Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Plane Failure
Prof. K. G. Sharma
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Plane Failure
A plane failure is a comparatively rare sight in rock slopes because it is
only occasionally that all the geometric conditions required to produce such
a failure occur in an actual slope.
Wedge type failure is common.
Understanding of Plane Failure (2D Case) facilitates understanding Wedge
Failure which is a 3D Case.
Case
3/13/2015
3/13/2015
3/13/2015
W
V
U
((
2
1 (z / H ) cot p cot f
=
H
2(1 z / H )
3/13/2015
10
3/13/2015
3/13/2015
Earthquake loads
Joint properties
Seasonal pore
pressure variations
Cohesion deterioration in
regions of high stresses
14
3/13/2015
V sin p
V
p
V cos p
W sin p
W cos p
16
3/13/2015
1
W = r (1 cott f tan
t p ) bH + H 2 cott f + b 2 (tan
t s tan
t p )
2
1
z
2
W = r H 1 cot p (cot p tan f 1)
2
H
3/13/2015
1.0
0.77
0.5
1.10
0
1.34
10
3/13/2015
11
3/13/2015
12
3/13/2015
FS =
cA
+ cott p tan
t
W sin p
13
3/13/2015
FS =
FS =
14
3/13/2015
FS =
U = Ap
where p = w zw
S h extreme
Such
t
water
t pressure
Conditions may occur from
time to time and should be
considered in the design.
15
3/13/2015
U=
1 zw
hw w
2 sin p
16
3/13/2015
Effect of z and zw on FS
17
3/13/2015
zc
= 1 cot f tan p
H
bc
= cot f cot p cot f
H
18
3/13/2015
19
3/13/2015
1
( f + )
2
20
3/13/2015
W cos p
A
A
W sin p
21
3/13/2015
W cos p U V sin p
A
A
W sin p + V cos p
22
3/13/2015
Reinforcement of a Slope
When it has been established that a slope is potentially unstable, it
becomes necessary to consider whether it is possible to stabilize
the slope by drainage or external loads (reinforcement).
R i f
Reinforcement
t may be
b an effective
ff ti method
th d off improving
i
i the
th
factor of safety.
Methods of reinforcement
Tensioned anchors
Fully grouted, untensioned dowels
Construction of a toe buttress.
Factors influencing the selection of an appropriate system are
Site geology
Required capacity of the reinforcement force
Drilling equipment availability and access
Time required for construction.
Reinforcement of a Slope
With rock anchors, it is necessary to decide if they should be
anchored at the distal end and tensioned, or fully grouted and
untensioned.
Untensioned dowels are less costly to install, but they will provide
less reinforcement than tensioned anchors of the same dimensions,
dimensions
and their capacity cannot be tested.
One technical factor influencing the selection is that if a slope has
relaxed and loss of interlock has occurred on the sliding plane, then
it is advisable to install tensioned anchors to apply normal and
shear forces on the sliding plane.
If the reinforcement can be installed before the excavation takes
place, then fully grouted dowels are effective in reinforcing the
slope by preventing relaxation on potential sliding surfaces.
Untensioned dowels can also be used where the rock is randomly
jointed and there is a need to reinforce the overall slope.
23
3/13/2015
FS =
24
3/13/2015
= ( T ( opt ) + p ) or T ( opt ) = ( p )
25
3/13/2015
Strain in fully grouted steel dowel due to shear movement along joint
26
3/13/2015
S = (15.2 55.2 ci0.14 + 56.2 ci0.28 ) 1 tan (70 / c )0.125 (cos )0.5
FS =
cA + N tan + Rb
S
27
3/13/2015
kT = k H2 + kV2
acting at an angle k = tan-1(kV/kH) above the horizontal, and
factor of safety is given by
FS =
28
3/13/2015
BlockSlidingonClayLayers
In mining a horizontal bedded coal deposit, sliding of blocks of
materials on clay seams occurs during high rainfall.
The clay seams have a high montmorillonite content and are
slickensided
li k id d by
b previous
i
shear
h displacements.
di l
t Therefore,
Th f
shear
h
strength parameters of c=0 and =10 are considered
appropriate.
Geometry of the Block with Horizontal Clay Seam
H is the height of the block
f is the angle of the face of the block
B is the distance of a vertical crack behind the crest of slope
zw is the depth of water in tension crack
W is the weight of the block
V is the horizontal force due to water in tension crack
U is the uplift force due to water pressure at base
(W U ) tan
V
where
1
W = r BH + r H 2 cot f
2
1
U = w z w (B + H cot f )
2
1
V = w z w2
2
F=
((2 B / H + cot )
f
/ r .z w / H .b / H (1 + cot f ))tan
w / r .( z w / H )2
29
3/13/2015
Sensitivity of FS to zw
Sensitivity of water depth
in tension crack is evident.
Thus drainage should do a
great deal to improve the
stability of the block.
block
Horizontal holes through
the base of the block.
Not the quantity of the
water but the water pressure
in the tension crack is
important.
p
Increase in weight W improves
the stability. Increase in B/H
Ratio or increase in f
increases FS.
PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization
A 12m high rock slope has been excavated at a face angle of 60.
The rock contains persistent bedding planes that dip at an angle of
35 into the excavation. The 4.35 m deep tension crack is 4 m
behind the crest,, and is filled with water to a height
g of 3 m above
the sliding surface. Strength parameters of sliding surface are
cohesion c = 25 kPa and friction angle = 37. r = 26 kN/m3 and
w = 9.81 kN/m3.
Weight of Block W = 1241 kN/m
Area of the sliding plane A = 13.34 m2/m
(i) Water forces acting on the Block with zw = 3 m:
U = 196.31 kN/m & V = 44.15 kN/m
FS =
= 1.25
30
3/13/2015
PlaneFailureGeometry
PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization
(ii) With zw = z = 4.35 m
U = 284.57 kN/m & V = 44.15 kN/m
FS = 1.07 (Slope close to failure)
(iii) If the slope is drained (zw = 0),
FS = 1.54
31
3/13/2015
PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization
(iv) If slope is drained and cohesion reduced from 25 kPa to
zero by blast vibrations, then the factor of safety is
FS = 1.08
Th loss
The
l
off cohesion
h i reduces
d
FS ffrom 11.54
54 tto 11.08,
08 which
hi h
illustrates the sensitivity of slope to cohesion on sliding
plane.
(v) The critical tension crack depth is
zc
= 1 cot f tan p = 0.36
H
PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization
Slope Reinforcement with Rock Bolts
(i) With c = U = V = 0 and T = 400 kN/m at a dip angle of
T = 55
FS =
(W cos
+ T sin ( T + p )) tan
= 1 .5
W sin p T cos( T + p )
(ii) If the bolts are installed at flatter angle T = 20,
FS = 2.1
This shows the significant improvement that can be achieved by
installing bolts at an angle flatter than the normal to the sliding
surface.
The optimum angle is when
Topt = ( p) = 2 and FS = 2.41.
p
32
3/13/2015
PlaneFailure AnalysisandStabilization
Slope Reinforcement with Rock Bolts
(iii) The rock bolt pattern should be laid out so that the distribution
off bolts
b lt on th
the slope
l
iis as even as possible.
ibl If four
f
bolts
b lt are
installed in each vertical row, the horizontal spacing S of the
vertical rows is calculated as follows:
S=
TB n kN 240 4
= 2 .4 m
=
T kN/m
400
EXAMPLE-1
Stability of porphyry slopes in a Spanish open pit mine
The Atalaya pit was 260 m deep and porphyry slopes, inclined at an
overall angle of 45 as shown in figure appeared to be stable . The
proposedd mine
i plan
l called
ll d for
f deepening
d
i the
h pit
i to in
i excess off
300 m . The problem was to decide whether the slope would remain
stable at the proposed mining depth of 300 m.
In order to establish the theoretical relationship between slope
height and slope angle , the following assumptions are made:
1. No dominant failure plane. It was assumed that failure would be
on a composite planar surface inclined at p = 0.5 ( f + )
2. From the shear strength data a friction angle = 35 was chosen.
33
3/13/2015
EXAMPLE-1
3. The porphyry slopes were assumed to be fully drained and it was
assumed that the tension would occur in all slopes. The depth of
tension crack can be found out using
z
= (1 cot f tan p )
H
cA + W cos p tan
W sin p
z/H
85
60
0.610 1.28c(F0.404)
80
57.5
70
52.5
0.311 2.25c(F0.537)
60
47.5
0.206 3.30c(F0.641)
50
42.5
0.123 5.54c(F0.764)
40
37.5
0.044 152c(F0.913)
TypicalSectionintheAtalaya OpenPitatRioTinto
34
3/13/2015
The problem is now to find the cohesion value which gives the best
fit for a limiting curve (F=1) passing through the slope height /
slope angle points for unstable slopes. The two points at f=61 and
66 and H=40m and 35m are ignored as these are individual bench
failures.
A number of trial calculations showed that best fit for the F=1 curve
to the seven failure points shown in Figure is given by cohesive
strength c = 14 tonnes/m2.
The shear strength relationship defined by c=14 tonnes/m2 and
=35 is plotted in the figure, which also shows peak and residual
strength values determined by shear testing at Imperial College. The
calculation of parameters c=14 tonnes/m2 and =35 by back
analysis fall between the peak and residual shear strength values
determined in laboratory.
SlopeHeightvs
SlopeAnglefor
PorphyrySlopes
35
3/13/2015
ShearStrengthRelationshipofPorphyry
36
3/13/2015
Histogram
EXAMPLE-2
Investigation of the stability of a limestone quarry face
A hillside limestone quarry in the Mendip Hills in England.
Failure occurred in 1968 after a week or more of steady soaking
rain saturated the area, followed by an exceptionally heavy
downpour which flooded the upper quarry floor filling an existing
tension crack in the slope crest.
The failure is basically two-dimensional, the sliding surface being a
bedding plane striking parallel to slope crest and dipping into the
excavation at 20. A vertical crack existed 41 feet behind the slope
crest at the time of failure. Geometry shown in the figure.
In order to provide the shear strength data for the analysis of slope
stability of the existing slope in 1970, it was decided to analyse the
1968 failure by means of Graphical method.
Linear shear strength relationship was assumed.
37
3/13/2015
EXAMPLE-2
Investigation of the stability of a limestone quarry face
Assuming rock density = 0.08 tons/ft3 and a water density = 0.031
tons/ft3 :
Weight of sliding mass, W = 0.5 (XH Dz) = 404.8 tons/ft
Horizontal water force,
force V = 0.5
0 5 w zw2 = 65
65.5
5 tons/ ft
Uplift of water force, U = 0.5 w zw A = 110.8 tons/ft
From the force diagram, the shear strength can be determined and
this is plotted in figure.
From an examination of 1968 failure surface, it was concluded that
the friction angle was probably 205. This range of friction angle
and corresponding cohesion are used for further analysis.
The range of shear strength mobilized in 1968 failure are used to
check the stability of 210 ft high slopes for the new plant
installation.
Geometryof1968Failure
38
3/13/2015
EstimationofShearStrengthMobilizedin1968Failure
EXAMPLE-2
Investigation of the stability of a limestone quarry face
The geometry of 210 ft high slope and the typical force diagrams
for dry and saturated slopes are shown in figures assuming a slope
face angle f = 50 and a friction angle = 25.
Factor of safety for dry and saturated slopes with different slope
face angles is shown in the figure. Full lines are for a friction angle
=20 while the dashed lines are for 5 variation.
It is evident that 58 slopes are unstable under heavy rainfall
conditions which caused 1968 failure. Drainage of the slope,
particularly the control of surface water entering tension crack is
very beneficial. It cannot be fully assured.
Therefore the slopes should be benched back to an overall slope of
45 with drainage measures.
39
3/13/2015
GeometryofOverallSlope
ForceDiagramforDesignofOverallQuarrySlopes
40
3/13/2015
FactorofSafetyforDry&SaturatedSlopeswith
DifferentFaceAngles
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
A 60 m high cut had an overall face angle of 50, made up of
three, 20 m high benches with face angles of 70.
Due to a small slide in a nearby slope, concern has been
expressedd that
th t a major
j slide
lid off the
th cutt slope
l
could
ld occur
resulting in serious damage to an important civil engineering
structure at the foot of the cut.
An assessment was required of the short- and the long-term
stability of the cut, and recommendations for appropriate
remedial measures, if necessary.
No previous geological and geotechnical investigation done
done.
The site in an area of high rainfall intensity and low seismicity.
A horizontal seismic coefficient, H of 0.08g has been
suggested.
41
3/13/2015
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
The cut is in slightly weathered granite containing several sets
of steeply dipping joints, and sheet jointing that dipped at 35
and formed the natural slopes in the area.
J i t Orientation
Joint
O i t ti Data
D t obtained
bt i d based
b d on surface
f
mapping,
i
Reasonable because of the extensive rock exposure in the cut
face and natural slopes.
Feature
Overallslopeface
Dip()
DipDirection()
50
200
Individual benches
Individualbenches
70
200
Sheetjoint
35
190
JointsetJ1
80
233
JointsetJ2
80
040
JointsetJ3
70
325
42
3/13/2015
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
The stereoplot of the joint data is prepared including a friction
circle of 35.
Although the three joint sets provided a number of steep release
surfaces,
f
which
hi h would
ld allow
ll bl
blocks
k to
t separate
t from
f
the
th rockk
mass, none of their lines of intersection fall within the zone
designated as potentially unstable in the stereoplot.
The great circle representing the sheet joints passes through the
zone of potential instability. The dip direction of the sheet joints
is close to that of the cut face, so the most likely failure mode
was a plane slide on the sheet joints in the direction indicated on
the stereoplot.
Both the overall cut and the individual benches were potentially
unstable, and it was necessary to carry out further analysis of
both.
Stereonet PlotofGeologicalDatafortheSlope
43
3/13/2015
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
Rock Shear Strength
No information was available on the shear strength of the sheet
joints forming the potential sliding surface.
The strength values used in design were estimated from
previous experience of the stability of slopes in granite.
Heavily kaolinized granites exhibit friction values in the range
of 3545 because of the angular nature of the mineral grains.
The cohesion of these surfaces was likely to be variable
depending on the degree of weathering of the surface and the
persistence of the joints; a cohesion range of 50200 kPa was
selected.
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
Ground Water Conditions
No boreholes in the slope, the subsurface ground water
conditions were unknown.
Th site
The
it was in
i an area that
th t experienced
i
d periods
i d off intense
i t
rainfall, it was expected that significant transient ground water
pressures would develop in the slope following these events.
44
3/13/2015
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
Stability Analysis
Because of the presence of three steeply dipping joint sets, there
was a strong possibility of a tension crack forming on these
di
discontinuities
ti iti behind
b hi d the
th crestt off the
th cut.
t
One possible failure mode was that illustrated as Model I.
This theoretical model assumed that a tension crack occurred in
the dry state in the most critical position, and that this crack
filled to depth zw with water during a period of exceptionally
heavy rain.
A simultaneous earthquake subjected the slope to ground
motion that was simulated with a horizontal seismic coefficient
kH of 0.08.
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
Stability Analysis Model I
The factor of safety of this slope for pseudo-static horizontal
earthquake loading is given by
FS =
A = (H z )cos ec p
((
1
2
W = r H 2 1 ( z / H ) cot p cot f
2
1
U = w zw A
2
1
V = w z w2
2
45
3/13/2015
ModelIforPlaneSlopeFailure
ChoiceofRemedialMeasuresforPlaneFailure
Stability Analysis Model II
To allow for the possible presence of substantial sub-surface
water, an alternative theoretical model (Model II) was
proposed, with the pseudo-static earthquake loading. FS is given
by
cA + (W (cos p k H sin p ) U ) tan
FS =
W (sin p + k H cos p )
A = H cos ec p
1
W = r H 2 (cot p cot f )
2
1
U = w H w2 cos ec p
4
46
3/13/2015
ModelIIforPlaneSlopeFailure
Value
Cut height, Hc
60 m
50
70
Bench height, Hb
20 m
35
15.4 m
25.5 kN/m3
Water density, w
9.81 kN/m3
Seismic coefficient, kH
0.08
47
3/13/2015
FactorofSafety
Overall Slope Model I
FS =
FactorofSafety
One of the most useful studies of the factor of safety equations
was to find the shear strength which would have to be mobilized
for failure (i.e. FS = 1.0).
Th
These
analyses
l
examined
i d the
th overall
ll cutt andd the
th individual
i di id l
benches for a range of water pressures.
Results are plotted and the numbered curves represent the
following conditions:
Curve 1 Overall Cut, Model I, dry, zw = 0.
Curve 2 Overall Cut, Model I, saturated, zw = z = 14m.
Curve 3 Overall Cut,
Cut Model II,
II dry,
dry Hw = 0.
0
Curve 4 Overall Cut, Model II, saturated, Hw = 60m.
Curve 5 Individual bench, Model I, dry, zw = 0.
Curve 6 Individual bench, Model II, saturated, zw = z = 9.9m.
Curve 7 Individual bench, Model II, dry, Hw = 0.
Curve 8 Individual bench, Model II, saturated, Hw = H = 20m.
48
3/13/2015
ShearStrengthMobilizedforFailureofSlope
FactorofSafety
The shear strength values found for different cases happen to
fall reasonably close together.
The elliptical shaded area surrounds the range of shear strengths
considered
id d reasonable
bl for
f partially
ti ll weathered
th d granite.
it
It is observed that when the cut is fully saturated and subject to
earthquake loading (Curves 2, 4 and 6), the likely available
shear strength along the sliding surfaces would be exceeded by
the driving forces acting on the sliding surface, and failure
would be possible.
Considering the rate of weathering of granite in tropical
environments over the operational life of the slope, with a
consequent reduction in available cohesive strength, these
results indicated that the cut was unsafe and that the steps
should be taken to increase its stability.
49
3/13/2015
RemedialMeasures
Four basic methods for improving the stability of the cut were
considered:
(a) Reduction of cut height;
(b) Reduction
R d ti off cutt face
f
angle;
l
(c) Drainage; and
(d) Reinforcement with tensioned anchors.
In order to compare the effectiveness of these different methods,
it was assumed that the sheet joint surface had a cohesive
strength of 100 kPa and a friction angle of 35.
The increase in factor of safety for a reduction in slope height,
slope angle and water level was found by altering one of the
variables at a time in the equations for Factor of Safety.
RemedialMeasures
The influence of reinforcing the cut was obtained by modifying
the equations for FS to include a bolting force.
Model I
FS =
Model II
FS =
cA
A + (W (cos p k H sin
i p ) U + T sin
i ( T + p )) tan
t
W (sin p + k H cos p ) T sin ( T + p )
50
3/13/2015
SlopeStabilizationwithTensionedRockAnchors
RemedialMeasures
Curves for FS are plotted for different methods that were
considered for increasing the stability of the overall cut.
In each case, the change is expressed as a percentage of the total
range of each variable: H = 60 m, f = 50, zw/z = 1, Hw = 60 m.
The variation of the reinforcing force is expressed as a
percentage of the weight of the wedge of rock being supported.
In calculating the effect of the reinforcement, it was assumed
that the anchors are installed horizontally, that is T = 0.
51
3/13/2015
RemedialMeasures
The influence of the anchor inclination T on the reinforcing
load required to produce a factor of safety of 1.5 is plotted. This
shows that the required bolting force can be approximately
halved by installing the bolts horizontally (T = 0, or T + p =
35), rather than normal to the plane (T = 55, or T + Tp=
90). As discussed in Section 6.4.1, the generally optimum
angle for tensioned rock anchors is given by equation (6.23). In
practice, cement grouted anchors are installed at about 1015
below the horizontal to facilitate grouting.
Alternative methods of
increasing stability of overall
slope
52
3/13/2015
StabilizationOptions
Reduce height: Reduction in cut height is not an effective
solution (Curves 1 and 2). To achieve the required factor of safety
of 1.5, the slope height would have to be reduced by 50%. If this
solution were to be adopted, it would be more practical to
excavate the entire slope since most of the volume of rock to be
excavated is contained in the upper half of the slope.
Reduce face angle: Reducing the face angle would be very
effective stabilization measure as shown by line 3. The required
factor of safety of 1.5 is achieved for a reduction of less than 25%
off the
h slope
l
angle
l (37.5
(37 5).
) This
Thi finding
fi di is
i generally
ll true andd a
reduction in the face angle (i.e. flatter slope) is often an effective
remedial measure. However, a practical consideration is the
difficulty of excavating a sliver cut because of the limited
access for equipment on the narrow, lower part of the cut.
StabilizationOptions
Curve 4 (reduction of face angle for slope without tension crack)
is an anomaly and shows that calculations can sometimes produce
unrealistic results. The reduction in factor of safety shown by this
curve is a result of the reduction in the weight of the sliding block
as the face angle is reduced. Since the water pressure on the
sliding surface remains constant, the effective stress acting on the
sliding surface decreases and hence the frictional component of
the resisting force decreases. When a very thin sliver of rock
remains, the water pressure will float it off the slope. The
problem with this analysis lies in the assumption that the block is
completely
l l impermeable
i
bl andd that
h the
h water remains
i trappedd
beneath the sliding surface. In fact, the block would break up
long before it floated and hence the water pressure acting on the
sliding surface would be dissipated.
53
3/13/2015
StabilizationOptions
Drainage: Curves 5 and 6 show that drainage would not be an
effective stabilization option for both slope models. But factor of
safety of 1.5 is not achieved. Drainage is usually one of the most
cost-effective remedial measures. The reasons for the poor
performance of drainage in this case are due to the combination
of the slope geometry and the shear strength of the failure
surface.
Anchoring: Curves 7 and 8 show that reinforcing the cut by
means of tensioned anchors with a force equal to 5000 kN per
meter of slope length would achieve a factor of safety of 1.5,
assuming
i the
h anchors
h are installed
i
ll d just
j below
b l the
h horizontal.
h i
l
In other words, reinforcement of a 100 m length of slope would
require the installation of 500 anchors, each with a capacity of
1MN.
SuitableDrainageMeasures
54
3/13/2015
LongTermRemedialMeasures
The two most attractive options for long-term remediation were
reinforcement using tensioned cables or bar anchors, or
reduction of the slope face angle.
Reinforcement was rejected because of the high cost, and the
uncertainty of long-term corrosion resistance of the steel anchors.
The option finally selected was to reduce the face angle to 35 by
excavating the entire block down to the sheet joints forming the
sliding surface. This effectively removed the problem.
Al h
Although
h the
h roadd was closed
l d twice
i during
d i this
hi period,
i d no
major problems occurred and the slope was finally excavated
back to the sliding plane.
InfluenceofUnderCuttingtheToeofaSlope
The toe of a slope under-cut either intentionally by mining or by
natural agencies such as weathering or in case of sea cliffs by
the action of waves.
The influence of such undercutting on stability of a slope is very
important.
Geometry of under-cut slope shown in the figure.
Previous failure left the face inclined at f and vertical tension
crack depth z1.
Due to under-cut of M inclined at an angle 0, a new failure
occurs on a pplane inclined at p with a new tension crack depth
p
of z2.
55
3/13/2015
GeometryofUnderCutSlope
InfluenceofUnderCuttingtheToeofaSlope
The factor of safety of this slope is given by
FS =
with
[(
1
W = r H 22 z 22 cot p H 12 z12 cot f + (H 1 + H 2 )M
2
Note that, for 0 > 0,
M = (H 2 H 1 )cot 0
56
3/13/2015
InfluenceofUnderCuttingtheToeofaSlope
The critical tension crack depth for a dry under-cut slope is
given by
z2 =
c cos
r cos p sin ( p )
1
H 2 z2
p = + Arc tan 2 2
(H1 z1 )cot f (H1 + H 2 )M
2
2
ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting
Chalk cliff failure at Joss Bay on the Isle of Thanet in England.
Failure induced by undercutting action of the sea.
Hutchinson analysed the cliff failure.
Figure
g
shows the cross-section of the failure.
Chalk is reasonably uniform. Bedding is horizontal and two
major joint sets are almost vertical. The cliff face is parallel to
one of these joint sets.
No water in the wells near the coast and no seepage from the
face.
Therefore, fully drained chalk mass. U=V=0 is taken in the
analysis.
Laboratory tests:
Unit weight, r = 1.9 tonnes/m3,
Friction angle, = 42 (Peak), 30 (Residual)
Cohesion, c = 13.3 tonnes/m2 (Peak), 0 (Residual)
57
3/13/2015
CrossSectionofChalkCliffFailureatJossBay
ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting
The failure can be classed as a fall and not a slide (in which shear
strength is reduced to residual value by shear movement).
Thus peak strength of chalk is relevant for the analysis.
We estimate the shear strength
g mobilized in the actual failure and
compare it with laboratory results.
Input Data:
H - Slope height (H1 = H2)
15.4 m
z1 - Original tension crack depth
6.8 m
z2 - New tension crack depth
7.8 m
M - Depth of undercut
0.5 m
0 - Inclination of undercut
0
f - Slope face angle
80
p - Failure plane angle
67
58
3/13/2015
ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting
The effective friction angle of chalk mass can be determined by
rearranging equation for p in Slide No. 113 as
= 2 p Arc tan
H 22 z 22
H 12 z12 cot f (H 1 + H 2 )M
c=
r z 2 cos p sin ( p )
cos
ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting
Hutchinson included data on the shear strength mobilized in
chalk cliff failure at other locations. Data shown in the figure
along with the curve from Ladanyi & Archambaults equation,
which is a ggood fit to the data.
The line defined by =2.64 + tan 49.9 is a tangent to this
curve. Thus the c and determined from back analysis are
reasonable.
Due to next undercutting of toe, the analysis for the failure can be
made.
The input data will be:
H - Slope height (H1 = H2)
15.4 m
z1 - Original tension crack depth
7.8 m
c - Cohesive strength of chalk
2.65 tonnes/m2
- Friction angle of chalk mass
49.9
f - Slope face angle
67
59
3/13/2015
ShearStrengthRelationship forChalkCliffFailures
Hutchinson
ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting
The unknowns in the analysis are:
z2 - New tension crack depth
p - Failure plane angle
M - Depth
p of undercut
There are 3 Unknowns & only 2 Equations. Following steps are
followed:
a. The depth of the tension crack z2 is calculated for a range of
possible failure plane angle p.
Variation of z2 with p is plotted in the figure. Since z2 must lie
between z1 and H, from the figure, p must lie between 67 and
56.
b. Rearranging Equation gives
(H
M =
z12 cot f
2H
H 2 z 22
2 H tan (2 p )
60
3/13/2015
TensionCrackDepthatFailure
ChalkCliffFailureinducedbyUndercutting
Values of M are obtained for the range of p and z2 and plotted
in the figure.
It is evident from the figure that the next cliff failure will occur
for M of 0.9 m and p of 60 and the new tension crack depth
p
will be z2 = 10.2 m.
The new failure geometry is shown in the figure.
Stabilization Measures
1. Slope should remain completely drained. Surface water
drainage and drain holes in slope face.
2. Undercutting should be prevented by the provision of a
concrete wall along the toe of the cliff.
3. If toe protection not possible, then reinforcement used to
stabilize the cliff face. Fully grouted rock bolts or cables
lightly tensioned to ensure that all contact were closed.
61
3/13/2015
DepthofUnderCutforFailure
PredictedGeometryofNextCliffFailure
duetoUndercutting
62
3/13/2015
SuggestedReinforcement ofCliffFaceusing
5mx5mPatternof5mLong20 tonne Bolts
Hoek, 2000
63
3/13/2015
Hoek, 2000
Hoek, 2000
64
3/13/2015
= n tan (b + i )
Hoek, 2000
Shear Strength of
Discontinuities
JCS
= n tanb + JRC log10
65
3/13/2015
Hoek, 2000:
after Barton and
Choubey, (1977)
66
3/13/2015
0.02 JRC0
0.03 JRC0
Where:
JRC0, JCS0 and L0 refer to 100 mm lab scale
specimens
JRCn, JCSn and Ln refer to insitu block sizes
Hoek, 2000
67
3/13/2015
i = arctan
t
JRC 2
JCS
JCS
180 ln 10
ci = n tan i
PLANAR FAILURE
FOS=
Resisting force
Driving force
f
N tan
FOS=
JCS
JRC log
+ r
n
68
3/13/2015
PLANAR FAILURE
N = (W + qB) {(1 kv) cos p - kh sin p} - U 1 sin p - U 2 + T cos
1
W = ( H 2 cot p - z 2 cot p - H 2 cot f )
2
1
U 1 = wzw2
2
1
U 2 = wzw( H z ) cos ec p
2
69