Skip to main content

Advances in Determining Δu and su for Limit Equilibrium Analyses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Landslides in Sensitive Clays

Part of the book series: Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research ((NTHR,volume 46))

Abstract

It is well known that in undrained stability calculations, total stress and effective stress analyses do not give the same calculated factor of safety when FOS >1. This is due to the fact that shear strength is defined differently in these two approaches: In total stress analyses, the mobilised shear stress is compared to undrained shear strength, i.e. strength at failure. In undrained effective stress analyses, the shear strength is defined as corresponding to the mobilised effective stress state. This causes an overestimation of FOS in undrained φ′-c′ analyses. Modelling of excess pore pressure Δu has traditionally been source of most uncertainty in undrained effective stress analyses. Having the correct shear strength along the slip surface can be considered the most crucial detail in all stability analyses. It can be argued that in the context of Limit Equilibrium analyses where deformations are not considered, priority should be given to calculating the shear strength correctly, instead of attempting to obtain a “correct” mobilised Δu value. This paper gives a general introduction to the new HSU (Hybrid s u ) method. For the purposes of LEM analyses, Δu is calculated so that the resulting Mohr-Coulomb shear strength corresponds to the assumed failure state. This approach solves the inherent overestimation of FOS in undrained φ′-c′ analyses. To predict the effective stress at failure, a constitutive effective stress soil model is employed. Also presented is a concept of deriving undrained shear strength s u in LEM, based on an effective stress soil model. This makes it possible to conduct the LEM stability analysis in terms of total stresses, while deriving soil strength from effective strength parameters. The different approaches of calculating Δu and s u with the HSU method are compared using a theoretical stability calculation example. The relative merits of the different approaches are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Géotechnique 5(1):7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahn J (2003) The 2001 R.M. Hardy lecture: the limits of limit equilibrium analyses. Can Geotech J 40(3):643–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson R, Sällfors G, Bengtsson P-E, Alén C, Bergdahl U, Eriksson L (2007) Skjuvhållfasthet – utvärdering i kohesionsjord. Statens geotekniska institut (SGI), Linköping

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen V (2015) Modelling undrained shear strength and pore pressure based on an effective stress soil model in Limit Equilibrium Method. Dissertation, TUT Publication 1337, Tampere University of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen V, Länsivaara T (2013) Two methods for estimating excess pore pressure in LEM. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, 2–6 September 2013, Paris, p 755–758

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen V, Länsivaara T (2016) Back-calculation of the Saint-Alban A test embankment with a new modelling approach in LEM. In: Proceedings of the 17th Nordic geotechnical meeting, 25–28 May 2016, Reykjavik, p 691–699

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe K, Burland, J B (1968) On the generalized stress-strain behaviour of wet clay. Engineering plasticity, p 535–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler SJ, Näätänen A, Karstunen M, Lojander M (2003) An anisotropic elastoplastic model for soft clays. Can Geotech J 40(2):403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood DM (1990) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully thank the reviewer, Professor Leena Korkiala-Tanttu (Aalto University, Finland), for her essential input and comments. This research has been made possible by funding from Finnish Transport Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ville Lehtonen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lehtonen, V., Länsivaara, T. (2017). Advances in Determining Δu and su for Limit Equilibrium Analyses. In: Thakur, V., L'Heureux, JS., Locat, A. (eds) Landslides in Sensitive Clays. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics