See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245411578

Determination of critical slip surface in slope analysis

Article  in  Géotechnique · January 2006

DOI: 10.1680/geot.2006.56.8.539

CITATIONS READS

39 807

2 authors, including:

Sarada K. Sarma
Imperial College London
64 PUBLICATIONS   2,103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarada K. Sarma on 02 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sarma, S. K. & Tan, D. (2006). Géotechnique 56, No. 8, 539–550
Determination of critical slip surface in slope analysis



S. K. SARMA
A new method of finding the critical slip surface in slope
stability analysis is developed in this paper, based on the
limit equilibrium technique with added stress acceptabil-
ity criterion. The stress acceptability criterion is based
on the limited strength of soil. The slip surface is devel-
oped in terms of the critical acceleration. The procedure
uses stress acceptability as a prerequisite to derive a
system of non-linear equations to determine the slip sur-
face slice by slice upwards; no prior assumption of the
shape of the surface is needed. This surface simulta-
neously satisfies the kinematical acceptability criterion.
The whole procedure includes both homogeneous and
non-homogeneous slopes. In terms of the minimum factor
of safety, the obtained critical slip surfaces compare well
with those obtained through methods based on optimisa-
tion techniques. In addition, the solution provides infor-
mation on the critical acceleration and the kinematically
acceptable interslice boundaries for the analysis of seis-
mic displacements of slopes using a multi-block sliding
model.
KEYWORDS: earthquakes; landslides; limit equilibrium meth-
ods; slopes
INTRODUCTION
A quantitative assessment of the stability of a slope is
important when a judgement is needed about whether the
slope is stable. Usually, the assessment is made in terms of
the factor of safety of the slope under static conditions, or in
terms of the critical acceleration under seismic conditions.
The factor of safety is defined as the ratio between the
available strength and the strength required for a state of
incipient failure along a possible slip surface. In pseudo-
static slope stability analysis, acceleration is applied to the
slope: it is assumed to be constant over the whole slope and
to act in a horizontal direction. The critical acceleration is
defined as that acceleration that, when applied to the mass
within the slip surface and the free surface, produces a state
of incipient failure along that surface. The minimum value
of the factor of safety (or critical acceleration) is a charac-
teristic of the slope.
There are various different methods of slope stability
analysis currently available. Among these, conventional
methods of slope analysis based on the concept of limit
equilibrium have been widely used, even though finite
element analysis is becoming an attractive alternative. With
its simplicity, its common-sense approach and its ease of
use, the limit equilibrium technique will probably continue
to be used by designers and analysts.
The analysis of slope stability using the limit equilibrium
Manuscript received 1 August 2005; revised manuscript accepted 1
July 2006
Discussion on this paper closes on 2 April 2007, for further details
see p.ii.


Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial
College London, UK.
539
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
a n d D. TA N
Cet article présente le développement d’une nouvelle
méthode de détermination de la surface de glissement
critique, dans le cadre de l’analyse de la stabilité des
versants. Elle repose sur la technique d’équilibre-limite
avec ajout de critère de tolérance de contrainte, lequel
est basé sur la résistance limitée du sol. La surface de
glissement est développée en terme d’accélération cri-
tique. La procédure utilise la tolérance de contrainte
comme pré-requis pour dériver un système d’équations
non-linéaires et déterminer ainsi la surface de glissement
coupe par coupe en remontant. Aucune hypothèse sur la
forme de la surface n’est nécessaire. La surface satisfait
simultanément au critère de tolérance cinématique. L’en-
semble de la procédure s’applique aussi bien aux versants
non-homogènes qu’aux versants homogènes. En terme de
facteur minimum de sécurité, les surfaces de glissements
critiques obtenues sont comparables à celles déterminées
à l’aide de méthodes basées sur des techniques d’optimi-
sation. La solution fournit également des informations
sur l’accélération critique et les limites intercoupes ciné-
matiquement acceptables pour l’analyse de déplacements
sismiques de versants utilisant un modèle de glissement
multi-blocs.
method involves, first, calculation of the factor of safety (or
critical acceleration) for a given slip surface and, second, a
search for the slip surface with the minimum factor of safety
(or critical acceleration) for the slope. Note that, for a given
slope, the critical slip surface associated with the minimum
factor of safety may be different from the critical slip
surface associated with the critical acceleration (Sarma &
Bhave, 1974). Several methods are available to find the
factor of safety (or critical acceleration) in a rigorous way
given a possible failure surface (Janbu, 1954; Bishop, 1955;
Morgenstern & Price, 1965; Spencer, 1967; Sarma, 1973,
1979). This list is not exhaustive, and includes only those
methods that are significantly different from each other. All
of these methods require a predefined possible slip surface;
they then determine the factor of safety (or critical accelera-
tion) from the equilibrium of the mass contained between
the slip surface and the free ground surface. A general
perspective on the differences and similarities between the
different methods can be found in the literature (e.g. Sarma,
1979; Baker, 2005). Among the methods listed above, only
the method of Sarma (1979) can deal with inclined slices.
Computation of the factor of safety needs iteration, but
computation of the critical acceleration does not, as shown
by Sarma (1973, 1979).
Morgenstern & Price (1965) state that the failure criterion
within the soil mass above the slip surface must not be
violated, and that the line of thrust must stay within the slip
mass. This is perhaps the first time that an internal factor of
safety is mentioned as a criterion for an acceptable solution.
The same criterion is adopted by Sarma (1973). Janbu
(1973) mentions that the average factor of safety Fv along
the vertical interslice boundary should be greater than F,
where F is the factor of safety on the slip surface. Whitman
540 SARMA AND TAN
& Bailey (1967) show that a correct solution from infinite
possibilities should satisfy the stress acceptability criterion.
The methods mentioned above look at the internal factor
of safety in the vertical planes only. No method looks at
other planes within the slice to check their stress states.
Moreover, these conditions are not integral to the solution
procedure, and rejection of solutions is based on experience.
Methods to find the critical slip surface
The critical slip surface in slope stability analysis is the
surface that produces the minimum factor of safety in static
analysis or the critical acceleration in pseudo-static analysis.
As the process of finding the critical slip surface is linked to
the process of finding the minimum factor of safety (or
critical acceleration), it is natural to consider using an
optimisation method. There are many methods available to
determine the critical slip surface; some of these methods
and their basic features are presented below.
In enumerative schemes, slip surfaces are expressed by
some pattern, and each surface is then analysed and the
critical one chosen. This approach is possible for simple
geometrically definable surfaces such as circular failure
surfaces (Bishop, 1955), and logarithmic spiral slip surfaces
(Lighthall, 1979; Prater, 1979). However, these failure modes
are special cases of general failure mode, and are usually
not the most critical, especially in non-homogeneous slopes.
Variational calculus can be applied to the slope stability
problem to find the critical factor of safety as an analytically
expressed function of the slip surface (Revilla & Castillo,
1977; Baker & Garber, 1978; De Josselin De Jong, 1980).
Other calculus-based methods view the location of the
critical failure surface as minimising a non-linear function.
Within this class of methods, we may include: Belman’s
dynamic-programming algorithm (Baker, 1980); the steepest
descent technique (Chen & Shao, 1988); the method of
unidirectional search (Celestino & Duncan, 1981); the sim-
plex method (Narayan, 1982; Bardet & Kapuskar, 1989); the
compound iteration scheme (Li & White, 1986); and the
gradient search method (Menon et al., 2001). McCombie &
Wilkinson (2002) mention that multiple minima exist in the
search space, and any calculus-based method is much more
likely to define a false minimum than the true minimum
because it depends on the initial trial, which may be difficult
to choose.
The random search procedure keeps the same objective
function to be minimised as the calculus-based methods but
uses a random search technique to find the critical slip
surface (Boutrup & Lovell, 1980; Chen, 1992; Greco, 1996;
Malkawi et al., 2001a, 2001b). However, this still involves
the analysis of a large number of slip surfaces, and a
solution approaching the optimum is found only by chance.
McCombie & Wilkinson (2002) apply a simple genetic
algorithm to search for the minimum factor of safety using
circular slip surfaces. Zolfaghari et al. (2005) apply the
same technique to search for non-circular failure surfaces in
layered slopes. However, it is unable to identify the most
critical factor of safety for some examples given in their
paper. Cheng (2003) uses a simulated annealing technique
for the location of critical circular and non-circular failure
surfaces under general conditions. Although the results ob-
tained from any optimisation technique are mathematically
the minimum, some results may not be acceptable from soil
mechanics principles.
There are two main sets of methods in static slope
stability analysis based on the finite element procedure to
determine the minimum factor of safety and the correspond-
ing critical slip surface. The first set of methods searches for
the critical slip surface using stress fields obtained from the
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
finite element method (Yamagami & Yeta, 1988a; Zou et al.,
1995; Kim & Lee, 1997; Pham & Fredlund, 2003). The
second set of methods was first introduced by Zienkiewicz
et al. (1975), and called the ‘strength reduction technique’
by Matsui & San (1992): it has been applied to various
homogeneous and non-homogeneous slope stability problems
by numerous researchers (e.g. Griffiths & Lane, 1999). How-
ever, the output from such an analysis is not easy for the
engineering profession to interpret.
New procedure
It is known that the limit equilibrium technique of slope
stability analysis is statically indeterminate. As shown in the
Appendix, given a possible slip surface, interslice force
distributions exist that will produce any desired critical
acceleration as a solution. However, this distribution (and
therefore the desired critical acceleration) may not be accep-
table. Therefore the question arises as to whether an accep-
table critical acceleration can be found for a given slip
surface within the limit equilibrium technique. The basic
feature of the present method is to answer the question: Is it
possible to find an acceptable slip surface in a slope for a
desired critical acceleration? If many acceptable slip sur-
faces are found with different desired critical accelerations
then the surface with the minimum critical acceleration is
considered as the critical surface.
A new procedure is developed here to determine the
critical slip surface along with the critical acceleration.
Acceleration is applied to the slope to formulate the equa-
tions, and the applied acceleration is also the critical accel-
eration, because we look for the slip surface where full
strength is mobilised. Sarma (2004) formulated this proce-
dure in its basic state, and it is now being modified and
enhanced. The procedure is within the framework of the
limit equilibrium technique (Sarma, 1979), satisfying accept-
ability criteria in terms of stresses and kinematics. Moreover,
it provides information on the critical acceleration and the
kinematically acceptable internal boundaries for analysis of
seismic displacements using a multi-block sliding model
(Sarma & Chlimintzas, 2001; Chlimintzas, 2003).
ANALYSIS
In the proposed method, the slip surface, which comprises
a series of straight lines, is obtained slice by slice going
from downhill to uphill. The slip surface and the interslice
boundaries are not predefined. The equilibrium of the slice
and the acceptability criteria (defined later) determine the
slip surface and the interslice boundaries of the slice.
A slip surface in a slope is considered (Fig. 1), which is
at incipient failure under the action of a desired critical
acceleration kc g. Note that the slip surface is unknown at the
beginning but the critical acceleration is assumed. The slip
surface from a starting point O to point A is assumed solved
already, and the corresponding interslice boundary at point
A is AD. Therefore all the forces on the slip surface and the
interslice boundary up to the point A from O are known. In
order to define a new point on the slip surface, an arbitrary
slice above the possible slip surface is considered. Within
the single slice there are many unknowns, and some assump-
tions have to be made before the problem can be solved
mathematically.
Geometric unknowns
The slice i in Fig. 1 is composed of a possible slip surface
AB, a free surface CD, and two internal boundaries AD and
BC. The points A and D are known. The aim of the solution
 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE IN SLOPE ANALYSIS 541
C (xsi11, ysi11) age values of the materials through which the interslice
Äsx
Soil layer 1 boundary passes.
D (xsi, ysi) Xi11 Defining  ¼ tan1 kc , from the equilibrium of the slice i
Soil layer 2
and using equations (1) and (2) (Sarma, 1979),
Xi kcWi (xgi, ygi) Ei11
äi11

Ei Wi zi11 E9iþ1 sec 9iþ1 cos 9i  Æ i þ 9iþ1 
iþ1
Soil layer 3
O g(x ) zi äi
¼ W i sec  sinð9i  Æ i  Þ
ái Ti B (x , y )
i11 i11
y li Ni Soil layer 4


A (xi, yi) þ E9i sec 9i cos 9i  Æ i þ 9i 
i
bi

x þ c9i Li cos 9i  c9i d i sinð9i  Æ i 
i Þ (3a)

Fig. 1. Forces acting on an inclined slice. The total forces N and þ c9iþ1 d iþ1 sinð9i  Æ i 
iþ1 Þ
E are shown, which are the sums of the effective force and the
force due to pore water þ PW i cosð9i  Æ i 
i Þ

 PW iþ1 cosð9i  Æ i 
iþ1 Þ  U i sin 9i

technique is to define points B and C to satisfy the adopted
criterion. For a given slope to be analysed, the ground E iþ1 ¼ E9iþ1 þ PW iþ1 (3b)


surface function g(x) is known. Any horizontal increment N 9i sec 9i cos 9i  Æ i þ 9iþ1 
iþ1
˜sx can be assumed in the ground surface from D, which,

with g(x), defines the point C. Therefore the only unknown ¼ W i sec  cos 9iþ1 
iþ1 þ 
in the new slice is another point in the slip surface, B. The

two geometric unknowns are the angles Æ i and
iþ1 , which þ E9i sec 9i sin 9iþ1 
iþ1  9i þ
i
are the angles made by the slip surface AB with the

horizontal and the interslice boundary BC with the vertical þ c9i Li sin 9iþ1 
iþ1  Æ i
respectively. Assuming the two angles as known, the position
(4a)
of B can be defined.  c9i d i cos 9iþ1 
iþ1 þ
i

þ c9iþ1 d iþ1 cos 9iþ1

Force unknowns
The forces acting on the new slice are shown in Fig. 1.
The weight of the new slice Wi is obtained from the
geometry and the unit weight of the soil. The horizontal
force kc Wi acting on the slice is known because the applied
horizontal earthquake acceleration kc g is assumed. On the
known boundary AD, the effective normal and shear forces,
E9i and Xi , are known from the previous slice. The forces
due to pore water pressures Ui, PWi and PWiþ1, on the slip
surface and the interslice boundaries respectively, are known
once the boundaries are defined. Therefore the effective
normal and shear forces on the slip surface, N 9i and Ti, and
the effective normal and shear forces on the interslice
boundary, E9iþ1 and Xiþ1 , are the four unknowns in terms of
forces to be solved.
The soil is assumed to obey the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion in terms of effective stresses. (Any other failure
criterion can be seen as an extension of this model.) Under
the action of the critical acceleration kc g, the forces on the
slip surface are in limiting equilibrium, and therefore apply-
ing the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion gives
T i ¼ N 9i tan 9i þ c9i b i sec Æ i
where 9 and c9 are the shear strength parameters on the
slip surface AB and b i is the horizontal distance between A
and B. Sarma (1979) states that, even if the mass contained
within the slip surface is in a state of limiting equilibrium, it
will not be able to move unless shear surfaces are formed
within the body, except for rigid body movements along
planar or circular slip surfaces. Therefore the effective
normal force and the shear force on the interslice boundaries
are also in a state of limiting equilibrium with factor of
safety equal to 1, so that the Mohr–Coulomb criterion gives
X iþ1 ¼ E9iþ1 tan 9iþ1 þ c9iþ1 d iþ1
where d iþ1 is the length of BC and 9 and c9 are the shear
strength parameters on the interslice boundaries. In a non-
homogeneous slope these parameters will be weighted aver-


þ PW i sin 9iþ1 
iþ1 þ
i


 PW iþ1 sin 9iþ1  U i cos 9iþ1 
iþ1  Æ i
N i ¼ N 9i þ U i (4b)
Thus if the two angles Æ i and
iþ1 are assumed known,
then the geometry and force unknowns can be determined as
shown above. However, two additional equations have to be
set up to obtain Æ i and
iþ1 , which cannot be obtained from
the traditional limit equilibrium method. Another assump-
tion, termed the ‘acceptability criterion’, is used to solve this
problem.
The acceptability criteria
There are two criteria that must be satisfied if the solution
obtained above is to be acceptable. The first is a criterion in
terms of stresses and the second is a criterion in terms of
kinematics.
The stress acceptability criterion exists because the slice is
(1) made up of soil, which has a limited strength. The forces on
the slice imply stresses inside the soil mass. Because of the
limited strength of soil, the implied stress cannot exceed the
limited strength. In other words, the factor of safety in any
plane within the slice must be greater than or equal to 1. The
difference between the stress characteristics method
(Sokolovski, 1960) and the current method is that, in the
former, the entire soil mass is in limiting equilibrium,
whereas in the present method the limiting equilibrium of
stresses are only along the slip surface and the interslice
surface; the rest of the soil may exist in any state prior to
failure.
When the slope fails and starts to move, it has to be
(2) kinematically acceptable. Then the slip surface has to be
concave upward, which means that
Æ1 < Æ2 < Æ3 <    < Æ i <    < Æ n (5)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
542
where Æ i is the angle made by the slip surface with the
horizontal in the ith slice.
The internal plane and mŁ
The aim of the analysis is to obtain Æ i and
iþ1 , which
define the geometry of the new slice and satisfy the accept-
ability criteria. The slice is divided into two segments by the
line BD. The segment ABD is called the slip surface side
and the segment BCD is called the interslice boundary side
(Fig. 2). The reciprocal of the factor of safety on a plane
inclined at an angle Ł is termed mŁ . For convenience of
plotting, this is used throughout the analysis.
A plane inclined at an angle Ł to the slip surface creates
a small segment ABA9 inside the slip mass, as shown in
Fig. 2. The reciprocal of the factor of safety of the plane
BA9, mSŁ , is defined as
TŁ
mSŁ ¼
ð NŁ  U Ł Þ tan SŁ þ cSŁ LŁ
where NŁ and TŁ are the normal and shear forces in terms of
total stresses acting on the plane BA9; UŁ is the force due to
pore water acting on the plane; LŁ is the length of BA9; and
SŁ and cSŁ are the weighted average shear strength para-
meters on the plane. From equilibrium of the segment
ABA9,
NŁ ¼ N i cos Ł þ T i sin Ł  W SŁ sec  cosðÆ i  Ł þ Þ
 EL sinðÆ i þ
i  ŁÞ þ X L cosðÆ i þ
i  ŁÞ
TŁ ¼  N i sin Ł þ T i cos Ł  W SŁ sec  sinðÆ i  Ł þ Þ
SARMA AND TAN
of total stresses acting on the plane BC9; PWŁ is the force
due to pore water acting on the plane; DŁ is the length of
BC9; and BŁ and cBŁ are the weighted average shear strength
parameters of the plane.
From equilibrium of the segment BCC9,
EŁ ¼ E iþ1 cos Ł þ X iþ1 sin Ł  W BŁ sec  sinð
iþ1  Ł  Þ
(10)
X Ł ¼ E iþ1 sin Ł þ X iþ1 cos Ł þ W BŁ sec  cosð
iþ1  Ł  Þ
(11)
where Eiþ1 and Xiþ1 are as defined previously, and W BŁ is
the weight of the small segment. Again, from the geometry
of the small segment BCC9, DŁ and W BŁ can be obtained.
(6) Normal stress distribution on the slip surface and shear
boundary
To obtain NŁ and TŁ in equations (7) and (8), it is
necessary to know the contribution of the normal force EL
and shear forces XL on the small part of the slice boundary
AA9 (Fig. 2), which therefore requires information about the
stress distribution on the plane AD. Also, for any plane in a
non-homogeneous slope, the normal stress distribution is
needed to define the weighted average friction angle.
Throughout this derivation, we assume that the effective
normal stress at point A,  9i , is equal on both planes AB and
(7) AD, because the two planes are in limiting equilibrium and
the normal stress distribution in any plane is linear. Using
these assumptions,

þ EL cosðÆ i þ
i  ŁÞ þ X L sinðÆ i þ
i  ŁÞ 2N 9i1

 9i ¼   9i1 (12)
(8) Li1
2E9i
where Ni and Ti are as defined previously; the normal total  90i ¼   9i (13)
force EL and shear force XL on the small part of the slice di
boundary AA9 are defined by equations (15) and (16) in the
following section; and W SŁ is the weight of the small where  90i is the effective normal stress at point D. If there
segment. From the geometry of the small segments ABA9, is no surcharge in the starting point, the effective normal
LŁ and W SŁ can be obtained. stress at the starting point of the slip surface, O (Fig. 1), is
Similarly, considering a plane inclined at an angle Ł to obtained from the Mohr circle, which gives
the interslice boundary BC creating a small segment BCC9
inside the slice, the reciprocal of the factor of safety of the  19 ¼ c91 cos 91 (14)
plane BC9, mBŁ , is defined as
Then E9L and X L9 can be defined using the following equa-
XŁ tions
mBŁ ¼ (9)
ð EŁ  PW Ł Þ tan BŁ þ cBŁ DŁ  
 9i   90i l2Ł
where EŁ and XŁ are the normal and shear forces in terms E9L ¼  9i lŁ  (15a)
2d i
EL ¼ E9L þ PW L (15b)
C XL ¼ E9L tan 9ii þ c9ii lŁ (16)
C¢
ø kcWèB
D WèB
Interslice boundary side where PWL is the force due to pore water acting on the
Xi kcWi
Eè Xi11 plane AA9; c9ii is the average effective cohesion; 9ii is
Wi
the average effective friction angle in the plane; and lŁ is
Ei di11
Xè è the length of the plane (Fig. 2).
di Ei11
Slip surface side äi11
F äi Nè
EL X
A¢ Tè Layer 1: weak material Line of thrust
kcWèS è
L B F¢ In order to determine the line of thrust of the E forces,
WèS Ti Layer 2: strong material
ái assumptions must be made about the points of applications
A li Ni of all but one Ni forces (Sarma, 1979). The governing
equation is obtained by taking moments of all the forces on
Fig. 2. The internal plane and forces acting on it the ith slice about the corner point A (Fig. 1). This gives

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE IN SLOPE ANALYSIS
N i l i  X iþ1 b i sec Æ i cosðÆ i þ
iþ1 Þ
þ E iþ1 ½ z iþ1 þ b i sec Æ i sinðÆ i þ
iþ1 Þ
 E i z i  W i ð xgi  xi Þ þ k c ð ygi  yi Þ ¼ 0
in which (xg i , yg i ) are the coordinates of the centre of
gravity of the slices. The point of application of Ni is given
by l i measured along the slip surface, and the point of
application of Ei is given by z i measured along the interslice
boundary from point A.
After the critical slip surface is found, we can start from the
first slice, where z1 ¼ 0. By assuming l i , z iþ1 can be
determined or vice versa. Proceeding to the last slice, the last
l n is determined from the moment equilibrium of the last slice.
The values of z i and l i should lie within the slice, preferably in
the middle third. From analyses performed on many slopes, it
is seen that using the point of application of the normal force
based on linear normal stress distribution on the slip surface
does not always produce an acceptable line of thrust, but very
small variation from this assumption is sufficient to produce
an acceptable solution. Similarly, the position of z i does not
exactly agree with the linear distribution of stress distribution
on the interslice boundary (see Example 1 below). This
implies that the normal stress distribution is not exactly linear
but very nearly so. It is possible for us to iterate on the normal
stress distribution to get exact results, but the amount of work
needed for this accuracy cannot be justified. Therefore a linear
stress distribution is used.
Acceptability criterion for homogeneous slope
In a homogeneous slope, the soil parameters are constant.
At this stage, the acceptability criterion can be expressed as
follows. It is known that when Ł ¼ 0, the internal plane is
either the slip surface or the interslice boundary with mŁ ¼
1. Considering an angle Ł, positive as shown in Fig. 2,
within the slip surface side or the interslice boundary side, it
is expected that mŁ < 1 for an acceptable solution. It is also
expected that if a negative angle Ł is selected, that is, a thin
section into the body of the slope or into the next slice,
mŁ < 1. Therefore it is expected that mŁ is a maximum
when Ł ¼ 0. The condition can be expressed as
dmŁ
¼ 0 and mŁ ¼ 1 when Ł ¼ 0
dŁ
Applying the above conditions to equation (6) gives
N i þ T i tan 9i  12 ªL2i sec  sec 9i sinð9i  Æ i  Þ
 9i Li
 sec 9i sec 9ii
cosð
i þ Æ i Þ

0·95
3 cos 9i þ 9ii  Æ i 
i
u i Li
 sec 9i cosð9i  Æ i 
i Þ
cosð
i þ Æ i Þ
Li
þ c9ii sec 9i sinð9i  Æ i 
i Þ
cosð
i þ Æ i Þ
 c9i Li tanðÆ i þ
i Þ
u i Li
 Li tan 9i þ 12 ð u i þ u iþ1 Þ
2d i cosð
i þ Æ i Þ
3 Li tanðÆ i þ
i Þ tan 9i ¼ 0
Similarly, applying the above conditions to equation (9)
gives
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
543
E iþ1 þ X iþ1 tan 9iþ1  c9iþ1 d iþ1 tanð
iþ1 þ łÞ


2 ªd iþ1 sec  sec 9iþ1 cos 9iþ1 
iþ1 þ 
(17) 1 2

(20)
 c9iþ1 d iþ1 tanð
iþ1 þ łÞ
þ 12 u iþ1 d iþ1 tanð
iþ1 þ łÞ tan 9iþ1 ¼ 0
The non-linear equations (19) and (20) along with equa-
tions (1) to (4) are solved to obtain the angles Æ i and
iþ1 ,
using the trust-region dogleg method (Powell, 1970) avail-
able within MATLAB, which improves robustness when
starting far from the solution. The two angles define the
geometry of the new slice. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that
the internal factor of safety is greater or equal to 1 on any
plane within the slice, and therefore the stress acceptability
is confirmed.
Thus, following the same procedure from slice 1, the
complete slip surface can be obtained.
An interesting result of this method of solution is that, at
least for the first slice, the geometry of the slip surface and
the interslice boundary obeys the Rankine state, which is an
encouraging sign. For the intermediate slices, the solution
depends on the assumed stress distribution on the interslice
boundaries. The resulting line of thrust is used to check the
robustness of the assumed stress distribution.
Acceptability criteria for non-homogeneous slopes
In a non-homogeneous slope, a slice may pass through many
soil layers (Fig. 1), which divide the slice into several seg-
ments. Let us consider a simple example, as shown in Fig. 2.
There is a soil layer boundary FF9 passing through the slice at
point B. Within the interslice boundary side the soil is homo-
geneous, but within the slip surface side it is non-homoge-
neous, and so it is necessary to check the variation of mSŁ on the
internal planes in slip surface side after Æ i and
iþ1 are
obtained using equations (19) and (20). The solid line in Fig. 4
shows that mSŁ exceeds unity even if it has a local maximum
when Ł equal zero. If this happens, the assumption that mSŁ is
the local
 maximum
 should be modified to
max mSŁ ðŁÞ ¼ 1 (21)
The new slice needs to be resolved from equations (21) and
(18)
1·00
(19) mè 0·90
0·85
0·80
0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30 0·35
è
Fig. 3. mŁ within slip surface side (note that trend within the
interslice boundary side is similar)
IP: 86.0.218.4
544 SARMA AND TAN
1·2 C C¢ F¢ F
D En11
Xn kendWn
hc
Wn
1·0 Xn21 kendWn21 En Nè2
En21 Eè E¢ E
Wn21 è Tè2
än Xè è
dn21 Tn
0·8 Ln Nn
än21 Nè1
Tè1 án
mSè A¢
è B
Tn21
0·6 án21
Ln21 Nn21
A

Fig. 5. Geometry and forces on last two slices

0·4

of the last two slices can be defined. The acceptability

0·2 criterion is applied to the two slip surfaces AB and BE and
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 the unknown shear surface BC to get three equations. The
è
first two equations are exactly the same as equations (19) and
Fig. 4. mSŁ in a non-homogeneous slope (20) with i replaced by n  1 and  replaced by end , where
end ¼ tan1 kend , and the last equation is expressed as

N n þ T n tan 9n
 
(20). After the new Æ i and
iþ1 are obtained, mSŁ (Ł) is ªL n
þ 2 ªL n þ
1 2
hc sec end sec 9n sinð9n  Æ n  Þ
checked again, which is shown as a dashed line in Fig. 4, sin Æ n
and it satisfies the criterion.
Similarly, if the interslice boundary side is non-homoge- Ln Ln
þ c9n  1 un ¼0
neous, then tan Æ n 2 tan Æ n
  (23)
max mBŁ ðŁÞ ¼ 1 (22)

The tension crack hc can be assumed to be of any depth,

An iterative algorithm is set up to solve the equations for
such as that obtained from the Mohr circle, or equal to zero,
non-homogeneous slopes.
which means no tension crack. The effective normal force
The maximum value of mŁ may be found by dividing
on the surface EF of the last slice, E9nþ1 , should be zero,
each side into a number of small segments, denoted by º.
provided any known forces on the plane are taken into
mŁ is evaluated in each plane, and we pick the maximum
account in the equilibrium equations. Also, the shear force
value in the corresponding side. By using a small value of º
on the surface EF, X nþ1 , is zero. The geometry of the last
it is possible to miss the ‘true’ maximum, which may cause
two slices along with kgend can be solved to make E9nþ1
the ‘true’ Æ i and
iþ1 to be missed. On the other hand, using
equal to zero. The kgend may be different from kc g. There-
a large value of º is computationally demanding. As mŁ is a
fore an iteration algorithm is used to solve the problem until
continuous function, it is easy to find its maximum with a
the starting kc g and kgend become equal. The slip surface is
few evaluations using the optimisation technique proposed
then the accepted slip surface and the kc g is the correspond-
by Brent (1973).
ing accepted critical acceleration.

Accepted slip surface

The slip surface path in non-homogeneous slopes
For any starting point of the slip surface picked along the
The concept of the ‘slip surface path’ is illustrated in Fig.
free surface, any desired critical acceleration kc g can pro-
6. If the starting point is set at A, it encounters the first soil
duce a surface, which may not be acceptable on the basis of
kinematics. It is found that by using a small value of kc g the
surface does not converge towards the crest of the slope, 12
which is contrary to kinematical acceptability. Therefore the 10
Case 1 with kc 5 0·2662 (ABDH) KH J
Case 2 with kc 5 0·095 (AB¢CEK)
desired critical acceleration is not acceptable. On the other
Case 3 with kc 5 0·2164 (AB¢¢C¢FGJ)
hand, using a large kc g makes the slip surface end within 8
Vertical distance: m

the slope, and therefore, obviously, this value of kc g is too 6

large to be the minimum. Therefore the accepted slip surface
and the corresponding critical acceleration are those where 4
the slip surface becomes kinematically acceptable with the 2
smallest kc g. A c ¢ 5 5 kPa ö¢ 5 20° ã 5 20 kN/m2
A procedure is presented here to change the desired critical 0 D
B c ¢ 5 5 kPa ö¢ 5 10° ã 5 20 kN/m2
acceleration. We consider the whole slope to be divided into 22
E
C C¢ G
n slices. A starting point is picked from the ground surface F
c ¢ 5 5 kPa ö¢ 5 30° ã 5 20 kN/m2

and any kc g is assumed: we then solve slice by slice until 24

220 0 20 40 60
slice (n  2). Slice (n  1) is the one that does not satisfy the Horizontal distance: m
kinematical acceptability for the first time. Then the last two
slices are solved simultaneously, as shown in Fig. 5. It is Fig. 6. Slip surface path (Note that different surfaces encounter
assumed that there is a vertical tension crack with height hc the first soil layer boundary at three different points near B but
in the last slice, so if Æ n1 ,
n and Æ n are assumed, the shape the differences are too small to be seen)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE IN SLOPE ANALYSIS
layer at point B (or B9, B0, if different kc g values are used)
using a constant ˜sx. After that, a new slice needs to be
solved. The slip surface of the new slice may go back into
the same soil layer, develop along the soil layer boundary, or
enter into the new soil layer. If ˜sx is kept constant, it will
find the new slip surface point following BC. However,
experience shows that, depending on the soil properties, the
slip surface may follow the soil layer boundary. Under such
situations Æ i is known, which is the inclination angle of the
soil layer boundary. Then
iþ1 and ˜sx can be treated as the
two unknowns. In such a case, if a varying ˜sx is used, it
will find the new slip surface as B9DH. Whenever the slip
surface encounters a soil layer boundary, there are two
possibilities: one from a constant ˜sx and the other from a
varying ˜sx. The rest of the slices should be solved follow-
ing both possibilities. A robust procedure is when every
possibility is considered and the one with minimum kc g
picked. Therefore, in Fig. 6, three slip surface paths are
found and the acceptable slip surfaces should be found in
each slip surface path with the iterative procedure described
before. In the example shown, the second path with kc g
equal to 0.095 is the accepted slip surface with minimum
kc g for the corresponding starting point in a non-homoge-
neous slope.
Global critical surface
For each starting point an acceptable critical acceleration
can be obtained and, finally, the slip surface with minimum
critical acceleration is the critical slip surface. The choice of
the starting points will depend on the problem. For example,
in the presence of a load-bearing foundation near a slope,
the starting point for the critical surface may be on the ridge
and not on the slope. Whereas, when starting from a point
on the slope, the slip surface may not see the foundation,
another starting point, perhaps from the ridge, will see the
foundation. In this paper, we do not discuss the algorithm
used to select the starting points.
545
(Sarma, 2000) respectively, and the corresponding critical
slip surfaces are shown in Fig. 7. Note that an accuracy to
four decimal points is used in this example to show small
differences, but it should not be considered as the required
accuracy. Applying the technique presented here, a critical
acceleration of 0.1701g is found, which is marginally smaller
than the previous two, and the corresponding critical slip
surface is shown in the same figure. This shows that the
critical surface found with the new procedure is neither a
log-spiral nor a circular arc but close to both of them, which
is true for a homogeneous slope with simple geometry. What
this example also shows is that computed critical accelera-
tions from the three methods are similar but the critical slip
surfaces are different. In a homogeneous slope this differ-
ence is not important, but in a non-homogeneous slope it
may be more significant.
The line of thrust. The line of thrust can be determined as
discussed before. If linear distribution of stress in the slip
surface is assumed, then points of applications of Ni forces
can be determined as
0·8
Fixed ëi
0·7 Variable ëi (equation (24))
0·6
0·5
ëi 0·4
0·3
0·2

0·1
EXAMPLES
Example 1 0
10 20 30 40 50
In this problem, a 1 : 5 homogeneous slope 10 m high is Slice number
used, and the soil properties are as shown in Fig. 7. The
pore water pressure coefficient, ru, is assumed to be constant Fig. 8. Variation in º i with number of slice
throughout the slope and equal to 0.2. The critical accelera-
tion is found to be 0.1706g and 0.1719g using the log-spiral
slip surface (Lighthall, 1979) and the circular slip surface
20
12
Critical slip surface
Present slip surface with kc 5 0·1701 16 Line of thrust based on fixed ëi
10
Log-spiral slip surface with kc 5 0·1706 Line of thrust based on variable ëi
Circular slip surface with kc 5 0·1719
8
Vertical distance: m

12
Vertical distance: m

6
8
4

2 4

0 0
c ¢ 5 5 kPa ö¢ 5 20°
ã 5 20 kN/m2 ru 5 0·2
22
24
24 210 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
210 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Horizontal distance: m
Horizontal distance: m
Fig. 9. Lines of thrust corresponding to the two sets of º i and
Fig. 7. Comparison of critical slip surfaces in a homogeneous inclined interslice boundaries shown for Example 1 (inclined
slope interslice boundaries are shown)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
546 SARMA AND TAN
1
 i1 þ 23  i Li slip surfaces found by our procedure are shown in the same
li ¼ 3 (24) figure as a solid line, and after the slip surfaces are found,
ð i1 þ  i Þ
Sarma’s (2000) program is used to calculate the factor of
or safety for the purpose of comparison. The current procedure
finds a smaller factor of safety on a different slip surface.
l i ¼ º i Li (25) This example shows that, when applying optimisation
methods to slope stability analysis, the relationship between
Note that in equation (24) the total normal stresses are used the function to express the slip surface and the optimisation
instead of the effective stresses. method needs to be handled carefully. The more free para-
The variation in º i is shown as a dashed line in Fig. 8, meters are used to express the function, the greater the
and the corresponding line of thrust is shown as a dashed likelihood that they can express the slip surface in variable
line in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the line of thrust goes out conditions. However, too many parameters can cause numer-
of the slice and therefore, obviously, it is not an acceptable ical problems. The function used cannot express the com-
solution. However, if º i is changed to 0.574 (Fig. 8) plexity in non-homogeneous slopes, and the optimisation
throughout the slip surface, except for the first point and the method’s lack of robustness means it will fail to identify the
last point where º i is equal to zero, the line of thrust (shown critical slip surface. However, in the present study, by chang-
as a dash–dotted line in Fig. 9) stays in the middle third of ing ˜sx any number of slices can be used to analyse the
the interslice boundary. Therefore it can be adopted as proposed slope, and obviously it has great advantages when
acceptable. This example shows that the linear distribution applied to non-homogeneous slopes.
of stress is not an exact solution, either on the slip surface
or on the interslice boundary, but that it is a good approx-
imation. Example 3
This example is taken from Yamagami & Ueta (1988b),
where a slope in layered soil is analysed using different
Example 2 calculus-based methods of minimisation. A Monte Carlo
The following two examples are chosen from Zolfaghari technique was used by Greco (1996) to find the critical
et al. (2005). The geometry and soil properties are shown in factor of safety for the same problem. The geometrical
Figs 10(a) and 10(b) and soil properties are the same in both features of the analysed slope, the soil properties of the
examples. The slip surfaces found by genetic algorithm by different soil layers and the slip surfaces found by the above
the writers are shown as dashed lines in Figs 10(a) and methods are shown in Fig. 11. In order to compare the
10(b), and the factors of safety are shown in the figures. The present method with the published results, the critical sur-
critical acceleration of the surfaces are found using the face is obtained with the minimum critical acceleration and
Sarma (1973) method for the purpose of comparison. The then the factor of safety is calculated using the Sarma
(1973) method. The critical accelerations of the surfaces
10
found by the above authors are calculated using the Sarma
Critical slip surface of current study F 5 1·307 (or kc 5 0·1046)
Critical slip surface of Zolfaghari et al. F 5 1·48
(1973) method. The results are shown in Fig. 11. The values
8 (or kc 5 0·166)
c ¢ 5 15 kPa ö¢ 5 20°
of the factor of safety are similar, but the slip surfaces are
significantly different.
Vertical distance: m

6
After the different slip surfaces are obtained, the stress
c ¢ 5 17 kPa ö¢ 5 21°
acceptability is checked to see which result is more accep-
4
table. Because the details of Yamagami & Ueta’s and
c ¢ 5 5 kPa ö¢ 5 10°
Greco’s results are unknown, Sarma’s (2000) program is used
2
c ¢ 5 35 kPa ö¢ 5 28° to check the interslice factors of safety on the vertical
boundaries for the corresponding critical accelerations:
0

ð Nv  U v Þ tan v þ cv Lv
22 Fv ¼ (26)
0 5 10 15 20 Tv
Horizontal distance: m
(a)
The results are shown in Figs 12(a)–(c). These show that
10
only the current procedure gives the interslice factor of
Critical slip surface of current study F 5 1·091 (or kc 5 0·0516)
Critical slip surface of Zolfaghari et al. F 5 1·24
8 (or kc 5 0·0704)
100
Vertical distance: m

Critical slip surface with current procedure F 5 1·422 (or kc 5 0·1586)

6
80 Critical slip surface of Yamagami & Ueta F 5 1·423 (or kc 5 0·1767)
Critical slip surface of Greco F 5 1·401 (or kc 5 0·1572)
4
Vertical distance: m

60

2 40

0 20

c ¢ 5 49 kPa ö¢ 5 29° ã 5 20·38 kN/m2

22 0 c ¢ 5 0 kPa ö¢ 5 30° ã 5 17·64 kN/m2
0 5 10 15 20 c ¢ 5 7·84 kPa ö¢ 5 20° ã 5 20·38 kN/m2
Horizontal distance: m c ¢ 5 0 kPa ö¢ 5 30° ã 5 17·64 kN/m2
220
(b)
250 225 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Fig. 10. Comparison of slip surfaces of four-layer slope given by Horizontal distance: m
proposed method and obtained by genetic algorithm approach
of Zolfaghari et al. (2005). Unit weight the same in all four soil Fig. 11. Comparison of slip surfaces of a four-layer slope
layers (20.38 kN/m3 ) estimated using different methods

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE IN SLOPE ANALYSIS 547
2·2 CONCLUSION
The procedure developed here is within the framework of
the limit equilibrium method of slope stability analysis. The
2·0
solution satisfies the stress and kinematical acceptability
criteria, which guarantee that the stress conditions along the
Internal factor of safety

1·8 slip surface and within the slip mass do not conflict with the
limited strength of soil, and the mass can slide along
the slip surface if the applied acceleration is bigger than the
1·6 critical. Factors of safety are found that are comparable to
those obtained from optimisation methods. The solution
provides information on the critical acceleration and the
1·4 kinematically acceptable internal boundaries for analysis of
seismic displacements of slopes using a multi-block sliding
model. In the existing slope stability analysis methods within
1·2
the limit equilibrium technique, the acceptability criteria are
checked after the solution is obtained, and quite often these
1·0
are found to be unacceptable in some parts of the slip
20 40 60 80 100 surface. It is usually left to the experience of the users to
Slice number declare whether the solutions are acceptable. This paper is
(a)
the first time that the acceptability criteria have been rigor-
3·5 ously satisfied.

3·0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr John Douglas for his
2·5
comments during the preparation of the paper. Ding Tan
Internal factor of safety

would like to thank his parents for their support and

2·0 encouragement. He is grateful to all staff and research
students in the Geotechnics Section of Imperial College
1·5 London for helpful discussions. The continuous financial
support provided by the Overseas Research Students Awards
Scheme from Universities UK is gratefully acknowledged.
1·0

0·5 APPENDIX
The basics of the limit equilibrium technique for critical
acceleration analysis (dry slope) are as follows (Fig. 13).
0
20 40 60 80 The slope is defined by y ¼ g(x).
Slice number The slip surface is defined by y ¼ f (x).
(b) The assumed line of thrust is defined by y ¼ t(x).
The height of the line of thrust from the slip surface z(x) ¼ t  f.
2·5
The slope of the slip surface is given by Æ ¼arctan( f 9(x)).
The slip surface is assumed to start at x = 0 and end at x = B.
For an elemental slice of width dx:
2·0
the weight of the slice dw ¼ ª(g  f )dx;
the normal force N ¼  n dx secÆ;
Internal factor of safety

the shear force T ¼ dx secÆ.

1·5 Vertical equilibrium of the slice gives
 n dx þ  f 9 dx ¼ dw þ dX (27)

1·0 Horizontal equilibrium gives

 dx   n f 9 dx ¼ k c dw þ dE (28)
Taking moments about the mid point of the base of the slice gives
0·5    
f 9 dx f 9 dx
ð E þ dEÞ z þ dz þ  E z
2 2
(29a)
0 ð X þ dX Þ dx X dx k c dwð g  f Þ
20 40 60 80   þ ¼0
Slice number 2 2 2
(c) On simplification by neglecting higher-order terms, we get

Fig. 12. Internal factors of safety on vertical planes within k c dwð g  f Þ

Edz þ zdE þ Ef 9 dx  X dx þ ¼0 (29b)
surfaces obtained: (a) using the proposed method; (b) by 2
Yamagami & Ueta (1988b); (c) by Greco (1996) Dividing by dx throughout,
k c w9ð g  f Þ
safety as required. The methods based on optimisation Ez9 þ zE9 þ Ef 9  X þ ¼0 (29c)
2
techniques may obtain smaller factors of safety, but the
The Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion gives
results may not be acceptable because the stress state inside
the slice exceeds the limited strength of the soil.  ¼  9n tan 9 þ c9 (30)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
548 SARMA AND TAN

g(x)
dx
dx

y f (x) kcdW
E 1 dE

E
dW
t(x)
x X X 1 dX
dz

Fig. 13 Schematic map for a slope and the forces and their acting points in one slice

 
For simplification, assume no pore water pressure, so that 9n ¼ n . E 0z þ E9 2z9 þ f 9 
1 þ af 9
þ E½ z0 þ f 0
Also write (for ease of presentation) a f9
tan9 ¼ a 

ð1 þ af 9Þ k c w9  ð a  f 9Þ w9  c9 1 þ f 9 2
¼
ð a  f 9Þ
Then from equations (27), (28) and (30) we get
k c w0ð g  f Þ k c w9ð g9  f 9Þ
 n ð1 þ af 9Þdx ¼ dw þ dX  c9 f 9 dx (31)   (36)
2 2
 n ð a  f 9Þdx ¼ k c dw þ dE  c9dx (32)    
1 þ af 9
¼ ªk c ð g  f Þ  ð g9  f 9Þ ð g  f Þ
a f9
Then from equations (31) and (32) we get

1 þ f 9 2 c9
ð a  f 9Þðdw þ dX  c9 f 9 dxÞ  ðg  f Þ ª 
(33) ð a  f 9Þ
 ð1 þ af 9Þð k c dw þ dE  c9dxÞ ¼ 0
Therefore, for a given slope and a given slip surface, assuming that
Dividing by dx throughout, we get the line of thrust is known and the critical acceleration is also
assumed known, equation (36) is a second-order linear differential
ð a  f 9Þð w9 þ X 9  c9 f 9Þ  ð1 þ af 9 Þð k c W 9 þ E9  c9Þ ¼ 0 equation with variable coefficients. With the known boundary
conditions that E ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0 and at x ¼ B, the above equation
or can be solved numerically or otherwise. There is a second set of
boundary conditions that X ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0 and at x ¼ B, which are
ð a  f 9ÞX 9  ð1 þ af 9ÞE9 automatically satisfied by the solution of E, because z ¼ 0 at x ¼ 0

(34) and at x ¼ B from equation (29b).
¼ ð1 þ af 9Þk c w9  ð a  f 9Þw9  c9 1 þ f 92 This solution clearly shows that, without any control on the
interslice forces E or X or both within the slipped mass, we can get
infinite numbers of solutions of kc because, in the above formulation,
We eliminate X from equations (34) and (29c) by differentiating we can choose any kc and any line of thrust. Sarma (1973) also
equation (29c) first and replacing X9 from equation (34): mentions the infinite number of solutions in the limit equilibrium
Eð z0 þ f 0Þ þ E9ð2z9 þ f 9 Þ þ E 0z technique. Some of these solutions may not be acceptable. Therefore

 it is essential that some acceptability criterion is provided to curtail
½ð1 þ af 9ÞE9 þ ð1 þ af 9Þ k c w9 ð a  f 9Þw9  c9 1 þ f 92 the number of solutions.
 The available limit equilibrium solutions apply some sort of
ð a  f 9Þ
control over the interslice forces to obtain reasonable results.
k c w 0ð g  f Þ k c w9ð g9  f 9Þ However, these still may not be perfectly acceptable. The method
þ þ ¼0 presented in the paper shows a way to apply acceptability criteria
2 2
Rearranging: with rigour.
 
1 þ af 9
E 0z þ E9 2z9 þ f 9  þ E½ z0 þ f 0
a f9

 NOTATION
ð1 þ af 9Þ k c w9  ð a  f 9Þ w9  c9 1 þ f 9 2 (35)
¼ c9 cohesion in terms of effective stresses on slip surface
ð a  f 9Þ c9 average cohesion in terms of effective stresses on interslice
k c w 0ð g  f Þ k c w9ð g9  f 9Þ boundary
  c9Ł average cohesion in terms of effective stresses on internal
2 2 plane
E9 normal force on interslice in terms of effective stresses
Note that EŁ implied normal force in terms of total stresses on internal
plane within interslice boundary side
w9 ¼ ªð g  f Þ
EL normal force in terms of total stresses on small section on
w 0 ¼ ªð g9  f 9Þ slice boundary
F factor of safety
Fv factor of safety on vertical interslices
Therefore kc critical acceleration

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE IN SLOPE ANALYSIS
mSŁ reciprocal of factor of safety of internal plane within slip
surface side
mBŁ reciprocal of factor of safety of internal plane within
interslice boundary side
N9 normal force on base of slice in terms of effective stress
NŁ implied normal force in terms of total stresses on internal
plane within slip surface side
PW force due to water pressure on interslice boundary
PWŁ force due to pore water pressure on internal plane within
interslice boundary side
PWL force due to pore water acting on small section on slice
boundary
ru pore pressure ratio
T shear force on base of slice
TŁ implied shear force on internal plane within slip surface side
U force due to water pressure on base of slice
UŁ force due to pore water pressure on internal plane within slip
surface side
Wi weight of ith slice
WŁ weight of small segment inside slice
X shear force on interslice boundary
XL shear force on small section on slice boundary
XŁ implied shear force on internal plane within interslice
boundary side
Æ angle made by slip surface with horizontal, positive
anticlockwise from positive x axis
ª unit weight of soil

angle made by interslice boundary with vertical, positive
clockwise measured from positive y axis
 9i normal stress in intersection between ith side of slice and slip
surface
 90i normal stress in intersection between ith side of slice and
ground surface
9 friction angle in terms of effective stresses on slip surface
9 average friction angle in terms of effective stresses on
interslice boundary
9Ł average friction angle in terms of effective stresses on
internal plane
REFERENCES
Baker, R. (1980). Determination of the critical slip surface in slope
stability computations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.
4, No. 4, 333–359.
Baker, R. (2005). Variational slope stability analysis of materials
with nonlinear failure criterion. Electron. J. Geotech. Engng
10A. See http://www.ejge.com/2005/Ppr0514/Ppr0514.htm.
Baker, R. & Garber, M. (1978). Theoretical analysis of the stability
of slopes. Géotechnique 28, No. 4, 395–411.
Bardet, J. P. & Kapuskar, M. M. (1989). Simplex analysis of slope
stability. Comput. Geotech. 8, No. 4, 329–348.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the stability
analysis of slopes. Géotechnique 5, No. 1, 7–17.
Boutrup, E. & Lovell, C. W. (1980). Searching techniques in slope
stability analysis. Engng Geol. 16, No. 1–2, 51–61.
Brent, R. P. (1973). Algorithms for minimization without derivatives.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Celestino, T. B. & Duncan, J. M. (1981). Simplified search for
noncircular slip surfaces. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engng, Stockholm 3, 391–394.
Chen, Z. Y. (1992). Random trials used in determining global
minimum factor of safety of slopes. Can. Geotech. J. 29, No. 2,
225–233.
Chen, Z. Y. & Shao C. M. (1988). Evaluation of minimum factor
of safety in slope stability analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 25, No. 4,
735–748.
Cheng, Y. M. (2003). Location of critical failure surface and some
further studies on slope stability analysis. Comput. Geotech. 30,
No. 3, 255–267.
Chlimintzas, G. O. (2003). Seismic displacements of slopes using
multi-block. PhD thesis, Imperial College London.
De Josselin De Jong, G. (1980). Application of the calculus of
variations to the vertical cut off in cohesive frictionless soil.
Géotechnique 30, No. 1, 1–16.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
549
Greco, V. R. (1996). Efficient Monte Carlo technique for locating
critical slip surface. J. Geotech. Engng 122, No. 7, 517–525.
Griffiths, D. V. & Lane, P. A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by
finite elements. Géotechnique 49, No. 3, 387–403.
Janbu, N. (1954). Application of composite slip surface for stability
analysis. Proceedings of the European conference on stability of
earth slopes, Stockholm, pp. 43–49.
Janbu, N. (1973). Slope stability computations. In Embankment dam
engineering, Casagrande Memorial Volume (eds. R. Hirschfeld
and S. Poulos), pp. 47–86. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Kim, J. Y. & Lee, S. R. (1997). Improved search strategy for the
critical slip surface using finite element stress fields. Comput.
Geotech. 21, No. 4, 295–313.
Li, K. S. & White, W. (1986). Rapid evaluation of the critical slip
surface in slope stability analysis. Australian Defence Force
Academy, University of New South Wales.
Lighthall, P. (1979). Dimensionless charts for critical acceleration
and static stability of earth slopes. MSc thesis, Imperial College
London.
Malkawi, A. I. H., Hassan, W. F. & Sarma, S. K. (2001a). Global
search method for locating general slip surface using Monte
Carlo techniques. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 127, No. 8,
688–698.
Malkawi, A. I. H., Hassan, W. F. & Sarma, S. K. (2001b). An
efficient search method for finding the critical circular slip
surface using the Monte Carlo technique. Can. Geotech. J. 38,
No. 5, 1081–1089.
MATLAB (2004). Manual of optimization toolbox, 3.0. Natick,
MA: The MathWorks, Inc.
Matsui, T. & San, K. C. (1992). Finite element slope stability
analysis by shear strength reduction technique. Soils Found. 32,
No. 1, 59–70.
McCombie, P. & Wilkinson, P. (2002). The use of the simple
genetic algorithm in finding the critical factor of safety in slope
stability analysis. Comput. Geotech. 29, No. 8, 699–714.
Menon, D., Nair, K. K. & Gandhi, S. R. (2001). Reliability analysis
of excavation slips in clayey soils. Proceedings of mechanics
and materials summer conference, San Diego, pp. 79–93.
Morgenstern, N. R. & Price, V. E. (1965). Analysis of stability of
general slip surfaces. Géotechnique 15, No. 1, 79–93.
Narayan, C. G. P., Bhatka, V. P. & Ramamurthy, T. (1982). Nonlocal
variational method in stability analysis. J. Geotech. Engng Div.
ASCE 108, No. 11, 1443–1459.
Pham, H. T. V. & Fredlund, D. G. (2003). The application of
dynamic programming to slope stability analysis. Can. Geotech.
J. 40, No. 4, 830–847.
Powell, M. J. D. (1970). A Fortran subroutine for solving systems
of nonlinear algebraic equations. In Numerical methods for
nonlinear algebraic equations (ed. P. Rabinowitz), pp. 87–114.
London: Gordon & Breach.
Prater, E. G. (1979). Yield accelerations for seismic stability of
slopes. J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 105, No. 5, 682–687.
Revilla, J. & Castillo, E. (1977). Calculus of variations applied to
stability of slopes. Géotechnique 27, No. 1, 1–11.
Sarma, S. K. (1973). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes.
Géotechnique 23, No. 3, 423–433.
Sarma, S. K. (1979). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes.
J. Geotech. Engng. Div. ASCE 105, No. 12, 1511–1524.
Sarma, S. K. (2000). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes
by Sarma (1973) method: User’s manual for the computer
program EQS. Internal report. London: Imperial College.
Sarma, S. K. (2004). Critical slip surface in slope stability analysis.
In Advances in Geotechnical Engineering: The Skempton Con-
ference, pp. 955–966. London: Thomas Telford.
Sarma, S. K. & Bhave, M. V. (1974). Critical acceleration versus
static factor of safety in stability analysis of earth dams and
embankments. Géotechnique 24, No. 4, 661–665.
Sarma, S. K. & Chlimintzas, G. O. (2001). Co-seismic and post-
seismic displacements of slopes, Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Geotech. Engng, Istanbul: TC4 satellite conference on
‘Lessons learned from recent strong earthquakes’, 183–188.
Sokolovski, V. V. (1960). Statics of soil media. London: Butterworth
Scientific.
Spencer, E. (1967). Method of analysis of stability of embankments
assuming parallel inter-slice forces. Géotechnique 17, No. 1,
11–26.
 550 SARMA AND TAN
Whitman, R. W. & Bailey, W. A. (1967). Use of computers for
slope stability analysis. J. Geotech. Engng Div. ASCE 93, No. 4,
475–498.
Yamagami, T. & Ueta, Y. (1988a). Search for critical slip lines in
finite element stress fields by dynamic programming. Proc. 6th
Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck,
1347–1352.
Yamagami, T. & Ueta, Y. (1988b). Search for noncircular slip
surfaces by the Morgenstern–Price method. Proc. 6th Int. Conf.
on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck, 1335–1340.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Humpheson, C. & Lewis, R. W. (1975).
Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity and plasticity in
soil mechanics. Géotechnique 25, No. 4, 671–689.
Zolfaghari, A. R., Heath, A. C. & McCombie, P. F. (2005). Simple
genetic algorithm search for critical non-circular failure surface
in slope stability analysis. Comput. Geotech. 32, No. 3, 139–
152.
Zou, J. Z., Williams, D. J. & Xiong, W. L. (1995). Search for
critical slip surfaces based on finite element method. Can.
Geotech. J. 32, No. 2, 233–246.

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 86.0.218.4
On: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:24:01
View publication stats