EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY CONDITIONS AT SITE

Evaluation of Slope Stability of the Area

• Deterministic Approach Of Stability Evaluation May Be One Limit Solution For

The Evaluation Of Overall Stability And Design Of Foundation Conditions In
Sloping Terrain.
• No Simple Mechanism Can Be Adopted To Obtain The Stability Of The Area
By Concerning Parameters Of Residual Forms Of Unsaturated Soils In Low
Humid Terrains.
• Being Soil Parameters Varied Significantly With The Soil Deposit History, Use
Of Back Calculated (Back Analysis) Values And Reasonable Approximations
Of Deformation Characteristics Of Residual Soils Is A Widely Used Approach
In Foreseeing The Appropriate Parameters In Geotechnical Evaluations And
Designs.

• The Evaluation Of Slope Stability Is Important For Some Of The Proposed

Structures And Locations Of The Project.
• Therefore, Slope Geometry Used In This Analysis Was Reviewed Against
Actual Surveyed Slope Geometry At Site.
• The Following Are Considered To Be Important For Revised Geotechnical
Analysis And Reporting For The Project.

• Immediate Lower Slope Stability of the Forebay Area

• Immediate Upper Slope Stability of the Power House Area
•Overall Stability of Slopes at Forebay to Power House
•Upper Slope Stability of the Headrace Channel / Weir Site
•Slope Stability at Ch 0241; Aqueduct Section
•Slope Stability at Ch 1060 –Ch 1185; Deep Earth Cut Section

62
Methods of Evaluation

• The Bishop Method Of Slices Is Used For The Entire Analysis. A Specifying
Boundary Limit Is Considered For The Determination Of Fos.
• The Methods Of Evaluation Of Limits Are Included As In Entry And Exit
Range Which Can Be Specified In Terms Of Probable Failure Range
Manually.
• The Search Procedure For The Minimum Factor Of Safety Is Then Carried
Out By Successive Steps Within The Probable Range And Output Indicates
Radius Of The Slip Circle, Fos And The Critical Force Diagram.

63
Parameters for the Evaluations

• A Number Of Slopes In The Study Area Revealed That The Soil Formation
Consists Of Materials Ranging From Silty-Sand And Sandy Silt To Clayey Sand.
• The Liquid Limits Are Between 29% +- 10%.
• The Natural Moisture Content And The Plasticity Is Significantly Low And Most
Collected Soil Samples Are Categorized As Non Plastic Soil.
• The Fines Content for the Soils Ranges From 20% To 40%.
• The Total Density and Dry Density Increase Marginally With Depth Due To In-
Situ and Completely Weathered Rock, With an Average Value of 1.5~1.9 and
1.89 Mg/M3, Respectively.
• The Specific Gravity Of The Soil Averages From 2.57 - 2.63 To 2.9 In Residual
Soil To Completely Weathered Rock.

• Laboratory Investigations Of Shear Strength Parameters Are Important

Information For The Entire Analysis.

• All Soil And Rock Testing Work Was Conducted By The Material Testing
Laboratory At Uganda.

• However, Since There Was No Way To Conduct The Triaxial Strength Test At
This Laboratory, Direct Shear Test Parameters Were Considered For The
Analysis.

• The Triaxial Consolidated Untrained Parameters For The Design Obtained From
Various Recent Findings Similar To The Same Category Of Soils; The Fine-
Grained Residual Soils Have An Average Effective Cohesion, C’, Of 2 Kpa To
16 Kpa (Without Considering The Metric Suction). The Effective Angle Of
Internal Friction,φ’ Ranges From 29° To 38°.

64
Recommended Effective Triaxial Shear Strength Parameters Of Residual Soils
(Considered Similar As Low Humid Regional Conditions - Ref. From Past
Records and Literature)

Sample Description Cohesion Effective Angle Of

No. Intercept Internal Friction Ǿ
C’kpa Deg.
Type 1 Lateritic Form Of Residual
Soils (Low Humid Areas 8 - 16 31 - 42
Without Metric Suction
Effect)
Type 2 Residual Soil In Shear 0-4 28 - 32
Plane
Type 3 Colluvium ( Rock
Fragments With Little Clay 0- 6 34 - 39
And Silty Sand)
Type 4 Completely Weathered 0 - 22 35 - 45
Rock
Type 5 Highly Weathered Rock 60- 100 35 - 45

65
Effective Direct Shear Strength Parameters Of Residual Soils At Site

Bulk Density,
Bulk
G Angle Of
Location Density, G Cohesion
( Friction
( Saturated)
Unsaturated)
F
(G/Cm3)X10 (G/Cm3) C ( Kpa ) (Degrees)
Weir Site Upper Soil
Slopes ( Silty Sand 1.85
1.490 – 1.640 1 To 3 40
And Completely
Weatherd Rock)
Headrace
Channel(Completely 1.95
Weathered Rock 1.750 1-2 42
With Thin Layer Of
Organic Soil Cover)
Aqueduct Section
(Completely 1.490 -1.560 1.7- 1.85 0-1 36 - 37
Colluvium Soil)
Power House Site
(Basically Colluvium 1.7 – 1.9
1.540 – 1.680 2-3 35 - 40
Soil With Silty Sand
Material)
Penstock Line
( Mostly Colluvium 1.75
1.570 1-2 34
Soil )

66
Inverse Analysis of Parameters

• Due To The Exponential Increase In Computational Power And Increased

Awareness Of Problems Associated With Composite Soil Parameters Related
To Unsaturated Soil Of Vadose Zone, Estimation Based On Inverse Method
Of Analysis Is Possible Using The Existing Slope Profiles. See Annexure 3
For Details Of The Analysis From Forebay To Power House Area.

• The Inverse Analysis Was Considered With The Fos=1 For The Evaluation Of
Validity Of Some Of The Direct Shear Test Results Before Used For The
Stability Computation Work.

• The Entire Analysis Was Done Using The Revised Sections Of Slope
Geometry At Site With Original And Non Disturbed Soil Profiles.

• Therefore, Shear Strength Parameters Obtained From The Inverse Analysis

Indicate The Minimum Angle Of Resistance Which May Be Foreseen In
Various Soil Profiles Under Fully Saturated Conditions.

• Therefore, Overall Evaluation And Design Of Slope Conditions Are Decided

Considering The Laboratory Testing Records And Some Of The Finding
Highlighted In The Table 20 Above.

The Following Profiles Are Considered For The Inverse Analysis,

1. Immediate Lower Slope Of The Forebay Area; Interpretation Of

Parameters Of Top Soil Cover (Partly Organic)
2. Immediate Upper Slope Of The Power House; Interpretation Of
Parameters Of Colluvium Layer
3. Immediate Upper Slope Of The Headrace Channel Area; Complete
Interpretation Of Parameters Of Weathered Rock

67
Inverse Analysis Parameters At Site (Ie. Minimum Mobilized Values Of Various
Soil/Rock Condition At Site) For The Interpretation For Limit Equilibrium
Condition At Site

Top Soil Completely

Soil / Rock Layer (May Weathered Colluvium
Category Be Partly Rock
Organic
Material)
Location/ Fos Immediate Immediate Immediate
Considered For Lower Slope Upper Slope Upper Slope
The Analysis Of The Of The Power Of The
Forebay Area House Headrace
Channel Area

Unit Weight 18 Kg/M3 21kg/M3 21 Kg/M3

Cohesion 0 0 0
Intercept(Effective)

Effective Angle Of 29 Deg. 32 Deg. 31.3 Deg

Internal Friction Of
Soil (Phi)
Fos 1.005 1.005 1.012
Drawing Ref(See
Annexure 3) Drl 16 Drl 18 Drl 17
Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/

68
Parameters for the Overall Stability Evaluation and Design of Slope
Conditions at Site

• The Geological/Geotechnical Sections For The Appropriate Evaluations Are

Given In Separate Drawings In Annexure 3 Namely,

1. Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/19 – Geological Section And Soil And Rock Parameters For

The Design Of Slope Conditions At Forebay
2. Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/20 – Geological Section And Soil And Rock Parameters For
The Design Of Upper Slopes Of Headrace Channel Area
3. Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/21 – Geological Section And Soil And Rock Parameters For
The Design Of Slope Conditions At Aquiduct Section Ch 241
4. Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/22 – Geological Section And Soil And Rock Parameters For
The Design Of Slope Conditions At Ch 1065 To Ch 1185

• Also The Appropriate New Loading Conditions Are Evaluated And With
The Consideration Of During And After Construction Loadings And
Recorded In The Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/23 – Slope Conditions And New
Imposed Loads On The Slopes Of Forebay To The Power House,
Mapanga , Uganda

69
Recommended Parameters For The Stability Analysis

Cohesion Effective
Soil / Rock Unit Weight Intercept(Effe Angle Of
Category ctive) Internal
Kn/M3 Kpa Friction Of
Soil (Phi) In
Degrees
Top Soil Layer
(May Be Partly 18 3 29 - Disturbed
Organic Material) 34 – Non
Disturbed
Completely
Weathered Rock 21 2 40

Highly
Weathered Rock 21 100 40

Moderately
Weathered Rock 22 200. 45

Fresh Rock 23 400 45

Colluvium 21 3 36

70
Seismic Coefficient for the Analysis

• According To The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Manual For Seismic Design
Of New Dams Requires Use Of A Seismic Coefficient Of 0.1 In Seismic Zone
3 And 0.15 In Seismic Zone 4, In Conjunction With A Minimum Factor Of
Safety Of 1.0.
• In California, Many State And Local Agencies Also Require The Use Of A
Seismic Coefficient Of 0.15 But Impose The Slightly More Conservative
Requirement That The Minimum Computed Factor Of Safety Be Not Less
Than 1.1.
• This Approach Was First Explored By Seed (1979) Who Drew The General
Conclusion That For Embankments Composed Of Materials Which Show No
Significant Loss Of Strength As A Result Of Cyclic Loading, "It Is Only
Necessary To Perform A Pseudo-Static Analysis For A Seismic Coefficient Of
0.1 For Magnitude 6.5 Earthquakes Or 0.15 For Magnitude 8.25 Earthquakes
And Obtain A Factor Of Safety Of The Order Of 1.15 To Ensure That
Displacements Will Be Acceptably Small".

Seismic Coefficient = 0.01g

• Clearly, However, Engineering Judgment Should Be Applied As To The

Applicability Of Such Value For The Above Study In Different Localities.
Therefore, Some Of The Evaluations Significantly Control To The Least
Factor Of Safety Of 1.0 And Most Of Limiting Value Under Seismic Loading
Limited To 1.1 Or Higher Factor Of Safety Might Be Varied With The
Uncertainties Involved In A Particular Analysis.

71
Overall Factor Of Safety Evaluation Of The Project

Forebay To Power House Building

FOS Evaluations Without Ground Improvement At Slope At Forebay To Power House

Building

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient

Slope Section-1 Slope Section Of Forebay To 2.3 1.9

Power House Location (
Forebay To Anchor A4)

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-24
Slope Section-2 Forebay To Immediate Lower
Section Of Forebay To Power 1.26 1.1
House Location ( Forebay To
Anchor A2)

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-25
Slope Section-3 Forebay To Immediate Lower
Section Of Forebay To Power 2.3 1.9
House Location( Forebay To
Anchor A3)

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-26
Slope Section-4 Middle Section To Power House
Location ( Anchor A2 To Anchor 1.4 1.2
A4)

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-27
Slope Section-5 Middle Section Of Lower Slope
(Anchor A2 To Anchor A4) 1.1 1.0
Shallow Failure Of Disturbed
Soil

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-28

72
Evaluation of Stability after Improvement of Ground by Soil Nailing

Slope Section-2

No Of Nails / 1.5m With = 7 Along The Upper Slope Section

Bond Diameter = 0.075m
Bond Skin Friction / Area = 100 Kpa
Nail Spacing = 1.5 M
Bar Capacity = 100kn
Length Of A Nail = 20m
Direction = 25 Deg To The Horizontal

Fos Evaluations With Ground Improvement Work At Slope At Slope Section 2:

Forebay To Power House Building

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient
Slope Section-2 Forebay To Immediate Lower
Section Of Forebay To Power 1.30 1.1
House Location ( Forebay To
Anchor A2)

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-29

73
Slope Section-5

No Of Nails / 1.5m with = 7 along the Upper Slope Section

Bond Diameter = 0.075m
Bond Skin Friction / Area = 100 Kpa
Nail Spacing = 1.5 M
Bar Capacity = 200kn
Length Of A Nail = 20m
Direction = 25 Deg To The Horizontal

Fos Evaluations With Ground Improvement Work At Slope Section 5: Forebay

To Power House Building

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient
Slope Section-5 Forebay To Immediate Lower
Section Of Forebay To Power 1.30 1.1
House Location ( Forebay To
Anchor A2)

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-29

Evaluation of Stability of Slope above Headrace Channel Section (Note: Almost

Similar Ground Conditions At Slope above the Weir Site)

Fos Evaluations At Slope Above Headrace Channel Section

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient

Slope Section-1 Slope Section Above The 2.7 2.1

Headrace Channel Section

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-31

74
Evaluation of Stability of Slope at Ch 1180 Deep Earth-Cut Section

Fos Evaluations At Slope At Ch 1180 Deep Earth-Cut Section

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient

Slope Section-1 Above Cut Section 4.2 3.4

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-32

75
Evaluation of Stability of Slope at Ch 241 Aqueduct Section

Fos Evaluations At Slope At Ch 241 Aqueduct Section

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient

Slope Section-1 Upper Slope Section Above The 0.82 0.7

Upper Slope Foundation Level – Critical
Failure At Upper Slope Only

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-33

Slope Section-2 Upper Slope Section Above The

Upper Slope Foundation Level – Critical 1.4 1.2
Failure At Base Of The
Founding Slope Only

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-33

Slope Section-3 Upper And Lower Slope 1.2 1.1

Lower Slope Section– Critical Failure At
Overall Structure

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-34
Slope Section-4 Lower Slope Section Below The
Lower Slope Foundation Level – Critical 1.4 1.2
Failure At Base Of The
Founding Slope Towards River

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-34
Slope Section-5 Middle Section Of Lower Slope 1.0 0.8
(Anchor A2 To Anchor A4)

Shallow Failure Of Disturbed

Soil

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-34

76
Ground Improvement Work At Ch 241 Aqueduct Section

• Upper Slopes Of The Existing Cut Needs To Be Protected With The

Existing Vegetation As Much As Possible For Long Term Stability Against
The Soil Erosion. Therefore, Drainage Improvement Is Essential Across
This Section With Suitable Designs.

• The Upstream Area Of The Existing Earth Cut Has Been Heavily Obstructed
With Landslide Debris. Stream Channels Will Continue To Be Impacted By
The Erosion And Landslides Which Is Triggered By A Storm Event As Bare
Soil Areas Gully, Remaining Unstable Landslide Material Continues To Fail
And Move Down Slope, And Sediment Deposited In Headwater Streams Is
Re-Eroded And Moved Down Into The Major Stream.

• In View Of The Cost And Maintenance Considerations, The Number And

Length Of Surface Channel Should Be Kept To A Minimum For The Design
Of New Slopes.

• The Requirement For Surface Drainage Is Heavily Dependent On Slope

Geometry. Wherever Platform At Lower Section To Be Incorporated As In
The Drawing Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-006 In Addition The Design, Surface
Drainage Will Be Necessary To Ensure That Pounding And Infiltration, Or
Localized Erosion At Low Points, Is Prevented.

77
Stability Evaluation of Ground Improvement Work At Ch 241 Aqueduct Section

Fos Evaluations After Ground Improvement At Ch 241 Aqueduct Section

Bishop’s Fos
Section Description Without Seismic
Considering Coefficient
Seismic =0.1
Coefficient

Slope Section-1 Upper Slope Section Above The 2.0 1.8

Upper Slope Foundation Level – Avoid Any
Critical Base Failure From
Upper Slope Only

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-35

Slope Section-3 Lower Slope Section Below The 2.8 2.1

Upper Slope Foundation Level – Avoid Any
Critical Failure At Base Of The
Founding Slope Towards River

Cb/Mshp/Vhs-Crd/Drl-35

78