Discussion of “Modification to Translational Failure Analysis of Landfills Incorporating Seismicity” by Xuede Qian and Robert M. Koerner
The authors have emphasized the importance of fill sequencing as it relates to slope stability during operations of a lined repository. The neglect of changes in stability during operations has resulted in several large landfill slope stability failures, with one of the most notable and earliest of these the Kettleman Hills hazardous waste landfill slide in 1987. The authors’ approach promotes a two-wedge analysis based on limit equilibrium. Certainly limit-equilibrium techniques are the most common methods used to evaluate slope stability. Few design practitioners use finite-element techniques for performing slope stability, except for very complex situations or forensic analyses. Thus, refinements to approaches promoting limit-equilibrium stability methods are of continued value. Although limit-equilibrium techniques are useful tools for analyzing slope stability, it is important that practitioners recognize inherent limiting assumptions. Fundamentally, limit-equilibrium analyses assume rigid-body mechanics and assume that the factor of safety is uniformly distributed along the presumed failure surface. Except for the case in which residual strengths are used along the entire slip surface and the factor of safety is less than or equal to unity, this modeling limitation does not represent reality, and its use can significantly distort the true understanding of the distribution of the shear stresses along any presumed failure plane. This modeling limitation is likely one of the obscure and half-understood reasons that the historic use of a factor of safety of 1.5 has been required and largely successful for static slope stability analyses. The nonuniform mobilization of shear stresses may result in certain portions of a failure surface reaching, and exceeding, their peak strengths before others. This point was the essential lesson to be taken from the Filz et al. (2001) publication. Previous to Filz et al. (2001), a similar publication by Reddy et al. (1996) made the same point. These are landmark publications that should be studied by any practitioner involved in slope stability analyses, especially those involving geosynthetic lining systems. The Filz et al. (2001) and Reddy et al. (1996) papers indicate that shear stresses in real deformable bodies will initially begin to approach, and eventually may exceed, peak strengths at the outer slope toes of fills and at the base of the back slopes of lined repositories under static filling conditions. The practical recognition of this phenomenon and associated design recommendations relative to evaluating the stability of lined repositories was first widely promoted and published by Stark and Poeppel (1994). Their paper should be recognized as the first for the general design recommendation that postpeak shear strength be used along lined back slopes, while peak strength can be used along the base of lined repositories. An important concept that has been overlooked by the authors is that “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” Relative to performing slope stability analyses for multiinterface lining systems, this adage would be translated as “the critical interface will be the one with the lowest peak shear strength.” Fig. 1 of this discussion shows a graph of the peak shear strength envelopes for all eight interfaces considered by the authors in their example. It is clear from this graph that there are two interface strength envelopes that would control the slope stability of any configuration related to their design example: Interfaces II and VI [identical interfaces comprising a geocomposite versus textured high-density polyethylene (HDPE)] have the lowest peak strength at effective normal stresses below approximately 100 kPa, and Interface III [textured HDPE versus the woven side of geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)] has the lowest peak shear strength at effective normal stresses above approximately 100 kPa. Thus, these are the two shear strength envelopes that really should be used in evaluating the slope stability of the example problem. The designer would have to define the zones in which the effective normal stresses are less than 100 kPa and use either the peak or postpeak strength parameters, whichever is deemed appropriate, of Interface II or VI for those zones. For the zones in which the normal stresses are greater than 100 kPa, the designer would use either the peak or postpeak strength parameters, whichever is deemed appropriate, of Interface III. In this particular example, the peak shear strength parameters of Interface VII are so close to those of Interface III that, for the zones in which the designer wished to use postpeak strength parameters, it would be prudent to check the postpeak strength parameters of both those two interfaces and use the one that is the lesser of the two. In this case it would still be Interface III that would control at effective normal stresses greater than 100 kPa. Given the logic described in the preceding paragraph, the need to study the 64 options presented in the authors’ Table 2 is obviated. The most critical interfaces could be chosen based on inspection of the graph of all peak strength envelopes superimposed on one graph, as shown in Fig. 1, and only one analysis for the critical ky would need to be run. Furthermore, using this same logic, the authors’ selections of the critical interfaces in their design example would be judged incorrect on two counts. First, the selection of Interface IV (internal shear strength of GCL) as the critical postpeak interface on the back slope, as indicated in some of the authors’ examples, would not be correct because its peak shear strength is greater than that of either Interface III or VII for all effective normal stresses less than 300 kPa. Thus, Interface IV would not be expected to exceed its peak because either Interface III, or Interface II or VI, would fail first (depending on the effective normal stress) and never allow the GCL to mobilize its full peak internal strength. Second, along the base of the landfill, where the authors have chosen to use peak strength parameters, the critical interface would be different where the normal force was less than 100 kPa (in which case Interface II or VI would govern) compared to where the normal force was greater than 100 kPa (in which case Interface III would govern). The authors’ examples do not indicate the selection of different critical interfaces for different effective normal stresses. Standard industry practice would take this into consideration. In zones where a postpeak shear strength condition is assumed, the authors’ approach for selecting the critical interface is equivalent to selecting the interface with the lowest postpeak shear strength along that interface. If this extreme assumption is to be
Read more