EMBANKMENT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS –

WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND WHAT IS NOT?

By John W. France, PE (URS Corporation, Denver),

and Christina J.C. Winckler, (URS Corporation, Denver)

Introduction
In current practice, embankment stability analyses are typically performed using limit
equilibrium analysis methods, as implemented in computer programs. Numerous input
selections, estimates, and assumptions need to be made to complete the analyses. But which
of these factors heavily influence the results and which affect the results to a much smaller
degree? On which factors should the analyst concentrate most of his/her characterization
efforts? The answers to these questions are explored in this paper through example analysis
results.
This paper was prepared for a stability analysis mini-workshop session at the Dam
Safety 2010, the Annual National Conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials.
The session also included a companion paper by Danny K. McCook titled “Selections of
Strengths for Embankment Stability Analyses.”

Factors in Stability Analysis

The following factors can all affect the results of embankment slope stability analyses:

o Soil strengths
o Cross section geometry and stratigraphy
o Shear surface shape
o Internal water levels
o Soil unit weights
o Computer program
o Analysis method (Janbu, Bishop, Spencer, etc.)
o Piezometric modeling method (phreatic surface vs. pore pressure distributions)

The effects of these factors on stability analysis results are explored in this paper using
example analyses for four different cross sections:

o Section 1 – A homogeneous embankment with a toe drain – see Figure 1

o Section 2 – A zoned embankment with chimney and blanket drains – see Figure
2
o Section 3 – A homogeneous dam with a toe drain with artesian pressure in a
confined foundation layer – see Figure 3
o Section 4 – A homogeneous dam with a toe drain with two very weak foundation
layers in an otherwise competent foundation – see Figure 4

These cross sections are somewhat simplified for purposes of illustration, but they are
not significantly different from conditions encountered for real dams in many locations.
 Strengths and Unit Weights
The effects of variations in strengths and unit weights were explored using Example
Cross Sections 1 and 2. Base case analyses for these two cross sections were completed
using the strengths and unit weights shown on Figures 1 and 2 and a phreatic surface
estimated using an anisotropic permeability ratio of 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). The results of
these base case stability analyses are shown on Figures 5 and 6, illustrating factors of safety
of 1.91 and 1.66 respectively. When critical surface search routines were used without
limitations, the resulting critical failure surfaces for these cases were actually shallow surfaces
that did not extend into the saturated zones of the embankments. Since surfaces of this type
are not of great significance for dam safety and since the shallow soils actually likely have
strengths greater than used in the analyses, search critical surface search routines were
limited to include only surfaces that intersected the ground surface upstream of the crest (i.e.
deep surfaces).

The effects of variations in unit weight were explored by varying the unit weights of all of
the materials in the embankment by +5%, +10%, and +20%. The resulting calculated
minimum stability factors of safety (subject to the search limitations noted above) are
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Effects of Variations in Unit Weight

Minimum Factor of Safety
Unit Weight Case
Example Cross Section 1 Example Cross Section 2
-20 % 1.84 1.62
-10 % 1.88 1.64
-5 % 1.89 1.65
Base 1.91 1.66
+5 % 1.92 1.66
+10 % 1.93 1.67
+20 % 1.95 1.67

The effects of variations in strength were explored by varying the strengths of all of the
materials in the embankment by +5%, +10%, and +20%. The variations in strengths were
applied to both the effective stress cohesion, c', and the tangent of the effective stress friction
angle, tan φ'. The resulting calculated minimum stability factors of safety are summarized in
Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Effects of Variations in Strength

Minimum Factor of Safety
Strength Case
Example Cross Section 1 Example Cross Section 2
-20 % 1.53 1.33
-10 % 1.72 1.49
-5 % 1.81 1.58
Base 1.91 1.66
+5 % 2.00 1.74
+10 % 2.10 1.82
+20 % 2.29 1.99

The following observations can be made from the results in these two tables:

o The changes in minimum factors of safety in these cases are approximately

proportional to the changes in strength.
o The changes in minimum factors of safety in these cases are much less than
proportional to changes in unit weight.
 Internal Water Levels
The effects of variations in internal water levels were explored using Example Cross
Section 1. Stability analyses were completed for this cross section with phreatic surfaces
estimated using three anisotropic permeability ratios (horizontal permeability:vertical
permeability): 1:1, 4:1 and 9:1. The phreatic surfaces for these three permeability ratios are
illustrated in Figure 7, where it is seen that the phreatic surface extends further downstream as
the permeability increases.

The effects of variations in internal water levels resulting from the different permeability
ratios are summarized in Table 3, where it is seen that increasing permeability ratios and the
resulting higher phreatic surfaces in the downstream sections of the embankment significantly
decreases the factor of safety.

Table 3. Summary of Effects of Variations in Internal Water Level for Example Cross Section
1
Permeability Ratio Minimum Factor of Safety
1:1 1.98
4:1 1.91
9:1 1.71

Analysis Methods

Many modern computer programs for limit equilibrium stability analyses include the
option to complete the analysis using a number of different analysis methods, such as
Spencer, Bishop, Janbu, etc. In general these different methods of analyses developed over
time, often in response to increasing computing power, allowing more complex and exact
forms of computation. In the authors’ experience, the most common method in use today is
Spencer’s method. This method is preferred by many analysts because it solves for both force
and moment equilibrium. The effects of different analysis methods were explored using
Example Cross Section 1, and the results are summarized in Figure 8 and Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Effects of Different Analysis Methods for Example Cross Section 1
Analysis Method Minimum Factor of Safety
Spencer 1.91
Bishop 1.90
Janbu 1.85
Lowe and Karafiath 1.91

For the four different analysis methods the variations in calculated factors of safety are
relatively small and certainly within the typical level of accuracy of geotechnical analyses.
Analysts also have a choice of a number of different commercially available and open
file computer applications of stability analysis programs. All of these programs have there own
internal codes for implementing the different analysis methods. It has been the authors’
experience that the widely-distributed commercial and open file programs are faithful to the
analysis method computational procedures and stability analyses completed using different
programs but the same analysis method produce essentially the same results. The various
widely-used computer programs differ in terms of such things as ease of use, search routines,
and polish of outputs, but they all are essentially the same mathematically.

Piezometric Modeling Method

Most stability analyses computer programs allow more than one method of input for
piezometric (pore pressure) values. Two of the most common methods are 1) a phreatic
surface and 2) piezometric values based on seepage analyses. In the phreatic surface
method, the pore pressure at any point (e.g. the bottom of a slice used in the analysis) is
calculated as the product of the vertical distance from the point to the phreatic surface times
the unit weight of water. The effects of the use of these two methods were evaluated for
Example Cross Sections 1 and 2, and the results are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10.
For these two cases, the differences in calculated factors of safety are relatively small.
For the Example Cross Section 1, the factor of safety increased from 1.91 to 1.98 when the
piezometric input method was changed from a phreatic surface to piezometric values from a
SEEP/W seepage analysis. For Example Cross Section 2, the factor of safety increased from
1.66 to 1.71 for the same change in input methodology. In both cases, the phreatic surface
method results in a lower (more conservative) calculated factor of safety, which would be
expected because in almost all cases the pore pressure resulting from the piezometric surface
calculation will be greater than that resulting from a seepage analysis. It has been the authors’
experience that the differences in factors of safety for the two methods of piezometric input
evaluated above are small, except in those cases when the phreatic surface is relatively steep
and the corresponding equipotential lines deviate significantly from vertical over a significant
part of the potential failure surface.

Some stability analysis programs allow the piezometric data to be entered separately
for different strata. For example, some programs allow different phreatic surfaces to be
entered for different strata. In some cases, this can be significant, with illustrated in Example
Cross Section 3. This cross section was analyzed two ways: 1) with the phreatic surface in
the embankment used to develop pore pressures for all strata, and 2) with a different phreatic
surface (see Figure 3) entered for a layer in the foundation confined between two clay seams.
The results are illustrated in Figure 11.
In both cases, noncircular failure surfaces based in the foundation layer between the
clay seams were used for the stability analysis. For discussion of the significance of
noncircular surfaces for cases like this, see the discussion in the next section of this paper.
For the single phreatic surface, the calculated factor of safety was 1.89, while, with the
different phreatic surface in the confining layer, the calculated factor of safety was 1.72. This
illustrates how varying piezometric conditions in different strata can, in some cases
significantly affect the calculated factor of safety.

Cross Section Geometry and Stratigrahy and Shear Surfaces

It is relatively obvious that cross section geometry and stratigraphy can significantly
affect calculated factors of safety. For example, consider the Example Cross Section 2. The
core material is weaker than the shell materials. If the outer slopes are maintained and the
core is widened, the factor of safety will increase relative to the base case. Conversely, if the
core is narrowed, the factor of safety would increase relative to the base case. Similarly, it is
easy to envision how different configurations of the core (e.g. inclined upstream) could affect
factors of safety. From these discussions, it is clear that the extents and locations of relatively
weaker and relatively stronger materials can significantly affect calculated factors of safety.
The stratigraphy within the cross section can, in some cases, significantly affect the
shape and location of the critical shear surface. Consider the case of Example Cross Section
4, with two weak horizontal layers within an otherwise strong foundation. Analysis of this
cross section was completed using three different search methods: 1) a circular search, 2) a
noncircular search based in the upper weak layer, and 3) a noncircular search based in the
lower weak layer. The results are illustrated on Figure 12.
The circular surface results in a critical surface confined to the
embankment, with a calculated factor of safety of 1.78. The noncircular surface
based in the upper weak layer results in a significantly lower calculated factor of
safety of 1.21, while the noncircular surface based in the lower weak layer
results in an even lower calculated factor of safety of 1.11.
 Closing
In real estate, the old saying is that three most important things are “location, location,
and location.” Similarly, it can be said that, in geotechnical stability analysis, the three most
important things are “strength, strength, and strength.” Consequently, the authors suggest
that the stability analyst should spend significant effort to make the best estimates possible of
the strengths of the materials involved. Danny McCook’s companion paper, noted in the
introduction to this paper, addresses selection of strengths for embankment stability analyses
in detail.
Cross section stratigraphy and piezometric conditions can also have a significant effect
on stability analysis results and deserve attention from the analyst. In some cases, the
stratigraphy can determine whether circular or noncircular failure surfaces are most critical.
Soil unit weights, method of analysis, and the particular computer program used for the
analysis have much less effect on stability analysis results. In most cases the method of
modeling piezometric conditions also has relatively little effect on stability analysis results,
although there are some cases where this is not true.