Engineering and Design Stability of Earth and RockFill Dams (Inclusive of Change 1)
Foreword
Experiment This manual was prepared in the U. S. Army Waterways Station under direction from the Office, Chief of Engineers. General supervision and technical guidance was provided by W. E. Johnson, Chief, Engineering Division, G. E. Bertram, Chief, Soil Mechanics Branch until 1968, and R. A. Barron, Branch Chief from 1968 to date. The manual was prepared by W. E. Strohm, Jr., Trahan, YuShih Jeng, and D. P. Hanrner under direction of S. J. Johnson and J. R. Compton, the U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. assisted by C. C. the innnediate of the staff at
A draft of the manual was reviewed by the Corps Advisory Board The Board consists of R. A. Barron, Chairman; for Soil Mechanics. R. B. Peck, University of A. Casagrande, Harvard University; Illinois; G. E. Bertram, Consulting Engineer; S. D. Wilson, TippettsAbbettMcCarthyShannon &Wilson, Inc; J. Lowe, III, and S. J. Johnson, Waterways Experiment Station. Stratton;
EM
iiiOZ1902
1 April
197F..
and
Applicability. References. a. b. c.
.............................. ...............................
......................... EM 111022300 .................... Other Engineer Manuals ...................... Selected References. ................................. Design Considerations.
5. 6. 7.
Notation. Basic
Embankment Causes of Unsatisfactory ........................... Shear Failure a. .................... Excessive Deformation. b. .......................... Liquefaction C. ........................... Special Problems ...................... Progressive Failure. a. .......................... Problem Shales. b. ..................... Rate of Fill Placement C. Design Shear Laboratory a. Selection b. Methods Strengths. Tests. of Design ....................... ........................ Shear Strengths. ...................
f .
8.
9.
............
10. 11.
of Stability
Analysis.
.................. Design Conditions for Analysis ................. End of Construction Case I: a. ............ Cases II and III: Sudden Drawdown. b. ..................... Partial Pool Case IV: C. Seepage with Maximum Case V: Steady d. .......................... Storage Pool Case VI: Steady Seepage with Surcharge Pool. e. ..................... Earthquake. Case VII: f. ............. AtRest Earth Pressure Analyses. g* i
.....
EM iiloZ1902 1 April 1970 Paragraph 12. 13. 14. Factors Presentation Use of Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memoranda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX References APPENDIX Notation I II
Page 26 26 28
in Design
of Electronic
Computers.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
APPENDIX III Estimating the Lowering of the Seepage Line in Pervious Upstream Embankment Zones During Reservoir Draivdown APPENDIX IV Simplified Procedures for Preliminary Determination of Embankment Slopes Infinite Slope Modified APPENDIX Analysis for V Cohesionless Soils
APPENDIX VI Swedish Method of Analysis Using Slice Procedure VII VII VI5 VIIO VI10 VI12 VI13 VIi4
1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Procedure
6.
7. 8. No. VIi VI2
Downstream VII
SlopeCases
EarthquakeCase
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLATES
Modified Water
Swedish Forces
Method,
Finite
Slice
Procedure, Procedure,
No Sudden
ii
EM
Modified Swedish Method, Integration Procedure, Modified cedure, Modified cedure, Modified cedure,
Swedish Method, Graphical No Water Forces Swedish Sudden Swedish Steady Method, Drawdown Method, Seepage, Case Modified Graphical
VI9
Stability Analysis, Modified Swedish Procedure Stability Analysis, stream Slope, Slice Procedure Stability Analysis, and Semipervious down, Modified Procedure
Case I  End of Construction, Method, Graphical Integration II  Sudden Drawdown, UpSwedish Method, Finite
VI10
Case Modified
VIii
Embankment with Central Core Shell, Case II  Sudden DrawSwedish Method, Finite Slice II  Sudden Drawdown, UpSwedish Method, Graphical Pool, Upstream Finite Slice Pool, Graphical Seepage, Modified Upstream IntegraDownSwedish DownSwedish
VI 12
Stability Analysis, Case stream Slope, Modified Integration Procedure Stability Analysis, Slope, Modified Procedure Stability Analysis, Slope, Modified tion Procedure Stability Analysis, stream Slope, Method, Finite
VI 13
Case IV  Partial Swedish Method, Case IV  Partial Swedish Method, Case V  Steady Max Storage Pool, Slice Procedure
VI 14
VI15
VI 16
Stability Analysis, Case V  Steady Seepage, stream Slope, Max Storage Pool, Modified Method, Graphical Integration Procedure
111
...
EM 11102190~ 1 April 1970 No. VI17 Stability Analysis, Case VII  Earthquake, Seepage, Downstream Slope, Modified Method, Finite Slice Procedure Stability Analysis, Case Construction, Modified Graphical Integration VII  Earthquake, Swedish Method, Procedure Steady Swedish End of
VI 18
Paragraph APPENDIX VII Wedge Analysis 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. General. Basic Basic End . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principles. Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV . . . . . . . . .
Page
of ConstructionCase DrawdownPool,
Sudden Partial
6.
7. 8.
Upstream
PoolCase
VI
. . . . .
9. No.
VIIVII2 VII3 VII4 VIIVII6 5 1
Earthquake
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLATES
Analysis,
Wedge
Method and
of Resultant Earth Forces and Active Sliding Planes, Wedge Method Stresses with Wedge with Wedge Central Method Inclined Method
of Conjugate
Core, Core,
Embankment Stability Analysis, and Semipervious Shell, Case down, Wedge Method
Core Draw
iv
.
EM No.
VII7
Stability Analysis, Embankment with Inclined and FreeDraining Shell, Case II  Sudden down, Wedge Method Stability Analysis, Embankment with and FreeDraining Shell, Case IV Pool, Wedge Method Stability Case Stability Case Analysis, V  Steady Inclined  Partial
Core DrawCore
VU8
Embankment with Central Seepage, Wedge Method with Wedge Soil, Wedge Soil, Wedge Central Method
VII12
KA
vs
Sliding Plane tive Slope Paragraph Evaluation 1. 2. 3. 4. No. VIII1 VIII2 Basic
Consideration.
of Embankment PLATES
Pore Pressures in Partially Drainage During Loading Pore Pressures of Complete. Construction in Partially Dissipation Seasons
Saturated
Soils,
No Effect Between
VIII3
Pore Pressures in Partially Saturated Soils, Effect of Partial Dissipation of Pore Pressure Between Construction Seasons
EM 111021902
1 April 1970
No.
VIII4 VIII5 Pore Pressure Coefficients of Excess Estimating Pore Pore A and Water B Pressures in Q Test Ratios
VIII6
VIII
Pressures Various
VIII8
Field.
Stress
vi
EM
Stability 1. ity 2.
Purpose.
and
This and
manual
of earth
Scope.
rockfill are
presented analysis,
for and
tests
to be used, factors. by
safety and
illustrated
appendixes. does Case not (c)) factors are not This having levees,
slide Technical
of slices, (ref
1) if the
I, page
requirements are
or design
included. manual civil and is applicable works highway functions. fills, to all Corps of Engineers Divi
a.
EM
and
rockfill
dams, utilizastability in
material
Manuals. rockfill
The dams
manuals
also
relate to for
to use criteria
and other
design than EM
of earth stability:
be referred
iiiOi1801 rescinds
Geological EM
Investigations 21 July
1960) EM 111021902,
1iiO21805,
EM EM EM EM EM EM Where sion
111021802 I 1iO21803
Geophysical Subsurface Seepage Settlement Laboratory Conduits, references shall References. govern.
1948) 1954)
(3 March do not
manual
agree,
of this c.
Selected
references numbers
are
cited
herein
and are
correspond
to similarly
in Appendix used
in this
manual
are
listed
pendix
to those
Mechanics
must in and
operating foundation
pertinent properties
geologic
When
determining materials,
of proposed variation
to (1) possible borrow conditions, compacted The terials b. values, judgment, ments and are decrease under Other but materials, and
materials, in placement
contents
water
contents
densities
must
dams.3 design
factors can
in establishing exercise
be evaluated effect
(1) the
on compressible of strain
(2) compatibility
embankment
EM
the
with that
the design
The are
stability mobilized
analyses
presented
manual materials
C.
simultaneously
assumed information
surfaces. should be considered stratigraphy, interpretation; geological closed, and relating tension joint evidence; etc.), and includes and (i) geologic grounddepast in
water tails
conditions; and
disclosed
by borings at site
as deduced (amount,
bedding, of materials
folding
(5) alter
systems; to slides,
(8) slickensides; movement d. ative fects during . validity for and The merits along
evidence and
existing
jointing. afford design and a means and for for comparing the properties depends on the relef
results of trial
of stability cross
analyses during
sections
evaluating material
foundation
of assumed
strengths, similar
be reviewed construction
analyses are
structures
procedures pressures
herein
utilize
stresses
where stresses
predicted, normal
other
In general, steady
stability fully
of existing and
no excess for
pressures and,
in designing earthquake
construction
in a general
drawdown Causes a.
and
conditions. Embankment Performance. a portion or of an embankment rotation relative A shear or to the failure is of
Shear
A failure foundation
in which
moves
by sliding as a shear 3
mass
is designated
failure.
COnVentiOnally
as occurring shearing
along may
a surface occur
and
in stability thickness. in soil mately foundation exists nearly several b. compacted strains slightly greater such within
in a zone
surface
embankments may
bedrock
or where failure
a thick,
approximate interconnected Excessive on the to develop dry than materials. they fill
of interconnected
surfaces. Some cohesive water soils, especially require Even equal may placed pore those large
wet given
side
content,
to or
relatively when
develop
in an em
create study,
water
soils
pressures
to be used
the
design
particular for
attention
be given
in an embankment tests cent tents for soil ment cially the show strain, peak
in the
Q and not
R strength
strengths
at high
peaked
at 45 percon
it may
placement
water
on the
values
occur if the embankespein
However, then
excessive becomes
saturated.
result
from
where Surface
peak
strengths ment
in the
foundation and
movede
piezometers pore
excessive of placement
formation of fill
excessive
pressure
be controlled.
are
to shear must
susceptible fills
to minimize adequate
settlement, 8. Special
to provide and
soil
types more
potential
manual.
discussed Progressive
(1) relatively
Because large
failure
Where stress
a significant
in shear failure
are of
is increased,
would factor
POSstrengths be necessary
peak
In certain
soils,
it may
shear
embankments plastic, or
of havem
stressstrain
of the factor
in table
I (page
shear foundation,
strengths or
comparable 5
(c)
using (3)
ultimate progressive
shear
strengths also
of the may
foundation along
soils. tension cracks occurring by drying. can that resulting during The maxifrom depth along water asor
failure or transverse
start
from
longitudinal
or from assuming
(45 + 3
the
sumed the
slope
Shear
crack
should
the crack
significant substantial
have
ocinto
because fine
of heat particles
of wetting or reduced
and dryto
cemented
unaffected
Foundation than
have
been Clay
encountered shales,
more
frequently those
in clay
particularly and
montmorillonite, strength and tered increase presence strengths. solely leading, clay aerial upon
deformation in situ
low,
even
may
develop
in load
those
of clays.
of the
field
behavior laboratory
of conventional field
may
be misof problem
largescale can
tests
may
shales or
be determined reconnaissance,
ground
of slickensides,
8b(2)
EM
(d) comparison and (e) clay may faults, and mass. are excess
liquid tests.
and
plastic
of shales
where
they
con
joints,
strength
A detailed
encountered. physical
as shear
water Rate
(1) shale
Construction create
of emexcessive pore
on silt,
and
significant
should pore
be inpresjudg
horizontal during
water
Analyses to control
experience
Excessive
placed
Observations during
of pore
provide
data
to control foundations
of fill
placement.
In some to limit
cases
it may
placement
material placing
material
of optimum
9.
values tests
Design used
Shear
a.
(1)
performed
conditions conditions 7
corresponding
Q tests
in which
is.kept
constant under
during initial
(b)
R tests
in which but
or
conditions stresses,
constant full
of shearing
increment on each
soil
which not
generally in the
occur
in a very Q, R, and S
test
designated
by the
strength conditions.
values
corresponding
prototype
strength S tests
tests
will
be made soils,
with
triaxial usually
which soils
apparatus. sizes,
contain
significant compres
quantities sion
be performed
in triaxial
specimens. in preparing to standard field result placement in the strength optimum water test water specimens content The allowable density). and comreto and
water should
specimens
These 1, are
minimum intended
additional
specimens 1. the
placement cores
central core
strength analysis.
materials
is less
stability are
maximum
estimated
content
considered
sufficient.
943)
EM
IIiO21902
1 April
1970
I 0
A
OPT
IMUM
WATER
ESTIMATED MINIMUM ALLOWABLE DRY DENSITY IEXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY) ASCOMPACTED SHEAR STRENGTH CONDITION SPECIMENS FOR
Figure
1.
test
specimens
of
EM 111021902 1 April 1970 (4) compacted which (5) sources not is the All Strength test specimens corresponding acceptable soil relative types of freedraining to a relative density in the borrow samples it can for pervious density field areas soils should be
should
Composite unless soils in similar are minor more principal used planes foundation
of different
be used
in test of the
programs individual
making
and
be used
(6)
tests normal posed
stress
in direct comparable
shear
tests to those
on failure and/or
in the of shear
to obviate
extrapolation
in design (7) Mohr cles. slightly strength sponding unimportant turbance the for strength
results the
of triaxial
tests
are
in the
form ciris
of
strength
envelope
to the but
procedure if total
plQtted,
should normal
points planes.
on Mohr The
undisturbed circles.
envelope
to the
negligible through
envelopes stresses
representing
plane,
as illustrated
(a)
a constant not
Q test.
water
The content
shear
strength
from that
a Q test water
corresponds change
to is
condition.
content a volume
permitted
either
prior saturated
to or during samples
However,
decrease
of gas (air)
occurs
in partially
of compression
947)(a)
EM
Q.
ENVELOH REPEN
UNDISTURBED
SOIL
b.
//
SOIL
COMPACTED
TU#OUGN PO/NTS TING STRESSES
WET
ON
OF OPTIMUM
c. SOIL
COMPACTED
DRY OF OPTIMUM
NORMAL
STRESS,
d.
SELECTION
OF C AND
@ VALUES,
CURVED
ENVELOPE
Figure
2.
Construction
of failure
envelopes
ii
EM 111021902 1 April 1970 in the voids pressure. generally strength tion used, this placed envelope for the and While from increased solution for lines partially curved when the of gas Q tests parallel saturated portion the in the pore water saturated abscissa have envelope under soils of the a curved should are porbe in test are
strength
envelopes
in the
curved
be recurved
so that various
be determined conditions consisting This consolidation a foundation construction, loading in the test apof
Q test
of embankments embankments. in which In cases saturated prior the where during to axial
compared that
exists advisable
is unsaturated to saturate
become specimens
undisturbed
Q test. (b) R test. The shear saturation specimens and pressures due The that have test then strength resulting from using an R test is obtained methods, estiwater due to in or
shearing
pore
pressures
been
to a stress
time during
for sudden
consolidation drawdown, layers period and This condition that swell test and
to take of imhave
This
behavior,
of impervious
foundation
conditions upstream
drawdown. pool
is also
in analyzing
during 12
9d7) (b)
EM
liiO21902
1 April
downstream (c) slopes S test. The a sample slowly each loading enough during shear under steady strength an initial excess Results pressures seepage. resulting confining pore from an S test and is obtained applying
1970
by
consol.idating stresses under draining strengths volume complete cussed water are
shearing
to permit
pressures applicable
to dissipate
increment. pore
. to (1) freeshear in
soils
in which
measured
shear failures
impending. b. Selection strengths should soils stresses peak (c) the shear deviator with strength strengths. Q or where For of Design the shape Shear of the Strengths. stressstrain undisturbed drop shear tests, strain for between strengths intermediate (1) curves When for selecting individual soils and stress design soil comafter as (a) stress, in the re
Where a significant
foundation in shear strength (b) the where sensitive the will peak
be chosen deviator
stress
stress
shear foundation
undisturbed
generally strength
S test
conditions,
appropriate. embankment be selected zone such and foundation that the twothirds design than layer, of design the test shear values exceed
each
should
values.
shear
the
strength
lowest shear test
for
strengths
the various
for lower
be greater
value
the
zones and layers being considered. than laboratory test values should
tests or other
means that
laboratory
are not
9b(2)
(3) velopes figure between gree design quired this during excess
The
shear
can
be estimated degree
between
the
enin
estimated
as illustrated
in the
may
values.
A careful the
be made
magnitude
dissipation
pressures,
strengths.
t ? ul $ I) 2
R ENVELOPE 4 = 16, C = 0.4 TON/SO DESIGN ENVELOPE FOR 60% CONSOLlDATlON n$ q 12.. C =O.S TON/SO FT
Ff
2 NORMAL STRESS, 0.
3 TONS/SQ FT
Figure
3.
Estimation of strength values intermediate between Q and R strength values Analysis. embankments The that arc more methods are and outlined sliding for of analyzing in the wedge analyzing the appendixes The stability are cir
10.
Methods and
of Stability rockfill
of the
circular
methods.
is generally
applicable
essentially
14

EM
earth
dams
and
dams
deposits more
of finegrained applicable
..
method and
layers.
to some pro
method. designs
methods may
be suppleof the VI is be
If desired,
of slices
Design
Conditions to shear
for
Analysis. imposed or
An
embankment
and the
its
foundation
stresses seepage,
earthquake are
cases
shall
drawdown elevation,
storage (VII) slopes; VI apply a. tially those under cannot dicated, mens The are shear tests or
(VI)
surcharge to both
where and
apply
to upstream
and
slopes. of Construction. soils water pressure the In an embankment placed contents will at water after contents complete composed higher parthan
construction determined
are
placement
contents foundation
too
thick strengths
The
use
pore
water field
satisfactorily
approximate
thick,
impervious since
strata, consolidation
strength
R tests.
may
strength, solidation performing Q and structed consolidation sult period struction foundation evaluate pletion actual b. saturated quently excess strengths the
should
be considered
design effect
during stability
construction analyses
be estimated between
values
intermediate
in paragraph low
is to be conrate would construction For stage conin the to recomthe fill. become of re
evaluation stage
during
to develop be used
observations (Appendix
Further,
at the
samples due
must
to consolidation
caused Embankments
prolonged is drawn
pressures in Cases
combined are
cases sipation
pressure
surface crest
is lowered elevation of
minimum
embankments should
impervious using
materials, or moist
forces line
saturated
of seepage should
and
weights
below
d.riving lowered 16
forces pool
saturated
weights
above
elevation,
EM
DESIGN
ENVELOPE
Figure within (assuming of freedraining age only of pore a minor water time analyses assumption drawdown analyses for net expected to evaluate III, the drawdown a horizontal shell can lag,
4. zone,
Design and
for
Cases
l.lI drawdown Shear in which of the pool zone strengths drainor with sudden this
below pool
concurrently
drawdown drawdown possible materials, formed a flow given a basis shear den
control
of the upstream
to be excessively the permeabilities incompressible rates normal lowering nets these and and seepage
relatively
in Appendix for
as
determining should
strength drawdown
analyses
sud
17
Ilb
EM iiloZi902 1 April 1970 Partial stages at these soils S test to the 5). be the soils should envelopes S envelope The design Pool. should
C.
Case reservoir
IV:
of the upstream a condition The design envelope is greater is less draining between line eliminating
for
inter
mediate has
seepage of
developed
strength
of freely demarcation
S test
envelope.
submerged
may limit
be approximated of the Stability the factors minimum normal impervious analyses of safety safety
from
need several
construction. and
the
in effective
stresses
pore
pressures
1 NORMAL
2 STRESS, 0.
3 TONS/SO FT
Figure
5.
Design
envelope 18
for
Cases
IV,
V, and
VI
EM
developed dition
d.
construction
are
not dissipated
before
a partial
can
with
Storage level
A condition be main
of steady tained
seepage
sufficiently
to produce for
an embankment should
may
be critical to determine
be constructed
in the
zone
V should for
on the
method not
slopes
be examined of cohesionless
soils should
analyses by the
inarc is
slope
method methods
be supplemented if a failure
or wedge more
to determine
the foundation
critical. e. Case seepage thrust VI: Steady Seepage exists with Surcharge Pool. The case where horifor rocka
steady zontal
condition is imposed
downstream fill same circular rary steady f. havior methods present, the dams with
slope
Shear
be the or
as a tempoabove the
no saturation line.
of impervious
Much
research
be
shocks, being
evaluating
developed. This Fh
at that
recommended. force
assumes in the
earthquake
horizontal 19
acting
ilf
EM 11lo21902 Change 1 17 Fell 82 direction of potential failure. The arc or set of planes found to be critical without earthquake loading Is used with this added driving force to determine the factor of safety for Case VI. It is not necessary to study effects of earthquake loading in sudden drawdown stability The horizontal seismic force is equal to the mass involved analyses. times the horizontal acceleration, i.e.
The total weight of the sliding soil mass W should be based on saturated unit weights below the saturation line and moist unit weights above the line. Selection of the seismic coefficient $ should be based on the degree of seismic activity in the region in whioh the dam is to be built. * The seismic coefficients for the various geographical areas are shown on In areas where earthquakes are likely, or for figures 6 through 6c. locations near active faults, the safety of dams should be increased by utilization of defensive design features regardless of the method or results of the earthquake analyses. The defensive design features may (a) ample freeboard to allow for the loss of crest elevation include: due to subsidence, slumping or fault displacement; (b) wide transition sections of filter materials which are less vulnerable to cracking; (c) vertical or nearvertical drainage pones in the central portion of the embankment; (d) filter materials of rounded to subrounded gravels and conducti.v%ty of ,f<er layers and vertical sands ; (e) increased hydraulic drainage zones or the inclusion of additional properly designed filter zones of higher conductivity; (f) wide impervious cores of plastic clay materials or of suitable, wellgraded materials to help insure selfhealing in the event cracking should occur; (g) stabilization of reservoir rim slopes to provide for dam safety against effects caused by slides into the reservoir; (h) crest details that will mLnimize erosion in the event of overtopping; (i) removal of foundation material that may embankment sections be adversely affected by ground motion; (j) flaring at abutment contacts; and (k) zoning of embankments to minimize saturation of materials. In some cases, stockpiling of filter material * may be desirable for use in emergency repairs. (1) An atrest earth pressure g AtRest Earth Pressure Analyses. de as an independent check of the ( K, > analysis is sometimes stability of an embankment. b This analysis is particularly applicable to earth and rockfill*dams with narrow central cores, and is performed to check analyses of Case I (end of construction) and Case V (steady seepage ) conditions. (2) For Case I and assuming are negligible or have dissipated; that construction the horizontal pore water pressures earth force acting on a
llg(2)
20
Bf 111021902 1 April 1970 vertica.1 plane through base the crest of the is compared with the shear resistance along
..
embankment
to determine
the factor
of safety
ermilar
to the following.
F.S.
CL+ Wptan+
i z Z H YmKo used for other should sliding Case X analyses. if a the norma!
be the terms
same
as those
above the
is obtained
the
S strength at the
ss
to exist such
should and
those
included
be based
on a horizontal
equation. ph : (zy, is often for .= i! normally with taken as 0.5, consolidated plasticity _ u) K. although clays index + u values with (PI).7 greater than 0.S
value
for
Ko
d high
of i and 2 is shown
An ex
from
pool and
and
submerged the
suil factor
walghts
in computing an equation
checking
of safety
to the W tan+
F.S.
The
llg(3)
strengths
shown
in table
I are
m UJ %
s 0 E z a
I
EM 111021902 C11mj.y 1 I'! I.C.Il r(.!
CALIFORNIA.
NEVAOA
C ARIZONA
SCALE
22A
\
ZcNE
,ElWlC 
PROBABILITY
DAH.ACE COEFF. HOHE MINOR
0
1
. .
2 3
PACIFIC
0CEA.N
:t
Figure
6b.
Seismic
Zone Flap of
Alaska
/ /
KAUAI
/ / /
NIIHAU / 1 / / / / flC
N N A
0l
2
EP
I/
/ 
/ I
OCE
PN
MOLOKAI
/
IO 20 30 40
/ /
KAHOOLAWE
IO 0
STATUTE MILES
3
SEISMIC~~~ PROBABILITY 1~~
a 3
1 1
GREAT MAJOR
0.9
0.S
AFTER:
E.
W.
BROOKE,R
AND
H. 0.
IRELAND
SO
00
70
Figure
7.
K versus
PI
and
overconsolidation
ratio
(Brooker
and Ireland)
i ,
hw
, .
!i
AssuL(y srmsrn Zfrn SEAR Iv cm 
1
W,, TAN 32.
c=O, c=o.
#=37*=35*
Ymi
= 0.140
34
CASE
I.
F S. =
_ 
2540
14.160
I 2,,5
65eo
CASE
P,
STEADY
S. =
4080
TAN 32.
l
L1
t (0.0624)(440?
6050
15.300 + 4450
= 47
Figure
8.
Examples
of atrest
earth
pressure
analyses,
Cases
I and
Minimum Minimum Factor of Safety i.3tt from from or top i*O$$ 1*2$$
Table I Factors
of Safety1
Design
Condition
Shear Q or SS
Remarks and downstream slope only. Use comenvelope. See fig. 4 slope only. Use comenvelope. See fig. 4 Use inSee
of construction
Sudden drawdown maximum pool Sudden drawdown spillway crest of gates Partial pool with steady seepage
R, S R, S
R+S for 2 S for
IV N ul V
1.5
RCS, R > S
Steady seepage with maximum storage Steady seepage with surcharge pool Earthquake IV, and seismic (Cases V with loading) I,
1.5 pool 1.4 I 1.0 * R+S 2 for R C S, R > S Downstream intermediate fig. 5 slope only. envelope. Use See
VI VII
S for
Upstream siopes
and downstream
Not applicable to embankments on clay shale foundations. For embankments over 50 ft high on relatively weak foundations use minimum factor of safety of 1.4. $ In zones where no excess pore water pressures are anticipated, use S strength. The safety factor should not be less than 1.5 when drawdown rate and pore water $.$ pressures developed from flow nets (Appendix III) are used in stability analyses. 5 Use shear strength for case analyzed without earthquake except that it is not necessary to analyze sudden dravdown for earthquake effects. tt
E! tcr g: 10 I ZN .I 5;s so N
EM
111021902
1 April
the from core
1970
has an overconsolidation to submerged for Case values) ratio of 2 (since weights for have K. changed figure 7.
moist
in selecting in figure 8.
a value
from
An example 12. pend shear tures strain terials, on past Factors on the strength within
V is given
values analyzed,
of computed
safety
factors reliability
deof
(d) presence
of struc(f) stress
embankment, and quality with earth with are for for are
of embankment control, dams. to human considerations projects. design and Table conditions,
foundation
of a failure of functions
property
of the tests.
applicable
types
of shear
of stability (normally
procedures, of safety
method,
infinite
on developed
strength
SD where
fac.rs
are
tried
until method,
is directly
slope
frictional
resistance
to differences should be
of safety determined
of safety directly
plastic
comparable for
to those
determined
computations
Presentation
in Design
Memoranda. 26
Uniformity
in presenting
results
of design given
memoin the
....
foundation factor
assumed
failure
surface applicable
condition zones or
analyzed, strata
net
to the
reactions.
of analyses. should
failure found
analyzed,
safety
factors
in addition number
to those
critical extent b.
in sufficient performed. values, embankment Atterberg presentations charts, be presented. for the
to demonstrate
of the
A tabulation materials
with
unit
for
.
.of the
foundation. graphical
strength envelopes,
material valuable
correlations
are
to reviews
of the
arc the
pool, for
and a slow
to an ungated
embankment. e. mediate tation support f. Presentation S and of shear the of, design shear strength as shown representative shear strengths. Complete with guidance information contained on in i3f data and composite 3 and 4. or interPresento
in figures samples
is required
selection
of these instrumentation
design
Proposed
to be installed. in accordance 27
instrumentation
should
be included
EM
iiiO21902
1 April
Civil 14.
1970
Works Engineer Letter 657 (ref
9).
The use of electronic (b) evaluate computers effects is receffort, of possible embankment program used
(c)
solutions,
of evaluating be reviewed
significant
Computer set of
solutions planes Under circle The radius, that tions patible the
have
not
been
programs of two
analyses and
critical also
Computer used
must with
be verified procedures
to ensure and
design
presented be made
an analysis or set
by manual found
must
to check design
of planes
computer
for
each
manual
be presented if desired,
in the
design critical
independent planes.
be made,
of all
28
EM
FOR
THE
CHIEF
OF
ENGINEERS:
Appendix
IV
Appendix Appendix
V VI
Appendix Appendix
VII VIII
 References  Notation  Estimating Seepage During Reservoir Drawdown  Procedures for Determination of Embankment Slopes  Infinite Slope Analysis for Cohesionless Soils  Modified Swedish Method of Analysis Using Slice Procedure  Wedge Analysis of Embank Evaluation ment Stability During Cons true tion
29
EM
APPENDIX References 1.
..
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, chanics Design, Stability of Slopes and Foundations, Apr port No. 3777, Appendix D, Feb 1952 (reprinted Vicksburg, Miss.
MeRe
2.
Progress Report on Glossary of Terms and Definitions ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, chanics, Vol 84, Paper 1826, No. SM4, Ott 1958.
in Soil MeJournal,
3.
in Angle of Internal Banks, D. C. and MacIver, B. N., Variation Miscellaneous Paper S 69  12, Friction with Confining Pressure, Apr 1969, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss. Banks, D. C. and Strohm, W. E., Slides, Potamology Investigations Engineer Waterways Experiment Jr., Methods of Preventing Flow Report 1216, Ott 1965, U. S. Army Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss. of Saturated Sands During and Foundations Division, Nov 1966, pp 105134. Rockfill Journal, Design Vol 92,  Carters Paper 4906,
4.
5.
Seed, H. B. and Lee, K. L., Liquefaction ASCE, Soil Mechanics Cyclic Loading, Journal, Vol 92, Paper 4972, No. SM6, Robeson, F. A. and Crisp, Construction Dam, ASCE, No. C03, Sept 1966, p 51. Brooker, E. W. and Ireland, Canadian to Stress History, Feb 1965, pp 115. R. L., Jr., Division,
6.
7.
Pressures Journal,
Vol
8.
Risk Algermissen, S. T., Seismic ceedings, Fourth World Conference Santiago, Chile, 14 Jan 1969.
Pro
9.
Inclusion of Proposed Office, Chief of Engineers, Embankment and Foundation Design Memoranda, neer Letter 657, 2 Mar 1965, Washington, D. C. Schnitter, G. and Zeller, J., SickerstrGmungen gelschwankungen in Erddammen (Seepage Flow tion or Level in Earth Dams), Schweizerische Nr. 52, 28 Dee 1957, pp 808814. Il
in Engi
10.
EM 111021902 Appendix I 1 April 1970 II. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., Soil P/echanics 2d cd., Wiley, New York, 1967, p 138. Janbu, eters, Harvard Scott, Mass., N., Stability Analysis Soil Mechanics Series University, Cambridge, R. F., 1963. Principles of Soil in Engineering Practice,
I2.
of Slopes with Dimensionless No. 46, Jan I954 (reprinted Mass. Mechanics, AddisonWesley,
ParamMay I959),
13.
Reading,
14.
and Passive Earth Jumikis, A. R., Active Tables , Engineering Research Publication University, College of Engineering Research, Clough, G. W. and ing Construction, Engineer Waterways
15.
Pore Pressures DurSnyder, J. W., Embankment Technical Report No. 3722, May 1966, U. S. Army Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss. Construction Pore Pressures Second International Conference Engineering, Rotterdam, Vol in Rolled Earth on Soil Me3, 1948, p 234. Notes on 592, p 124,
26.
17.
Bruggeman, J. R., Zanger, C. N., and Brahtz. J. H. A., Technical Memorandum No. Analytic Soil Mechanics, June 1939, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. Factors Controlling the Pore Bishop, A. W.. Some Proceedings, Duringthe Construction of Earth Dams, national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation London, Vol 2, 1957, pp 294300.
18.
19.
Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, Consulting Engineers, Study of Deep Soil Stabilization by Vertical Sand Drains, June 1958, Bureau of Yards and Docks, Department of the Washington, D. C. Skempton, technique, 147. PorePressure A. W., The Institution of Civil Engineers, Coefficients London,
20.
Geopp 143
21.
Pressures Snyder, J. W., Pore nical Report S682, July 1968, periment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Gould, J. P., Analysis at Logan International
TechEx
22.
EM
Dee 23.
1949,
Harvard
University,
Cambridge,
Mass.
Lowe III, J. and Karafiath, L., Effect of Anisotropic Consolidation on the Undrained Shear Strength of Compacted Clays, ASCE Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo., June 1960, pp 837858.
I3
EM
IilO2402 1 April
1970
Il
throughout by the
this
man.ual
to those
recommended
American
Term Skemptons coefficients Horizontal experimentally seismic acceleration of the force force force force area per layer of slice wedge block wedge force polygon in wedge analysis unit area (cohesion required for of passive wedge embankment of active of central slope wedge block angle with the determined pore pressure
Cot p = cotangent horizontal Developed Developed Developed Developed cohesion cohesion cohesion cohesion per unit
cA CB cD cP
C
Cohesion Developed equilibrium) Depth Earth Resultant Resultant Resultant Force Resultant (modified Resultant unit width Graphical Resultant Resultant Resultant
CD D E EA ECB EP AEH AE AE
cohesion
on left and right sides of slice Finite Slice Procedure) right sides of the Swedish method: wedges block
forces acting on left and of earth (modified slice in units of ybase Integration Procedure) of normal of normal of developed and and frictional frictional normal and forces forces frictional
FA FCB FD
Term Horizontal Resultant Factor seismic of normal of safety constant force and frictional forces of passive wedge
Gravitational Height Height Vertical Modified Piezometric mum pool Ratio Active Coefficient Passive Coefficient
of embankment of drawdown distance height to failure obtained from surface from slope surface
K KA
KO
pressure
KP k L L AL N ND NK Ns n n e
pressure
coefficient
length Length of arc or failure surface; along which cohesive shear resistance Width Length Total of the slice parallel to the
saturation
of base normal
of slice force
normal
pressure _yH CD
factor,
pD % Q
measurements
EM
Symbol R
Term (a) Radius of failure arc (b) Shear test for specimen consolidated constant water content (consolidatedundrained) R shear test with pore pressure
then
sheared
at
i? S
8
Shear test for specimen consolidated striction of change in water content Shear strength; shear force pressure drawdown or soil mass s = c t u tan strength; +
sD U
U
sD = cD t u tan
+D
V W W P
of pool weight
of slice
above
failure
of passive block or shear resistance height beneath of inclination of inclination. test results) crest of the ratio
X

z a
af
saturation plane
line (based
with
the
horizontal
P
Y Y
ybase
ym
embankment
slope
weight
integration
procedure
of
Ysat
YW
weight
of the
of water or small part of the of the failure base arc of the with active the horizontal with the
A 8 %A
Increment Angle
of inclination
wedge
II3
of the
base
of the
Normal stress test specimen) Horizontal Conjugate Major Minor Deviator Effective Effective Effective Effective Shear Shear Shear stress stress principal principal stress normal normal major minor stress stress stress
on failure on vertical
plane
at failure plane
(in
laboratory
shear
parallel
to the
outer
slope
plane plane
prior
to start
of test
at failure
on failure on failure
of consolidation
angle angle
Developed Seismic
(required
II4
EM
APPENDIX Estimating the Lowering in Pervious Upstream During Reservoir 1. General. time In stability rates analyses
III of the Seepage Line Embankment Zones Drawdown embankment desirable slopes to construct such of the line flow nets, subjected flow nets
of pervious it is often
in determining to determine
it is necat the
of seepage
of the
impervious
is valid volume
gravel
which
do not
change
as the
water
drawdown. Relation. the ratio The of height equations of saturation of drawdown) for the line and dimensionless at face the of core height at end of
Mathematical X (i.e.,
drawdown eter P D
expressed are
in percent
dimensionless
param
x=
HD
mDxloo HD
where HD AIID= = height change of drawdown in height of saturation line of shell porosity; to unit wi at face material i.e., volume the ratio of void n space is poand w2 of impervious core
k = coefficient n wi e =Tbx
where content,
is saturated after
content
V = velocity
of pool
drawdown IIIi
EM iiiO21902 Appendix III 1 April 1970 All 3. quantities Computations. for the case should be expressed Although of full the reservoir pool in consistent curves presented drawdown, level units. in plate they above the may IIIi also were be used base dewhen by
is to some the
intermediate pool
intermediate illustrates
following a. Assume
example
a i05fthigh slope.
dam The
with pool
a narrow
a ion3
upstream down
is to be drawn having
60 ft in 30 days.
of saturated 500 X iOD4 water
to be a sandy of
a porosity
content
percent,
and after
is 3 percent. n e is
12  3 20 x = 0.15 12 100 is
The
velocity
of pool
drawdown
60 (ft) ?O X 24 X 60 (min)
V = 0.00139 ft per min = 13.9 X 10 4 ft per min
500 x io4 0.15 From the chart, for a ion3 x 13.9 x io4
slope,
X = 10 percent.
= X 100
HD
=10 100
60  AHD 60
III2 or AH D = 54 ft
EM
Thus, level,
the height
at the of dam,
core
is 54 ft below
the
original pool.
or 6 ft above
except ft per that min and
same
conditions
of
less
pervious
with
k = 5 x iOW4
the water
drainage
is 9 percent.
1212
9,
20 = 0.05 100
5 x io4
pD =Fo5 . x 13 9 x 104 . is AIID obtained = 7*2
A value for
of
equal slope.
from
the
curve
in
plate
IIIi
a ion3
AL
In this 70.6 4. for case, ft above Limitations. determining at the the the height the base The rate
60  AII~ 60
or AH D
100
of saturation
= 29.4 ft
the
original
pool pool.
or
of the curves
dam,
ft above give
in plate
of drainage core
material
lowering must
of seepage
face
embankments.
Judgment
be used
in determining
and k. selecting complete, must values virtually
probable
Information of n
by Terzaghi for
and reasonable values of ne Ii may be used as a guide in Peck of X to approach of the shell material), 0 percent the shell (i.e.
drainage condition.
approach
a highly
III3
1 April
LII4
EM
APPENDIX
IV
1. using for
Two charts
methods are
for
determining in this
slopes useful
presented
approximate methods
embankment outlined
in Appendixes clay
first
is applicable a rigid
embankments failure
s that
occurs
as shown
in plate
second
method clay
on shallow failure
occurs
in plate
IV6.
methods to the
of anal
applicable
assumptions
of the
of safety
should be made with caution. Other charts 12 13 by Janbu may also be used; they yield or Scott because they apply to slopes and having horizontal Overlying the general
Foundation for
foundation slopes
a rigid assumed
boundary
crown through
embankment
In plates ratios of 1.
Ns = g
thickness Embankment
limited
stability
no restrictions
as to developed
of cohesion.
EM 111021902 Appendix IV 1 April 1970 originates beyond section impervious The following Example structed weight bankment shear should follows. D =  40 = 0.33 H 120 D tan +D
 950  731 lb per
opposite
investigation (The
at or of the
on the relative
layer.
in this
the use of the charts. 120 ft high, by bedrock. indicate that 40 ft thick, Results
A homogeneous foundation,
on a clay are
c = 950 lb per sq ft, tan + = 0.165 What slope having analysis for a detailed
foundation condition?
a factor
1.3
sq ft
0.165 =i .3
_  0.127
and
+J~ = 7.2 deg Stability From from plate plate IV4, factor IV3, the stability the stability Thus, analysis. IV 2 factor chart chart N _ YH = 110 x 120 = 18 731 cm = 0.25, = 0.50, slope the slope the slope corresponding 1 on 3.30; is found to be for
of 18 and a tan 0,
of 0.12i
is approximately
By interpolation, = 0.33.
an embankment
of 1 on 3.38 is indicated
an embankment
detailed
EM
b. foundation weighted Such more 3. The resting plate utilizes of the Figure and for
The
charts similar
are
limited unit
to cases and
where shear
the
embankment
averages
required considered
failure since
in detailed Clay
on Shallow
to the dam.
at the
a horizontal
surface
reverse
in figure
and a corresponding NK=yH mine a second trial value of stability value bility bility of number A number chart K and slope slowly
from for
changes is relatively
changes to small
angles in KA
The
assumes strength
thickness
resistance earth
by the
coefficient.
following
the use :
of the
A homogeneous
having
a shear
to an angle
strength
approximate
IV3
EM 111021902 Appendix IV 1 April 1970 be used in an analysis angle of the stability of internal ) . friction of the dam for a factor +,, of the embankment cD of safety of 1.3?
is 22 deg is
= 0.409 sq ft.
1200 = 923 lb per 1.3 of IV7 Solving KA. for assuming D/H for
the Value
a slope and
of 1 on 4l/2, KA = 0.40,
1 of plate
= 0.1
the stability
NK is 0.300.
or
b=
b = 0.300
Thus, trial
a slope values of
of 1 on 4 may KA
be selected
for
detailed
analysis;
additional
are unnecessary.
IV4
HOMOGENEOUS
EMBANKMENT
0 I + RIGID BASE
HOMOGENEOUS
FOUNDATION
I4 = HEIGHT D = DEPTn Ns % = STABILITY = DEVELOPED y = WEIGHT MATERIAL TAN &, = TANGENT INTERNAL
OF OF
EMBANKMENT FOUNDATION FACTOR COHESION =yll/C, PER AND OF VOLUME ANGLE ANGLE B OF UNIT OF AREA LAYER
OF
FOUNDATION
CROSS
FRICTION
FOR m5)
= COTANGENT
(SEE PLATES
200
loo a0 m 70 00 80
40
20
20
NOTE:
8Ct
PLATE=1 OP
FOR SYMBOLI.
DtPlNITIONS
Plate
IV2
Iv6
EM
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.1
NOTE:
OF
FOR SYYDOLS.
STABILITY CHART FOR HOMOGENEOUS EMBANKMENT AND FOUNDATION FOUNDATION HEIGHT DEPTHEMBANKMENT RATIO, D/H = 0.50
Plate
IV:
IV 7
0.1
0.2 TAN 4.
0.1
0.4
0.1
NOTL:
Ip;l OF
COR
SYMbOLI.
slate IV4
IV8
EM
mo
20
NOTE:
OF
FOR SYMBOLS.
STABILITY CHART FOR HOMOGENEOUS EMBANKMENT AND FOUNDATION FOUNDATION HEIGHT DEPTHEMBANKMENT f:ATIO. D/H = 0
Plate
IV 5
IV 9
msmv~
SLOPE
&
NEGATIVE
OPPOSITE
To
COl4ESlONLESS
EMBANKMENT
OF
EMBANKMENT OF CLAY FOUNOATION TO ACTIVE SLOPE UNIT UNIT OF AREA ANGLE, AND VOLUME OF FOUNDATION SOIL VERTICAL CASE /3 FOUNDATION LAYER
OF
HORIZONTAL OF
PRESSURES,
= COTANGENT OF MATERIAL
y = WEIGHT C = COHESION
CROSS
FOR
EM
E _ DEPTb4 nHEIGHT
OF OF
FOUNDATION EMBANKMENT
FIGURE
1. N,
VERSUS
K,
AND
FIGURE
2.
dr,
VERSUS
b AND K4
EM
APPENDIX Infinite
1.
Slope
Infinite
Slope
Computations. to an infinite
materials to obtain
slope seepage
seepage the
General is neither
Case. parallel
The
safety nor
seepage
horizontal
to the
slope
is
y  (VW 9)
F.S. where y1 = submerged
YW
= Y sat
cotptan+
unit
weight
of soil
= unit
weight between
of water seepage flow line and embankment slope with slope horizontal (cot p = b)
of embankment of soil
= saturated
+ = angie
Seepage
of internal
Parallel
to Slope. slope
the
embankment
((Y = 0) , the
factor
becomes
= y Ysat
cot
j3 tan
Y + =Ysat
b tan
(p
Where
seepage
flow
is horizontal
(a = p) , the
factor
of safety
YW
F.S.
Y  2 Ot = Y sat
p (cot
/3 tan
bzy by +) =
Vl
EM iilOZ1902 Appendix V 1 April 1970 5. factor No Seepage. of safety is F.S. = s = b tan +I Where no seepage forces exist, i.e. for a dry slope, the
6. to all term
Earthquake of the b
. previous
The
effects equations
loading
can
of safety
by replacing
where
4 = seismic
coefficient
(see
fig.
6, main
text)
7.
Example. factor
An
example
of seepage
flow
on the
of safety
is illustrated
.No seepage
As sumed design values b = 3.5 Ysat = 2Yw tan + = 0.7 qJ = 0.1 b = 2.52 t tt
1.23t
I.137
2.45t
0.88tt
0.74tt
1.76tt
v2
Swedish Method of Analysis Using Slice Procedure presented analyses in this assuming appendix failure
shape.
1.
are would
For
making a circular simplicity arc. sliding important the slices sumed forces requires solve balance this modified
procedures
along
and
of presentation, finite surfaces feature are parallel are either or unit width,
failure
along
a trial into
In the modified
Swedish
method,
is divided arcs
of either
or arbitrary
is most
earth
The direction
of the embankment. to obtain using procedures by iteration polygons simplicity applicable zoned method of this since graphical
Since a digital
internal
a solution.
the use of analytical equations force The relative composite forces. of their used
a set of simultaneous
procedures
appendix
method
is particularly for analyzing Swedish or lack surfaces, methods a. into VI 1. Slices.
to homogeneous method
to use the modified on the stratification arcs critical shown trial failure the various of Finite mass 1 of plate accuracy, is divided
of stratification
in the examples
a number Generally,
six to twelve
depending
EM ii1021902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 foundation figure resisting and FD fective ing the conditions. VI 1. force AB +D at the A typical The CD force slice W with is the forces total acting weight parallel unit to AB on it is shown of the slice. AB in The (fig. 2)
2 of plate cohesive
to act
is equal acting
developed normal
normal factor
a trial composite
on each 3 of plate
combined a con
shown
using
venient (1) (2) slice. (3) weight (4) tablishes frictional (5) vector vector, the
following vector
steps
1 through
cohesion
parallel
to the base
Draw vector.
a line
normal
to the base
of the
slice
from
the upper
end
of the
Construct the
a line
of
4,
from
the
normal
line.
This
esand
resultant
of the normal
cohesion
draw slope
the
side
earth the
average the FD .
This on each
developed using
side
earth
vector be drawn
of the
in which To obtain
of balanced factors
composite
for
of safety of the
in closure trial
composite in figure
as shown points 2a
A smooth
curve
establishes
of safety
corresponding VI2
ofclosure.
EM iiio24902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 b. before illustrated ing before composite In this pore increase The value drawdown increase sidered above moist force before Sudden drawdown in plate drawdown force Drawdown. embankments to determine normal A typical
shown TWO
analyses
failure
.:
subject
to sudden
one for conditions and one after with forces The procedure actof the VI2. the zone. since is conhaving no sections
are
it is assumed from
submerged
to saturated
is determined
the before
for an impervious the upper unit weight force determined drawdown balanced lines friction pool before polygon. are
a base located of the side earth in the afterforce polygon VIi. The by conof the VI2. in figsubmerged The the drawsatufailure 2b through after pool,
of material
drawdown),
the magnitude is used the composite in figure (zero force error lines polygon before below to extend in figure are from from
drawdown magnitude drawdown structing developed Steps ure upper down rated pool, weights 2(b). pool
in constructing
3 of plate
normal
is determined
polygons for
of closure)
the upper
pool level.
and horizontal
extension
of the lowered
and submerged
below
the lowered
is a circular as indicated of constructing plate VI2. VI 1 i. embankment in plate in figure below 2 of plate water VI3. Embankment They VI3. R
arc,
the factor
after
by the equation
This
Z(b),
net for
pervious
of analysis seepage
Steady VI3,
In the case forces from acting flow nets on typical forces of safety the factor in figure effects failure
of steady
be determined.
can be determined line. To simplify of the weight is determined, for one trial as that
The forces construction and water as shown factor shown earthquake imparts of potential force
of the composite for each is shown of safety 4 of plate in figure 3 of plate for VIi.
force VI3.
zero
poly
gon, the resultant composite plate error d. oil, force graph force
surface polygon
in figure
for determining
analyin para
an additional
i if of the main
is computed
the equation
Fh = +W where W = weight += The weight and moist water a guide computed 2d above for assumed W unit of sliding seismic
on
mass coefficient saturated this line, slope. unit Figure weight below the saturation the weight text force as shown Fh in line of any is
is based weight
above
can be used as
in selecting
coefficient.
and included
EM iiio21902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 figure with plate e. drawdown posite veloped quently, down, mal with the force i(a), VI4, plate VI4. and water In the case forces Strength for of steady each slice seepage, as shown Stability pool) strength earth Fh can be combined i(b), diagram. for sudden force ,,...:
the weight
the use of comon the deCons@and error drawnoris to be Z(a) of porforce S and govapin the
The applicable
shear
by the side
as the composite
sudden polygon
constructed. the normal determine analyses determined plate tion divided erns.
plicable:
S and force +D
R envelopes must
or the partial
governs.
the steady
in a manner
similar
illustrated
VI2. by Where
of the composite
and the resulting strength for each side forces. along using earth Vertical factor from diagram,
R envelapes values
S strength
arc
passes
through
strength
are used
3. factor are
Graphical
may be used and determine of unit width above the trial the repolygon
stability
analyses
to balance balanced
AE to form be used
for num
accurately acting
AE , which
is the resultant
EM 111021902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 sides area ternal a. with into of the unit slope AE of the forces respect
width being slice, analyzed. is zero surface Seepage. section width slice is assumed The trial being to act parallel factor of safety mass to the average for which for a balance emthe net of ex
bankment
of safety
diagram
is the factor
analyzed. is not homogeneous may be transformed force h polyis illustrated at any weight a is weight weight of h of above the arc This
Embankment
for use in obtaining procedure section as a base. unit ybase convenient of each soil
gons (in units in figure point slice embankment includes weight obtained its unit of water feet) plate (1) (2) (3) (4) Of 9, (5) (6) (7) ular
Nl;(tan
is equal
to the height in the slice together used strata for h . two or more divided
the ratio
Where
by adding is often
The force
(in units 1 of
as illustrated
the following
steps:
1
Ybase line
X
1
CO8 8
at the base of the width C;> . force width 5. FD and AE force vector slice h
slice
from
friction
at an angle to intersect
the normal. from FD from the top of the unit is defined by step of
the friction
the intersection
perpendicND and
to the normal.
+D) l
normal scale
The embankment 3a
so that
the force
VI6
EM IilO2.i902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 polygons for plots toward toe near diagram these responding corresponding lower units, which shown for factor the size of the
be noted
for each unit slice that the force the crest in figure
slice
A plot VI5.
of
AE
.:
in figure
a clockwise
or counterclockwise section.
and pius
direction
Consequently, areas
of the embankment
minus
and towardthe
in the obtained.
the bottom
of
AE
equals
zero
being
increases
or approximated
area
VI5,
to determine integration and various For than the finite example, Dividers
balanced
forces. drawdown
constructing VI5.
vectors
The use of the graphical two analyses The cross into section
integration
drawdown
as in the finite the trial before of plate weights below figure failure drawdown VI6. this level.
above i
transformed before
and submerged
drawdown
is shown
EM 111021902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 the S strength, S and R must be compared with the normal R stress or S at the
strength the
intersection
gov.erns.
if the
normal Nb factors
developed
nor
An area to that
a plot VI5
of are
C AE used to the
of safety of safety
similar for
in plate
the of
balanced
forces.
After
between normal = 0)
are
used
conditions of safety
after
and errors.
be used
two
analyses
to min
must for
failure given
VI
12. (1) the Water effective forces normal VI7. manner, The on both  Ul  U1 line , are applies The on the force sides on the and base of
base
as shown
in figures for
of these following presl(a)). and of the to it, as side slice l(b), to deof pro
can
be accounted the
computations to be the UI, that force the U1 resultant forces necessary force and
opposite portion
other. of the
to that
saturation to the
to a line
in figure
applies
of the on the
slice.
Although
U of all U1 and U2
from it is not
to compute this
resultant
U ; however, VI8
EM iiiOZ1902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 (2) direction It can be shown perpendicular graphical both either friction that the resultant force line. 1J This (i.e. makes U/y,) acts in a to VI7 U of on the .~
in figure
of the resultant
determining of the slice are illustrated weight in figure in plate 0. In analyses integration Details
FD , (b) the developed 2(b). This construction the validity forces safety
ND , and (c) the resultant in figure required VI4 for of water 1 of plate
on the slice only when slice are procedure and summed corresponds using multiplied of the
is used as the base unit for verifying VI7. The AE the correct seepage
in the unit
to obtain steady
factor, partial
which pool)
(including
procedure,
the developed
normal
force
to the normal stress at the intersection bY YW cos 0 must be compared R+S strength the S and R envelopes to determine when the S and 2 governs. material. d. quake potential graph 2d. Earthquake. imparts failure For the earthquake horizontal should in paragraph be computed slices weight case it is assumed force Ilf Fh acting of the main for each unit in figure mass h1 (total) When the trial composite sliding surface passes through different for materials, each the appropriate strength envelope should be used
that the earthof text slice and in paraand added VI4. to slice
an additional as discussed Fh
in the direction
to the force Note that based weight effective the equivalent above
as shown
2, plate
in the equation
Fh = JI h (total),
is equal
in the unit
weight below the water table and moist unit This equivalent height is not the same as the table. h (effective) unit based weight
VI9
on submerged it.
unit
weight
be
and moist
above
3d
EM 111021902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 4. End of ConstructionCase this condition as discussed analysis and the for the should 1.t Unit weights to those 9 of the main and shear strengths at the Examples the finite end of slice VI8 used of in
analyzing construction stability procedure and tion record further 5. 9, using
correspond
in plates
respectively. results
be made
during and
consfrucon is
of tests This
samples discussed
where
high
measured.
in Appendix
unit
weights,
paragraph
In some pore
a rapid during
drawdown
before
reduction pressures
a.
for case a trial
Slices. arc
VIIO of finite
shows width
Submerged drawdown merged drawdown safety safety the zero are for unit
used
unit
in the level
sub
the the
minimum
errors zero
closure
force
of closure
is then
as shown
in figure
Case
designations
are
those
described VI 10
in paragraph
ii
of the
main
test.
EM iilO21902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 normal safety plate (2) equation forces for VI10. from this force polygon condition, after are used drawdown must soils. saturated as shown for computing in,tabular is determined the factor form in from the analyses flow efnet. of
as shown
of safety
of seepage
forces with
The water from slice the flow (fig. 4, unit to. conboth of the condition the top of part way the consider computations for the sudTwo are used for the procedure. of safety were VI12). to the
The resultant
Saturated way,
and it is necessary In this forces arcs arcs on the sides critical through emerging should
of the slice.
the weight
forces analyses
a more
than is shown
and additional
may be desirable. material. Procedure. the graphical each trial ND force arc,
integration
dam of impervious as in the finite for beforedrawdown polygons. steps: factors Trial
the afterdrawdown
the following
of each
on the effective
(ND COB 9)
EM 111021902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 of the slice. plotting S strength, The shear as shown strength normal in figure developed stresses, 2a, plate along VIi2. the arc (In this was determined using the example problem, by
the developed
Nb COB 8 , determined
the S strength was used when the value of Nb cos 8 was less than 4.150 kips per sq ft = 5, ft ) 0.073 kips per cu ft (2) Using the factor o; safety found in paragraph 5b(i) above for Z AE were (3) struct for after determining safety 6. found for Partial = 0, corresponding of Nb force of from polygons Nl!, were for beforedrawdown determined. were then used to conThe factor factors until of safety and of is If a factor of safety analysis. trial for VI12). The critical for various the center are varied the surface pool elevation pool levels. should for the of the pool of the arc until 5b(2) above conditions constructed Values force and values
paragraph
polygons
for the afterdrawdown was determined of the AE (fig. diagram 4b, plate IV. arc, below arcs should
drawdown
by assuming
the net area Pool, failure The radii this level. Slit e s . in plate Upstream
each trial
Z AE 1 = 0 was found the critical surface slope Subsequent A stability VI 13. of the
Slope
Case failure
by determining
surfaces
the assumed intersect first radius a. width above velopes arc. trial.
of the trial
the critical the pool above slices of finite below enfailure arc
and below
for
Moist unit
weights
pool level.
A composite
the shear pool levels pool arcs. Procedure. procedure arc level
strength
be analyzed
as in plate VI 12
In figure
1, the section
EM
iiio24902
Appendix VI 1 April 1970
arc
is converted ehear
into weight
an equivalent used 2,
embankment

the submerged
in figure
and  14.
differences
differences
in measurements SlopeCases
of the smallscale A simplifying the curve the saturation more of finite on a to above for is and of pieline.
diagrams. 7. Steady Seepage, pressures the piezometric Finite is shown slice linearly must 2c of thie Slices. in plate appendix. pool Downstream often along V and VI. analysis a flow the failure for Case is that with arc. V using slices the forces forces conservative zometric However, closely
a.
assumption
made
the failure
coincides
it may be desirra.ble
net to determine
pressures A stability VI 15. as that using In this (Case VI), forces
as discussed pool
Where
a surcharge
in paragraph Graphical the graphical section having Unit conditions VI15 and i6 of the soil
for Case V VI16 using the of water in between is inpool. VI16, height
the same
In figure into
i, plate equivalent
occur.
difference
in measurethe surcharge
EM 111021902 Appendix VI 1 April 1970 8. made used a. method analyzed ally Earthquake9 or Case by using to compute Finite under is shown Case V with either Slices. in plate earthquake earthquake Integration. method example earthquake unit weights are used VII. effective This case loadings or total force
In
of Case I, can be are slice is weights the finite seepage) is baeicexcept the
..
Case IV,
seismic
included.
The analysis
analysis this
example,
c onditione. force Fh
the same b.
as that followed
VI15
Case I (end of construction) difference in this is that the horizontal and saturated unit weights
an earthquake
VI9
while height
submerged
in computing
the equivalent
VI 14
FIGURE
I. EMBANKMENT
SECTION
(1) THROUGH ARE STEPS CONSTRUCTION (5) IN
FIGURE WITH
2. SLICE FORCES
2 2 G )jii
ti ii
W
%
FD6 50
1.1B
LEGEND
W = WEIGHT OF SLICE ON BASE
IS!= EARTH
N = NORMAL
FORCE TO
SIDE
OF BASE
OF SLICE
SLICE OF SLICE
36
: ERROR OF CLOSURE
AL =
CO FO 90
LENGTH
ACROSS
COHESION
FORCE DE
= ARC
TAN # F.S.
BEFORE
DS
n
FIGURE I. EMBANKMENT SECTION AND FORCES ON TYPICAL SLICE BEFORE SUDDEN DRAWDOWN +o
Ws iUBMERGE0 EIGHT)
C .,(2)
(UFING
l
TRIAL STEPS
F.S.) IN CONSTRUCTION.
P. BEFORE
DRAWDOWN 2. PORTION
DRAWDOWN TO 2b)
DRAWDOWN
FIGURE
EQUATION FOR (ALTERNATIVE XND F.S. NO W = WEIGHT c AND SHEAR =
POLYGONS
+ XChL 6 FORCEBEFOREDD
AFTER
DO
MODIFIED SWEDISH METHOD FINITE SLICE PROCEDURE SUDDEN DRAWDOWN IMPERVIOUS EMBANKMENT
Plate
VI2
I\\
FAILURE
I_
TAILWATER
ARC
BLANKET
\/I,
\
,W,
I TOTAL)
R3
&I)
SLICE WATER
lb)
FIGURE
2.
FORCES
ACTING
ON TYPICAL
SLICES
LEGEND
UF4= UL = uEl =
ON ON ON
SIDE SIDE OF
OF OF
SLICE SLICE
SLICE
MODIFIED SWEDISH METHOD FINITE SLICE PROCEDURE WITH STEADY SEEPAGE WATER FORCES Plate VI17 VI
\ \
w3
(TOTAL) W6 (EFFECTIVE)
DIRECTION POTENTIAL
Of FAILURE
.
06
YF,,~
= J, W5 (TOTAL)
Fh3 ~~~
Wj (TOTAL) = 4 wj FORCES
lb)
WITH SEE
SEEPAGE FIG.
3. PLATE=3)
PR_OCEDURE
DIRECTION POTENTIAL
OF FAILURE
r; (EFFECTIVE)
(TOTAL)
cl DIRECTION 4POTENTIAL OF FAlLURE
e/
/ 2 eF; =$h (TOTAL)
(0) (SEE
NO
SEEPAGE FIG.
FORCES
(b)
GRAPHICAL INTEGRATION
WITH FIG.
SEEPAGE
FORCES
1. PLATE=5) FIGURE 2.
(SEE
zb, PLATE=7)
PROCEDURE
MODIFIED SWEDISH METHOD FINITE SLICE AND GRAPHICAL INTEGRATION PROCEDURE EARTHQUAKE LOADING
Plate VI4 VI18
TRIAL
F. S. EAE
4
VERSUS TRIAL F.S.
3.
(+I
$0
WHEN: +hEAREA = AEAREA TRIAL F.S. FOR WHICH XAE BALANCE OF INTERNAL SIDE (ARBITRARY IS F.S. FORCES UN IITS) FOR
t1
=0
FIGURE
2. AEAREA
DIAGRAM
CURVE DEVELOPED BY PLOTTING h AT SELECTED INTERVALS
STEPS
IN CONSTRUCTION
\,
WAE, .
()AE
(5)

IYl\ k
TRIAL FAILURE
FIGURE 4OTE: ALL ARE COMPONENTS IN UNITS OF OF FEET UNIT SINCE SLICE FORCE POLYGON
I.
EMBANKMENT
SECTION
ha = h x  Y YBASE
=
h XL YBASE
%
N;J
Fb
MODIFIED SWEDISH METHOD , . ,RATION GRAPHICAL INTFC PROCEC XJRE NO WATER FORCES
Plate
VI5
VI19
902
CURVE DEVELOPED BY PLOTTING h AT SELECTED INTERVALS: BEFORE DRAWDOW LAFTER 0RAWcmw
,/P,
(00)
1.Yr.s
AFTER
DO
AFTER
DD
h
hl q
IY
+ h2
YSAT
Yt3ASE
FIGURE
I. EMBANKMENT
SECTION
40 R CD
FOR
\
= 0 1 XYe*sEXCOs 1 Nb FIG. FROM 2a
h AFTER
ZA ,E
h BEFORE
DO
a. BE FORE
b. AFTER AT A
DRAWDOWN
cos 8 AL=!COS a
AL=~
u2=h,ywA~
SATURATION LINE PlEZOMETRlC LEVEL ABOVE FAlLURE ARC U SIN (90 U coS=  8) = SIN
U2
(90
t al
we,&
COS a
hwy,,,A~A~@ u=
 a) .a)
AL u =hwywA~'
SATURATION
L/NE
FIGURE
I. RESULTANT
U FORCE
TANGWT
TO SATURATION
LINE
/ h
LEVEL FAILURE
I
TRIAL FAILURE
(0)
FIGURE
2. GRAPHICAL
DETERMINATION
OF U AND ND
MODIFIED SWEDISH METHOD GRAPHICAL INTEGRATION PROCEDURE, STEADY SEEPAGE WATER FORCES
Plate m2 i VI
EM
IilO2.1 April
1902 1970
APPENDIX Wedge 1. failure proximated is generally larly and dation applicable a relatively materials. of the or rock General. may The occur procedures presented and These
VII
.,.
Analysis in this its appendix assume along are This that shear apof what is particuouter stratified emphasize impervious of the for with of the that shells founthe cores location of
in an embankment of planes.
foundation
a surface
by a series termed
procedures
variations method
the wedge
method
of analysis. containing
embankment resting
cohesionless or
on either presented
application with the with vious planes amples amples 2. into Basic three gravel core
are
embankments portions
the
upstream of the
boundaries the
mass failure
not
necessarily only
most
planes,
ex
involved. mass and are is usually a passive assumed The forces divided wedge, beon 4 of friction of
segment VIIthe 1.
as shown and
2 through
of cohesion
failure F.S.,
controlled
by the assumed
so that  c/F.S. = (tan resultant VIIi +)/F.S. earth forces EA and Ep also
tan 9,
Consequently, the magnitudes of the
and active
2 and polygon
A condition
not be obtained
safety the factors polygon are (fig.
on
4,
trial
and several
analysis,
required.
In each
plate
tally made VIIi,
VIII)
and of its AG
is denoted
magnitude
as
and
force
with
versus
the required trial the
the trial
factor
of safety
sliding
analyzed.
quired
and passive
3.
are
Basic
illustrative
Criteria.
earth forces only resulting
of the
active these
and criteria
passive
illustrated should
settlement subsoQ
consolidation desirable.
layers
profile only
where
in plate the
apply
the
occur sliding
beneath planes
embankment.
is often
trolledby
vious near Iayer a. of core, the has
weak
and bottom been
zones,
must
layer
and/or
be determined layer.
In general, that
discussions
(4)
A general
in figure or includes value of the
rule
for
selecting When
the the
EA
in the
VII2.
of the must
crest
force
polygons
equal
various
As a first plane
be assumed
to 45O + (4b/2).
is located
EM
111021902
Append& 1 April VII 1970 of the ..
thin slidin
core,
the
slope
of the
core
will
generally
govern
the angle
value conjugate
of
EA stress
and
corresponding illustrated
value
of
eA
can VI,.l3
be
determined when tire (fig. earth cient sumed (3) plate (a) the active l(b), force KA angle
procedure
in plate
sliding is under
enslope
and
(d) seepage
The
active coeffi
earth
and
the as
of the the
active active
When VU2),
is composed sliding
(fig. shear
l(c),
on the
of the for
design
analyses and
for
of levees, active
structures, for
be assumed analyses
at desoil value
design 9A surface
each
is found. To determine A the wedge must be subdivided force rection accordance of the plane at each of the boundary resultant the are
as shown
by the
polygon.
with ac
and E A ire assumed Al EA2 given in plate VU2. Other trial analyses to determine the
in all
of safety. b. block passes cause the terial Central passes through of changing block (or Block. through a single normal should shear more (1) Where than one but (e.g. the failure plane or where shear a composite its component previously beneath the the failure central plane is used be
central type
up into
strength)
as described
VII 3
WI)
EM 111021902 AppenGx VII 1 April 1970 Resultant sumed and latter E forces acting on boundaries at any more the value between intermediate assumed on the these between subblocks the inclination With can be asof this E A
to the
stress. case should also be considered different cohesionless this partially may stresses, be true. by computing the two materials (1) case along offer failure where materials material). surface other; shear under at which may this a horizontal (for failure sura clay a case, sliding because than effective switch at which the in the normal occurs is slidclay the
a boundary
between
example, In such
stratum lowest partially ing under stresses can easily in the low
resistance material
be when occurs
in one
stress
Forces.
is near VII2,
the
toe
as in the to occur is assumed the active between the wedge toe lowest
shown a weak
in figure plane
block, and
locations are
to determine the
passive
factor
in figure and
is located
of the soil
embankment
plate graphically
resultant the
resistance
Ep in which
= 1/2
y h2Kp
1 t sin KP = 1  sin
+D $D
3c(l)
VII4
EM 111021902
Appendix 1 April When of value zones, (2) shown same outer various less plane of 8p and 8 P of the vertical must E BP P boundary for is not each at the toe trial the factor of the embankment, until trial a minimum several 3a(3) soil VII 1970 
values
of safety wedge
When and
passive
includes
be varied
sliding 2(b), E
surface
The factors
If a central block is present, A is determined magnitude of Ep of safety. is stronger the (fig. and P criteria cases 8 When the embankment the
polygons
foundation
than toe
of the plate
parallel may
to the be used
(3) forces
procedures in the
4.
End
endofconstruction and impervious examples presented. at the text. and or strata end Unit end for
embankments and shear as S shear materials soils. foundation The when In beR
weights
correspond
expected main
of construction, analysis,
in paragraphs are strengths may used for are be used will it may R .
9 and
Ila
of the
In the
foundation
foundation in the
relatively
cases, Q and
strength
be made VIII.
construction
embankment,
in Appendix
Case
designations
are
described
in paragraph VII5
11 of the
main
text.
EM IliO2i902 Appendix VII 1 April 1970 a. is equal flanking infinite (2) than the Embankment to or greater with than Central the core, F.S. where = 8 the Core. (I) Where the foundation embankment be estimated V. that This is weaker condition into i an is seto various BA factor EA stress VII4. Because the of the is using strength shell the
central
in Appendix a layer
be found failure
by trial. mass
assumed and
a central end
can
according to for
conjugate 2 of plate
direction sur
is assumed in the
given in this
in figure figure.
Ep
is also within
When wedges,
of material A can
or passive
be deter
force
diagrams. above for EA and Ep, a force polygon VII4. trial the trial for the The fac
as shown AEH.
3 of plate AEH
versus
tors
VII4,
factor IO
closes.
passive
the
minimum
a portion by trial
by constructing
as shown
Embankment normally
with
Inclined
(1) lower
The
failure core
surface material.
for
this While
condition.will 4b(l)
be located
strength
EM
iiio21902
Appendix J April VII 1970 befaces, boundis as failureVII5. toe of The .:,
the
zone
of minimum
the
middle than
here along
failure where
If the portion
in the
In the
section
passive
wedge of the
of the
dam. earth
of the
are
determined
from
appendix When
a trial
of the trial
wedge face
is along plane should so that shown gravel stresses, resistance filter point and
boundary be located
of two in the
sliding
developed is obtained.
the
maximum VII5,
force
of the material of the loads; of the A method Several of the polygon core therefore sliding
is less the
shear under
is true the
upper
surface the
of locating trial
active
location using
strength
developed in plate
case the
is located points.
polygon, curve
the
FA(Q)
The strengths
intersection result
point
two
same VII7
value
D in fig.
EM 111021902 Appendix VII 1 April 1970 From drawn plate which which wedge forces plotted balance (3) shell, 5. this point, a line parallel to the (dashed point would in the are S line strength from sliding gravel force point friction vector A(S) E in fig. right left of of F is 1 of
sliding This
surface locates
surface, filter
plane
sliding and
core.
polygcns
the
central
shown the
polygons 5, where is
of safety
the
analyzed shear
foundation failure
strength the
pass
through
II and III.
strengths, are active in the a. erally narrow weak described and shell
drawdown
by seepage
Central
Core. having
(1)
Sudden
drawdown shell
is not
genand a
materials
core,
case
need
unless
a relatively
is present shell
in the materials
Stability
If the horizontal
a thin trial
through an is di
1, plate failure
VII6, mass
potential an active
a central
block, it may
Because a
semipervious, the
drawdown of the
to evaluate between
locations various
boundaries
the wedges
block
EM 111021902
Appendix 1 April inclinations (2; wedge of the In the and active and shown passive in plate sliding planes the must be assumed. between the passive the VII 1970 .,
example block E
VII6,
central for
is assumed
to be at the
embankment; location
are shown directly below figure 1. A trial P deg is assumed for the active sliding plane, of the R or S shear the envelopes along in plate for the for active a trial the strengths normal shown trial along stress the at the trial
use
inflection the
in figure
2 with
failure
planes.
The
procedure
doing (4)
this The
VII6.
wedge factor and for the central of 1.3. block Various of the are AEH trial reare of safety is obtained. VII6 locations of the equation of 1.28; for
Vu6
until
of forces in figure
A plot for
of safety and
of the
active
wedges. factor
(1 on 3.5) izontal factor flow safety safety bankment riprap ation b. clined flow
with
Therefore, drawdown
surface
outer
a low through
factor the of
as compared If there
to a failure
surface
thickness into
slope,
of riprap
consider
analysis. with Inclined Core. along (1) The sliding surface between portion However, in the the core core inand is
to be located the forces with that the the shear prior sliding core
because
strength
of the stability
should of the
boundary
along
VII 9
5b(l)
EM 111021902 Appendix VII 1 April 1970 consolidated When sists inciding The EP ure with pool the under foundation and toe of the the weight is stronger a passive of the base using critical wedge each trial top of overlying than wedge, the material embankment, with the toe and
by seepage forces.
the of the
conco
in figure BP and
passive
force in fig
conjugate for
upstream passive is above slightly (2) force (wA1 rock stream moist. sure, The and uA force weight (3) sented for the the case (4) will
of safety
than
that
4, plate rock
frictional
submerged
b e 1ow the maximum (WA3) the low that cause pressure weights need Figure above pool this any this level added immediate force
weight
fill
from
induces
strength
pore
created
by the in the
force
4 by the in
from change
shell of
(492 Ep
portion factors
A of safety Ep equal
are and
preEA in
5, plate surface
of equality a factor
between
of safety
to 1.23
illustrated. If the shell is stronger and full than the foundation, should 10 the passive sliding If high plane
be in the
foundation
drawdown VII
be considered.
5b(4)
EM
illoAppendix 1 April
2.1902
VLI 1970 .L
tailwater downskream
will sudden
exist
during
a check
of the
6.
Partial
Upstream
reduces resistance
the
stability of the
elevation Basic
critical
elevation for
shear
strengths
case
in paragraph Embankment
text. The appendix, embankment strength stress. (1) A stability foundation in figure analysis is shown 1 of the earth in figure each trial for in plate. force 2. The E As P in an of the procedure except at the core used that trial is similar to
Core.
shear
is used,
effective Inclined
core
normal Core.
on a strong is 8 shown
section plane
sliding
and the passive P determined as shown critical wedge factor condition completely of safety for
passive trial
each
slope
at the Submerged
top
elevation (2)
weights right
above. of.figure 1, plate WI8, trial illustrate failure a simpliplanes envelopes for are
fied
procedure
strength
3. of E A is determined comparison 5, indicates of that VIIfrom EA the 11 a force and factor Ep pal:gon versus of safety as shown trial for factor the sliding in figof
4, plate shown
The
safety,
in figure
EM IliO21902 Appendix VII 1 April 1970 surfaces (4) at the check core cal analyzed This case is 1.51. also of the be analyzed core with The the assuming pool level the active sliding plane to
at several assume
analyses weights
should
corresponding
the
shell,
the
passive
sliding
plane using a
will central 7.
be in the block
Steady
seepage
reduces uplift,
saturation is reduced.
and
thus forces
frictional of the
impervious to use
shear
strength
discussed a.
core
steep bility
embankment shell
on a strong
be examined. sliding
draining, factor
the of safety
critical can
is the
be expressed +
F.S. where b = cotangent + = angle Where critical trial. shell shell cores sliding Where material, just above are of the downstream friction foundations may strength pass
= b tan
slope
material than zones is less the and shell, must that the most by
weaker these
through
the
shear
of the
than
the the
weakest foundation,
horizontal slightly
surface the
may
be either layer,
foundation
or at the
VII12
EM
iiiO2.I902 Appendix VII 1 April 1970 and and the shown strength shear central shear in .... . .
of the
foundation
depending in plate
upon VII9.
the The
normal active
are
sections
Composite to determine
where
wedge the
portion maximum
Al
in the active
shell, force
entirelymust
submerged,
be determined of from F Al
(fig. trial
3, plate factor
and direction WAl can be determined slightly 65 deg wedge above The values spectively, (3) assumed varied trial from b. critical dation. down a. are Steady The for the trial for
Values 0 Al and
plate
VII11 of safety
is used
factors
of safety. is completely
When
material EAl
can
determination of EA (for
hydrostatic = 50 deg)
in figure in figures
of plate magnitude
EA
for
each
factor eA2 of EA
with must EP
the be versus
of the value of
factors figure
in figure lowest
6, plate factor
VII9.
be noted
Embankment for
with
case
is not foundraw
upstream
on a strong or sudden
case
after the
quickly seepage
pool because
EM iliO21902 Appendix VII 1 April higher narrow used in the charge that the for two pool portion storage 1970 level. central this This analysis The identical in is especially procedure to those Case VI wedge applicable of analysis given the for to rockfill and Case shear dams strength having criteria difference the surof
is that to the
thrust and
pervious
zone instead
between
the
surcharge AA example
of moist. pool
of this applied to
VII10 shown
where
has
been
in plate
9.
in paragraph an additional potential soil mass on the line, In the for in the the failure W
main
text, force
it is asFh acting
sumed in the
This
force
is equal coeffi
to the total cient moist water forces the 4,. unit above are
weight above
below
and of
weight the
the weight
horizontal passive
computed block,
active
central
respective
polygons.
VII
14
EM
VU 1970
0.3 I I
0.4 I
0.5 I
0.6
0.7 I
0.6 J
OS J
1.0 I
i
20
26 &,,
30 DECREES
36
40
4s
6, = &, t ARC=
4TAN
40
t 8, [TAN
14,
+ B, + CDT
4,1)+
(196Zl.4
FRDM
TABLE
A73,
JUYIKIS
EARTH
PRE6SURE
COEFFICIENT
TABLES
eA VS 4D FOR COHESIONLESS SOIL, COULOMB ACTIVE SLIDIN PLANE E FOR ACTIVE WEDGE BENEATHNEGATlVESLOP1 Plate VIIii
VII
35
EM
APPENDIX Evaluation
VIII Stability
1.
fected When
Basic
during
construction of fill
construction in either
pressures
high, period
(a) provide or
(c)
or
flatten discontinue
rate
may
also and
construction that
be regarded expectations
part
to assure
actual
embankment
properties. of Pore The the and Water development or in the of drainage Pressure of pore During water Construction. pressures depends during upon the construcsoil conbe
tion
in either
foundation
the amount
occurring
during should
observations magnitudes
to assess
stability
Pore
Water
Pressures. embankment
Pore
water during
saturated
on (a) fill
characteristics
as water height,
permeability, or impervious
provisions, and
struction, Factors
(g) climatic
involved
in pore
in embankments
EM 111021902 Appendix VIII 1 April 1970 for estimating construction report fill pore water pressures are 15 and are reviewed briefly is placed above partially in the increased water, discussed below. material, soil air the is comin a recent
Corps (2) following pressed, causes decrease; stresses caused weight and
pressure volume
of air pressures
increased;
increased
by an amount and solution fill is supported water and air that are
by compression of overlying
by effective
by pore
pore actually
air
somewhat
during construction 16,17 from application procedure saturated with are soil
without
drainage
an example. slowly, in stages, water or in two may occur or and into invesbetween may
constructed
drainage unless
of pore
consolidation conditions
is taken is being
construction from
in shear is taken
consolidation embankment
periods
account,
be estimated from procedures originally developed by the Bureau 17 18 Dissipation of pore pressures and extended by Bishop. mation periods increase ness fill that when no fill is placed stress. decreases the results Bishop in a decrease pointed out that in soil this volume increases
resumed, have
would
developed.
A procedure VIII2
an example
2b(3)
EM
iiio21902
Appendix 1 April VIII 1970 with. in ..
VIII2
for
evaluating of pore
pore
pressures between
in partially construction
soils and
pressures
dissipation
is relatively out
stages
when
coefficient A gas
constant
as is often
of consolidation saturated
C.
the
change
in rate
of consolidation
suggested Water
by Gould. Pressures.
19
(1) Excess pore water presthat sig
soils occur
assuming
consolidation to the
equation,
can be estimated 20
Au = B [Au3 + A(Acri
where which dations the ratio A .and are are B are experimentally in plate saturated pore water VIII4 and
pressure
coefficients, founso
illustrated assumed
of induced becomes
pressure
to the
increase
principal
stress
A=At(iA)= Ai
value
of
should total
correspond stresses,
field
value
for done.
the value
ratio of
equal
imposed
overlying
materials VIII3
usually
restricted
EM 111021902 Appendix VIII 1 April 1970 part of embankments of excess is illustrated of 1.0. of pore Corps given pressures of Engineers above in shale developed. may observed report. in foundations of earth dams 21 Data presented in it sugunderestimate but suitable recourse such hard foundation alternative must be made pore where pore this water ia, approximation pressures plate is reasonably on the VIII4, and preconsolidation plate VIII5, correct. The stress assuming of
by figure
value
substantially
materials. overconsolidated
extent that
or highly
as clay
and for
Undisturbed should testing samples depths data be taken of three at other should in stability field
in which
in diameter from
to permit a common
triaxial depth.
compression Additional locations the also piezometric may These be used field soil and
or four elevations
Piezometer in using
to estimate may
values during
be compared was predicting the were and radial field developed ascon
values and
construction for
variation future
as a basis for
loading. for
estimating
compression vertical
extended
19
Plots pore of induced pressure saturated, as loading pore under the continues pressure increased ratio versus fill fill load can be used where to applied thereafter, for soils load pre
dicting are
partially
increases
EM
iiio24902
Appendix I April VIII 1970 ,,.;;
the
additional
pore
water linear
the
added
fill observaand
weight.
piezometer to saturation
tions would 4. (4) sider such of fill tical toes, in the bridges tifying
account
nonlinear
be unconservative. Evaluation The all items and and of Embankment of embankment evidence including, Stability. stability a. Basic during Considerations. construction to piezometric (b) horizontal with slope beyond indicators, the should pressures, movements (c) vercon
evaluation relevant
in addition
at and
various more
be desirable
to use
is questionable. in the following along values, aspects to actual Strength obtained density
such
similar
the
most
de
In Situ samples
tested without
Samples in which
foundation strength
shear
envelope
should
EM 111021902 Appendix VIII 1 April 1970 determined text. soil The zone. from the test results in the should be tested stress apply manner be obtained at a single under only the to the shown in figure 2 of the depths pressure since the main
in each of its
estimated content
condition, at which
water obtained.
sample
are
then
made
that
are .that
similar the
to those
made
in
shear These
forces the
sliding into
sides
account
The
analyses
above were
apply
onIy
to the
embankment for
at the
obtained.
an increased should be
additional equal
overburden subsequent
is conservative period Pore measured strengths pressures of embankment field evidence for is ignored. Pressures. during the are
since
during B:
the
This
prowith condi
in the analyses.
design
those during
imconthese
as sumed, is not
required,
other
fails
to support
observations. (2) plies the that The use of Qtype and foundation. can test results pore The pore for construction water water from pressures pressures Q and condition are design developed imin
both
negative and
positive
embankment laboratory
inherent S envelopes
in the
Qtype 4c(2)
tests
be approximated
vm6
EM iiio2~1902
Appendix 1 April and plate can plotted VIII6. be simply close construction As seen from versus total normal stress on the field expectations, assumed critical failure measured provided failure plane, pore as shown water plane in pr.essures VIII 1970 .;;
piezometers
for
are
the
VIII6, stress
negative if design
pore
water
must
oc
in areas
of low
since
pressures, to obtain.
more
detailed during
as method
construction. pore directly pressures in the This implied laboratory that and are by use of Q test rea be pertest specand often laboof IOW tests
of computing be measured
pressure slowly
measurements. pore Because a tests type field for pressures the test
requires center
so that
at the
of the
are
equalized.
construction
the
pore
or
Wedge
Method
Considering
Water
VII. sides
or.wedge
only
where
field
extensive
embankment
unusual.
It should
be used water
forces
on the from
segment
be interpolated
piezometer 7
observations.
VIII
EM ii1021902 Appendix VIII 1 April 1970 embankments, corresponding shear, which the soil shearing resistance normal effective stress, normal by the to be near might show should prior stress be taken to start as the R strength
slice
or wedge bankment used. vertical pore lying VII for e. cedure dicted
segment, section
stability failure,
embe or
A near
failure
movements water fill. pressures The stability Method consists according VIIIi analysis
imposed in Appendixes
over
similar
described under
of the D:
a condition
of steady
Modified 
pressures
values
appendix
be supplemethod doe5
by at least
consider f. Method
Swedish is generally
or Wedge similar
Method
Considering C, except
F1 that
and the
E3 Stresses. shear resistance tive stresses 23 The tions. (1) ure sion plane tests. A plot at the This phase
to Method
is the undrained equal involved: versus is prepared (after corresponds lines on the of
strength
to effeccondi
to those
estimated
normal F or that
of shear
on the
fail
is done of a a
by assuming or i? test
any
shearing
to the
start
Next, construct see plate VIII7. the effective normal stress rfc drained shear, for various values and 8. (2) sponding Assume shear a trial strength value
shear prior
T1/T3
in plates and
of (01/G3), c
as 2, from
determine VIII8.
corre
parameters
plate
4f(2)
VIII  8
EM
Assume
trial
and field
obtain
closure pore
of force water
Swedish bottom
measured
corresponding in plate
effective VIII8
normal aI
stress and 03 ,
on the and
to obtain
compute (5)
3 for a i /u3
with
value in Step
assumed i and
1. 2
If nec
essary, through
of
assumed
4f(5)
VIII9
.
EM
a.
POREPRESSURE COEFFICIENT
COEFFICIENT MEASURED
A VERSUS AT FAILURE,
RATIO;
od
JI 70 75 DEGREE
so 85 So 95 OF SATURATION.
loo X
b.
POREPRESSURE COEFFICIENT B VERSUS DEGREE OF SATURATION; COEFFICIENT MEASURED AT FAILURE, STRESS INCREASING. CURVE APPLIES TO ONE SOIL ONLY, UNDER PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF TEST
Ar,Jl
(FER SICEYFTOII)
= ~~cur~~ro POREWATERFRZIURC IN MINOR PRINCIPAL STRESS Au, = INCREASE IN MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRESS A01 = INCREASE
Au
l 2 I.0 FCR SATURATED DEPENDENT SOILS ON OVERCOWSOL.IOATIOW RATIO A = FACTOR
THEN
=A+(1 AOI
AU
A)
A@B
Au1
1.0
T0,s
Ol =1 5
0.6
0.7
0.6 a la = o0.8
0.4
0.)
0.2
0.1
I
k 0 0 1
NORAULLY
CmnoLIDAYrD
IQLS
8 RATIO
1P
OCROVERCONSOLlOAflON
OF EXCESS PRESSURES
EM
EYt3ANKXENT
OI
TOTAL NORMAL STRESSO
PORE
ARE
a IS
ENVELOPE
HDWZONTAL
TOTAL
NORMAL
STRESS
ON FAILURE
PLANE
PORE
STRESS
Plate
VIII~
VIII
19
5 ENVELOPE LINES OF UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH VS rk ,THE EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS ON Te FAILURE PLANE PRIOR TO START OF IHORAINED SHEAR DRAINED
NORMAL
STRESS
VIII20
EM
IS VALUE
AT
START
OF
AT
START
OF
EFFECTIVE AT
NORMAL START OF
STRESS UNDRAINED
ON
FAILURE SHEAR
PLANE
if xf,
STRESS
ON
FAIL
$4$fq
mm4 ;,A f ;;f
5 WVELOPE
STRENGTH CONDITIONS
Plate VIII~
vm2i
i?u.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994  521.947/81206
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.