00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

0 Ansichten8 Seitenslop

Jan 27, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

0 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

METHOD (LEM) AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (FEM) FOR

INDONESIA SOFT SOIL

Putu Tantri K.S.,Yudhi Lastiasih

1,2

Civil Engineering department, Institute Technology of Sepuluh Nopember.

(E-mail: tantrigeoteknik@gmail.com ; yudhi.lastiasih@gmail.com )

Landslide of the embankments often occur in the region where has a diverse topography contours, one of

them in Indonesia. The instability of slope can triggered a variety of problems that need to be investigated further.

The stability of slopes recently is a major concern in the field of Geotechnical engineering especially in areas that

have diverse topography. There are two methods commonly used in the analysis of the stability of embankments.

The limit equilibrium method (LEM) is widely used by researchers and engineers conducting slope stability analysis.

Slope stability analysis using the finite element method (FEM) also has been widely accepted in the literature for

many years. Each of these methods also has differences in the results of the Safety Factor. Several previous studies

on the comparison of the difference in value of Safety Factor of the two methods have been done. The results

obtained from the comparison of LEM and FEM methods are still very varied according to the location of a review

of each research that have not shown definitive results and in accordance with the soil conditions in Indonesia.This

study aims to analyze the stability of embankments to perform comparisons on various conditions that have varied

contour of embankments and various types of soil in accordance with the most soil type in Indonesia by using the

LEM and FEM. Limit equilibrium method is done by comparing the previously developed methods: Ordinary /

Fellenius, simplified Bishop method, Janbu simplified method, Spencer Method, Morgenstern-Prince method,

Lowe-Karafiath Method. Both LEM and FEM analysis are performed using computer program. Comparison of the

results of the Safety factor of the methods mentioned above will then be compared again with the real landslide case

on the field. Expected outcomes of this research are: a) Obtain tolerance Safety Factor difference value with the

above methods on various conditions of sliding, b) Obtain the method that are suitable with the conditions of sliding

Indonesia is a country that is passed by a stabilization measures (Abrahamson et al.2002).

series of active volcanoes and is one of the countries According to the Nash (1987), a quantitative

through which by the Earth's plates that continue to assessment of the safety factor is important when

move every year. Similarly of other countries that decisions are made. The primary aim of slope

have many mountains, Indonesia has large variation stability analysis is to contribute to safe and

is its topographic contour. Varied topography economic design of excavation, embankment and

contours of the natural conditions make Indonesia earth dam (Chowdhury (1978)).

become more beautiful. But behind the beauty of Landslides are common among some of the

nature there is also a one of the dangers caused by the region is certainly very dangerous to people who live

difference in elevation contours in a region. A hazard in areas prone to landslides. Similarly, the slope

which may common in the natural slope is slope failure may interrupt the established imperative

instability which may cause sliding. services like traffic movement, drinking water supply,

Instability related issues in engineered as power production and similar infrastructures. In

well as natural slopes are common challenges to both addition, the sliding that occurs at the cliffs that have

researchers and professionals. In construction areas, built the main roads may result in rupture of the

instability may result due to rainfall, increase in economy system in a particular area due to the main

groundwater table and change in stress conditions. road buried by the landslide.

Similarly, natural slopes that have been stable for Besides the landslide on natural

many years may suddenly fail due to geometry, embankments, landslide also occurred in the artificial

external forces and loss of shear strength (Abramson embankments / road embankment. The sliding course

et all.2002). The combination of intense rainfalls, can cause serious damage to the surrounding

steep topography and soil condition are critical population. With the number of occurrences of

(Thielen et al.2005). landslides in Indonesia, it is necessary to conduct

The engineering solutions to slope further research on the stability of the embankments

instability problems require good understanding of with the approach according to the soil conditions

B4.5-1

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

and topography in the area of Indonesia. In this way, record from Soil and Rock Mechanics Laboratory,

the main motivation of stability analyses is to save Department of Civil Engineering ITS, Surabaya. In

human lives, reduce property damages and provide addition, this research will also be obtained

continuous services. Therefore, the most suitable and percentage range of different values for the safety

reliable stability analysis methods have great scope factor with the possibility of sliding slope and soil

and thus, they are increasingly demanding. The data variation slope conditions in the field.

chosen method should be able to identify the existing The scope of this study is slope stability evaluation

safety conditions and suggest for technically feasible using Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) and Finite

and economically viable solution Element Method (FEM) is expected to address such

Further research on the analysis of the cause instability problems. The aim of this study has been

of the landslide is lately developed. The studies to fulfill the main objective: to compare the most

conducted to obtain the appropriate methods and common LEM. Moreover, the most accurate LEM

obtaining analytical and mathematical formulation of have been selected for comparison with the more

the embankment stability in accordance with the advanced Finete Element Method. Within this

sliding conditions that often occur. That developed framework, the study has focused on the following

method is Limit Element Method (LEM) such us topics:

Ordinary method, Bishop's Method, Janbu's method, Comparison and evaluation of slope stability

Morgenstern-Price method, Spencer's and many using two methods: LEM and FEM

more; and Finite element method (FEM) that take Evaluation to the long term condition of slope

into account the relationship between stress-strain Investigation the shear strength and other

and deformation in soil. relevant parameters for stability analysis.

Some researchers have performed a

comparison against the possibility of sliding in slope LITERATUR REVIEW

topography in different soil conditions with a variety Embankment stability analysis is generally performed

of methods. Comparison of methods performed to by determining the safety factor of embankments

find which method is better suited to the actual which will be reviewed. Safety factor is defined as

conditions of sliding. Hongjun and Longtan (2011) the ratio of the average shear strength of the soil ( f)

states that the LEM method is more appropriate to with an average shear stress working along the plane

use to analyze landslide. Wright, Kulhawy and of the landslide ( d) (Equation 1). Soil shear strength

Duncan (1973) obtained that LEM method is consists of two components, namely cohesion and

considered more appropriate to the conditions of the shear as shown in Equation 1.

actual landslide that occurred in the field. (1)

Wright et al, Spencer (1967 & 1973) and

Duncan (1996) indicates that the average value of the . (2)

safety factor (SF) on some of the methods developed

by LEM has a tolerance of difference of ± 6% .Aryal, Limit equilibrium method (LEM)

Knutsson, Kirkebo (2006) states that the percentage Limit equilibrium method is one method to

difference SF value generated by each method determine the safety factor of a natural slope and

depends on the condition of subgrade embankments embankment. Unlike the Finite Element method, this

and pore water pressure. Research results show that method does not consider the stress-strain

the method produces a value of SF using method of relationship and deformation in soil. The principles

FEM is 5-14% larger than the method of LEM. The of sliding analysis with this method are:

value difference is caused by differences in soil

characteristics and pore water level. Aryal et al a. A cinematically feasible sliding surface is

(2006) also comparing many methods based on the assumed to define the mechanism of failure.

LEM are then compared with the FEM method b. Available shearing strength along the assumed

before verified with field conditions. slip surface is obtained by using the application

Several studies of slope stability analysis of static principles. Two applied static principle

have been done to show the results of the comparison are the assumption of plastic behavior for soil

are still variations on each of the investigators and mass and validity of Mohr-coulumb failure

have not shown definitive results. In addition, the criterion.

research that has been done previously is in c. The comparison of available shear strength and

accordance with the soil data of each region of required shear resistance to bring the equilibrium

researcher’s origin that largely not come from into limiting condition is made in term of FOS.

tropical regions enabling the difference in results

with the soil conditions in the region of Indonesia d. The satisfying value of FOS is determined

The main objective on this study is to obtain through an iterative process.

a method of slope stability calculations in accordance This method is very widely used by experts to

with the conditions of the land sliding in Indonesia. analyze geotechnical landslide. LEM has developed

Analysis will be performed by using a variation of since the early 20s century. Petterson (1915) present

the characteristics of the land acquired on soil data an analysis of the stability of embankments Stigberg

B4.5-2

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

Quay in Gotherberg, Sweden where the field is strain relationship and deformation. The basic

analyzed landslides which circle arc-shaped field of concept of this formulation is to reduce the value of

landslides mass calculation is done by the method of the shear stress (c) and shear angles in the ground to

vertical slices. Then the methods of calculation by obtain a safety factor value. Both of these parameters

using the method of slices continue to be developed will be reduced to the land mass in the body of

by several researchers, namely: Fellenius (1936), natural slope and embankment undergo landslide.

Janbu (1954) and Bishop (1955). The development of

computer calculations by auxiliary program began in ∑ (3)

the 1960s. The help of the computer program makes Where Msf = reduction factor of calculation;

the development of mathematical formulas become tan input and cinput = soil parameters in accordance

better. Some researchers are beginning to develop a

by the original conditions; tan reduced and

mathematical formula with aid a computer program is

creduced= reduction parameters during the

Morgenstern and Prince (1965) and Spencer (1967).

calculation process.

To the present, a lot of slope stability calculation

The total value of ΣMsf used in determining

methods by using LEM are already growing. In

the value of stress parameters of the soil in the

general, the whole concepts have an equal

analysis calculations performed. In the entire process

formulation. The differences that exist in some

of calculation of slope stability analysis, the total

formula which has evolved is the basis of static

value of the safety factor is obtained using the

formulas used in the analysis; the formula for

formula:

determining stress between the slices and

assumptions used in finding the relationship between ∑ (4)

shear stress and normal stress on each slice of field

landslides. The difference between the various

methods that have developed can be seen in Table 1 METHODS AND DATA ANALYSES

and Table 2. This study is divided into three stages, that is:

Tabel 1.The differences of each method based on the a. Soil testing data collection of soil and rock

use of static formula Mechanics Laboratory Department of Civil

Engineering, especially on the soil located on

Method Moment Force the slopes area.

Equilibrium equilibrium b. Embankments stability with variation analysis

Ordinary or Yes No of data obtained from a point using the methods

Fellenius described in the previous.

Bishop’s Yes No c. Comparing the results of the analysis with the

simplified sliding conditions on the field.

Janbu’s Simplified No Yes

Spencer Yes Yes Slope stability analysis performed on one

Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes type of embankment height that is 7 meters with a

slope of 1: 1. Soil data used is soil data taken from

Lowe-Karafiath No Yes

several locations in the city of Surabaya. The data

was taken from the Soil and Rock Mechanics

Tabel 2. The differences of each method based on the Laboratory Department of Civil engineering-FTSP

characteristics and relationships between stress in ITS. Testing ground data and sampling data in the

each field landslides slices field is also carried out as verification.

Method Interslice Interslice Ground data analysis was conducted to

Normal Shear obtain an illustration of soft soil profile, depth of soft

Ordinary or No No soil and soil types. The data is used to simulate the

Fellenius possibility of sliding of Slope both natural slopes and

Bishop’s Yes No Embankment. Soil data analyzed were more than 26

simplified data points N-SPT and bor-log data. Soil data

Janbu’s Simplified Yes No analysis was conducted to determine the type of soil

Spencer Yes Yes and soil consistency. 26 data points are scattered in

Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes Surabaya and surrounding area. The recapitulation of

Lowe-Karafiath Yes Yes soil data in the form of data N-SPT at each depth can

be seen in Figure 1.

Finite Element Method (FEM) Based on the results of soil data at several

locations in East Java showed that the soil has the

Finite element method is one method to obtain the different consistency and types. Correlation of soil

value of SF to analyze slope stability by considering consistency of the data N-SPT is in accordance with

the stress-strain relationship in the soil and ground Ardhana and Mochtar (2012) as can be seen in Table

deformation. The concept of calculation by this 3 for the type of cohesive soil and Table 4 for non-

method is to use numerical analysis to obtain a stress- cohesive soil types.

B4.5-3

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

Figure 1. Soil Consistency in the city of Surabaya and surrounding areas based on the

results of the N-SPT.

Tabel 3. Soil consistency for cohesive soil (Silt and Clay) by Mochtar (2012)

Soil consistency Cohesion Un-Drained N-SPT qc from Conus

Very soft 0-12.5 (Kpa) 0-1.25 (ton/m2) 0-2.5 0-10 kg/cm2 0-1000 kPa

Soft 12.5-25(Kpa) 1.25-2.5 (ton/m2) 2.5-5 10-20 kg/cm2 1000-2000 kPa

Medium stiff 25-50 (Kpa) 2.5-5 (ton/m2) 5-10 20-40 kg/cm2 2000-4000 kPa

Stiff 50-100 (Kpa) 5-10 (ton/m2) 10-20 40-75 kg/cm2 4000-7500 kPa

Very stiff 100-200 (Kpa) 10-20 (ton/m2) 20-40 75-150 kg/cm2 7500-15000 kPa

Hard >200 (Kpa) >20 (ton/m2) >40 >150 kg/cm2 >15000 kPa

Tabel 4. Soil consistency for non-cohesive soil (Gravel and sand) by Teng (1962)

Soil consistency Relative N-SPT Volume weight

density (sat (ton/m3))

very loose 0 % s/d 15 % 0 s/d 4 0 s/d 28 < 1.60

loose 15 % s/d 35 % 4 s/d 10 28 s/d 30 1.50 – 2.0

medium 35% s/d 65 % 10 s/d 30 30 s/d 36 1.75 – 2.10

dense 65% s/d 85 % 30 s/d 50 36 s/d 41 1.75 – 2.25

very dense 85% s/d 100 % > 50 41*

Soil Layer Soil type 1 Soil type 2 Soil type 3 Soil type 4 Soil type 5 Soil type 6

(Cu (Kpa);=0) (Cu (Kpa); =0) (Cu (Kpa); =0) (Cu (Kpa); =0) (Cu (Kpa); =10) (Cu (Kpa); =25)

Layer 1 10 12.5 15 25 12.5 Phi=25

Layer 2 12.5 15 17.5 27.5 15 Phi=25

Layer 3 15 17.5 20 30 17.5 Phi=25

Layer 4 17.5 20 22.5 32.5 20 Phi=25

Layer 5 20 22.5 25 35 22.5 Phi=25

Layer 6 22.5 25 27.5 37.5 25 Phi=25

Layer 7 25 27.5 30 40 27.5 Cu=35

Layer 8 27.5 30 32.5 42.5 30 Cu=35

Layer 9 30 32.5 35 45 32.5 Cu=35

Layer 10 32.5 35 37.5 47.5 35 Cu=35

Layer 11 35 37.5 40 50 37.5 Cu=50

Layer 12 37.5 40 42.5 52.5 40 Cu=50

Layer 13 40 42.5 45 55 42.5 Cu=50

Layer 14 42.5 45 47.5 57.5 45 Cu=50

Layer 15 45 47.5 50 60 47.5 Cu=50

B4.5-4

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

can be seen that most of the region have dominance Landslide of slope analysis in this study will

type of clay and some have the type of soil, mostly be divided into several sub-analysis : a) Analysis of

clay but there is a layer of sand at some depth. With a Safety Factor comparison value for each method with

wide variety of soil data existing, then in this study a variety of data used; b) Analysis comparison of the

will be used data that was considered sufficient to volume of sliding area; c) Analysis comparation of

represent the whole of the ground data. Soil data used the activating moment; d) Analysis comparison of the

in this study are presented in Table 5 and the value of the activating force.

information layer of soil can be seen in Figure 2. Results for Limit equilibrium methods

analysis on each type of soil have a similar pattern. In

the comparative analysis shows that the value of

Safety Factor generated by Janbu method is relatively

smaller compared to other methods. While the result

of using the method of Lowe -Karafiath shows that

the relative value is greater than using other methods.

The analysis results can be seen in Figure 4a. Chart

patterns are relatively similar in other types of clay.

Results comparing other values can be seen in Figure

4b, 4c and 4d. Summary results of the analysis

Figure 2. Soil layers used in the analysis parameters for different types of land landslide can

be seen in Table 6.

By using several variations of that

mentioned above, it is then analyzed the stability of

Embankments and landslide analysis. Analysis is

done by using the auxiliary program that supports the

Limit equilibrium methods and Finite Element

method. From each soil data then conducted dozens

of experiments landslide so that each method will

produce 20 value safety factors, 20 areas of

landslides, 20 of activating moment and 20 of

activating force. So, each variation of soil data will a

be obtained approximately 120 sliding value of the

safety factor to be analyzed. So from 6 types of soil

data were used, obtained 720 safety factor values.

The chart analysis in this study can be seen in Figure

3.

b

The slope stability result by using

Limit equilibrium method will

compare with the result using

landslide on the slope parameter with the type of clay.

a) Comparison of Safety Factor; b) Comparison of

Volume of Sliding; c) Comparison of Activating

moment; d) Comparison values Activating force

Figure 3. Research flowchart

B4.5-5

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

Table 6. Summary of the analysis result of various types of soil landslide by using limit equilibrium method.

Natural slope (Dominant Clay) Road embankment Natural slope (Sandy Clay Type)

Safety Factor Analysis Safety Factor Analysis Safety Factor Analysis

1. The minimum SF : Janbu 1. SF values are relatively different 1. The minimum SF : Janbu

Method 2. The minimum SF : Janbu Method method

2. The maximum SF : Lowe- 3. The maximum SF : Lowe- 2. The maximum SF : Lowe-

Karafiath Method Karafiath Method Karafiath method

3. Other methods have the same 4. The medium SF : Bishop method 3. The medium SF : Ordinary

value of SF method

Volume of sliding Volume of sliding Volume of sliding

1. The maximum sliding area : 1. The maximum sliding area : 1. The maximum sliding area :

Lowe-Karafiath method Lowe-Karafiath method Lowe-Karafiath method

2. Other methods have the same 2. Other methods have the same 2. Other methods have the same

value of volume of sliding. value of volume of sliding. value of volume of sliding.

Activating moment Activating moment Activating moment

All moment equilibrium method All moment equilibrium method All moment equilibrium method

(Ordinary, Bishop, Morgenstern- (Ordinary, Bishop, Morgenstern- (Ordinary, Bishop, Morgenstern-

price, Spencer, GLE) have the same price, Spencer, GLE) have the same price, Spencer, GLE) have the same

value of Activating moment value of Activating moment value of Activating moment

Activating force Activating force Activating force

1. The maximum activating force : 1. The maximum activating force : 1. The maximum activating force :

Janbu method Janbu method Janbu method

2. Mostly Lowe-Karafiath method 2. Mostly Lowe-Karafiath method 2. Mostly Lowe-Karafiath method

have minimum value of have minimum value of have minimum value of

activating force activating force activating force

Bishop’s simplified Janbu’s simplified Spencer method Morgenstern-price Lowe-Karafiath

method method method method

1. Considers normal 1. Consider normal 1. Consider both 1. Consider both 1. Consider both

interslice force interslice forces, shear and normal shear and normal interslice shear

2. Satisfies over all but ignores interslice forces interslice forces and normal force

moment interslice shear 2. Satisfies both 2. Satisfies both 2. Satisfies overall

equilibrium forces. moment and moment and force horizontal force

method 2. Satisfies over all force equilibrium equilibrium equilibrium, but

horizontal force 3. Assumes a 3. Allows for a not moment

equilibrium, but constant variety of user- equilibrium

not over all interslice force selected interslice 3. Uses interslice

moment function force function force function

equilibrium. related to the

ground surface

slope and slip

surface inclination

Based on the landslide analysis mentioned The observation of the percentage difference in the

above can be seen that each method has a different value of safety factor at the respective limit

parameter value landslides. Differences in results equilibrium method can be seen in Figure 5 and

often occur in landslide parameter using Janbu Table 8.

methods and methods Lowe-karafiath. The difference

is caused by differences in principles of calculation

parameters of landslide on each method. The

differences are summarized in Table 7. The principle

difference is the one that causes the value of safety

factor; the value of landslide volume and value

activating force in each method are different.

In analyzing landslide, safety factor value is

the value that would be the earliest to see by

implementing the construction whether the slope is

secure against the danger of landslide or not. Thus, in

this study analyzed the value of the safety factor is to

see how large a percentage of the difference value of

the safety factor of each method.

B4.5-6

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

Tabel 8a. The percentage of Safety factor value for various clay types using Limit equilibrium method

The methods used as Clay 1 Clay 2 Clay 3 Clay 4 Clay 5

a parameter

Janbu -7.33 % - -11.11% -7.03%- -10.07% -5.93%- -9.63 -7.76%- -11.12% -9.58%

Lowe-Karafiath 4.42%-10.14% 3.7%-8.56% 2.14%-5.92% 5.45%-11.17% 3.15%-7.56%

Tabel 8b. The percentage of Safety factor value for road embankment slope (low water level) using Limit

equilibrium method

Information Ordinary Bishop Janbu MSP Spencer GLE J-K

To the minimum value 3.91 12.4 0 11.05 10.79 11.09 19.15

To the maximum value -14.51 -6.56 -17.01 -7.57 -7.69 -7.73 0

Tabel 8c. The percentage of Safety factor value for road embankment slope (high water level) using Limit

equilibrium method

Information Ordinary Bishop Janbu MSP Spencer GLE J-K

To the minimum value 1.89 18.5 4.35 11.58 13.27 12.28 12.22

To the maximum value -15.88 -7.63 -15.58 -7.5 -7.7 -7.3 -9.55

used, there are 4 SF which have the same value. In

this study, 4 SF methods that produce the same value

will be used as a comparison with the value of the

safety factor using finite element method. Still needs

to do further analysis using the method of back

analysis to determine which method is most

appropriate to conditions on the ground.

Based on the analysis by using FEM, the SF

value is greater than the LEM method. The

comparison is done for the SF value in the same field

of landslides. On soil sype 1, the value of SF

generated on FEM is 1.0887 while the value of SF

with the same landslide area using LEM method

amounted to 0.9882. Percentage difference value

between the LEM and FEM SF on soil type 1 is equal

to ± 9%. On soil type 2, a SF value generated in FEM

is 1.2174 while the value of SF with the same

landslide area on LEM method amounted to 1,099.

Percentage difference value between the LEM and

FEM SF on clay 2 is equal to ± 9%. On clay 3, a SF

value generated in FEM is 1347 while the value of

SF with the same landslide area on LEM method

amounted to 1,251. Percentage difference value

between the LEM and FEM SF on clay 3 is equal to

± 7%. Value SF on clay 3 with FEM method

produces SF nearing the SF value at LEM method.

SF value comparison results using the LEM and FEM

can be seen in Figure 6.

using methods Limit equilibrium.

Based on the analysis in the figure and table

above, it can be seen that the method produces using

Janbu the SF value is equal to 5-11% lower compared

to other methods. While the method of Lowe-

Figure 6. Percentage comparation of SF in variuos

Karafiath produce higher value SF 2-11% when

soil type using FEM and LEM

compared with other methods. This value is

generated in the natural slope. Whereas if the

embankment road, the percentage of the value of SF

is different from the natural slope.

B4.5-7

The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science and Technology (BISSTECH)

October 15-17th, 2015

Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

Aryal, K.Sandven and Nordal S (2005). Limit

Today, the two approaches of stability Equilibrium and Finite Element Methods. Proc.of the

analyses, one based on Limit Equilibrium (LE) 16th Int.Conf. on Soil Mech. And Geotech.

formulations and the other based on finite element Engineering, 16 ICSMGE, Osaka, Japan,pp.2471-76

(FE) principles are widely used in practice. The basic

physic of stress-strain relationship, which is lacking Aryal,K.and Sandven,R (2005). Risk Evaluation of a

in LE methods, has been well covered by the FE Slope and Mitigation Measures : A Case from Nepal.

method. As a result, complicated geotechnical

Landslides and Avalanches, ICFL 2005, Norway,

computations can easily be permormed. pp.31-36

Temporary conclusions obtained in this study are:

1. The value of the safety factor with LEM methods

Baba.,K, Bahi.,L,Oudif.,L, Akhssas.,A (2012), Slope

produce different values depending on the type

Stability Evaluations by Limit Equilibrium and Finite

of soil. The safety factor value differences

Element Methods Applied to a Railway in the

caused by differences in calculation principles of

Maroccan Rif., Open Journal Of Civil Engineering,

sliding. SF range of different values is ± 2-11%

March 2012, pp. 27-32

for natural slope and 3-20% for road

embankment both on condition of high and low

Das, B.M., 1998, Mekanika Tanah, Prinsip-Prinsip

water levels. A percentage of the difference in

Rekayasa Geoteknis Jilid 2, Penerbit Erlangga,

value of SF is highly dependent on the

Jakarta.

parameters of the soil layer.

2. In the analysis of LEM, the smallest value of SF

Hongjun,L and S.Longtan (2011), Three Dimentional

is not necessarily has the highest activating

moment and volume area of landslides. The Finite Element Limit Equilibrium Method for Slope

largest the activating moment is also not Stability Analysis Based on The Unique Sliding

necessarily have the smallest SF value. So we Direction. Geotechnical Special Publication, 216,

need further analysis to be conducted if pp.48-55.

constructed the slope reinforce to avoided

landslides because the value of SF is not the only Kalatehjari, R and Ali,N (2013). A review of Three-

determinant of the design of reinforcement Dimentional Slope Stability Analyses based on Limit

embankments. Equilibrium Method. EJGE 2015, pp.119-134

3. The value of SF with finite element method

produces a value greater than the limit Stability Modelling with SLOPE/W 2007 Version, an

equilibrium method. SF value difference is Engineering Methodology, March 2008. GEO-

varied ranging from 7-10% depending on the SLOPE International Ltd

type of soil. The better and stronger types of clay

soil, the smaller the percentage difference S.Y.Liu, L.T.Shao, H.J.Li (2014), Slope Stability

between the value of SF LEM and FEM Analysis using The Limit Equilibrium Method and

methods. Two Finite Element Method. Computer and

Geotechnics Journal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is supported by Hibah Penelitian

Pemula program from grant funded by PNBP Institut

Technology of Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya,

Indonesia 2015. (No. 020728.31/IT2.1/PN.08/2015).

The author wishes to express her gratitude for the

support given to this work.

B4.5-8

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.