Topic 03 ShearStrength Peru May 2015

5/10/2015
Geotechnical Design of Earth and Tailings Dams
Shear Strength and 2D Slope Stability

TIMOTHY D. STARK, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS at URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
tstark@illinois.edu
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©
2
May 19, 2015 - Course Agenda
TIME PRESENTATION TOPIC SPEAKER(S)
Topic 04 - Saturated and Unsaturated Seepage

8:00–8:30 am Seepage through dams and levees/case histories (Stark)
8:30–9:00 Filter Requirements (Stark)
9:00–9:20 Seepage Computer Example – San Luis Dam (Stark)
9:20–9:50 Seepage Control Measures (Stark)
9:50–10:00 Break/Networking/Discussion
Topic 05 - Shear Strength & 2D Slope Stability

10:00–10:30 Locating Critical Cross-Section & Critical Slip Surface (Stark)
10:30–11:30 Shear Strength Modeling (Stark)
11:30–12:00 2D Slope Stability Methods and Factor of Safety (Stark)
12:00–2:00 Lunch and Networking

Topic 06 - 3D Slope Stability & Computer Example
2:00–3:00 Rapid Drawdown & 3D Slope Stability (Stark)
3:00–3:50 Slope Stability Computer Example – San Luis Dam (Stark)
15:50–16:00 Break/Networking/Discussion
Topic 07 - Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

16:00–16:30 Soil Liquefaction (Stark)
16:30–17:30 Post-Liquefaction Shear Softening Shear Strength & Clays (Stark)
17:30–18:00 Liquefaction Case History – Tuttle Creek Dam (Stark)
1
5/10/2015
TOPICS
• Shear strength modeling
• Importance of cohesion
• Failure modes
• Critical cross-section
• Critical slip surface
• Slope stability methods
• Stability analyses using software and charts
• Construction induced pore pressures
• Reservoir drawdown stability analyses
• 2D v. 3D stability analyses
IMPORTANT SHEAR STRENGTH FACTORS

• Shear strength considerations are:
1. Drained v. undrained strengths
2. Drained Peak, fully softened, and residual shear strengths
3. Undrained strength ratio
4. Laboratory strength tests must model field condition
5. Linear and stress-dependent failure envelopes
6. Strength anisotropy
7. Strain compatibility
• Pore water pressures
• Unit weights
• External loads
• Tension cracks
2
5/10/2015
DRAINED V. UNDRAINED ANALYSES
www.USACE.gov
6/88
Floodwall Gap Formation
• Surge loading causes floodside gap – apply total head boundary
3
5/10/2015
Undrained and Drained Factors of Safety 7
FS 
  c   * tan   * l
 W sin  
FS 
  c ' (  u)* tan  ' * l
 W sin  
Moment Equilibrium
Timothy D. Stark ‐ Course Notes ‐ ©
DRAINED V. UNDRAINED ANALYSES
• Time required for 99% dissipation of excess pore-water

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © pressures (Duncan and Wright, 2005)
4
5/10/2015
9
TYPES OF DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTHS
• INTACT OVERCONSOLIDATED PEAK STRENGTH - rare

• JOINTED OVERCONSOLIDATED PEAK STRENGTH
• FULLY SOFTENED STRENGTH
• RESIDUAL STRENGTH
Contreras (2003)
10
Skempton (1970)
5
5/10/2015
11
Timothy D. Stark ‐ Course Notes ‐ © Contreras (2003)
12
Types of Shear Strength

• Peak (intact) vs. fully softened vs. residual
• Why is fully softened strength important?
Photos from US Army Corps of Engineers
6
5/10/2015
13/61
FSS Definition
• “Critical State”
 Strength after effects of overconsolidation and bonding
are removed or lost – edge to face
CF < 20%
Skempton 25 < CF < 45%
(1985) CF > 50%
CF = 2m
14/61
FSS Development
• Overconsolidation
 Compaction
 Mechanical
 Desiccation
7
5/10/2015
15/61
Compaction
• Levees
• Highway Embankments
• Compacted Fill Slopes
16/61
Mechanical
• Natural or Cut Slopes
8
5/10/2015
17/61
Desiccation
• Stark and Duncan (1991)

• Stark (1987)
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © DWR Photos
18/61
FSS Uses
• “First‐Time Slides”
9
5/10/2015
19/61
FSS Uses
• FSS v. Residual
20/61
FSS v. Residual
• Prior shear displacement = ?
• Greater potential for progressive failure
• FS > 1.0
F
S
• Stark and Eid (1997)

• Stark et al. (2005)
10
5/10/2015
Measurement
21/61
Duncan (2013)
1) Shear Strength
2) Shear Strength
3) Shear Strength
• Stress Dependent Strengths
22/61
FSS Modes of Shear
• Triaxial Compression – ASTM D4767

• Direct Shear – ASTM D3080
• Ring Shear – ASTM D7608
Ring Direct Triaxial

shear shear compression
(Field)
11
5/10/2015
23/61
Triaxial Compression Test
• Specimen preparation
• Time – CD
• Back pressure saturation – CU
24/61
Triaxial Compression Specimens
12
5/10/2015
25/61
Compacted Triaxial Specimens
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © (Wright et al., 2007)
26
Direct Shear Test 26/61
• Cross-Sectional Area - correction

• Shear Box Tilting – gap setting
• Soil Extrusion – especially if reversal test
• Progressive Failure and Gap Development
13
5/10/2015
27/61
Vertical Displacement
Initial Specimen Height ~ 1.42 inches
Non‐blenderized & LI = 1.59
Vertical Displacement (in.)
Consolidation
Pressure psf Consolidation Shearing Total
516 0.36 0.06 0.41
1016 0.46 0.04 0.50
2016 0.52 0.03 0.55
3016 0.54 0.06 0.60
4516 0.59 0.03 0.62
6016 0.68 0.03 0.71
28/61
Porous Disk at ’n=3,016 psf
Porous Disc and Soil Extrusion

VBC- Non-blenderized- LI=1.59 at 3,016 psf
14
5/10/2015
29/61
Porous Disc and Soil Extrusion


30/61
Maximum Vertical Displacement & Full Porous Disc

15
5/10/2015
Data Comparison
31/61
300
VT FSS Direct Shear LL = 78%

CF = 69%
FSS Stark et al. (2014)
Residual Stark et al. (2014)

200
Shear Stress (kPa)
100
0
0 100 200 300 400
Normal Effective Stress (kPa)
32/61
Pre‐Consolidate & Re‐Pack Specimen
16
5/10/2015
33/61
Torsional Ring Shear Test

• Hvorslev (1936, 1937, and 1939)
 measure “shearing resistance after failure”
• Advantages:
 Constant normal stress, small & thin specimen,
residual, multistage, little supervision, reproducible,
available
• Disadvantages:
 Non-uniform shear stresses
 Experience
34/61
Ring Shear Test Procedure
Stark and Eid (1994)
17
5/10/2015
35/61
Torsional Ring Shear Test

• Hvorslev (1937)
 RI/RO > 0.5
• Bromhead (1997)
 RI/RO > 0.7
70 mm
100 mm
5 mm
5 mm
Empirical Correlations
36/61
• Input parameters
• Selecting input parameters
• Applications
• Anchoring
18
5/10/2015
37/61
Input Parameters
CF = 2m
20%
CF < CF
< 20%
25% < CF > 45%
25% < CF < 45%
89 natural soils CF > 50%
after Stark and Eid (1994)

38/61
FSS Input Parameters
CF < 20%
25% < CF < 45%
CF > 50%
CF = 2m
46 natural soils
Timothy D. Stark ‐ Course Notes ‐ © after Stark and Eid (1997)
19
5/10/2015
39/61
Typical Slide Depths
• 12 kPa
Stress Dependent Shear Strength
40/61
20
5/10/2015
Fully Softened Shear Strength
41/61
• Gamez and Stark (2014)
42
STRESS DEPENDENT FAILURE ENVELOPES
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © 42
21
5/10/2015
Stress Dependent Strength Envelope 43/61
Fully Softened Strength Envelope 44/61
  
b
 FS  a * Pa *  n 
 Pa 
CF 20% (25%CF45% 50%
(30<LL<80) (30<LL<130) (30<LL<300)
Correlation +95% -95% Correlation +95% -95% Correlation +95% -95%
a 0.61 0.64 0.59 0.52 0.55 0.49 0.38 0.43 0.33
b 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.87
Gamez and Stark (2014)
22
5/10/2015
45/61
• Applications
• Anchoring
46/61
Liquid Limit & Clay Fraction
LL Mean, CF Mean,
Material Median, and Median, and
St. Dev St. Dev
Both QPGL and

QPGL-Disturbed 60/64/16 40/43/22
Clay
23
5/10/2015
47/61
LL Mean, CF Mean, Planning Level Design CF

Material Median, and Median, and LL based on based on
St. Dev St. Dev Histogram Histogram
Both QPGL and

QPGL-Disturbed 60/64/16 40/43/22 70 55/>50%
Clay
48/61
6 4
5
3
4
Frequency
Frequency
3 2
2
1
1
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
More
Liquid Limit (%) Clay Fraction (%)
LL Mean, CF Mean, Planning Level Design CF

Material Median, and Median, and LL based on based on
St. Dev St. Dev Histogram Histogram
Stations
55/47/21 43/55/31 80 55/>50%
3+90 to 5+40
24
5/10/2015
49/61
• Applications
• Anchoring
Applications
50/61
• Planning level design
• Data verification – most important
 Duncan (2013)
 Stress dependent
• Design????
 Anchor correlation
25
5/10/2015
Data Verification
51/61
Data Verification
52/61
26
5/10/2015
53/61
Soil Extrusion & Wall Friction
• Results are too low?
54/127
Porous Disc
27
5/10/2015
55/61
• Applications
• Anchoring
56/61
Anchor Correlations
• Design????
• Need to anchor/calibrate to site
– Use soil from each group
 CF < 20%
 25% < CF < 45%
 CF > 50%
28
5/10/2015
Stability Analyses
57/61
• Locate Critical Slip Surface
 Stress Dependent
 Peak Strength => FSS
• Factors of Safety
 FSS use FS > 1.5 or 1.4 (levees)
 Residual use FS > 1.0 to 1.1
58/61
FSS v. Residual
• Prior shear displacement = ?
• Greater potential for progressive failure
• FS > 1.0
F
S
• Stark and Eid (1997)

• Stark et al. (2005)
29
5/10/2015
59
Shear Strength of Silts and Clays
• Undrained & Saturated
Normally Consolidated
Over Consolidated
60
Unconsolidated‐Undrained NC Silts & Clays
Why circle diameter does not
increase with increasing confining '
pressure?
su  c  1 qu
2
'1-'3)f
'3

Applications=?
30
5/10/2015
61
Consolidated‐Undrained NC Silts & Clays
 Positive pore pressures

develop as NC clays tend to
contract (similar behavior to
loose sands)
'
Effective

Stress
Total Stress
,’
+ux
62
Consolidated‐Undrained OC Silts & Clays
 Negative pore pressures develop as OC clays

tend to dilate (similar behavior to dense sands)
Total
Stress ’
Effective Stress
,’
-ux
31
5/10/2015
63
Undrained Strength Ratio Concept
su 0.8
 0.3(OCR)
p
'
'
Effective
Stress 
Su
Total Stress
’3,f
’1,f
,’
su  1*( '  ' )*cos '
+ux 2 1, f 3, f
64
Undrained Strength Ratio Concept
su  1*( '  ' )*cos '

Su 2 1, f 3, f
Su,3
su
Su,2 ~ 0 .32
Su,1
p
'
3,f) 1 3,f) 2 3,f) 3 ’p, ’consol
32
5/10/2015
Undrained Strength Ratio Concept 65
Undrained Strength Ratio Application 66
33
5/10/2015
Undrained Strength Ratio Application 67
68
TOPICS
• Failure modes
• Reservoir drawdown stability analyses
34
5/10/2015
69
IMPORTANCE OF COHESION
70
IMPORTANCE OF COHESION
35
5/10/2015
71
Questions and Comments

tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
72
Geotechnical Design of Earth and Tailings Dams
2D Slope Stability
tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
36
5/10/2015
73
TOPICS
• Failure modes
74
FAILURE MODES
• Translational
• Rotational
• Infinite
37
5/10/2015
75
Translational
USGS Photo Library
76
Circular
Day (2000)
38
5/10/2015
77
Infinite Slope
Timothy D. Stark ‐ Course Notes ‐ © USGS Photo Library
78
Infinite Slope – Dallas Levees
39
5/10/2015
79
DESIGN CONDITIONS & FS
80
40
5/10/2015
81
TOPICS
• Failure modes
82
CRITICAL CROSS-SECTION
41
5/10/2015
83
CRITICAL CROSS-SECTION & SLIP SURFACE
• “Three of the five critical cross-sections selected for slope
stability analyses.............”
• “Selection of the most critical cross-sections for slope
stability analyses based on a review of: grading plan, .....”
• “A total of three critical slope sections were analyzed and
are designated as sections A-A, B-B, and C-C.”
• “The most critical factors of safety calculated ranged from
between 1.52 and 1.87, which are considered acceptable.”
84
42
5/10/2015
85
TOPICS
• Failure modes
86
GUIDELINES FOR STARTING A SEARCH

TOE CIRCLES ARE CRITICAL FOR MANY CONDITIONS
• Large frictional resistance: increase friction results in
decrease in depth of a circle.
 c  2 ; toecircles
 H tan 
 c 
c
• Strength increases rapidly with depth for  = 0
• For steep slopes ( > 530), toe circles regardless of c versus
depth.
43
5/10/2015
87
GUIDELINES FOR STARTING A SEARCH
Duncan and Wright (1980)

 = 0 STABILITY CHART
88
Duncan et al. (1987)

Page 26
< 530 – deep circles
 > 530 – toe circles
Slope Circle=in slope
44
5/10/2015
89
90
TOPICS
• Failure modes
45
5/10/2015
91
SLOPE STABILITY METHODS – Vertical Slices

• Ordinary Method of Slices (1927)
• Method of Wedges (1930)
• Bishop’s Modified Method (1955)
• Janbu’s Generalized Procedure of Slices (1957)
• Lowe and Karafiath (1960)
• Morgenstern and Price’s Method (1965)
• Spencer’s Method (1967)
92
J.M. Duncan (1982)
46
5/10/2015
93
Why did moment

equilibrium work
in OMS?
J.M. Duncan (1982)
center
94
J.M. Duncan (1982)
47
5/10/2015
Duncan and Wright (1980) 95
96
SLOPE STABILITY METHODS – Vertical Slices

• Ordinary Method of Slices (1927)
• Method of Wedges (1930)
• Bishop’s Modified Method (1955)
• Janbu’s Generalized Procedure of Slices (1957)
• Lowe and Karafiath (1960)
• Morgenstern and Price’s Method (1965)
• Spencer’s Method (1967)
48
5/10/2015
Morgenstern & Price (1965) 97
J.M. Duncan (1982)
• Horizontal side force resultant is determined using f(x) and solving for  to determine
resultant - removes N-1 unknowns
• Location of normal force on base, removes N unknowns
• (5N-2) – (N) - (N-1) = 3N-1 => statically determinant
Spencer’s Method (1967) 98
J.M. Duncan (1982)
• Simplifies M&P (1965)

• Horizontal side force resultant is determined with constant to determine resultant – side
forces are parallel - removes N-1 unknowns
• Location of normal force on base, removes N unknowns
• (5N-2) – (N) - (N-1) = 3N-1 => statically determinant
• is usually less than slope angle
49
5/10/2015
99
ACCURACY OF SLOPE STABILITY METHODS
• Methods that satisfy all conditions of equilibrium yield

similar values of FS (Janbu, Morgenstern and Price, Spencer)
• Bishop’s Modified Method
- Correct for circular failure surfaces even though no individual
slice moment or horizontal force equilibrium
- Seismic = ?
• Ordinary Method of Slices

- Total Stress = ok
- Avoid high pore water pressures
100
Questions and Comments

tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
50

Topic 03 ShearStrength Peru May 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic 03 ShearStrength Peru May 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/10/2015

Geotechnical Design of Earth and Tailings Dams

Shear Strength and 2D Slope Stability

Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Topic 04 - Saturated and Unsaturated Seepage

Topic 05 - Shear Strength & 2D Slope Stability

12:00–2:00 Lunch and Networking

Topic 07 - Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

IMPORTANT SHEAR STRENGTH FACTORS

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

DRAINED V. UNDRAINED ANALYSES

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Surge loading causes floodside gap – apply total head boundary

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

DRAINED V. UNDRAINED ANALYSES

• Time required for 99% dissipation of excess pore-water

• INTACT OVERCONSOLIDATED PEAK STRENGTH - rare

Timothy D. Stark ‐ Course Notes ‐ © Contreras (2003)

Types of Shear Strength

Photos from US Army Corps of Engineers

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Stark and Duncan (1991)

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © DWR Photos

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Stark and Eid (1997)

• Stress Dependent Strengths

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Triaxial Compression – ASTM D4767

Ring Direct Triaxial

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Triaxial Compression Specimens

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Compacted Triaxial Specimens

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © (Wright et al., 2007)

• Cross-Sectional Area - correction

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Porous Disc and Soil Extrusion

Porous Disc and Soil Extrusion

Porous Disk at ’n=6,016 psf

Maximum Vertical Displacement & Full Porous Disc

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

VT FSS Direct Shear LL = 78%

Residual Stark et al. (2014)

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Torsional Ring Shear Test

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Ring Shear Test Procedure

Stark and Eid (1994)

Torsional Ring Shear Test

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

25% < CF > 45%

25% < CF < 45%

89 natural soils CF > 50%

su  1( '  ' )cos '