Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6.

Slope Stability Analysis Performance

6.1
1.1 Homogeneous Slope on Rigid
Foundation
1
REFERENCE Griffiths et al
ELEMENTS Plane strain elements
MODEL FILENAME SlopeStability01.gts

o
Figure 6.1.1 shows the slope model with 21.57 inclination subjected to self-weight. The left side of the
model is constrained in the horizontal direction and the bottom side is completely fixed. Slope stability
analysis is carried out using strength reduction method (SRM) during which the strength reduction factor
(SRF) is gradually increased until instability is reached. The resulting factor of safety is compared with the
reference solution.

Y
Figure 6.1.1
Slope model without
1.2H 2.0H
foundation
H=10m

Picture 1.1.1 1.0H

Strip footing model

Material data Young’s modulus E = 2.0 MPa

Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3
Model type Mohr Coulomb
Cohesion 10.0 kPa
Friction angle 20 °
Dilatancy angle 20 °
Load data Self weight  t =20.0 kN/m3

166 | Homogeneous Slope on Rigid Foundation

 Figure 1.2.2
Normalized excess
pore pressure
distribution compared
with analytical
solution

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

Figure 6.1.2 SRF

Safety reduction factor 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
vs. dimensionless 0.2
displacement
0.4

0.6

0.8
E'δmax/ (γH)

1.2

Figure 1.2.3 1.4

Dissipation of excess
pore pressure with 1.6
time obtained using
solid elements: 1.8
normalized excess
pore pressure at y=-
10m compared with
analytical solution

Table 6.1.1 Factor of safety at embankment

Factor of safety

Reference 1.4

Figure 6.1.3 Quad-8 1.4187

Deformed shape and
displacement contour at
failure

Homogeneous Slope on Rigid Foundation | 167

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

6.2 Two-sided Earth Embankment

1
REFERENCE Griffiths et al
ELEMENTS Plane strain elements
MODEL FILENAME SlopeStability02.gts

Figure 6.2.1 shows a dam model with phreatic surface which varies from the reservoir level to the
foundation level. Slope stability analyses are carried out by strength reduction method (SRM) for two cases;
A) with water level and B) without water level.

For both cases, the displacements are constrained in the horizontal direction along the vertical edges and
in all directions along the bottom edge. The dam model is subjected to self weight and external pressure
due to the existence of reservoir water (case A only). The resulting factors of safety are compared with the
reference solutions.

7.3
Units : m
Figure 6.2.1
Two-sided earth
embankment 21.3
17.1
18.0° 23.0°
7.3

33.5 124.4 33.5

Material data Young’s modulus E = 0.2 GPa

Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3
Model type Mohr Coulomb
Cohesion 13.8 kPa
Friction angle 37 °
Dilatancy angle 37 °
Load data Self weight  t =18.2 kN/m3

Table 6.2.1 Factor of safety at embankment

Case B) without water
Case A) with water level
level
Reference 1.90 2.42

Quad-8 1.9656 2.5094

168 | Two-sided Earth Embankment

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

Figure 6.2.2
Safety reduction factor vs. SRF
dimensionless 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
0
displacement

0.01

0.02

0.03
E'δmax/ (γH)

0.04

0.05
Case A
Case B
0.06

0.07

0.08

Figure 6.2.3 shows the deformed shape of the model in the vicinity of unstable equilibrium point for both
with and without water level. For both cases, the instability occurs in the region where the slope is steeper.
It is also noteworthy that if water is considered (case A), failure mechanism extends deeper into the
foundation while, case B results in a toe failure. These results are in agreement with the limit equilibrium
solutions included in the reference.
Figure 6.2.3
Deformed shape at
failure

(case A)

(case B)

Two-sided Earth Embankment | 169

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

6.3
6.3 Failure of Clay Slope with a Thin Weak
Layer
1
REFERENCE Griffiths et al
ELEMENTS Plane strain elements
MODEL FILENAME SlopeStability03.gts

Figure 6.3.1 shows a slope on a foundation layer with embedded layer of weaker material to simulate a
slippery liner within a landfill system. Slope stability analysis based on strength reduction method (SRM) is
conducted. The displacements are constrained in the horizontal direction along the vertical edges and in all
directions along the bottom edge. The slope system is subjected to self-weight.

While maintaining the strength of the soil, slope stability was evaluated for several strength values of the
Figure 6.3.1 weak layer; Cu 2 / Cu1 = 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0. Figure 6.3.2 shows the deformed shapes of the model in the
Undrained clay slope vicinity of unstable equilibrium point for different strength values of the weak layer. The deformed shape
with a foundation
matches the shape of the weak layer for Cu 2 / Cu1 = 0.2 and turns to a circular shape as the model
layer including a thin
weak layer approaches homogeneous. Both failure mechanisms become active for Cu 2 / Cu1 = 0.6.

These results illustrate the advantages of the finite element-based slope stability analysis which does not
require a priori knowledge of the failure mechanism.

2.0H 2.0H
0.6H 1.2H
Figuree 6.3.1 u u
Clay slope with a thin C1< C2
weak layer u
C2 2
2.0H
1
1.2H 0.6H
2.0H 2
1 C1
u
u
0.4H
C1
1
1
0.4H

170 | Failure of Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

Material data Young’s modulus E = 0.8 GPa

Poisson’s ratio  = 0.3
Model type Mohr Coulomb
Cohesion (Cu1) 50.0 kPa
Cohesion (Cu2) 20 kPa ~ 50.0 kPa
Friction angle 0°
Dilatancy angle 0°
Load data Self weight  t =20.0 kN/m3

Table 6.3.1 Factor of safety at embankment for Cu2 / Cu1 = 1.0

Factor of safety

Reference 1.47

Quad-8 1.4617

Figure 6.3.2
Factor of safety for 1.6
different values of
Cu2/Cu1 1.5

1.4

1.3
Factor of satefy

1.2

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Cu2 / Cu1

Failure of Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer | 171

 Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

Figure 6.3.3
Deformed shape at
failure for (a) Cu2/Cu1 =
0.2, (b) Cu2/Cu1 = 0.6, (c)
Cu2/Cu1 = 1.0

(a) Cu2/Cu1 = 0.2

(b) Cu2/Cu1 = 0.6

(c) Cu2/Cu1 = 1.0

172 | Failure of Clay Slope with a Thin Weak Layer

Benchmarks&Verifications Chapter 6. Slope Stability Analysis Performance

References
1 Griffiths, D.V. and Lane, P.A., "Slope stability analysis by finite elements", in Geotechnique, Vol.
49, No.3, pp.387-403, 1999

References | 173