WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.

01 Page 7-i
January 2010

Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis Contents
7.1 Overview 7-1
7.2 DevelopmentofDesignParametersandOtherInputDataforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-1
7.3 DesignRequirements 7-2
7.4 ResistanceFactorsandSafetyFactorsforSlopeStabilityAnalysis 7-4
7.5 References 7-5
Contents Chapter 7
Page 7-ii WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
January 2010

Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 Overview
Slopestabilityanalysisisusedinawidevarietyofgeotechnicalengineering
problems,including,butnotlimitedto,thefollowing:
Determinationofstablecutandfllslopes
Assessmentofoverallstabilityofretainingwalls,includingglobal
andcompoundstability(includespermanentsystemsandtemporary
shoringsystems)
Assessmentofoverallstabilityofshallowanddeepfoundationsfor
structureslocatedonslopesoroverpotentiallyunstablesoils,including
thedeterminationoflateralforcesappliedtofoundationsandwallsdue
topotentiallyunstableslopes
Stabilityassessmentoflandslides(mechanismsoffailure,and
determinationofdesignpropertiesthroughback-analysis),anddesign
ofmitigationtechniquestoimprovestability
Evaluationofinstabilityduetoliquefaction
Typesofslopestabilityanalysesincluderotationalslopefailure,translational
failure,irregularsurfacesofsliding,andinfniteslopefailure.Stability
analysistechniquesspecifctorockslopes,otherthanhighlyfractured
rockmassesthatcanineffectbetreatedassoil,aredescribedinWSDOT
GDMChapter12.Detailedstabilityassessmentoflandslidesisdescribedin
WSDOTGDMChapter13.
7.2 Development of Design Parameters and Other Input Data for
Slope Stability Analysis
TheinputdataneededforslopestabilityanalysisisdescribedinWSDOT
GDMChapter2forsiteinvestigationconsiderations,WSDOTGDMChapters
9and10forfllsandcuts,andWSDOTGDMChapter13forlandslides.
WSDOTGDMChapter5providesrequirementsfortheassessmentofdesign
propertyinputparameters.
Detailedassessmentofsoilandrockstratigraphyiscriticaltotheproper
assessmentofslopestability,andisinitselfadirectinputparameterforslope
stabilityanalysis.Itisimportanttodefneanythinweaklayerspresent,the
presenceofslickensides,etc.,asthesefnedetailsofthestratigraphycould
controlthestabilityoftheslopeinquestion.Knowledgeofthegeologicnature
oftheunitspresentatthesiteandknowledgeofpastperformanceofsuch
unitsmayalsobecriticalfactorsintheassessmentofslopestability.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-1
January 2010
Whetherlong-termorshort-termstabilityisinview,andwhichwillcontrol
thestabilityoftheslope,willaffecttheselectionofsoilandrockshear
strengthparametersusedasinputintheanalysis.Forshort-termstability
analysis,undrainedshearstrengthparametersshouldbeobtained.Forlong-
termstabilityanalysis,drainedshearstrengthparametersshouldbeobtained.
Forassessingthestabilityoflandslides,residualshearstrengthparameters
willbeneeded,sincethesoilhasinsuchhas typicallydeformedenoughto
reacharesidualvalue.Forhighlyoverconsolidatedclays,suchastheSeattle
clays(e.g.,LawtonFormation),iftheslopeisrelativelyfreetodeformafter
thecutismadeorisotherwiseunloaded,residualshearstrengthparameters
shouldbeobtainedandusedforthestabilityanalysis.SeeWSDOTGDM
Chapter5forguidanceonthedevelopmentofshearstrengthparameters.
Detailedassessmentofthegroundwaterregimewithinandbeneaththeslope/
landslide massisalsocritical.Detailedpieziometricdataatmultiplelocations
anddepthswithinandbelowtheslopewilllikelybeneeded,dependingon
thegeologiccomplexityofthestratigraphyandgroundwaterconditions.
Potentialseepageatthefaceoftheslopemustbeassessedandaddressed.
Insomecases,detailedfownetanalysismaybeneeded.Ifseepagedoes
exit attheslopeface,thepotentialforsoilpipingshouldalsobeassessed
asaslopestabilityfailuremechanism,especiallyinhighlyerodablesilts
andsands.Ifgroundwatervariesseasonally,long-termmonitoringofthe
groundwaterlevelsinthesoilshouldbeconducted.Ifgroundwaterlevels
tendtoberesponsivetosignifcantrainfallevents,thelong-termgroundwater
monitoringshouldbecontinuous,andon-siterainfalldatacollectionshould
also be considered.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limitequilibriummethodsshallbeusedtoassessslopestability.The
ModifedBishop,simplifedJanbu,Spencer,orotherwidelyacceptedslope
stabilityanalysismethodsshouldbeusedforrotational,translational and
irregularsurfacefailuremechanisms.Incaseswherethestabilityfailure
mechanismsanticipatedarenotwellmodeledbylimitequilibriumtechniques,
orifdeformationanalysisoftheslopeisrequired,moresophisticated
analysistechniques(e.g.,fnitedifferencemethodssuchasisusedbythe
computerprogramFLAC)maybeusedinadditiontothelimitequilibrium
methodologies.Sincethesemoresophisticatedmethodsarequitesensitive
tothequalityoftheinputdataandthedetailsofthemodelsetup,including
theselectionofconstitutivemodelsusedtorepresentthematerialproperties
andbehavior,limitequilibriummethodsshouldalsobeusedinsuchcases.
Ifthedifferencesintheresultsaresignifcant,engineeringjudgmentshould
beappliedinconjunctionwithanyavailablefeldobservationstoassessthe
correctnessofthedesignmodelused.
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
January 2010
Ifthepotentialslopefailuremechanismisanticipatedtoberelativelyshallow
andparalleltotheslopeface,withorwithoutseepageaffects,aninfnite
slopeanalysisshouldbeconducted.Typically,slopeheightsof15to20ftor
morearerequiredtohavethistypeoffailuremechanism.Forinfniteslopes
consisting of cohesionless soils that are either above the water table or that
arefullysubmerged,thefactorofsafetyforslopestabilityisdeterminedas
follows:
FS =
Tan
Tan
(7-1)
where,
= the angle of internal friction for the soil
= theslopeanglerelativetothehorizontal
Forinfniteslopesthathaveseepageattheslopeface,thefactorofsafetyfor
slopestabilityisdeterminedasfollows:
FS =
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed ow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to signicant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modied Bishop, simplied
Janbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., nite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
signicant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available eld observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an innite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For innite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(7-1)
where,
= the angle of internal friction for the soil
= the slope angle relative to the horizontal
For innite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
(7-2)

where,

b
= the buoyant unit weight of the soil

s
= the saturated unit weight of the soil
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

s
Slope Stability Analysis Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03
Chapter 7-4 December 2006
Slope Stability Analysis
Detailed assessment of the groundwater regime within and beneath the slope is also critical. Detailed
pieziometric data at multiple locations and depths within and below the slope will likely be needed,
depending on the geologic complexity of the stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. Potential seepage
at the face of the slope must be assessed and addressed. In some cases, detailed ow net analysis may
be needed. If seepage does exit the slope face, the potential for soil piping should also be assessed
as a slope stability failure mechanism, especially in highly erodable silts and sands. If groundwater
varies seasonally, long-term monitoring of the groundwater levels in the soil should be conducted. If
groundwater levels tend to be responsive to signicant rainfall events, the long-term groundwater
monitoring should be continuous.
7.3 Design Requirements
Limit equilibrium methodologies shall be used to assess slope stability. The Modied Bishop, simplied
Janbu, Spencer, or other widely accepted slope stability analysis methods should be used for rotational
and irregular surface failure mechanisms. In cases where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated
are not well modeled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of the slope is required,
more sophisticated analysis techniques (e.g., nite difference methodologies such as is used by the
computer program FLAC) may be used in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies. Since these
more sophisticated methodologies are quite sensitive to the quality of the input data and the details of the
model setup, including the selection of constitutive models used to represent the material properties and
behavior, limit equilibrium methods should also be used in such cases. If the differences in the results are
signicant, engineering judgment should be applied in conjunction with any available eld observations
to assess the correctness of the design model used.
If the potential slope failure mechanism is anticipated to be relatively shallow and parallel to the slope
face, with or without seepage affects, an innite slope analysis should be conducted. Typically, slope
heights of 15 to 20 ft or more are required to have this type of failure mechanism. For innite slopes
consisting of cohesionless soils which are either above the water table or which are fully submerged, the
factor of safety for slope stability is determined as follows:
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(7-1)
where,
= the angle of internal friction for the soil
= the slope angle relative to the horizontal
For innite slopes that have seepage at the slope face, the factor of safety for slope stability is determined
as follows:
(7-2)

where,

b
= the buoyant unit weight of the soil

s
= the saturated unit weight of the soil
|
|
Tan
Tan
FS =
|
|

Tan
Tan
FS
s
b
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
Tan
Tan
(7-2)
where,

b
= thebuoyantunitweightofthesoil

s
= thesaturatedunitweightofthesoil
Consideringthatthebuoyantunitweightisroughlyone-halfofthesaturated
unitweight,seepageontheslopefacecanreducethefactorofsafetyby
afactoroftwo,aconditionwhichshouldobviouslybeavoidedthrough
sometypeofdrainageifatallpossible;otherwisemuchfatterslopeswill
beneeded.Whenusingtheinfniteslopemethod,iftheFSisnearorbelow
1.0to1.15,severeerosionorshallowslumpingislikely.Vegetationonthe
slopecanhelptoreducethisproblem,asthevegetationrootsaddcohesion
tothesurfcialsoil,improvingstability.Notethatconductinganinfnite
slopeanalysisdoesnotprecludetheneedtocheckfordeeperslopefailure
mechanisms,suchaswouldbeassessedbytheModifedBishoporsimilar
methodslistedabove.
Translational(block)ornoncircularsearchesaregenerallymoreappropriate
formodelingthinweaklayersorsuspectedplanesofweakness.Ifthereisa
disparatelystronguniteitherbeloworaboveathinweakunit,theusermust
ensurethatthemodeledfailureplanelieswithinthesuspectedweakunitso
thatthemostcriticalfailuresurfaceismodeledasaccuratelyaspossible.
Circularsearchesforthesetypesofconditionsshouldgenerallybeavoidedas
theydonotgenerallymodelthemostcriticalfailuresurface.
Forverysimplifedcases,designchartstoassessslopestabilityareavailable.
ExamplesofsimplifeddesignchartsareprovidedinNAVFACDM-7.These
chartsareforac-soil,andapplyonlytorelativelyuniformsoilconditions
withinandbelowthecutslope.Theydonotapplytofllsoverrelativelysoft
ground,aswellastocutsinprimarilycohesivesoils.Sincethesechartsare
forac-soil,asmallcohesionwillbeneededtoperformthecalculation.If
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-3
January 2010
thesechartsaretobeused,itisrecommendedthatacohesionof50to100
psfbeusedincombinationwiththesoilfrictionangleobtainedfromSPT
correlationforrelativelycleansandsandgravels.Forsiltytoverysiltysands
andgravels,thecohesioncouldbeincreasedto100to200psf,butwiththe
frictionanglefromSPTcorrelation(seeWSDOTGDMChapter5)reducedby
2to3degrees,ifitisnotfeasibletoobtainundisturbedsoilsamplessuitable
forlaboratorytestingtomeasurethesoilshearstrengthdirectly.Thisshould
beconsideredgeneralguidance,andgoodengineeringjudgmentshouldbe
appliedwhenselectingsoilparametersforthistypeofananalysis.Simplifed
designchartsshallonlybeusedforfnaldesignofnon-criticalslopesthatare
approximately10ftinheightorlessandthatareconsistentwiththesimplifed
assumptionsusedbythedesignchart.Simplifeddesignchartsmaybeusedas
applicableforlargerslopesforpreliminarydesign.
ThedetailedguidanceforslopestabilityanalysisprovidedbyAbramson,etal.
(1996)shouldbeused.
7.4 Resistance Factors and Safety Factors for Slope
Stability Analysis
Foroverallstabilityanalysisofwallsandstructurefoundations,designshall
beconsistentwithWSDOTGDMchapters6,8and15andtheAASHTO
LRFDBridgeDesignSpecifcations.Forslopesadjacenttobutnotdirectly
supportingstructures,amaximumresistancefactorof0.75shouldbeused.
Forfoundationsonslopesthatsupportstructuressuchasbridgesandretaining
walls,amaximumresistancefactorof0.65shouldbeused.Exceptionstothis
couldincludeminorwallsthathaveaminimalimpactonthestabilityofthe
existingslope,inwhichthe0.75resistancefactormaybeused.Sincethese
resistancefactorsarecombinedwithaloadfactorof1.0(overallstabilityis
assessedasaservicelimitstateonly),theseresistancefactorsof0.75and
0.65areequivalenttoasafetyfactorof1.3and1.5,respectively.
Forgeneralslopestabilityanalysisofpermanentcuts,flls,andlandslide
repairs,aminimumsafetyfactorof1.25shouldbeused.Largersafety
factorsshouldbeusedifthereissignifcantuncertaintyintheanalysisinput
parameters.TheMonteCarlosimulationfeaturesnowavailableinsomeslope
stabilitycomputerprogramsmaybeusedforthispurpose,fromwhicha
probabilityoffailurecanbedetermined,providedacoeffcientofvariationfor
eachoftheinputparameterscanbeascertained.Forconsiderationsregarding
thestatisticalcharacterizationofinputparameters,seeAllen,etal.(2005).
Forminimumsafetyfactorsandresistancefactorsfortemporarycuts,see
WSDOTGDMSection15.6.
Forseismicanalysis,ifseismicanalysisisconducted(seeWSDOTGDM
Chapter6forpoliciesonthisissue),amaximumresistancefactorof0.9
shouldbeusedforslopesinvolvingoradjacenttowallsandstructure
foundations.Thisisequivalenttoasafetyfactorof1.1.Forotherslopes(cuts,
flls,andlandsliderepairs),aminimumsafetyfactorof1.05shallbeused.
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-4 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
January 2010
Conditions Probability of Failure, Pf
Unacceptable in most cases > 0.1
Temporary structures with no potential life loss and low repair cost 0.1
Slope of riverbank at docks, no alternative docks, pier shutdown threatens
operations
0.01 to 0.02
Low consequences of failure, repairs when time permits, repair cost less
than cost to go to lower Pf
0.01
Existing large cut on interstate highway 0.01 to 0.02
New large cut (i.e., to be constructed) on interstate highway 0.01 or less
Acceptable in most cases except if lives may be lost 0.001
Acceptable for all slopes 0.0001
Unnecessarily low 0.00001
Slope stability probability of failure (adapted from Santamarina, et al., 1992)
Table 7-1
7.5 References
Abramson,L.,Boyce,G.,Lee,T.,andSharma,S.,1996,Slope Stability and
Stabilization Methods,Wiley,ISBN0471106224.
Allen,T.,Nowak,A.,andBathurst,R.,2005,CalibrationtoDetermineLoad
andResistanceFactorsforGeotechnicalandStructuralDesign.TRBCircular
E-C079,83pp.
Santamarina,J.C.,Altschaeff,A.G.,andChameau,J.L.,1992,Reliability
ofSlopes:IncorporatingQualitativeInformation,TransportationResearch
Board,TRR1343,Washington,D.C.,pp.1-5.
Chapter 7 Slope Stability Analysis
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 Page 7-5
January 2010
Slope Stability Analysis Chapter 7
Page 7-6 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01
January 2010