14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

The design of geotechnical structures using numerical

methods

H. Jürgens, S. Henke
Helmut Schmidt University, Department of Geotechnics, Hamburg, Germany

hauke.juergens@hsu-hh.de, sascha.henke@hsu-hh.de

Abstract. The use of numerical simulations in geotechnical engineering today is often limited
to the investigation of the serviceability limit state (SLS). Therefore, the main focus up to now
was more on the deformation prognosis for geotechnical constructions than the geotechnical
design itself. Nevertheless, numerical methods like the Finite-Element-Method (FEM) for
example can be a valuable tool to investigate the bearing capacity of geotechnical structures as
well. E.g. existing structures which cannot be calculated using classical analytical approaches
can be investigated with numerical simulations to estimate the remaining bearing capacity. In
the present paper, the use of numerical methods for the design of geotechnical structures will be
discussed. First, the approved 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction method is recalculated and verified with the help
of a script based on the Python programming language. Afterwards, the Python script is extended
so that the diameter of an Embedded Beam Row element can be successively reduced
automatically similar to the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction. Finally, a short outlook is given in which direction
the research project should proceed.

1. Introduction
Numerical methods are increasingly used for complex geotechnical tasks. Therefore, methods for using
numerical models for different tasks have to be developed. Especially for the prognosis of deformations
within the serviceability limit states (SLS), the application of the Finite Element Method (FEM) has
been proved in geotechnical engineering. To use this method in the future to verify the ultimate limit
states (ULS) of geotechnical structures, it is the aim of the studies presented in this paper to examine the
application of numerical methods for design purposes in more detail. For slopes it is already possible to
verify the stability by means of the so-called strength reduction method. This becomes problematic as
soon as structural elements such as dowels are located in the slope.
To investigate this issue, this paper presents a comparative calculation. In this study the approved
𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction method implemented in the software Plaxis 2D is recalculated and verified with the help
of a script based on the Python programming language. Afterwards, the Python script is extended so that
the diameter of an Embedded Beam Row element, that is located in a slope, can be successively reduced
similar to the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction. This is done for different friction angles of the soil to identify the ultimate
limit state. The resulting effects are analysed and presented.
Finally, a short outlook is given in which direction the research project should proceed. The main
focus here is on the consideration of structural elements in the area of stability analysis to find a uniform
safety factor with the help of the Phi-c reduction.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

2. Strength reduction method

For the studies in this paper, a safety factor SF against failure in a soil mass by using the strength
reduction method is used. In principle, an artificial failure mechanism is created in the Finite Element
Method (FEM) for this purpose, resulting in a limit state in which equilibrium is no longer present. For
this purpose, the characteristic shear parameters (friction angle 𝜑𝜑′ and cohesion 𝑐𝑐′) are incrementally
decreased (tan 𝜑𝜑′ and 𝑐𝑐′) under the assumption of a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (e.g. [1] and [2]).
This leads to the following equation for the safety factor SF:

tan 𝜑𝜑′k 𝑐𝑐′

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 =
tan 𝜑𝜑′red
= (1)
𝑐𝑐′red

Accordingly, the characteristic shear parameters are reduced in the same ratio. Therefore, figure 1
shows the limit state conditions for tan 𝜑𝜑′ and 𝑐𝑐′ of a soil mass in the shear diagram. After reduction of
the shear parameters, the stress state is at the new limit condition. This is done until stress redistribution
is no longer possible and an artificial failure is caused.

Figure 1. Stress redistribution due to the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction. [3]

3. Comparative calculation
The geotechnical software Plaxis 2D, 2019 is used for the following comparative calculation. Within
the software the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction is already implemented as a safety analysis. Additionally, it is possible
to use the remote scripting interface, which is based on the Python programming language. This allows
the user to run the input program via an external Python handler, to execute script files for example. In
order to study the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction in more detail, it is replicated using a Python script file and calibrated
using comparative calculations.
In the present paper’s comparative calculations, the safety factor is determined using three different
methods:
1. Theoretical safety factor assuming the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
2. Safety factor determined by the safety reduction method implemented in Plaxis.
3. Safety factor calculated using the Python script file.

For the following analysis, the slope angle is varied and the safety factor is then calculated. The soil
parameters remain unchanged.

2
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

3.1. Model information

In the following, the boundary conditions of the investigated model are presented. Figure 2 shows the
geometry of the model to be studied. For the calculations, the slope angle 𝛼𝛼s is varied from 29° to 15°.
The calculation section was chosen sufficiently large according to the advices from [2], so that external
influences can be excluded. This means that no significant stress changes or deformations occur at the
boundaries.

Figure 2. Dimensions of the investigated numerical model.

The soil considered in this study is a cohesionless soil (Material set 1). Thus, slope failure is only
dependent on the friction angle. Table 1 lists all relevant soil parameters used.
In the course of the evaluation, it became evident that the relevant sliding circles considering a
non-cohesive material tend to locally form in the area near the surface. For this reason, an additional
material set 2 (see table 1) is examined, which considers a low degree of false cohesion
(𝑐𝑐 ′ = 0.1 kN⁄m²). To illustrate this phenomenon, the decisive sliding circles for the material sets 1 and
2 for a slope angle of 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 25° are shown in figures 3 and 4.

Table 1. Used soil properties for the comparative calculations.

Name Material Unit Material set 1 Material set 2
Unsaturated unit weight 𝛾𝛾unsat kN⁄m³ 18 18
Cohesion 𝑐𝑐′ kN⁄m² 0 0.1
Friction angle 𝜑𝜑′ degrees 30 30

Figure 3. Visualisation of the failure Figure 4. Visualisation of the failure

mechanism for a slope angle 𝛼𝛼s = 25° without mechanism for a slope angle 𝛼𝛼s = 25° with
false cohesion (material set 1). false cohesion (material set 2).

3
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

In addition, the discretization of the FE-mesh influences the failure mechanism established within
the slope. [4] In order to exclude this, a very fine mesh is used for the comparative calculations (see
figure 5).
It should also be noted that all calculations are based on drained conditions.

Figure 5. Visualisation of the mesh for a slope angle 𝛼𝛼s = 25°.

3.2. Results of the comparative calculation

The results of the comparative calculation are shown in figure 6. The calculated safety factors are
plotted against the investigated slope angles.

Figure 6. Calculated safety factor with respect to the slope angle.

Comparing the different methods, the deviations between the calculation methods in relation to the
safety factor are within an acceptable range. The results using the Python script deviate from the results
using the other calculation methods by a maximum of no more than 5 %.
In addition, the results show that the Plaxis calculation without the approach of a false cohesion
(Graph 2.a) provides almost identical results to the theoretical basis (Graph 1). The deviations are below
2 %. A disadvantage here, as already noted, is that the sliding circles are only present in the area near
the surface (see figures 3 and 4).

4
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

Furthermore, it can be seen that the results using the Python script (Graph 3) deviate less from the
results of the Plaxis calculation using a false cohesion (Graph 2.b) than without the cohesion approach.
This conclusion is also confirmed by a comparison of the critical sliding circles received from different
calculations. Figure 7 shows the most critical sliding circle received out of the calculation using the
Python script regarding the case of a slope angle of 𝛼𝛼s = 25°. Compared to the results in figure 4 good
agreement is visible.

Figure 7. Visualization of the failure mechanism for a slope angle

𝛼𝛼s = 25°, calculation according to the Python script.

In the following table 2, the calculated safety factors regarding the different calculation methods are
summarized for three different slope angles.

Table 2. Safety factors for different calculation methods.

Safety Factor
Slope angle [°] Theory (1.) Plaxis (2.a) Plaxis (2.b) Python (3.)
25 1.238 1.230 1.281 1.276
20 1.586 1.567 1.607 1.677
15 2.155 2.163 2.200 2.226

4. Influence of structural elements

In this section, the behaviour of an Embedded Beam Row representing structural elements in the slope
is examined. The objective of this calculation is to find the optimal cross section of the dowel so that
the slope is calculative stable. For this purpose, the Python script from chapter 3 is extended so that the
diameter of the used Embedded Beam Row can be successively reduced.

4.1. Model information

The slope of figure 2 is enhanced with an additional Embedded Beam Row element at half slope height
(see figure 8). The soil parameters used are listed in table 3. In this case, the slope angle remains constant
at 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 30°.

5
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

Figure 8. Investigate model regarding the influence of structural

elements within the slope.

Table 3. Soil parameters used for the investigation of the influence of structural elements.
Name Material Unit Material set 3 Material set 4
Unsaturated unit weight 𝛾𝛾unsat kN⁄m³ 18 18
Cohesion 𝑐𝑐′ kN⁄m² 1 30
Friction angle 𝜑𝜑′ degrees variable 30

For these calculations, the Plaxis 2D 2020 version is used. In this new version, the Embedded Beam
Row elements are improved. [5]
The aim of this calculation is to numerically simulate a failure state in which the failure mechanism
is clearly dependent on the structural element. Therefore, a friction angle for the slope (𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 30°) is
initially determined using the Python script from section 3 such that failure occurs. In order to prevent
near-surface sliding circles, a cohesion of 𝑐𝑐′ = 1.0 kN/m² is assumed in this case. The calculation shows
that the slope fails at a friction angle of 𝜑𝜑′ = 26.7°. Furthermore, the structural element is modelled
fixed in the natural soil below the slope. For this purpose, another material set with increased cohesion
representing the natural soil (material set 4) is introduced (see table 3). This ensures that the surrounding
soil does not fail due to lateral displacement of the entire pile.
For the Embedded Beam Row, piles with a length of 𝐿𝐿 = 10 m and a circular cross section out of
steel are considered. The axial distance between the piles was determined based on the investigations of
[6], which are summarized in figure 9. Accordingly, the ratio between the axial distance and the diameter
of the pile should be at least 𝐿𝐿spacing⁄𝐷𝐷 ≥ 2. This value is kept during the successive reduction of the
diameter for the axial distance calculated from it.

Figure 9. Ratio of axial distance 𝐿𝐿spacing to diameter 𝐷𝐷 to describe

the range of application of structural elements in 2D and 3D. [6]

The following table 4 lists the material parameters for the investigated Embedded Beam Row. It
should be noted that the material is modelled as steel using an elasto-plastic formulation so that plastic
failure can occur in the element. Based on this, an elastoplastic material behaviour is considered and the
plastic moment as well as the plastic normal force are calculated as a function depending on the changing
diameter.

6
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

Table 4. Parameters used for the Embedded Beam Row.

Name Material Unit Embedded Beam Row
Diameter 𝐷𝐷 m variable
Yield strength 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 kN⁄m² 235 ∙ 103
Young’s modulus 𝐸𝐸 kN⁄m² 210 ∙ 106
Pile type - - Massive circular beam
Profile area 𝐴𝐴 m² 𝜋𝜋 ∙ 𝐷𝐷²⁄4
Moment of inertia 𝐼𝐼 m4 𝜋𝜋 ∙ 𝐷𝐷4 ⁄64
Plastic moment of resistance 𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 m3 ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 ∙ |𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖 |
Plastic bending moment 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 kNm 𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
Plastic axial force 𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 kN 𝐴𝐴 ∙ 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦
Spacing 𝐿𝐿spacing m 2 ∙ 𝐷𝐷

For the calculation, as already mentioned, the diameter of the pile is successively reduced until failure
occurs. This procedure is carried out for different angles of friction. As already stated in the comparative
calculations in section 3, drained conditions are taken into account. Furthermore, a very fine element
distribution comparable to the study in section 3 is used (see figure 10).

Figure 10. Visualisation of the mesh for a slope angle 𝛼𝛼s = 30° including an Embedded
Beam Row as structural element supporting the slope.

4.2. Results of the calculation

The calculation results have shown that for certain friction angles (26.7° > 𝜑𝜑′ > 24.1°) slope failure
depends on the diameter of the structural element. Accordingly, the optimum situation can be determined
by successively reducing the pile diameter. For illustration, figure 11 shows the determined pile diameter
in the case of failure as a function of the investigated friction angles of the soil.

7
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

Figure 11. Calculated critical diameter of the Embedded Beam Row in case
of failure in relation to the friction angle of the soil.

Furthermore, figures 12 to 14 show the calculation results for the case that the internal friction angle
′
is reduced to 𝜑𝜑𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 25.0°. The calculated minimum pile diameter of the structural element in this case
is 𝐷𝐷 = 0.0504 m.
Figure 12 illustrates the deformation of the structural element and indicates that a joint is formed in
the upper part of the element. This causes the pile to buckle and fail due to the lateral load of the sliding
slope.
In figure 13 the incremental shear strains within the slope in the case of failure are depicted to indicate
the failure mechanism. The location of the joint within the Embedded Beam Row corresponds to the
location where the sliding circle cuts the structural element.
The resulting moment in the pile is shown in figure 14.
The maximum moment is formed at the joint and exceeds the plastic moment of the Embedded Beam
Row (𝑀𝑀max = 8,978 kNm > 𝑀𝑀pl,Rd = 5,014 kNm).

Figure 12. Visualization of the deformed mesh Figure 13. Visualization of the failure
(scaled up 50 times, 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 30°, 𝜑𝜑′ = 25.0°, 𝐷𝐷 = mechanism (𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 30°, 𝜑𝜑′ = 25.0°,
0.0504 m). 𝐷𝐷 = 0.0504 m).

8
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

Figure 14. Visualization of the bending Figure 15. Visualization of the failure
moments in the structural element (𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 30°, mechanism (𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 30°, 𝜑𝜑′ = 23.9°,
𝜑𝜑′ = 25.0°, 𝐷𝐷 = 0.0504 m). 𝐷𝐷 = 0.1188 m).

Further reduction of the friction angle (𝜑𝜑 ′ < 24,1°) has no significant influence on the structural
elements, as the soil above the element fails before failure of the structural element occurs. Illustrating
this, figure 15 shows the incremental strains in the slope for a friction angle of 𝜑𝜑′ = 23.9°. It can be
observed that the critical sliding circle lies above the structural element. From this, it can be concluded
that in the case of higher friction angles of the soil the Embedded Beam Row element is decisive for
failure. The part of the slope above the structural element is decisive for slope stability if the friction
angle lies below a critical value.

5. Outlook
This study demonstrates that an automated strength reduction calculation to find a failure mechanism
using an adaptable Python script is possible. The method implemented using the Python script is verified
with acceptable results. This automated script was enhanced to find the critical diameter of an Embedded
Beam Row element in a slope. Therefore, the resulting task is to reconcile these two methods and to
determine a common safety factor.
Moreover, the studies so far have been carried out using relatively simple pile geometry. Due to this,
the future aim is to be able to apply the methods presented in this paper on more complex cases, for
example a double T-beam. In addition, it is the aim to be able to include further components in future
calculations, such as an anchor layer.
These thoughts can only be realised if the studies are transferred to more complex geotechnical
constructions such as a single back-anchored construction pit for example. This extends the challenge
for future studies. Beside the existing task to find a uniform safety factor, it is the aim to calibrate and
compare the calculation results with models in-situ.
This results in a further research aspect, that has to be dealt with in future. At present, numerous
analytical design verifications are required for a single back-anchored excavation pit, all of which are
subject to different partial safety factors. In Germany the analyses of the individual components are
carried out according to procedure 2 (GEO-2). In order to use FEM for the design of geotechnical
structures, it is intended to determine a safety factor that is in line with the current concept of partial
factors of safety. [7], [8], [9]

6. Summary
In the context of this paper, three different calculation methods for the determination of a safety factor
regarding slope stability are examined and compared with each other within the scope of a comparative
calculation. The safety factor is determined for different slope angles using identical soil parameters.
This allows it to obtain direct information about the safety factor for different angles of repose. The
results show that the successive reduction of the friction angle can be implemented in a Python script to
obtain comparable results to the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction implemented in Plaxis.

9
14th Baltic Sea Region Geotechnical Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 727 (2021) 012021 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/727/1/012021

Subsequently, the knowledge gained is used to investigate the influence of structural elements within
a slope. For this purpose, the Python script has been extended, such that it allows to successively reduce
the diameter of an Embedded Beam Row element analogous to the 𝜑𝜑 - 𝑐𝑐 reduction. The critical pile
diameters determined in this way have been investigated for different friction angles of the soil. It is
shown that there is a certain area where the structural element is decisive for the total failure of the slope.
This failure process is characterized by exceedance of the plastic moment of resistance, such that a joint
is formed in the element and it buckles.
Using the results of the calculations presented in this paper, the aim is to determine a safety factor
that can take into account simple structural elements in the area of slopes in the context of a numerical
strength reduction.

References
[1] Brinkgreve R B J and Bakker H L 1991 Proceedings of the international conference on computer
methods and advances in geomechanics 1117–22.
[2] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V. (Ed.) 2014 Empfehlungen des Arbeitskreises Numerik
in der Geotechnik. EANG (Berlin: Ernst).
[3] Höfle R 2013 Verformungen und Ortsbruststandsicherheit bei Tunnelvortrieben in gering
durchlässigen Böden. Zugl.: München, Techn. Univ., Diss., 2012 (München: Lehrstuhl und
Prüfamt für Grundbau Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik).
[4] Tschuchnigg F, Schweiger H F and Sloan S W 2015 Computers and Geotechnics 70 169–77.
[5] Brinkgreve R B J, Zampich L M and Manoj N R 2019 PLAXIS 2D Connect Edition V20 manuals.
[6] Sluis J 2012 Validation of Embedded Pile Row in PLAXIS 2D. Master Thesis (Delft).
[7] Heibaum M and Herten M 2007 Bautechnik 84 627–35.
[8] Hettler A and Schanz T 2008 Bautechnik 85 603–15.
[9] von Wolffersdoff P-A and Henke S 2016 Tagungsband zur 34. Baugrundtagung, Bielefeld.

10