5 views

Uploaded by Carlos Ayamamani

- Rock Slope Stability and Excavatability
- TC2-5 - Slope Stability Guideline
- Analysis of the Stability of Slopes Reinforced by
- Hoek 2018.pdf
- 40_Wines
- Stability Analysis of Open Pit Slope by Finite Difference Method
- Chapter 5
- Analisis numerico Geotecnico
- Modelling Expansive Soil FEM
- Lecture2.pdf-FoundationFailures.pdf
- Utexas4 Manual
- Conditions for Award of Specialisations_Aug13
- Ejercicio 2 Geo Slope
- Specialisations_Conditions for Award of Specialisations_Aug12
- Chapter 14 Geotechnical Seismic Design - 05112010
- 02 Causes of Slope Failure
- Lateral Capacity
- 9-stability-of-slope-with-retaining-wall.pdf
- GIS-3D Analysis of Susceptibility Landslide Disaster in Upstream Area of Jeneberang River Watershed, South Sulawesi, Indonesia
- AGS_2013-1_article_5

You are on page 1of 13

DOI 10.1007/s00603-012-0262-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Rock Mass: A Case Study from Manisa, Turkey

Mutluhan Akin

Received: 13 February 2012 / Accepted: 1 May 2012 / Published online: 24 May 2012

Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract This paper presents a case study regarding Keywords Slope stability Back analysis GSI

slope stability problems and the remedial slope stabiliza- Non-linear failure criterion Water storage tank

tion work executed during the construction of two rein- Heavily jointed rock mass Retaining pile wall

forced concrete water storage tanks on a steep hill in Block punch index test

Manisa, Turkey. Water storage tanks of different capacities

were planned to be constructed, one under the other, on

closely jointed and deformed shale and sandstone units. 1 Introduction

The tank on the upper elevation was constructed first and

an approximately 20-m cut slope with two benches was The potable water supply of a settlement is usually stored in

excavated in front of this upper tank before the construc- water tanks of different capacities. The dimensions of a tank

tion of the lower tank. The cut slope failed after a week and are related to the water demand, calculated with respect to

the failure threatened the stability of the upper water tank. the population. A water tank both regulates the water

In addition to re-sloping, a 15.6-m deep contiguous pressure in the network and reserves a water supply trans-

retaining pile wall without anchoring was built to support mitted from the source location. Furthermore, a water tank

both the cut slope and the upper tank. Despite the con- should be adequately elevated in order to fully maintain the

struction of a retaining pile wall, a maximum of 10 mm of hydraulic pressures required for potable water network

displacement was observed by inclinometer measurements distribution. Thus, water storage tanks are mostly located on

due to the re-failure of the slope on the existing slip sur- hills or uneven terrain, and a cut slope is usually excavated

face. Permanent stability was achieved after the placement so as to construct the concrete tank on a flat surface.

of a granular fill buttress on the slope. Back analysis based Although slope stability problems concerning water storage

on the non-linear (HoekBrown) failure criterion indicated tanks are not very common during the construction or post-

that the geological strength index (GSI) value of the slope- construction period, fatal events may occur after such

forming material is around 21 and is compatible with the in incidents (Calderon et al. 2009). Water leakage from the

situ-determined GSI value (24). The calculated normal tank may considerably reduce the shear strength of the slope

shear stress plots are also consistent with the HoekBrown material, leading to slope failures and catastrophic acci-

failure envelope of the rock mass, indicating that the dents. Moreover, excavations to create cut slopes during

location of the sliding surface, GSI value estimated by back construction may trigger slope instabilities, which may also

analysis, and the rock mass parameters are well defined. affect the safety of nearby structures. The failure of slopes

The long-term stability analysis illustrates a safe slope and the substantial costs of remedial measures are mostly a

design after the placement of a permanent toe buttress. consequence of unsatisfactory geological and geotechnical

investigations and inadequate interpretation of acquired

data during preliminary design (Lee and Hencher 2009).

M. Akin (&) The construction of two reinforced concrete (RC) water

Department of Mining Engineering, Yuzuncu Yil University,

Zeve Campus, 65080 Van, Turkey storage tanks started at the end of 2005 in Manisa, Turkey,

e-mail: mutluhanakin@gmail.com to store a portion of the potable water demand. The

123

360 M. Akin

latitude and longitude of the construction site are

533338.27 E and 4273272.91 N. The capacities of the tanks

are 3,000 and 7,500 m3, respectively. Both tanks were

constructed, one under the other, on steep terrain (slope

inclination C30). The horizontal distance between the two

tanks is approximately 30 m. In addition, the elevation of

the 3,000-m3 tank (WT1) is 153.3 m, whereas the 7,500-m3

tank (WT2) is situated at 133.8 m. A general cross-section

of the construction area with the location of the two RC

water storage tanks is provided in Fig. 2. It should be noted

that the construction area was restricted by an expropria-

tion boundary and an unusually steep cut slope had to be

excavated to place the two structures in a tight area, due to Fig. 2 A general cross-section of the construction area (note: the

space limitations. After the excavation, the cut slope failed vertical scale is exaggerated)

and the failure affected the stability of WT1. Several

effective and ineffective remedial works were carried out the movements monitored after the construction of a retaining

to retain the failed slope and WT1. pile wall is evaluated and, finally, the efficiency of the

In this paper, the repeated failure of a cut slope and a series placement of a granular fill buttress on the slope is analyzed.

of remedial works for slope stabilization are explained. Fur-

thermore, the slope failure which occurred after the con-

struction of the upper tank is back-analyzed to assess the shear 2 Geology of the Study Area

strength parameters of the slope-forming material. In addition,

The study area is situated on highly fractured and deformed

rocks of the Bornova Flysch Zone. The flysch zone com-

prises large blocks of Mesozoic limestone, basalt, serpen-

tine, and radiolarian chert with a highly disturbed clastic

matrix of Cretaceous to Paleocene age (Okay and Altiner

2007). Moreover, Neogene-aged yellowish brown marl

layers crop out in the same zone. The foundations of the two

water storage tanks as well as the cut slope exist in the

clastic matrix of the Bornova Flysch Zone. It consists of

gray graphitic shale and alternating beds of sandstone and

shale units (Fig. 3a, b). These units are closely jointed,

sheared, and folded with a chaotic structure (Fig. 3c). There

is no observed groundwater table in the study area, except

local wet zones after heavy rains. As the above-mentioned

geological units exhibit similar geotechnical properties, it is

quite difficult to differentiate the exact unit boundaries in

the construction area. The discontinuity spacing of the slope

material is mostly between 5 and 10 cm. As a particular

note, the discontinuity surfaces are usually smooth and

soapy, which drastically decreases their shear strength,

especially during heavy rains. There is no certain discon-

tinuity orientation, as the rock mass is heavily jointed. In

this highly deformed material, a circular slope failure is

more probable than a structurally controlled instability,

since there is no distinct discontinuity surface on which

failure can occur (Anderson and Richards 1987; Ozdemir

and Delikanli 2009; Sharifzadeh et al. 2010). The sliding

surface in heavily jointed rock masses involves both natural

discontinuities aligned on the sliding surface and some

Fig. 1 Location map of the study area shear failure through intact rock (Wyllie and Mah 2004).

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass 361

3 History of the Slope Instabilities In the preliminary stage of the project, the construction

of the 3,000-m3 tank (WT1) at the higher elevation was

A detailed geotechnical survey was not carried out on the started. When the tank construction was about to be com-

construction site during preliminary investigations in this pleted, an approximately 20-m high cut slope with two

project. The physico-mechanical properties of the litho- benches was excavated in front of WT1 to make room for

logical units were estimated by observational studies and the foundation of the 7,500-m3 water storage tank (WT2) at

literature data without any laboratory or in situ tests. the lower elevation (Fig. 4). Having completed the slope

excavation, the foundation of WT2 and a drainage ditch

along the tank perimeter were excavated. One week after

excavation of the drainage ditch, the cut slope in front of

WT1 instantly failed. Major and progressive tension cracks

at the top bench and a small-scale horizontal movement at

the toe were observed after the failure (Fig. 4). The slip

surface shown in Fig. 4 is estimated considering the main

tension crack and the horizontal movement at the slope toe.

Eventually, the slope failure threatened the stability of

WT1. Also, a separation of several millimeters in scale

between the main tank and the maneuver room sections of

WT1 occurred and was monitored (Fig. 5).

As an immediate remedial measure to prevent slope

failure and to protect the stability of WT1, a granular toe

buttress was constructed and re-sloping was performed by

removing slope material from the crown to lower the

sliding forces (Fig. 6). Further slope movement was pre-

vented by the above-mentioned temporary remedial mea-

sures. However, the toe buttress covered a large portion of

the WT2 foundation and the temporary support had to be

removed in order to construct WT2.

sliding surfaces is quite difficult in slope engineering

(Sonmez et al. 1998). The limit equilibrium back analysis

of a failed slope is one of the most reliable approaches to

determine the shear strength of slope material at the time of

failure (Sancio 1981; US Army Corps of Engineers 2003;

Topal and Akin 2009). The shear strength parameters

obtained by the back analysis of slopes are accepted as

being more consistent than those obtained by laboratory or

in situ testing during remedial measure design (Popescu

and Schaefer 2008). In conventional back analysis, the

internal friction angle or cohesion is assumed in order to

calculate the other parameter, considering a factor of safety

of 1.0. Although back analysis based on linear failure cri-

terion is mostly applied in soil slopes, the same procedure

can be followed on very weak rock mass, which is trans-

formed into a soil-like material as a consequence of

chemical weathering or alteration (Cai et al. 2007; Sha-

rifzadeh et al. 2010). On the other hand, in recent years, the

Fig. 3 Gray graphitic shale (a), the alternation of sandstone and shale geotechnical characterization of homogeneous and isotro-

(b), a close-up view of heavily jointed slope material (c) pic rock masses has mostly been performed using the

123

362 M. Akin

with two benches and first slope

failure after excavation

(modified after GDBP 2006)

main tank and the maneuver

room after slope failure (a side

view, b overhead view)

remediation after the first slope

failure (modified after GDBP

2006)

geological strength index (GSI) system (Morales et al. Yin 2004). The HoekBrown non-linear failure criterion

2004; Marinos et al. 2006). The GSI system proposed by (Hoek and Brown 1980; Hoek et al. 2002) has been com-

Hoek et al. (1995) allows the determination of rock mass monly employed for the back analysis of slope failures in

strength and deformation parameters for both hard and heavily jointed rock masses (Sonmez et al. 1998; Sonmez

weak rock masses. and Ulusay 1999; Cai et al. 2007; Sharifzadeh et al. 2010).

The back calculation of shear strength parameters of The shear strength parameters of a failure surface in such

sliding surfaces using the linear MohrCoulomb criterion is rock masses can be determined for a specific normal stress

independent from normal stress. However, the failure using the material constants of the HoekBrown failure

envelope of a closely jointed rock mass is non-linear and is criterion (m and s) as a function of the rock mass rating

sensitive to normal stresses (Sonmez et al. 1998; Yang and (RMR) system or the GSI system.

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass 363

The non-linear HoekBrown failure criterion for (d) The calculation step is carried out for different values

homogeneous and isotropic rock masses is defined by the of GSI(s) to obtain a variety of GSI(s) and GSI(m) pairs.

equation below: (e) The results are presented in a GSI(s)-GSI(m) graph

and a straight line passing from the origin with an

r01 r03 rci mb r03 =rci s0:5 1 inclination of 45 is drawn. The inserted line inter-

where r01 and r03 are the maximum and minimum principal sects the GSI(s)-GSI(m) curve at a certain point

effective stresses acting upon the sliding surface, rci is the identifying the GSI value of the investigated rock

intact rock strength, and mb and s are the material mass (GSIRM).

constants, which are determined by the following Following the back analysis, the instantaneous cohesion

formulas in accordance with the GSI: and internal friction angle along the existing failure surface

can be calculated by application of the non-linear Hoek

mb mi expGSI 100=28 14D 2

Brown failure criterion, considering the normal stress and

s expGSI 100=9 3D 3 the GSIRM value.

where mi is the intact material constant and D is the dis- For the actual slope failure, the shear strength parame-

turbance factor of rock mass due to blasting or excavation. ters of the sliding surface mobilized at the time of failure

The GSI value can be directly determined in the field were estimated by means of back analysis using the non-

based on site conditions, although sampling for laboratory linear (GSI) approach. The slope stability back analyses

testing is extremely difficult in heavily jointed sedimentary were conducted using the Slide v.5.0 software (Rocscience

and metamorphic rock masses such as shale, flysch, and Inc. 2002) and the slope geometry before the failure was

schist. In addition, alternative procedures may be imple- considered in the analyses (Fig. 7). In addition, the slope

mented in order not to overestimate the mb and s values, as was kept in dry conditions in the back analysis, since no

overrated input parameters may lead to unrealistic results groundwater table was observed in the field and in bore-

in the slope stability back analysis using the non-linear holes drilled after the construction of the pile wall support.

approach (Unal et al. 1992; Sonmez et al. 1998). The back Due to the impossibility of sampling in heavily jointed

analysis of failed slopes using the GSI system can be rock mass, the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the

performed with a trial and error approach following the slope material was determined through block punch index

procedure first presented by Sonmez et al. (1998). The (BPI) tests (Ulusay and Hudson 2007) using thin cylin-

calculation steps are as follows: drical slices of rock pieces from the slope material. The

calculated BPIc (corrected BPI) was then converted to the

(a) A GSI value called GSI(s) is assessed and the material UCS in accordance with the equations presented by Ulusay

constant s is determined using Eq. 3. and Hudson (2007). In the BPI test, thin cylindrical disc-

(b) The material constant mb is calculated considering the shaped specimens prepared from cores or blocks are put

existing slope geometry and slip surface in limit into an apparatus which is designed to fit the well-known

equilibrium software using the HoekBrown failure point load device (Ulusay et al. 2001). The specimens are

criterion given in Eq. 1, which satisfies the limit loaded and forced to break by a rectangular rigid punching

equilibrium condition (FOS = 1.0). block. In this study, disc slices used in the BPI tests were

(c) The calculated material constant mb in the previous drilled from rock blocks obtained from the investigation

step is employed in Eq. 2 and discloses the second area. The unit weight was also determined on the same

GSI value, named GSI(m). discs. Consequently, the average unit weight and UCS of

the first failure considered in the

back analyses

123

364 M. Akin

the intact slope material are 17.3 kN/m3 and 15.3 MPa, The relationship between shear strength and normal

respectively. stress is more accurately represented by a non-linear

The GSI value of the rock mass studied was directly model. Furthermore, in the non-linear failure approach, the

determined in the field in accordance with the latest shear strength parameters mobilizing on the failure surface

quantitative GSI chart recommended by Sonmez and Ul- is normal stress-dependent. The instantaneous shear

usay (2002). More realistic GSI values can be estimated in strength parameters are obtained by the intercept and the

this chart by means of structure rating (SR) and surface inclination, respectively, of the tangent to the non-linear

condition rating (SCR). The SR value is assigned based on relationship between the shear strength and normal stress

the volumetric joint count (Jv), whereas the SCR of the (Hoek et al. 2002). In other words, the term instantaneous

discontinuities is calculated considering roughness, indicates the shear strength parameters at a certain normal

weathering, and infilling parameters. The volumetric joint stress level on the non-linear failure envelope.

count (Jv) of the slope material in the study area is around Therefore, the instantaneous shear strength parameters

21 with respect to in situ measurements. On the other hand, along the existing failure surface (ci and /i pairs) were

discontinuity surfaces are generally smooth, highly determined regarding the actual normal stress at the bottom

weathered, and contain soft clay infillings with a thickness of each slice. In the analyzed slope, the variation of ci and

of \5 mm. Then, the SR and SCR values were found to be /i with different normal stresses is illustrated in Fig. 11.

27 and 4, respectively. The GSI value of the slope material The normal stress level on the actual sliding surface attains

is 24, as seen in Fig. 8, indicating a blocky and disturbed a maximum value of 130 kPa. On the other hand, the

rock mass. It should be noted that the material constant mi instantaneous cohesion varies between 6 and 28 kPa,

was selected as 4 in the back analysis with regards to the whereas the instantaneous internal friction angle changes

recommended mi values for clastic rocks by Hoek et al. between 21 and 50.

(1995), because the triaxial test is almost impossible to

carry out on such rock types. Additionally, a disturbance

factor (D) value of 0.8 was employed in the back analysis 5 First Remedial Measure: Application

in accordance with Hoek et al. (2002), as the slope was of the Retaining Pile Wall

excavated mechanically and was subjected to a minor

disturbance due to stress relief from overburden removal. After the first failure, it was planned to construct retaining

The GSI(s)-GSI(m) graph obtained from the back anal- piles in front of WT1 in order to stabilize the constructed

ysis of the failed slope following the procedure proposed tank. Therefore, both the safety of WT1 would be provided

by Sonmez et al. (1998) is illustrated in Fig. 9. The GSIRM and the toe buttress on the foundation of WT2 would be

value of the failed slope was found to be 21, as seen in removed. In addition to retaining piles, a new re-sloping was

Fig. 9. As the surface characteristics of discontinuities also performed by lowering the slope angle of benches, to

were very poor and the slope material was tectonically decrease sliding forces. The shear strength parameters were

deformed, sheared, and jointed with a chaotic structure, the assessed for the pile design due to the presence of insuffi-

GSIRM value of the rock mass assessed by back analysis is cient data for the slope material. Two different material

reasonable and is compatible with the GSI value of 24 zones were distinguished during the design phase. The first

determined in the field. zone on the upper level of the slope was represented by

The HoekBrown failure envelope of the slope-forming disturbed material which was affected from the first slide.

rock mass was constructed using the GSI value of 24 The second zone under the first subdivision was the undis-

determined in the field and the related material constants turbed section of the rest of the slope. The slope material

(mb: 0.034, s: 8.5e-6, a: 0.5) calculated in accordance with parameters used for the design of the retaining piles are

Eqs. 2 and 3 (Fig. 10). Based on the back analysis con- presented in Table 1 (GDBP 2006). It should be kept in

sidering the pre-failure slope geometry and the location of mind that the shear strength values in Table 1 are not related

the sliding surface in Fig. 7, the normal and shear stresses to the back analyses performed in this study. The new slope

acting at the bottom of each slice of the observed failure model with the retaining pile wall is presented in Fig. 12.

surface was calculated. These data pairs were plotted onto As shown in Fig. 12, the new cut slope between the two

the non-linear HoekBrown failure envelope of the water storage tanks has three benches with lower inclina-

investigated rock mass, as depicted in Fig. 10. These tions (5457). Furthermore, 15.6-m long RC piles

normalshear stress plots mostly fall on the HoekBrown (diameter 80 cm) without any anchors were proposed to

failure envelope, indicating that the location of the sliding support WT1. The axial distance(s) between each pile is

surface, the estimated GSI value via back analysis, and the 1.60 m. After the preliminary design, a contiguous bored

rock mass parameters accurately represent the studied pile wall was constructed in accordance with the submitted

failure. support model. The slope was then re-excavated with three

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass 365

Fig. 8 Determination of the GSI value of the slope material using the proposed chart by Sonmez and Ulusay (2002)

benches. Subsequent to concrete pile wall construction and drilled between WT1 and the retaining pile wall. Each hole

re-sloping, the buttress at the slope toe was removed. was cased with an inclinometer casing to monitor probable

Additionally, a total of three 22-m deep boreholes were lateral movements in the slope and the retaining pile wall.

123

366 M. Akin

Fig. 9 GSI(s)-GSI(m) graph obtained from the back analysis of the failure surface (ci and /i) graph

failed slope using the non-linear approach

placed immediately to stabilize the slope. The lateral

movement in the slope was prevented after this toe buttress

application (11.05.2006), according to the inclinometer

measurements shown in Fig. 13.

The second failure after the retaining pile wall con-

struction indicated that the support was not sufficient to

provide stability for the cut slope and WT1. The slope

material facing the retaining pile wall was the only

resisting force for the bending moments on the anchorless

piles. The release of the resisting slope material after the

failure resulted in a lateral movement towards the longi-

tudinal slope axis in the retaining piles, due to the lateral

earth pressure on the backs of the piles. Besides, when the

cumulative displacement graph in Fig. 13 is observed, it

can be clearly seen that the first lateral movement started

Fig. 10 HoekBrown failure envelope of the studied rock mass and

almost from the bottom of the piles (around 12 m). Finally,

the normalshear stress pairs acting on the observed failure surface it can be concluded that the decrease of resisting forces

calculated by means of back analysis acting on the pile wall after the second slide caused sig-

nificant pile displacements in the contiguous retaining piles

6 Second Slope Failure after Pile Wall Construction without any anchorage.

tion and the removal of the toe buttress (22.04.2006), a 7 Final Solution for Stability: Permanent Toe Buttress

lateral movement along the longitudinal slope axis (parallel

to the failure direction) was noticed by inclinometer mea- It was of great importance to maintain the permanent sta-

surements. Fifteen days following the first inclinometer bility of WT1 on the upper elevation after the first slope

measurement (07.05.2006), the lateral movement attained a failure. However, the constructed pile wall support was

maximum value of 10 mm. The inclinometer data indi- unsatisfactory for slope stabilization. Therefore, an

cated that the slope in front of the retaining pile wall was improved solution that would result in a factor of safety

still unstable and that the slope was still moving along the sufficient to resist additional slope movements was

same failure surface (Fig. 13). A large-scale tension crack implemented. Toe counterweights and buttresses are gen-

was also observed on the slope benches as an obvious sign erally efficient for the mitigation of slope instability (Rowe

of slope instability (Fig. 14a). In addition to the tension 2001). The application of a temporary toe buttress after the

crack, progressive small-scale cracks occurred adjacent to first and second slides prevented additional slope dis-

WT1 (Fig. 14b). A granular toe buttress was once again placements. Therefore, a larger buttress was constructed

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass 367

Table 1 Specific slope material parameters used for the retaining pile wall design (GDBP 2006)

Unit weight (cn) Cohesion Internal friction Modulus of elasticity Poissons

(kN/m3) (c) (kPa) angle (/) () (E) (MPa) ratio (t)

material)

Zone 2 (undisturbed 19 35 28 500 0.35

material)

retaining piles and re-sloping

(modified after GDBP 2006)

at the lower elevation (WT2) had to be shifted about 10 m

in the direction opposite to the longitudinal slope axis to

make room for the toe buttress. As previously mentioned,

the construction area was restricted by an expropriation

boundary which made the shifting quite impossible. Hence,

the expropriation boundary was officially enlarged by the

municipal council to create extra space. Consequently, the

site was expanded, which permitted the construction of

both the toe buttress and WT2.

The final slope geometry with a granular buttress is

depicted in Fig. 15. It is important to notice that the new

buttress entirely covers the slope benches and applies a

higher resisting force. No lateral displacements were

observed in the ongoing inclinometer measurements after

the installation of the new buttress. Having completed the

installation of the new buttress on the slope, the larger RC

water storage tank at the lower elevation (WT2) was con-

structed in front of the new support (Fig. 16).

analyzed by the slope stability analysis considering the

Fig. 13 Cumulative displacement graph from inclinometer 1 (paral- seismic effect in this study. The project area is located in a

lel to the longitudinal slope axis) (modified after GDBP 2006) seismically active zone in the Western Anatolia Region. A

123

368 M. Akin

Fig. 14 Slope failure-related problems after the construction of the retaining pile wall (a tension crack on slope benches, b small-scale crack

near the water tank, c retaining pile wall and slope, d inclinometer casing between WT1 and retaining pile wall)

with a granular toe buttress

(modified after GDBP 2006)

significant extensional regime in this region resulted in study area. Therefore, the maximum expected earthquake

numerous normal faults and graben systems (Bozkurt with a moment magnitude of 7.4 was considered in the

2001). The Manisa Fault exists in the very close vicinity of long-term stability assessment in this study. Additionally,

the project area. This normal fault is about 40 km in length the epicentral distance (Re) to the main segment of the

and lies in the southern margin of Manisa city (Fig. 17). Gediz Graben is around 25 km.

Although a moment magnitude (Mw) of 5.2 was recorded in The peak ground acceleration in the project area was

1994 in this fault segment (Emre et al. 2005), Kayabali and evaluated by two different regional attenuation relation-

Akin (2003) and Ulusay et al. (2004) assigned values of 7.2 ships of Ulusay et al. (2004) and Kayabali and Beyaz

and 7.4, respectively, to the Gediz Graben which is 150 km (2011), given in Eqs. 4 and 5, respectively. In these

long in total and is the main tectonic feature around the equations, PGA is the peak ground acceleration (cm/s2),

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass 369

(a WT1 and upper buttress,

b WT2 and lower buttress,

c complete view of WT2)

graben systems around the study

area (modified from Bozkurt

2001)

123

370 M. Akin

final slope supported by a

permanent granular buttress

Mw is the moment magnitude, and Re is the epicentral significant overflow from water storage tanks. Therefore,

distance (km): the long-term stability of the supported slope design was

investigated using the rock mass parameters determined

PGA 2:18e0:021833:3Mw Re 4

by back analysis. The Slide v.5.0 software (Rocscience

log PGA 2:08 0:0254Mw2 1:001 logRe 1 Inc. 2002) was employed during analysis. It should be

5 noted that the non-linear failure criterion was taken into

consideration. The factor of safety of the final slope

The attenuation relationship proposed by Ulusay et al. design in static conditions is 1.95. In seismic conditions,

(2004) resulted in a peak ground acceleration of 272 cm/s2, considering a maximum of 136 cm/s2 horizontal seismic

whereas the relationship of Kayabali and Beyaz (2011) load, the factor of safety decreases to 1.52 (Fig. 18). The

resulted in a PGA of 113 cm/s2. Therefore, the maximum calculated safety factor is acceptable even in seismic

peak ground acceleration (272 cm/s2) determined by conditions, considering the degree of risk in the project

Ulusay et al. (2004) was accepted for the project area. area.

9 Conclusions

In the seismic slope stability analysis, the determination of

the seismic load acting on the analyzed slope is of great In this paper, the repeated failure of an excavated slope in

importance. A pseudostatic approach is mostly used in heavily jointed shale and sandstone units with a chaotic

seismic slope stability analysis, where the effects of an structure was evaluated via back analysis considering the

earthquake are represented by constant vertical and/or non-linear approach. When compared with field estima-

horizontal accelerations (Kramer 1996). Appropriate tions, the geological strength index (GSI) value obtained by

pseudostatic coefficients should be selected, as the seismic back analysis yields satisfactory results. Furthermore, the

coefficient is a measure of the pseudostatic force on the estimated failure surface of the analyzed slope was verified

slope. However, there are no certain rules for the deter- by comparing normalshear stress plots versus the Hoek

mination of the pseudostatic coefficient in the literature Brown failure envelope derived from the field-based GSI

(Kramer 1996). Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) sug- value. It should be kept in mind that the shear strength

gested that appropriate pseudostatic coefficients for earth parameters are normal stress-dependent in such closely

slopes should be one-half of the peak ground acceleration. jointed rock masses and the non-linear failure approach

For this reason, a maximum of 136 cm/s2 horizontal seis- gives more realistic results. Therefore, assigning specific

mic load (one-half of 272 cm/s2) on the analyzed slope is shear strength parameters during the design phase may lead

taken into consideration in this study. to excessive work and insufficient remedial measures in

such slope stability problems. Finally, the slope design

8.3 Long-Term Stability with permanent granular counterweight seems to be quite

stable in accordance with the limit equilibrium analysis

Long-term stability of the analyzed rock mass should be performed using the non-linear approach in this study. The

maintained, as the close vicinity of the project area is most important message derived from this case study is that

surrounded by residential places and a slope failure proper engineering is important to avoid failure of engi-

may lead to both economic and human loss due to a neering structures.

123

Slope Stability Problems and Back Analysis in Heavily Jointed Rock Mass 371

Acknowledgments The author is grateful to the General Directorate Okay AI, Altiner D (2007) A condensed Mesozoic succession north of

of the Bank of Provinces (GDBP) for providing the necessary tech- Izmir: a fragment of the AnatolideTauride platform in the

nical information about the project. The author also thanks Dr. Samad Bornova Flysch Zone. Turk J Earth Sci 16:257279

Joshani-Shirvan and Dr. Margaret Sonmez for their comments on the Ozdemir A, Delikanli M (2009) A geotechnical investigation of the

use of language. The author would like to express his sincerest retrogressive Yaka Landslide and the debris flow threatening the

gratitude to Prof. Dr. Resat Ulusay for his valuable comments and town of Yaka (Isparta, SW Turkey). Nat Hazards 49:113136

assistance during the block punch index (BPI) tests. Akademi Soil and Popescu ME, Schaefer VR (2008) Landslide stabilizing piles: a

the Rock Mechanics Laboratory deserve thanks for the sample design based on the results of slope failure back analysis. In:

preparation before BPI testing. Thanks are due to the anonymous Chen Z, Zhang JM, Li ZK, Wu FQ, Ho K (eds) Landslides and

reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments. engineered slopes from the past to the future, vols 1 and 2. CRC

Press, Boca Raton, pp 17871793

Rocscience Inc. (2002) Slide version 5.02D limit equilibrium

slope stability analysis. Rocscience, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

References

http://www.rocscience.com

Rowe RK (2001) Geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering

Anderson MG, Richards KS (1987) Slope stability: geotechnical handbook. Kluwer, Dordrecht

engineering and geomorphology. Wiley, New York Sancio RT (1981) The use of back-calculations to obtain shear and

Bozkurt E (2001) Neotectonics of Turkeya synthesis. Geodin Acta tensile strength of weathered rocks. In: Proceedings of the

14:330 international symposium on weak rock, Tokyo, Japan, Septem-

Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Minami M (2007) Determination of ber 1981, pp 647652

residual strength parameters of jointed rock masses using the Sharifzadeh M, Sharifi M, Delbari SM (2010) Back analysis of an

GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:247265 excavated slope failure in highly fractured rock mass: the case

Calderon PA, Adam JM, Paya-Zaforteza I (2009) Failure analysis and study of Kargar slope failure (Iran). Environ Earth Sci

remedial measures applied to a RC water tank. Eng Fail Anal 60:183192

16:16741685 Sonmez H, Ulusay R (1999) Modifications to the geological strength

Emre O, Ozalp S, Dogan A, Ozaksoy V, Yildirim C, Goktas F (2005) index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J

Active faults of Izmir and its close vicinity and their earthquake Rock Mech Min Sci 36:743760

potentials. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Explo- Sonmez H, Ulusay R (2002) A discussion on the HoekBrown failure

ration, Ankara, Turkey, Report No. 10754 (in Turkish) criterion and suggested modifications to the criterion verified by

General Directorate of the Bank of Provinces (GDBP) (2006) Manisa slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri Bull Earth Sci Appl Res

potable water network system construction project reports Centre Hacettepe Univ 26:7799

(unpublished, in Turkish) Sonmez H, Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C (1998) A practical procedure for

Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. The the back analysis of slope failures in closely jointed rock masses.

Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(2):219233

Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF (1995) Support of underground Topal T, Akin M (2009) Geotechnical assessment of a landslide along

excavations in hard rock. Balkema, Rotterdam a natural gas pipeline for possible remediations (Karacabey-

Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B (2002) HoekBrown failure Turkey). Environ Geol 57:611620

criterion2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) (2007) The blue bookthe complete

American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, Canada, July ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and

2002, vol 1, pp 267273 monitoring: 19742006. ISRM & ISRM Turkish National

Hynes-Griffin ME, Franklin AG (1984) Rationalizing the seismic Group, Ankara, p 628. ISBN 978-975-93675-4-1

coefficient method. Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, U.S. Army Ulusay R, Gokceoglu S, Sulukcu S (2001) Draft ISRM suggested

Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, method for determining block punch strength index (BPI). Int J

Mississippi Rock Mech Min Sci 38:11131119

Kayabali K, Akin M (2003) Seismic hazard map of Turkey using the Ulusay R, Tuncay E, Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2004) An attenuation

deterministic approach. Eng Geol 69(12):127137 relationship based on Turkish strong motion data and iso-

Kayabali K, Beyaz T (2011) Strong motion attenuation relationship acceleration map of Turkey. Eng Geol 74:265291

for Turkeya different perspective. Bull Eng Geol Environ Unal E, Ozkan I, Ulusay R (1992) Characterization of weak, stratified

70:467481 and clay-bearing rock masses. In: Hudson JA (ed) Rock

Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice characterization: ISRM symposium, Eurock 92, Chester, UK,

Hall, New Jersey September 1992. British Geotechnical Society, London,

Lee S-G, Hencher SR (2009) The repeated failure of a cut-slope pp 330335

despite continuous reassessment and remedial works. Eng Geol US Army Corps of Engineers (2003) Manual on slope stability.

107:1641 Manual no. EM1110-2-1902

Marinos V, Fortsakis P, Prountzopoulos G (2006) Estimation of rock Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2004) Rock slope engineering: civil and

mass properties of heavily sheared flysch using data from mining, 4th edn. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group, New York

tunnelling construction. IAEG2006, paper number 314 Yang X-L, Yin J-H (2004) Slope stability analysis with nonlinear

Morales T, Uribe-Etxebarria G, Uriarte JA, Fernandez de Valderrama failure criterion. J Eng Mech 130(3):267273

I (2004) Geomechanical characterisation of rock masses in

Alpine regions: the Basque Arc (BasqueCantabrian basin,

Northern Spain). Eng Geol 71:343362

123

- Rock Slope Stability and ExcavatabilityUploaded byGAUCHEX697355
- TC2-5 - Slope Stability GuidelineUploaded byErland Prasetya
- Analysis of the Stability of Slopes Reinforced byUploaded byTruc Phan
- Hoek 2018.pdfUploaded byBryan Peralta Gonzalez
- 40_WinesUploaded byRonan Cayo
- Stability Analysis of Open Pit Slope by Finite Difference MethodUploaded byesatjournals
- Chapter 5Uploaded bysalimaliomar2000
- Analisis numerico GeotecnicoUploaded byDavid Esteban
- Modelling Expansive Soil FEMUploaded bymed Amine
- Lecture2.pdf-FoundationFailures.pdfUploaded byptdcaliguid
- Utexas4 ManualUploaded byhuyctt
- Conditions for Award of Specialisations_Aug13Uploaded bySuman Saha
- Ejercicio 2 Geo SlopeUploaded byLuis Eduardo Leon Osorio
- Specialisations_Conditions for Award of Specialisations_Aug12Uploaded bylim kang hai
- Chapter 14 Geotechnical Seismic Design - 05112010Uploaded byVanessa Peñaranda
- 02 Causes of Slope FailureUploaded byjose
- Lateral CapacityUploaded byChowdhury Priodeep
- 9-stability-of-slope-with-retaining-wall.pdfUploaded byRizal MoonAchank Akbar
- GIS-3D Analysis of Susceptibility Landslide Disaster in Upstream Area of Jeneberang River Watershed, South Sulawesi, IndonesiaUploaded byIJIRAE- International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering
- AGS_2013-1_article_5Uploaded byDevsoth Naresh
- UNIT.5 mtech ground improvementUploaded byharish babu aluru
- LorigUploaded byRaul Pozo
- Six Pile Cap reinforced concrete.docxUploaded byFaheem Khan
- Slide VerificationManual Part1Uploaded byNamtaru Ba'al
- 1 articulo rocas .pdfUploaded byMaria Victoria Ricaurte
- test3Uploaded byjhacademyhyd
- Managing Powerhouse Back Slope.pdfUploaded bySushil Dhungana
- River Sediment Geotechnical Report Deep Xcav Software Used-CH2MHILLUploaded byGEOMAHESH
- Lec 10 Slope StabilityUploaded byAmr Ragheb
- Parametric Evaluation of the Stability of Natural Slopes (Rmr and Smr)Uploaded byFarisyah Melladia Utami

- 3D Geoscience Modeling, Computer Techniques for Geological Characterization [Simon W. Houlding, 1994] -(Geo Pedia)-.pdfUploaded bybeku_ggs_beku
- Manual Ms ProyectUploaded byNoe Arenales
- 1966 Deere D.U. y Miller R.P. - Eng Class and I Prop for Intact RockUploaded byRonald Landa
- zoback2003.pdfUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- Dossier Presentacion ConstruccionUploaded byRonald Anderson Polo Salas
- 1-TS15-Rogers.pdfUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- ruidoodddUploaded byRdg Hugo Rodriguez Zapacayo
- 18-_Estabilidad_de_taludes.pptUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- 10. Tema 3 ESTABILIDAD DE LADERAS Bloque II (1).pdfUploaded byJoel Solano
- 5 Structurally Controlled Instability in TunnelsUploaded bySamaptika Mohanty
- Algebra y Trigonometria Segunda EdicionUploaded byAndrea Urrego
- CURSOCIPUploaded byFergus Gonzales
- CURSOCIPUploaded byFergus Gonzales
- CURSOCIPUploaded byFergus Gonzales
- 6.METODOS DE DISEÑO DE VOLADURAUploaded byJuliano Parra Sifuentes
- SOSTENIMIENTO DE TUNELES UPCUploaded byjrpinedar0711
- Tutor 03 Instrucciones de ApoyoUploaded byDiego Pacheco Lizarme
- Tutorial_01_Quick_StartUploaded byAdil Mohammadi
- Book 2018 Encyclopedia of Engineering GeologyUploaded byscribd_geotec
- Book 2018 Encyclopedia of Engineering GeologyUploaded byscribd_geotec
- 1_MACIZOS_ROCOSOS_GEOCONTROL.pdfUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- Inglés Paso a Paso Con Vaughan 01Uploaded byenier
- Tutor 11 Uso de GeosinteticosUploaded byWily Pablo Condori
- Analisis Asimetrico (2)Uploaded byEfrainmanasesRamosAsencios
- 01. ENSAYO EN ROCA.pdfUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- 1-s2.0-S221439981630025X-main.pdfUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- Phase FracturaUploaded bysukhoi200900
- Tutorial Phase2_StressVerification.pdfUploaded byCarlos Ayamamani
- Tutor 04 Superficie de ExcavacionUploaded byDiego Pacheco Lizarme
- Inglés Paso a Paso Con Vaughan 05Uploaded byLuis Torres

- Shallow Foundation and Deep FoundationUploaded byWei Siong
- 17075.pdfUploaded byRagh
- 1997 UBC Earthquake DesignUploaded bypandiangv
- Safe Bearing Capacity DefinitionUploaded byKhairunnisa Zakiri
- gtr6`Uploaded byChristian Gerald Daniel
- Civil Engineering BrochureUploaded bytimmytanks40
- afe 1Uploaded bychaituking
- Abutment A1Uploaded byprabhu
- HES5340 Fluid Mechanics 2, Lab 2 - COMPRESSIBLE FLOW (Converging-Diverging Duct Test) (Semester 2, 2012) by Stephen, P. Y. BongUploaded byStephenPYBong
- 89AhhUploaded byRaman Lux
- Super t StandardsUploaded bychithirai10
- Shearwalls & Boundary ElementsUploaded byFAJAR1990
- Bridge Plan ChecklistUploaded byYamilethD
- Www.sefindiaUploaded bySUSHANTBIJAM
- Road DrainageUploaded bykictodd
- Braced Frames - SteelconstructionUploaded byKranthi Kumar Chowdary Manam
- Collapse of Tacoma Narrows BridgeUploaded byMohamed Elfawal
- 6. TRX UU.pdfUploaded byalnis
- Geotechnical Engineering - Slope Stability.pdfUploaded byristif87
- 179295534-J60-A-DOC-VE-750731-PDF.pdfUploaded byนายช่าง มอดินแดง
- Brochure Main EquipmentUploaded bynavalzero910
- RCC MaterialUploaded byDharatiSote
- 05-8 QCS 2014Uploaded byRaja Ahmed Hassan
- 2011-11-09 Diana and AtenaUploaded byrelu
- Under sleeper padsUploaded byAlex Valentin
- Engineering HydrologyUploaded byAhmed Buaishi
- 302199566 Fluent Intro 16 0 L07 TurbulenceUploaded bylighthillj
- Punching of Prestressed Flat Slabs - Experimental Analysis - António M. P. Ramos, Válter J.G. LúcioUploaded byVálter Lúcio
- Seismic Provisions IRC-6 DraftUploaded bySravan Muguda Viswanath
- IES-Conventional-Civil-Engineering-2013.pdfUploaded byPuneetkumar Garg