Ordering Analyses

by Nate Hekman on October 27, 2008

Here is a quick tip to put you on friendly terms with KeyIn Analyses:

When you create analyses in KeyIn Analyses, they are always listed in alphabetical order. If you really want them to be displayed in a different order, just put a number at the beginning of each analysis name, and they’ll get sorted by that number.

Take this case, for example. We develop three analyses as an experiment, with increasing complexity:

  • Dry Frictional Material with No Cohesion
  • Wet Frictional Material with No Cohesion
  • Wet Frictional Material with Cohesion

But GeoStudio displays them in alphabetical order, resulting in this:

To get the analyses displayed in a more logical order, simply rename them, like this:

P.S. Our own examples online do this all the time, but are not really good examples to follow IMO. Our engineers tend to go crazy and use numbering even when it isn’t necessary.

In my experience, most of the time the default alphabetical and parent/child ordering is fine.

While there’s nothing wrong with something like the following example, the numbering is unnecessary, because the parent-analysis / child-analysis structure will keep the analyses in sequential order anyway:

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }


Giang 10.29.08 at 9:46 am

Dear sirs,

I am Giang from Vietnam. I am doing now some work with Slopew V7.13. I have run my work with Slopew V 5 and run that work on V7.13. It is quite supprice that the Factor safety is different. The FOS of V7.13 is 0.506 and FOS of V5 is 0.62. Is it possible and how come ?

One more question, I want to put a kind of time variation loads into the model. Is it possible and how will I make it ? I want to have kind of dynamic stability analysis.

Best regards,


Best regards,



Nate 11.04.08 at 10:46 am

Much has changed from v5 to v7, so it’s not too surprising that your FOS is different. A difference of .620 to .506 is pretty minor–subtle differences in the slip surface discretization or the position of the water table could cause such variations in the result. Likewise some slip surfaces that v5 could not analyze and would mark as invalid are now valid in v7. I would not be concerned about such a small difference, but if you are you could email support [at] geo-slope [dot] com and attach your .gsz file to have a slope specialist discuss your model with you.

There are several ways to perform a dynamic stability analysis. The simplest is to use the KeyIn Seismic Load command in SLOPE/W. See chapter 10 of the “Stability Modeling with SLOPE/W” book for details on how that feature works.

Depending on what you’re trying to model, you can also add a SIGMA/W analysis to your file and give it a boundary condition that varies over time. Then make the SLOPE/W analysis be a child of the SIGMA/W analysis, and on the SLOPE/W analysis set the stress conditions to come from the parent, and set the Time to “(all)”. That will run a stability analysis for each time step of the SIGMA/W analysis. I described this approach in an earlier blog entry.

The third option is to use a QUAKE/W analysis instead of the SIGMA/W one, if you’re dealing with earthquakes, vibrations or blasting. This option also allows you to do a proper Newmark analysis.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>