Technical Note

Limit Analysis for Local and Overall Stability

of a Slurry Trench in Cohesive Soil
Chang-Yu Han1; Jian-Hua Wang2; Xiao-He Xia3; and Jin-Jian Chen4

Abstract: This paper uses limit analysis to develop a two-dimensional (2D) and a three-dimensional (3D) analysis of slurry trench local and
overall stability for cohesive soil. Formulas for the slurry trench stability analysis are obtained through theoretical derivation based on limit
analysis theory, and rotational mechanisms are then presented for slurry trench stability. For 2D slurry trench local and overall stability, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

failure surface has the shape of a circular arc, whereas it has the shape of spherical cap for 3D local stability, and it has the shape of a torus
with an outline dened by a circle for 3D overall stability. Examples are provided to illustrate the safety factor inuenced by the slurry and
soil bulk density ratio, slurry level depth and trench depth ratio, thickness of the weak soil layer, cohesion, and trench width and depth ratio.
The safety factor for the 3D solutions is approximately 1.1 times greater than the safety factor for the 2D solutions for local stability but 1.2 times
greater (B=h 5 1) for overall stability. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000268. This work is made available under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Limit analysis; Overall stability; Slurry trench; Local stability.

Introduction
Slurry trenches are used in the construction of groundwater cutoff
walls and subsurface structural diaphragm walls. The stability of
slurry trenches has attracted great attention among geotechnical
researchers and the industry itself because instability of the slurry
trench is common in underground engineering. The safety factor is
an important index in the design of the slurry trench, but little re-
search has been carried out on the subject (Choy et al. 2007; Fox
2004; Morgenstern and Amir-Tahmasseb 1965; Wong 1984).
With a slurry trench, the slope angle is 90 and the slope face has
slurry pressure action. To date, the existing methods for determining
slope stability have been classied into the following three types.
The limit equilibrium method has been commonly used in practice
because of its relative simplicity. This method is based on dis-
cretization into slices, in which global static equilibrium conditions
are satised. Basically, they are based on assumptions of the interslice
forces to make the problem statically (Ahmed et al. 2012; Alejano
et al. 2011; Mendjel and Messast 2012; Tinti and Manucci 2008).
Finite-element modeling, based on continuum mechanics, can be
used to determine deformations under loading or the safety factor by
numerical iterations. An appropriate constitutive model for the soil
mass in the slope is needed with these models. With nite-element
modeling, both soil movement and progressive failure can be esti-
mated (Srivastava et al. 2010; Stolle and Guo 2008; Xu 2011).
Limit analysis, based on plasticity limit theorems, has an advan-
tage in that the lower- and upper-bound theorems bracket the true
solution. This approach is rigorous so that the stress eld with a lower-
bound solution is in equilibrium and yield criterion at every point in
the soil; the velocity eld with an upper-bound solution is compatible
with ow rule and the imposed displacements. In recent years, great
efforts have been devoted to the application of the plasticity limit
theorems to slope stability (Kumar and Sahoo 2012; Li et al. 2010;
Loukidis et al. 2003; Michalowski 2010; Yang and Yang 2010).
The overall stability of trenches has been addressed numerous
times; however, a limit analysis for local stability of slurry trenches
has not been reported. This paper aimed to develop a two-dimensional
(2D) and a three-dimensional (3D) analysis of slurry trench local and
overall stability for cohesive soil. Formulas for slurry trench stability
analysis are obtained through theoretical derivation based on the limit
analysis theory, and rotational mechanisms are then presented for
slurry trench stability. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate
the safety factor inuenced by the trench width and depth ratio (B=h),
thickness of the weak soil layer (h9),
n cohesion (c), slurry and soil bulk
density ratio (gsr =g), distance from the slurry level to the trench top,
and trench width ratio (hsr =h).

1
Ph.D., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong Univ., Shanghai
200240, China; Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering and
Architecture of Henan Univ., Kaifeng 475004, China (corresponding au-
thor). E-mail: hanyu02@163.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong Univ., Shang-
hai 200240, China.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong Univ., Shang-
hai 200240, China.
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong
Univ., Shanghai 200240, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 2, 2012; approved on
October 31, 2012; published online on November 3, 2012. Discussion period
open until March 28, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/06014026(9)/$25.00.
Limit Analysis for Slurry Trench Stability
The application of limit analysis to earth slopes started with a paper
by Drucker and Prager (1952), who applied the kinematic approach
of limit analysis to the stability of slopes undergoing plane-strain
failure. Limit analysis aims to evaluate bounds on the limit load
inducing or resisting failure in structures built of perfectly plastic
materials. In the application to slurry trenches, the limit load can be
identied by the weight of the soil. An upper bound can be obtained
from the kinematic method, in which the kinematically admissible
velocity eld denes the possible mechanism of failure. The strain
rates resulting from the velocity eld must satisfy the ow rule that is
associated with the yield condition of the material, and the velocities
must satisfy the boundary conditions. The most common yield

ASCE 06014026-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1

 condition used for undrained, purely cohesive soils is the Tresca
hexagonal yield criterion. The ow rule requires the following re-
lationship among the principal strain rates for problems of plane
plastic ow:
_ 1 _ 3 0 (1)

where _ 1 and _ 3 5 principal strain rates. The mode of deformation in

the transition layer is a combination of the shear ow parallel to the
layer with the extension normal to it. The dissipation rate can be
written as
dD cdvt  (2)

where D 5 dissipation of energy; d 5 variational symbol; c

5 cohesion stress of the soil; and vt  5 tangential velocity change.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The work rate of the soil weight (Ws ) can be calculated as the dot
product of the total weight of a block Wi and the velocity of the block
centroid vci
Ws Wi vci (3)
Fig. 1. Local sloughing
The work rate of the slurry pressure (Wsr ) can be calculated as the dot
product of the pressure (Pi ) of the slurry and the velocity of the vector at the centroid. The rate of external work for the region CFD is
interface of the soil and the slurry (vip ) then found by the dot product of the soil weight concentrated at its

volume centroid and the velocity vector at the centroid.
Wsr Pi vip dSp (4)
The weight of CFD, which is instable and rotational, can be
calculated by the following equation:
For a slurry trench of a given geometry, it is possible to evaluate the
safety factor, dened as G 1 gR2 p 2 2d 2 sin 2 d (6)
2
D Wsr
F (5)
Ws where R and d are shown in Fig. 3.
The work rate of the soil weight can be written as
Equating the external rate of work to the rate of internal energy 2
dissipation, a least upper bound for the safety factor can be obtained. Ws gvR3 cos3 d (7)
3

Limit Analysis for Local Stability Of Slurry Trench where g 5 unit weight of soil; and v 5 angular velocity of the region
CFD for rotation.
Slurry-supported trenches are excavated in soft soil or sand. When the The internal dissipation of energy occurs along the discontinuity
liquid level uctuations are too large or the surface decreases sharply, surface CFD. The total internal dissipation of energy is found by
a local instability and overexcavation phenomenon often occur (Fig. 1), integration over the whole surface.
which leads to an increase in the lling factor of the concrete and The internal dissipation of energy can be computed as
impermeable material. Therefore, the amount of construction materials  
and the difculty are increased. Fig. 2 shows an example of concrete p
D 2cvR2 2d (8)
lling caused by instability. Redundant concrete must be drilled and 2
removed in subsequent construction, which is wasteful, increases the
difculty, and increases the noise and damage to adjacent buildings. The rate of external work due to the slurry pressure occurs along the
surfaces CE and ED. The rate of external work due to the slurry
2D Local Stability pressure is found by integration over the whole surface.
Soils are described as purely cohesive when their shear strength is in- The rate of external work due to the slurry pressure on CE is
dependent of the level of stress. This is typical of clays subjected to
p=22d

undrained conditions. Constructing rotational mechanisms for such soils
is relatively simple, because their deformation occurs without volume WCE vg sr R2 sin2 d tan u sec2 u
change. Fig. 3 shows a kinematically admissible velocity eld. The 0
rotating mechanism has the shape of a cylinder. This mechanism was
 h1 R cos d 2 R sin d tan udu (9)
considered earlier by Baligh and Azzouz (1975) and Gens et al. (1988).
The bow-shaped CFD (a surface of velocity discontinuity shown
in Fig. 3) rotates about the center of rotation O with the materials The rate of external work due to the slurry pressure on ED is
below the surface CFD remaining at rest. Thus, the surface CFD is p=22d

a surface of velocity discontinuity. WED 2 vgsr R2 sin2 d tan b sec2 bh1 R cos d
It is very complicated to determine the direct integration of
0
the external work rate due to the soil weight in the region CFD. An
easier alternative is to rst nd the area centroid and the velocity R sin d tan bdb (10)

ASCE 06014026-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Concrete overow caused by local sloughing of slurry trench

Fig. 4. Spherical cap failure surface: (a) cross section of mechanism;

(b) coordinate system

3D Local Stability
The actual instability of a slurry trench is a 3D problem, so one must
consider the 3D space effects when the length of the slurry trench is
short. Fig. 4 shows a 3D rotational mechanism in cohesive soils
(undrained behavior), with a spherical failure surface conned to the
vertical portion of the slurry trench. This mechanism is often used to
analyze slope instability problems (Grifths and Marquez 2008;
Fig. 3. Two-dimensional rotational mechanism for slurry trench local Hungr et al. 1989; Silvestri 2006); a special case of mechanisms was
instability considered earlier by Baligh and Azzouz (1975).
The weight of spherical cap CFD is
where gsr 5 unit weight of the slurry in the trench; and h1 5 distance G p gR3 1 2 sin d2 2 sin d (13)
from the slurry level to the weak layer soil. 3
The total rate of external work due to the slurry pressure is
The work rate of the soil weight Ws was obtained as the dot product
Wsr 2 vg sr R3 cos2 d cot d (11) of the soil weight concentrated at its volume centroid and the
3
centroid velocity vector, yielding
The safety factor (F) in Eq. (5) can then be obtained by substituting
Eqs. (7), (8), and (11) into Eq. (5) as follows: Ws 1 vgpR4 cos4 d (14)
4
3c p 2 2d gsr 1
F (12)
gh9n cos2 d g sin d The work dissipation rate is

where h9n 5 thickness of the weak soil layer; and d 5 medivariation. p=2
p=2 p
The function Fd has a minimum value when d satises the D 4vcR 3
cos u 1 2 sin2 a cos2 udadu (15)
condition F=d 5 0. d 0

ASCE 06014026-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1

 The rate of external work due to the slurry pressure occurs along v v0 (22)
the surface CED, but the rate is found by integration over the whole
surface. where v0 5 magnitude of the velocity at point A. From the geo-
The rate of external work due to the slurry pressure on CE is metrical relations, it may be shown that the values h and L can be
expressed in terms of the angles u0 and uh in the form
a
WCE 2vgsr R3 sin2 d tan b sec2 bh1 R cos d h r0 sin uh 2 sin u0 (23)
0
q L r0 csc uh sinuh 2 u0 2 r0 cot uh sin uh 2 sin u0 (24)
2 R sin d tan b cos2 d 2 sin2 d tan2 bdb (16)
Following Ausilio et al. (2000), the work rate of the soil weight (Ws )
The rate of external work due to the slurry pressure on ED is
can be written as
a Ws gR3 v f11 2 f12 2 f13  (25)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

WED 2vg sr R sin d tan b sec bh1 R cos d

3 2 2

0 where v 5 angular velocity of the region ABC for rotation. The

q functions f21 , f22 , and f23 will be explained in Eqs. (34)(36).
R sin d tan b cos2 d 2 sin2 d tan2 bdb (17) The internal dissipation of energy occurs along the discontinuity
The total rate of external work due to the slurry pressure is surface AC. The total internal dissipation of energy (D) is found by
integration over the whole surface
p=22d
p D cvr2 uh 2 u0 (26)
tan2 u
Wsr 4vgsr R sin d 4 2
cos2 d 2 sin2 d tan2 udu
cos2 u
0 The slurry velocity (vsr ) during rotation about axis O is
(18)
vsr rx2 v sin u (27)
The safety factor (F) in Eq. (5) can then be obtained by substituting
Eqs. (14), (15), and (18) into Eq. (5) as follows: The slurry pressure is

32c 16gsr sin2 d psr 2gsr rx2 h99s sec u (28)

F f1 f2 (19)
pgh9n cos d
3 pg cos4 d
where the functions rx1 , rx2 , and h99 are dened by Eqs. (29)(31)
in which the functions f1 and f2 are dened as

p=2
p=2 p
f1 cos u 1 2 sin2 a cos2 udadu
d 0 (20)
p=22d
p
tan2 u
f2 cos2 d 2 sin2 d tan2 udu
cos2 u
0

The function Fd has a minimum value when d satises the

condition F=d 5 0.

Limit Analysis for Overall Stability of Slurry Trench

2D Overall Stability
In cohesive soil (c . 0, w 5 0), the slip surface is usually assumed to
be circular (Baligh and Azzouz 1975; Hungr et al. 1989; Silvestri
2006). In this study, a circular slip surface is assumed for the overall
stability analysis of a slurry trench in cohesive soil, as shown in
Fig. 5.
The circular slip surface is described by
r r0 (21)
Fig. 5. Two-dimensional rotational mechanism for slurry trench
where r0 is shown in Fig. 5. Hence, the magnitude of the velocity
overall instability
vector v along this surface varies according to

ASCE 06014026-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1

 cos uh 3D Overall Stability
rx1 r0 (29)
cos usr Soils are described as purely cohesive (c . 0, w 5 0) when their
shear strength is independent of the level of stress. This is typical of
cos uh
rx2 r0 (30) clays subjected to undrained conditions. Constructing rotational
cos u
mechanisms for such soils is relatively simple, because their de-
h99 rx2 sin u 2 rx1 sin uw (31) formation occurs without volume change. Consequently, the surface
of revolution provides a torus surface, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The
The total rate of external work (Wsr ) due to the slurry pressure is similar shape of this mechanism was considered by Michalowski
and Drescher (2009) and Xia et al. (2012).
uh The trace of the mechanism on the symmetry plane is described
Wsr vg sr rx22 h99 tan udu by two circular arcs, AC and A9C9. The equation for the torus surface
usr is given by

2 1 vgsr R3 sec3 usr sin2 usr 2 uh

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12 r r0 , r9 r90 (43)
 sinusr 2 uh 2 3 sinusr uh  (32)
With the circular arcs r0 and r90 dening the shape of the failure
surface in Fig. 6 given in Eq. (43), the centerline of the conical
The safety factor (F) in Eq. (5) can then be obtained by substituting
Eqs. (25), (26), and (32) into Eq. (5) as follows: volume rm u and the radius of the circular cross section R are found
as
c uh 2 u0 sin uh 2 sin u0  1 gsr f14
F
rm r r9, R r 2 r9
(33)
gh f11 2 f12 2 f13 12 g f11 2 f12 2 f13 (44)
2 2
in which the functions f11 , f12 , f13 , f14 , f15 , usr , and uB are dened as To calculate the work of the soil weight, a local coordinate system x,
y was introduced, as shown in Fig. 6. The velocity during rotation
f11 1 sin uh 2 sin u0 (34) about axis O is
3

1 v rm yv (45)
f12 f02 2 cos u0 2 f02 (35)
6
where v 5 angular velocity, and the innitesimal volume element
1 is
f13 sinuh 2 u0 2 f02 sin uh cos u0 2 f02 cos uh  (36)
6
dV dxdyrm ydu (46)
f14 sec3 usr sin2 usr 2 uh sinuh 2 usr 3 sinusr uh  (37)
The work rate of the soil weight (Ws ) can be written as
" #
f01 cot uB sin u0
usr arccos p
(38)
1 f01 sin u0 2 f01 csc2 uB sin u0

 
sin u0
uB arctan (39)
cos uh

where

h 1
f01 (40)
hsr sin uh 2 sin u0

sinuh 2 u0 cos uh
f02 2 sin uh 2 sin u0 (41)
sin uh sin uh

The function F has a minimum value when u0 and uh satisfy the

conditions

F F
0, 0 (42)
u0 uh

Solving these equations and substituting the values of u0 and uh Fig. 6. Three-dimensional rotational mechanism for slurry trench
thus obtained into Eq. (33) yields a least upper bound for the safety overall instability
factor, F, of a slurry trench.

ASCE 06014026-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1

 "u The function F has a minimum value when u0 , uh , and r9=r
B x1 y1 0 0 satisfy

Ws 2vg 2
rm y cos udydxdu the conditions
u0 0 a F 0, F 0,  F  0
uh x2 y1
# u0 uh r9=r
0 0
(58)

rm y2 cos udydxdu (47)

The safety factor of a slurry trench also can be calculated with
uB 0 d Eq. (58). To avoid lengthy computations, these simultaneous
equations may be solved by a numerical procedure. The minimum F
where the functions x1 , x2 , y1 , a, d will be dened by Eqs. (53) and is calculated with independent variable parameters u0 , uh , and r9=r
0 0.
(54).
The internal dissipation of energy (D) can be computed by
2 3 Results and Discussion
uB
R uh
R
2 2
6 r y r y 7
D 2vcR4 pm dydu pm dydu5 (48) It is commonly accepted that 3D analyses yield safety factors for
R 2y
2 2 R2 2 y2 slopes that are greater than those from 2D analyses (Li et al. 2010;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

u0 a uB d
Tutluoglu et al. 2011). This statement is supported by direct
comparison of analytical results and by intuition, because 2D
The slurry velocity during rotation about axis O is analysis is less restrictive. Michalowski (2010) offered a more
vsr rx2 v sin u (49) formal justication for the statement that a 2D safety factor for
a uniform slope cannot be greater than that from a 3D analysis. Based
The slurry pressure is on the 2D and 3D mechanisms for slurry trench local and overall
p stability, examples are presented in this section to demonstrate the
psr 22gsr rx2 h99 R2 2 d 2 sec u (50) difference between 2D and 3D models.

where the functions rx1 , rx2 , and h99 are dened by Eqs. (29)(31). Comparison between 2D and 3D Solutions of
The total rate of external work (Wsr ) due to the slurry pressure is Local Stability
uh For slurry trench local stability, the estimates of safety factor F were
2x2 tan utan u 2 tan usr obtained using a procedure for a given slurry and soil bulk density
Wsr vg sr r03 cos3 uh du (51)
cos2 u ratio, thickness of the weak soil layer, cohesion, and soil bulk
usr density. The independent variable in the procedure was angle d.
These parameters were varied by a small increment in computational
The safety factor (F) in Eq. (5) can then be obtained by substituting loops, and the process was repeated until the minimum of F was
Eqs. (47), (48), and (51) into Eq. (5) as follows: reached, with the increments of 0.01 used for angle d. The results of
these computations are represented graphically in Figs. 79 for 2D
2cRf21 gw r03 cos3 uh f22
F (52) and 3D solutions.
2gf23 Fig. 7 illustrates the distribution of the safety factor versus the
slurry and soil bulk density ratio (gsr =g). It can be seen that in-
In Eqs. (47), (48), (51), and (52), x1 , x2 , y1 , a, d, f21 , f22 , and f23 are creasing the gsr =g from gsr =g 5 0:5 to gsr =g 5 0:7 can increase the
functions of the soil strength parameters and the geometry of the slip factor of safety by more than 23% (2D) and 21% (3D). The safety
surface, which can be dened as follows: factors for the 3D solutions are approximately 1.08 and 1.1 times
p p p greater than the safety factors for the 2D solutions for c 5 10 kPa and
x1 R2 2 a2 , x2 R2 2 d 2 , y1 R2 2 x2 (53) c 5 20 kPa, respectively.
Fig. 8 shows the distribution of the safety factor versus the
a
sin u0
r0 2 rm , d
cos uh
r0 2 rm (54) thickness of the weak soil layer (h9).
n It can be seen that increasing the
sin u cos u h9n from h9n 5 5 m to h9n 5 30 m can decrease the factor of safety by
more than 49.6% (2D) and 53.4% (3D). The safety factors for the 3D
uB
R uh
R solutions are approximately 1.1 and 1.13 times greater than the
r y2 r y2 safety factors for the 2D solutions for c 5 10 kPa and c 5 20 kPa,
f21 pm dydu pm dydu (55)
R 2 2 y2 R 2 2 y2 respectively.
u0 a uB d
Fig. 9 presents the distribution of the safety factor versus co-
hesion (c). It can be seen that increasing the c from c 5 10 kPa to
uh c 5 20 kPa can increase the factor of safety by more than 24.8%
2x2 tan utan u 2 tan usr
f22 du (56) (2D) and 28.4% (3D). The safety factors for the 3D solutions are
cos2 u approximately 1.12 and 1.08 times greater than the safety factors for
usr
the 2D solutions for h9n 5 10 m and h9n 5 25 m, respectively.
uB x1 y1
The following special example of slurry trench local stability has
the following parameters: slurry and soil bulk density ratio
f23 rm y2 cos udydxdu g sr =g 5 0:6, thickness of the weak soil layer h9n 5 25 m, cohesion
u0 0 a c 5 20 kPa, and soil bulk density g 5 20 kN=m3 . Therefore, the
uh x2 y1 calculated 2D and 3D safety factors F are 1.18 and 1.31, re-
spectively. For the selected geometric parameters (no slurry), a value
rm y2 cos udydxdu (57) of F 5 0:33 was obtained by Michalowski and Drescher (2009)
uB 0 d using the cylindrical surface failure mechanism, and a value of

ASCE 06014026-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1

 Fig. 7. Comparison of results for 2D and 3D local stability with dif-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ferent gsr =g (h9n 5 25 m, g 5 20 kN=m3 )
Fig. 8. Comparison of results for 2D and 3D local stability with dif-
ferent h9n (gsr =g 5 0:6, g 5 20 kN=m3 )
F 5 0:43 was obtained by Baligh and Azzouz (1975) using the
spherical cap failure mechanism. Because slurry pressure prevents
the slope from failing, as the slurry pressure increases, the safety
factor becomes larger and larger.
Comparison between 2D and 3D Solutions of
Overall Stability
The estimates of safety factor F were obtained using a procedure for
a given slurry and soil bulk density ratio, slurry level depth and
trench depth ratio, cohesion, trench width and depth ratio (in 3D),
soil bulk density, and trench depth. Independent variables in the
procedure were angles u0 and uh and ratio r9=r 0 0 (in 3D). These
parameters were varied by a small increment in computational loops,
and the process was repeated until the minimum of F was reached,
with the increments of 0.1 used for angles u0 and uh and 0.01 for
ratio r9=r
0 0 . The results of these computations are represented
graphically in Figs. 59 for 2D and 3D solutions.
This section examines the difference between 2D and 3D models
for various parameters, including g sr =g, hsr =h, c, and B=h. To fa-
cilitate comparison of 2D and 3D calculations, B=h 5 0:5 1, 5, and
10 in the 3D cases.
Fig. 10 illustrates the distribution of the safety factor versus the
slurry and soil bulk density ratio (gsr =g) for various trench width and
depth ratios (B=h). As expected, the safety factor of the slurry trench
increases as gsr =g increases. From this gure, the slurry and soil
ASCE 06014026-7
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1
Fig. 9. Comparison of results for 2D and 3D local stability with dif-
ferent c (gsr =g 5 0:6, g 5 20 kN=m3 )
Fig. 10. Comparison of results for 2D and 3D overall stability with
different gsr =g (hsr =h 5 0:1, c 5 20 kPa, g 5 18 kN=m3 , h 5 10 m)
bulk density ratio, gsr =g, is found to have a great effect on the
solutions. It can be seen that increasing the gsr =g from gsr =g 5 0:5
to g sr =g 5 0:7 can increase the factor of safety by more than 19.6%
(2D) and 15.6% (B=h 5 1). The safety factors for the 3D solutions
are approximately 1.38, 1.18, 1.05, and 1.04 times greater than the
safety factors for the 2D solutions for B=h 5 0:5, B=h 5 1, B=h 5 5,
and B=h 5 10, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the distribution of the safety factor versus the slurry
level depth and trench depth ratio (hsr =h). The safety factor of the
slurry trench decreases as hsr =h increases. From this gure, the slurry
level depth and trench depth ratio, hsr =h, is found to have a great
effect on the solutions. It can be seen that increasing the hsr =h from
hsr =h 5 0:1 to hsr =h 5 0:5 can decrease the factor of safety by more
than 36.4% (2D) and 31.2% (B=h 5 1). The safety factors for the 3D
solutions are approximately 1.42, 1.21, 1.05, and 1.03 times greater
than the safety factors for the 2D solutions for B=h 5 0:5, B=h 5 1,
B=h 5 5, and B=h 5 10, respectively.
Fig. 12 presents the distribution of the safety factor versus co-
hesion (c). The safety factor of the slurry trench increases as c
increases. From this gure, the cohesion, c, is found to have a great
effect on the solutions. It can be seen that increasing the c from
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Comparison of results for 2D and 3D overall stability with
different hsr =h (gsr =g 5 0:6, c 5 20 kPa, g 5 18 kN=m3 , h 5 10 m)
Fig. 12. Comparison of results for 2D and 3D overall stability with
different c (gsr =g 5 0:6, hsr =h 5 0:1, g 5 18 kN=m3 , h 5 10 m)
c 5 10 kPa to c 5 20 kPa can increase the factor of safety by more
than 23.3% (2D) and 28.4% (B=h 5 1).The safety factors for the 3D
solutions are approximately 1.32, 1.16, 1.04, and 1.03 times greater
than the safety factors for the 2D solutions for B=h 5 0:5, B=h 5 1,
B=h 5 5, and B=h 5 10, respectively.
Fig. 13 illustrates the distribution of the safety factor versus the
trench width and depth ratio (B=h) in the 3D cases. As expected, the
safety factor of the slurry trench decreases with increasing trench
width and depth ratio. From this gure, the trench width and depth
ratio, B=h, is found to have a great effect on the chart solutions when
B=h , 5. It can be seen that increasing the B=h from B=h 5 1 to
B=h 5 5 can decrease the factor of safety by more than 13%. This
means that the 3D boundary effect on slurry trench stability is very
large when B=h , 5. As shown in Fig. 13, this difference changes by
less than 1% when the ratio of B=h increases from 5 to 10. This
implies that the 3D end boundary effect decreases more signicantly
with an increasing B=h ratio for the slurry trench. It also means that
the 3D boundary end effect on slurry trench stability is small and is
almost insignicant when B=h $ 10.
The example of slurry trench overall stability has the following
parameters: slurry and soil bulk density ratio gsr =g 5 0:6, slurry
level depth and trench depth ratio hsr =h 5 0:1, cohesion c 5 20 kPa,
ASCE 06014026-8
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1
Fig. 13. Variation of safety factor F with B=h (gsr =g 5 0:6,
hsr =h 5 0:1, c 5 20 kPa, g 5 18 kN=m3 )
soil bulk density g 5 18 kN=m3 , and trench depth h 5 10 m. The
calculated 2D and 3D (B=h 5 1) safety factors F are 0.92 and 1.12,
respectively. For the selected geometric parameters (no slurry),
a value of F 5 0:43 was obtained using the cylindrical surface failure
mechanism, and F 5 0:63 was obtained using the torus failure
mechanism by Michalowski and Drescher (2009).
Conclusions
The upper-bound methods for the 2D and the 3D analysis of slurry
trench local and overall stability for cohesive soil are presented in
this paper. Formulas for the stability analysis of a slurry trench are
obtained through theoretical derivation based on limit analysis
theory. Rotational mechanisms are presented for slurry trench sta-
bility. For 2D slurry trench local and overall stability, the failure
surface has the shape of a circular arc, whereas for 3D local stability,
it has the shape of a spherical cap, and it has the shape of torus with
an outline dened by a circle for 3D overall stability.
Examples are provided to illustrate variations in the safety factor
with the following parameters: slurry and soil bulk density ratio,
slurry level depth and trench depth ratio, thickness of weak soil
layer, cohesion, trench width and depth ratio, soil bulk density, and
trench depth. The stability factor increases with increasing slurry
and soil bulk density ratio and cohesion, and with decreasing slurry
level depth and trench depth ratio, thickness of the weak soil layer,
trench width and depth ratio, soil bulk density, and trench depth.
Based on the comparisons between 2D and 3D solutions, the 3D
effects tend to lose signicance when B=h $ 10. It can be concluded
that when using limit analysis, 2D solutions can replace 3D solutions
for preliminary slurry trench design where B=h $ 10. Based on the
results presented, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Using the limit analysis theory, the 2D and 3D solutions for
the local and overall stability analysis of slurry trench are
obtained; for the application example presented, the safety
factors for the 3D solutions are approximately 1.1 times greater
than the safety factors for the 2D solutions for local stability
but 1.2 times greater (B=h 5 1) for overall stability.
2. The slurry and soil bulk density ratio is found to have a great
effect on the solutions; increasing the gsr =g from gsr =g 5 0:5
to gsr =g 5 0:7 can increase the factor of safety by more than
23% (2D) and 21% (3D) for local stability, and by 19.6% (2D)
and 15.6% (B=h 5 1) for overall stability.
Int. J. Geomech.
 3. The safety factor of a slurry trench decreases as the slurry level
depth and trench depth ratio increases for overall stability;
increasing the hsr =h from hsr =h 5 0:1 to hsr =h 5 0:5 can de-
crease the factor of safety by more than 53.7% (2D) and 51.5%
(B=h 5 1).
4. The boundary effect is found to reduce with increasing trench
width and depth ratio for the 3D slurry trench; in addition, the
safety factors for the 3D slurry trenches are almost unchanged
when B=h $ 10.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported nancially by the Research Fund for
the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (Grant No.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 89.235.94.177 on 04/21/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
20110073120012), the Shanghai Pujiang Talent plan (Grant No.
11PJ1405700), and the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant Nos. 41002095, 41172251, and 41272317).
References
Ahmed, A., Ugai, K., and Yang, Q. Q. (2012). Assessment of 3D slope
stability analysis methods based on 3D simplied Janbu and Hovland
methods. Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000117,
8189.
Alejano, L. R., Ferrero, A. M., Ramirez-Oyanguren, P., and Fernandez,
M. I. A. (2011). Comparison of limit-equilibrium, numerical and physical
models of wall slope stability. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 48(1), 1626.
Ausilio, E., Conte, E., and Dente, G. (2000). Seismic stability analysis of
reinforced slopes. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 19(3), 159172.
Baligh, M. M., and Azzouz, A. S. (1975). End effects on stability of co-
hesive slopes. J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 101(GT11), 11051117.
Choy, C. K., Standing, J. R., and Mair, R. J. (2007). Stability of a loaded pile
adjacent to a slurry-supported trench. Gotechnique, 57(10), 807819.
Drucker, D. C., and Prager, W. (1952). Soil mechanics and plastic analysis
or limit design. Q. Appl. Math., 10(2), 157165.
Fox, P. J. (2004). Analytical solutions for stability of slurry trench.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:7
(749), 749758.
Gens, A., Hutchinson, J. N., and Cavounidis, S. (1988). Three-dimensional
analysis of slides in cohesive soils. Gotechnique, 38(1), 123.
Grifths, D. V., and Marquez, R. M. (2008). Three-dimensional slope
stability analysis by elasto-plastic nite elements. Gotechnique,
57(6), 537546.
ASCE 06014026-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): -1--1
Hungr, O., Salgado, F. M., and Byrne, P. M. (1989). Evaluation of a three-
dimensional method of slope stability analysis. Can. Geotech. J., 26(4),
679686.
Kumar, J., and Sahoo, J. P. (2012). Upper bound solution for pullout capacity
of vertical anchors in sand using nite elements and limit analysis. Int.
J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000160, 333337.
Li, A. J., Merield, R. S., and Lyamin, A. V. (2010). Three-dimensional
stability charts for slopes based on limit analysis methods. Can.
Geotech. J., 47(12), 13161334.
Loukidis, D., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. (2003). Stability of seismically
loaded slopes using limit analysis. Gotechnique, 53(5), 463479.
Mendjel, D., and Messast, S. (2012). Development of limit equilibrium
method as optimization in slope stability analysis. Struct. Eng. Mech.,
41(3), 339348.
Michalowski, R. L. (2010). Limit analysis and stability charts for 3D slope
failures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000251, 583593.
Michalowski, R. L., and Drescher, A. (2009). Three-dimensional stability
of slopes and excavations. Gotechnique, 59(10), 839850.
Morgenstern, N., and Amir-Tahmasseb, I. (1965). The stability of a slurry
trench in cohesionless soils. Gotechnique, 15(4), 387395.
Silvestri, V. (2006). A three-dimensional slope stability problem in clay.
Can. Geotech. J., 43(2), 224228.
Srivastava, A., Babu, G., and Haldar, S. (2010). Inuence of spatial var-
iability of permeability property on steady state seepage ow and slope
stability analysis. Eng. Geol., 110(34), 93101.
Stolle, D., and Guo, P. (2008). Limit equilibrium slope stability analysis
using rigid nite elements. Can. Geotech. J., 45(5), 653662.
Tinti, S., and Manucci, A. (2008). A new computational method based on
the minimum lithostatic deviation (MLD) principle to analyse slope
stability in the frame of the 2-D limit-equilibrium theory. Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., 8(4), 671683.
Tutluoglu, L., Oge, I. F., and Karpuz, C. (2011). Two and three dimensional
analysis of a slope failure in a lignite mine. Comput. Geosci., 37(2),
232240.
Wong, G. C. Y. (1984). Stability analysis of slurry trenches. J. Geotech.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:11(1577), 15771590.
Xia, X.-H., Han, C.-Y., and Wang, J.-H. (2012). Analytical solutions for
three-dimensional stability of limited slopes. J. Shanghai Jiaotong
Univ. (Science), 17(2), 251256.
Xu, J. (2011). Debris slope stability analysis using three-dimensional nite
element method based on maximum shear stress theory. Environ. Earth
Sci., 64(8), 22152222.
Yang, F., and Yang, J. S. (2010). Stability of shallow tunnel using rigid
blocks and nite-element upper bound solutions. Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000011, 242247.
Int. J. Geomech.