Slide

2D limit equilibrium slope stability

for soil and rock slopes

Slope Stability
Verification Manual
Part I

© 2010 Rocscience Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION 7

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #1 8

Simple slope

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #2 12

Tension crack

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #3 16

Non-homogeneous

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #4 20

Non-homogeneous with seismic load

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #5 24

Talbingo dam, dry

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #6 28

Talbingo dam, dry, predefined slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #7 32

Water table modeled with weak seam

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #8 35

Problem 7 with predefined slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #9 38

External loading, pore pressure defined by water table

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #10 43

Pore pressure defined by digitized total head grid

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #11 47

Pore pressure defined by pore pressure grid

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #12 51

Pore pressure defined by pore pressure grid, tension crack

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #13 55

Pore pressure defined by pore pressure grid, two sets of limits
SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #14 59
Simple slope

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #15 62

Layered slope, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #16 65

Simple slope with water table, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #17 68

Simple slope, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #18 71

Simple slope, pore pressure defined by Ru value, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #19 73

Layered slope, optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #20 75

Layered slope, water table, weak seam, search object, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #21 78

Simple slope under three different pore pressure conditions, known slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #22 79

Simple slope under three different pore pressure conditions, known slip surface, weak seam

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #23 81

Linearly varying cohesion in one layer

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #24 83

Layered, undrained slope

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #25 85

Weightless frictionless slope subjected to vertical load

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #26 87

Weightless frictionless slope subjected to vertical load

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #27 88

Layered slope, undulating bedrock, different unit weight of saturated vs. unsaturated layer,
tension crack, water table

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #28 91

Probabilistic analysis, layered slope, probability of failure calculated

2
SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #29 101
Probabilistic analysis, linearly varying cohesion, underwater slope, reliability index

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #30 103

Geosynthetic reinforcement, layered slope, varying undrained shear strength known slip surfaces

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #31 105

Geosynthetic reinforcement, layered slope, varying undrained shear strength, known slip surfaces

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #32 107

Geosynthetic reinforcement, layered slope, varying undrained shear strength, known slip surfaces

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #33 110

Syncrude tailings dyke, probabilistic analysis, multiple phreatic surfaces

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #34 112

Clarence Cannon Dam, probabilistic analysis, known noncircular failure surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #35 114

Clarence Cannon Dam, probabilistic analysis, comparison of reliability indices of known
circular surfaces

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #36 117

Probabilistic analysis, reliability index comparison

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #37 119

Back analysis used for placement of necessary reinforcement

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #38 122

Finite element analysis of steep cut slope, user-defined hydraulic parameters

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #39 125

Water-filled tension crack, geosynthetic reinforcement

3
PART TWO

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #40 128

Strength modeled by power curve, graphing with Slide

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #41 131

Strength modeled by power curve, pore pressure defined by Ru

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #42 133

Safety factor contours on dam, pore pressure defined by water table, ponded water

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #43 136

Planar failure, varied β, comparison with RocPlane

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #44 140

Linear vs. Non-linear envelopes, graphing base normal stress, derivation of power curve
parameteres

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #45 142

Linear vs. Non-linear envelopes, graphing base normal stress, derivation of power curve
parameters

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #46 144

Finite element analysis, three conditions, rapid drawdown, pore pressure contours

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #47 150

Soil nailed wall, undrained shear strength

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #48 152

Soil nailed wall, sensitivity of β

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #49 154

Soldier pile tieback wall

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #50 156

Multiple soil nail properties

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #51 158

Seismic coefficient, simultaneous use of all analysis methods, user-defined failure surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #52 160

Shallow vs. deep failure surface, wet vs. dry slope, tension crack

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #53 165

Modeling planar rock failure by using tension crack

4
SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #54 167
Stabilizing piles, reinforced vs. unreinforced slope

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #55 169

Simple slope with water table, compared results with all other SSA programs

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #56 170

Water table, tension crack, compared results with all other SSA programs

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #57 171

Water table, tension crack, two layers, compared results with all other SSA programs

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #58 172

Water table, multiple layers, grouted tieback, compared results with all other SSA programs

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #59 174

Arched water table, tieback wall, compared results with all other SSA programs

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #60 176

Soil nailed wall, two external loads, varying soil nail properties, compared results with all other
SSA programs

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #61 178

Linear vs. Non-linear envelopes, graphing base normal stress, derivation of power curve
parameters

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #62 180

Seismic loading, wet vs. dry conditions, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #63 184

Seismic loading, layered slope, Monte-Carlo optimization

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #64 186

Non-homogenous slope, tension crack, water table, given slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #65 190

Non-homogeneous slope, water pool, given slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #66 194

Non-homogeneous slope, water pool, given slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #67 198

Non-homogeneous, undrained slope, given slip surface

5
SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #68 202
Three layered slope, undrained, given slip surface

SLIDE VERIFICATION PROBLEM #69 206

Two layered slope, steady seepage, given slip surface

REFERENCES 210

6
Introduction

This document contains a series of verification slope stability problems that have been analyzed
using SLIDE version 5.0. These verification tests come from:

• A set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS
(Association for Computer Aided Design), in 1988. The SLIDE verification problems #1 to
#10 are based on these ACADS example problems (Giam & Donald (1989)).

• Published examples found in reference material such as journal and conference proceedings.

For all examples, a short statement of the problem is given first, followed by a presentation of the
analysis results, using various limit equilibrium analysis methods. Full references cited in the
verification tests are found at the end of this document.

The SLIDE verification files can be found in the Examples > Verification folder in your SLIDE
installation folder. The file names are verification#1.sli, verification#2.sli etc, corresponding to
the verification problem numbers in this document.

All verification files run with the Slide Demo, so if you want details which are not presented in
this document, then download the demo to view all the input parameters and results.

7
SLIDE Verification Problem #1

1.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(a) problem.

1.2 Problem Description

This problem as shown in Figure 1 is the simple case of a total stress analysis without
considering pore water pressures. It represents a homogenous slope with soil properties given
in Table 1.1. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure is required.

A slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11 circles per gridpoint,
generating a total of 4851 circular slip surfaces. Grid is located at (22.8, 62.6), (22.8,42.3),
(43.7,62.6), (43.7,42.3). Tolerance is 0.0001.

1.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 1.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

3.0 19.6 20.0

(50,35) (70,35)

(20,25)
(30,25)

(20,20) (70,20)

Figure 1

8
1.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 0.987
Spencer 0.986
GLE 0.986
Janbu Corrected 0.990

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.00 [Giam]

Mean Bishop FOS (18 samples) = 0.993
Mean FOS (33 samples) = 0.991

Figure 1.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

9
Figure 1.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 1.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

10
Figure 1.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

11
SLIDE Verification Problem #2

2.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(b) problem.

2.2 Problem description

Problem #2 has the same slope geometry as verification problem #1, with the addition of a
tension crack zone, as shown in Figure 2. For this problem, a suitable tension crack depth is
required and water is assumed to have filled the tension crack. The tension crack depth can be
estimated from the following equations [Craig (1997)] :

2c 1 − sin φ
Depth = , ka =
γ ka 1 + sin φ

In order to locate the critical slip surfaces, a slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was
used, with 11 circles per gridpoint, generating a total of 4851 slip surfaces. Grid located at
(31,49), (47,49), (31,34), (47,34). Tolerance is 0.0001.

2.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 2.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

32.0 10.0 20.0

Figure 2

12
2.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.596
Spencer 1.592
GLE 1.592
Janbu Corrected 1.489

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.65 [Giam]

Figure 2.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

13
Figure 2.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 2.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

14
Figure 2.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

15
SLIDE Verification Problem #3

3.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(c) problem.

3.2 Problem description

Problem #3 is a non-homogeneous, three layer slope with material properties given in Table
3.1. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure surface is required.

A slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11 circles per gridpoint,
generating a total of 4851 slip surfaces.

3.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 3.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Soil #1 0.0 38.0 19.5
Soil #2 5.3 23.0 19.5
Soil #3 7.2 20.0 19.5

(50,35) (70,35)

(54,31) soil #1 (70,31)

(50,29) soil #2
(20,25)
(40,27)
(30,25) (52,24) (70,24)
soil #3

(20,20) (70,20)
Figure 3

16
3.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.405
Spencer 1.375
GLE 1.374
Janbu Corrected 1.357

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.39 [Giam]

Mean Bishop FOS (16 samples) = 1.406
Mean FOS (31 samples) = 1.381

Figure 3.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

17
Figure 3.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 3.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

18
Figure 3.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

19
SLIDE Verification Problem #4

4.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(d) problem.

4.2 Problem description

Problem #4 is a non-homogeneous, three layer slope with material properties given in Table
4.1 and geometry as shown in Figure 4. This problem is identical to #3, but with a horizontal
seismically induced acceleration of 0.15g included in the analysis. The factor of safety and
its corresponding critical circular failure surface is required.

4.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 4.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Soil #1 0.0 38.0 19.5
Soil #2 5.3 23.0 19.5
Soil #3 7.2 20.0 19.5

(50,35) (70,35)

(54,31) soil #1 (70,31)

(50,29) soil #2
(20,25)
(40,27)
(30,25) (52,24) (70,24)
soil #3

(20,20) (70,20)
Figure 4

20
4.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.015
Spencer 0.991
GLE 0.989
Janbu Corrected 0.965

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.00 [Giam]

Mean FOS (15 samples) = 0.973

Figure 4.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

21
Figure 4.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 4.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

22
Figure 4.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

23
SLIDE Verification Problem #5

5.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 2(a) problem.

5.2 Problem description

Problem #5 is Talbingo Dam as shown in Figure 5. The material properties for the end of
construction stage are given in Table 5.1 while the geometrical data are given in Table 5.2.
The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure surface is required.

5.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 5.1: Material Properties
c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
Rockfill 0 45 20.4
Transitions 0 45 20.4
Filter 0 45 20.4
Core 85 23 18.1

Table 5.2: Geometry Data

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m)
1 0 0 10 515 65.3 19 307.1 0
2 315.5 162 11 521.1 65.3 20 331.3 130.6
3 319.5 162 12 577.9 31.4 21 328.8 146.1
4 321.6 162 13 585.1 31.4 22 310.7 0
5 327.6 162 14 648 0 23 333.7 130.6
6 386.9 130.6 15 168.1 0 24 331.3 146.1
7 394.1 130.6 16 302.2 130.6 25 372.4 0
8 453.4 97.9 17 200.7 0 26 347 130.6
9 460.6 97.9 18 311.9 130.6 - - -

2 3 4 5

21 24

16 18 20 23 26

Rockfill Core
7
6 9 Filter (very thin
seam)
8
Transitions
10 11

1 12 13
15 17 19 22 25 14
Figure 5
24
5.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.948
Spencer 1.948
GLE 1.948
Janbu Corrected 1.949

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.95 [Giam]

Mean FOS (24 samples) = 2.0

NOTE: the minimum safety factor surfaces in this case, correspond to shallow, translational
slides parallel to the slope surface.

Figure 5.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

25
Figure 5.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 5.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

26
Figure 5.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

27
SLIDE Verification Problem #6

6.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 2(b) problem.

6.2 Problem description

Problem #6 is identical to verification problem #5, except a single circular slip surface of
known center and radius, is analyzed. See problem #5 for material properties and boundary
coordinates.

6.3 Geometry

Figure 6

Table 6.3: Data for slip circle

Xc (m) Yc (m) Radius (m)

100.3 291.0 278.8

28
6.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.208
Spencer 2.292
GLE 2.301
Janbu Corrected 2.073

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 2.29 [Giam]

Mean Bishop FOS (11 samples) = 2.204
Mean FOS (24 samples) = 2.239

Figure 6.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

29
Figure 6.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 6.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

30
Figure 6.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

31
SLIDE Verification Problem #7

7.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 3(a) problem.

7.2 Problem description

This problem has material properties given in Table 7.1, and is shown in Figure 7. The water
table is assumed to coincide with the base of the weak layer. The effect of negative pore
water pressure above the water table is to be ignored (i.e. u=0 above water table). The effect
of the tension crack is also to be ignored in this problem. The factor of safety and its
corresponding critical non-circular failure surface is required.
Note: Values of 45,65 and 135,155 degrees are used for the block search line projection
angles. Line should be in the middle of the seam.

7.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 7.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Soil #1 28.5 20.0 18.84
Soil #2 0 10.0 18.84

(67.5,40) (84,40)
Soil #2 (seam)
Soil #1

(20,27.75) (43,27.75) (84,27)

(20,27)
(20,26.5) Soil #1 (84,26.5)

(20,20) (84,20)
Figure 7

32
7.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.258
GLE 1.246
Janbu Corrected 1.275

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.24 – 1.27 [Giam]

Mean Non-circular FOS (19 samples) = 1.293

Figure 7.4.1 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

33
 Figure 7.4.2 – Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 7.4.3 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

34
SLIDE Verification Problem #8

8.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 3(b) problem.

8.2 Problem description

Problem #8 is identical to verification problem #7, except a single non-circular slip surface of
known coordinates is analyzed.

8.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 8.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Soil #1 28.5 20.0 18.84
Soil #2 0 10.0 18.84

(67.5,40) (84,40)

Soil #1

(20,27.75) (43,27.75) (84,27)

(20,27)
(20,26.5) Soil #2 (84,26.5)

(20,20) (84,20)
Figure 8

Table 8.2: Failure Surface Coordinates

X (m) Y (m)
41.85 27.75
44.00 26.50
63.50 27.00
73.31 40.00

Axis of Rotation: (53.3, 45)

35
8.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.277
GLE 1.262
Janbu Corrected 1.294

Note : Referee Factor of Safety = 1.34 [Giam]

Mean FOS (30 samples) = 1.29

Figure 8.4.1 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

36
 Figure 8.4.2 – Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 8.4.3 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

37
SLIDE Verification Problem #9

9.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 4 problem.

9.2 Problem description

Problem #9 is shown in Figure 9. The soil parameters, external loadings and piezometric
surface are shown in Table 9.1, Table 9.2 and Table 9.3 respectively. The effect of a tension
crack is to be ignored. The noncircular critical slip surface and corresponding factor of safety
are required.

A block search for the critical non-circular failure surface was carried out by defining a block
search polyline object within the weak layer, and variable projection angles from the weak
layer to the slope surface. A total of 5000 random surfaces were generated by the search. The
results are compared with optimization results.

9.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 9.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Soil #1 28.5 20.0 18.84
Soil #2 0 10.0 18.84

38
 Table 9.2: External Loadings

Xc (m) Yc (m) Normal Stress (kN/m2)

23.00 27.75 20.00
43.00 27.75 20.00
70.00 40.00 20.00
80.00 40.00 40.00

Table 9.3: Data for Piezometric surface

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m)

1 20.0 27.75
2 43.0 27.75
3 49.0 29.8
4 60.0 34.0
5 66.0 35.8
6 74.0 37.6
7 80.0 38.4
8 84.0 38.4
Pt.# : Refer to Figure 9

Figure 9

39
9.4 Results – no optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.760
GLE 0.721
Janbu Corrected 0.734

Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 0.78 [Giam]

Mean Non-circular FOS (20 samples) = 0.808
Referee GLE Factor of Safety = 0.6878 [Slope 2000]

Figure 9.4.1 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

40
 Figure 9.4.2 – Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 9.4.3 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

41
9.5 Results – Block search with optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.707
GLE 0.683
Janbu Corrected 0.699
Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 0.78 [Giam]
Mean Non-circular FOS (20 samples) = 0.808
Referee GLE Factor of Safety = 0.6878 [Slope 2000]

42
SLIDE Verification Problem #10

10.1 Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed
both in the Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored
by ACADS (Giam & Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 5 problem.

10.2 Problem description

Problem #10 is shown in Figure 10(a). The soil properties are given in Table 10.1. This slope
has been excavated at a slope of 1:2 (β=26.56˚) below an initially horizontal ground surface.
The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required for
the long term condition, i.e. after the ground water conditions have stabilized. Pore water
pressures may be derived from the given boundary conditions or from the approximate flow
net provided in Figure 10(b). If information is required beyond the geometrical limits of
Figure 10(b), the flow net may be extended by the user. Grid interpolation is done with TIN
triangulation. The critical slip surface (circular) and the corresponding factor of safety are
required.

10.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 10.1: Material Properties
c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
11.0 28.0 20.00

Excavation

(15,35) Initial Ground Level (50,35) (95,35)

(15,33) Initial W.T. Level

Final Ground Profile

(15,26) (32,26)
(15,25) (30,25)
Final External Water level
(15,20) (95,20)
Figure 10(a)

Grid used to draw waterline (which comes from Figure 10(b)) is identical to the data used in
tutorial 5 (tutorial5.sli). The data can be imported from tutorial5.sli or verification#10.sli.

43
 Figure 10(b)

10.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.498
Spencer 1.501
GLE 1.500
Janbu Corrected 1.457

Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 1.53 [Giam]

Mean FOS (23 samples) = 1.464

Figure 10.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

44
Figure 10.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 10.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

45
Figure 10.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

46
SLIDE Verification Problem #11

11.1 Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the Saint-Alban embankment (in Quebec) which was built and
induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1972 (Pilot et.al, 1982).

11.2 Problem description

Problem #11 is shown in Figure 11. The material properties are given in Table 11.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore
water pressures were derived from the given equal pore pressure lines on Figure 11. using the
Thin-Plate Spline interpolation method.

11.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 11.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 44.0 18.8
Clay Foundation 2 28.0 16.68

(0,12) (8,12)
Material Barrier (0,8), (14,8)

Embankment

(0,8) (14,8) (22,8)

u=0 kPa
(0,7.5) (9,6.75) (22,7.5)
(0,6.5) u=30 kPa (4,6.5) (15.25,6) (18,5.75)
(0,5.5) u=60 kPa (4,5.5) (9,6) (22,5.5)
(9,5)
(0,4.25) u=90 kPa (4,4.25) (14.75,4)
(18,3.25)
(14.5,2) (22,3)
Clay Foundation
(18,0.75) (22,0.5)
(22,0)

Figure 11

47
11.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.037
Spencer 1.065
GLE 1.059
Janbu Corrected 1.077

Note: Referee Factor of Safety = 1.04 [Pilot]

Figure 11.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

48
Figure 11.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 11.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

49
Figure 11.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

50
SLIDE Verification Problem #12

12.1 Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the Lanester embankment (in France) which was built and
induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1969 (Pilot et.al, 1982).

12.2 Problem description

Problem #12 is shown in Figure 12. The material properties are given in Table 12.1. The
entire embankment is assumed to represent a dry tension crack zone. The position of the
critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore water pressure
was derived from the data in Table 12.2 using the Thin-Plate Spline interpolation method.
Note: 30 slices used.

12.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 12.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Embankment 30 31 18.2
Soft Clay 4 37 14
Silty Clay 7.5 33 13.2
Sandy Clay 8.5 35 13.7

Table 12.2: Water Pressure Points

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) U (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa)
1 26.5 9 20 9 16 8.5 60 17 31.5 3 80
2 31.5 8.5 20 10 21 8.2 60 18 10.5 6 100
3 10.5 9.3 40 11 26.5 6 60 19 16 5 100
4 16 9.3 40 12 31.5 5 60 20 21 4.5 100
5 21 9.3 40 13 10.5 7.5 80 21 26 2.5 100
6 26.5 7.5 40 14 16 7.5 80 22 31.5 1.3 100
7 31.5 6.8 40 15 21 5.6 80 23 - - -
8 10.5 8.5 60 16 26 4.2 80 24 - - -
Note: Tension crack depth (hatched region in diagram) is 4 m.

(0,14) (20,14)

Embankment

(0,10) (26,10) (40,10)

3 4 5 1
Soft Clay 8 9 10 2
(0,6) 13 14 6 7 (40,6)
18 15 11
(0,4) Silty Clay 19 20 16 12 (40,4)

Sandy Clay 21 17
22
(0,1.3) (10,1) (26,1) (31.5,1.3) (40,1.3)
Figure 12.1 - Geometry

51
12.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.069
Spencer 1.079
GLE 1.077
Janbu Corrected 1.138

Note: Author’s Factor of Safety (by Bishop method) = 1.13 [Pilot]

Figure 12.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

52
Figure 12.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

Figure 12.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

53
Figure 12.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

54
SLIDE Verification Problem #13

13.1 Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the Cubzac-les-Ponts embankment (in France) which was built
and induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1974 (Pilot et.al, 1982).

13.2 Problem description

Problem #13 is shown in Figure 13. The material properties are given in Table 13.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore
water pressure was derived from the data in Table 13.2 using the Thin Plate Spline
interpolation method.

13.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 13.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 35 21.2
Upper Clay 10 24 15.5
Lower Clay 10 28.4 15.5

Table 13.2: Water Pressure Points

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa)
1 11.5 4.5 125 16 16 7.2 25 31 24.5 7.2 25
2 11.5 5.3 100 17 18 2.3 125 32 27 3.1 100
3 11.5 6.8 50 18 18 5.3 100 33 27 6.1 50
4 11.5 7.2 25 19 18 6.8 50 34 27 7.2 25
5 12.75 3.35 125 20 18 7.2 25 35 29.75 1.55 100
6 12.75 5.2 100 21 20 1.15 125 36 29.75 5.55 50
7 12.75 6.8 50 22 20 4.85 100 37 29.75 7.2 25
8 12.75 7.2 25 23 20 6.8 50 38 32.5 0 100
9 14 2.3 125 24 20 7.2 25 39 32.5 5 50
10 14 5.1 100 25 22 0 125 40 32.5 7.2 25
11 14 6.8 50 26 22 4.4 100 41 37.25 4.7 50
12 14 7.2 25 27 22 6.8 50 42 37.25 6.85 25
13 16 2.3 125 28 22 7.2 25 43 42 4.4 50
14 16 5.2 100 29 24.5 3.75 100 44 42 6.5 25
15 16 6.8 50 30 24.5 6.45 50 45 - - -

55
(0,13.5) (20,13.5)

Embankment
(0,9) (26.5,9) (44,9)

(0,8) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 31 (44,8)
(0,6) Upper Clay 3 7 11 15 19 23 27 34 37 40 42 44
2 6 10 14 18 30 33 36 (44,6)
1 22 26 39 41 43
Lower Clay 5 29 32
9 13 17
21 25 35 38

Figure 13
13.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.314
Spencer 1.334
GLE 1.336
Janbu Corrected 1.306

Note: Author’s Factor of Safety (by Bishop method) = 1.24 [Pilot]

56
Figure 13.4.1 – Solution Using the Bishop Method

Figure 13.4.2 – Solution Using the Spencer Method

57
 Figure 13.4.3 – Solution Using the GLE Method

Figure 13.4.4 – Solution Using the Janbu Corrected Method

58
SLIDE Verification Problem #14

14.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#1 and consists of a simple slope of
homogeneous soil with zero pore pressure.

14.2 Problem description

Verification problem #14 is shown in Figure 14.1. The material properties are given in Table
14.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this
problem.

14.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 14.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
soil 41.65 15 18.82

Figure 14.1 - Geometry

59
14.4 Circular Results – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.409
Janbu Simplified 1.319
Janbu Corrected 1.414
Spencer 1.406

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.451

Figure 14.2 – Circular failure surface using Bishop simplified method

60
14.5 Noncircular Results – using Path search with Optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 1.253
Janbu Corrected 1.346
Spencer 1.388

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.265

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 1.357

Figure 14.3 – Noncircular failure surface using janbu simplified method

61
SLIDE Verification Problem #15

15.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#2 and consists of a layered slope
where a layer of low resistance is interposed between two layers of higher strength. A number
of other authors have also analyzed this problem, notably Kim et al. (2002), Malkawi et al.
(2001), and Greco (1996).

15.2 Problem description

Verification problem #15 is shown in Figure 15.1. The material properties are given in Table
15.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this
problem.

15.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 15.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Upper Layer 29.4 12 18.82
Middle Layer 9.8 5 18.82
Lower Layer 294 40 18.82

Figure 15.1 – Geometry

62
15.4 Circular Results – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 0.421
Janbu Simplified 0.410
Janbu Corrected 0.437
Spencer 0.424

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.417

Kim et al. (2002) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.43

Figure 15.2 – Circular failure surface using Bishop simplified method

63
15.5 Noncircular Results – using Random search with Optimization (1000 surfaces)

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 0.394
Janbu Corrected 0.419
Spencer 0.412

Greco (1996) Spencers method using monte carlo searching = 0.39

Kim et al. (2002) Spencers method using random search = 0.44
Kim et al. (2002) Spencers method using pattern search = 0.39
Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.405
Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 0.430

Figure 15.3 – Noncircular failure surface using Spencers method and random search

64
SLIDE Verification Problem #16

16.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#3 and consists of a simple slope of
homogeneous soil with pore pressure.

16.2 Problem description

Verification problem #16 is shown in Figure 16.1. The material properties are given in Table
16.1. The location for the water table is shown in Figure 16.1. The position of the critical slip
surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for both a circular and
noncircular slip surface. Pore pressures are calculated assuming hydrostatic conditions. The
pore pressure at any point below the water table is calculated by measuring the vertical
distance to the water table and multiplying by the unit weight of water. There is zero pore
pressure above the water table.

16.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 16.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
soil 41.65 15 18.82

Figure 16.1 - Geometry

65
16.4 Circular Results – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.117
Janbu Simplified 1.046
Janbu Corrected 1.131
Spencer 1.118

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.138

Figure 16.2 - Failure surface using Bishop simplified method

66
16.5 Noncircular Results – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 0.968
Janbu Corrected 1.050
Spencer 1.094

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.995

Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 1.071

Figure 16.3 – Noncircular failure surface using janbu simplified method

67
SLIDE Verification Problem #17

17.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Yamagami and Ueta (1988) and consists of a simple slope of
homogeneous soil with zero pore pressure. Greco (1996) has also analyzed this slope.

17.2 Problem description

Verification problem #17 is shown in Figure 17.1. The material properties are given in Table
17.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this
problem.

17.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 17.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
soil 9.8 10 17.64

Figure 17.1 - Geometry

68
17.4 Circular Results – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.344
Ordinary 1.278

Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.348

Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Fellenius/Ordinary Factor of Safety = 1.282

17.2 - Failure surface using Bishop simplified method

69
17.5 Noncircular Results – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 1.178
Spencer 1.324

Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.185

Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.339
Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.33

Figure 17.3 – Noncircular failure surface using spencer method

70
SLIDE Verification Problem #18

18.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Baker (1980) and was originally published by Spencer (1969). It
consists of a simple slope of homogeneous soil with pore pressure.

18.2 Problem description

Verification problem #18 is shown in Figure 18.1. The material properties are given in Table
18.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for a noncircular slip surface. The pore pressure within the slope is modeled using
an Ru value of 0.5.

18.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 18.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3) Ru
soil 10.8 40 18 0.5

Figure 18.1 - Geometry

71
18.4 Noncircular Results – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.01

Baker (1980) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.02

Spencer (1969) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.08

Figure 18.2 – Noncircular failure surface using spencer method

72
SLIDE Verification Problem #19

19.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Greco (1996) example #4 and was originally published by
Yamagami and Ueta (1988). It consists of a layered slope without pore pressure.

19.2 Problem description

Verification problem #19 is shown in Figure 19.1. The material properties are given in Table
19.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for a noncircular slip surface.

19.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 19.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
Upper Layer 49 29 20.38
Layer 2 0 30 17.64
Layer 3 7.84 20 20.38
Bottom Layer 0 30 17.64

Figure 19.1 - Geometry

73
19.4 Noncircular Results – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization, convex
surfaces only.

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1. 398

Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.40 - 1.42

Spencer (1969) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.40 - 1.42

Figure 19.2 – Noncircular failure surface using spencer method

74
SLIDE Verification Problem #20

20.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Greco (1996) example #5 and was originally published by Chen and
Shao (1988). It consists of a layered slope with pore pressure and a weak seam.

20.2 Problem description

Verification problem #20 is shown in Figure 20.1. The material properties are given in Table
20.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for a circular and noncircular slip surface. The weak seam is modeled as a 0.5m
thick material layer at the base of the model.

20.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 20.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
Layer 1 9.8 35 20
Layer 2 58.8 25 19
Layer 3 19.8 30 21.5
Layer 4 9.8 16 21.5

Figure 20.1 - Geometry

75
20.4 Circular Results – using grid search and a focus object at the toe (40x40 grid)

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.087
Spencer 1.093

Greco (1996) Spencer factor of safety for nearly circular local critical surface = 1.08

20.2 – Circular failure surface using Bishops method

20.3 – Circular failure surface using Spencer’s method

76
20.5 Noncircular Results – using Block search polyline in the weak seam and Monte-Carlo
optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1. 007

Chen and Shao (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.01 - 1.03

Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.973 - 1.1

Figure 20.4 – Noncircular failure surface using spencer method and block search

77
SLIDE Verification Problem #21

21.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Fredlund and Krahn (1977). It consists of a homogeneous slope
with three separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressure, 3) pore pressures
defined using a water table. The model is done in imperial units to be consistent with the
original paper. Quite a few other authors, such as Baker (1980), Greco (1996), and Malkawi
(2001) have also analyzed this slope.

21.2 Problem description

Verification problem #21 is shown in Figure 21.1. The material properties are given in Table
21.1. The position of the circular slip surface is given in Fredlund and Krahn as being
xc=120,yc=90,radius=80. The GLE/Discrete Morgenstern and Price method was run with the
half sine interslice force function.

Table 21.1: Material Properties

c΄ (psf) φ΄ (deg.) γ (pcf) Ru (case2)
soil 600 20 120 0.25

Figure 21.1 - Geometry

21.3 Circular Results

Case Ordinary Ordinary Bishop Bishop Spencer Spencer M-P M-P

(F&K) (Slide) (F&K) (Slide) (F&K) (Slide) (F&K) (Slide)
1-Dry 1.928 1.931 2.080 2.079 2.073 2.075 2.076 2.075
2-Ru 1.607 1.609 1.766 1.763 1.761 1.760 1.764 1.760
3-WT 1.693 1.697 1.834 1.833 1.830 1.831 1.832 1.831

78
SLIDE Verification Problem #22

22.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Fredlund and Krahn (1977). It consists of a slope with a weak layer
and three separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressure, 3) pore pressures
defined using a water table. The model is done in imperial units to be consistent with the
original paper. Quite a few other authors, such as Kim and Salgado (2002), Baker (1980), and
Zhu, Lee, and Jiang (2003) have also analyzed this slope. Unfortunately, the location of the
weak layer is slightly different in all the above references. Since the results are quite sensitive
to this location, results routinely vary in the second decimal place.

22.2 Problem description

Verification problem #22 is shown in Figure 22.1. The material properties are given in Table
22.1. The position of the composite circular slip surface is given in Fredlund and Krahn as
being xc=120,yc=90,radius=80. The GLE/Discrete Morgenstern and Price method was run
with the half sine interslice force function.

Table 22.1: Material Properties

c΄ (psf) φ΄ (deg.) γ (pcf) Ru (case2)
Upper soil 600 20 120 0.25
Weak layer 0 10 120 0.25

Figure 22.1 – Geometry

79
22.3 Composite Circular Results - SLIDE
Method Case 1: Case 2: Case 3:
Dry Ru WT
Ordinary 1.300 1.039 1.174
Bishop Simplified 1.382 1.124 1.243
Spencer 1.382 1.124 1.244
GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.372 1.114 1.237

Composite Circular Results – Fredlund & Krahn

Method Case 1: Case 2: Case 3:
Dry Ru WT
Ordinary 1.288 1.029 1.171
Bishop Simplified 1.377 1.124 1.248
Spencer 1.373 1.118 1.245
GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.370 1.118 1.245

Composite Circular Results – Zhu, Lee, and Jiang

Method Case 1: Case 2: Case 3:
Dry Ru WT
Ordinary 1.300 1.038 1.192
Bishop Simplified 1.380 1.118 1.260
Spencer 1.381 1.119 1.261
GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.371 1.109 1.254

80
SLIDE Verification Problem #23

23.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Low (1989). It consists of a slope overlaying two soil layers.

23.2 Problem description

Verification problem #23 is shown in Figure 23.1. The material properties are given in Table
23.1. The middle and lower soils have constant and linearly varying undrained shear strength.
The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated
for a circular slip surface using both the bishop and ordinary/fellenius methods.

Table 23.1: Material Properties

Cutop (KN/m2) Cubottom (KN/m2) φ (deg.) γ (KN/m3)
Upper Soil 95 95 15 20
Middle Soil 15 15 0 20
Lower Soil 15 30 0 20

Figure 23.1 – Geometry

81
22.3 Circular Results – Auto refine search
Method Factor of Safety Low (1989) Ordinary Factor of Safety=1.36
Ordinary 1.370 Low (1989) Bishop Factor of Safety=1.14
Bishop 1.192 Kim (2002) Factor of Safety=1.17

23.2 – Circular failure surface using Ordinary/Fellenius method

23.3 – Circular failure surface using Bishops method

82
SLIDE Verification Problem #24

24.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Low (1989). It consists of a slope with three layers with different
undrained shear strengths.

24.2 Problem description

Verification problem #24 is shown in Figure 24.1. The material properties are given in Table
24.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are
calculated for a circular slip surface using both the bishop and ordinary/fellenius methods.

Table 24.1: Material Properties

Cu (KN/m2) γ (KN/m3)
Upper Layer 30 18
Middle Layer 20 18
Bottom Layer 150 18

Figure 24.1 – Geometry

83
24.3 Circular Results – auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety Low (1989) Ordinary Factor of Safety=1.44

Ordinary 1.439 Low (1989) Bishop Factor of Safety=1.44
Bishop 1.439

24.2 – Circular failure surface using Bishops method

84
SLIDE Verification Problem #25

25.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Chen and Shao (1988). It analyses the classical problem in the
theory of plasticity of a weightless, frictionless slope subjected to a vertical load. This
problem was first solved by Prandtl (1921)

25.2 Problem description

Verification problem #25 is shown in Figure 25.1. The slope geometry, equation for the
critical load, and position of the critical slip surface is defined by Prandtl and shown in
Figure 25.1. The critical failure surface has a theoretical factor of safety of 1.0. The analysis
uses the input data of Chen and Shao and is shown in table 25.1. The geometry, shown in
figure 25.2, is generated assuming a 10m high slope with a slope angle of 60 degrees. The
critical uniformly distributed load for failure is calculated to be 149.31 kN/m, with a length
equal to the slope height, 10m.
Note: The GLE/discrete Morgenstern-Price results used the following custom interslice force
function. This function was chosen to approximate the theoretical force distribution shown in
Chen and Shao.

x F(x)
0 1
0.3 1
0.6 0
1.0 0

25.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 25.1: Material Properties

c (kN/m2) φ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
soil 49 0 1e-6

25.1 – Closed-form solution (from Chen and Shao (1988))

85
 25.2 – Geometry modeled using Slide

25.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1. 051
GLE/M-P 1. 009

Chen and Shao (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.05

86
SLIDE Verification Problem #26

26.1 Introduction
This verification test models the well-known Prandtl solution of bearing capacity:

qc=2C(1+π/2)

26.2 Problem description

Verification problem #26 is shown in Figure 26.1. The material properties are given in Table
26.1. With cohesion of 20kN/m2, qc is calculated to be 102.83 kN/m. A uniformly distributed
load of 102.83kN/m was applied over a width of 10m as shown in the below figure. The
theoretical noncircular critical failure surface was used.

26.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 26.1: Material Properties

c (kN/m2) φ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
soil 20 0 1e-6

26.1 – Geometry modeled using Slide

26.4 Results

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.941

Theoretical factor of safety=1.0

87
SLIDE Verification Problem #27

27.1 Introduction
This model was taken from Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma (2001) who took it from the
XSTABL version 5 reference manual (Sharma 1996). It consists of a 2 material slope
overlaying undulating bedrock. There is a water table and moist and saturated unit weights
for one of the materials. The other material has zero strength. The model is done with
imperial units (feet,psf,pcf) to be consistent with the original XSTABL analysis.

27.2 Problem description

Verification problem #27 is shown in Figure 27.1. The material properties are given in Table
27.1. One of the interesting features of this model is the different unit weights of soil 1 below
and above the water table. Another factor is the method of pore-pressure calculation. The
pore pressures are calculated using a correction for the inclination of the phreatic surface and
steady state seepage. Both Slide and XSTABL allow you to apply this correction. The pore
pressures tend to be smaller than if a static head of water is assumed (measured straight up to
the phreatic surface from the center of the base of a slice). The first analysis uses a single slip
surface with xc =59.52, yc =219.21, and radius=157.68. The second analysis does a search
with the restriction that the circular surface must exit the slope between 38<=x<=70 at the toe
and 120<=x<=180 at the crest of the slope. The third analysis uses the same single slip
surface as the first analysis but replaces soil 2 with an 11 foot deep tension crack zone instead
of a zero strength material. The fourth analysis takes the third analysis and adds 6 feet of
water in the tension crack.

27.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 27.1: Material Properties

c (psf) φ (deg.) γ moist (pcf) γ saturated (pcf)
Soil 1 500 14 116.4 124.2
Soil 2 0 0 116.4 116.4

27.1 – Geometry

88
27.4 Analysis 1 Circular Results – single center @ xc=59.52,yc=219.21,radius=157.68

Method SLIDE XSTABL

Bishop 1.396 1.397
Janbu Corrected 1.391 1.392
Corp. Engineers 1 1.411 1.413
Corp. Engineers 2 1.414 1.416
Lowe & Karafiath 1.411 1.413
Spencer 1.402 1.403
GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.398 1.399

27.5 Analysis 2 Circular Results – auto search

Method SLIDE
Bishop 1.376
Janbu Corrected 1.345
Corp. Engineers 1 1.394
Corp. Engineers 2 1.396
Lowe & Karafiath 1.392
Spencer 1.382
GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.378

Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma (2001), in comparing with XSTABL, quote a minimum Janbu factor of safety
of 1.255 with the center and radius equal to x,y,r=62.63,160.96,101.02. However it is questionable whether
this is the corrected Janbu or the uncorrected. It is also questionable whether they used the correct pore
pressure distribution. If in Slide, you use a static pore pressure distribution and uncorrected simplified
Janbu, you get a factor of safety of 1.254 (x,y,r=62.53,161.79,101.78) which is almost exactly what
Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma calculated.

27.6 Analysis 3 Circular Results – single center @ xc=59.52,yc=219.21,radius=157.68

A 11 foot tension crack is added to the analysis, replacing soil 2. The tension crack is dry. The
Spencer results are shown in figure 27.2.

Method SLIDE XSTABL

Bishop 1.532 1.536
Janbu Corrected 1.544 1.569
Corp. Engineers 1 1.555 1.559
Corp. Engineers 2 1.562 1.566
Lowe & Karafiath 1.545 1.549
Spencer 1.532 1.535
GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.532 1.535

89
 27.2 – Analysis 3 results for Spencers method

27.7 Analysis 4 Circular Results – single center @ xc=59.52,yc=219.21,radius=157.68

The 11 foot tension crack added in analysis 3 is now partially filled with 6 feet of water.

Method SLIDE XSTABL

Bishop 1.511 1.509
Janbu Corrected 1.520 1.543
Corp. Engineers 1 1.532 1.536
Corp. Engineers 2 1.538 1.542
Lowe & Karafiath 1.522 1.526
Spencer 1.510 1.513
GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.510 1.513

90
SLIDE Verification Problem #28

28.1 Introduction
The set of models in this verification problem were taken from Chowdhury and Xu (1995).
The geometry for the first four examples comes from the well-known Congress St. Cut
model, first analyzed by Ireland (1954). All the examples in this verification evaluate the
probability of failure of slopes given the means and standard deviations of some specified
input parameters.

28.2 Problem description

The geometry of Examples 1 to 4 in Verification #28 is shown in Figure 28.1. In each
example two sets of circular slip surfaces are considered. The first set consists of potential
failure surfaces tangential to the lower boundary of the Clay 2 layer, while the second
considers slip surfaces tangential to the lower boundary of Clay 3. Both clays have constant
undrained shear strength.
Chowdury and Xu do not consider the strength of the upper sand layer in Examples 1 to 4.
They use the Bishop simplified method for all their analyses.
In their paper, Chowdury and Xu do not state the unit weights of the slope materials in
Examples 1 to 4. They also do not provide information on the geometry (radii and
coordinates of the centers) of the critical surfaces. As a result, for each of these examples, we
use material unit weights that enable us to obtain deterministic factor of safety values similar
to those indicated in the paper. We then compare probability of failure values determined
from Slide with the Chowdhury and Xu values.
In Example 5, Chowdhury and Xu examine the stability of an embankment on a soft clay
foundation. Again they consider two sets of circular slip surfaces; one set is tangent to the
interface of the embankment and the foundation, while the other is tangent to the lower
boundary of the soft clay foundation.
The Chowdhury and Xu probabilities of failure quoted in this verification problem are
calculated using a commonly used definition of reliability index, and an assumption that
factors of safety are normally distributed. Slide uses Monte Carlo analysis, with a minimum
of five thousand samples to estimate probabilities of failure. The random variables in all Slide
analyses were assumed to come from normal distributions.

28.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 20.1: Material Properties

c (kN/m2) φ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)
Sand 0 0 21

91
 Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

28.1 – Geometry for Examples 1 - 4

28.2 – Geometry for Example 5 (an embankment on a soft clay foundation)

28.4 Example 1
Input Data
(The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.)
Soil Layer
Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3
c1 c2 c3
Mean (kPa) 55 43 56
Stdv. (kPa) 20.4 8.2 13.2
∗
γ (kN/m )
3
21 22 22
*The unit weight γ was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

92
Results (Maximum iterations: 100)
Chowdhury & Xu Slide
Failure Mode Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of
(Layer) Safety Failure Safety Failure
(Bishop (Bishop
simplified) simplified)

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.128 0.26592 1.128 0.2461

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.109 0.27389 1.109 0.2789

Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.3 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

93
 Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.4 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

28.5 Example 2
Input Data
(The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.)
Soil Layer
Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3
c1 c2 c3
Mean (kPa) 68.1 39.3 50.8
Stdv. (kPa) 6.6 1.4 1.5
∗
γ (kN/m )
3
21 22 22
*The unit weight γ was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

Results
Chowdhury & Xu Slide
Failure Mode Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of
(Layer) Safety Failure Safety Failure
(Bishop (Bishop
simplified) simplified)

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.1096 0.0048 1.108 0.0037

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.0639 0.01305 1.058 0.0175

94
 Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.5 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.6 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

95
28.5 Example 3
Input Data
(The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.)
Soil Layer
Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3
c1 c2 c3
Mean (kPa) 136 80 102
Stdv. (kPa) 50 15 24
γ∗ (kN/m ) 21 22 22
3

*The unit weight γ was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

Results
Chowdhury & Xu Slide
Failure Mode Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of
(Layer) Safety Failure Safety Failure
(Bishop (Bishop
simplified) simplified)

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 2.2343 0.01151 2.245 0.00044

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 2.1396 0.00242 2.128 0.0007

Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.7 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

96
 Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.8 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

28.6 Example 4
Input Data
Soil Layer
Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3
c1(kPa) φ1(o) c2 (kPa) φ2 (o) c3 (kPa) φ3 (o)
Mean 55 5 43 7 56 8
Stdv. 20.4 1 8.7 1.5 13.2 1.7
γ* (kN/m3) 17 22 22
*The unit weight γ was not stated in the paper so we selected values that give us deterministic factors of
safety close to those in the paper.

Results
Chowdhury & Xu Slide
Failure Mode Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of
(Layer) Safety Failure Safety Failure
(Bishop (Bishop
simplified) simplified)

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.4239 0.01559 1.422 0.0211

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.5075 0.00468 1.503 0.0035

97
 Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.9 – Critical slip circle tangential to interface of clay layer 2

Sand

Clay 1

Clay 2

Clay 3

Figure 28.10 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

98
28.7 Example 5
Input Data
Soil Layer
Layer 1 Layer 2
c1 (kPa) φ1 ( )
o
c2(kPa) φ2 (o)
Mean 10 12 40 0
Stdv. 2 3 8 0
γ (kN/m3) 20 18

Results
Chowdhury & Xu Slide
Failure Mode Factor of Probability of Factor of Probability of
(Layer) Safety Failure Safety Failure
(Bishop (Bishop
simplified) simplified)

Layer 1 1.1625 0.20225 1.16 0.2117

Layer 2 1.1479 0.19733 1.185 0.1992

Layer 1
(Embankment)

Layer 2 (Soft clay foundation)

Figure 28.11 – Critical slip circle tangential to interface of embankment and foundation

99
 Layer 1
(Embankment)

Layer 2 (Soft clay foundation)

Figure 28.12 – Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of soft foundation layer

100
SLIDE Verification Problem #29

29.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Duncan (2000). It looks at the failure of the 100 ft high underwater
slope at the Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) terminal at the Port of San Francisco.

29.2 Problem description

Verification problem #29 is shown in Figure 29.1. All geometry and property values are
determined using the figures and published data in Duncan (2000). The cohesion is taken to be
100 psf at an elevation of -20 ft and increase linearly with depth at a rate of 9.8 psf/ft. A
probabilistic analysis using the latin-hypercube simulation technique is performed using
10000 samples to compute the probability of failure and reliability index of the estimated
failure surface defined in Duncan (2000). These values are determined using the Janbu,
Spencer, and GLE methods.

29.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 29.1: Deterministic Material Properties

cohesion Datum Rate of Unit
(datum) (ft) change Weight
(psf) (psf/ft) (pcf)
San Francisco Bay Mud 100 -20 9.8 100

Table 29.2: Probabilistic Material Properties

San Francisco Bay Standard Absolute Absolute
Mud deviation Minimum Maximum
Unit Weight 3.3 99.1 109.9
Rate of change 1.2 5.8 13.8

Figure 29.1 - Geometry

101
29.4 Results

Method Deterministic Probability of Reliability Index

Factor of Safety Failure (%) (lognormal)
Janbu Simplified 1.13 18 1.086
Janbu Corrected 1.17 15 1.0
Spencer 1.15 14 1.1
GLE 1.16 13 1.2

Duncan (2000) quotes a deterministic factor of safety of 1.17 and a probability of failure of 18%.
The probability of failure is calculated using the Taylor series technique.

Figure 29.2

102
SLIDE Verification Problem #30

30.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 1 example. It looks at the
stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil.

30.2 Problem description

Verification problem #30 is shown in Figure 30.1. The sand embankment is modeled as a
Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained
shear strength. The geosynthetic is not anchored, has no adhesion, has a tensile strength of
200 KN/m, and frictional resistance against slip of 33.7 degrees. The reinforcement force is
assumed to be parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used
since this best simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The
reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors
implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation.

30.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 30.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 35 20

Cu top Cu bottom γ
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
Upper Clay 8.49 8.49 17
Middle Clay 8.49 4.725 17
Lower Clay 4.725 13.125 17

Figure 30.1 - Geometry

103
30.4 Results

Factor of Overturning Resisting

Safety Moment Moment
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)
Circle A (Slide) 1.69 633 1071
Circle A (Borges) 1.77 631 1115
Circle B (Slide) 1.66 523 868
Circle B (Borges) 1.74 521 907

Note: Both circle A and B have reverse curvature. Since Slide automatically creates a tension crack in the
portion of the circle with reverse curvature, the shear strength contribution in this region is removed. This is
most likely the reason for the smaller factors of safety in Slide.

104
SLIDE Verification Problem #31

31.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 2 example. It looks at the
stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil.

31.2 Problem description

Verification problem #31 is shown in Figure 31.1. The sand embankment is modeled as a
Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained
shear strength. The geosynthetic is not anchored, has no adhesion, has a tensile strength of
200 KN/m, and frictional resistance against slip of 33.7 degrees. The reinforcement force is
assumed to be parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used
since this best simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The
reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors
implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation.

31.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 31.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 35 20

Cu top Cu bottom γ
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m3)
Clay1 33 33 17
Clay2 16 16 17
Clay3 16 18.375 17
Clay4 18.375 55.125 17

Figure 31.1

105
31.4 Results

Factor of Overturning Resisting

Safety Moment Moment
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)
Circle A (Slide) 1.18 7521 8847
Circle A (Borges) 1.19 7667 9133
Circle B (Slide) 1.16 9463 11002
Circle B (Borges) 1.15 9540 10972

106
SLIDE Verification Problem #32

32.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 3 example. It looks at the
stability of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil.

32.2 Problem description

Verification problem #32 is shown in Figures 32.1 and 32.2. The sand embankment is
modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with
varying undrained shear strength. The geosynthetic has a tensile strength of 200 KN/m, and
frictional resistance against slip of 30.96 degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be
parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used since this best
simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The reinforcement is
modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors implement the
reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation. There are two embankment
materials, the lower embankment material is from elevation 0 to 1 while the upper
embankment material is from elevation 1 to either 7 (Case 1) or 8.75m (Case 2). The
geosynthetic is at elevation 0.9, just inside the lower embankment material.

32.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 32.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Upper Embankment 0 35 21.9
Lower Embankment 0 33 17.2

Cu (kN/m2) γ
(kN/m3)
Clay1 43 18
Clay2 31 16.6
Clay3 30 13.5
Clay4 32 17
Clay5 32 17.5

107
 Figure 32.1 – Case 1 – Embankment height = 7m

Figure 32.2– Case 2 – Embankment height = 8.75m

108
32.4 Results – Case 1 – Embankment height = 7m

Factor of Overturning Resisting

Safety Moment Moment
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)
Circle A (Slide) 1.23 32832 40231
Circle A (Borges) 1.25 34166 42695
Circle B (Slide) 1.22 61765 75300
Circle B (Borges) 1.19 63870 75754

32.4 Results – Case 2 – Embankment height = 8.75m

Factor of Overturning Resisting

Safety Moment Moment
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)
Circle C (Slide) 0.98 64873 63846
Circle C (Borges) 0.99 65116 64784

109
SLIDE Verification Problem #33

33.1 Introduction
Verification #33 comes from El-Ramly et al (2003). It looks at the assessment of the
probability of unsatisfactory performance (probability of failure) of a Syncrude tailings dyke
in Canada. This example does not consider the spatial variation of soil properties and is
described in the paper as the simplified probabilistic analysis.

33.2 Problem description

The original model from the El-Ramly et al paper is shown in Figure 33.1. The input
parameters for the Slide model are provided in Table 33.1. El-Ramly et al considered five
probabilistic parameters: the friction angle of the Kca clay-shale, the pore pressure ratio in the
same layer, the friction angle of the Pgs sandy till layer, and the pore pressure ratios in this
layer at the middle and at the toe of the dyke.
In our model we only consider the friction angles of the Kca clay-shale and Pgs sandy till as
probabilistic parameters, and we use the phreatic surfaces indicated on Figure 33.1 in place of
pore pressure ratios. We tested the influence of the phreatic surfaces (included them as
piezometric lines with levels that are normal variables of unit standard deviation) and
established that they had minimal impact on the probability of failure for this model. The
Slide model is shown on Figure 33.2.
As in the El-Ramly et al paper, the Bishop simplified analysis method is used. Slide uses
Monte Carlo analysis to calculate the probability of failure. It is assumed in the Slide model
that all the probabilistic input variables are normally distributed.

Figure 33.1

Table 33.1: Material Properties

Material c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) Standard γ (kN/m3)

deviation
of φ΄ (deg.)
Tailing sand (TS) 0 34 - 20
Glacio-fluvial sand (Pf4) 0 34 - 17
Sandy till (Pgs) 0 34 2 17
Disturbed clay-shale (Kca) 0 7.5 2.1 17

110
33.3 Geometry and Properties

Phreatic surface in TS

Phreatic surface in Pf4

Critical surfaces analyzed

Tailing sand (TS)

Glacio-fluvial sand (Pf4)

Sandy till (Pgs)

Disturbed clay-shale (Kca)

Figure 33.2a

Note: Phreatic Surfaces do not

intersect at toe

33.4 Results

Factor of Probability of
Safety Failure
Slide 1.305 1.54 x 10-3
El-Ramly et al 1.31 1.6 x 10-3

111
SLIDE Verification Problem #34

34.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Wolff and Harr (1987). It is a model of the Clarence Cannon Dam
in northeastern Missouri, USA. This verification compares probabilistic results from Slide to
those determined by Wolff and Harr for a non-circular critical surface.

34.2 Problem description

Wolff and Harr used the point estimate method to evaluate the probability of failure of the
Cannon Dam along the specified non-circular critical surface shown on Figure 34.1 (taken
from their paper). From the probability concentrations provided in the paper, we calculated
the probabilistic input parameters (cohesion, friction angle, and coefficient of correlation for
the Phase I and Phase II fills) shown in Table 34.1. In the table we also provide the unit
weights of the fills we had to use to match the factor of safety obtained by Wollf and Harr.
Since Wolff and Harr use an analysis method that satisfies force equilibrium only, we
compare their results to those obtained from the GLE. We also show results for non-circular
Spencer analysis. The Slide model is shown on Figure 34.2.
As in the El-Ramly et al paper, the Bishop simplified analysis method is used. Slide uses
Monte Carlo analysis to calculate the probability of failure. It is assumed in the Slide model
that all the probabilistic input variables are normally distributed.

Figure 34.1

112
 34.3 Geometry and Properties

Sand drain
Critical failure surface

Phase II fill

Phase I fill

Figure 34.2

Table 34.1: Material Properties*

Material c΄ (lb/ft2) Standard φ΄ (deg.) Standard Correlation γ (lb/ft3)

deviation of deviation of coefficient for
c΄ (lb/ft2) φ΄ (deg.) c΄ and φ΄
Phase I fill 2,230 1,150 6.34 7.87 0.11 150
Phase II fill 2,901.6 1,079.8 14.8 9.44 -0.51 150
Sand drain 0 - 30 - 120
*Information on the non-labeled soil layers in the model shown on Figure 34.2 is omitted because it has no
influence on the factor of safety of the given critical surface.

34.4 Results

Deterministic Probability of
Factor of Safety Failure
Slide (GLE method) 2.333 3.55x 10-3
Slide (Spencer method) 2.383 3.55x 10-3
Wolff and Harr 2.36 4.55 x 10-2

113
SLIDE Verification Problem #35

35.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Hassan and Wolff (1999). It is a model of the Clarence Cannon
Dam in Missouri, USA. This verification problem looks at duplicating reliability index results
for several circular failure surfaces specified in the Hassan and Wolff paper.

35.2 Problem description

Hassan and Wolff applied a new reliability based approach they had formulated to calculate
reliability indices for slopes. The cross-section of the Cannon Dam they used is shown on
Figure 35.1.
The Bishop simplified method of slices is used in all the cases discussed in this verification
problem. We analyze two sets of slip circles, those shown on Figure 7 of the Hassan and
Wolff paper and those on Figure 8. (Figures 7 and 8 from the paper are shown on Figure 35.2
below.) Input parameters for the model are given in Table 35.1. Since the paper does not
provide all the required input parameters, we selected values for the missing parameters that
allowed us to match factors of safety for a few of the circles in Figure 7.
We assume all the probabilistic input variables to be normally distributed in performing
Monte Carlo simulations. Slide calculates reliability indices based on the mean and standard
deviation of the factor of safety values calculated in the simulations. The reliability indices
shown in the results section are calculated with the assumption that factors of safety values
are lognormally distributed (Hassan and Wolff (1999). Results obtained from Slide are
compared to those from the Hassan and Wolff paper in Table 35.2.

Figure 35.1 – Author’s Geometry

114
 Figure 35.2. Figures 7 and 8 from the Hassan and Wolff (1999) paper.

35.3 Geometry and Properties

Sand drain

Figure 7 failure circles analyzed

Spoil fill

Phase II clay fill

Phase I clay fill
Foundation sand Foundation sand
Limestone

Figure 35.3
Sand filter

Figure 8 failure circles analyzed

Spoil fill

Phase II clay fill

Phase I clay fill
Foundation sand Foundation sand
Limestone

Figure 35.4

115
 Table 35.1: Material Properties*

Material c΄ (kN/m2) Standard φ΄ (deg.) Standard Correlation γ

deviation of deviation of coefficient for (kN/m3)
c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) c΄ and φ΄
Phase I clay fill 117.79 58.89 8.5 8.5 0.1 22
Phase II clay fill 143.64 79 15 9 -0.55 22
Sand filter 0 - 35 - - 22
Foundation sand 5 - 18 - - 20
Spoil fill 5 - 35 - - 25
*Properties of the limestone layer in the models shown on Figure 35.3 and 35.4 are omitted because they
do not influence calculated factors of safety.

35.4 Results

Slide Results Hassan and Wolff Results

Surface Deterministic Reliability Deterministic Reliability
Factor of Safety Index Factor of Safety Index
(lognormal) (lognormal)
Fig. 7 Surface A 2.551 10.953 2.753 10.356
Fig. 7 Surface B 2.820 4.351 2.352 3.987
Fig. 7 Surface C 2.777 4.263 2.523 4.606
Fig. 7 Surface D 2.583 11.092 2.457 8.468
Fig. 7 Surface E 2.692 10.281 2.602 10.037
Fig. 8 Surface B 2.672 4.858 2.995 3.987
Fig. 8 Surface F 3.598 5.485 3.916 4.950
Fig. 8 Surface G 6.074 5.563 10.576 5.544
Fig. 8 Surface H 11.230 6.394 6.293 4.838

116
SLIDE Verification Problem #36

36.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Li and Lumb (1987) and Hassan and Wolff (1999). It analyzes
reliability indices of a simple homogeneous slope. This verification looks at comparing the
reliability index of the deterministic global circular failure surface and the minimum
reliability index value obtained from analysis of several failure surfaces.

36.2 Problem description

The geometry of the homogeneous slope is shown in Figure 36.1 and material parameters are
provided in Table 36.1. The Bishop simplified method of analysis is used. Using Monte Carlo
analysis that assumes all probabilistic variables to be normally distributed, reliability indices
are calculated on the assumption that factors of safety values are distributed lognormally.
This is consistent with the reliability index measures used by Hassan and Wolff (1999).
The reliability index calculated for the deterministic minimum factor of safety surface
(critical deterministic surface), the minimum reliability index (critical probabilistic surface),
and the overall reliability index of the slope are compared with reliability indices calculated
by Hassan and Wolff in Table 36.2. Figure 36.2 shows the locations of the critical
deterministic and probabilistic surfaces calculated by Slide.

36.3 Geometry and Properties

Material 1

Figure 36.1

117
 Table 36.1: Material Properties

Property Mean value Standard

deviation
c΄ (kN/m2) 18 3.6
φ΄ (deg.) 30 3
γ (kN/m3) 18 0.9
ru 0.2 0.02

36.4 Results

Table 36.2: Results

Slide Results Hasssan and Wolf Results
Surface Factor of Reliability Factor of Reliability
Safety Index Safety Index
(lognormal) (lognormal)
Deterministic minimum 1.339 2.471 1.334 2.336
factor of safety surface
Minimum reliability 1.367 2.395 1.190 2.293
index surface
Overall slope (no 1.349 2.382
particular surface)

Figure 36.2. Slide critical deterministic and critical probabilistic surfaces.

118
SLIDE Verification Problem #37

37.1 Introduction
Verification #37 models a slope reinforcement example described in the Reference Manual of
the slope stability program XSTABL (1999). It illustrates the use of back analysis to
determine the amount of reinforcement required to stabilize a slope to a specified factor of
safety level.

37.2 Problem description

The solution for this example of a simple slope, consisting solely of non-cohesive soil
material, involved two steps:
a) Determining the reinforcement force needed to stabilize a slope to a factor of safety value
of 1.5, and
b) Establishing the minimum required length of reinforced zone.

Figure 37.1 describes the slope model. The solution in XSTABL examines failure surfaces
that pass through the toe of the slope. To duplicate that in Slide, we placed a search focus
point at the toe. In addition, to eliminate very small shallow failure surfaces of the slope face
(slip circles that do not intersect the crest), only failure surfaces with a minimum depth of 2m
were considered. Since the XSTABL solution considers a triangularly distributed
reinforcement load along the slope height, the Slide model applies a concentrated force at a
point above the toe that is a third of the slope height.
Next we remodelled the slope, but this time included a reinforced zone with a higher friction
angle calculated from the formula (XSTABL Reference Manual (1999))
φ re inf = tan −1 [ Fr tan (φ )]
Fmin
where Fr = .
Fcrit
We varied the length of the reinforced zone manually until we obtain a factor of safety value
very close to 1.5. Again we required all failure surfaces analyzed to pass through the toe and
included a minimum slope depth to eliminate shallow, face failures.
All our results are provided in Table 37.1

119
37.3 Geometry and Properties

φ = 36o
γ = 20 kN/m3

Figure 37.1

37.4 Results

Slip surface requiring 350 kN reinforcing force to

attain factor of safety = 1.5

Critical slip surface for

unreinforced slope

Figure 37.2

120
 Reinforced zone

Length of
reinforced zone

Figure 37.3

Table 37.1: Results

Slide XSTABL
Required reinforcement 350 345
force (kN)
Fr 1.961 2.044
o
φreinf ( ) 54.93 56.04
Length of reinforcement 7.6 7.5
zone (m)

121
SLIDE Verification Problem #38

38.1 Introduction
Verification #38 models a typical steep cut slope in Hong Kong. The example is taken from
Ng and Shi (1998). It illustrates the use of finite element groundwater analysis and
conventional limit equilibrium slope stability in the assessment of the stability of the cut.

38.2 Problem description

o
The cut has a slope face angle of 28 and consists of a 24m thick soil layer, underlain by a 6m
thick bedrock layer. Figure 37.1 describes the slope model.

Figure 38.1 Model geometry

Steady-state groundwater analysis is conducted using the finite element module in Slide.
Initial conditions of constant total head are applied to both sides of the slope. Three different
initial hydraulic boundary conditions (H=61m, H=62m, H=63m) for the right side of the
slope are considered for the analyses in this section, Figure 38.1. Constant hydraulic
boundary head of 6m is applied on the left side of the slope. A mesh of 1621 six-noded
triangular elements was used to model the problem. Figure 37.3 shows the soil permeability
function used to model the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, Ng (1998).

122
 Figure 38.2 Hydraulic conductivity function

The negative pore water pressure, which is commonly refereed to as the matric suction of
soil, above the water table influences the soil shear strength and hence the factor of safety. Ng
and Shi used the modified Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for the unsaturated soils, which
can be written as
τ = c ' + (σ n − u a ) tan ϕ ' + (u a − u w ) tan ϕ b
where σ n is the normal stress, ϕ b is an angle defining the increase in shear strength for an
increase in matric suction of the soil. Table 38.1 shows the material properties for the soil.
*The raw data for Figure 38.2 can be found in verification#38.sli.

Table 38.1 Material properties

c ' (kPa) ϕ ' (deg.) ϕ b (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

10 38 15 16

Both positive and negative pore water pressures predicted from groundwater analysis engine
were used in the stability analysis. The Bishop simplified method is used in this analysis.

123
38.3 Results (tolerance = 0.0001)

Critical slip
surface

Pressure head
contours

Figure 38.3 Slide groundwater and slope stability results for H=63m

Table 38.2: Factor of Safety results

H Slide Ng. & Shi (1998)

(total head at right side of slope)
61m 1.616 1.636
62m 1.535 1.527
63m 1.399 1.436

124
SLIDE Verification Problem #39

39.1 Introduction
This model is taken from Tandjiria (2002), their problem 1 example. It looks at the stability
of a geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil. The problem looks at the stability of
the embankment if it consists of either a sand fill or an undrained clayey fill. Both are
analyzed.

39.2 Problem description

Verification problem #39 is shown in Figures 39.1 and 39.2. The purpose of this example is
to compute the required reinforcement force to yield a factor of safety of 1.35. Both circular
and non-circular surfaces are looked at. In each case, the embankment is modeled without the
reinforcement; the critical slip surface is located, and then used in the reinforced model to
determine the reinforcement force to achieve a factor of safety of 1.35. This is done for a sand
or clay embankment, circular and non-circular critical slip surfaces. Both cases incorporate a
tension crack in the embankment. In the case of the clay embankment, a water-filled tension
crack is incorporated into the analysis. The reinforcement is located at the base of the
embankment. The model was analyzed with both Spencer and GLE (half-sine interslice
function) but Spencer was used for the force computation. The reinforcement is modeled as
an active force since this is how Tandjiria et.al. modeled the force.

39.3 Geometry and Properties

Table 39.1: Material Properties

Cu/c΄ (kN/m2) φ΄ (deg.) γ (kN/m3)

Clay Fill Embankment 20 0 19.4
Sand Fill Embankment 0 37 17
Soft Clay Foundation 20 0 19.4

Figure 39.1 - Clay Fill Embankment

125
 Figure 39.2 - Sand Fill Embankment

39.4 Circular Results – Clay embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.975
GLE/M-P 0.975
Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.981

39.5 Noncircular Results – Clay embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.932
GLE/M-P 0.941

Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.941

39.6 Circular Results – Sand embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.209
GLE/M-P 1.218

Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.219

39.7 Noncircular Results – Sand embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.189
GLE/M-P 1.196

Tandjiria (2002) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.192

126
39.8 Circular Results – Clay embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Factor of Safety

Force (KN/m)
Spencer 169 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 170 KN/m

39.9 Noncircular Results – Clay embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Factor of Safety

Force (KN/m)
Spencer 184 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 190 KN/m

39.10 Circular Results – Sand embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Factor of Safety

Force (KN/m)
Spencer 44 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 45 KN/m

39.11 Noncircular Results – Sand embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Factor of Safety

Force (KN/m)
Spencer 56 1.35

Tandjiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 56 KN/m

127