This document summarizes an investigation into slope failures at the Giant's Causeway Visitor Centre in Northern Ireland. The author used Oasys Slope 19.0 software to analyze slope stability at three slopes (Slopes A, B, and C) at the site. Data on soil properties including unit weight, cohesion, and friction angle were input into the software to calculate factors of safety using Bishop's method with variably inclined interslice forces. The results indicated factors of safety below the acceptable minimum of 1.3, requiring slope stabilization methods to be recommended.

1. i
dissertation submitted to
UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, COMPUTING AND
ENGINEERING
by
ALEXIO MATHIAS MUSIMBE
(REG NO) 1101393
Course year and course name
Degree: BENG CIVIL ENGINEERING
Module: FINAL YEAR PROJECT CE6216T
Dissertation Title: INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL SLOPE
FAILURE AND SOIL SLOPE STABILITYAT THE
GIANT’S CAUSEWAY VISITORS CENTRE
Course Leader: DR JOHN WALSH
Student Year Number: YEAR THREE
University of East London
Date of Submission: 01 December 2015

2. ii
Acknowledgements
At first I want to express gratitude and praise to God that my project was completed in
time. I would like to thank the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland for offering ground
investigation and geotechnical report of the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre, without
their help it would had been impossible to start this research project.
I would like to thank Dr John Walsh for introducing me to modern slope stability analysis
software (Oasys Slope 19.0) and I am grateful for his enduring advice, interest and help
towards such an interesting project. I also want to express my profound gratitude to Mr
Richard Freeman, the supervisor for this research project for his valuable assistance,
advice, guidance, interest and supervision for all stages of this research project. I
appreciate his guidance and help to this research project.
I would also like to thank my friends and family members for their continuous support
throughout this research project.
Alexio Musimbe, December 2015

3. iii
Abstract This research project focused on the investigation into slope failure and soil slope
This research project focused on the investigation into slope failure and soil slope stability
methods at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre in Northern Ireland. In this research
project Oasys Slope 19.0 was used to analyse the possibility of slope failures. Bisho
Method with variable inclined interstice method was used for analysis. The acceptable
minimum factor of safety, according to BS6031:2009 was set as 1.3.
Basic soil parameter is needed to be used for slope stability analysis by Oasys Slope 19.0
and the results indicated the importance of shear strength in stability of slopes. A further
distinction should also be made of drained and undrained conditions whereby drained
condition refers to a situation whereby drainage is allowed whilst undrained condition
mean drainage is restricted.
The shear strength of the soils at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre have a huge role
in stabilisation of the slopes as most of the soils there are coarse-grained soils. The critical
failure surface and the factor of safety will be part of the output which will be produced by
Oasys Slope software. These will be analysed and if necessary, slope remedial measures
will be suggested as to stabilise the slopes.

4. iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….iii
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………..01
1.1 Overview of the Research Project……………………………………………….02
1.2 Statement Problem of research project…………………………………………03
1.3 Objectives of the research study…………………………………………………03
1.4 Scope of the research project…………………………………………………….04
1.5 Significance of the research project…..………………………………………….05
Chapter 2: Literature review…………………………………………………………………..06
2.1 Background of the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre.…………………….07
2.2 Ground Investigations of the area…………………………………………….07
2.3 Soil’s geotechnical parameters………………………………………………..08
2.3.1 SPT Tests………………………………………………………………...09
2.3.2 SPTCorr v.2.2.…………………………………………………………...11
2.3.3 Unit weight of soil ……………………………………………………….12
2.3.4 Cohesion of soil………………………………………………………….12
2.3.5 Soil friction angle…………………………………………………………12
2.3.6 Slope geometry………………………………………………………….13
2.4 Soil types…………………………………………………………………………13
2.5 Slope stability analysis basic requirements…………………………………..14

5. v
2.6 Drained and Undrained Strength…………………………………………………15
2.6.1 Drained and undrained soil conditions………………………………..…...15
2.6.2 Analysis of drained soil conditions……………………………………….…16
2.6.3 Undrained soil conditions analysis…………………………………………..17
2.7 Short term analysis…………………………………………………………………17
2.8 Analysis of long term conditions…………………………………………………..18
2.9 Pore water pressure analysis……………………………………………..............18
2.10 Circular Surface’s Slip…….………………………………………………………19
2.11 Factor of Safety of the slopes………………………………………………...….19
2.12 Load on the slopes…………………………………………………………………21
2.13 Oasys Slope 19.0 analysis………………………………………………………..21
2.14 Conclusion of Literature review…………………………………………………..21
Chapter 3: Data Collection for the research project………………………………………..22
3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..23
3.2 Geometry of slope…………………………………………………………………..23
3.3 Ground water levels and name of soil layer………………………………………25
3.4 Unit weight of soil……………………………………………………………………25
3.5 Cohesion and Shear Strength……………………………………………………..32
3.6 Angle of Internal friction…………………………………………………………….33
3.7 Summary of Data……………………………………………………………………35
Chapter 4: Methodology……………………………………………………………………....39
4.1 Oasys Slope 19.0……………………..…………………………………………….40

6. vi
4.2 Problem definition…………………………………………………………………..40
4.3 Modelling of analysis problem……………………………………………………..43
4.4 Type of analysis……………………………………………………………………..43
4.4.1 Methods of analysis…………………………………………………………….43
4.4.2 Ordinary Method of Slices……………………………………………………..45
4.4.3 Simplified Bishop Method……………………………………………………..45
4.4.4 Janbu Method…………………………………………………………………..45
4.5 Oasys Slope: Method of Iteration………………………………………………….46
4.5.1 Relation of Oasys Slope 19.0 to Factors of Safety…………………………46
4.5.2 Analysis of Horizontal Intersliced Forces…………………………………....46
4.5.3 Analysis of Constant Inclined Intersliced Forces……………………………47
4.5.4 Analysis of Variably Inclined Intersliced Forces…………………………….47
4.6 Positioning of Slices………………………………………………………………….46
4.7 Research Project Adopted method…………………………………………………48
4.7.1 Bishop Methods………………………………………………………………......48
4.7.2 Horizontal Interslice Forces Simplified Method………………………………..48
4.7.3 Parallel Inclined Intersliced Forces……………………………………………...48
4.7.4 Bishop’s Method: Variably Inclined Interslice Forces………………………….49
4.8 Units of Data…….. …………………………………………………………………..49
4.9 Verification of data and Computation of Factor of Safety…………………………52
5.0 Result and Discussion……………………………………………………………………53
5.1 Slope A……………………………………………………………………………..….54
5.2 Slope B……………………………………………………………………………..….57

7. vii
5.3 Slope C……………………………………………………………………………..…60
5.4 Conclusion of results and discussion………………………………………………65
6.0 Future recommendations and conclusions.……………………………………………67
6.1.1 Changing slope geometry…………………………………………………….....68
6.1.2 Retaining structures………………………………………………………………69
6.1.3 Geotextiles………………………………………………………………………...70
6.1.4 Grassing the slope………………………………………………………………..71
6.1.5 Drainage…………………………………………………………………………...71
6.2 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….72
References…………………………………………………………………………………..…73
Appendix A: Oasys Slope 19.0 Graphical Outputs…………………………………………77
Appendix B: Giant Causeway Visitor’s Centre Map Area………………………………….90
Appendix C: Soil laboratory tests, Borehole data and Geotech Data Tables……………95

8. viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Mudflow slope failure at the Giant’s Causeway Visitors Centre………………04
Figure 2.2 Borehole data at the Giant’s Causeway Centre………………….…………….10
Figure 2.2 SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11 ……………………………………………………………….11
Figure 2.3 Output from Oasys Slope 19.0 Software……………………………………….20
Figure 3.1 Slope geometry of slope A………………………………………………………..24
Figure 3.2 Slope geometry of slope B………………………………………………………. 24
Figure 3.3 Slope geometry of slope C………………………………………………………..24
Figure 3.4 Gravelly Silt Soil Slope failure at Giant Causeway.........................................25
Figure 3.5 Showing soil profile of Slope A……………. ……………………………………..27
Figure 3.6 Measurement of V: H ratios at Giant’s Causeway………………………………27
Figure 3.7 Slope failures at Giant’s Causeway…………………………………………….28
Figure 3.8 Soil Profile of slope B..……………………………………..…………………....29
Figure 3.9 Unit weights of slope C……………………………………………………………31
Figure 4.1 Theory of slices……………………………………………………………………44
Figure 4.2 Showing Inputs of Slip Surfaces of Slope B…………...………………………50
Figure 4.3 Showing Inputs of Partial Factors of Slope B. . .…………………………….…51
Figure 4.4 Output of Oasys Slope 19.0……………………………………………………...52
Figure 5.1 Slope A: Undrained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0……………………………..55
Figure 5.2 Slope A: Drained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0…………………………………55
Figure 5.3 Slope B: Undrained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0………..……………………58
Figure 5.4 Slope B: Drained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0…………………………………58
Figure 5.5 Slope C: Undrained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0……………………………..61

9. ix
Figure 5.6 Slope C: Drained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0…………………………………61
Fig 5.7 Showing graphical output of Slope C ……………………………………………….63
Fig 5.8 Showing tabular output of Slope C ………………………………………………….64
Figure 6.1 Showing modification of slope geometry………………………………………..68
Figure 6.2 Showing modification of slope geometry and stability of slope……………….69
Figure 6.3 Slope stability method of walls…………………………………………………...69
Figure 6.4 Slope stability methods of walls………………………………………………….70
Figure 6.5 Showing use of geogrids in slope stability………………………………………71
Figure 6.6 Demonstrating use of drainage systems in slope stability……………………..72

10. x
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Unit weights of Slope A…………………………………………………………26
Table 3.2 Unit weights of Slope B…………………………………………………………28
Table 3.3 Unit weights of Slope C…………………………………………………………30
Table 3.4 Cohesion values of Slope A……………………………………………………32
Table 3.5 Cohesion values of Slope B……………………………………………………32
Table 3.6 Cohesion values of Slope C……………………………………………………32
Table 3.7 Angles of internal friction of Slope A………………………………………….33
Table 3.8 Angles of internal friction of Slope B…………………………………………..34
Table 3.9 Angles of internal friction of Slope C…………………………………………..34
Table 3.10 Data summary of slope A……………………………………………………..35
Table 3.11 Data summary of slope B……………………………………………………..36
Table 3.12 Data summary of slope C……………………………………………………..37
Table 5.1 Geotechnical Parameters for slope A………………………………………….62
Table 5.2 Geotechnical Parameters for slope B…………………………………………..64
Table 5.3 Geotechnical Parameters for slope C…………………………………………..66

11. xi
List of Symbols and Abbreviations
Symbols
Greek Symbols
φ angle of internal friction
φ' effective angle of friction
γ bulk unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
γd dry unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
γw unit weight of water (kN/m3)
ρ mass density of soil (g/cm3)
ρs grain density of solids (g/cm3)
ρw density of water (mg/m3)
σ’ effective normal stress (kPa)
τ shear stress or mobilized shear stress (kPa)
τf shear strength of soil (kPa)
Roman symbols
b: the width of a slice
c: total apparent cohesion value (kPa)
c’: the effective cohesion value (kPa)
e :Void ratio
g : acceleration due to gravity

12. xii
ru:the pore pressure ratio
Abbreviations
ASTM: American Standard for Testing Materials
BS: British Standards
FOS: Factor of Safety
Gs: Grain Specification Gravity
GwT: Ground water table
SLIDE: The limit equilibrium software which is used for groundwater and slope stability
analysis
SPT: Standard Penetration Test
Sr: Degree of saturation
V: Height of a slope
H: Horizontal length of a slope
V: H Ratio: Slope geometry ratio of a slope / Gradient of slope
Ws : Weight of solids
Ww: Weight of water

13. xiii

14. xiv

15. 15

16. 1
CHAPTER 1.0: INTRODUCTION

17. 2
1.1 Overview of the research project ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggThe
The research project is going to be focused on the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre
regarding soil slope stability analysis at the area. The Giant’s Causeway is one of the
only three natural world heritage sites in the British Isles according to the research
conducted by Queens University Belfast (Queens University Belfast, 2015).The Giant’s
Causeway coastal environment is a combination of slopes, high rainfall and active mass
movements. In geotechnical engineering it is arguably possible to identify or as well
locate an increased risk of slope failure, however it is not possible to predict the overall
stability of a slope without any form of evaluation or analysis. Therefore Oasys Slope
19.0 software will be used in evaluation of slope stability of selected slopes at the
Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre, in this research project.
According to Abramson et al. (2002) slope instability of soil is a very important and
challenging aspect in the history of civil engineering. The instability of the slopes is part
of geo-dynamic process that shapes the geo-morphology of the earth. In his analysis
Venkataramaiah (2006,p.318) he stated that the instability of the slopes might have a
negative effect on the safety of people as well as their property, that’s why it is important
to have a full understanding of the complex soil’s behaviour when it comes to slope
stability. He stated an example of slope failures during the construction of Panama Canal,
which led to better research of failed earth slopes in Sweden.
Over past years in geotechnical engineering ,the failure of slopes have led to better
understanding of soil properties and better ways of stabilising the slopes. The
emergence of new instruments for observation of slopes’ behavior as well as increased
knowledge of soil mechanics principles have led to better slope stability analytical
methods according to Chen and Liu (1990).
This research project provides general information required when it comes to slope
stability analysis. They are many slope stability evaluation methods which are available
for slope stability analysis but this research study has focused on the use of limit
equilibrium- computer software (Oasys Slope 19.0) and involves analysis of examples of
slope stability problems at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre in Northern Ireland.

18. 3
1.2 Statement of research project
Regarding slope stability, in his analysis Abrasom et al. (2002) he stated that it is
important to fully understand slope behavior and failure mechanism of slopes. This is
essential when it comes to designing and application of appropriate measures which are
required to stabilise the slope.The application of proper method for stabilising the slope
will depend on the mode of failure of the slope. The financial aspect of designing the
slope is important as well, this is useful as to avoid over designing the slope or
burdening the client.
1.3 Objectives of the research study
The primary objective of any slope stability analytical problem is to contribute towards
safety of people or property. Preliminary analysis in a slope stability project is helpful in
identification of the following according to Murthy (2002, p.379).
1. Critical geological information of the slopes
2. Material making up the slopes
3. Environmental parameters
4. Economic parameters
Evaluation of slope stability analysis is a combined effort of contribution of
1. Engineering geology
2. Mechanics of soil
In this research project the stability of soil slopes which will be evaluated will be located
at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre.
For this research study, the core research topics will be
1. To assess the stability of the slopes at the Centre under short term condition and
long term condition.
2. To analyse landslides on the Centre as well as failure mechanism and the effect
of environmental factors towards slope stability.
3. To be able to suggest appropriate slope stability remedial measures in the event
of slope failure.

19. 4
Summary of the Objectives
1. Using Oasys slope 19.0 software to determine the minimum factor of safety
values of the slopes.
2. Determining the critical failure of slope’s surface and application of engineering
judgment in determining whether the slopes will be stable or not stable as
recommended by BS.
3. Suggestion of appropriate slope stability remedial measures that can be applied
in the event of slope failure.
An example of slope failure at the Giant’s Causeway is shown below on fig 1.1
Fig 1.1 Mudflow slope failure at Giant’s Causeway, Queens University Belfast (2015)
1.4 Scope of the research project
The research project is going to be carried out at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre
This will be done by
1. Analytical studying of possible failures of selected slopes by use of geotechnical

20. 5
software (Oasys Slope)
2. Suggestion of appropriate /suitable remedial slope works in the event of slope
failure
1.5 Significance of the research project
The significance of the research study is the presentation of case study of slopes by use
of software analysis at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre .The landslides are natural
hazards that can threaten the properties or people who come and visit the Centre. With
technology development, the negative impacts/effects of landslides can be minimised by
application of effective slope stabilisation techniques according to McDonnell and Smith
(2000).
It should however be noted that a slope with a different mode of failure will require
different slope stability method. Slope failures can be treated by different stabilisation
methods. The appropriate slope stability method which is suitable for a slope failure will
always be a questionable problem in geotechnical engineering, therefore full knowledge
of information regarding the causes of failure of slopes and relevant appropriate
treatment is essential in ensuring slope stability and slope maintenance according to
Lancellota (2009,p.414)

21. 6
CHAPTER 2.0: LITERATURE REVIEW

22. 7
2.1 Background of the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre The gggggg The The
The coastal environment occupying the Giant’s Causeway is generally made of steep
slopes, rocks which are fractured, marine erosion as well high rainfall. Therefore it is not
with a huge surprise that this region is characterised by landslides or active mass
movements of soil.
In a research study which was carried out by McDonnell and Smith (2000) they confirmed
a history of slope failures at the Giant’s Causeway. The research study indicated that the
main causes of failure of slopes at the site are
1. Moisture
2. Steepness of slopes
3. General geological structure of slopes
The following points will be considered for this research project regarding the area
1. Slope stability calculations with Oasys Slope 19.0, this included computing the
factor of safety of the slopes and the acceptable factor of safety was set as 1.3 as
recommended by BS6031:2009.
2. Determining the critical failure of the slope’s surface
3. Suggestion of remedial measures that can be applied as to stabilise the slopes if
they happen to fail.
2.2 Ground Investigations of the area xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe
The data for this research project was based on the report which was done by Glover Site
Investigations Limited on behalf of the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland. The report
was done on the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre. The report is specified in the design
of manual for roads and bridges, Volume 4 Geotechnics and Drainage Section 1
Earthworks, Part 2 and HD 22/08: Managing Geotechnical Risk (Glover Site
Investigations Limited, 2009, p.2)

23. 8
The report offers the following information (Glover Site Investigations Limited, 2009, p.4)
1. Listing of relevant collated existing information at the Giant’s Causeway Site
2. Proposed remedial solutions to the slopes
3. Desk study of area
4. Description of field operations and laboratory tests carried out
5. Description of ground water types and conditions in the area
6. Information about implications of data and of geotechnical design of structures
2.3 Geotechnical Parameters xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBefore
Before analysis of a slope or generally the ground where the slope exists, essential
borehole data is required according to Knappet and Craig (2012). The borehole data will
provide valuable soil parameters which are essential for slope stability analysis such as
1. Soil strata layers
2. Soil moisture content levels
3. Ground water levels
4. The presence of any particular plastic layer in the soil in which there is high chance
of shear occurring, will be easily noted.
For slope stability analysis at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre the following ground
investigations could be used
1. Soil laboratory tests
2. Site aerial photographs
3. Studying of site’s geological maps or memoirs which could be used to indicate as
well as predict soil conditions
4. Observing as well as visiting the slope.
For this research project the ground investigations have been done by Glover Site
Investigations Ltd on behalf of the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland. Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT) were used by the company for evaluation of soil parameters as
well as laboratory tests. The tests were done to obtain soil’s particle size distribution,

24. 9
index property of soil, specific gravity tests, bulk density, and water content of soils as
well as shear strength of soils (Glover Site Investigations Limited, 2009, p.13).
2.3.1 SPT tests aaaaaaaaaaaStandard Penetration Test (SPT) is one of the main tests
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is one of the main tests which were conducted by Glover
Site Investigations Limited to obtain geotechnical soil parameters. The technical
standards which govern the use of the tests are ASTM D1586 (United States of America)
and EN ISO 22476, Part 3 (United Kingdom and Europe).
The Standard Penetration Test is an in situ test, it is used in determination of geotechnical
engineering soil properties. It is a useful test in geotechnical engineering as it can be used
to estimate relative density of a soil as well approximate values of shear strength
parameters according to Smith (2013,p.441). These are useful parameters which are
required by Oasys Slope 19.0 to determine the factor of safety of slope or slope’s stability
according to Oasys Ltd (2012).
The SPT works by driving a sample tube into the ground. This is a standard practice and
the tube will be thick walled. Blows from a hammer are used to drive the tube into the
ground. To standardise the test, the slide hammer which is used has a standard weight
and a known falling distance. The tube will then be driven from a depth of 0.150m into the
ground to the depth of 0.450m.The number of blows which are required for the thick
walled tube to penetrate each depth of 0.150m up to a depth 0.450m of soil are then
recorded (Geotechnical Information, 2015).
The sum of blow numbers which are required for second and third 0.150m of penetration
is reported as SPT blow count value (Geotechnical Information, 2015). This is commonly
known in geotechnical engineering as the “N-value” or the standard penetration
resistance. The N value number will provide or indicate relative density of soil’s
subsurface according to Knappet and Craig (2012). This is then used empirically to
correlate as well estimate shear strength properties of soil.
Soil Properties which can be correlated by SPT-N value according to Bodo and Jones
(2013) are

25. 10
1. Soil packing either loose, compact ,dense and very dense
2. Soil’s relative density in percentage
3. Soil’s friction angle
4. Strength of the soil.
Borehole log and test results data
Fig 2.1 Showing a Borehole data of one of the slopes at the Giant’s Causeway (Glover
Site Investigations Limited, 2009, p.40)

26. 11
2.3.2 SPTCorr v.2.2 this is a simple software which can be used for estimation of this this
This is a simple software which can be used for estimation of geotechnical soil parameters
using the SPT-N values or the SPT blow count. SPTCorr v.2.2 can be used for soils such
as weak clays, hard clays or loose to hard sand. The software offer the following
(Geologismiki, 2015)
1. Calculations of corrected SPT blow count N60 and N1,60
2. Soil’s relative density, Dr
3. The internal angle of friction of soil ,phi
4. The elasticity modulus of soil ,Es
5. The undrained strength values of soil,Su
6. Summary report showing all correlations.
Fig 2.2 showing an output of SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11 software
The software will be used to verify correlations of geotechnical parameters such as angles
of friction of soil which are derived from correlation using “N” value. The report by Glover
Site Investigations Limited provides “N” values of each soil layer.

27. 12
2.3.3 Unit weight of soil the unit weight of soil is defined as the ratio of the total weight of
The unit weight of soil is defined as the ratio of the total weight of the particular soil to the
total volume of that soil according to Bodo and Jones (2013). Generally unit weight of soil,
(γ) is determined in the laboratory. This is done by measurement of the volume and weight
of soil sample which is relatively undisturbed. Measurement of soil unit weight in the field
is normally done by these procedures such as
1. The sand cone test
2. Rubber balloon method
3. The nuclear densiometer.
For this research project soil unit weights are going to be calculated from dry density
(mg/m3) and bulk density (mg/m3) values which were obtained by Glover Site
Investigations Limited. These will be calculated according to Bodo and Jones
(2013).The results will produce both the unit weight and dry unit weight of soil, which are
essential parameters to be used for slope stability analysis according to Oasys Ltd
(2012).
2.3.4 Cohesion of Soil Soil cohesion values, c, are normally obtained by the Direct Soil
Soil cohesion values, c, are normally obtained by the Direct Soil Shear Test in the
laboratory. Compressive strength which is not confined can be obtained in the
laboratory. This is done by either the unconfined compressive strength test or the
common triaxial test.In geotechnical engineering they are also correlations for
unconfined shear strength soil, as generally estimated from field using the Vane Shear
Tests (Geotechnical Information, 2015). Glover Site Investigations Ltd have already
obtained soil cohesions values for this research project.
2.3.5 Soil friction angle The soil internal angle values can be determined by either the
The soil internal friction angles can be determined by either the triaxial test or the direct
shear test in the laboratory according to Das (2008, p. 374-392).Soil friction angle
according to Bodo and Jones (2013) is defined as the soil’s shear strength parameter,
this definition is derived from the use of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria. This is used
to describe the soil’s friction shear resistance together with the normal stress according

28. 13
to Knappet and Craig (2012) .For this research project, values of soil friction angles
which are going to be correlated from SPT values determined by Glover Site
Investigations Ltd will be used. The correlation will be done using the angle of friction
correlation table (Geotechnical Information, 2015) and the SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11 software.
2.3.6 Slope Geometry
The slope geometry is very important in slope stability analysis according to Abrasom et
al. (2002) as it can alter the overall factor of safety of the slope. Critical height of any
slope will depend on the density, the bearing capacity and the shear strength of the
slope foundation. As the height of the slope increases, the shear stress within the
slope’s toe will also increase. This is due to increased added weight. It should also be
noted that the shear stress will also be related to the material making up the slope as
well as the slope angle.
It can be therefore be concluded that as the slope angle increases, this will result in
increase of tangential stress .This will also result in increment of shear stress as well as
decrease in stability of a slope (Indian Institute of Technology,2015). The slope
geometry will involve the determination of the V: H ratios of each slope to be studied
and the researcher had to be measure the slopes as part of site visiting. The V: H ratios
will be used when importing data into Oasys Slope 19.0 for slope stability analysis.
2.4 Soil types
Soil classification is a core part of this research project and generally soil is classified in
geotechnical engineering based on its properties as either a building material or its use
in foundation supports. Using simple laboratory tests or tests on the field engineering
properties as well as soil behavior can be obtained.
The common soil types at the Giant Causeway Visitor’s Centre (Glover Site
Investigations Limited, 2009, p.45)
1. Gravelly silt soil.
2. Sandy gravelly silt soil.
3. Sandy soil.

29. 14
2.5 Basic Information Requirement for Slope Stability analysis In geotechnical
In geotechnical engineering regarding slope stability analysis there is a distinction
between drained conditions and undrained conditions according to Lancellota
(2009,p.414-416). The most important requirement or principle is that equilibrium will
need to be achieved when it comes to total stresses (Community, 2014).
During the analysis of a slope, body weights and external loads should be included. This
also includes loads which are caused by water pressures according to Murthy (2002,
p.367 -368). All these loads should be included in the analysis. The analysis will provide
important results which are as follows according to Smith (2013, p.279)
1. Total normal stress which will be acting on the shear surface
2. Total shear stress that will be required for the equilibrium to be achieved.
In geotechnical engineering, the factor of safety for a shear surface is defined as the ratio
of soil’s shear strength divided by shear stress of the soil required to achieve equilibrium
according to Smith (2013,p.281). In order to successfully evaluate the shear strength of
a soil, it should be noted that the values of normal stresses which will be acting on the
slip surface are needed. This however does not apply to soils with a friction angle of zero
as their strength depend on the normal stress that will be on potential plane of failure
according to Das (2008, p.374-382).
In analysis of effective stress according to Das (2008, p.379-382), the shear strength of
soil is needed to be fully evaluated. This is done by subtracting “pore pressures” which
will be acting on shear surface from the total stresses of the soil. This will result in
determination of effective stresses which are then used in evaluation of effective shear
strengths. Hence forth when it comes to analysis of effective stress, it is essential
requirement to know or if not to estimate pore pressures which will be at every point along
the shear surface.
When it comes to drained soil conditions, the pore pressures of soil can be analysed as
well as evaluated generally with a good degree of accuracy. This is because the pore
pressure values are obtained by either hydrostatic or by steady seepage boundary

30. 15
conditions way according to Bodo and Jones (2013). In geotechnical engineering pore
pressures are rarely evaluated accurately for undrained soil conditions. This is due to
the fact their values can be determined by the response of soil to external load(s)
according to Bodo and Jones (2013).
When it comes to analysis of total stress of a soil, pore pressures will not be deducted
from total stresses. This is due to the fact that shear strengths of soils are related to the
total stresses. This means it will no longer be a necessity either to evaluate or to
subtract pore pressures as a way of analysing total stress of a soil. Henceforth, it should
be noted that total stress analysis is only applicable to soil conditions which are
undrained according to Knappet and Craig (2012).
The basic principle behind total stress analysis according to Knappet and Craig (2012)
is that pore pressures which are caused by undrained loads are normally determined by
soil’s behavior. For instance for any total stress value given on a potential plane of
failure of soil,usually there is a pore pressure value which is unique.Therefore the
effective stress value of soil will be unique as well
Shear strength in geotechnical engineering is generally approved that it is controlled by
effective stress. According to Bodo and Jones (2013) there is analysis that it is possible
under undrained conditions to have to relate shear strength to the normal stress. This is
possible because in soil mechanics according to Knappet and Craig (2012), total stress
and effective stress are both uniquely related under undrained conditions. Therefore it is
also important to stress that this principle cannot be applied to drained conditions as
pore pressures will be controlled by the hydraulic conditions and not from the response
which comes from soil’s external loads.
2.6 Undrained and drained condition
2.6.1 Analysis of drained and undrained soil conditions
The strength of both drained and undrained strength of cohesive soil is an important

31. 16
factor which require analysis in slope stability. Cohesive soils or clay soils to be more
specific generally possess less or have less permeability as compared to coarse
grained soils such as sand soil .Therefore it means they will be restriction for water
movement whenever there is a change in volume (Community, 2014).
For soils such as clay soils, they require a number of years before equilibrium is
achieved. According to Duncan et al. (2005) he stated that soils such as clay, dissipation
of the excess pore pressure will take years before equilibrium will be achieved in soil. In
general drained condition can be defined as a condition were drainage is allowed and
also undrained condition is defined as a condition where there is restriction in drainage.
One important factor to note is that in both drained soil and undrained soil conditions of
cohesive soils such as clay soils, they is a reduction in cohesive soil’s strength from
their peak strength to their residual strength .This is mainly due to restructuring of soil
according to Duncan et al (2005)
2.6.2 Soil’s drained conditions
This in geotechnical engineering is referred to a condition were load changes are slower
enough or where they have being in place for a long time so that equilibrium in a soil
can be reached. This is also not applicable when excess pressure are caused by loads.
Under drained soil conditions ,pore pressures are known to be controlled by boundary
hydraulic conditions according to Duncan et al (2005).In his analysis Bodo and Jones
(2013), there was analysis that water within the soil may either be static or it may be
steadily seeping, this can be without a change in seepage over a period of time. There
is no decrease or increase in the percentage of water in the soil.
For instance if these conditions prevail on a site or if possible approximation of condition
is possible, drained analysis is applied. The drained analysis is done by using
1. Total unit weights of soil
2. Soil’s shear effective strength parameters.
3. Pore pressures which are determined from use of hydrostatic levels of water or
either using seepage (steady) analysis.

32. 17
2.6.3 Undrained soil conditions analysis
In undrained soil condition, the changes in loads of soil will occur in much rapid rate
than the rate in which water can either flow into or out of the soil according to
Knappet and Craig (2012).The behavior of soil will control the pore pressures of soil,
this is in relation to the changes in external loads. If undrained conditions prevail at a
site, in geotechnical engineering, undrained analysis is appropriate way of analysis.
Total unit weights and total shear strengths parameters will be used in undrained soil
analysis according to Bodo and Jones (2013).
2.7 Short term analysis
This in geotechnical engineering, in their analysis Bodo and Jones (2013) referred it to a
soil condition such as after a construction has occurred (generally the time which is
immediate after load changing).To illustrate an example of short term soil condition is an
example of an embankment construction, for an embankment which is made of sand
soil and has a foundation on clay soil. In soil mechanics according to Knappet and Craig
(2012) the short term condition will be referred to the time required for the construction
of the embankment or the time when the construction ends. For instance if the
construction takes 3 months, the duration for the short term condition for that
embankment will be 3 months.
It would be reasonable within this particular period to assume that on drainage would be
occurring in the clay foundation as compared to the embankment which is made of sand
where full draining would have occurred. For instance in clay soils, it will take a longer
time before there in an elapse or significant total dissipation of pore water pressure.
Therefore the soil will be still undrained. Hence when it comes to analysis of total stress,
the undrained shear strength symbol CU is used.
Therefore in undrained tests the parameters will always be expressed in terms of total
stresses whilst in drained soil conditions the parameters will be represented by C’u and
. In sand soils, drainage will occur instantly and certainly before construction ends,
therefore effective stress parameters C’u and are used (Community, 2014).

33. 18
In his analysis, Walsh (2014, p.203) he stated that when a soil is purely cohesive, the
shear resistance values at all points on the arc will equate to Cu.
2.8 Analysis of long term conditions
For instance after a certain period of time, the foundation made of clay will reach the
drained condition state. The analysis of this particular state will be done or performed as
mentioned previously on chapter 2.6.2 “Soil’s drained conditions” as both long term and
drained conditions offer same meaning. They refer to a soil condition where drainage
equilibrium has being achieved and they are no available excess pore pressure which
are due to external loading according to Bodo and Jones (2013).For instance after a
long time, the soil will have reached a fully drainage state. The effective stress
parameters, C’ and  should be used. In this report, CU values which were obtained by
Glover Site Investigations Limited will be used for this research project.
2.9 Pore water pressure
To analyse effective stress well on the basis of description of water pressure. The
following could be done to describe it fully according to Atkinson (2014, p.324-327).
1. If pore water pressures are measured based on ground water levels of borehole
or either piezometers, the data that has being measured should be fully
described as well as summarised using suitable and appropriate tables or
figures.
2. It should be noted that if seepage analysis is to be done so that pore water
pressures will be computed, they should be full description of the method as well
as the full description of the computer software method which will be used for
analysis
3. They should be appropriate summary of flow nets or either pore water pressure
contours, total head or pressure head. The results will be expected to be
presented well for analysis.

34. 19
2.10 Circular surface’s slip
In geotechnical engineering specific to limit equilibrium slope stability analysis, it is
useful requirement to analyse as may trial slip surfaces of the slope and hence finding
the slip surface that will hence offer or give the lowest factor of safety. Oasys Slope 19.0
has a wide variety of options when it comes for specification of trial slip surfaces
according to Oasys Ltd (2012).
The critical slip surface’s position is affected by the soil’s strength at the slope. The
position of critical slip surface for a pure frictional soil i.e. (c =0) is different than for a soil
with a soil which assigned strength (φ = 0) according to Oasys Ltd (2012). This will result
in complication of the situation when it comes to analysis because in order to analyse or
locate the critical slip surface’s position, it is important as well to ensure that the
properties of the soil are well defined in terms of its effective strength parameters
accurately according to Lee et al. (2002).
2.11 The factor of safety
After the geometry of the slope and all subsoil conditions of a slope have been
measured or determined, evaluation of slope stability will be done by Oasys Slope 19.0
Software according to Oasys Ltd (2012). The primary objective of any slope stability
analysis in geotechnical engineering according to Abrasom et al. (2002) is
1. Evaluation of slope’s safety and to compute/calculate the factor of safety of
safety before the slope fails
2. To find the mechanism which is behind the slope failure, this will be important
when designing the slope to bring it to required factor of safety
Generally in slope stability analysis in the area of geotechnical engineering, there is
some valid argument or to say a doubt in the actual correct shear strength value of soils.
The loading of the soil is more known accurately due to the fact that it merely consists of
slope’s selfweight.The factor of safety is chosen as the ratio of the current available
shear strength of soil to that of the required shear stress which is required to stabilise

35. 20
the slope . In this research project the stability of slopes will be done using methods of
limit equilibrium. The output will be a graphical output of critical slip surface of the slope.
𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 =
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑢𝑚
(2.2)
This can be shown as follows on Oasys Slope 19.0
Fig 2.2 Showing Factors of Safety from Individual failed slices according to Walsh
(2014, p.219)
In this report the acceptable FOS value for a stable slope, for both the drained and
undrained conditions will be 1.3.According to Walsh (2014,p.220) it is not easy in
geotechnical engineering to specifically assign a specific acceptable factor of safety for
all slopes. In his analysis he stated that the acceptable value of safety factor for each
slope will depend on slope failure causes versus the costs of achieving the required
/given factor of safety for that slope.
In general terms when it comes to slope stability analysis in geotechnical engineering,
the following guidelines show a range of acceptable safety factors according to Walsh
(2014, p.220)
1. Standard Slope – FOS will range from 1.20 – 1.40
2. Critical Slope -FOS will be 1.50
3. Marine Slope – FOS will be 2.00
BS6031:1981 Earthworks recommends a factor of safety between 1.30 and 1.40 for
a slope failure which will not consequence in fatal problems and were acceptable level
of ground investigation has been carried out. The acceptable factor of safety for this
research project will be 1.30 as recommended by BS6031:2009

36. 21
2.12 Load on the slopes
This is referred to as the load on the slope and since that they will be no action of traffic/
carriageway structuring, load on top of the slopes will be ignored in this report according
to Oasys Ltd (2012)
2.13 Oasys Slope 19.0 Analysis
Slope stability analysis for this research project will be done with Oasys Slope software
by inputting parameters. The inputs will be as follows according to Oasys Ltd (2012)
1. Heterogeneous types of soils
2. Surface geometry of soils
3. Pore water pressure conditions.
2.14 Conclusion of Literature review
According to BS6031:2009 the acceptable minimum factor of safety of the slopes is 1.3
in this research project. Therefore it means if a slope produces a factor of safety below
1.3 it will be unstable and hence remedial slope stability methods should be applied and
if the minimum factor of safety is more than 1.3 the slope will be stable.
According to Lancellota (2009, p.423) in an undrained soil, reduction of mean stress will
occur. This will result in development of negative pore pressure in soil and after a
certain period of time the pore pressure will be dissipated and migration of pore water
will occur in surrounding areas. This will result in swelling and softening of soil which will
ultimately reduce the strength of the soil and hence the minimum factor of safety will be
expected to be achieved in long term.

37. 22
CHAPTER 3.0: DATA COLLECTION FOR THE
RESEARCH PROJECT

38. 23
3.1 IntroductionxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor
For slope stability analysis to occur, essential data is required to be imported into the
Oasys Slope 19.0 software for analysis to occur. According to Oasys Ltd (2012), the
following parameters are required
1. The geometry of the slope or the V:H ratio of the slope
2. The name of each soil layer
3. The groundwater level if it exists
4. The values of unit weights of soil
5. The condition of soil whether it is drained or undrained.
6. The shear strength parameters of the soil.
7. Angle of internal friction values.
The research study is going to be based on three selected slopes at the Giant
Causeway Visitor’s Centre and Glover Site Investigations Limited have provided a
report which provides ground investigation information as well as geotechnical report of
the site.
The ground investigations included (Glover Site Investigations Limited, 2009, p.8)
1. 10 boreholes which are from cable percussion boring to 6.9m to 14m
2. Rotary coring up to a depth of 14.1m at one borehole located as BH6,as shown
in Appendix B
3. 3 Trial pits were done.
4. Laboratory tests were done on soil‘s moisture content, density, particle size
distribution and contamination maxi suite.
3.2 Geometry of the slope
The geometry of the selected slopes, was measured during site visit at the Giant
Causeway by the researcher with the help of his fellow civil engineering students’
colleagues. This was the only way of obtaining the slope geometries' ratio data as they
were not provided in the report by Glover Site Investigations Limited.

39. 24
Slope A geometry ratio: 1:1.78 (V: H)
Fig 3.1 showing the layout of the V: H ratio of slope A
Slope B geometry ratio: 1:2 (V: H)
Fig 3.2 Showing the layout of the V: H ratio of slope B
Slope C geometry ratio: 1:9 (V: H)
Fig 3.3 showing the layout of the V: H ratio of slope C
Existing Ground Level
V=2.50m
H=4.45m
2.50m
1:1.78 V: H ratio
Existing Ground Level
V=2.30m
H=4.60
m0
2.30m
1:2 V: H ratio
Existing Ground Level
V=2.9m
H=5.5m
0
2.90m
1:9 V: H ratio

40. 25
3.3 Ground water levels and Name of soil layers
The names of the soil layers were provided by Glover Site Investigations Limited, the
main types of soils at the 3 slopes (Glover Site Investigations Limited, 2009, p.30 –
p.45)
1. Sandy soil
2. Gravelly silt soil
3. Sandy gravelly silt soil
Fig 3.4 Gravelly Silt Soil at a Slope failure at the Giant Causeway Visitor’s Centre
(Queens University Belfast, 2015)
The ground water levels are provided on 2 of the 3 slopes which are going to be studied
in this research project. Groundwater levels are as follows
1. Slope A : Groundwater level located at 3.50m below ground surface
2. Slope B: Groundwater level located at 4.90m below ground surface
3. Slope C: No ground water level available
3.4 Unit weight of soil
Glover Site Investigations Limited have provided bulk densities (mg/m3) and dry
densities (mg/m3).The unit weight of soil and the dry unit weight of soil will be calculated
from bulk and dry densities which were provided. According to Bodo and Jones (2013)
density of a soil is defined as the measurement of quantity of a mass in a unit volume of
the material.

41. 26
Dry density is a measurement of the amount of solid particles per unit of volume whilst
bulk density is the measurement of amount of solid added to water per unit of volume
according to Smith (2013,p.585)
Dry density,pd =
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
=
𝑀𝑠
𝑉
=
𝐺𝑠𝑃𝑤
1+𝑒
(3.1)
Bulk density,p =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
=
𝑀𝑠+𝑀𝑤
𝑉
=
𝐺𝑠𝑃𝑤+𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑤
1+𝑒
(3.2)
The units which will be used in this research project are mg/m3.
Dry unit weight, yd. =
𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
=
𝑊𝑠
𝑉
=
𝐺𝑠𝑌𝑤
1+𝑒
=9.81pd (3.3)
Unit weight, y =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
=
𝑊𝑠 +𝑊𝑤
𝑉
=
𝐺𝑠𝑌𝑤+𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑦𝑤
1+𝑒
=9.81p (3.4)
Example using slope A data
On slope A, the second layer of soil is firm brown sandy gravelly silt with numerous
cobbles. The dry density is 1.93mg/m3 and bulk density is 2.23mg/m3.
Dry unit weight = 9.81 x 1.93mg/m3 = 18.93kN/m3
Unit weight of soil = 9.81 x 2.23mg/m3 =21.87kN/m3
Table 3.1: Slope A Unit weights
SOIL Dry density Bulk density Dry Unit weight Unit weight
Gravelly silt 1.84mg/m3 1.89 mg/m3 18.0kN/m3 18.50 kN/m3
Firm sandy
gravelly silt 1.93 mg/m3 2.23 mg/m3 18.93 kN/m3 21.88 kN/m3
Stiff gravelly silt
1.96 mg/m3 2.27 mg/m3 19.23 kN/m3 22.27 kN/m3
Very stiff
gravelly silt 2.01 mg/m3
2.37 mg/m3 19.72 kN/m3 23.25 kN/m3

42. 27
SLOPE A: Soil Profile
.
Fig 3.5: Showing soil profile of slope A
Fig 3.6: Showing measurement of V: H ratios at Giant Causeway Visitors Centre
Existing Ground Level
1.3 m
V=2.5m
H=4.45m
2.5m
Gravelly Silt Soil sat =18.5Kn/m3 bulk=18kN/m3
Gravelly Silt sat =18.5Kn/m3 bulk=18kN/m3
1.7 m Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =21.9Kn/m3 bulk=18.9kN/m3
0.50m Stiff Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =22.3Kn/m3 bulk=19.27kN/m3
3.50m Very Stiff Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =23.3Kn/m3 bulk=19.7kN/m3

43. 28
Table 3.2 Slope B Unit weights
SOIL Dry density
(mg/m3)
Bulk density
(mg/m3)
Dry Unit weight
(kN/m3)
Unit weight
(kN/m3)
Loose brown
sand and stone
fill
1.98 2.22 19.42 21.78
Stiff brown
sandy gravelly
silt
2.10 2.35 20.60 23.05
Very stiff brown
gravelly silt 2.18 2.48 20.60 24.33
Fig 3.7 Slope failure at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre (Queens University
Belfast, 2015)

44. 29
SLOPE B: Soil Profile
.
Figure 3.8 Soil profile of Slope B
Existing Ground Level
0.40m
m
V=2.3m
H=4.60m
2.3m
Sand Soil sat =21.78Kn/m3 bulk=19.42kN/m3
Sand sat =21.78Kn/m3 bulk=19.42kN/m3
4.3 m
Stiff Brown Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =23.065Kn/m3
bulk=20.6kN/m3
0.20m
Very Stiff Brown Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =24.33Kn/m3
bulk=20.6kN/m3
2.30m
Very Stiff Brown Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =24.33Kn/m3
bulk=20.6kN/m3

45. 30
Table 3.3: Unit weights of Slope C
SOIL Dry
density(mg/m3)
Bulk
density(mg/m3)
Dry Unit weight
(kN/m3)
Unit
weight(kN/m3)
Loose sand 1.98 2.22 19.42 21.78
Firm brown
sandy gravelly
silt
1.72 2.10 16.87 20.60
Very stiff grey/
brown sandy
gravelly silt
1.91 2.18 18.74 21.39
Very stiff brown
sandy gravelly
silt
2.26 2.50 22.17 24.53

46. 31
Slope C: Soil Profile
.
Figure 3.9 Soil Profile of Slope C
Condition of Soil
The slope soil conditions are either drained or undrained conditions of soil. The data
that has been provided by Glover Site Investigations Limited is of undrained soil
conditions and since under drained conditions ,which is long term and full drainage will
have occurred the values of shear strength will be expected to have a value of 0 for all
soil layers of the slopes.
Existing Ground Level
0.4 m
V=2.9m
H=5.5m
2.9m
Loose Sand Soil sat =21.78Kn/m3 bulk=19.42kN/m3
Loose sand sat =21.78Kn/m3 bulk=19.42kN/m3
1.6 m
Firm brown Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =20.60Kn/m3
bulk=16.87kN/m3
1.40m Very Stiff Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =21.39Kn/m3
bulk=18.74kN/m3
4.10m Very Stiff Sandy Gravelly Silt Soil sat =24.53Kn/m3
bulk=22.17kN/m3

47. 32
3.5 Cohesion and Shear Strength
Table 3.4: Cu and C’ values of Slope A
SOIL Cu values (undrained)
(kN/m2)
C’ values (drained)
(kN/m2)
Gravelly silt 0 0
Firm sandy gravelly silt
79 0
Stiff gravelly silt
125 0
Very stiff gravelly silt
308 0
Table 3.5: Cu and C’ values of Slope B
SOIL Cu (undrained)
(kN/m2)
C’ (drained)
(kN/m2)
Loose brown sand and
stone fill
117 0
Stiff brown sandy
gravelly silt 184 0
Very stiff brown
gravelly silt 40 0

48. 33
Table 3.6: Cu and C’ values of Slope C
SOIL Cu (undrained) (kN/m2) C’ (drained) (kN/m2)
Loose sand 0 0
Firm brown sandy
gravelly silt 5 0
Very stiff grey/ brown
sandy gravelly silt 87 0
Very stiff dark grey
slightly sand gravelly silt 223 0
3.6 Angle of Internal Friction
Glover Site Investigations Limited have provided “N” values of the soils which will be
correlated to their respective friction angles using the software. The correlation will be
done using the angle of friction correlation table (Geotechnical Information, 2015) and
the SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11 software.
Table 3.7: Angle of Internal friction values of Slope A
SOIL SPT N number Angle of Internal
friction
Gravelly silt 11 32
Firm sandy gravelly
silt 14 38
Stiff gravelly silt
35 42
Very stiff gravelly silt
50 44

49. 34
Table 3.8: Angle of Internal friction values of Slope B
SOIL SPT N value Angle of Internal
friction
Loose brown sand and
stone fill
38
35
Stiff brown sandy
gravelly silt
48
38
Very stiff brown sandy
gravelly silt 50 45
Table 3.8: Angle of Internal friction values of Slope C
SOIL SPT N number Angle of Internal friction
Loose sand 34 32
Firm brown sandy
gravelly silt
34
41
Very stiff grey/ brown
sandy gravelly silt
49
44
Very stiff brown sandy
gravelly silt
61
47

50. 35
Table 3.10: Summary of geotechnical soil properties of slope A
V: H ratio of slope =2.50:4.45 simplified to 1:1.78
Cu u C' ' bulk sat
(kN/m2) (°) (kN/m2) (°) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
Gravelly Silt 0 32 0 32 18.0 18.5
Firm sandy gravelly silt 79 38 0 38 18.93 21.88
Stiff gravelly silt 125 42 0 42 19.23 22.27
Very stiff gravelly silt 308 44 0 44 19.72 23.25
3.7 Summary of Data

51. 36
Table 3.11: Summary of geotechnical soil properties of slope B
V: H ratio of slope =2.30:4.60 simplified to 1:2
Cu u C' ' bulk sat
(kN/m2) (°) (kN/m2) (°) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
Loose brown sand and stone
fill
117 35 0 35 19.42 21.78
Stiff brown sandy gravelly silt 184 38 0 38 20.60 23.05
Very stiff brown sandy
gravelly silt
40 45 0 45 20.60 24.33

52. 37
Table 3.12: Summary of geotechnical soil properties of slope C
V: H ratio of slope =2.9:5.5 simplified to 1:1.9
Cu u C' ' bulk sat
(kN/m2) (°) (kN/m2) (°) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
Loose sand 0 32 0 32 19.42 21.78
Firm brown sandy gravelly
silt
5 41 0 41 16.87 20.60
Very stiff grey/brown sandy
silt
87 44 0 44 18.74 21.39
Very stiff brown slightly
sand gravelly silt
223 47 0 47 22.17 24.53

53. 38

54. 39
CHAPTER 4.0: METHODOLOGY

55. 40
4.1 Oasys Slope 19.0
Over the years in geotechnical engineering they are many different techniques
regarding slope stability analysis such as hand calculation or software analysis using
software such as Oasys Software or Slide. In this project Oasys Slope 19.0 Software
will be used for slope stability analysis.
According to Oasys Ltd (2012), Oasys Slope 19.0 software is an example of a modern
limit equilibrium software and is able to handle ever increasing analytical slope stability
problems. The software is capable of dealing with
1. Complex strati graphical data
2. High irregular pore water pressure soils
3. Any kind of slip shape surface
4. Either non-linear or linear shear strength models of slopes.
5. Either distributed or concentrated loads
6. Structural reinforcements
The Oasys Slope 19.0 software operates on the principle that the method of slices will
be applied more and more as a way of slope stability analysis (equilibrium formulations).
4.2 Problem Definition
For slope stability analysis the limit equilibrium was carried out by Oasys Slope 19.0 for
slope stability analysis at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor’s Centre. The data of the slope’s
geometry and soil parameters will be imported into the software, the analysis will then
be selected and the Oasys Slope 19.0 also give results of factor of safety for Swedish
(Fellenius), Janbu and Bishop Type of analysis, the factor of safety result will depend on
the analysis type which was selected.
Oasys Slope 19.0 has being primarily designed for slope stability analysis as well as
offering the option to include reinforcement for soil according to Oasys Ltd (2012). The
software can also be used in analysis of earth pressures as well as problems regarding
bearing capacities. Oasys Slope 19.0 also checks for both non-circular and circular
failures according to Oasys Ltd (2012). Therefore it means it allows calculations for rock
and soil slopes but this research project is mainly focused on stability analysis of soil

56. 41
slopes.
Oasys Slope 19.0 offers the following three methods of analysis
1. Bishop’s method
2. Swedish Circle or Fellenius Method
3. The Janbu’s method
These three methods of analysis listed above will mean Oasys Slope 19.0 is capable of
computing both circular as well as non-circular surfaces. The location or position of the
circular surfaces is then defined through use of rectangular grids of centers as well as
different numbers of radii and common point whereby all the entire circles will pass or
either which tangential surface will touch. However non – circular slips are individually
defined in series of x co-ordinates and y co-ordinates according to Oasys Ltd (2012).
1. The actual ground section is built or imported into the software by specification of
each material’s layer. This is done from the surface downwards, in terms of
x-coordinates and y co-ordinates series.
2. To specify the strength of each material, this is done by specification of soil’s
cohesion value and the angle of shear resistance of soil. Cohesion’s linear
variations with depth will also be entered.
3. The ground water profile as well as distribution of water pressure can also be
individually set for each stratum of the soil. This is done either by
 Applying a phreatic surface with the use of hydrostatic distribution of
pore pressure
 Using a phreatic surface with a piezometric (user-defined) distribution
of pore pressure
 Using a coefficient value of Ru which is an overall value
 For each stratum the maximum suction of the soil can also be
specified.
4. Use of combinations such as reinforcements ,which consists of either geotextiles
(horizontal),rock bolts ,soils nails which are inclined as well as ground anchors
can be specified. According to BS8006:1995 the moment of restoration is

57. 42
contributed through the use of reinforcement.
5. The soil slopes which are either partially submerged or full submerged can also
be analysed
6. Through the application of external forces onto the ground surface, these can be
used as a way of representing loads such as building loads
7. Through the use of slip mass’s horizontal acceleration, earthquake loading can
be included.
8. Finally, the factor of safety which will be calculated will then be applied to the
strength of the soil or the magnitude relating to the loads applied ,either by
 Causing failure of slope (as a way of bearing capacity representation)
 Preventation of slope failure
The three methods which are available for slope stability analysis are
1. Fellenius or Swedish method
2. Bishop method
 The variably inclined interslice force method
 The horizontal interslice force method
 The parallel inclined interslice force method (also known as spencer’s
method)
3. Janbu method
 The horizontal interslice force method
 The variably inclined intersliced force method
 The parallel inclined intersliced force method (also known as spencer’s
method)
However it should be noted that the use of method of slices is used , as to determine
the factor of safety of the slopes regarding stability.

58. 43
4.3 Modelling of analysis problem
Shear strength is one of the most important geotechnical parameter when it comes to
slope stability analysis and one of the ways of used to describe shear strength, is by use
of the Coulomb equation according to Abrasom et al. (2002).
τ = c + σn´tanφ … … … … … … … ( 4.1)
Whereby τ will be the shear strength
c is the cohesion value,
σ´n is the normal stress on shear plane
Φ is the angle of internal friction value
The failure envelope is usually determined by the use of triaxial test and the results are
usually presented in terms of half-Mohr circles according to Knappet and Craig (2012).
The strength parameters of the soil occupying the slope such as c and φ can be used as
total strength parameters or effective strength parameters. Oasys slope software cannot
do this type of input but the user has to input the parameters, however it should be
noted that Oasys Slope 19.0 is not able to distinguish these 2 sets of data parameters.
In slope stability analysis in geotechnical engineering, when it comes to slope stability
analysis, using effective strength parameters will offer a more realistic solution. This is
particularly important when considering the position of critical slip surface according to
Oasys Ltd (2012)
4.4 Oasys Slope’s Methods of Analysis
4.4.1 Type of analysis
The hypothesis in slope stability analysis begins with the fact that stability of any slope
depends on the result of downward also called motivating forces such as gravitational
forces and upward or resisting forces. For the slope to be stable enough the resisting
forces must be greater than the forces caused by motivating forces according to Murthy
(2002,p.368).

59. 44
The stability of slopes in geotechnical engineering is determined by analysing the factor
of safety
Factor of safety =
∑ 𝑅
∑ 𝑀
(4.2)
Equation 4.2 states that the factor of safety is defined as the ratio between forces or
resisting moments (R) and the forces or moments which are motivating (M).
Theory of slices according to Oasys Ltd (2012)
Fig 4.1 Showing basic annotation and sign convention of methods of slices (Oasys Ltd,
2012)
F: Represents the factor of safety value
Ph: Represents horizontal component of external loads
Pv: Represents vertical component of external loads
E: The horizontal interslice force
X: The vertical interslice force
W: Soil’s total weight
N: Total normal forces which will be acting along a slice base
R: Distance between the slice base to the moment centre
S: Shear force that will be acting along slice base
h: Slice’s mean height
b: Slice’s width
L: The length of slice’s base (b/cosx)

60. 45
u: The pore pressure that will be at slice base
- Represents the slice base angle which is to horizontal
x – Represents the horizontal distance between the slice and moment centre
y - Represents the vertical distance between the slice and moment centre
-Represents the unit weight value of soil
c – Represents the cohesion value atbase
- Represents the angle of friction value atbase
4.4.2 Ordinary Method of Slices
The ordinary method of slices will neglect all forces which are inter-slice forces. It also
fails to satisfy equilibrium forces and this includes individual slices as well as slide
masses. According to Fellenius (1936) the ordinary method of slices is one of the
simplest procedures when it comes to slope stability analysis. The ordinary method of
slices is also known in geotechnical engineering as Swedish method of slices
4.4.3 Simplified Bishop Method
The Simplified Bishop Method is a slope stability analytical method which works by
assuming that vertical interslice shear forces will not exist. According to Bishop (1955)
the interslice forces which are resultant forces will be horizontal. According to Oasys Ltd
(2012) this will result in satisfaction of the equilibrium of the moment but will not result in
the equilibrium of forces.
4.4.4 Janbu method
For analysis the Janbu method uses horizontal forces of equilibrium equation according
to Oasys Ltd (2012).This will be done as to obtain FOS value. However it should be
noted that the Janbu method will not include interslice forces as part of analysis, but it
will account this for its correction factor. The correction factor will be related to
1. Cohesion value
2. Friction angle value.
3. The shape of failure surfaces.

61. 46
4.5 Oasys Slope: Method of Iteration
In slope stability analysis, the Oasys Slope will use iteration as a way of convergence
for each of either of Janbu method and Bishop methods.
4.5.1 Relation of Oasys Slope 19.0 to Factors of Safety
For slope stability analysis according to Oasys Ltd (2012), each iteration which will refer,
Oasys Slope 19.0 will compute/calculate the factor of safety. This is done by use of the
ratio between the restoring moments to the disturbing moments (known as a function of
Fi -1). The calculation will be complete when the difference between the 2 factors of
safety are within tolerated specified value. The FOS is defined as the ratio between
restoring moment to disturbing moment. An iterative solution is always necessary, as
this ratio is always a function of F, therefore it should be noted that this is not applicable
to Swedish Circle Method.
4.5.2 Analysis of Horizontal Intersliced forces
According to Oasys Ltd (2012) the horizontal intersliced forces will be analysed as
follows
1. The slope will start at slice numbered as 1.The slices are numbered from left
direction to right direction. Through maintenance of vertical equilibrium, the
resultant horizontal force is then calculated
2. Oasys Slope 19.0 will then use the force as interslice force from slice number
2.This process is then continued until the very last slice, this will end up with a
calculated resultant force.
This particular method of analysis is based on the basis that each slice and the slope as
a whole will be in vertical equilibrium, with 0 vertical interslice forces. Therefore,
horizontal equilibrium will not be achieved within each slice or as a whole slope.
Therefore it can be concluded that the only force check within each slice in the slope will
be for vertical equilibrium according to Oasys Ltd (2012)
4.5.3 Analysis of Constant Inclined Intersliced forces
In this particular method according to Oasys Ltd (2012), the slope being analysed will
vary with ratio, which is always constant between vertical interslice forces and horizontal

62. 47
interslice forces. In this particular method the slice will not be in equilibrium, only the
entire slope will be in equilibrium. Therefore when calculating, equilibrium will be
effectively maintained for each slice which will be in the direction normal to the
intersliced forces according to analysis done by Oasys Ltd (2012).
4.5.4 Analysis of Variably inclined intersliced forces
According to Oasys Ltd (2012) this particular method is superior as compared to other
methods, as it will maintain every slice in vertical equilibrium and horizontal equilibrium
at all times. Therefore it should be noted that, it may result in exceeding the strength of
the soil which will be along the slice interface. This is because the method doesn’t check
vertical interslice forces against the materials’ shear strength. Therefore it means results
will have to be validated or checked for this particular method.
The interslice forces are adjusted both for vertical direction and horizontal direction
separately. This is done by addition of fraction of residual values which are from the
previous iteration. To determine the fraction, this is done through the use of horizontal
length of the slip surface. This is the slip surface that the slice will be representing.
Therefore the interslice direction will vary by this particular method, but however it
should be noted that each slice will be in equilibrium at all times as in the whole slope
according to Oasys Ltd (2012).
4.6 Positioning of the slices
According to Oasys Ltd (2012) Oasys Slope 19.0 will divide each slip mass into slices.
The slice boundaries which are a result of this dividing process are located on the
following points on the slope
1. When there is a gradient change of stratum
2. At each stratum’s intersection or slip surface
3. At each’s phreatic intersection
4. At slice’s midpoint whose width will be greater than known average slice width.
This is given by the following formula
𝑋𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡−𝑋𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠
(4.4)

63. 48
4.7 Research project adopted method
4.7.1 Bishop methods
According to Bishop (1955), the bishop’s methods mentioned above can be used on
circular surfaces. It should be noted that if reinforcement is specified, one of Bishop’s
methods should be applied.
3 methods of solution are available under Bishop. The methods are
1. Parallel Interslice forces
2. Variably Inclined Intersliced forces
3. Horizontal Intersliced Forces
4.7.2 Horizontal Interslice forces: Simplified Method
This method can be used to all circular slip forces according to Oasys Ltd (2012). They
are several assumptions which are made for this method, the assumptions are as
follows
1. The shear forces on the interslice are all assumed that the sum is 0.This will
satisfy vertical equilibrium but it will not satisfy horizontal equilibrium
Whereby Xn – Xn+1 =0 (4.5)
This will lead to errors in the final values of factor of safety. The errors are usually
small and as well on the safe side
2. The overall moment of equilibrium is satisfied by each method
4.7.3 Parallel Inclined Intersliced Forces
This analytical method is also known in geotechnical engineering as Spencer’s Method,
this method can be applied to circular slip surfaces. It is a better method than Bishop’s
Simplified Method and it satisfies the horizontal equilibrium, moment equilibrium and
vertical equilibrium as a whole according to Oasys Ltd (2012).
The assumptions which are made of this method are
1. The Oasys Slope 19.0 Software will assume that all interslice forces will be
parallel but however not horizontal.
2. The method also satisfy the overall horizontal equilibrium and vertical

64. 49
equilibrium
3. This analytical method will also satisfy overall moment of equilibrium
The difference between the 2 methods mentioned above depends with the increase or
decrease of slope angle. For steeper slopes Spencer’s method is recommended and it
is more accurate than the other method. However they maybe problems of interlock and
if this is suspected, the variably inclined interslice force method will be used.
4.7.4 BISHOP’S METHOD: VARIABLY INCLINED INTERSLICE FORCES
This analytical method can be applied on circular slip surfaces. It is a better method
than the previous Bishop methods above, it has being designed to overcome interlock
problems. The assumptions made for this method according to Oasys Ltd (2012) are
that
1. The Oasys Software will compute the interslice forces as to maintain horizontal
equilibrium and vertical equilibrium of slices
2. The inclinations of the interslice forces will also be varied until overall horizontal
equilibrium, vertical equilibrium and moment equilibrium are achieved in each
iteration.
The Bishop’s variably inclined interslice forces method will be used in this research
project as it offer analysis on circular slips as well the advantage of overcoming
interlocking problems.
4.8 Data entry and FOS calculation
The data will be imported into the Oasys Slope 19.0 as follows
1. Units of data will be imported
2. Parameters will be imported
3. Analysis option chosen
4. Method of Partial Factors is chosen
5. Titles of work tasks assigned
6. Materials imported into slope
7. Groundwater levels assigned
8. Strata levels assigned
9. Slip surfaces assigned

65. 50
10.Reinforcement/Loads on slopes.
Units of Data
Direction of slip: Chosen direction: Downhill
Minimum slip weight: 100kN/m
Analysis type: Static
Analysis
Chosen factor of safety on: Shear strength
Number of slices (minimum):25
Method chosen: Bishop-variably inclined interslice forces
Maximum iterations chosen (number):100
Reinforcement (Yes/No): Not Active
Fig 4.2: Showing Inputs of Slip surfaces of Slope B
Partial Factors
Selected: SLS
Factor number on dead load: 1.0
Factor number on live load: 1.0
Factor number on the unit weight of soil: 1.0
Factor number on the cohesion value of drained soil: 1.0

66. 51
Factor number on the cohesion value of undrained soil: 1.0
Factor number on the friction angle of soil: 1.0
Correct moment factor: 1.0
Reinforcement pull out factor: 1.0
The economic ramification of failure: 1.0
Sliding reinforcement factor: 1.0
Fig 4.3: Showing inputs of Partial factors of Slope B
Materials
Column 1: Soil description
Column 2: Unit weight of soil either above or ground water level
Column 3: Soil condition (either drained –linear or undrained)
Column 4: C or Co
Specification of Slip surface
Circle Centre: Grid
Left grid (bottom): x =45
Y=45
Grid centers: 40 in x –direction at 2.50m spacing
20 in y –direction at 2.50m spacing
Extension of grid: Grid fully extended as to find the minimum factor of safety
Initial radius: 2.5m chosen
Incrementation: Increased by 1.50m until entire consideration of all circles
Reinforcement used: No reinforcement used

67. 52
4.9 Verification of data and Computation of Factor of Safety
When the slip surface has been specified the Oasys Slope 19.0 will run several checks
as to verify the data. When there is satisfaction of verification and if they are no errors
the Oasys Slope software will then compute the factor of safety. This is done according
to method of slice selected according to Oasys Ltd (2012). In this research project,
Bishop Method with variably inclined forces is used. The minimum factor of safety will
then be displayed as part of output of the software as well as displaying critical slip
surface
Fig 4.4 Showing output from Oasys slope 19.0 according to Oasys Ltd (2012)

68. 53
CHAPTER 5.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

69. 54
5.1 Results and Discussion
The stability of the three selected slopes at the Giant Causeway Visitors Centre were
analysed for both drained and undrained conditions, limit equilibrium method (Oasys
Slope 19.0) was used for analysis of stability. The graphical outputs, tabular outputs and
the factor of safety results for slope stability analysis of the three slopes are presented
in Appendix A.
The Appendix shows the safety factors of the slope which have being computed by
Oasys Slope 19.0 both for undrained and drained soil conditions. Modified Bishop
Method with variably inclined intersliced method was used. In this research study there
was analysis of both drained and undrained soil conditions, because drained conditions
refer to condition in soil where drainage is allowed and undrained condition refer to a
condition where drainage is restricted, this will result in different soil strength between
drained and undrained soil.
Slope A
Soil properties were evaluated from a combination of SPT test, SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11
software, correlation soil’s properties table (Geotechdata, 2015) and ground
investigation data provided by Glover Site Investigations Limited. The geotechnical soil
properties are shown on fig 5.1 and fig 5.2.The ground water table which was found in
this area was approximately 3.50m below ground level and the V: H ratio or the gradient
of the slope was 1:1.9 .The measured height of slope was 2.50m and the horizontal
distance was 4.75m,hence
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑉: 𝐻 =
2.50
4.00
=1:1.78(5.1)
Soils at the slope are as follows (Glover Site Investigations, 2009, p.5)
1. Gravelly Silt
2. Firm Sandy Gravelly Silt
3. Very Stiff Gravelly Silt

70. 55
Fig 5.2 Slope A: Drained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0
Fig 5.1 Slope A: Undrained analysis in Oasys Slope 19.0

71. 56
Factor of Safety
The factor of safety for undrained conditions is 1.112 and for the drained conditions is
1.112 this shows that the slope is not stable both in short term (undrained) and long
term (drained) conditions. The graphical output are shown in Appendix A. The minimum
factor of safety for both conditions is less than 1.3. This is less than the suggested
acceptable factor of safety for a stable slope in this research project according to
BS6031:2009. Therefore remedial measures have to applied for the slope to be stable.
In accordance with BS6031:1981 Earthworks both conditions for drained and undrained
conditions do not satisfy the range of 1.20 -1.40 and also less than the suggested
adopted factor of safety (1.3) for this research project for a stable slope as
recommended by BS6031:2009.The instability of the slopes according to Duncan et al.
(2005) can be reached by a decrease in the shear strength of the soil at the slopes or by
an increment in the shear stress that is required for equilibrium.
According to McDonnell et al. (2000) she stated that one of the causes of slopes failures
at the site was heavy rainfall. High rainfall will result in increased pore pressure which
will ultimately result in decrease of effective stress in soil. This will affect all soil types
according to Duncan et al. (2005).The difference in permeability of the soils, will result in
different time length required for pore pressures to change. Therefore due to decrease
in effective stress the slopes will become less stable.
High rainfall will also result in increment of the weight of the soil. The infiltration as well
as the seepage of the water into the soils at the slope, will ultimately increase the soil’s
water content and thereby the weight of the soil will be increased. The ultimate effect
will be the increase of the shear stress according to Duncan et al. (2005). This will result
in less stability of the slope. As the slope fails, there is usually a precedence of crack
development. The cracks will usually develop near the slope’s crest. The ultimate result
in cracking of the soil is losing the strength on the crack’s plane. This will result in
reduction in the stability of the soil

72. 57
5.2 Slope B
Soil properties were evaluated from a combination of SPT test, SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11
software, correlation soil’s properties table (Geotechdata, 2015) and ground
investigation data provided by Glover Site Investigations Limited. The geotechnical soil
properties are shown on fig 5.3 and fig 5.4.The ground water table which was found in
this area was approximately 4.90m below ground level and the V: H ratio of the slope
was 1:2.The measured height of the slope was 4.60 and the
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑉: 𝐻 =
2.30
4.60
=1:2 (5.2)
Soils at the slope are as follows (Glover Site Investigations Limited, 2009, p.6)
1. Loose brown sand
2. Sandy gravelly silt

73. 58
Fig 5.3 Slope B: Undrained analysis of slope by Oasys Slope 19.0
Fig 5.4 Slope B: Drained analysis of slope by Oasys Slope 19.0

74. 59
Factor of Safety
The factor of safety for undrained conditions is 6.816 and for the drained conditions is
1.918 this shows a decrease in safety factor as well as stressing that the slope is stable
both in short term (undrained) and long term (drained) conditions. The factor of safety
for both conditions is more than 1.3 which is more than the acceptable factor of safety
for a stable slope (1.3). Therefore no remedial measures have to apply for the slope to
be stable.
In accordance with BS6031:1981 Earthworks both conditions for drained and undrained
conditions do satisfy the acceptable range of factor of safety 1.20 -1.40 and also
satisfies the factor of safety of 1.3 for this research project as recommended by
BS6031:2009.It can be concluded that Slope B is stable and no remedial measures are
required to stabilise the slopes.
According to Duncan et al (2005) the decrease of factor of safety of a slope is caused
by two major points which are decrease in shear strength of soil or the increase of shear
stress required to achieve equilibrium. The factor of safety values for slope B values
have decreased from 6.816 (undrained) to 1.918 (drained).The shear strength values of
the soil occupying the slopes have decreased from undrained to drained state and
ultimately according to Duncan et al (2014) this will decrease the factor of safety in long
term. The decrease in shear strength of soil will affect the overall factor of safety value
of the slope but in this instance according to BS6031:2009 the slope is stable in both
long and short term.

75. 60
5.3 Slope C
Soil properties were evaluated from a combination of SPT test, SPTCorr v.2.2.1.11
software and ground investigation data provided by Glover Site Investigations Limited.
The geotechnical soil properties are shown on fig 5.5 and fig 5.6.There was no ground
water table which was found in this area and the V: H ratio of the slope was 1:9 .The
measured height of the slope was 2.9m and the measured horizontal distance was
5.5m, hence
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝐶 𝑜𝑟 𝑉: 𝐻 =
2.9
5.5
= 1: 9 (equation 5.3)
Soils at the slope are as follows
1. Loose brown sand
2. Sandy gravelly silt

76. 61
Fig 5.5 Slope C: Undrained analysis of slope (short term)
Fig 5.6 Slope C: Drained analysis of slope (long term)

77. 62
Factor of Safety
The factor of safety for undrained conditions is 0.720 and for the drained conditions is
1.413 this shows an increase in safety factor as well as stressing that the slope is not
stable in short term (undrained) and stable in long term (drained) conditions. The factor
of safety for short term (undrained) is less than 1.3 which is less than the acceptable
factor of safety for a stable slope (1.3) hence the slope is not stable in short term hence
remedial measures have to be applied for the slope to be stable according to
BS6031:2009.
Generally when it comes to geotechnical engineering specifically to BS6031:1981
Earthworks a required factor of safety value for a standard slope is between 1.20 – 1.40
and based on that information the safety factor produced under drained conditions
(0.720) is not stable and stable to support a slope. The factor of safety of the slope
under drained conditions is more than 1.3 which means the slope will be stable in long
term.
According to Lancellota (2009, p.423) in a saturated soil for instance, reduction of mean
total stress will occur. A negative pore pressure in soil will develop and as time goes on
the pore pressure will be dissipated. Migration of pore water will occur in surrounding
areas in the soil. This will result in swelling and softening of soil which will reduce
strength hence the minimum factor of safety will be achieved in long term conditions
according to Abrasom et al (2002).

78. 63
Fig 5.7 Showing graphical output of Slope C (undrained /short term condition)
The Oasys Slope 19.0 will display the FOS of the slope as shown on fig 5.7 as
0.720.The software also shows the critical slip surface as well respective soil layers
occupying the slope.
Graphical Output of Slope C (Undrained /Short term condition)

79. 64
Fig 5.8 Showing tabular output of Slope C (undrained /short term condition)
The Oasys Slope 19.0 software also show results in tabular form as shown on fig
5.8.The tabular form will show inputs such as soil strata layers ,analysis options as well
as displaying the minimum factor of safety of the slope.
Tabular Output of Slope C (Undrained /Short term condition)

80. 65
5.4 Conclusion of Results and Discussion
After the computation of factor of safety of all the slopes, according to the suggested or
recommended factor of safety of 1.30 by BS6031:2009, we can conclude that
1. Slope A – the slope is not stable in both short term and long term
2. Slope B – the slope is stable in both short term and long term
3. Slope C – the slope is not stable in short term but stable in long term
After the output of safety factors by Oasys Slope 19.0 it can be concluded that remedial
works will be required for Slope A and Slope C as to bring the slopes to the required
safety factor (1.3) which will mean the slopes will be stable.
The remedial works required for each slope will depend on the required factor of safety
for each slope versus the cost of achieving that particular factor of safety, as to stabilise
the slope according to Walsh (2014,p.220).Generally in geotechnical engineering they
are two main methods which can be applied as to stabilise the slope
1. Primary method :These remedial works will immediately take action in stopping
the slide from further occurring
2. Secondary method: These remedial works are useful in ensuring longevity in
stabilisation of the slope and can also be useful in preservation of primary
treatments.
The primary methods available for stabilising the slope are as follows, they are arranged
in order of preference according to Community (2014)
1. Regrading the slope : This has effective effect and also there is high probability
that it will become uneffective with time
2. Drainage: This particular method can be put into use if regrading of the slope is
considered impractical to be applied. This is mostly effective immediately in soils
which are highly permeable. This method will take more effect on soils which are
fine grained.
3. Corporating structural components into the slope: These structures can be
active and effective such as stressed nails or anchors. They can also be passive
such as walls or sheet piling. Generally passive schemes will only take effect on

81. 66
further movement of slopes which is not desired in slope remedial application.
Secondary methods maybe applied as well in slope stability if required. They are useful
in maintaining the stability of the slopes for long term. They can also be useful in
preserving primary treatments. The following secondary methods maybe used
1. Shallow and deep methods
2. Geotextiles
From the results produced by Oasys Slope 19.0 as shown in Appendix A, it can be
concluded that there is a distinction between drained and undrained strength of soils
especially cohesive soils. This is due to the fact that there is restricted movement of
water in cohesive soils as compared to coarse grained soils such as clay soils. For
cohesive soils such as clay soils it may take a long time before there is a complete
dissipation of excess pore water pressure, this is before the achievement of effective
equilibrium.
In drained and undrained analysis of soils according to Lancellota (2009, p.423), he
stated that in a saturated soil they will be a reduction of mean total stress. This is
followed by development of negative pore pressure in the soil and as time goes on the
pore pressure will be dissipated and migration of pore water will occur in the soil. This
will effectively results in swelling and softening of the soil which will reduce the strength
of the soil hence the minimum factor of safety is expected to be achieved in long term
conditions according to Abrasom et al (2002).

82. 67
CHAPTER 6.0: FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
AND CONCLUSION

83. 68
6.1 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Slope A and Slope C will require application of remedial works as both their factor of
safety values are under the suggested FOS of 1.3, as recommended by
BS6031:2009.According to Walsh (2014,p.220) the acceptable remedial works for each
slope will depend on the remedial work versus the costs accumulated to bring that
required factor of safety.
Suggested Remedial works for the slopes
6.1.1 Changing Slope geometry
Generally slope stability decreases with increase in height of the slope, as the slope
height increases, the shear stress which is within the toe of slope will increase due to
extra added weight. Shear stress is also affected by slope angle. If the slope angle is
decreased or the gradient of the slope is decreased, the shear stress will decrease and
according to Duncan et al. (2005) the factor of safety will increase. This will increase the
stability of the slope.
Changing geometry of the slopes A and C will increase the stability of the slopes. This is
done by either by
1. Excavation as to unload the slopes
2. Filling as part of the slopes
3. Reduction of the overall height of slope.
However it should be noted that when excavation and or filling are used as part of slope
remedial measures, it is important to ensure correct positioning and obliging to the
neutral point concept (Environment, 2015)
Fig 6.1 Showing modification of slope geometry (Environment, 2015)

84. 69
Fig 6.2 Showing modification of slope geometry as to stabilise the slope (Environment,
2015)
6.1.2 Retaining Structures
Retaining structures such as use of piles, walls or anchors maybe used as a way of
stabilising slopes A and C. It should be however be noted that as well as appreciated
that the forces as well as the moments that these forces are subjected to maybe very
large. Henceforth, engineers will need to be careful when it comes to designing them.
Fig 6.3 Slope stability method being used in form of walls (Gabion1, 2015)

85. 70
In slope stability analysis regarding retaining structures, it should be noted that retaining
structures are not really considered the most effective remedial measure. This is due to
the fact they are very difficult to implement on an already moving slide according to
Menzies and Murphy (2001). It should however be noted that they are commonly used
in ensuring complete stability of already existing landslide, which may be reactivated in
future.
The interslice forces from stability analysis which has being mentioned in chapter 4.0,
will be used to estimate the forces that will be acting on the retaining wall. The retaining
wall will provide required resistance which is only actively mobilized by the further slope
deformation according to Duncan et al. (2005). The force will then act along the line of
action as shown on Fig 6.4 into either the soil or rock slope, but specifically to soil
slopes at the Giant Causeway Visitors Centre.
Fig 6.4 Demonstrating use of retaining wall in Slope Stability (Community, 2014)
6.1.3 Geotextiles
These are manmade, usually they are plastic based soil reinforcement materials. In
slope stabilisation, geogrids are usually used. One use of them is to apply an
embankment fill, this will effectively reduce the amount of landslide movement as well
keeping the slope in good place according to Abrasom et al .(2002). Geogrids are
occasionally used as anchors, this will provide a reaction against the disturbing

86. 71
moments. They are occasionally used in repairing small engineering earthworks and
they are usually effective if applied well.
Fig 6.5 Showing use of geogrids in slope stability (Community, 2014)
6.1.4 Grassing the slope
This method can be applied to all the slopes ,this including Slope B.The grassing
method is a slope remedial method whereby the slope is covered by grass or sand ,this
will effectively as well as immediately result in reduction of the amount of water that can
infiltrate into the slopes according to Knappet and Craig (2008). This is an inexpensive
method which if applied at slopes will be simple as well effective in long term whilst
effectively stabilising the slopes.
6.1.5 Drainage
Drainage is the least effective method that can be used as a remedial measure at the
Giant Causeway’s slopes due to the fact that although drainage is effective in stabilising
the slopes in short term ,in long term these drains will require lots of maintenance as
well as repair according to Duncan et al. (2005) . This is often expensive as well as
difficult to perform, making it less desirable remedial measure. The drainage method is
effective in soils were regrading of the slope is considered impractically impossible to be
done according Abrasom et al. (2002). Drainage also has effective use in high
permeable soils and also will take more time to be fully effective in fine grained soils and
the most common drainage remedial work in slopes is surface drainage.

87. 72
Fig 6.6 Demonstrating use of drainage systems in slope stability (Community, 2014)
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Natural slope instability is a major problem and concern at the Giant Causeway Visitor’s
Centre. The failure of the slopes might result in a dangerous destruction of this natural
monument. The failures of the slopes can be concluded as being triggered by internal or
external factors which will result in internal changes of soil such as the rise in pore water
pressure or forces which are imbalanced according to Duncan et al (2014). These are
forces which may be caused by external loads.
It can also be concluded that the there is a distinction between drained and undrained
conditions of soil. Shortly, undrained condition is referred to as a condition where
drainage is restricted and drainage condition, to a condition where drainage is
permitted. The factor of safety for undrained conditions was different to that of those of
drained conditions for all the slopes, but the factor of safety for all the slopes was below
1.3 recommended by BS6031:2009 for the 2 out of 3 evaluated slopes.

88. 73
Therefore it can be concluded that 2 out of 3 slopes at the Giant Causeway Visitors
Centre which have been studied in this research project are not stable. Therefore it
means remedial measures have to be applied to stabilise the slopes.
The primary duty of an engineer is to design a structure economically without affecting
its strength. In this research project specific to slopes, it can be concluded that steep
slopes will require less earth work and less cost but this will also mean the overall factor
of safety of the slope will be reduced according to Abrasom et al .(2002). For instance
when the V: H ratios of the slopes are altered, the factor of safety of the slopes will
change.
At the Giant Causeway Visitors Centre another option will be to have a provision of
reinforcement to the slopes or to apply retaining walls to the slopes. This will effectively
decrease amount of volume of earth work required, however the cost of applying these
structures can be expensive according to Chandler (1991, p.77-101.). It should be noted
also, the construction of any structure will depend on the cost of land. The Giant
Causeway is located outside urban area, therefore cost of land might be cheaper but
applying adequate reinforcement or retaining walls might also decrease the cost
financially (Belfast City Council, 2015)

89. 74
References
 Abramson, L., Lee, T., Sharma, S., Boyce, G. (2002) Slope Stability and
Stabilization methods. 2nd edn.USA:John Wiley and Sons
 Atkinson,J.H.(2014) The mechanics of soils and foundations.2nd
edn.London:CRC Press
 ASTM D1586 (2008) Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
and Split –Barrel Sampling of soils, West Conshohocken, PA: , American Society
for Testing and Materials
 Belfast City Council (2015) Council rates. Available at:
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Belfast+city+council+land+costs+giant+causeway
(Accessed:6 September 2015)
 Bishop, A. (1955). The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of
Slope.Geotechnique,Vol.5 (No. 1),pp.7-17
 Bodo, B and Jones, C. (2013) Introduction to Soil Mechanics. United Kingdom:
John Wiley and Sons,Ltd
 BS EN ISO 22476 (2005) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing –Field Testing.
United Kingdom: British Standards Institution
 British Standards Institution (2009) BS 6031:2009 Code of Practice for
Earthworks.London:BSI Geotechnical Design
 Chandler R. (1991) Slope Stability Engineering: Developments and Applications.
London: Thomas Telford
 Chen,W. , Liu,X. (1990) Limit Analysis in Soil Mechanics.USA:Elsevier Science
Publishers
 Community (2014) Slope stability analysis.Available at:
https://community.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/slopes/page5.htm (Accessed:25
June 2015)
 Das, B.M. (2008) Advanced Soil Mechanics. USA :Taylor and Francis
 Duncan,J. Wright,S. Brandon,L. (2005) Soil strengths and slope
stability.Canada:John Wiley and Sons

90. 75
 Environment (2015) Slope Stability.Available at
http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SLOPES/SLOPES.HTM. (Accessed:04
September 2015)
 Fellenius, W (1936) Calculation of Stability of Earth Dams.Transactions, 2nd
Congress Large Dams, Vol.4 p.445.Washington D.C. New York: John Wiley and
Sons
 Gabion1 (2015) Retaining wall assessment. Available at
http://www.gabion1.co.uk/retaining_wall_site_profile.htm (Accessed:06
September 2015)
 Geologmski (2015) SPTCorr v.2.2. SPT Correlation Software.Available at
http://www.geologismiki.gr/products/sptcorr/ . (Accessed:03 August 2015)
 Geotechdata (2015) Angle of friction .Available at
http://www.geotechdata.info/parameter/angle-of-friction.html (Accessed:03
August 2015)
 Glover Site Investigations Limited (2009) Giant’s Causeway Replacement
Visitor’s Centre Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Report. Northern Ireland:
Geological Survey of Northern Ireland
 Indian Institute of Technology (2015) Factors Affecting slope failure .Available at
http://www.iitbhu.ac.in/faculty/min/rajesh-rai/NMEICT-
Slope/Pdf/02%20Causes%20of%20slope%20failure.pdf (Accessed : 1 July 2015)
 Knappet, J. and Craig, R. (2012) Craig’s soil mechanics .8th edn. London:Spon
 Lancellota, R. (2009) Geotechnical Engineering second edition .Canada: Taylor
and Francis
 Lee W. , Thomas S., Sunil S., and Glenn M (2002) Slope Stability and
Stabilization Methods.2nd edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons
 McDonnell, B.A.M. and Smith, B.J. (2000). Slope failures at the Giant’s
Causeway 1995–1998. Northern Ireland: Environment and Heritage Service
 Menzies,B. , Matthews,M. (2001) A short course in soil and rock slope
engineering.London:Thomas Telford
 Murthy, V.N.S. (2002) Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker

91. 76
 Oasys Ltd (2012) Slope Version 19.0.London:Oasys Ltd
 Smith, I. (2013) Smith’s Elements of Soil Mechanics.8th edn.London:Blackwell
Publishing
 Venkataramaiah,C. (2006) Geotechnical Engineering.India:New Age International
Pvt.Ltd
 Walsh. (2014) CE6203T-Geotechnical Engineering Course
Notes.London:University of East London
 Queens University Belfast (2015) Slope Instability at the Giant’s Causeway and
Causeway coast world heritage. Available at
http://www.qub.ac.uk/geomaterials/weathering/causeway/index.php (Accessed
22 June 2015)

92. 77
Appendix A: Oasys Slope 19.0 Graphical and Tabular Outputs

93. 78
Appendix A
Drained Conditions for Slope A (Graphical Output)

94. 79
Tabular Output of Slope A – Drained Condition

95. 80
Slope A: Undrained Conditions (Graphical Output)

96. 81
Tabular Output of Slope A – Undrained Condition

97. 82
Slope B: Drained soil conditions

98. 83
Tabular Output of Slope B– Drained Condition

99. 84
Slope B: Undrained Soil Conditions

100. 85
Tabular Output of Slope B – Undrained Condition

101. 86
Slope C: Drained Soil Conditions

102. 87
Tabular Output of Slope C – Drained Condition

103. 88
Slope C: Undrained Soil Conditions

104. 89
Tabular Output of Slope C – Undrained Condition

105. 90
Appendix B: Giant Causeway Visitor’s Centre Map Area

106. 91

107. 92

108. 93

109. 94

110. 95
APPENDIX C:Soil laboratory tests, borehole
data and Geotech data table

111. 96

112. 97

113. 98

114. 99

115. 100

116. 101

117. 102
co

118. 103

119. 104
The soil friction angle values for this research were compiled using the SPT-N values obtained by Glover Site
Investigations Limited. SPTCorr v.2.2.2 software was used with (SPT-N) – soil’s friction angle correlation table which is
according to Geotechdata (2015).The table is shown on next page (page 103 and page 104)

120. 105

121. 106

122. 107

123. 108

124. 109