CIVL3014 Slope Engineering
Lecture Notes Q7
General Discussions on
Slope Stability Analysis
Quentin Z Q Yue
Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Hong Kong
Room: HW602
Telephone No.: 28591967
Email: yueqzq@hkucc.hku.hk
Introduction
1. The methods of analysis presented above have a
wide application.
2. They may be used for the analysis of slopes with
complicated geometry, non-homogenous soil
conditions, seepage, and for circular or non-
circular failure surfaces.
3. With the advent of computers their use has
become routine.
4. The results of a stability analysis are usually
expressed by a factor of safety which is applied to
the shear strength of the soils as in equation.
Discussions of Factor of Safety
In the design of slopes, the factor of safety on shear strength
traditionally has four functions:
a) To take into account uncertainty of shear strength parameters
due to soil variability, and the relationship between the
strength measured in the laboratory and the operational field
strength.
b) To take into account uncertainties in the loading on the slope
(e.g. surface loading, unit weight, pore pressures).
c) To take into account the uncertainties in the way the model
represents the actual conditions in the slope, which include:
(i) the possibility that the critical failure mechanism is slightly
different from the one which has been identified, and
(ii) that the model is not conservative.
d) To ensure deformations within the slope are acceptable.
Q7-1
1. We have examined a number of
slice methods for calculation of
factor of safety for slopes
2. From now on, we are going to give
some discussions on the
applications and relevant findings.
5. Alternatively, the analysis could be adapted to
give the slope angle at which failure would occur,
or the highest groundwater level or the ultimate
surface loading.
6. In general different failure surfaces are examined
and the one yielding the smallest factor of safety
found.
7. This is then the factor of safety of the slope.
8. It is often convenient to show the results
graphically.
1. The factor of safety does not allow for the possibility of
gross errors, for example a bad choice of failure
mechanism, such as ignoring the presence of existing
shear surfaces in a slope.
2. A factor of safety of 1.0 does not indicate that failure of a
slope is necessarily imminent.
3. The real factor of safety is strongly influenced by minor
geological details, stress-strain characteristics of the soil,
actual pore-pressure distribution, initial stresses,
progressive failure, and numerous other factors.
4. Although it is usual for a deterministic analysis to be
made, it is good practice for the analysis to include a
study of the sensitivity of the factor of safety to the choice
of each parameter over which there is uncertainty.

5. The major design decisions are then taken on the basis of
a chosen factor of safety (or factor of ignorance!).
6. Recently, research has focused on this design process and
several procedures are being developed.
6. If the factors affecting the stability can be identified and
their variability defined it is possible to introduce this into
the analysis.
7. At its simplest, different factors of safety are applied to c '
and to tan' to reflect the confidence with which they are
known, as well as the different mobilization of the
cohesive and frictional components of strength with
strain.
9. If the variability of the material parameters ( c' , ' , )
and pore pressures can be expressed statistically, a
probabilistic analysis can then yield a probability of
failure.
10.The difficulty with this approach is that some of the most
important areas of uncertainty (e.g., bad choice of failure
mechanism due to minor geological detail) necessitate the
application of extreme value statistics if they are to be
included in the analysis, and this is fraught with
difficulty.
11.These procedures are still based on limit equilibrium
analysis, but offer the possibility of a more rational
approach to design a development which is overdue in
geotechnical engineering.

The methods of slice analysis may have different

Accuracy of Limit Equilibrium Methods assumptions about the interslice forces as follows.
Method Assumptions about
1. In applying a limit equilibrium method of analysis, it is interslice forces
important to appreciate the limitations of this class of
Infinite slope Parallel to slope
method of stability analysis, as well as the significance of
choosing one method rather than another. u = 0 none
Ordinary (Fellenius or Resultant parallel to base of each
2. We are going to examine the theoretical basis of the limit Swedish) slice
equilibrium method. Bishop Horizontal
3. We also examine the accuracy of a number of the methods Simplified Janbu Horizontal
and some of their principal limitations. Spencer Constant Inclination (X/E = constant)
Morgenstern and Price X/E = f(x)
Etc.
E is the lateral component of interslice force
X is the shear component of interslice force

Comparison among the Simplified

FOS values for 16 slip Slip No Ordinary Bishop Janbu Spencer M-P
surfaces calculated 1 1.041 1.026 1.024 1.037 1.035
using different slice 2 0.980 0.962 0.953 0.982 0.980
methods 3 1.022 1.044 1.024 1.096 1.087
4 1.748 1.901 1.842 1.960 1.956
5 0.858 0.853 0.835 0.905 0.899
6 1.034 1.120 1.055 1.144 1.141
7 0.823 0.843 0.801 0.900 0.888
8 0.925 0.988 0.922 0.990 0.986
9 0.797 0.871 0.802 0.951 0.961
10 0.851 0.946 0.868 1.023 1.040
11 0.894 1.009 0.918 1.093 1.106
12 0.984 1.138 1.025 1.181 1.190
13 0.824 0.870 0.820 0.870 0.864
14 0.856 0.921 0.855 0.948 0.950
15 1.044 1.226 1.096 1.241 1.247
16 1.080 1.317 1.163 1.322 1.333

Q7-2
 Simplified
Slip No Ordinary Bishop Janbu Spencer M-P Findings of the Comparisons
7 0.823 0.843 0.801 0.900 0.888 1. The M-P and Spencers methods give highest
FOS values. Their values are close to each other.
Rank 4 3 5 1 2
2. The Ordinary and Simplified Janbus methods
9 0.797 0.871 0.802 0.951 0.961 give the lowest FOS values. Their values are
Rank 5 3 4 2 1 close to each other.
13 0.824 0.870 0.820 0.870 0.864 3. The Bishops method gives the intermediate
FOS values.
Rank 4 3 5 1 2
Average
4. In average, the Simplified Janbu, Bishop,
of 16 Spencer and M-P methods give about 1.54%,
0.985 1.065 1.000 1.103 1.104 8.08%,11.94% and 12.07% higher FOS values
slips
FOS than the Ordinary Method.
Rank 5 3 4 2 1 5. The critical slip surfaces may be different.

Other Comparisons Case 1 Circular Slip Case 2 Non-circular Slip

(Fredlund and Krahns Study)

General Conclusions Important Notes

1. The methods which satisfy all conditions of equilibrium

(Janbu's rigorous, Spencer's and Morgenstern and
Price's methods) all give accurate results (5%) for the
analysis of the slopes.
2. Bishop's method which only satisfies moment
equilibrium gives similarly accurate results.
3. Other methods which do not satisfy all conditions of
equilibrium (ordinary method, force-equilibrium
methods) may be highly inaccurate.
1. Since all the methods involve
assumptions, none will yield the correct
value of factor of safety.
2. However, it has been shown that most of
the methods of slices yield an acceptable
result for the FOS value for a given slope.

Q7-3

Theoretical Discussions
1. An exact stability analysis would involve
solving simultaneously the conditions of
equilibrium and compatibility throughout the
slope.
2. The conditions which must be satisfied are as
follows:
Discussions
1. Clearly a complete knowledge of the stress-strain
behaviour of the soil would be required and the
calculations would be very complicated.
2. In general this approach is impractical for routine
stability analysis.
3. Numerical techniques such as finite element analysis
can be used to obtain an approximate distribution of the
stresses and strains throughout a slope.
How to determine the FOS for a slope
In general, a number of slip surfaces are
considered and their FOS values are calculated
We can then identify the critical slip surface with
the minimum FOS value.
We take this smallest FOS value for the critical
slip surface to be the factor of safety of the given
slope.
It is the reason in the assignment Nos. 1 and 2,
we have a number of potential slip surfaces to be
calculated.
Q7-4
The Conditions for Theoretically Correct Solution
a) Each point within the soil mass must be in equilibrium.
b) The stresses within the soil must be in equilibrium with
the stresses applied to the soil.
c) The strains occurring at a point must be compatible with
the strains at all surrounding points.
d) The strains at every point must be related to the stresses
by an appropriate stress-strain relationship for the soil.
e) The failure criterion for the soil (e.g. Mohr-Coulomb)
should not be violated at any point in the slope.
4. With modern computers these techniques are extremely
powerful and they are particularly useful for analysing
the conditions in a stable slope or embankment when it
is subjected to changes of loading or geometry.
5. However their use for analysing slopes which are on the
point of failure is less satisfactory and in general their
use is limited by the difficulty of modelling the stress-
strain behaviour of the soil.
Contour Searching Method for
Circular Slip Surfaces
From Lambe
& Whitman,
1969
 Contour Searching Method for
Circular Slip Surfaces
Procedures
1. We calculate FOS for a
specific circular slip
surface with a given
centre of rotation and
passing through a
given position (say the
slope toe).
2. We mark the FOS
against the position of
the centre of each
circle,
3. We repeat the above
4. The FOS contours can be calculation procedure
plotted and used for the smallest for a number of centres
FOS. on a rectangular grid.

From the FOS values for

the potential slip surface
Nos. 1 to 16, we can
determine:
Slip No.9

Slip No.7

1. The slip Nos. 7 and 9

have the smallest FOS
value 0.808.

2. Since the slip No. 9 is deeper than the slip

No.7, so, the slip No.9 is the most critical slip
surface for this cut slope.

3. As the depth from the slip surface to the slope surface Important Note:
increases, the corresponding FOS value can have three zones of
variation below. 1. The above result on the three zones of the FOS distribution
associated with the location of the slip surface is based on
Slip No.9 the specific slope geological model.
2. In this model, the soil is homogeneous or its shear strength
Slip No.7
is constant or increases as the depth to the slope surface
increases.
3. If there is a weak zone with much lower shear strength at a
a) Zone 1, FOS decreases
deep location of the slope, this weak zone may dominant
b) Zone 2, FOS reaches the FOS value of the entire slope.
the minimum range
c) Zone 3, FOS increases

FOS
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 weak zone

Q7-5
 These methods of analysis are not suited to slopes
whose failure entails significantly changes of
geometry, for example rock falls involving toppling
failure.
Rock falls involving
Toppling toppling failure.
failure
Three-dimensional Effects to FOS
1. The limit equilibrium analyses described above are
normally applied to a single vertical cross-section
of slope.
2. However, landslips are of course three-dimensional
(3-D) and are frequently bowl-shaped.
3. The end-effects can be very significant in practice
and would generally enhance the stability.
4. There are no rigorous techniques available for the
analysis of a generalized 3-D slip mass.
5. But some solutions are available where the
geometry can be approximated to regular shapes.
Q7-6
Brief Summary
In general, stability analysis of a given slope
includes the following two tasks
1) Calculation of the FOS value for a specific slip
surface in the given slope cross-section model.
2) Searching of the smallest FOS value and its
corresponding slip surface (or zone).
3-D Effects to FOS
6. An indication of the influence of the end-effects
can be obtained by analyzing a number of cross-
sections and using an averaging technique.
7. For rock slopes, the 3-D effects are very important
as the stability is generally controlled by the
presence of pre-existing discontinuities.
8. If the slip can be approximated to a block of
material sliding on two planar surfaces, then a
wedge analysis can be used.
9. The method of wedge analysis can be found in the
book entitled Rock Slope Engineering by Hoek and
Bray (1977).
Approximate
Treatment of 3D Effect
F1 A1 + F2 A2 + F3 A3 A = area of slipped mass
FOS = F = FOS value for a 2-D slip
A1 + A2 + A3
 Dynamic Effects to FOS F = ma
1. The limit equilibrium methods discussed above are
applicable to the analysis of slopes in static equilibrium.
2. They are not well suited to the analysis of dynamic
stability of slopes, for example debris flows, avalanches,
and slopes under earthquake loading.
3. Although horizontal loading of the soil mass can be
included (pseudo-static analysis) the dynamic effects on
the pore pressures and shear strength parameters are
difficult to model.
4. These effects are often of major importance, and much
more research is needed before reliable routine methods of
analysis are available for these situations.
5. A full discussion of the dynamic analysis of slopes during
earthquakes is beyond the scope of this course.
Development History of Slice Methods
1. Coloumb, 1776, Soil pressures for retaining walls
2. Culman C. 1866.
3. Fellenius W. 1927: Ordinary
4. Taylor D.W. 1937; 1948
5. Bishop A.W. 1950: Moment
6. Janbu N. 1954; 1957: Force
7. Lowe J. and Karafiath L. 1960
8. Bishop A.W. and Morgenstern N. R.1960
9. Morgenstern N.R. 1963
10. Morgenstern & Price 1965: X/E = f(x)
11. Spencer E. 1967: (f(x)=constant)
12. Janbu N. 1973: General
13. Sarma, S.K. 1973, 1979
14. Chen Z.Y. and Morgenstern N.R. 1983;
15. Etc.
5. This experience has been gained from the
analysis of slopes which have failed.
6. In using these methods to analyse slopes which
have not failed it is important to appreciate that
the principal areas of uncertainty are the soil
properties, the groundwater conditions, and the
mechanism of a possible failure.
7. A thorough site investigation is essential to
establish the soil and groundwater conditions,
followed by careful soil testing in a reputable
laboratory.
8. The geotechnical specialist responsible for the
project should be closely involved at all stages of
the investigation so that minor details are not
overlooked.
Q7-7
Summary
1. We have discussed the conditions affecting FOS.
2. We have compared the FOS and slip surfaces for
different slice methods.
3. We have discussed the theoretical limitations of
the slice methods.
4. We have also discussed a searching method for
the smallest FOS and critical slip surface for a
given slope.
5. We have also discussed the three-dimensional
effect on slope stability and FOS.
6. We have also briefly discussed the dynamic effect
on FOS.
SOME CONCLUSIONS
1. The limit equilibrium methods of analysis described
here are widely used for the analysis of slopes,
embankments, and excavations.
2. Although at first sight each method may appear to
be quite different, we have seen that the only
significant difference is the assumption made about
the position (hR) and inclination () of the interslice
forces.
3. It is important to understand the theoretical basis of
a particular method before applying it in practice.
4. With the exception of the ordinary method of slices,
extensive experience suggests that the methods
are useful and reliable if they are applied
appropriately.
9. Once the soil and groundwater conditions have
been established, a method of analysis may be
chosen which is appropriate to the anticipated
mechanism of failure.
10.It is often useful to ascertain the sensitivity of the
result of the analysis to small changes in the
assumed parameters so that engineering
decisions may be based on a full understanding
of the problem.
11.In conclusion, it must be reiterated that a
sophisticated analysis is no substitute for
experience and engineering judgment.
 Geotechnical Manual for Slopes
recommends in Section 5.3.5

(1) Preliminary design and negligible slopes.

For preliminary design or for slopes in the
negligible risk category, a time consuming
complex analysis is seldom justified, as the input
data are often scanty. Hoeks charts (Hoek &
Bray, 1981), infinite slope and sliding block
analysis are most useful for a rapid assessment
of the stability of soil slopes.

(2) Low and high risk slopes.

Non-circular analytical methods, such as those by Janbu (1972) or
Morgenstern & Price (1965), are recommended for most soil
slopes in Hong Kong. However, a sliding block or Bishop (1955)
circular analysis may occasionally be more appropriate.

Q7-8