Slope Assessment

Temporary Cut Slope

Civil Engineering Construction Works

foundations soil
exploration

tunneling

… These are actually buried right under your feet.

2
Design Principles of Temporary Works

In order to ensure the strength and stability of any temporary

works structure, there are different aspects that need to be
considered which can be simplified as follows:

Foundations – the ability of the ground to carry the loads

transmitted from the temporary works structure without failure or
excessive deformation or settlement.

Stability – the ability of the temporary works structure to

withstand horizontal or lateral loading without sway, overturning
or sliding failure.
Soil boring profile for stability of slope analysis
Typical soil slope in Hong Kong
 Causes of temporary works failures

1 Absence of or an inadequate temporary works procedure

2 Inadequate site investigation (including geotechnical
investigation, identification of underground services, assessment
of the structural condition of existing and/or adjacent buildings)
3 Inadequate, or lack of, design brief
4 Inadequate, or lack of, design for the temporary works
5 Inadequate, or lack of, appropriate level of checking of
temporary works designs
6 Lack of awareness on site of temporary works design
assumptions
Failure Mechanism of Soil Slope
80 % of landslides are due to erosion
and “loss in suction” in Hong
Kong.
The slope stability is significantly
affected by the surface water.

(Au, 2001)
 Slope Stability Problems in Hong Kong
Most landslides in cuttings occur during intense
rainstorms, hence groundwater conditions assumed
in stability calculations correspond to an extreme
rainfall condition. Lower factors of safety are used
when rarer rainfall conditions are assumed. Factor of
safety is also tied to consequences of failure, the
following minimum values being stipulated in the
Geotechnical Manual for Slopes for the 10- year
return period rainfall case (Geotechnical Control
Office, 1984):

(a) 1.4 high risk to life

(b) 1.2 low risk to life
(c) > 1.0 negligible risk to life

(Au, 2001)
Site Survey
A critical examination and
description of the site
- Topography
- Geology
- Groundwater and surface water
conditions
- Site history
- Public utilities and
- Drains and sewers, etc 9
Site Geology

- Hong Kong Geological Survey

◆ Geological memoir
◆ Geological map sheet
◆ Geological survey sheet report

10
Geological Memoir

11
The more common site
investigation methods include:

 Trialpits
 Hand auger boreholes
 Light cable percussion (shell & auger)
boring
 Mechanical auger boreholes
 Rotary open hole drilling
 Rotary core drilling
 Trialpits
 Most simple method of
ground investigations
 Manually or by the use of a
back acting mechanical
excavators
 Depths of 3m
 No one should enter any
unsupported excavation
 Detailed information on the
strata revealed at shallow
depth (as in-fill data or
investigation in its own right)
 Examples – investigations of
highways, car parking
areas, floor slabs, installation
of services, house
foundations, etc
 Use for assessing case where
failure has occurred
Trial Pit Log

14
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Trialpits as a Method
of Investigation are:
Advantages Disadvantages
 No specialist equipment is  Limited depth of
required excavation
 Detailed visual inspection of  Difficulties of
the strata is possible excavating granular
 Bulk disturbed samples of soil below the water
specific horizons can be table
obtained
 They demonstrate how
material will behave during
construction (particularly
with respect to ground-water
and excavation stability)
 Excavation of hand dug
trialpits in confined areas is
possible
 Another simple method of ground investigation is
by the use of hand augers which are capable of
forming shallow boreholes in cohesive soils
The depth of penetration is dependent on
the strength of the operator & the nature of
the soil

Difficult to use temporary casing during

boring – ground has to be self supporting –
can not use in granular soils below the
water table

Advantages Disadvantages
 Light weight • Limited depth of investigation
equipment, • Slow penetration in stiff clays
transported in boot of or sands & gravels
car • Unable to penetrate
 Ability to operate in obstructions, including roots
confined locations of significant size
Light Cable Percussion (Shell & Auger)
Boring

 Drilling rig comprises

an ‘A’ frame with top
pulley wheel &
motorised winch unit.
 The winch is arranged
such that the cable
can be pulled in using
the motor, but is free
to fall when the clutch
is disengaged
The method of advancing a borehole in cohesive & granular
deposits are different, (both methods rely on dropping
drilling tools down the hole & retrieving the soil from the
tool)
Cohesive soil

 The clay cutter (or cross

cutter) and its sinker bar
is dropped into the soil.
 The tool is then slowly
withdrawn from the
borehole
 The soil wedged in the
tool is cleaned out using
a clay spoon forced
through the slot in the
side of the clay cutter
 Granular soil

• The shell is used to advance the borehole

• The shell comprises an open ended steel
tube with a one way flap valve (clack) at
its base
• Method of operation is to ensure that the
temporarily cased borehole is full of water
then surge the shell up & down in the base
of the borehole
• On the up-stroke the clack is closed thus
the soil in the base of the borehole is lifted
into suspension, to be collected by the shell
on the down stroke
• The case will follow the shell down the as
boring proceeds
• The casing can also be driven into place by
placing a drive bar through the drive head
& slotted sinker bar
 Cohesive soil
 No need for temporary casing
 Maximum borehole depth is the length of cable on the winch

Granular soil
 Need for temporary casing
 Maximum depth of the borehole is normally limited by the capacity
of the winch to pull the casing out of the ground
 The winch has to be capable of lifting the dead weight of the casing
& overcome the friction between the casing & surrounding soil
 Winches are commonly 1.5 or 2 tonne capacity – pulling power can
be increased to about 10 tonnes by the use of pulley blocks
 Above this level of pull there is a risk of collapsing the ‘A’ frame of
the rig
 If casing becomes stuck it is possible to use a pair of high capacity
jacks which push against a clamp a the top of the casing
 To overcome this problem – start the borehole using large diameter
casing & tools, reducing their size as drilling proceeds
 Usual casing diameters are 450mm, 300mm, 200mm & 150mm
 Rotary Core Drilling
 As with rotary open
Advantages
hole drilling ‘top drive’ • Only practical method of
& ‘chuck driven’ rigs obtaining rock core at
may be employed depth
 ‘Top drive’ rigs tend to • Cores obtained are
be less powerful, but suitable for laboratory
fast in operation than testing (uniaxial
the ‘chuck driven’ compression or point
types load)
 In both case the rock • Using impression packers
core is obtained via a the orientation of the
core-barrel fractures & bedding can
 There are a number of be determined
different types of core Disadvantages
barrel
• Method is relatively slow
 Typically double tube
& expensive
core barrels of the
type are employed • Careful interpretation of
recovered core is required
• Not suitable for drilling in
soil
• Contamination by drilling
fluids can occur
 Undisturbed Samples
 The most common
method of obtaining
‘undisturbed samples’
is the 100mm 38mm
diameter open drive
sampler
 Smaller diameter
samplers are usually
driven by hand often
within trialpits or hand
augered boreholes
 The 100mm diameter
sampler is generally
used if Light
percussive boreholes
& is driven using a
sliding hammer with
sinker bar
 Standard Penetration Test
The SPT is used to
assess the engineering
properties of granular
soils
• SPT pushing rob into ground
– Metal rob (20mm to 80mm)
– dropping a 63.kg hammer
– through 760mm
– number of blows (N) for a
penetration of 300mm
– from ‘N’ settlement of
foundations constructed on
granular soils can be calculated
– A number of methods of
analysis - the most suitable two
are: [1] D’Appolonia et al
(1970) [2] Parry (1971)
Borehole Log

24
 Sheet
Site Investigation Example BOREHOLE RECORD
1 of 1
Casing How many boreholes, How deep?
depth Water Cu Depth
Samples N value Description of strata Legend Spacing: building
Daily level kN/m2 (m) 10-30m apart
progress
20/12/02
TOPSOIL
road line 30-300m apart
1.1 landslides at least 5 in line for profile
Loose, light brown SAND
D 7 Depths: 1.5 x foundation width, belwo founding depth,
(b = 16.8kN/m3)
plus at least one deeper control hole to 10m
2.7
below foundation unless rockhead found; 3m
M edium, dense, brown gravelly SAND
D 16 3.5
(b = 17.0kN/m3 and sat = 20.0kN/m3) belwo rockhead to prove sound; rock probes
4.4
to 3-10m to locate rock cavities.
(5.00) U
80 5
21/01/02
on site + per hole + per m
Light percussion, soil <10m deep 200 300 10
U 87 7
Firm to stiff, yellowish-brown, closely >10m deep 200 300 15
fissured CLAY of high plasticity Probing in rock or soil 300 10 10
3 2
(sat = 19kN/m and mv = 0.1 m /M N) Rotary coring in rock 400 40 40
U 99 9
Trial pits, 4m deep, backfilled 150 for 3 pits

U 107 11

12.3

50 for Very dense, red, silty SAND with

22/2/02 D
210mm decomposed SANDSTONE

14.6

Red, medium grained, granular,

SANDSTONE, thickly bedded

17.7

Boring method: Shell & Auger to 14.6m

Rotary Core Drilling to 17.7m
Diameter: 150mm
Soil Testing - Cone Penetration Test Truck
Vane Shear Test Standard Penetration Test
More Field Tests
Factors affecting the stability of slope
1.Topography
2.Geological conditions, Depth of subsoil &
3. Shear strength soil
4. Surface and ground water condition
5. External loading
Slope Stability
Landslides, slips, slumps, mudflows,
rockfalls, debris flows – these are just
some of the terms which are used to
describe movements of soils and rocks
under the influence of gravity. These
movement can be merely inconvenient,
but can from time to time become
seriously damaging or even disastrous in
their proportions and effects.

Hong Kong has become very safety

conscious in recent decades and slope
safety is regarded as a serious problem in
the context of post-war urban development.
Infinite Slope in Cohesionless Soil

Dry Submerged With Seepage

tan  tan  '  ' tan  '
F F  F
tan  tan   tan 
Coulomb Equation

s  c   tan 
s: Shear strength
c: (Cohesion Strength )

σ: Effective intergranular normal pressure

 : Angle of internal friction

(Strength gained from internal friction)
tan  : Coefficient of friction
Relationship of Normal Stress vs.
Shear Stress

Normal Stress (s) Shear Stress (f)

10 kPa (=kN/m2) 6 kPa

20 kPa 12 kPa

30 kPa 18 kPa
Shear Strength of Soil due to
Sliding Friction

s
tan  
Shear Stress (s)


s   tan 
s  c   tan 

Angle of internal friction (f)

Normal Stress (s)
Triaxial Test on Soil Sample in Laboratory
Slope Stability Analysis (u = 0)
The FOS for slope can be analyzed using the equation:
The driving moment is = W*d
The resisting force is = Cu*La*r
The factor of safety (FOS) = Cu*La*r/ Wd.
 Taylor Stability Chart (1973)

Many slope stability problems could also be reduced to a

much simpler design idealization, particularly in the early
stages of the evolution of a design, and this meant that the
same slopes would have to be repeatedly analyzed unless
there was a corpus of established solutions. An attempt on
this problem was made by Taylor (1973).

He noted that for a slope of simple profile, and in the

undrained case where the soil properties could be
represented by cu, H,  and that the whole range of
combinations of these parameters could be shown on just
one graph.
Slope Stability Analysis (u = 0)

A slope can be analyzed using the static equation:

The driving moment is = Wd.
The resisting moment is = Cu*La*r

1. The factor of safety (FOS) = Cu*La*r/ Wd.

 cu
Taylor’s F = ------------
Curves NH
Slope Stability Analysis (u = 0)
A slope with an angle of 45° with is excavated to a depth of 8 mm in a clay soil with
unit weight = 19kN/m3. The relevant shear strength parameters are c u = 65kN/m2
and u = 0. Determine the Factor of safety for the trial surface. Use (1) the above
equation & (2) Taylor’s chart to solve the problem.
(a)As can be seen from the above figure, the X-section
ABCD is 70m2. Weight of soil = 70X19= 1,330kN/m
The centroid of ABCD is 4.5 m from center. The
angle AOC is 89.5° and radius OC is 12.1m. The arc
length ABC is calculated as 18.9m. The factor of safety
is calculated as: FOS= Cu*La*r/ W*d

FOS = 65 x 18.8 x 12.1/ 1330 x 4.5 = 2.48

(b) Taylor’s chart FOS= cu/NH= 65/ 0.18 x19 x 8 = 2.37

Circular Failure Chart
Slice Method
Slides Method
 Fellenius Method of Slices
It is assumed that the forces acting upon the
sides of any slice have zero resultant in the
direction normal to the failure arc for that slice.
 Simplified Bishop Method
It is assumed that the forces acting on the
sides of any slice have zero resultant in the
vertical direction.
• Janbu’s Method
Commonly used in Hong Kong
 Method of Slices
O XA


XB
Re sisting Forces XC
F
 Sliding Forces
 R A
t dl R B

 dWx
dWA
C
D dWB dlA tA
E dWC
F dlB
dlC
dl = dependant on size of slice tB
dW = dependant on size of slice tC
x = dependent on size of slice

t A dl A R A t B dl B R B t C dl C RC
F    ...........
dW A X A dW B X B dWC X C
 Adj Opp
Fellenius Cos  Sin 
Hyp Hyp
FOS  F 
 Re sisting Forces  TR
 Sliding Forces Wx x = R Sin a
W = weight of slice o W
x = (LEVER ARM)
R
T = shear force at bottom of slice b

T = cL+ N tan  (TOTAL STRESS)

a
cL = cohesion x length of slice T
cL = cu b Sec a
N = W Cos a N
b

F 
 c u b Sec a  W Cosa Tan  u
L
b N = W Cos a

W R Sina L
Cos a
1
W
a

a Sec 
Cos
W sin a
L = b Sec a
 EFFECTIVE STRESS
Disturbing Force, W R Sin a, is unchanged.
x = R Sin a
Resisting Force is now in effective stress terms, ie o W
T=c’L+N’tan’
where N’ = N-ub Sec a R b

T = c’bSeca + (N –ub Sec a) tan ’

a
T
N = W Cos a
N

F 
 c' b Sec a   W Cos a  ubSeca  tan  '

W R Sina b

u a N
a W
ub Sec a
 Example 1 Determine the factor of safety of the
folloowing slope of against rotational failure on the slip
surface indicated if the soils has the following
properties: cu = 15 kN/m2 u=15o  = 19.3 kN/m3
3m 5m 4m 3.5m 3.5m

Fellenius

5
4

3
a=62o
1 2
a= -35o
a=32o
a= -13o
a=12o
W = area x 

F 
 cu b Sec a  W Cosa Tan  u W = 3x2.2x0.5x19.3 = 63.39

W Sina
 1
Sec 
Cos
W cos a tan  u +
Slice a W W sin a W cos a tan  u c u b sec a
c u b sec a


 F 
 c u b Sec a  W Cosa Tan  u

W Sina
W cos a tan  u +
Slice a W W sin a W cos a tan  u c u b sec a
c u b sec a

1 -35 63.69 -35.53 13.98 54.93 68.91

2 -13 424.6 -95.51 110.85 76.97 187.82

3 12 590.58 122.79 154.79 61.34 216.13

4 32 530.27 281 120.49 61.91 182.4

5 62 236.43 208.76 29.74 111.83 141.57

 481.51 429.85 366.98 796.83

366.98  429.85
F  = 1.65
481.51
Janbu Method
Janbu’s Non-circular Failure Analysis
Correction Factor
Correction Factor, fo
Bishops Method of Determination of value of na for positive angles
Determination of value of na for negative angles
Sample of Calculation of Janbu’s Method
Current GEO Requirements - PNAP234
Recommended Minimum Factor of Safety for Slopes for a Ten-
Year Return Period Rainfall
Category 1* Category 2 Category 3

Category A 1.4 1.4 1.4

Category B 1.4 1.2 1.2
Category C 1.4 1.2 >1.0
Existing Slope** 1.2 1.1 >1.0

Notes :
1. A slope in the category 1 should have a factor of safety of at least 1.1
for the predicted worst ground water conditions. (The factor of safety
for a 1:1000 year storm should be at least 80% of the 1:10 year value.)
2. A lower safety factor may be applied to the existing slope as long as
rigorous geological and geotechnical investigation are conducted.
3. The factor of safety given in table are recommended minimum values.
Drainage of Slopes

Drains are added to stabilize slopes

Retaining Wall OR Sheet piling OR Cylinder Piles
Provided to Increase Resistance to Sliding
Plan for Building Design to aid Slope Stability
Slopes Flattened or Benched
Slope Stabilization
Soil Nail Design
GEO Report 36
Slope Registration – PNAP 168
Slope Registration is required :
• For cut slopes, including any associated retaining walls,
and retaining walls greater than 3 m high;
• For fill slopes, including any associated retaining walls,
greater than 5 m high;
• Fill slopes, including any associated retaining walls, less
than 5m high which pose a direct risk to life of Category
1 or 2 in PNAP234;
• Disturbed terrain features which contain repairs to
landslide scares or comprise a series of composite cut
and/or fill slopes.
• The information for slope registration requested is a
1:1000 site plan showing the boundary of each slope
feature and a record sheet (Appendix C of PNAP 168).
Slope Maintenance – PNAP 189

 The recommended standards of

good Practice for slope
maintenance are given in
Geoguide 5.

 Maintenance inspections for slopes

include routine maintenance
inspection, Engineer Inspection for
Maintenance, regular monitoring
of any special measures (e.g. pre-
stressed ground anchors and
horizontal drains) present, and
regular checks of water carrying
services and road drains that could
affect slopes.
Geological Map of Hong Kong

Courtesy of Hong Kong Geological Survey

 Residual
VI soils

Completely
V decomposed
Most of the residual soils
in Hong Kong are in-
situ decomposed from Highly
igneous rocks
IV decomposed
The red or yellow color is
due to the presence of Moderately
III decomposed
iron oxides.

II Slightly
decomposed

I Fresh
Latest Development in Slope Stability Analysis
The majority of slope stability analyses performed in practice still use traditional
limit equilibrium approaches involving methods of slices that have remained
essentially unchanged for decades. The finite element method represents a
powerful alternative approach for slope stability analysis which is accurate,
versatile and requires fewer a priori assumptions, especially, regarding the failure
mechanism.

Slope failure in the finite element model occurs 'naturally' through the zones in
which the shear strength of the soil is insufficient to resist the shear stresses.
Several examples of finite element slope stability analysis with comparison against
other solution methods, including the influence of a free surface on slope and dam
stability can be traced.

Graphical output is included to illustrate deformations and mechanisms of failure.

It is argued that the finite element method of slope stability analysis is a more
powerful alternative to traditional limit equilibrium methods and its widespread use
should now be standard in geotechnical practice.
Combined Hydrology And Stability Model
(CHASM)

The program utilizes the effects of vegetation and slope

plan topography on slope stability. The resultant
physically based numerical model is designed to be
applied to site-specific slopes in which a detailed
assessment of unsaturated and saturated hydrology is
required in relation to vegetation, topography and slope
stability. Applications are made to the Hawke's Bay
region in New Zealand where shallow-seated instability is
strongly associated with spatial and temporal trends.
Stability of slope can be effectively improved by the provision of an
appropriately design drainage system, this can be achieved by:
1. A surface drain system that is capable to discharge all the storm
water within the rain water catchment area affecting the slope in
a designated period of time (say, 200mm rainfall/hour).
A surface drain system usually consists of:
- surface channel
- stepped or trapezoidal channel
- catchpit or sand trap
2. A subsoil drain system that is laid below surface for the
discharging of ground water and to maintain the water pressure
be kept in a safe level
- filter layer behind the slope leading water to outlets
- weepholes - cut-off drain
- subsoil drain pipe and vegetation cover types, and the Mid-Levels region in
Hong Kong, an area subject to a variety of landslide mechanisms, some of which
may be subject to strong topographic control. An improved understanding of
process mechanism, afforded by the model, is critical for reliable and appropriate
design of slope stabilization and remedial measures.