Pendahuluan

The 3D LEM is simple and fast. Unfortunately, the 3D LEM involves various assumptions
and is not readily modified to account for realistic boundary conditions in the third
dimension. In addition, another limitation of the 3D LEM is the difficulty of locating the
critical general 3D failure surface in both shape and location.
Stress-strain method is another type of approach used for 3D slope stability analysis. In this
method, a numerical simulation is used to compute the displacement field to simulate the
stress-strain behavior of the slope. Despite the fact that this method has a large computational
burden, it can simultaneously provide the FoS and the critical slip surface, together with the
stress, deformation, and progressive shear failure of the slope. With the developments of
computer technology and simulation approach in recent decades, this method is becoming
increasingly popular and has been widely and successfully used in 3D slope stability analysis.
In addition, 3D stress-strain method can exactly reflect the slope dimensions, boundary
conditions, and a realistically complex geometric configuration in all three directions (Nian et
al. 2012). The most commonly applied stress-strain methods can be divided into two main
categories: continuum approach and discontinuum approach.
The FEM solves a weak (variational) form of the governing equation on an unstructured
mesh, whereas the FDM solves a strong form, often on a structure grid (Zienkiewicz and
Tayor 1989; Gharti et al. 2012). Compared to the FEM, the FDM has a main advantage that
the discretization and the solution procedure are relatively simple.

Metode Kesetimbangan Batas 3 Dimensi (MKB 3D) sangat sederhana dan cepat. Namun
MKB 3D memiliki beberapa asumsi yang tidak sesuai dengan perhitungan realistis model 3
dimensi. Selain itu MKB 3D juga memiki keterbatasan dalam menentukan kondisi kritis
lereng baik dalam tipe longsoran maupun lokasi longsoran. (Zhang, 2013)

Kondisi Boundary
As most literatures about 3D FEM or FDM slope stability analysis (Chugh 2003; Griffiths
and
Marquez 2007; Nian et al. 2012), the side-surface conditions can be generally classified into
three types:
1. Smooth-smooth (SS) boundary condition: All side-surfaces are restrained in the normal
direction, but free to move in the dip direction and strike direction.
2. Rough-smooth (RS) boundary condition: Half of side-surfaces are restrained in the normal
direction, but free to move in the dip direction and strike direction; the other half of side-
surfaces are restrained in all three normal, dip, and strike directions.
3. Rough-rough (RR) boundary condition: All side-surfaces are restrained in all three
normal, dip, and strike directions.

All three kinds of boundary condition are often used in the real example or numerical
simulation. In particular, RR boundary condition can be used to represent a rigid contact with
no possibility of movement. SS boundary condition is used to represent a contact with a rigid,
smooth abutment that can provide a reactive thrust, but no in-plane shear restraint. And RS
boundary condition usually implies a symmetric analysis of a RR boundary condition, and
therefore only half of the actual slope is analyzed for simplification. A useful technical
instruction for practical slope engineering of the three boundary conditions was illustrated by
Nian et al. (2012). For details of the applicable condition, see the source reference.
Mesh Form dan Mesh Size
The results from FDM with strength reduction technique are sensitive to the design of the
mesh (Shukha and Baker 2003). In order to choose appropriate mesh model, two popular
types of mesh form, hexahedra and tetrahedra, and three mesh sizes, coarse, optimized and
fine. Tetrahedron models but the values of FoS are much larger than those 164 obtained from
hexahedral models with the same mesh size. In addition, mesh parameters including numbers
of nodes and elements, elapsed times are listed in Table 3. The elapsed time for tetrahedron
models are much longer than those spend in hexahedral models with the same mesh size.
With either type of element, the fewer the number of nodes, the lower the accuracy and the
less elapsed time. This point is obvious and comparable to those of other reputable
researches. It’s the main reason of difference in elapsed time of six cases. The reasons for
significant different results between two element forms (hexahedron and tetrahedron) are: i)
Hexahedron can generally deform in a lower strain energy state, thus making them more
accurate than tetrahedron in numerous situations, ii) Tetrahedral model can produce a larger
discretization error in the process of finite difference method than hexahedral model as the
grid discretization of the former is less uniform than that of the latter. The numbers of nodes
and elements for hexahedrons are less than those for tetrahedrons under the same element
scale
situation, and these numbers have directly relationships with elapsed time and memory
consumption.

Bentuk Mesh dan Ukuran Mesh

Hasil dari Finite Difference Method (FDM) dengan Strength Reduction Technique sangat
dipengaruhi oleh desain dari mesh (Shuka & Baker 2003). Terdapat dua tipe bentuk mesh
yang sering digunakan yaitu hexahedra dan tetrahedral, dan tiga ukuran mesh yaitu coarse,
optimized, dan fine. Nilai FK yang dihasilkan model Tetrahedral lebih besar dari nilai FK
yang dihasilkan model Hexahedra pada ukuran mesh yang sama. Sebagai tambahan,
parameter mesh yakni jumlah nodes dan elemen, serta waktu komputasi terdapat pada tabel 3.
Waktu komputasi untuk model tetrahedral lebih lama jika dibandingkan dengan model
hexahedra pada ukuran mesh yang sama. Pada kasus dengan jumlah nodes yang lebih sedikit
maka tingkat keakurasian hasil akan lebih rendah serta waktu komputasi juga lebih cepat.
Alasan mengapa terdapat perbedaan signifikan diantara dua model ini karena model
hexahedron secara umum dapat merubah keadaan pada saat energi regangan rendah, sehingga
membuat model tersebut lebih akurat dibanding dengan model tetrahedron di beberapa
situasi. Model tetrahedron dapat menghasilkan kesalahan diskretisasi yang lebih besar dalam
proses Finite Difference Method dibanding model hexahedral karena diskretisasi model ini
tidak sebagus model satunya. Jumlah nodes dan elemen pada hexahedron lebih sedikit
dibandingkan dengan tetrahedron dalam skala yang sama dan jumlah elemen tersebut
memiliki keterkaitan dalam waktu komputasi dan penggunaan memori komputer.