FACTOR OF SAFETY 3-1

3 FACTOR OF SAFETY

3.1 Introduction

A factor-of-safety calculation can be performed for stability analyses in FLAC 3D. This calculation is
based upon the “strength reduction method” to determine a factor of safety. The strength reduction
method is an increasingly popular numerical method to evaluate factor of safety in geomechanics
(e.g., see Dawson and Roth 1999, and Griffiths and Lane 1999). Although the method has been
used extensively in the context of Mohr-Coulomb material, there are a few references available in
the literature that extend the approach to nonlinear failure criteria in general (i.e., Dawson et al.
2000, Shukha and Baker 2003, Hammah et al. 2005, and Fu and Liao 2009). An overview of factor
of safety and the strength reduction technique is given in Section 3.2.
The strength reduction method can be applied to calculate the safety factor for a variety of different
underground structures (e.g., slopes, retaining walls, tunnels, etc.). In this section, the focus is on
the factor of safety of slopes because this is the most common practical application of the method.
In Section 3.3, the strength reduction method is described and compared to other computational
methods (i.e., limit analysis and the limit equilibrium technique) commonly used to determine a
safety factor for slopes.
The strength reduction procedure can be conducted manually in FLAC 3D by reducing selected
strength properties until failure occurs. The method can also be performed automatically by issuing
the SOLVE fos command in FLAC 3D. The procedure that is followed when using SOLVE fos is
described in detail in Section 3.4. In FLAC 3D Version 5.0, SOLVE fos can be applied to strength
properties for the Mohr-Coulomb material model (MODEL mechanical mohr), the ubiquitous-joint
model (MODEL mechanical ubiquitous) and the Hoek-Brown model (MODEL mechanical mhoek-
brown). It also can be applied to strength properties for interfaces. The properties affected by
SOLVE fos are described in Section 3.4.1.
Example factor-of-safety calculations based upon the strength reduction technique are also provided
in this section. These examples include comparisons to solutions from limit analysis and the limit
equilibrium technique. The examples are described and data files are listed in Section 3.5.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3-2 Theory and Background

3.2 Factor of Safety

A “factor of safety” index can be defined for any relevant problem parameter by taking the ratio
of the calculated parameter value under given conditions to the critical value of the parameter at
which the onset of an unacceptable outcome manifests itself. A relevant problem parameter could
be a dimensionless group that governs the problem at hand (e.g., a stability number). Examples
of (dimensional) parameters for slope stability include slope height, water level, applied load and
strength property.
Unacceptable outcome relates to “safety” (and is usually taken as shear failure), but other possibil-
ities, such as displacement above a given threshold, convergence beyond an acceptable level (such
as in a tunnel excavation), toppling failure, slope raveling (cyclic freezing/thawing, weathering),
etc. can also be considered.
By convention, a factor-of-safety index larger than one indicates acceptable conditions. Thus,
factor-of-safety index is taken as the actual over the critical parameter value if the parameter value
above critical is acceptable (e.g., material cohesion), and as the inverse of this ratio otherwise (e.g.,
slope height). Note that, with the exception of simple cases, the calculated factor-of-safety index
will not in general be linearly related to the selected problem parameter for which it is defined.
Also, different measures will give different values of factor of safety for the same problem. Factor-
of-safety index is most valuable when used on a comparative basis, in analyses using the same
index definition (e.g., use of the index may produce the following statement: this slope with wider
benches has a higher index than that with higher benches).
The effort involved in computing the factor-of-safety index (once the definition is established)
consists in identifying actual as well as critical parameter values. In the most general case, the actual
parameter value is evaluated by direct resolution of field and constitutive equations governing the
problem, and this often is done using a numerical method. On the other hand, an inverse boundary
value problem needs to be solved to estimate the critical value of the parameter. In principle, this
can be achieved using a trial-and-error technique whereby numerical simulations are performed for
a range of parameter values until the critical value is found. We refer to this general approach as
“parameter reduction technique.” Any appropriate geo-mechanical software (e.g., finite difference,
finite element and distinct element method) can be used to perform this task for problems involving
various levels of complexity (e.g., geometry, material constitutive law, discrete fracture network,
slope reinforcement, support systems, mechanical structures, etc.).

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3-3

3.3 Computational Methods for Factor-of-Safety Calculation of Slopes

Three different computational methods are commonly employed in numerical analyses programs to
calculate a factor of safety for slopes: strength reduction method, limit analysis (upper- and lower-
bound solutions), and limit equilibrium method (upper-bound solution). The strength reduction
method is used in FLAC 3D, and can be executed automatically via the SOLVE fos command. This
implementation is described below. Numerical limit analysis is described in Section 3.3.2, and limit
equilibrium analysis is described in Section 3.3.3.

3.3.1 Strength Reduction Technique

The “strength reduction technique” is typically applied in factor-of-safety calculations by progres-

sively reducing the shear strength of the material to bring the slope to a state of limiting equilibrium.
The method is commonly applied with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (e.g., see applications
by Zienkiewicz et al. 1975, Naylor 1982, Donald and Giam 1988, Matsui and San 1992, Ugai
1989, and Ugai and Leshchinsky 1995). In this case, the safety factor F is defined according to the
equations

1
ctrial = c (3.1)
F trial
 
1
φ trial
= arctan tan φ (3.2)
F trial

A series of simulations are made using trial values of the factor F trial to reduce the cohesion, c, and
friction angle, φ, until slope failure occurs. (Note that if the slope is initially unstable, c and φ will
be increased until the limiting condition is found.) One technique to find the strength values that
correspond to the onset of failure is to monotonically reduce (or increase) the strengths in small
increments until a failure state is found. Alternatively, in FLAC 3D, a bracketing approach similar
to that proposed by Dawson, Roth and Drescher (1999) is used when the SOLVE fos command
is executed. With this technique, stable and unstable bracketing states are found first, and then
the bracket between the stable and unstable solution is progressively reduced until the difference
between stable and unstable solutions falls below a specified tolerance.
The strength reduction method implemented in FLAC 3D will always produce a valid solution: in
the case of an unstable physical system FLAC 3D simply shows continuing motion in the model.
An iteration solution, which is often used in the finite element method, is not used here. The
FLAC 3D solution is a dynamic, time-marching simulation in which continuing motion is as valid as
equilibrium. Neither is there iteration in the use of elastic-plastic constitutive laws: the stress tensor
is placed exactly on the yield surface (satisfying equations, such as the flow rule and elastic/plastic
strain decomposition) if plastic yield is detected. The stress state in FLAC 3D at a safety factor = 1 is
the actual stress state that corresponds to the yielding mechanism, not an arbitrary pre-yield stress
state or an elastic stress state.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3-4 Theory and Background

The detection of the boundary between physical stability and instability is based on an objective
criterion in FLAC 3D that decides whether the system is in equilibrium or a state of continuing
motion. Finer incremental changes that may affect the solution in an iterative solution scheme are
not needed in a time-marching scheme, and do not affect the solution. In order to determine the
boundary between physical stability and instability, a set of completely separate runs is made with
different strength-reduction factors. Each run is then checked to determine whether equilibrium
or continuing plastic flow is reached. The point of failure can be found to any required accuracy
(typically 1%) by successive bracketing of the strength-reduction factors. This process should not
be confused with taking finer solution steps; the solution scheme is identical for each run of the set
(whether it results in equilibrium or continuing motion).

3.3.2 Limit Analysis

Limit analysis relies on the construction of solutions which obey upper- and lower-bounds theorems
developed in the theory of plasticity. These theorems (presented in most textbooks on plasticity)
provide rigorous limits on the collapse conditions of a system consisting of a perfectly plastic
material obeying normality (associated flow rule). Of particular interest is the lower-bound theorem,
which states (Davis and Selvadurai 2002) that
Collapse will not occur if any state of stress can be found that satisfies the equations of equilibrium
and the traction boundary conditions and is everywhere ‘below yield’.
In this theorem, the words “equations of equilibrium” pertain to local equilibrium. Any stress
field that satisfies the criteria of the lower-bound theorem is referred to as a statically admissible
stress field. Also, in a factor-of-safety calculation, a statically admissible stress field provides a
lower-bound (conservative) estimate for the FOS.
It is also useful to recall the upper-bound theorem, which states that (Davis and Selvadurai 2002)
Collapse must occur if, for any compatible plastic deformation, the rate of working of the external
forces on the body equals or exceeds the rate of internal energy dissipation.
In this statement, “compatible plastic deformation” means any deformation that satisfies all dis-
placement boundary conditions and is possible kinematically according to the associated flow rule,
which governs admissible dilation. Any deformation field that satisfies the criteria of the upper-
bound theorem is referred to as kinematically admissible deformation.
Stability charts for homogeneous simple slopes (in “cohesive” material) are still used in practice as a
first estimate of slope safety. Typically, values in the chart obtained using limit analysis (upper- and
lower-bound solutions) are presented in the form of stability numbers (see, e.g., Taylor 1937, Daw-
son et al. 2000, Michalowski 2002, and Li et al. 2008). These numbers are dimensionless quantities
that relate slope height, material unit weight, and the material strength property of cohesion for
a Mohr-Coulomb material, or intact unconfined compressive strength for a Hoek-Brown material.
Stability numbers have been associated with nontraditional FOS measures (e.g., for Mohr-Coulomb
(Michalowski 2002), and for Hoek-Brown (Li et al. 2008)).

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3-5

3.3.3 Limit Equilibrium

Limit equilibrium (LE) methods are approximate methods that assume the existence of a slip surface
of various simple shapes: plane, circular or logspiral. The methods are based on the additional
assumption that the soil or rock mass can be divided into slices. The problem is reduced to one
of finding the most critical position for the slip surface of the chosen shape. Various methods
exist, including Fellenius’ (1936), Bishop’s (1955), Lowe and Karafiath’s (1960), Janbu’s (1968),
Morgenstern and Price’s (1965) and Spencer’s (1967). One of the main differences between methods
concerns assumptions made about side force directions between slices, with potential implications
for equilibrium. A comparative description summary of methods with assumptions and limitations
may be found in TRB Special Report (1996) and Abramson et al. (2002).
Note that none of the equations of solid mechanics is explicitly satisfied inside or outside of the
failure surface (assumed slip surface). Also, according to Chen (2007):
Although the limit equilibrium technique utilizes the basic philosophy of the upper-bound rules of
limit analysis, that is, a failure surface is assumed and a least answer is sought, it does not meet
the precise requirements of the upper-bound rules so that it is not an upper bound. The method
basically gives no consideration to soil kinematics, and equilibrium conditions are satisfied only in
a limited sense. It is clear then that a solution obtained using the limit equilibrium method is not
necessarily an upper or a lower bound.

3.3.4 Relation of Strength Reduction Method to Limit Equilibrium and Limit Analysis

As mentioned in Section 3.3.3, a limit equilibrium (LE) solution is never a lower bound for the
load because, although global equilibrium is satisfied by the LE solution, local equilibrium is not
guaranteed (none of the LE solutions are statically admissible).
Also, a strong statement made in the literature (e.g., Davis and Selvadurai 2002) is that the results
from LE will always be the same as those from the upper-bound theorem for any translational
collapse mechanism (meaning system of rigid soil blocks separated by thin shear surfaces). Thus,
there are cases for which a LE solution gives an upper bound for the load (Drescher and Detournay
1993).
One may ask then why an LE solution “works” since not only is it not guaranteed to provide a
lower bound for the FOS, but in some cases it is even proven to give an upper bound for the FOS.
An answer, provided by Wa-I-Fah Chen in his book Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity, rests on the
observation that most FOS analyses are concerned with slopes, and apparently, for most slopes, the
LE solution provides an FOS value which is close to the exact solution.
On the other hand, consider the last stable state calculated by FLAC 3D (the last lower bracket,
which is typically 0.005 less than the final FOS) for an associated problem. FLAC 3D will provide an
approximate exact solution to the problem at that state, in the sense that local equilibrium may not
be satisfied everywhere at the boundary between zones, but if the zone size is reduced to zero, local
equilibrium will be satisfied to the limit. In particular, the limit stress field satisfies the lower-bound
theorem. Also, the deformation field at the “failure state” calculated by FLAC 3D (the last upper
bracket) is a kinematically admissible deformation (it fulfills all the criteria of the upper-bound

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3-6 Theory and Background

theorem). Thus, one may say that if the calculated FOS tends to a limit as the grid size is reduced,
this limit may be considered to be very close to (within 0.005) the exact FOS for the problem.
In summary then, in most cases FLAC 3D (on a fine grid) and a LE solution will give factors of safety
that are very similar. In some cases, FLAC 3D will give a safety factor on a fine grid that is lower
than that provided by a limit equilibrium (LE) solution. This implies that the LE solution provides
an upper bound for the FOS. In other cases, FLAC 3D will give a safety factor on a fine grid that is
higher than that provided by a limit equilibrium (LE) solution. This does not mean that FLAC 3D
is nonconservative, but instead that we have encountered a case where the LE solution cannot be
relied upon (since it can never correspond to a lower bound for the load).
Note that the limit-analysis bound theorems apply to an associated flow rule (see Davis and Sel-
vadurai 2002). This rule may not be very realistic in some cases, as it provides far too much dilation.
However, nonassociated flow rules do not guarantee unique solutions. Without this assurance, a
collapse load is no longer unique. Apparently, the only useful result that can be obtained is that
a nonassociative material can be no stronger than an associative one. This follows from the ob-
servation that, at collapse, the actual stress field in a nonassociative soil is statically admissible.
Therefore, by the lower-bound theorem, the collapse load for a nonassociative material cannot
exceed that for the corresponding material with the associated flow rule.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

 FACTOR OF SAFETY 3-7

3.4 Strength Reduction Procedure in FLAC 3D

The strength reduction method can be applied to essentially any material failure model to evalu-
ate a factor of safety based upon the reduction of a specified strength property or property group.
The method has been used extensively in the context of Mohr-Coulomb material and, principally,
the simultaneous reduction of cohesion and frictional strength. In FLAC 3D Version 5.0, in addi-
tion to Mohr-Coulomb strength properties (assigned with MODEL mechanical mohr), the method
is also applied automatically to ubiquitous-joint strength properties (assigned with MODEL me-
chanical ubiquitous), and to Hoek-Brown strength properties (assigned with MODEL mechanical
mhoekbrown) when the SOLVE fos command is given.
The strength reduction method can also be applied when SOLVE fos is executed for interface strength
properties, friction and cohesion (assigned via INTERFACE).
The procedure for implementing the strength reduction technique in FLAC 3D via the SOLVE fos
command is as follows.
First, the code finds a “characteristic response time,” which is a representative number of steps
(denoted by Nr ) that characterizes the response time of the system. Nr is found by setting the
material strength (for Mohr-Coulomb material, the cohesion and tensile strength) to a large value,
making a large change to the internal stresses (by default, a perturbation factor of 2 is applied to
the stress state), and finding how many steps are necessary for the system to return to equilibrium.
A maximum limit of 50,000 is set for Nr by default. If the model does not reach equilibrium
within 50,000 steps, the run will stop and the factor-of-safety solution cannot be completed. If this
happens, the user should review the parameters selected for the model. For example, if the user
has selected structural support with a high value for Young’s modulus, this may affect the solution
convergence time.
It is also possible to set the value for Nr manually by using the nchar keyword to specify a value
for Nr . Alternatively, the initial perturbation to the internal stresses can be changed by specifying
a different perturbation factor using the perturb keyword. Note that these manual controls should
be used with caution.
After Nr is determined, for a given strength reduction factor, F , Nr steps are executed. If the
unbalanced force ratio* is less than 10−5 after Nr steps, then the system is in equilibrium. If the
unbalanced force ratio is greater than 10−5 , then another Nr steps are executed, exiting the loop
if the force ratio is less than 10−5 . The mean value of force ratio, averaged over the current span
of Nr steps, is compared with the mean force ratio over the previous Nr steps. If the difference is
less than 10%, the system is deemed to be in nonequilibrium, and the loop is exited with the new
nonequilibrium, F . If the above-mentioned difference is greater than 10%, blocks of Nr steps are

* The unbalanced force is the net force acting on a FLAC 3D gridpoint. The ratio of this force to the
mean absolute value of force exerted by each surrounding zone is the unbalanced force ratio. The
limiting value for the unbalanced force ratio can be changed with the optional keyword ratio to the
SOLVE fos command.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3-8 Theory and Background

continued until (1) the difference is less than 10%, or (2) 6 such blocks have been executed, or
(3) the force ratio is less than 10−5 . The justification for case (1) is that the mean force ratio is
converging to a steady value that is greater than that corresponding to equilibrium; the system must
therefore be in continuous motion.
The following information is displayed during the solution process.
1. Operation currently being performed.
2. Number of calculation steps completed to determine a given value of F .
3. Twice the characteristic response time, Nr (note that the change in unbalanced force ratio
is first checked at two times Nr ).
4. Unbalanced force ratio.
5. Number of completed solution stages (i.e., tests for equilibrium or nonequilibrium).
6. Current bracketing values of F .
The factor-of-safety solution stops when the difference between the upper and lower bracket values
becomes smaller than 0.005 times the mean value. (This resolution limit can be changed with
resolution, an optional keyword to the SOLVE fos command.)
The bracketing solution approach invoked with the SOLVE fos command may perform a large
number of (stable and unstable) solutions before determining a factor of safety. If an approximate
range for the factor is known, then the number of solutions (and total solution time) can be reduced
by specifying the starting bracket values. This can be done with bracket v1 v2, an optional phrase
to the SOLVE fos command. If the calculated factor falls outside the specified brackets, a warning
message will be issued. It is also possible to test whether a specified factor is above or below the
actual factor, by setting v1 equal to v2.
The following conditions should be noted when using SOLVE fos.
1. The model state must be saved before a SOLVE fos calculation is performed.
2. The initial stress state can either be at a zero stress state or at stress equilibrium for the
SOLVE fos calculation. If the model is at a zero stress state, only gravity loading is applied
to determine Nr .
3. The factor-of-safety calculation is performed in small-strain calculation mode when
SOLVE fos is issued.
4. If a factor-of-safety calculation is performed for a coupled fluid flow-mechanical model
(with CONFIG fluid specified), the fluid flow calculation will be turned off and fluid bulk
modulus will be set to zero when SOLVE fos is issued.
5. The factor-of-safety calculation assumes nonassociated plastic flow with SOLVE fos. The
keyword associated can be added for an associated plastic flow calculation.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3-9

Three files are saved during the SOLVE fos calculation: the initial-condition state, the latest stable
factor-of-safety calculation, and the latest unstable factor-of-safety calculation. By default, the
initial state is saved to a file named “FOSInitial.f3sav,” the stable state is saved to a file named
“FOSStable.f3sav,” and the unstable state to a file named “FOSUnstable.f3sav.” Each factor-of-
safety calculation stage starts from the “FOSInitial.f3sav” state.
A different file name can be specified for each of these three files. The initial state file name is
changed with the SOLVE fos initfile command, the stable FOS state with the SOLVE fos stablefile
command, and the unstable FOS state with the SOLVE fos file command.

3.4.1 Strength Reduction Properties

The strength properties that can be reduced when using SOLVE fos are described in the following
sections.
3.4.1.1 Mohr-Coulomb Material

If the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is prescribed, cohesion, c, and friction angle, φ, are selected
by default to be included in the safety-factor calculation when executing SOLVE fos. The reduction
equations for these properties are

1
ctrial = c (3.3)
F trial
 
1
φ trial
= arctan tan φ (3.4)
F trial

with the reduction following the procedure described in Section 3.4. These strengths can optionally
be excluded from the SOLVE fos calculation with the keyword phrase exclude cohesion or exclude
friction.
Tensile strength, σ t , can also be included with the optional phrase include tension. The trial
properties for tensile strength are calculated in a manner similar to that used for material friction
and cohesion. The reduction equation for the tensile strength is

1
σ t (trial) = σt (3.5)
F trial

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 10 Theory and Background

3.4.1.2 Ubiquitous-Joint Material

If the ubiquitous-joint strength model is used, strength values for the intact material, c and φ,
and strength values for the ubiquitous joints, cj and φj , are included by default in the SOLVE fos
calculation. Tensile strengths, σ t and σjt , can also be selected for reduction by adding the keyword
phrases include tension and include jtension, respectively. The reduction equations for the intact
material are the same as Eqs. (3.3) through (3.5), and for the ubiquitous joints are

1
cjtrial = cj (3.6)
F trial
 
1
φjtrial = arctan tan φj (3.7)
F trial
t (trial) 1
σj = σjt (3.8)
F trial

Ubiquitous-joint cohesion and friction can be excluded from the safety factor calculation with
include jcohesion and exclude jfriction, respectively.
3.4.1.3 Hoek-Brown Material

The modified Hoek-Brown constitutive model (MODEL mechanical mhoekbrown) supports factor-
of-safety calculations with SOLVE fos. Strength reduction is performed with respect to shear strength
(PROPERTY hb soption=0).
Note that, although the softening/hardening capabilities of the Hoek-Brown model can be activated
before the factor-of-safety calculation is performed, they should be disabled (by removing the table
property assignment) during the strength reduction procedure because the value of the evolution
parameter is then ill-defined.
Factor of Safety with respect to Shear Strength, τ
The Hoek-Brown criterion can be approximated locally by a Mohr-Coulomb criterion:

τ = σ  tan φc + cc (3.9)

where apparent cohesion and friction are given in terms of the local value of σ3 by


φc = 2 tan−1 Nφc − 90◦ (3.10)

σ ucs
cc = c (3.11)
2 Nφc

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 11

where (for compressive stresses positive) if σ3 ≥ 0:

σ3 a−1
Nφc = 1 + amb mb +s (3.12)
σci
 σ a
σcucs
3
= σ3 (1 − Nφc ) + σci mb +s (3.13)
σci

and, if σ3 < 0:

Nφc = 1 + amb (s)a−1 (3.14)

σcucs = σci (s)a (3.15)

A pragmatic approach to evaluate a factor of safety for slopes (based on the strength reduction
technique) is used, whereby local cohesion, cc , and friction coefficient, tan φc , are divided by a
factor until active slope failure is detected. The factor directly applies to the maximum allowable
value of shear stress τmax (see Eq. (3.9)). The reduction factor at the verge of slope collapse is
defined as the FOS based on the proposed (local strength reduction) technique.
Although, in theory, it is possible to find a best fit to match the reduced envelope with a Hoek-Brown
type equation (see, e.g., Hammah et al. 2005), this step is not required with this particular model
implementation because the logic relies on the direct use of envelope tangent (there is no need to
define a curve and then the tangent when the tangent is available in the first place – see above).
Also, the proposed local strength reduction technique provides a means by which to quantify the
shear stress allowance to collapse, as one would expect. In this case, the reduction factor does not
apply directly on model parameters (there is no absolute reason why it should).
3.4.1.4 Interfaces

Interface strengths can be included in the safety-factor calculation by adding include interface to
SOLVE fos. For the interface strength values ci and φi , the equations are

1
citrial = ci (3.16)
F trial
 
1
φitrial = arctan tan φi (3.17)
F trial

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 12 Theory and Background

3.5 Example Factor of Safety Calculations using the Strength Reduction Method

This section includes several examples that validate and demonstrate the application of the strength
reduction method in FLAC 3D.

3.5.1 Failure of a Slope with a Complex Surface Profile in a Mohr-Coulomb Material

This example illustrates the ability of FLAC 3D to identify the critical failure state of a slope with
a complex surface profile (i.e., a slope profile defined by more than one inclination). The slope
in this exercise is composed of two inclinations: a 45◦ inclination in the lower part, and a 26.7◦
inclination in the upper part. The slope geometry is shown in Figure 3.1. The problem conditions
are taken from Cheng et al. (2007). Cheng et al. determine five local minima failure surfaces
for this slope using the Morgenstern-Price LE method, as shown in Figure 3.2. They identify two
possible critical failure surfaces from a series of LE simulations: one at a factor of 1.383 and one
at 1.3848.

A

o
o oo

0©20o oA ouof

 o©
2©a2na0©20oG.02.C1o

o.oP
D

 oA ouof
uoooP

Figure 3.1 Slope with complex surface profile

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 13

Figure 3.2 Local minima failure surfaces and factors of safety calculated by
limit equilibrium method (from Cheng et al. 2007)

The material properties of the slope material in this problem are

Elastic modulus, E = 14.0 MPa

Poisson’s ratio, ν = 0.3
Unit weight, γ = 20.0 kN/m3
Cohesion, c = 10 kPa
Friction angle, φ = 30◦
Dilation angle, ψ = 0.0
Tensile strength, σt = 0.0

FLAC3D Model
The data file created for this example is listed in Example 3.1. The FLAC 3D model is constructed
based upon the problem dimensions given by Cheng et al. 2007. The slope geometry is oriented in
the x-z plane and is one zone thick in the y-direction. The model geometry is shown in Figure 3.3.
Simulations are made with progressively finer zoning, to determine the mesh size that provides the
most accurate solution. The calculated factor of safety decreases as the mesh size is decreased, and
levels off at a mesh created for 144 zones in the horizontal direction.
Gravity is applied, and the model is solved to an equilibrium state to establish the initial stresses in
the model. Note that some isolated zones have reached a shear failure state at this stage, as indicated
in the plasticity state plot shown in Figure 3.4. The slope is stable.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 14 Theory and Background

A

o
o oo

0©20ok ob oZuokf

 o©
2©a2na0©20oG.02.C1o


b.oo
oo
!

k ob oZuokf
uoooP

Figure 3.3 Slope model geometry

A

o
o oo

0©20oU ob ovuoUf

 o202nI
2©a2na0©20oG.02.CIo


b.o  oorP"


ro
r

ro
ro r

r

ro r
ro r
r

U ob ovuoUf
uoooP

Figure 3.4 Plasticity state in slope at initial force equilibrium

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 15

The factor-of-safety calculation time can be reduced by selecting lower-bound and upper-bound
bracketing values that are close to the actual safety factor. Based upon the range of factors shown
in Figure 3.2, the lower-bound bracketing factor is set to 1.3 and the upper-bound to 1.5. The
bracketing factors are set with bracket, an optional keyword to the SOLVE fos command.
The calculated factor of safety is 1.35 and the failure surface develops as defined by a shear-strain
contour plot shown in Figure 3.5. This surface matches closely the local minima surface shown for
the FOS = 1.3848 failure surface in Figure 3.2. The failure state calculated by FLAC 3D is the global
minimum stability state.

A

o
o oo

0©20oA oV obuoAf

 oIGn©G
2©a2na0©20oG.02.CCoU7
 cc
#o6o2f1C
cc.ccc 
V $o.o# oP"
GfI©I23r©2
Gf©©©©3r©2
gfC©©©3r©2
gf©©©©3r©2
nfC©©©3r©2
nf©©©©3r©2
CfC©©©3r©2
Cf©©©©3r©2
IfC©©©3r©2
If©©©©3r©2
1fC©©©3r©2
1f©©©©3r©2
0fC©©©3r©2
0f©©©©3r©2
2fC©©©3r©2
2f©©©©3r©2
Cf©©©©3r©0
2f,1GC3r©I

A oV obuoAf
7uo79ooP

Figure 3.5 Factor-of-safety results

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 16 Theory and Background

Example 3.1 Failure of a slope with a complex surface profile in a Mohr-Coulomb material
;-------------------------------------------------------------
; complex surface profile in Mohr-Coulomb material
;-------------------------------------------------------------

new project
set fish autocreate off

title ’Slope with complex surface profile’

; create model
gen zone brick p0 0,0,0 p1 10,0,0 p2 0,1,0 p3 0,0,10 size 40,1,40
gen zone brick p0 10,0,0 p1 46,0,0 p2 10,1,0 p3 10,0,10 size 144,1,40
gen zone brick p0 10,0,10 p1 46,0,10 p2 10,1,10 p3 16,0,16 &
p4 46,1,10 p5 16,1,16 p6 46,0,16 p7 46,1,16 size 144,1,24
gen zone brick p0 16,0,16 p1 46,0,16 p2 16,1,16 p3 26,0,21 &
p4 46,1,16 p5 26,1,21 p6 46,0,21 p7 46,1,21 size 144,1,20
;
; initialize gravity
set gravity 0 0 -10
;
; assign Mohr Coulomb model and properties
model mech mohr
prop dens 2000.0 bulk 1.16667e7 she 5.38462e6 fric 30 coh 10000.0 ten 0.0
;
; boundary conditions
fix x range x -.1 .1
fix x range x 45.9 46.1
fix y range y -0.1 1.1
fix x y z range z -0.1 0.1
;
save ini
; histories
hist nstep 10
hist add unbal
;
solve elastic
save mcslope1
return

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 17

3.5.2 Influence of Slope Curvature on Stability

Actual slopes are not infinitely long and straight: usually, they are curved in both plan and elevation.
The effect of slope curvature can really only be analyzed with a three-dimensional model.
Hoek and Bray (1981) observed that the lateral restraint provided by material on either side of a
potential slope failure will increase as the slope becomes more concave. They recommend that
when the radius of curvature of the slope is less than the height of the slope, the allowed slope angle
can be 10◦ steeper than the angle suggested by conventional two-dimensional stability analyses.
For radii of curvature greater than twice the slope height, the maximum slope angle given by a
two-dimensional analysis should be used.
The model shown in Figure 3.6 represents a quarter-section of an open pit. The height of the slope
is 25 m, and the slope angle is 2 vertical to 1 horizontal (approximately 63◦ ). It is expected that
plane-strain conditions will prevail along the plane y = −30 (see Figure 3.7), while axisymmetric
conditions will be predominant at the plane x = 0 (see Figure 3.8).

A

fff" ff  ffff

0©20f fU fAtfi

 f©
2©y2Gy0©20fS/g,/0Cf


U/ff


 fU fAtfi
tfffP

Figure 3.6 “Bathtub” model to evaluate slope curvature

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 18 Theory and Background

A

fff" ff  ffff

0©20f fU fAtfi

 f©
2©y2Gy0©20fS/g,/0Cf


/ff
U/ff


 fU fAtfi
tfffP

Figure 3.7 Vertical plane through model at y = −30

A

fff" ff  ffff

0©20f fU fAtfi

 f©
2©y2Gy0©20fS/g,/0Cf


/ff
U/ff


 fU fAtfi
tfffP

Figure 3.8 Vertical plane through model at x = 0

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 19

The free water surface imposed in this problem is shown in Figure 3.9. This surface intersects
the top of the model 50 m behind the toe of the slope, and there is seepage on the bottom half
of the slope face. This water table, under steady-state conditions, will lead to the pore-pressure
distribution shown in Figure 3.10.

A

fff" ff  ffff

0©20f fW fNtfi

 f©
2©y2Gy0©20fS/g,/0Cf
t
% f


W/ff


 fW fNtfi
tfffP

Figure 3.9 Free water surface

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 20 Theory and Background

A

Ufff" ff  ffff

0©20fU fE f8tfUi

 f©
2©y2Gy0©20fS/g,/0Cf
nnnn 
Ci©©©©3a©g
1ig©©©3a©g
1i©©©©3a©g
0ig©©©3a©g
0i©©©©3a©g
2ig©©©3a©g
2i©©©©3a©g
gi©©©©3a©C
©i©©©©3a©©
b2iS.G©3b22

U fE f8tfUi
tfffP

Figure 3.10 Pore-pressure contours

The strength parameters chosen for this model are selected for comparison of FLAC 3D results to
circular failure charts published by Hoek and Bray (1981). Figure 3.11 shows which chart to use
as a function of the groundwater flow conditions. In our case, the chart used is number 4. For
example, if we assume a friction angle of 45◦ (tan φ = 1) and a factor of safety, F = 1, then we can
draw a horizontal line in chart number 4 (see Figure 3.12) until we intersect the slope angle of 63◦ .
If we draw a vertical line, we obtain a value of 0.06 for c/(γ H F ). For a specific weight, γ , of
25,000 N/m3 and a height, H , of 25 m, we obtain a cohesion of 37.5 kPa.
For our analysis we select a cohesion value of 100 kPa, in order to start with a stable slope. The
value for c/(γ H tan φ) is then 0.16 and, using Figure 3.12, the value for c/(γ H F ) is 0.1 and F
is 1.61.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 21

GROUNDWATER FLOW CONDITIONS CHART

1
Fully drained slope

2
Surface water 8x slope
height behind toe of slope

3
Surface water 4x slope
height behind toe of slope

4
Surface water 2x slope
height behind toe of slope

5
Saturated slope subjected to
heavy surface recharge

Figure 3.11 Chart number as a function of groundwater flow conditions

(adapted from Hoek and Bray 1981)

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 22 Theory and Background

Figure 3.12 Circular failure chart number 4 (Hoek and Bray 1981)

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 23

FLAC3D Model
The FLAC 3D model shown in Figure 3.6 is created from two radial-cylinder primitive shapes and
three brick primitive shapes. The two ends of the first cylinder primitive have different radii to
create the angled slope. See the data file “slope3d.f3dat” in Example 3.2.
The free water surface is defined via the FISH file “WATER.FIS,” listed in Example 3.3. There are
two functions in this file: aux1 and aux2. The former is problem-specific and creates a series of
tables containing the x- and y-values of individual contour lines of the water surface. The latter
function is generic and combines the digitized contour lines stored in the tables to form the faces
(or surface patches) of the phreatic surface.
The model is assigned a Mohr-Coulomb material model and several properties:

bulk modulus 200 MPa

shear modulus 100 MPa
friction angle 45◦
cohesion 100 kPa
tension limit 100 kPa

The mass density of the dry material is 2500 kg/m3 , the mass density of the saturated material
is 2600 kg/m3 , and gravity is specified at 10 m/sec2 acting in the negative z-direction. The FISH
function ini dens assigns the different densities to zones above and below the water table. Roller
boundaries are placed along the sides of the model, and the bottom of the model is pinned.
The factor of safety is calculated by the strength reduction method using the SOLVE fos command.
A value of 1.70 is calculated for F . This is slightly higher than the factor of safety produced by the
circular failure chart, which suggests that there is a slight effect of slope curvature on the stability.
The resulting failure surface is depicted by the displacement contour plot shown in Figure 3.13;
the plot is made after restoring the file “flac3dFOS.f3sav.” This plot shows that a “scoop-shaped”
failure surface develops along the long side of the bathtub when strengths are reduced by a factor,
F , of 1.70.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 24 Theory and Background

A

+fff" ff  ffff

0©20f+ fM fEtf+i

 fgg1.
2©y2Gy0©20fS5g,50gf
 cc
#f/f2i,©
cc!  
Ci1g1.=b©2
Ci©©©©=b©2
1i©©©©=b©2
0i©©©©=b©2
2i©©©©=b©2
©i©©©©=a©©

+ fM fEtf+i
tfff7

Figure 3.13 Displacement contours in the FLAC 3D model at the failure state

This problem was also run with the two-dimensional program FLAC in both plane-strain mode (see
data file “SL-PS.DAT” in Example 3.4) and axisymmetry mode (see data file “SL-AXI.DAT” in
Example 3.5). The model geometry was created to match that in the vertical section through the
FLAC 3D model (see Figure 3.14).
The calculation for factor of safety in the plane-strain model closely matches that from the circular
failure chart, F = 1.60. The displacement contour and vector plot at failure shows a failure surface
similar to that from FLAC 3D. Compare Figure 3.15 to Figure 3.16, which plots displacement
contours and vectors on a vertical plane through the FLAC 3D model at y = −30.
The factor-of-safety calculation for the axisymmetric model produces a value for F = 2.35. This
further indicates that the greater curvature produces a more stable slope.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 25

JOB TITLE : . (*10^1)

FLAC (Version 7.00)

4.000

LEGEND

14-Nov-11 11:37 3.000

step 0
-4.444E+00 <x< 8.444E+01
-3.944E+01 <y< 4.944E+01
2.000

Grid plot

0 2E 1 1.000

Water Table

0.000

-1.000

-2.000

-3.000

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.

Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500 7.500
(*10^1)

Figure 3.14 FLAC model grid

JOB TITLE : . (*10^1)

FLAC (Version 7.00)

4.000

LEGEND

16-May-12 13:32 3.000

step 5680
-4.444E+00 <x< 8.444E+01
-3.944E+01 <y< 4.944E+01
2.000

Factor of Safety 1.60

X-displacement contours
-4.50E+00 1.000
-4.00E+00
-3.50E+00
-3.00E+00
-2.50E+00 0.000

-2.00E+00
-1.50E+00
-1.00E+00 -1.000
-5.00E-01
0.00E+00

Contour interval= 5.00E-01 -2.000

Displacement vectors
max vector = 4.927E+00
-3.000
0 1E 1

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.

Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 4.500 5.500 6.500 7.500
(*10^1)

Figure 3.15 Displacement contours and vectors for plane-strain FLAC model

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 26 Theory and Background

A

mfff" ff  ffff

0©20fm fM f4tfmi

 fgg1.
2©y2Gy0©20fS5g,50gf
nn"l!  
5ff
©i©©©©+a©©
b2i©©©©+b©2
b0i©©©©+b©2
b1i©©©©+b©2
bCi©©©©+b©2
bCi©1gG+b©2
!  
5ff
 5f©iC2,1Gg
5f22iSGS1

m fM f4tfmi
tfff7

Figure 3.16 Displacement contours and vectors for FLAC 3D model along a
vertical plane at y = −30

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 27

Example 3.2 “SLOPE3D.F3DAT”

;-------------------------------------------------------------
; influence of slope curvature on stability
; of an open pit
;-------------------------------------------------------------

new project
set fish autocreate off

title ’Influence of slope curvature on stability of an open pit’

; create model by joining radial cylinder and brick primitives

gen zone radcyl &
p0 0 0 25 p1 add 80 0 0 p2 add 0 0 -25 p3 add 0 80 0 &
dim 24.5 24.5 12 12 ratio 1 1 1 1.1
gen zone radcyl &
p0 0 0 0 p1 add 80 0 0 p2 add 0 0 -15 p3 add 0 80 0 &
dim 12 12 12 12 ratio 1 1 1 1.1 fill size 5 7 10 10
gen zone brick &
p0 0 -40 -15 p1 add 12 0 0 p2 add 0 40 0 p3 add 0 0 15 &
size 5 12 7
gen zone brick &
p0 12 -40 -15 p1 add 68 0 0 p2 add 0 40 0 p3 add 0 0 15 &
size 10 12 7 ratio 1.1 1 1
gen zone brick &
p0 12 -40 0 p1 add 68 0 0 p2 add 0 40 0 p3 add 12.5 0 25 &
p4 add 68 40 0 p5 add 12.5 40 25 p6 add 68 0 25 p7 add 68 40 25 &
size 10 12 10 rat 1.1 1 1

; initialize gravity
set gravity 0 0 -10

; install water table

ini pp 0 grad 0 0 -1e4 range z -15.1 0
table 1 12 0 18.25 12.5 25 17 35 21 50 24 75 25 150 25
call water.fis suppress ; load support functions
@aux1(7,10)
@aux2(7,10)

; assign Mohr Coulomb model and properties

model mech mohr
prop bulk 2e8 she 1e8 fric 45 coh 1e5 ten 1e5
; boundary conditions
fix x range x -.1 .1

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 28 Theory and Background

fix x range x 79.9 80.1

fix y range y -40.1 -39.9
fix y range y 79.9 80.1
fix x range z -15.1 -14.9
fix y range z -15.1 -14.9
fix z range z -15.1 -14.9

; initialize density: saturated and unsaturated

define ini_dens
local pnt = zone_head
loop while pnt # null
if z_pp(pnt) # 0.0 then
z_density(pnt) = 2600
else
z_density(pnt) = 2500
endif
pnt = z_next(pnt)
endloop
end
@ini_dens

; initialize stresses
ini syy -6.25e5 grad 0 0 2.5e4
ini sxx -6.25e5 grad 0 0 2.5e4
ini szz -6.25e5 grad 0 0 2.5e4

; histories
hist nstep 10
hist add unbal
hist add gp xdisp 24.5 -40 25
hist add gp zdisp 24.5 -40 25
hist add gp xdisp 24.5 0 25
hist add gp ydisp 24.5 0 25
hist add gp zdisp 24.5 0 25
hist add gp ydisp 0 24.5 25
hist add gp zdisp 0 24.5 25

sav ini

; calculate fos
solve fos file FOSslope
return

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 29

Example 3.3 “WATER.FIS”

define aux1(nptab1,nprof)
local n
local k
local rr
local zz
local alfa
loop n(1,nptab1)
rr = xtable(1,n)
zz = ytable(1,n)
loop k(1,nprof)
case_of k
alfa=0.5*(pi+.1)*float(k-2)/float(nprof-2)
xtable(n+10,k)=rr*cos(alfa)
ytable(n+10,k)=rr*sin(alfa)
case 1
xtable(n+10,k)=rr
ytable(n+10,k)=-40.0
case 2
xtable(n+10,k)=rr
ytable(n+10,k)=0.0
end_case
end_loop
end_loop
end

define aux2(nptab1,nprof)
local n
local k
command
water dens 1000
end_command
loop n(1,nptab1-1)
loop k (1,nprof-1)
global xx1=xtable(n+10,k)
global yy1=ytable(n+10,k)
global zz1=ytable(1,n)
global xx2=xtable(n+10,k+1)
global yy2=ytable(n+10,k+1)
global zz2=zz1
global xx3=xtable(n+11,k+1)
global yy3=ytable(n+11,k+1)
global zz3=ytable(1,n+1)
global xx4=xtable(n+11,k)

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 30 Theory and Background

global yy4=ytable(n+11,k)
global zz4=zz3
command
water table face @xx1,@yy1,@zz1 @xx2,@yy2,@zz2 @xx3,@yy3,@zz3
water table face @xx1,@yy1,@zz1 @xx3,@yy3,@zz3 @xx4,@yy4,@zz4
end_command
end_loop
end_loop
end

return

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 31

Example 3.4 “SL-PS.DAT”

config extra 5
tit
Plane Strain Simulation
grid 15 17
mod mo
mo null i 1 5 j 8 17
gen 0 -15 0 0 12 0 12 -15 i 1 6 j 1 8
gen s s 80 0 80 -15 rat 1.1 1 i 6 16 j 1 8
gen s 24.5 25 80 25 s rat 1.1 1 i 6 16 j 8 18
fix x i 1
fix x y j 1
fix x i 16
pro bul 2e8 she 1e8 den 2500 fric 45 coh 1e5 ten 1e5
set grav 10
water den 1000
table 1 0 0 12 0 18.25 12.5 25 17 35 21 50 24 74.5 25 80 25
water table 1
def ini_dens
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
if pp(i,j) # 0 then
density(i,j) = 2600.
end_if
end_loop
end_loop
end
ini_dens
ini syy -1e6 var 0 1e6
ini sxx -1e6 var 0 1e6
ini szz -1e6 var 0 1e6
his unbal
hist xd i 6 j 18
hist yd i 6 j 18
solve fos
ret

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 32 Theory and Background

Example 3.5 “SL-AXI.DAT”

config extra 5 axi
tit
Axisymmetry Simulation
grid 15 17
mod mo
mo null i 1 5 j 8 17
gen 0 -15 0 0 12 0 12 -15 i 1 6 j 1 8
gen s s 80 0 80 -15 rat 1.1 1 i 6 16 j 1 8
gen s 24.5 25 80 25 s rat 1.1 1 i 6 16 j 8 18
fix x i 1
fix x y j 1
fix x i 16
pro bul 2e8 she 1e8 den 2500 fric 45 coh 1e5 ten 1e5
set grav 10
water den 1000
table 1 0 0 12 0 18.25 12.5 25 17 35 21 50 24 74.5 25 80 25
water table 1
def ini_dens
loop i (1,izones)
loop j (1,jzones)
if pp(i,j) # 0 then
density(i,j) = 2600.
end_if
end_loop
end_loop
end
ini_dens
ini syy -1e6 var 0 1e6
ini sxx -1e6 var 0 1e6
ini szz -1e6 var 0 1e6
his unbal
hist xd i 6 j 18
hist yd i 6 j 18
solve fos
ret

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 33

3.5.3 Verification Tests for a Simple Slope in Hoek-Brown Material

Verification exercises are performed to validate the factor-of-safety calculation using Hoek-Brown
material in FLAC 3D. The exercises test the strength reduction calculation based upon shear strength,
τ.
The factor of safety with respect to Hoek-Brown shear strength is calculated for a simple slope
geometry and compared to results based upon other methods to calculate a safety factor for Hoek-
Brown material (generalized Hoek-Brown, equivalent Mohr-Coulomb, and Bishop and Spencer
limit equilibrium methods) reported by Hammah et al. (2005). The rock slope for this comparison
calculation has an inclination of 45◦ and a height of 10 m. The rock is represented as a Hoek-Brown
material with the following properties:

E = 5000 MPa
ν = 0.3
ρ = 2500 kg/m3
mb = 0.067
s = 0.000025
a = 0.619
σci = 30 MPa

The FLAC 3D model mesh used for this test is shown in Figure 3.17. By default, when SOLVE fos is
executed for a FLAC 3D model with MODEL mechanical mhoekbrown, the factor of safety calculation
is performed for Hoek-Brown material with respect to shear strength. The calculated factor of safety
for this test is 1.16. The failure surface is shown by the shear strain contour plot in Figure 3.18. The
result compares well with the results reported by Hammah et al. (2005). Table 3.1 summarizes the
safety factors reported for this test.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 34 Theory and Background

A

,rp,0N 0m 0hl0Ng

 0r
prGp/G,rp,0:5eS5.p0


m500
00
!

N 0m 0hl0Ng
l000U

Figure 3.17 Slope model mesh

A

,rp,0- 0y 07l0-g

 0p,r.3
prGp3G,rp,09:eS:.,0
 cc
#0P0pgp3
cc.ccc 
y $0:0# 0d"
pg636rAir.
pg6rrrAir.
pg3rrrAir.
pgerrrAir.
pgSrrrAir.
pg.rrrAir.
pg,rrrAir.
pgprrrAir.
pgrrrrAir.
9grrrrAirS
/grrrrAirS
6grrrrAirS
3grrrrAirS
egrrrrAirS
SgrrrrAirS
.grrrrAirS
,grrrrAirS
pgrrrrAirS
/g.rS9Air6

- 0y 07l0-g
l000d

Figure 3.18 Factor of safety and failure surface calculated for simple slope
in Hoek-Brown material

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 35

Table 3.1 Factor-of-safety results for Hoek-Brown slope

Method Factor of Safety
MODEL mechanical mhoekbrown wrt shear strength 1.16
generalized Hoek-Brown strength reduction* 1.15
equivalent Mohr-Coulomb strength reduction* 1.15
Bishop’s simplified limit equilibrium* 1.153
Spencer’s limit equilibrium* 1.152

* from Hammah et al. (2005)

Hammah et al. (2005) also report the results for the case in which a horizontal layer of Mohr-
Coulomb material is located at the toe of the slope. The layer is 1 m thick and has zero cohesion
and 25◦ friction. The slope with the Mohr-Coulomb layer is shown in Figure 3.19.
When SOLVE fos is issued, the strength reduction method is performed concurrently for Hoek-
Brown material, as described in Section 3.4.1.3, and for Mohr-Coulomb material, as described in
Section 3.4.1.1. The factor of safety calculated for this model is 0.93. The results are shown in
Figure 3.20.
Table 3.2 compares the FLAC 3D result with results from other methods reported by Hammah et al.
(2005).

A

,rp,0 0h 0Ul0g

 0r
prGp/G,rp,0:5eS5.,0


h50$

!



 0h 0Ul0g
l000d

Figure 3.19 Simple slope in Hoek-Brown material with a Mohr-Coulomb

layer

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 36 Theory and Background

A

,rp,0- 0y 04l0-g

 0.rp/e
prGp9G,rp,0.7r57e90
 cc
#0P0rg/.
cc.ccc 
y $070# 0d"
pg,S9/Air,
pg,rrrAir,
pgprrrAir,
pgrrrrAir,
/grrrrAir.
5grrrrAir.
9grrrrAir.
3grrrrAir.
egrrrrAir.
SgrrrrAir.
.grrrrAir.
,grrrrAir.
pgrrrrAir.
3gSrS3Air3

- 0y 04l0-g
l000d

Figure 3.20 Factor of safety and failure surface calculated for simple slope
in Hoek-Brown material with Mohr-Coulomb layer

Table 3.2 Hoek-Brown slope with Mohr-Coulomb layer

Method Factor of Safety
MODEL mech mhoekbrown wrt shear strength & MODEL mech mohr 0.93
generalized Hoek-Brown strength reduction* 0.96
Bishop’s simplified limit equilibrium* 0.934
Spencer’s limit equilibrium* 0.963

* from Hammah et al. (2005)

Example 3.6 lists the FLAC 3D commands for these two problems.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 37

Example 3.6 Factor of safety with respect to shear strength for Hoek-Brown material
;************************************************************************
; FoS wrt Shear Strength for HB Material
;*************************************************************************
new project
;
; --- geometry ---
gen zone brick p0 0 0 0 p1 40 0 0 p2 0 1 0 p3 0 0 8 size 80 1 16
gen zone brick p0 15 0 8 p1 40 0 8 p2 15 1 8 p3 25 0 18 &
p4 40 1 8 p5 25 1 18 p6 40 0 18 p7 40 1 18 size 50 1 20
;
; --- mhoek model ---
model mech mhoek
prop dens 2.5e-3 young 5000. poisson 0.3
prop hbmb 0.067
prop hbs 2.5e-5
prop hba 0.619
prop hbsigci 30.0
prop hbtension 1.0e10
prop hb_doption 0.0
prop hb_poption 1
prop hb_soption 0 hbpsi 0 hb_len 0
;
; --- boundary conditions ---
fix x range x -0.1 0.1
fix x range x 39.9 40.1
fix y
fix z range z -0.1 0.1
;
; --- settings ---
set gravity 0 0 -10
save ini
;
; --- histories ---
hist unbal
hist gp zdisp 25 0 18
;
; --- solution ---
solve fos file flac3dFOS
;
;
;
;
;************************************************************************

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 38 Theory and Background

; FoS wrt Shear Strength for HB Material

; with a Mohr-Coulomb Layer
;*************************************************************************
new project
;
; --- geometry ---
gen zone brick p0 0 0 0 p1 40 0 0 p2 0 1 0 p3 0 0 8 size 80 1 16
gen zone brick p0 15 0 8 p1 40 0 8 p2 15 1 8 p3 25 0 18 &
p4 40 1 8 p5 25 1 18 p6 40 0 18 p7 40 1 18 size 50 1 20
;
; --- mhoek model ---
model mech mhoek
prop dens 2.5e-3 young 5000. poisson 0.3
prop hbmb 0.067
prop hbs 2.5e-5
prop hba 0.619
prop hbsigci 30.0
;prop hbtension 1.0e10
prop hb_doption 0.0
prop hb_poption 1
prop hb_soption 0 hbpsi 0 hb_len 0
;
; --- mohr-coulomb layer ---
model mech mohr range z 8 9
prop young 5000. poisson 0.3 range z 8 9
prop cohesion 0 friction 25 tension 0 range z 8 9
;
; --- boundary conditions ---
fix x range x -0.1 0.1
fix x range x 39.9 40.1
fix y
fix z range z -0.1 0.1
;
; --- settings ---
set gravity 0 0 -10
save ini2
;
; --- histories ---
hist unbal
hist gp zdisp 25 0 18
;
; --- solution ---
solve fos file flac3dFOS2
ret

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 39

3.5.4 Automatic Calculation of a Stable Pit Slope Angle

A pit slope is excavated in strong rock that contains an 8 m thick vertical band of weak rock. The
slope is composed of two 20-m high benches with a 10-m wide berm. Both benches are initially
inclined at 60◦ to the horizontal. Figure 3.21 shows the initial slope configuration and the location
of the weak rock within the strong rock.

A

,rp,0 0k 0l0g

 0r
prGp/G,rp,063.:3e70


k30000000y
 !
!!

 0k 0l0g
l000y

Figure 3.21 Benched slope in rock with a weak vertical band

The strengths of the strong rock and weak rock are prescribed by a Mohr-Coulomb material model.
The strong rock has a cohesion of 15 kPa and a friction angle of 40◦ , and the weak rock has a
cohesion of 7 kPa and friction angle of 20◦ . Both rock types are assigned a zero tensile strength, a
mass density of 2000 kg/m3 , a bulk modulus of 10 GPa and shear modulus of 3 GPa.
A factor-of-safety calculation performed for these slope conditions indicates that the slope is un-
stable. A factor of 0.81 is calculated, and the failure (as shown in Figure 3.22) is primarily through
the weak rock in both the upper and lower benches.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 40 Theory and Background

A

,rp,0E 0b 0vl0Eg

 07rrr
prGp9G,rp,0/:.7:e70
 cc
#0P0rg6p
cc.ccc 
b $0:0# 08"
.g/9Spmir,
.g/errmir,
.gerrrmir,
.g,errmir,
.grrrrmir,
,g/errmir,
,gerrrmir,
,g,errmir,
,grrrrmir,
pg/errmir,
pgerrrmir,
pg,errmir,
pgrrrrmir,
/gerrrmir.
egrrrrmir.
,gerrrmir.
pg,Sr/mir9

E 0b 0vl0Eg
l0008

Figure 3.22 Factor of safety and failure surface (shown by shear strain con-
tours) for slope with benches inclined at 60◦

The purpose of this exercise is to determine the slope angle for the upper and lower benches
that produces a stable slope condition with a factor of safety of 1.3. This analysis is performed
automatically by adjusting the slope angle in increments until a factor of 1.3 is reached. The model
is created using the extrusion pane in FLAC 3D, and a FISH function is used to adjust the slope angle
automatically in order to calculate a safety factor for each slope angle. A series of calculations is
performed until the factor reaches 1.3.
Figure 3.23 shows the slope boundary that is sketched first in the construction view of the extrusion
pane. The model width at the base is 100 m, and the model height is 60 m. Additional edges are
added to the sketch to divide the slope shape into quadrilateral blocks in order to create a structured
grid for this model. See Figure 3.24.
The zoning is defined in the construction view by specifying a model extent of 30 zones in the
Autozone dialog. The blocks in the construction view are all given the group name “strongrock.”
Selected gridpoints are also assigned group names. These gridpoints can then be moved to corre-
spond to the change in slope angle that is performed in the FISH function. The gridpoint at the
front of the berm above the lower bench is assigned the group name “pt1.” The gridpoint at the
back of the berm and the two gridpoints below this gridpoint are assigned the group name “pt2.”
(This assignment is shown in Figure 3.25.) The gridpoint at the top of the upper bench is assigned
group name “pt3.”

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 41

Figure 3.23 Benched slope boundary sketch in extrusion pane

Figure 3.24 Additional edges to divide the slope shape into blocks

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 42 Theory and Background

Figure 3.25 Assignment of group name “pt2” to selected gridpoints in the

construction view

The model depth is prescribed in the extrusion view to be 40 m. The extent of the 8 m wide
weak rock is also set, and the zones within this region are given the group name “weakrock.” See
Figure 3.26:

Figure 3.26 Assignment of group name “weakrock” to zones in the extrusion

view

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 43

The extruded model is shown in Figure 3.27. The mesh in this model is relatively coarse for this
illustrative example. The zoning can easily be changed by returning to the extrusion pane. The
input record for this extrusion model is saved from the Panes menu in FLAC 3D. The record is named
“benchextude.f3dat.”

A

,rp,0 0w 0l0g

 0r
prGp/G,rp,063.:3e:0


w30000000A
 !
!!

 0w 0l0g
l000A

Figure 3.27 FLAC 3D model of a benched slope in rock with a weak vertical
band

A factor-of-safety calculation is made for this slope geometry and for a series of geometries with the
slope angle of both benches reduced in 2.5◦ increments. The data file controlling these calculations
is listed in Example 3.7.
A FISH function named bench xpos is used to move the gridpoints with group names “pt1,”
“pt2” and “pt3” as the slope angle of the benches is reduced from 60◦ . At each angle reduction,
EXTRUDE transform translate commands are used to translate the selected gridpoints to new positions
corresponding to the new slope angle. The bench xpos FISH function is listed in Example 3.8.
The factor of safety is calculated for each change in slope angle. A new grid is created each time the
angle is reduced (using the GENERATE zone extrude command), material properties and boundary
conditions are assigned, and a factor-of-safety calculation is performed. The commands to create
the model and solve for the factor of safety of each new slope are listed in Example 3.9.
A total of eleven factor-of-safety calculations are performed as the slope angle is reduced from
60◦ to 35◦ . A table plot of factor-of-safety values versus slope angle can be displayed during the
calculations to monitor the effect of slope angle on safety factor. A plot of the table at the completion
of the calculations is shown in Figure 3.28.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 44 Theory and Background

A


,rp,0 0& 0l0g
 03.e.
prGp7G,rp,036Sr6rr0

o% o o#
p0




 oo 












 0& 0l0g             
l000A o#od# rotc$t

Figure 3.28 Factor of safety versus slope angle

The factor of safety is 1.33 at the final inclination of 35◦ . The failure surface is confined to the upper
bench for this slope geometry, as shown in Figure 3.29. The table plot in Figure 3.28 indicates that
a factor of 1.3 is reached at a slope angle of 36◦ .
FISH function “BENCH XPOS.FIS” allows for adjustment of the upper- and lower-bench slope
angles independently (with FISH variables theta1 and theta2) and adjustment of the bench
width (with FISH variable w). Additional runs can then be made to evaluate the effect of variation
in these variables on safety factor. (Note that the model boundary is not changed in this illustrative
exercise, which limits the range of reduction of the slope angle.)

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 45

A

,rp,0E 0y 08l0Eg

 03.e.
prGp7G,rp,036Sr6rr0
 cc
#0P0pg..
cc.ccc 
y $060# 0d"
pg5/SpAir,
pg5rrrAir,
pg3rrrAir,
pg7rrrAir,
pgerrrAir,
pgSrrrAir,
pg.rrrAir,
pg,rrrAir,
pgprrrAir,
pgrrrrAir,
/grrrrAir.
5grrrrAir.
3grrrrAir.
7grrrrAir.
egrrrrAir.
SgrrrrAir.
.grrrrAir.
,grrrrAir.
pgrrrrAir.
pg,37SAire

E 0y 08l0Eg
l000d

Figure 3.29 Factor of safety and failure surface for slope with benches in-
clined at 35◦

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 46 Theory and Background

Example 3.7 Series of factor-of-safety calculations for variation in slope angle

new
sys "del *.f3sav"
call benchextrude
;
call bench_xpos.fis
set @_theta1 = 60.0 @_theta2 = 60.0 @_w = 10.0
set @_xa = 21.547 @_xb = 31.5470 @_xc = 43.094
@bench_xpos
save bench00
;
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 57.5 @_theta2 = 57.5
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 55.0 @_theta2 = 55.0
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 52.5 @_theta2 = 52.5
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 50.0 @_theta2 = 50.0
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 47.5 @_theta2 = 47.5
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 45.0 @_theta2 = 45.0
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 47

set @_theta1 = 42.5 @_theta2 = 42.5

@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 40.0 @_theta2 = 40.0
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 37.5 @_theta2 = 37.5
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]
;
set @_theta1 = 35.0 @_theta2 = 35.0
@bench_xpos
call calc_fos
table 1 @_theta1 [fos_f]

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 48 Theory and Background

Example 3.8 “BENCH XPOS.FIS” – Translate gridpoints as slope angle varies

; translate gridpoints as a function of slope angle change
def bench_xpos
global _theta1
global _theta2
global _w
global _xa
global _xb
global _xc
global _dxa
global _dxb
global _dxc
;
_t1 = _theta1*degrad
_t2 = _theta2*degrad
;
_xa1 = 10.0 + 20.0 / tan(_t1)
_xb1 = _xa1 + _w
_xc1 = _xb1 + 20.0 / tan(_t2)
;
_dxa = -(_xa - _xa1)
_dxb = -(_xb - _xb1)
_dxc = -(_xc - _xc1)
;
_xa = _xa + _dxa
_xb = _xb + _dxb
_xc = _xc + _dxc
;
command
extrude transform translate (@_dxc,0) range group pt3
extrude transform translate (@_dxb,0) range group pt2
extrude transform translate (@_dxa,0) range group pt1
endcommand
end

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 49

Example 3.9 “CALC FOS.F3DAT” – Evaluate factor of safety for new slope geometry
; evaluate FoS for new geometry
delete zones
generate zone extrude
model mech mohr
prop dens 2000 bulk 1e10 shear 3e9
prop cohesion 15000 friction 40
prop cohesion 7000 friction 20 range group ’weakrock’
fix x range x 0
fix x range x 100
fix y range y 0
fix y range y 40
fix x y z range z 0
set gravity 0 0 -10
solve fos

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 50 Theory and Background

3.5.5 Factor-of-Safety Contours

Typically, application of the strength reduction method produces one single factor of safety per
simulation, corresponding to one global minimum stability state. However, the ability to calculate
multiple minimum states may be of interest, for example, along a complex slope profile such as a
benched cut or a slope with a berm (e.g., see Cheng et al. 2007). A “safety map” may be constructed
through a series of analyses using the limit equilibrium method to identify multiple possible failure
surfaces for slopes of this type (Baker and Leshchinsky 2001).
A simple procedure to determine multiple local stability states with the strength reduction method
is to exclude different regions of the slope when performing the strength reduction calculation.
Alternatively, the explicit dynamic solution method employed in FLAC 3D allows multiple local
stability surfaces to be identified in one FLAC 3D simulation. When using the SOLVE fos command,
model instability is detected by monitoring the unbalanced force ratio throughout the model. This
provides a minimum global factor of safety for the model. In an alternative technique, presented
here, material strengths are reduced in increments by a strength reduction factor. Unstable states for
the model are identified at the global minimum state and then beyond that state. Unstable states of
the model are identified at each stage as an assembly of gridpoints with velocities above a specified
average value. The current strength reduction factor is assigned to unstable gridpoints for later
contouring.
If the strength is reduced in small intervals, progressively more regions of gridpoints can be identified
as unstable. By monitoring the velocities, it is possible to delineate the regions of unstable gridpoints
by different strength factors and produce a plot of “factor-of-safety contours.” This plot can be used
to locate multiple possible failure surfaces, and is comparable to the safety map developed using
the limit equilibrium method.
This technique is demonstrated for a slope profile consisting of two double-inclination slopes
separated by a horizontal berm. This example is taken from Cheng et al. (2007), who produced a
set of local minimum stability states for this slope using the Morgenstern-Price limit equilibrium
method. The slope configuration and resulting local minima locations are shown in Figure 3.30.
FLAC3D Model
The FLAC 3D data file created for this example is listed in Example 3.10. The slope geometry is drawn
in the extrusion pane, and the extruded-grid input record is saved as data file “bermextrude.f3dat.”
The slope is oriented in the x-z plane and is one zone thick in the y-direction. The mesh density is
specified with the EXTRUDE set autozone size 160 command.
A FLAC 3D simulation is first run to determine the global minimum factor of safety for this slope
using the SOLVE fos command. The result, shown by the shear strain contour plot in Figure 3.31,
is a global minimum factor-of-safety of 1.34 with a multiple failure surface that corresponds to the
two surfaces with smallest factor-of-safety values shown in the lower slope in Figure 3.30.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 51

Figure 3.30 Local minima surfaces from limit equilibrium solution

for slope with beam (from Cheng et al. 2007)

A

,rp,07 0m 0El07g

 0,reSp
prGp5G,rp,069.S9..0
nnInnn 
m $090# 0y"
/g6/prvirp
/grrrrvirp
4grrrrvirp
5grrrrvirp
egrrrrvirp
Sgrrrrvirp
.grrrrvirp
,grrrrvirp
pgrrrrvirp
Sg4,4SvirS
 nn
#0P0pg.S

E090y


7 0m 0El07g
l000y

Figure 3.31 Global minimum factor of safety for slope with berm

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 52 Theory and Background

The safety factor from the SOLVE fos command identifies the starting factor to develop a set of
factor-of-safety contours for this model. Factor-of-safety contours are calculated for this slope
model by using the “FOS CONTOURS.FIS” FISH function listed in Example 3.11. This function
incrementally reduces the Mohr-Coulomb strengths, cohesion and friction. A stable or new unstable
state is determined at each strength-reduction increment, and if the state is unstable, the portion of the
model that is failing is identified by evaluating gridpoint velocities. New gridpoints with velocities
greater than a specified value are identified as failing, and are assigned the current strength-reduction
increment factor, which is stored in the extra grid variable gp extra(pnt,1). After the simulation is
complete for the selected range of strength-reduction increments, a contour plot of gp extra(pnt,1)
values is produced. This is a factor-of-safety contour plot.
The input values for the fos contour function are the starting value for strength reduction,
fsmin, the reduction factor increment, inc fs, the cycle limit for each stage, max num cyc,
and the limiting velocity threshold for a gridpoint at failure, vel limit. For this example, fsmin
= 1.1, inc fs = 0.05, max num cyc = 30000, and vel limit = 10−4 . The maximum cycle
limit and velocity limit are problem-dependent; their values may be selected after trial runs with
strength properties reduced to determine the velocity magnitude level at which failing gridpoints
are well-defined.
The factor-of-safety contour plot produced for this example is shown in Figure 3.32. The contours
compare quite well with the local minima surfaces plot in Figure 3.30. Note that the global minimum
contour line (at a factor of 1.3) in Figure 3.32 closely matches the smallest local minimum surface
in Figure 3.30. The next contour lines, at factors of 1.35 and 1.4 below and above the berm, also
compare well with the failure surfaces identified in Figure 3.30. The factor-of-safety contour plot
also shows a contour shape (see, for example, the 1.45 contour in Figure 3.32) that curves upward
beneath the berm. Note that this effect on the shape of the failure surface is not seen with the limit
equilibrium method (compare to the 1.42 surface in Figure 3.30).
This exercise demonstrates that the strength reduction method can be applied to produce multiple
potential failure surfaces in one simulation by monitoring failure in terms of the development of
unstable regions (defined by high gridpoint velocities) as the strength of the material is incrementally
reduced.

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 53

A

,rp,0 0U 0l0g

 0.pp.S/
prGp3G,rp,0/6.S6.S0
S 
pge4er'urr
pgeerr'urr
pgerrr'urr
pgSerr'urr
pgSrrr'urr
pg.err'urr
pg.rrr'urr
pg.rrr'urr

060 0r


 0U 0l0g
l000+

Figure 3.32 Factor-of-safety contours for slope with berm

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 54 Theory and Background

Example 3.10 Global and local factor-of-safety calculations for slope with berm
call bermextrude
extrude set autozone size 160
generate zone extrude
;
model mech mohr
prop dens 2000 bulk 6.25e6 shear 2.88462e6
prop cohesion 5000 friction 30 tension 1e100
;
fix x range x 0
fix x range x 55
fix y
fix x y z range z 0
set gravity 0 0 -10
solve elastic
save berm0
;
solve fos file FOSberm
;
rest berm0
ini xd 0 yd 0 zd 0
ini xv 0 yv 0 zv 0
call fos_contours.fis
set @fsmin=1.1 @vel_limit 1e-4 @inc_fs= 0.05 @max_num_cyc=30000
set @total_stages=10 @inc_tension=0
@fos_contours
save foscontours.f3sav
ret

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 55

Example 3.11 “FOS CONTOURS.FIS” – Calculate factor-of-safety contours

config zextra 3 gpextra 1
def fos_contours
numb = 0
k = 0
pnt = gp_head
loop while pnt # null
gp_extra(pnt,1) = 0
pnt = gp_next(pnt)
endloop
pnt = zone_head
loop while pnt # null
z_extra(pnt,1) = z_prop(pnt,’cohesion’)
z_extra(pnt,2) = z_prop(pnt,’friction’)
z_extra(pnt,3) = z_prop(pnt,’tension’)
pnt = z_next(pnt)
endloop
;
loop while k < total_stages
fs = fsmin + k*inc_fs
pnt = zone_head
loop while pnt # null
z_prop(pnt,’cohesion’)=z_extra(pnt,1) / fs
z_prop(pnt,’friction’)=atan(tan(z_extra(pnt,2)*degrad)/fs)/degrad
if inc_tension = 1 then
z_prop(pnt,’tension’) = z_extra(pnt,3)/fs
endif
pnt =z_next(pnt)
endloop
;
num_cyl_0 = step
command
solve step @max_num_cyc
endcommand
pnt = gp_head
loop while pnt # null
if gp_extra(pnt,1) = 0 then
velomag = (gp_xvel(pnt))ˆ2 + (gp_yvel(pnt))ˆ2 + (gp_zvel(pnt))ˆ2
velocidad = (velomag)ˆ0.5
if abs(velocidad) > vel_limit then
gp_extra(pnt,1) = fs - inc_fs
endif
endif
pnt = gp_next(pnt)

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 56 Theory and Background

endloop
if (step-num_cyl_0)>max_num_cyc then
numb = numb+1
endif
k = k + 1
endloop
pnt = gp_head
loop while pnt # null
if gp_extra(pnt,1) = 0 then
gp_extra(pnt,1) = fs + inc_fs/2.0
endif
pnt = gp_next(pnt)
endloop
end

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

FACTOR OF SAFETY 3 - 57

3.6 References

Abramson, L. W., et al. Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. New York, USA (2002).
Baker, R., and D. Leshchinsky. “Spatial distribution of safety factors,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 127(2), 135-45 (2001).
Bishop, A. W. “The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes,” Géotechnique,
5, 7-17 (1955).
Chen, W.-F. Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity. J. Ross Publishing (2007).
Cheng, Y. M., T. Lansivaara and W. B. Wei. “Two-dimensional slope stability analysis by limit
equilibrium and strength reduction methods,” Computers and Geotechnics, 34, 137-150 (2007).
Davis, R. O., and A. P. S. Selvadurai. Plasticity and Geomechanics. Cambridge University Press
(2002).
Dawson, E. M., and W. H. Roth. “Slope Stability Analysis with FLAC,” in FLAC and Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics (Proceedings of the International FLAC Symposium on Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 1999), pp. 3-9. C. Detournay
and R. Hart, eds. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema (1999).
Dawson, E. M., W. H. Roth and A. Drescher. “Slope Stability Analysis by Strength Reduction,”
Géotechnique, 49(6), 835-840 (1999).
Dawson, E., K. You and Y. Park. “Strength-Reduction Stability Analysis of Rock Slopes Using
the Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion,” in Trends in Rock Mechanics (Proceedings of Sessions of
Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colorado, August 2000). Geotechnical Special Publication No. 102,
pp. 65-77. J. F. Labuz, S. D. Glaser and E. Dawson, eds. Reston, Virginia: ASCE (2000).
Donald, I. B., and S. K. Giam. “Application of the nodal displacement method to slope stabil-
ity analysis,” in Proceedings of the 5th Australia-New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics
(Sydney, Australia, August 1988), pp. 456-460. Sydney: Institution of Engineers (1988).
Drescher, A., and E. Detournay. “Limit load in transitional failure mechanisms for associative and
non-associative materials,” Géotechnique, 43, 443-456 (1993).
Fellenius, W. “Calculation of the stability of earth dams,” Proceedings of the 2nd Congress on
Large Dams (Washington D. C.), Vol. 4. U. S. Government Printing Office (1936).
Fu, W., and Y. Liao. “Non-linear shear strength reduction technique in slope stability calculation,”
Computers and Geotechnics, 37, 288-298 (2009).
Griffiths, D. V., and P. A. Lane. “Slope Stability Analysis by Finite Elements,” Géotechnique,
49(3), 387-403 (1999).
Hammah, R. E., et al. “The shear strength reduction method for the generalized Hoek-Brown
criterion,” ARMA/USRMS 05-810 (2005).

FLAC 3D Version 5.01

3 - 58 Theory and Background

Hoek, E., and J. Bray. Rock Slope Engineering. London: IMM (1981).
Janbu, N. “Slope stability computations,” in Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Rep., The Technical
University of Norway, Trondheim, Norway (1968).
Li, A. J., R. S. Merifield and A. V. Lyamin. “Stability charts for rock slopes based on the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion,” Int. J. Rock Mech. and Mining Sci., 45, 689-700 (2008).
Lowe, J., and L. Karafiath. “Stability of Earth Dams upon Drawdown,” in Proceedings of the 1st
Pan-Am. Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Mexico City, Mexico),
Vol. 2, pp. 537-552 (1960).
Matsui, T., and K. C. San. “Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction
technique,” Soils and Foundations, 32 (1) 59-70 (1992).
Michalowski, R. “Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128(4),
351-355 (April 2002).
Morgenstern, N. R., and V. E. Price. “The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces,”
Géotechnique, 15(1), 79-93 (1965).
Naylor, D. J. “Finite elements and slope stability,” in Numerical Methods in Geomechanics
(Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Lisbon, Portugal), pp. 229-244. J. B.
Martins, ed. D. Reidel Publishing Company (1982).
Shukha, R., and R. Baker. “Mesh geometry effects on slope stability calculation by FLAC strength
reduction method – linear and non-linear criteria,” in FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geome-
chanics – 2003 (Proceedings of the 3rd International FLAC Symposium on Numerical Modeling
in Geomechanics, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, October 2003), pp. 109-116. R. Brummer et al.,
eds. Lisse: A. A. Balkema (2003).
Spencer, E. “A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel interslice
forces,” Géotechnique, 17(1), 11-26 (1967).
Taylor, D. W. “Stability of earth slopes,” J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng., 24, 197-246 (1937).
Transportation Research Board. “Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation,” TRB Special Report
247, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. (1996).
Ugai, K. “A method of calculation of total factor of safety of slopes by elasto-plastic FEM,” Soils
and Foundations, 29(2) 190-195 (in Japanese) 1989.
Ugai, K., and D. Leshchinsky. “Three-dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element analyses:
a comparison of results,” Soils and Foundations, 35(4) 1-7 (1995).
Zienkiewicz, O. C., C. Humpheson and R. W. Lewis. “Associated and non-associated visco-
plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics,” Géotechnique, 25(4), 671-689 (1975).

FLAC 3D Version 5.01