Rapid Drawdown

22
Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Module 5:
Lecture -4 on Stability of Slopes

Sudden drawdown

Determination of most critical slip surface
Criteria for most critical slip surface = Minimum factor
of safety
Trial and error approach involves following

parameters
a)Center of rotation of the slip surface
b)Radius of slip surface
c) Distance of intercept of slip surface from the toe
d)Minimum factor of safety achieved

Fellenius (1935) proposed empirical approach for
cohesive soils (φu = 0) O1
H
Slope ratio α Ψ α
β
1 : 0.58 29° 40°
1:1 28° 37°
Draw line through corners
1 : 1.5 26° 35° of slope at angle α and Ψ
1:2 25° 35° as per in table.
1:3 25° 35° O1 will be center of rotation
1:5 25° 37° for slip circle.
Jumikis (1962) extended the method for c’- φ’ soil
Possible locations of centers for c’- φ’ soil
O1 Center of rotation of
Ψ critical circle is
assumed to lie on PO1
H
α
line.
β Point P is at distance H
H below the toe in
P vertical direction and
4.5 H away from toe in
4.5 H
horizontal direction

Comparison of LE methods
Grid and radius option used to

search for circular CSS
Entry and exit option used to search

for circular CSS

Comparison of LE methods
Slope material Properties Value
Unit wt (kN/m3) 19.64
Cohesion (kPa) 4.31
Friction angle (0) 32
Schematic diagram slope cross-section After Lambe and Whitman, 1969)

Bishop simplified Method (BSM)
Slice 11 - Bishop Method
1.289
36.661
32.668
40.322
14.727
34.614
Slope stability analysis (Geo-slope 2012) Slice free body diagram

Slices data (Bishop’s method) for Lambe and Whitman
problem
Normal stress at the base of slices (kPa)
40
35
30
25
20
15 25
Shear stress mobilised (kPa)

10 20
5
0 15
0 5 10 15
10
Distance from toe of the slope (m)
5
0
0 5 10 15
Distance from toe of the slope (m)

Finite element modeling with help of Plaxis 2D
Embankment
Impenetrable strata
Possible failure surfaces
Embankment
FOS with FEM = 1.29
Impenetrable strata
Slope stability analysis Lambe and whitman problem

Comparison of FOS in LEM and FEM
Method of analysis Factor of safety

Limit Equilibrium
Ordinary method of slices 1.161
Bishops method 1.289
Janbu’s method 1.222
Morgenstern-Price method 1.306
Finite Equilibrium
Strength reduction factor 1.29

Aryal (2003)
PLAXIS

Development of phreatic surfaces within the slope
u/γh

Comparison of Phreatic surfaces measured and
computed from SEEP/W
β = 63.43°

Variation of FS with u/γh

Example 4 for Practice
A cutting 9 m deep is to be excavated in a saturated

clay of unit weight 19 kN/m3. The design shear strength
parameters are cu = 30 kN/m2 and φu = 0°. A hard
stratum underlies the clay at a depth of 11 m below
ground level. Using Taylor’s stability method, determine
the slope angle at which failure would occur. What is
the allowable slope angle if a factor of safety of 1.2 is
specified.

Example 5 for Practice
For the given failure surface, determine the factor of

safety in terms of effective stress for the slope detailed
in Figure, using the Fellenius method of slices. The unit
weight of the soil is 21 kN/m3 and the characteristic
shear strength parameters are c′ = 8 kN/m2 and φ′= 32°.

After Craig (2004)

Rapid Drawdown Condition

Steady state Seepage
After the reservoir or dam has been full for some
time, conditions of steady seepage become
established through the dam with the soil below the
top flow line in the fully saturated state. This condition
must be analysed in terms of effective stress with
values of pore pressure being determined from the
flow net.
Values of ru up to 0.45 are possible in homogeneous

dams but much lower values can be achieved in
dams having internal drainage. The factor of safety for
this condition should be at least 1.5.
Rapid drawdown
After a condition of steady seepage has become

established, a drawdown of the reservoir level will
result in a change in the pore water pressure
distribution.
If the permeability of the soil is low, a drawdown

period measured in weeks may be ‘rapid’ in relation to
dissipation time and the change in pore water pressure
can be assumed to take place under undrained
conditions.

Slope stability analysis in drawdown condition
Response of slope to rapid drawdown

Typical variations in water level during drawdown
Pore water pressure before drawdown at a point P on a
potential failure surface is given by
uo =γ w (h + h w − h ' )
Change in total major principal stress = Total or Partial

removal of water above the slope on P.
∆σ1 = −γ w h w
And the change in pore water pressure is then given by
∆u= B∆σ1
= Bγ w h w
Therefore the pore water pressure at P immediately after

rapid drawdown is:
u= u o + ∆u
= ( )
γ w (h + h w 1 − B − h ' )

Hence, pore water pressure ratio
ru =
u γ  h h '

r= w
1+ w
(1 − B) − 
γ sat h u
γ sat  h h
For a decrease in total stresses, the value of B is

slightly greater than 1. An upper bound value of ru
could be obtained by assuming B = 1 and neglecting
h0.
 Typical values of ru immediately after drawdown are

within the range 0.3–0.4. A minimum factor of safety of
1.2 may be acceptable after rapid drawdown.

The pore water pressure distribution after drawdown
in soils of high permeability decreases as pore water
drains out of the soil above the drawdown level.
The saturation line moves downwards at a rate

depending on the permeability of the soil.
A series of flow nets can be drawn for different

positions of the saturation line and values of pore
water pressure obtained. The factor of safety can thus
be determined, using an effective stress analysis, for
any position of the saturation line.

Typical flow net in case of drawdown
(After Craig, 2004)
Pore pressure ratio (ru) can be used for stability analysis
as explained by Bishop and Morgenstern (1960)
This method is based on “effective stress method”.
It involves following five parameters:
i) Slope angle, ii) Depth factor, iii) angle of shearing

resistance (φ’), iv) non-dimensional parameter (c’/ γH),
and v) pore pressure ratio (ru).
Factor of safety can be computed by using charts
provided by Bishop-Morgenstern (1960).

Seepage and stability analysis for drawdown
condition
Drawdown rate (R) = D/H R1 = 1 m/day (rapid drawdown)
R2 = 0.1 m/day (slow drawdown)
Submerged
H
D
slope of height
7m and slope of
1 V: 3H
Schematic diagram of lope (After Berilgen, 2007)

Steady state seepage analysis
(constant hydraulic boundaries i.e. total head)
Transient seepage analysis

(varying hydraulic boundaries i.e. total head)
Stability analysis
(consideration of driving forces for failure
i.e. body forces, pore water pressure, etc.)

Four cases were studied considering two drawdown
rates and two types of soil.
Property Value
Unit weight (kN/m3) 20
Coefficient of permeability (m/sec) 10-6 and 10-8
Cohesion (kPa) 10
Internal friction angle (degree) 20

Steady state seepage analysis using SEEP/W
Pore pressure contours at the steady state condition
Drawdown
Flow paths during drawdown phenomena

Transient seepage analysis using SEEP/W
Depletion of phreatic surfaces
Drawdown rate
R1 = 1 m/day
P1
80
75 Pore water pressure

dissipation with time
Pore water pressure (kPa)

70
65
60
Variation of pore water 55
pressure at point “P1” 50
45
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (days)

Slope stability analysis using SLOPE/W
Critical failure surface at the end of drawdown
Critical FOS = 1.497
2.75
2.5
Minimum factor of safety

2.25
Factor of safety decreases as 1.75
drawdown progresses
1.5
1.25 R = 1 m/day; k = 10-6 m/sec

1
0.1 1 10 100
Time (days)

Effect of drawdown rate
At the end of drawdown
Transient seepage
analysis for
R = 1 m/day
K = 10-6 m/sec
At the end of drawdown

Transient seepage
analysis for
R = 0.1 m/day K = 10-6 m/sec
More amount of depletion of phreatic surface

90
80 Higher dissipation of
pore water pressure in
70
60 case of slow drawdown

50
R = 1 m/day
40
R = 0.1 m/day
30
20
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (days)
Variations of pore water pressure with time at the point “P1”

4 Higher factor of safety
3.5
due to dissipation of
pore water pressure

3
2.5
1.5
1
R = 1 m/day; k = 10-6 m/sec
0.5 R = 0.1 m/day; k = 10-6 m/sec
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (days)
Variations of factor of safety with seepage time

Effect of coefficient of permeability of soil
Transient seepage
analysis for
R = 1m/day k = 1x 10-6 m/sec
Transient seepage
analysis for
k = 1x 10-8 m/sec R = 1m/day
 Depletion of phreatic surface is marginal for soils with k

90
80
Dissipation of
70
pore water
60 pressure is
50 less for soils
k = 10-6 m/sec with low k
40
k = 10-8 m/sec
30
20
0.1 1 10 100
Time (days)
Variations of pore water pressure with time at the point “P1”

4
Higher FOS for
soils having high
3.5
coefficient of
3
2.5
2 permeability
1.5
1
R = 1 m/day; k = 10-6 m/sec
0.5
Critical FOS = 1
R = 1 m/day; k = 10-8 m/sec
0
0.1 1 10 100
Time (days)
Variations of factor of safety with seepage time

Total stress analysis
Requirement Comment
Total stresses in soil mass Common to both methods
Strength of soil when Accuracy is doubtful, since

subjected to changes in strength depends upon
total stress similar to induced pore pressures
stress changes in field

Effective stress Analysis
Requirement Comment
Total stresses in soil mass Common to both methods
Strength parameters of considerable accuracy,
soil in relation with since this is insensitive to test
effective stress condition
Determination of Accuracy depends on
changes in external measurement of pore water
loads pressure

Slopes subject to rainfall

Slope instability is a common problem in many
parts of the world, and cause thousands of deaths
and severe infrastructural damage each year.
Rainfall has been identified as a major cause for

triggering landslides and slope failure.
The mechanism leading to slope failure is that the

pore water pressure starts increasing when water
infiltrates the unsaturated soil.
The problem becomes severe if the fill material has

low- permeability, and cannot dissipate the pore
water pressure generated due to rainfall.
To investigate the effect of rainfall on slope stability, a
limit equilibrium analysis was carried out by using
SLOPE/W, a product of Geostudio (2012) software.
Two slope configurations (45° and 63° inclination)

were selected, and were subjected to rainfall of
various intensities (2mm/hr-80 mm/hr) for 24 hrs.
Phreatic surfaces were fed into SLOPE/W, and stability

analyses were performed at the onset of rainfall,
during rainfall, and upto 24 hours after rainfall.

Slope configuration selected (45° inclination)
Applied rainfall intensity
Water table position

Soil parameters used in SLOPE/W
(FOS was computed by Bishop’s modified method of slices)

Effect of rainfall intensity on Slope stability
2
Rainfall stopped Slope

inclination: 45°
1.8
1.6
Factor of safety
2 mm/hr
9 mm/hr
1.4
22 mm/hr
36 mm/hr
1.2 80 mm/hr
Limiting factor of safety
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hours)
Note: Slope stability reduces with increasing intensities of rainfall

Effect of rainfall intensity on Slope stability
1.4
Slope
Rainfall stopped
1.3
1.2 inclination: 63°

1.1
Factor of safety
2 mm/hr
1 9 mm/hr
22 mm/hr
0.9 36 mm/hr
80 mm/hr
0.8
Limiting factor of safety
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (hours)
Note: Steeper slopes have lower initial FOS, and the effect of rainfall on
such slopes is more devastating as compared to flatter ones.

Rapid Drawdown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rapid Drawdown

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Rapid Drawdown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How does rainfall affect slope stability?

How does rainfall affect slope stability?

What slope configurations were analyzed?

What slope configurations were analyzed?

22

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Trial and error approach involves following

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Possible locations of centers for c’- φ’ soil

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Grid and radius option used to

Entry and exit option used to search

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Schematic diagram slope cross-section After Lambe and Whitman, 1969)

Slope stability analysis (Geo-slope 2012) Slice free body diagram

Shear stress mobilised (kPa)

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Possible failure surfaces

Slope stability analysis Lambe and whitman problem

Method of analysis Factor of safety

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

A cutting 9 m deep is to be excavated in a saturated

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

For the given failure surface, determine the factor of

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Values of ru up to 0.45 are possible in homogeneous

After a condition of steady seepage has become

If the permeability of the soil is low, a drawdown

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Response of slope to rapid drawdown

Change in total major principal stress = Total or Partial

And the change in pore water pressure is then given by

Therefore the pore water pressure at P immediately after

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

For a decrease in total stresses, the value of B is

 Typical values of ru immediately after drawdown are

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

The saturation line moves downwards at a rate

A series of flow nets can be drawn for different

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

i) Slope angle, ii) Depth factor, iii) angle of shearing

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Schematic diagram of lope (After Berilgen, 2007)

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Transient seepage analysis

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Pore pressure contours at the steady state condition

Flow paths during drawdown phenomena

75 Pore water pressure

Pore water pressure (kPa)