MARATTO

article · AI in Civil Engineering

Research on slope stability assessment methods: a comparative analysis of limit equilibrium, finite element, and analytical approaches for road embankment stabilization

202512 citationsOpen accessUniversity of Ngaoundéré

Abstract

Abstract In this study, a comprehensive assessment of slope failure risk in man-made slopes was conducted, focusing specifically on the embankments in the excavated regions along the Tibati-Sengbe road in the Adamawa region of Cameroon. The primary objective of this study was to analyze the stability of these slopes and determine the safety factors that should be considered in their stabilization. To achieve this goal, a field survey was conducted to identify and characterize the areas at risk. The stability assessment was performed employing sophisticated numerical methods, including the Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) utilizing the Bishop Method, the Finite Element Method (FEM) through the Plaxis Method, and the Analytical Method (AM) based on Taylor's Abacus. Ten slopes with homogeneous soil composition but varying geotechnical and geometric properties were selected as the objects for simulations, which were performed using the software packages ROCSCIENCE (Phase 2) for LEM and PLAXIS for FEM. The results indicated a high degree of consistency between the FEM and LEM methodologies, with an R2 correlation approaching 1 in their comparison. Nonetheless, the AM yielded conflicting results in 60% of cases, emphasizing the fundamental significance of numerical methods in evaluating slope stability. The findings of this study discredit the effectiveness of analytical methods in determining safety factor calculations and highlight the accuracy and reliability of the FEM and LEM techniques given their consistent results.

Research topics

  • Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis
  • Landslides and related hazards
  • Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1007/s43503-024-00046-2

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.