Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Finite element analysis of slope stability using a nonlinear

failure criterion
X. Li *

Instituto Mexicano de Tecnologia del Agua, Paseo Cuauhnahuac 8532, Jiutepec, Morelos 62550, Mexico

Received 22 June 2006; received in revised form 22 November 2006; accepted 28 November 2006
Available online 22 January 2007

Abstract

Nonlinear shear strength criteria of power-law type are implemented in a finite element slope stability analysis. Numerical solutions in
which failure mechanisms can also be estimated are favorably compared to those obtained using limit analysis and limit equilibrium
approach. Emphasis is made on the definition of two different stability numbers. One has been employed by some authors in the context
of rock slopes and the other is commonly used in soil mechanics. Depending on how the factors of safety are defined, the stability num-
bers computed using the two definitions may be different, and so the design charts prepared in each approach should be assessed with
caution. Earthquake effects are also analyzed by pseudo-static considerations. Stability numbers for different seismic coefficients are com-
puted and compared with other existing solutions. If Newmark’s displacement approach is used, calculation of earthquake induced
deformations is highly sensitive to stability analyses and thus to the assumption on failure mechanisms, and so a finite element analysis
provides advantages over other methods because no failure mechanism has to be assumed a priori.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Slopes; Stability; Plasticity; Shear Strength; Nonlinearity; Earthquake

1. Introduction posed a power-law relation for nonlinear strength criterion,

The mechanical behavior of soils and rocks is nonlinear.
It is well recognized that stress–strain relations do not
remain linear, even for low stress levels. It is also known
that strength parameters of both geomaterials depend on
stress levels. Particularly, the linear failure criterion has
been shown not to be a good approximation to describe
the failure mechanism of rock masses. Hoek and Brown
[11] developed an empirical failure criterion relating the
major and minor principal stresses. This criterion is the
generalization of Griffith’s classical model to describe
the development of cracks in brittle materials. These
authors proposed a revised version of the original model
for heavily jointed rock masses (see [22]). Ucar [19] demon-
strated that the Hoek–Brown relation could be cast in the
form of a power-law relation. Zhang and Chen [24] pro-
*
Tel.: +527773293600; fax: +527773220492.
E-mail address: xli@tlaloc.imta.mx.
which has been widely used in subsequent nonlinear slope
stability analyses. At the same time, Zhang and Chen [24]
presented an effective numerical procedure for solving
plane-strain stability problems of homogeneous slopes with
the power-law relation. The upper bound limit analysis
technique is followed, considering perfectly plastic solids
with the associative flow rule. Drescher and Christopoulos
[6] proposed a simpler alternative using the previously cal-
culated linear stability numbers and obtaining solutions by
means of a series of linear failure surfaces that are tangent
to and exceed the actual nonlinear failure surface. Collin
et al. [3] presented a similar technique to evaluate the sta-
bility of slopes for the material model proposed by Hoek
and Brown [11]. Recently, Yang and Yin [21] and Yang
et al. [22] developed a ‘‘generalized tangential’’ technique
that employs the tangential line of the nonlinear failure
curve but avoids the use of previously calculated linear sta-
bility solutions. The power-law relation and Brown and
Hoek criterion were considered in their analyses.

0266-352X/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.11.005
128 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136
All these stability analyses with nonlinear failure criteria
have been conducted using limit equilibrium methods or
limit analyses; although, the finite element (FE) method
has shown to be effective in other slope stability analyses.
In their early work, Matsui and San [15] developed a shear
strength reduction technique. The principle behind the men-
tioned technique is to reduce the cohesion and friction angle
until failure occurs. They used hyperbolic stress–strain non-
linear elastic relations [7] to describe the dependence of soil
behavior on shear strength parameters. Factors of safety
are obtained when a well-defined shear failure zone is
developed, in which the shear strains exceed 15%. Ugai
and Leshchinsky [20] reported a numerical comparison of
predictions using a rigorous three-dimensional limit equilib-
rium analysis and the FE method. Good agreement was
found between both solutions when slopes were vertical cuts
with constant cohesion and friction angle, and when a
pseudo-static seismic force component was included. Grif-
fiths and his collaborators [9,13,10] reported a series of
studies of FE slope analyses. The FE analysis can be applied
to slopes with irregular slope inclination, inhomogeneous
soils, arbitrary water flow pattern and external loadings.
The most notable advantage of the FE slope stability anal-
ysis over other methods relies on the fact that no failure
mechanisms have to be defined a priori, and so its use can
be extended to a highly heterogeneous mass or even to
slopes with randomly distributed properties [10]. Recently,
Yu et al. [23] analyzed three-dimensional slope stability of
rockfill dams using the FE technique. In this analysis, the
elasto-perfectly plastic constitutive model was applied to
the soil accepting the Mohr–Coulomb principle as yield
function and the Drucker–Prager equation as plastic poten-
tial function. The constant strength parameters are consid-
ered for both functions. Global failure occurs when the
finite element calculation diverges under certain conver-
gence criteria. Although the solution algorithm for the elas-
toplastic problem has not been mentioned, these authors
compared their numerical results with analytical solutions
and some benchmark answers for various stability prob-
lems, reporting excellent agreement.
In the present paper, the finite element stability analysis
of materials with power-law strength relation is described.
The viscoplastic algorithm is used in the elastoplasticity
analysis. Homogenous slopes of single inclination are ana-
lyzed. The numerical solution is compared with that previ-
ously obtained by other authors, showing that the finite
element procedure can be used for stability analysis with
nonlinear strength criterion. One of the main outputs of
the present study relies on the distinction between two ways
to introduce factors of safety or stability numbers into the
linear and nonlinear strength criteria. Solutions for both
definitions are considerably divergent, and so design charts
prepared using different definitions should be used with
caution. Earthquake loadings are taken into account by
considering pseudo-static assumptions. Numerical results
of stability numbers for different seismic coefficients are
compared with other existing solutions. A combination of
the pseudo-static method and Newmark’s displacement
approach is commonly made to determine earthquake-
induced permanent displacements. The advantage of the
FE method is shown as it provides critical seismic coeffi-
cients without assuming a priori failure surfaces.
2. Analysis procedure
A routine finite element procedure is followed in the pres-
ent analysis. Although the analysis can be carried out in
slopes with heterogeneous mass and complex geometry,
only a uniform two-dimensional slope is considered here.
If the slope is defined by height H, unit weight c0, horizontal
seismic coefficient kx and vertical seismic coefficient kz, the
two-dimensional governing equilibrium equation is given by
orxx orxz
þ ¼ k x c0 ; ð1aÞ
ox oz
orxz orzz
þ ¼ ðk z þ 1Þc0 ; ð1bÞ
ox oz
rxx ; rxz and rzz are total stresses in the x–z plane. Both seis-
mic coefficients may be positive or negative. These equa-
tions can be reformulated so that
orxx orxz
þ ¼ kc; ð2aÞ
ox oz
orxz orzz
þ ¼ c ð2bÞ
ox oz
with the seismic coefficient k
kx
k¼ ð3Þ
1 þ kz
and the modified unit weight c
c ¼ ð1 þ k z Þc0 ; ð4Þ
kx is positive when the horizontal seismic force is directed
towards the slope face and kz is positive when the vertical
seismic force takes the same direction as the gravity accel-
eration. The reformulation of the governing equations
make it possible to group earthquake effects occurring in
two directions into only one coefficient k and one modified
unit weight c so the design charts computed uniquely for
horizontal seismic inputs can also be used to include verti-
cal earthquake effects. If the critical seismic coefficient kcr is
determined using this reformulation procedure, the critical
seismic coefficient on the horizontal direction can be back-
calculated as kx,cr = kcr(1 + kz).
In the FE stability slope analysis, the elastic–perfectly
plastic constitutive equation is used to represent the
stress–strain behavior of materials. For the linear Mohr–
Coulomb (MC) criterion, the yield function is given by
f = q  qf where the shear stress q is defined by q =
(r1  r3)/2. r1 and r3 are major and minor principal
stresses that are taken as positive when in tension. In this
paper, all stresses are considered effective, so no pore pres-
sure effect is included and the material may be dry or fully
drained. qf is the shear stress at failure that can be
 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136
expressed in terms of friction angle / and cohesion c as
qf = p sin / + c cos /, p = (r1 + r3)/2. By the relation
between Mohr circle and MC envelope, qf can also be given
in terms of the shear strength s on the failure plane, i.e.,
qf = s sec / where the shear strength is in turn a function
of the normal stress on the failure plane r:s = s(r). Note
that the stress r in compression is positive. This last func-
tion can be either linear or nonlinear. A specific expression
will be given in the next section with reference to a nonlin-
ear function. Based on these considerations, the yield func-
tion f is preferably given by f = q  s sec /t for a general
MC criterion, where /t is the tangential value of the fric-
tion angle that can be computed from tan/t = os/or. It
can be also shown that a relation holds between the confin-
ing stress p and the normal stress r, p  r = s tan /t, which
is useful to compute r from p. On the other hand, the plas-
tic potential function g is defined as g = q  p sin w where w
is the dilation angle.
The static equilibrium equation along with elastoplastic
constitutive relations is nonlinear and so its solution should
be obtained using iterative algorithms. The viscoplastic
(VP) method is one of early approaches to deal with plas-
ticity problems [25] and has been shown to be useful to cal-
culate collapse loading for plastic materials in geotechnical
problems such as bearing capacity, earth pressure and
slope stability. In spite of its limitations to model complex
constitutive relations, the VP approach works well for sim-
ple elastoplastic models such as Tresca and Mohr–Cou-
lomb, as pointed out by Potts [17]. The implementation
of the VP algorithm has been detailed in many works
[17,18,25]. Cormeau [4] derived the time step Dt necessary
to guarantee the numerical stability for the MC model,
Dt = 4(1 + m)(1  2m)/E/(1  2m + sin2 /) where E and m
are modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio, respectively.
/ is a constant value of the friction angle. For the analysis
of nonlinear MC envelope, the tangential value of friction
angles should be used, which varies during the solution
procedure, so the above time step is replaced Dt =
2(1 + m)(1  2m)/E/(1  m), which is valid for full range of
/ including the maximum possible / value that is equal
to p/2. In order to search for minimum factors of safety,
first it is necessary to introduce the factors of safety into
the nonlinear shear strength to obtain a factorized strength
sF = sF(r) from which the factorized yield function fF is
derived leading to the form fF = q  sF sec /tF, where the
tangential value of the factorized friction angle is computed
from tan /tF = osF/or. The nonlinear equation p  r =
sF tan /tF can be used to determine r. The solution for this
nonlinear equation is obtained using the Newton–Raphson
procedure, assuming an initial guess of r = p. Only a few
iterations are needed to lead the convergent solution. Once
the value of r is given, the tangential friction angle and the
factorized shear strength are estimated, and thus the factor-
ized yield function is determined. If the mentioned function
is greater than zero, a plastic strain occurs and the plastic
potential is computed using the non-associativity condition
w = /tF. Using the factorized yield function, the factors of
129
safety can be found when the elastoplastic solution fails to
converge [9]. The criterion of non-convergence is set up by
two user-specified measures: maximum number of itera-
tions and tolerance control. This latter is defined as ratio
between the maximum value of absolute incremental dis-
placements between two subsequent iterations and the
maximum value of absolute displacements at the last itera-
tion [18].
3. Stability numbers for the power-law relation
Various strength functions have been proposed to repre-
sent nonlinear shear strength in soils and rocks. For soils,
semi-logarithmic and power-law functions have been used
[1,7,12]. For rocks, it is common to use the following
power-law relation:
 n
r
s ¼ s0 þ1 ; ð5Þ
r0
where s0 is the unconfined shear strength and r0 is the
tensile strength. This equation can be extended for soils
only when the linear shear strength is considered with
n = 1. In this case, the ratio s0/r0 can be seen as a gener-
alized coefficient of internal friction. The strength param-
eters s0 and r0 have to be positive and should never be
zero. The exponent n varies from 0.5 to 0.65 in typical
rock-like materials. In this paper, attention will be fo-
cused on rock slopes, and so Eq. (5) will be considered.
In Fig. 1, strength curves given by Eq. (5) are illustrated
with mark s for n = 1 and n = 0.5. For both cases, it is
noted that s/s0 = 0 when r/r0 = 1; if r/r0 = 0, s/s0 = 1
is always given. For smaller n values or an equivalently
higher degree of the nonlinearity of the curves, the values
of s/s0 become larger at lower levels of r/r0 and smaller
at higher r/r0 levels.
The FE stability analysis needs to introduce factors of
safety into the strength law. The factor of safety is denoted
by F1 with a subindex 1 and is referred to as the first-type
factor of safety. This is because the other factor of safety,
called the second-type, will be defined later. The shear
strength expressed in Eq. (5) is factorized as
 n
s0 rF 1
sF;1 ¼ þ1 ; ð6Þ
F 1 r0
where sF,1 is the factorized shear strength for F1. In
Fig. 1, Eq. (6) is plotted for n = 1 and n = 0.5 considering
a value of 1.5 for F1. The curves are marked with sF,1.
For n = 1, the sF,1 line and the s line are parallel; sF,1
is always smaller than s. The starting point of the first
one is shifted from r/r0 = 1 to r/r0 = 1/F1 = 1/1.5.
For the nonlinear case, the starting point of the sF,1 curve
is also located at r/r0 = 1/F1. At low values of r/r0, the
sF,1 curve and the s curve are parallel, although this par-
allelism will disappear with high values of r/r0. The
graphical representation of these curves makes a clear dis-
tinction between the original strength function and the
factorized one. The advantage of this representation will
130 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136

3 procedure used by them is the same limit analysis with only

a minor difference in numerical algorithms. The mass
n=0.5
herein analyzed consists of a uniform slope founded on a
τ
foundation ground of the same material, as shown in
F1=F2=1.5
2
Fig. 2. Two meshes are used. For the fine mesh, 20 · 10
τF,1
and 40 · 20 grids are used to represent the slope mass
τ/τ0

τF,2 and the foundation, respectively, resulting in a total of

600 elements. The coarse mesh is composed of 325 elements
with 15 · 10 and 15 · 7 grids for the slope and foundation,
1 respectively. The slope is at an angle b to the horizontal.
The FE analysis is conducted using quadrilateral elements
for the condition of plane strain. Eight nodes and four
Gauss points are used. The slope mass is bounded by a lat-
0 eral vertical boundary. If H is the height of the slope, the
8 top of the slope is measured 5H and the bottom of the
slope equals to 5H + H cot b. The slope foundation is
7
n=1
extended to 5H far from the slope toe. The thickness of
6 F1=F2=1.5 τ the slope foundation is equal to the slope height H.
τF,1 In previous studies, s0 and r0 have been treated as two
5 independent parameters. However, the present analysis
shows that they are not independent and their combination
4 τF,2
τ/τ0

results in a ratio s0/r0 that affects the results. Following the

3 example of Zhang and Chen (ZC) in which s0 = 90 and
r0 = 247.3 have been considered, the ratio s0/r0 = 90/
2 247.3 = 0.36393 is used in the present analysis. In Table
1, the computed stability numbers for two meshes are pre-
1
sented together with the ZC results. Results obtained by
0 other authors are not included because of their similarity
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
to those of Zhang and Zhen. For the cases analyzed, seven
σ/σ0
values of the parameter n are taken into account from 1 to
Fig. 1. Mohr–Coulomb envelope and its factorized curves. 0.4 and four slopes are considered with inclination angles
of 90 to 45. The tolerance limit for the iterative solution
be more noticeable later on when the other factorized is set to be equal to 106. The maximum numbers of itera-
strength function will be provided. tions for the fine and coarse meshes are 5000 and 2000,
If the stability number is defined as Ns,1 = cHF1/s0, Eq. respectively. Results obtained from the fine mesh are ana-
(6) can be rewritten as lyzed first. For the slope b = 90 with n = 1.0, the present
 n analysis provides a stability number of 5.87 in comparison
sF;1 1 r s0
¼ N s;1 þ 1 ð7Þ with 5.51 published by Zhang and Chen. An overestima-
cH N s;1 cH r0
tion of 6.5% is obtained in the present study. For the slope
and the tangential friction angle /tF,1 is given by b = 90 with n = 0.4, the present analysis and the ZC study
 n1 report values of 7.80 and 7.95, respectively. The herein
ns0 r s0
tan /tF;1 ¼ N s;1 þ 1 : ð8Þ computed stability number is underestimated by 1.8%.
r0 cH r0
In Eqs. (7) and (8), the stresses sF,1 and r are normalized
with respect to cH because the governing equations will
be solved in the normalized stress space. Assuming that
the thickness of the slope foundation is large enough that
the slip surface is not restricted by the rigid base, it can a b
be seen from Eqs. (7) and (8) that the stability number is
a function of two independent material parameters s0/r0
and n as well as the slope inclination b. Therefore, the sta-
bility number can be expressed as follows, Ns,1 = Ns,1(s0/
r0, cot b, n).
To show the validity of the present approach, the exam- c d
ple used by Zhang and Chen [24] is chosen. This example
has also been studied by other authors [3,6,21]. The results Fig. 2. Failure patterns for two slopes with two n values: (a) cot b = 1, n =
obtained by these authors are similar because the analysis 0.5; (b) cot b = 0, n = 0.5; (c) cot b = 1, n = 1; (d) cot b = 0, n = 1.
 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136 131

Table 1
Comparison of first-type stability numbers sF,1 computed by the present solution with the results of Zhang and Chen [24]
n b=90 b=75 b=60 b=45
ZC F C ZC F C ZC F C ZC F C
1.0 5.51 5.87 5.83 7.48 7.75 7.71 10.39 10.64 10.54 16.20 16.46 16.12
0.833 5.13 5.34 5.32 6.77 6.95 6.91 8.95 9.07 8.99 12.55 12.68 12.52
0.714 4.89 5.09 5.07 6.33 6.47 6.44 8.13 8.20 8.16 10.82 10.86 10.76
0.625 4.73 4.90 4.89 6.04 6.14 6.12 7.61 7.67 7.62 9.70 9.79 9.69
0.556 4.60 4.76 4.75 5.82 5.91 5.89 7.24 7.29 7.25 9.10 9.09 9.00
0.5 4.52 4.65 4.64 5.66 5.73 5.72 6.97 7.00 6.98 8.78 8.58 8.51
0.4 4.35 4.48 4.46 5.40 5.46 5.44 6.54 6.56 6.54 7.95 7.80 7.72
ZC = solution given by Zhang and Chen [24].
F = present study using fine mesh.
C = present study using coarse mesh.

For the case with b = 60 and n = 0.4, both solutions are in
closest agreement. Taking this last case as reference, the
present solution provides larger stability numbers with
increasing b and n values; in contrast, smaller values of
the stability number are computed by the present analysis
when b and n values decrease. However, the difference
between both solutions is within 6.5% for all the analyzed
cases. When the coarse mesh is used, the results do not
change significantly with respect to the fine mesh. The sta-
bility numbers obtained by using the coarse mesh are at
most 2% smaller than those computed by the fine mesh.
So both meshes will be used indistinctly for the studies pre-
sented in the following study cases. These results show that
the FE solution can generate results that are in good agree-
ment with those obtained by the limit analysis. From Table
1, the nonlinearity of the strength envelope is observed to
have a notable influence on the results. The stability num-
ber increases with an increasing n value. From n = 0.4 to
n = 1 the increase on the stability number (from 4.48 to
5.87) is 31% for the vertical cut with b = 90; the men-
tioned increase (from 7.80 to 16.46) is as high as 111%
for a flat slope with b = 45.
One of the important outcomes that can be obtained
from the limit equilibrium methods or limit analysis is the
geometry of the failure surface of slopes. Due to its inherent
nature of continuum formulation, the FE analysis can pro-
vide merely a diffuse indication of the failure mechanism.
Some improvements have been attempted to enhance the
capability of capture and visualization of failure mecha-
nisms by finite elements. Griffiths and Kidger [8] reported
a regridding approach together with the use of incremental
displacements. Based on the basic ideas behind the work of
these authors, the vectors of incremental displacements cor-
responding to the unconverged solutions are plotted in
Fig. 2. The pictures shown are only a zoomed window of
the complete analysis domain. The incremental displace-
ments are the difference between the displacements gener-
ated in the last iteration just prior to failure and those
obtained in the penultimate iteration. Four of the cases
analyzed in Table 1 are shown. They correspond to b =
45 , 90 and n = 1, 0.5 with respective stability numbers
included in Table 1. This visualization technique allows
one to distinguish different kinematically admissible failure
mechanisms that are shown by the vector field of the slip-
ping mass. For the studied slope with b = 45, the failure
mass moves in a rotational manner. When the vertical cut
with b = 90 is of concern, the failure remains rotational
but the rotation radius is much larger. This observation is
true for any value of n. When the parameter n is reduced
from 1 to 0.5, the failure mass spreads considerably into
the inside of the slope and the failure mass is much larger
than for the linear case with n = 1. In both cases, slipping
surfaces pass by the slope toe. For the linear strength crite-
rion, however, the slipping surfaces have no intersection
with the foundation; in contrast, failure surfaces in slopes
with the nonlinear criterion slightly penetrate into the foun-
dation ground. This observation is supported by the fact
that changes in the flexibility of the foundation do not affect
the stability number of the slope with linear criterion but
modifies that of the slope with nonlinear criterions.
In the example above, a single value of s0/r0 is involved,
and so it is desirable to study the influence of the parameter
s0 /r0 on the results. To compute new results, the fine FE
mesh is considered. In Fig. 3, the stability numbers for
the vertical cut are shown as a function of s0/r0 that varies
from 0 to 1.2. Three n values are considered: 1, 0.5 and 0.4.
When the tensile strength of the material is much larger
than its shear strength, s0/r0 approaches zero. Under this
condition, it is observed from Eqs. (7) and (8) that the fac-
torized shear strength and tangential friction angle depend
only on the stability number, so the stability number is no
longer a function of the parameter n. The computation
undertaken in the present analysis provides a unique Ns,1
value of 3.90 for all n values. For a certain n value, the sta-
bility numbers increase as the value of s0/r0 increases. For
the case n = 0.5, the increase is almost linear for the ana-
lyzed range of s0/r0that runs from 0 to 1.2. Therefore,
one can obtain a linear fitting such that Ns,1 = 3.9 +
1.9s0/r0. For the case n = 1, the variation of the stability
number with the s0/r0 value is not linear; for a larger
s0/r0 value, the increase in the stability number is greater.
The stability numbers also vary with n value; given larger
s0/r0 values, the increase in the stability numbers with
increasing n value is also greater. For example, for
132 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136
13
12
11 cotβ =0
10
9
n=1
8
Ns,1
7
6
5 
n=0.4
4
3 shown together with the original shear strength (Eq.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
τ0/σ0
Fig. 3. First-type stability numbers for different n values in vertical cuts as
a function of ratio s0/r0.
s0/r0 = 0.4, Ns,1 increases by 29% if n changes from 0.5 to
1; for s0/r0 = 1.0, the increase is almost 80%.
Early studies considering nonlinear strength envelopes
pay little attention to the valid range of the parameter n.
Collecting data from different sources, Charles and Soares
[2] noticed that, in all of the cases, experimentally deter-
mined n values were in the range 0.5 6 n 6 1. Jiang et al.
[12] showed that, mathematically, the legitimate n value
should be in the range indicated by Charles and Soares
[2]. However, in the example presented by Zhang and Chen
[24] the rational value of stability number was computed
for the case with n = 0.4 assuming a single value of
0.36393 for ratio s0/r0. Similar results have also been
reported by other authors [6,3,21]. This conclusion appar-
ently contradicts that drawn by Jiang et al. [12]. To clarify
this point, the Ns,1 curve corresponding to n = 0.4 is com-
puted for all ranges of s0/r0 as illustrated in Fig. 3. Mean-
ingful results can be obtained only until s0/r0 = 0.8. For a
larger s0/r0 value, like 1.0 or 1.2, the stable numerical solu-
tion cannot be obtained. This result shows that although
the stability numbers can be computed for a small s0/r0
value when n value is given by 0.4, the legitimate range
of n for the full s0/r0 range should continue to be
0.5 6 n 6 1 as indicated by Jiang et al. [12].
4. Stability numbers using conventional definition for factor
of safety
To compute the stability numbers, the factors of safety
have been introduced into the strength law converting
shear strengths into factorized values. This was done in
Eq. (6). For the linear case with n = 1, Eq. (6) leads to
the form sF,1 = (s0/r0)r + s0/F1. The shear strength is com-
posed of two parts. The first one is internal friction repre-
sented by ratio s0/r0. For the linear case, s0/r0 is the
constant coefficient of internal friction. The other part of
the shear strength is the cohesion represented by s0. It is
observed that the factor of safety is only applied to the
cohesion part if Eq. (6) is used. Nevertheless, the way in
which the factor of safety is introduced is not that conven-
tionally employed. For the linear case, one can express the
other factorized shear strength as sF,2 = r(s0/F2r0) + s0/F2.
Subindex 2 refers to the second-type factor of safety. In this
definition, which is used in most stability analyses for soils,
n=0.5 the factor of safety is applied to both parts of the strength.
The nonlinear counterpart of this new defined factorized
shear strength is given by
n
s0 r
sF;2 ¼ þ1 : ð9Þ
F 2 r0
In Fig. 1, the second-type factorized shear strength is
1.0 1.2
(5)) and the first-type factorized one. The difference be-
tween the two factorized strengths sF,1 and sF,2 is clearly
revealed in the s/s0 and r/r0 plane. The origins of the
three curves are different, and are defined by r/r0 =
1, 1/F1 and 1 for s, sF,1 and sF,2 curves, respec-
tively. The slopes of the three curves also diverge. For
the linear case with n = 1, the slopes are s0/r0, s0/r0
and s0/F2r0 for s, sF,1 and sF,2 lines, respectively. The
normal stress r/r0 may be tensile or compressive. For
any n value, if the normal stress is in tension, the first-
type strength is less than the second-type. When the nor-
mal stress becomes compressive, the trend is reversed.
Due to the difference between the two factorized
strengths, it is expected that the assessment of global sta-
bility of slopes using two definitions will provide different
results. If the second-type stability number is introduced
as Ns,2 = cHF2/s0, Eq. (9) becomes
 n
sF;2 1 r cH
¼ þ1 ð10Þ
cH N s;2 cH r0
and the tangential friction angle is computed as
 n1
n cH r cH
tan /tF;2 ¼ þ1 : ð11Þ
N s;2 r0 cH r0
It can be seen that the second-type stability number is a
function of three parameters: cH/r0, cot b and n, that is,
Ns,2 = Ns,2(cH/r0, cot b,n). Note that for this study the slip
surface is not affected by the rigid base of the slope foun-
dation. Three parameters affect the calculation of both
Ns,1 and Ns,2. Two of these parameters are cot b and n.
The additional parameter is s0/r0 or cH/r0 for Ns,1 and
Ns,2 respectively. The first-type stability number Ns,1 de-
pends only on the ratio between the material properties
s0/r0 and is not affected by slope height. However, the
 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136
second-type stability number Ns,2 is a function of the
material parameter and slope height.
To verify the accuracy of the FE formulation of the
slope stability using the second-type factor of safety, a
slope founded on a base of the same material is analyzed,
which is similar to that studied earlier in the present study.
The coarse mesh is used. If the linear strength envelope is
considered, the numerical results can be compared with
the classical solutions that have been given by various limit
equilibrium methods and limit analyses. Two slope inclina-
tions are considered, cot b = 0 and 1. The variation of the
stability number on the cH/r0 values is evaluated, as shown
in Fig. 4. The present solution is compared with that
obtained by the limit analysis of Michalowski [16]. In the
same figure, the classical results are included for compari-
son purposes for four values of cH/r0, 0, 1, 2 and 10.
The comparison data are extracted from the graphics
included in the work of Michalowski [16]. A very good
agreement is observed for both solutions. For example,
for the slope cot b = 0, the classical solution provides
3.83, 4.73, 5.5 and 9.85 for cH/r0 = 0, 1, 2 and 10, respec-
tively, as compared with values of 3.89, 4.89, 5.74 and
10.18 obtained by the present solution. The overestimation
of the present solution over the limit analysis is 1.5%, 3.3%,
4.3% and 3.3%. For the slope cot b = 1, values of 5.52, 8,
9.95 and 22.13 for the classical solution are compared with
5.41, 8.03, 9.95 and 21.9 for four cH/r0 values. The varia-
tion of the present solution over the classical one is as small
as 1.9%, 0.3%, 0% and 1.0%.
24
22
Michalowski (2002)
20 Present study
n=1
18
16
cotβ=1
14
Ns,2
12
10
cotβ =0
8
6
0 2 4 6 8 10
γH/σ0
Fig. 4. Comparison of second-type stability numbers and existing limit
equilibrium solutions for two slopes using n = 1.
133
Given values of cot b and n for uniform slopes, the single
relations Ns,1 vs. s0/r0 and Ns,2 vs. cH/r0 exist. In spite of
these two separate dependences, one can correlate both sta-
bility numbers. To do so, the number Ns,2 as a function of
cH/r0 is reformulated as a function of two parameters
cH/r0 and s0/r0; this last ratio can be in turn linked to
the number Ns,1. Therefore, both numbers can be drawn
in a single figure. In Fig. 5, results computed for n = 1
value and a vertical cut are depicted. cH/r0 value varies
from 0 to 14 and four values of s0/r0 are taken as 0.1,
0.4, 0.8 and 1.2. For a certain s0/r0 value, Ns,2 varies for
the whole range of cH/r0, while a unique number Ns,1 is
given. This unique value of Ns,1 in each case is equal to
cH/s0 value and is independent from s0/r0 values. In fact,
one can observe that the condition Ns,2 = Ns,1 is obtained
when Ns,1 = cH/s0 or equivalently the factor of safety is
equal to one, i.e. F1 = F2 = 1. In other words, both num-
bers are equal only when the condition F1 = F2 = 1 or
cH/s0 = Ns,1 = Ns,2 is satisfied. When cH/s0 < Ns,1, it is
given that Ns,2 < Ns,1; if cH/s0 > Ns,1 it results that
Ns,2 > Ns,1. The difference of magnitudes between both sta-
bility numbers is relevant for design practices. For the sta-
bility assessment of slopes, the stability number and thus
the factor of safety are computed and then compared to
the allowable factors of safety. Most of these allowable fac-
tors of safety are based on back analyses of failed slopes. If
these failed slopes are studied by using the concept of, for
example, the second-type factor of safety, the actual design
requires the use of the same concept: otherwise, slope sta-
bility may be under- or overestimated.
13
12
n =1 τ0 /σ0=1.2
cot β =0.
is used to indicate Ns,1
11
10
τ0 /σ0 =0.8
9
8
Ns,2
τ0 /σ0 =0.4
7
6
τ0 /σ0 =0.1
5
4
3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
γ H/τ0
Fig. 5. First and second-type stability numbers for vertical cuts using
n = 1.
134 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136

30 slope analyses by applying a pseudo-static loading which

28
is equivalent to the gravity force factorized by the seismic
cot β =1, n =1
coefficients. This simplified analysis provides good results
26
τ0 /σ0=1.0 if seismic coefficients are correctly assigned, but this type
24 of analysis is more relevant when used in combination with
is used to indicate Ns,1
Newmark’s double integration method to determine the
22
extent of earthquake-induced permanent displacements of
20 slopes. For these analyses, a critical seismic coefficient is
18
determined, which is associated with the case in which
the factor of safety is equal to one. Crespellani et al. [5],
16
however, show that the prediction of displacements is
Ns,2

14 cot β =1, n=0.5 highly sensitive to how accurately the critical seismic coef-
ficients are determined. The assumption about failure
12
mechanisms is shown to be mostly important. The example
10
cot β =0, n=1 used by these authors is illustrated here. A slope is given by
8
a height of 5 m, slope inclination of 50, constant cohesion
of 10 kPa, constant friction angle of 15, and unit weight of
cot β =0, n=0.5
6
20 kN/m3. Assuming plane and log-spiral failure mecha-
4 nisms, the critical seismic coefficients are 0.174 and 0.028,
respectively. The corresponding displacements for a certain
2
earthquake are 18.1 cm and 148.9 cm respectively. The dif-
0 ference between both solutions is 723% and is only due to
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
γ H/τ0
the difference of the geometries of slipping surfaces. Since
the FE formulation does not make assumptions about fail-
Fig. 6. First and second-type stability numbers for different slopes and n ure mechanisms but obtains them as analysis results, its
values as a function of cH/s0 with s0/r0 = 1. estimation on the critical seismic coefficients and conse-
quently on the earthquake induced deformations is
The influence of the nonlinearity of the shear strength is expected to be more realistic than those provided by the
shown in Fig. 6 for two slopes cot b = 0 and 1. Two n val- limit equilibrium approach or limit analysis (see Fig. 7).
ues are considered n = 1,0.5 along with a fixed value of
s0/r0 = 1. For each case, the number Ns,2 is computed as
a variation with the parameter cH/s0 from 0 to 14. The cal-
culated Ns,1 numbers are also indicated. Ns,2 numbers 28

increase with increasing n value. For the vertical cut, the

Present analysis
26
increase (from 5.80 to 10.31) is 77% when n value runs from Lescchinsky & San (1994)
0.5 to 1.0. For the slope with cot b = 1, however, Ns,1 num- n =1
24 τ0 /σ0=1
ber for n = 1 is so extremely high that it cannot be drawn in
Fig. 6. On the other hand, for cH/s0 = 0, no influence of n 22
value is observed. When cH/s0 increases, Ns,2 number is
more considerably affected by n value. For cH/s0 = 6, the 20

increase of Ns,2 is (from 5.84 to 8.24) 41% for the vertical

cut and 58% (from 10.27 to 16.32) for the slope cot b = 1. 18 cot β =1, γ H / (σ0 Ns,2 ) =0.5
Ns,2

For cH/s0 = 14, the increase in Ns,2 is (from 7.53 to

16
11.72) 56% for the vertical cut and 97% (from 13.86 to
27.31) for the flat slope. The influence of the nonlinearity 14
of the shear strength may be more or less considerable
for one definition of the factor of safety than the other, 12
depending on the combination of various parameters. Once
again, the slope stability may be not correctly assessed by 10
cot β =0, γ H/(σ0 Ns,2 ) =1
not making distinction between both definitions.
8

5. Earthquake effects 6

Earthquake loading is one of important sources to the 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

instability of slopes and should be included in any analysis k

of slopes when these are found in seismic regions. Tradi- Fig. 7. Comparison of the second-type stability numbers and existing limit
tionally, the dynamic earthquake effects are included in equilibrium solutions for pseudo-static seismic loadings.
 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136
As the determination of the critical seismic coefficients
with the factor of safety equal one is equivalent to the esti-
mation of factors of safety or the stability number for a cer-
tain seismic coefficient, calculation results of stability
numbers will be described. First, the second-type stability
numbers Ns,2 are computed and compared to those
obtained by Leshchinsky and San [14] who developed
design charts for uniform slopes using a variational limit-
ing equilibrium approach and assuming circular failure
mechanism. The coarse mesh is used for this analysis. This
mesh is consistent with the assumption used by these
authors in that the foundation is extended to a depth equal
to the slope height. Two slopes with cot b = 0 and 1 are
analyzed along with parameter cH/(r0Ns,2) equal to 1
and 0.5. The s0/r0 value is fixed for 1. The Ns,2 numbers
are shown as a function of the seismic coefficient k, which
runs from 0 to 0.25. The present analysis offers good agree-
ments between both solutions but the present solution pro-
vides a slight overestimation for stability numbers in
almost all of the cases. The overestimation is larger for ver-
tical cuts than for flat slopes. This result is consistent with
that illustrated by Fig. 4 in which slightly overestimated
stability numbers are computed for high cH/r0 values in
vertical cuts. The overestimations are approximately 7%
for the vertical cuts and 3% for the slope cot b = 1. The
nonlinearity of the shear strength law also influences the
computed stability numbers, which are shown in Fig. 8 as
a function of the parameter n. A slope with cot b = 1 is con-
sidered along with 0.5 for s0/r0 value and 0.2 for s0/cH
value. The static case with k = 0 and two seismic loadings
11.5
11.0
10.5
cot β =1
τ0 / σ0 =0.5
10.0 τ0 /γ H =0.2
k=0
9.5
9.0
8.5
Ns,2
k=0.1
8.0
7.5
k=0.2
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
n
Fig. 8. Second-type stability numbers as a function of n values for
different seismic coefficients.
135
with k = 0.1 and 0.2 are taken into account. For the range
of data analyzed, the variation of Ns,2 with n values is
found almost in a linear fashion for the three loading cases.
The expression Ns,2 = 5.3–8.1k + (5.5  5.1k)n may be a
good approximation for this linear variation. Leshchinsky
and San [14] noticed that the earthquake loading extends
the sliding surfaces and a much larger slipping mass should
be mobilized under the pseudo-static loadings. To visualize
this effect, failure patterns are plotted in Fig. 9 for the cases
n = 0.6 and k = 0,0.2. For the static case with k = 0 the
slipping surface passes by the slope toe with minor interac-
tion with the slope foundation. A circular slipping surface
is well defined and rotational failure can be observed.
When the pseudo-static loading is considered with
k = 0.2, the slipping mass is extended at horizontal and
vertical directions as indicated by Leshchinsky and San
[14]. Compared to the static case, the displacements vectors
rotate upward under the pseudo static loading. This com-
plex failure pattern can be captured in a FE formulation
without a priori assumptions regarding slipping surfaces.
In spite of that the present FE analysis and the limit equi-
librium approach provide good agreement for uniform
slopes, a major discrepancy will be expected for cases in
which the slope mass is non-uniform and the problem
boundary is complex. This is when the FE formulation
offers advantages over traditional slope analyses.
6. Concluding remarks
A power-law relation for shear strength is used to
compute stability numbers for which tensile strength and
non-confined shear strength are taken into account. Two-
dimensional governing equations are reformulated such
1.0
Fig. 9. Failure patterns for static and pseudo-static loadings: (a) k = 0;
(b) k = 0.2.
136 X. Li / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 127–136
that horizontal and vertical earthquake loadings can be
included in a pseudo-static analysis by using a sole seismic
horizontal coefficient. Compared with results obtained by
the limit analyses, the finite element formulation is shown
to be accurate and efficient to compute stability numbers.
Failure mechanisms can also be defined without a priori
assumptions. Depending on how factors of safety are intro-
duced into the finite element analysis, two stability num-
bers can be computed and only one of them is that
commonly used in slope stability analyses for soils. Both
stability numbers are equal only when the factor of safety
is one. Design charts have been reported in literature using
both approaches to compute stability numbers, and should
be applied with caution. The nonlinearity of the strength
envelopes has considerable influence on the results of the
stability analysis. The legitimate range of the exponent of
the power-law relation should be considered to guarantee
stable numerical results.
Acknowledgments
Comments made from two anonymous reviewers are
highly appreciated.
References
[1] Baker R. Nonlinear Mohr envelopes based on triaxial data. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2004;130(5):498–506.
[2] Charles JA, Soares MM. Stability of compacted rockfill slopes.
Geotechnique 1984;34(1):61–70.
[3] Collins IF, Gunn CIM, Pender MJ, Yan W. Slope stability analyses
for materials with a non-linear failure envelope. Int J Numer Analyt
Meth Geomech 1988;12:533–50.
[4] Cormeau IC. Numerical stability in quasi-static elasto/visco-plastic-
ity. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1975;9:109–27.
[5] Crespellani T, Madiai C, Vannucchi G. Earthquake destructive-
ness potential factor and slope stability. Geotechnique 1998;48(3):
411–419.
[6] Drescher A, Christopoulos C. Limit analysis slopes stability with
nonlinear yield condition. Int J Numer Analyt Meth Geomech
1988;12:341–5.
[7] Duncan JM, Chang CY. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in
soils. J Soil Mech Found Eng Div ASCE 1970;956(SM5):1629–53.
[8] Griffiths DV, Kidger DJ. Enhanced visualization of failure mecha-
nisms by finite elements. Comput Struct 1995;55(2):265–8.
[9] Griffiths DV, Lane PA. Slope stability analysis by finite elements.
Geotechnique 1999;49(3):387–403.
[10] Griffiths DV, Fenton GA. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by
finite elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2004;130(5):
507–518.
[11] Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J
Geotech Eng ASCE 1980;106(9):1013–36.
[12] Jiang J-C, Baker R, Yamagami T. The effect of strength envelope
nonlinearity on slope stability computations. Canad Geotech J
2003;40:308–25.
[13] Lane PA, Griffiths DV. Assessment of stability of slopes under
drawdown conditions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
2000;126(5):443–50.
[14] Leshchinsky D, San K-C. Pseudostatic seismic stability of slopes:
design charts. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1994;120(9):1514–32.
[15] Matsui T, San K-C. Finite element slope stability analysis by shear
strength reduction technique. Soils Foundations 1992;32(1):59–70.
[16] Michalowski RL. Stability charts for uniform slopes. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2002;128(4):351–5.
[17] Potts DM. Numerical analysis: a virtual dream or practical reality?
Geotechnique 2003;53(6):535–73.
[18] Smith IM, Griffiths DV. Programming the finite element method. 3rd
ed. Chichester: Wiley; 1998.
[19] Ucar R. Determination of shear failure envelope in rock masses. J
Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1985;112:303–15.
[20] Ugai E, Leshchinsky D. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium and
finite element analyses: a comparison of results. Soils Foundations
1995;35(4):1–7.
[21] Yang X-L, Yin J-H. Slope stability analysis with nonlinear failure
criterion. J Eng Mech ASCE 2004;130(3):267–73.
[22] Yang X-L, Li L, Yin J-H. Stability analysis of rock slopes with
modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Numer Analyt Meth
Geomech 2004;28:181–90.
[23] Yu Y, Xie L, Zhang B. Stability of earth-rockfill dams: influence of
geometry on the three-dimensional effect. Comput Geotech
2005;32:326–39.
[24] Zhang XJ, Chen WF. Stability analysis of slopes with general
nonlinear failure criterion. Int J Numer Analyt Meth Geomech
1987;11(1):33–50.
[25] Zienkiewicz OC, Cormeau IC. Visco-plasticity – plasticity and creep
in elastic solids – A unified numerical solution approach. Int J Numer
Meth Eng 1974;8:821–45.