THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN III

M. B. Jaksa and W. S. Kaggwa

STABILITY OF SLOPES

References: Craig, R. F. (2004). Soil Mechanics, 7th ed., Spon Ltd., 464p.
Fang, H.-Y. (ed.) (1991). Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, 923p.
Sowers, G. F. (1979). Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Collier MacMillan, 621p.
Whitlow, R. (1990). Basic Soil Mechanics, 2nd ed., Longman, 528p.

1. INTRODUCTION

The assessment of the safety of an earth mass against failure or movement is termed its stability. It
is considered both in the design of earth structures as well as in the repair and correction of failures.
It is inevitable that where construction occurs, there will be an unsupported soil slope. The slope
may be temporary (e.g. in a trench or a basement excavation) or it may be permanent (e.g. in a road
cutting or on a sloping construction site). In all slope failures, there is a movement of a large mass
of soil along a more or less definite surface, as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Failure of an earth mass. (Source: Sowers, 1979.)

Failure occurs when the shear strength of the soil is exceeded by the shear stresses over a relatively
continuous surface. It should be noted that failure at a single point in a soil mass does not
necessarily mean that a soil mass is unstable. Instability results only when shear failure has
occurred at enough points to define a surface along which the movement can take place. Failure can
be caused by two types of factors: those that result in a decrease in soil strength; and those that
cause an increase in soil stress. Some of the causes are listed below.
CAUSES OF SOIL INSTABILITY

(a) Causes of increased stresses

1. External loads such as buildings, water, or snow;
2. Increase in unit weight of soil by increased water content;
3. Removal of part of mass by excavation;
4. Undermining, caused by tunnelling, seepage erosion, etc.;
5. Shock, caused by earthquakes or blasting;
6. Tension cracks;
7. Water pressure in cracks.

(b) Causes of decreased soil shear strength

1. Swelling of clays by adsorption of water;
2. Porewater pressure build up;
3. Breakdown of loose or honeycombed soil structure;
4. Hair cracking from alternate swelling and shrinking or from tension;
5. Strain, and progressive failure in sensitive soils;
6. Thawing of frozen soil or frost lenses;
7. Deterioration of cementing material;
8. Vibration of loose, granular soils.

When a geotechnical engineer is called upon to determine the cause of a failure (known as back-
analysis), it is usual to find that a number of causes exist simultaneously, and so attempting to
decide which one finally produced failure is not only difficult but also incorrect. This is because
often the final factor acts as a trigger that sets in motion an earth mass that was already on the verge
of failure. Hence calling the final factor the cause is analogous to calling a match used in
detonating dynamite that destroyed the building the cause of the disaster.

2. ANALYSIS OF SLOPE STABILITY

In the analysis of slope stability, the surface along which sliding occurs is guessed and an analysis is
then performed to determine: the shear forces acting on the failure surface; and the shear resistance
that the soil can mobilise against sliding. A factor of safety, FS, against failure is then calculated as
the ratio of forces opposing motion to the forces causing motion, that is:

Forces opposing motion

FS = (2.1)
Forces causing motion

FS is calculated for a number of guessed sliding surfaces, and the minimum value is taken as the
factor of safety against slope failure. It should be noted that a value of FS < 1 is indicative of
instability.

There are a number of types of failure surfaces that are analysed. These are shown in Figure 2.1.
Short-term and long-term stability can also be considered.

2
 Figure 2.1 Types of slope failure. (Source: Craig, 2004.)

2.1 φu = 0)
Short-Term Stability in Cohesive Soils - Undrained (Total Stress) Analyses (φ

A total stress analysis may be applied to the case of a newly cut or newly constructed slope in a fully
saturated clay. Since φu = 0, the undrained shear strength of the clay is τ = cu . It is assumed that the
failure surface will take the cross-sectional form of a circular arc. The centre of the critical slip
circle will be somewhere above the top of the slope. The critical (failure) slip circle is one of an
infinite number of potential circles that may have been drawn having different radii and centres, as
shown in Figure 2.2. A number of trial circles are chosen and the analysis is repeated for each until
the lowest factor of safety is obtained.

Figure 2.3 shows the cross-section of a slope together with a trial slip circle of radius, R, and centre,
O. Instability tends to be caused by the moment of the body weight, W, of the shaded portion.

Disturbing Moment = Wd

The tendency to move is resisted by the moment of the mobilised shear strength acting along the
circular arc AB.

Length of arc (radians) AB = R θ

Shear resistance along AB = cu R θ
Shear resistance moment = cu R 2 θ

3
 Figure 2.2 Slip circles of different radii and
centres. (Source: Whitlow, 1990.) φu = 0) analysis.
Figure 2.3 Total stress (φ
(Source: Whitlow, 1990.)

shear resistance moment cu R 2θ

Thus, the factor of safety, FS = = (2.2)
disturbing moment Wd

The values of W and d are obtained by dividing the shaded area into slices or triangular/rectangular
segments.

2.1.1 Tension Cracks

In cohesive soils, a tension crack tends to form near the top of the slope as the condition of limiting
equilibrium (and failure) develops. Recall from Geotechnical Engineering II, that the depth of a
tension crack, z0 = 2cu γ K A . This equation was developed for drained (long-term) loading. For
undrained (short-term) loading in saturated soils, φu = 0, hence KA = KP = 1. Therefore:

2cu
z0 = (2.3)
γ

The effect of the tension crack is shown in Figure 2.4, and results in: (i) the slip circle arc reducing
in length from AB to AC; and (ii) the free body weight, W, decreasing in magnitude due to the
extent of the shaded area being reduced (right-hand-side is bounded by the tension crack rather than
BC). No shear strength can be developed in the tension crack, however, if it can fill with water,
allowance must be made for the hydrostatic force, Pw , which acts horizontally and adds to the
disturbing moment, such that:
1
Pw = γ w z02 (2.4)
2

As a result, the factor of safety becomes:

cu R 2 θ c
FS = (2.5)
Wd + Pw yc

4
 Figure 2.4 Effect of a tension crack in total stress analysis. (Source: Whitlow, 1990.)

Whitlow (1990) provided the following worked example.

5
2.2 Long-Term Stability - Drained (Effective Stress) Analyses

Stability analyses should be carried out in terms of effective stresses in problems where changes in
porewater pressures take place. Because of the variations in these stresses along a trial slip surface,
the slip mass is considered as a series of slices, as shown in Figure 2.5. A trial slip circle is selected
having a centre, O, and a radius, R, and the horizontal distance between the two ends A and B
divided into slices of equal breadth, b.

In the method of slices we make two assumptions:

1. The slices are long in the direction normal to the plane of the section. The forces at the ends of
each slice are negligible, that is, we adopt a purely 2D approach.

2. The Coulomb failure criterion applies. The factor of safety, FS, is defined such that, when c' and
tanφ' are replaced by c'/FS and tanφ'/FS, the conditions become those of limiting equilibrium.
We also assume that all slices have the same FS.

The forces acting on a slice of length 1 metre will be as follows:

W = the body weight of the slice = γ hb;

N' = the effective normal reacting force at the base of the slice;
T = the shearing force induced along the base = Wsinα;
R1 and R2 = forces imposed on the sides from adjacent slices, which may be
resolved into:
E1 and E2 = normal interslice forces; and
X1 and X2 = tangential interslice forces.

6
 Figure 2.5 Method of slices: (a) division of slip mass; (b) forces on a slice.
(Source: Whitlow, 1990.)

The effects of any surcharge loading on the surface must be included in the computation of the body
weight and other forces.
K K
If there are K slices, the total disturbing force = ∑ W sin αi i . The total resisting shear force = ∑τ l . i In
i =1 i =1
terms of effective stresses, τ = c' + σ' tan φ' , and τl = c' l + N ' tan φ' . Hence:

K K

∑ c'i l + ∑ N 'i tan φ'i

FS = i =1
K
i =1
(2.6)
∑ W sin α
i =1
i i

Much depends on the manner in which the values of N' are obtained. A number of methods have
been suggested, some simple, some rigorous. Two simple methods are discussed below. The more
rigorous techniques rely on the use of computers.

2.2.1 Fellenius’ Method

In this method, it is assumed that the interslice forces are equal and opposite and, hence, cancel each
other out, i.e. E1 = E2 and X1 = X2 . As a consequence, it is only necessary to resolve the forces
acting on the base of each slice, so that:

N ' = W cos α − ul
= γhb cos α − ub sec α

If we define ru as the pore pressure ratio, such that ru = u γh , then

N ' = γhb(cos α − ru sec α )

Substituting this into Equation (2.6) yields:

7
 K K

∑ c'i l + b∑ γ i hi (cos α i − rui sec αi ) tan φ'i

FS = i =1 i =1
K
(2.7)
∑ W sin α
i =1
i i

The number of slices is not less than 5, and is usually between 8 and 20. This method, however,
tends to give values of FS which may be as much as 50% on the low side.

2.2.2 Bishop’s Simplified Method

In reasonably uniform conditions and also when ru is nearly constant, it may be assumed that the
tangential interslice forces are equal and opposite and cancel one another out, i.e. X1 = X2 but that
E1 ≠ E2 . as shown in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6 Bishop’s simplified slice. (Source: Whitlow, 1990.)

For vertical equilibrium:

τf
W − N ' cos α − ul cos α − l sin α = 0
FS
But τ f = c' + σ' tan φ'
c' N ' tan φ'
∴ W − N ' cos α − ul cos α − l sin α − sin α = 0
FS FS
c'
W− l sin α − ul cos α
∴ N' = FS
tan φ'
cos α + sin α
FS

8
Hence:
K
[(W − u b ) tan φ' +c' b ] sec α
i i i i i i i
∑ tan α i tan φ'i
i =1 1+
FS = FS (2.8)
K

∑ W sin α
i =1
i i

Notice that FS appears on both sides of the equation. Hence, the procedure is an iterative one. For
a given slip circle, assume a trial value of FS on the right-hand-side of Equation (2.8), and continue
iterating until this value matches that of the left-hand-side.

This method is used widely in many computer packages which also allow for multiple layers,
surcharge loads and variable pore pressure distributions. The factors of safety determined using this
method are slight underestimates, but with errors not usually exceeding 3%.

Geotech3_LS10_Slope Stability.doc
 2006, M. B. Jaksa