Q UIZ

Page 1
Q UIZ NO. 1

◼ In general, is plane strain analysis more conservative

than a 3D analysis?

Page 2
 In plane strain analysis, the
longitudinal direction (z direction)
is infinitely long, hence, we study
the stability of the slope at a
chosen cross section, i.e. 2D
analysis.

In 3D analysis, the actual shape

of failure mass is considered.
Hence the 2 ends of the failure
Failure mass (coloured red in the figure)
direction are also taken into consideration.

Noting that when the soil mass

Failure mass Shearing fails and moving outward, the two
resistance ends will offer shearing resistance
offered by the in the opposite direction against
two ends of the the failing. Hence it assists the
failure mass stability of the slope and this is
reflected in a larger Factor of
Safety if 3D effect is allowed.
Q UIZ NO. 2
◼ Shearing with (constant) dilation in a homogeneous soil
slope will produce a log spiral slip surface. Why?

Log spiral

circular

Page 4
 Horizontal
displacement δh

Vertical
displacement
δh

Before shearing During shearing

Indication
Ψ of the
angle of
Shearing surface dilation

Shearing of a dense soil with

dilation in a shear box
Page 5
Objective : To obtain the shape of curve dr
from point A to point B under a friction tan =
soil model rdθ (consider point P)
1 P 
dθ tan = r dr

Integrating, slip surface

O
θB 1 rB A
tan θA
dθ = r rA
dr rA
 
A
θ tan = ln
rB r
rA
P r rB
rB
i.e. = eθ tan  Equation of
rA
a log spiral 

r B
⚫ If  = 0 , rB = rA , i.e. circular arc
⚫ If rA →  , a straight line
Q UIZ NO. 3
◼ In the PPT notes, a normal distribution of FoS is shown. A
numerical example is now given below. Could you suggest an
alternative plotting to see more easily the probability of failure?
Frequency (%)

Mean F of S = 1.12
FoS = 1 Probability of Failure = 12.6 %
Standard deviation of F of S = 0.10

FoS Page 7
 100

Cumulative
probability curve
Probability (%)

FoS = 1

0
0.6 1 1.5
Factor of Safety

Page 8
Q UIZ NO. 4
◼ What shear strength parameters (drained/undrained) would
you use in the following scenario?

a) a soil cut slope consists of completely decomposed

granite (CDG) with a permeability of around 10-5 m/s

b) a temporary cut slope for foundation construction

consists of a fine-grained completely decomposed tuff
(CDT) with a permeability of around 10-8 m/s. The slope
will be backfilled after 2 months.

Page 9
Q UIZ NO. 5
◼ If you are going to form a sand castle, which condition will give
you the steepest slope without failure?

- dry sand
- partially wet sand
- fully wet sand

Page 10
Q UIZ NO. 6
◼ Four scenario are given for the stability analysis of infinite
slopes:

zw

How would you deal with the scenario that the water table is
not fully submerged but within the depth of instability zone?

Page 11
Q UIZ NO. 7
◼ In slope stability analysis using method of slices and based on
limit equilibrium approach, discuss the number of unknown
and no. of equations available if both force and moment
equilibrium are to be considered. What is the number of
assumptions required to make the problem statically
determinate?

◼ Hence, discuss how Fellenius, Bishop, Janbu and M&P take

care of the assumptions.

Page 12
Q UIZ NO. 8
◼ What are your observations from the following GLE results?

3.0

2.5
Factor of Safety

X = inter-slice shear force

2.0 E = inter-slice normal force
Moment
Force
1.5

1.0
-0.5 0 0.5 1
Lambda

Page 13
◼ FoS from Bishop (=2.42) , Janbu (=2.30) and M&P (or
Spencer) (=2.35)

◼ The FoS calculated is not much dependent on the above

3 methods of slices in this particular case

◼ Both force and moment equilibrium are affected by

inter-slice shear forces

◼ Ff is more sensitive than Fm and behaves in the

opposite manner with 

Page 14
Q UIZ NO. 9
◼ What are the major limitations of the Limit Equilibrium
method? How these limitations are made obvious when we
apply this method to slope stability problems involving soil
nails?

Page 15