Example of A Landslide Stabilization

Dr.
Daniel Pradel, PE GE
Principal Engineer at Group Delta Consultants,
Inc.
www.groupdelta.com
and Adjunct Associate Professor at UCLA
www.cee.ucla.edu
1
Example of a landslide stabilization
Example: Estrondo Landslide

Stabilization in Encino, CA
Slope after the repair

was completed 3
Background
Slope is a 1 :1 fill slope graded ~1960 with a
maximum height of ~110-feet that filled the end
of a canyon
The slope had failed several times before 1998
and the lower 75-feet of the slope failed during
the 1998 El Nio rains
Between 1998 and 2002 a total of 16 borings
were drilled (including small, large & slope
inclinometers)
4
Approximate limits of 1998 failure
Repair elements
2
5
1
groundwater
pressure
contours
5
3
1) Protection wall at toe of slope
2) Construction of
the mid-slope
caissons & wall
8
Slope inclinometer
3) Installation of
tiebacks (temp. in
City of LA)
10
4) Drainage
curtain / gallery
Caissons holes filled
with gravel (with
intercepting bells)
11
5) Excavation & wall construction
12
6) Second
row of
tiebacks
13
2005 rains!!!
14
Slope
inclinometer
15
Slope after the repair

was completed
16
17
1st Option:
designs
based on
Active
pressures
Example 1:
wall in Culver City, CA
18
March 24, 1995
Example 2:
wall at toe of 1995
La Conchita
landslide
19
Wall in 2004
20
10
Wall after 2005 failure
21
1998
design
22
11
2nd Option: Unbalanced Force method
FFOS=1.5
Often required by reviewing agencies in CA

23
What does a FOS=1.5 mean for design?

24
12
For exclusively soil failure mechanisms we

know very well what it means
25
Unbalanced
Force
Method
FFOS=1.5
Questions: Can we easily get FFOS=1.5?

Do all members of the design team understand how
to use it similarly?
Let us look at the most analogous case:
Sliding design for retaining walls
26
13
Traditional retaining wall analysis

for stability against sliding:
In school we are taught to calculate earth pressures
based on Rankine and Coulomb theories
Important:
in this step
soil strength
is not
factored,
i.e., FOS=1
27
Traditional retaining wall analysis

for stability against sliding:
We calculate earth
pressures based on
Rankine and Coulomb
theories
Using force equilibrium we
calculate forces acting
along base
We calculate FOS = Resisting
Driving
and verify that it
meets the design criteria
and codes (1.5 , 2.0 , ).
Otherwise
28
14
Similarly, let us explore how the force

FFOS=1.5 is used by the design team?
FFOS=1.5
29
Some design
approaches I have
seen used, in the
structural design of
shear pins:
FFOS=1.5
The Structural Engineer takes the FFOS=1.5 and
does a conventional design using this

geotechnical load (similar to the design of a
conventional retaining wall)
The FFOS=1.5 load is divided by FOS=1.5 and
this reduced load is used in a conventional
structural design
The FFOS=1.5 load is considered as having
certain structural load factors included (similar
to ACI design)
Duplication
of FOS?
Yes
?
30
15
Another question we may ask:

Is FOS = 1.5 appropriate for
landslide stabilizations?
31
Typical Geotechnical Uncertainties

Uncertainties
Shear strength
Geotechnical profile
Pore water / seepage
Densities
Weights and loads
from structure
Comparison New Slope

vs. a Landslide Repair
Much less uncertainty
Much less
Typically less
Similar?
Same?
Assumes static conditions only, access to construction records and a thorough investigation!
32
16
In summary:
The unbalanced force method is different from
conventional retaining structures design by nature of

the FOS included in the calculation of the lateral load
Application of the method can lead to duplication of
FOS, uneconomical designs, and/or very different
designs by different consultants
Experience suggests that slopes properly designed
using the unbalanced force approach generally
perform very well
IMO, clear guidelines on use of unbalanced force are
needed for Structural design
33
34
17
3.1 De Beer / NAVFAC method
35
36
18
3.2 Active/Passive wedge method

Pa
R1
R2
Practical questions:
Should it be used with residual or back-calculated strength?
Should the active load be calculated with FOS=1.0 like in
earth pressure theory or 1.5 like in slope stability?
37
3.3 The strong slice method

Strength of
slice is
increased until
desired FOS is
achieved
Pile load is
taken as the
base shear or
derived from
the inter-slice
forces
38
19
39
40
20
3.4 Base shear Force method
Resisting
Driving
OMS:
< FOSmin
41
OMS modification:
Fpile
OMS:
Note: method
requires an angle
correction for
structural design
+ Fpile
> FOSmin
42
21
FOSmin = 1.5
For FOS=1.5:
Need: 1.5 x 80977 lbs/ft
We have:
101609 lbs/ft
Extra needed: 80591 lbs/ft
43
This method has been

implemented in computer codes,
e.g., in Slide from Rockscience
and can be used with other
methods, e.g., Spencer
44
22
45
3.5 Application of a Force to

achieve Moment Equilibrium
Since a shear pin
creates a stabilizing
force, the resisting
moment created
can be easily
incorporated
mathematically into:
Method of
moments
Bishops
simplified method
46
23
Necessary equations
can be found in
numerous books and
manuals
47
Example of
implementation
in computer
programs:
y only
specified
48
24
x and y
specified
49
Question: what is the elevation of the

unbalanced force? (important for moments)
Pa
Method 2 (active wedge): Coulomb => typ. H/3

50
25

Method 3 (strong slice): generally at or near the base

(depends on method)
51
Thrust line from

Spencer
52
26

Method 4 (Force method): Unknown or near the

basal surface
53
Using Spencers Method
Thrust line
54
27

Method 5 (Moment method): Imposed by user

55
56
28
Goal: to find a pressure distribution

that is compatible with p-y method
57
58
29
Poulos
59
Flow mode
Short pile mode
Poulos ERCAP
Intermediate mode
60
30
Comments
Pile spacing, diameter, rigidity and length are
needed as input!
Numerous methods have been published
All methods provide structural demands
(shear force and bending moments) but a few
also incorporate/provide FOS for the
improved slope
Complex methods that often require use of
proprietary programs!
61
3.7 Numerical methods FEM and FDM:

a) Strength Reduction Method
(Griffiths and Lane, 1999)
All strengths are

divided by R , a
strength
reduction factor
R is increased in run after
run until failure occurs or
we have num. instability
f = cd + .tand
62
31
Slope
analyzed by
Strength
Reduction
Method
FOS=1.13
30 deg.
H=13.7m
Soil:
c = 23.94 kPa
= 10 deg.
= 19.63 kN/m3
E=50 Mpa
=0.25
D=3.0m
Bedrock:
c = 23.94 kPa
= 40 deg.
= 19.63 kN/m3
E=50 Mpa
=0.25
shear pin
500 psf
soil
10
bedrock =
=
K
=
G
=
E
=
=
125 pcf
3.3E+07 Pa
2.0E+07 Pa
5.0E+07 Pa
0.25
2.0E+11 Pa
Epile
40
63
60
64
32
max: Maximum Slope Displacement (m)
S/L=0.44
L=23.73m
4
S=10.45m
0
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
R: Reduction Factor
65
Slope stabilization using piles

at mid-slope (Mp=1MN.m/m)
Video 5
Shown:
- shear strains
- bending moment
- displacements
66
33
Slope stabilization after piles have

been moved downslope
(Mp=1MN.m/m)
Shown:
- shear strains
- bending moment
- displacements
Video 6
67
Mmax:Maximum Bending Moment (kN.m/m)
When M < Mp a maximum/reasonable

design load is obtained
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
L=23.73m
S/L=0.44
2500
S=10.45m
2000
1500
1000
Elastic pile
500
0
0
0.5
1.5
max: Maximum slope displacement (m)
2
68
34
Critical failure mode is clear
Soil
Bedrock
69
70
35
71
72
36
73
Numerical Modeling
Advantages & disadvantages
No hypothesis of the critical failure mode is
needed
Great graphics => critical failure mode is obvious
Convergence problems can be problematic!
Available software for method of characteristics
provides adequacy factors and not Factors of
Safety (Eurocode 7)
Sophisticated reviewer needed
74
37
75
What is the critical

failure mechanism?
76
38
Method of characteristics
77
FLAC (SRM)
Video 7
Shown:
- shear strains
- bending moment
- tieback tension
78
39
Critical mode of failure (3 blocks)

and location of plastic hinges
79
Fish functions & design optimization

2
FLAC: Elastic Pile, = 0
1.9
FLAC: Elastic Pile, =
FOS: Factor of Safety
1.8
FLAC: Plastic Pile, = 0
1.7
FLAC: Plastic Pile, =
1.6
Bishop: Elastic Pile, = 0
Optimum for
plastic pile
1.5
1.4
1.3
L
1.2
S
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
S/L: Horizontal Distance Ratio
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
80
40
81
L
S
800
Unbalanced Force (kN/m)
700
600
500
400
300
Moment method (XSTABL & Bishop)
200
Force method (SLIDE & Bishop+Spencer)
100
FLAC (Shear force) Structural shear force
(for comparison only)
0
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
s/L
82
41
Moments
Additionally in
some
analyses we
forced a
triangular
distribution
For Bending Moments

springs were
incorporated (p-y)
83
L
S
Maximum Bending Moment (kN.m/m)
4500
4000
Moment Method
(XSTABL + Bishop +
triangular distribution)
3500
3000
Force method (Slide +

Spencer + concentrated
load)
2500
2000
Force method (Slide +

Spencer + triangular
distribution)
1500
1000
FLAC (Elastic pile)
500
0
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
s/L
84
42
Results of Limited Comparison

Maximum difference in Unbalanced Forces ~10%
Maximum difference in Bending moments ~20%
(with forced triangular distribution)
Generally good
agreement between FLAC
and conventional Force
and Moment methods
when adopting a
reasonable triangular
distribution and p-y
method used
85
86
43
SRM for slope stabilization

Numerical Modeling in combination with the
Strength Reduction Method is a powerful and
versatile tool to design complex slope
stabilizations
In provides not only FOS that are meaningful to
the Geotechnical Engineer but can incorporate
plastic moments, tieback tensile loads, etc.
Hence, it can eliminate the problem of duplication
of FOS (geotechnical + structural)
87
The main advantages of using Numerical

Modeling vs. Limit Equilibrium are:
No failure hypothesis (or guess) is necessary with SRM
Critical failure mechanism is generally evident and even
complex failure mechanisms become apparent

Numerous runs can be automatically performed for
sensitivity analyses (e.g., with varying pile location, plastic
moment Mp or a tieback force Tmax, soil properties)
Models can be used during construction for deterministic
analyses, if instrumentation is available. Additionally,
benchmarks can be established in advance.
When used in addition to Limit Equilibrium it leads to less
uncertainty in the analysis, i.e., higher confidence.
88
44
89
45

Example of A Landslide Stabilization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example of A Landslide Stabilization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Example of A Landslide Stabilization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr.

Example of a landslide stabilization

Example: Estrondo Landslide

Slope after the repair

Approximate limits of 1998 failure

1) Protection wall at toe of slope

5) Excavation & wall construction

Slope after the repair

March 24, 1995

Wall after 2005 failure

2nd Option: Unbalanced Force method

Often required by reviewing agencies in CA

What does a FOS=1.5 mean for design?

For exclusively soil failure mechanisms we

Questions: Can we easily get FFOS=1.5?

Traditional retaining wall analysis

based on Rankine and Coulomb theories

Traditional retaining wall analysis

Similarly, let us explore how the force

The Structural Engineer takes the FFOS=1.5 and

does a conventional design using this

Another question we may ask:

Typical Geotechnical Uncertainties

Comparison New Slope

conventional retaining structures design by nature of

3.1 De Beer / NAVFAC method

3.2 Active/Passive wedge method

3.3 The strong slice method

3.4 Base shear Force method

This method has been

3.5 Application of a Force to

Question: what is the elevation of the

Method 2 (active wedge): Coulomb => typ. H/3

Question: what is the elevation of the

Method 3 (strong slice): generally at or near the base

Thrust line from

Question: what is the elevation of the

Method 4 (Force method): Unknown or near the

Using Spencers Method

Question: what is the elevation of the

Method 5 (Moment method): Imposed by user

Goal: to find a pressure distribution

3.7 Numerical methods FEM and FDM:

All strengths are

max: Maximum Slope Displacement (m)

Slope stabilization using piles

Slope stabilization after piles have

Mmax:Maximum Bending Moment (kN.m/m)

When M < Mp a maximum/reasonable

max: Maximum slope displacement (m)

Critical failure mode is clear

What is the critical

Critical mode of failure (3 blocks)

Fish functions & design optimization

FLAC: Elastic Pile, =

FOS: Factor of Safety

FLAC: Plastic Pile, = 0

FLAC: Plastic Pile, =