574

Three-dimensional strength-reduction finite

element analysis of slopes: geometric effects
T.-K. Nian, R.-Q. Huang, S.-S. Wan, and G.-Q. Chen

Abstract: The vast majority of slopes, both natural and constructed, exhibit a complex geometric configuration and three-di-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13

mensional (3D) state, whereas slopes satisfying the assumption of plane strain (infinite length) are seldom encountered. Ex-
isting research mainly emphasizes the 3D dimensions and boundary effect in slope stability analysis; however, the effect of
complex geometric ground configuration on 3D slope stability is rarely reported. In this paper, an elastoplastic finite-element
method using strength-reduction techniques is used to analyze the stability of special 3D geometric slopes. A typical 3D
slope underlain by a weak layer with groundwater is described to validate the numerical modeling, safety factor values, and
critical slip surface for the 3D slope. Furthermore, a series of special 3D slopes with various geometric configurations are
analyzed numerically, and the effects of turning corners, slope gradient, turning arcs, and convex- and concave-shaped sur-
face geometry on the stability and failure characteristics of slopes under various boundary conditions are discussed in detail.
Key words: slope stability, three-dimensional, strength-reduction finite-element method, geometric configuration, safety fac-
tor, critical slip surface.
Résumé : La grande majorité des pentes, autant naturelles que construites, comportent une configuration géométrique com-
plexe et un état tridimensionnel (3D), tandis que les pentes répondant au critère de déformation en plan (longueur infinie)
sont rarement rencontrées. La recherche existante se penche surtout sur les trois dimensions et les effets de frontière dans
les analyses de stabilité de pente; cependant, l’effet de la configuration géométrique complexe du sol dans l’analyse de stabi-
For personal use only.

lité de pente en 3D est rarement discuté. Dans cet article, une méthode par éléments finis élasto-plastique utilisant des tech-
niques de réduction de la résistance est d’abord utilisée pour analyser la stabilité de pentes à géométrie 3D spéciales. Une
pente 3D typique placée sur une couche de sol à faible résistance avec une nappe phréatique est décrite pour valider le mo-
dèle numérique, les valeurs du facteur de sécurité et la surface critique de glissement de la pente en 3D. De plus, une série
de pentes 3D spéciales avec des configurations géométriques variées sont analysées numériquement. Les effets de certains
paramètres, dont les coins tournants, les gradients de pente, les arcs tournants et les surfaces avec des géométries convexes
et concaves, sur la stabilité et sur les caractéristiques de rupture des pentes dans des conditions variées sont discutés en dé-
tails.
Mots‐clés : stabilité de pente, tridimensionnel, méthode par éléments finis de réduction de la résistance, configuration géo-
métrique, facteur de sécurité, surface critique de glissement.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction sult obtained is very conservative (Duncan 1996a; Griffiths

and Marquez 2007). On the whole, the results for 2D analysis
In slope stability analysis, two-dimensional (2D) plane are more conservative from the viewpoint of engineering
strain analysis techniques are commonly used for simplicity safety, and moreover the actual stability and geometry cannot
and wide applicability. All slope failures are, however, three- be appropriately considered without the third dimension.
dimensional (3D) in nature, especially in the cases of natural Therefore, a 3D slope stability analysis is required to obtain
complex geometric slopes or overloaded slopes (Wei et al. more reasonable solutions in some cases. However, the re-
2009). According to previous studies (Chen and Chameau sults from 3D stability analysis are not always more reliable
1985; Leshchinsky and Baker 1986; Cavounidis 1987; Hungr than 2D results; under some special combinations of soil and
1987; Duncan 1996a; Chugh 2003; Griffiths and Marquez groundwater properties, complex dimensions, boundary con-
2007), the safety factor for a 2D slope is generally less than ditions, and complex geometries (e.g., ridges and corners),
that for a 3D slope. In particular, when the most pessimistic the reverse conclusion can probably be drawn (Chen and
section in the 3D problem is selected for 2D analysis, the re- Chameau 1985; Hungr 1987; Bromhead and Martin 2004;
Received 18 April 2011. Accepted 1 February 2012. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 27 April 2012.
T.-K. Nian and S.-S. Wan. Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, School of
Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China.
R.-Q. Huang. State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironmental Protection, Chengdu University of Technology,
Chengdu 610059, China.
G.-Q. Chen. Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 812-8581, Japan.
Corresponding author: Ting-Kai Nian (e-mail: tknian@dlut.edu.cn).

Can. Geotech. J. 49: 574–588 (2012) doi:10.1139/T2012-014 Published by NRC Research Press
 Nian et al.
Sainak 2004; Vaughan 2008). In these cases, the slope di-
mensions and real-world geometric configuration cannot be
disregarded, and a more reasonable 3D slope stability analy-
sis method should be used to solve the problem. Otherwise,
the analysis will lead to wasted engineering construction ef-
fort or an incorrect evaluation of potential landslide mecha-
nisms.
Currently, the 3D limit equilibrium method (LEM) (Dun-
can 1996b; Stark and Eid 1998; Arellano and Stark 2000;
Huang and Tsai 2000; Huang et al. 2002; Jiang and Yama-
gami 2004; Cheng et al. 2007; Cheng and Yip 2007) and the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
finite-element method (FEM) or finite-difference method
(FDM) (Ugai and Leshchinsky 1995; Cai et al. 1998; Jeremic
2000; Chugh 2003; Sainak 2004; Griffiths and Marquez
2007; Wei et al. 2009) with a strength-reduction technique
are widely popular for analyzing the stability of a 3D slope,
even though these approaches are more time-consuming than
others. The major limitation in 3D LEM is the lack of a suit-
able method for locating the critical general 3D slip surface
(Cheng et al. 2005; Wei et al. 2009). However, 3D FEM
with a strength-reduction technique can simultaneously pro-
vide the safety factor and the critical slip surface (shape and
location), together with the stress, deformation, and progres-
sive shear failure of the slope, and it has been widely and
successfully used in the engineering field with the develop-
ment of computer technology. Moreover, 3D analysis can ex-
For personal use only.
actly reflect the slope dimensions, boundary conditions, and
a realistically complex geometric configuration in three x–y–z
directions. In this way, the computational accuracy can be
greatly improved, and the fundamental nature of slope fail-
ure mechanisms can be fully revealed.
However, existing FEM studies have mainly emphasized
3D effects and boundary conditions in slope stability analysis
(Chugh 2003; Griffiths and Marquez 2007; Wei et al. 2009),
whereas the effect of the geometric ground configuration on
3D slope stability is rarely reported (Sainak 2004; Griffiths
and Marquez 2007). Based on this observation, a 3D
strength-reduction FEM using an elastic, perfectly plastic
model is used here to investigate the stability of special 3D
geometric slopes. A typical 3D slope underlain by a weak
layer with groundwater is used as an illustration to validate
the numerical modeling approach. Furthermore, a series of
special 3D slopes with various geometric ground configura-
tions are numerically analyzed, and the effects of turning cor-
ners, slope gradient, turning arcs, and convex- and concave-
shaped surface geometry on the stability and failure charac-
teristics of slopes under various boundary conditions are dis-
cussed in detail.
Three-dimensional FEM by strength-
reduction technique
Strength-reduction technique
In traditional slope stability analysis, the safety factor is
defined as the ratio of the average shear strength of the soil
to the average shear stress developed along the critical sliding
surface. Based on this definition, the current approach is to
use a shear strength-reduction technique (Griffiths and Mar-
quez 2007) in which reduced shear strength parameters cR0
and fR0 , given by
575
Fig. 1. Relationship between SRF and dimensionless displacement.
tanf0 c0
½1 tanfR0 ¼ ; cR0 ¼
SRF SRF
are used in the analysis, where SRF is a “strength-reduction
factor” and c′ and f 0 are the original shear strength para-
meters. To obtain a true safety factor, the strength-reduction
factor needs to be increased gradually until the reduced
strength parameters cR0 and fR0 bring the slope to a limit equi-
librium state. In this process, the factor SRF is assumed to
apply equally to both c′ and tanf 0 . When the slope reaches
the limit failure state, the safety factor (FOS) of the slope is
equal to the strength-reduction factor, and FOS = SRF. This
definition of FOS is identical to that used in the limit equili-
brium methods and is widely used by a large number of
authors (Zienkiewicz et al. 1975; Ugai and Leshchinsky
1995; Duncan 1996b; Dawson et al. 1999; Griffiths and
Lane 1999; Zheng et al. 2006; Griffiths and Marquez 2007;
Wei et al. 2009). The safety factor and critical slip surface
obtained are also entirely identical to those obtained from
LEM (Manzari and Nour 2000). The overall procedure can
be performed by having the program solve the problem re-
peatedly using a sequence of user-specified SRF values.
Slope failure
When the algorithm cannot converge within a user-specified
maximum number of iterations (typically set to 1000), the
implication being that no stress distribution can be found
that is simultaneously able to satisfy both the failure crite-
rion and the overall equilibrium criterion, failure is said to
have occurred. Slope failure and numerical nonconvergence
occur simultaneously and are accompanied by a dramatic
increase in the nodal displacements within the mesh (Grif-
fiths and Lane 1999; Griffiths and Marquez 2007). At that
time, the safety factor of the slope is equal to the strength-
reduction factor, and FOS = SRF. Figure 1 shows a typical
graph of SRF against Edmax/gH2 (a dimensionless displace-
ment), where E is the Young’s modulus of the soil, dmax is
the maximum nodal displacement component at conver-
gence, g is the unit weight of the soil, and H is the slope
height.
Numerical execution
The finite element (FE) program, Abaqus (Hibbitt, Karls-
son, and Sorensen, Inc. 2005), has been improved in certain
aspects to carry out the computation. Three-dimensional anal-
ysis of elastic, perfectly plastic soils with a Mohr–Coulomb
failure criterion assuming zero dilation is performed, and
no tensile strength is considered in the present paper.
Published by NRC Research Press
 576
Fig. 2. 3D slope conceptual model and boundary conditions. (a) 3D slope sketch; (b) side view (x–y plane); (c) plan view (x–z plane).
Although any 3D FE algorithm could be used in principle,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
the current work uses the popular 20-node hexahedral ele-
ment configuration with reduced integration in the stiffness
matrix generation and stress re-distribution phases of the al-
gorithm. The nonconvergence criterion accompanied by a
dramatic nodal displacement increase is chosen to evaluate
the overall stability of a slope (Griffiths and Marquez
2007). Soil–water coupling and unsaturated, non-steady-state
seepage are not considered in the present analysis.
Verification
To check the applicability of the 3D FE program with
strength-reduction method, a conceptual 3D slope model and
the corresponding boundary conditions (BCs) are introduced
in Fig. 2. Figure 2 shows a homogeneous 3D slope in which
For personal use only.
the geometry and dimensions in the x–y plane are extended
by a distance L/2 (assuming symmetry) in the z direction.
The boundary conditions can be generally classified into
three types:
1. Unrestrained BC (smooth–smooth): Both upper and lower
sides as depicted in the plane view (Fig. 2c) are restrained in
the z-direction, but free to move in the x- and y-directions.
The left and right sides as depicted in both views are
allowed to move freely in the y- and z-directions, but
not in the x-direction. In the bottom plane of the model,
all movements are restrained (i.e., ux, y, z = 0, where u is
the displacement).
2. Semi-restrained BC (rough–smooth): The lower side (z =
L/2) as depicted in the plane view is restrained in the z-
direction, but free to move in the x- and y-directions.
The upper side (z = 0) is completely restrained in the
x-, y-, and z-directions. The other conditions are the
same as for type 1.
3. Fully restrained BC (rough–rough): Both upper and lower
sides as depicted in the plane view are restrained in all
three x-, y-, and z-directions, and the other conditions are
the same as for type 1.
Among the three types of BC, the fully restrained BC or the
unrestrained BC is the most applicable to a real example, the
semi-restrained BC is rarely used in the real world, but is of-
ten used in FE computation with a half-model for simplifying
the fully restrained BC.
In particular, type 3 (fully restrained BC) can be used to
represent a rigid contact with no possibility of movement (e.g.,
Chugh 2003; Griffiths and Marquez 2007). The applicable
conditions in practice can be illustrated as
• No displacement at the model ends or the two sides of the
slope. The side–end boundary is placed far enough from
the region where slope failure is likely to occur.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
• A slope that is composed of a strong soil near the abutments
surrounding a weak soil in the central parts of the slope.
In other words, the strong soil surrounds the weaker soil.
• The confinement of the vertical abutments or sloping
abutments of an earth dam or canyon wall.
Type 1, unrestrained BC, is used to represent a contact with a
rigid, smooth abutment that can provide a reactive thrust, but
no in-plane shear restraint, and it can be used in the follow-
ing three cases:
• Displacement is constrained only in the out-of-plane direc-
tion at the model ends or the two sides of the slope. The
side or end boundary is placed not far enough from the
region where slope failure is likely to occur.
• The whole slope is composed of the same soil with homo-
geneity and isotropy.
• For a laboratory model of a slope built in a wooden or steel
container with glass walls, the displacement is only con-
strained in the out-of-plane direction at the model ends
or the two sides of the slope.
Type 2 as described here implies a symmetric analysis about
the plane z = L/2, and therefore only half of the actual ex-
tended length L of the slope is analyzed for simplification.
Type 2 is assumed for the numerical analysis of straight
slopes in example 1 below.
Example 1
A typical slope example, including a weak layer and
groundwater, is shown in Fig. 3, and its geometric and mate-
rial properties are listed in Table 1. The slope was first con-
sidered by Zhang (1988) using an extended Spencer’s
method. Later, the model slope was widely used by various
investigators as part of the validation of their particular 3D
slope stability methods (Lam and Fredlund 1993; Huang and
Tsai 2000; Chen et al. 2001, 2003b; Huang et al. 2002; Grif-
fiths and Marquez 2007). In Zhang’s study, the four cases of
homogeneous soil slope, nonhomogeneous soil slope with a
thin weak layer, homogeneous soil slope with a piezometric
line, and nonhomogeneous soil slope with a piezometric line
are investigated, and solutions are obtained for their safety
factors and the corresponding critical slip surfaces. Moreover,
the proposed critical slip surface for the homogeneous slope
(case 1) is from limit equilibrium considerations a symmetric
ellipsoidal surface, meaning that the slip surface is circular in
the x–y plane, but elliptical in the z-direction.
To make adequate comparisons with the literature (Zhang
1988; Griffiths and Marquez 2007) possible, the dimensions
of the 3D slope are the same as those given in Griffiths and
Marquez (2007). L is equal to 25 m, but the actual mesh ex-
tended length varied by half this amount because of symme-
try. Both the coarse and fine meshes for the case 1 slope with
Published by NRC Research Press
 Nian et al. 577

Fig. 3. Cross section of 3D slope with free surface and weak layer reported by Zhang (1988). c′, cohesion; f 0 , friction angle; g, unit weight;
R, radius.

Case 1 circular R=
slip surface 24
.4 20
m
g=18.8kN/m3
c'=29kPa, f'=20° 15
2

(m)
1
10
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13

e
etric lin
Piezom

5
Weak layer
c'=0, f'=10°
0
50 40 30 20 10 0
(m)

Table 1. Material properties of examples 1 and 2.

Example 1
Material properties Upper soil layer Weaker layer Example 2
Friction angle, f′ (°) 20 10 20
Cohesion, c′ (kPa) 29 0 40
For personal use only.

Dilation angle, j (°) 0 0 0

Young’s modulus, E′ (kPa) 1.0 × 104 1.0 × 104 1.0 × 105
Poisson’s ratio, n′ 0.25 0.25 0.30
Unit weight, g (kN/m3) 18.8 19.5 20.0

Fig. 4. Typical fine and coarse 3D slope meshes of 20-node hexahedral elements (L/H = 2): (a) fine mesh; (b) coarse mesh.

L = 2H as indicated in Fig. 4 were run to illustrate the sensi-
tivity of results to mesh refinement. The relationship between
the strength-reduction factor (SRF) and dimensionless dis-
placement is shown in Fig. 1 for two types of meshes; the
obtained safety factors based on the iterative nonconvergence
criterion mentioned above are, respectively, FOS = 2.11 and
2.15 for the fine and coarse meshes. Because the difference
between the FOS values is small, the coarse mesh form is
used in the following analysis.
In the present analysis, the same four cases as in Zhang
(1988) are used, and assuming model symmetry, the half
slope (L/2) is used to compute the safety factor and the crit-
ical slip surface under semi-restrained (rough–smooth) boun-
dary conditions. The extended length in the z-direction (see
Fig. 2) is chosen to be 2H to compare with known publica-
tions (Zhang 1988; Griffiths and Marquez 2007).
Safety factor for the four cases
Case 1: Homogeneous slope
The 3D slope shown in Fig. 4b can be regarded as a sim-
ple homogeneous soil slope for which a weak layer and
groundwater are not considered. Three-dimensional strength-
reduction FEM is used to compute the safety factor and the
critical slip surface for the slope. The result obtained from
this method is 2.15, which is in good agreement with the

Published by NRC Research Press

 578 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Table 2. Comparison of slope safety factors for case 1.

Source Factor
Average of 2D methods by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) 2.034
3D LEM by Zhang (1988) 2.122
3D UB-LAM by Chen et al. (2001) 2.262
3D-LEM by Chen et al. (2003b) 2.187
3D-LEM CLARA (software package) by Hungr (1987) 2.167
3D-FEM by Griffiths and Marquez (2007) 2.17
Present solution 2.15
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13

Fig. 5. Deformed mesh at failure for four cases. (a) case 1; (b) case 2; (c) case 3; (d) case 4.
For personal use only.

other solutions obtained from different methods and listed in
Table 2. The maximum difference is less than 5%. The de-
formed mesh at failure (corresponding to the nonconverged
solution when SRF = 2.15), can be shown in Fig. 5a. By in-
spection of the critical slip surfaces shown in Fig. 5a, it can
be seen that both the failure mechanism and the shape and
location of that surface are somewhat similar to those ob-
tained by 3D LEM and shown in Fig. 3.
Case 2: Nonhomogeneous slope with a thin weak layer
A weak layer is assumed to exist in this 3D slope, as
shown in Fig. 3. The safety factor of the slope, as calculated
by strength-reduction FEM, is 1.59, which shows good con-
sistency with the other results from different authors listed in
Table 3, except for a slightly greater difference (though still
less than 10%) between the result from the present method
and that from Chen et al. (2001).
The deformed FE mesh for the whole slope is shown in
Fig. 5b. It can be seen that the critical slip surface for the
3D slope that includes a thin weak layer shows a “dog-leg”
path in the x–y plane and is extremely similar to the surface
calculated by Griffiths and Marquez (2007). Moreover, the
failure mechanism of the slope that includes a thin weak
layer in the foundation is completely different from that de-
scribed in case 1 (Fig. 5a).
Table 3. Comparison of safety factor values for a 3D slope for
Case 2.
Source Factor
Average of 2D methods by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) 1.383
3D LEM by Zhang (1988) 1.553
3D UB-LAM by Chen et al. (2001) 1.717
3D-LEM by Chen et al. (2003b) 1.603
3D-LEM CLARA (software package) by Hungr (1987) 1.620
3D-FEM by Griffiths and Marquez (2007) 1.58
Present solution 1.59
Case 3: Homogeneous slope with groundwater
A homogeneous slope with a piezometric line as shown in
Fig. 3 is considered in the present analysis. The obtained
safety factor of the slope based on 3D strength-reduction
FEM is 1.86, which is very close to the 3D solution value of
1.831 obtained by Zhang (1988), while the average of the 2D
methods (including the ordinary method, simplified Bishop
method, Spencer’s method, Janbu’s simplified method, Jan-
bu’s rigorous method, and the Morgenstern–Price method) as
determined by Fredlund and Krahn (1977) is 1.799. The de-
formed FE mesh is shown in Fig. 5c. Compared with case 1
for a homogeneous soil slope, it is apparent that the safety

Published by NRC Research Press

 Nian et al. 579

factor decreases dramatically from 2.15 to 1.86 for the 3D

Case 4: nonhomogeneous slope with

slope when groundwater is included, and the critical slip sur-
face is also deeper for the groundwater condition, as can be
seen by comparison of Figs. 5c and 5a. However, it is worth

weak layer and groundwater

mentioning that when further compared with the circular slip
surfaces shown in Fig. 3, the failure mechanism in the
present case is fully similar to that shown in Fig. 3 deter-
mined by 3D-LEM and to that shown in Fig. 5c determined
by 3D-FEM.

–0.6 (32%)

–0.3 (19%)

Shallower

Speedup
Case 4: Nonhomogeneous slope with groundwater

4.97e–02
8.49e–02
Deeper
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13

1.298
A nonhomogeneous slope underlain by a thin weak layer
with groundwater as shown in Fig. 3 is investigated in this
case. Three-dimensional strength-reduction FEM is used, and

——————————————————————————————————————————→
————————————————————————————→
the obtained safety factor of the slope is 1.298, which is

Case 3: homogeneous slope with

————————————→
———————————————————————————→
somewhat smaller than the solution (1.441) obtained by

———————————→
Zhang (1988), but much closer to the average of the 2D
methods (1.258) as determined by Fredlund and Krahn
(1977). The maximum difference is still less than 10%. Fig-
ure 5d shows the deformed FE mesh when iteration noncon-
vergence occurs. It can be seen that the failure mechanism

groundwater
and the critical slip surface are fairly similar to case 2.

–0.3 (14%)

7.51e–02
2.16e–01
deeper
Comparison of results for the four cases

1.86
The four cases described above for the slope underlain by
a thin weak layer and groundwater are summarized in Table 4
For personal use only.

to show the differences in safety factor and the critical slip

——————————————————————————→

——————————————————————————→
Case 2: nonhomogeneous slope

surface. The safety factor of the slope is remarkably reduced

when a weak layer or groundwater is present, and the effect
of the weak layer on the safety factor is somewhat larger
Table 4. Comparison of safety factors and critical slip surfaces of the 3D slope for example 1.

than that of groundwater in this example. The critical slip

surface can also be outlined using the deformed mesh and
with weak layer

the equivalent plastic strain zone, and the simplified 2D fail-

ure modes in the x–y plane are presented in Table 4. The crit-
–0.6 (28%)

ical slip surface in the slope containing a weak layer (cases 2

and 4) is evident along the thin weak layer and is completely shallower
1.59

1.25
2.37
different from the surface with groundwater (case 3 or 1).
The zone of high equivalent plastic strain in the slope is also
evident on the 2D plots; slope reinforcement should be em-
phasized in these zones. The maximum equivalent plastic
Case 1: homogeneous slope

——————————→

——————————→

strain value on the slope surface at the time of numerical iter-

ative nonconvergence is also given in Table 4. When the
maximum equivalent plastic strain values for the four cases
are compared, it is clear that iterative nonconvergence tends
to speed up, as shown in Table 4.

Effect of three-dimensional complex

2.15

3.67
3.05

geometry for corner slopes

Numerical iterative nonconvergence

Most natural and constructed slopes exhibit a complex

surface; zones of high equiva-

geometric configuration and 3D state. This is especially clear

Max. equiv. plastic strain, 3pmax
lent plastic strain enclosed in
Shape and location of critical

in instances such as a corner defined by the intersection of

Depth of critical slip surface

two embankments or an arc-shaped road cutting a slope

Difference between cases

around a mountainous area. Engineering practice has shown

FOS (present method)

that geometric configuration has an important impact on

slope stability and therefore should be considered fully in
Speedup order

evaluating the safety factor and critical slip surface for a

Parameters

complex 3D slope. In the following example, a representative

Edmax/gH2

3D complex slope with various geometric configurations,

such as turning corners, slope gradients, and turning arcs, is
discussed in detail.

Published by NRC Research Press

 580
Fig. 6. Top views with different corners, side view, and FE mesh for a gentle 3D slope. (a-1) Top view of 90° corner; (a-2) top view of 135°
corner; (a-3); top view of 180° corner (straight slope). (b) Side view. (c) 3D FE model and mesh representation. All dimensions in metres.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
Table 5. Safety factor for gentle 3D slopes with different corners and BCs.
Safety factor
Turning corner of slope Unrestrained
90° 2.690
135° 2.655
180° (straight slope) 2.590
Plane strain solution 2.555
Example 2
A three-dimensional complex geometric slope is illustrated
in Fig. 6. Top views with different turning corners (90°,
135°, and 180°), a side view, and a typical 3D FE model
and mesh representation are shown, respectively, in Figs. 6a,
6b, and 6c, in which the 3D slope with 180° turning corner is
completely identical to the common 3D slope without a cor-
ner (straight slope). The material properties of the 3D slope
are listed in Table 1. The height of the slope is H = 10 m
and c′/gH = 0.2. The slope is inclined at an angle of 26.57
(1V:2H, where V is vertical and H is horizontal) from the
horizontal, and the boundary condition is chosen to be types
1, 2, and 3, respectively, as mentioned earlier. For instance,
type 1 is represented by vertical rollers on the left base and
right boundary (Fig. 6b) and fully fixed at the base (Figs. 6b,
6c). The constitutive behavior of the soil continuum is mod-
eled in the present analysis using an elastic, perfectly plastic
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion combined with nonassoci-
ated flow laws. The safety factor for the slope, obtained by
plane strain analysis, is 2.555.
Effect of a turning corner on the slope
The 3D slopes with turning corners exhibit a symmetric dis-
tribution around the central axis through the corner, and the
length of each border is 20 m (Fig. 6). Three turning corners
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Semi-restrained Fully restrained
2.710 2.860
2.695 2.810
2.655 2.780
2.555 2.555
for the 3D slope — 90°, 135°, and 180° (straight slope) —
are considered in the present analysis. For each corner case,
three types of constraints — unrestrained, semi-restrained,
and fully restrained boundary conditions as described ear-
lier — are, respectively, incorporated into the three-dimen-
sional FE analysis using the strength-reduction method. The
safety factors of the 3D slope corresponding to various cor-
ners and constraints are calculated and listed in Table 5.
It can be seen from Table 5 that the safety factor for a gen-
tle 3D slope decreases as the slope turning corner increases
from 90° to 180° (straight slope) regardless of the BCs. This
indicates that the safety factor of a 3D slope with a corner is
much larger than for one without a corner, such as the 180°
(straight slope) case, but the difference is less than 5%. On
the other hand, the safety factor for a gentle 3D slope will
increase as the boundary constraints for a given slope corner
are strengthened (from unrestrained to fully restrained BC),
but the change is in the range of less than 10%. Comparing
the effects of various boundary conditions with those of slope
corners, it is clear that the effect of the boundary constraints
on the safety factor for a gentle 3D slope is somewhat larger
than that of a slope corner.
To further investigate the variations in critical slip surface
under various boundary conditions and slope corners, the de-
formed FE mesh (Fig. 7) and the horizontal displacement dis-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Nian et al. 581

Fig. 7. Deformed FE mesh for a gentle 3D slope under two BCs (90° corner): (a) unrestrained; (b) fully restrained.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13

Fig. 8. Horizontal displacement distribution and shear-slip zone contours for a gentle 3D slope under fully restrained BC (90° corner):
(a) horizontal displacement distribution; (b) shear-slip zone contours.
For personal use only.

Fig. 9. Deformed FE meshes for a gentle 3D slope under two BCs (135° corner): (a) unrestrained; (b) fully restrained.

tribution and equivalent plastic strain contours (Fig. 8) are
shown for a 90° slope corner under two constraints. Similar
plots for a 135° slope corner with two constraints can be
found in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. The results for the
180° straight slope are not reported here because this is a
very common 3D slope and has been analyzed by many in-
vestigators (Zhang 1988; Chen et al. 2001; Chugh 2003;
Griffiths and Marquez 2007; Wei et al. 2009).
Comparing the above two corner cases (90° and 135°)
based on the horizontal displacement distribution and plastic
strain contours, the turning corner acts to some extent as a
constraint to resist potential sliding on a gentle 3D slope
under unrestrained BCs, but the constraint effect is the most
significant in the fully restrained state. In particular, equiva-
lent plastic strain contours show that the constraint effects
become more noticeable when the turning corner is smaller

Published by NRC Research Press

 582 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012

Fig. 10. Contours of shear-slip zone for a gentle 3D slope under fully restrained BC (135° corner).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
For personal use only.

Fig. 11. Top views with different corners and side view for a vertical 3D slope. (a) Top view of 90° corner; (b) top view of 135° corner; (c)
side view.

(e.g., a 90° corner angle) regardless of the BCs. This is ex-
actly why the safety factor for a gentle 3D slope with a 90°
corner angle is far greater than for the other two corner-turn-
ing cases (135° and 180°). On the other hand, the horizontal
displacement of the slope crest at the corner presents a max-
imum value and is in the most dangerous state under fully re-
strained conditions. In addition, the deformation and failure
modes under the fully restrained BC are entirely different
from that under unrestrained BC, in which the slope will fail
along or close to the free boundary.
Effect of the slope gradient
In the previous section, the effect of the slope-turning cor-
ner on slope stability and failure characteristics under various
constraints is fully discussed for a gentle 3D slope (1V:2H),
and certain corner effects are found to exist for this gentle
slope. Now, to investigate special phenomena for a steep
slope, the gentle slope investigated above will be replaced by
a vertical 3D slope. The corresponding top views with differ-
ent corners (90° and 135°) and a side view are shown, re-
spectively, in Figs. 11a, 11b, and 11c. The three types of

Published by NRC Research Press

 Nian et al. 583

Table 6. Safety factor for vertical 3D slopes with different corners and BCs.

Safety factor
Turning corner of slope Unrestrained Semi-restrained Fully restrained
90° 1.172 1.197 1.209
135° 1.205 1.215 1.240
180° (no corner) 1.210 1.235 1.273
Plane strain solution 1.206 1.206 1.206

Fig. 12. Deformed FE meshes for a vertical 3D slope under two BCs (90° corner): (a) unrestrained; (b) fully restrained.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
For personal use only.

Fig. 13. Horizontal displacement distribution and shear-slip zone contours for a vertical 3D slope under fully restrained BC (90° corner:
(a) horizontal displacement distribution; (b) shear-slip zone contours.

BCs are carried out, and the FE calculation mesh and constit-
utive soil model are identical to those used in previous exam-
ples. The calculated results for the safety factors of the
vertical 3D slope obtained using the FEM are listed in Ta-
ble 6.
It can be seen from Table 6 that the safety factor for a ver-
tical 3D slope increases as the slope corner angle increases,
irrespective of the BCs. This is entirely opposite to the result
obtained for the gentle slope discussed previously. If a 3D
slope with a 180° corner (straight slope) under an unre-
strained condition is almost equivalent to the plane strain
problem (Table 6), the solution obtained under such a case
is not certain to be the minimum one. In other words, the
safety factor for a vertical 3D slope with a 90° or 135° corner
angle is somewhat smaller than that for a 2D slope. This sit-
uation can be commonly encountered in practical engineering
situations such as the excavation of a deep building pit. For
slope engineering, not only the safety factor, but also the de-
formation and the critical slip surface must all be the focus of
further research. The deformed FE mesh (Fig. 12) and hori-
zontal displacement distribution and equivalent plastic strain
contours (Fig. 13) are shown for a vertical 3D slope with

Published by NRC Research Press

 584
Fig. 14. Deformed FE meshes for a vertical 3D slope under two BCs (135° corner): (a) unrestrained; (b) fully restrained.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
Fig. 15. Contours of plastic strain (shear-slip zone) for a vertical 3D slope under fully restrained BC (135° corner).
For personal use only.
90° corner angle under two BCs. Similar plots for vertical
3D slopes with a 135° corner angle under two BCs are
shown in Figs. 14 and 15.
Comparing the above two cases (90° and 135° corner), the
slope-turning corner shows a limited ability to resist potential
sliding for a vertical 3D slope under two BCs, even with a
sharper turning corner (90°corner angle) the constraint effect
is still unappreciated and unexpected. On the contrary, the
turning corner of a vertical 3D slope, especially in the 90°
turning corner case, increases the slide risk of the slope.
This is exactly why a lower safety factor is defined for a ver-
tical 3D slope with a 90° corner angle. The maximum hori-
zontal displacement of a vertical 3D slope is always located
at the intersection of the turning corner line and the slope
crest, which is the most dangerous zone and can be defined
according to the maximum horizontal displacement and
equivalent plastic strain contours. A potential landslide can
readily occur around this intersection region; it should there-
fore be investigated intensively and effective reinforcement
should be provided without delay, regardless of the turning
corner of the vertical 3D slope.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Effect of turning arc on a slope
The effect of a turning corner on the stability of a 3D
slope has been sufficiently analyzed as described above.
However, in practical slope engineering, turning corners do
not exist everywhere, but are replaced by turning arcs in
some cases. For example, in mountainous areas, some turn-
ing points for cutting across slopes often appear as an arc
track in a top view. In the following discussion, a gentle 3D
slope (1V:2H) with a turning arc of 180° is investigated in
detail. The corresponding top view and side view are shown,
respectively, in Figs. 16 and 6b.
A three-dimensional strength-reduction FEM is used to per-
form the calculation of slope stability. The safety factors corre-
sponding to three types of BCs — unrestrained, semi-restrained
and fully restrained — are, respectively, 2.670, 2.685, and
2.690, and the solution of a 2D plane strain analysis is
2.555. Comparing the two cases, the solutions obtained
from the 3D analysis are significantly larger than the plane
strain solution and also somewhat larger than the values for
a 3D straight slope (turning corner 180°) (Table 5). This is
because the slope under analysis, shown in Fig. 16, includes
Published by NRC Research Press
 Nian et al.
Fig. 16. Top view for a gentle 3D slope with turning arc.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
a circular turning arc and certain constraints exist in the 3D
slope, which mean that it no longer satisfies the assump-
tions of the plane strain calculation even though the slope
turning arc is extended over a long perimeter and the slope
gradient of the points around the turning arc is identical to
the previous case.
Figures 17 and 18 show the deformed mesh and equivalent
plastic strain contours for the gentle 3D slope with turning
arc 180° under two BCs. It can be seen from Figs. 17b and
For personal use only.
18b that the deformed mesh and shear-slip zone under the
semi-restrained BC have not been extended to the end of the
fixed boundary. The reason for this is that the 3D turning arc
slope under analysis is somewhat different from the common
3D straight slopes or 3D slopes with turning corner discussed
above, in which the beeline or fold line occurs along the z-
direction. In general, the present gentle 3D slope with turning
arc 180° under various BCs exhibits certain constraint ef-
fects, which lead directly to an evident improvement in slope
stability.
Discussion
A three-dimensional strength-reduction finite element anal-
ysis was carried out to obtain the safety factors (FOS) for a
convex slope with a turning corner. An interesting phenom-
enon regarding the variations in the safety factor as a func-
tion of the 3D slope surface geometry has been observed.
The FOS for a convex-shaped gentle slope decreases when
increasing the corner angle from 90° through 135° to 180°
(straight slope). However, the FOS for a convex-shaped verti-
cal slope increases when increasing the corner angle from
90° through 135° to 180° (straight slope).
The physical reasons for the observed variations in the
safety factor as a function of geometry can be interpreted
through the following two aspects:
• Different failure modes for convex-shaped gentle and ver-
tical slopes with turning corners — For the convex-
shaped gentle slope, major sliding failure will occur along
the lateral two-slope surface. The plastic shear-strain zone
will cross in the upper middle portion of the turning cor-
ner (e.g., see Fig. 8b) or the inner portion of the turning
corner (e.g., see Fig. 10b). Under this condition, when a
lateral slope yields in a deep slide, the other slope will
produce certain resistance or drag effects at the intersec-
585
Fig. 17. Deformed FE mesh for a gentle 3D slope with 180° turning
arc under two BCs: (a) unrestrained; (b) semi-restrained.
tions of the plastic zone (at the turning corner) to restrain
the sliding of the slope. This indicates that the turning cor-
ner exerts some constraints or container effects. Therefore,
the FOS for a convex-shaped gentle slope with corner an-
gle (90°, 135°) is larger than for a 3D straight slope (see
Table 5). However, for convex-shaped vertical slopes (e.g.,
90° and 135° corner angle), a major sliding failure surface
will cut obliquely across the whole turning corner to the
base, because high plastic strain zones are concentrated at
the base of the turning corner (see Figs. 13 and 15). The
sliding body will appear as a pyramid-shaped turning cor-
ner block or one-quarter pyramid. Under this condition,
the turning corner will no longer provide the extra con-
straint effects, but on the contrary, can readily slide along
the turning corner block and reduce the stability of the
convex-shaped vertical slope.
• Free surface effects that are completely different for convex-
shaped gentle and vertical slope with turning corners —
The steeper the slope inclination, the more marked the
free-surface effects, and the lower the FOS for a 3D con-
vex slope. In the two cases of convex-shaped gentle and
vertical slopes examined in the paper, the free-surface ef-
fect of the vertical slope is more evident than that of the
gentle one. Moreover, the free-surface effect for a con-
vex-shaped vertical slope with a 90° corner angle is the
most evident among the three turning corners. Therefore,
the FOS for a convex-shaped vertical slope with a 90°
corner angle is the minimum (see Table 6).
In addition, to further explore the difference between con-
vex- and concave-shaped slopes, a concave-shaped vertical
slope with a 90° corner angle as illustrated in example 2 and
Fig. 11 was calculated to obtain the FOS and the critical slip
surface. The resulting FOS value under various BCs are listed
in Table 7, and the deformed mesh and equivalent plastic
strain under a fully restrained BC are shown in Fig. 19. Com-
pared with Table 6, the FOS of the concave-shaped vertical
slope with a 90° corner angle is markedly higher than that of
a convex-shaped vertical slope with a 90° corner angle. The
difference between the two cases is close to 15% even though
compared with the 3D straight vertical slope, the maximum
difference can also be as high as 8.5% (Tables 6 and 7). The
reason for this is that a completely different sliding failure
mode and free-surface effect exist in the concave-shaped ver-
tical slope with a 90° corner angle (see Fig. 19b).
Published by NRC Research Press
 586
Fig. 18. Contours of plastic strain (shear-slip zone) for a gentle 3D slope with 180° turning arc under two BCs: (a) unrestrained; (b) semi-
restrained.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
For personal use only.
Summary and conclusions
Three-dimensional elastic, perfectly plastic FE calculations
with the strength-reduction method have been performed to
obtain safety factors and critical slip surfaces for 3D slopes.
In addition, the complex geological conditions (thin weak
layer and groundwater), various boundary conditions, and
complex geometries (turning corners and arcs) are fully con-
sidered. The numerical results obtained have clearly demon-
strated that the 3D strength-reduction FEM presented in this
paper is reasonable and feasible. In particular, this approach
can visually monitor the failure progress of a 3D slope and
clearly outline the critical slip surface over the overall shear
failure zone in a 3D state, which means that it can be ex-
pected to become more widely popular in geotechnical engi-
neering practice. From the findings of this study, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. For a convex-shaped gentle 3D slope with a corner, signif-
icant constraint effects exist at the corner, and therefore
a considerably higher safety factor is obtained than for a
common 3D slope (straight slope). In particular, the
smaller the corner angle (180°→90°), the larger the
safety factor, regardless of the boundary conditions. For
a steep 3D slope with a corner, however, the constraint
effects at the corner disappear, and a lower safety factor,
even smaller than that from plane strain analysis, results.
In general, the difference in FOS is less than 10% for a
gentle 3D slope under a different corner angle or for a
steep one undera different corner angle, while the differ-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Table 7. FOS for concaved-shaped vertical 3D slopes with 90°
turning corners under various BCs.
Safety factor
Turning corner Semi- Fully
of slope Unrestrained restrained restrained
90° 1.274 1.275 1.380
ence in FOS between a gentle slope and a steep one is
much greater than 100% (Tables 5 and 6).
2. For both gentle and steep 3D slopes with a corner, the
maximum horizontal displacement is always located at the
intersection of the turning corner line and the slope crest
under the fully restrained BC. Here a potential landslide
can readily occur, and effective reinforcement should be
pre-emptively carried out. Moreover, the central sliding fail-
ure mode shown in this case is entirely different from the
lateral sliding failure mode under unrestrained conditions.
3. The FOS of a concave-shaped vertical slope with a 90° cor-
ner angle is markedly higher than that of a convex-
shaped vertical slope with a 90° corner angle. The
maximum difference between the two cases can be as
great as 15% even though compared with the 3D
straight vertical slope, the maximum difference can also
be as high as 8.5% (Tables 6 and 7). From the view-
point of engineering safety (conservative) and minimiz-
ing computational cost, a concave-shaped vertical slope
with a 90° corner angle can be replaced by a straight
vertical slope for computation of the safety factor.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Nian et al.
Fig. 19. Deformation of a concave-shaped vertical 3D slope with 90° turning corner under fully restrained BC. (a) Deformed mesh; (b) con-
tours of equivalent plastic strain.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
4. For a gentle 3D slope with a 180° turning arc, the safety
For personal use only.
factors obtained are significantly greater than the plane
strain solution and also somewhat greater than those ob-
tained from a common 3D straight slope. The presented
3D slope with turning arc shows some constraint effect,
which leads directly to an obvious improvement in slope
stability.
5. In 3D slope stability analysis, the shape and location of the
critical slip surface is likely to be different at different
points in the z-dimension, especially when the slope geo-
metry is not regular with a turning corner or turning arc.
Acknowledgements
The research work presented here and the preparation of
this paper have been financially supported by National Natu-
ral Science Foundation of China (NSFC; Grant
No. 51179022), the Open Research Fund of the State Key
Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironmental
Protection, Chengdu University of Technology (Grant No.
SKLGP2010K005), and the Research Fund of Japan (Scien-
tific Research B: 22310113). This financial support is grate-
fully acknowledged. The authors also wish to acknowledge
the Associate Editor and the two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments on the manuscript.
References
Arellano, D., and Stark, T.D. 2000. Importance of three-dimensional
slope stability analysis in practice. In Slope Stability 2000.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 101. Edited by D.V.
Griffiths, G.A. Fenton, and T.R. Martin. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York. pp. 18–32.
Bromhead, E.N., and Martin, P.L. 2004. Three-dimensional limit
equilibrium analysis of the Taren landslide. In Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering (Skempton Conference). Thomas Tel-
ford, London. Vol. 2, pp. 789–802.
587
Cai, F., Ugai, K., Wakai, A., and Li, Q. 1998. Effects of horizontal
drains on slope stability under rainfall by three-dimensional finite
element analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 23(4): 255–275.
doi:10.1016/S0266-352X(98)00021-4.
Cavounidis, S. 1987. On the ratio of factors of safety in slope stability
analyses. Géotechnique, 37(2): 207–210. doi:10.1680/geot.1987.
37.2.207.
Chen, R.H., and Chameau, J.-L. 1985. Discussion: three-dimensional
limit equilibrium analysis of slopes. Géotechnique, 35(2): 215–
216. doi:10.1680/geot.1985.35.2.215.
Chen, Z., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Yin, J.-H., and Haberfield, C. 2001. A
three-dimensional slope stability analysis method using the upper
bound theorem. Part II: numerical approaches, applications and
extensions. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 38(3): 379–397. doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(01)00013-2.
Chen, J., Yin, J.-H., and Lee, C.F. 2003a. Upper bound limit analysis
of slope stability using rigid finite elements and nonlinear
programming. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(4): 742–752.
doi:10.1139/t03-032.
Chen, Z., Mi, H., Zhang, F., and Wang, X. 2003b. A simplified
method for 3D slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 40(3): 675–683. doi:10.1139/t03-002.
Cheng, Y.M., and Yip, C. 2007. Three-dimensional asymmetrical
slope stability analysis: extension of Bishop’s, Janbu’s and
Morgenstern-Price’s techniques. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(12): 1544–1555. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1544).
Cheng, Y.M., Liu, H.T., Wei, W.B., and Au, S.K. 2005. Location of
critical three-dimensional nonspherical failure surface by nurbs
functions and ellipsoid with applications to highway slopes.
Computers and Geotechnics, 32(6): 387–399. doi:10.1016/j.
compgeo.2005.07.004.
Cheng, Y.M., Li, L., and Chi, S.C. 2007. Performance studies on six
heuristic global optimization methods in the location of critical
slip surface. Computers and Geotechnics, 34(6): 462–484. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2007.01.004.
Chugh, K.A. 2003. On the boundary conditions in slope stability
Published by NRC Research Press
 588
analysis. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 27(11): 905–926. doi:10.1002/nag.
305.
Dawson, E.M., Roth, W.H., and Drescher, A. 1999. Slope stability
analysis by strength reduction. Géotechnique, 49(6): 835–840.
doi:10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.835.
Duncan, J.M. 1996a. Soil slope stability analysis. In Landslides:
investigation and mitigation. Special Report 247, Chapter 13.
Edited by A.K. Turner et al. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Duncan, J.M. 1996b. State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite
element analysis of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Melbourne on 05/15/13
122(7): 577–596. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:7
(577).
Fredlund, D.G., and Krahn, J. 1977. Comparison of slope stability
methods of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 14(3): 429–
439. doi:10.1139/t77-045.
Griffiths, D.V., and Lane, P.A. 1999. Slope stability analysis by finite
elements. Géotechnique, 49(3): 387–403. doi:10.1680/geot.1999.
49.3.387.
Griffiths, D.V., and Marquez, R.M. 2007. Three-dimensional slope
stability analysis by elasto-plastic finite elements. Géotechnique,
57(6): 537–546. doi:10.1680/geot.2007.57.6.537.
Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen Inc. 2005. ABAQUS/Standard,
ABAQUS/CAE user’s manual. HKS Inc., Pawtucket, R.I.
Huang, C.C., and Tsai, C.C. 2000. New method for 3D and
asymmetrical slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and
For personal use only.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(10): 917–927. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:10(917).
Huang, C.C., Tsai, C.C., and Chen, Y.H. 2002. Generalized method
for three-dimensional slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(10): 836–848.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:10(836).
Hungr, O. 1987. An extension of Bishop’s simplified method of slope
stability analysis to three dimensions. Géotechnique, 37(1): 113–
117. doi:10.1680/geot.1987.37.1.113.
Hungr, O., Salgado, F.M., and Byrne, P.M. 1989. Evaluation of a
three-dimensional method of slope-stability analysis. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 26(4): 679–686. doi:10.1139/t89-079.
Jeremic, B. 2000. Finite-element methods for three-dimensional slope
stability analysis. In Slope stability 2000, GSP 101. Edited by D.V.
Griffiths et al. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
pp. 224–238.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 49, 2012
Jiang, J.-C., and Yamagami, T. 2004. Three-dimensional slope
stability analysis using an extended Spencer method. Soils and
Foundations, 44(4): 127–135. doi:10.3208/sandf.44.4_127.
Lam, L., and Fredlund, D.G. 1993. A general limit equilibrium model
for three-dimensional slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 30(6): 905–919. doi:10.1139/t93-089.
Leshchinsky, D., and Baker, R. 1986. Three-dimensional slope
stability: end effects. Soil and Foundation, 26(4): 98–110. doi:10.
3208/sandf1972.26.4_98.
Manzari, M.T., and Nour, M.A. 2000. Significance of soil dilatancy
in slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvir-
onmental Engineering, 126(1): 75–80. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2000)126:1(75).
Sainak, A.N. 2004. Application of three-dimensional finite-element
method in parametric and geometric studies of slope stability. In
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering (Skempton Conference).
Thomas Telford, London. Vol. 2, pp. 933–942.
Stark, T.D., and Eid, H.T. 1998. Performance of three-dimensional
slope stability methods in practice. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(11): 1049–1060. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:11(1049).
Ugai, K., and Leshchinsky, D. 1995. Three-dimensional limit
equilibrium and finite-element analysis: a comparison of results.
Soils and Foundations, 35(4): 1–7. doi:10.3208/sandf.35.4_1.
Vaughan, P.R. 2008. Discussion on three-dimensional slope stability
analysis by elasto-plastic finite elements. Géotechnique, 58(8):
683–685. doi:10.1680/geot.2008.D.010.
Wei, W.B., Cheng, Y.M., and Li, L. 2009. Three-dimensional slope
failure analysis by the strength reduction and limit equilibrium
methods. Computers and Geotechnics, 36(1–2): 70–80. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2008.03.003.
Zhang, X. 1988. Three-dimensional stability analysis of concave
slopes in plan view. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 114(6):
658–671. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:6(658).
Zheng, H., Tham, L.G., and Liu, D. 2006. On two definitions of the
factor of safety commonly used in the finite element slope stability
analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 33(3): 188–195. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2006.03.007.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Humpheson, C., and Lewis, R.W. 1975.
Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity and plasticity in
soil mechanics. Géotechnique, 25(4): 671–689. doi:10.1680/geot.
1975.25.4.671.
Published by NRC Research Press