‘Downloaded from ascelibrary org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 05/19/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only, ‘Technical Note Slope-Stability Assessments Using Finite-Element Limit-Analysis Methods °: and A. V. Lyamin* ‘Abstract: This paper uilizes finite-element limit-analysis methods o investigate the ability of slopes of various properties and in nature. Specifically. slope witha soft (weak material) band, a posiquake slope, and rock slopes were investigated. The conventional Mohr-Coullomb failure erterion and the Hoek-Brown failure criterion are utilized for soil and rock slopes, respectively. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion can ‘be applied direcly in the finite-element limit-analysis methods without the need for conversion to the equivalent Mohs-Coulomb parameters. ‘The applicability ofthe numerical limit-analysis methods in both soll und rock slopes is clearly demonstrated. Its als significant vo note that the results presented inthis paper have two distinct solutions: the uppet- and lower bound solutions. In addition, dhe failure mechanisms of the slopes are also shown. Prior assumptions ofthe failure mechanisms are no required for these finite-element limit-analysis methods, therefore providing a more realistic understanding of slope failures. DOL: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000715. © 2016 American Socieay of Civil Engineers Author keywords: Limit equilibrium methods; Back-analysis; Rock slope; Factor of safety; Landslides. Introduction ‘Slope faitures are undesirable, and investigations of various types ‘of slopes have been performed to provent slope failures. Slope: Stability analyses are usually presented in the form of safety factors of limit loads. Many methods have been developed to investigate slope stability, including the conventional limit-equilibeium method (LEM) (Bishop 1955; Janbu et al. 1956; Moggenstera and Price 1965; Spencer 1967), FEM (Matsui and San 1992; Grifiths and Lane 1999; Manzari and Nour 2008; Zheng etal. 2005), and the limit-analysis method (Michalowski 199; Donald and Chen 1997; (Chen etl. 2003; Viratjandr and Michalowski 2006). ‘Sometimes, the physical properties of the slope and/or che strength parameters cannot be measured accurately in practice: therefore, investigations are often carried out to determine or back: calculate the soil strength parameters of failed slopes (Duncan and ‘Wright 2005). Traditionally, the LEM and the FEM ae also used 10 Dback-analyze slope failures. In fact, some FEM-based analyses can also provide better understanding of the soil behavior and move- ‘ment during fallure (Potts etal. 1997; Troncone 2005). Hence, encouraged by the need to better understand slope stabik ity, advancement in this field has seen many new methods being, developed, such as the finite-clement Timitanalysis methods *Poxigraiate Student, School of Engineering, Deakin Univ. Pigdons Ra, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia (coresponding author). E-mail: ‘wt @ dean ca “Lecture, School of Engineering, Deakin Univ. Viewria 3217, Ausra. E-mail 1i@deakin eda °Posirajuate Student, School of Engineering, Deakin Univ, Viewria 3217, Australia. E-mail: akse@deakin eda “Professor, Cente foe Gootechnical and Materials Modeling. Uni of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia E-mail: andre yaming® eweatl cde ‘Not. This mansripe was submited on July 25, 2015; approved on April 7 2016: published online on May 17, 2016. Discusion period open ‘aml October 17, 2016; separate discussions mst he sbmited for in vidual papers. This technical note is part of the Fatermational Journal of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641. easce 60160171 developed by Lyamin and Sloan (20028, b) and Krabbenbot etal (2005). Infact, Sloan (2013) highlighted that the methods are appli cable (0 many geotechnical problems, including slope-stability ‘problems, Therefore, itis valuable to verity and demonstrate the use (of the numerical limit-analysis methods. This paper adopts the nu ‘merical limit-analysis methods to investigate thee types of slopes (1) a slope witha soft (weak soil) band, (2) a postquake slope, and @)rock slopes. Previous Studies Back-analyses of slope failures have commonly been performed to determine the sheae strength of the soil that may have eaused the failures. For example, Jiang and Yamagami (2006) utilized Janbu’s simplified method GJanbu 1973) to back-calculate the strength parameters using both circular and aoncircular slip surfa- ‘ces by matching the actual failure surface to the predicted one. Additionally, Seed et al. (1990), Bid et al, (2000), and Zhou and (Cheng (2014) also performed LEM-based back-analysis on slope failures. ‘Apart from the LEM, the FEM has also boon utilized in slope stability analyses (Matsui and San 1992; Griffiths and Lane 1999: Cheng et al. 2007). Regarding back-analysis, Troncone (2005), Chai and Carter (2009), Tang etal. (2009), and Chai et al. 2013) are some of the researchers who used a numerical analysis to inves- tigate slope failures. In fact, the strain-softening behavior of soil and progressive failure of the slopes can be studied comprehen sively using the numerical modeling. ‘As mentioned previously, the limit-analysis method has also been utilized to investigate slope-sabity problems (Michalowski 1995, 2002; Donald and Chen 1997; Chen eta, 2003, 2008). In par- ticular, some of the studies also included the consideration of pore ‘water “pressure and seismic three-dimensional (3D) effects (Michalowski 1989, 2010). However, although improvements have bbeen made, the majority of limit analysis-based studies are based fn the upper-hound method, which is not conservative. In addition, the conventional limitanalysis method still requires the failure ‘mechanism tobe predefined Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017Apart from the soil-hased slope-stbility problems discussed carlier, rock slope stability is also a common problem, and thus many studies have been performed (Sonmez. and Ulusay 1999: “Hoek and Marinos 2007; Tsiambaos and Saroglou 2010; Bozzano tal, 2012). Additionally, many criteria have been proposed to est- mate the strength of rock masses (Yudbbir et al, 1983: Sheorey etal. 1989; Yu etal. 2002). Merifield etal (2006) indicated that one ‘of the most prominent rock failure erteria that have been developed and applied for closely jointed rock isthe Hoek-Browa failure ente rion (Hock etal. 2002). However, its application in slope-stability ‘analyses is fairly Timited because most of the current geotechnical cengincering. programs are sill writen in terms of the Mohr: ‘Coulomb failure eriterion (Li etal. 2008). Recently, the finite-clement upper- and lower-bound limit-anal- ysis methods (Lyamin and Sloan 2002, b; Krabhenhoft eta. 2005) were developed. An assumption of a potential failure mechanism is not required using these techniques. Although various investigators have utilized the methods in slope-staility analyses (Yu etal 1998; Li et al. 2010; Lim et al. 2015), the methods have yet to be Widely adopted in slope designs. Furthermore, the Hoek Brown failure criterion can be ideally assigned inthe numerical upper- and Tower-hound limit-analysis methods (Sutcliffe et al. 2004; Mertield etal. 2006; Li etal 2009), Therefor, this criterion was adopted in this study to analyze rock slope problems. Additionally, the studies bby Hoek et al. (2002), Liet al. 2011), and Qian etal. 2013) showed thatthe magnitude ofthe disturbance factor (D) found in the Hoek: ‘Brown failure criterion (Hoek et al. 200) can significantly influ cence rock slope-stability evaluations. Therefore, back-calculations fof D are also performed for the rock slopes investigated in this study. Problem Definition ‘The finite-clement imitanalysis methods (Lyamia and Sloan 20022, b; Krablbenhoft etal. 2005) contain two distinct solutions: ‘the upper bound, which is based on the kinematically admissible ve. locity field, and the lower bound, which is based on the statically admissible stress field Fig. shows an example of the mesh config: uration of simple slope with the corresponding boundary condi- tions forthe upper-and lower-bound limit-analysis methods. ‘The geometries and boundaries ofthe slopes investigate in this study are constructed according to the original studies. Additionally itis important to ensure thatthe boundarics provided are large enough to prevent the failure mechanisms from being restricted in anyway. ‘The upper- and lower-bound meshes are automatically remeshed 10 hetier capture the failure mechanisms as well as produce more Zucv-0 wl Fig. 1. Mesh configuration and boundary condition: (a) upper bounds (b) lower ound easce 06016017-2 accurate results (Lyamin etal. 2005). This can be seen in Fig. 1, where the meshes are more concentrated in the region ofthe failure ‘mechanism, {is important to note thatthe optimized solutions of the upper and lower-bound limit analyses are obtained with respect tothe unit ‘weight. Hence, tis study utilizes the strength-reduction process for- ‘mulated by Sloan (2013) to obtain the results in the form of safety factors for some of the cases investigated. The strength-reduction method (SRM) allows F to be determined through am iterative pro- cedure using Ea. (1). By definition, Fis obtained when m = 1. This ‘SRM to determine Fis used inthe sol section ofthis study Yat Ym 2 m 7 » where m= gravity multiplier; yan and y= limit loads obtained from the upper- and lower-bound simulations, respectively; and y inthe denominator = actual unit weight ofthe case study In this study, the Mohr-Coufomb failure erterion was adopted for the soil slope investigations, whereas the Hock-Brown failure criterion was utilized for the rock slope analyses. Based on the study bby Hock et al. (2002), the latest version of the Hoek -Brown failure criterion can be expressed as aodra(ntinl —— @ es in) 5 my = m exe (ap o en 1 (,-csyis_-2/8) ® ‘The previous equations show that the parameters my s, and a are dependent on the geological strength index (GSI). The GSI the parameter that defines the quality of rock masses, Further information on how to determine its value and the other parame- {ers within the Hoek-Brown failure evterion can be found in Hoek and Brown (1997), Marinos and Hoek (2000), and Hoek et al. (2002). Therefore, these issues are not discussed in this paper. ‘The parameter D found in the aforementioned equations is a dis- turbance factor that ranges from 0 for undisturbed in situ rock ‘masses to 1 for disturbed rock masses. Case 1: Slope with Soft (Weak) Band Fig. 2 shows the slope with a soft-band problem adapted from the study by Cheng etal. (2007). Inthe original case study, two differ- tnt slope stability methods, the limit-equilibrium method and the FEMLbased SRM, were utilized to investigate the problem. It was ‘demonstrated that the failure surfaces of the problem produced by those two methods agree well with each other. In this paper, the finite-clement limit-analysis methods are adopted to investigate the applicability of the numerical limit-analysis methods in this situation (slope with soft band. Fig. und Table 1 show the slope geometry and properties ofthe soil, respectively. It should be noted thatthe Soil 2 has a thickness Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017‘Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 05/19/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only, ans aus nso ie Te ett ed ard Fig. 2. Scheme ofthe slope with a soft band (Case 1) [adapted from Comput. Geotech Vol. 343), Cheng etal pp. 137-150, Copyright 2007, with permission from Elsevier} Soil Properties of Corresponding Region Soil Cohesion Friction Unitweight Elasticmodulus Poisson Fig. 3. Failure mechanisms of Case 1 (weak soft band): upper-bound plastic zones (band) and Cheng et al. (2007) (Note: ight solid ine = ¢M; dark dished line= LEM) atble 2. Results for Domain of 2,20, and 28 m Difference between Domain Upperound —Lowerbourd —lowertound and region (kPa) amzle(°)—(kNim') (MPa) ratio’ ondary) result (Nim) resle(kN/m")__upperhound (6) Sol 18 rm 0 | 6D 142 137 35 Sol? 08 0 ™ 03 142 ns 5 Soil} 1035 io 4 es Mai 136 35 of just 05 m, with c= 0 and a relatively small 6. Cheng etal (2007) further mentioned that conditions similar to this sor o fail: ure (controlled by the soft band) have actually occurred in Hong, Kong (Fei Tsui Road slope failure). Fig. 3 shows the failure mechanisms obtained from slopes with a soft band. Additionally, the upper- and lower-bound limit loads obtained for this slope (28-m domain width) can be observed in Table 2. Further discussion on the limit loads and the influence of domain widths can be found in the following section. Different Boundary Domains Discussion ‘The numerical upper-bound method (plastic zones) as well as those from the LEM and SRM by Cheng et al. (2007). It ean be ‘observed that the failure surfaces from the three different methods are very similar. The failures occur along the soft hand at the steepest part of the slope. Therefore, this finding shows that the finite-element Timitanalysis methods are suitable for dealing With stability problems of slopes witha soft band. Additionally, the upper- and lower-bound limit loads obtained for this slope (28-m domain width) can be observed in Table 2. Further discus- sion on the limit loads and the influence of domain widths ean be found inthe following section, To consider the boundary effect as shown by Cheng et al (2007), who used the SRM, domains of 12, 20, and 28 m were investigated. Table 2 shows the obtained limit loads of each do- main. The differences observed in the limit loads (upper and lower solutions) une bracketed to within 5% or better. The results also show that the numerical limitanalysis methods are not influenced by the domain's sizes. Infact, the obtained upper-and lower-bound results—with respect to the limit load—are lower than the in. itu {actual) unit weight. This implies that the slope is unstable, Thus, the strength-reduction process described by Sloan (2013) was used here to obtain the factor of safety (instead of applied load). A brief description ofthe process can be found in the "Problem Definition” easce 06016017. Table 3. Factor of Safety Comparison Domain Factor of safety boundary (m)_Thisstudy Phase SRM (2) Pl ay LEM 2 086 ons 0a2m94 0927 20 O47. 06 0.88097 2 osi.at 0.86097 SRM = Nonassociate flow rule; SRM2 = associated low re section. Table 3 compares the factor of safety obtained from this study with those from the SRM and the LEM presented by Cheng et al. 2007). From Table 3, the factor of safety from this study is found to be in between those from the SRM and the LEM. The results obtained using SRM 2 (associated flow rule) are slightly greater than those from SRM 1 (aonassociated flow rule). Infact, ‘most of the results obtained from SRM 2 are also greater than those ‘obtained by this study Weak Bottom Layer In addition to the slope with a sof-band problem, Cheng et al (2007) aso investigated the slope in which Soils 2 and 3 were inter changed. The numerical limitanalysis methods were once again adopted to investigate this slope problem. Fig. shows the failure ‘mechanisms from the different methodologies. The failure surfaces ‘obiined by Cheng et al. (2007) are represented by solid and dashed lines for the SRM and the LEM, respectively. It can be observed that the failure surfaces obtained for this soil profile are deeper than those of the soft-band problem. However, the most significant ob- servation here is that all three methods produce different failure surfaces, The upper-bound plastic zones are the smallest (closer to the toe of the slope), whereas the LEM produces the widest failure surface. In fact, Fig. 4 shows that the results from the SRM are Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017‘Downloaded from ascelibrary org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 05/19/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only, ‘much closer to the failure mechanism obtained in this study com. pared to the LEM-hased results. This may be because the LEM requires an assumption of the failure surfaces. In contrast to the findings obtained by Cheng etal. (2007), Fig. 4 implies that «slope with a weak hottom layer would in fact be a sensitive ease. More detailed studies are needed to obtain more accurate results and understandings of the failure Joads and mechanisms of such slopes, However, although the failure surfaces are differen, the Factors of safety (F) of 1.29, 1.33, and 1.28 obtained from the LEM, the SRM, and this study, respectively, are very similar, The aforementioned results revealed that this ease is sensitive due to the differences in the failure mechanisms predicted from the various methods. ‘Therefore, engineers should be careful when designing slopes with ‘Similar soil profiles, particularly when considering the magnitude of| the slope reinforcement. Case 2: Postquake Slope ‘An investigation ofthe postquake slope found inthe case stu pre= sented by Shou and Wang (2003) is undertaken inthis section. The cease study was hasod on the Chiufengershan landslide in the ‘Changhuken formation triggered by the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, Fig, 5 and Table 4 show the geometry and mechanical properties of the slope, respectively. Show and Wang (20003) indi ‘cated that the failure plane shown in Fig. 5 can be well defined and used the LEM-based sliding-block method to investigate the poten tial postquake slope failure, However, asthe failure plane is prede- fined, the authors ofthe present paper found it interesting to use the ‘numerical limit-analysis methods—which do not need a predefined slip surface—to analyze the problem, ‘Based on the study by Shou and Wang (2003), the peak strengths of the Changhuken shale ate 6, = 38.0" and ¢, = 4,600kPa, The sidual strength ofthe shale was measured hy a sheae test of samples of the existing weak planes, and an average residual strengths of 6-= SOkPa and ¢,’ = 30.8" were obtained. By considering weath- ring effects, the average residual strengths using L-month water bathed samples wore ¢/’ = 25 kPaand «= 27.3°. Detailed strength parameters of the Changhuken shale ae listed in Table 4. Shou and ‘Wang (2003) showed that using the residual suength after certain weathering (¢/ = 25kPa and g' = 27.3°) with dry conditions ‘would produce a factor of safety of 1.67 (LEM). ‘Based on the aforementioned information, a simulation based on the numerical limit-analysis methods was performed. The soil prop- eties adopted were ¢/ = 25KPa and ¢/) = 273° for the Changhuken shale above the potential failure plane (Fig. 5), whereas the peak strength parameters of J, = 380° and ¢y = 4,600 kPa were used for the shale below the potential failure plane. ‘The results obtained are surprisingly diferent. As mentioned previ ously the numerical Iimitanalysis method results are obtained as a function of the unit weight (7). The results from the numerical Timit-analysis methods show that the use of residual strength with ‘weathering effects produces a limit load (Tess than the actual unit ‘weight preseribed in the study by Shou and Wang (2003). In other words, the slope is deemed unsafe because the limit load is less than the actual (in situ) For further clarification, the Factor of safety was calculated using, the strength-reduetion process described by Sloan (2013). The fac: torof safety of 0.78 obtained in this study clearly indicates thatthe Table 4. Mechanical Prope of Changhuken Shale Value 38 4.600 Fig. 4 Failure mechanisms of Case 1 (weak bottom layer): upper 50 bound plastic zones (band) and Cheng etal. (2007) (Note: solid lin 213 SRM; dashed line = LEM) 25 1200 g ie g = 1000 cI 900 800, 0 200 400 600 800 Distance (m) Fig. 5. Failure mechanisms of Case 2; upper-bound plastic zones (band) and Shou and Wang (2003) (dashed line) ASCE 06016017-4 Int J. Geomech, Int J. Geomech 06016017‘Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 05/19/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only, slope should be unstable. In fact, Pi, 5 shows that the obtained fail ure surface from the upper-bound plastic zones does not follow the Potential shiding plane highlighted by Shou and Wang (2083). This, ‘would be the reason thatthe safety factors are so different. In fact, the critical failure surface is automatically generated with the nu: ‘merical Limitanalysis methods without the need of a preassumed failure surtace. In light of the difference, this study then investigated the slope using the soil residual parameters (cy = SOKPa and , = 30.8") without weathering effects, These steagth parameters were initially measured by Shou and Wang (2003) using shear tests of samples from the field. A failure surface similar to that obtained in Fig. 5 was aguin obtained here (numerical limit-analysis methods) using the residual parameters. Itcan be observed tha the failure surface is still in the midale and steepest part ofthe slope. However, the limit. Toads from the numerical limit-analysis methods are higher than ‘those previously obuained using the residual strength after certain weathering. The obtained factor of safety of F = 1.06 verifies the ‘current slope stat. Further investigations were pesformed to include earthquake cffects, In this part, the horizontal seismic coefficient (ky) was an ‘uncertain parameter and was changed gradually in each trial until | was obvained. The findings from the numerical Timit-analysis ‘methods show thatthe critical horizoatal seismic coefficients (Ky) forthe slope are 0.041 and 0.034 for upper- and lower-bound sol tions, respectively. As the F obtained for the slope without earth quake is only a mere 1.06, the results obtsined here prove that small earthquake coefficient is suliceat to cause instability in the slope. In act, the earthquake coefficient (4) in Taiwan could be up 10 0.33 (Ou 2006). Hence, based on the conservative lower bound (LB) result of 0.034 obtained here the slope is considered to pose a very high risk of collapsing, Case 3: Rock Slope Stability Slope Failure in a Closely Jointed Rock Mass in Barite Open-Pit Mine For this part ofthe present analysis, a rock slope at the Baskoyak Datite open-pit mine, in western Anatolia is investigated. A similar slope was also investigated by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999), who ‘ack-calculated the rock parameters, Because Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) used a different measurement to define the rock-mass dis- ‘urbane, this study proposes to back-calculate the disturbance f tor (D) introduced by Hock etal. (2002), ‘This slope had a mean unit weight of 222 kNim” and a uniaxial ‘compressive strength of the heavily broken pat of the schist of ‘5.2 MPa, Other important parameters ofthe slope were m,= 7 and $81 = 16 (Sonmer and Ulusay 1999; Sonmer.et al. 2003) lis im- portant to note that the chat used for evaluating the GSI was modi fied by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) using the surface condition rat ing (SCR). This chart is similar to that proposed by Hoek and Brown (1997), As indicated by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999), no sign ‘of groundwater was encountered in the previously drilled boreholes ‘ron the pit benches. Thus, the it slopes were treated as dry for sta bility assessments. With the required parameters and gcometries ofthe slope clearly ‘oulined, back-analyss was then performed to determine the appro: priate disturbance factor for this slope, Disturbance factors of D = (0,68 and 0.66 were obtained using the numerical upper~and lower: ‘bound limit-analysis methods, respectively. The obtained magni- tudes of D ate in good agreement wit the suggestion by Hoek etal (2002), where D = 0.7 is appropriate for mechanical exeavation in easce 06016017. soft rocks. Additionally, as observed from Fig. 6, the plastic zones (Gailure surface) obtained from the upper-bound method are similar to the actual slip surface (dashed line) presented by Sonmez and Utusay (1999), ‘Slope Instability in 2 Coal Mine in Western Turkey Another example of rock slope instability is shown here, The rock slope was located at the Kistakdere open-pit mine located at the ‘Soma lignite basin in wester Turkey. This ease study was per- formed by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) and Li etal. (2011). The lat- {er authors estimated the factor of safety through the use of an appropriate disturbance factor (D), whereas the former authors per- formed back-unalysis ofthe slope. The necessary data collected by ‘Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) show the geometry ofthe failed slope ‘where a single thin coal seam witha thickness of 4.5 m was overlain by a sequence of compact marl and soft-clay beds approximately 10 m thick. Furthermore, as indicated by Sonmez. and Ulusay (1999), the observation of slope surfaces and available reconts showed thatthe groundwater was below the failed marly rock mass, sand the coal seam acted as an aquifer. The marly rock with uniaxial ‘compressive suength of 40 MPa and m, = 9.00 had a carbonate con. tent more than its clay content. The observed actual slip surface was ff a circular shape. Tt passed through the compact mal rock mass and along the clay bed, above the coal seam. The three main joint sets found in the rock mass, which were moderately and closely spaced, together with the bedding planes in the marly sequence resulted in a jointed rock mass. Other parameters required For this investigation were obtained from Sonmez and Ulusay (1999), which includes a slope height of = 80m, a slope angle of 6 = 60°, and a 37. As indicated by Li et al, (2011), the approximate unit ‘weight (7) ofthe slope was 21 kNAn. ‘Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) noted thatthe method of excavation used in this ease was blasting. Hence, based on the suggestions found in Hock ef al. (2002), D should be between 0.7 and 1.0. Specifically, D= | is considered tobe suitable for production blast ing. Hence, using the aforementioned slope properties, a back-cal- culation of D was performed, The disturbance factors obtained from the numerical upper- and lower-bound limit analysis methods are 1 and 019, respectively. Therefore, these magnitudes are close to a production blasting. For back-analysis, the upper-bound result is ‘more conservative, and thus = I sould be taken into account for this case, In fact, closer look at the upper-bound plastic zones (Fig. 7) shows thatthe failure mechanism is not as extended as the one reported by Somer and Ulusay (1999), The failure mechanism in this study was found to be concentrated on the lower bench of the slope. The presented slip surface (dashed line) presented by Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) is larger and extends back and upward of the slope. As indicated by Li etal (2011), the reason for the df ference would be because the slope was strongly heterogencous ‘long itsheight. However, it should also be emphasized that the fil ture surface obtained from the original study was preassumed due to the use of the LEM, whereas the finite-element limit-analysis meth- ‘ods (used in this study do not require the presssumption ofa failure ‘mechanism. Therefore, the oblained failure mechanism from this study should e the mosteitcal on. ‘The previous (wo examples show thatthe finite-element limit analysis methods are suitable for rock slope stability analyses. In particular, the methods alow forthe direct utilization of the Hoek. [Brown failure criterion without the need for conversion to the equivalent Mohr-Coulomb parameter. As a result, the inaccuracies due to conversion can be avoided. Additionally, the finite-element Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017204 Elevation (m) 10 20 30 Distance (m) Fig. 6. Failure mechanisms of C line) ‘ase 3 (Baskoyak harte open-pit mine): upper-bound plastic zones (band) and Sonmer and Ulusay (1999) (dashed Elevation (m) so 100 150 200 Distance (m) Fig. 7. Failure mechanisms of Case 3 (Kisrakdere open-pit ine): upper-bounel paste zones (band) and Sonmez and Ulusay (1999) (lashed line) limit-anatysis methods also do not require any preassumptions, and ‘the failure surface can be located automatically Conclusion Itis well known that the LEM and the FEM have been utilized for most slope designs, whereas the finite-element upper- and lower ‘bound limit analysis methods have not been as widely applied ‘This study has elearly demonstrated the applicability of the mu merical limit analysis methods for soil and rack slopes. The results obtained in this study were compared with the results from. ‘the original studies. It was found that some of the results obtained in this study were different from the original studies in terms of the failure mechanism and safety factor. In fact, i is important to highlight thatthe results obtained using the finite-clement limit analysis methods should he more realistic than the limit equilib rium method because they do not require the failure surface to be preassumed. easce 06016017. In the case of the slope with a soft band, the original study showed that the results obtained from the FEM were highly sensi tive, However, this was not the case using the numerical limitanaly- sis methods, because the presence of the soft bund has no effect on the results obtained. In contrast, diffrent failure mechanisms (using the different methods) were oblained for the ease with a weak bo tom layer. This implies that the case with a weak bottom layee would in act he a sensitive ane. However, the factors of safety obtained by the different methods were in good agreement with each other. In this study, it was also found that the failure mechanisms ‘obtained using the numerical limit-analysis methods and the LEM. ‘may be significantly different. This is because the use ofthe LEM. requires an assumption on the failure surface, whereas the numer cal limit-analysis methods allow the failure surface to be automat cally located. Moreover, it was found thatthe residual strength with ‘out weathering should be more realistic in representing the ia situ CChanghuken shale strength. Adcitionally, it was also shown that earthquake offeets can be investigated using the numerical limit ‘analysis methods, The results from this study showed thatthe slope Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017‘Copyright ASCE. For personal use: ‘Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 05/1 is close to the erteal state, Because the critical values (0.041 and (0.034 for upper- and lower-bound methods) are much lower than the required ky (0.33). In addition, this study has aso verified the applicability of the finite-element Timit-analysis methods and Hock-Brown non: linear failure erterion in rock slope-sability assessments. Back- calculations of disturbance factors (D) were performed in this study. The disturbance factors (D) obtained in this study showed ood agreement with those suggested by Hoek et al. (2002). ‘This implics that the suggested value of D by Hoek etal. (2002) is quite reasonable, and therefore can be applied to design with more confidence. References Bishop, A.W. (1955). "The use ofthe slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes" Géotechnique, (1), 7-17 Bozzao, K, Martino, S, Moatagna, A. and Presiningi, A. (2012). "Back ‘analysis of arock anislide to infer rheological parameter.” Bua, Geol, 131.45 56 (Chai, J.and Carer, J.P. (2008), “Simulation ofthe prosressive falar of| an embankment on sft soi.” Comput. Geoteh. 3646). 1024-1038 Chai J Igaya, Hino, and Caner, J (2013). “Finite element simula tion ofan embankment on soft clay — Case tay.” Compu Geotech, 480), 117-126, (Chen, J, Yin, J. Hand Lee, C.F (2003). “Up hound tint analysis slope sbi using ssid init elements and nonlinear programming. Can. Geotech 414044), 742-752. (Chen, J. Yin, J Hand Lee, C.F. Q004). "Rigid finite clement metho for ‘upper bound lit analysis of sil slaps subjected to poe water pres sure” J Bing. Mech, 10:10614ASCEQ739-9595(2008) 130.8886), 886-893, (Cheng, YM, Lansivaura, and Wei, W.B. (2007). “Two-dimensional ‘slope stability analysis by limit equiva and sength rsction meth 08" Compu. Geotech, 3463), 137-150. Donald, B. and Chen, Z (1997). “Slope stability analysis by the upper ‘bound approach: Fundamentals and methods.” Can. Genel. 13416), 853-862, Duncan, J. ML, and Weigh, S-G. (2005). Soil srengih and slope stbiiy, Wiley, Hoboken, Ni IH. Stark, TD. Evans, W. D., and Sherr. P.E, (200), "Municipal Solid waste slope flue. I: Waste and foundation soil properties.” J Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 10-1061KASCE1090-0241(2000)126: 5(397), 397-407, Gets, D. and Lane, P. (1999). “Slope stability analysis by finite ele ments.” Géoxechnigue 49(3).387 403, Hook, Ean Browa, E. T. (1997), "Practical estimates of rock mas. sient" Jat. J Rock Mech. Min, 34(8), 1165-1186, ‘oek,E., Carranza. Tore, €., and Corkum, B. 2002}. “Hook Brown fl ‘ure eritrion 2002 edition.” Proc, NARMS Tac, Univ. of Toront, Ontario, Canada, 267-273, Hook, End Marino, P-(2007)."A bre history of the development ofthe Hock: Brown fire eterion.” Soils Rocks, 2, 1-8 Janbu, N.(1973). Slope stability computations, Joba Wiley and Sons, New York, Janbu, N,Bjerum, Land Kjacrsi B. (1956). Soil mechanic applied 10 some enginccring problems, Publication 16, Norwegian Gcotcchnical Institute, Oslo, Norway. Slang, J.C. and Yamagami (2006). “Chan for estimating strength pa ‘ameter fom slips in homogeneous slopes. Cowput Georecl, 3316), 204-304, Krabonhoft. K. Lyamin, A. V.. Haj. Mand Sloan, 8. W. 2005). “A ‘new discontinuous upper bound limit analysis formulation” nt ‘Numer. Methods Eng, 637), 1069-1088, LAI. Lyamin, A.V. and Menifcld, RS, (2000). "Seismic rock slope stability charts based on limit analysis methods” Comput. Geotec, 36(1) 135-148 5 easce 6016017-7 Li, A.J. Motifed, R.S.. and Lyamin, A.V. (2008). "Stability chars for rock slopes based on the Hock Brown failure enterion.” Int. J. Rock Mech Min, 4545)-689-700. Li, AJ, Motifeld, R.S., and Lyamin, A.V. (2010). “Three dimensional stablty chars for slopes hassd on limit analysis methods.” Can Geotech 1,41 12), 1316-1334, 1i,A.., Metiield, RS, and Lyamia, A.V. 2011), “Effet of rock mass disturbance onthe ability of rock topes using the Hoek- Brown failure eriteron "Comput Geach, 384), 546 558. Lim, Ki, AJ, and Lyamin, A. (2013), “Thvee-dimeasional slope stabi- ity asessment of two-layered undrained clay.” Comput. Geviech, 7, ray. ‘Lyumin, A.V. and Sloan.S. W. (20023), “Lower bound limit analysis using ontiear” programming.” Jn. J. Numer. Methods Ene.. S53). 573 6. {Lyamin, A. Vand Sloan S. W. (20026). “Upper bound limit analysis using near finite clements and omlincar programming.” at. J.Numer Ana Methods Geomech. 26(2), 181-216, Lyamin, A. V., Slo, S.W., Krabbenhalt, K., and Hi, M- 2005). ‘Lower bound limit analysis with adaptive emeshing.” Ta. J. Nae. Methods ug. 63(14), 1961-1975, Manzari M.T. and Nout, M.A. (2000) “Significance of soi distaney in slope stability analysis” J. Geoteeh. Geoenviron. Eng. 1010610 (ASCE) 1050-0241(2000)126:1(15) 75-80. “Marinos, P. and Hoek, E. (2000), "GSI: A geologically finaly tool for rock mass strength estimation.” Prov, Geobg2000 Conf, Technomic PublishingCo, Lancaster, PA, 1422-1442. ‘Matsui, and San, KC. (1992) “Finite clement slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction technique” Soils Found. ami, AV, and Sloan, SW. (2006) solutions forthe bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised oock-Browneriteron:" nz J. Rock Mech, Min, 436), 920 937. Michalowski, R. L. (1989), “Three dimesional analysis of loeally loaded slopes." Géotechnique, 39(1).27-38, Michalowski, RL. (1995), “Slope stability analysis: @ kinematical approach." Géoecinigue, 48(2). 283-293, Michalowski, Re L. (2002), “Stability charts for uniform slopes” J Geotech. Geoenviron, Eg, 1.1061(ASCE)1000-0241(2002)128: 4051), 451-355, ‘Michalowski RL. (2010). “Limit analysisand stability chats for 3D slope Talla” 1. Geowech. Geoensivon Eng., 10-1061(ASCENGT.1943 6146, 0000251, 83.593 “Morgenstern, N. snd Prise, VE (1963). “The analysis ofthe stability of sencral sip surfaces" Goteeimique, 1(1), 79-93. Ou, C. ¥. (2006), Deep excavation: Theory and practice, Taylor and ancis, London. Poss, D.M. Kovacevic, N. and Vaughan, P.R. (1997). "Delayed cllapse of cu slopesin tif clay.” Gaotehnique, 815) 953-982, Qian, ZG. Kong, V., Li, A, and Lyamin, A. (2013). “Comparisons ‘of seismic rack slope stability assesoments bewoen the Hoek Brown and Mobi-Coulomb flue cfteria” Proc, 2ad Ausivalasian Conf (nthe Mechanics of Sructres and Materials, CRC Press, London, 16, Seed, RB. Mitchell J. Kad See, HB. (191). "Ketieman hills waste Tanda slope failure. IE Stability analyses.” J. Geotech Eng. 10.1061/ (ASCEIOT33-9410(1990)116:46659), 669-690. Shoorey,P. Biswas, A and Choubey, V. (1989). "An empirical failure criterion for rocks and jointed rack masses.” Eng. Geol. 262), 1159 Shou, K..,um Wang, C.F. (2000, “Analysis of the Chiengershan Land- slide wiggered by the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan.” Eng. Geo, (6813-4),237 250, Sloan, 8. W. (2013). “Geotechnical subiliy analysis” Géovcinigue, 630), 531-572. Sonmez, H., Gokceogia, C, and Ulusay, R. 2003). “An application of fuzzy ststo the geological strength index (GSN system used in rock en gineering.” Eng. Appl Arif Intell, LOC), 251-269. Sonmez, Hl and Ulusay, R. (1999). “Modifications to the geological wena index (GSI) ad thei applicability 1 stability of slopes.” Iz. J Rock Mech, Mia, 346). 743.760 Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017‘Copyright ASCE. For personal use: ‘Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 05/1 Spencer (1967) “A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming paralle inter lice frees.” Géotechnique, ITC), 11-26 ‘Sueliffe, D., Yu, Hand Sloan, S. (200, “Lower bound soltions forbear Ing epaciy of joined rock" Compu. Geotec..311).23-36. ‘Tang. C.L,ctal.(2008). “The Tsaoling landslide triggered bythe Chi-Chi ‘corte, Taiwan: Insights fromm a disretc clement smlation.” Ens Geol 106). 1-19. “Troncone, A. (2005). "Numerical analysis ofa landslide in sils with strain- softening behaviour." Géotechnique, S5(8),585-596, ‘Tsambaos, G., and Surogiou, H_ 2010), “Exeavatbiliy asessment of ‘ock masses using the geological strength index (GSI)." Bull. ng. Geol Enviro, 69(1). 13-27. ‘Vieajande, C., and Michalowski, RL. (2006). “Limit analysis of sub- ‘merged slopes subjected to water drawdown.” Can. Geoech. J 48). 802-814. easce 06016017. ‘Yu, HH, Salgado, R, Sloan, S, W.-and Kim, J (1998). "Limit analysis ver- ‘su iit ogiibeium for slope stably." J. Gentech. Genenvion. Er 10.10644ASCE)10900241(1998)124:10), 1-1 ‘Yu, M. Hl, Zan, ¥. Wes Zhao, J, and Yoshimine, M. (2002). “A unified ‘strength citron for rock meri.” Jat J. Rock Mech, Min, 3918), 975-989, Yuhir ¥., Lemanza, W., and Pring, P. (1983). An empirical fare v- tenian fr rock masses 5h at. Soceny for Rook Mechanics Congress, Inicrational Society for Rock Mechanics Lisbon, Portus Zheng, H, Li, D. and Li, C. 2005). “Slope stability analysis based on lantorplstic finite element method.” Ja. J. Numer. Methods Eg, 64(14), 1871-1888. Zhou, X. and Cheng, H. (2014). “Stability analysis of dace dimensional seismic landslides using the Figorous limit equiibeium metho.” Eng. Geol, 174, 87-102. Int J. Geomac, Int J. Geomech 06016017