See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267655493

Seismic slope stability-the critical acceleration

Conference Paper · June 1999

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3551.3280

CITATIONS READS

8 582

1 author:

Sarada K. Sarma
Imperial College London
64 PUBLICATIONS   2,045 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarada K. Sarma on 03 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Ed. Pedro S. Seco e Pinto. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Earthquake
Geotechnical Engg, Lisbon, Portugal, 1999, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1077-1082]

Seismic slope stability- the critical acceleration

Sarada K. Sarma, Civil Engineering Department, Imperial College, London SW7 2BU

Abstract
In this paper, the methods of determining the critical acceleration of a slip surface in a slope is discussed.
Also the role of critical acceleration in predicting the seismic displacement is discussed. A previously
published but unknown method of computing the critical acceleration is presented.

Introduction may be classified as i) Limit equilibrium technique

Ever since the advent of the displacement criterion
for the design of slopes for earthquake loading
conditions, Newmark (1965), the critical
acceleration is becoming the dominant parameter in
the slope design. Critical acceleration is defined as
that acceleration which when applied to the slope
produces a state of incipient failure. This
acceleration is assumed to be constant over the slope
as if the slope is a rigid body and usually, the
acceleration refers to the horizontal component of
the acceleration. In the context of slope stability
analysis, the factor of safety is defined as the factor
by how much the available strength should be
reduced so that a state of incipient failure is reached.
The state of incipient failure is termed the limiting
equilibrium condition. Therefore, the two terms, the
critical acceleration and the factor of safety are both
representative of the available strength in some
sense. The critical acceleration relates to the load
factor while factor of safety relates to the strength
factor. Ultimately, both of them relate to the safety
of the slope and therefore one safety parameter can
be exchanged for the other, provided that other
parameters such as the geometry and strength
parameters remain the same.
Determination of critical acceleration
In the Soil Mechanics literature, there are many
methods that are available to determine the factor of
safety or the critical acceleration. These methods
and ii) The limit analysis technique. These methods
are based on the assumption that soil behaves as a
rigid-perfectly plastic material- the material
transferring from rigid to the plastic state as soon as
the ultimate strength is reached. Under this limiting
condition a slip surface is formed and the mass
above the slip surface is ready to slide downhill. In
these methods, a possible slip surface is assumed. In
the limit equilibrium technique, a state of stress
along this surface is determined so that the free-body
above the slip surface can exist in equilibrium. This
state of stress, which is called the mobilised stress is
then compared with the available strength so that a
factor of safety can be determined. A factor of safety
greater than one implies that the mobilised stress is
less than the available and therefore safe while a
factor of safety less than one implies that the
mobilised stress is greater than the available and
therefore unsafe. A factor of safety equal to one
determines the state of incipient failure. There are
many methods available which uses this limit
equilibrium technique to determine the factor of
safety. For example, Fellenius (1936), Bishop
(1955), Janbu (1957), Morgenstern and Price (1965),
Spencer (1967), Sarma (1973), Sarma(1979), among
many others. The two methods developed by Sarma
determine the critical acceleration directly and the
factor of safety indirectly. The other methods
determine factor of safety directly and the critical
acceleration indirectly. These methods apply what is
known as the method of slices- in which the free
body is broken into many slices and by making
assumptions about the inter-slice forces, the
mobilised stresses are derived. Also, these methods
uses vertical slices except for Sarma (1979) method.
The available strength is determined by using the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Amongst these
methods, Fellenius method is called a simplified
method while the others are called rigorous methods.
Bishop and Janbu also provides simplified versions
of their methods. The simplified method is so called
because it does not satisfy the equilibrium conditions
rigorously while the rigorous methods do. These
methods are rigorous only within the context of the
equilibrium conditions but not rigorous so far as
stress determination is concerned. The compatibility
and continuity of stresses and displacement within
the slope are never considered. Bishop and Janbu
also provide simplified versions of their methods.
Bishop's method uses circular arc as a possible slip
surface whilst the other methods use general slip
surfaces. Of the rigorous methods using general slip
surfaces, Janbu’s, Morgenstern & Price’s and Sarma
(1973) methods are distinctly different methods
since they make distinctly different assumptions
regarding the inter-slice forces. Even though
Spencer’s technique of setting up the equations and
of solving them are completely different his
assumptions may be classified as a modified version
of the Morgenstern & Prices’s. In determining the
critical acceleration with the limit equilibrium
technique, the slip surface composed of an arc of a
logarithmic spiral provides a most convenient
solution, Prater (1979), Lighthall (1979). Due to the
property of the log-spiral, when moments are taken
about the centre of the spiral, the moments of the
normal stresses and the component of the shear
stress related to the normal stress disappears and the
solution for the critical acceleration becomes easy.
Lighthall's solution differs from that of Prater in the
method of finding the minimum value of the critical
acceleration. Results from Lighthall's work is
presented later. In the limit equilibrium technique,
the aim is to predict a normal stress distribution
along the slip surface from which the factor of safety
or the critical acceleration can be calculated. Later, a
simple method of calculating the critical acceleration
is presented which can also be used for deriving
factor of safety.
In the limit analysis method, there are two
approaches- the lower bound and the upper bound
approach. The two approaches are governed by
theorems. However, one can visualise the two
theorems in a practical way. The lower bound
theorem implies that if a state of stress can be found
with which the slope can survive (meaning that the
failure criterion is not violated any where in the
slope with the assumed stress), then it will survive.
The upper bound theorem implies that if a kinematic
mechanism can be found by which the slope can fail
then it will fail. In the upper bound approach, the
equilibrium conditions are not checked while the
lower bound approach is based on equilibrium. The
true state of stress is anywhere between the two
bounds. In the slope stability analysis problems, the
lower bound approach is not convenient but the
upper bound approach with the associated flow rule
is very convenient. In the upper bound approach, a
failure mechanism is assumed similar to the assumed
slip surface of the limit equilibrium technique. The
work done by the external forces through a small
(virtual) displacement is equated to the work done
by the resisting forces. The use of the associated
flow rule cancels the work done by the normal
forces with the work done by the frictional part of
the shear forces, Chen (1975). Therefore the
knowledge of the normal forces along the slip
surface becomes non-essential. It is interesting to
find that the solution given by the Sarma (1979)
method using limit equilibrium technique and the
upper bound solution using associated flow rule
gives identical results. This is verified for a two-slice
problem. Note that Sarma (1979) method requires a
knowledge of the normal stress distribution while
the upper bound method does not. The reason for the
identical results is that in Sarma (1979) method, it is
assumed that the inter-slice surfaces are failure
surfaces.
In the context of slope stability analysis, it is of
interest to mention the method of characteristics.
The method characteristics is close to the lower
bound approach since it is based on the stress state
in the entire slope which is again at limiting
equilibrium. The method is based on the following
principle. If an element of soil at a point in the slope
is in a state of limiting equilibrium, then there exists
two failure lines through that point. These lines are
the conjugate failure lines. Sokolovski (1960)
defined two quantities  and  which depends on the
stress state and varies along these lines. Therefore,
starting from known boundary points where the
stress states are known, continuous lines can be
determined until these reach boundary points again
giving the required stress states at the boundary.
Alternatively, the geometry of the boundary may be
changed to satisfy a given boundary condition.
While this method is very suitable for determining
boundary loads such as in the bearing capacity or the
earth pressure problems, this is not so suitable for
determining critical acceleration or factor of safety
of slopes. In this method, the entire slope is in a state
of limiting equilibrium which is not necessarily the
state in a real slope.
Results
Prater (1979) and Lighthall (1979) described the
possible slip surface by a logarithmic spiral and
determined the critical acceleration for various
homogeneous slopes. Lighthall used effective stress
approach rather than the total stress approach while
Prater used only total stress approach. Even though,
the seismic loading condition is an undrained
situation, the effective stress is applicable provided
the pore water pressures can be predicted. The pore
pressure is represented by a ru parameter following
Bishop (1955). The pore water pressure u at a point
is expressed as a fraction of the overburden pressure
h in this procedure so that u=ruh. Leschchinsky
and San (1994) provided design charts in the form of
stability numbers which can be used to determine
the critical acceleration of slopes. Their method is
based on limit equilibrium technique but the critical
slip surface is found by using variational principles.
Prater's and Lighthall's results are identical for
identical geometry and material properties. Lighthall
presented his results in tabular forms for 5 different
slope gradients (tan =1/1.5, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) and
three different pore pressure parameter ru (=0, 0.2,
0.4) values. The cohesion was given in the
dimensionless form of c'/H and four different
values of c'/H (=0, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1) were used. The
angle of internal friction  was varied from 100 to
400 in steps of 50. In this paper, the tabular results
are translated into equation forms by curve fitting
and the constants of these equations are provided in
table 1. Because too many parameters are used, the
curve fitting results are exceptionally good. Note
that only horizontal accelerations were used and
there was no external water.
Table 1
ru c'/H pa qa ra qb rb
0
0.025 -7.2719 3.4739 2.2959 9.7347 0.8386
0.05 -6.8671 3.1763 1.679 8.1369 0.6444
0.1 -4.7764 1.6411 1.3844 6.6296 0.5272
0.2
0.025 -6.5929 3.1774 2.1229 9.3458 0.7807
0.05 -5.8664 2.5665 1.6102 7.9287 0.5898
0.1 -4.1681 1.3018 1.3069 6.6086 0.4742
0.4
0.025 -6.8318 3.4838 1.8372 8.9259 0.6832
0.05 -4.9198 1.9128 1.5311 7.6775 0.526
0.1 -4.0763 1.3315 1.1502 6.5747 0.4098
For intermediate values of c'/H and ru values , the
critical acceleration values may be interpolated.
Extrapolation to values outside the chosen ones is
not recommended at this stage. Only toe-slip
surfaces are considered and therefore, for large
values of c and small slope angles, when slip
surfaces are likely to exit beyond the toe, there may
be small errors. For values of c/H = 0.1 and ru=0,
maximum error in kc of 0.008 is found for 5:1 slope
with  = 15o. For other cases, the errors are small.
H

Figure 1: Definition of slope geometry.
1
Calculated k c

0.5

Results for critical acceleration kcg 0

[See figure 1 for geometry of the slope] -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.5

kc= kco + [c/(H)] .fc (1) -1

kco = (1-ru) tan(-) – ru tan    Observed k c
fc = a. tan  + b (3)
a = pa tan  + qa tan  + ra
2
(4)
b = qb tan  + rb (5)
Figure 2: Goodness of fit between observed
ru=u/h kc (Lighthall's results) and the computed kc
u= pore pressure and h= over burden pressure at a from the curve fitting.
point
Sliding block analysis
When the applied ground acceleration is bigger than
the critical, the factor of safety becomes less than
one temporarily and the mass will slide downhill.
Since the accelerations last for a very short duration,
the motion will stop after some time. The safety of
the slope is then assessed in terms of this
displacement. Newmark (1965) suggested the use of
the equivalent sliding block model to determine the
displacement of the sliding mass. In this model, the
mass of the sliding body (moving on a curved
surface) is placed on an equivalent plane surface so
that the same critical acceleration is obtained. Then
assuming that there is no change in the critical
acceleration during movement, the displacement is
computed by double integrating the equation of
motion of the sliding block. Newmark's model was
extended by Sarma (1975) to include the effect of
the cyclic pore water pressure. If the change of
critical acceleration can be predicted during
movement, then the change can be easily introduced
in a numerical model. The effect of change of
geometry of the slope during motion was included in
a two-block model by Ambraseys and Srbulov
(1995). A multi-block sliding model was introduced
by Stamatopoulos (1996). Work is presently in
progress at Imperial College to produce a multi-
block model to include the change of geometry and
also possible change of material properties during
motion. In this model, transfer of mass takes place
between blocks during motion from top towards the
bottom and extra mass that is introduced to the last
mass may drop off. There are several expressions
that can predict the displacements of the sliding
block, Sarma (1988):
 1 4u  k We assume that the normal stress distribution on the
log  2 
 1.07  3.83 c (6)
 C k m gT  km
where
cos(   )
C
cos( )
 determined from the solution.
 = average angle of friction on the slip surface;
 = slope angle of the equivalent plane slip surface;
T = predominant period of the acceleration record;
kc = critical acceleration of the slip surface;
km= peak acceleration of the record;
u = final displacement with the block sliding in
down-slope direction only;
g = acceleration due to gravity. The dimension of g
determines the dimension of u.
An alternative expression is, Ambraseys & Menu
(1988)

 2.53
kc   kc 
1.09

logu cm   0.90  log 1      (7)
 k m   k m  
Conclusion:
The critical acceleration of a slope is an important
parameter in deciding the seismic safety of a slope.
The factor of safety during an earthquake may drop
below one for a short duration but the effect of the
failure on the slope may be negligible. The sliding
block model is an ideal way to determine the
consequences of the failure. The multi-block model
may show a way to compute large displacements
when the change of geometry becomes an important
consideration.
Appendix:
A simple method of computing kc using limit
equilibrium technique.
As mentioned in the main text, limit equilibrium
technique is based on predicting the normal stress
distribution along the slip surface. The solution
therefore simplifies if the estimation of normal stress
n is performed directly instead of through the inter-
slice forces. This solution was published in Sarma
(1979) and presented here again for easy reference.
Figure 3 shows a slope with a possible slip surface.
slip surface can be expressed by
n = q + u (7)
where q is a known function representing the
effective stress and  is an unknown constant to be
We assume that under the action of the total weight
W and the seismic load kcW and with the assumed
normal stress distribution, the slipped mass is in
limiting equilibrium. Assuming Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion, we get the shear stress  as
 = (n- u) tan ' + c' (8)
 kcW

W Slip Surface


 Normal Stress

Figure 3: Geometry of a slip surface in a slope and a

possible normal stress distribution.

Therefore, if there are no other external forces, we References:

can write the vertical and horizontal equilibrium of
the possible sliding mass as
dy
 [ n 
dx
]dx  W (3)
d n
 [  dx
]dx  k cW (4)
In equations (3) and (4), y (x) represents the slip
surface. If we assume that the slip surface is
composed of segments of straight line, then dy/dx =
tan  where  is the slope of the slip surface. If q
can be defined as an integrable function, the
equations (3) and (4) can be solved simultaneously
for  and kc. The solution therefore depends on the
assumed function q. As in all limit equilibrium
methods, the results should be checked for
acceptability. It is found that the following
expression for q gives satisfactory results,
particularly when the slip surface is the one giving
the smallest critical acceleration.
cos  '
q  (h  u ) cos  'c' (sin   sin  ' )
1  sin  sin  '
(5)
where  = 2 - '
h = overburden pressure at the point on the
slip surface
and u = pore water pressure at the same point.
In order to compare the present result with other
existing methods, it is essential to check the
acceptability and the acceptability of the solution
should determine the usefulness of the method.
Newmark N. (1965): Effects of earthquakes on dams
and embankments. Geotechnique, 15, 139-160.
Fellenius W. (1936): Calculation of the stability of
earth dams. Transactions, 2nd Congress on Large
Dams, Washington DC, 4, 445-459.
Bishop A.W. (1955): The use of slip circle in the
stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique, 5, 1, 7-17.
Janbu N. (1957): Earth pressures and bearing
capacity calculations by generalised procedure of
slices. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. & Found.
Engineering, 2, 207-212.
Morgenstern N. and Price V. (1965): The analysis of
the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique,
15, 1, 79-93.
Sarma S.K. (1973): Stability analysis of
embankments and slopes. Geotechnique, 23, 3, 423-
433.
Spencer E. (1967): A method of analysis of the
stability of embankments assuming parallel
interslice forces. Geotechnique, 17, 1, 11-26.
Sarma S.K. (1979a): esponse and stability of earth
dams during strong earthquakes. Misc. Paper GL-
79-13, Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss. USA.
Sarma S.K. (1979b): Stability analysis of
embankments and slopes. Jour., GT Div., ASCE,
105, GT12, 1511-1524.

Prater E.G. (1979): Yield acceleration for seismic

stability of slopes. Jour. GT Div., ASCE, 105, GT5,
682-687.

Lighthall P. (1979): Dimensionless charts for

critical acceleration and static stability of earth
slopes. MSc Dissertation, Imperial College, Civil
Engineering Dept., Soil Mechanics & Engineering
Seismology Section, London SW7.

Chen W.F.(1975): Limit analysis and soil plasticity.

Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Sokolovski V. (1960): Statics of soil media.

Translator Jones & Schofield, London, Butterworths
Scientific.

Leschchinsky D. and San K. (1994): Pseudostatic

seismic stability of slopes:Design charts. Jour., GT
Div., ASCE, 120, 9, 1514-1532.

Sarma S.K. (1988): Seismic response and stability of

earth dams. Seismic risk assessment and design of
building structures, Ed. A. Koridze, Omega
Scientific, 143-160.

Ambraseys N. and Srbulov M. (1995): Earthquake

induced displacements of slopes. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 14, 59-71.

Ambraseys N. and Menu J. (1988): Earthquake

induced ground displacements. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 16, 7, 985-
1006.

Stamatopoulos C. (1996): Sliding system predicting

large permanent co-seismic movements of slopes.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 25,
1075-1093.

View publication stats