Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
In the assessment of slopes, factor of safety values still remain the primary indexes for determining how close or far
slopes are from failure. Traditional limit-equilibrium techniques are the most commonly-used analysis methods. Recently,
however, the significant computing and memory resources typically available to the geotechnical engineer, combined with
low costs, have made the Finite Element Method (FEM) a powerful, viable alternative.
The Shear Strength Reduction (SSR) technique enables the FEM to calculate factors of safety for slopes. The method
enjoys several advantages including the ability to predict stresses and deformations of support elements, such as piles,
anchors and geotextiles, at failure. Despite the SSR finite element techniques many benefits, it has not received
widespread adoption among geotechnical engineers for routine slope stability analysis. This could be probably due to the
very limited experience engineers have had with the tool for slope stability analysis, and limited published information on
the quality/accuracy of its results.
To help change this situation this paper will compare the methods performance to those of the most widely used limitequilibrium methods on a broad range of slope cases. The SSRs performance will be tested on about 30 slope
examples, which have been reported in literature and have been used by software developers to verify the results of
traditional slope stability programs.
RSUM
Dans l'valuation des risques dinstabilit des pentes, on utilise encore aujourdhui des indexes empiriques de sret
pour dterminer la criticit et la rupture. Les techniques traditionnelles, fondes sur la notion de limite dquilibre, sont les
mthodes d'analyse les plus gnralement utilises pour ce faire. Cependant, les pouvoirs de calcul numriques en
gnral disponibles l'ingnieur gotechnique, combin avec de bas cots, ont rcemment permis aux mthodes
fondes sur les calculs dlments finis (FEM) de devenir une alternative puissante et viable.
La technique de la rduction de rsistance au cisaillement (SSR) permet au FEM de calculer des facteurs de sret pour
une pente. La mthode comporte plusieurs avantages, comme par exemple la capacit de prvoir les contraintes et les
dformations des lments de soutien, tels que les piliers, les ancres ou autre gotextiles au moment de la rupture. En
dpit des nombreux avantages des calculs fonds sur les lments finis et de la technique SSR, cette dernire na t
adopt que par trs peu dingnieurs gotechniques dans le cas de lvaluation de la stabilit des pentes. Ceci peut
probablement tre mis sur le compte dune exprience trs limite des ingnieurs avec les mthodes numriques
d'analyse de stabilit de pente, et le peu d'information publie sur la qualit ou lexactitude de leurs rsultats.
Cest dans le but de remdier cette situation que cet article compare la mthode SSR celles de limite-quilibre les
plus largement rpandues. Cette comparaison porte sur une large gamme de pente et les rsultats de la mthode SSR
sont examins sur environ 30 exemples diffrents de pente, rapportes dans la littrature. Ces exemples ont permis aux
informaticiens programmateurs de vrifier les rsultats des programmes de stabilit de pente traditionnels.
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
2.
2.2
significantly affect
deformations.
the
magnitudes
of
computed
3.
4.
VERIFICATION EXAMPLES
5.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
References
Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E., 1989. Concepts
and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, U.S.A.
Crisfield, M.A., 1986. Finite Elements and Solution
Procedures for Structural Analysis, Volume I: Linear
Analysis, Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K.
Dawson, E.M., Roth, W.H. and Drescher, A., 1999, Slope
Stability
Analysis
by
Strength
Reduction,
Geotechnique, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 835-840.
Griffiths, D.V., and P.A. Lane, 1999, Slope Stability
Analysis by Finite Elements, Geotechnique, vol. 49,
no. 3, pp. 387-403.
Hammah, R.E., Yacoub, T.E. and Corkum, B., 2005, The
Shear Strength Reduction Method for the Generalized
Hoek-Brown Criterion,. In Proceedings of the 40th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Alaska Rocks 2005,
Anchorage, Alaska.
Hammah, R.E., Curran, J.H., Yacoub, T.E., and Corkum,
B., 2004, Stability Analysis of Rock Slopes using the
Finite Element Method. In Proceedings of the ISRM
Regional Symposium EUROCK 2004 and the 53rd
Geomechanics Colloquy, Salzburg, Austria.
Owen, D.R.J. and Hinton, E. 1980. Finite Elements in
Plasticity: Theory and Practice, Pineridge Press,
Swansea, U.K.
Rocscience Inc. 2005. Phase2 v6.0 Two-Dimensional
Finite Element Slope Stability Analysis. Verification
Manual.
Rocscience Inc. 2003. Slide v5.0 Two-Dimensional
Limit-Equilibrium Analysis of Soil and Rock Slopes.
Verification Manual Part I.
Shukra, R. and Baker, R., 2003, Mesh Geometry Effects
on Slope Stability Calculation by FLAC Strength
Reduction Method Linear and Non-Linear Failure
Criteria. In Proceedings of the 3rd International FLAC
Symposium, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, eds. R.
Brummer et al, pp. 109-116.
FIGURES
E (kPa)
(degrees)
Factor of Safety
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2,000
2,000
20,000
20,000
200,000
200,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
0.2
0.48
0.2
0.48
0.2
0.48
0.2
0.2
0.48
0.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
17.5
35
17.5
35
1.21
1.18
1.21
1.18
1.21
1.18
1.26
1.25
1.22
1.27
E (kPa)
E (kPa)
E (kPa)
1
20,000
0.2
20,000
0.2
20,000
0.2
1.19*
2
2,000
0.2
20,000
0.2
200,000
0.2
1.15
3
200,000
0.2
20,000
0.2
2,000
0.2
1.34
4
20,000
0.2
2,000
0.2
200,000
0.2
1.16
5
200,000
0.2
2,000
0.2
20,000
0.2
1.23
6
200,000
0.2
2,000
0.2
2,000,000
0.2
1.23
7
2,000,000
0.2
2,000
0.2
200,000
0.2
1.29
8
20,000
0.48
20,000
0.3
20,000
0.2
1.19
9
20,000
0.2
20,000
0.48
20,000
0.3
1.16
10
20,000
0.2
2,000
0.3
200,000
0.48
1.17
*The difference this factor and safety and that in Line 3 of Table 1 is a result of different meshing.
Reported
Factors of
3
Safety
1.000 [1]
0.986 [S]
0.986 [S]
1.390 [1]
1.375 [S]
1.374 [S]
1.000 [S]
0.991 [S]
0.989 [S]
1.950 [1]
1.948 [S]
1.948 [S]
1.24-1.27 [1]
1.258 [S]
1.246 [S]
0.780 [1]
0.707 [S]
0.683 [S]
1.530 [1]
1.501 [S]
1.500 [S]
1.040 [2]
1.065 [S]
1.059 [S]
1.240 [2]
1.334 [S]
1.336 [S]
1.451 [3]
1.346 [3]
1.409 [S]
1.406 [S]
0.417 [3]
0.430 [3]
0.421 [S]
0.424 [S]
0.995 [3]
1.071 [3]
1.050 [S]
1.094 [S]
1.339 [4]
1.330 [5]
1.324 [S]
1.080 [6]
1.020 [7]
1.010 [S]
1.40-1.42 [5]
1.40-1.42 [6]
1.398 [S]
1.080 [5]
1.01-1.03 [8]
1.007 [S]
2.073 [9]
2.075 [S]
1.761 [9]
1.760 [S]
1.830 [9]
1.831 [S]
SSR
Results
1.00
1.36
0.97
1.93
1.28
0.79
1.48
0.96
1.33
1.40
0.39
1.09
1.34
1.01
1.39
1.01
2.00
1.68
1.79
1.39
1.04
1.18
1.43
1.01
1.01
1.52
1.12
1.27
2.35
1.31
1.65
1.56
1.42
1.25
0.99
0.91
1.14
1.54
2.74
2.83
1.28
1.47
1.38
This number refers to the Verification Number for this problem as described in the Slide Verification Manual.
This number refers to the Verification Number for this problem as described in the Phase2 Verification Manual.
The values in the parentheses besides each reported factor of safety refer to the reference number of the
technical paper that reports that factor of safety. An [S] beside a factor of safety indicates a value computed by
Slide.