Where are We Going

in the Analysis of
Landslides?
Dr. Delwyn G. Fredlund

Golder Associates Ltd

Saskatoon, SK. Canada
 Environmental Influences (Infiltration)
Often Affect the Stability of a Slope

Precipitation

Runoff

MODELING OF LANDSLIDES
1.) Hydrological modeling (including infiltration) is an
integral part of analyzing landslides
2.) Slope stability analyses are undergoing a slow
evolution that provides a superior assessment of stress
conditions
Deep-Seated Landslides, 3-Dimensional in Shape
Focus on “Trigger Mechanism” that Precipitates Movement

White Mud Landslide, Edmonton, Canada

 Ground Surface Protection
These slopes become green with time but the
surface hydraulic conductivity and water
storage capacity has been changed through
use of a concrete covering with holes
Introduction
‰ Limit Equilibrium methods of
slices have been used
extensively for analyzing
landslides
‰ There is a gradual change
emerging in the types of slope
stability analyses that can be
performed
‰ There are benefits associated
with improved slope stability
methodologies
 Why Change?
There are Limitations with Limit Equilibrium
Methods of Slices
The SHAPE & LOCATION
boundaries for a FREE BODY
DIAGRAM are not known
?

SHAPE and LOCATION of the critical slip

surface are the driving force for a paradigm shift
 What is the Best Procedure to Compute
the Normal Force at the Base of a Slice?
Limit Equilibrium Finite Element Based
Method of Analysis Method of Analysis

W
W
W
W
W
W
dl W dl
W
Sm = τa dl τa dl σ
nd
N l

Methods of Slices vary in the manner in

which the normal force is computed
 Summary of Limit Equilibrium
Methods and Assumptions
Method Equilibrium Assumptions
Satisfied
Ordinary Moment, to base E and X = 0
Bishop’s Vertical, Moment E is horizontal, X = 0
Simplified
Janbu’s Vertical, E is horizontal, X = 0,
Simplified Horizontal empirical correction
factor, f0 , accounts for
interslice shear forces
Janbu’s Vertical, E is located by an
Generalized Horizontal assumed line of thrust
Spencer Vertical, Resultant of E and X
Horizontal, are of constant slope
Moment
X = E λ f(x)
Wilson and Fredlund
(1983)

Used a finite element

stress analysis (with
gravity switched on) to
determine a shape for
the Interslice Force
Function
 2.25

2.20 Ff
Comparison
Simplified
2.15 of
2.10
Bishop Factors of
Factor of safety

Safety
Fm
2.05 Circular Slip
2.00 Janbu’s Surface
Generalized
1.95
Ordinary = 1.928
1.90
Spencer Fredlund and Krahn
1.85 Morgenstern-Price
f(x) = constant 1975
1.80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
λ Descriptor for the Inter-Slice Force Function
 Moment and Force
Limit Equilibrium
Factors of Safety
For a Circular type
slip surface
Factor of safety

Moment limit equilibrium analysis

Force limit equilibrium analysis

Fredlund and Krahn, 1975

Lambda, λ
 Force and Moment
Limit equilibrium
Factors of Safety
for a planar
toe slip surface
Factor of safety

Force limit equilibrium analysis

Moment limit equilibrium analysis

Lambda, λ
 Force and Moment
Limit equilibrium
Factors of Safety for
a composite slip surface

Moment limit equilibrium analysis

Factor of safety

Force limit equilibrium analysis

Lambda, λ
Fredlund and Krahn 1975
 Closer Simulation of Soil
Conditions in the Field
‰ Historically, there has been little
concern regarding the initial stress state
in the soil
‰ Little attention has been given to the
history of movements in the soil mass
‰ Effects of initial stress state and history
of movement are accounted for in the
selection of soil parameters
‰ There is now the possibility to better
simulate the onset of instability
conditions through use of stress and
seepage (infiltration) analysis
 Historical Resistance to Computing Stress
States Near Failure from Stress Analysis
b b
E = ∫ σx dy X = ∫ τ xy dy
a a
b width of sy b
slice,b txy

Elevation ( m )
Elevation (m)

sx

sx t xy

a a
Vertical
slice
Area = Interslice Area = Interslice
normal force (E) shear force (X)
Distance (m) Distance (m)
 First Change: Importing Stresses from a
Finite Element Analysis into a Limit
Equilibrium Analysis Framework
Finite Element
Finite Analysis
Element forStresses
Analysis for Stresses

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Mohr Circle
τm σn
τm

IMPORT:
σn Acting Normal Stress
Actuating Shear Stress
 Finite Element Slope Stability Methods

Direct methods
(finite element analysis only)
Enhanced Limit methods
(finite element analysis
with a limit equilibrium Load increase Strength decrease
analysis) to failure to failure
Definition of Factor of Safety

Strength Level Stress Level Strength & Stress Level

Kulhawy 1969 Rezendiz 1972 Adikari and Cummins 1985
Zienkiewicz et al 1975

F= ∑ [ΔL] F= ∑{(c′ + σ′ tanφ′) ΔL}

A
∑ (c′ + σ ′ tanφ′ )ΔL Z
⎧ ⎛⎜⎜σ′ - σ′ ⎞⎟⎟ ⎫⎪ ⎧⎪⎛⎜⎜σ′ - σ′ ⎞⎟⎟ ⎫⎪
⎪⎝ 1 3⎠ ⎪ ⎝ 1 3 ⎠
∑ ⎪⎪⎨ ∑⎪⎪⎨ ⎛⎜c′ + σ′ tanφ′⎞⎟ ΔL⎪⎪⎬
F = ΔL⎪⎬
K ∑ τ ΔL ⎪⎪⎛⎜σ′ - σ′ ⎞⎟ ⎪⎪ ⎞ ⎝* ⎠ ⎪
⎪⎛ ′
⎪⎩⎜⎝ 1 3 ⎟⎠f ⎪⎭ ⎪⎪⎜σ - σ′ ⎟ ⎪
⎩⎝ 1 3 ⎠f ⎭⎪
 Limit equilibrium
and finite element
normal stresses for
a toe slip surface

From finite element analysis

From limit equilibrium analysis

Differences and Similarities Between the
Enhanced Slope Stability and
Conventional Limit Equilibrium

‰ Differences
z Solution is determinate
z Factor of safety equation is linear
‰ Similarities
z Still necessary to assume the shape
of the slip surface and search by trial
and error to locate the critical slip
surface
Shear Strength and Shear Force for a 2:1
Slope Calculated Using the Finite Element
Slope Stability Method
300
Shear Strength
Acting and restricting

Crest
250
shear stress (kPa)

200
150
100 Shear Force
50 Toe
Poisson Ratio , μ = 0.33
0
20 30 40 50 60 70
x-Coordinate (m)
 Local and Global Factors of Safety for
a 2:1 Slope
Fs = 2.339
7
Global Factors of Safety Local Fs(μ = 0.48) Local F
6 Crest Bishop 2.360 s(μ= 0.33)
Janbu 2.173
GLE (FE function)2.356 Fs = 2.342
5
Factor of Safety

Fs(m= 0.33) 2.342

Fs(m= 0.48) 2.339
4 Ordinary 2.226

3
Bishop Method, Fs= 2.360
2
Janbu Method, Fs= 2.173 Toe
1

0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
x-Coordinate
Factors of Safety Versus Stability Number
for a 2:1 Slope as a Function of c'
2.5
c = 40kPa

2.0 c = 20kPa
Factor of Safety

c = 10kPa

1.5

1.0

Fs(GLE)
0.5
Fs( μ = 0.33)
Fs( μ = 0.48)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Stability Number, [ γ H tan φ /c ]
 Next Question to Address

‰ Is it possible for the analysis to

determine the Shape of the critical slip
surface?
‰ Is it possible for the analysis to
determine the Location of the Critical
Slip Surface?
‰ Optimization Techniques (i.e., Dynamic
Programming) can be used to find the
pathway which minimizes a function of
the shear strength available to the
actuating shear stress within a soil
mass
 Slope Stability Analysis Using Dynamic
Programming Combined with a Finite
Element Stress Analysis
‰ Baker (1980) Dynamic Programming (DP)
optimization techniques for slope stability
analysis using Spencer‘s method
‰ Yamagami & Ueta (1988) and Zou et al.
(1995) improved on the Baker (1980)
solution by coupling Dynamic Programming
with a Finite Element stress analysis
‰ Pham, H.T.V. (2002) Slope Stability Analysis
Using Dynamic Programming Method
Combined With a Finite Element Stress
Analysis
 Definition of Factor of Safety
Fs = Σ ( Shear Strength) / Σ (Actuating Shear Stress)
Y Smooth curve
B
"Stage" j ∫ τ f dL
Si
(1)
Ri
k
Fs = A
A B
i i+1
∫ τ dL
A
Discrete form
j "State point" n
B
k ∑ τ fi Δ Li
i =1
Fs = n
(2)
∑ τ i Δ Li
i =1

"1" ...i i+1... "i" "n+1"

Example of a Homogeneous Slope
Bishop; M-P = 1.17

Enhanced = 1.13

μ = 0.33
DYNPROG = 1.02
Example of a Homogeneous Slope
Factor of Safety

μ = 0.48

Stability Coefficient, c /(γ H)

The Re-Analysis of the Lodalen Slide
Elevation, m Actual

Bishop = 1.00
Enhanced = 1.02

Actual

DYNPROG = 0.997 μ = 0.38

Distance, m
 Solution of the Concave Slip Surface Problem
Using Morgenstern-Price method of slices once
the Critical Slip Surface has been defined using 1.196

the Dynamic Programming method

30

M-P = 1.196
25
(m ) m

DYNPROG = 1.18
Elevation,

20
Elevation

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (m)
Distance, m
Comparison of Methodologies
Mesh Seepage Analysis

Linear-Elastic Elasto-Plastic

Dynamic
Programming
Search

Compare shape, location, and factor of safety

of critical slip surfaces
Homogeneous Dry Slope: FS~1.3
Local Factor of Safety Distributions

Linear Elastic

Elasto-Plastic
Homogeneous Dry Slope: FS ~ 1.0
Local Factor of Safety Distributions

Linear Elastic

Elasto-Plastic
Homogeneous Dry Slope: FS < 1.0

Elastic
Elastic

Elastic

Elasto-Plastic
Deformed Shape: FS~1.0

Elastic
Benefits from Dynamic Programming
– The SHAPE of the slip surface can be
made part of the solution
– The critical slip surface can be irregular in
shape but must be kinematically
admissible.
– No assumption is required regarding the
LOCATION of the critical slip surface
which is defined as an assemblage of
linear segments
– Force and moment equilibrium equations
are satisfied through the stress analysis.
– Linear factor of safety equation
Is a Need for Closer Simulation of Pore-
Water Pressures (Positive & Negative)
Associated with Field Conditions

‰ Actual pore-water pressures and

pore-water pressure changes are
seldom known for the moment of
failure
‰ Coupled modeling of soil behavior
(stress-deformation) and changes in
pore-water pressure can provide a
better understanding of the failure
mechanism
‰ The climate gives rise to a moisture
flux boundary condition
 3-Dimensional Dynamic
Programming Analysis
FS = ∫ τ f dA τ dA
ml 2 ml 2 ml ml
FS = ∑ τ fijk Aijk ∑τ ijk Aijk = ∑ Rij ∑S ij
ijk =1 ijk =1 ij =1 ij =1
A1,1,1 z
A1,1, 2
A1, j ,1 x y
A1, j , 2 Ai ,1,1
A1,m,1
A1, m , 2 Ai ,1, 2

An ,1,1
An ,1, 2

“1”
“i” “1”
“ j”
“i+1” “j+1”

“m+1”
“l+1”
 1.196

30

25
Elevation (m )

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (m)

Delwyn G. Fredlund