Complex geology slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction Marek Cala, Jerzy Flisiak AGH University of Science & Technology (former Univ. Of Mining & Metallurgy)
Slope stability Shear strength reduction technique (SSR) 20 The stability of slopes may be estimated using 2D limit equilibrium methods (LEM) or numerical methods. Due to the rapid development of computing efficiency, several numerical methods are gaining increasing popularity in slope stability engineering. The factor of safety (FS) of a soil slope is defined as the number by which the original shear strength parameters must be divided in order to bring the slope to the point of failure. c trial = c FS trial ϕ trial = arctg tgϕ FS trial
Shear strength reduction technique (SSR) It s well known fact that for simple slopes FS obtained from SSR is usually the same as FS obtained from LEM (Griffiths & Lane, 1999; Cala & Flisiak, 2001). However, for complex geology slopes considerable differences between FS values from LEM and SSR may be expected (Cala & Flisiak, 2001). Several analyses for the slope with weak stratum were performed to study the differences between LEM and SSR. h g 45 o 25 m 25 m 19
2FS SSR versus LEM Weak layer 1m thick 1.9 Hard soil c=75 kpa, φ=30 o Soft soil c=25 kpa, φ=10 o 1.8 1.7 1.6 h g 45 o 25 m 25 m 1.5 1.4 Weak layer 1 m thick FLAC Fellenius Bishop Janbu 0 10 20 30 40 Distance of weak layer from slopecrest 18
2FS SSR versus LEM Weak layer 5m thick 1.9 1.8 Hard soil c=75 kpa, φ=30 o Soft soil c=25 kpa, φ=10 o 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 h g 45 o 25 m 25 m 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 Weak layer 5 m thick FLAC Fellenius Bishop Janbu 0 10 20 30 40 50 Distance of weak layer from slopecrest 17
16 SSR versus LEM FLAC FS = 1.54 Bishop FS = 1.731 20 m 1 m
SSR versus LEM benched slope case 15 15 m 10 m 10 m 40 o 45 o γ=20 kn/m o φ = 20 c = 10 kpa 3 15 m 15 m 20.918 m
SSR versus LEM benched slope case 14 JOB TITLE : bench FLAC/SLOPE (Version 4.00) (*10^1) 5.500 16-Jul-02 18:17 LEGEND 4.500 Factor of Safety 0.90 3.500 Shear Strain Rate Contours 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 2.50E-06 3.00E-06 Contour interval= 5.00E-07 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot 0 2E 1 2.500 1.500 0.500-0.500-1.500 Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 (*10^1)
13 Modified shear strength reduction technique 1. Apply classic SSR technique to calculate FS 1 (FLAC/Slope). 2. Export *.dat file to FLAC. Calculate the initial, stable situation by increasing c and φ. 3. Find the representative number of steps (N r ) which characterises the response time of the system. Use 1.1N r for further calculations. 4. Calculate situation for FS 1 (check out for communication between FLAC and FLAC/Slope and elimination of any mistakes). 5. Reduce c and φ to find further FS i ( prepare *.dat file manually or using Excel; each time start from the initial, stable *.sav file).
12 Modified shear strength reduction technique Velocity vectors Displacement vectors Plasticity indicators FS 2 = 1.00 Shear strain rate
11 Modified shear strength reduction technique Velocity vectors Displacement vectors Plasticity indicators FS 2 = 1.24 Shear strain rate
MSSR versus LEM benched slope case Bishop FS=0.921 FS =0.90 1 Bishop FS=1.228 FS =1.24 3 Bishop FS=1.008 FS =1.00 2 10
Shear strength reduction technique Large, complex geology slope case 9 JOB TITLE : 5_layer_wet (*10^2) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 4.00) 30-Jun-02 8:24 LEGEND 4.500 3.500 Factor of Safety 0.67 User-defined Groups bedrock zwietrzelina_wet ily_podweglowe kontakt_spag_wi_wet I_poklad_wegla ily_miedzyweg_dolne kontakt_spag_wii_wet II_poklad_wegla stary_zwal_wew Boundary plot 0 2E 2 2.500 1.500 0.500-0.500-1.500-2.500 Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500 7.500 (*10^2)
Shear strength reduction technique Large, complex geology slope case 8 JOB TITLE : 5_layer_wet (*10^2) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 4.00) 30-Jun-02 8:24 LEGEND 4.500 3.500 Factor of Safety 0.67 Shear Strain Rate Contours 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 2.50E-06 3.00E-06 3.50E-06 Contour interval= 5.00E-07 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot 0 2E 2 2.500 1.500 0.500-0.500-1.500-2.500 Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500 7.500 (*10^2)
7 Modified shear strength reduction technique Displacement vectors Shear strain rate FS 2 = 0.87
6 Modified shear strength reduction technique Plasticity indicators Shear strain rate FS 3 = 1.02
5 Modified shear strength reduction technique Plasticity indicators Shear strain rate FS 4 = 1.17
4 Modified shear strength reduction technique Displacement vectors Velocity vectors FS 5 = 1.29
3 Modified shear strength reduction technique Plasticity indicators Shear strain rate FS 5 = 1.29
MSSR versus LEM large, complex geology slope case 2 FS =1.29 5 Bishop FS=1.255 FS 3=1.02 FS 4=1.17 FS 1=0.67 Bishop FS 2=0.87 FS=1.351
Conclusions For a simple, homogeneous slope, FS calculated with SSR are usually the same as FS obtained from LEM. In the case of a simple geometry slope consisting of two geological units, FS calculated with SSR may be considerably different than FS from LEM. In the case of complex geometry and geology slopes SSR technique is much more sensitive than LEM. Another step forward is the modified shear strength reduction technique MSSR. Application of SSR/MSSR with FLAC may be recommended for the large-scale slopes of complex geometry. Such a powerful tool as MSSR with FLAC gives the opportunity for the complete stability analysis for any slope. Limitations: visibility, interpretation. Verification!!! 1