International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics Mining Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Limit equilibrium method for rock slope stability analysis by using the
Generalized HoekBrown criterion

crossmark

Deng Dong-pinga, , Li Lianga, Wang Jian-fengb, Zhao Lian-henga

a
b

School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China

Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China

A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Rock slope
Stability analysis
Limit equilibrium
Generalized HoekBrown (GHB) criterion
Factor of safety

1. Introduction
Predicting the stability of rock slopes is a classic problem for
geotechnical engineers and is crucial when designing dams, roads,
tunnels, and other engineering structures.1 It has therefore attracted
the attention of many researchers.212 The method used to describe the
failure behavior of the rock mass is critical in evaluating the stability of
rock slope. However, rock mass strength is a nonlinear stress function.1316 Therefore, the linear MohrCoulomb (MC) criterion1719
generally does not agree with the rock mass failure envelope, especially
for slope stability problems where the rock mass is in a state of low
conning stresses that make the nonlinearity more obvious.20,21 Using
a large amount of experimental data from eld tests conducted on
rocks, Hoek and Brown13 proposed the nonlinear HoekBrown (HB)
criterion in 1980. Thereafter, Hoek et al.22 improved the basic HB
criterion with the latest version, that is, the generalized HoekBrown
(GHB) criterion, in 2002, which has since been widely used for
estimating the strength of rock and rock masses.2328 Currently, the
GHB criterion can reect a rock's inherent nature and the eect of
certain factors such as the strength of the rock, the number of
structural planes, and the stress state, on the strength of rock mass;
hence, the GHB criterion is essential in studying the deformation and
failure characteristics of rock slopes.
Compared with the linear MC criterion, which includes two
parameter, cohesion c and internal friction angle , the nonlinear
GHB criterion has a more complex expression and more strength
parameters. Therefore, applying the nonlinear GHB criterion to the
stability analysis of rock slopes is dicult. The limit analysis method

(LAM)1,2936 has been adopted to study the stability of a rock slope

with the nonlinear GHB criterion because it is ideally suited to
modeling jointed and ssured materials with discontinuities that exist
inherently throughout the mesh. For example, Li et al.1 used numerical
limit analysis to produce stability charts for rock slopes. The numerical
simulation method (NSM)37,38 can also be used to solve the aforementioned problem. However, in contrast to the linear MC criterion used in
the limit equilibrium method (LEM), the nonlinear GHB criterion
cannot be easily applied as the known condition in the limit equilibrium equations because of its complex expression; hence, obtaining
the explicit solution for the slope factor of safety (FOS) with the
nonlinear GHB criterion is dicult, and few studies have addressed
this problem. Compared to the LAM and NSM, the LEM is based on a
simpler theory and yields more reliable results, and thus this method is
most preferred by engineers. Therefore, establishing the LEM for the
stability analysis of a rock slope with the nonlinear GHB criterion
would be a substantial development. At present, researchers usually
convert the rock mass strength parameters into the equivalent MC
parameters, as proposed by Hoek and Brown15 and Hoek et al.,22
following which the stability analysis of the rock slope is performed
using the LEM and these equivalent MC parameters. However,
studies1,29,32,39 have shown that this conversion produces inconsistent
estimates of the slope stability FOS and that the dierence in slope
stability estimated using the equivalent parameters and the native yield
criterion were as high as 64%. Subsequently, Li et al.32 argued that
directly using the HB failure criterion in the calculations is the optimal
method to solve rock and rock mass problems.
For solving the limit equilibrium stability problem of slopes with

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dengdp851112@126.com (D. Dong-ping), liliang_csu@126.com (L. Liang), jefwang@cityu.edu.hk (W. Jian-feng), zlh8076@163.com (Z. Lian-heng).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.09.007
Received 29 February 2016; Received in revised form 22 June 2016; Accepted 17 September 2016
1365-1609/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.

the nonlinear strength criterion, Deng et al.40 proposed a Taylor

seriesbased method for expanding the nonlinear MC criterion under
the assumption of stresses on the slip surface to obtain linear equations
for solving the slope FOS. In this paper, a new LEM to analyze rock
slope stability by using the nonlinear GHB criterion is presented based
on this same methodology. First, to obtain the approximate analytical
formulas of shear strength expressed in the nonlinear GHB criterion,
the GHB criterion is expanded using the Taylor series and under the
assumption of stresses on the slip surface. Then, the static equilibrium
conditions of the sliding body are combined to obtain the linear
equations, solving which yields the stresses on the slip surface.
Finally, the rock slope FOS is calculated using the known stresses on
the slip surface. However, in contrast to the use of a single expression
of shear strength in the nonlinear MC criterion, solving for shear
strength in the nonlinear GHB criterion entails multiple nested
formulas, which makes expanding the nonlinear GHB criterion using
the Taylor series dicult. In addition, the instantaneous internal
friction angle in the nonlinear GHB criterion must be iteratively solved
to obtain the stresses on the slip surface. Therefore, the proposed
method has some improvements to solve these aforementioned problems in relation to Deng's method. Further, the current method is
suitable to analyze the stability of rock slopes with an arbitrarily shaped
slip surface, and can be also easily programmed using a simple
derivation process and yields reasonable and strict results.
Meanwhile, a series of practical charts of the FOS for rock slope
stability analysis is drawn by applying the proposed method.

= 0.5 +

2.2. Linear equivalent MC strength parameters

Eq. (1) shows the calculation of shear strength in the nonlinear
GHB criterion. Because of its complexity, deriving a precise analytical
expression of FOS for slope stability analysis with the nonlinear GHB
criterion is not mathematically feasible. Therefore, to apply the nonlinear GHB criterion to the slope stability analysis by using existing
methods, researchers have established the linear equivalent MC (EMC)
strength parameters. For example, to obtain linear EMC strength
parameters of the nonlinear GHB criterion, Hoek et al.22 established
the and f axes coordinate system and dened the tensile strength t
and the limit of the corresponding maximum conning pressure 3max.
For tensile stress ranging between t and 3max, the curve of the
nonlinear GHB criterion was tted adopting linear MC strength
parameters. The principle of optimal tting is that the areas covered
by the curves corresponding to the two criterions within this specic
range of t and 3max are the same. Accordingly, the value of the linear
EMC strength parameters, c and , are given by Hoek et al.22 as

c=

c fc [s (1 + 2 ) + (1 ) mb 3n]
fa 1 + fb fc / fa

fb fc

= arcsin
2fa + fb fc

2.1. Nonlinear GHB criterion

3n =

ci = f tan i

(3)

3 max
c

m
3 max
= k cm
cm
H

cm = c

(4)

GSI 100
s = exp

9 3D

(5)

(10)

[mb + 4s (mb 8s )](mb /4 + s )1

2(1 + )(2 + )

(11)

Based on these above equations for calculating the linear EMC

strength parameters, proposed in,22 other works have been also done to
determine the equivalent shear strength parameters. For example, Li
et al.1 found that the slope FOS was signicantly overestimated when
using k=0.72 and m=0.91 in Eq. (10); hence, they used k=0.2 and
m=1.07 in Eq. (10) when slope angle 45.
Additionally, on the basis of the numerical method proposed by
Kumar,42 Shen et al.21 proposed a new approximate analytical solution
for estimating the linear EMC strength parameters from the GHB
criterion for a highly fractured rock mass where 0 < GSI < 40. In this
method, Shen et al.21 replaced the nonlinear function with a linear
function through linear regression analysis and using s=0 when GSI <
40. The obtained shear stresses were consistent with those reported in
the literature.
In this work, for ensuring the uniformity of the comparative
analysis, the linear EMC strength parameters are estimated using
Hoek's method, as the other methods are necessary to be applied on the
corresponding conditions.

where f is the shear strength, is the normal stress, c is the uniaxial

compressive strength, mb is a material constant related to the intact
material constant mi and reects the hardness of the rock, s is a
parameter that reects the degree of fragmentation of the rock and
ranges between 0.0 and 1.0, and is a coecient that reects the
characteristics of the rock mass.
Unlike the linear MC criterion, ci and i in Eq. (3) are not constants
but variables exhibiting the nonlinear characteristics of rock strength.
In Eq. (1), mb, s, and can be calculated using the geological strength
index (GSI) as

GSI 100
mb = exp
mi
28 14D

(9)

where k and m are empirical parameters (k=0.72 and m=0.91 in slope

engineering), is the unit weight of the rock mass, H is the slope
height, and cm is the rock mass strength, which is given by

(1)

(2)

(8)

where 3max is the limit of maximum conning pressure. The relationship between 3max and the rock mass strength cm can be described as

c cos i

(1 ) 1
sin i (1 )
2
=
1 1 +

mb + s

mb c

sin i

(7)

where , c, mb, and s are as described in Eq. (1); fa = (1 + )(2 + );

fb = 6mb ; and fc = (s + mb 3n ) 1.
The parameter 3nin Eq. (7) can be calculated as

The nonlinear HB criterion is used to calculate the strength of a

joint geotechnical body and to assess the degree of interaction and
conditions of the contact surfaces in the rock mass; hence, this criterion
can be suitably applied to evaluating rock slope stability. The nonlinear
HB criterion was initially proposed by Hoek and Brown13 in 1980
based on a combination of experimental studies and theoretical
analysis. The latest version is the GHB criterion presented by Hoek
et al.22 in 2002. The GHB criterion can also be expressed using
instantaneous cohesion (ci) and internal friction angle (i), similar to
the linear MC criterion41,42:

+ s
m
sin i b

c
2(1 + )

(6)

where D is a rock weakening factor related to the excavation mode and

disturbance degree of the rock mass; it ranges from 0 (unperturbed
state) to 1.

2. Nonlinear GHB and its linear equivalent MC strength

parameters

f =

1
[exp(GSI/15) exp(20/3)]
6

177

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.

o(x c, y c)

32
zone 2

dx
d1
12

qx
H

s(x)
w c1

b1
A
0

x
31

Nonlinear
GHB criterion

kVw

kHw

linear Equivalent
MC criterion

a1

g(x)

H
zone 1

qy

22

21

Fig. 2. Model for rock slope stability analysis with nonlinear GHB criterion.

11

normal, shear, and water forces on the slip surface, respectively, where
is the horizontal inclination angle of the tangent to the slip surface..
Ignoring the interslice forces illustrated in Fig. 2, the force
equilibrium conditions on the microunit slice a1b1c1d1 in the x and y
directions are

11 Shallow failure slip surface (SFSS);

21 Intermediate failure slip surface (IFSS);
31 Deep failure slip surface (DFSS);
12 Normal stresses on SFSS;
22 Normal stresses on IFSS;
32 Normal stresses on DFSS;
Fig. 1. Dierence of rock slope stability analysis using nonlinear GHB criterion and
linear EMC criterion. 11 Shallow failure slip surface (SFSS); 21 Intermediate failure
slip surface (IFSS); 31 Deep failure slip surface (DFSS); 12 Normal stresses on
SFSS; 22 Normal stresses on IFSS; 32 Normal stresses on DFSS.

kH w 0 qx + (0 + u ) s = 0

(12)

(1 kV ) w + qy 0 s (0 + u ) = 0

(13)

where 0 and 0 are the normal and shear stresses on the slip surface,
without considering the eect of interslice forces, respectively; u is the
water pressure on the slip surface; s is the rst derivative of slip surface
equation s(x) with respect to the x-axis, and s = tan .
Solving Eqs. (12) and (13), the normal stress 0 can be obtained as

2.3. Comparison of the two criterions in slope stability analysis

Fig. 1 shows the model for slope stability analysis with the
nonlinear GHB and linear EMC criterions. The gure shows that
fEMC > GHB
in zone 1 and fEMC GHB
in zone 2 for the curves of the
f
f
two criterions. Failure slip surfaces on unstable slopes can be of three
types: shallow failure slip surface (SFSS), intermediate failure slip
surface (IFSS), and deep failure slip surface (DFSS). The normal stress
distributions on these slip surfaces dier, indicating that slope stability
obtained using the nonlinear GHB criterion and linear EMC criterion
are not consistent with each other. For example, the normal stresses on
an SFSS are small within zone 1, so the slope FOS determined using the
linear EMC criterion is larger than that determined using the nonlinear
GHB criterion. However, the normal stresses on an SFSS are large, with
most of them being in zone 2, so the slope FOS determined by both the
criterions are almost equal. Therefore, the linear EMC criterion overestimates the slope stability for an SFSS. Moreover, the nonlinear
characteristics of rock strength cannot be studied using the EMC
criterion..

0 =

[(1 kV ) w + qy] + (kH w + qx ) s

1 + (s)2

(14)

However, because of the interslice forces, 0 obtained from Eq. (14)

and the actual normal stress dier. Therefore, to obtain that is closer
to the actual normal stress, 0 is amended as
(15)

= 1 0

where 1 is a variable, and is the normal stress on the slip surface.

In slope stability analysis, the slope FOS (Fs) is generally dened as
the ratio of failure shear force to the actual shear force on the slip
surface (i.e., Fs=(f dx)(dx) in the microunit slice). Rearranging this
expression yields =f / Fs. Using Eq. (1), shear stress on the slip
surface can be expressed as

1 c cos i
+ s
m
sin i b

Fs 2(1 +
c
)

(16)

Eq. (16) indicates that is a function of the normal stress . Using

Eqs. (2) and (16), the rst derivative of with respect to can be
obtained as

3. LEM for rock slope stability analysis with nonlinear GHB

criterion
3.1. Assumption of stresses on the slip surface

cos i

d
1
=
d
Fs

As shown in Fig. 2, the x-y coordinate system is established with its

origin at the slope toe. A and B are the lower and upper sliding points of
the slip surface, respectively; g(x) and s(x) are the equations for the
slope outline and slip surface, respectively. The microunit slice
a1b1c1d1 of width dx is selected for the force analysis. Under typical
conditions, the forces acting on the microunit slice a1b1c1d1 are as
follows: wdx is the gravity force; kHwdx and kVwdx are the seismic
forces in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, kH being
the horizontal and kV being the vertical seismic coecient; qxdx and
qydx are the external loads on the slope in the horizontal and vertical
directions, respectively; dx/cos, dx/cos, and udx/cos are the

di
=
d

s
+
c
mb

ci sin i +

2(1 +

cos2 i
sin i
1+

sin i
)

2(1 )

sin
c cos i sin i i

di
d

mb + s
c

1
sin i

(17)

sin i
+ s
m
(1 + sin i )a b c

(18)

Next, Eq. (2) is rearranged to determine the instantaneous internal

friction angle i of Eqs. (17) and (18). Accordingly, i can be
calculated as
178

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.

Table 1
Minimum FOS in rock slope example 1.
case

Type of slip surface

Linear EMC criterion

Circular slip surface

Arbitrary curved slip surface
Circular slip surface
Arbitrary curved slip surface
Circular slip surface
Arbitrary curved slip surface
Circular slip surface
Arbitrary curved slip surface
Circular slip surface
Arbitrary curved slip surface
Circular slip surface
Arbitrary curved slip surface

2
3
4
5
6

Nonlinear GHB criterion

Swedish method 1

Simplified Bishop method

Spencer method

Morgenstern-Price method

Swedish method 2

The current method

1.445

1.393

1.331

1.256

1.160

1.038

1.498

1.445

1.381

1.302

1.204

1.077

1.490
1.482
1.437
1.430
1.373
1.367
1.295
1.289
1.197
1.192
1.071
1.066

1.487
1.475
1.434
1.422
1.371
1.359
1.293
1.282
1.195
1.185
1.069
1.060

1.326

1.282

1.229

1.164

1.083

0.976

1.403
1.398
1.356
1.349
1.301
1.296
1.232
1.230
1.146
1.153
1.034
1.044

mb + s

2
c

cos 0
sin + cos 0
02 = 0

c
s
0

sin 0
sin

+
2(1 + )
1+ 0
mb

7
5
6

/kPa

100

B1

B2

(1 )sin 0

sin
c cos 0 sin 0 0

R=30m
2
H =20m

75
50
25

1
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

0
1

(22)

where H(0) is the higher order error term and 0 can be

calculated using Eq. (12) (i.e., i = 0 when is replaced with 0 in
Eq. (19)).
When 0 is similar to , that is, 1 tends to unity in Eq. (15),
H(0) in Eq. (20) contributes little to . In fact, as 0 is approximately equal to , H(0) can be neglected. Then, applying two
variables, namely 2 and 3, to amend 01 and 02 in Eq. (20),
respectively, can be calculated as

=45

1
sin 0

x/m

1 Circular slip surface

2 Arbitrary curved slip surface
3 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (20) on circular slip surface
4 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (20) with neglect of H( 0) on circular slip surface

(23)

5 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (23) on circular slip surface

= 2 01 + 3 02

6 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (20) on arbitrary curved slip surface

in which 2 and 3 also include the eect of H(0) on .

As shown in Fig. 2, the force equilibrium conditions in the x and y
direction and the moment equilibrium condition of all forces about one
point (xc, yc) in the sliding body can be determined as

7 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (20) with neglect of H( 0) on arbitrary curved slip surface
8 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (23) on arbitrary curved slip surface
Fig. 3 Shear stresses on slip surfaces

Fig. 3. Shear stresses on slip surfaces. 1 Circular slip surface, 2 Arbitrary curved
slip surface, 3 Shear stress calculated using Eq. (20) on circular slip surface, 4
Shear stress calculated using Eq. (20) with neglect of H( 0) on circular slip surface, 5
Shear stress calculated using Eq. (23) on circular slip surface, 6 Shear stress
calculated using Eq. (20) on arbitrary curved slip surface, 7 Shear stress calculated
using Eq. (20) with neglect of H(0) on arbitrary curved slip surface, 8 Shear
stress calculated using Eq. (23) on arbitrary curved slip surface.

sin i =

(1

sin (1 )
+ i)
(1 )

+ s
m
mb b c

+ (1 +

(s + ) dx (kH w qx + us) dx = 0
( + s) dx [(1 kV ) w + qy u] dx = 0
{[(1 kV ) w + qy + u](x xc ) + us( yc s) + kH w ( yc

c cos 0
2(1 +

sin 0
)

+ s
mb
c

qx ( yc g)} dx [(s + )( yc s ) + ( + s)(x xc )] dx = 0

a
sin i (1 )
)

1
1
01 + (1 1) 02 + H ( 0 )
Fs
Fs

01 =

(25)
s+g
)
2

(26)
(19)

In contrast to the traditional LEM, the solution Eqs., (24)(26), are

established according to the overall mechanical equilibrium conditions
of the sliding body. For this reason, the interslice forces considered in
the traditional LEM can be considered the internal forces in the current
method, and they are not necessary to be appeared in these solution
equations. Therefore, despite the use of the simple initial normal stress
0 without considerations of the interslice forces, the current method
satises all static equilibrium conditions of the sliding body. Further,
other patterns of the initial normal stress with considerations of the
interslice forces can be satised using the current method. In addition,
the type of slip surface is not restricted when the mechanical
equilibrium conditions of the sliding body is established by the current
method, so the current method is suitable for arbitrary shaped slip
surfaces.
Substituting Eqs. (24) and (25) in Eq. (26) and simplifying, yields

Eq. (19) is an iterative formula; by assuming an initial value in Eq.

(19), the nal value can be obtained after several iterative cycles.
Eq. (16) can be expressed using Taylor series expansion with the
normal stress 0 as the initial value and substituting it in Eqs. (17) and
(18):

(24)

(20)

(21)

179

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.

Table 2
Minimum FOS in rock slope example 2.

GSI

75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45

100
100
100
100
70
70
70
70
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
70
70
70
70
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
10
10
10
10

mi

5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35

Limit analysis-lower bound method (Li

et al.1)

The current method

Nonlinear GHB criterion

(ci/H)crit
0.360
0.278
0.228
0.194
1.703
1.169
0.890
0.717
4.980
2.988
2.156
1.668
15.011
8.576
5.824
4.327
93.721
53.362
35.186
24.994
0.135
0.058
0.036
0.026
0.469
0.176
0.108
0.077
1.046
0.369
0.222
0.158
2.593
0.829
0.480
0.334
13.585
3.155
1.552
0.969

Limit analysis-lower bound method (Li

et al.1)

The current method

Nonlinear GHB criterion

Nonlinear GHB criterion

Nonlinear GHB criterion

Fs

Fs1

%Diff

(ci/H)crit

Fs

Fs1

%Diff

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

1.019
1.010
1.003
1.000
1.015
1.003
0.997
0.995
1.029
0.999
0.995
0.993
1.006
0.997
0.994
0.992
1.012
1.001
0.997
0.996
0.989
0.990
0.990
0.991
0.988
0.992
0.997
0.995
0.988
0.995
0.998
0.999
0.990
0.998
1.001
1.002
0.994
1.001
1.003
1.004

1.9%
1.0%
0.3%
0.0%
1.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
2.9%
0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.3%
0.6%
0.8%
1.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
1.2%
0.8%
0.3%
0.5%
1.2%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
1.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%

0.232
0.130
0.088
0.066
0.946
0.435
0.276
0.200
2.337
0.953
0.584
0.419
6.439
2.317
1.356
0.945
38.926
11.734
5.928
3.729
0.070
0.026
0.016
0.011
0.218
0.075
0.045
0.032
0.461
0.153
0.091
0.065
1.057
0.323
0.185
0.129
4.363
0.943
0.460
0.286

0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

1.006
0.995
0.991
0.990
1.002
0.991
0.990
0.969
0.997
0.989
0.991
0.990
0.995
0.991
0.992
0.991
0.995
0.995
0.998
0.997
0.992
1.003
1.010
0.994
0.994
0.998
0.998
0.997
0.996
0.999
1.000
1.003
0.999
1.002
1.003
1.005
1.004
1.007
1.008
1.008

0.6%
0.5%
0.9%
1.0%
0.2%
0.9%
1.0%
3.1%
0.3%
1.1%
0.9%
1.0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.8%
0.9%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.3%
0.8%
0.3%
1.0%
0.6%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

(27)

which shows that the position of point (xc, yc) has no inuence on the
overall moment equilibrium condition of the sliding body. Then,
substituting Eqs. (15) and (23) into Eqs. (24), (25), and (27), the
following linear equations for the variables 1, 2, and 3 can be
obtained:
3

j =1 aij j = bi
where

i = 1, 2, 3

Fs =

(28)

a12 = 01dx ; a13 = 02 dx ; a21 = 0 dx ; a22 = 01sdx ;

0 (x + ss) dx ; a32 = 01 (s + sx ) dx ; a33 = 02 (s + sx ) dx ;
b1 = (kH w qx + us) dx ; b 2 = [(1 k V ) w + qy u] dx ; b3 = {[(1 k V ) w + qy + u] x
+uss

c cos i

sin i
2 1 +

1

mb + s cos dx
c

cos1 dx

(29)

where i, mb, c, s, and are as dened in Eq. (1); , , and i can be

calculated using Eqs. (15), (23), and (19), respectively.
In this work, rock dilatancy is not considered in the given nonlinear
GHB criterion, so the current method should be used in the framework
of associated ow law.

a11 = 0 sdx ;

a23 = 02 sdx ;

5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35
5
15
25
35

According to the aforementioned denition of slope FOS (i.e., the

ratio of the failure shear force to the actual shear force on the slip
surface), the rock slope FOS (Fs) with the nonlinear GHB criterion can
be calculated as

[(s + ) s + ( + s) x] dx

=0

100
100
100
100
70
70
70
70
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
10
10
10
10
100
100
100
100
70
70
70
70
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
10
10
10
10

mi

3.2. Calculation of the rock slope FOS

[(1 kV ) w + qy + u] x + uss kH w s +2 g + qx g dx

GSI

a31 =

4. Comparative analyses of slopes examples

1
kH w (s + g) + qx g} dx .
2

Slope example 1: Rock slope height H=20 m and slope angle =45;
rock destruction is subject to the nonlinear GHB criterion with the
following parameters: =23.0 kN/m3, GSI=75, mi=15, and c=0.4H.
Six cases, cases 16, are listed by varying D as 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,

After 1, 2, and 3 are determined using Eq. (28), normal stress

and shear stress can be obtained by substituting them in Eqs. (15)
and (23), respectively.

180

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.
=30e

5.0

40e

50e

60e

70e

80e

90e

(a) mi = 5

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
1.25

2.0

, c

1.00
0

1.0

=30e

5.0

12.5 25 37.5 50

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

40e

50e

60e

70e

80e

90e

(b) mi = 15

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
H

2.0

, c

1.0

1.00
0

12.5 25 37.5 50

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100

=30e

5.0

1.25

40e

50e

60e

70e

80e

90e

(c) mi = 25

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
H

2.0

, c

1.0

1.25
1.00
0

12.5 25 37.5 50

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200

Fig. 4. FOS curve for stability analysis of the rock slope with nonlinear GHB criterion when D=0.0.

the xy axes coordinate system with the slope toe as the origin, the
coordinates of the lower and upper sliding points A and B1 are (0 m,
0 m) and (24 m, 20 m), respectively, and R=30 m for the circular slip
surface at the specic position. For the arbitrary curved slip surface,
which consists of a plotline with n segments, the x coordinate of the end
point in the i-th plotline is xi=ix0 [(i1)i][nx0(xBxA)]/[(n1)
n]+xA,
and
the
corresponding
y
coordinate
is
yi=(xixA)tan{2i(+0)/[n(n+1)]}+yA, where, 0 is the horizontal
inclination angle of the rst segment of the plotline and is positive in
the clockwise direction; x0 is the width of the rst segment of the
plotline, =arctan[(yByA)/(xBxA)]; xA and xB are the x coordinates of
the lower and upper sliding points of the slip surface, respectively; and
yA and yB are the y coordinates of the lower and upper sliding points of
the slip surface, respectively. When the coordinates of its lower and
upper sliding points A and B2 are (0 m, 0 m) and (30 m, 20 m),
respectively, the arbitrary curved slip surface at the specic position
has the following parameters: 0=20, n=100, and x0= L/n, where L is
the horizontal distance between the lower and upper sliding points.
Accordingly, three types of shear stresses on the circular and arbitrary
curved slip surfaces at the specic positions are drawn (Fig. 3) by using
the following parameters: (1) shear stress 1 calculated using Eq. (20),
(2) shear stress 2 calculated using Eq. (20) after neglecting H(0),
and (3) shear stress 3 calculated using Eq. (23). Then, Fig. 3 claries
the following: (1) 2 is nearly the same as 1, thus arming the
feasibility of the H(0) hypothesis, and (2) 3, obtained according to
the static equilibrium conditions of the sliding body, and 1, obtained
according to the shear strength reduced by FOS, dier slightly, which

and 1.0 in that order. Two types of slip surfaces, namely circular and
arbitrary curved (proposed in43) slip surfaces, are adopted to analyze
the slope stability by using LEM; the results obtained using dierent
methods are listed in Table 1. The Swedish method has a simple
implicit formula for normal stress on the slip surface, so it can apply
the nonlinear GHB criterion to obtain the rock slope stability solution.
The methods involving the EMC criterion and the nonlinear GHB
criterion are termed Swedish method 1 and Swedish method 2,
respectively.
Table 1 claries the following points: (1) the current method
provides smaller results than does the LEM by using the linear EMC
criterion (i.e., the Swedish method 1, Simplied Bishop method,
Spencer method, and MorgensternPrice (MP) method); the maximum dierence between the results of the current method and those
of the LEM is 6.77%, which shows the feasibility of the current method;
(2) the current method gives larger and stricter results than does
Swedish method 2 because the former satises all static equilibrium
conditions of the slope sliding body, and the initial normal stress 0,
which is the same as the normal stress of Swedish method 2, is
preferably amended using the current method to compensate for the
inuence of interslice forces on it; and (3) the current method is
practical as it is suitable for an arbitrarily curved slip surface and uses a
simple slope FOS calculation formula from the limit equilibrium
theory.
Moreover, circular and arbitrary curved slip surfaces at specic
positions were used to analyze the eect of the neglected H(0) for
the shear stress hypothesis expressed as Eq. (20) on slope stability. In
181

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.
=30e

5.0

40e

50e

60e

70e

80e

90e

(a) mi = 5

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
H

2.0

, c

1.0

1.25
1.00
0

25

50

75

100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100

V O o P
=30e

5.0

40e

50e

60e

70e

80e

90e

(b) mi = 15

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
H

2.0

, c
1.0

1.00
0

1.25
25

50

75

100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800

V O o P

=30e

5.0

40e

50e

60e

70e

80e

90e

(c) mi = 25

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50

1.0

2.0

, c

1.25
1.00
0

25

50

75

100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100

V O oP

Fig. 5. FOS curve for stability analysis of the rock slope with nonlinear GHB criterion when D=0.5.

the same slope angle, the slope height has little eect on slope stability.
Therefore, the drawn charts can be used for analyzing rock slope
stability with arbitrary slope heights, as veried in the following
section. When the slope FOS is less than 1.0, the slope is considered
to be unstable; therefore, charts for slope FOS ranging from 1.0 to 5.0
are plotted in Figs. 46....

shows that the current method reects the variation in stability at

dierent points on the slip surface..
Slope example 2: The rock slope is as described by Li et al.,1 with
slope height H=25 m, and the rock destruction is subject to the
nonlinear GHB criterion with the following parameters: =23 kN/m3
and D = 0. Considering the slope FOS as unity, Li et al. 1 calculated
various combinations of the slope angle , GSI, mi, and the dimensionless parameter c/(H) by using the lower bound LAM under the
nonlinear GHB criterion. To verify the feasibility of this work, the
results of the current method were calculated using the parameters
given in1 for a circular slip surface. Both sets of results are summarized
in Table 2.
Results of the lower bound LAM and the current method diered by
less than 2%, evidencing the feasibility and reliability of the current
method and that the work achieves the limit equilibrium analysis of
rock slope with the nonlinear GHB criterion. The LEM is a simple
method and is thus preferred by many designers; hence, the current
method is expected to be widely applied.

5.2. Application and verication of charts

Slope example 3: The rock slope height is H and slope angle is ,
and the rock destruction is subject to the nonlinear GHB criterion with
the following parameters: =23.0 kN/m3, GSI=20, D=0.0, mi=15, and
c=4 MPa. H and are designed such that rock slope Fs=1.200. From
the charts in Fig. 4(b), we determine that c/H=0.870, 1.811, 3.788,
8.528, 20.352,45.756, and 92.060 for =30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80,
and 90, respectively. Using the obtained c/H, we can solve for H
and (Table 3). The corresponding results obtained using dierent
methods are also summarized in Table 3.
Table claries the following points: (1) using these charts in
Figs. 46, stability of a rock slope with arbitrary slope heights can be
reliably and quickly determined; in addition, slope height and slope
angle for a rock slope with certain security requirements can be also
designed using these charts; (2) when the slope angle 60, the results
obtained using the nonlinear GHB and linear EMC criterions dier by
20% because the critical slip surfaces are SFSS; this is a limitation of
the method using the linear EMC strength parameters.

5. Charts for rock slope stability analysis by using nonlinear

GHB criterion
5.1. Slope FOS curve for stability analysis of rock slope (GSI = 20)
To facilitate the engineering application, a series of charts for the
stability analysis of rock slope is drawn using the current method
(Figs. 46). In these charts, the rock slope height H is assumed to be
20 m, and representative rock parameters subject to the nonlinear
GHB criterion are =23 kN/m3 and GSI=20. To analyze the rock slope
stability, the circular slip surface is adopted. Using c/(H) as the xaxis, the slope FOS curves are drawn for the rock slopes with slope
angle =30, 40, 60, 70, 80, and 90; parameter mi=5, 15, and 25;
and parameter D=0.0, 0.5, and 1.0. When , c/(H), and the other
rock parameters have equal values for a homogeneous rock slope with

6. Conclusions
Using the framework of the limit equilibrium theory, this work
established a new method for analyzing rock slope stability with the
nonlinear GHB criterion. In this method, three variables are used to
assume the stresses on the slip surface, and GHB criterion is expanded
using the Taylor series. Then, according to the static equilibrium
182

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.
=30e

5.0

40e 50e 60e

70e

80e

90e

(a) mi = 5

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
1.25

2.0

, c

1.00
0

1.0

10

15

=30e

5.0

20

25

40e

30 35
(h10 2)

40 45 50
VO o P

50e

60e

1.25 2.5 3.75

55

60

65

70e

70

5
75

80e

90e

(b) mi = 15

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
1.25

2.0

, c

1.00
0

1.0

10

15

=30e

5.0

20

25

30

40e

35

40

45 50
(h10 2 )

50e

55

oP

60e

60

65

70

75

1.25 2.5 3.75

80

70e

85

90

95

5
100

80e

90e

(c) mi = 25

4.0

Fs

2.00
3.0

1.75
1.50
1.25

2.0

, c

1.00
0

1.0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50 55
(h10 2)

60 65
V O oP

70

75

80

85

90

95

1.25 2.5 3.75

100 105 110 115

Fig. 6. FOS curve for stability analysis of the rock slope with nonlinear GHB criterion when D=1.0.
Table 3
Minimum FOS in rock slope example 3.
Slope angle
(/)

Slope height H
(/m)

The designed FOS

The calculated minimum FOS

Nonlinear GHB criterion

30
40
50
60
70
80
90

199.900
96.018
45.918
20.393
8.545
3.801
1.889

1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200
1.200

Linear EMC criterion

The current
method

Swedish method
2

Swedish method
1

Simplified Bishop
method

Spencer method

M-P method

1.215
1.210
1.203
1.200
1.201
1.201
1.201

1.140
1.141
1.138
1.140
1.148
1.169
1.201

1.146
1.205
1.318
1.497
1.732
1.953
2.097

1.213
1.262
1.357
1.505
1.676
1.818
1.870

1.209
1.255
1.350
1.504
1.735
1.916
2.070

1.209
1.254
1.347
1.503
1.741
1.913
2.069

the FOS derived by the current method is in close agreement with

those derived using the traditional LEM and the linear EMC
strength parameters instead of the nonlinear GHB criterion; this
shows the feasibility of the current method.
(2) Unlike the Swedish method using the nonlinear GHB criterion, the
current method for the stability analysis of a rock slope with an
arbitrarily shaped slip surface can satisfy all static limit equilibrium conditions of sliding body and amend the initial normal
stress on slip surface without considering the eect of interslice

conditions of the sliding body, multiple linear equations for the three
variables are derived. After the three variables are solved, the stress
distributions on slip surface are obtained, and the slope FOS is
calculated. Comparing the results of several examples and drawing a
series of charts of the FOS curve for the rock slope stability analysis
yielded the following conclusions:
(1) The results of the current method dier from those of the lower
bound LAM with the nonlinear GHB criterion by less than 2%, and

183

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 89 (2016) 176184

D. Dong-ping et al.

capacity and slope stability problems. Soils Found. 2013;53:130143.

19 Huang CC. Developing a new slice method for slope displacement analyses. Eng Geol.
2013;157:3947.
20 Fu W, Liao Y. Non-linear shear strength reduction technique in slope stability
calculation. Comput Geotech. 2010;37:288298.
21 Shen JY, Priest SD, Karakus M. Determination of MohrCoulomb shear strength
parameters from Generalized HoekBrown criterion for slope stability analysis. Rock
Mech Rock Eng. 2012;45:123129.
22 Hoek E, Carranza TC, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure criterion2002 edition. In:
Proceedings of the North American Rock Mechanics Society NARMS-TAC 2002.
Toronto; 2002; p. 267273.
23 Eberhardt E. The HoekBrown failure criterion. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2012;45(6):
981988.
24 Saada Z, Maghous S, Garnier D. Stability analysis of rock slopes subjected to seepage
forces using the modied HoekBrown criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2012;55:
4554.
25 Nekouei AM, Ahangari K. Validation of Hoek-Brown failure criterion charts for rock
slopes. Int J Min Sci Technol. 2013;23:805808.
26 Poulsen BA, Adhikary DP, Elmouttie MK, Wilkins A. Convergence of synthetic rock
mass modelling and the HoekBrown strength criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2015;80:171180.
27 Keshavarz A, Fazeli A, Sadeghi S. Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings on rock
masses using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng. 2015;8:
170177.
28 Serrano A, Olalla C, Galindo RA. Ultimate bearing capacity of an anisotropic
discontinuous rock mass based on the modied HoekBrown criterion. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 2016;83:2440.
29 Merield RS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity
of rock masses using the generalized HoekBrown criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 2006;43:920937.
30 Yang XL, Li L, Yin JH. Stability analysis of rock slopes with a modied HoekBrown
failure criterion. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 2004;28:181190.
31 Yang XL, Zou JF. Stability factors for rock slopes subjected to pore water pressure
based on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43:
11461152.
32 Li AJ, Merield RS, Lyamin AV. Eect of rock mass disturbance on the stability of
rock slopes using the HoekBrown failure criterion. Comput Geotech. 2011;38:
546558.
33 Fraldi M, Guarracino F. Limit analysis of collapse mechanisms in cavities and tunnels
according to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2009;46:
665673.
34 Fraldi M, Guarracino F. Analytical solutions for collapse mechanisms in tunnels with
arbitrary cross sections. Int J Solids Struct. 2010;47:216223.
35 Fraldi M, Guarracino F. Evaluation of impending collapse in circular tunnels by
analytical and numerical approaches. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2011;26:
507516.
36 Fraldi M, Guarracino F. Limit analysis of progressive tunnel failure of tunnels in
Hoek-Brown rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2012;50:170173.
37 Li X. Finite element analysis of slope stability using a nonlinear failure criterion.
Comput Geotech. 2007;34:127136.
38 Shen H, Klapperich H, Abbas SM, Ibrahim A. Slope stability analysis based on the
integration of GIS and numerical simulation. Autom Constr. 2012;26:4653.
39 Li AJ, Cassidy MJ, Wang J, Merield RS, Lyamin AV. Parametric Monte Carlo
studies of rock slopes based on the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Comput Geotech.
2012;45:1118.
40 Deng DP, Zhao LH, Li L. Limit equilibrium slope stability analysis using the
nonlinear strength failure criterion. Can Geotech J. 2015;52:563576.
41 Kumar P. Slip zones around circular openings in a jointed Hoek-Brown medium. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1997;34:875883.
42 Kumar P. Shear failure envelope of Hoek-Brown criterion for rockmass. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol. 1998;13:453458.
43 Deng DP, Li L, Zhao LH. A new method of sliding surface searching for general
stability of slope based on Janbu method. Rock Soil Mech. 2011;32:
891898 (in Chinese).

forces. Therefore, it gives more reasonable and stricter results.

(3) The methods that use the linear EMC strength parameters instead
of the nonlinear GHB criterion to analyze the rock slope stability
have limitations; for example, they overestimate the rock slope
stability when the slope critical slip surfaces are SFSS.
(4) The current method can be easily programmed using a simple
derivation process and can be conveniently used by most designers.
(5) The presented FOS charts can be used to analyze the rock slope
stability quickly and accurately and as a guide in rock slope design.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (No. 2015M580702), the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51608541), and the Guizhou Provincial
Department of Transportation (No. 2014122006).
References
1 Li AJ, Merield RS, Lyamin AY. Stability charts for rock slopes based on the Hoek
Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2008;45:689700.
2 Jaeger JC. Friction of rocks and stability of rock slopes. Geotechnique. 1971;21:
97134.
3 Collins IF, Gunn CIM, Pender MJ, Wang Y. Slope stability analyses for materials with
a non-linear failure envelope. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 1998;12:
533550.
4 Taheri A, Tani K. Assessment of the stability of rock slopes by the slope stability
rating classication system. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2010;43:321333.
5 Kulatilake PHSW, Wang LQ, Tang HM, Liang L. Evaluation of rock slope stability for
Yujian River dam site by kinematic and block theory analyses. Comput Geotech.
2011;38(6):846860.
6 Shen JY, Karakus M, Xu CS. Direct expressions for linearization of shear strength
envelopes given by the Generalized HoekBrown criterion using genetic programming. Comput Geotech. 2012;44:139146.
7 Shen JY, Karakus M, Xu CS. Chart-based slope stability assessment using the
Generalized HoekBrown criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2013;64:210219.
8 Shen JY, Karakus M. Three-dimensional numerical analysis for rock slope stability
using shear strength reduction method. Can Geotech J. 2014;51:164172.
9 Akin M. Slope stability problems and back analysis in heavily jointed rock mass: a
case study from Manisa, Turkey. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2013;46:359371.
10 Barla G, Antolini F, Barla M. Slope stabilization in dicult conditions: the case study
of a debris slide in NW Italian Alps. Landslides. 2013;10:343355.
11 Mohtarami E, Jafari A, Amini M. Stability analysis of slopes against combined
circular-toppling failure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2014;67:4356.
12 Xiao LL, Chai B, Yin KL. Rock Slope Stability Evaluation in a Steep-Walled Canyon:
Application to Elevator Construction in the Yunlong River Valley, Enshi, China. Rock
Mech Rock Eng. 2015;48:19691980.
13 Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. J Geotech Eng Div
ASCE. 1980;106:10131035.
14 Hoek E. Strength of jointed rock masses. Geotechnique. 1983;33:187223.
15 Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 1997;34(8):11651186.
16 Marinos P, Hoek E. Estimating the geotechnical properties of heterogeneous rock
masses such as ush. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2001;60:8492.
17 Cho SE, Lee SR. Instability of unsaturated soil slopes due to inltration. Comput
Geotech. 2001;28:185208.
18 Cheng YM, Lansivaara T, Baker R, Li N. Use of internal and external variables and
extremum principle in limit equilibrium formulations with application to bearing

184