Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
Slope Stability Analysis
3 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
4 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
2
1
15,00
5,00
60,00
Example from: Griffiths and Lane, Slope stability analysis by finite elements, Geotechnique 49, 387-403, 1999
2
Slope Stability Analysis
5 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
650 elements
Coarse Mesh (650 elements): (6-noded)
FOS: 1.37
650 elements
(15-noded)
FOS: 1.33
Method 1
3233 elements
(15-noded)
Reduced Factor: 1.32
No difference in results for
Method 2
Method 1 and 2
Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013
6 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
Slope Stability Analysis
7 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
Failure mechanism:
Incremental strains:
FOS = 1.348
8 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
Elevation
7 7
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
4
Slope Stability Analysis
9 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
Failure mechanism:
Incremental strains:
FOS = 1.339
10 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
14
12 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
14
12 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
FOS = 1.332
Elevation
Elevation
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
14
12 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
FOS = 1.388 14
12 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
FOS = 1.386
Elevation
Elevation
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
Slope Stability Analysis
11 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
12 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
Slope Stability Analysis
13 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
10
8
Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
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
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
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
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
FOS = 1.400
Elevation
20 14
18 12
Cohesion: 10 kPa
Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
16 10
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
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
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 0
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
Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013
14 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
Slope Stability Analysis
15 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
16 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
8
Slope Stability Analysis
17 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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)
6 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 6 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
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
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
16 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 16 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
Elevation
Elevation
14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 1.485 14
12
Cohesion: 50 kPa
FOS = 2.064
10 10
8 8
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
6 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 6 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
4 Cohesion: 50 kPa 4 Cohesion: 100 kPa
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
Model: Undrained (Phi=0) Model: Undrained (Phi=0)
16 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 16 Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
FOS = 2.064
Elevation
Elevation
Distance Distance
Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013
18 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
FOS
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
cu2/cu1
9
Slope Stability Analysis
19 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
20 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
10
Slope Stability Analysis
21 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 5
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
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
Model: Mohr-Coulomb 6 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
6
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 5
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
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
1.437 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
Model: Mohr-Coulomb 6 Model: Mohr-Coulomb
6
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m 5
Unit Weight: 20 kN/m
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
Distance Distance
Computational Geotechnics Course / Bandung, Indonesia, 9-11 December 2013
22 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
2.0
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
Slope Stability Analysis
23 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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.
24 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope 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
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
Slope Stability Analysis
25 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
Hydraulic Models
The Van Genuchten Model is used in which the effective degree of saturation (Se)
is obtained as:
S-Sresidu
Se =
Ssat- Sresidu
26 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
Slope Stability Analysis
27 Introduction Hydraulic Models Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils Numerical Modelling Conclusions
Oberg and Sallfors (1997) and 1.0 Silt, drained 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)
28 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
Positive
Saturated soil pore-water
pressure
14
Slope Stability Analysis
29 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
10m
15m
Figure : Geometry and two dimensional finite element mesh (4800 15-noded elements)
30 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
Soil Parameters
Soil parameters for the Mohr Coulomb model used in the analysis:
15
Slope Stability Analysis
31 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
32 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope 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
16
Slope Stability Analysis
33 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
34 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
Initial Suction
Initial suction in the model is 100 kN/m2
(kN/m2)
100.00
0 kN/m2 -10.00
17
Slope Stability Analysis
35 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
36 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
18
Slope Stability Analysis
37 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
38 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
19
Slope Stability Analysis
39 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
40 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
20
Slope Stability Analysis
41 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
42 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
21
Slope Stability Analysis
43 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
44 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
22
Slope Stability Analysis
45 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
46 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
saturation
(%)
100.00
95.00
90.00
85,00
80.00
23
Slope Stability Analysis
47 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope Conclusions
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
FOS
1.5
12 1.706 1.660 1.631 1.565
18 1.704 1.656 1.618 1.561 1.4
48 Introduction Simple Slope with MC FEM vs. LEM Unsaturated Soil Slope 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