Slope stability analysis

Unit of stress:
1 kilopascal kPa
= 1 kN/m2
1,000N (Kilo Newtons per square
meter)
1m

Slightly above-average
1m American male

1
 Unit weights of materials (per m3)
Water, γw = gρw = 9.81 kN/m3
Vs= volume solids
Solid rock, γs = 26.0 kN/m3 Vv= volume voids
Porosity:
n=Vv/(Vv+Vs)

Soil-made up of solid grains and pores

air Dry soil, idealized:

γd = γsVs/(Vs+Vv) = γs(1-n) = 15-20 kN/m3

water Saturated soil:

γsat = (γsVs+ γsVs)/(Vs+Vv) =20-23 kN/m3
3

Infinite slope equation

z = zd+zw zd
zw
β
L
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Slope cross-section Isolate a column

N Flow lines
β Equipotential lines
W
Zwcosβ
T
Fig. 3 Fig. 4
Force polygon Groundwater pressure
4

2
 c'+ (γ d z d + γ sat z w − γ w z w ) cos β tan φ
F=
(γ d z d + γ sat z w ) sin β
γw = unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m3)
γd = dry unit weight of soil (15-20 kN/m3)
γsat = saturated unit weight of soil (20-23 kN/m3)

Note: the soil column is assumed

to be 1m wide perpendicular to paper

Assume no cohesion (c=0) and full saturation, zd = 0:

z w (γ sat − γ w ) cos β tan φ γ tan φ tan φ

F= = (1 − w ) ≈ 0.5
γ sat z w sin β γ sat tan β tan β

Assume no cohesion (c=0) and a dry slope, zw = 0:

tan φ
F=
tan β

Conclusion: a dry cohesionless slope will be at the point of

failure when β=φ ("angle of repose"). However, a saturated
slope with parallel seepage will be about half as steep.
6

3
 Role of cohesion:
Assume fully saturated
slope, parallel seepage
z = zw= 1.5 m
φ = 32º
c'+ (γ d z d + γ sat z w − γ w z w ) cos β tan φ
F=
(γ d z d + γ sat z w ) sin β

Solve equation to find c’ when

F=1.0 (at failure)
Conclusion:
Slopes in mountainous
regions require cohesion
7

Undrained (short term) slope failure in clay

c'+ (γ d z d + γ sat z w − γ w z w ) cos β tan φ
F=
(γ d z d + γ sat z w ) sin β

•φ’ = 0
•Su instead of c’
•Slope fully saturated (by capillary action) , z = zw

Su
F= sand
(γ sat z ) sin β z

Undrained failures in clay clay

tend to be rotational
8

4
 Shallow landslide susceptibility

(Hammond et al., 1992)

Program LISA (US Forest Service):

frequency
apply Infinite Slope Equation on an
areal basis, in a probabilistic
manner, map “probability of
failure” (or Factor of Safety)
9

Influence of logging on slope stability

RELATIVE ROOT REINFORCEMENT

1
Root 0.9
0.8
cohesion 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
YEARS AFTER LOGGING

10

5
Subjective slope stability mapping

11
(J. Ryder, Vancouver, 1998)

12

6
 Deep-seated landslides: Method of Slices

General method:
1) Work out the equilibrium of each slice
2) Calculate the equilibrium of the slice assembly
3) Results depend on assumptions regarding the
interslice forces E and X
13

Available equations
1) Vertical equilibrium of a single slice (n equations)

W = N cos β + T sin β + ∇X
2) Mohr-Coulomb strength (n equations)

c' L tanφ'
T= + (N − uL) “Mobilized strength”
F F
3) Horizontal force equilibrium for the slice assembly (1 equation)

∑ N sin β − ∑ T cos β = 0
4) Moment equilibrium for the slice assembly Interslice forces cancel out
(1 equation) in these equations
∑Wr − ∑ Nr − ∑ Tr
w N T =0 r’s are radii of rotation
14

7
 Bishop’s Simplified Method:
Fredlund Krahn (1978) Modification for Non-circular surfaces

rN

Add moment of the normal forces

15

Possible solutions
For n slices, we have the following unknowns:
n N forces + n T forces + n ∆X + n ∆E +1F =4n+1 unknowns

Bishop’s simplified method:

1) assume ∆X = 0 (no shear between slices)
2) use only Equations 1,2 and 4 (neglect horizontal force
equilibrium)→ ∆E not needed, problem determinate
3) Good for circular sliding surfaces, conservative for others
4) Not good if large horizontal external forces involved

16

8
 Janbu simplified method: More solutions
1) assume ∆X = 0 (no shear between slices)
2) use only Equations 1,2 and 3 (neglect moment equilibrium)
3) Good for shallow sliding surfaces, tends to be more conservative
than Bishop (correction needed)

Spencer’s method:
1) assume ∆X/∆E = constant (constant interslice friction)
2) Must add another equation (horizontal force equilibrium on each
slice). Use all five equations (“rigorous solution”)
3) Requires iterative solution, may not converge

Morgenstern-Price method:
1) assume ∆X/∆E varies according to a prescribed function
(“rigorous solution”)
2) Requires iterative solution, may not converge 17

Simplified and rigorous method comparison

120 120

100 Bishop: F = 1.00 100 Bishop: F = 1.00

Spencer: F = 1.22 Spencer: F = 1.03
ELEVATION (m)

ELEVATION (m)

80 80
STRONG
60 60

40 WEAK 40

20 20
WEAK
WEAK
0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
DISTANCE (m) DISTANCE (m)
120

100 Bishop: F = 1.00

Spencer: F = 1.31
→ Simplified method OK, if
ELEVATION (m)

80

60 slide head stronger than toe

40 WEAK
(classic compound slide) not
20 good if the opposite
STRONG
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

DISTANCE (m)
18

9
Sarma method W

Force polygon

T φ/F
φi/F
N

1) Divide sliding body into blocks

2) Assume that a constant friction angle, φi/F will be mobilized on
all block interfaces
3) Solve graphically from first block to last. Will only work out for
one specific value of F (iterations)
4) Problem: can we justify the given value of internal friction?
Danger of non-conservative error! Good for structurally-
controlled slides in rock

19

Limit Equilibrium Methods, Summary 1

Method Type Vertical Horizontal Moment Slices
Force Force Equilibrium
Equilibrium Equilibrium

Bishop Simplified Yes No Yes Vertical

Janbu Simplified Yes Yes No Vertical

Spencer Rigorous Yes Yes Yes Vertical

Morgenstern- Rigorous Yes Yes Yes Vertical

Price
Sarma Rigorous Yes Yes Yes Vertical
or
Inclined

20

10
 Limit Equilibrium Methods, Summary 2
Method Type Advantages Disadvantages
Bishop Simplified -very efficient -conservative with cases involving internal
-accurate for circular surfaces and distortion
some non-circular (with Fredlund- -can be incorrect with external horizontal
Krahn modification) loads (including earthquake loads)

Janbu Simplified -very efficient -usually more conservative than other

-good for shallow slides methods
-horizontal external loads are OK -requires correction factor
(includes horizontal force
equilibrium)

Spencer Rigorous -any geometry and loads -less efficient, may not converge
-often more conservative than MP

Morgenstern Rigorous -any geometry and loads -less efficient, may not converge
-Price -can simulate internal shearing -choice of interslice function required
-often cited as a benchmark

Sarma Rigorous - good for structured slides (esp. -less efficient, may not converge
rock) -the assumption of fully mobilized internal
friction could lead to incorrect (non-
conservative) results, if not justified (e.g.
in rotational slides)

21

Search for the critical sliding surface

Automatic
“Simplex”
search

22

11
 Grid search

23

Compound sliding surface (3D)

Weak surface

24

12
 Specified non-circular sliding surface

Toe
submergence

25

Pore pressure conditions

fill

u = hγru u = hwγ w u = hwγ w + B h f γ f

ru= pore pressure ratio

26

13
 Strength reduction method
FLAC: “Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua”
2nd strength
reduction

1st “failure”

Displacement
strength
reduction

Calculation steps (time)

Strength reduction: Every strength reduction increases

displacements. Start with F=1, apply
cmob=c/F φmob = φ/F successively higher reduction in cycles,
until “failure” occurs.
27

14