SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS; CASE STUDIES

Ref: Skempton, A.W. and H.Q.Golder,

Practical Examples of = 0 Analysis of Stability of Clays,
Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering , Vol. 2, pp 63-70.
Case Record (1): Critical Height of a Vertical Cut:

1.5ft

10ft
8.5ft
51

6ft

10ft

Full-scale Test by Wayne Edwards (1938)

Hcrit = 8.5ft
= 112.5 pcf
C = 280 psf
= 12o
Using Terzaghis Equation,
Hc = (4C)/ - Zo
Hc = (4*280)/112.5 1.5 = 8.45 ft
But angle of failure surface was not 45o; but 45 + (/2) = 45 + 6 = 51o

Case Record 2: Failure in Eau Brink Cut

Ref: Skempton, A.W. (1945), A slip in the West Bank of the Eau Brink Cut, Journal of
Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol. 24, p.267.

Failure occurred due to erosion near the toe.

Strengths and location of actual shear surface was established from soil borings.
F.O.S. for the actual failure surface = 1.3
F.O.S. (min) = 1.02

Conclusion: = 0 analysis, while giving the correct factor of safety, does not yield
correct slip surface.

Case Record 3: Chingford Reservoir Embankment Failure (During Construction

Failure)

Ref: Cooling, L.F. and H.Q.Golder (1942), The analysis of the Failure of an Earth Dam
During Construction, Jour. Inst. Civil Engrs., London, Vol. 19, p.38.
Analysis performed on actual slip surface. Soil shear strengths on actual slip surface.
Factor of Safety Calculated = 1.05
True angle of friction, was very small.
Probably, using actual slip surface wasnt a bad assumption.
Case Record 4: Slip in the Sea Wall at Brightling sea.
Ref: Skemption and Golder .. same as in case Record 1.

Beach level lowered

Row of concrete blocks placed triggered failure
Actual Slip surface was not established with accuracy.
Significant variation in shear strength along the slip surface(7 samples for shear
strength determination which was not adequate)
F.O.S. calculated = 0.99(min)

Case Record 5:Failure of Earth Mound at Waltham Abbey

Ref : Skempton and Golder . Same as in case Record 1

Rolled clay fill

Failure immediately after construction
Minimum F.O.S (by trial) = 1.06

Clay was compacted at natural water content which was higher than proctor optimum.
(Therefore = 0 was a reasonable assumption)

Case Record 6: Huntspill River Cut

Ref : Skempton and Golder . Same as in case Record 1

Excavated Earth slope

Large variation in shear strength
Depth of soft clay unavailable
only an approximate value was used based on nearby piling operations.
Minimum F.O.S. (by trial) = 0.90 ( = 0 analysis)

USE OF = 0 ANALYSIS IN O.C. CLAYS

Case Record 1:
Ref: Ireland, H.O. (1954), Stability Analysis of the Congress Street open in Chicago,
Geotechnique 04, pp.163 168).

Approximate location of the slip surface was established from the field evidence
Strength of Clays from borings.
For the actual Slip surface F.O.S. = 1.51
For min. (Trial and error) F.O.S. = 1.11
Author determined that = 0 method did not give good results for the O.C. clay.
Possible reason Progressive Failure leading to Residual Factor <1
In order to bring F.O.S. down to 1
Residual Factor = 0.47
In other studies the same clay stratum has been observed to have a Residual Factor as
low as 0.2
Hence Authors conclusion:
Slope probably failed in a progressive manner.

Case Record 2: Bradwell Nuclear Power Station

Ref: Skemption A.W. and LaRochelle, P(1965),
The Bradwell Slip: A Short Term Failure in London Clay, Geotechnique, pp. 221-242.

Slip 1:
Occurred 5 days after excavation was complete
Average Cu measured along failure surface = 2000 psf
Factor of safety (for Cu = 2000) =1.8
For F.O.S. = 1.0
Cu =1120 psf
C u (reqd )
= 0.56
Cu (meas.)
Slip 2: Occurred 19 days after excavation

C u (reqd )
= 0.52
Cu (meas.)
Question: Is the method of analysis incorrect? OR Are the strength measurements
incorrect?

Observation1: Is the loading Rate fast enough for the undrained assumption to be true?
To test, perform 15min triaxial compression versus 7 day triaxial compression
31.0

31.0

17psi

9 psi

15 min C=2100 psf

30.9

14.5psi

32.0

14 psi

7 day 1700 psf

Under slow loading rates; O.C. clay has dilated under shear and shear zone drew more
water in resulting in lower strength.
Observation 2:
Lab sample Intact clay
Field soil Fissured (especially excavation causes fissures to open)
In-situ test showed a further 30% reduction in strength.
(Cu)15 min 2100 psf
*
0.8
(loading rate)
(Cu)7day 1700 psf
*
0.7
(fissures)
(Cu)in-situ 1190 psf