Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour

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

3
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Definition of safety factor obtained by FEM

(available = characteristic value)
fe =
tan available cavailable

=
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)

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Homogeneous, drained soil layer

Inclination of slope: 2:1
20,00
20,00
20,00
2
1
5,00
15,00
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

5
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Check of Mesh Dependency:
Conclusions
Incremental shear strains after /c-reduction

650 elements
(6-noded)
FOS: 1.37
Coarse Mesh (650 elements):
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 1 and 2
Method 2

6
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
(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
20
Unit weight
[kN/m3]
Effective secant
modulus
[kPa]
100.000
Effective poisson's ratio
'
[-]
0.3
c'
[kPa]
10
'
[o]
20
Cohesion (effective
shear strength)
Friction angle (effective
shear strength)
Incremental displacement:

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
Janbus Simplified Method 1.330

:
1.344
FOS = 1.344
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
Elevation
Elevation
Ordinary Method of Slice:
10
14
16
18
20
22
24
LEM
26
28
30
32
34
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
FOS = 1.330
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
10
14
Distance
FOS = 1.388
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
10
14
16
18
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Morgenstern and Price Method

:
1.386
Elevation
Elevation
Bishops Simplified Method1.388

:
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
16
Distance
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
FOS = 1.386
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
Distance
10
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Distance

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
(2) Homogeneous slope with foundation layer
FEM
Geometry and mesh:

Failure mechanism:
Incremental strains:
FOS = 1.339
Description
Symbol
Unit
Value
20
Unit weight
[kN/m3]
Effective secant
modulus
[kPa]
100.000
'
[-]
0.3
c'
[kPa]
10
'
[o]
20
Cohesion (effective
shear strength)
shear strength)
Incremental displacement:

Introduction
10
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
(2) Homogeneous slope with foundation layer
LEM
Janbus Simplified Method :
Ordinary Method of Slice:

1.346
1.332
FOS = 1.346
14
10
8
6
10
8
6
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
Distance
FOS = 1.388
Elevation
10
8
6
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
FOS = 1.386
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
14
Elevation
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
60
1.386
16 1
14
10
50
Morgenstern and Price Method :
1.388
12
40
Distance
Bishops Simplified Method :

16 1
2
0
FOS = 1.332
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
14
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
12
Elevation
16 1
Elevation
16 1
60
10
Distance
20
30
40
50
60
Distance

11
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
(3) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer
Conclusions
FEM
Geometry and mesh:

Description
Symbol
Unit
Value
Unit weight
[kN/m3]
20
Effective secant modulus
[kPa]
100.000
'
[-]
0.3
cu1
[kPa]
50
[o]
Cohesion (undrained
shear strength)
Friction angle (undrained
shear strength)
The analysis are carried out

using a constant value of
undrained shear strength of soil
(cu1) and five different values of
undrained shear strength of the
thin layer (cu2) with ratio cu2/cu1
equal to 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and
0.2.

12
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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

13
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
LEM
FOS = 1.488
Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
Cohesion: 50 kPa
Cohesion: 50 kPa
10
1.354
20
30
Elevation
Distance
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40
50
1.446

Cohesion: 40 kPa
20
8
6

Cohesion: 50 kPa
30
40
50
20
cu2/cu1 = 0.4
30
40
22
60

Cohesion: 10 kPa
16
14
12
10
8
6

Cohesion: 50 kPa
cu2/cu1 = 0.2
0
0
cu2/cu1 = 0.6
30
40
50
60
FOS = 1.238
20
18
4
2
20
50
1.238
1.400

Cohesion: 50 kPa
10
Distance

Cohesion: 30 kPa
10
10
4
2
cu2/cu1 = 0.8
FOS = 1.400
14
12
Distance
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Cohesion: 20 kPa

Cohesion: 50 kPa
10
FOS = 1.354
18
16
60
FOS = 1.446
Elevation
22
20
cu2/cu1 = 1.0
Elevation
Elevation
Elevation
1.488
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Distance
60
Distance

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

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
14
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

15
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
(4) An Undrained Clay Slope with a Weak Foundation Layer
Conclusions
FEM
Geometry and mesh:

Description
Symbol
Unit
Value
Unit weight
[kN/m3]
20
Effective secant modulus
[kPa]
100.000
'
[-]
0.3
cu1
[kPa]
50
[o]
Cohesion (undrained
shear strength)
Friction angle (undrained
shear strength)
The analysis are carried out

using a constant value of
undrained shear strength of soil
(cu1) and six different values of
undrained shear strength of the
foundation layer (cu2) with ratio
cu2/cu1 equal to 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
1.75, 2.0 and 2.5.

16
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
FEM

cu2/cu1 = 0.5
FOS = 0.892
cu2/cu1 = 1.75
FOS = 2.069
cu2/cu1 = 1.0
FOS = 1.454
cu2/cu1 = 2.0
FOS = 2.076
cu2/cu1 = 1.5
FOS = 2.032
cu2/cu1 = 2.5
FOS = 2.069

Introduction
17
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

Morgenstern and
Price Method :

Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 0.934
12
10
8
6

Cohesion: 25 kPa
4
2
0
10
30 1.485
20
22
50
4
2

Cohesion: 87.5 kPa
10
cu2/cu1 = 1.75
30 2.064
20
40

Cohesion: 50 kPa
16
14
10
20
30 2.052
22
40
50
10
8

Cohesion: 100 kPa
4
2
60
cu2/cu1 = 2.0

Cohesion: 75 kPa
4
2
10
20
30
40
50
30 2.064

Cohesion: 50 kPa
16
14
40
50
FOS = 2.064
8
6

Cohesion: 125 kPa
cu2/cu1 = 2.5
0
60
60
12
10
4
2
cu2/cu1 = 1.5
0
0
Elevation
FOS = 2.052
12
10
8
6
20
Distance
18

Cohesion: 50 kPa
16
14
10
22
20
Distance
20
18
60
FOS = 2.064
12
0
0
50
Distance
cu2/cu1 = 1.0
Elevation
8
6
FOS = 1.485

Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 2.052
12
10
20
18
12
10
8

Cohesion: 50 kPa
16
14
22

Cohesion: 50 kPa
16
14
20
18
60
Distance
20
18
Elevation
40
22
4
2
cu2/cu1 = 0.5
Elevation
Elevation
16
14
Elevation
18
LEM
2.052
0.934
22
20
10
Distance
20
30
40
50
60
Distance

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

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
18
1.4
1.2
1.0
Limit Equilibrium Method
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
cu2/cu1

19
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
(5) Homogeneous Slope with Horizontal Free-Surface
Conclusions
FEM
Geometry and mesh:

Description
Symbol
Unit
Value
Unit weight
[kN/m3]
20
Effective secant
modulus
[kPa]
100.000
'
[-]
0.3
c'
[kPa]
10
'
[o]
20
Cohesion (effective
shear strength)
shear strength)
In this analysis, a slope with

different drawdown ratio, L/H
which has been varied from 0.0
(slope completely submerged
with water level at the crest of
the slope) to 1.0 (water level at
the toe of the slope) were
considered

20
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
FEM

L/H = 0.0
FOS = 1.815
L/H = 0.6
FOS = 1.276
L/H = 0.2
FOS = 1.552
L/H = 0.8
FOS = 1.273
L/H = 0.4
FOS = 1.336
L/H = 1.0
FOS = 1.349
10

21
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Elevation
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
24
26
28
30
32
L/H = 0.2
1
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
L/H = 0.4
1
10
12
14
16
18
10
12
14
20
22
24
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
26
28
30
32
34
1.339
L/H = 0.8
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
1.386
Distance
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
1.437
Distance
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
L/H = 0.6
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
Distance
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
1.341
1.600
Elevation
Elevation
34
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
L/H = 0.0
Distance
Elevation
34
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
Elevation
Elevation
11
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
3
0
0
LEM
1.848
L/H = 1.0
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Phi: 20
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Distance
Distance

Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

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
22
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

23
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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).

24
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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
p =-
uw
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:
gc =
1-gn
gn
12

25
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Hydraulic Models
The Van Genuchten Model is used in which the effective degree of saturation (Se)
is obtained as:
Se =
S-Sresidu
Ssat- Sresidu
The relative permeability in relation to Mualem Van Genuchten is:

krel S=Segl 1- 1-Se
gn
gn -1
gn-1
gn
where gl is an empirical parameter.

26
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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
Oberg and Sallfors (1997) and

Vanapalli et al. (1996)
suggested that the factor can
approximately be replaced by
the degree of saturation or the
effective degree of saturation,
because the shear strength of
unsaturated soils is strongly
related to the amount of water
in voids of soils and in turn to
the matric suction.
Consequently, the effective
stress equation can be
simplified to:
' = - S uw
Numerical Modelling
1.0
Silt, drained test (Donald, 1961)
0.8
Silt, constant water

Content test (Donald, 1961)
Madrid gray clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
0.6
3
Conclusions
Madrid silty clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
0.4
Madrid clay sand (Escario and Juca, 1989)
0.2
1 Moraine (Blight, 1961)

2 Boulder clay (Blight, 1961)
0.0
3
1
20
Boulder clay (Blight, 1961)
4 Clay-Shale (Blight, 1961)
40
60
80
100
Degree of Saturation (%)

1.0
Silt, drained test (Donald, 1961)
0.8
Silt, constant water

Content test (Donald, 1961)
Madrid gray clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
0.6
3
Madrid silty clay (Escario and Juca, 1989)
0.4
Madrid clay sand (Escario and Juca, 1989)
0.2
1 Moraine (Blight, 1961)

0.0
where S is the degree saturation

of the soil.
20
4 Clay-Shale (Blight, 1961)
40
60
80
100
Degree of Saturation (%)

Figure : Determination of
matric suction coefficient.

28
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Matric Suction Profile

The matric suction profile will come to
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
evaporation, the matric suction profile
will be drawn to the left. If moisture
enters at the groundwater surface such
as infiltration, the matric suction profile
will be drawn to the right.
Evaporation /
Evapotranspiration
Upward flux /
evaporation
suction profile
Negative
pore-water
pressure
Hydrostatic
suction profile
Precipitation/
Infiltration
Downward flux / infiltration

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

29
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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)

30
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Soil Parameters
Soil parameters for the Mohr Coulomb model used in the analysis:
Description
Symbol
Unit
Value
Unit weight
kN/m3
Elasticity modulus
kPa
7500
'
0.35
Effective cohesion
c'
kPa
20
'
20
Effective friction angle
20
15

31
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Hydraulic Parameters
Four different hydraulic parameter
sets of the USDA series for the Van
Genuchten Models are used to
evaluate the effect of these
parameters in slope stability during
rain infiltration:
Texture
Ksat (m/s)
ga (1/m)
gn (-)
gl (-)
Sand
8.25E-05
14.50
2.68
0.50
Loamy Sand
4.05E-05
12.40
2.28
0.50
Sandy Loam
1.23E-05
7.50
1.89
0.50
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

32
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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

33
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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%
100.00%
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00
(b) Sandy Clay
(a) Clay
40.39%
14.08%
100.00%
100.00%
(d) Loamy Sand
(c) Silt
Figure : Initial conditions: degree of saturation.

34
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Initial Suction
Initial suction in the model is
assumed to increase linearly
above ground water level
until ground surface.
(kN/m2)
100 kN/m2
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
0 kN/m2
60.00
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

35
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

FOS = 1.708
Failure mechanism
Distribution of suction
Degree of saturation

36
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.707
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.704
0.00
-10.00
saturation

FOS = 1.702
Failure mechanism
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
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

37
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.698
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.694
0.00
-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

FOS = 1.690
Failure mechanism

38
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Sandy Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.666
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.666
0.00
-10.00
saturation

FOS = 1.663
Failure mechanism
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
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

39
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Sandy Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.662
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.656
0.00
-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

FOS = 1.643
Failure mechanism

40
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Sandy Clay)
suction
FOS = 1.631
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.623
0.00
-10.00
saturation

FOS = 1.611
Failure mechanism
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
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

41
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Silt)
suction
FOS = 1.654
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.649
0.00
-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

FOS = 1.642
Failure mechanism

42
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Silt)
suction
FOS = 1.636
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.618
0.00
-10.00
saturation

FOS = 1.573
Failure mechanism
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
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

43
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Silt)
suction
FOS = 1.537
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.498
0.00
-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

FOS = 1.436
Failure mechanism

44
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Loamy Sand)
suction
FOS = 1.575
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.572
0.00
-10.00
saturation

FOS = 1.570
Failure mechanism
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
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

45
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Loamy Sand)
suction
FOS = 1.568
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.561
0.00
-10.00
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
55,00
50.00
45,00
40.00
35,00
30.00
25,00
20.00
15,00
10.00
5.00
0.00

FOS = 1.532
Failure mechanism

46
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions

(Loamy Sand)
suction
FOS = 1.479
(kN/m2)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
FOS = 1.352
0.00
-10.00
saturation

FOS = 1.229
Failure mechanism
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
75,00
70.00
65,00
60.00
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

47
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
Resume of FOS of unsaturated soil slope during rain infiltration:
FOS
Clay
Sandy Clay
Silt
Loamy Sand
(ksat=5.5E-07
m/s)
(ksat=3.3E-06
m/s)
(ksat=6.9E-06
m/s)
(ksat=4.1E-05
m/s)
1.709
1.666
1.654
1.575
1.708
1.666
1.649
1.572
1.708
1.663
1.642
1.570
1.707
1.662
1.636
1.568
12
1.706
1.660
1.631
1.565
18
1.704
1.656
1.618
1.561
24
1.702
1.653
1.606
1.556
36
1.702
1.643
1.573
1.532
48
1.698
1.631
1.537
1.479
60
1.694
1.623
1.498
1.352
72
1.690
1.611
1.436
1.229
1.8
1.7
1.6
FOS
Time
(hours)
1.5
1.4
Clay
Sandy Clay
Silt
Loamy Sand
1.3
1.2
0
20
40
60
80
time (hours)

48
Introduction
FEM vs. LEM
Conclusions
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaxis L11 - Slope Stability Including Unsaturated Behaviour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L11

Slope Stability Analysis

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

Civil Engineering Department

Computational Geotechnics Group

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

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Unsaturated Soil Slope

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

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Unsaturated Soil Slope

Definition of safety factor obtained by FEM

tan available cavailable

Basically 2 possibilities to obtain factor of safety:

2: Calculation with reduced parameters > perform new calculation

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Unsaturated Soil Slope

Homogeneous, drained soil layer

Soil parameters (Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion):

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Check of Mesh Dependency:

Unsaturated Soil Slope

Incremental shear strains after /c-reduction

Coarse Mesh (650 elements):

Fine Mesh (3233 elements):

No difference in results for

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

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Unsaturated Soil Slope

Advantage of FEM vs. LEM for Slope Stability Analysis

2. There is no theory of slices in the FEM, so no need to make

3. As long as the compressibility data of soils is available, the FEM will

4. The FEM is capable to check the progressive failure up to and

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Unsaturated Soil Slope

(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer

Geometry and mesh:

Effective poisson's ratio

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

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC

FEM vs. LEM

Unsaturated Soil Slope

(1) Homogeneous slope with no foundation layer

Janbus Simplified Method 1.330

Ordinary Method of Slice:

Morgenstern and Price Method

Bishops Simplified Method1.388

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

Slope Stability Analysis

Simple Slope with MC