Jiang, G.-J. & Magnan, J.-P. (1997). GeÂotechnique 47, No.
4, 857±872
Stability analysis of embankments: comparison of limit analysis with
methods of slices
G . - L . J I A N G  a n d J. - P. M AG NA N {
Limit analysis has been ®rmly established over
the past decades and is now considered to be an
accurate method for predicting failure mechan-
isms and for calculating limit loads. A new ®nite
element procedure has been developed, and is
brie¯y described in this paper, to determine
automatically the optimal failure mechanism for
geometrically complicated structures under ap-
plied loads. In limit analysis, the objective is
generally to determine the collapse load, where-
as the factor of safety is calculated in methods
of slices. This paper also shows how the factor
of safety introduced in the limit equilibrium
analysis can be systematically incorporated into
limit analysis. Several computations of stability
of embankments were carried out to compare
the limit analysis results with those obtained by
methods of slices based on the limit equilibrium
analysis. Through this investigation, some differ-
ences and similarities between these two theories
can be demonstrated. The numerical results
demonstrate that limit analysis by the present
®nite element method generally gives factors of
safety more accurate than or as accurate as
those obtained by methods of slices.
KEYWORDS: embankments; failure; landslides; nu-
merical modelling and analysis; plasticity; slopes.
INTRODUCTION
The stability of soil slopes and embankments is a
basic problem in soil mechanics. In 1773 Coulomb
made the earliest attempt to solve the problem of
the stability of vertical cuts. In the 1920s, much
progress in this domain was achieved owing to the
works by Prandtl in plasticity and by Fellenius in
the method of slices. In 1937, Taylor used the
logarithmic spiral method to determine the stability
Manuscript received 22 April 1996; revised manuscript
accepted 18 September 1996.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 December 1997; for
further details see p. ii.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Florida.
{ Laboratoire Central des Ponts et ChausseÂes, Paris.
857
L'analyse limite a recËu des bases solides au
cours des dernieÁres deÂcennies et elle est main-
tenant consideÂreÂe comme une meÂthode preÂcise
de preÂvision des meÂcanismes de rupture et de
calcul des charges limites. Une nouvelle proceÂ-
dure de calcul en eÂleÂments ®nis est brieÁvement
deÂcrite dans cet article. Elle a eÂte deÂveloppeÂe
a®n de deÂterminer automatiquement le meÂca-
nisme de rupture optimal pour les structures aÁ
geÂometrie compliqueÂe sous les charges qui leur
sont appliqueÂes. Dans l'analyse limite, l'objectif
est en geÂneÂral de deÂterminer la charge de ruine,
tandis qu'un facteur de seÂcurite est calcule dans
les meÂthodes de tranches. Cet article montre
aussi comment le facteur de seÂcurite introduit
dans l'analyse de l'eÂquilibre limite peut eÃtre
incorpore systeÂmatiquement dans l'analyse lim-
ite. Plusieurs calculs de stabilite de remblais ont
eÂte reÂaliseÂs pour comparer les reÂsultats de
l'analyse limite avec ceux obtenus par la meÂth-
ode des tranches, c'est aÁ dire par l'analyse de
l'eÂquilibre limite. Cette eÂtude a permis de
mettre en eÂvidence quelques diffeÂrences et res-
semblances entre ces deux theÂories. Les reÂsultats
numeÂriques deÂmontrent que l'analyse limite par
la meÂthode des eÂleÂments ®nis donne geÂneÂrale-
ment des facteurs de seÂcurite qui sont aussi
preÂcis, sinon plus, que ceux qui sont calculeÂs
par les meÂthodes de tranches.
of earth slopes. The development of stability analy-
sis and the theory of limit analysis was accelerated
from the 1950s because of the complete establish-
ment of plasticity theory and the later advent of
computers.
Two approaches were developed in limit analy-
sis: static and kinematic (Chen, 1975; SalencËon,
1983). Applications of these approaches in the past
decades were generally focused on some commonly
encountered problems, such as the bearing capacity
of foundations. The general procedure is to assume
a kinematically admissible failure mechanism or a
statically admissible stress ®eld and then to opti-
mize the objective function with respect to a very
limited number of variable parameters. In this way,
an upper or lower bound value of the limit load
can be found.
858 JIANG AND MAGNAN
The methods of slices are based on the limit
equilibrium theory. Various methods of slices were
proposed in the 1950s and 1960s. These methods
were proposed with different assumptions on the
shape of slip surfaces and the interslice forces. The
most commonly used methods of slices comprised
the Fellenius method, the methods of Bishop
(1955), Janbu (1957), Morgenstern & Price (1965)
and Spencer (1967). Other efforts (Chen & Mor-
genstern, 1983; Chen & Shao, 1988; Chen, 1992)
were made in the 1980s to develop ef®cient and
accurate optimizing techniques for the solution of
the critical slip surface and the minimum factor of
safety.
Among differences between limit analysis and
methods of slices, the most important one is perhaps
that limit analysis is more versatile and can be used
to analyse the limit behaviour of all perfectly plastic
structures while methods of slices were developed
essentially for the stability analysis of earth slopes
and embankments. Although limit analysis has been
considered to be more rigorous than the methods of
slices, its coherent application in engineering prac-
tice has been rather scarce compared with its capa-
city of applicability. In practice, the Fellenius and
Bishop methods enjoy a larger popularity in stability
analysis of slopes and embankments among geotech-
nical researchers as well as engineers.
To enlarge the application of limit analysis in
geotechnical engineering, this paper presents a
versatile ®nite element method and demonstrates
the validity of the upper bound method and some
advantages of limit analysis over methods of slices.
PLASTICITY AND LIMIT ANALYSIS
Contrary to the method of slices, which was ®rst
developed by Fellenius for the speci®c problem of
the stability of slopes, limit analysis is based on
plasticity theory, which is a general theory of
mechanics. In consequence, limit analysis can be
applied to structures of arbitrary geometry, compli-
cated loading conditions and homogeneous as well
as heterogeneous plastic materials. Many applica-
tions of limit analysis can be found in frame
structures, the bearing capacity of foundations and
the stability of tunnels and slopes.
In limit analysis, two approaches serve to brack-
et the limit road. The ®rst one is the static
approach, which gives a lower bound of the limit
load. The second one is the kinematic approach,
which gives an upper bound of the limit load. In
the static approach, we determine whether there
exists an equilibrium stress ®eld which is in equili-
brium with the applied load and with which the
plastic yield condition is nowhere violated in the
structure. If such a stress ®eld exists, it can be
ascertained that the applied load is less than the
limit load and no plastic failure will occur in the
structure. In the kinematic approach, we search for
a kinematically admissible velocity ®eld; we then
calculate the corresponding internal and external
plastic power dissipations. If the external power
dissipation is higher than the internal one, the load
can be said to be greater than the limit load. In
this way, the limit load can be de®ned as the load
under which there exists a statically admissible
stress ®eld, yet a free plastic ¯ow (incipient plastic
¯ow) can occur.
The essential problem in limit analysis is how to
determine the optimum among a series of statically
admissible stress ®elds or kinematically admissible
velocity ®elds so that the lower or upper bound is
as close as possible to the limit load. In the past
three decades, this problem was often treated by
assuming a mode of stress distribution or a mode
of failure which was de®ned by some geometrical
or other variable parameters, and then establishing
an objective function and optimizing this function
(manually or by computer) with respect to these
parameters. The de®nition of statically admissible
stress ®elds or kinematically admissible velocity
®elds for a particular structure often requires intui-
tion of the calculator. Fortunately, the commonly
used yield functions such as the Mohr±Coulomb
criterion are of linear form in the principal stress
space; the discontinuous slip surfaces are then
logarithmic, circular and=or planar surfaces ac-
cording to the normality ¯ow rule of plasticity.
Nevertheless, advanced computation schemes are
necessary for accurate determination of the limit
load if a complicated problem is to be tackled. As
for many other engineering problems, we resort to
numerical methods, especially the ®nite element
method, for this purpose. Many attempts have been
made in this direction (Anderheggen & KnoÈpfel,
1972). However, the ®nite element method in limit
analysis is still a research subject and has not been
widely used by the geotechnical engineer. In prac-
tice, the methods of slices such as the Bishop and
Fellenius methods are more frequently applied than
limit analysis in assessing the stability of slopes
and embankments. In this paper, the traditional
de®nition of factor of safety is introduced in limit
analysis so that the results from limit analysis can
be directly compared with those from methods of
slices. By making a suf®ciently large number of
comparisons, the upper bound limit analysis using
®nite elements proved to be a viable tool, since it
gave accurate limit loads or factors of safety and
automatically provided rational failure mechanisms.
In perfect plasticity theory, a plasticity admissi-
ble stress ®eld is de®ned by a convex yield func-
tion F(ó):
F(ó) < 0 (1)
The failure yield surface is de®ned by the
following equation:
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS 859
F(ó) ˆ 0 (2) is the limit load. If
Within the framework of rigid plasticity, no min J(u0 ) ˆ 0 and u0 ˆ 0,
deformation is produced under the stress ó if u
F(ó) , 0. Plastic strains may occur only when
equation (2) is satis®ed and the strain rates are the load is less than the limit load. In this case, the
given by the associated normality ¯ow rule structure may be in a complete elastic state. It may
also be in a partial plastic state; however, the
@F plastic zone does not extend so far that a free
åˆë (3) plastic ¯ow can occur since rigid plasticity is
@ó
where å represents the strain rate tensor and ë assumed. For a load higher than the limit load,
denotes the plastic multiplier. The strain rate tensor there exists no stress ®eld which can simulta-
å is related to the velocity u by the following neously satisfy equation (1) and the equilibrium
equation: conditions; the plastic zone extends to such an
extent that a collapse will certainly occur under the
 
@u i @u j load. Between these two cases, the structure under
å ij ˆ 12 ‡ , i, j ˆ 1, 2 (4) the limit load is in an incipient plastic ¯ow state
@x j @xi
yet a limit equilibrium condition is satis®ed.
The strain rate is said to be plastically admissible In many engineering problems, the external
if equation (3) is veri®ed at each point of the loads ( f , T) consist of two types of loads. Some
structure. The velocity is subject to the boundary of them are dead loads which are represented in
conditions this paper by ( f 0 , T0 ); others are changeable loads
noted by ( f 1 , T1 ). Limit analysis or stability analy-
u ˆ 0 over à u (5) sis is applied to determine a multiplier m for
where à u is the boundary surface on which the which the sum of ( f 1 , T0 ) and m( f 1 , T1 ) repre-
velocity is given. sents the limit load point in the loading history.
In the following formulation, a ®xed rectangular This de®nition of loading conditions is complex
Cartesian coordinate system with coordinate axes for hand calculation, but is more realistic for
xi (i ˆ 1, 2) is used. The components of the stress practical problems and provides much convenience
tensor and strain tensor are denoted by ó ij and å ij, in the ®nite element formulation.
respectively and the components of the velocity With these de®nitions, the functional J in equa-
vector are denoted by u i. tion (7) can be rewritten as
The rate of plastic work per unit volume is … … …
de®ned by J (u) ˆ D(å) dÙ ÿ f 0 : u dÙ ÿ T0 : u dÃ
Ù Ù ÃT
D ˆ ó ij å ij (6) … …
This function can be written as D(å ij ) since the ÿm f 1 : u dÙ ÿ m T1 : u dà (8a)
Ù ÃT
plastic strain rates are produced only when condi-
tion (2) is satis®ed. D(å ij ) is then deduced by or
combining equations (2), (3) and (6). With all J (u) ˆ Ei (u) ÿ E0 (u) ÿ mEe (u) (8b)
above de®nitions, the upper bound theorem can be
stated as follows. where Ei (u), E0 (u) and mEe (u) represent respec-
If there exists a kinematically admissible velo- tively the internal work dissipation rate, the work
city ®eld and the associated strain rate is plastically rates done by the loads ( f 0 , T0 ) and by the loads
admissible, which makes the following functional m( f 1 , T1 ).
less than zero, the load is then higher than the Corresponding to the limit loading condition, a
limit load: kinematically admissible velocity ®eld u0 can be
… … … sought by letting the minimum of equation (8) be
J (u) ˆ D(å) dÙ ÿ f u dÙ ÿ: T : u dà zero. Therefore, the limit load factor can be deter-
Ù Ù ÃT mined by
(7) Ei (u0 ) ÿ E0 (u0 )
The ®rst term on the right-hand side of equation mˆ (9)
Ee (u0 )
(7) represents the work dissipation rate in the
structure. The last two terms represent the work The meaning of the multiplier m is as follows. In
rates of the body force f and the surface force T limit analysis problems, we know the loading mode
respectively. or loading process, and then determine the limit
The applied load corresponding to load point in the loading process. The prescribed
loads ( f 1 , T1 ) multiplied by m represent a loading
min J (u0 ) ˆ 0 and u0 6ˆ 0
u mode and the loads ( f 0 , T0 ) can be regarded as an
860 JIANG AND MAGNAN
initial loading condition. With m available, the
limit loads can then be represented by the combi-
nation of ( f 0 , T0 ) and m( f 1 , T1 ).
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION FOR THE LIMIT
MULTIPLIER
The basic properties of the functional J were
discussed by Jiang (1992, 1994). Different solution
schemes have been proposed to obtain the kinema-
tically admissible velocity which minimizes the
functional in considering these properties. In this
paper, we use a scheme directly to minimize the
functional of equation (8) for an initial value of m
and to adjust the value of m according to the value
of J so that ®nally we have min J ˆ 0. To this
end, we employed the augmented Lagrangian tech-
nique which was commonly used to solve con-
strained minimization problems.
The following supplementary constrained equa-
tion can be introduced for equation (8)
åÿwˆ0 (10)
The functional J de®ned by expression (8) is then
transformed to
…
J (u, w) ˆ D(w) dÙ ÿ E0 (u) ÿ mEe (u) (11)
Ù general, it is better to take a value between 0´1 and
The problem to be solved is thus to minimize
J (u, w) with respect to the ®eld functions u and w
and with the linear constrained equation (10). We
can solve this problem by further transforming
J (u, w) into its augmented Lagrangian form. The
augmented Lagrangian functional can then be
solved by ®nite elements using the Uzawa algo-
rithm (Jiang, 1992).
The augmented Lagrangian functional can be
written as
…
r
L r f(u, w), ëg ˆ J (u, w) ‡ (å ÿ w):(å ÿ w) dÙ minimization problem in (16) becomes very sim-
2 Ù
‡ ë:(å ÿ w) dÙ (12)
Ù each element so that the variables w can be
with u ˆ 0 over à u.
The second term on the right-hand side of equa-
tion (12) represents the augmented term and the
third represents the ordinary Lagrangian term.
After this transformation, our objective is to ®nd
the solution f(u r , w r ), ë r ), which is called the
saddle point, by solving
max L r f(u r , w r ), ëg ˆ L r f(u r , w r ), ë r g
ë
ˆ min L r f(u, w), ë r g
(u,w)
(13)
where the notation maxë represents the maximiza-
tion of the functional L r with respect to the func-
tion ë and min(u,w) represents the minimization
with respect to the velocity function u and the
function w.
It has been proved that the following relation
holds (e.g. Jiang, 1992)
år ÿ wr ˆ 0 (14)
and (u r , w r ) is the solution which minimizes func-
tional (11) with constraint equation (10). Therefore,
u r is the solution which minimizes functional (8).
We can obtain the saddle point by the following
algorithm.
Set n ˆ 0, give the scalar r a positive value;
initialize u 0 and ë0 arbitrarily: (15)
Minimize L r f(u n , w), ë n g,
let w n be the solution: (16)
n
Minimize L r f(u, w ), ë g, n
let u n‡1 be the solution: (17)
n‡1 n n n
Update ë ˆ ë ‡ â(å ÿ w ): (18)
Repeat procedure (16)ÿ(18) until convergence:
In step (18), â is a positive scalar which in¯uences
the convergence performance of the algorithm. In
0´8 times r to ensure rapid and stable convergence.
The initial velocity u 0 is not necessarily kine-
matically admissible. In our program, this initial
velocity vector is calculated by procedure (17) with
ë0 ˆ 0 and w ˆ 0. The minimization of the aug-
mented Lagrangian in (17) leads to solving a sys-
tem of linear equations; the solution is the vector
of all nodal velocities. The global system matrix is
similar to that in the linear elastic problem.
The supplementary variables w are assumed
constant within each element. In this way, the
ple. The corresponding objective function can be
considered as a sum of independent functions over
obtained element by element (Jiang, 1995). Particu-
larly, the normality ¯ow rule can be directly intro-
duced in this level. For example, the normality
¯ow rule can be translated to the following relation
for plane strain problems of a Mohr±Coulomb
material:
1 ‡ sin ö
å1 ˆ ÿå2 (å1 > ÿå2 > 0) (19)
1 ÿ sin ö
where å1 and å2 are the principal strain rates and
ö is the internal friction angle of Mohr±Coulomb
materials. The plastic dissipation function of the
Mohr±Coulomb yield criterion can then be written
as follows:
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS 861
p 2
2cå2 cos ö (Fs ‡ tan2 ö) ‡ tan ö
Dˆÿ (å2 < 0) (20) å1 ˆ ÿå2 p 2
1 ÿ sin ö (Fs ‡ tan2 ö) ÿ tan ö
where c is the cohesive strength of Mohr±Coulomb (å1 > ÿå2 > 0) (27)
material.
In considering the constrained relation (10), The corresponding dissipation function then takes
equation (19) can equally be translated to a relation the form
between the eigenvalues of w: ÿ2cå2
D(å, Fs ) ˆ p (å2 < 0)
1 ‡ sin ö (F 2s ‡ tan2 ö) ÿ tan ö
w1 ˆ ÿw2 (w1 > ÿw2 > 0) (21)
1 ÿ sin ö (28)
This relation can directly be introduced in the
minimization problem (16). For the same reason, The problem to be solved can thus be stated as:
the incompressibility condition for von Mises ma- for the prescribed loading and geometrical condi-
terials or purely cohesive soils is introduced in tions, to ®nd the critical factor of safety Fs by
(16) by the following equation: minimizing the following functional and letting the
minimum be equal to zero:
w1 ‡ w2 ˆ 0 (22) … … …
Finally, it should be noted that ®nite elements J (u) ˆ D(å, Fs ) dÙ ÿ f : u dÙ ÿ T : u dÃ
cannot be totally arbitrary for incompressible pro- Ù Ù ÃT

blems, in order to avoid unrealistic failure mech- (29)

anisms (e.g. Jiang, 1992, 1995). For problems of
complex geometry and boundary conditions, we
can choose four constant triangular elements as
basic elements which form a quadrilateral and its
diagonals.
FACTOR OF SAFETY
The numerical procedure described in the pre-
vious section is a general procedure which can be
used for both geotechnical and structural problems
in order to determine the limit load factor. How-
ever, the factor of safety de®ned in geotechnical
engineering is based on the conception of mobil-
ized strength of the soil:
ô ˆ cm ‡ ó tan öm (23)
tan ö
tan öm ˆ (24)
Fs
c
cm ˆ (25)
Fs
where cm and öm are the mobilized cohesion and
the frictional angle respectively of the Mohr±Cou-
lomb yield criterion, and Fs is the factor of safety
where f and T are the prescribed external body
and surface loads.
The minimization of the functional (29) requires
the use of an asymptotic procedure. In this proce-
dure, we assign an estimated value to Fs and then
minimize J (u), adjust the value of Fs and re-
minimize J (u) until we have min u J (u) ˆ 0; the
corresponding factor is the critical factor of safety,
designated here by F cs. The asymptotic procedure
is inevitable for problems with the Mohr±Coulomb
yield criterion, but it is simple for problems of
purely cohesive soils whether the soils are homo-
geneous or not, because the plastic dissipation
function D is related linearly to the inverse of the
factor of safety:
ÿ2cå2
D(å, Fs ) ˆ (å2 < 0) (30)
Fs
and the minimization of (29) is equivalent to the
minimization of
… …
J (u) ˆ ÿ2 cå2 dÙ ÿ Fs f : u dÙ
Ù Ù
…
ÿ Fs T : u dà (å2 < 0) (31)
ÃT

of the structure against failure. By specifying the constrained linear equation

The factor of safety Fs can be readily incorpo- … …
rated into the numerical procedure of limit analy- f : u dÙ ‡ T : u dà ˆ á (á . 0) (32)
sis. From equation (24), the following relation can Ù ÃT
be derived:
tan ö the critical value of the factor of safety is then
sin öm ˆ p (26) approached by
(F 2s ‡ tan2 ö) …
2
The principal strain rates å1 and å2 satisfy the F cs ˆ min (ÿcå2 ) dÙ (å2 < 0) (33)
following equation for the mobilized frictional á u Ù
angle öm according to the normality ¯ow rule (or To minimize (31) or (33) with the constraint equa-
substituting equation (26) into equation (19)): tion (32), the general procedure (15)±(18) is
862 JIANG AND MAGNAN

applicable. It can be seen from equations (31)± Spencer (1967), the slip surface can be circular or
(33) that, for a structure of purely cohesive soils, non-circular.
the factor of safety is identical to the limit load To illustrate the basic principle of the methods
multiplier m, provided the loading process is con- of slices, we describe brie¯y Bishop's simpli®ed
sidered to be a proportional one. The physical method in this section. For more detailed descrip-
meaning of this relation is that the structure will tion of different methods of slices and comparison
collapse either when the strengths of the soil are between them, refer to Nash (1987) and Fredlund
divided by the factor of safety or when the load is & Krahn (1977).
multiplied by it. In Bishop's simpli®ed method, the slip surface is
represented by a circular arc; the overturning mo-
ment M 0 and the resisting moment M r correspond-
METHODS OF SLICES ing to this slip circle (Fig. 1) can be assumed to be
The conventional stability analysis of slopes is two factors which respectively cause and resist
based on the limit equilibrium method. In this meth- against the failure. If the overturning moment is
od, it is postulated that the slope might fail by a mass higher than the resisting moment, the soil mass
of soil sliding on a failure surface. At the moment of within the slip circle will collapse along the slip
failure, the shear strength is fully mobilized all the circle. The overturning moment is calculated by
way along the failure surface, and the overall slope P
M 0 ˆ R w sin á (34)
and each part of it are in static equilibrium. On the P
basis of these postulates, many methods were de- where indicates summation over all slices and
vised. Most of these methods are characterized by R represents the radius of the slip circle. The
the division of the sliding mass into a number of resisting moment is calculated from
slices and are thus called methods of slices. The  
forces acting on a slice comprise the normal and P c tan ö
Mr ˆ R L‡ N9 (35)
shear forces on the base of the slice, the interslice Fs Fs
horizontal and shear forces, and the self-weight of
the soil. These forces must be in equilibrium on each where the coef®cient N9 is given by
slice as well as on the overall embankment. However,  
cL
many of them and their lines of action are unknown N9 ˆ w ÿ sin á ÿ uL cos á
at the outset of the analysis. It has been shown (Nash, Fs
 
1987) that for an embankment divided into n slices tan ö sin á
there are in general 5n ÿ 2 unknowns while there are cos á ‡ (36)
Fs
only 3n equations of statics available. Thus 2n ÿ 2
assumptions must be made for the problem to be
rendered statically determinate. Different types of
assumptions were made and led to various methods O
of slices. A summary of the assumptions of some
α
commonly used methods about the forces can be R c f b
found in Nash (1987).
In general, the number of equations to which an
assumption about forces leads is not equal to e
2n ÿ 2 as required for all equilibrium conditions
a
to be satis®ed. For example, the assumption in d

Bishop's simpli®ed method involves a total of

2n ÿ 1 equations. Thus the problem is overspeci- α
®ed, and in general overall horizontal equilibrium
is not satis®ed. Fortunately, it was found that the
factor of safety is not very sensitive to the value of
the interslice shear forces (Bishop, 1955). However,
in the Fellenius method, the factor of safety may c f
be underestimated by as much as 60% (Whitman
& Bailey, 1967) because the assumptions about the E2 w E1
interslice forces do not satisfy statics.
Besides the assumption about the forces, an L
e
α
assumption is required to be made about the slip
surface. In the Fellenius and Bishop methods, it is T
N′
assumed that failure occurs by rotation of a block d uL
of soil on a cylindrical slip surface. In the methods
of Janbu (1957), Morgenstern & Price (1965) and Fig 1. Bishop's simpli®ed method of slices
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS 863
In the limit equilibrium condition, the overturning described by Lade (1977) for cohesionless soil,
moment is equal to the resisting moment. Let the methods of slice would not be ef®cient for the
moment of equation (34) be equal to that of (35); stability analysis of soil structures.
the factor of safety can be obtained by solving the
following non-linear equation:
P NUMERICAL EXAMPLES AND COMPARISON OF
(cL ‡ tan öN 9) THE RESULTS
Fs ˆ P (37)
w sin á Four numerical examples are presented in this
section. The ®nite element procedure of kinematic
The minimum factor of safety is obtained by trying analysis was implemented in CESAR-LCPC, a ®nite
different slip circles and taking partial derivatives element software package developed by the Central
of Fs as zero. Laboratory of Bridges and Highways, France. Cal-
Although the methods of slices have known a culations were carried out using an IBM RISC=
great success in the stability analysis of slopes and 6000 system. The computation for a plane strain
embankments, the following points should be worth problem (Example 4) with 1036 degrees of free-
noting when a method of slices is used. dom and 968 triangular elements took 78 s of CPU
time. With the fast microprocessors now available,
(a) As pointed out by Nash (1987), none of these
such a typical calculation can be completed in a
methods will yield the correct value of the
mere several minutes in a PC equipped with 16MB
factor of safety because of the assumptions
memory or higher. When the program is totally
involved about the forces
optimized, it can be hoped that the computation
(b) There is no proof that the stresses outside the
time can be further reduced considerably.
tested mobilized mass do not violate the yield
criterion. In fact, it can be observed from the
examples in this paper that plastic zones
Example 1
obtained by limit analysis often extended
Figure 2 shows an embankment of clay consid-
outside the tested mobilized mass given by
ered by Low (1989) for a semi-analytical method
the limit equilibrium method, even if the
of stability analysis of embankments on soft
corresponding factor of safety by limit analysis
ground. The undrained strengths of the upper, mid-
is less than that by the method of slices
dle and lower strata are respectively 30, 20 and
(c) The assumption of circular slip interfaces in
150 kN=m2 . The unit weight of the three layers is
the Fellenius and the Bishop methods is not
㠈 18 kN=m3 . Each layer has a thickness of
suitable for structures constituted of materials
4´5 m. The height of the slope is 6 m and the slope
of strong heterogeneity. The Morgenstern and
angle á is given by tan á ˆ 13. Fig. 3 illustrates the
Price method can be more useful for such
problems
(d) It is not certain that the load corresponding to
a factor of safety of unity is higher or lower 4.5 m c 5 30 kPa
3
1
than the actual limit load 6m
(e) It is virtually assumed in methods of slices that
4.5 m c 5 20 kPa
soil masses in the ultimate limit state fail in
shear and the linear Mohr±Coulomb criterion
4.5 m c 5 150 kPa
can be used. For soils that are modelled by
more complex criterion functions of non-linear
form, or curved yield surfaces such as the one Fig 2. An embankment of three layers (Example 1)

Fixed boundary

Fig 3. Finite element mesh of the embankment, and boundary conditions (Example 1)
864
®nite element mesh and the boundary conditions.
The failure mechanism is represented by the nodal
velocities in Fig. 4 and the principal strain rates in
Fig. 5. From these two ®gures, it can be observed
that the failure mechanism agrees well with the
critical slip circle given by Low since no failure
occurs in the lower stratum and the failure zone
passes through the base of the middle layer.
Low's semi-analytical method gave a factor of
safety of Fs ˆ 1:45, compared with a value of 1´44
by the ordinary method of slices and Bishop's
simpli®ed method. The present numerical calcula-
tion gave a factor of safety Fs ˆ 1:48. It should be
noted that the limit loads approached by the pre-
sent method are approached from the upper bound
side, so it is certain that the actual limit load is not
higher than the numerical result. In terms of the
factor of safety, this means a collapse will happen
if the strengths of the soils are reduced by 1=1´48
times. A hand calculation by the upper bound
method was undertaken using Low's optimized slip
circle. The value of the corresponding factor of
safety is 1´44, which is identical to the value
obtained by Low using the ordinary method of
Fig 4. Collapse velocities
Fig 5. Principal strain rates at collapse
JIANG AND MAGNAN
slices and Bishop's simpli®ed method. The present
numerical result is 2´8% higher than this upper
bound solution.
The closeness of these results may be explained
by the fact that the optimal slip surface obtained
by the methods of slices is similar to the failure
mechanism provided by limit analysis since the slip
surface completely passes through a very narrow
shear strain band (Fig. 5) and no distortion occurs
in the slide mass. This example demonstrates that
for purely cohesive soils both limit analysis, and
the Fellenius method and Bishop's simpli®ed meth-
od can give very accurate factors of safety if the
failure mechanism is a simple rotational mechan-
ism.
Example 2
Another example can also be found in the paper
of Low (1989). Fig. 6 shows an embankment of
stiff clay which has been constructed on soft clay.
The height of the embankment and the thickness
of the foundation layer are both 8 m. Other mater-
ial characteristics are shown in Fig. 6. The em-
Compression
Tension
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS 865

c 5 95 kPa principal strain rates of the embankment and the

8 m φ 5 158 2 ®rst layer of the foundation soil. The failure strain
γ 5 20 kN/m3 1
15 kPa
4m
8m cu
4m
30 kPa
Fig 6. An embankment constructed on soft clay
(Example 2)
bankment is assumed to be a drained clay and the
foundation clay undrained. The ®nite element
mesh, with 1660 nodes and 3176 constant strain
triangles, and the boundary conditions are shown
in Fig. 7. The failure mechanism is illustrated by
the nodal velocities in Fig. 8 and the principal
strain rates in Fig. 9.
Low's semi-analytical method gave a factor of
safety equal to 1´378. The ordinary method of
slices indicated a factor of safety of Fs ˆ 1:36; the
present limit analysis gave a factor of safety
Fs ˆ 1:25. In this example, limit analysis gave a
limit load less than that obtained by Low. The
reasons may be explained as follows. From Fig.
9(a), it can be seen that the failure deformation
mechanism is characterized by a very wide band of
deformation which cannot be modelled by a simple
slip circle. Fig. 9(b) presents on a larger scale the
mechanism in the embankment is very complicated
and there are very large horizontal shear deforma-
tions immediately under the embankment which
represent the effect of a strong horizontal thrust of
the embankment to the foundation. In general,
zones of relatively important deformation represent
the zones where a plasti®ed state is reached earlier
than other zones if a proportionally increased load-
ing condition is introduced.
Figure 9(a) shows that there is a large zone of
plasticity outside Low's slip circle even though the
corresponding factor of safety by limit analysis is
less than that given by Low. This demonstrates that
it is not certain from the limit equilibrium analysis
whether the zones outside the critical slip circle
obtained by methods of slices are plasti®ed.
A value of 1´14 of the factor of safety was
obtained by Low using Bishop's simpli®ed method.
The discrepancy between the results given by the
Fellenius and Bishop's simpli®ed methods for ef-
fective analyses is well known (Whitman & Bailey,
1967). The two methods are equivalent for a ö ˆ 0
analysis when the embankment strength is neglec-
ted, but they result in some differences when the
embankment contributes to resisting the failure and
when ö 6ˆ 0 for the embankment material. The
results by Low con®rm this conclusion since both
methods gave a factor of safety of 1´31 when

Fixed boundary

Fig 7. Finite element mesh and boundary conditions of the embankment (Example 2)

Fig 8. Failure velocities by limit analysis and the critical slip circle by limit equilibrium
866 JIANG AND MAGNAN
(a)
(b)
Fig 9. Principal strain rates: (a) complete view; (b) zoom
ö ˆ 0 was speci®ed for the embankment. However,
the present limit analysis method gave nearly the
same factor of safety for the embankment with a
friction angle ö ˆ 158. This may be explained by
the fact that the cohesion strength of the embank-
ment is so high compared with those of the
foundation clays that the variation of its friction
angle from 158 to 08 has relatively little effect on
the stability.
Example 3
Figure 10 shows the trial pro®les for a channel
(Skempton, 1946; Henry, 1986). Berm widths of
6´1, 9´1, 12´2 and 15´2 m were investigated by
Skempton with various radii of slip circles, which
were assumed to pass through the toe and to be
0.014
0.005
tangential to the top of the Lower Peat and to the
bottom of the Buttery Clay. The analyses were
performed on total stress with the internal friction
angle equal to 08. The factor of safety was
Fs ˆ 1:0 for a berm width of 6´1 m. A berm width
of 12´2 m was employed in the ®nal design and the
corresponding factor of safety Fs ˆ 1:2 was pre-
dicted by Skempton.
The mesh shown in Fig. 11 was used for the
limit analysis of the bank with a berm width of
6´1 m. Fig. 12 illustrates the failure velocities. Fig.
13 presents the failure strain rates, which show that
a very regular shear band is formed and accompa-
nied by a sub-failure zone in the ®ll. A substantial
portion of the slip zones is completely planar at
the base of the Buttery Clay layer. Furthermore,
the shear band signi®cantly deviates from the
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS 867
1 in
2
6
Berm
5 1 in .
4 25
3
2
1
Sand and gravel

Stratum No. Soil Thickness: m cu: kN/m2 γ: kN/m3

6 Fill 5.8 12.0 17.3
5 Brown silt 1.5 23.9 18.5
4 Grey silt 1.5 22.7 18.1
3 Upper Peat 0.6 33.5 11.0
2 Buttery Clay 4.3 22.7 16.0
1 Lower Peat 0.6 33.5 11.0

Fig 10. Design of a bank (after Skempton, 1946)

Fixed boundary

Fig 11. Mesh for the bank and boundary conditions

A B C

C
A
B

Fig 12. Failure velocities and slip surfaces: A, non-circular surface by the Morgenstern±Price method
(Chen); B, circular surface by the slip circle method (Skempton); C, circular surface by the Bishop
method (Chen)

critical slip circle given by Skempton. Particularly, tion of Skempton that the failure does not pene-
Fig. 13 shows that the main plastic failure zone is trate the Lower Peat on account of its relatively
located outside the critical slip circle given by high strength. The limit analysis gave a factor of
Skempton. The calculation con®rmed the assump- safety of only Fs ˆ 0:905, which shows signi®cant
868 JIANG AND MAGNAN
A B C
Fig 13. Principal strain rates and slip surfaces
variation over Skempton's factor Fs ˆ 1:0. How-
ever, the present result agrees very well with the
factors of safety obtained by Z. Y. Chen using
Bishop's simpli®ed method and the Morgenstern &
Price method, which are 0´899 and 0´864 respec-
tively. In Chen's calculations, the simplex method
of optimization was used to obtain the minimum
factor of safety, and optimal cubic splines (Chen &
Shao, 1988) were adopted to construct smooth
non-circular slip surfaces in the Morgenstern &
Price method. The non-circular slip surface ob-
tained by Chen is totally located inside the failure
band of plasticity and can be said to be approxi-
mately parallel to the shear sliding direction. The
optimal slip circle obtained by Chen is, in a sub-
stantial portion, nearer to the shear band than
Skempton's but does not pass through the toe.
The limit analysis gave a factor of safety
Fs ˆ 1:007 for the bank with a 12´2 m berm width;
this is signi®cantly less than the factor of safety
Fs ˆ 1:2 given by Skempton. Once again, the re-
sults of Chen are close to the limit analysis result
q
Fig 14. Mesh for a strip foundation, and boundary conditions
C
A
B
since he obtained a minimum factor of safety of
1´068 using the Bishop method and 0´974 using
the Morgenstern & Price method.
Example 4: bearing capacity of a strip foundation
on weightless soil
The problem of the bearing capacity has been
investigated by a large number of researchers using
various approaches. An interesting comparison
study was reported by Brinch Hansen (1966) (see
also Nash, 1987). The problem with which the
former author dealt is a strip foundation on weight-
less and cohesionless soil with a friction angle of
308. A uniform unit surcharge was prescribed and
the exact solution was given by Prandtl using
plasticity theory. The limit load qf can be ex-
pressed by
qf ˆ N q s (38)
where s is the uniform surface load (Fig. 14) and
s
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS
N q is the bearing capacity factor. With the above
soil strength properties and loading conditions, the
exact solution for N q is 18´4 while the numerical
calculation gave a result of 19´7. Note that the
associated ¯ow rule of plasticity cannot be applied
to kinematical analysis of cohesionless soils be-
cause the plastic dissipation function vanishes.
However, an upper bound to the limit load can be
obtained easily by arti®cially assigning a positive
value slightly higher than zero to the cohesion. In
the present calculation, a cohesion of 0´01 was
speci®ed so that the numerical procedure could be
used.
It can be observed from Table 1 that there is no
evident relationship between the bearing capacity
factor N q and the conventional factor of safety Fs.
Another calculation was then made to obtain the
factor of safety, which is equal to 1´03.
These two calculations permit the conclusion that
both the bearing capacity factor and the safety factor
are much closer to the exact solution than the re-
sults by other methods. Moreover, the failure mech-
anism obtained by the present analysis is in good
agreement with that of Prandtl (Figs 15 and 16).
869
DISCUSSION
In the past, various de®nitions of factor of safety
have been proposed and there has often been con-
troversy about these de®nitions. Two categories of
de®nitions can be described as follows:
(a) The de®nition using the mobilized shear
strength, by equation (23). Most methods of
slices use this de®nition and it is therefore the
most common one used in stability analysis of
slopes.
(b) The de®nition using the weight of soils. In
Chen & Snitbhan (1975), the weight was
de®ned as that of sliding mass encompassed
by free surfaces and the sliding surface. Such a
de®nition was also given by other authors. In
limit analysis, the ratio of the collapse load to
the actual load can be considered as this type
of de®nition.
Another possibility to assess the stability of
slopes is to de®ne a stability factor such as that
proposed by Taylor (1937). Such de®nition has the
drawback that it is only suitable in situations of

Table 1. Comparison of bearing capacity factors determined by different methods

Author Method Rupture line Nq Percentage of Fs
N q Prandtl
Fellenius Slices Circle 5´6 30 0´58
Krey Friction circle Circle 9´0 49 0´75
Janbu 2 Slices Prandtl 13´0 71 0´92
Prandtl Plasticity Prandtl 18´4 100 1´00
Present Limit analysis Velocity ®eld 19´7 107 1´03
Brinch Hansen Equilibrium Circle 22´5 122 1´07
Rendulic Extreme Spiral 22´6 123 1´07
Janbu 1 Slices Circle 27´9 152 1´21
Bishop Slices Circle 31´1 169 1´19

C
L

Fellenius
Hansen
Bishop, Janbu 1
Prandtl, Janbu 2

Fig 15. Failure velocities, Prandtl mechanism, and slip surfaces by limit equilibrium methods
870 JIANG AND MAGNAN

Fig 16. Principal strain rates and Prandtl mechanism

relatively simple geometry and strength properties
of soil (homogeneous, for example).
Although the ®rst de®nition has been used ex-
tensively in geotechnical practice, it is sometimes
considered ambiguous in physical meaning for ef-
fective stress calculations (Jardine & Hight, 1987).
Indeed, Example 4 shows that the ®rst factor of
safety is less good than the second de®nition be-
cause, for instance, a factor of safety of 1´19 (the
Bishop method) by the ®rst de®nition corresponds
in fact to 1´69 times the exact collapse load, so the
®rst de®nition is a poor indicator of bearing capa-
city. Despite these considerations, it is not to be
concluded here that one de®nition prevails over
another in the stability analysis of slopes and
embankments. If possible, all these de®nitions
should be considered in practice. However, the
second de®nition is more useful in cases where a
limit load factor is to be determined. Such cases
can be encountered in the stability analysis of
shallow tunnels, where the least tunnel pressure is
calculated to prevent collapse, or in seismic earth
pressure, where the resultant seismic coef®cient is
to be assessed.
All the results of calculation are summarized in
Table 2 and are compared with those obtained by
other methods. In the de®nition of the limit load in
limit analysis is admitted to be exact for stability
analysis, it can be concluded that present analyses
in most cases give numerical results as good as or
better than those based on limit equilibrium analy-
sis, since the upper bounds (F 2s ) are often less than
or close to the values (F 1s ) obtained by other meth-
ods. From this point of view, it can be said, at least
for the examples discussed, that the limit equili-
brium method often overestimates the factor of
safety and gives more dangerous results than those
predicted by accurate limit analysis. Nevertheless,

Table 2. Summary of the results of limit analysis and comparison with the results of limit equilibrium analysis
Case Method of limit Author F 1s from F 2s from F 1s ÿ F 2s
equilibrium limit limit F 2s
equilibrium analysis
Example 1 Semi-analytical Low 1´45 1´48 ÿ2´0%
Fellenius and Bishop Low 1´44 ÿ2´7%
Example 2, with ö ˆ 158 Semi-analytical Low 1´38 10´4%
embankment Fellenius Low 1´36 1´25 8´8%
Bishop Low 1´14 ÿ8´8%
Example 2, with Fellenius and Bishop Low 1´31 1´25 4´8%
ö ˆ 08 embankment
Example 3, with 6´1 m berm Slip circle Skempton 1´0 10´5%
Morgenstern & Price Chen 0´864 0´905 ÿ4´5%
Bishop Chen 0´899 ÿ0´7%
Example 3, with 12´2 m berm Slip circle Skempton 1´2 19´2%
Morgenstern & Price Chen 0´974 1´007 ÿ3´3%
Bishop Chen 1´068 6´1%
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS
further comparisons between these two classes of
methods may be necessary if more con®dence is to
be placed on limit analysis for practical use in
geotechnical engineering.
In hand calculation of the stability by limit
analysis, it is generally dif®cult to deal with soil
masses containing simultaneously ö ˆ 0 and c ÿ ö
soils. By the present ®nite element method, such
problems can be treated as easily as problems of
homogeneous material. Another advantage of ®nite
element limit analysis is that curved yield criteria
can also be incorporated in the numerical proce-
dure. It is useful to take into account such failure
surfaces because curvature of the envelopes for
soils has been observed by many investigators (for
example, Lade, 1977). Many materials, such as
cohesionless soils and rocks, have a non-linear
yield surface. The use of the upper bound method
to evaluate the stability of slopes with a non-linear
yield surface was introduced by Baker & Frydman
(1983) and was extended by Zhang & Chen
(1987). For practical problems with curved yield
surfaces, limit analysis by the ®nite element meth-
od would be more advantageous than other meth-
ods. Stresses in the failure zones can also be
determined as a by-product of the upper bound
calculation and the associated ¯ow rule if a strictly
convex curved yield criterion (without any ¯at part
of the yield surface) is used.
CONCLUSIONS
Limit analysis is a universal method for correct
and accurate solution of the stability problem. An
ef®cient and accurate numerical technique is vital
to make limit analysis applicable to complicated
geotechnical and structural problems of stability.
To this end, a new ®nite element method of limit
analysis has been developed to determine the limit
load or the factor of safety. This method does
not need the engineer to assume the failure mech-
anisms because it can automatically ®nd the criti-
cal failure mechanism which gives the least re-
sistance of the structure to the applied loads.
Various examples are presented to compare the
factors of safety obtained by limit analysis and
methods of slices. It is demonstrated that limit
analysis can be perfectly well applied to calculate
the stability of embankments and the results are
often better than or as good as those given by
methods of slices.
In two examples, limit analysis gave smaller
factors of safety than previous results based on
limit equilibrium analyses, and the factor of safety
obtained in the ®rst example is only 2´8% higher
than that given by Low using the Fellenius method
and the Bishop's simpli®ed method. However, in
the third example, ®nite element solutions gave
factors of safety slightly higher than those obtained
871
by Z. Y. Chen, who used the Morgenstern & Price
method combined with an advanced optimization
technique. For the calculation of bearing capacity,
®nite element limit analysis led to a result much
closer to the analytical solution than all factors of
safety presented by Brinch Hansen using limit
equilibrium methods.
The kinematic limit analysis used in this paper
gives an upper bound for the limit load. The
results obtained are higher than or equal to the
actual limit loads. The difference between the
numerical and actual results generally does not
exceed 6% of the actual limit loads in our experi-
ence. This error is produced essentially by two
factors. The ®rst one is that the kinematically
admissible velocities used in the numerical scheme
are kinematically admissible velocities of C 0 con-
tinuity, that is, the discretized velocity function is
continuous but the strains are discontinuous. Dis-
continuous failure velocities and velocities other
than C 0 continuity are excluded. The second factor
is due to the error of the numerical approximation
to the real in®nite minimization of functionals. No
matter how much the difference between the nu-
merical and actual results, it is sure that the present
results give upper bounds for the limit loads.
Another advantage of limit analysis over methods
of slices is that the ®nite element solution of
kinematic limit analysis provides failure mechan-
isms that may not be appropriately simulated by
methods of slices. In fact, limit analysis permits
calculation of a variety of realistic critical failure
mechanisms which are often composed of plane,
circular and=or logarithmic rupture bands and fail-
ed soil mass.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to Dr Z. Y. Chen of the
China Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydro-
electric Power Research for carrying out the calcu-
lation of minimum factors of safety in Example 3
using methods of slices.
REFERENCES
Anderheggen, E. & KnoÈpfel, H. (1972). Finite element
limit analysis using linear programming. Int. J. Solids
and Structures 8, No. 12, 1413±1431.
Baker, R. & Frydman, S. (1983). Upper bound limit
analysis of soil with non-linear criterion. Soils Fdns
23, No. 4, 34±42.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the
stability analysis of slopes. GeÂotechnique 5, No. 1, 7±
17.
Brinch Hansen, J. (1966). Comparison of methods for
stability analysis. Bulletin No. 21 Danish Geotechni-
cal Institute.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
872 JIANG AND MAGNAN
Chen, W. F. & Snitbhan, N. (1975). On slip surface and
slope stability analysis. Soils Fdns 15, No. 3, 41±49.
Chen, Z. Y. & Morgenstern, N. R. (1983). Extensions to
the generalized method of slices for stability analysis.
Can. Geotech, J. 20, No. 1, 104±119.
Chen, Z. Y. & Shao, C. M. (1988). Evaluation of
minimum factor of safety in slope stability analysis.
Can. Geotech, J. 25, No. 4, 735±748.
Chen, Z. Y. (1992). Random trials used in determining
global minimum factor of safety. Can. Geotech J. 29,
No. 1, 225±233.
Fredlund, D. G. & Krahn, J. (1977). Comparison of slope
stability methods of analysis. Can. Geotech. J. 14,
No. 3, 429±439.
Henry, F. D. C. (1986). The design and construction of
engineering foundations 2nd edn. London: Chapman
& Hall.
Janbu, N. (1957). Earth pressures and bearing capacity
calculations by generalized procedure of slices. Proc.
4th Int. Conf. Soil. Mech. Fdn Engng, Vol. 2, pp.
207±212. London: Butterworths.
Jardine, R. J. & Hight, D. W. (1987). The behaviour and
analysis of embankments on soft clay. In Embank-
ments of soft clay, Bulletin of the Public Works
Research Centre, Athens, pp. 159±244.
Jiang, G. L. (1992). Application de l'analyse limite aÁ
l'eÂtude de la stabilite des massifs de sol. PhD thesis,
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et ChausseÂes (ENPC),
Paris.
Jiang, G. L. (1994). Regularized method in limit analysis.
J. Engng Mech., ASCE 120, No. 6, 1179±1197.
Jiang, G. L. (1995). Non-linear ®nite element formulation
of kinematic limit analysis. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng
38, No. 16, 2775±2807.
Lade, P. V. (1977). Elasto-plastic stress±strain theory for
cohesionless soil with curved yield surfaces. Int. J.
Solids Struct. 13, 1019±1035.
Low, B. K. (1989). Stability analysis of embankments on
soft ground. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 115, No. 2,
211±227.
Morgenstern, N. R. & Price, V. E. (1965). The analysis of
the stability of general slip surface. GeÂotechnique 15,
No. 1, 79±93.
Nash, D. (1987). A comparative review of limit equili-
brium methods of stability analysis. In Slope stability
(eds M. G. Anderson and K. S. Richards). New York:
Wiley.
SalencËon, J. (1983). Calcul aÁ la rupture et analyse limite.
Paris, Presses ENPC.
Skempton, A. W. (1946). Earth pressure and the stabil-
ity of slopes. In The principles and application
of soil mechanics. London: Institution of Civil
Engineers.
Spencer, E. (1967). A method of analysis of the stability
of embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces.
GeÂotechnique 17, No. 1, 11±26.
Taylor, D. W. (1937). Stability of earth slopes. J. Boston
Soc. Civ. Engrs 24, No. 3, 197±246.
Whitman, R. V. & Bailey, W. A. (1967). Use of
computers for slope stability analysis. J. Soil Mech,
Fdns Div., ASCE 93, No. 4, 475±498.
Zhang, X. J. & Chen, W. F. (1987). Stability analysis of
slopes with general nonlinear failure criterion. Int. J.
Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech, 11, No. 1, 33±55.