2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional

Slope Stability Analysis

Alison McQuillan, CP (AUSIMM), RPEQ.
Rocscience Inc. Representative, Australasia
Course Agenda
Day I
 Module I:
Overview of limit-equilibrium methods for slope stability analysis
 Module II:
Slope stability analysis (2D & 3D)
 Module III:
Selection of analysis methods
 Module IV:
Material Models in Slide
Course Agenda
Day II
 Module V:
Groundwater analysis (2D & 3D)
 Module VI:
Probabilistic and Sensitivity analysis
 Module VII:
Shear Strength Reduction (2D & 3D)
 Module VIII:
Joint Network Analysis in RS2
Overview of limit-equilibrium methods for
slope stability analysis
Module I
Objectives
 Goals of slope stability analysis
 Basic slope stability analysis
 Identifying different slope failure mechanisms
 Identifying conditions under which particular mechanisms occur
Aims of Slope Stability Analysis
 Assess equilibrium conditions
(natural slopes)
 Evaluate methods for stabilizing
slope
 Evaluate impact/role of
geometric and physical
parameters on stability
 Discontinuity strength
 Height
 Slope angle, etc.
Aims of Slope Stability Analysis
 Determine impact of seismic
shock on stability
 Back analyze for prevailing
conditions at failure
 Shear strength
 Groundwater conditions
Parametric Analysis
 Uncertainties regarding material
properties and physical
conditions
 Variability of properties from
location to location
 Difficulties in measurement
 Required to evaluate physical
and geometrical factors affecting
stability
Slope Stability Analysis
 Components of analysis
 Slope under consideration (geometry, geology, soil properties,
groundwater, etc.)
Slope Stability Analysis
 Components of analysis

 Slope geometry
 Geologic model
 Groundwater
 Loadings on slope
 Failure criterion
 Failure analysis
Causes and controlling factors
 A section of a slope will generally fail when its driving forces overcome
its resistive forces.
 This is also known as Factor of Safety (FOS). Instability occurs when FOS <=1
 Occurs due to processes decreasing the resistive forces, increasing the
driving forces, or a combination of the two.
Slides
 Sliding of a mass of earth or rock
 Can be rotational or translational
 Can be triggered by angle of
slope, material, structure of
slope, introduction of fluids,
seismic forces, etc.
Lateral spreads
 Lateral extensions over low-angle
zones leading to formation of
tensile cracks and faults
 Can be triggered by
liquefaction, water
circulation, or seismic forces
Failure Modes
 Slides (dictated by unbalanced
shear stress along one or more
surfaces)
 Rotational
 Translational
 Compound/Combination
 Planar
 Wedge
 Toppling
Failure Modes
 Rotational (rock and soil)
 Sliding along curved surface
 Common cause: erosion at base of slope
Failure Modes
 Rotational (rock and soil)
Failure Modes
 Translational
 Slides move in contact with underlying surface
 Sliding surface commonly a bedding plane, can also be
fault/fracture surface

Block Slide Slab Slide

Failure Modes
 Planar (rock and soil)

Side Relief Planes

Upper Slope Surface

Slope Face

Failure Plane
Failure Modes
 Wedge (rock)

 2 discontinuities striking obliquely across

slope face
 Line of intersection daylights in slope face
 Dip of line of intersection > friction angle
of discontinuities
Failure Modes
 Wedge (rock)
Active Wedge
Failure Modes
 Toppling
Undercutting Discontinuities

Low-Dip Base Plane 

Daylighting in Slope
Face
Geologic factors controlling failure modes
Geologic Conditions Potential Failure Surface
Cohesionless soils Translational with small depth/length ratio
Residual or colluvial soils over shallow rock
Stiff fissured clays and marine shales within upper,
highly weathered zone
Sliding block Single planar surface
Interbedded dipping rock or soil
Faulted or slickensided material
Intact stiff to hard cohesive soil
Sliding blocks in rocky masses Multiple planar surfaces
Weathered interbedded sedimentary rocks
Clay shales and stiff fissured clays
Stratified soils
Thick residual and colluvial soil layers Rotational (circular – slopes with homogeneous
Soft marine clays and shales material, non-circular – slopes of
Soil to firm cohesive heterogeneous material)
Highly altered and weathered rocks
Limit Equilibrium Methods
Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Attraction of limit equilibrium
 Most common slope analysis method
 Relatively simple formulation
 Useful for evaluating sensitivity of possible failure conditions to input
parameters

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Fundamental concepts
 All points along slip surface are on verge of failure
 At this point in time
 Driving forces (D) = Resisting forces (R)
 Factor of safety (FS) = 1
 D > R then FS < 1
 D < R then FS > 1
 Limiting equilibrium – perfect equilibrium between forces driving failure and
those resisting failure

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Factor of safety (factor of ignorance)
 Quantitative measure of degree of stability
 Accounts for uncertainty
 Guards against ignorance about reliability of input parameters
 Lower quality site investigation calls for a higher desired factor of safety
 Higher quality site investigation allows us to accept a lower desired factor of
safety
 Empirical tool to establish suitable economic bounds on design

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Uncertainties accounted for by factor of safety
 Uncertainty in shear strength due to soil variability, relationship between lab
strength and field strength
 Uncertainty in loadings (surface loading, unit weight, pore pressures, etc.)
 Modelling uncertainties: including possibility critical failure mechanism
SLIGHTLY different from that identified, model is not conservative

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Fundamental concepts
 Two steps for calculating factor of safety
 Compute shear strength required along potential failure surface to
maintain stability
 Compare required shear strength to available shear strength (which is
assumed constant along failure surface)

 For Mohr-Coulomb

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Planar failure

cA tan 
FS  
W sin  tan 

W sin 
W cos 

t
 W N

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Rotational failure – method of slices

 Used by most computer programs

 Readily accommodates complex
slope geometries, variable soil and
groundwater conditions & variable
external loads

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Rotational failure – method of slices
N slices
N Normal forces on base
N Shear forces on base
N Lines of action (Zi)

N-1 Interslice normal forces

N-1 Interslice shear forces
N-1 Lines of action (Zh)
Zh 1 Factor of Safety
6N-2 Number of unknowns

Zi
Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Rotational failure – method of slices
N slices
N Moment of equilibrium of slice
ΣM = 0 N Force equilibrium in X
ΣFx = 0 N Force equilibrium in Y
ΣFy = 0
N Mohr-Coulomb relationship
between shear strength and
normal effective stress
Zh
4N Total number of equations

Zi
Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Rotational failure – method of slices
Common assumption
N slices
d
Zi = ½ base length of slice

i.e. normal force on slice base

acts at midpoint of base

n – 2 unknowns remain to
Zh make problem determinate

Zi=d/2 These assumptions

Zi characterize different slope
stability methods
Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Slope stability analysis methods

 Ordinary (Fellenius)  Morgenstern-Price

 Bishop  General Limit Equilibrium (GLE)
 Janbu simplified  Sarma (vertical slice)
 Janbu corrected  Sarma (non-vertical slice)
 Lowe-Karafiath
 Corps of Engineers (I, II)
 Spencer

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Rotational failure – method of slices

 Thrust line: connects points of application of interslice forces

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Rotational failure – method of slices

 Location of thrust line

 May be assumed
 May be calculated from rigorous analysis that satisfies complete
equilibrium (Spencer, Morgenstern-Price, GLE)
 Simplified methods (Bishop, Janbu, Lowe-Karafiath, Army Core)
neglect location of interslice force because complete
equilibrium is not satisfied

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Slope stability analysis methods

 Many methods available

 Methods are similar
 Difference only in:
 Which static equations satisfied
 Which interslice forces
included
 Relationship between interslice
and shear normal forces

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Methods of slices assumptions
 Ordinary (Fellenius)
 Assumes circular slip surface
 Neglects all interslice forces (shear and normal)
 Only satisfies moment equilibrium
 One of the simplest procedures

 (c   tan  )l
FS 
W sin 

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Methods of slices assumptions
 Bishop (1955) simplified
 Assumes interslice shear forces
= 0 (reduces # of unknowns by
(n-1))
 Moment eq. about centre and
vertical force eq. for each slice
are satisfied
 Overdetermined sol’n
(horizontal force eq. not
satisfied for one slice)

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Methods of slices assumptions
 Janbu simplified
 Assumes interslice shear forces
= 0 (reduces # of unknowns by
(n-1))
 Overall horizontal force eq. and
vertical force eq. for each slice
 Overdetermined solution
(moment equilibrium not
completely satisfied)

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Methods of slices assumptions
 Spencer
 Assumes all interslice forces
inclined at constant, but
unknown, angle
 Complete equilibrium satisfied

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Methods of slices assumptions
 Morgenstern-Price
 Similar to Spencer’s – assumes
all interslice forces inclined at
constant, but unknown, angle
 Inclination assumed to vary
according to “portion” of
arbitrary function
 Satisfies complete equilibrium

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Sarma
Non-vertical Limit Equilibrium Method
Usage
 Active-passive wedges
 such as those which occur in spoil piles on sloping foundations or in clay core
dam embankments

 Anisotropic materials
 with weak plane directions greater than or equal slice boundaries align with
the direction of the weak plane

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Active-Passive Wedges
 Method: Spencer
 FS: 1.54

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Active-Passive Wedges
 Method: Sarma vs. RS2
 FS: 1.67

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Anisotropic Materials
 Weak Plane Angle: 100 degrees
 Method: Spencer (FS=3.55)

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Anisotropic Materials
 Weak Plane Angle: 100 degrees
 Method: Sarma (FS=2.39)
 Difference: 39%

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Sarma Outline
Sarma Outline
 The Sarma non-vertical slice method is inherently more difficult to
interpret than the vertical slice limit equilibrium methods, due to the
extra degrees of freedom afforded by the variable slice angles, and
also the mobilization of interslice shear strength.

 It is difficult to make generalizations concerning the results of the

Sarma non-vertical slice method based on what parameters to use.
Sarma Options
 Slice Angles
 Interslice Strength Options
 Add slices at material intersections
 Slice boundaries will automatically
be created at the intersections of
material boundaries and slip
surfaces.
 Ensures that the base of each slice
will have a single material type.
 Should be ON by default.
Sarma Options
 When OFF, slice locations will
ignore material / slip surface
intersections, which may lead to
multiple material types on the
base of a single slice. Since the
material type assigned to a slice
base is determined only form the
material at the CENTER POINT of
the slice base, this will lead to
inaccurate strength properties for
slices with multiple materials along
the base.
Slice Angle: User-Defined
Vertical
 If this option is selected all slices will be vertical
 this option is based on the method presented by
Sarma in 1979 (as a special case where all ’s are set
to zero), and is different from selecting Sarma under
‘Vertical Slices’ option which is based on Sarma
1973.
Slice Angle: User-Defined
Weighted Average Normal
 If this option is selected the normal of all slices are
determined; normal being defined as perpendicular
to the base of the neighboring slice that is closer to
the toe. The weighted average is calculated by
scaling the angle of the normal by the length of the
base of that slice.
Slice Angle: User-Defined
Bisection
 this option finds the bisector of the
angle between the bases of two
consecutive slices.
 if two slice boundaries cross, they will
be adjusted by sorting the top
locations of the slices
Slice Angle: Optimized
Global Minimum
 if this option is selected, first the factor of safety
for all surfaces is calculated using bisecting angles.
Then the critical set of slice angles is found only
for the global minimum surface (the surface with
the lowest factor of safety).

 Slide uses a multi-resolution optimization

technique in order to find the set of angles that
results in the lowest factor of safety. If there are
weak planes in the material, slice boundaries
parallel to those planes are also tested during the
optimization process.
Slice Angle: Optimized
All Surfaces
 if this option is selected, the slice angles for all
surfaces are optimized in order to find the
critical set. It is recommended to use the
‘Global Minimum’ option, due to longer
computational time of ‘All Surfaces’ option.
However, for models with anisotropic
materials (embedded weak planes) it might be
necessary to optimize the slice angles of all
surfaces to obtain more accurate results.
Interslice Strength Options
User-Defined
 If the User-Defined option is selected, the
cohesion and friction angle specified will be
used instead of the average values for all
slices.
Computed Average Value
 If the Computed Average Values option is
selected, the cohesion and friction angle will
be calculated automatically for each slice
boundary.
Interslice Strength Options: Computed Average Value
 Cohesion along the slice boundary:

 Friction angle along the slice boundary:

 where and are the cohesion and

friction angle of the material layer along
the slice boundary, and is the length of
the segment of the slice boundary that lies
within that material layer.
Limitations
The following analyses are not supported:
 Excess Pore Pressure
 Rapid Drawdown
 Line of Thrust
 Staged pseudostatic methods
 Duncan, Wright, Wong 3 Stage (1990)
 Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage (1970)

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Remarks and Recommendations about Sarma
 The number of slices to use in a Sarma analysis is something not
straight forward.
 The results can be quite sensitive to the number of slices, unlike
vertical slice methods which give more consistent results in that
accuracy generally increases with more slices.
 For number of slices we recommend to always try a range:
 A minimal or low number (e.g. 5)
 An intermediate number (e.g. 10)
 A higher number (e.g. 25)
 Sarma generally does not benefit from high numbers of slices,
probably about 25 is sufficient. Too high a number will slow down the
slice angle optimization with no benefit in results.
Example

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
 The Sarma non-vertical slice results are definitely very sensitive to the
slice angles used. Very different safety factors can be obtained by using
different slice angles. Small changes in slice angle can sometimes lead
to disproportionately large changes in the safety factor.

 For the Slice angles, we recommend:

 Always use the Slice Angle optimization option. This usually finds a lower
safety factor compared to non-optimized results.
  The User Defined Slice angle option may be useful for comparing results with
known models.
 You should also try the All Surfaces optimization option; though be prepared
for longer compute times.

 One possible suggested use of the All Surfaces option, is to use All
Surface optimization for models with weak planes, and Global
Minimum optimization otherwise.
 Comparison Sarma with GLE method

For many models, the Sarma non-vertical method and the GLE
vertical slice method give very similar results, for both safety factor
and failure surface.
This is an important result. When you have two very different
analysis methods which give the same final result, this suggests that
both methods are valid and either method can give equivalent
results.
Comparison of Slide and Galena
 Galena does not offer exactly the same feature set for Sarma analysis,
compared with Slide. Most notably the slice angle optimisation. Where
Slide and Galena results differ, care must be taken to see what
differences, if any, exist between the models.

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
 Methods of slices

Force Equilibrium Moment

Method
Horizontal Vertical Equilibrium
Ordinary No No Yes
Bishop simplified No Yes Yes
Janbu simplified Yes Yes No
Lowe-Karafiath Yes Yes No
Corps of Engineers Yes Yes No
Spencer Yes Yes Yes
GLE (Morgenstern-Price) Yes Yes Yes
Sarma Yes Yes Yes

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Slope Stability References

Limit Equilibrium – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Slide3
3D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis
 Introduction
Three-dimensional limit equilibrium slope
stability analysis is simple in concept, and
directly analogous to 2-dimensional
methods.
 In 2D a sliding mass is discretized into vertical
slices
 In 3D a sliding mass is discretized into vertical
columns with a square cross-section.

Simple 3D slope model with 3D spherical

failure surface

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Introduction
The 2D methods of slices (Bishop, Janbu,
Spencer and Morgenstern-Price (GLE))
(b)
which are based on satisfying force and/or
moment equilibrium, can be extended to a
3D method of columns, where forces and
moments are solved in two orthogonal (a) (c)

directions. Vertical forces determine the

normal and shear force on the base of
each column.
(a) Plan (top), (b) side and (c) front view of
sliding mass discretized into square columns

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Challenges in 3D Slope Stability Analysis
The 3D method faces many obstacles not encountered in 2D:
 Efficiently searching for unknown critical 3D slip surfaces
 Issues problematic in 2D are magnified in 3D (ex. dealing with tensile
forces)
Coloured lines represent various trial 3D slip surfaces
Global Minimum Slip Surface
with Shear Strength Contour Results

Open Pit Mine

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Limitations of Earlier Methods
Early numerical methods proposed for 3D limit equilibrium slope
stability computation were subject to several constraints such as:
 Assumed sliding direction
 Assumed plane of symmetry
 Transverse force and/or moment equilibrium not satisfied
 Local coordinate systems required
 Simple search methods for critical surfaces (e.g. spherical, planar)
Results were satisfactory for symmetrical 3D problems, but not for more
complicated asymmetrical slopes. Early use of 3D slope stability
methods was often used for back analysis of known failures, rather than
searching for critical failure surfaces.

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Improved 3D Methods
Significant improvements to 3D slope stability were proposed by Huang, Tsai and Chen
(2002) and further extended by Cheng and Yip (2007). Improvements include:
 Force and moment equilibrium in 2 orthogonal directions

N, U = effective normal force and pore

pressure force on column base
S = mobilized shear force on column base
a = sliding direction
E = inter-column normal forces
X = inter-column vertical shear forces
H = inter-column horizontal shear forces
P = vertical external force

Three-dimensional view of forces acting

on column

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Improved 3D Methods

N, U = effective normal force and pore

pressure force on column base
S = mobilized shear force on column base
a = sliding direction
E = inter-column normal forces
X = inter-column vertical shear forces
H = inter-column horizontal shear forces
P = vertical external force Force equilibrium in x-y (horizontal) plane Horizontal force equilibrium in the y-direction
for a typical column

Horizontal force equilibrium in the x-direction for a typical column

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Improved 3D Methods
 Unique sliding direction is solved for rather than assumed

Unique sliding direction for all columns (plan view)

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Improved 3D Methods
 3D system of equations is statically determinate
The main equations used to obtain the 3D safety factor are summarized below. For further details see Cheng and
Yip (2007).
NOTE:
 The X-Y plane is the horizontal plane
 The Z-axis is the vertical direction
 f1, f2, f3 and g1, g2, g3 are unit vectors in the direction of Si and Ni respectively
Let’s first consider vertical force equilibrium (z-direction) of a single column. For the ith column:

The base normal and shear stresses can then be expressed as:

where

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Improved 3D Methods
Overall force and moment equilibrium in the X and Y directions is given by the following
equations.
Overall force equilibrium in x-direction gives:

Overall moment equilibrium in the x-direction gives:

where RX, RY, and RZ are lever arms to the moment point.
Overall force equilibrium in y-direction gives:

Overall moment equilibrium in the y-direction gives:

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Improved 3D Methods

 Equations for directional factors of safety Fx, Fy, Fmx, Fmy can be determined.
 We solve for when Fx=Fy=Fmx=Fmy or rewritten:
 Fy-Fx=0
 Fmx-Fy=0
 Fmy-Fx=0

 We then find the values of F, λx , λy, a’ (sliding direction) that satisfy these 3 equations.
The value of F is the overall 3D safety factor for a given 3D slip surface.

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Improved 3D Methods
Slide3 2017 uses the general formulation of Cheng and Yip (2007),
with further improvements, including:
 Efficient solver for 3D equilibrium equations
 Any failure criteria can be used (not limited to Mohr-Coulomb)
 Fast search methods for general 3D slip surfaces
 Powerful geometry modeling and data interpretation features

Anisotropic Strength 3D Dam Problem Open Pit Mine with

Column viewer (vertical section views)
Complex Soil Stratigraphy
Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
References for 3D-LEM
 Huang, C.C., Tsai, C.C., Chen, Y.H., 2002. Generalized method for three-
dimensional slope stability analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 128 (10),
836–848.
 Cheng, Y., Yip, C., 2007. Three-dimensional asymmetrical slope stability
analysis extension of Bishop's, Janbu's, and Morgenstern–Price's
techniques. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 133 (12), 1544–1555.

Slide3 Introduction and Examples – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

End of Module