Étapes typiques de calcul

1. Division de la pente en tranches.

2. Calcul des poids des tranches.
3. Évaluation des forces de cisaillement et normales sur les bases des tranches.
4. Calcul des forces interlaminaires (si applicable).
5. Résolution des équations d'équilibre pour chaque tranche (forces et moments).
6. Calcul du facteur de sécurité global en comparant la résistance au cisaillement
disponible avec la sollicitation cisaillante le long de la surface de rupture.

BONJOUR

ChatGPT

Bonjour! Comment puis-je vous aider aujourd'hui?

4o

J'ai un expose sur les methodes de calcul de la stabilite des pentes

ChatGPT

D'accord, c'est un sujet important en géotechnique et en ingénierie civile. Voici un aperçu des
principales méthodes utilisées pour calculer la stabilité des pentes :

1. Méthodes analytiques

 Méthode de Fellenius (ou méthode de l'arc circulaire) : Cette méthode suppose que la
surface de rupture est circulaire et utilise des équations d'équilibre statique pour estimer le
facteur de sécurité.
 Méthode de Bishop simplifiée : Cette méthode améliore la méthode de Fellenius en prenant
en compte les forces interlaminaires. Elle est largement utilisée pour sa simplicité et sa
précision relative.
 Méthode de Janbu simplifiée : Utilisée pour les surfaces de rupture non circulaires, cette
méthode est basée sur les principes de l'équilibre limite et considère les forces normales et
tangentielles.

2. Méthodes numériques

 Éléments finis (FEM) : Utilisée pour modéliser le comportement des matériaux de sol sous
diverses conditions de charge et de contrainte. Elle est très précise mais nécessite des
ressources de calcul importantes.
 Éléments discrets (DEM) : Modélise le sol comme un ensemble de particules distinctes, utile
pour les sols granulaires et les matériaux discontinus.
  Méthode des différences finies (FDM) : Utilisée pour résoudre les équations différentielles
partielles qui décrivent le comportement du sol. Elle est couramment utilisée pour les
analyses de stabilité transitoire.

3. Méthodes empiriques et semi-empiriques

 Diagrammes de stabilité : Utilisés pour évaluer rapidement la stabilité des pentes sur la base
de caractéristiques géométriques et de propriétés du sol.
 Courbes de stabilité : Fournissent des valeurs du facteur de sécurité pour différentes
configurations de pente et conditions de sol.

4. Analyse probabiliste

 Méthodes Monte Carlo : Utilisées pour évaluer la variabilité et l'incertitude des paramètres
de sol en effectuant plusieurs simulations avec des valeurs aléatoires.
 Analyse fiabiliste : Évalue la probabilité de défaillance en tenant compte des incertitudes des
paramètres de sol et des conditions de chargement.

5. Logiciels spécialisés

 SLIDE : Un logiciel d'analyse de stabilité des pentes qui utilise diverses méthodes analytiques
et numériques.
 PLAXIS : Utilisé pour les analyses de déformation et de stabilité, basé sur la méthode des
éléments finis.
 GeoStudio : Un ensemble de logiciels pour l'analyse géotechnique incluant la stabilité des
pentes.

Ces méthodes et outils sont utilisés pour évaluer la sécurité des pentes dans divers contextes,
comme les travaux de terrassement, les barrages, les glissements de terrain, etc.

Si vous avez besoin de détails supplémentaires sur l'une de ces méthodes ou d'une aide pour
structurer votre exposé, n'hésitez pas à demander!

2/2

4o

et avec la methode des tranches uniquement?

ChatGPT

La méthode des tranches est une approche couramment utilisée pour analyser la stabilité des
pentes. Voici un aperçu des principales méthodes basées sur la méthode des tranches :

1. Méthode de Fellenius (ou méthode de l'arc circulaire)

 Cette méthode considère que la surface de rupture est circulaire et divise la masse instable
en tranches verticales.
 Pour chaque tranche, on équilibre les forces de cisaillement et normales le long de la surface
de glissement.
  Le facteur de sécurité est déterminé en comparant la résistance au cisaillement disponible du
sol à la sollicitation cisaillante.

2. Méthode de Bishop simplifiée

 Amélioration de la méthode de Fellenius en tenant compte des forces interlaminaires (forces

entre les tranches).
 Les équations d'équilibre sont simplifiées, permettant une solution itérative plus facile.
 Très utilisée en raison de sa simplicité et de sa bonne précision pour les surfaces de
glissement circulaires.

3. Méthode de Janbu simplifiée

 Applicable aux surfaces de glissement non circulaires.

 Utilise les principes de l'équilibre limite pour considérer les forces normales et tangentielles
sur chaque tranche.
 Offre une approche plus générale et flexible par rapport aux méthodes circulaires.

4. Méthode de Morgenstern-Price

 Permet de considérer une distribution quelconque des forces interlaminaires.

 Offre une grande flexibilité et précision pour des surfaces de glissement complexes.
 Utilise des fonctions de distribution de force interlaminaire pour équilibrer les moments et
les forces.

5. Méthode de Spencer

 Suppose que les forces interlaminaires sont constantes et alignées le long de chaque tranche.
 Équilibre les forces et les moments simultanément, offrant une solution précise mais
nécessitant des calculs itératifs.
 Très robuste pour une large gamme de problèmes de stabilité des pentes.

Principe général des méthodes des tranches

1. Division de la pente : La pente instable est divisée en un certain nombre de tranches

verticales.
2. Calcul des forces : Pour chaque tranche, les forces agissant sur les tranches (poids, résistance
au cisaillement, pression interstitielle, forces interlaminaires) sont calculées.
3. Équilibre des forces et des moments : Les équations d'équilibre sont écrites pour chaque
tranche, puis résolues pour déterminer le facteur de sécurité global.

Étapes typiques de calcul

1. Division de la pente en tranches.

2. Calcul des poids des tranches.
3. Évaluation des forces de cisaillement et normales sur les bases des tranches.
4. Calcul des forces interlaminaires (si applicable).
5. Résolution des équations d'équilibre pour chaque tranche (forces et moments).
6. Calcul du facteur de sécurité global en comparant la résistance au cisaillement disponible
avec la sollicitation cisaillante le long de la surface de rupture.
Avantages et limitations

 Avantages :
o Permet une analyse détaillée et flexible pour diverses configurations de pente et de
surface de glissement.
o Utilisation généralisée et bien documentée dans la littérature géotechnique.
 Limitations :
o Peut nécessiter des calculs itératifs complexes, particulièrement pour les méthodes
plus avancées comme celles de Morgenstern-Price et Spencer.
o La précision des résultats dépend de la précision des données d'entrée (propriétés
du sol, conditions de chargement, etc.).

Si vous avez besoin d'une explication plus détaillée sur une méthode spécifique ou des
exemples d'application, n'hésitez pas à demander!

7/7

4o

je peux avoir la formule de chaque methode ?

ChatGPT

Bien sûr ! Voici les formulations des principales méthodes de calcul de stabilité des pentes
basées sur la méthode des tranches :

1. Méthode de Fellenius (Méthode de l'arc circulaire)

La méthode de Fellenius est basée sur l'équilibre des forces pour chaque tranche verticale de
la pente. Le facteur de sécurité FSFSFS est déterminé en comparant la résistance au
cisaillement disponible SSS avec la sollicitation cisaillante le long de la surface de rupture
RRR.

La formule de base est :

Où :

 SSS est la résistance au cisaillement disponible le long de la surface de rupture.

 RRR est la sollicitation cisaillante le long de la surface de rupture.

2. Méthode de Bishop simplifiée

La méthode de Bishop simplifiée améliore la méthode de Fellenius en tenant compte des
forces interlaminaires. Elle utilise un coefficient de renforcement β\betaβ pour ajuster la
résistance au cisaillement effective le long de la surface de rupture.

La formule générale est :

Où :

 c′c'c′ est la cohésion effective du sol.

 N′N'N′ est le coefficient de contrainte effective.
 WiW_iWi sont les composantes de poids des tranches.
 ϕi\phi_iϕi sont les angles de frottement des tranches.
 TTT est la somme des forces interlaminaires.

3. Méthode de Janbu simplifiée

La méthode de Janbu simplifiée est adaptée aux surfaces de rupture non circulaires. Elle
utilise une méthode d'équilibre limite pour évaluer le facteur de sécurité.

La formule générale est similaire à celle de Bishop, mais adaptée pour des surfaces de rupture
non circulaires :

4. Méthode de Morgenstern-Price

La méthode de Morgenstern-Price est plus complexe et permet de considérer une distribution

arbitraire des forces interlaminaires. Elle utilise des fonctions de distribution de force
interlaminaire pour équilibrer les moments et les forces.

La formule générale inclut les forces interlaminaires distribuées :

FS=SRFS = \frac{S}{R}FS=RS

5. Méthode de Spencer

La méthode de Spencer suppose que les forces interlaminaires sont constantes et alignées le
long de chaque tranche. Elle équilibre les forces et les moments simultanément pour
déterminer le facteur de sécurité.
La formule générale est similaire à celle de Bishop, mais avec des coefficients ajustés pour les
forces interlaminaires constantes :

FS=SR=c′N′+∑(Wisin⁡ϕi)∑(Wicos⁡ϕi)+TFS = \frac{S}{R} = \frac{c'N' + \sum(W_i \sin

\phi_i)}{\sum(W_i \cos \phi_i) + T}FS=RS=∑(Wicosϕi)+Tc′N′+∑(Wisinϕi)

Ces formules fournissent les bases pour calculer le facteur de sécurité des pentes en utilisant
la méthode des tranches. Elles sont souvent ajustées et itérées pour tenir compte des
conditions spécifiques du site et des propriétés du sol

Description of Method
Janbu’s Method was developed by the Norwegian Professor N. Janbu. The method
has similar features with the Bishop Method of Slices regarding the assumptions
made on the inter-slice forces. However, a major difference between the two is that
Janbu’s Method satisfies force equilibrium as opposed to Bishop’s Method that
satisfies moment equilibrium. Moreover, Janbu’s Method can be used for both
circular and non-circular failure surfaces. Non-circular failure surfaces are more
common in nature (due to the existence of soil layers with different properties or due
to geometrical restrictions). Examples of such surfaces are illustrated in Figure
1a and 1b.
 Figure 1. Examples of
typical non-circular failure surfaces including: (a) a failure surface that passes through a sheared
zone, and (b) a failure surface that begins as circular but is then interrupted by a stronger geological
formation (bedrock)The assumptions made by the Janbu’s method are that the interslice
forces acting at each slice are equal and can be neglected (Figure 2).
 Figure 2. Forces acting on a single slice: i) the
weight of the soil above the failure surface W, ii) the interslice reactions from the adjacent slices Xi-
1, Xi+1, Vi-1, Vi+1, iii) the reaction of the stable ground which consists of a normal effective N’ and a shear

component T, respectively, and iv) the boundary water force U. Janbu’s method suggests that the
normal interslice forces are equal and can be neglected.

Janbu’s method satisfies horizontal force equilibrium for the entire failure mass, as
well as vertical and horizontal equilibrium for each slice. In addition, a correction
factor f0 is incorporated in the analysis and will be further discussed in the
Calculations section below.
Moreover, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is utilized to derive the shear strength
of the ground, hence, the ultimate shear force that can be developed in a single
slice i is:

Where c and φ refer to the cohesion and the friction angle of the ground,
respectively, L is the length of the slice’s base, and N’ is the effective normal force
acting at the base of the slice.

Calculations
Firstly, the horizontal force equilibrium on each slice is established. The horizontal
components of the shear resistance and the reaction of the ground below the failure
surface are taken into consideration as:

Subsequently, the correspondent vertical force equilibrium for each slice yields:
Combining equations [2] and [3], we get:

Finally, the overall horizontal equilibrium yields:

Given that:

and considering equations [4] and [5] it is deduced that:

Where B is the width of each slice, Bi=Li*cos(αi).

Using the formula of equation [6], the FoS cannot be calculated as the vertical
interslice forces V are unknown. To address this issue, Janbu incorporated the
aforementioned correction factor f0 which substitutes the difference (Vi-1 - Vi+1). The
final form of equation [6] is:

The correction factor f0 depends on the strength parameters of the ground and on the
geometry of the slope. In particular, the segment that connects the toe and the crown
of a potential failure surface is derived and its length is measured (L). Subsequently,
the maximum vertical distance between this segment and the failure surface is also
determined (d). Finally, the ratio d/L is calculated and the correction factor f0 is
derived via Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, there are 3 curves that can be used
depending on the shear strength parameters of the soil. The “c-only” curve is utilized
when total stress analyses are performed hence, the shear strength of the ground is
fully represented by the undrained shear strength component (c=cu, φ=0). The “φ
and c soils” and “φ-only soil” curves are utilized once effective stress analyses are
conducted and hence, the shear strength of the ground is given via the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion:
 Figure 3. Janbu’s
correction factor f0 (Rabie, 2014).The correction factor can also be derived via the following
equation:

Where b1 depends on the shear strength assumptions made for the soil mass:

 C-only soils: b1=0.69

 Φ and C soils: b1=0.50
 Φ-only soils: b1=0.31

The correction factor f0 is greater that one, hence, it may increase the FoS by up to
5% and 12% for granular soils without cohesion and for clayey soils in which a total
stress analysis is conducted, respectively. The f0 was later added by Janbu to
compensate for the fact that the assumed interslice shear forces are negligible (an
assumption made in a simplified method). Hence, the current method is also known
as the Janbu’s Corrected Method.
Unlike Bishop’s, Janbu’s Method does not need an iterative procedure to derive the
FoS and hence, it can be conducted via hand calculations without requiring a
computational solution. It is a method sufficiently accurate for engineering design
projects which prevails over Bishop method when it comes to non-circular surfaces.
Description of Method
The Spencer Method of Slices was developed by Spencer in 1967. It is one of the
most theoretically rigorous Methods of Slices since it satisfies both force and moment
equilibrium of the failure mass. Thus, it enables more precise calculations of
the Factor of Safety (FoS). Spencer’s method can be applied to both circular and
non-circular failure surfaces.
As mentioned in previous chapters of the Slope Stability educational series, every
method of slices requires certain simplifications to be made to address the fact that
the number of unknown parameters is greater than that of the available equations.
Even though other methods neglect interslice normal and/or shear forces, Spencer’s
method takes into account the interslice forces by substituting them with an
equivalent resultant force Q which acts at the midpoint of a slice’s base M. The
assumption made by the method is that the inclination of the resultant forces is
constant and equal to θ degrees. A schematic illustration of the slice forces
considered for the Spencer Method is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Left side: Forces acting on a single slice including: a) the weight of the soil above the failure
surface W, b) the interslice reactions from the adjacent slices Xi-1, Xi+1, Vi-1, Vi+1, c) the reaction of the
stable ground which consists of a normal effective N’ and a shear component T, respectively, and d)
the boundary water force U. Right side: Spencer’s method assumption in which interslice forces Xi-
1, Xi+1, Vi-1, Vi+1 are replaced by a single force Q acting at the midpoint of the slice’s base M.

Calculations
The assumptions made in Spencer’s method regarding the interslice forces establish
a more complex system of equations that needs to be solved in order to derive
the FoS of a failure surface.
Firstly, the two force equilibriums for each slice (parallel and perpendicular to the
failure surface) yield the following equations:

*θ is denoted without subscript (i) as it is constant for all slices.

The utilization of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion regarding the shear strength of
the ground, hence, yields:
where TULT is the shear strength of the soil mass, c is the cohesion, L is the length of
the slice’s base, and φ is the friction angle of the soil.
The shear force T acting at the base of each slice is:

By using equations [1] to [4], the equivalent resultant interslice force Q is derived:

where:

Subsequently, the equilibrium of the overall sliding mass is considered. If the overall
moment with respect to the center of rotation is zero, then the moment of the internal
interslice forces Q must also be zero, hence:

where Ri is the distance from the center of rotation to the midpoint of each slice. In a
circular failure surface, all radii are equal and can be excluded from equation [9], but
in a non-circular surface they must be taken into consideration.
The same principal applies for the force equilibrium. The sum of the internal forces of
the entire sliding mass in the vertical and the horizontal direction must be zero.
Hence, two more equations emerge:

However, due to the fact that the inclination of the equivalent interslice force Q is
constant, equations [10] and [11] are mathematically identical and both yield:
Solving equations [9] and [12] results in two FoS values, for a given failure surface,
assuming a value of interslice force inclination θ. However, there is a single value
of θ that satisfies both moment and force equilibrium and hence an iterative
procedure to derive this value and the corresponding FoS is applied.
Many schemes have been developed in search for an optimized iterative procedure
to calculate θ and FoS. A simple technique commonly employed includes the
following steps:

1. Arbitrarily assume several values of θ and calculate the corresponding FoS values for
Force and Moment equilibrium (FF and FM)
2. Draw the FF, FM versus θ curves
3. Find the intersection point between the curves that corresponds to the
actual FoS and θ of the assessed surface

An example illustration of the aforementioned curves is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Determination
of the FoS and θ for Spencer’s Method of Slices via the intersection of the FM-θ and FF-θ curves

Nonetheless, advanced techniques have been developed over the years which use
computational means including efficient iterative processes. The Spencer Method is
more time-consuming that other methods (Bishop or Janbu) but the rapid evolution of
computing capacities has made this issue obsolete.
If the inclination θ is set to zero, then Spencer’s method becomes identical
to Bishop’s simplified method. Therefore, Spencer’s method is considered an
extended, albeit more sophisticated, version of Bishop’s method.
Some findings that arise based on the results of the Spencer’s method are:

1. Force equilibrium FoS (FF) is affected in a more pronounced manner by θ compared

to Moment equilibrium FoS (FM), a fact that can also be observed in Figure 2
2. The accuracy of the method depends on the number of slices selected to conduct the
analysis. Nevertheless, increasing the number of slices results in greater
computational times required. According to Spencer (1967), the gain in accuracy is
minor once the number of slices used is greater than 32. In fact, even a smaller
number of slices are adequate to provide an accurate FoS, with each case study
being unique.
3. Spencer method may not always converge to a single pair of FoS and θ.
Convergence problems emerge when the failure surface presents steep sections,
complex geometry or jumps. In that case, a slight change in the input data or the
utilization of a simpler method is recommended.

Slope Stability: The Bishop Method of Slices

 Slope Stability Slope Stability Analysis

The Bishop Method of Slices

The Bishop Method of Slices
The Bishop Method was introduced in 1955 by Alan Wilfred Bishop from the Imperial
College in London. It is one of several Methods of Slices developed to assess the
stability of slopes and derive the associated Factor of Safety (FoS).
The approach differs from the Ordinary Method of slices in terms of the assumptions
made regarding the interslice forces. In particular, the Bishop method assumes that
the shear interslice forces acting at the lateral sides of each slice i can be neglected,
i.e., Vi-1 = Vi+1 (Figure 1). It is pointed out that every method of slices requires certain
assumptions to be made since the problem is, a priori, indeterminate (there are more
unknown parameters than available equations).

Figure 1. Forces acting on a single slice: a) the weight

of the soil above the failure surface W, b) the interslice reactions from the adjacent slices Xi-
1, Xi+1, Vi-1, Vi+1, c) the reaction of the stable ground which consists of a normal effective N’ and

a shear component T, respectively, and d) the boundary water force U. Bishop method
suggests that the shear interslice forces can be neglected, i.e., Vi-1 - Vi+1 = 0
To develop his method, Bishop utilized 3 major equilibrium equations:

1. Moment equilibrium for the entire surface of failure with respect to the center of
rotation,
2. Horizontal force equilibrium for the overall surface of failure, and
3. Vertical force equilibriums for each slice.

Calculations
The FoS for a typical circular failure surface will be derived. It is assumed that the
failure surface lies within a single type of soil which behaves in accordance with the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
Where τ is the shear strength of the soil, σn is the normal effective stress, c is the
cohesion and φ the friction angle of the soil.
The shear force T acting at the base of each slice (Figure 1) depends on the
cohesion, the friction angle, the effective normal force N’ and the FoS as:

Where L is the arc length of the slice’s base which is approximated to a line segment.
The maximum shear force (shear strength) of the slice develops once the FoS
becomes equal to 1,00.
The equilibrium force in the vertical direction is taken into account:

Subsequently, the moment equilibrium around the center of rotation yields the
following equation:

The moments that each slice generates about the center of rotation are depicted
in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Moments about the center of rotation generated by each slice

(Ti*R and Wi*Rsin(α))

Given that the shear force T is equal to Tmaximum/FoS, the FoS for the entire failure
surface is:
Utilizing equation [4] and substituting the length of the slice’s base as a function of its
width and inclination (L = B* sin(α)), equation [5] becomes:

In some cases, it is preferable to utilize the ru coefficient to take into account the
boundary water force (ru = u/σ), where u is the pore water pressure and σ the normal
stress at the point of interest. In that case, equation [6] is slightly simplified and is
transformed as follows:

Due to the fact that the FoS appears in both sides of equations [6] and [7], the
solution is implicit and requires an iterative procedure until convergence towards a
single value is reached. Therefore, contrary to the Ordinary Method of slices, the
Bishop Method does not favor hand calculations and requires a computational
solution.
The Bishop method has been found to be adequately accurate providing minor
variances from the actual FoS of slopes. Zhu (2008) suggests that its accuracy is
similar to more complex methods developed in the following years (e.g., the Spencer
method), while researchers have not fully understood the theoretical causes of this
phenomenon. Spencer (1967) mentioned that the FoS is insensitive to the inclination
of the interslice forces, hence the assumptions of the Bishop method do not highly
impact the results.
Nevertheless, a significant limitation of the method is that it should be applied solely
to circular surfaces in order to preserve its accuracy.

References
Slope Stability: Introduction to the Method of Slices
 Slope Stability Slope Stability Analysis

The Method of Slices

1. Introduction
2. The Ordinary Method of Slices
1. Step-by-step guide to derive the FoS
1. Step 1: Define a 2D cross-section
2. Step 2: Define the failure surface
3. Step 3: Divide the model into slices
4. Step 4: Calculate the weight of each slice
5. Step 5: Calculate the resisting forces acting on each slice
6. Step 6: Derive the driving forces acting on each slice
7. Step 7: Calculate the FoS
3. References
4. Web Class Assignments

Introduction
In circular failure surfaces, when the soil is under conditions that allow for partial or
full drainage (drained conditions), its shear strength is controlled by both its cohesion
and its frictional components. The frictional strength depends on the effective stress
acting on a soil element which is not constant along the entire surface. For this
reason, the method of slices was introduced by W. Fellenius. The soil mass above
the assumed failure surface is divided into a specified number of vertical columns
with equal widths. Therefore, the bottom part of each slice is part of the failure
surface. An example illustration of the division of a slope in 9 slices, for a pre-defined
failure surface, of equal width is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Illustration of the Method of Slices.

Each slice can then be considered as a distinguished body in which force and
moment equilibrium must be held. Interaction between the slices results in internal
forces that all of the developed methods of slices take into consideration. A slice is
also subjected to its weight, the reaction applied by the stable part of the slope at its
base, as well as any additional forces that can be applied by external factors (ex.,
seismic loading). For each slice, the base is assumed to be an inclined straight line.
The height of each column is measured along its centerline.
The forces acting on a typical slice (without considering any external loads) are
depicted in Figure 2.
 Figure 2. The forces acting on a
typical slice: a) the weight of the soil above the failure surface W, b) the interslice reactions
from the adjacent slices N(i-1), N(i+1), V(i-1), V(i+1), c) the reaction of the stable ground which consists
of a normal effective N’ and a shear component T, respectively, and d) the boundary water
force U.
To derive the Factor of Safety (FoS, see also Mechanics of Slope Stability) of the entire
slope, the moments of the driving and the resisting forces for all slices are added up and the
sums are divided:

Nevertheless, an issue that needs to be addressed emerges. To derive the driving and
resisting forces, 3 equilibrium equations need to be considered for each slice, i.e., horizontal
and vertical forces equilibrium and moment equilibrium. Moreover, for each slice, a shear
strength criterion is used (usually the Mohr-Coulomb criterion) adding another equation.
Given that a slope is divided into n slices, the total conditional equations are 4*n.
On the contrary, the unknown parameters for n slices are: a) the normal and shear forces
applied at the base of each slice (2*n), b) the locations of the total forces acting at the base
of each slice (n), c) The vertical interslice forces (n-1), d) the horizontal interslice forces (n-
1), e) the locations of the interslice forces (n-1), and f) the FoS. Hence, the total number of
unknown parameters for the method of slices is 6*n-2.
Therefore, the number of excess unknown parameters for a given problem using the method
of slices is: (6*n-2)-(4*n)=2*n-2. Α common assumption that is made for simplification
purposes is that the reaction forces from the ground beneath the failure surface are applied
at the center of each slice’s base. Hence the total number of unknowns is decreased to
n-2.
However, for n > 2, the problem cannot be solved given the available equations,
hence, the FoS for a slope cannot be analytically derived. This substantial difficulty
was addressed when researchers made certain simplifications regarding the applied
forces and, therefore, reduced the number of unknowns. This is the reason why
several different methods of analysis emerged over the years. It should be pointed
out that none of these methods is 100% accurate since the nature of the problem
requires simplifications to be made. Nevertheless, some methods make
simplifications that are less influential than others and are thus more precise.

The Ordinary Method of Slices

The first and simplest Method of Slices was developed by Fellenius in 1936 and is
known as the Ordinary or Normal Method of Slices. A trial failure surface is
assumed to be circular and the FoS is derived as the ratio of the driving to the
resisting moments. To find the critical surface, many discrete failure surfaces must be
tested. This procedure was quite time-consuming in the past but currently, advanced
computational means have facilitated the detection of the surface that is
characterized by the lower FoS (which is critical in the design of engineering
projects).
The assumption made by the Ordinary Method is that the interslice forces
(V and N in Figure 2) are parallel to the base of each particular slice and, therefore,
they can be neglected (Figure 3). This assumption generates n-1 new equations
when the total number of unknown parameters is n-2. Therefore, there is one more
equation that needed, hence, the derived solution is approximate.

Figure 3. The forces acting

on a typical slice based on the Ordinary Method of Slices. The interslice forces are assumed
to be collinear and can be neglected.
The collinearity of the interslice forces is not a minor assumption since it violates
Newton’s 3rd law. The reaction forces between the slices are not assumed to be
opposite. According to Whitman and Bailey (1967), the Ordinary Method could
result in errors in the estimated FoS as high as 60%.
Given the assumptions made, the ratio of the resisting and driving moments (Equation 1)
can be simplified to the corresponding ratio of forces since:

where a is the inclination of each slice, R is the radius of the circular failure surface,
and d is the level arm of the weight force of each slice to the center of the selected
circular surface.
The Ordinary Method is the only one according to which the FoS calculated via a
linear equation, therefore, it enables simple and quick calculations.
As mentioned above, the calculations needed to perform the Ordinary Method of
slices are rather simple. Here, a step-by-step guide on how to to estimate the
FoS based on the Ordinary Method on a selected circular surface will be presented.
Step 1: Define a 2D cross-section
It should not be neglected that the Method of Slices is a 2-dimensional method
hence, a representative cross-section of the slope (or embankment) of interest must
be developed. The cross-section should be drawn on a suitable scale which must be
the same for X and Y axes.
Step 2: Define the failure surface
A circular surface must be selected to perform the analysis. To fully define the
surface, the center and radius of the selected surface are needed.
Step 3: Divide the model into slices

Divide the surface into several slices (8-15 usually) as depicted

in Figure 1. The widths of the slices do not necessarily have to be the
same, therefore, the division is made so that modeling difficulties can
be addressed. For example, the existence of more than one soil layer
would affect the division. The Step-by-step guide to derive
the FoS

base of each slice should be lying on top of a single layer so that shear strength
parameters are uniform along the base of each slice. Moreover, the top boundaries of
the slices should be located at geometric breaks of the slope to facilitate the
measurement of geometric features. An example is illustrated in Figure 4. The base
of each slice is located within one soil layer, while the top boundaries are selected to
enable simpler shapes which are required for the calculation of the weight of each
slice.
Figure 4. An example of slice division for a model with more than one soil layer and a
complex slope [Link] the water table is above the failure surface, the water pressure
should also be taken into consideration as:

where: hw is the distance between the centroid point (midpoint of the base) of the
slice and the water table and αw is the slope of the water table.
Step 4: Calculate the weight of each slice
Each slice is approximated as a rectangular parallelepiped and its area is calculated
as:

where Hi and Di are the average height and width of slice i.

Then, the unit weight of the soil γ (dry or saturated) is used to calculate the total
weight of the slice (kN/m, along the direction perpendicular to the cross-section):

Step 5: Calculate the resisting forces acting on each slice

It is assumed that the shear strength of the soil layers is estimated based on
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, therefore:

where τ is the shear strength, σn is the normal effective stress, c is the cohesion,
and φ the friction angle of the soil.
Firstly, the frictional resisting forces that act at the base of each slice are calculated.
The normal effective force is derived via the following equation:
where a is the slope angle of the base of the slice assessed, u is the pore water
pressure, and L the arc length of the base which can be approximated as a line
segment.
The corresponding frictional force is:

The impact of the pore water pressure is negative in terms of slope stability since it
decreases the normal effective force and, consequently, the frictional resisting
component.
In addition, the cohesive resisting force is a function of the material’s cohesion and
the length of the slice’s base L:

Consequently, the total resisting force for slice i is:

The above equation demonstrates why a slice must be located within one soil layer.
Otherwise, we would have to make an assumption on which friction angle and
cohesion to utilize.
Step 6: Derive the driving forces acting on each slice
The tangential driving force is parallel to the base of the slope and, in cases where
no external or dynamic loads act on the slice, it is equal to the tangent component of
the weight W (see Figure 3).

where a is the inclination of the slice’s base.

Step 7: Calculate the FoS
The Factor of Safety is derived by adding the resisting forces and dividing them with
the sum of the driving forces (Equation 2):

Despite the fact that the ratio of resisting to driving forces is different for each slice,
the FoS is considered to be equal for all of them since the slope is an entity that has
been artificially divided into a number of sections to enable the aforementioned
procedure.
Over the years, more sophisticated methods that made less significant assumptions
were developed. The Ordinary Method was found to be more conservative providing
lower FoS than other methods. However, its principles have been the driving factor
for a multitude of extensive research efforts aiming at the optimization of the results
of the Limit Equilibrium Method.
 Ai=Hi * Di

