Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

TEST FOR PRINCIPLES OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

1. Please explain the slope failures classifications (5 major categories)

and give an example in Indonesia for each category.

(Hint: Learn to the slope disaster management in Indonesia)

2. For the infinity slope with a steady state seepage shown in Figure
below, determine:

a. The factor of safety against sliding along the soil-rock interface.

b. The height, H, that will give a factor of safety (Fs) of 2 against

sliding along the soil-rock interface.

(Hint: Learn to Stability of Infinite Slopes)

3. A cut is to be made in a soil having kN/m3, c = 28.7 kN/m2,

and = 17o.

The slide of the cut slope will make an angle of 45 o with the
horizontal. What

should be the depth of the cut slope that will have a factor of safety
(Fs) of 3 ?

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

(Hint: Learn to the analysis of Finite Slopes with Plane Failure

Surfaces

(Culmanns Method).

4. 3D slope stability model is preferred to describe the natural slope

conditions. What is advantage of the 3D model comparing to the 2D
infinity slope model (Hint: Learn to the 3D analysis of Slopes
Stability).

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

1. Solutin :

1. Fall. This is the detachment of soil and/or rock fragments that

fall down a slope (Figure 15.1). Figure 15.2 shows a fall in which a
large amount of soil mass has slid down a slope.

Figure 15.1 Fall type of landslide

Figure 15.2 Soil and rock fall in a slope

(Situbondo, Jawa Timur)

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

2. Topple. This is a forward rotation of soil and/or rock mass about

an axis below the center of gravity of mass being displaced
(Figure 15.3).

Figure 15.3 Slope failure by toppling

Figure 15.4 Slope failure by toppling

Kabupaten Aceh Besar

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

3. Slide. This is the downward movement of a soil mass occurring

on a surface of rupture (Figure 15.5).

Figure 15.5 Slope failure by sliding

Figure 15.6 Slope failure by sliding

Banjarnegara, Jawa Tengah

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

4. Spread. This is a form of slide (Figure 15.7) by translation. It

occurs by sudden movement of water-bearing seams of sands or
silts overlain by clays or loaded by fills (Cruden and Varnes,
1996).

Figure 15.7 Slope failure by lateral spreading

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

5. Flow. This is a downward movement of soil mass similar to a

viscous fluid (Figure 15.6).

Figure 15.6 Slope failure by flowing

Figure 15.7 Slope failure by flowing

Bengkulu

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

2. Solution :

' ' '

c tan
F s= +
a. 2
sat H cos tan sat tan

sat =17.8 kN /m3

' 3
= sat =17.89.81=7.99 kN /m

10 7.99 x tan 20
F s= +
( 17.8 )( 6 )( cos 15 ) ( tan15 ) 17.8 x tan 15
2

F s=0.375+0.61=0.985

' ' '

c tan
F s= +
b. 2
sat H cos tan sat tan

10 7.99 tan20 2.247

2= + = +0.61
( 17.8 ) ( H )( cos 15 ) ( tan 15 ) 17.8 tan15
2
H

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

2.247
H= =1.62 m
20.61

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

3. Solution :

Fc F
Given : = 17o ; c=16.5 kN/m3 ; Fs = 3, then should both
' '

be equal to 3.

'
c
Fc = '
'
cd

Or

' c ' c ' 28.7 3

c d= = = =9.567 kN /m
Fc Fs '3

Similarly,

'
tan
F = '
'
tan d

' tan' tan ' tan 17

tan d = = =
F Fs' 3

Or

' d =tan1
[ tan17
3 ]=5.789o

Substituting the preceding values of c'd and ' d in Eq. (15.29)

H=
[
4 c' d sin . cos' d
1cos ( ' d ) ]
H=
16.5 [
4 x 9.567 sin 45 . cos 5.789
1cos ( 455.789 ) ]
Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)
 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

H=2.319 . [ 0.647
0.184]=8.154 m

Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)

 Principles Of Geotechnical Engineering

4. Solution :

1. The factor of safety for three-dimensional analysis is greater than

the factor of safety for two-dimensional analyses. The only
studies that indicate otherwise are those by Hovland (1977),
Chen and Chameau (1983), and Seed et al. (1990). Hovlands
analyses were based on an extension of the Ordinary Method of
slices, which is inaccurate because it assumes zero normal stress
on vertical surfaces. Azzouz and Baligh (1978) showed that
results calculated using this method are illogical for some
conditions, and that extension of the Ordinary Method of Slices is
not an adequate approach to 3-D analysis. Hutchison and Sarma
(1985), Cavounidius (1987), and Hungr (1987) questioned some
of the assumptions used by Chen and Chameau, found that F3
was greater than F2 rather than smaller, as Chen and Chameau
had found. Seed et al. (1990) compared results of 2D and 3D
analyses that did not satisfy all conditions of equilibrium. The
horizontal force imbalance in their approximate 3D analysis was
3.7% of the weight of the sliding mass. Because the friction
angles along the slip surface they studied were so small (8 to
9), this force imbalance could result in as much as a 25%
difference in the calculated factor of safety. Thus, all of the cases
where F3 was found to be smaller than F2 appear to involve
significant potential inaccuracies.

2. Hutchinson and Sarma (1985) and Leshchinsky and baker (1986)

pointed out that 2D and 3D analyses should give the same factor
of safety for slopes in homogeneous cohesionless soils, because
the critical slip surface is a shallow plane parallel to the surface
of the slope.

3. Azzouz et al. (1981), and Leshchinsky and Huang (1992) noted

that, if 3D effects are neglected in analyses to back calculate
shear strengths; the back calculated strengths will be too high.
Tugas MK Prinsip & Desain Dalam Penelitian Geoteknik | Jasruddin (P2305215003)