STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EM BANKM ENT SLOPES

8.1 General

The embankments are commonly required for roadways, railways, earthen dams, levees and

river training works, etc. Sometimes, structures are also required to be constructed on the

embankments. The embankments may be of soil, Pozzolanic materials or combination

thereof It may unreinforced or reinforced. The stability of these embankments or slopes, as

they are commonly called, should be very thoroughly analyzed since their failure may lead to
the loss of human life as well as colossal economic loss. On this backdrop, it is necessary to
carry out the stability analysis of slopes.

The failure of a mass of soil (or any other material of which the slope is made up of) located

beneath the slope is called as a slide. It involves a downward and outward movement of the
entire mass of the material that precipitates in the failure. The failure of slope takes place
mainly due to - (i) the action of gravitational forces, and (ii) seepage forces within the soil.
They may also fail due to excavation or undercutting of its foot, or due to gradual

disintegration of the structure of the soil or other material of which the embankment slope is

made o f The slides may occur in almost every conceivable manner, slowly or suddenly, and
with or without any apparent provocation.

The slopes may be of two types: infinite slope and finite slope. If a slope represents the

boundary surface of a semi- infinite soil mass, and the soil properties for all identical depths

below the surface are constant, it is called an infinite slope. If the slope is of limited extent, it
is called a finite slope. Slopes extending to infinity do not exist in nature. The examples of
finite slopes are the inclined faces of earth dam, embankments and cuts, etc.

The failure of finite slopes occurs along a surface which is a curve. The causes of failure of

slopes may be external or internal. The external causes are those which produce an increase
301
in the stress at unaltered shearing resistance of the material. They include steepening of the
slope, deposition of the material along the edge of slopes and earthquake forces. Internal

causes are those that lead to a slide without any change in surface conditions which involve

unaltered shearing stresses in the slope material. In stability computations, the curve

representing the real surface of sliding is usually replaced by an arc of a circle of logarithmic
spiral. Basically, the slope failures are of three types- face failure, toe failure and base failure,
in respect of finite slope.

Generally, two aspects are considered for the analysis of slopes, i.e. bearing capacity and
factor and factor of safety (FoS). The slope stability analysis is an analytical tool for

assessing the stability of a slope by using a simple failure model in the analysis. As regards
the present study, the ultimate bearing capacity of the model reinforced fly ash and GGBFS

embankments are reported in Chapter 5. This chapter presents the slope stability analysis of
the embankment slopes considered in the present study.

8.2 Methods of Stability Analysis

The majority of the slope stability analysis performed in practice still use traditional limit
equilibrium approach involving methods of slice that have remained essentially unchanged
for decades.

Limit equilibrium method is a quantitative analysis method in slope stability analysis. The
earlier limit equilibrium methods include the Fellenius method, Bishop method,

Morgenstem-Price method, Janbu Method and Sarma method. In limit equilibrium method,
the distribution of stresses and strains are determined inside the embankment and its

foundation. This presents a complete picture of the behavior of the embankment and one can
compute the factor of safety on the most vulnerable surface by comparison with the shear
resistance that can be mobilized on that surface.

This approach requires the applications of theories of elasticity or plasticity and solution -of
the equations based on these theories. The problem is considered as two dimensional since
condition of plane strain is being used. This method is popular because of the minimum

efforts involved in terms of calculations. The limit equilibrium method, however, does not

furnish any information on soil deformation. In this method, separate safety factors are used
for the soil and the reinforcement because their deformational characteristics are different.

Modem limit equilibrium software is making it possible to handle ever increasing complexity

within an analysis. It is now possible to deal with complex stratigraphy, highly irregular

pore-water pressure conditions, and various linear and nonlinear shear strength models,
almost any kind of slip surface shape, distributed or concentrated loads, and structural
reinforcement.

Dembiki and Zadroga (1974) performed model tests for various loading conditions and
reported that the experiments yielded much higher ultimate loads than those obtained from

the various calculations based on the assumption of plasticity. Reddy and Mogalish (1975,

1976) studied the stability of slopes under foundation load by the method of characteristics
taking cohesion to be anisotropic which is increasing linearly with depth. They used friction

circle method for c-(j) soils, possessing anisotropy and non-homogeneity in cohesion for their
study. They concluded that the effect of anisotropy and increase in cohesion with depth have
considerable influence on the stability number Ns (Ns=yHlc).

An analysis of slope stability begins with the hypothesis that the stability of a slope is the
result of downward or motivating forces (i.e., gravitational) and resisting (or upward) forces.
The resisting forces must be greater than the motivating forces in order for a slope to be

stable. The relative stability of a slope (or how stable it is at any given time) is typically
conveyed by geotechnical engineers through a factor of safety Fs defined as

................................................................................................................... ( « .»

The equation states that the factor of safety is the ratio between the forces/moments resisting
(R) movement and the forces/moments motivating (M) movement.
8.2.1 Fellenius method

This method is ordinary method of slices which neglects all inter slice forces and fails to
satisfy force equilibrium for the slide mass as well as for individual slices. However, this is

one of the simplest procedures based on the method of slices (Fellenius, 1936). This method
assumes a circular slip surface and it is also known as the Fellenius Method.

8.2.2 Simplified bishop

The simplified Bishop method assumes that the vertical inter slice shear force does not exist
and the resultant inter slice force is, therefore, horizontal (Bishop 1955). It satisfies the
equilibrium of moment but not the equilibrium of forces.

8.2.3 Janbu simplified method

This method uses the horizontal forces equilibrium equation to obtain the factor of safety. It
does not include interslice forces in the analysis but account for its effect using a correction
factor. The correction factor is related to cohesion, angle of internal friction and the shape of
the failure surface (Janbu et al. 1954).

8.2.4 Spencer method

This is a very accurate method which satisfies, both- equilibrium of forces and moments; and
it works for any shape of slip surface. The basic assumption used in this method is that the
inclinations of the side forces are the same for all the slices.

8.2.5 Morgenstern and price

Morgenstem and Price (1965) proposed a method that is similar to Spencer's method, except
that the inclination of the inter slice resultant force is assumed to vary according to a

‘portion’ of an arbitrary function. This method allows one to specify different types of inter
slice force function.
There is a difficulty with all the equilibrium methods. These all the methods are based on the
assumption that the failing soil mass can be divided into slices. This necessitates further

assumptions relating to slide force directions between slices, with consequent implications
for equilibrium. The assumption made about the side forces is one of the main characteristics

that distinguishes one limit equilibrium method from another, and yet is itself an entirely

artificial distinction.

The upper bound approach has been successfully applied to the analysis of two-dimensional

(2-D) slopes (Donald and Chen 1997), although some limitations on this approach still exist.
The associated flow rule, on which the upper bound approach relies, to a certain extent,

overestimates the dilation of soils or rocks. The random-search simplex method employed in
the upper bound approach sometimes suffers a premature termination in the search for the
global minimum. In spite of these limitations, the potential for extending the upper bound
approach to analysis of 2-D bearing capacity, wedge stability, and three-dimensional (3-D)

slope stability is highly promising.

8.3 An Overview of Limit Equilibrium Methods

The research work carried out by several researchers in the past using limit equilibrium

approach is reviewed in the subsequent subsections.

8.3.1 Unreinforced case

In the assessment of stability of slopes, geotechnical engineers primarily use the values of
factor of safety to determine as to how close the slopes are from failure. The conventional
limit-equilibrium techniques, i.e., they evaluate the slope as if it were about to fail and

determine the resulting shear stresses along the failure surface, are the most commonly used

analytical methods.
Few methods for plain strain (2-D) problems only can be used in the slope stability analysis:

a. ‘Assumed failure surface’ methods Via ‘ method of slices’ . These are most common

methods. Many computer codes available such as STABL, U TEXAS, SLOPEAV

b. Simple closed-form solutions. These are limited to simple geometry such as vertical

cuts and infinite slopes.

c. Advanced numerical methods such as FEM. These are for complex cases where

instability includes, combined failures structural members and soils.

They enable deformation analysis as well. The first two methods satisfy either force or
moment equilibrium or both. They do not stress equilibrium and strain compatibility.

Advance numerical methods satisfy both of these conditions globally.

The earlier work on stability analysis of slopes was done long back by Coulomb (1773) and
Collin (1846). According to Bjerrum and Jorstad (1968), the classical theory of stability of

slopes was developed by Swedish engineers during the period from 1919 to 1925. Swedish
slip circle method of slices developed by Fellenius (1927) has been the most widely used
conventional technique for many practical problems. In this method, the side forces of
individual slices are neglected. Each slice is considered to be in equilibrium under the three

forces and these forces are the weight of the slice, the normal reaction and tangential force.

Taylor (1948) assumed the slip surface to be along the arc of a circle as shown in Fig. 8.1. In
this method, the normal reaction on the slip surface is suppose to be developed at an angle of

cp' to the normal to the slip surface and hence, the shear strength is dependent on the normal
stress along the slip surface. As the reactions are all directed tangendal to an inner concentric

circle of radius Rsin9 ' known as Friction Circle, the method is known as friction circle

method. It is equally suitable for total stress or effective stress type of analysis in

homogeneous soils.

Janbu (1954) developed an analysis for the stability of an arbitrary slip surface as shown in

Fig 8.2. He considered the force and moment equilibrium condition of a typical vertical slice
and force equilibrium of the sliding mass as a whole. Using horizontal equilibrium as a

stability criterion, author derived an expression to arrive at the side forces and stresses at the

base of the slice. This analysis is applicable for varying external loading condition and

heterogeneous soil deposits.

F R IC T IO N C IR C L E

A
S L I P C lh tC L E

(a) (b)

Slip circle and friction circle Force triangle

Fig. 8.1: Taylor’s friction circle method {After Gill 2013)

EXTERNAL^
LOADS ,

“i f /
AQYVU.
y 7
"o
iW
I . . - 'T

Tb

Eb

/ - LINE O F T H R U ST (X.Yt)

S H E A R SU R F A C E (X.Y)

{After Gill 2013)

307
 A X Y -()
A P

A Q -»
Yl
A Wy X.Q

ht
AyT
H + A l i |,

T-*-AT
M -K U ) __ ^ A S = T A l \
^ A N —ctA I

Fig. 8.2 (b): Forces acting on the boundaries of a single slice {After Gill 2013)

However, it is necessary to check the acceptability of solutions in terms of position of line of

thrust. Any implied tension or violation of failure criterion in the solution to be regarded as
unacceptable. Bishop's (1955) slip circle method is rigorous; but it satisfies both force and
moment equilibrium condition and also considers the presence of inter-slice forces as shown

in Fig 8.3 (a and b). The expression of factor of safety obtained by this method involves very
laborious numerical computation. Author also derived a simplified calculation which gives

fairly accurate results even though the inter slice forces are ignored. The latter method is

known as Bishop's simplified method.

 /
f
I
1
I
/R
/
I

Forces intheslices method

(a)

ttA
ao.

(b)
Fig. 8.3: Bishop's analysis
Morgenstem and Price (1965) suggested a method of analyzing the stability of slip surface of

an arbitrary shape, satisfying both- force and moment equilibrium condition; and can

consider slope sections with varying shear strength parameters and pore pressures. However,

to get the factor of safety, an assumption of side force ftinction (a relation between the inter

slice forces) is necessary. They found that the acceptability of solution for the assumed

function depends on two criterion (i) no effective tensile stresses on inter slice boundaries
and (ii) the shear stresses acting on any inter slice boundary must be less than those required

for local critical equilibrium.

8.3.2 Reinforced Case

Several methods were developed using limit equilibrium approach to deal with the stability
of reinforced slopes (Fowler 1982, Ingold 1982 a,b and Murray 1982). In each method, the
failure mechanism is assumed and it is ensured that some of the limiting equilibrium

requirements are satisfied. The approach suggested by Murray (1982) is based on the

classical slope stability principles generalized by taking into account the influence of
reinforcing layers. He assumed a bilinear failure surface and it is usually possible to make a

reasonable representation of an actual failure surface by this approach. Two cases were
considered- both failure surfaces emerge on the slope, representing most cutting situations

and the upper failure surface emerges on a horizontal plateau as frequently occurs with

embankment failure.

The failure surface as assumed by Murray (1982) for both the cases is shown in Fig. 8.4. It

shows the forces on element of reinforced soil immediately above the failure surface. The
initial state of stress in the slope, including that of failure surface was assumed and the

maximum forces developed in the fabric by was calculated by multiplying the horizontal

stress above the failure surface with the vertical spacing of the fabric.

The overall stability of the structure is checked by the calculation of factor of safety which is
the ratio of the resisting forces to the driving forces developed on the assumed failure plane.
The factor of safety is calculated for selected failure surfaces until a minimum value of that
coefficient is obtained. Murray (1982) carried out the stability analysis in terms of effective
stresses and that the fabric tensile resistance is based on a criterion of specified deformation

rather than the ultimate load characteristics of the fabric. However, this approach suffers

from a serious shortcoming that the horizontal stress states in the soil and reinforcement was

assumed to be in equilibrium. The commonly available methods of analysis and the

conditions of static equilibrium that are satisfied in determining the factor of safety are

compared in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Comparison of the various methods of analyses of slope stability

Methods Factor of Safety (FoS) Interslice Force

Force equilibrium Moment Assumption

X Y Equilibrium (H= Horizontal,

V = Vertical)
Ordinary method of slices No No Yes Ignored both H , V

Bishop's simplified Yes No Yes H considered

Lowe and Karafiath Yes Yes No Both Considered

H,V

Corps of Engineers Yes Yes No Both Considered

H,V

Janbu’ s Simplified Yes Yes No H considered

Bishop's Modified Yes Yes Yes Both Considered

H,V

Janbu’s Modified Yes Yes Yes Both Considered

H,V

Sarma’ s Method Yes Yes Yes Both Considered

H,V
Spencer’s Method Yes Yes Yes Both Considered
H,V

Morgenstem-Price Yes Yes Yes Both Considered

H,V
 -T j ..0 '‘

-S-

Fig. 8.4: Forces on element of reinforced soil immediately above failure surface
{After G\W 2013)

The differences in the various methods are the assumptions on inter slice forces. For

example, the Ordinary Method ignores inter slice forces (V=H=0) whereas Simplified Bishop

Method assumes that the inter slice forces are horizontal (V=0, H>0). While Spencer’s

Method assumes all inter slice forces are parallel (V>0, H>0) with an unknown inclination
which is computed through iterations, Morgenstem and Price methods relate the shear force
(V) to the normal force (H) where V=1 f(x) H.

The first three methods are not applicable to non-circular slips. A comparison of methods (1)

to (6) shows that the FOS calculated by Simplified Bishop, Morgenstem-Price’s and
Spencer’s methods are very similar (difference <0.1% ) while the Ordinary Method tends to
underestimates the FS by a few percents. Janbu’s Simplified and Generalised methods tend to
overestimate or underestimate the FS compared to Morgenstem-Price and Spencers methods

by up to few percents. Many investigators found that Janbu’ s Simplified method

underestimates the FS.

Fredlund and Krahn (1977) compared the methods of slices which are commonly used for
slope stability analysis. They concluded that factor of safety equations were recognizing
moment and (or) force equilibrium and explicitly satisfied. The normal force equation was of

the same form for all methods with the exception of the ordinary method. The method of
handling the inter slice forces differentiates the normal force equations. Also, Duncan (1996)
reviewed all the methods of limit equilibrium analyses in detail and corroborated the findings

of Fredlund and Krahn (1977). Kainthola et al. (2013) reviewed all the methods and

concluded that all methods are good. The fundamental shortcoming of limit equilibrium

methods are examined by Krahn (2003) in detail, which only satisfy equations of statics. He
concluded that these methods do not consider strain and displacement compatibility.

Rouaiguia and Dahim (2013) used limit equilibrium types of analyses for assessing the

stability of earth slopes by using the computer based geotechnical software code Slope/w
(Geo-slope 2007). The factor of safety (FOS) was determined using the limit equilibrium

within the Morgenstem-Price method along with Mohr-Coulomb expression. Through a

series of examples the influence of pore water pressure, cohesion, internal friction angle, and

unit weight of upper soil layer on the factor of safety for slope stability problems were
investigated. They found that the factor of safety of the slope stability increased with an

increase in cohesion and internal friction angle and more pore water pressure present in the
soil layer caused a significant reduction in the factor of safety. In addition, the increase in
unit weight of soil layer produced lower factor of safety.

Chen and Shao (1988) developed a numerical technique for determining the minimum safety
factors in slope stability analysis. The factor of safety was optimized by the conventional
method of slices, which involves numerical iterations. The validity and feasibility of the

optimization methods have been proven by the successful solution and the use of different
assumptions of the interslice forces has no significant effect upon the optimized results. The
feasibility of using optimization methods was explored to search for the minimum factor of

safety in slope stability analysis. The routine procedure includes comparing a number of

admissible surfaces that are basically selected by random searches. Low efficiency and
unreliability are the problems commonly encountered. Optimization methods allow a
mathematically rigorous and reliable search for the minimum factor of safety and its
associated ‘critical slip surfaces’ .
Whether slope stability analyses are performed for drained or undrained conditions, the most

basic requirement is that equilibrium must be satisfied in terms of total stresses. All the body

forces (weights), and all external loads, including those due to water pressures acting on

external boundaries, must be included in the analysis. These analyses provide two useful

results;

(1) Total normal stress on the shear surface and

(2) The shear stress required for equilibrium.

The factor of safety for the shear surface is the ratio of the shear strength of the soil divided

by the shear stress required for equilibrium. The normal stresses along the slip surface are

needed to evaluate the shear strength: except for soils with cp = 0, the shear strength depends

on the normal stress on the potential plane of failure.

In effective stress analyses, the pore pressures along the shear surface are subtracted from the

total stresses to determine effective normal stresses, which are used to evaluate shear
strengths. Therefore, to perform effective stress analyses, it is necessary to know (or to

estimate) the pore pressures at every point along the shear surface. These pore pressures can
be evaluated with relatively good accuracy for drained conditions, where their values are
determined by hydrostatic or steady seepage boundary conditions. Pore pressures can seldom

be evaluated accurately for undrained conditions, where their values are determined by the
response of the soil to external loads. In total stress analyses, pore pressures are not

subtracted from the total stresses, because shear strengths are related to total stresses.

Therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate and subtract pore pressures to perform total stress
analyses. Total stress analyses are applicable only to un-drained conditions. The basic
premise of total stress analysis is this: the pore pressures due to un-drained loading are

determined by the behavior of the soil. For a given value of total stress on the potential
failure plane, there is a unique value of pore pressure and therefore a unique value of
314
effective stress. Thus, although it is true that shear strength is really controlled by effective

stress, it is possible for the un-drained condition to relate shear strength to total normal stress,

because effective stress and total stress are uniquely related for the un-drained condition.

Clearly, this line of reasoning does not apply to drained conditions, where pore pressures are

controlled by hydraulic boundary conditions rather than the response of the soil to external

loads.

8.5 Computer Program - GEOS

The program ‘ Slope Stability Analysis’ from GEOS can be used for stability check of
embankments, earth cuts and anchored sheeting structures. Other GEOS programs include
excavation design, retaining wall design, foundation design, soil settlement analysis and

analyzing using FEM etc. With GEOS software easy documentation can be done with input

and output. The analysis report can be edited more with different colors and enlarging
diagrams easily. Figures can be automatically inserted and update with any changes of input

data occurs. The result is an easy-to-understand and always up-to-date output word or PDF
document. Another advantage of using analytical methods in slope stability is quick as well

as efficient check and design of the structures. The designed structure may be transferred into
the FEM applications which not only compare two independent solutions but also design

safety increases in short time which saves designers time.

In this software following slope stability analysis methods are available.

a. Bishop Method
b. Fellenius & Petterson method
c. Morgenstem- Price Method

d. Spencer Method
e. Janbu’ s Generalized Method

The slip surface is considered as the circular (the Bishop, Fellenius and Petterson, Janbu,
Morgenstem-Price or the Spencer method) or polygon (the Sarma, Janbu, Morgenstem-Price
or the Spencer method). Program GEOS is formulated in terms of moment and force
315
equilibrium methods, which includes Bishop's Modified Method (1955), Fellenius Method
(1936), Spencer's method (1967), Janbu's generalized procedure of slices (1968),

Morgenstem and Price's method (1965).

8.6 Slope Stability Analysis with GEO S

The stability analysis is carried out considering the embankment material to be in fully

saturated condition. As discussed earlier, a load of ultimate bearing pressure is applied over a
width of footing at specified edge distances on unreinforced and reinforced fly ash and

GGBFS embankments. In the present study, the slope stability analysis is carried out using
all the five available methods, namely- Bishop's Modified, Fellenius and Petterson, Spencer,

Janbu and Morgenstem-Price Methods. Two-dimensional sections are analyzed by assuming

plain strain conditions. These methods assume that the shear strength of the materials along
the potential failure surface is governed by linear (Mohr-Coulomb) or non linear
relationships between shear and strength and the normal stress on the failure surface.

All these methods fall under the category of limit equilibrium analysis method. All these

methods resort to the discretization of mass within the failure zone in vertical slices. Strain
compatibility for the stability analysis is not considered. The analysis calculates a factor of
safety (FoS) which is defined as a ratio of available shear resistance (capacity) to that

required for equilibrium. Failure surface is located with the help of computer programmes

using search optimization techniques.

With the various methods, set of minimum forces (except seismic, pore water pressure, some
external force etc.) are considered. The ultimate bearing capacity of respective parameters is
used as surcharge pressures for analyzing the respective factor of safety (FoS) and to locate
critical slip circle. All the embankment slopes are analyzed by repeating the process for
different slip circles, the minimum factor of safety (1.5) and critical slip circle are obtained
with G E 05. For the direct comparison, the critical circles are established with this computer

software by various methods of analysis.

The slope stability analysis with GEO 5 software for the same geometry of slope (Fig 4.1) is

carried out with horizontal constrained left and right vertical side, i.e., plan strain condition.

The interface 1- embankment slope (fly ash and GGBFS), interface 2 - Base with same
material (fly ash and GGBFS) and interface 3- strip footing in case of unreinforced slopes are

shown in Fig.8.1. This represents the model footing (rigid body), with fly ash or GGBFS

(slope and base). The properties of these interface materials are assigned (Table 8.2). In

reinforced embankment, the geogrid reinforcement layer is included at specified locations. Its
tensile strength 34.60 kN/m is given as an input in the software GEOS. Some typical

geometries of unreinforced and reinforced embankments are shown in Fig 8.5- 8.10.

Table 8.2: Properties of different materials used as an input data with respect to the interface
material for slope stability analysis

Interface Type of Dry unit Saturated unit Angle of internal Cohesion

No. material weight weight friction (kN/ M^)

(kN/ M^) (kN/ M^) (‘I)')

1 Footing 7.5 —

2 and 3 Fly ash 13.41 14.02 12.95 7.85

2 and 3 GGBFS 21.32 22.41 0 14

 Fig. 8.5: Geometric representation of slope interfaces (unreinforced case: DJB = 1) with

Interface 1- Strip footing, Interface 2 - Fly ash slope, Interface 3- Fly ash Base
i« S
Or HS <>«»»
R^:
rr j /
t>

■ ' • ' V ■;

■
%

K)0c oeev *M I

Fig. 8.6: Geometric representation of slope interfaces ( unreinforced case: De/B = 2) with
Interface 1- Strip footing, Interface 2 - Fly ash slope, Interface 3- Fly ash Base
 O H S
Or H ft

>

Fig. 8.7: Geometric representation of slope interfaces (unreinforced case: De/B = 3) with
Interface 1- Strip footing, Interface 2 - Fly ash slope, Interface 3- Fly ash Base

Fig. 8.8: Typical geometry of a single layer reinforced fly ash embankment with D^/B = 1
Fig. 8.9: Typical geometry of a multi-layer reinforced fly ash embankment for De/B = 1
Inherent in limit equilibrium stability analyses is the requirement to analyze many trial slip

surfaces and find the slip surface giving lowest factor of safety (Fig 8.11). In this trial

approach, the form of the slip surface is included; that is, whether it is circular, piece-wise

linear or some combination of the curved and the linear segments. Slope/W has a variety of

options for specifying trial slip surfaces. The position of the critical slip surface is affected by

the properties of the soil strength. It means that in order to find the position of the critical slip
surface, it is necessary to accurately define the soil properties in terms of effective strength

parameters like cohesion, angle of friction and dry density.

METHOD SYMBOL
BISHOP
FELLENIONS &PETERSON
SPENCER
JANBU
MORGENSERN &PRICE

Fig. 8 .11: Slip curves for unreinforced fly ash {fi=A5°, DJB = 1) given by various methods

8.7 Results and Discussion

Initially, different slip circles are obtained with various methods (Bishop's Modified,
Fellenius and Petterson Spencer, Janbu and Morgenstem-Price) as shown in Fig. 8.1. With
repetitions the optimized slip circle is found. The naturally chosen slip surfaces are not the

critical slip circles; when optimized, it gives similar critical circle for all the methods. Also, it

gives similar factor of safety by general application. Similar results (FoS) are found with

Morgenstem-Price methods and Janbu method, almost for all the parameters. It is also seen
that the chosen circles result in higher factor of safety than that obtained by different methods
for critical circles. It only proves that critical circle gives lowest factor of safety. The results

of the analysis of slope stability for fly ash embankment (unreinforced as well as reinforced)

having slope angle of 4 5° and for all the edge distances {DJB = 1 , 2 and 3 and N= 1-7) are

shown in Table 8.3-8.12. From the values of FoS shown in the afore-mentioned tables, shows
that the values of FoS calculated for different parameters using various methods are in close

agreement with respect to the optimised critical slip circle.

Few typical images in respect of the general geometry setting along with the material
property for the reinforced (single layer) fly ash embankment slope {N ^\,z/B = 0.6 and De/B

= 1) is shown in Fig. 8.12 (a). Similarly, the geometry setting for the same embankment slope

but with z/B = 1.2 is shown in Fig. 8.12 (b).

Further, optimized slip surfaces and the factor of safety in respect of the reinforced (single
layer) fly ash embankment slope (N=\, z/B = 0.6 and De/B = 1) using various methods are
shown in Fig. 8.13 (a-d). Similarly, the optimized slip surfaces and the factor of safety in

respect of the same embankment but with z/B =I .2 are shown in Fig.8.14 (a-b).
Fig. 8.12 (a): Geometry setting, material property assigning with load applications on single
reinforced fly ash embankment (N=l, z/B = 0.6, Dg=^\B)
Fig. 8.13 (a): Optimized slip surface and Factor of Safety with Spencer Method
Fig. 8.13 (d): Optimized slip surface and Factor of Safety with Morgenstom - Price method
Fig. 8.14 (a): Optimized slip surface and Factor of Safety with Janbu Method
Table 8.3 shows the values of factor of safety (FoS) for unreinforced fly ash embankment
= 45°) at various De/B ratio. Table 8.4- 8.6 shows the values of the factor of safety (FoS) for

single layer reinforced embankment slope at different embedment ratios for fly ash

embankment (Ji = 45°). Similarly, Table 8.7- 8.9 shows the factor of safety for multilayer
reinforced fly ash embankment (Ji = 45°).

Table 8.3: Factor of safety (FoS) for unreinforced fly ash embankment slope

{De=\B, IB, 35)

Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
De Methods Methods Method
No. Petterson Method
Methods
1. \B 1.91 1.85 1.89 1.99 1.99
2. 2B 1.79 1.66 1.74 1.83 1.83
3. W 1.56 1.42 1.52 1.60 1.60

Table 8.4: Factor of safety (FoS) for reinforced (single layer) fly ash embankment slope
{N = \,D e^\B )
Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
z/B Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods
Methods
1. 0.3 1.35 1.25 1.32 1.39 1.39
2. 0.6 1.45 1.38 1.43 1.55 1.55
3. 0.9 1.72 1.70 1.73 1.75 1.75
4. 1.2 1.41 1.35 1.42 1.45 1.45
5. 1.8 1.78 1.75 1.79 1.80 1.80
6. 2.4 1.97 1.94 1.98 2.00 2.00
7. 3.0 2.13 2 .11 2.15 2.17 2.17
 Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
z/B Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods

Methods

1. 0.3 1.47 1.38 1.45 1.52 1.52

2. 0.6 1.48 1.41 1.46 1.47 1.56

3. 0.9 1.41 1.35 1.39 1.40 1.49

4. 1.2 1.41 1.35 1.42 1.45 1.45

5. 1.8 1.56 1.50 1.56 1.59 1.59

6. 2.4 1.71 1.65 1.72 1.74 1.74

7. 3.0 1.93 1.88 1.93 1.90 1.95

Table 8.6: Factor of safety for reinforced (single layer) fly ash embankment
{ N = \,D e = W )
Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
z/B Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods
Methods

1. 0.3 1.44 1.37 1.43 1.51 1.51

2. 0.6 1.38 1.25 1.35 1.43 1.43

3. 0.9 1.31 1.2 1.28 1.36 1.36

4. 1.2 1.25 1.11 1.24 1.24 1.23

5. 1.8 1.31 1.20 1.28 1.37 1.37

6. 2.4 1.38 1.27 1.35 1.44 1.44

7. 3.0 1.52 1.41 1.49 1.57 1.57

 Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
N Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods
Methods

1. 1 1.35 1.25 1.32 1.39 1.39

2. 2 1.24 1.17 1.22 1.33 1.33

3. 3 1.25 1.17 1.23 1.34 1.34

4. 4 1.10 1.02 1.08 1.20 1.20

5. 5 1.10 1.04 1.09 1.19 1.19

6. 6 1.01 0.95 0.99 1.01 1.11

7. 7 1.01 0.95 0.99 1.11 1.11

Table 8.8: Factor of safety (FoS) for reinforced (multi-layer) fly ash embankment
(De=2B)
Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. & Price
N Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods

Methods

1. 1 1.47 1.38 1.45 1.52 1.52

2. 2 1.18 1.10 1.16 1.23 1.23

3. 3 1.26 1.20 1.25 1.26 1.35

4. 4 1.10 1.02 1.08 1.20 1.20

5. 5 1.10 1.04 1.09 1.19 1.19

6. 6 1.04 0.98 1.03 1.13 1.10

7. 7 1.00 0.94 0.99 1.0 1.09

 Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
N Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods

Methods

1.44 1.37 1.43 1.51 1.51

1.29 1.17 1.26 1.35 1.35

1.17 1.05 1.14 1.23 1.23

1.06 1.01 1.05 1.12 1.12

1.03 0.97 1.01 1.10 1.10

1.01 0.94 1.00 1.03 1.03

0.98 0.85 1.03 0.95 1.04

The variation of the factor of safety (FoS) with edge distance as obtained using different

methods in respect of unreinforced fly ash embankment are shown Fig.8.15 (a). Similarly,

the variation of the FoS with embedment depth, for three different edge distances 15 , 2B and

3 5 , respectively, in respect of reinforced fly ash embankment (single layer) as obtained using
different methods are shown in Fig. 8.15 (b-d).
 ■^Bishop Method
• —Fellenious & Petterson Method
^S pe ncer Methods
^ J a n b u Method
Morgenstern- Price Method

1/1

O
u
(T3

Edge Distance D /B

Fig.8.15(a): Variation of FoS with edge distances for unreinforced fly ash slope (y9 = 45°)

-♦—Bishops Methods
2.2 -■—Fellenious & Petterson Methods
-A—Spencer Methods
(D
CO 2 - ■^^Janbu Methods
-^M orgenstern- Price Methods
O 1.8 -1
u
(13

1.6 -

1.4

1.2
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Embednnent Depth (Z/B)

Fig.8.15 (b): Variation of FoS with embedment depth for reinforced (single layer) fly ash
slope 05 = 45°; D ,= 15 )
 -♦— Bishops Methods

Fellenious & Petterson Methods

1.9 -
>• -A—Spencer Methods
4-»
(U 1.8 -
M— Janbu Methods
TO
I/) Morgenstern- Price Methods
o 1.7 -
M-

ou 1.6 -
+-►
ro
1.5
1.4 -
1.3 -
1.2
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
Embedment Depth (Z/B)

Fig.8.15 (c): Variation of FoS with embedment depth for reinforced (single layer) fly ash
slope(y? = 4 5 °;D ,= 2 5 )
Further, the variation of FoS with number of reinforcing layers for different edge distances in
respect of reinforced fly ash embankment slope (multi-layer) using different methods of

Fig.8.16 (a): Variation of FoS with number of reinforcing layers for reinforced (multi-layer)
fly ash slope (y9 = 45°, = 15 )

1.6 ■♦—Bishops Methods

1.5 • —Fellenious & Petterson Methods
A —Spencer Methods
1.4 ^ J a n b u Methods
>- Morgenstern- Price Methods
<D 1.3
"to
O 1.2
■
ou«-» 1.1
u.(TJ
1
0.9
2 3 4
Number of Reinforcment (N)
Fig.8.16 ( c ) : Variation of FoS with number of reinforcing layers for reinforced (multi-layer)
fly ash slope O'? = 4 5 °, De=2>B)

The values of factor of safety are obtained under the external load equal to ultimate bearing
pressure on footing. It is expected that the values of factor of safety should be around 1.0.

The values obtained from all methods used in the present analysis (Bishop, Fellenius and
Petterson Spencer, Janbu and Morgenstem-Price method) are almost nearing unity. From

this, it can be concluded that the strength of unreinforced, reinforced (single layer) and
reinforced (multi-layer) fly ash embankments is fully mobilized under the ultimate bearing
pressure obtained from the test.

In some cases of the multi- layer reinforced fly ash embankments, the factor of safety is on

the higher side. It may be attributed to the fact that the strength might not be fully mobilized
under ultimate bearing pressure obtained from the tests. It is also possible that there might
have been progressive failure which results in the lower ultimate load than what is expected
from the limit equilibrium analysis in which the parameters are assumed to have been

completely mobilized along the failure surface.

Along lines similar to that seen in the preceding paragraphs, the GGBFS embankment slopes

with the critical slope angle of 45° are analyzed for the optimum embedment depth {z/B =

1.2) and optimum number of reinforcing layers (jV=4) are analyzed.

The results of the slope stability analysis in respect of unreinforced and reinforced GGBFS
embankment slopes are shown in Table 8.10- 8.12. Fig 8.17 (a-c) shows the variation of
factor of safety with edge distance as obtained using different methods of slope stability

analysis in respect of unreinforced and reinforced (single layer and multi-layer) GGBFS
embankments. When the results obtained for different parameters in respect of optimum

critical slip circle using all the methods are compared vis-a-vis, the values of FoS are almost
in the same range. Similarly, all the methods give the same slip circle.

Table 8.10: Factor of safety (FoS) for unreinforced GGBFS embankment slope
{De=\B, IB, 7>B)
Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
De Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods

Methods

1. \B 2.52 2.52 2.54 2.52 2.52

2. 2B 111 111 111 111 111

3. 3B 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

 Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
De Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods
Methods

1. \B 2.44 2.44 2.43 2.44 2.44

2. IB 2.09 2.09 2.08 2.05 2.08

3. 35 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83

Table 8.12: Factor of safety (FoS) for multi reinforced GGBFS embankment
(A^=4; D e=\B , 2B and 35)

Fellenious Morgenstem-
Bishops Spencer Janbu
Sr. and Price
De Methods Methods Methods
No. Petterson Methods
Methods

1. \B 2.01 1.93 1.91 2.01 2.01

2. IB 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66

3. 35 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39

Fig.8.17(a): Variation of factor of safety (FoS) with edge distances for unreinforced GGBFS
slope (Ji = 45°; De=\B,2B and 3B)

Fig.8.17 (b): Variation of factor of safety (FoS) with an edge distance for reinforced (single

layer,) GGBFS embankment slope = 45°; z/B=\.2; De=lB,2B,3B)

 Fig.8.17 (c): Variation of factor of safety (FoS) an edge distance reinforced (multi-layer)
GGBFS embankment slope = 45°, N=A; = 1 5 ,2 5 ,3 5 )

8.8 Precis

In this chapter, a software program for soil analysis using G E 0 5 and by resorting to the limit

equilibrium is used. The analysis is carried out for only ultimate bearing pressure with
respective slopes. Both the embankment slopes -fly ash and GGBFS- and further,

unreinforced as well as geogrid reinforced are analyzed. This approach makes use of a
number of differing analysis methods and provides the required accuracy of the result with

comparisons. The first method followed for undertaking LE analysis with GEOS is the Janbu

Method to optimize the critical slip curve. Then other methods (Bishop, Sarma’s,

Morgenstem-Price, Fellenious and Petterson) are used which improved the accuracy of the
resultant FoS. All the slopes analyzed in the present chapter are found stable.