CHARLES,J. A. & SOARES,M. M. (1984). G&technique 34, No.

1, 61-70

Stability of compacted rockfill slopes

J. A. CHARLES* and M. M. SOARESt

The Mohr failure envelopes for compacted rockfills techniques have been adopted for the construc-
exhibit significant curvature particularly at low and tion of rockfill embankments. The use of mod-
medium stresses. A computer program for circular arc ern heavy earth-moving machinery has led to
slope stability analysis has been modified to accept rockfill being placed in comparatively thin layers
these non-linear failure envelopes. A dimensionless
(0.5-2m deep) and compacted with heavy vib-
stability number has been introduced to facilitate the
rating rollers. This method results in very dense
production of charts for the rapid assessment of rock-
fill slope stability. The effect of submergence on the
well graded rockfills with strength and deforma-
stability of compacted rockfill slopes has been ex- tion properties greatly superior to those of the
amined. uncompacted, uniform sized rockfills previously
used. However, as De Mello (1977) has pointed
out, modern rockfill embankments are usually
Les courbes intrinseques des remblais rocheux
compact& montrent une courbure signifiantesurtout a built with much flatter slopes than the earlier
basses et moyennes contraintes. Un programme d’or- structures.
dinateur pour l’analyse de la stabilite des pentes en arc It would seem that some modern rockfill
de cercle a CtC modifie pour prendre encompte ces structures may have slopes with high factors of
courbes intrinseques non-linearies. Un parameter de safety and do not fully utilize the shear strength
securite au renversement, sans dimensions a CtC intro- properties of the fill. A quite small value for the
duit pour faciliter la production d’abaques pour factor of safety obtained in a stability analysis
l’evaluation rapide de la stabilitt des pentes de rem-
(say, F = 1.4) may have been based on conserva-
blais rocheux. L’effet de la submersion sur la stabilit&
tive assumptions about the shear strength of the
des pentes de remblais rocheux compact&s a BtC
ttudiC. compacted rockfill (say, angle of shearing resis-
tance, 4’ = 40”). The development of large scale
testing facilities has made it possible to deter-
INTRODUCTION
mine with reasonable accuracy the shear
Fill materials used in embankment construction strength parameters of compacted rockfills
are generally described as either earthfill or (Marsal, 1973; Marachi, Chan & Seed, 1972;
rockfill. This distinction is important in geotech- Charles & Watts, 1980). It has been found that
nical design because rockfill generally has shear the Mohr failure envelopes for compacted rock-
strength and deformation properties much fills show pronounced curvature particularly at
superior to those of earthfill and, furthermore, low stresses. This has formed an obstacle to the
its high permeability should ensure that pore use of realistic shear strength parameters in
pressures do not develop during embankment stability calculations as computer analyses have
construction. The economic design of rockfill been based on linear Mohr failure envelopes.
slopes should make full use of these superior Recently, however, stability analyses have been
properties. carried out for materials with curved failure
Rockfill dams were built in California in the envelopes (Maksimovik, 1979; Costa Filho,
second half of the nineteenth century with Froes & Romanel, 1982: Charles, 1982).
slopes as steep as 1 vertical in 0.5 horizontal It is now feasible both to measure the shear
(Galloway, 1939). Embankments up to 30 m in strength parameters of a compacted rockfill and
height were built of rockfill dumped loosely in to use these realistic parameters in slope stabil-
position. The construction of slopes steeper than ity analyses. A computer program which carries
the angle of repose of the loose rockfill (which is out both the Fellenius and the semi-rigorous
typically about 1 in 1.3) was achieved by hand Bishop (1955) circular arc stability analyses has
placement of stone to form a rubble retaining been modified to accept non-linear failure en-
wall. In recent years different construction velopes. A dimensionless stability number has
been used in conjunction with the non-linear
Discussion on this Paper closes on 1 July 1984. For
failure envelopes (Charles, 1982) to facilitate
further details see inside back cover.
Crown copyright. the production of charts for the rapid assessment
* Building Research Establishment. of rockfill slope stability. These stability analyses
+ Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. give an indication of the slopes required to
61

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 62 CHARLES
achieve adequate factors of safety in rockfill
embankments of different heights.
SHEAR STRENGTH OF COMPACTED
ROCKFm
The shear strength of compacted rockfill has
usually been measured by carrying out drained
triaxial compression tests on the fill. It has been
customary to express the shear strength meas-
ured in a test at a particular confining pressure
in terms of the angle of shearing resistance
(Ul’lU31)f- 1
4’ = sin-’
[ (Ul’lU3’)f+ 1 I (1)
where (a1’/u3’)r is the maximum principal stress
ratio in the test. It is generally found that when
a series of tests is carried out on a particular
rocktill over a range of confining pressures,
there is a marked decrease in the measured
value of 4’ with increasing confining pressure
u3’. De Mello (1977) suggested that the curved
failure envelope could be described by a rela-
tionship of the form
or = Am (2)
where 7r and u’ are the shear strength and
effective normal stress respectively on the failure
surface in the compacted rockfill.
An investigation has been carried out at the
Building Research Establishment (BRE) to
measure the influence of confining pressure on
the angle of shearing resistance of a number of
well graded and heavily compacted rockfills at
low and medium confining pressures (Charles &
Watts, 1980). Drained triaxial compression tests
have been carried out on 230 mm dia. samples
with a maximum particle size of 38 mm. Table 1
lists the values of the parameters A and b
measured for four rockfills at normal effective
stresses up to 400 kN/m’. (It should be noted
that whereas the parameter b is independent of
the units used for stress the parameter A has
dimensions [u]“-~’ .) The poor quality slate
might have been rejected as unsuitable for rock-
fill material in many civil engineering works.
The other three rockfills were reasonably rep-
Table 1. Shear strength parameters for
heavily compacted rockfW where TV=
Am and 7‘ and v’ are in kN/d
Rock type A b
Sandstone 6.8 0.67
Slate (good quality) 5.3 0.75
Slate (poor quality) 3.0 0.77
Basalt 4.4 0.81
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
AND SOARES
resentative of the range of materials that would
be considered good rocktills in most civil en-
gineering applications.
The applicability of shear strength parameters
derived from drained triaxial compression tests
to stability analyses of rockfill structures might
be questioned on several grounds.
Size of rockfill particles
The maximum particle size used in the BRE
triaxial tests was 38 mm, whereas rockfill em-
bankments may contain rock fragments with a
dimension of a metre or more. Charles & Watts
(1980) have reviewed the data concerning the
relationship between shear strength and max-
imum particle size and have concluded that it is
a relatively minor effect, providing that the
scaled material is still behaving as a free drain-
ing granular fill.
Density of rockfill
At low confining pressures the initial density
of the triaxial sample has a major effect on the
shearing resistance of the rocktill. For the meas-
ured laboratory shear strength parameters to be
applicable to the field situation it is essential that
tests are carried out on samples compacted to an
appropriate density. Penman & Charles (1976)
have listed the densities achieved by heavy vib-
rating rollers at several major rockfill dams re-
cently completed in the United Kingdom. The
laboratory compaction has been designed to
achieve comparable densities.
Stress conditions
Most field situations correspond to plane
strain rather than the stress conditions obtaining
in the triaxial test. Plane strain laboratory tests
(Marsal, 1973) have always shown greater shear
strengths than the corresponding triaxial tests.
The use of triaxial test parameters is therefore
conservative and may offset any small over-esti-
mate of strength due to scale or density effects.
Magnitude of stress
When triaxial tests are carried out to derive
shear strength parameters for a stability analysis,
it is important that appropriate values of cell
pressure are used. The stresses in the triaxial
test should correspond to the range of stress
which will be encountered on potential critical
failure surfaces in the embankment slopes.
CIRCULAR ARC STABILITY ANALYSIS
Some early work on the analysis of slope sta-
bility by the method of slices was carried out by
Fellenius (1936) and Taylor (1937, 1948).
Bishop (1955) developed the method further
 STABILITY OF COMPACTED ROCKFILL SLOPES 63

Fig. 1. Circular arc stability analysis for rock6U slope

and examined the effect on the computed factor
of safety of various simplifying assumptions
about the forces between the slices. Fig. 1 illus-
trates a rockfill slope at an angle S to the
horizontal. The equilibrium of a mass of rockfill
of unit thickness bounded by a circular arc
ABCD of radius R and centre 0 has been
examined using the method of slices for the case
where the mobilized shear stress in the rockfill
along the slip surface is
base. From the equilibrium of the slice
P=(W+X,-X,+,)C~S~!-(E,-~+~)~~~(Y
(7)
The simplest procedure that can be adopted is to
ignore the interslice forces and assume that
P= Wcosa (8)
This is usually described as the Fellenius
method. Substituting equations (6) and (8) in
equation (5) for the factor of safety in the Fel-
lenius analysis

FF= c w’,in a! c [A(W cos a! - ~l)~l”-*‘] (9)

where F is the factor of safety against shear
failure. The shear force S acting on the base of
the slice BCFG is equal to ~1 where 1 is the Bishop (1955) proposed a more rigorous
length of the base BC of the slice. The disturb- analysis in which interslice forces were not ig-
ing moment of the weight of the rocktill within nored. In his semi-rigorous analysis Bishop as-
ABCD must be balanced by the external forces sumed that the resultant of the interslice forces
acting on the sliding surface and so we obtain acted horizontally. If we consider the equilib-
rium of forces in the vertical direction we then
c Wx = c r1R (4) obtain
Combining equations (3) and (4) Pcosoli-Ssinff = W (10)
Therefore
c Wx = c $ (u')~~R
(u’+u)lcoscu+TIsina=W (11)
The normal effective stress acting on the base of
the slice

P W
ub-u_~A(a’)b
(+‘=--_u
1 cos a
(12)
1
where u is the porewater pressure at the slice Consequently in this Bishop semi-rigorous

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 64 CHARLES
analysis, the factor of safety
1
Fu=
1 Wsina
IIb
(13)
The difficulty with equations (12) and (13) is
that both F and cr’ need to be calculated itera-
tively. In the computer analysis initial values for
both F (the overall factor of safety) and (T’ (the
normal effective stress at the base of each slice)
were calculated using the Fellenius method. The
second value of u’ for each slice was calculated
using equation (12) and these new values of (T’
were then used in equation (13) to produce the
second value of F. This procedure was then
repeated and it was considered that sufficient
iterations had been carried out when the differ-
ence between two consecutive determinations of
the factor of safety was smaller than 0.002.
Difficulties with this method were encountered
with very steep slopes (cot f3 (0.5) and high
values of the shear strength parameter b (b >
0.75). In this situation the critical failure surface
was very shallow and very steep and there were
problems with the iterative process for calculat-
ing the normal stresses at the base of the slices.
STABILITY CHARTS FOR ROCKFILL SLOPES
The high permeability of rockfill ensures that
in many rockfill slopes there are no pore pres-
sures. If we put u = 0 in the expression for the
factor of safety in the Fellenius stability analysis,
equation (9) then becomes
FF= (14)
The weight of the slice W is -yht where y is the
bulk density of the rockfill, h is the height of the
slice and t is the width of the slice (t = 1cos CK).
If the slices are all of the same width then
F = A 1 [h” codzb-‘)a]
(15)
F Pb’ 1 h sin LY
For a slope of height H, equation (15) can be
rearranged as follows
F&H)“-” = 1 (h/H)b COS(~~~‘)~X
(16)
A 1 (h/H) sin (Y
The dimensionless right hand side of equation
(16) is designated the stability number rr. For
geometrically similar slopes of different height
built of the same uniform rockfill and with no
excess pore pressures, the value of rF will be the
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
AND SOARES
same and will be independent of the height of
the slope. This will apply to the critical circular
slip surface for which a minimum value of the
factor of safety has been obtained. It is possible
therefore to calculate values of Fp for the critical
slip surfaces of slopes at various angles f3 to the
horizontal. The factor of safety can then be
calculated from
(17)
Similarly, from the semi-rigorous Bishop anal-
yses a dimensionless stability number can be
calculated such that
FB(YH)~‘-~’
=r
B (18)
A
FB is also the same for geometrically similar slip
surfaces in geometrically similar slopes of the
same uniform rockfill (Appendix 1).
Using the computer program, stability num-
bers have been calculated for the critical slip
surfaces of uniform rockfill slopes in which
there are no porewater pressures and which are
built on strong rock foundations. Although the
shear strength parameter b is likely to be of the
order of 0.75 for compacted rockfill, a range of b
values (0.5 <b s 1) has been analysed. In most
cases the difference between FF and rB was
small. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 where F calcu-
lated by both methods of analysis has been
plotted against cot f3 for a rockfill slope with the
shear strength parameter b = 0.75. For values of
cot f3 greater than 0.5, the Bishop analysis gave
values 5-10% greater than those calculated by
the Fellenius method. However, in the range
0 s cot /3~0.5, the Fellenius method provided
credible answers whereas the Bishop analysis
did not. It would appear that with very steep
slopes and shallow critical failure surfaces the
iterative procedure used to calculate the normal
stress in the Bishop method was no longer well
conditioned. The results of an analysis based on
a plane failure surface passing through the toe of
the slope (and ignoring interslice forces as in the
Fellenius circular arc method) has also been
plotted in Fig. 2. This shows a similar trend to
the Fellenius circular arc analysis but always
gives higher values of r.
In Fig. 3 the stability numbers rr; and rB
calculated from the Fellenius and Bishop stabil-
ity analyses respectively have been plotted
against cotf3 for 0.5~cotf3~2~0 and 0.5<bs
1.0. For each value of b the relationship be-
tween r and cot f3 is almost linear. However,
Fig. 2 has shown that there is marked curvature
at values of cot f3 smaller than 0.5 (i.e. with very
 STABILITY OF COMPACTED ROCKFILL SLOPES 65

/
/
I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
cot p
Fig. 2. Stabfifty analysis of rod&U slope (b= 0.75). a=Felleniw
circular arc, b = Bishop cfrcdar arc, c = plane failure surface passing
tbrougb toe

6.5 1 15
cot p

Fig. 3. Stability numbers hm cfrcular arc analyses

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 66 CHARLES
0.7
Ffg. 4. LQcation of centres of aitfcal
Ft&nfus analysis
steep slopes). When b = 1, rr = Aa’ (this corres-
ponds to a constant angle of shearing resistance)
and IF = Is = cot f3. The positions of the centres
of the critical failure surfaces have been plotted
for the Feller&s analysis in Fig. 4 and for the
Bishop analysis in Fig. 5. With X/H positive, the
critical surface is a circle that is tangential to the
base of the slope. In this situation the ratio of
the radius of the critical circle to the height of
the slope R/H = Y/H. When X/H is negative the
critical circle passes through the toe of the slope
and R/H = d[(X/H)2+ (Y/H)*]. As the value of
b decreases from one to 0.5, the radius of the
critical slip surface also decreases, i.e. the critical
surface goes deeper.
Both IF and Is have been plotted in Fig. 3 so
that the differences resulting from the two
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
AND SOARFS
1
0.6 0.9 1.0
b
circllfar slip surfaces in
methods of analysis may be appreciated. From
equations (17) and (18) it is seen that differences
in stability number from the two analyses will be
reflected in similar differences in factor of safety.
The differences shown in Fig. 3 are similar to
those found when the two methods of stability
analysis are used in a more conventional way for
soils with linear failure envelopes forming some-
what flatter slopes. This gives some indication
that the Bishop analysis continues to operate
satisfactorily for the steep slopes considered in
Fig. 3. To confirm this, further analysis was
carried out for a rockfill with a failure envelope
exhibiting very marked curvature (b = 0.5) and a
very steep slope (cot f3 =0.5). In the semi-
rigorous Bishop analysis used in this Paper, it is
assumed that the resultant of the interslice
 STABILITY OF
II
05 0.6
Fig. 5. Location of centres of critical circular slip surfaces in
B&op analysis
forces acts horizontally. The effect on the com-
puted value of lYB (and hence FB) of introducing
trial values of the vertical shear force (X, -
X,,,,) was examined. Even for this extreme situ-
ation of a steep slope and marked curvature of
the failure envelope, the value of l?, was in-
creased only by about 4-5% as the interslice
forces were varied. This is quite similar to what
has been found for flatter slopes in more con-
ventional applications of the Bishop analysis. It
can be concluded that the Bishop analysis is
sufficiently accurate over the range of values of b
and fl shown in Fig. 3. The values of rB rather
than rF should be used in design as the Bishop
analysis is more rigorous than the Fellenius
analysis.
STABILlTY OF SUBMERGED ROCKFILL
SLOPES
When a rockfill slope is submerged by a rising
reservoir level, the factor of safety against stabil-
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
COMPACTED ROCKFILL SLOPES 67
07 0.8 0.9 10
b
ity failure will change. If the slope is protected
by an impermeable membrane water will not be
able to penetrate into the rockfill. In this situa-
tion submergence of the slope will increase the
factor of safety against stability failure. In the
more important case where there is no im-
permeable membrane on the slope, the water
will penetrate and submerge the rockfill itself.
The effect of submergence on the stability of the
slope is more complicated in this situation. If the
stability number rB has been determined for a
slope in a uniform rockfill from the stability
chart shown in Fig. 3, this will make it possible
to calculate the factor of safety for both the dry
slope prior to submergence and the totally sub-
merged slope. (The term dry slope is used to
denote a slope that is not submerged; the rock-
fill within the slope may of course have a quite
high moisture content.) In the former case the
bulk density of the rockfill ybulLmust be used
in equation (18), and in the latter case the
 CHARLES
Fig. 6. E&z& of submergence on rocklill slopes (A=5, b=W75, ybdk/y’ = 2, H = 50 m)
submerged density y’.
F
-=Bsub -Ybulk (ImbJ
F Bdry ( Y’ )
In general yh,,Jy
__... will be slightly smaller than 2.
If Gbu,,J$ = 2 and b = 0.75 then FB,,,/FBd, =
1.19. (This simDle analvsis assumes that the
shear strength parameters A and b are not
affected by submergence.)
Although the factor of safety of the fully
submerged slope will thus be slightly greater
than that of the dry slope, partial submergence
can reduce the factor of safety. A minimum
factor of safety is generally obtained when the
submerged depth is about 30% of the height of
the rocklill slope. Fig. 6 shows the effect of a
rising water level on 50 m high rockfill slopes
with cot /3= 1 and 2 respectively and with typi-
cal shear strength and density parameters. The
reduction in factor of safety due to partial sub-
mergence is greater with flatter slopes. With
cot p = 2, the minimum factor of safety as the
water level rises is almost 10% smaller than the
factor of safety for the dry slope.
DESIGN OF ROCKFILL SLOPES
The following procedure is suggested for the
design of a slope to be built of compacted
rockfill to a particular height. It is assumed that
the rockfill is to be placed on a strong rock
formation, that it is sufficiently permeable to
prevent pore pressures being set up and that it
will not be submerged.
Determination of the rockfill shear strength
parameters A and b
These can be obtained from large scale
drained triaxial compression tests on samples of
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
AND SOARES
r H =50m
1 7
the compacted rockfill (Charles & Watts, 1980).
The use of this type of test has been justified in
an earlier section of the Paper. It is important
that tests are carried out on samples compacted
to a dry density and at a moisture content
similar to that which will be obtained in the
field. Modern heavy vibrating rollers can achieve
very high field densities. It is also important to
carry out the tests at appropriate confining pres-
sures. Fig. 7 shows a,‘/yH (where u,’ is the
maximum normal stress on the critical failure
surface) plotted against cot 0. From this graph a
preliminary estimate can be made of the range
of normal stress which will be of interest in a
particular situation. For example, with b =0.75
and cot @ = 1.5, a,‘/yH=0.31 and if y=
22 kN/m3 and H = 50 m, then urn’= 341 kN/m’.
Triaxial tests at confining pressures of 30 kN/m’,
100 kN/m’ and 300 kN/m’ respectively would
be appropriate in this situation. When the Mohr
circles have been plotted for the tests, the failure
envelope can be drawn. Generally this failure
envelope can be described with sufficient accu-
racy by equation (2), TV= Am. It is readily
seen therefore that,
logT,=blogo’+logA (20)
Consequently if the failure envelope is replotted
on log-log graph paper, a straight line should be
obtained with a gradient equal to b. The
parameter A can also readily be obtained from
this plot.
Selection of an appropriate factor of safety
In the design of slopes for embankment dams,
values of F as low as 1.4 are sometimes quoted.
However, these factors of safety have usually
been calculated using conservative values for the
 STABILITY OF COMPACTED
I ,
Oo.5 1 1.5
Fig. 7. M9 * nonnd effective slress on aiticd slip surface
shear strength parameters of rockfills. In the
present design method more realistic values of
rockfill shear strength parameters are being
adopted and therefore higher values of F may
be appropriate. The very high shear strength of
compacted rockfill at low stresses is very brittle
with a large reduction in strength rapidly occur-
ring once the peak strength has been realized.
Furthermore the peak strength will not be
achieved simultaneously at all points on a poten-
tial failure surface. The value of F selected in a
particular case will involve engineering judge-
ment and should depend on the importance of
the rockfill structure and the confidence with
which the shear strength parameters have been
determined.
Calculation of the magnitude of the stability
number
Now that the shear strength parameters A
and b have been determined and a factor of
safety has been selected, the stability number
can be calculated using equation (18), I=
F($I)(‘~h’/A.
Determination of the slope angle /3
With the value of I calculated, the slope cot /3
can be readily ascertained from Fig. 3 using the
stability numbers from the Bishop analysis.
The use of this design method and the stabil-
ity charts will now be illustrated by two worked
examples. Example 1 concerns the slopes for a
100m high embankment and example 2 the
slopes for a 10 m high embankment. Tests on
samples of compacted rockfill have shown that
the relationship, rr = 5(a’)“‘75 can adequately
represent the shear strength behaviour of the
rockfill in the stress range appropriate to both
embankments. In each case the embankment is
to be built on a firm rock foundation; the rockfill
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
ROCKFILL SLOPES 69
I I
2
cot @
is free draining and will not be submerged. A
factor of safety of 1.8 is required in both cases.
The bulk density of the rockfill is 22 kN/m’.
Example I. 100m high embankment
r = E(YIVb) 18(22x 1oo)“~25
= 2.47
A = 5.0
from Fig. 3, cot I3 = 1.32
Example 2. 10 m high embankment
r = F(yH)(l--b) 1.8(22x 10)0’25 = 1,39
A = 5.0
from Fig. 3, cot 0 =0.52
Example 1 illustrates how even a very
high rockfill embankment can be safely built
with slopes almost as steep as the angle of
repose of loose uncompacted rocktill in certain
circumstances. Obviously, the presence of a wet
clay core in a rockfill dam and the submergence
of the upstream slope would necessitate the use
of flatter slopes. Example 2 illustrates how small
embankments of compacted rockfill might be
safely built with slopes steeper than the angle of
repose of the loose rockfill. Clearly in this latter
situation it would be necessary to contain and
protect the surface of the slope.
CONCLUSIONS
Rational analysis of the stability of slopes of
compacted rockfill requires the use of realistic
shear strength parameters based on the curved
failure envelopes invariably found for com-
pacted rockfills at low and medium stresses. A
simple relationship of the form rr = Am can
in general adequately describe the failure en-
velope, and the parameters A and b can be
determined from a series of drained triaxial
compression tests carried out on the compacted
rockfill at appropriate confining pressures. The
 70 CHARLES AND SOAREZS

use of a non-dimensional stability number, I’= Assuming slices of uniform width t = 1cosa,
F(yH)(leb’/A, has made it possible to produce
charts for the rapid assessment of the stability of
rockfill slopes. The stability number also indi-
cates how the factor of safety is related to the
height of the slope; for geometrically similar
slopes in the same uniform rockfill the factor of
The procedure of calculating new values of normal
safety, F a l/H’lmb’. Total submergence of a
stress and factor of safety can be repeated using
slope will typically increase the factor of safety
equations (23) and (26) (replacing (TV’, F,, (TV’, F, by
by nearly 20%. Partial submergence can, how- a,‘, F,,, UC-~, F,-, respectively) until the difference
ever, reduce the factor of safety with a minimum between successively determined values of factor of
value occurring with the water level at a height safety reduces to an acceptable small value. Equation
of about 30% of the total slope height. The (27) for the Bishop analysis should be compared with
reduction is greater with flatter slopes and can the comparable equation (16) for the Fellenius
be 10% for a slope with cot @ = 2. analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEh4ENT REFERENCES
The work described formed part of the re- Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the
search programme of the Building Research Es- stability analysis of slopes. G6otechnique 5, No. 1,
tablishment and the paper is published by per- 7-17.
mission of the Director of the Building Research Charles, J. A. (1982). An appraisal of the influence of
Establishment. The second Author gratefully a curved failure enveIope on slope stability.
acknowledges the support of the National Re- Gtotechnique 32, No. 4, 389-392.
Charles, J. A. & Watts, K. S. (1980). The influence of
search Council of Brazil (CNPq) during his
confining pressure on the shear strength of com-
studies in Britain.
pacted rockfill. Giotechnique 30, No. 4, 353-367.
Costa Filho, L. M., Froes, A. S. & Romanel, C.
APPENDIX 1 (1982). Analise de estabilidade de taludes em solos
Derivation of stability number in Bishop semi- corn envoltoria de resistencia nao-linear. Proc. 3rd
rigorous stability analysis for rockfill slopes with no Latin American Conf. Numer. Meth. Engng,
pore pressures. Buenos Aires.
The first stage of the analysis is to calculate values Fellenius, W. (1936). Calculation of the stability of
of F and u’ based on the Fellenius assumption about earth dams. Proc. 2nd Congr. Large Dams,
inter-slice forces. These are denoted F, and u;, and Washington 4, 445-462.
the corresponding stability number is rl. Galloway, J. D. (1939). The design of rockfill dams.
From equation (17) Trans. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 104,l-24.
Maksimovik, M. (1979). Limit equilibrium for non-
A
F,=r,p linear failure envelope and arbitrary slip surface.
(yH)(‘--b’ Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Numer. Meth. Geomech.,
Aachen 2, 769-777.
From equations (6) and (8) Marachi, N. D., Chan, C. K. & Seed, H. B. (1972).
a,‘=WcQsolll=yhcos*a (22) Evaluation of properties of rockfill materials. J.
Soil Me&. Fdns Div. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 98,
From equation (12) we obtain a second value of o’ SM 1, 95-114.
Marsal, R. J. (1973). Mechanical properties of rockfill.
W Embankment darn engineering; Casagrande vol-
a;=_ -+ (o;)b
1 cosa I ume, pp. 109-200. New York: Wiley.
De Mello, V. F. B. (1977). Reflections on design
Dividing both sides of the equation (23) by yH decisions of practical significance to embankment
dams. 17th Rankine lecture. Giotechnique 27, No.
cz’ _ h u1 ’ btana
3, 281-354.
YH H YH
6> - rl Penman, A. D. M. & Charles, J. A. (1976). The
Substituting (T,’ from equation (22) into equation (24), quality and suitability of rockfill used in dam
construction. Proc. 12th Int. Congr. Large Dams 1,
u2’
_=__
h _
h b COS(~~-”01sin 01 533-556.
(25) Taylor, D. W. (1937). Stability of earth slopes. J.
yH H 0H r1
Boston Sot. Civ. Engrs 24, No. 3, 197-246.
From equation (13) Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics.
New York: Wiley.
F2 = T (wJb]l’ (26) Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in
engineering practice. New York: Wiley.

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LIBRARIES] on [15/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.