Harnas-Stability of Containerized Tree PDF

STABILITY OF CONTAINERIZED TREE
Fakhrur Rozy Harnas
SCHOOL OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
2010
STABILITY OF CONTAINERIZED TREES
SUBMITTED
BY
FAKHRUR ROZY HARNAS
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
.
A dissertation submitted to Nanyang Technological University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science (Civil Engineering)
2010
Abstract
Development of infrastructures may cause trees to be felled. One of the solutions to avoid
tree felling is to plant the tree in a moveable container. The small and confined volume of
the container can restrict root growth which could lead to stability problems. The
objective of this study is to understand the failure mechanism and parameters affecting
the stability of a tree planted inside a container filled with top soil in withstanding
prevailing wind speeds in Singapore.
The failure mechanism and the parameters affecting the containerized tree were
investigated by performing an overall stability analysis of the container, internal stability
analysis of the tree, numerical modeling of the tree and small scale stability tests in
laboratory for verification purposes. An overall stability analysis of container was
performed to evaluate the stability of the container against sliding and overturning.
Parametric studies were performed to observe the effect of different container sizes to the
stability of the container. Internal stability analysis and numerical modeling were
performed to evaluate the stability of the tree with and without the container. The root
architecture used in this study was limited to root plate. Parametric studies were
conducted to observe the effect of soil properties, root size, and tree parameters to tree
stability for a fixed container size. A small-scale stability test was performed to verify the
results of the stability analyses. The small scale-test includes the determination of the
properties of the top soil and the overturning test.
There are two failure modes of a containerized tree. The first one is the container
overturning and the second one is the tree overturning. The development of failure mode
depends on the root architecture and the container size. The small-scale stability test
showed that container overturning is the governing failure mode if:
a. The root plate depth is more than 0.8 times of the container height and the root
plate diameter is more than 0.33 times the container diameter or
b. The root plate depth is more than 0.6 times the container height and the root plate
diameter is more than 0.83 times the container diameter.
If the root plate depth or the root plate diameter is less than root plate depth and diameter
in two criteria above, the governing failure mode is tree overturning.
For tree overturning, the maximum wind force increases with the increase in the root
plate diameter and root plate depth. The increase in maximum wind force due to the
increase in root plate diameter is higher than the increase in the maximum wind force due
to the increase in root depth. Hence, an increase in root plate diameter is more effective to
increase tree stability. An increase in matric suction or an increase in angle of internal
friction will increase the maximum wind force needed to overturn the tree while an
increase in tree height decreases the maximum wind force needed to overturn the tree.
i
Acknowledgement
The author would like to take this opportunity to express his gratitude to Professor
Harianto Rahardjo for his guidance, advice and patience throughout the study. Note of
appreciation will also go to the Geotechnics Laboratory technicians, namely Mr. Heng
Hiang Kim, Vincent and Mr. Eugene Tan Hiap Guan and Mrs. Lim Ding, Susie. The
author would also like to thank friends and colleagues at Nanyang Technological
University for their discussions and suggestion during the course of the study. The author
would like to special thank his wife, Nina Amalia for the patience and support throughout
the period of the study and also his newly born baby Baihaqi Sadina Harnas for the
inspiration. And lastly, the author would like to thank everyone who has made
contributions, in any way, in helping the author to complete this study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……………………………………………………………………. i
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………... ii
Table of Contents……….……………………………………..................... iii
List of Figures……………………………………………………………... v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………… xii
Chapter 1. Introduction……...…………………………………………….. 1
1.1. Background………..………………………………………………………… 1
1.2. Objectives ….. ……………………………………………………………… 2
1.3. Scope………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.4. Organizations 3
Chapter 2. Literature Review………………………………........................ 4

2.1. Introduction on Singapore weather…………………….……………………. 4
2.2. Effect of wind load to tree stability………………..………………………… 5
2.3. Tree root architecture………………………………………………………… 6
2.4. Numerical and Analytical modeling of tree stability problems……………… 7
2.5. Containerized trees…………………………………………………………… 9
Chapter 3. Theory ……………………….……………………………….. 11

3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 11
3.2. Shear strength of soils……………………………………………………….. 11
3.3. Wind forces…………………….……………………………………………. 14
3.4. Overall stability analysis of the container..…………………………………. 17
3.4.1. Stability against sliding……………….…………………………….. 17
3.4.2. Stability against overturning………………………………………… 18
3.5. Internal stability analysis of the tree..………………………………………. 19
3.5.1. Ordinary method of slices (OMS) without container…..……………. 20
3.5.2. Ordinary method of slices (OMS) with container……………………. 24
3.6. Governing equation for stress-strain analyses……………………………. 27
Chapter 4. Research Program….…………………………………………... 30

4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 30
4.2. Research Outline……………………………………………………………. 30
4.3. Parameter selection for the parametric study……………………………….. 33
4.4. Overall stability analysis of the container………………………………….. 36
4.5. Internal stability analysis…………...………………………………………. 37
4.6. Numerical modeling………………………………………………………… 39
4.7. Small scale stability test…………………………………………………….. 43
4.7.1. Soil properties determination…….………………………………….. 43
4.7.1.1. Basic soil properties…………………………………………… 43
4.7.1.2. Soil strength……………………………………………………. 44
4.7.1.3. Soil-container material friction test……………………………. 48
4.7.2. Small scale stability test……….…………………………………….. 50
iii
Chapter 5. Presentation of Results…………………………........................ 54
5.1. Overall stability analysis of the container..…………………………………. 54
5.2. Internal stability analysis…………………………………………………… 60
5.2.1. Internal stability analysis without container ………………………… 60
5.2.2. Internal stability analysis with container…………………………….. 63
5.3. Numerical modeling 63
5.3.1. Numerical modeling without container………………………………. 63
5.3.2. Numerical modeling with container..………………………………... 67
5.4. Small scale stability test
5.4.1. Soil properties…………..…………………………………………… 69
5.4.1.1. Basic properties……………………......................................... 69
5.4.1.2. Shear Strength ………………………………………………… 72
5.4.1.3. Soil-container material friction test……………………………. 81
5.5.2. Small scale stability test……………………………………………… 83
Chapter 6. Discussions………………………………………...................... 89
6.1. Overall stability analysis of container..……………………………………... 89
6.2. Internal stability analysis ………………………………………..................... 91
6.3. Numerical modeling ………………………………………………………… 94
6.4. Comparisons between internal stability analysis and numerical modeling….. 99
6.5. Small scale stability test 103
Chapter 7. Conclusions & Recommendations…………………………….. 107

7.1. Conclusions…………………………………………………………............... 107
7.2. Recommendations for future research……………………………………… 108
References……………………………………………………..................... 109
Appendix 1: Overall stability analysis spreadsheet calculation

Appendix 2: Internal stability analysis spreadsheet calculation
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Tree failure modes (a) stem break, (b) stock break, (c) root break and (d)
overturn………………………………………………………………………. 5
Figure 2.2. Different types of root architecture (a) Heart system roots, (b) Plate root
system with vertical sinker roots, (c) Tap root system. (From Stokes and
Mattheck, 1996)……………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 2.3. Trees grown in the container for nursery…………………………………….. 9
Figure 3.1. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for saturated soils…………………………. 12
Figure 3.2. Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated soils ( from
Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993)……………………………………………… 13
Figure 3.3. Tree types used in wind tunnel analysis for moment arm measurement
(Keong, 2004)………………………………………………………………... 17
Figure 3.4 Load and resistance acting in the tree container system for calculation of
factor of safety against sliding and overturning……………………………… 19
Figure 4.1. (a) tree overturning, (b) container overturning and (c) container sliding……. 31
Figure 4.2. Summary of the research program…………………………………………… 32
Figure 4.3. Illustration of the container and root properties used in this study………….. 34
Figure 4.4. Container used by NParks Board of Singapore in real application…………. 35
Figure 4.5. Illustration of the numerical model without container……………………….. 41
Figure 4.6. llIustration of the numerical model with container…………………………... 42
Figure 4.7. lIlustration of the tangent intersect method (modified from Fuller and Hay,
1970)…………………………………………………………………………. 43
Figure 4.8. Schematic diagram of the modified triaxial cell for unsaturated soil testing
(from Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993)…………………………………… 46
Figure 4.9. Direct shear apparatus……………………………………………………….. 48
Figure 4.10. Schematic diagram of the shear box…………………………………………. 49
Figure 4.11. Small scale stability test set-up………………………………………………. 51
Figure 4.12. (a) Tension load cell (b) LVDT used in the study…………………………… 51
Figure 4.13. Data logger for force and displacement measurement………………………. 52
Figure 4.14. The picture of the actual setup……………………………………………….. 53
Figure 5.1. Relationship between wind force and wind speed…………………………… 54
Figure 5.2. Relationship between crown area and wind load…………………………….. 55
Figure 5.3. Factor of safety against overturning for different container height and
diameter……………………………………………………………………… 56
Figure 5.4. Factor of safety against sliding for different container height and diameter… 56
Figure 5.5. Maximum wind force to overturn the container for different container height
and diameter…………………………………………………………………. 57
Figure 5.6. Maximum wind force to slide the container for different container height
and diameter…………………………………………………………………. 57
Figure 5.7. Effect of crown area of the tree to the factor of safety against overturning
and sliding……………………………………………………………………. 58
v

Figure 5.8. Effect of tree height to the factor of safety against overturning and sliding… 59
Figure 5.9. Effect of tree DBH to the factor of safety against overturning and sliding….. 59
Figure 5.10. Maximum wind force for different combination of root plate diameter and
depth without container……………………………………………………… 61
Figure 5.11. Effect of matric suction to the maximum wind force tree with root plate
diameter of 0.9m and root plate depth of 1.2m……………………………. 61
Figure 5.12. Effect of angle of internal friction to the maximum wind force for two root
combinations………………………………………………………………. 62
Figure 5.13. Effect of tree height to the maximum wind force for two root combinations. 62
Figure 5.14. Maximum wind force for different combinations of root plate diameter and
root depth with container…………………………………………………….. 63
Figure 5.15. Wind force - stem displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling
for root plate diameter of 0.6 m……………………………………………… 64
for different matric suctions for a root plate diameter of 0.9 m and root
depth of 1.2 m……………………………………………………………….. 66
for different angles of internal friction for aroot plate diameter of 0.9m and
root depth of 1.2m……………………………………………………………. 66
for different tree heights for a root plate diameter of 0.9m and root depth of
1.2m………………………………………………………………………….. 67
for a tree with container for root plate diameter of 0.6 m……………………. 68
for a tree with container for root plate diameter of 0.9m…………………… 68
for a tree with container for root plate diameter of 1.5m…………………… 69
Figure 5.24 Grain size distribution of top soil used in the study………………………… 70
Figure 5.25. Compaction curve of top soil used in this study……………………………... 72
Figure 5.26. Stress strain analysis for saturated CU test…………………………………... 73
Figure 5.27. Excess pore water pressure developed from the saturated CU test………….. 73
Figure 5.28. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope of saturated CU test……………………….. 74
Figure 5.29. Deviator stress - axial strain curves of the top soil under a net confining
pressure of 20 kPa……………………………………………………………. 75
Figure 5.30. Water volume change - axial strain curves of the top soil under a net
confining pressure of 20 kPa………………………………………………… 76
pressure of 50 kPa…………………………………………………………… 77
vi

pressure of 100 kPa………………………………………………………….. 78
Figure 5.35. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the top soil under a matric suction of 20
kPa and a confining pressure of 20, 50 and 100 kPa………………………… 80
Figure 5.36. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the top soil under a matric suction of
50 kPa and a confining pressure of 20, 50 and 100 kPa……………………... 80
Figure 5.37. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the top soil under a matric suction of
100 kPa and a confining pressure of 20, 50 and 100 kPa……………………. 81
Figure 5.38. Failure envelope for the top soil on the shear stress versus matric suction
plane…………………………………………………………………………. 81
Figure 5.39. Horizontal displacement - shear stress curve under normal stress of 10, 20
and 50 kPa……………………………………………………………………. 82
Figure 5.40. Shearing resistance of the soil-container material under different normal
stresses……………………………………………………………………….. 83
Figure 5.41. Tree overturning failure mode pictures from the small scale tests………….. 84
Figure 5.42. Container overturning failure mode pictures from the small scale tests…….. 85
Figure 5.43. Force-displacement curve obtained from small scale stability test for root
plate diameter of 0.1m……………………………………………………….. 86
plate diameter of 0.15m……………………………………………………… 86
plate diameter of 0.25m…………………………………………………….. 87
Figure 5.46. Maximum force obtained from small scale test internal stability analysis….. 88
Figure 5.47. Force-displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling small scale
test for root plate diameter of 0.1m………………………………………….. 88
test for root plate diameter of 0.15m…………………………………………. 89
test for root plate diameter of 0.25m…………………………………………. 89
Figure 6.1. Minimum container size for different factor of safety against overturning… 90
Figure 6.2. Minimum root sizes for different factor of safety against tree overturning
obtained from the internal stability analysis…………………………………. 92
Figure 6.3. Comparison of internal stability result with and without container………….. 93
Figure 6.4. The definition and equation of the maximum rotation……………………… 95
Figure 6.5. Strain contour observed from the numerical modeling for tree without
container……………….................................................................................... 97
Figure 6.6. (a) strain contour obtained from numerical modeling for tree with root plate
diameter of 0.6 m and root plate depth of 0.6 m and (b) strain contour
obtained from numerical modeling for tree with root plate diameter of 1.5m
and root plate depth of 1.2m…………………………………………………. 99
Figure 6.7. Maximum wind force for tree without container for different root sizes
obtained from internal stability analysis and numerical modeling………….. 100
vii

Figure 6.8. Maximum wind force for tree with container for different root sizes
obtained from internal stability analysis and numerical modeling…………... 100
Figure 6.9. Effect of matric suction to the maximum wind force obtained from internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling…………………………………… 102
Figure 6.10. Effect of angle of internal friction to the maximum wind force obtained
from internal stability analysis and numerical modeling…………………….. 102
Figure 6.11. Effect of tree height to the maximum wind force obtained from internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling…………………………………… 103
Figure 6.12. Comparison of internal stability analysis, numerical modeling and small
scale stability test for root plate diameter of 0.1 m…………………………... 105
scale stability test for root plate diameter of 0.15 m…………………………. 105
scale stability test for root plate diameter of 0.2 m…………………………... 106

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Summary of the parametric study in each analysis………………………… 33

Table 4.2. Container sizes used in the parametric study……………………………….. 37
Table 4.3. Crown area, tree height and tree DBH variation used in the parametric
study…………………………………………………………………………. 37
Table 4.4. Plate root dimension used for internal stability analysis and numerical
calculaton…………………………………………………………………… 38
Table 4.5. Matric suction, angle of internal friction and tree height variations for
internal stability analysis calculation……………………………………….. 38
Table 4.6. Material properties for numerical modeling………………………………… 40
Table 4.7. Consolidated undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements for
saturated soil specimens……………………………………………………. 44
Table 4.8. Consolidated drained triaxial tests for unsaturated TS……………………… 45
Table 4.9. Direct shear for soil-container material friction test……………………….. 50
Table 4.10. Small scale stability test program…………………………………………… 53
Table 5.1. Centre of rotation and radius obtained from the internal stability analysis
for different root sizes……………………………………………………… 60
Table 5.2 Top soil basic properties……………………………………………………. 71
Table 5.3. Failure mode for different root size obtained from the small scale stability
test………………………………………………………………………… 85
Table 6.1. Slip surface diameter and depth………………………………………….. 94
Table 6.2. Maximum wind force, stem displacement and the equivalent rotation
obtained from numerical modeling for different root sizes without
container……………………………………………………………………
95
Table 6.3. Maximum wind forces obtained from numerical modeling for two root
sized and different matric suctions, angle of internal frictions and tree
heights………………………………………………………………………..
98
Table 6.4. Maximum wind force, stem displacement and the equivalent rotation
obtained from numerical modeling for different root sizes with
container……………………………………………………………………...
98
Table 6.5. Comparisons of force obtained from internal stability analysis, numerical
modeling, small scale stability test and the general stability
analysis………………………………………………………………………
106
ix
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Singapore, which is well known as The Garden City, has numerous mature and
majestic tree species. This beautiful landscape is a result of efforts invested in nurturing
trees. However, the most important thing in creating such a landscape is the significant
time of uninterrupted tree growth to reach such maturity status.
Development of infrastructures in Singapore, such as road widening, may cause

some mature trees to be felled. Tree transplantations to other locations may be carried out
instead of felling the tree. However, transplantation of mature trees is nearly impossible
to be performed because of logistic problems, such as handling difficulties arising from
the weight of trees. Biological factors, such as a high percentage of recovery failures, also
make transplantation hard to be carried out. Therefore, tree felling is considered
unavoidable.
Felling of mature trees can lead to problems such as increased heat, glare, sound
pollution and reduction in air quality. Furthermore, the time and cost spent in nurturing
and maintaining trees would be wasted. More cost and time would be incurred in trees
restorations which do not happen in a short period of time. One of the solutions to
overcome this problem is by planting trees in a container. Through this, the soil and tree
system in the container can be moved with the aid of cranes or other machineries. As a
result, the felling of trees can be avoided.
1
Studies on tree root systems showed that the stability of a tree is governed by two
main factors; root architecture and soil properties (Rahardjo et al., 2009). The small and
confined volume of the container causes severe limitations upon healthy tree growth and
development thus limiting the development of root architecture of the planted tree which
could affect the stability of the tree. To avoid the overturning of trees planted in the
container, the understanding of the failure mechanism and important parameters affecting
tree stability are essential.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to understand the failure mechanism and parameters
affecting the stability of a tree planted inside a container filled with top soil in
withstanding prevailing wind speeds in Singapore.
1.3 SCOPE
The research was conducted to study the stability of containerized trees in

withstanding prevailing wind speeds in Singapore. The containerized trees in this study
refer to a tree which is planted inside a container positioned above the ground.
The failure mechanism and the parameters affecting the containerized tree were
investigated by performing a study on the wind force acting on the trees based on the
extreme value of wind speed, an overall stability analysis of the container, internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling of the tree and small scale stability tests in
laboratory for verification purposes.
An overall stability analysis of container was performed to evaluate the stability

of the container against sliding and overturning. Parametric studies were performed to
observe the effect of different container sizes to the stability of the container.
2
Internal stability analysis and numerical modeling were performed to evaluate the
stability of the tree with and without the container. The root architecture used in this
study was limited to plate root. Parametric studies were conducted to observe the effect
of soil properties, root size, and tree parameters to the tree stability for a fixed container
size.
A small-scale stability test was performed to verify the results of the stability
analyses. The small-scale test includes the determination of the properties of the top soil
and the overturning test.
1.4 ORGANIZATIONS
This report is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 introduces the background on containerized tree, objectives and the

scope of the research.
• Chapter 2 presents a review on the works conducted by other researchers on
factors concerning the stability of containerized tree.
• Chapter 3 presents the relevant equations and theory that were used in the
study on the stability of containerized tree.
• Chapter 4 discusses the research program of the study, which consists of
equipment and methodologies used in findings the result.
• Chapter 5 provides the results of the stability analysis of containerized trees
• Chapter 6 provides the discussion on the result of the stability analysis of
containerized tree
• Chapter 7 provides conclusions of this study and recommendations for future
research.
3
Chapter 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER
2
Literature Review
2.1 INTRODUCTION ON SINGAPORE WEATHER
Singapore is geographically located one degree north of the equator. The country
consists of one main island, which is about 42 km from east to west and 23 km from
north to south, and 60 small islands scattered off its north-east and south with a total land
area of 647.5 km2 (PWD, 1976). The large scale weather system which affects Singapore
is the monsoon wind. Monsoon is caused by the difference in temperature of the land and
sea due to solar heating (Ramage, 1971).
The monsoon blows in two seasons, north-east monsoon and south-west

monsoon. There are two inter monsoon periods in between the two monsoons. The north-
east monsoon which blows from December to March is usually accompanied by heavy
rainfall whereas the south-west monsoon is relatively drier. During the south-west
monsoon, squall lines moving from Sumatra Island sometimes occur and produce very
strong wind. Due to instability in seasonal changes, thunderstorms sometimes occur
during the inter monsoon period.
To obtain the extreme value of wind speed in Singapore, a continuous time-series

data for some years of observation had to be obtained. A study by Tanurdjadja and Choy
(2002) provided the extreme value of wind speed information based on an analysis of
thirty (30) years data collected by three (3) weather stations in Singapore.
4
2.2 EFFECT OF WIND LOAD TO TREE STABILITY
Wind pressure is the most prevalent of physical forces causing plant mechanical
failure (Niklas, 2002). According to Shaetzl et al. (1989), different types of wind damage
had been identified and these include (a) stem break, where the bole of the tree snaps
above the ground, (b) stock break, where the bole snaps at ground level, (c) root break,
where the tree is uprooted by pivoting on broken roots directly beneath the bole, and (d)
overturn, where the tree is uprooted by pivoting on the outer edge of a massive plate
comprised of soil and roots. These failure modes are illustrated as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Tree failure modes (a) stem break, (b) stock break, (c) root break and (d)
overturn.
Stem break and stock break happens when the bending moment resulting from the
wind force is higher than the bending moment capacity of the stem wood. Root break
usually occurs in trees with a large plate or deep root. Root break could happen as a shear
failure, tensile failure or a bending failure depending on the location of the roots and the
branching of the root as studied by Stokes et al. (1994). The overturning failure mode
usually happens in trees that have limited root length due to constraints like trees planted
in the narrow planting verges, or trees planted in high density soils. The root-soil system
is subjected to bending and compressive forces on the leeward side while the windward
side experiences tensile and shear forces (Coutts, 1983).
5
2.3 TREE ROOT ARCHITECTURE
Most root systems can be classified as a plate or tap systems. There are also
many plants whose systems show intermediate behavior like a heart root system.
Different types of root architectures are shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2. Different types of root architecture (a) Heart system roots, (b) Plate root
system with vertical sinker roots, (c) Tap root system. (From Stokes and Mattheck, 1996)
6
Trees commonly develop a plate root system (Coutts, 1983) which consists of
large diameter lateral roots. There are four main components of resistance in this root
system (Coutts, 1986); the soil resistance, the resistance of the leeward root to
compression, the resistance of the windward root to tensile and its own gravity mass in
the system. The dominant failure mode which occurs in a plate root system is an
overturning of the root-soil plate or root breaking in the windward side (Ennos, 1990).
The resistance of a tree’s root plate system against overturning has a similarity to the
resistance of a circular shallow foundation against overturning.
In many tree types, tap roots dominated the resistance of overturning when the
tree is still young. This importance decreases when the trees grow lateral roots (Coutts
and Nicoll, 1991). The resistance for tap root trees comes from the compression of the
soil in the leeward side of the tree and the bending resistance of the root (Goodman et al.,
2001). As a matter of fact, the tap root is acting like a pile foundation commonly used in
civil engineering structures. There are two failure modes that could occur in pile
foundations associated with this type of piles. Short piles tend to rotate with a centre of
rotation at some distance below the soil surface whereas long piles would fail when the
moment capacity of the pile is exceeded (pile structural failure).
The most efficient root architecture to withstand wind loading is the intermediate
heart root system (Stokes et al., 2002; Dupuy et al., 2005a). This root system is
composed of lateral, oblique and vertical roots that originate from the stem bole. The
second most efficient resistance is the tap root system and the plate root system is the
least efficient. Lack of deep vertical roots in the plate root system decreases the
resistance of a tree against overturning (Dupuy et al., 2005b).
2.4. NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL MODELING OF TREE STABILITY

PROBLEMS
Problems faced with tree stability are usually deemed as an arborist or a

horticulturist problem. The problems are usually analysed using statistical analysis and
7
correlations from field experiments such as an overturning test (Stokes, 2002). These
tests involved winching the tree sideways until failure or till a pre-determined
displacement or rotation occurrs, then recording the force required to reach the failure
condition. One of the disadvantages of performing pull-out test is that there is a
possibility that the root might be damaged during the overturning test (Stokes, 2002).
Furthermore, the overturning test is expensive and is destructive to trees. This kind of
analysis is also incomplete due to numerous variables influencing the tree stability which
are often not taken into account, e.g. root architecture, soil properties, ground water table,
etc.
In order to improve a tree’s stability, an understanding of the physical process

which occurs on the tree root system is needed. Analytical calculations utilizing the
principles of mechanics have been used by several researchers (Mattheck, 1996, Peltola
et al., 1999) to manage the risks of wind damage related to the stem breaking. Rahardjo et
al (2009) proposed analytical calculations for several failure modes with regards to the
root break and overturning failure modes. The main disadvantage of the analytical
calculations is that the failure mode that actually occurred is unknown. Because of this
disadvantage, numerical simulations of tree failures can be a solution (Dupuy et al.,
2007). Numerical modeling can simulate the conditions of tree root geometry, soil
properties, wind loading and other factors can be taken into account to study tree stability
problems.
Researchers have performed 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional numerical

modellings to understand the behaviour of soil-root interaction in tree stability problems
(Rahardjo et al., 2009). The lack of information on the actual root morphology and their
mechanical properties is the barrier to the success in employing numerical modelling
methods in tree stability problems. Simplification of the root architecture is unavoidable
at the moment and the choice of root architecture for a given tree species is still unclear.
Rahardjo et al. (2010) performed a 2-D numerical analysis to obtain the maximum
force needed to uproot a tree and compared it with an actual overturning tests. The results
8
of the numerical modelling were close to the actual forces which suggest that the
numerical modelling can be used as a tool to predict the force needed to uproot the tree.
2.5 CONTAINERIZED TREES
Trees have been grown in containers since the 1930’s in North America during
the great plain forestry project (Stratchan, 1974). To date, container material types and
container sizes are still being developed to fulfil the different needs of various plant
species. The primary function of the container is to hold the growing medium which
supplies the water and nutrients for the trees. Traditionally, a container is usually used to
grow a tree till it matures in size in the nursery as shown in Figure 2.3 before
transplanting the tree to locations like the road side and parks to be planted without the
container. However certain development projects such as road widening, or new housing
project sometimes require the trees to be felled. As such, this triggered the idea of
planting the tree inside the container permanently which enables the tree to be moved in
the event of any development project.
Figure 2.3. Trees grown in the container for nursery
9
The design consideration of a traditional tree container includes the sizing of the
container, the moisture retention capacity and the durability of the container material
(Landis, 1990). The size of the container depends on the size of the tree to be planted, the
cost of manufacturing the container and the availability of the container manufacturer.
The moisture retention of the container depends on the permeability of the container and
the size and number of the drainage holes. This aspect is a key to ensure the survival of
the tree. The size of the container affects the growth and development of the tree roots as
investigated by Ching (1998). If the container size is relatively small compared to the size
of the tree to be planted, root overcrowding can occur. The durability of the container is
an important consideration, especially if the container is designed to last for a tree’s life
time (Landis, 1990). These are the traditional design considerations for a containerized
tree. For permanent tree container above ground, the stability of the container can be a
significant consideration.
The stability of a containerized tree has not been researched intensively as

reflected in the very limited literature available. Thus, the problem of the stability of
containerized tree can be approached by using similar principles of a shallow foundation
used in transmission towers or chimneys. Kumar and Kumar (2008) show that for a
shallow foundation for transmission tower design, several criteria that have to be satisfied
are the stability of the foundation against overturning or tilting because of exceedance
soil shear strength and the overall stability of the foundation especially if the location of
the foundation is on a slope or adjacent to other structures.
10
Chapter 3 Theory
CHAPTER
3
THEORY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the theories that are applicable to this study. First, an
introduction on the shear strength of soils is presented. In the following section, the
equations used for wind force determination are presented. The equations developed for
overall stability analysis of the container against sliding and overturning are then
presented in the Section 3.4. The developed equations for internal stability analysis of the
tree with and without container are presented in Section 3.5. Finally, the governing
equations for stress-strain analysis in this study are given in Section 3.6
3.2 SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOILS
Shear strength of a saturated soil is usually described using the Mohr-Coulomb

failure criterion and the effective stress concept (Terzaghi, 1936), as follows:
τ ff = c ' + (σ f − u w ) f tan φ ' (3.1)
where: τff = shear strength of a saturated soil, c’ = effective cohesion of soil, φ’ = effective
angle of shearing resistance for a saturated soil, σf = total stress and uw = pore water
pressure.
11
Chapter 3 Theory
Figure 3.1 Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for saturated soils
(from Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
Equation 3.1 gives a straight line as shown in Figure 3.1. The line is commonly
referred to as a failure envelope that represents possible combinations of shear stress and
effective normal stress on the failure plane at failure.
In reality, soil is often found in unsaturated condition, thus the shear strength of
an unsaturated soil can be formulated as follows (Fredlund et al., 1978):
τ ff = c ' + (σ f − u a ) f tan φ '+ (u a − u w ) f tan φ b (3.2)
where: τff = shear strength of an unsaturated soil, c’ = effective cohesion of soil, φ’=
effective angle of shearing resistance for a saturated soil, σf = total stress at failure, ua =
pore air pressure, uw = pore water pressure, φb = angle showing the rate of increase in
shear strength relative to the increase in matric suction, (ua-uw).
The shear strength equation for an unsaturated soil is essentially an extension of

the shear strength equation for a saturated soil. For an unsaturated soil, two stress state
variables, (σ f − u a ) f and (u a − u w ) f , are used to describe its shear strength, while only
one stress state variable, (σ f − u w ) f , is required for a saturated soil. The shear strength
12
Chapter 3 Theory
equation for an unsaturated soil shows a smooth transition to the shear strength equation
for a saturated soil. As the soil approaches saturation, the pore-water pressure, uw,
approaches the pore-air pressure, ua, and the matric suction, (ua – uw), goes to zero.
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
The failure envelope for a saturated soil is obtained by plotting a series of Mohr-
Coulomb circles corresponding to failure conditions on a two-dimensional plot, as shown
in Figure 3.1. The line tangent to the Mohr-Coulomb circles is called the failure
envelope. For an unsaturated soil, the Mohr-Coulomb circles corresponding to failure
conditions can be plotted in a three-dimensional manner, as shown in Figure 3.2. The
three-dimensional plot has the shear stress, τ, as the ordinate and the two stress state
variables, (σ - ua) and (ua – uw), as abscissas. The frontal plane represents a saturated soil
where the matric suction is zero. On the frontal plane, the (σ - ua) axis reverts to the (σ -
uw) axis (as shown in Figure 3.1) since the pore-water pressure becomes equal to the
pore-air pressure at saturation.
Figure 3.2. Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated soils

(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
13
Chapter 3 Theory
The surface tangent to the Mohr circles at failure (Figure 3.2) is referred to as the
extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated soils that defines the shear
strength of unsaturated soils. The intersection line between the extended Mohr-Coulomb
failure envelope and the frontal plane is the failure envelope for the saturated condition.
A planar failure envelope, which intersects the shear stress axis, gives a cohesion
intercept, c’ (Figure 3.2). The envelope has slope angles of φ’ and φb with respect to the
(σ- ua) and (ua – uw) axes, respectively. Both angles are assumed to be constants. The
cohesion intercept, c, and the slope angles,φ’ and φb, are the strength parameters used to
relate the shear strength to the stress state variables.
3.3. WIND FORCES
Wind force can be expressed as a function of the effect of wind speed on the
crown of a tree at height of h using the following equation:
Fh = ρAhCDhuh2 / 2 (3.3)
where ρ is the density of air, equals to 1.29 kg/m3, Ah is the projected area of the
crown perpendicular to the direction of the wind, CDh is the drag coefficient of the crown,
and uh is the basic wind speed at height h above the ground.
The basic wind speed for the calculation of wind force is retrieved from a study
by Choi and Tanurdjaja (2002). The study compiled thirty years of wind data from three
wind stations located across Singapore. The data were then sorted out to three classes: 60
minutes mean, 30 minutes mean and 3 second gust. The data were then analyzed using
probabilistic method in order to predict the extreme wind speed. The design wind speed
data for 50 years and 100 years return period are shown in Table 3.1.
14
Chapter 3 Theory
Wessoly and Arb (1998) proposed the aerodynamic drag factor CDh for common
trees. The proposed drag factor values for common trees are generally around 0.2 to 0.3
with an average of 0.25 as shown in Table 3.2
Table 3.1 Singapore design wind speed data (Choi and Tanurdjaja, 2002)
Design wind speed Return Period
(m/s) 50 years 100 years
60 minutes mean 11.6 12.1
30 minutes mean 17.6 18.4
3 second gust 29.3 30.8
Table 3.2 Crown drag factor for different tree species (Wessoly and Arb, 1998).
Species Crown drag factor
Aesculus hippocastanum 0.35
Ailanthus altissima 0.15
Betula pendula 0.12
Chamaecyparis lawsonia 0.20
Cedrus deodora 0.20
Fagus sylvatica 0.25–0.30
Alnus glutinosa 0.25
Fraxinus excelsior 0.20
Picea abies 0.20
Carpinus betulus 0.25
Castanea sativa 0.25
Cercis siliquastrum 0.20
Larix decidua 0.15
Liriodendron tulipifera 0.25
Pinus pinaster 0.20
Pinus sylvestris 0.15
Platanus´ hybrid 0.25
Populus ´ canescens 0.2–0.25
Populus nigra ‘Italica’ 0.30
Pseudotsuga menziesii 0.20
Pyrus communis 0.30
Quercus robur 0.25
Quercus rubra 0.25
Robinia pseudoacacia 0.15
Robinia monophyla 0.15–0.20
15
Chapter 3 Theory
Salix alba 0.20

Salix alba ‘Tristis’ 0.20
Sequoiadendron gigantum 0.20
Sophora japonica 0.15
Sorbus aria 0.25
Tilia x hollandica 0.25
Tilia tomentosa 0.25–0.30
Ulmus glabra 0.25
In a study of wind effect on four types of trees having different heights and crown
shapes, Keong (2004) conducted measurements of the moment arm (Lw) for trees with
different crown types. The mean moment arm is presented in Table 3.3 for the different
crown types as presented in Figure 3.3.
Table 3.3 Wind tunnel Measurement Results of Four Types of Tree (Keong, 2004)
Crown shape
Parameter
Conical 1 Conical 2 Oblong Umbrella
Moment arm/height ratio 0.655 0.4 0.612 0.63
Duranta Rapens Sygyzium Campanulatum

(Conical 1 shape) (Conical 2 shape)
16
Chapter 3 Theory
Carallia Brachiata Cassia sp.

(Oblong shape) (Umbrella shape)
Figure 3.3. Tree types used in wind tunnel analysis for moment arm measurement
(Keong, 2004).
3.4 OVERALL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE CONTAINER
The overall stability analysis of the tree in a container can be performed using a
stability analysis calculation commonly used for a retaining wall stability. The
assumption used in the overall stability analysis calculations is that the container, the tree
and the soil behave as a rigid system. It means that the container, the tree and the soil
system are moving together without any relative displacement between the container, the
tree and the soil.
3.4.1 Stability against sliding
The factor of safety against sliding is defined as the resisting force that is
provided by the friction between the container and the base, divided by the wind force as
shown in Figure 3.4. The friction between the container and the base is calculated as the
weight of the tree, the container and the soil inside the container multiplied by the friction
coefficient as presented in Equation 3.4.
17
Chapter 3 Theory
W W W φ
F sliding (3.4)
F
where F is wind force, Wt is weight of tree, Wc is weight of the container, Ws is weight of

the soil, φ is friction coefficient equals to 2/3 tan(Φ’) as suggested by Bowles(1977) and
similar to friction coefficient between soil and wet concrete, and Φ’ is the angle of
internal friction of the soil.
The weight of the tree is calculated by using an allometric equation (equation

developed from statistical analysis) proposed by Rayachhetry et. al (2001) as follow:
Wt 2.885 0.8134 DBH Ht /100 kN (3.5)
where DBH is diameter at breast height of the tree (cm) and Ht is height of the tree.
3.4.2 Stability against overturning
The factor of safety against overturning of a container is presented in Equation

3.6. It is defined as the resisting moments that are provided by the weight of the tree, the
soil and the container, divided by the overturning moment resulted from the wind force.
Both the resisting and overturning moments are calculated with respect to point A as
shown in Figure 3.4.
W W W . D
F overturning (3.6)
F H L H
where Hc is the height of the container, Dc is the diameter of the container, L is the
moment arm over height ratio; L is taken to be 0.655 as of conical 1 crown area (Figure
3.3) to produce the highest overturning moment to the container.
18
Chapter 3 Theory
Figure 3.4 Load and resistance acting in the tree container system for calculation
of factor of safety against sliding and overturning
3.5 INTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSES OF THE TREE
There are several modes of tree failure as explained in detail in Chapter 2. In this
particular study, overturning failure mode is the only failure mode considered. This is due
to the fact that the overturning failure mode usually occurs in a tree with short root length
and the overturning failure mode usually requires the smallest wind force. (Rahardjo et
al, 2009).
To analyze the overturning of an uprooted tree, a limit equilibrium analysis that is

commonly used in slope stability analysis can be performed. The analysis employs
equations of statics where a potential sliding mass is divided into vertical slices. Several
solution techniques for the methods of slices have been developed (e.g., Ordinary,
Bishop’s, Janbu’s Simplified, Morgenstern-Price, and Spencer methods). The differences
between the methods are on the equations of statics used and satisfied, the interslice
19
Chapter 3 Theory
forces used in the analyses, and in the assumed relationship between the interslice shear
and normal forces (Krahn, 2004). In this study, The Ordinary method of slices (Fellenius,
1936) is used and modified to perform tree stability analysis. The equations used in this
method are described in the following sections.
3.5.1 Ordinary method of slices (OMS) without container
The ordinary method of slices (OMS) is the simplest method of slices available
(Nash, 1987). The major assumption of this method is that the resultant of the side forces
on a slice cancels each other. The assumption on the resultant side forces may lead to an
under-estimation of the factor of safety, or in other words the assumption lead to a more
conservative result (Turnbull and Hvorslev, 1967; Whitman and Bailey, 1967). The facts
that this method is simple and conservative are the reasons for choosing the ordinary
method of slices for tree stability analysis.
Figure 3.6 shows F as the wind force acting at a height of Lw from the center of
rotation with a coordinate of Xc and Yc. The arc between xmax to xmin is the failure surface.
The soil plate is divided into several vertical slices of equal width (b) with x as the
diameter of the soil plate and d is the maximum depth of failure surface.
The Ordinary Method of Slices (OMS) is performed in two main steps. The first
step is to calculate the resisting shear moment generated by the soil, while the second step
is to calculate the driving wind force causing tree instability based on the resisting shear
moment computed in the first analysis.
The calculations in both steps are automated using a spreadsheet program. The
coordinates of the centre of rotation coordinate and the radius are iterated to achieve the
lowest resisting moment and the highest driving moment. The input data of the Ordinary
Method of Slices are the soil properties such as the unit weight (γ), effective cohesion
(c’), effective friction angle (φ’), matric suction (ua-uw) and an angle showing the increase
20
Chapter 3 Theory
in shear strength due to the an increase in matric suction (φb) and the root properties such
as the height and diameter of the root (hr and dr).
Based on Figures 3.6 and 3.7, xmax, xmin and x are calculated as follows:
(3.7)
(3.8)
(3.9)
The width of each slice, b is calculated as follows:
∑
(3.10)
where n is the number of slices
The x and y coordinates of each slice are calculated as follow:
(3.11)
(3.12)
The height of each slice (hi) is calculated as follows:
0.5 (3.13)
Area of each slice (Ai) is assumed to represent the area of a trapezoid and it is
calculated as follows:
21
Chapter 3 Theory
(3.14)
Weight of each slice (Wi) is given as:
1m (3.3)
Normal force on the base of each arch slice is given as follows:
N = Wi cosα i (3.16)
⎛ 0.5 × ( xi −1 + xi ) + X c ⎞
where: α i = arcsin⎜ ⎟
⎝ r ⎠ (3.17)
22
Chapter 3 Theory
Ht
Lw
(Xc, Yc)
xmin r xmax
Xi+2 Xi+1 xi
b
d
l
yi+1
α
yi+2
Figure 3.6 Tree stability analyses by the ordinary method of slices.
Figure 3.7 Forces in each slice
23
Chapter 3 Theory
Normal stress acting at the base of each slice is calculated as follows:
N Wi cos α i
σ= = (3.18)
l l
where length of each base slice (l) is calculated as follows:
(3.19)
When ua is assumed to be 0 and Eq. (3.18) is substituted into Eq. (3.2), shear stress
developed on each slice for a given matric suction value can be formulated as follows:
⎛ Wi cosα i ⎞
τ i = c'+⎜ ⎟ tan φ '+(ua − uw ) tan φ
b
(3.20)
⎝ l ⎠
The resisting shear force along the arc becomes:

Tr = ∑ τ i l i (3.21)
The resisting shear moment about O is then calculated as follows:

M r = ∑ (Tr × r ) (3.22)
where: r is the moment arm and calculated as the radius of the slip surface.
The second step of calculation is to determine the driving moment that causes tree
instability. As shown in Figure 3.6 the driving moment about the centre of rotation that
cause tree instability is calculated as follows:
M d = F × Lw (3.23)
24
Chapter 3 Theory
For equilibrium consideration, the driving moment about the centre of rotation
equals to the resisting moment about the centre of rotation:
F × Lw = ∑ (Tr × r ) (3.24)
The wind force at failure due to shear failure of soil (F) is then calculated as
follows:
F=
∑ (T r × r)
(3.25)
Lw
3.5.2 Ordinary method of slices (OMS) with container
With the container in place, a similar ordinary method of slices technique given in
Section 3.4.1 is used to calculate the resistance of soil in a container. If the slip surface is
long enough, it can cut either the side and or the bottom of the container, yielding friction
resistance between the soil and the container material as shown in Figure 3.8.
There are two possible cases that can occur, the first case (Figure 3.8a) is when
the friction involved is only the side friction and the second case is when the friction
involved includes both the side and also the bottom frictions (Figure 3.8b).
The side friction between the soil and the material container can be calculated as:
0.5 tan (3.26)
where ls is the length of the side friction, μ is the angle of friction between the soil and
the container material and K0 is the at rest pressure coefficient of soil that can be
calculated as follows:
=1-sin(φ’) (3.27)
25
Chapter 3 Theory
Figure 3.8 Slip surface intersecting the container
For the case of the slip surface intersecting the bottom of the container, the soil at
the windward of the tree is pushing the container, developing a passive pressure. For
calculation of Equation 3.26, rather than using K0, passive pressure coefficient Kp shall
be used. Kp can be calculated as follows:
45 (3.28)
The bottom friction between the soil and the container material can be calculated
as:
(3.28)
where lb is the length of the bottom friction
26
Chapter 3 Theory
For equilibrium consideration, the driving moment about the centre of rotation
equals to the resisting moment about the centre of rotation:
F × L w = ∑ (Tr × r ) + f s × r1 + f b × r2 (3.29)
where r1 is the moment arm of the side friction and r2 is the moment arm of the bottom
friction.
The wind force at failure due to shear failure of soil (F) is then calculated as
follows:
F=
∑ (T r × r ) + f s × r1 + f b × r2
(3.30)
Lw
3.6 GOVERNING EQUATION FOR STRESS-STRAIN ANALYSES
The stress-strain analysis is used the estimate the deformation of the elements due
to external force applied to the problem. The stress-strain analysis in this study is
conducted in a two-dimensional plane strain condition using a finite element load-
deformation software SIGMA/W (Geo-Slope Ltd).
The governing equation used in a stress-strain analysis is
(3.31)
where σ is stress, E is young’s modulus and ε is strain.
For a given time, the finite element equation used in the SIGMA/W formulation is
shown in Equation 3.32 as follow:
27
Chapter 3 Theory
(3.32)
where [B] is strain displacement matrix, [C] is constitutive matrix, {a} is the column
vector, <N> is the row vectors, A is the area along the boundary of an element, v is the
volume of an element, b is the unit body force, p is the incremental surface pressure and
{Fn} is the concentrated nodal incremental loads.
Summation of Equation 3.32 over all elements is conducted to obtain the final
results. For each time step, incremental displacements are calculated for the incremental
applied load. These incremental values are then added to the values from the previous
step.
SIGMA/W uses engineering shear strain and shear stress in defining the strain and
stress vector:
(3.33)
where εx, εy and εz are the strain in the x, y and z direction and γxy is the strain in x-y
plane
(3.34)
where σx, σy and σz are the stress in the x, y and z direction and τxy is the shear stress in x-
y plane
The relation between the strain vector and the field variable of stress and
deformation is shown in Equation 3.35
(3.35)
where u and v is the nodal displacement in x and y directions.
28
Chapter 3 Theory
For soil under elastic condition, stress is related to strains as given in Equation
3.36:
(3.36)
where [C] is the constitutive matrix given by
1 0
1 0
0 (3.37)
1
0 0 0
where v is the poisson’s ratio
For the Elastic-Plastic model, SIGMA/W uses the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion
as the yield function. The equation of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion used is expressed in
Equation 3.38. When F equals to zero, the soil is considered to have failed.
sin cos (3.38)
where:
(3.39)
√
/ (3.40)
(3.41)
(3.42)
29
Chapter 4 Research Program
CHAPTER
4
RESEARCH PROGRAM
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the research program adopted in this study.
First, the outline of the research is presented. The following section gives discussion on
the selection of parameters used in the parametric study. The overall stability analysis,
internal stability analysis and numerical modeling are discussed in Section 4.4, 4.5 and
4.6, respectively. Finally, the small-scale stability test program is discussed in Section
4.7.
4.2 RESEARCH OUTLINE
The objective of this study is to understand the failure mechanism and parameters
affecting the stability of containerized tree. There is limited literature available on
stability of containerized tree. The closest civil engineering problem to containerized tree
is a transmission tower or chimney foundation. The design criteria of transmission tower
foundation are then adopted for stability of containerized tree problems. The possible
failure modes are the failure of the tree against overturning and the overall stability
failure of the container against overturning and sliding. An illustration of the possible
failure modes is shown in Figure 4.1. The equations to calculate the overall stability
analysis against sliding and overturning have been developed in Section 3.4. The
equations to calculate the force required to overturn the tree have been developed in
Section 3.5.
30
Figure 4.1(a) tree overturning, (b) container overturning and (c) container sliding
The research program consists of four parts. The first part of this study is the
overall stability analysis of the container against overturning and sliding. The purpose of
this study is to determine the forces required to overturn and slide the container.
Parametric study by varying different container sizes, tree height, crown area and
diameter at breast height is performed to study the effect of each parameter on the force
required to overturn and slide the container. The results of the parametric study are also
used to find the optimum container size.
The second part of the study is the internal stability analysis of the tree. The
purpose of the internal stability analysis of the tree is to determine the maximum wind
force required to overturn the tree. The internal stability analysis is divided into two parts
i.e the internal stability analysis without container and the internal stability analysis with
container. The objective of the study is to investigate the effect of container on the force
required to overturn the tree. Parametric study on the root sizes, soil properties and tree
sizes is performed to observe the effect of each parameter on the stability of the tree.
The third part of the study is the numerical modeling of tree stability with and
without the container. The purpose of the numerical model is to determine the maximum
31
wind force required to overturn the tree. Parametric study is also conducted using similar
parameters as the internal stability analysis. The last part of the study is the verification of
the internal stability analysis and numerical modeling using a small-scale model test in
the laboratory. The small-scale laboratory verification includes the basic properties and
shear strength test of top soil and also the small-scale overturning test.
The research program is summarized in Figure 4.2. The research program is

designed to achieve the research objective of understanding the failure mechanism and
parameters affecting the stability of containerized tree. To understand the failure
mechanism, overall stability analysis, internal stability analysis and the numerical
modeling is performed to investigate the maximum wind force required to destabilize the
tree container system. The predicted failure mode is the failure mode that results in the
lowest maximum wind force. This failure mode is then compared to the actual failure
mode obtained from the small-scale stability test. The parameters affecting the tree and
the container stability are investigated by performing a series of parametric study.
Figure 4.2. Summary of the research program
32
4.3 PARAMETER SELECTION FOR THE PARAMETRIC STUDY
Parametric study is conducted for the overall stability analysis of the container,
the internal stability analysis of the tree and the numerical modeling. The parameters
involved in the parametric study are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Summary of the parametric study in each analysis
Analysis Type Parametric Study
Container Height
Container Diameter
Tree Height
Overall Stability analysis Tree Diameter at breast height
(DBH)
Tree Crown area
Wind Speed
Root plate diameter
Internal stability analysis and Root plate depth

numerical modelling without Soil angle of internal friction
container
Tree height
Matric suction.
Internal stability analysis and Root plate diameter
numerical modelling with container
Root plate depth
Container used in this study is a cylindrical container with a certain diameter and
height. The plate root is chosen as the root architecture used in this study. The plate root
is used because it is the weakest root architecture to withstand overturning. The
illustration of the container and root properties used in the study is shown in Figure 4.3.
The container diameter and height are fixed as 1.8 m diameter and 1.5 m height for the
internal stability analysis and numerical modeling with container. This container size is
chosen because this container size is planned to be used in the real application by NParks
Singapore as shown in Figure 4.4. During the overall stability analysis, the container
33
sizes are varied in order to observe the effect of different sizes to the maximum wind
force required to overturn or slide the container as explained in more details in Section
4.4.
The root plate diameter and height are always varied in every analysis except for
the overall stability analysis which does not need root properties. The root plate diameter
is varied as 0.33, 0.5 and 0.83 times the container diameter of 1.8 m. The root plate depth
is varied as 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 times the container height of 1.5 m. The variation of the
root sizes is conducted to represent an estimated different species or different age of the
tree.
Figure 4.3 Illustration of the container and root properties used in this study
34
Figure 4.4. Container used by NParks Board of Singapore in real application
The soil used in tree planting is a top soil which is a mix of sand, silt and organic
mulch. The properties of the soil used in the parametric study are based on the measured
parameter of top soil as explained in Section 4.7.1. The soil parameters used in the
analyses are the unit weight, angle of internal friction, φ’, and the angle that shows the
rate of increase in shear strength with respect to change in matric suction,φb. The value
of the unit weight of top soil is always fixed as 14 kN/m3 in each analysis because it is a
requirement for soil used in tree planting to be not too dense as it would restrict the root
growth. The value of φb used in the analyses is fixed as the value of φb measured in the
laboratory experiment. The angle of the internal friction is varied during the internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling without container to observe the effect of angle
35
of internal friction on the force required to overturn the tree. Detail explanation on the
range of the soil properties used in the analysis is given in the following sections.
The tree properties used in this study include tree height, diameter at breast height
and the crown area. The tree height is varied during the overall stability analysis, internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling without container. Both the diameter at breast
height and the crown area are only varied during the overall stability analysis. The
variation of the tree height, diameter at breast height and the crown area is based on the
variation of road side trees of around 10 m height, 10 cm diameter, and 10 m2 area of the
crown. The environmental condition involved in this study is the matric suction and the
wind speed. The matric suction is varied during the internal stability analysis and
numerical modeling with container. The wind speed is varied during the overall stability
analysis of the container. Detail explanation on the range of matric suction and the wind
seed used in the analysis is explained in following sections.
The equations involved in the overall stability analysis of the container are
explained in detail in Section 3.4. The overall stability analysis is started with the analysis
of the relationship between the wind speed and the wind force and the effect of crown
area on the wind force applied to the tree for different wind speeds. Equation 3.3 is used
to calculate the wind force based on the wind speed data. The air density is fixed as 1.29
kg/m3 and the drag coefficient of crown cDh is fixed as 0.2 (Table 3.2).
The following analysis is carried out to observe the effect of different container
sizes on the factor of safety against sliding and overturning. During this analysis, only the
container size is changed. Tree height, diameter at breast height and the crown area are
fixed as 10 m, 10 cm and 10 m2. The soil unit weight is fixed as 14 kN/m3. The different
sizes of the container used in the parametric study of overall stability are shown in Table
4.2. There are five different heights and five different diameters that result in 25
combinations of container sizes.
36
Table 4.2. Container sizes used in the parametric study

Height of the container (Hc) (m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Diameter of the container (Dc) (m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
Lastly, the effects of tree height, diameter at breast height (tree DBH) and crown
area on the factor of safety against sliding and overturning are investigated by varying
each parameter. The tree height, tree DBH and the crown area used in the analyses are
shown in Table 4.3. The container size is fixed as 1.8 m diameter and 1.5 m height as a
container that is going to be used in real application by NParks board of Singapore.
Table 4.3. Crown area, tree height and tree DBH variation used in the parametric study
Crown Area (m2) 4.5 9 18 45

Tree Height (m) 2 5 10 20
Tree DBH (cm) 5 10 15 20
4.5 INTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSIS
The equations involved in the internal stability analysis are explained in detail in
Chapter 3. To achieve a reasonable solution, an assumption on the internal stability
analysis is made. The assumption is that the minimum depth of the slip surface is limited
to half of the root plate diameter. The assumption is made to create a slip surface that is
reasonable and replicates the actual condition.
There are two parts of study in the internal stability analysis. The first part of the
study is to observe the effect of container on the maximum wind force required to
overturn the tree for different root sizes. Therefore, the internal stability analysis with and
without container are performed using the equations explained in Section 3.5.1 and 3.5.2.
Different root sizes used are shown in Table 4.4 .The container size used is fixed to 1.8 m
in diameter and 1.5 m in height as used in the overall stability analysis and real
application. The soil unit weight, angle of internal friction, φ’, and the angle that shows
37
the rate of increase in shear strength with respect to change in matric suction,φb is fixed as
14 kN/m3, 25˚ and 25˚, respectively. The tree height, diameter at breast height and crown
area is fixed as 10 m , 10 cm and 10 m2, respectively during the analysis. Matric suction
is fixed as zero and the wind speed used is 29.7 m/s or the 50 year return period wind of
Singapore.
Table 4.4. Plate root dimension used for internal stability analysis and numerical calculaton
Depth of root (Hr) (m)
Diameter of root plate(Dr) - (m)
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
0.6 Hr3Dr6 Hr6Dr6 Hr9Dr6 Hr12Dr6
The second part of the study is to investigate the effects of matric suction, angle
of internal friction of the soil and tree height on the forces required to overturn the tree.
The matric suction, angle of internal friction and tree height are varied using the values
shown in Table 4.5. The root plate diameter and root plate depth is fixed as 0.9 m and 1.2
m, respectively for the second part of the study.
Table 4.5. Matric suction, angle of internal friction and tree height variations for internal stability
analysis calculation
Angle of internal friction (˚) 20 25 30 35
Matric Suction (kPa) 0 2 5 10
Tree Height (m) 2 5 10 20
38
4.6 NUMERICAL MODELING
Similar to the internal stability analysis, two types of analyses are conducted in
the numerical modeling. The first analysis is to investigate the effect of container on the
maximum wind force required to overturn the tree for various root sizes. Therefore, two
models have been developed i.e. with and without container. The second analysis is the
parametric study using similar parameters used in the internal stability analysis.
SIGMA/W (Geo-Slope International Ltd) is the numerical modeling software used in this
study.
For both with and without container models, the problems are modeled as a two
dimensional plane strain problem. Geometry of the problem for trees without the
container consists of top soil of 12 m width and 8 m height, tree stem of 10 m height and
the varied root architecture similar to the internal stability analysis as explained in
Section 4.5. Geometry of the problem for trees with the container consist of a tree
container of 1.8 m width and 1.5 m height filled with top soil and positioned on top of an
in-situ soil with a dimension of 12 m in width and 6.5 m in height. The tree stem has a 10
m height and varying tree roots sizes, similar to the internal stability analysis as explained
in Section 4.5.
The boundary conditions used for both analyses with and without container are
zero vertical displacement on the sides of the geometry and zero horizontal and vertical
displacements at the bottom side of the geometry. Rectangular meshing is used with mesh
size of 0.1 m for soils inside the container whereas 0.2 m mesh size is used for soils
outside the container and for soils in the analyses without the container. The illustrations
of the SIGMA/W numerical modeling with and without container are shown in Figure 4.5
and Figure 4.6, respectively.
39
The top soil is modeled as an elastic-perfectly plastic material, whereas the tree
stem and root are modeled as a linear-elastic material in both analyses. For the numerical
analysis with the container, the in-situ soil is modeled as linear-elastic materials to ensure
that failure is due to the yielding of the top soil and not the failure of the in-situ soil at the
bottom of the container
The effective angle of internal friction, φ’ is taken as the effective angle of

internal friction of a loose cohesionless soil of 25º. The modulus elasticity of the soil is
taken as the average modulus elasticity of loose cohesionless soil of 5000 MPa. The
modulus elasticity of wood is taken as 10 GPa (Carmichael, 1984). The in-situ soil
properties are taken from the common properties of Singapore residual soil (Rahardjo et.
al., 1995). The material inputs are summarized in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Material properties for numerical modeling
Material Name Material Type c' (kPa) φ’(˚) E (kPa) μ γ (kN/m3)
Top Soil Elastic-Plastic - 25 5000 0.334 14
In-Situ Soil Linear Elastic - - 5000 0.49 15
Container Linear Elastic - - 2 x 108 0.49 22
Wood Linear Elastic - - 10000000 0.49 5
40
Wind force applied
Top soil Stem model
Root model Top soil
1.5m
6.5m
12 m
Figure 4.5. Illustration of the numerical model without container
The numerical modeling is performed in two steps. The first step is the in-situ
analysis followed by the load-deformation analysis. The purpose of the in-situ analysis is
to establish the in-situ forces due to the self weight of the soil and the materials. The
load-deformation analysis is conducted by applying load to the tree stem at a specific
point of application in small increments. One hundred increments of load are used in the
study. In each load increment, the output of the modeling (e.g. displacement, strain,
stress) are recorded and can be viewed accordingly. A load-displacement curve is
generated using the graph function of SIGMA/W.
41
Wind force applied
Root model
Top soil
Insitu soil
Container
1.5m
6.5m
12 m
Figure 4.6. Illustration of the numerical model with container
The numerical modeling result is a force-displacement curve at the point of the

force application. To interpret the force-displacement curve, the tangent-intersect method
(Fuller and Hoy, 1970) is used. A first line following the initial tangent of force-
displacement is drawn. A second line following the end tangent of the force-displacement
curve is drawn. The point of intersection between the two lines is assumed as the point
where the failure force and the failure displacement occur. The illustration of this method
is shown in Figure 4.7.
42
Figure 4.7 Illustration of the tangent intersect method (modified from Fuller and Hoy, 1970).
4.7 SMALL-SCALE STABILITY TEST
The objective of the small-scale stability test is to verify the results of the internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling by comparing the force-displacement curve of
the model to those obtained from the overall stability analysis, internal stability analysis
and numerical modeling. The small-scale stability test includes the determination of the
soil properties of NParks approved top soil mixture and the stability test itself.
4.7.1 Soil Properties determination
4.7.1.1 Basic soil properties
Investigation of soil basic properties included measurements of soil specific

gravity, grain-size distribution analyses, Atterberg limit tests, saturated permeability and
compaction tests. The measurement of soil specific gravity was performed following
43
ASTM D-854. The grain-size analyses, which involved wet sieve, dry sieve analyses and
hydrometer analyses, were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1140 and ASTM D-
422, respectively. The wet sieve tests were conducted in order to measure accurately the
fine contents of the soils. Once the wet-sieve analyses performed, the dry-sieve tests were
conducted on the remaining coarser-grained materials. The Atterberg limit tests were
performed in accordance with ASTM D-4318 in order to obtain the liquid and plastic
limits of the fine-grained soils. Once the grain-size distributions, the liquid and plastic
limits of the soils were obtained, the soils were classified in accordance with the unified
soil classification system (USCS) following ASTM D-2487. The compaction curve of the
top soil was obtained from the standard Proctor compaction tests following ASTM D-
698.
4.7.1.2. Soil strength
Measurements of soil strength in the laboratory involved consolidated undrained

(CU) triaxial tests with pore pressure measurement on saturated soil specimens and
consolidated drained (CD) triaxial tests on unsaturated soil specimens. The soil
specimens prepared for both triaxial tests were 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height.
The soil specimen was prepared with a dry density of 1.17 Mg/m3 and water content of
17.7%. The testing program for consolidated undrained triaxial tests for saturated
specimens is presented in Table 4.7, while the testing program for the unsaturated
specimens is shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.7. Consolidated undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements for saturated
soil specimens.
Confining Pressure, (σ3) (kPa)
Soil Specimen
20 40 100
TS TS 20 TS 40 TS 100
44
Table 4.8. Consolidated drained triaxial tests for unsaturated TS.

Net Matric Suction, (ua- uw) (kPa)
Confining Pressure
(σ3- ua) (kPa) 20 50 100
20 TS 20-20 TS 20-50 TS 20-100
50 TS 50-20 TS 50-50 TS 50-100
100 TS 100-20 TS 100-50 TS 100-100
The CU triaxial test on saturated specimens with pore pressure measurement was
conducted following the ASTM D-4767 while the CD triaxial test on unsaturated
specimen procedure is explained in detail as follows:
a) Equipment
The modified triaxial apparatus for consolidated drained test on unsaturated

specimens is shown in Figure 4.8. The modified triaxial apparatus consists of a
compression machine, triaxial compression cell, pressure transducer, load ring, linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT), digital pressure and volume controller (DPVC),
diffused-air volume indicator (DAVI), data logger, and personal computer. The
compression machine, triaxial compression cell, pressure transducer, load ring, and linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT) used for the triaxial tests on unsaturated
specimens were essentially the same as those for the triaxial tests on saturated specimens.
The cell pressure, the back pressure and volume were controlled using DPVC,
which had a pressure range of 2 MPa. DAVI was used to collect the air bubbles that were
flushed out from water compartment. The DAVI, which was always kept at the
atmospheric condition, was connected to the flushing line at valve B.
45
Figure 4.8 . Schematic diagram of the modified triaxial cell for unsaturated soil testing (from
Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
A 5 cm diameter base pedestal with a circular grooved water compartment on the

top was used. A 5 bar high-flow high-air entry ceramic disk of 6.35 mm in thickness was
placed and glued along its perimeter using slow-setting epoxy glue on top of the water
compartment. Before a triaxial test was started, the high air-entry ceramic disk was
saturated following the procedure described by Bishop and Henkel (1962). The triaxial
cell was filled with distilled de-aired water, after which a cell pressure of 600 kPa was
applied. The water flushing line and the DAVI valves were then opened to allow the
distilled de-aired water to flow out from the cell to the DAVI through the ceramic disk.
This process was conducted for about 8 hours and the water compartment was flushed
every one hour by applying a small water pressure of around 30 kPa. Once there was no
bubble coming out during flushing, the water flushing line and DAVI valves were closed.
The triaxial cell was then pressurized for several hours. The saturation of the ceramic disk
was verified by comparing the applied cell pressure with the pore-water pressure reading.
46
DVPCs were connected to a personal computer through IEEE-488 cards. Pressure

transducers and LVDTs were connected to a data logger (DAS-1600). A computer
controlled program Triax 4.0 was used.
b) Testing procedure
The consolidated drained triaxial test on unsaturated specimens consisted of four

stages, which are saturation, consolidation, matric suction equalization, and shearing
stages. Soil specimen preparation for the consolidated drained triaxial tests on
unsaturated specimens is essentially the same as that for the consolidated undrained
triaxial tests on saturated specimens except that the porous stone that was placed in the
bottom of the sample in the saturated test was replaced with the high air entry disk and no
filter paper used in the bottom of the sample.
During saturation and consolidation stages, back pressure was applied from the
top cap. The axis-translation technique (Hilf, 1956) was applied to control matric suction
during the matric suction equalization stage. The pore-air pressure was controlled from
the top cap through the porous stone, while the pore-water pressure was controlled from
the base through the ceramic disk. Once the matric suction equalization began, water
would drain out from the bottom of the soil specimen. The matric suction equalization
was terminated when there was no more changes in water volume. Axial loading on the
soil specimen was then applied.
In the shearing stage, the soil specimen was sheared at a constant axial rate of
0.0009 mm/min, which had been used for consolidated drained triaxial tests on Singapore
residual soil (e.g., Rahardjo et al., 1995; Rahardjo et al., 2004). As for the consolidated
undrained triaxial tests, multi-stage consolidated drained triaxial tests were performed.
The deviator stress was released to zero when failure was approached. Prior to starting
the next shearing stage, the consolidation and matric suction equalization were performed
by applying the same net confining pressure but a higher matric suction value
47
4.7.1.3 Soil-Container material friction test
The soil-container material friction test (friction test) was conducted to find out
the coefficient of friction between soil and the container material. This coefficient is used
in the calculation of the internal stability analysis with the container as explained in
Section 3.5.2. The test was conducted using a direct shear apparatus.
The general view of the apparatus is shown in Figure 4.9. The schematic diagram
of the direct shear box used in this study is shown in Figure 4.10. The direct shear
apparatus consists of a shear box, vertical deformation and lateral deformation dial
gauges, loading head, direct shear motor and the load ring. The shear box has two
sections, upper and lower sections. The container material is fixed to the lower section of
the shear box whereas the soil specimen occupied the upper section of the shear box. The
shear box size is 10 cm wide x 10 cm long x 1 cm high. The loading ram is then
positioned above the shear box (Figure 4.10).
Dial gauges (vertical)

Dial gauges (horizontal)
Loading ram Shear box Load ring
Weight
Figure 4.9. Direct shear apparatus
48
Figure 4.10. Schematic diagram of the shear box
The soil used in the friction test is the NParks approved top soil mixture whose
properties are given in Section 4.5.1. The container material used is a fiber glass material
that is laminated by a plastic mesh with an opening size of 1 mm. The container material
used in this study is designed by the school of material of Nanyang Technological
University. This material is going to be used in real application by NParks Singapore.
The direct shear test consisted of two stages, the first stage was the consolidation
stage and the second stage was the shearing stage. The consolidation stage started with
the application of the normal stress by adding a weight to the specimen and the vertical
displacement was measured. The consolidation stage was considered to be complete
when the vertical displacement remained constant.
In the shearing stage, the motor pushed the upper part of the shear box. The load
was measured using the load ring. The horizontal displacement and the vertical
displacement were measured using the dial gauges. The shearing rate used was
0.1mm/min. The test was stopped when the load ring readings constant or dropped. The
test was then continued with different normal stress (weight). The testing program for the
friction test is shown in Table 4.9.
49
Table 4.9. Direct shear for soil-container material friction test

Normal stress (kPa)
Specimen
10 20 50
Top Soil-container material TSC 10 TSC 20 TSC 50
4.7.2 Small-scale stability test
The objective of the small-scale stability test is to observe the behavior of tree-
container system during load application and to compare the force required to overturn
the tree-container system to force obtained by the internal stability analysis and numerical
modeling. The model is sized to 1:6 scale with respect to the container size used in the
internal stability analysis and the numerical modeling with container (1.8 m width and
1.5 m height). For example, the container used in the small scale stability test is 30 cm
diameter or 1/6 times the real container diameter and 25 cm height or 1/6 times the real
container height.
The small-scale stability test setup is shown in Figure 4.11. The setup consists of
a container of a size of 30 cm diameter and 25 cm height, the tree model, LVDT, tension
load cell, steel wire and a winch. The container material is a custom made fibre glass
lined with a plastic mesh. The root model is created using a perspex. At the centre of the
root model, a hole was drilled and a steel rod with a 2 cm diameter was attached to the
root model and used to model the tree stem. The LVDT used was capable to measure
displacement up to 10 cm and the tension load cell was capable to measure tension force
up to 5 kN. The LVDT and tension load cell figures are shown in Figure 4.12a and Figure
4.12b. The LVDT and tension load cell were calibrated before the test. The winch has a
pulling capacity of 20 kN.
50
Figure 4.11.Small scale stability test set-up
Figure 4.12 (a) Tension load cell (b) LVDT used in the study
The container was filled with top soil with a dry density of 1.18 Mg/m3 and water
content of 18%. The soil was compacted into five layers to ensure good compaction. The
tree stem was positioned inside the container when the compaction process took place.
The tree model was then connected to the tension load cell. The tension load cell was
then connected to the winch. The tension load cell sat on a platform to ensure that the
force applied to the tree is only a horizontal force. An LVDT was positioned behind the
51
container to measure the displacement of tree stem at the position which the force
applied. The LVDT and the tension load cell were connected to a data logger shown in
Figure 4.13. The data logger was connected to the computer via a RS232 connection. The
actual setup picture is shown in Figure 4.14. When the set-up was ready, the winch started
to pull the tree and the measurements would take place. The data logger was set to read
every second. The test was stopped when the tree model overturns or the container starts
moving.
Figure 4.13. Data logger for force and displacement measurement
52
Figure 4.14. The picture of the actual setup
The small scale stability tests are conducted several times with different
combination of root model and depth as shown in Table 4.10. The root sizes used in the
small scale stability test are scaled 1:6 to the root sizes used in the internal stability
analysis and numerical modeling.
Table 4.10. Small scale stability test program

Root plate Depth (m)
Root plate Diameter (m)
0.10 0.15 0.20
0.10 Hr10Dr10 Hr15Dr10 Hr25Dr10
0.15 Hr10Dr15 Hr15Dr15 Hr25Dr15
0.25 Hr10Dr25 Hr15Dr25 Hr25Dr20
53
Chapter 5 Presentation of results
CHAPTER
5
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
The wind force acting on a tree depends on the basic wind speed in the area.
Figure 5.1 shows the relationship between the basic wind speed and the wind force for
different areas of tree crown. For a 50 year return period wind speed of 29.7 m/s, the
relationship between the wind load and the crown area is shown in Figure 5.2.
12
Crown area of 5 m2
10
Crown area of 10 m2
Crown area of 20 m2
8 Crown area of 50 m2
Wind force (kN)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Wind speed (m/s)
Figure 5.1. Relationship between wind force and wind speed
54
Wind force (kN) 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crown area (m2)
Figure 5.2. Relationship between crown area and wind load (kN)
The objective of the overall stability analysis is to investigate the stability of the
container against sliding and overturning. The equations involved are equation 3.4 and
equation 3.6 for factor of safety against overturning and factor of safety against sliding,
respectively. The calculations were conducted using a spreadsheet program. The program
interface is shown in Appendix 1.
Different container sizes were used to study the effect of container sizes on the
factor of safety against sliding and overturning. Different tree parameters (tree height,
tree crown area and the diameter at the breast height (DBH)) were varied to investigate
their effects to the overall stability of the container.
Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 show the factor of safety against overturning and sliding
for different combinations of container sizes. Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 show the
equivalent wind force needed to overturn and slide the container, respectively. i.e, factors
of safety against overturning and sliding equal to one.
55
12
Container diameter of 0.6m

Factor of safety against overturning

10
8 Container diameter of 1.8m
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Container height (m)

Figure 5.3. Factor of safety against overturning for different container height and diameter
20
Factor of safety against sliding
16
14
12
10
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Figure 5.4. Factor of safety against sliding for different container height and diameter
56
10
8
Maximum wind force (kN) Container diameter of 1.8m
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Figure 5.5. Maximum wind force to overturn the container for different container height and
diameter
22
18
Maximum wind force (kN)
14
12
10
0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Figure 5.6. Maximum wind force to slide the container for different container height and diameter
57
Figure 5.7, Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 show the effect of crown area, tree height
and tree DBH to the factor of safety against overturning and sliding, respectively for a
container size of 1.8 m diameter and 1.5 m height.
35
30
25 Overturning
Sliding
Factor of safety
20
15
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Crown area(m2)
Figure 5.7. Effect of crown area of the tree to the factor of safety against overturning and
sliding
58
18
16
Factor of safety 14
12 Overturning
Sliding
10
2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Tree height (m)
Figure 5.8. Effect of tree height to the factor of safety against overturning and sliding
22
20
18
16
Factor of safety
Overturning
Sliding
14
12
10
4
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Tree DBH (cm)
Figure 5.9. Effect of tree DBH to the factor of safety against overturning and sliding
59
5.2.1 Internal stability analysis without container
The objective of the internal stability analysis without container is to find out the
wind force needed to overturn the tree without container and the parameters that affected
the stability of the tree. The calculation is explained in details in Section 3.5.1. The
calculation is performed in a spreadsheet program presented in Appendix 2. The centre
of rotation and the radius associated with the failure slip surface as obtained from the
internal stability analysis for different root sizes are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Centre of rotation and radius obtained from the internal stability analysis for
different root sizes
root plate diameter (m) root plate depth (m) xc yc R (m)
0.6 0.3 0 0.45 0.6

0.6 0.6 0 0.3 0.6
0.6 0.9 0 0.15 0.6
0.6 1.2 0 0 0.6
0.9 0.3 0 0.75 0.9
0.9 0.6 0 0.6 0.9
0.9 0.9 0 0.45 0.9
0.9 1.2 0 0.3 0.9
1.5 0.3 0 1.35 1.5
1.5 0.6 0 1.2 1.5
1.5 0.9 0 1.05 1.5
1.5 1.2 0 0.9 1.5
Figure 5.10 shows the effect of root plate diameter and root depth on the wind
force needed to overturn the tree. Figure 5.11, Figure 5.12 and Figure 5.13 show the
effect of matric suction, angle of internal friction and tree height on the wind force
needed to overturn the tree, respectively.
60
10
Root plate diameter of 0.6m

8
,Maximum wind force (kN) Root plate diameter of 1.5m
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Root depth (m)
Figure 5.10. Maximum wind force for different combination of root plate diameter and depth
without container
Root plate diameter 0.9m root plate depth 1.2m
5
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Matric Suction (kPa)
Figure 5.11. Effect of matric suction to the maximum wind force tree with root plate diameter of
0.9m and root plate depth of 1.2m
61
Maximum wind Force (kN) 4
1
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Angle of internal friction (0)
Figure 5.12. Effect of angle of internal friction to the maximum wind force for two root
combinations
14
12
Maximum wind Force (kN)
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Tree height (m)
Figure 5.13. Effect of tree height to the maximum wind force for two root combinations
62
5.2.2 Internal stability analysis with container
The calculation for the maximum wind force required to overturn the tree for
container in place was explained in details in Section 3.5.2. Figure 5.14 shows the
maximum wind force for different combinations of root plate diameter and root depth
with container in place.
12

10 Root plate diameter of 0.9m
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Root depth (m)
Figure 5.14. Maximum wind force for different combinations of root plate diameter and
root depth with container
5.3.1 Numerical modeling without container
The numerical modeling without container was conducted following the steps
explained in Chapter 4. The main result of the numerical modeling is a force-
displacement curve. The force is defined as the force applied at the application point of
0.655 times the height of the tree (Table 3.3) and the displacement is defined as the stem
63
displacement at the height of application point. Besides the force-displacement curves,

the strain contours are observed to study the development of the slip surface.
Figure 5.15, Figure 5.16 and Figure 5.17 show the effects of different root plate
diameters (0.6 m, 0.9 m and 1.5 m, respectively) and root depths on the force-
displacement curve. Two root sizes namely 0.9 m root plate diameter and 1.2 m root
depth and 1.5 root plate diameter 0.6 m root depth are used to study the effect of matric
suction, angle of internal friction and tree height. The effect of different matric suctions
on the force-displacement curve is shown in Figure 5.18. Figure 5.19 shows the effect of
angle of internal friction on the force-displacement curve. The effect of the tree height on
the force-displacement curve is shown in Figure 5.20.
3.0
Root plate diameter 0.6m root depth 0.3m
2.5 Root plate diameter 0.6m root depth 0.9m
2.0
Wind force (kN)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Stem displacement (m)
Figure 5.15. Wind force – stem displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling
for root plate diameter of 0.6 m
64
5
4 Root plate diameter 0.9m root depth 1.2m
Wind force (kN)
3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Figure 5.16. Wind force – stem displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling
for root plate diameter of 0.9 m
12
8
Wind force (kN)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Figure 5.17 Wind force – stem displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling for
root plate diameter of 0.9 m
65
10
Matric suction of 0 kPa

8 Matric suction of 2 kPa
6
Wind force (kN)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 5.18. Wind force – stem displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling for
different matric suctions for a root plate diameter of 0.9 m and root depth of 1.2 m
3
Wind force (kN)
Angle of internal friction of 200

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
different angles of internal friction for aroot plate diameter of 0.9m and root depth of 1.2m
66
40
Tree height of 2m
Tree height of 5m
30 Tree height of 10m
Wind force (kN) Tree height of 20m
20
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

different tree heights for a root plate diameter of 0.9m and root depth of 1.2m
5.3.2 Numerical modeling with container
The numerical modeling of containerized tree is conducted using steps explained

in Chapter 4. Figure 5.20, Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 show the force-displacement curve
for different root plate diameter 0.6 m, 0.9 m and 1.5 m, respectively.
67
8
Wind force (kN)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Figure 5.21. Wind force – stem displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling for a tree
with container for root plate diameter of 0.6 m
16
14 Root plate diameter 0.9m rootdepth 0.6m
10
Wind force (kN)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
with container for root plate diameter of 0.9m
68
30
20
Wind force (kN)
15
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
with container for root plate diameter of 1.5m
5.4.1 Soil Properties
Laboratory tests conducted in this study consisted of investigations of soil basic

properties and shear strength of the top soil.
5.4.1.1 Basic Properties
The top soil used was brown in color and consisted of loamy soil, organic matter
(compost) and sand based on a volume basis ratio of 3:2:1, respectively. The grain size of
the top soil is presented in Figure 5.24. The soil is categorized as a coarse-grained soil
because more than 50 % (59 % ) of the material is retained on the No. 200 (75 μm) sieve.
The fine and gravel content of the top soil used in this study is 41% and 1%, respectively.
69
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
100
90
80
Percent finer (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain diameter (mm)
Figure 5.24 Grain size distribution of top soil used in the study
Because the fine content is more than 12% and the Atterberg’s limits result
classified the soil as ML thus the soil is classified as Silty Sand – SM. The index
properties of the top soil are summarized in Table 5.2.
The compaction curve of the top soil is presented in Figure 5.25. The maximum
dry density of the top soil is 14.2 kN/m3 which corresponds to an optimum water content
of 27.5 %.
70
Table 5.2 Top soil basic properties
Properties
Unified Soil Clasification System

Group name Silty Sand
Group symbol SM
Specific gravity, Gs 2.46
Atterberg's limits
Plastic limits, PL 34%
Liquid limits, LL 48%
Plasticity Index, PI 14%
Saturated permeability, ks (m/s)
Flex wall permeameter method 5x10-05
22
20
Dry unit weight (kN/m )
3
18
16
ρd max = 14.2 kN/m3

14
12
Woptimum = 27.5%
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Water content (%)
Figure 5.25. Compaction curve of top soil used in this study
71
5.4.1.2 Shear Strength
Results of soil shear strength tests conducted in the laboratory are presented in
this section. The shear strength tests were saturated CU triaxial test with pore pressure
measurements and unsaturated CD triaxial test.
5.4.1.2.1 Saturated CU Triaxial test
Multistage consolidated undrained triaxial tests with pore pressure measurement

were conducted on saturated specimen under normal stresses of 20, 40 and 100 kPa.
During the shearing stage, the specimen was sheared at a constant axial rate of 0.005
mm/min. The stress-strain curve obtained from the test is plotted in Figure 5.26. The
excess pore water pressure developed during the shearing stage is plotted in Figure 5.27.
The effective Mohr-Coulomb envelope of the soil is shown in Figure 5.28. The effective
angle of internal friction and the effective cohesion obtained is 25˚ and 2 kPa,
respectively.
80
60
Deviator stress (kPa)
40
20
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Axial strain (%)
Figure 5.26. Stress strain analysis for saturated CU test
72
80
60
Excess pore pressure (kPa)
40
20
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Axial strain (%)

Figure 5.27. Excess pore water pressure developed from the saturated CU test
150
Shear stress, τ (kPa)
100
25˚
50
c' = 2
0
0 50 100 150 200
Effective normal stress,(σ3-uw) (kPa)
Figure 5.28. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope of saturated CU test
73
5.4.1.2.1 Unsaturated CD Triaxial test
In this research, three unsaturated CD triaxial multistage tests were performed.

Each test consisted of three stages. Each specimen was consolidated and sheared under
net confining pressures of 20, 50 and 100 kPa and matric suction: 20, 50 and 100 kPa.
During the shearing stage, the specimen was sheared at a constant axial rate of 0.0009
mm/min.
The specimens used were top soil that has been compacted to a dry density of
1.17 Mg/m3 and a water content of 17.7%. The stress-strain curves were plotted for each
specimen to correlate the changes in shear strength with respect to matric suction and the
confining pressures. The value of total cohesion of soil at various matric suctions could
be determined by drawing a line tangent to the Mohr-Coulombs circle at an angle of the
effective angle of internal friction (25˚). The φb angle could then be determined from the
failure envelope of total cohesion with respect to the matric suctions.
Figure 5.29 and Figure 5.30 show the relationship of deviator stress versus axial
strain and the relationship of water volume change versus axial strain for the top soil
during the shearing stages under a confining pressure of 20 kPa. The maximum deviator
stress of the top soil was 69, 136 and 196 kPa for 20, 50, and 100 kPa matric suction,
respectively.
74
1000
Deviator stress, (σ1-σ3) (kPa)

800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Axial strain, εy (%)
Figure 5.29. Deviator stress – axial strain curves of the top soil under a net confining pressure of
20 kPa
0
Water volume change (ml)
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 5.30. Water volume change – axial strain curves of the top soil under a net confining
pressure of 20 kPa
75
The relationship between deviator stress versus axial strain and the relationship of
water volume change versus axial strain for the top soil during the shearing stages under
a confining pressure of 40 kPa are shown in Figure 5.31 and Figure 5.32, respectively.
The maximum deviator stress of the top soil was 138, 197, and 276 kPa for 20, 50 and
100 kPa matric suction, respectively.
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
50 kPa
76

-50
-100
-150
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
pressure of 50 kPa
Figure 5.33 and Figure 5.34 show the relationship of deviator stress versus axial
strain and the relationship of water volume change versus axial strain for the top soil
during the shearing stages under a confining pressure of 100 kPa. The maximum deviator
stress of the top soil was 197, 264 and 354 kPa for 20, 50, and 100 kPa matric suction
respectively.
77
1000
900

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
100 kPa
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
pressure of 40 kPa
78
Figure 5.35, Figure 5.36 and Figure 5.37 illustrate the Mohr-Coulomb failure
envelopes of the top soil under matric suctions of 20, 50, and 100 kPa, respectively. The
value of φ’ was constant, and the total cohesion increased from 10 to 25 and to 50 kPa as
the matric suction increased from 20 to 50 and to 100 kPa, respectively. Figure 5.38
shows the angle which indicates the rate of change in shear strength with respect to the
change in matric suction, φb, which was equal to 25˚.
600
(ua-uw) = 20 kPa
500
400
300
200
φ'=25˚
100
c = 10 kPa
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Net normal stress,(σ-ua) (kPa)
Figure 5.35. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the top soil under a matric suction of 20 kPa and
a confining pressure of 20, 50 and 100 kPa
79
600
(ua-uw) = 50 kPa
500
400
300
200 φ'=25˚
100
c = 25 kPa
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Figure 5.36. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the top soil under a matric suction of 50 kPa and
a confining pressure of 20, 50 and 100 kPa
600
(ua-uw) = 100 kPa
500
400
300
φ'=25˚
200
100
c = 50 kPa
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Figure 5.37. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for the top soil under a matric suction of 100 kPa
and a confining pressure of 20, 50 and 100 kPa
80
150

100
50
φb = 25 O
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Matric suction,(ua-uw) (kPa)
Figure 5.38. Failure envelope for the top soil on the shear stress versus matric suction plane
5.4.1.3 Soil-container material friction test
Three single direct shear tests were conducted under normal stresses of 10, 20 and
50 kPa to investigate the friction angle between the soil and the container material.
During the shearing stage, the soil and the container material were sheared at a rate of 0.1
mm/min. Figure 5.39 shows the relationship between the horizontal displacement and the
induced shear stress for different normal stresses. Figure 5.40 shows the relationship
between the normal stress and the shear stress to obtain the failure envelope. The friction
coefficient obtained from the test is 10˚ which is equal to 0.4φ’.
81
10
Normal stress of 10 kPa

8 Normal stress of 20 kPa
Shear stress (kPa) Normal stress of 50 kPa
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Horizontal displacement (mm)
Figure 5.39. Horizontal displacement – shear stress curve under normal stress of 10, 20 and 50
kPa
30
25
20
Shear stress (kPa)
15
10
5
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normal stress (kPa)
Figure 5.40. Shearing resistance of the soil-container material under different normal stresses
82
5.5.2 Small-scale stability test result
There were two failure modes observed from the small scale stability tests. The
first failure mode is the tree overturning and the second failure mode is the container
overturning. The tree overturning and container overturning failure modes pictures are
shown in Figure 5.41 and Figure 5.42. The failure mode is considered as container
overturning when the tree container started to lift during the load application whereas on
tree overturning failure mode, the container is not moving and in some point the tree stem
suddenly collapse. The failure mode for the different root sizes is summarized in Table
5.3. The result of the small scale stability test is a force-displacement curve. Figure 5.43,
Figure 5.44, and Figure 5.45 show the force displacement curve for a root plate with a
diameter of 0.1, 0.15 and 0.25 m, respectively.
Figure 5.41. Tree overturning failure mode pictures from the small-scale tests
83
Figure 5.42. Container overturning failure mode pictures from the small-scale tests
Table 5.3. Failure mode for different root size obtained from the small-scale stability test
Root plate diameter (cm)

Root plate Depth (cm)
10 15 25
10 Tree overtuning Tree overtuning Tree overtuning
Container
15 Tree overtuning Tree overtuning
overturning
Container Container Container
20
overturning overturning overturning
84
0.05
Container overturn
0.04
0.03 Tree overturn

Force (kN)
0.02
Tree overturn
0.01
0.00 Root plate diameter of 0.1m root depth of 0.1m

Root plate diameter of 0.1m root depth of 0.15m
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Figure 5.43 Force-displacement curve obtained from small-scale stability test for root plate
diameter of 0.1m
0.05
Container overturn
0.04 Tree overturn
0.03
Force (kN)
0.02 Tree overturn
0.01
0.00 Root plate diameter of 0.15m root depth of 0.1m

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Figure 5.44 Force-displacement curve obtained from small-scale stability test for root plate
diameter of 0.15m
85
0.06
Container overturn
0.05 Container overturn
0.04
Force (kN)
0.03 Tree overturn
0.02
0.01

0.00 Root plate diameter of 0.25m root depth of 0.15
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Figure 5.45. Force-displacement curve obtained from small-scale stability test for root plate
diameter of 0.25m
The maximum wind force obtained from the internal stability analysis for the
small scale test is shown in Figure 5.46. The force-displacement curve obtained from the
small scale test numerical modeling for different root sizes are presented in Figure 5.47,
Figure 5.48 and Figure 5.49.
86
0.30

0.25
0.20
Maximum force (kN)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
Root depth (m)
Figure 5.46. Maximum force obtained from small-scale test internal stability analysis
0.08
0.06
Force (kN)
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Figure 5.47. Force-displacement curve obtained from numerical modeling small-scale test for
root plate diameter of 0.1m
87
0.08
0.06
Force (kN)
0.04
0.02
0.00 Root plate diameter 0.15m root depth 0.1m

0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
0.20
0.15
Force (kN)
0.10
0.05
Root plate diameter 0.25m Root depth 0.1m

0.00
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
88
Chapter 6 Discussion
CHAPTER
6
DISCUSSION
6.1. OVERALL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF CONTAINER
The wind force action on a tree is a function of the basic wind speed of the area
and the crown area of the tree. (Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2). The increase in wind force
due to the increase in crown area is linear whereas the increase in wind force due to the
increase in basic wind speed is exponential.
Based on the result of the overall stability analysis of the container (Figure 5.3 to
Figure 5.6), factor of safety against overturning is always smaller than the factor of safety
against sliding for the same container sizes. The fact that the factor of safety against
overturning is always lower shows that the governing failure mode in the container
overall stability analysis is the overturning failure mode.
The minimum container size for different factor of safety against overturning can
be obtained by using the goalseekTM feature in the spreadsheet program. By fixing the
value of the factor of safety against container overturning and the container diameter, the
minimum container heights can be obtained. Figure 6.1 shows the minimum container
sizes for different factor of safety against overturning. The figure shows the importance
of container diameter. For instance, a factor of safety against overturning equals to 2 can
be achieved by a container diameter of 1 m and container height of 3.5 m or by a
container diameter of 1.5 m and container height of only 0.7 m. The container diameter
contributes to the moment resistance by increasing the moment arm of the resisting
moment and increasing the self-weight of the container. The container height also
89
increases the self-weight of the container. However, it also increases the moment arm of
the wind load.
12
10
Minimum container height (m)
Fs against overturning eq. to 1

8 Fs against overturning eq. to 2
Fs against overturning eq. to 3
6
0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Minimum container diameter (m)
Figure 6.1. Minimum container size for different factor of safety against overturning
An increase in the crown area of a tree decreases the factor of safety against
overturning and sliding of the container (Figure 5.7). This is due to the resulting increase
in wind force acting on a tree along with the increase in the crown area. The decrease of
factor of safey against overturning and sliding is sharp at the beginning, from 5 to 10 m2
of crown area and then it becomes gradual from 10 to 45 m2.
The increase in tree height decreases the factor of safety against overturning, but
it increases the factor of safety against sliding as shown in Figure 5.8. The decrease in
factor of safety against overturning is due to the increases of moment arm which
increases the overturning moment in overturning factor of safety calculation. The
increase in moment arm did not affect the factor of safety against sliding. The increase in
factor of safety against sliding is due to the increases in self weight of the tree calculated
by the allometric equation. The increase in self weight increases the friction between the
90
container and the soil underneath the container in the calculation of the factor of safety
against sliding. The increase in self-weight due to the increase in tree height increases the
resistance moment of a tree in the factor of safety against overturning calculation.
However, it also increases the wind load moment arm which in the end decreases the
factor of safety against overturning.
The increase in tree diameter at breast height (DBH) increases the factor of safety
against overturning and sliding as shown in Figure 5.9. The increase is due to the increase
in the self weight of the tree which increases the moment resistance and the sliding
resistance of the container.
The results of the internal stability analysis without container showed that the
maximum wind force needed to overturn the tree is affected by the root plate diameter
and the root depth. The increase in the maximum wind force due to the increase in root
plate diameter is higher than the increase in wind force due to the increase in root depth.
The rate of increase (the gradient) in maximum wind force due to the increase in root
depth for trees with a larger root plate diameter is higher than for trees with a smaller root
plate diameter (Figure 5.10). Therefore, increasing root plate diameter is more effective
to increase the stability of tree than increasing root plate depth.
The maximum wind force obtained from the internal stability analysis without
container can be translated into factor of safety against tree overturning by dividing the
maximum wind force obtained from the internal stability to the wind load. The wind
speed used to calculate the wind load is 29.7 m/s, which is equal to a Singapore 50-yr
return period wind. By fixing the factor of safety against tree overturning and the root
plate diameter, the minimum root depth can be iterated using goalseekTM function of the
spreadsheet program. The combinations of minimum root depth and root plate diameter
for different factors of safety are shown in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2 shows that the root plate
91
diameter plays an important part in tree overturning. An increase in the root plate
diameter increases the size of the slip surface and also increases the moment arm to the
centre of the rotation whereas an increase in root depth only increases the size of the slip
surface.
6 Fs against tree overturning eq. to 1

Fs against tree overturning eq. to 2
Fs against tree overturning eq. to 3
5
Minimum root depth (m)
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Minimum root plate diameter (m)
Figure 6.2. Minimum root sizes for different factor of safety against tree overturning obtained
from the internal stability analysis
Matric suction affected the maximum wind force as shown in Figure 5.11. An
increase in the matric suction of 10 kPa increases the maximum wind force by almost
five times its original value. The effect of angle of internal friction of soil on the
maximum wind force is not as high as the effect of matric suction or root properties
(Figure 5.12) as also shown by Rahardjo et. al (2009). An increase in the angle of internal
friction from 20˚ to 35˚ only increases the maximum wind force twice. This condition
caused by the low overburden pressure available on surface soils. The increase in tree
height decreases the maximum wind force needed to overturn the tree as shown in Figure
5.13. The decrease in the maximum wind force is due to the increase in the moment arm
of the wind force.
92
The results of the internal stability analysis for a tree with container were
compared to the results of internal stability analysis for a tree without container in Figure
6.3. The internal stability analysis calculation with container is only different to the
internal stability analysis calculation without container if the slip surface intersects the
container. The size of the slip surface should be bigger than the diameter of the container
or the maximum depth of the slip surface should be deeper than the height of the
container. The diameter of the slip surface is calculated using Equation 3.9 whereas the
slip surface depth is the sum of half of the root plate diameter and the root depth. Table
6.1 show the values of slip surface diameter and slip surface depth. For a container size of
1.8 diameter and 1.5 m height, there were only four (4) root size combinations that follow
the above criteria which were (1) 1.5 m root diameter and 0.9 m root height, (2) 0.6 m
root diameter and 1.2 m root height, (3) 0.9 m root diameter and 1.2 m root height, and
(4) 1.5 m root diameter and 1.2 m root height. The maximum wind force for the four root
sizes is increased due to the additional friction between the soil and the container material
as explained in Section 3.5.2.
16
Root plate diameter of 0.6 m without container
14 Root plate diameter of 0.9 m without container
Root plate diameter of 1.5 m without container
12 Root plate diameter of 0.6 m with container
Root plate diameter of 0.9 m with container

Root plate diameter of 1.5 m with container
10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Root depth (m)

Figure 6.3 Comparison of internal stability result with and without container
93
Table 6.1. Slip surface diameter and depth
Root Root Slip bigger bigger

Slip
plate plate surface than than
surface
diameter depth diameter container container
depth (m)
(m) (m) (m) diameter height
0.6 0.3 0.79 0.60 no no

0.6 0.6 1.04 0.90 no no
0.6 0.9 1.16 1.20 no no
0.6 1.2 1.20 1.50 no yes
0.9 0.3 0.99 0.75 no no
0.9 0.6 1.34 1.05 no no
0.9 0.9 1.56 1.35 no no
0.9 1.2 1.70 1.65 no yes
1.5 0.3 1.31 1.05 no no
1.5 0.6 1.80 1.35 no no
1.5 0.9 2.14 1.65 yes yes
1.5 1.2 2.40 1.95 yes yes
The numerical modeling result is a force-displacement curve at the point of the

force application. To interpret the force-displacement curve, the tangent-intersect method
was used. The maximum wind force at failure, associated stem displacement and the
maximum rotation of the tree obtained for different root plate sizes without container are
summarized in Table 6.2. The maximum rotation is the angle produced when the
maximum wind force is reached as illustrated in Figure 6.4.
94
Table 6.2 Maximum wind force, stem displacement and the equivalent rotation obtained
from numerical modeling for different root sizes without container
Root plate Root Stem Equivalent

Maximum wind force
diameter plate displacement rotation
(kN)
(m) depth (m) (m) (˚)
0.6 0.3 0.16 0.055 0.48
0.6 0.6 0.27 0.042 0.37
0.6 0.9 0.36 0.036 0.31
0.6 1.2 0.49 0.028 0.24
0.9 0.3 0.57 0.096 0.84
0.9 0.6 0.77 0.095 0.83
0.9 0.9 1.07 0.092 0.80
0.9 1.2 1.46 0.091 0.80
1.5 0.3 2.36 0.24 2.10
1.5 0.6 2.64 0.23 2.01
1.5 0.9 3.09 0.22 1.92
1.5 1.2 3.64 0.21 1.84
Figure 6.4. The definition and equation of the maximum rotation
95
The maximum wind force increases with the increase in the root plate diameter
and root depth. However the increase in the maximum wind force due to the increase of
root plate diameter is higher than the increase due to the increase of root plate depth. This
condition is due to the fact that the increase in root plate diameter causes increase on the
slip surface size. The increase in root plate diameter increases the stem displacement at
failure. But for the same root plate diameter the increase in root plate depth diameter
decreases the stem displacement needed to reach failure. This condition could be due to
the increased stiffness due to deeper embedment of the root plate. The maximum rotation
needed to overturn the tree in this study is in the same order to a field study conducted by
Lundstrom et. al (2007). Lundstrom el. al (2007) study involved a field overturning test
of sixty (60) trees and showed that the maximum force is obtained in the range of 0 to
5˚of stem rotation.
The failure surface obtained from numerical modeling was determined by

observing the strain contour and displacement vectors of the problem at failure as shown
in Figure 6.5. The shear strain band at failure (Figure 6.5c) has a depth of 0.4-0.6m below
the root plate and a diameter of 0.05-0.1 m loner than the diameter of the root plate. Table
6.4 shows the maximum wind force for two root sizes and different matric suctions, angle
of internal frictions and tree heights. An increase in matric suction or an increase in angle
of internal friction increases the maximum wind force. An increase in tree height
decreases the maximum wind force.
96
a b
Figure 6.5. Strain contour observed from the numerical modeling for tree without container
The numerical modeling result for tree planted in the container is summarized in
Table 6.3. The maximum wind force increases with the increase in the root plate diameter
and root plate depth. The force-displacement curves (Figure 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22) show a
tree with a root depth of 1.2 m had a far higher failure wind force than the tree with a root
depth of 0.9 m and 0.6 m. This condition may happen due to the difference in the failure
surface. Figure 6.6 shows the strain contour of two extreme cases, Figure 6.6a shows a
strain contour at failure for a tree with a root plate diameter of 0.6 m and a root depth of
0.6 m and Figure 6.6b shows a strain contour at failure of a tree with root plate diameter
of 1.5 m and root depth of 1.2m. The failure surface for tree with smaller and shallower
root extends to the ground surface and does not intersect the container whereas the tree
with a larger and deeper root failure surface intersects the container.
97
Table 6.3 Maximum wind forces obtained from numerical modeling for two root sized and
different matric suctions, angle of internal frictions and tree heights

Root plate diameter 0.9m
Root depth 1.2m
Matric suction of 0 kPa 1.5
Matric suction of 5 kPa 2
Angle of internal friction of 20˚ 1.3
Tree height of 2 m 8.66
Tree height of 5 m 4
Table 6.4. Maximum wind force, stem displacement and the equivalent rotation obtained from
numerical modeling for different root sizes with container
Root Stem
Wind Equivalent
Root plate diameter (m) plate displacement
force (kN) rotation (˚)
depth (m) (m)
0.6 0.3 0.25 0.29 2.54
0.6 0.6 0.63 0.29 2.54
0.6 0.9 0.75 0.28 2.45
0.6 1.2 1.38 0.1 0.87
0.9 0.3 0.63 0.41 3.58
0.9 0.6 1.13 0.36 3.15
0.9 0.9 1.38 0.32 2.80
0.9 1.2 2.5 0.19 1.66
1.5 0.3 3.41 0.52 4.54
1.5 0.6 4.1 0.48 4.19
1.5 0.9 4.95 0.43 3.76
1.5 1.2 6.36 0.4 3.49
98
Figure 6.6. (a) strain contour obtained from numerical modeling for tree with root plate diameter
of 0.6 m and root plate depth of 0.6 m and (b) strain contour obtained from numerical modeling
for tree with root plate diameter of 1.5m and root plate depth of 1.2m
6.4 COMPARISONS BETWEEN INTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSIS AND

NUMERICAL MODELING
Comparisons between the result of the internal stability analysis and the
numerical modeling were conducted. The results showed close agreement in the
maximum wind force for both cases without and with container for root plate diameters
of 0.6 m and 0.9 m. However, the maximum wind force resulting from root plate
diameter of 1.5 m is a bit off as shown in Figure 6.7 and Figure 6.8. This condition may
be due to the assumption used in the internal stability analysis. The internal stability
analysis assumes that the minimum depth of the failure surface as half of the plate
diameter. This assumption seems to produce a larger failure surface than the failure
surface produced by the numerical modeling.
99
12
Root plate diameter of 0.6m - Intenal stability analysis
10 Root plate diameter of 1.5m - Intenal stability analysis
Root plate diameter of 0.6m - Numerical modelling
Maximum wind force (kN) Root plate diameter of 1.5m - Numerical modelling
8
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Root depth (m)
Figure 6.7. Maximum wind force for tree without container for different root sizes obtained from
internal stability analysis and numerical modelling
16
14 Root plate diameter of 0.9m - Intenal stability analysis
12 Root plate diameter of 0.9m - Numerical modelling

Overall stability analysis
10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Root depth (m)
Figure 6.8 Maximum wind force for tree with container for different root sizes obtained from
internal stability analysis and numerical modeling
100
The trend on the increase of maximum wind force due to the container obtained
from the numerical modeling is different from the result obtained from internal stability
analysis. While the wind force obtained in the internal stability analysis only increased
for four root sizes whose failure surface intersects the container as explained in Section
6.2, the increase of the wind force due to the container in the numerical modeling occurs
for all root sizes. This condition is due to the assumption in the internal stability analysis.
The increase in wind force due to container in the internal stability analysis calculation
only occurs in tree with a failure surface intersecting the container. However, when the
tree is planted in the container, the effect of confinement and development of non-circular
slip surface affect the maximum wind force required to overturn the tree.
Both the internal stability analysis and the numerical modeling show similar
trends of increase on the maximum wind force due to the effect of the matric suction,
angle of internal friction and the tree height as shown in Figure 6.9, Figure 6.10 and
Figure 6.11. The maximum wind force increases with the increase in matric suction and
angle of internal friction and the maximum wind force decreases with the increase in tree
height.
101
Root plate diameter 0.9m root depth 1.2m-internal stability analysis

Root plate diameter 0.9m root depth 1.2m-numerical modelling

4
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Matric suction (kPa)
Figure 6.9. Effect of matric suction to the maximum wind force obtained from internal stability
analysis and numerical modeling
Root plate diameter 0.9m root depth 1.2m-internal stability analysis

0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Angle of internal friction (0)
Figure 6.10. Effect of angle of internal friction to the maximum wind force obtained from internal
stability analysis and numerical modeling
102
14
Root plate diameter 0.9m root depth 1.2m-Internal stability analysis
12
10
Maximum wind force
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Tree height (m)
Figure 6.11 Effect of tree height to the maximum wind force obtained from internal stability
analysis and numerical modeling
The soil properties of the top soil tested in this study is different than the top soil
tested by Rahardjo et. al.(2008). The top soil in this study has more fine contents,
resulting in lower permeability and lower shear strength than the top soil tested by
Rahardjo et. al. (2008).
The container material is a custom-made fiberglass. The friction coefficient

obtained from the friction test is similar to the friction coefficient of concrete to wet sand
(Potyondi, 1961). Several literatures showed higher values of friction coefficient between
soil and fiberglass. However, small normal stress and the fast shearing rate used may
contribute in the low value of friction coefficient obtained from the laboratory test in this
study.
103
Two failure modes i.e. container overturning and tree overturning were observed
during the small scale stability test as given in Table 5.3. Based on Table 5.3, if the root
plate depth is more than 20 cm or 0.8 times the container height (25 cm), the failure mode
is container overturning. If the root plate depth is lesser than 20 cm or 0.8 times the
container height, the failure mode is tree overturning. However, if the root plate diameter
is more than 25 cm or 0.83 times the container diameter (30 cm), the container
overturning is the governing failure mode. This condition might happen because when
the root was embedded to a depth more than 0.8 times of the container height or less than
0.8 times of the container height but more than 0.83 times the container diameter, the
soil-root system becomes like a rigid system and the failure surface is not easily
developed. Therefore, the force required to overturn the tree is higher than the force
required to overturn the container. Hence, resulting in container overturning.
The internal stability analysis and numerical modeling are designed to calculate
the tree overturning whereas the overall stability analysis is designed to calculate the
container overturning. The developed failure mode is the failure mode with the lowest
force required to overturn the tree or the container. Comparisons between the results from
the small scale stability, numerical modeling and the internal stability analysis are shown
in Figure 6.12, Figure 6.13 and Figure 6.14. The maximum wind force obtained from the
numerical modeling result is the lowest among all, while the maximum wind forces
obtained from the internal stability analysis are sometimes higher than the force obtained
from small scale stability test. The low maximum wind force result obtained from the
numerical modeling could be due to the inaccuracy on the numerical modeling material
input. Whereas the high maximum wind forces results obtained from internal stability
analysis could be due to the limitation of the equations and assumptions developed in the
internal stability analysis.
The container overturning means that the overall stability against overturning is
exceeded. The overall stability analysis against overturning shows that the force needed
to overturn the container is 0.056 kN as shown in Table 6.5. However, the force needed
to overturn the container in the small-scale stability test is only around 0.048 kN. This
104
could be due to the inaccuracy in the compaction process which resulted in lower density
and lower self weight in the small scale stability test.
0.14
Root plate diameter 0.1m root depth 0.1m stability test
0.12 Root plate diameter 0.1m root depth 0.2m stability test
Root plate diameter 0.1m root depth 0.1m numerical modelling
0.10 Root plate diameter 0.1m root depth 0.2m numerical modelling
Root plate diameter 0.1m root depth 0.1m internal stability analysis
0.08
Force (kN)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Stem displacement
Figure 6.12. Comparison of internal stability analysis, numerical modeling and small scale
stability test for root plate diameter of 0.1 m

0.20
0.15 Root plate diameter 0.15m root depth 0.15m internal stability analysis
Force (kN)
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Figure 6.13. Comparison of internal stability analysis, numerical modeling and small scale
105
0.30
0.25 Root plate diameter 0.25m root depth 0.1m numerical modelling
Root plate diameter 0.25m root depth 0.1m Internal stability analysis
0.20 Root plate diameter 0.25m root depth 0.15m Internal stability analysis
Root plate diameter 0.25m root depth 0.2m Internal stability analysis
Force (kN)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Figure 6.14 Comparison of internal stability analysis, numerical modeling and small-scale
Table 6.5. Comparisons of force obtained from internal stability analysis, numerical modeling,
small-scale stability test and the general stability analysis
Root Root Force obtained from (kN)

plate plate Small scale General
Internal stability Numerical Failure mode
diameter depth stability stability
(m) (m) analysis modeling
test analysis
0.1 0.1 0.0138 0.0027 0.01 0.056 Tree overturning
Container
0.1 0.25 0.059 0.036 0.045 0.056 overturning
Container
0.15 0.25 0.112 0.057 0.044 0.056 overturning
Container
0.2 0.15 0.132 0.018 0.048 0.056 overturning
Container
0.2 0.25 0.242 0.096 0.048 0.056 overturning
106
Chapter 7 Conclusion & Recommendations
CHAPTER
7
Conclusion & Recommendations
7.1 CONCLUSION
The analyses performed in this study are based on assumptions such as specified
tree crown shape, moment arm, simplified root architecture, and specified container size
and soil properties. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from this study are limited by the
assumptions used in this study. The following conclusions are drawn from this study:
1. There are two failure modes of a containerized tree. The first one is the container
overturning and the second one is the tree overturning.
2. The development of failure mode depends on the root architecture and the
container size. The small scale stability test showed that the container overturning
is the governing failure mode if:
a. The root plate depth is more than 0.8 times of the container height and the root
plate diameter is more than 0.33 times the container diameter or
b. The root plate depth is more than 0.6 times the container height and the root
plate diameter is more than 0.83 times the container diameter.
The container overturning occurs because the soil and root system behaves like a
rigid system. Therefore the force required to overturn the tree is higher than the
force required to overturn the container.
3. The maximum wind forces obtained from the numerical modeling result is the
lowest among all, while the maximum wind forces obtained from the internal
stability analysis sometimes over predicted the maximum wind forces obtained
from small scale stability test.
107
Chapter 7 Conclusion & Recommendations
4. The maximum wind force increases with the increase in the root plate diameter
and root plate depth. The increase in the maximum wind force due to the increase
in root depth is higher than increase in the maximum wind force due to the
increase in root depth. Hence, an increase in root plate diameter is more effective
to increase tree stability.
5. An increase in matric suction or an increase in angle of internal friction will

increase the maximum wind force needed to overturn the tree while an increase in
tree height decreases the maximum wind force needed to overturn the tree.
7.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
1. The analysis conducted in this study only considered the wind load as a static
load, whereas in the actual condition the wind load is a dynamic load. Future
study should consider the effect of dynamic loading on trees
2. The plate root model used in this study is a simplification of the actual
architecture of plate roots. The actual plate root is more complicated than the plate
root model used in this study, and it may have different properties. Future
research should consider a more representative plate root model.
108
References
Bishop, A.W. and Henkel, D.J. (1962) “The Measurement of Soil Properties in the
Triaxial Test”, 2nd ed. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Bowles, E.J. (1977) “Foundation Analysis and Design” Mcgraw-Hill Kogakusha

Ltd., Tokyo.
Carmichael, E.M. (1984) “Timber Engineering Practical Design Studies,” London,

England: E&F. N. Spon.
Ching, A (1998) “The effect of transplant container shape on vegetative growth and
root yield of sweet potatom” ISHS Acta Horticulturae 516, Brussels,
Belgium.
Choi, E.C.C., and Tanurdjaja, A. (2002) “Extreme wind speed in Singapore, an area
with mixed weather system,” Journal of wind engineering and industrial
aerodynamics, Vol. 90, pp. 1611-1630.
Coutts, M.P.(1983) “Root architecture and tree stability,” Plant and Soil, Vol. 71,
pp. 171-188
Coutts, M.P. (1986) “Components of Tree Stability in Sitka Spruce on Peaty Gley
Soil,” Forestry, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 173-197.
Coutts, M.P. and Nicoll, B.C. (1991) “Orientation of the lateral roots of trees. I.
Upward growth of surface roots and deflection near the soil surface,” New
Phytologist, Vol. 119, pp. 227–234.
Crook, M.J. (1994) “Mechanics of Lodging in Wheat”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of

Manchester, UK.
109
Dupuy, L., Fourcaud, T. & Stokes, A. (2005a) “A numerical investigation into the
influence of soil type and root architecture on tree anchorage,” Plant and
Soil, Vol. 278, pp. 119-134.
Dupuy, L., Fourcaud, T. & Stokes, A. (2005b) “A numerical investigation into

factors affecting the anchorage of roots in tension,” European Journal of
Soil Science, Vol. 56, pp. 319-327.
Dupuy, L., Fourcud, T., Lac, P., Stokes, A. (2007). “A generic 3D finite element
model of tree anchorage integrating soil mechanics and real root system
architecture,” American Journal of Botany, Vol. 94, pp. 1506-1514
Ennos, A.R. (1990) “The Anchorage of Leek Seedlings: The Effect of Root Length
and Soil Strength,” Annals of Botany, Vol. 65, pp. 409-416.
Fellenius, W. (1936) “Calculation of the Stability of Earth Dams. In: Transaction

of the Second Congress on Large Dams,” Washington, D.C., Vol. 4. United
States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., pp. 445-463.
Fredlund, D.G., Morgernstern, N.A., and Widger, R.A. (1978) “The Shear Strength
of Unsaturated Soils,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 313-
321.
Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993) “Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils”.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Fuller, F.M. and Hoy, H.E. (1970) “Pile load test including quick load test method,
conventional method and interpretations,” Research record 333, Highway
research board, Washington. D.C., pp.74-86.
Goodman, A.M., Crook, J.M., Ennos, A.R. (2001) “Anchorage mechanics of the tap
root system of winter-sown oilseed reep,” Annals of Botany, Vol.87, pp.
397-404
110
Hilf, J.W. (1956) “An Investigation of Pore-Water Pressure in Compacted Cohesive
Soils,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Tech. Memo. No. 654, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Design and Construction Div., Denver, C.O.
Keong, L.C. (2004) “Wind Effect on Trees and Roof Garden,” Final Year Project
Report, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore,
Krahn, J. (2004) “Stability Modeling with SLOPE/W”, An Engineering

Methodology, GEO-SLOPE/W International Ltd, Alberta, Canada, 396 pp.
Kumar, S. S. R. and Kumar, S, A, R. (2008) “Design of steel structures”, Lecture

notes , Indian Institute Technology, Madras ,India.
Landis, T.D. (1990) “Containers: type and functions,” Tree container nursery
manual vol. II Agricultural handbook, Washington DC: US Department of
Agriculture, Forest service, pp. 1-39.
Lundstrom, T., Jonsson, M.J., Kalberer, M. (2007), “The root-soil system of

Norway spruce subjected to turning moment: resistance as a function of
rotation,” Plant and Soil, Vol. 300, pp. 35-49.
Mattheck, C.(1996). “Trees: the mechanical design”, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Mattheck, C. (2002) “Tree Mechanics”, 1st ed., Springer, Karlsruhe.
Nash, D. (1987) “A comparative review of limit equilibrium methods of slope

stability analysis”, in Slope Stability, pp.11-75, John-Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Niklas, K.J. (2002) “Wind, Size, and Tree Safety,” J. Arboriculture, Vol. 18, No.2,
pp. 84-93.
111
Peltola, H., Kellomaki, S., Vaisanen, H., Ikonen, V.P. (1999) “A mechanistic model
for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of
scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch”, Canadian Journal of forest research,
Vol. 29, pp 647-661.
Potyondy, J. G. (1961), “Skin Friction Between Various Soils and Construction

Materials,” Geotechnique, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 831-853.
PWD. (1976) “Geology of the Republic of Singapore”. Public Works Department,

Singapore.
Rahardjo, H., Lim, T.T., Chang, M. F., and Fredlund, D.G.(1995) “Shear Strength
Characteristics of a Residual Soil” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 32,
pp. 60-77.
Rahardjo, H., Ong, B.H., and Leong, E.C. (2004) “Shear Strength of a Compacted
Residual Soil from Consolidated Drained and Constant Water Content
Triaxial Tests,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 421-435.
Rahardjo, H, Indrawan, I.G.B., Leong, E.C., Yong, W.K. (2008), ”Effects of

coarse-grained materials on hydraulic properties and shear strength of soil,”
Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 101, 165-173.
Rahardjo, H, Harnas, F.R., Leong, E.C., Tan, P.Y., Fong, Y.K., Sim, E.K.(2009)
“Tree stability in improved soil to withstand wind loading,” Urban
Forestry and Urban Greening, Vol. 8, pp. 237-247.
Rahardjo, H., Harnas, F.R., & Indrawan, I.G.B. (2010) “Soil improvement for tree
stability,” Research project report, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
112
Ramage, C. (1971), Monsoon Meteorology. International Geophysics Series, Vol.
15, 296 pp
Rayachhetry, M.B., Van, T.K., Center, T.D., Laroche, F.(2001) “Dry weight
estimation of the aboveground component of Melalueca quinquenervia trees
in southern Florida,” Forest Ecology and Management, Vol 142, pp.282-
290.
Shaetzl, R.J., Johnson, D.L., Burns, S.F., and Small, T.W. (1989) “Tree Uprooting:
Review of Terminology, Process, and Environmental Implications”,
Canadian J. for Res., Vol. 19, pp. 1-11.
Stokes, A. (1994) “Responses of Young Trees to Wind: Effects on Root

Architecture and Anchorage Strength”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of York,
UK.
Stokes, A. and Mattheck, C. (1996) “Variation of wood strength in roots of forest

trees”, Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 47, pp 693-699.
Stokes, A., (2002). “Biomechanics of Tree Anchorage” In: Plant roots-the hidden
half. Plenum Publishing. New York, 175-186.
Strachan, M.D. (1974) “Tar paper containers”, Proceedings of north American

containerized forest tree seedling symposium, Great plains agricultural
council, pp. 209-210
Tanurdjaja, A. and Choi, E.C.C. (2004) “Design wind speed in area with mixed
weather system”, Master of Engineering theses, Nanyang Technological
University, pp. 114
113
Terzaghi, K., (1936) “The Shear Resistance of Saturated Soils”, Proc. 1st
International Conference Soil Mechanics Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 54-56.
Turnbull, W.J and Hvorslev, M. (1967) “Special problems in slope stability”,

Journal of soil mechanic division, ASCE, Vol.93, SM4, pp. 499-528.
Wessolly, L., Erb, M. (1998) “Handbuch der baumstatic und baumcontrolle”,

Patzer-verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Whitman, R.V and Bailey, W.A. (1967) “Use of computers for slope stability
analysis”, Journal of soil mechanics and foundation engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 93, SM4, pp. 475-498
114

APPENDIX 1
Overall stability analysis calculation spreadsheet
INPUT DATA
D
Containerr Properties
Height 1.5 m
Width 1.8 m
Soil Propperties
γ 14 KN
N/m3
Φ 25
Tree Propperties
height 10 m
Canopy tyype
DBH 10 cm
C1 0.655
Wind prooperties
Wind Speeed 29.7 m/ss
Crown Area conical
LATIONS
CALCUL
FS AGAIINST SLIDING
G

MARS = σ tan δ
MRS = WwW
σ=Wt+W Ws
δ = 0.5 x φ
Ws=Dc x Hc x γ
Wt from tree allometricc relationship
FS AGAIINST OVERTU
URNING
Fs = Maxx Available Ov
verturning Forcce (MAOF)/moobilized overturrning force (M
MOF)
MAOF = (Wt+Ws) x 0..5 x Dc
MOF = Ww
W x (Hc+(x1* *Ht))
RESULT T
Ws (weigght of soil) 53.433849104 KN
N MAO OF 55.389277
Wt (weigght of tree) 8.10515 KN
N MOF 8.97575
σ 61.544364104 FS ovverturning 6.1709915
MARS 13.644389674
MRS 1.115
FS slidingg 14.7895
APPENDIX 2
Internal stability analysis calculation spreadsheet
Soil properties Plate properties Slip surface properties
γ c' Φ’ ua-uw Φb H B Xc Yc Radius xmin xmax Δx
14 0 25 0 25 0.3 0.6 0 0.45 0.6 -0.3969 0.396863 0.0793725
# x ytop ybot b cum. B h W sin α W sin α S1 N τ M.arm Resisting moment

0 0.40 0.00 0.00
1 0.32 0.00 -0.06 0.0794 0.07937 0.03 0.37 0.59529 0.22 0.10 2.98 0.14 0.6 0.08
2 0.24 0.00 -0.10 0.0794 0.15875 0.08 0.42 0.46301 0.20 0.09 4.18 0.17 0.6 0.10
3 0.16 0.00 -0.13 0.0794 0.23812 0.11 0.46 0.33072 0.15 0.08 5.17 0.20 0.6 0.12
4 0.08 0.00 -0.14 0.0794 0.31749 0.14 0.49 0.19843 0.10 0.08 5.87 0.22 0.6 0.13
5 0.00 0.00 -0.15 0.0794 0.39686 0.15 0.50 0.06614 0.03 0.08 6.24 0.23 0.6 0.14
6 -0.08 0.00 -0.14 0.0794 0.47624 0.15 0.50 -0.0661 -0.03 0.08 6.24 0.23 0.6 0.14
7 -0.16 0.00 -0.13 0.0794 0.55561 0.14 0.49 -0.1984 -0.10 0.08 5.87 0.22 0.6 0.13
8 -0.24 0.00 -0.10 0.0794 0.63498 0.11 0.46 -0.3307 -0.15 0.08 5.17 0.20 0.6 0.12
9 -0.32 0.00 -0.06 0.0794 0.71435 0.08 0.42 -0.463 -0.20 0.09 4.18 0.17 0.6 0.10
10 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.0794 0.79373 0.03 0.37 -0.5953 -0.22 0.10 2.98 0.14 0.6 0.08
wind loading Tree height Moment arm 1.16

1.115 10 6.1
Factor of safety
0.17

Harnas-Stability of Containerized Tree 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

Harnas-Stability of Containerized Tree PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STABILITY OF CONTAINERIZED TREE

Fakhrur Rozy Harnas

SCHOOL OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

FAKHRUR ROZY HARNAS

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Chapter 2. Literature Review………………………………........................ 4

Chapter 3. Theory ……………………….……………………………….. 11

Chapter 4. Research Program….…………………………………………... 30

Chapter 7. Conclusions & Recommendations…………………………….. 107

Appendix 1: Overall stability analysis spreadsheet calculation

Table 4.1. Summary of the parametric study in each analysis………………………… 33

Development of infrastructures in Singapore, such as road widening, may cause

The research was conducted to study the stability of containerized trees in

An overall stability analysis of container was performed to evaluate the stability

This report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1 introduces the background on containerized tree, objectives and the

2.1 INTRODUCTION ON SINGAPORE WEATHER

The monsoon blows in two seasons, north-east monsoon and south-west

To obtain the extreme value of wind speed in Singapore, a continuous time-series

2.2 EFFECT OF WIND LOAD TO TREE STABILITY

2.3 TREE ROOT ARCHITECTURE

2.4. NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL MODELING OF TREE STABILITY

Problems faced with tree stability are usually deemed as an arborist or a

In order to improve a tree’s stability, an understanding of the physical process

Researchers have performed 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional numerical

2.5 CONTAINERIZED TREES

Figure 2.3. Trees grown in the container for nursery

The stability of a containerized tree has not been researched intensively as

3.2 SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOILS

Shear strength of a saturated soil is usually described using the Mohr-Coulomb

τ ff = c ' + (σ f − u w ) f tan φ ' (3.1)

Figure 3.1 Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for saturated soils

(from Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).

τ ff = c ' + (σ f − u a ) f tan φ '+ (u a − u w ) f tan φ b (3.2)

The shear strength equation for an unsaturated soil is essentially an extension of

Figure 3.2. Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated soils

3.3. WIND FORCES

Salix alba 0.20

Duranta Rapens Sygyzium Campanulatum

Carallia Brachiata Cassia sp.

3.4 OVERALL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE CONTAINER

3.4.1 Stability against sliding

where F is wind force, Wt is weight of tree, Wc is weight of the container, Ws is weight of

The weight of the tree is calculated by using an allometric equation (equation

Wt 2.885 0.8134 DBH Ht /100 kN (3.5)

3.4.2 Stability against overturning

The factor of safety against overturning of a container is presented in Equation

3.5 INTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSES OF THE TREE

To analyze the overturning of an uprooted tree, a limit equilibrium analysis that is

3.5.1 Ordinary method of slices (OMS) without container

The width of each slice, b is calculated as follows:

where n is the number of slices

The x and y coordinates of each slice are calculated as follow:

The height of each slice (hi) is calculated as follows:

Weight of each slice (Wi) is given as:

Normal force on the base of each arch slice is given as follows:

Figure 3.6 Tree stability analyses by the ordinary method of slices.

Figure 3.7 Forces in each slice

Normal stress acting at the base of each slice is calculated as follows:

The resisting shear force along the arc becomes:

The resisting shear moment about O is then calculated as follows:

3.5.2 Ordinary method of slices (OMS) with container

0.5 tan (3.26)