See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324573943

Slope Stability Evaluation by Different Limit Equilibrium Methods

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATION READS

1 520

2 authors:

Sangeeta Prajapati B.K. Maheshwari

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
15 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   806 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Earthquake induced landslide hazard assessment View project

Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations on Hill Slopes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sangeeta Prajapati on 30 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INDOROCK201641

Slope Stability Evaluation by Different Limit Equilibrium

Methods

Sangeeta * and B K Maheshwari#

*Research scholar, Centre of excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management,

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, email: sangeeta546@gmail.com
#
Professor, Dept. of Earthquake Engineering and Head, Centre of excellence in
Disaster Mitigation and Management, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Abstract

Slope failure is a recurring phenomenon in hilly regions. It is hazardous because of the

accompanying rapid mass movement of soil and rock mass. To alleviate the damage
caused by landslide, slope-stability analyses and stabilization techniques require in-
depth understanding and appraisal of the process that govern the failure behaviour of
slopes. Once the instability behaviour is understood, remedial measures such as
retaining walls, rock bolts, anchoring, etc., can be recommended to stabilize the slope.
Slope stability analysis is most important issue for any landslide study. This analysis
can provide different methods for planning and design of landslide remedial measures.
This paper deals with slope stability evolutions carried out by commonly used limit
equilibrium (LE) methods. The study utilizes LE based software (SLOPE/W). LE
methods are based on the static equilibrium. The LE based methods are compared based
on the factor of safety (FOS) obtained for various load combinations. The comparison is
mainly based on simplified slope geometry and input parameters like material
properties, geological and geotechnical properties. Among the LE methods, the Bishop
simplified (BS), Janbu simplified (JS) and Janbu GPS methods are compared with the
Morgenstern‐Price method (M‐PM). The first two methods satisfy only force
equilibrium while the two latter methods satisfy both force and moment equilibriums. In
addition, M‐PM allows a variable interslice force function. These LE methods are well
established for many years, and thus some of them are still commonly used in practice
for stability analysis. Simplicity and relatively good results are the advantages of these

1
INDOROCK201641

methods. Advantages and limitations of each method are discussed and a comparison of
results using all the four methods is carried out.

Keywords: Slope stability, Landslide, Factor of safety (FOS)

1. Introduction

Landslides are a natural hazard that affect at least 15 % of the land area of India (>0.49
million km2;) [25]. Landslides are very common in nature, especially in hilly regions,
but still its predictability assessment is not completely understood. Landslides are
critical in nature and influenced by a combination of factors. The frequency of
landslides is mounting day by day due to more and more human interventions. The
Himalayan region is more vulnerable due to its young and dynamic nature, high relief,
complex geology, immature rock mass, high intensity rainfall and many other local
factors. Many methods are used to understand the failure of slopes, each one having its
own merits as well as limitations.
The stability of large rock slopes, which are susceptible to rock mass (rotational)
failures, can be analyzed by traditional limit equilibrium methods such as Bishop's
method (Bishop 1955), Janbu's (1954) simplified methods or the later improved
methods (Janbu 1957; Spencer 1967) based on assumptions regarding the inclination
and location of the interslice forces. For many cases, the limit equilibrium methods have
proven to give convincing results despite its limitations. However, they tend to provide
conservative values of factor of safety (FOS), since the full shear strength is assumed to
be mobilised simultaneously along the failure surface. Numerical modeling has been
developed and has become increasingly popular for complex slope stability analysis in
situations where the failure mechanism is not controlled completely by discrete
geological structures.
The engineering solutions to slope instability problems require good understanding of
analytical methods, investigative tools and stabilization measures [1]. According to
Nash (1987), a quantitative assessment of the safety factor is important when decisions
are made. Likewise, Chowdhury (1978) says, “The primary aim of slope stability
analyses is to contribute to the safe and economic design of excavation, embankment
and earth dams”.
Many researchers have worked on the slope stability problem of Amiyan landslide.
Recently, factor of safety is calculated by traditional kinematic analysis method using
2
INDOROCK201641

Markland formula [17] as well as different numerical approaches [22], [23], [28].[2]
dated landslide event by neo-tectonic movement in the area.
The present study attempts to analyse the stability of slope of about 501 m height in a
landslide-prone area in Amiyan village near Kathgodam in Uttarakhand State, India.
The slopes in the area is highly vulnerable and experienced two major landslides in
1992 and 1998 along with minor slides reported almost every year especially after
monsoon season. A comparative study has been done between different limit
equilibrium methods. The comparison is mainly based on simplified slope geometry and
input parameters like material properties, geological and geotechnical properties.
Among the LE methods, the Bishop simplified (BS), Janbu simplified (JS), Janbu
generalised method (JGM) methods Morgenstern‐Price method (M‐PM) are compared
on the basis of factor of safety, slide mass, free body diagram , force polygon and safety
map.

2. Study Area

The frequency of landslide in the Siwalik range is very high due to the structural and
neo-tectonic movements going on along the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) zone [21].
The Amiyan landslide area is one of the most active landslide-prone areas in Central
Himalayan region. It is located in the Lower Siwalik formation of the Outer Himalaya.
The study area is mainly bounded between Amritpur and Jamrani (latitudes 29º16’–
29º19’ N and longitudes 79 º33’–79 º38’ E) in the lower ridges of Gaula river catchment,
4 km downstream of Jamrani Dam. The area has been covered in Toposheet No. 53O/11
of Survey of India Toposheets. The study area is situated on the southern flank of Gaula
River. The geological map illustrates the lithology and structures of the area (Fig 2).
The study area predominantly consists of sedimentary rocks of the Lower Siwalik
comprising carbonaceous shales, clays and indurated pebbly sandstone above the
basement dyke. Amritpur Granite, Bhimtal Volcanics and Bhawali Quartzites of the
Lesser Himalaya later on thrust over Siwalik along the MBT [3]. Repeated deformation
resulted in multiple faulting, thrusting and enlargement of the joint space. It causes the
slope vulnerable to failure [3]. This deformational behaviour has made the slopes more
vulnerable. The MBT follows the Gaula River in this area and passes from toe of the
landslide.

3
INDOROCK201641

Fig. 1 Location map of the area

The rapid increase in the area of Amiyan slide after 1992 from 0.02 to 0.62 km 2 as an
evidence of neo-tectonic activity in the region though it increased only 0.02–0.05 km2
from 1968 to 1992 [2]. Debris material is exposed on the bank of Gaula River due to
sliding and may further prone to fail during or after monsoon due to cutting of toe of
exposed slope face as high velocity of river water flow. The course of Gaula River
changes its path all along the hill almost circular way, and a small nala is merging in the
river at downstream. The slope angle varies with height and lithology. The general
direction of slope face is towards north.

4
INDOROCK201641

Fig. 2 Geological map of southern Kumaun Himalaya showing distribution of thrust and
major faults (after Bartarya and Valdiya 1989).

3. Methodology

3.1 Geometry and input parameters

The Amiyan slope geometry has been divided into two units based on variation in
lithology and geo-mechanical properties of slope material. The upper unit of sandstone
bed has higher strength in comparison to lower terrace. The average slope angles of
lower and upper terraces are 43º and 50º, respectively. Mohr– Coulomb strength criteria
have been used for the material properties. The slope geometry, stratigraphy and geo-
mechanical properties were simulated. The input properties of sandstone units are given
in table 1.

5
INDOROCK201641

Table 1. Input parameters of sandstone units (after Singh et al. 2013)

Serial No Property Upper Layer Bottom Layer

1 Material model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
2 Unit Weight (kN/m3) 19.56 19.50
3 Cohesion (kPa) 4200 100
4 Friction Angle (deg) 38 28
5 Young’s modulus (kPa) 94000 45500
6 Poisson’s ratio 0.240 0.255
7 Slope angle (º) 50 43

600

500

400

Upper Layer
Elevation

300

200

BottomLayer

100

Basement Rock

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Distance

Fig. 3 Geometry for slope stability analysis

3.2 Slope Stability model using Geo Slope (Slope \W) Approach

Modern limit equilibrium software such as Slope\W is making it possible to

handle ever-increasing complexity in the analysis. Using limit equilibrium,
SLOPE/W can model heterogeneous soil types, complex stratigraphic and slip
surface geometry, and variable pore-water pressure conditions using a large selection of
soil models. Slope stability analyses can be performed using deterministic or
probabilistic input parameters. So GeoSlope SLOPE\W is one of the powerful tools

6
INDOROCK201641

of this integrated approach that opens the door to types of analyses of a much wider
and more complex spectrum of problems. The conventional Limit Equilibrium method
is used to analyze the high embankment slope stability. Program Geo-Studio
(SLOPE/W) is formulated in terms of moment and force equilibrium factor of
safety equations. Analysis provides a factor of safety, defined as a ratio of available
shear resistance (capacity) to that required for equilibrium [8]. The limit
equilibrium procedure for calculating the factor of safety involves comparing the
available shear strength along the sliding surface with the force required to
maintain the slope in equilibrium. So as part of this study, Bishop’s simplified
slope stability model to Factor of Safety was adopted Bishop developed an equation for
the normal at the slice base by summing slice forces in the vertical direction
[16]. The consequence of this is that the base normal becomes a function of the factor of
safety. This in turn makes the factor of safety equation nonlinear (that is, FS appears
on both sides of the equation) and an iterative procedure is consequently required to
compute the factor of safety.
The stability of the dry slope was analysed in SLOPE/W. The minimum FOS searched
by entry and exit option. The Entry and exit option was applied on the surface of the
model. The software searched for the circular CSS among the number of trial surfaces
within the given entry and exit ranges. The FOS is indicated at the axis of rotation,
around which, the moment equilibrium is satisfied. Similarly, a Mohr‐Coulomb soil
model was chosen, without the feature of tension cracks. A half sine function was
selected to compute the interslice forces with tolerance error of 1%. Moreover, the
selection of a half‐sine function was based on the assumption that the interslice shear
forces could be at maximum in the middle of the CSS and zero at the entry and exit
points.

4. Limit Equilibrium Methods

Several limit equilibrium (LE) methods have been developed for slope stability
analyses. Fellenius (1936) introduced the first method, referred to as the Ordinary or the
Swedish method, for a circular slip surface. Bishop (1955) advanced the first method
introducing a new relationship for the base normal force. The equation for the FOS
hence became non‐linear. At the same time, Janbu (1954a) developed a simplified
method for non‐circular failure surfaces, dividing a potential sliding mass into several

7
INDOROCK201641

vertical slices. The generalised procedure of slices (GPS) was developed at the same
time as a further development of the simplified method (Janbu 1973). Later,
Morgenstern‐Price (1965), Spencer (1967), Sarma (1973) and several others made
further contributions with different assumptions for the interslice forces. A procedure of
General limit equilibrium (GLE) was developed by Chugh (1986) as an extension of the
Spencer and Morgenstern‐Price methods, satisfying both moment and force equilibrium
conditions [18], [1]. These developments are reviewed in the following section, which
aims to find out the key differences in the various approaches for FOS determination

All LE methods are based on certain assumptions for the interslice normal (E) and shear
(T) forces, and the basic difference among the methods is how these forces are
determined or assumed. In addition to this, the shape of the assumed slip surface and the
equilibrium conditions for calculation of the FOS are among the others. BSM is only for
circular slip surface but other three methods can be used for any other shapes.
The interslice forces depend on a number of factors, including stress‐strain and
deformation characteristics of the materials. Their evaluation, however, becomes
complicated in the LE methods. Therefore, simplified assumptions are made in most
methods either to neglect both or to one of them. Nevertheless, the most advanced
methods consider these forces in the LE analyses. Some of the basic principles behind
the methods are briefly described below.

4.1 Bishop’s methods

Bishop’s simplified method (BSM) is very common in practice for circular shear
surface (SS). This method considers the interslice normal forces but neglects the
interslice shear forces [1]. It further satisfies vertical force equilibrium to determine the
effective base normal force (N’), which is given by:

1(a)

1(b)

Where,
W = weight of sliding mass
u = pore pressure
l = slice base length
8
INDOROCK201641

α = inclination of slip surface at the middle of slice

c’ and φ’ = cohesion and friction angle respectively in effective stress terms
F = factor of safety (FOS)
The FOS is based on moment equilibrium and computed by

1(c)

In summary, BSM
• satisfies moment equilibrium for FOS
• satisfies vertical force equilibrium for N
• considers interslice normal force
• more common in practice
• applies mostly for circular shear surfaces

Fig. 4(a) Forces considered in BSM and JSM

4.2 Janbu’s simplified method

Janbu’s simplified method (JSM) is based on a composite SS (i.e. non‐circular) and the
FOS is determined by horizontal force equilibrium. As in BSM, the method considers
interslice normal forces (E) but neglects the shear forces (T). The base normal force (N)
is determined in the same way as in BSM and the FOS is computed by

Where,
∆E= E2-E1=net interslice normal forces (zero if there is no horizontal force)
In summary, JSM
• satisfies both force equilibriums,
• does not satisfy moment equilibrium,
• considers interslice normal forces, and
• is commonly used for composite shear surface.

9
INDOROCK201641

4.3 Janbu’s generalised method

Janbu’s generalised method (JGM) or Janbu’s generalised procedure of slices (GPS)

(Janbu 1973) considers both interslice forces and assumes a line of thrust to determine a
relationship for interslice forces. As a result, the FOS becomes a complex function with
both interslice forces x`[20]

3(a)

Similarly, the total base normal force (N) becomes a function of the interslice shear
forces (T) as:

3(b)

This is the first method that satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. The moment
equilibrium for the total sliding mass is explicitly satisfied by considering an
infinitesimal slice width (dx) and taking moments about the mid point of the slice base
[13], [15]. The infinitesimal slice width was introduced to avoid the confusion about the
point of application of base normal force. This equilibrium condition in fact gives the
relationship between the interslice forces (E and T) as:

3(c)

Where,
tan =slope of the line of thrust, and

ht= height from the mid point of the slice base to dE.
In summary, JGM
• considers both interslice forces,
• assumes a line of thrust for interslice forces,
• satisfies both force and moment equilibriums,
• handles complex geometry and failure surfaces,
• is an advanced method among LE methods.
Fig. 4(b) Forces considered
in JGM and M‐PM

10
INDOROCK201641

4.4 Morgenstern‐Price method

The Morgenstern‐ Price method (M‐PM) also satisfies both force and moment
equilibriums and assumes the interslice force function. According to M‐PM (1965), the
interslice force inclination can vary with an arbitrary function (f(x)) as:

where,
f(x) = interslice force function that varies continuously along the slip surface,
λ = scale factor of the assumed function
The method suggests assuming any type of force function, for example half‐sine,
trapezoidal or user defined. The relationships for the base normal force (N) and
interslice forces (E, T) are the same as given in JGM. For a given force function, the
interslice forces are computed by iteration procedure until, Ff is equals to Fm.

4(a)

4(b)

In summary, M‐PM
• considers both interslice forces,
• assumes a interslice force function, f(x),
• allows selection for interslice force function,
• computes FOS for both force and moment equilibrium.

5. Comparison of Limit Equilibrium Methods of Analysis

The fundamental differences among LE methods are given in Table 2. As Nash (1987)
states, “The significant difference among the methods is the assumptions made about
the position and inclination of the interslice forces.” Janbu’s GPS method, for example,
assumes a line of thrust where the interslice forces act, whereas the Morgenstern‐Price
(M‐P) method assumes a variable interslice force function. Moreover, some methods
compute FOS by force equilibrium (e.g. Janbu’s simplified (JS) method) or moment
equilibrium (e.g. Bishop simplified (BS) method). Similarly, the advanced LE methods
satisfy both force and moment equilibriums (e.g. Janbu’s GPS, M‐P and Spencer
methods).

11
INDOROCK201641

The various methods of limit equilibrium analysis differ from each other in two regards:
1. Different methods use different assumptions to make up the balance between the
number of equations of equilibrium and the number of unknowns.
2. Different methods use different assumptions regarding the location and orientation of
the internal forces between the assumed slices. Some analysis methods do not satisfy all
conditions of equilibrium or even the conditions of force equilibrium.
A summary of some of the commonly used methods was provided in table 2 and 3.

Table 2, Characteristics of Commonly Used Methods of Limit Equilibrium Analysis (Modified after
Duncan and Wright, 2005)

Method Equilibrium Shape Assumptions

Condition Satisfied of slip
surface
Bishop simplified Vertical equilibrium Circular The side forces are horizontal
and overall moment (i.e., all interslice shear forces
equilibrium are zero.
Janbu simplified Force equilibrium Any The side forces are horizontal
(vertical and shape
horizontal)
Janbu GPS All conditions of Any Assumed a position of the line
equilibrium shape of the thrust of the interslice
forces.
Morgenstern‐Price All conditions of Any Interslice shear force is related
method equilibrium shape to interslice normal force by:
X = λƒ (x) E

12
INDOROCK201641

Table 3, summary of Procedures for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability analysis and their
Usefulness (Modified after Duncan and Wright, 2005)

Method Use
Bishop simplified Applicable to non-homogeneous slopes and c-ø soils
where slip surface can be approximated by a circle. More
accurate than Ordinary Method of slices, especially for
analyses with high pore water pressures. Calculations
feasible by hand or spreadsheet.
Janbu simplified Applicable to non-circular slip surfaces. Also for
shallow, long planar failure surfaces that are not parallel
to the ground surface.
Janbu GPS Suitable for any shape of slip surface and for the rigorous
analysis.
Morgenstern‐Price An accurate procedure applicable to virtually all slope
method geometries and soil profiles. Rigorous, well established
complete equilibrium procedure.

The LE methods in SLOPE/W can be compared in two ways. The first is based on the
CSS searched by each method and the corresponding FOS; the other is based on the
CSS searched by GLE procedure and the corresponding FOS. The first comparison can
be done directly by looking into the “minimum FOS” for the selected methods. This
appears immediately after completion of the computation. The second comparison can
either be done by the λ versus FOS plot or by the FOS found under the “slip surface
with force data available” (optimised or nonoptimised FOS). In this paper first method
used for the comparison.

6. Analysis, Results and Discussions

Analysis of slopes has traditionally been carried out by limit equilibrium (LE) methods,
which are based on the principles of static equilibrium of forces and moments.
According to Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), LE methods are important mainly because
of two reasons. First, the methods have proved to be reasonably reliable in assessing the
stability of slopes. Second, the methods require a limited amount of input, but can
quickly perform an extensive trial‐and‐error search for the critical shear surface (CSS).

13
INDOROCK201641

However, Krahn (2003) says, “LE methods are missing the fundamental physics of
stress‐strain relationship, and thus they are unable to compute a realistic stress
distribution”. In spite of these limitations, the LE methods are still common in practice
because of their simplicity and the reasonably accurate FOS obtained.

6.1 Factor of safety and Slide Mass

First row of Table 4 shows factor of safety obtained from different methods. The study
shows that the Bishop simplified methods gives minimum FOS and Morgenstern‐Price
method gives maximum value of FOS.
Slide Mass displays the mass and volume of the slip surface currently displayed in
SLOPE/W. The mass and volume are computed by the SLOPE/W Solver for the
number of stored critical slip surfaces specified in KeyIn Analyses.
Table 4 shows the characteristics of sliding mass in terms of weight, volume, moment
and force. As we can see in case of Morgenstern‐Price method minimum volume of
mass slide and maximum sliding occur in Janbu simplified method.
Table 4 Characteristics of sliding mass
Method Bishop Janbu Janbu’s Morgenstern
simplified simplified generalised Price
method method
FOS 2.381 2.715 2.662 3.716
Total Volume (m³)×105 1.28 1.45 1.13 0.786
Total Weight (kN)×106 2.51 2.83 2.21 1.53
Total Resisting Moment 1.46 3.86
(kN-m)×109
Total Activating Moment 6.15 10.39
(kN-m)×108
Total Resisting Force 1.94 1.99 2.23
(kN)×106
Total Activating Force 7.16 7.48 6.01
(kN)×105

14
INDOROCK201641

6.2 Free Body Diagram and Force Polygon

6.2.1 Bishop’s Simplified method

Slice 4 - Bishop Method

79,976

2.7597e+005

2.8727e+005

24,927
79,694

Fig. 5(a) Free body diagram and force polygon for the BSM
If we examine the slice free body diagrams and forces polygons the closure is fairly
good with the addition of the interslice normal forces. There are no interslice shear
forces, as assumed by Bishop, but the interslice normal forces are included.

6.2.2 Janbu’s simplified method

Slice 4 - Janbu Method

1.1334e+005

2.9516e+005

2.9722e+005

64,956 92,928

Fig. 5(b) Free body diagram and force polygon for the JSM

The slice force polygon closure is better than that for the Bishop’s Simplified method.
The interslice forces are assumed to be horizontal and thus the shear forces are zero.

15
INDOROCK201641

6.2.3 Janbu’s Generalized method

Slice 4 - Janbu Generalized Method

78,169
45,294

1.2482e+005
1.6623e+005

98,453

95,003
90,923

Fig. 5(c) Free body diagram and force polygon for the JGM
Fig. 5(c) shows the free body diagram and the force polygon of a slice using the Janbu’s
Generalized method. The interslice forces, although shown to be applied to the middle
of the slice, are actually applied at the lower 1/3 of the slice sides in SLOPE/W.
Although moment equilibrium is achieved in the slice, force equilibrium is not
necessarily achieved, as indicated by the force polygon in Fig. 5(c).

6.2.4 Morgenstern-Price method

Slice 4 - Morgenstern-Price Method

37,539
21,600

86,729
99,026

32,504

41,836

27,347

Fig. 5(d) Free body diagram and force polygon for the M-PM

The force polygon closure is very good with the M-P method, since both shear and
normal interslice forces are included.

16
INDOROCK201641

6.4 Safety Map

This is an effective way of graphically viewing a summary of the trial slip surfaces what
is called a safety map. All the valid trial slip surfaces are grouped into bands with the
same factor of safety. Starting from the highest factor of safety band to the lowest factor
of safety band, these bands are painted with a different colour. The result is a rainbow of
colour with the lowest factor of safety band painted on top of the rest of the colour
bands.

Fig. 6(a) CSS for BSM

Fig 6(a)-6(d) illustrates an example of the safety map. White line is the critical slip
surface. This type of presentation clearly shows the location of the critical slip surface
with respect to all trial slip surfaces. White band shows the position of critical slip
surface. Thickness of white band is maximum in Bishop’s method and minimum in
Morgenstern‐Price method.

17
INDOROCK201641

Fig. 6(b) CSS for JSM

Fig. 6(c) CSS for JGM

18
INDOROCK201641

Fig. 6(d) CSS for M-PM

7. Conclusions

The slope stability analysis of Amiyan slope is carried out and comparison and
limitations of limit equilibrium methods are fully discussed in this paper. The major
points may be summarized as follows:
1. The study of slope stability problems by using the computer based geotechnical
software code Slope/w provides more understanding viewing all the detailed
forces on each slice, to understand failure mechanisms, and the distribution of a
variety of parameters along the slip surface with respect to the factor of safety
2. The selection of the slope stability method is critical since the accuracy of the
analysis results depends on the mechanism of the failure.
3. Factor of safety calculated by using SLOPE/W. It comes maximum by
Morgenstern‐Price method and minimum by Bishop’s method i.e. 3.716 and
2.381 respectively.
4. Different limit equilibrium methods are compared on the basis of sliding mass,
force polygon and safety map.

19
INDOROCK201641

i) Maximum volume of mass displaced in case of Janbu’s simplified method

and minimum in Morgenstern‐Price method i.e. 2.45×105m3 and 0.78×105m3
respectively.
ii) Best force polygon obtained from Morgenstern‐Price method because this
method considers both shear and normal interslice forces.
iii) In safety map, white color band which shows critical slip surface is
maximum in Bishop’s method.

References
1. Abramson, L. W., Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G. M. (2002). Slope
Stability Concepts Slope Stabilisation and Stabilisation Methods: Second edition
published by John Willey & Sons Inc. 2002; 329-461.

2. Bali, R., Bhattacharya, A.R. and Singh, T.N. ( 2009). Active tectonics in the
outer Himalaya: dating a landslide event in the Kumaun sector. E-Journal Earth
Science India, 2, pp. 276–288.

3. Bartarya, S.K. and Valdiya, K.S. (1989). Landslides and erosion in the
catchments of the Gaula river, Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, India. Mountain
Research and Development, 9, pp. 405–419.

4. Bishop, A.W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Geotechnique 1 pp 7–17

5. Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of slip circles in stability analysis of slopes.

Geotechnique, Vol. 5 by GeoSlope International.

6. Chugh, A. K. (1986). Variable Interslice Force Inclination in Slope Stability

Analysis. Soils and Congress of Large Dams. Vol. 4, pp. 445‐63, Washington D.
C. Doctor of Science in the Field of Civil Engineering, Harvard University Soil
Mechanics

20
INDOROCK201641

7. Duncan J.M. and S.G. Wright, (2005) “Soil Strength and Slope Stability.” John
Wiley and Sons. NY.

8. Ellen, E., Haugen, D and Amir M. Kaynia., (2008). A comparative study of

empirical models for landslide prediction using historical case histories,
The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17,
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Beijing, China, 1-8

9. Fellenius, W. (1936). Calculation of the Stability of Earth Dams. Transactions,

2nd International Congress on Large Darns, International Commission on Large
Dams, Washington, DC, pp 445-459.

10. Janbu N (1954). Application of composite slip surfaces for stability analysis. Eur
Conf Stabil Earth Slopes 3 pp 43–49

11. Janbu N (1957). Earth pressure and bearing capacity by generalised procedure of
slices. Proc Fourth Int Conf Soil Mech 2:207–212

12. Janbu, N. (1954a). Stability analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters.

Thesis for theDoctor of Science in the Field of Civil Engineering, Harvard
University Soil Mechanics Series, No. 46.

13. Janbu, N. (1957). Earth pressure and bearing capacity calculations by

generalised procedure of slices. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference,
SMFE, London, 2, pp. 207‐12.

14. Janbu, N. (1968). Slope Stability Computations. (Geoteknikk, NTH). Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Technical University of Norway.

15. Janbu, N. (1973). Slope Stability Computations. Embankment Dam Engineering,

Casagrande Volume, pp. 47‐86.

21
INDOROCK201641

16. John Karhn , (2004) Stability Modeling with Slope /W: An Engineering
Methodology, PP – 17

17. Kothyari, G.C., Pant, P.D., Joshi, M., Luirei, K. and Malik, J.N.(2010). Active
faulting and deformation of quaternary landform sub-Himalaya, India.
Geochronometria, 37, pp. 63–71.

18. Krahn, J. (2004). Stability Modelling with SLOPE/W. An Engineering

Methodology, Published landslide prediction using historical case histories,
The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17,
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Beijing, China, 1-8

19. Morgenstern, N. R. and Price, V. E. (1965). The Analysis of the Stability of

General Slip Surfaces. Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 1 pp. 77‐93.

20. Nash, D. (1987). Comprehensive Review of Limit Equilibrium Methods of

Stability Analysis. Slope Stability, Chapter 2. M. G. Andersen and K. S.
Richards, Eds. New York: Wiley, pp. 11‐75.No. 1, pp. 7‐17.

21. Pant, P.D. and Luirei, K.(2005). Malpa rockfalls of 18th August 1998 in the
northeastern Kumaun Himalaya. Journal of the Geological Society of India, 54,
pp. 415–420.

22. Sarkar, K. and Singh, T.N.(2007). Evaluation of instability analysis of slope – a

numerical approach. Mining Engineering Journal, 8, pp. 11–31.

23. Sarkar, K., Singh, T.N. and Verma, A.K.(2012) A numerical simulation of
landslide-prone slope in Himalayan region – a case study. International Journal
of Arabian Geosciences, 5, pp. 73–81.

24. Sarma, S. K. (1973). Stability Analysis of Embankment and Slopes.

Geotechnique, Vol. 23 (3), pp. 423‐33. Series, No. 46.

22
 INDOROCK201641

25. Sharda YP (2008). Landslide studies in India: glimpses of geoscience research in

India. The Indian Report to IUGS 2004–2008. Silver Jubilee Volume, Indian
National Science Academy, New Delhi, pp 98–101

26. Shukla, K. and Pant, C.C.(1996). Facies analysis of the Late Proterozoic Nagthat
Formation, Nainital Hills, Kumaun Lesser Himalaya. Journal of the Geological
Society of India, 47, pp. 431–445.

27. Singh, Rajesh, Umrao R. K., and Singh T. N. (2013). Probabilistic analysis of
slope in Amiyan landslide area, Uttarakhand. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and
Risk 4.1 pp13-29.

28. Singh, T.N., Verma, A.K. and Sarkar, K.(2010). Static and dynamic analysis of a
landslide. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 1, pp. 323–338.

29. Spencer, E. (1967). A method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments,

Assuming Parallel Interslice Forces. Geotechnique, Vol. 17, pp. 11‐26.

23

View publication stats