Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 9 Design, Analysis, and Testing of Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations that Support Transportation Facilities
Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Slope Stability
Download 6.03 Mb. View original pdf
|
Soldier Rev B
| 10.2.2 Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Slope Stability Slope stability is evaluated at the AASHTO (2014) Service I Load Combination relative to geotechnical resistance factors that are the inverse of the factor of safety (FS) computed by the various software available for slope analysis. In practice, the target geotechnical resistance factors (ϕ) of 0.75 and 0.65, as referenced in 11.6.2.3 of AASHTO (2014), are equal to a factor of safety (FS) of 1/Φ, or FS 1.33 and 1.53, respectively. For consistency with the literature, analyses referred to herein are based on the use of estimated soil strength values and a factor of safety (FS) Initial Geotechnical Resistance Assessment Using the information from the data gathering phase described in Section 10.2.1, analyses of the overall slope maybe performed using a limit equilibrium approach such as the Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or Spencer methods, as available in several different geotechnical analysis software. As discussed in Section 10.3, selection of a computer software that allows for evaluation of forces acting upon individual slices within the overall slope model is particularly useful in the subsequent analyses of slope stability with deep foundation elements installed to supplement the available shear resistance on the failure plane. If the existing slope is failing, the computed factor of safety should approximate 1.0, comparable to a geotechnical resistance factor of 1.0 for the Service Limit State, Should the computer simulated surface of failure differ significantly from the estimated shear failure surface based on surface observations and inclinometer data, the engineering properties, soil stratification and/or pore pressures within the slope should be adjusted in iterative “back-analyses” until the output from the computer analysis conforms to the observed conditions. A back-analysis that produces a geotechnical factor of safety of 1.0 (geotechnical resistance factor 1.0), but includes a calculated failure surface that is inconsistent with field observations should not be relied upon. All relevant parameters need to be consistent with observations. Download 6.03 Mb. Share with your friends:
|