Using Shear Strength Reduction for 2D and 3D Slope Stability

UsingShearStrengthReductionMethod
for2Dand3DSlopeStabilityAnalysis
Thamer Yacoub,Ph.D.P.Eng.
President,RocscienceInc.
Toronto,Canada
Annual Kansas City Geotechnical Conference 2016
Outline
SlopestabilityanalysisusingLimitEquilibriumMethod(LEM)
vs.ShearStrengthReductionMethod(SSR)
AdvantagesanddisadvantagesofLEMandSSR
ShearStrengthReductionoutline
Applications
Soilmodels
MSEwall
Slopewithsupports
3Deffectonslopestabilityanalysis
RecommendationsandConclusion
Developmentsinthecharacterizationofcomplexrockslopedeformationandfailureusingnumericalmodellingtechniques
D.Stead,E.Eberhardt,J.S.Coggan
Slopefailureanalysis
Developmentsinthecharacterizationofcomplexrockslopedeformationandfailureusingnumericalmodellingtechniques
D.Stead,E.Eberhardt,J.S.Coggan
LimitEquilibriumAnalysis
Pros
Mostcommonslopeanalysismethod
Extensiveexperience
Relativelysimpleformulation(easytounderstand)
Quickanalysis
Usefulforevaluatingsensitivityoffailuretoinputparameters
Minimalmaterialinputparameters
Cons
Basedonassumptionsoilmasscanbedividedintoslices
Arbitraryassumptionstoensurestaticdeterminacy
Neglectsstressstrainbehaviour
Doesnotprovideinformationondeformations
Findinglowestfactorofsafetycanbeverychallenging
NonCircularSearchMethods
LocalSearchMethods
AutoRefineSearch
BlockSearch
PathSearch
MonteCarlo
Optimization
GlobalSearchMethods
CuckooSearch(Slide7)
SimulatedAnnealing
SearchMethod(LocalandGlobalmethods)
SearchMethod(LocalandGlobalmethods)
4.80
0.45
1.03
1.28
AutoRefineSearch:FS=2.74
Cuckoo:FS=1.51
1.506
ActivePassivewedge
Method:SpencerFS:1.54
ActivePassivewedge
Method:NonVerticalSarma FS:1.67
RS2 FS:1.67
ShearStrengthReduction
Method(SSR)
OverviewofSSRMethod
ConventionalFiniteElement
(FE)analysis
Elastoplasticconstitutive
relationship
Elasticperfectlyplastic
mostcommonassumption
ProducesresultssimilartoLE
OverviewofSSRMethod
Bishop,TheUseoftheSlipCircleintheStabilityAnalysisof
Slopes,Geotechnique,1955
OverviewofSSRMethod
Geometricinterpretationofstrengthenvelopereduction
70
60
50
40
Original MC
Reduced MC
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
OverviewofSSRMethod
ReductionofMohrCoulomb(MC)shearstrengthenvelope
OriginalMCequation
c' ' tan

Reduced(factored)MCequation
c' ' tan

F
F
GeneralizedHoekBrownStrength
ReductionofGHBshearstrengthenvelope
0.45
0.4
ReductionofGHBshear
strengthenvelope
Shear envelope for

original GHB criterion
0.35
Newparametersare
calculatedfromfitted
curve
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.05
0
-0.05
Canbeusedforother
nonlinearstrength
envelopes
Envelope after
reduction by F
0.1
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
SSRFEMSlopeStabilityAnalysis
Reduce strength of slope materials
in FEM model by factor
Compute FEM model
If analysis converges to solution,

reduce factor and re-compute
If solution does not converge end

calculations (slope has failed)
Factor of safety = factor initiating failure
StoppingCriteriaforSSR
Definitionoffailure
Nonconvergenceofsolution(Zienkiewicz,1971)
Shearstrengthparametersreduceduntilnonconvergenceornumerical
instabilitiesoccur
Bulgingofslopeline(SnitbhanandChen,1976)
Failureisdescribedbyhorizontaldisplacementsofslopesurface
Shearstrains
ComputedshearstrainsusedtoestimateFOS
DefinitionofNonConvergence
Nonconvergenceofsolutionwithinspecifiednumberof
iterations
Nostressdistributionsatisfiesfailurecriterion(global
equilibrium)
Rapidincreaseinnodaldisplacements
Strength Reduction Factor
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Maximum Total Displacement [m]
0.09
0.10
ImportingLEMfiles
AssumptionswhenimportingLEMfiles(SlidetoRS2)
ElasticModulisetto50000kPaor106 psf (soil)
Poissonsratiosetto0.4
1.50
Poissons ratio = 0.2

(Varying E)
Dilation angle > 0
Factor of Safety
1.25
1.00
Poissons ratio = 0.4

(Varying E)
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
SSR
LE
ImportingLEMfiles
MohrCoulombtensilestrength=cohesion
Perfectlyplasticmaterials
Peakstrengthparameters=Residualstrengthparameters
Initialstresseshydrostatic
h
K
1
v
ImportingLEMfiles
3000elements
Sixnoded triangles
Linearstrainelementorhigherorderelements
Uniformmesh
Pins(notrollers)forboundaries
Hingesvs.Rollers
Rollers:
Rollers
Hingesvs.Rollers
Hinges
Hinges
Homogeneousslope
FEmesh(6nodedtriangularelements)
Homogeneousslope
Contoursofmaximumshearstrain
SSRFS=1.24
Critical SRF: 1.24
LEMFS(spencer)=1.24
Maximum
Shear Strain
0.00e+000
3.50e-003
7.00e-003
1.05e-002
1.40e-002
1.75e-002
2.10e-002
2.45e-002
2.80e-002
3.15e-002
3.50e-002
3.85e-002
4.20e-002
4.55e-002
4.90e-002
5.25e-002
5.60e-002
5.95e-002
6.30e-002
6.65e-002
7.00e-002
Homogeneousslope
Contoursoftotaldisplacementwithdeformedmesh
SSRFS=1.24
MultiMaterialExamples
SSR = 1.01
LE = 1.01
SSR = 1.27
LE = 1.30
Slopeswithsupports
LEMvsSSRReinforcementForces
LEMreinforcementforces
Loaddistributionalong
reinforcementisprescribed
Magnitudeofforceincludedin
LEcalculationsdependson
locationofboltslipsurface
intersection
T1
T2
T3
PilesforSlopeStabilization
Installed Piles
Failure Surface
Stable Soil
Concept
Appliedsoildisplacementfromgroundtoslipsurfacerepresenting
theallowedsoildisplacementtolerancebasedondesigncriteria
Depthandangleofslipsurfaceintersectionwilldeterminethe
magnitudeofaxialandlateraldisplacement
Slip
surface
Designofmicropiles forslopestabilizationbyDr.ErikLoehr,UniversityofMissouri
Predictingpileresistance
Estimateprofileofsoilmovement
Resolvesoilmovementintoaxialandlateralcomponents
Predictaxialandlateralresistance
Usepyanalysesforlateralloadtransfer
Usetzanalysesforaxialloadtransfer
Selectappropriateaxialandlateralresistance(considercompatibility
andserviceability)
pyanalysesforlateralresistance
PileModel
InputProfileof
LateralSoilMovement
lat
LateralComponent
ofmovingsoil
SoilLateral
Resistance(p)
PileBending
Stiffness(EI)
SlidingSurface
Transition(Sliding)Zone
StableSoil
(nosoilmovement)
z
Lateralresistance
Pile Deformation (cm)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
10
1500
0
Mobilized Bending Mom.

Mobilized Shear Force (kN)
750 (kN-cm)
0
750
1500 80
40
0
40
80
0
10
10
20
20
20
30
30
30
Depth (ft)
clay
40
slid
e
40
40
50
rock
50
50
60
60
60
tzanalysesforaxialresistance
Input Profile of
Axial Soil Movement
Cap Bearing
Axial Component
of moving soil
Soil Shear
Resistance (t)
axial
Pile Axial
Stiffness (EA)
Sliding Surface
Transition (Sliding) Zone

Stable Soil
(no soil movement)
Soil End
Bearing (Q)
Mobilizationofaxialresistance
Mobilized Axial Load (kN)

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Depth (m)
10
clay
20
30
Slide
40
50
60
rock
Concept
Applieduniformsoildisplacement
EnteraSoilDisplacementandaSlidingDepth
CanbeusedforRSPile andforSlide
AxiallyLoadedPiles(Settlement,AxialForce)
AxiallyLoadedPiles(Settlement,AxialForce)
SlidingDepth
AxialForceattheSlidingDepthistheAxialResistance
AgainstSliding
LaterallyLoadedPiles(Deflection,MomentandShear)
LaterallyLoadedPiles(Deflection,MomentandShear)
SlidingDepth
ShearForceattheSlidingDepthistheLateralResistance
AgainstSliding
PileResistanceAgainstSliding
Max Allowable
Displacement
Ultimate Displacement
Repeatprocessforanumberofslidingdepthstodevelopresistance
functions
SupportForces
983.017
1039.84
SSRAnalysisofReinforcedSlopes
ImportantcommonlycitedadvantageofSSRisabilityto
predictreinforcementloadsatfailure
Solutiondependson:
Reinforcementstiffness,
Postfailurestrength,and
Failuremechanism
LEMvsSSRReinforcementForces
SSRreinforcementforces
Finalloaddistributiondependson:
Strengthparametersincludingpostyieldbehaviour ofsoiland
reinforcement
Deformationcharacteristics(stressstrainbehaviour)ofsoiland
reinforcement
Appliedloads
Example
Slopereinforcedwithmultiplegeotextilelayers
Results
Example
SSRfactorofsafetysimilartoLEresults
ZeropostyieldassumptiongivesfactorofsafetydifferentfromLE
Elasticperfectlyplasticpostyieldassumptiongivesfactorofsafety
similartoLE
Results
ZeroResidualStrengthSupport
Bishopcircular
failuresurface
PerfectlyPlasticSupport
Results
FactorofSafety
Method
FactorofSafety
LESpencer(noncircular)
1.65
SSR
(elasticperfectlyplastic)
1.65
SSR
(zeropostfailurestrength)
1.54
Results
Example
Totaldisplacementcontours(fordeformedmesh)
SRF=1.62
SRF=1.00
SRF=1.75
SRF=1.60
SRF=1.50
Results
Complexdistributionofloadsalonggeotextilelayers
ReinforcedSlope CaseI
Reduction Factor = 1.0
ReinforcedSlope
CriticalSSR=1.0
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope CaseII
ReinforcedSlope
CriticalSSR=0.86
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope
ReinforcedSlope
OpenPitSlopeExample
OpenPitStability
ZoneII
MohrCoulombmaterial
c=0MPa, =12o
ZoneI
HoekBrownmaterial
UCS=70MPa
m=0.25,s=0.00015,a=0.5
ZoneIII
HoekBrownmaterial
UCS=75MPa
m=0.3,s=0.00016,a=0.5
OpenPitStability
OpenPitStability
ShearstrainsatStrengthReductionFactor=1.00
OpenPitStability
OpenPitStability
OpenPitStability
OpenPitStability
CriticalStrengthReductionFactor=1.39
Lowestfailuresurface
FS=1.19
OpenPitStability
CriticalStrengthReductionFactor=1.39
Failuresurfaceform
Spencermethod
FS:1.43
SSRFailureMechanism
Activewedge
Passivewedge
Shearstrengthreductionin3D
slopestabilityusingRS3
ThreedimensionaleffectofBoundaryConditions
ComparethefactorofsafetyasweincreaseB/Hratio
12.5m
H =5m
7.5m
5m
5m
30m
Fixedxyz
Restrainedx
Restrainedx
Fixedxyz
ThreedimensionaleffectofBoundaryConditions
H
B
FactorofSafety
2.1
ZhangK.etal.
RS32.0
RS2
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
0
B/HRatio
10
12
ZhangK.etal.(2011).Simulationanalysisonthreedimensionalslopefailureunderdifferentconditions.
ThreedimensionaleffectofTurningCorner
10 m
9m
10 m
3m
26 m
Turning Corner Angle
10 m
= 90 deg
ThreedimensionaleffectofTurningCorner
Concave
=135deg
FS=1.24
=90deg
FS=1.27
=180deg
FS=1.20
Convex
=225deg
FS=1.21
=270deg
FS=1.22
=90deg (Curve)
FS=1.29
SupportsinSSRslopestability
analysis
PileSpacingonSlopeStability
Diameterofpile,D=0.8m
D=distancefromonepilecentre to
thenextpilecentre
PileSpacing,D
DiameterofPile,D=0.8m
PileSpacing,D
PileSpacingonSlopeStability
FactorofSafetyisdirectlyproportionaltopilespacing
PileSpacing
FactorofSafety
NoPiles
1.29
2D
1.46
3D
1.42
4D
1.38
6D
1.34
TotalSlopeDisplacementModel
EmbeddedLengthofPileonSlopeStability
EmbeddedLengthofpileisdirectlyproportionaltofactorof
safety
EmbeddedLength
EmbeddedLengthofPileonSlopeStability
Factorofsafetyisdirectlyproportionaltoembeddedlength
EmbeddedLength(m)
FactorofSafety
No support
1.18
1.30
1.53
10
1.57
Sliceresult
StaggeredPileSupportSystem
Increase distance of
second pile row by
1D for each model
1D
6D
6D
InfluenceofPilesonSlopeDisplacement
StaggeredPileSupportSystem
FactorofSafetydecreasesslightlywithincreasingdistancebetweenstaggered
pilesupportrows
Foreachpilerowthespacingbetweenpilesissetat6D
Distance BetweenPileRows
FactorofSafety
OneRow ofPiles
1.34
1D
1.47
2D
1.47
4D
1.46
6D
1.45
8D
1.42
Foronerowofpilesat2D,FS=1.55
3DEffectsonSlopeStability
AnalysisusingSSR
RS3 Full3DAnalysis
3DEffectonSlopeStabilityAnalysisusingSSR
RS32.0isabletocapturefull3Deffectsonslopestability
analysisusingSSR
Findthecriticalslip
surfacelocationand
shape
3DEffectonSlopeStabilityAnalysisusingSSR
RS32.0isabletocapturefull3Deffectsonslopestability
analysisusingSSR
Itislogicaltoestimatethe
failuresurfacetobeatthe
nosewherethetwo
surfaceconnect
Findthecriticalslip
surfacelocationand
shape
MaximumShearStrainContours
FS=1.11
TwoCriticalFailure
SurfacesonEither
Sideofthe
EmbankmentCorner
TotalDisplacementContours
FS=1.11
Maximum
Displacementat
EmbankmentCorner
RS3:FS=1.11
Slide3DSphericalSearch:FS=1.09
InSlide3D,thesphericalglobalfailuresurfaceissimilarto
thefailuresurfaceobtainedinRS3 2.0
RS3:FS=1.11
RS3:FS=1.11
MaximumShearStrainContours
FS=1.29
SpecifyanSSR
Region
CriticalSlipSurface
Assumedat
EmbankmentCorner
FS = 1.29
Specify an SSR Region
Critical Slip Surface

Assumed at Embankment
Corner
RS3:FS=1.29
Slide3D:FS=1.33
Ifweanalyzearegionaroundtheembankmentcorner,
weobtainahigherfactorofsafetyinbothprograms
RS3:FS=1.29
Slide3D:FS=1.33
Ifweanalyzearegionaroundtheembankmentcorner,
weobtainahigherfactorofsafetyinbothprograms
RS3: FS = 1.29
Slide3D: FS = 1.33
If we analyze a region around the embankment corner, we obtain a

higher factor of safety in both programs
RS3: FS = 1.29
Slide3D: FS = 1.33
If we analyze a region around the embankment corner, we obtain a

higher factor of safety in both programs
2DVerification
FS=0.99
FS=1.22
CutSections
Inthe2Danalysis,aslicealongthenoseisalsonotthe
criticalslopesection
ConcludingRemarks
DisadvantagesofSSRAnalysis
Computationalspeed/timecanbeanissue
Requiresmorematerialinputparameters
deformationproperties,elastoplasticstressstrainbehaviour
Requiresmorenumericalmodellingexpertisethanis
commonlytaughttogeotechnicalengineers
Inexperiencewithmethod
DisadvantagesofSSRAnalysis
Definitionofinstabilityofsolution
Definitionofconvergencecanberesultofnumericalinstability
(andnotphysicalinstability)
Sensitivity/probablistic analysisistimeconsuming
AdvantagesofSSRAnalysis
Accountsforvariousmaterialstressstrainbehaviours
Doesnotassumefailuremechanism
shapeorlocationoffailuresurface
Providesinformationondeformationsatworkingstress
levels
Revealsprogressoffailure
developmentoffailuremechanism
Abletocaptureslopefailuredrivenbystresses
Providesinformationondeformations,bendingmoments
andaxialloadsofsupportelementsatfailure
Highlyreliableandrobust performswellunderwiderange
ofconditions
Veryflexible accommodatesrangeofinputsusedinlimit
equilibriumanalysis
Thankyou.

Using Shear Strength Reduction for 2D and 3D Slope Stability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Using Shear Strength Reduction for 2D and 3D Slope Stability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UsingShearStrengthReductionMethod

c' ' tan

c' ' tan

Shear envelope for

Compute FEM model

If analysis converges to solution,

If solution does not converge end

Maximum Total Displacement [m]

Poissons ratio = 0.2

Dilation angle > 0

Poissons ratio = 0.4

Mobilized Bending Mom.

Transition (Sliding) Zone

Mobilized Axial Load (kN)

Reduction Factor = 1.0

Reduction Factor = 1.0

Reduction Factor = 1.03

Reduction Factor = 1.05

Reduction Factor = 1.09

Reduction Factor = 1.40

Reduction Factor = 0.5

Reduction Factor = 0.5

Reduction Factor = 0.6

Reduction Factor = 0.7

Reduction Factor = 0.86

Reduction Factor = 1.0

Turning Corner Angle

Specify an SSR Region

Critical Slip Surface

If we analyze a region around the embankment corner, we obtain a

If we analyze a region around the embankment corner, we obtain a

You might also like