Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
In current practice, embankment stability analyses are typically performed using limit
equilibrium analysis methods, as implemented in computer programs. Numerous input
selections, estimates, and assumptions need to be made to complete the analyses. But which
of these factors heavily influence the results and which affect the results to a much smaller
degree? On which factors should the analyst concentrate most of his/her characterization
efforts? The answers to these questions are explored in this paper through example analysis
results.
This paper was prepared for a stability analysis mini-workshop session at the Dam
Safety 2010, the Annual National Conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
The session also included a companion paper by Danny K. McCook titled “Selections of
Strengths for Embankment Stability Analyses.”
o Soil strengths
o Cross section geometry and stratigraphy
o Shear surface shape
o Internal water levels
o Soil unit weights
o Computer program
o Analysis method (Janbu, Bishop, Spencer, etc.)
o Piezometric modeling method (phreatic surface vs. pore pressure distributions)
The effects of these factors on stability analysis results are explored in this paper using
example analyses for four different cross sections:
These cross sections are somewhat simplified for purposes of illustration, but they are
not significantly different from conditions encountered for real dams in many locations.
Strengths and Unit Weights
The effects of variations in strengths and unit weights were explored using Example
Cross Sections 1 and 2. Base case analyses for these two cross sections were completed
using the strengths and unit weights shown on Figures 1 and 2 and a phreatic surface
estimated using an anisotropic permeability ratio of 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). The results of
these base case stability analyses are shown on Figures 5 and 6, illustrating factors of safety
of 1.91 and 1.66 respectively. When critical surface search routines were used without
limitations, the resulting critical failure surfaces for these cases were actually shallow surfaces
that did not extend into the saturated zones of the embankments. Since surfaces of this type
are not of great significance for dam safety and since the shallow soils actually likely have
strengths greater than used in the analyses, search critical surface search routines were
limited to include only surfaces that intersected the ground surface upstream of the crest (i.e.
deep surfaces).
The effects of variations in unit weight were explored by varying the unit weights of all of
the materials in the embankment by +5%, +10%, and +20%. The resulting calculated
minimum stability factors of safety (subject to the search limitations noted above) are
summarized in Table 1.
The effects of variations in strength were explored by varying the strengths of all of the
materials in the embankment by +5%, +10%, and +20%. The variations in strengths were
applied to both the effective stress cohesion, c', and the tangent of the effective stress friction
angle, tan φ'. The resulting calculated minimum stability factors of safety are summarized in
Table 2.
The following observations can be made from the results in these two tables:
The effects of variations in internal water levels resulting from the different permeability
ratios are summarized in Table 3, where it is seen that increasing permeability ratios and the
resulting higher phreatic surfaces in the downstream sections of the embankment significantly
decreases the factor of safety.
Table 3. Summary of Effects of Variations in Internal Water Level for Example Cross Section
1
Permeability Ratio Minimum Factor of Safety
1:1 1.98
4:1 1.91
9:1 1.71
Analysis Methods
Many modern computer programs for limit equilibrium stability analyses include the
option to complete the analysis using a number of different analysis methods, such as
Spencer, Bishop, Janbu, etc. In general these different methods of analyses developed over
time, often in response to increasing computing power, allowing more complex and exact
forms of computation. In the authors’ experience, the most common method in use today is
Spencer’s method. This method is preferred by many analysts because it solves for both force
and moment equilibrium. The effects of different analysis methods were explored using
Example Cross Section 1, and the results are summarized in Figure 8 and Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Effects of Different Analysis Methods for Example Cross Section 1
Analysis Method Minimum Factor of Safety
Spencer 1.91
Bishop 1.90
Janbu 1.85
Lowe and Karafiath 1.91
For the four different analysis methods the variations in calculated factors of safety are
relatively small and certainly within the typical level of accuracy of geotechnical analyses.
Analysts also have a choice of a number of different commercially available and open
file computer applications of stability analysis programs. All of these programs have there own
internal codes for implementing the different analysis methods. It has been the authors’
experience that the widely-distributed commercial and open file programs are faithful to the
analysis method computational procedures and stability analyses completed using different
programs but the same analysis method produce essentially the same results. The various
widely-used computer programs differ in terms of such things as ease of use, search routines,
and polish of outputs, but they all are essentially the same mathematically.
Some stability analysis programs allow the piezometric data to be entered separately
for different strata. For example, some programs allow different phreatic surfaces to be
entered for different strata. In some cases, this can be significant, with illustrated in Example
Cross Section 3. This cross section was analyzed two ways: 1) with the phreatic surface in
the embankment used to develop pore pressures for all strata, and 2) with a different phreatic
surface (see Figure 3) entered for a layer in the foundation confined between two clay seams.
The results are illustrated in Figure 11.
In both cases, noncircular failure surfaces based in the foundation layer between the
clay seams were used for the stability analysis. For discussion of the significance of
noncircular surfaces for cases like this, see the discussion in the next section of this paper.
For the single phreatic surface, the calculated factor of safety was 1.89, while, with the
different phreatic surface in the confining layer, the calculated factor of safety was 1.72. This
illustrates how varying piezometric conditions in different strata can, in some cases
significantly affect the calculated factor of safety.