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 .
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. 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. 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).g. The typical features of landslide areas are the following: a) The presence of depressions and bulges on natural slopes. located at shallow depth beneath the slope.Rotational slides occur characteristically in slopes of fairly uniform clay.1 pp73-74 [Book out of print]. sinking at the rear and heaving at the toe. In summary. 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. Skempton and Hutchinson (1969) differentiate between earth flows and mud flows. -4- Slope Stability v1. Translational slides generally result from the presence of a heterogeneity. in the form of a weak soil layer. The failure surface is approximately planar and parallel to the ground surface. Above information may be found in Z Wiln and K Starzewski 1972. the latter are glacier-like in form whereas the former are considered to be transitional in character between the slides and mud flows. Vol 2 Chapter 3. Fig. Flows are mass movements in which there are no well-defined failure planes. The slipping mass slumps. a slip can occur due to (A) (B) (C) An increase in shear stress (e. Fig.1(d). 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. If the plane of weakness is at a moderate depth beneath the slope. Fig.1(b). a compound slide of partly rotational and partly translational character may occur. section 3. b) The presence of deformed trees with trunks bent in random directions. c) The existence of springs on slopes and outcrops of water-bearing strata. The failure surface is curved and usually deep seated.1(c).00 October 2010 .
(a) Limit state equilibrium: Determines the overall stability of the sliding mass. ‛f = c‛ + ( where. section 16. . Method is to analyse various potential failure surfaces to determine which has the lowest F.Include a factor of safety. 1948 Fundamentals of soil Mechanics.u) tan ‛ = shearing resistance at failure. . [These notes consider limit state analysis in detail] -5- Slope Stability v1.Determine the number. F. to limit the maximum mobilised shearing resistance on a failure plane.A circular arc is chosen because it is the simplest to analyse and is usually sufficiently accurate.This method of analysis is generally not sensitive to the chosen shape of failure surface. Shearing resistance of soil . . f .00 October 2010 .2 Procedure for estimating stability There are 3 steps in process of estimating stability: 1. 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. Estimate disturbing forces The components are.Soil strength equation for. total stress. Select appropriate analysis There are 2 approaches. . f = cu + n n tan u effective stress. thickness and average strength parameters of each soil layer.1. = F f REF: DW Taylor.6 pp 414417 describes in detail how different F values for Fc and F may be combined 3.
Figure 2 Rotational analysis Where.00 October 2010 .2) are analysed to determine the most critical combination of O and R values.B.NOTE: The computed critical failure arc may not coincide with the actual failure surface. during or at end of construction). G = centre of gravity Length of arc.The excess pore water pressure due to loading has not had time to dissipate to any extent. 2. (b) Stress analysis: [Not covered in these notes] Uses the principles of elasticity to evaluate stress and strain throughout a slope.1. R (see Fig. O and radii.Undrained conditions apply (i. i. but its potential accuracy is limited by the highly variable and nonlinear characteristics of most soils. their factor of safety (F) values will be similar. however. o .e. if Sr=1 then u =0 ).Soil strength parameters are cu and u (N.e. Finite element analysis is a powerful analytical tool.0 TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS (Stability of cohesive soils) . .0 Rotational Analysis A series of trial slip surfaces with various centres of rotation. to find which potential failure circle has the lowest F value. A-B = R x rad = R x o π / 180 -6- Slope Stability v1. 2.
00 October 2010 .this causes an extra thrust adding to the disturbing moment (lever arm.1.Taking moments about O.3. = 0. C-D in Fig. Therefore. 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. yc).5 γw zc2 yc 2 -7- Slope Stability v1.3.5 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.1 Effect of Tension Crack A tension crack. to a maximum height. zc = 2cu γ It is likely that the tension crack will fill water . Figure 3 Rotational analysis with tension crack Cohesive soil can support a vertical face. regular inspections of the ground behind the crest is advisable when a cutting is being excavated. always develops behind the crest of a slope as failure start to occur in cohesive soil. zc. cu R2 c (π / 180) F= Wtdt + 0. see CD in Fig.
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.1. Also water levels (in the slope) immediately after draw down remain constant.00 October 2010 . 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. cu R2 (π/180) F = (w x d) + (wsat x d‛) -8- Slope Stability v1. sub to allow for external water level.2.e. Thus sat is now used for area A moment and since the moment of cohesion is not altered the F value will be lowered .2 Partly submerged slopes Figure 4 Partly submerged slope In the above diagram.possibly to < 1 and failure.3 Rapid Drawdown If the retained water is quickly lowered there is no water pressure on the face of the slope.81 kN/m2 w cu R2 (π/180) (w x d) + (w‛ x d‛) F = 2.1.w) sub where = 9. Therefore. = ( sat . resisting movement about O). use submerged unit weight.
Soil properties are as follows. sector angle. with side slopes of 1.Class example 1 A cutting.00 October 2010 .66] -9- Slope Stability v1.64m2 lever arm. is excavated in saturated clay to a vertical height of 10. [1.44o area of slipped mass.54m b) Allowing for a dry tension crack. saturated unit weight. θc = 67.0 vertical : 1. θ = 84.0m as shown below.1m2 lever arm.85:1. given. d = 6.50 kN/m3 40. given. γ undrained cohesion. A = 102.0 kN/m2 Using the trial slip circle shown in the diagram. determine the factor of safety against short term failure for each of the following conditions: a) Ignoring the tension crack. sector angle.44:1.86m c) Allowing for a water filled tension crack.06o area of slipped mass.5 horizontal. cu = = 18. A = 71. d = 5.
2. only just stable) Stability number. for (saturated clay. Fig. Sr<1). Ns = For a “safe” design. Ns = F H Note: Ns is the same for slopes of similar geometry in DIFFERENT soils.2. β.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.e. u=0 soils Figure 5 Taylor’s chart . cu Stability number.2 Rapid estimation of stability Taylor (1948) u 2.10 - Slope Stability v1. Taylor devised a chart.00 October 2010 . we must include a factor of safety. F. Sr=1) and u>0 (partly saturated soils.5 that relates Ns to angle of slope.
and DH where D = depth factor Note the following features.6. see Fig.e.The inset defines parameters H.A firm stratum (hard clay. makes slope more stable) see dashed lines Fig. .11 - Slope Stability v1.Toe failures occur > 54 in u = O soil . rock) may limit the depth of penetration of failure circle.At < 54 the failure circle will pass below the level of the toe .00 October 2010 .Gives the Ns value for the most critical failure circle . 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. Figure 6 Extended Taylor’s chart .
g.0o Unit weight. Taylor‟s method is an approximate analysis intended for feasibility studies on temporary works.35] . Undrained cohesion. see inset (a) [If this is of any use!] NOTE: 1. Undrained cohesion. [1.12 - Slope Stability v1.0kN/m2 Undrained angle of friction.2 Frictional resistance in undrained soil ( u>0 ) For example.00 October 2010 .0m.25 against short term failure. It does NOT provide information on the location of „O‟ or length of radius „R.0 kN/m2 Undrained angle of friction. only just above 1) whether a more rigorous analysis is required. It provides an indication of F and if low (i. cu n tan u = + Fc F A working value of F can be found by successive approximations. is constructed of compacted clay soil and rests on a strong foundation soil.0m. = 16. cu = 34. = 19.e. The embankment soil has the following properties. The clay has the following properties. clay fill used in embankments). [18o] 2. 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. cu = 25.0 kN/m3 Estimate the factor of safety against short term failure. partly saturated soils (e. Frictional resistance must be taken into account. Hard bedrock is located at a depth of 6. A factor of safety must now apply to the frictional component also.0kN/m3 Determine the maximum safe slope that will provide a factor of safety of 1.- also shows where the failure plane will emerge in from of toe.‟ Class example 2 A cutting in a saturated clay has a vertical height of 10.0m below the floor of the cutting. u = 20. but the value of frictional resistance is not constant along slip surface.2. u = 0o Unit weight. 2.
O and radius. give no indication of where the centre of rotation is located. R) is the one for which the calculated factor of safety has the lowest value.00 October 2010 . 2001.use weighted B and sat for the two areas. p371) from which an indication of the most critical circle can be obtained as a starting point for detailed analysis.13 - Slope Stability v1.2. 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. B) av = (A x + (B x A+B cu sat) Use Ns = 2.2.3 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. 8 shows a chart (taken from Whitlow. For av .2. although toe failures are likely in a slope where >54 and u = 0 Fig.
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. so that a result from Fig.00 October 2010 . For a given slope angle β.Figure 8 Approximate location of critical circle The above chart applies to saturated (undrained conditions) uniform clay soil.14 - Slope Stability v1.8 would not apply. .
But du takes a long time to dissipate because of. du = B[ 3 + A( 1 - 3)] A and B are pore pressure parameters 3. with respect to effective stress. .After many years (5-10-20 or longer) du = 0 and all load is carried by the soil particle as effective stress.w.w.When du returns to 0 clay soil is at its “strongest” The strength parameters.1 EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS Soil Strength Considerations Any change in total stress ( ) in a saturated cohesive soil immediately alters pore water pressure (p. 1 are changes in total principal stress See Note set “THE PORE PRESSURE PARAMETERS A and B” which outlines. For an excavated slope there are 3 stability conditions which need to be evaluated. are obtained from either: or (i) (ii) Fully drained triaxial tests. ‟.As du dissipates more of shear force is carried by soil structure. c‛ and ‛.00 October 2010 .3. (1) Principles of effective stress (2) Derivation of pore pressure parameters (3) Soil tests for A and B. 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. .). a) b) low permeability (k) of clay and large volume (hence long drainage paths) of soil in a slope.) by an amount du (termed the excess p.p.p. 2) Long term (effective stress analysis) . Consolidated undrained tests with pore pressure measurement. 1) Short term (total stress analysis) During or at end of construction du at maximum. .0 3.15 - Slope Stability v1.
During construction (controlling du) Immediately after construction Long term . Granular Soils . Pore water pressure results from. parameters depend on.Coarse soils (clean or <5%.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.p.g. geologically „old‟ cays become weaker (e.3. construction / placing fill / removal of toe.w.du full dissipates AS is applied (e.p. .2 Effective Strength Parameters c‛ and ‛ are obtained from either. Consolidated undrained tests with p. d and t .change in total stress du – a consequent change in p.w. 20 . section 7. London. .thus a ‛ analysis is used at all times. fines) have a high permeability. Gault and Kimmeridge Clays). measurement. It is essential that the du due to construction is predicted. 7. c‛ and ‛. k.213. 3. p 254-56 (describes tests to measure residual strength). value. i) (ii) (iii) Static water level with/without Conditions of steady seepage and/or Changes in total stress. The concept of residual strength is discussed in R Whitlow. Soil strength reduces from a “peak” value (Sf)to a constant “residual” value (Sr).) .g.100 years +. See also Fig.16 - Slope Stability v1. 2001.00 October 2010 . or (i) (ii) Fully drained triaxial tests. during construction.when du = 0 Possible future loading conditions e. p.g.13.
Applies to saturated clay soils. .p.If a clay soil is partially saturated. dissipation. Conditions are similar to the undrained triaxial test. increases.3.9 Figure 9 Failure envelope of fully saturated clay .10) and stability may be analysed to include a friction component in addition to cohesion.17 - Slope Stability v1.3 Total stress conditions Applies during or immediately after construction. . compacted clay. e.00 October 2010 . Figure 10 Failure envelope of partly saturated clay NOTE: u t is not constant as air readily compresses as total stress. There is a lack of p.g. until the air dissolves when u becomes zero. then u >0o (see Fig. see Fig.w.
4 Method of Slices The soil mass above the potential arc A-B in Fig. is divided into an arbitrary number of vertical slices (It simplifies analysis if they are mostly the same width). A complicating factor is that the slices are not physically separated. x) act between slices In practice it is difficult to evaluate x and z. NOTE:(zn+1 . (xn+1 . Symbols used in Figs.ul) tan ‛ Where. N‛ tan ‛ = (N .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.xn) affects shear force T on the base of a slice. 11 and 12.18 - Slope Stability v1.00 October 2010 . the factor of safety on soil strength is defined by the expression. z and lateral. Forces (vertical. 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 .11.Various approximate solutions (“methods”) take x and z account to an increasing extent and therefore become more accurate. In terms of effective stress. - . f - F - = c‛ ( + F n – u) tan ‛ F The frictional resistance at the base of each slice varies and is given by.zn) affects the vertical weight of a slice.
00 October 2010 .Figure 11 Principle of slices Figure 12 Polygon of forces acting on a slice .19 - Slope Stability v1.
BUT N‛ and T are not convenient quantities and are replaced by.B.Clearly the lateral force assumption for the centre slice in Fig. are equal and opposite and act parallel to tangent of failure arc. Ln+1 Ln Centre line . Thus the resultant of inter-slice forces is zero.1 The Swedish method (Also known as the Fellenius Method. Solution Taking moments about centre of rotation. + 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 . “0”.20 - Slope Stability v1. .However it is not approximately true for slices near A and B. disturbing moment = R T restraining moment = R(c‛R Hence F = N. N‛ and T = = W cos W sin . 1936) Assumes that Ln and Ln+1 (see below) the resultants of zn and xn etc. .11 is reasonable.Also assumes base of slice is the chord.Two “methods” of analysis (Swedish and Bishop‟s) are detailed below: 3.00 October 2010 .4. .ul .The solution UNDERESTIMATES F by 5 -> 20% depending on slope geometry (compared to more accurate methods).
It is common practice to select a grid of centers. (based on experience) and find critical radius.Hence. .21 - Slope Stability v1.ul) tan ‛ N. 5. see Fig.13. Contours of F can then be drawn above the slope. 6th Ed .00 October 2010 .B. N. for general comments. Smith.10. Figure 13 Location of critical circle REF: G.p161/162 “Location of the most critical circle” and Fig. 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. F = C‛R rad + (Wcos Wsin .
97] .0 kN/m3 Note that slices No.00 October 2010 .22 - Slope Stability v1. 1 -7 have a width. c‟ = 10.8 m. of 3.0 m and No.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. Strength with respect to effective stress. [0. b. Soil properties are.0 kN/m2 ‛ = 28o Unit weight. Assume the unit weight of the soil has the same value above and below the water table. = 18.8 has a width of 3.
4.e.3.00 October 2010 . i. 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.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.23 - Slope Stability v1.1m thick) = 1 F [c‛ + (N/l – u) tan ‛] xl Shear resistance of whole of base of a slice = . = n= n c‛ + ( n – u) tan ‛ F stress (total) normal to a failure surface = N/l on base of slice (NB .
thus for an element of soil at a depth of. W u = ru z = ru b Now b = l cos W u = ru l cos Given that.5 Given that ru is a measure of the average p. disturbing moment = restoring moment Wx = TR Wx = lR Wx = F= Given that.5 is a reasonable “guestimate”.00 October 2010 . ru = Where. ru. 0.p in a slope. 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. .At equilibrium. 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. say 5m.w. 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). can be used to represent u. The water pressure at the base of a slice is given by. sec = 1/cos r W u= u sec l Thus.24 Slope Stability v1.
drains or road surfaces) or where the period of exposure is short (e. uncertainty about the design parameters. e. [1.0 CHOICE OF FACTOR OF SAFETY Factors to be considered in making a choice of F value fall into two broad categories. i) Consequences of failure: A higher factor would be chosen where there is a risk to life and/or adjacent structures. . the long term factor of safety for the trial slip circle shown in Class Example 4.The resultant errors are generally small and on safe side. in-adequacy of the S.Interslice forces are considered to be horizontal.Errors.This method is preferred for steep slopes.Satisfies conditions of vertical and horizontal and moment equilibrium for whole slipped mass. .I. 4. .00 October 2010 .08] 3.Thus for > 0o soils F of S values are on low side compared to methods below. can be large (up to 60%).25 - Slope Stability v1. . whilst on safe side. using Bishop‟s conventional method.5 Summary of methods of analysis Swedish Circle Method .g.Note the assumed force distribution does not satisfy conditions of vertical and horizontal equilibrium. A lower factor when instabilities are localised requiring simple remedial measures (pipes. . .Assumes inter-slice forces are parallel but not necessarily horizontal. Potential future changes to water table levels must also be considered (see below). information. Confidence in the information available: As a result of complexity of the ground conditions.g.Class example 5 Determine. pore pressure.Satisfies conditions of overall vertical equilibrium (but not horizontal). . . Bishop‟s Conventional Method . temporary works).Interslice forces are ignored. . ii) .NB: For = 0o soils the accuracy is the same as Bishop‟s method. Bishop‟s Rigorous Method (Not covered in these notes) .Should not use for submerged slopes or where earthquakes forces are expected.
c.500 Northamptonshire 45 90 55 £40. clay . Hertfordshire Length of M-way in county (km) Amount of cutting/embankment.26 - Slope Stability v1.20* 1.c.15 shows the peak (Sf) and residual (Sr) strengths from a ring shear test.5 2.) clays gradually decreases with time due to weathering.0 *BS 6031 (1981) Code of practice for earthworks 5. This test is designed to measure residual strength .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.30* 1. % Number of failures Total expenditure (1966 prices) 27 80 7 £10.20* 1.20 1. Table 1 shows the magnitude and costs due to minor instability M1. Figure 15 Stress – strain curve for an o.25 – 1.5* 1.200 Bedfordshire 27 50 45 £36. Fig. M10 and M45 from opening in 1959 to 1966.10 – 1.BUT at strains much larger than occur during initiation of failure.00 October 2010 .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.
majority of slopes are below 10 ! Figure 17 Histograms of angles of natural slopes in the London Clay .00 October 2010 .) see Fig. Morgenstern has looked at natural slopes in London Clay (heavily o.NOTE: Also Sr is not a “weathered” residual strength.3 to 3.17. .c. clay The data below illustrates the reduction in strength in 40+ years.16 shows the loss of cohesion (c‛) residual state.27 - Slope Stability v1. iv) Fig. c‛ from 15.c.8 kN/M2 ‛ from 20 to 17 Residual strength (for c‛ and ‛) are the only available parameters to use for long term stability. ‛ is also reduced by Figure 16 Strength envelopes for an o. a few degrees.
4 No. No. 5 .18.. New York Whitlow.00 October 2010 . A W (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes Geotechnique. pp 7-17 Fellinius. J (1969) Stability of natural slopes and embankment foundations Proc. pp 445-65 Skempton. 1 & 2 Intertext. Taylor. A W (1954) The pore pressure coefficients A and B Geotechnique. WD (1948) Fundamentals of soil Mechanics John Wiley & sons.28 - Slope Stability v1. pp291-340. “state of the Art” Vol.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. R (2001) R Basic soil mechanics 4th Ed Prentice Hall Wilun. Conf. Wash.4 Skempton.1. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Trans 2nd Congr Large Dams.4. Mexico. 7th Intern. A W and Hutchinson. K (1972) Soil Mechanics in foundation engineering Vol. D C Vol. . W (1936) Calculation of the stability of earth dams. Figure 18 REFERENCES Rate of progressive reduction in shear strength in the London Clay Bishop. Z and Starzewski.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?