This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Types of slips Procedure for estimating stability Total stress analysis Rotational analysis Effects of tension crack Partly submerged slopes Rapid draw-down Estimation of stability (Taylor) Undrained cohesive soil Frictional resistance Layered soil Location of the critical circle Effective stress analysis Soil strength considerations Effective strength parameters Total stress conditions Method of slices Swedish method Bishop‟s method Summary of methods of slices Choice of factor of safety Cuttings in over-consolidated clays REFERENCES
STABILITY OF SLOPES
The degradation of natural or artificial slopes (in deep cut excavations or high embankments) is the result of mass movements which occur chiefly owing to the action of gravitational forces, sometimes supplemented by earthquake forces. The downward movement of rock or soil masses occurs when the equilibrium is disturbed along a certain plane (within the slope) and the shear stresses along it exceed the available shearing resistance; this can occur as the result of either an increase in the shear stresses or a reduction or deterioration of the shear strength. A distribution of landslides (nearly 7000) in the UK is shown in Fig.1A. The manner in which a slope fails is chiefly controlled by the following factors; geological hydrological topographical climatic conditions extent of weathering of rocks / soils This results in a great variety of types of mass movements see Fig.1 below. 1.1 Types of slips
Figure 1 Basic types of mass movement Falls are usually associated with short-term failure of steep slopes (in artificial excavations or river banks) usually in rock with vertical joints, Fig.1(a). As the lateral support is removed, bulging occurs at the slope foot and tension cracks open behind its crest, usually along the pre-existing fissures. This leads to progressive increase of stresses in the root of the separating mass and to the eventual collapse; the process is frequently accelerated by water entering the tension cracks.
Slope Stability v1.00 October 2010
Figure 1A Landslide distribution in the UK -3- Slope Stability v1.00 October 2010 .
1(d). the latter are glacier-like in form whereas the former are considered to be transitional in character between the slides and mud flows.1(c). In these circumstances pre-existing slip planes (slickensides) are usually present along which the shear strength is only a fraction of the strength of the intact soil. Fig. The failure surface is approximately planar and parallel to the ground surface. Fig. Translational slides generally result from the presence of a heterogeneity. The slipping mass slumps. The typical features of landslide areas are the following: a) The presence of depressions and bulges on natural slopes. From the slope stability point of view the most dangerous conditions are encountered in areas where in the past the soils have been deformed and folded by tectonic activities or ice advances or where previous mass movements have taken place. a compound slide of partly rotational and partly translational character may occur. Vol 2 Chapter 3.1(b).1 pp73-74 [Book out of print]. Approximately circular rotational slips are associated with cut slopes of uniform clays whereas noncircular rotational slips with natural slopes of over-consolidated clays in which weathering has produced a softened upper layer. Above information may be found in Z Wiln and K Starzewski 1972. Fig.g. -4- Slope Stability v1. located at shallow depth beneath the slope. c) The existence of springs on slopes and outcrops of water-bearing strata.00 October 2010 . In summary. section 3. Skempton and Hutchinson (1969) differentiate between earth flows and mud flows. in the form of a weak soil layer. sinking at the rear and heaving at the toe. b) The presence of deformed trees with trunks bent in random directions. d) The existence of slickensides and deformed layers of clays (these can be best observed in trial pits or by breaking down undisturbed tube samples).Rotational slides occur characteristically in slopes of fairly uniform clay. adding a surcharge) OR A deterioration of soil strength over a number of years (20 100 years) OR A combination of the above These notes cover the analysis of rotational circular slips. Flows are mass movements in which there are no well-defined failure planes. The failure surface is curved and usually deep seated. If the plane of weakness is at a moderate depth beneath the slope. a slip can occur due to (A) (B) (C) An increase in shear stress (e.
.Determine the number. . Shearing resistance of soil . section 16.Soil strength equation for. gravity acting on body of soil super-imposed loads (if any) seepage force due to water flow (if any) earthquake forces (not dealt with in these notes) 2.This method of analysis is generally not sensitive to the chosen shape of failure surface. Estimate disturbing forces The components are. ‛f = c‛ + ( where. Method is to analyse various potential failure surfaces to determine which has the lowest F. . .A circular arc is chosen because it is the simplest to analyse and is usually sufficiently accurate. F.00 October 2010 . Select appropriate analysis There are 2 approaches. [These notes consider limit state analysis in detail] -5- Slope Stability v1.u) tan ‛ = shearing resistance at failure.2 Procedure for estimating stability There are 3 steps in process of estimating stability: 1. = F f REF: DW Taylor.1. (a) Limit state equilibrium: Determines the overall stability of the sliding mass. f = cu + n n tan u effective stress.Include a factor of safety. 1948 Fundamentals of soil Mechanics. f . thickness and average strength parameters of each soil layer.6 pp 414417 describes in detail how different F values for Fc and F may be combined 3. total stress. to limit the maximum mobilised shearing resistance on a failure plane.
Undrained conditions apply (i. 2.NOTE: The computed critical failure arc may not coincide with the actual failure surface. their factor of safety (F) values will be similar. . to find which potential failure circle has the lowest F value. G = centre of gravity Length of arc. if Sr=1 then u =0 ). O and radii.The excess pore water pressure due to loading has not had time to dissipate to any extent. o .e.1. i.B.e. during or at end of construction). Figure 2 Rotational analysis Where. but its potential accuracy is limited by the highly variable and nonlinear characteristics of most soils. Finite element analysis is a powerful analytical tool.00 October 2010 . R (see Fig. A-B = R x rad = R x o π / 180 -6- Slope Stability v1. 2.Soil strength parameters are cu and u (N.0 Rotational Analysis A series of trial slip surfaces with various centres of rotation. however.2) are analysed to determine the most critical combination of O and R values. (b) Stress analysis: [Not covered in these notes] Uses the principles of elasticity to evaluate stress and strain throughout a slope.0 TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS (Stability of cohesive soils) .
this causes an extra thrust adding to the disturbing moment (lever arm.Taking moments about O.1 Effect of Tension Crack A tension crack. C-D in Fig.3.5 γw zc2 yc 2 -7- Slope Stability v1. zc. see CD in Fig. = 0. zc = 2cu γ It is likely that the tension crack will fill water . cu R2 c (π / 180) F= Wtdt + 0. yc). regular inspections of the ground behind the crest is advisable when a cutting is being excavated. to a maximum height.1.00 October 2010 .3. Figure 3 Rotational analysis with tension crack Cohesive soil can support a vertical face. always develops behind the crest of a slope as failure start to occur in cohesive soil.5 γw zc yc NOTE: The tension crack reduces the weight of the arc to Wt and its lever arm to dt and the sector angle to c radians. W d = cu R rad R = cu R2 rad [NB analysis for a 1m wide strip of arc AB] F= 2 Restraining moment c R rad = u Disturbing moment Wd 2. Therefore.
2.e. use submerged unit weight.3 Rapid Drawdown If the retained water is quickly lowered there is no water pressure on the face of the slope. resisting movement about O). W = total weight of soil and water in area B W‛ = submerged weight of soil particles in area A The pressure of water provides and additional restoring moment (i. cu R2 (π/180) F = (w x d) + (wsat x d‛) -8- Slope Stability v1.2 Partly submerged slopes Figure 4 Partly submerged slope In the above diagram.00 October 2010 .1.81 kN/m2 w cu R2 (π/180) (w x d) + (w‛ x d‛) F = 2. Thus sat is now used for area A moment and since the moment of cohesion is not altered the F value will be lowered .possibly to < 1 and failure. This moment exactly balances the moment (about O) of a mass of water filling the space below the external water level and above the rupture surface. Also water levels (in the slope) immediately after draw down remain constant. Therefore. = ( sat .1. sub to allow for external water level.w) sub where = 9.
A = 102. sector angle.0m as shown below.0 vertical : 1. is excavated in saturated clay to a vertical height of 10. [1.44:1.5 horizontal. given.06o area of slipped mass.64m2 lever arm. θ = 84.50 kN/m3 40. saturated unit weight. sector angle.0 kN/m2 Using the trial slip circle shown in the diagram.00 October 2010 . d = 5. γ undrained cohesion. cu = = 18.Class example 1 A cutting. with side slopes of 1.86m c) Allowing for a water filled tension crack. d = 6. θc = 67.54m b) Allowing for a dry tension crack. given.1m2 lever arm.85:1. Soil properties are as follows. determine the factor of safety against short term failure for each of the following conditions: a) Ignoring the tension crack.66] -9- Slope Stability v1.44o area of slipped mass. A = 71.
Fig.2. Sr<1). Ns = F H Note: Ns is the same for slopes of similar geometry in DIFFERENT soils. for (saturated clay. u=0 soils Figure 5 Taylor’s chart . Ns = For a “safe” design. Sr=1) and u>0 (partly saturated soils.00 October 2010 .5 that relates Ns to angle of slope. cu Stability number.e. only just stable) Stability number.10 - Slope Stability v1. β. Taylor devised a chart. F.1 For undrained cohesive soil ( resisting force = 0o) = cu x arc length (l) which is proportional to H (H = vertical height of slope) = x area of sector which is proportional to H2 disturbing force cu H c = u 2 H H The above equation is for a F of S = 1 (i. we must include a factor of safety.2 Rapid estimation of stability Taylor (1948) u 2.2.
5 Taylor extended his analysis to enable the influence of a hard stratum at depth DH to be found more accurately. thus lowering Ns value (i.00 October 2010 . makes slope more stable) see dashed lines Fig. and DH where D = depth factor Note the following features.The inset defines parameters H.Gives the Ns value for the most critical failure circle .11 - Slope Stability v1. see Fig. rock) may limit the depth of penetration of failure circle.A firm stratum (hard clay. Figure 6 Extended Taylor’s chart .At < 54 the failure circle will pass below the level of the toe .6.Toe failures occur > 54 in u = O soil . .e.
u = 0o Unit weight. but the value of frictional resistance is not constant along slip surface.25 against short term failure. only just above 1) whether a more rigorous analysis is required.0 kN/m3 Estimate the factor of safety against short term failure.0kN/m2 Undrained angle of friction.2 Frictional resistance in undrained soil ( u>0 ) For example. It does NOT provide information on the location of „O‟ or length of radius „R. is constructed of compacted clay soil and rests on a strong foundation soil.- also shows where the failure plane will emerge in from of toe.00 October 2010 . cu = 25. Taylor‟s method is an approximate analysis intended for feasibility studies on temporary works.0m below the floor of the cutting. see inset (a) [If this is of any use!] NOTE: 1. cu n tan u = + Fc F A working value of F can be found by successive approximations. [18o] 2.g.35] . A factor of safety must now apply to the frictional component also.‟ Class example 2 A cutting in a saturated clay has a vertical height of 10. It provides an indication of F and if low (i. Hard bedrock is located at a depth of 6. 2. [1. Frictional resistance must be taken into account.0 kN/m2 Undrained angle of friction. u = 20.12 - Slope Stability v1. Undrained cohesion. clay fill used in embankments).0kN/m3 Determine the maximum safe slope that will provide a factor of safety of 1. The embankment soil has the following properties.0m. = 19. Undrained cohesion. The clay has the following properties.0o Unit weight.0m. partly saturated soils (e. = 16. as shown in the solution to Class example 3 Class example 3 An earth embankment with side slopes of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal and vertical height of 31.2. cu = 34.e.
2. Taylor‟s curves. however.4 Location of the critical circle F av H The most critical circle (as defined by the location of centre of rotation. R) is the one for which the calculated factor of safety has the lowest value. 8 shows a chart (taken from Whitlow.2. .00 October 2010 .2. give no indication of where the centre of rotation is located.13 - Slope Stability v1. 2001. O and radius.use weighted B and sat for the two areas. although toe failures are likely in a slope where >54 and u = 0 Fig.3 Layered soil Figure 7 Non-homogeneous soil Note: B < sat The mirror images in the lower part of slope counterbalance each other so the net disturbing force is provided by areas A and B. p371) from which an indication of the most critical circle can be obtained as a starting point for detailed analysis. B) av = (A x + (B x A+B cu sat) Use Ns = 2. For av .
00 October 2010 .8 would not apply.14 - Slope Stability v1.Figure 8 Approximate location of critical circle The above chart applies to saturated (undrained conditions) uniform clay soil. so that a result from Fig. For a given slope angle β. . values of Xc/H and Yc/H are read off the chart and converted to Xc and Yc coordinates measured from the toe NOTE:A hard stratum at or just below toe level will limit the depth of the slip circle.
are obtained from either: or (i) (ii) Fully drained triaxial tests. 2) Long term (effective stress analysis) . a) b) low permeability (k) of clay and large volume (hence long drainage paths) of soil in a slope.p. . ‟.When du returns to 0 clay soil is at its “strongest” The strength parameters.As du dissipates more of shear force is carried by soil structure.w. 1 are changes in total principal stress See Note set “THE PORE PRESSURE PARAMETERS A and B” which outlines. (1) Principles of effective stress (2) Derivation of pore pressure parameters (3) Soil tests for A and B.1 EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS Soil Strength Considerations Any change in total stress ( ) in a saturated cohesive soil immediately alters pore water pressure (p. But du takes a long time to dissipate because of.) by an amount du (termed the excess p. Applied load carried initially by increased porewater pressure The du that is developed due to a change in total stress is given by Skempton‟s (1954) equation. 1) Short term (total stress analysis) During or at end of construction du at maximum. For an excavated slope there are 3 stability conditions which need to be evaluated. . with respect to effective stress. du = B[ 3 + A( 1 - 3)] A and B are pore pressure parameters 3. .w.After many years (5-10-20 or longer) du = 0 and all load is carried by the soil particle as effective stress.00 October 2010 .3. c‛ and ‛. Consolidated undrained tests with pore pressure measurement.p.0 3.).15 - Slope Stability v1.
The concept of residual strength is discussed in R Whitlow. 2001. or (i) (ii) Fully drained triaxial tests.g.when du = 0 Possible future loading conditions e. parameters depend on.2 Effective Strength Parameters c‛ and ‛ are obtained from either. construction / placing fill / removal of toe. Pore water pressure results from.g.p.w. See also Fig.p.Coarse soils (clean or <5%. 7.g.100 years +.3) Long term (heavily over-consolidated soils) Weathering from the surface downwards causes the strength of heavily over-consolidated soils to deteriorate over a long period of time. . Granular Soils . k.change in total stress du – a consequent change in p. section 7. London.3. . geologically „old‟ cays become weaker (e. during construction.w.thus a ‛ analysis is used at all times. Consolidated undrained tests with p. measurement. i) (ii) (iii) Static water level with/without Conditions of steady seepage and/or Changes in total stress. d and t . fines) have a high permeability. 3. During construction (controlling du) Immediately after construction Long term . p 254-56 (describes tests to measure residual strength). 20 . Gault and Kimmeridge Clays). It is essential that the du due to construction is predicted. value.13.du full dissipates AS is applied (e. p.) . Soil strength reduces from a “peak” value (Sf)to a constant “residual” value (Sr).00 October 2010 .213.16 - Slope Stability v1. c‛ and ‛.
. until the air dissolves when u becomes zero. then u >0o (see Fig.If a clay soil is partially saturated. see Fig.3 Total stress conditions Applies during or immediately after construction. Applies to saturated clay soils.10) and stability may be analysed to include a friction component in addition to cohesion. Conditions are similar to the undrained triaxial test.00 October 2010 .9 Figure 9 Failure envelope of fully saturated clay .17 - Slope Stability v1. compacted clay. Figure 10 Failure envelope of partly saturated clay NOTE: u t is not constant as air readily compresses as total stress. dissipation.w. e. increases.p.g. . There is a lack of p.3.
N = total normal stress N‛ = effective normal stress l = chord length of slice (NOTE: this is not a one “1”) N‛ depends on total weight of slice and pore pressure (u) at base. O R b h l xn zn W N N‛ u T = = = = = = = = = = = = centre of rotation radius of failure arc width of slice average height of slice chord length horizontal lateral force between slices (total stress) vertical shear force between slices (total stress) weight of slice (total stress) normal stress vector (total stress) normal stress vector (effective stress) water pressure at centre of base of slice shear stress .ul) tan ‛ Where.3. N‛ tan ‛ = (N .xn) affects shear force T on the base of a slice.Various approximate solutions (“methods”) take x and z account to an increasing extent and therefore become more accurate. A complicating factor is that the slices are not physically separated.4 Method of Slices The soil mass above the potential arc A-B in Fig. x) act between slices In practice it is difficult to evaluate x and z. the factor of safety on soil strength is defined by the expression. is divided into an arbitrary number of vertical slices (It simplifies analysis if they are mostly the same width). - . z and lateral. Forces (vertical.zn) affects the vertical weight of a slice. f - F - = c‛ ( + F n – u) tan ‛ F The frictional resistance at the base of each slice varies and is given by.00 October 2010 . NOTE:(zn+1 .11. (xn+1 . In terms of effective stress. 11 and 12. Symbols used in Figs.18 - Slope Stability v1.
19 - Slope Stability v1.00 October 2010 .Figure 11 Principle of slices Figure 12 Polygon of forces acting on a slice .
00 October 2010 . + N‛tan ‛) rad rad R(c‛R + N‛tan ‛) R T top “R” outside bracket cancels out with lower “R” R rad = length of arc A-B .Two “methods” of analysis (Swedish and Bishop‟s) are detailed below: 3. are equal and opposite and act parallel to tangent of failure arc.BUT N‛ and T are not convenient quantities and are replaced by. N‛ and T = = W cos W sin . Thus the resultant of inter-slice forces is zero.B. Ln+1 Ln Centre line . . 1936) Assumes that Ln and Ln+1 (see below) the resultants of zn and xn etc.1 The Swedish method (Also known as the Fellenius Method.The solution UNDERESTIMATES F by 5 -> 20% depending on slope geometry (compared to more accurate methods).However it is not approximately true for slices near A and B.Clearly the lateral force assumption for the centre slice in Fig.Also assumes base of slice is the chord. “0”.11 is reasonable.4. . disturbing moment = R T restraining moment = R(c‛R Hence F = N.20 - Slope Stability v1. . Solution Taking moments about centre of rotation.ul .
F = C‛R rad + (Wcos Wsin .00 October 2010 . 6th Ed . It is common practice to select a grid of centers.21 - Slope Stability v1.10.ul) tan ‛ N. Contours of F can then be drawn above the slope. . for general comments.B. 5. Smith.13.p161/162 “Location of the most critical circle” and Fig.Hence. Total stress analysis can be applied to this method and if F = NOTE: cuR rad Wsin u =0 The objective is to find the most critical centre and radius for a given slope. see Fig. (based on experience) and find critical radius. Figure 13 Location of critical circle REF: G. N.
8 m.22 - Slope Stability v1.97] .8 has a width of 3.0 m and No. [0. 1 -7 have a width. Assume the unit weight of the soil has the same value above and below the water table.0 kN/m2 ‛ = 28o Unit weight. b. of 3.00 October 2010 . c‟ = 10. Strength with respect to effective stress. = 18.Class example 4 Determine by means of the Swedish method the long term factor of safety for the trial slip circle shown in the diagram below.0 kN/m3 Note that slices No. Soil properties are.
2 Bishop’s method [also known as Bishop‟s (1955) Conventional method] Figure 14 Interslice forces ASSUMES: The resultant of the forces acting on the sides of any slice is horizontal. = n= n c‛ + ( n – u) tan ‛ F stress (total) normal to a failure surface = N/l on base of slice (NB .00 October 2010 . there is NO net force in the vertical direction T= Where c‛ l N‛tan ‛ + F F l = length of base of slice in metres (see B-C above) N = N‛ + ul And the shear strength mobilised.1m thick) = 1 F [c‛ + (N/l – u) tan ‛] xl Shear resistance of whole of base of a slice = .23 - Slope Stability v1. i.4.e.3.
can be used to represent u.24 Slope Stability v1.00 October 2010 . sec = 1/cos r W u= u sec l Thus. ru = (10 x 5)/(20 x 5) = 0. the final conventional Bishop equation becomes F= 1 Wsin [c‛l + W(cos – rusec )tan ‛] The Bishop conventional solution under-estimates F by 5% to 30% (deep seated failure) compared to more accurate methods. W u = ru z = ru b Now b = l cos W u = ru l cos Given that.p in a slope. pore water pressure U = total stress z = unit weight z = depth to an element of soil Typically saturated soil has a unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and water 10 kN/m3 (approx). . The water pressure at the base of a slice is given by. ru. disturbing moment = restoring moment Wx = TR Wx = lR Wx = F= Given that.w.5 is a reasonable “guestimate”. say 5m.At equilibrium.5 Given that ru is a measure of the average p. 0. F= 1 F [c‛l + (N – ul)tan ‛] [c‛l + (N – ul)tan ‛] and x = Rsin 1 Wx N = Wcos 1 [c‛l + W(cos – ul)tan ‛] Wsin (Note: This is an equivalent expression to the Swedish method) Pore pressure ratio. ru = Where. thus for an element of soil at a depth of.
I. ii) . uncertainty about the design parameters. can be large (up to 60%). drains or road surfaces) or where the period of exposure is short (e.00 October 2010 . A lower factor when instabilities are localised requiring simple remedial measures (pipes. Confidence in the information available: As a result of complexity of the ground conditions. Potential future changes to water table levels must also be considered (see below). e.Interslice forces are considered to be horizontal.Class example 5 Determine. i) Consequences of failure: A higher factor would be chosen where there is a risk to life and/or adjacent structures.08] 3.25 - Slope Stability v1. Bishop‟s Rigorous Method (Not covered in these notes) .Satisfies conditions of vertical and horizontal and moment equilibrium for whole slipped mass. information. . .5 Summary of methods of analysis Swedish Circle Method .g. Bishop‟s Conventional Method .Assumes inter-slice forces are parallel but not necessarily horizontal. . . the long term factor of safety for the trial slip circle shown in Class Example 4.g. [1. temporary works).This method is preferred for steep slopes. in-adequacy of the S. . 4.Thus for > 0o soils F of S values are on low side compared to methods below.Satisfies conditions of overall vertical equilibrium (but not horizontal).The resultant errors are generally small and on safe side. .Should not use for submerged slopes or where earthquakes forces are expected. whilst on safe side.0 CHOICE OF FACTOR OF SAFETY Factors to be considered in making a choice of F value fall into two broad categories. . using Bishop‟s conventional method. pore pressure.NB: For = 0o soils the accuracy is the same as Bishop‟s method. .Interslice forces are ignored.Errors.Note the assumed force distribution does not satisfy conditions of vertical and horizontal equilibrium. .
15 shows the peak (Sf) and residual (Sr) strengths from a ring shear test. Table 1 shows the magnitude and costs due to minor instability M1.200 Bedfordshire 27 50 45 £36.00 October 2010 . M10 and M45 from opening in 1959 to 1966.26 - Slope Stability v1.20* 1.500 Northamptonshire 45 90 55 £40.c.) clays gradually decreases with time due to weathering. Hertfordshire Length of M-way in county (km) Amount of cutting/embankment. % Number of failures Total expenditure (1966 prices) 27 80 7 £10. Fig. clay .20* 1.5* 1.30* 1.c.0 i) CUTTINGS IN OVERCONSOLIDATED CLAYS The strength of freshly exposed over-consolidated (o.End of construction (embankments & cuttings) Long term steady state seepage condition After sudden drawdown Slides where pre-existing surfaces exist Natural slope of long standing Spoil tip Problems involving buildings 1. Figure 15 Stress – strain curve for an o.BUT at strains much larger than occur during initiation of failure. This test is designed to measure residual strength .20 1.10 – 1.25 – 1.0 *BS 6031 (1981) Code of practice for earthworks 5.5 2.000 These are shallow failures due to surface weathering Deeper major failures can occur after longer period (50-100 yrs) ii) iii) Time dependent softening is not measured in a standard test.
8 kN/M2 ‛ from 20 to 17 Residual strength (for c‛ and ‛) are the only available parameters to use for long term stability.majority of slopes are below 10 ! Figure 17 Histograms of angles of natural slopes in the London Clay . ‛ is also reduced by Figure 16 Strength envelopes for an o. a few degrees.00 October 2010 .c.c.) see Fig.27 - Slope Stability v1. c‛ from 15. . iv) Fig. clay The data below illustrates the reduction in strength in 40+ years.16 shows the loss of cohesion (c‛) residual state.17.3 to 3.NOTE: Also Sr is not a “weathered” residual strength. Morgenstern has looked at natural slopes in London Clay (heavily o.
4 No. A W and Hutchinson.Knowing the age of cuttings of various slope angles which have failed has enabled Morgenstern to determine an idea of the RATE of strength reduction for London Clay see Fig.1.4 Skempton. Figure 18 REFERENCES Rate of progressive reduction in shear strength in the London Clay Bishop. No. Wash. A W (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes Geotechnique.18.4. W (1936) Calculation of the stability of earth dams. Mexico. D C Vol.. R (2001) R Basic soil mechanics 4th Ed Prentice Hall Wilun.28 - Slope Stability v1. Conf. New York Whitlow. Z and Starzewski. J (1969) Stability of natural slopes and embankment foundations Proc.00 October 2010 . pp 445-65 Skempton. pp291-340. WD (1948) Fundamentals of soil Mechanics John Wiley & sons. 5 . . Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 7th Intern. 1 & 2 Intertext. pp 7-17 Fellinius. Taylor. A W (1954) The pore pressure coefficients A and B Geotechnique. “state of the Art” Vol. K (1972) Soil Mechanics in foundation engineering Vol. Trans 2nd Congr Large Dams.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?