Slope Stability Analysis

Presented by: Engr. Kyle Emmanuel R. Murillo, CE, RMP

 Landslides
• The term “landslide” describes a wide variety of processes that result in the
downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials including rock, soil,
artificial fill, or a combination of these.
• The materials may move by falling, toppling, sliding, or flowing.
• Occurs naturally and occurs when the shear stress exceeds the shear strength of the
material.
• This ranges from very slow creep (mm/yr) to extremely rapid (m/s)
 Landslides

An idealized slump-earth flow showing commonly used nomenclature

for labeling the parts of a landslide (Source: USGS)
Recent Landslides in the Philippines

Landslide at Benguet due to Tyhoon Ompong Landslide at Naga City, Cebu

Most Common Types of Landslides
 Static Slope Stability Analysis
• Performed to assess the safe design of a human-made or natural slopes (e.g.
embankments, road cuts, open-pit mining, excavations, landfills etc.) and the
equilibrium conditions.
• Slope stability is the resistance of inclined surface to failure by sliding or collapsing.
• The main objectives of slope stability analysis are finding endangered areas,
investigation of potential failure mechanisms, determination of the slope sensitivity
to different triggering mechanisms, designing of optimal slopes with regard to
safety, reliability and economics, designing possible remedial measures, e.g. barriers
and stabilizations.
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
• Consider force and/or moment equilibrium of a
mass of soil above a potential failure surface.
• The soil above the potential failure surface is
assumed to be rigid (i.e., shearing can occur only
on the potential failure surface).
• The available shear strength is assumed to be
mobilized at the same rate at all points on the
potential failure surface. As a result, the factor of
safety is constant over the entire failure surface.
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis (cont’d)
• Slope stability is usually expressed in terms of an index, most commonly the
factor of safety, which is usually defined as

𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

𝐹𝑆 =
𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑢𝑚
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis (cont’d)
• Because the soil on the potential failure surface is assumed to be rigid-
perfectly plastic, limit equilibrium analyses provide no information on slope
deformations.
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis (cont’d)
• Common failure surface geometries are: planar, multiplanar, circular, and
noncircular.
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis (cont’d)
• Slopes that fail by translation on a planar failure surface such as a bedding plate,
rock joint , or seam of weak material can be analysed quite easily by the Culmann
method (Taylor, 1948).
• Slopes in which failure is likely to occur on two or three planes can be analysed by
wedge methods (e.g., Perloff and Baron, 1976; Lambe and Whitman , 1969)
• In homogenous slopes, the critical failure surface usually has a circular or log-spiral
shape and can be analyzed by methods such as the ordinary method of slices
(Fellenius, 1927) or Bishop’s modified method (Bishop, 1955).
• For non-homogenous slopes, the critical failure surface are likely to be non-circular
and can be analyzed by Morgenstern and Price (1965), Spencer (1967), and Janbu
(1968).
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis (cont’d)
• In concept, any slope with a factor of safety above 1.0 should be stable.
• Criteria for acceptable factors of safety recognize (1) uncertainty in the accuracy
with which the slope stability analysis represents the actual mechanism of failure,
(2) uncertainty in the accuracy with which the input parameters (shear strength,
groundwater conditions, slope geometry, etc.) are known (3) the likelihood and
duration of exposure to various types of external loading, and (4) the potential
consequences of slope failure.
• Typical minimum factors of safety used in slope design are about 1.5 for normal
long-term loading conditions and about 1.3 for temporary slopes or end-of
construction conditions in permanent slopes.
 Limit Equilibrium Analysis (cont’d)
• Many soils, however, exhibit brittle, strain-softening stress-strain behaviour.
• Peak shear strength may not be mobilized simultaneously at all points on the failure surface.
 Stress-Deformation Analysis
• Allow consideration of the stress-strain behavior of soil and rock
• Most commonly performed using the finite element method
• Can predict the magnitudes and patterns of stresses, movements, and pore
pressures in slopes during and after construction/deposition
• Offers the advantage of being able to identify the most likely mode of failure
• The accuracy of stress-deformations analysis is strongly influenced by the
accuracy with which the stress-strain model represents actual material
behavior.
 Seismic Slope Stability Analysis
• Analysis of seismic stability of slopes is further complicated by the need to
consider the effects of (1) dynamic stresses induced by earthquake shaking,
and (2) the effects of those stresses on the strength and stress-strain
behaviour of the slope materials.
• Seismic slope instabilities may be grouped into two categories: (1) Inertial
Instabilities, (2) Weakening instabilities
Landslide Caused by Earthquake in Nepal
 Inertial Instabilities
• The shear strength of the soil remains relatively constant, but slope
deformations are produced by temporary exceedances of the strength by
dynamic earthquake stresses.
• Several common approaches to the analysis of inertial instabilities are (1)
pseudostatic analysis, (2) Newmark Sliding Block Analysis, (3) Makdisi-Seed
Analysis, and (4) Stress-Deformation Analysis
 Weakening Instabilities
• Are those in which the earthquake serves to weaken the soil sufficiently that
it cannot remain stable under earthquake-induced stresses.
• Flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility are the most common causes of
weakening instability.
 Pseudostatic Analysis
• Beginning in the 1920s, the seismic stability of earth structures has been
analyzed by a pseudostatic approach in which the effects of an earthquake
are represented by constant horizontal and vertical accelerations.
• In their most common form, pseudostatic analyses represent the effects of
earthquake shaking by pseudostatic accelerations that produce inertial
forces, Fh and Fv which act through the centroid of the failure mass.
 Pseudostatic Analysis
• The magnitude of the pseudostatic forces are:

𝑎ℎ 𝑊
𝐹ℎ = = 𝑘ℎ 𝑊
𝑔
𝑎ℎ 𝑊
𝐹ℎ = = 𝑘ℎ 𝑊
𝑔
where 𝑎ℎ and 𝑎𝑣 are horizontal and vertical pseudostatic accelerations,
𝑘ℎ and 𝑘𝑣 are dimensionless horizontal and vertical pseudostatic coefficients, and
𝑊 is the weight of the failure mass
 Pseudostatic Analysis
• Resolving the forces on the potential failure mass in a direction parallel to the
failure surface,

𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑏 + [ 𝑊 − 𝐹𝑣 cos 𝛽 − 𝐹ℎ sin 𝛽] tan ∅

𝐹𝑆 = =
𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑊 − 𝐹𝑣 sin 𝛽 + 𝐹ℎ cos 𝛽

Where 𝑐 and ∅ are the Mohr- Coulomb strength parameters that describe the
shear strength on the failure plane and 𝑙𝑎𝑏 is the length of the failure plane
 Pseudostatic Analysis
• Example:
Assuming 𝑘ℎ = 0.1 and 𝑘𝑣 = 0.0, compute the static and Pseudostatic
factors of safety for the 30 ft high 2:1 (H:V) slope down shown in figure below.
 Pseudostatic Analysis

Overturning Moments:
 Pseudostatic Analysis

Resisting Moments:
 Pseudostatic Analysis
Factor of Safety:

𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 10,623.6

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐹𝑆 = = = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟗
𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 5925.5

𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 10,623.6

𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐹𝑆 = = = 𝟏. 𝟐𝟖
𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 8281.1
 Pseudostatic Analysis
• Terzaghi (1950) stated that “the concept it conveys of earthquake effects on
slopes is very inaccurate, to say the least,” and that a slope could be unstable
even if the computed pseudostatic factor of safety was greater than 1
• Value of 𝑘ℎ : 0.1 for “severe” earthquake, 0.25 for “violent” earthquake and
0.5 for “catastrophic” earthquake.
 Limitations of Pseudostatic Analysis
• Representation of complex, transient, dynamics of earthquake shaking by a
single, constant, unidirectional pseudostatic acceleration is quite crude.
• Method has been shown to be unreliable for soils with significant pore
pressure build-up during cycling (i.e. not valid for liquefaction)
• Some dams have failed with F.S. > 1 from the pseudostatic technique
• Cannot predict deformations
• Is only a relative index of slope stability
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
• The method seeks to find the moments of time during the shaking when
there is a loss of stability
o That is, the moments of time when the factor of safety is less than 1.0

• The idea is that when the FS is less than 1.0, the slope will undergo some
movement
• The ultimate objective is to accumulate all the spurts of movement
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
• Suitable for cases where the main issue is the inertial force
• Where there is no significant loss of shear strength due to the generation of
excess pore pressures; for example
o Clay soils that behave in an undrained manner
o Coarse granular soils or rock fill
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑅𝑠
𝐹𝑆 = =
𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐷𝑠
𝑊 cos 𝛽 tan ∅ tan ∅
𝐹𝑆 = =
𝑊 sin 𝛽 tan 𝛽

Where:
𝑅𝑠 → 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
𝐷𝑠 → 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
∅ → 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘
𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑅𝑑 (𝑡)
𝐹𝑆 = =
𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑢𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝐷𝑑 (𝑡)
cos 𝛽 − 𝑘ℎ 𝑡 sin 𝛽 tan ∅
𝐹𝑆 =
sin 𝛽 + 𝑘ℎ (𝑡) cos 𝛽

Obviously, the dynamic FS decreases as 𝑘ℎ

increases and there will be some positive value of
𝑘ℎ that will produce a FS of 1.0.
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis

The yield acceleration is the minimum pseudostatic acceleration required to

produce instability of the block.
𝑘𝑦 = tan(∅ − 𝛽)  for sliding in the downslope direction
tan ∅+tan 𝛽
𝑘𝑦 =  for sliding in the uphill direction
1+tan ∅ tan 𝛽
Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
Example:
Compute the yield acceleration for the slope below:
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
Solution:
The total moment is equal to:

𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡

𝑀𝑡 = 4488.1 + 𝑘ℎ 5684.8 + 1438 + 𝑘ℎ 17825
𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡
𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡 𝑘𝑖𝑝 − 𝑓𝑡
𝑀𝑡 = 5926.1 + 𝑘ℎ 23509.8
𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡
The yield coeff. 𝑘𝑦 is the value of 𝑘ℎ that produces a
pseudostatic FS of 1.
Also,
𝑀𝑟 = 𝑀𝑜 ; when FS=1

Thus,
𝑘𝑖𝑝−𝑓𝑡 𝑘𝑖𝑝−𝑓𝑡 𝑘𝑖𝑝−𝑓𝑡
5926.1 + 𝑘ℎ 23509.8 = 10623.6
𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡 𝑓𝑡
𝑘ℎ = 0.20 ; Therefore, 𝑎𝑦 = 0.20𝑔
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
• When a block on an inclined plan is subjected to a pulse of
acceleration that exceeds the yield acceleration, the block will move
relative to the plane. Consider the case in which an inclined plane is
subjected to a single rectangular acceleration pulse of amplitude 𝐴 and
duration ∆𝑡. The acceleration of the block relative to the plane during
the period from 𝑡𝑜 to 𝑡𝑜 + ∆𝑡 is

where 𝑎𝑏 (𝑡) is the acceleration of the inclined plane.

 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
• Obviously, the sliding block model will predict zero permanent slope displacement if earthquake-induced
accelerations never exceed the yield acceleration. Since the permanent displacement is obtained by double integration
of the excess acceleration, the computed displacements for a slope with a relatively low yield acceleration will be
greater than that of a slope with a higher yield acceleration.
 Makdisi-Seed Analysis
• Used average accelerations computed by the procedure of Chopra (1966) and sliding block
analyses to compute earthquake-induced permanent deformations of earth dams and
embankments.
• In simplified procedure, the yield acceleration for a particular potential failure surface is
computed using the dynamic yield strength [80% of the undrained strength] of the soil.
• The dynamic response of the dam/embankment is accounted for by an acceleration ratio that
varies with the depth of the potential failure surface relative to the height of the
dam/embankment.
 Makdisi-Seed Analysis
• The Makdisi-Seed simplified procedure is widely used for estimation of
permanent displacements in dams and embankments.