Article

Stability Analysis of the Landfill Slope with an Engineered Berm

Under Composite Failure Mode
Xiaobo Ruan 1, *, Yulong Li 1 , Yu-Shan Luo 2 , Hongwei Wang 1 , Jiajia Chen 1 and Zhongjun Ding 1

1 School of Automotive and Transportation Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China;
[email protected] (Y.L.); [email protected] (H.W.); [email protected] (J.C.);
[email protected] (Z.D.)
2 Shanghai Shen Yuan Geotechnical Engineering Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200031, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-1571-565-6646

Abstract: In order to increase the capacity of landfills while ensuring a certain degree of stability
of such structures, an engineered berm is typically constructed at the front slope of the landfill.
For this type of landfill slopes, this paper primarily focuses on the construction and verification of
stability assessment models for such structures. Initially, the calculation models of the safety factor
were established, considering over and under berm failure modes separately. Subsequently, through
error analysis, it was determined that it is feasible to evaluate the stability of this type of landfills
by substituting the true safety factor with the average safety factor obtained from the calculation
model. The analysis for parameters and slip surfaces was then conducted to investigate the impact
of parameters associated with the engineered berm on the landfill slope stability. Finally, a visual
comparison and brief discussion were conducted on the average safety factors under translational
and composite failure modes. Thus, the critical failure modes under specific working conditions can
be reasonably ascertained, which holds significant practical implications for enhancing the reliability
of stability assessment of such landfill slopes.

Keywords: landfill with an engineered berm; composite failure mode; over-berm failure; under-berm
failure; stability analysis

Citation: Ruan, X.; Li, Y.; Luo, Y.-S.;

Wang, H.; Chen, J.; Ding, Z. Stability
Analysis of the Landfill Slope with an
Engineered Berm Under Composite
1. Introduction
Failure Mode. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, The engineered berm is frequently built at the front slope of landfills, which can not
11515. https://doi.org/10.3390/ only increase the storage capacity of the landfill but also improve the stability of the landfill
app142411515 slope [1–3]. Theoretically, it can be said that maintaining the stable operation of this type of
landfill inevitably requires reliable design of berms. The specific design of a berm needs
Academic Editors: Alessandro Simoni
and Giuseppe Lacidogna
to consider which failure mode this type of landfill slopes may resist. From a practical
perspective, the failure of landfill slopes is mainly dominated by translational failure
Received: 4 October 2024 along the liner system [4]. Considering the existence of the berm, however, the failure of
Revised: 26 November 2024 landfill slopes can be divided into two types, namely over-berm and under-berm failure
Accepted: 6 December 2024 modes [5,6]. Furthermore, the limit equilibrium method is commonly used to establish a
Published: 10 December 2024
stability assessment model for landfill slopes based on specific failure modes [7–9], and
it is also used to analyze the structural stability in tunnels and deep excavations [10].
Meanwhile, due to the existence of the berm, the evaluation model is strongly correlated
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
with the geometric shape of this structure. From the perspective of the cross-sectional shape
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. of berms, they can be thus divided into two categories, namely triangular and trapezoidal
This article is an open access article berms [11].
distributed under the terms and Regardless of the geometric shape of the berm constructed in the landfill, the three-
conditions of the Creative Commons wedge method is often used to analyze the stability of such landfill slopes. This method
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// was developed from the two-wedge method proposed by Qian et al. [12,13] and further ex-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tended to consider the effects of leachate level and seismic load on the slope stability [14,15].
4.0/). Feng et al. [16–18] divided the sliding body with a triangular berm into three parts, i.e.,

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411515 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 2 of 24

active, passive and block wedges, and then proposed the three-wedge method based on the
principle of limit equilibrium when that type of landfill slopes occurred the under-berm
failure. Considering the effect of earthquakes on structural stability, Feng and Gao [19] used
the pseudo-static method to introduce horizontal seismic loads to construct an assessment
model for seismic stability of landfill slopes, and further Sun and Ruan [11] extended the
above-mentioned model by increasing the effect of vertical seismic loads. For the failure
mode of the over berm, Gao et al. [20] used the three-wedge method to build up a stability
analysis model for this type of landfill slopes. When conducting seismic design of this
structure in earthquake prone areas, Chen et al. [21] extended the above analysis model
based on the Newmark method to carry out engineering design considering permanent
seismic displacement.
When designing the landfill slope with an engineering berm, considering only the
over-berm or under-berm failure mode may lead to unreliable design results. Therefore,
it is necessary to analyze the stability of the landfill slope simultaneously under both
failure modes. For the landfill slope with a trapezoidal berm, Qian and Koerner [6],
respectively, established safety factor calculation models to resist the two types of failure
modes mentioned above and conducted slope stability analysis using the three-wedge
method. Subsequently, Choudhury and Savoikar [22] developed these calculation models
by introducing seismic loads using the pseudo-static method, and furthermore, considering
the dynamic characteristics of seismic loads, Ruan et al. [23,24] investigated the pseudo-
dynamic stability of this type of landfill slopes. Apart from seismic loads, blasting vibration
loads may also affect the stability of landfill slopes for dynamic loads due to the rapid
development of transportation infrastructure construction. Considering the above practical
situation, Chen et al. [25] studied the influence of this type of loads on the stability of the
landfill slope with a trapezoidal berm. Currently, reinforced soil retaining walls are used as
berms, and the cross-sectional shape of the structure is generally rectangular. Under these
conditions, the stability analysis of landfill slopes usually only considers the under-berm
failure mode. Considering the effect of leachate pressure, Mahapatra et al. [26] carried out
reliability design for this type of berms.
The above studies are all based on the scenario where the instability of the landfill is
a translational failure mode. Although this failure mode is commonly seen in the on-site
investigation results of instability in large landfills [4], there is another failure mode, the
composite failure mode, that may either lead to translational failure or occur directly, which
is often overlooked [27]. In this failure mode, the critical slip surface consists of two parts,
one is a log-spiral slip surface in the waste mass and the other is a translational slip surface
along the liner system. This may be due to the different creep characteristics of the waste
mass and liners, just as accurately simulating the creep process of rocks may require two
contact models [28]. For this failure mode, Thiel [29] and Fowmes et al. [30] mentioned
it in their research, but did not provide an analytical model. Ruan et al. [31] introduced
the log-spiral mechanism into the internal failure of landfills, and then constructed a
safety factor calculation model to evaluate the static stability of the landfill cell against
the composite failure mode based on the limit equilibrium principle. Additionally, Ruan
et al. [32] expanded the stability evaluation model by considering the effect of seismic loads.
Based on the above analysis and engineering practice requirements, it can be seen that
when evaluating the stability of the landfill slope with an engineering berm, in addition to
considering the stability performance of the structure against translational failure modes, it
is also necessary to analyze the safety redundancy of the structure against composite failure
modes. In the paper, first, the implicit function equations of the safety factor were derived
under the failure modes of over berm and under berm, respectively. Second, through error
analysis, the feasibility of using the average safety factor instead of the true safety factor to
evaluate the stability of the landfill slope was verified. Then the influence of the geometric
parameters of the engineered berm and the shear strength index at the interface of liners
over berm and under berm on the stability of the landfill slope was analyzed. Finally, a
 Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 25
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 3 of 24

interface of liners over berm and under berm on the stability of the landfill slope was an-
comparative analysis was conducted on the stability of the landfill slope, including different
alyzed. Finally, a comparative analysis was conducted on the stability of the landfill slope,
failure modes
including suchfailure
different as composite and as
modes such translational failure
composite and modes. failure modes.
translational
2. Computational Model
2. Computational Model
2.1. Basic Assumptions
2.1. Basic Assumptions
When analyzing static stability of the landfill slope with an engineered berm against
When analyzing static stability of the landfill slope with an engineered berm against
the composite failure mode, the failure body in the limit equilibrium state can be divided
the composite failure mode, the failure body in the limit equilibrium state can be divided
into three parts: the block wedge (region L0 LL1 , as in Figure 1; or region L0 LL1 L2 L3 , as in
into three parts: the block wedge (region L0LL1, as in Figure 1; or region L0LL1L2L3, as in
Figure 2), the passive wedge (region OKLL0 , as
Figure 2), the passive wedge (region OKLL0, as
in Figures 1a and 2a; or region OKJLL , as
in Figures 1a and 2a; or region OKJLL0, as 0
in Figures 1b and 2b), and the log-spiral failure
in Figures 1b and 2b), and the log-spiral failure body (region body OGJK,asasininFigures
(regionOGJK, Figures1a1aandand 2a;
or region OGK, as in Figures 1b and 2b). The limit equilibrium analysis
2a; or region OGK, as in Figures 1b and 2b). The limit equilibrium analysis of the block of the block wedge,
log-spiral failure failure
wedge, log-spiral body, andbody,passive wedge
and passive is carried
wedge out out
is carried sequentially,
sequentially,and andequilibrium
equi-
equations are established
librium equations separately
are established to obtain
separately the calculation
to obtain the calculationformulas
formulas forfornormal
normalforce
from passive
force from wedge
passive wedgeacting onon
acting block
blockwedge
wedge(i.e.,
(i.e., EEHPB
HPB ) and
) and normal
normal force
force fromfrom passive
passive
wedge actingon
wedge acting onlog-spiral
log-spiral failure
failure bodybody EHPL),Eas
(i.e.,(i.e., HPL ), asaswell
well as the expression
the expression for the
for the rela-
relationship
tionship betweenbetweennormalnormal forces
forces fromfrom
blockblock
wedge wedge
and and log-spiral
log-spiral failure
failure bodybody
acting acting
on on
passive
passive wedge (i.e.,EEHBP
wedge(i.e., HBP and
and EHLP
EHLP ). Based
). Based on the onrelationship
the relationshipbetween EHPB = EEHBP
between HPBand= EEHBP
HPL and

E=HPL EHLP
EHLP=, the , the implicit
implicit functionfunction
equationequation for evaluating
for evaluating the safetythe safety
factor factor
of the of the
landfill landfill
with
with an engineered berm against the composite failure mode is constructed.
an engineered berm against the composite failure mode is constructed.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24

(a) B < Hcotα (b) B ൒ Hcotα

front slope of the engineered berm measured from the horizontal; β1 and β2 are the angles
Figure 1. Forces acting on three wedges in the landfill when over-berm failure occurs.
Figure
of point Forces
1. O and acting
point on three
G in thewedges in the landfillrespectively.
polar coordinates, when over-berm failure occurs.

Considering the geometric parameters of the landfill slope studied, the limit equilib-
rium analysis for sliding bodies can be divided into two situations, namely (a): B < Hcotα
(as in Figures 1a and 2a) and (b): B ൒ Hcotα (as in Figures 1b and 2b). In Figures 1 and 2,
O(0, 0) is the origin of Cartesian coordinates; (xc, yc) is the pole of polar coordinates in
Cartesian coordinates; WB, WL and WP are the weights of block wedge, log-spiral failure
body, and passive wedge, respectively; NP and FP are the normal and frictional forces,
respectively, acting on the bottom of passive wedge; NB and FB are the normal and fric-
tional forces, respectively, acting on the bottom of block wedge; EHLP and EVLP are the nor-
mal and frictional forces, respectively, acting on the passive wedge from log-spiral failure
body; EHPL and EVPL are the normal and frictional forces, respectively, acting on the log-
spiral failure body from passive wedge; EHPB and EVPB are the normal and frictional forces,
respectively, acting on the block wedge from passive wedge; EHBP and EVBP are the normal
and frictional forces, respectively, acting on the passive(b)
(a) B < Hcotα wedge
B ≥ from
Hcotα block wedge; H is the
height of back slope; HB is the height of engineered berm; B is the top width of waste mass;
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Forces
Forces acting
actingofon three
onthe
three wedges
wedges in the
the landfill
inberm;landfill when
when under-berm
under-berm failure occurs.
failure occurs.
DB is the top width engineered ω is the angle of the front slope measured
from the horizontal; α is the angle of the back slope measured from the horizontal; θ is the
To successfullyofbuild
angleConsidering
of the bottomthe
up an analytical
geometric
the passiveparameters
model
wedge measuredof thefor analyzing
landfill
from the slope
static stability
studied,
horizontal; ξ is the
of theofland-
the limit
angleequilib-
fill
the back slope of the engineered berm measured from the horizontal; η is the anglemake
rium with an engineered
analysis for sliding berm against
bodies can composite
be divided failure
into mode,
two it is
situations,necessary
namely to
(a): B<
of the some
Hcotα
reasonable assumptions.
(as in Figures The (b):
1a and 2a) and B ≥ assumptions
specific are as follows:
Hcotα (as in Figures (1) the
1b and 2b). waste mass
In Figures 1 and be-
2,
longs
O(0, 0)toishomogeneous
the origin of Coulomb
Cartesianmaterial, and its
coordinates; (xc ,failure andpole
yc ) is the the failure at coordinates
of polar the liner inter-
in
face meet the
Cartesian Mohr–Coulomb
coordinates; W B , W Lstrength
and W P criterion; (2) the of
are the weights potential slip surface
block wedge, runsfailure
log-spiral along
abody, and passive
log-spiral wedge,
inside the landfill and entersNPthe
respectively; and FP arelining
bottom the normal
systemand frictional
of the landfillforces,
after
passing through the toe of the back slope (i.e., point O); (3) the potential slip surface ap-
pears within the range of JD at the top of the landfill; (4) the line of action of EHPL or EHLP
is at one-third of the height (i.e., OK) from the bottom of the interface between passive
wedge and log-spiral failure body; (5) the line of action of EHBP or EHPB is at one-third of
the height (i.e., L0L) from the bottom of the interface between block wedge and passive
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 4 of 24

respectively, acting on the bottom of passive wedge; NB and FB are the normal and frictional
forces, respectively, acting on the bottom of block wedge; EHLP and EVLP are the normal
and frictional forces, respectively, acting on the passive wedge from log-spiral failure body;
EHPL and EVPL are the normal and frictional forces, respectively, acting on the log-spiral
failure body from passive wedge; EHPB and EVPB are the normal and frictional forces,
respectively, acting on the block wedge from passive wedge; EHBP and EVBP are the normal
and frictional forces, respectively, acting on the passive wedge from block wedge; H is the
height of back slope; HB is the height of engineered berm; B is the top width of waste mass;
DB is the top width of the engineered berm; ω is the angle of the front slope measured from
the horizontal; α is the angle of the back slope measured from the horizontal; θ is the angle
of the bottom of the passive wedge measured from the horizontal; ξ is the angle of the back
slope of the engineered berm measured from the horizontal; η is the angle of the front slope
of the engineered berm measured from the horizontal; β1 and β2 are the angles of point O
and point G in the polar coordinates, respectively.
To successfully build up an analytical model for analyzing static stability of the landfill
with an engineered berm against composite failure mode, it is necessary to make some
reasonable assumptions. The specific assumptions are as follows: (1) the waste mass
belongs to homogeneous Coulomb material, and its failure and the failure at the liner
interface meet the Mohr–Coulomb strength criterion; (2) the potential slip surface runs
along a log-spiral inside the landfill and enters the bottom lining system of the landfill
after passing through the toe of the back slope (i.e., point O); (3) the potential slip surface
appears within the range of JD at the top of the landfill; (4) the line of action of EHPL or
EHLP is at one-third of the height (i.e., OK) from the bottom of the interface between passive
wedge and log-spiral failure body; (5) the line of action of EHBP or EHPB is at one-third of
the height (i.e., L0 L) from the bottom of the interface between block wedge and passive
wedge; (6) the safety factor on the potential slip surface is equal everywhere.

2.2. Equations of Equilibrium When Over-Berm Failure Occurs

The frictional forces acting on the bottom of block and passive wedges, respectively, in
Figures 1 and 2 are as follows:

FB = CB /FS + NB tan δB /FS (1)

FP = CP /FS + NP tan δP /FS (2)

where FS is the safety factor on potential slip surface; δP is the interface friction angle of
liner components beneath passive wedge; CP is the apparent cohesive force between liner
components beneath passive wedge, i.e., cP × OL0 , cP is the apparent cohesion between liner
components beneath passive wedge; δB is the interface friction angle of liner components
beneath block wedge; when over-berm failure occurs in Figure 1, CB is the apparent
cohesive force between liner components beneath the block wedge, i.e., cB × L0 L1 ; when
under-berm failure occurs in Figure 2, CB is equal to cB × L0 L3 ; cB is the apparent cohesion
between liner components beneath the block wedge.
The frictional forces acting on the side of the block wedge and the log-spiral failure
body, respectively, next to the passive wedge, EVPB and EVPL , and the side of the passive
wedge next to the log-spiral failure body and the block wedge, respectively, EVLP and EVBP ,
in Figures 1 and 2 are as follows:

EVPB = CPB /FSV + EHPB tan ϕSW /FSV (3)

EVPL = CPL /FSV + EHPL tan ϕSW /FSV (4)

EVLP = CPL /FSV + EHLP tan ϕSW /FSV (5)
EVBP = CPB /FSV + EHBP tan ϕSW /FSV (6)
 N Bsin  + FB cos  = E HPB (9)
Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (9) and rearranging for NB yields
EHPB − CB cos  FS
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 NB = 5 (10)
of 24
sin + cos  tan  B FS
Substituting Equation (10) into Equation (8) and rearranging for EHPB produces
(WB +atCthe
where FSV is the safety factor
= of waste
EHPBangle PB FS V )(sin  + cos  tan  B FS ) + C B FS
interface between two adjacent wedges; ϕSW is the
internal friction
(cos  − sin  tan  B FS
between passive and block wedges, i.e.,
) − (sin  + cos  tan  FS ) tan  apparent
mass; CPB is the apparent cohesive force at the interface
CPB = cSW × LL0 , andBcSW is theSW
FS V
(11)
cohesion
Based
of waste on the
mass; CPLgeometrical characteristics
is the apparent cohesive force of the
at engineering
the interfaceberm,
between the passive
following for-
wedge
mulas for CB, Cfailure
and log-spiral PB and W B can
body, be C
i.e., derived:
PL = c SW × OK.
C B = c B H B sin  (12)
2.2.1. Equations of Equilibrium About Block Wedge
In accordance with the equilibrium
C PB = cSW H B (1 + cos
condition of the )
vertical
tan  force acting on the block
(13)
wedge, i.e., ∑ FY = 0, as shown in Figure 3, it can be determined that
WB cos
NB B
(1 F+Bcot
= 0.ξ5=SWWH B2+ +E)VPB
sin ξtan cot  (14)
(7)

(a) B < Hcotα (b) B ≥ Hcotα

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Forces
Forces acting
acting on
on the
the block
block wedge
wedge when
when over-berm
over-berm failure
failure occurs.
occurs.

Substituting Equations (1) and (3) into Equation (7) offers

NB (cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FS) − CB sin ξ/FS = WB + CPB /FSV + EHPB tan ϕSW /FSV (8)

According to the equilibrium condition of the horizontal force acting on the block
wedge, i.e., ∑ FX = 0, as shown in Figure 3, the equilibrium equation is as follows:

NB sin ξ + FB cos ξ = EHPB (9)

Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (9) and rearranging for NB yields

EHPB − CB cos ξ/FS

NB = (10)
sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FS

Substituting Equation (10) into Equation (8) and rearranging for EHPB produces

(WB + CPB /FSV )(sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FS) + CB /FS

EHPB = (11)
(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FS) − (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FS)tan ϕSW /FSV

Based on the geometrical characteristics of the engineering berm, the following formu-
las for CB , CPB and W B can be derived:

CB = cB HB /sin ξ (12)

CPB = cSW HB (1 + cos ξ tan ω ) (13)

WB = 0.5γSW HB2 (1 + cot ξ tan ω ) cot ξ (14)

2.2.2. Equations of Equilibrium About Log-Spiral Failure Body

We perform limit equilibrium analysis on the log-spiral failure body under the over-
berm failure mode and establish a moment equilibrium equation. The schematic diagrams
 2.2.2. Equations of Equilibrium About Log-Spiral Failure Body
We perform limit equilibrium analysis on the log-spiral failure body under the over-
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 berm failure mode and establish a moment equilibrium equation. The schematic diagrams 6 of 24
of limit equilibrium analysis for log-spiral failure body are shown in Figure 4. Moreover,
the mathematical equation of the log-spiral slip surface in polar coordinates and the defi-
nition
of limitofequilibrium
related parameters can
analysis for be found
log-spiral in the
failure paper
body areof RuaninetFigure
shown al. [31]. The moment
4. Moreover, the
equilibrium equation about the log-spiral failure body for the poles (x , y
mathematical equation of the log-spiral slip surface in polar coordinates and the definition
c c) can therefore
be writtenparameters
of related as follows:can be found in the paper of Ruan et al. [31]. The moment equilibrium
equation about the log-spiral failureM WL =
body
M EHPLfor+ the + M(x
poles
M EVPL CL
c , yc ) can therefore be written (15)
as follows:
where M WL is the moment M stemmed
WL = ME from
HPL
+weight
MEVPL + of Mthe
CL log-spiral failure body, W L ;
(15)
M EHPL Mis the moment generated by normal force from the passive wedge acting on the
where WL is the moment stemmed from weight of the log-spiral failure body, WL ; MEHPL
is the moment
log-spiral generated
failure body, Eby normal force from the passive wedge acting on the log-spiral
HPL ; M E VPL is the moment produced by frictional force acting
failure body, EHPL ; MEVPL is the moment produced by frictional force acting on the side of
on the side of the log-spiral failure body next to the passive wedge, E VPL ; M CL is the
the log-spiral failure body next to the passive wedge, EVPL ; MCL is the moment resulted
moment resulted
from apparent from apparent
cohesive cohesive
force acting on theforce actingslip
log-spiral on the log-spiral
surface, CL . slip surface, C L .

(a) B < Hcotα (b) B ≥ Hcotα

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Forces
Forces acting
acting on
on the
the log-spiral
log-spiral failure
failure body when over-berm
body when over-berm failure
failure occurs.
occurs.

In Equation 15, (15),MMWW LL

represents the driving moment responsible for the occurrence
of failure, while M
of failure, while MEEHPL , M
, MEVPL , and MCL denote the resisting moments counteracting the
HPL E VPL , and M C L denote the resisting moments counteracting
trend of instability. MWL can be calculated by modifying the result of Leshchinsky and
the
Santrend of instability.
[33] and combining the
M WL can be calculated by modifying the result of Leshchinsky
two different scenarios in Figure 4 to obtain the calculation
and San [33]
formula of Mand
WL , combining
which can the two different
be written scenarios(18)
as Equations in Figure 4 torespectively.
and (20), obtain the calcula-
MEVPL
tion
and M formula
EHPL can ofbeMderived
WL , which can from
directly be written as Equations
the geometric (18) andin(20),
relationships respectively.
Figure 4, namely
Equations
M EVPL and(16),M (19), and (21). MCL can be obtained by geometric
reorganizing the derivation result of
E HPL can be derived directly from the relationships in Figure 4,
Ruan et al. [34], as shown in Equation (17). Here are the specific forms of these equations:
namely Equations (16), (19), and (21). M CL can be obtained by reorganizing the deriva-
 
tion result of Ruan et al. [34],MasEVPL shown
= EVPL Ae−ψβ1 sin
in Equation (17).
β 1 Here are the specific forms(16)of
these equations:
(
cSW β2  − 2
sin dβ )
Z
EVPL = E VPL Ae
−ψβ
MCM
1
= Ae 1 (16)
(17)
L
FS β1

 ( )
cSWM 2 and
WL Ae −MEdHPL
2
There are two calculation formulas M CL = for  , which are shown as follows:(17)
(1) when B < Hcotα FS 1

R β2 There are two calculation formulas for
M WL and
M EHPL , which are shown as fol-
Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ


MWL = γSW βlows:
1
2  −ψβ  (18)
−0.5γSW ( H cot α −(1)
B)when
tan ωB Ae 1 sin β + ( H cot α − B ) /3
< Hcotα 1

 ( )( )( )
2
(cos /3 )d
j k
ψβ−1 2
M WL =  SWMEHPL Ae=−
EHPLcos Ae−−Ae β 1 −2 (Ae
coscos H− −
Hsin tan−
cot α Ae ω+  −
B tan ω )sin (19)
1 (18)
− (2) SW (H cot  − B ) tan  Ae
0.5when B ≥ Hcotα2  −1
sin 1 + (H cot  − B ) 3 
Z β2    
MWL = γSW Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ (20)
β1
j k
MEHPL = EHPL Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3 (21)
 M WL =  SW  (Ae
1
cos  − Ae cos  2 Ae )( )(
sin  Ae )(cos  − sin  )d (20)


M EHPL = EHPL Ae −1 cos 1 − H 3  (21)
Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (16) and rearranging it, we can obtain
( ) ( )
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 7 of 24
M EVPL = C PL Ae −1 sin 1 FS V + EHPL tan SW Ae −1 sin 1 FS V (22)
When B < Hcotα, substituting Equations (17)–(19) and (22) into Equation (15) and
Substituting
rearranging Equation (4)
it, the calculation into Equation
formula (16) be
for EHPL can and rearranging
attained it, we can obtain
as follows:

 ( )( )( )
 
   
sin  Ae 1 (cos V − sin HPL )d −SW
0.5 SW (H cot  −1B )/FS
−  2
−M − −ψβ 1 −β /FS + E −ψβ 1
E HPL =  SW cos  − Ae EVPL cos  2 PL tanV
2 2
Ae = C Ae Ae sin tan ϕ Ae sin β (22)
 1

 c B<
When
 Ae −1 sin 1 + (H cot  rearranging
FS 1

− B ) 3 − SW it, the −
 (
 2 Hcotα, 2substituting
Aecalculation
C PL
Ae −
d − formula 1
forsin
E )
Equations (17)–(19)

HPL1  Ae
can
−1
be (
cos 
attained 1 −
as( H − H cot
follows: ) 
and (22) into Equation (15)
 tan 
and
(23)
FS V 
 )=3 +γAe 
n
− Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ 2 cos β −ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β ) dβ − 0.5γ 2
1 tan SW FS V
β2
+ B tan
R



EHPL SW β 1 1 sin 2 Ae SW ( H cot α − B ) tan ω

c R −ψβ 2 dβ − CPL Ae−ψβ 1 sin β (23)
− B)/3 B−≥SWHcotα,
× Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot αWhen
  β2

 −ψβ
Aesubstituting / Ae 1 cos β − ( H − H cot α tan ω
FSV Equations (17) and (20)–(22) into Equation (15) and
1 1
FS β1
− ψβ
+ B tan ω )/3+ Ae rearranging
1 sin β tan ϕ
1 SW /FS
it, the calculation formula for EHPL can be obtained as follows:
V

When B ≥ Hcotα, substituting Equations (17) and (20)–(22)

 (Ae )( )( )  ( )
 2 into Equation (15) and
 Ae −for(cos sinbe )obtained
c
cos  − Ae −
− −
Ae − d
2
EHPL =  SW cos   − d − SW as follows:
2
rearranging it,2 the calculation
2 Ae sinformula EHPL can
 
1 FS 1
(24)
( ) ( )
2
 −ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β )dβ − cSW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ
R β2  −ψβ −ψβ 2 cos β

−ψβ sin β
  R 
CPL γSW −
EHPL = Ae cos −− Ae
 Ae − Ae
Ae β1 1 sin    
β
− − 2
+
 1 
Ae 1
cos 1 H 3 Ae 1
sin 1 tan SW FS V FS β1
(24)
C FS 

V
− PL Ae−ψβ1 sin β / Ae−ψβ1 cos β − H/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β tan ϕ /FS
1 1 1 SW V
FSV
2.2.3. Equations of Equilibrium About Passive Wedge
2.2.3. Equations of Equilibrium About Passive Wedge
In accordance with the equilibrium condition of the vertical force acting on the pas-
In accordance with the equilibrium condition of the vertical force acting on the passive
sive wedge,
wedge, i.e.,
i.e., 
∑ F =FY0, =as0 shown
Y
, as shown in Figure
in Figure 5, we5,can
we obtain
can obtain

W +E = N P cos + FP sin  + E VBP (25)(25)

WPP + EVLP
VLP = NP cos θ + FP sin θ + EVBP

(a) B < Hcotα (b) B ≥ Hcotα

Figure 5. Forces
Figure acting
5. Forces on on
acting thethe
passive wedge
passive when
wedge over-berm
when failure
over-berm occurs.
failure occurs.

Substituting Equation
Substituting (2)(2)
Equation into Equation
into (25)
Equation yields
(25) yields
N P (cos + sin  tan  P FS ) = WP + (E HLP − E HBP ) tan SW FS V + (C PL − C PB ) FS V − C P sin  FS (26)
NP (cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FS) = WP + ( EHLP − EHBP )tan ϕSW /FSV + (CPL − CPB )/FSV − CP sin θ/FS (26)
In line with the equilibrium condition of the horizontal force acting on the passive,
i.e., 
In line with the equilibrium condition of the horizontal force acting on the passive, i.e.,
FX = 0 , as shown in Figure 5, the equilibrium equation is as follows:
∑ X = 0, as shown in Figure 5, the equilibrium equation is as follows:
F

EHBP + FP cos θ = EHLP + NP sin θ (27)

Substituting Equation (2) into Equation (27) and rearranging it, we can derive

EHBP − EHLP + CP cos θ/FS

NP = (28)
sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FS

Substituting Equation (28) into Equation (26) produces

( EHLP − EHBP )[(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FS) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FS) tan ϕSW /FSV ]
(29)
= [WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSV ](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FS) − CP /FS
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 8 of 24

where the calculation formulas for CP , CPL , and W P can be derived based on the geometric
parameters of the landfill. The specific formula is as follows:

CP = cP [ H − ( H cot α − B) tan ω − HB (1 + cot ξ tan ω )]/[(tan ω − tan θ ) cos θ ] (30)

However, CPL and W P have two types of calculation formulas due to the geometric
characteristics of the landfill, which can be written as
(1) when B < Hcotα

CPL = cSW [ H − ( H cot α − B) tan ω ] (31)

n o
WP = 0.5γSW [ H − ( H cot α − B) tan ω ]2 − [ HB (1 + cot ξ tan ω )]2 /(tan ω − tan θ ) (32)

(2) when B ≥ Hcotα

CPL = cSW H (33)

n o
WP = 0.5γSW [ H − ( H cot α − B) tan ω ]2 − [ HB (1 + cot ξ tan ω )]2 /(tan ω − tan θ ) − 0.5γSW ( B − H cot α)2 tan ω (34)

2.3. Equations of Equilibrium When Under-Berm Failure Occurs

Similar to the derivation process in Section 2.2.1, based on the equilibrium condition
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24
of the vertical force acting on the block wedge, i.e., ∑ FY = 0, as shown in Figure 6, we
can obtain
NB = WB + EVPB (35)

(a) B < Hcotα (b) B ≥ Hcotα

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Forces
Forcesacting
actingon
onthe
the block
block wedge
wedge when
when under-berm
under-berm failure
failure occurs.
occurs.

Because
Accordingthe to
equilibrium conditions
the equilibrium for theoflog-spiral
condition failure force
the horizontal body acting
and passive
on thewedge
block
wedge, i.e., ∑ FX = 0, as shown in Figure 6, the equilibrium equation is as follows:
shown in Figures 7 and 8 are identical to those in Figures 4 and 5, the equations regarding
EHPL and its relationship with EHBP are derived; however, these are exactly the same as
Equations (23), (24), and (29). FB = EHPB (36)

Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (36) and rearranging it, we can obtain

EHPB − CB /FS
NB = (37)
tan δB /FS

Substituting Equation (37) into Equation (35) and rearranging it, it can be deter-
mined that
(WB + CPB /FSV )tan δB /FS+CB /FS
EHPB = (38)
1 − tan δB tan ϕSW /( FSV FS)

(a) B < Hcotα (b) B ≥ Hcotα

Figure 7. Forces acting on the log-spiral failure body when under-berm failure occurs.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 9 of 24

In terms of the geometric characteristics of the engineered berm, it can be concluded

that the calculation formula for CPB is the same as Equation (13). The calculation formulas
for CB and W B are written as follows:

(a) B
(a) B << Hcotα
Hcotα (b)
CB = cB [ DB + HB (cot η(b)
+ cot
B ≥
B ≥ Hcotα
ξ )]Hcotα (39)
Figure 6. Forces acting on 2the block wedge when under-berm failure occurs.
Figure 6. W
Forces acting on the block wedge when under-berm failure occurs.
B = 0.5γSW H (1 + cot ξ tan ω ) cot ξ + 0.5γB HB [2DB + HB (cot η + cot ξ )] (40)
B
Because
Becausethe
Because the equilibrium
theequilibrium conditions
equilibriumconditions
conditionsforfor the
forthe log-spiral
thelog-spiral failure
log-spiralfailure body
failurebody and
bodyand passive
andpassive wedge
passivewedge
wedge
shown
shown in
in Figures
Figures 7
7 and
and 8
8 are
are identical
identical to
to those
those in
in Figures
Figures 4
4 and
and 5,
5, the
theequations
equations
shown in Figures 7 and 8 are identical to those in Figures 4 and 5, the equations regarding regarding
regarding
EEHPL
E HPL and
HPLand its
andits relationship
itsrelationship with
relationshipwith
withE EEHBP
HBP are derived;
arederived;
HBPare however,
derived;however, these
however,these are
theseare exactly
areexactly the
exactlythe same
thesame as
sameas
as
Equations (23),
Equations(23),
Equations (24),
(23),(24), and
(24),and (29).
and(29).
(29).

(a) B
(a) B << Hcotα
Hcotα (b) B
(b) ≥ Hcotα
B ≥ Hcotα
Figure 7.
Figure7. Forces acting
Forcesacting
7.Forces on
actingon the
onthe log-spiral
thelog-spiral failure
log-spiralfailure body
failurebody when
bodywhen under-berm
whenunder-berm failure
under-berm failure occurs.
failure occurs.
occurs.
Figure

(a) B
(a) B << Hcotα
Hcotα (b) B
(b) ≥ Hcotα
B ≥ Hcotα
Figure 8. Forces acting on the passive wedge when under-berm failure occurs.
Figure
Figure8.8.Forces
Forcesacting
actingon
onthe
thepassive
passivewedge
wedgewhen
whenunder-berm
under-bermfailure
failureoccurs.
occurs.
2.4. Implicit
2.4.Implicit
2.4. Function
ImplicitFunction Equations
FunctionEquations
Equationsof of the
ofthe Safety
theSafety Factor
SafetyFactor
Factor
The safety
Thesafety
The factor
safetyfactor
factorat at the
atthe interface
theinterface between
interface between
between two two wedges,
two wedges,
wedges, FS FS
FSVVV,,,must
must
mustnot not be
notbe less
beless than
lessthan one
thanone
one
so
so as
soas
astoto meet
to meet the
meet the shear
the shear strength
shear strength criteria
strengthcriteria for
criteriafor the
forthe waste
thewaste soil,
wastesoil, and
soil,and it should
andititshould
shouldnotnot
notbe be less
beless than
less than
than
the safety
thesafety
the factor
safetyfactor for
factorfor entire
forentire structure
entirestructure
structureof of the
ofthe landfill
thelandfill slope
landfillslope [35].
slope[35]. Therefore,
[35].Therefore,
Therefore,the the maximum
themaximum
maximumand and
and
minimum
minimumsafety
minimum safety factors
safetyfactors
factorscan can
canbebe determined
bedetermined
determinedby by the
bythe following
thefollowing assumptions:
followingassumptions:
assumptions: (1) (1) the
(1)the implicit
theimplicit
implicit
function
function equation
functionequation
equationof ofofthe
the maximum
themaximum
maximum safety
safety
safety factor, FSFS
factor,
factor, FS max, can
, can
maxmax
be derived
, can
be derived
be derived when
when assuming
when assuming
assuming FSVV
FS
==FS
FS
FS ; however,
= ;FS
max
Vmax
however, if the
max ; however,
if the calculated
calculated result of
if the calculated
result ofresult
FSmax
FS is less
max of
is less
FSmax than
than one,
is one,
less it it is
thanis necessary
necessary
one, it istoto assume
necessary
assume
to assume FSV = 1 and recalculate FSmax ; (2) the implicit function equation about the
minimum safety factor, FSmin , can be obtained when assuming FSV = ∞.

2.4.1. Implicit Function Equations When Over-Berm Failure Occurs

(1) when B < Hcotα
By assuming FSV = ∞, substituting Equations (11) and (23) into Equation (29) and
rearranging it, an implicit function equation of FSmin can be obtained as follows:
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 10 of 24

n h Rβ  
[WB (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmin ) + CB /FSmin ]/(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FSmin ) − γSW β12 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2
    
× Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − 0.5γSW ( H cot α − B)2 tan ω Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot α − B)/3
c Rβ  2  h  (41)
− SW β12 Ae−ψβ dβ / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − ( H − H cot α tan ω + B tan ω )/3] (cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmin ) − WP (sin θ
FSmin
−cos θ tan δP /FSmin ) + CP /FSmin = 0

By assuming FSV = FS, substituting Equations (11) and (23) into Equation (29) and
rearranging it, an implicit function equation of FSmax can be obtained as follows:
{[(WB + CPB /FSmax )(hsin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax ) + CB /FSmax ]/[(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FSmax ) − (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax )
× tan ϕSW /FSmax ] − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 × Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − 0.5γSW ( H cot α − B)2
Rβ



1 
c
2 C (42)
× tan ω Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot α − B)/3 − SW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ− PL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − ( H − H cot α tan ω

Rβ

FSmax 1 FSmax
+ B tan ω )/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW /FSmax ]}[(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW /FSmax ]
−[WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSmax ](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

If FSmax calculated by solving Equation (42) is less than one, the implicit function
equation for FSmax needs to be redefined. Assuming FSV = 1 and rearranging Equation
(42), the implicit function equation about FSmax can be rewritten as follows:
{[(WB + CPB )(hsin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax ) + CB /FSmax ]/[(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FSmax ) − (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax )
× tan ϕSW ] − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 × Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − 0.5γSW ( H cot α − B)2
Rβ



1 
c
2
(43)
× tan ω Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot α − B)/3 − SW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ−CPL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − ( H − H cot α

Rβ

FSmax 1
× tan ω + B tan ω )/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW ]}[(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW ]
−[WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSmax ](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

(2) when B ≥ Hcotα

By assuming FSV = ∞ and substituting Equations (11) and (24) into Equation (29), an
implicit function equation of FSmin can be obtained as follows:
n h
[WB (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmin ) + CB /FSmin ]/(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FSmin ) − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2
Rβ

 1 
c
2
(44)
× Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − SW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3 (cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmin )


Rβ

FSmin 1
−WP (sin θ −cos θ tan δP /FSmin ) + CP /FSmin = 0

By assuming FSV = FS and substituting Equations (11) and (24) into Equation (29) and
rearranging it, an implicit function equation of FSmax can be obtained as follows:
{[(WB + CPB /FSmax )(hsin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax ) + CB /FSmax ]/[(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FSmax ) − (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax )
c
2
× tan ϕSW /FSmax ] − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 × Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − SW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ
Rβ


Rβ
1 FS max 1
CPL
 (45)
Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW /FSmax [(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ



−
FSmax
× tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW /FSmax ] − [WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSmax ](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

If FSmax calculated by solving Equation (45) is less than one, the implicit function
equation for FSmax needs to be rebuilt. Assuming FSV = 1 and rearranging Equation (45),
the implicit function equation for FSmax can be improved as follows:
{[(WB + CPB )(hsin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax ) + CB /FSmax ]/[(cos ξ − sin ξ tan δB /FSmax ) − (sin ξ + cos ξ tan δB /FSmax )
c
2
× tan ϕSW ] − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 × Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − SW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ
Rβ


Rβ
1 FSmax 1 (46)
−CPL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW ]}[(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ

 

×tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW ] − [WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSmax ](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

2.4.2. Implicit Function Equations When Under-Berm Failure Occurs

(1) when B < Hcotα
By assuming FSV = ∞ and substituting Equations (38) and (23) into Equation (29), an
implicit function equation of FSmin can be determined as follows:
n h
(WB tan δB /FSmin + CB /FSmin ) − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ
Rβ



1 
c
2
(47)
−0.5γSW ( H cot α − B)2 tan ω Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot α − B)/3 − SW β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − ( H − H

Rβ 
FSmin 1
× cot α tan ω + B tan ω )/3]}(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmin ) − WP (sin θ −cos θ tan δP /FSmin ) + CP /FSmin = 0
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 11 of 24

By assuming FSV = FS and substituting Equations (38) and (23) into Equation (29) and
rearranging it, an implicit function equation of FSmax can be obtained as follows:

h
2 − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2
 Rβ

[(WB + CPB /FSmax )tan δB /FSmax + CB /FSmax ]/ 1 − tan δB tan ϕSW /FSmax
1
c
× Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − 0.5γSW ( H cot α − B)2 tan ω Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot α − B)/3 − SW




FSmax
(48)


2 C
× β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ− PL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − ( H − H cot α tan ω + B tan ω )/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW /FSmax ]}
Rβ

1 FSmax
×[(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW /FSmax ] − [WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSmax ]
×(sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

If FSmax fixed on by solving Equation (48) is less than one, the implicit function
equation for FSmax needs to be redefined. Assuming FSV = 1 and rearranging Equation
(48), the implicit function equation about FSmax can be obtained as follows:

h
2 − γSW β 2 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2
 Rβ

[(WB + CPB /FSmax )tan δB /FSmax + CB /FSmax ]/ 1 − tan δB tan ϕSW /FSmax
1
c
× Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − 0.5γSW ( H cot α − B)2 tan ω Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 + ( H cot α − B)/3 − SW




FS max

2 i (49)
× β 2 Ae−ψβ dβ−CPL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − ( H − H cot α tan ω + B tan ω )/3 + Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW ]}
Rβ

1
×[(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW ] − [WP + (CPL − CPB )](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax )
+CP /FSmax = 0
(2) when B ≥ Hcotα
By assuming FSV = ∞ and substituting Equations (38) and (24) into Equation (29), an
implicit function equation of FSmin can be obtained as follows:

n h Rβ    
(WB tan δB /FSmin + CB /FSmin ) − γSW β12 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2 Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ
c Rβ  2   
− SW β12 Ae−ψβ dβ / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3 (cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmin ) − WP (sin θ −cos θ tan δP /FSmin ) (50)
FSmin
+CP /FSmin = 0
By assuming FSV = FS and substituting Equations (38) and (24) into Equation (29) and
rearranging it, an implicit function equation of FSmax can be determined as follows:

h Rβ  
2 − γSW β12 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2

[(WB + CPB /FSmax )tan δB /FSmax + CB /FSmax ]/ 1 − tan δB tan ϕSW /FSmax
   c Rβ  2 C   
× Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − SW β12 Ae−ψβ dβ− PL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3
o FSmax FSmax (51)
+ Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW /FSmax [(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW /FSmax ]
−[WP + (CPL − CPB )/FSmax ](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

If FSmax obtained from solving Equation (51) is less than one, the implicit function equa-
tion for FSmax needs to be recalculated. Assuming FSV = 1 and rearranging Equation (51),
the implicit function equation about FSmax can be obtained as follows:

h Rβ  
{[(WB + CPB )tan δB /FSmax + CB /FSmax ]/(1 − tan δB tan ϕSW /FSmax ) − γSW β12 Ae−ψβ cos β − Ae−ψβ2 cos β 2
   c Rβ  2   
× Ae−ψβ sin β Ae−ψβ (cos β − ψ sin β)dβ − SW β12 Ae−ψβ dβ−CPL Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 / Ae−ψβ1 cos β 1 − H/3
o FSmax (52)
+ Ae−ψβ1 sin β 1 tan ϕSW [(cos θ + sin θ tan δP /FSmax ) + (sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) tan ϕSW ]
−[WP + (CPL − CPB )](sin θ − cos θ tan δP /FSmax ) + CP /FSmax = 0

2.5. Calculation of the Safety Factor

To ensure the minimum and maximum values of the safety factor calculated by the con-
structed model under the composite failure mode of the landfill slope with an engineered
berm are reasonable, certain judgment conditions should be defined in programming to
eliminate unreasonable values. Readers can refer to the paper by Ruan et al. [31].
A calculation program can be developed using MATLAB software (https://www.
mathworks.com/products/matlab.html, accessed on 3 October 2024) to determine the
FSmax and FSmin for two types of berm failure modes. The calculation flowchart can be
designed with reference to the flowchart presented in the paper of Ruan et al. [31].
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 12 of 24

3. Results
3.1. Error Analysis
The average safety factor, FSave , is defined as (FSmax + FSmin )/2. Qian et al. [12] proved
that the upper limit of the relative error between the true safety factor, FStrue , and FSave is
less than the relative error, ∆, between FSave and FSmin , that is, ∆ = (FSave − FSmin )/FSmin .
And it is explained that when the relative error between FStrue and FSave is not greater
than 5%, FSave can be used as a substitute for FStrue to assess the degree of stability of
landfill slopes.
For the sake of a thorough analysis of the range variation of ∆ regarding the engineered
berm, the characteristic parameters related to that berm are investigated. The basic parame-
ters are as follows: (1) Geometric parameters: H = 30 m, B = 40 m, HB = 7.5 m, DB = 3 m,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW ◦ 13 of 24
ω = 14 (i.e., 4[H]:1[V]), α = 18.4◦ (i.e., 3[H]:1[V]), θ = 1.1◦ (i.e., the slope is 2%), ξ = 26.6◦
◦
(i.e., 2[H]:1[V]), η = 63.4 (i.e., 0.5[H]:1[V]); (2) Mechanical parameters of waste mass and
berm: γSW = 10.20 kN/m3 , ϕSW = 30◦ , cSW = 3.0 kN/m2 , γB = 18 kN/m3 ; (3) Shear strength
components
between beneath passive
liner components wedge:
beneath δP = 18°,
passive cP = 11.5
wedge: 18◦ , c2P; (4)
δP =kN/m Shear
= 11.5 kN/m 2 ; (4)between
strength Shear
liner components beneath block wedge: (i) δblock
B = 18°, cB = 11.5
(i) δkN/m ◦ kN/m2
strength between liner components beneath wedge: B = 18 under the over-berm
, cB = 11.5
2

failure
themode and (ii)failure
δB = 32°, cB = 8and
kN/m
(ii)2δunder ◦ , c under-berm 2 under mode.
under over-berm mode B = 32the B = 8 kN/m failure the under-berm
failure mode.
3.1.1. Analysis of the Safety Factor When Over-Berm Failure Occurs
3.1.1. Analysis of the Safety Factor When Over-Berm Failure Occurs
From Figure 9a, it can be seen that FSmax, FSmin, and FSave all increase with the increase
in HFrom Figure 9a, it can be seen that FS 15 ,m,
B. When HB increases from 3 m to max
FSFS , and
minmax FSave allby
increases increase
8.56%,with FSavethe increaseby
increases
HB . When
in6.60%, and H increases
FSBmin increasesfrom
by 34.53%.
m to 15 canFSbe
It m, maxseenincreases 8.56%, FS
byincrease
that the inave
theincreases by
above three
6.60%, and FS increases by 4.53%. It
types of safety factors gradually decreases.%
min can be seen that the increase in the above three
types of safety factors gradually decreases.%

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with HB (b) Δ varies with HB
Figure
9. 9.
FSFSmax, FSmin, FSave, and Δ vary with HB when over-berm failure occurs.
Figure max , FSmin , FSave , and ∆ vary with HB when over-berm failure occurs.

Figure9b9bshows
Figure showsthat that ∆
thatthat Δ increases with
with the
theincrease
increaseininHH B. BSpecifically, when
. Specifically, HB =
when
HB3 =
m,3 6m,m, 9 m,
6 m, 12 12
9 m, m,m, and
and1515m,m,Δ∆isis2.86%,
2.86%,3.14%,
3.14%, 3.58%,
3.58%, 4.16%, and and 4.89%,
4.89%,respectively.
respectively.
Thus,
Thus, the
the maximum
maximum value
value ∆Δ
ofof is is 4.89%.
4.89%.
From Figure 10a, it can be seen thatthat
From Figure 10a, it can be seen FSmax
FSmax , FS
, FS and
and
min,
min, FSFS allslightly
aveaveall slightlydecrease
decrease and
and
then
then increase
increase with
with thethe increase
increase in in
ξ. ξ.
 Figure 9b shows that that Δ increases with the increase in HB. Specifically, when HB =
3 m, 6 m, 9 m, 12 m, and 15 m, Δ is 2.86%, 3.14%, 3.58%, 4.16%, and 4.89%, respectively.
Thus, the maximum value of Δ is 4.89%.
From Figure 10a, it can be seen that FSmax, FSmin, and FSave all slightly decrease and
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 13 of 24
then increase with the increase in ξ.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with ξ (b) Δ varies with ξ
Figure
10.10.
FSFS max, FSmin, FSave, and Δ vary with ξ when over-berm failure occurs.
Figure max , FSmin , FSave , and ∆ vary with ξ when over-berm failure occurs.
Figure 10b shows that that Δ increases with the increase in α. And it can be deter-
Figure
mined 10b
that shows
when ξ =that
15°,that20°,∆25°,
increases with
30°, 35°, 40°,the increase
45°, in α.3.26%,
Δ = 3.22%, And it 3.32%,
can be 3.41%,
determined
3.53%,
that when3.95%. ◦
ξ = 15It, can◦
20 ,be ◦ ◦
25concluded ◦ ◦
, 30 , 35 , that
40 , 45 ◦ ∆ = 3.22%,value
3.71%, the,maximum 3.26%,of3.32%, 3.41%, 3.53%, 3.71%,
Δ is 3.95%.
3.95%. From
It canFigure
be concluded
11a, it can that
bethe
seenmaximum
that FSmaxvalue ∆ isFS
, FSminofand 3.95%.
ave all increase with the increase

in δB. When δB increases from 12° to 30°, FSmax, FSave, and FSFS
From Figure 11a, it can be seen that FS max , FS min and minave
all increase
increase with2.19%,
by 2.55%, the
increase in δ . When δ increases from 12 ◦ to 30◦ , FS , FS , and FS increase byof
B B max ave
and 1.81%, respectively. The changing trend of the safety factor is the same as the effect min
2.55%, 2.19%, and 1.81%,
HB on the safety factor. respectively. The changing trend of the safety factor is the same
as the effect of HB on the safety factor.

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with δB (b) Δ varies with δB
Figure
Figure 11.11.
FSFS max, FSmin, FSave, and Δ vary with δB when over-berm failure occurs.
max , FSmin , FSave , and ∆ vary with δB when over-berm failure occurs.

Figure
Figure 11b11b shows
shows that ∆ increases
that Δ increasesas as
δB δincreases.
B increases. Specifically,
Specifically, when
when δB δ=B 12 ◦ , 1515°,
= 12°, ◦ , 1818°,
◦,
◦ , 2424°,
2121°, ◦ , 27◦27°,
, and 30◦30°,
and , ∆ isΔ3.25%,
is 3.25%, 3.29%,
3.29%, 3.35%,
3.35%, 3.40%, 3.40%,
3.47%, 3.47%,
3.55%,3.55%, and 3.64%,
and 3.64%, respec-
respectively.
tively.
Thus, theThus,
maximum value of ∆
the maximum value of Δ is 3.64%.
is 3.64%.
FromFigure
From Figure12a,12a,itit can
can be seen thatFSFS
seenthat max , FS
max FSmin
, min andand FSaveFS
allave
increase with the
all increase increase
with the
increase in cB .cWhen cB increases 2 FS FSmin , and FSmin
in cB. When B increases from 0 tofrom 0 to 30
30 kN/m kN/m
2, FS max, FS,ave max , FS
, and aveincrease increase
by 2.36%, by
2.28%,
2.36%, 2.28%,respectively.
and 2.20%, and 2.20%, respectively.
It can be seenIt that
can betheseen that above
increase the increase above factors
three safety three safety
gradu-
factors graduallybut
ally decreases, decreases, but theamong
the difference difference
those among those not significant.
not significant.
Figure 12b shows that Δ increases with the increase in cB. And it can be determined that
when cB = 0, 5 kN/m2, 10 kN/m2, 15 kN/m2, 20 kN/m2, 25 kN/m2, 30 kN/m2, Δ = 3.31%, 3.33%,
3.34%, 3.36%, 3.37%, 3.38%, 3.40%. It can be concluded that the maximum value of Δ is 3.40%.
 and 2.20%, respectively. It can be seen that the increase above three safety factors gradu-
ally decreases, but the difference among those not significant.
Figure 12b shows that Δ increases with the increase in cB. And it can be determined that
when cB = 0, 5 kN/m2, 10 kN/m2, 15 kN/m2, 20 kN/m2, 25 kN/m2, 30 kN/m2, Δ = 3.31%, 3.33%,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515
3.34%, 3.36%, 3.37%, 3.38%, 3.40%. It can be concluded that the maximum value of Δ14 isof 24
3.40%.

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with cB (b) Δ varies with cB
Figure
12. 12. FSmax, FSmin , FSave, and Δ vary with cB when over-berm failure occurs.
Figure FSmax , FS min , FSave , and ∆ vary with cB when over-berm failure occurs.

Figure 12b shows that ∆ increases with the increase in cB . And it can be determined that
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 24
when cB = 0, 5 kN/m2 , 10 kN/m2 , 15 kN/m2 , 20 kN/m2 , 25 kN/m2 , 30 kN/m2 , ∆ = 3.31%,
3.33%, 3.34%, 3.36%, 3.37%, 3.38%, 3.40%. It can be concluded that the maximum value of
∆ is 3.40%.
3.1.2. Analysis of the Safety Factor When Under-Berm Failure Occurs
3.1.2. Analysis of the
Figure 13a Safety
shows Factor
that FSmaxWhen
, FSminUnder-Berm
, and FSave allFailure Occurs
increase as HB increases. When HB
Figure from
increases 13a shows
3 m tothat FSmax
15 m, , FS
FSmax, FS
min
ave andFS
, ,and min all
FSave increase
increase by as HB increases.
6.59%, 6.35%, andWhen
6.10%,
HBrespectively.
increases from
The 3rate
m of 15 m, FSin
to increase , FSave
these
max safety FSmingradually
, andfactors increase by 6.59%, 6.35%,
diminishes, and
but the dif-
6.10%, respectively. The rate of increase in
ferences in their rates are not significant. these safety factors gradually diminishes, but
the differences in their rates are not significant.

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with HB (b) Δ varies with HB
Figure 13. FSmax, FSmin, FSave, and Δ vary with HB when under-berm failure occurs.
Figure 13. FSmax , FSmin , FSave , and ∆ vary with HB when under-berm failure occurs.

From
From Figure
Figure 13b,it itcan
13b, canbebeseen
seenthatthat∆Δincreases
increaseswithwiththe the increase
increase in
in H
HBB.. And
Andititcan
canbe
determined that when H = 3 m, 6 m, 9 m, 12 m, 15 m, Δ =
be determined that when HB = 3 m, 6 m, 9 m, 12 m, 15 m, ∆ = 2.75%, 2.80%, 2.86%, 2.94%,
B 2.75%, 2.80%, 2.86%, 2.94%,
2.99%.
2.99%. It It
cancan
bebe concluded
concluded that
that thethe maximum
maximum value
value ofof
∆Δ is is 2.99%.
2.99%.
Figure 14a shows that that FS , FS and FS
Figure 14a shows that that FSmax , FSmin and FSave all decrease with
max min ave all decrease withthe
theincrease
increaseininξ.ξ.
When
When ξ increases
ξ increases fromfrom ◦
15 15°to 45 ◦
to 45°, FSmax
, FSmax , FS
, FS , and
, and FSFS decreasebyby3.62%,
mindecrease 3.62%,3.57%,
3.57%, and
and
aveave min
3.53%,
3.53%, respectively.
respectively. It It
cancan bebe seen
seen that
that thethe increase
increase above
above three
three safety
safety factors
factors is is gradually
gradually
decreasing,
decreasing, but
but their
their decrease
decrease rates
rates is is similar
similar to to
thethe impact
impact of of
HBHon B on the
the safety
safety factor.
factor.
 2.99%. It can be concluded that the maximum value of Δ is 2.99%.
Figure 14a shows that that FSmax, FSmin and FSave all decrease with the increase in ξ.
When ξ increases from 15° to 45°, FSmax, FSave, and FSmin decrease by 3.62%, 3.57%, and
3.53%, respectively. It can be seen that the increase above three safety factors is gradually
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 15 of 24
decreasing, but their decrease rates is similar to the impact of HB on the safety factor.

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with ξ (b) Δ varies with ξ
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 14. FSmax, FSmin, FSave, and Δ vary with ξ when under-berm failure occurs. 16 of 24
Figure 14. FSmax , FSmin , FSave , and ∆ vary with ξ when under-berm failure occurs.

FromFigure
From Figure14b,
14b,ititcan
canbe
beseen that∆Δincreases
seenthat increases with
with the increase in ξ. ξ. And
Andititcan
canbe
determined
be2.826%,
determined that when
that2.818%, ξ =
when ξ 2.815%. ◦
15°, ◦
20°,
= 15 , 20It , can ◦
25°,
25 ,be ◦
30°, ◦
35°,
30 concluded ◦
40°, ◦
45°,
, 35 , 40 , 45 , ∆the
Δ = 2.867%,
= 2.867%, 2.837%,
2.837%, 2.831%,
2.831%,
2.822%, that maximum value of Δ is
2.867%.2.822%, 2.818%, 2.815%. It can be concluded that the maximum value of ∆ is
2.826%,
2.867%.Figure 15a shows that FSmax, FSmin, and FSave all increase as δB increases. When δB in-
Figure
creases from15a15°
shows that
to 40°, FSFS
maxmax FS
, FS,ave min , FS
, and andminFS ave all increase
increase by 5.38%,as5.19%,
δB increases. When
and 4.98%, δB
respec-
increases from 15 ◦ to 40◦ , FS , FS , and FS increase by 5.38%, 5.19%, and 4.98%,
tively. The rate of increase in these safety factors
max ave mingradually diminishes, but the differences
respectively.
between them The arerate
notof increase in these safety factors gradually diminishes, but the
significant.
differences between them are not significant.

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with δB (b) Δ varies with δB
Figure
15.15.
FSFSmax, FSmin, FSave, and Δ vary with δB when under-berm failure occurs.
Figure max , FSmin , FSave , and ∆ vary with δB when under-berm failure occurs.

From
From Figure
Figure 15b,
15b, it it
can can
bebe seen
seen that
that ∆Δ first
first slightly
slightly decreases
decreases and
and then
then increases
increases with
with
the increase in δ . And it can be
the increase in δB . And it can be determined
B determined that when δ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
δB = 15 , 20 , 25 , 30 , 35 , 40Δ
B = 15°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 35°, ◦
40°, ◦, =

∆ 2.742%,
= 2.742%, 2.741%,
2.741%,2.792%,
2.792%,2.815%,
2.815%,2.855%,
2.855%,2.938%.
2.938%. It It can be
be concluded
concludedthat thatthe
themaximum
maximum
value
value ∆Δ
ofof is is 2.938%.
2.938%.
Figure
Figure 16a16a shows
shows thatthat FSmax
FSmax , FS
, FS minminandandFSFS ave allincrease
aveall increasewithwiththethe increase
increase in in
cB .cBWhen
. When
cBcincreases
B increasesfrom
from00to to20 kN/m22, ,FS
20 kN/m FSmax ,
max FS
, FS
ave ,
ave and
, FS
and FS
min increase
min by
increase 1.45%,
by 1.47%,
1.45%, and
1.47%, 1.49%,
and
respectively.
1.49%, It canItbe
respectively. canseen that there
be seen is almost
that there no difference
is almost in theinincrease
no difference in theinabove
the increase the
above three safety
three safety factors. factors.
 value of Δ is 2.938%.
Figure 16a shows that FSmax, FSmin and FSave all increase with the increase in cB. When
cB increases from 0 to 20 kN/m2, FSmax, FSave, and FSmin increase by 1.45%, 1.47%, and 1.49%,
respectively. It can be seen that there is almost no difference in the increase in the above
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 16 of 24
three safety factors.

(a) FSmax, FSmin, and FSave vary with cB (b) Δ varies with cB
Figure16.
16.FS
FSmax,,FS
FSmin,, FS
FSave,, and Δ vary with cB when under-berm failure occurs.
Figure max min ave and ∆ vary with cB when under-berm failure occurs.

From Figure 16b, it can be seen that ∆ decreases approximately linearly with the
increase in cB . And it can be determined that when cB = 0, 4 kN/m2 , 8 kN/m2 , 12 kN/m2 ,
16 kN/m2 , 20 kN/m2 , ∆ = 2.839%, 2.834%, 2.829%, 2.824%, 2.819%, 2.814%. It can be
concluded that the maximum value of ∆ is 2.839%.
Through the analysis of ∆ above, it can be found that the maximum value of ∆ is
4.89%. In other words, the values of ∆ are all within 5%. Therefore, it is feasible to use FSave
to approximate FStrue to evaluate the degree of stability of the landfill with an engineered
berm against composite failure modes.

3.2. Parametric Analysis

To analyze the influence of related parameters of the engineered berm on the average
safety factor, FSave , the parametric analysis was conducted, and the basic parameter values
are shown in Section 3.1.

3.2.1. Parametric Analysis When Over-Berm Failure Occurs

It can be seen from Figure 17 that as HB increases, FSave increases, and as ξ increases,
FSave also increases. When HB changes from 3 m to 15 m, FSave increases by 6.60% when
ξ = 25◦ ; when ξ = 30◦ , FSave increases by 6.69%; when ξ = 35◦ , FSave increases by 7.02%;
when ξ = 40◦ , FSave increases by 7.61%. Therefore, it can be found that with the increase in
ξ, the influence of HB on FSave gradually becomes stronger.
It can be clearly observed in Figure 18 that as cB increases, FSave increases, and as
δB increases, FSave also increases. When cB varies from 0 to 20 kN/m2 , FSave increases
by 1.44% when δB = 12◦ ; when δB = 15◦ , FSave increases by 1.51%; when δB = 18◦ , FSave
increases by 1.53%; when δB = 21◦ , FSave increases by 1.55%. It can be thus summarized
that the influence of cB on FSave slightly increases as δB increases.
 It can be seen from Figure 17 that as HB increases, FSave increases, and as ξ incre
FSave also increases. When HB changes from 3 m to 15 m, FSave increases by 6.60% wh
= 25°; when ξ = 30°, FSave increases by 6.69%; when ξ = 35°, FSave increases by 7.02%; w
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 ξ = 40°, FSave increases by 7.61%. Therefore, it can be found that with the 17
increase
of 24 in ξ
influence of HB on FSave gradually becomes stronger.

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18

Figure17.
Figure 17.The
The effect
effect of ξof ξ and
and HFS
HB on B on FS ave when over-berm failure occurs.
ave when over-berm failure occurs.

It can be clearly observed in Figure 18 that as cB increases, FSave increases, and

increases, FSave also increases. When cB varies from 0 to 20 kN/m2, FSave increases by 1
when δB = 12°; when δB = 15°, FSave increases by 1.51%; when δB = 18°, FSave increase
1.53%; when δB = 21°, FSave increases by 1.55%. It can be thus summarized that the influ
of cB on FSave slightly increases as δB increases.

Figure18.18.
Figure TheThe effect
effect of δBofand
δB and
cB oncFS
B on
ave FSave when
when over-berm
over-berm failure occurs.
failure occurs.

3.2.2. Parametric Analysis When Under-Berm Failure Occurs

3.2.2. Parametric Analysis When Under-Berm Failure Occurs
It can be found out from Figure 19 that as HB increases, FSave increases, while as ξ
It can
increases, bedecreases
FSave found out from Figure
accordingly. When H 19B varies
that as HB3 increases,
from m to 15 m, FS FS increases,
aveincreases
ave by while
increases,
when FS ◦
25 decreases ◦
accordingly. When by H B varies
whenfrom 3m◦ , FSto
7.12% ξ =ave ; when ξ = 30 , FSave increases 5.01%; ξ = 35 ave15 m, FSave incre
increases
by 3.50%; when = 40 ◦ , FS
by 7.12% when ξ = 25°; ave
ξ when ξ = 30°, FSave increases by 5.01%; when ξ = 35°,asFS
increases by 2.39%. As a result, it can be concluded that ξ ave incre
increases, the effect
by 3.50%; when ξ = 40°,of H B on FS gradually weakens.
aveincreases by 2.39%. As a result, it can be concluded that
FSave
increases, the effect of HB on FSave gradually weakens.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2024,
2024, 14,
14, 11515
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 18
ofof2524

Figure 19. The

The effect
effect of
of ξξ and
and H
HBBon
onFS avewhen
FSave whenunder-berm
under-bermfailure
failureoccurs.
occurs.

Figure 20
Figure 20 shows
shows thatthat FS
FSave either increases
ave either with ccBB or
increases with or increases
increases with WhenccBB
with δδBB.. When
changes from 0 to 16 kN/m 2 , FS increases by 1.20% for δ = 25 ◦ , 1.18% for δ = 30◦ ,
changes from 0 to 16 kN/m , FSave increases
2 ave by 1.20% for δB = 25°,B 1.18% for δB = 30°,B1.17%
1.17% ◦ , and 1.13% for δ = 40◦ . Thus, it can be judged that with the increase in
for δB =for = 351.13%
δBand
35°, for δB = 40°. BThus, it can be judged that with the increase in δB, the
δB , the influence
influence of cB onofFScave
B on FSave weakens.
slightly slightly weakens.

Figure 20. The

The effect
effect of
of δδBB and
andccBBon
onFS
FSave
avewhen
whenunder-berm
under-bermfailure occurs.
failure occurs.

3.3. Slip
3.3. Slip Surface
Surface Analysis
Analysis
The analysis
The analysis of
of the
the critical
critical log-spiral
log-spiralslip
slipsurface
surfaceconsiders
considerstwo
twofailure
failuremodes
modesofofthethe
engineered berm, and for the basic parameter values, one needs to refer to Section
engineered berm, and for the basic parameter values, one needs to refer to Section 3.1. 3.1.

3.3.1. Slip Surface Analysis When Over-Berm Failure Occurs

3.3.1. Slip Surface Analysis When Over-Berm Failure Occurs
The influence of δB on the critical log-spiral slip surface is as shown in Figure 21a. In
The influence of δB on the critical log-spiral slip surface is as shown in Figure 21a. In
this figure, (I) represents the working condition of δB = 12◦ and (II) represents the working
this figure, (I) represents the working condition of δB = 12° and (II) represents the working
condition of δB = 30◦ . In (I), FSmin = 1.996, FSmax = 2.126, and FSmin = 2.033; FSmax = 2.180
condition of δB = 30°. In (I), FSmin = 1.996, FSmax = 2.126, and FSmin = 2.033; FSmax = 2.180 in
in (II). From Figure 21a, it can be clearly seen that as δB increases, the critical log-spiral slip
(II). From Figure 21a, it can be clearly seen that as δB increases, the critical log-spiral slip
surface gradually shifts to the right.
surface gradually shifts to the right.
The influence of cB on the critical slip surface is as shown in Figure 21b. In this figure,
(I) represents the working condition of cB = 0 and (II) represents the working condition of
cB = 30 kN/m2. In (I), FSmin = 1.990 and FSmax = 2.122, and in (II), FSmin = 2.034, FSmax = 2.172.
 It can be easily observed from Figure 21b that as cB increases, the critical log-spiral slip
surface gradually shifts to the right.
From Figure 21a,b, it can be determined that as δB or cB increases, the horizontal spac-
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 ing between the critical log-spiral slip surfaces generated by FSmin and FSmax, respectively,
19 of 24
increases accordingly.

(a) The influence of δB when over-berm failure occurs. (b) The influence of cB when over-berm failure occurs.

(c) The influence of δB when under-berm failure occurs. (d) The influence of cB when under-berm failure occurs.
Figure 21. The influence of δB and cB on critical log-spiral slip surface, respectively.
Figure 21. The influence of δB and cB on critical log-spiral slip surface, respectively.

3.3.2.
The Slip Surface Analysis
influence of cB onWhen Under-Berm
the critical Failure is
slip surface Occurs
as shown in Figure 21b. In this
The influence of δ on the critical log-spiral slip
figure, (I) represents the working condition of cB = 0 and (II)
B surface is as shown inthe
represents Figure 21c. Incon-
working
this Figure, (I) represents
2 the working condition of δ = 15° and (II) represents
dition of cB = 30 kN/m . In (I), FSmin = 1.990 and FSmax = 2.122, and in (II), FSmin = 2.034,
B the working
FScondition of δB = 40°. In (I), FSmin = 1.965 and FSmax = 2.073, FSmin = 2.063, FSmax = 2.184 in
max = 2.172. It can be easily observed from Figure 21b that as cB increases, the critical
(II). From
log-spiral slip Figure 21c, gradually
surface it can be seen that
shifts toas δBright.
the increases, the critical log-spiral slip surface
gradually shifts to the right.
From Figure 21a,b, it can be determined that as δB or cB increases, the horizontal spac-
The influence of cBlog-spiral
on the critical log-spiralgenerated
slip surface byisFS
as shown in Figure 21d. In
ing between the critical slip surfaces min and FSmax , respectively,
the figure, (I) represents the working condition of cB = 0; (II) represents the working con-
increases accordingly. 2
dition of cB = 20 kN/m . In (I), FSmin = 2.014 and FSmax = 2.128; in (II), FSmin = 2.044, FSmax =
2.159.
3.3.2. From
Slip Figure
Surface 21d, it can
Analysis be seen
When that as cB increases,
Under-Berm the critical log-spiral slip surface
Failure Occurs
gradually shifts to the right.
The influence of δB on the critical log-spiral slip surface is as shown in Figure 21c. In
From Figure 21c,d, the horizontal spacing between the◦ critical log-spiral slip surfaces
this figure, (I) represents the working condition of δB = 15slight
generated by FSmin ◦and FSmax, respectively, only undergo
andchanges.
(II) represents the working
condition of δB = 40 . In (I), FSmin = 1.965 and FSmax = 2.073, FSmin = 2.063, FSmax = 2.184
in4.(II). From Figure 21c, it can be seen that as δB increases, the critical log-spiral slip surface
Discussion
gradually shifts to the right.
In order to investigate the reliability of the method proposed in this paper in analyz-
The influence of c on the critical log-spiral slip surface is as shown in Figure 21d.
ing the stability of theBlandfill with an engineered berm, the average safety factor, FSave,
Inagainst
the figure, (I) represents
composite the working
failure 2mode condition
was compared with cB = against
of that 0; (II) represents thefailure
translational working
condition of c B = 20 kN/m . In (I), FS min = 2.014 and FS max = 2.128; in (II),
mode. Referring to Technical code [36], the shear strength values of four types of liner FS min = 2.044,
FSmax = 2.159. From Figure 21d, it can be seen that as cB increases, the critical log-spiral slip
surface gradually shifts to the right.
From Figure 21c,d, the horizontal spacing between the critical log-spiral slip surfaces
generated by FSmin and FSmax , respectively, only undergo slight changes.

4. Discussion
In order to investigate the reliability of the method proposed in this paper in analyzing
the stability of the landfill with an engineered berm, the average safety factor, FSave ,
against composite failure mode was compared with that against translational failure mode.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 20 of 24

Referring to Technical code [36], the shear strength values of four types of liner interfaces
are shown in Table 1. The shear strength of the liner interface can generally reach its peak
value at the bottom of the landfill slope, while only residual values can be exerted at its back
slope [29]. For the shear strength value of waste mass, any type can be selected according
to Technical code [34], i.e., ϕSW = 12◦ , cSW = 15 kN/m2 (WM-1), while the other type can be
selected according to the paper by Chen et al. [37], i.e., ϕSW = 17◦ , cSW = 6 kN/m2 (WM-2).

Table 1. Peak and residual shear strength values of four types of liner interfaces at bottom and back
slope, respectively.

Liner Peak Shear Strength Residual Shear Strength

No
Interface δP (◦ ) cP (kN/m2 ) δA (◦ ) cA (kN/m2 )
LI-I GMX1/GT2 30 5 15 2
LI-II GMX/CCL3 27 10 18 10
LI-III GMX/GCL 28 3 16 0
LI-IV GT/GN4 27 0 14 0

For the comparison of safety factors under the action of the engineered berm, the
over-berm and under-berm failure modes were considered separately. Under these two
failure modes, parameter value combinations for five working conditions are provided as
shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The other unchanged parameter values are as follows:
H = 70 m, B = 100 m, α = 18.4◦ , ω = 14◦ , θ = 1.1◦ , DB = 3 m, η = 63.4◦ , γSW = 10.2 kN/m3 ,
γB = 18 kN/m3 .

Table 2. Geometric and mechanical parameters for the engineered berm when over-berm failure occurs.

Case I Case II Case III Case IV Case V

HB (m) 3 10 3 3 3
ξ (◦ ) 26.6 26.6 18.4 26.6 26.6
δB (◦ ) 18 18 18 10 18
cB (kN/m2 ) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 20

Table 3. Geometric and mechanical parameters for the engineered berm when under-berm failure occurs.

Case I Case II Case III Case IV Case V

HB (m) 3 10 3 3 3
ξ (◦ ) 26.6 26.6 18.4 26.6 26.6
δB (◦ ) 32 32 32 20 32
cB (kN/m2 ) 8 8 8 8 12

When analyzing the stability of the landfill slope in Figure 22, T indicates translational
failure while C indicates composite failure. In addition, considering the type of failure of
the engineered berm, Subscript o represents the over-berm failure mode, and Subscript u
represents the under-berm failure mode. The bold font in the above tables suggests that
the safety factor calculated for resisting the composite failure mode is lower than the value
calculated for resisting the translational failure mode, and the italic bold font implies that
the safety factors calculated for resisting the two failure modes are no different.
 ditions with WM-2, it can be seen that the critical failure modes of the landfill under con-
ditions of LI-II and LI-III are consistent with the above situation.
For the stability analysis of landfill slopes currently containing composite liner sys-
tems, it is necessary to conduct translational failure analysis. However, simultaneously
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 verifying the stability under the composite failure mode can obviously reduce the risk of 21 of 24
instability.

(a) Case I. (b) Case II.

(c) Case III. (d) Case IV.

(e) Case V.
Figure 22.
22. FS
FSave against translational and composite failure modes, respectively, in different cases.
Figure ave against translational and composite failure modes, respectively, in different cases.

5. Conclusions
From Figure 22a–e, it can be seen that FSave calculated against the composite failure
mode is smaller than that against the translational failure mode when using WM-1 for waste
mass, regardless of whether the instability to the engineered berm is over-berm failure or
under-berm failure. In other words, the critical failure mode of the landfill slope at this time
is composite. In Figure 22b, when WM-2 is used for waste mass and under-berm failure
mode is considered to occur, it can be observed that FSave produced by Cu is almost equal
to that produced by Tu under the working condition of LI-III. In other working conditions
with WM-2, it can be seen that the critical failure modes of the landfill under conditions of
LI-II and LI-III are consistent with the above situation.
For the stability analysis of landfill slopes currently containing composite liner systems,
it is necessary to conduct translational failure analysis. However, simultaneously verifying
the stability under the composite failure mode can obviously reduce the risk of instability.

5. Conclusions
This paper established a static calculation model for evaluating the stability of a landfill
with an engineered berm against composite failure mode. Through relevant assumptions,
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 22 of 24

implicit function equations for the maximum and minimum safety factors under different
failure modes of the engineered berm were obtained. The maximum and minimum safety
factor values were calculated through MATLAB programming. Through error analysis, it
was verified that using the average safety factor instead of the true safety factor to evaluate
the static stability of the landfill with an engineered berm against composite failure modes
is feasible. Furthermore, the influence of relevant parameters of the engineered berm on the
landfill stability and the critical slip surface was analyzed, and the following conclusions
were drawn:
(1) When the height of berm remains constant, the ability of the landfill slope to resist
over-berm failure can be improved by increasing the value of the angle of the back slope of
the berm. In addition, for the over-berm failure mode, a larger value of interface friction
angle of liner components beneath the block combined with appropriate apparent cohesion
between liner components beneath the block is more conducive to improving the stability
of the landfill slope.
(2) Unlike the situation when over-berm failure occurs, a specific height of berm
requires a smaller value of the angle of the back slope of the berm to resist under-berm
failure. At this point, the combination of the interface friction angle of liner components
beneath the block and the apparent cohesion between liner components beneath the block
has the opposite effect on the stability of the landfill slope compared to the situation when
over-berm failure occurs.
(3) Regardless of over-berm failure or under-berm failure, as the interface friction
angle of liner components beneath the block or the apparent cohesion between liner
components beneath the block increases, the critical log-spiral slip surface gradually shifts
to the right. In addition, the changes in the mechanical parameters of the engineered berm
have a significant impact on the horizontal spacing of the critical log-spiral slip surfaces
corresponding to the maximum and minimum safety factors in the over-berm failure
mode while having little effect on the corresponding horizontal spacing in the under-berm
failure mode.
(4) Whether it is over-berm failure or under-berm failure, the geometric and mechanical
parameters of the engineered berm have little effect on the transition between translational
and composite failure of the landfill slope, while the mechanical parameters of the waste
mass have a significant effect.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.R. and Y.-S.L.; methodology, X.R. and H.W.; software,
Y.L. and H.W.; validation, Y.L., Y.-S.L. and H.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.R. and Y.L.;
writing—review and editing, Y.-S.L., J.C. and Z.D.; supervision, X.R.; funding acquisition, Y.-S.L. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Shanghai Rising-Star Program, grant number 21QB1404400.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data can be acquired upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: Yu-Shan Luo was employed by the Shanghai Shen Yuan Geotechnical Engineer-
ing Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. De Stefano, M.; Gharabaghi, B.; Clemmer, R.; Jahanfar, M.A. Berm design to reduce risks of catastrophic slope failures at solid
waste disposal sites. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 1117–1125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Jiang, H.; Zhou, X.; Xiao, W. Stability of extended earth berm for high landfill. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6281. [CrossRef]
3. Sheng, H.; Ren, Y.; Huang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Lan, J. Vertical expansion stability of an existing landfill: A case study of a landfill in
Xi’an, China. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 5574238. [CrossRef]
4. Qian, X.; Koerner, R.M. Translational Failure Analysis of Solid Waste Landfills Including Seismicity and Leachate Head Calculations; GRI
Report No. 33; Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 23 of 24

5. Tu, F.; Wu, X.; Wang, Q. Consistent model of translational failure analysis of sanitary landfills with refuse dam. Chin. J. Rock Mech.
Eng. 2009, 28, 1928–1935. (In Chinese)
6. Qian, X.; Koerner, R.M. Stability analysis when using an engineered berm to increase landfill space. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
2009, 135, 1082–1091. [CrossRef]
7. Liu, C.; Shi, J.; Lv, Y.; Shao, G. A modified stability analysis method of landfills dependent on gas pressure. Waste Manag. Res.
2021, 39, 784–794. [CrossRef]
8. Annapareddy, V.S.R.; Pain, A.; Sufian, A.; Godas, S.; Scheuermann, A. Influence of heterogeneity and elevated temperatures on
the seismic translational stability of engineered landfills. Waste Manag. 2023, 158, 1–12. [CrossRef]
9. Li, J.; Chen, R.; Lin, H. Limit equilibrium analysis of landfill instability based on actual failure surface. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10498.
[CrossRef]
10. Zhang, W.; Han, L.; Gu, X.; Wang, L.; Chen, F.; Liu, H. Tunneling and deep excavations in spatially variable soil and rock masses:
A short review. Undergr. Space 2022, 7, 380–407. [CrossRef]
11. Sun, S.L.; Ruan, X.B. Seismic stability for landfills with a triangular berm using pseudo-static limit equilibrium method. Environ.
Earth Sci. 2013, 68, 1465–1473. [CrossRef]
12. Qian, X.; Koerner, R.M.; Gray, D.H. Translational failure analysis of landfills. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003, 129, 506–519.
[CrossRef]
13. Qian, X.; Koerner, R.M. Effect of apparent cohesion on translational failure analyses of landfills. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004,
130, 71–80. [CrossRef]
14. Qian, X. Limit equilibrium analysis of translational failure of landfills under different leachate buildup conditions. Water Sci. Eng.
2008, 1, 44–62.
15. Qian, X.; Koerner, R.M. Modification to translational failure analysis of landfills incorporating seismicity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 2010, 136, 718–727. [CrossRef]
16. Feng, S.J.; Chen, Y.M.; Gao, G.Y. Analysis on translational failure of landfill along the underlying liner system. Chin. J. Geotech.
Eng. 2007, 29, 20–25. (In Chinese)
17. Feng, S.; Chen, Y.; Gao, G.; Zhang, J.X. Effects of retaining wall and interface strength on translational failure of landfill along
underlying liner system. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2007, 26, 149–155. (In Chinese)
18. Feng, S.J.; Chen, Y.M.; Gao, L.Y.; Gao, G.Y. Translational failure analysis of landfill with retaining wall along the underlying liner
system. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 60, 21–34. [CrossRef]
19. Feng, S.J.; Gao, L.Y. Seismic analysis for translational failure of landfills with retaining walls. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2065–2073.
[CrossRef]
20. Gao, D.; Zhu, B.; Chen, Y. Three-part wedge method for tanslational sliding analyses of landfills retained by a toe dam. Chin. J.
Rock Mech. Eng. 2007, 26 (Suppl. S2), 4378–4385. (In Chinese)
21. Chen, Y.M.; Gao, D.; Zhu, B.; Chen, R.P. Seismic stability and permanent displacement analysis of a solid waste landfill along
geosynthetic interface. Sci. China Technol. 2008, 38, 79–94.
22. Choudhury, D.; Savoikar, P. Seismic stability analysis of expanded MSW landfills using pseudo-static limit equilibrium method.
Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 135–145. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Ruan, X.B.; Sun, S.L.; Liu, W.L. Effect of the amplification factor on seismic stability of expanded municipal solid waste landfills
using the pseudo-dynamic method. J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. A 2013, 14, 731–738. [CrossRef]
24. Ruan, X.B.; Lin, H. Relationship between shear wave wavelength and pseudo-dynamic seismic safety factor in expanded landfill.
Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40, 2271–2288. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, D.; Chen, Y.; Ye, W.; Ye, D.; Lai, Q. Calculation and analysis of stability of landfills under blasting vibration loads. Chinese J.
Geotech. Eng. 2024, 46, 1067–1076.
26. Mahapatra, S.; Basha, B.M.; Manna, B. Leachate Pressure Effect on a System Reliability-Based Design of Reinforced Soil Walls for
a Vertical Expansion of MSW Landfills. Int. J. Geomech. 2023, 23, 04023027. [CrossRef]
27. Koerner, R.M.; Soong, T.Y. Leachate in landfills: The stability issues. Geotext. Geomembr. 2000, 18, 293–309. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, W.; Lin, S.; Wang, L.; Jiang, X.; Wang, S. A novel creep contact model for rock and its implement in discrete element
simulation. Comput. Geotech. 2024, 167, 106054. [CrossRef]
29. Thiel, R.S. Peak vs. residual shear strength for landfill bottom liner stability analyses. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual GRI
Conference Hot Topics in Geosynthetics—II, Houston, TX, USA, 13–14 December 2001; Geosynthetics Institute: Folsom, PA,
USA, 2001.
30. Fowmes, G.; Dixon, N.; Jones, D.R.V. Landfill stability and integrity: The UK design approach. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour.
Manag. 2007, 160, 51–61. [CrossRef]
31. Ruan, X.B.; Wang, H.W.; Luo, Y.S.; Hou, C. Composite failure analysis of municipal solid waste landfill cell stability. Iran. J. Sci.
Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2022, 46, 2325–2343. [CrossRef]
32. Ruan, X.B.; Yue, Q.S.; Zhu, D.Y.; Sun, S. Seismic stability analysis for composite failure of landfills. In Proceedings of the IACGE
2018, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 23–25 October 2018; pp. 549–556.
33. Leshchinsky, D.; San, K.C. Pseudostatic seismic stability of slopes: Design charts. J. Geotech. Eng. 1994, 120, 1514–1532. [CrossRef]
34. Ruan, X.; Luo, Y.-S.; Yan, J.; Zhang, L. Seismic internal stability of bilinear geosynthetic-reinforced slopes with cohesive backfills.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 143, 106599. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11515 24 of 24

35. Whitman, R.V.; Bailey, W.A. Use of computers for slope stability analysis. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1967, 93, 475–498. [CrossRef]
36. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Code for Geotechnical Engineering
of Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill; CJJ 176-2012; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese)
37. Chen, Y.M.; Wang, L.Z.; Hu, Y.Y.; Wu, S.M.; Zhang, Z.Y. Stability analysis of a solid waste landfill slope. China Civ. Eng. J. 2000, 33,
92–97. (In Chinese)

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.