Advances in Civil Engineering
Volume 2019 (2019), Article ID 1914674, 18 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1914674

Research Article

Static and Seismic Stability Charts for Three-Dimensional Cut Slopes and Natural Slopes under Short-Term Undrained Conditions

Yuan Zhou,1,2 Fei Zhang,¹ and Bing Li³

¹Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
²The Science & Technology Department of Hohai University, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
³Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Fei Zhang; feizhang@hhu.edu.cn

Received 19 September 2018; Revised 25 November 2018; Accepted 19 December 2018; Published 22 January 2019

Academic Editor: Pier Paolo Rossi

Copyright © 2019 Yuan Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

In the strict framework of limit analysis, an analytical approach is derived to obtain the upper bound solutions for three-dimensional inhomogeneous slopes in clays under undrained conditions. Undrained strength profiles increasing linearly with depth below the crest of the slope and below the outline surface of the slope are assumed representative of cut slopes and natural slopes, respectively. Stability charts are produced for the cut slopes and the natural slopes under both static and pseudostatic seismic loading conditions. The presented charts are convenient to assess the preliminary and short-term stability for 3D slopes in practical applications, such as rapid excavation or buildup of embankments and slopes subjected to earthquakes. Compared with the available results from the finite element limit analysis method, a better estimate of the slope safety is obtained from the analytical approach.

1. Introduction

Stability charts for slopes provide an efficient tool for the preliminary assessment of slope safety and for the calibration of any sophisticated numerical models that are ultimately used for solving more complex slope stability problems. The development of stability charts has been the subject of many investigations since the pioneering work of Taylor [1]. One of the most intensively studied issues is the stability charts for slopes in clays under short-term undrained conditions. These charts are usually used to obtain the stability for rapid excavation or buildup of embankments and slopes subjected to earthquakes. Based on different assumptions about the undrained strength profiles, failure mechanisms, and loading conditions, a series of stability charts has been derived using the traditional methods for total stress analysis of slope stability such as the limit equilibrium method, the limit analysis method, and the finite element method.

For homogeneous slopes, stability charts have been derived for two-dimensional (2D) slope failures [1–6] and three-dimensional (3D) slope failures [7–12]. For inhomogeneous slopes, as encountered in most practical situations, an undrained strength profile increasing linearly with depth below the crest of the slope, as shown in Figure 1(a), is usually assumed representative of cut slopes, as generally expressed by

where cu is the undrained strength of soil at a given depth; z is the depth below the crest of the slope; cu0 is the undrained strength at the crest of the slope; and ρ is the gradient of undrained strength with respect to the depth. The limit equilibrium (LE) method [13–15] is employed to stability analyze of cuttings in normally consolidated clays. Koppula [16] conducted seismic stability analysis of undrained slopes using the pseudostatic approach. Yu et al. [17] also adopted the finite element limit analysis method to obtain the least upper bound solutions, which are compared with traditional LE results. Based on the presented methods, the stability charts for such defined cut slopes have been derived for 2D slope failures. For more realistic 3D failures of cut slopes, Li et al. [18] derived a set of stability charts by using the finite element methods for upper bound and lower bound limit analyses developed by Lyamin and Sloan [19, 20] and Krabbenhoft et al. [21]. Furthermore, by using these methods, Li et al. [22] derived another set of stability charts for 3D failures of natural slopes by assuming an undrained strength profile increasing linearly with depth below the outline surface instead of the crest of slope, as shown in Figure 1(b), where z is the depth below the surface of the slope and cu0 is the undrained strength at the surface of the slope. These two sets of the stability charts provide the upper and lower bounds to the safety factors for cut slopes and natural slopes. Nevertheless, their accuracy may be further refined by using a rigorous analytical method for slope stability analysis to avoid being affected by the artificial boundary conditions and mesh sizes specified in the adopted numerical methods.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: Depth contours and undrained strength profile assumed representative of (a) a cut slope and (b) a natural slope (adopted from the study of Li et al., 2010).

In the strict framework of limit analysis, Michalowski and Drescher [23] proposed a class of kinematically admissible 3D rotational failure mechanisms for slopes in clays under both undrained and drained conditions. Also, the proposed is the corresponding analytical approach for the upper bound limit analysis of stability of homogeneous slopes. Recently, their work has been extended by Gao et al. [24] to include face-failure and base-failure mechanisms. And an optimization technique proposed by Chen [25] had been adopted and shown more effective in finding the critical failure surfaces and the least upper bounds to the critical heights of homogeneous slopes.

In the present paper, the analytical approach originated by Michalowski and Drescher [23] and extended by Gao et al. [26] is further exploited to derive the stability charts for inhomogeneous cut slopes and natural slopes (as shown in Figure 1) under both static and pseudostatic seismic loading conditions [27–29]. The stability charts are plotted for a range of parameters wider than those presented by Li et al. [18, 22]. A comparison is made between the calculated results from this study and from the study of Li et al. [18, 22] to illustrate the effectiveness of the adopted failure mechanisms in finding the least upper bounds to the slope safety factors.

2. Analytical Procedures for Limit Analysis of Slope Stability

2.1. 3D Failure Mechanism

The 3D rotational failure mechanism proposed by Michalowski and Drescher [23] was extended to involve the failure surface passing below the toe by Gao et al. [24]. Figure 2(a) shows the extended failure mechanism for slopes in clays under undrained conditions. The failure mechanism is generated by rotating a circle of diameter R (shaded area in Figure 2(a)) about an axis rm passing through point O outside the circle:

where the radii r and r′ are shown in Figure 2(a). The failure surface passes through the toe when angle β′ equals the slope angle β (where angle β′ can be found in Figure 2(a) and H is the slope height). Figure 2(b) shows 3D drawings of the failure surface for slopes with finite width B modified with a plane insert of width b, to allow the transition to the 2D failure mechanism of Chen [30] as b approaches infinity. For details of the construction of the 3D admissible rotational failure mechanism, see the source references [23, 24]. The failure mechanism is kinematically admissible for both homogeneous slopes and inhomogeneous slopes under undrained conditions.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: 3D failure mechanisms for undrained slopes: (a) torus-type failure surface; (b) failure surface with limited width B (adopted from the study of Michalowski and Drescher, 2009).

2.2. Stability Analysis

Based on the abovementioned 3D mechanism, an upper bound to the stability number Nρ = γHF/cu0 (where F is the factor of safety and γ is the unit weight of soil), which has been analyzed numerically by Li et al. [18, 22], can be determined by equating the rate of wok Wγ done by soil weight to the rate of internal energy dissipation D. To account for the effect of horizontal seismic forces on slope stability, an additional rate of work Ws done by the pseudostatic seismic forces is counted into the energy balance equation. In general, the balance equation is given as follows:

where kh is the horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient; the superscript “curve” denotes the work rates for a section of the curvilinear cone at the two ends of the failure mechanism and the superscript “plane”’ relates to the plane insert in the center of the mechanism. The expressions of , , and Dplane for the plane insert can be found elsewhere [30, 31]. The expressions of , , and Dcurve for cut slopes and natural slopes can be derived following the same procedures and similar symbols for obtaining the expressions for homogeneous slopes as presented by Michalowski and Drescher [23].

Since the work rate done by soil weight is independent of the undrained strength of soil, the expressions of and for a cut slope are identical to those for a natural slope with the same failure mechanism. For the extended failure mechanism, the work rates and are derived as

where ω is the angular velocity and variables a, d, e, θB, and θC are obtained from the geometrical and trigonometric relations in Figure 2(a) as

Unlike the work rates and , the rate of internal energy dissipation Dcurve is, however, dependent on the undrained strength profile of soil. To account for the effect of the assumed linearly increasing undrained strength with depth, a dimensionless parameter λcρ, called cohesion ratio and defined by Koppula [15], is used here, as it gives

For a cut slope, the energy dissipation rate Dcurve is derived as

where

For a natural slope, it becomes

where

and variables θM and θN are obtained from the trigonometric relations in Figure 2(a) as

According to the balance equation (3), the least upper bounds to the stability number Nρ = γHF/cu0 can be derived in terms of λcρ from the optimization scheme of Chen [25]. For a slope of given values of β, λcρ, kh, and relative width B/H, independent variables in the optimization process include (c.f. Figure 2(a)) angles θ₀, θh, and β′, ratio r′/r, and relative width of the plane insert b/H. Similar results for a homogeneous slope (i.e., ρ = 0) can be also derived by applying λcρ = 0 to the above expressions.

3. Results and Discussions

Figures 3 and 4 show the upper bounds to the stability number Nρ for cut slopes and natural slopes under static conditions, respectively. They are plotted against the cohesion ratio λcρ for ratios of B/H ranging from 1.5 to 10.0 and for the 2D case. According to the practical experiences of Hunter and Schuster [14], Koppula [15], and Zhang et al. [32, 33], the value of λcρ is selected in the range of 0.0–5.0. Each chart in Figures 3 and 4 illustrates the results for one inclination angle of the slope.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 3: Static stability charts for cut slopes. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 4: Static stability charts for natural slopes. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

It can be seen from Figures 3 and 4 that the stability number Nρ increases almost linearly with the cohesion ratio λcρ. For a given value of λcρ, the stability number Nρ decreases with the increasing ratio of B/H, and the value of Nρ for 3D failure is greater than that for 2D failure. Obviously, the constraint B on the width of the slope has a significant effect on the stability number.

In the numerical limit analysis of Li et al. [18, 22], collapses of 3D cut slopes and natural slopes are limited by a rigid base at a depth d below the crest of the slope (Figure 1). When the slope is gentle and the depth d is small, the rigid base makes the slope more stable, as expected. The static solutions in Figures 3 and 4 do not take into account the effect of rigid base on the slope stability due to a conservative estimate on the slope stability. Besides, the maximum depths of slope failure surfaces are less than 2H for 3D slopes with β ≥ 15°, and then, the rigid base at the depth d = 2H has no effect on the critical values. For this reason, a comparison can be made between the critical values of Nρ calculated from this study and from the numerical limit analysis method by Li et al. [18, 22] for cut slopes and natural slopes with depth factor d/H = 2.0 and a ratio of B/H = 5.0, as shown in Figure 5. It can be seen that the stability number Nρ of this study is always less than that in the numerical results. Figure 6 shows the comparisons of the analytical upper bound results derived from this study and the numerical upper and lower bound solutions presented by Li et al. [18, 22] for various slope angles. It can be seen that the analytical upper bound is closely bracketed by the numerical upper and lower bounds. The upper bound result of this study is obviously close to the numerical lower bound solution rather than the numerical upper bound. Therefore, the best estimate of the upper bound to the critical value of Nρ has been obtained by the analytical approach performed in this study.

Figure 5: Comparisons between upper bounds to the stability number derived from this study and those presented by Li et al. (2009, 2010) for undrained slopes with B/H = 5.0 and d/H = 2.0.

(a)

(b)

Figure 6: Comparisons between analytical upper bound results obtained from this study and the numerical upper and lower bound solutions presented by Li et al. (2009, 2010) for (a) cut slopes and (b) natural slopes with B/H = 5.0.

For cut slopes and natural slopes subjected to seismic excitation, a set of stability charts are presented in Figures 7–12 for horizontal acceleration coefficients kh of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. It should be noted that, when the slopes with the small value of slope angle β are subjected to stronger seismic excitation, the critical value of Nρ will tend to zero as the 2D homogeneous slopes in Michalowski [3]. A more rational value is obtained by limiting the depth of the failure mechanism to a realistic value d below the crest. The depth factor of d/H = 2.0 is adopted in the mechanism for gentle slopes under seismic conditions. As expected, the stability number Nρ reduces with increasing magnitude of the horizontal acceleration.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 7: Seismic stability charts for cut slopes with kh = 0.1. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 8: Seismic stability charts for cut slopes with kh = 0.2. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 9: Seismic stability charts for cut slopes with kh = 0.3. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 10: Seismic stability charts for natural slopes with kh = 0.1. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 11: Seismic stability charts for natural slopes with kh = 0.2. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 12: Seismic stability charts for natural slopes with kh = 0.3. (a) β = 15°. (b) β = 30°. (c) β = 45°. (d) β = 60°. (e) β = 75°. (f) β = 90°.

3.1. Applications

According to the above-derived stability charts (Figures 3 and 4 for static conditions and Figures 7 to 12 for seismic conditions), the factor of safety F can be easily obtained for a given 3D slope.

For comparison purposes, the same example slope as analyzed numerically by Li et al. [18, 22] is adopted here. The calculation parameters for the example slope are as follows: the slope height H = 12 m, the slope angle β = 60°, the unit weight of soil γ = 18.5 kN/m³, the undrained strength at the crest of slope cu0 = 40 kPa, and the gradient of undrained strength with respect to the depth ρ = 1.5 kPa/m. To determine the safety factor of the cut slopes and the natural slopes, Nρ/λcρ = γ/ρ = 18.5/1.5 = 12.33 is first obtained. From the charts for β = 60° in Figures 3 and 4, a straight line passing through the origin with a gradient Nρ/λcρ = 12.33 is plotted. This straight line intersects the curves for the results of 3D and 2D slope failures. The safety factor F can be easily calculated by reading Nρ for a given ratio of B/H and dividing the value of γH/cu0. Table 1 shows the calculated results for various ratios of B/H and for the 2D case, together with the corresponding data retrieved from Table 1 of Li et al. [18, 22]. Compared with the results derived from the finite element upper bound limit analysis, a better estimate of the upper bounds to safety factor is obtained from the analytical limit analysis proposed in this study, with the unexpected exception of the 2D case in the natural slope. However, a careful check against Figure 7(b) of Li et al. [18] shows that the reading value of Nρ for the 2D natural slope is approximately 6.6 rather than the number 6.3 presented in Table 1 of Li et al. [22]. Therefore, the only exception is doubted.

Table 1: Comparisons between calculated results from the analytical approach of this study and the numerical method of Li et al. (2009, 2010) for the example slope.

B/H = 2
B/H = 3
B/H = 5
2D

This study
Numerical result
This study
Numerical result
This study
Numerical result
This study
Numerical result

Cut slopes
Nρ
9.33
10.25
8.62
9.3
7.92
9.0
7.19
7.8

Fcut
1.68
1.85
1.55
1.68
1.43
1.62
1.30
1.41

Natural slopes
Nρ
8.21
9.1†
7.59
8.25†
7.16
7.75†
6.51
6.3†(6.6‡)

Fnatural
1.48
1.64†
1.37
1.49†
1.29
1.40†
1.17
1.14†(1.19‡)

Note. Data retrieved from Table 1 of Li et al. (2009); †data retrieved from Table 1 of Li et al. (2009); ‡data reread from Figure 7(a) of Li et al. (2010) by the authors.

Alternatively, an analytical approximation of the curves in the stability charts can be made as

where coefficients A and B are determined by a linear fitting technique. It should be noted that the curves have a slight curvature for natural slopes with small value of λcρ. Nevertheless, the goodness of fit measured by the statistical coefficient R² can reach 0.99 for natural slopes and even exceed 0.999 for cut slopes. The coefficients A and B are given in Tables 2 and 3 for cut and natural slopes, respectively. Thus, the safety factor F can be more easily derived from equation (12), and it can avoid the error by reading the stability charts.

Table 2: Coefficients A and B in equation (12) for cut slopes.

β
B/H
kh = 0
kh = 0.1
kh = 0.2
kh = 0.3

A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B

15°
1.5
14.3103
11.5429
10.7045
8.0734
8.5028
6.0669
6.7166
4.1510

2.0
11.9647
10.6815
8.6907
7.4181
6.8300
5.5594
5.6032
4.3982

3.0
9.9572
9.9457
6.9418
6.9535
5.3955
5.1557
4.3198
4.0343

5.0
8.6752
9.4006
5.8925
6.5406
4.4115
4.8650
3.4263
3.7688

10.0
7.8768
9.0236
5.2417
6.2664
3.7832
4.6572
2.8651
3.5592

∞ (2D)
7.2769
8.7267
4.6914
6.0842
3.2662
4.5086
2.2893
3.3425

30°
1.5
9.6768
6.6362
8.0970
5.3987
6.8890
4.4735
6.0354
3.7967

2.0
8.7703
6.3038
7.0969
5.1453
5.9931
4.2410
5.2151
3.5279

3.0
7.7745
6.0632
6.2268
4.9168
5.1412
4.0708
4.3496
3.3635

5.0
7.1536
5.8459
6.2268
4.9168
4.4777
3.9215
3.4970
3.2897

10.0
6.7290
5.7188
5.5593
4.7623
4.0284
3.8400
2.9978
3.2242

∞ (2D)
6.4288
5.5573
4.7424
4.5944
3.5700
3.8015
2.3854
3.2131

45°
1.5
8.1155
4.8325
7.1212
4.1478
6.3609
3.5965
5.7601
3.0794

2.0
7.5187
4.6165
6.5129
3.9617
5.7087
3.4071
5.0744
2.9303

3.0
6.9890
4.4338
5.8712
3.8236
5.0805
3.2883
4.3923
2.8372

5.0
6.5002
4.3138
5.3344
3.7402
4.4343
3.2333
3.5826
2.8273

10.0
6.1923
4.2501
4.9194
3.7136
4.0087
3.2056
3.1355
2.8042

∞ (2D)
5.9501
4.1510
4.6053
3.6623
3.6720
3.1776
2.6632
2.8153

60°
1.5
7.0929
3.7568
6.4416
3.3219
6.0455
2.8950
5.5240
2.5619

2.0
6.5673
3.6151
5.8267
3.2500
5.3624
2.7979
4.8504
2.4610

3.0
6.1872
3.4545
5.4323
3.0604
4.9564
2.6698
4.1890
2.4129

5.0
5.7905
3.3836
5.0814
2.9724
4.2369
2.6748
3.6481
2.3730

10.0
5.5322
3.3267
4.7003
2.9604
3.9028
2.6499
3.2809
2.3613

∞ (2D)
5.3239
3.2561
4.3973
2.9348
3.5675
2.6394
2.8129
2.3864

75°
1.5
6.1642
3.0140
5.7583
2.6924
5.4741
2.3745
4.9336
2.1758

2.0
5.7688
2.8644
5.2573
2.5894
4.7992
2.3368
4.4029
2.0869

3.0
5.3404
2.7583
4.8569
2.4881
4.3137
2.2430
3.9827
2.0093

5.0
5.0461
2.6674
4.5502
2.3975
4.0368
2.1564
3.7437
1.9028

10.0
4.8551
2.6220
4.3280
2.3516
3.7027
2.1488
3.4788
1.8779

∞ (2D)
4.5987
2.5899
4.1375
2.3088
3.3854
2.1423
3.2900
1.8375

90°
1.5
5.4109
2.4119
5.1349
2.1369
4.7327
2.0014
4.4387
1.8664

2.0
4.9769
2.2792
4.6642
2.0652
4.3330
1.8852
4.0007
1.7250

3.0
4.5868
2.1895
4.1953
2.0087
3.8523
1.8380
3.5886
1.6332

5.0
4.2956
2.1136
3.9367
1.9290
3.6329
1.7508
3.2815
1.6085

10.0
4.0946
2.0605
3.7224
1.8910
3.3992
1.7088
3.0884
1.5669

∞ (2D)
3.8672
2.0165
3.5075
1.8475
3.1401
1.6933
2.8899
1.5300

Table 3: Coefficients A and B in equation (12) for natural slopes.

β
B/H
kh = 0
kh = 0.1
kh = 0.2
kh = 0.3

A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B

15°
1.5
14.0417
5.5213
10.7765
3.9044
8.3917
3.0683
6.8037
2.5367

2.0
12.1295
5.5304
8.8251
3.9860
6.8320
3.1272
5.5596
2.5655

3.0
10.2958
5.4513
7.1932
4.0178
5.5081
3.1519
4.3663
2.6045

5.0
8.9213
5.4354
6.1444
3.9802
4.5560
3.1486
3.5573
2.5891

10.0
8.1138
5.3815
5.4981
3.9474
3.9846
3.1224
3.0156
2.5757

∞ (2D)
7.4668
5.3353
4.9707
3.9254
3.5103
3.1140
2.5252
2.5857

30°
1.5
9.8257
3.3207
8.2197
2.7972
6.9813
2.4186
6.0906
2.1291

2.0
9.0010
3.2809
7.2876
2.8136
6.0977
2.4466
5.2739
2.1343

3.0
7.9860
3.2971
6.4485
2.8280
5.2963
2.4598
4.3928
2.1959

5.0
7.3384
3.2848
5.7426
2.8412
4.5894
2.5033
3.6805
2.2373

10.0
6.8809
3.2821
5.3106
2.8429
4.1576
2.4996
3.2194
2.2420

∞ (2D)
6.5250
3.2611
4.9572
2.8385
3.7456
2.5202
2.7498
2.2779

45°
1.5
8.2142
2.6961
7.1962
2.4184
6.3768
2.1509
5.7165
1.9296

2.0
7.6745
2.6371
6.6418
2.3650
5.7948
2.1230
5.1580
1.8964

3.0
7.0647
2.6149
6.0183
2.3402
5.1551
2.1331
4.4334
1.9262

5.0
6.5959
2.6024
5.4339
2.3723
4.5574
2.1465
3.7592
1.9745

10.0
6.2847
2.5785
5.0647
2.3742
4.1360
2.1727
3.3140
2.0039

∞ (2D)
6.0276
2.5560
4.7538
2.3714
3.8115
2.1781
2.8561
2.0462

60°
1.5
7.1388
2.4670
6.4687
2.2474
5.9017
2.0296
5.4226
1.8260

2.0
6.6483
2.4103
5.9534
2.1969
5.3860
1.9818
4.8393
1.7918

3.0
6.1799
2.3493
5.5046
2.1364
4.9641
1.9215
4.2803
1.7737

5.0
5.8480
2.2981
5.1576
2.0883
4.3155
1.9593
3.6896
1.8075

10.0
5.6342
2.2414
4.7757
2.0956
3.9675
1.9572
3.3408
1.8128

∞ (2D)
5.3836
2.2417
4.4778
2.0925
3.6433
1.9643
2.8754
1.8553

75°
1.5
6.2502
2.4269
5.7615
2.2425
5.4851
1.9719
4.9201
1.8396

2.0
5.7408
2.3540
5.2850
2.1560
4.8077
1.9557
4.3905
1.7873

3.0
5.3571
2.2359
4.8675
2.0673
4.3504
1.8950
3.9983
1.6894

5.0
5.0488
2.1735
4.5430
1.9894
4.0446
1.8197
3.7401
1.6327

10.0
4.8306
2.1313
4.3531
1.9368
3.7432
1.8107
3.4934
1.5955

∞ (2D)
4.6297
2.0899
4.1505
1.8962
3.4157
1.7986
3.3170
1.5582

90°
1.5
5.4109
2.4119
5.1349
2.1369
4.7327
2.0014
4.4387
1.8664

2.0
4.9769
2.2792
4.6642
2.0652
4.3330
1.8852
4.0007
1.7250

3.0
4.5868
2.1895
4.1953
2.0087
3.8523
1.8380
3.5886
1.6332

5.0
4.2956
2.1136
3.9367
1.9290
3.6329
1.7508
3.2815
1.6085

10.0
4.0946
2.0605
3.7224
1.8910
3.3992
1.7088
3.0884
1.5669

∞ (2D)
3.8672
2.0165
3.5075
1.8475
3.1401
1.6933
2.8899
1.5300

For the above slope example, the factor of safety F is obtained from equation (12) and presented in Table 4. Not surprisingly, the factor of safety for cut slope or natural slope decreases with increasing magnitude of the horizontal acceleration kh and with increasing ratio of B/H. Moreover, using the results from the 2D analysis underestimates the stability of 3D cut slopes and natural slopes. It can be found from Table 4 that the difference in the safety factors between 3D and 2D analysis increases with increasing magnitude of horizontal acceleration kh and reducing ratio of B/H. Typically, the difference can exceed 50% when the slope is constrained to a narrow width of B/H = 1.5.

Table 4: Factors of safety for the example slope.

B/H = 1.5
B/H = 2.0
B/H = 3.0
B/H = 5.0
B/H = 10.0
2D

kh = 0
Fcut
1.84
1.67
1.55
1.44
1.36
1.30

Fnatural
1.61
1.49
1.38
1.29
1.24
1.18

kh = 0.1
Fcut
1.59
1.43
1.30
1.21
1.11
1.04

Fnatural
1.43
1.31
1.20
1.12
1.04
0.97

kh = 0.2
Fcut
1.42
1.25
1.14
0.97
0.90
0.82

Fnatural
1.27
1.16
1.06
0.92
0.85
0.78

kh = 0.3
Fcut
1.26
1.09
0.94
0.81
0.73
0.63

Fnatural
1.15
1.02
0.90
0.78
0.71
0.61

4. Conclusions

Based on the 3D kinematically admissible rotational failure mechanism, an analytical approach is derived for the upper bound limit analysis of the stability of cut slopes and natural slopes under short-term undrained conditions. Compared with the finite element limit analysis method adopted by Li et al. [18, 22], the proposed analytical approach gives the better estimate of the upper bounds to the stability number Nρ. A set of stability charts is presented for both cut slopes and natural slopes under static and pseudostatic seismic loading conditions. The safety factor can be easily obtained from the charts to evaluate the stability of cut slopes and natural slopes. Furthermore, the results indicate that using 2D solutions to evaluate the stability of 3D slopes will underestimate the factor of safety. The difference between 2D and 3D factors of safety increases with the reducing ratio of B/H and increasing horizontal acceleration coefficient kh.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

D. W. Taylor, “Stability of earth slopes,” Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 197–246, 1937.

N. Janbu, Slope Stability Computations, The Technical University of Norway, Trondheim, Norway, 1968, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Report.

R. L. Michalowski, “Stability charts for uniform slopes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 351–355, 2002.

R. Baker, “A second look at Taylor’s stability chart,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 129, no. 12, pp. 1102–1108, 2003.

R. Baker, R. Shukha, V. Operstein, and S. Frydman, “Stability charts for pseudo-static slope stability analysis,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 813–823, 2006.

T. Steward, N. Sivakugan, S. K. Shukla, and B. M. Das, “Taylor’s slope stability charts revisited,” International Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 348–352, 2011.

A. Gens, J. N. Hutchinson, and S. Cavounidis, “Three-dimensional analysis of slides in cohesive soils,” Géotechnique, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 1988.

R. L. Michalowski, “Limit analysis and stability charts for 3D slope failures,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 583–593, 2010.

R. L. Michalowski and T. Martel, “Stability charts for 3D failures of steep slopes subjected to seismic excitation,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 183–189, 2011.

F. Zhang, D. Leshchinsky, R. Baker, Y. Gao, and B. Leshchinsky, “Implications of variationally derived 3D failure mechanism,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 40, no. 18, pp. 2514–2531, 2016.

F. Zhang, D. Leshchinsky, Y. Gao, and S. Yang, “Three-dimensional slope stability analysis of convex turning corners,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 144, no. 6, p. 06018003, 2018.

F. Zhang, Y. Gao, D. Leshchinsky, S. Yang, and G. Dai, “3D effects of turning corner on stability of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 367–376, 2018.

R. E. Gibson and N. Morgenstern, “A note on the stability of cuttings in normally consolidated clays,” Géotechnique, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 212–216, 1962.

J. H. Hunter and R. L. Schuster, “Stability of simple cuttings in normally consolidated clays,” Géotechnique, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 372–378, 1968.

S. D. Koppula, “On stability of slopes in clays with linearly increasing strength,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 577–581, 1984.

S. D. Koppula, “Pseudo-static analysis of clay slopes subjected to earthquakes,” Géotechnique, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 71–79, 1984.

H. S. Yu, R. Salgado, S. W. Sloan, and J. M. Kim, “Limit analysis versus limit equilibrium for slope stability,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 1998.

A. J. Li, R. S. Merifield, and A. V. Lyamin, “Limit analysis solutions for three dimensional undrained slopes,” Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1330–1351, 2009.

A. V. Lyamin and S. W. Sloan, “Lower bound limit analysis using non-linear programming,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 573–611, 2002.

A. V. Lyamin and S. W. Sloan, “Upper bound limit analysis using linear finite elements and non-linear programming,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 181–216, 2002.

K. Krabbenhoft, A. V. Lyamin, M. Hjiaj, and S. W. Sloan, “A new discontinuous upper bound limit analysis formulation,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1069–1088, 2005.

A. J. Li, R. S. Merifield, and A. V. Lyamin, “Three-dimensional stability charts for slopes based on limit analysis methods,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1316–1334, 2010.

R. L. Michalowski and A. Drescher, “Three-dimensional stability of slopes and excavations,” Géotechnique, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 839–850, 2009.

Y. F. Gao, F. Zhang, G. H. Lei, and D. Y. Li, “An extended limit analysis of three-dimensional slope stability,” Géotechnique, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 518–524, 2013.

Z.-Y. Chen, “Random trials used in determining global minimum factors of safety of slopes,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 225–233, 1992.

Y. F. Gao, F. Zhang, G. H. Lei, D. Y. Li, Y. X. Wu, and N. Zhang, “Stability charts for 3D failures of homogeneous slopes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 139, no. 9, pp. 1442–1454, 2013.

S. L. Kramer, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003.

M. Iskander, Z. Chen, M. Omidvar, I. Guzman, and O. Elsherif, “Active static and seismic earth pressure for c-φ soils,” Soils and Foundations, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 639–652, 2013.

E. Conte, A. Troncone, and M. Vena, “A method for the design of embedded cantilever retaining walls under static and seismic loading,” Géotechnique, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 1081–1089, 2017.

W. F. Chen, Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, Elsevier Science, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1975.

R. L. Michalowski and L. You, “Displacements of reinforced slopes subjected to seismic loads,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 126, no. 8, pp. 685–694, 2000.

J. H. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Yao, J. Zheng, and F. Gu, “Geometric anisotropy modeling and shear behavior evaluation of graded crushed rocks,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 183, pp. 346–355, 2018.

J. H. Zhang, J. Peng, J. S. Zheng, and Y. Yao, “Characterisation of stress and moisture-dependent resilient behaviour for compacted clays in South China,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, pp. 1–14, 2018.