Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour PDF

L11
Slope Stability Analysis

(Including Unsaturated Soil Behaviour)
Indra Noer Hamdhan 1) and Helmut F. Schweiger 2)
1) Civil Engineering Department

National Institute of Technology (Itenas) Bandung
2) Computational Geotechnics Group
Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Graz University of Technology
Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013
2 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
CONTENTS
Introduction
Simple slope with MC (check mesh dependency)
FEM vs. LEM
Unsaturated soil slope subjected to rainfall infiltration
Summary and conclusions
1
Definition of safety factor obtained by FEM

(available = characteristic value)
tan available cavailable

fe = =
tan failure c failure
Basically 2 possibilities to obtain factor of safety:
1: Calculation with characteristic parameters > automatic

reduction of strength parameters of soil until equilibrium is no
longer achieved in numerical analysis
Some FE-codes do this automatically > strength-reduction technique
2: Calculation with reduced parameters > perform new calculation

with different factors until equilibrium is no longer achieved in
numerical analysis
Some codes do this automatically
see also: e.g. Griffiths (1980), Naylor (1981), Brinkgreve & Bakker (1991), Matsui & San (1992)
Homogeneous, drained soil layer

Inclination of slope: 2:1
20,00 20,00 20,00
2
1
15,00
5,00
60,00
Soil parameters (Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion):

= 20.0 [] , c = 10.0 [kN/m]
E = 105 [kN/m] , = 0.3 [-] , = 20.0 [kN/m]
Example from: Griffiths and Lane, Slope stability analysis by finite elements, Geotechnique 49, 387-403, 1999
2
Check of Mesh Dependency:

Incremental shear strains after /c-reduction
650 elements
Coarse Mesh (650 elements): (6-noded)
FOS: 1.37
650 elements
(15-noded)
FOS: 1.33
Fine Mesh (3233 elements): 3233 elements

(15-noded)
FOS: 1.32
Method 1
3233 elements
(15-noded)
Reduced Factor: 1.32
No difference in results for
Method 2
Method 1 and 2
Advantage of FEM vs. LEM for Slope Stability Analysis
1. In the FEM, failure occurs naturally through the zones within the soil
mass wherein the shear strength of the soil is not capable to resist the
applied shear stress, so there is no need to make assumption about
the shape or location of the failure surface.
2. There is no theory of slices in the FEM, so no need to make
assumption about slide side forces. The FEM maintains overall
equilibrium until failure is reached.
3. As long as the compressibility data of soils is available, the FEM will
provide deformations result at the working stress levels.
4. The FEM is capable to check the progressive failure up to and
including shear failure.
Source: Griffiths and Lane, Slope stability analysis by finite elements, Geotechnique 49, 387-403, 1999
3
(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer FEM

Geometry and mesh:
Failure mechanism:
Incremental strains:
FOS = 1.348
Soil parameters with Mohr-Coulomb model:

Description Symbol Unit Value
Unit weight [kN/m3] 20

Incremental displacement:
Effective secant
E [kPa] 100.000
modulus
Effective poisson's ratio ' [-] 0.3
Cohesion (effective
c' [kPa] 10
shear strength)
Friction angle (effective
' [o] 20
shear strength)
(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer LEM

Ordinary Method of Slice: 1.344
Janbus Simplified Method 1.330
:
11 11
1 2 1 2
10 10
9
8
FOS = 1.344 9
8
FOS = 1.330
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Elevation
Elevation
7 7 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
6
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 6
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
5
Cohesion: 10 kPa Cohesion: 10 kPa
5
Phi: 20 1 Phi: 20 1
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 4 3 4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Distance Distance
Bishops Simplified Method1.388

: Morgenstern and Price Method
1.386
:
11 11
1 2 1 2
10 10
9
8
FOS = 1.388 9
8
FOS = 1.386
Model: Mohr-Coulomb Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Elevation
Elevation
7 7
6
5
Cohesion: 10 kPa Cohesion: 10 kPa
5
Phi: 20 1 Phi: 20 1
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 4 3 4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Distance Distance
4
(2) Homogeneous slope with foundation layer FEM

Geometry and mesh:
Failure mechanism:
Incremental strains:
FOS = 1.339

Unit weight [kN/m3] 20

Incremental displacement:
Effective secant
E [kPa] 100.000
modulus
Effective poisson's ratio ' [-] 0.3
Cohesion (effective
c' [kPa] 10
shear strength)
' [o] 20
shear strength)
(2) Homogeneous slope with foundation layer LEM

Ordinary Method of Slice: Janbus Simplified Method :
1.346 1.332
16 1 16 1
FOS = 1.346
2 2
14
12 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
14
FOS = 1.332
Elevation
Elevation
10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m

8 Cohesion: 10 kPa 8 Cohesion: 10 kPa
6
Phi: 20 1
6
Phi: 20 1
3 4 3 4
4 4
2 2
5 6 5 6
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Distance
Bishops Simplified Method : Morgenstern and Price Method :

1.388 1.386
16 1 2
16 1 2
14
FOS = 1.388 14
FOS = 1.386
Elevation
Elevation

6
Phi: 20 1
6
Phi: 20 1
3 4 3 4
4 4
2 2
5 6 5 6
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Distance
5
(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer FEM

Geometry and mesh:

The analysis are carried out
Unit weight [kN/m3] 20 using a constant value of
Effective secant modulus E [kPa] 100.000
undrained shear strength of soil
(cu1) and five different values of
Effective poisson's ratio ' [-] 0.3 undrained shear strength of the
Cohesion (undrained thin layer (cu2) with ratio cu2/cu1
cu1 [kPa] 50
shear strength)
Friction angle (undrained equal to 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and
u [o] 0
shear strength) 0.2.
(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer FEM

Failure mechanism (incremental strains):
cu2/cu1 = 1.0
FOS = 1.451
cu2/cu1 = 0.4
FOS = 0.954
cu2/cu1 = 0.8
FOS = 1.424
cu2/cu1 = 0.2
FOS = 0.505
cu2/cu1 = 0.6
FOS = 1.366
6
(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer LEM

1.488
22
20 FOS = 1.488
18
Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
16
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m Morgenstern and Price Method :
Elevation
14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
10
8
6
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 1.354
4 22
Cohesion: 50 kPa
2 cu2/cu1 = 1.0 20 FOS = 1.354
0 18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
16
Distance Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
Elevation
1.446 14
22 Cohesion: 20 kPa
20 FOS = 1.446 12
10
18
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) 8
16
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
6
Elevation
14
Cohesion: 40 kPa Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
12 4
Cohesion: 50 kPa
10 2 cu2/cu1 = 0.4
8 0
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
6
4 Distance
2
Cohesion: 50 kPa cu2/cu1 = 0.8 1.238
0 22
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 20 FOS = 1.238
18
Distance 1.400 Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
22 16
FOS = 1.400
Elevation
20 14
18 12
Cohesion: 10 kPa
16 10
Elevation
14 8
12
Cohesion: 30 kPa Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
6
10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
4
Cohesion: 50 kPa
8
6
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) 2 cu2/cu1 = 0.2
4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cohesion: 50 kPa
2 cu2/cu1 = 0.6
0 Distance
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance
(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer

Computed FOS for an undrained clay slope with a
thin weak layer with variations of cu2/cu1: FEM vs. LEM
1.6
1.4
1.2
FOS
1.0
0.8
Finite Element Method
Limit Equilibrium Method
0.6
0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
cu2/cu1
7
(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer FEM

Geometry and mesh:

The analysis are carried out
Unit weight [kN/m3] 20 using a constant value of
Effective secant modulus E [kPa] 100.000
undrained shear strength of soil
(cu1) and six different values of
Effective poisson's ratio ' [-] 0.3 undrained shear strength of the
Cohesion (undrained foundation layer (cu2) with ratio
cu1 [kPa] 50
shear strength)
Friction angle (undrained cu2/cu1 equal to 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
u [o] 0
shear strength) 1.75, 2.0 and 2.5.
(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer FEM

cu2/cu1 = 0.5 cu2/cu1 = 1.75
FOS = 0.892 FOS = 2.069
cu2/cu1 = 1.0 cu2/cu1 = 2.0

FOS = 1.454 FOS = 2.076
cu2/cu1 = 1.5 cu2/cu1 = 2.5

FOS = 2.032 FOS = 2.069
8
(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer LEM

0.934 2.052
22
20 Morgenstern and 22
20
18
16
Price Method : 18
16
Elevation
Elevation
14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 0.934
14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 2.052
10 10
8 8
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
4 Cohesion: 25 kPa 4 Cohesion: 87.5 kPa
2 cu2/cu1 = 0.5 2 cu2/cu1 = 1.75
0 0
0 10 20 30 1.485 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 2.064 40 50 60
22 22
20
Distance 20
Distance
18 18
Elevation
Elevation
14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 1.485 14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 2.064
10 10
8 8
2 cu2/cu1 = 1.0 2 cu2/cu1 = 2.0
0 0
0 10 20 30 2.052 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 2.064 40 50 60
22 22
Distance 20
Distance
20
18 18
FOS = 2.064
Elevation
Elevation

12 FOS = 2.052 12
10 10
8 8
2 cu2/cu1 = 1.5 2 cu2/cu1 = 2.5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Distance
(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer

Computed FOS for an undrained clay slope with a
weak foundation layer with variations of cu2/cu1: FEM vs. LEM
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
FOS
1.4
1.2
1.0

0.8 Limit Equilibrium Method
0.6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
cu2/cu1
9
(5) Homogeneous Slope with Horizontal Free-Surface FEM

Geometry and mesh:

In this analysis, a slope with
Unit weight [kN/m3] 20 different drawdown ratio, L/H
Effective secant
E [kPa] 100.000
which has been varied from 0.0
modulus (slope completely submerged
Effective poisson's ratio ' [-] 0.3 with water level at the crest of
Cohesion (effective
c' [kPa] 10 the slope) to 1.0 (water level at
shear strength)
the toe of the slope) were
' [o] 20 considered
shear strength)
(5) Homogeneous Slope with Horizontal Free-Surface FEM

L/H = 0.0 L/H = 0.6
FOS = 1.815 FOS = 1.276
L/H = 0.2 L/H = 0.8

FOS = 1.552 FOS = 1.273
L/H = 0.4 L/H = 1.0

FOS = 1.336 FOS = 1.349
10
(5) Homogeneous Slope with Horizontal Free-Surface LEM

1.848 Morgenstern and Price Method : 1.341
11 11
1 2 1 2
10 10
9
9
8
L/H = 0.0 8 L/H = 0.6
Elevation
Elevation
7 7
Model: Mohr-Coulomb 6 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
6
5
Cohesion: 10 kPa 1 4
Cohesion: 10 kPa 1
4
Phi: 20 Phi: 20
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 4 3 4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
1.600 1.339
Distance Distance
11 11
1 2 1 2
10 10
9
9
8
L/H = 0.2 8 L/H = 0.8
Elevation
Elevation
7 7
6
5
Cohesion: 10 kPa 1
4 Phi: 20
Phi: 20 3
3
2 2
1 1
3 4 3 4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
1.437 1.386
Distance Distance
11 11
1 2 1 2
10 10
9 9
8 L/H = 0.4 8 L/H = 1.0
Elevation
Elevation
7 7
6
5
Cohesion: 10 kPa 1
4
Phi: 20 Phi: 20
3 3
2 2
1 1
3 4 3 4
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Distance Distance
(5) Homogeneous Slope with Horizontal Free-Surface

Computed FOS for homogeneous slope with
horizontal free-surface with variations of L/H: FEM vs. LEM
2.0

Limit Equlibrium Method
1.8
1.6
FOS
1.4
1.2
1.0
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
L/H
11
Unsaturated soil slope subjected to rainfall infiltration

In slope stability analysis, the effect of negative pore water pressure or suction is
usually not taken into account because suction will reduce with rainfall infiltration
and therefore it can be assumed that matric suction does not influence the long
term stability of the slope.
However, to reduce matric suction from the soil, the rainfall needs to be sustained
over a significant time period and also the rainfall intensity needs to approximate
the saturated coefficient of permeability of the soil at the ground surface.
Hydraulic characteristics such as saturated coefficient of permeability and initial

degree of saturation, intensity and duration of rainfall are parameters which are
important in the analysis of slope stability considering rain infiltration.
According to Biots theory of consolidation, to analyze the behaviour of

unsaturated soils, is required to simultaneously compute deformation and
groundwater flow with time dependent boundary conditions (fully coupled flow
deformation analysis).
Hydraulic Models
Van Genuchten (1980) presented a set of closed-form equations of hydraulic
characteristics for unsaturated soils which is based on the capillary model of
Mualem (1976). The Van Genuchten model introduced the relation between
saturation and suction pore pressure head (p):
gn gc
S p =Sresidu+Ssat -Sresidu 1+ ga p
uw
p =-
w g
where Sresidu is the residual degree saturation of the soil that describes the part of
water that remains in the soil even at high suction heads. Ssat is the degree
saturation of the soil when the pores are filled with water. ga, gn and gc are
empirical parameters, and it is assumed that:
1-gn
gc =
gn
12
Hydraulic Models
The Van Genuchten Model is used in which the effective degree of saturation (Se)
is obtained as:
S-Sresidu
Se =
Ssat- Sresidu
The relative permeability in relation to Mualem Van Genuchten is:

gn-1 2
krel S=Segl 1- 1-Se

gn gn
gn -1
where gl is an empirical parameter.
Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soil

The principle of effective stress is applicable for saturated soils. For unsaturated
soils, the water phase fills only parts of the pore volume, whereas the remainder
is occupied by air. Bishop (1959) has modified Terzaghis classical effective
stress theory and presented the matric suction coefficient () for the effective
stress of unsaturated soils:
' = - ua + ua - uw
where and are the effective and total stress respectively, ua is the pore air
pressure, and uw is pore water pressure. The term (ua uw) is called matric
suction and is the matric suction coefficient and varies from 0 to 1 covering the
range from dry to fully saturated conditions.
By assuming that the pore air pressure is constant and is small enough to be
neglected (ua 0), consequently for a dry soil, effective stress and total stress
are the same. The matric suction coefficient () is usually obtained from
laboratory tests on both saturated and unsaturated samples.
13
27 Introduction Hydraulic Models Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils Numerical Modelling Conclusions
Oberg and Sallfors (1997) and 1.0 Silt, drained test (Donald, 1961)
Vanapalli et al. (1996) 0.8 Silt, constant water

Content test (Donald, 1961)
suggested that the factor can 0.6

3
Madrid gray clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
Madrid silty clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)

approximately be replaced by 0.4
Madrid clay sand (Escario and Juca, 1989)

the degree of saturation or the 0.2 4 1 Moraine (Blight, 1961)
effective degree of saturation, 0.0 2 Boulder clay (Blight, 1961)
because the shear strength of 3 Boulder clay (Blight, 1961)
unsaturated soils is strongly 1

2 4 Clay-Shale (Blight, 1961)
related to the amount of water

0 20 40 60 80 100
in voids of soils and in turn to Degree of Saturation (%)
the matric suction. 1.0 Silt, drained test (Donald, 1961)
Silt, constant water

0.8
Content test (Donald, 1961)
Consequently, the effective 0.6 Madrid gray clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
3
stress equation can be 0.4
Madrid silty clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
Madrid clay sand (Escario and Juca, 1989)

simplified to:
0.2 4 1 Moraine (Blight, 1961)
' = - S uw 0.0 2 Boulder clay (Blight, 1961)
3 Boulder clay (Blight, 1961)
where S is the degree saturation 1

2 4 Clay-Shale (Blight, 1961)
of the soil. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Figure : Determination of

Degree of Saturation (%) matric suction coefficient.
Matric Suction Profile

The matric suction profile will come to Evaporation / Precipitation/
Evapotranspiration Infiltration
equilibrium at a hydrostatic condition
when there is a zero net flux from the
ground surface. If moisture is extracted
from the ground surface such as Upward flux / Downward flux / infiltration
evaporation, the matric suction profile evaporation suction profile
suction profile
will be drawn to the left. If moisture Negative Unsaturated
enters at the groundwater surface such pore-water soil
pressure Hydrostatic
as infiltration, the matric suction profile suction profile
will be drawn to the right.

Groundwater level
Positive
Saturated soil pore-water
pressure
Figure : Matric suction profile in horizontally layered unsaturated soil profiles
14
Example of Unsaturated Soil Slope

In this part slope stability analysis of unsaturated soils due to rain infiltration will be
discussed. A simple case of a homogeneous slope has been chosen. The
international soil classification system USDA series is used for determining the
hydraulic data for the analysis. The mechanical and hydraulic models used in the
analysis are the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion and the Van Genuchten model
respectively. The height of the slope is 10 m and the gradient (horizontal to vertical)
is 2:1.
20m 20m 20m
10m
15m
Figure : Geometry and two dimensional finite element mesh (4800 15-noded elements)
Soil Parameters
Soil parameters for the Mohr Coulomb model used in the analysis:
Unit weight kN/m3 20
Elasticity modulus E kPa 7500
Effective poisson's ratio ' - 0.35
Effective cohesion c' kPa 20
Effective friction angle ' o 20
15
Hydraulic Parameters
Texture Ksat (m/s) ga (1/m) gn (-) gl (-)
Four different hydraulic parameter
sets of the USDA series for the Van Sand 8.25E-05 14.50 2.68 0.50
Genuchten Models are used to Loamy Sand 4.05E-05 12.40 2.28 0.50
evaluate the effect of these
Sandy Loam 1.23E-05 7.50 1.89 0.50
parameters in slope stability during
rain infiltration: Loam 2.89E-06 3.60 1.56 0.50
Silt 6.94E-06 1.60 1.37 0.50
Silty Loam 1.25E-06 2.00 1.41 0.50
Sandy Clay Loam 3.63E-06 5.90 1.48 0.50
Clayey Loam 7.22E-06 1.90 1.31 0.50
Silty Clay Loam 1.94E-06 1.00 1.23 0.50
Sandy Clay 3.33E-06 2.70 1.23 0.50
Silty Clay 5.50E-07 0.50 1.09 0.50
Clay 5.50E-08 0.80 1.09 0.50
Source: Plaxis 2D Reference Manual 2010 Beta
Boundary Conditions
The initial ground water level was assumed to be horizontal at level of the toe of
the slope. A rainfall with intensity of 10 mm/hour lasting 3 days (72 hours) was
applied on the crest and the slope. The minimum and the maximum pore pressure
head respectively are -0.1 m (min) and 0.1m (max). The left boundary, right
boundary and lower boundary of the model were assumed impervious boundaries.
Rainfall 10 mm/hour
General
Figure : Boundary conditions of the model.
16
Initial Degree of Saturation

Initial degree of saturation for the four different hydraulic parameters leading to
different initial degree of saturation at the same suction:
85.43% 60.73%
100.00% saturation
100.00%
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
(a) Clay (b) Sandy Clay 65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.39% 14.08% 40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
100.00% 100.00% 20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
(c) Silt (d) Loamy Sand
Figure : Initial conditions: degree of saturation.
Initial Suction
Initial suction in the model is 100 kN/m2
(kN/m2)
100.00
assumed to increase linearly 90.00

80.00
above ground water level 70.00

60.00
0 kN/m2
until ground surface. 50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 kN/m2 -10.00
Figure : Initial conditions: suction.
The relation between suction and saturation, i.e.

the Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC):
Figure : Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC)

for chosen soil types.
17
Result: Failure mechanism, distribution of suction and degree of saturation

(Clay)
Before rain infiltration:
suction
FOS = 1.709 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
After 3 hours rain infiltration: 30.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.708 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
After 6 hours rain infiltration: 75,00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.708 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Failure mechanism Distribution of suction Degree of saturation

(Clay)
After 9 hours rain infiltration:
suction
FOS = 1.707 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.704 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.702 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
18

(Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.698 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.694 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.690 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

(Sandy Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.666 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.666 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.663 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
19

(Sandy Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.662 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.656 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.643 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

(Sandy Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.631 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.623 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.611 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
20

(Silt)
suction
FOS = 1.654 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.649 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.642 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

(Silt)
suction
FOS = 1.636 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.618 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.573 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
21

(Silt)
suction
FOS = 1.537 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.498 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.436 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

(Loamy Sand)
suction
FOS = 1.575 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.572 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.570 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
22

(Loamy Sand)
suction
FOS = 1.568 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.561 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.532 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

(Loamy Sand)
suction
FOS = 1.479 (kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00

20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.352 0.00

-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00

70.00
65,00
60.00
FOS = 1.229 55,00

50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
23
Resume of FOS of unsaturated soil slope during rain infiltration:
FOS
Time Clay Sandy Clay Silt Loamy Sand
(hours) (ksat=5.5E-07 (ksat=3.3E-06 (ksat=6.9E-06 (ksat=4.1E-05
1.8
m/s) m/s) m/s) m/s)

0 1.709 1.666 1.654 1.575 1.7
3 1.708 1.666 1.649 1.572

1.6
6 1.708 1.663 1.642 1.570
9 1.707 1.662 1.636 1.568
FOS
1.5
12 1.706 1.660 1.631 1.565
18 1.704 1.656 1.618 1.561 1.4
24 1.702 1.653 1.606 1.556 Clay

1.3 Sandy Clay
36 1.702 1.643 1.573 1.532 Silt
Loamy Sand
48 1.698 1.631 1.537 1.479
1.2
60 1.694 1.623 1.498 1.352 0 20 40 60 80
72 1.690 1.611 1.436 1.229 time (hours)
Conclusions
Safety factors from FEM compare well with factors obtained from LEM.
FEM for slope stability is more powerful than LEM. The failure mechanisms
in FEM are computed automatically as part of the stress equilibrium
process.
Effect of rainfall infiltration, leading to change of suction and saturation in
slope, on factor of safety can be assessed.
During the time of rain infiltration, suction decreases and thus the FOS of
the slope reduces, whereas the reduction is faster for soils with high
permeability than for soils with low permeability.
24

Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

L11

Slope Stability Analysis

Indra Noer Hamdhan 1) and Helmut F. Schweiger 2)

1) Civil Engineering Department

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

Slope Stability Analysis

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

Definition of safety factor obtained by FEM

tan available cavailable

1: Calculation with characteristic parameters > automatic

2: Calculation with reduced parameters > perform new calculation

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

Slope Stability Analysis

Homogeneous, drained soil layer

20,00 20,00 20,00

Soil parameters (Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion):

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

Check of Mesh Dependency:

Fine Mesh (3233 elements): 3233 elements

Slope Stability Analysis

Advantage of FEM vs. LEM for Slope Stability Analysis

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer FEM

Soil parameters with Mohr-Coulomb model:

Unit weight [kN/m3] 20

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

Slope Stability Analysis

(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer LEM

Bishops Simplified Method1.388

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(2) Homogeneous slope with foundation layer FEM

Soil parameters with Mohr-Coulomb model:

Unit weight [kN/m3] 20

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

Slope Stability Analysis

(2) Homogeneous slope with foundation layer LEM

10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m

Bishops Simplified Method : Morgenstern and Price Method :

10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 10 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer FEM

Soil parameters with Mohr-Coulomb model:

Slope Stability Analysis

(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer FEM

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer LEM

Slope Stability Analysis

(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer FEM

Soil parameters with Mohr-Coulomb model:

Slope Stability Analysis

(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer FEM

cu2/cu1 = 1.0 cu2/cu1 = 2.0

cu2/cu1 = 1.5 cu2/cu1 = 2.5

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer LEM

14 Cohesion: 50 kPa 14 Cohesion: 50 kPa

Slope Stability Analysis

(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer

Finite Element Method

Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013

(5) Homogeneous Slope with Horizontal Free-Surface FEM