Technical Note

Taylor’s Slope Stability Charts Revisited

T. Steward1; N. Sivakugan, M.ASCE2; S. K. Shukla3; and B. M. Das, F.ASCE4

Abstract: Two design charts for computing the safety factor of soil slopes are presented here. The first one is for an undrained (ϕu ¼ 0) soil
slope, similar to the one proposed by Taylor, but with significant differences. Taylor’s work is based on three types of failure circles: toe circle,
slope circle, and midpoint circle. It appears that there can also be compound circles that are made of two circular arcs separated by a straight
line at the interface with the stiff stratum. These are incorporated in the proposed design chart. The second chart is for drained (c0
ϕ0 ) soil
slope that enables the users to compute the safety factor of the slope without any iterative procedures that are required with the Taylor’s chart.
In c0
ϕ0 soils, Taylor assumed that the failure occurs along toe circles. The analysis presented herein shows that when the slope is very
shallow, it is possible to have midpoint circles. Both charts are quite simple and straightforward to use in engineering analysis of homo-
geneous slopes. Numerical examples are presented to illustrate the use of the two design charts. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622
.0000093. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Limit equilibrium; Slopes; Safety; Soils.
Author keywords: Limit equilibrium; Soil slope; Safety factor; Taylor’s chart.

Introduction Drucker-Prager, etc. that describe the stress-strain behavior of

the soil.
Natural and artificial slopes can become unstable and the failure Anecdotal evidence from the slope failures in Sweden in the
can be catastrophic. In the early days, stability of a slope was early 1900s suggests that the failure surface is often cylindrical,
analyzed mainly by limit equilibrium methods. Lately, with the that is, circular in section, especially in a homogeneous and
developments in finite-element techniques and the availability isotropic soil mass (Petterson 1916, 1955; Fellenius 1927). Taylor
of powerful computing facilities, the numerical modeling has (1937) developed separate design charts to determine the safety
emerged as a popular tool. Duncan (1996) discussed the state factor of the critical slip circles in homogeneous undrained clays
of the art for limit equilibrium methods and finite-element analy- and soils with cohesion and friction.
sis of slopes in great detail. Limit equilibrium methods involve There have been significant developments with the limit equi-
equilibrium stability analysis of the soil mass that may slide along librium methods during the past five decades. The method of
an assumed failure surface, with no considerations to deforma- slices was introduced by Fellenius (1936) where he divided the
tions or strains. Numerical modeling includes finite-element or sliding soil mass contained within the circular arc into slices and
finite-difference analysis using specially written programs or soft- analyzed their equilibrium by equating the forces and moments to
ware such as ABAQUS, FLAC, or PLAXIS, incorporating appro- zero. This was later improved through better and more realistic
priate constitutive models such as Mohr-Coulomb, Cam-clay, assumptions by Janbu (1954, 1973), Bishop (1955), Bishop and
Morgenstern (1960), Morgenstern and Price (1965), Spencer
(1967, 1973), Bell (1968), Janbu (1973), Sarma (1973, 1979),
1
Coffey Geotechnics, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia; for- and others. The early methods assumed cylindrical failure surface,
merly, BE Student, Discipline of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and the computations can be carried out by using a calculator. The
School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, James Cook Univ., latter methods assume noncylindrical failure surfaces, and with
Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia.
2
Associate Professor and Head, Discipline of Civil and Environmental the iterative nature of the solution process, it requires a computer
Engineering, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, James Cook for solving them.
Univ., Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. Taylor (1937) proposed simple design charts to evaluate the
3
Associate Professor and Program Leader, Discipline of Civil Engineer- safety factor of homogeneous soil slopes. One disadvantage of
ing, School of Engineering, Edith Cowan Univ., Joondalup, Perth, WA Taylor’s chart is that it does not define the location of the slip circle.
6027, Australia; Adjunct Associate Professor, Discipline of Civil and Baker (2003) proposed a complete solution to Taylor’s stability
Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences,
problem in c
ϕ soils, with expressions to compute the x- and
James Cook Univ., Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia; and Associate
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Institute of Technology, Banaras y-coordinates and the center and the radius of the slip circle by
Hindu Univ., Varanasi 221005, India (corresponding author). E-mail: using a design chart and necessary expressions, thus locating the
s.shukla@ecu.edu.au slip circle. The objective of this paper is to revisit the two design
4
Professor and Dean Emeritus, California State Univ., Sacramento, charts proposed by Taylor (1937) at a time of limited computing
CA. power and when the limit equilibrium analysis was in its infancy.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 22, 2010; approved on The work discussed herein required hundreds of runs on a micro-
September 21, 2010; published online on September 23, 2010. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
computer, analyzing the stability of various slopes having differ-
for individual papers. This technical note is part of the International Jour- ent geometry and soil parameters. All runs were made, using
nal of Geomechanics, Vol. 11, No. 4, August 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN SLOPE/W software that was one of the modules in the Student
1532-3641/2011/4-348–352/$25.00. Edition of GeoStudio 2007, by Morgenstern-Price method.

348 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

Downloaded 03 Aug 2011 to 130.95.106.69. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 1. Slip circles: (a) toe circle; (b) slope circle; (c) base circle or midpoint circle

Fig. 2. Taylor’s stability chart for undrained clays with ϕu ¼ 0

Fig. 3. (Color) Proposed stability chart for ϕu ¼ 0

Stability Charts for Undrained Clays

Taylor (1937) identified three groups of failure circles, namely, toe

circles, slope circles, and midpoint (or base) circles, as shown in Using SLOPE/W, hundreds of runs were made to locate the
Figs. 1(a)–1(c), respectively. H is the height of the slope and critical circles of several slopes, with different geometry and soil
nd H is the depth to the stiff stratum from the ground level. When properties. The values of N s computed using Eq. (1) are presented
the slope angle β is greater than 53°, the failure occurs along a cir- graphically in Fig. 3, where the corresponding types of failure
cular arc passing through the toe, and such a circle is known as a circles also are identified. A comparison between Figs. 2 and 3
toe circle [Fig. 1(a)]. For β smaller than 53°, when nd > 4, the criti- leads to some interesting conclusions that are summarized below:
cal circle reaches the region beneath the toe as shown in Fig. 1(c), 1. When β > 58°, the failure circle is a shallow toe circle. This is
with the center directly above the middle of the slope. The failure slightly different to the angle of 53° suggested by Taylor.
mode is known as base failure, and the critical circle is known as 2. Toe circles are of two types: shallow (as in item 1) and com-
midpoint circle or base circle. When nd < 4, it is possible that the pound. The compound toe circles consist of two circular arcs
critical circle exits on the face of the slope as shown in Fig. 1(b). separated by a straight line at the interface with the stiff stratum.
Such circles are known as slope circles. When nd < 4, depending 3. Slope circles are never shallow; they are deep, and become
on the value of β, it is possible to have toe or midpoint critical compound circles consisting of two circular arcs separated
circle, too. by a straight line at the interface with the stiff stratum.
A slightly modified form of Taylor’s chart is presented in Fig. 2. 4. Midpoint circles are of two types: touch and compound. Touch
Here, N s is the stability number defined as circles are similar to what was suggested by Taylor. Compound
circles consist of two circular arcs separated by a straight line at
γH γHF
Ns ¼ ¼ ð1Þ the interface with the stiff stratum.
cu;mob cu
Numerical Example One
where γ = unit weight of the clayey soil; F = safety factor; cu;mob =
undrained cohesion mobilised along the failure arc within the Consider a 9-m-thick clay deposit underlain by bedrock. The clay
clayey soil; and cu = undrained cohesion of the clayey soil. has a unit weight of 19 kN=m3 and an undrained shear strength of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 349

Downloaded 03 Aug 2011 to 130.95.106.69. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
30 kPa. If a 6-m-deep excavation is made at a slope of 25°, what or
would be the safety factor? What is the type of critical circle? c0 þ σ0 tan ϕ0 c0mob þ σ0 tan ϕ0mob
¼
Solution σ0 tan ϕ0 σ0 tan ϕ0mob

With nd ¼ 1:5 and β ¼ 25°, the stability number N s can be read or

from Fig. 3 as 6.3, and the critical circle is a compound midpoint
c0 þ σ0 tan ϕ0 tan ϕ0
circle. From Eq. (1) ¼ ð8Þ
c0mob þ σ0 tan ϕ0mob tan ϕ0mob
γHF 19 × 6 × F
N s ¼ 6:3 ¼ ¼
cu 30 From Eqs. (4)–(8)
and therefore, F ¼ 1:66.
Taylor’s chart (Fig. 2) would give approximately the same safety F ¼ F c0 ¼ F ϕ0 : ð9Þ
factor, but with a midpoint circle as the critical circle.
Through an iterative process, using Taylor’s stability chart (Taylor
1937) shown in Fig. 4, c0mob and ϕ0mob can be determined such
Stability Charts for c 0
ϕ0 Soils that F ¼ F c0 ¼ F ϕ0 .
Michalowski (2002) proposed a set of design charts, on the basis
For soils possessing cohesion and friction (e.g., clayey sands or of kinematic approach of limit equilibrium analysis, that eliminate
clays in drained conditions), the procedure for determining safety the need for iterations. Using SLOPE/W, hundreds of runs were
factor is slightly complex. The shear strength τ f of a soil, in terms made to locate the critical circles of several slopes, with different
of effective stress σ0 , can be written as (Terzaghi et al. 1996; geometry and soil properties. The entire soil is assumed to be dry
Sivakugan and Das 2010) with no water table present. For each run, the values of tan ϕ0 =F,
c0 =γHF, and c0 =γH tan ϕ0 were computed and are presented graphi-
τ f ¼ c0 þ σ0 tan ϕ0 ð2Þ cally in Fig. 5. The type of failure circle also is identified in the
figure. It can be seen that the failure circles are mostly toe circles,
As seen in Eq. (2), the shear strength derives its contribution from
and only for very shallow slopes, they can also be midpoint circles.
cohesive and frictional resistances along the slip surface. In a stable
The format of Fig. 5 is similar to the five charts presented by Hoek
slope (i.e., F > 1), only a fraction of the shear strength is mobilized
and Bray (1977) for toe circles in which they allow for tension
along the potential slip circle. This means only fractions of the
cracks and the presence of a water table that passes through the
cohesive and frictional resistances are mobilized. The mobilized
toe. However, the values are quite different owing to the difference
shear strength along a slip circle can be written as
in the assumptions made. The charts proposed herein are developed
τ mob ¼ c0mob þ σ0 tan ϕ0mob ð3Þ for dry slopes, where no tension cracks are considered, which is
consistent with Taylor’s work. The analysis and the charts devel-
Therefore, the safety factor can be defined as oped show that the failure circles are not necessarily toe circles;
τf c0 þ σ0 tan ϕ0 there can also be midpoint circles, especially for very shallow
F¼ ¼ 0 ð4Þ slopes.
τ mob cmob þ σ0 tan ϕ0mob
The advantage of the proposed chart, following Hoek and Bray
The maximum shear resistance that can be mobilized is the shear (1977), is that no iteration is required for computing the safety
strength. Therefore, the safety factor in Eq. (4) cannot be less than factor of a specific slope. For the given values of c0 , ϕ0 , γ, H,
unity. In other words, the definition of F in Eq. (4) does not allow and β, the safety factor can be computed from tan ϕ0 =F or
the safety factor to take values less than unity. In addition, the safety c0 =γHF read from one of the axes.
factors with respect to cohesion (F c0 ) and friction (F ϕ0 ) can be
expressed as (Taylor 1948; Liu and Evett 2008; Das 2010)
c0
F c0 ¼ ð5Þ
c0mob

tan ϕ0
F ϕ0 ¼ ð6Þ
tan ϕ0mob

A common method (Liu and Evett 2008; Das 2010) to solve this
problem is by assuming that the degree of mobilization is the same
in cohesive and frictional resistances, giving the same safety factors
with respect to cohesion and friction, that is
F c0 ¼ F ϕ0 ð7Þ

By using Eqs. (5) and (6), Eq. (7) becomes

c0 tan ϕ0
¼
c0mob tan ϕ0mob

or
c0 c0mob
0 0 ¼ 0 Fig. 4. Taylor’s stability chart for c0
ϕ0 soil
σ tan ϕ σ tan ϕ0mob

350 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

Downloaded 03 Aug 2011 to 130.95.106.69. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

c = cohesion (N=m2 );
c0 = effective cohesion (N=m2 );
c0mob = effective mobilised cohesion (N=m2 );
cu = undrained cohesion (N=m2 );
cu;mob = undrained mobilised cohesion (N=m2 );
F = safety factor (dimensionless);
F c0 = safety factor with respect to cohesion (dimensionless);
F ϕ0 = safety factor with respect to friction angle
(dimensionless);
H = slope height (m);
N s = stability number (dimensionless);
nd = depth factor (dimensionless);
β = slope angle (degrees);
γ = unit weight of soil (N=m3 );
σ0 = effective stress (N=m2 );
τ f = shear strength (N=m2 );
τ mob = mobilised shear stress (N=m2 );
Fig. 5. (Color) Proposed stability chart for c0
ϕ0 soil
ϕ = friction angle (degrees);
ϕ0 = effective friction angle (degrees);
ϕ0mob = mobilized effective friction angle (degrees); and
ϕu = undrained friction angle (degrees).
Numerical Example Two
Consider an 8-m-high soil slope inclined at 60° to horizontal. The
soil properties are γ ¼ 19 kN=m3 , ϕ0 ¼ 20°, and c0 ¼ 15 kPa. Find
the safety factor of the slope.
References
Solution
Baker, R. (2003). “A second look at Taylor’s stability chart.” J. Geotech.
c0 15 Geoenviron. Eng., 129(12), 1102–1108.
¼ ¼ 0:271 Bell, J. M. (1968). “General slope stability analysis.” J. Soil Mech. and
γH tan ϕ0 19 × 8 × tan 20
Found. Div., 94(SM6), 1253–1270.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). “The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of
From Fig. 5, with β ¼ 60° and c0 =γH tan ϕ0 ¼ 0:271, it can be seen
slopes.” Geotechnique, 5(1), 7–17.
that tan ϕ0 =F ¼ 0:36 and c0 =γHF ¼ 0:097. From these two values, Bishop, A. W., and Morgenstern, N. (1960). “Stability coefficients for earth
the safety factor with respect to the internal friction angle and slopes.” Geotechnique, 10(4), 129–150.
cohesion are 1.011 and 1.017, respectively. Geotechnically, these Das, B. M. (2010). Principles of geotechnical engineering, 7th Ed., Cenage
values are considered to be the same. Learning, Stamford, CT.
Duncan, J. M. (1996). “State of the art: Limit equilibrium and finite-
element analysis of slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., 122(7), 577–596.
Summary and Conclusions Fellenius, W. (1927). Erdstatische berechnungen mit reibung und kohae-
sion und unter annahme kreiszylindrisher gleitflaechen [Statistical
Two separate design charts were presented in this paper: one for analysis of earth slopes and retaining walls considering both friction
undrained clays where friction angle ϕu ¼ 0, and the other for and cohesion and assuming cylindrical sliding surfaces], W. Ernst und
drained (c0
ϕ0 ) soils. The chart for undrained clays is slightly dif- Sohn, Berlin.
ferent to the one proposed by Taylor. Most of the failure circles Fellenius, W. (1936). “Calculation of the stability of earth dams.”
in the proposed chart are compound circles that are not present in Proc. of the Second Congress of Large Dams, Washington, DC, 4,
Taylor’s charts. The compound circles consist of two separate arcs 445–463.
connected by a straight line at the interface with the stiff stratum. Hoek, E., and Bray, J. (1977). Rock slope engineering, 1st Ed., Institution
The slope angle β above which the slip circle is a toe circle is 59°, as of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
opposed to 53° suggested by Taylor. Janbu, N. (1954). “Applications of composite slip surfaces for stability
analysis.” Proc. of European Conf. on the Stability of Earth Slopes,
The chart for drained (c0
ϕ0 ) soils enables the safety factor of
Stockholm, Sweden, 3, 43–49.
the slope be computed without any iterative procedure. The pro- Janbu, N. (1973). “Slope stability computations.” Embankment dam
posed chart also identifies the type of failure circle. The failure engineering—Casagrande memorial volume, Wiley, New York,
circles are mostly shallow toe circles; only for shallow slopes with 47–86.
low strength parameters, the slip circles can be deep toe or deep Liu, C., and Evett, J. B. (2008). Soils and Foundations, 7th Ed., Pearson
midpoint types. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Michalowski, R. L. (2002). “Stability charts for uniform slopes.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 128(4), 351–355.
Acknowledgments Morgenstern, N. R., and Price, V. E. (1965). “The analysis of the stability of
general slip surfaces.” Geotechnique, 15(1), 79–93.
The funding provided by DEST through the Australian Re- Petterson, K. E. (1916). “Kajraset i Gotenborg des 5te Mars 1916
search Council Linkage Project No. LP0989164 is gratefully [Collapse of a quay wall at Gothenburg March 5th 1916].” Tek. Tidskr.
acknowledged. (in Swedish).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 351

Downloaded 03 Aug 2011 to 130.95.106.69. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Petterson, K. E. (1955). “The early history of circular sliding surfaces.” Spencer, E. (1967). “A method of analysis of the stability of embank-
Geotechnique, 5(4), 275–296. ments assuming parallel inter-slice forces.” Geotechnique, 17(1),
Sarma, S. K. (1973). “Stability analysis of embankments and slopes.” 11–26.
Geotechnique, 23(3), 423–433. Spencer, E. (1973). “Thrust line criterion in embankment stability
Sarma, S. K. (1979). “Stability analysis of embankments and slopes.” analysis.” Geotechnique, 23(1), 85–100.
J. Geotech. Eng., 105(12), 1511–1524. Taylor, D. W. (1937). “Stability of earth slopes.” J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng.,
Sivakugan, N., and Das, B. M. (2010). Geotechnical engineering— 24, 197–246.
A practical problem solving approach, J.Ross Publishing, Fort Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics, Wiley,
Lauderdale, FL. New York.
SLOPE/W 2007–GeoStudio Student Edition [Computer software]. GEO- Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in
SLOPE International Ltd, Calgary, AB, Canada. engineering practice, Wiley, New York.

352 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

Downloaded 03 Aug 2011 to 130.95.106.69. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org