Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/274720930
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
125
84
5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Franz Tschuchnigg
University of Newcastle
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Andrei V. Lyamin
University of Newcastle
73 PUBLICATIONS 1,132 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
In practical geotechnical engineering the factor of safety is still determined by means of simple limit
equilibrium analysis in many cases. However, because displacement finite-element analysis is routinely
applied for assessing displacements and stresses for working load conditions, this technique is
increasingly being used to calculate ultimate limit states and, consequently, factors of safety, usually
by means of the so-called strength reduction technique, and results which are comparable to those
obtained with limit equilibrium methods have been reported in the literature. However, owing to the
inherent assumptions of limit equilibrium analyses, they do not always provide unique factors of
safety. The purpose of this paper is on the one hand to compare the strength reduction method with
rigorous limit analyses which are based on collapse theorems of plasticity, and on the other hand to
investigate if a shortcoming of the strength reduction method, namely possible numerical instabilities
for non-associated plasticity, can be overcome. Two examples are considered, namely slope stability
and tunnel face stability. Finally an important note on the definition of the factor of safety for
effective and total stress analysis under undrained conditions is provided.
KEYWORDS: finite-element modelling; numerical modelling; plasticity; slopes; tunnels
INTRODUCTION
Although limit equilibrium analyses, as proposed, for example, by Janbu (1954), Bishop (1955), Morgenstern & Price
(1965) and Spencer (1967), are widely used in practical
geotechnical engineering to calculate factors of safety, particularly in slope stability analysis, alternative methods such
as the strength reduction technique (e.g. Brinkgreve &
Bakker, 1991; Dawson et al., 1999; Griffiths & Lane, 1999),
which is traditionally based on the displacement finiteelement approach, have become increasingly popular. For
slope stability problems, the limit equilibrium and strength
reduction methods generally predict factors of safety which
are similar (see, e.g., Cheng et al., 2007). However, owing
to the inherent assumptions in limit equilibrium analysis this
method does not always furnish a unique factor of safety
and it is therefore unsuitable for generating a reference
solution for assessing the accuracy of alternative methods.
Finite-element limit analysis, on the other hand, provides
rigorous upper and lower bounds on the factor of safety
(see, e.g., Sloan, 1988, 1989; Sloan & Kleeman, 1995;
Lyamin & Sloan, 2002a, 2002b; Krabbenhoft et al., 2005)
and is therefore used in this paper to give reference solutions
for comparison with those from the displacement finiteelement strength reduction technique. As limit analysis
implicitly assumes an associated flow rule, the validity of
the approach suggested by Davis (1968) for non-associated
flow is investigated for a slope stability problem with a
variety of friction and dilatancy angles. Finally, the example
of a tunnel excavation under undrained conditions is presented.
Although the concept of using a factor of safety is well
249
250
tan 9
c9
(1)
(2)
(3)
Hs
where
cos 9 cos 9
1 sin 9 sin 9
(4)
Refinement along
the slope line
Y
Total element number: 1542
X
251
Material parameters
The analysis considers a slope under drained conditions.
In the first step gravity loading is applied and subsequently
Results
The factors of safety for both methods with the purely
frictional material set 1 and an associated flow rule, given in
Table 3, agree to within 0 .4%. Since the failure surface
passes through the toe of the slope and does not extend
below this point, the results for DS 1 and DS 5 are only
marginally different and are not presented here. Table 4
compares the factors of safety for the same material but
with a non-associated flow rule assuming a dilatancy angle
of 9 0. Note that in one case, with a slope angle of 308
and DS 1, the slope is at the limit state, which is confirmed by the approximate factor of safety of 1 .0 obtained
from FELA analyses, and therefore it was not possible to
obtain a solution from the SRFEA due to numerical instability. For the same reason some of the lower-bound analyses
yield a factor of safety ,1 .0. As expected, the results in
Table 4 show that the Davis approach yields lower factors of
safety for both the SRFEA and the FELA. This simply
reflects the fact that the use of a reduced friction angle leads
to a reduction in the factor of safety. The benefit of the
Davis approach, however, is that a numerical solution can
always be found, an issue which will be addressed again
later in this paper.
10
0
10
20
30
FELA: Upper bound mesh
40
30 20 10 0
10
20
30
40
Factor of safety
155
150
Finite-element mesh
used for the slope
stability analysis (Ds 5)
145
140
Unit
Material set 1
Frictional material
Material set 2
Cohesive-frictional
material
kN/m3
kPa
degrees
17 .0
0
35 .0
19 .0
20 .0
25 .0
135
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Number of elements
2500
3000
unsat
c9
9
Unit
Material set 1
Material set 2
Non-associated
Associated
Non-associated
Associated
Material set 1_NA Material set 1_A Material set 2_NA Material set 2_A
E9
9
c9
9
9
kPa
kPa
degrees
degrees
40 000
0 .3
0
35 .0
0
40 000
0 .3
0
35 .0
35 .0
20 000
0 .3
20 .0
25 .0
0
SRFEA
FELA LB
FELA UB
2 .64
1 .23
2 .61
1 .21
2 .65
1 .25
20 000
0 .3
20 .0
25 .0
25 .0
FELA
Percentage difference
(UB + LB)/2 100(FELA SRFEA)/
FELA
2 .63
1 .23
0 .4
0
252
Table 4. SRFEA (non-associated and Davis approach) and FELA (Davis approach) results for material set 1 Ds
Slope inclination,
S
SRFEA
158
308
2 .54
No sol.
2 .16
1 .00
2 .13
0 .99
FELA UB
FELA
Percentage difference Percentage difference Davis
(UB + LB)/2 100(FELA-SRFEA)/ 100(FELA SRFEA(Davis))/
FELA
FELA
2 .17
1 .02
2 .15
18 .1
158
308
458
608
3 .31
1 .97
1 .46
1 .16
0 .5
Slope
inclination, S
FELA
Percentage difference
(UB + LB)/2 100(FELA SRFEA)/FELA
3 .36
2 .01
1 .50
1 .21
3 .34
1 .99
1 .48
1 .19
0 .6
0 .2
2 .8
5 .0
Table 6. SRFEA (non-associated and Davis approach) and FELA (Davis approach) results for material set 2 Ds
Slope inclination, SRFEA SRFEA (Davis) FELA LB FELA UB
S
158
308
458
608
3 .30
1 .92
1 .38
1 .07
3 .00
1 .76
1 .30
1 .02
3 .00
1 .78
1 .32
1 .05
3 .05
1 .82
1 .36
1 .10
FELA
(UB + LB)/2
Percentage difference
100(FELA SRFEA)/
FELA
3 .03
1 .80
1 .34
1 .08
8 .9
6 .7
3 .0
0 .9
1 .0
2 .2
3 .0
5 .6
253
150 m
Point A
200 m
150 m
100 m
45
9 158. In this case the flow rule is associated and therefore the analysis is numerically stable, but the factors of
safety are significantly below those for the non-associated
flow rule. This suggests that, for cases with high friction
angles, the Davis (1968) approach is a conservative alternative for calculating factors of safety by means of SRFEA.
The Davis approach, however, has the significant practical
advantage of removing numerical instabilities which may
lead to an incorrect assessment of the factor of safety.
Figure 7 also illustrates the respective factors of safety
16
FELA ( )
FoS 157
15
Factor of safety
14
FELA (Davis
approach 15)
FoS 131
13
12
FELA (Davis
approach 0)
FoS 111
11
10
0
02
04
06
Displacement of point A: m
08
10
Fig. 7. Computed factors of safety with SRFEA analysis including results obtained with the
Davis (1968) approach
254
458, 9
0 (incremental
Material parameters
The undrained shear strength su increases with depth at
different ratios rDT /su0, where r is the strength gradient
with depth and su0 is the undrained shear strength at the
surface (Fig. 10). The undrained shear strength at the tunnel
crown (su,cr) is the same for all analyses, but the undrained
shear strength at the surface su0 is different for all calculations depending on the strength gradient r. The ratio between soil stiffness and undrained shear strength is assumed
to be Eu su 3 300. The limiting case with constant soil
strength and constant soil stiffness is also considered. Table
7 summarises the input parameters for the analyses in terms
of total stresses with an associated flow rule (9 0) and is
valid for both SRFEA and FELA.
The undrained shear strength resulting from a Mohr
Coulomb criterion can be derived from the effective strength
parameters due to the fact that the centre of the Mohrs
circle ( m
9 ) remains at the same position under undrained
loading. Table 8 gives the input parameters for the SRFEA
in terms of effective stresses using the relation
su c9 cos 9
DT 8 m
Supporting
pressure T
19 39
sin 9
2
c9 cos 9 m
9 sin 9
su(z)
su0 z
z: m
(5)
c9 cos 9 s9 sin 9
with a Poisson ratio 9 of 0 .3 and the assumption of
normally consolidated conditions (K0 1 sin 9). However, this relation is valid only at the start of the analysis
where the stress state corresponds to triaxial compression.
Fig. 11. Mesh properties for the SRFEA analysis (HT /DT
1)
255
Initial mesh
Intermediate mesh
Final mesh
Fig. 12. Mesh refinement procedure for the tunnel face (FELA)
Table 7. Undrained shear strength parameters (9
rDT /su0
HT /DT 1
HT /DT 3
su0: kPa
r: kPa/m
su0: kPa
r: kPa/m
0 .00
0 .40
1 .20
2 .00
4 .00
6 .00
8 .00
12 .00
60 .80
0 .00
182 .40
0 .00
43 .43
2 .17
82 .91
4 .15
27 .64
4 .15
39 .65
5 .95
20 .27
5 .07
26 .06
6 .51
12 .16
6 .08
14 .03
7 .02
8 .69
6 .51
9 .60
7 .20
6 .76
6 .76
7 .30
7 .30
4 .68
7 .02
4 .93
7 .39
c9: kPa
9: degrees
c9: kPa
9: degrees
0)
0)
0 .00
0 .40
1 .20
2 .00
4 .00
6 .00
8 .00
12 .00
60 .80
0 .00
182 .40
0 .00
43 .75
6 .99
85 .61
14 .43
28 .54
14 .43
43 .03
22 .86
21 .37
18 .48
29 .01
26 .06
13 .27
23 .58
16 .08
29 .25
9 .67
26 .06
11 .14
30 .53
7 .62
27 .55
8 .53
31 .22
5 .36
29 .25
5 .81
31 .96
256
150
145
140
Factor of safety
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
0
20
40
60
DT/su0
80
100
120
tan
FELA Upper bound
l sta
Initia
Limit
c
te
state
tan /FoS
r
su,limit
c/FoS
3,f
m
1,f
1 and
modifies the strength parameters to account for nonassociated plasticity but performs the analysis as an associated one, can be recommended. Although it is feasible
because the assumptions are on the safe side, this approach
may yield estimates of the factor of safety which could be
considered to be conservative. Further investigations are
currently being carried out in order to overcome this problem of reliably identifying the factor of safety by means of
SRFEA involving non-associated flow.
Finally, it has been pointed out that care must be taken
when comparing factors of safety obtained from effective
and total stress analysis for undrained conditions.
Initial state
su
0 .00
0 .40
1 .20
2 .00
4 .00
6 .00
8 .00
12 .00
su,limit su/FoS
r
3,f
m
1,f
Limit state
1 and T
75 kPa)
SRFEAeff effective
stress analysis
FELA LB
FELA UB
FELA
(UB + LB)/2
Percentage difference
100(FELA SRFEAeff)/FELA
1 .60
1 .69
1 .77
1 .82
1 .88
1 .91
1 .93
1 .94
1 .60
1 .68
1 .73
1 .75
1 .76
1 .77
1 .77
1 .77
1 .58
1 .66
1 .72
1 .73
1 .74
1 .75
1 .75
1 .75
1 .62
1 .70
1 .76
1 .78
1 .79
1 .80
1 .80
1 .81
1 .60
1 .68
1 .74
1 .76
1 .77
1 .78
1 .78
1 .78
0 .0
0 .6
1 .7
3 .4
6 .2
7 .3
8 .4
9 .0
unsat
9
u
r
m
9
T
19
39
9
9
effective cohesion
reduced cohesion according to Davis (1968)
depth factor for slope example
tunnel diameter
Youngs modulus of the soil
undrained soil stiffness
slope height
overburden
earth pressure coefficient at rest
mean effective stress
deviatoric stress
centre of the Mohr circle, s9 ( 19 + 39 )/2
undrained shear strength
undrained shear strength at tunnel crown
undrained shear strength at surface
radius of the Mohr circle, t ( 19 39 )/2
depth below surface
slope angle
strength factor according to Davis (1968)
saturated unit weight
unsaturated unit weight
Poisson ratio
undrained Poisson ratio
strength gradient with depth
centre of Mohrs circle
face pressure
major effective principle stress
minor effective principle stress
shear stress
effective friction angle
reduced friction angle according to Davis (1968)
dilatancy angle
REFERENCES
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of slip circles in the stability
analysis of earth slopes. Geotechnique 5, No. 1, 717, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1955.5.1.7.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. & Bakker, H. L. (1991). Non-linear finite
element analysis of safety factors. Proceedings of the international conference on computer methods and advances in geomechanics, pp. 11171122. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Swolfs, W. M. & Engin, E. (2011). Plaxis 2D
2011 user manual. Delft, the Netherlands: Plaxis bv.
Cheng, Y. M., Lansivaara, T. & Wei, W. B. (2007). Two-dimensional slope stability analysis by limit equilibrium and strength
reduction methods. Comput. Geotech. 34, No. 3, 137150.
Davis, E. H. (1968). Theories of plasticity and failure of soil
masses. In Soil mechanics: selected topics. (ed. I. K. Lee), pp.
341354. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier.
Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H. & Drescher, A. A. (1999). Slope
stability analysis by strength reduction. Geotechnique 49, No. 6,
835840, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.835.
Griffiths, D. V. & Lane, P. A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by
finite elements. Geotechnique 49, No. 3, 387403, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.3.387.
Janbu, N. (1954). Application of composite slip surface for stability
analysis. Proceedings of the European conference on stability of
257