SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

Lesson 06
Chapter 6 Slope Stability

Testing

Theory

Experience

Topics
g Topic

1 (Section 6.0 6.8)

- Stability analysis of slopes

g Topic

2 (Section 6.9)

- Improving the stability of embankments

SLOPE STABILITY

Lesson 06 - Topic 1
Stability analysis of slopes
Section 6.0 6.8

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will

be able to:

- Recall modes of slope failure

- Explain effects of water on slope stability
- Discuss slope stability circular and block
-

analyses
Compute safety factor by chart solution

Stability Problems
g Shallow

translational
failure (Infinite
Slope)
g Circular

Failure

Embankment Fill

Firm Soil

Stability Problems
g Sliding

block
failure

g Lateral

squeeze

- Lesson 7

Effect of Water on Slope Stability

g Frictional

Soils

- Below Water Table, Buoyancy Reduces Shearing

Resistance
g Clays

- Cohesive Strength Decreases as Water Content

Increases
Cohesive
Strength

Water
Content

Effect of Water on Slope Stability

(Contd)
g Fills

on Clays and Silts

- Soil Consolidates as Water is Squeezed Out Factor of Safety Increases With Time
g Cuts

in Clay

- Soil Absorbs Water When Overburden Pressure

Removed - Factor of Safety Decreases With Time

Effect of Water on Slope Stability

(Contd)
g Shales,

Claystones, Siltstones, Etc.

- Weak Rock Materials Slake When Exposed to

Water - Embankments Undergo Internal
Settlement or Failure

Design Factor of Safety

g Minimum
g Use

FS = 1.25 for highway side slopes

FS = 1.3 to 1.5 for critical slopes such as

end slopes under abutments, slopes
containing footings, major retaining
structures

Design Factor of Safety

g Selection

of FS depends on:

- Method of stability analysis

- Method used to determine shear strength
- Degree of confidence in reliability of subsurface
data

- Consequences of failure
- Criticality of the application

Infinite Slope Analysis

g Slope

that extends for a relatively long

distance and has consistent subsurface
profile can be considered as infinite slope
g Failure plane parallel to slope surface

Embankment Fill

Firm Soil

Infinite Slope Analysis in Dry Sands

b
Slope
Surface

W=bh
S

N = W cos

W
h

T
S
N
Failure
Surface

g FS

W
T = W sin

S = N tan
ForcePolygon
S
N tan
tan
FS = =
=
T W sin
tan

is independent of slope height h

g FS is a function of only and

c- soils with Water

Slope Surface

Seepage
Flow

h cos2
T
N'+U
Pore Water Force
U = wbh cos
Failure Surface

c' + h ( sat - w ) cos 2 ( ) tan '

FS =
sat h sin cos

For c' = 0

' tan '

FS =
sat tan

Circular Arc Failure

Resi
stan
ce

F orc

Circular Arc Failure

Resisting Moment
FS =
Overturnin g Moment

FS =

Total Shear Strength LS

Weight Force L W

Simple Rule-of-Thumb for FS

g Only

for preliminary guestimate for FS

6c
FS
Fill H Fill

c = cohesion of foundation soil

Fill = unit weight of fill
HFill = Height of fill
g No

water

What is the FS for following case?

(6)(1100 psf)
FS =
= 1.69
(130 pcf)(30 ft)

Circular Arc Stability Analysis

(ORDINARY METHOD OF SLICES)
le
Circ

R
s
u
i
Rad

Fill

Firm
Soft
Firm

Slip
Surface

Step by Step Procedure

1.
2.
3.

Draw cross-section to natural scale

Select failure surface
Divide the failure mass into 10-15 slices
using suggestions on Page 6-14

Forces on a Slice
Without Water

With Water

Failure Mass Divided into Slices

O
= +

2:1
R
9

15

+3

+4

4 32
+5

+16

+9

5
+5

1
1

24

10

+1

+ 25

4
9

53 4

15
14 13 12
2

16

60

Note that slices 1 through 9 have positive angles and

contribute to the driving force. Slices 10 through 16 have
negative angles and reduce the net driving force.

Step by Step Procedure

4. Compute total weight ( WT ) of each slice
5. Compute frictional resisting force for each slice
N Tan - ul
6. Compute cohesive resisting force for each slice
Cl
7. Compute tangential driving force (T) for each
slice
8. Sum resisting and driving forces for ALL slices
and compute FS
Resisting Forces N tan + c 1
FS =
=
T
Driving Forces

Example of One Slice w/o Water

Assume:
g total = 120 pcf, slice height = 10
slice width = 10, = 25,
= 20, l =11, C = 200 psf.
g Find:

Resisting and Driving Forces

Compute Slice Weight and Normal

Force
W T = total x slice area (x 1 thick)
= 120 pcf x 10 x 10
= 12,000 lbs
N

= WT cos - ul
= 12,000 lbs x cos 20
= 11,276 lbs

Compute Resisting and Driving

Forces
N Tan = 11276 x Tan 25
= 5,258 lbs
Cl = 200 psf x 11 x 1
= 2,200 lbs
T = Wt Sin
= 12,000 lbs x Sin 20
= 4,104 lbs

Group Exercise
g Assuming

the water is 5 above the slice

base, which of the force components change
in this exercise?

Solution
g The

water will affect the normal force, N

N = WT Cos - ul
= 12,000 lbs x Cos 20 - 5 x 62.4 x 11
= 11,276 lbs 3,432 lbs
= 7,844 lbs
(N=11,276 lbs for original water level)

Tabular Form for Calculations

g Figure

6-11
g Figure 6-12

Recommended Stability Methods

g Limit

equilibrium methods

- Summation of moments, vertical and horizontal

forces
g Ordinary

Method of Slices (OMS) ignores

both shear and normal interslice forces and
considers only moment equilibrium

Recommended Stability Methods

g Variations

of OMS are Bishop method,

Simplified Janbu method, Spencer method,
etc.

g Bishop

method

- Also known as Simplified Bishop method

- Includes interslice normal forces
- Neglects interslice shear forces
- Satisfies only moment equilibrium

Recommended Stability Methods

g Simplified

Janbu method

- Includes interslice normal forces

- Neglects interslice shear forces
- Satisfies only horizontal force equilibrium
g Spencer

method

- Includes both normal and shear interslice forces

- Considers moment equilibrium
- More accurate than other methods

Recommended Stability Methods

g OMS

is conservative and gives

unrealistically lower FS than Bishop or other
refined methods
g For purely cohesive soils, OMS and Bishop
method give identical results
g For frictional soils, Bishop method should be
used as a minimum
g Recommendation: Use Bishop, Simplified
Janbu or Spencer

Slope Stability Guidelines for Design

g Table

6-1

g Computer

analysis is now-a-days commonly

performed by use of slope stability software

- XSTABL, UTEXAS, ReSSA, SLOPE/W, etc

Remarks on Safety Factor

g Minimum

FS = 1.25 using OMS

g Use

FS = 1.3 to 1.5 for critical slopes such as

end slopes under abutments, slopes
containing footings, major retaining
structures

g Use

FS = 1.5 for cut slopes in fine-grained

soils which can lose strength with time

Critical Failure Surface

Critical Failure Surface

g Check

multiple failure surfaces and compare

the lowest safety factors
g Search all areas of slope to find the lowest
safety factor
g Be careful of secondary features such as
thin weak layers
g Evaluate all loading and unloading
conditions, e.g., rapid drawdown
g Use stability charts to develop a feel for
the safety factor

Stability Charts
g Assumptions

- Two-dimensional limit equilibrium analysis

- Simple homogeneous slopes
- Circular slip surfaces only
g Useful

for preliminary analysis prior to

computer analysis to develop a feel for
safety factor

Taylors Stability
Charts
g Stability

Number

c
Ns =
Fc H
g In

terms of Fc

See Figure 6-15

c
Fc =
N s H
g FS

= Fc = F
Slope Angle,

Taylors Stability
Charts
for =0
conditions and <54

g Chart

For > 53, use Figure 6-14

= 53

Determination of Factor of Safety

c
tan

=
+
FS
FS
FS

d = c d + tan d

d =
;
FS

d =
FS

c
;
c d =
FS

tan
tan d =
FS

Example 6-1
g 30-ft

high slope
g Slope angle, = 30
g Total unit weight, = 120 pcf
g Effective cohesion, c = 500 psf
g Effective friction angle, =20
g Determine

the Factor of Safety, FS

Example Computation
g Assume

FS = 1.6
g FS = Fc = F

20 o
d =
=
= 12 . 5 o
FS
1 .6

d=12.5 and = 30, the stability factor, Ns, is

0.06. Thus,
500 psf
0 . 06 =
( 1 . 6 ) ( 120 pcf ) ( H )

g For

500 psf
H =
= 43 . 4 ft > 30 ft
( 1 . 6 ) ( 120 pcf ) ( 0 . 06 )

Taylors Stability Charts

0.075
0.06

Slope Angle,

Example Computation
g Since

43.4 ft > 30 ft, the actual FS is higher than 1.6.

g Assume FS=1.9
g FS

= Fc = F= 1.9 =>

20o
=
= 10.5o
d =
FS 1.9

=> Ns 0.075

500 psf
H =
= 29 . 2 ft
( 1 . 9 ) ( 120 pcf ) ( 0 . 075 )
g Computed

H is close to actual height of 30 ft

- Therefore, FS 1.9

Janbus Stability Charts

g Account

for:

- Surcharge loading at top of slope

- Submergence
- Tension cracks
- Seepage
g Section

6.6.3

Sliding Block Failure Types

1

Fill
Shallow Weak Soil Layer
Firm Soil

Fill

Thin Seam Weak Clay

Firm Soil
Firm Soil

Fill

Lens of Silt or Sand

w/o Frictional Resistance
Impermeable Clay
Clay
Clay

After Slide
CL SR 42 Oregon
Fill

18
12

Sandstone
Silty Clay

24

Active
Wedge

Sliding
Block
Analysis

Fill

Central
Block

Passive
Wedge

Pa
Pp

Sand
Soft
Clay
Seam

cL

Sand

Pa = Active Driving Force = H2Ka

Pp = Passive Resisting Force = H2Kp
cL = Resisting Force Due To Clay Cohesion

Resisting Forces Pp + cL
=
FS =
Driving Forces
Pa

Example 6-3
the Safety Factor for the 20 high
embankment by the simple sliding block
method using Rankine pressure coefficients,
for the slope shown below

g Find

20

10

T = 110 pcf
= 30

T = 110 pcf
= 30
Soft Clay C = 400psf
Firm Material

Example 6-3
g Add

solution

Student Exercise 2
g Using

a Rankine sliding block analysis, determine

the safety factor against sliding for the
embankment and assumed failure surface shown
2
30

Sand Fill
= 120 pcf
= 30

45 - /2
30

10
5
16

1
OGS

OGS

Sand
= 120 pcf = 30
Soft Clay

Sand = 60 pcf
= 30

45 + /2
C = 250 psf

Solution
K a = tan 2 ( 45 ) = tan 2 ( 45 30 ) = 0.33
2
2
Kp = tan 2 ( 45 ) = tan 2 ( 45 + 30 ) = 3.0
2
2
( per ft.) Pa = 1 H 2 K a = 1 (0.120kcf )( 40ft )2 (0.33)(1ft ) = 32 Kips
2
2
Pp = 1 H 2 K p = 1 (0.120kcf )(10ft )2 (3.0)(1ft ) = 18Kips
2
2
cL = (0.250ksf )(60ft )(1ft ) = 15Kips

Resisting Forces Pp + cL 18Kips + 15Kips

FS =
=
=
Pa
32 Kips
Driving Forces

F.S. = 1.03 TOO LOW!!

Student Exercise
g Same

as previous exercise except that water

table rises of 10 ft to OGS

Solution
Pa1 = 1H1K a1 = (0.120kcf )(30' )(0.33) = 1.2ksf ( per foot )
PaFill = (1.2 Ksf )(30' )( 1 )(1' ) = 18Kips
2
Pa 2 = 1.2ksf + (0.060kcf )(10' )(0.33) = 1.4ksf ( per foot )
(1.2ksf + 1.4ksf )
PaSand =
(10' )(1' ) = 13Kips
2
PaTotal = 18Kips + 13Kips = 31Kips
Pp = 1 b H 2 K p = 1 (0.060kcf )(10' )2 (3) = 9 Kips << 18Kips Previous
2
2
cL = (0.250ksf )(60' )(1' ) = 15Kips
Pp + cL 9 Kips + 15Kips
FS =
=
= 0.77
Pa
31Kips
g 10

ft rise in water lowers the FS from 1.03 to 0.77

Use of Computer Programs

g Several

methods for stability analysis

- Consideration of interslice forces, irregular

failure surfaces, seismic forces, external forces,
tieback forces, piezometric level, heterogeneous
soil systems, etc.
g User

friendly input and output

g User documented and verified program
g XSTABL, UTEXAS, SLOPE/W, ReSSA

Be Careful with Computer Programs

g Place

emphasis where it belongs

- Investigation
- Sampling
- Testing
- Development of soil profile
- Design soil strengths
- Water table location
g Garbage

in Garbage out

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will

be able to:

- Recall modes of slope failure

- Explain effects of water on slope stability
- Discuss slope stability circular and block
-

analyses
Compute safety factor by chart solution

Any Questions?
THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS

SLOPE STABILITY

Lesson 06 - Topic 2
Improving the stability of embankments
Section 6.9

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will

be able to:

- Recall methods for stabilizing fill slopes

- Describe reinforced soil slopes
- List techniques to improve cut slopes

Mitigating Slope Stability Problems

g Table

6-2

Solutions to Slope Stability

Problems
g Change

alignment
g Lower grade
g Counterweight berm
g Excavate and replace weak soil

Solutions to Slope Stability

Problems (Contd)
g Displace

weak soil
g Stage construct fill
g Lightweight fill
g Ground improvement
g Reinforcement of embankment soils

Reduce Grade

Fill
Firm
Soft

Slip Surface

Firm

Foundation Overstressed

Reduced Load

Effect: Reduces Driving Weight

Counterweight Berm
Additional Resisting
Weight
Fill
Soft

Berm
Slip Surface

Firm
Effect: Provides Resisting Weight

Excavate and Replace Weak Soil

Fill
Fill

Soft

Granular Fill
Shear Key

Firm
Effect: Stronger Soil Resists Sliding

Displacement of Weak Soils

Direction of Work

Desired
Grade

Embankment

Water Table
Mud Wave
Soft, Weak
Compressible
Soil

Rolling
Surcharge

Good Material
Replacing
Displaced Poor
Material

Firm Bottom

Water
Table

Fill Stage Construction

FILL
STAGE 2

STAGE 1
WEAK SOIL

Lightweight Fill
Lightweight
Fill
Granular
Fill

Soft

Slip Surface

Firm

Effect: Reduce Driving Weight

Examples of Lightweight Fill

Materials
g Wood

Fiber
g Shredded Tires
g EPS

Cut Slope Stability

g Deep-Seated

Failure (clays)
g Shallow Surface Sloughs in Saturated
Slopes of Clay, Silt and/or Fine Sand

Ground Improvement
g Grouting
g Vertical

Wick Drains
g Stone Columns
g Vibro Compaction
g Dynamic Compaction

g Soil

Mixing
g Soil Nailing
g Reinforced Soil Slopes
g Micropiles

Ground Improvement
Stone Columns

Reinforced Soil Slopes

Preliminary Design of RSS

g Figure

6-28

Solutions to Cut Slope Stability

Problems
Table 6-3
g Flatten or Bench Slope
g Bench slope
g Buttress Toe
g Lower Water Table
g Reinforcement (e.g., soil nail, biotechnical)

Cut Slope Stability

Before
Before Cut
Cut

After
After Cut
Cut

Failure
Failure
Seepage
Seepage

Toe
Toe
Clay
Clay Soil
Soil

W
W
TTaa aatteerr
bblle
e

Swelling
Swelling

Toe
Toe

cee
faac
urrf
SSu
liipp
SSl

W
Waat
TTaab teerr
bllee

Undrained
Undrained Clay
Clay in
in Cut
Cut Gradually
Gradually Weakens
Weakens
And
And May
May Fail
Fail Long
Long After
After Construction
Construction

Factor of Safety for Cut Slopes

Minimum Recommended Safety Factor = 1.50
Cut slopes may deteriorate with time as a
result of natural drainage conditions that
embankments do not experience

Learning Outcomes
g At

the end of this session, the participant will

be able to:

- Recall methods for stabilizing fill slopes

- Describe reinforced soil slopes
- List techniques to improve cut slopes

Any Questions?
THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS

Interstate 0 Apple Freeway

Note: Scale shown in Station Form
S.B.
Apple
Frwy

Baseline
Baseline
Stationing
Stationing

90
90

91
91

N.B.
Apple
Frwy

92
92

93
93

Interstate
Interstate 00

Proposed
Proposed Toe
Toe
of
of Slope
Slope
Proposed
Proposed Final
Final Grade
Grade
2

Existing
Existing
Ground
Ground Surface
Surface

Proposed
Proposed
Abutment
Abutment

Apple Freeway
Exercise
g Appendix

Subsurface
Explorations

Terrain reconnaissance
Site inspection
Subsurface borings

Basic Soil Properties

Visual description
Classification tests
Soil Profile

Laboratory Testing

Po diagram
Test request
Consolidation results
Strength results

Slope
Stability

- Section A.5
Approach Roadway
Settlement

Design soil profile

Magnitude of settlement
Rate of settlement
Surcharge
Vertical drains

Spread Footing
Design

Design soil profile

Pier bearing capacity
Pier settlement
Abutment settlement
Surcharge
Vertical drains

Driven Pile Design

Design soil profile

Static analysis pier
Pipe pile
H pile
Static analysis abutment
Pipe pile
H pile
Driving resistance
Lateral movement - abutment

Construction
Monitoring

Wave equation
Hammer approval
Embankment instrumentation

Design soil profile

Circular arc analysis
Sliding block analysis
Lateral squeeze analysis

Design Soil Profile (East Approach

Embankment)
= 130 pcf

2:1

= 90 pcf

= 40

w = 120%

30' Fill

C=0
10'

3 Organic

5'

= 110 pcf

= 36

C=0
= 125 pcf
=0

25'

7' Sand
35' Clay

C = 1100 psf
= 130 pcf
= 43
C=0

Dense
Gravel

Compute FS Against Circular Arc

Failure Rule of Thumb Analysis
6C
Factor of Safety ( F .S .) =
Fill H Fill
30
Soft Clay

Fill = 130 pcf

C = 1100 psf
Bedrock

( 6 )( 1100 )
F .S . =
= 1.69
( 130 )( 30 )

Compute FS Against Circular Arc

Failure Normal Method (Hand Solution)
O

R
2:1
33' Fill
10'

7' Sand

25'

35' Clay

Dense
Gravel

For deep clay subsoil, the critical (min FS) failure surface
will generally pass deep into the weakest clay layer. The
center of the circle usually lies above the fill slope

Compute FS Against Circular Arc

Failure Normal Method (Hand Solution)
O
R
2:1
R

+
+554
1

8
9

33' Fill

15

24

+16

3
2

7' Sand

= 0

4
+3

11

12

+9

2
4

13

+1

25'

14

10

+25

10' 15

3
5 49

4 32
=+6
0

3
+4

16

35' Clay

Dense
Gravel

Note that slices 1 through 9 have positive angles and

contribute to the driving forces. Slices 10 through 16 have
negative angles and reduce the net driving forces

u ul

ul
u

Compute FS Against Circular Arc

Failure Normal Method (Hand Solution)
F.S.
Normal = 1.36
O

R
2:1

33' Fill

10'

7' Sand

25'

35' Clay
Dense
Gravel

Comparison of Factors of Safety

O

R
2:1

Critical circle

33' Fill

10'

7' Sand

25'

35' Clay

Dense
Gravel

g
g
g

FS = 1.36 Normal method (hand solution)

FS = 1.63 Bishop method (computer program)
Remember that Normal method is very conservative when
the soil profile has friction soil and the Bishop method is
more theoretically correct.

Sliding Block Analysis

East Approach Embankment
g Estimate

FS (assume failure surface as shown)

Active
Wedge

= 130 pcf

2:1
Passive
PP Wedge

10'
25'

Central
Block

= 110 pcf

PA

= 40o 33' Fill

C=0

= 36 C=0 7' Sand

L = 60'
Assumed Failure CL
Surface

= 125 pcf 35
=0
Clay
C = 1100 psf
Dense
Gravel

Sliding Block Analysis

East Approach Embankment
Active
Wedge

PP = 18 K

2:1

PA = 24 K

Central
Block

Passive
Wedge

10'

7' Sand

CL = 66 K

25'

35' Clay
= 125 pcf
C = 1100 psf
Dense
Gravel

Compute F.S. :

F.S. =

Horiz. Resisting Forces

Horiz. Driving Forces
18 K + 66 K
24 K

g Circular

33' Fill

84 K
= 3.5 (O.K.)
24 K

Arc Failure More Critical

Summary of Embankment Slope

Stability
g Design

soil profile

- Soil layer unit weights and strengths estimated

g Circular

arc analysis

- Approach embankment slope stability safety

factor of 1.63 against circular failure
g Sliding

block analysis

- Approach embankment slope stability safety

factor of 3.5 against sliding failure

Any Questions?
THE ROAD TO
UNDERSTANDING
SOILS
AND
FOUNDATIONS