Paper No.

537

ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE - STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT
B.N.SINHA*

ABSTRACT
The concept and theory involved in different methods of slope stability analysis of earth embankment have been discussed. The mathematical equations and the methodology for calculating the factor of safety of earth slope of any specified(chosen) slip circle by various methods has been given. By repeating the process for different slip circles, the minimum factor of safety can be calculated and critical slip circle obtained. The forces which act within a soil mass have been discussed. The inter slice normal and shear forces which are being also considered in many methods of analysis, have been explained and mathematical equations given to calculate them for the analysis. The specified function f (x) (including half-sine function) and applied function ratio denoted by has been explained. A simple example of earth embankment has been analyzed to illustrate the methodology. The results as obtained by mathematical calculations proceeding ab-initio have been compared with the output using a soft ware for such analysis. For the purpose of direct comparison and easy explanation the critical circles were first established by the computer software by various methods of analysis and to illustrate the method only these circles were analyzed through independent mathematical equations and computations using Microsoft Excel program for the iterating process. It could be seen that without the use of computer for the analysis, particularly the iterating process, it would have been very cumbersome and time consuming to do the same by manual calculations. But it is possible to do complete analysis by Excel as explained in this paper. Graphical method can be used for marking the circle and various slices as is the normal practice for slopestability analysis. Graphical method of analysis can be used to draw force polygon to obtain various forces and computing factor of safety, but this paper has dealt with mathematical equations only for the analysis part. Since the main emphasis is on explaining and demonstrating the various methods, set of minimum forces (such as seismic, pore water pressure, some external force etc. not taken) have been considered, however, without any loss of merit for the methodology.

1. INTRODUCTION

The slope stability analysis is usually done by Fellenius method also called Ordinary or Swedish Circle method. It does not take into consideration inter slice force and considers only moment equilibrium and not force equilibrium conditions and thus provides only moment factor of safety and not force factor of safety. It also does not provide the closed force polygon in free body force diagram for the individual slice within the failure zone of earth mass. It, therefore, does not satisfy the equilibrium conditions. It provides the factor of safety on lower side and thus results into a more conservative design of earth slope. The Bishop Simplified method which is sometimes used takes into consideration only inter slice normal force, but does not take the inter slice shear force. This also gives moment factor of safety only. Here also force polygon does not close.The Morgenstern-Price method takes into consideration both the inter slice normal and shear force and also provide

moment equilibrium and force equilibrium giving both moment and force factor of safety. The force polygon for the individual slice gives closed polygon thus satisfies the equilibrium conditions. This paper is aimed at discussing the Morgenstern-Price method in detail. A comparison of methods the merit and limitations of different methods have also been discussed. A simple case of earth slope has been analyzed. The mathematical equations for the equilibrium conditions and factor of safeties are stated. A computer software was used for analysis and results compared. While discussing the methodology, factors like half sine functions, constant functions,, the ratio of applied function with the specified function, mobilized shear etc. concepts of which are required for the analysis, have also been explained in the paper. The Guidelines for the design of High Embankments IRC: 75 (1979) needs updating in light of recent advances and use of soft ware. One of the objective of the present
} E-mail: bnsinha@ictononline.com

*General Manager, Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd. New Delhi-110016. Written comments on this Paper are invited and will be received upto 31st December, 2007

202

B.N. SINHA ON
Fm Ff x = = = = = Angle of internal friction Unit weight of soil Moment factor of safety Force factor of safety Horizontal distance of weight of slice from center of rotation,

discussion is to introduce advance methods of stability analysis for High Embankment formed of soil/earth so that necessary modification of IRC-75 can be brought about.
2. DEFERENT THEORIES FOR ANALYSIS

The failure of a slope could be slippage of earth mass along a slip surface (generally circular). Coulomb (1776) considered a wedge failure in his theory of earth pressure, Rankine (1857) considered zone of failure where each element is at the verge of failure. All the methods of slope stability analysis in practice consider discretization of failure zone into slices. A slice of earth will be subjected to the forces shown in Fig.1. None of the present methods takes into consideration the strain compatibility of the slices within the zone of failure. All methods are covered within the ambit of Limit Equilibrium Analysis (LEA). The LEA further comprises of Moment Equilibrium and Force Equilibrium and provide Moment factor of safety and/or Force factor of safety depending on the method of analysis. A very simple earth embankment as shown in Fig. 1 has been taken for illustrating the various methods. The soil properties of embankment soil and foundation soil, loading etc. are given in the figure.
Live Load 24 KN/m^2 Embankment Soil C = 10 KN/m^2 = 300 = 20 KN/M^3 Height of Embankment = 10 m. Foundotion Soil C = 40 KN/m^2 = 50 = 20 KN/M^3 Depth Considered = 10 m

The different methods of analysis consider different forces and equilibrium conditions to arrive at factor of safety of earth slope. This results in different factor of safety for different methods of analysis. The conditions and forces considered are illustrated in Table 1. The earth slope do not fail in a particular/definite way and the most appropriate method in a particular situation is designers own discretion. Further the magnitude of some of the forces (such as base normal force, inter slice shear and inter slice normal forces, factor of safety) are indeterminate as much as they are interdependent and therefore some assumptions are made for certain functions to make it determinate in order to enable computation of factor of safety.
3. MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS FOR FoS

3.1. Moment Equilibrium Condition The summation of moments, about center of rotation (an axis point) of the forces acting on slices shown in Fig. 1, for all slices gives following equation. W*x - Sm*R = 0 substituting Sm = (c*1 + * tan )/ Fm, and x= R*sin and rearranging we get
Fm =

(c*l+N*tan) (W*sin)

.......... (q. 1)

Fig. 1. Earth Embankment adopted for analysis

Where, W R EL ER XL XR N l Sm F c

= = = = = = = = = = = =

Weight of slice Radius of slip circle Left side slice normal force Right side slice normal force Left side slice shear force Right side slice shear force Base normal force Base length (along the arc) Base angle to horizontal Mobilized shear force Factor of safety ( FoS ) Cohesion of soil

It is a point to note that in Eq. 1 inter slice forces (normal & shear forces) are not figuring. It is because these are equal and opposite on interface of two slices and sum total of all such forces is zero. The left side force for the first slice and the right side force of the last slice is already zero. At all other interfaces they are equal and opposite. The mobilized shear strength (Sm) at slice base is that part of the shear resistance of the soil mobilized which is just enough to satisfy the equilibrium conditions of the slice. The soil strength at the slice base is. = ( c*l + N*tan ) The ratio of shear strength of the soil at slice base by mobilized shear is the factor of safety. Thus Sm is

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

203

obtained by dividing shear strength of soil at the slice base by factor of safety (Fm). It will be Ff in case of force equilibrium. 3.2. Force Equilibrium Condition Resolving forces acting on slice as shown in Fig. 1, in horizontal direction and summing them for all slices, we get the equilibrium equation as given below( ER-EL) + Sm* cos - N* sin = 0 substituting, Sm= (c*l + N* tan ) / Ff , and as the factor (ER-EL) when summed up for all slices shall be zero, we get in rearranging (c*l * cos + N* tan * cos ) Ff = (N*sin) ...... (E q. 2)

3.3. Base Normal Force of the Slice The normal force at the base of slice is derived at by resolving forces on the slice (Fig.-1) in vertical direction and we get the following equation: ( XR- XL ) + N* cos + Sm* sin - W = 0 substituting Sm = (c*l + N* tan F) / F and we get rearranging W - (X - X ) - c*l* sin
R L

N
.

cos +

tan * sin
F

------ (Eq. 3)

It may be seen that moment equilibrium or force equilibrium equations contain a factor N which depends on factor of safety and inter-slice forces and can be obtained by iterating process as stated in the following paras.
TABLE-1. DIFFERENT METHOD
OF

This is a non linear equation as factor of safety F is appearing in the equation. F shall be Fm (moment factor of safety) for moment equilibrium and Ff(force factor of safety) for force equilibrium. When inter-slice shear forces are ignored as in Bishop method the equation for N becomes
FOS CONSIDERED

STABILITY ANALYSIS INDICATING EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS, FORCES

AND

S.No.

Methods

Moment Equilibr -ium

Force Equilibr -ium Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Inter slice normal force No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Inter slice shear force No No No No Yes Yes

Moment factor of safety No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Force factor of safety Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Inter slice Force function No No No No Constant Constant Half -Sine ClippedSine Trapezod Specifid

1 2 3 4 5 6

Culman wedge block method (no -slice) Fellenius,Swedish circle or ordinary method (1936) Bishop Simplified method (1955) Janbu Simplified method (1954) Spencer method (1967) Morgenstern-Price method (1965)

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

7 8 9 10 11

Corps of Engineers # 1 method Corps of Engineers # 2 method Lowe-Karafiath method Sarma method (1973) Janbu Generalized method (1957)

No No No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

204
WN =

B.N. SINHA ON c*l* sin

F and, f(x)= inter slice force function representing the value of function at the location of particular

-------- (Eq.4)
F

cos +

tan * sin

3.4. Inter-Slice Forces Inter slice forces are normal and shear forces acting in the vertical faces between slices. Resolving forces for the slice (Fig.1) in horizontal direction we get the following equation: ( ER- EL) + Sm * cos - N * sin = 0 substituting, Sm = (c*l + N* tan ) / F and rearranging we get
ER = EL tan *cos c*l* cos + N (sin ) F ----- (Eq.5) F

The left side inter slice normal force for the first slice is zero hence right side inter slice normal force can be obtained provided N & F also become known. Once the inter slice normal force is known the inter slice shear force is computed as a percentage (assumed) of inter slice normal force. This assumption results in various methods of slope stability analysis developed by different scientists based on assumptions they made.
4. DISCUSSION ON METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.1. Morgenstern- Price Method

Fig. 2. Slice Discertization for Morgenstern Price Method

A typical discertization of slices as considered in this method is shown in Fig.2. They proposed the empirical equation for inter slice force relation as given in Eq.6.
X = E* * f(x) Where, X = inter slice shear force E = inter slice normal force = the percentage of function used (Eq. 6)

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

205

4.3. Half-sine Function

Sine curve is obtained by plotting value of angle in radian ( 0 to 2 ) on the X-axis and corresponding sine of the angle on the Y-axis, is well known. The half-sine curve is from zero to . This can be presented in a tabular form giving values as under: X
Fig. 3. Different Alternative Function

0 0

/6
1/2

/ 3 3/2

/ 2
1

2/ 3

5/ 6 1/2

sin X

slice in question.

3/2

Variation of f (x) with slice position is assumed to have different shapes as shown above. The particular shape to be adopted in a given case is the users choice. However, the half sine function is appropriate in most of the cases, as can be seen later. 4.2. What is Lambda ( ) Lambda used in the Eq. 6 is the percentage of applied function to specified function f (x).The specified function can have many shapes (refer Fig. 3). In case of half-sine function the shape shall be as shown in Fig. 4.

The question is how to apply to find out the value of function f (x) for different slices when half-sine function is chosen to apply. It is done in this way. For chosen 20 slices the f (x) at the right face of the first slice shall be sin /20. For the second slice this shall be sin 2/20 and for 17th slice shall be sin 17 / 20 and so on. If the no of slices chosen is 30 the value of f (x) for first slice shall be sin /30, for the second slice sin 2 /30 and so on. Thus half-sine function value for any chosen no of slices can be obtained and used in the computation. This value of f (x) is specified function. 4.4. Spencer Method In this method, the constant function is adopted and is similar to what has been explained for MorgensternPrice constant function except that in the Spencer method the lambda is chosen such that FoS (moment) is equal to FoS (force) all other things remains same. This is seen that for the earth slope taken for analysis both these methods for constant function give same FoS in case of moment as well as force equilibrium. 4.5. Corps of Engineers #1 Method

Fig. 4. Showing Specified Function and Applied Function

The value of lambda for a typical slice (say No.5) shall be ratio of ordinate f (x) against slice No 5 read from applied function (lower curve in Fig. 4) and divided by the value of f (x) read from specified function (upper curve in Fig. 4) for the same slice. In this case this ratio i.e. =0.239. This is to note that the is same for all the slices. However, the value of f (x) itself varies from slice to slice in half sine function and hence the ratio of slice shear force to slice normal force ( X / E ) shall also vary from slice to slice (Eq.6). However, in a constant function this ratio of slice shear force to slice normal force shall not vary as the value of f (x) for all slices is (1.0) i.e. Constant. The in any case is constant.

In this method,the resultant inter slice force is assumed to act parallel to the line joining entry point with exit point as shown in Fig. 5. As the inclination of resultant is constant (parallel to the same line) the ratio of inter slice shear force to inter slice normal force remains same for all the slices. In other words this will compare with constant function of Morgenstern-Price. However this method considers only force equilibrium and provides only force factor of safety. Incase of Corps of Engineers # 2 method the resultant inter slice force is assumed to be parallel to the embankment slope as shown in Fig. 6. That is it will have only inter slice normal force and no shear force where the embankment surface at slice top is horizontal. Rest of the things remains the same as in Corps of Engineers #1 method.

206

B.N. SINHA ON embankment, geo-technical properties of the ground soil and borrow material same, for the sole purpose of not only understanding these methods but also provide a comparative study and help selection of most appropriate method for adopting in a particular case. To start the solution we may compute Fellenius method factor of safety obtained by putting N=W*cos in the general equation (Eq. 1). This will result in following equation (c*l+W*cos* tan ) (W*sin)
-------- (Eq.7)

Fig. 5. Showing Direction of Interslice Resultant force in Crops of Engineers # 1 Method

Fm

Fig. 6. Showing Direction of Interslice Resultant force in Crops of Engineers # 2 Method.

4.6. Lowe-Karafiath Method This method considers for the ratio of inter slice shear force to inter slice normal force the average of the top slope of embankment and inclination of the slice base. It only considers force equilibrium. All other things remains same as in Corps of Engineers method. 4.7. Janbus Generalized Method This method takes the resultant inter slice force to act at 1/3 from slice base and the inter slice shear force is obtained by taking moment of force about slice base center point. The inter slice normal force is obtained as in Janbus Simplified method and is used for obtaining inter slice shear force. It considers only force equilibrium and not moment equilibrium as also applicable for Janbus Simplified method . 4.8. Sarma Method This method assumes an equation like the soil shear strength equation for the relation of inter slice shear force and inter slice normal force and uses the same for computation of these forces. It considers both moment equilibrium as well as force equilibrium.
5. COMPUTATION OF FACTOR OF SAFETY

Fm can be computed by Eq. 7 as all factors are known. Substituting Fm for F and W*cos for N in Eq.5, ER for the fist slice can be obtained ( EL is zero for the first slice). By repeating, ER for the second slice is obtained ( ER of the first slice is EL for the second slice). This way EL and ER for all slices can be obtained. Choosing a function and a value for the inter slice shear force XL and XR is obtained by Eq. 6. Knowing EL, ER, XL and XR the value of N is obtained by Eq.3. Taking this value of N factor of safety is obtained by Eq. 1. The new N and F will provide new value for EL, ER, XL and XR by the relevant equations and further new value of N and F. This process is repeated till a converged value of F is obtained. The converged value of F is the required FoS and the ER, EL, XL, XR and N which produced this is required value for these factors. In case of force factor of safety the Eq.2 is used for computing FoS and the rest process remains the same. This appears cumbersome but very easy to apply in a Microsoft Excel program as can be seen by Annexure giving computation charts. It is seen that two/three iteration provide the converged solution. To obtain FoS for Morgenstern-Price method (or any other method which considers inter slice shear force) is required to be decided. The best result is obtained when the is chosen such that FoS (moment) and FoS(force) become equal. This is done by plotting FoS against for Fm and Ff (using Annexure I ,III,V and VII by changing and obtaining converged FoS ) . The intersection point provides this the value is then read from this curve and used for analysis. The curves for Half-sine function and Constant function for Morgenstern- Price method are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 .The intersection point in case of constant sine function gives a value of = 0.1814 and in case of Half-

The analysis has been done by various methods keeping all other features such as cross-section of the

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

207

sine function the value of = 0.239. These values have been used in the computation. The SLOPE/W also used the same value of and thus provided FoS for similar input data and are comparable to computed FoS. Spencer considers only this value of and computes FoS for constant function only. Fellenius method of computation was used for Bishop critical circle and Morgenstern-Price critical circle. Factor of safety of Fm= 1.321 and Fm= 1.325, respectively were worked out. The factor of safety was obtained by solving the mathematical equations by the use of Microsoft Excel for the iteration and result tabulated. The FoS for corresponding situation were obtained by SLOPE/W. The calculation was also done taking the software out put for the value of N and FoS calculated by Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. All these results are tabulated in Table 2. It is seen that they compare quite close. Reference to related Annexure furnishing chart for computation is given in this table:

Fig. 7. Lambda vs. Factor of Safety

Fig. 8. Lambda vs. Factor of Safety

TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF FACTOR OF SAFETY OBTAINED INDEPENDENTLY, BY SLOPE/W AND BY CROSS CHECKING

Method Morgenstern -Price method Constant Function

Item Obtained by solving mathematical equation by Excel SLOPE/W out put of soft ware Calculated by adopting N from SLOPE/W out put

FoS Moment 1.483

Annexure I

FoS Force 1.492

Annexure III

1.486 1.483 1.493

Give by SLOPE/W II V

1.494 1.495 1.498

Given by SLOPE/W IV VII

MorgensternPrice method Half-sine Function

Obtained by solving mathematical equation by Excel SLOPE/W out put of soft ware Calculated by adopting N from SLOPE/W out put

1.496 1.492 1.509

Give by SLOPE/W VI IX

1.503 1.501

Given by SLOPE/W VIII

Bishop simplified method

Obtained by solving mathematical equation by Excel SLOPE/W out put of soft ware Calculated by adopting N from SLOPE/W out put

This method gives only moment FoS an not force FoS 1.512 1.511 1.325 Give by SLOPE/W X XII This method gives only moment FoS and not force FoS

Fellenius method (consider

Obtained for MongensternPrice Critical circle and rest same.

208
Method ing normal base slice force as W* cos a) Obtained for BishopCritical circle and rest same . Item

B.N. SINHA ON
FoS Moment Annexure FoS Force Annexure

1.321

XI

Morgentern Price Method, Half Sine Function, (Annexure -V ).

The force polygon for Morgenstern-Price method constant function and half-sine function were drawn and shown in Fig. 9. It is seen that the polygon gives a closed form satisfying equilibrium conditions. Similar polygon drawn for forces in Fellenius method Fig. 10 gives an open form thus indicates lack of satisfying equilibrium conditions.

All other methods of analysis involves one of these processes of calculations and fully covered by the above

Fig. 9 (a) Free body force diagram

Morgentern Price Method, Constant Function, (Annexure-I )

Fig. 11 Showing Critical Circles By Various Methods

explanation.
Fig. 9 (b) Free body force diagram

Fellenius Method for Critical Circle by MorgenternPrice ( Annexure-XII )

For various methods the computer soft ware is used and the critical circle and factor of safety obtained. All critical circle by various methods have been marked on the same sheet as shown in Fig. 11 also FoS tabulated for a ready comparison given in Table 3. Chosen two slip surfaces shown in Fig. 12 have been analyzed through SLOPE/W and factor of safety obtained by applying different methods. The results are tabulated in Table 4. This provides a comparison of FoS vs. methods when all other factors are the same including the slip circles. The slip surface chosen, naturally, are not the critical slip circle. When, however, the chosen circle is nearly the same as critical circle for some of the methods, these gave nearly the same factor

Fig. 10 Free body force diagram

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

209

TABLE 3. SHOWS FOS FOR THE CRITICAL CIRCLE BY DIFFERENT METHODS AS OBTAINED

BY

SLOPE/W

Methods

Morgenstern Price method Constant function

Morgenstern-Price method Half -Sine function 1,496 1.503

Spencer method

Bishop simplified method

Janbu General -ised method No 1.555

Corps Of Engineers #1 method No 1.595

Corps Loweof Karafiath Engineers method # 2xx method No 1.676 No 1.628

FoS Moment 1.486 FoS force 1.494

1.486 1.494
OF

1.512 No

TABLE 4. SHOW FACTOR

SAFETY FOR SPECIFIED SLIP SURFACES FOR DIFFERENT METHODS

Method

MorgensternPrice Method(Constant)

Morgenstern Price Method(Half-Sine)

Spencer Method

Crops of Engineers # 1 Method 1.651

Crops of Engineers # 2 Method 1.676

LoweKarafiath Method 1.627

Bishop Simplified Method 1.626

F.O.S. (Upper -Curve) F.O.S. (Lower -Curve)

1.569

1.572

1.569

1.487

1.496

1.487

1.606

1.771

1.692

1.518

for the stability analysis. (ii) Different methods give different critical circle and different factor of safety for same situation, namely, earth fill material and ground soil properties. Even for same slip surface different methods give different factor of safety. However, the methods, which considers same set of forces and same factors produce similar results. For example, Morgenstern-Price and Spencer methods for constant function produce same factor of safety (both considers inter slice normal and shear forces). (iii) Different methods result in different critical circles. (iv) The old methods (Fellenius method and Swedish method ) give lower factor of safety (FoS) and therefore requires a flatter slope for the specified FoS compared to the earth slope designed on the basis of MorgensternPrice method which will permit a steeper slope to achieve the same FoS and will cost less. (v) It is preferable to adopt a method which satisfies both moment equilibrium as well as force equilibrium. The best result is obtained when FoS for both coincides ie FoS (Moment) = FoS (Force)

Fig. 12. Showing Typical slip Circles.

of safety obtained by general application of the methods as can be seen for Morgenstern-Price methods and Spencer method. It is also seen that the chosen circles resulted in factor of safety higher than that obtained by different methods for critical circles . It only proves that critical circle gives lowest factor of safety.
6. CONCLUSIONS

(i) All methods of slope stability analysis are covered under Limit Equilibrium Analysis method. All methods resort to discretization of earth mass within the failure zone in vertical slices. Some of them consider moment equilibrium only, some consider force equilibrium only and some consider both, but they fall within one of these three categories. None considers strain compatibility

210

B.N. SINHA ON
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(vi) The method, which takes inter slice forces (normal and shear) into account satisfies closed force polygon indicating equilibrium condition of the slice in a free body force diagram. (vii) The Morgenstern-Price method with half since function, which takes into account, inter slice forces and satisfies both moment equilibrium and force equilibrium conditions is most appropriate for design of slopes. (viii) The mathematical equations for obtaining factor of safety with the help of Microsoft Excel can give desired result very quickly. Convergence of iteration required for the analysis is achieved very fast. Hence use of computer is preferable to conventional graphical method of analysis. (ix) The Guidelines for the design of High Embankments, IRC-75 (1979), needs updating to include other improved methods of slope stability analysis by use of soft ware. Since the conventional methods prescribed by the IRC code are very cumbersome due to manual calculation. (x) GEO-SLOPE International provide a very efficient software package for analysis of slope-stability covering almost all situations. The results (out put of package) tallies quite closely with the results obtained independently by solving mathematical equations using Microsoft Excel.

The author likes to thank Shri K.K.Kapila, CMD, ICT for giving permission to contribute this paper to IRC. The author is indebted to the ICT for utilizing the facilities of the organization in bringing this paper to present shape. The author is thankful to Dr. S.K. Majumder, Advisor, ICT for his kind help in going through this paper and giving valuable advice for improvements. The author is thankful to Mr.Dharmendra Kumar ,Ms. Jyoti Priya & Mr. Sachin Roorkiwal of the ICT for their help in carrying out all Microsoft Excel calculations and operating the software program for the analysis without this the paper would not have been completed.
REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Design Aids in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering by R. Kaniraj Shenbaga. The Theoretical Soil Mechanics by Terzaghi Karl. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. Canada.An Engineering methodology. Geo-technical Engineering by Gulati Shashi K. & Datta Manoj. Principles of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering by Murthy V.N.S. Soil Mechanics in Highway Engineering by Rodriguez Alfonso Rico, Castillo Hermillodel and Sowers George F. The Guidelines for the Design of High EmbankmentsIRC-75 ( 1979 ).

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

211

212

Annexure : II

Fm Calculated by adopting N from Slope/w output for Morgenstern prices Method (Constant Function) N (kn) (deg) l (m) c (kn/m^2) (deg) 30 30 30 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 40 40 40 2.298 2.501 40 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 154.987 150.112 122.655 118.753 115.563 112.835 110.533 108.441 106.646 104.976 103.427 101.955 100.527 105.716 108.709 112.561 2423.664 244.712 202.487 138.071 c*l +N*tan 67.927 56.224 47.619 40.098 33.146 27.121 21.82 16.71 11.734 6.847 2.011 -2.811 -7.653 -12.552 -17.546 -22.684 -28.155 -34.06 -40.417 2.159 1.971 1.907 1.863 1.835 40 1.821 40 1.819 40 1.832 40 1.857 40 1.899 40 1.959 40 2.044 40 2.505 40 2.743 40 2.936 10 3.561 10 5.275 10 w * sin 148.670 252.664 297.694 327.878 313.963 218.367 176.925 133.997 91.457 50.961 14.020 -17.949 -43.533 -61.299 -69.715 -67.103 -61.927 -49.059 -21.174 1634.838

Slice

W (kn)

no. 147.78 289.04 373 517.4 570.5 467.43 461.69 452.67 440.69 425.8 407.83 386.4 360.91 330.41 293.47 247.88 221.24 191.9 143.11

160.429

303.969

403.009

509.05

574.21

479.01

476

466.03

449.71

10

427.46

B.N. SINHA ON

11

399.52

12

366

13

326.89

14

282.06

15

231.25

16

174

17

131.24

18

87.595

19

32.658

(c*l+N*tan) (w*sin)

1.483

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

213

214

Annexure : IV Force FOS Calculating by Morgenstern prices Method (Constant function) N (kn) l (m) cos 147.78 289.04 373 517.4 570.5 467.43 461.69 452.67 440.69 425.8 407.83 386.4 360.91 330.41 293.47 247.88 221.24 191.9 143.11 -40.417 -34.06 -28.155 2.159 2.298 2.501 -22.684 1.971 -17.546 1.907 -12.552 1.863 -7.653 1.835 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 -2.811 1.821 40 2.011 1.819 40 6.847 1.832 40 11.734 1.857 40 16.71 1.899 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 21.82 1.959 40 5 27.121 2.044 40 5 33.146 2.505 40 5 40.098 2.743 40 5 118.556 125.686 109.168 110.245 110.684 110.477 109.744 108.374 106.517 104.040 100.955 97.212 92.751 93.207 90.060 85.697 2002.782 47.619 2.936 10 30 164.950 56.224 3.561 10 30 112.572 67.927 5.275 10 30 51.885 136.949 240.255 275.527 333.256 311.935 213.088 171.606 130.155 89.622 50.763 14.311 -18.950 -48.064 -71.807 -88.473 -95.595 -104.394 -107.476 -92.785 1339.926 c (kn/m^2) (deg) (deg) (c*l +Ntan) N * sin

Slice

W (kn)

no.

160.429

303.969

403.009

509.05

574.21

479.01

476

466.03

449.71

10

427.46

B.N. SINHA ON

11

399.52

12

366

13

326.89

14

282.06

15

231.25

16

174

17

131.24

18

87.595

19

32.658

[ (c*l+Ntan) *cos] (N*sin)

= 1.495

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

215

216

Annexure : VI Moment FOS Calculating by Morgenstern prices Method N (kn) (deg) l (m) c (kn/m^2) (deg) 30 30 30 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 40 40 40 40 2.298 2.501 40 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 154.069 148.073 120.608 116.933 114.278 112.278 110.780 109.454 108.270 106.948 105.403 103.562 101.434 105.609 107.232 109.848 2439.247 244.723 210.287 149.456 c*l +N*tan 67.927 56.224 47.619 40.098 33.146 27.121 21.82 16.71 11.734 6.847 2.011 -2.811 -7.653 -12.552 -17.546 -22.684 -28.155 -34.06 -40.417 2.159 1.971 1.907 1.863 1.835 40 1.821 40 1.819 40 1.832 40 1.857 40 1.899 40 1.959 40 2.044 40 2.505 40 2.743 40 2.936 10 3.561 10 5.275 10 w * sin 148.670 252.664 297.694 327.878 313.963 218.367 176.925 133.997 91.457 50.961 14.020 -17.949 -43.533 -61.299 -69.715 -67.103 -61.927 -49.059 -21.174 1634.838

Slice

W (kn)

no. 167.5 302.55 373.02 506.91 547.19 444.03 440.89 437.98 434.32 428.63 419.42 404.97 383.45 353 311.83 258.25 220.02 175.02 112.11

160.429

303.969

403.009

509.05

574.21

479.01

476

466.03

449.71

10

427.46

B.N. SINHA ON

11

399.52

12

366

13

326.89

14

282.06

15

231.25

16

174

17

131.24

18

87.595

19

32.658

(c*l+N*tan) (W*sin)

= 1.492

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

217

218

Annexure : VIII Force FOS Calculating by Morgenstern prices Method (Half-sine function) N (kn) cos 167.500 302.550 373.020 506.910 547.190 444.030 440.890 437.980 434.320 428.630 419.420 404.970 383.450 353.000 311.830 258.250 220.020 175.020 112.110 -40.417 -34.06 -28.155 2.159 2.298 2.501 -22.684 1.971 -17.546 1.907 -12.552 1.863 -7.653 1.835 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 -2.811 1.821 40 2.011 1.819 40 6.847 1.832 40 11.734 1.857 40 16.71 1.899 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 21.82 1.959 40 5 27.121 2.044 40 5 33.146 2.505 40 5 40.098 2.743 40 5 117.854 123.978 107.346 108.555 109.453 109.932 109.990 109.387 108.140 105.995 102.884 98.743 93.588 93.113 88.837 83.633 2009.458 47.619 2.936 10 30 164.957 56.224 3.561 10 30 116.909 67.927 5.275 10 30 56.164 155.223 251.485 275.542 326.499 299.189 202.420 163.875 125.931 88.327 51.101 14.718 -19.860 -51.065 -76.716 -94.008 -99.594 -103.818 -98.022 -72.686 1338.542 (deg) l (m) c (kn/m^2) (deg) (c*l +Ntan) N * sin

Slice

W (kn)

no.

160.429

303.969

403.009

509.05

574.21

479.01

476

466.03

449.71

10

427.46

B.N. SINHA ON

11

399.52

12

366

13

326.89

14

282.06

15

231.25

16

174

17

131.24

18

87.595

19

32.658

[ (c*l+Ntan) *cos] (N*sin)

= 1.501

Annexure : IX FOS Calculating by Bishops Method F EL /F+cos] 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 1.5090 40 40 5 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 1057.062 885.093 729.752 571.380 420.456 293.245 40 5 1222.474 40 5 1369.673 40 5 1489.405 40 5 1574.059 40 5 1617.235 40 5 1613.453 1557.950 1613.453 1617.235 1574.059 1489.405 1369.673 1222.474 1057.062 885.093 729.752 571.380 420.456 Sum FOS = 40 5 1557.950 1446.676 40 5 1446.676 1276.178 40 5 1276.178 1047.046 139.490 140.269 134.981 130.505 126.677 123.319 120.317 117.615 115.133 112.873 110.781 98.627 100.706 103.476 107.424 2684.968 40 5 1047.046 781.915 143.201 40 5 781.915 493.100 148.570 10 30 493.100 304.592 251.949 288.235 309.421 306.983 288.530 246.743 193.966 140.156 87.677 38.677 -4.916 -41.200 -68.287 -84.182 -86.717 -73.508 -67.818 -51.498 -21.514 1779.726 10 30 304.592 117.811 212.946 239.991 10 30 117.811 0.000 146.108 138.987 163.277 308.206 386.522 528.183 568.309 595.854 589.112 569.002 546.188 520.720 492.395 460.829 425.374 385.114 338.710 284.160 216.244 192.778 159.062 110.009 (kn/m^2) N*(sina-(tanf*casa)/F) c (deg) ER=EL-c*l*cosa/F+ c*l +N*tan w * sin N=[W-{(C*l*Sin)/ F}] / [(sin * tan)

Slice

W (kn)

(deg)

l (m)

no.

148.845

69.03

5.184

282.875

58.038

3.500

376.485

49.96

2.879

453.053

43.076

2.559

511.553

36.877

2.337

557.75

31.152

2.184

571.51

25.578

2.218

565.14

20.073

2.130

550.2

14.758

2.068

10

527.43

9.569

2.028

11

497.26

4.461

2.006

12

459.95

-0.6124

2.000

13

415.55

-5.69

2.010

14

363.96

-10.814

2.036

15

304.89

-16.028

2.081

16

237.83

-21.384

2.148

17

164.02

-26.626

1.993

18

128.59

-31.83

2.096

19

84.999

-37.291

2.239

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

20

31.416

-43.22

2.445

(c*l+N*tan) (W*sin)

219

= 1.509

Annexure : X

220

FOS Calculating by Bishops Method N (kn) (deg) l (m) c (kn/m^2) 69.03 58.038 49.96 43.076 36.877 31.152 25.578 20.073 14.758 9.569 4.461 -0.6124 -5.69 -10.814 -16.028 -21.384 -26.626 -31.83 -37.291 -43.22 1.993 2.096 2.239 2.445 2.148 2.081 2.036 2.010 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2.000 40 2.006 40 2.028 40 2.068 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 2.130 40 5 2.218 40 5 2.184 40 5 2.337 40 5 2.559 40 5 309.475 306.983 288.971 246.743 193.966 140.156 87.677 38.677 -4.916 -41.200 -68.287 -84.182 -86.717 -73.508 -67.818 -51.498 -21.514 1780.222 2.879 10 30 288.235 3.500 10 30 239.991 5.184 10 30 138.987 (deg) w * sin c*l +N*tan 146.248 213.092 252.098 148.592 143.210 143.507 140.276 134.986 130.509 126.679 123.320 120.317 117.614 115.131 112.870 110.776 98.621 100.691 103.468 107.413 2689.421

Slice

W (kn)

no. 163.52 308.46 386.78 528.43 568.42 641.763 589.2 569.06 546.23 520.74 492.41 460.83 425.36 385.09 338.67 284.11 216.18 192.61 158.97 109.88

148.845

282.875

376.485

453.133

511.553

558.603

571.51

565.14

550.2

10

527.43

B.N. SINHA ON

11

497.26

12

459.95

13

415.55

14

363.96

15

304.89

16

237.83

17

164.02

18

128.59

19

84.999

20

31.416

(c*l+N*tan) (W*sin)

= 1.511

Annexure : XI FOS Calculating by Fellenius Method ,for Bishops critical circle (deg) l (m) tan+cl 69.03 58.038 49.96 43.076 36.877 31.152 25.578 20.073 14.758 9.569 4.461 -0.6124 -5.69 -10.814 -16.028 -21.384 -26.626 -31.83 -37.291 - 43.22 2.239 2.445 2.096 1.991 2.148 2.081 40 40 40 40 40 40 2.036 40 2.010 40 2.000 40 2.006 40 2.028 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 2.068 40 5 2.130 40 5 2.218 40 5 2.184 40 5 2.337 40 5 2.550 40 5 130.953 129.281 129.120 133.829 131.640 129.277 126.631 123.616 120.243 116.573 112.723 108.873 105.290 92.475 93.398 95.476 99.803 2351.876 2.879 10 30 168.625 3.500 10 30 121.456 5.184 10 30 82.595 138.987 239.991 288.235 309.421 306.983 288.530 246.743 193.966 140.156 87.677 38.677 -4.916 -41.200 -68.287 -84.182 -86.717 -73.508 -67.818 -51.498 -21.514 1779.726 c (kn/m^2) (deg) w*cos w * sin

Slice

W (kn)

no.

148.845

282.875

376.485

453.053

511.553

557.75

571.51

565.14

550.2

10

527.43

11

497.26

12

459.95

13

415.55

14

363.96

15

304.89

16

237.83

17

164.02

18

128.59

19

84.999

TH OF THE 178 MEETING ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE H - IGHLIGHTS STABILITY A NALYSIS FORCOUNCIL ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

20

31.416

(w*cos tan+cl) (w*sin)

= 1.321

221

Annexure : XII

222 222

FOS Calculating by Fellenius Method , for Morgenstern Prices critical circle (deg) l (m) tan+cl 67.927 56.224 47.619 40.098 33.146 27.121 21.82 16.71 11.734 6.847 2.011 -2.811 -7.653 -12.552 -17.546 -22.684 -28.155 -34.06 - 40.417 2.501 2.298 2.159 1.971 1.907 40 40 40 40 40 1.863 40 1.835 40 1.821 40 1.819 40 1.832 40 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sum FOS = 1.857 40 5 1.899 40 5 1.959 40 5 2.044 40 5 2.505 40 5 2.743 40 5 143.788 142.262 119.060 117.021 115.011 112.802 110.411 107.692 104.822 101.744 98.607 95.570 92.885 96.483 98.269 102.215 2165.576 2.936 10 30 186.198 3.561 10 30 133.177 5.275 10 30 87.557 148.670 252.664 297.694 327.878 313.963 218.367 176.925 133.997 91.457 50.961 14.020 -17.949 -43.533 -61.299 -69.715 -67.103 -61.927 -49.059 -21.174 1634.838 c (kn/m^2) w*cos w * sin (deg)

Slice

W (kn)

no.

160.429

303.969

403.009

509.05

574.21

479.01

476

466.03

449.71

10

427.46

11

399.52

12

366

13

326.89

14

282.06

15

231.25

16

174

17

131.24

18

87.595

B.N. S SINHA INHA ON ON B.N. ADVANCE METHODS OF SLOPE - STABILITY ANLYSIS FOR ECONOMICAL DESIGN OF EARTH EMBANKMENT

19

32.658

(w*cos tan+cl) (w*sin)

= 1.325