Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

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

October 15-17th, 2015


Grand Inna Kuta, Bali, Indonesia

SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION USING LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM


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

Keywords: embankment, landslide, slope stability, FEM, LEM

INTRODUCTION analytical methods, investigative tools and


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*

Tabel 5. Soil data used in the study


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

ased on the results of the above summary, it RESULT AND DISCUSSION


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

Figure 4. The results of dcomparative analysis of


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

Table 7. Differences principle of analysis on each Limit Equilibrium method.


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

Based on the above results, from 6 methods


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.

Figure 5. Difference Safety factor value percentage


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

TEMPORARY CONCLUTION REFERENCES


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