NEW METHOD FOR 3D AND ASYMMETRICAL SLOPE

STABILITY ANALYSIS
By Ching-Chuan Huang1 and Cheng-Chen Tsai2

ABSTRACT: A new three-dimensional (3D) slope stability analysis method is developed based on two-direc-
tional moment equilibrium. This method calculates not only the safety factor but also the possible direction of
sliding for semispherical and composite failure surfaces. As a result, the possible errors associated with assuming
a plane of symmetry in 3D stability analyses are eliminated. Another advantage of the new method is to eliminate
the tedious work on the coordinate transformation prior to the analysis. Two examples of symmetrical failure
surfaces are used to verify the basic formulation in the present study. Three additional examples further dem-
onstrate the applicability of the proposed method in analyzing 3D asymmetrical failure surfaces. An analysis on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a slope, subject to asymmetrical excavation unloading and geological conditions, shows that using the method
of one-directional moment equilibrium may give an overestimated safety factor of the slope.

INTRODUCTION
Potential failure surfaces for slopes are frequently three-di-
mensional (3D). However, in most designs or for back-anal-
yses in slope failure investigations, two-dimensional (2D) fail-
ure surfaces are assumed. Although the results of 2D slope
stability analyses are typically considered to be conservative
to those from 3D analyses, the use of a 2D method may over-
simplify the actual 3D mechanism. This may result in non-
conservative values of the back-calculated soil strength. 3D
stability analysis methods, based on limit equilibrium, have
been proposed by Baligh and Azzouz (1975), Hovland (1977),
Chen and Chameau (1982), Ugai (1985), Xing (1987), Ugai
and Hosobori (1988), Hungr (1987), Hungr et al. (1989), and
Lam and Fredlund (1993). In addition to the limit equilibrium
methods, analytical methods based on variational calculus are
also proposed by Leshchinsky et al. (1985), Leshchinsky and
Baker (1986), Baker and Leshchinsky (1987), and Leshchin-
sky and Huang (1992). These works can be summarized into
the following two categories:
1. Investigations into the so-called ‘‘end effect’’ or ‘‘bound-
ary effect’’ of the 3D slopes [e.g., Baligh and Azzou
(1975), Hovland (1977), Chen and Chameau (1982),
Leshchinsky and Baker (1986), Xing (1987), and Hungr
(1987)]
2. Development of a rigorous method for calculating a
safety factor of 3D slope [e.g., Leshchinsky et al. (1985),
Leshchinsky and Huang (1992), and Lam and Fredlund
(1993)]
rical conditions induced by the variable soil and rock stratig-
raphy, external loading, and other factors may be found.
Where asymmetrical conditions prevail, the use of a 3D anal-
ysis method based on symmetrical force and/or moment equi-
librium, may lead to incorrect safety evaluations. This was
inferred from the research performed by Hungr et al. (1989),
which showed that ignoring the unbalanced transverse com-
ponents of the normal forces acting on the column bases may
induce error in calculated values of Fs. Therefore, it is con-
cluded that the force equilibrium in the transverse direction of
sliding should be taken into account in order to improve the
accuracy of 3D slope stability analysis. Herein, Bishop’s sim-
plified method in three dimensions is extended to include mo-
ment equilibrium in two directions parallel to the x- and y-
axes, as shown in Fig. 1. The two components of shear force,
required to resist potential sliding, are calculated from the mo-
ment equilibrium in the x- and y-directions. Consequently, the
direction of resultant shear resistance (or the direction of slid-
ing) can be calculated rather than assumed in the analysis. As
a result, the possible errors, associated with a plane of sym-
metry for a sliding mass, are eliminated.
It is noted that the use of 3D circular failure surfaces in the
present study may not always represent the most critical failure
surface geometry in a slope under symmetrical or asymmet-
rical conditions. The semispherical failure surfaces used herein
are to facilitate comparisons between the present method and
existing methods. A critical failure surface, under asymmetri-
cal conditions, may be evaluated using existing approaches
[e.g., trial-and-error methods or the numerical method pro-
posed by Yamagami and Jiang (1997)].

A common feature for the 3D slope stability analysis meth-
ods, proposed by the aforementioned researchers, is the ‘‘one-
directional’’ force and/or moment equilibrium analyses in an
assumed direction of sliding, i.e., symmetrical 3D analyses.
Some of the these methods [e.g., Hungr et al. (1989) and Lam
and Fredlund (1993)] can be applied to asymmetrical failure
surfaces. However, these methods retain the characteristic of
symmetrical analyses because the equilibrium in the transverse
direction is not taken into account. In most slopes, asymmet-
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Nat. Cheng Kung Univ., No. 1,
Ta-Hsueh Rd., Tainan, Taiwan, 70101. E-mail: samhcc@mail.ncku.edu.tw
2 in which
Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Nat. Cheng Kung Univ., No. 1,
Ta-Hsueh Rd., Tainan, Taiwan, 70101.
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2001. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on January 27, 1999. This paper is part of the Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126, No.
10, October, 2000. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/00/0010-0917–0927/$8.00
⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 20132.
THREE-DIMENSIONAL LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM
EQUATION FORMULATION
The potential failure mass is discretized into n columns as
schematically shown in Fig. 1. The bottom of each column is
represented by planes with dip angles, ␣xzi and ␣yzi, with respect
to the directions parallel to the x, z- and y, z-planes, respec-
tively (Fig. 2). The shear force (Si) mobilized on the bottom
plane of the ith column may be treated as a vector, Si, where
Si = Si ⭈ { f1i, f2i, f3i} = {Sxi, Syi, Szi} (1)
{ f1i, f2i, f3i}: unit vector for Si
Derivation of this unit vector is provided in (31) in Appen-
dix I. Similarly, the effective normal force (N ⬘)
i acting on the
bottom plane of the ith column may be written as
N i⬘ = N ⬘i ⭈ {g1i, g2i, g3i} = {N ⬘,
xi N ⬘,
yi N ⬘}
zi (2)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 917

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Schematic View of 3D Potential Failure Mass with Asymmetrical Weak Stratum

FIG. 3. Components of Shear Force Acting on Failure Plane

and Their Projections on x, y-Plane

FIG. 2. Schematic Figure of Soil Column and Reacting Forces

is valid for describing the shear strength of the soil, then a
safety factor, Fsi, for the ith column base is defined as
in which
Sfi Ci ⫹ N ⬘i ⭈ tan ␾i
{g1i, g2i, g3i}: unit vector for N ⬘i Fsi = = (3)
Si Si
The derivation of this unit vector is also provided in (22)
in Appendix I. Assuming the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in which Ci = ci ⭈ Ai (ci = cohesion on ith column base; Ai =
918 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

 area of ith column base); ␾i = friction angle on ith column
base; and Fsi = safety factor for ith column base.
Si has two components on the bottom plane, namely, Sxzi
and Syzi, which are parallel with the x, z- and y, z-planes, re-
spectively (Fig. 3). Safety factors with respect to the x- and y-
directions are defined as
Sfi
Fsx =
Sxzi
Sfi
Fsy =
Syzi
Relationships between Fsi and Fsx (or Fsi and Fsy) can be
obtained from the force polygon formed by Si, Sxzi, and Syzi on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
⫺ Xyi⫺1 = 0) made in Bishop’s simplified method (Bishop
1955). Because the force equilibrium for columns is consid-
ered in the z-direction only, the horizontal intercolumn force
Hxi, Hxi⫺1, Hyi, Hyi⫺1, Exi, Exi⫺1, Eyi, and Eyi⫺1 are not concerned
in the formulations, and are excluded from Table 1. This table
shows that the system is statically determinate. Note that the
force is positive when acting toward the positive x-, y-, or z-
direction. The effective normal force N ⬘i can be obtained by
(4)
resolving the force in the vertical direction (Fig. 2):
⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi) ⫺ Si ⭈ f3i
(5) N ⬘i = Ni ⫺ Ui = ⫺ Ui (8)
g3i
where Wi = self-weight of the ith column (positive for up-
ward); Pvi = vertical load applied on the top of the ith column

the ith bottom plane (Fig. 3) and the law of sines (positive for upward); and Ni, N ⬘i = total and effective normal
Fsy sin(␪i ⫺ ␣i) forces, respectively, acting on the ith column base.
= (6a)
Fsx sin ␣i Ui = ui ⭈ Ai (9)
Fsx ⭈ sin(␪i ⫺ ␣i) where ui = average pore-water pressure acting on the ith col-
Fsi = (6b)
sin ␪i umn base; and Ai = area of ith column base.
Fsy ⭈ sin ␣i
Fsi = (6c)
sin ␪i
in which
0 < Fsx < ⬁
0 < Fsy < ⬁
0 < ␣i ⱕ ␪i
where ␣i is positive for the Si that rotates counterclockwise
from Sxzi; and ␪i is the angle between Sxzi and Syzi on the bottom
plane, which is expressed by [see (23) in Appendix I]
␪i = cos⫺1(sin ␣xzi ⭈ sin ␣yzi), ␪i > 0 (7)
It is conceivable that the value of Fsi, based on the force
polygon shown in Fig. 3, and (6b) and (7), may be varied
from column to column as did ␪i and ␣i vary, despite the con-
stant values of Fsx and Fsy. A special case for (6b) is when ␣i
= 0. This represents the case of one-directional moment equi-
librium in the x-direction. In this case, Fsi = Fsx, and (6a) and
(6c) are not applicable.
The total number of knowns and unknowns in this formu-
lation are summarized in Table 1. The shear forces acting on
the side faces of columns Xxi and Xyi are excluded from this FIG. 4(a). Schematic View of Moment Equilibrium about an
table according to the assumptions Xxi ⫺ Xxi⫺1 = 0 (and/or Xyi Axis Parallel to y-Axis

TABLE 1. Number of Knowns and Unknowns in Modified

Bishop’s Simplified Method (Total Number of Columns = n)
Unknowns Knowns
Variables Number Equations Number
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Si n Vertical force equilibrium n
[Eq. (8)]
N ⬘i n Definition of Fsi and Mohr- n
Coulomb’s criterion [Eq.
(3)]
␣i n Relationships among Fsx, Fsy, n
and ␣i [Eq. (6a)]
Fsi n Relationships between Fsi n
and Fsx [Eq. (6b)]
Fsx 1 Moment equilibrium in x-di- 1
rection [Eq. (12)]
Fsy 1 Moment equilibrium in y-di- 1
rection [Eq. (16)]
Fs 1 Definition of Fs [Eq. (18)] 1
[Total number of 4n ⫹ 3 [Total number of knowns] 4n ⫹ 3
unknowns] FIG. 4(b). Schematic View of Moment Equilibrium about an
Axis Parallel to x-Axis

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 919

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

 Combining (3) and (6b) results in
(Ci ⫹ N ⬘i tan ␾i) sin ␪i
Ci ⫹ 冋 ⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi)
g3i
⫺ Ui 册 tan ␾i
Si = ⭈ (10) A1 =
sin(␪i ⫺ ␣i) f3 ⭈ tan ␾i
Fsx sin(␪i ⫺ ␣i) ⫹ i
sin ␪i g3i ⭈ Fsx
From (8) and (10), the resultant shear force, Si, on the bottom
plane is obtained: By combining (3) and (6c) the shear force Si is obtained:

Ci ⫹ 冋 ⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi)
g3i
⫺ Ui 册 tan ␾i Si =
(Ci ⫹ N ⬘i tan ␾i) sin ␪i
Fsy
⭈
sin ␣i
(14)
Si = (11)
sin(␪i ⫺ ␣i) f3i ⭈ tan ␾i
Fsx ⭈ ⫹ From (1) and (14), the resultant shear force, Si, on the bottom
sin ␪i g3i plane is obtained:

冋 册
By considering the moment equilibrium about an axis going
⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi)
through the center of circle (x0, y0, z0) and parallel to the y- Ci ⫹ ⫺ Ui tan ␾i
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

axis [Fig. 4(a)], then g3i

冘 (Wi ⫹ Pvi) ⭈ RXi ⫹ 冘 Ni ⭈ g1i ⭈ RZi ⫹ 冘 Si ⭈ f1i ⭈ RZi

Si =
Fsy ⭈
sin ␣i f 3 ⭈ tan ␾i
⫹ i
(15)

冘 冘
sin ␪i g3i
⫹ Si ⭈ f3i ⭈ RXi ⫹ Ni ⭈ g3i ⭈ RXi = 0 (12)
By considering the moment equilibrium in the y-direction
In (12), and also in (18), which will be shown later, the about an axis going through (x0, y0, x0) and parallel to the x-
terms containing Ni are mainly for the composite failure sur- axis [Fig. 4(b)]
face, which consists of a part of a sphere and a plane. Appli-
cability of (12) has been shown by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) 冘 (Wi ⫹ Pvi) ⭈ RYi ⫹ 冘 Ni ⭈ g2i ⭈ RZi ⫹ 冘 Si ⭈ f2i ⭈ RZi
and Hungr et al. (1989). In the case of a semispherical failure
surface, Ni theoretically passes through the center of the
sphere; thus the terms containing Ni can be eliminated from
⫹ 冘 Si ⭈ f3i ⭈ RYi ⫹ 冘 Ni ⭈ g3i ⭈ RYi = 0 (16)

(12). From (8), (11), and (12), Fsx is expressed as From (8), (15), and (16), Fsy is expressed as

冉冘
A1 ⭈ ⫺ 冘
f1i ⭈ RZi ⫹ 冊 f3i ⭈ g1i
g3i
⭈ RZi 冉冘
A2 ⭈ ⫺ 冘
f2i ⭈ RZi ⫹ 冊 f3i ⭈ g2i
g3i
⭈ RZi

冉冘 冊 冉冘 冊
Fsx = (13) Fsy = (17)
g1i g2i
⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi) ⭈ ⭈ RZi ⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi) ⭈ ⭈ RZi
g3i g3i

in which in which

TABLE 2. Comparisons of Fs Calculated by Using Bishop’s

Simplified Method
Baligh and Hungr Lam and
Azzouz et al. Fredlund The present
Example (1975) (1989) (1993) study
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 1.402 1.422 1.386 1.388 (1,300a)
1.399 (5,300a)
2 — 1.62 1.607 (1.603b) 1.658 (1,600a)
1.665 (6,000a)
a
Number of columns in the analyses.
b
Calculated by using GLE method (Lam and Fredlund 1993).
FIG. 5. Geometry of Slope for Example 1

FIG. 6. Geometry of Slope for Example 2

920 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 7(a). Geometry of Corner of Vertical Cut

FIG. 7(b). Contours of Fsi for Vertical Cut

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 921

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

 Ci ⫹ 冋
⫺(Wi ⫹ Pvi)
g3i
⫺ Ui 册 tan ␾i
sequently used for calculating new Fsx and Fsy using (13) and
(17), and they are also used for calculating Fsi based on (6b)
or (6c). The above procedure is repeated until the convergence
A2 =
sin ␣i f3i ⭈ tan ␾i of Fsi. In the present study, the convergence criterion for Fsi is
⫹
sin ␪i g3i ⭈ Fsy 0.1% (convergence criterion ε = 兩⌬Fs兩 /Fs(new), where ⌬Fs = dif-
ference between the old and new values of Fs, and Fs(new) =
To obtain a ‘‘global’’ safety factor, Fs, for a specific potential the new value of Fs). The ‘‘global’’ safety factor, Fs, for a
sliding mass, initial values of ␣i for all the column bases were specific sliding mass is defined as
first assumed (e.g., ␣i = 0.1⬚, i = 1 ⫺ n). Fsx and Fsy are
calculated by using (13) and (17). To obtain Fsx and Fsy, suc- 冘 冘
Sfi (Ci ⫹ N ⬘i ⭈ tan ␾i)
cessive approximations are necessary because both Fsx (and/or
Fsy) exist at both sides of (13) and (17). ␣i was then calculated
for each column based on (6a). The new values of ␣i are sub-
Fs =
冘Si 冘 =
Si
(18)

The above definition is consistent with that used in conven-

tional 2D and 3D stability analyses, because in the conven-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tional 2D and 3D analyses, a constant value of safety factor

is defined as Fs = Sfi /Si. This corresponds to that shown in
(18). The equivalency between the Fs defined in the present
study and that used in conventional 2D and 3D stability anal-
yses can also be detected from the case of one-directional mo-
ment equilibrium. In this case, ␣i = 0, (18) is reduced to Fs =
Fsx = Fsi (i = 1 ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ n). The procedure for calculating the global
safety factor Fs, described above, is incorporated in a computer
program for the following analyses.

VERIFICATION
Two examples are used to validate the proposed method.
The slope geometry and boundary conditions in these exam-
ples are symmetrical with respect to the x, z-plane implying
that Fs = Fsx = Fsi (i = 1 ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ n). The first example is reported
by Hungr et al. (1989) and also by Lam and Fredlund (1993).
The geometry of the failure surface and slope are shown in
Fig. 5. A comparison of the calculated safety factors is sum-
marized in Table 2. The calculated values of Fs, using the
method proposed in the present study, is within 1% of the
closed-form solution obtained by Baligh and Azzouz (1975)
when using n = 1,300. For n = 5,300, the value of Fs deviates
only 0.2% from the closed-form solution obtained by Baligh
FIG. 7(c). Directions of Si on x, y-Plane of Vertical Cut and Azzouz (1975). The second example, also reported by

FIG. 8(a). Geometry of Corner of Vertical Cut with Inclined Weak Layer

922 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 8(b). Contours of Fsi for Vertical Cut with Asymmetrical Load and Weak Layer
FIG. 8(c). Directions of Si on x, y -Plane of Vertical Cut with
Asymmetrical Load and Weak Layer
Hungr et al. (1989) and Lam and Fredlund (1993), is shown
in Fig. 6. Initially, only those safety factors calculated by using
the modified Bishop simplified method were compared. An
acceptable range of differences in Fs (3.4–3.8%) are obtained
by using the generalized limit equilibrium (GLE) method
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 923
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.
(Lam and Fredlund 1993) and the proposed method. Table 2
indicates that, for these examples, n ⱌ 1,300–1,600 was suf-
ficient for obtaining an accurate value of Fs. It is also inter-
esting to note that the GLE method resulted in Fs = 1.603 for
example 2, which is only 0.2% different from that obtained
by using Bishop’s simplified method (Fs = 1.607). In another
case, also reported by Lam and Fredlund (1993), the difference
between these two methods was even smaller than 0.2%.
These results indicate that Bishop’s simplified 3D method pro-
vides accurate results for rotational failure surfaces. Similar
findings are reported by Whitmann and Bailey (1967) based
on 2D stability analyses, and are also reported by Hungr et al.
(1989) based on 3D stability analyses.
APPLICATIONS
Fig. 7(a) shows the geometry of a corner for a vertical cut.
A known failure surface is assumed in this analysis. Figs. 7(b)
and 7(c) show the distribution of Fsi on the bottom planes of
soil columns and the directions of Si on the x, y-plane [␣ ⬘i is
the projection of ␣i on the x, y-plane; see (35) in Appendix I],
respectively. The arrows shown are pointed toward the oppo-
site direction of Si to indicate the probable direction of sliding.
The failure mass is symmetrical with respect to the C, C⬘-axis.
Fig. 7(b) shows that Fsi decreased gradually from the crest
down to the toe of the slope in a pattern symmetrical to the
C, C⬘-axis. The planes with larger dip angles in the x- and/or
y-directions had smaller Fsi. To demonstrate the directions of
Si clearly, the number of columns used in Fig. 7(c) were re-
duced significantly, resulting in a slightly different Fs from that
shown in Fig. 7(b). Fig. 7(c) shows that the calculated values
of ␣i are approximately parallel to the C, C⬘-axis. This dem-
onstrates the accuracy of the present method. Fig. 7(b) also
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 9(a). 3D View of Excavation at Toe of Potential Failure Surface

FIG. 9(b). Plane View of Excavation at Toe of Potential Failure Mass

shows that Fs is largely different from Fsx and Fsy. This sug-
gests that nonconservative results may be obtained by assum-
ing the slide occurs only in either the x- or y-direction. In this
case, a symmetrical plane along C, C⬘ is obvious; therefore,
any other 3D method may be as accurate as the present
method. However, a disadvantage of the existing methods is
to rotate the x- (or y-) axis to follow the C, C⬘-axis (axis of
symmetry) in the analysis, while the new method eliminates
this disadvantage. Because the accuracy of the safety factor
based on the one-directional moment equilibrium is verified
924 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000
by using examples shown in Figs. 5 and 6, it is not necessary
to show the equivalency of Fs, obtained in the present study,
and that based on one-directional equilibrium along the C, C⬘-
axis. Fig. 8(a) shows the geometry of the same cut as in Fig.
7(a), but with a surcharge and an inclined stratum. It is as-
sumed that a rotational failure mechanism is valid for this
composite failure surface. Figs. 8(b) and 8(c) show the ana-
lytical results for the vertical cut shown in Fig. 8(a). It can be
seen that the distribution of Fsi is asymmetrical to the C, C⬘-
axis. Constant values of Fsi are found in the area where the

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 10. Various Safety Factors for Potential Sliding Mass under Asymmetrical Excavation

weak layer intersects with the circular failure mass. In Fig.

7(c), Si maintains a convergence, from the quadrantal points
a and b, to directional alignment with the C, C⬘-axis, whereas,
in Fig. 8(c), a major part of S tends to rotate away from the
C, C⬘-axis toward the quadrantal point a.
Figs. 9(a) and 9(b) show the geometry of a slope with a
specific semispherical sliding mass. A weak layer dips 20⬚ to-
ward the negative x-direction. It was assumed that an 8-m-
wide excavation at the toe of the slope is constructed at the
position shown in Figs. 9(a) and 9(b). This case is difficult to
analyze using existing 2D or 3D limit equilibrium methods.
The values of Fsx, Fsy, and Fs for different excavation lengths
L are shown in Fig. 10. As L increases, the curve for Fsx de-
creases rapidly compared to the other curves. When changes
in Fsx are neglected, i.e., when only Fsy is calculated, the value
of Fsy is relatively unaffected by the increase in L. It is also
seen that the value of Fs, using the present method, is 1.03 for
the case where L = 5 m, whereas Fsy = 1.21 under the same
condition. This suggests that by using one-directional moment
equilibrium for this example, as conventionally used in 3D
slope stability analysis, the safety factors of the slope may be
overestimated by about 17%. FIG. 11. Schematic View of Unit Vector Normal to Plane

CONCLUSIONS
XZ = {1, 0, tan ␣xz} (19)
A new 3D stability analysis method is developed. This
YZ = {0, 1, tan ␣yz} (20)
method takes into account two-directional moment equilib-
rium, and is valid for analyzing the stability of the slopes un- The unit vector n normal to the bottom plane
der complicated boundary loading and geological stratifica-
XZ ⫻ YZ
tions. By using the proposed method, the possible direction of n= (21)
sliding for a semispherical failure surface or a composite fail- 兩XZ ⫻ YZ兩
ure surface is a part of the analytical solution, rather than an in which

冏 冏
assumption. Possible errors, associated with assuming a sym-
metrical plane for a 3D failure mass under asymmetrical i j k
boundary conditions, can be eliminated. It was found that this XZ ⫻ YZ = 1 0 tan ␣xz
method generates safety factors comparable to those obtained 0 1 tan ␣yz
by using other existing methods for symmetrical rotational
failure surfaces. An investigation into a 3D excavation at the = ⫺tan ␣xz ⭈ i ⫹ ⫺tan ␣yz ⭈ j ⫹ 1 ⭈ k
toe of a potential sliding mass underlain by an inclined weak = {⫺tan ␣xz, ⫺tan ␣yz, 1}
stratum showed that the safety of the slope may not be prop-
erly evaluated by using other 3D methods based on one-di-
rectional moment equilibrium considerations. 兩XZ ⫻ YZ兩 = 冑冏 0 tan ␣xz
1 tan ␣yz冏 冏
2

⫹
1 tan ␣xz
0 tan ␣yz 冏 冏 冏
2

⫹
1
0
0
1
2

APPENDIX I = 兹tan2␣xz ⫹ tan2␣yz ⫹ 1

Assuming that vertical columns have unit width in both x- Let J = 兹tan2␣yz ⫹ tan2␣xz ⫹ 1
and y-directions, the bottom plane of columns may be repre- Then n can be expressed as

再 冎
sented by planes through the center of the column base. This
⫺tan ␣xz ⫺tan ␣yz 1
plane is characterized by two vectors—XZ and YZ (Fig. 11): n= , , = {g1, g2, g3} (22)
J J J

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 925

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

 S = Sxz ⫹ Syz

= 再sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) ⭈ cos ␣xz sin ␣ ⭈ cos ␣yz

sin ␪
,
sin ␪
,

sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) ⭈ sin ␣xz ⫹ sin ␣ ⭈ sin ␣yz

sin ␪ 冎 = { f1, f2, f3}
(31)

From (25), the projection of Sxz on the x, y-plane, Sx

sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) ⭈ cos ␣xz

兩Sx兩 = 兩Sxz兩 ⭈ cos ␣xz = (32)
sin(180⬚ ⫺ ␪)

Similarly, from (26)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

兩sin ␣兩 ⭈ cos ␣yz

兩Sy兩 = 兩Syz兩 ⭈ cos ␣yz = (33)
sin(180⬚ ⫺ ␪)

The projection of S on the x, y-plane, S⬘, is expressed as

S⬘ = Sx ⫹ Sy
FIG. 12. Schematic View of Unit Vector S on Plane
Based on the fact that Sx is perpendicular to Sy, then
The angle ␪ between XZ and YZ is
⇒ 兩S⬘兩2 = 兩Sx兩2 ⫹ 兩Sy兩2
XZ ⭈ YZ
cos ␪ =
兩XZ兩 ⭈ 兩YZ兩 ⇒ 兩S⬘兩 = 冑 sin2(␪ ⫺ ␣) ⭈ cos2␣xz ⫹ sin2␣ ⭈ cos2␣yz
sin2␪ (34)
1 ⭈ 0 ⫹ 0 ⭈ 1 ⫹ tan ␣xz ⭈ tan ␣yz
=
兹12 ⫹ tan2␣xz ⭈ 兹12 ⫹ tan2␣yz The projection of ␣ on the x, y-plane, ␣⬘, is expressed as
(Fig. 12)
tan ␣xz ⭈ tan ␣yz
=
兹1 ⫹ tan2␣xz ⭈ 兹1 ⫹ tan2␣yz
= sin ␣xz ⭈ sin ␣yz
␣⬘ = tan⫺1 冋册f2
f1
= tan⫺1 冋 sin ␣ ⭈ cos ␣yz
sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) ⭈ cos ␣xz
册 (35)

⇒ ␪ = cos⫺1(sin ␣xz ⭈ sin ␣yz) (23) ACKNOWLEDGMENT

From the vectors shown in Fig. 12 and the sine law This study was financially supported by the National Science Council,
Taiwan, under contract no. NSC 88-2218-E-006-031. Advice on the tech-
兩S兩 兩Sxz兩 兩Syz兩 nical writing from Richard J. Barnes of Otago University, New Zealand,
= = (24)
sin(180⬚ ⫺ ␪) sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) sin ␣ is also appreciated.

Assuming 兩S兩 = 1, i.e., S is a unit vector, then

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES
sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) sin(␪ ⫺ ␣)
兩Sxz兩 = = (25) Baker, R., and Leshchinsky, D. (1987). ‘‘Stability analysis of conical
sin(180⬚ ⫺ ␪) sin ␪ heaps.’’ Soils and Found., Tokyo, 27(4), 99–110.
Baligh, M. M., and Azzouz, A. S. (1975). ‘‘End effects on stability of
兩sin ␣兩 兩sin ␣兩 cohesive slopes.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 101(11), 1105–1117.
兩Syz兩 = = (26)
sin(180⬚ ⫺ ␪) sin ␪ Bishop, A. W. (1955). ‘‘The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis
of slopes.’’ Géotechnique, London, V(1), 7–17.
From (19) and (20) and the fact that Sxz and Syz are similar Chen, R. H., and Chameau, J. L. (1982). ‘‘Three-dimensional limit equi-
to XZ and YZ, respectively, but with different lengths, the librium analysis of slopes.’’ Géotechnique, London, 32(1), 31–40.
Fredlund, D. G., and Krahn, J. (1977). ‘‘Comparison of slope stability
unit vectors of Sxz and Syz are
methods of analysis.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ottawa, 14(3), 429–439.
Hovland, H. J. (1977). ‘‘Three-dimensional slope stability analysis
Sxz XZ
= = {cos ␣xz, 0, sin ␣xz} (27) method.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 103(9), 971–986.
兩Sxz兩 兩XZ兩 Hungr, O. (1987). ‘‘An extension of Bishop’s simplified method of slope
stability analysis to three dimensions.’’ Géotechnique, London, 37(1),
Syz YZ 113–117.
= = {0, cos ␣yz, sin ␣yz} (28)
兩Syz兩 兩YZ兩 Hungr, O., Salgado, F. M., and Byrne, P. M. (1989). ‘‘Evaluation of a
three-dimensional method of slope stability analysis.’’ Can. Geotech.
From (25) and (27) J., Ottawa, 26, 679–686.
Lam, L., and Fredlund, D. G. (1993). ‘‘A general limit equilibrium model
sin(␪ ⫺ ␣) for three-dimensional slope stability analysis.’’ Can. Geotech. J., Ot-
Sxz = ⭈ {cos ␣xz, 0, sin ␣xz} (29) tawa, 30, 905–919.
sin ␪ Leshchinsky, D., and Baker, R. (1986). ‘‘Three-dimensional slope stabil-
ity: End effects.’’ Soils and Found., Tokyo, 26(4), 98–110.
From (26) and (28) Leshchinsky, D., Baker, R., and Silver, M. L. (1985). ‘‘Three-dimensional
analysis of slope stability.’’ Int. J. Numer. and Analytical Methods in
sin ␣
Syz = ⭈ {0, cos ␣yz, sin ␣yz} (30) Geomech., 9, 199–223.
sin ␪ Leshchinsky, D., and Huang, C.-C. (1992). ‘‘Generalized three-dimen-
sional slope-stability analysis.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 118(11),
From the vectors shown in Fig. 12 and (29) and (30) 1748–1764.

926 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.

 Ugai, K. (1985). ‘‘Three-dimensional stability analysis of vertical cohe-
sive slopes.’’ Soils and Found., Tokyo, 25(3), 41–48.
Ugai, K., and Hosobori, K. (1988). ‘‘Extension of simplified Bishop
method, simplified Janbu method and Spencer method to three-dimen-
sions.’’ Proc., Japanese Soc. of Civ. Engrs., Tokyo, 394/III-9, 21–26
(in Japanese).
Whitmann, R. V., and Bailey, W. A. (1967). ‘‘Use of computers for slope
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stability analysis.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 93(4), 475–
497.
Xing, Z. (1987). ‘‘Three-dimensional stability analysis of concave slopes
in plan view.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 114(6), 658–671.
Yamagami, T., and Jiang, J. C. (1997). ‘‘A search for the critical slip
surface in three-dimensional slope stability analysis.’’ Soils and Found.,
Tokyo, 37(3), 1–16.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 2000 / 927

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000.126:917-927.