See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274720930

Comparison of finite-element limit analysis

and strength reduction techniques

Article in Géotechnique · April 2015

Impact Factor: 1.87 · DOI: 10.1680/geot.14.P.022]

CITATIONS READS

5 548

5 authors, including:

Franz Tschuchnigg Scott William Sloan

Graz University of Technology University of Newcastle
14 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS 308 PUBLICATIONS 6,242 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrei V. Lyamin
University of Newcastle
104 PUBLICATIONS 1,897 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Scott William Sloan
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 28 June 2016
Tschuchnigg, F. et al. (2015). Géotechnique 65, No. 4, 249–257 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.14.P.022]

Comparison of finite-element limit analysis and strength reduction

techniques
F. T S C H U C H N I G G  , H . F. S C H W E I G E R  , S . W. S L OA N † , A . V. LYA M I N † a n d I . R A I S S A K I S 

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 established in geotechnical engineering, there is no unique

Although limit equilibrium analyses, as proposed, for exam-
ple, by Janbu (1954), Bishop (1955), Morgenstern & Price
(1965) and Spencer (1967), are widely used in practical
geotechnical engineering to calculate factors of safety, parti-
cularly 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 finite-
element 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 finite-
element 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 pre-
sented.
Although the concept of using a factor of safety is well
Manuscript received 2 February 2015; revised manuscript accepted 9
January 2015. Published online ahead of print 20 March 2015.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 September 2015, for further
details see p. ii.
 Computational Geotechnics Group, Institute for Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Austria.
† ARC Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineer-
ing, School of Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia.
definition for it (the concept of partial factors of safety
applied to loads, strength and resistances as introduced in
Eurocode 7 is not considered here). Indeed, in bearing
capacity problems it is common practice to define the factor
of safety in terms of the load capacity, whereas in slope
stability problems the safety factor is usually defined with
respect to the soil strength. The latter definition is used
throughout this paper.
NUMERICAL METHODS USED FOR COMPARISON OF
FACTORS OF SAFETY
Strength reduction method with displacement finite-element
method (SRFEA)
The finite-element code Plaxis (Brinkgreve et al., 2011) is
used for all displacement finite-element analyses discussed
in this paper. It is well known that the element type, the
mesh discretisation and the convergence tolerances have a
pronounced influence on the factor of safety obtained from
the displacement finite-element method. Therefore, the influ-
ence of these parameters has been minimised by the use of
high-order elements (Sloan & Randolph, 1982), fine meshes
and stringent tolerances. In the finite-element code the factor
of safety is obtained by means of the strength reduction
method (SRM); that is, an analysis is performed with
mobilised strength properties for the friction angle 9 and
the cohesion c9, followed by an incremental decrease of
tan 9 and c9 (assuming a Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion).
This gives stress states that violate the strength criterion
which are resolved in an iterative manner using the same
stress point algorithm employed for a standard elasto-plastic
analysis in Plaxis, leading to a stress redistribution in the
system until equilibrium can no longer be established and
failure is reached. However, close inspection of the devel-
oped failure mechanism and displacements of appropriate
control points is required in order to avoid misinterpretation.
It should be noted that this procedure works only for
simple failure criteria such as Mohr–Coulomb. If strength is
a function of state variables, for example density, a more

249
250 TSCHUCHNIGG, SCHWEIGER, SLOAN, LYAMIN AND RAISSAKIS
complex algorithm is required, as pointed out by Potts &
Zdravkovic (2012). Actually it is one of the goals of this
paper to show that the simple strength reduction procedure
works for classical failure criteria by comparing it with
rigorous limit analysis solutions. The factor of safety (de-
noted FoS) obtained from the procedure is defined by
tan 9 c9
FoS ¼ ¼ (1)
tan 9mobilised c9mobilised
where c9 is the effective cohesion, 9 is the effective friction
angle, and the ‘mobilised’ subscript denotes mobilised
values. An issue which must be addressed in displacement
finite-element analysis of failure is the definition of the flow
rule. In general, a non-associated flow rule with a dilatancy
angle ł9 smaller than the friction angle 9 is employed, but
this may lead to numerical instability with no clear indica-
tion of the failure mechanism. This issue has been investi-
gated by Nordal (2008) in the context of an earth pressure
problem. When using structured finite-element meshes with
a non-associated flow rule, it has been observed that the
failure surface tends to propagate along element boundaries
(Krabbenhoft et al., 2012). This is accompanied by strong
oscillations of the resulting factor of safety during the
strength reduction procedure, which is the consequence of a
non-unique failure mechanism, thus making it difficult (or in
some cases even impossible) to define a unique value for
this quantity. In the finite-element code employed in this
study the flow rule in the strength reduction procedure is
handled as follows: for associated plasticity the dilatancy
angle ł9 is reduced incrementally in the same way as the
friction angle 9, while for the non-associated case with
ł9 , 9, ł9 is kept constant as long as the reduced value
for 9 is larger than ł9. Once 9 falls to the value of ł9,
both are then reduced simultaneously in subsequent itera-
tions. This is only relevant in the following for analyses
under drained conditions, where extreme cases have been
considered rather than using values based on experimental
evidence. Undrained analyses are generally performed with
ł9 ¼ 0.
To model non-associated plasticity in limit analysis, Davis
(1968) suggested the use of reduced strength parameters, c
and  , in combination with an associated flow rule of the
form
c ¼ c9 (2)
tan  ¼  tan 9 (3)
where
cos ł9 cos 9
¼ (4)
1  sin ł9 sin 9
Thus, in the following, all analyses denoted as the Davis
approach have c and  as input parameters.
Davis argued that the flow rule will not have a major
influence on the ultimate limit load unless the problem is
kinematically constrained, and only for these situations
would his approach need to be applied. As discussed by
Sloan (2013), however, it is not straightforward to identify
such cases in practice, but it is generally accepted that in
slope stability analysis the flow rule should not have a
significant influence on the computed factor of safety (e.g.
Cheng et al., 2007). This assumption will be studied later,
where it will be shown to be questionable for steep slopes
with high angles of friction.
Factor of safety obtained from finite-element limit analysis
(FELA)
The upper- and lower-bound theorems of plasticity are
powerful tools for predicting the stability of geotechnical
problems. Finite-element formulations of these theorems
have developed markedly over the last two decades and it is
now possible to apply them to a wide variety of complex
engineering problems (see, for example, the summary in
Sloan, 2013).
Finite-element limit analysis is particularly powerful when
both upper- and lower-bound estimates are calculated so that
the true collapse load (for the idealised material) is
bracketed from above and below. The difference between the
two bounds then provides an exact measure of the error in
the solution, and can be used to refine the meshes until a
suitably accurate estimate of the collapse load is found. The
formulations used in this paper stem from the methods
originally developed by Sloan (1988, 1989) and Sloan &
Kleeman (1995), and further improved by Lyamin & Sloan
(2002a, 2002b) and Krabbenhoft et al. (2005, 2007). A
detailed description of the formulation of the FELA methods
used in this paper, including the process for adaptive mesh
refinement and strength reduction, is given in Sloan (2013).
If a safety factor based on the loads is desired, which is
defined as the ratio between limit load and actual load, the
solution can be obtained from a single pair of upper- and
lower-bound analyses. However, if the safety factor needs to
be expressed in terms of the material strength, which is
defined as the ratio between mobilised material strength and
actual material strength, a strength reduction process must
be performed as described in Sloan (2013). This involves
several upper- and lower-bound analyses, each with different
strength parameters. Once a state is found where the com-
puted collapse load matches the actual applied load, the limit
strength parameters are derived.
EXAMPLE SLOPE STABILITY – DRAINED
CONDITIONS
Problem description and meshes
This first example to be analysed is that of a simple
homogeneous slope, shown in Fig. 1, with a slope height HS
equal to 10 m and a varying slope angle ÆS of 158, 308, 458
and 608. Additionally, two depth factors DS ¼ 1 and DS ¼ 5,
which quantify the distance to a firm base (bedrock), are
considered. The dimensions of the slope are identical to the
Hs
αs Refinement along
the slope line
Additional cluster with
finer mesh properties
Hs·Ds
Y
Total element number: 1542
X
Fig. 1. Homogeneous slope geometry and mesh properties of the
homogeneous slope model for SRFEA analysis (DS 5 and
ÆS 458)
 FINITE-ELEMENT LIMIT ANALYSIS VERSUS STRENGTH REDUCTION TECHNIQUES
case studied previously by Yu et al. (1998) who also used
FELA.
Examples of the meshes used in the displacement finite-
element calculations and FELAs are shown in Figs 1 and 2.
In FELA the mesh refinement is performed adaptively as
part of the analysis, whereas in the SRFEA the mesh is fixed
and a sensitivity analysis is required to ensure that it is
sufficiently fine (see Fig. 3). These results suggest that about
1500 15-noded triangles are needed to give accurate esti-
mates of the factor of safety.
251
the strength reduction is performed in the finite-element
analysis. The material sets include two different soil types, a
purely frictional material (no cohesion) and a cohesive-
frictional material. Table 1 summarises the material param-
eters common to both methods (FELA and SRFEA), while
Table 2 gives the additional parameters that are required for
the SRFEA analyses. In the latter, four different materials
are specified to allow for an associated flow rule (9 ¼ ł9)
and a non-associated flow rule with zero plastic volume
change (ł9 ¼ 0).

Material parameters Results

The analysis considers a slope under drained conditions. The factors of safety for both methods with the purely
In the first step gravity loading is applied and subsequently 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
10 below this point, the results for DS ¼ 1 and DS ¼ 5 are only
marginally different and are not presented here. Table 4
0 compares the factors of safety for the same material but
with a non-associated flow rule assuming a dilatancy angle
10
of ł9 ¼ 0. Note that in one case, with a slope angle of 308
and DS ¼ 1, the slope is at the limit state, which is con-
20
firmed by the approximate factor of safety of 1 .0 obtained
30 from FELA analyses, and therefore it was not possible to
obtain a solution from the SRFEA due to numerical instabil-
FELA: Upper bound mesh
40 ity. For the same reason some of the lower-bound analyses
30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
yield a factor of safety ,1 .0. As expected, the results in
Fig. 2. Finite-element mesh for FELA upper bound analysis for Table 4 show that the Davis approach yields lower factors of
the homogeneous slope (DS 5 and ÆS 458) safety for both the SRFEA and the FELA. This simply
reflects the fact that the use of a reduced friction angle leads
1·60 to a reduction in the factor of safety. The benefit of the
Davis approach, however, is that a numerical solution can
1·55 always be found, an issue which will be addressed again
Factor of safety

later in this paper.

1·50
Finite-element mesh
used for the slope Table 1. Material parameters for frictional and cohesive-frictional
1·45 stability analysis (Ds  5) material

1·40 Material Unit Material set 1 Material set 2

Frictional material Cohesive-frictional
1·35
material
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Number of elements ªunsat kN/m3 17 .0 19 .0
c9 kPa 0 20 .0
Fig. 3. Factor of safety obtained from SRFEA with different 9 degrees 35 .0 25 .0
element numbers (DS 5, ÆS 458, material set 2_NA)

Table 2. Material parameters for SRFEA analysis

Material 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 kPa 40 000 40 000 20 000 20 000

9 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3 0 .3
c9 kPa 0 0 20 .0 20 .0
9 degrees 35 .0 35 .0 25 .0 25 .0
ł9 degrees 0 35 .0 0 25 .0

Table 3. SRFEA (associated) and FELA results for material set 1 – Ds 1

Slope SRFEA FELA LB FELA UB FELA ¼ Percentage difference ¼

inclination, ÆS (UB + LB)/2 100(FELA  SRFEA)/
FELA

158 2 .64 2 .61 2 .65 2 .63 0 .4

308 1 .23 1 .21 1 .25 1 .23 0
252 TSCHUCHNIGG, SCHWEIGER, SLOAN, LYAMIN AND RAISSAKIS
Table 4. SRFEA (non-associated and Davis approach) and FELA (Davis approach) results for material set 1 – Ds 1

Slope inclination, SRFEA SRFEA (Davis) FELA LB FELA UB FELA ¼ Percentage difference ¼ Percentage difference Davis ¼
ÆS (UB + LB)/2 100(FELA-SRFEA)/ 100(FELA  SRFEA(Davis))/
FELA FELA

158 2 .54 2 .16 2 .13 2 .17 2 .15 18 .1 0 .5

308 No sol. 1 .00 0 .99 1 .02 

A similar picture is obtained for the cohesive-frictional
cases (material set 2 of Tables 1 and 2) which are sum-
marised in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 indicates that the factors
of safety for the slopes with an associated flow rule compare
again well for both methods, with a maximum difference of
5%. For most of the examples, the slopes with associated
flow rules and non-associated flow rules give similar factors
of safety. This confirms that, for these cases, the flow rule
does not have a major influence on the stability. Although
the results from the non-associated SRFEA are not identical
to those from the FELA technique with the Davis approach
(Table 6), the maximum difference is just below 9%, which
is considered to be acceptable. The failure mechanisms
obtained from the FELA and SRFEA methods are shown in
Figs 4 and 5 and are, as expected, very similar.
Note on influence of flow rule on factor of safety
It has been mentioned above that only a slight influence
of the flow rule on the factor of safety was observed in
some cases when employing a strength reduction technique.
However, this effect appears to be more important for
materials with high friction angles (in the range of 9 ¼ 40–
458), which is of practical relevance in alpine environments
where steep slopes with an inclination of 408 or higher are
quite common. For these cases where the factor of safety is
usually low, any disturbance of the slope due to construction
activities has to be carefully examined and the assessment of
a reliable factor of safety becomes crucial. A slope with a
height Hs of 10 m and an inclination ÆS of 458 is therefore
considered in this section, with effective strength parameters
of 9 ¼ 458 and c9 ¼ 6 kPa. The dilatancy angle in this study
is varied between ł9 ¼ 08, 158 and 458, purposely covering a
range of extremes, with ł9 ¼ 158 being probably a realistic
value.
Figure 6 shows the finite-element mesh used for this case
which comprised 1157 15-noded triangles. Fig. 7 shows the
factor of safety from the SRFEA, and it is immediately clear
that the flow rule does have a significant influence on the
factor of safety, with the associated case giving a value of
about 1 .54 and the zero dilatancy case (ł9 ¼ 08) giving a
value of approximately 1 .32. It is also apparent that the non-
associated case gives highly erratic results, which makes it
impossible to infer a precise value for the factor of safety.
This type of behaviour is well known and is a result of the
large difference between the friction angle and the dilatancy

Table 5. SRFEA (associated) and FELA results for material set 2 – Ds 1

Slope SRFEA FELA LB FELA UB FELA ¼ Percentage difference ¼

inclination, ÆS (UB + LB)/2 100(FELA  SRFEA)/FELA

158 3 .32 3 .31 3 .36 3 .34 0 .6

308 1 .95 1 .97 2 .01 1 .99 0 .2
458 1 .44 1 .46 1 .50 1 .48 2 .8
608 1 .13 1 .16 1 .21 1 .19 5 .0

Table 6. SRFEA (non-associated and Davis approach) and FELA (Davis approach) results for material set 2 – Ds 1

Slope inclination, SRFEA SRFEA (Davis) FELA LB FELA UB FELA ¼ Percentage difference ¼ Percentage difference Davis ¼
ÆS (UB + LB)/2 100(FELA  SRFEA)/ 100(FELA  SRFEA(Davis))/
FELA FELA

158 3 .30 3 .00 3 .00 3 .05 3 .03 8 .9 1 .0

308 1 .92 1 .76 1 .78 1 .82 1 .80 6 .7 2 .2
458 1 .38 1 .30 1 .32 1 .36 1 .34 3 .0 3 .0
608 1 .07 1 .02 1 .05 1 .10 1 .08 0 .9 5 .6

Fig. 4. SRFEA failure mechanism for DS 5, ÆS 458, material set 2_A (deformed mesh on the left
side and deviatoric strains on the right side)
 FINITE-ELEMENT LIMIT ANALYSIS VERSUS STRENGTH REDUCTION TECHNIQUES 253

Fig. 5. FELA upper bound results for DS 5, ÆS 458, material set 2_A (deformed mesh on the left
side and power dissipation on the right side)

10·0 m 15·0 m

Point A

15·0 m
20·0 m
45°
10·0 m

1157 finite elements

35·0 m
Fig. 6. Finite-element model for SRFEA analysis
angle. Figs 8 and 9 compare the failure mechanisms for both
cases by means of contour plots of incremental deviatoric
strains. In the non-associated case the slip plane does not go
through the toe of the slope and, compared with the asso-
ciated case, is less clearly defined. If a more reasonable
dilatancy angle of ł9 ¼ 158 is assumed, the factor of safety
increases to about 1 .47, which is again not too different
from the associated case. Fig. 7 shows two more curves for
the Davis approach with SRFEA, assuming ł9 ¼ 08 and
1·6
1·5
Fig. 8. Failure mechanism for 9 ł9 458 (incremental devia-
toric strains)
ł9 ¼ 158. In this case the flow rule is associated and there-
fore 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 alter-
native 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
FELA (φ  ψ)
FoS  1·57

1·4
Factor of safety

FELA (Davis
approach ψ  15°)
FoS  1·31
1·3

1·2

1·1 FELA (Davis

approach ψ  0°)
FoS  1·11

1·0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
Displacement of point A: m

SRFEA – Associated flow rule (φ  ψ) SRFEA – Davis approach (ψ  15°)
SRFEA – Non-associated flow rule (ψ  15°) SRFEA – Davis approach (ψ  0°)
SRFEA – Non-associated flow rule (ψ  0°)

Fig. 7. Computed factors of safety with SRFEA analysis including results obtained with the
Davis (1968) approach
254 TSCHUCHNIGG, SCHWEIGER, SLOAN, LYAMIN AND RAISSAKIS
initial stresses are assumed as v ¼ ªz(ª ¼ 19 .0 kN/m3) and
h ¼ K0v with K0 ¼ 1  sin9. This means that K0 is different
for each effective stress analysis, but this is reflected in the
calculation of the equivalent undrained shear strength.
The face of the tunnel is stabilised with a pressure T and
its roof and floor are supported by a rigid, smooth lining.
Two different overburdens HT (8 m and 24 m) are considered,
being equivalent to a ratio of HT /DT ¼ 1 and HT /DT ¼ 3.
Two supporting pressures T ¼ 25 kPa and T ¼ 75 kPa are
assumed.
Figure 11 shows an example for a finite-element mesh used
for the SRFEA analysis consisting of 2260 15-noded trian-
Fig. 9. Failure mechanism for 9 458, ł9 0 (incremental gles, which has been chosen on the basis of a sensitivity
deviatoric strains) analysis. The mesh refinement technique implemented in the
FELA is demonstrated in Fig. 12, where the development
obtained from FELA. These values agree well with those from the initial mesh towards the final discretisation is shown.
obtained from SRFEA with associated flow.

Material parameters
EXAMPLE TUNNEL FACE STABILITY – UNDRAINED The undrained shear strength su increases with depth at
CONDITIONS different ratios rDT /su0, where r is the strength gradient
Problem description and meshes with depth and su0 is the undrained shear strength at the
This example considers the stability of a tunnel face under surface (Fig. 10). The undrained shear strength at the tunnel
plane strain conditions as shown in Fig. 10. The focus in this crown (su,cr) is the same for all analyses, but the undrained
example is to examine the differences in modelling undrained shear strength at the surface su0 is different for all calcula-
conditions (effective stresses as opposed to total stresses) and tions depending on the strength gradient r. The ratio be-
to compare the results from SRFEA and FELA. The tunnel has tween soil stiffness and undrained shear strength is assumed
an overburden depth of HT and a diameter DT. In this example to be Eu ¼ su 3 300. The limiting case with constant soil
strength and constant soil stiffness is also considered. Table
su0 7 summarises the input parameters for the analyses in terms
su: kPa of total stresses with an associated flow rule (ł9 ¼ 0) and is
valid for both SRFEA and FELA.
1 The undrained shear strength resulting from a Mohr–
HT ρ Coulomb criterion can be derived from the effective strength
parameters due to the fact that the centre of the Mohr’s
Rigid smooth lining 9 ) remains at the same position under undrained
circle ( m
loading. Table 8 gives the input parameters for the SRFEA
su,cr  const.
in terms of effective stresses using the relation
 19 þ  39
DT  8 m su ¼ c9 cos 9 þ sin 9
Supporting 2
pressure σT (5)
¼ c9 cos 9 þ  m
9 sin 9
su(z)  ¼ c9 cos 9 þ s9 sin 9
Rigid smooth lining su0  ρz

with a Poisson ratio 9 of 0 .3 and the assumption of

z: m normally consolidated conditions (K0 ¼ 1  sin 9). How-
ever, this relation is valid only at the start of the analysis
Fig. 10. Plane strain tunnel face stability geometry where the stress state corresponds to triaxial compression.

Global mesh coarseness: fine

Further refinement along

the lines and tunnel face
Additional cluster with
finer mesh properties

Total element number: 2260

Fig. 11. Mesh properties for the SRFEA analysis (HT /DT 1)
 FINITE-ELEMENT LIMIT ANALYSIS VERSUS STRENGTH REDUCTION TECHNIQUES 255

Initial mesh: 1000 elements

First calculation

Intermediate mesh: 2573 elements

Intermediate calculation

Final mesh: 3000 elements

Initial mesh Final calculation

Intermediate mesh Final mesh

Fig. 12. Mesh refinement procedure for the tunnel face (FELA)

Table 7. Undrained shear strength parameters (ł9 0)

rDT /su0 0 .00 0 .40 1 .20 2 .00 4 .00 6 .00 8 .00 12 .00

HT /DT ¼ 1 su0: kPa 60 .80 43 .43 27 .64 20 .27 12 .16 8 .69 6 .76 4 .68
r: kPa/m 0 .00 2 .17 4 .15 5 .07 6 .08 6 .51 6 .76 7 .02
HT /DT ¼ 3 su0: kPa 182 .40 82 .91 39 .65 26 .06 14 .03 9 .60 7 .30 4 .93
r: kPa/m 0 .00 4 .15 5 .95 6 .51 7 .02 7 .20 7 .30 7 .39

Table 8. Effective shear strength parameters (ł9 0)

rDT /su0 0 .00 0 .40 1 .20 2 .00 4 .00 6 .00 8 .00 12 .00

HT /DT ¼ 1 c9: kPa 60 .80 43 .75 28 .54 21 .37 13 .27 9 .67 7 .62 5 .36
9: degrees 0 .00 6 .99 14 .43 18 .48 23 .58 26 .06 27 .55 29 .25
HT /DT ¼ 3 c9: kPa 182 .40 85 .61 43 .03 29 .01 16 .08 11 .14 8 .53 5 .81
9: degrees 0 .00 14 .43 22 .86 26 .06 29 .25 30 .53 31 .22 31 .96

As the Lode angle changes during strength reduction, some
differences between the two cases can be expected (Potts,
2005). However, when evaluating the change of the Lode
angle in the analysis it varied by only a few degrees; that is,
the influence on the calculated factor of safety is minor in
this case. Also in the effective stress analyses the dilatancy
angle ł9 ¼ 0, thus a non-associated flow rule is defined. The
unit weight for all parameter sets is 19 .0 kN/m3.
Results
Figure 13 shows that the failure modes are similar for the
different analyses. The factors of safety from SRFEA and
FELA compare extremely well for the total stress analysis
(Fig. 14), whereas the SRFEA in terms of effective stress
yields higher factors of safety as compared to the total stress
analysis, which will be explained in the following.
During SRFEA the strength parameters are reduced incre-
mentally until failure occurs. Figs 15 and 16 show the
Mohr’s circles at failure for both an effective stress and a
total stress analysis, indicating also in which terms the factor
of safety appears. Because the strength reduction in an
effective stress analyses applies to c9 and tan 9 simultane-
ously, there is clearly a difference in the definition of the
factor of safety, which is not always appreciated in practice.
This comes on top of the slight difference due to the change
of the Lode angle as described above.
Only in the limiting case of a constant su do the effective
and total stress analyses yield identical results (Fig. 14 for
T ¼ 25 kPa, Table 9 for T ¼ 75 kPa, HT /DT ¼ 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Finite-element limit analysis provides rigorous upper and
lower bounds on the factor of safety and can therefore
estimate the error in the solution (for the idealised material
adopted). Because displacement finite-element analysis is
increasingly used to calculate factors of safety by means of
the strength reduction technique (SRFEA), results from this
method are compared with those from FELA in order to
prove that strength reduction techniques can be safely
applied in practice. This has been shown to be the case by
comparing the results for slope and tunnelling face stability
problems when adopting an associated flow rule, an intrinsic
assumption of limit analysis. In SFREA one would hardly
adopt an associated flow rule; however, the influence of the
dilatancy angle on the calculated factors of safety obtained
from SRFEA is considered to be minor for slope stability
problems. Although true in many cases, it has been shown
in this paper that for high friction angles (.408) and steep
slopes with low factors of safety, this is no longer the case
and the flow rule may have a significant influence on the
results. Importantly, these cases also lead to numerical
instabilities, making an accurate determination of influence
of the flow rule difficult. It has therefore been investigated
whether the approach suggested by Davis (1968), which
256 TSCHUCHNIGG, SCHWEIGER, SLOAN, LYAMIN AND RAISSAKIS
1·50
1·45
1·40
B
1·35

Factor of safety
1·30
1·25
B
1·20 SRFEA – Effective stress analysis
1·15 SRFEA – Total stress analysis
1·10 FELA – Upper bound (total stress analysis)
SRFEA (effective stress analysis) FELA – Lower bound (total stress analysis)
1·05
FELA – (LB  UB)/2 (total stress analysis)
1·00
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0
ρDT/su0

Fig. 14. Factor of safety from different calculation methods (HT /

DT 1 and T 25 kPa)

tan φ
FELA – Upper bound

te
l sta tan φ/FoS
Initia

r
state
c Limit su,limit
c/FoS
σ3,f σm σ1,f σ

Fig. 15. Mohr’s circle at failure (effective stress analysis)

FELA – Lower bound

Fig. 13. Failure mechanisms of the tunnel face (HT /DT 1 and
T 25 kPa) τ

modifies the strength parameters to account for non-

associated plasticity but performs the analysis as an asso- Initial state
ciated one, can be recommended. Although it is feasible
because the assumptions are on the safe side, this approach
su
may yield estimates of the factor of safety which could be Limit state
considered to be conservative. Further investigations are r su,limit  su/FoS
currently being carried out in order to overcome this pro-
blem of reliably identifying the factor of safety by means of σ3,f σm σ1,f σ
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. Fig. 16. Mohr’s circle at failure (total stress analysis)

Table 9. Factor of safety from different calculation methods (HT /DT 1 and T 75 kPa)

rDT /su0 SRFEAeff – effective SRFEAtot – total stress FELA – LB FELA – UB FELA ¼ Percentage difference ¼
stress analysis analysis (UB + LB)/2 100(FELA  SRFEAeff)/FELA

0 .00 1 .60 1 .60 1 .58 1 .62 1 .60 0 .0

0 .40 1 .69 1 .68 1 .66 1 .70 1 .68 0 .6
1 .20 1 .77 1 .73 1 .72 1 .76 1 .74 1 .7
2 .00 1 .82 1 .75 1 .73 1 .78 1 .76 3 .4
4 .00 1 .88 1 .76 1 .74 1 .79 1 .77 6 .2
6 .00 1 .91 1 .77 1 .75 1 .80 1 .78 7 .3
8 .00 1 .93 1 .77 1 .75 1 .80 1 .78 8 .4
12 .00 1 .94 1 .77 1 .75 1 .81 1 .78 9 .0
 FINITE-ELEMENT LIMIT ANALYSIS VERSUS STRENGTH REDUCTION TECHNIQUES 257
NOTATION earth slopes, Stockholm, Sweden, vol. 3, pp. 43–49. Stockholm,
c9 effective cohesion Sweden: International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
c reduced cohesion according to Davis (1968) Engineering.
DS depth factor for slope example Krabbenhoft, K., Lyamin, A. V., Hjiaj, M. & Sloan, S. W. (2005). A
DT tunnel diameter new discontinuous upper bound limit analysis formulation. Int.
E9 Young’s modulus of the soil J. Numer. Methods Engng 63, No. 7, 1069–1088.
Eu undrained soil stiffness Krabbenhoft, K., Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. (2007). Formulation
HS slope height and solution of some plasticity problems as conic programs. Int.
HT overburden J. Solids Structs 44, No. 5, 1533–1549.
K0 earth pressure coefficient at rest Krabbenhoft, K., Karim, M. R., Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W.
p9 mean effective stress (2012). Assosciated computational plasticity schemes for non-
q deviatoric stress assosciated frictional material. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engng 90,
s9 centre of the Mohr circle, s9 ¼ ( 19 +  39 )/2 No. 9, 1089–1117.
su undrained shear strength Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. (2002a). Lower bound limit analysis
su,cr undrained shear strength at tunnel crown using nonlinear programming. Int. J. Numer. Methods Engng 55,
su0 undrained shear strength at surface No. 5, 573–611.
t radius of the Mohr circle, t ¼ ( 19   39 )/2 Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. (2002b). Upper bound limit analysis
z depth below surface using linear finite elements and nonlinear programming. Int. J.
ÆS slope angle Numer. Analyt. Methods Geomech. 26, No. 2, 181–216.
 strength factor according to Davis (1968) Morgenstern, N. R. & Price, V. E. (1965). The analysis of the
ªsat saturated unit weight stability of general slip surfaces. Géotechnique 15, No. 1, 79–
ªunsat unsaturated unit weight 93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.1.79.
9 Poisson ratio Nordal, S. (2008). Can we trust numerical collapse load simulations
u undrained Poisson ratio using non-associated flow rules. In Geomechanics in the emer-
r strength gradient with depth ging social and technological age: Proceedings of the 12th
m9 centre of Mohr’s circle international conference of the International Association of
T face pressure Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG),
 19 major effective principle stress Goa, India (ed. P. N. Singh), pp. 755–762. Goa, India: Inter-
 39 minor effective principle stress national Association for Computer Methods and Advances in
 shear stress Geomechanics (CD-ROM).
9 effective friction angle Potts, D. M. (2005). Some common pitfalls associated with ad-
 reduced friction angle according to Davis (1968) vanced geotechnical analysis. In Prediction, analysis and design
ł9 dilatancy angle in geomechanical applications: Proceedings of the 11th interna-
tional conference on computer methods and advances in geome-
chanics, Torino, Italy (eds G. Barla and M. Barla), vol. 4, pp.
177–186. Bologna, Italy: Pàtron Editore.
REFERENCES Potts, D. M. & Zdravkovic, L. (2012). Accounting for partial factors
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of slip circles in the stability of safety in numerical analysis. Géotechnique 62, No. 12, 1053–
analysis of earth slopes. Géotechnique 5, No. 1, 7–17, http:// 1065, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.057.
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1955.5.1.7. Sloan, S. W. (1988). Lower bound limit analysis using finite
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. & Bakker, H. L. (1991). Non-linear finite elements and linear programming. Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth-
element analysis of safety factors. Proceedings of the interna- ods Geomech. 12, No. 1, 61–77.
tional conference on computer methods and advances in geome- Sloan, S. W. (1989). Upper bound limit analysis using finite
chanics, pp. 1117–1122. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema. elements and linear programming. Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth-
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Swolfs, W. M. & Engin, E. (2011). Plaxis 2D ods Geomech. 13, No. 3, 263–282.
2011 – user manual. Delft, the Netherlands: Plaxis bv. Sloan, S. W. (2013). 51st Rankine lecture: geotechnical stability
Cheng, Y. M., Lansivaara, T. & Wei, W. B. (2007). Two-dimen- analysis. Géotechnique 63, No. 7, 531–572, http://dx.doi.org/
sional slope stability analysis by limit equilibrium and strength 10.1680/geot.12.RL.001.
reduction methods. Comput. Geotech. 34, No. 3, 137–150. Sloan, S. W. & Kleeman, P. W. (1995). Upper bound limit analysis
Davis, E. H. (1968). Theories of plasticity and failure of soil using discontinuous velocity fields. Comput. Methods Appl.
masses. In Soil mechanics: selected topics. (ed. I. K. Lee), pp. Mech. Engng 127, No. 1–4, 293–314.
341–354. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier. Sloan, S. W. & Randolph, M. F. (1982). Numerical prediction of
Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H. & Drescher, A. A. (1999). Slope collapse loads using finite element methods. Int. J. Numer.
stability analysis by strength reduction. Géotechnique 49, No. 6, Analyt. Methods Geomech. 6, No. 1, 47–76.
835–840, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.835. Spencer, E. (1967). A method of analysis of the stability of
Griffiths, D. V. & Lane, P. A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces. Géotechnique
finite elements. Géotechnique 49, No. 3, 387–403, http:// 17, No. 1, 11–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1967.17.1.11.
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.3.387. Yu, H. S., Salgado, R., Sloan, S. W. & Kim, J. M. (1998). Limit
Janbu, N. (1954). Application of composite slip surface for stability analysis versus limit equilibrium for slope stability. J. Geotech.
analysis. Proceedings of the European conference on stability of Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 124, No. 1, 1–11.