Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg.

Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering

Plate No. 3
A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH OF LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT AND
MITIGATING MEASURES

Submitted by: Tampus, Robert Michael Rating:


Student No.: 2013140129
Course: B.S. GSE Date Submitted:
Year: 3
Faculty/Instructor: Engr. Celestino Avis

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 2

1. Description
A landslide is the movement of rock, debris or earth down a slope. They result from the failure of the materials
which make up the hill slope and are driven by the force of gravity. Landslides are known also as landslips, slumps
or slope failure. Landslides can be triggered by natural causes or by human activity. They range from a single
boulder in a rock fall or topple to tens of millions of cubic metres of material in a debris flow. They can also vary in
their extent, with some occurring very locally and impacting a very small area or hill slope while others affect
much larger regional areas. The distance travelled by landslide material can also differ significantly with slides
travelling from a few centimetres to many kilometres depending on the volume of material, water content and
gradient of the slope.

Description of Landslide Parts


1. Crown: The practically undisplaced material still
in place and adjacent to the highest parts of the
main scarp.

2. Main Scarp: A steep surface on the


undisturbed ground at the upper edge of the
landslide, caused by movement of the displaced
material away from the undisturbed ground. It is
the visible part if the surface of rupture.

3. Top: The highest point of contact between the


displaced material and the main scarp.

4. Head: The upper parts of the landslide along


the contact between the displaced material and
the main scarp.

5. Minor Scarp: A steep surface on the displaced


material of the landslide produced by differential
movements within the displaced material.

6. Main Body: The part of the displaced material


of the landslide that overlies the surface of
rupture between the main scarp and the toe of
the surface of rupture.

7. Foot: The portion of the landslide that has


moved beyond the toe of the surface of rupture
and overlies the original ground surface.

8. Tip: The point of the toe farthest from the top of


the landslide.

9. Toe: The lower, usually curved margin of the


displaced material of a landslide, it is the most
distant from the main scarp.

10. Surface of Rupture: The surface which forms


(or which has formed) the lower boundary of the
displaced material below the original ground surface.

11. Toe of the Surface of Rupture: The intersection (usually buried) between the lower part of the surface of
rupture of a landslide and the original ground surface.

12. Surface of Separation: The part of the original ground surface overlain by the foot of the landslide.
13. Displaced Material: Material displaced from its original position on the slope by movement in the
landslide. It forms both the depleted mass and the accumulation.

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 3

14. Zone of Depletion: The area of the landslide within which the displaced material lies below the original
ground surface.

15. Zone of Accumulation: The area of the landslide within which the displaced material lies above the
original ground surface.

16. Depletion: The volume bounded by the main scarp, the depleted mass and the original ground surface.

17. Depleted Mass: The volume of the displaced material, which overlies the rupture surface but underlies the
original ground surface.

18. Accumulation: The volume of the displaced material, which lies above the original ground surface.

19. Flank: The undisplaced material adjacent to the sides of the rupture surface. Compass directions are
preferable in describing the flanks but if left and right are used, they refer to the flanks as viewed from the
crown.

20. Original Ground Surface: The surface of the slope that existed before the landslide took place.

Fig. 1. Terminology for describing landslide features

2. Objectives/Purpose
The main objective of this plate is to perform a quantitative approach of landslide assessment and mitigating
measures. Specifically, it aims to:
a. Calculate the factor of safety for rock slopes,
b. Learn Bishops simplified method, and
c. Use the Taylors Method for solving the factor of safety.

3. Formula
Formulas for Rock Slopes

where:
c = cohesion stress (kPa)
= unit weight of rock
H = height of the hill
B = ratio of cohesion stress to the vertical stress at one-half the greatest depth in the block

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 4

= angle of the plane


= angle of the cut
FS0 and FS = factor of safety

Bishops Simplified Method

where:
zcr = depth of tension crack
su = undrained shear strength of the soil along the slip surface within the slice
= unit weight of soil
ru = porewater pressure ratio

Janbus Method
( )

Taylors Method

where:
D0 = depth from the top of the stiff layer
H0 = height of the slope
N0 = stability number

4. Application to Geological Engineering Course:


As future geological engineers, landslide assessment is a possible job in a private consultancy firm or
government agency. Since landslide is a geologic hazard, geological engineers are responsible in
recommending mitigations for future landslides. Landslide hazard assessment is an important step towards
landslide hazard and risk management. However, no one method is accepted universally for effective
assessment of landslide hazards. This plate consists of practical problems pertaining to soil stability failure as a
quantitative analysis in landslide assessment.

5. Problem Exercise:
1. For a roadcut like that shown in Fig. 1, the vertical thickness of the hill is 16.5 m and the dip angle of the
bedding plane is 35.0. The angle of friction is 31.0 and the cohesion stress equals 38.4 kPa. The unit
weight of the rock is 23.7 kPa/m. Find the factor of safety for a vertical cut.

Fig. 1: Roadcut

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 5

Given:
H = 16.5 m = 35.0 = 31.0
c = 38.4 kPa = 23.7 kPa/m = 90

Solution:

(if cohesion was zero)

2. Use Bishops simplified method to estimate the factors of safety of the slope shown in Figure E16.3a.
Assume the soil above the phreatic surface to be saturated. Consider three cases: Case 1no tension
crack; Case 2tension crack; and Case 3the tension crack in Case 2 is filled with water.

Illustration:

Fig. 2.1

Solution:

Fig. 2.2

Depth of tension crack:

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 6

Case 1: No tension crack


b z W = bz zw ESA TSA
Slice ru mj Wsin()
(m) (m) (kN) (m) (deg) W(1-ru)(tan(')mj) sub/cos()
1 4.9 1 88.2 1 0.54 -23 1.47 -34.5 38.3 159.7
2 2.5 3.6 162 3.6 0.54 -10 1.14 -28.1 54.6 76.2
3 2 4.6 165.6 4.6 0.54 0 1 0 49 60
4 2 5.6 201.6 5 0.49 9 0.92 31.5 62.1 60.7
5 2 6.5 234 5.5 0.46 17 0.88 68.4 72.2 62.7
6 2 6.9 248.4 5.3 0.42 29 0.85 120.4 80.1 68.6
7 2 6.8 244.8 4.5 0.36 39.5 0.86 155.7 87.6 77.8
8 2.5 5.3 238.5 2.9 0.3 49.5 0.9 181.4 97.5 115.5
9 1.6 1.6 46.1 0.1 0.03 65 1.02 41.8 29.6 113.6
Sum 536.6 571 794.8
FS 1.06 1.48

Assumptions:
Homogeneous soil
su = 30 kPa
= 33
w = 9.8 kN/m3
sat = 18 kN/m3
zcr = 3.33 m
FS = 1.05 assumed

Case 2: Tension crack


b z W = bz zw ESA TSA
Slice ru mj Wsin()
(m) (m) (kN) (m) (deg) W(1-ru)(tan(')mj) sub/cos()
1 4.9 1 88.2 1 0.54 -23 1.5 -34.5 39.1 159.7
2 2.5 3.6 162 3.6 0.54 -10 1.15 -28.1 55 76.2
3 2 4.6 165.6 4.6 0.54 0 1 0 49 60
4 2 5.6 201.6 5 0.49 9 0.92 31.5 61.8 60.7
5 2 6.5 234 5.5 0.46 17 0.87 68.4 71.5 62.7
6 2 6.9 248.4 5.3 0.42 29 0.84 120.4 78.9 68.6
7 2 6.8 244.8 4.5 0.36 39.5 0.84 155.7 85.8 77.8
8 2.5 5.3 238.5 2.9 0.3 49.5 0.87 181.4 95.1 115.5
9 1.6 1.6 46.1 0.1 0.03 65 0.99 41.8 0 0
Sum 536.6 536.2 681.2
FS 1 1.27

Assumptions:
FS = 1 assumed

Case 3: Tension crack filled with water


b z W = bz zw ESA TSA
Slice ru mj Wsin()
(m) (m) (kN) (m) (deg) W(1-ru)(tan(')mj) sub/cos()
1 4.9 1 88.2 1 0.54 -23 1.53 -34.5 39.9 159.7
2 2.5 3.6 162 3.6 0.54 -10 1.15 -28.1 55.3 76.2

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 7

3 2 4.6 165.6 4.6 0.54 0 1 0 49 60


4 2 5.6 201.6 5 0.49 9 0.91 31.5 61.5 60.7
5 2 6.5 234 5.5 0.46 17 0.86 68.4 70.9 62.7
6 2 6.9 248.4 5.3 0.42 29 0.83 120.4 77.8 68.6
7 2 6.8 244.8 4.5 0.36 39.5 0.83 155.7 84.3 77.8
8 2.5 5.3 238.5 2.9 0.3 49.5 0.86 181.4 93 115.5
9 1.6 1.6 46.1 0.1 0.03 65 0.96 41.8 0 0
Sum 536.6 531.7 681.2
FS 0.95 1.22

Assumptions:
R = 14.3 m
TCM/R = 23.7 kN
FS = 0.95 assumed

FS
Condition
ESA TSA
Without tension crack 1.06 1.48
With tension crack 1 1.27
Tension crack filled with water 0.95 1.22

the smallest factor of safety occurs using an ESA with the tension crack filled with water. The slope, of
course, fails because FS < 1.

3. Determine the factor of safety of the slope shown in Figure 3. Assume no tension crack.

Illustration:

Fig. 3

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 8

Solution:

Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3


su 30 42 58 kPa
33 29 25 deg
w 9.8 kN/m3
sat 18 17.5 17 kN/m3

FS 1.01 assumed

Three Soil Layers


b z1 z2 z3 W = bz zw ESA TSA
Slice ru mj Wsin()
(m) (m) (m) (m) (kN) (m) (deg) W(1-ru)(tan(')mj) sub/cos()
1 4.9 1 0 0 88.2 1 0.54 -23 1.49 -34.5 39 159.7
2 2.5 2.3 1.3 0 160.4 3.6 0.55 -10 1.15 -27.8 53.7 76.2
3 2 2.4 2.2 0 163.4 4.6 0.55 0 1 0 47.6 60
4 2 2 3.6 0 198 5 0.49 9 0.92 31 59.7 60.7
5 2 0.9 4.1 1.5 226.9 5.5 0.48 17 0.87 66.3 67.6 62.7
6 2 0.8 4.1 2 240.3 5.3 0.43 29 0.84 116.5 74.7 68.6
7 2 0 3.7 3.1 234.9 4.5 0.38 39.5 0.89 149.4 72.6 108.9
8 2.5 0 1.5 3.8 227.1 2.9 0.31 49.5 0.94 172.7 81.1 161.7
9 1.6 0 0 1.6 43.5 0.1 0.04 65 1.19 39.4 23.3 219.6
Sum 513 519.3 978.1
FS 1.01 1.91

the factor of safety occurs using an ESA and TSA at 1.01 and 1.91, respectively.

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg. 9

4. A coarse-grained fill was placed on saturated clay. A noncircular slip surface was assumed, as shown in
Fig 4. Determine the factor of safety of the slope using an ESA. The groundwater level is below the
assumed slip surface.

Illustration:

Fig. 4

Solution:

Soil 1 Soil 2
' 29 33.5 deg
w 9.8 kN/m3
sat 18 17 kN/m3
d 4.5 m
I 11.5
d/I 0.39 f0 1.06
FS 1.04 assumed

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg.
10

Janbu's Method
b z1 z2 W = bz ESA
Slice mj Wtan()
(m) (m) (m) (kN) (deg) Wtan(')(cos())mj
1 2 1 0.7 59.8 -45 3.03 -59.8 71
2 3.5 2 2.5 274.8 0 1 0 152.3
3 2 1 4.3 182.2 45 0.92 182.2 65.9
4 2.9 0 2.5 123.3 59.9 0.95 212.6 38.9
Sum 335 328.1
FS 1.04

5. Using Taylors Method, determine the factor of safety of the slope shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Solution:

From Appendix 1, s = 20 and nd = 0.5, we get N0 = 6.8.

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg.
11

APPENDIX 1 (TAYLORS CURVES FOR DETERMINING THE STABILITY OF SIMPLE SLOPES)

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016


Subject: GEO133P, Application of Quantitative Analysis in Geological Engineering pg.
12

APPENDIX 2 (REFERENCES)

http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/landslide/basics/what
Budhu, M. (2011). Soil mechanics and foundations. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4320231/

Plate Exercises of C. C. Avis Mapua Institute of Technology, 2016

Вам также может понравиться