Strength Reduction Stability

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. | www.geo-slope.com

1200, 700 - 6th Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 0T8
Main: +1 403 269 2002 | Fax: +1 888 463 2239

Introduction
Stability by strength reduction is a procedure where the factor of safety is obtained by weakening
the soil in steps in an elastic-plastic finite element analysis until the slope “fails”. The factor of safety
is deemed to be the factor by which the soil strength needs to be reduced to reach failure (Dawson
et al., 1999; Griffiths and Lane, 1999).

Numerically, the failure occurs when it is no longer possible to obtain a converged solution. The finite
element equations for a stress-strain formulation are, in essence, equations of equilibrium. Not being
able to obtain a converged solution, therefore, infers the system is beyond the point of limiting
equilibrium.

An alternative way to define “failure” is the point at which the deformations become excessive.
This is a much more subjective criterion than the non-convergence criterion and one which comes
into play with the Strength Reduction method.

SIGMA/W can be used to do a Strength-Reduction stability analysis by using the Stress Redistribution
analysis option. The Stress Redistribution type of analysis in SIGMA/W is a special algorithm for
redistributing stresses due to perhaps some overstressing in some zones. A Linear-Elastic analysis
may, for example, give some zones where the computed stresses are greater than the available
shear strength. The Stress Redistribution option can be used to alter the stresses so that there is no
overstressing.

In the Strength Reduction method, the soil strength is artificially reduced, and so there is a need to
redistribute the stresses. This can be done by the Stress Redistribution algorithm, and so this option
can be indirectly used to do a Strength Reduction stability analysis.

1
This example illustrates how a Strength Reduction stability analysis can be done with SIGMA/W. In
addition, the results are discussed in the context of an alternate and preferred procedure whereby
the SIGMA/W results are used in conjunction with a SLOPE/W analysis to compute a safety factor.

Numerical Simulation
The Analysis Tree for the Project is presented in Figure 1. The first step is to do an in situ analysis to
establish the state of stress in a 2h:1v slope 10 m high, as shown in Figure 2. This step uses Linear-
Elastic soil properties. The factor of safety is then computed by using the finite element results in a
SLOPE/W analysis. The soil strength is then reduced in steps. For each strength case, the SLOPE/W
factor of safety is computed. Each strength reduction analysis uses the previous or “Parent” analysis
as its initial conditions.

Figure 1. Analysis tree for the Project.

20

18 2
16 1
10 m
14

12
Elevation - m

10

-2
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Distance - m

Figure 2. Problem configuration.

2
The strength reduction factor (SRF) is defined as:

Equation 1
𝑆𝑅𝐹 =
( ) ()
tan 𝜙'
tan 𝜙𝑓'
=
𝑐'
𝑐𝑓'

' '
where 𝜙𝑓 and 𝑐𝑓 are the effective stress strength parameters at “failure”, or the reduced strength.

The strength reduction approach generally uses the same SRF for all materials and for all strength
parameters, so that the stability factor reduces to one number in the end. This means 𝑐 and 𝜙 are
reduced by the same factor. The reduced strengths used in this example are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Reduced strength parameters used in each analysis case.

Case Ø΄ c΄ SRF
Base 28.00 5.00 1.00
1 23.90 4.17 1.20
2 22.24 3.85 1.30
3 20.80 3.57 1.40
4 19.52 3.33 1.50
5 18.78 3.20 1.564

Results and Discussion

The SIGMA/W computed stresses can be used by SLOPE/W to calculate a factor of safety. The
resulting factor of safety based on the in situ stresses (Analysis 1) is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Factor of safety based on in situ stresses in Analysis 1.

Figure 4 presents the distribution of the resistance and driving or mobilized shear along the slip
surface. Note that the shear resistance or shear strength is locally greater than the mobilized shear
along the entire slips surface. The overall factor of safety is the area under the resistance curve
divided by the area under the mobilized shear curve. From the computed factor of safety, the area
under the resistance curve is 1.564 times greater than the area under the mobilized shear curve.

3
 40

30

Resistance : Slip 49
Undefined (kPa)

20

Driving : Slip 49

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35

X (m)

Figure 4. Shear strength and mobilized shear along the slip surface.

The following figures show the resistance and mobilized shear distributions for each of the five
cases. Notice how the resisting shear and mobilized shear essentially become identical as the factor
of safety migrates towards unity.

35

30

25
Resistance :
Slip 49
20
kPa

15

10 Driving : Slip 49

0
10 15 20 25 30 35

X (m)

Figure 5. Case 1 resisting and mobilized shear distributions; F of S = 1.310.

4
 30

20 Resistance :
Slip 49
kPa

10
Driving : Slip 49

0
10 15 20 25 30 35

X (m)

Figure 6. Case 2 resisting and mobilized shear distributions; F of S = 1.210.

35

30

25
Resistance :
Undefined (kPa)

Slip 38
20

15

10 Driving : Slip 38

0
10 15 20 25 30 35

X (m)

Figure 7. Case 3 resisting and mobilized shear distributions; F of S = 1.116.

5
 30

Resistance :
Undefined (kPa)

20
Slip 38

10
Driving : Slip 38

0
10 15 20 25 30 35

X (m)

Figure 8. Case 4 resisting and mobilized shear distributions; F of S = 1.040.

35

30

25
Resistance :
Undefined (kPa)

Slip 27
20

15

10 Driving : Slip 27

0
10 15 20 25 30 35

X (m)

Figure 9. Case 5 resisting and mobilized shear distributions; F of S = 1.011.

Table 2 compares the SLOPE/W computed safety factors with the Strength Reduction Factors (SRF).
Ideally, when the SRF is equal to the original factor of safety, the computer safety factor should be
1.00. The actual computed factor of safety is 1.011, which is remarkably close to the ideal 1.00 value.

6
Table 2. Computed factor of safety for each analysis.

Case Ø΄ c΄ SRF F of S
Base 28.00 5.00 1.00 1.563
1 23.90 4.17 1.20 1.310
2 22.24 3.85 1.30 1.210
3 20.80 3.57 1.40 1.116
4 19.52 3.33 1.50 1.040
5 18.78 3.20 1.564 1.011

It can be rather arbitrary to determine the factor of safety of a slope when the Strength Reduction
method is used in isolation. In this case, converged solutions can be obtained for SRF values greater
than the original factor of safety. Also, there is no distinct sharp break in the crest settlement curve
as shown in Figure 10. The rate of settlement increases as the SRF increases, but there is no distinct
break to help with deciding on the point of “failure”.

This illustrates the difficulty of using the SRF method in isolation.

-0.01

-0.02
Y-Displacement (m)

-0.03

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

-0.07

-0.08
0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (sec)

Figure 10. Crest settlements as the SRF increases.

Summary and Conclusions

This example demonstrates that SIGMA/W can be used to do a Strength Reduction method of
stability analysis.

While it is possible to do a Strength Reduction stability analysis with SIGMA/W, we recommend that
you combine this with the SIGMA/W-SLOPE/W strength summation approach inherent in GeoStudio.
Combining the results from the two methods greatly helps with understanding the stability analysis.

7
Due to the numerical difficulties that can arise with the Strength Reduction method, we recommend
and prefer using the SIGMA/W computed stress in SLOPE/W to compute margins of safety. Even
Linear-Elastic stresses, although not perfect, give acceptable factors of safety as pointed out by
Krahn (2003). Other independent studies, such the one by Stinson, Chan and Fredlund (2004),
arrived at the same conclusion.

Using Linear-Elastic analyses to establish the stress state is very appealing from a practical point of
view, since there are no convergence issues.

Also, in an integrated environment like GeoStudio, it is easier and more reliable to use SIGMA/W
together with SLOPE/W than to take the Strength Reduction approach in isolation.

References
Dawson, E.M., Roth, W.H. and Drescher, A. (1999). Slope Stability Analysis by Strength Reduction,
Geotechnique, 49(6), 835-840

Griffiths, D.V. and Lane, P.A. (1999). Slope Stability Analysis by Finite Elements, Geotechnique, 49(3),
387-403

Krahn, John 2003. The 2001 R.M. Hardy Lecture: The Limits of Limit Equilibrium Analyses. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 643-620.

Krahn, John (2007). Limit Equilibrium, Strength Summation and Strength Reduction Methods for
Assessing Slope Stability. Proceeding, 1st Canada-U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, B.C.
May 27-31

Stianson, J. R., Chan, D. and Fredlund, D.G. (2004). Comparing Slope Stability Analysis Based on
Linear-Elastic or Elasto-Plastic Stresses using Dynamic Programming Techniques. Proceeding, 2004
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada