|
 |



 
 

 
   
   

 
  ! 

ð

 


ð 
 
 "
‡Landslides are one of the frequently occurring natural  
 
hazards in seismically active Northern part of Indian
Himalayas.
‡Rock slopes of Himachal Pradesh are seismically very
vunerable to landslides.
‡Seismicity of the Himalayan region has been examined in
terms of its relationship with known geological faults and
tectonic lineaments.
'
" (b) CASE 2 (c) CASE 3
‡ In this research paper, an endeavour has been made to
Fig 3: Horizontal displacement contours for the three cases considered
model slope (Longitudes 32°07'N-32°13'N and Latitudes
77°08'E-77°11'E) in the Manali area of Himachal Pradesh,   "
India (Fig.1). ‡ From Table 2, The analysis revealed that slopes are stable with
Fig 1: Location Map of the Study Area respective factor of safety (FoS) under static loading conditions.
‡ The site is located in the seismic zone V as per the Seismic
Zonation Map of India (IS 1893:2002). ‡ In case 2, joint set 5 is less stable compared to the other joint sets.
‡Numerical discontinuum model has been considered in this ‡ The dynamic case slopes considered to be the most critical. The
analysis. displacements observed in the model will reflect the settlement. Since
‡The slope considered for analysis has crown at an elevation maximum displacement values are very high which indicates that slope
of about 2,129m and the horizontal dimension of the left and is unstable.
Table 2: Factor of Safety
right section are 11205m and 5104m (Fig.2). Fig 2: Details of rock slopes considered *
(.( */| *&| 01.*|*
2&112
*&2|%
'
" Table 1: Properties of Rock material
1
2
I -
JS1
2.026
1.1
‡The geotechnical properties of the Rock mass considered 3 JS2 1.045
4 II JS3 1.175
in the present are shown in Table 1. ,
-
 è  L
5 JS4 1.26
E
‡The slope stability analysis is carried out by numerical Type of behaviour Undrained 6
F
JS5 1.04
7 JS1 unsafe
T
modeling and the analysis is carried out considered three Rock unit weight Ȗunsat (kN/m3) 19.25 8 JS2 unsafe
Rock unit weight Ȗsat (kN/m3) 21 9 III JS3 unsafe
cases i.e. static. 10 JS4 unsafe
Horizontal Permeability Kx 1.00E-03 11 JS5 unsafe
‡Then interlocking conditions are modeled to simulate the
(m/day) 12 I - 1.848
prevailing rock mass conditions at the site by introducing the Vertical Permeability Ky (m/day) 1.00E-03
13 JS1 1.08
14 JS2 1.13
5 different joint sets (JS1 (30o&120o), JS2 (45o&135o), JS3 Young¶s modulus Eref (kN/m2) 1.90E+05 15 R II JS3 1.09
16 JS4 1.25
(60o&150o), JS4 (75o&165o) and JS5 (90o&180o))in the Poisson¶s ratio Ȟ 0.24 17
I
G JS5 1.03
rock slopes considered. Cohesion cref (kN/m2) 2100 18 H
T
JS1 unsafe
(a) CASE 1 19 JS2 unsafe
‡Finally dynamic analysis of the slope has been carried out Friction angle ij (o) 29 20 III JS3 unsafe
21 JS4 unsafe
using Chamoli (1999) ground motion data. Shear Modulus G (kN/m2) 7.60E+04
22 JS5 unsafe

è#  $     
%|&'( )&*|+