Rock Mech Rock Eng (2013) 46:359371 DOI 10.

1007/s00603-012-0262-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass: A Case Study from Manisa, Turkey
Mutluhan Akin

Received: 13 February 2012 / Accepted: 1 May 2012 / Published online: 24 May 2012 Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract This paper presents a case study regarding slope stability problems and the remedial slope stabilization work executed during the construction of two reinforced concrete water storage tanks on a steep hill in Manisa, Turkey. Water storage tanks of different capacities were planned to be constructed, one under the other, on closely jointed and deformed shale and sandstone units. The tank on the upper elevation was constructed rst and an approximately 20-m cut slope with two benches was excavated in front of this upper tank before the construction of the lower tank. The cut slope failed after a week and the failure threatened the stability of the upper water tank. In addition to re-sloping, a 15.6-m deep contiguous retaining pile wall without anchoring was built to support both the cut slope and the upper tank. Despite the construction of a retaining pile wall, a maximum of 10 mm of displacement was observed by inclinometer measurements due to the re-failure of the slope on the existing slip surface. Permanent stability was achieved after the placement of a granular ll buttress on the slope. Back analysis based on the non-linear (HoekBrown) failure criterion indicated that the geological strength index (GSI) value of the slopeforming material is around 21 and is compatible with the in situ-determined GSI value (24). The calculated normal shear stress plots are also consistent with the HoekBrown failure envelope of the rock mass, indicating that the location of the sliding surface, GSI value estimated by back analysis, and the rock mass parameters are well dened. The long-term stability analysis illustrates a safe slope design after the placement of a permanent toe buttress.
M. Akin (&) Department of Mining Engineering, Yuzuncu Yil University, Zeve Campus, 65080 Van, Turkey e-mail: mutluhanakin@gmail.com

Keywords Slope stability Back analysis GSI Non-linear failure criterion Water storage tank Heavily jointed rock mass Retaining pile wall Block punch index test

1 Introduction The potable water supply of a settlement is usually stored in water tanks of different capacities. The dimensions of a tank are related to the water demand, calculated with respect to the population. A water tank both regulates the water pressure in the network and reserves a water supply transmitted from the source location. Furthermore, a water tank should be adequately elevated in order to fully maintain the hydraulic pressures required for potable water network distribution. Thus, water storage tanks are mostly located on hills or uneven terrain, and a cut slope is usually excavated so as to construct the concrete tank on a at surface. Although slope stability problems concerning water storage tanks are not very common during the construction or postconstruction period, fatal events may occur after such n et al. 2009). Water leakage from the incidents (Caldero tank may considerably reduce the shear strength of the slope material, leading to slope failures and catastrophic accidents. Moreover, excavations to create cut slopes during construction may trigger slope instabilities, which may also affect the safety of nearby structures. The failure of slopes and the substantial costs of remedial measures are mostly a consequence of unsatisfactory geological and geotechnical investigations and inadequate interpretation of acquired data during preliminary design (Lee and Hencher 2009). The construction of two reinforced concrete (RC) water storage tanks started at the end of 2005 in Manisa, Turkey, to store a portion of the potable water demand. The

123

360

M. Akin

location map of the study area is shown in Fig. 1. The latitude and longitude of the construction site are 533338.27 E and 4273272.91 N. The capacities of the tanks are 3,000 and 7,500 m3, respectively. Both tanks were constructed, one under the other, on steep terrain (slope inclination C30). The horizontal distance between the two tanks is approximately 30 m. In addition, the elevation of the 3,000-m3 tank (WT1) is 153.3 m, whereas the 7,500-m3 tank (WT2) is situated at 133.8 m. A general cross-section of the construction area with the location of the two RC water storage tanks is provided in Fig. 2. It should be noted that the construction area was restricted by an expropriation boundary and an unusually steep cut slope had to be excavated to place the two structures in a tight area, due to space limitations. After the excavation, the cut slope failed and the failure affected the stability of WT1. Several effective and ineffective remedial works were carried out to retain the failed slope and WT1. In this paper, the repeated failure of a cut slope and a series of remedial works for slope stabilization are explained. Furthermore, the slope failure which occurred after the construction of the upper tank is back-analyzed to assess the shear strength parameters of the slope-forming material. In addition,

Fig. 2 A general cross-section of the construction area (note: the vertical scale is exaggerated)

the movements monitored after the construction of a retaining pile wall is evaluated and, nally, the efciency of the placement of a granular ll buttress on the slope is analyzed.

2 Geology of the Study Area The study area is situated on highly fractured and deformed rocks of the Bornova Flysch Zone. The ysch zone comprises large blocks of Mesozoic limestone, basalt, serpentine, and radiolarian chert with a highly disturbed clastic matrix of Cretaceous to Paleocene age (Okay and Altiner 2007). Moreover, Neogene-aged yellowish brown marl layers crop out in the same zone. The foundations of the two water storage tanks as well as the cut slope exist in the clastic matrix of the Bornova Flysch Zone. It consists of gray graphitic shale and alternating beds of sandstone and shale units (Fig. 3a, b). These units are closely jointed, sheared, and folded with a chaotic structure (Fig. 3c). There is no observed groundwater table in the study area, except local wet zones after heavy rains. As the above-mentioned geological units exhibit similar geotechnical properties, it is quite difcult to differentiate the exact unit boundaries in the construction area. The discontinuity spacing of the slope material is mostly between 5 and 10 cm. As a particular note, the discontinuity surfaces are usually smooth and soapy, which drastically decreases their shear strength, especially during heavy rains. There is no certain discontinuity orientation, as the rock mass is heavily jointed. In this highly deformed material, a circular slope failure is more probable than a structurally controlled instability, since there is no distinct discontinuity surface on which zdemir failure can occur (Anderson and Richards 1987; O and Delikanli 2009; Sharifzadeh et al. 2010). The sliding surface in heavily jointed rock masses involves both natural discontinuities aligned on the sliding surface and some shear failure through intact rock (Wyllie and Mah 2004).

Fig. 1 Location map of the study area

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass

361

3 History of the Slope Instabilities A detailed geotechnical survey was not carried out on the construction site during preliminary investigations in this project. The physico-mechanical properties of the lithological units were estimated by observational studies and literature data without any laboratory or in situ tests.

In the preliminary stage of the project, the construction of the 3,000-m3 tank (WT1) at the higher elevation was started. When the tank construction was about to be completed, an approximately 20-m high cut slope with two benches was excavated in front of WT1 to make room for the foundation of the 7,500-m3 water storage tank (WT2) at the lower elevation (Fig. 4). Having completed the slope excavation, the foundation of WT2 and a drainage ditch along the tank perimeter were excavated. One week after excavation of the drainage ditch, the cut slope in front of WT1 instantly failed. Major and progressive tension cracks at the top bench and a small-scale horizontal movement at the toe were observed after the failure (Fig. 4). The slip surface shown in Fig. 4 is estimated considering the main tension crack and the horizontal movement at the slope toe. Eventually, the slope failure threatened the stability of WT1. Also, a separation of several millimeters in scale between the main tank and the maneuver room sections of WT1 occurred and was monitored (Fig. 5). As an immediate remedial measure to prevent slope failure and to protect the stability of WT1, a granular toe buttress was constructed and re-sloping was performed by removing slope material from the crown to lower the sliding forces (Fig. 6). Further slope movement was prevented by the above-mentioned temporary remedial measures. However, the toe buttress covered a large portion of the WT2 foundation and the temporary support had to be removed in order to construct WT2.

4 Back Analysis of the Initial Slope Failure The estimation of shear strength parameters along the sliding surfaces is quite difcult in slope engineering (Sonmez et al. 1998). The limit equilibrium back analysis of a failed slope is one of the most reliable approaches to determine the shear strength of slope material at the time of failure (Sancio 1981; US Army Corps of Engineers 2003; Topal and Akin 2009). The shear strength parameters obtained by the back analysis of slopes are accepted as being more consistent than those obtained by laboratory or in situ testing during remedial measure design (Popescu and Schaefer 2008). In conventional back analysis, the internal friction angle or cohesion is assumed in order to calculate the other parameter, considering a factor of safety of 1.0. Although back analysis based on linear failure criterion is mostly applied in soil slopes, the same procedure can be followed on very weak rock mass, which is transformed into a soil-like material as a consequence of chemical weathering or alteration (Cai et al. 2007; Sharifzadeh et al. 2010). On the other hand, in recent years, the geotechnical characterization of homogeneous and isotropic rock masses has mostly been performed using the

Fig. 3 Gray graphitic shale (a), the alternation of sandstone and shale (b), a close-up view of heavily jointed slope material (c)

123

362 Fig. 4 The 20-m high cut slope with two benches and rst slope failure after excavation (modied after GDBP 2006)

M. Akin

Fig. 5 Separation between the main tank and the maneuver room after slope failure (a side view, b overhead view)

Fig. 6 Immediate slope remediation after the rst slope failure (modied after GDBP 2006)

geological strength index (GSI) system (Morales et al. 2004; Marinos et al. 2006). The GSI system proposed by Hoek et al. (1995) allows the determination of rock mass strength and deformation parameters for both hard and weak rock masses. The back calculation of shear strength parameters of sliding surfaces using the linear MohrCoulomb criterion is independent from normal stress. However, the failure envelope of a closely jointed rock mass is non-linear and is sensitive to normal stresses (Sonmez et al. 1998; Yang and

Yin 2004). The HoekBrown non-linear failure criterion (Hoek and Brown 1980; Hoek et al. 2002) has been commonly employed for the back analysis of slope failures in heavily jointed rock masses (Sonmez et al. 1998; Sonmez and Ulusay 1999; Cai et al. 2007; Sharifzadeh et al. 2010). The shear strength parameters of a failure surface in such rock masses can be determined for a specic normal stress using the material constants of the HoekBrown failure criterion (m and s) as a function of the rock mass rating (RMR) system or the GSI system.

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass

363

The non-linear HoekBrown failure criterion for homogeneous and isotropic rock masses is dened by the equation below: r01 r03 rci mb r03 =rci s0:5 1

(d) (e)

where r01 and r03 are the maximum and minimum principal effective stresses acting upon the sliding surface, rci is the intact rock strength, and mb and s are the material constants, which are determined by the following formulas in accordance with the GSI: mb mi expGSI 100=28 14D s expGSI 100=9 3D 2 3

The calculation step is carried out for different values of GSI(s) to obtain a variety of GSI(s) and GSI(m) pairs. The results are presented in a GSI(s)-GSI(m) graph and a straight line passing from the origin with an inclination of 45 is drawn. The inserted line intersects the GSI(s)-GSI(m) curve at a certain point identifying the GSI value of the investigated rock mass (GSIRM).

where mi is the intact material constant and D is the disturbance factor of rock mass due to blasting or excavation. The GSI value can be directly determined in the eld based on site conditions, although sampling for laboratory testing is extremely difcult in heavily jointed sedimentary and metamorphic rock masses such as shale, ysch, and schist. In addition, alternative procedures may be implemented in order not to overestimate the mb and s values, as overrated input parameters may lead to unrealistic results in the slope stability back analysis using the non-linear nal et al. 1992; Sonmez et al. 1998). The back approach (U analysis of failed slopes using the GSI system can be performed with a trial and error approach following the procedure rst presented by Sonmez et al. (1998). The calculation steps are as follows: A GSI value called GSI(s) is assessed and the material constant s is determined using Eq. 3. (b) The material constant mb is calculated considering the existing slope geometry and slip surface in limit equilibrium software using the HoekBrown failure criterion given in Eq. 1, which satises the limit equilibrium condition (FOS = 1.0). (c) The calculated material constant mb in the previous step is employed in Eq. 2 and discloses the second GSI value, named GSI(m). (a)

Following the back analysis, the instantaneous cohesion and internal friction angle along the existing failure surface can be calculated by application of the non-linear Hoek Brown failure criterion, considering the normal stress and the GSIRM value. For the actual slope failure, the shear strength parameters of the sliding surface mobilized at the time of failure were estimated by means of back analysis using the nonlinear (GSI) approach. The slope stability back analyses were conducted using the Slide v.5.0 software (Rocscience Inc. 2002) and the slope geometry before the failure was considered in the analyses (Fig. 7). In addition, the slope was kept in dry conditions in the back analysis, since no groundwater table was observed in the eld and in boreholes drilled after the construction of the pile wall support. Due to the impossibility of sampling in heavily jointed rock mass, the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the slope material was determined through block punch index (BPI) tests (Ulusay and Hudson 2007) using thin cylindrical slices of rock pieces from the slope material. The calculated BPIc (corrected BPI) was then converted to the UCS in accordance with the equations presented by Ulusay and Hudson (2007). In the BPI test, thin cylindrical discshaped specimens prepared from cores or blocks are put into an apparatus which is designed to t the well-known point load device (Ulusay et al. 2001). The specimens are loaded and forced to break by a rectangular rigid punching block. In this study, disc slices used in the BPI tests were drilled from rock blocks obtained from the investigation area. The unit weight was also determined on the same discs. Consequently, the average unit weight and UCS of

Fig. 7 Slope geometry before the rst failure considered in the back analyses

123

364

M. Akin

the intact slope material are 17.3 kN/m3 and 15.3 MPa, respectively. The GSI value of the rock mass studied was directly determined in the eld in accordance with the latest quantitative GSI chart recommended by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002). More realistic GSI values can be estimated in this chart by means of structure rating (SR) and surface condition rating (SCR). The SR value is assigned based on the volumetric joint count (Jv), whereas the SCR of the discontinuities is calculated considering roughness, weathering, and inlling parameters. The volumetric joint count (Jv) of the slope material in the study area is around 21 with respect to in situ measurements. On the other hand, discontinuity surfaces are generally smooth, highly weathered, and contain soft clay inllings with a thickness of \5 mm. Then, the SR and SCR values were found to be 27 and 4, respectively. The GSI value of the slope material is 24, as seen in Fig. 8, indicating a blocky and disturbed rock mass. It should be noted that the material constant mi was selected as 4 in the back analysis with regards to the recommended mi values for clastic rocks by Hoek et al. (1995), because the triaxial test is almost impossible to carry out on such rock types. Additionally, a disturbance factor (D) value of 0.8 was employed in the back analysis in accordance with Hoek et al. (2002), as the slope was excavated mechanically and was subjected to a minor disturbance due to stress relief from overburden removal. The GSI(s)-GSI(m) graph obtained from the back analysis of the failed slope following the procedure proposed by Sonmez et al. (1998) is illustrated in Fig. 9. The GSIRM value of the failed slope was found to be 21, as seen in Fig. 9. As the surface characteristics of discontinuities were very poor and the slope material was tectonically deformed, sheared, and jointed with a chaotic structure, the GSIRM value of the rock mass assessed by back analysis is reasonable and is compatible with the GSI value of 24 determined in the eld. The HoekBrown failure envelope of the slope-forming rock mass was constructed using the GSI value of 24 determined in the eld and the related material constants (mb: 0.034, s: 8.5e-6, a: 0.5) calculated in accordance with Eqs. 2 and 3 (Fig. 10). Based on the back analysis considering the pre-failure slope geometry and the location of the sliding surface in Fig. 7, the normal and shear stresses acting at the bottom of each slice of the observed failure surface was calculated. These data pairs were plotted onto the non-linear HoekBrown failure envelope of the investigated rock mass, as depicted in Fig. 10. These normalshear stress plots mostly fall on the HoekBrown failure envelope, indicating that the location of the sliding surface, the estimated GSI value via back analysis, and the rock mass parameters accurately represent the studied failure.

The relationship between shear strength and normal stress is more accurately represented by a non-linear model. Furthermore, in the non-linear failure approach, the shear strength parameters mobilizing on the failure surface is normal stress-dependent. The instantaneous shear strength parameters are obtained by the intercept and the inclination, respectively, of the tangent to the non-linear relationship between the shear strength and normal stress (Hoek et al. 2002). In other words, the term instantaneous indicates the shear strength parameters at a certain normal stress level on the non-linear failure envelope. Therefore, the instantaneous shear strength parameters along the existing failure surface (ci and /i pairs) were determined regarding the actual normal stress at the bottom of each slice. In the analyzed slope, the variation of ci and /i with different normal stresses is illustrated in Fig. 11. The normal stress level on the actual sliding surface attains a maximum value of 130 kPa. On the other hand, the instantaneous cohesion varies between 6 and 28 kPa, whereas the instantaneous internal friction angle changes between 21 and 50.

5 First Remedial Measure: Application of the Retaining Pile Wall After the rst failure, it was planned to construct retaining piles in front of WT1 in order to stabilize the constructed tank. Therefore, both the safety of WT1 would be provided and the toe buttress on the foundation of WT2 would be removed. In addition to retaining piles, a new re-sloping was also performed by lowering the slope angle of benches, to decrease sliding forces. The shear strength parameters were assessed for the pile design due to the presence of insufcient data for the slope material. Two different material zones were distinguished during the design phase. The rst zone on the upper level of the slope was represented by disturbed material which was affected from the rst slide. The second zone under the rst subdivision was the undisturbed section of the rest of the slope. The slope material parameters used for the design of the retaining piles are presented in Table 1 (GDBP 2006). It should be kept in mind that the shear strength values in Table 1 are not related to the back analyses performed in this study. The new slope model with the retaining pile wall is presented in Fig. 12. As shown in Fig. 12, the new cut slope between the two water storage tanks has three benches with lower inclinations (5457). Furthermore, 15.6-m long RC piles (diameter 80 cm) without any anchors were proposed to support WT1. The axial distance(s) between each pile is 1.60 m. After the preliminary design, a contiguous bored pile wall was constructed in accordance with the submitted support model. The slope was then re-excavated with three

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass

365

Fig. 8 Determination of the GSI value of the slope material using the proposed chart by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002)

benches. Subsequent to concrete pile wall construction and re-sloping, the buttress at the slope toe was removed. Additionally, a total of three 22-m deep boreholes were

drilled between WT1 and the retaining pile wall. Each hole was cased with an inclinometer casing to monitor probable lateral movements in the slope and the retaining pile wall.

123

366

M. Akin

Fig. 9 GSI(s)-GSI(m) graph obtained from the back analysis of the failed slope using the non-linear approach

Fig. 11 Instantaneous shear strength parameters along the existing failure surface (ci and /i) graph

Fig. 10 HoekBrown failure envelope of the studied rock mass and the normalshear stress pairs acting on the observed failure surface calculated by means of back analysis

6 Second Slope Failure after Pile Wall Construction One week after nishing the retaining pile wall construction and the removal of the toe buttress (22.04.2006), a lateral movement along the longitudinal slope axis (parallel to the failure direction) was noticed by inclinometer measurements. Fifteen days following the rst inclinometer measurement (07.05.2006), the lateral movement attained a maximum value of 10 mm. The inclinometer data indicated that the slope in front of the retaining pile wall was still unstable and that the slope was still moving along the same failure surface (Fig. 13). A large-scale tension crack was also observed on the slope benches as an obvious sign of slope instability (Fig. 14a). In addition to the tension crack, progressive small-scale cracks occurred adjacent to WT1 (Fig. 14b). A granular toe buttress was once again

placed immediately to stabilize the slope. The lateral movement in the slope was prevented after this toe buttress application (11.05.2006), according to the inclinometer measurements shown in Fig. 13. The second failure after the retaining pile wall construction indicated that the support was not sufcient to provide stability for the cut slope and WT1. The slope material facing the retaining pile wall was the only resisting force for the bending moments on the anchorless piles. The release of the resisting slope material after the failure resulted in a lateral movement towards the longitudinal slope axis in the retaining piles, due to the lateral earth pressure on the backs of the piles. Besides, when the cumulative displacement graph in Fig. 13 is observed, it can be clearly seen that the rst lateral movement started almost from the bottom of the piles (around 12 m). Finally, it can be concluded that the decrease of resisting forces acting on the pile wall after the second slide caused signicant pile displacements in the contiguous retaining piles without any anchorage.

7 Final Solution for Stability: Permanent Toe Buttress It was of great importance to maintain the permanent stability of WT1 on the upper elevation after the rst slope failure. However, the constructed pile wall support was unsatisfactory for slope stabilization. Therefore, an improved solution that would result in a factor of safety sufcient to resist additional slope movements was implemented. Toe counterweights and buttresses are generally efcient for the mitigation of slope instability (Rowe 2001). The application of a temporary toe buttress after the rst and second slides prevented additional slope displacements. Therefore, a larger buttress was constructed

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass Table 1 Specic slope material parameters used for the retaining pile wall design (GDBP 2006) Unit weight (cn) (kN/m3) Zone 1 (disturbed material) Zone 2 (undisturbed material) 19 19 Cohesion (c) (kPa) 24 35 Internal friction angle (/) () 27 28 Modulus of elasticity (E) (MPa) 200 500

367

Poissons ratio (t) 0.35 0.35

Fig. 12 New slope model with retaining piles and re-sloping (modied after GDBP 2006)

for efcient stabilization. However, the water storage tank at the lower elevation (WT2) had to be shifted about 10 m in the direction opposite to the longitudinal slope axis to make room for the toe buttress. As previously mentioned, the construction area was restricted by an expropriation boundary which made the shifting quite impossible. Hence, the expropriation boundary was ofcially enlarged by the municipal council to create extra space. Consequently, the site was expanded, which permitted the construction of both the toe buttress and WT2. The nal slope geometry with a granular buttress is depicted in Fig. 15. It is important to notice that the new buttress entirely covers the slope benches and applies a higher resisting force. No lateral displacements were observed in the ongoing inclinometer measurements after the installation of the new buttress. Having completed the installation of the new buttress on the slope, the larger RC water storage tank at the lower elevation (WT2) was constructed in front of the new support (Fig. 16).

8 Long-Term Stability Assessment 8.1 Estimation of Peak Ground Acceleration The long-term stability of the nal slope geometry was also analyzed by the slope stability analysis considering the seismic effect in this study. The project area is located in a seismically active zone in the Western Anatolia Region. A

Fig. 13 Cumulative displacement graph from inclinometer 1 (parallel to the longitudinal slope axis) (modied after GDBP 2006)

123

368

M. Akin

Fig. 14 Slope failure-related problems after the construction of the retaining pile wall (a tension crack on slope benches, b small-scale crack near the water tank, c retaining pile wall and slope, d inclinometer casing between WT1 and retaining pile wall)

Fig. 15 Final slope geometry with a granular toe buttress (modied after GDBP 2006)

signicant extensional regime in this region resulted in numerous normal faults and graben systems (Bozkurt 2001). The Manisa Fault exists in the very close vicinity of the project area. This normal fault is about 40 km in length and lies in the southern margin of Manisa city (Fig. 17). Although a moment magnitude (Mw) of 5.2 was recorded in 1994 in this fault segment (Emre et al. 2005), Kayabali and Akin (2003) and Ulusay et al. (2004) assigned values of 7.2 and 7.4, respectively, to the Gediz Graben which is 150 km long in total and is the main tectonic feature around the

study area. Therefore, the maximum expected earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.4 was considered in the long-term stability assessment in this study. Additionally, the epicentral distance (Re) to the main segment of the Gediz Graben is around 25 km. The peak ground acceleration in the project area was evaluated by two different regional attenuation relationships of Ulusay et al. (2004) and Kayabali and Beyaz (2011), given in Eqs. 4 and 5, respectively. In these equations, PGA is the peak ground acceleration (cm/s2),

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass Fig. 16 Final slope design (a WT1 and upper buttress, b WT2 and lower buttress, c complete view of WT2)

369

Fig. 17 Simplied map of graben systems around the study area (modied from Bozkurt 2001)

123

370 Fig. 18 Stability analysis of the nal slope supported by a permanent granular buttress

M. Akin

Mw is the moment magnitude, and Re is the epicentral distance (km): PGA 2:18e0:021833:3Mw Re log PGA 2:08
2 0:0254Mw

4 1:001 logRe 1 5

The attenuation relationship proposed by Ulusay et al. (2004) resulted in a peak ground acceleration of 272 cm/s2, whereas the relationship of Kayabali and Beyaz (2011) resulted in a PGA of 113 cm/s2. Therefore, the maximum peak ground acceleration (272 cm/s2) determined by Ulusay et al. (2004) was accepted for the project area. 8.2 Determination of the Seismic Coefcient

signicant overow from water storage tanks. Therefore, the long-term stability of the supported slope design was investigated using the rock mass parameters determined by back analysis. The Slide v.5.0 software (Rocscience Inc. 2002) was employed during analysis. It should be noted that the non-linear failure criterion was taken into consideration. The factor of safety of the nal slope design in static conditions is 1.95. In seismic conditions, considering a maximum of 136 cm/s2 horizontal seismic load, the factor of safety decreases to 1.52 (Fig. 18). The calculated safety factor is acceptable even in seismic conditions, considering the degree of risk in the project area.

9 Conclusions In the seismic slope stability analysis, the determination of the seismic load acting on the analyzed slope is of great importance. A pseudostatic approach is mostly used in seismic slope stability analysis, where the effects of an earthquake are represented by constant vertical and/or horizontal accelerations (Kramer 1996). Appropriate pseudostatic coefcients should be selected, as the seismic coefcient is a measure of the pseudostatic force on the slope. However, there are no certain rules for the determination of the pseudostatic coefcient in the literature (Kramer 1996). Hynes-Grifn and Franklin (1984) suggested that appropriate pseudostatic coefcients for earth slopes should be one-half of the peak ground acceleration. For this reason, a maximum of 136 cm/s2 horizontal seismic load (one-half of 272 cm/s2) on the analyzed slope is taken into consideration in this study. 8.3 Long-Term Stability Long-term stability of the analyzed rock mass should be maintained, as the close vicinity of the project area is surrounded by residential places and a slope failure may lead to both economic and human loss due to a In this paper, the repeated failure of an excavated slope in heavily jointed shale and sandstone units with a chaotic structure was evaluated via back analysis considering the non-linear approach. When compared with eld estimations, the geological strength index (GSI) value obtained by back analysis yields satisfactory results. Furthermore, the estimated failure surface of the analyzed slope was veried by comparing normalshear stress plots versus the Hoek Brown failure envelope derived from the eld-based GSI value. It should be kept in mind that the shear strength parameters are normal stress-dependent in such closely jointed rock masses and the non-linear failure approach gives more realistic results. Therefore, assigning specic shear strength parameters during the design phase may lead to excessive work and insufcient remedial measures in such slope stability problems. Finally, the slope design with permanent granular counterweight seems to be quite stable in accordance with the limit equilibrium analysis performed using the non-linear approach in this study. The most important message derived from this case study is that proper engineering is important to avoid failure of engineering structures.

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass Acknowledgments The author is grateful to the General Directorate of the Bank of Provinces (GDBP) for providing the necessary technical information about the project. The author also thanks Dr. Samad Joshani-Shirvan and Dr. Margaret Sonmez for their comments on the use of language. The author would like to express his sincerest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Resat Ulusay for his valuable comments and assistance during the block punch index (BPI) tests. Akademi Soil and the Rock Mechanics Laboratory deserve thanks for the sample preparation before BPI testing. Thanks are due to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.

371

References
Anderson MG, Richards KS (1987) Slope stability: geotechnical engineering and geomorphology. Wiley, New York Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkeya synthesis. Geodin Acta 14:330 Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2007) Determination of residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses using the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:247265 n PA, Adam JM, Paya -Zaforteza I (2009) Failure analysis and Caldero remedial measures applied to a RC water tank. Eng Fail Anal 16:16741685 Emre O, Ozalp S, Dogan A, Ozaksoy V, Yildirim C, Goktas F (2005) Active faults of Izmir and its close vicinity and their earthquake potentials. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, Turkey, Report No. 10754 (in Turkish) General Directorate of the Bank of Provinces (GDBP) (2006) Manisa potable water network system construction project reports (unpublished, in Turkish) Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. The Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) HoekBrown failure criterion2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, July 2002, vol 1, pp 267273 Hynes-Grifn ME, Franklin AG (1984) Rationalizing the seismic coefcient method. Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi Kayabali K, Akin M (2003) Seismic hazard map of Turkey using the deterministic approach. Eng Geol 69(12):127137 Kayabali K, Beyaz T (2011) Strong motion attenuation relationship for Turkeya different perspective. Bull Eng Geol Environ 70:467481 Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey Lee S-G, Hencher SR (2009) The repeated failure of a cut-slope despite continuous reassessment and remedial works. Eng Geol 107:1641 Marinos V, Fortsakis P, Prountzopoulos G (2006) Estimation of rock mass properties of heavily sheared ysch using data from tunnelling construction. IAEG2006, paper number 314 ndez de Valderrama Morales T, Uribe-Etxebarria G, Uriarte JA, Ferna I (2004) Geomechanical characterisation of rock masses in Alpine regions: the Basque Arc (BasqueCantabrian basin, Northern Spain). Eng Geol 71:343362

, Altiner D (2007) A condensed Mesozoic succession north of Okay AI Izmir: a fragment of the AnatolideTauride platform in the Bornova Flysch Zone. Turk J Earth Sci 16:257279 zdemir A, Delikanli M (2009) A geotechnical investigation of the O retrogressive Yaka Landslide and the debris ow threatening the town of Yaka (Isparta, SW Turkey). Nat Hazards 49:113136 Popescu ME, Schaefer VR (2008) Landslide stabilizing piles: a design based on the results of slope failure back analysis. In: Chen Z, Zhang JM, Li ZK, Wu FQ, Ho K (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes from the past to the future, vols 1 and 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 17871793 Rocscience Inc. (2002) Slide version 5.02D limit equilibrium slope stability analysis. Rocscience, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. http://www.rocscience.com Rowe RK (2001) Geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering handbook. Kluwer, Dordrecht Sancio RT (1981) The use of back-calculations to obtain shear and tensile strength of weathered rocks. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on weak rock, Tokyo, Japan, September 1981, pp 647652 Sharifzadeh M, Shari M, Delbari SM (2010) Back analysis of an excavated slope failure in highly fractured rock mass: the case study of Kargar slope failure (Iran). Environ Earth Sci 60:183192 Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743760 Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the HoekBrown failure criterion and suggested modications to the criterion veried by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri Bull Earth Sci Appl Res Centre Hacettepe Univ 26:7799 Sonmez H, Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C (1998) A practical procedure for the back analysis of slope failures in closely jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(2):219233 Topal T, Akin M (2009) Geotechnical assessment of a landslide along a natural gas pipeline for possible remediations (KaracabeyTurkey). Environ Geol 57:611620 Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) (2007) The blue bookthe complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 19742006. ISRM & ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, p 628. ISBN 978-975-93675-4-1 Ulusay R, Gokceoglu S, Sulukcu S (2001) Draft ISRM suggested method for determining block punch strength index (BPI). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:11131119 Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2004) An attenuation relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and isoacceleration map of Turkey. Eng Geol 74:265291 zkan I, Ulusay R (1992) Characterization of weak, stratied nal E, O U and clay-bearing rock masses. In: Hudson JA (ed) Rock characterization: ISRM symposium, Eurock 92, Chester, UK, September 1992. British Geotechnical Society, London, pp 330335 US Army Corps of Engineers (2003) Manual on slope stability. Manual no. EM1110-2-1902 Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2004) Rock slope engineering: civil and mining, 4th edn. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New York Yang X-L, Yin J-H (2004) Slope stability analysis with nonlinear failure criterion. J Eng Mech 130(3):267273

123