W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes,
Geotechnique, 5, pp.7-17.
[4] Bjerrum, L. (1972). Embankment on soft ground. (State-of-the-art Report).
proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth-
Supported Structures, Lafayette, Indiana, 2, p. I-54. (Reprinted in Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute Publication No. 95, 1973, p. 27).
[5] Bjerrum, L. (1973). Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays
and structurally unstable soils (collapsible, expansive and others). State-of-art
report, Session 4, Proc. 8th In!. Conf. SMFE, Moscow, 3, pp. 109-159.
[6] Blyth, F.G.H. and de Freitas, M.H., (1974). A Geology for Engineers, 6th
Edition, Edwin Arnold, London, pp. 582-590.
[7] Bowles, Joseph E., Foundation analysis and design, fifth edition, Magraw-Hill
international edition, civil engineering series, pp.I72-174.
[8] Brand, E.W. (1991). Predicted and observed performance of an embankment
built to failure on soft clay, Journal of Geotechnical engineering, 22, pp. 23-41.
[9] Brand, E.W. & Shen, J.M. (1984). A note on the principle of the mid-point
circle, Geotechnique, 34, pp. 123-125.
[10] BRTC, BUET, (1995). Report on instability of Embankment of the south and
west end of the DEPZ area in Savar at Gonokbari, pp.I-30.
[II] Chen, R.H., and Chameau, lL. (1983). Three-dimensional limit equilibrium
analysis of slopes, Geotechnique, 33, pp. 31-40.
[12] Chowdhury, R.N. (1978). Slope Analysis, Elsevier scientific publishing
company, Amsterdam-Oxford-New York, pp.I-169.
[13] Das, B.M. (1983). Advanced soil mechanics, Megraw-Hill book company, New
York, pp.424-425.
[14] Eckel, E.B., (1958). (Editor) Landslides and Engineering Practice, Highway
Research Board, Special Report 29, Washington, p. 232.
.
,.
[15] Embankment Design, LGED Design manual, pp.A-2.1-A-2.16.

94

.,
 nd
[16] Fellenius, W., 1936. Calculation of stability of earth dams, Transactions, 2
Congress Large Dams 4; p. 445.
[17] Graham, 1. (1984). Methods of stability analysis In Slope Instability, Edited by
D. Brunsden, and D.8. Prior, John Wiley and Sons ltd., Chichester, United
Kingdom, pp. 171-215.
[18] Hovland, H.1. (1977). Three-dimensional slope stability analysis method, J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 103, GT9; pp.971-987.
[19] Hungr, 0., Salgado, F.M., and Byrne, P.M., (1989). Evaluation of three-
dimensional method of slope stability analysis, Canadian Geotech. Journal, 26,
pp.679-687.
[20] Inmann, Don., & Albert, Bob., The GWBASIC Reference, Osborne Megraw-
Hill, 2600 tenth street, Berkeley, California 9471O,U.S.A. pp. 100-500.
[21] Janbu, N., (1957). Earth pressure and bearing capacity calculations by
generalized procedure of slices, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 2;
pp.207-212.
[22] Janbu, N., (1973). Slope stability computations, Embankment dam engineering,
casagrande volume, Edited by Hirschfeld, R.c., and Poulos, S.J., Wiley New
York, pp. 47.80.
[23] Ladd, c.c. and Foot!, R., (1974). New design procedure for stability of soft
clays, 1. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 100, GT?; pp. 763-786.
[23] Morgenstern, N.R.and Price, V.E., (1965). The analysis of the stability of
general slip surfaces, Geotechnique, 15, I; pp. 79-93.
[24] Nonveiller, E., and Suklje, Lujo. (1955). Influence of ground water on slope
stability, Geotechnique, 5, pp.143-153.
[25] Safiullah, A.M.M. (1977). Causes of Dhaka -Narayangonj-Demra Embankment
failure, M.Sc Engg. thesis, BUET, pp. 25-80.
[26] Sarma, S.K., (1973). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes,
Geotechnique, 23; pp.423-433.
[27] Skempton, A.W and Hutchinson, J.N., (1969). Stability of natural slopes and
embankment foundations, State-of -the-art report, 7th In!. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Eng., Mexico; pp.291-335.
[28] Slope stability program, PCSTABL5M user guide, U.S department of
transportation, Federal high way administration, pp. 1-131.
[29] Smith, G.N. (1973). Stability of slopes, Elements of soil Mechanics, 3rd edition,
Crosey lockwood staples, London, pp.130-165.

95
[30] Spencer, E., (1967). A method of analysis for stability of embankments using
parallel inter-slice forces, Geotechnique, 17; pp. 11-26.
[31] Spencer, E., (1973). The thrust line criterion in embankment stability analysis,
Geotechnique, 23; pp. 85-101.
[32] Stamatopoulos, Aris c., and Kotzias, Panaghiotis C., (1985). Improvement of
soil by preloading, Department of civil engineering, Massachusetts institute of
technology, pp.50-80.
[33] Taylor, D.W., (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics, Wiley, New York, p.
700.
[34] Terzaghi, K and Peck, R.B., (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
Wiley, New York, p. 729.
[35] Turnbull, W,j. and Hvorslev, M.J., (l967).Special problems in slope stability, J.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng., ASCE, 93, SM4; pp.499-528.
[36] Whitman, R.V. and Bailey, W.A., (1967). Use of computers for slope stability
analysis. J. Soil Mechanics Found. Div., ASCE, 93, pp. 475-498.
[37] William, Neil D. (1991). Design of Embankments by Geosynthetics, Geosentec
Consultants and Louis Berger international, Inc., Dhaka, Bangladesh, p.27.
[38] Xing, Z. (1988). Three-dimensional stability analysis of concave slopes in plan
view. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114, pp. 658-671.
[39] Zaruba, Q. and Menel. V., (1969). Landslide and their control, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 205.
[40] Zobel, W.M. (1982). Foundation and earth structure, Design manual 7.1,
Department of the navy, Naval facilities engineering command, 200, Stovall
street, Alexandria, VA, 22332, pp.320.

96
APPENDICES

97
 APPENDIX-l
FLOWCHART
FELLENIUS METHOD

98
 Flow chart
Fellenius method

Start

Read number of sl ices, NS

Read cohesion, c

Read angle of internal friction, PD

Angle of internal friction in radian P=

PD X PIli 80

Read unit weight of soil, GA

Read number of embankment co-

ordinates, PI

Read embankment's x co-ordinate EE

and y co-ordinate EN

99
 No
Is individual
slice data, Y$
required?

Yes
Read top co-ordinate, YT
Read bottom co-ordinate,
YB& Read x co-ordinate
of individual slice

"Slip circle's centers

layout"G$
Print do you want a grid- G
Print or a frame-F &
Print Input Co-ordinates &
radius individually- I

Yes

ww
Print enter slip circle's center's
coord. i.e. x co-ordinate EO & Y
coordinate NO, radius R, Range RA

Input EO,NO,R,RA

100
 ss No

Input enter co-ordinate of

slip circle center EO, NO
and Radius R

Yes
IfG$'I'oFrame,
A
F

Print, enter limits of east

vv (x) Co-ordinate Emin,Emox
of slip circle center

Input Fl & F2

Print enter limits of north (y) co-

ordinates Nmin, Nmax of slip circle
center

Input enter step F5

Input enter
Radius R

101
 EO=FI
NO=F3

Print do you want to

A print slice data?

Print All slice data=A

Print Summery only=S
Print No printout=N

Print Fellenius method

Print circular failure surface

Print East, North,

Radius, Factor of safety

IfP$=N Yes

No
Print Fellenius method
by printer

No
Yes

Print East, North, Radius, Factor of

safety by printer

PP Start geometric calculation

' .•
'f

102
 If Y$=Y i.e Yes AA
individual slice
data required?

st
Distance between 1 point of embankment and
center of slip circle
z = ~[{EE(0)-EO}2+{EN(0)-NO}2]

If z< Radius R
then Q=!

Distance between the 2nd last point of embankment and

center of slip circle z = ~[{EE(P2)-EO}2+{EN(P2)-NO}2]

Ifz < R then Q~!

Yes

No

Print radius is too large

103
 E

Yes C

AE= EE(I), i.e. x co-ordinate of embankment

AN= EN(I), i.e. y co-ordinate of embankment

F IF ,t {(EO-AE)2+(NO- Yes D
AN)2l <R"dills R

No
AF=AE; NF=AN

CC
Yes
No

104
 Distance between center of slip circle & 1" co-ordinate
of embankment RR= -,I[(EO-EEo) '+ (NO-ENo)']
c

No

Yes

Print Radius is too small

cc

Yes

DD If -,I{(AE-EO) '+ (NO-

AN)'}-R< -,I{(AF-
EO) '+ (NO-NF) '}-R
Yes

105
DD

FF Yes GG
If..,j{(EO-BE) 2+ (NO-
BN)2} <R

Yes EE

106
 G
BN-
(EEj-EEIl

FF

EE

Yes

IfS<.05 GG

No

FF

If [,I {(BE-EO) 2+ (NO-BN) Yes

2}_R] < [,1{(BF-EO)2+ (NO-
NF) 2}_R]

~.
No

107
 w= (BE-AE)/NS

Yes
If P$=" A"Le.
AA all slice data BB
reqd.

~o

108

,
,
 YB;-YB;_1
Slope of slice i.e. Angle a;=Tan,~-I_-_-

Pore water pressure u;=9.8Ix.5x(YW;+

YW;_I-YB;-YB;_I)

Weight of slice w;= ybh

Initial value of T=O

Sliding force, T=L: [c/l+tana

(wcosa-ul)l

Resisting force, B~L:wsina

Factor of safety F= T/B

If Y$= No printout N No

Y KK

.or.
'"
109

. I
 Print EO,NO,R,FS

Yes

Print by printer East, North,

Radius & Factor of safety

No
If Y$=Y
XI
Yes

Print by printer factor of safety FS

.••••

110
 No

XI

Yes

Print by printer
EO, NO, R, FS

B Ask for new radius & coordinate

Yes
If Y$=Y
JJ

No
Yes
If G$=I LL

No
Yes

If G$=F TT

No

If G$=G Yes uu

No

Input another Grid

YI$

.,ft.;"
. r"
.
~
: ,L
,.'
.~. 'I

III '>
 Yes
ww

No
Yes
END

No

uu Ask for new grid point

EO=EO+RA
MM

112
t
 MM

EO=EO-RA

Go to PP

BB Print by printer
cohesion, phi, wt, X,
YT, YB,YW,EE,EN

Print by printer the value Ci, PDi,

Wi, Xi,YT,YB,YW,EE,EN

I R=urn I
11 Input YI$, do you
want another slip surface?

Yes END

No
Print the value of bottom
coordinate of slip circle, YB=?

Input the value of bottom

coordinate of slip circle, YB

113

~,
 •

Go toAA

LL

Input another point YI$

Yes
End

IT

No
If EO>F2

Yes

EO=FI, NO~NO+F5

Yes IfNO>F4

No

RR

,,

114
RR
Input another frame Y 1$

Yes vv

No

End

115
 -

APPENDIX-2
PROGRAM LISTING

,
'"
"

}_i.
116
I

..
III "
 ,

LIST OF SYMBOLS USED IN COMPUTER PROGRAMMING

Symbols Meaning

A Angle of inclination of slice

base

AL Resultant water
force at left side
of slice.

AR Resultant water
force at right side
of slice

B Sliding force/moment.

C Cohesion (Both effective

and total stress)

E Horizontal inter slice force

FF Factor of safety based on

force equilibrium

FM Factor of safety based on

moment equilibrium.

FV Factor of safety along interfaces

GA Saturated unit weight of

Soil.

G Stability parameter.

L Length of slice

MS Shear force required

for limiting equilibrium.

NS Number of slices

PP Normal force

117
LIST OF SYMBOLS USED IN COMPUTER PROGRAMMING

Symbols Meaning

PO Angle of internal friction

in degree (Both in total
stress and effective stress)

P Angle of internal friction

in radian (Both in total
stress and effective stress)

T Slope of inter-slice
force (Radian)

TH Slope of inter-slice
force (Degree)

TT Vertical inter slice force.

U Pore water pressure.

W Weight of the slice

118
 X(O) X(l) X(2) X(3) X(4) X(5)

EAST(X)

NORTH
YT(O) YT(I) (Y)
YT(2)

YWO,
YT(4 YT(5)

2 4
3

YB 5)
YB(l)
YB(4)
YB(2) YB(3)

YT=Top coordinate of slice along Y-axis.

YB=Bottom coordinate of slice along Y-axis.
X =X coordinate of slice along X-axis.
YW=Coordinate of water level in slices along Y-axis.

Figure A.2.1 Definition ofYT, VB, YW and X

119

r
i
 APPENDIX-2.t
FELLENIUS METHOD

120
10 REM*** FELLENIUS METHOD***
20 REM *** FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION ***
30 REM *** AGAINST EMBANKMENT FAILURE BY SLIPPING**
50 DATA 4 : REM NR OF SLICES NS
60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 17.5,17.5,17.5,17.5 :REM COHESION C
80 DATA 7.5,7.5,7.5,7.5 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PO
90 DATA 17.7, 17.7, 17.7, 17.7: REM UNIT WT OF SAT SOIL GA
100 DATA 4 : REM NR OF EMBANKMENTCOORDS PI
110 REM *EMBANKMENT COORDS**
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB & X
140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD=Y"
ISO PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"
160INPUTY$
170 DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB & X
180 DIM A(20),q20),L(20),P(20),U(20),W(20)
190 PI=3.14#
200READNS
210N2=NS+I
220 FOR 1=0 TO NS
230 READ YW(l)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ qI)
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=1 TO NS
290 READ PD(l)
300 P(l)=PD(l)*PI/180
310 NEXT!
320 FOR 1=1 TO NS
330 READ GA(l)
340 NEXT I
350 READ PI

121
360 P2=PI-I
370 FOR 1=0 TO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(I)
390 NEXT I
4 I 0 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(I),X(I)
440 NEXT I
450 GOTO 650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRID-G"
4 70 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY-I"
500INPUTG$
510 IF G$<> "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE

(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG~O
550 IF G$="I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS

(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$<>"F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN, EMAX)

580 INPUT FI,F2

590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, NMAX)
600 INPUT F3,F4
610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADIUS";R

630 EO=FI
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA?"

660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DAT A=A" ,

670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONL Y~S"
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"

122
690 INPUTP$
700 CLS
710 PRINT "FELLENIUS METHOD"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 PRINT" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR"
725 PRINT "= = = = = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = ~ = = ="
730 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS"

740 PRINT" "

750 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(14)"FELLENIUS METHOD"
773 LPRINT CHR$(l4)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)"
775 LPRINT CHR$(I4)" WEST SIDE OF SLOPE OF LOCATION I"
780 L PRINT "= = = = ~ = = = = = = ~ ~ = = = = = ~ = = = = = ~ = = ="

790 LPRINT "":LPRINT""

800 IF P$="S"THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R)
FS";LPRINT,""
820 REM START GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 1600
840 Q=O
850 Z=SQR((EE(0)-EO)"'2+(EN(0)-NO)"'2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
870 Z= SQR((EE(P2)-EO)"'2+(EN(P2)-NO)"'2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=O GOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LARGE"
910 GOTO 1910
920 S~I
9301=0
940 J=I+I
950 IF I> PI THEN GOTO 1040
960 AE=EE(l)
970 AN=EN(I)
980 IF SQR((EO-AE)"'2+(NO-AN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1090
990 AF~AE: NF=AN

123
1000 AE=AE+S
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN(I))/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN(I)
1030 GOTO 980
1040 RR=SQR((EO-EE(0))"2+(NO-EN(0)Y'2)
I050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"
1060 GOTO 1910
1070I=I+1
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/IO
1110 AE=AE-9* S
1120 GOTO 980
1130 IF(SQR((AE-EO)"2+(NO-AN)"2)-R)«SQR( (AF -EO)"2+(NO- NF)"2)-R)

THEN 1160
1140 AE~AF
1150 AN=NF
1160 REM
1170 S~I
1180I=P2
1190J~I-1
1200 BE=EE(I)
1210 BN=EN(I)
1220 IF SQR((EO-BE)"2+(NO-BN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1300
1230 BF=BE: NF=BN
1240 BE=BE-S
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN=(BE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN (I) )/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN(I)

1270 GOTO 1220

1280 1=]-1
, ,

1290 GOTO 1190

1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340
1310 S=S/IO
1320 BE=BE+9*S

124
1330 GOTO 1220
1340 IF (SQR((BE-EO)"2+(NO-BNY'2)-R)«SQR((BF-EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN GOTO 1370

1350 BE=BF
1360BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)/NS
1390 N2=NS+ I
1400 FOR 1=0 TO NS
1410 X(I)=AE+I*W
1420 NEXT I
1430 YT(O)=AN
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
1460 FOR J=O TO P2
1470 K=J+I
1480 IF X(I»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)=EN(J)+(X(I)-EE(J))*(EN(K)-EN( J) )/(EE(K)-EE(J))

1500 GOTO 1520

1510 NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)=AN
1540 YB(NS)=BN
1550 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
1560 X~EO-X(I)
1570 Y=SQR(R *R-X*X)
1580 YB(I)=NO-Y
1590 NEXT I
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GOSUB 2190
1610FORI=1 TONS
1620 A(I)=A TN((YB(I)- YB(I-I))/(X(I-I )-X(I)))
1630 L(I)=SQR(((YB(I)- YB(I-I ))"2)+((X(I)-X(I-1 ))"2))
1640 U(I)=9.810001* .5*(YW(I)+YW(I-I)-YB(I)-YB(I-I))

1650 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)=O

<
125
 1655 US(I)=U(1)-9.81 0001 *9
1656 IF US(1)<O THEN US(1)=O
1660 W(1)=GA(I)*(X(1)-X(1-I))* .5*(YT(1)+ YT(1-I)- YB(1)- YB(I-I))
1670 NEXT I
1680 REM
1690 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGENEOUS SOIL
1700 REM
1720 Tl=O
1730 B=O
1740 FOR 1=1 TO NS
1760 TI =TI +(qI)*L(I)+T AN(P(I))*(W(1)*COS(A(I))-U(1)*L(I)))
1770 B=B+W(I)*SIN(A(I))
1780 NEXT I
1800 FS=TIB
1820 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##

###.###";EO;NO;R;FS
1830 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FS
1840 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 1910
1860 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 1890
1870 IF Y$="N" THEN LPR1NT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y)
RADlUS(R) FS""
1880 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY=",FS
1890 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.##
###.##";EO;NO;R;FS
1910 REM*ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS*
1920 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 2310
J 1930 IF G$="I" THEN GOTO 2380
1940 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 2420
1950 IF G$="G" THEN GOTO 2000
1960 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";YI$
1970 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 520
1980 IF Y I $="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2000 REM NEW GRID POINT
2010 GG=GG+ I

126
2020 ON GG GOTO 2030,2050,2070,2090,2110,2130,2150,2170,1960
2030 EO=EO-RA
2040 GOTO 820
2050 NO=NO-RA
2060 GOTO 820
2070 EO=EO+RA
2080 GOTO 820
2090 EO=EO+RA
2100 GOTO 820
2110 NO=NO+RA
2120 GOTO 820
2130 NO=NO+RA
2140 GOTO 820
2150 EO=EO-RA
2160 GOTO 820
2170 EO=EO-RA
2180 GOTO 820
2190 REM
2200 LPR1NT"":LPRINT""
2210 LPRINT" COH PHI WEIGHT X YT YB YW";

2220 LPRINT " EE EN"

2230 FOR 1=0 TO NS
2240 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##
###.## ###.## ###.## ###.## "
;C(I),PD(I), W(I),X(I), YT(I), YB(I), YW (I),EE(I),EN(I)
2270 NEXT I
2280 LPRINT""
2290 REM
2300 RETURN
2310 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE";Y1$
2320 IF Y1$~"N" THEN GOTO 4800
2330 FOR I~O TO NS
2340 PRINT "YB(";I;")?
2350 INPUT YB(I)

127
2360 NEXT I
2370 GOTO 1600
2380 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
2390 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";YI$
2400 IF YI$="N' THEN GOTO 4800
2410 GOTO 550
2420 REM FRAME
2430 EO~EO+F5
2440 IF EO>F2 THEN EO~FI : NO=NO+F5
2450 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 2470
2460 GOTO 820
2470 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (YIN)";YI$
2480 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 570
4800 END

128
 APPENDIX -2.2
FELLENIUS METHOD MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND
HVORSELEV (1967)

129
 10 REM*** FELLENIUS METHOD***
15 REM*** MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSLEV (1967)***
20 REM *** FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION ***
30 REM *** AGAINST EMBANKMENT FAILURE BY SLIPPING**

50 DATA 4 : REM NR OF SLICES NS

60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 17.5,17.5,17.5,17.5 :REM COHESION C
80 DATA 7.5,7.5,7.5,7.5 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PD
90 DATA 17.7, 17.7, 17.7, 17.7: REM UNIT WT OF SAT SOIL GA
100 DATA 4 : REM NR OF EMBANKMENT COORDS PI
110 REM *EMBANKMENT COORDS**
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB & X
140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD=Y"
150 PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"

160INPUTY$
170 DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB & X
180 DIM A(20),C(20),L(20),P(20),U(20), W(20)
190 Pl=3.14#
200READNS
210 N2~NS+I
220 FOR 1=0 TO NS
230 READ YW(I)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ C(I)
j
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=1 TO NS
290 READ PD(I)
300 P(I)~PD(I)*PIIl80
310NEXTI
320 FOR 1=1 TO NS
330 READ GA(I)
340 NEXT I

130
350 READ PI
360 P2=PI-I
370 FOR 1=0 TO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(l)
390 NEXT I
410 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(l),X(I)
440 NEXT I
450 GOTO 650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRID-G"
470 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY-I"

500INPUTG$
5ui IF G$<> "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE
(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG=O
550 IF G$="I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS
(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$<>"F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN,EMAX)
580 INPUT FI,F2
590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, N MAX)

600 INPUT F3,F4

610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADIUS";R
630 EO~FI
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA?"
660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DATA=A"
670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONL Y=S"

131
 •
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"
690 INPUTP$
700 CLS
710 PRINT "FELLENIUS METHOD"
715 PRINT "MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSLEV(l967)"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 PRINT" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR"
725 PRINT "= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = ~ = = ="
730 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS"
740 PRINT" "
750 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(14)"FELLENIUS METHOD"
772 LPRINT "MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSLEV(l967)"
773 LPRINT CHR$(14)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
775 LPRINT CHR$(l4)" WEST SIDE OF SLOPE OF LOCATION I"
780 L PRINT(14) "= == == = = ~ = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = = ~ = = = = ="
790 LPRINT "":LPRINT""
800 IF P$="S" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R)
FS";LPRINT,""
820 REM START GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 1600
840 Q=O
850 Z~SQR«EE(0)-EOY'2+(EN(0)-NOY'2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=1
870 Z= SQR«EE(P2)-EOY'2+(EN(P2)-NOY'2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=O GOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LARGE"
910 GOTO 1910
920 S=I
9301=0
940 j=1+1
950 IF I> PI THEN GOTO 1040
960 AE~EE(l)

132
•
970 AN=EN(I)
980 IF SQR((EO-AE)"2+(NO-AN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1090
990 AF=AE: NF=AN
1000 AE=AE+S
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN(I) )/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN(I)
1030 GOTO 980
1040 RR=SQR((EO-EE(O))"2+(NO-EN(O))"2)
I 050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"
1060 GOTO 1910
10701=1+1
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/JO
1110 AE=AE-9*S
1120 GOTO 980
1130 IF(SQR((AE-EO)"2+(NO-AN)1\2)-R)«SQR((AF-EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN 1160
1140 AE=AF
1150 AN~NF
1160 REM
1170S=1
1180 I~P2
1190J=I-1
1200 BE=EE(I)
1210 BN=EN(I)
1220 IF SQR((EO-BE)1\2+(NO-BN)1\2)<R THEN GOTO 1300

1230 BF=BE: NF=BN

1240 BE=BE-S
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN=(BE- EE(I) )*(EN(J)-EN (I))/(EE(J)-EE(I) )+EN (I)

1270 GOTO 1220

12801=1-1 'f.-
1290 GOTO 1190

133
\..
'."~
I:
 1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340
1310 S=S/IO
1320 BE=BE+9*S
1330 GOTO 1220
1340 IF (SQR( (BE-EO)"2+(NO-BN)"2)-R)«SQR((BF -EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN GOTO 1370

1350BE~BF
1360BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)/NS
1390 N2=NS+ 1
1400 FOR 1=0 TO NS
1410 X(I)=AE+I*W
1420 NEXT 1
1430 YT(O)=AN
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1460 FOR J~O TO P2
1470 K=J+1
1480 IF X(I»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)=EN(J)+(X(I)-EE(J))*(EN(K)-EN( J))/(EE(K)-EE(J))
1500 GOTO 1520
1510 NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)~AN
1540 YB(NS)=BN
J 1550 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1560 X=EO-X(I)
1570 Y=SQR(R*R-X*X)
1580 YB(I)=NO-Y
1590 NEXT I
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GOSUB 2190
1610 FOR 1=1 TO NS {\
..
_.
1620 A(I)=A TN((YB(I)- YB(I-l ))/(X(I-1 )-X(I)))

134
1630 L(I)=SQR(((YB(I)- YB(I-I )Y'2)+((X(1)-X(I-I))"2))
1640 U(1)=9.810001 *.5*(YW(I)+YW(1-I)-YB(1)- YB(I-1))
1650 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)=O
1655 US(1)=U(I)-9.81 0001 *9
1656 IF US(1)<O THEN US(1)=O
1660 W(I)=GA(I)*(X(I)-X(1-I))* .5*(YT(1)+YT(I-1 )-YB(I)- YB(I-1))

1670 NEXT I
1680 REM
1690 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGENEOUS SOIL
1700 REM
1720 Tl=O
1730 B~O
1740 FOR 1=1 TO NS
1760 Tl ~Tl +(C(I)*L(I)+ TAN(P(I))*(W(I)*COS(A(I))-U(I)*L(I)*COS(A(I))"2))

1770 B=B+W(1)*SIN(A(I))
1780 NEXT I
1800 FS=T/B
1820 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.###";EO;NO;R;FS
1830 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FS
1840 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 1910
1860 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 1890
1870 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH (Y)
RADIUS(R) FS''''
1880 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY=",FS
1890 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.##

##.##";EO;NO;R;FS
1910 REM*ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS*
1920 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 2310
1930 IF G$="I" THEN GOTO 2380
1940 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 2420
1950 IF G$="G" THEN GOTO 2000
1960 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";Y1$
1970 IF YI $~"Y" THEN GOTO 520

135
1980 IF Y 1$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2000 REM NEW GRID POINT
2010 GG=GG+I
2020 ON GG GOTO 2030,2050,2070,2090,2110,2] 30,2150,2170, 1960
2030 EO=EO-RA
2040 GOTO 820
2050 NO=NO-RA
2060 GOTO 820
2070 EO=EO+RA
2080 GOTO 820
2090 EO=EO+RA
2100 GOTO 820
2110 NO=NO+RA
2120 GOTO 820
2130 NO=NO+RA
2140 GOTO 820
2150 EO=EO-RA
2160 GOTO 820
2170 EO~EO-RA
2180 GOTO 820
2190 REM
2200 LPRINT"":LPRINT''''
2210 LPRINT" COH PHI WEIGHT X YT YB YW";
2220 LPRINT " EE EN"
2230 FOR 1=0 TO NS
2240 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##
###.## ###.## ###.##
## .##;C(I) 'po(I), W (I),X(I), YT(I), YB(I), YW (I),EE(I),EN (I)

2270 NEXT I
2280 LPRINT""
2290 REM
2300 RETURN
2310 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE"; Y 1$
2320 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800

136
2330 FOR 1=0 TO NS
2340 PRINT "YB(";I;")?
2350 INPUT YB(I)
2360 NEXT I
2370 GOTO 1600
2380 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
2390 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";YI$
2400 IF YI$="N' THEN GOTO 4800
2410 GOTO 550
2420 REM FRAME
2430 EO~EO+F5
2440 IF EO>F2 THEN EO=FI : NO~NO+F5
2450 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 2470
2460 GOTO 820
2470 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (Y/N)";YI$
2480 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 570
4800 END

137
 APPENDIX-2.3
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

138
10 REM*** BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD***
20 REM *** FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION ***
30 REM *** AGAINST EMBANKMENT FAILURE BY SLIPPING**
50 DATA 4: REM NR OF SLICES
60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 17.5,17.5,17.5,17.5 :REMCOHESIONC
80 DATA 7.5,7.5,7.5,7.5 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PD
90 DATA 17.7, 17.7, 17.7, 17.7: REM UNITWT OF SAT SOIL GA
100 DATA 4 : REM NR OF EMBANKMENT COORDS PI
110 REM *EMBANKMENT COORDS**
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB&X
140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD=Y"
150 PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"
160 INPUTY$
170 DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB & X
180 DIM A(20),C(20),L(20),P(20),U(20), W(20)
190 PI=3.14#
200 READNS
210 N2~NS+l
220 FOR 1=0 TO NS
230 READ YW(I)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ C(I)
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=1 TO NS
290 READ PD(I)
300 P(I)=PD(I)*PI/180
310 NEXT!
320 FOR 1=1 TO NS
330 READ GA(I)
340 NEXT I
350 READ PI

139
360 P2=P1-1
370 FOR 1=0 TO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(I)
390 NEXT I
410 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(I),X(I)
440 NEXT I
450 GOTO 650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRlD-G"
470 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY-I"
500INPUTG$
510 IF G$= "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE
(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG=O
550 IF G$="I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS
(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN,EMAX)
580 INPUT FI,F2
590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, N MAX)
600 INPUT F3,F4
610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADlUS";R
630 EO=FJ
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA?"
660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DATA=A"
670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONLY=S"
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"

140
690INPUTP$
700 CLS
710 PRINT "BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 PRINT" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR"
725 PRINT "= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="
730 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS"
740 PRINT" "
750 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(14)"BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD"
773 LPRINT CHR$(14)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
775 LPRINT CHR$(l4)" WEST SIDE OF SLOPE OF LOCATION I"
780 L PRINT(l4) "= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="
790 LPRINT "":LPRINT""
800 IF P$="S"THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R)
FS";LPRINT,m,
820 REM START GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 1600
840Q=0
850 Z=SQR«EE(0)-EO)"2+(EN(0)-NO)"2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
870 Z~ SQR«EE(P2)-EO)"2+(EN(P2)-NO)"2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=OGOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LARGE"
910 GOTO 1910
920 S=I
9301=0
940 J=[+I
950 IF I> PI THEN GOTO 1040
960 AE=EE(I)
970 AN=EN(I)
980 IF SQR«EO-AEY'2+(NO-AN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1090
990 AF=AE: NF=AN •
1-

141
1000 AE=AE+S
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN(I) )/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN (I)
1030 GOTO 980
1040 RR~SQR((EO-EE(0))"2+(NO-EN(0))"2)
I050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"
1060 GOTO 1910
10701=]+ I
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/IO
1110 AE=AE-9*S
1120 GOTO 980
1130 IF(SQR( (AE-EO)"2+(NO-AN)"2)-R)«SQR( (AF -EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)- R)

THEN 1160
1140 AE=AF
1150AN=NF
1160 REM
1170 S=I
11801=P2
1190 J=I-I
1200 BE=EE(I)
1210 BN~EN(I)
1220 IF SQR((EO-BE)"2+(NO-BN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1300
1230 BF=BE: NF~BN
1240 BE=BE.S
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN=(BE-EE(I) )*(EN(J)-EN (I) )/(EE(J)-EE(I) )+EN(I)

1270 GOTO 1220

12801=1-1
1290 GOTO 1190
1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340
1310 S~S/IO
1320 BE=BE+9*S

142
1330 GOTO 1220
1340 IF (SQR((BE-EO)"2+(NO-BN)"2)-R)«SQR((BF-EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN GOTO 1370

1350BE=BF
1360 BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)/NS
1390 N2~NS+ 1
1400 FOR I~O TO NS
1410 X(I)=AE+I*W
1420NEXTI
1430 YT(O)=AN
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1460 FOR J=O TO P2
1470 K=J+1
1480 IF X(I»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)=EN(J)+(X(I)-EE(J))*(EN(K)-EN (J))/(EE(K)-EE(J))

1500 GOTO 1520

1510NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)=AN
J 540 YB(NS)=BN
1550 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1560 X=EO-X(I)
1570 Y~SQR(R*R-X*X)
1580 YB(I)~NO-Y
1590NEXTI
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GOSUB 2190
1610FORI=1 TONS
1620 A(I)=A TN((YB(I)- YB(I-1 ))/(X(I- J )-X(I»))
1630 L(I)~SQR(((YB(I)- YB(I-1 ))"2)+((X(I)-X(I- J ))"2))
1640 U(I)=9.810001 *.5*(YW(I)+YW(I-1)-YB(I)-YB(I-1))
1650 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)=O

143
1655 US(I)=U(I)-9.810001*9
1656 IF US(I)<O THEN US(I)~O
1660 W(I)~GA(I)*(X(I)-X(I-I))* .5*(YT(I)+YT(I-I)- YB(I)- YB(I-I))

1670 NEXT I
1672 HW~3
1674 HL=2
1674 AI=O
1675 A2=0
1676 AR=.5*9.81 0001*HW"2* Al
1678 AL=.5*9.810001*HL"2* A2
1680 REM
1690 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGENEOUS SOIL
1700 REM
1710 FS=I!
1720 Tl=O
1730BI=0
1740 FOR 1=1 TO NS
1750 G=COS(A(I))*(1 +T AN(A(I))*TAN(P(I))/FS)
1760 TI =Tl +R *((C(I)*L(I)*COS(A(l))+ TAN(P(I))* (W(I)-
U(I)*L(I)*COS(A(l))) )/G)
1770 BI =B 1+R*W(I)*SIN(A(I))
1775 B=BI+(AR-AL)
1780 NEXT I
1780 FL=FS
1800 FS=TIB
1810 IF ABS(FLIFS-I».OOOI THEN GOTO 1720
1820 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.###";EO;NO;R;FS
1830 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FS
1840 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 1910
1860 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 1890
1870 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH (Y)
RADIUS(R) FS": LPRINT""
1880 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY=",FS

144
1890 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.##
##.##";EO;NO;R;FS
1910 REM" ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS"
1920 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 2310
1930 IF G$="I" THEN GOTO 2380
1940 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 2420
1950 IF G$~"G" THEN GOTO 2000
1960 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";Y1$
1970 IF YI $="Y" THEN GOTO 520
1980 IF YI $="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2000 REM NEW GRID POINT
2010 GG=GG+ 1
2020 ON GG GOTO 2030,2050,2070,2090,2110,2130,2150,2170,1960
2030 EO=EO-RA
2040 GOTO 820
2050 NO=NO-RA
2060 GOTO 820
2070 EO=EO+RA
2080 GOTO 820
2090 EO~EO+RA
2100 GOTO 820
2110 NO=NO+RA
2120 GOTO 820
2130 NO=NO+RA
2140 GOTO 820
2150 EO=EO-RA
2160 GOTO 820
2170 EO~EO-RA
2180 GOTO 820
2190 REM
2200 LPR1NT"":LPRINT""
2210 LPRINT" COH PHI WEIGHT X YT YB YW";

2220 LPRINT " EE EN" "

2230 FOR 1=0 TO NS

145
2240 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##

###.## ###.## ###.##

##. ##; C(I) 'PD(I), W (I),X(I), YT(I), YB(I), Y W(I),E E(I),EN (I)
2270 NEXT I
2280 LPRINT""
2290 REM
2300 RETURN
2310 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE";Y1$
2320 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2330 FOR 1=0 TO NS
2340 PRINT "YB(";I;")?
2350 INPUT YB(I)
2360 NEXT I
2370 GOTO 1600
2380 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
2390 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";YI$
2400 IF Y1$="N' THEN GOTO 4800
2410 GOTO 550
2420 REM FRAME
2430 EO=EO+F5
2440 IF EO>F2 THEN EO=F1 : NO=NO+F5
2450 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 2470
2460 GOTO 820
2470 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (YIN)";Y1$
2480 IF YI $="Y" THEN GOTO 570
4800 END

,
.' ,

146
 APPENDIX-2.4
JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

147
10 REM*** JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD***
20 REM ***FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION ***
50 DATA 4 :REM NR OF SLICES NS
60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 17.5,17.5,17.5,17.5 :REM COHESION C
80 DATA 7.5,7.5,7.5,7.5 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PD
90 DATA 17.7, 17.7, 17.7, 17.7: REM UNIT WT OF SAT SOIL GA
100 DATA 4 : REMNROF EMBANKMENTCOORDS PI
110 REM *EMBANKMENT COORDS**
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB & X
140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD=Y"
150 PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"
160 INPUTY$
170DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB &X
180 DIM A(20),C(20),L(20),P(20),U(20),W(20)
190 PI=3.14#
200 READNS
210 N2=NS+I
220 FOR 1=0 TO NS
230 READ YW(I)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ C(I)
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=1 TO NS
290 READ PD(I)
300 P(I)=PD(I)* PI/l80
310 NEXT!
320 FOR 1~1 TO NS
330 READ GA(I)
340 NEXT I
,
350 READ P1
360 P2=PI-I

148
370 FOR 1=0 TO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(I)
390 NEXT I
410 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(I),X(I)
440 NEXT I
450 GOTO 650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRID-G"
470 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY -I"

500 INPUTG$
510 IF G$<> "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE

(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG=O
550 IF G$="I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS
(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$<>"F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN,EMAX)

580 INPUT FI,F2

590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, N MAX)

600 INPUT F3,F4

610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADIUS";R
630 EO=Fl
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA 7"
660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DAT A=A"
670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONL Y=S"
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"

6901NPUTP$

149
700 CLS
710 PRINT "JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 PRINT" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR"
725 PRINT "= = = = = = ~ = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="
730 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS"
740 PRINT" "
750 IF P$="N" THEN OOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(14)"JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD"
773 LPRINT CHR$(14)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
775 LPRINT CHR$(I4)" WEST SIDE OF SLOPE OF LOCATION I"
780 L PRINT(l4) "= ~ = = = = = = ~ = = == = = ~= = = = = = ~ == = = ="
790 LPRINT "":LPRINT""
800 IF P$="S" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS (R)
FS";LPRINT,""
820 REM START OEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN OOTO 1600
840 Q~O
850 Z=SQR«EE(0)-EO)"2+(EN(0)-NO)"2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
870 Z= SQR«EE(P2)-EO)"2+(EN(P2)-NO)"2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=O OOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LAROE"
91000TO 1910
920 S=I
9301=0
940 J=I+I
950 IF I> PI THEN OOTO 1040
960 AE=EE(I)
970 AN=EN(I)
980 IF SQR«EO-AE)"2+(NO-AN)"2)<R THEN OOTO 1090
990 AF=AE: NF~AN
1000 AE=AE+S

150
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN(I))/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN(I)

1030 GOTO 980

1040 RR=SQR((EO-EE(0))A2+(NO-EN(0))"2)
1050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"
1060 GOTO 1910
10701=1+1
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/IO
1110 AE=AE-9*S

1120 GOTO 980

J 130 IF(SQR((AE-EO)A2+(NO-AN)A2)-R)«SQR((AF-EO)A2+(NO-NF)A2)-R)
THEN 1160
1140 AE=AF
1150 AN=NF
1160 REM
1170 S=1
11801=P2
1190J=I-1
1200 BE~EE(I)
1210 BN=EN(I)
1220 IF SQR((EO-BE)A2+(NO-BN)A2)<R THEN GOTO 1300

1230 BF=BE: NF=BN

1240 BE=BE-S
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN =(BE-EE(I)) *(EN (J)- EN (1))/(EE( J)-EE(I) )+EN (I)
1270 GOTO 1220
12801=1-1
1290 GOTO 1190
1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340
1310 S=S/l 0
1320 BE=BE+9*S
1330 GOTO 1220

151
1340 IF (SQR((BE-EO)"2+(NO-BNY'2)-R)«SQR((BF-EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)
THEN GOTO 1370
1350 BE=BF
1360 BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)/NS
1390 N2=NS+ I
1400 FOR I~O TO NS
1410 X(l)~AE+I*W
1420 NEXT I
1430 YT(O)=AN
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
1460 FOR J=O TO P2
1470 K=J+I
1480 IF X(I»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)= EN (J)+(X(I)- EE( J)) *(EN (K)- EN (J))/(EE(K)- EE( J))

1500 GOTO 1520

1510 NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)=AN
1540 YB(NS)=BN
1550 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
1560 X=EO-X(I)
1570 Y=SQR(R*R-X*X)
1580 YB(I)=NO-Y
1590 NEXT I
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GO SUB 2190

1610 FOR 1=1 TO NS

1620 A(I)=A TN((YB(I)- YB(I-I ))/(X(I-I )-X(I)))
1630 L(I)~SQR(((YB(I)- YB(I-I ))"2)+((X(I)-X(I-1 ))"2))
1640 U(I)=9.81 0001 *.5*(YW(I)+YW(I-I)- YB(I)- YB(I-I))

1650 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)~O

1655 US(I)=U(I)-9.810001 *9

152
1656 IF US(I)<O THEN US(I)=O
1660 W(I)=GA(I)*(X(I)-X(I-I »* .5*(YT(I)+YT(I-I)- YB(I)- YB(I-I))

1670 NEXT I
1680REM
1690 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGENEOUS SOIL

1700 REM
1710FF=I!
1715 FO=1.I1
1720 Tl=O
1730 B=O
1740 FOR 1=1 TONS
1750 G=COS(A(I»*COS(A(I»*(1 +T AN(A(I»*T AN(P(I»/FF)
1760 TI=Tl +((C(I)*L(I)*COS(A(I»+TAN(P(I»*(W(I)-

U(I)*L(I)*COS(A(I» »/G)
1770 B=B+W(I)*TAN(A(I»
1780 NEXT I
1790 FL=FF
1800 FF=T/B
1810 IF ABS(FLIFF-I».OOOI THEN GOTO 1720
1815 FS=FO *FF
1820 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.###";EO;NO;R; FF;FS
1830 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FS
1840 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 1910
1860 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 1890
1870 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS":

LPRINT""
1880 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY="FF;FS
1890 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.##

##.##";EO;NO;R;FF;FS
1910 REM*ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS*
1920 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 2310
1930 IF G$~"I" THEN GOTO 2380 ,'._-

1940 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 2420

,
\
153 ,
1950 IF G$~"G" THEN GOTO 2000
1960 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";YI$
1970 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 520
1980 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2000 REM NEW GRID POINT
20 I 0 GG=GG+ I
2020 ON GG GOTO 2030,2050,2070,2090,2110,2130,2150,2170,1960
2030 EO~EO-RA
2040 GOTO 820
2050 NO~NO-RA
2060 GOTO 820
2070 EO=EO+RA
2080 GOTO 820
2090 EO~EO+RA
2100 GOTO 820
2110 NO=NO+RA
2120 GOTO 820
2130 NO=NO+RA
2140 GOTO 820
2150 EO=EO-RA
2160 GOTO 820
2170 EO=EO-RA
2180 GOTO 820
2190 REM
2200 LPRINT"":LPRINT""
2210 LPRINT" COH PHI GAMMA X YT YB YW";

2220 LPRINT " EE EN"

2230 FOR 1=0 TO NS
2240 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##

###.## ###.## ###.##

## .##; qI) 'PD(I), GA(I),X(I), YT(I), YB(I), YW (I),EE(I),EN (I)

2270 NEXT I
2280 LPRINT""
..
~.~

2290 REM

154
2300 RETURN
2310 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE";YI$
2320 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2330 FOR I~O TO NS
2340 PRINT "YB(";I;")?
2350 INPUT YB(I)
2360 NEXT I
2370 GOTO 1600
2380 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
2390 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";YI$
2400 IF Y1$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
2410 GOTO 550
2420 REM FRAME
2430 EO=EO+F5
2440 IF EO>F2 THEN EO=F1 : NO=NO+F5
2450 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 2470
2460 GOTO 820
2470 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (Y/N)";Y1$
2480 IF YI$~"Y" THEN GOTO 570

4800 END

155
 APPENDIX-2.S
JANBU'S RIGOROUS METHOD

156
10 REM*** JANBU'S RIGOROUS METHOD***
20 REM *** FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION ***
30 REM *** AGAINST EMBANKMENT FAILURE BY SLIPPING**
50 DATA 4 : REM NR OF SLICES
60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 17.5,17.5,17.5,17.5 :REMCOHESIONC
80 DATA 7.5,7.5,7.5,7.5 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PD
90 DATA 17.7, 17.7, 17.7, 17.7: REM UNIT WT OF SAT SOIL GA
]00 DATA 4 : REM NR OF EMBANKMENT COORDS PI
110 REM *EMBANKMENT COORDS**
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB & X
140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD=Y"
150 PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"
160INPUTY$
170 DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB & X
180 DIM A(20),q20),L(20),P(20),U(20),W(20),GA(20),AT(20)
190 PI=3.14#
200READNS
210N2~NS+I
220 FOR 1=0 TO NS
230 READ YW(I)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ ql)
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=] TO NS
290 READ PD(I)
300 P(I)=PD(I)*PI/180
310 NEXTI
320 FOR 1=] TO NS
330 READ GA(I)
340 NEXT I
350 READ PI

157
360 P2=PI-I
370 FOR I=OTO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(I)
390 NEXT I
410 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(I),X(l)
440 NEXT I
450 GOTO 650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRID-G"
470 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY-I"
500INPUTG$
510 IF G$<> "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE
(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG=O
550 IF G$="I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS
(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$<>"F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN,EMAX)
580 INPUT FI,F2
590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, N MAX)
600 INPUT F3,F4
610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADIUS";R
630 EO=FI
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA 7"
660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DATA=A"
670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONLY=S"
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"

158
690INPUTP$
700 CLS
710 PRINT "JANBU'S RIGOROUS METHOD"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 PRINT" DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT"
725 PRINT "= = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = = ~ = = = ="
730 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS"
740 PRINT" "
750 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(l4)"JANBU'S RIGOROUS METHOD"
773 LPRINT CHR$( I4)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
775 LPRINT CHR$(l4)" DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT"
780 L PRINT(14) "= = = = = = = = = == = == = = = = == = = = = = = = ="
790 LPRINT '''':LPRINT''''
800 IF P$~"S"THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FO
FS FV";LPRlNT,''''
820 REM START GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 1600
840 Q~O
850 Z=SQR«EE(0)-EO)"2+(EN(0)-NO)"2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
870 Z= SQR«EE(P2)-EO)"2+(EN(P2)-NO)"2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=O GOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LARGE"
910 GOTO 3000
920 S=I
9301=0
940 J~1+1
950 IF I> PI THEN GOTO 1040
960 AE=EE(I)
970 AN~EN(I)
980 IF SQR«EO-AE)"2+(NO-AN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1090
990 AF=AE: NF=AN

159
1000 AE=AE+S
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I) )*(EN(J)-EN (I))/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN(I)
1030 GOTO 980
1040 RR=SQR«EO-EE(0))"2+(NO-EN(0))"2)
1050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"

1060 GOTO 3000

10701=]+ 1
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/10
111 0 AE=AE-9*S
1120 GOTO 980
1130 IF(SQR«AE-EO)"2+(NO-AN)"2)-R)«SQR( (AF -EO)"2+(NO- NF)"2)-R)

THEN 1160
1140 AE=AF
1150 AN=NF
1160REM
1170 S=1
11801=P2
1190 J=I-1
1200 BE=EE(I)
1210 BN=EN(I)
1220 IF SQR«EO-BE)"2+(NO-BN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1300

1230 BF=BE: NF=BN

1240 BE=BE-S
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN=(BE-EE(I) )*(EN(J)-EN(I))/(EE(J)-EE(I) )+EN(I)

1270 GOTO 1220

12801=1-1
1290 GOTO 1190
1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340

1310 S=S/10
1320 BE=BE+9*S

160
1330 GOTO 1220
1340 IF (SQR( (BE-EO)"2+(NO-BN)"2)-R)«SQR( (BF -EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN GOTO 1370

1350 BE=BF
1360BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)/NS
1390 N2=NS+ I
1400 FOR 1=0 TO NS
1410 X(l)=AE+I*W
1420 NEXT I
1430 YT(O)=AN
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR I~I TO NS-I
1460 FOR J~O TO P2
1470 K~J+1
1480 IF X(l»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)=EN(J)+(X(l)-EE(J))*(EN(K)-EN(J))/(EE(K)-EE(J))
1500 GOTO 1520
1510 NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)=AN
1540 YB(NS)=BN
1550 FOR I~I TO NS-I

1560 X=EO-X(I)
1570 Y=SQR(R*R-X*X)
1580 YB(l)=NO-Y
1590 NEXT I
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GOSUB 3270
1610 HT(O)=O
1620 HT(NS)=O
1630 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
1640 HT(l)=(YT(I)- YB(l))/3

1650 NEXT I

161
1660 FOR 1=1 TO NS
1670 A(I)~A TN«YB(J)- YB(I-I ))/(X(J-I)-X(I)))
1680 L(I)=SQR«(YB(J)- YB(I-I )Y'2)+«X(I)-X(I-1 ))"2))
1690 U(I)=9.810001* .5*(YW(I)+YW(I-I)-YB(J)-YB(I-I))

1700 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)=O

1705 US(I)=U(I)-9.81 000 1*9
1706 IF US(I)<O THEN US(I)=O
1710 W(I)~GA(I)* .5*(YT(I)+YT(I-I)- YB(I)- YB(I-l))

1720 NEXT I
1722 FOR 1=0 TO NS-2
1725 AT(I+ I )~A TN«(YB(I+ I)+(YT(J+ 1)-YB(J+ 1))/3)-(YB(J+2)+(YT(J+2)-

YB(I +2))/3) )/(L(I +2) *COS(A(I +2))))

1730 NEXT I
1740 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGE. SOIL, INITIAL GUESS I

1750 REM
I 760 FO~I!
1765 FS=1.5
1770 SUMT=O
1780 SUMB~O
1790 SUMBB=O
1800 SUMAI=O
1810 QQ=O
1820 E(O)=O
1830 E(NS)=O
1840 ZQ=O
1850 TT(O)~O

1860 TT(NS)=O
1870 FOR 1=1 TO NS
1880 B(I)=QQ+W(I)*TAN(A(I))*L(I)*COS(A(I))
1890 H(I)=(C(I)+(W(J)-U(I))*TAN(P(I))*L(I)*COS(A(I))
1900 G(I)=(1 +(I/FO)*T AN(P(I))*TAN(A(I)))/(1 +TAN(P(I))"2)

1910 T(I)=H(I)/G(I)
1920 NEXT I
1930 FOR 1=1 TONS

162
1940 SUMB=SUMB+B(I)
1950 SUMT=SUMT+ T(I)
1960 NEXT I
1970 FL=FO
1980 FO=SUMT/SUMB
1990IFABS(FL/FO-I».0001 THEN GOTO 1770
2000 FOR 1=1 TO NS
20 10 DE(l)=B(I)-T(l)/FO
2020 NEXT I
2030 FOR 1=0 TO NS-2
2040 E(l+ 1)=E(I)+DE(l+ I)
2045 NEXT 1
2060 FOR 1=1 TO NS-l
2070 M(I)=(DE(l)+DE(I+ 1))/(L(I)*COS(A(I))+L(I+ I)*COS(A(I+ I)))

2080 NEXT 1
2090 FOR 1=0 TO NS- 1
2100 TT(I)=-E(l)*TAN(AT(l))+HT(I)*M(I)-ZQ*M3
21 10 NEXTI
2120 FOR 1=0 TO NS-I
2130 DT(I+ I )=TT(I+ 1)-IT(I)
2140 NEXT 1
2150 FOR 1=1 TO NS
2160 TX(I)=DT(I)/(L(I)*COS(A(I)))
2170NEXTI
2180FORI=1 TONS
2190 BB(I)=B(l)+DT(I)*TAN(A(I))
2200 NEXT 1
2210FORI=1 TONS
2220 SUMBB=SUMBB+BB(l)
2230 NEXT 1
2240 FOR 1=1 TO NS
2250 AA(l)=H(I)+DT(I)*TAN(P(I))
2260 NEXT I
2280 FOR 1=1 TO NS

163
2290 G I (1)=(1 +(1/FS)*T AN(P(l))*T AN (A(l)))/(1 +TAN(A(l))"2)

2300 NEXT 1
2310FORI~1 TONS
2320 Al (I)=AA(l)/GI (I)
2330 NEXT!
2332 FOR 1=1 TO NS
2334 SUMAI=SUMAl+A1(I)
2336 NEXT 1
2340 FL=FS
2350 FS=SUMI/(E(O)-E(NS)+SUMBB)
2360 FOR I~I TO NS
2370 DE(I)=BB(I)-A I (I)/FS
2380 NEXT I
2390 FOR I~O TO NS-2
2400 E(I+ I )=E(I)+DE(I)
2410 NEXT!
2430 IF ABS(FL/FS-I».05 THEN GOTO 2060
2440 REM FACTOR OF SAFETY CAL ALONG INTERFACES, FV
2450 FOR 1=] TO NS
2460 TA(I)~A1 (I)/(FS*(1 +TAN(A(I))"2)*L(I)*COS(A(l)))
2470 NEXT 1
2480 FOR 1=] TO NS
2490 SI(I)=W(I)+ TX(I)- TA(l)*T AN(A(l))
2500 NEXT 1
2510 SUMTT=O
2520 SUMTV=O
2530 ZH(O)=O
2540 ZH(NS)=O
2550 FOR 1= ] TO NS-1
2560 SUMTT=SUMTT+TT(I)

2570 NEXT 1
2580 FOR 1=1 TO NS
2590 ZH(I)=.5*(YT(I)+YT(l-1 )-YB(I)- YB(I-]))
2600 NEXT 1

164
2610FORI=1 TONS
2620 UH(I)=.5* .4*GA(I)*ZH(I)"2
2630 NEXT I
2640 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
2650 TV(I)=(CCI)* ZH(I)+(E(I)-UH(I))*T AN (P(I)))
2660 NEXT I
2670 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
2680 SUMTV=SUMTV+TV(I)
2690 NEXT I
2700 FOR I~l TO NS-I
2710 FV(I)=TV(I)rrT(I)
2720NEXTI
2730 FV=SUMTV/SUMTT
2760 PE=TAN(P(I))/FS
2780 NE=(PE+SQR(1+(PE"2))
2790 NR=(NE)"2
2800 SIA=(2*(CCI)/FS)*NE)/(l +NR)
2810 SI(O)=SIA
2820 SIB=-SI(O)
2830 SI(NS+ I )=SIB
2840 TA(0)~(2*(CCI)/FS))/(l +NR)
2850 TA(NS+ 1)=NR *T A(O)
2930 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.###" ###.## ###.##;EO;NO;R;FO;FS;FV
2940 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FO;FS;FV
2950 IF P$~"N" THEN GOTO 3000
2960 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 2990
2970 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS@

FO FS FV: LPRINT,""
2980 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY=",FO;FS;FV
2990 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.## ##.##";EO;NO;R;FO;FS;FV
3000 REM* ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS*
3010 IF Y$~"Y" THEN GOTO 3370

165

,\
3020 IF G$="I" THEN GOTO 3440
3030 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 3480
3040 IF G$="G" THEN GOTO 3080
3050 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";YI$
3060 IF Y1 $~"Y" THEN GOTO 520
3070 IF Yl$~"N" THEN GOTO 4800
3080 REM NEW GRID POINT
3090 GG=GG+ I
3100 ON GG GOTO 3110,3130,3150,3170,3190,3210,3230,3250,3050
3110 EO=EO-RA
3120 GOTO 820
3130 NO=NO-RA
3140 GOTO 820
3150 EO=EO+RA
3160 GOTO 820
3170 EO=EO+RA
3180 GOTO 820
3190 NO=NO+RA
3200 GOTO 820
3210 NO=NO+RA
3220 GOTO 820
3230 EO=EO-RA
3240 GOTO 820
3250 EO=EO-RA
3260 GOTO 820
3270 REM
3280 LPRINT'''':LPRINT''''
3290 LPRINT" COH PHI GAMMA X YT YB YW";

3300 LPRINT" EE EN TT E TA SI FV"

3310 FOR 1=0 TO NS+1

3320 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##
###.## ###.## ###.## ###.## ##.## ###.## ###.## ###.##
## .##;C(I) 'PD(I),GA(l),X(l), YT(I), YB(I), YW(I),EE(l),EN (I), TT(I),E(l),

TA(I),SI(I),FV(l)

166

!
.'
,.j ,
"
,

•
3330 NEXT I
3340 LPRINT""
3350REM .
3360 RETURN
3370 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE";YI$
,

3380 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800

I
3390 FOR 1;=0TO NS
3400 PRINT "YB(";!;")?
3410 INPUT YB(I)
3420 NEXT I
3430 GOTO 1600
3440 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
3450 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";Y 1$
3460 IF Y 1~="N' THEN GOTO 4800
3470 GOTd 550
3480 REM FRAME
3490 EO=EO+F5
3500 IF EO>F2 THEN EO=FI : NO~NO+F5
3510 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 3530
3520 GOTO 820
3530 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (YIN)";YI$
3540 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 570
4800 END

167
 APPENDIX-2.6
SPENCER'S METHOD

168
10 REM'" SPENCER'S METHOD'"
20 REM "'FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION '"
30 REM' AGAINST EMBANKMENT FAILURE BY SLIPPING"
50 DATA 4 :REM NR OF SLICES NS
60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 7.6,7.6,7.6,7.6 :REM COHESION C
80 DATA 0,0,0,0 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PD
90 DATA 17.7,17.7,17.7,17.7: REM UNIT WT OF SAT SOIL GA
100 DATA 4 : REM NR OF EMBANKMENT COORDS PI
105 DATA 5,5,5,5 :REM ANGLE OF INCLI.OF RESULTANT
INTERSLICE FORCES THETA
110 REM 'EMBANKMENT COORDS"
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB & X
'140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD=Y"
I50 PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"
160INPUTY$
170 DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB & X
180 DIM A(20),q20),L(20),P(20),U(20), W(20),GA(20),AD( 40),PP(20)
190 PI=3.14#
200READNS
210 N2=NS+l
220 FOR 1=0 TO NS
230 READ YW(I)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ qI)
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=1 TO NS
290 READ PD(I)
300 P(I)=PD(I)'PII180
310 NEXT I
320 FOR 1=1 TO NS
330 READ GA(I)

169
340 NEXT I
350 READ PI
360 P2=PI-I
362 FOR 1=1 TO NS
364 READ TH(I)
366 T(I)~TH(I) x PIll 80
368 NEXT I
370 FOR 1=0 TO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(I)
390 NEXT I
410 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(I),X(l)
440 NEXT I
450 GOT0650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRID-G"
470 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY-I"

500INPUTG$
5 I 0 IF G$<> "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE
(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG=O
550 IF G$="I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS
(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$<>"F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN,EMAX)
580 INPUT FI,F2
590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, N MAX)
600 INPUT F3,F4
610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADlUS";R

170
630 EO=FI
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA?"
660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DATA=A"
670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONLY=S"
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"
690INPUTP$
700 CLS
710 PRINT "SPENCER'S METHOD"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 PRINT" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR"
725 PRINT "= = = = = ~ ~ = = = = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = = = = ~ ="
730 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM"
740 PRINT" "
750 IF P$~"N" THEN GOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(l4)"SPENCER'S METHOD"
773 LPRINT CHR$(l4)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
775 LPRINT CHR$(l4)" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR"
777 LPRINT CHR$(14)" WEST SIDE OF SLOPE OF LOCATION I"
780 LPRINT CHR$(I4)"CIR FAI SUR (TOT STR ANA)THETA 0"
780 L PRINT(l4) "= = = = ~ ~ = = = == = = = ~ ~~ = == = = = = ~ ~ = ="
790 LPRINT "":LPRINT""
800 IF P$="S"THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R)
FF FM";LPRINT,""
820 REM START GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 1600
840 Q=O
850 Z=SQR((EE(0)-EOY'2+(EN(0)-NO)"2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
870 Z= SQR((EE(P2)-EO)"2+(EN(P2)-NO)"2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=O GOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LARGE"
910 GOTO 3000

171
920 S=I
9301=0
940 J=1+1
950 IF I> PI THEN GOTO 1040
960 AE=EE(I)
970 AN=EN(I)
980 IF SQR((EO-AE)"2+(NO-AN)I'2)<R THEN GOTO 1090
990 AF=AE: NF~AN
1000 AE=AE+S
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN(I) )/(EE(J)-EE(I) )+EN(I)
1030 GOTO 980
1040 RR=SQR((EO-EE(O))I'2+(NO-EN(O))I'2)
I 050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"
1060 GOTO 3000
10701=1+ I
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/IO
1110 AE=AE-9*S
1120 GOTO 980
1130 IF(SQR((AE-EO)l'2+(NO-AN)I'2)-R)«SQR((AF -EO)l'2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN 1160
1140 AE=AF
1150 AN=NF
1160 REM
1170 S=I
1180I=P2
1190J~I-1
1200 BE=EE(I)
1210 BN~EN(I)
1220 IF SQR((EO-BE)I'2+(NO-BN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1300

1230 BF=BE: NF=BN.

1240 BE=BE-S

172
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN=(BE-EE(I) )*(EN (J)-EN (I))/(EE(J)-EE(I) )+EN (I)

1270 GOTO 1220

12801=1-[
1290 GOTO 1190
1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340
1310 S=S/IO
1320 BE=BE+9*S
1330 GOTO 1220
1340 IF (SQR((BE-EO)A2+(NO-BN)A2)-R)«SQR((BF-EO)A2+(NO-NF)"2)-R)

THEN GOTO 1370

1350 BE=BF
1360 BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)/NS
1390 N2=NS+ 1
1400 FOR 1=0 TO NS
1410 X(I)~AE+I*W
1420 NEXT I
1430 YT(O)=AN
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1460 FOR J=O TO P2
1470 K=J+1
1480 IF X(I»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)=EN(J)+(X(I)-EE(J))* (EN(K)-EN (J))/(EE(K)-EE(J))

]500 GOTO 1520

1510NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)=AN
1540 YB(NS)=BN
1550 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1560 X=EO-X(I)
1570 Y=SQR(R*R-X*X)

173
 1580 YB(I)=NO-Y
1590 NEXTI
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GOSUB 3270
1660 FOR 1=1 TO NS
1670 A(I)=A TN«YB(I)- YB(T-I »/(X(I-I )-X(T)))
1680 L(I)=SQR( «YB(T)- YB(I-I »"2)+( (X(I)-X(I-I ))"2))
1690 U(T)~9.810001 *.5*(YW(I)+YW(T-I)- YB(I)-YB(I-I))

1700 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)=O

1705 US(T)=U(I)-9.8IOOOI *9
1708 IF US(I)<O THEN US(I)=O
1710 W(I)=GA(I)*(X(I)-X(I-I))* .5*(YT(I)+YT(I-I)- YB(I)- YB(I-l))
1720 NEXT I
1740 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGEN. SOIL, INITIAL GUESS I

1750 REM
1755 FF=I!
1760 FM=l!
1765 T2=0
1770 B2~0
1780RM=0
1790 SMI=O
1800 REM * FS CAL WITH RESPECT TO FORCE EQUILIBRIUM*

1860 FOR I~I TO NS

1870 KI=I+TAN(T(I»*TAN(A(I»
1880 G=COS(A(I»+T AN(P(I»*SIN(A(T»/FF
1920 NEXT I
1930 FOR 1=1 TO NS
, 1940 KW(I)=O
"

1970NEXTI
2080 LL=O
2090 AR=O
2100 AL~O
2110 FOR I~I TO NS

174
2230 PF(I)=(W(I)/kl +(SIN(A(I))-
TAN(T(I) )/(K I *COS(A(I))) )*(U(I)*L(I)*T AN (P(I))IFF -C(I)*L(I)IFF)-
KW(I)*TAN(T(I))/K I )/(G- T AN(P(I))*T AN(T(l))/(FF*K I *COS(A(I))))
2240 T2~T2+(C(I)*L(I)*COS(A(I))+(PF(I)-U (1)*L(I) )*T AN (P(I))*COS(A(I)))
2250 B2=B2+(PF(I)*SIN(A(I))+KW(I))
2260 B3=B2+LL *COS(WO)+(AR-AL)
2270 NEXT I
2280 FL=FF
2290 FF=T21B3
2300 IF ABS(FLIFF-l».OOOI THEN GOTO 1860
2304 REM * FS CAL WITH RESPECT TO MOMENT EQUILIBRIUM*

2305 FD(I)=O
2310 FOR I~I TO NS
2315 KM(I)=I +T AN(T(I))*TAN(A(I))
2320 GM=COS(A(I))+TAN(P(I))*SIN(A(I))/FM
2330 PM(I)=(W(I)/KM(I)+(SIN(A(I))-
TAN (T(I) )/(KM (I) *COS( A(I)))) *(U (I) *L(I) *TAN (P(I) )/FM -C(I) *L(l )IFM)-
KW(I)*T AN(T(I))/KM(I))/(GM-
TAN(P(I) )*T AN (T(I))/(FM*KM(I)*COS(A(I))))
2520 RM=RM+(C(I)*L(I)*R+(PM(I)-U(I)*L(I))*R *TAN(P(I)))
2540 SM 1=SM I+(W(I)*R *SIN(A(I))+KW(I)*K2(I)-PM(I)*FD(I))
2600 SM=SMl+LL*JT-(AL*AI-AR*A2)
2640 NEXT I
2660FL=FM
2680 FM=RM/SM
2750 IF ABS(FLlFM-I».OOOI THEN GOTO 2310
2930 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.## ###.###";EO;NO;R;FF;FM
2940 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FF;FM
2950 IF P$~"N" THEN GOTO 3000
2960 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 2990
2970 IF Y$~"N" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R)
FF FM";LPRINT""
2980 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY=",FF;FM

175
 2990 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.## ###.##
##.##";EO;NO;R;FF;FM
3000 REM* ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS*
3010 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 3370
3020 IF G$="I" THEN GOTO 3440
3030 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 3480
3040 IF G$="G" THEN GOTO 3080
3050 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";Y1$
3060 IF Y1 $="Y" THEN GOTO 520
3070 IF Y1$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
3080 REM NEW GRID POINT
3090 GG=GG+ 1
3100 ON GG GOTO 3110,3130,3150,3170,3190,3210,3230,3250,3050

3110 EO=EO-RA
3120 GOTO 820
3130 NO=NO-RA
3140 GOTO 820
3150 EO=EO+RA
3160 GOTO 820
3170 EO=EO+RA
3180 GOTO 820
3190 NO=NO+RA
3200 GOTO 820
3210 NO=NO+RA
3220 GOTO 820
3230 EO=EO-RA

•" 3240 GOTO 820

3250 EO=EO-RA
3260 GOTO 820
3270 REM
3280 LPRINT"":LPRINT""
3290 LPRINT" COH PHI GAMMA x YT YB YW";

3295 LPRINT" EE EN"

3300 LPRINT"":LPRINT""

176
3310 FOR 1=0 TO NS+I
3320 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##

###.## ###.## ###.##

## .##;C(I) 'PD(I),GA(I),X(I), YT(l), YB(1), YW (l),EE(l),EN(I)

3330 NEXT I
3340 LPRINT""
3350 REM
3360 RETURN
3370 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE";YI$
3380 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
3390 FOR 1=0 TO NS
3400 PRINT "YB(";I;")?
3410 INPUT YB(l)
3420 NEXT I
3430 GOTO 1600
3440 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
3450 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";YI$
3460 IF YI $="N' THEN GOTO 4800
3470 GOTO 550
3480 REM FRAME
3490 EO=EO+F5
3500 IF EO>F2 THEN EO=FI : NO=NO+F5
3510 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 3530
3520 GOTO 820
3530 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (YIN)";YI$
3540 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 570
4800 END

177

~.
 APPENDIX-2.7
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED PROPOSED BY FREDLUND AND KRAHN
(1977)

178
10 REM*** MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD***
20 REM** *PROCEDURE FOLLOWED PROPOSED BY FREDLUND AND
KRAHN (1967)***
30 REM ***FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY DETERMINATION ***
40 REM * AGAINST EMBANKMENT FAILURE BY SLIPPING**
50 DATA 4 :REM NR OF SLICES NS
60 DATA 0,0,0,0,0 : REM WATER LEVEL YW
70 DATA 7.6,7.6,7.6,7.6 :REM COHESION C
80 DATA 0,0,0,0 : REM ANGLE FRICTION PD
90 DATA 17.7,17.7,17.7,17.7: REM UNITWTOF SAT SOILGA
100 DATA 4 : REM NR OF EMBANKMENT COORDS PI
110 REM *EMBANKMENT COORDS**
120 DATA 0,14,9,14,16,7,30,7
125 DATA 0,90,135,180 :REM FD(I)
130 REM DATA FOR YT, YB&X
140 PRINT "INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA REQD~Y"
150 PRINT" INDIVIDUAL SLICE DATA NOT REQD=N"
160INPUTY$
162 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO USE CONSTANT FUNCTION=CF"
164 PRINT "OR SINE FUNCTlON=SF"
166 INPUT YF$
170 DATA :REM DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL SLICE YT, YB & X
180 DIM A(20),q20),L(20),P(20),U(20),W(20),GA(20),A T(40),PP(20)
190 PI~3.14159265359#
200READNS
210 N2~NS+I
220 FOR I~O TO NS
230 READ YW(I)
240 NEXT I
250 FOR 1=1 TO NS
260 READ ql)
270 NEXT I
280 FOR 1=1 TO NS
290 READ PD(I)

179
300 P(I)=PD(I)*PI/180
310NEXTI
320 FOR 1=1 TO NS
330 READ GA(I)
340 NEXT I
350 READ PI
360 P2=PI-1
370 FOR 1=0 TO P2
380 READ EE(I),EN(I)
390 NEXT I
400 IF YF$="CF" THEN GOTO 410
402 FOR 1=1 TO NS
404 READ FD(J)
406 FX(I)=FD(I)*PI/180
408 NEXT I
410 IF Y$="N" THEN GOTO 460
420 FOR 1=0 TO NS
430 READ YT(I),YB(I),X(I)
440 NEXT I
450 GOTO 650
460 PRINT" DO YOU WANT A GRID-G"
470 PRINT "OR A FRAME-F"
480 PRINT "OR TO INPUT COORDS"
490 PRINT" AND RADIUS INDIVIDUALLY -I"

500INPUTG$
510 IF G$<> "G" THEN GOTO 540
520 PRINT" ENTER CENTRAL COORDS, RADIUS AND RANGE

(EO,NO,R,RA)"
530 INPUT EO,NO,R,RA
540 GG=O
550 IF G$~"I" THEN INPUT" ENTER COORDS AND RADIUS
,
(EO,NO,R)"; EO,NO,R
560 IF G$<>"F" THEN GOTO 650
570 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF EAST COORDS (EMIN,EMAX)

180
580 INPUT FI,F2
590 PRINT "ENTER LIMITS OF NORTH COORDS (NMIN, N MAX)

600 INPUT F3,F4

610 INPUT "ENTER STEP";F5
620 INPUT "ENTER RADlUS";R
630 EO=FI
640 NO=F3
650 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO PRINT SLICE DATA?"
660 PRINT "ALL SLICE DATA=A"
670 PRINT "SUMMERY ONL Y=S"
680 PRINT "NO PRINTOUT=N"
690 INPUT P$
700 CLS
7I 0 PRINT "MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD"
720 PRINT" CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
722 IF YF$="CF" THEN GOTO 728
724 PRINT "SINE FUNCTION USED"
726 GOTO 730
728 PRINT "COSTANT FUNCTION USED"
730 PRINT" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR"
735 PRINT "= = = = ~ = = = = = = = = = = = ~ = = = = = = ~ = = = ="

740 PRINT" EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF

FM LA"
750 PRINT" "
760 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 820
770 LPRINT CHR$(l4)"MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD"
773 LPRINT CHR$(l4)"CIR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR ANA)
775 LPRINT CHR$(14)" EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR"
778 LPRINT CHR$(l4)" WEST SIDE OF SLOPE OF LOCATION I"
780 L PRINT(l4) "= == == ~ = = = = == = = = = = = ~ = = == = ~ = = ="

782 IF YF$="CF" THEN GOTO 788

784 LPRINT CHR( 14) "SINE FUNCTION USED"

786 GOTO 790

788 LPRlNT CHR$(l4) "CONSTANT FUNCTION USED"

181
790 L PRINT(l4) "= == == = = == = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="
800 LPRINT "":LPRINT""
810 IF P$="S"THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADJUS(R)
FF FM LA";LPRINT,""
820 REM START GEOMETRIC CALCULATIONS
830 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 1600
840 Q=O
850 Z=SQR«EE(0)-EO)"2+(EN(0)-NO)"2)
860 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
870 Z= SQR«EE(P2)-EO)"2+(EN(P2)-NO)"2)
880 IF Z<R THEN Q=I
890 IF Q=OGOTO 920
900 PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO LARGE"
910 GOTO 3000
920 S=I
9301=0
940 J=I+I
950 IF I>PI THEN GOTO 1040
960 AE=EE(I)
970 AN=EN(I)
980 IF SQR«EO-AE)"2+(NO-AN)"2)<R THEN GOTO 1090
990 AF=AE: NF~AN
1000 AE=AE+S
1010 IF AE>EE(J) THEN GOTO 1070
1020 AN=(AE-EE(I))*(EN(J)-EN(l))/(EE(J)-EE(I))+EN (I)
1030 GOTO 980
1040 RR=SQR«EO-EE(0))"2+(NO-EN(0))"2)
1050 IF R<RR THEN PRINT "RADIUS IS TOO SMALL"
1060 GOTO 3000
10701=1+1
1080 GOTO 940
1090 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1130
1100 S=S/IO
1110 AE=AE-9*S

182
I J 20 GOTO 980
I 130 IF(SQR( (AE-EO)"'2+(NO-ANY'2)-R)«SQR( (AF -EO)"2+(NO-NF)"2)- R)

THEN 1160
1140 AE=AF
1150 AN=NF
1160 REM
1170 S=1
1180 I~P2
1190J~1-1
1200 BE=EE(I)
1210 BN=EN(l)
1220 IF SQR«EO-BE)"'2+(NO-BN)"'2)<R THEN GOTO 1300
1230 BF=BE: NF=BN
1240 BE~BE-S
1250 IF BE<EE(J) THEN GOTO 1280
1260 BN=(BE-EE(l) )*(EN (J)-EN(I) )/(EE(J)-EE(I) )+EN(l)
1270 GOTO 1220
1280 I~I-I
1290 GOTO 1190
1300 IF S<.05 THEN GOTO 1340
1310 S=S/1O
I 320 BE~BE+9*S
1330 GOTO 1220
1340 IF (SQR«BE-EO)"'2+(NO-BN)"'2)-R)«SQR«BF-EO)"2+(NO-NF)"'2)-R)

THEN GOTO 1370

1350BE=BF
1360 BN=NF
1370 REM
1380 W=(BE-AE)INS
1390 N2=NS+l
1400 FOR 1=0 TO NS
1410 X(l)=AE+I*W
1420 NEXT 1
1430 YT(O)=AN

183
1440 YT(NS)=BN
1450 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
1460 FOR J=O TO P2
1470 K=J+I
1480 IF X(I»EE(K) THEN GOTO 1510
1490 YT(I)=EN (J)+(X(I)-EE(J) )*(EN(K)-EN(J))/(EE(K)-EE(J))
1500 GOTO 1520
1510NEXT J
1520 NEXT I
1530 YB(O)=AN
1540 YB(NS)=BN
1550 FOR 1=1 TO NS-1
1560 X=EO-X(I)
1570 Y=SQR(R*R-X*X)
1580 YB(I)=NO-Y
1590 NEXT I
1600 IF P$="A" THEN GOSUB 3270
1610 HT(O)~O
1620 HT(NS)=O
1630 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
I 640 HT(I)~(YT(I)- YB(I) )/3
1650 NEXT I
1660 FOR 1=1 TONS
1670 A(I)=A TN«YB(I)- YB(I- I))/(X(I-I )-X(I)))
1680 L(I)=SQR«(YB(I)- YB(I-1 )Y'2)+«X(I)-X(I-l ))"2))
1690 U(I)=9.81 0001 *.5*(YW(I)+YW(I-I)-YB(I)- YB(I-I))
I 700 IF U(I)<O THEN U(I)=O
1705 US(I)=U(I)-9.81 000 1*9
1708 IF US(I)<O THEN US(I)=O
1710 W(I)=GA(I)*(X(I)-X(I-1 ))* .5*(YT(I)+YT(I-I)- YB(I)- YB(I-I))

1720 NEXT I
1740 REM CALCULATE FS FOR HOMOGEN. SOIL, INITIAL GUESS I

1750 REM
1755 FF=I!

184

" .,!.'::.....•..
'
1760 FM=I!
1765 T2=0
1770 B2=0
1780 RM=O
1790 SMI=O
1800 LA=O
1810 QQ=O
1820 E(O)=O
1830 E(NS)=O
1840 ZQ=O
1850 TT(O)=O
1860 TT(NS)~O
1865 REM * FS CAL WITH RESPECT TO FORCE EQUILIBRIUM*

1870 FOR 1=1 TO NS

1880 G=COS(A(I))+T AN(P(I))*SIN(A(I))/FF
1890 PP(I)=(W(I)-
C(I) *L(I) *SIN (A(I) )/FF +U (1)*L(l) *TAN (P(l)) *SIN (A (I) )/FF)/G
1900 MS(I)=C(l)*L(I)+(PP(l)-U (1)*L(I)*TAN (P(I)))/FF

1920 NEXT!
1930 FOR I~I TO NS
1940 KW(I)=O
1960 DE(I)=W (I)*T AN (A(I))-MS(I)/COS(A(I))+K W(1)

1970 NEXT I
1980 FOR I~O TO NS-2
2000 E(l+ I )=E(I)+DE(I+ 1)
2010 NEXT I
20151F YF$~"CF" THEN GOTO 2042
2020 FOR I~I TO NS-I
2030 TT(l)=E(I)*LA *SIN(FX(I))
2035 NEXT!
2040 GOTO 2050
2042 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
2044 FX(I)=HT(I)
"
J
2046 TT(I)~E(I)*LA *FX(I) •
185
2048 NEXT I
2050 FOR 1=0 TO NS-I
2060 DT(I+ 1)~TT(I+ 1)-IT(I)
2070 NEXT I
2080 LL=O
2090 AR=O
2100 AL=O
2110FORI=1 TONS
2230 PF(I)=(W(I)-
CCI)*L(I) *(S IN (A(I) )/FF +U (I) *L(I)*T AN (P(I)) *SIN (A( I))/FF -DT(I) )/G
2240 T2=T2+(C(I)*L(I)* COS(A(I))+(PF(I)-U(I)*L(I))*T AN(P(I) )*COS(A(I)))
2250 B2=B2+(PF(I)*SIN(A(I))+KW(I))
2260 B3=B2+LL *COS(WO)+(AR-AL)
2270 NEXT I
2280 FL=FF
2290 FF=T21B3
2300 IF ABS(FLIFF-I».OOOI THEN GOTO 1870
2304 REM * FS CAL WITH RESPECT TO MOMENT EQUILIBRIUM*

2305 DF(I)=O
2306 EI (O)~O
2308 E I (NS)=O
2310 FOR (=1 TO NS
2320 G 1=COS(A(I))+ TAN(P(I))*SIN(A(I))/FM
2330 PM(I)=(W(I) -
C(I)* L(I)*(SIN(A(I))/FM+U (I)*L(I)*T AN(P(I))* SIN (A(I) )/FM)/G I
2340 MS 1(I)=(CCI)*L(I)+(PM(I)- U(I)* L(I)*T AN(P(I)))/FM
2350 NEXT I
2360 FOR 1=1 TO NS
2370 DEI (I)=W(I)*T AN(A(I))-MS I (I)/COS(A(I))+KW(I)
2380 NEXT I
2390 FOR 1=0 TO NS-2
2400 E I(1+ 1)=E 1(I)+DE I (1+1)
2410NEXTI
2415 IF YF$="CF" THEN GOTO 2442

186
2420 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
2430 TTI=EI (I)*LA *SIN(FX(I))
2435 NEXT I
2440 GOTO 2450
2442 FOR 1=1 TO NS-I
2444 FX(I)=HT(I)
2446 TTl (I)=E I (I)*LA *FX(I)
2448 NEXT I
2450 FOR I~I TO NS-I
2460 DTl(I+I)=TTI(I+I)-TTI(I)
2470NEXTI
2480 FOR 1=1 TO NS
2500 PMI(I)=(W(I)-
C(I)*L(I)*(SIN(A(I))/FM+U(I)* L(I)*T AN(P(I))* SIN(A(I))/FM -DT I(I))/G I
2520 RM~RM+(C(I)*L(I)*R+(PMI (I)-U(I)*L(I)*R *TAN(P(I)))
2540 SM I~SMI +(W(I)*R *SIN(A(I))+KW(I)*KI (I)-PM I (I)*DF(I))
2600 SM=SM1+LL*JT-(AL*AI-AR*A2)
2640 NEXT I
2660FL=FM
2680 FM=RMlSM
2750 IF ABS(FLlFM-I».OOOI THEN GOTO 2310
2930 IF Y$="N" THEN PRINT USING" ###.## ###.## ###.##
###.## ###.## ###.###";EO;NO;R;FF;FM;LA
2940 IF Y$="Y" THEN PRINT TAB(26);FF;FM;LA

2950 IF P$="N" THEN GOTO 3000

2960 IF P$="S" THEN GOTO 2990
2970 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT "EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R)
FF FM
LA";LPRINT""
2980 IF Y$="Y" THEN LPRINT "FACTOR OF SAFETY=",FF;FM;LA
2990 IF Y$="N" THEN LPRINT USING "###.## ###.## ###.## ###.##
##.## ##.##";EO;NO;R;FF;FM;LA
3000 REM* ASK FOR NEW RADIUS AND COORDS*
3010 IF Y$="Y" THEN GOTO 3370

187
3020 IF G$="I" THEN GOTO 3440
3030 IF G$="F" THEN GOTO 3480
3040 IF G$="G" THEN GOTO 3080
3050 INPUT "ANOTHER GRID";YI$
3060 IF YI$="Y" THEN GOTO 520
3070 IF Y1 $="N" THEN GOTO 4800
3080 REM NEW GRID POINT
3090 GG=GG+ I
3100 ON GG GOTO 3110,3130,3150,3170,3190,3210,3230,3250,3050
3110 EO=EO-RA
3120 GOTO 820
3130 NO~NO-RA
3140 GOTO 820
3150 EO=EO+RA
3160 GOTO 820
3170 EO=EO+RA
3180 GOTO 820
3190 NO=NO+RA
3200 GOTO 820
3210 NO=NO+RA
3220 GOTO 820
3230 EO=EO-RA
3240 GOTO 820
3250 EO=EO-RA
3260 GOTO 820
3270 REM
3280 LPRINT"":LPRINT""
3290 LPRINT" COH PHI GAMMA x YT YB YW";

3295 LPRINT" EE EN"

3300 LPRINT'''':LPRINT''''
3310 FOR 1=0 TO NS+I
3320 LPRINT USING "####.## ##.## ####.## ###.## ###.##

###.## ###.## ###.## ##.## ##.##

,.
##.##;C(I),PD(I),GA(I),X(I), YT(I), YB(I), YW(I),EE(I),EN(I),RP(I),RP 1(I) "~-:
, .. :

188
3330 NEXT I
3340 LPRINT""
3350 REM
3360 RETURN
3370 INPUT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SLIP SURFACE";YI$
3380 IF YI$="N" THEN GOTO 4800
3390 FOR 1=0 TO NS
3400 PRINT "YB(";I;")?
3410 INPUT YB(I)
3420 NEXT I
3430 GOTO 1600
3440 REM NEW INDIVIDUAL POINT
3450 INPUT "ANOTHER POINT";YI$
3460 IF YI $="N' THEN GOTO 4800
3470 GOTO 550
3480 REM FRAME
3490 EO=EO+F5
3500 IF EO>F2 THEN EO=FI : NO~NO+F5
3510 IF NO>F4 THEN GOTO 3530
3520 GOTO 820
3530 INPUT "ANOTHER FRAME (Y/N)";YI $
3540 IF YI $="Y" THEN GOTO 570
4800 END

189 -
"
 APPENDIX-3
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ
ATSAVAR

,
/

190
 369.15

i\-..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-

154.15 86.00 70.00

00- 00

~\
LEGEND
CJ DAMAGED PART
_ FILLING NOT COMPLETED
0
0
V) .~ FILLING COPLETED
7

.0 :6>,,,1 FILLING NOT DONE

V)

'0
, V)
. V)

0
V)

'"
7

All dimensions are in metre

0
0
0
0'
\
.BI

o
o
o
0'

o
o
o
'"
IO I .46

Figure A.3.1 Partial layout of embankments showing failure spots and boring locations ..
. ~.

191
 Sample :BH-I, UD-I
Depth :2.5 m

250

:? 200
~
~
~ ISO
~
CZl
~ 100 <p=7.5°
"
..c:
CZl c=17.5 kPa
50

o
o 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Normal Stress (kPal

Figure A.3.2 Isotropically consolidated undrained shear strength envelope for sample
B I, UD-I at 2.5 m depth.

.,

192
 Sample :BH-1, UD-1
Depth :4.0 m

200

150

100

50

o
o 50 100 150 200 250

Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure A.3.3 Isotropically consolidated undrained shear strength envelope for sample
Bl, UD-2 at 4.0 m depth

'..
193

'.'
 APPENDIX 3.1
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS BY MODIFIED PROGRAMS
EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR

194
FELLENIUS METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAV AR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION I

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOT STR ~= 0)

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.438

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.437

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.445

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.476

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.546

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.419

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.428

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.438

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.464

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.539

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.412

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.424

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.436

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.460

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.544

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.410

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.425

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.440

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.463

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.558

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.412

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.431

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.451

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.473

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.581

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.423

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.443

16.00 20.00 14.00 0.469

195
17.00 20.00 14.00 0.500

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.617

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.431

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.437

16.00 21.00 . 14.00 0.453

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.479

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.521

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.521

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.525

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.555

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.605

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.692

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.663

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.668

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.730

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.842

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.079

196
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOTAL STRESS ~= 0)

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.438

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.437

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.445

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.476

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.546

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.419

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.428

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.438

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.464

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.539

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.412

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.424

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.436

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.460

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.544

]4.00 18.00 14.00 0.410

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.425

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.440

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.463

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.558

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.412

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.431

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.451

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.473

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.581

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.423

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.443

16.00 20.00 14.00 0.469

197
17.00 20.00 14.00 0.500

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.617

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.431

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.437

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.453

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.479

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.521

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.521

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.525

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.555

17.00 22.00 14.00. 0.605

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.692

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.663

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.668

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.730

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.842

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.079

198
FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSELEV (1967)
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION I

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOTAL STRESS <1>= 0)

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.438

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.437

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.445

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.476

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.546

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.419

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.428

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.438

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.464

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.539

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.412

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.424

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.436

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.460

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.544

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.410

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.425

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.440

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.463

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.558

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.412

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.431

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.451

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.473

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.581

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.423

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.443

199
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.469

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.500

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.617

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.431

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.437

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.453

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.479

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.521

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.521

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.525

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.555

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.605

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.692

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.663

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.668

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.730

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.842

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.079

JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCA nON 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOTAL STRESS ~= 0)

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.386

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.391

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.394

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.418

18.00 i5.00 14.00 0.474

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.389

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.395

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.404

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.415

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.431

200
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS, ~= 0)

SINE FUNCTION USED

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM LA

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.42 0.43 0.00

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.43 0.44 0.00

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.44 0.45 0.00

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.47 0.48 0.00

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.54 0.55 0.00

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.42 0.42 0.00

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.43 0.43 0.00

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.44 0.44 0.00

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.46 0.46 0.00

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.54 0.54 0.00

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.42 0.41 0.00

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.43 0.42 0.00

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.44 0.44 0.00

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.47 0.46 0.00

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.55 0.54 0.00

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.43 0.41 0.00

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.44 0.42 0.00

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.46 0.44 0.00

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.48 0.46 0.00

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.58 0.56 0.00

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.44 0.41 0.00

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.46 0.43 0.00

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.48 0.45 0.00

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.50 0.47 0.00

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.62 0.58 0.00

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.46 0.42 0.00 ~.c.,

."
.i•,
15.00 20.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.00
:1',
\
201 i
"

..
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.51 0.47 0.00

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.54 0.50 0.00

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.67 0.62 0.00

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.47 0.43 0.00

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.00

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.50 0.45 0.00

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.53 0.48 0.00

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.59 0.52 0.00

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.56 0.52 0.00

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.57 0.53 0.00

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.61 0.56 0.00

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.68 0.60 0.00

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.78 0.69 0.00

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.71 0.66 0.00

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.72 0.67 0.00

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.80 0.73 0.00

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.94 0.84 0.00

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.21 1.08 0.00

,",,(,.-.
'.,'

202
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION I

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS, ~= 0)

SINE FUNCTION USED

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM LA

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.47 0.43 0.10

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.10

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.49 0.45 0.10

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.53 0.48 0.10

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.61 0.55 O. I 0

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.46 0.42 0.10

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.47 0.43 0.10

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.10

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.51 0.46 0.10

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.60 0.54 0.10

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.45 0.41 0.10

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.46 0.42 0.10

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.10

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.50 0.46 0.10

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.60 0.54 0.10

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.45 0.41 0.10

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.47 0.42 0.10

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.10

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.51 0.46 0.10

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.61 0.56 0.10

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.45 0.41 0.10

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.47 0.43 0.10

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.50 0.45 0.10

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.52 0.47 0.10

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.64 0.58 0.10

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.47 0.42 0.10

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.49 0.44 0.10

203
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.52 0.47 0.10

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.56 0.50 0.10

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.69 0.62 0.10

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.48 0.43 0.00

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.49 0.44 0.1 0

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.51 0.45 0.10

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.55 0.48 0.10

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.60 0.52 0.10

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.58 0.52 0.1 0

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.59 0.53 0.10

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.63 0.56 0.1 0

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.69 0.60 0.10

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.80 0.69 0.1 0

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.73 0.66 0.10

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.74 0.67 0.00

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.82 0.73 0.10

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.96 0.84 0.10

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.23 1.08 0.10

204
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCA nON 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOTAL STRESS, q,= 0)

SINE FUNCTION USED

=====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM LA

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.56 0.43 0.20

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.57 0.44 0.20

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.58 0.45 0.20

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.63 0.48 0.20

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.74 0.55 0.20

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.52 0.42 0.20

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.53 0.43 0.20

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.54 0.44 0.20

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.58 0.46 0.20

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.68 0.54 0.20

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.49 0.41 0.20

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.5 I 0.42 0.20

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.52 0.44 0.20

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.55 0.46 0.20

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.66 0.54 0.20

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.48 0.41 0.20

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.50 0.42 0.20

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.52 0.44 0.20

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.55 0.46 0.20

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.66 0.56 0.20

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.48 0.41 0.20

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.50 0.43 0.20

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.52 0.45 0.20

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.55 0.47 0.20

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.68 0.58 0.20

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.49 0.42 0.20

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.51 0.44 0.20

205
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.54 0.47 0.20

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.58 0.50 0.20

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.71 0.62 0.20

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.49 0.43 0.20

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.50 0.44 0.20

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.53 0.45 0.20

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.56 0.48 0.20

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.62 0.52 0.20

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.59 0.52 0.20

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.60 0.53 0.20

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.64 0.56 0.20

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.71 0.60 0.20

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.81 0.69 0.20

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.75 0.66 0.20

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.76 0.67 0.20

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.84 0.73 0.20

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.97 0.84 0.20

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.25 1.08 0.20

206
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION I

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOTAL STRESS, ~ = 0)

CONSTANT FUNCTION USED

====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM LA

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.42 0.43 0.00

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.43 0.44 0.00

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.44 0.45 0.00

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.47 0.48 0.00

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.54 0.55 0.00

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.42 0.42 0.00

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.43 0.43 0.00

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.44 0.44 0.00

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.46 0.46 0.00

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.54 0.54 0.00

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.42 0.41 0.00

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.43 0.42 0.00

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.44 0.44 0.00

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.47 0.46 0.00

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.55 0.54 0.00

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.43 0.41 0.00

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.44 0.42 0.00

16.00 18.00 14.00 . 0.46 0.44 0.00

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.48 0.46 0.00

18.00. 18.00 14.00 0.58 0.56 0.00

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.44 0.41 0.00

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.46 0.43 0.00

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.48 0.45 0.00

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.50 0.47 0.00

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.62 0.58 0.00

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.46 0.42 0.00

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.00

207
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.51 0.47 0.00

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.54 0.50 0.00

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.67 0.62 0.00

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.47 0.43 0.00

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.48 0.44 0.00

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.50 0.45 0.00

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.53 0.48 0.00

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.59 0.52 0.00

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.56 0.52 0.00

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.57 0.53 0.00

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.61 0.56 0.00

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.68 0.60 0.00

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.78 0.69 0.00

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.71 0.66 0.00

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.72 0.67 0.00

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.80 0.73 0.00

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.94 0.84 0.00

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.21 1.08 0.00

208
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAV AR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (TOTAL STRESS, ~= 0)

CONSTANT FUNCTION USED

====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM LA

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.59 0.43 0.05

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.59 0.44 0.05

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.60 0.45 0.05

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.63 0.48 0.05

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.72 0.55 0.05

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.52 0.42 0.05

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.52 0.43 0.05

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.53 0.44 0.05

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.56 0.46 0.05

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.64 0.54 0.05

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.48 0.41 0.05

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.49 0.42 0.05

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.50 0.44 0.05

17.00 17.00 14.00 0:53 0.46 0.05

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.62 0.54 0.05

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.46 0.41 0.05

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.48 0.42 0.05

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.49 0.44 0.05

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.52 0.46 0.05

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.62 0.56 0.05

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.46 0.41 0.05

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.48 0.43 0.05

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.50 0.45 0.05

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.52 0.47 0.05

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.64 0.58 0.05

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.47 0.42 0.05

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.49 0.44 0.05

209
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.52 0.47 0.05

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.55 0.50 0.05

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.68 0.62 0.05

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.48 0.43 0.05

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.49 0.44 0.05

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.51 0.45 0.05

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.54 0.48 0.05

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.59 0.52 0.05

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.57 0.52 0.05

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.58 0.53 0.05

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.62 0.56 0.05

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.68 0.60 0.05

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.79 0.69 0.05

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.72 0.66 0.05

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.73 0.67 0.05

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.81 0.73 0.05

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.94 0.84 0.05

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.21 1.08 0.05

210
MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS, q,= 0)

CONSTANT FUNCTION USED
====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FF FM LA

14.00 15.00 14.00 1.68 0.43 0.10

15.00 15.00 14.00 1.49 0.44 0.10

16.00 15.00 14.00 1.34 0.45 0.10

17.00 15.00 14.00 1.28 0.48 0.1 0

18.00 15.00 14.00 1.43 0.55 0.10

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.78 0.42 0.10

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.77 0.43 0.10

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.76 0.44 0.10

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.77 0.46 0.10

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.87 0.54 0.10

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.59 0.41 0.10

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.60 0.42 0.10

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.60 0.44 0.10

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.62 0.46 0.10

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.72 0.54 0.10

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.52 0.41 0.10

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.53 0.42 0.10

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.54 0.44 0.10

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.57 0.46 0.10

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.67 0.56 0.10

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.49 0.41 0.10

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.51 0.43 0.10

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.53 0.45 0.10

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.55 0.47 0.10

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.67 0.58 0.10

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.49 0.42 0.10

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.51 0.44 0.1 0 ",'

:,'\:;
.\
211 .
16.00 20.00 14.00 0.53 0.47 0.10

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.57 0.50 0.10

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.69 0.62 0.10

14.00 21.00 14.00 0.49 0.43 0.1 0

15.00 21.00 14.00 0.50 0.44 0.10

16.00 21.00 14.00 0.52 0.45 0.10

17.00 21.00 14.00 0.55 0.48 0.10

18.00 21.00 14.00 0.60 0.52 0.10

14.00 22.00 14.00 0.58 0.52 0.10

15.00 22.00 14.00 0.59 0.53 0.10

16.00 22.00 14.00 0.63 0.56 0.10

17.00 22.00 14.00 0.69 0.60 0.10

18.00 22.00 14.00 0.79 0.69 0.10

14.00 23.00 14.00 0.73 0.66 0.10

15.00 23.00 14.00 0.74 0.67 0.10

16.00 23.00 14.00 0.81 0.73 0.10

17.00 23.00 14.00 0.95 0.84 0.10

18.00 23.00 14.00 1.22 1.08 0.10

212
 1.8 Ff
~S
"0 1.4
8
~
1.0
.c Fm
<E
oj

c...,'" .6
0
••••
0
+->
u .2
oj
~

o .05 .1

Scaling Factor A. ---[>

From graph factor of safety FS=.43 at a A.value .0043

Figure A.3.4 Plotting of factor of safety F[ and Fm with respect to scaling factor '",
Morgenstern and Price method, Constant function used, Location of slip
circle center x-coordinate 14, y-coordinate 15 and radius 14,
Embankment of DEPZ at Savar,West side slope of location 1,Total
stress(~=O)analysis. ,.
•

213

.,

••
SPENCER'S METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCA nON I
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS, ~=O), THETA 0
====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FF FM

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.47 0.43

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.48 0.44

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.49 0.45

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.54 0.48

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.65 0.55

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.42 0.42

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.44 0.43

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.45 0.44

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.49 0.46

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.59 0.54

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.46 0.41

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.42 0.42

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.44 0.44

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.47 0.46

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.57 0.54

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.40 0.41

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.42 0.42

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.44 0.44

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.46 0.46

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.58 0.56

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.40 0.41

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.43 0.43

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.45 0.45

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.48 0.47

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.61 0.58

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.42 0.42

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.45 0.44

16.00 20.00 14.00 0.48 0.47

214
17.00 20.00 14.00 0.52 0.50

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.66 0.62

SPENCER'S METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS,<j>=O),THETA 5
====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FF FM

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.44 0.43

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.45 0.44

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.46 0.45

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.50 0.48

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.61 0.55

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.40 0.42

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.41 0.43

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.42 0.44

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.45 0.46

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.54 0.54

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.38 0.41

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.39 0.42

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.40 0.44

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.43 0.46

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.53 0.54

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.37 0.41

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.39 0.42

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.41 0.44

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.43 0.46

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.53 0.56

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.38 0.41

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.40 0.43

16.00 19.00 14.00 0.42 0.45

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.45 0.47

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.56 0.58 .'.\!'~...

c-

215
14.00 20.00 14.00 0.40 0.42

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.42 0.44

16.00 20.00 14.00 0.45 0.47

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.49 0.50

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.62 0.62

SPENCER'S METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCA nON 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS, ~=O),THETA 10
=====================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM

14.00 15.00 14.00 0.42 0.43

15.00 15.00 14.00 0.43 0.44

16.00 15.00 14.00 0.44 0.45

17.00 15.00 14.00 0.48 0.48

18.00 15.00 14.00 0.57 0.55

14.00 16.00 14.00 0.37 0.42

15.00 16.00 14.00 0.38 0.43

16.00 16.00 14.00 0.39 0.44

17.00 16.00 14.00 0.42 0.46

18.00 16.00 14.00 0.50 0.54

14.00 17.00 14.00 0.35 0.41

15.00 17.00 14.00 0.36 0.42

16.00 17.00 14.00 0.37 0.44

17.00 17.00 14.00 0.40 0.46

18.00 17.00 14.00 0.48 0.54

14.00 18.00 14.00 0.35 0.41

15.00 18.00 14.00 0.36 0.42

16.00 18.00 14.00 0.38 0.44

17.00 18.00 14.00 0.40 0.46

18.00 18.00 14.00 0.49 0.56

14.00 19.00 14.00 0.36 0.41

15.00 19.00 14.00 0.37 0.43

216
16.00 19.00 14.00 0.39 0.45

17.00 19.00 14.00 0.42 0.47

18.00 19.00 14.00 0.52 0.58

14.00 20.00 14.00 0.38 0.42

15.00 20.00 14.00 0.40 0.44

16.00 20.00 14.00 0.42 0.47

17.00 20.00 14.00 0.46 0.50

18.00 20.00 14.00 0.57 0.62

."

217
 1.8
~S
"<:l 1,4
Q
oj

~
C 1.0 Fm
~
oj
en
"""'0 .6 Ff
•..•
0
.•....•
u .2
oj
~

o 5 10 15
Inclination angle of resultant inters lice forces e
---[:::>

From graph factor of safety FS=,43 at angle e =3.07°

Figure A.3.5 Plotting of factor of safety Fe and Fm with respect to inclination angle of
inter slice forces 8, Spencer's method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 14, y-coordinate 15 and radius 14, Embankment of DEPZ at
Sayar,West side slope of location I,Total stress( <1>=0) analysis.

218
FELLENIUS METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAV AR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCA nON I

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR c, '" ANALYSIS)

================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 1.516

15.00 15.00 14.00 1.518

16.00 15.00 14.00 1.520

14.00 16.00 14.00 1.442

15.00 16.00 14.00 1.450

16.00 16.00 14.00 1.458

14.00 17.00 14.00 1.382

15.00 17.00 14.00 1.396

16.00 17.00 14.00 1.410

14.00 18.00 14.00 1.335

15.00 18.00 14.00 1.356

16.00 18.00 14.00 1.379

14.00 19.00 14.00 1.296

15.00 19.00 14.00 1.328

16.00 19.00 14.00 1.362

14.00 20.00 14.00 1.310

15.00 20.00 14.00 1.317

16.00 20.00 14.00 1.358

14.00 21.00 14.00 1.328

15.00 21.00 14.00 1.308

16.00 21.00 14.00 1.313

14.00 22.00 14.00 1.541

15.00 22.00 14.00 1.514

16.00 22.00 14.00 1.549

14.00 23.00 14.00 1.878

15.00 23.00 14.00 1.847

16.00 23.00 14.00 1.950

219
FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSELEV (1967)
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAV AR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR c, <I> ANALYSIS)
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 1.516

15.00 15.00 14.00 1.518

16.00 15.00 14.00 1.520

14.00 16.00 14.00 10442

15.00 16.00 14.00 10450
16.00 16.00 14.00 1.458

14.00 17.00 14.00 1.382

15.00 17.00 14.00 1.396

16.00 17.00 14.00 IAIO

14.00 18.00 14.00 1.335

15.00 18.00 14.00 1.356

16.00 18.00 14.00 1.379

14.00 19.00 14.00 1.296

15.00 19.00 14.00 1.328

16.00 19.00 14.00 1.362

14.00 20.00 14.00 1.310

15.00 20.00 14.00 1.317

16.00 20.00 14.00 1.358

14.00 21.00 14.00 1.328

15.00 21.00 14.00 1.308

16.00 21.00 14.00 1.313

14.00 22.00 14.00 1.541

15.00 22.00 14.00 1.514

16.00 22.00 14.00 1.549

14.00 23.00 14.00 1.878

15.00 23.00 14.00 1.847

16.00 23.00 14.00 1.950

220
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
EMBAKMENT OF DEPZ AT SA VAR
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCA nON 1
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOT STR c, ~ ANALYSIS)
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

14.00 15.00 14.00 1.713

15.00 15.00 14.00 1.717

16.00 15.00 14.00 1.721

14.00 16.00 14.00 1.595

15.00 16.00 14.00 1.605

16.00 16.00 14.00 1.615

14.00 17.00 14.00 1.499

15.00 17.00 14.00 1.515

16.00 17.00 14.00 1.532

14.00 18.00 14.00 1.421

15.00 18.00 14.00 1.444

16.00 18.00 14.00 1.470

14.00 19.00 14.00 1.356

15.00 19.00 14.00 1.390

16.00 19.00 14.00 1.427

14.00 20.00 14.00 1.352

15.00 20.00 14.00 1.357

16.00 20.00 14.00 1.400

14.00 21.00 14.00 1.365

15.00 21.00 14.00 1.342

16.00 21.00 14.00 1.344

14.00 22.00 14.00 1.576

15.00 22.00 14.00 1.546

16.00 22.00 14.00 1.577

14.00 23.00 14.00 1.912

15.00 23.00 14.00 1.876

16.00 23.00 14.00 1.975

221
 APPENDIX-3.2
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS BY PCSTABLSM
WEST SIDE SLOPE OF LOCATION 1
EMBANKMENT OF DEPZ AT SAVAR

222
PROFIL
EEPZ7.IN (Bishop Method. First Trial- Circle Gen. Total stress (phi=O)
analysis. Location I)
3 3
O. 22.96 45.92 22.96 I
45.92 22.96 68.88 45.92 I
68.88 45.92 98.4 45.92
SOIL

110.52 110.52 158.73 O. O. O. 1

WATER
O.
2
O. 18.4
98.4 18.4
LIMITS
I 0
O. O. 98.4 O.
CIRCL2
10 10
25.5 60. 72. 95.
O. 6. O. O.

223
 **PCSTABL5M**
by
Purdue University

--Slope Stability Analysis-

Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
Or Spencer's Method of Slices

Run Date: 16.7.97

Time of Run: 10.55 a.m

Run by: Md. Abdus Salam

Input Data Filename: eepz7b.in

Output Filename: eepz77b.out

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION EEPZ7B.IN (Bishop Method. First Trial-Circle

Gen. Total stress (phi~O) analysis)

BOUNDARY COORDINATES

3 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries

Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Rght SoiL Type

No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) BelowBnd

.00 22.96 45.92 22.96

2 45.92 22.96 68.88 45.92 I

3 68.88 45.92 98.40 45.92 I

224
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS

I Type(s) of Soil

Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.

Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface

No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) Paramo (pst) No.

I 110.5 110.5 J 58.7 .0 .00 .0

PIEZOMETRIC SURF ACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED

Unit Weight of Water = 62.40

Piezometric Surface No. I Specified by 2 Coordinate Points

Point X-Water V-Water

No. (ft) (ft)
I .00 18.40
2 98.40 18.40

Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of

Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward

Boundary X-Left V-Left X-Right Y- Right

No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 .00 .00 98.40 .00

A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For

Generating Circular Surfaces, Has been Specified.

100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.

10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 points Equally Spaced Along The Ground

Surface Between X= 25.50 ft.

and X= 60.00 ft.

225
Each Surface Terminates Between X= 72.00 ft.
and X= 95.00 ft.

Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A

surface Extends Is Y~ .00 ft.

6.00 ft. Line Segments Decline Each Trial Failure Surface.

Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces
Examined. They are Ordered - Most Critical First.

" Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method"

Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points

Point X-Surf Y-Surf

No. (ft) (ft)

25.50 22.96

2 29.91 18.89

3 34.87 15.52
4 40.28 12.92

5 46.02 11.16

6 51.95 10.27

7 57.95 10.27

8 63.88 1I.l6

9 69.62 12.92

10 75.03 15.51
11 79.99 18.88

12 84.40 22.95
13 88.16 27.63

14 9I.l7 32.82

15 93.39 38.40

16 94.75 44.24
I'
"/oj

17 94.88 45.92

226
Circle Center At X= 55.0; y= 50.4 and Radius, 40.3

••• .365 •••

Individual data on the 20 slices

Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake

Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge

Slce Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load

No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)

4.4 991.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

2 .7 343.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

3 4.2 2814.3 .0 461.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

4 5.4 5224.9 .0 1564.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

5 5.6 6795.9 .0 2335.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

6 .1 125.7 .0 45 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

7 5.9 10039.6 .0 2878.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

8 6.0 14405.0 .0 3045.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

9 5.9 17866.3 .0 2878.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

10 5.0 17394.9 .0 2112.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

11 .7 2701.9 .0 269.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

12 5.4 18955.4 .0 1566.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

13 4.3 13608.7 .0 462.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

14 .7 2149.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

15 4.4 12181.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

16 3.8 8560.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

17 3.0 5234.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

18 2.2 2523.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

19 1.4 692.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

20 .1 12.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

227
PROFIL
EEPZ7.IN (Janbu's Simplified Method. First Trial- Circle Gen. Total stress

(phi=O) analysis. Location I)

3 3
O. 22.96 45.92 22.96 I
45.92 22.96 68.88 45.92 I
68.88 45.92 98.4 45.92
SOIL
I
110.53 110.52 158.73 o. o. O. I
WATER
o.
2
I. 18.4
98.5 18.4
LIMITS
I 0
I. O. 98.4 O.
CIRCLE

10 10
25.5 60. 72. 95.
O. 6. O. O.

228
 **PCSTABLSM**
by
Purdue University

--Slope Stability Analysis-

Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
Or Spencer's Method of Slices

Run Date: 1617197

Time of Run: 11.47 a.m

Run by: Md. Abdus Salam

Input Data Filename: eepz7.in

Output Filename: eepz7j.out

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION EEPZ7.IN (Janbu Method. First Trial-Circle

Gen. Total stress (phi=O) analysis)

BOUNDARY COORDINATES

3 Top Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries

Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Rght SoiL Type

No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd

I .00 22.96 45.92 22.96 1

2 45.92 22.96 68.88 45.92 1

3 68.88 45.92 98.40 45.92

ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS

1 Type(s) of Soil

229
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.

Type Unit WI. Unit WI. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface

No. (pet) (pet) (pst) (deg) Paramo (pst) No.

110.5 110.5 158.7 .0 .00 .0

PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED

Unit Weight of Water = 62.40

Piezometric Surface No. I Specified by 2 Coordinate Points

Point X-Water V-Water

No. (ft) (ft)

I .00 18.40

2 98.40 18.40

Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By I Boundaries Of

Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward

Boundary X-Left V-Left X-Right Y- Right

No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

.00 .00 98.40 .00

A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For

Generating Circular Surfaces, Has been Specified.

Janbu,s Empirical Coef. Is being used for the case of phi~O

100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 points Equally Spaced Along The Ground
Surface Between X= 25.50 ft.
and X= 60.00 ft.

Each Surface Terminates Between X= 72.00 ft.

and X= 95.00 ft.

230
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A

surface Extends Is Y= .00 ft.

6.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.

Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces

Examined. They are Ordered - Most Critical First.

** Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method**

Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points

Point X-Surf Y-Surf

No. (ft) (ft)

29.33 22.96
2 34.56 20.01

3 40.15 J 7.83
4 45.99 16.46

5 51.97 15.92

6 57.96 16.22

7 63.85 17.36

8 69.52 19.32

9 74.86 22.05

10 79.76 25.51
II 84.13 29.63
12 87.88 34.31

13 90.93 39.48

14 93.23 45.02

15 93.46 45.92

*** .421 ***

231
 Individual data on the J 8 slices

Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake

Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge

Sice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load

No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)

5.2 850.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

2 4.1 1714.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

3 1.5 778.6 .0 27.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

4 5.8 3703.2 .0 461.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

5 .1 50.7 .0 8.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

6 6.0 6493.2 .0 828.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

7 6.0 10553.3 .0 873.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

8 5.9 13771.0 .0 602.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

9 3.0 8155.9 .0 103.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

10 2.0 5843.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

11 .6 1889.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

12 5.3 14892.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

13 4.9 11995.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

14 4.4 8860.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

15 3.7 5778.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

16 3.1 3044.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

17 2.3 931.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

18 .2 11.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

232
 APPENDIX-4
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS OF DHAKA CITY FLOOD
PROTECTION EMBANKMENT

233
FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAlLURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS)
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
FOUNDATION SOIL PARAMETERS USED
======= ========= ======== ============ ========

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

27.00 28.00 31.00 1.07

26.00 28.00 31.00 1.20

26.00 27.00 31.00 1.06

27.00 27.00 31.00 0.99

28.00 27.00 31.00 0.92

FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSLEV (1967)
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS)
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
FOUNDATION SOIL PARAMETERS USED
======= ======== ========= ========== ========

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

27.00 28.00 31.00 1.07

26.00 28.00 31.00 1.20

26.00 27.00 31.00 1.06

27.00 27.00 31.00 0.99

28.00 27.00 31.00 0.92

234
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS)
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
FOUNDATION SOIL PARAMETERS USED
======= ========= ========= =========== ========

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

27.00 28.00 31.00 1.07

26.00 28.00 31.00 1.20

26.00 27.00 31.00 1.06

27.00 27.00 31.00 0.99

28.00 27.00 31.00 0.92

JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS)
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
FOUNDATION SOIL PARAMETERS USED
======= ========= ======== ============ =======

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

28.00 27.00 31.00 0.94

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
=== === ==== ====== ===== ==== ====== ===== ==== ====

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

26.00 29.00 31.00 4.79

25.00 29.00 31.00 4.85

26.00 28.00 31.00 4.44

27.00 28.00 31.00 3.95

235
FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
===============================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS
26.00 29.00 31.00 3.68
25.00 29.00 31.00 3.73
26.00 28.00 31.00 3.37
27.00 28.00 31.00 3.00
FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSELEV (1967)
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
=== === ==== ===== === ==== ===== ===== ==== ====
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

26.00 29.00 31.00 4.79

25.00 29.00 31.00 4.83

26.00 28.00 31.00 4.44

27.00 28.00 31.00 3.94

FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSELEV (1967)
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
======= ========= ======== ============ ========

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.81

25.00 29.00 31.00 3.83

26.00 28.00 31.00 3.51

27.00 28.00 31.00 3.11

236
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
=== === ==== ====== === ===== ===== ==== ==== ===

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

26.00 29.00 31.00 5.01

25.00 29.00 31.00 5.10

26.00 28.00 31.00 4.70

27.00 28.00 31.00 4.16

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
===== ========= ======== =========== ========
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.90

25.00 29.00 31.00 3.97

26.00 28.00 31.00 3.62

27.00 28.00 31.00 3.20

237
SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
======= ========= ========= =========== =======

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM THETA

26.00 29.00 31.00 7.70 5.03 0

26.00 29.00 31.00 6.50 5.20 5

26.00 29.00 31.00 5.50 5.39 10

26.00 29.00 31.00 4.67 5.61 15

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.95 5.86 20

SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)

CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
======= ======== ========= =========== ========

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM THETA

26.00 29.00 31.00 5.16 3.90 0

26.00 29.00 31.00 4.55 4.06 5

26.00 29.00 31.00 4.02 4.24 10

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.55 4.45 15

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.11 4.69 20

238
 i
I.I.<
'"0
E
8
7
6
F,
Fm

::: 5
o:l
I.I.<~
4
.c
c.2:l 3
o:l 5.41
<JJ
'+-<
0 2
•...
0
.•...•
u
1
o:l
I.I.<

0 5 10 15 20
Inclination angle of resultant
inters lice forces e --~C>
From graph factor of safety FS=5.41 at inclination angle e ~10.5"

Figure A.4.1 Plotting of factor of safety F,and Fm with respect to inclination angle of
resultant inter slice forces e, Spencer's method, Location of slip circle
center x-coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, Without considering
seepage, Country side slope of section at 13+900.

239
 •

t.
jj.,
'"0
7
6
F,
Fm
~ 5
jj.,~
4
0
<2:l 3
0:1
'"0
'H 4. ]5
2
•...
0
.•...•
U
1
0:1
jj.,

10 15 20
Inclination angle of resultant
interslice forces 8 (degree)
--~C>
From graph factor of safety FS=4.15 at inclination angle 0 ~862°

Figure AA.2 Plotting of factor of safety Ff and Fm with respect to inclination angle of
resultant inter slice forces e, Spencer's method, Location of slip circle
center x-coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, considering seepage,
Country side slope of section at 13+900.

240
SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)

WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE

DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
RIVERSIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
======= ========= ========== =========== ========
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FF FM THETA

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.49 2.32 0

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.33 2.34 5

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.18 2.36 10

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.03 2.38 15

26.00 29.00 31.00 1.89 2.41 20

SPENCER' S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)

CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
RIVER SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
===============================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FF FM THETA

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.35 2.20 0

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.21 2.22 5

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.07 2.24 10

26.00 29.00 31.00 1.94 2.27 15

26.00 29.00 31.00 1.81 2.29 20

241
 I
~
8
7
6
'"~ 5
~ 4
C Fm Ff
~ 3
oj

'"0
4-<
2
'""
0
~ I 2.33
u
oj

"" r- 4.88 -I
o 5 10 15 20
Inclination angle of resultant
interslice forces e (degree)---r::>
From graph factor of safety FS=2.33 at inclination angle 8 ~4.88°

Figure AA.3 Plotting of factor of safety Ff and Fm with respect to inclination angle of
resultant inter slice forces e, Spencer's method, Location of slip circle
center x-coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, Without considering
seepage, River side slope of section at 13+900.

242
 t
8
7

~ 6
"0

a 5

""'C~ 4
F[
~ 3
Fm
oj

.....'"
0 2
••0
~ 1 2.20
t.l
oj

""'
5 10 15 20
Inclination angle of resultant
interslice forces e (degree) ---I:>
From graph factor of safety FS=2.20 at inclination angle e ~2.83°

Figure AAA Plotting offactor of safetyF[and Fm with respect to inclination angle of

resultant inter slice forces 8, Spencer's method, Location of slip circle
center x-coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, considering seepage,
River side slope of section at 13+900.

243
 MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD
CONSTANT FUNCTION USED
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
RIVERSIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
======= ======== ======== =========== ========
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM Ie
26.00 29.00 31.00 2.26 2.41 0

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.67 2.44 0.1

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.58 2.48 0.2

26.00 29.00 31.00 6.97 2.53 0.3

MORGENSTERN AND PRICE METHOD

CONSTANT FUNCTION USED
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE
DHAKA CITY FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
RIVER SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 13+900
======= ======== ========= =========== ========
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM Ie
• 26.00 29.00 31.00 2.14 2.29 0

26.00 29.00 31.00 2.53 2.32 0.1

26.00 29.00 31.00 3.38 2.36 0.2

26.00 29.00 31.00 6.54 2.41 0.3

244
 i
~s 6
"Cl
8
7

Ff
l::: 5
'"
~~
4 Fm
.c
~ 3
'"
en
'+-<
0 2
•...
•...u
0
1
~'"

.2 .3 .4
Scaling Factor A--~C>
From graph factor of safety FS=2.40 at ;\,=0.0038

Figure A.4.5 Plotting of factor of safety Fr and Fm with respect to scaling factor A,
Morgenstern and Price method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, Without considering
seepage, River side slope of section at 13+900.

245

,.
 1
8
7

~
6
'"0
a 5
~ 4
.0
~ 3
o:l
'Jl
<...,
0 2
•...
0
.•...
u
1 2.28
o:l
•••••

0 .1 .2 .3 .4

Scaling Factor A --~C>

From graph factor of safety FS=2.28 at A =0.04

Figure AA.6 Plotting of factor of safety Fr and Fm with respect to scaling factor le,
Morgenstern and Price method, Location of slip circle center x-
coordinate 26, y-coordinate 29 and radius 31, Dhaka city flood
protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, considering seepage,
River side slope of section at 13+900.

246
 APPENDIX-5
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS OF DND FLOOD PROTECTION
EMBANKMENT

247
ELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE BUT NO SUBMERGENCE
=================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 0.65

11.28 12.20 12.20 0.70

11.28 11.89 12.20 0.68

11.58 11.89 12.20 0.64

11.89 11.89 12.20 0.59

11.89 12.20 12.20 0.61

11.89 12.50 12.20 0.63

11.58 12.50 12.20 0.68

11.28 12.50 12.20 0.72

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULARFAI SURFACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE
=================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.33

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.36

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.39

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.36

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.34

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.31

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.26

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.27

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.30

248
FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSLEV (1967)
CIRCULAR FAl SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
CONSIDERING SEEP. BUT NO SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 0.71

11.28 12.20 12.20 0.76

11.28 11.89 12.20 0.75

11.58 11.89 12.20 0.71

11.89 11.89 12.20 0.66

11.89 12.20 12.20 0.67

11.89 12.50 12.20 0.68

11.58 12.50 12.20 0.72

11.28 12.50 12.20 0.76

FELLENIUS METHOD
MODIFIED BY TURNBULL AND HVORSLEV (1967)
CIRCULAR FAI SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.33

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.36

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.39

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.36

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.34

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.31

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.26

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.27

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.30

249
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURFACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE BUT NO SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 0.63

11.28 12.20 12.20 0.71

11.28 11.89 12.20 0.70

11.58 11.89 12.20 0.63

11.89 11.89 12.20 0.54

11.89 12.20 12.20 0.56

11.89 12.50 12.20 0.59

11.58 12.50 12.20 0.66

11.28 12.50 12.20 0.72

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

CIRCULAR FAI SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.49

11.28 . 12.20 12.20 1.52

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.58

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.54

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.52

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.47

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.40

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.41

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.44

250
JANBU'S'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE BUT NO SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 0.64

11.28 12.20 12.20 0.70

I I .28 11.89 12.20 0.68

11.58 11.89 12.20 0.62

11.89 I I .89 12.20 0.55

11.89 12.20 12.20 0.57

11.89 12:50 12.20 0.61

11.58 12:50 12.20 0.67

11.28 12.50 12.20 0.72

JANBU'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

CIRCULAR FAI SURFACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.38

1I .28 12.20 12.20 1.41

11.28 1 I .89 12.20 1.46

I 1.58 11.89 12.20 1.43

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.41

I I .89 12.20 12.20 1.37

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.32

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.33

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.36

{
251 \

,
JANBU'S RIGOROUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE BUT NO SUBMERGENCE
========================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FO FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 0.61 0.68

11.28 12.20 12.20 0.67 0.74

11.28 11.89 12.20 0.65 0.73

11.58 11.89 12.20 0.60 0.67

11.89 11.89 12.20 0.52 0.61

11.89 12.20 12.20 0.55 0.62

11.89 12.50 12.20 0.59 0.65

11.58 12.50 12.20 0.64 0.70

11.28 12.50 12.20 0.70 0.76

JANBU'S RIGOROUS METHOD

CIRCULAR FAI SURFACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE
=================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FO FS

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.33 1.41

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.36 1.50

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.41 1.49

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.38 1.46

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.36 1.44

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.32 1.40

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.26 1.34

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.27 1.35

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.30 1.39

252

,.
 ,. 1

SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULARFAI SURFACE (EFF STRANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE, THETA=Oo
=======================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.33 1.32

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.36 1.35

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.41 1.41

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.38 1.38

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.37 1.36

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.32 1.30

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.27 1.24

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.28 1.25

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.31 1.28

SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURFACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE, THETA=5°
=======================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.28 1.34

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.31 1.37

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.35 1.44

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.32 1.41

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.31 1.39

,
11.89 12.20 12.20 1.27 1.33

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.23 1.26

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.24 1.27

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.26 1.30

253
SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURF ACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
o
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE, THETA=10
=======================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.22 1.37

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.24 1.40

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.26 1.47

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.24 1.44

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.23 1.42

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.21 1.36

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.18 1.29

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.19 1.30

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.22 1.33

SPENCER'S METHOD
CIRCULAR FAI SURFACE (EFF STR ANA)
DND FLOOD PROTECTION EMBANKMENT
COUNTRY SIDE SLOPE OF SECTION AT 6
WITHOUT CONSIDERING SEEPAGE AND SUBMERGENCE, THETA=15°
=======================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FF FM

11.58 12.20 12.20 1.13 1.41

11.28 12.20 12.20 1.14 1.44

11.28 11.89 12.20 1.12 1.51

11.58 11.89 12.20 1.12 1.48

11.89 11.89 12.20 1.11 1.46

11.89 12.20 12.20 1.12 1.39

11.89 12.50 12.20 1.12 1.32

11.58 12.50 12.20 1.13 1.33

11.28 12.50 12.20 1.14 1.36

-.',: .'.
1--,' .

, ",
.~(

254 \
"
"~;--.-
 1.29

5 10 15 20
Inclination angle of resultant
interslice forces 8 (degree) ---[>
From graph factor of safety FS= 1.29 at inclination angle 8 ~32°

Figure A.5.1 Plotting of factor of safety Ffand Fm with respect to inclination angle of
resultant inter slice forces 8, Spencer's method, Location of slip circle
center x-coordinate 11.58, y-coordinate 12.20 and radius 12.20, DND
flood protection embankment, Effective stress analysis, Without
considering seepage, Country side slope of section at 6.
. .•
.,~':',
........
255 (
 APPENDIX-6
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS OF ZALESINA LANDSLIDE,
ZAGREB, YUGOSLAVIA.

"
256
 .I

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION AA

c=O <1>=18.5° CONDITION FOR STABILITY

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 1.308

199.00 800.00 150.00 1.317

199.00 799.00 150.00 1.319

200.00 799.00 150.00 1.314

201.00 799.00 150.00 1.301

201.00 800.00 150.00 1.299

201.00 801.00 150.00 1.300

200.00 801.00 150.00 1.306

199.00 801.00 150.00 1.314

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION AA

c=O <1>=21.16° CONDITION FOR SLIDING

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 1.24

199.00 800.00 150.00 1.25

199.00 799.00 150.00 1.25

200.00 799.00 150.00 1.25

201.00 799.00 150.00 1.23

201.00 800.00 150.00 1.23

201.00 801.00 150.00 1.23

200.00 801.00 150.00 1.24

199.00 801.00 150.00 1.25

249.00 850.00 150.00 0.89

250.00 850.00 150.00 0.89

257
 /I
• 1

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION AA

c=O ~ ~ 18.5° CONDITION FOR STABILITY

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 2.280

199.00 800.00 150.00 2.306

199.00 799.00 150.00 2.328

200.00 799.00 150.00 2.317

201.00 799.00 150.00 2.293

201.00 800.00 150.00 2.273

201.00 801.00 150.00 2.261

200.00 801.00 150.00 2.267

199.00 801.00 150.00 2.286

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION AA

c=O ~= 21.16° CONDITION FOR SLIDING

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 2.40

199.00 800.00 150.00 2.43

199.00 799.00 150.00 2.45

200.00 799.00 150.00 2.44

201.00 799.00 150.00 2.41

201.00 800.00 150.00 2.39

201.00 801.00 150.00 2.38

200.00 801.00 150.00 2.38

199.00 801.00 150.00 2.40

279.00 870.00 150.00 0.97

280.00 870.00 150.00 0.96

258
 r

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION BB

c=O ~=24.66° CONDITION FOR STABILITY

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 0.627

199.00 800.00 150.00 0.631

199.00 799.00 150.00 0.632

200.00 799.00 150.00 0.628

201.00 799.00 150.00 0.624

201.00 800.00 150.00 0.624

201.00 801.00 150.00 0.623

200.00 801.00 150.00 0.626

199.00 801.00 150.00 0.630

150 760.00 150.00 1.100

151 760.00 150.00 1.080

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION BB

c=O ~=27.66 CONDITION FOR SLIDING

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 0.430

199.00 800.00 150.00 0.437

199.00 799.00 150.00 0.436

200.00 799.00 150.00 0.429

201.00 799.00 150.00 0.423

201.00 800.00 150.00 0.424 .,

201.00 801.00 150.00 0.425 "
'""
200.00 801.00 150.00 0.431

199.00 801.00 150.00 0.438

",

259
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION BB

c=O 4>=24.66° CONDITION OF STABILITY

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 1.20

199.00 800.00 150.00 1.20

199.00 799.00 150.00 1.22

200.00 799.00 150.00 1.21

201.00 799.00 150.00 1.21

201.00 800.00 150.00 1.19

201.00 801.00 150.00 1.18

200.00 801.00 150.00 1.18

199.00 801.00 150.00 1.18

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION BB

c=O 4>=27.66° CONDITION FOR SLIDING

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADlUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 150.00 1.14

199.00 800.00 150.00 1.15

199.00 799.00 150.00 1.17

200.00 799.00 150.00 1.16

201.00 799.00 150.00 1.16

201.00 800.00 150.00 1.14

201.00 801.00 150.00 1.12

200.00 801.00 150.00 1.13

199.00 801.00 150.00 1.13

209.00 810.00 150.00 0.93

210.00 810.00 150.00 0.92

260
FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION CC

c=O <1>=24.80°CONDITION FOR STABILITY

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 100.00 0.779

199.00 800.00 100.00 0.794

199.00 799.00 100.00 0.788

200.00 799.00 100.00 0.776

201.00 799.00 100.00 0.766

201.00 800.00 100.00 0.770

201.00 801.00 100.00 0.770

200.00 801.00 100.00 0.785

199.00 801.00 100.00 0.794

170.00 780.00 100.00 1.190

171.00 780.00 100.00 1.170

FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION CC

c=O <1>=28.16°CONDITION FOR SLIDING

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 100.00 0.439

199.00 800.00 100.00 0.453

199.00 799.00 100.00 0.447

200.00 799.00 100.00 0.434

201.00 799.00 100.00 0.421

201.00 800.00 100.00 0.427

201.00 801.00 100.00 0.431

200.00 801.00 100.00 0.445

199.00 801.00 100.00 0.457 ' .

,o~/"'r

~, ,I
" I( "
1','/
-\

261
\ '

"'. ".-_-r:

, r-'
;t~i,'.. "'r

\,"',
'~
\
BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION CC

c=O ~=24.80o CONDITION OF STABILITY

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 100.00 1.21

199.00 800.00 100.00 1.24

199.00 799.00 100.00 1.25

200.00 799.00 100.00 1.22

201.00 799.00 100.00 1.21

201.00 800.00 100.00 1.20

201.00 801.00 100.00 1.18

200.00 801.00 100.00 1.21

199.00 801.00 100.00 1.22

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD

CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION CC

c=O ~~28.16° CONDITION FOR SLIDING

==================================

EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 100.00 1.07

199.00 800.00 100.00 1.10

199.00 799.00 100.00 1.10

200.00 799.00 100.00 1.08

201.00 799.00 100.00 1.06

201.00 800.00 100.00 1.05

201.00 801.00 100.00 1.03

200.00 801.00 100.00 1.06

199.00 801.00 100.00 1.08

209.00 810.00 100.00 0.80

210.00 810.00 100.00 0.78 ~",~r'

, ~(
'.:
262 .}~/
.<,,\>:......
'
\"','
"
FELLENIUS METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURF ACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION CC

c~O ~=31.5° RING SHEAR TEST DATA

==================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 100.00 0.503

199.00 800.00 100.00 0.519

199.00 799.00 100.00 0.512

200.00 799.00 100.00 0.496

201.00 799.00 100.00 0.482

201.00 800.00 100.00 0.489

201.00 801.00 100.00 0.494

200.00 801.00 100.00 0.509

199.00 801.00 100.00 0.523

BISHOP'S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
CIRCULAR FAILURE SURFACE (EFFECTIVE STRESS ANAL YS1S)
CONSIDERING SEEPAGE, NO SUBMERGENCE
ZALESINA LANDSLIDE, ZAGREB, SECTION CC

c=O ~=31.5° RING SHEAR TEST DATA

==================================
EAST(X) NORTH(Y) RADIUS(R) FS

200.00 800.00 100.00 1.22

199.00 800.00 100.00 1.26

199.00 799.00 100.00 1.26

200.00 799.00 100.00 1.24

201.00 799.00 100.00 1.22

201.00 800.00 100.00 1.21

201.00 801.00 100.00 1.18

200.00 801.00 100.00 1.21

199.00 801.00 100.00 1.23

209.00 810.00 100.00

210.00 810.00 100.00

~'2'
. .""\':-'--
263