A general limit equilibrium model for three-dimensional slope stability analysis

L. LAM
Cliftorz Associates Ltd., Calgary, AB T2P 3K7, Canada
AND

D.G.FREDLUND
Departmerzt of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchervan, Saskaroorz, SK S7N OWO, Canada Received August 3 1, 1992 Accepted July 21, 1993

A generalized model for three-dimensional analysis, using the method of columns, is presented. The model is an extension of the two-dimensional general limit equilibrium formulation. Intercolumn force functions of arbitrary shape can be specified to simulate various directions for the intercolumn resultant forces. A unique feature of the model involves the use of a geostatistical procedure (i.e., the Kriging technique) in modelling the geometry of the slope, the stratigraphy, the potential slip surface, and the pore-water pressure conditions. The technique simplifies the data-input procedure and expedites the column discretization and the factor of safety computations. The shape of the intercolumn force functions was investigated for several slope geometries using a three-dimensional finite element stress analysis. The significance of the intercolumn force functions in three-dimensional stability analyses was also studied. The model was utilized to study a case history involving an open-pit mining failure. The results indicate that the model is able to provide a more realistic simulation of the case history than was possible using a conventional two-dimensional model. Key words: stability analysis, general limit equilibrium, three-dimensional, method of columns, factor of safety. Un modble gCnCralisC pour l'analyse tridimensionnelle utilisant la mCthode des colonnes est prCsentCe. Le modkle est une extension de la formulation bidimensionnelle de 1'Cquilibre limite gCnCrale. Des fonctions de forces entre les colonnes de forme arbitraire peuvent &re spCcifiCes pour simuler diverses directions des forces resultantes entre les colonnes. Une particularit6 unique de ce modkle implique l'utilisation d'une procCdure gCostatique (i.e., la technique de Kriging) pour modCliser la gComCtrie de la pente, la stratigraphic, la surface potentielie de glissement, et les conditions de pression interstitielle. La technique simplifie la procCdure d'entrCe des donnCes et accClkre la discrCtisation des colonnes et les calculs du coefficient de sCcuritC. La forme des fonctions de forces entre les colonnes a CtC CtudiCe pour plusieurs gComCtries de talus au moyen d'une analyse tridimensionnelle des contraintes par ClCments finis. La signification des fonctions de forces entre les colonnes dans les analyses de stabilitC tridimentionnelles a aussi CtC CtudiCe. Le modkle a CtC utilisC pour Ctudier l'histoire d'un cas impliquant la rupture d'une carrikre de mine i ciel ouvert. Les rCsultats indiquent que le modkle peut fournir une simulation plus rCaliste de I'histoire du i cas qu'il Ctait possible de le faire en utilisant un modkle conventionnel bidimensionnel. Mots cle's : analyse de stabilitb, Cquilibre limite gCnCral, tridimensionnel, mCthode de colonnes, coefficient de sCcuritC. [Traduit par la rCdaction]
Can. Geotech. J. 30, 905-919 (1993)

Introduction and literature review

All slope failures have a three-dimensional geometry. However, slope stability analyses have usually been performed using two-dimensional simulations. Since the mid 1970s, increasing attention has been directed toward the development and application of three-dimensional stability models. Several three-dimensional methods of analysis have been proposed in the literature. The limit equilibrium methods of columns are most popular and are considered most feasible for practical engineering applications. Hovland (1977) appears to have been the first to analyze a three-dimensional slope using the methods of columns. Hovland's method is an extension of the assumptions associated with the two-dimensional ordinary method. In other words, all intercolumn forces acting on the sides of the columns are ignored. The normal and shear forces acting on the base of each column are derived as components of the weight of the column. Hovland (1977) determined the threedimensional factor of safety for several example problems. The solutions indicated that the three-dimensional analysis of a slope gave a factor of safety that was smaller than the
Prinlcd in Canada I Imprimd au Canndn

two-dimensional f a c t o r of safety f o r s o m e situations. Cavounidis (1987) showed that the three-dimensional factor of safety of a slope should always be greater than the twodimensional factor of safety of the same slope provided the central portion of the sliding mass is the same for the twoand three-dimensional analyses. The three-dimensional method proposed by Chen and Chameau (1982) can be considered partly as an extension of the assumptions associated with the ordinary method, and partly as an extension of the assumptions associated with Spencer's (1967) method. In the formulation of Chen and Chameau (1982), the intercolumn shear forces in the plane of movement were assumed to be parallel to the base of the column, and the intercolumn forces perpendicular to the plane of movement were assumed to have the same inclination throughout the entire sliding mass. Chen and Chameau's (1982) assumptions and results were discussed by Hutchinson and Sarma (1985), Cavounidis (1987), and Hungr (1987). Concern was expressed regarding Chen and Chameau's finding that the ratio F3/F2 (where F3 is the factor of safety from a three-dimensional analysis,

906

CAN.

GEOTECH. J.

VOL. 30, 1993

AXIS OF ROTATION

d,, moment arm for the weight of a column; d,,,verticai distance from the axis of rotation to the center of the base of a column, rl,, moment
arm for shear resistance on the circular portlon of the slip surface; EL, intercolumn normal force on the left, front plane of a column; H,, horizontal intercolumn shear force on the left, front plane of a column; X,, intercolumn shear force on the left, side plane of a column; W, weight of a column; X,, intercolumn shear force on the right, side plane of a column; HR, horizontal intercolumn shear force on the right, front plane of a column; E,, intercolumn normal force on the right, front plane of a column; T, horizontal shear force at the base of a column in a plane perpendicular to movement; a,, angle between the horizontal and the shear force at the base of a slice in the direction of movement; O,, angle between the horizontal and the normal force at the base of a column in the plane of movement; S,, shear force mobilized at the base of the column in the plane of movement; and O,, angle between the vertical and the normal force at the base of a column in the plane of movement. and F2 is the factor of safety from a two-dimensional analysis) may be less than 1.0 in certain circumstances. Hutchinson and S a r m a (1985) pointed out that the ratio F 3 / F 2 can approach 1.0, but should not fall below 1.0. It was suggested that Chen and Chameau's (1982) findings were erroneous (Hutchinson and Sarma 1985; Cavounidis 1987). Hungr (1987) proposed a method that was an extension of the assumptions associated with Bishop's (1954) simplified method. The vertical intercolumn shear forces acting on both the longitudinal and the lateral faces of each column were neglected. The example problem used by Chen and Chameau (1982) was solved by Hungr (1987) as a comparison between the two methods. Hungr's results indicated that, for all cases, the ratio F3/F, was greater than 1.0. Hungr (1987) suggested that Bishop's (1954) simplified method will produce similar results to more rigorous techniques when using two-dimensional analyses. Therefore, a direct extension of the methods to three dimensions should be intuitively expected to exhibit as good a performance as observed with two-dimensional methods. Cavounidis (1988), however, suggested that a comparison between the simplified and the rigorous methods in three dimensions should be made to prove that the simplifications were justifiable and the results acceptable. Hungr et al. (1989) used a three-dimensional method that was an extension of the assumptions in Bishop's (1954) simplified and Janbu's simplified two-dimensional models and they showed comparisons for a number of solutions. Favourable comparisons of a wedge solution, closed-form algorithms, and an actual sliding mass (i.e., the Lodalen cutting) were shown. All methods of columns proposed in the literature for three-dimensional slope stability analysis can be considered as simplified methods. These methods either neglect the intercolumn forces or make assumptions that have not been fully verified. The applicability of these simplified methods has been based on the experience gained using twod i m e n s i o n a l a n a l y s e s , a n d t h e accuracy of t h e threedimensional methods has not been independently studied. This paper presents the theory and implementation of a more generalized three-dimensional, slope stability model. The formulation of the proposed method is "general" from a limit equilibrium standpoint (Fredlund et al. 1981), but i t should be noted that it is "not general" from a kinematic standpoint. For example, nothing is stated in the method regarding the direction of movement or the possibility of a change in direction within the sliding mass. The shape of the intercolumn force functions and their significance to

FIG.1. Cross-section through a failed mass in the x direction, showing the common axis of rotation and the forces on the column.

L A M A N D FREDLUND

AXIS OF ROTATION

FIG. 2. Cross-section through a failed mass in the z direction showing a common axis of rotation and the forces acting on a column. R, distance from the axis of rotation to the slip surface; R,,,, maximum distance from the axis of rotation to the slip surface; P,, intercolumn normal force on the left, side plane of a column; Q,, horizontal intercolumn shear force on the left side plane of a column; V,, vertical intercolumn shear force on the left, side plane of a column; Q,, horizontal intercolumn shear force on the right, side plane of a column; P,, intercolumn normal force on the right side plane of a column; a;,angle between the horizontal and the shear force, T at the base of a column; and O:, angle between the horizontal and the normal force at the base of a column. the three-dimensional factor of safety for two example problems are also presented. The application of the proposed model was also demonstrated using a slope instability case history.
I

Problem indeterminacy and assumptions

The proposed generalized three-dimensional slope stability model using the method of columns is an extension of the two-dimensional general limit equilibrium (GLE) formulation (Fredlund and Krahn 1977). This formulation assumes a slip mechanism where the direction of movement is in one plane. The factor of safety is defined as that factor by which the shear strength components must be reduced to bring the soil mass into a state of limiting equilibrium along a selected slip surface. Furthermore, it is assumed that the factor of safety of the cohesive component of shear strength and the frictional component of shear strength are equal. T h e earth mass above the slip surface is divided into columns and the forces acting on the various faces of each column must be computed or assumed. Figures 1 and 2 present the cross sections through a failed mass in the x-y and the z-y planes, respectively. A free-body diagram showing the various forces acting on a single column is presented in Fig. 3. The method of columns is indeterminate in that the number exceeds the number as in Table 1. If there are iz number of columns in the x direction and m number of columns in the z direction. the number of unknowns is 12nin + 2, and the-number of equations is 4nm + 2. The indeterminacy associated with a limit equilibrium slope stability analysis can be viewed as arising

FIG.3. Free body diagram of a column before using simplifying assumptions, from a lack of knowledge regarding the stresses within the soil mass. To reduce the degree of indeterminacy, the following assumptions can be made.

908

CAN.

GEOTECH. J.

VOL. 30, 1993

TABLE Summary of knowns and unknowns in solving for three-dimensional 1. factor of safety Description Knowns nm

2 F, C F, C F,

in z direction for each column in x direction for each column = 0 in y direction for each column Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for each column C M = 0 about the axis of rotation for the whole sliding mass C F, = 0 in x direction for the whole sliding mass
=0 =0

Unknowns i zm rzin 3nm nrn 11ln nm

V2M

N: normal force at base of each column S,: shear force mobilized at base of each column a,, a ,, a;: point of application of N T: shear force in z direction at base of each column E: intercolumn normal shear force on yz plane X: intercolumn vertical shear force on yz plane

nrn nn? nrn 1 1

H: intercolumn horizontal shear force on yz plane P: intercolumn normal shear force on xy plane V: intercolumn vertical shear force on xy plane Q: intercolumn horizontal shear force on xy plane F,,,: factor of safety by moment equilibrium F,: factor of safety by force equilibrium

8 " Q
-t

column force functions describe the variation of the direction of the resultants of the normal and intercolumn shear forces. Mathematically, these intercolumn force functions can be represented as follows:

111 [21 131 [41 [51

%
Q

-E= A , f ( l ) H 2=h2f(2)
- = A3 f (3)

v
P

1, f (4) P T --=A, f (5) N

-=

FIG.4. Generated slip surface for a uniform slope.

( 1 ) Assume that the point of application of the normal force N at the base of a column acts through the centre of the base area. Therefore, the distances from the normal force to the four bottom corners of the column are defined. As a result, the number of unknowns is reduced to 9nm + 2. ( 2 ) Assume that all the intercolumn shear forces acting on the various faces of the column can be related to their respective normal forces by intercolumn force functions. The inter-

where f ( 1 ) is a function that describes the manner in which the EIX force ratio varies in the x direction; f ( 2 ) is a function that describes the manner in which the HIE force ratio varies in the x direction; f ( 3 ) is a function that describes the manner in which the VlQ force ratio varies in the z direction; ,f(4) is a function that describes the manner in which the PlQ force ratio varies in the z direction; f ( 5 ) is a function that describes the manner in which the TIN force ratio varies in the z direction; and A,, A?, h3, A3. and A, are the percentages of the intercolumn force functions used when solving for the factor of safety. This approach to computing the intercolumn shear forces is similar to the approach proposed by Morgenstern and Price (1965) for two-dimensional analyses. With the above assumptions, the intercolumn shear forces X, H, V , Q , and T can be calculated once the normal forces (i.e., E, P, and N )

LAM AND FREDLUND

909

FIG.5. Generated slip surface for a nonuniform slope.

are defined. The number of unknowns is therefore reduced by 5nnz. The five intercolumn force functions also result in five more unknowns, namely X,, A,, X,, X,, and X,. As a result, the number of unknowns is now 4nin + 7. To obtain a solution to the problem, the value of the five h constants must be defined. In other words, a certain combination of the five X constants will give a solution to the analysis, and only the correct combination of the X constants will give the solution to the analysis. However, n o procedure is presently available to determine the proper combination of the X constants. It is suggested that a three-dimensional stress analysis can be used to obtain an indication of the shape of the intercolumn force functions. It may then be possible to assume a relationship between five X constants. As more information becomes available concerning the X constants, a method of solution may become available.

FIG. 6. A comparison of the five intercolumn force functions for a uniform slope at z = 100.

Intercolumn force functions To render the problem determinate, more information regarding the nature of the intercolumn force functions must be known. Fan et al. (1986) investigated the nature of the interslice force function for two-dimensional cases by using a finite element stress analysis. Homogeneous slopes of different inclinations angles were analyzed to determine the stress distribution within the earth mass. The internal stresses were then integrated to determine the interslice force function. A similar approach was used in this study to evaluate the three-dimensional intercolumn force functions. The finite element program called ANSYS was used to define the stress state of two example slopes subjected to gravitational forces. Example 1 is a simple or uniform slope (i.e., no spatial variation in the z direction) representing a failed mass through the central portion of an embankment (Fig. 4). Example 2 is a nonuniform slope representing a

failed mass through the corner of an embankment (Fig. 5). Both s l o p e s a r e a s s u m e d to b e homogeneous, and t h e stress-strain behaviour of the soil is assumed to be linear. Young's modulus of elasticity E and Poisson's ratio IJ, of the soil are taken to be 100 000 kPa and 0.4, respectively. All five intercolumn force functions XIE, VIP, HIE, QlP, and TIN are determined by integrating the appropriate stress over the areas of the sides of a column. Figure 6 illustrates the five intercolumn force functions through the centre section of the failed mass for example 1. The XIE function of the sliding mass f o r example 1 i s presented a s a threedimensional surface in Fig. 7. Figure 8 illustrates the five intercolumn force functions through the centre section of the failed mass for example 2. The XIE function and the VIP function of the sliding mass for example 2 are presented in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The intercolumn force functions have the same form as observed for comparative two-dimensional cases (Fan et al. 1986). The functions are bell-shaped, with the maximum magnitude located approximately at the centre of the slope. As the radius of the slip surface changes (i.e., the slip surface changes) in the z directions, the shape of the functions also change. The intercolumn force functions can be represented by a three-dimensional surface over the entire slip surface. Based on the results of the intercolumn force functions for the above two example slopes, the following conclusions can be made. (1) For simple or uniform geometries, only the function of XIE has values of significant magnitude. All the other functions are zero (Fig. 6). In other words, A,, h2, X3, A,, and A, can be assumed to be zero.

910

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 30, 1993

FIG.7. A three-dimensional surface of the intercolumn force function XIE for a uniform slope.

FIG.9. A three-dimensional surface of the intercolumn force function XIE for a nonuniform slope.

FIG. 10. A three-dimensional surface of the intercolumn force function VIP for a nonuniform slope. EIX and VIP functions rather than all five functions in a three-dimensional analysis. T h e r e f o r e , the number of 4. When compared with the unknowns is reduced to 4nm number of available equations, there are two more unknowns, X , and X3, that need to be solved by other means. Although there is no present direct solution for X I and X3, the two unknowns can be solved using an iterative procedure while assuming that (i) the factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium F,, must be equal to the factor of safety with respect to force equilibrium Ff when total equilibrium is satisfied, and (ii) the most critical factor of safety of the sliding mass must be the lowest possible factor of safety if all other conditions of the slope remain unchanged. In other words, the correct combination of X I and X, should not only give the total equilibrium factor of safety for

FIG.8. A comparison of the five intercolumn force functions for a nonuniform slope at z = 100.

(2) For the nonuniform geometries studied, only the functions of XIE and VIP have values of significant magnitude. All other functions have magnitudes that are relatively small (Fig. 8). In other words, X2, X4, and X5 can be assumed to be zero. The above findings are important in the formulation of a generalized three-dimensional stability analysis model. The findings suggest that it is reasonable to consider only the

LAM AND FREDLUND

PlEZOMRRlC SURFACE

SOlL SURFACE 1

SOlL SURFACE 2

FIG. 11. Free body diagram of a column after using simplifying assumptions for movement in the x direction. the sliding mass but also the lowest factor of safety. Therefore, the number of unknowns is reduced to 4nnz 2, which is the same as the number of equations. The problem is now determinate, and the factor of safety can be calculated. The free body diagram of a column, after applying the above assumptions, is presented in Fig. 11.

SOlL SURFACE 2

Normal force N and factor of safety equations By summing forces on each column in the y direction, the normal force N acting perpendicular to the base of a column can be expressed as

FIG. 12. Modelling a three-dimensional slope using surfaces. c' is the effective cohesion of the soil, +' is the effective angle of internal friction, A is the area of the base of the column, and U is the pore-water force acting on the base of the column. The normal force N is a function of the factor of safety F. The factor of safety is equal to F,, when solving for the factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium and F, when solving for the factor of safety with respect to force equilibrium. The factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium, F,, can be derived by summing the moment of all the forces over the entire failed mass about an axis of rotation. Similarly, the factor of safety with respect to force equilibrium, F , can be derived by summing forces in the x direction over the entire failed mass. The moment and force factors of safety, F,, and F,, can be derived using statical equilibrium

where

W is the weight of a column of soil, X, is the intercolumn shear force on the left, front plane of a column, XR is the intercolumn shear force on the right, front plane of a column, V , is the intercolumn shear force on the left, side plane of a column, V , is the intercolumn shear force on the right, side plane of a column, and a, is the angle between the horizontal and the shear force at the base of a slice, in the direction of movement.

[71

F, =
C(AC'+

tan+'-~tan+')(cosa.d, + ~ i n a , d , ~ )

C ( N C O S O , ~+, N c o s 0 , d ,

+ Wd,)

where d, is the x moment arm with respect to the axis of moments, d, is the y moment arm with respect to the axis of

912
7.

CAN. GEOTECI4. J VOL 30, 1993

GRID W N KNOWN X, Z COORDINATES

FIG. 13. Column discretization of a three-dimensional slope using the Kriging technique.

FIG. 15. Validation example problem 1 : purely cohesive material with a circular slip surface (from Hungr et al. 1989). c, cohesion; 6 , friction angle; R, moment arm of the resisting force, y, unit weight of soil. of safety (eq. [6]). An iterative, back-substitution procedure is used to solve for the three-dimensional factor of safety. The sum of the intercolumn normal forces, E, drops out of [7] and [S], since it must be equal to zero. Since the horizontal shear force Q on the sides of the column is assumed to be zero, it follows that each row of columns must also be in longitudinal equilibrium. Therefore, the normal forces on the end columns, E, and En, must also be zero. This boundary condition must be satisfied in the solution of [7] and [S]. There is a smooth transition between the formulations of the proposed three-dimensional method of columns and the generalized two-dimensional method of slices. When a problem approaches the two-dimensional plane strain condition, the angle a, approaches zero, the angle e,, approaches a,, the equation for in, becomes the same as for the two. dimensional case, and a is the angle between the horizontal and the base of a column in a perpendicular to the , plane of movement. The term VL - V in the equation for the normal force becomes zero, since there is no spatial variation in the z direction under plane strain conditions. As a result, the equation for the normal force is reduced to be the same

FIG. 14. A fully defined column using the Kriging technique. moments, 0, is the angle between the horizontal and the normal force at the base of a column, in the plane movement, and 0, is the angle between the vertical and the normal force at the base of a column in the plane of movement.

Both factor of safety equations, F, and F,, are nonlinear because the normal force N is also a function of the factor

LAM AND FREDLUND

Number of Columns
FIG. 16. A comparison of the three-dimensional factors of safety between various models as a function of number of columns for validation example problem 1.

form as that for the two-dimensional case. Furthermore, , since cos 8 is identical to sin a,, the factor of safety equations are the same as those for the two-dimensional case. After computing the factor of safety, it is possible to check and ensure that the location of the line of thrust is acceptable, that there are no negative normal thrust forces, and that the vertical sides of the column can develop sufficient shearing resistance (Morgenstern and Price 1965).

Geometric modelling by Kriging Traditionally, the geometry of a slope has been modelled through the input of a series of cross sections and the use of linear interpolation to define the slope between the cross sections. A unique feature of the present model involves the use of a geostatistical procedure (i.e., the Kriging technique) for the geometric modelling of the slope. Kriging is a geostatistical estimation procedure that predicts the value of a parameter at any location based on ( i ) a knowledge of the structure of the variability as represented by a set of known data points, and (ii) the minimization of the estimation variance over the entire region for which the prediction is made. Using this technique, weighting coefficients are computed for each of the known data points used in the interpolation. These coefficients are subsequently used to compute the magnitude of the parameter under consideration at any other position (McClarty et al. 1991). Using the Kriging technique, random points in space can be used to generate a surface containing a series of designated points. Since a three-dimensional sliding mass consists of the ground surface, the peizometric surface, the soil interfaces, and the sliding surface, it is more effective to model a slope with surfaces rather than cross sections. The Kriging technique can be used to generate all the necessary surfaces. The generated surfaces are then superimposed to form a complete description of the geometry (Fig. 12).

A distinct advantage of using the Kriging technique in the modelling of a slope is its efficiency in the discretization of the slope into columns. In the discretization process, a rectangular grid of known x and z coordinates can be superimposed over the entire sliding mass (Fig. 13). The elevations of all the surfaces (i.e., y coordinates) can be calculated on the same grid. The elevations of the ground surface at specified x and z coordinates of the grid define the top four corners of a column. The elevations of the slip surface at the same x and z coordinates define the bottom four corners of a column. Similarly, the elevations of the piezometric surface and all the soil surfaces at the same x and z coordinates define the positions of the piezometric surface and the soil surfaces within a column. As a result, the geometric characteristic of each column within the sliding mass is fully defined as shown in Fig. 14. These coordinates greatly expedite and simplify the computation process for the factor of safety. It is possible to input data points along one cross section and then request that this information be extended in a lateral direction. T h e result is a simple geometry, threedimensional slope. Horizontal planes can also be placed through a single designated point. A sloping surface requires a minim~lmof three designated points. More complex geometries, such as a curved, three-dimensional sliding surface, may require 10-30 designated points. The number of points required to designate a particular surface depends upon its complexity.

Implementation and evaluation of the model The proposed theory has been implemented into a computer The model has been tested to ensure model called 3~-SLOPE. that the method is properly implemented and the various features of the model are functioning properly. Two of the evaluation example problems are presented in this paper.

914

CAN.

GEOTECH. J. VOL. 30,

1993

TABLE A comparison of factors of safety for validation example problem 1 using various 2. model li Model Closed-form solution CLARA ~01uti0n 3~-SLOPE solution (1200 columns) 3~-SLOPE solution (540 columns) Three-dimensional factor of safety
% difference

------

ci=29 kN/m2 #'= 200 H.12.2m = 26.5O

-Z

CASE I . CIRCULAR SLIDE SURFACE

CASE 2. NON - CIRCULAR PIEZOMETRICX---( c 1 = o , + ' = WEAK LAYER LINE

-

FIG. 17. Geometry and soil properties for validation example problem 2 (from Fredlund and Krahn 1977). H is the height of slope; B is the 26.5" that can be removed from the figure since it corresponds to a 2: 1 slope. Example problem 1 is a homogeneous, purely cohesive slope with a circular slip surface. A closed-form solution to this problem, using the ordinary method, has been proposed by Baligh and Azzouz (1975) and Gens et al. (1988). For the problem with a spherical slip surface and the material properties as illustrated in Fig. 15, the three-dimensional factor of safety was calculated to be 1.402 using the closedform solution. The factor of safety was computed to be 1.422 using the CLARA model (Hungr et al. 1989). The same problem has been solved using the developed 3~-SLOPE model. The computed three-dimensional factor of safety ranged from 1.386 to 1.472 depending on the number of columns used in discretizing the slope (Fig. 16). The results indicate that the change in the factor of safety is quite pronounced when the number of columns is less than about 400. However, the change is relatively small when the number of columns is more than about 500. The factor of safety is equal to 1.402 when the slope is discretized to about 540 columns. At about 1000 columns, the computed factor of safety is 1.386. It would seem that the more columns used to discretize the slope, the more accurate is the computed factor of safety. No partial columns are taken into account and as a result there is some oscillation in the factor of safety versus the number of columns being used in the calculations. It is not known why the 3D-SLOPE factor of safety is slightly lower (i.e., approximately 1%) than the closed-form solution when a large number of columns is used. Table 2 presents a comparison of the three-dimensional factor of safety of example 1 for various interslice force function conditions. The limit equilibrium method of columns computer model provides an approximate solution to the closed-form solution. However, the computed results from the 3~-SLOPE program compares well with the closed-form solution of 1.402. Example problem 2 is a homogeneous slope with a composite slip surface. The example problem was originally used by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) in a two-dimensional slope analysis study. Since then, the example problem has become a benchmark problem used by several researchers in an attempt to verify their models in both two- and threedimensional cases. The two-dimensional geometry of the example problem is presented in Fig. 17. Two cases of the example problem was analyzed. Case 1 is where there is no water table, and case 2 has an assumed water table. Three-dimensional analyses of the problem were conducted by Xing (1988). Since the third dimension of the problem is also considered in a three-dimensional analysis, the problem was solved as a function of the volume of the sliding mass. Using Xing's three-dimensional model, the factor of safety was computed to be 1.553 for the case without water table and a volume of sliding soil of 13 032 m3. For the case with the water table and a sliding mass volume of 16 290 m3, the factor of safety was computed to be 1.441. These problems were also analyzed by Hungr et al. (1989) using the CLARA model. For the case without the water table and a sliding mass volume of 13 0 0 0 m3, the threedimensional factor of safety was computed to be 1.62. For the case with the water table and a sliding mass volume of

LAM A N D FREDLUND

TABLE A comparison of factors of safety for validation example problem 2 between 3. models Case 1: without water table Method Ordinary Bishop's simplified Janbu's simplified GLE Xing" 1.553
-

3 ~ - S L O P Eand

other

Case 2: with water table

CLARA~
-

Average difference
%

CLARA"

3~-SLOPEXingn 1.534 1.607 1.558 1.603 1.441

-

3~-SLOPE 1.447 1.5 11 1.48 1 1.508

1.62
-

1.54
-

0.8 1.4
-

"Computed using Xing's (1988) three-dimensional model. 'CLARA is a proprietary product of 0. Hungr Geotechnical Research Inc., West Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

16 000 m', the three-dimensional factor of safety was 1.54. The same three-dimensional problems were analyzed using the 3 ~ - S L O P E computer program. Figure 18 is a threedimensional representation of the generated slip surface. The factor of safety for four assumptions regarding the interslice forces was obtained, and the results are presented in Table 3. For both cases (i.e., with and without the water table), good agreement was observed between the results E from 3 ~ - S L O Pand those from other three-dimensional models. As expected, the factor of safety obtained from the ordinary method compares closely with Xing's (1988) model, and the factor of safety obtained from Bishop's simplified method compares closely with the model CLARA of Hungr et al. (1989). The average percentage difference between the results is about 1%. The centre of rotation for the circular portion in case 2 was used as the centre of moments in performing Bishop's simplified type of analysis. This procedure has been shown to be acceptable for noncircular-type slip surfaces (Fredlund et al. 1992).

Significance of the intercolumn force functions The two example slopes used to determine the intercolumn force functions (i.e., Figs. 4 and 5 ) were analyzed using the to developed model. The slopes were a s s ~ ~ m e d be homogeand neous, with a unit weight of 19 k ~ / m ~ an angle of internal friction of 30". The cohesion of the material was assumed to be 15 kPa for example problem 1 and 10 kPa for example Droblem 2. The significance of the intercolumn force functions in three-dimensional slope stability analysis was studied by comparing the factors of safety from the two example slopes obtained for different forms of the intercolumn force functions. A "reference" factor of safety for the example problems was defined as the factor of safety computed using the GLE method along with the intercolumn force functions computed using the finite element stress analysis. Although there is no single, "true" factor of safety for each example problem, the "reference" factor of safety would appear to be an accurate benchmark re~resentation. To further examine the significance of the intercolumn force functions, several variations to the example slopes were studied. These variations include (i) c$ only analysis where the material was assumed to be a purely frictional material; (ii) no water analysis, where the water table in the example problem was neglected; and analysis, where the shear strength of the (iii) with material was assumed to increase with soil suction within the slope, and c$" the value was assumed to be 10" (Fredlund et al. 1978).

FIG. 18. The generated slip surface for validation example problem 2.

+"

The three-dimensional factors of safety for the various cases were determined using different forms of the intercolumn force functions, which represent the different methods of analysis. Assumptions or force functions considered were those associated with the ordinary method, Bishop's simplified method, Janbu's simplified method, and the GLE method. For the GLE method, factors of safety were obtained for three types of intercolumn force functions, namely the constant function, the half-sine function, and the function computed using the ANSYS stress analyses. The factor of safety computed using the actual functions computed from the stress analysis is called the "reference" factor of safety. The results of the four example problems and the comparison between the various methods are tabulated in Tables 4 and 5. The following conclusions can be drawn. (1) In all the analyses, the GLE method with the halfsine intercolumn force functions gave the best approximation to the reference factors of safety. The largest percentage difference was 1.1%, and the average percentage difference was 0.3 1%. (2) The GLE method with the constant intercolumn function gave the second best approximation of the reference factors of safety. The largest percentage difference was 1.23%, and the average percentage difference was 0.41%. (3) Bishop's simplified method gave a good approximation

9 16

CAN.

GEOTECH. J .

VOL. 30, 1993

TABLE A comparison of the three-dimensional factors of safety of various methods of analysis for example 4. problem 1 (uniform slope) GLE Conditions Factor of safety, base failure % difference Factor of safety for % difference Ordinary 1.736 7.76 0.576 21.41 1.968 7.26 1.806 6.76 21.41 10.80 Bishop's simplified 1.881 0.05 0.726 0.95 2.123 0.05 1.937 0.00 0.95 0.26 Janbu's simplified 1.732 7.97 0.618 15.69 1.915 9.75 1.828 5.63 15.69 9.76 Constant function 1.888 0.1 1 0.734 0.14 2.121 0.05 1.937 0.00 0.14 0.08 Half function 1.881 0.05 0.733 0.00 2.122 0.00 1.937 0.00 0.05 0.0 1
ANSYS

function 1.882
-

+ only

0.733
-

Factor of safety, no water analysis % difference Factor of safety with % difference Largest % difference Average % difference
+b

2.122
-

= lo0

1.937
-

NOTE: uniform slope is a simple geometry with no three-dimensional geometrical aspects. A TABLE A comparison of the three-dimensional factors of safety of various methods of analysis for example 5. problem 2 (nonuniform slope, corner of an embankment) GLE Conditions Factor of safety, base failure % difference Factor of safety for % difference Ordinary Bishop's simplified Janbu's simplified Constant function Half function
ANSYS

function

+ only

Factor of safety, no water analysis % difference Factor of safety with % difference Largest % difference Average % difference of the reference factors of safety, particularly in the cases of uniform slopes. The largest percentage difference was 4.0%, and the average percentage difference was 1.42%. (4) Janbu's simplified method (Janbu 1954, 1973) (without the correction factor for intercolumn shear) significantly underestimated the reference factor of safety. The largest percentage difference was 17.8%, and the average percentage difference was 9.5%. (5) The ordinary method gave the poorest approximation of the reference factor of safety. The largest percentage difference was 33.8%, and the average percentage difference was 14.6%. developed by Saskatchewan Power Corporation to supply coal to the Poplar River Power Station near Coronach, Saskatchewan.
+b

= 10'

The Poplar River coal mine case history

The developed three-dimensional slope stability model 3 ~ - S L O P Ewas used to analyze a case history. The case history selected is that of a highwall stability problem encountered at the Poplar River coal mine in southern Saskatchewan (Clifton et al. 1986). The mine was an open-pit coal mine

Geometry and stratigraphy The surface sediments were mainly till with thicknesses ranging from 0 to 15 m. Over most of the area, a layer of sand was found underlying the till and a layer of clay was found between the sand layer and the coal stratum. The clay layer varied from being silty to highly plastic. T h e clay stratum appeared to be sheared with slickensided surfaces, probably resulting from glacial ice thrusting. A uerched water table was observed within the till laver over most of the area. The sand layer beneath the till was found to be saturated, and the clay below the sand layer was wet and soft. On the other hand, in the area where the sand was dry, the clay below the sand was dry and stiff. A failure (TC10) occurred at station 2 4 + 5 5 along the highwall. The highwall was 15.2 m high with a slope of about 33". The failure occurred along a slickensided clay

LAM AND FREDLUND

4.3m

7
1

shoe Load 215 kPa

/
/
-----J

15.2 m

Slip Geometry

+ 1.22

Factor of

- 1.06 + 0.89 + ' I

I

0 98

<+
I

1.01 1.0 +
I

I
-

10 20 30 Cohesion (kPa)

40

FIG. 19. Cross section showing slip surface and computed two-dimensional factors of safety at TClO (from Clifton et al. 1986). layer approximately 7.6 m below the crest of the highwall. 0 A layer of wet sand about 1.2 m in thickness was observed SCALE above the clay layer. At the time of the failure, the dragline was walking parallel to the highwall about 20 m away from the crest of the highwall. The slope failure appeared to be a result of the high stresses exerted by the shoe of the dragline. OBSERVED A cross section showing the geometry of the failed mass, SLIP PIANE 7.6 m the inferred position of the slip surface, and the position of the external load at TClO is shown in Fig. 19. A plan view showing the geometry and the approximate position of the SLOUGHING external load is illustrated in Fig. 20. The external load due WET SAND to the shoe of the dragline was approximately 215 kPa applied on the slope over an area of 21.9 m by 4.3 m. The distance from the shoe to the crest of the highwall ranged from 19.5 to 26.0 m. The unit weight of all the soils was taken to be 19.3 k ~ / m ~ . Laboratory results showed that the till stratum had an effective cohesion of 6 kPa and an effective angle of internal friction of 34". An extensive laboratory testing program was directed towards the evaluation of the residual shear strength for the clay stratum (Clifton et al. 1986). The results indicated that for residual conditions, the effective cohesion was zero and the effective angle of internal friction ranged from 11 to 22.8". The range in residual friction angle reflects the variation in texture of the clay zone and the degree of shearFIG. 20. Plan showing geometry, crack pattern, and position ing disturbance in the clay samples. of external load of the slope at TClO (from Clifton et al. 1986). Results and discussioiz of slope stability back analyses The failed slope of TClO was back analyzed using the surface. The back-analyzed residual angle of friction for E model 3 ~ - S L O Pand a two-dimensional model PC-SLOPE'. the clay was determined for both Bishop's simplified method Figure 21 illustrates the geometry and the slip surface modand the GLE method and the results are shown in Fig. 22. Since no pore-water measurements were elled by 3~-SLOPE. The computed results indicated that the residual angles of obtained at the time of failure, the slope was analyzed as friction for the clay were considerably higher when using a a function of the height of the water table above the slip two-dimensional analysis than when using a three-dimensional analysis. Using a two-dimensional analysis gives a residual angle of friction for the clay between 14 and 15", even for the 'PC-SLOPE a proprietory product of Geo-Slope International is condition with no pore-water pressures. This value appeared Ltd., Calgary, Alta.

11~7

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 30, 1993

,. 20 . 0

.u
() I

2
m

16

-2 2 m
Y

12

.,

Three-Dimensional

O0

c
2
3

Water Table Above SLIPSurface (m) FIG. 22. Computed residual angle of internal friction of clay from back-analyses as a function of assumed pore-water pressure conditions. FIG.21. Generated slip surface of the failed slope at location TClO. to be relatively high when compared with typical values for the highly plastic clay. Since sloughing wet sand was recorded at the time of failure, it is likely that the slip surface was under the influence of positive pore-water pressures. The pore-water pressure may be a combination of the effect of the water table and the excess pressures induced by the external loading from the dragline shoe. The loading of the dragline shoe may be considered as the loading of a rectangular footing on the slope. Using design charts published by Newmark (1942), the vertical stress below the dragline show and the porewater pressure in the clay acting above the slip surface was estimated to be about 3 m of pore-water pressure head. For an estimated pore-water pressure head of 3 m, the residual angle of friction for the clay is about 7.5" when back analyzed using the three-dimensional model and 17" when back analyzed using the two-dimensional model (Fig. 22). Based on the plasticity index PI of the clay at TClO (i.e., PI = 41.5%), it is reasonable to have a residual angle of friction of about 7.5" (Sharma et al. 1981). On the other hand, a residual angle of friction of 17" appears to be too high. The nonuniform geometry, the irregular slip surface, and the external load cannot be adequately handled using a twodimensional stability model. The two-dimensional analysis will inevitably underestimate the factor of safety of the slope and overestimate the shear strength of the soils because of neglecting the "end friction" and the poor simulation of the external load. A more realistic simulation of the case history is obtained using the developed three-dimensional model. Not only is a more reasonable residual angle of friction determined for the clay, but the three-dimensional model also provides a better appreciation of the pore-water pressure conditions at the time of failure. Although the three-dimensional model more realistically models the geometries, it is still necessary to assume a direction of movement for the analysis. The predominant direction of movement was assumed to be the left (Fig. 20).

Conclusions (1) A generalized three-dimensional stability analysis was model, 3 ~ - S L O P E , developed and validated. Factors of E safety obtained from 3 ~ - S L O Pcompared satisfactorily with analytical solutions, and other published example problems. (2) Results from the stress analysis computer program ANSYS indicated that the XIE and VIP functions, in x and z directions, respectively, were the dominant intercolumn force functions. The other functions are almost equal to zero and have relatively small values for the types of geometries considered. (3) When the GLE formulation was used in the 3D-SLOPE computer program, the computed three-dimensional factors of safety were relatively insensitive to the form of the intercolumn force filnctions used in the analysis. However, the most reasonable approximations to the factor of safety were obtained when a half-sine function or the function from the stress analysis were assumed for the intercolumn force functions. (4) Bishop's simplified method provides a reasonable approximation of the three-dimensional factor of safety for the case of a circular slip surface. For noncircular slip surfaces and complex geometries, the factor of safety computed using Bishop's simplified method can differ significantly from those computed using more realistic intercolumn force functions.

LAM A N D FREDLUND

919

(5) T h e ordinary method and Janbu's simplified method (without a correction factor f o r intercolumn shear) considerably underestimated the actual three-dimensional factor of safety. (6) A three-dimensional stress analysis should b e performed for complex, nonuniform geometries and the internal shear and normal stresses used to compute realistic intercolumn force functions. There can then b e used in the threedimensional slope stability analysis. (7) Results from a case history indicated that the use of a two-dimensional model considerably underestimated the factor of safety for the problem and, consequently, overestimated t h e shear strength parameters of t h e soil w h e n used a s a back analysis.
Acknowledgements
T h e authors would like to acknowledge the support and cooperation of Clifton Associates Ltd., Regina, Saskatchewan, a n d t h e S a s k a t c h e w a n P o w e r Corporation, Regina. B o t h organizations h a v e been of assistance in conducting this study. T h e authors would also like to acknowledge the technical input of Professor Doug Stead, Department of Geology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. Baligh, M.M., and Azzouz, A.S. 1975. End effects on the stability of cohesive slopes. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical En,'otneering Division, lOl(GT11): 1105-11 17. Bishop, A.W. 1954. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. GCotechnique, 5: 7-17. Cavounidis, S. 1987. On the ratio of factor of safety in slope stability analyses. GCotechnique, 37: 207-2 10. Cavounidis, S. 1988. Discussioiz of An extension of Bishop's Simplified method of slope stability analysis to three-dimensions. GCotechnique, 38: 155-156. Chen, R.H., and Chameau, J.L. 1982. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium analysis of slopes. GCotechnique, 33: 31-40. Clifton, A.W., Mickleborough, O., and Fredlund, D.G. 1986. Highwall stability analysis under dragline loadings at a Saskatchewan coal mine. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Geotechnical Stability In Surface Mining, Calgary, Alta., pp. 341-353. Fan, K., Fredlund, D.G., and Wilson, G.W. 1986. An interslice force function for limit equilibrium slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23: 287-296. Fredlund, D.G., and Krahn, J. 1977. Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 14: 429-439. Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., and Widger, R.A. 1978. The shear strength of unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15: 3 13-321.

Fredlund, D.G., Krahn, J., and Pufahl, D.E. 1981. The relationship between limit equilibrium slope stability methods. 111 Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, Balkema, Rotterdam, vol. 3, pp. 409-416. Fredlund, D.G., Zhang, Z.M., and Lam, L. 1992. Effect of the axis of moment equilibrium in slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29: 456-465. Gens, A., Hutchison, J.N., and Cavounidis, S . 1988. Threedimensional analysis of slices in cohesive soils. GCotechnique, 38: 1-23. Hovland, H.J. 1977. Three-dimensional slope stability analysis method. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 103(GT9): 97 1-986. Hungr, 0 . 1987. An extension of Bishop's simplified method of slope stability analysis to three dimensions. GCotechnique, 37: 113-117. Hungr, O., Salgado, EM., and Byrne, P.M. 1989. Evaluation of a three-dimensional method of slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26: 679-686. Hutchison, J.N., and Sarma, S.K. 1985. Disc~lssiorlor1 Threedimensional limit equilibrium analysis of slopes. GCotechnique, 35: 215. Janbu, N. 1954. Application of composite slip surface for stability analysis. Itz Proceedings of the European Conference on Stability of Earth Slopes, Stockholm, Sweden. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 43-49. Janbu, N. 1973. Slope stability computations. Irz The embankment dam engineering. Casagrande Volume. Erliterl by R.C. Hirschfeld and S.J. Poulos. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 47-86. McClarty, D.V.B., Fredlund, D.G., and Barbour, S.L. 1991. The use of spline interpolation in slope stability analysis. In Proceedings, 44th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Calgary, vol. 1, pp. 20.1-20.10. Morgenstern, N.R., and Price, V.E. 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. GCotechnique, 15: 79-93. Newmark, N.M. 1942. Influence charts for computation of stress in elastic foundations. University of Illinois Bulletin 338, Urbana, 111. Sharma, H.D., Koppula, S.D. Campbell, J.W.M., and Brittain, R.S. 198 1. Strength considerations for an undisturbed soft fissured clay. In Proceedings, 34th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Fredericton, N.B., pp. 6-3-1 to 6-3-17. Spencer, E. 1967. A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel interslice forces. GCotechnique, 17: 11-26. Zing, Z. 1988. Three-dimensional stability analysis of concave slopes in plan view. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 114: 658-67 1 .