Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering 3
Stability of Embankments and Slopes

Lecture Note

Landslide,
Image Courtesy: The United States Geological Survey (USGS)

August, 2016

1
Image courtesy: Landslide Handbook (USGS)

Earthquake-induced landslides,
Sichuan Province, China, May 12, 2008.
 CHAPTER 3

STABILITY OF

EMBANKMENTS AND

SLOPES

2
 STABILITY OF SLOPES

Slopes may be man-made as in:

• cuts and fills for highway and railroads
• earth dams
• river levees
• dikes for containment of water, including leachates, industrial wastes, and sewerage
• landscaping operations for industrial or other development
• banks of canals and other water conduits
• temporary excavations

Slopes may also be naturally formed as hillsides of stream banks~

Forces, such as gravitational, seepage a.nd earthquake produce shear stresses throughout the soil
mass, and a movement will occur unless the shearing resistance on every possible failure surface
throughout the mass is sufficiently larger than the shearing stress. The three main types of
movement (failure) are:

• Falls
These are characterised by movement away from existing discontinuities, such as joints,
fissures, steeply-inclined bedding planes, fault planes, etc., and within which the failure
condition may be assisted or precipitated by the effects of water or ice pressure.

Image courtesy: Landslide Handbook (USGS)

Rockfall

- - - - - _ __ ... .
• Flows
Here the slipping mass is internally disrupted and moves partially or wholly as a fluid. Flows
often occur in weak saturated soils when the pore pressure has increased sufficiently to
produce a general loss of shear strength; true shear surface development may be intermittent or
mostly absent.

Image courtesy: Landslide Handbook (USGS)

Debris Flow

• Slides
In this form of movement the mass remains essentially intact while sliding along a definite
failure surface. Two structural sub-divisions are apparent:

(a) Translational slides which may involve linear movement of rock blocks along bedding
planes or of a soil layer lying near to the (sloping) surface. Such movements are normally
fairly shallow and parallel to the surface.

Image courtesy: Landslide Handbook (USGS)

Rotational Landslid

4
 (b) Rotational slips occur characteristically in homogeneous soft rocks or cohesive soils; the
movement taking place along a curved shear surface in 'such a way that the slipping mass
slumps down near the top of the slope and bulges up near the toe.

This chapter is essentially concerned with the stability of slides. For details of fall and flows,
students should consult an appropriate source on engineering geology.

Generally, the principles of analysis of the stability of embankments are common to natural or
artificial slopes and to raised or cut slopes. Numerous techniques may be found in the literature
but are generally refinements of a straight-forward evaluation of the relationship between gravity
(or dead weight) forces and shear strength.

Complications arising through the generation of pore water pressure and, in natural slopes,
previous soil movement of a regressive nature, must be dealt with ad-hoc and will not be
discussed in this course.

The main categories of slope failure are dependent on soil strata and fall into three categories:

,
A. Translatory failure
There are many occasions when the potential failure surface of a slope is more realistically
represented by a straight line, or a series of straight lines, rather than the arc of a circle.

1. Translational slide on an infinite slope

The term infinite slope slide is commonly used to describe a plane translational movement at a
shallow depth parallel to a long slope. Often the presence of an underlying harder stratum will
constrain the failure surface to a plan.

(i) Stability ofinfinite cohesive slopes without seepage

Figure 1 shows the forces acting on an element from a slope of infinite extent.

Assumptions:
- no seepage
- the slip plane is parallel to the surface ofthe slope
- unit thickness of the element in the direction normal to the page
- F{ and are equal and opposite

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. . ---.~ ~--. .... ~~~ _~~~ __

 vi

H
~
vr=k'\1b:::. K
h( b ~ L'??.A
N =wc.<!nA.=
\ t4 S = vJ -8,.", fi It b \-\ -8;", ;
\
\ F\ : : : 1=-,2

\
\ r­

Figure 1

'By summing forces in the perpendicular and parallel directions to the slope:

Normal stres~:

N
(J =< - - ­
b f cos i b f cos i

=rH cos 2 i . (a)

and shear stress:

S
T = = '-----'­
b I cos i b f cos i

rH sin i cos i (b)

Also the effective unit resistance developed by the soil could be expressed by:

(c)

r------------- <~--- ...< --<~«- --­

Equating Equations (b) and (c),

J
H
c
= Cd (
r l sec 2 1.
tan i- tan¢d
(1)

s
The safety factor F can be obtained from Equations (b) and (c), ie. F -, or
r

F= c + tan¢ (2)
rHsini cosi tani

(ii) Stability ofinfinite cohesive slopes with seepage and water table at surface

2 shows a case where the seepage coupled with a water table at the surface of the ground.

Assumptions:
- soil is cohesive
- pore pressure at a depth H Yw H cos 2 i
- the effective pressure - (y - 'Xv)

7
The nonnal stress:

(d)

The shear stress:

'[= yH sin i cos i (e)

The developed shear strength:

S = Cd + n H cos 2 i tan ¢Jd (f)

From (e) and (t)

Cd + Y? H cos 2 i tan ¢Jd y H sin i cos i (c~s

SIn
~)
I

or

'l
H = sec i (3)
C y tan i r;, tan ¢Jd

The safety factor:

tan~d
( Yo)
y tanl
(4)

(iii) Stability ofinfinite cohesionless slopes with seepage and water table at surface

Equation (g) may be utilised with the value of Cd O.

or

8
from which

(5)

(Usually Yb is about ~'Y, thus i = ¢dI2).

The factor of safety is

F= (%J(tan~d)
Y tanl
(6)

(iv) Stability ofinfinite cohesionless slopes - dry conditions

Apply Equations (a) and (b); Equation (c) would be altered with Cd = 0:

yH sini cosi - yH cos 2 itan ¢d = 0

and

i ­- 'f'd
'" (7)

The factor of safety is

F= tan¢d (8)
tani

2. Translational slide in finite slopes

Figure 3 shows soil mass resting on an inclined layer of impermeable soil. There exists a tendency
for the upper mass slide downward along its plane of contact with the lower layer of impermeable
soil.

9
 \
)

Figure 3.

The force tending to cause sliding is the component of the upper mass's weight along the plane of
contact. By referring to Figure 4 and considering a unit width of slope the upper mass's weight
(w):

W= Lhy (a)
2

where yis the unit weight of the upper mass.

Figure 4.

The force tending to cause sliding (F~),

Fs - Wsin a (b)

10

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. -.~.-----.-- ... - - ­
Forces that resist sliding result from cohesion and friction. The resistance (to sliding) force, R\" is
given by the following equation:

R\ = cL + W cos a tan ¢ (c)

where ¢ is the angle of friction between the upper mass and the lower layer of impermeable soil.

The factor of safety (F.S.) against sliding:

cL + W cosatan¢
FS. = --------'- (9)
Wsina

Figure 5 gives the formulation required to evaluate Land h.

J)

. Figure 5.

3. Wedge block analysis

When the potential sliding mass of the soil is bounded by two or three straight lines we have a
wedge failure. Wedge failures can be brought about by a variety of geological conditions and one
example is shown in Figure 6, with the design approximation illustrated in Figure 6.

The form of construction within an earth structure can also dictate that any stability failure will
be of a wedge type. One example is that of an earth dam with a sloping impermeable core (Figure
6 (c)). Various wedge failure patterns could be assumed for the purpose of analysis. One such
form is illustrated in Figure 6 (d).

11
 /
/
/
/
/
/
,/

"
( b)
co.. )

Cd)

Figure 6. Sliding block or wedge failure.

Figure 7 shows how to apply the wedge analysis method.

Triar wedge method to

obtain Po if Rankine
method not used. Use
(0) Sliding biock force system.
similar method for Pp
Note thol AS may be
if necessory.
oriented porallel 10 any
disconlinuily and not always
horizontal os s~n h~(e.

'0
(c) Ptol 01 .6E 'is. F 10 otJjain
value at .6E ~ O.

tbl Force poIyQO"I for cen1ral block to obtain .6E.

Figure 7.

12
 The problem is conveniently solved using a force polygon for each assumed value of F, as in
Figure 7(b) for the sliding block, with the closure error scaled as IJE. A plot of IJE versus F can
be made as in Figure 7 (c); the value of Fat IJE =0 is the desired value.
A trial wedge type solution can also be obtained using the "method of slices".

B. Slope failure in homogenous soils

1. Slopes in homogenous cohesionless soils (c =0, ¢ > 0)
Wilen the slope angle (i) of a sand slope exceeds the sand's angle of internal friction (</», the sand
slope tends to fail by sliding in a downhill direction parallel to slope.

The factor of safety for slopes in homogenous cohesionless soils is given by the (refer to
translatory failure section part lev»~ Equation 8:

F= tan</> (8)
tani

2. Slopes in homogenous cohesive soils (c > 0, ¢ = 0 and c > 0, ¢ > 0)

Tn this section, four methods are presented for analysing slope stability in homogeneous cohesive
soils:
(i) Culmann method
(ii) Circular arc method
(iii) Stability number method
(iv) Cousin's stability charts approach

(i) Culmann Method

The following method of analysis was proposed by Culmann in 1866.

Assumption:

Failure occurs on a slip plane through the toe of the slope. Such a plane is indicated in Figure 8.

The force tending to cause sliding:

w sin a (a)

13

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .... - - - - - - - ­
 c/
\

Figure 8

Resistance to sliding:

(b)

where

C
Cd=-- (c)
F.S.¢

and

(d)

The weight of soil in upper triangle abc (w):

Lhy
w=~~ (e)
2

but h, the height of the triangle:

h= (-!!-J
smf3
sinCS - a) (f)

14
 Substitute Equation (f) into (e):

W (!)L(-!!-]sin(fJ-a)(y) (g)
2 1\ smfJ

Equating Equations (a) and (b), substitute w from Equation (g) into the new equation:

r:I J[sin CfJ - a)sin(a ¢d)] (h)

( 2smfJ COS¢tf
>

The critical angle for a (ie. ac) can be determined by equating the first derivative of Cd with
respect to a to zero and solving for a.

(i)

Substitute a c from Equation (i) into Equation (h) for a:

rH[ 1- cosCfJ - ¢d)]

(9)
4sin fJ cos ¢d

Solving for H:

4cd sin fJ cos ¢d

H (10)
y[ 1- cosCfJ - ¢d)]

(ii) Circular Arc Analysis

Where slopes are finite in extent, as most artificial embankments and roadway cuts are, the failure
surface is curved. Various works have suggested that the curved surface is a part of a circular arc
or a log spiraL The circular arc is the simplest solution and the only one considered here.

The critical circle is the one along which failure is most likely to occur and for which the factor of
safety is the lowest. A number of trial circles are chosen and the analysis repeated for each until
the lowest factor of safety is obtained.

Figure 9 shows the cross-section of a slope together with a trial slip circle of radius R and centre
O. Instability tends to be caused due to the moment of the body weight W of the portion above
the slip circle.

15
Disturbing moment - Wd

-- 9.

The tendency to move is resisted by the moment of the mobilised shear strength acting along the

circular arc AB.

Length of arc AB =R()

Shear resistance force along AB CU R()

Shear resistance moment

Then factor of safety,

F = shear resistance moment
disturbing moment

= (11)
Wd

The values of Wand d are obtained by dividing the shaded area into slices or triangularlrectangular
segments and then taking area-moments about a vertical axis passing through the toe, or other
convenient point.

Location of the most critical circle

The centre ofthe most critical circle can be found by trial and error as follows:

L A grid pattern, such as that shown in Figure 11, is established alongside the slopes.

16
Each of the comers ofthe grid are then assumed to be a centre for trial slip circle; and by
using Equation 12, below, the factor of safety F" for each circle is determined and recorded
on the grid pattern as shown in Figure 11.

CL
Fs (12)
T

where L OA and T is the sum of the tangential working forces along L (see Figure 10).

Figure 10.
1.50

~ 1.5
Center of critical slip circle
.~~--t--+- F, ~ j 45
F, I .4 0 --_fl.--+--l-,.l­

Figure 11.

17

- - -.. --­
 3. After several points have been established, points of equal values are joined, which is

similar to drawing contours of F~ values. These contours are approximately elliptical in

shape.

4. The centre of these elliptical contours indicates where the centre of critical slip circle

would be.

detennine a reasonable position for the centre of a first trial slip circle is not easy, but a study
. o f the various types of slips that can occur is helpful. In the case of soils with rp> 3, the critical
slip circle is invariably through the toe . . as it is for any soil (no matter what its rp value) if the
angle of slope exceeds 53° (Figure 12 (a»). An exception to this rule occurs when there is a layer
of relatively stiff material at the base of the slope, which will cause the circle to be tangential to
this layer (Figure 12 (b).

For cohesive soils with little angle of friction the slip circle tends to be deeper and usually extends
in front of the toe (Figure 12 (c)); this type of circle can of course be tangential to a layer of stiff
material below the embankment which li.mits the depth to which it would have extended (Figure
12 (d)).

/ "
o
¢ ). 3

(A) Toe Fa.; lure

7/./
(c.) 'Deep slip Ci... c;..\e --..." ,..".??'>" ..... ??'""7'"
Figure 12. Types of slip faihrres.
CD) eire-Ie. L~j~,,\ . .t.'a..l
to dee P STi H ("'-,e r
~,,~
I 0-G';.---~
/
rJ..

Figure 13. Fellenius' construction for centre of critical circle.

18

-------- -----
In the case of a slope made out of homogeneous cohesive soil it is possib Ie to determine directly
the centre of the critical circle by a method that Fellenius proposed in 1936 (see 13 and
table below). .

a Angle ~
......... _
­

29° 40°
28° 3T
26° 35°
1:2 25" 35"
25° 35°
25° 3T

This technique is not applicable in its original form to frictional cohesive soils but has been
adapted by Jumikis (1962) to suit provided that they are homogeneous (Figure 14). It is
necessary first to obtain the centre of the Fellenius circle (OJ) as before, after which a pointX is
established such that X is 2H below the top of the slope and a distance of 4.5H horizontally away
from the toe of the slope (H the vertical height of the slope). The centre of the critical circle, 0,
lies on the line XO j extended beyond OJ, the distance of 0 beyond OJ, becoming greater as the
of friction increases.

Such a method can only be used as a means of obtaining a set of sensibly positioned trial slip
circles. When the slope is irregular or when there are pore pressures in the soil, conditions are no
longer homogeneous and the method becomes reliable.

po S$i hIe.

'PoSiT,'ol'"\ 0 r:: 0

14. Construction for centre of critical circle for a C-(J soil.

Effect of tension cracks

Tension cracks may reduce the safety factor of slope by as much as 20% and are usually regarded
as early and important warning signs of impending failure in cohesive soils. In cohesive soils, a

19
 tension cracks tends to form near the top of the slope as the condition of limiting equilibrium (and
failure) develops. The tension crack depth may be taken as

2c
zo =-"
y

The development of the slip circle is terminated at the tension crack depth and so its arc length is
really A C as shown in Figure 14. The free body weight W of the slipping mass is the shaded area
bounded by the ground surface, the slip circle arc and the tension crack. No shear strength can be
developed in the tension crack, but, if it can fill with water, allowance must be made for the
hydrostatic force P w , which acts horizontally adding to the disturbing moment:

1 2
Pw YwZo
2

~ -~
0
(Jt~
I~d ~ hc'Z~~ 2
¥
\-i
~I C I
I
I ~ Z I
~ ..w ~I
/ h'td,..oSi.... TI~ 'Pf'eS<;iu"e
I W /)f
'/ \~ t .......... s "/),..., C. V'o.cJ<;

A
I -;#
'Y
......-:;-.:.,. _...- ...... :1'/

Figure 15. Effect oftension crack in total stress analysis.

Taking this into account, together with the fact that the slip circle arc is reduced, the factor of
safety expression becomes:

F (13)

20
 (iii) Stability Number Method

Unlike the Culmann method, in this method the failure surface is assumed to be a circular arc
(see Figure 16). A parameter called the stability number is introduced:

yH
Ns (14)
c

where N I· =stability number

y= unit weight of soil
H= height of cut (see Fig. 15)
C =cohesion of soil

For the embankment illustrated in Figure 16, three types of failure surfaces are possible.
These are shown in Figure 17.

Both the type of failure surface and the stability number can be determined for a specific case
based on given values of ¢ (angle of internal friction) and j3 (slope angle, Figure 16). If the
value of ¢ is zero, or nearly zero, Figure 18 may be used to determine both the type of failure
surface and the stability number. .

If the value of ¢ is greater than 3 the failure surface is always a toe circle. Figure 19 may be
0

used to determine the stability number for a different value of ¢.

Figure 16.

For soils possessing cohesion and having ¢ > 0, the procedure is more complicated. One
procedure is to estimate FS ¢ and determine ¢required' Using this value and slope angle j3, one
can find the stability number from Figure 18. With this stability number, Crequired can be
computed from Equation 13. FS c is the quotient of Cgiven divided by Crequired. If FS ¢ equals

21
FS e , the overall factor of safety is equal to FS !/J (or FSJ. If FS !/J and FS c are 110t equal,
additional values of FS.rp can be estimated and the preceding procedure repeated to determine
corresponding values of FS c until the factor of safety is found where FS!/J equals FS c ' If the
correct factor of safety has not been found after several such trials, it may be expedient to plot
corresponding values of FS!/J and FS. on a graph, from which the overall factor of safety (ie.
where FS!/J equals FS c ) can be read.

()

(C)
Figure 17. Types of failure surfaces: (a) toe (b) slope circle; (c) midpoint.

'51---r­
_ _ _ Toe Circies
I """C"--l----j----r-----i ­ -­ - Midpoint Circies --1----1
" >­ - - - - - Slope Circles
I

Figure 18. Stability numbers and types of slope failures for 4> -0.

22
 '<"3.85

Figure 19. Stability numbers for soils having cohesion and friction.

(iv) Cousins' stability charts approach

Cousins (1978) solved the simple slope including pore pressure effects. He used a modified
form of Equation 11 and programmed the search on the computer. The results were
summarised in charts (see Figures 21 to 23) in terms of

1. Slope angle (see Figure 20)

2. Pore pressure ratio ru:

u
r =­
"yE-I

23
4. Stability number NF

FyH

where F factor of safety

5. Figure 23 depicts the relationship between slope angle i and coordinates X, Y of the
centre of the critical slip circle for a number values and three values of ru. For
convenience, coordinates X and Yare expressed as:

. Xtani
coordmate =--­
H
. Ytani
and Y coordmate = - ­
H

Cousins (1978) also developed a series of stability charts for toe circles that take into account
the effect of tension cracks, both dry and filled with water (see Figures 24 and 25).

t b) o:c1e
::; f Toe

id)

Figure 20.

24
 +--+-,,-~ -l---jToe circles I Toe circles' ,Toe circles:

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Slope i (degrees) Slope i (cegrees) Slope i (degrees)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 21. Stability number for toe circle (a) ru =0, (b) ru 0.25 and (c) rll 0.5.

350 ,
300
250 :
200
160
140
120
~
100
Q) 80
.D 70
E 60 '
:J 50
c 40 e
.£ 30
£i
'" 20 '
if) 16
14
22
10
8
7
g
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Slope i (degrees) Slope i (degrees) Slope i (degrees)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 22. Stability number for depth factor. D - 1, 1.25 and 1.5.
=
(a) ru 0, (b) ru 0.25 and (c) ru = 0.5.

25
c. Failure in mixed or stratified deposits (method of slices)
The method of slices appears to be a more general and perhaps a somewhat more accurate
method of stability analysis. It is more applicable in the case of significant variation in soil
properties and water conditions.

Figure 26 shows a cross section encompassed by a trial failure arc subdivided into number of
vertical sections or slices. We can make an approximate assumption that the resultant of P n
and Tn are equal in magnitude to the resultants of P/1+1 and Tn+ l , and that their lines of action
coincide.

I \
r-'\.
(j.(l
~+\

Figure 26.

F or equilibrium consideration,

The resisting shear force can be expressed as

r(6.L) 1
Tr=riMn)= r F 1/ =p[c+o-tan¢J6.Ln (14)
s s

26

~-~-~--~-~--~- ----------
 u
c
ro

El 0 -1--'-----F""'-4,
i-.

>:1'"

! Toe circles - -
-1.0L­ ____________ __ __L__L___L________________ __
~ ~ __ ________ ~ ~~ ~ ~---~~

o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25

Slope i (degrees) S iooe i (degrees) Sleoe i (degrees)

(a) (b) (e)

Figure 23. Coordinates of slip circle for toe circle. (a) ru 0, (b) ru 0.25 and (c) ru 0.5.

OJ
D
E
OJ
c:

o 10 20
Slope i 1l1POrpp",

Figure 24. Stability number NF for water in tension crack, ru = O.

27

-------------------- ........ ~ ----~. . .- ­

Slope i (degrees) Slope l (degrees)
(a) (b)

S iope i (degrees)

(e)

Figure 25. Stability charts for no water in tension cracks.

28
The nom1al stress, (5, in Eqn 14 is equal to

Nr W"cosa"

For equilibrium of the trial wedge ABC, the moment of the driving force about 0 equals the
moment of the resisting force about 0, or

or

n~p

L(cMn + Wncosa" tan¢»

F
s = =n-p
-------- (15)
L Wnsina'l
fI~":; 1

Note that the value of an may be either positive or negative. The value of a" is positive when
the slope of the arc is in the same quadrant as the ground slope. To find the minimum factor
of safety - that is, the factor of safety for the critical circle - one must make several trials by
changing the centre of the trial circle. This method is generally re~erred to as the ordinary
method of slices.

The method of slices can be extended to slopes with layered soil, as shown in Figure 27. The
general procedure of stability analysis is the same. However, some minor points should be
kept in mind. When Equation 15 is used for the factor of safety calculation the values of ¢> and
c will not be the same for all slices. For example, for slice no. 3 (see Figure 27), we have to use
a friction angle of ¢> ¢J and cohesionless c = C3; similarly, for slice no. 2, ¢> <h and c C2'

For steady state through slopes, as is the situation in many practical cases, the pore
water pressure must be considered when effective shear strength parameters are used. So, we
need to modify Equations 15 and 23 slightly.

Figure 28 shows a slope through which there is a steady state seepage. Thus, Equation 15 for
the ordinary method of slices will be modified to read

n~p

_
L [cM" + (Wn cos an - u/~Ln) ] tan ¢>
n=l
n=p
(16)
L W"sina
n=1
n

29
 B C

h", ~(I C,

Figure 27.

\
\
H

Figure 28.

30
 Bishop's simplified method of slices
In 1955, Bishop presented a more refined method of analysis. In this method, the effect of
forces on the sides each slice are accounted for to some degree. We can study this method
by referring to the slope analysis presented in 29.

\ W
n
\
P f\ \
\ 4'J
W1'\
r \ 1__ o(n l~\
II ~-~---
6P
FoY"c<!- Poll/Jon I~~
e.YI-I/· '/ " 6 ;:- ... n-o

29.

Now,letPn + 1 - iJP and Tn - +I Also, we can write

(17)

Figure 29 shows the force polygon for equilibrium on the nth slice. Summing the forces in the
vertical direction gives

Wn+£\T sin (x"

(18)

31

----------------~ . .~~--- .. -.-.-~-

 For equilibrium of the wedge ABC (Figure 26), taking the moment about 0 gives

II=p II=p

I, W,/sin a" = I, Trr (19)

n=1 II=!

where

1 .
Tr = -(c+CJtanth),0,.L
F ~ n
s

1
= p(cM + Nrtan¢) n
(20)
s

Substitution of Equations 18 and 20 into Equation 19 gives

n=p 1
I, (cb n
+ Wntan¢+~Ttan¢)-~.
F = n=1 maC n)
(21)
s n-p
-I, Wnsina n
II=!

where

tan ¢sina"
ma(n) = cos an F (22)
s

--~-

For simplicity, if we let iJ.T =0, Equation 21 becomes

n=p 1
I, (cb n+ Wn tan¢)-~ .
F = n=1 maC,,) (23)
s n-p
I, Wilsina"
n=1

Note that the term F, is present on both sides of Equation 23_ Hence, we must adopt a tria1­
and-error procedure to find the value of F,.. For steady state seepage for Bishop's simplified
method of slices will be modified

n=p 1
I, [cb ll
+ (W" - ul!b,)tan¢]-~
F
s
= n=1 n=p
rH Ca )" (24)
I, W"sina"
n=1

Note that Wn in Equations 16 and 24 is the total weight of the slice.

32
Using the method of slices, Bishop and Morgenstern (1960) and Spencer (1967) provided
charts to determine the factor of safety of simple slopes that takes into account the effects of
pore water pressure.

According to Bishop and Morgenstein' s method, the factor of safety of a slope with seepage
can be evaluated by using the equation

1
- e~b+b~ --"-
[ yI-!H HH II
1
z (l - r ) tan ¢
F=
s
-----'x
n=p b (25)
L~~sina
n=l H H n

The factor of safety based on the preceding equation can be solved and expressed in the form

where m' and n' = stability coefficients. Figure 30 gives the values of m' and n' for various
combinations of elyI-!, D, ¢ and {3.

To determine Fs from Figure 30:

1. Obtain ¢, {3 and elyI-!.

2. Obtain ru (weighted average value).

3. From Figure 30, obtain the values of m' and n' for D = 1, 1.25, 1.5 (for the required
parameters ¢, {3, r u and elyI-!.

4. Determine F" using the values of m' and n' for each value of D.

5. The required value of F I, is the smallest one obtained in step 4.

33
Spencer (1967) provided a method to determine the factor of safety (Fs) by taking into
account the interslice forces which does satisfy the equations of equilibrium with respect to
moment and forces. The details of this method of analysis are beyond the scope of this unit;
however, the results of Spencer's work are summarised in this section. Figure 31 shows the
variation of clFI·yH for various values of the slope [3; <AI; and rlJ from Spencer's analysis.

Note that

A.
IJJ
,d
= tan ~ - t(
tan<P)
F- (27)
s

To use the charts given by Spencer:

1. Determine c, y, H, /3, <P and r u for the given slope.

2. Assume a value of F j •

3. Calculate C![Fs(assumed)y.HJ.
l'
step 2

4. With the value of clF~yH calculated in step 3 and the slope angle, [3, enter the proper
chart in Figure 31 to obtain <Pd. Note that Figures 31 (a) tlirough 31 (c) are for ru values
of 0,0,25 and 0.5, respectively.

5. Calculate Fs = tan <pltan <Pd­

6. lfthe values of Fs as ass)lmed in step 2 are not the same as those calculated in step 5,
repeat steps 2 through 5 until they are the same.

Figure 32 shows a slope with parameters used to locate the critical circle. 33 through
35 can be used to obtain the parameters for the critical circle.

34
Figure 30.

35
 'l:l.
8
-;:; "
"0 ­
Vi

1-:
I~

;::

:.,
g
Q
, \\, ;:., ;:.,
~ ~
Q
;:: ,;: ~
-b
, '"
I
,

Figure 30 (eontinued).

36
 z, , :" ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ;:: :!;
'" ~ ~

" - ~
"
'"
~

; I I ;
I
I I
..
~

<Q

..
;: "­
0

Figure 30 (continued).

37
 ·f\-l-++-'--H-+++-H-+-i ..,

Figure 30 (continued).

38
 ,o o
o

-,t--!-+-''<++-f-',}-+--+'-\­
I \
I t ,
I
f\i 1\; ,\i ; \ '~' ~
\J-:--ihr\_L~'· 17T.~ T~~l
,: I I I
I : _~ ~~-L
I I ~'
'-LF±+.I~II
I
; I
~

1-H--H-+-+-'-'-++J-f--h".++-~H-i-'l--l--+-J,~.l-A\I+++\l-"-A-~-\-'--;--\-, 1 ~ -L ilL' i_' -lh--:-:--I':....W-+-!-+­

, I I \]--:--l I

Figure 30 (continued).

39
 :
~ ~ ~

I
~

~
-
N-+ P*- -, 1\
I ~

t:~~: ~lr
I

fir
I
I

-- I H- I I H\[ f\ H
-I· . I
I I I ~

. H- I !
-

.'
I
I
--l
H t\ \;j H- -
--H- .- .- i
- - '
! • '
, - -
~

,
.-~
I
I

, , H ' \; -
;::
! I
I I
, \i , I d\ ,
, \!
l\ ,f' --~r- N'f\-N hi: -, I
I I 'I i\r !\ ,i - -
It
\i
, I
I
c-~ \I M

...L-._ 1\ ~~I\
r\'i~ ~f\:"
II

."
I
'-" \
--i,
': '\I I

~1
Jr i-l~~
~
-~f';. I
--j
I '\ I '1
.'1
--n=
I
I I : . ', '1
,"
I
: ,
'
~ S! 8 51 8 ..,
S! 8 5! 8 S! 8 s:<>
~ ~ ~ ~ M - -

Figure 30 (continued).

40
 1
~O·2S
II I I I~
Ii I: ~~

'"
_'-_I ,t=_1
';'

I .~, V L ~

i--'-ri-- ~~r k:: ~/ V

I

o,t±
(c) .,L
~~
r" 45
009
V V / V l:d
.08
I I .j J tLlL '\'(: tGV::~12
0.1 /' tr l::1 '\. ~v:: ~
006 l I 1 L / V Vv "'~-;>I'//~~
l .L / ~ VLv:Lk:..~.~~t2;~
oos
r-r1 -
L
.L~,/"- V; ~~k0~k"~~:v;:~
/ '/lV ~'.LL-/ vv;~~ I
.0.
OOJ
II V
0{)1
I 1 V vLLv::~t(::>,%C::/ YV 'II
O~I
17LLVLL~t2:_~r2~~ I l
IVi~~~~~V II 11
o l -4 4 II' :0 11 !{ 1& Ii 20 11 H 26 29 )0 Jl 31
SLOPE: DEC'Etl ,;3

Figure 31.

41
 Figure 32.

(al
f------- ru :::0
1
80
J".,~

~ -::::;..- :...., b=' F='

f::::""
70
~~ P
Ang\e B
1·5: I
~
->-- i:;::~
~~
UJ
.-J
\.J60 2: \ I
Z
-< ~d~:\
V J....- t:: vI..--
[...-
~f\
!'-0'l,

~vk ~ ~v
so
t:;...;; ~ r<: 3: /
~ "- /·5: /
2:1

)0
2 3 -4 5 10 15 20 30..w 50 100
H un 4>'
'Y -c'­

co..)

Figure 33 (Spencer, 1967) .

42
 (b)
I---­ ru 0·25
::0

...
~ ~ r.".~
17'
"'~~ ~ ~ ?
\·5: \
F="'l' \ -­
--==
- ~ t;;~ F";;;"-­............ ~ ~
. . . . . . r: ~~
f-;,'0 f.-­
in
~ i'e
~ ;:..:-;:
(
I'-~
t::::~
~ ~ l5S V
([ ".\

~~ ~ k "- ~~3:2: II -
~V \'1.5: I

(b)

Figure 33 (Spencer, 1967) (continued).

(c)
r------ ru =0·5
80

70

~"1.Ie B ~ ~~ ~
-... ~ ~~
~ fP'

~~
w
-'
60
J.-- ~ ...... f-
~ /
~
l.:l
z I:::::: po p-
-< 1.: 1 --bf ~~
~i'e'"
1,'
~~!\o . ~ I--' ~---
50
~\~ ...- r'?'" f--'
~~~ ~ t:::: t;::: :;0"
'\. 1'3; I
'\. 2: I
~~V 1·5: I
p--
30

1 .-i 5 10 15 20 30 10 50 100

cp'
",8-­
tan
, c'

(c)

Figure 33 (Spencer, 1967) (continued) .

43

•
 _I (a) !
ru - 0 ,
o·5 ,I
I 1 !
I '-
o I
"'"
I I J' !
o. I I ,1 I
I
3~J ,I
I
n
o·1
~ I
I I .1
1

J\j 1
j
o·
I\:! 1'\, I i
'"..
i I'" 't, i I I I I
hi i
10 IS 20 ,30

"IH
c·

(a)

I (b)
ru c 0-25
/I I I
I. I I
i
I I
~> !
\l I I
G 1"'-1 I
r41\r"-" I
I"1'-.
I'l"­ I
i

I
I 1\ ~
V H ----:-'-'
( b)

L (d I
ru - 0-5 I
0·5
II
I i I
I
0­
i\/ I

0·3 ~\ I
' \"" ' . ,I I

n \
0·2, \ I

o·
,
0
1"(/1
~
I'\,
'"
",1"- 1'J
I i~ i' ~
I

1 I"N.~
2. 3
" 5
10 ' IS 20 30
tan 1>'
"I H - c- '

(c)

Figure 34 (Spencer, 1967)

44

... ~-------------- --~ .. ' .... ' -.. --~ ........ ' - - - - .. - - - ..- .. ~" .. ..

,
 ...
1·6 (aJ
I
Tu =0
f----
1·5
1\
~
'"K
"', ~
()
I·
3~ . . . t\
~ ~'/ ~"
I·1 i'
... ~
1
['..
i'-- ...............
'I~
~+- t-- N-
1'--- ""-....
10

r H~
c'
15 -- t--
10
........... )-...
30 -40 SO
i
I 00

(a)

~
(b)
Tu ~0·25
..

~
,, 1
~
./

\ "f\.,,~
,\1
,,
K>
~ <.',
'~~
"",­
"f'
'~

.....
,
r---. r-.... ~
"­ ~
~ r--­ N­r­ '-­
'---
(b)
'1_____.
-- --+­

1-6
I' \ (c)
T" =0,5

" r-:::.­ 1\
5~
\ ,\
H
,\
t'. ~
','..I) '-:,..
I·) ,
n
~
"­
", l'-­
1·2

I, I
,"K'/........
~
'r-.~
I~
"'" '" ~
...........
~ ~ 1
"r-..... r-.....
I-<J
--r-r-. U r--- t-­ r- '-­ r---I-I­
2 3 -+ 5 10 15 10 30 -40 50 100
'H an C/>'
"Y -c'­

(c)

Figure 35 (Spencer, 1967)

45
 Significance of factor of safety for design
Generally, the factor of safety is defined as follows:

F = 'Tr (28)
J

where 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

F = c + crtan¢ (29)
Jed + cr tan ¢d

The factor of safety with respect to cohesion, Fe, and the factor of safety with respect to
friction, Frp.

(30)

and

(31 )

Compare Equations 29 through 31 :

we can write

When F.~ is equal to 1, the slope is in a state of impending failure. Generally, a value of 1.5 for
the factor of safety with respect to strength is acceptable for the design of a stable slope.

46
 In deciding the minimum factor of safety for a particular problem a number of factors need to
be considered:

(a) The consequences of the event that is being factored against, ego slip of an embankment
or cutting

(b) The numerical effect on the F value of variations in the parameters involved.

(c) The reliability of the measured or assumed values of the parameters involved.

Cd) The economics of the problem.

If the safety factor is 71.25, we may have considerable confidence that the slope is safe. IfF
is less than about l.07, we may expect a slope failure.

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON SLOPE STABILITY

The variable nature of soil suggests that estimates of slope safety can only be approximate.
For this reason, it is important to use Ca) effective values of cohesion and angle of internal
friction measured in triaxial compression and (b) assume the worst or lowest values of these
parameters. For instance, soil properties which were stable prior to construction of a cut
slope may change due to erosion or atmospheric effects.

Drainage provision may be necessary at the toe of a slope or a cut-off system at the crest.
Berms may be desirable for either water control and/or maintenance access on high banks.
Vegetation or other erosion prevention may assist stability, but should not be "evaluated" in
calculating safety factors .

47

.--------------------- .................... -~.-~~~ ... ---.-~~-- •............... -----~----~~.--. ---~