John Curran, Ph.D, P.

Eng
CEO and Founder, Rocscience Inc.
R.M. Smith Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
February 28-29, 2012, Perth, Australia

About Us
Established in 1996, based on 15+

years research and development

work

20 full-time staff in Toronto, most

with advanced engineering

degrees

Over 6000 customers, in 110+

countries; user base includes

consulting firms of every size, and
about 200 universities

Our Unique Offering

Competitively priced software
return on investment is rapid

Free technical support

provided by engineers who developed programs

We have software from a few different companies and I just wanted to let you
know that your customer support blows all theirs out of the water.
Thank you very much!

Free evaluation copy and 30-day money back

guarantee

Our Unique Approach

Highly user-friendly programs
CAD tools

Similar interface between our 13 programs

Rapid learning

Our Software

Our Software - Excavation Design

Examine3D

analysis of underground
excavations

Phase2

finite element analysis

of excavations & slopes

Unwedge

wedge analysis for

underground excavations

RocSupport

support estimation using

ground reaction curves

Our Software - Geotechnical Tools

Dips

graphical and statistical

analysis of orientation data

RocFall

statistical analysis of rockfalls

RocData

rock mass, soil & discontinuity

strength analysis

Settle3D
Settle3D

3D analysis of settlements and

consolidation

Our Software Philosophy

Modeling goals:
Gain insight
Explore potential trade-offs and alternatives
To achieve goals:
Allow designers to focus on engineering
Leave tedious/mundane tasks to program
Facilitate speedy modelling
Compute as fast as possible
Make it easy and fast to create models

Course Agenda
Part I:

Introduction to slope stability

Part II: Slide features
Part III: Advanced features in slope analysis
Part IV: Probabilistic and sensitivity analysis
Part V: Steady-state & transient groundwater analysis
Part VI: Continuum Modeling of Slopes

Part I
Introduction to slope stability

Objectives
Goals of slope stability analysis
Basic slope stability analysis
Identifying different slope failure mechanisms
Identifying conditions under which particular

mechanisms occur
Overview of slope stabilization methods

Aims of Slope Stability Analysis

Assess equilibrium

conditions (natural slopes)

Evaluate methods for
stabilizing slope
Evaluate impact/role of
geometric and physical
parameters on stability
Discontinuity strength
Height
Slope angle, etc.

Aims of Slope Stability Analysis

Determine impact of

seismic shock on
stability
Back analyze for
prevailing conditions
at failure
Shear strength
Groundwater conditions

Aims of Slope Stability Analysis

Determine optimal staged

excavation or construction
sequence
Design slopes that reliably
maintain stability at
reasonable economic
costs

Parametric Analysis
Uncertainties regarding material

properties and physical

conditions

Variability of properties from

location to location
Difficulties in measurement

Required to evaluate physical

and geometrical factors

affecting stability

Slope Stability Analysis

Components of analysis
Slope under consideration (geometry, geology, soil
properties, groundwater, etc.)

Slope Stability Analysis

Components of analysis
Slope geometry
Geologic model
Groundwater
Loadings on slope
Failure criterion
Failure analysis

Failure Modes
Slope failure modes/mechanisms
Ways in which slide masses move
Identifies critical failures that should be eliminated or
minimized
Used proactively to permit early design improvements and
at less cost than is possible by reactive correction of
problems

Failure Modes
Three major classes
Slides: Mass in contact
with parent/underlying
material moving along
discrete boundary (shear
surface)

Failure Modes
Three major classes
Falls: Steep faces,
immediate separation of
moving mass from parent
material, intermittent
contact thereafter

Failure Modes
Three major classes
Flows: Moving mass
disaggregates,
displacement not
concentrated on
boundary

Failure Modes
Slides (dictated by unbalanced shear

stress along one or more surfaces)

Rotational
Translational
Compound/

Combination
Planar
Wedge
Toppling

Failure Modes
Rotational (rock and soil)
Sliding along curved surface
Common cause: erosion at base of slope

Failure Modes
Rotational (rock and soil)

Circular

Shallow

Noncircular

Original Surface
Failure Surface

Failure Modes
Rotational (rock and soil)

Failure Modes
Translational
Slides move in contact with underlying surface
Sliding surface commonly a bedding plane,
can also be fault/fracture surface

Failure Modes
Translational

Block slide

Slab slide

Failure Surface

Failure Modes
Translational

Block Slide

Slab Slide

Failure Modes
Aspect ratio of sliding mass

Rotational: 0.15 < D/L < 0.33

Translational: D/L << 0.10

L
H

Failure Modes
Compound

Competent stratum

Failure Modes
Planar (rock and soil)
Side Relief Planes

Upper Slope Surface

Slope Face
Failure Plane

Failure Modes
Planar
Movement controlled by geologic structure

Surfaces of weakness (discontinuities joints, faults, bedding

planes, etc.)
Contact between overlying weathered material and firm bedrock

Failure Modes
Geometric conditions

necessary for planar

failure

Failure plane strikes parallel

or approximately parallel
(within 20o) to slope face
Failure plane daylights into
slope face
Dip of the failure plane >
friction angle of failure
plane

Upper Slope Surface

Slope Face
Tension
Crack
Slope Height

Sliding Block or
Mass (Wedge)

Failure or Sliding
Surface

Failure Modes
Upper Slope Surface

> >
Dip of the
slope face

Dip of the
discontinuity

Slope Face
Angle of
friction for the
rock surface

Tension
Crack
Slope Height

Sliding Block or
Mass (Wedge)

Presence of release surfaces at

lateral boundaries of sliding

block

Failure or Sliding Surface

Failure or
Sliding Surface
Release Surfaces

Failure Modes
Forces acting on failure

block:

Weight of block, W
Normal water pressure, U

Tension crack water pressure, V

Surcharge, F

Seismic forces, S
Forces from artificial support, B

Failure Modes
Wedge (rock)

Failure Modes
Wedge (rock)

Failure Modes
Wedge Geometry

1 , 2 = Failure planes (2

intersecting joint sets)

3 = Upper ground surface
4 = Slope face
5 = Tension crack
H1 = Slope height referred
to plane 1
L = Distance of tension crack
from crest, measured along
the trace of plane 1.

5
3

H1

Failure Modes
Wedge (rock)
2 discontinuities striking obliquely across slope face
Line of intersection daylights in slope face
Dip of line of intersection > friction angle of discontinuities

Failure Modes
General conditions for wedge failure
Plunge of line of intersection > angle of friction for rock
surface
Plunge of line of intersection < dip of slope face
Trend of line of intersection approximately parallel to dip
direction of slope face and daylights in slope face

Failure Modes
Wedges fail if strength is exceeded

> >

Failure Modes
Wedges cannot fail

Failure Modes
Active Wedge

Wedge (rock)

Failure Modes
Toppling
Undercutting Discontinuities

Low-Dip Base
Plane Daylighting
in Slope Face

Failure Modes
Toppling (blocky rock masses)
Weight vector of block resting on incline falls outside base
of block
Often occurs in undercutting beds
Goals of toppling analysis
Determine mechanism (path) and factor of safety against
toppling

Geologic factors controlling failure modes

Geologic Conditions

Potential Failure Surface

Cohesionless soils
Residual or colluvial soils over shallow rock
Stiff fissured clays and marine shales within
upper, highly weathered zone

Translational with small

depth/length ratio

Sliding block
Interbedded dipping rock or soil
Faulted or slickensided material
Intact stiff to hard cohesive soil
Sliding blocks in rocky masses
Weathered interbedded sedimentary rocks
Clay shales and stiff fissured clays
Stratified soils

Single planar surface

Thick residual and colluvial soil layers

Soft marine clays and shales
Soil to firm cohesive
Highly altered and weathered rocks

Rotational (circular slopes with

homogeneous material, noncircular slopes of heterogeneous
material)

Multiple planar surfaces

Objectives
Overview of principles of
Limit equilibrium analysis
Method of slices
Review of assumptions of different methods

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

General approaches for analysis of slopes
Limit equilibrium
Finite element, finite difference
Back analysis
Keyblock concept (rock)
Probabilistic methods

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Attraction of limit equilibrium
Most common slope analysis method
Relatively simple formulation
Useful for evaluating sensitivity of possible failure
conditions to input parameters

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Fundamental concepts
All points along slip surface are on verge of failure
At this point in time

Driving forces (D) = Resisting forces (R)

Factor of safety (FS) = 1

D > R FS < 1
D < R FS > 1
Limiting equilibrium perfect equilibrium between forces

driving failure and those resisting failure

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Fundamental concepts
Factor of safety (factor of ignorance)

Quantitative measure of degree of stability

Accounts for uncertainty
Guards against ignorance about reliability of input parameters
Lower quality site investigation higher desired factor of safety
Higher quality site investigation lower desired factor of safety
Empirical tool to establish suitable economic bounds on design

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Uncertainties accounted for by factor of safety
Uncertainty in shear strength due to soil variability, relationship

between lab strength and field strength

Uncertainty in loadings (surface loading, unit weight, pore
pressures, etc.)
Modelling uncertainties: including possibility critical failure
mechanism SLIGHTLY different from that identified, model is not
conservative

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Factor of safety DOES NOT account for possibility of gross

errors such as bad choice of failure mechanism

e.g. ignoring presence of existing shear surfaces in slope

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Fundamental concepts
Two steps for calculating factor of safety

Compute shear strength required along potential failure surface

to maintain stability
Compare required shear strength
to available shear strength
=
(which is assumed constant along failure surface)
For Mohr-Coulomb

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Planar failure

W sin

W cos

W N

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Planar failure
cA
tan
=
FS
+
W sin tan

W sin

W cos

W N

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure

method of slices

Used by most computer

programs
Readily accommodates
complex slope
geometries, variable soil
and groundwater
conditions & variable
external loads

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
n Number of Slices

N slices

n
n
n

Zh

n-1
n-1
n-1

Normal forces on base

Shear forces on base
Lines of action (Zi)
Interslice normal forces
Interslice shear forces
Lines of action (Zh)

1 Factor of Safety

FS?
Zi

Number of unknowns (6n 2)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices

M = 0
Fx = 0
Fy = 0

n Number of Slices

N slices

Zh
FS?
Zi

Moment equilibrium of slice

Force equilibrium in X

Force equilibrium in Y

n Mohr-Coulomb
relationship between shear
strength and normal
effective stress
Total number of equations (4n)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
N slices
Common assumption
Zi = base length of slice

i.e. normal force on slice base acts at

midpoint of base

Zh
Zi = d/2
Zi

n 2 unknowns remain to make

problem determinate
These assumptions characterize
different slope stability methods

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Slope stability analysis

methods

Ordinary (Fellenius)

Spencer

Bishop simplified

Morgenstern-Price

Janbu simplified

General Limit Equilibrium

Janbu corrected
Lowe-Karafiath
Corps of Engineers (I, II)

(GLE)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
Thrust line: connects points of application of interslice
forces

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Rotational failure method of slices
Location of thrust line

May be assumed
May be calculated from rigorous analysis that satisfies complete
equilibrium (Spencer, Morgenstern-Price, GLE)
Simplified methods (Bishop, Janbu, Lowe-Karafiath, Army Core)
neglect location of interslice force because complete equilibrium
is not satisfied

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Slope stability analysis methods
Many methods available
Methods are similar
Difference only in:

Which static equations satisfied

Which interslice forces included
Relationship between interslice
and shear normal forces

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Ordinary (Fellenius)
Assumes circular slip
surface
Neglects all interslice forces
(shear and normal)
Only satisfies moment
equilibrium
One of the simplest
procedures

FS =

(c + tan )l
W sin

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

EXAMPLE:
Determine the factor
of safety for the slip
circle shown

c = 20k Pa
= 20
6.1 m

35

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Solution for slip circle
Subdivide sliding sector (4)
Find area of each slice
(mid-height x breadth)
Determine weight (unit
weight x area)
Find tangential and normal
force components on
sliding surface
1
Repeat for each slice &
sum up

4
3
2

N = ?
T = ?

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Solution for slip circle - Ordinary
Slice
no.

Area
[m2]

Weight
W [kN]

Normal
N [kN]

Tangential
T [kN]

3.7

72

71

-7

8.7

168

163

42

11.6

224

191

116

7.7

148

104

106

N = 529

T = 257

N tan=
529 * 0.364
= 192kN
cr
FS

20
*10.7 * (76
) 284kN
=
180
cr + N tan 284 + 192
= = 1.85
257
T

2
1

c = 20k Pa
= 20

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Bishop (1955) simplified

Assumes interslice shear
forces = 0 (reduces # of
unknowns by (n-1))
Moment eq. about centre
and vertical force eq. for
each slice are satisfied
Overdetermined soln
(horizontal force eq. not
satisfied for one slice)

FS =

(c + tan )l
W sin

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Janbu simplified
Assumes interslice shear
forces = 0 (reduces # of
unknowns by (n-1))
Overall horizontal force eq.
and vertical force eq. for
each slice
Overdetermined solution
(moment equilibrium not
completely satisfied)

FS =

(c + tan )l
W sin

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Janbu corrected
Assumes interslice shear
forces = 0 (reduces # of
unknowns by (n-1))
Overdetermined solution
(moment equilibrium not
completely satisfied)
Correction factor, f0,
accounts for interslice shear
force inadequacy

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Lowe and Karafiath

Assumes interslice force
inclined at angle = (ground
surface angle + slope base
angle)/2
Horizontal and vertical force
equilibrium are satisfied for
each slice
Overdetermined solution
(moment equilibrium not
satisfied)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Corps of Engineers I
Assumes interslice force
inclined at angle = ground
surface angle
Horizontal and vertical force
are eq. satisfied for each
slice
Overdetermined solution
(moment equilibrium not
satisfied)

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Corps of Engineers II
Assumes interslice force
inclined at angle = average
slope angle between left
and right points of failure
surface
Horizontal and vertical force
are eq. satisfied for each
slice

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Spencer
Assumes all interslice forces
inclined at constant, but
unknown, angle
Complete equilibrium
satisfied

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices

assumptions

Morgenstern-Price
Similar to Spencers
assumes all interslice forces
inclined at constant, but
unknown, angle
Inclination assumed to vary
according to portion of
arbitrary function
Satisfies complete
equilibrium

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Methods of slices
Force Equilibrium
Method
Horizontal Vertical
Ordinary
No
No
Bishop simplified
No
Yes
Janbu simplified
Yes
Yes
Lowe-Karafiath
Yes
Yes
Corps of Engineers
Yes
Yes
Spencer
Yes
Yes
GLE (Morgenstern-Price)
Yes
Yes

Moment
Equilibrium
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes

Issue of Critical Surface Search

Example: centre of critical

failure surface may not be

located inside grid

Probabilistic Slope Analysis

Under ideal conditions FS = 1 should ensure safe design

Uncertainty forces use of higher FSs
Based on past experience FS = (1.3 1.5)
Use of single FS value does not accurately reflect site
investigation quality
Good site characterization should be
Poor site characterization should be
Often though same FS used

lower FS
higher FS

Slope Stabilization Methods

Reduction of slope height
Reduction/flattening of slope angle
Incorporation of benches
Application of support elements (bolts, piles, buttresses,
berms, etc.)
Installation of drainage
Use of excavation techniques that minimize dynamic
shocks and rock mass damage
Removal of unstable or potentially unstable materials

Slope Stabilization Methods

Slope Stabilization Methods

Slope Stability References