Atsuta, T.

Chen, W. F.

Fang, H. Y.

English

Lehigh University: Lehigh Preserve

Lehigh University
Lehigh Preserve
Fritz Laboratory Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering
1972
Stability of slopes intercepted by a retaining
structure, December 1972
H. Y. Fang
T. Atsuta
W. F. Chen
Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-
reports
This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Fritz Laboratory Reports by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact
preserve@lehigh.edu.
Recommended Citation
Fang, H. Y.; Atsuta, T.; and Chen, W. F., "Stability of slopes intercepted by a retaining structure, December 1972" (1972). Fritz
Laboratory Reports. Paper 1983.
http://preserve.lehigh.edu/engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports/1983
STABILITY OF SLOPES INTERCEPTED
BY A RETAINING STRUCTURE
by
H. Y. Fang
T. Atsuta
w. F. Chen
FRiTZ ENGINEERING
LABORATORY LIBRARY
Fritz Engineering Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
December 1972
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 355.11
STABILITY OF SLOPES INTERCEPTED BY A RETAINING STRUCTURE
by H. Y. Fang, T. Atsuta, and W. F. Chen
, SYNOPSIS
The upper bound theorem of limit analysis is
applied to analyze the stability of a slope when the slope
is intercepted by a retaining structure. A closed-form
solution is obtained in which the optimum location, penetra-
tion depth, and strength of the retaining structure could be
determined. A straight-line failure plane is assumed in the
analysis. Design charts developed from the limit analysis
solution are presented for ,a useful range of friction angles
and slope geometries.
INTRODUCTION
The problem of the stability of a slope inter-
cepted by a retaining structure frequently appears in engi-
neering practice but design data to assess the optimum loca-
tion of installation, penetration depth, and strength of the
retaining structure are very scant. This lack of detailed
information is due largely to the difficult procedures in
analysis encountered when the conventional limit equilibrium
method is used. In particular, the friction condition be-
tween the soils and the wall poses special problems and the
-1-
strength consideration of the wall can further complicate
the computational procedures. However, as in previous works
(Chen, et ale 1969, 1970, 1971; Fang and Hirst, 1970) on the
stability of slopes, the upper bound theorem of the genera-
lized theory of perfect plasticity (Drucker and Prager,1952)
can be used to obtain solutions for the critical height of the
problem. It has been shown to yield reasonable answers to
foundation engineering problems when compared with existing
limit equilibrium solutions whose validity have been esta-
blished on the basis of practical experience (Chen and Scaw-
thorn, 1970; Fang and Hirst, 1970).
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Failure mechanisms are shown in Fig. 1. The soil
wedge is divided into two rigid bodies which are separated by
the retaining structure. The frictional forces between the
wall and the soil are obtained from equations of equilibrium
which are shown in Fig. 2. The compatible velocity field is
shown in Fig. 3. The rate of internal energy dissipation can
.be evaluated by the Coulomb yield condition and its asso-
ciated flow rule. Equating both the external rate of work
and internal rate of energy dissipation, the expressions for
the stability factor can then be obtained. The maximized
value of the stability factor gives the maximum properties
of soil which is necessary to form a failure~ Therefore, if
-2-
the stability factor of the soil is greater than that maxi-
mized value, the slope is stable. Detailed steps are de-
scribed in the following sections.
FAILURE MECHANISMS
The straight-line failure plane is assumed in the
analysis. The yielding of the retaining structure is assumed
to follow the maximum shear stress or Tresca criterion and
Coulomb's yield criterion is assumed for the soil.
Four types of failure mechanisms are considered
herein:
Free-Sliding - Sliding in the case of no wall. This consi-
deration tells the necessity of a wall. It should be noted
that for this case logarithmic spiral curve will give a bet-
ter solution, however, the straight lines are used here for
the purpose of consistency with other types of mechanism.
Over-Sliding - This consideration checks the sufficiendy of
the wall depth.
On-Sliding - A slip line starts from the bottom tip of the
wall and another line starts from a different point on the
wall. One part of the wall surface is separated from the
soil during sliding. This consideration tells the necessary
depth of the wall.
-3-
'.'\
.
Through-Sliding - When the wall is long and weak, the slip-
line may cut through the wall. This consideration tells the
necessary strength of the wall.
Evaluation of the length of slip lines (L l ,L2 ) and
area of rigid bodies (Al ,A2 ) is required for computation of
the rate of energies. All these necessary dimensional pro-
perties are shown in Fig. 3. In order to handle the equations
nondimensionally, the following notations are used.
R,l
Ll
R,2
L2 Al A2 X Y
= H' = H' a l = 2' a 2 = 2' x = L' y =H H H
D Ld R, 0= H' =0 H
FRICTIONAL FORCES ON THE WALL
Frictional forces acting on the surfaces between the
wall and the soil (see Fig. 2) must be evaluated for the com-
putation of friction energy dissipation. Frictional force F
is related to the normal force P with the friction coefficient
~ as F = ~ P. The magnitude of the normal force P can be ob-
tained from the equilibrium equations of the two rigid bodies.
Over-Sliding (Fig. 2-a)
There are eight-unknowns, i.e., Rl , Tl , R2 , T2 , Ro '
TO' F, P, and the eight equations are: four equilibrium
equations, three yield conditions, and one equation of
-4-
\• A
. '
friction. Solving these equations for P,
2P = P yH -qCH (1)
" where
and
1
P = S{Y2alMl-Yla2M2}
Y2 .q = 1; (£o+£lsln81)Ml+£lcos81N l }
Yl .
+1f{(£o+£2s1n82)M2+£2cos82N2}
N1
On-Sliding and Through-Sliding (Fig. 2-b,2-c)
There are eight-unknowns, i.e., Rl , Tl , R2 , T2 , PI' F l ,
P 2 , F2 , and the eight equations are: four equilibrium
equations, two yield conditions, and two equations of fric-
tions. Solving for PI and P 2 ,
where
-5-
(2)
- ~
- '
a l MI Mlsin81+Nlcos8 1
PI = ql = Q, .NI+jJMI I NI +jJMI
a 2 M2 M2sin8 2+N 2cos8 2p = N2-jJM2
q = -Q,2 2 2 N2-jJM2
In the above derivation, weight of the wall is neglected.
COMPATIBILITY OF VELOCITIES
Velocities VI and V2 of rigid bodies I and II make a
friction angle ~ with the slip lines LI and L2 , respectively,
as shown in Fig. 3. The wall is considered to move with
either of the two rigid bodies, mostly with body II. Since
the friction angle between wall and soil is ~ , compatibility
o
of velocities is obtained from the horizontal components of
velocities, that is
V2cos(8 2+¢)-Vlcos(81-¢) = [V2sin(8 2+¢)+Vl sin(81-¢)]tan¢o
(3)
or rearranged
(4)
Denoting the constant value
as the reference velocity, the non-dimensional velocities
(5)
will satisfy Eq. 4 identically.
-6-
RATE OF ENERGrES
Rate of External Work WE
This is a product of the weight and the downward
velocity of the rigid bodies (See Figs. 2 and 3).
(6)
Rate of rnternal Energy Dissipation Dr
Energy dissipation occurs along all the slip lines of
soil, on the friction surface between wall and soil and along
the cut-line of the wall. The rate of energy dissipation Dr
is considered along each line as~
(1) along a slip line of soil
Dr = (cohesion)x(length of slip line)
x(relative tangential velocity)
Dr = CLIVlcos<P
Dr = CL 2V2cos<P
Dr = CLo[Vlsin(81-<p)+v2sin(82+<p)]
on line Ll
on ling L2
on ling L
o
(7 )
(2) on the friction surface between wall and soil
Dr = (frictional force)x(relative tangental velocity)
(8)
(3) along a cut line of wall
D = (yield shear stress)x(length of the cut line)I
x(relative tangental velocity)
-7-
" ....
(9)
where the wall was assumed to be cut in horizontal direction.
STABILITY FUNCTION
Stability function A is defined as A = ~H and it
represents a non-dimensional strength of the resistance of
slope against sliding. By equating the rate of external
work WE to the total rate of internal energy dissipation DI ,
stability function A is obtained in terms of ten parameters:
S, ¢, ~, ¢o' x, d, k, y, 61 ,.6 2 ; where 8,¢ = slope parameters,
~'¢o = mutual parameters, x,d,k = wall parameters, and y,6 1 ,
62 = mechanism parameters.
If A-value of actual slope is less than A , it is
. c
possible for the slope to slide in this specific mechanism.
The maximum value'of"~5tabil±ty':function A must be searched
c
by changing the assumed dimensional parameters. A slope
which has a A-value greater than A can not form any mecha~
c
nism, i.e., the slope is stable. The purpos~ of this paper
is to evaluate this critical value of stability function A
c
•
The derivation of the stability factor follows in each
sliding case.
(1) Free Sliding
(10)
-8-
· , ...~
or Al
= ~H[(~lvl+~2V2)COs¢+~Ovlsin(el-¢)+~Ov2sin(e2+¢)]
C gl
= yH = g2+~og3 (12)
and vI and v 2 are defined in Eqo (5) 0
(2) Over Sliding
The external rate of work is identical to that of
Eqo (10) 0 The total rate of internal dissipation of energy
is obtained by adding the additional dissipation of energy
due to wall friction to the previous calculated dissipation
Eqo (11) 0 Equating the external rate of work to the total
dissipation shows that
where p and q are defined in Eqo (1).
-9-
(13)
(3) On Sliding
The external rate of work is again identical to that
of Eq. 10 but the internal rate of dissipation is modified to
Dr = CLlVlcos¢+CL2V2cos¢
+~Plvlsin(8l-¢)+~P2v2sin(82+¢)
~ C
gl-~g4
= =3 yH g2-~g5
where g4 = Plvlsin(8l-¢)+P2v2sin(82+¢)
g5 = Qlvlsin(8l-¢)+q2v2sin(82+¢)
(14 )
(15)
where PI' ql' and P2' q2 are de fiend in Eq. (2).
(4) Through Sliding
The expressions for external rate of work and inter-
nal rate of dissipathm -a"t'e--i:a:entical to the previous on-
sliding case. The only term must be added to the internal
dissipation of energy is the energy needed to cut-through
the wall, that is
C
yH =
gl-~g4-K96
g2-~g5
(16)
where
-10-
,, .
OPTIMIZATION OF STABILITY FUNCTION
For design p~rposes, the parameters B, ¢, ~, k, and
¢ are considered to be given. Thus the stability function
o
A is a function of the five variables x, d, y, 81 , 82 . Since
the three parameters x, d, and yare to be determined, the
optimization of A must be done with respect to 81 and 82 .
Results are summarized in terms of the stability
function A. Equation (12) determines the necessity of the
structure and its optimum location (Fig. 4). Equations (13) and
(15) provide the depth of the structure (Fig. 5) and Eq. (16)
determines the strength of the structure (Fig. 6). A compu-
ter program has been developed for this purpose, which gives
the maximum or the minimum value of a function of n-variables
in a given region for their variables.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
The optimized stability function (stability factor)
Amax = AC contains four constants (B,~,~,~o) and four varia-
bles (x,y,d,K), thus Ac(B'~'~'~oi x,y,d,K).
Numerical computations were carried out for B = 45°,
f4 = 10 0, and 11 = 0.2. ' For all cases, the friction angle
between the wall and the soil ~o was assumed as: ¢o = 0,
(For on- and through-sliding cases), and ¢ = ¢ (For free-
o
and over-sliding cases) .
-11-
",
Free-Sliding: d = 0, K = 00 (Fig. 4)
x = -0.9 to 0.9, y = 0 to 1.8
On- and Over-Sliging: x = fixed, K = 00 (Fig. 5)
d = 0 to 1.8, y = 0 to 1.8
Through-Sliding: x = fixed, d = 00 (Fig. 6)
K = 0 to 0.18, y = 0 to 1.8
Example: Given
H = 30 ft. B = 45°, Y ~ 100 pcf, ¢ = 10°, C = 180 psf
Thus the stability factor of this slope is
C = 180 =AA =YH (100) (30) 0.06
It is desirable to know if this slope is stable as
it is. This answer is obtained from the Free-Sliding chart
(see Fig. 4). From this chart, it is read that
A free = 0.085
at y = Y/H = 0.6 and x = X/L = 0
Then is is known that
if AA > 0.085 the slope is stable
if AA < 0.085 a wall is required
When AA = 0.085, the only mechanism is possible with x = 0.0,
y = 0.6, 81 = 42.0° and 8~= 12.0°.
-12-
Since our present slope has A = 0.06 (the dottedA
line in Fig. 4) many mechanisms are possible in the range
-0.6 < x < 0.5. Therefore, a wall is certainly needed to re-
tain the slope. Furthermore, it is known that the best (or
the safest) location of the wall is at x = o.
Now the location of the wall has been determined.
The material of the wall must be selected. In our case, let
us use a steel whose properties are
k = 20 ksi = 2.88 x 10 6 lb/ft2
11 = 0.2
The next question is how deep the wall should b~.
This is answered by the On- and Over-Sliding chart (Fig. 5 ) •
Since our slope has AA = 0.06 (the dotted line in Fig. 6),
it is read from the chart that the necessary depth of the
wall is d = 1.2, i.e.,
D = 1.2H = 1.2 x 3e = 36 ft
because there are no deeper slip lines on this level (AA =
0.06) and the shorter ones are prevented by the wall (at
this stage, the wall is assumed to be rigid).
As one can see here, the outermost curve (the
envelope) governs the case in On- and Over-Sliding. This
-13-
mostly happens when d = Y which means the governing mechanism
is one at the boundary between On-Sliding and Over-Sliding.
This state is also obtained from Through-Sliding chart with
K = 0 as is seen later.
The thickness of the wall is determined from the
Through-Sliding chart (Fig. 6). For our slope AA = 0.06
(the dotted line in Fig. 6), it is known that the required
strength of the wall changes along the depth. The maximum
value is
kBmax 0.11K = =max yH 2
at y = Y/H = 0.7
Then the maximum required thickness
K
yH2·B max=
-k-max
0.11 100 30 2= x x
2.88xl0 6
= 0.00343 ft = 0.0412 in.
In the Through-Sliding chart, the outermost curve
is always K = O. It tells that the required thickness at
the bottom of the wall is zero. It is also to be noted that
the curve K = 0 in the Through-Sliding chart (Fig. 6) is
identical to the envelope of the curves in On- and Over-
Sliding chart (Fig. 5).
-14-
, ..,
Now all the information has been obtained that is
necessary to design the retaining wall. In actual designs,
a factor of safety (F.S) must be applied. Since the square
of height (H 2 ) has the linear effect on the wall strength
(K), the depth of the wall should be multiplied by~. and
the thickness by F.S.
In the present design, if one takes F.S. = 2.0,
the design depth .should be D = 36 ft x 12 = 50 ft. and the
design thickness, B = 0.0412 x 2 = 0.0824 in. Then sheet
piles of 1/8 in. thickness or circular tubes 1.66 x 1 1/4"
spaced every 5 ft. suffice this condition.
CONCLUSION
Based on the upper bound theorem of limit analysis,
a closed-form solution was obtained for which the optimum
location, penetration depth, and strength of the structure
can be determined. Equation (12) determines the necessity
of the structure and its optimum location. Equations (13)
and (15) provide the depth of the structure.and Eq. (16) de-
termines the strength of the structure. Typical design
charts based on these equations are given and also numerical
examples.
-15-
NOTATIONS
A. ,a. = area of soil blocks (a. = Ai /H
2 )
J. J. J.
B = thickness of wall
c = cohesion
DI = rate of internal energy dissipation
D,d = depth of wall (d = D/H)
F = frictional force
g.. = parameters determine AJ.
H = height of slope
k = yield shear stress of wall material
L = horizontal length of slope
L. ,.Q,. = length of slip lines (.Q, • = L./H)J. J. J. J.
p = normal force on wall
R. = normal forces on slip linesJ.
T. = tangential force on slip linesJ.
V. ,v. = velocities of soil blocks (v. = V./V )J. J. J. J. 0
WE = rate of external work done
X,x = hOJ;"izontal coordinate (x = X!L)
Y,y = vertical coordinate (y = Y/H)
S = slope angle
y = unit weight of soil
e. = angles of slip linesJ.
K = strength parameter of wall (K = kB/yH 2 )
A = stability function (A = C/yH)
~.
A = stability facfor (ultimized value of A)
c
II = friction coefficient between wall and soil
cr = normal stress
T = shear stress
~ = frictional angle of soil
~o = frictional angle between soil and wall
·f·
REFERENCES
Chen, W. F., Giger, M., and Fang, H. Y. (1969). ON THE
LIMIT ANALYSIS OF STABILITY OF SLOPES, Soils and
Foundations, Vol. IX, No.4, pp. 23-32.
Chen, W. F. and Scawthorn, C. R. (1970). LIMIT ANALYSIS AND
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM SOLUTIONS IN SOIL MECHANICS, Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 10, No.3, pp. 13-49.
Chen, W. F. and Giger, M. (1971). LIMIT ANALYSIS OF STABI-
LITY OF SLOPES, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM1, pp. 19-26.
~rucker, D. C. and Prager, W. (1952). SOIL MECHANICS AND
PLASTIC OR LIMIT DESIGN, Quarterly of Applied Mathema-
tics, Vol. 10, pp. 157-165.
Fang, H. Y. and Hirst, T. J. (1970). APPLICATION OF PLASTI-
CITY THEORY TO SLOPE STABILITY PROBLEMS, Highway Re-
search Record No. 323, pp. 26-38.
-16-
...
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 Farces Acting on Slip-lines
.-t.
. i .
. ,
,
H
@,
y
CD
AI
D
. Fig. 3 Veiocities of Rigid Bodies and Dimensional
Parameters of Mechanism
.")
0.15
-0.05
{3=45°
¢= 10 0
f-L =0.2
D/H =0
bO
s:1
·rl
to
·rl
r-f
(J)
I
Q)
Q)
H
til
..c::
.p
·rl
E=
Ul
Q)
,P.
·0
r-f
OJ
C+-j
o
I>:.
.p
·rl
r-f
·rl
~
.p
OJ
•
bO
·rl
til
,,' ..
bO
l=1
'M
'd
'M
M
0.15 (/)
r--.
X/L = 0 ~Q):>
0
~.
0
0.10 '-" .I
~
0
.q
.p
'M .
~
C/yH 0.05
Q)
Pi
0
M
(/)
l+-i"
0
P':.
0 .p
'M
M
'M .
P
cd
.p
(/)
-0.05 l1\
•
bO
'M
f%4
bD
. ~
.....
qj
0.15 .....r-I
(J)
X/L =0 ..c::bD
::l
0
~ .
.Q
0.10 8
..c::
C/yH
.p
.....
~
AA =0.06 Q)p..
0
0.05 r-I(/)
CH
0
~
.p
.....
r-I
0 ...... ~0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 ·1.50 1.80,
.p
(/)
Y/ H
\.0
-0.05 .bD
.....
!Xl
. ·1


Stability of slopes intercepted by a retaining structure, December 1972

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2982&context=engr-civil-environmental-fritz-lab-reports

Stability of slopes intercepted by a retaining structure, December 1972

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Lehigh University: Lehigh Preserve