Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Slope Stability Evaluation Using Limit e
Slope Stability Evaluation Using Limit e
Landslide of the embankments often occur in the region where has a diverse topography contours, one of
them in Indonesia. The instability of slope can triggered a variety of problems that need to be investigated further.
The stability of slopes recently is a major concern in the field of Geotechnical engineering especially in areas that
have diverse topography. There are two methods commonly used in the analysis of the stability of embankments.
The limit equilibrium method (LEM) is widely used by researchers and engineers conducting slope stability analysis.
Slope stability analysis using the finite element method (FEM) also has been widely accepted in the literature for
many years. Each of these methods also has differences in the results of the Safety Factor. Several previous studies
on the comparison of the difference in value of Safety Factor of the two methods have been done. The results
obtained from the comparison of LEM and FEM methods are still very varied according to the location of a review
of each research that have not shown definitive results and in accordance with the soil conditions in Indonesia.This
study aims to analyze the stability of embankments to perform comparisons on various conditions that have varied
contour of embankments and various types of soil in accordance with the most soil type in Indonesia by using the
LEM and FEM. Limit equilibrium method is done by comparing the previously developed methods: Ordinary /
Fellenius, simplified Bishop method, Janbu simplified method, Spencer Method, Morgenstern-Prince method,
Lowe-Karafiath Method. Both LEM and FEM analysis are performed using computer program. Comparison of the
results of the Safety factor of the methods mentioned above will then be compared again with the real landslide case
on the field. Expected outcomes of this research are: a) Obtain tolerance Safety Factor difference value with the
above methods on various conditions of sliding, b) Obtain the method that are suitable with the conditions of sliding
B4.5-1
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
and topography in the area of Indonesia. In this way, record from Soil and Rock Mechanics Laboratory,
the main motivation of stability analyses is to save Department of Civil Engineering ITS, Surabaya. In
human lives, reduce property damages and provide addition, this research will also be obtained
continuous services. Therefore, the most suitable and percentage range of different values for the safety
reliable stability analysis methods have great scope factor with the possibility of sliding slope and soil
and thus, they are increasingly demanding. The data variation slope conditions in the field.
chosen method should be able to identify the existing The scope of this study is slope stability evaluation
safety conditions and suggest for technically feasible using Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) and Finite
and economically viable solution Element Method (FEM) is expected to address such
Further research on the analysis of the cause instability problems. The aim of this study has been
of the landslide is lately developed. The studies to fulfill the main objective: to compare the most
conducted to obtain the appropriate methods and common LEM. Moreover, the most accurate LEM
obtaining analytical and mathematical formulation of have been selected for comparison with the more
the embankment stability in accordance with the advanced Finete Element Method. Within this
sliding conditions that often occur. That developed framework, the study has focused on the following
method is Limit Element Method (LEM) such us topics:
Ordinary method, Bishop's Method, Janbu's method, Comparison and evaluation of slope stability
Morgenstern-Price method, Spencer's and many using two methods: LEM and FEM
more; and Finite element method (FEM) that take Evaluation to the long term condition of slope
into account the relationship between stress-strain Investigation the shear strength and other
and deformation in soil. relevant parameters for stability analysis.
Some researchers have performed a
comparison against the possibility of sliding in slope LITERATUR REVIEW
topography in different soil conditions with a variety Embankment stability analysis is generally performed
of methods. Comparison of methods performed to by determining the safety factor of embankments
find which method is better suited to the actual which will be reviewed. Safety factor is defined as
conditions of sliding. Hongjun and Longtan (2011) the ratio of the average shear strength of the soil ( f)
states that the LEM method is more appropriate to with an average shear stress working along the plane
use to analyze landslide. Wright, Kulhawy and of the landslide ( d) (Equation 1). Soil shear strength
Duncan (1973) obtained that LEM method is consists of two components, namely cohesion and
considered more appropriate to the conditions of the shear as shown in Equation 1.
actual landslide that occurred in the field. (1)
Wright et al, Spencer (1967 & 1973) and
Duncan (1996) indicates that the average value of the . (2)
safety factor (SF) on some of the methods developed
by LEM has a tolerance of difference of ± 6% .Aryal, Limit equilibrium method (LEM)
Knutsson, Kirkebo (2006) states that the percentage Limit equilibrium method is one method to
difference SF value generated by each method determine the safety factor of a natural slope and
depends on the condition of subgrade embankments embankment. Unlike the Finite Element method, this
and pore water pressure. Research results show that method does not consider the stress-strain
the method produces a value of SF using method of relationship and deformation in soil. The principles
FEM is 5-14% larger than the method of LEM. The of sliding analysis with this method are:
value difference is caused by differences in soil
characteristics and pore water level. Aryal et al a. A cinematically feasible sliding surface is
(2006) also comparing many methods based on the assumed to define the mechanism of failure.
LEM are then compared with the FEM method b. Available shearing strength along the assumed
before verified with field conditions. slip surface is obtained by using the application
Several studies of slope stability analysis of static principles. Two applied static principle
have been done to show the results of the comparison are the assumption of plastic behavior for soil
are still variations on each of the investigators and mass and validity of Mohr-coulumb failure
have not shown definitive results. In addition, the criterion.
research that has been done previously is in c. The comparison of available shear strength and
accordance with the soil data of each region of required shear resistance to bring the equilibrium
researcher’s origin that largely not come from into limiting condition is made in term of FOS.
tropical regions enabling the difference in results
with the soil conditions in the region of Indonesia d. The satisfying value of FOS is determined
The main objective on this study is to obtain through an iterative process.
a method of slope stability calculations in accordance This method is very widely used by experts to
with the conditions of the land sliding in Indonesia. analyze geotechnical landslide. LEM has developed
Analysis will be performed by using a variation of since the early 20s century. Petterson (1915) present
the characteristics of the land acquired on soil data an analysis of the stability of embankments Stigberg
B4.5-2
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
Quay in Gotherberg, Sweden where the field is strain relationship and deformation. The basic
analyzed landslides which circle arc-shaped field of concept of this formulation is to reduce the value of
landslides mass calculation is done by the method of the shear stress (c) and shear angles in the ground to
vertical slices. Then the methods of calculation by obtain a safety factor value. Both of these parameters
using the method of slices continue to be developed will be reduced to the land mass in the body of
by several researchers, namely: Fellenius (1936), natural slope and embankment undergo landslide.
Janbu (1954) and Bishop (1955). The development of
computer calculations by auxiliary program began in ∑ (3)
the 1960s. The help of the computer program makes Where Msf = reduction factor of calculation;
the development of mathematical formulas become tan input and cinput = soil parameters in accordance
better. Some researchers are beginning to develop a
by the original conditions; tan reduced and
mathematical formula with aid a computer program is
creduced= reduction parameters during the
Morgenstern and Prince (1965) and Spencer (1967).
calculation process.
To the present, a lot of slope stability calculation
The total value of ΣMsf used in determining
methods by using LEM are already growing. In
the value of stress parameters of the soil in the
general, the whole concepts have an equal
analysis calculations performed. In the entire process
formulation. The differences that exist in some
of calculation of slope stability analysis, the total
formula which has evolved is the basis of static
value of the safety factor is obtained using the
formulas used in the analysis; the formula for
formula:
determining stress between the slices and
assumptions used in finding the relationship between ∑ (4)
shear stress and normal stress on each slice of field
landslides. The difference between the various
methods that have developed can be seen in Table 1 METHODS AND DATA ANALYSES
and Table 2. This study is divided into three stages, that is:
Tabel 1.The differences of each method based on the a. Soil testing data collection of soil and rock
use of static formula Mechanics Laboratory Department of Civil
Engineering, especially on the soil located on
Method Moment Force the slopes area.
Equilibrium equilibrium b. Embankments stability with variation analysis
Ordinary or Yes No of data obtained from a point using the methods
Fellenius described in the previous.
Bishop’s Yes No c. Comparing the results of the analysis with the
simplified sliding conditions on the field.
Janbu’s Simplified No Yes
Spencer Yes Yes Slope stability analysis performed on one
Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes type of embankment height that is 7 meters with a
slope of 1: 1. Soil data used is soil data taken from
Lowe-Karafiath No Yes
several locations in the city of Surabaya. The data
was taken from the Soil and Rock Mechanics
Tabel 2. The differences of each method based on the Laboratory Department of Civil engineering-FTSP
characteristics and relationships between stress in ITS. Testing ground data and sampling data in the
each field landslides slices field is also carried out as verification.
Method Interslice Interslice Ground data analysis was conducted to
Normal Shear obtain an illustration of soft soil profile, depth of soft
Ordinary or No No soil and soil types. The data is used to simulate the
Fellenius possibility of sliding of Slope both natural slopes and
Bishop’s Yes No Embankment. Soil data analyzed were more than 26
simplified data points N-SPT and bor-log data. Soil data
Janbu’s Simplified Yes No analysis was conducted to determine the type of soil
Spencer Yes Yes and soil consistency. 26 data points are scattered in
Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes Surabaya and surrounding area. The recapitulation of
Lowe-Karafiath Yes Yes soil data in the form of data N-SPT at each depth can
be seen in Figure 1.
Finite Element Method (FEM) Based on the results of soil data at several
locations in East Java showed that the soil has the
Finite element method is one method to obtain the different consistency and types. Correlation of soil
value of SF to analyze slope stability by considering consistency of the data N-SPT is in accordance with
the stress-strain relationship in the soil and ground Ardhana and Mochtar (2012) as can be seen in Table
deformation. The concept of calculation by this 3 for the type of cohesive soil and Table 4 for non-
method is to use numerical analysis to obtain a stress- cohesive soil types.
B4.5-3
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
Figure 1. Soil Consistency in the city of Surabaya and surrounding areas based on the
results of the N-SPT.
Tabel 3. Soil consistency for cohesive soil (Silt and Clay) by Mochtar (2012)
Soil consistency Cohesion Un-Drained N-SPT qc from Conus
Very soft 0-12.5 (Kpa) 0-1.25 (ton/m2) 0-2.5 0-10 kg/cm2 0-1000 kPa
Soft 12.5-25(Kpa) 1.25-2.5 (ton/m2) 2.5-5 10-20 kg/cm2 1000-2000 kPa
Medium stiff 25-50 (Kpa) 2.5-5 (ton/m2) 5-10 20-40 kg/cm2 2000-4000 kPa
Stiff 50-100 (Kpa) 5-10 (ton/m2) 10-20 40-75 kg/cm2 4000-7500 kPa
Very stiff 100-200 (Kpa) 10-20 (ton/m2) 20-40 75-150 kg/cm2 7500-15000 kPa
Hard >200 (Kpa) >20 (ton/m2) >40 >150 kg/cm2 >15000 kPa
Tabel 4. Soil consistency for non-cohesive soil (Gravel and sand) by Teng (1962)
Soil consistency Relative N-SPT Volume weight
density (sat (ton/m3))
very loose 0 % s/d 15 % 0 s/d 4 0 s/d 28 < 1.60
loose 15 % s/d 35 % 4 s/d 10 28 s/d 30 1.50 – 2.0
medium 35% s/d 65 % 10 s/d 30 30 s/d 36 1.75 – 2.10
dense 65% s/d 85 % 30 s/d 50 36 s/d 41 1.75 – 2.25
very dense 85% s/d 100 % > 50 41*
B4.5-4
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
b
The slope stability result by using
Limit equilibrium method will
compare with the result using
B4.5-5
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
Table 6. Summary of the analysis result of various types of soil landslide by using limit equilibrium method.
Natural slope (Dominant Clay) Road embankment Natural slope (Sandy Clay Type)
Safety Factor Analysis Safety Factor Analysis Safety Factor Analysis
1. The minimum SF : Janbu 1. SF values are relatively different 1. The minimum SF : Janbu
Method 2. The minimum SF : Janbu Method method
2. The maximum SF : Lowe- 3. The maximum SF : Lowe- 2. The maximum SF : Lowe-
Karafiath Method Karafiath Method Karafiath method
3. Other methods have the same 4. The medium SF : Bishop method 3. The medium SF : Ordinary
value of SF method
Volume of sliding Volume of sliding Volume of sliding
1. The maximum sliding area : 1. The maximum sliding area : 1. The maximum sliding area :
Lowe-Karafiath method Lowe-Karafiath method Lowe-Karafiath method
2. Other methods have the same 2. Other methods have the same 2. Other methods have the same
value of volume of sliding. value of volume of sliding. value of volume of sliding.
Activating moment Activating moment Activating moment
All moment equilibrium method All moment equilibrium method All moment equilibrium method
(Ordinary, Bishop, Morgenstern- (Ordinary, Bishop, Morgenstern- (Ordinary, Bishop, Morgenstern-
price, Spencer, GLE) have the same price, Spencer, GLE) have the same price, Spencer, GLE) have the same
value of Activating moment value of Activating moment value of Activating moment
Activating force Activating force Activating force
1. The maximum activating force : 1. The maximum activating force : 1. The maximum activating force :
Janbu method Janbu method Janbu method
2. Mostly Lowe-Karafiath method 2. Mostly Lowe-Karafiath method 2. Mostly Lowe-Karafiath method
have minimum value of have minimum value of have minimum value of
activating force activating force activating force
Based on the landslide analysis mentioned The observation of the percentage difference in the
above can be seen that each method has a different value of safety factor at the respective limit
parameter value landslides. Differences in results equilibrium method can be seen in Figure 5 and
often occur in landslide parameter using Janbu Table 8.
methods and methods Lowe-karafiath. The difference
is caused by differences in principles of calculation
parameters of landslide on each method. The
differences are summarized in Table 7. The principle
difference is the one that causes the value of safety
factor; the value of landslide volume and value
activating force in each method are different.
In analyzing landslide, safety factor value is
the value that would be the earliest to see by
implementing the construction whether the slope is
secure against the danger of landslide or not. Thus, in
this study analyzed the value of the safety factor is to
see how large a percentage of the difference value of
the safety factor of each method.
B4.5-6
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
Tabel 8a. The percentage of Safety factor value for various clay types using Limit equilibrium method
The methods used as Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 Clay 5
a parameter
Janbu -7.33 % - -11.11% -7.03%- -10.07% -5.93%- -9.63 -7.76%- -11.12% -9.58%
Lowe-Karafiath 4.42%-10.14% 3.7%-8.56% 2.14%-5.92% 5.45%-11.17% 3.15%-7.56%
Tabel 8b. The percentage of Safety factor value for road embankment slope (low water level) using Limit
equilibrium method
Information Ordinary Bishop Janbu MSP Spencer GLE J-K
To the minimum value 3.91 12.4 0 11.05 10.79 11.09 19.15
To the maximum value -14.51 -6.56 -17.01 -7.57 -7.69 -7.73 0
Tabel 8c. The percentage of Safety factor value for road embankment slope (high water level) using Limit
equilibrium method
Information Ordinary Bishop Janbu MSP Spencer GLE J-K
To the minimum value 1.89 18.5 4.35 11.58 13.27 12.28 12.22
To the maximum value -15.88 -7.63 -15.58 -7.5 -7.7 -7.3 -9.55
B4.5-7
The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)
October 15-17th, 2015
Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia
B4.5-8