Slide2

Slope Stability
Verification Manual

© 2022 Rocscience Inc.

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 19
1. Slide Verification Problem #1 ............................................................................................................. 20
1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 20
1.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 20
1.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 20
1.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 21
2. Slide Verification Problem #2 ............................................................................................................. 24
2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 24
2.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 24
2.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 25
3. Slide Verification Problem #3 ............................................................................................................. 28
3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 28
3.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 28
3.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 29
4. Slide Verification Problem #4 ............................................................................................................. 32
4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 32
4.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 32
4.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 33
5. Slide Verification Problem #5 ............................................................................................................. 36
5.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 36
5.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 36
5.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 36
5.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 38
6. Slide Verification Problem #6 ............................................................................................................. 40
6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 40
6.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 40
6.3. Geometry and Predefined Slip Surface .......................................................................................... 40
6.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 41
7. Slide Verification Problem #7 ............................................................................................................. 44

2 rocscience.com
 7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 44
7.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 44
7.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 44
7.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 45
8. Slide Verification Problem #8 ............................................................................................................. 47
8.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 47
8.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 47
8.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 47
8.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 48
9. Slide Verification Problem #9 ............................................................................................................. 50
9.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 50
9.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 50
9.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 50
9.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 52
10. Slide Verification Problem #10 ........................................................................................................... 55
10.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 55
10.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 55
10.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 55
10.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 56
11. Slide Verification Problem #11 ........................................................................................................... 59
11.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 59
11.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 59
11.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 59
11.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 60
12. Slide Verification Problem #12 ........................................................................................................... 63
12.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 63
12.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 63
12.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 63
12.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 64
13. Slide Verification Problem #13 ........................................................................................................... 67
13.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 67
13.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 67
13.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 67
13.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 68

3 rocscience.com
14. Slide Verification Problem #14 ........................................................................................................... 71
14.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 71
14.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 71
14.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 71
14.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 72
15. Slide Verification Problem #15 ........................................................................................................... 74
15.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 74
15.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 74
15.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 74
15.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 75
16. Slide Verification Problem #16 ........................................................................................................... 77
16.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 77
16.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 77
16.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 77
16.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 78
17. Slide Verification Problem #17 ........................................................................................................... 80
17.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 80
17.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 80
17.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 80
17.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 81
18. Slide Verification Problem #18 ........................................................................................................... 83
18.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 83
18.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 83
18.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 83
18.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 84
19. Slide Verification Problem #19 ........................................................................................................... 85
19.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 85
19.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 85
19.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 85
19.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 86
20. Slide Verification Problem #20 ........................................................................................................... 87
20.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 87
20.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 87
20.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 87

4 rocscience.com
 20.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 88
21. Slide Verification Problem #21 ........................................................................................................... 91
21.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 91
21.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 91
21.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 91
21.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 92
22. Slide Verification Problem #22 ........................................................................................................... 93
22.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 93
22.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 93
22.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 93
22.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 94
23. Slide Verification Problem #23 ........................................................................................................... 95
23.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 95
23.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 95
23.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 95
23.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 96
24. Slide Verification Problem #24 ........................................................................................................... 98
24.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 98
24.2. Problem Description ....................................................................................................................... 98
24.3. Geometry and Material Properties ................................................................................................. 98
24.4. Results............................................................................................................................................ 99
25. Slide Verification Problem #25 ......................................................................................................... 100
25.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 100
25.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 100
25.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 101
25.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 102
26. Slide Verification Problem #26 ......................................................................................................... 103
26.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 103
26.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 103
26.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 103
26.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 104
27. Slide Verification Problem #27 ......................................................................................................... 105
27.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 105
27.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 105

5 rocscience.com
 27.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 105
27.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 106
28. Slide Verification Problem #28 ......................................................................................................... 109
28.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 109
28.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 109
28.3. Geometry ...................................................................................................................................... 110
28.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 111
29. Slide Verification Problem #29 ......................................................................................................... 121
29.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 121
29.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 121
29.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 121
29.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 122
30. Slide Verification Problem #30 ......................................................................................................... 123
30.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 123
30.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 123
30.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 123
30.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 124
31. Slide Verification Problem #31 ......................................................................................................... 125
31.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 125
31.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 125
31.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 125
31.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 126
32. Slide Verification Problem #32 ......................................................................................................... 127
32.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 127
32.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 127
32.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 127
32.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 129
33. Slide Verification Problem #33 ......................................................................................................... 130
33.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 130
33.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 130
33.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 130
33.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 131
34. Slide Verification Problem #34 ......................................................................................................... 132
34.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 132

6 rocscience.com
 34.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 132
34.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 133
34.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 133
35. Slide Verification Problem #35 ......................................................................................................... 134
35.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 134
35.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 134
35.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 135
35.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 136
36. Slide Verification Problem #36 ......................................................................................................... 137
36.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 137
36.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 137
36.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 137
36.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 138
37. Slide Verification Problem #37 ......................................................................................................... 140
37.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 140
37.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 140
37.3. Geometry ...................................................................................................................................... 141
37.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 142
38. Slide Verification Problem #38 ......................................................................................................... 144
38.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 144
38.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 144
38.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 145
38.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 145
39. Slide Verification Problem #39 ......................................................................................................... 147
39.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 147
39.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 147
39.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 147
39.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 149
40. Slide Verification Problem #40 ......................................................................................................... 151
40.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 151
40.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 151
40.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 151
40.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 152
41. Slide Verification Problem #41 ......................................................................................................... 154

7 rocscience.com
 41.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 154
41.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 154
41.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 154
41.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 155
42. Slide Verification Problem #42 ......................................................................................................... 157
42.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 157
42.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 157
42.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 157
42.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 158
43. Slide Verification Problem #43 ......................................................................................................... 160
43.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 160
43.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 160
43.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 160
43.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 161
44. Slide Verification Problem #44 ......................................................................................................... 164
44.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 164
44.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 164
44.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 164
44.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 165
45. Slide Verification Problem #45 ......................................................................................................... 167
45.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 167
45.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 167
45.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 167
45.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 168
46. Slide Verification Problem #3 ........................................................................................................... 170
46.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 170
46.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 170
46.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 171
46.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 173
47. Slide Verification Problem #47 ......................................................................................................... 177
47.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 177
47.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 177
47.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 177
47.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 178

8 rocscience.com
48. Slide Verification Problem #48 ......................................................................................................... 179
48.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 179
48.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 179
48.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 179
48.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 180
49. Slide Verification Problem #49 ......................................................................................................... 181
49.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 181
49.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 181
49.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 181
49.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 182
50. Slide Verification Problem #50 ......................................................................................................... 183
50.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 183
50.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 183
50.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 183
50.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 184
51. Slide Verification Problem #51 ......................................................................................................... 186
51.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 186
51.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 186
51.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 186
51.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 187
52. Slide Verification Problem #52 ......................................................................................................... 188
52.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 188
52.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 188
52.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 188
52.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 190
53. Slide Verification Problem #53 ......................................................................................................... 194
53.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 194
53.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 194
53.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 194
53.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 195
54. Slide Verification Problem #54 ......................................................................................................... 196
54.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 196
54.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 196
54.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 196

9 rocscience.com
 54.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 197
55. Slide Verification Problem #55 ......................................................................................................... 199
55.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 199
55.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 199
55.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 199
55.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 200
56. Slide Verification Problem #56 ......................................................................................................... 201
56.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 201
56.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 201
56.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 201
56.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 202
57. Slide Verification Problem #57 ......................................................................................................... 203
57.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 203
57.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 203
57.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 203
57.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 204
58. Slide Verification Problem #58 ......................................................................................................... 206
58.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 206
58.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 206
58.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 207
58.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 208
59. Slide Verification Problem #59 ......................................................................................................... 209
59.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 209
59.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 209
59.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 209
59.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 210
60. Slide Verification Problem #60 ......................................................................................................... 211
60.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 211
60.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 211
60.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 211
60.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 212
61. Slide Verification Problem #61 ......................................................................................................... 213
61.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 213
61.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 213

10 rocscience.com
 61.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 213
61.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 214
62. Slide Verification Problem #62 ......................................................................................................... 216
62.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 216
62.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 216
62.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 216
62.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 217
63. Slide Verification Problem #63 ......................................................................................................... 219
63.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 219
63.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 219
63.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 219
63.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 220
64. Slide Verification Problem #64 ......................................................................................................... 221
64.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 221
64.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 221
64.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 221
64.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 222
65. Slide Verification Problem #65 ......................................................................................................... 223
65.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 223
65.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 223
65.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 223
65.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 224
66. Slide Verification Problem #66 ......................................................................................................... 225
66.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 225
66.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 225
66.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 225
66.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 226
67. Slide Verification Problem #67 ......................................................................................................... 227
67.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 227
67.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 227
67.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 227
67.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 228
68. Slide Verification Problem #68 ......................................................................................................... 229
68.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 229

11 rocscience.com
 68.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 229
68.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 229
68.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 230
69. Slide Verification Problem #69 ......................................................................................................... 231
69.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 231
69.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 231
69.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 231
69.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 232
70. Slide Verification Problem #70 ......................................................................................................... 233
70.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 233
70.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 233
70.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 233
70.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 235
71. Slide Verification Problem #71 ......................................................................................................... 237
71.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 237
71.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 237
71.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 237
71.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 238
72. Slide Verification Problem #72 ......................................................................................................... 240
72.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 240
72.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 240
72.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 240
72.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 241
73. Slide Verification Problem #73 ......................................................................................................... 245
73.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 245
73.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 245
73.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 245
73.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 247
74. Slide Verification Problem #74 ......................................................................................................... 249
74.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 249
74.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 249
74.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 249
74.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 250
75. Slide Verification Problem #75 ......................................................................................................... 251

12 rocscience.com
 75.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 251
75.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 251
75.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 251
75.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 252
76. Slide Verification Problem #76 ......................................................................................................... 254
76.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 254
76.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 254
76.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 254
76.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 255
77. Slide Verification Problem #77 ......................................................................................................... 257
77.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 257
77.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 257
77.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 257
77.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 258
78. Slide Verification Problem #78 ......................................................................................................... 260
78.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 260
78.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 260
78.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 260
78.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 261
79. Slide Verification Problem #79 ......................................................................................................... 267
79.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 267
79.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 267
79.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 267
79.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 268
80. Slide Verification Problem #80 ......................................................................................................... 270
80.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 270
80.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 270
80.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 270
80.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 271
81. Slide Verification Problem #81 ......................................................................................................... 273
81.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 273
81.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 273
81.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 273
81.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 274

13 rocscience.com
82. Slide Verification Problem #82 ......................................................................................................... 276
82.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 276
82.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 276
82.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 276
82.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 277
83. Slide Verification Problem #83 ......................................................................................................... 278
83.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 278
83.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 278
83.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 278
83.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 279
84. Slide Verification Problem #84 ......................................................................................................... 281
84.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 281
84.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 281
84.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 281
84.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 282
85. Slide Verification Problem #85 ......................................................................................................... 286
85.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 286
85.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 286
85.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 286
85.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 287
86. Slide Verification Problem #86 ......................................................................................................... 289
86.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 289
86.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 289
86.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 289
86.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 290
87. Slide Verification Problem #87 ......................................................................................................... 291
87.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 291
87.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 291
87.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 291
87.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 292
88. Slide Verification Problem #88 ......................................................................................................... 293
88.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 293
88.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 293
88.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 293

14 rocscience.com
 88.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 294
89. Slide Verification Problem #89 ......................................................................................................... 295
89.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 295
89.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 295
89.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 295
89.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 296
90. Slide Verification Problem #90 ......................................................................................................... 297
90.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 297
90.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 297
90.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 297
90.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 298
91. Slide Verification Problem #91 ......................................................................................................... 299
91.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 299
91.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 299
91.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 299
91.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 300
92. Slide Verification Problem #92 ......................................................................................................... 301
92.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 301
92.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 301
92.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 301
92.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 302
93. Slide Verification Problem #93 ......................................................................................................... 303
93.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 303
93.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 303
93.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 303
93.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 304
94. Slide Verification Problem #94 ......................................................................................................... 305
94.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 305
94.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 305
94.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 305
94.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 306
95. Slide Verification Problem #95 ......................................................................................................... 307
95.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 307
95.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 307

15 rocscience.com
 95.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 307
95.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 308
96. Slide Verification Problem #96 ......................................................................................................... 309
96.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 309
96.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 309
96.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 309
96.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 310
97. Slide Verification Problem #97 ......................................................................................................... 311
97.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 311
97.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 311
97.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 311
97.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 312
98. Slide Verification Problem #98 ......................................................................................................... 313
98.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 313
98.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 313
98.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 313
98.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 314
99. Slide Verification Problem #99 ......................................................................................................... 315
99.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 315
99.2. Problem Description ..................................................................................................................... 315
99.3. Geometry and Material Properties ............................................................................................... 315
99.4. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 316
100. Slide Verification Problem #100 ................................................................................................ 317
100.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 317
100.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 317
100.3. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 317
100.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 318
101. Slide Verification Problem #101 ................................................................................................ 319
101.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 319
101.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 319
101.3. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 319
101.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 320
102. Slide Verification Problem #102 ................................................................................................ 321
102.1. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 321

16 rocscience.com
 102.2. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 321
102.3. Results .................................................................................................................................. 321
103. Slide Verification Problem #103 ................................................................................................ 328
103.1. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 328
103.2. Results .................................................................................................................................. 329
104. Slide Verification Problem #104 ................................................................................................ 330
104.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 330
104.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 330
105. Slide Verification Problem #105 ................................................................................................ 332
105.1. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 332
105.2. Results .................................................................................................................................. 332
106. Slide Verification Problem #106 ................................................................................................ 334
106.1. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 334
106.2. Results .................................................................................................................................. 334
107. Slide Verification Problem #107 ................................................................................................ 335
107.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 335
107.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 336
107.3. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 336
107.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 338
108. Slide Verification Problem #108 ................................................................................................ 341
108.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 341
108.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 341
108.3. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 341
108.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 343
109. Slide Verification Problem #109 ................................................................................................ 346
109.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 346
109.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 346
109.3. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 346
109.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 348
110. Slide Verification Problem #110 ................................................................................................ 349
110.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 349
110.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 349
110.3. Geometry and Material Properties ........................................................................................ 349
110.4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 350

17 rocscience.com
111. Slide Verification Problem #111 ................................................................................................ 351
111.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 351
111.2. Problem Description .............................................................................................................. 351
111.3. Geometry and Properties ...................................................................................................... 351
111.4. Hand Calculation ................................................................................................................... 351
111.5. Results .................................................................................................................................. 357
112. References ................................................................................................................................... 358

18 rocscience.com
Introduction
This document contains a series of verification slope stability problems that have been analyzed using
Slide version 7.0. These verification tests come from:

• A set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed in the Australian
Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Association
for Computer Aided Design), in 1988. The Slide verification problems #1 to #10 are based on
these ACADS example problems (Giam & Donald (1989)).

• Published examples found in reference material such as journal and conference proceedings.
For all examples, a short statement of the problem is given first, followed by a presentation of the analysis
results, using various limit equilibrium analysis methods. Full references cited in the verification tests are
found at the end of this document.
The Slide slope stability verification files can be accessed by selecting File tab → Recent Folders →
Example Folder → Slope Stability Verification. The file names are slope stability #001.slim, slope stability
#002.slim and etc., corresponding to the verification problem numbers in this document.
All verification files run with the Slide Demo, so if you want details which are not presented in this
document, then download the demo to view all the input parameters and results.

19 rocscience.com
1. Slide Verification Problem #1
Slope, homogenous

1.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(a) problem.

1.2. Problem Description

This problem as shown in Figure 1.1 is the simple case of a total stress analysis without considering pore
water pressures. It represents a homogenous slope with soil properties given in Table 1.1. The factor of
safety and its corresponding critical circular failure is calculated.
A slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals is used, with 11 circles per grid point, generating a total of
4851 circular slip surfaces. Grid is located at (22.8, 62.6), (22.8, 42.3), (43.7, 62.6), and (43.7, 42.3).
Tolerance is 0.0001.

1.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 1.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 1.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

3.0 19.6 20.0

20 rocscience.com
1.4. Results
Table 1.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 0.987

Spencer 0.986

GLE 0.986

Janbu Corrected 0.990

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.00 [Giam]

Mean Bishop FOS (18 samples) = 0.993
Mean FOS (33 samples) = 0.991

Figure 1.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

21 rocscience.com
Figure 1.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

Figure 1.4: Solution, using the GLE method

22 rocscience.com
Figure 1.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

23 rocscience.com
2. Slide Verification Problem #2
Slope, homogenous, tension crack

2.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(b) problem.

2.2. Problem Description

Problem #2 has the same slope geometry as verification problem #1, with the addition of a tension crack
zone, as shown in Figure 2.1. For this problem, a suitable tension crack depth is required and water is
assumed to have filled the tension crack. The tension crack depth can be estimated from the following
equations [Craig (1997)].

Depth =
2c 1 − sin 
, ka =
 ka 1 + sin 
In order to locate the critical slip surfaces, a slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11
circles per grid point, generating a total of 4851 slip surfaces. Grid located at (31, 49), (47, 49), (31, 34),
and (47, 34). Tolerance is 0.0001.

2.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 2.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 2.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

32.0 10.0 20.0

24 rocscience.com
2.4. Results
Table 2.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.596

Spencer 1.592

GLE 1.592

Janbu Corrected 1.489

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.65 [Giam]

Figure 2.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

25 rocscience.com
Figure 2.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

Figure 2.4: Solution, using the GLE method

26 rocscience.com
Figure 2.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

27 rocscience.com
3. Slide Verification Problem #3
Slope, (3) materials

3.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(c) problem.

3.2. Problem Description

Problem #3 is a non-homogeneous, three-layer slope with material properties given in Table 3.1. The
factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular failure surface is calculated.
A slip center search grid of 20 x 20 intervals was used, with 11 circles per grid point, generating a total of
4851 slip surfaces.

3.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 3.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 3.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 0.0 38.0 19.5

Soil #2 5.3 23.0 19.5
Soil #3 7.2 20.0 19.5

28 rocscience.com
3.4. Results
Table 3.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.405

Spencer 1.375

GLE 1.374

Janbu Corrected 1.357

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.65 [Giam]

Mean Bishop FOS (16 samples) = 1.406
Mean FOS (31 samples) = 1.381

Figure 3.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

29 rocscience.com
Figure 3.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

Figure 3.4: Solution, using the GLE method

30 rocscience.com
Figure 3.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

31 rocscience.com
4. Slide Verification Problem #4
Slope, (3) materials, seismic

4.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 1(d) problem.

4.2. Problem Description

Problem #4 is a non-homogeneous, three-layer slope with material properties given in Table 4.1 and
geometry as shown in Figure 4.1. This problem is identical to #3, but with a horizontal seismically induced
acceleration of 0.15g included in the analysis. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical circular
failure surface is calculated.

4.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 4.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 4.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 0.0 38.0 19.5

Soil #2 5.3 23.0 19.5
Soil #3 7.2 20.0 19.5

32 rocscience.com
4.4. Results
Table 4.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.016

Spencer 0.991

GLE 0.989

Janbu Corrected 0.965

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.00 [Giam]

Mean FOS (15 samples) = 0.973

Figure 4.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

33 rocscience.com
Figure 4.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

Figure 4.4: Solution, using the GLE method

34 rocscience.com
Figure 4.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

35 rocscience.com
5. Slide Verification Problem #5
Dam, (4) materials

5.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 2(a) problem.

5.2. Problem Description

Problem #5 is Talbingo Dam as shown in Figure 5.2. The material properties at the end of construction
stage are given in Table 5.1, while the geometrical data are given in Table 5.2. The factor of safety and its
corresponding critical circular failure surface is calculated.

5.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 5.1: Point Identification

36 rocscience.com
 Figure 5.2: Geometry Setup in Slide
Table 5.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Rockfill 0 45 20.4
Transitions 0 45 20.4
Filter 0 45 20.4
Core 85 23 18.1

Table 5.2: Geometry Data

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m)

1 0 0 10 515 65.3 19 307.1 0

2 315.5 162 11 521.1 65.3 20 331.3 130.6

3 319.5 162 12 577.9 31.4 21 328.8 146.1

4 321.6 162 13 585.1 31.4 22 310.7 0

5 327.6 162 14 648 0 23 333.7 130.6

6 386.9 130.6 15 168.1 0 24 331.3 146.1

7 394.1 130.6 16 302.2 130.6 25 372.4 0

8 453.4 97.9 17 200.7 0 26 347 130.6

9 460.6 97.9 18 311.9 130.6 -- -- --

37 rocscience.com
5.4. Results
Table 5.3

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.948

Spencer 1.948

GLE 1.948

Janbu Corrected 1.949

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.95 [Giam]

Mean FOS (24 samples) = 2.0

Figure 5.3: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

Note: the minimum safety factor surfaces in this case, correspond to shallow, translational slides
parallel to the slope surface.

38 rocscience.com
 Figure 5.4: Solution, using the Spencer method

Figure 5.5: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 5.6: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

39 rocscience.com
6. Slide Verification Problem #6
Dam, (4) materials, predefined slip surface

6.1. Introduction
In 1988, a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 2(b) problem.

6.2. Problem Description

Problem #6 is identical to verification problem #5, except a single circular slip surface of known center
and radius, is analyzed. See problem #5 for material properties and boundary coordinates.

6.3. Geometry and Predefined Slip Surface

Figure 6.1: Point Identification

40 rocscience.com
 Figure 6.2: Geometry Setup in Slide
Table 6.1: Data for slip circle

Xc (m) Yc (m) Radius (m)

100.3 291.0 278.8

Note: Soil properties in Problem #6 are the same as Problem #5

6.4. Results
Table 6.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.208

Spencer 2.292

GLE 2.301

Janbu Corrected 2.073

Note: Reference factor of safety = 2.29 [Giam]

Mean Bishop FOS (11 samples) = 2.204
Mean FOS (24 samples) = 2.239

41 rocscience.com
Figure 6.3: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

Figure 6.4: Solution, using the Spencer method

42 rocscience.com
 Figure 6.5: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 6.6: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

43 rocscience.com
7. Slide Verification Problem #7
Slope, (2) materials, weak layer

7.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 3(a) problem.

7.2. Problem Description

This problem has material properties given in Table 7.1, and the geometry is shown in Figure 7.1. The
water table is assumed to coincide with the base of the weak layer. The effect of negative pore water
pressure above the water table is to be ignored (i.e. u=0 above water table). The effect of the tension
crack is also to be ignored in this problem. The factor of safety and its corresponding critical non-circular
failure surface is calculated.
Note: Values of 45, 65 and 135,155 degrees are used for the block search line projection angles. Line
should be in the middle of the seam.

7.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 7.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 7.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 28.5 20.0 18.84

Soil #2 0 10.0 18.84

44 rocscience.com
7.4. Results
Table 7.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.258

Spencer 1.246

GLE 1.275

Janbu Corrected 1.258

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.24 – 1.27 [Giam]

Mean Non-circular FOS (19 samples) = 1.293

Figure 7.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

45 rocscience.com
 Figure 7.3: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 7.4: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

46 rocscience.com
8. Slide Verification Problem #8
Slope, (2) materials, weak layer, predefined slip surface

8.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 3(b) problem.

8.2. Problem Description

Problem #8 is identical to verification problem #7, except that a single non-circular slip surface of known
coordinates is analyzed.

8.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 8.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 8.1: Material Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 28.5 20.0 18.84

Soil #2 0 10.0 18.84

47 rocscience.com
 Table 8.2: Failure Surface Coordinates

X (m) Y (m)

41.85 27.75

44.00 26.50

63.50 27.00

73.31 40.00

8.4. Results
Table 8.3

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.277

GLE 1.262

Janbu Corrected 1.294

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.34 [Giam]

Mean FOS (30 samples) = 1.29

Figure 8.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

48 rocscience.com
 Figure 8.3: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 8.4: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

49 rocscience.com
9. Slide Verification Problem #9
Slope, (2) materials, weak layer, water table, distributed load

9.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 4 problem.

9.2. Problem Description

Problem #9 is shown in Figure 9.1. The soil properties, external loadings and piezometric surface are
shown in Table 9.1, Table 9.2 and Table 9.3 respectively. The effect of a tension crack is to be ignored.
The noncircular critical slip surface and corresponding factor of safety is calculated.
A block search for the critical non-circular failure surface was carried out by defining a block search
polyline object within the weak layer, and variable projection angles from the weak layer to the slope
surface. A total of 5000 random surfaces were generated by the search. The results are compared with
optimization results.

9.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 9.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

50 rocscience.com
 Table 9.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 28.5 20.0 18.84

Soil #2 0 10.0 18.84

Table 9.2: External Loadings

Xc (m) Yc (m) Normal Stress (kN/m2)

23.00 27.75 20.00

43.00 27.75 20.00

70.00 40.00 20.00

80.00 40.00 40.00

Table 9.3: Data for Piezometric surface

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m)

1 20.0 27.75

2 43.0 27.75

3 49.0 29.8

4 60.0 34.0

5 66.0 35.8

6 74.0 37.6

7 80.0 38.4

8 84.0 38.4

51 rocscience.com
9.4. Results
No optimization
Table 9.4

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.760

GLE 0.720

Janbu Corrected 0.734

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.78 [Giam]

Mean Non-circular FOS (20 samples) = 0.808
Reference GLE Factor of Safety = 0.6878 [Slope 2000]

Figure 9.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

52 rocscience.com
 Figure 9.3: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 9.4: Solution, using the Janbu correction method

53 rocscience.com
Table 9.5: Block search with optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.707

GLE 0.683

Janbu Corrected 0.699

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.78 [Giam]

Mean Non-circular FOS (20 samples) = 0.808
Reference GLE Factor of Safety = 0.6878 [Slope 2000]

54 rocscience.com
10. Slide Verification Problem #10
Slope, homogenous, pore pressure grid, ponded water

10.1. Introduction
In 1988 a set of 5 basic slope stability problems, together with 5 variants, was distributed both in the
Australian Geomechanics profession and overseas as part of a survey sponsored by ACADS (Giam &
Donald (1989)). This is the ACADS 5 problem.

10.2. Problem Description

Problem #10 is shown in Figure 10.1. The soil properties are given in Table 10.1. This slope has been
excavated at a slope of 1:2 (β=26.56˚) below an initially horizontal ground surface. The position of the
critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required for the long-term condition, i.e.
after the ground water conditions have stabilized. Pore water pressure may be derived from the given
boundary conditions or from the approximate flow net provided in Figure 10.2. If information is required
beyond the geometrical limits of Figure 10.2, the flow net may be extended by the user. Grid interpolation
is done with TIN triangulation. The critical slip surface (circular) and the corresponding factor of safety is
calculated.

10.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 10.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Note: Grid used to draw waterline (which comes from Figure 10.2) is identical to the data used in
tutorial 5 (tutorial5.sli). The data can be imported from tutorial5.sli or verification#10.sli.

55 rocscience.com
 Figure 10.2: Approximate Flow Net
Table 10.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

11.0 28.0 20.00

10.4. Results
Table 10.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.498

Spencer 1.500

GLE 1.500

Janbu Corrected 1.457

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.53 [Giam]

Mean FOS (23 samples) = 1.464

56 rocscience.com
Figure 10.3: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

Figure 10.4: Solution, using the Spencer method

57 rocscience.com
 Figure 10.5: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 10.6: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

58 rocscience.com
11. Slide Verification Problem #11
Embankment, (2) materials, pore pressure grid

11.1. Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the Saint-Alban embankment (in Quebec) which was built and induced to
failure for testing and research purposes in 1972 (Pilot et.al, 1982).

11.2. Problem Description

Problem #11 is shown in Figure 11.1. The material properties are given in Table 11.1. The position of the
critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are required. Pore water pressures were
derived from the given equal pore pressure lines on Figure 11.1., using the Thin-Plate Spline interpolation
method.

11.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 11.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 11.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 44.0 18.8

Clay Foundation 2 28.0 16.68

59 rocscience.com
11.4. Results
Table 11.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.037

Spencer 1.065

GLE 1.059

Janbu Corrected 1.077

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.04 [Pilot]

Figure 11.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

60 rocscience.com
Figure 11.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

Figure 11.4: Solution, using the GLE method

61 rocscience.com
Figure 11.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

62 rocscience.com
12. Slide Verification Problem #12
Embankment, (4) materials, tension crack, pore pressure grid

12.1. Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the Lanester embankment (in France) which was built and induced to
failure for testing and research purposes in 1969 (Pilot et.al, 1982).

12.2. Problem Description

Problem #12 is shown in Figure 12.1. The material properties are given in Table 12.1. The entire
embankment is assumed to represent a dry tension crack zone. The position of the critical slip surface
and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated. Pore water pressures were derived from the data in
Table 12.2 using the Thin-Plate Spline interpolation method.
Note: 30 slices used.

12.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 12.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Note: Tension crack depth (hatched region in the diagram) is 4 m

63 rocscience.com
 Table 12.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Embankment 30 31 18.2

Soft Clay 4 37 14

Silty Clay 7.5 33 13.2

Sandy Clay 8.5 35 13.7

Table 12.2: Water Pressure Points

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa)

1 26.5 9 20 9 16 8.5 60 17 31.5 3 80

2 31.5 8.5 20 10 21 8.2 60 18 10.5 6 100

3 10.5 9.3 40 11 26.5 6 60 19 16 5 100

4 16 9.3 40 12 31.5 5 60 20 21 4.5 100

5 21 9.3 40 13 10.5 7.5 80 21 26 2.5 100

6 26.5 7.5 40 14 16 7.5 80 22 31.5 1.3 100

7 31.5 6.8 40 15 21 5.6 80 23 -- -- --

8 10.5 8.5 60 16 26 4.2 80 24 -- -- --

12.4. Results
Table 12.3

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.069

Spencer 1.079

GLE 1.077

Janbu Corrected 1.138

Note: Author’s factor of safety (by Bishop method) = 1.13 [Pilot]

64 rocscience.com
Figure 12.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

Figure 12.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

65 rocscience.com
 Figure 12.4: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 12.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

66 rocscience.com
13. Slide Verification Problem #13
Embankment, (3) materials, pore pressure grid

13.1. Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the Cubzac-les-Ponts embankment (in France) which was built and
induced to failure for testing and research purposes in 1974 (Pilot et.al, 1982).

13.2. Problem Description

Problem #13 is shown in Figure 13.1. The material properties are given in Table 13.1. The position of the
critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is required. Pore water pressures were derived
from the data in Table 13.2 using the Thin Plate Spline interpolation method.

13.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 13.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 13.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 35 21.2

Upper Clay 10 24 15.5

Lower Clay 10 28.4 15.5

67 rocscience.com
 Table 13.2: Water Pressure Points

Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa) Pt.# Xc (m) Yc (m) u (kPa)

1 11.5 4.5 125 16 16 7.2 25 31 24.5 7.2 25

2 11.5 5.3 100 17 18 2.3 125 32 27 3.1 100

3 11.5 6.8 50 18 18 5.3 100 33 27 6.1 50

4 11.5 7.2 25 19 18 6.8 50 34 27 7.2 25

5 12.75 3.35 125 20 18 7.2 25 35 29.75 1.55 100

6 12.75 5.2 100 21 20 1.15 125 36 29.75 5.55 50

7 12.75 6.8 50 22 20 4.85 100 37 29.75 7.2 25

8 12.75 7.2 25 23 20 6.8 50 38 32.5 0 100

9 14 2.3 125 24 20 7.2 25 39 32.5 5 50

10 14 5.1 100 25 22 0 125 40 32.5 7.2 25

11 14 6.8 50 26 22 4.4 100 41 37.25 4.7 50

12 14 7.2 25 27 22 6.8 50 42 37.25 6.85 25

13 16 2.3 125 28 22 7.2 25 43 42 4.4 50

14 16 5.2 100 29 24.5 3.75 100 44 42 6.5 25

15 16 6.8 50 30 24.5 6.45 50 45 -- -- --

13.4. Results
Table 13.3

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.314

Spencer 1.334

GLE 1.336

Janbu Corrected 1.306

Note: Author’s factor of safety (by Bishop method) = 1.24 [Pilot]

68 rocscience.com
Figure 13.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

Figure 13.3: Solution, using the Spencer method

69 rocscience.com
 Figure 13.4: Solution, using the GLE method

Figure 13.5: Solution, using the Janbu corrected method

70 rocscience.com
14. Slide Verification Problem #14
Slope, homogenous

14.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#1 and consists of a simple slope of
homogeneous soil with zero pore pressure.

14.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #14 is shown in Figure 14.1. The soil properties are given in Table 14.1. The position
of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated for both a circular and
noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this problem.

14.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 14.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 14.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil 41.65 15 18.82

71 rocscience.com
14.4. Results
Table 14.2: Circular – using auto-refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.409

Spencer 1.319

GLE 1.414

Janbu Corrected 1.407

Note: Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.451

Figure 14.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

72 rocscience.com
 Table 14.3: Noncircular – using Path search with Optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 1.253

Janbu Corrected 1.346

Spencer 1.386

Note: Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 1.265
Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 1.357

Figure 14.3: Noncircular failure surface, using the janbu simplified method

73 rocscience.com
15. Slide Verification Problem #15
Slope, (3) materials, weak layer

15.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example#2 and consists of a layered slope where a layer
of low resistance is interposed between two layers of higher strength. A number of other authors have
also analyzed this problem, notably Kim et al. (2002), Malkawi et al. (2001), and Greco (1996).

15.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #15 is shown in Figure 15.1. The soil properties are given in Table 15.1. The position
of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for both a circular and
noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this problem.

15.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 15.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 15.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Upper Layer 29.4 12 18.82

Middle Layer 9.8 5 18.82

Lower Layer 294 40 18.82

74 rocscience.com
15.4. Results
Table 15.2: Circular – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 0.420

Spencer 0.409

GLE 0.437

Janbu Corrected 0.423

Note: Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified factor of safety = 0.417
Kim et al. (2002) Bishops Simplified factor of safety = 0.43

Figure 15.2: Circular failure surface, using the Bishop simplified method

75 rocscience.com
 Table 15.3: Noncircular – using Random search with Optimization (1000 surfaces)

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 0.396

Janbu Corrected 0.418

Spencer 0.414

Note: Greco (1996) Spencer method using monte carlo searching = 0.39
Kim et al. (2002) Spencer method using random search = 0.44
Kim et al. (2002) Spencersmethod using pattern search = 0.39
Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.405
Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 0.430

Figure 15.3: Noncircular failure surface using the Spencer method and random search

76 rocscience.com
16. Slide Verification Problem #16
Slope, homogenous, water table

16.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Arai and Tagyo (1985) example #3, and it consists of a simple slope of
homogeneous soil with pore pressure.

16.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #16 is shown in Figure 16.1. The material properties are given in Table 16.1. The
location for the water table is shown in Figure 16.1. The position of the critical slip surface and the
corresponding factor of safety is calculated for both a circular and noncircular slip surface. Pore
pressures are calculated assuming hydrostatic conditions. The pore pressure at any point below the
water table is calculated by measuring the vertical distance to the water table and multiplying by the unit
weight of water. There is zero pore pressure above the water table.

16.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 16.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 16.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil 41.65 15 18.82

77 rocscience.com
16.4. Results
Table 16.2: Circular – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.118

Janbu Simplified 1.046

Janbu Corrected 1.131

Spencer 1.118

Note: Arai and Tagyo (1985) Bishops Simplified factor of safety = 1.138

Figure 16.2: Circular failure surface using the Bishop simplified method

78 rocscience.com
Table 16.3: Noncircular – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 0.968

Janbu Corrected 1.050

Spencer 1.094

Note: Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety = 0.995
Arai and Tagyo (1985) Janbu Corrected Factor of Safety = 1.071

Figure 16.3: Noncircular failure surface using Janbu simplified method

79 rocscience.com
17. Slide Verification Problem #17
Slope, homogenous

17.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Yamagami and Ueta (1988), and it consists of a simple slope of homogeneous
soil with zero pore pressure. Greco (1996) has also analyzed this slope.

17.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #17 is shown in Figure 17.1. The material properties are given in Table 17.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated for both a circular
and noncircular slip surface. There are no pore pressures in this problem.

17.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 17.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 17.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil 9.8 10 17.64

80 rocscience.com
17.4. Results
Table 17.2: Circular – using auto refine search

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.344

Original 1.278

Note: Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Bishop Simplified factor of safety =

1.348
Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Fellenius/Ordinary factor of safety =
1.282

Figure 17.2: Circular failure surface, using the Bishop simplified method

81 rocscience.com
Table 16.3: Noncircular – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 1.178

Spencer 1.325

Note: Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Janbu Simplified Factor of Safety =

1.185
Yamagami and Ueta (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.339
Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.33

Figure 17.3: Noncircular failure surface, using the Spencer method

82 rocscience.com
18. Slide Verification Problem #18
Slope, homogenous slope, ru pore pressure

18.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Baker (1980) and was originally published by Spencer (1969). It consists of a
simple slope of homogeneous soil with pore pressure.

18.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #18 is shown in Figure 18.1. The material properties are given in Table 18.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated for a noncircular slip
surface. The pore pressure within the slope is modeled using a Ru value of 0.5.

18.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 18.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 18.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3) Ru

Soil 10.8 40 18 0.5

83 rocscience.com
18.4. Results
Table 18.2: Noncircular – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.010

Note: Baker (1980) Spencer factor of safety = 1.02

Spencer (1969) Spencer factor of safety = 1.08

Figure 18.2: Noncircular failure surface, using the Spencer method

84 rocscience.com
19. Slide Verification Problem #19
Slope, (4) materials

19.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Greco (1996) example #4, and it was originally published by Yamagami and
Ueta (1988). It consists of a layered slope without pore pressure.

19.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #19 is shown in Figure 19.1. The material properties are given in Table 19.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety are calculated for a noncircular
slip surface.

19.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 19.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 19.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Upper Layer 49 29 20.38

Layer 2 0 30 17.64

Layer 3 7.84 20 20.38

Bottom Layer 0 30 17.64

85 rocscience.com
19.4. Results
Table 18.2: Noncircular – using Random search with Monte-Carlo optimization, convex surfaces only

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.398

Note: Greco (1996) Spencer factor of safety = 1.40 - 1.42

Spencer (1969) Spencer factor of safety = 1.40 - 1.42

Figure 19.2: Noncircular failure surface, using the Spencer method

86 rocscience.com
20. Slide Verification Problem #20
Slope, (4) materials, weak layer, water table

20.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Greco (1996) example #5, and it was originally published by Chen and Shao
(1988). It consists of a layered slope with pore pressure and a weak seam.

20.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #20 is shown in Figure 20.1. The material properties are given in Table 20.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated for a circular and
noncircular slip surface. The weak seam is modeled as a 0.5m thick material layer at the base of the
model.

20.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 20.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 20.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Layer 1 9.8 35 20

Layer 2 58.8 25 19

Layer 3 19.8 30 21.5

Layer 4 9.8 16 21.5

87 rocscience.com
20.4. Results
Table 20.2: Circular – using grid search and a focus object at the toe (40x40 grid)

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.087

Spencer 1.093

Note: Greco (1996) Spencer factor of safety for nearly circular local
critical surface = 1.08

Figure 20.2: Circular failure surface, using the Bishop simplified method

88 rocscience.com
Figure 20.3: Circular failure surface using the Spencer method

89 rocscience.com
Table 20.3: Noncircular – using Block search polyline in the weak seam and Monte-Carlo optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.010

Note: Chen and Shao (1988) Spencer Factor of Safety = 1.01 - 1.03
Greco (1996) Spencer Factor of Safety = 0.973 - 1.1

Figure 20.4: Noncircular failure surface using the Spencer method and block search

90 rocscience.com
21. Slide Verification Problem #21
Slope, homogenous, ru pore pressure

21.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Fredlund and Krahn (1977). It consists of a homogeneous slope with three
separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressures, 3) pore pressures defined using a water
table. The model is done in imperial units to be consistent with the original paper. Quite a few other
authors, such as Baker (1980), Greco (1996), and Malkawi (2001) have also analyzed this slope.

21.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #21 is shown in Figure 21.1. The material properties are given in Table 21.1. The
position of the circular slip surface is given in Fredlund and Krahn as being xc=120, yc=90, radius=80.
The GLE/Discrete Morgenstern and Price method was run with the half sine interslice force function.

21.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 21.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 21.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf) Ru (case2)

Soil 600 20 120 0.25

91 rocscience.com
21.4. Results
Table 21.2
Ordinary Ordinary Bishop Bishop Spencer Spencer M-P M-P
Case
(F&K) (Slide) (F&K) (Slide) (F&K) (Slide) (F&K) (Slide)
1-Dry 1.928 1.931 2.080 2.079 2.073 2.075 2.076 2.075

2-Ru 1.607 1.687 1.766 1.763 1.761 1.760 1.764 1.760

3-WT 1.693 1.716 1.834 1.833 1.830 1.831 1.832 1.831

92 rocscience.com
22. Slide Verification Problem #22
Slope, (2) materials, weak layer, ru pore pressure

22.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Fredlund and Krahn (1977). It consists of a slope with a weak layer and three
separate water conditions, 1) dry, 2) Ru defined pore pressures, 3) pore pressures defined using a water
table. The model is done in imperial units to be consistent with the original paper. Quite a few other
authors, such as Kim and Salgado (2002), Baker (1980), and Zhu, Lee, and Jiang (2003) have also
analyzed this slope. Unfortunately, the location of the weak layer is slightly different in all the above
references. Since the results are quite sensitive to this location, results routinely vary in the second
decimal place.

22.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #22 is shown in Figure 22.1. The material properties are given in Table 22.1. The
position of the composite circular slip surface is given in Fredlund and Krahn as being xc=120, yc=90,
radius=80. The GLE/Discrete Morgenstern and Price method was run with the half sine interslice force
function.

22.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 22.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

93 rocscience.com
 Table 22.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf) Ru (case2)

Upper soil 600 20 120 0.25

Weak layer 0 10 120 0.25

22.4. Results
Table 22.2: Composite Circular - Slide

Method Case 1: Dry Case 2: Ru Case 3: WT

Ordinary 1.300 1.121 1.188

Bishop Simplified 1.382 1.124 1.243

Spencer 1.382 1.124 1.244

GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.372 1.114 1.237

Table 22.3: Composite Circular – Fredlund & Krahn

Method Case 1: Dry Case 2: Ru Case 3: WT

Ordinary 1.288 1.029 1.171

Bishop Simplified 1.377 1.124 1.248

Spencer 1.373 1.118 1.245

GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.370 1.118 1.245

Table 22.4: Composite Circular – Zhu, Lee, and Jiang

Method Case 1: Dry Case 2: Ru Case 3: WT

Ordinary 1.300 1.038 1.192

Bishop Simplified 1.380 1.118 1.260

Spencer 1.381 1.119 1.261

GLE/Morgenstern-Price 1.371 1.109 1.254

94 rocscience.com
23. Slide Verification Problem #23
Slope, (3) materials

23.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Low (1989). It consists of a slope overlaying two soil layers.

23.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #23 is shown in Figure 23.1. The material properties are given in Table 23.1. The
middle and lower soils have constant and linearly varying undrained shear strength. The position of the
critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated for a circular slip surface using
both the bishop and ordinary/fellenius methods.

23.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 23.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 23.1: Soil Properties

Cutop (kN/m2) Cubottom (kN/m2)  (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Upper Soil 95 95 15 20

Middle Soil 15 15 0 20

Lower Soil 15 30 0 20

95 rocscience.com
23.4. Results
Table 23.2

Method Factor of Safety

Ordinary 1.370

Bishop 1.192

Note: Low (1989) Ordinary factor of safety=1.36

Low (1989) Bishop factor of safety=1.14
Kim (2002) factor of safety=1.17

Figure 23.2: Circular failure surface using the Ordinary/Fellenius method

96 rocscience.com
Figure 23.3: Circular failure surface using the Bishop simplified method

97 rocscience.com
24. Slide Verification Problem #24
Slope, (3) materials

24.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Low (1989). It consists of a slope with three layers with different undrained
shear strengths.

24.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #24 is shown in Figure 24.1. The soil properties are given in Table 24.1. The
position of the critical slip surface and the corresponding factor of safety is calculated for a circular slip
surface, using both the bishop and ordinary/fellenius methods.

24.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 24.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 24.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2)  (kN/m3)

Upper Layer 30 18

Middle Layer 20 18

Bottom Layer 150 18

98 rocscience.com
24.4. Results
Table 24.2

Method Factor of Safety

Ordinary 1.439

Bishop 1.439

Note: Low (1989) Ordinary factor of safety = 1.44

Low (1989) Bishop factor of safety = 1.44

Figure 24.2: Circular failure surface, using the Bishop simplified method

99 rocscience.com
25. Slide Verification Problem #25
Bearing capacity test slope, homogenous, distributed load, predefined slip surface

25.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Chen and Shao (1988). It analyses the classical problem in the theory of
plasticity of a weightless, frictionless slope subjected to a vertical load. This problem was first solved by
Prandtl (1921)

25.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #25 is shown in Figure 25.2. The slope geometry, equation for the critical load, and
position of the critical slip surface is defined by Prandtl and they are shown in Figure 25.1. The critical
failure surface has a theoretical factor of safety of 1.0. The analysis uses the input data of Chen and Shao
and is shown in Table 25.1. The geometry, shown in Figure 25.2, is generated assuming a 10m high
slope with a slope angle of 60 degrees. The critical uniformly distributed load for failure is calculated to be
149.31 kN/m, with a length equal to the slope height, 10m.
Note: The GLE/discrete Morgenstern-Price results used the following custom inter-slice force function.
This function was chosen to approximate the theoretical force distribution shown in Chen and
Shao.
Table 25.1: Inter-slice force function

x F(x)

0 1

0.3 1

0.6 0

1.0 0

100 rocscience.com
25.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 25.1: Closed-form solution (from Chen and Shao (1988))

Figure 25.2: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 25.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil 49 0 1e-6

101 rocscience.com
25.4. Results
Table 25.2

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.051

GLE/M-P 1.009

Note: Chen and Shao (1988) Spencer factor of safety = 1.05

Figure 25.3: Non-Circular failure surface, by using the Spencer method

102 rocscience.com
26. Slide Verification Problem #26
Bearing capacity test prism, homogenous, distributed load, predefined slip surface

26.1. Introduction
This verification test models the well-known Prandtl solution of bearing capacity: qc = 2C(1+/2)

26.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #26 is shown in Figure 26.1. The soil properties are given in Table 26.1. With
cohesion of 20kPa, qc is calculated to be 102.83 kN/m. A uniformly distributed load of 102.83kN/m was
applied over a width of 10m as shown in the figure below. The theoretical noncircular critical failure
surface was used.

26.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 26.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 26.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil 20 0 1e-6

103 rocscience.com
26.4. Results
Table 25.2

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.940

Note: Theoretical factor of safety = 1.0

Figure 26.2: Non-Circular failure surface, by using the Spencer method

104 rocscience.com
27. Slide Verification Problem #27
Slope, (2) materials, tension crack, water table (auto Hu)

27.1. Introduction
This model was taken from Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma (2001) who took it from the XSTABL version 5
reference manual (Sharma 1996). It consists of a 2 material slope overlaying undulating bedrock. There is
a water table. Soil 1 has different moist and saturated unit weight. Soil 2 has zero strength. The model is
done with imperial units (feet, psf, pcf) to be consistent with the original XSTABL analysis.

27.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #27 is shown in Figure 27.1. The material properties are given in Table 27.1. One of
the interesting features of this model is the different unit weights of soil 1 below and above the water
table. Another factor is the method of pore-pressure calculation. The pore pressures are calculated using
a correction for the inclination of the phreatic surface and steady state seepage. Both Slide and XSTABL
allow you to apply this correction. The pore pressures tend to be smaller than if a static head of water is
assumed (measured straight up to the phreatic surface from the center of the base of a slice). The first
analysis uses a single slip surface with xc =59.52, yc =219.21, and radius=157.68. The second analysis
does a search with the restriction that the circular surface must exit the slope between 38<=x<=70 at the
toe and 120<=x<=180 at the crest of the slope. The third analysis uses the same single slip surface as
the first analysis but replaces soil 2 with an 11 foot deep tension crack zone instead of a zero strength
material. The fourth analysis takes the third analysis and adds 6 feet of water in the tension crack.

27.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 27.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

105 rocscience.com
 Table 27.1: Soil Properties

c (psf)  (deg.)  moist (pcf)  saturated (pcf)

Soil 1 500 14 116.4 124.2

Soil 2 0 0 116.4 116.4

27.4. Results
Table 27.2: Circular – single center @ xc = 59.52, yc = 219.21, radius =157.68

Method SLIDE XSTABL

Bishop 1.396 1.397

Janbu Corrected 1.391 1.392

Corp. Engineers 1 1.411 1.413

Corp. Engineers 2 1.414 1.416

Lowe & Karafiath 1.411 1.413

Spencer 1.402 1.403

GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.398 1.399

Table 27.3: Circular – auto search

Method SLIDE
Bishop 1.376

Janbu Corrected 1.345

Corp. Engineers 1 1.394

Corp. Engineers 2 1.396

Lowe & Karafiath 1.392

Spencer 1.382

GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.378

Note: Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma (2001), in comparing with XSTABL,
quote a minimum Janbu factor of safety of 1.255 with the center
and radius equal to x,y,r=62.63,160.96,101.02. However it is
questionable whether this is the corrected Janbu or the
uncorrected. It is also questionable whether they used the
correct pore pressure distribution. If in Slide, you use a static
pore pressure distribution and uncorrected simplified Janbu, you
get a factor of safety of 1.254 (x,y,r=62.53,161.79,101.78) which
is almost exactly what Malkawi, Hassan and Sarma calculated.

106 rocscience.com
 Table 27.4: Circular – single center @ xc = 59.52, yc = 219.21, radius = 157.68
An 11-foot tension crack is added to the analysis, replacing soil 2. The tension crack is dry. The Spencer
results are shown in Figure 27.2

Method SLIDE XSTABL

Bishop 1.532 1.536

Janbu Corrected 1.544 1.569

Corp. Engineers 1 1.555 1.559

Corp. Engineers 2 1.562 1.566

Lowe & Karafiath 1.545 1.549

Spencer 1.532 1.535

GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.532 1.535

Figure 27.2: Results for the Spencer method

107 rocscience.com
 Table 27.4: Circular – single center @ xc = 59.52, yc = 219.21, radius = 157.68
The 11-foot tension crack added in analysis 3 is now partially filled with 6 feet of water

Method SLIDE XSTABL

Bishop 1.511 1.509

Janbu Corrected 1.520 1.543

Corp. Engineers 1 1.532 1.536

Corp. Engineers 2 1.538 1.542

Lowe & Karafiath 1.522 1.526

Spencer 1.510 1.513

GLE/M-P (half-sine) 1.510 1.513

108 rocscience.com
28. Slide Verification Problem #28
Excavated slope and embankment, (3) materials and (5) materials, probabilistic analysis

28.1. Introduction
The set of models in this verification problem was taken from Chowdhury and Xu (1995). The geometry
for the first four examples comes from the well-known Congress St. Cut model, first analyzed by Ireland
(1954). All the examples in this verification evaluate the probability of failure of slopes given the means
and standard deviations of some specified input parameters.

28.2. Problem Description

The geometry of Example 1 to 4 in Verification #28 is shown in Figure 28.1, and the geometry of Example
5 is shown in Figure 28.2. In each example two sets of circular slip surfaces are considered. The first set
consists of potential failure surfaces tangential to the lower boundary of the Clay 2 layer, while the second
considers slip surfaces tangential to the lower boundary of Clay 3. Both clays have constant undrained
shear strength.
Chowdury and Xu do not consider the strength of the upper sand layer in Examples 1 to 4. They use the
Bishop simplified method for all their analyses.
In their paper, Chowdury and Xu do not state the unit weight of the slope materials in Example 1 to 4.
They also do not provide information on the geometry (radii and coordinates of the centers) of the critical
surfaces. As a result, for each of these examples, we use material unit weights that enable us to obtain
deterministic factor of safety values similar to those indicated in the paper. We then compare probability
of failure values determined from Slide with the Chowdhury and Xu values.
In Example 5, Chowdhury and Xu examine the stability of an embankment on a soft clay foundation.
Again they consider two sets of circular slip surfaces; one set is tangent to the interface of the
embankment and the foundation, while the other is tangent to the lower boundary of the soft clay
foundation.
The Chowdhury and Xu’s probabilities of failure quoted in this verification problem are calculated using a
commonly used definition of reliability index, and an assumption that factors of safety are normally
distributed. Slide uses Monte Carlo analysis, with a minimum of five thousand samples to estimate
probabilities of failure. The random variables in all Slide analyses were assumed to come from normal
distributions.

109 rocscience.com
28.3. Geometry

Figure 28.1: Geometry for Example 1 – 4 (excavated slope)

Figure 28.2: Geometry for Example 5 (an embankment on a soft clay foundation)

110 rocscience.com
28.4. Results
Table 28.1: Example 1

Soil Layer

Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3

c1 c2 c3

Mean (kPa) 55 43 56

Stdv. (kPa) 20.4 8.2 13.2

𝛾 ∗ (kN/m3) 21 22 22

Note: *The unit weight 𝛾 was not stated in the paper so we selected
values that give us deterministic factors of safety close to those
in the paper.
*The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.
Table 28.2: Results for Example 1

Chowdhury & Xu Slide

Failure Mode
(Layer) Factor of Safety Probability Factor of Safety Probability
(Bishop simplified) of Failure (Bishop simplified) of Failure

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.128 0.26592 1.128 0.2461

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.109 0.27389 1.109 0.2789

111 rocscience.com
Figure 28.3: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

Figure 28.4: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

112 rocscience.com
 Table 28.3: Example 2

Soil Layer

Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3

c1 c2 c3

Mean (kPa) 68.1 39.3 50.8

Stdv. (kPa) 6.6 1.4 1.5

𝛾 ∗ (kN/m3) 21 22 22

Note: *The unit weight 𝛾 was not stated in the paper so we selected
values that give us deterministic factors of safety close to those
in the paper.
*The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.
Table 28.4: Results for Example 2

Chowdhury & Xu Slide

Failure Mode
(Layer) Factor of Safety Probability Factor of Safety Probability
(Bishop simplified) of Failure (Bishop simplified) of Failure

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.1096 0.0048 1.108 0.0037

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.0639 0.01305 1.058 0.0175

113 rocscience.com
 Figure 28.5: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer

Figure 28.6: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

114 rocscience.com
 Table 28.5: Example 3

Soil Layer

Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3

c1 c2 c3

Mean (kPa) 136 80 102

Stdv. (kPa) 50 15 24

𝛾 ∗ (kN/m3) 21 22 22

Note: *The unit weight 𝛾 was not stated in the paper so we selected
values that give us deterministic factors of safety close to those
in the paper.
*The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.
Table 28.6: Results for Example 3

Chowdhury & Xu Slide

Failure Mode
(Layer) Factor of Safety Probability Factor of Safety Probability
(Bishop simplified) of Failure (Bishop simplified) of Failure

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 2.2343 0.01151 2.245 0.00044

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 2.1396 0.00242 2.128 0.0007

115 rocscience.com
Figure 28.7: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

Figure 28.8: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

116 rocscience.com
 Table 28.7: Example 4

Soil Layer

Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3

c1 c2 c3

Mean 55 5 43 7 56 8

Stdv. 20.4 1 8.7 1.5 13.2 1.7

𝛾 ∗ (kN/m3) 17 22 22

Note: *The unit weight 𝛾 was not stated in the paper so we selected
values that give us deterministic factors of safety close to those
in the paper.
*The three clay layers are assumed frictionless.
Table 28.8: Results for Example 4

Chowdhury & Xu Slide

Failure Mode
(Layer) Factor of Safety Probability Factor of Safety Probability
(Bishop simplified) of Failure (Bishop simplified) of Failure

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.4239 0.01559 1.422 0.0211

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.5075 0.00468 1.503 0.0035

117 rocscience.com
Figure 28.9: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 2

Figure 28.10: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of clay layer 3

118 rocscience.com
 Table 28.7: Example 5

Layer 1 Layer 2

c1 c2
𝜙 1 ( o) 𝜙2 (o)
(kPa) (kPa)

Mean 10 12 40 0

Stdv. 2 3 8 0

𝛾 ∗ (kN/m3) 20 18

Table 28.8: Results for Example 5

Chowdhury & Xu Slide

Failure Mode
(Layer) Factor of Safety Probability Factor of Safety Probability
(Bishop simplified) of Failure (Bishop simplified) of Failure

Layer 2 (Clay 1) 1.1625 0.20225 1.16 0.2117

Layer 3 (Clay 2) 1.1479 0.19733 1.185 0.1992

119 rocscience.com
Figure 28.11: Critical slip circle tangential to interface of embankment and foundation

Figure 28.12: Critical slip circle tangential to lower boundary of soft foundation layer

120 rocscience.com
29. Slide Verification Problem #29
Submerged slope, homogenous, probabilistic analysis, water table

29.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Duncan (2000). It looks at the failure of the 100 ft high underwater slope at the
Lighter Aboard Ship (LASH) terminal at the Port of San Francisco.

29.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #29 is shown in Figure 29.1. All geometry and property values are determined using
the figures and published data in Duncan (2000). The cohesion is taken to be 100 psf at an elevation of -
20 ft and increase linearly with depth at a rate of 9.8 psf/ft. A probabilistic analysis using the latin-
hypercube simulation technique is performed using 10000 samples to compute the probability of failure
and reliability index of the estimated failure surface defined in Duncan (2000). These values are
determined using the Janbu, Spencer, and GLE methods.

29.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 29.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 29.1: Deterministic Soil Properties

cohesion Datum Rate of change Unit Weight

(datum) (psf) (ft) (psf/ft) (pcf)
San Francisco Bay Mud 100 -20 9.8 100

121 rocscience.com
 Table 29.2: Probabilistic Soil Properties

Standard Absolute Absolute

San Francisco Bay Mud
deviation Minimum Maximum
Unit Weight 3.3 99.1 109.9

Rate of change 1.2 5.8 13.8

29.4. Results
Table 29.3

Deterministic Probability of Reliability Index

Method
Factor of Safety Failure (%) (lognormal)

Janbu Simplified 1.127 18 1.086

Janbu Corrected 1.168 15 1.0

Spencer 1.157 14 1.1

GLE 1.160 13 1.2

Note: Duncan (2000) quotes a deterministic factor of safety of 1.17 and a probability of failure
of 18%. The probability of failure is calculated using the Taylor series technique.

Figure 29.2: Noncircular failure surface, using the Spencer method

122 rocscience.com
30. Slide Verification Problem #30
Reinforced embankment, (4) materials, tension crack, geosynthetic

30.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 1 example. It looks at the stability of a
geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil.

30.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #30 is shown in Figure 30.1. The sand embankment is modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb
material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained shear strength. The
geosynthetic is not anchored, has no adhesion, has a tensile strength of 200 kN/m, and frictional
resistance against slip of 33.7 degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be parallel with the
reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used since this best simulates the moment
based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The reinforcement is modelled as a passive force since
this corresponds to how the authors implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium
implementation.

30.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 30.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 30.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 35 20

123 rocscience.com
 Table 30.2

Cu top (kN/m2) Cu bottom (kN/m2)  (kN/m3)

Upper Clay 8.49 8.49 17

Middle Clay 8.49 4.725 17

Lower Clay 4.725 13.125 17

30.4. Results
Table 30.3
Overturning Resisting
Factor of Safety Moment Moment
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)
Circle A (Slide) 1.69 633 1071

Circle A (Borges) 1.77 631 1115

Circle B (Slide) 1.66 523 868

Circle B (Borges) 1.74 521 907

Note: Both circle A and B have reverse curvature. Since Slide automatically creates a tension
crack in the portion of the circle with reverse curvature, the shear strength contribution in this
region is removed. This is most likely the reason for the smaller factors of safety in Slide.

124 rocscience.com
31. Slide Verification Problem #31
Reinforced embankment, (5) materials, geosynthetic

31.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 2 example. It looks at the stability of a
geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil.

31.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #31 is shown in Figure 31.1. The sand embankment is modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb
material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained shear strength. The
geosynthetic is not anchored, and it has no adhesion but a tensile strength of 200 KN/m and a frictional
resistance against slip of 33.7 degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be parallel with the
reinforcement. The Bishop simplified analysis method is used since this best simulates the moment
based limit-equilibrium method the authors use. The reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since
this corresponds to how the authors implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium
implementation.

31.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 31.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 31.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Embankment 0 35 20

125 rocscience.com
 Table 31.2

Cu top Cu bottom
 (kN/m3)
(kN/m2) (kN/m2)
Clay1 33 33 17

Clay2 16 16 17

Clay3 16 18.375 17

Clay4 18.375 55.125 17

31.4. Results
Table 31.3

Factor of Safety
(Bishop Simplified)

Circle A (Slide) 1.18

Circle A (Borges) 1.19

Circle B (Slide) 1.16

Circle B (Borges) 1.15

126 rocscience.com
32. Slide Verification Problem #32
Reinforced embankment, (7) materials, geosynthetic

32.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Borges and Cardoso (2002), their case 3 example. It looks at the stability of a
geosynthetic-reinforced embankment on soft soil.

32.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #32 is shown in Figure 32.1 and Figure 32.2 The sand embankment is modeled as a
Mohr-Coulomb material while the foundation material is a soft clay with varying undrained shear strength.
The geosynthetic has a tensile strength of 200 kN/m, and frictional resistance against slip of 30.96
degrees. The reinforcement force is assumed to be parallel with the reinforcement. The Bishop simplified
analysis method is used since this best simulates the moment based limit-equilibrium method the authors
use. The reinforcement is modeled as a passive force since this corresponds to how the authors
implement the reinforcement force in their limit-equilibrium implementation. There are two embankment
materials, the lower embankment material is from elevation 0 to 1 while the upper embankment material
is from elevation 1 to either 7 (Case 1) or 8.75m (Case 2). The geosynthetic is at elevation 0.9, just inside
the lower embankment material.

32.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 32.1: Case 1 – Embankment Height = 7 m

127 rocscience.com
 Figure 32.2: Case 2 – Embankment Height = 8.75 m
Table 32.1: Embankment Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Upper Embankment 0 35 21.9

Lower Embankment 0 33 17.2

Table 32.2: Soil Properties

Cu (kN/m2)  (kN/m3)

Clay1 43 18

Clay2 31 16.6

Clay3 30 13.5
Clay4 32 17
Clay5 32 17.5

128 rocscience.com
32.4. Results
Table 32.3: Case 1 – Embankment Height = 7 m

Overturning Moment Resisting Moment

Factor of Safety
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)

Circle A (Slide) 1.23 32,832 40,231

Circle A (Borges) 1.25 34,166 42,695

Circle B (Slide) 1.22 61,765 75,300

Circle B (Borges) 1.19 63,870 75,754

Table 32.4: Case 2 – Embankment Height = 8.75 m

Overturning Moment Resisting Moment

Factor of Safety
(kN/m/m) (kN/m/m)

Circle C (Slide) 0.98 64,873 63,846

Circle C (Borges) 0.99 65,116 64,784

129 rocscience.com
33. Slide Verification Problem #33
Dike, (5) materials, probabilistic analysis, water table

33.1. Introduction
Verification #33 comes from El-Ramly et al (2003). It looks at the assessment of the probability of
unsatisfactory performance (probability of failure) of a Syncrude tailings dyke in Canada. This example
does not consider the spatial variation of soil properties and it is described in the paper as the simplified
probabilistic analysis.

33.2. Problem Description

The original model from the El-Ramly et al paper is shown in Figure 33.1. The input parameters for the
Slide model are provided in Table 33.1. El-Ramly et al considered five probabilistic parameters: the
friction angle of the Kca clay-shale, the pore pressure ratio in the same layer, the friction angle of the Pgs
sandy till layer, and the pore pressure ratios in this layer at the middle and at the toe of the dyke.
In our model we only consider the friction angles of the Kca clay-shale and Pgs sandy till as probabilistic
parameters, and we use the phreatic surfaces indicated on Figure 33.2 in place of pore pressure ratios.
We tested the influence of the phreatic surfaces (included them as piezometric lines with levels that are
normal variables of unit standard deviation) and established that they had minimal impact on the
probability of failure for this model. The Slide model is shown on Figure 33.2.
As in the El-Ramly et al paper, the Bishop simplified analysis method is used. Slide uses Monte Carlo
analysis to calculate the probability of failure. It is assumed in the Slide model that all the probabilistic
input variables are normally distributed.

33.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 33.1: Original Model

130 rocscience.com
 Figure 33.2: Geometry Setup in Slide
Table 33.1: Soil Properties

Standard deviation
Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)
of ΄ (deg.)
Tailing sand (TS) 0 34 - 20
Glacio-fluvial
0 34 - 17
sand (Pf4)
Sandy till (Pgs) 0 34 2 17
Disturbed clay-
0 7.5 2.1 17
shale (Kca)

33.4. Results
Table 33.2

Probability of
Factor of Safety
Failure

Slide 1.305 1.54 x 10-3

El-Ramly et al 1.31 1.6 x 10-3

131 rocscience.com
34. Slide Verification Problem #34
Dam, (3) materials, probabilistic analysis, water table

34.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Wolff and Harr (1987). It is a model of the Clarence Cannon Dam in
northeastern Missouri, USA. This verification compares probabilistic results from Slide to those
determined by Wolff and Harr for a non-circular critical surface.

34.2. Problem Description

Wolff and Harr used the point estimate method to evaluate the probability of failure of the Cannon Dam
along the specified non-circular critical surface shown on Figure 34.1 (taken from their paper). From the
probability concentrations provided in the paper, we calculated the probabilistic input parameters
(cohesion, friction angle, and coefficient of correlation for the Phase I and Phase II fills) shown in Table
34.1. In the table we also provide the unit weights of the fills we had to use to match the factor of safety
obtained by Wollf and Harr.
Since Wolff and Harr use an analysis method that satisfies force equilibrium only, we compare their
results to those obtained from the GLE. We also show results for non-circular Spencer analysis. The Slide
model is shown on Figure 34.2.
As in the El-Ramly et al paper, the Bishop simplified analysis method is used. Slide uses Monte Carlo
analysis to calculate the probability of failure. It is assumed in the Slide model that all the probabilistic
input variables are normally distributed.

Figure 34.1: Original Model

132 rocscience.com
34.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 34.2: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 34.1: Soil Properties*

Standard Standard Correlation

Material c΄ (lb/ft2) deviation of ΄ (deg.) deviation of ΄ coefficient for c΄  (lb/ft3)
c΄ (lb/ft2) (deg.) and ΄
Phase I fill 2,230 1,150 6.34 7.87 0.11 150

Phase II fill 2,901.6 1,079.8 14.8 9.44 -0.51 150

Sand drain 0 -- 30 -- -- 120

Note: *Information on the non-labeled soil layers in the model shown on Figure 34.2 is omitted because
it has no influence on the factor of safety of the given critical surface.

34.4. Results
Table 34.2

Deterministic Factor of Safety Probability of Failure

Slide (GLE method) 2.333 3.55x 10-3

Slide (Spencer method) 2.383 3.55x 10-3

Wolff and Harr 2.36 4.55 x 10-2

133 rocscience.com
35. Slide Verification Problem #35
Dam, (5) materials, probabilistic analysis, reliability index

35.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Hassan and Wolff (1999). It is a model of the Clarence Cannon Dam in Missouri,
USA. This verification problem looks at duplicating reliability index results for several circular failure
surfaces specified in the Hassan and Wolff paper.

35.2. Problem Description

Hassan and Wolff applied a new reliability-based approach they had formulated to calculate reliability
indices for slopes. The cross-section of the Cannon Dam they used is shown on Figure 35.1.
The Bishop simplified method of slices is used in all the cases discussed in this verification problem. We
analyze two sets of slip surfaces, those shown on Figure 7 of the Hassan and Wolff paper and those on
Figure 8. (Figures 7 and 8 from the paper are shown on Figure 35.2(a) and Figure 35.2(b) below.) Input
parameters for the model are given in Table 35.1. Since the paper does not provide all the required input
parameters, we selected values for the missing parameters that allowed us to match factors of safety for
a few of the circles in Figure 7.
We assume all the probabilistic input variables to be normally distributed in performing Monte Carlo
simulations. Slide calculates reliability indices based on the mean and standard deviation of the factor of
safety values calculated in the simulations. The reliability indices shown in the results section are
calculated with the assumption that factors of safety values are lognormally distributed (Hassan and Wolff
(1999). Results obtained from Slide are compared to those from the Hassan and Wolff paper in Table
35.2.

Figure 35.1: Original Model

134 rocscience.com
 Figure 35.2. (a) Figure 35.2. (b)
Figures 7 from the Hassan and Wolff (1999) paper Figures 8 from the Hassan and Wolff (1999) paper

35.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Sand drain

Figure 7 failure circles analyzed

Spoil fill

Phase II clay fill

Phase I clay fill
Foundation sand Foundation sand
Limestone

Figure 35.3 Slide Setup for the original Figure 7

Sand filter

Figure 8 failure circles analyzed

Spoil fill
Phase II clay fill
Phase I clay fill

Foundation sand Foundation sand

Limestone

Figure 35.4 Slide Setup for the original Figure 8

135 rocscience.com
 Table 35.1: Material Properties*

Standard Standard Correlation

c΄
Material deviation of ΄ (deg.) deviation of coefficient  (kN/m3)
(kN/m2)
c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.) for c΄ and ΄
Phase I
117.79 58.89 8.5 8.5 0.1 22
clay fill
Phase II
143.64 79 15 9 -0.55 22
clay fill
Sand filter 0 -- 35 -- -- 22
Foundation
5 -- 18 -- -- 20
sand
Spoil fill 5 -- 35 -- -- 25
Note: *Properties of the limestone layer in the models shown on Figure 35.3 and
35.4 are omitted because they do not influence calculated factors of safety.

35.4. Results
Table 35.2

Slide Results Hassan and Wolff Results

Surface
Deterministic Reliability Index Deterministic Reliability Index
Factor of Safety (lognormal) Factor of Safety (lognormal)

Fig. 7 Surface A 2.551 10.953 2.753 10.356

Fig. 7 Surface B 2.820 4.351 2.352 3.987

Fig. 7 Surface C 2.777 4.263 2.523 4.606

Fig. 7 Surface D 2.583 11.092 2.457 8.468

Fig. 7 Surface E 2.692 10.281 2.602 10.037

Fig. 8 Surface B 2.672 4.858 2.995 3.987

Fig. 8 Surface F 3.598 5.485 3.916 4.950

Fig. 8 Surface G 6.074 5.563 10.576 5.544

Fig. 8 Surface H 11.230 6.394 6.293 4.838

136 rocscience.com
36. Slide Verification Problem #36
Slope, homogenous, probabilistic analysis, ru pore pressure, reliability index

36.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Li and Lumb (1987) and Hassan and Wolff (1999). It analyzes reliability indices
of a simple homogeneous slope. This verification looks at comparing the reliability index of the
deterministic global circular failure surface and the minimum reliability index value obtained from analysis
of several failure surfaces.

36.2. Problem Description

The geometry of the homogeneous slope is shown in Figure 36.1 and soil parameters are provided in
Table 36.1. The Bishop simplified method of analysis is used. Using Monte Carlo analysis that assumes
all probabilistic variables to be normally distributed, reliability indices are calculated on the assumption
that factors of safety values are distributed lognormally. This is consistent with the reliability index
measures used by Hassan and Wolff (1999).
The reliability index calculated for the deterministic minimum factor of safety surface (critical deterministic
surface), the minimum reliability index (critical probabilistic surface), and the overall reliability index of the
slope are compared with reliability indices calculated by Hassan and Wolff in Table 36.2. Figure 36.2 and
Figure 36.3 show the locations of the critical deterministic and probabilistic surfaces calculated by Slide.

36.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 36.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

137 rocscience.com
 Table 36.1: Soil Properties

Property Mean value Standard deviation

c΄ (kN/m2) 18 3.6

΄ (deg.) 30 3

 (kN/m3) 18 0.9

ru 0.2 0.02

36.4. Results
Table 36.2

Slide Results by the Bishop Simplified method Hasssan and Wolf Results
Reliability Index Reliability Index
Surface Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
(lognormal) (lognormal)
Deterministic minimum
1.340 2.482 1.334 2.336
factor of safety surface
Minimum reliability
1.369 2.407 1.190 2.293
index surface
Overall slope (no
1.350 2.393 -- --
particular surface)

Figure 36.2: Critical deterministic surface and overall result

138 rocscience.com
Figure 36.3: Critical probabilistic surface

139 rocscience.com
37. Slide Verification Problem #37
Slope, homogenous, distributed load, back analysis of required support force and length

37.1. Introduction
Verification #37 models a slope reinforcement example described in the Reference Manual of the slope
stability program XSTABL (1999). It illustrates the use of back analysis to determine the amount of
reinforcement required to stabilize a slope to a specified factor of safety level.

37.2. Problem Description

The solution for this example of a simple slope, consisting solely of non-cohesive soil material, involved
two steps:
a) Determining the reinforcement force needed to stabilize a slope to a factor of safety value of 1.5,
and
b) Establishing the minimum required length of reinforced zone.
Figure 37.1 and Figure 37.2 describe the slope model. The solution in XSTABL examines failure surfaces
that pass through the toe of the slope. To duplicate that in Slide, we placed a search focus point at the
toe. In addition, to eliminate very small shallow failure surfaces of the slope face (slip circles that do not
intersect the crest), only failure surfaces with a minimum depth of 2m were considered. Since the
XSTABL solution considers a triangularly distributed reinforcement load along the slope height, the Slide
model applies a concentrated force at a point above the toe that is a third of the slope height.
Next, we remodelled the slope, but this time we included a reinforced zone with a higher friction angle
calculated from the formula (XSTABL Reference Manual (1999)).

 re inf = tan −1[ Fr tan( )]

Fmin
Fr =
Fcrit
where .
We varied the length of the reinforced zone manually until we obtain a factor of safety value very close to
1.5. Again, we required all failure surfaces analyzed to pass through the toe and included a minimum
slope depth to eliminate shallow, face failures.

140 rocscience.com
37.3. Geometry

Figure 37.1: Geometry Setup in Slide (back analysis)

Figure 37.2: Geometry Setup in Slide (with reinforced zone)

141 rocscience.com
37.4. Results
Table 37.1

Slide XSTABL

Required reinforcement force (kN) 351 345

Fr 1.96 2.044

f reinf (o) 54.93 56.04

Length of reinforcement zone (m) 7.6 7.5

Figure 37.3: Critical Surface (back analysis)

142 rocscience.com
Figure 37.4: Critical Surface (with reinforced zone)

143 rocscience.com
38. Slide Verification Problem #38
Excavated slope, homogenous, finite element groundwater seepage analysis, matric suction

38.1. Introduction
Verification #38 models a typical steep cut slope in Hong Kong. The example is taken from Ng and Shi
(1998). It illustrates the use of finite element groundwater analysis and conventional limit equilibrium
slope stability in the assessment of the stability of the cut.

38.2. Problem Description

The cut has a slope face angle of 28o and it consists of a 24m thick soil layer, underlain by a 6m thick
bedrock layer. Figure 38.1 describes the slope model in Slide.
Steady-state groundwater analysis is conducted using the finite element module in Slide. Initial conditions
of constant total head are applied to both sides of the slope. Three different initial hydraulic boundary
conditions (H=61m, H=62m, H=63m) for the right side of the slope are considered for the analyses in this
section, shown in Figure 38.1. Constant hydraulic boundary head of 6m is applied on the left side of the
slope. A mesh of 1621 six-noded triangular elements was used to model the problem. Figure 38.2 shows
the soil permeability function used to model the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, Ng (1998).
The negative pore water pressure, which is commonly referenced to as the matric suction of soil, above
the water table influences the soil shear strength and hence the factor of safety. Ng and Shi used the
modified Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for the unsaturated soils, which can be written as

 = c ' + ( n − u a ) tan  ' + (u a − u w ) tan  b

 
where n is the normal stress, b is an angle defining the increase in shear strength for an increase in
matric suction of the soil. Table 38.1 shows the material properties for the soil.
Both positive and negative pore water pressures predicted from groundwater analysis engine were used
in the stability analysis. The Bishop simplified method is used in this analysis.

144 rocscience.com
38.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 38.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 38.1: Soil Properties

c ' (kPa) ' (deg.) b (deg.)  (kN/m3)

10 38 15 16

38.4. Results
Table 38.2

H (total head at
Slide Ng. & Shi (1998)
right side of slope)

61m 1.621 1.636

62m 1.538 1.527

63m 1.407 1.436

145 rocscience.com
Figure 38.2: Groundwater and slope stability results for H = 61m

146 rocscience.com
39. Slide Verification Problem #39
Reinforced embankment, (2) materials, tension crack, geosynthetic

39.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Tandjiria (2002), their problem 1. It looks at the stability of a geosynthetic-
reinforced embankment on soft soil. The problem looks at the stability of the embankment if it consists of
either a sand fill or an undrained clayey fill. Both are analyzed.

39.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #39 is shown in Figures 39.1 and 39.2. The purpose of this example is to compute
the required reinforcement force to yield a factor of safety of 1.35. Both circular and non-circular surfaces
are looked at. In each case, the embankment is modeled without the reinforcement; the critical slip
surface is located, and then used in the reinforced model to determine the reinforcement force to achieve
a factor of safety of 1.35. This is done for a sand or clay embankment, circular and non-circular critical slip
surfaces. Both cases incorporate a tension crack in the embankment. In the case of the clay
embankment, a water-filled tension crack is incorporated into the analysis. The reinforcement is located at
the base of the embankment. The model was analyzed with both Spencer and GLE (half-sine interslice
function) but Spencer was used for the force computation. The reinforcement is modeled as an active
force since this is how Tandjiria et.al. modelled the force.

39.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 39.1: Clay Fill Embankment

147 rocscience.com
 Table 39.1: Clay fill model material properties

Material Name c ' (kPa) ' (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Sand Fill 20 0 19.4

Soft Clay 20 0 19.4

Figure 39.2: Sand Fill Embankment

Table 39.2: Sand fill model material properties

Material Name c ' (kPa) ' (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Sand Fill 0 37 17

Soft Clay 20 0 20

148 rocscience.com
39.4. Results
Table 39.2: Circular – Clay embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.975

GLE/M-P 0.975
Note: Tandiiria (2002) Spencer factor of safety = 0.981

Table 39.3: Noncircular – Clay embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.935

GLE/M-P 0.936
Note: Tandiiria (2002) Spencer factor of safety = 0.941

Table 39.4: Circular – Sand embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.209

GLE/M-P 1.218
Note: Tandiiria (2002) Spencer factor of safety = 1.219

Table 39.5: Noncircular Results – Sand embankment with no reinforcement

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.188

GLE/M-P 1.178
Note: Tandiiria (2002) Spencer factor of safety = 1.192

Table 39.6: Circular Results – Clay embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Force (KN/m) Factor of Safety

Spencer 169 1.35

Note: Tandiiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 170 KN/m

149 rocscience.com
Table 39.7: Noncircular Results – Clay embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Force (KN/m) Factor of Safety

Spencer 184 1.35

Note: Tandiiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 190 KN/m

Table 39.8: Circular Results – Sand embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Force (KN/m) Factor of Safety

Spencer 44 1.35
Note: Tandiiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 45 KN/m

Table 39.9: Noncircular Results – Sand embankment with reinforcement

Method Reinforcement Force (KN/m) Factor of Safety

Spencer 56 1.35
Note: Tandiiria (2002) Reinforcement Force = 56 KN/m

150 rocscience.com
40. Slide Verification Problem #40
Slope, homogenous, sensitivity analysis

40.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from J. Perry (1993), Fig. 10. It looks at the non-linear power curve relation of
effective normal stress to shear stress.

40.2. Problem Description

This problem consists of a simple homogeneous slope with 5 slices (Figure 40.1). The non-linear failure
surface has been defined. The dry soil is assumed to follow non-linear power curve strength parameters.
The factor of safety for the specified failure surface is required. A sensitivity analysis must also be carried
out for parameters A and b.

40.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 40.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 40.1: Soil Properties

A b  (kN/m3)

Mean 2 0.7 20.0

Rel. max/min 0.3 0.105 N/a

151 rocscience.com
40.4. Results
Table 40.2

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Corrected 0.944

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.98 [Perry]

Figure 40.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

152 rocscience.com
 Figure 40.3: Sensitivity analysis on power curve A and power curve B

Figure 40.4: Perry’s variation of factor safety with shear strength parameters

153 rocscience.com
41. Slide Verification Problem #41
Slope, homogenous, ru pore pressure

41.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Jiang, Baker, and Yamagami (2003). It examines a homogeneous slope
with non-linear strength properties.

41.2. Problem Description

The slope geometry is shown in Fig. 41.1. The material strength is modeled with a power curve. Using the
path search, the factor of safety and non-linear failure surface is calculated. Pore pressure ratio (Ru) for
the clay is 0.3.

41.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 41.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 41.1: Soil Properties

A B  (kN/m3)

1.4 0.8 20.0

154 rocscience.com
41.4. Results
Table 41.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.656

Janbu Simplified 1.563

Note: Charles and Soares (1984) Bishop Factor of Safety = 1.66

Baker (2003) Janbu Factor of Safety = 1.60
Baker (2003) 2D dynamic programming search Factor of Safety
= 1.56
Perry (1994) rigorous Janbu Factor of Safety = 1.67

Figure 41.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

155 rocscience.com
Figure 41.3: Solution, using the Janbu simplified method

156 rocscience.com
42. Slide Verification Problem #42
Dam, (3) materials, water table, ponded water, tension crack

42.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Baker and Leshchinsky (2001). It is their example question regarding the
use of safety maps as practical tools for slope stability analysis.

42.2. Problem Description

The geometry of the dam is shown in Figure 42.1. It consists of a clay core, granular fill surrounding the
core, and a solid base. A dry tension crack at the top is included to simulate a 5m thick cracked layer. The
circular slip surfaces for all safety factors must be plotted on the dam to obtain a safety map of regional
safety factors (use 80x80 grid). The noncircular slip surface and its corresponding factor of safety is also
calculated.

42.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 42.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Figure 42.2: Location of noncircular failure surface

157 rocscience.com
 Table 42.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Clay core 20 20 20
Granular fill 0 40 21.5
Hard base 200 45 24

42.4. Results
Table 42.2: Circular failure surface, 80x80 grid

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.925

Note: Baker (2001) Spencer non-circular FS = 1.91

Figure 42.3: Safety map featuring global minimum zone using Spencer method

158 rocscience.com
 Table 42.3: Noncircular using Random search with Optimization (zero faces)

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 1.877

Note: Baker (2001) Spencer non-circular FS = 1.91

Figure 42.4: Noncircular failure surface using Random search with optimization

159 rocscience.com
43. Slide Verification Problem #43
Slope, homogenous, planar surface, RocPlane comparison

43.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Baker (2001). It looks at planar failure surface safety factors relative to
varying failure plane angles.

43.2. Problem Description

The slope in this problem is homogeneous and dry. The geometry is given in Figure 43.1. There are two
tests that must be run on this slope: first, the plot of safety factor vs. x-coordinate is required for all critical
failure planes passing through the toe of the slope. Then, the critical circular failure surfaces in Zone A
must be determined, at which point the safety factor vs. x-coordinate for Zone A must be plotted. The goal
of this problem is to locate the minimum safety factor and its variation as the function of failure plane
angle changes.

43.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 43.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Note: For critical planar surface solution, use a block search with a focus point at the toe and a focus line
along the bench. For the circular search, move the right limit (12, 10) to only include Zone A. Grid should
go no higher than 17.5 to avoid anomalous results. Janbu simplified must be used to coincide with the
author’s use of the Culmann method.

160 rocscience.com
 Table 43.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Material 1 30 30 20

43.4. Results
Table 43.2

Method Factor of Safety Angle (deg)

Janbu Simplified (Non-

1.352 49.5
circular)

Janbu Simplified (Circular) 1.329 49.5

RocPlane 2.0 1.351 49.5

Note: Baker (2001) Culmann FS = 1.35

Figure 43.2: Baker’s Distribution (Reference plot)

161 rocscience.com
Note: Vertical scales are not the same on both sides of the minimum.
Figure 43.3: FS spatial distribution with failure surface distribution along x-axis.

Figure 43.4 – Planar failure surfaces, using Janbu simplified method

162 rocscience.com
1.40
Factor of Safety

RocPlane FS minimum at 49.5

º

1.35
45 55
Failure Plane Angle

Figure 43.5– Solution using RocPlane 2.0

163 rocscience.com
44. Slide Verification Problem #44
Slope, homogenous

44.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Baker (2003). It is his first example problem comparing linear and non-linear
Mohr envelopes.

44.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #44 compares two homogeneous slopes of congruent geometry (Figure 44.1)
under different strength functions (Table 44.1). The critical circular surface factor of safety and maximum
effective normal stress must be determined for both Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion and Power Curve
criterion. The power curve criterion was derived from Baker’s own non-linear function:
n
 
 = Pa A + T 
 Pa  … Pa = 101.325 kPa
The power curve variables are in the form:

 = a( n + d )b + c
Finally, the critical circular surface factor of safety and maximum effective normal stress must be
determined using the soil properties that Baker derives from his iterative process; these values should be
compared to the accepted values.

44.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 44.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

164 rocscience.com
 Table 44.1: Soil Properties

c΄
΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3) A n T a b c
(kN/m2)
Soil #1 0.0 38.0 19.5 0.58 0.86 0 1.107 0.86 0

Soil #2 5.3 23.0 19.5

44.4. Results
Table 44.2
Maximum effective
Strength Type Method Factor of Safety normal stress (kPa)

Janbu Simplified 0.921 15.40

Power Curve/non-linear
Spencer 0.960 11.51

Janbu Simplified 1.469 41.88

Mohr-Coulomb
Spencer 1.536 37.55
Mohr-Coulomb with Janbu simplified 0.957 9.62
iteration results (c΄ =
0.39 kPa, ΄ = 38.6 °) Spencer 0.981 8.83

Note: Baker (2003) non-linear results: FS = 0.97, max = 8.7

Baker (2003) M-C results: FS = 1.50, max = 40.2

Figure 44.2: Critical failure surface, using the power curve criterion, Janbu simplified

165 rocscience.com
Figure 44.3: Critical failure surface, using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, Janbu simplified

Figure 44.4: Mohr-Coulomb criterion with iterations, Janbu simplified

166 rocscience.com
45. Slide Verification Problem #45
Slope, homogenous

45.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Baker (2003). It is his second example problem comparing linear and non-
linear Mohr envelopes.

45.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #45 compares two homogeneous slopes of congruent geometry (Figure 45.1)
under different strength functions (Table 45.1). The critical circular surface factor of safety and maximum
effective normal stress must be determined for both Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion and Power Curve
criterion. The power curve criterion was derived from Baker’s own non-linear function:
n
 
 = Pa A + T 
 Pa  … Pa = 101.325 kPa
The power curve variables are in the form:

 = a( n + d )b + c
Finally, the critical circular surface factor of safety and maximum effective normal stress must be
determined using the material properties that Baker derives from his iterative process; these values
should be compared with the accepted values.

45.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 45.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

167 rocscience.com
 Table 45.1: Soil Properties

c΄ ΄ 
Material
(kN/m2)
A n T a b c
(deg.) (kN/m3)
Clay 11.64 24.7 18 0.58 0.86 0 1.107 0.86 0
Clay, iterative results 2.439 30.392 18

45.4. Results
Table 45.2
Maximum effective
Strength Type Method Factor of Safety normal stress (kPa)

Janbu Simplified 2.559 99.50

Power Curve
Spencer 2.662 93.03

Janbu Simplified 2.662 118.63

Mohr-Coulomb
Spencer 2.794 106.26

Mohr-Coulomb with iteration results Janbu simplified 2.610 84.64

(c΄ = 2.439kPa, ΄ = 30.392°) Spencer 2.696 82.25
Note: Baker (2003) non-linear results: FS = 2.64, max = 78.1

Baker (2003) M-C results: FS = 2.66, max = 140.3

Figure 45.2: Critical failure surface, using the power curve criterion, Janbu simplified

168 rocscience.com
Figure 45.3: Critical failure surface, using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, Janbu simplified

Figure 45.4: Mohr-Coulomb criterion with iterations, Spencer

169 rocscience.com
46. Slide Verification Problem #46
Dam, (2) materials, rapid drawdown, finite element groundwater seepage analysis, ponded
water

46.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Baker (1993). It examines the slope stability analysis of a dam under three
loading conditions: 1) End of construction with an empty reservoir, 2) steady state with a full reservoir,
and 3) rapid drawdown. It should be noted that this problem is actually a Validation Problem, as many of
the clay permeability parameters used here were not given in Baker’s paper, thus preventing exact
reproduction of his calculations.

46.2. Problem Description

Problem #46 is divided into three loading conditions. All stages analyze the same dam (Figure 46.1,
Figure 46.2) with the same soil properties (Table 1), given in Baker (1993).
Stage 1 requires the factor of safety and noncircular critical surface of the dam when the reservoir is dry
and empty (i.e., post-construction).
Stage 2 utilizes a finite element groundwater analysis, and the factor of safety and noncircular critical
surface of the dam is calculated under steady state conditions. The water is 10 m deep, and the water
table is horizontal at elevation 0 m.
Stage 3 requires the factor of safety and noncircular failure surface of the dam after it has been subjected
to rapid drawdown (i.e., undrained loading conditions). Undrained shear strength is not known at this
stage and must be manually extracted from the author’s data (Figure 46.3). This data can also be found
as <Compacted Clay.fn6> and <Natural Clay.fn6>, which can be accessed under the discrete function in
the modeller.

170 rocscience.com
46.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 46.1: Geometry Setup in Slide – Stage 1

Figure 46.2: Geometry Setup in Slide – Stage 2

Note: Mesh = 6 noded triangles. Tolerance = 1e-5. Minimum depth of noncircular surface is 5m. Limits
are as they were before.

171 rocscience.com
 Figure 46.3: Baker’s parameters for stage 3
Note: there should be no ponded water in stage 3, as the dam is subjected to rapid drawdown

Table 46.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3) Ks K2/K1 K1 Angle a n

Compacted Clay 6.5 40 18 7e-5 0.1 0 0 0

Natural Clay 0 32 18 7e-5 0.1 0 0.06 2

Note: Permeability values were not given in Baker (1993), so they were estimated. Estimated
values are given in the dark box.

172 rocscience.com
46.4. Results
Table 46.2: Stage 1 – Post-construction, Random search

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 2.534

Note: Baker (1993) FS = 2.41

Theoretical FS = 2.5

Figure 46.4: Critical failure surface, using the Spencer method

Table 46.2: Stage 2 – steady state conditions, random search

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 7.003

Note: Baker (1993) FS = 6.98

173 rocscience.com
Figure 46.5: Comparison of Baker’s pore pressure contours with SLIDE’s

Figure 46.6: Critical failure surface, using the Spencer method

174 rocscience.com
Table 46.2: Stage 3 – Rapid draw-down conditions, random search with optimization

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 2.181

Note: Baker (1993) FS = 2.18

Figure 46.7: Comparison of Baker’s pore pressure contours with SLIDE’s

175 rocscience.com
Figure 46.8: Critical failure surface, using the Spencer method

176 rocscience.com
47. Slide Verification Problem #47
Retaining wall, homogenous, planar failure, line load, shotcrete, soil nails

47.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Sheahan (2003). It examines the Amherst test wall, a soil nailed wall in clay
that was failed due to over-excavation.

47.2. Problem Description

Verification Problem #47 examines planar failure of a soil nailed wall, and its associated factor of safety.
The wall is undrained and homogeneous (Table 47.1), and is reinforced by two rows of soil nails (Table
47.2). The shotcrete plate on the soil nails has a weight of 14.6 kN/m, which is modeled as a point load
on top of the wall face. The critical planar slip surface and associated factor of safety are required.

47.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 47.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 47.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2)  (kN/m3)

Amherst Clay 25 18.9

177 rocscience.com
 Table 47.2: Soil Nail Properties
Out-of-plane Tensile Plate Bond Strength Number
Type Length (m)
Spacing (m) Strength (kN) Strength (kN) (kN) of rows

Passive 1.5 118 86 15 4.9 2

47.4. Results
Table 47.3: Block search

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu Simplified 0.890

Janbu corrected 0.890

Note: Sheahan (2003) FS = 0.887

Figure 47.2: Critical failure surface, using the Janbu simplified method

178 rocscience.com
48. Slide Verification Problem #48
Retaining wall, homogenous, planar failure, line load , soil nails, shotcrete

48.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Sheahan (2003). It examines the Clouterre Test Wall, constructed in
Fontainebleau sand and failed by backfill saturation. This test was carried out as part of the French
national project on soil nailing.

48.2. Problem Description

Verification Problem #48 examines the relationship between failure plane angle and factor of safety for a
homogeneous slope in which the primary resistance against failure is friction generated by soil weight.
The test wall is reinforced by seven rows of soil nails, with a shotcrete plate weighing 13.2 kN/m, which is
modeled as a point load acting on the wall face. The geometry, soil properties, and reinforcement
properties are given in Section 48.3. The factor of safety is calculated for six different failure plane
angles, ranging from 45–70 degrees.

48.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 48.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 48.1: Soil Properties
Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Fontainebleau Sand 3 38 20

179 rocscience.com
 Table 48.2: Soil Nail Properties
Out-of-plane Tensile Plate Bond
Type Spacing (m) Strength (kN) Strength (kN) Strength (kN)

Passive 1.5 15 59 7.5

48.4. Results
Table 48.3

Failure Plane Slide Factor of Sheahan Factor

Angle (deg.) Safety of Safety

45 1.123 1.176

50 1.043 1.070

55 0.989 0.989

60 0.945 0.929

65 0.922 0.893

70 0.923 0.887

Figure 48.2: Failure planes and corresponding safety factors

180 rocscience.com
49. Slide Verification Problem #49
Retaining wall, (2) materials, grouted tiebacks, soldier piles

49.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from the SNAILZ reference manual (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech). It
consists of a 2-material slope reinforced with a soldier pile tieback wall. This problem is done in imperial
units.

49.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #49 consists of a slope with 2 materials and variable types of reinforcement. Each of
the two rows of tiebacks have different bar diameters, resulting in different tensile capacities. The soldier
pile in the SNAILZ problem is modeled using a micro-pile in Slide. The factor of safety for the given failure
surface is calculated.

49.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 49.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 49.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Layer 1 600 24 120

Layer 2 300 34 130

181 rocscience.com
 Table 49.2: Soil Nail Properties
Out-of plane Tensile Plate Bond Strength
Spacing (ft) Strength (lb) Strength (lb) (lb/ft)

Grouted Tieback: top row 8 120344.9 120344.9 13571.68

Grouted Tieback: bottom row 8 164217.3 164217.3 13571.68
Micro-pile (active) 1 Pile shear strength: 5900 lb.

49.4. Results
Table 49.3

Method Factor of Safety

Janbu simplified 1.446

Janbu corrected 1.479

Note: SNAILZ factor of safety = 1.52

Figure 49.2: Critical failure surface, using the Janbu simplified method

182 rocscience.com
50. Slide Verification Problem #50
Reinforced slope, (2) materials, predefined slip surface, geosynthetic

50.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from the SNAILZ reference manual. It examines a slope which has been
reinforced with geotextile layers. SNAILZ models the geotextile characteristics with soil nails that have
equivalent parameters, as it is not equipped with a geotextile reinforcement option. This verification
example attempts to replicate this model with Slide.

50.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #50 examines a 2-layer slope with multiple reinforcement parameters (Figure 50.1).
Each horizontal, parallel row varies in length, tensile capacity, and bond strength (Table 50.2). The rows
are all evenly spaced (1.8 ft) except for row 14 (1.6 ft). The rows are numbered starting at the crest. The
factor of safety is required for the two failure surfaces given in Figure 50.2.

50.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 50.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 50.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Layer 1 0 32 125

Layer 2 500 35 128

183 rocscience.com
 Table 50.2: Soil Nail Properties (Active)
Out-of-plane Tensile Plate Bond Strength Length
Spacing (ft) Strength (lb) Strength (lb) (lb/ft) (ft)

Rows: 1,3,5,7,9,11 1 1103 1103 1206.37 4

Rows: 12,13,14 1 2212 2212 1206.37 20

Rows: 8 1 1103 1103 965.096 19

Rows: 6 1 1103 1103 732.822 21

Rows: 4 1 1103 1103 482.548 23

Rows: 2 1 1103 1103 241.274 25

Rows: 10 1 1103 1103 1206.31 19

50.4. Results
Table 50.3
Failure Plane Slide SNAILZ
(designated by point on surface) Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

(0,0) 1.577 1.60

(0, -5) 1.417 1.46

Table 50.4: Nail force

Nail Row Max Force (lb)

1-11 1103

12-14 2212

184 rocscience.com
Figure 50.2: Safety factors for the given failure surfaces

185 rocscience.com
51. Slide Verification Problem #51
Slope, (4) materials, water table, tension crack, seismic

51.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Zhu (2003). It analyzes a four layered slope with a given failure surface,
using twelve different methods.

51.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #51 examines a multiple layer slope with a circular failure surface. A tension crack is
included in the top layer. The slope is also assumed to be under earthquake conditions, with a seismic
coefficient of 0.1. The factor of safety for this surface - with 100 slices - is required, using all methods of
analysis. A tolerance of 0.001 is used.

51.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 51.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 51.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Layer 1 (top) 20 32 18.2
Layer 2 25 30 18
Layer 3 40 18 18.5

186 rocscience.com
51.4. Results
Table 51.2
Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Ordinary 1.145 1.066

Bishop Simplified 1.278 1.278

Janbu Simplified 1.112 1.112

Corps of Engineers 2 1.422 1.377

Lowe & Karafiath 1.288 1.290

Spencer 1.293 1.293

GLE/Morgenstern & Price 1.304 1.303

Figure 51.2: Safety factor using the Lowe & Karafiath method

187 rocscience.com
52. Slide Verification Problem #52
Slope, (4) materials, water table, tension crack

52.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Zhu and Lee (2002). It analyzes a heterogeneous slope under wet and dry
conditions. For each condition, 4 different failure surfaces were analyzed.

52.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #52 is a 4-material slope with a dry tension crack in the top (Figure 52.1). The factor
of safety is calculated for 8 separate cases: 4 distinct failure surfaces under dry conditions, and the same
4 failure surfaces when a water table is included (Table 52.2). Surfaces 1 and 3 are circular, while 2 and 4
are noncircular. Surfaces 1 and 2 are shallow, and surfaces 3 and 4 are deep.

52.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 52.1: Geometry Setup in Slide (dry condition)

Note: Surfaces 1 and 2 are done using the limits shown, however 3 and 4 are analyzed with 2 sets of
limits forcing the failure surface to intersect the top and bottom bench through the middle of the
bench. Surfaces 1 and 2 must pass through toe of slope; a search point is added to the toe.
Surface 2 requires a block search window to be added, to keep the search shallow.

188 rocscience.com
 Table 52.1: Soil Properties


Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)
(kN/m3)
Layer 1 (top) 20 18 18.8

Layer 2 40 22 18.5

Layer 3 25 26 18.4

Layer 4 (bottom) 10 12 18

Table 52.2: Water Table Geometry – wet condition

Coordinates Arc

(0, -20) --

(0, 0) --

(6, 3) --

-- (10.568, 5.284)

-- (25.314, 9.002)

-- (39.149, 10.269)

(50, 10.269) --

189 rocscience.com
52.4. Results
Table 52.3: Surface 1 – Circular, shallow (Dry Condition)
Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

Bishop simplified 2.010 2.011

Ordinary 1.934 1.935

Morgenstern-Price 2.017 2.035

Spencer 2.017 2.035

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 2.035

Table 52.4: Surface 1 – Circular, shallow (Wet Condition)

Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Bishop simplified 1.526 1.534

Ordinary 1.514 1.496

Morgenstern-Price 1.533 1.559

Spencer 1.533 1.559

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 1.560

Figure 52.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

190 rocscience.com
Table 52.5: Surface 2 – Noncircular, shallow – Block search (Dry Condition)
Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

Bishop simplified 2.069 N/a

Ordinary 1.977 N/a

Morgenstern-Price 2.167 2.104

Spencer 2.163 2.087

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 2.049

Table 52.6: Surface 2 – Noncircular, shallow – Block search (Wet Condition)

Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Bishop simplified 1.479 N/a

Ordinary 1.471 N/a

Morgenstern-Price 1.561 1.628

Spencer 1.554 1.616

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 1.584

Figure 52.3: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

191 rocscience.com
Table 52.7: Surface 3 – Circular, deep – Grid search (30x30) (Dry Condition)
Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

Bishop simplified 1.804 1.429

Ordinary 1.495 1.229

Morgenstern-Price 1.790 1.823

Spencer 1.804 1.836

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 1.744

Table 52.8: Surface 3 – Circular, deep – Grid search (30x30) (Wet Condition)
Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Bishop simplified 1.176 1.079

Ordinary 1.036 0.922

Morgenstern-Price 1.174 1.197

Spencer 1.189 1.211

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 1.166

Figure 52.4: Surface 3(dry condition), using the Spencer method

192 rocscience.com
Table 52.9: Surface 4 – Noncircular, deep – Path search (Dry Condition)
Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

Bishop simplified 1.624 N/a

Ordinary 1.150 N/a

Morgenstern-Price 1.776 1.765

Spencer 1.796 1.772

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 1.709

Table 52.10: Surface 4 – Noncircular, deep – Path search (Wet Condition)

Slide Zhu
Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Bishop simplified 1.073 N/a

Ordinary 0.799 N/a

Morgenstern-Price 1.162 1.141

Spencer 1.175 1.150

Note: Zhu’s limit equilibrium factor of safety = 1.109

Figure 52.5: Surface 4 (dry condition), using Spencer method

193 rocscience.com
53. Slide Verification Problem #53
Slope, homogenous, water table, tension crack, planar failure, RocPlane comparison

53.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Priest (1993). It is his example question on the analysis of rigid blocks, and
the sensitivity of various parameters.

53.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #53 analyzes a homogeneous slope undergoing failure along a specified noncircular
surface (Figure 53.1). The slope has a tension crack at the crest 15m deep. A water table is also present,
filling the tension crack 25% at the line of failure. Starting at the right, the water table is horizontal until it
passes over the intersection between the tension crack and the failure plane, at which point it linearly
approaches the toe. The factor of safety for the block is calculated.

53.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 53.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

194 rocscience.com
 Table 53.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Material 1 20 30 25

53.4. Results
Table 53.2

Method Factor of Safety

Slide - Janbu Simplified 1.049

RocPlane 1.049

Note: Priest’s factor of safety = 1.049

’

c'

s

rw

(a) (b)
Figure 53.2 Comparison for sensitivity results in rw c’, ɸ’ and βs: (a) Reference’s results from Priest
(1993); (b) results from Slide

195 rocscience.com
54. Slide Verification Problem #54
Slope, homogenous, micro piles

54.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Yamagami (2000). It looks at the reinforcement of an unstable slope, using
stabilizing piles.

54.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #54 analyzes a homogeneous slope (Figure 54.1) with a circular failure surface. The
single row of micro-piles acts as passive reinforcement. The piles are spaced 1 m horizontally, with a
shear strength of 10.7 kN. The factors of safety for the slope with and without reinforcement is calculated.

54.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 54.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 54.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Material 1 4.9 10 15.68

196 rocscience.com
54.4. Results
Table 54.2

Method Factor of Safety

Slide – no pile 1.102

Slide – with pile 1.193

Yamagami – no pile 1.10

Yamagami – with pile 1.20

Figure 54.2: Circular failure surface, no pile

197 rocscience.com
Figure 54.3: Circular failure surface, with reinforcing pile

198 rocscience.com
55. Slide Verification Problem #55
Slope, homogenous, water table

55.1. Introduction
In December 2000, Pockoski and Duncan released a paper comparing eight different computer programs
for analysis of reinforced slopes. This is their first test slope.

55.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #55 analyses a homogeneous, unreinforced slope. A water table is present (Figure
55.1). The circular critical surface and factor of safety is required.
Note: For this paper, Slide was optimized for maximum precision. An 80x80 grid was used with a
tolerance of 0.0001. Analysis methods used were: Bishop, Janbu simplified, Ordinary/Fellenius,
Spencer, and Lowe-Karafiath.

55.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 55.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 55.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Sandy clay 300 30 120

199 rocscience.com
55.4. Results
Table 55.2

Method Slide UTEXAS4 SLOPE/W WINSTABL XSTABL RSS

Spencer 1.300 1.30 1.30 1.34 -- --

Bishop simplified 1.293 1.29 1.29 1.34 1.29 1.29

Janbu simplified 1.151 1.15 1.15 1.20 1.24 1.15

Lowe-Karafiath 1.318 1.32 -- -- - ---

Note: SNAIL FS = 1.22 (Wedge method)

GOLD-NAIL FS = 1.32 (Circular method)

Figure 55.2: Circular failure surface, using Spencer method

200 rocscience.com
56. Slide Verification Problem #56
Slope, homogenous, water table, tension crack

56.1. Introduction
In December 2000, Pockoski and Duncan released a paper comparing eight different computer programs
for analysis of reinforced slopes. This is their second test slope.

56.2. Problem Description

Verification Problem #56 analyses an unreinforced homogeneous slope. A water table is present, as is a
dry tension crack (Figure 56.1). The circular critical failure surface and factor of safety for this slope is
calculated (40x40 grid).

56.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 56.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 56.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Sandy clay 300 30 120

201 rocscience.com
56.4. Results
Table 56.2

Method Slide UTEXAS4 SLOPE/W WINSTABL XSTABL RSS

Spencer 1.290 1.29 1.29 1.32 -- --

Bishop simplified 1.285 1.28 1.28 1.31 1.28 1.28

Janbu simplified 1.141 1.14 1.14 1.18 1.23 1.13

Lowe-Karafiath 1.304 1.31 -- -- -- --

Note: SNAIL FS = 1.18 (Wedge method)

GOLD-NAIL FS = 1.30 (Circular method)

Figure 56.2: Circular failure surface, using the Spencer method

202 rocscience.com
57. Slide Verification Problem #57
Slope, (2) materials, water table, tension crack, composite surfaces

57.1. Introduction
In December 2000, Pockoski and Duncan released a paper comparing eight different computer programs
for analysis of reinforced slopes. This is their third test slope.

57.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #57 analyses an unreinforced layered slope with a dry tension crack at the surface. A
water table is also present. The circular critical failure surface and factor of safety are required. This slope
was analyzed with and without composite surfaces in order to compare results with programs that either
have this option or do not.

57.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 57.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 57.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Sandy clay 300 35 130

Highly Plastic Clay 0 25 130

203 rocscience.com
57.4. Results
Table 57.2: Composite surfaces/Noncircular

Method Slide SLOPE/W XSTABL

Spencer 1.400 1.40 --

Bishop simplified 1.392 1.39 1.41

Janbu simplified 1.222 1.21 1.34

Lowe-Karafiath 1.385 -- --

Ordinary 1.257 0.85 --

Note: SNAIL FS = 1.39 (Wedge method)

Figure 57.2: Noncircular failure surface, using Spencer method

204 rocscience.com
 Table 57.3: No composite surfaces/Circular

Method Slide UTEXAS4 WINSTABL RSS

Spencer 1.422 1.42 1.45 --

Bishop simplified 1.417 1.41 1.39 1.41

Janbu simplified 1.263 1.20 1.23 1.24

Lowe-Karafiath 1.414 1.12 -- --

Ordinary 1.319 -- -- --

Note: GOLD-NAIL FS = 1.40 (Circular method)

Figure 57.3: Circular failure surface, using Spencer method

205 rocscience.com
58. Slide Verification Problem #58
Retaining wall, (8) materials, water table, grouted tieback

58.1. Introduction
In December 2000, Pockoski and Duncan released a paper comparing eight different computer programs
for analysis of reinforced slopes. This is their fourth test slope.

58.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #58 analyzes a tied-back wall in layered soil. A water table is present. Each layer lies
horizontal. The tied-back wall is modelled by three identical rows of active grouted tieback reinforcement
(Table 58.2). The circular critical failure surface (surface must be at least 25 ft deep) and factor of safety
is calculated.
Note:
The problem gives reinforcement parameters in the form:
Tieback Spacing 4 ft.
1.08” Diameter 270 ksi Steel
4 k/ft Allowable Pullout
In order to convert these to Slide parameters for grouted tieback reinforcement:
Out-of-plane Spacing = Tieback spacing
Tensile and Plate Capacity = Yield strength * πr2 (lbs)
Bond Strength = Allowable pullout (lbs/ft)***
***Allowable pullout is given in ft-1. The conversion that one must undergo to get Bond Strength gives the
exact same number in lbs/ft. This conversion method must be applied to all questions pertaining to this
paper.

206 rocscience.com
58.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 58.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 58.1: Soil Properties

Layer c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Granular Fill (GF) 0 30 120.4

Cohesive Fill (CF) 0 30 114.7

Organic Silt (OS) 900 0 110.2

OC Crust (OC) 2485 0 117.8

Upper Marine Clay (UM) 1670 0 117.8

Middle Marine Clay (MM) 960 0 117.8

Lower Marine Clay (LM) 1085 0 117.8

Glaciomarine Deposits (GD) 1500 0 147.1

207 rocscience.com
 Table 58.2: Grouted Tieback Properties – All Rows

Plate Cap. Bond Strength Bond Out-of-Plane

Tensile Cap. (lbs)
(lbs) (lb/ft) Length (ft) spacing (ft)

247343.87 247343.87 4000 40 4

58.4. Results
Table 58.3: Circular Method

Method Slide UTEXAS4 SLOPE/W WINSTABL

Spencer 1.145 1.14 1.14 1.20

Bishop simplified 1.147 1.14 1.14 1.16

Janbu simplified 1.061 1.13 1.05 1.12

Lowe-Karafiath 1.175 1.20 -- --

Ordinary 1.129 -- 1.12 --

Note: GOLD-NAIL FS = 1.19 (Circular method)
RSS only allows horizontal reinforcement
XSTABL does not allow for reinforcement
SNAIL FS = 1.03 (Wedge method – noncircular)

Figure 58.2: Circular failure surface, using the Spencer method

208 rocscience.com
59. Slide Verification Problem #59
Retaining wall, homogenous, water table, grouted tieback

59.1. Introduction
In December 2000, Pockoski and Duncan released a paper comparing eight different computer programs
for analysis of reinforced slopes. This is their fifth test slope.

59.2. Problem Description

Verification Problem #59 analyzes a tieback wall in homogeneous sand. One row of active grouted
tieback support is used. A water table is present. The circular critical failure surface and factor of safety is
calculated. To eliminate undesirable critical surfaces, do not allow for tension cracks caused by reverse
curvature, and place a focus search point at the toe of the wall.

59.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 59.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 59.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Sand 0 30 120

209 rocscience.com
 Table 59.2: Grouted Tieback Properties
Tensile Plate Cap. Bond Strength Bond Out-of-Plane
Cap. (lbs) (lbs) (lb/ft) Length (ft) spacing (ft)
184077.69 184077.69 5000 22 8

59.4. Results
Table 59.3

Method Slide UTEXAS4 SLOPE/W WINSTABL

Spencer 0.596 0.65 0.60 0.59
Bishop
0.582 0.56 0.60 0.74
simplified
Janbu simplified 0.583 0.64 0.61 0.76

Lowe-Karafiath 0.588 0.76 -- --

Ordinary 0.859 -- 0.62 --

Note: GOLD-NAIL FS = 0.62 (Circular method)
RSS only allows horizontal reinforcement
XSTABL does not allow for reinforcement
SNAIL FS = 0.62 (Wedge method – noncircular)

Figure 59.2: Critical failure surface, using the Spencer method

210 rocscience.com
60. Slide Verification Problem #60
Retaining wall, (2) materials, tension crack, distributed load, soil nails

60.1. Introduction
In December 2000, Pockoski and Duncan released a paper comparing eight different computer programs
for analysis of reinforced slopes. This is their seventh test slope.

60.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #60 analyzes a soil nailed wall in homogeneous clay. There is a dry tension crack
down to the first nail. Two uniformly distributed loads of 500 lb/ft and 250 lb/ft are applied to the high
bench (Figure 60.1). Five parallel rows of passive soil nails reinforce the wall; each row has identical
strength characteristics. The circular critical surface (through the toe) and corresponding factor of safety is
calculated.

60.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 60.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 60.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)  (pcf)

Sand 800 0 120

211 rocscience.com
 Table 60.2: Soil Nail Properties

Tensile Plate Bond Strength Out-of-Plane

Cap. (lbs) Cap. (lbs) (lb/ft) spacing (ft)
25918.14 25918.14 1508 5

60.4. Results
Table 60.3: Circular failure surface

Method Slide UTEXAS4 SLOPE/W WINSTABL

Spencer 1.009 1.02 1.02 0.99

Bishop simplified 0.997 1.00 1.01 1.06

Janbu simplified 1.041 1.08 1.07 1.10

Lowe-Karafiath 1.021 1.00 -- --

Ordinary 0.997 -- 1.00 --

Note: GOLD-NAIL FS = 0.91 (Circular method)
RSS only allows horizontal reinforcement
XSTABL does not allow for reinforcement
SNAIL FS = 0.84 (Wedge method – noncircular)

Figure 60.2: Critical failure surface, using Spencer method

212 rocscience.com
61. Slide Verification Problem #61
Slope, homogenous, composite surfaces

61.1. Introduction
This problem was taken from Baker (2003). It is his third example problem comparing linear and non-
linear Mohr envelopes.

61.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #61 compares two homogeneous slopes of congruent geometry (Figure 44.1) under
different strength functions (Table 61.1). The critical circular surface factor of safety and maximum
effective normal stress must be determined for both Mohr-Coulomb strength criterio and Power Curve
criterion. The power curve criterion was derived from Baker’s own non-linear function:
n
 
 = Pa A + T 
 Pa  … Pa = 101.325 kPa
The power curve variables are in the form:

 = a( n + d )b + c
Finally, the critical circular surface factor of safety and maximum effective normal stress must be
determined using the material properties that Baker derives from his iterative process; these values
should be compared to the accepted values.

61.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 61.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

213 rocscience.com
 Table 61.1: Soil Properties – Power Curve criterion

Baker’s Parameters Slide Paramaters

Material A n T a b c d

Clay 0.535 0.6 0.0015 3.39344 0.6 0 0.1520

Table 61.2: Soil Properties – Mohr-Coulomb criterion

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Clay 6.0 32 18

61.4. Results
Table 61.3
Maximum effective
Strength Type Method Factor of Safety normal stress (kPa)

Power Curve Janbu Simplified 1.348 36.33

Spencer 1.468 31.21

Mohr-Coulomb Janbu Simplifed 1.291 30.05

Spencer 1.366 26.44

Note: Baker (2003) non-linear results: FS = 1.48, max = 21.4

Baker (2003) M-C results: FS = 1.35, max = 27.5

Figure 61.2: Circular critical surface with power curve criteria, Spencer method

214 rocscience.com
Figure 61.3: Circular critical surface with Mohr-Coulomb criteria, Spencer method

215 rocscience.com
62. Slide Verification Problem #62
Slope, homogenous, ru pore pressure, seismic

62.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Loukidis et al. (2003). The paper provides a method for determining the critical
seismic coefficient, kc. This coefficient corresponds to a factor of safety of 1. This is their first example
problem.

62.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #62 examines a simple homogeneous slope with seismic loading (Figure 62.1). The
slope is analyzed using circular and noncircular* slip surfaces, both of which pass through the toe of the
slope. Two pore pressure conditions are also accounted for: a dry slope, and Ru = 0.5. The goal of this
verification problem is to reproduce a safety factor of 1 (Spencer) using Loukidis’ critical seismic
coefficients (Table 62.1).
Note: *Loukidis examines a log-spiral surface. In order to model this type of noncircular surface with
Slide, a path search with Monte-Carlo optimization was performed.

62.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 62.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 62.1: Seismic Coefficients

Dry Slope 0.432

Ru = 0.5 0.132

Table 62.2: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (kPa) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Clay 25 30 20

216 rocscience.com
62.4. Results
Table 62.3: Dry slope (kc = 0.432)

Type Spencer Bishop Simplified

Circular (Grid search) 1.001 0.991

Noncircular
0.999 0.989
(Path search with optimization)
Note: Loukidis factor of safety (Spencer) = 1.000

Figure 62.2: Circular slip surface, using the Spencer method

Figure 62.3: Non-circular slip surface, using the Spencer method

217 rocscience.com
 Table 62.4: Ru = 0.5 (kc = 0.132)

Type Spencer Bishop Simplified

Circular (Grid search) 1.001 0.987

Noncircular
0.997 0.966
(Path search with optimization)
Note: Loukidis factor of safety (Spencer) = 1.000

Figure 62.4: Circular slip surface, using the Bishop simplified method

Figure 62.5: Non-circular slip surface, using the Bishop simplified method

218 rocscience.com
63. Slide Verification Problem #63
Slope, (3) materials, seismic

63.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Loukidis et al. (2003). The paper provides a method for determining the critical
seismic coefficient, kc. This coefficient corresponds to a factor of safety of 1. This is their second example
problem.

63.2. Problem Description

Verification problem #63 analyzes a layered, dry slope under seismic loading conditions. The goal is to
duplicate a Spencer safety factor of 1.000 using the author’s seismic coefficient of 0.155. A log-spiral
surface is analyzed by Loukidis; this is modeled in Slide by doing a path search with Monte-Carlo
optimization. The critical slip surface passes through the material boundary point on the slope between
the middle and lower layers (limits are included in Figure 63.1).

63.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 63.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 63.1: Soil Properties

Layer c (kN/m2)  (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Top 4 30 17

Middle 25 15 19

Bottom 15 45 19

219 rocscience.com
63.4. Results
Table 63.2

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer 0.991

Note: Loukidis factor of safety (Spencer) = 1.000

Figure 63.2: Critical slip surface, using the Spencer method

220 rocscience.com
64. Slide Verification Problem #64
Embankment, (4) materials, water table, tension crack

64.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Figure 4-1 of USACE (2003).

64.2. Problem Description

The problem as shown in Figure 64.1 is a non-homogeneous three-layer embankment with material
properties given in Table 64.1 There is a 7-foot tension crack located at the peak of the embankment, and
a groundwater surface between the layer of sand and the embankment. This problem calculates the
factor of safety via Spencer’s Method using a circular slip surface as shown below.

64.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 64.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 64.1: Soil Properties

Unit Weight Shear Strength

Soil Moist  (pcf) Sat’d  (pcf) c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)
Embankment 115 120 1000 5

Sand 125 130 0 35

Foundation Clay 110 115 3000 0

Rock 160 165 0 45

221 rocscience.com
64.4. Results
Table 64.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.447

Spencer 2.445

GLE 2.447

Janbu Corrected 2.430

Note: Reference factor of safety (Spencer) = 2.44 [USACE]

Figure 64.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

222 rocscience.com
65. Slide Verification Problem #65
Embankment, (4) materials, water table, ponded water

65.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Figure 4-3 of USACE (2003).

65.2. Problem Description

The problem as shown in Figure 66.1 is a three-layer slope with material properties given in Table 66.1
This example demonstrates conditions with an upstream slope and a low pool of water. The factor of
safety is calculated using a circular slip surface, located as shown below.

65.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 65.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 65.1: Soil Properties

Unit Weight Shear Strength

Soil Moist  (pcf) Sat’d  (pcf) c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)

Embankment 115 120 100 35

Sand 125 130 0 35

Foundation Clay 110 115 0 28

Rock 160 165 0 45

223 rocscience.com
65.4. Results
Table 65.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.716

Spencer 2.736

GLE 2.744

Janbu Corrected 2.650

Note: Reference factor of safety (Bishop) = 2.71 [USACE]

Figure 65.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

224 rocscience.com
66. Slide Verification Problem #66
Embankment, (4) materials, water table, ponded water

66.1. Introduction
This model is taken from Figure 4-3 of USACE (2003).

66.2. Problem Description

The problem as shown in Figure 66.1 is a three-layer slope with material properties given in Table 66.1
This example demonstrates conditions with an upstream slope and a low pool of water. The factor of
safety is calculated using a circular slip surface, located as shown below.

66.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 66.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 66.1: Soil Properties

Soil  (pcf) c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)

Embankment 115 200 25

Foundation Sand 130 0 35

Foundation Clay 115 0 27

225 rocscience.com
66.4. Results
Table 66.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.307

Spencer 2.307

GLE 2.309

Janbu Corrected 2.290

Note: Reference factor of safety = 2.30 [USACE]

Figure 66.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

226 rocscience.com
67. Slide Verification Problem #67
Embankment, (2) materials

67.1. Introduction
This model is taken from example F-5 of USACE (2003).

67.2. Problem Description

This problem analyzes the stability at the end of construction of the embankment shown in Figure 67.1.
The slope is non-homogeneous, consisting of embankment soil and foundation soil. Both soils are fine-
grained and undrained during construction. The factor of safety is calculated using a circular slip surface,
with center of rotation located 259 feet above and 101 feet to the right of the toe of the slope.

67.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 67.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 67.1: Soil Properties

Soil  (pcf) c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)

Embankment 135 1780 5

Foundation 127 1600 2

227 rocscience.com
67.4. Results
Table 67.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.332

Spencer 1.328

GLE 1.327

Janbu Corrected 1.345

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.33 [USACE]

Figure 67.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

228 rocscience.com
68. Slide Verification Problem #68
Embankment, (3) materials, ponded water

68.1. Introduction
This model is taken from example E-10 of USACE (2003).

68.2. Problem Description

This problem analyzes the stability of the undrained ( = 0) slope in Figure 68.1. The slope consists of
three layers with differing material strength and 8 feet of water outside of it. The slip circle used to
evaluate the slope, has center of rotation located 8.4 ft to the right and 36 feet above the toe of the slope.
The circle is tangent to the base of soil 3.

68.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 68.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 68.1: Soil Properties

Soil  (pcf) c΄ (psf)

1 120 600

2 100 400

3 105 500

229 rocscience.com
68.4. Results
Table 68.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.241

Spencer 1.241

GLE 1.244

Janbu Corrected 1.385

Note: Reference Factor of Safety = 1.33 [USACE]

Figure 68.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

230 rocscience.com
69. Slide Verification Problem #69
Embankment, (2) materials, water table, ponded water

69.1. Introduction
This model is taken from example F-6 of USACE (2003).

69.2. Problem Description

Figure 69.1 shows a slope with steady seepage. The two-layered slope is made up of two zones – the
embankment fill and the foundation. The stability of the slope is analyzed using a slip circle of radius 280
feet.

69.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 69.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 69.1: Soil Properties

Soil  (pcf) c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)

Embankment 130 0 34

Foundation 125 0 35

231 rocscience.com
69.4. Results
Table 69.2

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.011

Spencer 2.026

GLE 2.027

Janbu Corrected 1.830

Note: Reference factor of safety = 2.01 [USACE]

Figure 69.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

232 rocscience.com
70. Slide Verification Problem #70
Submerged slope, homogenous, water table, ponded water

70.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 6.27 on page 88 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

70.2. Problem Description

Figure 70.1 and Figure 70.2 show a submerged slope with different water levels above the slope. The
slope is homogeneous. The critical slip surface is assumed to be circular and located using auto refine
search.

70.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 70.1: Water Table at 30’ above the Crest (Case 1)

233 rocscience.com
Figure 70.2: Water Table at 60’ above the Crest (Case 2)
Table 70.1: Soil Properties

 (pcf) c΄ (psf) ΄ (deg.)

128 100 20

234 rocscience.com
70.4. Results
Table 70.2: Case 1 – Water table at 30 feet above the crest

Method Factor of Safety (Circular) Factor of Safety (Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.603 1.560

Spencer 1.599 1.592

GLE 1.599 1.592

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.60 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 70.3: Solution to case 1 (circular), using the Spencer Method

235 rocscience.com
 Table 70.3: Case 2 – Water table at 60 feet above the crest

Method Factor of Safety (Circular) Factor of Safety (Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.603 1.560

Spencer 1.599 1.590

GLE 1.599 1.579

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.60 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 70.4: Solution to case 2 (circular), using the Spencer method

236 rocscience.com
71. Slide Verification Problem #71
Slope, homogenous, finite element groundwater seepage analysis, water table

71.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 6.37 and 6.38 on page 100 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

71.2. Problem Description

A homogeneous slope with water level located at 75 ft at the right end (Figure 71.1). The pore water
pressure is modelled using finite element seepage analysis in case 1 (Figure 71.1) and using piezometric
line approximation in case 2 (Figure 71.2). The critical slip surface is assumed to be circular and located
using auto refine search for both cases.

71.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 71.1: Finite Element Seepage Analysis (Case 1)

Figure 71.2: Piezometric Line Approximation (Case 2)

237 rocscience.com
 Table 71.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (psf) ΄ (o)  (pcf)

200 20 125

71.4. Results
Table 71.2: Case 1 – Finite Element seepage analysis

Method Factor of Safety (Circular) Factor of Safety (Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.141 1.081

Spencer 1.141 1.146

GLE 1.141 1.157

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.138 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 71.3: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method

238 rocscience.com
 Table 71.3: Case 2 – Piezometric Line approximation

Method Factor of Safety (Circular) Factor of Safety (Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.142 1.081

Spencer 1.142 1.146

GLE 1.141 1.157

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.141 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 71.4: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

239 rocscience.com
72. Slide Verification Problem #72
Embankment dam, (4) materials, finite element groundwater seepage analysis, ponded water

72.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 6.39 and Figure 6.40 on page 101 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

72.2. Problem Description

A symmetric earth embankment dam resting on a layered soil foundation with ponded water of elevation
302 feet on the left side is shown in Figure 72.1 and 72.2. The left face and right face of the dam is
constructed using shell material. The pore water pressure is modelled using two approaches. They are
finite element seepage analysis and piezometric line approximation. Two cases are studied in this
verification. The global critical slip surface is of interest in case 1 and the critical slip surface tangent to
elevation 197 feet is of interest in case 2. Both circular and non-circular critical slip surfaces were studied
in case 1 and only circular critical slip surface was studied in case 2.

72.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 72.1: Finite Element Seepage Analysis

240 rocscience.com
 Figure 72.2: Piezometric Line Approximation

Table 72.1: Soil Properties

Material k (ft/s) c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

Outer Shell 1.67 x 10 -4 0 34 125

Clay Core 1.67 x 10 -8 100 26 122

Foundation Clay 1.67 x 10 -7 0 24 123

Foundation Sand 1.67 x 10 -5 0 32 127

72.4. Results
Table 72.2: Case 1(a) – Global critical slip surface - finite element seepage analysis

Method Factor of Safety (circular) Factor of Safety (non-circular)

Bishop 1.149 0.988

Spencer 1.158 1.085

GLE 1.161 1.096

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.11 [Duncan and Wright]

241 rocscience.com
 Figure 72.3: Solution to Case 1(a) (Circular), using the Bishop method

Table 72.3: Case 1(b) – Global critical slip surface - piezometric line approximation

Method Factor of Safety (circular) Factor of Safety (non-circular)

Bishop 1.306 1.196

Spencer 1.301 1.241

GLE 1.303 1.232

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.30 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 72.4: Solution to Case 1(b) (Circular), using the Bishop method

242 rocscience.com
Table 72.4: Case 2(a) – Critical slip surface tangent to El. 197 – finite element seepage analysis

Method Factor of Safety (circular) Factor of Safety (non-circular)

Bishop 1.312 1.236

Spencer 1.312 1.382

GLE 1.319 1.395

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.37 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 72.5: Solution to Case 2(a), using the Spencer method

243 rocscience.com
Table 72.5: Case 2(b) – Critical slip surface tangent to El. 197 – piezometric line approximation

Method Factor of Safety (circular) Factor of Safety (non-circular)

Bishop 1.563 1.489

Spencer 1.557 1.632

GLE 1.556 1.630

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.57 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 72.6: Solution to Case 2(b), using the Bishop method

244 rocscience.com
73. Slide Verification Problem #73
Excavated slope, (4) materials, tension crack

73.1. Introduction
This problem is an analysis of the excavated slope for reactor 1 at Bradwell (Duncan and Wright, 2005
and Skempton and LaRochelle, 1965).

73.2. Problem Description

Figure 73.2 shows the cross section of the excavated slope. The lower part of the excavation is in the
London Clay and is inclined at ½: 1 (H:V). The London Clay is overlain by Marsh Clay. The clay fill from
the excavation is placed on top of the Marsh clay. The Marsh Clay and the clay fill are both inclined at 1:1
(H:V). The clay fill is modelled to crack to the full depth of the fill (11.4). The critical slip surface is
assumed to be circular for all cases.

73.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Undrained Shear Strength (psf)

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

-10
Depth Below Current Ground Surface (ft)

-20

-30

-40

-50

Figure 73.1: Approximation of Undrained Shear Strength Profile Based on Undrained Shear Strength
Profile from Skempton and LaRochelle (1965)

245 rocscience.com
 Figure 73.2: Excavated Slope Geometry in Slide
Table 73.1: Soil Properties

Material c (psf)  (0)  (pcf)

Clay Fill 1 35 110

Marsh Clay 300 0 105

London Clay (brown and blue) cz + (yz – y)cz 0 120

Table 73.2: Undrained Strength Parameters for London Clay

cz (psf) Depth, yz (ft) y (ft) cz (psf/ft)

750 - 3 to -9.5 -3 90

1335 -9.5 to -14 -9.5 82

1704 -14 to -24 -14 53

2234 -24 to -27 -24 47

2375 -27 to -29 -27 47

2469 < -29 -29 39

246 rocscience.com
73.4. Results
Table 73.2
Reference Factor of Safety Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method [Duncan and Wright] (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.76 1.762 1.696

Janbu Simplified 1.63 1.628 1.589

Janbu Corrected 1.74 1.736 1.676

Spencer 1.76 1.758 1.712

Figure 73.3: Solution, using the Spencer method (Circular)

247 rocscience.com
Figure 73.4: Solution, using the Spencer method (Non-circular)

248 rocscience.com
74. Slide Verification Problem #74
Embankment, (2) materials

74.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 7.12 on page 120 of Duncan and Wright (2005)

74.2. Problem Description

Figure 74.1 shows an embankment constructed of cohesionless material resting on saturated clay
foundation. The critical slip surface is assumed to be circular and located using auto refine search.

74.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 74.1: Sand Embankment on Saturated Clay Foundation

Table 74.1: Soil Properties

Material c (psf)  (0)  (pcf)

Embankment (Sand) 0 40 140

Foundation (Saturated Clay) 2500 0 140

249 rocscience.com
74.4. Results
Table 74.2
Reference Factor of Safety Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method [Duncan and Wright] (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.22 1.228 1.087

Janbu Simplified 1.07 1.079 1.032

Janbu Corrected 1.16 1.174 1.124

Spencer 1.19 1.201 1.190

Figure 74.2: Solution, using the Spencer method (Circular)

Figure 74.3: Solution, using the Spencer method (Non-circular)

250 rocscience.com
75. Slide Verification Problem #75
Dyke, (4) materials

75.1. Introduction
This problem is an analysis of one of the planned James Bay dykes. The model is taken from Figure 7.16
on page 124 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

75.2. Problem Description

Figure 75.1 shows the planned cross section of James Bay Dyke. Two cases are studied in this problem.
The first case assumes that the critical slip surface is circular and the second case assumes that the
critical slip surface is non-circular. The critical slip surface is located using auto refine search in case 1,
and it is located using block search in case 2.

75.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 75.1: Circular Critical Slip Surface

Table 75.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Fill 0 30 20

Clay “crust” 41 0 20

Marine Clay 34.5 0 18.8

Lacustrine Clay 31.2 0 20.3

251 rocscience.com
75.4. Results
Table 75.2: Case 1 – Circular critical slip surface

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.468

GLE 1.466

Spencer 1.464

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.45 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 75.2: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method (Circular)

252 rocscience.com
 Table 75.3: Case 2 – Non-circular critical slip surface

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.105

Spencer 1.167

GLE 1.142

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.17 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 75.3: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

253 rocscience.com
76. Slide Verification Problem #76
Embankment dam, homogenous, finite element groundwater seepage analysis, ponded water

76.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 7.19 on page 128 of Duncan and Wright (2005)

76.2. Problem Description

A symmetric homogeneous earth embankment resting on an impermeable foundation with a ponded
water of elevation 40 feet on its left side is shown in both Figure 76.1 and Figure 76.2. Seepage is
assumed to have developed at a steady-state rate in this verification problem. The pore water pressure is
modelled using finite element seepage analysis and piezometric line approximation. The critical slip
surface is assumed to be circular and located using auto refine search for both cases.

76.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 76.1: Finite Element Seepage Analysis

Figure 76.2: Piezometric Line Approximation

254 rocscience.com
 Table 76.1: Soil Properties

c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf) ksat (ft/s) kunsat (ft/s)

100 30 100 1.67 x 10-7 1.67 x 10-10

76.4. Results
Table 76.2: Case 1 – Finite Element seepage analysis

Method Factor of Safety (Circular)

Bishop 1.068

Spencer 1.075

GLE 1.074

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.19 & 1.08 (from chart) [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 76.3: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method (Circular)

255 rocscience.com
 Table 76.3: Case 2 – Piezometric line approximation

Method Factor of Safety (Circular)

Bishop 1.090

Spencer 1.100

GLE 1.094

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.16 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 76.4: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method (Circular)

256 rocscience.com
77. Slide Verification Problem #77
Dam, (2) materials, finite element groundwater seepage analysis, ponded water

77.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 7.24 on page 131 of Duncan and Wright (2005)

77.2. Problem Description

A symmetric earth dam with thick core and with ponded water of elevation 315 on its left side resting on
an impervious foundation is shown in Figure 77.1 and Figure 77.2. Seepage is assumed to have
developed at a steady-state rate. The pore water pressure is modelled using finite element seepage
analysis and piezometric line approximation. The global critical slip surface occurs at shallow circles at
the toe. However, in this verification problem, it is the deeper slip surface that is of interest. The deep
critical slip surface is assumed to be circular and tangent to the boundary between the dam and its
foundation. It is located using slope search for both cases.

77.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 77.1: Finite Element Seepage Analysis

Figure 77.2: Piezometric Line Approximation

257 rocscience.com
 Table 77.1: Soil Properties

Zone c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf) k (ft/s)

Core 0 20 120 1.67x 10-7

Shell 0 38 140 1.67x 10-5

77.4. Results
Table 77.2: Case 1 – Finite element seepage analysis
Reference Factor of Safety Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method [Duncan and Wright] (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.62 1.658 1.541

Spencer 1.69 1.724 1.640

Figure 77.3: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method

258 rocscience.com
 Table 77.3: Case 2 – Piezometric line approximation
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.584 1.478

Spencer 1.648 1.570

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.67 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 77.4: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

259 rocscience.com
78. Slide Verification Problem #78
Slope, homogenous

78.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 14.3 on page 216 of Duncan and Wright (2005)

78.2. Problem Description

A simple, pure cohesive slope is shown in Figure 78.1. Three different foundation thicknesses (30 feet-
thick, 46.5 feet-thick and 60 feet-thick) are tested and for each case two slip surfaces are of interest in
this verification problem. The first slip surface passes through the toe and the second slip surface is
tangent to the bottom of the foundation. The slip surfaces are assumed to be circular.

78.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 78.1: A Simple, Pure Cohesive Slope with a Foundation Thickness H

Table 78.1: Soil Properties

c (psf)  (0)  (pcf)

1000 0 100

260 rocscience.com
78.4. Results
Table 78.2: Case 1(a) – 30 feet-thick foundation – slip surface passes through the toe
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.126 0.947

Spencer 1.200 0.878

GLE 1.186 0.914

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.124 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 78.2: Solution to Case 1(a), using the Spencer method

261 rocscience.com
Table 78.3: Case 1(b) – 30 feet-thick foundation – slip surface is tangent to the bottom of the foundation
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.141 0.915

Spencer 1.139 0.879

GLE 1.139 0.892

Figure 78.3: Solution to Case 1(b), using the Spencer method

262 rocscience.com
Table 78.4: Case 2(a) – 46.5 feet-thick foundation – slip surface passes through the toe
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.126 0.947

Spencer 1.200 0.880

GLE 1.186 0.910

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.124 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 78.4: Solution to Case 2(a), using the Spencer method

263 rocscience.com
Table 78.5: Case 2(b) – 46.5 feet-thick foundation – slip surface is tangent to the bottom of the foundation
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.130 0.890

Spencer 1.129 0.887

GLE 1.129 0.887

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.124 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 78.5: Solution to Case 2(b), using the Spencer method

264 rocscience.com
Table 78.6: Case 3(a) – 60 feet-thick foundation – slip surface passes through the toe
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.125 0.947

Spencer 1.202 0.878

GLE 1.185 0.910

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.124 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 78.6: Solution to Case 3(a), using the Spencer method

265 rocscience.com
Table 78.7: Case 3(b) – 60 feet-thick foundation – slip surface is tangent to the bottom of the foundation
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.125 0.873

Spencer 1.124 0.829

GLE 1.124 0.837

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.119 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 78.7: Solution to Case 3(b), using the Spencer method

266 rocscience.com
79. Slide Verification Problem #79
Slope, (2) materials, infinite slope failure

79.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 14.4 on page 217 of Duncan and Wright (2005)

79.2. Problem Description

Figure 79.1 shows a cohesionless slope. Two slip surfaces are of interest in this verification problem. The
first is a slip surface that is very shallow (infinite slope mechanism) and the second is a deep slip surface
that is tangent to the bottom of the foundation.

79.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 79.1: A Cohesionless Earth Embankment

Table 79.1: Soil Properties

Zone c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

Embankment 0 30 120

Foundation 450 0 120

267 rocscience.com
79.4. Results
Table 79.2: Case 1 – Deep slip surface tangent to the bottom of the foundation
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.412 1.225

Spencer 1.400 1.361

GLE 1.404 1.373

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.40 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 79.2: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method

268 rocscience.com
Table 79.3: Case 2 – Very shallow slip surface (infinite slope mechanism)
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.444 1.444

Spencer 1.443 1.443

GLE 1.443 1.443

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.44 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 79.3: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

269 rocscience.com
80. Slide Verification Problem #80
Embankment, (6) materials

80.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 14.5 on page 218 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

80.2. Problem Description

An embankment wall resting on a stratified soil foundation is shown in Figure 80.1. The center point of the
critical slip surface is approximated to be at (142, 147). For the given center point, several slip surfaces
are located by varying the radius. In this verification problem, two slip surfaces are analyzed. The first is
tangent to 0 feet-depth line and the second is tangent to 15 feet-depth line.

80.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 80.1: An Embankment Resting on A Stratified Soil Foundation

Table 80.1: Soil Properties

Material c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Embankment 1 35 120

Foundation – Layer I 950 0 110

Foundation – Layer II 1 32 122

Foundation – Layer III 500 0 98

Foundation – Layer IV 1 37 131

Foundation – Layer V 600 0 103

270 rocscience.com
80.4. Results
Table 80.2: Case 1 – Slip surface is tangent to 0 feet-depth line

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 2.549

Spencer 2.545

GLE 2.550

Note: Reference factor of safety = 2.56 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 80.2: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method

271 rocscience.com
Table 80.3: Case 2 – Slip surface is tangent to 15 feet-depth line

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.398

Spencer 1.359

GLE 1.358

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.35 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 80.3: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

272 rocscience.com
81. Slide Verification Problem #81
Embankment, (2) materials, infinite slope failure

81.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 14.7 on page 220 of Duncan and Wright (2005)

81.2. Problem Description

Figure 81.1 shows an earth embankment. Two critical slip surfaces are of interest in this verification
problem. The first is a deep slip surface tangent to the bottom of the foundation and the second is a very
shallow (infinite slope mechanism) slip surface.

81.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 81.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 81.1: Soil Properties

Zone c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

Embankment 0 30 124

Foundation 500 0 98

273 rocscience.com
81.4. Results
Table 81.2: Case 1 – Deep slip surface tangent to the bottom of the foundation
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.230 1.081

Spencer 1.209 1.183

GLE 1.217 1.174

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.21 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 81.2: Solution for Case 1, using the Spencer method

274 rocscience.com
Table 81.3: Case 2 – Very shallow (infinite slope mechanism) slip surface
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.155 1.155

Spencer 1.155 1.155

GLE 1.155 1.155

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.15 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 81.3: Solution for Case 2, using the Spencer method

275 rocscience.com
82. Slide Verification Problem #82
Embankment, (2) materials, water table

82.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 14.20a on page 230 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

82.2. Problem Description

Figure 82.1 shows an earth embankment. The pore water pressure is modelled using piezometric line
approximation. The critical slip surface is assumed to be circular and located using auto refine search.

82.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 82.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 82.1: Soil Properties

Zone c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

Embankment 600 25 125

Foundation 0 30 132

276 rocscience.com
82.4. Results
Table 82.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.533 1.444

Spencer 1.540 1.534

GLE 1.540 1.527

Note: Reference factor of safety values varied from 1.528 to 1.542 for different
subtended angle, which defines the number of slices.
Reference factor of safety used (FS average) = 1.535 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 82.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

277 rocscience.com
83. Slide Verification Problem #83
Embankment, (2) materials

83.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 14.20-b on page 230 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

83.2. Problem Description

An embankment wall is shown in Figure 83.2. Two undrained shear strength profiles for its foundation are
tested. The foundation’s undrained shear strength profiles are shown in Figure 83.1. The slip surface that
is tangent to the bottom of the foundation is of interest for the second profile. The slip surfaces in this
verification problem are assumed to be circular.

83.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 83.1: Undrained Shear Strength Profiles from Duncan and Wright (2005)

Figure 83.2: An Earth Embankment Wall in Slide

278 rocscience.com
 Table 83.1: Soil Properties

Zone c΄ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

Embankment 0 36 123

Case 1 𝑐 ′ = 200 + 15 × 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ

Foundation 0 97
Case 2 𝑐 ′ = 300

83.4. Results
Table 83.2: Case 1 – Undrained shear strength profile I
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.313 1.119

Spencer 1.285 1.262

GLE 1.294 1.229

Note: Reference factor of safety values varied from 1.276 to 1.323 for different
subtended angle, which defines the number of slices.
Reference factor of safety used (FS average) = 1.300 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 83.3: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method

279 rocscience.com
 Table 83.3: Case 2 – Undrained shear strength profile II
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.335 1.067

Spencer 1.330 1.182

GLE 1.331 1.195

Note: R Reference factor of safety values varied from 1.295 to 1.328 for different
subtended angle, which defines the number of slices.
Reference factor of safety used (FS average) = 1.312 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 83.4: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

280 rocscience.com
84. Slide Verification Problem #84
Embankment, (2) materials

84.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 15.9 on page 244 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

84.2. Problem Description

An earth embankment is shown in Figure 84.1. Four undrained shear strength profiles for the foundation
are analyzed. The undrained shear strength profiles can be generalized as:

cu = 300 + c z z
where z is depth (in feet) and cz is the rate of increase in undrained shear strength. c z value varies among
profiles. The critical slip surfaces in this verification problem are assumed to be circular.

84.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 84.1: An Earth Embankment in Slide

Table 84.1: Soil Properties

Zone c’ (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

Embankment 0 35 125

Foundation cu = 300 + c z z 0 100

Table 3.2

281 rocscience.com
 Table 84.2: cz values

Profile cz (psf/ft)

I 0

II 5

III 10

IV 15

84.4. Results
Table 84.3: Case 1 – Undrained shear strength profile I
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 0.761 0.684

Spencer 0.756 0.740

GLE 0.762 0.747

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.75 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 84.2: Solution to Case 1, using the Spencer method

282 rocscience.com
 Table 84.4: Case 2 – Undrained shear strength profile II
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 0.909 0.814

Spencer 0.898 0.903

GLE 0.908 0.908

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.90 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 84.3: Solution to Case 2, using the Spencer method

283 rocscience.com
 Table 84.5: Case 3 – Undrained shear strength profile III
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.045 0.937

Spencer 1.032 1.018

GLE 1.034 1.024

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.03 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 84.4: Solution to Case 3, using the Spencer method

284 rocscience.com
 Table 84.6: Case 4 – Undrained shear strength profile IV
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.154 1.023

Spencer 1.134 1.116

GLE 1.138 1.103

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.13 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 84.5: Solution to Case 4, using the Spencer method

285 rocscience.com
85. Slide Verification Problem #85
Reinforced slope, homogenous, grouted tieback

85.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 6.34 on page 95 of Duncan and Wright (2005).

85.2. Problem Description

A saturated clay slope with a single support placed at its mid-height is shown in Figure 85.1. The used
support has a capacity of 9,000 lb/ft. Two cases of support applications are investigated in this verification
problem. The first one is active support and the second one is passive support.

85.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 85.1: A Saturated Clay Slope in Slide

Table 85.1: Soil Properties

c (psf)  (0)  (pcf)

350 0 98

286 rocscience.com
85.4. Results
Table 85.2: Case 1 – Active Support
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.531 1.418

Spencer 1.884 2.016

GLE 1.575 2.051

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.51 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 85.2: Solution to Case 1, using the GLE method

287 rocscience.com
 Table 85.3: Case 2 – Passive Support
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.324 1.245

Spencer 1.872 1.575

GLE 1.378 1.491

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.32 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 85.3: Solution to Case 2, using the GLE method

288 rocscience.com
86. Slide Verification Problem #86
Reinforced slope, homogenous, grouted tieback

86.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from Figure 7.28 on page 135 of Duncan and Wright (2005) (see also the STABGM
user’s documentation).

86.2. Problem Description

A reinforced fill slope resting on a much stronger rock foundation is shown in Figure 86.1. Each of the
used supports has a capacity of 800 lb/ft and is 20 feet long. The supports are spaced 4 feet apart
vertically and the first support is located 4 feet above the foundation. The global slope failure, not the local
failure between supports, is of interest.

86.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 86.1: A Reinforced Fill Slope on a Strong Rock Foundation in Slide

Table 86.1: Soil Properties

c (psf) ’ (0)  (pcf)

0 37 130

289 rocscience.com
86.4. Results
Table 86.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.629 1.585

Spencer 1.620 1.594

GLE 1.622 1.588

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.61 [Duncan and Wright]

Figure 86.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

290 rocscience.com
87. Slide Verification Problem #87
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

87.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Baseline case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered Walls”, a
paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

87.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 87.1. The material properties are presented in Table 87.1. The
support properties are tabulated in Table 87.2. The global slope failure, not the local failure at each tier, is
of interest.

87.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 87.1: A Three-tiered Wall in Slide

Table 87.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

291 rocscience.com
 Table 87.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
6.3 10.0 80%

87.4. Results
Table 87.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.040 0.989

Spencer 1.097 1.103

GLE 1.168 1.118

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.99 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 87.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

292 rocscience.com
88. Slide Verification Problem #88
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

88.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Fill Quality case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered Walls”,
a paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

88.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 88.1. The model has the same geometry as the model in verification
problem #87, but different reinforced and retained fill strength. The purpose of this model is to quantify the
effect of fill quality on the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The material properties are given in
Table 88.1. The support properties are shown in Table 88.2.

88.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 88.1: A Three-tiered Wall in Slide

Table 88.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 25 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

293 rocscience.com
 Table 88.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
6.3 22.0 80%

88.4. Results
Table 88.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.045 1.040

Spencer 1.043 1.037

GLE 1.043 1.033

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.99 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 88.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

294 rocscience.com
89. Slide Verification Problem #89
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

89.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Reinforcement Length case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced
Multitiered Walls”, a paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

89.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 89.1. The support used in this model has a shorter length than that
of verification model #87. The purpose of this model is to quantify the effect of reinforcement length on
the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The material properties are given in Table 89.1. The
support properties are presented in Table 89.2.

89.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 89.1: A Three-tiered Wall in Slide

Table 89.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

295 rocscience.com
 Table 89.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
4.2 11.4 80%

89.4. Results
Table 89.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 0.976 0.988

Spencer 0.971 0.966

GLE 0.971 0.962

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.98 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 89.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

296 rocscience.com
90. Slide Verification Problem #90
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

90.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Reinforcement Type case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced
Multitiered Walls”, a paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

90.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 90.1. This model uses two support types. The purpose of this model
is to quantify the effect of reinforcement type on the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The
material properties are given in Table 90.1. The support properties are presented in Table 90.2.

90.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 90.1: A Three-tiered Wall in Slide

Table 90.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

297 rocscience.com
 Table 90.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Type Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
#1 (upper 8 layers) 6.3 7.5 80%

#2 (lower 7 layers) 6.3 11.0 80%

90.4. Results
Table 90.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.004 0.978

Spencer 1.002 1.146

GLE 1.004 1.158

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.01 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 90.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

298 rocscience.com
91. Slide Verification Problem #91
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

91.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Foundation Soil case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered
Walls”, a paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

91.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 91.1. The model has the same geometry as the model in verification
problem #87, but different foundation soil strength. The purpose of this model is to quantify the effect of
foundation soil strength on the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The material properties are
shown in Table 91.1. The support properties are given in Table 91.2.

91.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 91.1: A Three-Tiered Wall in Slide

Table 91.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 0 18 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

299 rocscience.com
 Table 91.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
6.3 10.0 80%

91.4. Results
Table 91.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 0.985 0.783

Spencer 0.964 0.829

GLE 0.963 1.007

Note: Reference factor of safety = 0.86 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 91.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

300 rocscience.com
92. Slide Verification Problem #92
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

92.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Water case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered Walls”, a
paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

92.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 92.1. The model has the same geometry as the model in verification
problem #87 with an addition of water seepage. The purpose of this model is to quantify the effect of
water seepage on the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The material properties are shown in
Table 92.1. The support properties are given in Table 92.2.

92.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 92.1: A Three-Tiered Wall in Slide

Table 92.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

301 rocscience.com
 Table 92.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
6.3 9.25 80%

92.4. Results
Table 92.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.037 1.040

Spencer 1.111 1.131

GLE 1.111 1.132

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.01 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 92.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

302 rocscience.com
93. Slide Verification Problem #93
Retaining wall, (3) materials, distributed load, geotextile

93.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Surcharge case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered Walls”,
a paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

93.2. Problem Description

A three-tiered wall is shown in Figure 93.1. The model has the same geometry as the model in verification
problem #87 with an addition of surcharge on the uppermost tier. The purpose of this model is to quantify
the effect of surcharge on the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The material properties are
shown in table 93.1. The support properties are given in table 93.2.

93.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 93.1: A Three-tiered Wall in Slide

Table 93.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

303 rocscience.com
 Table 93.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
6.3 11.6 80%

93.4. Results
Table 93.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 0.958 0.981

Spencer 0.957 0.995

GLE 0.956 1.050

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.02 (using finite difference method) & 1.00
(circular slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 93.2: Solution, using the Spencer method

304 rocscience.com
94. Slide Verification Problem #94
Retaining wall, (3) materials, geotextile

94.1. Introduction
This problem is taken from the Number of Tiers case studied in the “Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered
Walls”, a paper by Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004).

94.2. Problem Description

A five-tiered wall is shown in Figure 94.1. The purpose of this model is to quantify the effect of number of
tiers on the stability characteristic of a multi-tiered wall. The material properties are given in table 94.1.
The support properties are presented in table 94.2.

94.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 94.1: A Three-Tiered Wall in Slide

Table 94.1: Soil Properties

Zone c (kPa)  (0)  (kN/m3)

Reinforced and retained fill 0 34 18

Foundation soil 10 34 18

Blocks 2.5 34 18

305 rocscience.com
 Table 93.2: Support Properties

Tensile Strength
Length (m) Pullout Strength
(kN/m)
6.3 10.1 80%

94.4. Results
Table 94.3
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety
Method (Circular) (Non-circular)

Bishop 1.040 0.990

Spencer 1.129 1.075

GLE 1.194 1.074

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.00 (using finite difference method & circular
slip surface using the Bishop method) [Leshchinsky and Han]

Figure 94.2: Solution, using the Bishop simplified method

306 rocscience.com
95. Slide Verification Problem #95
Embankment dam, homogenous, rapid drawdown, water table

95.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is taken from Appendix G of the Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1902,
“Engineering and Design – Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams,” by Corps of Engineers (1970).

95.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 95.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at elevation 110
ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level down to an elevation of 24 ft. Material properties of the slope
are given in Table 95.1. One circular slip surface is considered. This slip surface is centered at
coordinates (169.5, 210) and has a radius of 210 ft. The Army Corps of Engineers 2-stage rapid
drawdown method is used.

95.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 95.1: Slope Subjected to Rapid Drawdown in Slide

Table 95.1: Slope Material Properties

Effective Stress Envelope R-Envelope

Unit Weight
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’ Intercept, cR Slope, ΦR

135 pcf 0 30° 1200 psf 16°

307 rocscience.com
95.4. Results
Table 95.2

Rapid Drawdown Method Factor of Safety

Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage 1.347

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.35 (using Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage
method) [Corps of Engineers]

Figure 95.2: Solution, using the Army Corp. Eng. 2-stage rapid drawdown method

308 rocscience.com
96. Slide Verification Problem #96
Embankment dam, homogenous, rapid drawdown, water table

96.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is similar to Verification Problem #95, also taken from Appendix G of the
Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1902, “Engineering and Design – Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams,”
by Corps of Engineers (1970).

96.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 96.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at elevation 110
ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level down to an elevation of 24 ft. Material properties of the slope
are given in Table 96.1. One circular slip surface is considered. This slip surface is centered at
coordinates (169.5, 210) and has a radius of 210 ft. The Duncan, Wright and Wong 3-stage rapid
drawdown method is used.

96.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 96.1: Slope Subjected to Rapid Drawdown

Table 96.1: Slope Soil Properties

Effective Stress Envelope R-Envelope

Unit Weight
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’ Intercept, cR Slope, ΦR

135 pcf 0 30° 1200 psf 16°

309 rocscience.com
96.4. Results
Table 96.2

Rapid Drawdown Method Factor of Safety

Duncan, Wright and Wong 3-stage 1.443

Note: Reference factor of safety = 1.44 (using Duncan, Wright and Wong 3 stage
method) [Corps of Engineers]

Figure 96.2: Solution, using the Duncan, Wright and Wong 3-stage rapid drawdown method

310 rocscience.com
97. Slide Verification Problem #97
Embankment dam, homogenous, rapid drawdown, water table

97.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is taken from the “Slope Stability during Rapid Drawdown” paper by
Duncan, Wright and Wong (1990). It is based on the Pilarcitos Dam in California.

97.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 97.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at a height of 72
ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level down to a height of 37 ft. Material properties of the slope are
given in Table 97.1. Various slip surfaces are considered to find the minimum factor of safety.

97.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 97.1: Pilarcitos Dam Model in Slide

Table 97.1: Dam Soil Properties

Effective Stress Envelope R-Envelope

Unit Weight
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’ Intercept, cR Slope, ΦR

135 pcf 0 45° 60 psf 23°

311 rocscience.com
97.4. Results
Table 97.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety (from Duncan,
Rapid Drawdown Method
(from Slide) Wright and Wong, 1990)

Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage 0.823 0.82

Lowe and Karafiath 1.047 1.05

Duncan, Wright, Wong 3 Stage 1.043 1.05

Figure 97.2: Solution, using the Army Corp. Eng. 2-stage rapid drawdown method

312 rocscience.com
98. Slide Verification Problem #98
Embankment dam, (5) materials, rapid drawdown, water table

98.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is taken from the “Slope Stability during Rapid Drawdown” paper by
Duncan, Wright, and Wong (1990). It is based on the Walter Bouldin Dam in Alabama.

98.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 98.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at a height of 47
ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level down to a height of 15 ft. Material properties of the slope are
given in Table 98.1. Various slip surfaces are considered to find the minimum factor of safety.

98.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 98.1: Walter Bouldin Dam Model

Table 98.1: Dam Material Properties

Unit Effective Stress Envelope R-Envelope

Material
Weight
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’ Intercept, cR Slope, ΦR

Riprap 125 pcf 0 40.0° -- --

Clayey Silty Sand 128 pcf 240 32.7° 650 psf 13.0°

Micaceous Sand 123 pcf 220 22.5° 450 psf 11.0°

Cretaceous Clay 124 pcf 180 19.0° 180 psf 13.0°

Clayey Sandy Gravel 125 pcf 0 40.0° -- --

313 rocscience.com
98.4. Results
Table 98.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety (from Duncan,
Rapid Drawdown Method
(from Slide) Wright and Wong, 1990)

Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage 0.931 0.93

Lowe and Karafiath 1.075 1.09

Duncan, Wright, Wong 3

1.039 1.04
Stage

Figure 98.2: Solution, using the Army Corp. Eng. 2-stage rapid drawdown method

314 rocscience.com
99. Slide Verification Problem #99
Embankment dam, (3) materials, rapid drawdown, water table

99.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is taken from the “Slope Stability during Rapid Drawdown” paper by
Duncan, Wright and Wong (1990). It is a hypothetical pumped storage project dam.

99.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 99.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at a height of 285
ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level down to the height of 120 ft. Soil properties of the slope are
given in Table 99.1. Various slip surfaces are considered to find the minimum factor of safety.

99.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 99.1: Pumped Storage Project Dam Model

Table 99.1: Dam Material Properties

Unit Effective Stress Envelope R-Envelope

Material
Weight
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’ Intercept, cR Slope, ΦR

Compacted Rockfill 142 pcf 0 37° -- --

Silty Clay Core 140 pcf 0 36° 2000 psf 18°

Silty Clay Random Zone 140 pcf 0 36° 2000 psf 18°

315 rocscience.com
99.4. Results
Table 99.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety (from Duncan,
Rapid Drawdown Method
(from Slide) Wright and Wong, 1990)

Army Corp. Eng. 2 Stage 1.345 1.37

Lowe and Karafiath 1.620 1.58

Duncan, Wright, Wong 3

1.534 1.56
Stage

Figure 99.2: Solution Using Army Corp. Eng. 2-stage rapid drawdown method

316 rocscience.com
100. Slide Verification Problem #100
Embankment dam, homogenous, rapid drawdown, water table

100.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is taken from the “Stability Charts for Earth Slopes During Rapid
Drawdown” paper by Morgenstern (1963). It is a simple slope subjected to complete drawdown.

100.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 100.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at a height of
100 ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level completely down to 0 ft. Soil properties of the slope are
given in Table 100.1. Various slip surfaces are considered to find the minimum factor of safety.

100.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 100.1: Slope Model in Slide

Table 100.1: Dam Soil Properties

Effective Stress Envelope

Unit Weight B-Bar Value
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’

124.8 pcf 312 psf 30° 1

317 rocscience.com
100.4. Results
Table 100.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety (from
Rapid Drawdown Method
(from Slide) Morgenstern, 1963)

B-Bar 1.212 1.20

Figure 100.2: Solution, using B-Bar rapid drawdown method

318 rocscience.com
101. Slide Verification Problem #101
Embankment dam, homogenous, rapid drawdown, water table

101.1. Introduction
This rapid drawdown problem is similar to verification problem #100 and is taken from the “Stability Charts
for Earth Slopes During Rapid Drawdown” paper by Morgenstern (1963). It is a simple slope subjected to
drawdown.

101.2. Problem Description

The slope in Figure 101.1 is analyzed for slope stability. An initial water level is assumed at a height of
100 ft. Rapid drawdown brings the water level down to 50 ft. Soil properties of the slope are given in
Table 101.1. Various slip surfaces are considered to find the minimum factor of safety.

101.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 101.1: Slope Model in Slide

Table 101.1: Slope Material Properties

Effective Stress Envelope

Unit Weight B-Bar Value
Intercept, c’ Slope, Φ’

124.8 pcf 312 psf 30° 1

319 rocscience.com
101.4. Results
Table 101.2
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety (from
Rapid Drawdown Method
(from Slide) Morgenstern, 1963)

B-Bar 1.417 1.41

Figure 101.2: Solution, using the B-Bar rapid drawdown method

320 rocscience.com
102. Slide Verification Problem #102
Embankment dam, homogenous, rapid drawdown

102.1. Problem Description

This problem investigates the stability of an earth dam subjected to rapid drawdown conditions. The dam
material is a homogenous, isotropic soil with the soil properties outlined in Table 102.1.

102.2. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 102.1 shows the Slide model used to perform the stability analysis.

Figure 102.1: Geometry Setup in Slide

Table 102.1: Soil Properties

Property Value

𝑐′ 13.8 kPa

𝜑′ 37º

𝛾 18.2 kN/m3

𝐸 1 x 105 kPa

𝜈 0.3

102.3. Results
Figure 102.2 shows the Slide results for the earth dam under dry conditions. The calculated factor of
safety of 2.455(Spencer method) corresponds closely with the value of 2.43 quoted in the “Strength
reduction FEM in stability analysis of soil slopes subjected to transient unsaturated seepage” paper by
Huang and Jia (2008).

321 rocscience.com
Figure 102.3 shows the Slide analysis for initial steady state before rapid drawdown. Total head contours
are also shown. The calculated factor of safety of 1.745 corresponds closely with the value of 1.70 quoted
in Huang and Jia (2008).
Transient analysis considered a φ b value of both 0º and 37º. Slide results at different times for the two
cases are plotted on Figures 102.4 and Figure 102.5, along with values from Huang and Jia (2008). The
Slide results correspond closely with the published ones. Figures 102.6 to Figure 102.11 show the Slide
model results for both cases at various analysis times. Tables 102.2 and Table 102.3 list these values.

Figure 102.2: Slide Results for Dry Conditions, using the Spencer method

Figure 102.3: Slide Results for Initial Conditions, using the Spencer method

322 rocscience.com
 3

2.5

Factor of Safety 2
Slide

1.5
Huang
and Jia
1
(2008)

0.5

0
0 400 800 1200 1600
Time (h)

Figure 102.4: Factors of Safety Plot for φb = 0º

2.5

2
Factor of Safety

Slide

1.5

Huang
1
and Jia
(2008)
0.5

0
0 400 800 1200 1600
Time (h)

Figure 102.5: Factors of Safety Plot for φb = 37º

323 rocscience.com
Figure 102.6: Slide Results for φb = 0º at 80 h, using the Spencer method

Figure 102.7: Slide Results for φb = 0º at 300 h, using the Spencer method

324 rocscience.com
Figure 102.8: Slide Results for φb = 0º at 1500 h, using the Spencer method

Figure 102.9: Slide Results for φb = 37º at 80 h, using the Spencer method

325 rocscience.com
Figure 102.10: Slide Results for φb = 37º at 300 h, using the Spencer method

Figure 102.11: Slide Results for φb = 37º at 1500 h, using the Spencer method

326 rocscience.com
 Table 102.2: Factors of Safety for φb = 0º
Factor of Safety
Time (h) Factor of Safety (Slide)
(Huang and Jia, 2008)
0 1.745 1.683

60 1.805 1.805

70 1.820 1.840

75 1.828 1.858

80 1.836 1.875

85 1.844 1.893

90 1.852 1.909

100 1.868 1.940

300 2.094 2.274

600 2.243 2.360

1000 2.330 2.374

1500 2.376 2.374

Table 102.3: Factors of Safety for φb = 37º

Factor of Safety
Time (h) Factor of Safety (Slide)
(Huang and Jia, 2008)
0 1.815 1.764

60 1.886 1.930

70 1.904 1.982

75 1.913 2.009

80 1.923 2.035

85 1.932 2.065

90 1.942 2.098

100 1.961 2.134

300 2.220 2.595

600 2.416 2.754

1000 2.542 2.804

1500 2.612 2.813

327 rocscience.com
103. Slide Verification Problem #103
Undrained slope, multi-model optimization (MMO)

103.1. Problem Description

This example comes from Guo & Griffiths (2020). In the image below, the three different cohesion ratios
lead to three different modes of failure using finite element method (FEM) with Shear Strength Reduction
(SSR). This slope was replicated in Slide2 and was computed with multi-modal Particle Swarm (PS)
search and Surface Altering (SA) optimization.

Figure 103.1: The three strength ratios and failure modes used in Guo and Griffiths (2020)

328 rocscience.com
103.2. Results
The materials were set up as shown:

Figure 103.2: The corresponding materials defined in Slide2

The results using Spencer method are shown below. The first row shows the MMO results with strength
ratios of 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 respectively. The second row shows the same results using regular, uni-modal,
PS with SA.

Figure 103.3: Slide2 results for MMO (top row) and uni-modal (bottom row)
It can be seen that in the case of limit equilibrium, the split into the two failure modes must occur
somewhere between the 1.5 and 1.6 ratios.

329 rocscience.com
104. Slide Verification Problem #104
Newmark analysis, seismic analysis, multi-modal optimization (MMO)

104.1. Introduction
This example is based on Tutorial 28 Seismic Analysis with Newmark Method. Two groups were defined:
one is the MMO PS with SA, and the other is the uni-modal PS with SA for comparison. Note that an area
filter of 1 m was applied in the Surface Options dialog to eliminate some very shallow surfaces. The
Spencer method is used, as it is in the tutorial.

104.2. Problem Description

The first row shows the MMO results for each seismic scenario. The second row shows the same results
using regular, uni-modal, PS with SA. The four scenarios are:

• No Seismic: regular slope stability analysis

• Seismic coefficient of 0.15: seismic coefficient applied, otherwise regular slope stability analysis

• Critical acceleration: returns critical seismic coefficient such that the factor of safety (FS) is 1.

• Newmark displacement: returns associated displacement for surface, given seismic record

Figure 104.1: Slide2 results for MMO (top row) and uni-modal (bottom row)
The most critical MMO result for each scenario is compared to the corresponding uni-modal result below
and they are found to be in very good agreement.
Table 104.1: Slide2 MMO vs uni-modal results for each scenario

MMO (most critical) Uni-modal

No Seismic FS = 1.359 FS = 1.360

Seismic coefficient of 0.15 FS = 0.978 FS = 0.980

Critical acceleration Ky = 0.139 Ky = 0.140

Newmark displacement Disp = 5.042 cm Disp = 5.081 cm

330 rocscience.com
As an additional verification, the Ky = 0.147 surface in the third scenario, which was quite different from
the critical surface, was computed with a regular slope stability analysis, and a seismic coefficient of
0.147. The results were as shown:

Figure 104.2: Ky = 0.147 applied to corresponding surface found using MMO

An additional view of interest is the comparison of all the surfaces between the MMO (left) and uni-modal
(right) for the Newmark displacement scenario. Several distinct high displacement regions are visible with
the MMO algorithm which are not clear with the uni-modal:

Figure 104.3: MMO vs uni-modal all surfaces view for Newmark scenario

331 rocscience.com
105. Slide Verification Problem #105
Anisotropic surface, multi-modal optimization (MMO)

105.1. Problem Description

This example is based on Slide2 Tutorial 32 Anisotropic Surface. The purpose of this example is to
ensure that the most critical surface found by MMO PS with SA is in agreement with that found by uni-
modal PS with SA. The methods used are Bishop, Janbu Simplified, Spencer, and GLE.

Figure 105.1: Tutorial model used in this example

105.2. Results
The most critical MMO result for each method is compared to the corresponding uni-modal result below
and they are found to be in very good agreement.
Table 105.1: MMO vs uni-modal results for each method

MMO (most critical) Uni-modal

Bishop 0.970 0.976

Janbu 0.935 0.938

Simplified

Spencer 1.086 1.084

GLE 1.017 1.015

332 rocscience.com
The view below compares the MMO (left) and uni-modal (right) results for Bishop. A filter has been
applied to only display surfaces with FS less than 1. This is a good way to understand the difference
between the MMO and uni-modal algorithms. Note that the MMO algorithm seeks minima everywhere
and hence is able to find a bigger region with surfaces that have an FS below 1. The uni-modal algorithm
works to converge to the lowest FS region and hence only the region about the critical surface is found.

Figure 105.2: MMO vs uni-modal all surfaces with FS < 1

333 rocscience.com
106. Slide Verification Problem #106
Support, Ito & Matsui pile

106.1. Problem Description

This example comes from Cai & Ugai (2000) where the Ito & Matsui pile was used in a Bishop’s circular
analysis in order to compare to finite element analysis. The results of their Bishop analysis are compared
to Slide2 below:

Figure 106.1: Cai & Ugai (2000) model used in this example

106.2. Results
The pile spacing was varied in each scenario following the paper, and the results from the paper and
Slide2 are shown below:
Table 106.1: FS for Cai & Ugai (2000) vs Slide2 for each pile spacing

Pile (Spacing/Diameter) Cai & Ugai (2000) FS Slide2 FS

No Pile 1.13 1.14

2 1.54 1.54

3 1.37 1.43

4 1.31 1.33

6 1.25 1.25

It can be surmised that any differences are due to the different search methods used and hence surfaces
found in the paper vs. Slide2.

334 rocscience.com
107. Slide Verification Problem #107
Retaining walls, gabion walls, supports

107.1. Introduction
This example is from Cao L. et al. (2016) in which WSP conducted a case study of a wall failure in
Vancouver, British Columbia using Slide. The purpose of this verification is to demonstrate the analysis of
a gabion wall using (a) an equivalent cohesion method and (b) a mesh method.

Figure 107.1: Drawing of gabion wall provided by Cao et Al. (2016)

Figure 107.2: Slide model of gabion wall provided by Cao et Al. (2016)

335 rocscience.com
107.2. Problem Description
As shown in Figure 106.1, the study consists of a 6m tall gabion wall with a base width of 4m, each layer
being composed of 1m tall x 1m wide x 4m long gabions. While Slide does not conduct internal stability
calculations, the results of the overall slope stability are of interest. The case study assumed the material
parameters of the gabion wall. The equivalent cohesion method simulates the existence of steel mesh via
a non-zero value of c, while the mesh method explicitly models the steel mesh using geosynthetic
supports.

107.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 107.3: Gabion Wall Model in Slide (equivalent cohesion method)

Figure 107.4: Gabion Wall Model in Slide (mesh method)

336 rocscience.com
A helpful feature is the ability to specify the length of any line and its angle in the prompt line from a
selected point. The format is as follows:
@#<Deg
The # symbol represents the line length. Deg is a value between 0 to 360 representing the angle. Note
that the angle is relative to the horizontal on the right side of a selected point. This can be used to draw
the gabion wall.
A second set of limits is defined at the bottom of the wall (12, 95.33) and the top of the slope (16.85,
101.813) to filter out smaller slip surfaces.
Table 107.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 0 32 21

Soil #2 0 30 20

Gabion Wall 100* 45 20

*For the mesh method, cohesion = 0. For the equivalent cohesion method, the
cohesion of the gabion wall can be estimated using the following equations
(Grodecki, 2017):
∆𝜎3 𝜑
𝑐𝑟 = tan (45° + )
2 2
2𝑓𝑡 𝜀𝑐
∆𝜎3 =
𝑑𝜀𝑎 (1 − 𝜀𝑎 )

1 − √1 − 𝜀𝑎
𝜀𝑐 =
1 − 𝜀𝑎
Table 107.2: Additional Assumed Gabion Properties

𝒇𝒕 [kN/m] 71

d [m] 1

𝜀𝑎 0.07

𝑐𝑟 [kPa] (Calculated) 100

337 rocscience.com
 Table 107.3: Geosynthetic Support Properties

Force Application Active

Force Direction Tangent to Slip Surface

Strip Coverage 100%

Allowable Tensile Strength 71

Anchorage Both Ends

Connection Strength Input Constant

Connection Strength 71

107.4. Results
The critical FS for each method is shown below.
Table 107.4

Model Equivalent Cohesion Method Mesh Method

FS, Grid Search FS, Cuckoo Search FS, Grid Search FS, Cuckoo Search
Method
(Circular) (Non-Circular) (Circular) (Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.373 1.032 1.378 1.034

Janbu 1.156 0.962 1.156 0.966

Spencer 1.386 1.25 1.392 1.26

GLE 1.387 1.29 1.394 1.291

338 rocscience.com
Figure 107.5: Solution for Equivalent Cohesion Method Using Circular Search and Bishop Method

Figure 107.6: Solution for Equivalent Cohesion Method Using Cuckoo Search and Bishop Method

339 rocscience.com
Figure 107.7: Solution for Mesh Method Using Circular Search and Bishop Method

Figure 107.8: Solution for Mesh Method Using Cuckoo Search and Bishop Method

340 rocscience.com
108. Slide Verification Problem #108
Retaining walls, gabion walls, supports

108.1. Introduction
This example is a stepped gabion wall with the steps facing outwards. The purpose of this verification is
to demonstrate the analysis of a gabion wall using (a) an equivalent cohesion method and (b) a mesh
method.

108.2. Problem Description

The wall consists of a 4m tall gabion wall composed of 1m tall x 1m wide x 1m long gabions. While Slide
does not conduct internal stability calculations, the results of the overall slope stability are of interest. The
equivalent cohesion method simulates the existence of steel mesh via a non-zero value of c, while the
mesh method explicitly models the steel mesh using geosynthetic supports.

108.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 108.1: Gabion Wall Model in Slide (equivalent cohesion method)

Figure 108.2: Gabion Wall Model in Slide (mesh method)

341 rocscience.com
A helpful feature is the ability to specify the length of any line and its angle in the prompt line from a
selected point. The format is as follows:
@#<Deg
The # symbol represents the line length. Deg is a value between 0 to 360 representing the angle. Note
that the angle is relative to the horizontal on the right side of a selected point. This can be used to draw
the gabion wall.
A second set of limits is defined at the bottom of the wall (14.473, 5.456) and the top of the slope (18, 9)
for the mesh method to filter out smaller slip surfaces.
Table 108.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 5 30 21

Soil #2 0 25 20

Gabion Wall 59.7* 42 23

*For the mesh method, cohesion = 0. For the equivalent cohesion method, the
cohesion of the gabion wall can be estimated using the following equations
(Grodecki, 2017):
∆𝜎3 𝜑
𝑐𝑟 = tan (45° + )
2 2
2𝑓𝑡 𝜀𝑐
∆𝜎3 =
𝑑𝜀𝑎 (1 − 𝜀𝑎 )

1 − √1 − 𝜀𝑎
𝜀𝑐 =
1 − 𝜀𝑎
Table 108.2: Additional Assumed Gabion Properties

𝒇𝒕 [kN/m] 100

d [m] 1

𝜀𝑎 0.06

𝑐𝑟 [kPa] (Calculated) 59.7

342 rocscience.com
 Table 108.3: Geosynthetic Support Properties

Force Application Active

Force Direction Tangent to Slip Surface

Strip Coverage 100%

Allowable Tensile Strength 100

Anchorage Both Ends

Connection Strength Input Constant

Connection Strength 100

108.4. Results
The critical FS for each method is shown below.
Table 108.4

Model Equivalent Cohesion Method Mesh Method

FS, Grid Search FS, Cuckoo Search FS, Grid Search FS, Cuckoo Search
Method
(Circular) (Non-Circular) (Circular) (Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.787 1.512 1.835 1.522

Janbu 1.566 1.43 1.604 1.44

Spencer 1.791 1.72 1.839 1.731

GLE 1.791 1.723 1.837 1.716

343 rocscience.com
Figure 108.3: Solution for Equivalent Cohesion Method Using Circular Search and Bishop Method

Figure 108.4: Solution for Equivalent Cohesion Method Using Cuckoo Search and Bishop Method

344 rocscience.com
Figure 108.5: Solution for Mesh Method Using Circular Search and Bishop Method

Figure 108.6: Solution for Mesh Method Using Cuckoo Search and Bishop Method

345 rocscience.com
109. Slide Verification Problem #109
Retaining walls, gabion walls, weak layers

109.1. Introduction
This example is a stepped gabion wall with the steps facing outwards. Weak layers have been added to
the gabion wall to simulate potential weak joint failure or shear failure through the gabion wall. The
purpose of this verification is to demonstrate the modeling of gabion walls using an equivalent cohesion
method along with weak layers.

109.2. Problem Description

The wall consists of a 4m tall gabion wall composed of 1m tall x 1m wide x 1m long gabions. A series
weak layers have been specified and added between the horizontal lines of the gabion wall. Note that
vertical weak layers would cause the slip surfaces to clip vertically and should be avoided in general.

109.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 109.1: Gabion Wall Model in in Slide

A helpful feature is the ability to specify the length of any line and its angle in the prompt line from a
selected point. The format is as follows:
@#<Deg
The # symbol represents the line length. Deg is a value between 0 to 360 representing the angle. Note
that the angle is relative to the horizontal on the right side of a selected point. This can be used to draw
the gabion wall.

346 rocscience.com
 Table 109.1: Soil Properties

c΄ (kN/m2) ΄ (deg.)  (kN/m3)

Soil #1 5 30 21

Soil #2 0 25 20

Gabion Wall 59.7* 42 23

*The cohesion of the gabion wall can be estimated using the following equations (Grodecki, 2017):
∆𝜎3 𝜑
𝑐𝑟 = tan (45° + )
2 2
2𝑓𝑡 𝜀𝑐
∆𝜎3 =
𝑑𝜀𝑎 (1 − 𝜀𝑎 )

1 − √1 − 𝜀𝑎
𝜀𝑐 =
1 − 𝜀𝑎

Table 109.2: Additional Assumed Gabion Properties

𝒇𝒕 [kN/m] 100

d [m] 1

𝜀𝑎 0.06
𝑐𝑟 [kPa]
59.7
(Calculated)

For properties, the weak layer is assumed have a friction angle of 90% of the gabion fill. The joint has a
tensile strength of 20.4kN/m. Cohesion can then be determined by multiplying the width of the gabion
(1m) by the tensile strength. Cohesion is therefore 20.4kPa.
Block search polylines should be defined at the weak layers.
Note: Values of 45 to -45 and 135 to 225 degrees are used for the block search line projection angles.
A second set of limits is defined at the bottom of the wall (14.473, 5.456) and the top of the slope (18, 9)
to filter out smaller slip surfaces.

347 rocscience.com
109.4. Results
The critical FS for each method is shown below.
Table 109.2

FS, Block Search

Method
(Non-Circular)

Bishop 1.799

Janbu 1.610

Spencer 1.803

GLE 1.804

Figure 109.2: Solution, using Block Search and Bishop method

348 rocscience.com
110. Slide Verification Problem #110
Retaining walls, equivalent fluid pressure

110.1. Introduction
The Retaining Wall (EFP) support type is used to model retaining walls whose capacity is defined by an
equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) profile. This verification problem will do a simple verification for this
support type.

110.2. Problem Description

In this model a retaining wall with a triangular pressure distribution will be considered.

110.3. Geometry and Material Properties

Figure 110.1: Cantilevered Retaining Wall (triangular pressure profile)

The wall is five feet tall, and the equivalent fluid pressure profile is defined as follows:
Table 110.1
Equivalent Fluid
Relative Distance
Pressure (psf)
0 (top of wall) 0

1 (bottom of wall) 125

349 rocscience.com
The results will be verified using a triangular distributed load. This is a good verification because the
distributed load is integrated and applied to the slice at the centroid. This is precisely what the Retaining
Wall (EFP) support type does as well.

Figure 110.2: Triangular distributed load used for verification

110.4. Results
The results using Spencer method are shown below. As expected, the results are identical:

Figure 110.3 – Results using Spencer’s method are matching as expected

As an additional verification, it should be noted that the last force in the support force diagram is 312.5, or
the area of the pressure profile (5*125/2).

350 rocscience.com
111. Slide Verification Problem #111
Helical anchor

111.1. Introduction
The Helical Anchor support type is used to model helical anchors. This verification problem will
demonstrate how the support capacity is calculated and used in Slide2 through a hand calculation.

111.2. Problem Description

A helical anchor in a model with a single pre-defined critical surface is considered. Considering only a
single surface will make the hand calculation feasible.

111.3. Geometry and Properties

Figure 111.1: Model with single surface and helical anchor

111.4. Hand Calculation

We will calculate by hand the force diagram of the capacity of the anchor by determining the capacities of
the three failure modes and their associated failure types.
1. Pullout
a. Shallow Failure
b. Cylindrical Shear

351 rocscience.com
 c. Individual Bearing
2. Stripping
a. Shallow Failure
b. Cylindrical Shear
c. Individual Bearing
3. Tensile
The location of the bottom plate is assumed to be at the end of the anchor. Subsequent plates are
generated and separated based on the number of helices and spacing. In this example, given that there
are 3 plates spaced apart 1m, the plates are located at (10.5, 7.5), (11.5, 7.5), and (12.5, 7.5,).

Soil Shear Strength

The shear strength τ developed by each increment of soil along the anchor is given by:

(111.1) 𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑠

where c is the cohesion of the soil, q’ is the effective normal stress, and 𝜙𝑠 is the friction angle of the soil.
The cohesion, normal stress, and angle of friction are assumed to be effective stress parameters. In this
example, the shear strength is constant along the anchor.

Failure Mode 1: Pullout

The three failure types considered for pullout (shallow failure, cylindrical shear, and individual bearing)
are also considered for stripping. We will go over them here.
Shallow failure occurs when the soil failure surface of the mobilized soil within the anchor extends to the
surface. In cylindrical shear, the mobilized soil between the plates forms a cylindrical volume of soil. In
individual bearing, all plates fail within an area of localized soil, independent of one another (Perko,
2009).
At any point along the support, the ultimate pullout capacity for shallow failure can be determined using
the following equation:

(111.2) 𝑃𝑢𝑠 = 𝜏(𝜋𝑑𝑎 ℎ + 𝜋𝑑𝑎 (𝑛 − 1)𝑠)

𝑃𝑢𝑠 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (ℎ + (𝑛 − 1)𝑠)

where h is the distance from the slip surface to the shallowest helix along the anchor, also known as
embedment depth, 𝑑𝑎 is average helix diameter, n is the total number of helices within the soil, and s is
the spacing between helices.
At any point along the support, the ultimate pullout capacity in cylindrical shear can be determined using
the following equation:

(111.3) 𝑃𝑢𝑐 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (𝑛 − 1)𝑠 + 𝐴𝑠ℎ (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 )

where 𝐴𝑠ℎ is the area of the shallowest helix from the slip surface. 𝑁𝑐 and 𝑁𝑞 are bearing capacity factors
and can be determined using the following equations (Perko, 2009):

(111.4) 𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 𝜙𝑠 /2)

(111.5) 𝑁𝑐 = (𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜙𝑠

352 rocscience.com
At any point along the support, the ultimate pullout capacity for individual bearing can be determined
using the following equations:

(111.6) 𝑃𝑢𝑏 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴𝑖 (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 )

where 𝐴𝑖 is the area of helix i (Perko, 2009).

Note that if the slip surface passes through the anchor such that no plate exists within the slope, no
capacity is developed in the anchor. This holds true for stripping as well, but with the slip surface passing
through the anchor such no plate exists within the moving soil mass.

Failure Mode 2: Stripping

The stripping capacity of the helical anchor utilizes the same equations for pullout with the addition of the
head assembly capacity H. Stripping is taken as an inverse pullout situation, in which the embedment
depth h is now from the slip surface to the shallowest plate within the moving soil mass. The equations for
shallow failure, cylindrical shear, and individual bearing, respectively are as follows:

(111.7) 𝑆𝑢𝑠 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (ℎ + (𝑛 − 1)𝑠) + 𝐻

(111.8) 𝑆𝑢𝑐 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (𝑛 − 1)𝑠 + 𝐴𝑠ℎ (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 ) + 𝐻

(111.9) 𝑆𝑢𝑏 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴𝑖 (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 ) + 𝐻

Failure Mode 3: Tensile

The tensile capacity is simply the input tensile capacity divided by the spacing:
(111.10) 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑇/𝑆

Overall Capacity and Force Diagram

The maximum force which can be mobilized by each failure mode, per unit width of slope, is given by the
following equations:

(111.11) 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑡: 𝐹1 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑃𝑢𝑠 , 𝑃𝑢𝑐 , 𝑃𝑢𝑏 ) /𝑆

(111.12) 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒: 𝐹2 = 𝑇/𝑆

(111.13) 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔: 𝐹3 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑆𝑢𝑠 , 𝑆𝑢𝑐 , 𝑆𝑢𝑏 ) /𝑆

At any point along the length of the tieback, the force which is applied to the slip surface by the tieback, is
given by the MINIMUM of these three forces.
(111.14) 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝐹1, 𝐹2, 𝐹3)

Hand Calculations
The maximum force which can be mobilized by each failure mode, per unit width of slope, is given by the
following equations:
Assume the point at which capacity is to be calculated is (11, 7.5). The failure capacity types are
calculated though the following method:
Shear strength:
Since surface and anchor are horizontal, the effective stress is the same at any point along the anchor.

353 rocscience.com
q’ = Unit weight x depth

q’ = 20𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 × (12 − 7.5)

q’ = 90𝑘𝑁/𝑚3

Soil shear strength can then be calculated as:

𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑠

𝜏 = 15 + (90)tan (35)

𝜏 = 78.0187𝑘𝑁/𝑚3

Equivalent Plate Area

𝜋
𝐸𝑃𝐴 = (𝑑 2 − 𝑑𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 2 )
4 𝑎
𝜋
𝐸𝑃𝐴 = (0.22 − 0.12 )
4
𝐸𝑃𝐴 = 0.02356𝑚2

Bearing Capacity Factors

𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + 𝜙𝑠 /2)

𝑁𝑞 = 𝑒 𝜋 tan(35) 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + (35)/2)

𝑁𝑞 = 33.2961

𝑁𝑐 = (𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜙𝑠

𝑁𝑐 = (33.2961 − 1)cot (35)

𝑁𝑐 = 46.1236

Pullout – Shallow Failure

𝑃𝑢𝑠 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (ℎ + (𝑛 − 1)𝑠)

𝑃𝑢𝑠 = (78.0187)𝜋(0.2)[(11.5 − 11) + (2 − 1)(1)]

𝑃𝑢𝑠 = 73.5309𝑘𝑁

Pullout – Cylindrical Shear Failure

𝑃𝑢𝑐 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (𝑛 − 1)𝑠 + 𝐴𝑠ℎ (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞)

𝑃𝑢𝑐 = (78.0187)𝜋(0.2)(2 − 1)(1) + (0.02356)[1.3(15)(46.1236) + 90(33.2961)]

𝑃𝑢𝑐 = 140.8117kN

354 rocscience.com
Pullout – Individual Bearing Failure
𝑛

𝑃𝑢𝑏 = ∑ 𝐴𝑖 (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 )

𝑖=1

𝑃𝑢𝑏 = (2)0.02356[1.3(15)(46.1236) + 90(33.2961)]

𝑃𝑢𝑏 = 183.5823𝑘𝑁

Stripping – Shallow Failure

𝑆𝑢𝑠 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (ℎ + (𝑛 − 1)𝑠) + 𝐻

𝑆𝑢𝑠 = (78.0187)𝜋(0.2)[(11 − 10.5) + (1 − 1)(1)] + 80

𝑆𝑢𝑠 = 104.5103

Stripping – Cylindrical Shear Failure

𝑆𝑢𝑐 = 𝜏𝜋𝑑𝑎 (𝑛 − 1)𝑠 + 𝐴𝑠ℎ (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞 ′ 𝑁𝑞) + 𝐻

𝑆𝑢𝑐 = (78.0187)𝜋(0.2)(1 − 1)(1) + (0.02356)[1.3(15)(46.1236) + 90(33.2961)] + 80

𝑆𝑢𝑐 = 171.7912kN

Stripping – Individual Bearing Failure

𝑛

𝑆𝑢𝑏 = ∑ 𝐴𝑖 (1.3𝑐𝑁𝑐 + 𝑞′𝑁𝑞 ) + 𝐻

𝑖=1

𝑆𝑢𝑏 = (1)0.02356[1.3(15)(46.1236) + 90(33.2961)] + 80

𝑆𝑢𝑏 = 171.7912kN

Minimum and Applied Force

F1 = min(𝑃𝑢𝑠 , 𝑃𝑢𝑐 , 𝑃𝑢𝑏 ) /𝑆

F1 = min(73.5309, 140.8117, 183.5823) /1

F1 = 73.5309kN/m

F2 = 85/1

F2 = 85kN/m

F3 = min (140.5103, 171.7912, 171.7912)/1

F3 = 140.5103kN/m

Applied Force = min (F1, F2, F3)

355 rocscience.com
 Applied Force = 73.5309kN/m

Calculations Table
Splitting the anchor into 10 equal increments, table 111.1 contains the results for each capacity along the
anchor:
Table 111.1: Capacity at 10 increments along the anchor
Segment (m)

Plate Location

Normal Stress (kPa)

(kN/m)
Soil Shear Strength

Tensile (kN/m)

Min Capacity (kN/m)

Failure Model
Pullout Stripping
(kN//m)
Shallow Failure

Bearing (kN/m)
Individual

Shear (kN/m)
Cylindrical

(kN/m)
Shallow Failure

Bearing (kN/m)
Individual

Shear (kN/m)
Cylindrical
0 - 90 78.0187 85 245.1029 275.3961 189.8399 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

0.5 - 90 78.0187 85 220.5926 275.3961 189.8399 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

1 - 90 78.0187 85 196.0823 275.3961 189.8399 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

1.5 - 90 78.0187 85 171.5720 275.3961 189.8399 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

2 - 90 78.0187 85 147.0617 275.3961 189.8399 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

2.5 - 90 78.0187 85 122.5515 275.3961 189.8399 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

3 1 90 78.0187 85 98.0412 183.5974 140.8193 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000 Stripping

3.5 - 90 78.0187 85 73.5309 183.5974 140.8193 104.5103 171.7987 171.7987 73.5309 Pullout

4 2 90 78.0187 85 49.0206 91.7987 91.7987 129.0206 171.7987 171.7987 49.0206 Pullout

4.5 - 90 78.0187 85 24.5103 91.7987 91.7987 153.5309 263.5974 220.8193 24.5103 Pullout

5 3 90 78.0187 85 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 178.0412 263.5974 220.8193 0.0000 Pullout

356 rocscience.com
111.5. Results
The model was created in Slide2. The applied force at the point of interest was 73.5309 kN as shown
below. This is in exact agreement with the segment at 3.5 m in the table.

Figure 111.2: Force applied by helical anchor.

The support force diagram looks as follows. The failure modes and values are in perfect agreement with
the hand calculations in Table 111.1.

357 rocscience.com
112. References
1. Arai, K., and Tagyo, K. (1985), “Determination of noncircular slip surface giving the minimum factor of
safety in slope stability analysis.” Soils and Foundations. Vol.25, No.1, pp.43-51.
2. Baker, R. (1980), “Determination of the critical slip surface in slope stability computations.”
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol.4, pp.333-359.
3. Borges, J.L. and Cardoso, A.S. (2002), “Overall stability of geosynthetic-reinforced embankments on
soft soils.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 20, pp. 395-421.
4. Cai, F., & Ugai, K. (2000). Numerical analysis of the stability of a slope reinforced with piles. Soils and
foundations, 40(1), 73-84.
5. Cao, L., Peaker, S., & Ahmad, S. (2016), "A case study of embankment retaining wall in Ontario"
GeoVancouver 2016.
6. Chen, Z. and Shao, C. (1988), “Evaluation of minimum factor of safety in slope stability analysis”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 25, pp.735-748.
7. Chowdhury, R.N. and Xu, D.W. (1995), “Geotechnical system reliability of slopes.” Reliability
Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 47, pp. 141-151.
8. Craig, R.F., (1997). Soil Mechanics, 6th Edition.
9. Duncan, M.J., (2000), “Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. April, pp. 307-316.
10. El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N.R. and Cruden, D.M. (2003), “Probabilistic stability analysis of a
tailings dyke on presheared clay-shale.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 192-208.
11. Fredlund, D.G. & Krahn, J. (1977), “Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal Vol. 14, No. 3, pp 429-439.
12. Giam, P.S.K. & I.B. Donald (1989), “Example problems for testing soil slope stability programs.” Civil
Engineering Research Report No. 8/1989, Monash University, ISBN 0867469218, ISSN 01556282.
13. Giam, P.S.K. (1989), “Improved methods and computational approaches to geotechnical stability
analysis.” Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Monash University.
14. Greco, V.R. (1996), “Efficient Monte Carlo technique for locating critical slip surface.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. Vol.122, No.7, July, pp. 517-525.
15. Grodecki, M. (2017), “Numerical modelling of gabion joints.” Technical Transactions 2/2017, 84-88.
16. Guo, S. & Griffiths, D. (2020), “Failure Mechanisms in Two-layer Undrained Slopes.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 10.1139/cgj-2019-0642.
17. Hassan, A.M. and Wolff, T.E. (1999), “Search algorithm for minimum reliability index of earth slopes.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 4, April, 1999, pp. 301-
308.
18. Ireland, H.O. (1954), “Stability analysis of the Congress Street open cut in Chicago.” Geotechnique.
Vol. 4, pp. 163-168.

358 rocscience.com
19. Kim, J., Salgado, R., Lee, J. (2002), “Stability analysis of complex soil slopes using limit analysis.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol.128, No.7, July, pp. 546-557.
20. Li, S.K. and Lumb, P. (1987), “Probabilistic design of slopes.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
24, No. 4, pp. 520-535.
21. Low, B. (1989), “Stability analysis of embankments on soft ground.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol.115, No.2, pp. 211-227.
22. Malkawi, A.I.H.,Hassan, W.F., and Sarma, S.K. (2001), “Global search method for locating general
slip surfaces using monte carlo techniques.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. Vol.127, No.8, August, pp. 688-698.
23. Ng, C.W.W. and Shi Q. (1998), “A numerical investigation of the stability of unsaturated soil slopes
subjected to transient seepage” Computers and Geotechnics, Vol.22, No.1, pp.1-28.
24. Perko, H. A. (2009). “Helical Piles: A Practical Guide to Installation.” Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
25. Pilot, G., Trak, B. and La Rochelle, P. (1982). “Effective stress analysis of the stability of
embankments on soft soils.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol.19, pp. 433-450.
26. Prandtl, L. (1921), “Uber die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Harte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit
von Schneiben (On the penetrating strength (hardness) of plastic construction materials and the
strength of curring edges).” Zeitschrift fur Agnewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, vol.1, pp.15-20.
27. Sharma, S. (1996), “XSTABL, an integrated slope stability analysis program for personal computers”,
Reference manual, version 5. Interactive Software Designs Inc., Moscow, ID.
28. Spencer, E. (1969), “A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-
slice forces.” Geotechnique, Vol.17, pp.11-26.
29. Tandjiria, V., Low, B.K., and Teh, C.I. (2002), “Effect of reinforcement force distribution on stability of
embankments.”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, No. 20, pp. 423-443.
30. Wolff, T.F. and Harr, M.E. (1987), “Slope design for earth dams.” In Reliability and Risk Analysis in
Civil Engineering 2, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Applications of Statistics
and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May, 1987, pp. 725-732.
31. XSTABL (1999), Reference Manual, Version 5.2, pp. 57-60.
32. Yamagami, T. and Ueta, Y. (1988), “Search noncircular slip surfaces by the Morgenstern-Price
method.” Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, pp. 1335-1340.
33. Perry, J. (1993), “A technique for defining non-linear shear strength envelopes, and their
incorporation in a slope stability method of analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology,
No.27, pp. 231-241.
34. Jiang, J-C., Baker, R., and Yamagami, T. (2003), “The effect of strength envelope nonlinearity on
slope stability computations.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, No.40, pp.308-325.
35. Baker, R., and Leshchinsky, D. (2001), “Spatial Distributions of Safety Factors.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, February 2001, pp. 135-144.

359 rocscience.com
36. Baker, R. (2003), “Inter-relations between experimental and computational aspects of slope stability
analysis.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, No.27, pp.
379-401.
37. Baker, R. (1993), “Slope stability analysis for undrained loading conditions.” International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 17, pp. 15-43.
38. Sheahan, T., and Ho, L. (2003), “Simplified trial wedge method for soil nailed wall analysis.” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, February 2003, pp. 117-124.
39. SNAILZ (1999), Reference Manual, Version 3.XX, pp. 1-43.
40. Zhu, D., Lee, C.F., and Jiang, H.D. (2003), “Generalised framework of limit equilibrium methods for
slope stability analysis.” Géotechnique, No. 4, pp. 377-395.
41. Zhu, D., and Lee, C. (2002), “Explicit limit equilibrium solution for slope stability.” International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, No. 26, pp. 1573-1590.
42. Priest, S. (1993), “Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering.” Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 219-
226.
43. Yamagami, T., Jiang, J.C., and Ueno, K. (2000), “A limit equilibrium stability analysis of slope with
stabilizing piles.” Slope Stability 2000, pp. 343-354.
44. Pockoski, M., and Duncan, J.M., “Comparison of Computer Programs for Analysis of Reinforced
Slopes.” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, December 2000.
45. Loukidis, D., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. (2003), “Stability of seismically loaded slopes using limit
analysis.” Géotechnique, No. 5, pp. 463-479.
46. US Army Corps of Engineers (2003), “Engineering and Design: Slope Stability.” Engineer
Manual 1110-2-1902.

360 rocscience.com
361 rocscience.com