SLIP4EX – A program for routine slope stability analysis to include the

effects of vegetation, reinforcement and hydrological changes

John R. Greenwood
School of The Built Environment, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, UK, NG1 4BU, England

Key words: hydrology, reinforcement, slopes, stability analysis, vegetation

Abstract

SLIP4EX is a straightforward computer program developed in connection with the EU funded ECOSLOPES
project for routine stability analysis and the assessment of the contribution of vegetation to slope stability. The slope
section is drawn up and dimensions and parameters are fed in to the Microsoft Excel based program for stability
calculations and comparisons of Factors of Safety using different methods of analysis (Bishop, Janbu, Fellenius,
Simple, Greenwood). The background and assumptions involved in the derivation of each of the methods is briefly
described. The simplicity of the program enables the user to understand the nature of the analysis, explore the
parameter assumptions made and compare the different methods of analysis. Soil reinforcement by geosynthetic
layers or anchors, and vegetation effects of enhanced cohesion, changed water pressures, mass of vegetation, wind
forces and root reinforcement forces are readily included in the analysis. The program is freely available on request
from the author.

Introduction The SLIP4EX program is freely available on request

from the author.
SLIP4EX is a computer program for slope stability The use of the SLIP4EX program is illustrated by
analysis, developed in connection with the European an example of a vegetated slope. The notation and the
Commission funded ‘ECOSLOPES’ project to help as- basis for the stability equations used in the spreadsheet
sess the contribution of vegetation to slope stability are given in the Appendix.
(http://www.ecoslopes.com). It is based on the earlier
SLIP3 ‘Fortran’ program (Greenwood, 1986; Green-
wood and Zytynski, 1993). The slope section is drawn Example application of SLIP4EX to determine the
up and dimensions and parameters are fed in to the factor of safety of a vegetated slope
Microsoft Excel based SLIP4EX program for stability
calculations and comparisons of Factors of Safety us- Initial calculation without vegetaion
ing different methods of limit equilibrium analysis by
the method of slices (Bishop, Janbu, Fellenius, Simple, The stability problem is drawn out to scale with the
Greenwood). single slip surface defined as shown in Figure 1. Slice
The simplicity of the program makes it ideal for dimensions (up to 3 soil layers are permitted) and the
preliminary problem analysis. It enables the user to angles between the base of each slice and the horizontal,
understand the nature of the analysis, explore the pa- are scaled from the diagram and appropriate soil and
rameter assumptions made and compare the different water parameters assigned for each slice as indicated in
methods of analysis. Geosynthetic reinforcement may Table 1. The notation used and details of the dimensions
be included and vegetation effects such as enhanced are given in the Appendix.
cohesion, changed water pressures, mass of vegetation, The prepared slice data is then input manually into
wind forces and root reinforcement forces are readily the SLIP4EX spreadsheet program which calculates the
included in the analysis. forces acting on each slice of the analysis and the total

This article has been previously published in the following journal—Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 24, 3, 449–465.
Stokes et al. (eds), Eco- and Ground Bio-Engineering: The Use of Vegetation to Improve Slope Stability, 193–202. 193

C 2007. Springer.
Figure 1. Scale drawing of slope and potential slip surface. Slices selected and parameters assigned.

forces acting on the slip surface. It calculates the Factor deeper slip surfaces in overconsolidated soils (Fin-
of Safety of the slip surface by the different methods layson et al., 1984; Greenwood, 1985; Greenwood et al.,
commonly used by geotechnical engineers (Table 2). 1985). It is conservative to assume K = 0.
The spreadsheet currently has provision for up to 15 Once input, as for all spreadsheet work, parameters
slices to be used. can readily be changed to demonstrate their sensitivity
The Appendix presents a brief review of the differ- and influence on the calculated Factor of Safety.
ent assumptions relating to each method (Greenwood
General, Greenwood General with K as input, Simple, Including the effects of vegetation
Simple with K as input, Fellenius (Swedish), Bishop,
and Janbu). The Factor of Safety is calculated both The parameters relating to the effects of vegetation
in terms of moment equilibrium and horizontal force (Table A2) may be included in the analysis. Appro-
equilibrium where appropriate. The iteration for the priate additional parameters are assigned to each slice
Bishop and Janbu solutions is done manually in this as indicated in Table 3 and input to the spreadsheet.
version by re-inputting the output Factor of Safety un- In this example an additional tensile root reinforcing
til the output value = input value. Automatic iteration force is assumed to act on the base of each slice (in
can be done on the spreadsheet by addition of more exactly the same way that a geosynthetic layer would
columns. contribute to stability). The derivation of this force has
There is an option in the Greenwood General and been demonstrated (see Note on calculation of Avail-
Simple methods to assess the additional effects of hori- able Root Force, T, Acting on Each Slice). In the ex-
zontal earth pressures on the calculated Factor of Safety ample, the fine roots are assumed to have no influence
by assigning an earth pressure coefficient (K value) on c , but the piezometric head is assumed drawn down
to each slice. This would be particularly relevant for by 0.1 m under the influence of the vegetation.

Table 1. Slice data prepared from scale drawing ready for input to SLIP4EX spreadsheet

Slice Cohesion, c Head of water

and friction on downslope
Avge Unit Slice Base angle, φ  , at side, upslope Earth
height weight If other soil layers width, angle, base of side of slice press
of slice of soil present in slice b α slice and average coeff.

Height Unit wt. Height Unit wt. Height Unit wt. Breadth Alpha Cohesion φ hw1 hw2 hw K
1 (m) 1 (kN/m3 ) 2 (m) 2 (kN/m3 ) 3 (m) 3 (kN/m3 ) (m) (degs) (kN/m2 ) (degs) (m) (m) (m)

1 0.6 19 1.9 −9 5 24 0 1.2 0.6 0.5

2 1.2 19 9.2 26 5 24 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.5
3 0.6 19 0.75 55 5 24 1.2 0 0.6 0.5

194
Table 2. Input data and output results of SLIP4EX analysis showing calculated forces on each slice of the analysis and comparisons of Factor
of Safety calculated by different methods

SLIP4EX - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (NTU Sept 2004) Sheet 1 - Comparison of Methods
(See sheet 2, for effects of reinforcement, vegetation and hydrological changes)
PROJECT Thessaloniki conference 2004 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS: 1 in 2 embankment example with vegeation effects
Date:

Enter slice Data

Height 1 Unit wt 1 Height 2 Unit wt 2 Height 3 Unit wt 3 Breadth Alpha Cohesion* Phi' hw1 hw2 hw K
Slice Nr m kN/m^3 m kN/m^3 m kN/m^3 m degrees kN/m^2 degrees m m m
1 0.6 19 1.9 -9 5 24 0 1.2 0.6 0.5
2 1.2 19 9.2 26 5 24 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.5
3 0.6 19 0.75 55 5 24 1.2 0 0.6 0.5
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0

Calculated forces on slices Total Resistance - Moment equilibrium Total Resistance - Horizontal force equilibr
General General Simple Simple Swedish Bishop General General Simple Simple
W U1 U2 u Dist force cohesive res K' K' K' K'
slice kN kN kN kN/m2 kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN
1 21.66 0.00 7.20 6.00 -3.39 9.62 14.51 14.56 14.13 14.19 14.00 15.22 14.69 14.74 14.31 14.36
2 209.76 7.20 7.20 12.00 91.95 51.18 80.43 85.16 90.94 95.67 80.43 83.85 89.49 94.75 101.18 106.44
3 8.55 7.20 0.00 6.00 7.00 6.54 7.85 8.91 7.57 8.63 5.23 6.14 13.69 15.53 13.20 15.04
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
total 95.57 67.34 102.79 108.63 112.64 118.48 99.66 105.20 117.87 125.03 128.69 135.85

Factors of Safety (no reinforcement or vegetation)

Moment equilibrium Force equilibrium
Fm Ff
Greenwood General 1.08 1.06
Greenwood General (K as input) 1.14 1.13
Greenwood Simple 1.18 1.16
Greenwood Simple (K as input) 1.24 1.22
Swedish 1.04 1.02
Bishop 1.10
Janbu (fo =1.05) 1.13

Bishop iteration Janbu Iteration

F initial F input F calc F input F calc
1 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.13

The changes in the Factor of Safety due to the ef- hydraulic changes are to illustrate the application of
fects of the vegetation (or reinforcement or hydrologi- the stability analysis and should not be applied to par-
cal changes) are calculated in sheet 2 of the spreadsheet ticular situations without appropriate investigation and
(Table 4). The effects are added to the General, Simple testing.
and Swedish equations but not the Bishop and Janbu
methods where the iterative process and imposition of
the Factor of Safety on to each slice in the stability equa- Note on calculation of available root force, T,
tions does not permit easy inclusion of the additional acting on each slice
forces.
In this example the vegetation has increased the cal- Whilst the SLIP4EX spreadsheet is applicable to all
culated Factor of Safety from 1.08 to 1.21 (General stability calculations, it was developed with the inten-
method, Greenwood et al., 2003). It is emphasised that tion of including vegetation effects. It may be helpful to
the assumptions made for the vegetation effects and describe the way in which a typical available root force

195
Table 3. Selected parameters to reflect the contribution of vegetation assigned to each slice

Root Additional Mass of Wind

Root force direction cohesion Change in water table vegetation Wind force direction

T Theta c v delta hw1 delta hw2 delta hw Wv D Beta

Slice kN (/m) (deg) kN/m2 (m) (m) (m) kN (/m) kN (/m) (deg)

1 0.95 45 0 −0.1 −0.05 0 0 0

2 5 45 −0.1 −0.1 −0.1
3 0.6 45 −0.1 −0.05

Table 4. Input ‘vegetation’ data and output results of SLIP4EX analysis showing calculated ‘vegetation’ forces on each slice of the analysis
and changes to the Factor of Safety calculated by different methods

SLIP4EX - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (NTU Sept 2004) Sheet 2 - EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT, VEGETATION AND
HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES (See sheet 1, for Comparison of Methods)
PROJECT Thessaloniki conference 2004 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS: 1 in 2 embankment example with vegeation effects
Date: 0
Reinforcement, Vegetation and Hydraulic changes
Enter effects for relevant slices
T Theta c'v delta hw1 delta hw2 delta hw Wv D Beta
slice kN (/m) deg kN/m2 m m m kN (/m) kN (/m) deg.
1 0.95 45 0 -0.1 -0.05 0 0 0
2 5 45 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
3 0.6 45 -0.1 -0.05
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Calculated Reinforcement / Vegetation / Hydraulic effects

Additional disturbing force (to reinf. and veg.) Additional Restoring Forces Total additional resista
Veg.Weigh reinf dist fo Wind dist foTotal add. dist force add cohesion add weight add u add U1 add U2 add 'U2-U1add 'U2-U1 add wind add T General Simple
slice kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN Gen kN Simple kN kN kN kN kN
1 0.00 -0.67 0.00 -0.67 0.00 0.00 -0.43 0.00 -1.15 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.65 0.72
2 0.00 -3.54 0.00 -3.54 0.00 0.00 -4.56 -1.15 -1.15 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.57 6.13 5.26
3 0.00 -0.42 0.00 -0.42 0.00 0.00 -0.29 -1.15 0.00 0.42 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.28
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 -4.63 0.00 -4.63 0.00 0.00 -5.28 -2.30 -2.30 0.50 1.08 0.00 2.06 6.84 6.26

Factors of Safety with Reinforcement ,Vegetation and hydraulic changes included

Fm
Greenwood General No reinforcement/Veg 1.08
with reinf /veg /water as input 1.21

Greenwood General (K as input) No reinforcement/Veg 1.14

With reinf /veg /water as input 1.27

Greenwood Simple No reinforcement/veg 1.18

With reinf/veg/water as input 1.31

Swedish No reinforcement/veg 1.04

With reinf/veg/water as input 1.18

196
is assigned in the above example following the proce- General application of SLIP4EX
dure recommended by Norris and Greenwood (2000)
and Greenwood et al. (2001, 2004). SLIP4EX is intended as an easily accessible and avail-
The available root force acting on the base of able program to help gain an initial understanding of
each slice, T, is calculated by the equation, T = a slope problem and the main influences on stability.
Trd ×  where Trd is the available root force per The less experienced practitioner can develop a feel for
square metre of soil and  is the length of the slip the aspects of the stability analysis and explore differ-
surface. ent mechanisms of failure before progressing to more
Typically from observation and tests, assuming 4 sophisticated search programs to find critical slip sur-
roots of 12.5 mm diameter, each having an ultimate faces. It is valuable as a student learning aid because
pull out resistance of 8 MN/m2 , cross each square me- the engineering process of drawing the slope, deciding
tre of soil at 1.2 m depth. The ultimate root force per on slip surfaces and assigning appropriate parameters
square metre across the slip plane, Tru would be given is all kept under the userís control. Another application
by is where a particular slip surface generated by a com-
mercial search program requires an independent check
Tru = 4π × 0.01252 × 8 × 1000/4 and further study of the significance of the assumed
parameters.
= approx 4 kN per square metre of soil Sheet 3 of the SLIP4EX spreadsheet provides oppor-
tunity to use the Excel plotting facilities to demonstrate
Applying a partial Factor of Safety of 8 to allow aspects of the calculated output. For example the cal-
for uncertainty in root distribution and incompatibil- culated restoring forces may be displayed for each slice
ity of failure strain between the root and the soil for each of the methods of calculation.
(Greenwood et al., 2003), the design root force per
square metre, Trd , is given by: Trd = Tru /8 = 4/8 = 0.5
Future developments
kN/m2 .
Root forces, T, for each slice may therefore be cal-
Whilst SLIP4EX is particularly valuable to help gain an
culated as follows:
understanding of the stability problem, it is recognised
that the next stage is to set up the full slope model
Slice Trd kN/m2  (approx) m T = Trd ×  kN
and to run a search program to find the most criti-
cal slip surface. An ‘automated’ version of SLIP4EX
1 0.5 1.9 0.95 (SLIP6EX) in which the problem is set up on the com-
2 0.5 10.0 5.0 puter, slice dimensions and properties automatically
3 0.5 1.2 0.6
assigned and the critical slip surface (circle) identified,
is currently under development in collaboration with
Rens Van Beek (personal communication).
The effective angle between the operational roots and
Copies of the development version of SLIP4EX to-
the slip surface, θ, is assumed to be 45◦ . Parametric
gether with guidance notes are available by email re-
studies on both geosynthetic and root reinforcement
quest to [email protected]. As a non com-
(Greenwood, 1990; Norris and Greenwood, 2003) have
mercial package this is provided with no guarantees,
indicated that the calculated resistance due to the (root)
backup or support. Any suggestions for improvement
reinforcement is not particularly sensitive to 0 because
or additions will be welcomed by the author.
as the enhanced normal component acting across the
slip surface decreases, the tangential component, will
increase. Acknowledgements
As more investigation, testing and monitoring of
vegetation is carried out, it should be possible to better The author is grateful for the debate and support of
define the vegetation related parameters and the partial academic and industrial colleagues and research stu-
Factor of Safety applicable to root forces for particular dents who have helped develop and apply this ap-
sites. proach to slope stability analysis. The work of Joanne

197
Norris on the bioengineering applications and in the Assuming K is constant with depth and constant water table con-
proof reading of this manuscript is much appreciated. ditions
The computer program development work of Rens Van
Beek is also much appreciated. The funding of the E 1 = K γ  h 21 /2 and E 2 = K γ  h 22 /2 (A.4)
ECOSLOPES project under the 5th Framework of the E 2 − E 1 = K γ  h 22 /2 − K γ  h 21 /2 = Kγ 
/2(h 22 − h 21 )
European Commission and the support of all partners
= K (γb − γw )(h 2 − h 1 )(h 2 + h 1 )/2 (A.5)
in the European team is gratefully acknowledged.
but for level ground surface h 2 − h 1 = −b tan α and (h 2 + h 1 )/2 =
Appendix h (average height)

Notation and equations used in SLIP4EX spreadsheet E 2 − E 1 = −K tan α(γb h − γw h w b)

(A.6)
= −K tan α(W − ub)
The notation used and details of the dimensions are given in Tables A1
and A2, and Figures A1–A3.
and for sloping ground surface, parallel to a slip surface, h 2 − h 1 = 0
The equations used in the SLIP4EX spreadsheet are derived from
and the term reduces to zero.
the basic limit equilibrium stability equation (Lambe and Whitman,
It is therefore reasonable to assume the general application of
1969):
the term (A.6) for E 2 − E 1 and to assign appropriate values of K
Restoring force (available shear strength) depending on the location of the slip surface.
F =
Disturbing force (shear force) The General equation to include an estimation of the horizontal
  interslice force based on ‘K’ is therefore:
(c  + N  tan φ  )
= 
W sin ∝  
(c  + [W cos ∝ −u − (U2 − U1 )
By resolving forces to determine N
(Figure A2), the full stability × sin ∝ +K tan α(W − ub) sin ∝] tan φ  )
equation based on effective forces is obtained (See Greenwood, 1987, F=  (A.7)
W sin ∝
1989):
 This equation (A.7) is consistent with Mohr–Coulomb retaining wall
(c  + [W cos ∝ −u − (U2 − U1 ) analysis theory.
× sin ∝ (X 2 − X 1 ) cos ∝ −(E 2 − E 1 ) sin ∝] tan φ  ) For the particular case of horizontal water surface across the
F= 
W sin ∝ slice (static water conditions), from the slice geometry, U2 − U1 =
(A.1) −ub tan α, and Eq. (A.7) becomes

In order to find a solution, assumptions must be made about the  

(c  + [W cos ∝ −u + ub tan α sin ∝
‘unknown’ interslice forces X  and E  .
+K tan α(W − ub) sin ∝] tan φ  )
F= 
Assumption 1 W sin ∝
A reasonable assumption is that the resultant of the effective interslice
forces is parallel to the base of the slice, i.e. in the direction of which reduces to
movement – a logical assumption as failure progresses.

(c  + [(W − ub)(1 + k tan2 α) cos ∝] tan φ  )
i.e. (X 2 − X 1 ) cos ∝ −(E 2 − E 1 ) sin α =0 (A.2) F=  . (A.8)
W sin ∝

This gives the General equation (see Greenwood, 1987, 1989; Eq. (A.8) is the Greenwood Simple equation (K as input) derived
Morrison and Greenwood, 1989) from the in situ effective stress state based on Mohr circle/Coulomb
  criteria (Greenwood, 1983).
[c (W cos ∝ −u − (U2 − U1 ) sin ∝) tan φ  ]
F=  . (A.3) The value of K in Eqs. (A.7) and (A.8) may be assigned for a
W sin ∝ particular situation. For example, a value of K = 0 is appropriate
where the slip surface is parallel to the slope and a value of K =
K 0 may be appropriate for slip surfaces passing through the slope
Assumption 2 foundation (Greenwood, 1985; Greenwood et al., 1985; Finlayson
An alternative assumption is to ignore vertical interslice forces or at et al., 1984).
least assume they are equal and opposite (i.e. assume (X 2 − X 1 ) = 0
as Bishop (1955) and others do) – a reasonable assumption when the
slip mass is acting as a single unit – and assume that the effective Other equations used in SLIP4EX
horizontal interslice forces, E 1 and E 2 , relate to the horizontal earth The Greenwood Simple Eq. (A.9), is derived from Eq. (A.3) assuming
pressure, i.e. σh = K σv where K is the coefficient of lateral earth a consistent horizontal water surface across the slice (Greenwood,
pressure. 1983; Coppin and Richards, 1990) (i.e. U2 − U1 = −ub tan α) or

198
Table A.1. Notation for slope stability analysis by the method of Table A.2. Notation for additional vegetation, reinforcement and
slices hydrological effects

Term Units Description Vegetation, reinforcement and hydrological effects

h m Average height of slice cv kN/m2 Additional effective cohesion at base of slice
b m Width of slice (due to vegetation etc.)
 m Length (chord) along base of slice Wv kN Increase in weight of slice due to vegetation
R m Radius of slip circle (or surcharge)
c kN/m2 Effective cohesion at base of slice T kN Tensile root or reinforcement force on slice
φ degrees Effective angle of friction at base of θ degrees Angle between direction of T and base of slip
slice surface
γ kN/m3 Bulk Unit weight of soil in slice Dw kN Wind force (downslope)
γw kN/m3 Unit weight of water (usually taken as β degrees Angle between wind direction and horizontal
10 kN/m3 ) (often assume equal to slope angle)
W kN Total weight of soil in slice (for layered h w1 m Increase in height of free water surface above
soils, with soils 1,2,3 etc. left (downslope) side of slice
W = (γ1 h 1 + γ2 h 2 + γ3 h 3 + etc) h w2 m Increase in height of free water surface above
× b) right (upslope) side of slice
α degrees Inclination of base of soil slice to U1 kN Increase in water force on left hand
horizontal (negative at toe) (downslope) side of slice
h w1 m Height of free water surface above left U2 kN Increase in water force on right hand
hand (downslope) side of slice (upslope) side of slice
h w2 m Height of free water surface above h w m Increase in average piezometric head at base
right hand (upslope) side of slice of slice (due to vegetation)
U1 kN Water force on left hand (downslope) u v kN/m2 Increase in average water pressure at the base
side of slice (from flow net, seepage of the slice, = γw × h w
calculations or based on h w1 )
U2 kN Water force on right hand (upslope)
side of slice (from flow net, seepage The Swedish equation (Fellenius, 1936) is derived from the Gen-
calculations or based on h w2 ) eral Eq. (A.3) by making the assumption that the water surface is par-
hw m Average piezometric head at the base allel to the slip surface (Greenwood, 1987; Morrison and Greenwood,
of the slice. For hydrostatic 1989) i.e. U2 − U1 = 0 therefore Eq. (A.3) becomes:–
conditions h w = (h w1 + h w2 )/2  
u kN/m2 Average water pressure on base of slice [c  + (W cos ∝ −u) tan φ  ]
F=  (A.10)
(= γw × h w ) W sin ∝
fu kN Resultant seepage force on slice
τ kN Available shear resistance This Eq. (A.10) is shown to give considerable error when steep base
S or S f kN Shear force (‘disturbing’ force) angles to the slice are combined with high water pressures (Turnbull
N kN Effective normal force on base of slice and Hvorslev, 1967; Greenwood, 1983). It is generally conservative.
X1, X2 kN Total vertical interslice forces It is ‘correct’ only for the theoretical continuous slope situation with
X 1 , X 2 kN Effective vertical interslice forces seepage parallel to the slope where it is appropriate to assume U2 −
E1 , E2 kN Total horizontal interslice forces U1 = 0.
E 1 , E 2 kN Effective horizontal interslice forces The Bishop equation (Bishop, 1955) is
K ratio Earth Pressure Coefficient (σ h  /σ v  )  
 (c b + (W − ub) tan φ  ) sec α
F ratio Factor of Safety (usually shear
strength/ shear force on slip plane) (1 + (1/Fm ) tan φ  tan α)
F=  (A.11)
Fm ratio Factor of Safety in terms of moment W sin ∝
equilibrium
Ff ratio Factor of Safety in terms of horizontal This equation may be related to the General Eq. (A.3) but in gen-
force equilibrium eral the assumptions do not correspond with the real distribution of
the inter slice pore water forces (Morrison and Greenwood, 1989).
from Eq. (A.8) assuming K = 0 The Bishop solution is prone to errors and the equation can become
  mathematically unstable for high values of α (Turnbull and Hvorslev,
(c  + [(W − ub) cos ∝] tan φ  )
F=  (A.9) 1967; Greenwood, 1983; Krahn, 2001). It may consequently overes-
W sin ∝ timate the Factor of Safety for deep slip surfaces.
The basic Simple Eq. (A.9) is readily applied and is appropriate for The Janbu stability equation (Janbu, 1954; Janbu et al., 1956) is
routine analysis where slope, strata and groundwater conditions are identical to Bishop except that the equation is expressed in terms of
not known in any detail. It gives sensible values of the calculated horizontal force equilibrium (see later), and a compensatory multi-
Factor of Safety in most situations. plying factor is introduced relating to the geometry of the slip surface

199
Figure A1. Limit equilibrium slope stability analysis by ‘Method of Slices’ – Dimensions and parameters assigned for each slice.

(typically f 0 = 1.05). significant near horizontal movement or to relate to retaining wall

 
 (c b + (W − ub) tan φ  ) sec α design. The equivalent horizontal forces are determined for each slice
 of the analysis simply by dividing the numerator and denominator
(1 + (1/Ft ) tan φ tan α) cos α
Ff =  × f0 . (A.12) of the stability equation by cos α. Eqs. (A.3) General, (A.7) General
W tan ∝
with K included, (A.8) Greenwood with K included, (A.9) Simple, and
(A.10) Swedish, may all be converted to horizontal force equilibrium
Horizontal force equilibrium in the same way as the Bishop equation (A.11) converts to the Janbu
equation (A.12).
It is sometimes convenient to express the Factor of Safety in terms The notation F or Fm is normally used for moment equilibrium
of horizontal force equilibrium, for example for slips involving a and F f for horizontal force equilibrium.

Figure A2. Forces associated with each slice.

200
Figure A3. Additional forces due to vegetation, reinforcement and hydrological changes.

Effects of reinforcement, vegetation and hydraulic force) rather than treating it as an additional restoring force. This
changes approach is statically correct in accordance with the force diagram.
The calculated value will be identical for a value of Factor of Safety
The simple mathematical form of the Greenwood stability equa- of 1.
tions with the Factor of Safety simply expressed by a summation of The water forces, U1 and U2 , acting on the downslope and ups-
restoring and disturbing moments or forces makes the inclusion of lope sides of the slice are calculated by the spreadsheet based on an
assumed hydrostatic water pressure below the free water surface:
additional forces due to ground reinforcement, anchors or vegetation
effects relatively straightforward.
γw h 2w1 γw (h w1 + h w1 )2 γw h 2w1
It is not straightforward to add these additional forces in the i.e., U1 = U1 = −
Bishop, Janbu and other ‘sophisticated’ published solutions where 2 2 2
the global factor of safety is applied to the shear strength parame- Alternatively, values of U1 and U2 may be obtained elsewhere (by
ters for each slice of the analysis resulting in some unrealistic force flow net or seepage program etc.) and entered directly into the spread-
scenarios for the slices where anchor and reinforcement loads are sheet.
applied (Krahn, 2001). The additional reinforcement, vegetation and hydraulic terms are
The General Eq. (A.3) is adapted for inclusion of the vegeta- similarly added in to the Greenwood Simple (A.9), Greenwood (K as
tion effects, reinforcement and hydrological changes, (Table A2, input) (A.8) and Swedish (A.10) equations to provide the new Factor
Figure A3), as follows (Greenwood et al., 2003, 2004): of Safety due to the effects considered.

It is concluded that for routine stability analysis the General equa-
F = [(c + cv ) + ((W + Wv ) cos ∝ −(u + u v ) tion (A.3) is most appropriate and gives a sensible estimate of the
Factor of Safety for all slope and hydrological conditions. Vegetation
− ((U1 + U2v ) − (U1 + U1v )) sin ∝ and reinforcement forces are readily included (A.13).

−Dw sin(α − β) + T sin θ) tan φ  ]
References
 
[(W + Wv ) sin ∝ +Dw cos(α − β) − T cos θ ] .
Bishop A W 1955 The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis
(A.13) of earth slopes. Geotechnique, 5(1), 7–17.
Coppin N J and Richards I G (J.R. Greenwood) 1990 Contribution
It is noted that the tangential reinforcement force, T cos θ, is deducted to CIRIA publication on Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering,
from the denominator to treat it as a negative disturbing force (shear pp. 179–182, Butterworths, London.

201
Fellenius W 1936 Calculation of the Stability of Earth Dams 4, Trans. Greenwood J R, Norris J E, Wint J and Barker D H 2003 Bioengi-
2nd Int. Cong. Large Dams, Washington, pp. 445–459. neering and the transportation infrastructure, In Proceedings of the
Finlayson D M, Greenwood J R, Cooper C G and Simons N E 1984 Symposium on Transportation Geotechnics, EMGG, Nottingham,
Lessons to be learnt from an embankment failure. Proc. Inst. Civ. September 2003. Thomas Telford, pp. 205–220.
Engs., 76, 207–220. Part 1. Greenwood J R, Norris J E and Wint J 2004 Assessing the contri-
Greenwood J R 1983 A simple approach to slope stability. Ground bution of vegetation to slope stability, J. Geotech. Eng., 157(4),
Eng., 16(4), 45–48. 99–208.
Greenwood J R 1985 Wedge analysis of embankment instability dur- Janbu N 1954 Application of composite slip surface for stability
ing construction of the M25 Motorway, In ICE Int. Symp. on Earth- analysis, In Proceedings of European Conference on Stability of
works Failures, 6–7 March 1985, pp. 403–405. Earth Slopes, Stockholm.
Greenwood J R, Holt D A and Herrick G W 1985 Shallow slips Janbu N, Bjerrum L and Kjaernsli B 1956 Soil mechanics applied
in highway embankments constructed of overconsolidated clay, to some engineering problems. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,
In ICE Int. Symp. on Earthworks Failures, 6–7 March 1985, pp. Oslo Publication No. 16, Chs 1 and 2.
69–82. Krahn J 2001 R.M. Hardy Keynote Address “The limits of limit equi-
Greenwood J R 1986 Stability analysis of reinforced slopes. High- librium analysis”, Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Calgary,
ways and Transportation, Oct. 1986, pp. 26–27. Sept. 2001.
Greenwood J R 1987 Effective Stress Stability Analysis. Discussion Lambe T W and Whitman R V 1969 Soil Mechanics, pp. 363–365.
in 9th European Conference on Soil mechanics and Foundations, Wiley, New York.
Dublin, Sept. 1987. Vol 3, post conference proceedings, Balkema, Morrison I M and Greenwood J R 1989 Assumptions in simplified
1989, pp. 1082–1083. slope stability analysis by the method of slices, Geotechnique,
Greenwood J R 1989 Design approach for slope repairs and em- 39(3), 503–509.
bankment widening. Reinforced Embankments Symposium, Cam- Norris J E and Greenwood J R 2000 In situ shear and pull out testing
bridge, Sept. 1989, Thomas Telford Ltd., pp. 51–61. to demonstrate the enhanced shear strength of root reinforced soil.
Greenwood J R 1990 Inclusion of reinforcement forces in stability In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Landslides,
analysis. Communication in 4th International Conference on Geo- Cardiff, June 2000, pp. 1123–1128.
textiles Geomembranes and Related Products, The Hague, May Norris J E and Greenwood J R 2003 Root reinforcement on unstable
1990, pp. 114, 997–999. slopes in Northern Greece and Central Italy. In International Con-
Greenwood J R and Zytynski M 1993 Stability analysis of reinforced ference on Problematic Soils, Nottingham, July 2003, Nottingham
slopes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12, 413–424. Trent University, pp. 414–418.
Greenwood J R, Vickers A W, Morgan, R P C, Coppin N J and Norris Turnbull W J and M J, Hvorslev (1967) Special problems
J E 2001 Bioengineering The Longham Wood Cutting Field Trial, in slope stability. Proceedings of the ASCE, 93(SM4), 499–
CIRIA Project Report 81, London. 528.

202