DOCSLIB.ORG

Shear Strength of Clay and Silt Embankments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shear Strength of Clay and Silt Embankments Shear Strength of Clay and Silt Embankments Teruhisa Masada, Ph.D. ORITE, Ohio University for the Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Research and Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration State Job Number 134319 (0) September 2009 Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment (ORITE) 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/OH-2009/7 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Shear Strength of Clay and Silt Embankments September 2009 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Dr. Teruhisa Masada 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment 11. Contract or Grant No. 141 Stocker Center 134319 Ohio University Athens OH 45701-2979 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Ohio Department of Transportation 13. Type of Report and Period 1980 West Broad St. Covered Columbus OH 43223 Technical Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract Highway embankment is one of the most common large-scale geotechnical facilities constructed in Ohio. In the past, the design of these embankments was largely based on soil shear strength properties that had been estimated from previously published empirical correlations and/or crude soil test results. This is because either the actual soil fill material is not available for testing at the time of embankment design or detailed shear strength determination of soil samples in the laboratory tends to be time-consuming and expensive. Structural stability of these embankments is vital to the state economy and public safety. There is a strong need to conduct a study to examine whether the empirical correlations are truly applicable to Ohio soils and to develop comprehensive geotechnical guidelines concerning the shear strength properties of cohesive soils typically used in Ohio. In this study, soil samples from nine highway embankment sites scattered across Ohio were tested both in the field and laboratory to establish comprehensive geotechnical properties of cohesive soil fills, which represent a wide range of geological features existing in the state. The large volume of soil data produced in the study was then analyzed to evaluate reliability of the empirical correlations and derive statistically strong correlations for shear strength properties of cohesive soil fill materials found in Ohio. Based on the outcome of these analyses, multi-level guidelines are proposed by the author for estimating shear strength properties of Ohio cohesive soils more confidently. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement shear strength, embankment, highway, soils, cohesive, No Restrictions. This document is available to slope stability, trixial test, statistical analysis, geotechnical the public through the National Technical guidelines Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified page) 300+ Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized Shear Strength of Clay and Silt Embankments Final Report Prepared in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration by Teruhisa Masada, Ph.D. (Professor of Civil Engineering) Leading Research Agency: Ohio Research Institute for Transportation and the Environment Russ College of Engineering and Technology Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701-2979 and Sub-Contractor: BBC & M Engineering Inc. 6190 Enterprise Ct. Dublin, Ohio 43016-7297 Disclaimer Statement: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. September 2009 Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) technical liaison, Gene Geiger and Steve Sommers (both from the Office of Geotechnical Engineering) as well as the ODOT Director of R & D Office Monique Evans. The author is also grateful to his graduate research assistants Jeffrey Holko and Xiao Han, who spent long hours performing triaxial compression tests and statistical data analysis. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………..……... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………..……... ii LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………….………… vi LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………..…..…. xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION …………………………………….……… 1 1.1 Background ………………………………………………….………… 1 1.2 Objectives of Study ………………………………………….………… 2 1.3 Outlines of Report ………………………………………….………… 3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………….………... 6 2.1 General …………………………………………………………… 6 2.1.1 Shear Strength of Soil …………………………………………… 6 2.1.2 Pore Water Pressure in Soil …………………………………… 7 2.1.3 Consolidation …………………………………………………… 9 2.1.4 Stability of Highway Embankments …………………………… 10 2.1.5 Soil Classification …………………………………………… 11 2.2 Review of Literature in Ohio …………………………………………… 13 2.2.1 Glaciers …………………………………………………… 13 2.2.2 Soil and Bedrock …………………………………………… 13 2.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) …………………………………… 15 2.3.1 SPT General …………………………………………………… 15 2.3.2 SPT Equipment …………………………………………… 15 2.3.3 SPT Procedure …………………………………………… 17 2.3.4 SPT Energy Corrections …………………………………… 18 2.3.5 Normalization of SPT-N Values …………………………… 19 2.3.6 Static Forces and Stresses in SPT …………………………… 20 2.4 Empirical SPT Correlations …………………………………………… 24 2.5 Triaxial Compression Test …………………………………………… 27 2.5.1 Test Set-up and Equipment …………………………………… 27 2.5.2 Back Pressure Saturation …………………………………… 27 2.5.3 Consolidated-Drained (C-D) Test …………………………… 28 2.5.4 Consolidated-Undrained (C-U) Test …………………………… 28 2.5.5 Unconsolidated-Undrained (U-U) Test …………………… 31 2.6 Unconfined Compression (UC) Test …………………………………… 31 2.7 Additional Information on Soil Shear Strength …………………… 32 2.8 Statistical Analysis of Geotechnical Data …………………………… 33 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY …………………………... 35 3.1 General …………………………………………………………… 35 3.2 Site Selection Criteria …………………………………………………… 35 3.3 Subsurface Exploration Protocol …………………………………… 38 ii 3.3.1 SPT Hammer Calibration ………………………………..….. 38 3.3.2 SPT Protocol and Soil Sampling ………………………..….. 39 3.4 Laboratory Soil Testing Protocol ………………………………..….. 42 3.4.1 Soil Index Property Testing ………………………………..….. 43 3.4.2 Unconfined Compression Strength Test ………………..….. 44 3.4.3 C-U Triaxial Compression Test ………………………..….. 45 3.4.3.1 C-U Triaxial Test Equipment ………………………..….. 46 3.4.3.2 C-U Triaxial Test Procedure ………………………..….. 48 3.5 Statistical Analysis Protocol ………………………………………..….. 52 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DATA AND RESULTS ………….……..…. 56 4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………..….. 56 4.2 Embankment Sites Selected ………………………………………..….. 57 4.3 Subsurface Exploration Work ………………………………………..….. 58 4.3.1 Calibration Test Result for SPT Automatic Hammer ………..….. 58 4.3.2 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-275 Site in Hamilton County ………………………………………………….... 58 4.3.3 Subsurface Exploration Data for USR-35 Site in Fayette County ………………………………………………….... 62 4.3.4 Subsurface Exploration Data for SR-2 Site in Lake County ….... 65 4.3.5 Subsurface Exploration Data for USR-33 Site in Athens County ………………………………………………..….. 67 4.3.6 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-71 Site in Morrow County ………………………………………………..….. 69 4.3.7 Subsurface Exploration Data for SR-2 Site in Erie County ….... 72 4.3.8 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-75 Site in Hancock County ………………………………………………….... 73 4.3.9 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-70 Site in Muskingum County ………………………………………………….... 75 4.3.10 Subsurface Exploration Data for I-77 Site in Noble County ….... 77 4.4 Laboratory Index Properties and Sieve Analysis ………………..….. 79 4.4.1 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 1 (Hamilton County) ….... 80 4.4.2 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 2 (Fayette County) ….... 80 4.4.3 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 3 (Lake County) ………..….. 81 4.4.4 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 4 (Athens County) ….... 82 4.4.5 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 5 (Morrow County) ….... 83 4.4.6 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 6 (Erie County) ………….... 84 4.4.7 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 7 (Hancock County) ….... 84 4.4.8 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 8 (Muskingum County) ….... 85 4.4.9 Soil Index Properties for Site No. 9 (Noble County) ………..….. 86 4.5 Soil Shear Strength Properties ………………………………..….. 86 4.5.1 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 1 (Hamilton County) ….... 87 4.4.2 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 2 (Fayette County) ….... 88 4.4.3 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 3 (Lake County) ….... 89 4.4.4 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 4 (Athens County) ….... 91 4.4.5 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 5 (Morrow County) ….... 92 iii 4.4.6 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 6 (Erie County) ….... 94 4.4.7 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 7 (Hancock County) ….... 95 4.4.8 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 8 (Muskingum County) ………………………………………………..….. 96 4.4.9 Shear Strength Properties for Site No. 9 (Noble County) ….... 98
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1411 9 Predicting Earthquake-Induced Landslide Displacements Using Newmark's Sliding Block Analysis RANDALL W. }IBSON A principal cause of earthquake damage is landsliding, and the peak ground accelerations (PGA) below which no slope dis­ ability to predict earthquake-triggered landslide displacements is placement will occur. In cases where the PGA does exceed important for many types of seismic-hazard analysis and for the the yield acceleration, pseudostatic analysis has proved to be design of engineered slopes. Newmark's method for modeling a landslide as a rigid-plastic block sliding on an inclined plane pro­ vastly overconservative because many slopes experience tran­ vides a workable means of predicting approximate landslide dis­ sient earthquake accelerations well above their yield accel­ placements; this method yields much more useful information erations but experience little or no permanent displacement than pseudostatic analysis and is far more practical than finite­ (2). The utility of pseudostatic analysis is thus limited because element modeling. Applying Newmark's method requires know­ it provides only a single numerical threshold below which no ing the yield or critical acceleration of the landslide (above which displacement is predicted and above which total, but unde­ permanent displacement occurs), which can be determined from the static factor of safety and from the landslide geometry. Earth­ fined, "failure" is predicted. In fact, pseudostatic analysis tells quake acceleration-time histories can be selected to represent the the user nothing about what will occur when the yield accel­ shaking conditions of interest, and those parts of the record that eration is exceeded. lie above the critical acceleration are double integrated to deter­ At the other end of the spectrum, advances in two-dimensional mine the permanent landslide displacement.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Maximum Road Friction Coefficient and Optimal Slip Ratio Based on Road Type Recognition
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·1018· Vol. 27,aNo. 5,a2014 DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2014.0725.128, available online at www.springerlink.com; www.cjmenet.com; www.cjmenet.com.cn Identification of Maximum Road Friction Coefficient and Optimal Slip Ratio Based on Road Type Recognition GUAN Hsin, WANG Bo, LU Pingping*, and XU Liang State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control, Jilin University, Changchun 130022, China Received November 21, 2013; revised June 9, 2014; accepted July 25, 2014 Abstract: The identification of maximum road friction coefficient and optimal slip ratio is crucial to vehicle dynamics and control. However, it is always not easy to identify the maximum road friction coefficient with high robustness and good adaptability to various vehicle operating conditions. The existing investigations on robust identification of maximum road friction coefficient are unsatisfactory. In this paper, an identification approach based on road type recognition is proposed for the robust identification of maximum road friction coefficient and optimal slip ratio. The instantaneous road friction coefficient is estimated through the recursive least square with a forgetting factor method based on the single wheel model, and the estimated road friction coefficient and slip ratio are grouped in a set of samples in a small time interval before the current time, which are updated with time progressing. The current road type is recognized by comparing the samples of the estimated road friction coefficient with the standard road friction coefficient of each typical road, and the minimum statistical error is used as the recognition principle to improve identification robustness. Once the road type is recognized, the maximum road friction coefficient and optimal slip ratio are determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Classification the Geotechnical Engineer Predicts the Behavior Of
    CE 340, Fall 2015 Soil Classification 1 / 7 The geotechnical engineer predicts the behavior of soils for his or her clients (structural engineers, architects, contractors, etc). A first step is to classify the soil. Soil is typically classified according to its distribution of grain sizes, its plasticity, and its relative density or stiffness. Classification by Distribution of Grain Sizes. While an experienced geotechnical engineer can visually examine a soil sample and estimate its grain size distribution, a more accurate determination can be made by performing a sieve analysis. Sieve Analyis. In a sieve analysis, the dried soil sample is placed in the top of a stacked set of sieves. The sieve with the largest opening is placed on top, and sieves with successively smaller openings are placed below. The sieve number indicates the number of openings per linear inch (e.g. a #4 sieve has 4 openings per linear inch). The results of a sieve analysis can be used to help classify a soil. Soils can be divided into two broad classes: coarse‐grained soils and fine‐grained soils. Coarse‐grained soils have particles with a diameter larger than 0.075 mm (the mesh size of a #200 sieve). Fine‐grained soils have particles smaller than 0.075 mm. The four basic grain sizes are indicated in Figure 1 below: Gravel, Sand, Silt and Clay. Sieve Opening, mm Opening, in Soil Type Cobbles 76.2 mm 3 in Gravel #4 4.75 mm ~0.2 in [# 10 for AASHTO) (2.0 mm) (~0.08 in) Coarse Sand #10 2.0 mm ~0.08 in Grained Medium Sand #40 0.425 mm ~0.017 in Coarse Fine Sand #200 0.075 mm ~0.003 in Silt 0.002 mm to Grained 0.005 mm Fine Clay Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Shear Tests Used in Soil-Geomembrane Interface Friction Studies
    DIRECT SHEAR TESTS USED IN SOIL-GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE FRICTION STUDIES August 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation Denver Off ice Research and Laboratory Services Division Materials Engineering Branch 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamat~on ..........................................................................................TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE I I. REPORT NO. ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................. I 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 1 5. REPORT DATE August 1994 Direct Shear Tests Used in 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Soil-Geomembrane Interface Friction Studies 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Richard A. Young REPORT NO. R-94-09 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS lo. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office Denver CO 80225 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 1 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado 16. ABSTRACT The Bureau of Reclamation Canal Lining Systems Program funded a series of direct shear tests on interfaces between a typical cover soil and different geomembrane liner materials. The purposes of the testing program were to determine the shear strength parameters at the soil-geomembrane interface and to examine the precision of the direct shear test. This report presents the results of the testing program. 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS a. DESCRIPTORS-- water conservation1 geosyntheticsl canal lining/ b. IDENTIFIERS- c. COSA TI Field/Group CO WRR: SRIM: 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGES (THIS REPORT) 59 Available from the National Technical Information Service, Operations Division UNCLASSIFIED 20. SECURITY CLASS 22. PRICE 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (THIS PAGn UNCLASSIFIED DIRECT SHEAR TESTS USED IN SOIL-GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE FRICTION STUDIES by Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Sand Sieve Analysis Instructions
    Field Sand Sieve Analysis Preparation To be able carry out a sieve analysis, the following materials are needed: • 3-cycle logarithm paper – an example is annexed to this document; • Set of sieves for sand analysis. A plastic set is available from www.geosupplies.co.uk . This set does not have larger mesh sizes, but is useful for field trips due to their weight; • Electronic scales with the ability to weigh 200 grams accurately to within 0.1 gram; • At least 200 grams of very dry sand. Instructions 1. Stack the sieves with the coarsest at the top and the finest at the bottom. 2. Place a small container on the scales that will receive the sand (e.g. cut off the bottom of a plastic water bottle), and then zero the scales. 3. Mix the sand and then measure out approximately 200 grams into the top sieve. 4. Put the lid on and shake the sieve column. Theoretically you should shake for 10 minutes, but several minutes should suffice. 5. Weigh the sand retained by each sieve to the nearest 0.1 gram. This is done in a cumulative way – this means that you add what is remaining on the coarsest sieve on top to the container on the scales, and measure the weight. Following this, you add the material from the second sieve down, and again note the combined weight of both samples. Continue in this way for the whole set. When finished, check that the final weight corresponds to the initial weight of the sample. 6. Clean each sieve as it is emptied and return the sand to the stock.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of in Situ Granular Materials
    134 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1227 Rapid Shear Strength Evaluation of In Situ Granular Materials MICHAEL E. AYERS, MARSHALL R. THOMPSON, AND DONALD R. UzARSKI Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) and rapid-loading (1.5 in./ The DCP does not have these limitations. It can be used sec) triaxial shear strength tests were conducted on six granular for a wide range of particle sizes and material strengths and materials compacted at three density levels. The granular mate­ can characterize strength with depth. rials were sand, dense-graded sandy gravel, AREA No. 4 crushed The DCP, as used in this study, consists of a 17 .6-lb sliding dolomitic ballast, and material No. 3 with 7 .5, 15, and 22.5 percent weight, a fixed-travel (22.6 in.) weight shaft, a calibrated F A-20 material. (F A-20 is a nonplastic crushed-dolomitic fines stainless steel penetration shaft, and replaceable drive cone material-96 percent minus No. 4 sieve : 2 percent minus No. 200 sieve.) DCP and triaxial shear strength data (including stress­ tips (Figure 1). Test results are expressed in terms of the strain plots) are presented and analyzed. The major factors affect­ penetration rate (PR), which is defined as the vertical move- ing DCP and shear strength are considered. DCP-shear strength correlations are established and algorithms for estimating in situ shear strength from DCP data are presented. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study in which the shear strength of Handle granular materials has been related to DCP test data. Such rela­ tions have significant potential applications in evaluating existing Hammer (8 kg) ( 17.6 lb) transportation support systems (railroad track structures, airfield and highway pavements, and similar types of horizontal construc­ tion) in a rapid manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Undergraduate Research on Conceptual Design of a Wind Tunnel for Instructional Purposes
    AC 2012-3461: UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH ON CONCEPTUAL DE- SIGN OF A WIND TUNNEL FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES Peter John Arslanian, NASA/Computer Sciences Corporation Peter John Arslanian currently holds an engineering position at Computer Sciences Corporation. He works as a Ground Safety Engineer supporting Sounding Rocket and ANTARES launch vehicles at NASA, Wallops Island, Va. He also acts as an Electrical Engineer supporting testing and validation for NASA’s Low Density Supersonic Decelerator vehicle. Arslanian has received an Undergraduate Degree with Honors in Engineering with an Aerospace Specialization from the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore (UMES) in May 2011. Prior to receiving his undergraduate degree, he worked as an Action Sport Design Engineer for Hydroglas Composites in San Clemente, Calif., from 1994 to 2006, designing personnel watercraft hulls. Arslanian served in the U.S. Navy from 1989 to 1993 as Lead Electronics Technician for the Automatic Carrier Landing System aboard the U.S.S. Independence CV-62, stationed in Yokosuka, Japan. During his enlistment, Arslanian was honored with two South West Asia Service Medals. Dr. Payam Matin, University of Maryland, Eastern Shore Payam Matin is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering and Aviation Sciences at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES). Matin has received his Ph.D. in mechanical engi- neering from Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., in May 2005. He has taught a number of courses in the areas of mechanical engineering and aerospace at UMES. Matin’s research has been mostly in the areas of computational mechanics and experimental mechanics. Matin has published more than 20 peer- reviewed journal and conference papers.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability 101 Basic Concepts and NOT for Final Design Purposes! Slope Stability Analysis Basics
    Slope Stability 101 Basic Concepts and NOT for Final Design Purposes! Slope Stability Analysis Basics Shear Strength of Soils Ability of soil to resist sliding on itself on the slope Angle of Repose definition n1. the maximum angle to the horizontal at which rocks, soil, etc, will remain without sliding Shear Strength Parameters and Soils Info Φ angle of internal friction C cohesion (clays are cohesive and sands are non-cohesive) Θ slope angle γ unit weight of soil Internal Angles of Friction Estimates for our use in example Silty sand Φ = 25 degrees Loose sand Φ = 30 degrees Medium to Dense sand Φ = 35 degrees Rock Riprap Φ = 40 degrees Slope Stability Analysis Basics Explore Site Geology Characterize soil shear strength Construct slope stability model Establish seepage and groundwater conditions Select loading condition Locate critical failure surface Iterate until minimum Factor of Safety (FS) is achieved Rules of Thumb and “Easy” Method of Estimating Slope Stability Geology and Soils Information Needed (from site or soils database) Check appropriate loading conditions (seeps, rapid drawdown, fluctuating water levels, flows) Select values to input for Φ and C Locate water table in slope (critical for evaluation!) 2:1 slopes are typically stable for less than 15 foot heights Note whether or not existing slopes are vegetated and stable Plan for a factor of safety (hazards evaluation) FS between 1.4 and 1.5 is typically adequate for our purposes No Flow Slope Stability Analysis FS = tan Φ / tan Θ Where Φ is the effective
    [Show full text]
  • Diminishing Friction of Joint Surfaces As Initiating Factor for Destabilising Permafrost Rocks?
    Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU2010-3440-1, 2010 EGU General Assembly 2010 © Author(s) 2010 Diminishing friction of joint surfaces as initiating factor for destabilising permafrost rocks? Daniel Funk and Michael Krautblatter Department of Geogrpahy, University of Bonn, Germany ([email protected]) Degrading alpine permafrost due to changing climate conditions causes instabilities in steep rock slopes. Due to a lack in process understanding, the hazard is still difficult to asses in terms of its timing, location, magnitude and frequency. Current research is focused on ice within joints which is considered to be the key-factor. Monitoring of permafrost-induced rock failure comprises monitoring of temperature and moisture in rock-joints. The effect of low temperatures on the strength of intact rock and its mechanical relevance for shear strength has not been considered yet. But this effect is signifcant since compressive and tensile strength is reduced by up to 50% and more when rock thaws (Mellor, 1973). We hypotheisze, that the thawing of permafrost in rocks reduces the shear strength of joints by facilitating the shearing/damaging of asperities due to the drop of the compressive/tensile strength of rock. We think, that decreas- ing surface friction, a neglected factor in stability analysis, is crucial for the onset of destabilisation of permafrost rocks. A potential rock slide within the permafrost zone in the Wetterstein Mountains (Zugspitze, Germany) is the basis for the data we use for the empirical joint model of Barton (1973) to estimate the peak shear strength of the shear plane. Parameters are the JRC (joint roughness coefficient), the JCS (joint compressive strength) and the residual friction angle ('r).
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability
    SLOPE STABILITY Chapter 15 Omitted parts: Sections 15.13, 15.14,15.15 TOPICS Introduction Types of slope movements Concepts of Slope Stability Analysis Factor of Safety Stability of Infinite Slopes Stability of Finite Slopes with Plane Failure Surface o Culmann’s Method Stability of Finite Slopes with Circular Failure Surface o Mass Method o Method of Slices TOPICS Introduction Types of slope movements Concepts of Slope Stability Analysis Factor of Safety Stability of Infinite Slopes Stability of Finite Slopes with Plane Failure Surface o Culmann’s Method Stability of Finite Slopes with Circular Failure Surface o Mass Method o Method of Slices SLOPE STABILITY What is a Slope? An exposed ground surface that stands at an angle with the horizontal. Why do we need slope stability? In geotechnical engineering, the topic stability of slopes deals with: 1.The engineering design of slopes of man-made slopes in advance (a) Earth dams and embankments, (b) Excavated slopes, (c) Deep-seated failure of foundations and retaining walls. 2. The study of the stability of existing or natural slopes of earthworks and natural slopes. o In any case the ground not being level results in gravity components of the weight tending to move the soil from the high point to a lower level. When the component of gravity is large enough, slope failure can occur, i.e. the soil mass slide downward. o The stability of any soil slope depends on the shear strength of the soil typically expressed by friction angle (f) and cohesion (c). TYPES OF SLOPE Slopes can be categorized into two groups: A.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Method for the Grain-Size Analysis of Granular Soil Materials
    TEST METHOD FOR THE GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS OF GRANULAR SOIL MATERIALS GEOTECHNICAL TEST METHOD GTM-20 Revision #5 AUGUST 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TEST METHOD: TEST METHOD FOR THE GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS OF GRANULAR MATERIALS GTM-20 Revision #5 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BUREAU AUGUST 2015 EB 15-025 Page 1 of 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SCOPE .................................................................................................................................3 2. SUMMARY OF METHOD .................................................................................................3 3. EQUIPMENT.......................................................................................................................4 4. SAMPLE SIZE AND PREPARATION ..............................................................................5 4.1 Sample Size for Granular Construction Items .........................................................5 4.2 Sample Size for All Other Materials ........................................................................5 4.3 Condition the Sample ...............................................................................................5 4.4 Prepare Sieve Analysis Data Sheet ..........................................................................5 5. TEST PROCEDURE ...........................................................................................................6 5.1 Initial Separation of the Plus and Minus 1/4 in. (6.3 mm) Particles ........................6 5.2 Weigh the
    [Show full text]
  • Landslides and the Weathering of Granitic Rocks
    Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, Volume III © 1977 7 Landslides and the weathering of granitic rocks PHILIP B. DURGIN Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, California 94701 (stationed at Arcata, California 95521) ABSTRACT decomposition, so they commonly occur as mountainous ero- sional remnants. Nevertheless, granitoids undergo progressive Granitic batholiths around the Pacific Ocean basin provide physical, chemical, and biological weathering that weakens examples of landslide types that characterize progressive stages the rock and prepares it for mass movement. Rainstorms and of weathering. The stages include (1) fresh rock, (2) core- earthquakes then trigger slides at susceptible sites. stones, (3) decomposed granitoid, and (4) saprolite. Fresh The minerals of granitic rock weather according to this granitoid is subject to rockfalls, rockslides, and block glides. sequence: plagioclase feldspar, biotite, potassium feldspar, They are all controlled by factors related to jointing. Smooth muscovite, and quartz. Biotite is a particularly active agent in surfaces of sheeted fresh granite encourage debris avalanches the weathering process of granite. It expands to form hydro- or debris slides in the overlying material. The corestone phase biotite that helps disintegrate the rock into grus (Wahrhaftig, is characterized by unweathered granitic blocks or boulders 1965; Isherwood and Street, 1976). The feldspars break down within decomposed rock. Hazards at this stage are rockfall by hyrolysis and hydration into clays and colloids, which may avalanches and rolling rocks. Decomposed granitoid is rock migrate from the rock. Muscovite and quartz grains weather that has undergone granular disintegration. Its characteristic slowly and usually form the skeleton of saprolite.
    [Show full text]