Development of empirical correlations for limit equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis

被引:8
|
作者
Moawwez M.A. [1 ,2 ]
Wang J.-P. [1 ,2 ]
Hussain M.A. [3 ]
机构
[1] School of Civil Engineering, Shandong University, Jingshi Road 17922, Jinan
[2] School of Civil Engineering, Shandong University, Jingshi Road 17922, Jinan
[3] College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Rd, Hangzhou
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Cohesion; Factor of safety; Internal friction angle; Regression analysis; Slope-W; Unit weight;
D O I
10.1007/s12517-021-08375-7
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Determining the safety factor by limit equilibrium methods is based on different assumed slip surfaces and equilibrium equations for forces and moments to be satisfied. The safety factor can be predicted using empirical correlations instead of going through lengthy calculations. In this paper, empirical equations between the factor of safety (FS), unit weight (γ), cohesion (c), internal friction angle (φ), slope angle (α), and height of the slope (H) have been proposed for Spencer’s, Morgenstern-Price, Janbu’s simplified, Bishop’s simplified, and Lowe-Karafiath methods. Data of 50 slopes having homogeneous soil strata with non-identical shearing strength parameters, containing different geometries and the water table below the base of the slope, have been selected to determine FS using Slope-W and for the development of correlations using SPSS software. Unit weight, cohesion, friction angle, slope angle, and height of the slope vary from 11.5 to 21 (kN/m3), 0 to 137 (kPa), 0 to 39 (°), 11 to 78 (°), and 3.5 to 22 (m), respectively. Multiple regression analyses were performed on Slope-W outcomes, and equations for the prediction of FS were formulated. Validation of the proposed FS equations was done both internally and externally as well. The validation graphs are drawn between Slope-W FS versus developed equations for FS of each method. The correlations are helpful for the calculation of FS to have a quick prediction of failure of a slope, and ultimately preventive measures can be taken. The regression constant (R2) values for Spencer’s, Morgenstern-Price, Janbu’s simplified, Bishop’s simplified, and Lowe-Karafiath methods are 0.940, 0.940, 0.922, 0.932, and 0.935, respectively. © 2021, Saudi Society for Geosciences.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Numerical limit equilibrium methods in slope stability analysis
    Fakhimi, AA
    Salehi, D
    IRANIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2000, 24 (01): : 49 - 61
  • [2] Slope stability analysis with FLAC and limit equilibrium methods
    Cala, M
    Flisiak, J
    FLAC AND NUMERICAL MODELING IN GEOMECHANICS, 2001, : 111 - 114
  • [3] Numerical limit equilibrium methods in slope stability analysis
    Fakhimi, A.A.
    Salehi, D.
    Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, 2000, 24 (01): : 49 - 61
  • [4] Generalised framework of limit equilibrium methods for slope stability analysis
    Zhu, DY
    Lee, CF
    Jiang, HD
    GEOTECHNIQUE, 2003, 53 (04): : 377 - 395
  • [5] Review of Limit Equilibrium Methods for Stability Analysis of Dump Slope
    Geete, Sumit S.
    Singh, Hemant K.
    Tiwari, Manoj S.
    Rajurkar, Vaishali J.
    HELIX, 2020, 10 (01): : 89 - 97
  • [6] Development of limit equilibrium method as optimization in slope stability analysis
    Mendjel, D.
    Messast, S.
    STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICS, 2012, 41 (03) : 339 - 348
  • [7] Analysis of embankment slope stability: the comparison of finite element limit analysis with limit equilibrium methods
    Yingchaloenkitkhajorn, Kongkit
    2ND CONFERENCE FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING RESEARCH NETWORKS (CONCERN-2 2018), 2019, 270
  • [8] Limit analysis versus limit equilibrium for slope stability
    Yu, HS
    Salgado, R
    Sloan, SW
    Kim, JM
    JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 1998, 124 (01) : 1 - 11
  • [9] A LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
    CORREIA, RM
    LANDSLIDES, VOLS 1-3, 1988, : 595 - 598
  • [10] Limit analysis versus limit equilibrium for slope stability - Discussion
    Leshchinsky, D
    JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 1999, 125 (10) : 914 - 915