SoilWorks

VERIFICATION SUMMARY
About MIDAS

A LEADING GLOBAL Engineering Solutions Provider

Headquarters
Branch Offices
Sales Offices

Saint Petersburg
UK Russia
(London)
Lithuania
Seattle USA
(New York) Czech
Netherlands
Italy Slovenia Shenyang
China
(Beijing) Japan
Spain Greece Turkey
(Tokyo)
Algeria MIDAS IT
Shanghai (Seoul)
Egypt Chengdu
Puerto Rico
Mexico
Guangzhou KOZO KEIKAKU ENGINEERING
India Taiwan
Thailand Vietnam Philippines ITOCHU Techno-Solutions
(Mumbai)
JIP Techno Science
Venezuela Nigeria Chennai
Malaysia CREA-TEC
Colombia Port Harcourt Cybernet Systems
Singapore
Ecuador
Tanzania
Indonesia
Brazil
Bolivia

Chile

Being the largest developer of structural and geotechnical engineering software

with extensive research in leading technologies in the world,
MIDAS has garnered global recognition through its continuous passion
and devotion towards the Advancement in Civil Engineering.

a total of over 30,000 MIDAS software licenses used worldwide in over 120 countries

a global network of engineering software distribution and technical support

over 450 engineers and professionals develop and distribute engineering software

Introducing geotechnical finite element programs

a New Paradigm for

Geotechnical Engineering Solutions, all in one package

SoilWorks midas GTS Soil+

2 Dimensional geotechnical 3 Dimensional geotechnical (CTC in Japan)
analysis modules analysis modules

01 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
 About SoilWorks

SoilWorks
Geotechnical Solutions For Practical Design

Ground Slope Rock Soft Ground Foundation Seepage Dynamic

SoilWorks Geotechnical analysis software programs available today generally handle specific types of geotechnical
problems with varying degrees of limitations in functionality. SoilWorks is designed to handle any geotechnical
Concept
problems encountered in the practice of soil / rock mechanics.
SoilWorks is designed for structural engineers with a background in geotechnical engineering and geotechnical
engineers with a background in finite elements.

SoilWorks In the practice of geotechnical design, 2-dimensional analysis is a very practical approach. However, the design

Development process by and large involves repetitions of simple and complex tasks. SoilWorks has been developed to
address such time-consuming and tedious tasks to drastically improve the efficiency of the design process.
Motive Also SoilWorks has been developed to handle practically all types of geotechnical problems – Tunnels,
Slopes, Rock Soft Grounds, Foundations, Seepage and Dynamic Analysis. Each module has been implemented
to meet the needs of and comply with the design process used by the practicing engineers.

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 02

SoilWorks_Verification

Verification for Tunnel Finite Element Analysis

Theoretical Verification

[Unit Model] [Stresses in X-direction] [Comparison of Solutions]

Radius of yield zone: Salencon (1969) theoretical method

Analysis Type Static Nonlinear Analysis

Element 4-Node Quadrilateral Plain Stress Element

Boundary Left Side X-Dir. Restrained

Condition SoilWorks
Base Y-Dir. Restrained Theoretical
Value Difference (%)
Loading Initial compressive stress of 300MPa is applied to
Condition the right and top sides Radius of yield zone 1.735 1.750 0.86

Static nonlinear analysis for tunnel construction stages

Real Model Verification Ground material model: Mohr-Coulomb
No. of construction stages: 8
Crown displacement (mm)

Tunnel displacement (mm)

Construction stage Construction stage

[Real Model] [Comparison of Results]

Construction Stage Results SoilWorks FLAC PLAXIS

Crown displacement (mm) -0.590 -0.625 -0.645

Tunnel displacement (mm) 0.446 0.503 0.463

Avg. difference (%) - 9.36 6.57

03 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Verification for Tunnel Finite Element Analysis

Static nonlinear analysis for tunnel construction stages
Real Model Verification Ground material model: Mohr-Coulomb
No. of construction stages: 11

Crown displacement (mm)

Tunnel displacement (mm)

Construction stage
Construction stage

[Real Model] [Comparison of Results]

Verification Database
Difference with Difference with other program (%)
Construction Stage Results SoilWorks FLAC PLAXIS No. of cases
theory (%) FLAC PLAXIS
Crown Displacement (mm) -0.897 -0.911 -0.902
15 Theoretical 2.03 - -
Tunnel Displacement (mm) 0.311 0.304 0.307 cases
8 Real model
Difference (%) - 1.91 0.92 - 6.08 8.29
cases

Real Model Verification Lining analysis

Change in thickness: 0.3 - 0.5m, B=1m
No. of loading types: 6

[Axial force] [Shear] [Moment]

Non-prismatic Axial force Shear Moment

Program used
Section Min Max Min Max Min Max
Civil -1.01E+02 -4.41E+01 -3.32E+01 3.32E+01 -5.01E+00 3.30E+01
Selfweight
SoilWorks -1.01E+02 -4.41E+01 -3.32E+01 3.32E+01 -5.01E+00 3.30E+01
Civil -1.16E+02 -5.89E+01 -3.66E+01 3.66E+01 -6.56E+00 4.00E+01
Beam load (Vert)
SoilWorks -1.16E+02 -5.89E+01 -3.66E+01 3.66E+01 -6.56E+00 4.00E+01
Civil -6.30E+01 -3.54E+01 -2.61E+01 2.61E+01 -2.67E+01 5.30E+00
Beam load (Horiz)
SoilWorks -6.30E+01 -3.54E+01 -2.61E+01 2.61E+01 -2.67E+01 5.30E+00
Civil -2.38E+03 -2.17E+03 -7.42E+02 7.42E+02 -3.65E+02 8.57E+02
Point load (Vert)
SoilWorks -2.38E+03 -2.17E+03 -7.42E+02 7.42E+02 -3.65E+02 8.57E+02
Civil -1.51E+03 -9.46E+02 -9.62E+02 5.11E+02 -1.36E+03 5.92E+02
Point load (Horiz)
SoilWorks -1.51E+03 -9.46E+02 -9.62E+02 5.11E+02 -1.36E+03 5.92E+02
Element Civil -2.68E+02 -2.50E+02 -8.29E+01 8.29E+01 -1.51E+01 9.19E+01
temperature load SoilWorks -2.68E+02 -2.50E+02 -8.29E+01 8.29E+01 -1.51E+01 9.19E+01
Temperature Civil -1.19E+01 -5.59E+00 -1.06E+01 1.06E+01 1.79E+01 4.85E+01
gradient load SoilWorks -1.19E+01 -5.59E+00 -1.06E+01 1.06E+01 1.79E+01 4.85E+01
Difference (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 04

SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Slopes

Theoretical Verification

[Unit Model] [Calculation of Safety Factor as per Fellenius]

Height Weight W × Sin(a) Shear Length Shear ×

a
Slice ID dX(m) Length
(m) (kN/m) (degree) (kN/m) (kN/m2) (m) (kN/m)
1 0.949 1.033 1.766 65.320 1.604 1.187 2.274 2.700

2 0.949 2.533 4.329 44.523 3.036 2.338 1.332 3.114

3 1.000 3.041 5.474 30.224 2.756 3.360 1.157 3.888

4 1.000 2.991 5.383 17.558 1.624 3.825 1.049 4.012

5 1.000 2.699 4.859 5.768 0.488 3.777 1.005 3.796

6 1.000 2.199 3.959 -5.768 -0.398 3.263 1.005 3.279 [SoilWorks Safety Factor]
7 1.000 1.491 2.683 -17.558 -0.809 2.408 1.049 2.526

8 1.000 0.541 0.974 -30.224 -0.490 1.420 1.157 1.643 Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

Sum 7.810 24.959 3.1958 3.1957 0.0001

[Theoretical Values as per Fellenius] FOS=24.959/7.810 = 3.1958

Real Model Verification Verification Conditions

Bishop method
Ground water level in rainy season
Unreinforced Slope (Cut Zone) Number of slices: 30

[SoilWorks] [Slope/W] [Talren]

Factor of Safety SoilWorks Slope/W (Difference) Talren (Difference)

Dry season 1.93 1.93 (0.00) 1.93 (0.00)

Rainy season 1.05 1.05 (0.00) 1.07 (0.02)

05 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Slopes

Verification Conditions
Real Model Verification Bishop method
Ground water level in rainy season
Soil Nail Reinforced Slope Number of slices: 100
[SoilWorks] [Talren]

[Dry Season] [Rainy Season] [Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

Factor of Safety SoilWorks Talren Difference

Dry season 2.39 2.38 0.01

Rainy season 1.36 1.34 0.02

Verification Conditions
Earth Anchor Reinforced Slope Bishop method
Ground water level in rainy season
Number of slices: 100
[SoilWorks] [Talren]

[Dry Season] [Rainy Season] [Dry Season] [Rainy Season]

Factor of Safety SoilWorks Talren Difference

Dry season 3.96 3.97 0.01

Rainy season 2.42 2.39 0.03

Database of Verifications
Difference in Safety Factors with Other Programs based on the average of absolute differences for all the cases

Difference with Other Programs

Classification No. of Test Cases
Dry Season Rainy Season
Unreinforced 24 0.01 0.02

Soil Nail reinforced 14 0.02 0.02

Earth Anchor reinforced 12 0.01 0.02

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 06

SoilWorks_Verification

Finite Element Analysis Verification for Slopes

Strength Reduction Method

Overview of Analysis [Zienkiewicz, 1975]

Strength referencene line Reduced strength

reference line

Mohr circle at A

Factor of Safety (FS) & Strength Reduction Factor (SRF)

Classification Constitutive Equations Remarks

Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion assumed

Failure criterion , , : Shear stress in original ground, Cohesion, Internal friction angle
, , : Shear strength at failure, Cohesion, Internal friction angle

Cohesion & internal friction angle at failure found while increasing or

Strength reduction factor
varying strength reduction factors

FS=SRF
Factor of safety
Analysis performed until numerical non-convergence takes place

Real Model Verification

Unreinforced Slope

[SoilWorks] [FLAC] [PLAXIS]

Factor of Safety SoilWorks FLAC (Difference) PLAXIS (Difference)

Dry season 1.88 1.88 (0.00) 1.80 (0.08)

Rainy season 1.06 1.03 (0.03) 0.96 (0.10)

Reinforced Slope

[SoilWorks] [FLAC] [PLAXIS]

Factor of Safety SoilWorks FLAC (Difference) PLAXIS (Difference)

Dry season 2.06 2.07 (0.01) 2.04 (0.02)

Rainy season 1.19 1.15 (0.04) 1.07 (0.12)

07 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Foundation Module (P-y) Analysis

Unit Test Verification

Deflection(in) Moment(lbs in) Shear Force(lbs)

Depth(in)

Depth(in)

Depth(in)
Layer 1

Layer 2

Unit: lbf, in SoilWorks Group Difference (%)

Maximum displacement -1.69E-01 -1.64E-01 2.96

Maximum moment -5.95e+06 -5.97e+06 0.34

Maximum shear 3.13e+04 3.19e+04 1.92

Layer 3
Maximum ground reaction 3.37e+02 3.48e+02 3.26

Real Model Verification

Deflection(in) Moment(lbs
Moment(kNm) in) Shear
Shear Force(lbs)
Force(kN)
Depth(in)

Depth(in)

Depth(in)

Sand - 1

Sand - 2 Unit: kN, m SoilWorks Group Difference (%)

Maximum displacement 6.91E-03 6.68E-03 3.33

Sand - 3
Maximum moment -2.03e+02 -1.95e+02 3.94

Maximum shear -1.31e+02 -1.37e+02 4.58

Soft rock - 1
Maximum ground reaction 4.65e+01 4.85e+01 4.30

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 08

SoilWorks_Verification

1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft Ground

Theoretical Verification
Traffic loads

5.651m Fill embankment (above water level)

Po ΔP Total Settlement Consolidation Period
Classification
(t/m2) (t/m2) (cm) (days) U=90%

10.649m Fill embankment (below water level) Hand calculation 1.350 20.191 71.052 224

SoilWorks 1.350 20.190 71.071 224

4.0m Over-consolidated clay
Difference 0.000 0.001 - 0.019 0

Real Model Verification

SoilWorks K-embank

Check Location Time - Settlement Time - Difference

Time(day)
Settlement(cm)
Settlement(cm)

X=39.9m

Settlement difference

Max difference: 0.19cm / Max convergence error: 0.07cm

Time(day) Time(day)
Settlement(cm)
Settlement(cm)

X=79.0m

Settlement difference

Max difference: 0.57cm / Max convergence error: -0.14cm

Classification SoilWorks K-embank Difference (%)

1-D consolidation settlement (cm) 197.194 197.130 0.03
X=39.9m
2-D consolidation settlement (cm) 134.157 134.050 0.08
1-D consolidation settlement (cm) 255.801 255.940 0.05
X=79.0m
2-D consolidation settlement (cm) 129.762 129.680 0.06

09 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

1-D Consolidation Analysis Verification for Soft Ground

Drainage Verification
Properties
Proposed by Proposed equation
10.0m Fill embankment Smear Effect Well Resistance
Hansbo (1981) considered considered

20.0m Weak layer Barron (1948) unconsidered unconsidered

Yoshikuni (1979) unconsidered considered

PBD method (CTC 1.2m – 2.0m) Onoue (1988) considered considered

Time (days) Time (days) Time (days) Time (days)
Degree of consolidation (%)

Degree of consolidation (%)

Degree of consolidation (%)

Degree of consolidation (%)

Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical
Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical
Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical

[Hansbo] [Barron] [Yoshikuni] [Onoue]

U=90% Elapsed Time (days)
Classification CTC = 1.2m CTC = 1.6m CTC = 2.0m
Proposed SoilWorks Hand calc’s K-embank SoilWorks Hand calc’s K-embank SoilWorks Hand calc’s K-embank
Eq.

Hansbo 265.45 264.95 265.44 512.06 511.57 512.07 848.94 848.46 848.89

Barron 202.90 202.40 202.50 400.58 400.10 400.17 674.56 674.08 674.09

Yoshikuni 209.81 209.31 209.41 412.87 412.38 412.44 693.75 693.27 693.30

Onoue 264.48 263.98 264.48 510.25 509.77 510.21 846.06 845.58 846.00

Verification for Increase in Ground Strength

SoilWorks
S-3 S-1 Over-consolidated clay
S-4 S-2 Normally consolidated clay

Main line zone Sloped zone

Cohesion (t/m2)

Cohesion (t/m2)

Original ground 1st Banking 2nd Banking 3rd Banking Original ground 1st Banking 2nd Banking 3rd Banking
Construction stage Construction stage
[Increase in ground strength in Main line zone] [Increase in ground strength in Sloped zone]
Main Line Zone Cohesion (t/m ) 2
Sloped Zone Cohesion (t/m2)
Construction
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4
stage
SoilWorks K-embank Difference SoilWorks K-embank Difference SoilWorks K-embank Difference SoilWorks K-embank Difference

Original ground 3.350 3.350 - 3.350 3.350 - 3.800 3.800 - 3.800 3.800 -

st
1 Banking 5.184 5.200 0.016 5.081 5.110 0.029 6.304 6.300 0.004 6.052 6.050 0.002

2nd Banking 6.763 6.770 0.007 5.527 5.540 0.013 7.883 7.880 0.003 6.611 6.610 0.001

3rd Banking 7.617 7.620 0.003 5.663 5.680 0.017 8.655 8.660 0.005 6.798 6.800 0.002

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 10

SoilWorks_Verification

Verification for Seepage Finite Element Analysis

Theoretical Verification
Analysis Type 2D Plane Element (Steady Flow)

Width 2m
Analysis
Model Height 1m

Element 3-Node triangle element

Permeability
Property k = 1.0 m/day
coefficient

Water level Total water

Boundary at dam left head 1 m
[Unit Model]
Condition
Other nodes No flow

[Theoretical Solution]
Boundary Condition: AC face – constant pressure
water head (= constant)
AB face: No normal flow, qv =0
CB face: Seepage h=y [Efflux]
m3/day/m
Total Flux: Line AB: n=s & qn = qs , qv = 0 PLAXFLOW SoilWorks
Theoretical
Line CD: qx = k/2, Total fluxQx= k/2 x L Value Difference (%) Value Difference (%)
Line AC: qn = k x s/2L, Total flux Qx = k/2 x L
Line BC 0.500 0.497 0.60 0.500 0.00
Line BC: qs = k x n/2L, Total flux Qx = k/2 x L

Real Model Verification

Steady Flow Seepage Analysis

[Total Water Head] m3/day/m

[Real Model]

[Phreatic Line]

Unit: m
SoilWorks Seep/W Difference (%)
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Total water head 14.000 17.900 14.000 17.900 0.00 0.00

Pressure water head -1.768 17.845 -1.870 17.841 5.77 0.02

[Comparison of Seepage Analysis Results]

11 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Verification for Seepage Finite Element Analysis

Real Model Verification

Transient Flow Seepage Analysis - Saturated Soil

Pressure Head(m)
Height(m)
[Real Model]

Time(sec) Time(sec)
[Water Level Drop Function] [Pressure Water Head Results]

Unit: m
[Seep/W – Pressure Water Head at 14400sec] SoilWorks Seep/W Difference (%)
Min. Max. Min Max Min Max
Total water
14.970 17.190 14.970 17.190 0.00 0.00
head
Pressure
water head -5.311 17.117 -5.357 17.114 0.87 0.02

[SoilWorks – Pressure Water Head at 14400sec] [Water Head Results at Water Level Drop]

Real Model Verification

Transient Flow Seepage Analysis - Saturated Soil
Height(m)

[Real Model] Time(hr)

[Water Level Drop Function]
Permeability coefficient ratio(Kr)

Pressure Head
Permeability coefficient ratio
Pressure Head(P)

Pressure Head(P)
Rainfall(m3/hr/m2)

Time(hr) Percentage of Volume Water Content(%) Time (hr)

[Rain Intensity Function] [Unsaturated Property Function] [Pressure Water Head Results]

Unit: m
SoilWorks Soil + Difference (%)
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Total water head 0.000 0.481 0.000 0.479 0.00 0.42

Pressure water head -0.750 1.750 -0.750 1.750 0.00 0.00

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 12

SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Theoretical Verification [Plane Failure]

y t
[Unit Model] [Input Data]
Height(H) 60m
z
Slope Dip(α) 50˚

Joint Dip(β) 35˚

60m
35° Sesimic Coeff.(sc) 0.08g
a
Unit Weight(γr) 2.7 tonf/m 3

Unit Weight(γw) 1 tonf/m 3

50°
Water Percent(%) 90% * z
x
Cohesion(c) 10 tonf/m 2

Friction Angle(θ) 35˚

z Weight (W) Area (A) z X U V a x y t

14.0092 2484.39 80.1826 12.60828 505.482 79.4843 45.9908 65.6817 50.346 15.3357

[Theoretical Equation] [Factor of safety]

Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

1.0654738 1.06547 0.000

Theoretical Verification [Wedge Failure]

[Unit Model]
- -

՝͑͢ ՝ͣ
3

[Input Data]

Dip direction(J1) Dip(J1) Dip direction(J2) Dip(J2) θ ω1 ω2 p

141 45 219 45 35 67.53 67.53 37.8524

[Theoretical Equation] [Factor of safety]

Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

1 1.0061 0.0061

13 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

-JNJU
&RVJMJCSJVN
"OBMZTJT
7FSJGJDBUJPO
GPS
3PDL
4MPQFT

3FBM
.PEFM
7FSJGJDBUJPO
<1MBOF
'BJMVSF>

6OSFJOGPSDFE
4MPQF t Dry : Factor of safety with different failure plane angle
t Wet : Factor of safety with different filled of water

SoilWorks Rocplane Water Pressure

[Dry] [Wet]
Failure Water
SoilWorks Rocplane Difference SoilWorks Rocplane Difference
Plane angle Percent(%)
5 9.317 9.317 0.000 10 1.546 1.546 0.000

9 5.211 5.211 0.000 37 1.320 1.320 0.000

25 1.961 1.961 0.000 55 1.025 1.025 0.000

37 1.552 1.552 0.000 75 0.566 0.566 0.000

40 1.602 1.602 0.000 78 0.491 0.000 0.491

45 2.198 2.198 0.000 100 0.017 0.000 0.017

3FJOGPSDFE
4MPQF RockBolt Capacity : 200 tonf/m

t

SoilWorks Rocplane Water Pressure

[Dry] [Wet]
Failure Water
SoilWorks Rocplane Difference SoilWorks Rocplane Difference
plane angle Percent(%)
5 11.131 11.131 0.000 10 1.630 1.630 0.000

9 5.769 5.769 0.000 37 1.399 1.399 0.000

25 2.981 2.981 0.000 55 1.098 1.098 0.000

37 2.065 2.065 0.000 75 0.630 0.630 0.000

40 1.698 1.698 0.000 78 0.552 0.000 0.552

45 1.644 1.644 0.000 100 0.060 0.000 0.060

1PTTJCMF
UP
DBMDVMBUF
UIF
GBDUPS
PG
TBGFUZ
XJUIJO
DFSUBJO
SBOHF
PG
XBUFS
QFSDFOU


t

Differences 1PTTJCMF
UP
GJHVSF
PVU
UIF
SFJOGPSDJOH
FGGFDU
XJUIJO
DFSUBJO
SBOHF
PG
XBUFS
QFSDFOU


t

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 14

SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Real Model Verification [Wedge Failure]

Unreinforced Slope t Dry : Factor of safety with different failure plane angle
t Wet : Factor of safety with different filled of water

SoilWorks Swedge Water Pressure

[Dry] [Wet]
Failure Water
plane1 angle SoilWorks Swedge Difference SoilWorks Swedge Difference
Percent(%)
10 4.526 4.526 0.000 10 3.180 3.180 0.000

20 2.664 2.664 0.000 50 2.806 2.806 0.000

30 2.279 2.279 0.000 60 2.532 1.463 1.069

40 2.574 2.574 0.000 70 2.150 0 2.150

50 3.183 3.183 0.000 80 1.641 0 1.641

60 4.894 4.894 0.000 100 0.176 0 0.176

Reinforced Slope t RockBolt Capacity : 2000 tonf

SoilWorks Swedge Water Pressure

[Dry] [Wet]
Failure SoilWorks Swedge Difference Water SoilWorks Swedge Difference
plane1 angle Percent(%)
10 4.567 4.567 0.000 10 4.098 4.098 0.000

20 2.735 2.735 0.000 50 3.679 3.679 0.000

30 2.425 2.425 0.000 60 3.372 3.372 0.000

40 2.99 2.99 0.000 70 2.943 1.733 1.210

50 4.101 4.101 0.000 80 2.373 0 2.373

60 8.161 8.161 0.000 100 0.725 0 0.725

t

Possible to calculate the factor of safety within certain range of water percent (%)
Differences t

Possible to figure out the reinforcing effect within certain range of water percent (%)

15 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Real Model Verification [Plane Failure with Slope Berms]

Slope Angle t Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle
t Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different slope angle
50 48 45 43

[Variation of F.S. with Slope Angle]

30m

35°

50°

Classification 50 55 60 65 70

Bench(Slope Berms) 1.147 1.064 1.017 0.987 0.965

Slope Angle 1.066 1.014 0.981 0.959 0.943

Slope Angle-2 1.098 1.031 0.993 0.967 0.949

Slope Angle-5 1.170 1.066 1.014 0.981 0.959

Slope Angle-7 1.247 1.098 1.031 0.993 0.967

Failure Plane Angle t Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle
t Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different failure plane angle
[Variation of F.S. with Failure Plane Angle]

30m 55°

70°

Classification 35 40 45 50 55

Bench(Slope Berms) 0.965 0.846 0.766 0.731 0.779

Slope Angle 0.943 0.816 0.722 0.656 0.624

Slope Angle-2 0.949 0.824 0.733 0.674 0.656

Slope Angle-5 0.959 0.838 0.754 0.708 0.728

Slope Angle-7 0.967 0.849 0.771 0.740 0.805

Error of safety factor ranged from 10 to 30% depending on the size of wedge
t

Differences - Possible to estimate more accurate safety factor with modeling slope berms

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 16

SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Real Model Verification [Wedge Failure with Slope Berms]

Slope Angle t Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle
t Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different slope angle

[Variation of F.S. with Slope Angle]

Classification 50 55 60 65 70

Bench(Slope Berms) 1.618 1.446 1.331 1.247 1.181

Slope Angle 1.461 1.328 1.235 1.164 1.108

Slope Angle-2 1.533 1.375 1.269 1.191 1.129

Slope Angle-5 1.675 1.461 1.328 1.235 1.164

Slope Angle-7 1.805 1.533 1.375 1.269 1.191

Failure Plane Angle t Comparison between modeling slope berms and standard angle
t Check the effect of slope berms modeling with different failure plane angle
[Variation of F.S. with Failure Plane Angle]

Classification 45 55 65 75 80

Bench(Slope Berms) 1.181 1.160 1.229 1.486 1.801

Slope Angle 1.108 1.062 1.079 1.197 1.342

Slope Angle-2 1.129 1.091 1.123 1.280 1.470

Slope Angle-5 1.164 1.140 1.202 1.440 1.732

Slope Angle-7 1.191 1.179 1.266 1.583 1.976

Error of safety factor ranged from 10 to 30% depending on the size of wedge
t

Differences - Possible to estimate more accurate safety factor with modeling slope berms

17 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Experimental Verification [Filling Materials]

[Goodman, 1970] [Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling / SoilWorks]
7

6 6
Shear strength(kg/cm2)

Shear strength(kg/cm2)
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
Strength of filling materials
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
percent of filling = 100 f/a percent of filling = 100 f/a

[Input Data] [Equivalent Shear Strength with Filling Material,

Kim Yong Jun, et al (2006)]
Shear Strength Strength of Filling m f/a (%)

6 1.3 1 0~150%

t

m : Strength reduction coefficient according to the type of filling material

Differences t

In case that m is equal to 1, the results are coincident with the model experiment data.

Experimental Verification [Filling Materials]

[Papaligans, 1990] [Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling / SoilWorks]
1.5
1.5
Marble dust
Marble dust
Kaolinite
1.2 Kaolinite
Predicted 1.2
Stress Ratio(τ / σ)

Shear Ratio(τ / σ)

0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 50 100 150 200 250
Thickness Raito (t/a) percent of filling = 100 f/a

Filling Material Shear Strength Strength of Filling m f/a (%)

Marble dust 1.3 0.6 3 0~250%

Kaolinite 1.3 0.37 12 0~250%

t

Comparison between analysis results and experiment results

Differences t

The larger coefficient of m represents the more weak of filling material

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 18

SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Experimental Verification [Filling Materials]

[Kim Yong Jun. et al, 2006] [Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling / SoilWorks]
4.0 1
⢽ᵡ᜽
$MBZ
ᱱ☁
Õ᳑
4BOE
ᱱ☁
ᗭᖒ
3
Shear strength(kg/cm2)

3.0

Shear Ratio(τ / σ)
2.0 2

1.0 1

0.0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Thickness Ratio = 100 t/a percent of filling = 100 f/a

Filling Material Shear Strength Strength of Filling m f/a (%)

Sand ~ Silty Sand 1.3 0.7 1~1.5 0~300%

Clay 1.3 0.7 2 0~300%

Comparison between analysis results and experiment results

t


Differences The larger coefficient of m represents the more weak of filling material
t

Real Model Verification [Plane Failure]

[Unit Model] [Input Data]
Cohesion of
Slope Dip(α) 50˚
Filling Material(c) 2 tonf/m2

Joint Dip(β) Friction Angle of

35˚ Filling Material(θ)
5˚

Unit Weight(γr) 2.5 tonf/m3 Type of Filling Sand~Clay

Material
Cohesion of
Joint(c) 5 tonf/m2 m 1~1.5
Friction Angle
of Joint(θ) 25˚ f/a (%) 0~300%

[Variation of Shear Strength with Percent of Filling] [Variation of F.S. with Percent of Filling] [Output Data]

N N
Shear Strength 7.68 tonf/m2
N N
Strength of Filling 2.51 tonf/m2
Factor of Safety
Shear strength

percent filled(%) percent filled(%)

Perform stability analysis according to the shear strength of filling material

t

Differences and percent of filling

19 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Theoretical Verification [Shear Force]

[Unit Model]
ⰻ
[Input Data]
ⰻ Height(H) 20m Cohesion(c) 3 tonf/m2

Slope Dip(α) 50˚ Friction Angle(θ) 25˚

ⰻ
Joint Dip(β) 35˚ Tensile Force 20 tonf/m
2
Unit Weight(γr) 2.5 tonf/m Shear Force 10 tonf/m

Theoretical Equation
Weight(W) Area(A) θ
[ Tensile Only ]
294.524 34.8698 15

[Input Data]

[ Tensile & Shear ] Type Theoretical SoilWorks Difference

6VLQlj Tensile Force 1.38083 1.38082 0.000
6FRVlj Tensile &
Shear Force
1.45956 1.45954 0.000

Theoretical Verification [Shear Force]

Tensile only
Tensile & shear
No reinforcement
Factor of Safety

[SoilWorks] [Rocplane] [Variation of F.S. with Reinforcement Angle]

Reinforcement Angle F.S. (Tensile Force) F.S. (Tensile & Shear Force)

Unreinforced 1.285 1.285

-20 1.467 (max.) 1.462

-10 1.466 1.479

0 1.458 1.489

10 1.445 1.492 (max.)

20 1.427 1.488

40 1.381 1.46

60 1.326 1.411

80 1.272 (less than unreinforced F.S.) 1.352

90 1.246 (less than unreinforced F.S.) 1.321

Tensile force only can result in unreasonable safety factor within certain range of reinforcement angle
t

Differences Take account of shear force for design optimization

t

Geotechnical Solution for Practical Design 20

SoilWorks_Verification

Limit Equilibrium Analysis Verification for Rock Slopes

Real Model Verification [Pullout Force]

[SoilWorks] [Rocplane] [Variation of F.S. with Anchored Length]

Factor of Safety
5FOTJMF

QVMMPVU
5FOTJMF
POMZ

Grouted Length(m )

Anchored Length(m) Tensile Force(tonf) vs Pullout Force(tonf) Factor of Safety

0.5 20 > 3.93 1.286

1 20 > 7.85 1.292

1.5 20 > 11.78 1.298

2 20 > 15.71 1.304

2.5 20 > 19.63 1.310

3 20 < 23.56 1.311

3.5 20 < 27.49 1.311

4 20 < 31.42 1.311

4.5 20 < 35.34 1.311

5 20 < 39.27 1.311

Differences t

The smaller value between tensile force and pullout force takes effect on the safety factor

[SoilWorks] [Input Data]

Tensile Force(tonf) 20 tonf

Bored Diameter 0.05 m

Frictional Resistance 50 tonf/m2

Length 10 m

Vertical Spacing 2m

Horizontal Spacing 2m

[Rocplane] No. of Reinforcement 10

[Total Reinforcing Force]
SoilWorks Rocplane Difference

79.452 tonf/m 100 tonf/m 20.548 tonf/m

[Factor of Safety]
Theoretical SoilWorks Rocplane Difference

1.34196 1.34196 1.43981 0.098

t

Tensile force only cannot consider the effect of reinforcement length
Differences t

Take account of reinforcement spacing and position automatically

21 SoilWorks_Verification Summary
 a total satisfaction support system
e-Learning Webinars & Fast Technical Support
SoilWorks eliminates significant efforts to learn various different software programs of different user interfaces to solve a wide range
of geotechnical problems. One user interface is common to all the analysis modules to handle any type of geotechnical problems.
SoilWorks streamlines the technical support and the maintenance of the software, and further, data exchange and management are
consistent because one company has developed all the modules.

SoilWorks is designed to cater to geotechnical engineers as well as structural engineers, which provides the opportunity to expand
the areas of solving geotechnical problems. It also enables the engineers to address soil-structure interaction.

E-mail Technical Support Online Technical Support

The user may send any Upon request of the user,
technical questions to an arrangement will be made
[email protected] to guide/instruct/demonstrate
Response will be provided the use of the software online
within 24 hours. through a web session.

Technical Webinars Technical Materials

Regularly scheduled webinars Various subjects on technical
are provided to cover various materials and tutorials are
subjects of geotechnical and/or provided to help the user become
structural problems in interaction. familiar with technical subjects
Recordings will be made available and the use of the software.
for those who wish to review
or missed the sessions.

For any enquiries on the functionality and sales support,

contact: [email protected]
 SoilWorks
VERIFICATION SUMMARY
GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTION FOR PRACTICAL DESIGN

for detail functionality

$PQZSJHIU
ⵑ
4JODF

.*%"4
*OGPSNBUJPO
5FDIOPMPHZ
$P
-UE

"MM
SJHIUT
SFTFSWFE http://en.midasuser.com
www.MidasUser.com
[email protected]