and velocity compatibility conditions and the failure criterion of the soil.

Solving each
two equations separately results in simpler operations and reduce the time of calculation.
As long as the different between the lower and upper bound solution is within a limited
range, the limit analysis solution is considered very effective.

According to the upper bound theorem, “if a set of external loads acts on a failure
mechanism and the work done by the external loads in an increment of displacement
equals the work done by the internal stresses, the external loads obtained are not lower
than the true collapse loads. It is noted that the external loads are not necessarily in
equilibrium with the internal stresses and the mechanism of failure is not necessarily the
actual failure mechanism. By examining different mechanisms, the best (least) upper
bound value may be found.” The lower bound theorem states “if an equilibrium
distribution of stress covering the whole body can be found that balances a set of external
loads on the stress boundary and is nowhere above the failure criterion of the material,
the external loads are not higher than the true collapse loads. It is noted that in the lower
bound theorem, the strain and displacements are not considered and that the state of stress
is not necessarily the actual state of stress at collapse. By examining different admissible
states of stress, the best (highest) lower bound value may be found.” These solutions are
strictly considering that the stress field is in equilibrium with the applied loads at any
point in the soil continuum, while the velocity field associated with an upper bound
solution is compatible with the imposed displacements. (Yu et al, 1998) pointed out that
an upper bound limit analysis solution might be considered as a special case of limit
equilibrium solution but not vice versa. Applications of plasticity limit theorems in soil
mechanics were first reported in (Drucker, D.C., and Prager, W, 1952)and were further
surveyed by (Chen, W.F, 1975). With this approach, a limit analysis takes advantage of
both lower and upper bound theorems of classical plasticity to limit the true solution
between a lower and upper bound.
In recent years, many contributions have been made in the application of the
plasticity limit theorems to limit analysis in the field of slope stability. (Donald, I.B., and
Chen, Z, 1997) proposed an energy–work balance approach (or the upper bound approach
using the associated flow rule). (Wang, Y.J., Yin, J.H., and Lee, C.F, 2001) developed
this method to investigate the influence of a non-associated flow rule on the calculation
of the FOS of two dimensional (2D) soil slopes. (Chen Z. , Wang, Haberfield, & Yin,
2001) recently extended the upper bound method for three dimensional (3D) slope
stability analysis. (Sloan S. , 1988), (Sloan, S.W., and Kleeman, P.W, 1995), and
(Lyamin, A.V., and Sloan, S.W, 2002) have made significant progress in developing new
methods combining finite elements with linear or nonlinear programming to compute
rigorous lower and upper bounds solutions for both 2D and 3D problems. Using these
algorithms, (Kim, J., Salgado, R., and Yu, H.S, 1999) presented a formula in terms of
effective stresses to perform lower and upper bound limit analysis of 2D soil slopes
subjected to pore-water pressures under plain–strain condition.

2.4.2. Formulation of Limit analysis in Optum G2

2.4.2.1. Stress and equilibrium

In the general 3-D case, the state of stress at a point is defined in terms of the six
dimensional stress vector:

σ = (σ𝑥 , σ𝑦 , σ𝑧 , τ𝑥 , τ𝑦 , τ𝑧 )𝑇

23
While using plane strain, two values for the shear stresses can be eliminated, assuming z
direction to be the out-of-plane direction. The dimensional stress vectors can be reduced
to four only, and is defined as follow:

σ = (σ𝑥 , σ𝑦 , σ𝑧 , τ𝑥𝑦 )𝑇

For a 2-D plane strain geometry, the equilibrium equations are given by

𝜕σ𝑥 𝜕τ𝑥𝑦
+ + 𝑏𝑥 = 0
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦

𝜕σ𝑦 𝜕τ𝑥𝑦
+ + 𝑏𝑦 = 0
𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥

where b = (bx , by )T are the forces acting on the body. These equations may be expressed
in the following matrix form
∇𝑇 σ + b = 0, in V
Where
𝜕
𝜕 0 0
𝜕𝑦
𝜕𝑥
∇𝑇 =
𝜕 𝜕
0 0
[ 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑥]

The static boundary conditions for 2-D plan strain body can be written in the
following equations:

n𝑥 σ𝑥 + n𝑦 σ𝑦 = t 𝑥

n𝑦 σ𝑦 + n𝑥 τ𝑥𝑦 = t 𝑦

where tx and ty are the components of the traction vector t and n = (nx , ny )T is the
outward normal to the boundary. These equations can be expressed in the following
matrix form

P 𝑇 σ = t, On Sσ
Where

n𝑥 0 n𝑦
P𝑇 σ = [ ]
0 n𝑦 n𝑥

2.4.2.1. Displacement, strain and compatibility

For a generalized cube element, in order to define the strain at each point need is six
dimensional strain vectors are needed:

24
 ɛ = (ɛ𝑥 , ɛ𝑦 , ɛ𝑧 , γ𝑥𝑦 , γ𝑥𝑧 , γ𝑦𝑧 )𝑇

for the case of 2-D plane strain the above equation can be simplified to be:

ɛ = (ɛ𝑥 , ɛ𝑦 , 0, γ𝑥𝑦 )𝑇

Assuming small displacements, the strains are related to the displacements by

𝜕u𝑥
ɛ𝑥 =
𝜕𝑥
𝜕u𝑦
ɛ𝑦 =
𝜕𝑦

ɛ𝑧 = 0

𝜕u𝑥 𝜕u𝑦
γ𝑥𝑦 = +
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥

where u = (ux , uy )T are the displacements. This may also be written as

ɛ = ∇u
where ∇ can be defined as the equilibrium operator and as the strain-displacement
operator.

The kinematic boundary conditions is defined as

𝑢 = u𝑏 , On Sσ

where u𝑏 are the boundary displacements.

2.4.2.2. Principle of virtual work

The principle of virtual work can be discussed by Considering a stress field, σ𝑎 , that
satisfies the static equilibrium and the following boundary conditions:

∇𝑇 σ2 + 𝑏2 = 0, in V

P 𝑇 𝜎2 = t 2 , On Sσ

In addition to considering a displacement field, u𝑏 , and a strain field can be related

together using the following equation:
ɛ𝑏 = ∇ u𝑏

Then

∫ 𝜎𝑎𝑇 ɛ𝑏 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ 𝑏𝑎𝑇 u𝑏 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ 𝑡𝑎𝑇 u𝑏 𝑑𝑆 = 0

v v Sσ

25
The principle of virtual work can be used to highlight that the stress and
displacement/strain fields are not necessarily related (OptumG2 Theory Manual, 2016).
A different statement of the principle of virtual work is as follows. Let 𝜎 be a stress
field satisfying

∫ 𝜎 𝑇 ɛ 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 𝑢 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ 𝑡 𝑇 𝑢 𝑑𝑆 = 0
v v Sσ

for all displacement and strain fields with

ɛ=∇𝑢

Then
∇𝑇 σ + b = 0, in V
P 𝑇 σ = t, on Sσ

The standard FEA method is based mainly on the principle of virtual work. Using
the analogy developed in the previous paragraphs, it is possible to get formulas for a wide
range of engineering problems (OptumG2 Theory Manual, 2016).

2.4.2.3. Governing equations

Rigid-plastic materials clearly don’t show any elastic deformation below the point
of yield and deform show unlimited deformation at the point of yield. In this case, the
governing equations shall be in terms of displacement rates (velocities) and strain rates,
rather than total displacements and strains. In order to derive the equations, the
deformations up to collapse are assumed to be are very small to affect the change in
geometry.
The governing equations comprise static equilibrium and boundary conditions:

∇𝑇 σ + b = 0 in V
P𝑇 σ = t On Sσ

Secondly, the yield condition must be satisfied:

F(σ) ≤ 0

From a kinematic point of view, the associated flow rule is assumed appropriate:

𝜕𝐹
έ𝑝 = 𝜆̇ , 𝜆̇ ≥ 0
𝜕σ′

where έ𝑝 are the plastic strain rates and λ′ are plastic multipliers. By using the small
deformation assumption mentioned above, then:

έ𝑝 = ∇ů

By combing the above two equations, we get that:

26
 𝜕𝐹
∇ů = 𝜆̇
𝜕𝜎

and the complementarity condition should be satisfied as follow:

𝜆̇F(σ) = 0

That means that yielding (λ′ > 0) can occur only when the yield condition is satisfied
[F(σ) = 0] (OptumG2 Theory Manual, 2016).

2.4.2.1. Linearization

It is appropriate to consider a linearized yield function rather than the original

nonlinear one. In other words, F(σ) ≤ 0 is replaced by a set of linear constraints of the
type:

𝑓𝑖𝑇 𝜎 − 𝑘𝑖 ≤ 0 , 𝑖 = 1 … , 𝑛

Or in a matrix form:
𝐹 𝑇 𝜎 − 𝑘𝑖 ≤ 0
where F and k collects the contributions, fi and ki respectively, from each linear
constraint. Alternatively, introducing slack variables, the yield constraints may be written
as
𝐹𝑇 𝜎 − 𝑘 + 𝑠 = 0 , 𝑠 ≥ 0

It is self-evident that the original nonlinear yield function can be approximated to

within an arbitrary degree of accuracy by increasing the number of linear planes.
(OptumG2 Theory Manual, 2016).

The flow rule associated with the linearized constraints is given in terms of ‘Koiter’s
rule’ by
𝑛 𝑛
𝜕
∇ů = ∑ 𝜆̇𝑖 (𝑓 𝜎 − 𝑘𝑖 ) = ∑ 𝜆̇𝑖 𝑓𝑖 = 𝐹𝜆̇ , 𝜆̇ ≥ 0
𝑇
𝜕𝜎 𝑖
𝑖=1 𝑖=1

𝑇
Where 𝜆̇ = (𝜆̇1 , … , 𝜆̇𝑛 ) contains the plastic multipliers associated with each of the
linear constraints. “This rule follows as an obvious consequence of von Mises’s principle
of maximum plastic dissipation and it is difficult to imagine any other way of defining
the plastic strain rates for a composite yield surface.” (Hill, 1950).

Considering a case of group of body forces acting upon a structure made of a rigid
plastic material and a group of tractions acting upon its boundary. In this case it is
necessary to know the maximum traction load that can be applied to this structure will
keep the structure away from its failure point, or in another words what is the minimum
force that will cause the structure to fail.

27
 2.4.2.2. Complete solution

In order to achieve a complete solution, a load multiplier factor shall be introduced,

hence the value of the acting traction force is given by αt (see Figure 2- 16). Suppose
further that the structure is at collapse. Since at the point of failure the value of
displacements will be infinite, hence it is necessary to introduce a scaling factor for the
velocities or a relevant work quantity.

Figure 2- 16 Solid of volume V with boundary S = Su Ս Sσ subjected to tractions αt on Sσ and

supported on Su.

The governing equations are then given by:

Equilibrium and static boundary conditions:

∇𝑇 σ + b = 0 in V

P 𝑇 σ = αt On Sσ

Yield conditions:
F𝑇 σ − k + s = 0

Associated flow rule/strain-displacement compatibility:

∇ů = F𝜆̇
Scaling:

∫ t 𝑇 ůdS = 1
Sσ
Complementarity conditions:
s 𝑇 𝜆̇ = 0, s ≥ 0 , 𝜆̇ ≥ 0

Where the scaling has been applied with respect to the rate of work done by the
reference tractions t.
“The solution to the above equations is unique in terms of the multiplier α. However,
there may be more than one stress distribution or velocity field leading to the same value

28
of the collapse multiplier. The above governing equations may be stated alternatively in
terms of a number of variation principles that in some cases allow for the establishment
of bounds to the exact collapse multiplier α to be determined.” (OptumG2 Theory
Manual, 2016).

2.4.2.3. Lower bound principle

One possibility of stating the governing equations is in terms of the lower bound
principle may be written in terms of the following:

Minimize α

Subject to ∇𝑇 σ + b = 0 in V

P 𝑇 σ = αt On Sσ

F𝑇 σ − k + s = 0 s≥0

“The main strength of the lower bound principle is that it allows for a lower bound
on the exact collapse multiplier to be computed, namely by constructing a stress field that
satisfies the constraints without necessarily being optimal.” (OptumG2 Theory Manual,
2016).

2.4.2.4. Upper bound principle

The governing equations in terms of upper bound principle may be written in terms
of the following:

Maximize ∫ k 𝑇 𝜆̇ 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 ů 𝑑𝑉
v v
∇ů = F𝜆̇ , 𝜆̇ ≥ 0
Subject to

∫ t 𝑇 ůdS = 1
Sσ

F𝑇 σ − k + s = 0

In order to solve this equation the kinematic quantities need to be considered.

This can be achieved by scaling the rate of work done by the reference tractions to
unity. The objective function, which comprises the internal rate of work minus the
contribution from the constant body forces, is then the required collapse multiplier.

2.4.2.5. Bounds

In order to verify that the lower and upper bound principles are the boundaries for
the true collapse multiplier, a stress field, satisfying the yield condition and the

29
equilibrium and boundary conditions with load multiplier 𝛼𝑎 shall be considered. Hence,
he principle of virtual work gives

∫ 𝜎𝑎𝑇 ɛ̇ 𝑃 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 ů 𝑑𝑉 − 𝛼𝑎 ∫ t 𝑇 ů 𝑑𝑆 = 0
v v Sσ

Where ů is taken as the exact velocity field and ɛ̇ 𝑃 = ∇ů.

Moreover, consider the exact stress field, in conjunction with the exact velocity field:

∫ 𝜎 𝑇 ɛ̇ 𝑃 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 ů 𝑑𝑉 − 𝛼 ∫ t 𝑇 ů 𝑑𝑆 = 0
v v Sσ

Where α is the exact collapse multiplier.

𝑇 𝑇
𝛼 − 𝛼𝑎 = ∫ (𝜎 − 𝜎𝑎 ) ɛ̇ 𝑃 𝑑𝑉 = ∫ (𝜎 − 𝜎𝑎 ) ≥0
v v

Where the last inequality, which hinges crucially on the associated flow rule, is
illustrated in Figure 2- 17

Proceeding to the upper bound principle, consider a velocity field ů𝑎 and a plastic
multiplier field 𝜆̇𝑏 > 0. Furthermore, consider a stress field, σ𝑏 not necessarily in
equilibrium, but satisfying the yield conditions F 𝑇 σ𝑏 = 0. Then the collapse multiplier
by can be defined by:

𝛼𝑎𝑏 = ∫ k 𝑇 𝜆̇𝑏 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 ů𝑎 𝑑𝑉
v v

= ∫ (𝐹 𝑇 𝜎𝑎 )𝑇 𝜆̇𝑏 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 ů𝑎 𝑑𝑉
v v

= ∫ 𝜎𝑏𝑇 𝐹 𝜆̇𝑏 − ∫ b𝑇 ů𝑎 𝑑𝑉
v v

Figure 2- 17 Illustration of lower bound inequality

30
 The exact collapse multiplier is defined via the exact stress field:

𝛼 = ∫ 𝜎 𝑇 ɛ̇ 𝑃𝑎 𝑑𝑉 − ∫ b𝑇 ů𝑎 𝑑𝑉
v v

Where ɛ̇ 𝑃𝑎 = ∇ ů𝑎 . We thus have:

𝛼𝑎𝑏 − 𝛼 = ∫ 𝜎𝑏𝑇 𝐹 𝜆̇𝑏 − 𝜎 𝑇 ɛ̇ 𝑃𝑎 𝑑𝑉

v

By Using the associated flow rule, 𝐹 𝜆̇𝑏 = ɛ̇ 𝑃𝑎 for the assumed displacement field,
the result is:

𝛼𝑎𝑏 − 𝛼 = ∫ (𝜎𝑏 − 𝜎)𝑇 ɛ̇ 𝑃𝑎 𝑑𝑉 = ∫ (𝜎𝑏 − 𝜎)𝑇 𝐹 𝜆̇𝑏 𝑑𝑉 ≥ 0

v v

2.5. Drained and undrained shear strength

The movement of water is in cohesive materials is restricted whenever there is
change in soil volume with time as a result of water filling the voids, depending on the
soil permeability and the flow rate. So, for soils with low permeability like clay, long
time is needed to dissipate the excess pore water pressure before the effective equilibrium
is reached. Drained condition refers to the condition where drainage is applicable, unlike
undrained condition which refers to the condition where drainage is restricted.

Figure 2- 18 Results of Triaxial Undrained Tests on Saturated Clay

31