See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329130275

SHANSEP Approach for Slope Stability Assessments of River Dikes in The

Netherlands

Conference Paper · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,900

4 authors, including:

Yos Simanjuntak
CRUX Engineering BV
15 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

KIJK Dike Strengthening Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yos Simanjuntak on 22 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SH
HANSEP P approach for slope stability assessm
ments of river dikes
d inn
The Netheerlands

T.D
D.Y.F. Sim
manjuntak, D.G. Goeeman, M. de Koning
g & J.K. Haasnoot
H
CRU
UX Engineerring BV, Am
msterdam, The
Th Netherlaands

ABS STRACT: TheT sliding of o an inner slope, referrred to as macro-instab

m bility, is onee of the main failure modes
m
for dikes.
d This failure mosstly occurs when the outside
o wateer level eleevates, resullting in an increase off pore
wateer pressures in and beneeath the dikke and ultimmately in a decrease
d of undrained
u sshear streng
gth. In this study,
s
the inner
i slope stability orr macro-stabbility at onee of the dik
ke cross-sections betweeen Krimpeen aan den IJssel I
and Gouderak in the provvince of Zuuid-Hollandd in the Netherlands, is i evaluatedd by using the constittutive
moddel SHANSE EP Mohr-C Coulomb (M MC) in PLA AXIS. The safety
s factoor against mmacro-instab bility is asseessed
based on the SH HANSEP appproach. Too validate the t model, the t calculatted safety fa factor and thhe predictedd slip
circle are compaared with thhose obtaineed using thee Uplift-Van n model usiing Deltaress software, D-Geo
D Stabbility.
The discrepancyy of the resuults betweeen the SHAN NSEP MC model and the Uplift-V Van model is discussedd and
the modelling
m aspects for macro-stabil
m lity assessm
ments for rivver dikes aree outlined.

1 IN
NTRODUC
CTION natuural sand dunes,
d damss and lockss, primary dikes
create protection againstt water fro om the seaa and
1.1 WBI2017 larg
ge rivers. The
T attributee “primary”” has been used
to distinguish these dikees from thee many reggional
dik
kes in the poolders. Regional dikes defend
d the coun-
c
try from floodiing from caanals and sm mall rivers.
T safety of primaryy dikes in the Netherlands
The
hass to complyy with the flood proteection standdards
determined byy the Dutch law (Waater Act). Since S
nuary 1st 20017 the floood protectio
Jan on standardds are
deffined based on maxim mum allowab ble probabiilities
of flooding.
f A
Accordingly , the dike assessment
a rules
in the Netherllands, calleed Wettelijk k Beoordellings-
insttrumentariuum (WBI) nneed to be reeviewed in order
to assess
a whether or nott a primary y dike meetts the
floood protectioon standardss of the Watter Act.
One
O of the new assessm ment rules according tot the
WB BI2017 is thhe implementation of the t Critical State
Soiil Mechaniics (CSSM M) (Schofieeld and Wroth,
W
19668), using thhe Stress HHistory and Normalised
N d Soil
Eng gineering Properties
P (SHANSEP)) method (Ladd (
andd Foott, 19774). Hence, the stress history
h and stress
s
pathh of the sooil can be considered in i characterrising
soill strength and
a predictiing field beehaviour. Inn the
passt, the macrro-stability oof dikes in the Netherlands
wass assessed based
b on thee Mohr-Cou ulomb modeel.

Figurre 1.Individuaal Risk in Thhe Netherlandds in 2015, caalled 1.2 Failure Mechanism
M M
Model
VNKK2 (Rijkswaterrstaat, 2017)
Wh hen the inneer slope of a dike beco omes unstabble as
a reesult of an increased outside (riv ver) water level,
l
Apprroximately two-thirds of the Neetherlands is at the sliding of the slope towards thee protectedd area
risk of floodingg (see Fig. 1). Flood deefences, suchh as may y occur. Inn the Netheerlands, thiss failure meecha-
prim
mary dikes, have long been used to protect the nismm is knownn as macro-instability and is diffferent
peopple and the country
c from
m flooding. fromm micro-innstability, w which is th he instabilitty of
T offer prootection aggainst floodds, the Nethher-
To o an inner slope
relaatively thin layers at thhe surface of
lands is dividedd into 53 dike
d rings. Together with
w duee to seepagee (TAW, 20001).

317
 According to the WBI2017, the default model to
assess the slope stability of a river dike is the Uplift-
Van model developed by Van (2001). This model is
similar to the Bishop’s model, but it allows for a
non-circular slip circle and can accommodate uplift
conditions, which typically occur when a thin blan-
ket layer is located on top of an aquifer connected to
the outside water.
The failure mechanism based on the Uplift-Van
model is described by two circular slip circles: one
on the active zone and another on the passive zone,
bound by a horizontal slip line. This horizontal line,
which is part of the passive zone, usually lies along
the bottom of a weak soil layer (Fig. 2). The safety
factor against macro-instability is expressed as the
ratio of the resisting moment to the driving moment.
The resistance against sliding is governed by the
shear strength of soils.
For cohesive soils with low permeability, such as
clay and peat, the undrained shear strengths along
the slip circle are determined according to the CSSM
and more specifically the SHANSEP approach. For
non-cohesive soils with high permeability like sand,
the drained material model based on a CSSM effec-
tive friction angle is used. The lowest safety factor
of the numerous possible slip circles determines the
safety factor of the dike cross-section under consid-
eration.
Active Zone Passive Zone
River Side
Horizontally
Compressed
Polder Side
Fa Fp
Weak Layers
Fs
Sand
Figure 2. The Uplift-Van Model (Rijkswaterstaat, 2017)
One approach, which considers the influence of
stress history on the shear strength, is the SHANSEP
approach. The general idea behind this approach is
to perform a series of laboratory tests that carefully
control the stress conditions during consolidation
and the stress path during undrained shear.
These tests are performed over a range of stress
histories and stress paths. The in-situ stress history
of the soil is evaluated, and the stress path to which
the soil is imposed, is determined. The soil strengths
from the laboratory tests that most closely replicate
the in-situ conditions are then used to predict the soil
behaviour.
Based on the SHANSEP approach, the undrained
shear strength, su, of a soil subjected to a particular
stress path is calculated as:
318
su   ' v S (OCR ) m (1)
with
 ' y  ' v  POP
OCR   (2)
 'v  'v
where su is the undrained shear strength (kPa), σ’v
and σ’y represent the in-situ effective vertical stress
(kPa) and the vertical yield stress (kPa) respectively,
OCR denotes the over-consolidation ratio (-), POP is
the pre-overburden pressure (kPa), S represents the
undrained shear strength ratio (-) and m indicates the
strength increase exponent (-).
2 THE SHANSEP MOHR-COULOMB (MC)
CONSTITUTIVE MODEL IN PLAXIS
2.1 Model Application and the ‘Switch’ to the
SHANSEP Approach
Besides the Uplift-Van model, the SHANSEP Mohr-
Coulomb (MC) model developed by PLAXIS may
be used to model isotropic undrained shear strength
of soils. This model is based on the Mohr-Coulomb
model, but is modified such that it is able to simulate
potential changes of undrained shear strength based
on the effective stress of the soil (Panagoulias et al.,
2016). The SHANSEP MC model behaves initially
as the Mohr-Coulomb model until it is switched to
the SHANSEP approach by the user. It will only
take effect for the activated SHANSEP MC soil
clusters. The material model for the SHANSEP MC
is facilitated through a user-defined soil model (by
means of DLL files provided by Plaxis).
It has to be mentioned that in the SHANSEP MC
model, unlike in the Uplift-Van model, the effective
major principal stress, σ’1, is used for calculating the
over-consolidation ratio OCR, and the undrained
shear strength, su. In the SHANSEP MC model, the
undrained shear strength is determined by:

su  max  '1 S (OCR ) m , su , min  (3)
with
  '1, max 
OCR  max  , OCR min  (4)
  '1 
in which σ’1,max represents the effective yield stress
(kPa) that is independent on the Cartesian system of
axes, su,min denotes the minimum undrained shear
strength (kPa), and OCRmin is the minimum over-
consolidation ratio (-).
 Assuming horizontal soil layering, the calculated The river dike itself has a length of about 10 km
OCR and su according to the SHANSEP MC model (Fig. 3), and has an important role in protecting the
should be equal to that calculated using the Uplift- dike ring 15 Lopiker- en Krimpenerwaard.
Van model.
Gouderak
2.2 Model Parameters
The model parameters in the SHANSEP MC model
consist of the Mohr-Coulomb model parameters and
the SHANSEP model parameters. These parameters
are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. SHANSEP MC Model Parameters

Parameters Symbol Unit

Shear Modulus G kPa
Mohr-Coulomb

Poisson’s Ratio ν' - A

A
Cohesion c' kPa
Friction Angle φ' º River Hollandse IJssel
Dilatancy Angle ψ º
Tensile Strength Tens kPa
Undrained Shear Strength Ratio S -
SHANSEP

Strength Increase Exponent m -

Stiffness and Strength Ratio G/su -
Krimpen aan den IJssel
Minimum Shear Strength su,min kPa
Min. Over Consolidation Ratio OCRmin - Figure 3. Study Area

3.1.1 Model Geometry

2.3 Model Outputs
Figure 4 shows the model geometry, which portrays
The SHANSEP MC model in PLAXIS delivers two the soil deposit, the water levels in the dike and the
outputs, namely the State Parameter 1, which corre- traffic load on the dike crest.
sponds to the effective yield stress σ’1,max and the
State Parameter 2, which is the calculated undrained 3.1.2 Hydraulic Head and Water Levels
shear strength, su. The piezometric (hydraulic) head in the Pleistocene
Sand is located at NAP -3.5 m. The normal water
2.4 Safety Factor
level (NWL) of the river Hollandse IJssel is at NAP
Usually, the safety of a slope is assessed in terms of +0.29 m, and the maximum high water level (HWL)
a safety factor. In a finite element model, the phi-c according to the 3000-year flood (probability of
reduction or strength reduction method (Brinkgreve flooding of 1/3000 per year) is at NAP +3.32 m.
and Bakker, 1991; Griffiths and Lane, 1999) has
been used for many years as the way to calculate the 3.1.3 Traffic Load
safety factor. Depending on the high water level, the traffic load
In the SHANSEP MC model, the safety factor is with a width of 2.5 m is schematised at the inner
defined as the ratio between the actual shear strength side of the dike crest. When the high water level is at
of the soil to the shear strength needed to maintain NAP +3.32 m, the traffic load is 5 kPa. When the
the equilibrium. water level decreases to NAP +2.60 m and further to
NAP +1.20 m, the traffic load becomes 12 kPa and
3 COMPUTATIONAL EXAMPLE 15 kPa, respectively. For clarity, these combinations
of loading are listed in Table 2.
3.1 Study Area
This study investigates the applicability of the Table 2. Loading Scenarios
SHANSEP MC model to assess the macro-stability Loading Traffic Load High Water Level
of a river dike in the Netherlands. It deals with the Scenario (kPa) (m NAP)
macro-stability assessment at one of the dike cross- I 5 +3.32
sections located between Krimpen aan den IJssel and II 12 +2.60
Gouderak in the province of Zuid-Holland. III 15 +1.20

319
 Coarse Granular Fill
Traffic Load
HWL
Clay, Dike KR1
NWL Clay, Dike BT1
Clay, Dike BT2
Clay, Organic N1
Clay, Dike KR2

Piezometric Head Peat, Hollandveen N1

Clay, Organic U1
Peat, Hollandveen N2
Peat, Hollandveen U1
Clay, Organic U2
Clay, Organic N2

Peat, Basisveen U
Pleistocene Sand

Figure 4. Model Geometry (Cross Section A-A)

Table 3. Adopted SHANSEP MC Model Parameters

Clay Clay Clay Peat Clay Peat Clay Clay Peat Clay Peat Clay
Parameters Unit
KR1 KR2 U1 U1 U2 U BT1 BT2 N1 N1 N2 N2
G 4000 4000 2350 2000 2500 2200 2480 2480 1350 1600 1500 1630 kPa
Mohr-Coulomb

ν'  0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15  0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
c' 15 15 7 5 7 6 15 15 5 8 5 8 kPa
φ' 34 34 33 20 33 21 34 34 20 34 20 34 º
ψ 4 4 3 0 3 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 º
Tens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kPa
S 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.32 -
SHANSEP

m 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.88 0.85 0.88 -
G/su 95 95 65 55 65 55 185 185 70 200 50 80 -
su,min 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 kPa
OCRmin 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

Table 4. Adopted HS Model Parameters for Peat and Clay

Clay Clay Clay Peat Clay Peat Clay Clay Peat Clay Peat Clay
Parameters Unit
KR1 KR2 U1 U1 U2 U BT1 BT2 N1 N1 N2 N2
γ 18.5 18.5 16.1 10.9 16.2 11.8 18.5 18.5 10.5 14.2 10.5 14.8 kN/m3
γsat 18.5 18.5 16.1 10.9 16.2 11.8 18.5 18.5 10.5 14.2 10.5 14.8 kN/m3
E50ref 9 9 9 2 9 2 9 9 2 9 2 9 MPa
Eoedref 4 4 5 1 5 1 4 4 1 5 1 5 MPa
Eurref 60 60 25 10 25 10 60 60 10 18 10 18 MPa
m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -
c'ref 15 15 7 5 7 6 15 15 5 8 5 8 kPa
φ' 34 34 33 20 33 21 34 34 20 34 20 34 º
ψ 4 4 3 0 3 0 4 4 0 4 0 4 º
ν'  0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15  0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
K0nc 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.65 0.46 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.65 0.45 0.65 0.45 -
POP 21.1 59.8 44.9 127.7 14.1 16.2 22.0 35.1 64.0 57.0 34.2 17.2 kPa

PLAXIS advanced soil model, which requires either

3.1.4 Model Parameters and POP-Values
It has to be acknowledged that it is not possible to
directly convey the stress history of the soils defined
through either OCR or POP-values in the SHANSEP
MC model. Nevertheless, this gap can be bridged by
combining the SHANSEP MC model with another
the OCR or POP-value as one of the input parame-
ters, such as the Hardening Soil (HS) model.
The adopted SHANSEP MC model parameters
are listed in Table 3, whereas the relevant HS model
parameters including the POP-values for Peat and
Clay layers are summarised in Table 4.

320
 For both the Coarse Granular Fill and Pleistocene increase of water level and the activation of traffic
Sand layers, the adopted HS model parameters are load was carried out in Phase 7. In order to make
presented in Table 5. sure that no additional deformations will occur in the
safety calculation, the reset displacements to zero
Table 5. Adopted HS Model Parameters for Coarse Granular option in PLAXIS was selected.
Fill and Pleistocene Sand The same calculation phases were applied for the
Coarse Pleistocene other two loading scenarios, i.e. when the river water
Parameters Unit
Granular Fill Sand level is at NAP +2.60 m and the traffic load is 12
γ 19 18 kN/m3 kPa, and when the river water level is at NAP +1.20
γsat 20 20 kN/m3 m and the traffic load is 15 kPa.
E50ref 25 35 MPa The switch to the SHANSEP approach for each
Eoedref 24 20 MPa loading scenario occurs in Phases 1, 4, and 6.
Eurref 75 100 MPa
m 0.5 0.5 - 3.1.6 Failure Mechanisms and Safety Factors
c'ref 1 0 kPa
φ' 32 35 º Figures 5a, 6a, and 7a illustrate the obtained failure
ψ 2 5 º mechanisms according to the SHANSEP MC model,
ν' 0.2 0.2 - which are in accordance with those obtained using
K0nc 0.4 0.4 - the Uplift-Van model in D-Geo Stability (Figs. 5b,
POP 0 0 kPa 6b, and 7b). The good agreement between the safety
factors obtained using the SHANSEP MC model and
3.1.5 Calculation Phases those calculated using the Uplift-Van model is also
The applied calculation phases in PLAXIS for each evident (Table 7). This means that there is a global
loading scenario are presented in Table 6. coherence between the SHANSEP MC model and
the Uplift-Van model even if they are methodologi-
Table 6. Applied Calculation Phases in PLAXIS (Case 2) cally different in defining the OCR.
Calculation Phases Remarks
Table 7. The Comparison of Calculated Safety Factors
Initial Phase Stress Initialisation, K0-Procedure
Phase 1 (Plastic) SHANSEP MC Clusters Traffic Safety Factor (SF)
HWL
Load SHANSEP MC Uplift-Van
Phase 2 (Plastic) Water Level Increase (HWL) (m NAP)
(kPa) Model Model
Phase 3 (Consolidation) Consolidation Analysis
5 +3.32 1.44 1.44
Phase 4 (Plastic) Update on Shear Strength
12 +2.60 1.43 1.43
Phase 5 (Plastic) Activation of Traffic Load
15 +1.20 1.42 1.42
Phase 6 (Plastic) Update on Shear Strength
Phase 7 (Safety) Safety Calculation For completeness, the data used for the safety
factor calculation in D-Geo Stability program are
For the first loading scenario, i.e. when the river
summarised in Tables 8 and 9. Unlike in PLAXIS,
water level is at NAP +3.32 m and the traffic load is
the stress history of the soils in D-Geo Stability is
5 kPa, the POP for the Peat and Clay layers was
represented through a yield stress value, σ'y, which
generated in the Initial Phase using the HS model
with K0-procedure. The water level was raised from can be calculated as:
the normal level (NWL) at NAP +0.29 m to the high
 ' y   ' v  OCR (5)
level (HWL) at NAP +3.32 m in Phase 2 with be-
forehand replacing the HS soil clusters for the Peat  ' y   ' v  POP (6)
and Clay layers with the SHANSEP MC clusters in
Phase 1. The relation between POP and OCR can therefore
To allow for different hydraulic levels for each be written as:
soil layer, the linear interpolation of pore pressures
was set to the soil cluster Peat U1 and Peat N2 in POP   'v (OCR  1) (7)
Phase 2. The hydraulic head of the soil layers below
these two clusters were set to NAP -3.5 m. Once the yield stress for the Peat and Clay layers
A consolidation analysis was performed in Phase has been determined, in D-Geo Stability this value
3, followed by the update of the shear strength in needs to be specified in the middle level of the layer
Phase 4. The traffic load of 5 kPa was activated in (see Tables 8 and 9). Taking the dike surface as a
Phase 5, followed by the update of the shear strength reference level for the ratio S, the undrained shear
in Phase 6. The safety calculation as a result of the strength su can be calculated (Deltares, 2016).

321
 (a) (b)

SF = 1.44 SF = 1.44

Figure 5. The Predicted Slip Circle and Safety Factor (Scenario I)

(a) (b)

SF = 1.43 SF = 1.43

Figure 6. The Predicted Slip Circle and Safety Factor (Scenario II)

(a) (b)

SF = 1.42 SF = 1.42

Figure 7. The Predicted Slip Circle and Safety Factor (Scenario III)

Table 8. Adopted Soil Parameters for the Uplift-Van Model (Dike Crest at X = 198.4 m)
Top Level Bottom Level Middle Level γ γsat S m c' φ' σ'y
Soil Layers
(m NAP) (m NAP) (m NAP) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (-) (-) (kPa) (°) (kPa)
Coarse Granular Fill +3.38 +1.12 - 19.0 20.0 - - 0 32 -
Clay, Dike KR1 +1.12 +0.76 +0.83 18.5 18.5 0.37 0.91 - - 69.4
Clay, Dike KR2 +0.76 -2.22 -0.82 18.5 18.5 0.37 0.91 - - 124.4
Clay, Organic U1 -2.22 -6.22 -4.22 16.1 16.1 0.32 0.88 - - 134.1
Peat, Hollandveen U1 -6.22 -8.40 -7.31 10.9 10.9 0.39 0.85 - - 230.5
Clay, Organic U2 -8.40 -10.00 -9.20 16.2 16.2 0.32 0.88 - - 123.1
Peat, Basisveen U -10.00 -10.50 -10.25 11.8 11.8 0.39 0.85 - - 130.7
Pleistocene Sand -10.50 -40.00 - 18.0 20.0 - - 0 35 -

Table 9. Adopted Soil Parameters for the Uplift-Van Model (Dike Toe at X = 210.6 m)
Top Level Bottom Level Middle Level γ γsat S m c' φ' σ'y
Soil Layers
(m NAP) (m NAP) (m NAP) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (-) (-) (kPa) (°) (kPa)
Clay, Dike BT1 -1.06 -1.70 -1.63 18.5 18.5 0.37 0.91 - - 32.6
Clay, Dike BT2 -1.70 -2.16 -2.11 18.5 18.5 0.37 0.91 - - 50.2
Peat, Hollandveen N1 -2.16 -3.46 -2.78 10.5 10.5 0.39 0.85 - - 79.9
Clay, Organic N1 -3.46 -4.16 -3.75 14.2 14.2 0.32 0.88 - - 74.6
Peat, Hollandveen N2 -4.16 -8.40 -6.25 10.5 10.5 0.39 0.85 - - 54.9
Clay, Organic N2 -8.40 -11.50 -9.95 14.8 14.8 0.32 0.88 - - 47.1
Pleistocene Sand -11.50 -40.00 - 18.0 20.0 - - 0 35 -

322
Table 10. Water Levels (NWL and HWL)

Phreatic Line in the Dike during the Normal Water Level (NWL)
X (m) 169.5 186.2 186.7 189.9 193.1 196.3 198.4 202.8 206.0 208.8 210.6 230.0 260.5
NWL (m NAP) +0.29 +0.29 +0.34 +0.62 +0.73 +0.72 +0.64 +0.24 -0.33 -1.31 -1.67 -2.35 -2.35
Phreatic Line in the Dike during the High Water Level (HWL)
X (m) 169.5 186.2 188.4 192.2 195.3 195.8 201.9 205.9 207.9 211.3 213.1 230.0 260.5
HWL1 (m NAP) +3.32 +3.32 +3.32 +3.32 +3.32 +3.29 +2.96 +0.54 -0.36 -1.28 -1.48 -2.35 -2.35
HWL2 (m NAP) +2.60 +2.60 +2.60 +2.60 +3.20 +3.29 +2.96 +0.54 -0.36 -1.28 -1.48 -2.35 -2.35
HWL3 (m NAP) +1.20 +1.20 +1.20 +2.26 +3.16 +3.29 +2.96 +0.54 -0.36 -1.28 -1.48 -2.35 -2.35

Table 11. Dike Surface (Reference Level for Ratio S)

X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
(m) (m NAP) (m) (m NAP) (m) (m NAP) (m) (m NAP) (m) (m NAP) (m) (m NAP)
170.0 -1.64 188.5 +1.30 197.9 +3.26 204.5 +1.61 208.0 -0.13 229.0 -2.16
177.9 -1.18 188.7 +1.40 198.2 +3.38 204.8 +1.40 208.5 -0.28 229.1 -2.16
179.7 -1.08 189.0 +1.53 198.6 +3.38 204.9 +1.30 209.0 -0.49 229.5 -2.39
180.5 -1.03 189.5 +1.53 198.9 +3.23 205.0 +1.26 209.5 -0.67 229.8 -2.76
181.2 -0.75 190.0 +1.79 200.5 +3.20 205.2 +1.12 210.0 -0.91 230.3 -3.29
182.0 -0.39 192.2 +2.60 201.0 +3.16 205.5 +0.97 210.4 -1.00 245.4 -3.29
183.2 -0.35 193.5 +3.07 201.5 +3.09 206.0 +0.62 210.5 -1.04 245.9 -2.76
185.0 -0.28 194.0 +3.10 202.0 +3.09 206.5 +0.43 211.0 -1.16 246.5 -2.16
185.8 +0.09 194.5 +3.11 202.5 +2.84 206.8 +0.28 211.5 -1.22 246.6 -2.13
186.0 +0.18 195.0 +3.21 202.9 +2.60 206.9 +0.18 212.0 -1.27 247.0 -1.92
186.2 +0.28 195.2 +3.38 203.0 +2.53 207.0 +0.15 212.5 -1.31 247.5 -1.76
188.1 +1.12 196.0 +3.38 203.5 +2.19 207.1 +0.10 213.0 -1.36 248.0 -1.71
188.4 +1.26 196.5 +3.29 204.0 +1.91 207.5 -0.13 218.0 -1.55 260.0 -1.70

In accordance with the model created in PLAXIS, Table 13. The Calculated Yield Stress at X = 210.6 m
the traffic load was also schematised at the inside of
σ'y (kPa)
the dike crest. It was positioned as temporary load X Y
on the dike surface and has a width of 2.5 m. The (m) (m NAP) SHANSEP MC Uplift-Van
Model Model
load distribution of 30° was adopted. For the Peat
210.6 -1.63 27.0 32.6
and Clay layers, the degree of consolidation for the
210.6 -2.11 41.9 50.2
load was taken as 0%, while for the Coarse Granular 210.6 55.1
-2.78 79.9
Fill and Pleistocene Sand was 100%. 210.6 -3.75 74.1 74.6
Table 10 provides the X and Y co-ordinates of the 210.6 -6.25 47.5 54.9
water levels, namely the NWL and HWL. The X and 210.6 -9.95 52.5 47.1
Y co-ordinates for the dike surface, which are used
as the reference level for the ratio S in the undrained In order to verify whether or not the stress history
shear strength calculations, are listed in Table 11. In of the soils was appropriately transferred in the
D-Geo Stability, an infinite amount of slip circles SHANSEP MC model, the calculated yield stresses
occur during the computation; but, the minimum (State Parameter 1) in Phase 1 from PLAXIS Output
safety factor that ensures the equilibrium determines are compared with the data used in D-Geo Stability
the safety factor. program (Tables 8 and 9). The values of yield stress
are summarised in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 12. The Calculated Yield Stress at X = 198.4 m From Tables 12 and 13 it is seen that there is a
σ'y (kPa) slight discrepancy between the yield stress from the
X Y SHANSEP MC model and the applied yield stress in
(m) (m NAP) SHANSEP MC Uplift-Van
Model Model the Uplift-Van model. This is due to the fact that the
198.4 +0.83 68.9 69.4 input POP-values in PLAXIS were determined by
198.4 -0.82 118.2 124.4 subtracting the vertical yield stress from the in-situ
198.4 -4.22 136.7 134.1 vertical stress that conform the Uplift-Van model in
198.4 -7.31 205.9 230.5 D-Geo Stability, whereas the yield stress in PLAXIS
198.4 -9.20 121.1 123.1 (State Parameter 1) is not necessarily vertical and is
198.4 -10.25 127.4 130.7 independent of the Cartesian system of axes.

323
4 REMARKS ON THE SHANSEP MC MODEL
The assessment of macro-stability for dikes using
the SHANSEP approach is new to the Netherlands.
An attempt has been made in this study to describe
the knowledge gained so far in the field of numerical
models and thus to make this knowledge available to
a wider public.
Based on this study, some remarks on the use of
the SHANSEP MC model are outlined as follows:
1) The transfer of stress history through POP-values
works properly by using an advance soil model in
PLAXIS with K0-procedure.Whenever possible,
it is highly recommended to verify the results of
State Parameter 1 in PLAXIS (yield stress), after
the model has been switched to the SHANSEP
approach.
2) An update for undrained shear strength has to be
done prior to performing a safety calculation so
as to obtain a correct safety factor against macro-
instability.
3) For cases of dikes with shallow slip circles, the
calculated safety factor against macro-instability
may be affected by the rotation of principal axes
near the slope. The discrepancy of results is due
to the different definition of the OCR and thus the
undrained shear strength.
4) For cases of dikes with non-cohesive soils at
small depths and with water level near to the dike
surface, where the soil strength is determined by
the effective friction angle before switching the
model to the SHANSEP approach, the instability
of relatively thin layers at the surface of an inner
slope, called micro-instability, may occur. Such
failure mechanisms can be avoided in the model
by providing the non-cohesive soils adjacent to
the slope with a low value of cohesion.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the applicability of the SHANSEP MC
model for assessing the macro-stability of a primary
dike in the Netherlands is presented. The study deals
with the assessment at one of the river dike cross-
sections located between Krimpen aan den IJssel and
Gouderak, in the province of Zuid-Holland.
To assess the macro-stability of a dike according
to the WBI2017, the required parameters for cohe-
sive soils are the undrained strength ratio S, and the
stress increase exponent m. The undrained shear
strength su is depending on the stress history in the
long-term equilibrium situation, which can be taken
into account through either the over-consolidation
ratio OCR, or the in-situ effective vertical stress of
the soils in combination with the pre-overburden
pressure (POP).
324
View publication stats
The shear strength of non-cohesive soils is de-
termined based on the drained behaviour and the re-
quired parameter is the friction angle φ' and without
cohesion c'.
The study shows that the stress history of the
soils is conveyed properly in the SHANSEP MC
model by combining the SHANSEP MC model with
an advanced soil model in PLAXIS, such as the use
of the Hardening Soil Model. The good agreement
between the predicted slip circles as well as the
safety factors using the SHANSEP MC model in
PLAXIS and those obtained using the Uplift-Van
model in D-Geo Stability program is also obvious.
Therefore, the SHANSEP MC model can be used in
addition to the default Uplift-Van model to assess
the macro-stability of primary dikes (flood defences)
in the Netherlands, which comply with the new
Dutch WBI2017 standards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this paper is part of the KIJK
dike strengthening project in the Netherlands. The
authors are grateful to Het Hoogheemraadschap van
Schieland en de Krimpenerwaard for providing the
data, and would also like to thank the anonymous
reviewers for their comments to improve the quality
of the paper.
REFERENCES
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Bakker, H.L. 1991. Non-Linear Finite
Element Analysis of Safety Factors, Proc. 7th International
Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in
Geomechanics. Balkema Rotterdam, pp. 1117-1122.
Deltares, 2016. D-Geo Stability User Manual Version 16.2.
Griffiths, D.V. & Lane, P.A. 1999. Slope Stability Analysis by
Finite Elements. Geotechnique, 49(3): 387-403.
Ladd, C.C. & Foott, R. 1974. New Design Procedure for Sta-
bility of Soft Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division. ASCE, 100(7): 763-786.
Panagoulias, S., Palmieri, F. & Brinkgreve, R.B.J. 2016. The
SHANSEP MC Model. Plaxis BV.
Rijkswaterstaat, 2017. WBI2017 Code Calibration.
Schofield, A.N. & Wroth, C.P. 1968. Critical State Soil
Mechanics. McGraw-Hill.
TAW, 2001. Technisch Rapport Waterkerende Grond-
constructies; Geotechnische Aspecten van Dijken, Dammen
en Boezemkaden (in Dutch).
Van, M.A. 2001. New Approach for Uplift Induced Slope
Failure, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. AA
Balkema Publishers, pp. 2285-2288.