Comparison for the Results from 2D and 3D Analysis for Slope Stability

Wen Xiang Peng; Jian Jun Mo; Yu Jun Xie

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.90-93.255

Paper Titles

Experimental Study on Shear Mechanical Characteristics of Cohesionless Granular Material
p.230

A New Estimation Method for Penetration Depth of Displacement Pile Based on a New Type Cone Penetration Test
p.234

A Monitoring Test Study on Soft Clay Treatment by Preloading with Plastic Drainage Pipe
p.245

Multifunctional Piezocone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice
p.250

Comparison for the Results from 2D and 3D Analysis for Slope Stability
p.255

Practical Calculation of Highway Foundation Settlement of the Yellow River Alluvial Plain
p.260

Experimental Comparison Study on Behavior of Combined Piles Composite Foundation
p.264

Study on Bolt Support Technology for Large-Span Rectangular Coal Roadway
p.271

An Experimental Study of Soft Rock Roadway with Anchored Support Structure Based on Nested Mechanical Analysis Model
p.277

HomeApplied Mechanics and MaterialsApplied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 90-93Comparison for the Results from 2D and 3D Analysis...

Comparison for the Results from 2D and 3D Analysis for Slope Stability

Abstract:

Slope stability analysis remains an active and important area of study for geotechnical engineers. The vast majority of slope stability analysis is performed in two dimensions. But in real practices, 3D slope results are more reasonable. Due to the remarkable increase in computational power and falling costs in recent years, meaningful 3D analysis can now be performed on a conventional desktop or laptop computer. In the present paper, a two-dimensional limit equilibrium model was established by LiZheng Slope Analysis Software. Using the FLAC3D program, a 3D plane strain model was proposed and the stability analysis was implemented, placing the results in context with 2D methods. The results show that safety factors got from the 3D plane strain model were closest to the Simplified Bishop method, and the average deviation of these two methods is 1.6%, the largest deviation is 3.2%. With the refinement of FE mesh or improvement of element type, the deviation could be smaller.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Advances in Civil Engineering, ICCET 2011

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 90-93)

Pages:

255-259

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.90-93.255

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

September 2011

Authors:

Wen Xiang Peng, Jian Jun Mo, Yu Jun Xie

Keywords:

Factor of Safety (FOS), Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM), Numerical Calculation, Slope Stability

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

References

[1] E.M. Dawson, W.H. Roth and A. Drescher. Slope Stability Analysis by Strength Reduction. Geotechnique, Vol49(1999) 835-840.

DOI: 10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.835

Google Scholar

[2] D.V. Griffiths and P.A. Lane. Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique, Vol. 49(1999) 387–403.

Google Scholar

[3] F. Cai and K.Ugai. Numerical analysis of the stability of a slope reinforced with piles. Soils Found, Vol.40(2000) 73- 84.

DOI: 10.3208/sandf.40.73

Google Scholar

[4] H. Lin, P. Cao, and F.Q. Gong. The directly searching method for potential slip surface and its influential factors based on the critical state of slope. Journal of Central South University, Vol. 16(2009) 131-135.

DOI: 10.1007/s11771-009-0022-6

Google Scholar

[5] H. Lin, P. Cao, and J.T. Li. The thickness reduction method in forecasting the critical safety roof thickness of gob area. Journal of China Coal Society, 34(2009) 53-57.

Google Scholar