Miguel Angel Vivas Mefle

MSc Geotechnical Engineering
STUDY OF THE ACCURACY OF LIMITSTATE: GEO

AND COMPLIANCE WITH EUROCODE 7
IN SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Miguel ngel Vivas Mefle

ID: 1378375
Thesis submitted is in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science
School of Civil Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
August 2014
Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO and compliance with Eurocode 7 in slope
stability analysis
Vivas Mefle, Miguel ngel
ABSTRACT
LimitState: GEO has supposed the introduction of the first software for slope stability analysis
based on discontinuity layout optimization. However, due to its novelty, there are still many
doubts about its accuracy and how well Eurocode 7 has been implemented.
In this study, throughout more than 5,000 calculations, a total of 872 cases were analyzed by
using the power of the stability numbers, obtained by iterative processes using the cohesion as
the key parameter, and involving a broad range of cases of rotational and translational slides
under drained and undrained conditions.
Bishops Simplified Method implemented in Oasys Slope software, the Classic Formula of
Limit Equilibrium for translational slides, Taylors Chart and Analytical Methods of Limit
Analysis were used to calculate the stability numbers for each case and then by introducing
these values in the models created in LimitState:GEO, the accuracy of the program was
estimated.
The implementation of EC7 in LimitState: GEO was also studied, firstly by calculating the
stability numbers for EC7-DA1 (Eurocode 7- Design Approach 1), combinations 1 and 2
using LimitState: GEO and Bishops Simplified Method adapted to EC7, and then, by
comparing the most restrictive EC7-DA1combination obtained in each case from both
methods. This study was also complemented with the calculation of the Equivalent Global
Factor of Safety, when designing in EC7 with LimitState:GEO, by bounding the stability
numbers previously calculated from EC7-DA1 with other stability numbers calculated to be
equivalent to a definite range of global FoS.
The results showed a good agreement between LimitState: GEO and the other methods of
analysis for rotational and drained slides, with an accuracy ranging from exact to 5%, whereas
for rotational and undrained slides, although the agreement was also good, the accuracy was
slightly worse varying from exact to 10%.
As far as translational slides is concerned, the accuracy was considerably poor in cases with
steep slopes with inclinations of 1/1.5 or higher, with some cases showing differences in the
FoS between 30% and 50% for drained conditions and between 15% and 30% for undrained
analysis respectively.
The agreement for the most restrictive combination obtained for each case, between
LimitState: GEO and the other methods, was good in general, however, LimitState: GEO
considered, in some cases with low angles of friction, C2 as more restrictive than C1 in
discrepancy with other limit equilibrium methods.
Finally, the Equivalent Global FoS, when calculating in EC7 with LimitState: GEO for
drained rotational slides was in all the cases the same as the obtained by the other methods
and similar, but with slight variations, for undrained rotational slides studies. However, for
translational slides cases, the values of the global FoS varied from equal to limit equilibrium
methods, for cases with no steep slopes, to FoS in the order of 40% to 60% more conservative
for steep slopes.
Key words: LimitState: GEO, Eurocode 7, Stability Number, Equivalent Global FoS and
Accuracy
ii
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACTi
LISTOF CONTENTS......iii
LIST OF FIGURES.....ix
LIST OF TABLESx
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Context..1

1.2. Aims and objectives...2
1.3. Outline Of Dissertation.....3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction...5
2.2. Background...5
2.3. Slope Stability Analysis: Fundamentals and Principles..8
2.3.1. Limit Analysis....................................................8
2.3.2. Limit Equilibrium Methods.....12
2.3.3. Numerical Methods..16
2.3.3.1.
Discontinuity Layout Optimization...17
2.4. The Concept of the Stability Number.19

2.5. Taylors Chart.20
2.6. Eurocode 7: A new approach.22
2.7. Geotechnical Software: LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope..29
3. METHODOLOGY
32
3.1. Rotational Slides under Drained Conditions:....32

3.1.1. Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in rotational slides for drained
conditions...32
iii
3.1.1.1.
LimitState: GEO vs Analytical methods of Limit Analysis..32
3.1.1.2.
LimitState: GEO vs Oasys Slope...37
3.1.2. Study of the most restrictive combination in EC7-DA1 for drained conditions
and rotational slides when using LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope....42
3.1.2.1.
LimitState: GEO study..42
3.1.2.2.
Oasys Slope study..45
3.1.3. Equivalent Global FoS for rotational slides when calculating in EC7-DA1.47
3.2. Rotational Slides under Undrained Conditions ....49
3.2.1. Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO software in rotational slides for
undrained conditions ..49
3.2.1.1.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Taylors Charts49
3.2.1.2.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Bishops Simplified Method...51
3.2.1.3.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Analytical methods of Limit

Analysis.....53
3.2.2. Study of the most restrictive combination in EC7-DA1 for rotational slides
under undrained conditions when using LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope...54
3.2.3. Equivalent Global l FoS for rotational slides under undrained conditions when
calculating in EC7-DA1..56
3.3. Translational Slides under Drained Conditions57
3.3.1. Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO software in translational slides for
drained conditions57
3.3.2. Study of the most restrictive combination in EC7-DA1 for translational slides
under drained conditions when using LimitState: GEO and classic methods..62
3.3.3. Equivalent Global FoS for translational slides when calculating
in EC7-DA166
3.4. Translational Slides under Undrained Conditions....67
3.4.1. Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO software in translational slides for
undrained conditions...67
3.4.2. Study of the most restrictive combination in EC7-DA1 for translational slides
under undrained conditions when using LimitState: GEO and Classic
Methods..69
iv
3.4.2.1.
3.4.2.2.
Classic methods study....71
3.4.3. Equivalent Global FoS for translational slides when calculating in EC7DA1..71
4. DISCUSSION
73
4.1. Rotational Slides under Drained Conditions.73

4.1.1.
Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope software in
rotational slides for drained conditions...73

4.1.1.1.
Limit Stat: Geo vs Analytical Limit Analysis ..........73
4.1.1.2.
LimitState: GEO vs Oasys Slope...74
4.1.2.
Study of the most restrictive combination in EC7-DA1 when using
LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope in rotational slides under drained

conditions...74
4.1.2.1.
4.1.2.2.
Oasys Slope study......75
4.1.3.
Equivalent Global FoS for rotational slides and drained conditions when
calculating in EC7-DA1..76
4.1.3.1.
LimitState: GEO study for depth factor 1 study....76
4.1.3.2.
LimitState: GEO study for depth factor 2 study
4.2. Rotational Slides under Undrained Conditions.77

4.2.1.
Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO software in rotational slides for
undrained conditions...77
4.2.1.1.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Taylors chart ..77
4.2.1.2.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Bishops simplified method.....77
4.2.1.3.
LimitState: GEO Analytical method of Limit Analysis78
4.2.2.
Study of the most critical combination in EC7-DA1 for rotational slides
under undrained conditions when using LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope78
4.2.2.1.
LimitState:Geo.78
4.2.2.2.
Oasys Slope......79
vi
4.2.3. Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate:GEO For Rotational Slides Under

Undrained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1.79
4.3. Translational Slides Under Drained Conditions..79
4.3.1.
Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate:GEO Software In Translational Slides
For Drained Conditions: When Compared With The Limit Equilibrium Classic
Formula..79
4.3.2.
Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7 DA1 When Using
Limitstate:GEO And The Classic Method In Translational Slides Under Drained

Conditions..80
4.3.2.1.
LimitState:GEO.80
4.3.2.2.
Classic method...80
4.3.3.
Estimation Of The Equivalent Global Fos For Translational Slides And
Drained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1.....80

4.4. Translational Slides Under Undrained Conditions..81
4.4.1.
Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate:GEO Software In Translational Slides
For Undrained Conditions..81

4.4.2.
Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7 DA1 For Translational
Slides Under Undrained Conditions When Using Limitstate:GEO And Classic

Method Of Analysis......81
4.4.3.
Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate:GEO For Translational Slides Under
Undrained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1.81
5. CONCLUSION
82
6. REFERENCES
84
vii
APPENDICES
A. Calculation of the Stability Number using Upper Bound limit analysis theory for
failure planes passing through the toe and failure planes passing below the toe.
B. Finite Element Limit Analysis (FELA) Applied To Slope Stability Analysis
C. Mathematical approach of the Stability Number.
D. Stability Numbers for EC7-DA1, Combinations 1 and 2 when designing in
LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope for rotational slides under drained conditions.
E. Stability Numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for rotational
slides under drained conditions.
F. Charts for the Equivalent Global FoS in rotational slides under drained conditions,
when designing in EC7-DA1 with LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope.
G. Stability Numbers for EC7-DA1, Combinations 1 and 2, for rotational slides under
undrained conditions when designing in LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope.
H. Stability Numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for rotational
slides under undrained conditions.
I. Stability Numbers for EC7-DA1, Combinations 1 and 2, when designing in the Classic
Method and LimitState: GEO for translational slides under drained conditions.
J. Mathematical demonstration of Classics Formulas for the Stability Numbers when
designing in EC7-DA1, Combinations 1 and 2, for translational slides under drained
conditions.
K. Stability Numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for translational
slides under drained conditions.
L. Charts for the Equivalent Global FoS in translational slides under drained
conditions.
M. Verification of the Accuracy of LimitState: GEO through 22 Benchmark Problems.
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1. Stress strain relationship for ideal and real soils. (Chen 1975)....9
2.2. Coulomb yield criterion represented by two straight lines. Limit analysis and soil
plasticity. (Chen 1975).....9
2.3. Typical slice and forces for the methods of slices. (U.S. Army corps of engineers
2003)..13
2.4. Method of Slices....14
2.5. Stages in DLO procedure...18
2.6. Compatibility at a node Gilbert (2007)..18
2.7. Elements of the Friction Circle method.21
2.8. Taylors Charts for undrained conditions. (Barnes 1995)..21
2.9. Statistical approach for the verification of the Limit States...22
2.10. Factors on actions EC7. (Bond and Harris 2008)23
2.11. Factors on material properties. EC7. (Bond and Harris 2008).....24
2.12. (Bond and Harris 2008)....26
2.13. Working description of DLO...31
3.1. General case for Analytical methods of Limit Analysis calculations....33
3.2. Example of models created for LimitState:GEO...33
3.3. Example of the model created for LimitState:GEO, depth factor 1...42
3.4. Example of the model created for LimitState:GEO, depth factor 2...45
3.5. Example of the model created for translational slides in LimitState:GEO,...63
3.6. Chart representing the Equivalent Global FoS when calculating in EC7 with LimitState:
GEO for translational slides under undrained conditions..73
ix
LIST OF TABLES
2.1. Stability numbers for homogeneous simple slopes by several methods from Taylor
(1948)...7
2.2. Stability numbers for homogeneous simple slopes by limit equilibrium and upper bound
limit analysis. (Chen 1975)....10
2.3. Number of unknowns and equations for limit equilibrium methods from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (2003).13
2.4. Limitations of limit equilibrium methods from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(2003).14
2.5. Unknowns and equations of the Bishops simplified method from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (2003)15
2.6. Set of partial factors for EC7 design approach 1 from Bond and Harris (2008)...25
3.1. Stability numbers for homogeneous simple slopes by analytical method of Limit Analysis
for rotational slides with =0 and drained conditions....35
for rotational slides with =20 and drained conditions..35
for rotational slides with =30 and drained conditions..35
3.4. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to analytical method of limit analysis for
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides,
=0 and drained conditions.36
3.5.Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to analytical method of limit analysis for

=20 and drained conditions...37
=30 and drained conditions...37
3.7. Stability numbers obtained from Oasys Slope for homogeneous simple slopes with
rotational slides, ru=0 and drained conditions...39
x
rotational slides, ru=0.3 and drained conditions39
rotational slides, ru=0.5 and drained conditions40
3.10.Acuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Oasys Slope for homogeneous simple slopes
with rotational slides, ru=0 and drained conditions...40
3.11. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Oasys Slope for homogeneous simple slopes
with rotational slides, ru=0.3 and drained conditions....41
with rotational slides, ru=0.5 and drained conditions41
3.13. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in Oasys Slope and LimitState: GEO
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, ru=0, depth factor 1 and drained
conditions...44
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, ru=0.3, depth factor 1 and drained
conditions...44
conditions...45
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions...46
conditions...46
xi
conditions...47
3.19. Stability numbers from Taylors chart for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational
slides under undrained conditions..50
3.20. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Taylors chart for homogeneous simple
slopes with rotational slides under undrained conditions..51
rotational slides under undrained conditions.52
with rotational slides under undrained conditions53
3.23. Stability numbers obtained from analytical methods of Limit Analysis for homogeneous
simple slopes with rotational slides under undrained conditions...53
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides and undrained conditions...54
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides under undrained conditions..56
3.26. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides, ru=0 and
drained conditions..59
3.27. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides, ru=0.3 and
3.28. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides, ru=0.5 and
3.29. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to the classic formula for translational slides,
ru=0 and drained conditions...61
xii
ru=0 under drained conditions.61
ru=0.5 and drained conditions ..62
3.32. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in the classic method (CM) and
LimitState: GEO (LS) for translational slides, ru=0 and drained conditions...64
LimitState: GEO (LS) for translational slides, ru=0.3 and drained conditions....65
LimitState: GEO (LS) for translational slides, ru=0.5 and drained conditions....65
3.35. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides under
undrained conditions..69
3.36. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to the classic formula for translational slides
under undrained conditions....69
3.37. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in LimitState: GEO for translational
3.38. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in the classic formula for translational
3.39. Stability numbers for the Equivalent Global FoS for translational slides under undrained
conditions...72
xiii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Context

First attempts to develop a solution for slope stability analysis were realized in 1773 by
Coulomb and since then, a lot of research has been done based principally in two different
approaches: Limit Equilibrium and Limit Analysis . Limit equilibrium technique relies
exclusively on static equilibrium equations where it is only considered the equilibrium of the
soil as a rigid body, whereas limit analysis considers the soil as a plastic material and the
failure of the soil is based on yielding criteria.
Limit Equilibrium (LE) methods of analysis have been used for many years in the industry
due to its relatively simplicity in comparison with limit analysis based methods, in addition,
they have proved to be accurate enough for solving the majority of slope stability problems.
On the contrary, limit analysis was not normally used for the calculation of real cases on a
daily basis but it was mostly considered for research because of their complexity and the fact
that they were only able to solve simple problems.
The introduction of computers supposed a progress for LE methods with the application of
modern theories for searching the critical slip surfaces, but mostly, it boosted the development
of limit analysis methods since more complex mathematical calculations could be quickly
done, in particular finite element limit analysis.
In recent years, the difficulty associated to the design of the slopes was incremented by the
introduction of EC7 in 2010 which supposed a new approach, as the global factor of safety
gave way to the use of partial factors. As a consequence, the existing software had to be
adapted to EC7 and it caused that new concerns about geotechnical software are now focused
on how well implemented is EC7 on them.
A new theory was recently developed in limit analysis termed Discontinuity Layout
Optimization (DLO). This theory was recently developed by Smith and Gilbert in 2006 and
shortly after in 2007 the first commercial software was introduced in the market:
LimitState:GEO.
Before LimitState: GEO was released, the program was subjected by the developers
(LimitState Ltd) to a variety of tests that compared the performance of the program in an array
of cases, to the results obtained by the analytical method of limit analysis proposed by Chen,
(1975), and Bishops Simplified method. (www.limitstate.com/geo/validation). The test was
conducted using the default coarse nodal density and the results were presented in terms of
change in input parameters required for the LimitState: GEO solution to match the benchmark
solution. In general, even when using the coarse nodal density, accuracy in most of the tests
varied from exact to ~5%. The tests were carried out for 15 different cases of rotational slides.
A recent comparative study between the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to LE
techniques was carried out by Leshchinsky (2013) for rotational slides, comparing for 5 cases
of complex slopes the results of the FoS obtained and also the critical failure surfaces
determined by the two methods. From the study, Leshchinsky deduced a good agreement in
the results obtained between LE and DLO which were mostly equal but more critical for DLO
in some cases.
Both studies were conducted for a small number of cases, so they were appropriate in order to
derive the general behavior of the program but translational slides were not included on them
and neither was addressed the implementation of EC7. As there is no previous experience in
other DLO based software, there is still little knowledge on the behavior of LimitState: GEO,
in addition to the previous studies where only a limited number of cases were analyzed,
further studies including more cases by varying the slope angles, water level and depth
factors, and also incorporating translational slides, would contribute to enhance the mentioned
knowledge. Moreover, as designs must be based on EC7, since it became compulsory in 2010,
and due to the fact that no published research was previously done for LimitState: GEO on
this topic, it would be also equally important to check how well EC7 has been implemented in
the software in comparison with others well EC7 implemented techniques.
1.2. Aims and Objectives
The principal aims of the research described in this dissertation are:
(i)
Checking the accuracy of LimitState: GEO
(ii)
Checking how well implemented is EC7 in LimitState: GEO

2
Objectives:
(i)
Comparative study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to other

accurate techniques such as Limit Equilibrium, Analytical Methods of Limit
Analysis, Taylors Chart and Limit Equilibrium Classic Formulas.
(ii)
Comparative study between the most critical EC7-DA1 combinations deduced for
each case by LimitState: GEO and the results obtained from other limit
equilibrium techniques adapted to EC7 approach.
(iii)
Comparative study between the Equivalent Global FoS obtained from LimitState:
GEO and Limit Equilibrium techniques when calculating on EC7.
1.3. Outline Of Dissertation

This dissertation contains seven core chapters:
Chapter 1 provides an introduction as well as a brief outline of subsequent chapters.
Chapter 2 gives an overview of the development over time of the different approaches in
slope stability analysis including limit equilibrium methods, analytical limit analysis
methods and numerical methods covering Finite Element Limit Analysis and Discontinuity
Layout Optimization. Then, the mathematical and physical concepts of these theories are
described giving a more detailed explanation to Bishops simplified method and
Discontinuity Layout Optimization. The concept of the stability number is also addressed
and its importance in the development of charts, Taylors chart was also introduced
together with the friction circle method in which it is based, then, an explanation is made
about the new EC7 approach and how it affects to slope stability calculations including
how classic methods are EC7 adapted. Finally LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope are
introduced with an explanation of their main features.
Chapter 3 offers an explanation of the methodology followed, in order to achieve the
objectives of this dissertation.
Chapter 3.1. addresses the study of LimitState: GEO when calculating in rotational
slides under drained conditions. First, the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to
the analytical method of limit analysis and Bishops simplified method is investigated
by making use of the stability numbers. Then, a study was done on the EC7
3
implementation by comparing the most restrictive EC7-DA1 combination for each

case in LimitState: GEO with the results obtained in Oasys Slope using Bishops
simplified method. Finally, the equivalent global FoS for each case when calculating
in EC7 is obtained in LimitState: GEO and also compared with the results obtained in
Oasys Slope.
Chapter 3.2 focuses on the study of LimitState: GEO when calculating in rotational
slides under undrained conditions. First, the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation
to Taylors chart, Bishops simplified method and Analytical methods of Limit
Analysis is obtained by making use of the stability numbers, then, the same study as
before for drained conditions, was done on the EC7 implementation in LimitState:
GEO for undrained conditions.
Chapter 3.3 is centered on the study of LimitState: GEO when calculating in

translational slides under drained conditions. First, the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in
relation to the classic drained limit equilibrium formula for translational slides GEO is
analyzed by making use of the stability numbers, then, the same study as for rotational
slides but using the limit equilibrium classic formula instead of Bishops simplified
method, was done on the EC7 implementation in LimitState: GEO for drained
translational slide.
Chapter 3.4 comprises the study of LimitState: GEO when calculating in translational
slides under undrained conditions. First, the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation
to the classic undrained limit equilibrium formula for translational slides is estimated
by making use of the stability numbers and then the same study as for the previous
case was done on the EC7 implementation in LimitState: GEO for undrained
translational slide
Chapter 4 provides a discussion of the results obtained from the calculations carried out for
the cases described in chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.
Chapter 5 summarizes the key conclusion of this dissertation.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Slope Stability could be described as one of the main concerns in Geotechnical engineering
due to the risk it supposes not only for the stability of structures and buildings but to the
safety of the population. As a consequence, a lot of effort has been dedicated along time in
researching of more accurate methods of analysis.
Nowadays, a large number of methods for calculations are offered to the Geotechnical
engineers with also an extensive array of different software, based on distinct physical and
mathematical approaches. In addition, the introduction of EC7 approach in 2010, bringing in
the use of partial factors for more detailed designs, has supposed a new challenge for the
designers.
Considering that the physical and mathematical principles that govern slope stability analysis
are paramount, in order to understand how the slope stability programs work, an overview of
them is presented, including: Limit Equilibrium, Limit Analysis and Numerical Methods,
covering for this last one, continuum, discontinuum and hybrid methods. A mathematical
explanation of the slope stability number is also given together with an introduction of its
relevance in the slope stability field, since it introduces the use of charts which improve the
ease of the calculations.
Finally, EC7 design methodology is explained with a description of its new approach and the
implementation of the conventional methods to EC7, along with an overview of the two
programs that will be used in the development of this dissertation: LimitState: GEO and
Oasys Slope.
2.2. Background
Limit equilibrium methods were appointed as the first techniques used to analyze slope
stability, with the assumption of the soil considered as a rigid material and an approach based
on static equilibrium equations.
Coulomb (1773) was the first to develop a limit equilibrium method to calculate the
maximum height for excavations based on statics equilibrium equations.
Francais (1820) and later on, Culmann (1866) were the first to develop a limit equilibrium
method of analysis based on static equilibrium equations in order to calculate the maximum
excavation depth in steep cut slopes, under the assumption of a plane surface of rupture.
However, years later Taylor (1948) considered that they were only approximately correct for
steep slopes.
In 1922, the Swedish National Commission established that in most of the slides, the lines of
failure were similar to the circumference of a circle; this study was based on a substantial
amount of failure cases and just a few years later, this study gave birth to Fellenius Method in
1927, consisting of splitting the soil into vertical sections with interslice forces parallel to the
base, then, failure is assumed to occur by rotation of a block of soil on a cylindrical slip
surface and by examining global moment equilibrium, an expression for the FoS is obtained.
A different approach was introduced by Rendulic (1935), appointing logarithmic spiral as the
rupture surface instead of circles which nowadays constitutes the base of modern methods of
calculus. The main advantage of this method was that all the intergranular forces are directed
towards the centre of the spiral and therefore the analysis is statically determinate without an
assumption relative to the pressure distribution. (Taylor 1948).
Taylor (1937) came up with the friction circle method, assuming that the kinematical function
represents an arc, but it was not until Taylor (1948) when it had major application with the
development of slope stability charts which speeded the hand calculations and still are in use
on early stages of the design process. Over the years, Bishop and Morgenstern (1960),
Terzaghi and Peck (1967), Spencer (1967), Hunter and Schuster (1968), Janbu (1968), Bray
(1977) and Duncan (1987) among others, introduced new charts associated to the new
upcoming methods.
Taylor (1948) carried out a comparison of the results obtained by using plane, circular and log
spiral failure surfaces, study that concluded stating that the logspiral slip surface is the most
critical for homogeneous slopes. Table 2.1. illustrates the results obtained by Taylor (1948)
Table
2.1.
Stability
numbers
for
homogeneous simple slopes without

seepage-by several methods. Taylor
(1948).
Bishop (1954) presented an improved version of Fellenius method, where the vertical forces
equilibrium conditions yielded to more accurate results. Depending on the assumptions made
on the equilibrium equations and interslice shear forces, a lot of different variants to this
method appeared during the following years, the difference among them being based on the
validity of the characteristics applied to each case.
Drucker and Praguer, (1952) appeared with a totally different approach for slope stability
analysis, termed Limit Analysis. In this method the soil is assumed to have an ideally plastic
behavior with an associated flow rule. (Chen 1970).
Limit analysis has been proved to be an accurate and very useful alternative for assessing the
stability of slopes. By utilizing the lower and upper bound theorems of plasticity, rigorous
lower and upper bound solutions are analytically obtained. However, this analytical way of
obtaining solutions is only possible for simple problems, as for more complicated cases it is
necessary a previous identification of the geometrical form of the solution, resulting on an
unachievable analytical approach. To overcome this issue, matrix approach and series
representations can be utilized (Dewhurst & Collins 1973), together with the method of
7
characteristics (Sokolovski 1965, Martin 2003, Smith 2005). Though, these methods are still
not suitable for regular engineering praxis. (Gilbert and C. Smith 2010).
A great effort has been carried out to obtain numerical limit analysis procedures capable to
run more complex scenarios and easy to use. Amongst different numerical procedures, Finite
Element Limit Analysis (FELA) has been the most investigated since it was introduced by
Lysmer (1970) and further improved by Sloan (1988) and Makrodimopoulos & Martin
(2006). This method is highly dependent on the layout of the mesh especially in areas with
singularities.
However, it is possible to formulate and solve a simpler problem based on a discontinuum
approach instead of continuum mechanic problem of FELA. Alwis, W.A.M. (2000),
introduced a model based on triangular elements with restricted deformations and separated
by potential discontinuities; nevertheless, it led to a very restricted search space and poor
solutions due to the fact that the discontinuities can only be positioned at the bounds of the
elements located in a fixed mesh. In order to overcome this, Smith& Gilbert (2007), proposed
a new computational limit analysis procedure denominated Discontinuity Layout
Optimization (DLO).
2.3. Slope Stability Analysis: Fundamentals and Principles
2.3.1. Limit Analysis
Hill (1950) and Drucker&Prager (1952) are known as the creators of the theoretical
framework for limit analysis.
One of the main requirements for limit analysis is considering the soil as an ideally plastic
material where the strain softening in stress-strain relationship is ignored (Drucker et al 1952,
Chen 1975), as shown on Figure 2.1.
Figure2.1. Stress strain relationship for

ideal and real soils. (Chen 1975).
A second condition applies, being this the assumption that the soil satisfies the Coulomb yield
criterion where plastic flow occurs and when the tensional state of the soil touches the Mohr
Coulomb envelope. Within the framework of these assumptions, the limit analysis approach
for slope stability analysis is rigorous and as a result, the technique is competitive with those
of limit equilibrium. (Chen 1975).
Figure2.2. Coulomb yield criterion,

represented by two straight lines, limit
analysis and soil plasticity. (Chen 1975).
Limit Analysis theory is built upon two limit theorems applied to soils with elastic-perfectly
plastic behavior:
1. Lower bound theorem, which states that if a statically admissible stress distribution
can be found, uncontained plastic flow will not occur at a lower load. This technique
considers only equilibrium and yield, giving no consideration to soil kinematics.
2. Upper bound theorem on the contrary, states that the loads determined by equating the
external rate of work to the internal rate of dissipation satisfying velocity boundary
conditions, and strain and velocity compatibility conditions, are not less than the
actual collapse load.
With the proper choice of stress and velocity fields, the above two theorems thus enable the
collapse parameters of the slope to be bracketed as closely as it seems necessary for the
problem under consideration.
In relation to the two bound theorems, and in order to bind the true solution, it is necessary
a mechanism of failure in the form of a velocity field or flow pattern so that an upper bound
solution can be obtained, and a stress field meeting the conditions imposed by the lower
bound theorem to find a lower bound solution. (Chen 1968)
Finding a statically admissible stress field was proved to be very difficult and that is the
reason why limit analysis was mostly developed on the upper bound method (Chen 1975) and
subsequently, the majority of the research in slope stability analysis was carried out in this
field: (Chen and Giger 1971).
Based on the upper bound theorem and considering logspiral surfaces as failure mechanisms,
the critical height of the slopes for different values of , and
were obtained and the
solutions were given as stability factors (1/stability number), published in tables. (Chen1975).
By comparing these results against limit equilibrium methods using circular and logspiral slip
surfaces, it was demonstrated a very good agreement in the results, as it is shown on Table2.2.
Table 2.2. Comparison of stability
factor
( ) , by methods of
Limit Equilibrium and Upper

Bound Limit Analysis. (Chen
1975).
10
From the comparison shown above, it could be concluded that the solutions obtained by using
Limit Equilibrium methods were very similar to those obtained by using Upper Bound limit
analysis. As a consequence, Lower Bound limit analysis solutions were considered too
conservatives and very few studies in this field were developed for slopes with the exception
of some authors as Lysmer (1970), Chen (1975), Basudhar (1976) and Singh (1993).
Refer to Appendix A for an insight into the calculation of the stability number using upper
bound limit analysis theory for failure planes passing through the toe and failure planes
passing below the toe.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that upper bound solutions may be used as a good
reference for other methods of slope stability analysis and they are currently used as a
framework for benchmark problems when checking the accuracy of new slope stability
software as it is the case of LimitState: GEO. ( www.limitstate.com/geo/validation). However,
lower bound solutions can also be useful as far as a finding a conservative solution is
concerned.
In case that both, upper and lower bound solutions could be obtained; the true collapse
mechanism can be bracketed. However, it is important to point out that limit analysis is based
in a perfect plastic behavior of the soil and therefore, although it is an important tool in
obtaining an estimation of the true mechanism of collapse, it cannot be considered as
providing exact solutions. (Yu.H.S. et al. 1998).
The solutions obtained from upper bound limit analysis are still considered accurate and used
to check the validation of new geotechnical software, as it was done for the release of
LimitState: GEO. (www.limitstate.com/geo/validation).
Analytical limit analysis approach was a valuable tool for obtaining more accurate slope
stability analysis calculations based on a strong physical and mathematical theory. However,
due to the complexity of its calculations, it was only suitable for simple slopes. Afterwards,
the appearance of computers permitted its use for more complex cases.
11
2.3.2. Limit Equilibrium Methods.

Limit equilibrium analysis represent a totally different approach to limit analysis. It is a
technique based on calculation of forces (stresses or moments) and a comparison of those
causing stability (resisting forces) with those causing instability (disturbing forces). By
assuming a relationship between the shear strength and normal stress on the slip surface, that
can be linear (Mohr-Coulomb) or nonlinear, a FoS can be provided as a ratio of the available
shear resistance with the needed for equilibrium. (Chen 1975).
The main characteristic of limit equilibrium approach is that it relies exclusively on static
equilibrium equations and it does not take into consideration the plastic flow rule of the soil in
opposition to limit analysis. Compatibility, between limit analysis and limit equilibrium
approaches, is impossible since the collapse mechanism resulting by a limit equilibrium
approach would be kinematically inadmissible in case that the soil was considered to meet the
assumptions of limit analysis approach (perfectly plastic behavior of the material and plastic
flow rule associated).
H.S.yu (1998). Back in 1974, Collins (1974) and Chen (1975) , got to the conclusion that by
no means these two methods could be regarded as equivalent. This conclusion was reinforced
by Michalowski (1994) who demonstrated that upper bound solutions obtained by limit
analaysis approach, also comply with limit equilibrium equations but not all the limit
equilibrium solutions can be considered as upper bound limit analysis solutions. And again,
Yu. H.S. et al (1998) refered that in limit equilibrium the stress field does not satisfy the static
admissibility due to the assumptions made to solve the static indeterminacy, and as a result,
only global equilibrium conditions are accomplished instead of equilibrium conditions at
every point in the soil, in opposition to limit analysis.
Among all the limit equilibrium methods available nowadays, the Method of Slices is the
most popular, where discretization of the soil into slices is performed previously to applying
the equilibrium conditions. The factor of safety obtained varies depending on the method
chosen as these are based on different assumptions and equilibrium requirements.
12
Limit equilibrium methods of slices, face the conditions for static equilibrium considering the
soil mass divided into an undetermined number of slices and imposing horizontal and vertical
equilibrium of forces in each of them and global equilibrium momentum. The forces acting in
each slice are represented in Figure 2.3.
Figure2.3. Typical slice with forces.

Method of Slices. (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2003).
All the forces are unknown with the exception of the weight of each slice. The number of
unknowns and the number of equations for n slices are represented in the next table:
Table2.3. Unknowns and equations for limit equilibrium methods. (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 2003).
Since the number of unknowns (5n-2) outnumber the equilibrium equations (3n) it is
necessary to make some assumptions in order to achieve a statically determinate solution.
13
Different assumptions were proposed by different authors to balance the number of unknowns
and the number of equations leading to the appearance of a large number of different
methods. Some of them do not satisfy all static equilibrium conditions as it occurs with
Fellenius, Bishops simplified method and the US Army Corps of Engineers, whereas others
satisfy all the equilibrium conditions, (rigorous methods), as it is the case of Morgenstern and
Prices and Spencers methods.
Several publications can be found with comparisons of the different limit equilibrium
methods, as for instance: Whitman and Bailey (1967), Duncan and Wright (1980) and
Fredlund and Krahn (1977).
The main limitations of the limit equilibrium methods were summarized in the next table
Table2.4. Limitations of limit equilibrium methods. (US Army corps of engineers 2003).
Among all the limit equilibrium methods, Bishops simplified method is considered one of the
most popular not only because its simplicity of use, but because it has been proven to be an
accurate method. It is still used on a daily basis for geotechnical engineers and also as a
benchmark for new stability methods of analysis.
Figure2.4. Method of Slices

14
Bishops simplified method (1954), assumes that the tangential interslice forces are equal and
opposite, i.e.
, but the normal interslice forces are not equal
(Figure2.4).
These assumptions have been proved to yield little loss in accuracy. The FoS is assumed to be
the same for each slice and it is applied equally to the cohesion and the angle of internal
friction,
and
, where F is the overall factor of safety applied to all of the slices. Mohr
Coulomb and equilibrium equation are combined together with the definition of the factor of
safety to obtain the forces on the base of the slice. Finally, moments are summed about the
center of the circular slip surface yielding the next expression for the FoS
[
(2.1)
where W is the weight of each slice, c is the cohesion of the soil, u the pore water pressure at
the base of the slide and the rest of parameters are given in Figure2.4.
As F is located in both sides of the equation, this can only be solved by successive iterations
converging to the final result. (Barnes 1995)
Table2.5. Unknowns and equations of the Bishops simplified method (U.S. Army corps of
engineers)
It has been demonstrated by Whitman and Bailey (1967) and Fredlund and Krahn (1977) that
the FoS obtained by using Bishops simplified method is normally within 5% the FoS
calculated by other rigorous tecniques. Moreover, the procedure is simpler in comparison with
other rigorous solutions, due to the ease in computation, rapidness in execution and also
because of the facility on checking solutions by hand as they are not time consuming.
Limit equilibrium methods are currently the most used within the industry because of its
simplicity and its proved reliability along years
15
2.3.3. Numerical Methods:

Analytical limit analysis methods for slope stability analysis were only applicable to simple
slope models until the introduction of computational limit analysis procedures that allowed
solving complex problems.
Numerical methods in limit analysis are based on discretization of the problem domain which
through a mathematical optimization technique allows the determination of the best
approximation for the discretization imposed and the limit strength of the soil for the slope
stability problem.
There are three different numerical techniques depending on the consideration of the domain:
Continuum, Discontinuum and Hybrid.
In relation to the continuum approach, special mention is given to the Finite Difference
Method (FDM), where nodes are distributed on a rectangular grid and where the quality of the
results relies on a well selection of the rectangular domains of the problem and the existence
of simple boundary conditions; the Linear Matching Method, (LMM), developed by Ponter
and Carter (1997), uses linear elastic methods to iteratively obtain upper bound solutions and
last, the Finite Element Limit Analysis (FELA) which utilizes constant strain elements and
has become an important tool in geotechnical engineering practice, being developed over time
by a large number of authors: Nagtegaal et al. (1974), Da Silva Vicente and Antao (2007), and
Makrodimopoulos and Martin (2007) among others.
As for discontinuum methods, there are two main types: The Rigid finite element method
(RFEM), that assumes deformations only along discontinuities at the boundaries of predefined
soil elements and where elements are not free to deform; and discontinuity layout
optimization (DLO) differing from (RFEM) in the fact that discontinuities are not restricted
only to the boundaries of predefined solid elements but can connect any node to any other
node and optimization is used to determine the critical layout of the discontinuities. Therefore,
despite DLO makes use of the algorithms associated with RFEM, unlike RFEM, a large
number of potential mechanisms can be identified allowing the procedure to be largely mesh
independent. (Hawksbee.S.J. 2012) .
16
Finally, Hybrid FELA first introduced by Lismer (1970) and later developed by Bottero et al
(1980), Sloan (1988), Martin (2006) and Muoz et al (2009), overcomes the limitations of
continuous methods when facing stress and strain singularities by incorporating
discontinuities between elements. However, this method has limitations since in order to
achieve an effective mesh design; the form of the exact solution must to be known a priori.
Next, due to the relevance that DLO is increasingly having with the development of
geotechnical software LimitState: GEO, a more in detail explanation will be given to it in the
following section. Although software based on FELA is not considered in this dissertation
because of its importance a brief of the studies developed so far, is given in Appendix B.
2.3.3.1.
Discontinuity Layout Optimization: DLO
DLO is a numerical technique applicable to discontinua where deformations are assumed to

occur only along discontinuities in the soil. This method was developed to tackle simpler
problems based on a discontinuum approach instead of continuum mechanic problem of
FELA.
DLO was introduced by Smith and Gilbert (2007) for plane strain. Unlike FEM, DLO is
entirely presented in terms of velocity discontinuities and involves the use of rigorous
mathematical optimization techniques. DLO supposes an advance over FEM as optimization
allows the determination of the critical layout of the discontinuities with the least upper bound
solution from among a large set of potential discontinuities. Although DLO uses the same
algorithms as hybrid FELA, a large number of potential mechanism can be identified and so
this procedure becomes mesh independent. Moreover, in DLO discontinuities are not
restricted to the boundaries of predefined solid elements but can connect any node to any
other node. (Gilbert &Smith 2010).
The DLO procedure for plane strain problems was presented by Gilbert et al (2010) in phases
as it is shown in the next figure:
17
Figure2.5. Stages in DLO procedure
The first step of the procedure consists in the discretization of the problem approached by
distributing the nodes all over the body under consideration. Next, by establishing links from
each node towards every other node in the body, possible discontinuity lines are created.
Linear programming, with the aid of kinematic formulation, is then used to establish the
discontinuities that can occur in the critical failure mechanism which are constructed from
rigid blocks separated by discontinuities. Under the premise that a sufficient number of nodes
have been employed, a large number of potential mechanisms will be taken into
consideration. (Hawsbee 2012).
Compatibility of the displacements of the nodes necessary to obtain possible failure

mechanisms is resolved by Gilbert (2007) as follows:
Figure2.6. Compatibility at a node

Gilbert (2007)
18
In every discontinuity i, a shear jump
and normal jump
in displacement are permitted
and compatibility of the mechanism is enforced by applying constraints to each node. Then,
the following summations must be accomplished at each node for compatibility
(2.2)
(2.3)
In DLO, intersections or crossovers between potential discontinuities arise naturally at

locations other than the original nodes and millions of potential discontinuities are created
from which to obtain an accurate solution. Since in DLO, the total number of potential
discontinuities grows disproportionally with the number of nodes n, an adaptative
procedure based on the philosophy of Gilbert and Tyas (2003), termed Adaptive Nodal
Connection, is necessary in order to obtain an efficient solution. With this procedure, the
number of potential discontinuities is reduced to those where the dual inequality constraint is
most violated.
2.4. The Concept Of The Stability Number

The stability number is a specific feature for each slope stability problem which gives the only
possible relationship between cohesion, unit weight and height so that the slope is stable.
The stability number concept is key for the development of this dissertation as it comes across
as a powerful tool to check the performance of new geotechnical software, as if for a specific
case the stability number is calculated using a recognized accurate procedure, this result can
be used to check the precision of other methods.
In a slope, the component of the self-weight
causes instability and the cohesion contributes
to stability. Therefore, the maximum height
of a slope is directly proportional to the unit
cohesion c and inversely proportional to the unit weight . In addition the maximum height
is also related to the friction angle
(
) where the term (
and the slope angle . This can be expressed as
) is dimensionless and the equation dimensionally balanced.
19
Taylor (1937) expressed (
) as a reciprocal of a dimensionless number called Stability
Number (N)popularly called as Taylors stability Number. (S.V.Dinesh 2008).

(
(2.4)
(2.5)
Hence,
(2.6)
Taylor (1948) stated that the main value of this form of expression is that the stability number
may be considered to be a composite variable which reduces the number of parameters in a
simple stability equation to three and thus allows the use of simple charts for representations
of stability relationships.
A mathematical demonstration of how to obtain the stability number is exposed in
Appendix C.
2.5. TaylorS Chart
Taylors stability chart is still in use for preliminary designs and is considered an accurate
method for total stress analysis (Duncan 1996). For this reason, it was considered in this
dissertation a suitable method in order to check the accuracy of LimitState: GEO and so some
basic principles on which this theory is based are exposed below.
Taylor in (1937) came up with the friction circle method, assuming that the kinematical
function represents an arc, but it was not until 1948 when it had major application with the
development of slope stability charts which speeded the hand calculations. This solution was
strictly valid only for simple homogeneous finite slope with the types of cross sections shown
in Figure2.7.
20
Figure2.7. Elements of the friction

circle method
In
the
friction
circle
method,
considering R as the radius of the

circular failure surface and R
the radius of the friction circle, it was
demonstrated that any line tangent to
the
friction
circle
intersects
the
circular arc slip surface at an angle

given by
representing
therefore any vector

an
intergranular
pressure in the slip circular surface,

will be tangent to the friction circle. (Hsai-Yang 1990)
Based on this theory, Taylor calculated the stability number for a large number of cases by
varying the slope angle and the depth factor (DH/H). Then, by plotting stability numbers vs
slope angle, Taylor obtained the general solution for slopes under undrained conditions,
Figure 2.8.
Figure2.8. Taylors charts for undrained conditions. (Barnes 1995)

21
2.6. Ec7. A New Approach

Prior to the Eurocodes the concept of limit state design was common in disciplines like
Structural design but not in Geotechnical design. The traditional approach in Geotechnical
design was restricted to analytical methods incorporating estimated values of the load and
material parameters in order to obtain an ultimate value for the stabilizing and destabilizing
forces and moments. These values are then diminished by an overall factor of safety,
considered sufficient enough to mobilize safety strength values and cause acceptable
deformations. (Barnes 1995).
Partial factors were introduced into Danish geotechnical practice by Brinch Hansen (1953)
and now form the basis for limit state design in EC7. This draw attention to the separate
consideration of load conditions and material properties, providing a more robust approach
compared to the global factor of safety method. A statistical approach to their application is
shown on Figure2.9., illustrating the relationship between design loads and design resistances
for combinations 1 and 2 of design approach 1. (Barnes 1995)
Figure2.9. Statistical approach for the verification of the limit states.
22
Partial factors are chosen to ensure that the risk of failure is minimal and they are applied
differently depending on the type of loads and material properties. When designing in EC7 the
application of partial factor must ensure the compliance of the following limit states involved:
Ultimate limit states (ULS) are defined as states associated with collapse
Serviceability limit state (SLS) are those that result in unacceptable levels of deformation
Before the appearance of EC7 the values for the global factor of safety only appeared as
recommendations in standards or were given to the election of the engineer. The Eurocode
brought about a new concept where the safety problem is analyzed based on the influence that
each parameter has in the calculus. These parameters are classified into three categories:
1. Actions: self weight and loads

2. Material properties: unit weight, angle of shearing resistance and cohesion
3. Resistance: overturning and resisting moments.
EC7 also discern between favorable or stabilizing and unfavorable or destabilizing actions, by
applying different values of the partial factors ( ) depending on the type of action.
Unfavourable/destabilizing actions will be normally increased by the partial factor (
) to
obtain the design action whereas favorable/stabilizing actions will be decreased or left
unchanged (
). (Bond and Harris 2008)
Figure2.10. Factors on
actions EC7. (Bond and
Harris 2008)
23
Actions are also classified according to their variation in time as: permanent (G), variable (Q)
and accidental (Q), and partial factors will also depend on this. Representative actions are the
real expected actions and for the calculations are converted into design values by applying
due partial factor (
) taking account of uncertainties in the magnitude of the action.
In the case of material properties, characteristic material properties (

corresponding partial factors (
) to obtain the design values (
) are divided by their
Figure2.11. Factors on material properties.

EC7. (Bond and Harris 2008)
The approach in limit state design is to verify that the effects of the design actions (
not exceed the design resistnce (
), do
) so that the next inequality is accomplished
EC7 does not give any specific inequality to be satisfied for ULS neither a calculation model,
however, with regard to stability analyses of slopes, the UK National Annex, BS EN 19971:2004, states that normally limit equilibrium methods will be applied, although alternatively,
it allows the use of Limit Analysis as the case of Finite Element Limit Analysis. It also
indicates that slope stability analysis should verify the overall moment and vertical
equilibrium of the sliding mass and in case that horizontal equilibrium is not checked, the
interslice forces, i.e. when using the method of slices, should be assumed to be horizontal.
This means that some slope stability analysis methods are not acceptable. (Bond.A.J et al.
2013).
Next is shown the EC7 compatibility of some of the most popular limit equilibrium method of
analysis. (Bond.A.J et al. 2013).
24
1. Spencers method is acceptable because both moment and force equilibrium equations
are satisfied
2. Bishops Simplified method is acceptable because moment equilibrium is satisfied
and, although force equilibrium is not satisfied, the interslice forces are horizontal
3. Janbus method is not acceptable as moment equilibrium is not satisfied
4. Fellenius method is not acceptable because, while moment equilibrium is satisfied,
forces equilibrium is not and the interslice forces are not horizontal
EC7 permits the adoption of three design approaches depending on different considerations of
the actions and resistances, being Design Approach 1 (DA1) the one adopted by the UK, as it
is stated in the UK national Annex. DA1 provides two combinations (1 and 2) of partial
factors on actions (A), material properties (M) and resistances (R). Design Approach 1 applies
partial factors to actions in Combination 1 (C1) and to unfavorable variable actions and
material properties in Combination 2 (C2). Therefore, for each problem two calculations will
have to be done by applying separately the set of partial factors corresponding to C1 and C2,
then, the final design will be given by the most critical solution of the two combinations.
The next table shows the set of partial factors to be applied to actions, material properties and
resistances for C1 and C2 in DA1, and also de design approach 2 and 3. (Barnes 1995)
Table2.6. Set of partial factors for

design approach 1. EC7. (Bond
and Harris 2008)
25
Plane translational slides:

This dissertation checks the performance of LimitState: GEO for translational slides by
calculating the global factor of safety with no partial factors applied and with the
implementation of EC7. Next, a brief summary will be shown about the principles underlying
the classic calculation of translational slides and the procedure followed for the
implementation of EC7.
For plane translational slides, considering a slope angle
with the ground water table parallel
to the ground surface and the same unit weight of the soil above and below the ground water
level, the global factor of safety is given by
, Figure2.12, where
resistance at the base of the planar slide given by

effective cohesion,
the effective normal stress and
, where c is the
the angle of internal friction, and
the tangential stress down the slope given by

weight of the soil, H is the height of the slope and
is the shearing
, where
is
is the unit
is the slope angle.
Figure2.12. (Bond and

Harris 2008)
For the general case, the global factor of safety is the ratio: shear strength of the soil/shear
strength mobilized as it is indicated in the Formula 2.7. corresponding to Figure 2.12.
(
with ru=
(2.7)
This expression can be rearranged to give the stability number N necessary to provide an
Equivalent Global FoS
26
Fsin cos -(
(2.8)
And in terms of partial factors:
)(
)sin cos -(
(2.9)
These expressions will be commonly used for the dissertation.
For design, EC7 requires that the inequality
is satisfied. For the infinite slope case,
the design effect of the actions is the tangential force down the slope, given by Formula 2.10:
cos
(2.10)
where
is the partial factor applied to the unit weight of the soil and
the unit weight of the
soil.
On the other hand, the design resistance
(
) (
)(
is given by:
(2.11)
where
si the partial factor applied to cohesion,
internal friction,
the partial factor applied to the angle of
the partial facto applied to the unit weight and
the partial resistance
factor.
For slope stability problems, the limit state is dictated in most cases by the uncertainty in the
ground resistances rather than external forces, so for Design Approach 1, Combination 2 will
be the most representative in most cases.
If the slope behaves in an undrained manner, with
, by substituting this on formula
(2.7), the overall FoS is given by:
(2.12)
where
is the undrained cohesion. For limit state design, this would be expressed as
27
(2.13)
where
is the partial factor applied to the undrained cohesion.
Finite rotational slides:

This dissertation tests the performance of LimitState: GEO for rotational slides by calculating
the global factor of safety with no partial factors applied and with the implementation of EC7.
Next, a brief summary will be shown about the principles underlying the classic calculation of
rotational slides and the procedure followed for the implementation of EC7.
Bishops simplified method has proved to yield accurate results, Krahn (1977), and is widely
applied for EC7 calculations. Next, the implementation of EC7 in the conventional method
will be shown.
Implementation of EC7 for drained analysis:

The global factor of safety F, for Bishops simplified method of slices, is equivalent to the
partial factor on the soil strength parameters with appropriate partial factors on the actions as
shown in the following equations, (Andrew J. Bond et al., 2013):
(7.6)
In DA1-C1,
(7.7)
is applied to permanent actions, including the soil weight force via the
soil weight density, and
is applied to variable actions when analyzing the overall
factor of safety F, using the method of slices. Then it is checked that F, which is equal to
, is greater than or equal to 1.
28
In the case of DA1-C2,
is applied to permanent actions, including the soil weight
force via the soil weight density, and
is applied to variable actions when analyzing
the overall factor of safety F, using the method of slices. Then it is checked that F, which is
equal to
, is greater than or equal to 1.25. (Andrew J. Bond et al., 2013).
Implementation of EC7 for undrained analysis:

For undrained analysis the restoring moment
(
is defined as:
(7.8)
where r is the radius of the slip circle,
is the length of the slip surface beneath i and
is
the undrained shear strength along the base of that slice.
The factor of safety F is defined as:
{(
where
(7.9)
is the angle between the base of the slice and the horizontal.
This equation can be rewritten in terms of EC7 design as follows:

(
where
{(
(
{
(7.10)
is the design self-weight of the slice i,
any imposed surcharge acting on that
slice and the other terms are as defined above. (Bond and Harris, 2008).
2.7. Geotechnical Software: LimitState: GEO And Oasys Slope

The first software for slope stability analysis was introduce in the 80s but it was not until the
mid 90s that they became popular, presenting an enhanced interface and easier usability.
Slope/W (1995) and Oasys Slope (1999) are two of the most popular limit equilibrium based
software and through updates are still successfully implemented in the market. As computers
became more and more powerful, the introduction of Plaxis (1998), supposed a new step in
slope stability software making use of finite element limit analysis. Recently, LimitState:
GEO (2008), was created by Smith and Gilbert (2007), based in a new limit analysis
29
algorithm termed Discontinuity Layout Optimization, whereas three dimensional analysis

started to appear in the market such as SVSLOPE in 2010.
In the course of this dissertation, LimitState: GEO will be analyzed throughout a series of
examples and in some cases a comparison against Oasys Slope will be carried out. Some of
the main features of both programs will be exposed next:
Oasys Slope
Oasys Slope represents one of the most popular conventional software based on two
dimensional limit equilibrium analyses (www.oasys-software.com).
Oasys Slope allows the use of three different limit equilibrium methods and its variants, for
drained and undrained conditions:
Swedish circle (Fellenius) method, Bishop's and Janbus method.
The three variants consist in considering horizontal interslice forces, parallel inclined
interslice forces and variably inclined interslice forces
The procedure followed to find the most critical slip surface consist in the creation of a mesh
with a density and location of points chosen by the designer and containing the centres of
circular slip surfaces. Then, for each centre the program calculate the FoS of the slope for
several values of the radio. The same procedure is followed for the remaining points of the
mesh and finally, the most critical case corresponding to the lowest FoS is the solution.
Several restrictions can be imposed to the program for searching the critical slip surface, as
points through which the critical surface must intercept or tangential surfaces. It also gives the
possibility to calculate a predefined slip surface. (Manual of Use, Oasys Software).
As far as the implementation of EC7 is concerned, Oasys Slope has been adapted to EC7
allowing the use of different set of partial factors.
LimitState: GEO
30
As per LimitState: GEO, this program also complies with EC7 and its different approaches,
aspect that makes it suitable to use under the new design codes in development. LimitState:
GEO is based on Discontinuity Layout Optimization (DLO) numerical procedure to tackle
geotechnical problems, entitling the designer to find the correct critical slope failure
mechanism for every geotechnical situation presented. In the next illustration a quick
overview of how DLO works is presented. (www.limitstategeo.com)
Figure2.13 Working description of DLO.

LimitState:GEO, has been subjected to tests against Bishops simplified method of analysis
and other well known limit analysis solutions, in order to verify its precision,
(www.limitstate.com/geo/validation), resulting in an a accuracy from exact to 5%. Recently,
Leshchinsky (2013), compared the performance of LE, based on Spencers Method with
dynamic programming optimization, against LimitState: GEO for several examples of
complex slopes resulting in a good agreement between them, with LimitState: GEO providing
slightly lower FoS than Spencers method.
As far as the implementation of EC7 is concerned, LimitState: GEO has been built in EC7,
embracing the use of partial factors, compatible load descriptions (permanent, variable,
accidental), favourable and unfavourable load classifications, and also allows the user to
specify any partial factor set and multiple scenarios that can be solved together.
(www.limitstate.com).
31
3. METHODOLOGY
In this section, a description of the procedures followed to check the accuracy of

LimitState:GEO, and how well implemented EC7 is, are presented next. In order to expose
the processes clearer, all the cases studied have been split up into four sections, each of them
containing cases with alike methodology: rotational and translational slides, under drained
and undrained conditions.
There is a common pattern in the methodology followed for all the sections, firstly a study of
the accuracy of LimitState: GEO was conducted comparing the FoS obtained for each case
against other accurate methods of analysis; secondly, the implementation of EC7 in
LimitState: GEO was checked contrasting the most restrictive EC7-DA1 combination
resulting for each case with the results yielded by other reliable EC7 implemented methods of
analysis and finally a study of the Equivalent Global FoS deduced for the problems calculated
in EC7 with LimitState: GEO was carried out and also compared with other LE methods.
For each investigation carried out, the cases study, the assumptions made and the
methodology followed were described.
3.1. Rotational Slides Under Drained Conditions:
3.1.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of LimitState: GEO In Rotational Slides For Drained
Conditions
3.1.1.1.
LimitState: GEO vs Analytical Methods of Limit Analysis:
In order to check the accuracy of LimitState:GEO, analytical methods of Limit Analysis were
used, as it is traditionally considered an accurate method of analysis. The models studied were
based on the general case for rotational slides with the slip surface passing through the toe and
the rigid layer at the bottom of the slope, Figure3.1, (Chen 1975), and in order to conduct the
analysis, all of them had to be modelled for LimitState: GEO as it is shown in Figure3.2.
32
Figure3.1: General case

for Analytical methods of
Limit Analysis
calculations.
Figure3.2:.Example of models created for LimitState:GEO.
Cases study: the study was conducted for slopes created from all possible combinations
of the next parameters (Figure3.1):
Angles of the slopes
: the angle of the slopes varied from
to
Angles of internal friction (degrees): 5,10,15,20,25,30,35 and 40.

Angle of the upper surface :
and
Assumptions:
o LimitState: GEO assumptions:
Depth factor of 1 with rigid layer at the bottom of the slope.
33
in steps of
The models created in LimitState: GEO consisted of slopes of homogeneous soil,

with unit weight of
=1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m, resulting in
cohesion=stability number.
All the models were calculated with a set of unity partial factors.
The nodal density was medium in all cases.
No phreatic level.
o Analytical method of Limit Analysis assumptions:
Depth factor 1 with rigid layer at the bottom of the slope.
Homogeneous s.oil
Critical failure surface passing through the toe.
Logarithmic spiral failure plane.
No phreatic level.
Methodology
1. Obtaining the stability numbers from the analytical method of Limit Analysis: due to
the complexity that calculating stability numbers implies, the solutions to the cases
study for analytical methods of Limit Analysis using algorithms for the upper bound
solution, were taken from Chen (1975) who calculated and compiled them in tables,
with the aid of a CDC 6400 digital computer and using the optimization technique
reported by Powell (1964), giving the results as stability numbers. Tables 3.1, 3.2 and
3.3 collect the mentioned results.
34
Table3.1. Values of the stability numbers obtained from analytical methods of Limit Analysis
for rotational slides with =0 and drained conditions.
DRAINED ANALYSIS
STABILITY NUMBERS FROM NALYTICAL METHOD OF LIMIT ANALYSIS WHEN =0
SLOPE ANGLE
90
75
60
45
30
15
5
0.24
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.11
0.07
10
0.22
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.02
15
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.08
0.05
20
0.18
0.13
0.10
0.06
0.02
25
0.17
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.01
30
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.03
35
0.13
0.09
0.05
0.02
40
0.12
0.07
0.03
0.01
-
DRAINED ANALYSIS
STABILITY NUMBERS FROM NALYTICAL METHOD OF LIMIT ANALYSIS WHEN
=20
SLOPE ANGLE
90
75
60
45
30
20
0.19
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.03
25
0.17
0.12
0.08
0.05
0.01
30
0.16
0.10
0.06
0.03
35
0.14
0.09
0.05
0.02
40
0.12
0.07
0.04
0.01
Table3.3. Values of the stability numbers obtained from Analytical methods of Limit Analysis
for rotational slides with =30 and drained conditions.
DRAINED ANALYSIS
STABILITY NUMBERS FROM NALYTICAL METHOD OF LIMIT ANALYSIS WHEN
SLOPE ANGLE
90
75
60
45
30
0.16
0.11
0.07
0.03
35
0.14
0.09
0.05
0.02
40
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.01
35
=30
2. Inputting of data in LimitState: GEO : creation of the same models in which Chens
tables are based and inputting the data with values of the cohesion equal to the stability
numbers taken from Chen.
3. Running the simulation and obtaining of results: obtaining a factor strength (FoS) of 1
means that the accuracy of the program in relation to analytical method of Limit
Analysis is 100%. Thus, the difference between factor strength 1 and the actual factor
strength obtained indicates the relative accuracy of the program. The results are
presented in Tables 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. A positive value indicates that for the same case,
LimitState: GEO gives a lower FoS than the analytical method of limit analysis and
hence, a more conservative approach and vice versa.
Table3.4.Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Analytical methods of Limit Analysis for

rotational slides with =0 and drained conditions.
DRAINED ANALYSIS
LIMIT STATE FoS IN COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL METHOD OF LIMIT ANALYSIS FOR =0
SLOPE ANGLE
90
75
60
45
30
15
-0.2%
-1.2%
-1.9%
-4.4%
-9.8%
-20.4%
10
-0.8%
-1.7%
-2.3%
-2.9%
-5%
-3.4%
15
-0.5%
-1.5%
-2.5%
-2.3%
-2.3%
20
-0.6%
-2.2%
-2.6%
-2%
-0.6%
25
-0.8%
-2%
-2.1%
-2%
-0.4%
30
-0.8%
-1.4%
-2.3%
-1.7%
35
-1.3%
-1.9%
-2.3%
-1.7%
40
-0.8%
-2.4%
-3.6%
-1.2%
36
Table3.5.Accuracyof LimitState: GEO in relation to Analytical methods of Limit Analysis for

DRAINED ANALYSIS
LIMIT STATE FoS IN COMPARISON WITH LIMIT ANALYSIS FOR =20
SLOPE ANGLE
90
75
60
45
30
20
-2.1%
-2.3%
-2.0%
-1.5%
-0.2%
25
-2.1%
-3.0%
-2.7%
-1.7%
-0.2%
30
-2.2%
-3.1%
-2.5%
-1.7%
35
-2.5%
-2.6%
-3.2%
-0.9%
40
-1.8%
-2.2%
-2.2%
-0.9%
Table3.6.Accuracyof LimitState: GEO in relation to Analytical methods of Limit Analysis for

DRAINED ANALYSIS
LIMIT STATE FoS IN COMPARISON WITH LIMIT ANALYSIS FOR =30
SLOPE ANGLE
90
75
60
45
30
-2.6%
-2.7%
-2.1%
-1.0%
35
-2.2%
-3.0%
-2.5%
-1.9%
40
-2.3%
-2.9%
-3.0%
-2.0%
3.1.1.2.
LimitState: GEO vs Oasys Slope:
In order to back up the results obtained above, LimitState: GEO was also checked against
Bishops simplified method, implemented in Oasys Slope software.
Bishops simplified method was chosen for a second study as it is considered an accurate
method, giving normally factors of safety differing less than 5% from other rigorous limit
equilibrium methods.
Cases study: the study was conducted for slopes created from all possible combinations of
the next parameters:
: 1/1, 1/1.5, 1/2, 1/2.5, 1/3

37

Pore water pressure ratio: ru=0, ru=0.3 and ru=0.5.
Assumptions:
o
LimitState: GEO assumptions:

The same as in 3.1.1.1.
Oasys Slope:
Bishops simplified method with horizontal interslice forces option.
Depth factor 1 with rigid layer at the bottom of the slope
The models created in Oasys Slope were slopes of homogeneous soil, slope height
of 1m and unit weight of
=20 KN/m3 . (as the program did not allow =1 KN/m3
and therefore N=cohesion/20)

All the models were calculated with the set of unity partial factors.
Methodology
1. Obtaining the stability numbers from Oasys Slope: After creating the models described
in the case study, the stability numbers (N) were obtained by iterating the values of the
cohesion inputted in the program to reach a FoS equal to 1 and then applying the
formula
, where =20KN/m3 and H=1. The solutions are presented in tables x,y
and z.
38
Table3.7. Values of the stability numbers obtained from Oasys Slope for rotational slides,
ru=0 and drained conditions.
DRAINED ANALYSIS. RU=0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STABILTY NUMBERS OASYS SLOPE

SLOPE 1/1 SLOPE 1/1.5 SLOPE 1/2 SLOPE1/2.5 SLOPE1/3
0.133
0.108
0.090
0.075
0.063
0.105
0.080
0.060
0.045
0.033
0.083
0.065
0.035
0.021
0.009
0.062
0.034
0.015
0.003
0.043
0.016
0.002
0.027
0.004
0.015
0.005
ru=0.3 and drained conditions.
DRAINED ANALYSIS. RU=0.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

0.140
0.118
0.096
0.085
0.078
0.125
0.100
0.077
0.064
0.054
0.113
0.083
0.058
0.044
0.034
0.098
0.063
0.043
0.027
0.014
0.083
0.050
0.028
0.011
0.001
0.065
0.037
0.014
0.001
0.055
0.024
0.003
0.045
0.014
39
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

0.147
0.123
0.103
0.093
0.083
0.138
0.110
0.090
0.078
0.065
0.130
0.098
0.077
0.063
0.050
0.123
0.088
0.065
0.050
0.037
0.115
0.075
0.053
0.035
0.023
0.108
0.065
0.040
0.024
0.010
0.100
0.058
0.030
0.013
0.001
0.093
0.048
0.020
0.003
2. Inputting of data in LimitState: GEO : creation of the same as models as in Oasys Slope
and inputting the data with values of the cohesion equal to the stability numbers
obtained above.
3. Running the simulation in LimitState: GEO and obtaining of results: the same dynamic
as in section 3.1.1.1. is applied when interpreting the results obtained . The results are
presented in the tables 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12.
Table3.10.Acuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Oasys Slope for rotational slides with
ru=0 and drained conditions.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
DRAINED ANALYSIS. RU=0

LIMIT STATE FoS IN COMPARISON WITH OASYS SLOPE
-2.5%
-2.9%
-3.3%
-2.0%
-0.4%
-1.8%
-3.6%
-2.7%
-2.1%
-1.4%
-3.0%
-1.8%
-2.4%
-2.8%
-0.7%
-3.1%
-3.1%
-2.7%
-0.9%
-2.2%
-3.6%
-0.6%
-2.2%
-2.1%
-2.3%
-1.9%
-
40
Table3.11.Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Oasys Slope for rotational slides with
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

0.2%
-2.2%
0.8%
-1.3%
-4.2%
-1.5%
-3.1%
0.0%
-1.7%
-3.6%
-4.4%
-4.9%
0.0%
-1.4%
-5.1%
-4.2%
-1.8%
-2.6%
-2.4%
-1.7%
-3.6%
-3.4%
-4.8%
-0.9%
0.8%
-5.8%
-2.8%
0.0%
-0.8%
-5.7%
0.0%
-1.1%
-4.8%
-
Table3.12.Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Oasys Slope for rotational slides with
DRAINED ANALYSIS RU=0.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

0.0%
-0.2%
1.3%
-1.6%
-1.4%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.5%
0.0%
-2.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
-1.6%
-3.1%
-3.8%
-2.8%
-1.0%
-2.6%
-4.5%
-4.8%
-1.6%
-5.1%
-0.8%
-4.5%
-6.3%
-2.0%
-2.6%
-2.9%
-2.8%
-6.2%
-6.4%
-3.8%
-2.2%
-8.1%
-7.8%
-4.9%
-
(-) cases where the slope is stable
41
3.1.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7-DA1 when Using

Limitstate: GEO and Oasys Slope in Rotational Slides under Drained
Conditions.
In order to assess the implementation of EC7 in the programs under analysis, the same cases
study as in section 3.1.1.2 were analyzed. The stability numbers were calculated using EC7DA1 combination 1 and combination 2and the higher value indicated the most restrictive DA1
combination and therefore the one to be utilized when designing,. Since a higher stability
number involves a higher cohesion and hence, a more restrictive condition for the design. The
study was split into slopes with depth factor of 1 and 2.
3.1.2.1.
Methodology For Depth Factor 1
Figure 3.3. Example of the model created for LimitState:GEO, depth factor 1.
Cases study:
The same as in 3.1.1.2.
Assumptions:
o

with unit weight of
=1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m, resulting in
In all cases self weight is considered as an unfavorable loading type as it was

proved to be the more restrictive case for slopes.
All the models were calculated with set of partial factors: DA1 combination 1 and
DA1 combination 2.
42
The nodal density was coarse in all cases, as LimitState Ltd carried out their
studies under these conditions which proved to be accurate enough.
Oasys Slope assumptions:
Depth factor 1 with rigid layer at the bottom of the slope
The models created in Oasys Slope were slopes of homogeneous soil, unit weight
of
=20 KN/m3 ,, and slope height of 1m.
DA1 combination 2.
Methodology
Calculations were divided into two main groups:

1. Calculations performed in EC7-DA1/1
2. Calculations performed in EC7-DA1/2.
The methodology applied in both cases was the same with the only difference of the set of
partial factors applied in the calculations. The procedure to obtain the stability numbers
consisted of maintaining all the parameters of the problem fixed and iterating the value of the
effective cohesion to reach factor strength of 1. Then, for LimitState: GEO this value of the
cohesion will coincide with the value of the stability number because of the assumptions
made for the cases: =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m. However in Oasys Slope the value of
the cohesion must be divided by =20 KN/m3 to obtain the stability number.
Due to the extension of the results, they have been attached as an appendix: Appendix D.
For each case, the DA1 combination giving the higher value of the stability number was the
most restrictive and the results have been summarized in Tables 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15.
The cells in red indicate the cases where C1 is the most restrictive combination, the cells in
blue the cases where C2 is the most restrictive combination and the cells in orange the cases
43
where the two combinations are equally restrictive. The cells in blank are the cases were the
slope is stable with no cohesion.
Table3.13. Critical DA1 combinations in Oasys Lope and LimitState: GEO for rotational
slides, ru=0 and depth factor 1
ROTATIONAL SLIDES RU=0 DEPTH FACTOR 1
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
=1/1
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/1.5
=1/2
=1/2.5
OASYS LIMIT OASYS LIMIT OASYS
LIMIT
SLOPE STATE SLOPE STATE SLOPE STATE
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
=1/3
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
slides, ru=0.3 and depth factor 1
ROTATIONAL SLIDES RU=0.3 DEPTH FACTOR 1
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
=1/1
OASYS
LIMIT
SLOPE
STATE
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/1.5
=1/2
=1/2.5
OASYS LIMIT OASYS LIMIT OASYS LIMIT
C1
C1
C1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
44
C1C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
=1/3
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
slides, ru=0.5 and depth factor 1
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
=1/1
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1-C2
C2
C2
3.1.2.2.
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/1.5
=1/2
=1/2.5
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
=1/3
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Methodology For Depth Factor 2.
The same study as for depth factor 1 was also conducted for depth factor 2. The same cases
studied, assumption s and methodology applied for depth factor 1 were valid for depth factor
2 with the only exception of the rigid layer now located 1m deep. Refer to figure 3.3 for an
example of the model implemented in LimitState:GEO.
Figure3.4. Example of the model created for LimitState:GEO, depth factor 2.
Due to the extension of the results, the stability numbers obtained for each case are shown in
Appendix D
45
Tables 3.16, 3.17 and 3.18 show the most restrictive combinations for all the cases studied in
depth factor 2 as it was done before for depth factor1.
slides, ru=0 and depth factor 2.
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
=1/1
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/1.5
=1/2
=1/2.5
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
OASYS
SLOPE
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
=1/3
LIMIT
STATE
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
slides, ru=0.3 and depth factor 2.
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
=1/1
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C1
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/1.5
=1/2
=1/2.5
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
46
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1-C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
=1/3
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
slides, ru=0.5 and depth factor 2.
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
=1/1
OASYS LIMIT
SLOPE STATE
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/1.5
=1/2
=1/2.5
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
OASYS
SLOPE
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
=1/3
LIMIT
STATE
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
3.1.3. Equivalent Global Fos For Rotational Slides And Drained Conditions When
Calculating In EC7-DA1
When a design is calculated in LimitState: GEO or Oasys Slope by using EC7-DA1, the value
of the FoS achieved when running the programs is only an over-design factor of the ratio
shear strength available/shear strength mobilized, once EC7-DA1 set of partial factor has been
applied. Due to the application of partial factors, it is impossible to deduce from the over
design factor, a global FoS. However, by making use of the stability numbers, a procedure to
obtain an estimation of the global factors of safety f when the calculations are made in EC7DA1 can be done.
The study was divided into two main groups: Slopes with depth factor 1 and Slopes with
depth factor 2.
47
3.1.3.1.
Cases study:
Study For Depth Factor 1 And 2
The same as 3. 1.1.2
Assumptions:
For depth factor 1 the rigid layer is at the bottom of the slope. For depth factor 2
the rigid layer is 1m deep.
The models created in LimitState: GEO were slope of homogeneous soil, unit
weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m. (stability number=cohesion)
of =20 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m
Oasys Slope calculations were carried out using Bishops simplified method with
horizontal interslice forces option.
The nodal density was coarse in the models created in LimitState:GEO.
Methodology
First, by using Oasys Slope with a set of unity partial factors, stability numbers with the
accuracy of Bishops simplified method, were calculated for each case yielding FoS of 1.1,
1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. The procedure to obtain these stability numbers consisted of maintaining all
the parameters constant and iterating the value of the cohesion until the FoS (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or
1.4) was reached. Then by dividing the cohesion by the unit weight =20 KN/m3 , the stability
numbers equivalent to global FoS of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 were obtained.
Secondly, the stability numbers for the same models were calculated using LimitState: GEO
with the set of partial factors DA1 combination 1 and DA1 combination 2. By maintaining all
the parameters constant and iterating the value of the cohesion until the FoS 1 is reached, the
value of the cohesion obtained will coincide with the value of the stability number for DA1
combination 1 and 2. Then, by bounding the value of the stability number of the most
48
restrictive combination for each case, with two stability numbers equivalent to known global
FoS, an estimation of the global FoS obtained when calculating with EC7 can be obtained.
Tables with the stability numbers can be found in Appendix E.
For a given value of the slope angle
and a depth factor, a chart was created representing the
stability numbers obtained in LimitState: GEO from the most critical DA1 combination
together with the stability numbers equivalent to different global factors of safety calculated
with Oasys Slope. From the chart it is clear to estimate the Equivalent Global FoS for each
case.
Due to the extension of the charts, they are presented in Appendix F
3.2. Rotational Slides under Undrained Conditions
3.2.1. Study Of The Accuracy of LimiState: GEO Software in Rotational Slides for
Undrained Conditions.
3.2.1.1.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Taylors Charts
of the next parameters:
Depth factors: 1, 1.2, 1.5, 2, 4.
(degrees): 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90.
Assumptions:
The models created in LimitState: GEO were slope of homogeneous soil, and unit
weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m.
The nodal density was coarse in the models created in LimitState:GEO..
All the cases were run in LimitState: GEO using a set of unity partial factors.
49
Methodology
1. Obtaining for each case the stability numbers from Taylors chart:Taylors charts are
based on simple models of slopes, with homogeneous soil and planar upper surface with
no loads applied and no tension cracks. For all the cases studied, a model was created in
LimitState:GEO.
Table3.19. Stability numbers from Taylors chart for rotational slides under undrained
conditions.
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DEPTH
FACTOR 1
0.07
0.11
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
STABILITY NUMBERS
TAYLORS CHART
LIMITSTATE VS TAYLORS CHART
DEPTH
DEPTH
FACTOR 1.2
FACTOR 1.5
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.26
0.26
DEPTH
FACTOR 2
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
DEPTH
FACTOR 4
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
2. Inputting of data in LimitState: GEO : the stability numbers from Taylors charts, were
introduced in the cases created in LimitState:GEO, by giving to the cohesion the same
value.
3. Running the simulation in LimitState: GEO and obtaining of results: the same
dynamic as in section 3.1.1.1. is applied when interpreting the results obtained . The
results are presented in the tables 3.20.
50
Table3.20.Acuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Taylors chart for rotational slides

under undrained conditions
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DEPTH
FACTOR 1
5.9%
-2.4%
-5.5%
-8.6%
-5.4%
-3.8%
-4.4%
-2.3%
-1.9%
3.2.1.2.
LIMIT STATE VS TAYLORS CHART

DEPTH
DEPTH
FACTOR 1.2
FACTOR 1.5
5.8%
2.0%
-4.5%
-8.7%
-7.3%
-6.0%
-8.0%
-12.5%
-4.1%
-1.1%
-4.0%
-2.1%
-4.6%
-6.3%
-1.7%
-2.1%
-2.1%
-2.1%
DEPTH
FACTOR 2
-1.6%
-6.5%
-4.1%
-0.2%
1.6%
-1.2%
-6.7%
-4.8%
-2.2%
DEPTH
FACTOR 4
-9.9%
-4.2%
-1.1%
0.6%
1.9%
-0.7%
-9.3%
-10.6%
-6.6%
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Bishops Simplified Method
Cases study: the same as 3.2.1.1.
Assumptions:
The models created in LimitState: GEO were slope of homogeneous soil, and unit
weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m.
of =20 KN/m3 and slope height of 1m.
The nodal density was coarse in the models created in LimitState:GEO..
All the cases were run in LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope using a set of unity
partial factors.
All the cases were calculated for undrained conditions.
Methodology
1. Obtaining the stability numbers from Oasys Slope: After creating the models described
in the case study, the stability numbers (N) were obtained by iterating the values of the
51
cohesion inputted in the program to reach a FoS equal to 1 and then applying the
formula
, where =20KN/m3 and H=1. The solutions are presented in table3.21.
Table3.21. Values of the stability numbers obtained from Oasys Slope for rotational slides
and undrained conditions.
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DEPTH
FACTOR 1
0.07
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
STABILITY NUMBERS
OASYS SLOPE
DEPTH FACTOR DEPTH FACTOR
1.2
1.5
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.26
0.26
DEPTH
FACTOR 2
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
DEPTH
FACTOR 4
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
2. Inputting of data in LimitState: GEO : creation of the same models as in Oasys Slope
and inputting the data with values of the cohesion equal to the stability numbers
obtained above.
3. Running the simulation in LimitState: GEO and obtaining of results: the same
dynamic as in section 3.1.1.1. is applied when interpreting the results obtained . The
results are presented in the table 3.22.
52
Table3.22. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Oasys Slope for rotational slides under
undrained conditions
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DEPTH
FACTOR 1
4.4%
-1.4%
-1.6%
-1.8%
-2.3%
-3.8%
-3.4%
-2.3%
0.1%
3.2.1.3.
LIMIT STATE VS OASYS SLOPE

DEPTH
DEPTH
FACTOR 1.2
FACTOR 1.5
11.2%
2.0%
5.4%
-1.4%
0.3%
0.4%
-3.6%
3.6%
-1.7%
2.3%
-4.0%
-2.1%
-3.4%
-5.1%
2.7%
2.3%
-0.2%
-0.1%
DEPTH
FACTOR 2
-13.8%
5.2%
8.4%
7.7%
5.4%
1.5%
-5.4%
-4.8%
-0.3%
DEPTH
FACTOR 4
4.7%
15.8%
13.2%
9.0%
8.2%
-0.7%
-8.0%
-9.1%
-4.6%
LimitState: GEO vs Analytical Methods of Limit Analysis
The same methodology of analysis as in section 3.1.1.1 was followed here. The cases studied
are based on Figure 3.1, with angles varying from 10 to 90 in steps of 10, horizontal upper
surface and rigid layer at the bottom of the slope.
The stability numbers obtained from analytical method of limit analysis (Chen 1975) are
shown in Table 3.23.
for rotational slides under undrained conditions.
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR ROTATIONAL SLIDES UNDER UNDRAINED CONDITIONS
SLOPE
ANGLE
STABILITY
NUMBERS
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.26
The accuracy of LimitStateo:Geo in relation to the Analytical method is shown in Table 3.24.
53
Table3.24. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to Analytical methods of Limit Analysis

for rotational slides and undrained conditions.
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS
LIMIT STATE VS ANALYTICAL METHOD OF LIMIT ANALYSIS
SLOPE ANGLE
10
-47.0%
20
-16.7%
30
-7.5%
40
-2.4%
50
1.1%
60
-4.1%
70
-3.6%
80
-2.7%
90
-2.3%
3.2.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7-DA1 For Rotational Slides
Under Undrained Conditions When Using Limitstate: GEO And Oasys Slope.
Cases study:
The same as in 3.2.1.1
Assumptions:
o

with unit weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m, resulting in undrained
Al the models were calculated with set of partial factors: DA1 combination 1 and
DA1 combination 2.
The nodal density was coarse in all cases, as explained previously.
54
Oasys Slope assumptions:
of
DA1 combination 2.
Methodology

consisted in maintaining all the parameters of the problem fixed and iterating the value of the
undrained cohesion to reach factor strength of 1. Then, for LimitState: GEO this value of the
made for the cases: =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m. However in Oasys Slope the value of
the undrained cohesion must be divided by
=20 KN/m3 to obtain the stability number.
Due to the extension of the results they have been attached in Appendix G.
most restrictive and the results have been summarized in Table3.25.
55
slides under undrained conditions.
ROTATIONAL SLIDES UNDER UNDRAINED CONDITIONS
ANGLE
OF THE
SLOPE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
DEPTH FACTOR
1
DEOTH FACTOR
1.2
DEPTH FACTOR
1.5
DEPTH FACTOR
2
DEPTH FACTOR
4
OASYS
SLOPE
LIMIT
STATE
OASYS
SLOPE
LIMIT
STATE
OASYS
SLOPE
LIMIT
STATE
OASYS
SLOPE
LIMIT
STATE
OASYS
SLOPE
LIMIT
STATE
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
3.2.3. Equivalent Global Fos For Rotational Slides Under Undrained Conditions
When Calculating In EC7-DA1
Cases study:
The same as in 3.2.1.1
Assumptions:
with unit weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m, resulting in undrained
of
The nodal density was coarse in all cases.
56
Bishops simplified method with horizontal interslice forces option was used in
Oasys Slope.
For the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS the models were calculated with
set of unity partial factors.
Methodology
The methodology is the same as in section 3.1.3. with the only difference that in this case the
charts were created for a given value of the slope angle
and a depth factor of 1.2, 1.5, 2 and
4.
Tables with the stability numbers can be found in Appendix H
3.3. Translational Slides Under Drained Conditions.
3.3.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate: GEO Software In Translational Slides

For Drained Conditions
The accuracy of LimitState: GEO was contrasted against the classic formula for translational
slides, that although simple, it has proved to be accurate.
The formula for drained conditions is as follows:

(
(3.1)
where c is the effective cohesion,

the angle of internal friction,
is the angle of the slope, ru is the pore pressure ratio,
is
the unit weight of the soil and H the height of the slope.
Cases study: the study was conducted for translational slides created from all possible
combinations of the next parameters:
: 1/1, 1/1.5, 1/2, 1/2.5, 1/3, 1/3.5, 1/4

Pore water pressure ratio: ru=0, ru=0.3 and ru=0.5
57
Assumptions:
LimitState: GEO and classic formula assumptions
The models created in LimitState: GEO consisted of infinite slopes

approximately 50m long, of homogeneous soil, with unit weight of =1 KN/m3 ,
and slope height of 1m, resulting in cohesion=stability number.
The nodal density was coarse in all cases, as previously explained.
Methodology
1. Obtaining the stability numbers from the Classic Formula: By rearranging the formula
(3.1) , the stability number N, for a global FoS=1, are calculated for each case as
follows:
sin cos -(
(3.2)
The results are presented in TableS 3.26,3.27 and 3.28.
58
Table3.26. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides and
ru=0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/1
0.46
0.41
0.37
0.32
0.27
0.21
0.15
0.08
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES

CLASSIC FORMULA RU=0
LIMIT STATE:GEO VS CLASSIC FORMULA
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
ANGLE
ANGLE
ANGLE
ANGLE
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
0.40
0.33
0.27
0.22
0.34
0.26
0.19
0.14
0.28
0.19
0.11
0.06
0.21
0.11
0.03
0.14
0.03
0.06
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/3.5
0.18
0.10
0.02
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/4
0.15
0.07
Table 3.27. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides and
ru=0.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/1
0.47
0.44
0.41
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.25
0.21
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES

CLASSIC FORMULA RU=0.3
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
ANGLE
ANGLE
ANGLE
ANGLE
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
0.42
0.35
0.29
0.24
0.38
0.30
0.24
0.19
0.33
0.25
0.18
0.13
0.29
0.20
0.13
0.07
0.24
0.14
0.06
0.01
0.18
0.08
0.12
0.01
0.05
59
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/3.5
0.21
0.15
0.09
0.03
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/4
0.18
0.12
0.06
Table 3.28. Stability numbers obtained from the classic formula for translational slides and
ru=0.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/1
0.48
0.46
0.43
0.41
0.38
0.36
0.32
0.29
STABILITY NUMBERS
CLASSIC FORMULA RU=0.5
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
ANGLE
ANGLE
ANGLE
ANGLE
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
0.43
0.37
0.31
0.26
0.40
0.33
0.27
0.22
0.37
0.29
0.23
0.18
0.34
0.25
0.19
0.14
0.30
0.21
0.14
0.09
0.26
0.17
0.10
0.04
0.22
0.12
0.04
0.17
0.06
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/3.5
0.22
0.18
0.14
0.10
0.05
SLOPE
ANGLE
1/4
0.19
0.15
0.11
0.06
0.02
2. Inputting of data in LimitState: GEO : creation of the same models as before and
inputting the data with values of the cohesion equal to the stability numbers calculated
above.
3. Running the simulation and obtaining of results: obtaining a factor strength of 1 means
that the accuracy of the program in relation to analytical method of Limit Analysis is
100%. Thus, the difference between factor strength 1 and the actual factor strength
obtained indicates the relative accuracy of the program. The results are presented in
the tables 3.29,3.30 and 3.31.
60
Table3.29. Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to the classic formula for translational
slides for translational slides and drained conditions.
DRAINEDTRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS. RU=0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LIMIT STATE FoS IN COMPARISON WITH CLASSIC METHOD

SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
1/1
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
1/3.5
26.54%
14.75%
8.8%
5.81%
-0.4%
3.56%
23.93%
12.36%
5.53%
2.62%
-0.6%
0.71%
21.29%
8.56%
3.42%
1.47%
0%
0.18%
18.5%
6.54%
2.48%
-0.1%
12.65%
4.01%
11.78%
1.65%
8.68%
4.69%
SLOPE
1/4
1.59%
0.5%
slides under drained conditions with ru=0.3
DRAINED TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS. RU=0.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
1/1
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
1/3.5
29.47%
16.42%
9.92%
6.45%
0.87%
4.45%
30.28%
16.6%
10.19%
6.7%
0.08%
4.43%
31.1%
16.95%
10.42%
6.41%
1.71%
3.81%
31.97%
17.3%
9.48%
7.25%
2.26%
3.71%
33.05%
17.7%
9.99%
4.26%
3.34%
35.36%
17.36%
9.59%
35.51%
18.03%
34.15%
12.68%
61
SLOPE
1/4
2.45%
1.44%
3.01%
slides under drained conditions with ru=0.5
DRAINED TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS. RU=0.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
1/1
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
1/3.5
31.42
17.66
10.66
6.86
8.85
4.94
33.93
19.44
12.15
8.08
2.45
5.78
37.71
21.44
13.64
9.23
4.22
5.91
41.06
23.54
15.18
10.63
4.28
6.38
44.77
25.75
16.82
5.98
6.86
7.42
48.8
28.19
18.68
9.35
53.18
30.88
27.09
58.16
30.32
SLOPE
3.13
12.72
2.66
2.84
4.18
3.3.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7-DA1 When Using

Limitstate: GEO And The Classic Method In Translational Slides Under Drained
Conditions.
of the next parameters:
The same as in 3.3.1.
Assumptions for LimitState:GEO
The models created in LimitState: GEO were: slope of homogeneous soil, unit
weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m. (cohesion=stability number)
DA1 combination 2.
The nodal density was coarse in all cases.
62
Methodology
o LimitState:GEO
The methodology followed for LimitState: GEO is the same as explained in section 3.1.2.
The results of the stability numbers obtained for each case are shown in Appendix I
Tables 3.32, 3.33 and 3.34 show the most critical combination for each case.
In order to create the models in LimitState:GEO, each single case had to be customized
because of the difficulties that the program presented, as it does not have the option of
focusing on a particular slip surface predefined by the user and because of that, in the majority
of cases, it considered the most critical slip surface at the edges of the planar slide, where the
inclination of the ground is higher.
In order to avoid this, the inclination at the edges had to be reduced when it was necessary. So
as not to affect the accuracy, the length of the slope was exaggerated to 50 metres or more,
this implies that the height of the slope was 1m in most of the length.
Figure3.5. Example of the model created for translational slides in LimitState:GEO,

o Classic formula
63
Cases study and assumptions: The assumptions and cases study will be the same here as
in section 3.3.1, but applying the set of partial factors corresponding to DA1
combinations 1 and 2.
Methodology:
The stability numbers for DA1 combinations 1 and 2 will be given by the next formulas
respectively:
(
1.35 sin cos -
(3.3)
1.25 sin cos -(
(3.4)
The demonstration of the formulas can be seen in Appendix J

For each case, the stability number will be obtained for DA1 combinations 1 and 2
straightforward from the formulas (3.3) and (3.4) and the critical combination will be the one
with the higher stability number.
The results of the stability numbers obtained for each case are shown in the Appendix I
Tables 3.32, 3.33 and 3.34 show the most restrictive combinations for all the cases studied.
Table3.32. critical combinations when designing in DA1 by using the classic method (CM)
and LimitState: GEO (LS) for translational slides and ru=0
TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES RU=0
=1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/2
=1/2.5
=1/3
=1/1.5
=1/3.5
=1/4
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
-
C1/C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
64
Table3.33. critical combinations when designing in DA1 by using the classic method and
LimitState: GEO for translational slides and ru=0.3
TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES RU=0.3

=1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
=1/1.5
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/2
=1/2.5
=1/3
=1/3.5
=1/4
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C1
C1/C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1/C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C1/C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
C2
-
C1
C2
C2
-
C2
C2
C2
-
Table3.34. critical combinations when designing in DA1 by using the classic method for
translational slides and ru=0.5
=1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
ANGLE OF THE SLOPE

=1/2
=1/2.5
=1/3
=1/1.5
=1/3.5
=1/4
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
CM
LS
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1/C2
C1
C1/C2
C1
C2
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1/C2
C1
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C1
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
65
3.3.3. Estimation Of The Equivalent Global Fos For Translational Slides And
Drained Conditions When Calculating In EC7-DA1
Cases study: The same as in 3.1.
Assumptions: the same as in 3.3.1., but with the set of partial factor unity and also for
DA1 combinations 1 and 2, depending on whether to obtain stability numbers for bounding
or to be bounded respectively.
Methodology:
1. Obtaining the stability numbers equivalent to global FoS of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 from
the Classic Formula: The process to obtain for each case, the stability numbers for the
Equivalent Global FoS (F), comes straightforward from introducing on the right hand
side of the formula (3.5) the values of
(
, ,
and F
(3.5)
2. Obtaining the stability numbers when using LimitState: GEO combinations 1 and 2:
the stability numbers for the same models were calculated using LimitState: GEO with
the set of partial factors DA1 combination 1 and DA1 combination 2. By maintaining
all the parameters constant and iterating the value of the cohesion until the FoS 1 is
reached, the value of the cohesion obtained will coincide with the value of the stability
number for DA1 combination 1 and 2.
3. Obtaining the Equivalent Global FoS of EC7 calculations: By bounding the value of
the stability number of the most restrictive combination for each case, with two stability
numbers equivalent to known global FoS, an estimation of the global FoS obtained
when calculating with EC7 can be obtained.
66
Tables with the stability numbers can be found in Appendix K

and ru, a chart was created representing the
stability numbers obtained from LimitState: GEO for the most restrictive EC7-DA1
combination together with the stability numbers equivalent to global factors of safety
calculated with the classic formula.
Due to the extension of the charts, they are presented in Appendix L
3.4. Translational Slides Under Undrained Conditions
3.4.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate: GEO Software In Translational Slides

For Undrained Conditions
The accuracy of LimitState: GEO was contrasted against the classic formula for translational
slides. The formula for undrained conditions is as follows::
(3.6)
where
is the effective cohesion.
Cases study: the study was conducted for translational slides created from all possible
combinations of the next parameters:
: 1/1, 1/1.5, 1/2, 1/2.5, 1/3, 1/3.5, 1/4
Assumptions:
o
LimitState: GEO and classic formula assumptions

67
The models created in LimitState: GEO consisted of infinite slopes approximately

50m long, of homogeneous soil, with unit weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height
of 1m, resulting in undrained cohesion=stability number.
The nodal density was medium in all cases.
Methodology
1. Obtaining the stability numbers from the Classic Formula:

By rearranging the formula (x) , the stability numbers are calculated for each case as
follows:
sin cos
(3.7)
2. Inputting of data in LimitState: GEO : creation of the same models as before and
inputting the data with values of the cohesion equal to the stability numbers calculated
above.
3. Running the simulation and obtaining of results: obtaining a factor strength of 1 means
that the accuracy of the program in relation to analytical method of Limit Analysis is
100%. Thus, the difference between factor strength 1 and the actual factor strength
obtained indicates the relative accuracy of the program. The results are presented in the
Table3.35 and the accuracy in Table 3.36.
68
Table3.35. Stability numbers from the classic formula for translational slides under
undrained conditions
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR
UNDRAINED TRANSLATIONAL SLOPES
SLOPE ANGLE
1/1
1/1.5
1/2
1/2.5
1/3
1/3.5
1/4
STABILITY NUMBER
0.50
0.46
0.40
0.34
0.30
0.26
0.24
slides and undrained conditions.
UNDRAINED TRANSLATIONAL ANALYSIS
LIMIT STATE:GEO VS CLASSIC METHOD
SLOPE ANGLE
1/1
29.08%
1/1.5
16.79%
1/2
9.83%
1/2.5
6.19%
1/3
-0.3%
1/3.5
3.96%
1/4
1.88%
3.4.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7-DA1 For Translational

Slides Under Undrained Conditions When Using Limitstate: GEO And Classic
Method Of Analysis.
Cases study:
Angles of the slopes (degrees): 10,20,30,40 and 50.
Assumptions for LimitState: GEO and the Classic Formula

69
Slope of homogeneous soil, unit weight of =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m.
(cohesion=stability number)
DA1 combination 2.
Methodology

3.4.2.1. LimitState:GEO
consisted of maintaining all the parameters of the problem fixed and iterating the value of the
undrained cohesion to reach factor strength of 1. Then, for LimitState: GEO this value of the
made for the cases: =1 KN/m3 , and slope height of 1m.
most restrictive and the results are shown in Tables 3.37. The cells in blue indicate the most
critical combination.
Table3.37. critical combinations when designing in DA1 by using the classic method and
LimitState: GEO for translational slides under undrained conditions
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS
STABILITY NUMBERS
LIMIT STATE DA1
SLOPE ANGLE LS COMBINATION1 LS COMBINATION2
10
0.24
0.25
20
0.51
0.53
30
0.68
0.70
40
0.86
0.90
50
1.03
1.07
70
3.4.2.2. Classic Method of Analysis:

By using the classic formula for translational slides EC7 adapted for undrained conditions
(formula 3.8) , the stability number for each slope angle was obtained directly by giving to the
partial factor applied to the undrained cohesion (
), the value 1.35for combination 1 and
1.4 for combination 2

(3.8)
The higher value of the stability number corresponded to the most restrictive combination for
each case. The results are given in table 3.38
Table3.38. Values of the stability numbers for combination 1 and 2 calculated with the classic
formula
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS FOR TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES
STABILITY NUMBERS
CLASSIC METHOD
SLOPE ANGLE DA1 COMBINATION1 DA1 COMBINATION2
10
0.23
0.24
20
0.43
0.45
30
0.58
0.61
40
0.66
0.69
50
0.66
0.69
3.4.3. Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate: GEO For Translational Slides Under
Undrained Conditions When Calculating In EC7-DA1
1. Obtaining the stability numbers equivalent to global FoS of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 from
the Classic Formula: The process to obtain for each case, the stability numbers for the
Equivalent Global FoS (F), comes straightforward from introducing on the right hand
side of the formula the values of
and F:
(3.9)
71
2. Obtaining the stability numbers when using LimitState: GEO combinations 1 and 2:The
stability numbers for the same models were calculated using LimitState: GEO with the
set of partial factors DA1 combination 1 and DA1 combination 2. By maintaining all
the parameters constant and iterating the value of the undrained cohesion until the FoS 1
is reached, the value of the undrained cohesion obtained will coincide with the value of
the stability number for DA1 combination 1 and 2.
3. Obtaining the Equivalent Global FoS of EC7 calculations: By bounding the value of the
stability number of the most restrictive combination for each case, with two stability
numbers equivalent to known global FoS, an estimation of the global FoS obtained
when calculating with EC7 can be obtained. The stability numbers obtained are shown
in table 3.39
u, a chart was created representing the stability
numbers obtained from LimitState: GEO for the most restrictive
EC7-DA1
combination together with the stability numbers equivalent to global factors of safety
calculated with the classic formula. The chart is represented in figure 3.6
Table3.39. Stability number for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for translational
slides under undrained conditions
UNDRAINED TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES
STABILITY NUMBERS
SLOPE ANGLE
50
40
30
20
10
CLASSIC FORMULA
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2 FoS=1.3 FoS=2 EC7-DA1
EC7-DA1
0.59
0.59
0.52
0.39
0.21
0.64
0.64
0.56
0.42
0.22
0.98
0.98
0.87
0.64
0.34
72
0.69
0.69
0.61
0.45
0.24
1.07
0.9
0.7
0.53
0.25
EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FoS FOR

PLANAR TRANSLATIONAL UNDRAINED
1.2
1
limit state DA1
0.8
classic method DA1
Stability number 0.6
FoS=1.2
0.4
FoS=1.3
0.2
FoS=1.5
FoS=2
0
50
40
30
20
10
Slope angle (degrees)
Figure3.6. Chart representing the Equivalent Global FoS when calculating in EC7 with
LimitState: GEO for translational slides under undrained conditions
In addition to the study that has been exposed, LimitState:Geo was also checked for complex
slopes, by the calculation of 22 benchmark problems taken from the Slide Verification Manual
(2003). All the problems were modelled in LimitState:Geo and the FoS obtained were
compared with known results calculated by different methods of analysis. Appendix M
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Rotational Slides Under Drained Conditions:
4.1.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate: GEO And Oasys Slope Software In
Rotational Slides For Drained Conditions
4.1.1.1.
Limitstate: GEO Vs Analytical Method Of Limit Analysis
In the 73 cases studied for rotational slides under drained conditions shown on Tables 3.4, 3.5
and 3.6, the FoS obtained in LimitState:Geo compared to limit analysis method confirmed
73
very close values with differences in most cases of less than 5% which is perfectly acceptable
for practical purposes (Duncan,1980). LimitState:Geo gave also in all cases less conservative
results than limit analysis and as a consequence, considering that the algorithm used for the
analytical limit analysis corresponds to the classic upper bound approach and the fact that
Discontinuity Layout Optimization is a new limit analysis method, it can be inferred that
when calculating in rotational slides under drained conditions, LimitState:Geo offers an even
more approximated solution to the collapse solution than limit analysis and therefore it can be
considered a powerful tool when calculating in these scenarios.
Only two cases gave significant differences in the FoS obtained corresponding to plannar
upper surface with low steep slopes and low angle of friction. However, for similar cases
compared with limit equilibrium methods, the differences were 2% and 0.4% which suggests
that the error could be attributable to the analytical limit analysis calculation.
4.1.1.2.
LimitState: GEO vs Oasys Slope:
LimitState:Geo and Oasys Slope were compared in 92 models, where Oasys Slope used
Bishops simplified method of analysis. The two methods showed a very good agreement in
the FoS obtained with a difference of no more than 5.8% in all cases. It could also be deduced
that in 86 out of 92 cases studied, LimitState:Geo was slightly less conservative than Oasys
Slope as with analytical limit analysis.
From both studies, it can be said that LimitState:Geo yields similar results in relation to
known accurate methods and also less conservative and therefore, more approximated to the
slope collapse scenario which can be attributed to the better accuracy of discontinuity layout
optimization in relation to analytical upper bound solutions of limit analysis and limit
equilibrium methods of analysis.
4.1.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7-DA1 When Using

Limitstate: GEO And Oasys Slope In Rotational Slides Under Drained
Conditions.
74
4.1.2.1.
LimitState: GEO Study
From the more than 200 cases that were analyzed using EC7-DA1 combinations 1 and 2, the
following information was obtained:
Depth factor 1
Combination 2 was the most restrictive in 100 out of the 107 cases analyzed by
varying slope angles and pore water pressure ratios. The remaining cases, where C1
was more restrictive, were for steep slopes with low angles of internal friction.
Depth factor 2
The results were similar to depth factor 1, with combination 2 more restrictive in
105 out of 107 cases analyzed. As it happened before, the cases were C1 was more
restrictive, also corresponded to steep slopes with low angles of internal friction.
From the results:
It can be said that the depth factor has no influence in the combination to be used for
each case, with C2 being clearly the most restrictive combination in most cases.
It was also observed a slight increase in the number cases with C1 more restrictive
when higher values of pore water pressure ratio (ru) are given.
4.1.2.2.
Oasys Slope Study
The same cases analyzed before with LimitState:GEO, were analyzed again using Oasys
Slope.
Depth factor 1:
Oasys Slope considered C1 as more restrictive in 25 out of 107 cases analyzed what
supposes a higher amount than LimitState: GEO considered.
As in LimitState:GEO, the cases where C1 was more restrictive than C2 in Oasys
Slope, correspond to low angles of internal friction and mostly in steep slopes with
high values of ru.
75
Depth factor 2
C1 was more restrictive in 11 cases, what is considerably less than in depth factor
1.
From the results:
It could be inferred that Oasys Slope yielded similar results to LimitState: GEO with a
slight increase in the amount of cases where C1 was more restrictive which occurs
mostly with low angles of friction
4.1.3. Equivalent Global Fos For Rotational Slides And Drained Conditions When
Calculating In EC7-DA1
4.1.3.1.
LimitState: GEO Study
Depth factor 1
From the charts obtained in these cases and shown on Appendix F, it can be easily
deduced that the equivalent FoS is mostly 1.25 when there is no water table and
between 1.2 and 1.1 with ru=0.3 and 0.5 respectively. It could also be observed that
the equivalent global FoS for LimitState: GEO was slightly lower than in Oasys
Slope as expected, since it was concluded before that LimitState: GEO yields less
conservative results than Oasys Slope when calculating in rotational slides.
No influence of the slope angle and the angle of internal friction was observed.
Depth factor 2
The results were very similar to depth factor 1, with Equivalent Global FoS of 1.2
in most cases or slightly lower, between 1.1 and 1.2, when there is phreatic level.
Alike for depth factor 1, the slope angle and the angle of internal friction seemed
not to have influence.
Bishops simplified method implemented in Oasys Slope gave an equivalent FoS of
1.25 in all cases.
76
From the results:
It can be said that LimitState:Geo gives an equivalent global FoS between 1.25 and
1.1 in all the cases studied for rotational slides.
According to BS 6031,4 first-time slides with a good standard of investigation should

be designed with a safety factor between 1.3 and 1.4; whereas slides involving entirely
pre-existing slip surfaces should be designed with F = 1.2. (Bond and Harris, 2008).
Therefore, from the results obtained, when designing in EC7, LimitState:Geo gives
equivalent global FoS slightly lower than recommended.
4.2. Rotational Slides Under Undrained Conditions

4.2.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate: GEO Software In Rotational Slides For
Undrained Conditions.
4.2.1.1.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Taylors charts
LimitState: GEO was compared with Taylors chart, which is based on the friction circle
method considered as an accurate method for total stress analysis.
From the 45 cases analyzed for rotational slopes and different depth factors, LimitState: GEO
showed a very good agreement with Taylors charts with differences in the FoS in most cases
of less than 5% and only two cases where the differences were higher than 10%, with values
of 10.6% and 12.5% and with no relationship between them.
No influence of the depth factor in the results obtained was observed and in 39 out of the 45
cases analyzed. LimitState::Geo showed a less conservative approach than Taylors chart.
4.2.1.2.
Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Bishops simplified method
The results showed a very good agreement (less than 5%) between the two methods for depth
factors 1, 1.2, and 1.5 whereas for depth factors 2 and 4 the similarity of the results was
77
slightly worse with differences between 5 and 10%. However, for the same cases, there was a
good agreement with Taylors charts and therefore the error could be attributed to Oasys
Slope performance for these cases.
The results showed by LimitState: GEO were in some cases more and in other cases less
conservative than Oasys Slope in the same proportion.
4.2.1.3.
LimitState: GEO vs analytical limit analysis
This comparison was only realized in depth factor 1 by the analytical limit analysis results
obtained from Chen (1975) as it was done before for drained analysis. . The agreement was in
general good with differences in the FoS less than 5%, with the exception of low angles of the
slopes were the differences were 16.7% and 47% for slopes angles of 20 and 10 respectively.
However, this can be attributed to the limit analysis calculations since LimitState;Geo showed
a good agreement with Taylors chart and Oasys Slope for the same cases. In most cases,
LimitState: GEO showed less conservative results as with Taylors chart.
From the results:
It can be said that LimitState:Geo shows in general a good agreement when comparing
with Taylors charts, limit analysis and Bishops method, for the mentioned cases. The
differences in the FoS are in most cases less than 5% which means that the accuracy is
more than acceptable.
4.2.2. Study Of The Most Critical Combination In EC7 DA1 For Rotational Slides
Under Undrained Conditions When Using Limitstate:GEO And Oasys Slope.
4.2.2.1.
LimitState:GEO
In all the 45 cases studied, combination 2 was more restrictive than combination 1.
78
4.2.2.2.
Oasys Slope
Alike LimitState:GEO, in all the 45 cases analyzed, combination 2 was more restrictive than
combination 1.
4.2.3. Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate:GEO For Rotational Slides Under

Undrained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1
For depth factors 1, 1.2 and 1.5, the equivalent factor of safety obtained using
LimitState:GEO was constant and equal to 1.4, in very good agreement with the equivalent
FoS obtained using Oasys slope for the same cases.
However, for depth factors 2 and 4, whereas in Oasys slope the equivalent factor of safety
was 1.4 as before, in LimitState:GEO, the equivalent global FoS approximately varied from
1.6, for lower slope angles, to 1.3 for steeper slopes.
4.3. Translational Slides Under Drained Conditions.
4.3.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate:GEO Software In Translational Slides

For Drained Conditions: When Compared With The Limit Equilibrium Classic
Formula.
From the results it can be observed that LimitState:Geo offers more conservative results than
the classic formula in all cases. The differences in the FoS are less than 10% in most cases for
slopes ranging from 1/4 to 1/2.5, however, for steeper slopes the differences are in most of
cases in the order of 30 to 60%, with the higher values of water table.
The classic formula has been proved to be a reliable method to calculate the FoS for
translational slides, and therefore, LimitState:Geo seems not to offer accurate results for
translational slides in steep slopes.
79
4.3.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7 DA1 When Using
Limitstate:GEO And The Classic Method In Translational Slides Under Drained
Conditions.
4.3.2.1.
LimitState:GEO
From the 139 cases analyzed, only in 20 cases combination 1 was more restrictive than
combination 2, corresponding to low angles of internal friction . Therefore, for translational
slides the trend seems to be similar to rotational slides where C2 is normally the more
restrictive combination with only a few cases where C1 is more critical.
4.3.2.2.
Classic method:
From the 139 cases analyzed, only in 36 cases combination 1 was more restrictive than
combination 2 corresponding also to low angles of internal friction.
In conclusion, the agreement between the two methods for the most restrictive combination
was good and similar to rotational slides, with the classic method having a slight higher
number of cases with C1 as the most restrictive.
4.3.3. Estimation Of The Equivalent Global Fos For Translational Slides And
Drained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1
The equivalent global FoS obtained from the classic formula was 1.25 in all cases. However,
when calculating with LimitState:Geo the results were very different, with values of the FoS
ranging from 1.25, for low steep slopes, to 1.8-2 for steeper slopes. It could be seen that
LimitState:Geo gave always more conservative results and the differences were greater with
higher values of ru.
In conclusion, LimitState:Geo give opposite results when calculating for rotational and
translational slides, with a conservative approach for translational and a less conservative
approach than other accurate methods for translational.
80
4.4. Translational Slides Under Undrained Conditions
4.4.1. Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate:GEO Software In Translational Slides

For Undrained Conditions
Limit state vs classic method
The agreement between these two methods was good for low steep slopes with differences in
the FoS ranging from 0.3% to 6.19%, however, for steeper slopes the differences in the FoS
were significant, with values of 16.79% and 29.08% for slope angles of 1/1.5 and 1/1
respectively. In most cases, LimitState:Geo gave a more conservative result than the classic
formula.
4.4.2. Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7 DA1 For Translational
Slides Under Undrained Conditions When Using Limitstate:GEO And Classic
Method Of Analysis.
In all cases the most restrictive DA1 combination was combination 2 for both
LimitState:GEO and the classic method of analysis.
4.4.3. Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate:GEO For Translational Slides Under

Undrained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1
The classic method gave an equivalent global FoS of 1.4 in all cases. However,
LimitState:Geo gave very different results depending on the inclination of the slopes, with
values of 2, for steep slopes, to 1.4 for slope angles of 10 degrees.
Finally, from the results obtained in Appendix M, it could be deduced that for more complex
slopes, the behavior of LimitState:Geo was similar to that of simple slopes, giving less
conservative results for rotational slides than limit equilibrium methods. So, although the
study of this dissertation was conducted in simple slopes, the results obtained can be
extrapolated to complex slopes
81
5. CONCLUSIONS:
From the study carried out in LimitState:Geofor the different cases, the next conclusions were
obtained:
For rotational slides under drained conditions, LimitState:Geo gives similar results to
the analytical method of analysis and Bishops simplified method with differences in
the FoS of less than 5% and slightly less conservative solutions in most cases.
Therefore, it can be concluded that for these problems the program performs
accurately and gives solutions closer to the real mechanism of failure than Bishops
simplified method and the analytical method of analysis. The implementation of EC7
was also very good with the selection of the appropriate DA1 combination for each
case and yielding similar and slightly lower equivalent global FoS than other
accurate methods, between 1.1 and 1.25.
For rotational slides under undrained conditions LimitState:Geo gives similar results
to Taylors chart, Bishops simplified method and the analytical method of limit
analysis, with differences in the FoS normally lower than 5% and slightly less
conservative results as for drained conditions. The implementation of EC7 was good
with combination 2 always the most restrictive and equivalent global factors of
safety similar to Bishops simplified method and in most cases equal to 1.4.
For translational slides under drained conditions, LimitState:Geo yields more
conservative results than the classic formula in all cases with differences in the FoS
of less than 10% for low steep slopes, however, for steep slopes the differences are in
a lot of cases in the order of 30 to 60% . The implementation of EC7 was good as far
as discerning the most critical combination is concerned with most cases having C2
as the more restrictive, however, the equivalent global FoS varied from 1.25, and
coinciding with the classic formula for low steep slopes, to 1.8-2 for steeper slopes.
Summarizing, it can be said that the accuracy in general terms is good for low steep
slopes but for steeper slopes LimitState:Geo gives no realistic results.
82
For translational slides under undrained conditions, LimitState:Geo yields more

conservative results than the classic formula in all cases with differences in the FoS
of less than 10% for low steep slopes and reaching 30% for steep slopes. The
implementation of EC7 was good as far as discerning the most critical combination is
concerned with all cases having C2 as the more restrictive, however, the equivalent
global FoS varied from 1.4 for low steep slopes coinciding with the classic method,
to 2 for steeper slopes. Summarizing , it can be said that the accuracy in general
terms is good for low steep slopes but for steeper slopes LimitState:Geo gives no
realistic results.
83
6. REFERENCES:
Alwis. W.A.M (2000). Discrete element slip model of plasticity
Andrew J.Bond et al. (2013). Worked examples presented at the Workshop Eurocode
7: Geotechnical Design . Dublin, 13-14 June, 2013
Barnes (1995). Soil Mechanics Principles and Practice.
Basudhar, P.K., (1976). Some applications of mathematical programming technique

to stability problems in geotechnical engineering
Bishop (1954) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. First
technical session: General theory of stability of slopes.
Bishop Alan.W. (1954). The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Bishop and Morgenstern. (1960). Stability coefficients for earth slopes
Bond A.J. et al. (2013). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Bond and Harris (2008). Decoding the Eurocode.
Bottero et al (1980). Finite element method and limit analysis theory for soil
mechanics problems
Bray.J.W. (1977). Slope engineering
Chen and Giger, (1971). Limit Analysis of stability of slopes.
Chen. W.F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity
Chen. W.F. (1970). Limit analysis and limit equilibrium solutions in soil mechanics.
Chen. W.F.(1968). Limit analysis and limit equilibrium solution in soil mechanics
Cheng and C.K. Lau.(2008) Slope stability analysis and stabilization. New methods
and insight.
Clough and Woodward (1967). Analysis of embankment stress and deformations
Collins (1974). A note on the interpretation of Coulombs analysis, 1974
Coulomb (1773). Essay on the application of the rules of maxima and minima to
certain statics problems relavant to architecture.
Culmann, K. (1866). Die graphische static. Zurich
Da Silva Vicente and Antao (2007) "A non-linear programming method approach for
upper bound limit analysis.
Dalim Kumar Majumdar (1964). Simplified approach to the problem of the stability of
slopes.
84
Dawson et al. (1999). Slope stability analysis by strength reduction. Geotechnique
Dawson, E.M., Roth, W.H. and Drescher (1999), Slope stability analysis by strength
reduction.
Dewhurst and Collins (1973). A matrix technique for constructing slip-line field
solutions to a class of plane strain plasticity problems
Dewhurst and Collins(2005). A matrix technique for constructing slip-line field

solutions to a class of plane strain plasticity problems.
Dinesh. S.V. (2008). Stability of earth slopes
Donald and Giam (1988). Application of the nodal displacement method to slope
stability analysis
Drucker et al. (1952). Extended limit design theorems for continuous media.
Drucker, D. C. and Prager, W. (1952). Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit
design.
Duncan and Wright (1980). The Accuracy of Equilibrium Methods of Slope Stability
Analysis.
Duncan C. Wyllie (1974). Rock slope engineering
Duncan.J.M. (1987). An Engineering Manual for Slope Stability Studies
Fang, Hsai-Yang (1990). Foundation engineering handbook
Fang, Hsai-Yang. (1990). Foundation engineering Handbook
Fellenius (1928) Erdstatische Berechnungen mit Reibung
Fellenius, W. (1927). Erdstatische Berechnungen mit Reibung und Kohsion

(Adhsion) und unter Annahme kreiszylindrischer Gleitflchen, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Francais, J.F. (1820). Reserches sur la pousse des terres, sur la forme et les
dimensions des murs de revetement, et sur les talus dxcavation. Memorial de
lofficier du Genie No.4,pp 157-206
Fredlund and Krahn (1977). Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal
Gilbert &Smith (2010). Application of discontinuity layout optimization to

geotechnical limit analysis problems
Gilbert and Tyas (2003). Layout optimization of large-scale pin-jointed frames",

Engineering Computations
85
Gilbert.M. and C. Smith (2010) Application of Discontinuity Layout Optimization to

geotechnical limit analysis problems
Griffiths & Lane (1999), Slope stability analysis by finite elements
H.S.yu (1998) Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering
H.S.Yu, et al. (1998) Limit analysis versus limit equilibrium for slope stability.
Hammah.R.E and Yacoub.T.E.(2012). Serviceability-Based Slope Factor of Safety

using the Shear Strength Reduction (SSR) Method
Hanche-Olsen, Harald (2004). Buckingham's pi-theorem.
Hansen. Brinch (1953). Earth pressure calculation.
Hawksbee.S.J. (2012). 3D ultimate limit state analysis using discontinuity layout

optimization
Hill. R. (1950). The mathematical theory of plasticity
Hunter and Schuster (1968).Stabiliy og simple cuttings in normally consolidated

clays.
Janbu (1968). Slope stability computations
Keizo Ugai, (2007). Static and Dynamic Analyses of slopes by the FEM
Krahn, (2004). Stabilitymodelling with Slope/W. An engineering methodology.
Leshchinsky. B. (2013). Comparison of Limit Equilibrium and Limit Analysis for

Complex Slopes
Lysmer (1970) Limit analysis of plane problems in soil mechanics. Lysmer
Makrodimopoulos & Martin (2006). Lower bound limit analysis of cohesive-frictional

materials using second-order cone programming.
Makrodimopoulos and Martin,(2007) Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous

quadratic displacement fields.
Manual of Use, Oasys Software
Martin (2006). Advances in numerical upper bound limit analysis
Matsui and San (1992). Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength
reduction technique
Memen-Soukatchoff V &OmracK (2000). Determination des conditions aux limites

pour un calcul de stabilit de talus, Rev Franc Geoteck , No 92
Michalowski (1994). Stability of slopes: limit analysis approach

86
Muoz et al (2006). On the numerical simulation of fatigue driven delamination with

interface elements.
Nagtegaal et al. (1974). On numerically accurate finite element solutions in fully

plastic range. .
Nathan Ross Lyle (2009). Comprehensive Design Charts for the Footing on Slope
Problem)
Naylor (1982) Finite elements and slope stability in Numerical Methods in

Geomechanics
Ponter and Carter (1997) Limit state solutions, based upon linear elastic solutions
with a sutially varying elastic modulus
Rendulic (1935). Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung der Gleitsicherheit
Rock Science (2004), A new era in slope stability analysis: shear strength reduction
finite element technique.
Sing.D.N and Basudhar.K(2005). A Note on the Effect of Mesh Pattern on the Lower
bound Bearing Capacity of Embedded Strip Footings
Singh, D.N. and Basudhar, P.K. (1993). Optimal Lowerbound Bearing Capacity of
Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls Using Finite Elements and Nonlinear
Programming,Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.12, No.7, pp. 665-686.
Slide Verification Manual (2003)
Sloan.S.W. (1988). lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear
programming.
Slope Stability- Engineers Manual (2003). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Smith (2005) Elements of soil mechanics
Smith and Gilbert (2007) Application of discontinuity layout optimization to plane

plasticity problems.
Sokolovski (1965). Statics of granular media.
Spencer.E.. (1967). A Method of analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming

Parallel Inter-Slice Forces
Taylor (1937). Stability of earth slopes.
Taylor, (1948). Fundamentals of soil Mechanics (1948)
87
Taylor, D.W. (1937), Stability of earth slopes, Journal of the Boston Society of Civil
Engineers, 24 (3), 33786.
Terzaghi and Peck (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
Ugai and Leshchinsky (1995). Three dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element
analysis: a comparison of results.
Whitman and Bailey (1967). Use of computers for slope stability analysis". ASCE,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering Division
Wolf & Song (1997). Finite element modelling of unbounded media.
www.limitstate.com
www.limitstate.com/geo/validation . LimitState: GEO verification results.
www.oasys-software.com
Yu, H.S. et al. (1998). Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering

ISSN: 1090-0241, eISSN: 1943-5606, CODEN: JGGEFK Reston, VA: American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1997-; Volume: 123-
Zheng et al. (2005). Definitions of safety factor of slope stability analysis with finite
element method
Zienkiewicz et al. (1971). The finite element method en engineering science.
88
LIST OF FIGURES FOR APPENDICES

F1. Chart representing the Equivalent Global FoS when calculating in EC7 with LimitState:
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions.F/1
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions.F/2
conditions.F/2
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions.F/3
conditions.F/3
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.3 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions.F/4
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.3 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions.F/4
conditionsF/5
conditions.....F/5
conditions.F/6
conditions.....F/6
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0.5 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions.F/7
conditions.F/7
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions.F/8
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions.F/9
conditions.F/9
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditionsF/10
conditions...F/10
ii
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.3, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions...F/11
GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.3, depth factor 2 and drained
conditionsF/11
conditions...F/12
conditionsF/12
conditions...F/13
conditions...F/13
conditions...F/14
conditions...F/14
conditions...F/15
L1. Chart representing the Equivalent Global FoS when calculating in EC7 with LimitState:
GEO for translational slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1 and drained conditions.L/1
iii
GEO for translational slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5 and drained conditions....L/1
GEO for translational slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/2 and drained conditions...L/2
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1 and drained conditions..L/4
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5 and drained conditions.L/5
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/2 and drained conditions....L/5
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/3 and drained conditionsL/6
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/3.5 and drained conditions.........L/7
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/4 and drained conditions....L/7
iv
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.5, slope angle 1/1 and drained conditionsL/8
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.5, slope angle 1/2.5 and drained conditions..L/9
GEO for translational slides, ru=0.5, slope angle 1/3.5 and drained conditions...L/10
M1.Problem 1 geometrical dataM/1
M2.Problem 1 modelled in LimitState:Geo..M/2
M3.Problem 2 geometrical data.....M/3
M4. Problem 3 modelled in LimitState:Geo.M/3
M5. Problem 3 geometrical data....M/4
M10. Problem 5 modelled in LimitState:Geo...M/8
M11. Problem 6 geometrical data..M/9

M16. Problem 8 modelled in LimitState:Geo.....M/12
M17. Problem 9 geometrical dataM/13
M18. Slip surface obtained using Spencer method with Monte-Carlo optimization..M/14
M20. Problem 10 geometrical data.M/15
vi
M34. Problem17. Geometry and non circular failure surface using using Random search with
Optimization....M/24
M36. Problem 18. Geometrical data....M/25
M40 Problem 20. Geometrical data....M/28
M44 Problem 22. Geometrical data.M/31
vii
LIST OF TABLES FOR APPENDICES

D1. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in Oasys Slope and LimitState: GEO for
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0, depth factor 1
and drained conditions....D/1
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0, depth factor 1
and drained conditionsD/1
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0, depth factor 1
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.3, depth factor 1
homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.3, depth factor
1 and drained conditions.....D/4
and drained conditions........D/4
viii
D10. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in Oasys Slope and LimitState: GEO
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.5, depth
factor 1 and drained conditions...D/5
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.5, depth
factor 1 and drained conditions.......D/6
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0, depth factor
2 and drained conditions.........D/8
for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0, depth
2 and drained conditions.........D/9
2 and drained conditions.....D/9
ix
2 and drained conditions...D/10
factor 2 and drained conditions.....D/10
factor 2 and drained conditions.........D/11
factor 2 and drained conditions.D/13
E1. Stability numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for rotational slides,
ru=0, slope angle 1/1, depth factor 1 and drained conditions..........E/1
ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.......E/1
ru=0, slope angle 1/2, depth factor 1 and drained conditions......E/2
ru=0, slope angle 1/2.5, depth factor 1 and drained conditions. .E/2
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1, depth factor 1 and drained conditions. .E/3
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 1 and drained conditions....E/3
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/2, depth factor 1 and drained conditions...E/4
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/3, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.......E/5
ru=0.5, slope angle 1/1, depth factor 1 and drained conditions...E/5
ru=0.5, slope angle 1/2, depth factor 1 and drained conditions. .E/6
xi
ru=0.5, slope angle 1/3, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.......E/7
ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 2 and drained conditions...E/8
ru=0, slope angle 1/2, depth factor 2 and drained conditions..E/9
ru=0, slope angle 1/2.5, depth factor 2 and drained conditions...E/9
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1, depth factor 2 and drained conditions.....E/10
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 2 and drained conditions..E/10
ru=0.3, slope angle 1/2, depth factor 2 and drained conditions.E/11
xii
E25. Stability numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for rotateonal slides,
ru=0.5, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 2 and drained conditions. .E/13
E28. Stability numbers for the calculation of the equivalent global FoS for rotational slides,
G1. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in Oasys Slope and LimitState: GEO for
homogeneous simple slopes, with rotational slides,
depth factor 1 and undrained
conditions....G/1
homogeneous simple slopes, with rotational slides, depth factor 1.2 and undrained
conditions....G/2
homogeneous simple slopes, with rotational slides, depth factor 1.5 and undrained
conditions....G/2
conditions....G/3
conditionsG/3
H1. Stability numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for rotational slides,
depth factor 1 and undrained conditions.H/1
depth factor 1.2 and undrained conditions..H/1
xiii
depth factor 1.5 and undrained conditions. H/2
I1. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in classic method and LimitState: GEO
for homogeneous simple slopes with translational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0, and
drained conditions.I/1
for homogeneous simple slopes with translational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0, and
drained conditions.....I/1
drained conditions..I/3
drained conditions..I/3
xiv
for homogeneous simple slopes with translational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.3, and
for homogeneous simple slopes with translational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.3, and
drained
conditions..I/6
drained
conditions..I/7
xv
drained conditions.........I/9
drained conditions.......I/10
drained conditions...I/!0
drained conditions...I/11
K1. Stability numbers for the calculation of the Equivalent Global FoS for translational
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1, and drained conditions.K/1
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5, and drained conditions..K/1
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/2, and drained conditions.....K/2
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/2.5, and drained conditions..K/2
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/3, and drained conditions.K/3
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/3.5, and drained conditions.....K/3.
xvi
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/4, and drained conditions..K/3
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1, and drained conditions......K/4
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5, and drained conditions...K/4
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/2, and drained conditions..K/5
xvii
slides, ru=0.5, slope angle 1/3.5, and drained conditions.K/10
slides, ru=0.5, slope angle 1/4, and drained conditionsK/10
M1. Problem 1 soil properties...M/1
M2. Problem 2. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysisM/2
M4. Problem 2. Geometrical data..M/3
M5. Problem 3. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis...M/4
M6. Problem 3 soil properties..M/4
M9. Problem 4. External loadings....M/6
M10. Problem 4 Data for Piezometric surface.M/6
M11. Problem 5. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis.M/7
M12. Problem 5 soil properties....M/7
M13. Problem 5. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis.....M/8
M15. Problem 6. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysisM/10
M17. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis..M/11
xviii

M22. Problem 10 soil propertiesM/15
M24. Problem 11 soil properties.M/16
M25. Problem 11. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis .M/17
M26. Problem 12 soil properties.....................................M/17
M28. Problem 13 soil properties.....M/18
M29. Problem 13.Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis...M/19
M30. Problem 14 soil properties.....M/20
M31. Problem 14.Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis...M/21
M35. Problem 16. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis..M/23
xix

M45. Problem 21. Values of the FoS from different methods of
analysis....M/30
M47. Problem 22. Values of the FoS from different methods of
analysis..M/31
xx
APPENDIX A
CALCULATION OF THE STABILITY NUMBER USING UPPER BOUND LIMIT
ANALYSIS THEORY FOR FAILURE PLANES PASSING THROUGH THE TOE
AND FAILURE PLANES PASSING BELOW THE TOE
Analytical calculation for failure plane passing through the toe.
FigureA1. Failure mechanism for the stability of a slope with failure plane passing through
the toe
Based on this model and stablishing a balance between the external and internal energies for
any assumed mechanism, the result is an upper bound of the critical height of the slope
defined by:
(1)
where
is the height of the slope,
given in Figure 3.1.
the unit weight of the soil, c the cohesion and
are
is a function defined as:

(2)
with
given in FigureA1 and
the angle of internal friction of the soil.
In order to obtain the least upper bound solution, the function f must satisfy the following
conditions:
and
(3)
A/1
Solving this equation and substituting the values of

bound solution for the critical height
into the formula a least upper
of the slope is obtained. Denoting
, it is obtained:
(4)
is defined as a dimensionless number known as the Stability Factor (the inverse of the
stability number). The value of
angles
is a pure number and is determined not only by the slope
and , but also by the angle of internal friction
. The height
is the critical value
of an inclined slope and by solving the equation, a table with the values of
combination of
and
for each
can be obtained. ( Chen 1975)
Analytical Calculation for Failure Plane Passing Below the Toe.
FigureA2. Failure mechanism for the stability of a slope, with failure plane passing below the
toe.
For the case of slopes with failure plane passing below the toe, in order to find the critical
height and applying upper bound limit analysis conditions, it is necessary to equate the
external rate of work with the internal rate of energy dissipation yielding:
(5)
with
as given on Figure A2.
A/2
The function
is now defined as:

.
(6)
which has a minimum and therefore, a least upper bound can be obtained when
and
meet the following conditions:

;
The corresponding values for
(7)
satisfying these conditions results in
.Thus the critical height becomes:

(8)
Solving again this equation the stability factor for each combination of
and
can be
obtained and it was published by Chen (1975, Table 9.4).

These tables for the values of stability factors as functions of
internal friction
and also the angle of
have been used as benchmark problems for comparison with other methods
of slope stability analysis, in order to check the accuracy of new software. And so it was done
for this dissertation.
A/3
APPENDIX B
FINITE ELEMENT LIMIT ANALYSIS (FELA)
APPLIED TO SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
By applying finite element analysis to slope stability problems, the stresses and strains, in a
soil with external loads applied, can be obtained. However, this method does not provide a
direct FoS as it has to be deduced by other methods from the results of the stresses in the soil.
Finite element methods of analysis (FEM) together with other numerical methods have been
introduced in the geotechnical practice thanks to the development of computational
technology. Although FEM was first introduced to geotechnical engineering by Clough and
Woodward (1967) with the first finite element simulation of an earth dam construction, it was
not until 1971 when Zienkiewicz et al., started to apply FEM for slope stability analysis.
Later, the SRM (strength reduction method) technique for slope stability analysis using FEM
was introduced by Naylor (1982), and further development was achieved by other authors
such as Donald and Giam (1988), by deriving a factor of safety using the nodal displacements
obtained from finite element method or Matsui and San (1992) and Scott et al. (1993),
obtaining the stresses in soil using finite element method and a critical slip surface by joining
the points of local failure in a slope. Ugai and Leshchinsky (1995), Wolf and Song (1997),
Dawson et al. (1999), Delwyn et al. (1999) combined finite element analysis and limit
equilibrium methods to obtain the stresses in the soil and the factor of safety. Griffiths and
Lane (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite elements described several examples of finite
element slope stability analysis with comparison against other solution methods; Zheng et al.
(2005) contributed to the definition of factor of safety in FEM.
Finite element analysis is considered a complex method for computing a FoS. Shear Strength
Reduction (SSR) Factor appears as a technique to be applied to successfully overcome the
problem.
Ugai Keizo (2007), gives the next description of the FEM SRM method: in a FEM SRM, a
non associated elasto-plastic constitutive model is adopted where the Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion is used to define a yield function and the Drucker-Prager criterion to define the
plastic potential function. The global safety factor of the slope is identical to the one used for
B/1
limit equilibrium method and the shear strength reduction factor F is increased incrementally
until the global failure of the slope is reached, which means that the finite element calculation
diverges under a physically real convergence criterion. The global safety factor at failure lies
between the shear strength reduction factor F at which the iteration limit is reached and the
immediately previous value.
The basic algorithm for SSR to obtain the critical FoS value for Mohr-Coulomb materials was
described by Dawson, E.M., Roth, W.H. and Drescher (1999), and it is based on the following
steps:
In step 1, a finite element model of the slope is computed and the maximum total
deformation in the slope is recorded.
In step 2, by increasing the value of the FoS, the new strength properties resulting
from the factored Mohr-Coulomb material parameters are entered into the slope model
and re-computed recording the maximum total deformation.
Finally, step 2 is repeated increasing FoS systematically until the FE model does not
converge to a solution The critical value at the moment of failure will be considered as
the slope factor of safety. (Rock Science, 2004).
Significant computing and memory resources available to the geotechnical engineer have
made the finite element method (FEM) a powerful, viable alternative. FELA allows multiple
materials in a single model to be calculated and it is able to handle non-linear constitutive
behaviors and all kind of complex boundary conditions satisfying all the conditions imposed
for the solution of stress-strain problems. (Hammah.R.E and Yacoub.T.E, 2007).
According to Griffiths & Lane (1999), FE SSR offers the next advantages over conventional
limit equilibrium methods:
elimination of assumptions of failure surfaces
elimination of assumptions of interslice forces
capacity to model progressive failure
calculation of deformation based on the stresses
B/2
In order to prove the accuracy of SRM, Cheng and C.K. Lau proposed an array of different
cases calculated with both; SRM, with an associated and non associated flow rule, and limit
equilibrium methods. They concluded from the results obtained that that both yielded a
similar FoS for both cases with non-associated and associated flow rule applied to the SRM
analysis. (Cheng and. Lau C.K, 2008)
TableB1. Factors of safety (FoS) by the LEM and SRM
The authors also concluded that SRM although is a more complex and sophisticated method,
it has not proved to be superior to LEM in a routine analysis and design. They also stated that
both methods should be considered only as a very useful tool for an approximated value of the
FoS and the probable failure mechanism, but engineers should be aware of the limitations
inherent to each method in order to establish a good assessment in their analyses. (Cheng and
C.K. Lau , 2008)
B/3
APPENDIX C
MATHEMATICAL APPROACH OF THE STABILITY NUMBER
The Pitheorem was first proved by the French mathematician J. Bertrand in 1878. It states
that if a physically meaningful equation is given, such as
, where the
are the n physical variables, and they are expressed in terms of k independent physical units,
then the above equation can be restated as
dimensionless parameters constructed from the
form
with the exponents
The use of the
where the
are
by p=n-k dimensionless equations of the

rational numbers.
as the dimensionless parameters was introduced by Edgar Buckingham in
his original 1914 paper on the subject from which the theorem draws its name "Buckingham's
Pi-theorem. (Hanche-Olsen, Harald, 2004).
Applied to slopes, it is know that stability of a soil slope is dependent on:
H=height of the slope=L
=slope angle (dimensionless)

c=soil cohesion=
=friction angle of soil=dimensionless
=total unit weight of the soil=
-term relationship to determine the critical height H at which a landslide will occur is given
by:
(1)
i.e. H=
where
(2)
are constant indices.
Therefore,
C/1
L=
(3)
Then
L:1=-2 -3
F:0=
, so
and
(4)
, or
(5)
And from this,

H=
If one introduces F, the factor of safety with respect to cohesion, then the above equation
becomes
=function of
This dimensionless quantity
and .
is called the Stability Number depending on the slope angle
and angle of internal friction . (Dalim Kumar Majumdar, 1964).
C/2
APPENDIX D
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR DA1 COMBINATIONS 1 AND 2
WHEN DESIGNING IN LIMIT S TATE :GEO AND OASYS S LOPE
FOR ROTATIONAL SLIDES UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS RU=0
Table D1. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in Oasys Slope and
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0,
depth factor 1 and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1 STABILITY NUMBERS

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.175
0.144
0.113
0.083
0.058
0.035
0.02
0.0075
0.168
0.143
0.12
0.097
0.075
0.052
0.035
0.022
0.175
0.14
0.105
0.079
0.055
0.035
0.017
0.005
0.168
0.14
0.114
0.09
0.07
0.051
0.033
0.018
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5,
ru=0, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.147
0.102
0.073
0.043
0.018
0.006
0.143
0.112
0.085
0.06
0.04
0.022
0.007
0.14
0.102
0.07
0.043
0.021
0.004
0.138
0.108
0.08
0.056
0.035
0.017
0.005
D/1
SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.12
0.08
0.048
0.02
0.002
0.12
0.088
0.059
0.037
0.017
0.115
0.078
0.044
0.017
0.002
0.114
0.086
0.058
0.035
0.015
0.002
SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
0.1
0.06
0.028
0.003
0.102
0.07
0.042
0.017
0.097
0.058
0.025
0.003
0.1
0.068
0.04
0.017
D/2
SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.085
0.045
0.012
0.088
0.055
0.028
0.005
0.082
0.043
0.011
0.087
0.054
0.026
0.005
RU=0.3
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes with rotational slides, slope angle 1/1,
ru=0.3, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.188
0.168
0.15
0.13
0.113
0.096
0.078
0.063
0.178
0.163
0.148
0.135
0.12
0.105
0.092
0.078
0.185
0.16
0.135
0.11
0.09
0.072
0.057
0.042
0.18
0.16
0.143
0.13
0.112
0.097
0.085
0.07
D/3
SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.16
0.135
0.111
0.085
0.068
0.05
0.0325
0.018
0.15
0.135
0.115
0.098
0.078
0.063
0.048
0.033
0.15
0.12
0.095
0.07
0.045
0.028
0.015
0.004
0.15
0.128
0.11
0.09
0.075
0.058
0.042
0.027
SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.135
0.108
0.082
0.058
0.036
0.019
0.004
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.052
0.035
0.019
0.007
0.128
0.096
0.068
0.043
0.019
0.005
0.128
0.105
0.085
0.066
0.049
0.033
0.017
0.006
D/4
SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.105
0.073
0.045
0.0175
0.002
0.103
0.078
0.055
0.035
0.014
0.002
0.087
0.06
0.032
0.009
0.098
0.075
0.052
0.033
0.014
0.002
RU=0.5
SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.205
0.193
0.18
0.167
0.157
0.145
0.135
0.125
0.193
0.184
0.175
0.165
0.155
0.145
0.136
0.126
0.195
0.174
0.154
0.135
0.12
0.105
0.09
0.076
0.187
0.175
0.165
0.155
0.145
0.135
0.125
0.117
D/5
SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.172
0.155
0.14
0.123
0.108
0.093
0.078
0.064
0.163
0.15
0.138
0.125
0.113
0.1
0.088
0.075
0.16
0.135
0.114
0.093
0.075
0.054
0.038
0.027
0.158
0.144
0.13
0.116
0.103
0.092
0.08
0.066
SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.14
0.12
0.104
0.087
0.07
0.055
0.04
0.028
0.133
0.119
0.105
0.093
0.079
0.065
0.053
0.04
0.134
0.11
0.086
0.066
0.045
0.027
0.012
0.0023
0.135
0.12
0.106
0.093
0.078
0.065
0.05
0.037
D/6
SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.125
0.105
0.085
0.068
0.049
0.033
0.02
0.0045
0.121
0.105
0.09
0.075
0.06
0.046
0.033
0.02
0.116
0.09
0.065
0.045
0.023
0.008
0.118
0.103
0.088
0.072
0.057
0.044
0.03
0.016
SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.11
0.088
0.068
0.048
0.03
0.014
0.0015
0.107
0.09
0.073
0.058
0.043
0.029
0.015
0.103
0.075
0.049
0.027
0.008
0.106
0.09
0.073
0.056
0.041
0.027
0.012
D/7
ROTATIONAL SLIDES DEPTH FACTOR 2

SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.183
0.145
0.112
0.084
0.058
0.038
0.02
0.0065
0.179
0.148
0.122
0.098
0.075
0.054
0.038
0.022
0.175
0.135
0.105
0.075
0.052
0.032
0.017
0.003
0.168
0.139
0.114
0.09
0.07
0.048
0.032
0.018
SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.158
0.113
0.075
0.046
0.023
0.006
0.156
0.119
0.089
0.063
0.04
0.021
0.0075
0.15
0.105
0.068
0.04
0.019
0.004
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.055
0.035
0.018
0.006
D/8
SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.14
0.088
0.047
0.02
0.002
0.142
0.098
0.064
0.038
0.017
0.0025
0.133
0.08
0.042
0.017
0.0015
0.135
0.09
0.057
0.032
0.0135
0.002
SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.125
0.068
0.028
0.128
0.08
0.045
0.019
0.118
0.06
0.025
0.003
0.121
0.076
0.039
0.016
0.002
D/9
SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.112
0.05
0.012
0.119
0.066
0.029
0.006
0.105
0.047
0.01
0.11
0.06
0.025
0.005
SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.2
0.175
0.155
0.134
0.115
0.098
0.08
0.065
0.19
0.173
0.155
0.138
0.122
0.108
0.093
0.078
0.183
0.155
0.128
0.105
0.088
0.07
0.05
0.028
0.18
0.158
0.14
0.126
0.107
0.094
0.083
0.068
D/10
SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.21
0.145
0.123
0.1
0.081
0.065
0.048
0.033
0.2
C10.178
0.145
0.115
0.09
0.069
0.05
0.033
0.16
0.121
0.095
0.067
0.047
0.028
0.014
0.004
0.163
0.133
0.11
0.09
0.072
0.056
0.041
0.026
SLOPE 1/1.2
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.163
0.119
0.088
0.06
0.038
0.019
0.006
0.16
0.125
0.098
0.075
0.054
0.035
0.02
0.0075
0.146
0.1
0.066
0.042
0.021
0.152
0.115
0.085
0.065
0.047
0.031
0.017
0.005
D/11
SLOPE 1/1.2.5
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.15
0.1
0.065
0.0275
0.015
0.001
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.055
0.0325
0.0153
0.135
0.085
0.047
0.042
0.143
0.1
0.071
0.045
SLOPE 1/1.3
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.105
0.073
0.045
0.0175
0.002
0.103
0.078
0.055
0.035
0.014
0.002
0.122
0.07
0.032
0.009
0.135
0.09
0.058
0.032
0.015
0.002
D/12
SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.213
0.2
0.183
0.171
0.158
0.147
0.135
0.125
0.2
0.189
0.178
0.167
0.158
0.148
0.138
0.128
0.195
0.17
0.15
0.135
0.117
0.102
0.086
0.074
0.192
0.174
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.115
SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.19
0.168
0.145
0.129
0.11
0.093
0.079
0.065
0.184
0.163
0.148
0.131
0.118
0.102
0.089
0.076
0.174
0.14
0.112
0.087
0.07
0.055
0.04
0.023
0.175
0.15
0.131
0.115
0.1
0.089
0.077
0.063
D/13
SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.18
0.146
0.12
0.098
0.077
0.058
0.043
0.027
0.174
0.147
0.125
0.106
0.089
0.072
0.057
0.042
0.16
0.118
0.085
0.062
0.044
0.028
0.012
0.0015
0.168
0.136
0.112
0.093
0.075
0.062
0.048
0.036
SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.18
0.146
0.12
0.098
0.077
0.058
0.043
0.027
0.174
0.147
0.125
0.106
0.089
0.072
0.057
0.042
0.118
0.088
0.065
0.047
0.034
0.021
0.01
0.155
0.124
0.095
0.075
0.056
0.043
0.028
0.015
D/14
SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.16
0.115
0.082
0.055
0.031
0.014
0.002
0.157
0.12
0.093
0.069
0.048
0.03
0.015
0.003
0.135
0.087
0.052
0.027
0.008
0.15
0.113
0.084
0.063
0.041
0.026
(*cells in green indicate the more restrictive combination)
D/15
APPENDIX E
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
THE EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FOS FOR ROTATIONAL
SLIDES UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS
DEPTH FACTOR 1
RU=0
Table E1. Stability numbers for the calculation of the equivalent global FoS for rotational
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR THE EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FoS

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.133
0.105
0.083
0.062
0.043
0.027
0.015
0.005
0.166
0.138
0.114
0.089
0.068
0.048
0.032
0.018
0.176
0.15
0.127
0.105
0.082
0.06
0.041
0.026
0.175
0.143
0.12
0.096
0.073
0.052
0.035
0.022
0.175
0.14
0.114
0.09
0.07
0.051
0.033
0.018
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.

SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.108
0.08
0.055
0.034
0.016
0.004
0.137
0.107
0.08
0.055
0.035
0.017
0.15
0.12
0.093
0.066
0.045
0.025
E/1
0.147
0.112
0.085
0.06
0.04
0.022
0.008
0.14
0.108
0.08
0.056
0.035
0.017
0.005
SLOPE 1/2
5
10
15
20
25

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.09
0.06
0.035
0.015
0.0015
0.114
0.083
0.056
0.032
0.013
0.125
0.095
0.067
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.088
0.059
0.037
0.017
0.115
0.086
0.058
0.035
0.015

SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
0.075
0.045
0.021
0.097
0.065
0.038
0.015
0.108
0.076
0.047
0.022
0.102
0.07
0.042
0.0175
0.1
0.068
0.04
0.017
SLOPE 1/3
5
10
15
20

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.063
0.033
0.0085
0.083
0.051
0.024
0.003
0.093
0.06
0.031
0.0085
E/2
0.088
0.055
0.028
0.0055
0.087
0.054
0.026
0.005
RU=0.3
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.14
0.125
0.113
0.098
0.083
0.065
0.055
0.045
0.185
0.167
0.151
0.135
0.118
0.1
0.085
0.072
0.201
0.184
0.167
0.15
0.134
0.116
0.099
0.084
0.188
0.168
0.15
0.135
0.12
0.105
0.092
0.078
0.185
0.16
0.143
0.13
0.112
0.097
0.085
0.07
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5, depth factor 1 and drained conditions.

SLOPE
1/1.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
LIMIT
STATE
EC7 DA1
0.118
0.1
0.083
0.063
0.05
0.037
0.024
0.014
0.153
0.133
0.114
0.096
0.078
0.061
0.044
0.029
0.167
0.148
0.128
0.109
0.091
0.073
0.055
0.038
0.16
0.135
0.115
0.098
0.078
0.063
0.048
0.033
0.15
0.128
0.11
0.09
0.075
0.058
0.042
0.027
OASYS SLOPE
E/3
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
LIMIT
STATE
EC7 DA1
0.096
0.077
0.058
0.043
0.028
0.014
0.003
0.13
0.108
0.088
0.068
0.05
0.033
0.017
0.143
0.121
0.1
0.08
0.061
0.043
0.025
0.135
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.052
0.035
0.019
0.007
0.128
0.105
0.085
0.066
0.049
0.033
0.017
0.006
SLOPE 1/2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
OASYS SLOPE

SLOPE
1/2.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
LIMIT
STATE
EC7 DA1
0.085
0.064
0.044
0.027
0.011
0.001
0.085
0.064
0.112
0.089
0.068
0.047
0.029
0.012
0.124
0.1
0.078
0.057
0.037
0.02
0.113
0.09
0.068
0.049
0.03
0.015
0.109
0.088
0.066
0.046
0.028
0.014
OASYS SLOPE
E/4
SLOPE 1/3
5
10
15
20
25

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
0.078
0.054
0.034
0.0135
0.001
0.098
0.074
0.053
0.032
0.013
0.108
0.084
0.062
0.041
0.02
0.105
0.078
0.055
0.035
0.014
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.098
0.075
0.052
0.033
0.014
RU=0.5
SLOPE 1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
0.147
0.138
0.13
0.123
0.115
0.108
0.1
0.093
0.193
0.183
0.174
0.165
0.156
0.146
0.136
0.126
0.21
0.2
0.191
0.181
0.172
0.162
0.152
0.142
E/5
0.205
0.193
0.18
0.167
0.157
0.145
0.136
0.126
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.195
0.175
0.165
0.155
0.145
0.135
0.125
0.117
SLOPE 1/1.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
0.123
0.11
0.098
0.088
0.075
0.065
0.058
0.048
0.161
0.149
0.136
0.123
0.112
0.099
0.086
0.074
0.176
0.163
0.15
0.137
0.125
0.113
0.099
0.086
0.172
0.155
0.14
0.125
0.113
0.1
0.088
0.075
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.16
0.144
0.13
0.116
0.103
0.092
0.08
0.066
SLOPE 1/2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
0.103
0.09
0.077
0.065
0.053
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.138
0.123
0.109
0.095
0.081
0.068
0.053
0.039
0.151
0.136
0.121
0.107
0.093
0.079
0.064
0.047
E/6
0.14
0.12
0.105
0.093
0.079
0.065
0.053
0.14
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.135
0.12
0.106
0.093
0.078
0.065
0.05
0.037
SLOPE 1/2.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
0.093
0.078
0.063
0.05
0.035
0.024
0.0125
0.003
0.12
0.104
0.088
0.073
0.059
0.045
0.029
0.016
0.131
0.115
0.099
0.084
0.069
0.054
0.038
0.024
0.125
0.105
0.09
0.075
0.06
0.046
0.033
0.02
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.118
0.103
0.088
0.072
0.057
0.044
0.03
0.016
SLOPE 1/3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
0.083
0.065
0.05
0.037
0.023
0.01
0.001
0.101
0.085
0.069
0.054
0.039
0.025
0.012
0.111
0.095
0.078
0.063
0.048
0.033
0.019
E/7
0.11
0.09
0.073
0.058
0.043
0.029
0.015
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.106
0.09
0.073
0.056
0.041
0.027
0.012
DEPTH FACTOR 2
RU=0

SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
0.17
0.187
0.183
0.175
10
0.14
0.157
0.148
0.14
15
0.115
0.13
0.122
0.114
20
0.09
0.105
0.098
0.09
25
0.068
0.083
0.075
0.07
30
0.049
0.06
0.054
0.052
35
0.033
0.045
0.038
0.035
40
0.019
0.03
0.022
0.02

SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.137
0.107
0.08
0.055
0.035
0.017
0.15
0.12
0.093
0.066
0.045
0.025
0.011
E/8
0.158
0.119
0.089
0.063
0.04
0.021
0.0075
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.055
0.035
0.018
0.006

SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.134
0.092
0.059
0.033
0.015
0.003
0.15
0.105
0.07
0.043
0.023
0.01
0.142
0.098
0.064
0.038
0.017
0.0025
0.135
0.09
0.057
0.032
0.014
0.002

SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
0.12
0.076
0.039
0.016
0.136
0.088
0.05
0.023
0.128
0.08
0.045
0.019
0.121
0.076
0.039
0.016

SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
0.111
0.06
0.025
0.003
0.126
0.073
0.034
0.009
E/9
0.119
0.066
0.029
0.006
0.11
0.06
0.025
0.005
RU=0.3

SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.184
0.164
0.146
0.13
0.114
0.1
0.2
0.18
0.163
0.145
0.13
0.114
0.2
0.175
0.155
0.138
0.122
0.108
0.093
0.078
0.183
0.158
0.14
0.126
0.107
0.094
0.083
0.068

SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.164
0.138
0.115
0.093
0.075
0.058
0.044
0.028
0.18
0.153
0.129
0.108
0.088
0.07
0.053
0.039
E/10
0.2
0.178
0.145
0.115
0.09
0.069
0.05
0.033
0.163
0.133
0.11
0.09
0.072
0.056
0.041
0.026

SLOPE 1/2
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
0.153
0.118
0.092
0.068
0.048
0.169
0.133
0.105
0.08
0.06
0.163
0.125
0.098
0.075
0.054
0.152
0.115
0.085
0.065
0.047
SLOPE 1/2.5
5
10
15
20
25
30

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.143
0.103
0.073
0.048
0.028
0.012
0.158
0.118
0.085
0.06
0.036
0.019
E/11
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.055
0.143
0.085
0.047
0.023

SLOPE 1/3
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.133
0.089
0.058
0.033
0.0125
0.001
0.148
0.103
0.069
0.042
0.02
0.007
0.14
0.095
0.063
0.038
0.016
0.004
0.135
0.09
0.058
0.032
0.015
0.002
RU=0.5

SLOPE 1/1
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.192
0.181
0.17
0.159
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.209
0.198
0.188
0.175
0.165
0.156
0.145
0.135
E/12
0.213
0.2
0.183
0.171
0.158
0.148
0.138
0.128
0.195
0.174
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.115

SLOPE 1/1.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.175
0.155
0.14
0.123
0.107
0.095
0.083
0.192
0.17
0.154
0.138
0.122
0.11
0.096
0.19
0.168
0.148
0.131
0.118
0.102
0.089
0.076
0.175
0.15
0.131
0.115
0.1
0.089
0.077
0.063
SLOPE 1/2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.165
0.140
0.118
0.098
0.083
0.066
0.05
0.04
0.183
0.155
0.132
0.113
0.095
0.078
0.063
E/13
0.14
0.12
0.105
0.093
0.079
0.065
0.053
0.04
0.168
0.136
0.112
0.093
0.075
0.062
0.048
0.036

SLOPE 1/2.5
OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.158
0.125
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.043
0.028
0.173
0.14
0.115
0.093
0.073
0.054
0.038
0.125
0.105
0.09
0.075
0.06
0.046
0.033
0.02
0.155
0.124
0.095
0.075
0.056
0.043
0.028
0.015
SLOPE 1/3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

OASYS SLOPE
LIMIT STATE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
EC7 DA1
EC7 DA1
0.15
0.115
0.085
0.0625
0.043
0.026
0.0125
0.165
0.13
0.1
0.075
0.052
0.035
0.02
0.16
0.12
0.093
0.069
0.048
0.03
0.015
0.003
0.15
0.113
0.084
0.063
0.041
0.026
(*The stability numbers for Limit State correspond to the more restrictive combination for each
case)
E/14
APPENDIX F
CHARTS FOR THE EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FACTORS OF SAFETY IN
ROTATIONAL SLIDES UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS, WHEN
DESIGNING IN EC7 DA1 WITH LIMITSTATE:GEO
AND OASYS SLOPE
DEPTH FACTOR 1
EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FoS

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Angle of internal friction
Figure F1. Chart representing the equivalent global FoS when calculating in EC7 with
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions
F/1
EQUIVALENTGLOBAL FoS
SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
limit state DA1

0.06
oasys slope DA1
0.04
FoS=1.2
0.02
FoS=1.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions

SLOPE 1/2 RU=0
0.14
0.12
0.1
Stability number
0.08
limit state DA1
0.06
Oasys slope DA1

FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
conditions
F/2

SLOPE 1/2.5 RU=0
0.12
0.1
0.08
Limit state DA1
oasys slope DA1
0.04
FoS=1.2
0.02
FoS=1.3
0
5
10
15
20
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions

SLOPE 1/3 RU=0
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
10
15
20
conditions
F/3

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0.3
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
0.15
oasys slope DA1
Stability number
0.1
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
0.05
FoS=1.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.3 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions

SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0.3
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Stability number
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.3 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions
F/4

SLOPE 1/2 RU=0.3
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
limit state DA1
oasys slope DA1
0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions

SLOPE 1/3 RU=0.3
0.12
0.1
0.08
limit state DA1
oasys slope DA1
0.04
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
conditions
F/5

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0.5
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
0.15
oasys slope DA1
Stability number
0.1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.05
FoS=1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions

SLOPE 1/2 RU=0.5
0.16
0.14
0.12
limit state DA1
0.1
oasys slope DA1

0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
FoS=1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions
F/6

SLOPE 1/2.5 RU=0.5
0.14
0.12
0.1
Stability number
0.08
limit state DA1
0.06
oasys slope DA1

FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0.5 , depth factor 1 and drained
conditions

SLOPE 1/3 RU=0.5
0.12
0.1
0.08
limit state DA1
oasys slope DA1
0.04
FoS=1.2
0.02
FoS=1.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
conditions
F/7
DEPTH FACTOR 2
FLUCTUATION OF THE GLOBAL FoS

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0 DEPTH FACTOR 2
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions
F/8

SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0 DEPTH FACTOR =2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Stability number
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
limit state DA1
Oasys slope DA1
0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
conditions
F/9

SLOPE 1/2.5 RU=0DEPTH FACTOR 2
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Limit state DA1
oasys slope DA1
0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/2.5, ru=0, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions

0.14
0.12
0.1
Stability number
0.08
limit state DA1
0.06
oasys slope DA1

FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
conditions
F/10

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0.3 DEPTH FACTOR 2
0.25
0.2
0.15
limit state DA1
Stability number
oasys slope DA1
0.1
FoS=1.2
0.05
FoS=1.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1, ru=0.3, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions

SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0.3 DEPTH FACTOR 2
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for rotational slides, slope angle 1/1.5, ru=0.3, depth factor 2 and drained
conditions
F/11

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
Stability number
0.1
limit state DA1
0.08
oasys slope DA1
0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
conditions

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
limit state DA1
oasys slope DA1
0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
conditions
F/12

0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
0.15
oasys slope DA1
Stability number
0.1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.05
FoS=1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions

0.25
0.2
0.15
limit state DA1
Stability number
oasys slope DA1
0.1
FoS=1.2
0.05
FoS=1.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions
F/13

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
limit state DA1

oasys slope DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
conditions
F/14
FLUCTUATION OF THE GLOBAL FoS

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
Stability number
0.1
limit state DA1
0.08
oasys slope DA1
0.06
FoS=1.2
0.04
FoS=1.3
0.02
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
conditions
F/15
APPENDIX G
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR DA1 COMBINATIONS 1 AND 2 WHEN DESIGNING

IN LIMITSTATE:GEO AND OASYS SLOPE FOR ROTATIONAL SLIDES
UNDER UNDRAINED CONDITIONS
EC7 DA1 USING OASYS SLOPE AND LIMIT STATE:GEO
DEPTH FACTOR 1
Table G1. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in Oasys Slope and
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes, with rotational slides, depth factor 1 and
undrained conditions.
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS STABILITY CHARTS DEPTH FACTOR 1
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
OASYS SLOPE
OASYS DA1
OASYS DA1
COMBINATION1
COMBINATION2
0.09
0.093
0.143
0.148
0.175
0.18
0.2
0.21
0.227
0.24
0.255
0.265
0.28
0.29
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.35
G/1
LIMIT STATE
LS
COMBINATION1
0.093
0.139
0.175
0.2
0.225
0.245
0.27
0.305
0.345
LS
COMBINATION2
0.097
0.143
0.179
0.205
0.233
0.254
0.28
0.313
0.36
DEPTH FACTOR 1.2
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes, with rotational slides, depth factor 1.2 and
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS STABILITY CHARTS DEPTH FACTOR 1.2
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
OASYS SLOPE
OASYS DA1
OASYS DA1
COMBINATION1
COMBINATION2
0.108
0.111
0.168
0.175
0.2
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.235
0.243
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.305
0.323
0.343
0.355
LIMIT STATE
LS
LS
COMBINATION1
COMBINATION2
0.111
0.116
0.165
0.17
0.195
0.202
0.212
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.247
0.255
0.27
0.28
0.305
0.315
0.345
0.355
DEPTH FACTOR 1.5
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes, with rotational slides, depth factor 1.5 and
UNDRAINED ANALYSIS STABILITY CHARTS DEPTH FACTOR 1.5
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
OASYS SLOPE
OASYS DA1
OASYS DA1
COMBINATION1 COMBINATION2
0.135
0.14
0.195
0.2
0.208
0.215
0.22
0.23
0.233
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.29
0.283
0.31
0.32
0.343
0.355
G/2
LIMIT STATE
LS COMBINATION1
0.138
0.187
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.265
0.305
0.345
LS
COMBINATION2
0.142
0.192
0.216
0.235
0.248
0.26
0.275
0.315
0.355
DEPTH FACTOR 2
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
OASYS SLOPE
OASYS DA1
OASYS DA1
COMBINATION1
COMBINATION2
0.17
0.175
0.199
0.205
0.205
0.215
0.22
0.228
0.235
0.245
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.285
0.31
0.318
0.345
0.355
LIMIT STATE
LS COMBINATION1
0.165
0.21
0.225
0.24
0.25
0.255
0.265
0.295
0.34
LS
COMBINATION2
0.171
0.215
0.235
0.245
0.255
0.264
0.275
0.31
0.355
DEPTH FACTOR 4
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
OASYS SLOPE
OASYS DA1
OASYS DA1
COMBINATION1
COMBINATION2
0.19
0.198
0.198
0.205
0.208
0.215
0.22
0.23
0.233
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.288
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.355
G/3
LIMIT STATE
LS COMBINATION1
0.212
0.235
0.245
0.25
0.255
0.255
0.26
0.285
0.34
LS
COMBINATION2
0.22
0.245
0.255
0.26
0.265
0.265
0.27
0.295
0.35
APPENDIX H
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE
EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FOS FOR ROTATIONAL SLIDES
UNDER UNDRAINED CONDITIONS
Table H1. Stability numbers for the calculation of the equivalent global FoS for rotational
slides, depth factor 1 and undrained conditions.
UNDRAINED ROTATIONAL SLIDES
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
STABILITY NUMBERS DEPTH FACTOR 1

UNDRAINED BISHOPS SIMPLIFIED
OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
0.08
0.13
0.16
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.28
0.31
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.33
0.09
0.14
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.26
0.29
0.32
0.36
0.093
0.148
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.265
0.29
0.32
0.35
LIMIT
STATE:GEO
EC7 DA1
0.097
0.143
0.179
0.205
0.233
0.254
0.28
0.313
0.36
slides, depth factor 1.2 and undrained conditions.
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
STABILITY NUMBERS DEPTH FACTOR 1.2

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
0.095
0.15
0.18
0.195
0.21
0.225
0.245
0.273
0.305
0.103
0.163
0.195
0.2125
0.228
0.2425
0.265
0.295
0.33
0.111
0.175
0.21
0.228
0.245
0.26
0.285
0.317
0.355
H/1
0.111
0.175
0.21
0.23
0.243
0.26
0.29
0.323
0.355
LIMIT
STATE:GEO
EC7 DA1
0.116
0.17
0.202
0.22
0.24
0.255
0.28
0.315
0.355
slides, depth factor 1.5 and undrained conditions.
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
STABILITY NUMBERS DEPTH FACTOR 1.5

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
0.12
0.173
0.185
0.198
0.208
0.225
0.25
0.275
0.305
0.117
0.185
0.2
0.213
0.225
0.243
0.27
0.3
0.33
0.128
0.2
0.215
0.23
0.243
0.26
0.29
0.32
0.355
0.14
0.2
0.215
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.283
0.32
0.355
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.142
0.192
0.216
0.235
0.248
0.26
0.275
0.315
0.355
SLOPE
ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
0.18
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.25
0.26
0.29
0.32
0.36
0.164
0.192
0.2
0.2125
0.227
0.245
0.265
0.295
0.33
0.178
0.205
0.215
0.2275
0.245
0.26
0.285
0.315
0.355
H/2
0.175
0.205
0.215
0.228
0.245
0.26
0.285
0.318
0.355
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.171
0.215
0.235
0.245
0.255
0.264
0.275
0.31
0.355
SLOPE ANGLE
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

OASYS SLOPE
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
0.185
0.19
0.2
0.2125
0.225
0.243
0.27
0.3
0.33
0.198
0.205
0.215
0.23
0.243
0.26
0.29
0.323
0.355
0.1975
0.205
0.215
0.23
0.24
0.26
0.288
0.32
0.355
LIMIT STATE
EC7 DA1
0.22
0.245
0.255
0.26
0.265
0.265
0.27
0.295
0.35
(*The stability numbers for Limit State correspond to the more restrictive combination
for each case)
H/3
APPENDIX I
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR DA1 COMBINATIONS 1 AND 2 WHEN
DESIGNING IN THE CLASSIC METHOD AND LIMITSTATE:GEO FOR
TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS
RU=0
Table I1. Stability numbers and critical DA1 Combination in classic method and
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes with translational slides, slope angle 1/1,
ru=0, and drained conditions
SLOPE 1/1
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.629
0.567
0.498
0.435
0.361
0.292
0.200
0.114
0.589
0.540
0.492
0.443
0.395
0.347
0.277
0.212
0.870
0.780
0.691
0.820
0.750
0.690
0.630
0.550
0.480
0.370
0.280
LimitState:GEO for homogeneous simple slopes with translational slides, slope angle 1/1.5,
ru=0, and drained conditions
SLOPE 1/1.5
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.541
0.458
0.373
0.283
0.187
0.083
0.516
0.453
0.391
0.325
0.254
0.177
0.650
0.550
0.430
0.620
0.540
0.460
0.380
0.290
0.200
I/1
ru=0, and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/2
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
0.445
0.349
0.251
0.147
0.036
0.430
0.359
0.286
0.209
0.127
0.500
0.380
0.280
0.160
0.480
0.390
0.310
0.230
0.135
SLOPE 1/2.5
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
0.364
0.260
0.154
0.042
0.356
0.279
0.200
0.117
0.375
0.380
0.300
0.215
0.120
I/2
SLOPE 1/3
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
0.299
0.191
0.079
-0.037
0.293
0.216
0.134
0.047
0.300
0.190
0.290
0.220
0.130
0.050
SLOPE 1/3.5
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
0.242
0.136
0.022
0.249
0.167
0.082
0.260
0.145
0.260
0.177
0.085
I/3
SLOPE 1/4
CLASSIC METHOD
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
LIMIT STATE
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.206
0.094
0.212
0.128
0.210
0.095
0.215
0.130
0.040
RU=0.3
ru=0.3, and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.634
0.592
0.548
0.503
0.455
0.402
0.344
0.279
0.594
0.563
0.531
0.498
0.466
0.423
0.380
0.331
0.900
0.860
0.800
0.760
0.720
0.850
0.820
0.790
0.760
0.730
0.690
0.650
0.620
I/4
SLOPE 1/1.5
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.566
0.508
0.448
0.385
0.318
0.245
0.165
0.074
0.535
0.491
0.442
0.401
0.351
0.297
0.238
0.170
0.650
0.580
LS
COMBINATION2
0.650
0.600
0.560
0.520
0.470
0.420
0.350
0.270
SLOPE 1/2
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.474
0.407
0.337
0.265
0.187
0.103
0.011
0.451
0.401
0.350
0.296
0.239
0.177
0.108
0.520
0.450
0.360
0.510
0.460
0.410
0.380
0.280
0.220
0.160
I/5
SLOPE 1/2.5
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
0.394
0.322
0.247
0.169
0.086
0.378
0.325
0.269
0.211
0.150
0.420
0.330
0.410
0.350
0.300
0.240
0.180
SLOPE 1/3
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
0.330
0.255
0.177
0.095
0.008
0.320
0.264
0.206
0.146
0.081
0.330
0.260
0.155
0.320
0.260
0.210
0.150
0.090
I/6
SLOPE 1/3.5
CLASSIC METHOD
LIMIT STATE
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
0.280
0.202
0.122
0.038
0.273
0.216
0.157
0.095
0.280
0.205
0.290
0.230
0.170
0.105
SLOPE 1/4
CLASSIC METHOD
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
0.240
0.161
0.079
0.236
0.178
0.117
I/7
LIMIT STATE
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.245
0.180
0.125
RU=0.5
SLOPE 1/1
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.647
0.610
0.586
0.557
0.513
0.480
0.435
0.397
0.607
0.584
0.555
0.536
0.504
0.486
0.457
0.423
0.920
0.890
0.871
0.840
0.820
0.780
0.750
0.710
0.870
0.870
0.870
0.860
0.860
0.860
0.850
0.850
SLOPE 1/1.5
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.585
0.546
0.507
0.458
0.412
0.357
0.300
0.235
0.55
0.528
0.489
0.451
0.425
0.389
0.331
0.297
0.690
0.649
0.600
0.690
0.650
0.620
0.600
0.580
0.550
0.520
0.490
I/8
SLOPE 1/2
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.491
0.446
0.408
0.341
0.297
0.231
0.169
0.098
0.479
0.431
0.396
0.359
0.311
0.275
0.227
0.166
0.540
0.490
0.430
0.520
0.490
0.460
0.430
0.400
0.360
0.320
0.270
SLOPE 1/2.5
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.418
0.366
0.313
0.256
0.190
0.139
0.068
-0.02
0.391
0.361
0.327
0.276
0.239
0.188
0.130
0.074
0.430
0.370
0.310
0.240
0.160
0.080
0.050
0.420
0.390
0.360
0.320
0.280
0.230
0.190
0.130
I/9
SLOPE 1/3
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.351
0.309
0.244
0.183
0.129
0.057
0.340
0.303
0.255
0.215
0.170
0.124
0.065
0.340
0.280
0.210
0.150
0.060
0.000
0.340
0.300
0.260
0.230
0.190
0.140
0.090
SLOPE 1/3.5
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.308
0.252
0.194
0.137
0.076
0.296
0.258
0.217
0.160
0.119
0.310
0.240
0.160
0.310
0.270
0.220
0.180
0.140
I/10
SLOPE 1/4
ANGLE OF
INTERNAL
FRICTION
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
DA1
COMBINATION1
DA1
COMBINATION2
LS
COMBINATION1
LS
COMBINATION2
0.265
0.210
0.150
0.099
0.022
0.252
0.217
0.175
0.126
0.071
0.252
0.260
0.220
0.180
0.130
0.080
I/11
APPENDIX J
MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATION OF CLASSICS FORMULAS FOR THE
STABILITY NUMBERS WHEN DESIGNING IN DA1 COMBINATIONS 1 AND 2
FOR TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS
Verification of strength according to EC7 involves that the next inequality must be
accomplished:
(J1)
where
is given by
, and the design resistance is given by:
(J2)
where
is the partial factor on permanent actions,
properties, and
and
, partial factors on material
partial factors on resistance. (Bond and Harris, 2008).
By equaling
and rearranging the expression of the stability number, as a function
of partial factors can be obtained:

)sin cos -
(J3)
From this formula, the stability numbers for DA1 combination 1 will be obtained introducing
the set of partial factors corresponding to it, that will take the following values:
=1.35;
=1;
=1;
=1
(J4)
And so, the formula for the stability number will be given by:
1.35 sin cos -1.35
(J5)
J/1
For DA1 combination 2 the set of partial factors will take the following values:
=1;
=1.25;
=1.25;
=1
(J6)
And then, the formula for the stability number will be given by:
1.25 sin cos -
(J7)
J/2
APPENDIX K
STABILITY NUMBERS FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE EQUIVALENT
GLOBAL FOS FOR TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES
UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS
RU=0
Table K1. Stability numbers for the calculation of the equivalent global FoS for translational
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1, and drained conditions.
SLOPE 1/1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
STABILITY NUMBERS CLASSIC METHOD AND LIMIT STATE GEO

CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1 FoS=1.2 FoS=1.3 FoS=1.4 FoS=1.5 EC7 DA1
0.456
0.412
0.366
0.318
0.267
0.211
0.150
0.080
0.556
0.512
0.466
0.418
0.367
0.311
0.250
0.180
0.606
0.562
0.516
0.468
0.417
0.361
0.300
0.230
0.656
0.612
0.566
0.518
0.467
0.411
0.350
0.280
0.706
0.662
0.616
0.568
0.517
0.461
0.400
0.330
0.616
0.556
0.494
0.443
0.392
0.336
0.275
0.205
LS
EC7 DA1
0.87
0.78
0.7
0.63
0.55
0.48
0.37
0.28
slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5, and drained conditions.

SLOPE 1/1.5
CLASSIC METHOD
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.401
0.339
0.276
0.210
0.139
0.062
0.493
0.432
0.368
0.302
0.231
0.154
0.069
0.539
0.478
0.414
0.348
0.277
0.200
0.115
0.586
0.524
0.461
0.394
0.323
0.246
0.161
0.065
K/1
0.632
0.570
0.507
0.440
0.369
0.293
0.208
0.111
0.541
0.458
0.391
0.325
0.254
0.177
0.092
LS
EC7 DA1
0.65
0.55
0.46
0.38
0.29
0.2
0.1

SLOPE 1/2
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.330
0.259
0.186
0.109
0.027
0.410
0.339
0.266
0.189
0.107
0.018
0.450
0.379
0.306
0.229
0.147
0.058
0.490
0.419
0.346
0.269
0.187
0.098
0.445
0.359
0.286
0.209
0.127
0.038
LS
EC7 DA1
0.5
0.39
0.31
0.23
0.135
0.04

SLOPE 1/2.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
0.269
0.193
0.114
0.031
-
0.338
0.262
0.183
0.100
0.012
0.373
0.296
0.217
0.134
0.046
K/2
0.407
0.331
0.252
0.169
0.081
0.364
0.279
0.200
0.117
0.029
LS
EC7 DA1
0.38
0.3
0.215
0.12
0.02

SLOPE 1/3
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
0.221
0.141
0.059
0.281
0.201
0.119
0.032
0.311
0.231
0.149
0.062
0.341
0.261
0.179
0.092
0.299
0.216
0.134
0.047
LS
EC7 DA1
0.3
0.22
0.13
0.05

SLOPE 1/3.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
0.183
0.101
0.017
0.236
0.154
0.069
0.263
0.180
0.096
0.289
0.207
0.122
0.249
0.167
0.082
LS
EC7 DA1
0.26
0.177
0.085
SLOPE 1/4
5
10
15

CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
0.152
0.069
0.199
0.116
0.029
0.223
0.139
0.053
K/3
0.246
0.163
0.076
0.212
0.128
0.042
LS
EC7 DA1
0.215
0.13
0.04
RU=0.3
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1, and drained conditions.

SLOPE 1/1
CLASSIC METHOD
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.469
0.438
0.406
0.373
0.337
0.298
0.255
0.206
0.569
0.538
0.506
0.473
0.437
0.398
0.355
0.306
0.619
0.588
0.556
0.523
0.487
0.448
0.405
0.356
0.719
0.688
0.656
0.623
0.587
0.548
0.505
0.456
0.869
0.838
0.806
0.773
0.737
0.698
0.655
0.606
0.634
0.592
0.548
0.503
0.462
0.423
0.380
0.331
LS
EC7 DA1
0.9
0.86
0.8
0.76
0.73
0.69
0.65
0.62
slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5, and drained conditions.

SLOPE 1/1.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.5
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.419
0.376
0.332
0.285
0.236
0.182
0.122
0.055
0.511
0.468
0.424
0.377
0.328
0.274
0.215
0.147
0.558
0.515
0.470
0.424
0.374
0.320
0.261
0.193
K/4
0.650
0.607
0.562
0.516
0.466
0.413
0.353
0.286
0.566
0.508
0.448
0.401
0.351
0.297
0.238
0.170
LS
EC7 DA1
0.65
0.6
0.56
0.52
0.47
0.42
0.35
0.27

SLOPE 1/2
CLASSIC METHOD
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.351
0.301
0.250
0.196
0.139
0.077
0.008
-0.070
0.431
0.381
0.330
0.276
0.219
0.157
0.088
0.010
0.471
0.421
0.370
0.316
0.259
0.197
0.128
0.050
0.511
0.461
0.410
0.356
0.299
0.237
0.168
0.090
0.551
0.501
0.450
0.396
0.339
0.277
0.208
0.130
0.474
0.407
0.350
0.296
0.239
0.177
0.108
0.030
LS
EC7 DA1
0.52
0.46
0.41
0.35
0.28
0.22
0.16
0.08

SLOPE 1/2.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.292
0.238
0.183
0.125
0.063
0.361
0.307
0.252
0.194
0.132
0.065
0.395
0.342
0.287
0.229
0.167
0.100
0.026
K/5
0.430
0.376
0.321
0.263
0.201
0.134
0.060
0.394
0.325
0.269
0.211
0.150
0.083
0.008
LS
EC7 DA1
0.42
0.35
0.3
0.24
0.18
0.11
0.04

SLOPE 1/3
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.245
0.189
0.131
0.071
0.006
0.305
0.249
0.191
0.131
0.066
0.335
0.279
0.221
0.161
0.096
0.026
0.365
0.309
0.251
0.191
0.126
0.056
0.320
0.264
0.206
0.146
0.081
0.011
LS
EC7 DA1
0.33
0.26
0.21
0.15
0.09
0.02

SLOPE 1/3.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
0.207
0.150
0.091
0.029
0.260
0.203
0.143
0.081
0.015
0.287
0.229
0.170
0.108
0.041
K/6
0.313
0.256
0.196
0.134
0.068
0.280
0.216
0.157
0.095
LS
EC7 DA1
0.29
0.23
0.17
0.105
0.04

SLOPE 1/4
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
0.178
0.119
0.059
0.225
0.166
0.106
0.043
0.248
0.190
0.129
0.066
0.272
0.213
0.153
0.090
0.240
0.178
0.117
0.054
LS
EC7 DA1
0.245
0.18
0.125
0.06
RU=0.5

SLOPE 1/1
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1 FoS=1.2 FoS=1.3 FoS=1.4
FoS=2
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.478
0.456
0.433
0.409
0.383
0.356
0.325
0.290
0.578
0.556
0.533
0.509
0.483
0.456
0.425
0.390
0.628
0.606
0.583
0.559
0.533
0.506
0.475
0.440
0.678
0.656
0.633
0.609
0.583
0.556
0.525
0.490
K/7
0.978
0.956
0.933
0.909
0.883
0.856
0.825
0.790
0.645
0.615
0.585
0.552
0.518
0.481
0.450
0.415
LS
EC7 DA1
0.92
0.89
0.87
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.85

SLOPE 1/1.5
CLASSIC METHOD
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.431
0.401
0.369
0.336
0.300
0.262
0.219
0.171
0.524
0.493
0.461
0.428
0.392
0.354
0.311
0.263
0.570
0.539
0.507
0.474
0.439
0.400
0.358
0.310
0.662
0.631
0.600
0.566
0.531
0.492
0.450
0.402
0.754
0.724
0.692
0.659
0.623
0.585
0.542
0.494
0.582
0.541
0.498
0.453
0.416
0.377
0.335
0.286
LS
EC7 DA1
0.69
0.65
0.62
0.6
0.58
0.55
0.52
0.49

SLOPE 1/2
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.5
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.365
0.329
0.293
0.254
0.213
0.169
0.120
0.064
0.445
0.409
0.373
0.334
0.293
0.249
0.200
0.144
0.485
0.449
0.413
0.374
0.333
0.289
0.240
0.184
K/8
0.565
0.529
0.493
0.454
0.413
0.369
0.320
0.264
0.493
0.445
0.395
0.354
0.313
0.269
0.220
0.164
LS
EC7 DA1
0.54
0.49
0.46
0.43
0.4
0.36
0.32
0.27

SLOPE 1/2.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.5
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.307
0.269
0.229
0.188
0.144
0.096
0.043
-0.017
0.376
0.338
0.298
0.257
0.213
0.165
0.112
0.052
0.411
0.372
0.333
0.291
0.247
0.199
0.146
0.087
0.480
0.441
0.402
0.360
0.316
0.268
0.215
0.156
0.415
0.363
0.316
0.274
0.230
0.182
0.129
0.069
LS
EC7 DA1
0.43
0.39
0.355
0.315
0.28
0.23
0.185
0.13

SLOPE 1/3
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.5
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.261
0.221
0.179
0.136
0.090
0.040
-0.015
-0.078
0.321
0.281
0.239
0.196
0.150
0.100
0.045
-0.018
0.351
0.311
0.269
0.226
0.180
0.130
0.075
0.012
K/9
0.411
0.371
0.329
0.286
0.240
0.190
0.135
0.072
0.352
0.298
0.254
0.211
0.165
0.115
0.060
LS
EC7 DA1
0.34
0.3
0.264
0.23
0.19
0.142
0.09
0.03

SLOPE 1/3.5
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.224
0.183
0.140
0.096
0.049
-0.003
0.277
0.236
0.193
0.149
0.102
0.050
0.303
0.262
0.220
0.175
0.128
0.077
0.329
0.288
0.246
0.202
0.154
0.103
0.302
0.249
0.206
0.162
0.115
0.063
LS
EC7 DA1
0.305
0.27
0.22
0.18
0.135
0.09

SLOPE 1/4
CLASSIC METHOD
FoS=1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
EC7 DA1
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.194
0.152
0.109
0.064
0.016
-0.036
0.241
0.199
0.156
0.111
0.063
0.011
0.265
0.223
0.180
0.135
0.086
0.034
K/10
0.288
0.246
0.203
0.158
0.110
0.058
0.262
0.211
0.168
0.123
0.075
0.022
LS
EC7 DA1
0.26
0.22
0.175
0.13
0.08
APPENDIX L
CHARTS FOR THE EQUIVALENT GLOBAL FOS IN TRANSLATIONAL SLIDES
UNDER DRAINED CONDITIONS
RU=0

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0
1
0.8
limit state DA1
0.6
classic method DA1
0.4
FoS=1.2
Stability number
FoS=1.3
0.2
FoS=1.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
FoS=1.5
Figure L1. Chart representing the equivalent global FoS, when calculating in EC7 with
LimitState:GEO for translational slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1 and drained conditions

SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0
0.7
0.6
0.5
limit state DA1
0.4
Classic method DA1
0.3
FoS=1.2
0.2
FoS=1.3
Stability number
FoS=1.4
0.1
FoS=1.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for translational slides, ru=0, slope angle 1/1.5 and drained conditions
L/1

SLOPE 1/2 RU=0
0.6
0.5
0.4
limit state DA1

classic method DA1
FoS=1.2
0.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.4
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30

SLOPE 1/2.5 RU=0
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
limit state DA1
0.25
classic method DA1
Stability number
0.2
FoS=1.2
0.15
FoS=1.3
0.1
FoS=1.4
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
25
L/2

SLOPE 1/3 RU=0
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
Stability number
classic method DA1
0.15
FoS=1.2
0.1
FoS=1.3
0.05
0
5
10
15
20

SLOPE 1/3.5 RU=0
0.3
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
classic method DA1

FoS=1.2
0.1
FoS=1.3
0.05
0
10
15
L/3

SLOPE 1/4 RU=0
0.25
0.2
0.15
limit state DA1
Stability number
classic method DA1

0.1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.05
10
15

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0.3
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
limit state DA1
0.6
classic method DA1
FoS=1.2
0.4
FoS=1.3
0.3
FoS=1.5
0.2
FoS=1.8
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1 and drained conditions
L/4

SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
limit state DA1

0.4
classic method DA1
Stability number
FoS=1.2
0.3
FoS=1.3
0.2
FoS=1
0.1
FoS=1.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LimitState:GEO for translational slides, ru=0.3, slope angle 1/1.5 and drained conditions

SLOPE 1/2 RU=0.3
0.6
0.5
limit state DA1
0.4
classic method DA1

FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.2
FoS=1.4
FoS=1.5
0.1
FoS=1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
L/5

SLOPE 1/2.5 RU=0.3
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
limit state DA1

classic method DA1

0.2
FoS=1.2
0.15
FoS=1.3
0.1
FoS=1.4
0.05
0
10
15
20
25
30
35

SLOPE 1/3 RU=0.3
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
Stability number
limit state DA1
0.2
classic method DA1
0.15
FoS=1.2
0.1
FoS=1.3
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
L/6

SLOPE 1/3.5 RU=0.3
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
Stability number
classic method DA1
0.15
FoS=1.2
0.1
FoS=1.3
0.05
0
10
15
20
25

SLOPE 1/4 RU=0.3
0.3
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
0.15
Stability number
classic method DA1
0.1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
L/7

SLOPE 1/1 RU=0.5
1.2
1
0.8
limit state DA1

classic method DA1
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.4
FoS=1.4
0.2
FoS=2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

SLOPE 1/1.5 RU=0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
limit state DA1
0.5
classic method DA1
FoS=1.2
0.3
FoS=1.3
0.2
FoS=1.5
0.1
FoS=1.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
L/8

SLOPE 1/2 RU=0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
limit state DA1

classic method DA1
FoS=1.2
0.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.5
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

SLOPE 1/2.5 RU=0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
limit state DA1
classic method DA1
FoS=1.2
0.2
FoS=1.3
FoS=1.5
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
L/9

SLOPE 1/3 RU=0.5
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
Stability number
limit state DA1

classic method DA1
0.2
FoS=1.2
0.15
FoS=1.3
0.1
FoS=1.4
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

SLOPE 1/3.5 RU=0.5
0.35
0.3
0.25
limit state DA1
0.2
classic method DA1
Stability number
0.15
FoS=1.2
FoS=1.3
0.1
FoS=1.4
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
L/10

SLOPE 1/4 RU=0.5
0.3
0.25
0.2
limit state DA1
classic method DA1

FoS=1.2
0.1
FoS=1.3
0.05
0
5
10
15
20
25
L/11
APPENDIX M
VERIFICATION OF THE ACCURACY OF LIMIT STATE :GEO THROUGH
22 BENCHMARK
PROBLEMS
Problem1
Non-homogeneous, three layer slope with material properties given in table M1
Table M1. Problem 1 soil properties
c(KN/m^2)
(deg)
(KN/m^3)
Soil 1
38
19.5
Soil 2
5.3
23
19.5
Soil 3
7.2
20
19.5
Figure M1. Problem 1 geometrical data
.
Figure M2. Problem 1 modelled in LimitState:Geo
M/1
Table M2. Problem 2. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop
1.405
Spencer
1.375
GLE
1.374
Janbu Corrected
1.357
LimitState:Geo
(*)1.407
(*)NOTE:. It was concluded in this dissertation that for rotational slides under drained
conditions, LimitState:Geo yields less conservative results than limit equilibrium methods of
analysis in accordance to the result obtained in this example where the FoS obtained by
LimitState:Geo is the highest.
Problem2
Talbingo Dam. The material properties for the end of construction stage and the geometrical
data are given in table M:
c(KN/m^2)
(deg)
(KN/m^3)
Rockfill
45
20.4
Transitions
45
20.4
Filter
45
20.4
Core
85
23
18.1
M/2
Table M4. Problem 2. Geometrical data

Pt.#
Xc (m)
Yc (m)
Pt.#
Xc (m)
Yc (m)
Pt.#
Xc (m)
Yc (m)
10
515
65.3
19
307.1
315.5
162
11
521.1
65.3
20
331.3
130.6
319.5
162
12
577.9
31.4
21
328.8
146.1
321.6
162
13
585.1
31.4
22
310.7
327.6
162
14
648
23
333.7
130.6
386.9
130.6
15
168.1
24
331.3
146.1
394.1
130.6
16
302.2
130.6
25
372.4
453.4
97.9
17
200.7
26
347
130.6
460.6
97.9
18
311.9
130.6

M/3
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop
1.948
Spencer
1.948
GLE
1.948
Janbu Corrected
1.949
LimitState:Geo
(*)1.864
(*)NOTE: In this case, the failure surface is translational. It was deduced in this dissertation
that for translational slides LimitState:Geo gives more conservative results (lower FoS), than
Limit Equilibrium methods of analysis, in accordance with the results obtained in this
example. v
Problem3
The water table is assumed to coincide with the base of the weak layer. The effect of negative
pore water pressure above the water table is to be ignored. (i.e. u=0 above water table). The
effect of the tension crack is also to be ignored in this problem.
c(KN/m^2)
(deg)
(KN/m^3)
Soil 1
28.5
20.0
18.84
Soil 2
10.0
18.84
M/4

Method
Factor of Safety
Spencer
1.258
GLE
1.246
Janbu Corrected
1.275
LimitState:Geo
(*)1.294
(*) As it is the case of a rotational slide, LimitState:Geo gives a less conservative FoS than
other limit equilibrium methods as was deduced during the dissertation.
Problem4
In this problem, the soil parameters, external loadings and piezometric surface are shown in
table M8. The effect of a tension crack is to be ignored.
c(KN/m^2)
(deg)
(KN/m^3)
Soil 1
28.5
20.0
18.84
Soil 2
10.0
18.84
M/5
Table M9. Problem 4. External loadings

Xc (m)
Yc (m)
Normal Stress (kN/m2)
23.00
27.75
20.00
43.00
27.75
20.00
70.00
40.00
20.00
80.00
40.00
40.00
Table M10. Problem 4 Data for Piezometric surface

Pt.#
Xc (m)
Yc (m)
20.0
27.75
43.0
27.75
49.0
29.8
60.0
34.0
66.0
35.8
74.0
37.6
80.0
38.4
84.0
38.4
M/6
Method
Factor of Safety
Spencer
0.760
GLE
0.721
Janbu Corrected
0.734
LimitState:Geo
0.814
Problem5
Problem consisting in a slope that has been excavated at f 1:2 (=26.56) below an initially horizontal
ground surface.

c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
11
28
20
M/7

Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop
1.498
Spencer
1.501
GLE
1.500
Janbu Corrected
1.457
LimitState:Geo
1.57
M/8
Problem6
This problem consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with zero pore pressure
soil
c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
41.65
15
18.82

M/9
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop
1.409
Janbu Simplified
1.319
Janbu Corrected
1.414
Spencer
1.406
LimitState:Geo
1.472
Problem7
This problem consists of a layered slope where a layer of low resistance is interposed between
two layers of higher strength
c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
Upper Layer
29.4
12
18.82
Middle Layer
9.8
18.82
Lower Layer
294
40
18.82
M/10

Table M17. Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop
0.421
Janbu Simplified
0.410
Janbu Corrected
0.437
Spencer
0.424
LimitState:Geo
0.446
Problem 8
This problem consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with pore pressure
soil
c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
41.65
15
18.82
M/11
M/12
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop
1.117
Janbu Simplified
1.046
Janbu Corrected
1.131
Spencer
1.118
LimitState:Geo
1.175
Problem 9
This problem consists of a layered slope without pore pressure.
c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
Upper Layer
49
29
20.38
Layer 2
30
17.64
Layer 3
7.84
20
20.38
Bottom Layer
30
17.64
M/13
Figure M18. Slip surface obtained using Spencer method with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method
Factor of Safety
Spencer
1. 398
LimitState:Geo
1.454
M/14
Problem10
Homogeneous slope with three separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressure,
3) pore pressures defined using a water table. The model is done in imperial units
Soil
c (psf)
(deg.)
(pcf)
600
20
120
M/15
Case
Ordinary
Bishop
Spencer
M-P
LimitState:
Geo
1.928
2.080
2.073
2.076
2.08
2-Ru
1.607
1.766
1.761
1.764
1.991
3-WT
1.693
1.834
1.830
1.832
1.853
1-Dry
Problem11
Slope overlaying two soil layers. The middle and lower soils have constant and linearly
varying undrained shear strength.
Cutop (KN/m2)
Cubottom
(deg.)
(KN/m3)
(KN/m2)
Upper Soil
95
95
15
20
Middle Soil
15
15
20
Lower Soil
15
30
20
M/16

Method
Factor of Safety
Ordinary
1.370
Bishop
1.192
LimitState:Geo
1.406
Problem12
Slope with three layers with different undrained shear strengths
Cu (KN/m2)
(KN/m3)
Upper Layer
30
18
Middle Layer
20
18
Bottom Layer
150
18
M/17

Method
Factor of Safety
Ordinary
1.439
Bishop
1.439
LimitState:Geo
1.533
Problem13
This verification test models the well-known Prandtl solution of bearing capacity:
soil
c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
20
1e-6
M/18

Table M29. Problem 13.Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis
Method
Factor of Safety
Spencer
0.941
LimiState:Geo
1.012
Problem14
This model consists of a 2 material slope overlaying undulating bedrock
M/19

c (psf)
(deg.)
moist (pcf)
saturated
(pcf)
Soil 1
500
14
116.4
124.2
Soil 2
116.4
116.4
M/20
Table M31. Problem 14.Values of the FoS from different methods of analysis
Method
FoS
Bishop
1.376
Janbu Corrected
1.345
Corp. Engineers 1
1.394
Corp. Engineers 2
1.396
Lowe & Karafiath
1.392
Spencer
1.382
GLE/M-P (half-sine)
1.378
LimitState:Geo
1.556
Problem15
(deg.)
c (kN/m2)
Cohesive Sand
Sand
(kN/m3)
21
Clay1
55
21
Clay2
43
22
Clay3
56
22
M/21

Method
Bishop
1.102
LimitState:Geo
1.253
Problem16
Syncrude tailings dyke in Canada
Material
Tailing sand (TS)
Glacio-fluvial sand
(Pf4)
Sandy till (Pgs)
Disturbed clay-shale
(Kca)
c (kN/m2)
0
0
(deg.)
34
34
(kN/m3)
20
17
0
0
34
7.5
17
17
M/22
Method
FoS
Slide software
El-Ramly et al
1.305
1.31
LimitState:Geo
1.463
M/23
Problem17
Clay core
Granular fill
Hard base
c (kN/m2)
(deg.)
(kN/m3)
20
0
200
20
40
45
20
21.5
24
Figure M34. Problem17. Geometry and non circular failure surface using using Random
search with Optimization

Method
Spencer with circular failure surface
Spencer with noncircular failure using Random search with
Factor of Safety
1.923
1.857
Optimization
1.934
LimitState:Geo
M/24
Problem18
Multiple layer slope with a circular failure surface. A tension crack is included in the top
layer. The slope is also assumed to be under earthquake conditions, with a seismic coefficient
of 0.1
Material
Layer 1 (top)
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4 (bottom)
c (kN/m2)
20
25
40
40
(deg.)
32
30
18
28
Figure M36. Problem 18. Geometrical data
M/25
(kN/m3)
18.2
18
18.5
18.8

Method
Ordinary
Bishop Simplified
Janbu Simplified
Corps of Engineers 2
Lowe & Karafiath
Spencer
GLE/Morgenstern & Price
Factor of Safety
1.066
1.278
1.112
1.377
1.290
1.293
1.303
LimitState:Geo
1.022
Problem19
Homogeneous, unreinforced slope. A water table is present
Material
Sandy clay
c (psf)
300
(deg.)
30
M/26
(pcf)
120
Figure M39. . Problem 19 modelled in LimitState:Geo

Method
Spencer
Bishop simplified
Janbu simplified
Lowe-Karafiath
Ordinary
LimitState:Geo
FoS
1.30
1.29
1.15
1.32
1.05
1.351
M/27
Problem20
unreinforced homogeneous slope. A water table is present in the tension crack
Material
Sandy clay
c (psf)
300
(deg.)
30
Figure M40 Problem 20. Geometrical data
M/28
(pcf)
120
Method
Spencer
Bishop simplified
Janbu simplified
Lowe-Karafiath
Ordinary
LimitState:Geo
FoS
1.30
1.29
1.14
1.31
1.03
1.37
Problem21
Submerged homogeneous slope
c (psf)
100
(deg.)
20
(pcf)
128
M/29

Method
FoS
Bishop
1.60
Spencer
1.60
GLE
1.60
LimitState:Geo
1.631
Problem22
A symmetric earth embankment dam resting on a layered soil foundation with ponded water
Material
K(ft/s)
c (psf)
(deg.)
(pcf)
Outer Shell
1.67 x 10 -4
34
125
Clay core
1.67 x 10 -4
100
26
122
1.67 x 10 -4
24
123
1.67 x 10 -4
32
127
Foundation
clay
Foundation
sand
M/30

Method
Bishop
1.56
Spencer
1.55
GLE
1.55
LimitState:Geo
1.604
M/31

Miguel Angel Vivas Mefle

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Miguel Angel Vivas Mefle

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MSc Geotechnical Engineering

STUDY OF THE ACCURACY OF LIMITSTATE: GEO

Miguel ngel Vivas Mefle

Thesis submitted is in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science

School of Civil Engineering

1.1. Background and Context..1

Discontinuity Layout Optimization...17

2.4. The Concept of the Stability Number.19

3.1. Rotational Slides under Drained Conditions:....32

LimitState: GEO vs Analytical methods of Limit Analysis..32

LimitState: GEO vs Oasys Slope...37

LimitState: GEO study..42

Oasys Slope study..45

Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Taylors Charts49

Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Bishops Simplified Method...51

Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Analytical methods of Limit

LimitState: GEO study..70

Classic methods study....71

4.1. Rotational Slides under Drained Conditions.73

Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope software in

rotational slides for drained conditions...73

Limit Stat: Geo vs Analytical Limit Analysis ..........73

LimitState: GEO vs Oasys Slope...74

Study of the most restrictive combination in EC7-DA1 when using

LimitState: GEO and Oasys Slope in rotational slides under drained

LimitState: GEO study..75

Oasys Slope study......75

LimitState: GEO study for depth factor 1 study....76

LimitState: GEO study for depth factor 2 study

4.2. Rotational Slides under Undrained Conditions.77

Study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO software in rotational slides for

Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Taylors chart ..77

Accuracy of LimitState: GEO vs Bishops simplified method.....77

LimitState: GEO Analytical method of Limit Analysis78

Study of the most critical combination in EC7-DA1 for rotational slides

4.2.3. Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate:GEO For Rotational Slides Under

Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate:GEO Software In Translational Slides

Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7 DA1 When Using

Limitstate:GEO And The Classic Method In Translational Slides Under Drained

Estimation Of The Equivalent Global Fos For Translational Slides And

Drained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1.....80

Study Of The Accuracy Of Limitstate:GEO Software In Translational Slides

For Undrained Conditions..81

Study Of The Most Restrictive Combination In EC7 DA1 For Translational

Slides Under Undrained Conditions When Using Limitstate:GEO And Classic

Equivalent Global Fos In Limitstate:GEO For Translational Slides Under

Undrained Conditions When Calculating In EC7 DA1.81

=0 and drained conditions.36

3.5.Accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to analytical method of limit analysis for

=20 and drained conditions...37

=30 and drained conditions...37

1.1. Background and Context

Checking the accuracy of LimitState: GEO

Checking how well implemented is EC7 in LimitState: GEO

Comparative study of the accuracy of LimitState: GEO in relation to other

1.3. Outline Of Dissertation

implementation by comparing the most restrictive EC7-DA1 combination for each

Chapter 3.3 is centered on the study of LimitState: GEO when calculating in

homogeneous simple slopes without

2.3. Slope Stability Analysis: Fundamentals and Principles

2.3.1. Limit Analysis

Figure2.1. Stress strain relationship for

Figure2.2. Coulomb yield criterion,

were obtained and the