Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H. & Drescher, A. (1999). GeÂotechnique 49, No.
6, 835±840
Slope stability analysis by strength reduction
E . M . DAW S O N,  W. H . ROT H  a n d A . D R E S C H E R {
KEYWORDS: embankments; landslides; limit state
design analysis; numerical modelling and analysis;
plasticity; slopes.
INTRODUCTION
For slopes, the factor of safety F is traditionally
de®ned as the ratio of the actual soil shear strength
to the minimum shear strength required to prevent
failure (Bishop, 1955). As Duncan (1996) points
out, F is the factor by which the soil shear
strength must be divided to bring the slope to the
verge of failure. Since it is de®ned as a shear
strength reduction factor, an obvious way of com-
puting F with a ®nite element or ®nite difference
program is simply to reduce the soil shear strength
until collapse occurs. The resulting factor of safety
is the ratio of the soil's actual shear strength to the
reduced shear strength at failure. This `shear
strength reduction technique' was used as early as
1975 by Zienkiewicz et al. (1975), and has since
been applied by Naylor (1982), Donald & Giam
(1988), Matsui & San (1992), Ugai (1989), Ugai &
Leshchinsky (1995) and others.
The shear strength reduction technique has a
number of advantages over the method of slices
for slope stability analysis. Most importantly, the
critical failure surface is found automatically. Ap-
plication of the technique has been limited in the
past due to the long computer run times required.
But with the increasing speed of desktop com-
puters, the technique is becoming a reasonable
alternative to the method of slices, and is being
used increasingly in engineering practice. However,
there has been little investigation of the accuracy
of the technique. In this paper, factors of safety
obtained with the shear strength reduction tech-
nique are compared to limit analysis solutions for
a homogeneous embankment.
THE EXPLICIT FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD
Factors of safety are computed using the expli-
cit±®nite±difference code, FLAC (Itasca Consult-
Manuscript received 9 Feb 1999; revised manuscript
accepted 13 Aug 1999.
Discussion on this paper closes 30 June 2000; for further
details see p. ii.
 Dames & Moore, Los Angeles.
{ University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
835
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [24/04/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
ing Group, 1995). For given element shape
functions, the set of algebraic equations solved by
FLAC is identical to that solved with the ®nite
element method. However, in FLAC, this set of
equations is solved using dynamic relaxation (Otter
et al., 1966), an explicit, time-marching procedure
in which the full dynamic equations of motion are
integrated step by step. Static solutions are ob-
tained by including damping terms that gradually
remove kinetic energy from the system.
The convergence criterion for FLAC is the nodal
unbalanced force, the sum of forces acting on a
node from its neighbouring elements. If a node is
in equilibrium, these forces should sum to zero.
For this study, the unbalanced force of each node
was normalized by the gravitational body force
acting on that node. A simulation was considered
to have converged when the normalized unbalanced
force of every node in the mesh was less than
10ÿ3 .
LIMIT ANALYSIS SOLUTION
A limit analysis, upper bound solution for the
stability of a homogeneous embankment was de-
rived by Chen (1975), assuming a log-spiral failure
surface. Chen's solution was extended to include
the effects of pore pressure by Michalowski
(1995a, 1995b). The solutions are presented in the
form of dimensionless stability numbers NS given
by
ã
NS ˆ HC (1)
c
where H C is the critical height for a slope with
soil unit weight ã and cohesion c. Values of NS
are tabulated for various values of the slope angle
â (from the horizontal), the friction angle ö and
the pore pressure coef®cient ru . The pore pressure
coef®cient, introduced by Bishop (1954), speci®es
the pore pressure as a fraction of the overburden
stress. The pore pressure u at a depth z below the
ground surface is given by
u ˆ ru ãz (2)
EXAMPLE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Consider a homogeneous embankment of height
H ˆ 10 m, sloping at angle ⠈ 458 with friction
angle ö ˆ 208, unit weight 㠈 20 kN=m3 , cohe-
 836 DAWSON, ROTH AND DRESCHER

sion c ˆ 12:38 kPa and with ru ˆ 0:0. With these 0.5

Normalized unbalanced force

soil properties the slope has a factor of safety of
exactly 1´0, according to the limit analysis solution
of Chen (1975).
The embankment is simulated with FLAC in
plane strain, using small-strain mode (the coordi-
nates of the nodes are not updated according to the
computed nodal displacements). The soil is mod-
elled as a linear elastic±perfectly plastic material
with a Mohr±Coulomb yield condition and an
associated ¯ow rule. The numerical mesh, shown
in Fig. 1, is 20 elements wide and 20 elements
high. Horizontal displacements are ®xed for nodes
along the left and right boundaries while both
horizontal and vertical displacements are ®xed
along the bottom boundary.
To perform slope stability analysis with the
shear strength reduction technique, simulations are
run for a series of trial factors of safety F trial with
c and ö adjusted according to the equations
1 increase, in an approximately linear fashion. Thus,
ctrial ˆ c (3)
F trial
 
1 collapse (F trial ˆ 1:03) is shown in Fig. 3, along
ötrial ˆ arctan tanö (4)
F trial
Figure 2 shows the normalized unbalanced force
obtained as the shear strength is reduced in small
steps, starting from a value of F trial ˆ 0:8. Note
that the soil shear strength is decreased by increas-
ing F trial . For trial factors of safety up to 1´02 the
simulations converge to equilibrium with an un-
balanced force of the order of 10ÿ6 . However,
when F trial is increased to 1´03 the simulations no
longer converge, with the unbalanced force exceed-
ing 10ÿ3 . It might seem somewhat paradoxical that
collapse occurs as F trial is increased. But this
follows from the de®nition of F as the factor by
which the soil shear strength must be divided to
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
20.1
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.100 1.05 1.10 1.15
Trial factor of safety
Fig. 2. Unbalanced force as the trial factor of safety is
increased in small steps
bring the slope to failure. As the strength is
reduced further, the unbalanced force continues to
the strength reduction technique gives a factor of
safety between 1´02 and 1´03. The velocity ®eld at
with the critical log-spiral failure surface from the
limit analysis solution.
The sharp break in the unbalanced force in Fig.
2 shows that there is no ambiguity in identifying
the trial factor of safety at which the slope fails.
This is a consequence of using a linear elastic±
perfectly plastic constitutive model, a model with a
sudden transition from elastic to plastic behaviour.
Some previous applications of the strength reduc-
tion technique, such as that of Matsui & San
(1992), have used a hyperbolic constitutive model
(Duncan & Chang, 1970), a model which exhibits
a smooth transition from elastic behaviour to plas-
tic behaviour. Identifying the limit state is more
dif®cult when using such a model.

γ 5 20 kN/m3
φ 5 20°
10 m
c 5 12.38 kPa

45°

Fig. 1. Numerical mesh for homogeneous embankment

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [24/04/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Critical log-spiral
surface
Fig. 3. Velocity ®eld at collapse, along with critical
log-spiral surface
The value of F trial at which collapse occurs can be
found more ef®ciently using bracketing and bisec-
tion. First, upper and lower brackets are estab-
lished. The initial lower bracket is any F trial for
which a simulation converges. The initial upper
bracket is any F trial for which the simulation does
not converge. Next, a point midway between the
upper and lower brackets is tested. If the simula-
tion converges, the lower bracket is replaced by
this new value. If the simulation does not con-
verge, the upper bracket is replaced. The process is
repeated until the difference between upper and
lower brackets is less than a speci®ed tolerance.
BENCHMARK STUDY
To assess the accuracy of the strength reduction
technique, simulations were performed for a wide
range of parameters. Embankments were simulated
with slope angles â ranging from 158 to 908. The
soil was given values of ö ranging from 108 to 408
and values of ru of 0´0, 0´25 and 0´5. For each
combination of â, ö and ru, the stability numbers
given by Chen (1975) or Michalowski (1995a)
were used to compute a combination of slope
height, cohesion and unit weight such that the
embankment would have a factor of safety of
exactly 1´0.
In practice, the Mohr±Coulomb yield condition
is often combined with a tension cut-off (Chen,
1975). For comparison with the limit analysis solu-
tion, a tension cut-off was not used here. Instead,
the Mohr±Coulomb yield condition was assumed
to be valid in the tensile normal stress domain. In
other words, the failure envelope intersects the
normal stress axis at ÿc=tan ö. If a zero-tension
cut-off is used, such that the uniaxial tensile
strength of the soil is zero, tensile failure occurs at
the crest of the embankment and the computed
factor of safety is a few per cent lower.
Simulations were run for both a ®ne mesh
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [24/04/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
837
(60 3 60 elements), and a coarse mesh (20 3 20
elements). Factors of safety were computed by
successive bracketing and bisection until the differ-
ence between upper and lower brackets was less
than 4 3 10ÿ4 . The factor of safety reported is the
average of the ®nal upper and lower brackets.
Factors of safety computed for ru ˆ 0:0 are pre-
sented in Table 1, while those for ru ˆ 0:25 are
presented in Table 2 and those for ru ˆ 0:5 are
presented in Table 3. The strength-reduction factors
of safety are generally within a few per cent of the
limit analysis solutions. The difference is greatest
for steeper slopes and for higher friction angles.
As would be expected, the ®ne mesh gives better
results than the coarse mesh.
Two exceptions to the close agreement with the
limit analysis solutions are for vertical slopes
( ⠈ 908) with ru ˆ 0:25 and ru ˆ 0:50 (see the
last row of Tables 2 and 3). Here the simulations
fail at the toe of the slope due to the combination
of high pore pressure (u ˆ ru ã H) and zero hor-
izontal total stress. For instance, for ru ˆ 0:50 the
pore pressure at the slope face at the toe exceeds
the soil tensile strength.
For graphical comparison, it is convenient to
express the numerical results in terms of stability
numbers. The stability number corresponding to a
computed factor of safety can be found using
equations (1) and (3). Stability numbers are plotted
against soil friction angle in Figs 4 and 5 for the
ru ˆ 0:0 case (Table 1). Fig. 4 shows strength-
reduction results for the coarse mesh, while Fig. 5
shows results for the ®ne mesh. The strength-
reduction results appear to converge to the limit-
analysis solution as the mesh is re®ned.
CONCLUSION
Slope stability factors of safety computed with
the strength reduction technique have been com-
pared to an upper-bound limit analysis solution
based on a log-spiral failure mechanism. Analyses
were performed for a wide range of slope angles,
soil friction angles and pore pressure coef®cients.
Strength-reduction factors of safety were within a
few per cent of the limit analysis solution, provided
the numerical mesh was suf®ciently re®ned.
Strength-reduction results were generally slightly
higher than those predicted by limit analysis. The
close agreement obtained does not, strictly speak-
ing, demonstrate the accuracy of the strength re-
duction technique, since the limit analysis solution
is an upper bound. Nevertheless, the similarity
between the two solutions, obtained by entirely
different methods, supports the widely held view
that the log-spiral solution is, in effect, an exact
solution. If this were true, it would then be reason-
able to expect the numerical solution to be slightly
 838 DAWSON, ROTH AND DRESCHER

Table 1. Computed factors of safety (ru ˆ 0´0)

Slope Friction Stability number Factor of safety
angle, angle, N S ˆ H C (ã=c)
â ö (from Chen, 1975) Fine mesh Coarse mesh
15 5 14´38 1´002 1´023
10 45´49 1´003 1´027
30 10 13´50 1´006 1´034
15 21´69 1´008 1´027
20 41´22 1´010 1´033
45 10 9´31 1´001 1´019
20 16´16 1´006 1´026
30 35´54 1´006 1´031
40 185´49 1´008 1´008
60 10 7´26 1´003 1´026
20 10´39 1´009 1´035
30 16´04 1´012 1´044
40 28´91 1´011 1´036
75 10 5´80 1´006 1´035
20 7´48 1´014 1´046
30 9´94 1´019 1´061
40 13´97 1´017 1´070
90 10 4´58 1´015 1´051
20 5´50 1´024 1´063
30 6´69 1´031 1´081
40 8´29 1´039 1´105

Table 2. Computed factors of safety (ru ˆ 0´25)

Slope Friction Stability number Factor of Safety
angle, angle, N S ˆ H C (ã=c)
â ö (from Michalowski, Fine mesh Coarse mesh
1995a)
15 10 23´18 1´001 1´026
30 10 10´71 1´002 1´026
20 20´05 1´010 1´030
30 53´90 1´013 1´040
45 10 7´95 1´000 1´019
20 10´94 1´006 1´029
30 15´84 1´010 1´033
40 25´70 1´007 1´035
60 10 6´38 1´001 1´026
20 7´69 1´010 1´039
30 9´26 1´015 1´048
40 11´23 1´012 1´060
75 10 5´18 1´006 1´038
20 5´76 1´014 1´050
30 6´27 1´022 1´067
40 6´65 1´016 1´090
90 10 4´14 1´000 1´047
20 4´35 1´001 1´051
30 4´40 1´013 1´066
40 4´26  
 See comments in text.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [24/04/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 839
Table 3. Computed factors of safety (ru ˆ 0´50)
Slope Friction Stability number Factor of Safety
angle, angle, NS ˆ H C (ã=c)
â ö (from Michalowski, Fine mesh Coarse mesh
1995a)
15 10 14´03 1´004 1´026
30 10 8´70 0´997 1´019
20 12´07 1´008 1´029
30 18´00 1´013 1´038
45 10 6´88 0´998 1´015
20 7´99 1´008 1´030
30 9´32 1´011 1´034
40 11´06 1´013 1´041
60 10 5´68 1´000 1´026
20 6´02 1´001 1´038
30 6´26 1´016 1´051
40 6´43 1´014 1´068
75 10 4´68 1´000 1´034
20 4´66 1´013 1´050
30 4´50 1´021 1´069
40 4´21 1´013 1´092
90 10 3´77 0´999 1´038
20 3´58 0´992 1´033
30 3´26 0´959 1´001
40 2´82  
 See comments in text.

50
β 5 15 Strength reduction

40 β 5 30 Limit analysis

β 5 45
Stability number

30 β 5 60

20

β 5 75
10 β 5 90

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Friction angle: degrees

Fig. 4. Strength-reduction and limit-analysis stability numbers for the

ru ˆ 0´0 case. Coarse mesh

higher, with the difference decreasing as the mesh
is re®ned.
An associated plastic ¯ow rule was used in this
paper so that results could be compared to limit
analysis solutions. The use of an associated ¯ow
rule allowed the effects of elastic constants, the
initial stress and the stress path to be ignored.
These have no effect on the collapse load for an
associated material (Chen, 1975). However, for
more realistic soil models, such as those with non-
associated ¯ow rules, these factors cannot be
ignored.

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [24/04/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 840 DAWSON, ROTH AND DRESCHER
50
β 5 15
40
Stability number
30
20
10
0
0 10
Friction angle: degrees
Fig. 5. Strength-reduction and limit-analysis stability numbers for the
ru ˆ 0´0 case. Fine mesh
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful for the suggestions of
Dr P. A. Cundall of Itasca Consulting Group, Dr
A. Delnik of Edison International and Dr S. Inel of
Dames & Moore.
REFERENCES
Bishop, A. W. (1954). The use of pore pressure coef®-
cients in practice. GeÂotechnique 4, 148±152.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the
stability analysis of slopes. GeÂotechnique 5, 7±17.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Donald, I. B. & Giam, S. K. (1988). Application of the
nodal displacement method to slope stability analysis.
Proceedings of the 5th Australia±New Zealand confer-
ence on geomechanics, Sydney, Australia, 456±460.
Duncan, J. M. (1996). State of the art: limit equilibrium
and ®nite-element analysis of slopes. J. Geotech.
Engn Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs 122, No. 7, 577±596.
Duncan, J. M. & Chang, C. Y. (1970). Nonlinear analy-
sis of stress and strain in soils. J. Soil Mech. and
Found. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs 96, No. SM5,
1629±1653.
Itasca Consulting Group (1995). FLAC, fast Lagrangian
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [24/04/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Strength reduction
β 5 30 Limit analysis
β 5 45
β 5 60
β 5 75
β 5 90
20 30 40 50
analysis of continua, version 3.3. Itasca Consulting
Group, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Matsui, T. & San, K. C. (1992). Finite element slope
stability analysis by shear strength reduction tech-
nique. Soils and Foundations 32, No. 1, 59±70.
Michalowski, R. L. (1995a). Stability of slopes: limit
analysis approach. Rev. Eng. Geol. 10, 51±62.
Michalowski, R. L. (1995b). Slope stability analysis: a
kinematical approach. GeÂotechnique 45, No. 2, 283±
293.
Naylor, D. J. (1982). Finite elements and slope stability.
Numer. Meth. in Geomech., Proc. NATO Advanced
Study Institute, Lisbon, Portugal, 1981, pp. 229±244.
Otter, J. R. H., Cassell, A. C. & Hobbs, R. E. (1966).
Dynamic relaxation. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 35, Paper
No. 6986, 633±656.
Ugai, K. (1989). A method of calculation of total factor
of safety of slopes by elasto-plastic FEM. Soils and
Foundations 29, No. 2, 190±195 (in Japanese).
Ugai, K. & Leshchinsky, D. (1995). Three-dimensional
limit equilibrium and ®nite element analyses: a com-
parison of results. Soils and Foundations 35, No. 4,
1±7.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Humpheson, C. & Lewis, R. W.
(1975). Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity
and plasticity in soil mechanics. GeÂotechnique 25,
No. 4, 671±689.