See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315925300

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS BY STATIC AND DYNAMIC METHOD

Conference Paper · December 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 6,294

2 authors:

Tarapada Mandal Sanjay Sengupta

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi National Institute of Technology, Arunachal Pradesh
11 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tarapada Mandal on 11 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Structural Engineering and Mechanics
December 20-22, 2013, Rourkela, India

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS BY STATIC AND DYNAMIC METHOD

Tarapada Mandal1, Sanjay Sengupta2

1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela,
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Biet suri, Birbhum, west Bengal,
Email:612ce3009@nitrkl.ac.in, sanswati2004@gmail.com

ABSTRACT :

Slope stability is an important consideration in the construction of artificial slope & natural slope The
fundamental criterion for stability analysis is the factor of safety against sliding which should be always greater
than or equal to one for the slope to be safe. This is true when the slope the slope experiences elastic
deformation only. But in case of a strong earthquake motion, the deformation of slope may exceed elastic limit
and hence permanent displacements take place. In such a case factor of safety as stability criterion becomes
immaterial and magnitude of the permanent displacements becomes measure for estimating the overall stability
of the slope. The objective of the study is to find out the factor of safety of the given slope under static and
dynamic loading (earthquake) condition using Swedish Circle Method, Bishop Stability Method. This study also
involves seismic stability analysis of the slope using Pseudo-Static Method. The probability of permanent
displacement of the earthen slope in various earthquake zones and in different soil considered is compared in
this study.

KEYWORDS: Stability analysis, factor of safety, earthquake zones, soil strata.

1. INTRODUCTION

There are so many method of finding out factor of safety of slopes under static and dynamic loading (earthquake)
condition. In all the methods, stability analysis is based on limit plastic equilibrium. A failure surface is assumed
first and then factor of safety is calculated from the ratio of the shear stress along the failure surface. In
methods of limit plastic equilibrium the concepts of static is applied. Although most problems in slope stability
are statically indeterminate, some simplified assumptions are always made to make the problem the problem
statically determinate to have a unique factor of safety. Under static loading condition the methods are Swedish
Circle Method, Friction Stability Method, Bishop Stability Method (Bishop 1955) and Janbu’s Method (Janbu
1954, 1973). In case of seismic analysis of slopes the methods are Pseudo-Static Analysis and Newmark’s
Theory. Here in our study we are solving the problem by Swedish Circle Method, Bishop Stability Method,
Pseudo-Static Analysis and Newmark’s Theory. In recent years a basic point of reference has been the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers manual for seismic design of new dams (which are generally considered to be among
the more critical civil engineering facilities). This requires use of a seismic coefficient of 0.1 in Seismic Zone 3
and 0.15 in Seismic Zone 4, in conjunction with a minimum factor of safety of 1.0. In California, many state and
local agencies also require the use of a seismic coefficient of 0.15 but impose the slightly more conservative
requirement that the minimum computed factor of safety be not less than 1.1. Clearly, however, engineering
judgment must still be applied as to the applicability of pseudo-static analyses and the acceptable factor of
safety might be varied with the uncertainties involved in a particular analysis.
2. METHODOLOGY

A case study is taken with a problem statement such as: An embankment of sandy clay having cohesion of 28
KN/m2.angle of internal friction Ø = 220 & a unit weight of 18kN/m3 .The slope height of the embankment are
1.7:1(H: V) & 10 m respectively.

2.1. Static method:

For our case study two static methods are considered, Swedish circle method and Bishop’s stability method.
For Swedish circle method the formula is:
F.S. = (1)

Bishop’s stability method is a trial and error method. However, convergence of trial is very rapid and also it
gives more accurate results. The formula is:

F.S. (Fs) = (2)

2.2. Dynamic method:

Analyses of seismic slope stability problems using limit equilibrium methods in which the inertia forces due to
earthquake shaking are represented by a constant horizontal force (equal to the weight of the potential sliding
mass multiplied by a coefficient) are commonly referred to as pseudo-static analyses. In this method when we
find out factor of safety, we use the seismic coefficient. Two different approaches are considered in this study.
Design spectrum method (IS 1893-2002 code method) and Newmark’s method.

3. DATA ANALYSIS

Swedish circle method (method of slices) gives the factor of safety to be 2.425 and Bishop’s stability method
gives a factor of safety 3.27 after five trial and error method.

Table 1 values obtained for the parameters in Swedish circle method

Slice Width Avg. Area Weight N T
no. (m) length A (W = γ.a) Α (Wcosα) (Wsinα)
(m) (m2)
1 2.5 1.4 3.50 W1 = 63 300 N1=54.56 T1 = 31.50
0
2 2.5 4 10.00 W2 = 180 20 N2=169.14 T2 = 61.56
3 2.5 6.2 15.50 W3 = 279 120 N3=272.90 T3 = 58
0
4 2.5 8 20.00 W4 = 360 3.5 N4=359.33 T4 = 22
5 2.5 9.5 23.75 W5=427.50 -40 N5=426.46 T5 = 29.82
0
6 2.5 10.7 26.75 W6=481.50 -12 N6=471.00 T6 = -100.10
7 2.5 11.25 28.125 W7=506.25 -200 N7=475.72 T7 = -173.15
0
8 2.5 10.60 26.50 W8 = 477 -30 N8=413.10 T8 = -238.50
9 2.5 8.85 22.125 W9=398.25 -390 N9=309.50 T9 = -250.63
0
10 2.5 6.3 15.75 W10=283.5 -50 N10=182.23 T10 = -217.17
11 2.1 2.4 5.04 W11=90.72 -650 N11=33.34 T11 = -82.22
ΣN = 3167.28 ΣT = -918.53

Factor of safety for above four earth quake zone for various time periods T1 = 0.05 sec; T2 = 0.10 sec; T3 = 0.40
sec; T4 = 0.55 sec; T5 = 0.67 sec & T6 = 4.0 sec is calculated. The design horizontal seismic coefficient Ah for a
structure shall be determined by the following expression:
 Ah = (3)
And Factor of safety is given by:

Σ
Factor of safety = Σ
(4)

The factor of safety for different time periods and different zones are calculated. Table2 shows the calculated
values for different zones and time periods for rocky or hard soil sites.

Table 2 Factor of safety for rocky or hard soil

For Rocky or Hard Soil Sites

Zone Period (Seconds) Factor of Safety

Zone-(ii) T1 = 0.05 2.176
T2 = 0.10 1.580

T3 = 0.40 1.580

T4 = 0.55 1.730
T5 = 0.67 1.820
T6 = 4.00 2.183
Zone-(iii) T1 = 0.05 1.520

T2 = 0.10 1.320
T3 = 0.40 1.320

T4 = 0.55 1.500
T5 = 0.67 1.600

T6 = 4.00 2.150

Zone-(iv) T1 = 0.05 1.290

T2 = 0.10 1.078
T3 = 0.40 1.078

T4 = 0.55 1.270
T5 = 0.67 1.390

T6 = 4.00 2.086
Zone-(v) T1 = 0.05 1.040
T2 = 0.10 0.856

T3 = 0.40 0.856

T4 = 0.55 1.020
T5 = 0.67 1.140
T6 = 4.00 1.988
A graphical approach for different values of factor of safety obtained for different earthquake zones and for
different soil strata is given in figure 1. We consider maximum risk,
So, taking =1
Where,
I = Importance factor = 1
R = response reduction factor = 1

2.5

1.5
Factor Of Safety →

Rocky or Hard Soil

1
Medium Soil
Soft Soil

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Time →

Figure 1 FOS Variation for Soil Strata at Zone-(V) w.r.t. Time Period
Variations of factor of safety with respect to different zones with different time periods are obtained and plotted
in the figure 2, figure 3.

1.8
1.6
1.4
Factor Of Safety →

1.2
1
Rocky or Hard Soil
0.8
Medium Soil
0.6
Soft Soil
0.4
0.2
0
II III IV V
Zone →

Figure 2 Variation of FOS w.r.t different Zone (T3 = 0.40 Sec)

2
1.8
1.6
Factor Of Safety →

1.4
1.2
1 Hard or Rocky Soil
0.8 Medium Soil
0.6 Soft Soil
0.4
0.2
0
II III IV V
Zone →

Figure 3 Variation of FOS w.r.t different Zone (T5 = 0.67 Sec)

Newmark’s method for determining factor of safety in dynamic conditions is an approximate but rational
connection between the seismic coefficient that is used in a pseudo-static stability analysis and the expected
amplitudes and duration of ground motion by working backwards through the method for computing
displacements of slopes that was originally suggested by Newmark (1965), first explored by Seed (1979).
Newmark has given a simple derivation for movement of a rigid plastic mass to give a quick estimate of the
magnitude of the motions to be expected in a sliding wedge of an earth when subjected to the influence of
dynamic forces from an earthquake. The calculations are based on the assumptions that whole moving mass
moves as a single rigid body with resistance mobilized along the sliding surface.
According to Newmark’s method “it is only necessary to perform a pseudo-static analysis for a seismic
coefficient of 0.1 for magnitude 6.5 earthquakes or 0.15 for magnitude 8.25 earthquakes and obtain a factor of
safety of the order of 1.15 to ensure that displacements will be acceptably small. For magnitude 6.5 earthquake
seismic coefficient, k y = 0.10.
Therefore, using the formula:
CR   N  ky   T  tan 
FOS 
 T  ky   N  (5)

And the value of factor of safety obtained is 1.691 and for magnitude 8.25 earthquake seismic coefficient, k y =
0.15 and the value obtained for factor of safety is 1.486. Figure 4 shows the variations of factor of safety with
variations in the earthquake magnitude.

1.75

1.7
Factor Of Safety →

1.65

1.6
FOS
1.55

1.5

1.45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Magnitude of Earthquake →

Figure 4 variations in FOS with different magnitudes of earthquake

4 CONCLUSIONS

From the above study following things can be concluded:

The slope defined in the problem statement is quite stable under static condition.

Using Swedish circle method the FOS is found to be less than the Bishop’s method. Although Bishop’s method
is considered to be more accurate the FOS found using the Swedish circle method will be on the more
conservative side.

The slope is stable under static condition. However, the slope becomes gradually unstable with the more
 earthquake prone zone. It is found from the analysis that the FOS becomes less than 1 in zone V for all types of
soil strata. So the permanent displacement is bound to occur in most cases of earthquake in zone V. It is found
that more the earthquake prone zone the probability of permanent displacement increases from hard soil strata to
soft soil strata.

Using Newmark’s method of pseudo-static method of analysis the slope is found to be stable in 8.5 magnitude
earthquake also. However, the effect of liquefaction has not been considered in this case.

REFERENCES

V.N.S Murthy “Textbook of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering”, Geotechnical Engineering Series. 1st
Edition, 2007. Robert Pyke “Selection of Seismic Coefficients for Use in Pseudo-Static Slope Stability
Analysis”, 2011. IS: 1893 (part 1): 2002.

View publication stats