Slide

2D limit equilibrium slope stability

for soil and rock slopes






Sample Problems

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................2
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #1 ..........................................................................4
a) Determine FS of heterogeneous slope, circular slip surface.........................4
b) Use circular and non-circular methods to determine the overall factor of
safety of the slope for each of the methods in a)...............................................5
c) With respect to force and moment equilibrium, describe the main differences
between the Bishop, Spencer, Janbu, and GLE/Morgenstern-Price methods...5
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #2 ..........................................................................6
a) Determine the Spencer FS, grid search, circular failure surface...................6
b) Validate the solution based on the location of the thrust line ........................8
c) Add a suitable tension crack to the slope to eliminate tensile forces.............9
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #3 ........................................................................12
a) Determine the location of a building near the crest of a slope to achieve a
safety factor of 1.2...........................................................................................12
b) If one assumes the failure surface can be any shape (i.e. noncircular), how
far from the crest does the building have to be? .............................................15
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #4 ........................................................................16
a) Determine FS, earth dam seepage, finite element analysis, auto-refine
search .............................................................................................................16
b) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in FS with respect to
increasing phi b. ..............................................................................................20
c) Determine the effect of infiltration on FS.....................................................23
d) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in FS with respect to
increasing phi b...............................................................................................26
e) Plot the results of the 2 analyses on the same chart. Was this trend
expected? Explain. ..........................................................................................27
3
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5 ........................................................................29
a) Probabilistic analysis using Bishop and Spencer methods. ........................30
b) Plot a histogram of the computed Bishop Factor of Safety values. .............34
c) Plot the cumulative probability curve for the Factor of Safety values ..........35
d) Obtain a scatter plot of factor of safety against the friction angle of the sand.
What is the correlation coefficient between the two?.......................................36
e) Obtain a convergence plot of the mean factor of safety..............................37
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #6 ........................................................................39
a) A homogeneous rock slope is to be analyzed for planar failure along a
predetermined joint plane dipping at 37. Use both Slide and RocPlane to
analyze the stability. ........................................................................................39
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #7 ........................................................................42
a) Hand calculation of Bishop safety factor, dry slope.....................................42
b) Verification Using Slide ...............................................................................47
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #8 ........................................................................50
a) Hand calculation of Bishop safety factor, slope with water table.................50
b) Verification Using Slide ...............................................................................55
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................59




4
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #1


A two-layered slope has a cross section as shown in Figure 1 [USACE (2003)]
with soil properties as given in Table 1.1. A circular surface of radius 278 feet is
centered 259 feet above and 101 feet to the right of the toe of the slope.

a) Calculate the factor of safety using the Bishop, Janbu, Spencer and
Morgenstern-Price methods.
Figure 1: Slope Cross-section

Table 1.1: Material Properties
Material (pcf) c (psf) ()
Embankment 135 1780 5
Foundation 127 1600 2











5
SOLUTION:

Table 1.2: Results
Method Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified 1.3254
Janbu Corrected 1.3432
Spencer 1.3213
GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.3190




b) Use circular and non-circular methods to determine the overall factor of safety
of the slope for each of the methods in a).


SOLUTION:

Several different searching schemes were used to find the lowest factor of safety
for each of the four methods.

Table 1.3: Overall FOS
Method Details FOS
Bishop simplified non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces 1.128
Janbu simplified non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces 1.171
Spencer non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces 1.187
GLE/MP non-circular, path search, optimization of surfaces, 20000 surfaces 1.179


In every case, the optimized non-circular path search located the lowest factors
of safety.


c) The method of slices employs several different limit equilibrium models to
analyze the forces on a slice. With respect to force and moment equilibrium,
describe the main differences between the Bishop, Spencer, Janbu, and
GLE/Morgenstern-Price methods.


SOLUTION:

Table 1.4: Equations of statics satisfied and interslice force characteristics
Method Equilibrium Satisfied Interslice Force Distribution Assumption
Bishop Simplified Moment interslice shear forces are zero
Janbu Corrected Force interslice shear forces are zero
Spencer Moment, Force constant interslice force angle
GLE/Morgenstern-Price Moment, Force variable; user function


6
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #2

The thrust line gives the location of the resultant interslice forces. It is computed
by summing the moments of all forces acting on an individual slice about the
center of the base of the slice.


a) Using the grid search for circular failure surfaces, find the Spencer factor of
safety of the model in Figure 2 [Giam & Donald (1989)] with soil properties given
in Table 2.1.

Figure 2: Slope Cross-section


Table 2.1: Material Properties
c (kN/m
2
) () (kN/m
3
)
32 10 20











7
SOLUTION:



Using Slide, the Spencer factor of safety is 1.689, located at (37.562, 42.492)
and a radius of 19.652m.
8

b) Based on the location of the thrust line from the Spencer analysis, is this a
valid solution? Could the solution be improved?


SOLUTION:

In SlideInterpret, the line of thrust can be displayed along the slope.

The diagram shows the line of thrust lying partially outside the circular failure
surface.

Therefore, the solution is questionable because the line of thrust should lie within
the sliding mass.

9



When the individual slices are queried, it can be seen that the slices on the far
right are in tension. The results of this analysis are questionable since soils
generally have little or no tensile strength.



c) Add a suitable tension crack to the slope with dimensions estimated by the
equations given below [Craig (1997)]. What is different? Is this a valid model?

sin 1
sin 1
,
2
+

= =
a
a
k
k
c
Depth



SOLUTION:

8136 . 3
70409 . 0 ) 20 (
) 32 ( 2 2
70409 . 0
) 10 sin( 1
) 10 sin( 1
sin 1
sin 1
= = =
=
+

=
+

=
a
a
k
c
Depth
k

the depth of the tension crack should be 3.8136m.

10
A tension crack is added to the Slide model and the analysis is run again.






The Spencer factor of safety decreased from 1.689 to 1.592.

11
When the line of thrust is displayed along the slope, it can be seen that the
tension was alleviated by the introduction of the tension crack. Therefore, this is
a valid model as the line of thrust lies inside the sliding mass.
12
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #3
A temporary storage building for heavy equipment is to be built near the crest of
a slope. The geometry of the soil underlying the slope is shown below in Figure 3
[Giam & Donald (1989)]. Assume the worst-case situation of the water table
being at ground surface.

Figure 3: Slope Cross-section

Table 3.1: Material Properties
Material (kN/m
3
) c (kN/m
2
) ()
soil 1 19.5 14 34
soil 2 19.5 18 30
soil 3 19.5 24 27




Taking all of the buildings contents into consideration, a maximum distributed
load of 250kN/m would be applied to the 10m wide strip of land occupied by the
building.

a) Where would the building have to be located to achieve a minimum safety
factor of 1.2? Use Spencers method to determine the factor of safety and
assume a circular failure surface.

13
SOLUTION:

First, the unloaded slope is tested to verify a safety factor of 1.2 can be attained.




The unloaded slope has a Spencer factor of safety of 1.470.

Next, lets add a 10 metre wide distributed load of 250 kN/m, beginning at the
crest of the slope. Results of the analysis are depicted below.


14


The building cannot be constructed exactly at the crest of the slope, as the factor
of safety is only 1.059 when a value of 1.2 is required.

To determine the distance from the crest required to obtain a minimum safety
factor = 1.2, the load is moved at increments of 1-meter. The analysis is
summarized in the graph below:


Factor of Safety vs. Distance from Slope's Crest
1.000
1.050
1.100
1.150
1.200
1.250
1.300
1.350
1.400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance from Slope's Crest (m)
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

15
The building can be placed at approximately 5.4m from the crest of the slope to
achieve a minimum factor of safety of 1.2, assuming a circular failure surface.


b) If one assumes the failure surface can be any shape (i.e. noncircular), how far
from the crest does the building have to be?


Instead of assuming a circular failure surface, the slope was analyzed for non-
circular failure by optimizing 1000 surfaces in a path search. The slope stability
calculated for Bishop, Janbu, Spencer and GLE is summarized in the graph
below:

Factor of Safety vs. Distance from Crest:
Non-circular path search - 1000 surfaces - optimized
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from Crest of Slope
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y
Spencer Bishop Simplified Janbu Corrected GLE/M-P


The points between 8 and 9 meters were analyzed every 0.2 meters, as the
value of 1.2 appeared to lie somewhere in between. It was discovered that the
building must be placed approximately 9 meters away from the slope to achieve
an overall factor of safety equal to or exceeding 1.2.


16
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #4
Case 1: Seepage analysis

The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion that is used to describe the shear strength of
soils and rocks can also be applied when analyzing partially saturated soils.
Pore water and air in the pores of the soil sustain the applied stresses in an
unsaturated soil. As a soil approaches saturation, the Mohr-Coulomb formula
typically used to describe shear strength is applicable once again.

a) The slope in Figure 4 [Fredlund & Rahardjo (1977)] considers the problem of
seepage through an earth dam with a 12-meter horizontal drain, and a pool of
water reaching 10 meters on the left face of the dam. The soil has unit weight of
20kN/m3, cohesion of 1kN/m2 and angle, , of 35. At the beginning of the
analysis, let b = 0 and the air entry value = 0 kN/m2. Using the finite element
analysis method and the Auto-Refine search method in Slide, run the
groundwater and slope stability analysis on the model. What are the resulting
factors of safety (Bishop, Spencer, Janbu corrected and Janbu simplified)?
Figure 4: Slope Cross-Section




17
SOLUTION:

To ensure proper discretizations, two points must be added to the model: one at
the point where the drain begins, and one at the height of the pooled water. The
model is then discretized and meshed. The 400 elements that make up the
mesh are all 3-noded triangles.

Discretized and Meshed Slide Model


The groundwater analysis is run first, followed by the slope stability analysis.
The following table and screen captures summarize the analysis results.

Table 4.1: Results
Method Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified 1.5430
Janbu Corrected 1.5636
Janbu Simplified 1.5159
Spencer 1.5421

18

Slope Stability Using the Bishop Simplified Method






Slope Stability Using the Janbu Corrected Method
19

Slope Stability Using the Janbu Simplified Method




Slope Stability Using the Spencer Method
20

As a soil becomes more saturated, there is an increase in suction that leads to
an increase in cohesion of the soil. This increase in the cohesion of the soil is a
function of the angle, b.

When soil samples from different areas of the slope were analyzed, it was found
that the material properties varied in no particular pattern. Calculations showed
that these variances resulted in unsaturated shear strengths that ranged from a
minimum of 0 to a maximum of 35, with a mean of 0.

b) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in the Bishop simplified
FOS with respect to increasing b.


SOLUTION:

Firstly, the Sensitivity Analysis checkbox must be selected under the Statistics
tab of Project Settings.














21

Next, the statistical information must be entered in the Material Statistics dialog.



In the Slope Stability SlideInterpret Window, Sensitivity Analysis is chosen from
the Statistics menu.






22
The unsaturated shear strength angle for the Bishop Simplified analysis method
is plotted in Excel:

Sensitivity Plot:
No Infiltration
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
0 10 20 30 40
Unsaturated Shear Strength Angle b ()
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

-

b
i
s
h
o
p

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d




23
Case 2: Seepage analysis with Infiltration

Rain or melted snow infiltrates an unsaturated zone vertically. When infiltrating
precipitation encounters the groundwater table, it begins to flow in the same
direction as the groundwater flow. As the two water sources are combining and
flowing as one, the groundwater table rises, causing an increase in positive pore
pressures and reducing the shear strength. In the region above the water table,
infiltrating rainfall increases the soil saturation, thereby reducing the negative
pore pressure, also causing the shear strength to decrease. Precipitation will
cease to infiltrate the slope when all pores in the soil are full of water.

c) The slope in a) is subjected to torrential rains that percolate through the soil at
a rate of 1.5x10-8m/s. Run the groundwater and slope stability analyses again to
determine the effect of infiltration on Factor of Safety.


SOLUTION:


Slide Model: 10m total head on the left face, infiltration of 1.5x10-8 m/s on the right
face, horizontal drain at the right corner
24

Close-up of the right edge of the slope: horizontal drain on bottom, infiltration of
1.5x10-8 m/s on the face of the slope

Table 4.2: Results
Method Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified 1.5430
Janbu Corrected 1.5565
Janbu Simplified 1.4712
Spencer 1.5421





Slope Stability Using the Bishop Simplified Method
25

Slope Stability Using the Janbu Corrected Method








Slope Stability Using the Janbu Simplified Method
26

Slope Stability Using the Spencer Method


d) Perform a sensitivity analysis to highlight the change in FOS with respect to
increasing phi b.


SOLUTION:

The same steps followed in b) were repeated for the infiltration model. The
following graph results from the analysis:

27
Sensitivity Plot:
With Infiltration
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
0 10 20 30 40
Unsaturated Shear Strength Angle b()
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

-

b
i
s
h
o
p

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d




Interpretation

e) Plot the results of the 2 analyses on the same chart. Was this trend
expected? Explain.



SOLUTION:

The graph coincides with the information given in c).

28
Sensitivity Plot:
Before and After Infiltration of Rainwater
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
0 10 20 30 40
Unsaturated Shear Strength Angle b (deg)
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

-

b
i
s
h
o
p

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d
No Infiltration Infiltration



As rainwater percolates down to the water table and the two water sources are
amalgamated, the positive pore pressure in the soil increases, resulting in a
decrease in the shear strength of the soil. The graph above shows that the slope
in b), the slope that was not infiltrated by rainwater, has a greater factor of safety
than the infiltrated slope, for each b analyzed. Therefore, the trend displayed
graphically is the trend that is expected, given the information provided earlier in
the question.







29
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5

Although the factor of safety is used to determine the stability of a slope, it is not
equally as accurate in every geotechnical scenario. If extensive site investigation
was performed, a considerable amount of uncertainty is removed from the safety
calculations, and a lower factor of safety can be used. However, if there were
not extensive in situ tests or high quality laboratory testing, a great level of
uncertainty is introduced to the factor of safety. To account for these
uncertainties, a probabilistic analysis can be employed for assessing the
performance of a slope.

The slope below (Figure 5) is to be assessed for stability while taking into
account uncertainties associated with the cohesion and friction angle, , of the
soils present at the site.

The three-layered slope is composed of sand and two types of clay. The
properties of these materials, as well as the statistical properties associated with
each materials and cohesion is given below.

Table 5.1: Material Properties
Material (kN/m
3
) c (kN/m
2
) ()
Sand 21 3 30
Clay 1 22 22 11
Clay 2 22 25 20


Table 5.2: Material Statistics for Property: Friction Angle,
Material Distribution Mean Std. Dev Rel. Min Rel. Max
Sand Lognormal 30 4 30 30
Clay 1 Normal 11 1.8 11 11
Clay 2 Normal 20 6 20 20


Table 5.3: Material Statistics for Property: Cohesion, c
Material Distribution Mean Std. Dev Rel. Min Rel. Max
Sand Normal 3 0.5 3 3
Clay 1 Lognormal 22 5 22 22
Clay 2 Lognormal 25 7.2 25 25




30


Figure 5: Slope Geometry and Search Grid

a) Compute the probability of this slope failing by circular rotation for the Bishop
and Spencer methods. Perform Monte Carlo statistical analysis only on the
global minimum failure surface. Use 5,000 simulations.




















31
SOLUTION:

First, the Project Settings must be entered so that Slide computes a probabilistic
analysis using the Monte Carlo sampling method.




Once the Material properties have been defined, Material Statistics can be
entered.




The surface options must be set up to use a predefined search grid to find the
global minimum.
32

























33
Bishop Simplified Method:


Using the Bishop Simplified Method, the Probability of Failure is 11.720%.

Spencer Method:


Using the Spencer Method, the Probability of Failure is 14.140%.
34



b) Plot a histogram of the computed Bishop Factor of Safety values. What are the
mean, standard deviation and best-fit distribution for the Factor of Safety values?


SOLUTION:

Histogram Plot is chosen from the Statistics menu, and the Bishop Factor of
Safety is chosen as the data to plot.

Histogram: Factor of Safety - bishop simplified
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0
.
7
0
7
1
8
5
8
0
.
7
7
6
0
8
3
2
0
.
8
4
4
9
8
0
7
0
.
9
1
3
8
7
8
2
0
.
9
8
2
7
7
5
6
1
.
0
5
1
6
7
3
1
1
.
1
2
0
5
7
0
6
1
.
1
8
9
4
6
8
1
.
2
5
8
3
6
5
5
1
.
3
2
7
2
6
3
1
.
3
9
6
1
6
0
4
1
.
4
6
5
0
5
7
9
1
.
5
3
3
9
5
5
4
1
.
6
0
2
8
5
2
8
1
.
6
7
1
7
5
0
3
1
.
7
4
0
6
4
7
8
Factor of Safety - bishop simplified
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y


Best Fit Distribution is chosen from the right click menu to obtain the distribution
line seen below.
35


Details listed at the bottom of the histogram show that the lognormal distribution
best fits the sampled data. The lognormal mean is 1.158, while the standard
deviation is 0.1379.



c) Plot the cumulative probability curve for the Factor of Safety values


SOLUTION:

From the Statistics menu in SlideInterpret, Cumulative Plot is chosen. The
Bishop Simplified factor of safety is chosen as the data to plot.

36
Cumulative: Factor of Safety - bishop simplified
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Factor of Safety - bishop simplified
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y




d) Obtain a scatter plot of factor of safety against the friction angle of the sand.
What is the correlation coefficient between the two?


SOLUTION:

From the Statistics menu in SlideInterpret, Scatter Plot is chosen. The Bishop
Simplified factor of safety is plotted on the horizontal axis against the friction
angle of sand on the vertical axis.

37


As given at the bottom of the graph, the correlation coefficient between the factor
of safety and the sands friction angle is 0.22065.


e) Obtain a convergence plot of the mean factor of safety.


SOLUTION:

From the Statistics menu in SlideInterpret, Convergence Plot is chosen. The
analysis method chosen is bishop simplified, while the mean factor of safety is
used as the iteration data.

38
Convergence Plot:
Factor of Safety - bishop simplified
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.15
1.17
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Number of Samples
F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

(
m
e
a
n
)

-

b
i
s
h
o
p

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d


From the graph, it is seen that the mean factor of safety converges to a value of
1.158 when a value of approximately 1000 iterations has been reached.
39
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #6

The following homogeneous rock slope (Figure 6) of unit weight 2.7 t/m3 is to be
analyzed for planar failure along a predetermined joint plane dipping at 37. Use
both Slide and RocPlane to analyze the stability. Pick the method in Slide that
best approximates the analysis method used in RocPlane (see RocPlane theory
manual). Explain your choice. Would you use Bishops method for this analysis?



Figure 6: Slope cross-section

Table 6.1: Slope properties
c (t/m
2
) ()
1 30



SOLUTION:

First, the unit weight and cohesion values must be converted to the units used in
Slide.

Cohesion:
2 2
/ 8067 . 9 / 1 m kN m t c = =


Unit weight:

3 3
/ 47809 . 26 / 7 . 2 m kN m t = =

40


To ensure a planar failure, a single, linear surface is added to the model 37 from
the horizontal. The factor of safety is then computed using the Bishop, Janbu,
Spencer and GLE/Morgenstern-Price methods.

Next, RocPlane is used to calculate the factor of safety.


The results are summarized below:

Table 6.2: Results
Method Factor of Safety
Bishop Simplified 1.03443
Janbu Corrected 1.03883
Spencer 1.03883
GLE/MP 1.03883
RocPlane 1.03898


From the calculated factors of safety, it would appear that Janbu, Spencer and
GLE/MP all provide an excellent approximation to the answer obtained using
RocPlane. However, Janbus method is in fact, the best method to use in this
particular situation.
41

Janbus method uses only force equilibrium in calculation; moment equilibrium is
not taken into consideration. Since the slope is experiencing planar failure, we
are in fact analyzing a simple block sliding down an incline. The driving and
resisting forces computed by Slide are essentially the same as those computed
by RocPlane because the model is reduced to the same basic elements of a
RocPlane problem.

One would not use Bishops method to analyze this slope as Bishops method
uses moment equilibrium. Since this scenario is a translational problem, it is not
necessary to introduce moment equilibrium to the calculations.



42
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #7



























a) Bishop Simplified Solution:

Draw the slope cross section to scale and divide it into 7 vertical slices (see Fig.
7.2). Using a ruler and protractor, measure the slice data from the cross sectional
diagram. Table 7.1 summarizes the slice data.

Table 7.1 Slice Data
Slice Base (m) Height(m) (deg) (deg) c (kPa)
(kN/m
3
)
1 2.5 0.8 -9 20 20 20
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 20 20 20
3 2.5 3.3 9 20 20 20
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 20 20 20
5 2.5 4.1 28 20 20 20
6 2.5 3.6 39 20 20 20
7 2.5 1.65 52 20 20 20

Calculate by hand the factor of safety of the circular failure surface shown in Fig. 7.1
using the following methods:

a) Bishop Simplified (7 slices)
b) Verify part a) using Slide

Fig. 7.1 Slope cross section



43


Fig. 7.2 Cross section of slope 7 slices


Label the forces acting on each slice (see Fig. 7.3). Note that interslice shear
forces are not depicted because they are assumed to be zero in the Bishop
Simplified method.

Fig. 7.3 Forces acting on slice


The Bishop Simplified method satisfies two equilibrium conditions: overall
moment equilibrium about the center O and vertical force equilibrium on each
slice [Sharma (1996)].

First consider the overall moment equilibrium about the center O
0 sin
7
1
7
1
= =

= = n n
O
Tr Wr M (1)

44
Dividing both sides of the equation by r yields
0 sin
7
1
7
1
= =

= = n n
O
T W M (2)
If we assume that the factor of safety F is the same for all 7 slices, the mobilized
shear force T is given by

F
ul N l c
T
) ' ( ' tan ' +
=

(3)

Substituting (3) into (2) and rearranging yields

=
=
+
=
7
1
7
1
sin
) ' ( ' tan '
n
n
W
ul N l c
F

(4)

To solve for N, consider the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction on each
slice

0 sin
) ' ( ' tan '
cos ) ' (
0 sin cos ) ' (
=
+
+
= +
W
F
ul N l c
ul N
W T ul N

=
F F
l c
W ul N N


tan ' tan
1 cos sin
'
) ' ( (5)

Substituting (5) into (4) yields

+ =
7
1
tan ' tan
1 cos
sin '
7
1
' tan '
sin
1
n
F
F
l c
W
n
l c
W
F

(6)

Note: l = bsec

To solve for the factor of safety from (6), we start with an initial estimated value
for F. Iterations of successive approximation are performed until value of F
converges to within a given tolerance.

For this problem, a tolerance of 0.005 is used.

See Table 7.2 for Excel spreadsheets of the calculations for each iteration.


Answer: FOS
Bishop Simplified
= 2.113

45
Table 7.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations

F1 = 5
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 50.6233 41.5838444 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.97630084 42.593269 15.50268 66.125938
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 115 0.0087265 1.003552 50.0019 114.912731 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00059716 114.84415 41.79985 91.801756
3 2.5 3.3 9 165 0.1564345 25.81169 50.6233 163.416156 0.9876883 0.05764722 0.99907584 163.56732 59.53364 110.15689
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 195 0.3173047 61.87441 52.7246 191.654047 0.9483237 0.12178274 0.97142155 197.29236 71.80855 124.53316
5 2.5 4.1 28 205 0.4694716 96.24167 56.6285 199.682906 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.91712233 217.72767 79.24639 135.87489
6 2.5 3.6 39 180 0.6293204 113.2777 64.338 171.90216 0.777146 0.29473728 0.82295674 208.88359 76.02741 140.36539
7 2.5 1.65 52 82.5 0.7880108 65.01089 81.2135 69.7005837 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.67302397 103.5633 37.69396 118.90742

E
=
_
=
356.9625 787.76545
F2 =
E
/
_
= 2.20685775 F = 2.793142
F2 = 2.2069
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 50.6233 43.5884606 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.96188809 45.315522 16.4935 67.116757
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 115 0.0087265 1.003552 50.0019 114.802278 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00140116 114.64165 41.72615 91.728051
3 2.5 3.3 9 165 0.1564345 25.81169 50.6233 161.411539 0.9876883 0.05764722 1.01348859 159.2633 57.9671 108.59036
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 195 0.3173047 61.87441 52.7246 187.419192 0.9483237 0.12178274 1.00065573 187.29638 68.17031 120.89492
5 2.5 4.1 28 205 0.4694716 96.24167 56.6285 192.953246 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.96037609 200.91426 73.12681 129.75531
6 2.5 3.6 39 180 0.6293204 113.2777 64.338 161.653008 0.777146 0.29473728 0.88093783 183.50104 66.78892 131.12689
7 2.5 1.65 52 82.5 0.7880108 65.01089 81.2135 53.5008125 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.74562566 71.752913 26.11592 107.32939

E
=
_
=
356.9625 756.54168
F3 =
E
/
_
= 2.11938702 F = 0.087471
Iteration 1
Iteration 2

46
Table 7.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations (contd)

F3 = 2.1194
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 50.6233 43.7365625 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.96082327 45.519883 16.56788 67.191139
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 115 0.0087265 1.003552 50.0019 114.794118 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00146056 114.6267 41.72071 91.72261
3 2.5 3.3 9 165 0.1564345 25.81169 50.6233 161.263438 0.9876883 0.05764722 1.01455341 158.95017 57.85313 108.47639
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 195 0.3173047 61.87441 52.7246 187.106319 0.9483237 0.12178274 1.00281557 186.58099 67.90993 120.63454
5 2.5 4.1 28 205 0.4694716 96.24167 56.6285 192.456056 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.96357169 199.73195 72.69649 129.32499
6 2.5 3.6 39 180 0.6293204 113.2777 64.338 160.895796 0.777146 0.29473728 0.8852215 181.75767 66.15438 130.49236
7 2.5 1.65 52 82.5 0.7880108 65.01089 81.2135 52.3039664 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.7509895 69.646735 25.34934 106.5628

E
=
_
=
356.9625 754.40483
F4 =
E
/
_
= 2.1134008 F = 0.005986
F4 = 2.1134
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 50.6233 43.7471463 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.96074717 45.534504 16.5732 67.196461
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 115 0.0087265 1.003552 50.0019 114.793535 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00146481 114.62563 41.72032 91.722221
3 2.5 3.3 9 165 0.1564345 25.81169 50.6233 161.252854 0.9876883 0.05764722 1.01462951 158.92782 57.845 108.46825
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 195 0.3173047 61.87441 52.7246 187.08396 0.9483237 0.12178274 1.00296992 186.52998 67.89136 120.61598
5 2.5 4.1 28 205 0.4694716 96.24167 56.6285 192.420525 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.96380006 199.64776 72.66584 129.29435
6 2.5 3.6 39 180 0.6293204 113.2777 64.338 160.841683 0.777146 0.29473728 0.88552762 181.63373 66.10927 130.44725
7 2.5 1.65 52 82.5 0.7880108 65.01089 81.2135 52.218436 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.75137282 69.497372 25.29497 106.50844

E
=
_
=
356.9625 754.25294
F5 =
E
/
_
= 2.11297531 F = 0.000425
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
b) Verification Using Slide:

Start a new file and define the slope cross section.

Sel ect : Boundar i es Add Ext er nal Boundar y

Enter the slope cross section coordinates as given in Fig. 7.1


Define the Material Properties as given in the problem

Sel ect : Pr oper t i es Def i ne Mat er i al s




Define the Project Settings as given in the problem

Sel ect : Anal ysi s Pr oj ect Set t i ngs

Under the Methods tab, select the method of analysis and enter the
number of slices and the tolerance.

48




Add the circular surface defined in the problem

Sel ect : Sur f aces Add Sur f ace ( cent er , r adi us)





Ent er cent er ( x, y) of sl i p ci r cl e [ esc=qui t ] : 13.689 25.558
Ent er r adi us of sl i p ci r cl e [ esc=qui t ] : 15.989

Your screen should now look as follows:

49


Save the file before analyzing the model.

Sel ect : Fi l e Save

Sel ect : Anal ysi s Comput e

Sel ect : Anal ysi s I nt er pr et

Your screen should now look as follows:





Answer: Slide calculated FOS
Bishop
= 2.113

Answer: Hand calculated FOS
Bishop
= 2.113





50
SLIDE EXAMPLE PROBLEM #8



























a) Bishop Simplified Solution:

Draw the slope cross section to scale and divide it into 7 vertical slices (see Fig.
8.2). Using a ruler and protractor, measure the slice data from the cross sectional
diagram. Table 8.1 summarizes the slice data.

Table 8.1 Slice Data
Slice Base (m) Height(m) (deg) (deg) c (kPa)
(kN/m
3
)
1 2.5 0.8 -9 20 20 20
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 20 20 20
3 2.5 3.3 9 20 20 20
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 20 20 20
5 2.5 4.1 28 20 20 20
6 2.5 3.6 39 20 20 20
7 2.5 1.65 52 20 20 20

Calculate by hand the factor of safety of the circular failure surface shown in Fig. 8.1
using the following methods:

a) Bishop Simplified (7 slices)
b) Verify part a) using Slide

Fig. 8.1 Slope cross section



51


Fig. 8.2 Cross section of slope 7 slices


Label the forces acting on each slice (see Fig. 8.3). Note that interslice shear
forces are not depicted because they are assumed to be zero in the Bishop
Simplified method.

Fig. 8.3 Forces acting on slice


The Bishop Simplified method satisfies two equilibrium conditions: overall
moment equilibrium about the center O and vertical force equilibrium on each
slice [Sharma (1996)].

First consider the overall moment equilibrium about the center O
0 sin
7
1
7
1
= =

= = n n
O
Tr Wr M (1)

52
Dividing both sides of the equation by r yields

0 sin
7
1
7
1
= =

= = n n
O
T W M (2)
If we assume that the factor of safety F is the same for all 7 slices, the mobilized
shear force T is given by

F
ul N l c
T
) ( ' tan ' +
=

(3)

Substituting (3) into (2) and rearranging yields

=
=
+
=
7
1
7
1
sin
) ( ' tan '
n
n
W
ul N l c
F

(4)

To solve for N, consider the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction on each
slice

0 sin
) ( ' tan '
cos
0 sin cos
=
+
+
= +
W
F
ul N l c
N
W T N

=
F F
ul l c
W N


tan ' tan
1 cos sin
' tan '
(5)

Substituting (5) into (4) yields

+ =
7
1
tan ' tan
1 cos
sin
' tan '
7
1
' tan '
sin
1
n
F
F
ul l c
W
n
l c
W
F

(6)

Note: l = bsec

To solve for the factor of safety from (6), we start with an initial estimated value
for F. Iterations of successive approximation are performed until value of F
converges to within a given tolerance.

For this problem, a tolerance of 0.005 is used.

See Table 8.2 for Excel spreadsheets of the calculations for each iteration.


Answer: FOS
Bishop Simplified
= 1.55

53
Table 8.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations

F1 = 5
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h u
W =bh sin Wsin c'l-tan'ul
4
-(
)
*
E
)/F
cos
c'tan
.
*(1+

/F) N=
E
/

N*tan'
)
+
_
1 2.5 0.8 -9 7.84 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 41.3578673 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.97630084 42.36181 8.195696 51.596212
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 22.54 115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.948528 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00059716 114.8799 41.81287 71.304274
3 2.5 3.3 9 32.34 165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 164.348311 0.9876883 0.05764722 0.99907584 164.5003 59.87323 80.702678
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 38.22 195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 193.981315 0.9483237 0.12178274 0.97142155 199.6881 72.68052 88.732683
5 2.5 4.1 28 40.18 205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 203.570851 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.91712233 221.967 80.78936 96.010189
6 2.5 3.6 39 35.28 180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 177.101325 0.777146 0.29473728 0.82295674 215.2013 78.32685 101.35705
7 2.5 1.65 52 16.17 82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 73.4670671 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.67302397 109.1597 39.73087 97.045649

E
=

=
356.9625 586.74873
F2 =
E
/
_
= 1.64372656 F = 3.356273
F2 = 1.6437
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h u
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 7.84 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 44.1304537 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.95304907 46.30449 16.85346 60.253973
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 22.54 115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.84343 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00189424 114.6263 41.72056 71.211962
3 2.5 3.3 9 32.34 165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 163.017648 0.9876883 0.05764722 1.02232761 159.4573 58.03773 78.867179
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 38.22 195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 191.901294 0.9483237 0.12178274 1.0185844 188.4 68.57199 84.624151
5 2.5 4.1 28 40.18 205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 200.652717 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.98690264 203.3156 74.00083 89.221656
6 2.5 3.6 39 35.28 180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 171.182613 0.777146 0.29473728 0.91649632 186.7794 67.98213 91.012332
7 2.5 1.65 52 16.17 82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 55.0230061 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.79015063 69.6361 25.34547 82.660249

E
=

=
356.9625 557.8515
F3 =
E
/
_
= 1.56277342 F = 0.080953
Iteration 1
Iteration 2

54

Table 8.2 Bishop Simplified Method Calculations (contd)

F3 = 1.5628
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h u
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 7.84 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 44.3444151 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.95125472 46.61676 16.96711 60.36763
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 22.54 115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.83532 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00199433 114.6068 41.71345 71.204848
3 2.5 3.3 9 32.34 165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 162.914961 0.9876883 0.05764722 1.02412196 159.0777 57.89955 78.728998
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 38.22 195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 191.740778 0.9483237 0.12178274 1.02222397 187.5722 68.27069 84.322851
5 2.5 4.1 28 40.18 205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 200.427524 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.99228761 201.9853 73.51664 88.737466
6 2.5 3.6 39 35.28 180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 170.725864 0.777146 0.29473728 0.9237148 184.8253 67.27091 90.301105
7 2.5 1.65 52 16.17 82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 53.599672 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.79918933 67.06755 24.41059 81.725375

E
=

=
356.9625 555.38827
F4 =
E
/
_
= 1.5558729 F = 0.006901
F4 = 1.5559
Calc.
O ] 4 E 4 ) E . - _
Slice b h u
W =bh sin Wsin
c'l
-(
4
*
4
)/F
cos
c'tan
E
*(1+
.
/F) N=
)
/
..
N*tan'
4
+

1 2.5 0.8 -9 7.84 40 -0.156434 -6.25738 43.4005 44.3636832 0.9876883 -0.0576472 0.95109313 46.64494 16.97737 60.377886
2 2.5 2.3 0.5 22.54 115 0.008727 1.003552 29.4914 114.834589 0.9999619 0.00317632 1.00200335 114.605 41.71281 71.204207
3 2.5 3.3 9 32.34 165 0.156434 25.81169 20.8295 162.905713 0.9876883 0.05764722 1.02428355 159.0436 57.88713 78.716578
4 2.5 3.9 18.5 38.22 195 0.317305 61.87441 16.0522 191.726323 0.9483237 0.12178274 1.02255173 187.4979 68.24366 84.295823
5 2.5 4.1 28 40.18 205 0.469472 96.24167 15.2208 200.407244 0.8829476 0.19352641 0.99277255 201.8662 73.4733 88.69412
6 2.5 3.6 39 35.28 180 0.62932 113.2777 23.0302 170.684732 0.777146 0.29473728 0.92436486 184.6508 67.2074 90.237601
7 2.5 1.65 52 16.17 82.5 0.788011 65.01089 57.3148 53.4714947 0.6156615 0.46586066 0.80000331 66.83909 24.32744 81.642222

E
=

=
356.9625 555.16844
F5 =
E
/
_
= 1.55525705 F = 0.000616
Iteration 3
Iteration 4

b) Verification Using Slide:

Start a new file and define the slope cross section.

Sel ect : Boundar i es Add Ext er nal Boundar y

Enter the slope cross section coordinates as given in Fig. 8.1


Define the Material Properties as given in the problem

Sel ect : Pr oper t i es Def i ne Mat er i al s




Define the Project Settings as given in the problem

Sel ect : Anal ysi s Pr oj ect Set t i ngs

Under the Methods tab, select the method of analysis and enter the
number of slices and the tolerance.

56


Add the circular surface defined in the problem

Sel ect : Sur f aces Add Sur f ace ( cent er , r adi us)





Ent er cent er ( x, y) of sl i p ci r cl e [ esc=qui t ] : 13.689 25.558
Ent er r adi us of sl i p ci r cl e [ esc=qui t ] : 15.989

Your screen should now look as follows:



57

Add the water table

Sel ect : Boundar i es Add Wat er Tabl e

Enter the water table coordinates as given in Fig. 8.1

Your screen should now look as follows




Save the file before analyzing the model.

Sel ect : Fi l e Save

Sel ect : Anal ysi s Comput e

Sel ect : Anal ysi s I nt er pr et

Your screen should now look as follows:

58




Answer: Slide calculated FOS
Bishop
= 1.55

Answer: Hand calculated FOS
Bishop
= 1.55











59
REFERENCES

1. US Army Corps of Engineers (2003), Engineering and Design: Slope
Stability. Engineer Manual 1110-2-1902.

2. Giam, P.S.K. & I.B. Donald (1989), Example problems for testing soil
slope stability programs. Civil Engineering Research Report No. 8/1989,
Monash University, ISBN 0867469218, ISSN 01556282.

3. Craig, R.F., (1997). Soil Mechanics, 6th Edition.

4. Fredlund, D.G. & Krahn, J. (1977), Comparison of slope stability methods
of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 14, No. 3, pp 429-439.

5. Sharma, S., (1996), Chap 6: Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods,
Abramson, L.W., Lee, T.S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G.M. New York:
Wiley, pp 408-424.