Comparative Analysis of Soil Slope Stability,

Using Dynamic and Pseudo-static Methods

on the Garrapata - Santa Maria Road, Manabi
Province, Ecuador

Lucía Macías1 , Digna Loor1 , Eduardo Ortiz-Hernández1,2 , Gema Casanova1 ,

and Daniel Delgado1,3(B)
1 Departamento de Construcciones Civiles, Facultad de Ciencias Matemáticas, Físicas y
Químicas, Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo 130108, Ecuador
daniel.delgado@utm.edu.ec
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
3 Red de Desarrollo Urbano Sostenible de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador

Abstract. Ecuador is exposed to seismic events, which cause a reduction in soil

resistance due to vibration loads and their effect is the landslide. This work ana-
lyzes the stability of the soil slopes that are located on the abscissa 25 + 280 and 63
+ 040 of the Garrapata - Santa María road located between the Chone and El Car-
men cantons of the Manabí province, through the determination of the safety factor
using the GeoSlope software, performing a dynamic and pseudo-static analysis,
to observe the variations that exist when applying horizontal forces (Kh). In addi-
tion, the comparison of the Fellenius, Bishop, Janbu and Morgenstern-Price limit
equilibrium methods was carried out based on the SPT results, which allowed clas-
sifying the soil strata. The results of the triaxial test determined the geotechnical
parameters such as cohesion and friction angle.

Keywords: Stability · Safety factor · Seismicity · Soil

1 Introduction

In Ecuador, studies related to the determination of the risk of instability are frequently
carried out to avoid large mass movements such as those caused by natural phenomena
and catastrophic events in the twentieth century, because it caused a high destructive
potential in the socioeconomic and environmental [1].
Slope stability analysis should focus on understanding the process that originates,
develops, and triggers instability. In this analysis, three conceptual models can be applied,
such as the Limit Equilibrium Method, where different techniques have been developed,
and they differ between them basically by the number and type of equilibrium equations
they use and, in the assumptions, included in interslice forces. A second group is the Limit
Analysis Methods where the Lower-Limit and Upper-Limit theorems are employed. The

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

J. R. da Costa Sanches Galvão et al. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Water Energy Food and Sustainability (ICoWEFS 2021), pp. 505–515, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75315-3_55
506 L. Macías et al.

third group and of growing interest are the Numerical Methods, among which the most
widespread are the Finite Element Method and the Finite Difference Method. These
numerical methods meet the theoretical requirements to obtain the complete solution; that
is, that obtained based on the system of equilibrium equation, compatibility, constitutive
laws, and boundary conditions [2].
During a seismic event, the stability of a slope can decrease in different ways [3].
This research has the purpose of evaluating the instability of the specific slopes on the
Garrapata - Santa María road, with the acceleration records projected in the study area,
of the 2016 Pedernales earthquake (Mw 7.8), which indicate values between 0.26 and
0.45 g [4].
When studying the phenomena of slope instability, it is necessary to identify and
characterize the different types of behavior and classify them appropriately. A precise
analysis of the type of failure allows optimization of slope containment and stabiliza-
tion measures, since it considers the acting mechanism, its speed and dimensions. On
the contrary, an incorrect definition of the failure mechanism can lead to incorrect or
ineffective solutions, and in some cases counterproductive [5].
During the rainy season, landslides and collapses of natural or artificial slopes fre-
quently occur. There are two main causes that cause them: the increase in shear stresses
on the slopes and the reduction of shear resistance of the constituent materials (soils and
rocks). The agent that contributes the most to generating and developing slope failures
is water (90% of associated failures).
In general, the slope stability is determined by geometric factors (height and slope),
geological, hydrogeological and geotechnical factors. In this way, the combination of
these 4 factors can determine the condition of the soil breaking on some type of surface,
allowing the movement of its contained mass [6].
This research proposes the analysis of slopes stability in the abscissa 25 + 280 and
63 + 040 of the Garrapata - Santa María road (Chone canton of the Manabí province),
based on geomechanical and geotechnical parameters, to mitigate the effects risk of
instability on the road.

2 Methodology
Once the results of the SPT site test were obtained, adding the Atterberg Limits tests,
natural humidity, granulometry and the geotechnical characterization in conjunction
with the Triaxial UU tests (resistance parameters), the friction angle and cohesion of the
materials that make up the slopes.
The study points are in the Bourbon geological formation (Fig. 1), which is made up
of medium to coarse-grained bluish-gray sandstones in compacted banks with abundant
mega fossils in irregular water reserves, intercalations of hardened lama and tuff gray
volcanic, conglomerate lenses and generally a basal conglomerate resting discordantly
on the Onzole and Playa Grande formations. In the Chone area, the contact is concordant
and transitional. According to Bristow [7] and Reyes & Michaud [8], this formation is
considered from the Upper Miocene to Pliocene age.
The safety factors of the soil slopes were calculated using the limit equilibrium meth-
ods, which consist of dividing the mass of potentially unstable ground into vertical slices,
 Comparative Analysis of Soil Slope Stability 507

Fig. 1. Geological chart of the central coast of the province of Manabí. The road project refers to
the PLB (Borbón) and QPBZ (alluvial fans of Balzar and San Tadeo) formations. Units in yellow
is Onzole formation, and orange unit is Fm Dos Bocas [8]

calculating the equilibrium of each one of them and analyzing the global equilibrium, to
obtain a factor defined as the relationship between resistant forces/moments and unbal-
anced forces/moments. Once the value of FS has been calculated for a certain potential
failure curve, the process is repeated for a different one, a procedure that is repeated
until a minimum value of FS is obtained [5]. The safety factor was calculated using
GeoSlope’s SLOPE/W software, making a comparison in the static and pseudo-static
analyzes.
The limit equilibrium methods applied to determine the stability of the slopes and
at the same time evaluate differences between them are detailed below:

• Ordinary or Fellenius method.

• Bishop’s method.

Ordinary or Fellenius Method: The precursor methods of limit equilibrium consider

the potential failure mass as a free body and apply the equations of global equilibrium.
This free body theory has been implemented in some methods, such as the Ordinary
Fellenius Method (Fig. 2) [2].
The forces acting on the slope (Fig. 2) are:

Wn: Resulting segment weight.

R: Force acting as a reaction to the weight of the segment.
Nn and N (n + 1): Normal forces acting on each side of the segment.
Tn and T (n + 1): Tangential forces acting on each side of the segment.
Nr: Normal component of reaction R.
Tr: Tangential component of reaction R.
508 L. Macías et al.

Fig. 2. (Left) Slope stability analysis and (right) forces acting on the segment using the Fellenius
method [6]

The forces Nn, N (n + 1), Tn and T (n + 1) are complex to determine, so it is

possible to take certain considerations: The forces resulting from Nn and Tn are equal
in magnitude to those resulting from N (n + 1) and T (n + 1). Finally, the formula to
determine the safety factor is obtained [6].
Taking into consideration the limit equilibrium:

Nr = Wn ∗ cos(∝n ) (1)

However, the shear resistance offered by the floor is considered:

τ ∗ (l) 1  
Tr = τ ∗ (l) = = ∗ c + σ  ∗ tg(∅) ∗ l (2)
FS FS
In the above equation the normal stress is equal:
Nr Wn ∗ sin(αn )
= (3)
Δl Δl
One of the main characteristics of the Fellenius method is to satisfy the balance of
moments, considering that the moment of the mobilized forces is equal to the moment
of resistant forces [6].
n=p n=p 1  
Wn ∗ cos(αn )
Wn ∗ sin(αn ) = ∗ c+ ∗ tg(∅) ∗ Δl ∗ r (4)
n=1 n=1 FS Δl
So:
n=p  
n=1 c ∗ Δl + Wn ∗ cos(αn ) ∗ tg)(∅)
FS = n=p (5)
n=1 Wn ∗ sin(αn )

FS = Safety factor.
c = Cohesion.
l = Length of the segment.
W = Total weight of each segment.

Bishop’s Method: Consider the following hypotheses and development [9]:

• The failure surface is assumed to be circular.

• The sliding mass is divided into “n” vertical strips.
 Comparative Analysis of Soil Slope Stability 509

• The equilibrium of moments in each slice in relation to the center of the circle is
established.
• This method assumes that the contact forces between the slices do not influence,
because they are balanced.

Fig. 3. Slope stability analysis by the Bishop method. a) Diagram of the forces acting on the
segment. b) Diagram of forces in equilibrium of the “N” segment [6]

From Fig. 3, the following equations are determined:

 
tg∅ c ∗ Δl
T r = N r ∗ tg (∅) + c + Δl = N r ∗ + (6)
FS FS

∗ Δl
W n + ΔT − c FS ∗ sin (α n )
Nr = ∗ sin(α n )
(7)
cos(α n ) + tg(∅) FS

It is possible to calculate the equilibrium equations of moments and forces, starting

from the free-body diagrams for each segment, finding the expression to calculate the
FS [6]:
n=p n=p
Wn ∗ r ∗ sin(αn ) = Tr ∗ r (8)
n=1 n=1

Where:
1   1  
Tr = ∗ c + σ  ∗ tg(∅) ∗ Δl = ∗ c ∗ Δl + Nr ∗ tg(∅) (9)
FS FS
The value of forces N can be estimated, once the balance of vertical forces for each
segment is analyzed [6], allowing to replace and find the following equation:
n=p  
n=1 c ∗ b + Wn ∗ tan(∅) + ΔT ∗ tg(∅) ∗ mα(n)
1
FS = n=p (10)
n=1 [Wn ∗ sin(αn )]

Where:
tg(∅) ∗ sin(αn )
mα(n) = cos(αn ) + (11)
FS
510 L. Macías et al.

Simplifying, we have:
n=p  
n=1 c ∗ b + Wn ∗ tg(∅) ∗
1
mα(n)
FS = n=p (12)
n=1 [Wn ∗ sin(αn )]

FS = Safety factor.
c = Cohesion.
b = Width of the segment.
Wn = Total weight of each segment.

Pseudo-static Slope Analysis: The seismic stability of structures such as slopes have
been analyzed through pseudo-static analysis since the 1920s, in which the effects of an
earthquake are represented by horizontal accelerations [10].
The pseudo-static analysis consists of applying a horizontal force on all the elements
subject to analysis on the slope, called the k coefficient, which is multiplied by the weight
of each element. The point where the force must be located is of great importance in the
analysis. For this, Terzaghi [11] recommended that this force should be applied at the
center of gravity of each segment [12].
This method is generally based on the same procedure that any limit equilibrium
method uses, the only variation is that both horizontal and vertical pseudo-static forces
are added because of the seismic event. Said seismic forces must be proportional to the
weight of the potential sliding mass and in addition to the seismic coefficients Kh and
Kv, they are valued at n times the acceleration of gravity caused by the earthquake. It
can be indicated that generally in the analyzes the horizontal seismic force is used and
it is assumed that the vertical seismic force is zero. However, in the epicentral area that
produces landslides, the Kv would not be significant [13].
The seismic coefficient varies depending on the acceleration or intensity of the earth-
quake, frequency, and duration of the movement. Usually in a conservative analysis, it
is assumed that the horizontal seismic coefficient is equal to the maximum acceleration
of a seismic movement [10].
The Chilean Highway Manual [14] establishes that the Kh is determined by the
following equation:

Kh = 0.5A (13)

“A” represents the maximum effective acceleration coefficient, which depends on

the seismic zone of the country. This method is applied when there is no seismic hazard
study available to estimate the maximum acceleration value [10].
The slopes analyzed are located between the cantons Chone and El Carmen, coastal
zone (red area). Its z factor corresponds to 0.50 g in rock, with a very high seismic hazard
characterization (Table 1).
 Comparative Analysis of Soil Slope Stability 511

Table 1. Z factor values depending on the seismic zone adopted.

Seismic Zone I II III IV V VI

Z factor 0,15 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 ≥0,50
Seismic hazard Intermediate High High High High Very high
characterization

3 Results

At station 25 + 280, the results of the standard penetration test (Table 2) are observed,
determining a homogeneous stratum formed by silty sand. It is established that the
compactness in the first 2 m is relatively low and in depths between 2 to 5 m it improves
its compactness.

Table 2. Mechanical properties in abscissa 25 + 280.

Depth Granulometry% through Limits W% Classification N° of Unit

(m) 4 10 40 200 LL LP IP SUCS hits SPT weight
(t/m3 )
0.20 98 95 92 71 – – NP 32.32 SM 1,2,2 –
1.00 100 98 95 80 – – NP 35.24 SM 1,1,2 1.96
2.00 100 99 97 80 – – NP 26.15 SM 1,2,3 –
3.00 100 96 91 71 – – NP 38.43 SM 4,6,6 –
4.00 100 97 78 52 – – NP 44.37 SM 3,2,5 –
5.50 100 99 75 56 – – NP 51.32 SM 12,23,41 –

At station 63 + 040 the results of the standard penetration test (SPT) are observed
with a depth of 6 m. Table 3 determines that the stratum is homogeneous and corresponds
to a low plasticity clay. It is established that the compactness in the first 2 m is relatively
low.
The mechanical parameters used to calculate the safety factor for slopes 25 + 280
and 63 + 040 are: unit weight, cohesion, friction angle, seismic conditions, and slope
geometry. In addition, the comparison of the static and pseudo-static analysis was carried
out using the limit equilibrium methods (Fellenius, Bishop), as shown in Tables 4 and
5, Fig. 4, 5, 6, 7.
As can be seen in Table 6, there are variations in the results of the safety factors.
As methods evolved, the safety factor and precision increased. The most conservative
method was Fellenius in providing the lowest FS.
The FS produced in the pseudo-static analysis are lower, since the seismic factors
were taken according to the NEC-2015 [15] standard, which is related to the most
important earthquakes that occurred in recent decades in Ecuador.
512 L. Macías et al.

Table 3. Input parameters for GeoSlope software, abscissa 25 + 280.

Depth Granulometry% through Limits W% Classification N° Unit

(m) 4 10 40 200 LL LP IP SUCS of weight
hits (t/m3 )
SPT
0.20 100 100 99 97 49.30 22.57 26.73 21.38 CL 2,3,4 0.20
1.00 100 100 96 84 36.60 17.70 18.90 24.05 CL 3,4,5 1.00
2.00 100 100 95 70 46.38 29.00 17.39 51.92 CL 2,3,4 2.00
3.00 100 100 99 95 39.78 20.08 19.70 47.81 CL 1,4,7 3.00
4.00 100 100 97 76 34.68 12.37 22.31 62.72 CL 2,3,4 4.00
0.20 100 100 99 97 49.30 22.57 26.73 21.38 CL 2,3,4 0.20

Table 4. Input parameters for GeoSlope software, abscissa 25 + 280.

Description Value Unit

Cohesion 100.4 Kpa
Friction angle 11.21 degrees
Slope height 22.16 m
Specific weight 19.21 kN/m3
Seismic factor [14] 0.25 –

Fig. 4. Calculation of slope stability corresponding to the abscissa 25 + 280 Fellenius method a)
static analysis b) pseudo-static analysis.

According to the results, it is determined that Bishop’s method is more precise,

because it considers the circular failure surface and establishes the moment equilibrium
in each segment.
The FS values present high levels of stability because the soil strata of the study area
have excellent geomechanical characteristics, favoring the absence of a water table.
 Comparative Analysis of Soil Slope Stability 513

Fig. 5. Calculation of slope stability corresponding to the abscissa 25 + 280 Bishop method a)
static analysis b) pseudo-static analysis.

Table 5. Input parameters for GeoSlope software, abscissa 63 + 040.

Description Value Unit

Cohesion 85.12 Kpa
Friction angle 25.59 degrees
Slope height 23.23 m
Specific weight 19.55 kN/m3
Seismic factor [14] 0.25 -

Fig. 6. Calculation of slope stability corresponding to the abscissa 63 + 040 Fellenius method a)
static analysis b) pseudo-static analysis.

Fig. 7. Calculation of slope stability corresponding to the abscissa 63 + 040 Bishop method a)
static analysis b) pseudo-static analysis.
514 L. Macías et al.

Table 6. Summary of safety factors for slopes 25 + 280 and 63 + 040.

Limit Equilibrium Method Slopes (Abscissa) Analysis

Static FS Pseudo-static FS
Fellenius 25 + 280 2,735 2,091
63 + 040 3,123 2,085
Bishop 25 + 280 2,972 2,406
63 + 040 3,392 2,201

4 Conclusions
The slope stability studies considered in the present investigation, for the static and
pseudo-static cases, show that the envelope of the fault presents a greater decrease in the
Bishop method in relation to the Fellenius method.
The variations obtained through the static and pseudo-static analysis determined that
the differences between the two cases are drastic and could generate a great destructive
potential if the seismic factor is not considered as analysis parameters.
In Ecuador, the consideration of the seismic factor is very important, because the
country has frequent earthquakes.

References
1. D’Ercole, R., Trujillo, M.: Amenazas, vulnerabilidad, capacidades y riesgo en el Ecuador.
EKSEPTION Editorial, Quito (2003)
2. Bojorque, J.: Métodos para el análisis de la estabilidad de pendientes. Revista científica
MASKANA 2(2), 1–16 (2011)
3. Hack, R., Alkema, D., Kruse, G., Leenders, N., Luzi, L.: Influence of earthquakes on the
stability. Eng. Geol. 91(1), 4–15 (2007)
4. Chunga, K., Livio, F.A., Martillo, C., Lara, H., Ferrario, M.F., Zevallos, I., Michetti, A.M.:
Landslides triggered by the 2016 Mw 7.8 Pedernales, Ecuador earthquake: Correlations with
ESI-07 intensity, lithology, slope and PGA-h. Geosciences 9(9), 371 (2019)
5. Valiente Sanz, R., Sobrecases Martí, S., Díaz Orrego, A.: Estabilidad taludes, conceptos
básicos, parámetros de diseño y métodos de cálculo. Revista Civilizate 7, 50–54 (2015)
6. Sanhueza, C., Rodríguez, L.: Análisis Comparativo de métodos de cálculo de estabilidad de
taludes finitos aplicados a laderas naturales. Revista de la construcción 12(1), 17–29 (2013)
7. Bristow, C.R.: The Daule group, Ecuador (Middle Miocene-Pliocene). Newsl. Stratigr. 5,
190–200 (1976)
8. Reyes, P., Michaud, F.: Mapa Geológico de la Margen Costera Ecuatoriana (1500000), Quito
(2012)
9. González de Vallejo, L.I., Ferrer, M., Ortuño, L., Oteo, C.: Ingeniería Geológica. Pearson
educación, Madrid (2002)
10. Ramírez, R., Barrera, S., Gómez, P.: El método seudoestático de estabilidad en presas: Un
análisis crítico. Obras y Proyectos 9, 30–37 (2011)
11. Terzaghi, K.: Mechanism of landslides. Application of geology to engineering practice,
pp. 83–123. Geological Society of America (1950)
 Comparative Analysis of Soil Slope Stability 515

12. Duncan, J.M., Wright, S.G.: Soil Strength and Slope Stability. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2005)
13. Suarez Diaz, J.: Deslizamiento: Análisis Geotécnico, vol. 1. Editorial Universidad Industrial
de Santander, Bucaramanga (2009)
14. Ministerio de Obras Públicas del Gobierno de Chile: Manual de Carreteras vol. 3, Instruc-
ciones y Criterios de Diseño. Dirección de Vialidad, Santiago (2002)
15. Norma Ecuatoriana de la Construcción: Peligro Sísmico/Diseño Sismo Resistente, Código:
NEC-SE-DS, Quito (2015)