CENG20018 Geomechanics 2023-24 Laboratory report

CENG20018 Geomechanics 2023-24

Laboratory report
Student name and number: Dominic Reid - 2263384

Cover sheet and instructions

In your laboratory report you will present the results of your laboratory experiments and computer-based
analyses. You will need to show your calculations and results, interpret what they mean, and discuss how they
help to understand the performance and design of an idealised earth dam.

To write your laboratory report you should fill in each section of this template by following the instructions in
italic font. The available marks are indicated in the grey boxes on the right-hand side of each page. The total
number of available marks is 100. This report will account for 25% of your unit grade.

You must use this template and adhere to the formatting and page length instructions, as follows:
• Write your name and student number at the top of this report cover sheet.
• Follow the instructions in italic font. You must write your answers and copy-paste any figures in the spaces
after each question or sub-heading. You must not increase the width of the form to fit more text in. Do not
edit the grey cells in the form.
• Please leave all instructions in blue italic font and headings (blue regular font) in your report and do not
delete them. The longer instructions written in green italic font should be deleted when you have completed
these tasks.
• You should include a reference list at the end of your report, but it will not count as part of the page limit.
The instructions on reference list formatting, which are written in green font, should be deleted when you
have completed your reference list.
• The font for your report should be Calibri, with font size 10pt, colour black. The line spacing should be single.
You must not reduce the font size or line spacing to fit more text in.
• Margins should be 25.4 mm in every direction (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) as already set up in this template.
You must not reduce the margins to fit more text in.
• Graphs can be drawn by hand (and scanned) or plotted in MS Excel or Matlab and the inserted into your
report. Graphs must have legible labels with a font size equivalent to approx. 8pt-10pt. You should include
figure numbers and captions underneath your graph.
• Equations should be written using the built-in equation editor and should have a minimum font size of 8pt.
• The maximum total length for the report is eight A4 pages including graphs, tables and text. The maximum
number of pages required for each section of your report is clearly indicated in this template – 1 page max
for sections 1 & 3, and 2-pages max for sections 2, 4 & 5. The page limit does not include this cover sheet
or your reference list at the end. You must not exceed this page limit.
• Your completed report should be converted to pdf format for submission.

Your report must be submitted via Blackboard before the deadline on Thursday 14 March 2023.

To be completed by markers 1. Permeameter test / 10

2. Oedometer test / 25
3. Seepage tank experiment / 15
4. Direct shear test / 20
5. Slope stability analysis / 30
Total mark / 100
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2023-24 Laboratory report

Section 1. Permeameter test (1 page maximum) Marks

1.1 Plot the graph of q vs i using the data collected for ΔH = 20 cm, 30 cm, 40cm. Comment on the /2
validity of Darcy's Law. [100 words max]

Darcys’ Law is only applicable for laminar flow of an

Figure 1 - Shows a plot of Volume of water per unit of
time, 𝑞 vs Hydraulic gradient, 𝑖.
1.2 Calculate the value of permeability k
incompressible fluid in a solid porous matrix. In our permeameter
test we used sand, a fine-grained sediment, therefore the flow
through the material is laminar deeming Darcy’s law valid (Jaeger,
2024). Furthermore, Darcy’s Law states that Volume of water
flowing per unit time, 𝑞 is directly proportional to Hydraulic
gradient, 𝑖 shown below in equation [1]:
𝑞 = 𝑘𝑖𝐴 [1]
where the sample area, 𝐴 and permeability, 𝑘 are constants.
From Figure 1, it is evident that the two are mostly directly
proportional since the data produced a straight-line graph which
nearly intercepts the origin (0,0.1). Therefore, considering the
limited accuracy of permeameter data, overall, Darcy’s law is
valid.
/2

The value of permeability, 𝑘 was found via the calculation of the gradient using points ∆𝐻=10cm – 40cm and
dividing this value by the sample area, 𝐴. The reason for this was to use as much data as possible before boiling
occurred, the values were as follows 𝐴 = 67.2 cm, 𝑘 = 0.1829𝑐𝑚𝑠 −1 .
1.3 Plot the q vs i value for the soil while boiling in the graph of section 1.1 above. Check if Darcy’s Law /2
is still valid. Make a short based on your results, explaining why Darcy’s Law is valid or not. [100
words max]

Figure 2 reveals an anomaly where the total head reaches

Anomaly
Figure 2 - Shows a plot of q vs i of all the Nominal head difference
data points up to and including the point of boiling.
1.4 For the nominal head difference of 40 cm draw the trend of elevation head, total head and
pressure head versus elevation.
boiling point, causing upward bubble flow that displaces
soil. This increases soil column length and decreases pore
water pressure, reducing effective stress and destabilizing
soil, leading to variable flow (Holcombe, Groundwater:
Seepage Forces, 2024). This alters the relationship,
moving the best-fit line away from the origin, rendering
Darcy’s Law invalid due to boiling soil and a transition
from laminar to turbulent flow.
/4

Figure 3 - Shows the graph of the trend of elevation head, total head, and pressure head versus elevation.
Total mark for section 1: /10
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

Section 2. Oedometer test (2 pages maximum) Marks

2.1 Briefly justify the choice of the stress levels applied in the laboratory. Back up your explanation with /5
calculations if necessary. Comment on what could be improved by having more time to perform the
experiment. [200 words max]

The laboratory replicated dam weight-induced compression with increasing stress levels. The dam compromised
of 30 metres of sand in a pseudo-triangular shape over 16m of compact clay. To simulate stress on a clay sample
8m deep, we halved the dam's height to consider the pseudo-triangle to calculate the vertical stress, 𝑞 and added
the clay layer's vertical stress 𝜎1 ′, using equations [2] and [3].
𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∙ 𝐻 [2]
𝑞=
2

𝜎′1 = 𝛾′𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑦 ∙ ℎ [3]

These values were summed together to give a total effective vertical stress on the clay sample of 341𝑘𝑃𝑎. To
scale this down to the loading on the oedometer equation [4] below was used:
𝜎′𝑣 ∙ 𝐴 [4]
𝐹=
𝐿
where 𝐴 is the area of the sample and 𝐿 is the magnitude of the lever arm which was 10. Therefore, to simulate
the vertical stress of the dam a mass of 15.06kg was required. However, as four increments of mass had to be
applied to the sample to ensure that the consolidation process occurs uniformly and since the weights available
had a precision of 0.5kg, the masses 2,4,8,16kg were used.
With more time, improvements could have been made to the experiment to make it more representative. Firstly,
use smaller stress increments and collect data over a longer period, therefore there would be more data to
analyse, deeming the results more accurate. Secondly, clay from different locations and depths in the layer could
have been sampled to build up a more representative set of data. And finally, take more care when preparing the
soil samples to minimise void space disturbances and ensure complete uniformity, as well as properly compact
the clay into the oedometer ring to avoid any air void spaces.
2.2 Calculate the initial and final moisture content and void ratio. State any assumptions you have /5
needed to make and comment on how they would affect the results. Please clearly show your
workings.

To find the initial and final water content, 𝑤 equation [5] below was used:
𝑀𝑤 [5]
𝑤= × 100%
𝑀𝑠
where 𝑀𝑤 is the mass of water which had an initial and final value of 35.54g and 33.05g respectively, and 𝑀𝑠 was
the mass of the dry sample which remained constant at 130.52g. An initial water and final water content of
27.23% and 25.32% respectively was calculated.

To find the initial void ratio, 𝑒0 and final void ratio, 𝑒1 equation [6] and [7] below were used:
𝑉𝑡 − 𝑉𝑠 [6]
𝑒=
𝑉𝑠
𝑀𝑠 [7]
𝑉𝑠 =
𝐺𝑠 𝜌𝑤
where 𝑉𝑡 and 𝑉𝑠 are the total volume of the sample and the volume of solids respectively and 𝜌𝑤 the density of
water is 1000 𝑘𝑔𝑚−3 . Furthermore, the saturation of the sample, in this case the clay, was assumed to be fully
saturated since the giving it a value of 1. Due to these conditions of clay, 𝐺𝑠 the specific gravity of the sample was
assumed to be 2.75, neglecting the potential of variation during sample preparation such as minor compaction
(CIVIL ENGINEERING, 2024). The value of 𝑒0 and 𝑒1 calculated was 0.83811 and 0.70566 respectively.
2.3 Plot graphs of strain and void ratio against effective stress on semi-log axes. (You can use two graphs /5
side by side or you can plot both trends on the same graph with double vertical axes as you prefer).
Please use your laboratory data but if it is not reliable state why and use the data provided on
Blackboard.

Page 2
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

The data provided on Blackboard was used since

my data was unreliable, due to error in the
measurement of the dry mass sample since the
calculated value of initial water content was 53%
giving an initial void ratio of <1. This seemed
invalid since, in practice, for clay to have a void
ratio greater than 1, it mostly occurs in
undisturbed soft clay where compaction is not
adequately performed, which are the opposite
conditions for this laboratory, where the samples
were compacted and disturbed in preparation
(fine, 2024). Therefore, the example data was
plotted which is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Shows graphs of strain and void ratio against effective stress on
semi-log axes
2.4 Calculate the recompression index, compression index and pre-consolidation pressure for your /5
sample. Clearly show them in the graph in section 2.3. (Please note that determination of all the
above may not be possible from your own test results – in this case, please add appropriate
justification comments and use the data provided on Blackboard).

For the reasons stated above, further property values of the clay would also be invalid therefore the data
provided on Blackboard was used to determine the properties of the clay sample. The value of the pre-
consolidated pressure, 𝜎 ′ 𝑝 can be read off Figure 4 giving a value of 130kPa. Furthermore, equations [8] and [9]
were used to calculate the recompression index, 𝐶𝑟 and the compression index, 𝐶𝑐 :
∆𝑒1 [8]
𝐶𝑟 =
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝜎 ′ 𝑝 /𝜎′𝑣0 )

∆𝑒2 [9]
𝐶𝑐 =
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝜎 ′ 𝑣1 /𝜎′𝑝 )
where ∆𝑒1 is the change in void ratio between 𝜎 ′ 𝑝 and 𝜎 ′ 𝑣𝑜 which is the initial effective stress applied to the
sample and ∆𝑒2 is the change in void ratio between 𝜎 ′ 𝑝 and 𝜎 ′ 𝑣1 which is the final effective stress applied to the
sample. The values of 𝐶𝑟 and 𝐶𝑐 calculated where -0.05783 and -0.19022.
2.5 Estimate the final settlement of the dam due to the compression of the grey clay layer. Assume that /5
the groundwater level in the clay remains at the original ground level. Please show your working and
clearly state your assumptions and initial values.

Equation [10] was used to calculate the final settlement 𝑆𝑐 of the dam seen below:
𝐻0 [10]
𝑆𝑐 = [(𝐶𝑟 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝜎 ′ 𝑝 /𝜎′𝑣0 )) + (𝐶𝑐 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝜎 ′ 𝑣1 /𝜎 ′ 𝑝 ))]
1 + 𝑒𝑜
where 𝐻0 is the initial height of the clay layer which was 16m and 𝑒0 was the initial void ratio which was
0.838111. This gave a final settlement of 0.9401m. The assumptions made to get to this value firstly can be seen
Figure 4 where it was assumed that there was linear stress distribution since Casagrande’s method was used for
plotting the Normal consolidation line (Holcombe, Oedometer testing and and soil compressibility characteristics,
2024). Secondly, it was assumed soil properties e.g. permeability remains constant as well as constant drainage
conditions. The reason for this, is that for the data to be representative of the drained earth dam the drained
oedometer simulates conditions where pore water can drain from the soil sample as it undergoes consolidation
under applied stress.

Total mark for section 2: /25

Page 3
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

Section 3. Seepage tank experiment (1 page maximum) Marks

3.1 Draw your flow net reporting the value of total head for each equipotential line. /4

Figure 5 – Shows the flow net of the seepage tank reporting the value of total head for each equipotential line.

3.2 Using the value of permeability from the permeameter test in section 1, determine the expected flow /4
quantity in the dam. Express your answer in l/s/m run of the dam.

Using equation [11] below the flow rate of the water, 𝑄 through the seepage tank could be calculated:

𝑄 = 𝑘 ∙ ∆𝐻 ∙ 𝑁𝑓 /𝑁𝑑∙ 𝑥 [11]
where 𝑘 is the value found from the permeameter test, 𝑥 was the width of the seepage tank, which was 25cm,
and total change in head ∆𝐻, number of flows, 𝑁𝑓 and number of drops, 𝑁𝑑 where all found from Figure 5 where
they were found to have values 70m, 4 and 7 respectively. From this the expected flow quantity 𝑞 could be found
by dividing by the width of the seepage tank giving a value of 0.7316 𝑙/𝑠/𝑚.
3.3 Compare the flow quantity determined experimentally with that found from your flow net. Comment on /4
the possible causes of any difference between the two determinations. [max 200 words – bulleted points
format could work well]

The experimental flow quantity was measured at 0.243 l/s/m, approximately three times smaller than the value
calculated from the flow net. Several factors may contribute to this difference. Firstly, in the permeameter test,
flow is unidirectional, whereas in the seepage tank, it occurs in multiple directions, leading to increased
interaction with soil particles and pore spaces, potentially resulting in greater flow. Secondly, assuming equal void
ratios for both tests may affect permeability since water primarily flows through voids rather than soil particles,
with the rate dependent on saturation and its corresponding volume (Zamara, 2024). Finally, while Darcy's law
assumes laminar flow, the multidirectional flow in the seepage tank introduces variability, potentially increasing
the overall flow quantity under the assumption of direct flow according to Darcy’s law.

3.4 Comment on how your results can compare to the case of a full-scale dam [150 words max]. /3

The flow quantity results from the seepage tank experiment can be used as an approximate way to estimate the
value for the case of a full-scale dam. Since the units are 𝑙/𝑠/𝑚 the flow quantity theoretically could be found for
any size dam of width 𝑥, however in practice this value should only be used most likely as a measure of
magnitude. The reason for this is that the larger the size of the dam the more directional paths the water must
flow through increasing flow variability and further reducing the validity of the assumption through Darcy’s Law
that the flow is laminar and direct. Furthermore, the soil samples in a seepage tank experiment are not a full
representation of conditions in a full-scale dam. The reason for this is that the sample does not consider
variations in soil texture, structure, moisture content and the potential for organic matter content which all will
cause impacts on the seepage flow and therefore the permeability reducing the representativeness of the
seepage tank results.
Total mark for section 3: /15

Page 4
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

Section 4. Direct shear test (2 pages maximum) Marks

4.1 Briefly justify the choice of the stress levels that have been applied. Back up your explanation with /5
calculations if necessary. Determine the relative density of your samples. [200 words max]

The masses applied to the sand sample is used to simulate overburden (weight of the overlying layers of materials
at a specific depth under the earth’s surface) (Belyadi, 2024). Therefore, with reference to the earth dam to
simplify the pseudo triangular shape, we calculate the average vertical stress by multiplying the unit weight of the
sand layer by the centroidal position of the sand layer in question which as explained before is H/2. Therefore,
assuming a constant cross-sectional area the maximum stress produced by the sand layer was 142.5kPa. Masses
1,3 and 5kg were used and applied to a 1:10 lever onto a sample of sand with area 3600𝑚𝑚2 therefore the
corresponding stress levels applied were 27.25kPa, 81.75kPa and 136.24kPa respectively.

For each prepared sample the void ratio, 𝑒 and therefore the relative densities, 𝐼𝑑 varied due the vertical
displacement the sample experienced which was depended on the mass it was subjected to. Equations [12] and
[13] were used to find these properties and Table 1 summaries the values:
𝑉𝑡 [12]
𝑒= −1
𝑀𝑠 /(𝐺𝑠 × 𝜌𝑤 )

𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒 [13]
𝐼𝑑 =
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
Table 1 - Shows the void ratio, 𝑒 for each of the soil samples.

Soil Condition 𝑒 10𝑘𝑔 𝐼𝑑 10𝑘𝑔 𝑒 30𝑘𝑔 𝐼𝑑 30𝑘𝑔 𝑒 50𝑘𝑔 𝐼𝑑 50𝑘𝑔

Dense 0.5518 0.934 0.540 0.967 0.553 0.925
Loose 0.577 0.847 - - - -
4.2 Provide plots of: (i) shear stress vs. shear displacement and (ii) vertical displacement vs. shear /5
displacement for the tests performed in the laboratory.

Figure 6 – Shows the shear stress vs shear displacement data from Figure 7 - Shows the vertical displacement vs shear displacement data
the shear box test performed in the laboratory for the dense from the shear box test performed in the laboratory for the dense
samples. samples.

4.3 For the dense samples, draw the peak and ultimate state failure envelopes and determine the relevant /5
shear strength parameters.

Once plotted and analysed it was concluded that the direct

shear box data collected during the laboratory was unable to
be used to determine the relevant shear strength
parameters of the sample. This is because once plotted the
cohesion intercepts were both negative which is invalid.
Therefore, the data provided on Blackboard was used to
determine these parameters using Equation [14] below,

Page 5
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

(Effective cohesion, 𝑐 ′ and Effective angle of friction 𝜑 ′ )

which are summarised below in Table 2.
𝜏 = 𝑐′ + 𝜎′𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑′ [14]
where, 𝜏 is the shear stress on failure plane and 𝜎′ is the
normal stress on failure plane.
Table 2 – Summarises the data of the relevant shear strength parameters.

Strength parameter Value

𝑐 ′ 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑃𝑎 3.6705
𝑐 ′ 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑘𝑃𝑎 0.2705
𝜑′𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 ° 46.64
𝜑′𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 ° 33.06

Figure 8 – Shows the peak and ultimate state failure envelopes

for the dense samples from the data provided on Blackboard.

4.4 Draw some simple conclusions from the experiments to explain the observed results: What two /5
variables govern the peak shear strength of a given sand? What volume changes occur on shearing?
What can you say about the strength of sand at large strains? (To respond to these queries, you may
have to think what the behaviour of a looser sample would be). Please make use of sketches if
appropriate. [max 400 words]

Firstly, from Figure 6 it is evident that the Shear displacement governs the peak shear strength of sand. The
relationship between the two variables seems to begin off somewhat linear, where that trend is more obvious for
the 50kg mass, up to a peak shear strength value. Further shear displacement after this peak value causes a
gradual decrease in the shear strength which could be due to factors such as dilation or strain softening.
Furthermore, from Figure 8 it is evident that the Normal stress applied to the sample also governs the shear
strength of sand. The data shows that there is a positive linear relationship between the Normal stress applied
and the peak shear strength where the extrapolated data shows that the larger the Normal stress applied the
greater the shear stress becomes. The primary volume change that occurs during shearing is the vertical
compression of the sample which occurs due to rearrangement of soil particles and expulsion of water from void
spaces between particles, this volume change is evident in Figure 7. Additionally, the shearing action causes
deformation and rearrangement of soil particles in the sample. Volume change due to this can be either an
increase, seen for the dense sample or decrease which can be seen below in Figure 9 for the loose sample.

The reason for this is because there is a void ratio at which either expansion or contraction will occur called the
critical void ratio (Reyes, 2024), therefore for loose soils shear causes rearrangement of the particles resulting in
volume decrease (contraction) whereas dense soil results in volume increase (dilation). At large strains the
strength will decrease, as discussed above the strength peaks at small strains where it initially increases due to
compaction and grain rearrangement. However, for the dense sample at large strains, due to dilation, the
effective stress between the grains reduces as well as the increase potential for liquefaction therefore the shear
strength decreases. this phenomenon is illustrated below in Figure 10 (LibreTexts, 2024).

Figure 9- Shows the vertical displacement vs shear displacement Figure 10 – Shows an illustration of dilation in dense soils.
data from the shear box test performed in the laboratory for the
loose samples.

Total mark for section 4: /20

Page 6
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

Section 5. Slope stability analysis (2 pages maximum) Marks

5.1 Assessing slope stability under different groundwater conditions /4
(i) Slope stability analysis based on dam design and operating scenarios
Table 3 - Shows the values for the Factor of Safety, F obtained for the Bishop and Swedish method analyses for the three different groundwater
conditions.

Factor of Safety, F
Groundwater condition Bishop method Swedish method
No water in the reservoir 2.11 2.11
Reservoir full 1.13 1.04
Filter failure 0.44 0.33

The Factor of Safety (FOC) represents the ratio of resisting forces to those causing failure (JUMIKIS).A higher FOC
indicates a greater margin between a structure's maximum load capacity and the actual loads it encounters, reducing
the risk of failure. Table 3 demonstrates FOC variations based on analysis method and groundwater conditions. Full
reservoirs decrease FOC significantly due to increased hydrostatic pressure, with reductions of 46.4% (Bishop method)
and 50.7% (Swedish method). Filter failure further decreases FOC to minimum values of 0.44 (Bishop) and 0.33
(Swedish), as it leads to additional hydrostatic pressure on the dam, therefore as FOC<1 this implies dam failure
(Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2024). Variation in FOC values between analysis methods stems from
differences in assumptions when resolving interslice forces: Swedish method assumes parallel resultant forces to the
base of the slice, while Bishop method assumes horizontal resultants (Holcombe, Geomechanics laboratory and
coursework: slope stability analysis tutorial, 2024).
(ii) Slope stability analysis for slope in seepage tank experiment /3
Table 4 – Shows the FOC
calculated when the reservoir
Table 4 highlights a significant disparity in safety factors: both analysis methods show
is full.
higher Factor of Safety (FOC) when using the seepage tank experiment's groundwater
Factor of Safety, F level data. However, a consistency emerges in SLIP4EX and the experiment: Bishop
Factor of Safety, F method consistently yields higher FOC. Additionally, disparities
Bishop Swedish
method method exist in slip surface characteristics. SLIP4EX exhibits a deeper,
Bishop Swedish
1.35 1.29 method method more pronounced curvature compared to the experiment's
1.35 1.29 shallower surface. Furthermore, SLIP4EX assumes failure along
the entire dam length, unlike the experiment, which predicts
failure in only 80% of the dam's length.
(iii) Comparison of stability analysis using physical model (seepage tank) versus numerical model (SLIP4EX) /4

SLIP4EX predictions and seepage tank results for the FOC were similar, both indicating values greater than 1, implying
no dam failure. SLIP4EX's accuracy in modelling the dam's geometry and composition contributed to this similarity,
with consistent slope angles and assumed homogenous sand properties. However, differences in FOC values
stemmed from SLIP4EX's oversimplification of the dam's geometry and failure mechanisms. The model assumed a
trapezium-shaped dam with a flat top, whereas the actual dam shape is triangular, leading to variations in slip
surface. Additionally, assumptions about the water table and filter position differed from the seepage tank
experiment. The circular failure surface modelled in SLIP4EX didn't fully capture the complexities of earth dam
failure, as observed in the experiment. Conducting additional SLIP4EX experiments with varied slope surface shapes
could provide further insights into FOC variations and compare them to the values in Table 4.
5.2 Effect of soil parameter value uncertainty: /2
(i) ‘One at a Time’ sensitivity analysis:

Page 7
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

Table 5 - Sensitivity analysis results table: Factor of Safety (Bishop method, B)

and (Swedish method, S).

M Min -2Dev -1Dev Mean +1Dev +2Dev Max

c’ kPa B 1.13 1.17 1.2 1.23 1.27 1.3 1.33
φ’ ° B 1.13 1.2 1.27 1.35 1.42 1.5 1.59
γ kN/m3 B 1.12 - - 1.13 - - 1.14
c’ kPa S 1.04 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.25
φ’ ° S 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.24 1.31 1.39 1.46
γ kN/m3 S 1.03 - - 1.04 - - 1.05

Table 6 – Shows Geotechnical parameter values used in the sensitivity analysis.

Min -2Dev -1Dev Mean +1Dev +2Dev Max

c’ kPa 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
φ’ ° 30 31.5 33 34.5 36 37.5 39
γ kN/m3 17 - - 19 - - 21 Figure 11 - Shows the plot of Factor of Safety results for both
the Bishop and Swedish method.
(ii) Parameter influence on slope stability: /5

Table 5 and Figure 11 depict that the angle of friction 𝜑′ predominantly influences the Factor of Safety (FOC) in both
the Swedish and Bishop methods, given its steeper gradient compared to other parameters. The shear box test
results summarized in Table 2 show similarities in effective cohesion and ultimate angle of friction within assumed
ranges in Table 6, though with a notable peak angle of friction discrepancy. The shear box test assumes a peak
cohesion 3.24 times smaller than the highest assumed value, contributing to uncertainty in input parameters
(Holcombe, Geomechanics laboratory and coursework: slope stability analysis tutorial, 2024). Addressing this
uncertainty, especially concerning the angle of friction and effective cohesion, would enhance result accuracy.
Methods to reduce parameter uncertainty include laboratory testing, statistical analysis, numerical modelling, and
empirical correlations.
(iii) Selection of design parameter values: /4

Conservative design parameters are cautious estimates or assumptions in early design stages to ensure large safety
margins and reliability (Bellen, 2024). These parameters, typically overestimated loads, and underestimated material
strengths, mitigate the risk of failure. For effective cohesion, the lowest, hence safest value from Table 6 was
selected, raising questions about potential overengineering. Sand is conventionally modelled with an effective
cohesion of 0; however, adjustments within the given range are unnecessary. Similarly, the unit weight's mean value
was chosen to maintain safety margins, as variations minimally affect the FOC as seen in Figure 11. However, given
the angle of friction's sensitivity to dam geometry, a slight deviation from the assumed 30-degree slope might
warrant a lower angle assumption to enhance safety.
5.3 Improving the stability of the dam: /8

The first slope stabilization method involved adding soil nails to the dam. Initially, a soil nail was inserted into slice 5
using SLIP4EX, increasing the Factor of Safety (FOC) from 1.04 to 1.08, indicating slight slope stabilization. Subsequent
tests on all 10 slices showed that the soil nail's location had no effect on the FOC, but increasing the number of soil
nails raised the FOC to a maximum of 1.45 when all ten slices were equipped. This increase appeared exponential,
suggesting that the more soil nails you have, the addition of one more soil nail increases the FOC by a greater
amount. Furthermore, it was found that installing the same amount of closely spaced soil nails lead to higher FOCs
(Alsubal, 2024).
The next method explored was bioengineering, which involved reinforcing the slope with vegetation. Using SLIP4EX,
deep-rooted plants were added to slices 1, 9, and 10, as they were assumed not to affect the slip surfaces of slices 2-
8 (GREENWOOD, 2024). Vegetation added additional effective cohesion, increased slice weight, and provided tensile
reinforcement force via roots. Shallow-rooted vegetation, in this case Reed fiber which has a root cohesion of
40.7 𝑘𝑁/𝑚2 , was added to slices 1, 9, and 10, increasing the FOC from 1.04 to 1.25 collectively. However, further
investigation revealed differences in FOC increases based on the slice where vegetation was added, indicating the
need for additional modelling to understand these variations (Greenwood, 2024). Overall, deep-rooted plants can
enhance soil cohesion and stabilize slopes, but the specific effects require further investigation with models where
more slices are shallow enough for deep rooted plants to have an effect.
Total mark for section 5: /30

Page 8
CENG20018 Geomechanics 2022-23 Laboratory report

References
Alsubal, S. (2024). A Typical Design of Soil Nailing System for Stabilizing a Soil Slope: Case Study. Perak: Indian
Journal of Science and Technology.

Association of State Dam Safety Officials. (2024, March 10). Seepage Through Earthen Dams. Retrieved from
Association of State Dam Safety Officials: https://damsafety.org/dam-owners/seepage-through-earth-
dams

Bellen, J. M. (2024). CONSERVATIVE VERSUS OPTIMUM: PERSPECTIVE ON PROCESS DESIGN. Filinvest Corporate
City: Fluor Daniel Inc. Philippines.

Belyadi, H. (2024, March 09). Rock Mechanical Properties and In Situ Stresses. Retrieved from ScienceDirect:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/overburden-stress

CIVIL ENGINEERING. (2024, 03 09). SPECIFIC-GRAVITY-OF-SOLIDS DETERMINATION. Retrieved from CIVIL

TODAY: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/5-472/ch2part2.pdf

fine. (2024, March 09). Void ratio. Retrieved from fine: https://www.finesoftware.eu/help/geo5/en/void-ratio-
01/

GREENWOOD, J. E. (2024). Assessing the role of vegetation on soil slopes in urban areas. Nottingham:
European Commission, ECOSLOPES project.

Holcombe, L. (2024). Geomechanics laboratory and coursework: slope stability analysis tutorial. Bristol:
University of Bristol .

Holcombe, L. (2024). Groundwater: Seepage Forces. Bristol: Univeristy of Bristol.

Holcombe, L. (2024). Oedometer testing and and soil compressibility characteristics. Bristol: University of
Bristol.

Jaeger, H. M. (2024, February 12). Does the granular matter? | PNAS. Retrieved from PNAS:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.230395897#:~:text=Granular%20materials%2C%20such
%20as%20sand,categorization%20as%20solid%2C%20liquid%2C%20or

JUMIKIS, A. R. (n.d.). The Factor of Safety in Foundation Engineering . New Jersey: The State University.

LibreTexts. (2024, March 11). 2.5: Criteria and Concepts. Retrieved from Libretexts Engineering:
https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Civil_Engineering/Book%3A_The_Delft_Sand_Clay_and_Rock_
Cutting_Model_(Miedema)/02%3A_Basic_Soil_Mechanics/2.05%3A_Criteria_and_Concepts

Reyes, G. S. (2024). EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL VOID RATIO CONCEPT IN. Blacksburg, Virginia:
Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Zamara, K. (2024, March 10). The permeability of soils explained. Retrieved from Tensar:
https://www.tensar.co.uk/resources/articles/the-permeability-of-soils-explained

Page 9