Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering – Schweiger (ed.

)
© 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 0-415-40822-9

A study on interslice force function and line of thrust

in slope stability analysis

K. Aryal
Norwegian Road Authorities, Region West, District Office Bergen, Norway

L. Grande & R. Sandven

Geotechnical Engineering Division, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a study of interslice force function which is used in slope stability analysis.
The study was performed by both limit equilibrium (LE) and finite element (FE) analyses, where Morgenstern-
Price, as LE method and PLAXIS software code, as FE method, were utilized. Moreover, a discussion has been
presented among other LE methods, which differ basically from their assumptions for the inter slice force func-
tion. Additionally, an evaluation of line of thrust has been presented and discussed based on the pseudo-static
analysis of a surcharged simple 10 m high slope.
The study reveals that the interslice force function can neither be a constant nor it follows a well defined pat-
tern as assumed in LE analysis. The variation will largely depend on the geometry and loading conditions. This
will have further effect on the factor of safety (FOS). However, the FE analysis shows a considerable difference
in the interslice force function as compared to the sine function in LE (Morgenstern-Price) analysis. This shows
a limitation in LE analysis which is unable to capture the localized interslice forces.

1 INTRODUCTION The fundamental difference in the assumptions has

Since many years, advanced limit equilibrium (LE)
methods have been used for slope stability analysis.
These methods consider both normal and tangential
forces acting on slices. These forces are computed
by dividing the entire sliding mass into a reasonable
number of slices. Furthermore, the FOS is based on
an assumed interslice force function where the com-
putation is carried out by an iterative procedure
(Janbu 1957).
Today, stability computations have been equally pos-
sible by the introduction of finite element (FE) codes.
Among them, PLAXIS is the one which has been
used here for the study of the force function.
been summarized in Table 1.
Morgenstern-Price method (1965) assumes an arbi-
trary function (f(x)) with a scale factor (␭). Similarly,
Janbu’s GPS method (1957) relates the function to the
inclination of the line of thrust. Likewise, Spencer
(1967) assumed a constant function thought out the
sliding surface. However, Sarma (1973) relates the
relationship similar to the Mohr-Coulomb expression
for shear strength.
Moreover, the function in Lowe-Karafiath (1960)
method is assumed as a tangent to the average incli-
nation of the slope and the sliding plane. However, the
Table 1. Interslice forces and relationships (Aryal 2006).

Morgenst-Price T ⫽ f(x) l E
2 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHODS
Janbu GPS T ⫽ E tan at ⫺ ht (dE/dx)
2.1 The interslice force function Lowe-Karafiath T ⫽ E tanu, where u ⫽ ½(a ⫹ b)
Corps of Engrs. T ⫽ E tanu, where u ⫽ ½(a1 ⫹ a2)
The interslice force function is defined as the ratio of
Sarma T ⫽ ch ⫹ E tan f
tangential to normal forces acting on a slice. This Spencer T ⫽ E tanu
function varies according to the assumptions made.

497
Corps of Engineers method (1970) considers the func-
tion as the average angle of the entry and exit points
of the sliding surface.
2.2 The line of thrust
The line of thrust is defined along the point of appli-
cation of the resultant of interslice forces. According
to Janbu (1957), this line of thrust may fluctuate from
1/3 to 2/3 of the slice height from the base in active
and passive conditions respectively.
Thus the assumption for the interslice force func-
tion in GPS method depends on the inclination of the
line of thrust. The line of thrust and forces considered
in the advanced LE methods are illustrated in Figure 1.
3 MODEL GEOMETRY AND INPUTS
The geometry and input parameters used in the study
is shown in Figure 2. The model was analyzed in three
different software programs SLOPE/W, SLIDE and
PLAXIS. The first two softwares are based on LE
principles.
The model was analyzed by selective LE method
(M-P) and FE method (PLAXIS) assuming a dry slope
T1
E2
E1
W Line of
thrust
S T2
with surcharge, q ⫽ 50 kPa at the creast and earth-
quake coefficient, ah ⫽ 0.25 (Aryal 2006).
The purpose of selecting typical soil properties sim-
ilar to silty clay is to study the comparative difference in
circular shear surface analysis using the software codes.
The results related to the interslice force function and
the line of thrust are presented and discussed here.
4 MODEL ANALYSIS RESULTS
4.1 Results of interslice force function
The interslice forces (T, E) were determined from the
PLAXIS simulation at 1 meter interval. The ratio of
these forces, T/E ⫽ ␭.f(x) were plotted together with
similar results obtained from SLOPE/W and SLIDE
for the M-P method.
Figure 3 shows the analysis results and comparison
of the interslice force function for the analyzed load
conditions. The slope profile and the shear surface (SS)
obtained from PLAXIS simulations are also indicated
by the dotted lines.
Mohr-Coulomb material model was selected in both
SLOPE/W and SLIDE. Similarly, half-sine function
(sine function but half cycle) was assumed. The inter-
slice force function looks almost identical. SLOPE/W
found exactly the same shape as half-sine function at
the scale factor, ␭ ⫽ 0.8, whereas SLIDE shows a mar-
ginal difference in shape at a lower value of ␭.
PLAXIS finds an irregular and contrast function
with considerable difference at the crest and toe of the
slope. The reason for the higher interslice shear force
at the crest is the loaded surcharge. In the middle of
the SS, the function is almost matching with the LE
method. Since the function may vary with geometry
and loading conditions, it is hard to generalize. Never-
theless, the study shows that interslice forces are not the
same in LE and FE analyses, especially at the crest and
toe of the slope (Aryal 2006).

N
Figure 1. Forces considered in LE methods. 1.2
PLAXIS
SLIDE
1.0
15 SLOPE/W

Slope profile
Interslice force function (T/E)

0.8
SS from PLAXIS

10 0.6

c' = 10 kPa φ' = 30° 0.4

5
0.2
c' = 5 kPa φ' = 25°
0.0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 2. Slope model and input parameters (Aryal 2006). Figure 3. Comparison of interslice forces (Aryal 2006).

498
4.2 Results of line of thrust
(3)
The plot in Figure 4 shows the location of the line of
thrust obtained from SLIDE (M-PM) and PLAXIS
simulations. Moreover, the dotted lines indicate the The LE based Morgenstern-Price method iterates for
CSS and slope profile. the FOS until the moment equilibrium (Equation 1)
The points of application of interslice resultant force and the force equilibrium (Equation 2) give a constant
are not the same in FE and LE analyses. In PLAXIS, value. This FOS can be found at the intersection point
the point was considered at the location where the nor- in Figure 5. Lower interslice shear force generally gives
mal force was found. However, the option for automatic higher normal force (Equation 3). If this is the case,
generation of the line of thrust was utilized in SLIDE. the FOS will be overestimated observing at Equations
Even if the location for the line of thrust may not show 1 and 2.
similar pattern for different geometry and loading con- In addition to the half-sine function, constant and
ditions, it can be noticed the considerable disagreement variable functions were also studied in both SLOPE/W
between LE and FE computations. and SLIDE softwares. However, the change in FOS was
The LE (M-PM) analysis gives the line of thrust found insignificant (⬍0.5%) in Morgenstern-Price
lower at the crest; slightly higher in the middle and method for circular shear surface. This shows that
unreasonably high at the toe. This finding indicates that selection of interslice force function in LE analysis
the sine function does not represent the static situa- may have no change in the FOS if the moment equi-
tion very well at the toe (Aryal 2006). librium curve has no change in gradient (Aryal 2006).
Ideally the thrust line in Janbu’s GPS method should However, another study (SLOPE/W 2002) shows
be located between 0.2 h and 0.4 h from the base of that interslice force function causes significant shifting
the shear surface, where h is the height of the slices in the force equilibrium FOS. If the moment equilib-
(Abramson et al. 2002). Janbu (1973) states, “the line rium FOS also shifts upwards, as shown in Figure 5,
of thrust should be located somewhat lower than h/3 the intersecting point will have higher FOS compared
in the active zone (crest) and higher than h/3 in the to the previous one.
passive zone (toe) for cohesive soils”. From the studies, it can be concluded that the
effect of interslice force function is a case dependent.
5 EFFECTS ON FACTOR OF SAFETY If one of the curves is parallel to the axis, there is no
any effect on the FOS for Morgenstern-Price method.
The FOS primarily depends on the normal stress at the On the other hand, there can be considerable shifting
shear surface as seen from equations 1 and 2. Moreover, of both curves resulting change in FOS.
the normal stress is also a function of the interslice As seen in Figure 3, PLAXIS computes more accu-
shear force as given in Equation 3. rately the interslice forces under the surcharge location
than LE software. The application of surcharge load
(1) will definitely increase in interslice shear force which
has nicely been captured in PLAXIS. In such condi-
tion, the higher interslice shear force will lower the
(2)

0.90
15 Ff
Location of thrust line from base (of h)

0.75
F
O Fm
Height (m)

0.60 10
S
0.45

0.30 5 f(x) =B
PLAXIS
SLIDE (M-PM)
f(x) =A
0.15
Slope Profile
SS (PLAXIS)
0.00 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (m) Scale factor lambda (λ)
Figure 4. Location of the line of thrust (Aryal 2006). Figure 5. Effect on FOS due to f(x) (SLOPE/W 2002).

499
FOS. This situation is observed at the crest and toe of
the simple slope referring again to Figure 3.
Thus the difference in the interslice force function
and the line of thrust found in LE and LE analysis will
have variations in the FOS. This explains why the LE
based methods compute higher FOS than the FE based
ones. The ultimate differences in FOS can easily be
understood considering the difference in the base nor-
mal force.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The interslice force function can neither be a constant
nor a well defined pattern as assumed in LE methods.
The variation will largely depend on the geometry and
loading conditions. This will have an effect in the FOS.
The FE analysis in PLAXIS shows a consideration
difference in the interslice force function as compared
to the assumed sine function in LE (Morgenstern-Price)
analysis. Thus the LE methods are unable to capture
the localized interslice forces.
The line of thrust is not similar in SLIDE and
PLAXIS. The assumed sine function in Morgenstern-
Price method gives exceptionally unrealistic thrust line
at the toe. Thus the LE methods are found less accuracy
to compute forces especially at the crest and toe of a
slope. Due to these differences, the FOS in LE analy-
sis differs from those obtained from FE analysis.
7 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
␣ inclination of the sliding plane
␣1 inclination at the entry point
␣2 inclination at the exit point
␣t inclination of the line of thrust
␤ slope inclination angle
␾ internal friction angle
␾⬘ effective friction angle
␭ scale factor
␪ inclination of interslice resultant force
c apparent (total) cohesion
c⬘ effective cohesion
500
h average height of a slice
ht height from mid point of the slice to dE
dE change in interslice normal force
l length of slice along sliding surface
m␣ factor based on slope ␣
u pore pressure
E interslice normal force
Ff force equilibrium FOS
Fm moment equilibrium FOS
N normal force
S shear force (strength)
T interslice shear force
W weight of the slice
REFERENCES
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
Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 329–461.
Aryal, K. (2006): Slope stability evaluation by LE and FE
methods. Ph D thesis, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, NTNU
Corps of Engineers (1970). Slope Stability manual. EM
1110-2-1902, Washington, DC: Department of the Army,
Office of the Chief Engineers.
Janbu, N. (1973). Slope Stability Computations. Embankment
Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume, pp. 47–86.
Janbu, N. (1957). Earth pressure and bearing capacity cal-
culations by generalised procedure of slices. Proceedings
of the 4th International Conference, SMFE, London, 2,
pp. 207–12.
Lowe, J., and Karafiath, R.V. (1960). Stability of Earth Dam
upon Drawdown. Proceedings of the of the first Pan
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Maxico City, pp. 537–52.
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.
Sarma, S.K. (1973). Stability Analysis of Embankment and
Slopes. Geotechnique, Vol. 23 (3), pp. 423–33.
SLOPE/W (2002). Stability Analysis. Users Guide Version
5, GeoSlope Office, Canada. www.geoslope.com.
Spencer, E. (1967). A method of Analysis of the Stability
of Embankments, Assuming Parallel Interslice Forces.
Geotechnique, Vol. 17, pp. 11–26.