CIVL 3740 - Geotechnical Analysis and Design

Chapter 6
Slope stability

SO, Pui San

 Course Contents

6.1 - Introduction and Slope Characterization

6.2 - Stability Analysis of Infinite Slope

6.3 - Stability Analysis of Finite Slope

 6. 1
Introduction and
Slope Characterization
 Slope failure/landslide in Hong Kong

[Link] [Link]

[Link] [Link]
Natural Terrain Landslides in 2008

Courtesy from KY Choi of CEDD

In 2008, flooding of a section of North Lantau Highway following the natural
terrain landslides cut out the traffic to and from the airport for 16 hours
Why a slope will fail?
1. Earthquake Gravitational and seepage forces
2. Rainfall tend to cause instability
3. Flooding
4. Tsunami
5. Explosion
6. Vibration
7. Weathering

Why a slope will fail in HK ?

1. Rainfall
2. Flooding
3. Weathering
 Typical failure modes Craig (1997)

The most important types of slope failure are illustrated as follows:

• In rotational slips the shape of the failure surface in section may be a circular arc or a
non-circular curve. In general, circular slips are associated with homogenous soil
conditions and non-circular slips with non-homogenous soil conditions.
• Translational slip and compound slip occur where the form of the failure surface is
influenced by the presence of an adjacent stratum of significantly different strength,
most of the failure surface being likely to pass through the stratum of lower shear
strength.
 6.2
Analysis of Infinite Slope
(Translational Slip)
 Assumptions for infinite slope analysis
 Depth of failure is small compared to the length of the slope, with negligible end effects
 The potential failure surface is parallel to the surface of the slope
 The force on the two sides of any vertical slice are equal and opposite, the stress conditions
are the same at every point of the failure surface
 Flow lines are parallel to the slope surface
 Equipotential lines are perpendicular to the ground surface
 Steady seepage is assumed to be taking place in a direction parallel to the slope surface

Ground surface (z)

Water table (mz)

Failure surface

where β is slope angle; z is the depth of the potential failure plane;

mz is the distance of water table from the failure plane. γ is soil unit
weight above water table; γsat is soil unit weight below water table.
Water flow in infinite slope
Flow line

B
β A

D
C

z mz Equipotential lines

 What is pore water pressure at Points A, B, C and D?

 What is the hydraulic gradient?
 What is the flow velocity of downward water flow?
 What is the seepage force per unit volume?
 Water flow in infinite slope
 Pore water pressures at points A and B are zero (at water table)
 Pore water pressures at points C and D are the same

ht,C = ht,A
ht,C = 0 + 0
hw,C + hg,C = 0

uC = u A + mzγ w cos 2 β
uC = mz cos 2 βγ w
 Hydraulic gradient
i = sin β
 Flow rate of downward water flow
(k is soil permeability)
q = ki(mz cos β ) = kmz sin β cos β
 Seepage force per unit volume
j = iγ w = γ w sin β
Stability analysis of infinite slope-Effective stress approach

 Effective weight of soil slice with a width of l:

W = (1 − m )γzl + mγ ' zl = [(1 − m )γ + mγ ']zl

Dry soil Saturated soil
 Force perpendicular to the failure plane due to soil weigh [Contributed to resisting force]

N = W cos β = [(1 − m )γ + mγ '] zl cos β

 Force parallel to the failure plane due to soil weight

T1 = W sin β = [(1 − m )γ + mγ '] zl sin β

 Force parallel to the failure plane due to seepage

T2 = (iγ w )(mzl ) = mzlγ w sin β

 Total force parallel to the failure plane [Driving force]

T = T1 + T2 = [(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] zl sin β

Stability analysis of infinite slope-Effective stress approach

 Effective stress perpendicular to the failure plane

[Used for soil shear strength calculation]
N
σ '=
l cos β

σ ' = [(1 − m )γ + mγ '] z cos 2 β

 Stress parallel to the failure plane

[Shear stress mobilized at the failure surface]
T
τ= T = [(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] zl sin β
l cos β

τ = [(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] z sin β cos β

Stability analysis of infinite slope-Effective stress approach

 Factor of safety

τf
FOS = Where τf is shear strength along the slip surface
τ

τ f = c'+σ ' tan φ '

 Then, substitute σ’ and τ

c'+[(1 − m )γ + mγ '] z cos 2 β tan φ '

FOS =
[(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] z sin β cos β

FOS =
c'
+
[(1 − m )γ + mγ '] tan φ '
[(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] z sin β cos β [(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] tan β
Stability analysis of infinite slope-Effective stress approach
 General equation:

FOS =
c'
+
[(1 − m )γ + mγ '] tan φ '
[(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] z sin β cos β [(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] tan β

 If c’ = 0, then

FOS =
[(1 − m )γ + mγ '] tan φ '
[(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] tan β

 When c’ = 0, the FOS is independent of depth z.

 When c’ ≠ 0, if z increases, will the FOS increase or decrease?

Stability analysis of infinite slope-Effective stress approach
FOS =
c'
+
[(1 − m )γ + mγ '] tan φ '
[(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] z sin β cos β [(1 − m )γ + mγ sat ] tan β
 If c’=0 and m=0 (the soil between the surface and the failure plane is not fully
saturated , then

tan φ '
FOS =
tan β

 If c’=0 and m=1 (the water table coincides with the surface the surface of the slope),
then
γ ' tan φ '
FOS =
γ sat tan β

 Considering γ’/γsat ≈ 0.5 for many cases, the FOS will decreases by one-half if we
consider seepage force (seepage parallel to slope is not good for slope stability; more than
90% of slop failures in Hong Kong are rainfall-induced)
Stability analysis of infinite slope-Effective stress approach
 Critical slope angle (the maximum value of the slope angle, above which slope will
fails) can be obtained by letting FOS=1

 When c’=0 and m=0,

tan φ '
FOS = 1 = β cri = φ '
tan β cri

 When c’=0 and m=1,

γ ' tan φ '  γ' 

FOS = 1 = β cri = tan 
−1
tan φ ' 
γ sat tan β cri  γ sat 

 If seepage force is considered, the critical slope angle is smaller

 Stability analysis of infinite slope-Total stress analysis

 For a total stress analysis, we use total stress for calculation

τf
FOS =
τ

τ f = cu

Note: no need to consider seepage

γzl sin β forces in total stress approach, as
τ= = γz sin β cos β pore water pressure and water
l cos β
flow are UNKNOWN.

 Then [Only force parallel to the failure plane

due to saturated soil weight]
cu 2cu
FOS = =
γz sin β cos β γz sin (2β )
Stability analysis of infinite slope-Total stress analysis
 The FOS decreases with increasing slope angle and depth of failure surface

cu 2cu
FOS = =
γz sin β cos β γz sin (2β )

 The critical slope angle (FOS=1)

1 −1  2cu 
β cri = sin  
2 γ z 

 The critical depth (FOS=1)

2cu
zcri =
γ sin (2β )
 Comments on infinite slope analysis (Hong Kong Geoguide)

Key feature Any vertical slice is representative of the whole slope

Advantages Simple hand calculation method
Limitations Failure surface assumptions is always an approximate.
Only used for slip surfaces where the length to depth ratio is large and
end effects can be neglected
Recommendation Suitable for long slope, especially those with a thin layer of weathered
soil over rock
 Example 1
A long natural slope in an over consolidated fissured clay of saturated unit weight 20 kN/m3 is inclined at
12° to the horizontal. The friction angle of the soil is 28° and cohesion is zero. and seepage is roughly
parallel to the slope. A slip has developed on a plane parallel to the surface at a depth of 5m. Determine
the factor of safety along the slip plane. (a) If the water table is at the surface. (b) If the water table is
below the slip surface.

 (a) When water table is at the ground surface (m = 1):

γ ' tan φ '  20 − 9.8  tan 28°

FOS = =  = 1.28
γ sat tan β  20  tan 12°

 (b) When the water table is below the slip surface (m = 0):

tan φ ' tan 28°

FOS = = = 2.55
tan β tan 12°
 Example 2
Dry sand is to be dumped from a truck on the side of a roadway. The properties of the sand are φ’= 30°, γ
= 17 kN/m3 and γsat = 20 kN/m3. Determine the maximum slope angle of the sand in (a) the dry state, (b)
the saturated state if groundwater is present with seepage parallel to the slope; (c) What is the safe slope
angle in the dry state for a factor of safety of 1.25?

 (a) Under dry condition, the maximum slope angle is

β cri = φ ' = 30°

 (b) Under saturated condition with seepage, the maximum slope angle is

 γ'  −1  20 − 9.8 
β cri 
−1
= tan  
tan φ '  = tan  tan 30°  = 16.4°
 γ sat   20 

 (c) Under dry condition, the slope angle with a factor of safety of 1.25 is

 tan φ '  −1  tan 30° 

β = tan −1   = tan   = 24.8°
 FOS   1.25 
CIVL 3740 - Geotechnical Analysis and Design

Chapter 6
Slope stability

SO, Pui San

 6.3
Analysis of Finite Slope
(rotational slips)
• φ = 0 analysis (for circular slip)
u

• The Method of Slices (for circular and non-circular slips)

 φu = 0 analysis (General principle)
Key features of this method:
 In terms of total stress (φu = 0), covers the case of a fully saturated clay under undrained
conditions.
 The potential failure surface is assumed to be a circular arc.
 Only moment equilibrium is considered in the analysis.

Steps:
• A trial failure surface (center O, radius r and length La) is shown in the figure.
• Calculate FOS of each trial failure surface to find the most critical one.
 φu = 0 analysis – for a specific trial failure surface

 Factor of safety with φu = 0 and τf = cu: Craig (1997)

τ f cu
FOS = =
τ τ
 Moment equilibrium about point O:

Wd
Wd = τLa r τ= τ
La r
 Then,
W is the weight of soil mass above the failure surface
d is the moment arm of W about O
cu La r resisting moment τ is mobilized shear stress along failure surface
FOS = = La is the total length of failure surface
Wd driving moment r is the radius of failure surface
 φ = 0 analysis – for the most critical failure surface
u

• Based on φu = 0 analysis, Taylor

(1973) proposed the stability
coefficient (Ns) of a slope with
height H, for the failure surface
along which the factor of safety is
a minimum:

1 cu
Ns =
FOS γ H

• On the other hand, the coefficient

Ns depends on the slope angle β
and the depth factor D, where DH
is the depth to a firm stratum.

What is the physical meaning of Ns?

A larger Ns means less stable.
Craig (1997)
 φ = 0 analysis – for the most critical failure surface
u

How to use Taylor’s design chart - some examples

Steps to check the FOS of an existing slopes:
cu
• Read the value of Ns from design chart using D and β FOS =
γ HN s
• Calculate FOS using the following equation

Steps to determine the safe slope angle in a homogeneous soil slope (if you know H):
• Calculate the value of Ns and D
1 cu
Ns =
• Read the value of β from design chart using Ns and D FOS γ H

Steps to determine the safe slope height in a homogeneous soil slope (if you know β and D):
• Read the value of Ns from design chart using β and D
1 cu
• Calculate the value of H H=
FOS γ N s
 Example 3
The following figure shows a slope and a slip circle divided into slices. The information of
each slice is presented in the table. For the case where the soil is undrained, determine (a)
the slope factor of safety for the trial failure surface shown in the figure; (b) the factor of
safety of the slope corresponding to the most critical failure surface.

Rock layer is very deep

Comments: the self-weight of slices 1-4 increases the driving moment, while the self-weight of
slices 5-6 decreases the driving moment from soil mass.
 Example 3
cu La r
FOS =
Part (a): factor of safety with the specific failure surface Wd

• Since pore water pressure of soil is unknown, total stress approach is used here

FOS =
resisting moment
=
∑ c lr
u

driving moment ∑W x
• From the information of the SIX SLICES shown in the table

∑ c l r = c r ∑ l = 40 ×12 × 20.1 = 9648 kN ⋅ m

u u

∑Wx = 3239 kN ⋅ m
• Then,

9648
FOS = = 2.98
3238
 Example 3
Part (b): factor of safety corresponding to the most critical failure surface

• Similarly, total stress approach is used here. For the slope shown in the figure, H=5m
and β = 20°. Considering there is no firm stratum immediately below the clay layer, D is
very large. With β = 20° and D = ∞, based on the design chart of Taylor, it is found that
stability coefficient Ns = 0.18. On the other hand,

1 cu
Ns =
FOS γ H

• Then,

1 cu 1 40
FOS = = × = 2.22
N s γ H 0.18 20 × 5

This is the factor of safety of the slope, corresponding to the most critical failure surface.
 φu = 0 analysis (effects of tension crack)
In the event of a tension crack developing, the following effects should be considered:
• Arc length La is shortened (not considering the part within cracking zone 2cu/γ)
• Hydrostatic force Pw is assumed to be an external action on the trial failure surface
(assuming that tension crack is filled with water) in order that the minimum factor of
safety can be determined.

τ
 Example 4
For the given failure surface with dimensions shown in the figure, determine the factor of
safety in terms of total stress for the slope detailed in the figure. The unit weight for both
soils is 19kN/m3. The undrained strength cu is 20 kPa for soil 1 and 45 kPa for soil 2. The
surcharge at the ground surface is 20 kN/m2. What is the factor of safety for the trial failure
surface if (a) allowance is NOT made for the development of tension crack? (b) allowance
is made for the development of tension crack?
Use radius and height of triangle to find
angles of sectors and their arc length
 Example 4
Part (a)
• Driving moments results from two forces:
1) Self-weight of soil body above the failure surface
2) Surcharge

• For the gravitation force, the moment arm

about point O is 3.9m, and the weight of
soil mass above slip surface is • Arc length (the angles of AOB and BOC
are equal to 72° and 28°, respectively)
W = Aγ = 41.7 ×19 = 792kN / m
π
AB = × 72 × 9 = 11.3m
• For the surface, the width of surcharge 180
action is π
BC = × 28 × 9 = 4.4m
180

9 2 − 1.52 − 2 − 4 = 2.8m • The factor of safety

• The moment arm of surcharge is 6+ r ∑ cu La

FOS =
2.8/2=7.4m. The value of surcharge Wd1 + Qd 2

Q = 20 × 2.8 = 56kN / m 9 × (20 × 4.4 + 45 ×11.3)

FOS = = 1.53
792 × 3.9 + 56 × 7.4
 Example 4
Part (b)
 When tension crack is considered, then the depth of tension crack is

2cu 2 × 20
z0 = = = 2.1m
γ 19

 Arc length BD (the corresponding angle

13.5° can be determined through geometric
relationship)

π
BD = ×13.5 × 9 = 2.1m
180

 For hydrostatic pressure resulting  Then,

from water in the tension crack,
moment arm is dw = 1.5 + 2.1 × r ∑ cu La
2/3 = 2.9 m, Its value is FOS =
Wd1 + Qd 2 + Pw d w
1
Pw = γ w × 2.12 = 21.6kN 9 × (20 × 2.1 + 45 ×11.3)
2 FOS = = 1.39
792 × 3.9 + 56 × 7.4 + 21.6 × 2.9
The Method of Slices
(Part 1: General principle)
 The Method of Slices (General principle)
 The potential failure surface, which may or may not be circular, is required to be assumed
(different researchers proposed different shapes). However, for simplicity and the ease of
explanations of method of slices, potential failure surface is initially assumed to be a
circular arc with center O and radius r.
 The soil mass (ABCD) above a trial failure surface (AC) is divided by vertical planes into a
series of slices of width b. The height, measured on the center-line, is hi. The width of slice
is b and the length of base is li. The base of each slice is assumed to be a straight line. For
any slice the inclination of the base to the horizontal is αi.
 The Method of Slices (General principle)

 Forces (per unit dimension normal to the section) acting on a

slice are
• Total weight of the slice, Wi=γbhi (use γsat where
appropriate).
• Normal force on the base, Ni = σili. In generally, this force
has two components: effective normal stress and pore water
pressure
• Shear force on the base, Ti = τili.
• Total normal forces on the sides, E1 and E2.
• Shear forces on the sides, X1 and X2.
 Any external forces must also be included in the analysis.

statistically indeterminate problem

 The Method of Slices (General principle)
The factor of safety (denoted as FOS) is defined as the ratio of the available shear strength
(τf ) to the mobilized shear strength (τ) which is required to maintain equilibrium. i.e.

τf
FOS =
τ

 The factor of safety is taken to be the same for each

slice (there must be mutual support between slices, i.e.,
forces between the slices are not zero).

 The problem is statistically indeterminate. To obtain a

solution. Assumptions must be made regarding the
inter-slice forces E and X: in general the resulting
solution is not exact.
 The Method of Slices
(Part 2: circular failure surface)
 The Method of Slices (circular failure surface)
Considering moments about O, the sum of the moments of the shear forces T on the failure
arc AC must equal the moment of the weight of the soil mass ABCD. For circular failure
surface, the moment about O from normal force along AC is zero. For any slice the lever arm
of W is r sinα , and therefore

∑ T r = ∑W r sin α

τf
Since, T =τ l = l
FOS

FOS =
∑ τ l f

∑W sin α

Why not consider inter-slice forces in moment equilibrium equation?

When we write this moment equilibrium equation, we are analysing soil mass ABCD, rather than a
single slice. Any inter-slice force is an internal force within soil mass ABCD.
 The Method of Slices (circular failure surface)
•For an analysis in terms of effective stress,

FOS =
∑ τ l f
where τ f = c'+σ ' tan φ '
∑W sin α

∑ (c'+σ ' tan φ ')l

FOS =
∑W sin α
(*1)
c' La + tan φ ' ∑ N '
or FOS = How to determine N’?
∑W sin α
where La is the arc length AC. The above equation is exact but approximations are introduced
in determining the forces N’. For a given failure arc the value of FOS will depend on the way
in which the forces N’ are estimated.
 The Swedish (or Fellenius, ordinary) solution
Assumption: for each slice, the resultant of interslice forces (i.e., E1, E2, X1 and X2) is zero.

• Effective normal force at the slice base:

N ' = W cos α − ul

• The factor of safety based on Eqn (*1):

c' La + tan φ ' ∑ (W cos α − ul )

FOS =
∑W sin α
Note:
o The components W and α can be determined graphically for each slice. Again, a series of
trial failure surfaces must be chosen in order to obtain the minimum factor of safety.
o This solution underestimate the factor of safety: the error, compared with more accurate
methods of analysis, is usually within the range of 5-20%.
 The Bishop routine solution
Assumption: resultant force on the sides of each slice is horizontal (i.e., X1 - X2 = 0).

• Resolving forces in the vertical direction:

W = (N '+ul ) cos α + T sin α

Find unknown T and l

• Shear force (T) on the base of any slice:

τf
T =τ l = l
FOS

c' l
W− sin α − ul cos α
N'= FOS
tan φ ' sin α
cos α +
FOS
 The Bishop routine solution
• It is convenient to substitute the following geometric relation into the above equation:
l = b sec α

• From equation (1*), after some rearrangement,

 
1  sec α 
FOS = ∑ {c' b + (W − ub ) tan φ '} tan α tan φ ' 
∑W sin α  1+ 
 FOS 

• Bishop (1955) also showed how non-zero values of the resultant forces (X1-X2) could be
introduced into the analysis but this refinement has only a marginal effect on the factor of
safety. The routine solution is widely used.
 The Bishop routine solution

• As the factor of safety occurs on both sides of the previous equation, a process of
successive approximation must be used to obtain a solution but convergence is
rapid.

• Due to the repetitive nature of the calculations and the need to select an adequate
number of trial failures surfaces, the method of slices is particularly suitable for
solution by computer. More complex slope geometry and different soil strata can be
introduced.

•Moment equilibrium is satisfied (same as Swedish method).

•Again the factor of safety determined by this method is an underestimate but the
error is unlikely to exceed 7% and in most cases is less than 2%.
 Example 5
Using the Fellenius method of slices, determine the factor of safety in terms of effective
stress, of the slope shown in the figure for the given failure surface. The relevant shear
strength parameter is c’ = 10 kPa and φ’ = 29°. The unit weights of the soil both above and
below the water table are all 20 kN/m3.
 Example 5
Solution:

 The soil mass is divided into

slices of 1.5m wide.
 The information of each slice is
shown in the table (the scale and
triangles in the figure can be used
to determine dimension of each
slice). The pore water pressure u
at the center of the base of each
slice is taken to be γwzw, where zw
is the vertical distance of the
center point below the water
table.
 The angle of AOB is 86° =
asin(2.5/9.5) + acos(3.15/9.5).
The arc length (La) is calculated
as 14.25m.
 Example 5
 The weight of each slice is given by
c' La + tan φ ' ∑ (W cos α − ul )
FOS =
W = γ hb = 20 ×1.5 × h = 30h (kN / m ) ∑W sin α
 Where h is the height of each slice at the center. Then, the normal and tangential
components of W are calculated and shown in the Table

∑W cos α = 30 ×17.5 = 525kN / m

∑W sin α = 30 × 8.45 = 254kN / m

∑ (W cos α − ul ) = 525 − 132 = 393kN / m
 Then, the factor of safety is

c' La + tan φ ' ∑ (W cos α − ul ) 10 × 14.25 + 393 × tan 29°

FOS = = = 1.4
∑W sin α 254
 The Method of Slices
(Part 3: non-circular failure surface)
 Janbu’s simplified method
• Janbu et al. (1956) published one of the first routine methods for the analysis of NON-
CIRCULAR slip surface.
• In this method, the assumption is made that the inter-slice shear forces are zero (the
expression obtained for the normal force on the base of each slice is the same as that
obtained by Bishop’s method).

Only use force equilibriums to establish FOS

c' l
W− sin α − ul cos α
N'= FOS
tan φ ' sin α
cos α +
FOS
 Janbu’s simplified method
• Resolve parallel to the base of each slice

T + (E1 − E2 ) cos α = [W − ( X 1 − X 2 )]sin α where X1 − X 2 = 0

T 1
E1 − E2 = W tan α − or E1 − E2 = W tan α − (c' l + N ' tan φ ')sec α
cos α FOS
τf
• Overall horizontal FORCE equilibrium T =τ l = l
FOS
1
∑ (E1 − E2 ) = ∑W tan α − FOS ∑ (c' l + N ' tan φ ')sec α
• In the absence of surface loading (∑(E1-E2)=0 for soil mass above the failure surface)

∑ (c' l + N ' tan φ ')sec α N'=

W − c' l sin α / FOS − ul cos α
FOS = where
∑W tan α cos α + tan φ ' sin α FOS

(FOS occurs on both sides of the equation. A process of successive approximation must be
used to obtain a solution, similar to Bishop’s method)
 Morgenstern-Price method (general method)
Assumption: use an arbitrary mathematical function (empirical) to describe the direction of the
inter-slice forces, i.e.,
λ f (x ) = X E
where λ is a constant to be evaluated in solving for the factor of safety, and f(x) is a function
varying with respect to x. X and E are inter-slice shear and normal forces.

• In this method, the slip surface can be

Some typical f(x) any shape;
functions (empirical) • Computer software for the Morgenstern–
Price analysis is readily available
 Comments on different methods (Geoguide, Hong Kong)
Method Bishop’ simplified Janbu’s simplified Morgenstern and Price
Failure surface Circular Non-circular Non-circular

Assumptions Assume the resultant of the Vertical inter-sliced forces not Consider force and moment
vertical forces is zero included in routine procedures equilibrium.

Advantages Compares well with finite Realistic shear surface can be Considered more accurate than
element deformation used. Routine analysis can be Janbu. Computer programs
method (average F within easily handled by a readily available
7%). programmable calculator or by
hand
Limitations Circular failure surface not Routine procedure can give No simplified method.
always suitable for Hong large errors in slopes composed Computer solution necessary,
Kong slopes but large of more than one material. FOS often very time-consuming
radius circles can is usually underestimated in
sometimes be used. these cased.
Recommendation Useful where circular Very useful for the majority of Usually unnecessarily detailed
failure surface can be soil slopes in Hong Kong. for Hong Kong soils where
assumed (Swedish methods Limitations of routine method strength and pore pressure are
has similar features) must be considered not known with accuracy. Most
useful for back analyse of
landslide
 Summary
Limiting equilibrium method
 Infinite slope (can be total stress analysis and effective stress analysis):
assume slip surface parallel to ground surface
 φu=0 method (total stress analysis): circular failure surface
 Method of slices (can be total stress analysis and effective stress analysis):
different theories have different assumptions for the shape of slip surface,
inter-slice force
• Swedish method: circular failure surface (moment equilibrium)

• Bishop’s method: circular failure surface (moment equilibrium & vertical force equilibrium)
• Janbu's method: circular and non-circular failure surfaces (vertical and horizontal force equilibriums)
• Morgenstern and Price’s method: circular and non-circular failure surfaces (moment and force
equilibriums)