Chapter 7 Contents
Page
7.1 Overview 7-3
7.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for Slope
Stability Analysis 7-3
7.3 Design Requirements 7-4
7.4 Resistance Factors and Safety Factors for Slope Stability Analysis 7-5
7.5 References 7-6
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Slope Stability Analysis
December 2006 Chapter 7-1
Slope Stability Analysis
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-2 December 2006
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 Overview
Slope stability analysis is used in a wide variety of geotechnical engineering problems, including, but not
limited to, the following:
• Determination of stable cut and fill slopes
• Assessment of overall stability of retaining walls, including global and compound stability (includes
permanent systems and temporary shoring systems)
• Assessment of overall stability of shallow and deep foundations for structures located on slopes or
over potentially unstable soils, including the determination of lateral forces applied to foundations
and walls due to potentially unstable slopes
• Stability assessment of landslides (mechanisms of failure, and determination of design properties
through back-analysis), and design of mitigation techniques to improve stability
• Evaluation of instability due to liquefaction
Types of slope stability analyses include rotational slope failure, sliding block analysis, irregular
surfaces of sliding, and infinite slope failure. Stability analysis techniques specific to rock slopes, other
than highly fractured rock masses that can in effect be treated as soil, are described in WSDOT GDM
Chapter 12. Detailed stability assessment of landslides is described in WSDOT GDM Chapter 13.
7.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for Slope
Stability Analysis
The input data needed for slope stability analysis is described in WSDOT GDM Chapter 2 for site
investigation considerations, WSDOT GDM Chapters 9 and 10 for fills and cuts, and WSDOT GDM
Chapter 13 for landslides. WSDOT GDM Chapter 5 provides requirements for the assessment of
design property input parameters.
Detailed assessment of soil and rock stratigraphy is critical to the proper assessment of slope stability,
and is in itself a direct input parameter for slope stability analysis. It is important to define any thin weak
layers present, the presence of slickensides, etc., as these fine details of the stratigraphy could control
the stability of the slope in question. Knowledge of the geologic nature of the units present at the site
and knowledge of past performance of such units may also be critical factors in the assessment of slope
stability.
Whether long-term or short-term stability is in view, and which will control the stability of the slope, will
affect the selection of soil and rock shear strength parameters used as input in the analysis. For
short-term stability analysis, undrained shear strength parameters should be obtained. For long-term
stability analysis, drained shear strength parameters should be obtained. For assessing the stability of
landslides, residual shear strength parameters will be needed, since the soil has in such cases already
deformed enough to reach a residual value. For highly overconsolidated clays, such as the Seattle clays
(e.g., Lawton Formation), if the slope is relatively free to deform after the cut is made or is otherwise
unloaded, residual shear strength parameters should be obtained and used for the stability analysis. See
WSDOT GDM Chapter 5 for guidance on the development of shear strength parameters.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Slope Stability Analysis
December 2006 Chapter 7-3
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed flow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to significant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modified Bishop, simplified
Janbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., finite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
significant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available field observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an infinite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For infinite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
TanI
FS (7-1)
TanE
where,
TanI
FS
TanofEinternal friction for the soil
φ = the angle
β = the slope
§ angle
· relative to the horizontal
J TanI
FS ¨¨ b ¸¸
© J s ¹ TanE
For infinite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
§ J b · TanI
FS ¨¨ ¸¸ (7-2)
© J s ¹ TanE
where,
γb = the buoyant unit weight of the soil
γs = the saturated unit weight of the soil
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Considering that the buoyant unit weight is roughly one-half of the saturated unit weight, seepage on
the slope face can reduce the factor of safety by a factor of two, a condition which should obviously be
avoided through some type of drainage if at all possible; otherwise much flatter slopes will be needed.
When using the infinite slope method, if the FS is near or below 1.0 to 1.15, severe erosion or shallow
slumping is likely. Vegetation on the slope can help to reduce this problem, as the vegetation roots add
cohesion to the surficial soil, improving stability. Note that conducting an infinite slope analysis does
not preclude the need to check for deeper slope failure mechanisms, such as would be assessed by the
Modified Bishop or similar methods listed above.
For very simplified cases, design charts to assess slope stability are available. Examples of simplified
design charts are provided in NAVFAC DM-7. These charts are for a c-φ soil, and apply only to relatively
uniform soil conditions within and below the cut slope. They do not apply to fills over relatively soft
ground, as well as to cuts in primarily cohesive soils. Since these charts are for a c-φ soil, a small
cohesion will be needed to perform the calculation. If these charts are to be used, it is recommended
that a cohesion of 50 to 100 psf be used in combination with the soil friction angle obtained from SPT
correlation for relatively clean sands and gravels. For silty to very silty sands and gravels, the cohesion
could be increased to 100 to 200 psf, but with the friction angle from SPT correlation (see WSDOT
GDM Chapter 5) reduced by 2 to 3 degrees, if it is not feasible to obtain undisturbed soil samples
suitable for laboratory testing to measure the soil shear strength directly. This should be considered
general guidance, and good engineering judgment should be applied when selecting soil parameters for
this type of an analysis. Simplified design charts shall only be used for final design of non-critical slopes
that are approximately 10 ft in height or less that are consistent with the simplified assumptions used by
the design chart. Simplified design charts may be used as applicable for larger slopes for preliminary
design.
The detailed guidance for slope stability analysis provided by Abramson, et al. (1996) should be used.
7.4 Resistance Factors and Safety Factors for Slope Stability Analysis
For overall stability analysis of walls and structure foundations, design shall be consistent with WSDOT
GDM chapters 6, 8 and 15 and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. For slopes adjacent
to but not directly supporting structures, a maximum resistance factor of 0.75 should be used. For
foundations on slopes that support structures such as bridges and retaining walls, a maximum resistance
factor of 0.65 should be used. Exceptions to this could include minor walls that have a minimal impact on
the stability of the existing slope, in which the 0.75 resistance factor may be used. Since these resistance
factors are combined with a load factor of 1.0 (overall stability is assessed as a service limit state only),
these resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 are equivalent to a safety factor of 1.3 and 1.5, respectively.
For general slope stability analysis of permanent cuts, fills, and landslide repairs, a minimum safety factor
of 1.25 should be used. Larger safety factors should be used if there is significant uncertainty in the slope
analysis input parameters. The Monte Carlo simulation features now available in some slope stability
computer programs may be used for this purpose, from which a probability of failure can be determined,
provided a coefficient of variation for each of the input parameters can be ascertained. For considerations
regarding the statistical characterization of input parameters, see Allen, et al. (2005). For minimum safety
factors and resistance factors for temporary cuts, see WSDOT GDM Section 15.6.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03 Slope Stability Analysis
December 2006 Chapter 7-5
Slope Stability Analysis
For seismic analysis, if seismic analysis is conducted (see WSDOT GDM Chapter 6 for policies on
this issue), a maximum resistance factor of 0.9 should be used for slopes involving or adjacent to walls
and structure foundations. This is equivalent to a safety factor of 1.1. For other slopes (cuts, fills, and
landslide repairs), a minimum safety factor of 1.05 shall be used.
Table 7-1 Slope stability – probability of failure (adapted from Santamarina, et al., 1992).
Conditions Probability of Failure,
Pf
Unacceptable in most cases > 0.1
Temporary structures with no potential life loss and low repair 0.1
cost
Slope of riverbank at docks, no alternative docks, pier shutdown 0.01 to 0.02
threatens operations
Low consequences of failure, repairs when time permits, repair 0.01
cost less than cost to go to lower Pf
Existing large cut on interstate highway 0.01 to 0.02
New large cut (i.e., to be constructed) on interstate highway 0.01 or less
Acceptable in most cases except if lives may be lost 0.001
Acceptable for all slopes 0.0001
Unnecessarily low 0.00001
7.5 References
Abramson, L., Boyce, G., Lee, T., and Sharma, S., 1996, Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, Wiley,
ISBN 0471106224.
Allen, T., Nowak, A., and Bathurst, R., 2005, Calibration to Determine Load and Resistance Factors for
Geotechnical and Structural Design. TRB Circular E-C079, 83 pp.
Santamarina, J. C., Altschaeffl, A. G., and Chameau, J. L., 1992, “Reliability of Slopes: Incorporating
Qualitative Information,” Transportation Research Board, TRR 1343, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-5.
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-6 December 2006