## 5 Finite Element Modelling of the Two Embarments
### Material Model Parameters  
In the numerical analyses, all the clay layers were represented by either the MCC model or the HASP model. The embankments and all sand layers were represented with a simple linear elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb model (MC). It is important to note that no parameter calibration was done for the HASP model, and all model parameters are the same ones as used in [6,8]. Tables 1 and 2 contain the numerical model parameters, which are independent of the selected constitutive model for all soil layers. The model parameters for the MCC and HASP soil models are given in Tables 3 and 4 for Embankments A and B, respectively. The model parameters for the MCC and HASP soil models are the same. The only difference is that the HASP model uses the parameters \(\mathrm{d}_{C}^{\prime}\) and \(\mathrm{d}_{E}^{\prime}\) instead of parameter \(M\). For embankment A, the friction angle in compression is determined from the value of \(M_{\mathrm{C}}=1.6\), as reported in [6]. Since no value was given for the friction angle in extension, it was taken to have the same value as the friction angle in compression for Embankment A. For Embankment B, in [8] it was reported that the ratio of parameter \(M_{E}\) in extension and parameter \(M_{C}\) in compression was 0.8, and the value of \(M_{E}\) is calculated. Using Equations (18) and (19), the values of the friction angles in compression and extension given in Table 4 for Embankment B are calculated. Therefore, the friction angles during compression and extension are different for Embankment B. The overconsolidation ratio (OCR) of the clay layers is reproduced using POP--pre-overburden pressure. The value of POP for all clay layers is determined using Equation (21) so the values of OCR reported in [6; 8] are matched:  
\[\text{OCR}=\frac{\sigma_{v}^{\prime}+\text{POP}}{\sigma_{p}^{\prime}}, \tag{21}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Depth [m]** & **Soil Strata** & \(\gamma\)\(\bullet\) [kN/m\({}^{3}\)] & \(\mu\) [\(-\)] & \(e_{0}\) [\(-\)] & POP [kPa] & \(K_{0}^{NC}\) [\(-\)] & \(K_{0}^{OC}\) [\(-\)] & \(k_{p}\) [\(-\)] \\ \hline
0.0–1.5 & Surface clay layer & 16.0 & 0.15 & 1.50 & 40 & 0.51 & 1.48 & 6 & 9.1 & 0.6 \\ \hline
1.5–4.0 & & 13.1 & & 3.71 & 15 & & 0.73 & 10.4 & 15.6 & 1.48 \\
4.0–6.0 & & 19.9 & & 2.88 & 10 & & 0.62 & 17.3 & 25.9 & 1.15 \\
6.0–8.0 & & 14.1 & & 2.72 & 5 & & 0.55 & 16.5 & 24.7 & 1.09 \\
8.0–9.8 & & 15.7 & & 1.91 & 10 & & 0.58 & 7 & 10.6 & 0.76 \\ \hline
9.8–12.0 & & 18.0 & & 0.80 & & & & 2500 & 2500 & 0.32 \\
12.0–15.0 & Clayey Sand & 18.0 & 0.15 & 0.80 & 0 & & 0.43 & 2500 & 2500 & 0.32 \\
15.0–20.0 & & 19.0 & & 0.70 & & & & 2500 & 2500 & 0.32 \\ \hline Embankment & 19.0 & 0.30 & 0.80 & 0 & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Volumetric weight.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Numerical model parameters for Embankment A. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Depth [m]** & **Soil Strata** & \(\gamma\)\(\bullet\) [kN/m\({}^{3}\)] & \(\mu\) [\(-\)] & \(e_{0}\) [\(-\)] & POP [kPa] & \(K_{0}^{NC}\) [\(-\)] & \(K_{0}^{OC}\) [\(-\)] & \(k_{p}\) [\(-\)] \\ \hline
0.0–1.0 & Surface clay layer & 18.94 & 0.3 & 0.80 & 101 & 0.45 & 1.41 & 60.48 & 120.96 & 0.32 \\ \hline
1.0–2.5 & & & & 98 & & & 1.16 & & & \\
2.5–3.5 & Soft clay & 15.08 & 0.33 & 2.29 & 41 & 0.55 & 0.81 & 1.43 & 2.86 & 0.92 \\
3.5–8.5 & & & & 27 & & & 0.68 & & & \\ \hline
8.5–11.5 & Dense sand & 19.8 & 0.28 & 0.65 & 0 & & 0.50 & & 864 & 1728 & 0.26 \\ \hline
11.5–15.0 & & & & 6 & & & 0.55 & & & \\
15.0–20.0 & Firm Clay & 15.99 & 0.30 & 1.69 & 4 & 0.53 & 0.54 & 0.6 & 1.2 & 0.68 \\
20.0–30.0 & & & & & & & 0.53 & & & \\ \hline Embankment & 18.0 & 0.30 & 0.5 & 0 & & 0.53 & & very high & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Numerical model parameters for Embankment B.