01-Apr-18

Lecture Topics (Slope Stability)

1 Macro Stability of a Slope; Stability Analysis for Infinite slopes
(with and without seepage)
2 Finite slope - Stability Analysis with Plane failure surfaces (with
and without tension cracks)
3 Finite Slope - Stability Analysis Circular Failure Surfaces (for f = 0
and f > 0 cases in homogeneous soil)
4 Finite Slope – Stability Analysis using Method of Slices (Ordinary
method of slices; Bishop’s Simplified method – without and with
seepage)
5 Class Test -2; Bishop & Morgestern’s solution with seepage;
6 Morgenstern’s method for rapid drawdown; Spencer’s solution
with seepage
7 Review

Slope

Slope Stability Analysis

Potential
rupture/failure
surfaces
2 1
 01-Apr-18

Macro stability of slope

The material composing a slope has a natural tendency to slide under the influence of
gravitational and other forces (e.g. seismic activity) which is resisted by the shearing
resistance of the material. Instability occurs when the shearing resistance is not enough
to counterbalance the forces tending to cause movement along any surface within a
slope. A slope that has been stable for many years may suddenly fail due to one or
several of the following main causes.

(a) external disturbances in the form of cutting / dredging / scour near toe.
(b) seismic activity
(c) increase in pore water pressure within a slope (may be due to rise
in water level or exceptional rainfall)
(d) progressive decrease in shear strength of the slope material
(e) progressive change in the stress field within a slope (may be due to subsidence
of foundation soil, piping or internal erosion, movement of soil particles)

Phenomena Governing Stability of Slope

Stable earth slopes, both natural and man-made, are of great importance to mankind.
Although many landslides occur in slopes because of natural influences, human activities
such as undercutting, piling earth on unstable slopes, or raising the ground water level by
constructing reservoirs, are important causes of landslides. Unfavorable ground water and
seepage conditions are among the most frequent. Water lowers stability and contributes to
slope failures in the following ways:

 By reducing or eliminating cohesive strength

 By producing pore water pressure which reduce effective stresses, thereby lowering
effective strength
 By producing horizontally inclined seepage forces which increase the overturning
moments and possibility of failure
 By lubricating failure planes after occurring small initial movement
 By supplying an excess of fluid that becomes trapped in soil pores during earthquakes or
other severe shocks, leading to liquefaction failures.

4 2
 01-Apr-18

Factor of Safety
As engineer we need to ensure the safety of a slope through determining the factor of safety. The factor of safety is
defined as τf
Fs 
Where τd
Fs = Factor of safety with respect to strength
tf = Average shear strength of the soil
td = average shear stress developed along the potential failure surface

6 3
 01-Apr-18

Methods of slope stability analysis can be grouped into two categories

(1) Limit equilibrium methods
(2) Stress analysis methods - e.g. Finite element analysis
In this course we shall discuss only Limit equilibrium methods

The approach for Limit equilibrium method

A failure surface is assumed (plane or curve)
For a plane failure surface,
imposed shear stress = resisting shear stress
For circular failure surface,
the disturbing moment = resisting moment

Infinite Slope

8 4
 01-Apr-18

Force on planes ab
and cd are assumed
Tr=Ta=W Sinb  gLH Sinb Ta=in-plane component of W to be equal
Ta γLHSinβ Tr=in-plane reaction force
τ   γHSinβCosβ Consider
Area L/Cos β t = shear stress
unit length
s = normal stress
Na W Cos β γLH Cos 2β perpendicula
σ    γHCos 2β r to bc
Area L/Cos b L
Shear stress on the plane can also be written as
τ d  c d  σ tan φ d cd, fd  mobilized parameters
From definition of Factor of safety c, f  ultimate /
c tanφ peak strength
cd  and tan φ d 
Fs Fs parameters

Taking t = td , substituting s, cd ,
tanfd and re-arranging

Tr=Ta=W Sinb  gsatLH Sinb Ta=in-plane component of W

Tr=in-plane reaction force
Tr γLHSinβ t = shear stress
τ   γHSinβCosβ
Area L/Cos b s = normal stress
Na W Cos β γ sat LH Cos 2 β
σ    γ sat HCos 2β
Area L/Cos β L
Shear stress on the plane can also be written as
τ d  c d  σ  tanφ d cd, fd  mobilized parameters

Now, σ  σ  u Where, u  hγ w  Hγ w Cos 2β

From definition of Factor of safety
c tanφ
cd  and tan φ d 
Fs Fs
Taking t = td , substituting s, cd , tanfd and re-arranging

Compare with the

expression for the case
of no seepage

In the first term, in the denominator gsat>g; so the first term reduces
In the second term, the multiplier g’/gsat < 1; so the second term also reduces
Thus it is quite obvious that factor of safety reduces when seepage forces act 10 5
 01-Apr-18

11

Comparing Example 13.1 and 13.2 we find that

the given slope is stable when dry but will fail
when gets saturated.

12 6
 01-Apr-18

FINITE SLOPES

A finite slope is one with a base and a top surface, the height being limited.

Top surface
Toe failure
Height
Toe
Shallow failure
Base
Base failure

Culmann’s analysis: based on assumption that failure occurs along a plane

H – height of the slope

b - angle of the slope with horizontal
W – weight of wedge ABC
AC – arbitrary failure plane
q – angle of the failure plane
Taking t = td and substituting s from eqn. 13.32 and rearranging
with horizontal

7
01-Apr-18

8
 01-Apr-18

Let zc = depth of crack

z1 = depth of water in the crack
We can consider a linear distribution of water pressure along trial failure
surface AB (zero at A and zcgw at B)

B
W Sinq
q

A q W Cosq

W
U1 Sinq

B
U1 q
U1 Cosq
q
A

9
 01-Apr-18

This analysis also falls into “Total

Finite Slope : Circular Failure Surface stress” analysis category

Referring to Fig.13.11
ABCD – Slope in Homogeneous soil
Undrained condition
Shear strength is constant with depth, tf = cu
AED – Trial failure surface, center O, radius r

The failure surface AED was chosen arbitrarily.

For the critical surface (for which Fs is minimum
i.e. cd is maximum one must analyse a number
of trial surface

Fig.13.12

For b>530, critical circles are toe For b<530, critical circle may be a toe circle, slope
circles, The center of these circles circle or midpoint circle. If the critical circle is a
can be found by Fig. 13.13 midpoint circle its center can be located by Fig. 13.14

Maxm, m = 0.181

H
nH b DH
Slope circle

(a)
Shallow slope failure

Toe circle
1.Slope Failure

L L

Mid point circle

2. Base Failure 10
 01-Apr-18

H
nH b DH

(a)

11
 01-Apr-18

Do yourself

12
 01-Apr-18

Do yourself

Assumptions: Soil is homogeneous

Pore pressure is zero

13
01-Apr-18

14
 01-Apr-18

r Sin αn
O
r
C
bn
r
n
r
H
Wn
A τ f  c  σ tan φ

n

Tn

Tn  1 Pn
Pn 1 Wn

 n Tr
 n Nr
R  Wn
Ln

15
 01-Apr-18

The ordinary method of slices can also be used for drained conditions/ effective stress analysis

N r  W n Cos α n  u n ΔL Compare with no seepage case

n

W n Cos α n  u n ΔL n
σ 
ΔL n
1
Tr  c  σtanφΔL n
Fs
1  W n Cos α n  u n ΔL n 
hn
 c  tan φ  ΔL n
Fs  ΔL n 
np
M d   Wn r Sinα n
n 1

1  Wn Cosα n  u n ΔL n 
Mr  c  tanφ ΔL n .r
Fs  ΔL n 

c L n  Wn Cosα n  u n ΔL n  tanφ

n p
1 Wn Cosα n  u n ΔL n  Fs 
W r Sinα n  c  tanφ ΔL n .r np

W
n
n 1 Fs  ΔL n  n Sinα n
n 1

1
2
3
4
5
7 6
300

Slice No. Width, bn m Avg. ht., hn, m, Wt., W, kN/m n (deg), Ln, m W nSinn W nCosn
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 20  30.50  tan 20  1637.80
Fs 
1
2
1
4
1.4
4.6
22.4
294.4
70
54
2.92
6.80
21.05
238.17
7.66
173.04
776.08
3 4 6.8 435.2 38 5.08 267.94 342.94

 1.55
4 4 6.8 435.2 24 4.38 177.01 397.57
5 4 6.1 390.4 12 4.09 81.17 381.87
6 4 4.2 268.8 0 4.00 0.00 268.80
7 3.2 1.3 66.6 -8 3.23 -9.26 65.91
S 30.50 776.08 1637.80

16
 01-Apr-18

r Sin αn
Probably most widely used method O
Ordinary method of slices r C
bn
is too conservative B
r
n Fig.13.20a
r
H
Wn
A τ f  c  σ tan φ

n

Only moment
equilibrium is
satisfied,
force
equilibrium is
not satisfied

Fs exists on both
sides, so trial and
error procedure is
required to find Fs.
A number of failure surfaces are to be analysed to
find critical surface and minimum Fs.

3
g, kN/m = 16
f, deg = 20
2
c, kN/m = 20 Fs = 1.58

Slice No. Width of Avg. ht. W n, kN/m n (deg), m(n), W n/m(n), W nSinn
(1) slice bn, m of slice, (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(2) hn, m, (3)
1 1 1.4 22.4 70 0.56 40.11 21.0
2 4 4.6 294.4 54 0.77 380.29 238.2
3 4 6.8 435.2 38 0.93 468.04 267.9
4 4 6.8 435.2 24 1.01 432.07 177.0
5 4 6.1 390.4 12 1.03 380.49 81.2
6 4 4.2 268.8 0 1.00 268.80 0.0
7 3.2 1.3 66.6 -8 0.96 69.46 -9.3
S 24.2 2039.26 776.1

Fs = 1.58 17
 01-Apr-18

Method of slices can applied to layered soil

c, f, g will not be same for all slices; g may vary within a slice

Effective stress
parameters are
to be used when
pore pressure is
considered

18
 01-Apr-18

Table C1.(g)
Table C1.(h)
Table C1.(i)
Table C1.(h)
19
01-Apr-18

20
 01-Apr-18

Water table
before drawdown

L
H Water table after
drawdown

21
 01-Apr-18

Example
Water table before
drawdown

L
H Water table after
drawdown

g = 16 kN/m3 Slope – 3 (H) : 1 (V)

c = 20 kPa H = 25 m
f= 200 L = 10 m
Fs = ? By Morgenstern’s method

c 20 L 10
  0.05   0.4
gH 16  25 H 25

Now for c/(gH)=0.05, f = 200

and L/H =0.4 from graph,

Fs = 1.4
22
 01-Apr-18

Takes in account the inter-slice forces

Satisfy the equations of equilibrium w.r.t both moment and forces
(Bishop’s method satisfies only moment equilibrium)

Phreatic surface
r Sin α n
O
r
bn C

r Seepage
n
r hz
H τ f  c  σ tan φ
b Wn
A

n

Charts for slope stability analysis of simple slopes with seepage by Spencer’s method

Steps for Analysis

The center of the circle can also be determined

(App.C3/B M Das. We are not going to discuss. 23
 01-Apr-18

P – point on potential failure surface APB

At t=0 i.e. before construction of embankment, pore pressure at P, u =
t=0 tohgt=t
w 1
Construction of embankment, maximum ht. reaches at t=t1 (Fig.a)
Rapid construction – undrained condition; pore pressure increases to u1; u1>hgw
Shear stress on any potential failure surface increases (Fig.b)
shear strength remain constant at tf=cu (Fig.d)
Fs reduces up to t=t1

saturated soft clay

24
01-Apr-18

25