Slide

2D limit equilibrium slope stability

for soil and rock slopes

Sample Problems

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................2
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #1 ..........................................................................4
a) Determine FS of heterogeneous slope, circular slip surface .........................4
b) Use circular and non-circular methods to determine the overall factor of
safety of the slope for each of the methods in a)...............................................5
c) With respect to force and moment equilibrium, describe the main differences
between the Bishop, Spencer, Janbu, and GLE/Morgenstern-Price methods...5
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #2 ..........................................................................6
a) Determine the Spencer FS, grid search, circular failure surface ...................6
b) Validate the solution based on the location of the thrust line ........................8
c) Add a suitable tension crack to the slope to eliminate tensile forces.............9
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #3 ........................................................................12
a) Determine the location of a building near the crest of a slope to achieve a
safety factor of 1.2...........................................................................................12
b) If one assumes the failure surface can be any shape (i.e. noncircular), how
far from the crest does the building have to be? .............................................15
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #4 ........................................................................16
a) Determine FS, earth dam seepage, finite element analysis, auto-refine
search .............................................................................................................16
b) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in FS with respect to
increasing phi b. ..............................................................................................20
c) Determine the effect of infiltration on FS .....................................................23
d) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in FS with respect to
increasing phi b ...............................................................................................26
e) Plot the results of the 2 analyses on the same chart. Was this trend
expected? Explain. ..........................................................................................27

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5 ........................................................................29

a) Probabilistic analysis using Bishop and Spencer methods. ........................30
b) Plot a histogram of the computed Bishop Factor of Safety values. .............34
c) Plot the cumulative probability curve for the Factor of Safety values ..........35
d) Obtain a scatter plot of factor of safety against the friction angle of the sand.
What is the correlation coefficient between the two?.......................................36
e) Obtain a convergence plot of the mean factor of safety ..............................37
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #6 ........................................................................39
a) A homogeneous rock slope is to be analyzed for planar failure along a
predetermined joint plane dipping at 37. Use both Slide and RocPlane to
analyze the stability. ........................................................................................39
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #7 ........................................................................42
a) Hand calculation of Bishop safety factor, dry slope.....................................42
b) Verification Using Slide ...............................................................................47
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #8 ........................................................................50
a) Hand calculation of Bishop safety factor, slope with water table.................50
b) Verification Using Slide ...............................................................................55
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................59

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #1

A two-layered slope has a cross section as shown in Figure 1 [USACE (2003)]

with soil properties as given in Table 1.1. A circular surface of radius 278 feet is
centered 259 feet above and 101 feet to the right of the toe of the slope.
a) Calculate the factor of safety using the Bishop, Janbu, Spencer and
Morgenstern-Price methods.

Figure 1: Slope Cross-section

Table 1.1: Material Properties
(pcf)
c (psf)
Material
()
Embankment
Foundation

135
127

1780
1600

5
2

SOLUTION:
Table 1.2: Results
Method
Bishop Simplified
Janbu Corrected
Spencer
GLE/Morgenstern-Price

Factor of Safety
1.3254
1.3432
1.3213
1.3190

b) Use circular and non-circular methods to determine the overall factor of safety
of the slope for each of the methods in a).

SOLUTION:
Several different searching schemes were used to find the lowest factor of safety
for each of the four methods.
Table 1.3: Overall FOS
Method
Bishop simplified
Janbu simplified
Spencer
GLE/MP

Details
non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces
non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces
non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces
non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces

FOS
1.128
1.171
1.187
1.179

In every case, the optimized non-circular path search located the lowest factors
of safety.

c) The method of slices employs several different limit equilibrium models to

analyze the forces on a slice. With respect to force and moment equilibrium,
describe the main differences between the Bishop, Spencer, Janbu, and
GLE/Morgenstern-Price methods.

SOLUTION:
Table 1.4: Equations of statics satisfied and interslice force characteristics
Method
Bishop Simplified
Janbu Corrected
Spencer
GLE/Morgenstern-Price

Equilibrium Satisfied
Moment
Force
Moment, Force
Moment, Force

Interslice Force Distribution Assumption

interslice shear forces are zero
interslice shear forces are zero
constant interslice force angle
variable; user function

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #2

The thrust line gives the location of the resultant interslice forces. It is computed
by summing the moments of all forces acting on an individual slice about the
center of the base of the slice.
a) Using the grid search for circular failure surfaces, find the Spencer factor of
safety of the model in Figure 2 [Giam & Donald (1989)] with soil properties given
in Table 2.1.

Figure 2: Slope Cross-section

Table 2.1: Material Properties

c (kN/m2)

()

3
(kN/m )

32

10

20

SOLUTION:

Using Slide, the Spencer factor of safety is 1.689, located at (37.562, 42.492)
and a radius of 19.652m.

b) Based on the location of the thrust line from the Spencer analysis, is this a
valid solution? Could the solution be improved?

SOLUTION:
In SlideInterpret, the line of thrust can be displayed along the slope.

The diagram shows the line of thrust lying partially outside the circular failure
surface.
Therefore, the solution is questionable because the line of thrust should lie within
the sliding mass.

When the individual slices are queried, it can be seen that the slices on the far
right are in tension. The results of this analysis are questionable since soils
generally have little or no tensile strength.

c) Add a suitable tension crack to the slope with dimensions estimated by the
equations given below [Craig (1997)]. What is different? Is this a valid model?
Depth =

2c

ka

ka =

1 sin
1 + sin

SOLUTION:
ka =

1 sin 1 sin(10)
=
= 0.70409
1 + sin 1 + sin(10)

Depth =

2c

ka

2(32)
(20) 0.70409

= 3.8136

the depth of the tension crack should be 3.8136m.

A tension crack is added to the Slide model and the analysis is run again.

The Spencer factor of safety decreased from 1.689 to 1.592.

10

When the line of thrust is displayed along the slope, it can be seen that the
tension was alleviated by the introduction of the tension crack. Therefore, this is
a valid model as the line of thrust lies inside the sliding mass.

11

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #3

A temporary storage building for heavy equipment is to be built near the crest of
a slope. The geometry of the soil underlying the slope is shown below in Figure 3
[Giam & Donald (1989)]. Assume the worst-case situation of the water table
being at ground surface.

Figure 3: Slope Cross-section

Table 3.1: Material Properties
2
3
( )
Material (kN/m ) c (kN/m )
soil 1
soil 2
soil 3

19.5
19.5
19.5

14
18
24

34
30
27

Taking all of the buildings contents into consideration, a maximum distributed

load of 250kN/m would be applied to the 10m wide strip of land occupied by the
building.
a) Where would the building have to be located to achieve a minimum safety
factor of 1.2? Use Spencers method to determine the factor of safety and
assume a circular failure surface.

12

SOLUTION:
First, the unloaded slope is tested to verify a safety factor of 1.2 can be attained.

The unloaded slope has a Spencer factor of safety of 1.470.

Next, lets add a 10 metre wide distributed load of 250 kN/m, beginning at the
crest of the slope. Results of the analysis are depicted below.

13

The building cannot be constructed exactly at the crest of the slope, as the factor
of safety is only 1.059 when a value of 1.2 is required.
To determine the distance from the crest required to obtain a minimum safety
factor = 1.2, the load is moved at increments of 1-meter. The analysis is
summarized in the graph below:

Factor of Safety vs. Distance from Slope's Crest

1.400
1.350
Factor of Safety

1.300
1.250
1.200
1.150
1.100
1.050
1.000
0

10

Distance from Slope's Crest (m)

14

The building can be placed at approximately 5.4m from the crest of the slope to
achieve a minimum factor of safety of 1.2, assuming a circular failure surface.

b) If one assumes the failure surface can be any shape (i.e. noncircular), how far
from the crest does the building have to be?

Instead of assuming a circular failure surface, the slope was analyzed for noncircular failure by optimizing 1000 surfaces in a path search. The slope stability
calculated for Bishop, Janbu, Spencer and GLE is summarized in the graph
below:
Factor of Safety vs. Distance from Crest:
Non-circular path search - 1000 surfaces - optimized
1.6

Factor of Safety

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
5

10

11

Distance from Crest of Slope

Spencer

Bishop Simplified

Janbu Corrected

GLE/M-P

The points between 8 and 9 meters were analyzed every 0.2 meters, as the
value of 1.2 appeared to lie somewhere in between. It was discovered that the
building must be placed approximately 9 meters away from the slope to achieve
an overall factor of safety equal to or exceeding 1.2.

15

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #4

Case 1: Seepage analysis
The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion that is used to describe the shear strength of
soils and rocks can also be applied when analyzing partially saturated soils.
Pore water and air in the pores of the soil sustain the applied stresses in an
unsaturated soil. As a soil approaches saturation, the Mohr-Coulomb formula
typically used to describe shear strength is applicable once again.
a) The slope in Figure 4 [Fredlund & Rahardjo (1977)] considers the problem of
seepage through an earth dam with a 12-meter horizontal drain, and a pool of
water reaching 10 meters on the left face of the dam. The soil has unit weight of
20kN/m3, cohesion of 1kN/m2 and angle, , of 35. At the beginning of the
analysis, let b = 0 and the air entry value = 0 kN/m2. Using the finite element
analysis method and the Auto-Refine search method in Slide, run the
groundwater and slope stability analysis on the model. What are the resulting
factors of safety (Bishop, Spencer, Janbu corrected and Janbu simplified)?

Figure 4: Slope Cross-Section

16

SOLUTION:
To ensure proper discretizations, two points must be added to the model: one at
the point where the drain begins, and one at the height of the pooled water. The
model is then discretized and meshed. The 400 elements that make up the
mesh are all 3-noded triangles.

Discretized and Meshed Slide Model

The groundwater analysis is run first, followed by the slope stability analysis.
The following table and screen captures summarize the analysis results.
Table 4.1: Results
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified
1.5430
Janbu Corrected
1.5636
Janbu Simplified
1.5159
Spencer
1.5421

17

Slope Stability Using the Bishop Simplified Method

Slope Stability Using the Janbu Corrected Method

18

Slope Stability Using the Janbu Simplified Method

Slope Stability Using the Spencer Method

19

As a soil becomes more saturated, there is an increase in suction that leads to

an increase in cohesion of the soil. This increase in the cohesion of the soil is a
function of the angle, b.
When soil samples from different areas of the slope were analyzed, it was found
that the material properties varied in no particular pattern. Calculations showed
that these variances resulted in unsaturated shear strengths that ranged from a
minimum of 0 to a maximum of 35, with a mean of 0.
b) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in the Bishop simplified
FOS with respect to increasing b.

SOLUTION:
Firstly, the Sensitivity Analysis checkbox must be selected under the Statistics
tab of Project Settings.

20

Next, the statistical information must be entered in the Material Statistics dialog.

In the Slope Stability SlideInterpret Window, Sensitivity Analysis is chosen from

the Statistics menu.

21

The unsaturated shear strength angle for the Bishop Simplified analysis method
is plotted in Excel:
Sensitivity Plot:
No Infiltration

Factor of Safety - bishop

simplified

3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
0

10

20

30

40

Unsaturated Shear Strength Angle b ()

22

Case 2: Seepage analysis with Infiltration

Rain or melted snow infiltrates an unsaturated zone vertically. When infiltrating
precipitation encounters the groundwater table, it begins to flow in the same
direction as the groundwater flow. As the two water sources are combining and
flowing as one, the groundwater table rises, causing an increase in positive pore
pressures and reducing the shear strength. In the region above the water table,
infiltrating rainfall increases the soil saturation, thereby reducing the negative
pore pressure, also causing the shear strength to decrease. Precipitation will
cease to infiltrate the slope when all pores in the soil are full of water.
c) The slope in a) is subjected to torrential rains that percolate through the soil at
a rate of 1.5x10-8m/s. Run the groundwater and slope stability analyses again to
determine the effect of infiltration on Factor of Safety.

SOLUTION:

Slide Model: 10m total head on the left face, infiltration of 1.5x10-8 m/s on the right
face, horizontal drain at the right corner

23

Close-up of the right edge of the slope: horizontal drain on bottom, infiltration of
1.5x10-8 m/s on the face of the slope
Table 4.2: Results
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified
1.5430
Janbu Corrected
1.5565
Janbu Simplified
1.4712
Spencer
1.5421

Slope Stability Using the Bishop Simplified Method

24

Slope Stability Using the Janbu Corrected Method

Slope Stability Using the Janbu Simplified Method

25

Slope Stability Using the Spencer Method

d) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in FOS with respect to

increasing phi b.

SOLUTION:
The same steps followed in b) were repeated for the infiltration model. The
following graph results from the analysis:

26

Factor of Safety - bishop

simplified

Sensitivity Plot:
With Infiltration
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
0

10

20

30

40

Unsaturated Shear Strength Angle b()

Interpretation
e) Plot the results of the 2 analyses on the same chart. Was this trend
expected? Explain.

SOLUTION:
The graph coincides with the information given in c).

27

Factor of Safety - bishop

simplified

Sensitivity Plot:
Before and After Infiltration of Rainwater
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
0

10

20

30

40

Unsaturated Shear Strength Angle b (deg)

No Infiltration

Infiltration

As rainwater percolates down to the water table and the two water sources are
amalgamated, the positive pore pressure in the soil increases, resulting in a
decrease in the shear strength of the soil. The graph above shows that the slope
in b), the slope that was not infiltrated by rainwater, has a greater factor of safety
than the infiltrated slope, for each b analyzed. Therefore, the trend displayed
graphically is the trend that is expected, given the information provided earlier in
the question.

28

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5

Although the factor of safety is used to determine the stability of a slope, it is not
equally as accurate in every geotechnical scenario. If extensive site investigation
was performed, a considerable amount of uncertainty is removed from the safety
calculations, and a lower factor of safety can be used. However, if there were
not extensive in situ tests or high quality laboratory testing, a great level of
uncertainty is introduced to the factor of safety. To account for these
uncertainties, a probabilistic analysis can be employed for assessing the
performance of a slope.
The slope below (Figure 5) is to be assessed for stability while taking into
account uncertainties associated with the cohesion and friction angle, , of the
soils present at the site.
The three-layered slope is composed of sand and two types of clay. The
properties of these materials, as well as the statistical properties associated with
each materials and cohesion is given below.
Table 5.1: Material Properties
(kN/m3) c (kN/m2)
()

Material
Sand
Clay 1
Clay 2

21
22
22

3
22
25

30
11
20

Table 5.2: Material Statistics for Property: Friction Angle,

Material
Sand
Clay 1
Clay 2

Distribution
Lognormal
Normal
Normal

Mean
30
11
20

Std. Dev
4
1.8
6

Rel. Min
30
11
20

Rel. Max
30
11
20

Table 5.3: Material Statistics for Property: Cohesion, c

Material
Sand
Clay 1
Clay 2

Distribution
Normal
Lognormal
Lognormal

Mean
3
22
25

Std. Dev
0.5
5
7.2

Rel. Min
3
22
25

Rel. Max
3
22
25

29

Figure 5: Slope Geometry and Search Grid

a) Compute the probability of this slope failing by circular rotation for the Bishop
and Spencer methods. Perform Monte Carlo statistical analysis only on the
global minimum failure surface. Use 5,000 simulations.

30

SOLUTION:
First, the Project Settings must be entered so that Slide computes a probabilistic
analysis using the Monte Carlo sampling method.

Once the Material properties have been defined, Material Statistics can be
entered.

The surface options must be set up to use a predefined search grid to find the
global minimum.

31

32

Bishop Simplified Method:

Using the Bishop Simplified Method, the Probability of Failure is 11.720%.

Spencer Method:

Using the Spencer Method, the Probability of Failure is 14.140%.

33

b) Plot a histogram of the computed Bishop Factor of Safety values. What are the
mean, standard deviation and best-fit distribution for the Factor of Safety values?

SOLUTION:
Histogram Plot is chosen from the Statistics menu, and the Bishop Factor of
Safety is chosen as the data to plot.
Histogram: Factor of Safety - bishop simplified

Relative Frequency

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5

0.
70
0. 718
77 5
8
0. 608
84 3
2
0. 498
91 0
7
0. 387
98 8
2
1. 277
05 5
6
1. 167
12 3
0 1
1. 570
18 6
1. 94
25 6
8 8
1. 365
3
5
1. 272
39 6
3
1. 616
46 0
4
1. 505
53 7
9
1. 395
60 5
4
1. 285
67 2
8
1. 175
74 0
06 3
47
8

Factor of Safety - bishop simplified

Best Fit Distribution is chosen from the right click menu to obtain the distribution
line seen below.

34

Details listed at the bottom of the histogram show that the lognormal distribution
best fits the sampled data. The lognormal mean is 1.158, while the standard
deviation is 0.1379.

c) Plot the cumulative probability curve for the Factor of Safety values

SOLUTION:
From the Statistics menu in SlideInterpret, Cumulative Plot is chosen. The
Bishop Simplified factor of safety is chosen as the data to plot.

35

Cumulative Probability

Cumulative: Factor of Safety - bishop simplified

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

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Factor of Safety - bishop simplified

d) Obtain a scatter plot of factor of safety against the friction angle of the sand.
What is the correlation coefficient between the two?

SOLUTION:
From the Statistics menu in SlideInterpret, Scatter Plot is chosen. The Bishop
Simplified factor of safety is plotted on the horizontal axis against the friction
angle of sand on the vertical axis.

36

As given at the bottom of the graph, the correlation coefficient between the factor
of safety and the sands friction angle is 0.22065.

e) Obtain a convergence plot of the mean factor of safety.

SOLUTION:
From the Statistics menu in SlideInterpret, Convergence Plot is chosen. The
analysis method chosen is bishop simplified, while the mean factor of safety is
used as the iteration data.

37

Convergence Plot:
Factor of Safety - bishop simplified

Factor of Safety (mean) bishop simplified

1.17
1.15
1.13
1.11
1.09
1.07
1.05
1.03
1.01
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Number of Samples

From the graph, it is seen that the mean factor of safety converges to a value of
1.158 when a value of approximately 1000 iterations has been reached.

38

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #6

The following homogeneous rock slope (Figure 6) of unit weight 2.7 t/m3 is to be
analyzed for planar failure along a predetermined joint plane dipping at 37. Use
both Slide and RocPlane to analyze the stability. Pick the method in Slide that
best approximates the analysis method used in RocPlane (see RocPlane theory
manual). Explain your choice. Would you use Bishops method for this analysis?

Figure 6: Slope cross-section

Table 6.1: Slope properties
2

c (t/m )

()

30

SOLUTION:
First, the unit weight and cohesion values must be converted to the units used in
Slide.
Cohesion:
c = 1t / m 2 = 9.8067 kN / m 2
Unit weight:
= 2.7t / m 3 = 26.47809kN / m 3
39

To ensure a planar failure, a single, linear surface is added to the model 37 from
the horizontal. The factor of safety is then computed using the Bishop, Janbu,
Spencer and GLE/Morgenstern-Price methods.
Next, RocPlane is used to calculate the factor of safety.

The results are summarized below:

Table 6.2: Results
Method
Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified
1.03443
Janbu Corrected
1.03883
Spencer
1.03883
GLE/MP
1.03883
RocPlane
1.03898

From the calculated factors of safety, it would appear that Janbu, Spencer and
GLE/MP all provide an excellent approximation to the answer obtained using
RocPlane. However, Janbus method is in fact, the best method to use in this
particular situation.
40

Janbus method uses only force equilibrium in calculation; moment equilibrium is

not taken into consideration. Since the slope is experiencing planar failure, we
are in fact analyzing a simple block sliding down an incline. The driving and
resisting forces computed by Slide are essentially the same as those computed
by RocPlane because the model is reduced to the same basic elements of a
RocPlane problem.
One would not use Bishops method to analyze this slope as Bishops method
uses moment equilibrium. Since this scenario is a translational problem, it is not
necessary to introduce moment equilibrium to the calculations.

41

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #7

Calculate by hand the factor of safety of the circular failure surface shown in Fig. 7.1
using the following methods:
a) Bishop Simplified (7 slices)
b) Verify part a) using Slide

Fig. 7.1 Slope cross section

a) Bishop Simplified Solution:

Draw the slope cross section to scale and divide it into 7 vertical slices (see Fig.
7.2). Using a ruler and protractor, measure the slice data from the cross sectional
diagram. Table 7.1 summarizes the slice data.
Table 7.1 Slice Data
Slice

Base (m)

Height(m)

(deg)

(deg)

c (kPa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
20

(kN/m3)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

42

Fig. 7.2 Cross section of slope 7 slices

Label the forces acting on each slice (see Fig. 7.3). Note that interslice shear
forces are not depicted because they are assumed to be zero in the Bishop
Simplified method.
Fig. 7.3 Forces acting on slice

The Bishop Simplified method satisfies two equilibrium conditions: overall

moment equilibrium about the center O and vertical force equilibrium on each
slice [Sharma (1996)].
First consider the overall moment equilibrium about the center O
7

n =1

n =1

M O = Wr sin Tr = 0

(1)

43

Dividing both sides of the equation by r yields

7

n =1

n =1

M O = W sin T = 0

(2)

If we assume that the factor of safety F is the same for all 7 slices, the mobilized
shear force T is given by

T=

c' l + tan ' ( N 'ul )

F

(3)

Substituting (3) into (2) and rearranging yields

7

F=

c' l + tan ' ( N 'ul )

(4)

n =1

W sin
n =1

To solve for N, consider the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction on each
slice

( N 'ul ) cos + T sin W = 0

c' l + tan ' ( N 'ul )
( N 'ul ) cos +
sin
F
c' l

N = ( N 'ul ) W
sin
F

W = 0

tan ' tan

cos 1 +
F

(5)

Substituting (5) into (4) yields

W c 'l sin
c' l + tan ' tanF 'tan
F= 7

cos 1+

F


W sin n=1
1

(6)

n =1

Note: l = bsec
To solve for the factor of safety from (6), we start with an initial estimated value
for F. Iterations of successive approximation are performed until value of F
converges to within a given tolerance.
For this problem, a tolerance of 0.005 is used.
See Table 7.2 for Excel spreadsheets of the calculations for each iteration.
Answer: FOSBishop Simplified = 2.113

44

Table 7.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations

Iteration 1
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

F1 = 5

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

W =bh
40
115
165
195
205
180
82.5

sin

Wsin

-0.156434
0.0087265
0.1564345
0.3173047
0.4694716
0.6293204
0.7880108

-6.25738
1.003552
25.81169
61.87441
96.24167
113.2777
65.01089
=
356.9625

c'l
50.6233
50.0019
50.6233
52.7246
56.6285
64.338
81.2135

-( * )/F
41.5838444
114.912731
163.416156
191.654047
199.682906
171.90216
69.7005837

cos
0.9876883
0.9999619
0.9876883
0.9483237
0.8829476
0.777146
0.6156615

F2 =
Iteration 2
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.97630084
1.00059716
0.99907584
0.97142155
0.91712233
0.82295674
0.67302397

2.20685775

N= /
42.593269
114.84415
163.56732
197.29236
217.72767
208.88359
103.5633

N*tan'

15.50268
41.79985
59.53364
71.80855
79.24639
76.02741
37.69396

66.125938
91.801756
110.15689
124.53316
135.87489
140.36539
118.90742
=
787.76545

F = 2.793142

F2 = 2.2069

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

W =bh
40
115
165
195
205
180
82.5

sin

Wsin

-0.156434
0.0087265
0.1564345
0.3173047
0.4694716
0.6293204
0.7880108

-6.25738
1.003552
25.81169
61.87441
96.24167
113.2777
65.01089
=
356.9625

c'l
50.6233
50.0019
50.6233
52.7246
56.6285
64.338
81.2135

-( * )/F
43.5884606
114.802278
161.411539
187.419192
192.953246
161.653008
53.5008125

cos
0.9876883
0.9999619
0.9876883
0.9483237
0.8829476
0.777146
0.6156615

F3 =

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.96188809
1.00140116
1.01348859
1.00065573
0.96037609
0.88093783
0.74562566

2.11938702

N= /
45.315522
114.64165
159.2633
187.29638
200.91426
183.50104
71.752913

N*tan'

16.4935
41.72615
57.9671
68.17031
73.12681
66.78892
26.11592

67.116757
91.728051
108.59036
120.89492
129.75531
131.12689
107.32939
=
756.54168

F = 0.087471

45

Table 7.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations (contd)

Iteration 3
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

F3 = 2.1194

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

W =bh
40
115
165
195
205
180
82.5

sin

Wsin

-0.156434
0.0087265
0.1564345
0.3173047
0.4694716
0.6293204
0.7880108

-6.25738
1.003552
25.81169
61.87441
96.24167
113.2777
65.01089
=
356.9625

c'l
50.6233
50.0019
50.6233
52.7246
56.6285
64.338
81.2135

-( * )/F
43.7365625
114.794118
161.263438
187.106319
192.456056
160.895796
52.3039664

cos
0.9876883
0.9999619
0.9876883
0.9483237
0.8829476
0.777146
0.6156615

F4 =
Iteration 4
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.96082327
1.00146056
1.01455341
1.00281557
0.96357169
0.8852215
0.7509895

2.1134008

N= /
45.519883
114.6267
158.95017
186.58099
199.73195
181.75767
69.646735

N*tan'

16.56788
41.72071
57.85313
67.90993
72.69649
66.15438
25.34934

67.191139
91.72261
108.47639
120.63454
129.32499
130.49236
106.5628
=
754.40483

F = 0.005986

F4 = 2.1134

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

W =bh
40
115
165
195
205
180
82.5

sin

Wsin

-0.156434
0.0087265
0.1564345
0.3173047
0.4694716
0.6293204
0.7880108

-6.25738
1.003552
25.81169
61.87441
96.24167
113.2777
65.01089
=
356.9625

c'l
50.6233
50.0019
50.6233
52.7246
56.6285
64.338
81.2135

-( * )/F
43.7471463
114.793535
161.252854
187.08396
192.420525
160.841683
52.218436

cos
0.9876883
0.9999619
0.9876883
0.9483237
0.8829476
0.777146
0.6156615

F5 =

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.96074717
1.00146481
1.01462951
1.00296992
0.96380006
0.88552762
0.75137282

2.11297531

N= /
45.534504
114.62563
158.92782
186.52998
199.64776
181.63373
69.497372

N*tan'

16.5732
41.72032
57.845
67.89136
72.66584
66.10927
25.29497

67.196461
91.722221
108.46825
120.61598
129.29435
130.44725
106.50844
=
754.25294

F = 0.000425

46

b) Verification Using Slide:

Start a new file and define the slope cross section.
Select: Boundaries

Add External Boundary

Enter the slope cross section coordinates as given in Fig. 7.1

Define the Material Properties as given in the problem
Select: Properties

Define Materials

Define the Project Settings as given in the problem

Select: Analysis

Project Settings

Under the Methods tab, select the method of analysis and enter the
number of slices and the tolerance.

Add the circular surface defined in the problem

Select: Surfaces

Add Surface (center, radius)

Enter center (x,y) of slip circle [esc=quit]: 13.689 25.558

Enter radius of slip circle [esc=quit]: 15.989

Your screen should now look as follows:

48

Save the file before analyzing the model.

Select: File

Save

Select: Analysis

Compute

Select: Analysis

Interpret

Your screen should now look as follows:

Answer: Slide calculated FOSBishop = 2.113

Answer: Hand calculated FOSBishop = 2.113

49

SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #8

Calculate by hand the factor of safety of the circular failure surface shown in Fig. 8.1
using the following methods:
a) Bishop Simplified (7 slices)
b) Verify part a) using Slide

Fig. 8.1 Slope cross section

a) Bishop Simplified Solution:

Draw the slope cross section to scale and divide it into 7 vertical slices (see Fig.
8.2). Using a ruler and protractor, measure the slice data from the cross sectional
diagram. Table 8.1 summarizes the slice data.
Table 8.1 Slice Data
Slice

Base (m)

Height(m)

(deg)

(deg)

c (kPa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
20

(kN/m3)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

50

Fig. 8.2 Cross section of slope 7 slices

Label the forces acting on each slice (see Fig. 8.3). Note that interslice shear
forces are not depicted because they are assumed to be zero in the Bishop
Simplified method.
Fig. 8.3 Forces acting on slice

The Bishop Simplified method satisfies two equilibrium conditions: overall

moment equilibrium about the center O and vertical force equilibrium on each
slice [Sharma (1996)].
First consider the overall moment equilibrium about the center O
7

n =1

n =1

M O = Wr sin Tr = 0

(1)

51

Dividing both sides of the equation by r yields

7

n =1

n =1

M O = W sin T = 0

(2)

If we assume that the factor of safety F is the same for all 7 slices, the mobilized
shear force T is given by

T=

c' l + tan ' ( N ul )

F

(3)

Substituting (3) into (2) and rearranging yields

7

F=

c' l + tan ' ( N ul )

n =1

(4)

W sin
n =1

To solve for N, consider the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction on each
slice

N cos + T sin W = 0
c' l + tan ' ( N ul )
sin W = 0
N cos +
F
c' l tan ' ul

tan ' tan
N = W
sin cos 1 +

F
F

Substituting (5) into (4) yields

7
W c 'l tan 'ul sin
1
c' l + tan ' Ftan 'tan
F= 7

cos 1+

F

W sin n=1

(5)

(6)

n =1

Note: l = bsec
To solve for the factor of safety from (6), we start with an initial estimated value
for F. Iterations of successive approximation are performed until value of F
converges to within a given tolerance.
For this problem, a tolerance of 0.005 is used.
See Table 8.2 for Excel spreadsheets of the calculations for each iteration.
Answer: FOSBishop Simplified = 1.55

52

Table 8.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations

Iteration 1
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

F1 = 5

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

W =bh
sin
Wsin c'l-tan'ul
-( * )/F
u
cos
7.84
40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 41.3578673 0.9876883
22.54
115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.948528 0.9999619
32.34
165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 164.348311 0.9876883
38.22
195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 193.981315 0.9483237
40.18
205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 203.570851 0.8829476
35.28
180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 177.101325 0.777146
16.17
82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 73.4670671 0.6156615
=
356.9625
F2 =

Iteration 2
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.97630084
1.00059716
0.99907584
0.97142155
0.91712233
0.82295674
0.67302397

1.64372656

N= /

N*tan'

42.36181
114.8799
164.5003
199.6881
221.967
215.2013
109.1597

8.195696
41.81287
59.87323
72.68052
80.78936
78.32685
39.73087

51.596212
71.304274
80.702678
88.732683
96.010189
101.35705
97.045649
=
586.74873

F = 3.356273

F2 = 1.6437

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

sin
Wsin
W =bh
-( * )/F
u
c'l
cos
7.84
40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 44.1304537 0.9876883
22.54
115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.84343 0.9999619
32.34
165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 163.017648 0.9876883
38.22
195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 191.901294 0.9483237
40.18
205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 200.652717 0.8829476
35.28
180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 171.182613 0.777146
16.17
82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 55.0230061 0.6156615
=
356.9625
F3 =

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.95304907
1.00189424
1.02232761
1.0185844
0.98690264
0.91649632
0.79015063

1.56277342

N= /
46.30449
114.6263
159.4573
188.4
203.3156
186.7794
69.6361

N*tan'

16.85346
41.72056
58.03773
68.57199
74.00083
67.98213
25.34547

60.253973
71.211962
78.867179
84.624151
89.221656
91.012332
82.660249
=
557.8515

F = 0.080953

53

Table 8.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations (contd)

Iteration 3
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

F3 = 1.5628

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

W =bh
sin
Wsin
-( * )/F
u
c'l
cos
7.84
40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 44.3444151 0.9876883
22.54
115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.83532 0.9999619
32.34
165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 162.914961 0.9876883
38.22
195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 191.740778 0.9483237
40.18
205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 200.427524 0.8829476
35.28
180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 170.725864 0.777146
16.17
82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 53.599672 0.6156615
=
356.9625
F4 =

Iteration 4
Calc.
Slice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

b
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.95125472
1.00199433
1.02412196
1.02222397
0.99228761
0.9237148
0.79918933

1.5558729

N= /
46.61676
114.6068
159.0777
187.5722
201.9853
184.8253
67.06755

N*tan'

16.96711
41.71345
57.89955
68.27069
73.51664
67.27091
24.41059

60.36763
71.204848
78.728998
84.322851
88.737466
90.301105
81.725375
=
555.38827

F = 0.006901

F4 = 1.5559

h
0.8
2.3
3.3
3.9
4.1
3.6
1.65

-9
0.5
9
18.5
28
39
52

sin
Wsin
W =bh
-( * )/F
u
c'l
cos
7.84
40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 44.3636832 0.9876883
22.54
115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.834589 0.9999619
32.34
165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 162.905713 0.9876883
38.22
195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 191.726323 0.9483237
40.18
205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 200.407244 0.8829476
35.28
180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 170.684732 0.777146
16.17
82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 53.4714947 0.6156615
=
356.9625
F5 =

c'tan

*(1+ /F)

-0.0576472
0.00317632
0.05764722
0.12178274
0.19352641
0.29473728
0.46586066

0.95109313
1.00200335
1.02428355
1.02255173
0.99277255
0.92436486
0.80000331

1.55525705

N= /
46.64494
114.605
159.0436
187.4979
201.8662
184.6508
66.83909

N*tan'

16.97737
41.71281
57.88713
68.24366
73.4733
67.2074
24.32744

60.377886
71.204207
78.716578
84.295823
88.69412
90.237601
81.642222
=
555.16844

F = 0.000616

54

b) Verification Using Slide:

Start a new file and define the slope cross section.
Select: Boundaries

Add External Boundary

Enter the slope cross section coordinates as given in Fig. 8.1

Define the Material Properties as given in the problem
Select: Properties

Define Materials

Define the Project Settings as given in the problem

Select: Analysis

Project Settings

Under the Methods tab, select the method of analysis and enter the
number of slices and the tolerance.

Add the circular surface defined in the problem

Select: Surfaces

Add Surface (center, radius)

Enter center (x,y) of slip circle [esc=quit]: 13.689 25.558

Enter radius of slip circle [esc=quit]: 15.989

Your screen should now look as follows:

56

Add the water table

Select: Boundaries

Add Water Table

Enter the water table coordinates as given in Fig. 8.1

Your screen should now look as follows

Save the file before analyzing the model.

Select: File

Save

Select: Analysis

Compute

Select: Analysis

Interpret

Your screen should now look as follows:

57

Answer: Slide calculated FOSBishop = 1.55

Answer: Hand calculated FOSBishop = 1.55

58

REFERENCES
1. US Army Corps of Engineers (2003), Engineering and Design: Slope
Stability. Engineer Manual 1110-2-1902.
2. Giam, P.S.K. & I.B. Donald (1989), Example problems for testing soil
slope stability programs. Civil Engineering Research Report No. 8/1989,
Monash University, ISBN 0867469218, ISSN 01556282.
3. Craig, R.F., (1997). Soil Mechanics, 6th Edition.
4. Fredlund, D.G. & Krahn, J. (1977), Comparison of slope stability methods
of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 14, No. 3, pp 429-439.
5. Sharma, S., (1996), Chap 6: Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods,
Abramson, L.W., Lee, T.S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G.M. New York:
Wiley, pp 408-424.

59