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

net/publication/318255231

Stability analysis and remedial measures of a landslip at Keifang, Mizoram – a

case study

Article in Journal of the Geological Society of India · June 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s12594-017-0681-0

CITATIONS READS

10 3,796

2 authors:

Shantanu Sarkar Manojit Samanta

CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi
122 PUBLICATIONS 2,817 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 520 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ENGINEERING OF DISASTER MITIGATION AND HEALTH MONITORING FOR SAFE AND SMART BUILT ENVIRONMENT - A NETWORK PROJECT Under CSIR-12TH FIVE YEAR
PLAN View project

ENGINEERING OF DISASTER MITIGATION AND HEALTH MONITORING FOR SAFE AND SMART BUILT ENVIRONMENT - A NETWORK PROJECT Under CSIR-12TH FIVE YEAR
PLAN View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shantanu Sarkar on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF INDIA
Vol.89, June 2017, pp.697-704
Stability Analysis and Remedial Measures of a Landslip at
Keifang, Mizoram – A Case Study
Shantanu Sarkar* and Manojit Samanta
CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee - 247 667, India
*E-mail: shantanu_cbri@yahoo.co.in
ABSTRACT
Landslips are often triggered due to non-engineered excavation
of potential unstable slopes. Such slips can be stabilized by
implementing suitable remedial measures. A landslip occurred at
a drilling site of Oil India Limited in Mizoram State due to slope
excavation. There was an immediate concern to protect the slope
as the drilling platform and the highway at the top of the slope are
at risk if further landslide occurs in future. Slope stability analysis
of the failed slope was carried out to design suitable control
measures for the protection of the slope from further sliding. Slope
stability using various methods indicated that the slope is
marginally stable. To improve the stability of the slope, suitable
retaining structure at the toe of the slope was suggested and
designed. Stability analysis performed with inclusion of retaining
wall showed a significant increase in factor of safety of the
slope. The suggested remedial measure has been implemented at
the site and there is no landslip reported since then. The paper
presents the results of the slope stability analysis and the design
details of the retaining structure prescribed as the protection
measure.
INTRODUCTION
Landslides are one of the major geological hazards which not only
cause immense loss of lives and properties but also affect many
functional activities. These are often resulted due to slope excavation
in weak geological formation and this is a very common phenomenon
in Himalayan regions particularly along the road cut slopes. Roads
are often excavated without prior knowledge of the rock mass strength
and slope stability (Sarkar et al., 2012). Such types of slope failures
need to be arrested quickly otherwise these become chronic landslide
problems. General reviews on different kinds of remedial measures
are available in many works such as Hutchinson (1977), Zaruba and
Mencl (1982), Schuster (1992), Fell (1994) and Popescu (1996).
According to these, modification of slope geometry, retaining
structures, internal slope reinforcement and drainage are a few of the
remedial measures generally considered to stabilize unstable slope.
Bhandari (1988) described a novel low cost drum diaphragm wall for
landslide control in Himalayan region. The drum diaphragm retaining
wall is od low cost as compared to conventional retaining wall as it
minimizes the use of steel and cement and use slope debris material
itself for construction. The low cost drum retaining wall was
successfully implemented to mitigate the debris slide at Kaliasaur,
India. Mehrotra et al. (1991) presented a successful case study of 3 m
high gabion wall at Mussoorie - Chamba bye-pass to protect the
buildings situated on the slopes. Performance of the gabion wall was
monitored for a period of 3 years and no distress or tilting was observed
in the buildings. Garg (1998) successfully demonstrated the efficacy
and cost effectiveness of reinforced backfill retaining wall to control
the landslide on Rishikesh-Devprayag road (NH-58) in Lesser
Himalaya by constructing a 11 m high and 19 m long wall. Rigid face
retaining wall with unconnected geogrid as reinforcing element and
0016-7622/2017-89-6-697/$ 1.00 © GEOL. SOC. INDIA
the debris material form the site was used as backfill material.
Performance of the retaining wall was monitored for a period of 3
years and was found satisfactory.
IS 14680 (1999) provides some useful information regarding the
protection measure of the slope according to the failure pattern.
Selection of appropriate measures and its design needs a detailed
geotechnical investigation and slope stability analysis. However, it is
not always possible to carry out a detailed geotechnical investigations,
which involves drilling, extraction of samples and field testing due to
time and cost constraints. In such cases, stability assessment is done
by doing several iterative slope analysis based on the available
laboratory test data.
A slope failure occurred at the Oil India Limited drilling site in
the hilly regions of Mizoram State. A study was undertaken to assess
the slope stability of the site and design suitable control measures to
protect the slope from further failure. The present paper describes the
results of such analysis and the design details of suitable measures to
control the landslip.
LANDSLIDE DESCRIPTION
The landslip occurred at the drilling site of Oil India Limited near
Keifang, Mizoram is located about 66 km from the State capital, Aizawl
(Fig.1). The initial failure occurred in the month of February, 2014
and the failure was confined to the top layers of soil only. The excavated
slope at the site was 170 m long. The affected slope was about 20 m
high which comprises of soil and highly jointed rocks. The slope of
the excavation was less than 50°. There was appearance of a few
cracks along the road at the top of the failed slope. No rainfall during
the initial slope failure in February 2014 was reported. This indicates
that the slope was failed mainly due to excavation. To protect the
slope, a retaining wall of cubic stone and cement was constructed at
the base of the slope. The wall had three steps having 1.5 m height
each. Subsequently, there was another failure in the month of April
2014 which affected the whole excavated slope. The stone masonry
retaining wall was damaged at several locations.The failed slope due
to landslides in the beginning and afterwards are shown in the Figs. 2
and 3. A few cracks of 2-3 m deep were also observed on the slope
(Fig.4). However, after April 2014, the slope remained stable and no
further movement was reported.
In general, the slope is mainly composed of soil and highly jointed
soft shale and sandstone. The soil cover is 1-2 m thick which is followed
by strata of soil mixed with stone pebbles which are further underlain
by thin beds of jointed shale and sandstone of soft nature (Fig.5). The
rock beds are dipping into the slope with a 30° dip angle.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Evaluation of geotechnical properties particularly the shear strength
parameters of soil strata is critical for assessment of stability of
slopes. Though field tests are the most reliable test for determining
shear strength parameters, however, these tests are very expensive,
time consuming and not feasible always. In the present case, laboratory
 Table 1. Geotechnical parameters of soil
Sl. Soil Cohesion Angle of Density M. C.
No. samples (kg/cm2) internal (gm/cm3) (%)
friction
(degree)
1 T1 0.23 18.62 1.99 15
2 T2 0.19 19.15 1.97 12
3 T3 0.19 18.25 1.94 14
4 T4 0.20 19.33 1.96 13

Fig.1. Location of study area.
investigation of soil was carried out in the laboratory. The soil samples
collected from the field was tested in the laboratory. Remoulded
samples were prepared in the laboratory maintaining the field density
and water content. Three representative samples were collected from
each section for better representation of variability of soil profile in
the slope. Soil parameters particularly shear strength parameters used
in the study are obtained from the direct shear test in the laboratory.
The geotechnical parameters of the soil used for the analysis are shown
in the Table 1. A contour map was also available for constructing the
slope profiles for the stability analysis.
Safety of the natural hill slopes or manmade slope (embankments,
excavations, mining etc.) under the external or internal load are assessed
through slope stability analysis. Various methods i.e. limit analysis,
limit equilibrium analysis and different numerical methods are used
to investigate the stability of slope. Among these, most commonly
used method is limit equilibrium methods. Limit equilibrium method
uses the circular or non-circular cross sections (also called slip surfaces)
perpendicular to the length of slope and analyze the equilibrium of it
through different computational techniques. Usually the force or
moment equilibrium is satisfied along the assumed failure surface.
The stability of the slope is computed in the form of ‘Factor of Safety’
which is defined as the ratio of shear strength (or equivalent force or
moment) to shear stress (or equivalent force or moment) along the
assumed slip surface. A number of slip surfaces are assumed and slip
surface showing the minimum factor of safety called the critical slip
surface for the slope and corresponding factor of safety indicates the
stability of slope. Factor of safety below one indicates the unstable
conditions whereas factor of safety greater than one indicates stable
conditions. Target factor of safety of a particular slope depends on the
nature of the slope, importance and functions.
A number of different limit equilibrium methods are available
which mainly differs in satisfying the equilibrium conditions. Among

Figs.2-5. (2) Landslide in the excavated slope. (3) Damaged retaining wall. (4) Cracks and displaced soil mass due to landslide. (5) Soil strata
over soft shale on of the slope

698 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017

these methods, Morgenstern-Price (M-P) method and Janbu’s
generalized method are the most common (Aryal, 2008). In the present
study the other methods such as Bishop, Fellenius and Spencer were
also used to evaluate the stability of the slope. Morgenstern-Price
(1965) and Spencer (1967) satisfy the force and moment equilibrium.
Ordinary method of slice and Bishop’s simplified method satisfy the
moment equilibrium and force equilibrium in vertical direction but
does not satisfy in horizontal direction. Janbu’s (1957) generalized
method of stability analysis satisfies the force equilibrium in both
vertical and horizontal direction and moment equilibrium is used to
compute the inter-slice forces.
In the present study, a number of methods were employed to
compute the stability of the failed slope. The stability analysis enables
to compute the factor of safety for different conditions considering
both force and moment equilibrium and different forces acting on the
vertical slices.
The stability of slope with and without control measures have been
evaluated under two conditions: static and pseudo static. In static case,
the stability of slope with and without control measures have been
evaluated under the action of self-weight of different components
involved in it. In pseudo-static analysis, the stability of slope with and
without control measures have been evaluated considering also the
earthquake force acting on the slope in simplistic way. In pseudo-
static analysis, peak ground acceleration of the earthquake motions
are converted into equivalent static forces and applied in horizontal
and vertical direction on the slope.
In the present case, the failure mode appears to be circular as
inferred from field observations. Circular failure is the most common
type of failure where the material is soft and weak and does not have
any preferred planes of weakness. There are ten sections i.e., S4, S5,
S6, S8, S9, S11, S12, S14, S15 and S16 of the slopes for which stability
analysis were carried out with the input data on slope geometry and
geotechnical parameters (Fig.6). The analysis was carried out under
both static and pseudo-static conditions to consider the earthquake
effect.
Fig.6. Contour plan and sections of the area.
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017
Static Analysis: The analysis was performed using different
methods for a better stability evaluation. The stability analysis and the
slip surfaces of a few representative sections are shown in the Fig.7.
The factor of safety values of a few representative sections obtained
from the analysis is tabulated in Table 2.
Pseudo-Static Analysis: To calculate equivalent pseudo-static
forces acting on the slope, guidelines laid by IS 1893-2002 was
followed. The site at Keifang, Mizoram falls in earthquake zone V as
per IS 1893 (2002). Considering appropriate time period for rocky or
hard soil site, zone factor (Z) for earthquake zone V, importance factor
(I), response reduction factor (R) and average response acceleration
co-efficient (Sa/g ), the horizontal seismic coefficient was calculated
as αh = 0.18g. The coefficient of vertical acceleration is taken half of
horizontal acceleration i.e. 0.09g.
The analysis shows that factor of safety (FOS) obtained by different
methods are comparable and do not differ significantly (Table 2). FOS
values vary from 1.37 to 0.89 in the static condition and 0.94 to 0.67
under pseudo-static condition. Under static condition, the FOS by
Fellenious method gives the minimum value for all the sections while
the other methods give almost the same value. From Table 2 it can be
seen that under the static condition, the section 9 shows the minimum
FOS (0.89) while the section 1 has the maximum FOS value (1.37).
The variation of FOS values for different sections could be due to the
variation of slope angle. Further, factor of safety values in the static
condition indicate that the slope is under marginal stability condition
and failure may trigger under saturation during monsoon period.
Under pseudo-static condition the factor of safety decreases
significantly and drops below 1.0 for all the sections.
CONTROL MEASURE
There is an immediate need to implement adequate control measure
to stabilize the slope from further sliding. Control measure of landslide
is a function of a reduction in the driving forces or an increase in the
resisting forces. Selection of an appropriate remedial measure depends
699
Table 2. Factor of safety along different sections using different methods A retaining wall supports a “wedge” of soil. The type of retaining wall
Sec- Methods Factor of Safety depends on the problem, design expertise, availability of material,
tions Morgenstern- Bishop Fellenius Spencer Janbu cost etc. Primarily there are two types of retaining walls; gravity walls
Price and cantilevered walls. Gravity walls constructed of concrete and
S4 Static 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37
stone masonry are stabilized by their mass. Gabions are flexible walls
Pseudo-Static 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.94 and can adjust some movement of the structure. Cantilevered walls
are rigid walls and they are built on solid foundations. The cantilevered
S5 Static 1.04 1.04 0.99 1.04 1.04
Pseudo-Static 0.79 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.81 base is reinforced and is designed to prevent uplifting at the heel of
the base.
S6 Static 1.01 1.01 0.95 1.01 1.01
Pseudo-Static 0.76 0.75 0.71 0.75 0.75 To design a retaining wall, it is essential to analyse and neutralize
the downward movement of the earth material. The lateral earth
S8 Static 1.0 1.0 0.94 1.0 1.0
Pseudo-Static 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.75
pressure behind the wall largely depends on the angle of
internal friction and the cohesive strength of the retained material, as
S9 Static 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.94
well as the direction and magnitude of movement of the retaining
Pseudo-Static 0.72 0.71 0.67 0.71 0.72
structure. It is also very essential to consider proper drainage system
S11 Static 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
to reduce the hydrostatic pressure and improve the stability of the
Pseudo-Static 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.72 0.73
material behind the wall. There are various options available to select
S12 Static 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.94 0.94
a suitable retaining wall to support the failed slope. In the present
Pseudo-Static 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.71 0.71
case, it was decided to construct either a RCC retaining wall or a
S14 Static 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.04 gabion wall at the base of the slope to resist further movement in the
Pseudo-Static 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.74
excavated slope.
S15 Static 1.05 1.06 1.01 1.06 1.05 The stability of slope with and without control measures were
Pseudo-Static 0.75 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.74
evaluated using a two dimensional slope stability analysis software
S16 Static 1.06 1.07 1.01 1.06 1.06 GEO5. The geometry of the slope was divided into a number of slices
Pseudo-Static 0.70 0.80 0.67 0.91 0.83
and more than 150 numbers of slices were used for each analysis. An
automatic search algorithm available in the software was used to locate
on: (a) engineering feasibility, (b) economic feasibility, (c) social the position of critical slip surfaces. Both the circular and non-circular
acceptability, and (d) environmental acceptability (Holtz and Schuster, failure surface were considered in the analysis. The modelling of RCC
1996). Popescu, (2001) has prepared a brief checklist of all the possible cantilever retaining wall and gabion wall were designed with the
remedial measures which could be applied for landslide. The measures available options in the software. RCC cantilever retaining structures
are arranged in four groups, namely: modification of slope geometry, is modelled as a rigid structure where failure surfaces are restricted to
drainage, retaining structures and internal slope reinforcement. In the pass through the wall. A number of cases were analyzed by varying
present case it was decided to construct a retaining structure to protect the size, position of the retaining wall to achieve desired factor of
the slope from further sliding. Retaining walls are the most commonly safety of slope. The stability of retaining wall against sliding,
used measures for providing adequate support to protect unstable slope. overturning and bearing failure at base were also evaluated against

Į h -0.18
Įv -0.09
Section S4 (Static) Section S4 (Pseudo-Static)

Į h -0.18
Įv-0.09
 Section S5 Section S5 (Pseudo-Static)

Įh -- 0.18
Įv - 0.09
Section S6 (Static) Section S6 (Pseudo-Static)
Fig.7. Critical slip surfaces of sections S4, S5 & S6 under static & pseudo-static conditions

700 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017

the minimum prescribed values given in IS 14458. The gabion wall Gabion Retaining Wall
was modelled as flexible retaining structures battered at 10º with the To protect the slope, another option of constructing a gabion wall
vertical towards the slope face. A number of analysis were carried out was also considered. A gabion wall is a retaining wall made of stacked
varying the height, width and position of gabion wall to achieve the stone-filled gabions tied together with wire. Gabion walls are
desired factor of safety of the slope. The external and internal stability usually battered (angled back towards the slope), or stepped back with
of gabion wall were also evaluated against minimum prescribed values the slope. The wall has advantages over rigid structures, as they can
given in IS 14458. adjust to subsidence, and drain freely. Its strength and effectiveness
increase with period of time as soil and vegetation fill the voids and
RCC Retaining Wall thereby reinforce the structure. The gabion wall is a flexible structure
A RCC retaining wall was designed to protect the failed slope and allows sufficient displacement of retained soil mass before failure.
from further sliding. The design details are shown in Fig.8. The The flexibility of the gabion wall enables it to take the shape of in-situ
important safety factors computed for the wall are given below: soil profile. It is formed by the high permeable material which allows
faster dissipation of pore water pressure of the retained mass. Gabion
Check for overturning stability wall is not suitable for situation where a strict displacement criteria is
Resisting moment = 2528.05 kN-m/m required. RCC cantilever retaining wall is more suitable for important
Overturning moment = 1029.18 kN-m/m structures where a strict displacement control criteria is required.
Safety factor = 2.46 > 2.00 Gabion walls are generally constructed at the toe of the slope which
enhances the resisting force of the slope due to its own weight or
Check for slip gravity. Gabion wall work most efficiently when slope fails at the toe
Resisting horizontal force = 607.17 kN/m and it is constructed on the toe. The RCC cantilever retaining wall
Active horizontal force = 280.55 kN/m provides the stability of the backfill material through the passive
Safety factor = 2.16 > 1.50 pressure on the rear side of wall and friction force at the base of the
wall. Failure surfaces for the present analysis are circular in nature
Forces acting at the centre of footing bottom and passes through the toe of the slope.
Overall moment M = 502.02 kN-m/m The following design parameters were suggested for constructing
Normal force N = 721.28kN/m a 6m high gabion wall:
Shear force Q = 279.67kN/m
Design Parameters
Check against Shear failure at Base a) For filler material:
Total vertical load = 861.72 kN/m y Unit Weight : 20 kN/m3
Resultant moment = (2528.08 -1029.18) kN-m/m y Angle of Internal Friction : 36º
= 1498.870 kN-m/m y Cohesion : 15 kPa
Eccentricity = Base width/2 – Resultant moment/ Vertical force
= 0.06 m < B/6 (=0.92m) b) For mesh material:
Maximum pressure at y Mesh tensile strength : 200 kN/m
the base = 556.61/5.5 + (1+ 6 x 0.06/5.5) kN/m2 y Joint Bearing capacity : 100 kN/m
= 107.82 kN/m2 < Safe bearing capacity
Minimum pressure at c) Dimension of a box:
the base = 556.61/5.5 + (1- 6 x 0.06/5.5) kN/m2 y Length : 1m
= 94.577 kN/m2 > 0 y Width : 1m
The above data show that the retaining wall designed is safe. y Height : 1-2 m

Fig.8. Typical section of the cantilever retaining wall designed.

JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017 701

 Table 3.Factor of safety after inclusion of RCC retaining wall
Sec- Conditions Morgens- Bishop Felle- Spen- Janbu
tion tern-Price nius cer
S4 Static 1.85 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.85
Pseudo-Static 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.07 1.07
S5 Static 1.91 1.91 1.90 1.91 1.91
Pseudo-Static 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.06
S6 Static 1.67 1.67 1.66 1.66 1.67
Pseudo-Static 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01
S8 Static 1.69 1.69 1.68 1.69 1.69
Pseudo-Static 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.02
S9 Static 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.79 1.80
Dimensions of the gabion wall Typical forces acting on the Pseudo-Static 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.04
gabion wall
S11 Static 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.94
Fig.9. Design details of gabion wall Pseudo-Static 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03
S12 Static 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.85 1.86
Pseudo-Static 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.08
The important safety factors computed for the gabion wall are
S14 Static 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.99
given below:
Pseudo-Static 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.04

Check for overturning stability: S15 Static 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.57 1.58
Pseudo-Static 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01
y Resisting moment = 75.12 kN-m/m
y Overturning moment = 22.88 kN-m/m S16 Static 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.97 1.98
Pseudo-Static 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.05
y Safety factor = 3.28>1.50

Check for slip Table 4. Factor of safety after inclusion of Gabion wall
y Resisting horizontal force = 91.18 kN/m
y Active Horizontal force =18.43 kN/m Sec- Conditions Morgens- Bishop Felle- Spen- Janbu
tion tern-Price nius cer
y Safety factor = 4.95>1.50
S4 Static 2.99 2.99 2.44 2.98 2.99
The dimension of the gabion wall and the forces acting on it are Pseudo-Static 1.65 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.65
shown in the Fig.9. S5 Static 2.11 2.11 1.93 2.11 2.11
It was suggested that the following requirements should be met Pseudo-Static 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.16 1.16
while constructing the gabion wall: S6 Static 2.93 2.94 2.46 2.93 2.93
i. Gabion baskets should be wired together Pseudo-Static 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.54
ii. The bed should be leveled before cages are filled with rocks S8 Static 2.65 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64
iii. The lowermost gabion basket should be excavated into the Pseudo-Static 1.46 1.46 1.45 1.44 1.46
bottom with a minimum of 1/3rd height of the gabion S9 Static 2.55 2.55 2.54 2.55 2.55
iv. The gabions should be stretched to remove any kinks and filled Pseudo-Static 1.42 1.43 1.41 1.43 1.43
with rocks that are larger than the wire openings so that a S11 Static 3.19 3.18 3.17 3.19 3.19
compact mass of rock with minimal void space is installed in Pseudo-Static 1.83 1.83 1.81 1.84 1.84
the basket. S12 Static 2.75 2.75 2.73 2.74 2.74
v. The baskets should be filled in layers and in stages so that the Pseudo-Static 1.62 1.62 1.63 1.64 1.64
depth of stone placed in any cell does not exceed the depth of S14 Static 2.49 2.48 2.43 2.47 2.48
the stone in an adjacent cell by more than 30 centimeters. Pseudo-Static 1.50 1.49 1.43 1.49 1.49
vi. Stacked gabion baskets should be tilted towards the slope by S15 Static 2.02 2.01 2.00 2.02 2.02
a minimum of 6° from vertical. Pseudo-Static 1.29 1.28 1.27 1.29 1.29
vii. Internal connecting cross-tie wires should be placed in each S16 Static 2.58 2.59 2.50 2.58 2.59
gabion. Pseudo-Static 1.88 1.87 1.83 1.87 1.87
viii. Along the exposed faces, rock should be placed in a uniform
manner. The uppermost layer of rock should completely fill
the gabion basket and be uniformly leveled to the top edges of shown in Fig.10. It can be inferred from these tables that for all the
the basket. sections, the factors of safety for both the cases i.e., with RCC retaining
ix. Gabions should be placed to 30 cm above ground level. wall and with gabion wall have increased significantly. For example,
x. The baskets placed on top of each other should be offset the FOS for the section S4 has been increased from 1.37 to 1.85 and
horizontally and they should be stepped vertically so as not to 2.99 in case of RCC retaining wall and gabion wall respectively under
form a shear face. static condition and from 0.94 to 1.07 and 1.65 under pseudo-static
condition. Similarly for the section S5, the FOS has become 1.91 and
STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH CONTROL MEASURES 2.11 after inclusion of retaining wall and gabion wall respectively as
Stability analysis of the failed slope was further carried out after compared to 1.04 in case of without retaining structure. Though, both
inclusion of the RCC retaining wall and the gabion wall as per the RCC cantilever and gabion wall improves the stability in the present
design. The factors of safety obtained along different sections with case, the larger self-weight of gabion wall at the toe of slope increases
RCC retaining wall and with gabion retaining wall are tabulated in the the resisting force of the slope and provide greater factor of safety as
Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. The analysis of a typical section is compared to RCC wall as given in the Tables 3 and 4.

702 JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017

 Fig.10. Critical slip surfaces of a section with RCC retaining wall and Gabion retaining wall under static & pseudo-static conditions
Fig.11. Gabion wall implemented at the site to protect the slope
From the results of the analysis, it can be stated that either the
RCC wall or the gabion wall could be constructed at the slope base to
protect the slope from further failure. While selecting the adequate
retaining structure, it was decided to construct the gabion wall as this
can be constructed using the available local material so that
transportation of construction material to this remote place could be
minimised. The gabion construction is also cost effective as compared
to the RCC retaining wall. Further, the analysis has also shown better
stability of the slope in case of gabion structure. A gabion retaining
wall has been constructed at the site as per the recommendation (Fig.
11). The wall constructed at the site in March 2015 withstood well in
the monsoon period with very high precipitation and has not shown
any distress.
CONCLUSIONS
A landslip due to slope excavation at an oil drilling site was
investigated in order to prescribe adequate protection measures.
Detailed stability analysis was carried out and factor of safety were
determined along different sections of the failed slope. The results of
the analysis exhibited that the slope was marginally stable and needed
some protection measures to restrict possible further movement caused
by any triggering factors such as heavy rainfall, earthquake or some
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017
anthropogenic activities. The suitable measure found from the analysis
is to construct either a RCC retaining wall or a gabion wall to protect
the failed slope. The retaining structures were designed and stability
was evaluated. It was found that the stability of the slope has been
significantly increased after inclusion of the retaining walls at the base
of the slope. The gabion wall was constructed finally at the site because
of its better stability and cost effectiveness. The constructed wall has
not shown any damage and resisted the slope from further sliding as
per the field observation in December 2015. This validates the selection
and design of the control measure.
Acknowledgements: Authors are grateful to the Director, CSIR-
Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee for his kind permission
to publish the work. The geotechnical data provided by CSIR-CIMFR,
Dhanbad is greatly acknowledged.
References
Aryal, K.P. (2008) Differences between LE and FE methods used in slope
stability evaluations. 12th International Conference of International
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics
(IACMAG), 1-6 October, 2008, Goa, India.
Bhandari, R.K. (1988) A novel low cost drum diaphragm wall for landslide
703
 control in the Himalaya. Second International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, 1-5 June, 1988, St. Louis, Missouri,
pp.333-336.
Bishop, A.W. (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Geotechnique, v.5, pp.7-17.
Fell, R. (1994) Stabilization of soil and rock slopes. In: Proc. East Asia Symp
and Field Workshop on Landslides and Debris Flows, Seoul, Rep. 1, pp.7–
74.
Fellenius, W. (1936) Calculation of stability of earth dam. In transactions of
2nd Congress Large Dams, Washington DC, v.4, pp.445-462.
Garg K.G. (1998) Retaining wall with reinforced backfill - a case study.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, v.16 pp.135-149.
GEO5 (2013) Slope stability geotechnical software, Prague, Czech Republic.
Holtz, R.D. and Schuster, R.L. (1996) Stabioization of soil slopes. In Landslides
Investigation and Mitigation, Eds. Turner A.K. and Schuster, R.L., Special
Report 247, Transportation Research Board.
Hutchinson, J.N. (1977) The assessment of the effectiveness of corrective
measures in relation to geological conditions and types of slope movement.
Bull IAEG, no.16, pp.131-155.
IS 1893. (2002) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Indian
Standard, New Delhi.
IS 14680. (1999) Landslide control – Guidelines. Indian Standard, New Delhi.
IS -14458. (1998) Retaining wall for hill area guidelines: Construction of
gabion walls.
(Received: 9 February 2016; Revised form accepted: 23 September 2016)
704
View publication stats
IS -14458. (1998) Retaining wall for hill area guidelines: Design of RCC
cantilever wall/buttressed walls/L-type walls.
Janbu, N. (1957) Earth pressure and bearing capacity calculation by generalized
procedure of slices. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conferences
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engg., London, v.2, pp.207-213.
Mehrotra, G.S., Bhagat, N.C. and Sarkar, S. (1991) Landslide hazards in
Garhwal Himalayas, Mussoorie slide – A case study. Proceedings of the
Ninth Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, v.1, 9-13 December, Bangkok, Thailand. pp.409-414.
Morgenstern, N. R. and Price, V.E. (1965) The analysis of the stability of
general slip surfaces. Geotechnique, v.17(1), pp.11-26.
Popescu, M.E. (1996) From landslide causes to landslide remediation. Special
lecture, In: Proc 7th Int. Symp on Landslides, Trondheim, Rep 1, pp.97–
114
Popescu, M.E. (2001) A suggested method for reporting landslide remedial
measures. IAEG Bull., v.60(1), pp.69-74.
Sarkar, S., Kanungo, D.P. and Kumar, S. (2012) Rock mass classification and
slope stability assessment of road cut slopes in Garhwal Himalaya.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, v.30(4), pp.827-840.
Schuster, R.L. (1992). Recent advances in slope stabilization. Keynote paper,
In: Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Christchurch, Rep 3, pp.1715–
1746.
Zaruba, Q. and Mencl, V. (1982) Landslides and their control. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, p.324.
JOUR.GEOL.SOC.INDIA, VOL.89, JUNE 2017