Safety factor for slope
Safety factor for slope
(OP)
Guys, what kind standard to be used for the reliable safety factor on slope stability under static and earthquake loading? thanks
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join EngTips Forums!
*EngTips's functionality depends on members receiving email. By joining you are opting in to receive email. Posting GuidelinesJobs 

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.
Here's Why Members Love EngTips Forums:
Register now while it's still free!
Already a member? Close this window and log in.
RE: Safety factor for slope
Mike Lambert
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
I got the information that the acceptable FS of a slope is 1.5 for normal condition.
This will be reduced to 1.3 for the extreme condition where the ground water increased to the ground surface.
While in the earthquake condition the FS is further reduced to 1.1 (?  not sure)
I want to know whether the above values are based on practical or the Standards (British, Australian, NZ, ASTM, etc)
I do measure the actual slope and using the assumed effective parameter based on the tested undrained strength. Thanks for your help.
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
This if there are no variable loads, otherwise it gets higher.
Also, overall FS has another intrinsic safety margin because it's computed using the characteristic values, cautious estimates of the geotechnical parameters of interest, how cautios depending on many factors.
Some states like Italy require a subjective judgment on the FS, according to the uncertaintes as already mentioned by Geopavetraffic. There is no fixed value. Interestingly enough, this goes against the principles of the Eurocodes, which are supposed to govern in Europe.
www.mccoy.it
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
The LRFD approach to Limit State just takes the reciprocal of these numbers as a resistance factor and is not handled very well at the current time.
The tendency is to use conservative soil assumptions with this criteria so it may be more conservative that it appears.
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
In Italy the building codes contemplate 2 different situations:
Artificial or excavated slopes, embankments, engineered works: OFS is the same or similar to that provided by the European standards
Natural slopes: after the application of the characteristic values procedure, the FS is assigned by the professional by the evaluation of site conditions and consequences of risk.
So, actually European codes in Italy are bypassed only in the case of natural slopes.
It is interesting to notice though, that the FS intervals tend to overlap in the range of 1.35  1.5 in various regulations.
As to earthquake conditions, the OFS remains the same but in pseudostatic methods an horizontal component of the load is applied, which tends to lower the FS with respect to the static case. This is compensated by the fact that actions are not factored, but it also depends on the design approach (there are 3 of them and the second has a 4th one which is a subset). Yes, European regulations can be confusing...
If I were in the OP's position and barring the existance of already cited specific instances of liquefaction, rapid drawdowns and so on, I may proceed in two ways:
After an examination of the various international laws, adopt an FS with a lower bound of 1.4 for frictional soils and an upper bound of 1.6 for analysis using undrained cohesion. These boundaries may be adjusted according to the specific site conditions.
Adopt a recognized international code and follow it, if there are no local specifications.
Also a tricky and fundamental choice may be the representative values of phic and Su. It may suffer of substantial reductions with respect to the lab values.
A friend whose case is presently in court, botched his analysis because he adopted peak values in an already failed slope. His stabilization plan was followed but another slide ensued. He should have adopted residual values even though the sliding surface could not be located exactly. In some cases, constant volume values are advised.
www.mccoy.it
RE: Safety factor for slope
So, folks take their Nvalues, do some correlation to friction angle, cohesion, undrained shear strength and simplify geology to rationalize their design assumptions. Often there are no wells, and some shortsighted geologist/field engineer will decree, "looks like perched ground water," so nobody actually takes bouyant unit weights into consideration.
What then truely represents the safety factor? Some calculations from equations, based on YOUR simplifications!
For our DOT, we publish values like 1.3 (non critical slopes) and we publish 1.5 for critical slopes. We define what's critical and what's noncritical. For design of critical slopes (consequence of failure too great, heigh of wall over some value, etc.) we'd require actual laboratory confirmation of soil strength.
Here's what we often get. . . Drained direct shear testing on a fat clay with a time to failure of 8 minutes! I mean, no determination of Mv (T50) or any of the consolidation characteristics that the DDS would require to set the shearing rate. So, sure, base your design on 1.3 or 1.5. What's the input data look like? That's where the real issue resides though.
If we had a real robust lab program, a geologist that actually applied geology, boundary conditons set on real ground water measurements, I'd temper any of these prescriptive safety factors.
I also require folks dismiss long term cohesion and use fullysoftened shear strength for shale fills or stifffissured marine clays. It's a rare case that I'll use cohesion for rotational shear failures. We're looking for a 75 year design life, which is in sharp contrast to many developers more typical 20 year design life.
fd
ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!
RE: Safety factor for slope
I understand the analyse either in frictional soils and undrained cohesion for engineered slopes or natural slopes.
I agree that is a tricky and fundamental choice to adopt the right phic and Su parameters
Some papers mentioned the failed slope should be treated using the parameters from Direct Simple Shear Test
Please elaborate, what the meaning of the OFS?
@fattdad, thanks for your valuable explanation.
I understand either for critical or noncritical slopes.
Actually it is a bit odd if we have to get the actual laboratory strengths, which ones? there are 3 conditions in slope failure such as: compression, shear and extension.
Most of the clients won't pay for the laboratory cost. At the end we only take the correlation strength parameter.
What the meaning of DOT? One more question is regarding design life, it is for earthquake design?
RE: Safety factor for slope
The actual minimum FS in the Eurocodes is actually = 1 after you have applied all the previous factors.
The OFS does not consider the reduction of the soil strenght due to the adoption of the characteristic values, which gives a further margin of safety.
In Italy, if the landslide is not a big one and there are budget concerns, we usually have a few lab tests performed on a single parameter like direct shear (peak values) or residual shear (residual or fully softened values). Determination of Su is trickier as Fattdad told.
I can add further, confirming what Fattdad says, dismissing the cohesion value in slope stability analyses is pretty frequent in designs performed in Italy as well. This is an intuitive adoption of safety margin used by the old school of geotechs.
www.mccoy.it
RE: Safety factor for slope
I don't do much earthquake design work  I've studied it, but in Virginia (USA) we rarely see earthquakes that damage earthworks. So, I was talking about design life from the, "loss of cohesion" or "fullysoftened shear strength" perspective.
If you, "actually have to get shear strengths" you'd want to consider the stress path for your failure mode and decide whether to use triaxial compression, triaxial extension, drained direct shear, UU or other such approach (i.e., CPTu, DMT, etc.). No way I can address what's correct for some generic project. Also, please recognize in the United States (i.e., via ASTM) the selection of C and Phi is not returned from the laboratory. Such engineering interpretation of strength data is not an obligation of the testing laboratory. It's considered a professional service.
I will not encourage Nvalue correlations for the assignation of shear strength! I know it's done, but. . .
fd
ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!
RE: Safety factor for slope
fattdad, I am still eager to know how to analyse using a design life. Please inform me the papers or example for this. Thanks
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
and for walls with soldiers and anchors between 1.2  1.3, but it should be considered FHWA is normally for highways so if your going to have a deep excavation near an existing structure such as a building, it is better to use a higher FOS. normally 1.5 would be logical
RE: Safety factor for slope
RE: Safety factor for slope
1.0 seismic
1.5 static
RE: Safety factor for slope