PDF

UNIVERZA V MARIBORU
FAKULTETA ZA GRADBENIŠTVO, PROMETNO INŽENIRSTVO IN ARHITEKTURO
Tadej Vidnar
ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL FACTOR OF

SAFETY (ULS) CALCULATIONS ON
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
Master Thesis
Maribor, September 2017

I
Smetanova ulica 17
2000 Maribor, Slovenija
Magistrsko delo na študijskem programu 2. stopnje UM
ANALITIČNI IN NUMERIČNI IZRAČUNI FAKTORJA VARNOSTI NASIPOV IZ

ARMIRANE ZEMLJINE ZA MSN
Študent: Tadej VIDNAR
Študijski program: 2. stopnja, Gradbeništvo
Smer: Geotehnika
Mentor: Doc. dr. Borut MACUH univ. dipl. inž. grad.
Somentor: Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Techn. Christian LACKNER (3G Gruppe

Geotechnik Graz ZT GmbH)
Maribor, september 2017

II
III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I cordially thank Assist. Prof. Dr. Borut Macuh for

help and guidance. I would also like to express my
deep gratitude to Dr. Christian Lackner for help and
guidance.
Special thanks to my family members, for their

support and encouragement throughout my life.
IV
ANALITIČNI IN NUMERIČNI IZRAČUNI FAKTORJA VARNOSTI NASIPOV IZ

ARNMIRANE ZEMLJINE ZA MSN
Ključne besede: gradbeništvo, metoda končnih elementov (MKE), metoda mejnih ravnovesij,
nasipi, nasipi iz armirane zemljine, stabilnost pobočja, nosilnost temeljnih tal,
geosintetiki, geomreže, strižne deformacije
UDK: 624.131.4(043.2)
Povzetek
V pričujočem magistrskem delu je preučen analitični in numerični pristop stabilnostne

analize izračuna faktorja varnosti nasipa armirane zemljine, kateri je ojačan s pomočjo
geomrež. Izračuni so narejeni s pomočjo programske opreme SLIDE, ki temelji na metodi
mejnih ravnovesij (deterministični izračun) ter PHASE2, kateri bazira na metodi končnih
elementov.
Prvo poglavje magistrskega dela predstavlja uvod. V njem je opisana definicija

problema, področje raziskav ter namen.
Drugo poglavje opisuje armirano zemljino. Armirana zemljina je splošen izraz, ki se

uporablja za zemljine, katere so ojačane z armaturo, katera zagotavlja natezno trdnost.
Ker so armirane zemljine stroškovno ugodne ter učinkovite se njihova uporaba iz leta v
leto veča. V poglavju so na kratko predstavljeni geosintetiki, njihove funkcije ter področje
uporabe. Ker je primer iz prakse ojačan z geomrežami je poudarek na le-teh. Geomreže
so iztisnjen, zvarjen ali spleten geosintetik, katerega glavna naloga je nosilnost v eni,
dveh ali pa v treh smereh. Geomreže so sestavljene iz prečnih ter vzdolžnih elementov in
vozlišč, ki predstavljajo točko v kateri se sekata elementa. Zemljina, katera obdaja
vgrajeni geogrid in zapolni njegove odprtine bo preprečila kakršnokoli premikanje le-
tega. Interakcija zemljina-geogrid je posledica trenja med delci zemljine in površine
geomreže. Pred vsakim prečnim elementom se mobilizira odpornost tal. Natezna sila v
vzdolžnih elementih se preko vozlišč prenaša v prečne elemente in je tako kompenzirana
z mobilizirano odpornostjo. Projektna vrednost natezne trdnosti geomreže se
preračunava skladno z nemškimi smernicami EBGEO. Prenos sile med zemljino in
geomrežo je dosežen s pomočjo trenja in adhezijo med zemljino in geomrežo. To trenje
V
in adhezija sta določena s pomočjo tabel, katere vrednost je odvisna od koeficienta

zemljine. Vrednost koeficienta je odvisna od tipa geomreže ter kontaktne zemljine.
Tretje poglavje opisuje analitične in numerične metode izračuna stabilnosti pobočja. Oba
pristopa sta opisana ter primerjana med seboj. Pri analitičnem pristopu so podrobno
opisane najpogosteje uporabljene metode mejnih stanj. Metode se med seboj razlikujejo
glede predpostavk lege in naklona normalne in strižne sile ter ravnovesnih pogojev.
Metode mejnih ravnovesij temeljijo na predpostavki normalne in strižne sile, ki delujta v

lamelah ter kako so te sile določene oz. predpostavljene. Slabost teh determinističnih
metod je ta, da ne upoštevajo odnosa napetost-deformacija in posledično s tem pomikov.
Glavna razlika med pristopoma je, da analitične metode temeljijo na ravnotežnih pogojih
(vsota vseh sil in/ali momentov je enaka nič), medtem ko numerične metode upoštevajo
robne pogoje pobočja ter odnos napetost-deformacija. Za razliko od determinističnih
metod, numerična analiza s pomočjo končnih elementov izračuna tudi pomike. Razlika je
tudi v tem, kako so ojačitveni elementi npr. sidra ali geomreže upoštevana v analizi. Ena
izmed teh razlik je ta, da metode mejnih stanj po celotnem ojačitvenem elementu
upoštevajo konstantno silo za razliko od numeričnih, ki izračunajo silo v vsaki točki
ojačitvenega elementa, katera je proporcionalna deformaciji le-te.
Stabilnostna analiza, ki je opisana v četrtem poglavju je narejena na praktičnem primeru

nasipa iz armirane zemljine ojačane s pomočjo geomrež, kateri se od izvirnega projekta
razlikuje samo v tem, da pobočje sestavljajo tri plasti zemljine in ne zgolj ena plast. V
tem poglavju so prikazane geometrija nasipa, karakteristike zemljin ter izračun projektne
odpornosti geomrež ter trenje in adhezija med zemljino in geomrežo. Opisan je tudi
postopek vgradnje geomrež ter začasno varovanje izkopa s samouvrtalnimi pasivnimi
sidri IBO ter brizganim betonom. Nasip je ojačan z geomrežami FORTRAC 110/50-20 T
katerih projektna natezna trdnost z upoštevanjem vseh redukcijskih faktorjev znaša 39.4
kN/m. Pasivna sidra so dolga 8 m ter vgrajena na medsebojni razdalji 3,5 m. Natezna
trdnost posameznega sidra znaša 250 kN.
V nadaljevanju poglavja so v obliki slik prikazani rezultati posameznih izračunov za

posamezno stanje in pristop. Stabilnostna analiza je bila narejena za obstoječe stanje,
stanje po izkopu z varovanjem ter za končno stanje nasipa iz armiranje zemljine z
VI
upoštevanjem prometne obtežbe. Kot dodatek je bilo na koncu raziskano tudi to kaj se
zgodi, če v zadnjo fazo dodamo vodo.
Ker je bil analitični pristop narejen za krožno in poligonalno porušnico ter s tremi
različnimi metodami mejnih ravnovesij predstavlja faktor varnosti za posamezno fazo
najmanjša vrednost le-teh. Rezultat analitičnega pristopa je kritična porušnica in njen
faktor varnosti za razliko od numeričnega pristopa kjer porušnico predstavlja porušni
mehanizem, katerega predstavljajo strižne deformacije.
Rezultat stabilnostne analize je faktor varnosti večji od 1.0, kar pomeni da je konstrukcija
stabilna. Glede na to, da je bila za strižno trdnost pobočja privzeta zelo majhna vrednost
je tudi faktor varnosti temu primerno manjši.
Stabilnostna analiza nasipa iz armirane zemljine v katerem je prisotna voda je pokazala,

da je konstrukcija nestabilna, kajti faktor varnosti je manjši od 1.0.
Pridobljeni rezultati nakazujejo na globalno porušitev, zaradi slabega materiala na

katerega je bil postavljen nasip.
Zadnje poglavje magistrskega dela predstavlja primerjavo med vrednostmi faktorja

varnosti ter obliko porušnice. Razlika med vrednostmi faktorja varnosti med pristopoma
je minimalna. Razlika v prvi in tretji fazi je 2 %, v drugi fazi pa približno 7 %. Tudi oblike
kritičnih porušnic dobro sovpadajo z manjšimi odstopanji.
VII
ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL FACTOR OF SAFETY (ULS) CALCULATIONS ON

REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
Key words: civil engineering, finite element method (FEM), limit equilibrium method
(LEM), embankments, slope stability, bearing capacity failure, geosynthetics,
geogrids, shear strains
UDK: 624.131.4(043.2)
Abstract
This thesis deals with factor of safety calculations on geogrid reinforced embankments
carried out by commonly used limit equilibrium (LEM) and finite element methods
(FEM). The study utilize LEM based software SLIDE and FEM based software PHASE2.
The main difference between these two approaches is that the LEM methods are based
on the static of equilibrium whereas FEM methods utilise the stress strain relationship.
Unlike to LEM, numerical analysis also computes displacements.
For practical example of a geogrid reinforced embankment the factor of safeta (FoS) is
calculated. Reinforced soil structures are nowadays utilized for a lot of civil engineering
applications. Traditionally, the design of geogrid reinforced soil is performed using
analytical methods (LEM). Unfortunately, these methods missing the fundamental physics
of stress-strain relationship and are therefore not able to compute a realistic stress
distribution.
In first step of the analysis the FoS is carried out with analytical approach. The most
rigorous LEM methods, Bishop’s, Spencer’s and Morgenstern-Price are selected and the
FoS for circular and polygonal slip surface is calculated.
In second step of the analysis the FoS is carried out with numerical approach. Shear
strength reduction (SSR) procedure was performed to determine the critical strength
reduction factor (SRF) which represents the FoS of slope.
VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 DEFINITION OF PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1

1.2 FIELD OF RESEARCH........................................................................................... 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MASTER THESIS .......................................... 2
2 REINFORCED SOIL ............................................................................................. 3
2.1 AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 3

2.2 FUNCTION OF GEOSYNTHETICS .......................................................................... 5
2.3 GEOGRIDS.......................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Mechanical properties .................................................................................. 6
3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 9
3.1 ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS (LEM) ......................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Bishop simplified method (1955)[18] ......................................................... 10
3.1.2 Janbu´s generalised method (1973) [18] ................................................... 11
3.1.3 Spencer method (1967) ............................................................................... 11
3.1.4 GLE/Morgenstern-Price (1965) ................................................................. 12
3.2 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 13
3.3 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS.................... 14
4 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF REINFORCED EARTH ANALYSIS ............ 15
4.1 GENERAL DATA ............................................................................................... 15

4.1.1 General information about the stability analysis ....................................... 17
4.1.2 Material characteristics ............................................................................. 18
4.1.3 Geogrids ..................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4 Anchors ....................................................................................................... 20
4.1.5 Traffic load ................................................................................................. 20
4.1.6 Foundation at embankment base (concrete footing). ................................. 20
4.2 ANALYTICAL FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATION ............................................. 22
4.2.1 Stage 1 - Initial condition ........................................................................... 23
4.2.2 Stage 2 - Stair type excavation, concrete footing and anchoring. .............. 27
IX
4.2.3 Stage 3 - Embankment construction ........................................................... 31

4.3 NUMERICAL FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATION............................................... 37
4.3.1 Stage 1 – Initial condition .......................................................................... 39
4.3.2 Stage 2 - Stair type excavation, concrete footing and anchoring. .............. 46
4.3.3 Stage 3 - Embankment construction ........................................................... 53
4.3.4 Stage 4 - Embankment construction – with water ...................................... 64
4.3.5 Results of the FEM analysis ....................................................................... 66
5 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF LEM AND FEM ANALYSIS ........ 67
6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 69
7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 71
8 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................. 73
8.1 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. 73

8.2 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... 76
8.3 CURRICULUM VITAE........................................................................................ 77
X
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Roman symbols
c - Cohesion
c´ - Effective cohesion
ht - Height from the midpoint of the slice base to the dE
k - Permeability
l - Slice length
u - Pore pressure
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 - Reduction factor
E - Interslice normal force
Es - Soil stiffness
FoS - Factor of safety
F - Force
Fx - Force – horizontal
Fy - Force – vertical
K0 - Lateral earth pressure
M - Moment
N - Base normal force
N´ - Effective base normal force
RB,k0 - Characteristic value of the short-term strength of the geogrid
RB,k - Characteristic value of the long-term strength of the geogrid
RB,d - Design resistance of the geogrid reinforcement
S - Shear force acting at the base of slice
T - Interslice shear force
W - Weight of each slice or total sliding mass

XI
Greek symbols
 - Angle of the sliding plane
t - Angle of the inclination of the line of thrust plane
 - Friction angle
´ - Effective friction angle
 - Unit weight of soil
M - Partial safety factor
 - Scale factor
 - Angle of inclination of interslice resultant force
 - Poisson ratio
 - Dilatancy angle
 - Shear stress
f - Shear strength
XII
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
DEM Discrete Element method
FEM Finite Element Method
FDM Finite Difference Method
FE Finite Element
J Junction
LEM Limit equilibrium method
LE Longitudinal element
PHASE2 Finite element software for groundwater and slope stability
SSR Shear Strength Reduction
SRF Strength Reduction Factor
SS Slip Surface
SLIDE Limit equilibrium software for groundwater and slope stability analysis
TE Transverse element
Analytical and numerical factor of safety (ULS) calculations on reinforced Embankments Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Definition of problem
Reinforced soil structures are nowadays utilized for a lot of civil engineering applications,
especially for fast and economical geotechnical engineering solutions. Without the use of
these geosynthetic reinforcement materials, in most cases geogrids, many construction
projects all around the world would not have succeeded outstandingly.[2]
Soils are materials that have good resistance against pressure, but are weak in tension.
Numerous efforts are performed to overcome the weakness of the soil in deformability.
Meanwhile, several design standards and recommendations for the European regions but
also for the USA are available.[2]
In most applications, the primary purpose of slope stability analysis is to contribute to the
safe and economic design excavations, embankments, earth dams, landfills…. Several
methods for calculating safety factors of slopes have been published in literature.
For slopes, the factor of safety FoS is traditionally defined as the ratio of the actual soil shear
strength to the minimum shear strength required to prevent failure (Bishop, 1955). That
means FoS is the factor by which the soil shear strength must be divided to bring the slope
to the verge of failure.[6]
1.2 Field of research
Traditionally, the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil is performed using the simplified
classical analysis or empirical methods (Limit Equilibrium Stability Analysis).
Unfortunately, the application of these methods renders various degrees of approximations
in determination of major design factor [4]. This lacking in LEM, has been well covered by
the finite element method (FEM). As a result, complicated geotechnical computations can
easily be performed. In addition, FEM analysis can simulate stress concentrated problems
and deformation compatibility, which have been experienced problematic in LEM. User
friendliness, simplicity and relatively good FoS for a particular case are the advantage of the
LEM.
1.3 Purpose and objectives of the Master Thesis
Purpose of this Thesis is to calculate and compare the factor of safety from numerical and
analytical approach for practical example of a geogrid reinforced embankment. The original
project and this example are not same. They differ in number of soil layers and their
characteristics. The aim is also to identify the failure mechanism (slope failure or bearing
capacity failure).
The numerical calculations in this thesis are preformed using the two-dimensional finite
element program Phase2 [Phase2 V8 & V9]. The limit equilibrium models (analytical),
equivalent to the numerical calculations, are analysed with Slide [Slide V6].
2 REINFORCED SOIL
Reinforced soil is a generic term that is applied to structures of systems constructed by

placing reinforcing elements in soil to provide improved tensile resistance. Reinforced soil
structures are very cost-effective which explains why the concept has emerged as one of the
most exciting and innovative civil engineering technologies in recent time.
2.1 Available technology
Geosynthetics are defined as a planar product manufactured from a synthetic or natural

polymeric material that is used in connection with soil, rock or other geotechnical-related
material as an integral part of a civil engineering project, structure, or system. Most
geosynthetics are made from synthetic polymers of polypropylene, polyester, polyvinyl
chloride or polyethylene. Within each class specific types of polymers and related additive
packages are selected, which fit best to the envisaged application. [12][13]
Types of Geosynthetics:
• Geotextiles (GT) are continuous sheets of woven, nonwoven, knitted or stitch-

bonded fibres or yarns. The sheets are flexible and permeable and generally have the
appearance of a fabric. Geotextiles are sued for separation, filtration, drainage,
reinforcement and erosion control application.
• Geogrids (GG) are extruded, welded or woven geosynthetic materials that have and
open grid-like appearance. The principal application for geogrids is the
reinforcement of soil uniaxial, biaxial or triaxial.
• Geonet (GN) consists of a regular dense network, whose elements are constituent
linked by knots or extrusion and with openings larger than the constituents.
• Geomembrane (GM) is a relatively impermeable polymeric sheet.
• GS clay liner (GCL) is an assembled structure of geosynthetic materials and low

hydraulic conductivity soil material in the form of a manufactured sheet.
• Geofoam (GF) a polymeric material formed by the application of the polymer in

semi-liquid form, with use of a foaming agent
• Geocells (GL) are honeycomb shaped structures made by the continuous extrusion
of polyethylene without any welding.
• Geocomposite (GC) is a manufactured or assembled material using at least one

geosynthetic product among other components.
Figure 2.1 Types of geosynthetics [14]

2.2 Function of geosynthetics
In general, geosynthetics can be used as:
• Sealing, to prevent the infiltration of liquids or gases.
• Containment, to contain soil or sediments to a specific geometry and prevent their

loss.
• Drainage layers, to collect and transport fluids.
• Filter layers, to allow passage of fluids from a soil while preventing the uncontrolled
passage of soil particles
• Protection layers, to prevent or reduce the damage to a given surface or layer as a

localized stress reduction layer.
• Reinforcement, to resist stresses or contain deformations in geotechnical structures.
• Separation layer, to separate two different geotechnical materials to prevent

intermixing.
• Surficial erosion controller, to prevent the surface erosion of soil particles due to
surface water run-off or wind forces.
• Frictional interlayer, to increasing or reducing the friction across the interface.
These functions can be fulfilled sustainably with respect to production and installation as
well as cost efficiently by the appropriately designed geosynthetic products.[12]
2.3 Geogrids
Because of the different properties of individual geosynthetic types, properties of geogrids

will be described in connection to the practical example.
Geogrid consists of longitudinal (LE) and transverse elements (TE). At the crossing of both
elements are the junctions (J). Schematic view of geogrid is shown below in Figure 2.2.
LE
TE
Figure 2.2 Schematic view of a geogrid [22]
The soil which surrounds the embedded geogrid and fills the openings will resist any
movement of the geogrid. The soil-geogrid interaction is due to friction between the soil
particles and the surface of geogrid. In front of each section of the transverse element a soil
resistance is mobilized. The tensile force in the longitudinal elements is transferred into the
transverse elements via the junctions and compensated by the mobilized bearing force of the
soil. [12]
2.3.1 Mechanical properties

Structural resistance
The structural resistance of a geogrid, which refer to its tensile strength RB,d, is based on the
load-extension curve determined in a tensile test for the respective geogrid. The short-term
strength RB,k0 is determined from the maximum tensile force. The short-term strength is
identified in the tests and given relative to a width of 1 m. To take production tolerances into
account the characteristic value of the short-term strength RB,k0 is given as the 5 % quantile.
The geogrids long-term strength is calculated as short-term strength divided by the reduction
factors A1 to A5.[1]
𝑅𝐵,𝑘0
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 =
𝐴1 ∙ 𝐴2 ∙ 𝐴3 ∙ 𝐴4 ∙ 𝐴5
The reduction factors take several considerations into account:
• the impact of creep A1,
• damage to the geogrid during transportation, installation and compaction A2,
• the impact of junctions, seams and connections A3,
• Environmental impacts such as weathering, chemicals and microorganism A4,
• and impacts from predominantly dynamic actions A5.[1]
The design resistance of the geogrid RB,d is calculated by dividing the characteristic long-
term strength by the partial safety factor M for the structural resistance of the reinforcement.
𝑅𝐵,𝑘
𝑅𝐵,𝑑 =
𝛾𝑀
Among other things it considers any deviations in the geometry of the structure and in the
characteristic values of the geosynthetics compared to those identified in the laboratory.[1]
Interaction Soil – geogrid
The reinforcement works by transferring forces from soil to the geogrid or reverse. These is
mainly achieved by friction and adhesion, summarized by soil and geogrid interaction.[16]
Friction angle:
𝜑 (𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑−𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) = arctan(tan 𝜑 (𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) ∙ 𝑎𝜑𝑆,𝑃 )
𝑎𝜑𝑆 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝
𝑎𝜑𝑃 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑡
Adhesion:
𝑐 (𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑−𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) = 𝑐 (𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) ∙ 𝑎𝑐𝑆,𝑃
𝑎𝑐𝑆 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝
𝑎𝑐𝑃 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑡
The coefficients for interaction soil-geogrid are specific to the product and dependent on
contact ground.
3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Computing power and resources available to the geotechnical engineer today, combined with
low costs, have made slope stability analysis with the Finite Element Method (FEM) a viable
alternative to traditional limit equilibrium methods (analytical techniques). The Shear
Strength Reduction (SSR) technique enables the FEM to be used to calculate factors of safety
for slopes. [5]
3.1 Analytical analysis (LEM)
The common thing of all LEM is the assumption that the shear strengths of materials along
the potential failure surface are governed by linear or non-linear relationships between shear
strength and the normal stress on the failure surface. The LEM consists of the study of the
equilibrium between a rigid body and of a slip surface of any shape. Shear stresses (τ) are
calculated according to Mohr-Coulomb’s failure criterion from this equilibrium and
compared to the available resistance (τf). From this comparison, the first indication of
stability as the FoS derives (equation below).[7]
𝜏𝑓
𝐹𝑂𝑆 =
𝜏
These days’ various equilibrium methods exist. Some of them consider the global
equilibrium of the rigid body (Culmann), while others divide the rigid body into slices to
cater for its non-homogeneity and consider the equilibrium of each of these (Bishop, Janbu,
Spencer etc.). [7]
All LEM are based on certain assumptions for the interslice normal (E) and shear (T) forces,
and the basic difference among the methods is how these forces are determined or assumed.
In addition to this, the shape of the assumed slip surface and the equilibrium conditions for
calculation of the FoS are among the others.[18]
The interslice forces depend on a number of factors, including stress-strain and deformation
characteristics of the materials. Their evaluation is complicated therefore, simplified
assumptions are made in most methods either to neglect both (normal and shear force) or to
one of them (normal or shear force). However, the most advanced methods consider these
forces in the analysis. Below some of the LEM of slices are described.[18]
Table 3.1 Summary of LE methods [18]
Methods Circular Non-circular M = 0 F = 0 Assumption for T

SS SS and E
Bishop simplified + (#) + (##) Considers E,
neglect T
Janbu generalised + + (###) + Considers E and T
Spencer + (#) + + Constant
inclination
GLE/Morgenstern- + + + + Defined by f(x)
Price
(#) Can be used for both circular and non-circular SS
(##) Satisfied vertical force equilibrium for base normal force
(###) Satisfied moment equilibrium for intermediate thin slices
3.1.1 Bishop simplified method (1955)[18]

This method considers the interslice normal forces but
neglects the interslice shear forces and can be used for
circular and non-circular failure surface.
∑(𝑐´ ∙ 𝑙 + 𝑁´ ∙ tan 𝜑´)

𝐹𝑜𝑆 =
∑(𝑊 ∙ sin 𝛼)
1 𝑐 ´ ∙ 𝑙 ∙ sin 𝛼
𝑁´ = ∑ (𝑊 − − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙 ∙ cos 𝛼)
tan 𝜑´ 𝐹𝑜𝑆
cos 𝛼 ∙ (1 + tan 𝛼 ∙ )
𝐹𝑜𝑆
The computation requires an iterative procedure because of the nonlinear relationship (FoS
appears in both equations)
3.1.2 Janbu´s generalised method (1973) [18]

Janbu´s generalised method considers both interslice
forces and assumes a line of thrust to determine a
relationship for interslice forces. As a result, the FoS
becomes a function with both interslice forces.
∑((𝑐´ ∙ 𝑙 + (𝑁´ − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙) ∙ tan 𝜑´) ∙ sec 𝛼)

𝐹𝑜𝑆 =
∑((𝑊 − (𝑇2 − 𝑇1 )) ∙ tan 𝛼) + ∑ 𝐸2 − 𝐸1
1 1
𝑁´ = ∙ (𝑊 − (𝑇2 − 𝑇1 ) − ∙ (𝑐 ´ ∙ 𝑙 − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙 ∙ tan 𝜑´) ∙ sin 𝛼)
cos 𝛼 ∙ (1 + tan 𝛼 ∙ )
𝐹𝑜𝑆
𝑑𝐸
𝑇 = tan 𝛼𝑡 ∙ 𝐸 − ∙ℎ
𝑑𝑥 𝑡
3.1.3 Spencer method (1967)

The Spencer´s method satisfied both force and moment
equilibrium. A constant inclination for the interslice forces
is assumed and the FoS is computed for both equilibriums.
According to this method, the interslice shear force is
related to 𝑇 = 𝐸 ∙ tan 𝜃. The interslice forces are computed
by iteration procedure until the FoS of both equilibriums is
equal.
1 1
cos 𝛼 ∙ (1 + tan 𝛼 ∙ )
𝐹𝑜𝑆
𝑇 = 𝐸 ∙ tan 𝜃
∑((𝑐´ ∙ 𝑙 + (𝑁´ − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙) ∙ tan 𝜑´) ∙ sec 𝛼)

𝐹𝑜𝑆𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 =
∑((𝑊 − (𝑇2 − 𝑇1 )) ∙ tan 𝛼) + ∑ 𝐸2 − 𝐸1
∑((𝑐´ ∙ 𝑙 + (𝑁´ − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙) ∙ tan 𝜑´)

𝐹𝑜𝑆𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
3.1.4 GLE/Morgenstern-Price (1965)

The Morgenstern-Price method satisfied both force and
moment equilibrium and assumes the interslice force
function. The method assuming any type of function, for
example half-sine.
1 1
cos 𝛼 ∙ (1 + tan 𝛼 ∙ )
𝐹𝑜𝑆
𝑇 = 𝑓(𝑥) ∙  ∙ 𝐸
∑((𝑐´ ∙ 𝑙 + (𝑁´ − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙) ∙ tan 𝜑´) ∙ sec 𝛼)

𝐹𝑜𝑆𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 =
∑((𝑊 − (𝑇2 − 𝑇1 )) ∙ tan 𝛼) + ∑ 𝐸2 − 𝐸1
∑((𝑐´ ∙ 𝑙 + (𝑁´ − 𝑢 ∙ 𝑙) ∙ tan 𝜑´)

𝐹𝑜𝑆𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
3.2 Numerical analysis
Numerical methods of analyse are techniques that provide an approximate solution to

problems which cannot be solved by analytical methods (complex geometry, material
anisotropy, in situ stresses etc.).
Numerical models are mathematical models that use numerical time-stepping procedure to
obtain the models behaviour over time. They divide the geometry into zones and assign a
material model and properties to each zone. The result of a numerical model can be
confidently extrapolated outside its database in comparison to empirical methods where the
failure mode is explicitly defined. In numerical analysis also faults and ground water can be
incorporated to provide more realistic approximation of behaviour of real slopes then
analytical models.[8]
Numerical methods of analysis can be divided into three approaches:
▪ Continuum modelling (FEM, FDM)
▪ For the analysis of slopes, massive intact rock, weak rocks or heavily
fractured rock masses. The assumption is that the material is continuous
throughout the body.
▪ Discontinuum modelling (DEM)
▪ Threat the slope as a discontinuous rock mass by considering it as an

assemblage of rigid or deformable blocks. It allows sliding between the block
particles.
▪ Hybrid modelling
▪ Involves coupling of various methodologies to maximize their key

advantages.
3.3 Difference between analytical and numerical analysis
Analytical analysis makes several simplifying assumptions to make slope stability problems
tractable. These are:
• A priori assumption on shapes and locations of failure surface
• A sliding mass moves as a rigid block, with movement only along the failure surface
• Shear is immediately exceeded along the entire length of the failure surface
• Various assumptions on interslice forces
Unlike to FEM, analytical analysis does not consider stress-strain relationship and
consequently there is no displacement computing. The influence of reinforcement is
considered in the following way:
• A specific distribution of loads along reinforcement element is assumed to act along

the entire length
• The magnitude of bolt force included in stability equation is selected based on the
location along a bolt at which a failure surface intersects. As a result, the input bolt
forces are the same as at the end of analysis.
The numerical approach provides a more complete solution, because it considers the slope
boundary conditions and constructive (stress-strain) laws of behaviour, enforcing strain
compatibility and checks the satisfaction of the complete equilibrium. The differences in
reinforcement forces for limit equilibrium and FE analyses are most evident in slopes
involving multiple reinforcement elements. An FEM analysis calculates forces and
displacements that satisfy all constraints and conditions. In FE analysis, the loads developed
in reinforcement elements are generally proportional to the amount of deformation they
experience.[5]
4 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF REINFORCED EARTH ANALYSIS
The slope stability analysis was done with Rocscience software SLIDE (analytical) and
PHASE2 (numerical) because it is possible to import the same file done with SLIDE into
PHASE2, input some extra data that is required for FEM analysis and calculate it
numerically.
The original model consists only of one soil layer (Present ground) and the analysis was
done with limit equilibrium method. The obtained FoS was higher than required according
to pre-standard[19][20].
4.1 General data
Due to the geological conditions embankments are required for the construction of the road
connection in the downhill section of the valley. The embankment is designed as a with
geogrid reinforced earth structure with a total height of 25 m and a slope inclination of 60.
For additional support a retaining structure on embankment base is considered (concrete
footing). Figure 4.1 shows the state before the embankment was constructed.
Figure 4.1 Orthophoto before the embankment [11]

The top view of the project and the details of the construction along the cross-section are
represented in Figure 4.2. The cross-section represented and analysed is the highest and
therefore the most critical cross section.
Figure 4.2 Project overview: (a) Top view; (b) cross-section A-A [21]
How the embankment looks from the front and the location of the cross-section A-A is
shown in Figure 4.3. The average inclination of the terrain in cross-section A-A is 34.2° with
maximum inclination at the upper part of the slope (39.7°). The terrain consists of sandy
gravel material.
Figure 4.3 Front view of the geotextile reinforced embankment [21]
According to the geological map (Figure 4.4) the route runs through quaternary deposits in
the form of weathered rock or alluvial cones. The thickness of these deposits usually varies.
The deposits are inhomogeneous in form of blocks, gravel, sand and silt.
Figure 4.4 Geological map [11]
Table 4.1 Legend of geological map [17]
Hatch Soil type
Colluvial
Weathered rock, Talus material
Alluvial fan, Alluvial cone
Phyllite Schist, Schist
4.1.1 General information about the stability analysis

The basis for the stability analysis is the pre-standard ÖNORM B4433[19] and ÖNORM
B4040[20]. According to these pre-standards the material characteristics and actions or the
effects of actions do not include any increases or reductions in course of partial safety
consideration (partial factors for: soil parameters, actions or the effects of actions,
resistance). The obtained FoS from the analysis must be at least as prescribed in ÖNORM
B4433[19] for the given safety class. The safety classes are defined in ÖNORM B4040[20].
Our practical example belongs to safety class 2. The standard defines the safety class 2 as:
“Possible consequences of hazard, which mainly affect the structural safety” and “Danger to
human life and/or considerable economic consequences”.
Table 4.2 Safety factors according to ÖNORM B4433[19]
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Load case category
Safety class
1 2 3
Standard load case 1.0 1.15 1.3
Exceptional load case 1.0 1.1 1.2
Special load case 1.0 1.05 1.1
4.1.2 Material characteristics

The following soil characteristics do not include any increases or reductions in course of
partial safety consideration. The values are determined according to ground survey and valid
only if the material is dry.
Table 4.3 Material characteristics [17]
Type of soil  c  ν Es K0 1 2 k
[kPa] 3 [kPa] [-] [m/s]
[°] [kN/m ] [-] [°]
Present ground 40 0 22 0.2 60000 0.357 10 10-4
Backfill 37.5 3 22 0.2 80000 0.391 7.5 10-4
Weathering zone 35 0 22 0.2 60000 0.426 5 10-5
Compact Rock 30 50 20 0.2 90000 0.5 0 10-6
4.1.3 Geogrids
Design resistance of geogrid
The design resistance of geogrid was done according to EBGEO [1]. The procedure is same
then described in Chapter 2.3. The reduction factors and partial safety factor are chosen per
manufacturer recommendation HUESKER [15].
1
K0 = 1-sin() Jaky (1948) for normally consolidated soils
2
 = -30
Table 4.4 Geosynthetics characteristics
Type of geosynthetic Longitudinal short- Transverse short- Tensile

term strength term strength Modulus
[kN/m] [kN/m] [kN/m]
Geogrid Fortrac 110 50 1222

110/50-20 T
Values for the reduction factors and partial safety factor [15]:
• The impact of creep (120 Years) A1 = 1.52
• Damage to the geogrid (D90 < 32 mm) A2 = 1.02
• The impact of junctions, seams and connections A3 = 1.00
• Environmental impacts (pH neutral) A4 = 1.03
• Impacts from predominantly dynamic actions A5[1] = 1.00
• Partial safety factor (Global safety concept) M = 1.75
Longitudinal direction:
𝑅𝐵,𝑘0
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 =
𝐴1 ∙ 𝐴2 ∙ 𝐴3 ∙ 𝐴4 ∙ 𝐴5
110
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 = = 68.9 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
1.52 ∙ 1.02 ∙ 1.00 ∙ 1.03 ∙ 1.00
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 63.6
𝑅𝐵,𝑑 = = = 39.4 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
𝛾𝑀 1.75
Transverse direction:
𝑅𝐵,𝑘0
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 =
𝐴1 ∙ 𝐴2 ∙ 𝐴3 ∙ 𝐴4 ∙ 𝐴5
50
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 = = 31.3 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
1.52 ∙ 1.02 ∙ 1.00 ∙ 1.03 ∙ 1.00
𝑅𝐵,𝑘 28,9
𝑅𝐵,𝑑 = = = 17.9 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
𝛾𝑀 1.75
Interaction Soil – Geogrid
In the Soil – Geogrid interaction 80% of friction angle and cohesion of soil is considered.[16]
𝜑 (𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑−𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) = 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛(tan 𝜑 (𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) ∙ 𝑎𝜑𝑆,𝑃 ) = arctan(tan 37.5 ∙ 0.8) = 31.54°
𝑐 (𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑−𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) = 𝑐 (𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙) ∙ 𝑎𝑐𝑆,𝑃 = 3 ∙ 0.8 = 2.4 𝑘𝑃𝑎
Installation of geogrids
The installation of the geogrid is carried out layer by layer in thickness of 60 cm with a return
envelope of 2 m under the roller compaction. The detail of installation is shown below in
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5 Installation detail of geogrid [17]
4.1.4 Anchors
For the temporary support 8 m long self-drilling IBO anchors, with 15 cm Shotcrete C25/30
in the area of anchor heads are installed. The ultimate capacity of the IBO anchor is 250 kN
and the spacing between anchors is 3.5 m.
4.1.5 Traffic load

In top of the embankment a traffic load of 30 kN/m is considered (54 tons vehicle).
4.1.6 Foundation at embankment base (concrete footing).

At the embankment base a reinforced concrete structure is considered to support the
embankment. The geometry and concrete quality is shown below in Figure 4.6.
Shotcrete
C25/30
Site concrete plate

C25/30/B3
Concrete
Barrette
C16/30/X0
Figure 4.6 Cross-section of concrete footing

4.2 Analytical factor of safety calculation
In the first step of the analysis the FoS is calculated with analytical approach. Soil and
support element characteristics (geogrids, concrete footing, anchors) are described in
Chapter 4.1.
The analysis was done with software SLIDE V6. Slide is a 2D limit equilibrium slope
stability software for soil and rock slopes with extensive probabilistic analysis
capabilities.[9]
Slide allows to analyse the Circular and Non-Circular (Polygonal) slip surface type. The
analysis is carried out by means of a global safety assessment to be able to compare the
analytical FoS calculation with numerical FoS calculation.
The most rigorous LE methods, Spencer’s, GLE/Morgenstern-Price procedure were selected

for analyses. Additional Bishop´s simplified method was selected because of their common
use in the practice. For both surface type Auto Refine Search method was used and a
minimum slip surface depth was considered to filter out shallow surfaces that occur because
the cohesion is set to 0.
The IBO Anchors are in the analysis considered as “End Anchored” and “Active Support
type”, because they exert a force on the sliding mass before any movement has taken place.
On the other hand, geogrids develop a resisting force after some movement within the slope
has taken place and therefore they are considered as “Passive Support type” with anchorage
on the slope face (Figure 4.7).
Figure 4.7 Support properties

Almost all materials are considered as Mohr-Coulomb strength type material only the
concrete footing and shotcrete are modelled as “Infinite strength material” ( = ).
The results of the LEM analysis are shown below for three construction stages of Circular
and Non-Circular slip surfaces calculation. All results from all three stages are combined
presented in Table 4.5. The lowest obtained values for each stage (the lower value of circular
or non-circular slip surface) are considered as the relevant FoS of corresponding stage.
4.2.1 Stage 1 - Initial condition

The FoS of the initial condition is crucial for later construction sections, because if the initial
condition is barely stable it will almost certainly collapse under additional load of
embankment and traffic. The geometry of the Model in Stage 1 is shown on Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8 Geometry of Model Stage 1
As it has already been said, the analysis was done for circular and non-circular slip surfaces
per Bishop´s, Spencer´s and Morgenstern-Price method. To eliminate shallow surfaces that
occur because the cohesion is set to 0 a minimum slip surface depth was considered. The
results of the analysis are shown below.
➢ BISHOP´S SIMPLIFIED METHOD
According to the Bishop´s simplified method a polygonal slip surface with 1.120 FoS
near to the surface represents the critical slip surface. The FoS obtained with circular slip
surface is 1.123. Both slip surfaces are located approximate on 2.5 m depth.
Figure 4.9 Bishop simplified – Circular slip surface
Figure 4.10 Bishop simplified – Non-Circular slip surface

➢ SPENCER´S METHOD
According to the Spencer´s method the slope has an FoS of 1.122 for circular slip surface
and 1.109 for noncircular (polygonal) slip surface. The location, shape and the FoS of
critical slip surface are nearly the same than from Bishop.
Figure 4.11 Spencer – Circular slip surface
Figure 4.12 Spencer – Non-Circular slip surface

➢ GLE/MORGERSTERN-PRICE
According to the Morgenstern-Price method the slope has an FoS of 1.122 for circular
slip surface and 1.104 for Non-Circular (polygonal) slip surface. The FoS are similar
than by Spencer’s method, what was expected since they differ only in determining of
the interslice shear force.
Figure 4.13 Morgenstern-Price – Circular slip surface
Figure 4.14 Morgenstern-Price – Non-Circular slip surface

4.2.2 Stage 2 - Stair type excavation, concrete footing and anchoring.

In order to ensure the stability of the excavation 8 m long self-drilling IBO anchors with
3.5 m spacing are installed. Also, concrete footing and 15 cm shotcrete was constructed. The
analysed Model is show bellow in Figure 4.15.
The analysis was also done for circular and non-circular slip surface per Bishop´s, Spencer´s
and Morgenstern-Price method. To eliminate shallow surfaces that occur because the
cohesion is set to 0 a minimum slip surface depth was considered. The results of the analysis
are shown below.
According to Bishop’s method the FoS of slope after excavation, anchorage and
foundation is 1.169 for circular slip surface and 1.186 for the polygonal slip surface.
Compared to Stage 1 the FoS is significant higher due to excavation (lower mass and
inclination).

According to Spencer’s method the FoS of slope after excavation, anchorage and
foundation is 1.166 for circular slip surface and 1.172 for the polygonal slip surface. The
deviation between FoS is due to location of the slip surface. The increase of the FoS in
comparison to Stage 1 is due to lower mass and the inclination of the slope.

The obtained FoS of circular and polygonal slip surface differ only in their location and
depth of the critical slip surface. Both slip surfaces have a FoS of 1.166 which is the
lowest one of the three search methods.

4.2.3 Stage 3 - Embankment construction

The last stage represents the final state of the reinforced embankment. As already described
Fortrac 110/50-20 T geogrids with design resistance of 39.4 kN/m were used to reinforce the
embankment. The installation of the geogrid is carried out layer by layer in thickness of
60 cm with a return envelope of 2 m under the roller compaction. The embankment is also
additionally loaded with 30 kN/m traffic load.
In the analysis, a minimum slip surface depth was considered to eliminate shallow surfaces
that occur because the cohesion is set to 0.

After embankment construction, the FoS is lowered in comparison to Stage 2. Both

circular (1.094 FoS) and polygonal (1.070 FoS) critical slip surfaces indicate to a slope
failure in case the strength parameter would be lower. The location and shape of the
failure surface is nearly the same.

Compared to Bishop’s method the FoS and the shape of the circular slip surface is almost
the same. The only difference is that the FoS of the polygonal slip surface is for
approximate 1 % higher. Even though the FoS is higher there is no significant difference
between location and shape of the failure surface.

Same then Bishop´s and Spencer´s method also the results of Morgenstern-Price method
are almost the same. The shape and location of failure surface is approximately the same.
In comparison with Spencer the FoS of circular slip surface is same only the FoS of the
polygonal surface is lower.

According to LEM analysis the FoS of all three stages are higher than 1 (Table 4.5) which
means the stability is reached but it’s not enough according to pre-standard [19]. Only Stage
2 satisfy the prescribed FoS of minimum 1.1 for the exceptional load case. The FoS of slope
at initial condition is 1.104. After the stair type excavation, anchoring and foundation the
FoS increase for approx. 6 % to value 1.166. These happens because the weight of the slope
is reduced and the concrete footing and anchors contribute to safety. In the last phase, which
represents the final state, a FoS of 1.070 with slip surface through present ground and
embankment is obtained and therefore not sufficient according to pre-standard that
prescribed a minimum FoS of 1.15 for standard load case.
The results of the LEM analysis shown a possible slip failure caused by the additional weight
of the embankment and traffic load in case the shear strength parameter would be lesser. The
slip surface occurred within the sandy gravel (present ground) material behind the geogrid
reinforced embankment with approximate 94 % utilization.
Table 4.5 FoS Results (LEM)
CIRCULAR SLIP NON-CIRCULAR SLIP

STAGE 1 SURFACE SURFACE
Bishop simplified
FoS = 1.123 FoS = 1.120
Spencer
FoS = 1.122 FoS = 1.109
Morgenstern-Price
FoS = 1.122 FoS = 1.104

NON-CIRCULAR SLIP
STAGE 2 CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACE
SURFACE
Bishop simplified
FoS = 1.169 FoS = 1.186
Spencer
FoS = 1.166 FoS = 1.172
Morgenstern-Price
FoS = 1.166 FoS = 1.166

NON-CIRCULAR SLIP
STAGE 3 CIRCULAR SLIP SURFACE
SURFACE
Bishop simplified
FoS = 1.094 FoS = 1.070
Spencer
FoS = 1.095 FoS = 1.078
Morgenstern-Price
FoS = 1.095 FoS = 1.076

4.3 Numerical factor of safety calculation
Second step of the analysis is to obtain the FoS with numerical approach. All the necessary
data is described in Chapter 4.1.
The FE analysis was carried out with PHASE2. PHASE2 is a 2D elasto-plastic finite element
stress analysis program for soils and rock applications based on Strength Reduction
technique (SSR).[10]
The Shear Strength Reduction (SSR) option allows automatically perform a finite element
slope stability analysis, and compute a critical strength reduction factor (SRF) for the model.
The strength parameters of a slope are reduced by SRF (reducing Mohr-Coulomb strength
parameters c and ) and the finite element stress analysis is computed. This process is
repeated for different values of SRF and computed until the model becomes unstable (non-
convergence occurs within a specified number of iterations and tolerance). This determines
the critical SRF or FoS of slope.
The IBO Anchors and geogrids are modelled as Structural Interface support element,
because they are both fully grouted over their whole length and therefore connected with
surrounding material. The difference between simple Liner and Structural Interface is slip
criterion. In case the reinforcement element is modelled as a simple liner, slip at the interface
is not considered. The Structural Interface consist of Liner (Geosynthetics) and two Joints
(on either side of the reinforcement) to take the soil-reinforcement interaction into account.
In the analysis Anchors and Geogrids are considered as an elastic material type, which means
the only property of the support element which will be used in the analysis is the tensile
modulus.
All materials (Soil/Rock) are considered as Mohr-Coulomb strength type material because
PHASE2 has no option to set the strength type as linear elastic. Therefore, for the concrete a
high value of  and c is considered.
Initial element loading of almost all materials is “Field Stress & Body Force” except backfill
material and concrete with “Body Force only”. The concrete foundation (concrete footing)
is modelled with two concrete plates (Liners) with Young´s modulus of 3010-6 in the axis
of two concrete blocks (0.3 m and 1 m thickness) with Young´s modulus of 30106 kPa. With
this approach, the shape and weight is considered and also, the internal forces in the
foundation can be investigated. In this way obtained internal forces only needs to be
multiplied with 1012 to get the real Value. If the structure is modelled only as material with
some shape, we don’t get internal forces but in the other hand if the structure is modelled
only as Liner there is no shape only two lines in form of vocabular T. The 15 cm shotcrete
in the area of the anchor head is modelled as a block of material because the internal forces
are not interested.
In order to avoid the error messages that the model collapsed (no convergence) and low FoS
which is a consequence of failures on the geometry surface a 10 cm thick layer (red) with
some cohesion at stair surface was modelled (Figure 4.29).
Figure 4.29 Thin Layer with cohesion to avoid local numerical failure
The results of the FEM analysis are shown below for three construction stages.
4.3.1 Stage 1 – Initial condition

In the following the FoS of the slope, before construction works started, is investigated.
The geometry and parameters of the analysed model is shown in Figure 4.30. In the analysis,
a dilatancy angle value of  - 30 for each material was considered. The characteristic of the
materials used in analysis are given in Table 4.3.
The external boundaries of the model are:
• Bottom of the model – “Restrain X, Y”

• Side of the model – “Restrain X”
Figure 4.30 Stage 1 - Initial condition - Geometry of the investigated Model
The finite element mesh consists of 10749 6-noded triangle elements with a total of 21702
nodes. For the mesh type a “graded mesh” was used. Mesh and the discretization is shown
in Figure 4.31.
Mesh type: Graded

Element type: 6 Noded triangles
Number of elements: 10749
Number of nodes: 21702
mesh refinement
Figure 4.31 Finite element mesh
Figure 4.32 shows the process of the SRF analysis. The strength parameters of a slope are
reduced by SRF and the finite element stress analysis is computed. This process is repeated
for different values of SRF and computed until the model becomes unstable (failed to
converge).
Figure 4.32 Shear Strength Reduction procedure

The result of the strength reduction analysis is a FoS of 1.12. The failure mechanism (shear
strains) is shown below in Figure 4.33. As we can see there is more than one failure
mechanism (surface) that could be the critical slip surface. “Primary” failure surface
develops at lower and upper part of the slope surface but also another “secondary” failure
surface develops deeper in the slope.
»Secondary« failure mechanism
»Primary« failure mechanism
Figure 4.33 Maximum Shear Strain / FoS
Total displacements, differential1 displacements, stress trajectories and yielded elements are
shown below. As we can see, the shear shadings (shear strains) and differential
displacements correspond.
1
Differential means that the results are relative to a particular/reference stage. The reference stage in these
analysis is the stage with SRF is 1.0 (strength parameters are not reduced).
Figure 4.34 Total displacement
Figure 4.35 Differential total displacement

Figure 4.36 Stress trajectories
Figure 4.37 Yielded elements

To find out how approximately the critical slip surface could look like we investigate what
happens with failure mechanism if the strength parameters are reduced above the SRF that
represent the critical strength reduction factor.
Development of the shear shadings due to strength reduction is shown below in Figure
4.38.
SRF 1.09 SRF 1.11
SRF 1.12 SRF 1.13
SRF 1.14 SRF 1.2

SRF 1.4
Figure 4.38 Development of failure mechanism
Due to strength reduction with a factor higher than the critical SRF, a polygonal slip surface
as shown in Figure 4.39 is formed. The results show that the secondary failure mechanism
(shear strains) didn’t change.
Slip Surface
Figure 4.39 Slip surface
According to the results the present ground is stable and has a FoS of 1.12 with a possible
slip surface which could look like shown in Figure 4.39 in case the strength parameters are
reduced. Since the initial slope of the terrain is almost 40° it was expected that the FoS for
the slope in its initial state is relatively small. This indicates that the soil parameters are
probably too conservative.
4.3.2 Stage 2 - Stair type excavation, concrete footing and anchoring.

In order to ensure the stability of the excavation, IBO anchors are installed. The IBO anchors
have a length of 8 m, 250 kN ultimate capacity and 3.5 m spacing. Also, a concrete
foundation (footing) was built at the toe of the reinforced embankment and the 15 cm
Shotcrete in the area of the anchor head (see the detail in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.40). The
concrete footing is modelled as continuum element with two concrete plates (Liners) on axis
of two concrete blocks. The analysed model is show bellow in Figure 4.40.
Figure 4.40 Stage 2 - Geometry of the investigated Model
The finite element mesh consists of 12653 6-noded elements with a total of 25777 nodes.
For the mesh type a “graded mesh” was used. Mesh and the discretization is shown in Figure
4.41.
Mesh type: Graded

mesh refinement
reduced by different SRF´s and the finite element stress analysis is computed until the model
becomes unstable (failed to converge).

As result of the strength reduction analysis is a FoS of 1.25. The failure mechanism is shown
below in Figure 4.43. Same than in “Initial stage” there is also more than one failure
mechanism formed. As mansion above 10 cm thick layer with cohesion 10 kPa is modelled
at the top of the stair type excavation. Without this measure, the critical SRF is below 1.0
because the model collapsed exactly on the excavation surface since no cohesion considered
in the analysis for the present ground.
Total displacements, differential displacements, stress trajectories and yielded elements are
shown below. Again, we can see that the shear strains and the differential displacements
coincide. In this stage are the displacements in comparison with initial stage significant
higher. This is because the stairs are unstable, which happens because the cohesion is set to
0. In reality, this would not happen because the cohesion is at least 2kPa.
Figure 4.44 Total displacements
Figure 4.45 Differential total displacements


Same than in Stage 1 there was also investigated what happens with shear sheadings
(strains) if the strength parameters are reduced with SRF above the critical one.
Development of the shear strains due to strength reduction is shown below in Figure 4.48.
SRF 1.0 SRF 1.25
SRF 1.26 SRF 1.37
SRF 1.5
Figure 4.48 Development of shear strains (failure mechanism)
Due to strength reduction with a factor higher than the critical SRF, two slip surfaces as
shown in Figure 4.49 are formed.
Primary Slip surface
Secundary Slip surface
Figure 4.49 Slip surface
According to the results we can conclude that the stage is stable with possible local collapses
on the stairs surface due to 60° degrees inclination.
Internal force of support element
The analysis shows that approx. 12 % of the Anchor ultimate capacity was utilized.
Figure 4.50 Axial force in Anchor

4.3.3 Stage 3 - Embankment construction

This is the last stage and represents the final state of the reinforced embankment. As already
described Fortrac 110/50-20 T geogrids with design resistance of 39.4 kN/m were used to
reinforce the embankment. The installation of the geogrid is carried out layer by layer in
thickness of 60 cm with a return envelope of 2 m under the roller compaction.
There must be mention that the compaction of the backfill material and fill up in 60 cm layers
is not considered in the analysis and therefore we can expect higher displacements at the
embankment crest. The embankment is also additionally loaded with 30 kN/m traffic load.
Figure 4.51 Stage 3 - Geometry of the investigated Model
The finite element mesh consists of 19472 6-noded elements with a total of 40105 nodes.
For the mesh type a “graded mesh” was used. Mesh and the discretization is shown in Figure
4.52.
Mesh type: Graded

mesh refinement
reduced by different SRF´s and the finite element stress analysis is computed until the model
becomes unstable (failed to converge).

As result of the strength reduction analysis is a FoS of 1.05. The failure mechanism is shown
below in Figure 4.54, Figure 4.55 and Figure 4.56. Same than in other stages there is also
more than one failure mechanism formed. Same then in previous stage there also a 10 cm
thick layer with 10 kPa cohesion is modelled at the top of the stairs. Without this measure,
the critical SRF is below 1.0 because the model collapsed exactly on the stairs surface since
no cohesion is considered in the analysis for the present ground. We can be sure this will not
happen because the backfill material and present ground in area of excavation (“stairs”) are
compressed.

Figure 4.55 Shear shadings
Figure 4.56 Shear shadings

Total displacements, differential displacements, stress trajectories and yielded elements are
shown below. As we mentioned above the total displacements of embankment are high
because it was calculated as if was constructed in one step and not in 60 cm layers. The
height of total displacement is in our case irrelevant because our propose was to analyse the
FoS. The total displacements are only represented to see if the failure mechanism to a certain
extent coincides with the shear strains. As we can see they coincide.
Figure 4.57 Total displacements

Figure 4.58 Total differential displacements

Same than in other stages there was also investigated what happens with shear sheadings
(strains) if the strength parameters are reduced with SRF above the critical one.
Development of the shear strains due to strength reduction is shown below in Figure 4.61.
SRF 1.00 SRF 1.02
SRF 1.04 SRF 1.05
SRF 1.06 SRF 1.14
SRF 1.3
Figure 4.61 Development of failure mechanism
The results show that there are three possible failure mechanisms. The possible slip surfaces
are shown below as red polylines.
One failure mechanism that

goes through embankment,
intersect anchors and act in
vicinity of the concrete footing
(Figure 4.62).
Figure 4.62 Failure mechanism 1

If the SRF is increased for 1 %
(from 1.05 to 1.06) a different
failure mechanism that goes
through present ground and
right behind the anchors is
formed (Figure 4.63).

The third failure mechanism has
the same shape than the one
before. The only difference is in
depth of the slip surface (Figure
4.64).

According to the results we can conclude that the stage is stable with FoS of 1.05. The results
indicate that the slip surface of the reinforced embankment is strongly influenced by the
stress concentration beneath the concrete footing and stairs. Due to the fact that the FoS for
the slope in its initial state is relatively small it was expected that the FoS of the embankment
will be even smaller. Because the FoS is below 1.15 it not satisfies the Austrian standard
ÖNORM B4433[19]. The standard says if there are possible consequences of hazard, which
mainly affect the structural safety and danger to human life and/or considerable economic
consequences the FoS must be at least 1,15.
Internal force of support element
The analysis shows that approx. 70 % of the Anchor ultimate capacity was utilized. Because
the internal force increased compared to the previous stage we can conclude that the anchors
whose purpose was to support only the excavation also contributed to the stability of the
embankment.
Figure 4.65 Axial force in Anchor

Figure 4.66 show the load in geogrids. The maximal value of the axial force in geogrid is
– 36.91 kN (tension) and therefore under the design resistance (94 % utilization).
Figure 4.66 Axial force in Geogrid -36.91 kN

4.3.4 Stage 4 - Embankment construction – with water

This is an additional stage that have nothing to do with our purpose of the thesis. After the
main analysis was done and we had the results we decided to see what happens with FoS if
water is involved.
A steady-state finite element groundwater seepage analysis was done for different water
surfaces which followed the ordinary strength reduction analysis. The analysed models had
same geometry and mesh density. The finite element mesh consists of 15254 6-noded
elements with a total of 31133 nodes. Groundwater conditions were defined with boundary
conditions. At the top surface Unknown (P=0 or Q=0) boundary was used and Total head
at right side (Figure 4.67).
Mesh type: Graded

Figure 4.67 Groundwater Boundary Condition and Mesh density.
The results of steady state finite element groundwater seepage analysis show that the model
is unstable if the weathering zone and present ground beneath the embankment are saturated.
Value of the SRF depends on the water table. The results are combined and shown below in
Figure 4.68.
Figure 4.68 Pressure head and Shear strains

4.3.5 Results of the FEM analysis

According to the results of the strength reduction finite element analysis we conclude that
the geometry is stable in all three stages. However, in case the parameters were smaller, a
slope failure will occur.
We can also conclude that the soil parameters are set to conservative since the FoS of the
initial state is relatively small. The cohesion of the present ground is definitely more than
0 kPa, since there were no problems with stability of the slope in reality not even in rainy
season.
The results of the FEM analysis are summarized below.
Table 4.6 Results of the strength reduction finite element analysis
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
FoS 1.12 1.25 1.05 0.995 – 0.93
Right after we add water into the model the FoS goes below 1.0 which means the model is
unstable. The FoS is between 0.93 and 0.995 and depends on the height of the water.
5 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF LEM AND FEM

ANALYSIS
Analysis of slopes has traditionally been carried out by limit equilibrium methods (LEM),
which are based on the principles of static equilibrium of forces and moments. Limit
equilibrium methods are important because they have proved to be reasonably reliable in
assessing the stability of slopes and because they require a limited amount of input. The main
problem of LEM is that they are missing the fundamental physics of stress-strain relationship
and therefore not able to compute a realistic stress distribution. These problems of stress-
strain relationship were solved with finite element methods (FEM). FEM can handle the
stress-strain behaviour of soil and therefore more realistic stress situation can be computed.
As discussed above, LEM and FEM analyses have fundamental difference in the basic
principles:
• LEM are based on the limit equilibrium formulation, which are dependent on static
force or moment equilibrium.
• FEM is based on a stress-strain relationship which can accommodate the change in
stresses
The FEM analysis finds the critical slip surface where the excessive strains are localised and
computes the FoS by shear strength reduction (SSR) procedure. The FEM analysis computes
FoS for each element along the critical slip surface while the LEM compute a single
weighted average FoS.
The comparison of the LEM and FEM is presented below. Because the LEM analysis was
done for circular and non-circular slip surface and according to Bishop’s, Spencer’s and
Morgenstern-Price method we have 6 results for each Stage. Therefore, the FoS with the
lowest value was chosen to be the FoS of the represented stage.
LEM FEM
STAGE 1
FoS 1.10 FoS 1.12

STAGE 2
FoS = 1.17 FoS 1.25

STAGE 3
FoS = 1.07 FoS 1.05
Figure 5.1 Comparison of the results of LEM and FEM analysis
As we can see there is small difference between the FoS. Also, the slip surface obtained with
LEM agrees well with the failure mechanism predicted by the SSR method. In Stage 1 and
3 the difference between FoS obtained with LEM and FEM is approx. 2 %. The larger
difference is in Stage 2 where the FoS differ for approx. 7%.
The reason for the difference in FoS is primarily related to the normal stress distribution
along the critical slip surface.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Nowadays, the two approaches of stability analyses, one based on limit equilibrium
formulations and the other based on finite element principles are widely used in practice.
The basic physics of stress-strain relationship, which is lacking in LEM, has been well
covered by the FEM. As a result, complicated geotechnical computations can easily be
performed. In addition, FE analysis can simulate stress concentrated problems and
deformation compatibility, which have been experienced problematic in LEM. These has
been one of the advantages of FEM. On the other hand, LEM have been applied for many
years. Hence, they are well established and common in practice. User friendliness, simplicity
and relatively good FoS for a particular case are the advantage of the LEM.[18]
The scope of this thesis was to compare the FoS of reinforced embankment computed with
limit equilibrium method (SLIDE) and finite element strength reduction method (PHASE2).
In addition, one practical example of reinforced embankment was analysed with both
methods. The analysed reinforced embankment in this thesis and the original one differ in
number of soil layers. Weathering zone and compact rock layer were added into the model.
According to LEM analysis the FoS obtained with Bishop’s, Spencer’s and Morgenstern-
Price method is greater than 1.0 which means the stability is reached but it’s not enough
according to pre-standard. The slip surface occurred within the sandy gravel (present ground)
material. The FoS obtained with FEM analysis was nearly the same then with LEM. Also,
the location and shape of critical slip surfaces is similar. Since the FoS for the slope in its
initial state is relatively small it was expected that the FoS of the embankment will be even
smaller. We can conclude that the soil parameters were set to conservative.
The aim of the thesis was also to investigate what would be the reason for embankment
collapse in such case. According to the results there will come to slope failure and not
bearing failure below the concrete footing. If the reason of the collapse would be bearing
failure then the shear strains would be located only under the concrete footing. In our case a
slip surface is formed therefore we can say the cause for the collapse is slope failure caused
by the additional weight of embankment. Additionally, steady-state finite element
groundwater seepage analysis was done for different water surfaces which resulted into
collapse of the embankment (FoS bellow 1.0). As result was a slope failure going through
sandy gravel and weathering zone.
According to the results of the analysis we can conclude that the FoS of our reinforced
embankment can be computed with both methods. However, it’s not only the FoS which we
are normally interested in, there are also displacements and internal forces and therefore it
is appropriate to analyse such constructions with FEM.
The method the user selects should be based on the complexity of the problem to be
modelled. For example, problems with complex geometries or that requires analysis of
seepage, consolidation and complex mechanical soil response in those cases may be better
using FEM. Conversely, simpler problem geometries or where complex material response
are not expected, or those problems where data is limited or it is necessary to make an initial
stability estimate before complex analysis LEM is better choice.
In either case it is important that the user fully understands the assumptions inherent in the
chosen modelling method when interpreting the results and applying them especially the
results from FEM analysis where one singular point have huge influence on the result.
7 REFERENCES
[1] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V./German Geotechnical Society.:

Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures using Geosynthetic
Reinforcements – EBGEO, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 2011
[2] Lackner Christian.: Prestressed reinforced soil – Concept, investigation and

recommendations, Dissertation, Graz University of Technology, Graz, 2012
[3] Lackner Christian.: Numerische Simulation von Kunststoffbewehrten Dämmen –

Diplomarbeit, Graz University of Technology, Graz, 2008
[4] Hadi Abioghli.: Parametric Study of Reinforced Soil Walls with the Finite Element
Method, Meshkin Shahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Meshkin Shahr, Iran, 2011
[5] Reginald Hammah and Tharner Yacoub, Rocscience Inc., John Curran, Lassonde
Institute and Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto.: Investigating
the performance of the shear strength reduction (SSR) method on the analysis of
reinforced slopes, Toronto, Canada
[6] Dawson E.M., Roth W.H. & Drescher A..: Slope stability analysis by strength
reduction, Géotechnuque vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 835-840, 1999
[7] GeoStru: Slope stability analysis, http://www.geostru.eu/slope-stability-analysis/,

[10.09.2017]
[8] Rajesh Rai: Slope stability analysis by numerical modelling,

http://www.iitbhu.ac.in/faculty/min/rajesh-rai/NMEICT-Slope/Pdf/06 %20Numerical
%20Modeling.pdf, [10.09.2017]
[9] ROCSCIENCE: https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/products/slide, [10.09.2017]
[10] ROCSCIENCE: https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/products/rs2, [10.09.2017]
[11] Das Land Steiermark: GIS Steiermark, http://gis2.stmk.gv.at/atlas/(S(skntvcmfw2ruw

vb2u3w4azvg))/init.aspx?karte=basis_bilder&ks=das&cms=da&massstab=800000
[10.09.2017]
[12] Werner W. Müller, Fokke Saathoff.: Geosynthetics in geoenvironmental engineering,

National Institute for Materials science, 2015
[13] Lackner Christian.: Bauverfahren Bewehrte Erde, 2017
[14] Koerner, R. M..: Designing With geosynthetics (6th ed.), Xlibris Publishing Co, 2012
[15] HUESKER, Bestimmung der Bemessungsfestigkeit von Fortrac T Geogittern nach

EBGEO und M Geok E, 2005
[16] Rüegger Rudolf, Hufenus Rudolf.: Bauen mit Geokunststoffen, Ein Handbuch für den
Geokunststoff – Anwender, Schweizerischer Verband für Geokunststoffe, 2003
[17] Lackner Karl.: Stützkonstruktionen mit Bewehrter Erde und Steinschlichtungen,

Technischer Bericht, 2011
[18] Krishna Prasad Aryal.: Slope Stability Evaluations by Limit Equilibrium and Finite
Element Methods, Doctoral Thesis at NTNU 2006:66, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, April 2006
[19] Österreichisches Normungsinstitut: ÖNORM B 4433, Erd- und Grundbau,

Böschungsbruchberechnung, Wien
[20] Österreichisches Normungsinstitut: ÖNORM B 4040, Allgemeine Grundsätze über die

Zuverlässigkeit von Tragwerken, Grundlage für die Erstellung von Fachnormen im
Bauwesen, Wien
[21] Tschuchnigg F., Schweiger H.F., Sloan S.W.: Slope stability analysis by means of
finite element limit analysis and finite element strength reduction techniques. Part II:
Back analyses of a case history, Institute for Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Austria
[22] BSSP BS SPECIALIST PRODUCTS: http://www.corden-bssp.co.uk/product/eps-

geogrids, [15.09.2017]
8 ATTACHMENTS
8.1 List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Types of geosynthetics [14]........................................................................... 4
Figure 2.2 Schematic view of a geogrid [22] .................................................................. 6
Figure 4.1 Orthophoto before the embankment [11] .................................................... 15
Figure 4.2 Project overview: (a) Top view; (b) cross-section A-A [21] ....................... 16
Figure 4.3 Front view of the geotextile reinforced embankment [21] .......................... 16
Figure 4.4 Geological map [11] .................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.5 Installation detail of geogrid [17] ................................................................ 20
Figure 4.6 Cross-section of concrete footing ................................................................ 21
Figure 4.7 Support properties ....................................................................................... 22
Figure 4.8 Geometry of Model Stage 1 ........................................................................ 23
Figure 4.9 Bishop simplified – Circular slip surface .................................................... 24
Figure 4.10 Bishop simplified – Non-Circular slip surface ............................................ 24
Figure 4.11 Spencer – Circular slip surface .................................................................... 25
Figure 4.12 Spencer – Non-Circular slip surface............................................................ 25
Figure 4.13 Morgenstern-Price – Circular slip surface ................................................... 26
Figure 4.14 Morgenstern-Price – Non-Circular slip surface........................................... 26
Figure 4.18 Spencer – Circular slip surface .................................................................... 29
Figure 4.19 Spencer – Non-Circular slip surface............................................................ 29
Figure 4.20 Morgenstern-Price – Circular slip surface ................................................... 30

Figure 4.21 Morgenstern-Price – Non-Circular slip surface .......................................... 30
Figure 4.25 Spencer – Circular slip surface.................................................................... 33
Figure 4.26 Spencer – Non-Circular slip surface ........................................................... 33
Figure 4.27 Morgenstern-Price – Circular slip surface .................................................. 34
Figure 4.28 Morgenstern-Price – Non-Circular slip surface .......................................... 34
Figure 4.29 Thin Layer with cohesion to avoid local numerical failure ....................... 38
Figure 4.30 Stage 1 - Initial condition - Geometry of the investigated Model ............... 39
Figure 4.31 Finite element mesh .................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.32 Shear Strength Reduction procedure ........................................................... 40
Figure 4.33 Maximum Shear Strain / FoS ...................................................................... 41
Figure 4.34 Total displacement ...................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.35 Differential total displacement .................................................................... 42
Figure 4.36 Stress trajectories......................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.37 Yielded elements ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.38 Development of failure mechanism ............................................................ 45
Figure 4.39 Slip surface .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 4.40 Stage 2 - Geometry of the investigated Model ............................................ 46
Figure 4.41 Finite element mesh .................................................................................... 47
Figure 4.44 Total displacements ..................................................................................... 49
Figure 4.45 Differential total displacements .................................................................. 49

Figure 4.46 Stress trajectories ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.48 Development of shear strains (failure mechanism) ..................................... 51
Figure 4.49 Slip surface .................................................................................................. 52
Figure 4.50 Axial force in Anchor .................................................................................. 52
Figure 4.51 Stage 3 - Geometry of the investigated Model ............................................ 53
Figure 4.52 Finite element mesh ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.55 Shear shadings ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.56 Shear shadings ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.57 Total displacements ..................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.58 Total differential displacements .................................................................. 58
Figure 4.59 Stress trajectories ......................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.61 Development of failure mechanism............................................................. 60
Figure 4.62 Failure mechanism 1.................................................................................... 61
Figure 4.65 Axial force in Anchor .................................................................................. 62
Figure 4.66 Axial force in Geogrid -36.91 kN................................................................ 63
Figure 4.67 Groundwater Boundary Condition and Mesh density. ................................ 64
Figure 4.68 Pressure head and Shear strains ................................................................... 65
Figure 5.1 Comparison of the results of LEM and FEM analysis ................................ 68
8.2 List of Tables
Table 3.1 Summary of LE methods [18] ......................................................................... 10
Table 4.1 Legend of geological map [17] ....................................................................... 17
Table 4.2 Safety factors according to ÖNORM B4433[19] ............................................ 18
Table 4.3 Material characteristics [17] ............................................................................ 18
Table 4.4 Geosynthetics characteristics .......................................................................... 19
Table 4.5 FoS Results (LEM).......................................................................................... 35
Table 4.6 Results of the strength reduction finite element analysis ................................ 66
Student address
Tadej Vidnar
Stogovci 38, 9253 Apače, Slovenia
E-mail: tadej.vidnar@gmail.com
Phone: 0038670861464
8.3 Curriculum Vitae
Born: 01.03.1991
Education: 1998. – 2006. Elementary school
2006. – 2010. Technical High school SERŠ
2010. – 2014. Faculty of Civil Engineering - Bachelor
2014. – 2017. Faculty of Civil Engineering - Master
Work experience: 2016. – 3G Gruppe Geotechnik Graz

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PDF

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

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERZA V MARIBORU

FAKULTETA ZA GRADBENIŠTVO, PROMETNO INŽENIRSTVO IN ARHITEKTURO

ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL FACTOR OF

Maribor, September 2017

Magistrsko delo na študijskem programu 2. stopnje UM

ANALITIČNI IN NUMERIČNI IZRAČUNI FAKTORJA VARNOSTI NASIPOV IZ

Študent: Tadej VIDNAR

Študijski program: 2. stopnja, Gradbeništvo

Mentor: Doc. dr. Borut MACUH univ. dipl. inž. grad.

Somentor: Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Techn. Christian LACKNER (3G Gruppe

Maribor, september 2017

I cordially thank Assist. Prof. Dr. Borut Macuh for

Special thanks to my family members, for their

ANALITIČNI IN NUMERIČNI IZRAČUNI FAKTORJA VARNOSTI NASIPOV IZ

V pričujočem magistrskem delu je preučen analitični in numerični pristop stabilnostne

Prvo poglavje magistrskega dela predstavlja uvod. V njem je opisana definicija

Drugo poglavje opisuje armirano zemljino. Armirana zemljina je splošen izraz, ki se

in adhezija sta določena s pomočjo tabel, katere vrednost je odvisna od koeficienta

Metode mejnih ravnovesij temeljijo na predpostavki normalne in strižne sile, ki delujta v

Stabilnostna analiza, ki je opisana v četrtem poglavju je narejena na praktičnem primeru

V nadaljevanju poglavja so v obliki slik prikazani rezultati posameznih izračunov za

Stabilnostna analiza nasipa iz armirane zemljine v katerem je prisotna voda je pokazala,

Pridobljeni rezultati nakazujejo na globalno porušitev, zaradi slabega materiala na

Zadnje poglavje magistrskega dela predstavlja primerjavo med vrednostmi faktorja

ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL FACTOR OF SAFETY (ULS) CALCULATIONS ON

1.1 DEFINITION OF PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1

2 REINFORCED SOIL ............................................................................................. 3

2.1 AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 3

3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 9

3.1 ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS (LEM) ......................................................................... 9

4 PRACTICAL EXAMPLE OF REINFORCED EARTH ANALYSIS ............ 15

4.1 GENERAL DATA ............................................................................................... 15

4.2.3 Stage 3 - Embankment construction ........................................................... 31

5 COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF LEM AND FEM ANALYSIS ........ 67

8.1 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. 73

ht - Height from the midpoint of the slice base to the dE

A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 - Reduction factor

E - Interslice normal force

FoS - Factor of safety

K0 - Lateral earth pressure

N - Base normal force

N´ - Effective base normal force

RB,k0 - Characteristic value of the short-term strength of the geogrid

RB,k - Characteristic value of the long-term strength of the geogrid

RB,d - Design resistance of the geogrid reinforcement

S - Shear force acting at the base of slice

T - Interslice shear force

W - Weight of each slice or total sliding mass

 - Angle of the sliding plane

t - Angle of the inclination of the line of thrust plane

´ - Effective friction angle

 - Unit weight of soil

M - Partial safety factor

 - Angle of inclination of interslice resultant force

DEM Discrete Element method

FEM Finite Element Method

FDM Finite Difference Method

LEM Limit equilibrium method