TUTCRIS - Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto

TUTCRIS

Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses

Tutkimustuotosvertaisarvioitu

Standard

Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses. / Lehtonen, Ville; Länsivaara, Tim.

Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Research to Implementation. Springer, 2017. s. 237-247 (Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research; Vuosikerta 46).

Tutkimustuotosvertaisarvioitu

Harvard

Lehtonen, V & Länsivaara, T 2017, Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses. julkaisussa Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Research to Implementation. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, Vuosikerta. 46, Springer, Sivut 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21

APA

Lehtonen, V., & Länsivaara, T. (2017). Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses. teoksessa Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Research to Implementation (Sivut 237-247). (Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research; Vuosikerta 46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21

Vancouver

Lehtonen V, Länsivaara T. Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses. julkaisussa Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Research to Implementation. Springer. 2017. s. 237-247. (Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21

Author

Lehtonen, Ville ; Länsivaara, Tim. / Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses. Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Research to Implementation. Springer, 2017. Sivut 237-247 (Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research).

Bibtex - Lataa

@inbook{f0811f9d779640e4816f2b4023de2427,
title = "Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses",
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 su) 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 Su 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 Su with the HSU method are compared using a theoretical stability calculation example. The relative merits of the different approaches are discussed.",
author = "Ville Lehtonen and Tim L{\"a}nsivaara",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-3-319-56486-9",
series = "Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research",
publisher = "Springer",
pages = "237--247",
booktitle = "Landslides in Sensitive Clays",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Lataa

TY - CHAP

T1 - Advances in determining Δu and Su for limit equilibrium analyses

AU - Lehtonen, Ville

AU - Länsivaara, Tim

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - 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 su) 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 Su 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 Su with the HSU method are compared using a theoretical stability calculation example. The relative merits of the different approaches are discussed.

AB - 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 su) 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 Su 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 Su with the HSU method are compared using a theoretical stability calculation example. The relative merits of the different approaches are discussed.

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-56487-6_21

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-3-319-56486-9

T3 - Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research

SP - 237

EP - 247

BT - Landslides in Sensitive Clays

PB - Springer

ER -