Slope stability analysis using the shear

strength reduction method (2D & 3D)

Module VI
Objectives
 Use of FEM for slope stability analysis
 Shear Strength Reduction (SSR) method
 Advantages and disadvantages of SSR
 Examples 2D & 3D
 Effect of anisotropy on FS

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Ref. “Developments in the characterization of complex rock slope deformation and failure using numerical
modelling techniques” D. Stead, E. Eberhardt, J.S. Coggan
2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
 Total slope failure analysis

Ref. “Developments in the characterization of complex rock slope deformation and failure using numerical
modelling techniques” D. Stead, E. Eberhardt, J.S. Coggan
2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Limit Equilibrium Analysis
Pros
 Most common slope analysis method
 Extensive experience
 Relatively simple formulation (easy to understand)
 Quick analysis
 Useful for evaluating sensitivity of failure to input parameters
 Minimal material input parameters

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Limit Equilibrium Analysis
Cons
 Based on assumption soil mass can be divided into slices
 Arbitrary assumptions to ensure static determinacy
 Neglects stress-strain behavior
 Does not provide information on deformations
 Finding lowest factor of safety can be very challenging

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Overview of SSR Method
 Conventional Finite Element (FE)
analysis
 Elasto-plastic constitutive relationship
 Elastic-perfectly plastic – most
common assumption
 Produces results similar to LE

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Overview of SSR Method
 Bishop, “The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Slopes”,
Geotechnique, 1955

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Overview of SSR Method
 Geometric interpretation of strength envelope reduction

70

60

50

40
Original MC
Reduced MC
30
t
t
20

10
F

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Overview of SSR Method
 Reduction of Mohr-Coulomb (MC) shear strength envelope
 Original MC equation

t  c' ' tan 

 Reduced (factored) MC equation

c'  ' tan 

t 
F F

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Generalized Hoek-Brown Strength
 Reduction of GHB shear strength envelope
0.45

0.4 Shear envelope for

original GHB criterion
0.35

0.3

0.25
t

0.2

0.15
t
Envelope after
0.1 reduction by F

0.05 t
F
0
-0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35

n

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Overview of SSR Method
 Reduction of GHB shear strength envelope
 New parameters are calculated from fitted curve

 Can be used for other non-linear strength envelopes

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 SSR-FEM Slope Stability Analysis

Reduce strength of slope materials

in FEM model by factor

Compute FEM model

If analysis converges to solution,

reduce factor and re-compute

If solution does not converge end

calculations (slope has failed)
Factor of safety = factor initiating failure

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Stopping Criteria for SSR
 Definition of failure
 Non-convergence of solution (Zienkiewicz, 1971)
 Shear strength parameters reduced until non-convergence or numerical
instabilities occur
 Bulging of slope line (Snitbhan and Chen, 1976)
 Failure is described by horizontal displacements of slope surface
 Shear strains
 Computed shear strains used to estimate FOS

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Definition of Non-Convergence
 Non-convergence of solution within specified number of iterations
 No stress distribution satisfies failure criterion (global equilibrium)
 Rapid increase in nodal displacements

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Homogenous Slope
Homogeneous slope – Example
 24 m high, 39o slope angle

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Homogeneous slope
 FE mesh (6-noded triangular elements)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Homogeneous slope
 Factor of Safety = 1.24 (from convergence of solution)
 Spencer’s Method FS = 1.24

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Homogeneous slope
 Contours of maximum shear strain
Critical SRF: 1.24

FS (spencer)=1.24
Maximum
Shear Strain
0.00e+000
3.50e-003
7.00e-003
1.05e-002
1.40e-002
1.75e-002
2.10e-002
2.45e-002
2.80e-002
3.15e-002
3.50e-002
3.85e-002
4.20e-002
4.55e-002
4.90e-002
5.25e-002
5.60e-002
5.95e-002
6.30e-002
6.65e-002
7.00e-002

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Homogeneous slope
 Contours of total displacement with deformed mesh

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Importing LEM files from Slide
 Assumptions when importing LEM files
 Moduli set to 50000 kPa or 106 psf (soil)
 Poisson’s ratio set to 0.4
 Mohr-Coulomb tensile strength = cohesion
 Default stiffness/moduli for anchors/geotextiles
 Initial stresses hydrostatic

h
K 1
v

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Importing LEM files from Slide
 Assumptions when importing LEM files (continued)
 Perfectly plastic materials
 Pins (not rollers) for boundaries
 3000 elements
 Six noded triangles
 Uniform mesh

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Searching Example

FS (Spencer) = 1.02

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Searching Example

SRF =1.05

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Searching Example

SRF =1.05
FS (Spencer)=1.02

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Multi-Material Examples
SSR = 1.01
LE = 1.01

SSR = 1.27
LE = 1.30

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

SSR Analysis of Reinforced Slopes
 Important commonly cited advantage of SSR is ability to predict
reinforcement loads at failure
 Solution depends on how reinforcement stiffness and post-failure
strength affect factor of safety results (convergence) and failure
mechanism

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

LEM vs SSR Reinforcement Forces
 LEM reinforcement forces
 Load distribution along reinforcement is prescribed
 Magnitude of force included in LE calculations depends on location of bolt-
slip surface intersection

T1

T2

T3

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

LEM vs SSR Reinforcement Forces
 SSR reinforcement forces
 Final load distribution depends on:
 Strength parameters including post-yield behaviour of soil and
reinforcement
 Deformation characteristics (stress-strain behaviour) of soil and
reinforcement
 Applied loads

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Example A
 Slope reinforced with single end-anchored bolt

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Example A
 Model parameters
 Slope materials: isotropic with Mohr-Coulomb strength

Strength parameters Stiffness parameters

Soil Cohesion = 0 Young’s modulus = 1e6 psf (4.8e4 kPa)

o
Friction Angle = 37 Poisson’s ratio = 0.4
Support Tensile Capacity = 1e4 lbs (45 kN) Young’s modulus = 4.2e9 psf (2.0e8 kPa)
Bolt diameter = 0.75 in (1.90cm)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Example A
 SSR factor of safety, failure mechanism and reinforcement load similar to LE
results
 Single bolt allows direct comparison to LE (no stress redistribution effects)

Bishop circular
failure surface

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Example A
 Different assumptions on post-failure strength of reinforcement
 Did not affect factor of safety
 Did not affect failure mechanism

Method Factor of Safety

Bishop 1.312
SSR 1.300
(elastic-perfectly plastic)
SSR 1.300
(zero post-failure strength)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Example A
 Total displacement contours (for deformed mesh)
 Offers alternative view of failure mechanism

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Example B
 Slope reinforced with multiple geotextile layers

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Example B
 SSR factor of safety similar to LE results
 Zero post-yield assumption gives factor of safety different from LE
 Elastic-perfectly plastic post-yield assumption gives factor of safety similar to
LE

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Results

Zero Residual Strength Support Perfectly Plastic Support

Bishop circular
failure surface

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Factor of Safety

Method Factor of Safety

Spencer (circular) 1.652
Spencer (non-circular) 1.645

SSR 1.650
(elastic-perfectly plastic)
SSR 1.540
(zero post-failure strength)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Example B
 SSR results quite insensitive to degree of mesh refinement
 SSR contours of maximum shear strain show presence of two failure
mechanisms (with close factor of safety values)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 Example B
 Total displacement contours (for deformed mesh)

SRF=1.62
SRF=1.00
SRF=1.75
SRF=1.60
SRF=1.50

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Results
 ‘Complex’ distribution of loads along geotextile layers

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open-Pit Slope Example
 Open Pit Stability

Zone II
Mohr-Coulomb material
c = 0 MPa,  = 12o

Zone III
Zone I
Hoek-Brown material
Hoek-Brown material
UCS = 75 MPa
UCS = 70 MPa
m = 0.3, s = 0.00016, a = 0.5
m = 0.25, s = 0.00015, a =0.5

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open Pit Stability
 Shear strains at Strength Reduction Factor = 1.00

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open Pit Stability
 Shear strains at Strength Reduction Factor = 1.38

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open Pit Stability
 Shear strains at Strength Reduction Factor = 1.39

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open Pit Stability
 Shear strains at Strength Reduction Factor = 1.40

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open Pit Stability
 Critical Strength Reduction Factor = 1.39
Lowest failure surface
FS: 1.19

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Open Pit Stability
 Critical Strength Reduction Factor = 1.39

Failure surface form

Spencer method
FS: 1.43

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 SSR Failure Mechanism
Active wedge

Passive wedge

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Slope with Tunnels Example
 Slope with twin tunnels
 LE methods not applicable
 SSR handles
 Staged excavation sequence
 liner supports (shotcrete, concrete, etc.)
 bolt support systems (end-anchored, tie-back, etc.)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope with Tunnels

Zone I
Mohr-Coulomb material
c = 0.1 MPa,  = 35o

Zone II
Mohr-Coulomb material Zone III
c = 1 MPa,  = 20o Mohr-Coulomb material
c = 10 MPa,  = 35o

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Slope with Tunnels
 Critical Strength Reduction Factor = 3.28

Failure surface form Spencer

method
FS: 3.20

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope with Tunnels

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Slope with Tunnels
 Critical Strength Reduction Factor = 1.10

Unsupported tunnels

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope with Tunnels

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Slope with Tunnels
 Critical Strength Reduction Factor = 3.02

Supported tunnels

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope with Tunnels

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Example 15 – SEARCH EXAMPLE
 Open RS2
 Import Slide file: Example 15 Search Example for RS2 Import

Material Models in Slide – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Anisotropic Material Model in RS2
 Introduction
 Natural soils and sedimentary rocks, such as shale,
limestone and mudstone, are typically formed by deposition
and progressive consolidation during formation.
 Distinct internal structure
 Bedding planes
 Besides that, the geometric layout of networks of joints and
other types of discontinuities in a rock mass are significant
contributors to the complex behaviour of such geomaterials
 The planes of weakness are the source of the strength
anisotropy in this work :
 Bedding planes
 Joints

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Material with embedded weak planes
 Modeling the matrix material with
 Mohr-Coulomb model
 1   3    1   3  sin   2c cos   0
 Generalized Hoek-Brown model
a
  
 1   3    c   m 1  s   0
 c 

 Modeling the weak planes with

 Coulomb criterion (up to three sets)
Typical control volume of a
t   n tan   c
material with one set of weak
 Barton-Bandis criterion planes with inclination angle α
 Geosynthetic Hyperbolic criterion

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Uniaxial Compression

Properties of the matrix and Typical control volume of a

weak planes material with one set of weak
planes with inclination angle α

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Uniaxial Compression
4500
Maximum Axial Stress (kPa)

4000 Finite Element

3500 Analytical
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
α (degrees)

Typical axial strength of a material Original and deformed shape of

with one set of weak planes for biaxial samples for different
different inclination angles α inclination angles α

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Circular opening in a material with two sets of weak
planes

(a) (b)

  45  

Circular excavation in a rock

mass with two sets of
perpendicular weak planes; Contours of mean principal stress and failure
initially under hydrostatic pattern around the excavation;
pressure (a)Constitutive model with embedded weak
planes and (b) joint network
2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.
Example: Underground Opening
 Comparing Jointed Material Model with Joints Network in mining
applications.
 Material with one and two sets of joints :

Geometry of the opening in material

with one and two sets of joints :

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Underground Opening

Distribution of major principal stress;

Intact material (no joints)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Underground Opening

Distribution of major principal stress;

One set of joints oriented at α= 45°

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Underground Opening

Distribution of major principal stress;

Two sets of joints oriented at α= 45° and α= -45°

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Underground Opening

Distribution of total displacement;

One set of joints oriented at α= 45°

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Example: Underground Opening

Distribution of total displacement;

Two sets of joints oriented at α= 45° and α= -45°

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Effects of Strength Anisotropy
on the Stability of Slopes
 Introduction
 Slope Stability 2.5

Strength Reduction Factor

 Finite Element with Shear Strength 2
Reduction Method (SSR) (e.g. RS2 1.5
and RS3)
1
 Limit equilibrium approach Converged
0.5
(e.g. Slide) Failed to Converge
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
 Finite Element (SSR) Maximum Total Displacement [m]
 Jointed Material
 Joints network Typical variation of maximum
displacement versus factor of safety
in an SSR simulation

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope Stability Using SSR Simulations

Properties of the matrix and Geometry and the finite element

weak planes mesh used in SSR simulations

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope Stability Using SSR Simulations

The distribution of distortion in the domain for the cases of

no weak planes and α= 0°, 25°, 45°

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope Stability Using SSR Simulations
3.5
3
Factor of Safety 2.5
2
1.5
1
Embedded Weak Planes
0.5 Joints Network
0
0 50 100 150
Inclination Angle α (degrees)

Variation of factor of safety with the inclination

angle of weak planes

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope Stability Using SSR Simulations
α= 25° α= 0°

The slip surface from

limit equilibrium analysis

The failure pattern for the cases of α= 0° and 25°;

(+) failure along the weak planes, (x) failure in the matrix

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Slope Stability: FEM-SSR vs. Limit Equilibrium

Predicted slip surfaces from Finite Element simulations and

Limit Equilibrium analyses for the cases of
no weak planes and α= 0°

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Comparison of SSR with Limit Equilibrium
 In limit equilibrium analysis, for the
weak planes to have any effect on the
stability, they should be aligned in the
direction of slip surface.

Variation of factor of safety with the inclination

angle of weak planes

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

3D Effects on Slope Stability
Analysis using SSR
RS3 Full 3D Analysis
Objective
 3D vs. 2D shear strength reduction analysis using Finite element
method
 How important is the 3D effect
3D Effect on Slope Stability Analysis using SSR
 RS3 2.0 is able to capture full 3D effects on slope stability analysis using SSR

Find the critical slip

surface location and
shape
 3D Effect on Slope Stability Analysis using SSR
 RS3 2.0 is able to capture full 3D effects on slope stability analysis using SSR

It is logical to estimate the Find the critical slip

failure surface to be at surface location and
the nose where the two shape
surface connect
Maximum Shear Strain Contours
FS = 1.11

Two Critical Failure

Surfaces on Either
Side of the
Embankment Corner
Total Displacement Contours
FS = 1.11

Maximum
Displacement at
Embankment Corner
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.11 Slide3D Spherical Search: FS = 1.09

In Slide3D, the spherical global failure surface is similar to

the failure surface obtained in RS3 2.0
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.11 Slide3D Spherical Search: FS = 1.09

In Slide3D, the spherical global failure surface is similar to

the failure surface obtained in RS3 2.0
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.11 Slide3D Spherical Search: FS = 1.09

In Slide3D, the spherical global failure surface is similar to

the failure surface obtained in RS3 2.0
 Maximum Shear Strain Contours
FS = 1.29

Specify an SSR
Critical Slip Surface
Region
Assumed at
Embankment Corner
 Total Displacement Contours
FS = 1.29

Specify an SSR Region

Critical Slip Surface
Assumed at Embankment
Corner
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.29 Slide3D: FS = 1.33

If we analyze a region around the embankment corner,

we obtain a higher factor of safety in both programs
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.29 Slide3D: FS = 1.33

If we analyze a region around the embankment corner,

we obtain a higher factor of safety in both programs
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.29 Slide3D: FS = 1.33

If we analyze a region around the embankment corner, we obtain a higher

factor of safety in both programs
Total Displacement Contours
RS3: FS = 1.29 Slide3D: FS = 1.33

If we analyze a region around the embankment corner, we obtain a higher

factor of safety in both programs
2D Verification
FS = 0.99

FS = 1.22

Cut Sections In the 2D analysis, a slice along the nose is also not the
critical slope section
Open pit 3D slope stability
analysis
Analysis Overview
 Simplified full scale model
 Multi-stages to model pit excavation
 Gravity field stress
 3D stress and displacement analysis
Geometry

Granite

Stérile

Jointed sandstone 1

Fault material

Jointed sandstone 1
Material properties

E (MPa) v Cohesion Friction Dilation

(MPa) angle angle
(Degrees) (degrees)
Jointed Sandstone 1 9500 0.3 2 52 0

Fault materials 4400 0.25 1.4 50 0

Granite 9500 0.2 1.5 52 0

Stérile 20000 0.3

Mesh
Contours of Total Displacement
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 1
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 2
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 2.3
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 2.5
Maximum displacement vs. SSR factor

2.5
Shear strength reduction factor

1.5
Critical SSR = 2.3
1

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Maximum displacement (m)
Material properties including the Joints in Sandstone

E v Cohesion Friction Dilation

(MPa) (MPa) angle angle
(Degrees) (degrees)
Jointed 9500 0.3 2 52 0
Sandstone 1
Fault materials 4400 0.25 1.4 50 0
Granite 9500 0.2 1.5 52 0
Stérile 20000 0.3

Dip Dip Angle Cohesion Friction Dilation

Direction (Degrees) (MPa) angle angle
(Degrees) (Degrees) (degrees)
JoiSandstone 1 90 37 1.5 30 0
Contours of Total Displacement
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 1
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 1.5
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 2.1
Contours of Total Displacement: SRF = 2.25
Maximum displacement vs. SSR factor

2.5
Shear strength reduction factor

1.5
Critical SSR = 2.05
1

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Maximum displacement (m)
SSR Slope Stability Tutorial
RS3 V2 - Tutorial
 Introduction
 The model analyzes the slope stability of a soil (purple) with a weak layer (yellow) to
see the effect of geometry
 The factor of safety is affected by B/H ratios, and the turning corner

33 m B
4m
38 m H = 12 m 2m
6m H
10 m
34 m
2m
θ
16 m
Turning
Corner Angle
95 m
Introduction
 The models created in this tutorial look at the effect of B/H ratios and a turn
separately
 B/H = 2, (i.e. B = 24)
 90 degree turn

B = 24
62 m 62 m
θ = 90 deg
H = 12
Step 1: Starting the model
 Open RS3 model file “Tutorial 1 - Starting File.rs3model”
 This file has the relevant project settings and material properties
File > Save As…
 Save the project as a “Tutorial 1.rs3model” in a new folder “Tutorial 1 Completed
File”
 This new file is the one to be edited for the rest of the tutorial
Step 2: Importing the Soil Slope Profile
Geometry > Import…
 In the template folder, open “External
Boundary.dxf”, [OK]
 One new entity should appear in the
visibility pane and viewport
Step 3: Extruding the Soil Slope Profile
 Select “Entity 0” in the visibility pane
Geometry > Extrude/Sweep/Loft Tools
> Extrude
 Direction (x, y, z) = (0, 1, 0), Depth = 24
Step 4: Importing the Weak Layer Profile
Geometry > Import…
 In the template folder, open “Cutting
Planes.dxf”, [OK]
 One new entity should appear in the
visibility pane and viewport
Step 5: Extruding the Weak Layer Profile
 We want the Weak Layer to extend past the extents of
the soil slope body
 Select “Entity 0” in the visibility pane
Geometry > Extrude/Sweep/Loft Tools > Extrude
 Direction (x, y, z) = (0, 1, 0), Offset = -1, Depth = 26, [OK]
Step 6: Creating the Loading Area
 To apply a strip loading on the top of the slope, a box must be created
Geometry > 3D Primitive Geometry > Box…
 First Corner (x, y, z) = (65, -1, 41), Second Corner = (75, 25, 35)
Step 7: Finalizing the Geometry
 We need to define the first body we imported
 Geometry > Set as External
 Then create all needed bodies
Geometry > 3D Boolean > Divide all Geometry
 Select the weak layer and in the properties pane, change Applied Property =
“Weak Layer”
 The remaining three should by default be
“Soil 1”
Step 8: Adding the Strip Loading
 Select the top face defined on the box
Loading > Add Loads…
 Enter Magnitude = 50, [Apply]
Step 9: Adding Boundary Conditions
 All surfaces except the top faces are fixed
Restraints > Auto Restrain (Surface)
 The model should now look like this:
Step 10: Meshing
Mesh > Mesh Settings
 Enter Element Type = 10-Noded Tetrahedra, Mesh
Gradation = Uniform, Mesh Density = User Defined,
Element Size = 3, press [OK]
Mesh > Mesh
Step 11: Computing Results
File > Save
File > Save Compute File
Compute > Compute
 The engine should pop up and compute the results
 Once complete the window will close
Step 12: Displaying Results (Part 1)
Interpret > Refresh Results
Interpret > Contour Legend > Contour Options
 Select Custom Range, and set from 0 to 0.34, [OK]
Interpret > Show Exterior Contour
Interpret > XZ Plane, [OK]
 In the results drop downs, select Data Type = Total Displacement, SRF = 1.63 to
view the following results:
Step 12: Displaying Results (Part 2)
 Hide the exterior contour by pressing the eye in visibility pane to get the second
result image
Boundary Conditions Effect on Factor of Safety
 The model without any loads was extruded to different B/H’s

2.6

2.4

2.2

B/H = 1 B/H = 2 B/H = 4 RS3

Factor of Safety
2

FS = 2.43 FS = 1.76 FS = 1.48 1.8

RS2

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

B/H = 6 B/H = 8 B/H = 10.33 B/H Ratio

FS = 1.4 FS = 1.35 FS = 1.32

Sweeping the Profile to Create a Corner
Profile
 The typical model

 The mesh
Displaying Results
Interpret > Refresh Results
Interpret > Contour Legend > Contour Options
 Select Data Type = Total Displacement, SRF = 1.51
Effect of Turning Corner Degree on FS
Three-dimensional Effect of Turning Corner
Concave

θ = 135 deg θ = 90 deg θ = 90 deg (Curve)

FS = 1.41 FS = 1.51 FS = 1.50

θ = 180 deg
FS =1.31

Convex

2D Plane Strain θ = 225 deg θ = 270 deg

FS = 1.18 FS = 1.34 FS = 1.37
 Isosurfaces in RS3 can be utilized to
visualize the failure wedge developed
Maximum Shear Strain Isosurface from SSR analysis.

Concave

θ = 135 deg θ = 90 deg θ = 90 deg (Curve)

FS = 1.41 FS = 1.51 FS = 1.50

θ = 180 deg
FS =1.31

Convex

2D Plane Strain θ = 225 deg θ = 270 deg

FS = 1.18 FS = 1.34 FS = 1.37
Results of Turning Corner on FS
 As the turning angle deviates from no turn (90 degrees), both concave and convex,
the factor of safety increases

Concave Convex
Supports in SSR slope stability analysis
 RS3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 1 rows of piles

 Diameter of pile, D = 0.8 m

 D’ = distance from one pile centre to the next pile centre

Pile Spacing, D’

Diameter of Pile, D = 0.8 m

3D View Pile Spacing, D’ Side View

RS3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 1 rows of piles

 Factor of Safety is directly proportional to pile spacing

Pile Spacing Factor of Safety

No Piles 1.23
1D 1.59
2D 1.57
2.5D 1.55
3D 1.52
4D 1.49
6D 1.42
RS3 Total Displacement Results
 RS3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 2 rows of piles

3D View 6D For each pile row the spacing between

piles is set at 6D

Factor of Safety decreases slightly with increasing

distance between staggered pile support rows

Distance Between Factor of Safety

1D Pile Rows (Spencer Method)
Increase distance of One Row of Piles 1.42
second pile row by 1D 1D 1.52
for each model
2D 1.51
5D
3D 1.5
4D 1.5
5D 1.5
Top View Side View 8D 1.49
RS3 Total Slope Displacement Model
Influence of Piles on Slope Displacement
RS3 Embedded Length of Pile on Slope Stability
Factor of safety is directly proportional to embedded length

Embedded Length (m) Factor of Safety

No support 1.23
3D View 0 1.25
1 1.49
2 1.54
15 1.54

Embedded Length

Side View
RS3 Total Displacement Results

Pile Resistance Shown by the

increase In Displacement

Red = Highest Strain

Blue = Lowest Strain
RS3 Max Shear Strain Isosurfaces

Pile Resistance Shown by the

increase In Strain

Red = Highest Strain

Blue = Lowest Strain
 Slide3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 1 row of piles

Pile Spacing Factor of Safety

(Spencer Method)
Pile Spacing, D’ No Piles 1.23
2D 1.59
2.5D 1.55
3D 1.48
4D 1.41
6D 1.35
Diameter of Pile, D = 0.8 m

Pile Spacing, D’
3D View
Side View

Since pile models in Slide3 and RS3 are different, results are similar, but not the same.
 Slide3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 1 row of piles

 Base Shear Force Results on Critical Failure Surface - 3D effect of supports

2.5D Spacing 6D Spacing

FS=1.55 FS=1.34

Since pile models in Slide3 and RS3 are different, results are similar, but not the same.
 Slide3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 2 rows of piles

3D View For each pile row the spacing between

6D piles is set at 6D

Factor of Safety decreases slightly with increasing

distance between staggered pile support rows

Distance Between Factor of Safety

1D Pile Rows (Spencer Method)
Increase distance of One Row of Piles 1.35
second pile row by 1D 1D 1.49
for each model
2D 1.49
5D
3D 1.48
4D 1.46
5D 1.46
Top View Side View 8D 1.43

Since pile models in Slide3 and RS3 are different, results are similar, but not the same.
 Slide3 Supports for Slope Stability
Effect of pile spacing for 2 rows of piles

 Base Shear Force Results on Critical Failure Surface - 3D effect of supports

1D Distance Between Pile Rows 1D Distance Between Pile Rows

FS=1.49 FS=1.43

Since pile models in Slide3 and RS3 are different, results are similar, but not the same.
Concluding Remarks
Disadvantages of SSR Analysis

 Computational speed/time can be an issue

 Requires more material input parameters (deformation properties,
elasto-plastic stress-strain behaviour)
 Requires more numerical modelling expertise than is commonly taught
to geotechnical engineers
 Inexperience with method

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Disadvantages of SSR Analysis

 Definition of instability of solution

 Definition of convergence can be result of numerical instability (and not
physical instability)
 Sensitivity analysis is difficult

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Advantages of SSR Analysis

 Accounts for various material stress-strain behaviours

 Does not assume failure mechanism (shape or location of failure
surface)
 Provides information on deformations at working stress levels
 Reveals progress of failure (development of failure mechanism)

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

 Advantages of SSR Analysis

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

Advantages of SSR Analysis

 Able to capture slope failure driven by stresses

 Provides information on deformations, bending moments and axial
loads of support elements at failure
 Highly reliable and robust – performs well under wide range of
conditions
 Very flexible – accommodates range of inputs used in limit-equilibrium
analysis

2D SSR Analysis Using RS2 – © 2017 Rocscience Inc.

End of Module