Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Non-linear shear strength reduction technique in slope stability calculation

Wenxi Fu *, Yi Liao
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic and Mountain River Engineering, School of Water Resource and Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To exactly implement the non-linear Hoek–Brown shear strength reduction in slope stability calculations,
Received 9 June 2009 three aspects of the problem are considered. Firstly, the normal and shear stress relationship of the gen-
Received in revised form 28 October 2009 eralized Hoek–Brown criterion (2002 edition) is derived by introducing the Mohr–Coulomb instanta-
Accepted 1 November 2009
neous friction angle as a variable. Secondly, the instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and
Available online 2 December 2009
cohesive strength are derived for a micro-unit at a given stress state and they can be used to describe
the shear strength of the rock mass under different stress states. Finally, the implementation of the
Keywords:
non-linear shear strength reduction is described and a slope example is selected to verify our method.
Hoek–Brown criterion
Mohr–Coulomb criterion
This technique can be also applied to other non-linear failure criteria.
Non-linear shear strength reduction Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Slope stability

1. Introduction the shear strength described with a non-linear failure criterion is

The shear strength reduction method is currently very popular
for evaluating slope stability. This method was first proposed by
Zienkiewicz et al. in 1975 [1]. Its definition of the factor of safety
for a slope is often considered to be the ratio of the actual shear
strength to the lowest shear strength of a rock or soil material that
is required to maintain the slope in equilibrium [2]. Most of the
existing shear strength reduction techniques, discussed by Ugai
[3], Dawson et al. [4], Griffiths and Lane [5], Luan et al. [6], Duncan
[7], Zheng et al. [8] and many others, are based on the linear Mohr–
Coulomb criterion. However, little has been reported about the
non-linear shear strength reduction technique.
The existing shear strength technique, based on the Mohr–Cou-
lomb criterion, is implemented by reducing the values of friction
angle and cohesive strength. For a Mohr–Coulomb material, its
shear strength is a linear function of stress level. When the
strength parameters of the original Mohr–Coulomb failure enve-
lope have been reduced, the corresponding shear strength of all
points in the medium failing in shearing, e.g., in the case of a slope
stability problem, can be described with a single shear failure
envelope that still satisfy the linear Mohr–Coulomb criterion. But
for a non-linear failure criterion, e.g., the Hoek–Brown criterion
discussed in this paper, after the shear strength of each point cor-
responding to the original Hoek–Brown failure envelope has been
reduced, the stress state of all points in the medium failing in
shearing will not align to a single shear failure envelope that still
obeys the Hoek–Brown criterion anymore. In other words, because
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 28 80865292; fax: +86 28 85405604.
E-mail addresses: wxf_lee@scu.edu.cn, wxf_lee@sina.com (W. Fu).
significantly non-linear, the reduced shear strength cannot be di-
rectly characterized by a same-type non-linear failure criterion
with reduced mechanical parameter values with respect to the ori-
ginal failure criterion. Therefore, for a non-linear failure criterion,
e.g., the Hoek–Brown criterion, it is not possible to make direct
use of the existing shear strength techniques implemented by
reducing the strength parameters of a linear failure criterion, e.g.,
the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
Currently, it is widely accepted that the shear strength of the
rock mass is a non-linear function of stress level. The non-linear
Hoek–Brown criterion accounts for this observation. This criterion
was originally proposed by Hoek and Brown in 1980 [9]. Its most
recent version is the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion (2002 edi-
tion) [10], which is the version discussed in this paper. The gener-
alized Hoek–Brown criterion (2002 edition) is expressed by [10]:
 a
r3
r1 ¼ r3 þ rci mb þs ð1Þ
rci
where r1 and r3 are the effective major and minor principal stres-
ses of the rock mass at failure respectively (compressive stress is
taken to be positive), rci is the uniaxial compressive strength of
GSI100 GSI100 1 1
 GSI intact20  rock material, mb ¼ mi  e 2814D , s ¼ e 93D , a ¼ 2 þ 6
the
 15 3
e e , mi is a material constant of the intact rock which
can be assessed from laboratory triaxial compression test results
and the method introduced by Hoek [11], GSI is the Geological
Strength Index, which can be estimated according to rock mass
structures and surface features of discontinuities in the rock mass,
and D is the disturbance factor reflecting the degree of influence
to which the rock mass has been subjected by blast damage and
stress relaxation due to excavation.

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.11.002
 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298
The generalized Hoek–Brown criterion has been widely ac-
cepted in the field of geotechnics and is also often used for estimat-
ing the shear strength of rock mass, although it is an empirical
relationship that characterizes the stress conditions of the rock
mass at failure. In application to rock engineering projects, it
should be noted that the Hoek–Brown criterion is suited only to
homogeneous, isotropic massive rock with few discontinuities or
a heavily jointed rock mass [9–14].
As for the generalized Hoek–Brown failure criterion, Hoek et al.
[10] gave the exact equations for estimating the equivalent Mohr–
Coulomb parameters over an artificial interval [rt, r3max], where rt
is the biaxial tensile strength (rt = srci/mb, which can be derived
by setting r1 = r3 = rt in Eq. (1)), and r3max is the upper bound of
the minor principal stress. They also gave the corresponding equa-
tions for estimating r3max for simple slopes and circular tunnels
[10]. However, because the r1r3 relationship in Eq. (1) is non-lin-
ear, the artificial interval [rt, r3max] does not represent the actual
failure stress conditions of rock mass in a number of situations:
for example, where a slope bears reinforcement loads at slope sur-
face and/or distributed loads at slope shoulder. In particular, when
the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb criterion is selected, the shear
strength for the low and high stress levels will be overestimated,
and that for the intermediate stress level will be underestimated.
So in a rigorous mathematical sense, the equivalent Mohr–Cou-
lomb criterion over the interval [rt, r3max] suggested by Hoek
et al. [10] is only an approximation to the Hoek–Brown criterion
over that interval.
As mentioned above, it is not possible to exactly implement the
non-linear Hoek–Brown shear strength reduction by directly
reducing the values of mechanical parameters, e.g., rci, mb, s, a,
etc. It is true, of course, when instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb
parameters are selected to describe any point on the Hoek–Brown
shear strength envelope, the widely used Mohr–Coulomb criterion
based shear strength reduction method can be also employed to
exactly implement the non-linear Hoek–Brown shear strength
reduction. However, it is not easy to describe the Hoek–Brown
shear failure envelope by direct use of the Mohr–Coulomb friction
angle and cohesive strength.
At present, the shear strength reduction technique, related to
the Hoek–Brown criterion, often make direct use of the equations
of equivalent Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and cohesive strength
derived by Hoek et al. [10]. In addition, the papers by Hammah
et al. [15] and Benz et al. [16] are among the few papers, known
to the present authors, that have discussed the non-linear shear
reduction technique for slope stability calculations by making di-
rect use of the Hoek–Brown criterion in an elasto-plastic analysis.
The methods introduced by Hammah et al. [15] are: (1) to di-
rectly reduce the Hoek–Brown shear strength envelope by a factor
and generate a new envelope in the normal and shear stress plane;
(2) to obtain the basic parameters of the new Hoek–Brown model
by best-fitting the lowered shear strength envelope; (3) to input
new parameters of the Hoek–Brown model and implement a new
elasto-plastic analysis. But the normal stress interval, selected for
fitting the reduced shear strength envelope, is also determined
according to the minor principal stress interval [rt, r3max], sug-
gested by Hoek et al. [10].
The methods introduced by Benz et al. [16] are: (1) to use the
Roscoe invariants p and q, which are functions of the first and sec-
ond invariants of the stress tensor respectively, to describe the
Hoek–Brown and Mohr–Coulomb criteria; (2) to connect the
Hoek–Brown criterion with the Mohr–Coulomb criterion by setting
the instantaneous slope of the Hoek–Brown criterion to be equal to
that of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in the p–q plane; (3) to intro-
duce a material strength reduction factor g into the Hoek–Brown
yield function, and derive its relationship to the Mohr–Coulomb
shear strength reduction factor c; (4) to vary the Mohr–Coulomb
289
shear strength reduction factor c and use the reduced Hoek–Brown
criterion determined through the g–c relationship in a new elasto-
plastic analysis.
However, the Hoek–Brown model is not embedded in most
commercially available software, so it is not easy to make direct
use of the methods proposed by Hammah et al. [15] and Benz et
al. [16]. In particular, the method proposed by Hammah et al.
[15] still involves the above-mentioned problem that the normal
stress interval need to be determined in terms of the minor
principal stress interval suggested by Hoek et al. [10]. As a
result, the reduced shear strength envelope obtained by best-fit-
ting is also an approximation to the true reduced envelope. So
the method adopted by Hammah et al. [15] will inevitably result
in errors between the reduced and fitted Hoek–Brown shear
envelopes.
The non-linear shear strength reduction technique proposed in
this paper is also based on the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion
(2002 edition). It is known that, when the stress state of any point
in the rock mass is determined, its corresponding lowest shear
strength should be unique and can be exactly described with the
instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and cohesive
strength. Therefore, when the instantaneous friction angle and
cohesive strength are obtained according to the Hoek–Brown crite-
rion, the non-linear shear strength reduction can be also achieved
with the existing shear strength reduction techniques based on the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion.
This paper considers three aspects of the problem, summarized
as follows: (1) it introduces the instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb fric-
tion angle as a variable and derives the normal and shear stress
relationship of the Hoek–Brown criterion; (2) for a micro-unit at
a given stress condition, it derives the corresponding instantaneous
friction angle and cohesive strength, which can be used to describe
the lowest shear strength of the rock mass under different stress
states; (3) it describes in detail the implementation of the non-lin-
ear shear strength reduction and uses a slope example to verify the
proposed method.
Compared with the methods introduced by Hammah et al. [15]
and Benz et al. [16], the method proposed in this paper has the fol-
lowing merits: (1) it avoids errors between the reduced and fitted
shear strength envelopes; (2) it still selects the widely used Mohr–
Coulomb criterion based shear strength technique; (3) it can easily
be embedded in the user’s program code.
2. The normal and shear stress relationship of the Hoek–Brown
criterion
As Brown [13] has said ‘‘Deriving exact analytical expressions
for the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb parameters at a given effective
normal stress has proven to be a challenging task”. For the relation-
ship between the normal and shear stresses of the generalized
Hoek–Brown criterion, Hoek et al. [10] have used Balmer’s equa-
tions [17]. Priest [18] has adopted the difference formula. Consid-
ering the minor principal stress as a variable, Carranza-Torres
[14] has derived the explicit expressions of the normal and shear
stresses, and in particular, he also discussed in detail the dimen-
sionless expressions of the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion.
Considering the instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle as
a variable, the present authors have derived the expressions of the
normal stress, shear stress and their relationship for the Hoek–
Brown criterion in another way. According to the derived expres-
sions, the instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and cohe-
sive strength at a given effective normal stress can be obtained
iteratively. The detailed derivations will be described in Appendix
A. The general expressions related to our derivations are intro-
duced briefly below.
290 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298

The normal and shear stresses of the failure plane of a micro- and their relationship have been derived from the above equations
unit at critical failure in Fig. 1a are given by: and trigonometric functions. The step-by-step derivations have
( been included in Appendix A. The normal stress, shear stress and
rn ¼ r1 þ2 r3  r1 2 r3 cos 2h their relationship of the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion are gi-
ð2Þ
ss ¼ r1 2 r3 sin 2h ven below:

where rn and ss are the normal and shear stresses of the failure
a1
1  
rci
2 sin ui sin ui srci
plane, respectively, r1 and r3 are the effective major and minor rn ¼ þ1  ð9Þ
mb mb að1  sin ui Þ a mb
principal stresses at failure, respectively (compressive stress is ta-
a1
a
ken to be positive), h is the angle between the failure plane and rci cos ui 2 sin ui
ss ¼ ð10Þ
the plane on which the minor principal stress acts. 2 mb að1  sin ui Þ
The dip angle of the straight line, which is commonly tangential !a
rci cos ui mb rrcin þ s
to the Mohr’s stress circle and Hoek–Brown shear envelope in ss ¼ sin ui
ð11Þ
2 þ1
Fig. 1b, is ui, and its intercept at the shear stress axis is ci. The a
instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and cohesive strength It should be noted that Kumar [19] has derived similar equa-
are ui and ci, respectively. According to Fig. 1b, Eq. (2) can be tions for the normal and shear stresses.
rewritten as: As for the Hoek–Brown rock mass, its friction angle ui ranges
(
rn ¼ r1 þ2 r3  r1 2 r3 sin ui from 0° to 90°, that is 0 < sin ui < 1. Under the condition 0 < sin
ð3Þ ui < 1, it is obvious that the normal stress rn in Eq. (9) and shear
ss ¼ r1 2 r3 cos ui stress ss in Eq. (10) are both monotonically decreasing functions
In the r1r3 plane, the Mohr–Coulomb criterion can be written with respect to the friction angle ui. When the friction angle ui is
as: regarded as a variable, the Hoek–Brown shear failure envelope in
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the normal and shear stress plane can be obtained through the fol-
1 þ sin ui 1 þ sin ui lowing steps:
r1 ¼ r3 þ 2c ð4Þ
1  sin ui 1  sin ui
(1) It is assumed that the basic material parameters rci, mi, GSI
We differentiate Eq. (4) with respect to r3 and obtain: and D are known. And the material parameters mb, s and a
GSI100
can be obtained from the  equations  [10]: mb ¼ mi  e 2814D ,
dr1 1 þ sin ui GSI100 1 1 GSI 20
¼ ð5Þ s ¼ e 93D , and a ¼ 2 þ 6 e 15  e 3 . Consequently, for a
dr3 1  sin ui
given value of friction angle ui, the corresponding normal
Eq. (5) can be rewritten as: stress rn can be obtained by solving Eq. (9).
   (2) The corresponding shear stress ss can be obtained by solving
dr1 dr1
sin ui ¼ 1 þ1 ð6Þ either Eqs. (10) and (11).
dr3 dr3 (3) After a serial of pairs (rn, ss) are obtained by repeating steps
According to the trigonometric functions, we can also obtain: (1) and (2) above, the Hoek–Brown shear strength envelope
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1 can be plotted.
 
dr1 A dr1
cos ui ¼ @2 þ1 ð7Þ The basic parameters are taken to be rci = 30.0 MPa, mi = 2.0,
dr3 dr3
GSI = 5.0 and D = 0.0, which are selected from the first slope exam-
Substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) into Eq. (3), we obtain: ple in Hammah et al. [15]. The ui values are selected from 0° to 90°
8 by Dui = 0.1°. And the Hoek–Brown shear failure envelope, ob-
>
> r ¼ r1 r3 þ r3
< n 1þddrr13 tained by using the above method, is plotted in Fig. 2.
qffiffiffiffiffiffi ð8Þ
> r1 r3 dr1
: ss ¼ 1þdr1 dr3
>
dr3 3. The instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and
cohesive strength
Eq. (8) can be also obtained in terms of the method introduced
by Balmer [17]. That is, we differentiate the Mohr’s stress circle
 2  2 Theoretically, when the stress state of any point in the rock
equation rn  r1 þ2 r3 þ s2s ¼ r1 2 r3 with respect to r3.
mass is known, the corresponding lowest shear strength should
For the Hoek–Brown criterion described with the r1r3 rela-
be unique. We will now analyze the instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb
tionship of Eq. (1), its expressions of the normal stress, shear stress

3.0
σ1 σci = 30.0MPa
Hoek−Brown envelope
Shear stress τs (MPa)

mi = 20.0
ϕi GSI = 5.0
Shear stress

2.0
σn
σ3 τs D = 0.0
τs
θ ϕi
1.0
ci α 2θ 2α
σ3 σn σ1
Normal stress 0.0
(a) (b) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Normal stress σn (MPa)
Fig. 1. (a) Stress state of a micro-unit at failure and (b) relationships between the
Mohr stress circle and Hoek–Brown envelope in the normal and shear stress plane. Fig. 2. The Hoek–Brown shear envelope in the normal and shear stress plane.
 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298 291

friction angle and cohesive strength, which can be used to describe
the shear strength of the rock mass at a specified stress state.
Any point in the rock mass is regarded as a micro-unit, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3a. The major and minor principal stresses of this mi-
cro-unit are denoted as re1 and re3, respectively, and the angle
between an arbitrary section and the plane on which the minor
principal stress acts is denoted as b. The thickness of the micro-
unit is assumed to be one meter. The factor of safety Fs of an arbi-
trary section of the micro-unit may then be defined as the ratio of
the resisting shear force Ts to the mobilized shear force Tm, and is
given by:
1. When x has been solved by the Newton iteration formula given
above, the instantaneous friction angle ui can be also obtained by
solving sin ui = x. The normal stress rn is obtained by substituting
x into Eq. (9), and the shear stress ss is obtained by substituting x
into either Eqs. (10) and (11).
The Mohr–Coulomb criterion in the normal and shear stress
plane is written as:
ss ¼ rn tan ui þ ci ð16Þ
Substituting the values of ui, rn, and ss into Eq. (16), the instan-
taneous cohesive strength ci is then obtained by:

Ts ss  dA ss ci ¼ rn tan ui  ss ð17Þ
Fs ¼ ¼ ¼ ð12Þ
T m sm  dA sm
where Fs is the factor of safety, Ts is the resisting shear force, Tm is 4. Implementation of the non-linear shear strength reduction
the mobilized shear force, ss is the shear strength, sm is the mobi-
lized shear stress, and dA is the area of an arbitrary section of the It is assumed that the basic parameters of the Hoek–Brown rock
micro-unit. mass are known. We will now describe our calculation procedure
In a physical sense, the above definition of the factor of safety is for the non-linear Hoek–Brown shear strength reduction. And the
rigorous, as both Ts and Tm are the force vectors acting on the same corresponding flow chart is shown in Fig. 4.
section of the micro-unit. When the minimum of Fs is solved, the
corresponding shear strength can be regarded as a minimum. For (1) First, the grid elements should be generated for a computa-
the micro-unit at a given stress state, however, the instantaneous tional model of the slope. After the basic parameters, such
friction ui corresponding to the minimum of Fs needs to be solved as the deformation modulus E0, Poisson ratio l and bulk
first through a Newton iteration formula. The derivations of the density cb, are inputted, and the boundary and loading con-
Newton iteration formula used for solving sin ui or ui are described ditions are set correctly, the elastic stresses of elements can
in Appendix B. be calculated by the finite element method. The plane
If sin ui is set to be a variable x, the Newton iteration formula to strain analyzes were performed and the four-noded quadri-
solve x can be written as: lateral elements were selected as in the example given in
Section 5.
f ðxk Þ
xkþ1 ¼ xk  ðk ¼ 0; 1; . . .Þ ð13Þ (2) The elastic stress solution in step (1) is considered as the
f 0 ðxk Þ
starting step during an elasto-plastic iteration calculation.
The numerator of the fraction expression in Eq. (13) is given by: In an elasto-plastic solution, each element is regarded as
a Mohr–Coulomb material with different friction angle
f ðxÞ ¼ px qx r x  wx ðC 21  p2x Þ ð14Þ and cohesive strength, which can be determined from the
x
 x a1
1 corresponding stress state by our methods introduced in
where px ¼ qx a þ 1  C 3  C 2 , qx ¼ C 4 1x , r ¼ ð1  aÞx3 þ x2 þ Section 3. Prior to an elasto-plastic analysis, the friction
2ax þ a; wx ¼ ða  aÞx  a x  a ;C 1 ¼ 2 , C 2 ¼ re1 þ2 re3 ; C 3 ¼ rmci s, and
2 2 2 2 re1 re3
angle and cohesive strength of each element are calculated
b
 1 according to the elastic stress solution of an analytical
rci 2 a1
C4 ¼ m .
b m ab model. Here it is assumed that the total number of element
The denominator of the fraction expression in Eq. (13) is the is n. When the major and minor principal stresses, calcu-
first-order derivative of the numerator, and is given by: lated in step (1), of an arbitrary element j (j = 1, 2, . . ., n),

 are substituted into Eq. (13), the instantaneous friction
rx
f 0 ðxÞ ¼ p0x qx rx þ 2wx px p0x þ px qx ux   v x ðC 21  p2x Þ angle uij of element j is obtained by solving the Newton
ð1  aÞðx  x2 Þ
iterative formula given above. The corresponding normal
ð15Þ stress rnj of element j is calculated by Eq. (9), and the shear
ð1aÞx2 þaxþa
where p0x ¼ qx ða2 aÞðxx2 Þ , ux ¼ 3ð1  aÞx2 þ 2x þ 2a, and v x ¼ 2a stress ssj is then calculated by either Eqs. (10) and (11).
ða  1Þx  a2 . When uij, rnj and ssj are determined, the instantaneous
For the Hoek–Brown rock mass, because its friction angle ui is cohesive strength cij of element j is then calculated by Eq.
larger than 0° and less than 90°, x is larger than 0 and less than (17). For the Hoek–Brown rock mass, it should be noted
that, when the instantaneous friction angle of each element
is calculated by the iterative method given above, the
σe1 selected initial value ui0 of each element must satisfy the
condition 0° < ui0 < 90° or the condition 0 < sin ui0 < 1.
Hoek−Brown envelope
Shear stress

Because the Newton iteration formula is adopted, even if

τ m σn σ τs a high precision is selected (convergence tolerance is set
e3 Fs = to be 1.0E-8 in the slope example in Section 5), the instan-
τm
β τs
taneous friction angle of each element can be solved in
τm only a few iteration steps.
(3) Once the instantaneous friction angles and cohesive
σn strengths of all the elements in an analytical model have
Normal stress been obtained, the instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb strength
(a) (b) parameters of all elements are simultaneously reduced
 
s tan u c
by a factor ks, that is ksjs ¼ rnj ks ij þ kijs . The reduced
Fig. 3. (a) Stress state of a micro-unit and (b) definition of the factor of safety for an
arbitrary section. Mohr–Coulomb shear strength parameters of all elements
292 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298

Loading and
Element grid Input material
boundary
of slope parameters
conditions

Computation mode
of slope stability

Input cklow, ckup

(cklow < ckup)

cks = (ckup+cklow)/2

Elastic stress
solution

Solving for ϕ and c

ckup = cks cklow = cks of each element by
cklow = cklow ckup = ckup Eq.s 13, 9−10, 17

Reducing ϕ, c and
σtm of all elements
Yes by cks

Elasto-plastic
No analysis
fpls < 0.001 ?

nplas > 100 ?

No
Yes

ckdif = ckup−cklow

ckdif < 0.01 ?

No
Yes

cks = (ckup+cklow)/2

end

Fig. 4. Flow chart of the non-linear shear strength reduction technique. (Note: (1) u, c, and rtm are friction angle, cohesive strength and uniaxial tensile strength of each
element; (2) cklow, ckup are the lower and upper bracket values given by user; (3) cks is the reduction factor; (4) nplas is the cumulative number of elasto-plastic analysis; (5)
fpls is the convergence tolerance of elasto-plastic analysis; (6) ckdif is the difference between the lower and upper bracket values.)

are then used in an elasto-plastic analysis. In order to satisfy
the non-linear Hoek–Brown shear strength envelope, during
the elasto-plastic analysis subject to the condition that the
reduced factor ks is maintained at a constant, the values of
 
s tan u c
uij and cij in the equation ksjs ¼ rnj ks ij þ kijs should be
adjusted according to the principal stresses of element j in
each iteration. In other words, for a given ks value, the uij
and cij values of each element, based on the elastic stress
solution in step (1), are employed in the first step of
elasto-plastic analysis. The new uij and cij values of each
 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298 293

element, calculated according to the current step elasto-
plastic stress solution, are then used in the next step of elas-
to-plastic analysis. When the unbalance force convergence
value is less than a specified value or the iteration number
of elasto-plastic analysis is greater than a specified value, a
new given ks value is selected and the above calculation pro-
cedure including steps (1) and (2) is repeated. When the
analyzed slope model is in a critical failure state, the corre-
sponding ks value is regarded as the slope safety factor.
The ks value is adjusted through the bracketing approach
similar to that proposed by Dawson et al. [4]. In the stability
analysis of the slope example in Section 5, the convergence
tolerance of unbalance force, maximum iteration number
of elasto-plastic analysis, and tolerance value of the differ-
ence between the upper and lower bracket ks values were
set to be 0.001, 100, and 0.01, respectively.
(4) The tensile strength rtm of the rock mass can be also contained
in the strength reduction given above, and it is suggested that
the same reduction factor be also selected for the tensile
strength as the Mohr–Coulomb shear strength given above.
The uniaxial tensile strength rtm of the rock mass can be
derived according to the Hoek–Brown criterion. Setting
r1 = 0 and r3 = rtm in Eq. (1), we can obtain Eq. (18). The uni-
axial tensile strength rtm can be also solved iteratively.
 a
r
rtm þ rci mb tm þ s ¼ 0 ð18Þ
rci
The above calculation procedure has been embedded in the FEM
program written in Fortran language and commonly developed by
several researchers of State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic and Moun-
tain River Engineering, Sichuan University. And the basic program
code, used in the stability analysis of the slope example in Section
5, is written in Appendix C.
5. A slope example
5.1. Basic conditions and methods
To verify our proposed non-linear shear strength reduction
method, the method presented by Benz et al. [16] and the simpli-
fied Bishop method [20], a well-known limit equilibrium method,
are also used. The uniaxial tensile strength is also considered in
the Mohr–Coulomb elasto-plastic analysis. Its reduction factor is
assumed to be the same as the shear reduction factor, and its esti-
mation has been discussed in Section 4. The detailed calculation
procedure used by Benz et al. has been given in their paper [16].
During the calculation of the factor of safety of the slope by the
simplified Bishop method [20], according to the normal stress at

10m
(a) (b) 32.0 34.0
30.0
28.0
10m

34.0 32.0
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0

(c) 13.00 (d)

16.25
Fs = 1.145
6.0e-4
9.0e-4
1.2e-3
1.5e-3
13.00 1.8e-3
2.1e-3
19.50 2.4e-3
2.7e-3

(e) (f)
Fs = 1.145 Fs = 1.152
4.0e-4
8.0e-4
1.2e-3
1.6e-3
2.4e-3
2.8e-3
3.2e-3
3.4e-3

Fig. 5. The slope example: (a) geometry sizes and element grids of the slope; (b) contours of the instantaneous friction angle (°) calculated according to the elastic stresses; (c)
contours of the instantaneous cohesive strength (kPa) calculated according to the elastic stresses; (d) contours of the plastic shear strain at failure and potential deformation
trend by the method proposed in this paper; (e) contours of the plastic shear strain at failure and potential deformation trend by the method of Benz et al.; (f) slip circle by the
simplified Bishop method.
294 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298

the base of a slice, the corresponding instantaneous friction angle
is calculated iteratively by Eq. (9), and the convergence tolerance
is set to be 1.0E-8. The shear strength at the base of a slice is then
directly calculated by either Eqs. (10) and (11). The slice number,
convergence tolerance, and maximum iteration number are set to
be 100, 0.001 and 100, respectively. The slope stability analysis
program, based on the limit equilibrium theory, is developed on
the platform of Fortran PowerStation by the first author.
The example analyzed in this paper was selected from the paper
by Hammah et al. [15]. Its basic material parameters: rci = 25.0 M-
Pa, mi = 2.0, GSI = 5.0, D = 0.0, E0 = 5000.0 MPa, l = 0.3, and
cb = 25.0 kN/m3 were also selected. The geometry sizes and ele-
ment grids of the slope is shown in Fig. 5a.
During the calculations of the slope failure, according to the
input parameters rci, mi, GSI and D, the Hoek–Brown material
parameters mb, s and a were calculated by the equations [10]
GSI100 GSI100
 GSI 20

mb ¼ mi  e 2814D , s ¼ e 93D and a ¼ 12 þ 16 e 15  e 3 , respectively.
The slope model was considered to be homogeneous and isotropic.
The elasto-plastic analysis was assumed to be the plain strain
model. Only the gravitational stress field was considered. Its hori-
zontal displacements were fixed for nodes along the left and right
boundaries, while both horizontal and vertical displacements were
fixed along the bottom boundary. During the solution of the factor
of safety, the tolerance value of unbalance force convergence was
0.001, the iteration number of elasto-plastic analysis was 100,
and the difference between the upper and lower bracket ks values
was 0.01.
5.2. Results and discussion
method proposed in this paper can be easily embedded in the
user’s program code, and it can be also applied to other non-linear
failure criteria.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Sichuan University and State Key
Laboratory of Hydraulic and Mountain River Engineering of China
for financial support provided by the youth science fund. They also
thank International Science Editing for editing and polishing this
paper. Finally, they also thank the two peer reviewers for their
good suggestions.
Appendix A. The derivations of the normal and shear stress
relationship of the Hoek–Brown criterion
Using the general expressions in Section 2 and the trigonomet-
ric functions, and considering the instantaneous friction angle as a
variable, the authors have derived the normal stress, shear stress
and their relationship of the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion in
another way. The detailed derivations are described below.
According to Fig. 1b, we can derive tan a ¼ rnssr3 . Substituting
Eq. (8) into it, we obtain:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dr1
tan a ¼ ðA:1Þ
dr3
Also, tan 2a ¼ tanðui þ p2 Þ ¼  cot ui can be directly derived
according to Fig. 1b. Through transformation of the trigonometric
2 tan a
functions, tan 2a ¼ 1tan 2 a is obtained. We then obtain:

2 tan a
The contours of the instantaneous friction angles and cohesive ¼  cot ui ðA:2Þ
strengths of the slope example analyzed in this paper, which were 1  tan2 a
obtained by our method and were calculated according to the elas- Solving tana in Eq. (A.2), we obtain:
tic stresses of the elements, are shown in Fig. 5b and c, respec-
1 þ sin ui
tively. Its failure mechanisms and potential deformation trends, tan a ¼ ðA:3Þ
cos ui
predicted by our method and the method of Benz et al. [16], are
plotted in Fig. 5d and e, respectively. The slip circle, obtained by Comparing Eq. (A.1) with Eq. (A.3), we obtain:
the simplified Bishop method [20], is also shown in Fig. 5f. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The computational results in Fig. 5b show that the instanta- dr1 1 þ sin ui
¼ ðA:4Þ
neous friction angles near the slope surface are larger than those dr3 cos ui
of other parts of the slope, but the instantaneous cohesive
strengths are opposite each other in Fig. 5c. This occurs because Again, the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion is written below:
the stress levels near the slope surface are smaller than those of  a
r3
other parts of the slope. The variations of the instantaneous friction r1 ¼ r3 þ rci mb þs ðA:5Þ
rci
angles and cohesive strengths reflect well the non-linear shear
strengths of the Hoek–Brown rock mass under different stress Eq. (A.5) can be rewritten as:
states.  1a
The geometrical shapes of the localized plastic shear strains and
r3 r1  r3
mb þs¼ ðA:6Þ
values of the factor of safety, calculated by our method and the rci rci
method of Benz et al. [16], respectively, are identical. At the same We differentiate Eq. (A.6) with respect to r3 and obtain:
time they are also in reasonably good agreement with the circular  a1
failure surface assumed in the simplified Bishop analysis. In addi- dr1 r1  r3 a
¼ 1 þ mb a ðA:7Þ
tion, the factor of safety, calculated by Hamma et al. [15] with their dr3 rci
best-fitting non-linear strength reduction method, was 1.15. Our
We can rewrite the expression of ss in Eq. (8) as:
method also gives the results that are almost identical to those gi-
2 3
ven by Hamma et al. [15].  ,sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r1  r3 ss 4 dr1 dr1 5
¼ 1þ ðA:8Þ
rci rci dr3 dr3
6. Conclusions
 .qffiffiffiffiffiffi
According to Eq. (A.4), 1 þ ddrr13 dr1
dr3
at the right-hand side of
For the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion (2002 edition), the Eq. (A.8) is expressed as a function related to ui:
instantaneous Mohr–Coulomb friction angle and cohesive strength
 ,sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
are used to reflect the non-linear shear strengths of the rock mass dr1 dr1 2
under different stress states. Moreover, the widely used Mohr– 1þ ¼ ðA:9Þ
dr3 dr3 cos ui
Coulomb criterion based shear strength technique can still be used
to exactly implement the non-linear shear strength reduction. The Substituting Eq. (A.9) into Eq. (A.8), we obtain:
 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298 295

r1  r3 2ss
 a
 1

¼ ðA:10Þ rn cos2 ui 2 sin ui a1

1 2 sin ui a1
s
rci rci cos ui ¼ þ 
rci 2ð1 þ sin ui Þ mb að1  sin ui Þ mb mb að1  sin ui Þ mb

a1
a
a1
1
ð1  sin ui Þ 2 sin ui 1 2 sin ui s
¼ þ 
Substituting Eq. (A.10) into Eq. (A.7), we obtain: 2 mb að1  sin ui Þ mb mb að1  sin ui Þ mb
 a1
a1þ1
a1
1
dr1 2ss a
ð1  sin ui Þ 2 sin ui a1
1 2 sin ui s
¼ 1 þ mb a ðA:11Þ ¼ þ 
dr3 rci cos ui 2 mb að1  sin ui Þ mb mb að1  sin ui Þ mb


a1
1
ð1  sin ui Þ 2 sin ui 2 sin ui
¼
Substituting Eq. (A.4) into Eq. (A.11), we obtain: 2 mb að1  sin ui Þ mb að1  sin ui Þ

a11
 2  a1 1 2 sin ui s
1 þ sin ui 2ss a þ 
 1 ¼ mb a ðA:12Þ mb mb að1  sin ui Þ mb
cos ui rci cos ui
a11
a1
1
sin ui 2 sin ui 1 2 sin ui s
¼ þ 
mb a mb að1  sin ui Þ mb mb að1  sin ui Þ mb
Simplifying the left-hand side of Eq. (A.12), we obtain:
a1
1  
 a1 1 2 sin ui sin ui s
2 sin ui 2ss a ¼ þ1  ðA:21Þ
¼ mb a ðA:13Þ mb mb að1  sin ui Þ a mb
1  sin ui rci cos ui
We thus obtain the expression of rn:

a1
1  
Eq. (A.13) can be rewritten as: rci 2 sin ui sin ui srci
rn ¼ þ1  ðA:22Þ

a1
a
mb mb að1  sin ui Þ a mb
rci cos ui 2 sin ui
ss ¼ ðA:14Þ Eq. (A.22) can be rewritten as:
2 mb að1  sin ui Þ

a1 !a
mb rrcin þ s
a
2 sin ui
¼ ðA:23Þ
We can rewrite the relationship between rn and ss in Eq. (8) as: mb að1  sin ui Þ sin ui
þ1
a
0 ,sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
dr1 A Substituting Eq. (A.23) into Eq. (A.14), we then obtain:
r3 ¼ rn  @ss ðA:15Þ !a
dr3 rci cos ui mb rrcin þ s
ss ¼ sin ui
ðA:24Þ
2 þ1
a

Eq. (A.5) can be also rewritten as:

 a Appendix B. The derivations of the equations to solve for sin ui
r1  r3 r3
¼ mb þs ðA:16Þ or ui
rci rci
For the micro-unit at a given stress state, as illustrated in Fig. 3a,
Substituting Eqs. (A.8) and (A.15) into Eq. (A.16), we then the instantaneous friction ui corresponding to the minimum of Fs
obtain: needs to be solved iteratively. So the expression of the factor of
2 3 2 0 ,sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1 3a
 ,sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi safety in Eq. (12) needs to be first written as a function related to
ss 4 dr1 dr1 5 4mb @ dr1 A the instantaneous friction ui. In this appendix, we introduce our
1þ ¼ r s þ s5
rci dr3 dr3 rci n s dr3 derivations in detail.
The stress circle equation in Fig. 3b is written as:
ðA:17Þ
 re1 þ re3 2 r  r 2
e1 e3
rn  þ s2m ¼ ðB:1Þ
Substituting Eqs. (A.4) and (A.9) into Eq. (A.17), we obtain: 2 2

  a Substituting the shear stress sm of Eq. (B.1) into Eq. (12), we can
2ss mb s cos ui
¼ rn  s þs ðA:18Þ rewrite Eq. (12) as:
rci cos ui rci 1 þ sin ui
ss
F s ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
re1 re3 2  2 ðB:2Þ
Substituting Eq. (A.14) into Eq. (A.18), we obtain: 2
 rn  re1 þ2 re3

a1
a
( "  a1
a
# )a Obviously, the minima of Fs and F 2s are obtained at the same
2sin ui rn cos2 ui 2sin ui
point. Therefore, the minimum of F 2s in Eq. (B.3) is solved first.
¼ mb  þs
mb að1  sin ui Þ rci 2ð1 þ sin ui Þ mb að1  sin ui Þ
s2s
ðA:19Þ F 2s ¼  ðB:3Þ
re1 re3 2  2
2
 rn  re1 þ2 re3
Eq. (A.19) can be rewritten as: Substituting Eqs. (9) and (10) into Eq. (B.3) and setting sin ui = x, we

a1
1 can rewrite Eq. (B.3) as:
2 sin ui
h ia1
2a
mb að1  sin ui Þ r2ci ð1x2 Þ 2x
(
a1
a
) 4 mb að1xÞ
rn cos2 ui 2 sin ui F 2s ¼  h 2 ðB:4Þ
¼ mb  þs ðA:20Þ r 2 ia1
1

rci
rci 2ð1 þ sin ui Þ mb að1  sin ui Þ 2
r
e1  e3
 m m
2x x
þ 1  smrci  re1 þ2 re3
b b að1xÞ a b

Eq. (B.4) can be rewritten as:

According to Eq. (A.20), the expression of rrcin is derived as
follows:
296 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298

r2ci
 a1
2a
 x a1
2a Simplifying Eq. (B.9) and substituting it into Eq. (B.8), we obtain:
2
4 mb a
ð1  x2 Þ 1x
F 2s ¼
2 ðB:5Þ px qx r x  wx ðC 21  p2x Þ ¼ 0 ðB:10Þ
r 2  a1
1
 a1
1  x  x a1
1
r
e1  e3 rci 2 x x rci s re1 þre3
2
 mb mb a 1x a
þ1  mb
 2
where px ¼ qx a þ 1  C 3  C 2 , qx ¼ C 4 1x , r ¼ ð1  aÞx3 þ
x2 þ 2ax þa, and wx ¼ ða2  aÞx2  a2 x  a2 .
 a1
2a

Because 4 m2 a
r2
in Eq. (B.5) is a constant, the solution of the
ci Setting the left-hand side of Eq. (B.10) to be f(x), we obtain:
b
minimum of F 2s is transformed to that of the minimum of B in Eq. f ðxÞ ¼ px qx rx  wx ðC 21  p2x Þ ðB:11Þ
(B.6).
We can also write the first-order derivative of f(x) as:
 x a1
2a

ð1  x2 Þ 1x rx
B¼
 1  ðB:6Þ f ðxÞ ¼ p0x qx r x þ 2wx px p0x þ px qx ux 
0

re1 re3 2 rci s re1 þre3 2 ð1  aÞðx  x2 Þ

rci a1  1
2 x a1 x
 þ 1  
2 m m a 1x b a m
b 2 b  v x ðC 21  p2x Þ ðB:12Þ
 a1
1
where p0x
¼ qx ð1aÞx
2 þaxþa
ux ¼ 3ð1  aÞx þ 2x þ 2a, and v x ¼ 2a
, 2
Setting C 1 ¼ re1 2 re3 , C 2 ¼ re1 þ2 re3 ; C 3 ¼ rmci s and C 4 ¼ m
rci 2
, we ða2 aÞðxx2 Þ
b b mb a ða  1Þx  a2 .
can rewrite Eq. (B.6) as:
There upon, we can solve x by the Newton iteration formula
 x a1
2a
below:
ð1  x2 Þ 1x
B¼ h i2 ðB:7Þ f ðxk Þ
1 
 x a1 xkþ1 ¼ xk  ðk ¼ 0; 1; . . .Þ ðB:13Þ
C 21  C 4 1x a
x
þ 1  C3  C2 f 0 ðxk Þ

Differentiating Eq. (B.7) with respect to x, we then set the first-

order derivative of B to be zero: Appendix C. The program code written in fortran language

dB The program code, related to the non-linear Hoek–Brown shear

¼0 ðB:8Þ
dx strength reduction, is written in Fortran language and is shown
dB
in Eq. (B.8) is derived as follows: below.
dx

n  2a h io
 x a1
2a x a11 1
dB 2x 1x ð1  x2 Þ a1
2a
1x 1x
x
þ ð1xÞ 2
¼ h  1 i2 þ h  1 i2
dx
C 21  C 4 1x
x a1 x
a
þ 1  C3  C2 C 21  C 4 1x
x a1 x
a
þ 1  C3  C2
 x a1
2a
n h  1 ion  1 h i  x a1
1
o
C4
ð1  x2 Þ 1x x a1 x
2 C 4 1x a
þ 1  C3  C2 a1 1x
x a1
 1 1x 1 x
þ ð1xÞ 2 a
x
þ 1 þ Ca4 1x
þ  h  1 i2 2 ðB:9Þ

C 21  C 4 1x
x a1 x
a
þ 1  C 3  C 2

!——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
! The variables related to the non-linear H-B SSR method
! hbsigc: uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock;
! hbgsi: Geological Strength Index;
! hbmi: material constant of intact rock;
! hbd: disturbance factor;
! hbmb, hbs, and hba are material parameters in Eq. (1);
! hbst0: rock mass biaxial tensile strength;
! hbst1: rock mass uniaxial tensile strength, calculated by Eq. (18);
! nmax: total element number;
! cklow: lower bracket of cks;
! ckup: upper bracket of cks;
! cks=(ckup+cklow)/2.0;
! ckdif: difference between ’cklow’ and ’ckup’;
! fini: sine value of initial instantaneous friction angle;
! fcon: convergence tolerance in calculating friction angle;
! fval: a variable in calculating friction angle;
! fpls: a variable in justifying convergence of elasto-plastic analysis;
! pi: ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter;
! nplas: cumulative number of elasto-plastic analysis.
!————————————————————————————————————————————————————
! The arrays related to the non-linear H-B SSR method
! hbsign(nmax): normal stress of element;
! hbtao(nmax): shear stress of element;
! hbphi(nmax): instantaneous friction angle of element;
 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298 297

Appendix C (continued)
! hbcoh(nmax): instantaneous cohesive strength of element;
! hbst(nmax): uniaxial tensile strength of element;
! sig1(nmax): major principal stress of element;
! sig3(nmax): minor principal stress of element.
!————————————————————————————————————————————————————
! Assume that all conditions related to analysis have been prepared.
! Only a H-B rock mass is considered in the program code.
! But two or more H-B rock masses can be easily expanded.
! The values of ’cklow’ and ’ckup’ used in the slope example.
cklow=1.00
ckup=1.30
ckdif=ckup-cklow
cks=(ckup+cklow)/2.0
loop_1: do while (ckdif .ge. 0.01)
! Set that ’hbcoh’ and ’hbst’ of each element is large enough to
! guarantee the implementation of elastic stress analysis.
! Here implement the elastic stress solution first.
loop_2: do i=1,nmax,1
! Calculate ’sig1’ and ’sig3’ from element stress components.
! Compressive stress is taken to be positive for ’sig1’ and ’sig3’.
fini=0.05
fcon=1.0e-8
fval=1.0
s1=sig1(i)
s3=sig3(i)
loop_3: do while (fval .ge. fcon)
! Eq. (13) is used to calculate the sine value of hbphi(i) here.
! Absolute differece of ’fini’ between the current and last steps is
! transmitted to ’fval’.
enddo loop_3
! Here sine value of hbphi(i) is transmitted to ’fini’.
! Here hbphi(i) is calculated by hbphi(i)=(asin(fini))*180.0/pi.
! Here calculate hbsign(i) and hbtao(i) by Eqs. (9) and (10).
! Here calculate hbcoh(i) by Eq. (17).
! Here the iteratively calculated ’hbst1’ is transmitted to hbst(i).
enddo loop_2
nplas=0
! Here implement the elasto-plastic iteration analysis.
loop_4: do while (nplas .le. 100)
! Here nplas is increased by nplas=nplas+1.
loop_5: do i=1,nmax,1
! Here reduce hbphi(i), hbcoh(i), and hbst(i) by ’cks’.
enddo loop_5
! Here implement the elasto-plastic solution.
loop_6: do i=1,nmax,1
! Here implement the loop similar to loop_2 and loop_3.
! Then hbphi(i) and hbcoh(i) are calculated from current step.
enddo loop_6
! Here unbalance force percentage is transmitted to ’fpls’.
if (fpls .le. 0.001) then
nplas=101
! Here ’nplas’ is greater than 100, so as to exit loop_4.
endif
enddo loop_4
! Adjust ’cks’ below through Dawson’s bracketing approach.
if (fpls .le. 0.001) then
cklow=cks
ckup=ckup
else
ckup=cks
cklow=cklow
endif
cks=(cklow+ckup)/2.0
ckdif=ckup-cklow
enddo loop_1
!——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
298 W. Fu, Y. Liao / Computers and Geotechnics 37 (2010) 288–298

References [11] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering. <http://www.rockscience.com/roc/Hoek/

PracticalRockEngineering.asp>; 2007.
[12] Hoek E, Marinos P. A brief history of the development of the Hoek–Brown
[1] Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW. Associated and nonassociated
failure criterion. Soils Rocks 2007;30(2):85–92.
viscoplasticity in soil mechanics. Géotechnique 1975;25(4):671–89.
[13] Brown ET. Estimating the mechanical properties of rock masses. In: Potvin Y,
[2] Chowdhury RN. Slope analysis – development in geotechnical engineering, vol.
Carter J, Dyskin A, Jeffrey R, editors. Proceedings of the 1st southern
22. Amsterdam–Oxford, New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company;
hemisphere international rock mechanics symposium: SHIRMS 2008, Perth,
1978.
Western Australia, vol. 1; 2008. p. 3–21.
[3] Ugai K. A method of calculation of total factor of safety of slopes by elasto-
[14] Carranza-Torres C. Some comments on the application of the Hoek–Brown
plastic FEM. Soils and Foundations 1989;29(2):190–5.
failure criterion for intact rock and rock masses to the solution of tunnel and
[4] Dawson EM, Roth WH, Drescher A. Slope stability analysis by strength
slope problems. In: Barla G, Barla M, editors. Proceedings of the X conference
reduction. Géotechnique 1999;49(6):835–40.
on rock and engineering mechanics: MIR 2004, Torino, Italy; 2004. p. 285–326
[5] Griffiths DV, Lane PA. Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Géotechnique
[chapter 10].
1999;49(3):387–403.
[15] Hammah RE, Yacoub TE, Corkum B, Curran JH. The shear strength reduction
[6] Luan, MT, Wu, YJ, Nian, TK. An alternating criterion based on development of
method for the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion. In Proceedings of the 40th
plastic zone for evaluating slope stability by shear strength reduction FEM. In:
US symposium on rock mechanics, Alaska Rocks 2005, Anchorage, Alaska.
Proceedings of the SinaJapanese symposium on geotechnical engineering,
<http://www.rocscience.com/library/pdf/SSR-Method-for-GHB.pdf>.
Beijing, China; 2003. p. 181–8.
[16] Benz T, Schwab R, Kauther RA, Vermeera PA. A Hoek–Brown criterion with
[7] Duncan JM. State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite-element analysis of
intrinsic material strength factorization. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
slopes. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1996;122(7):577–96.
2008;45(2):210–22.
[8] Zheng H, Sun GH, Liu DF. A practical procedure for searching critical slip
[17] Balmer G. A general analytical solution for Mohr’s envelope. Am Soc Test Mater
surfaces of slopes based on the strength reduction technique. Comput Geotech
1952;52:1260–71.
2009;36(1-2):1–5.
[18] Priest SD. Determination of shear strength and three-dimensional yield
[9] Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech
strength for the Hoek–Brown criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng
Geoenviron Eng Div ASCE 1980;106(GT9):1013–35.
2005;38(4):299–327.
[10] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure criterion – 2002
[19] Kumar P. Shear failure envelope of Hoek–Brown criterion for rockmass. Tunn
edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North American symposium – NARMS–TAC,
Undergr Space Technol 1998;13(4):453–8.
Toronto, <http://www.rockscience.com/roc/Hoek/references/Published-Papers.
[20] Bishop AW. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
htm>; 2002.
Géotechnique 1955;5(1):7–17.