Advanced Tools for 2D & 3D Slope

Stability Analysis
Dr. Thamer Yacoub, P.Eng.
President, Rocscience Inc., Canada

Course Agenda
Module I: Introduction to Slope Stability Analysis
Slope Stability Analysis using Slide

Module II: Material models in Slide

Material models for Soil and Rock

Module III: Search Methods in Slide

Circular vs. Non-circular
Tips on selecting appropriate search method

Course Agenda
Module IV: Groundwater analysis in slope stability problems
Setup models with different boundary conditions

Module V: Shear Strength Reduction Method using RS2

Module VII: 3D SSR analysis using RS3

Introduction to Slope Stability

Aims of Slope Stability Analysis

Assess equilibrium
conditions (natural slopes)
Evaluate methods for
stabilizing slope
Evaluate impact/role of
geometric and physical
parameters on stability
Discontinuity strength
Height
Slope angle, etc.

Aims of Slope Stability Analysis

Determine impact of seismic
shock on stability
Back analyze for prevailing
conditions at failure
Shear strength
Groundwater conditions

Parametric Analysis
Uncertainties regarding
material properties and
physical conditions
Variability of properties from
location to location
Difficulties in measurement

Required to evaluate
physical and geometrical
factors affecting stability

Slope Stability Analysis

Components of analysis
Slope under consideration (geometry, geology, soil properties,
groundwater, etc.)

Slope Stability Analysis

Components of analysis
Slope geometry
Geologic model
Groundwater
Loadings on slope
Failure criterion
Failure analysis

Causes and controlling factors

A section of a slope will generally fail when its driving forces
overcome its resistive forces.
This is also known as Factor of Safety (FOS). Instability occurs
when FOS <=1
Occurs due to processes decreasing the resistive forces, increasing the
driving forces, or a combination of the two.

Failure Modes
Slope failure modes/mechanisms
Ways in which slide masses move
Identifies critical failures that should be eliminated or minimized
Used proactively to permit early design improvements and at less
cost than is possible by reactive correction of problems

Falls (Usually rockfalls)

Detachment of rock mass
from slope face followed by
downward movement
through freefall, bouncing,
rolling, and sliding
Hazardous to infrastructure
in hilly or mountainous
terrain

Topples
Rock can become unstable
leading to toppling
tendencies due to gravity,
fluid pressure, or seismic
forces

Slides
Sliding of a mass of earth or
rock
Can be rotational or
translational
Can be triggered by angle of
slope, material, structure of
slope, introduction of fluids,
seismic forces, etc.

Failure Modes
Slides (dictated by
unbalanced shear stress
along one or more surfaces)
Rotational
Translational
Compound/Combination
Planar
Wedge
Toppling

Failure Modes
Rotational (rock and soil)

Failure Modes
Translational
Slides move in contact with underlying surface
Sliding surface commonly a bedding plane, can also be
fault/fracture surface

Block Slide

Slab Slide

Failure Modes
Planar (rock and soil)

Side Relief Planes

Upper Slope Surface

Slope Face
Failure Plane

Movement controlled by geologic structure

Surfaces of weakness (discontinuities joints, faults, bedding planes,

etc.)
Contact between overlying weathered material and firm bedrock

Failure Modes
Forces acting on failure block:
Weight of block, W
Normal water pressure, U
Tension crack water pressure, V
Surcharge, F
Seismic forces, S
Forces from artificial support, B

S
U

Failure Modes
Wedge (rock)

Failure Modes
Wedge (rock)

2 discontinuities striking
obliquely across slope face
Line of intersection daylights in
slope face
Dip of line of intersection >
friction angle of discontinuities

Failure Modes
Wedge (rock)
Active Wedge

Failure Modes
Toppling
Undercutting Discontinuities

Low-Dip Base
Plane Daylighting
in Slope Face

Limit Equilibrium Methods

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Attraction of limit equilibrium
Most common slope analysis method
Relatively simple formulation
Useful for evaluating sensitivity of possible failure conditions to
input parameters

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Fundamental concepts
All points along slip surface are on verge of failure
At this point in time
Driving forces (D) = Resisting forces (R)
Factor of safety (FS) = 1

D > R FS < 1
D < R FS > 1
Limiting equilibrium perfect equilibrium between forces driving
failure and those resisting failure

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Factor of safety (factor of ignorance)
Quantitative measure of degree of stability
Accounts for uncertainty
Guards against ignorance about reliability of input parameters
Lower quality site investigation higher desired factor of safety
Higher quality site investigation lower desired factor of safety
Empirical tool to establish suitable economic bounds on design

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Uncertainties accounted for by factor of safety
Uncertainty in shear strength due to soil variability, relationship
between lab strength and field strength
Uncertainty in loadings (surface loading, unit weight, pore
pressures, etc.)
Modelling uncertainties: including possibility critical failure
mechanism SLIGHTLY different from that identified, model is not
conservative

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Fundamental concepts
Two steps for calculating factor of safety
Compute shear strength required along potential failure surface to
maintain stability
Compare required shear strength to available shear strength (which is
assumed constant along failure surface)
For Mohr-Coulomb

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Planar failure
FS

cA
tan

W sin tan

W sin

W cos

W N

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method
of slices
Used by most computer
programs
Readily accommodates
complex slope geometries,
variable soil and groundwater
conditions & variable
external loads

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
N slices

Zh

N
N
N

Normal forces on base

Shear forces on base
Lines of action (Zi)

N-1
N-1
N-1
1

Interslice normal forces

Interslice shear forces
Lines of action (Zh)
Factor of Safety

6N-2 Number of unknowns

Zi

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
N slices

M = 0
F x = 0
F y = 0

Zh

N
N
N

Moment of equilibrium of slice

Force equilibrium in X
Force equilibrium in Y

Mohr-Coulomb relationship
between shear strength and
normal effective stress

4N Total number of equations

Zi

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices

Common assumption

N slices

Zi = base length of slice

i.e. normal force on slice base
acts at midpoint of base

Zh
Zi

Zi=d/2

n 2 unknowns remain to
make problem determinate
These assumptions
characterize different slope
stability methods

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Slope stability analysis methods
Ordinary (Fellenius)
Bishop
Janbu simplified
Janbu corrected
Lowe-Karafiath
Corps of Engineers (I, II)
Spencer

Morgenstern-Price
General Limit Equilibrium (GLE)
Slide 7
Sarma (vertical slice)
Sarma (non-vertical slice)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
Thrust line: connects points of application of interslice forces

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
Location of thrust line
May be assumed
May be calculated from rigorous analysis that satisfies
complete equilibrium (Spencer, Morgenstern-Price, GLE)
Simplified methods (Bishop, Janbu, Lowe-Karafiath, Army Core)
neglect location of interslice force because complete
equilibrium is not satisfied

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Slope stability analysis
methods
Many methods available
Methods are similar
Difference only in:
Which static equations satisfied
Which interslice forces included
Relationship between interslice
and shear normal forces

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices
assumptions
Bishop (1955) simplified
Assumes interslice shear forces
= 0 (reduces # of unknowns by
(n-1))
Moment eq. about centre and
vertical force eq. for each slice
are satisfied
Overdetermined soln
(horizontal force eq. not
satisfied for one slice)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices
assumptions
Janbu simplified
Assumes interslice shear forces
= 0 (reduces # of unknowns by
(n-1))
Overall horizontal force eq.
and vertical force eq. for each
slice
Overdetermined solution
(moment equilibrium not
completely satisfied)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices
assumptions
Spencer
Assumes all interslice forces
inclined at constant, but
unknown, angle
Complete equilibrium satisfied

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices
assumptions
Morgenstern-Price
Similar to Spencers assumes
all interslice forces inclined at
constant, but unknown, angle
Inclination assumed to vary
according to portion of
arbitrary function
Satisfies complete equilibrium

Sarma (Slide 7)
Non-vertical Limit Equilibrium Method

Usage
Active-passive wedges
such as those which occur in spoil piles on sloping foundations or
in clay core dam embankments

Anisotropic materials
with weak plane directions greater than or equal slice boundaries
align with the direction of the weak plane

Active-Passive Wedges
Method: Spencer
FS: 1.54

Active-Passive Wedges
Method: Sarma vs. RS2
FS: 1.67

Anisotropic Materials
Weak Plane Angle: 100 degrees
Method: Spencer (FS=3.55)

Anisotropic Materials
Weak Plane Angle: 100 degrees
Method: Sarma (FS=2.39)
Difference: 39%

Limitations
The following analyses are not supported:
Excess Pore Pressure
Rapid Drawdown
Line of Thrust
Staged pseudostatic methods
Duncan, Wright, Wong 3 Stage (1990)
Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage (1970)

Slice Angles
The factor of safety depends on the set of values of slice
boundary angles:
User-Defined
1. Vertical
2. Weighted Average Normal
3. Bisection

Optimized
1. Global Minimum
2. All Surfaces

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices
Method

Force Equilibrium
Horizontal Vertical

Moment
Equilibrium

Ordinary

No

No

Yes

Bishop simplified

No

Yes

Yes

Janbu simplified

Yes

Yes

No

Lowe-Karafiath

Yes

Yes

No

Corps of Engineers

Yes

Yes

No

Spencer

Yes

Yes

Yes

GLE (Morgenstern-Price)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sarma

Yes

Yes

Yes

Slope Stability References

Slope Stability using Slide

Objectives
Overview of Slide
Features of
Modeler
Engine
Interpreter

Special capabilities of Slide

Organization of Slide
Slope stability limit equilibrium analysis
Three modules:
Model

Compute
Interpret

Modeler
Creation of Models
Loadings
Geometry tools
External boundary
Material boundary
Tension crack

Entity modification:
move, delete, stretch

Distributed load
Line load
Seismic load

Support systems
Single support
Pattern support

Modeler
Surface

Circular

Properties
Materials
19 material strength models

Non-circular

Supports
7 support models

Tension cracks
Slope limits
Edit

Modeler
Project settings
General
Failure direction
Output data

Methods
11 stability analysis methods
Analysis convergence options

Modeler
Project settings
General
Failure direction
Output data

Methods
11 stability analysis methods
Analysis convergence options

Modeler
Groundwater
Finite element analysis

Statistics
Probabilistic analysis
Sensitivity analysis
Analysis type
Global minimum,
Overall slope

Random Numbers

Modeler
Groundwater
Finite element analysis

Statistics
Probabilistic analysis
Sensitivity analysis
Analysis type
Global minimum,
Overall slope

Random Numbers

Modeler
Groundwater
Finite element analysis

Statistics
Probabilistic analysis
Sensitivity analysis
Analysis type
Global minimum,
Overall slope

Random Numbers

Modeler
FE groundwater analysis option

Mesh
Boundary conditions

Discharge sections
Material properties

6 conductivity models

Statistical analysis option

Materials
Supports
Loads
Seismic loads
Water tables
Tension cracks

Compute Engine
Features
Slope stability analysis engine
Limit equilibrium methods

Groundwater engine
Finite element method

Interpreter
Filtering options for factor of safety View support forces
Method
View back analysis surface
(supports)
Global
Groundwater
Surfaces

Queries
Graph queries
Information on slices

Computed quantities
Queries
Flow lines
Flow vectors

Interpreter
Statistical analysis
Cumulative plots
Histogram plots
Sensitivity plots
Data export

Data Interpretation Tools

Visualization tools that facilitate results interpretation
contour and line plots
coloring of critical slip surfaces
viewing of multiple plots

Data Interpretation Tools

Visualization tools that facilitate results interpretation
contour and line plots
coloring of critical slip surfaces
viewing of multiple plots

Slope Stability Analysis Example I

Basic modelling steps
Create slope geometry
Create material boundaries
Assign materials and properties
Define failure surfaces
Circular surface

Compute
Interpret factor of safety results

Example I

Example I
Import the boundary geometry as a dxf
Import External Boundaries
Import Material Boundaries

Example I
Circular failure
150

Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500

100

2.000
2.500
3.000

1.649

3.500
4.000

50

4.500
5.000
5.500

-100

-50

6.000+

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

50

100

150

200

Example I
Slice Data

Thrust Line

Thrust Line
Represents location of (resultant) interslice forces
Computed by summing moments of all forces acting on
individual slice about centre of slice base
Two school of thought
Solution most reasonable when line of thrust is within sliding mass
to prevent tension (Sharma et al, XSTABL)
Nothing wrong with tension (Duncan, Bromhead)

Thrust Line
With tension crack

Without tension crack

Eliminating Tension
Two Methods:
1. Tension crack defined in model.
2. Adjustment of Mohr failure envelope so that there is no
shear strength when the normal stress becomes negative.

Tension Crack
Tension crack terminates the slip surface at the edge of a
slice at an appropriate depth below the ground surface
Depth can be estimated using:

Tension Crack
Should not extend beyond the depth of tension
If the crack depth is overestimated, compressive forces will
be eliminated and the factor of safety will be overestimated
Often, a tension crack has a minor effect on the computed
factor of safety
Introducing a tension crack eliminates numerical instability
issues and negative stresses

Determining Tension Crack Depth

Perform a series of analyses, varying the depth of the crack
FS will first decrease as the depth of the crack is increased and
tension is eliminated, then increases as the depth increases
further and compressive stresses are eliminated as well
Cannot be used if the tension crack is filled with water because,
due to the water pressure, the force on the wall of the tension
crack is always compressive, and the deeper the crack, the lower
the factor of safety.

Example Tension
Tension crack boundaries
Tension crack depth
Query slice data
Thrust line
Sensitivity analysis

No Tension Crack
FS = 1.07
Plot thrust line for Spencer
method
Thrust line extends outside of
the sliding mass near the top
of the slope this generally
indicates that tension is
present

No Tension Crack
Query Slice Data
Third slice from the top shows
negative forces on one side and
positive forces on the other
Slice represents the transition from
tensile to compressive interslice
forces in the sliding mass
Depth to the bottom of the slice
can give a rough estimate of the
depth of the tension crack that is
required to eliminate the tension in
the model about 4.5 m

Adding a Tension Crack

By default, the tension crack
zone is assumed to be
saturated represents the
worst case scenario (lowest
factor of safety)
We want to use the actual
water table to define the
crack saturation

With Tension Crack

Key differences from example with no
tension crack
Where the failure surface intersects
the tension crack boundary, a
vertical tension crack forms that
extends to the ground surface
The line of thrust is completely
inside the failure surface, indicating
that there is no tension in the soil
mass
The factor of safety has decreased
slightly to about 0.79

Soil Profile Modeling in Slide 7.0

Introduction to Soil Profile

An extension of the geometry modeling capabilities of Slide
Allows you to define a master profile of your material
boundaries (e.g. geological or soil profile) and ground
surface.
The profile is used as a base template, over which you can
use the regular boundary options to superimpose different
slope geometries.
Useful for complex material layering, over which you would
like to define several different slope excavation scenarios
Helpful to use a Soil Profile with Multi Scenario modeling

Creating a Soil Profile Explicitly

Define Profile Extents
Define Boundaries using Add Soil Profile Boundary
Assign Materials
Assign Excavation to define ground surface

Profile Workflow Tab

Geometry Workflow Tab

Soil Profile from Borehole Data

Define boreholes in Borehole Editor (Profile > Borehole
Editor)
Add borehole(s)
Specify x- location and top elevation
Specify material layers and layer thicknesses

Specify borehole interpolation settings

Soil Profile from Borehole Data

Soil Profile from Borehole Data

Soil Profile from Borehole Data

Multi-Scenario Modeling in
Slide 7.0

Multi Scenario Modeling

Allows you to create, edit,
and analyze multiple
variations of a Slide model,
all within a single document
file
All scenarios can be saved
and computed together with
one click

Document Viewer
Group by definition, all Scenarios within a
Group have the same boundaries (e.g.
External and Material boundaries). If you
edit the boundaries for one scenario, the
edits will automatically propagate to all
scenarios in the same Group.
Scenario multiple Scenarios in a Group,
allow you to change input parameters for
each Scenario (e.g. material properties,
groundwater, support, search methods)
while maintaining constant geometry within
a particular Group.

Document Viewer
There is no limit to the number of
Groups or Scenarios. You can create any
number of Scenarios per Group, and any
number of Groups.
Each Scenario is really a separate Slide
model.
Groups are just folders that allow you to
group together multiple models
(scenarios) that have the same
boundaries, or some other common
input parameter(s).

Example II
Start with base tutorial file
Change to Multi-Scenario model in Project Settings
Duplicate Scenario 1
Add load to appropriate Scenario
Duplicate Group 1
Change slope angle of Group 2
Run analyses for Group 2
View results for all 4 Scenarios

Results for Slope Angle 41 degrees (Group 1)

Results for Group 1 and Group 2

Slope Angle
of 41o

Slope Angle
of 36o

End of Module