DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MALAYSIA

KKKH4143 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

COMPUTER PROJECT

SEMESTER 1
SESSION 2023/2024

GROUP 15
NAME MATRIX NUMBER
AKMAL BIN ALEM A180409
AUDREY EASTERY ALBERT A181602
FARIDATUL AMIRAH BINTI YUSOF A182010
HEALARRY LODUNI @ LADUNI A180983
MUHAMMAD TSAQIF BIN MAZELAN A182781
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical engineering has a crucial role in ensuring the safety of structures in

construction projects, especially challenges related to slope stability, foundation design, or
retaining walls. Failure in designing these challenges could lead to landslides, loss of life,
property damage, etc. Therefore, software such as Plaxis and Geostudio could be used to
analyze geotechnical conditions in a case study. Generally, Plaxis is a state of art finite
element analysis software specifically for geotechnical engineering applications.
Meanwhile, GeoStudio is a comprehensive suite of software tools designed for
geotechnical modelling.

In slope stability, foundation design or retaining wall challenges, key factors such
geological composition, slope geometry, water content and seepage are one of the key
factors that influence slope stability. A comprehensive approach to slope stability analysis
involves must consider the interactions and combined effects of these factors. Plaxis or
GeoStudio, play a crucial role in simulating these complexities. For this case study
assessment, GeoStudio will be used to analyze the failure in retaining wall. Following are
the objectives of this report:

i. Clearly define and understand the specific geotechnical problem related to slope
stability, foundation design, or retaining walls.
ii. Utilize the capabilities of Plaxis or GeoStudio to conduct analyses of the identified
challenge.
iii. Formulate practical and effective strategies to address and mitigate the identified
geotechnical challenges based on the analysis.

In this report, we are going to design a natural slope by utilizing GeoStudio

software. All soil parameters and dimensions were collected from a case study. The slope
design in this project was designed based on Slope Design Guidelines from Jabatan Kerja
Raya (JKR). Based on the guideline which is JKR 21500-0011-10, all the untreated slopes
must be designed with a minimum of 2 meters of berm for width and maximum is 6 meters
berm for height with not less than 1.3 for Factor of Safety. For Cut slope, the
2.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In this case study, a cantilever retaining wall for road approach embankments is analyzed
as from observation, the approach road showed distress in the form of lateral movement,
vertical settlements, and rotations.

When the height of the wall increases, the lateral displacement of the wall also increases.
On the right east side of the structure, the maximum lateral displacement of 630mm was
observed at 1+208.7 chainage. The maximum vertical displacement measured was 508mm
at chainage 1+397.9 on the west side. The excessive lateral displacement and vertical
settlement of the embankment fill beneath the flexible pavement causes visual cracks with
more than 60mm wide on the flexible pavement of the road.

Therefore, the structure could not be opened for traffic as the structure clearly showed signs
of distress immediately after completion.

Geotechnical, Soil, and Concrete Properties

Angle of
Depth of Bulk
S. Borehole Cohesion internal
sample density
No. no. (kPa) friction
(m) (kN/m3)
(degrees)
1.5 - - 21.7
3.0 - - 23.0
1. BH-01 4.5 - - 25.0
6.0 - - 22.2
9.0 - - 22.4
1.5 14.0 20.2 19.4
3.0 - - 20.7
2. BH-02
4.5 - - 21.4
6.0 - - 20.8
9.0 - - 22.3
10.5 - - 21.7
2. BH-02
12.0 - - 22.2
13.5 - - 22.5
1.5 5.0 23.0 18.8
3.0 10.0 30.2 19.6
3. BH-03 4.5 10.0 32.0 19.6
6.0 - - 19.6
7.5 20.4
 12.0 - - 22.2
13.5 20.5
- -
15.0 21.9
16.5 - - 19.6
18.0 22.2
- -
1.5 6.0 27.0 18.4
3.0 12.0 28.90 18.9
4.5 12.0 30.30 18.9
6.0 15.0 29.00 18.9
7.5 - 32.20 19.5
4. BH-04
9.0 16.0 31.00 19.5
12.0 15.0 22.00 19.9
15.0 - - 20.9
16.5 - - 21.4
18.0 - - 21.4
1.5 4.0 23.4 18.7
3.0 7.0 30.3 19.4
4.5 12.0 31.0 20.7
6.0 - - 21.2
7.5 15.0 32.0 19.8
9.0 14.0 30.3 19.9
5. BH-05
10.5 22.0 30.3 29.9
12.0 20.0 31.0 18.9
13.5 - - 21.6
15.0 - - 20.9
18.0 - - 21.9
19.5 - - 20.9
1.5 4.0 22.3 18.9
3.0 12.0 27.3 19.6
4.5 - - 21.2
7.5 - 30.3 20.2
6. BH-06 9.0 - - 21.9
10.5 - - 19.6
13.5 - - 22.2
15.0 - - 22.2
16.5 - - 22.4
1.5 5.0 31.3 19.4
7. BH-07 3.0 - - 20.4
6.0 - - 20.9
9.0 - - 22.2
7. BH-07 10.5 - - 22.5
16.0 - - 21.4
1.5 18.0 29.3 19.9
3.0 - - 20.2
8. BH-8
4.5 - - 20.4
10.5 - - 22.2
 Table 1: Borehole log data

Depth of
sample
BH-01 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-05 BH-06 BH-08 BH-09
below
FRL (m)
2 68 24 9 26 8 11 59 37
3.5 100 76 16 13 18 55 32 45
5 30 100 38 14 36 53 51 34
6.5 100 20 65 26 38 15 42 88
8 100 100 41 29 16 100 29 100
9.5 100 44 32 17 16 26 100 100
11 100 60 100 19 11 69 69 -
12.5 - 100 61 54 100 100 100 -
14.0 - 100 48 61 48 81 100 -
15.5 - 100 100 63 81 100 100 -
17.0 - - 77 100 100 100 - -
Table 2: SPT N60 Values

Parameter Name Section 1 Section 2

Material Model Model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr- Coulomb
Type of Material
Type Drained Drained
Behavior
Unit Weight 𝛾𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡 20.03 kN/m3 21.1 kN/m3
Saturated Unit
𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 21 kN/m3 22 kN/m3
Weight
Horizontal
kx 1.0m/day 1.0m/day
Permeability
Vertical
ky 1.0m/day 1.0m/day
Permeability
Young’s Modulus Eref 15MPa 11MPa
Poisson’s Ratio v 0.3 0.3
Cohesion cref 2.0 kPa 2.0 kPa
Friction Angle 𝛷 28.4 29.75
Table 3: Properties of backfill soil

Parameter Name Section 1 Section 2

Material Model Model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr- Coulomb
Type of Material
Type Drained Drained
Behavior
Unit Weight 𝛾𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡 21.05 kN/m3 21.3 kN/m3
Saturated Unit
𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 21 kN/m3 22 kN/m3
Weight
Horizontal
kx 1.0m/day 1.0m/day
Permeability
Vertical
ky 1.0m/day 1.0m/day
Permeability
Young’s Modulus Eref 42 MPa 27MPa
Poisson’s Ratio v 0.3 0.3
Cohesion cref 2.0 kPa 2.0 kPa
Friction Angle 𝛷 28.4 29.75
Table 4: Properties of foundation soil

Parameter Value
Material Model Linear elastic
Unit weight, 𝛾𝑐 25.0 kN/m3
Elasticity modulus, Ec 40 MPa
Poisson’s ratio, v 0.15
Table 5: Concrete properties
4.0 MANUAL CALCULATION
Slope stability analysis shall be conducted to determine whether the slope is safe.
Potential slip surfaces are to be analyzed using slope analysis in terms of total driving
forces. In manual calculation, the ordinary slices method will be used to calculate the safety
of the slope. Following are the equation used to determine FoS of slope stability.

Figure: Slope stability profile

𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙

𝐹𝑜𝑆 =
𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒

∑ 𝑐 ′ 𝐿 + ∑ 𝑤 cos(𝛼) tan(𝜙)
𝐹𝑜𝑆 =
∑ 𝑤 sin(𝛼)

𝑊 = 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 × 𝛾

𝑏
𝐿=
cos (𝛼)
Breath for all slices, b = 0.9667m

Where, if the factor of safety greater than 1 is safe. Following are the data for calculating
factor of safety:

slice 𝜶 (𝐝𝐞𝐠 ) 𝜶 (𝒓𝒂𝒅)

1 65 1.134464

2 60 1.047198

3 55 0.959931

4 51 0.890118

5 48 0.837758

6 46 0.802851

7 41 0.715585

8 38 0.663225

9 35 0.610865

10 32 0.558505

11 29 0.506145

12 27 0.471239

13 24 0.418879

14 21 0.366519

15 19 0.331613
 16 16 0.279253

17 14 0.244346

18 11 0.191986

19 9 0.15708

20 7 0.122173

21 4 0.069813

22 2 0.034907

23 -1 -0.01745

24 -3 -0.05236

25 -5 -0.08727

26 -6 -0.10472

27 -10 -0.17453

28 -12 -0.20944

29 -15 -0.2618

30 -17 -0.29671
Table : Angle of slices

Area (mm2) Weight (kN/m)

Slice
Foundation Foundation Total weight
Backfill soil Backfill soil
soil soil (kN/m)

1 994915.8 - 19.92816 - 19.92816

2 2786762 - 55.81884 - 55.81884

3 4258590 - 85.29956 - 85.29956

4 5513823 - 110.4419 - 110.4419

5 6607401 - 132.3462 - 132.3462

6 7572674 - 151.6807 - 151.6807

7 8431734 - 168.8876 - 168.8876

8 9200114 - 184.2783 - 184.2783

9 9889212 - 198.0809 - 198.0809

10 10507665 - 210.4685 - 210.4685

11 11062180 - 221.5755 - 221.5755

12 11558061 - 231.508 - 231.508

13 11999562 - 240.3512 - 240.3512

14 12390129 - 248.1743 - 248.1743

15 12461873 28501.83 249.6113 0.599964 250.2113

16 11616111 269183.1 232.6707 5.666304 238.337

17 10681667 521834.2 213.9538 10.98461 224.9384

18 9747222 732038.1 195.2369 15.4094 210.6463

19 8812778 901000.9 176.5199 18.96607 195.486

20 7878333 1029659 157.803 21.67433 179.4773

21 6943889 1118707 139.0861 23.54879 162.6349

22 6385000 1168616 127.8916 24.59937 152.4909

23 6380000 1175461 127.7914 24.74346 152.5349

24 6060000 1151855 121.3818 24.24655 145.6283

25 5139444 1085098 102.9431 22.84132 125.7844

26 4205000 979025.1 84.22615 20.60848 104.8346

27 3270556 833070.4 65.50923 17.53613 83.04536

28 2336111 646438.1 46.79231 13.60752 60.39983

29 1401667 418079.2 28.07538 8.800567 36.87595

30 467222.2 146660.1 9.358461 3.087196 12.44566

Table : Calculation weight of slices

Slice Weight (kN/m) 𝒘 𝐬𝐢𝐧(𝜶) 𝒘 𝐜𝐨𝐬(𝜶) L (m)

1 19.92816 18.06105 8.422006 2.287407

2 55.81884 48.34053 27.90942 1.9334

3 85.29956 69.87331 48.92582 1.68539

4 110.4419 85.82946 69.50333 1.536102

5 132.3462 98.35243 88.55692 1.44471

6 151.6807 109.1099 105.3662 1.391619

7 168.8876 110.8003 127.4611 1.28089

8 184.2783 113.453 145.2133 1.22676

9 198.0809 113.6145 162.2584 1.180123

10 210.4685 111.5313 178.4874 1.139912

11 221.5755 107.4219 193.7943 1.10528

12 231.508 105.1024 206.2751 1.084953

13 240.3512 97.75965 219.5718 1.058185

14 248.1743 88.93771 231.6907 1.035476

15 250.2113 81.46082 236.5794 1.022402

16 238.337 65.69458 229.1042 1.005657

17 224.9384 54.41752 218.2568 0.996294

18 210.6463 40.1932 206.7761 0.984793

19 195.486 30.58075 193.0793 0.97875

20 179.4773 21.87279 178.1395 0.97396

 21 162.6349 11.34484 162.2387 0.969061

22 152.4909 5.321856 152.398 0.967289

23 152.5349 -2.6621 152.5116 0.966847

24 145.6283 -7.6216 145.4288 0.968027

25 125.7844 -10.9628 125.3057 0.970393

26 104.8346 -10.9582 104.2603 0.972025

27 83.04536 -14.4207 81.78371 0.981613

28 60.39983 -12.5578 59.07995 0.988297

29 36.87595 -9.5442 35.61943 1.000801

30 12.44566 -3.63876 11.90184 1.01087

Total 1516.708 4105.899 35.14729

Table: Calculation parameters of FoS

Example calculation (slice 1)

Figure : Slice 1 layout

 1
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎1 = × 966.667 × 2056.5845
2

𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎1 ≈ 994915.8 𝑚𝑚2

𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡1 = 20.03 × (994915.8 × 10−6 )

𝑘𝑁
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡1 = 19.92816
𝑚

𝑤 sin(𝛼) = 19.928 sin(1.134464)

𝑤 sin(𝛼) = 18.06105

𝑤 cos(𝛼) = 19.928 cos(1.134464)

𝑤 cos(𝛼) = 8.422006

0.9667
𝐿 =
cos(1.134464)

𝐿 = 2.287407 𝑚

Repeat this step for other slices.

2×35.14729+4105.899 tan(28.4𝑜 )
𝐹𝑜𝑆 =
1516.708

𝐹𝑜𝑆 = 1.51 > 1 𝑂𝐾 (𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑒)

5.0 SOFTWARE BASED SOLUTION
The report content provides a detailed analysis of the slope stability of a specific site, using the
GeoStudio 2022.1 software package. The report includes information about the project settings,
analysis type, unit system, and specific parameters related to the slope stability analysis.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the materials used in the analysis, including the
unit weight, effective cohesion, effective friction angle, and slope stability material model (Mohr-
Coulomb). The slip surface, convergence settings, solution settings, and specific coordinates and
regions involved in the analysis are also detailed in the report.

The report emphasizes the importance of convergence settings in ensuring the accuracy and
reliability of the analysis results. These settings include the number of slices, safety convergence
settings, under-relaxation criteria, and solution settings.

Overall, the report provides a thorough and detailed analysis of the slope stability of the site, using
the powerful capabilities of the GeoStudio software package. The report is a valuable resource for
engineers and geotechnical professionals, providing them with the information they need to make
informed decisions regarding the design and safety of geotechnical structures.

7.0 DISCUSSION
In this project, our group decided to design multi-layer slope stabilization instead of
retaining wall because multi-layer slope method is beneficial where it focuses on ecological health,
seamless landscape integration, and sustainability are prioritized.

In this project, the factor of safety is determined to evaluate the slope stability. Factor of
safety is a ratio between the forces that make the slope fail and those that prevent the slope from
failing. From the manual calculation, the safety factor determined is 1.51, larger than 1 proving
the slope's design is adequate.

According to the software-based solution in GeoStudio, the report delivers an in-depth

analysis of a site's slope stability, emphasizing key factors such as material properties and
convergence settings. This analysis is crucial for engineers and geotechnical professionals, aiding
in informed decision-making regarding the design and safety of structures on slopes. However, it's
essential to acknowledge that the accuracy of these findings hinges on the quality of input data and
the software model's assumptions. Therefore, this analysis should be complemented with real-
world field data and professional judgment to ensure the most reliable outcomes.

8.0 CONCLUSION