An Overview On Methods For Slope Stability Analysis: Mr. Digvijay P. Salunkhe Assist. Prof. Guruprasd Chvan

Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) http://www.ijert.
org ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 6 Issue 03, March-2017
An Overview on Methods for Slope Stability

Analysis
Mr. Digvijay P. Salunkhe Assist. Prof. Guruprasd Chvan
T E. Civil, Department of Civil Department of Civil
Engineering Engineering
KIT'S College of Engineering, KIT'S College of Engineering,
Kolhapur, India. Kolhapur, India.
IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 528

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Ms. Rupa N. Bartakke, Ms. Pooja R Kothavale

B.E. Civil, Department of Civil B.E. Civil, Department of Civil Engineering
Engineering KIT'S College of Engineering, KIT'S College of Engineering,
Kolhapur, India. Kolhapur, India.
Abstract: The analysis of slope stability has received widely Slope stability analysis is performed to assess the safe
attention now days because of its practical importance. To design of a human- made or natural slopes and the equilibrium
provide steepest slops which are stable and safe various conditions. Slope is the resistance of inclined surface to failure
investigations are ongoing. Stability is determined by the balance by sliding or collapsing. The failure of a slope may lead to loss of
of shear stress and shear strength. If the forces available to resist life and property. It is therefore, essential to check the stability of
movement are greater than the forces driving movement, the proposed slopes. With the development of modern method of
slope is considered stable. A factor of safety is calculated by
testing of soils and stability analysis, a safe and economical design
dividing the forces resisting movement by the forces driving
movement. A previously stable slope may be initially affected by of slope is possible. The geotechnical engineer should have a
preparatory factors, making the slope conditionally unstable. The thorough knowledge of the various methods for checking the
field of slope stability encompasses static and dynamic stability of stability of slopes and their limitations.
slopes of earth and rock-fill dams, slopes of embankments,
excavated slopes, and natural slopes in soil and soft rock. A. The main types of slope are the:
1. Infinite slope: if a slope represents boundary surface of a
Various methods are available for slope stability analysis.
This paper aims an overview on various methods of slope stability semi infinite soil mass and the soil properties for all identical
on the basis of assumptions, Factor of safety calculation, soil depths below the surface are constant is called as infinite slope.
conditions, soil types, applicability of output of the method with
its limitations. This paper also aims to focus some new 2. Finite slope: if the slope is of limited extent it is called
mathematical tools which can be applicable for stability analysis as finite slope.
of slope.
B. Application:
1. It is used to road cuts, open-pit mining, excavations, and
landfills.
I. INTRODUCTION
A slope is defined as a surface of which one end or side is 2. It is used to earthen dam.
at higher level than another; a rising or falling surface. An earth 3. It is also used to railway formation, highway
slope is an un supported, inclined surface of a soil mass. The embankment, canal bank, levees etc.
failure of a mass of soil located beneath a slope is called as
slide. It involves a downward and outward movement of the 4. It is used to deep-seated failure of foundations and
entire mass of soil that participates in the failure. The failure retaining walls.
of slopes takes place mainly due to,
C. Methods of construction:
The action of gravitational forces, and The conventional method is used for the slope
Seepage forces within the soil. construction in that first earth soil laid on the surface. After that
They may also fail due to excavation or roller is applied on surface of the earth soil, for the compaction of
undercutting of its foot, or due to gradual disintegration of the soil. Before, all this procedure some test are required such as
structure of the soil. Slides may occur in almost every OMC (optimum moisture content), dry density using proctor test
conceivable manner, slowly or suddenly, and with or without or modified proctor test methods.
any apparent provocation.
• Perturbation Method
D. Methods for analysis: • Monte Carlo simulation and
1. Limit equilibrium: Direct
a. Analytical technique- Methods of slices Coupling Approach.
• Swedish slip circle method of analysis 3. Numerical method of modeling: Continuum
Ordinary method of slices modeling
• Modified bishop’s method of analysis • Discontinuum modeling
• Lorimar’s method of analysis • Hybrid/coupled modeling
• Spencer’s method of analysis
Sarma method of analysis
• Taylors stability number
2. Finite element method:
• The probabilistic FE method:

II. LITERATURE REVIEW Bishop's Method, Spencer's Method and Morgenstern

1. Carol Matthews and Zeena Farook, Arup; And Peter and Price's method attempt to establish a more realistic
Helm (2014): Was published “Slope stability analysis– estimation of interstice forces which may develop in
limits equilibrium or the finite element method”. reality. But they lead to somewhat higher estimation of
They concluded that, as computers and their application factor of safety. The FOS values obtained using finite
evolve in geotechnical analysis; it seems that we should element method compare very well with that obtained
be looking to more advanced ways to analyses slope from limit equilibrium methods. In finite element
stability. This study has shown that there are significant method, the FOS for critical slip surface is
opportunities in using the more comprehensive finite automatically obtained. In case of limit equilibrium
element analysis. However, the traditional Limit methods, several slip surfaces should be analyzed to
Equilibrium method remains able to produce accurate find the critical slip surface. These types of trial and
and reliable results. The both have their advantage sand error calculations are not required with FEM to find out
disadvantages with the choice of which method to use the critical slip surface because the failure occurs
depending on some of the considerations described through the zone of weakest material properties and
below the method the user selects should be based on automatically the critical slip surface is determined.
the complexity of the problem to be modeled. For Furthermore, finite element method satisfies the
example problems with complex geometries or that equations of equilibrium and compatibility equations
requires analysis of seepage, consolidation and other from theory of elasticity. Therefore, it serves as a more
coupled hydrological and mechanical behavior (pore mathematically robust platform. Also, displacements,
water pressure induced with more complex mechanical stress and strains at various nodes in the slope domain
soil responses (e.g. post failure strain softening and are also obtainable from finite element method. These
progressive failure) may be better tackled using FE are few of the additional benefits of using finite element
analysis. method.
2. Khaled Farah, Mounir Ltifi And Hedi Hassis 5. Reginald Hammah et, all (1999): “ A comparison of
(2015): were published “A Study of Probabilistic FEMs finite element slope stability analysis with conventional
for a Slope Reliability Analysis Using the Stress limit equilibrium investigation” - As stated by Griffiths
Fields”. In this paper, they were concluded the and Lane, , opinions that the FE SSR may be complex
perturbation method and the spectral stochastic finite overlook the fact that ‘slip circle’ analyses may produce
element method (SSFEM) using random field theory misleading results. As such we encourage geotechnical
are presented. These methods are applied to analyze the engineers to adopt the SSR as an additional robust and
stability of a homogeneous slope assuming an elastic powerful tool for designing and analyzing slopes. It can
soil behavior. To overcome the absence of the analytical help uncover important behavior that may otherwise go
solution of the mean and standard deviation of the factor unnoticed.
of safety, the Monte Carlo simulation combined with III. OBJECTIVES
the deterministic finite element code is applied. In fact,
the perturbation method provides satisfactory results • To study principles of limit equilibrium methods and
and it is easy to apply even with high random field finite element methods in slope stability analysis.
expansion order. • To study the suitability of each method for particular
3. Bozana Bacicn (2014): “Slope stability analysis” in that soil type and slope condition with factor of safety.
paper they conclude a methodology of slope stability • To suggest mathematical tools for slope stability
analysis and provide an insight into the basic of analysis.
landslides and their general terms. Natural process of IV. METHODS OF ANALYSIS
constant affected by change in relationship for shearing
stress and resistance. In slope stability analysis the limit
equilibrium and finite equilibrium methods these are two
4. A. Burman, S. P. Acharya etc. all (2015): “Comparative
study of slope stability analysis using traditional limit basic types. The major difference in between these two
equilibrium method and finite element method” In that methods is following:
they concluded that present work, limit equilibrium TABLE I. COMPARION OF LIMIT EQUILIBRAM METHOD AND
technique (ordinary slice method, Bishop’s method, FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Spencer’s method, Morgenstern-Price method) and
finite element method have been used to the study
S Limit equilibrium method Finite element method
different slope stability problems. Also, it is observed r.
that ordinary slice method provides most conservative no
estimation of factor of safety values amongst all the 1 In limit equilibrium method In finite analysis method based
limit equilibrium techniques considered in this paper. currently most stability analysis on computer performance has
Therefore, any design of slopes carried out with it involves due to most improved application of FE in
simplicity and accuracy. geotechnical analysis.
ordinary slice method is likely to be always on the safer
side. Other limit equilibrium methods like Ordinary

2 In limit equilibrium method In finite element method the The soil mass must be safe against slope failure on
it must search for critical surface critical surface is automatically any conceivable surface across the slope. In this method
by using geometry. find out by various software’s.
using the theory of elasticity or plasticity are also being
3 The advantages of limit The advantages of finite increasingly used, the most common method based on limit
equilibrium method: The limit element method: In FE method is
equilibrium method of slices is to for model slopes with a degree
equilibrium in which it is assumed soil is at verge of failure.
based on purely on the principles of very high realism (complex The limit equilibrium is statically indeterminate analysis. As
of statics; that is, the summation geometry, sequence of loading, the stress strain relationship along assume surface are not
of moments, vertical forces, and presence of material for known, so necessary that system becomes statically
horizontal forces. The method reinforcement, action of water, and determinant and it can be analyzed easily using the equation
says nothing about stress, strain laws of complex soil behavior) and
and displacements, and as a also better visualizes the
of equilibrium.
result it does not satisfy deformation of soil in place. Following assumption are generally made,
displacement compatibility. a) The stress system is assumed to be two-
4 It’s required only simple It must have complete dimensional. The stresses in the third direction
Mohr-coulomb soil model. stressstrain model for soil. (perpendicular to the section of the soil mass) are
taken as zero.
5 It cannot compute It can compute displacement. b) It is assumed that the column equation for shear
displacement. strength is applicable and the strength parameters ϲ
and φ are known.
6 Limit equilibrium method Finite element method can c) It is further assumed that the seepage conditions
cannot model progressive model progressive failure.
failure.
and water level are known, and the corresponding
pore water pressure can be estimated.
[1][2][8]
d) The condition of plastic failure as assumed to be
satisfied along the critical surface in other word
1. Limit equilibrium method:
shearing strains at all points of the critical surface
are large enough to mobilize all the available shear
strength.
e) Depending upon the method of analysis some
additional assumption are made regarding the
magnitude and distribution of forces along various
planes. [1]
B. ANALATICAL METHODES OF LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM:
Method of slices:
Fig. 1. Limit equilibrium method
In Limit equilibrium methods investigate the

equilibrium of a soil mass tending to slide down under the
influence of gravity. Transitional or rotational movement
is considered on an assumed or known potential slip
surface below the soil or rock mass. In rock slope
engineering, methods may be highly significant to simple
block failure along distinct discontinuities. All these Fig. 2. Method of slices
methods are based on the comparison of forces, moments, The slices are the most popular limit equilibrium
or stresses resisting movement of the mass with those that technique. In this approach, the soil mass is discredited into
can cause unstable motion (disturbing forces). The output vertical slices. Several versions of the method are in use.
of the analysis is a factor of safety, defined as the ratio of These variations can produce different results (factor of
the shear strength (or, alternatively, an equivalent measure safety) because of different assumptions and inter-slice
of shear resistance or capacity) to the shear stress (or other boundary conditions.
equivalent measure) required for equilibrium. If the value The location of the interface is typically unknown
of factor of safety is less than 1.0, the slope is unstable. but can be found using numerical optimization methods. For
A. GENERAL ASSUMPTION OF LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM: example, functional slope design considers the critical slip
surface to be the location where that has the lowest value of

factor of safety from a range of possible surfaces. A wide Assumption:

variety of slope stability software uses the limit equilibrium 1] Infinitely long slope.
concept with automatic critical slip surface determination. 2] Slip surface parallel to surface.
Typical slope stability software can analyze the 3] Friction angle of soil or rock equal to zero.
stability of generally layered soil slopes, embankments, Limitation and application:
earth cuts, and anchored sheeting structures. Earthquake Un-drained analyses in saturated clays, φ = 0.
effects, external loading, groundwater conditions, Relatively thick zones of weaker materials, here circular
stabilization forces (i.e., anchors, geo-reinforcements etc.) surface is appropriate.
can also be included. b. Ordinary method of slices-
[1] Ordinary method of slices is found in 1927 by
a. Swedish slip circle method: Fellenius. In the method of slices or the Fellenius method,
In Swedish slip circle method assume frictional the sliding mass above the failure surface is divided into a
angle of soil or rock is equal to zero. Due to this assumption number of slices. The forces acting on each slice are
the frictional angle is considered to be zero. So the effective obtained by considering the mechanical (force and moment)
stress term goes to zero. Thus equating shear strength to the equilibrium for the slices. Each slice is considered on its own
cohesion parameter of the give soil. In this method assume a and interactions between slices are neglected because the
circular failure interface and analyze stress and strength resultant forces are parallel to the base of each slice.
parameters using circular geometry and statics. The moment However, Newton's third law is not satisfied by this method
caused by internal driving forces of a slope is compared to because, in general, the resultants on the left and right of a
the moment caused by forces resisting slope failure. If slice do not have the same magnitude and are not collinear
resisting forces are greater than driving force the slope is These allows for a simple static equilibrium calculation,
assume stable. considering only soil weight, along with shear and normal
stresses along the failure plane. Both the friction angle and
cohesion can be considered for each slice. In the general case
of the method of slices, the forces acting on a slice are shown
in the figure.
Fig. 3. Swedish slip circle method
Factor of safety for the slice is equal to the ratio of the

resisting moment (𝑀𝑅 ) and the overturning moment (𝑀𝑂 ),
Thus
Fig. 4. Ordinary method of slices
In this method of slice factor of safety is very low, very

Factor of safety of the entire wedge is given inaccurate for flat slopes with high pore pressure, only for
by, circular slip surface, assume that normal forces on the base
of each slice is Wcosα. In this method of slice is one
equation for the moment of equilibrium in entire mass. In
𝐹𝑆 =
this method of slice only one unknown is found, that is factor
Ʃ𝑇
of safety. [3]
If 𝑐 and φ are constant,
Side forces neglected (statically determinant).
Effective Stress Analysis, (ESA)
Ʃ{𝑐′𝑙 + [(𝑊⁄𝑏) cos 𝛼 − 𝑢𝑙] tan ∅′}

Where, 𝐿𝑎 = length of the entire slip surface = Ʃ 𝛥 𝐿 [1]
𝐹𝑆 =

Ʃ[(𝑊⁄𝑏) sin 𝛼] 𝑚𝑐 ′ + [(𝑊⁄𝑏 ) − 𝑢𝑚] tan ∅′

Ʃ{ 𝜓
}
𝐹 𝑆=
Total stress analysis, (TSA)
Ʃ[(𝑊⁄𝑏) sin 𝛼]
sin 𝛼 tan ∅′
Assumption:
Total stress analysis,
1] Infinitely long slope. 𝑚𝑠
2] Slip surface parallel to surface. Ʃ(cos 𝑢𝛼 )
3] Inter slice forces are neglected. 𝐹=
𝑆
Limitation and application: Ʃ[(𝑊⁄𝑏) sin 𝛼]

It is very inaccurate for flat slopes with high pore [3]
pressure. Non homogeneous slopes and c – φ soils where Assumption:
circular surface is appropriate. It’s Convenient for hand 1] Circular surface.
calculations. Inaccurate for effective stress analyses with 2] Side forces are horizontal.
high pore pressures. 3] Collinear and resultant inter slice for shear force
equal to zero.
c. Modified Bishop’s method of analysis- Limitation and applications:
Modified Bishop’s method is found in 1955, it is One important limitation for the Bishop method to
invented by Bishop. This method is slightly different from be correctly applied is that all failure surfaces must be
the ordinary method of slices. In this normal interaction circular.
forces between adjacent slices are assumed to be collinear
and the resultant inter slice shear force is zero. The method d. Lorimar’s method-
has been shown to produce factor of safety values within a Lorimar’s Method is a technique for evaluating slope
few percent of the "correct" values. Factor of safety appears stability in cohesive soils. It differs from Bishop's Method in
both on the left and right hand sides of the equation. that it uses a clothoid slip surface in place of a circle. This
This method satisfies vertical force equilibrium for each mode of failure was determined experimentally to account
slice and overall moment equilibrium about the center of for effects of particle cementation.
the circular trial surface. Since horizontal forces are not The method was developed in the 1930s by Gerhardt
considered at each slice, the simplified Bishop method also Lorimar (Dec 20, 1894-Oct 19, 1961), a student of
assumes zero inter slice shear forces. [3] geotechnical pioneer Karl von Terzaghi.
e. Spencer’s Method -
Spencer (1967) developed his analysis based on
the method of slices of Fellenius (1927) and Bishop (1955).
For slope stability analysis with general, arbitrarily shaped
failure surfaces, the Spencer's method has been found to
provide a reasonably accurate result. This method satisfies
both moment and force equilibrium of the sliding mass.
However, a number of iterations are required to obtain an
accurate value of factor of safety satisfying the complete
equilibrium. In addition, problems of non convergence often
occur when a search is required to determine the shape of the
failure surfaces. Such search was found to be necessary to
obtain the lowest factor of safety. A good approach for this
type of analysis is to perform the search using a less
elaborate method and utilize a more accurate but time
consuming method once the critical failure surface is
obtained. To implement this approach a subroutine is
included in the computer program PCSTABL5M which
Fig. 5. Modified Bishop’s method of analysis
enables it to search for the most critical surface using the
Neglecting side forces (OMS) produces FS too low Simplified Janbu method and, subsequently, analyze it with
(conservative) the Spencer's method. In addition, the Ordinary Method of
Assume side shear forces are zero but account for side Slices is added for back cut analysis since the Spencer's
normal forces. method was found to yield unreasonable results for this type
Effective Stress Analysis (ESA) of analysis. The computer program has been used
extensively for a hillside grading project which involved the

mitigation of complex landslides and faulting system. The results by an abstract number which he called the "stability
analysis is in terms of effective stress and satisfies two number". This number is designated as Ns. The expression
equations of equilibrium, the first with respect to forces and used is
the second with respect to moments. The inter slice
𝑁𝑠 = 𝑐′
Forces are assumed to be parallel. The factor of safety
expressed as,
From this the factor of safety with respect to cohesion
may be expressed as
𝑐′
The mobilized angle of shear resistance and other factors

are expressed as, Taylor published his results in the form of curves
which give the relationship between Ns and The slope angles
β for various values of φ' as shown in Fig 6-A. These curves
are for circles passing through the toe, although for values
Assumption: of β less than 53°, it has been found that the most dangerous
1] Inter slice forces parallel. circle passes below the toe. However, these curves may be
Limitation and application: used without serious error for slopes down to β = 14°. The
It is Applicable to virtually all slopes. This is simplest full stability numbers are obtained for factors of safety with
equilibrium procedure for computing the factor of safety. respect to cohesion by keeping the factor of safety with
respect to friction (𝐹∅ ) equal to unity. In slopes encountered
f. Sarma method - The method of Sarma is a in practical problems, the depth to which the rupture circle
simple, but accurate method for the analysis of may extend is usually limited by ledge or other underlying
slope stability, which allows to determine the strong material as shown in Fig 7-B. The stability number
horizontal seismic acceleration required so that Ns for the case when φ'= 0 is greatly dependent on the
the mass of soil, delimited by the sliding surface position of the ledge. The depth at which the ledge or strong
and by the topographic profile, reaches the limit material occurs may be expressed in terms of a depth factor
equilibrium state (critical acceleration Kc) and, at 𝑛𝑑 which is defined as,
the same time, allows to obtain the usual safety
factor obtained as for the other most common
geotechnical methods. Where, D = depth of ledge below the top of the
• Assumption: embankment, H = height of slope above the toe. For various
1]The normal stress acts in the midpoint of the base of the values of 𝑛𝑑 and for the φ'= 0 case the chart in Fig 7-B.
slice.
gives the stability number 𝑁𝑠for various values of slope
• Limitation and application:
The Sarma method is generally suited to more complex angle β. In this case the rupture circle may pass through the
problems using non-vertical slice boundaries. Slice toe or below the toe. The distance x of the rupture circle from
boundary properties can be set independently of surrounding the toe at the toe level may be expressed by a distance factor
material properties, thus allowing modelling of 𝑛𝑥which is defined as,
discontinuities and faults. It can even be used to simulate x
foundation problems.
It is a method based on the principle of limit equilibrium The chart shows in fig 7-B the relationship between 𝑛𝑑
of the slices, therefore, is considered the equilibrium of a
potential sliding soil mass divided into n vertical slices of a and𝑛𝑥. If there is a ledge or other stronger material at the
thickness sufficiently small to be considered eligible the elevation of the toe, the depth factor 𝑛𝑑 for this case is unity.
assumption that the normal stress Ni acts in the midpoint of
the base of the slice. Factor of Safety with Respect to Strength
The development of the stability number is based on the
g. Taylor’s stability number- assumption that the factor of safety with respect to
friction𝐹∅, is unity. The curves give directly the factor of
If the slope angle β, height of embankment𝐻 , safety𝐹𝑐 with respect to cohesion only. If a true factor of
the effective unit weight of material y, angle of Internal safety 𝐹𝑠 with respect to strength is required, this factor
friction φ ', and unit cohesion c' are known, the factor of should apply equally to both cohesion and friction. The
safety may be determined. In order to make unnecessary the mobilized shear strength may therefore be expressed as,
more or less tedious stability determinations, Taylor (1937)
conceived the idea of analysing the stability of a large
number of slopes through a wide range of slope angles φ’
and angles of internal friction, and then representing the

In the above expression, we may write tan

2. Finite element method -
ϕ′
ϕ′𝑚 = tan 𝐹𝑠 Or, ϕ′𝑚 = As computer performance has improved, the application
ϕ′ of FE in geotechnical analysis has become increasingly
(𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥. ) common. These methods have several advantages: to model
𝑐′𝑚 And ϕ′𝑚 may be described as average values of slopes with a degree of very high realism (complex
geometry, sequences of loading, presence of material for
mobilized cohesion and friction respectively. reinforcement, action of water, laws for complex soil
[2] behaviour) and to better visualize the deformations of soils
in place. However, it is critical to understand the analysis
output due to the larger number of variables offered to the
engineer. The study used Oasys Safe, a program for soil
analysis by finite elements. When developing the strength
reduction methodology to be applied in Safe, a comparison
was made between three differing techniques.
For all techniques, an initialization run for a given slope
model was carried out and the strains and displacements
obtained in that run set to zero for the subsequent FOS
assessment. In the first method, an incremental strength
reduction was applied to the elastic Mohr-Coulomb
material whereby for each follow-on increment the same
reduction in global strength was applied.
The second method involved specifying separate,
independent model runs with revised material parameters
corresponding to specific percentage reductions in material
strength. The third method used a new feature in Safe, in
which the program automatically applies the same strength
reduction in successive analysis increments, but once
failure is observed, reverts to the last converged increment
and refines the strength reduction to obtain an estimate of
FOS to an acceptable accuracy.
Fig. 6. Taylor’s stability number for circles passing through the toe and Methods of finite element:
below or above the toe
A. Perturbation Method:
The perturbation method uses the Taylor series
expansion of random functions about the mean values. In
the context of the FEM and for quasi-static linear problems,
the equilibrium is expressed as follow:
K.U = F
In this equation, K is the global stiffness matrix; K is the

load vector and U is the nodal displacement vector.
The Young’s modulus and the soil strength parameters
are considered homogeneous random fields’. [9]
B. Monte Carlo simulation and Direct Coupling

Approach:
The Monte Carlo simulation is used to generate a
sample that corresponds to N independent standard normal
variables according to the Karhunen-loève expansion of the
random fields. For each realization, the factor of safety is
calculated using a deterministic finite element code. The
element stiffness matrix is computed for each realization of
the random field H using the following relation:
Fig. 7. Taylor’s stability number for φ' = 0

C. Hybrid/coupled modeling:
In this equation, 𝐷𝑂 is a constant matrix, 𝐵 is the matrix Hybrid codes involve the coupling of various
that relates the components of strain to the nodal methodologies to maximize their key advantages, e.g. limit
displacements element and H (.)is the random field that equilibrium analysis combined with finite element
represents the soil Young’s modulus. The assembling of the groundwater flow and stress analysis adopted in the
elements contributions above Eq. leads to the global SVOFFICE or GEO-STUDIO suites of software; coupled
stiffness matrix K. The Monte Carlo simulation is applied particle flow and finite-difference analyses used in PF3D
to evaluate the factors of safety, and then their statistical and FLAC3D.Hybrid techniques allows investigation of
treatment is subsequently performed. In addition, direct piping slope failures and the influence of high groundwater
coupling approach based on the combination of the pressures on the failure of weak rock slope. Coupled finite-
deterministic finite code and FORM algorithm is used to /distinct-element codes, e.g. ELFEN provide for the
assess the reliability index. Thus, the probability of failure modelling of both intact rock behaviour and the
can be estimated. In this study, the values evaluated by the development and behaviour of fractures.[5]
Monte Carlo simulation and direct coupling approach are
considered as VI. CONCLUSION
reference values. [9]
This paper aims study of various limit equilibrium methods
3. Numerical method of analysis: and finite element methods in slope stability analysis based
Numerical modelling techniques provide an on significant works by numerous authors have been done
approximate solution to problems which otherwise cannot with regards to stability of slopes. Various parameters and
be solved by conventional methods, e.g. complex geometry, factor of safety equations used by them have been reviewed
material anisotropy, non linear behaviour, in situ stresses. and discussed briefly. Some mathematical tools are also
Numerical analysis allows for material deformation and suggested which can be used for analysis of slope in
failure, modelling of pore pressure, creep deformation, particular condition.
dynamic loading, assessing effects of parameter variations
etc. however numerical modelling is restricted by some VII. REFERENCES
limitations. For example, input parameters are not usually
measured and availability of these data is generally poor. [1] Dr. K. R. Arora “Soil mechanics and foundation emginering”,
Analysis must be executed by well trained user effects (1987)Standerd publishers distrebuters,(2015) ISBN: 81-8014-112-8
Meshing errors, hardware memory and time restrictions.[5] [2] Dr. V. N. S. Murthy, “”
A. Continuum modelling- [3] Dr. B. C. Punmia, Er. Ashok Kumar Jain, Dr. Arun Kumar Jain
Modelling of the continuum is suitable for the “Soil mechanics and foundations”Laxmi Publications (P) LTD,
1994,2005.
analysis of soil slopes Massive intact rock or healthy jointed
[4] Lysandors Pantelitides & D. V. Griffits, “Stability assessement of
rock masses. This approach includes finite element method slopes using different factoring strategies.” University of Newcast,
is discrete the whole mass to finite number of elements with Newcast. (2013)
the help of generated mesh (as shown in fig.). Finite element [5] R. Kourkoulis1, F. Gelagoti, I. Anastasopoulos, and G. Gazetas,
method (FEM) uses the approximation to connectivity M.ASCE “Hybrid method for analysis and design of slope
elements continuity of displacement and stresses between stabilizing piles”, (2012), 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000546.
elements. Most of numerical codes allow modelling of
discrete fracture e.g. bedding planes, faults. Several [6] D. V. GRIFFITHS and P. A. LANE “Slope stability analysis by fnite
elements”. (1999). Geotechnique 49, No. 3, 387-403
constitutive models are available, for e.g. elasticity,
[7] Reginald Hammah, Thamer Yacoub, Brent Corkum, John Curran,
elastoplasticity, strain-softening, elasto-viscoplasticity etc. Lassonde Institute, “Comparision of finite elementslope stablity
analysis with conventional limit-equilibrium invistigation”.(2003)
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
B. Discontinuum modeling:
[8] Carol Matthews and Zeena Farook, Arup and Peter Helm, “Slope
Discontinuum approach is useful for rock slopes stability analysis – limit equilibrium or the finite element
controlled by discontinuity behaviour. Rock mass is consider method?” (2014), ground engineering Newcastle University.
as an aggregation of distinct, interacting blocks subjected to [9] Khaled Farah, Mounir Ltifi and Hedi Hassis. “A study of
external load an assumed of undergo motion with time. This probabilistic FEMs for a slope reliability analysis using the stress
fields” (2015), The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 9, 196-206.
methodology is collectively called as the discrete element
method (DEM). Discontinuum modelling allows for sliding
between the block and particles. The DEM is based on
solution of dynamic equations of equilibrium for each block.
Repeatedly until the boundary conditions and laws of
contact and motion are satisfied. Discontinuum modelling
belongs to the most commonly applied numerical approach
to rock slope analysis.


An Overview On Methods For Slope Stability Analysis: Mr. Digvijay P. Salunkhe Assist. Prof. Guruprasd Chvan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview On Methods For Slope Stability Analysis: Mr. Digvijay P. Salunkhe Assist. Prof. Guruprasd Chvan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview On Methods For Slope Stability Analysis: Mr. Digvijay P. Salunkhe Assist. Prof. Guruprasd Chvan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) http://www.ijert.

org ISSN: 2278-0181

An Overview on Methods for Slope Stability

Kolhapur, India. Kolhapur, India.

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 528

Ms. Rupa N. Bartakke, Ms. Pooja R Kothavale

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 529

II. LITERATURE REVIEW Bishop's Method, Spencer's Method and Morgenstern

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 530

Fig. 1. Limit equilibrium method

In Limit equilibrium methods investigate the

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 531

factor of safety from a range of possible surfaces. A wide Assumption:

Fig. 3. Swedish slip circle method

Factor of safety for the slice is equal to the ratio of the

In this method of slice factor of safety is very low, very

Ʃ{𝑐′𝑙 + [(𝑊⁄𝑏) cos 𝛼 − 𝑢𝑙] tan ∅′}

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 532

Ʃ[(𝑊⁄𝑏) sin 𝛼] 𝑚𝑐 ′ + [(𝑊⁄𝑏 ) − 𝑢𝑚] tan ∅′

Limitation and application: Ʃ[(𝑊⁄𝑏) sin 𝛼]

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 533

The mobilized angle of shear resistance and other factors

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 534

In the above expression, we may write tan

In this equation, K is the global stiffness matrix; K is the

B. Monte Carlo simulation and Direct Coupling

Fig. 7. Taylor’s stability number for φ' = 0

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 535

IJERTV6IS030496 www.ijert.org 536

You might also like