1

A COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL LIMIT ANALYSIS

AND CONVENTIONAL FINITE ELEMENTS
Patrcia Faria
Centre for Technological Earth and Sea Sciences, Civil Engineering,
UNIVALI, Brazil.
e-mail: pfaria@cttmar.univali.br
Helmut F. Schweiger
Computational Geotechnics Group, Institute for Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Austria.
e-mail: helmut.schweiger@tugraz.at
Abstract. The provision of an adequate factor of safety against reaching the
ultimate limit states is the primary objective of structural design. Though
not as fully developed as for steel and concrete structures, geotechnical
structures such as foundations, earth and rockfill dams, underground
excavations, also have similar design philosophy. The analysis and design
of the structures can be carried out on the basis of only applications of
extreme loads and are deemed to be satisfactory if an adequate factor of
safety is ensured. Stability problems in geologic materials are related to the
determination of the load capacity and in general are treated through
analytical solutions or numerical procedures. Amongst these numerical
procedures Limit Analysis based on the upper and lower bounds of the
plasticity theory may be employed. The present paper considers the solution
of stability problems using numerical limit analysis and shear strength
reduction technique using conventional finite elements.
Keywords. Limit analysis, mathematical programming, stability problems,
shear strength technique, factor of safety, finite elements.

Introduction
The combination of the finite element method, limit analysis and mathematical
programming has been used with success for the determination of the collapse
loads for structures. The collapse load is quite important for engineering projects
as one can determine the maximum work load with minimum cost.
Using limit analysis in the mathematical programming form, it is possible
optimize some functions to obtain the answer of the structure in any load level.
The concepts of limit analysis were developed heuristically in the 50s for
different engineering fields. In 1952, in a study about plastic material with Mohr
Coulomb Law, Drucker and Prager defined the upper and lower limits for the
collapse load. The upper and lower bound limits are powerful tools for
predicting the stability of geotechnical problems
Limit Analysis Theorems
Using the upper and lower bound theorems the collapse load for a structure can
be obtained through kinematical mechanisms or static equilibrium. That means,
when the collapse load is calculated through a kinematically admissible
mechanism, this load is an upper bound for the collapse load of the problem. In
the same way, when the collapse load is calculated using a distribution of a
statically admissible stress field in the domain, this load is a lower bound of the
collapse load.

2
The construction of kinematically admissible collapse mechanisms is simpler
than the statically admissible stress field. Consequently, there are a lot of
stability analyses methods based on several kinds and shapes of collapse
mechanisms, Chen (1975).
The application of the limit analysis theorems is validated for bodies which
have the following ideal properties:

The behavior of the material is perfectly plastic, meaning that the

yield surface is fixed.
The yield surface is convex and the plastic deformation rates are
deduced from the yield surface through the associated flow law.
The geometry changes in the body are considered insignificant when
the loading achieves the collapse load. Therefore, the virtual
principle work can be applied.

From these theorems a kinematically admissible velocity field is simply a

failure mechanism in which the velocities (displacements increments) satisfy
both the velocity boundary conditions and the flow rule, whilst a statically
admissible stress field is one which satisfies equilibrium, the stress boundary
conditions, and the yield criteria, Lyamin and Sloan (2000).
Details of limit analysis theorems can be found in e.g. Chen (1975).
Numerical Limit Analysis Formulation using Finite Elements
The first works applying limit analysis to geotechnical problems used analytical
solutions, Finn (1967), Chen (1975) and Chen and Liu (1990). They were
formulated as a mathematical programming problem where the equations were
discretized by a finite element formulation. Several works can be found where
this formulation was used, Lysmer (1970), Anderhegeen and Knpfel (1972),
Boterro et.al. (1978), Christiansen (1981), Munro (1982), Casciaro and Cascini
(1982), Sloan (1988), Arai and Jinki (1990), Assadi and Sloan (1991), Chuang
(1992), Singh and Basudhar (1993), Arajo (1997), Yu et al. (1998).
The limit analysis problem can be defined as the following system, Casciaro
and Cascini (1982):
Given:
f in V (in domain) and
t in St (in contour).

Find: , , u , and ,
such as:
Static equilibrium

T f ,

t ,
Yielding Criterion

f 0 ,

in V.
in St.
in V.

u , in V.

u 0 , in Su.

Kinematical Consistency

0 , if f 0

Flow Law

or

0 , if f 0
where:
f = body loads applied to the domain,
t = loads applied in the system contour,
= normal vector to the surface St,
= collapse load of the system,
= differential operator,

, u , = stress field, velocity and plastic velocity rate of the system and

= plastic multiplier (scalar proportionality factor).

A closed form solution of this system is not easily found but it is possible to
obtain an approximate solution by means of numerical methods.
If the approximated model is derived from the static theorem, the kinematical
consistency is locally violated. Alternately, if the approximated model is derived
from the kinematical theorem, the equilibrium is locally violated. Therefore, the
approximated problems based on mixed discretization can deal better with the
equilibrium and with kinematically consistency, Casciaro and Cascini (1982).
It is common to present the Limit Analysis problems as a mathematical
programming problem which can be solved using linear and non-linear
techniques.
Mixed Limit Analysis Formulation
As mentioned previously the formulations for numerical limit analyses can be
statically based, when satisfying the lower bound theorem or kinematically based
when satisfying the upper bound, or mixed when satisfying both theorems.
The mixed formulation, where the stresses and displacements are interpolated
independently, results in a solution which is neither an upper bound and nor a
lower bound. In such formulation the equilibrium is globally satisfied and the
deformations compatibility is approximately satisfied. The virtual work principle
(weak formulation) applied as another alternative to solve limit analysis
problems was presented by Anderheggen and Knpfel (1972). Christiansen,
(1981), used this formulation and constant stress elements with bilinear
interpolation of the velocities. At the end of the 80s, Arai and Jinki (1990) used

4
this formulation to study passive and active earth pressure problems. Chuang
(1992) used the mixed formulation discretizing the continuum in rigid triangular
elements and considered loads due to neutral pressure.
In this evolution for the numerical limit analysis formulation through the
virtual work (weak formulation), Faria (1992) and Arajo (1997) presented some
applications to several geotechnical problems such as strip footing load capacity,
slope stability, earth pressure problems, mechanical behavior of rock mass,
obtaining very good results compared to analytical solutions.
Present Work
The present work is based on the formulation developed by Farfan (2000) for the
conventional continuum and the Cosserat continuum. The stress fields can be
approximated by constant-bilinear interpolation and bilinear-bilinear
interpolation.
In the constant-bilinear interpolation, the stress interpolation matrix H is
formed by constant unity sub matrices while the velocity interpolation matrix Hu
is formed by bilinear functions. This kind of element is known as constant stress
element (= constant).
In the bilinear-bilinear interpolation, the stress interpolation matrix and the
velocities interpolation matrix is the same, H = Hu . It means that the stresses in
the elements are interpolated with the same isoparametric bilinear functions of
the velocities.
The present numerical examples use the constant-bilinear interpolation. The
conventional continuum is presented as follows.
Using the displacements velocities principle:

T
T
T

u t dS t

dV

u
F
dV

St
V

(1)

Considering the numerical discretization for the stress and velocities field:

H ; u H u u

(2)

where:
= finite element stress field,
u = finite element velocity field,

= nodal stress field,

u = nodal velocity field,

H , Hu = stress and velocities interpolation functions matrices.

The vector of the deformation velocity rates is defined as:

u u u H u u Bu u .

(3)

5
Substituting the equations for the stress constant elements, defined as
constant-bilinear interpolation, gives
T

T T
T
T
u Bu dV u H u fdV H u tdS t
St
V

(4)

With some simplifications:

B dV H
T
u

T
u

fdV H uT tdS t
St

(5)

Then:

G BuT dV
V

(6)

Therefore the optimization problem is:

Maximize the factor of collapse c
Subject to:
[G] {} = c {p}
f () 0

(7)

where:

G BuT dV

(8)

and

{p} = H uT fdV H uT tdS t

St
V

and the optimization variable for the problem is the stress in the element.
Mathematical Programming
A mathematical programming is an optimization problem of the form:
Maximize f(x): x in X,
Subject to: g(x) <= 0, h(x) = 0,

(9)

6
where X is a subset of Rn in the domain of the real-valued functions f, g and h.
The relations, g(x) <= 0 and h(x) = 0 are called constraints, and f is called the
objective function.
A point x is feasible if it is in X and satisfies the constraints g(x) <= 0 and
h(x) = 0. A point x* is optimal if it is feasible and if the value of the objective
function is not less than that of any other feasible solution: f(x*) >= f(x) for all
feasible x. The sense of optimization is presented here as maximization, but it
could just as well be minimization, with the appropriate change in the meaning
of optimal solution: f(x*) <= f(x) for all feasible x. In the present work the
collapse load is the objective function and the restrictions are related to
equilibrium, compatibility and yield criteria.
The program used to solve the mathematical programming system in the
present work is called MINOS, Murtagh and Saunders (1978, 1982). MINOS is a
FORTRAN based computer system designed to solve large scale optimization
programs. Further details can be found in Murtag and Saunders (1983).

Determination of the Factor of Safety

The factor of safety in engineering practice provides a measure for the distance
between the service conditions and the failure state.
In a soil slope the factor of safety (FOS) can be defined as the number by
which the original shear strength parameters must be divided in order to bring
the slope to the point of failure. Traditional limit equilibrium methods use the
same definition.
The shear strength parameters at failure are defined as:
C`f = C/ FOS
`f = arctan (tan `/ FOS)
where C` is the cohesion and ` the friction angle of the material.
-C Reduction Technique
The Finite Element Method can be used to obtain a direct measure of the safety
factor by either progressively reducing the strength or progressively increasing
the load until failure is indicated, Naylor (1982).
The -C Reduction Technique was first proposed by Zienkiewicz et al. (1975)
and is widely used in geotechnical engineering, see e.g., Ugai and Leshchinsky
(1995), Brinkgreve and Bakker (1991) and Matsui and San (1992).

Numerical Simulations
The following numerical simulations were done using the finite element code
Plaxis, V.8, Brinkgreve (2002) and LIMAG, the Limit Analysis code by Farfan
(2000). The meshes for the limit analysis formulation were plotted using
MTOOL (1992).

7
Slope Stability example and validation
The slope example, from Griffiths and Lane (1999), is used in the present work
for comparisons and validation of the formulations. Griffiths and Lane (1999)
used finite element analysis where the definition of failure is given by the nonconvergence of the algorithm within a user specified maximum number of
iterations and validate its examples against traditional stability analyses, Duncan
(1996).
For the slope example the present work validates the limit analysis
formulation Farfan (2000), against the numerical simulations from Griffiths and
Lane (1999), which have been repeated here employing the finite element code
Plaxis, V.8, Brinkgreve (2002).

Example slope: Undrained slope with a foundation layer with different material
parameters Cu2/Cu1
The example shown is the stability of an undrained slope = 0o. The shear
strength of the slope material is a constant value of Cu1/H = 0,25, while the
shear strength of the foundation layer, Cu2, is variable.
The following properties were used:
= 0o
Cu1/ H = 0,25
= 20 KN/m3

Figure 1. Undrained slope with a foundation layer.

[FIGURE_1]

The ratio of the two shear strengths has been expressed as Cu2/Cu1. The
cases will be shown considering Cu2/Cu1 as:

Case 1: Cu2/Cu1=1,0 ;
Case 2: Cu2/Cu1=1,5 ;

Case 3: Cu2/Cu1=2,0.

Case 1 : Cu2/Cu1=1,0.
Reduction
Factor

Reduced
Cohesion
Parameter

Factor of
Safety

Collapse
Load Factor

FR

C1 =C2

FOS

1,40
1,30
1,20
1,10
1,00

21,43
23,07
25,00
27,28
30,0

1,02
1,10
1,19
1,30
1,43

1,03
1,18
1,21
1,31
1,41

Collapse Load
c* (=20 KN/m3)

20,60
23,60
24,20
26,20
28,20

Table 1. FOS and Collapse Load c for Cu2/Cu1= 1,0.

[TABLE 01]

In this case the failure surface develops through the foundation layer as
illustrated in Figure 2 from finite element analysis and the deformed mesh from
limit analysis formulation in Figure 3.
Table 1 compares factors of safety obtained from finite element analysis
(expressed as FOS) and from limit analysis (expressed in terms of collapse load
factor) and it can be seen that the agreements are very good.

Figure 2. Incremental shear strains for an undrained slope Cu2/Cu1 = 1,0 using finite element
analysis.

[FIGURE_2]

Figure 3. Deformed mesh by limit analysis formulation.

[FIGURE_3]

Case 2: Cu2/Cu1=1,5.
Reduction
Factor

Reduced Cohesion
Parameter

Factor of
Safety

Collapse
Load Factor

Collapse Load
c* (=20 KN/m3)

FR

C1

C2

FOS

2,0
1,9
1,8
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1,00

15,00
15,79
16,67
17,65
18,75
20,00
21,43
23,08
25,00
27,27
30,00

22,50
23,68
25,00
26,47
28,12
30,00
32,14
34,61
37,50
40,91
45,00

1,00
1,05
1,11
1,18
1,25
1,33
1,43
1,54
1,67
1,82
2,00

1,01
1,06
1,12
1,19
1,30
1,35
1,44
1,55
1,68
1,84
2,02

Table 2. FOS and Collapse Load c for Cu2/Cu1= 1,5.

[TABLE 02]

20,23
21,31
22,51
23,84
25,95
26,96
28,87
31,11
33,71
36,86
40,50

10

Figure 4. Incremental shear strains for an undrained slope Cu2/Cu1 = 1,5, using finite element
analysis.

[FIGURE_4]

Figure 5. Deformed mesh for an undrained slope Cu2/Cu1 =1,5 by limit analysis formulation.

[FIGURE_5]

In this case both failure surfaces are possible as seen in Figure 4, where
incremental strains obtained from the finite element analysis are plotted. In limit
analysis formulation the failure through the foundation is obtained as depicted in
Figure 5.
Again, both methods give very similar results in terms of the factor of safety
and of the collapse load factor as one can see in Table 2.

11
Case 3: Cu2/Cu1=2,0.
Reduction
Factor

Reduced Cohesion
Parameter

Factor of
Safety

Collapse
Load Factor

Collapse Load
c* (=20 KN/m3)

FR

C1

C2

FOS

2,0
1,9
1,8
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1,0

15,00
15,79
16,67
17,65
18,75
20,00
21,43
23,08
25,00
27,27
30,00

30,00
31,58
33,34
35,30
37,50
40,00
42,86
46,15
50,00
54,54
60,00

1,00
1,05
1,11
1,18
1,25
1,34
1,43
1,54
1,66
1,82
2,00

1,05
1,11
1,17
1,24
1,32
1,41
1,51
1,62
1,76
1,91
2,13

21,08
22,21
23,45
24,82
26,38
28,14
30,15
32,47
35,17
38,37
42,61

Table 3. FOS and Collapse Load c for Cu2/Cu1= 2,0.

[TABLE 03]

Figure 6. Incremental shear strains for an undrained slope Cu2/Cu1 = 2,0 using finite element
analysis.

[FIGURE_6]

Figure 7. Deformed mesh by limit analysis formulation.

12
[FIGURE_7]
For this case the failure is obtained in the slope for both types of analysis as
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate and the values for the factor of safety are summarized
in Table 3.
Figure 8 plots the factor of safety (FOS) in relation to the ratio of Cu2/Cu1
and the results are the same as obtained from Griffiths and Lane (1999).
Computed Factor of Safety (FOS) for Cu2/Cu1
2,1

Factor of Safety (FOS)

2,0

1,9

1,8

1,7

1,6

1,5

1,4
0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

2,2

Cu2/Cu1

Figure 8. Factor of safety and variation of Cu2/Cu1.

[FIGURE_8]
Example 2: Circular Tunnel
Excavation of a plane strain circular tunnel, Lyamin and Sloan (2000), is
modelled in a Mohr Coulomb material with an effective cohesion C, friction
angle and unit weight . If material parameters and the quantities D/C,
and C/D are known the task is to determine the internal pressure t required to
prevent failure.
For the geometry shown in Figure 9 the collapse is driven by the action of
gravity and resisted by the internal pressure t.
In the conventional finite elements analysis the initial stress state in the
ground prior to tunnel excavation has been calculated assuming a coefficient of
static earth pressure K0 = 1,0.
As there is no surcharge applied to the ground surface, the stability of the
tunnel is described by the dimensionless load parameters t/c. Table 4 compares
results from the present formulation using LIMAG, Plaxis (conventional finite
elements) and from Lyamin and Sloan (2000).

13
cohesion = C
friction angle =
unit weight =
K0 = 1,0

Figure 9. Plane strain tunnel.

[FIGURE_09]
The results for t/c presented in Table 4 are obtained from the mixed
formulation of limit analysis formulation and are compared to the average value
between the upper and lower bound formulation of Lyamin and Sloan (2000).
As it can be seen in Table 4 the comparison is very reasonable for most cases,
despite the fact that quite different approaches have been used for solving this
problem.
Results from finite element analysis using the -C reduction technique are
also included and compare reasonable well to the results of the limit analysis.

C/D

1
2
3
4
5

10o
10o
10o
10o
10o

D/C=2

D/C=3

Sloan

Limag

Plaxis

Sloan

Limag

Plaxis

0,53
0,15
-0,31
-0,80
-1,27

0,53
0,17
-0,22
-0,60
-0,83

0,62
0,13
-0,37
-0,86
-1,32

-0,32
-1,23
-2,12
-2,97
-3,77

-0,50
-1,20
-2,00
-2,72
-3,83

-0,47
-1,38
-2,27
-3,11
-3,92

Table 4. Stability bounds t/C for circular tunnel.

[TABLE 04]

The modes of failure are shown in Figures 10 from finite element analysis
and Figure 11 from limit analysis formulation for C/D= 3, D/C= 2 and =
10o.

14

Figure 10. Incremental shear strains for C/D =3, D/C=2, C = 100,0 KN/m2, = 20 KN/m3,
= 10o for finite element analysis.

[FIGURE_10]

Figure 11. Deformed mesh strains for C/D =3, D/C=2, C = 100,0 KN/m2, = 20 KN/m3,
= 10o for limit analysis formulation.

15
[FIGURE_11]

Example 3: Small scale tunnel

The example from Schuller (2002) shows a numerical simulation of a plane
strain laboratory test of a small scale model tunnel performed at Kobe University
by Sterpi (1999). The small scale model was situated within a 50 cm wide frame,
the diameter of the tunnel cross section was 15 cm and a 30 cm overburden was
applied, Figure 12.
The model is symmetrical and only the right half of the tunnel is discretized.
Geometry and boundary conditions are presented in Figure 12, vertical rollers in
the left and right side of the tunnel and horizontal rollers on the base. Since this
tunnel ha s low overburden it was simulated within the Multilaminated
framework to capture the mechanism of strain localization and shear band
formation, Schuller (2002).
The soil parameters are:
` = 30,70o
C = 0,0 KN/m2
= 21,9 KN/m3

K0 = 0,5

Figure 12. Geometry and boundary conditions for a small scale tunnel; units, cm.

[FIGURE_12]

16
C/D
2

`
30,70o

Schuller
-158,00

Table 5. Stability bounds t for a small scale tunnel.

[TABLE 05]

Figure 13. Incremental strains using finite element analysis.

[FIGURE_13]

Plaxis
-153,98

Limag
-138,20

17

Figure 14. Deformed mesh by limit analysis formulation.

[FIGURE_14]
In the numerical solution using Plaxis when 75% of the excavation forces are
applied the solution is not convergent, which means that the tunnel has
collapsed. At this stage one can see a strain zone reaching the ground surface and
this zone leads to the collapse of the tunnel, see Figures 13 and 14.
This shows a good agreement with Schullers results as in his analysis at 74%
of the excavation forces for the fine mesh no convergent solution was obtained.
For the limit analysis solution the collapse load in this stage (stability bound)
is t =-138,20 which will bring the tunnel to collapse at 78% of the excavation
forces.
As one can see in Table 5, the agreement between the values for the different
formulations used is within 10%.

Conclusions
The stability of a slope and tunnels using a Mohr Coulomb material has been
explored using conventional finite elements and limit analysis formulation.
A reasonable agreement in the results was shown despite the different
formulations used.

Acknowledgement
The research presented in this paper was carried out as part of the Lise
Meitner Program, Limit Analysis for Tunneling, sponsored by FWF der
Wissenschaftsfounds, Austria.

18
The first author acknowledge to CNPq, Brazilian Council for Research. Also,
is grateful to Prof. Dr. Aldo Durand Farfan of the University of Norte
Fluminense, Brazil, for making the Limit Analysis codes available and for good
discussion about the finite element limit analysis subject.

References
Anderheggen, E. & Knpfel, H., 1972. Finite element limit analysis using linear programming. Int.
J. Solids Structures. 8: 1413-1431.
Arai, K. & Jinki, R., 1990. A lower-bound approach to active and passive earth pressure problems.
Soil and Foundations, vol 30, No 4, pp 25-41.
Arajo, L., 1997. Estudo Numrico de Problemas de Estabilidade em Materiais Geotcnicos
Atravs da Anlise Limite. PhD. Thesis, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. (in Portuguese).
Assadi, A. & Sloan, S. W., 1991. Undrained stability of shallow square tunnel. J. of Geotech. Eng.,
vol. 117, No 8.
Bottero, A., Negre R., Pastor, J. & Turgeman, S., 1978. Finite element method and limit analysis
theory for soil mechanics problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
22:131-149.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. & Bakker, H.L., 1991. Non-Linear finite element analysis os safety factos.
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Beer, Booker & Carter (eds), Balkema ,
Rotterdam.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J. , 2002. Plaxis, Version 8, User Manual.
Casciaro, R. & Cascini, L.,1982. A mixed formulation and mixed finite elements for limit analysis.
Int. J. for Num. and Anal. Meth. in Eng. 18:211-243.
Chen, W. F., 1975. Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity. Elsevier.
Chen, W. F. & Liu, X. L., 1990. Limit Analysis in Soil Mechanics. Elsevier.
Christiansen, E., 1981. Computation of limit loads. Int. J. for Num. and Anal. Meth. in Eng.
17: 1547-1570.
Chuang, P. H., 1992. Stability analysis in geomechanics by linear programming I: Formulation.
J. Geoth. Eng.: vol 118, No 11.
Duncan, J.M., 1996.State of art: limit equilibrium and finit element analyses of slopes. J. Geotech.
Engng., ASCE 122, n.o7, 577-596.
Drucker, D. C. & Prager, W., 1952. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis on limit design. Quaterly
applied mathematic. vol 10.
Farfan, A.D., 2000. Aplicacao da anlise limite a problemas geotcnicos modelados como
contnuos convencionais e meios de Cosserat. PhD. Thesis, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
(in Portuguese).
Faria, P., 1992. Anlise Limite de Problemas Geotcnicos. MSc. Thesis, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil. (in Portuguese).
Finn, W. D. L., 1967. Application of limit plasticity in soil mechanics. J. of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division. ASCE.
Griffiths, D.V.&Lane, P.A.,1999. Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique
49.N.o3, 387-403.
Lyamin, A.V. & Sloan, S.W., 2000. Stability of a plane circular tunnel in a cohesive-frictional soil.
Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics, Smith&Carter(eds), Balkema.
Lysmer, J. 1970, Limit analysis of plane problems in soil mechanics. Int. J. Soils and Foundations
Division, ASCE, vol.96 (SM4), pp.1311-1334.
Matsui, T. & San, K.C, 1992. Finite Element Slope Stability Analysis by Shear Strength Reduction
Technique. Soils and Foundations 32(1): 59-70.
MTOOL, 1992. Bidimensional Mesh Tool. Tecgraf, PUC-Rio, Brazil.
Munro, J., 1982. Plastic analysis in geomechanics by mathematical programming. Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics: pp. 247-272. B. Martins (ed), D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Murtag, B.A. & Saunders, M.A., 1983. MINOS 5.1 Users Guide. Systems Optimizatioon
Laboratory, Stanford University, December 1983. Available at: http://www.sbsi-soloptimize.com/manuals/Minos%20Manual.pdf
Murtag, B.A. & Saunders, M.A., 1978. Large-scale lineraly constrained optimization.
Mathematical Programming Studies , 14 (1), 41-72.

19
Murtag, B.A. & Saunders, M.A, 1982. A projected Lagrangian algorithm and its implementation
for sparse non-linear constraints. Mathematical Programming Studies , 16, 84-117.
Naylor, D.J., 1982. Finite elements and slope stability. Numer. Meth. In Geom., Proc. NATO
Advanced Study Institute, Lisbon, Portugal, 1981, pp.229-244.
Schuller, H, 2002. A Multilaminated Model for Soils and its Application to Numerical Analysis of
Tunnel Excavation. PhD. Thesis, Institut fr Bodenmechanik und Grundbau. Technische
Universitt Graz, Austria.
Singh, D. N. & Basudhar, P.K., 1993. Optimal lower bound bearing capacity of strip footings.
Soils and Foundations. 33: 4.
Sloan, S. W., 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear programming. Int.
J. for Numerical and Analytical Meth. in Geomechanics. 12:61-77.
Ugai, K. and Leshchinsky, D., 1995. Three dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element
analyses: a comparison of results. Soils and Foundations, vol.35,n.o4, 1-7.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Humpheson, C. & Lewis, R.W., 1975. Associated and non-associated Visco
Plasticity and Plasticity in Soil Mechanics. Geotechnique 25(4): 671-689.
Yu, H. S., Salgado, R., Sloan, S. W., & Kim, J. M., 1998. Limit analysis versus limit equilibrium
for slope stability. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering: January, pp 111.