Al-Defae, A. H. et al. (2013). Géotechnique 63, No. 14, 1230–1244 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.12.P.

149]

Aftershocks and the whole-life seismic performance of granular slopes

A . H . A L - D E FA E  , K . C AU C I S † a n d J. A . K NA P P E T T †

Shallow embankment slopes are commonly used to support elements of transport infrastructure in
seismic regions. In this paper, the seismic performance of such slopes in non-liquefiable granular soils
is considered, focusing on permanent movement and dynamic motion at the crest, which would form
key inputs into the aseismic design of supported infrastructure. In contrast to previous studies, the
evolution of this behaviour under multiple sequential strong ground motions is studied through
dynamic centrifuge, numerical (finite-element, FE) and analytical (sliding-block) modelling, the
centrifuge tests being used to validate the two non-physical approaches. The FE models focus on the
specification of model parameters for existing non-linear constitutive models using routine site
investigation data, allowing them to be used routinely in design and analysis. Soil-specific constitutive
parameters are derived from shearbox and oedometer test data, and are found to significantly
outperform existing empirical correlations based on relative density, highlighting the importance of
specifying a suitably detailed site investigation. An improved sliding-block (‘Newmark’) approach is
also developed for estimating permanent deformations during preliminary design, in which the
formulation of the yield acceleration is fully strain-dependent, incorporating both material hardening/
softening and geometric hardening (re-grading). The site-specific (improved) FE models and the new
sliding-block approach are shown to outperform considerably existing FE parameters and sliding-block
models in capturing the permanent deformations of the slope under virgin conditions, and further,
only the improved FE and sliding-block models are found to capture correctly the behaviour of the
‘damaged’ slope under subsequent earthquakes (e.g. strong aftershocks). The FE models can
additionally accurately replicate the settlement profile at the crest and quantify the dynamic motions
that would be input to supported structures, although these were generally overpredicted. The FE
procedures and sliding-block models are therefore complementary, the latter being useful for
preliminary design and the former for later detailed design and analysis.

KEYWORDS: centrifuge modelling; earthquakes; embankments; numerical modelling; sands; slopes

INTRODUCTION material strength characteristics, which may be either strain-

Transport infrastructure is a vital lifeline that must be safe-
guarded in seismic regions. Shallow embankment slopes and
cuttings will commonly be used along the length of a road
or railway line to allow changes in gradient, and damage to
this type of infrastructure could inhibit the movement of
emergency services and rebuilding in the aftermath of an
earthquake. Although the infrastructure generally supported
on such constructions is relatively light (low bearing pres-
sure) and flexible, significant damage can be caused by large
permanent seismic slip within the slope.
A popular method of analysis for predicting seismic slip is
the Newmark sliding-block technique (Newmark, 1965). In
this method a yield acceleration is calculated under pseudo-
static conditions using limit analysis techniques for simple
cases (e.g. Kim & Sitar, 2004), or numerical methods such
as finite-element limit analysis (FELA) for more complex
cases (e.g. Loukidis et al., 2003). A strong ground motion
(either a historically recorded motion or a synthetically
produced accelerogram) is then used to determine the net
downslope acceleration, which can then be integrated nu-
merically to obtain slip velocity and slip displacement (Jib-
son, 1993). Since it was originally proposed in the 1960s,
this method has been substantially improved to incorporate
Manuscript received 5 October 2012; revised manuscript accepted 7
June 2013. Published online ahead of print 15 July 2013.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 April 2014, for further details see
p. ii.
 University of Dundee, UK, and Wasit University, Iraq.
y sionless slopes under a sequence of strong earthquake
University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
hardening or strain-softening (Matasovic et al., 1997; Wart-
man et al., 2005), and to incorporate the dynamic behaviour
(e.g. ground motion amplification) within the sliding mass
itself in the case of deep rotational slips, as may be common
in landfill slopes (Rathje & Bray, 1999; Wartman et al.,
2003). Experimental work to validate such methods has been
conducted using 1g shaking tables on cohesive soils (Wart-
man et al., 2005); however, there remains a need to demon-
strate the approach’s validity at realistic stress levels (e.g. by
conducting centrifuge modelling). Although such analytical
tools are useful for parametric/comparative study, particularly
in preliminary design, they are not able to predict the
dynamic ground motions or settlement distribution (angular
distortion) behind the slope crest, both of which may have a
controlling influence on the design of any infrastructure
supported at the top of the slope. They are therefore not well
suited to detailed analysis or design.
Recent periods of seismic activity in Japan and New
Zealand (2011–2012) have demonstrated that civil engineer-
ing infrastructure may be subjected to several successive
strong ground motions within a short period (‘short’ here
meaning that there has been insufficient time to complete
remediation or reinstatement of damage caused by earlier
ground shaking). This means that there is a further need to
understand the behaviour of seismically damaged infrastruc-
ture under successive periods of ground shaking. This fea-
ture is not currently incorporated in existing sliding-block
methods.
This paper will consider the behaviour of shallow cohe-

1230
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES
ground motions, and develop improved analysis tools for the
prediction of such behaviour. These tools will be applicable
to the analysis of seismically damaged slopes under strong
aftershocks, and to determination of the whole-life seismic
performance of slopes (i.e. under a range of successive
motions of different strengths that the slope may see during
its design life).
Fully dynamic numerical modelling in the time domain,
using the finite-element method (FEM), will first be applied
to the problem, with the aim of producing a single analysis
in the time domain that captures both the dynamic vibration
effects and the permanent slope deformations. Existing non-
linear soil constitutive models will be used that encapsulate
the strain history (‘seismic memory’) of the soil. Emphasis
will be placed on the efficient parameterisation of such a
model: (a) using previously published correlations based on
databases of element test data (which require only relative
density as an input); and (b) through the use of routine
laboratory test data to produce improved soil-specific cali-
brations. The ability to model soil response realistically,
without requiring an excessive number of empirical param-
eters derived from non-standard tests, will allow the vali-
dated FEM procedures developed to be used with confidence
in routine geotechnical practice.
An improved sliding-block method is also developed that
can fully capture the strain history of the soil, particularly
by incorporating the effects of slope deformation (re-grad-
ing) during slip within the formulation of the yield accelera-
tion. This allows the slip of a seismically damaged
(deformed) slope to be predicted analytically under subse-
quent strong ground motion.
Both the FEM and sliding-block models are validated
against centrifuge test data. The computationally simpler
sliding-block model, which requires no specialist software,
can then be used to undertake rapid parametric analyses
1231
(such as may be necessary during the early stages of design,
or in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake) or used
within a probabilistic, performance-based earthquake engin-
eering framework if desired (Kramer, 2008). The FEM ap-
proach can subsequently be used to undertake a more
detailed analysis of specific cases, which can incorporate the
dynamic behaviour of any infrastructure located at the slope
crest.
CENTRIFUGE MODELLING
Dynamic centrifuge testing was conducted using the 3.5 m
diameter beam centrifuge and servo-hydraulic earthquake
simulator at the University of Dundee. Two models were
flown, representing identical slopes of 0  288 ( 1:2) at
1:50 scale in dry sand at 50g. This slope angle was selected
to ensure that the soil was statically stable (0 , 9cs , the
critical state friction angle of the soil), but with a suffi-
ciently low factor of safety (and therefore low yield accel-
eration, khy ) to ensure that large slip displacements would be
generated during strong ground motion, such that the FEM
and sliding-block models could be validated to large dis-
placements. All subsequent dimensions and properties are
given at prototype scale at 50g, unless otherwise stated.
The arrangement and instrumentation of the slope models
is shown in Fig. 1(a). The slopes were prepared at a relative
density of ID ¼ 55–60% (the range accounts for the accu-
racy in being able to measure and replicate ID ), were 8 m
tall from toe to crest, and were underlain by a further 6 m
of sand at the same relative density. HST95 (Congleton)
silica sand was used, which has the basic properties given in
Table 1 (after Lauder, 2011). This uniformly rounded sand is
very fine, and has been used by other researchers at Dundee
to study other seismic phenomena (e.g Bertalot & Brennan,
2012). The values of emax and emin reported in Table 1 were

LVDTs

1 5
8 (160)

2 9 6
14 (280)

3 7 10 14 12
6 (120)

4 8 15 11 13

11 (220) 15 (300) 7·5 (150)

Accelerometers
(a)

Size of model in centrifuge – Fig. 1(a)

Positive acceleration
(downslope)

Absorbent boundary
(Lysmer & Kuhlmeyer, 1969)
(b)

Fig. 1. Slope configuration: (a) centrifuge model layout and location of ‘virtual’
instruments in numerical models; (b) finite-element mesh, showing boundary conditions
1232 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT

Magnitude: g/Hz
Table 1. State-independent physical properties of HST95 silica 150
sand (after Lauder, 2011) 100
50
Property Value
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0
Specific gravity, Gs 2.63 Frequency: Hz
D10 : mm 0.09 (a)

Magnitude: g/Hz
D30 : mm 0.12 40
D60 : mm 0.17 30
Cu 1.9 20
Cz 1.06 10
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.769 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.467 Frequency: Hz
(b)

determined in accordance with BS1377 Part 4 (BSI, 1990).
The sand was pluviated in air using a slot pluviator into an
equivalent shear beam (ESB) container having flexible walls,
the construction of which is described in Bertalot (2012).
This container was used to reduce potential boundary effects
due to shear-wave reflection at the container walls. The
model was instrumented within the soil by 15 type ADXL78
MEMS accelerometers (70g range) manufactured by Ana-
log Devices, and four external linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs), with a pair of instruments measuring
settlement at and behind the crest of the slope along the
centreline of the model, and a further pair placed adjacent
to one of the side walls to measure any boundary effects
(this latter pair will not be discussed further in this paper).
All settlements shown subsequently in this paper are taken
from the rightmost instrument in Fig. 1(a).
Ground motions were applied to the models using the
Actidyn QS67-2 servo-hydraulic earthquake simulator re-
cently installed at the University of Dundee. The perform-
ance of this actuator is described in Bertalot et al. (2012).
Earthquake ground motions were downloaded from the
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research) NGA data-
base. One of the models (test AA01) was subjected to a
horizontal strong ground motion recorded during the
Mw ¼ 7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake in 1999 (Station TCU072,
PGA ¼ 0.41g), and a second (test AA02) was subjected to a
horizontal motion recorded at the Nishi-Akashi recording
station in the Mw ¼ 6.9 Kobe earthquake in 1995
(PGA ¼ 0.43g). These motions had approximately the same
peak acceleration, but different characteristics in the time
and frequency domains, as shown in Figs 2(a) and 2(b) and
Figs 3(a) and 3(b). Both records were recorded in ground
with Vs . 450 m/s, representing shaking from stiffer layers
beneath the soil profile tested, such that any site amplifica-
tion occurs solely from the soil layer tested in the model.
The former motion was used, as the Chi-Chi earthquake
caused a particularly high number of slope failures (Khazai
& Sitar, 2004), and is strongly directional (in these tests, the
Acceleration: g
Fig. 3. Input bedrock motions in frequency domain: (a) Chi-Chi
(test AA01); (b) Kobe (test AA02)
stronger shaking was directed in the downslope direction,
which is represented by positive values of acceleration). The
latter motion is well known to be particularly destructive to
civil engineering infrastructure having a broad frequency
band below 3 Hz. The demand motions were bandpass-
filtered between 0.8 Hz and 8 Hz (40–400 Hz at model
scale) using a zero-phase-shift digital filter to remove com-
ponents of the signal that were outside the range that can be
accurately controlled by the earthquake simulator. In both
tests, four nominally identical earthquake motions were
applied to the model in succession, to investigate the behav-
iour of the slope under strong aftershocks following initial
strong shaking causing substantial slip.
Details of the model tests are summarised in Table 2. All
ground motions were initially calibrated on a dummy model
identical to that shown in Fig. 1(a), but without instrumenta-
tion, to train the programmable logic controller within the
earthquake simulator to achieve a faithful and repeatable
replication of the demand motions. As a result, the ground
motions applied in each successive earthquake are felt to be
as close to identical as could realistically be achieved in
practice, this being an idealisation of the successive motions
having the same source (depth, faulting mechanism and
position).
FINITE-ELEMENT MODELLING
The centrifuge tests were modelled using PLAXIS 2D in
plane strain with the mesh and boundary conditions shown
in Fig. 1(b). Compared with the centrifuge model shown in
Fig. 1(a), the dimensions of the model domain were ex-
tended laterally and combined with non-reflecting boundary
elements controlling the dynamic stresses along the vertical
boundaries (after Lysmer & Kuhlmeyer, 1969) to represent
semi-infinite soil conditions, that is, boundary deformations
at the location of the centrifuge container wall that are

0·5 controlled by the dynamic deformation of the adjacent soil.

This boundary condition can also be modelled by horizontal
0
node-to-node ties between the two vertical boundaries of a
⫺0·5 model the width of the soil tested in the centrifuge. Com-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 pared with this alternative, the method used has a higher
Time: s
(a) element requirement for the same mesh density, but allows
Acceleration: g

0·5

0 Table 2. Summary of centrifuge models tested

⫺0·5 Test ID : degrees ID : % Input motion (no.) Peak input
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time: s acceleration: g
(b)
AA01 28 56 Chi-Chi, 1999 (4) 0.41
Fig. 2. Input bedrock motions in time domain: (a) Chi-Chi (test AA02 28 59 Kobe, 1995 (4) 0.43
AA01); (b) Kobe (test AA02)
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES
information to subsequently be collected for points far from
the crest and toe of the slope (although these are not
reported in this paper). A dynamic ground displacement was
applied along the bottom edge of the finite-element (FE)
model, shown by the repeating arrows in Fig. 1(b). The
input motion applied to the model was that measured at
instrument 8 in the centrifuge model: that is, the motion that
the slope in the centrifuge actually saw, accounting for any
losses between the shaking table and the container, and
between the container bottom and the soil. The motions were
input as ground displacements, determined by high-pass
filtering and integration of the accelerometer records: filter-
ing before integration to obtain velocity, and again before
integrating velocity to obtain displacement, ensures that
there is no permanent ‘wander’ due to any offset in the
accelerometer recordings or integration of random noise
within the signal. Displacement data were extracted from the
FE models at the locations of the instruments in the
centrifuge tests shown in Fig. 1(a). At points 1–15, accelera-
tions were subsequently determined from double differentia-
tion of the displacements.
CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING
An elasto-plastic soil model with isotropic hardening
(Schanz et al., 1999) is used in the modelling presented
herein, in which the elastic behaviour incorporates strain-
dependent stiffness variation following the model proposed
by Hardin & Drnevich (1972), as modified by Santos &
Correia (2001)
G 1
¼ (1)
G0 1 þ 0:385js =s,0:7 j
where s is shear strain and s,0:7 is the shear strain at which
G/G0 is 70%. Plastic failure is modelled using a cap-type
yield surface combined with the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion. This model is included in the PLAXIS FE suite
used for the work described herein as the ‘hardening soil
model with small-strain stiffness’ (Benz, 2006). Although
this model captures only strain-hardening (and not strain-
softening) behaviour, it will subsequently be shown that the
effects of strain-softening on slope movement are minor
when the earthquake is strong enough to induce significant
slip, as in the motions used in the centrifuge testing. The
selection of appropriate soil strength (peak or critical state
friction angles) will be discussed in greater detail later in
this section.
The model requires 13 input parameters: unit weights
under saturated and dry conditions; three measurable effec-
tive stress strength parameters, 9pk , c9 and ł9 (angle of
dilation), for use in the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion; six
measurable stiffness parameters (which are stress dependent)
describing the response to deviatoric loading (E50 ), compres-
sive loading (Eoed ), unload–reload cycles (Eur , ur ), small-
strain stiffness (G0 ) and a shear strain for describing the
shape of the G–s relationship (s,0:7 ); and finally, two
empirical parameters Rf and m, the former controlling the
deviatoric stress at failure, and the latter controlling the
variation of the stiffness parameters with effective confining
stress.
 
c9 cos 9   39 sin 9 m
E ð 39 Þ ¼ Eref (2)
c9 cos 9 þ pref sin 9
 
c9 cos 9  ð 39 =K 0 Þ sin 9 m
Eoed ð 39 Þ ¼ Eref (3)
oed
c9 cos 9 þ pref sin 9
where E may be E50 , Eur or G0 ; Eref is the value of the
parameter at a reference stress of pref ; and K0 ¼ 1  sin 9.
1233
A reference pressure of pref ¼ 100 kPa is used throughout
the remainder of this paper. Although the model has several
input parameters, all except Rf can be measured in some
form through routine laboratory testing.
In the first set of FEM simulations that will be described
in the subsequent sections, the empirical correlations be-
tween the input parameters and relative density for coarse-
grained soils presented by Brinkgreve et al. (2010) were
used. Use of these parameters required no additional soil
testing, and all the constitutive parameters can be defined
using relative density, ID , alone (which was uniform within
the centrifuge model slopes). Use of this model represented
the case in practice where no detailed laboratory test data
are available, but where relative density can be determined
from standard penetration tests (SPTs) or a cone penetration
test (CPT) profile (e.g. as outlined in Knappett & Craig,
2012).
A second set of simulations was then conducted in which
the key strength and stiffness parameters were calibrated for
the soil used in the centrifuge tests using laboratory test
data, the stiffness parameters being important in modelling
the dynamic effects and shear-wave propagation, and the
strength properties controlling the permanent deformations.
This model is henceforth termed ‘HST95’. A large amount
of published shearbox test data was available from previous
studies that used the HST95 sand (Lauder, 2011; Bransby et
al., 2011); this was used herein to derive soil-specific
strength parameters, supplemented with oedometer tests to
determine soil-specific stiffness parameters. In a practical
case it would be necessary only to undertake tests appro-
priate for the in situ soil states (e.g. density in this case);
however, in this paper a range of test data were collated/
obtained for reconstituted samples covering a wide range of
relative densities such that a more complete model could be
developed for use in future simulations of physical test
results that use this material.
Strength parameters
Figure 4 shows a summary of shearbox data from a total
of 38 tests conducted over a range of confining normal
effective stresses between 5 kPa and 200 kPa, as summarised
in Table 3. Fig. 4(a) shows shear stress measurements at
critical state (when volumetric change had stopped), indi-
cating that the critical state friction angle is 9cs ¼ 328. Fig.
4(b) shows the secant peak friction angles measured over the
stress ranges considered (stress-independent values were
determined by straight-line fits to the peak strength data, as
9pk is stress-independent within the constitutive model). A
straight-line fit to the data as a function of relative density
appeared to be appropriate; focusing on the data points
below ID ¼ 80% gave
9pk ¼ 20I D þ 29 (degrees) (4)
Dilation angles are also shown in Fig. 4(b); the straight-
line fit for this data was found to be
ł9 ¼ 25I D  4 (degrees) (5)
These simple linear fits to 9pk and ł9 satisfy the dilatancy
relationship given by Bolton (1986), and predict the value of
9cs ¼ 328 with an error of , 1% using either this relation-
ship, or that by Rowe (1962), which is incorporated in the
constitutive model formulation.
Whereas the strength properties given by equations (4)
and (5) match the element test data well, their use within a
strain-hardening model would imply that the peak strength is
appropriate to the analysis. It will subsequently be demon-
strated that, for large-strain slope problems, the permanent
deformations are governed by the critical state strength.
1234 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT
140
Applied pressure
Shear stress at critical state, τ: kPa
CL
120

100

80

60 h ⫽ 19 mm
Lauder (2011)
40 Bransby et al. (2012)
This paper
20
φ⬘cs ⫽ 32°
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 Radius ⫽ 38 mm (⫽ 2h)
Normal effective stress, σ⬘n: kPa
(a)
Fig. 5. FE mesh used in simulating oedometer tests, showing
70 boundary conditions
Lauder (2011)
Peak friction angle, φ⬘pk; dilation angle, ψ⬘: degrees

Bransby et al. (2012)

60 were determined for loose and dense samples, from which
This paper
linear interpolations were made as a function of relative
50 Brinkgreve et al. (2010) density, as presented by Brinkgreve et al. (2010). The
φ⬘ interpolated parameters were subsequently checked against
40 further tests at intermediate densities. Fig. 6(a) shows a
comparison of some results for the Brinkgreve et al. (2010)
30 model, which overpredicts stiffness in dense sand and dra-
matically underpredicts stiffness in loose sand. Fig. 6(b)
20 shows the markedly improved results using fitted values of
ψ⬘ Eoed , E50 , Eur and m. To reduce the number of independent
10 parameters, E50 ¼ 1.25Eoed and Eur ¼ 3Eoed were assumed,

0
Applied veritical effective stress: kPa

0 20 40 60 80 100 700
⫺10 Relative density, ID: %
(b) 600
500
Fig. 4. DSA (shearbox) test data used in soil-specific calibration of
constitutive model: (a) 9cs ; (b) 9pk and ł9 400 Oedometer, ID ⫽ 20%
300 FEM, ID ⫽ 20%
Hence, in modelling the centrifuge tests, 9pk ¼ 9cs ¼ 328 200 Oedometer, ID ⫽ 73%
and ł9 ¼ 08 were used. FEM, ID ⫽ 73%
100
0
Stiffness parameters 0 1 2 3 4 5
Vertical strain: %
Applied veritical effective stress: kPa

Oedometer tests were conducted on dry samples of sand (a)

700
prepared by air pluviation within a Clockhouse Engineering
Ltd J550 oedometer (sample height ¼ 19 mm; sample diam- 600
eter ¼ 76 mm) at a range of relative densities, ID , between 500
5% and 83%. The tests were conducted up to an effective 400 Oedometer, ID ⫽ 20%
stress of 600 kPa, and included three unload–reload cycles FEM, ID ⫽ 20%
300
(200–100–200 kPa; 400–200–400 kPa; 600–400–600 kPa)
200 Oedometer, ID ⫽ 73%
to ensure that Eur was well calibrated (this parameter is
likely to be important during cyclic seismic loading). The 100 FEM, ID ⫽ 73%
constitutive model parameters were then determined by con- 0
ducting virtual oedometer tests using FEM, starting with the 0 1 2 3 4 5
parameters suggested by Brinkgreve et al. (2010), and Vertical strain: %
(b)
modifying them as necessary to achieve a reasonable fit to
the data. Fig. 5 shows the axisymmetric model geometry Fig. 6. Comparison of one-dimensional compression curves for
and boundary conditions employed. To develop a complete loose and dense samples: (a) using Brinkgreve et al. (2010)
density-dependent model in this paper, calibrated parameters parameters; (b) using HST95 (soil-specific) parameters

Table 3. DSA test data for HST95 silica sand

Source ID : % No. of tests Effective normal stresses: kPa

Lauder (2011) 17 8 5, 8, 11, 16, 30, 35, 70, 125

40 6 16, 30, 55, 100, 135, 150
75 4 11, 16, 30, 70
Bransby et al. (2011) 9 5 10, 25, 50, 100, 200
41 5 15, 35, 55, 100, 150
93 5 10, 25, 50, 100, 180
This paper (see Fig. 17) 55 5 5, 8, 13, 16, 25
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES 1235
so that Eoed could be used to simulate the strain magnitude Chi-Chi (centrifuge data)
correctly, and m used to control the shape of the stress– Kobe (centrifuge data)
strain curve. E50 ¼ Eoed was proposed by Brinkgreve et al. Chi-Chi (FEM data)
Kobe (FEM data)
(2010), but this is not exactly true from comparison of
Hardin & Drnevich (1972)
equations (2) and (3). The value of 1.25 ensured that no
Ishibashi & Zhang (1993)
unrealistic values of K0 would be implied in denser soils Santos & Correia (2001)
(including that used in the centrifuge tests); the analyses 1·0
appeared to be relatively insensitive to this assumption at
lower densities. Following iteration, the best-fit stiffness
0·8
parameters were determined to be
Eref :
oed ¼ 25I D þ 20 22 (MPa) (6) 0·6

G/G0
: :
m ¼ 0 6  0 1I D (7)
0·4
The power coefficient m is the inclination of stiffness–
stress curves normalised by pref in double logarithmic scale. 0·2
The proposed calibration for m (equation (7)) gives a power-
law exponent for stress dependence of stiffness that is be-
tween 0.5 and 0.6 at all densities. This is consistent with 0
0·001 0·01 0·1 1
previous studies (e.g. Lo Presti et al., 1998), while maintain- Shear strain: %
ing the slight negative correlation between the two param- (a)
eters noted by Brinkgreve et al. (2010).
As neither of the aforementioned tests measures small- Chi-Chi (centrifuge data)
strain parameters, G0 was estimated using the relationship Kobe (centrifuge data)
based on void ratio (e) proposed by Hardin & Drnevich Chi-Chi (FEM data)
(1972), Kobe (FEM data)
0·5 Hardin & Drnevich (1972)
(2:97  e)2
Gref
0 ¼ 33 (MPa) (8) Ishibashi & Zhang (1993)
1þe 0·4
Santos & Correia (2001)

for pref ¼ 100 kPa. Equation (8) can be linearised, ignoring

Damping

0·3
terms of order e 2 and above; expressing e in terms of
relative density with the values of emax and emin gives
0·2
Gref :
0 ¼ 50I D þ 88 80 (MPa) (9)
0·1
The shear strain parameter s,0:7 was assumed to increase
linearly from 0.01% at ID ¼ 20% to 0.02% at ID ¼ 80%: that 0
is 0·001 0·01 0·1 1
Shear strain: %
s,0:7 ¼ 1:7I D þ 0:67 (310 )
4
(10) (b)

Fig. 7. Comparison of shear modulus degradation and damping

Other parameters and comments
Of the remaining parameters, the default value of Rf ¼ 0.9
was used, and the unit weight parameters were determined
from standard relationships as a function of relative density
and linearised, giving
ªdry ¼ 3I D þ 14:5 (kN=m3 ) (11)
ªsat ¼ 1:8I D þ 18:8 (kN=m )3
(12)
The particular choice of direct shear apparatus (DSA) and
oedometer tests for determining the parameters, as described
above, was guided by available test data. Triaxial test data
could equally be used to determine both strength and
stiffness data, by simulating triaxial compression on a virtual
test sample using FEM in a similar way to that described for
the oedometer tests. Damping will be discussed later in the
paper.
VALIDATION OF FEM
Dynamic shear modulus and damping
Shear modulus and damping as functions of cyclic shear
strain within both the centrifuge models and the numerical
simulations are shown in Fig. 7. The data points representing
the centrifuge models were determined from second-order
estimates using the accelerometer data, following the method
in centrifuge tests and FE simulations, along with other published
correlations
proposed by Brennan et al. (2005). The data points for the
numerical simulations were determined in the same way,
using data from ‘virtual’ accelerometers at homologous
points within the FE mesh. Fig. 7 demonstrates that the
operative shear modulus at a given cyclic shear strain is
comparable to that measured in the centrifuge tests, but that
the material hysteretic damping within the model is gener-
ally smaller than that inferred from the centrifuge tests. This
will be revisited in the following section. Nonetheless, it
would appear that the use of simple monotonic test data is
effective in defining a constitutive model that can represent
the principal dynamic behaviour of the soil.
Accelerations
Figure 8 shows a comparison of the measured and simu-
lated acceleration at the toe of the slope (instrument 14) in
the first earthquake of test AA01 (Chi-Chi motion) in both
the time and frequency domains (Figs 8(a) and 8(b) respec-
tively). In this figure three cases are considered: (i) the use
of Brinkgreve et al. (2010) constitutive parameters; (ii) the
use of HST95 parameters; and (iii) the use of HST95
parameters with additional Rayleigh damping. The constitu-
tive model implicitly includes material hysteretic damping
1236 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT
Centrifuge Centrifuge

Acceleration: g
Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM
Acceleration: g
Case (i) Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM Case (i)
0·5 0·5
0 0
⫺0·5 ⫺0·5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Centrifuge Centrifuge

Acceleration: g
Acceleration: g

Case (ii) HST95 silica sand FEM Case (ii) HST95 silica sand FEM
0·5 0·5
0 0
⫺0·5 ⫺0·5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Centrifuge

Acceleration: g
Centrifuge
Acceleration: g

Case (iii) Case (iii) HST95 sand ⫹ Rayleigh FEM

0·5 HST95 sand ⫹ Rayleigh FEM 0·5
0 0
⫺0·5 ⫺0·5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time: s Time: s
(a) (a)

Centrifuge

Magnitude: g/Hz
Magnitude: g/Hz

40 40 Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM

Case (i) Centrifuge
30 Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM 30 Case (i)
20 20
10 10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Magnitude: g/Hz

40 Case (ii) Centrifuge Centrifuge

Magnitude: g/Hz

HST95 silica sand FEM 40 HST95 silica sand FEM

20 Case (ii)
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5
Magnitude: g/Hz

40 Centrifuge
Case (iii)
HST95 sand ⫹ Rayleigh FEM Centrifuge
Magnitude: g/Hz

20 40 HST95 sand ⫹ Rayleigh FEM

0 20
1 2
Frequency: Hz
(b)
Fig. 8. Comparison of measured and predicted accelerations at
slope toe during test AA01: (a) time domain; (b) frequency
domain
within in its formulation; however, these models generally
overpredicted accelerations (as a result of underpredicting
damping; see Fig. 7). The Rayleigh damping formulation
allows additional mass and/or stiffness-proportional (modal,
frequency-dependent) damping (add ) to be included
 
1
add ¼ cm þ ck ( f n ) (13)
4 f n
where add is the additional equivalent viscous damping
ratio, and fn is the natural frequency of modes within the
soil. Values of cm ¼ 0.0005 and ck ¼ 0.005 were selected for
use in case (iii), and the justification for these will be given
later.
At point 14 the match between the centrifuge test and
FEM is good for all soil parameter sets considered, although
the models without the additional Rayleigh damping slightly
overpredict the peak acceleration values in some of the
cycles. This match is not surprising, given that the shear
wave has propagated only a short distance in level ground at
this point, and has not yet interacted with the slope.
Figure 9 shows similar plots at the crest of the slope
(instrument 5), representing a more stringent test of the
capabilities of the numerical model. This would be of sig-
Case (iii)
3 4 5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frequency: Hz
(b)
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and predicted accelerations at
slope crest during test AA01: (a) time domain; (b) frequency
domain
nificant interest for being able to determine the input motion
to any (infra)structure located at the crest of the slope. For
both cases (i) and (ii) without any additional damping,
significant overprediction of acceleration is observed. From
Fig. 9(b) it is clear that this appears to arise from increased
amplification of the higher-frequency components (above
3 Hz). The Rayleigh damping parameters reported earlier
give damping that is predominantly stiffness-proportional,
such that the motions at higher frequencies would be more
significantly damped, without over-damping the lower fre-
quencies where the match is better. Case (iii) in Fig. 9(b)
shows a markedly improved prediction of the acceleration
time history at this point, owing to reduced contribution of
the higher-frequency modes. Similar results were found for
simulations of test AA02 (Kobe motion). Increases in the ck
parameter, to increase and further improve the damping at
higher frequencies, resulted in poorer predictions of perma-
nent movements. The values for cm and ck given above
appear to represent the best compromise, enabling both
ground accelerations and permanent slip (see later) to be
reasonably estimated within the same analysis.
The ratios of crest peak acceleration (at instrument 5) to
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES
the peak value of the input motion were found to be
insensitive to the number of earthquakes, and of the order of
1.3 (highest value recorded was 1.4). This amplification
factor clearly contains two distinct effects: the site effect (in
essence a material property effect, due to the dynamic
properties of the soil); and a topographic effect (a geometric
effect due to the ground surface profile). In Eurocode 8, Part
5 (BSI, 2005b), the ground motion at the crest (instrument
5), for use in constructing response spectra, is calculated
using
PGA ¼ S  S T  ag
where ag is the peak acceleration in the underlying bedrock
(input motion in the centrifuge tests); S is the ‘soil factor’
describing the site effect (¼ 1.4 for the ‘ground type E’ soil
in this study, as classified using Eurocode 8, Part 1 (BSI,
2005a)); and ST is the topographic amplification factor
(> 1.2 for shallow slopes). The overall amplification factor
is then PGA/ag : Based on Eurocode 8, the overall amplifica-
tion within the centrifuge test would be predicted to be
between 1.4 and 1.7, which would be conservative when
compared with the centrifuge observations (amplification 
1.3) for the two motions considered. Ashford et al. (1997)
and Bouckovalas & Papadimitriou (2005) have conducted
detailed numerical studies based on harmonic ground shak-
ing, and have demonstrated that the topographic amplifica-
tion is dependent on the ratio of slope height to wavelength
and position from the crest. In light of this, the centrifuge
tests of Brennan & Madabhushi (2009) are a useful compari-
son with the test data in this paper, as they considered a
slope of similar (although not identical) height, slope angle
and sand. Their results support the value of 1.3 measured in
tests AA01 and AA02.
However, the hazard posed to infrastructure at the crest is
more usefully represented by a response spectrum, rather
than a ratio of peak accelerations, which represents the
spectral response at a period T ¼ 0 s only. Fig. 10 shows a
3·5
3·0
Spectral acceleration: g
2·5
2·0
1·5
1·0
0·5
0 accurate prediction of seismic response). When considered
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8
Period: s
3·5
3·0
Spectral acceleration: g
2·5
2·0
1·5
1·0
0·5
0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8
Period: s
Fig. 10. Measured (centrifuge), predicted (FEM) and design
(Eurocode 8) response spectra at top of slope (instrument 5) for
5% structural damping: (a) Chi-Chi (AA01); (b) Kobe (AA02)
1237
comparison of predicted crest spectra for 5% nominal struc-
tural damping from FEM and measured data from the
centrifuge tests, also including design spectra based on
Eurocode 8 for context. For the cases including Rayleigh
damping (HST95, case (iii)), a very good match to the
centrifuge data is obtained, although there is a tendency for
the response to be slightly underpredicted for periods above
0.5 s. Use of the other constitutive models results in a much
more significant underprediction of response above 0.5 s,
and overprediction below this. Fig. 10 also suggests that
there is a range of natural periods (between approximately
(14)
0.4 s and 1.0 s) over which the FEM may substantially
underpredict the response, compared with the centrifuge data
(this is particularly noticeable for test AA02). This range
could be used as a simple screening tool to identify key
pieces of infrastructure atop slopes that may be more vulner-
able to seismic damage than FEM would suggest, and to
which extra consideration should be paid in design. It is
clear that care should be taken in interpreting the hazard to
supported infrastructure from analyses using FEM, and that
this will be significantly dependent on the natural period of
the supported structure. Further comparison between the first
and last earthquake motions demonstrated that the spectral
magnitudes appear to be relatively insensitive to repeated
strong earthquake shaking.
Permanent deformations
Figure 11 shows the permanent crest settlements across
the four earthquakes as predicted by FEM (all three cases
are shown), and as measured in the centrifuge. It is clear
that, for both suites of earthquake motions, use of the
Brinkgreve et al. (2010) parameters hugely overpredicts
settlement at the crest. This would lead to significant over-
prediction of the risk posed to the slope, and hence, poten-
tially, uneconomic design. In contrast, use of the HST95
parameters (either case) gives a much better prediction,
although inclusion of the additional damping, which was
beneficial for modelling the dynamic behaviour accurately,
results in an underprediction of permanent deformation
Centrifuge (AA01) (which is unsafe). The Brinkgreve et al. (2010) parameters
Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM
were initially envisaged as being useful for cases where
HST95 sand FEM
HST95 sand FEM ⫹ Rayleigh there is extremely limited site investigation data, but the
EC8 (S ⫽ 1·4, ST ⫽ 1·2) implication of Fig. 11 is that it is always important to obtain
soil parameters from high-quality laboratory (or in situ) test
data to achieve an accurate prediction of movement. It is
likely that the extra cost of this additional investigation
would be significantly offset if a lower amount of remedia-
tion/repair were to be required (as a result of a more
1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6 1·8 2·0
alongside the dynamic performance discussed in the previous
(a) section, it is clear that neither case (ii) or case (iii) can give
consistently better performance of both dynamic and perma-
Centrifuge (AA02) nent movements simultaneously; this would appear to sug-
Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM gest that the additional Rayleigh damping may not be a
HST95 sand FEM material characteristic, but may be masking an effect of the
HST95 sand FEM ⫹ Rayleigh sloping ground geometry in which wave reflection at the
EC8 (S ⫽ 1·4, ST ⫽ 1·2)
sloping ground surface is not modelled correctly within the
FE model.
Figure 12 shows a comparison (drawn to scale) of the
ground surface profile measured at the end of the centrifuge
test (a negligible amount of movement was recorded during
spin-down), and as predicted at the end of the last earth-
1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6 1·8 2·0 quake (EQ4) from the FE model (case (ii)) for test AA01. It
can be seen that the numerical model captures the deformed
(b)
shape of the slope well, particularly the angular distortion at
the crest, which is likely to be of greatest significance for
supported infrastructure. A similar result was obtained for
test AA02 (not shown).
1238 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT
0

0·5

1·0

1·5

2·0

Settlement: m
2·5

3·0

3·5

4·0 Centrifuge settlement (0·91 m)

Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM (5·05 m)
4·5
HST95 sand FEM (0·79 m)
5·0
HST95 sand FEM ⫹ Rayleigh (0·41 m)
5·5
0 50 100 150 200
Time: s
(a)
0

0·5

1·0
Settlement: m

1·5

2·0

2·5 Centrifuge settlement (1·02 m)

Brinkgreve et al. (2010) FEM (3·3 m)
3·0 HST95 sand FEM (0·76 m)
HST95 sand FEM ⫹ Rayleigh (0·32 m)
3·5 0 50 100 150 200
Time: s
(b)

Fig. 11. Comparison of permanent crest settlements from FEM and centrifuge modelling:
(a) test AA01; (b) test AA02
0·79 m (HST95 FEM)

β
0·91 m (centrifuge)

khg L
Original profile
β g
khγzL cos β

After centrifuge
8 (160)

τultL
After FEM z
14 (280)

(σ⬘ ⫹ u)L
γzL cos β
6 (120)

(Centrifuge) 1·95 m

Fig. 13. Forces acting within infinite slope under horizontal

shaking
11 (220) 15 (300) 7·5 (150)

Fig. 12. Comparison of slope profile after EQ4 as predicted by uniaxial horizontal shaking (plane strain), the applied down-
FEM and as measured in centrifuge, test AA01 slope shear stress is
applied ¼ ªz sin  cos  þ k h ªz cos2  (15)
DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPROVED SLIDING-BLOCK
METHOD where the first term relates to the static shear stress due to
The horizontal yield acceleration of a shallow translational the ground slope, and the second term relates to the addi-
(infinite) slip can be determined using standard limit equi- tional peak dynamic shear stress induced by the earthquake.
librium techniques, incorporating pseudo-static acceleration The shear strength of the soil along the slip plane, assuming
components due to the seismic ground motion (see Fig. 13). that the soil failure can be described by the Mohr–Coulomb
For a slip plane at depth z beneath the slope surface under failure criterion, is given by
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES
ult ¼ c9 þ  9 tan 9
¼ c9 þ (ªz cos2   k h ªz sin  cos   u) tan 9
The soil yields when applied ¼ ult : The value of kh at
which this occurs (the yield acceleration, khy ) can be deter-
mined from equations (15) and (16) as
c9 þ (ªz cos   u) tan 9  ªz sin  cos 
2
k hy ¼
ªz cos2  þ ªz sin  cos  tan 9
In a standard Newmark analysis, when the horizontal
component of the ground acceleration (a) exceeds khy in the
downslope direction, the slope will start to accelerate under
the slip acceleration, aslip ¼ a  khy (positive value implies
downslope movement). This acceleration is numerically in-
tegrated with respect to time to obtain the slip velocity,
which is then itself integrated to obtain the slip displace-
ment. Once a , khy , the sliding block will begin to decele-
rate (as aslip , 0) until the slip velocity reaches zero, at
which point the block comes to rest until aslip is again
positive. This procedure is shown schematically in Fig.
14(a).
In a dry cohesionless soil, c9 ¼ 0, u ¼ 0, and ªz cancels
in equation (17): that is, khy is independent of the depth of
Including strain-softening (SS):
khy ⫽ f (φ⬘)
Acceleration
Slip velocity
Classical
Including SS
Slip displacement
(a)
Including strain-softening (SS):
φ⬘pk khy ⫽ f (φ⬘)
φ⬘cs
khy and φ⬘
Classic Newmark:
Shearbox test curve
khy ⫽ const.
εs,pk εs,cs
(b)
Fig. 14. Newmark sliding-block procedure, and effect of strain-
softening (after Matasovic et al., 1997)
1239
the slip plane (so long as it continues to be parallel to the
(16) slope surface). Equation (17) then simplifies to
cos  tan 9  sin 
k hy ¼ (18)
cos  þ sin  tan 9
In equation (18) the only parameters affecting khy are the
slope angle  (geometric) and the soil friction angle 9
(constitutive). In a standard analysis, both  and 9 are
(17)
constant. In reality, however, the soil may be strain-softening,
in which case 9 will depend on the magnitude of the shear
strain (s ) on the slip plane and the density of the soil.
Matasovic et al. (1997) presented a simplified model for this,
which is shown schematically in Fig. 14(b). If 9pk ¼ 9cs , the
model reduces to the standard case of a strain-softening
material. To incorporate this into an analysis, the value of
khy at a particular time step can be estimated, based on the
current permanent downslope displacement, computed in the
previous time step, divided by the thickness of the shear
band/slip plane to obtain an estimate of the shear strain.
The slope angle  will also change during an analysis, as
slip will cause settlement at the crest and accumulation of
material at the toe: that is, the slope will become shallower
(re-grading, RG). A simplified model for this geometric
effect is developed in this paper, and is shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 15(a) shows the kinematically admissible failure me-
chanism assumed for an increment of slip, d i , in which
Classical Newmark: infinite sliding is the predominant component. This leads to
khy ⫽ const. downward vertical movement of the material at the slope
crest and a horizontal translation of the position of the toe,
resulting in a new, shallower slope with an approximate
slope angle of  iþ1 in Fig. 15(b). Ambrayses & Srbulov
(1995) present an alternative mechanism for shallow sliding
Time that is similar to Fig. 15(a), but with more complex changes
in geometry (and for post-seismic sliding only, i.e. when
Ground motion there is no seismic inertia). The new (simpler) mechanism
proposed here has the advantage that the calculations are
much more straightforward, relying on only a single param-
eter (the initial slope angle ) to define the slope geometry,
and more closely match the deformations observed visually
in the centrifuge tests (e.g. see Fig. 12).
Provided that  is relatively small (such that the slope is
Time
long compared with its height), the equilibrium of this
mechanism will be well approximated by infinite slope
theory (i.e. equations (17) or (18) will adequately describe
Crest Toe
Settlement increment
di sin βi
Slip increment,
di
Time
di cos βi
(a)
New slope
surface (i ⫹ 1)
Hi βi⫹1
Hi ⫺ di sin βi
tan⫺1 (τ/σ⬘) vs εs
βi
Shear strain, εs Hi cot βi di cos βi
(b)
Fig. 15. (a) New incremental slope re-grading mechanism;
(b) incremental changes in geometry
1240 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT
khy ). It will be demonstrated later that even a slope as steep
as ,1:2 satisfies this condition to a reasonable degree of
accuracy. It is assumed that any volumetric change in the
material in the sliding block is negligible. From Fig. 15(b),
the instantaneous slope angle  iþ1 can be determined from
 
H i  d i sin i
iþ1 ¼ tan 1
(19)
H i cot i þ d i cos i
where Hi is the height of the slope at the previous time step.
For the initial time step, d0 ¼ 0, Hi ¼ H and  i ¼ 0 (initial
slope angle). It should be noted that the deformations in Fig.
15(b) are shown at exaggerated scale for clarity. The slope
angle can therefore be recalculated at each time step to
account for the re-grading of the slope based on the
increment of slip occurring in the previous time step, as 9
was previously to account for strain-softening. The yield
acceleration (equation (18)) will thus be fully strain-depen-
dent. This method assumes that once the slope has been
deformed to a new, smaller value of , the failure mechan-
ism will continue to be of the infinite type, with a new slip
surface forming parallel to the new slope surface. It also
assumes that the strain-dependent effects on  and 9 are
independent, to simplify the calculations. In reality, this
latter assumption may not be wholly true, as the changing
angle of a softened slip plane (i.e. with 9 ¼ 9cs ) may push
at least part of the slip surface into previously undisturbed
soil. If this effect and the effects of strain-softening are
significant, it is expected that the model will overestimate
movements; however, this would be conservative for use in
analysis and design. It should also be noted that the model
as formulated can be used even for the case of large total
slope movements (such as may accrue during a series of
strong aftershocks), as the displacement increment in each
individual time step will remain small, and therefore the
instantaneous failure mechanism will be represented by Fig.
15(a) for small displacement increments.
From the form of equation (19) it is clear that  can only
ever reduce during an earthquake, resulting in an increase of
khy from equation (17) or (18): that is, the slope will
geometrically harden during an earthquake, and the slip in a
subsequent (identical) earthquake will be less than that
occurring in the original. The behaviour of a seismically
damaged slope during a subsequent earthquake can therefore
be determined by starting from the initial conditions (amount
of slip, accumulated strain, re-graded slope angle and current
friction angle) obtained at the end of the analysis for the
previous ground motion.
VALIDATION OF SLIDING-BLOCK MODEL
Predictions of permanent deformation
Visual observations from the centrifuge tests suggested
that the 1:2 slopes tested failed in a shallow translational
mechanism consistent with that shown in Fig. 15. The depth
0·5 m
0 12345678
(a)
Shear strain: %
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
(b)
Fig. 16. (a) Failure mechanism computed from DLO for seismic
case; (b) accumulated shear strain within FE model (test AA01)
and assumed approximate infinite slip mechanisms used in
Newmark analyses
of effective confining stresses representing those within the
top 1 m of the soil. The test data are shown in Fig. 17, from
which values of 9pk ¼ 408, 9cs ¼ 328, s;pk ¼ 3.5% and
s;cs ¼ 7.5% were estimated for 0.5 m depth. Using these
friction angles and limiting shear strains, the initial yield
accelerations of the slope were computed using equation
(18) and DLO; the results are shown in Table 4, alongside
values for the static factor of safety of the slope (F),
calculated using equations (15) and (16) with kh ¼ 0, and
DLO.
The shear band thickness (required for converting slip
displacement in the sliding-block model into an approximate
shear strain) was estimated at t ¼ 16D50 ¼ 2.4 mm, based on
a range of previous studies (e.g. Mülhaus & Vardoulakis,
1987; Oda & Kazama, 1998; Muir Wood, 2002). The
calculations were conducted at prototype scale, and so the
shear strain was estimated using 50t ¼ 120 mm to model the
correct ratio between the slope geometry and the grain size
within the model. For application to a true field case where
the grains are smaller compared with the overall size of the
slope, the true shear band thickness should be used instead.
For the tests presented herein, changing the shear band
thickness from 120 mm to 2.4 mm resulted in less than 1%
change in crest settlement (the actual value varied slightly
with the input motion considered), confirming that the grain-
1·0
0·8
Stress ratio (⫽ tan φ⬘)

of the shear plane ( 0.5 m) was estimated using the dis-

continuity layout optimisation (DLO) technique (Smith & 0·6
Gilbert, 2007) to obtain a minimum upper-bound mechanism
for the actual limited geometry of the centrifuge model.
0·4 5·5 kPa (0·34 m)
DLO calculations were carried out using LimitState:GEO,
v2.0. The position of the slip plane was not affected by the 8·2 kPa (0·51 m)
value of 9 used, and is shown in Fig. 16(a). The idealised 0·2 13·6 kPa (0·85 m)
geometry assumed in the analysis (cf. Fig. 15(a)) is shown
Analytical model
in Fig. 16(b), overlaid onto the accumulated shear strain
within the FE simulation of test AA01 (case (ii)), for 0
0 5 10 15 20
comparison. Shearbox testing was then conducted on sam- Shear strain, εs: %
ples of dry sand prepared to the same relative density as in
the centrifuge tests, using a standard 60 mm 3 60 mm DSA, Fig. 17. Soil test data from direct shear apparatus (DSA) at low
to obtain 9pk and 9cs : These tests were conducted at a range effective confining stress
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES 1241
Table 4. Static and dynamic slope stability data

Soil strength Static stability parameters Dynamic stability parameters

F (equations (15) F (DLO) khy khy (DLO)

and (16)) (equation (18))

9 ¼ 328 1.17 1.20 0.07g 0.07g

9 ¼ 408 1.56 1.61 0.21g 0.22g

size scaling effect is negligible, and that centrifuge model- behaviour of the material within the sliding block (due to its
ling is therefore an appropriate technique for modelling thickness) may be significant (e.g. Rathje & Bray, 1999);
slope failure problems in coarse-grained soil. A similar con- this was not the case for the extremely shallow translational
clusion was reached by Anastasopoulos et al. (2007) for slips that occurred within the cohesionless slopes tested
fault rupture (shear band) propagation through the same herein.
sand. Figures 19 and 20 show the results of simulations of
Figure 18 shows the effect of the geometric re-grading cumulative crest displacement both with (SS + RG) and
(change in ), using the first earthquake (EQ1) of test AA01 without re-grading (SS) with the centrifuge test data, for
as an example. Only the positive (downslope) accelerations tests AA01 and AA02 respectively. It can be seen that, in
have been shown, for clarity. No slip occurs until the ground each case, the improved model presented in this paper
motion exceeds the yield acceleration based on the peak (SS + RG) tracks the settlement at the crest of the slope
strength. Once the ground motion exceeds this value, how- much more closely than the model that incorporates only the
ever, and the slope begins to slip, the shear strain rapidly constitutive effect (SS). These latter models increasingly
accrues, resulting in softening to critical state conditions diverge from the measured values with further strong shak-
after the first large pulse. Motion of the slope also causes ing, as they always start with the initial (steeper) slope
re-grading (geometric hardening), and the yield acceleration geometry, and therefore overpredict the slip. If the input
can subsequently be seen to increase non-linearly throughout motions were identical, the slip in each subsequent earth-
the remainder of the earthquake, leading to reduced slip quake would be identical for the case of no re-grading
velocities (and hence reduced permanent slip) compared (although the movements in the first earthquake might be
with the case with no geometric hardening. slightly smaller, owing to the strain-softening effect). The
Sliding-block analyses were subsequently conducted for improved models are not perfect, and in each case over-
each of the centrifuge tests (for all four earthquakes in the predict the measured movement; as the slope re-grades, the
cases of tests AA01 and AA02). Simulations were conducted new position of the slip plane may cause it to pass at least
using the ‘bedrock’ input motion (this was taken from the
bottom-most accelerometer in the model, instrument 8), as
used in the FEM. Additional simulations using instrument 6 Time: s
did not show significant differences in the overall cumulative 0 50 100 150 200
slip predicted, possibly as there was some shear decoupling 0
across/around the shear band, which counteracted (at least
partially) any increase in acceleration due to soil amplifica-
Crest settlement: m

tion. In slopes with deep rotational failure surfaces (e.g. in

municipal solid waste or steep cohesive slopes), the dynamic
2
Centrifuge (AA01)
0·40 Sliding block (SS ⫹ RG)
Input ground motion Sliding block (SS)
Strain- khy ⫺ SS ⫹ RG
0·30
Acceleration: g

softening EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4

khy ⫺ SS
4
Geometric hardening
0·20 (re-grading)
0·5
0·10
0·21 0·23 0·25
Input acceleration: g

0·20
0 0·16
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time: s
(a) 0
0 50 100 150 200
1·0 Strain-softening and re-grading (SS ⫹ RG)
Strain-softening only (SS)
Slip velocity: m/s

0·8

0·6
⫺0·5
0·4

0·2
Ground acceleration (AA01)
0 khy (SS ⫹ RG)
0 10 20 30 40 50 khy (SS)
Time: s
(b)
Fig. 19. Comparison of predicted cumulative crest settlements
Fig. 18. Application of new sliding-block model, showing key (with and without re-grading) with centrifuge test measurements:
features (Chi-Chi EQ1 used, test AA01) test AA01 (Chi-Chi)
1242 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT
Time: s
0 50 100 150 200
strain-dependent sliding-block model (strain-softening and
0 geometric hardening) and the laboratory-test-calibrated FEM
developed in this paper (HST95, case (ii)). Although the
improved models are not perfect, they give a much im-
Crest settlement: m

proved prediction of the response under the initial earth-

quake on virgin soil, and are subsequently able to give a
2 better prediction of behaviour, even after several previous
Centrifuge (AA02) strong earthquakes during which significant deformation has
Sliding block (SS ⫹ RG) accrued. Both existing models overpredict settlements in the
Sliding block (SS)
first earthquake and then get progressively worse with
EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 further shaking, as they are unable to correctly capture the
4 effect of the previous seismic (strain) history on the slope.
In the case of the sliding-block model this is associated
0·5 with incorrect description of the deformed slope; in the
case of the FEM, the case (i) constitutive parameters do
0·21 not appear to correctly capture the strain history or mech-
Input acceleration: g

0·18 0·20
0·12 0·16 anical response of the soil. The development of the ‘im-
proved’ sliding-block and FEM tools in this paper provides
0 an improved means of quantifying the response of shallow
0 50 100 150 200 cohesionless slopes under strong earthquake shaking, and
the ability to consider behaviour under multiple successive
earthquakes. With further development, these tools will
allow civil engineers to obtain a better estimate of the
⫺0·5 hazard associated with aftershocks, and lead to new ap-
proaches to quantifying seismic performance and managing
Ground acceleration (AA02)
critical transport infrastructure, in which whole-life per-
khy (SS ⫹ RG) formance can be considered.
khy (SS)

Fig. 20. Comparison of predicted cumulative crest settlements CONCLUSIONS

(with and without re-grading) with centrifuge test measurements: In this paper, improved procedures for modelling the
test AA02 (Kobe) seismic response of dry granular shallow slopes using the
FEM and a fully strain-dependent Newmark sliding-block
procedure have been developed and validated against dy-
partially through undisturbed soil, thereby leading to an namic centrifuge test data. In the FE modelling, a non-
enhanced average frictional resistance along the slip plane. linear elasto-plastic constitutive model was used, the para-
meters of which could be estimated based only on relative
density using existing correlations, or using routine labora-
COMPARISON OF SLIDING-BLOCK AND FEM tory tests to develop a soil-specific model. These methods,
Figure 21 presents a summary of the predictive ability of as they do not require specialist testing, offer significant
the FEM and the sliding-block models for determining benefits for use in routine design, although the predictions
permanent settlements. These have been grouped into ‘ex- obtained are of an approximate nature. It was demonstrated
isting’ models, representing the current state-of-the-art, that the use of soil-specific parameters gave far improved
namely sliding block with strain-softening and FEM using predictions, particularly of permanent settlement, compared
the previously published parameters of Brinkgreve et al. with the existing correlations, which overpredicted settle-
(2010), and ‘improved’ models, consisting of the fully ments, particularly in subsequent earthquakes. This high-
lights the value of performing adequate site investigation.
In the improved sliding-block model, reduction in slope
12
Improved methods:
angle with slip/strain (re-grading or geometric hardening)
Sliding block (SS ⫹ RG)
has been incorporated alongside an existing strain-softening/
Predicted/measured (crest settlement)

10 hardening formulation.
FEM (ii)
The sliding-block and FE models gave comparable predic-
Existing methods: tions of permanent slip, capturing the significant decay in
8
Sliding block (SS) ground displacement (geometric hardening) with subsequent
FEM (i) shaking observed in the centrifuge tests. They therefore
6
Parity
permit both the response of slopes under strong aftershocks,
and the whole-life performance of a slope, to be quantified.
Whereas the sliding-block models are useful in preliminary
4
design, owing to the limited soil property data required and
the reduced computational effort, the FEM is additionally
2 able to quantify the dynamic performance of the soil and the
ground deformation profile (angular distortion) at the crest.
This would provide the information necessary to make a
0 detailed study of the seismic hazard posed to infrastructure
1 2 3 4
located at the slope crest, without requiring an excessive
Earthquake no.
amount of specialist laboratory testing, and is therefore
Fig. 21. Accuracy of ‘existing’ models/procedures, compared with complementary to the sliding-block models, being useful in
those proposed in this and the companion paper (‘improved’ the later stages of detailed design. The FE models generally
models) for predicting permanent crest settlement overpredicted the magnitude of dynamic ground motions in
 AFTERSHOCKS AND THE WHOLE-LIFE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRANULAR SLOPES 1243
the slopes (particularly for components above 3 Hz). Adding 9pk (secant) peak angle of friction
in additional damping using the Rayleigh formulation im- ł9 effective angle of dilation
proved this, but had an adverse effect on the prediction of
permanent slope movements.

REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ambrayses, N. & Srbulov, M. (1995). Earthquake induced displace-
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude ments of slopes. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng 14, No. 1,
to Mark Truswell and Colin Stark at the University of 59–71.
Dundee for their assistance in performing the centrifuge Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., Bransby, M., Davies, M. & El
tests. The first author would also like to acknowledge the Nahas, A. (2007). Fault rupture propagation through sand: finite-
financial support of his PhD studies from the Ministry of element analysis and validation through centrifuge experiments.
Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR) of the J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 133, No. 8, 943–958.
Republic of Iraq. Ashford, S. A., Sitar, N., Lysmer, J. & Deng, N. (1997). Topo-
graphic effects on the seismic response of steep slopes. Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, No. 3, 701–709.
Benz, T. (2006). Small-strain stiffness of soils and its numerical
NOTATION consequences. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, Germany.
a ground acceleration Bertalot, D. (2012). Behaviour of shallow foundations on layered
ag underlying bedrock peak acceleration soil deposits containing loose saturated sands during earth-
aslip slip acceleration quakes. PhD thesis, University of Dundee, UK.
Cu coefficient of uniformity Bertalot, D. & Brennan, A. J. (2012). Influence of bearing pressure
C2 coefficient of curvature on liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations.
c9 cohesion intercept Géotechnique 63, No. 5, 391–399, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
ck stiffness-proportional Rayleigh damping coefficient geot.11.P.040.
cm mass-proportional Rayleigh damping coefficient Bertalot, D., Brennan, A. J., Knappett, J. A., Muir Wood, D. &
D10 particle diameter at which 10% is smaller Villalobos, F. A. (2012). Use of centrifuge modelling to improve
D30 particle diameter at which 30% is smaller lessons learned from earthquake case histories. Proceedings of
D60 particle diameter at which 60% is smaller the 2nd European conference on physical modelling in geotech-
d slope parallel slip nics, Eurofuge 2012, Delft, the Netherlands.
Eoed oedometric tangent stiffness (in compression) Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands.
Eur unloading–reloading stiffness Géotechnique 36, No. 1, 65–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.
E50 triaxial secant stiffness (at 50% of deviatoric failure stress 1986.36.1.65.
in drained triaxial compression) Bouckovalas, G. D. & Papadimitriou, A. G. (2005). Numerical
e natural void ratio evaluation of slope topography effects on seismic ground motion.
emax maximum void ratio Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng 25, No. 7–10, 547–558.
emin minimum void ratio Bransby, M. F., Brown, M. J., Knappett, J. A., Hudacsek, P.,
F static factor of safety Morgan, N., Cathie, D., Maconochie, A., Yun, G., Ripley, A. G.,
fn natural frequency Brown, N. & Egborge, R. (2011). Vertical capacity of grillage
G shear modulus foundations in sand. Can. Geotech. J. 48, No. 8, 1246–1265.
G0 small-strain modulus Brennan, A. J. & Madabhushi, S. P. G. (2009). Amplification of
Gs specific gravity seismic accelerations at slope crests. Can. Geotech. J. 46, No. 5,
g acceleration due to gravity (¼ 9.81 m/s2 ) 585–594.
H slope height above toe Brennan, A. J., Thusyanthan, N. I. & Madabhushi, S. P. G. (2005).
ID relative density Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge
K0 lateral earth pressure coefficient (at rest) tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 131, No. 12, 1488–1497.
kh pseudo-static seismic horizontal acceleration Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Engin, E. & Engin, H. K. (2010). Validation
khy yield acceleration of empirical formulas to derive model parameters for sands. In
Mw moment magnitude Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering (eds T. Benz
m power-law index for stress-level dependence of stiffness and S. Nordal), pp. 137–142. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: CRC
PGA peak ground acceleration (at soil surface) Press/Balkema.
pref reference stress (¼ 100 kPa) BSI (1990). BS 1377, Part 4: Maximum and minimum dry density
Rf ratio of deviatoric failure stress to asymptotic limiting for granular soil. London, UK: British Standards Institution.
deviator stress BSI (2005a). EN 1998-1: 2004: Eurocode 8: Design of structures
S soil factor (Eurocode 8) for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic
ST topographic amplification factor (Eurocode 8) actions and rules for buildings. London, UK: British Standards
t shear band thickness Institution.
u pore water pressure BSI (2005b). EN 1998-5: 2004: Eurocode 8: Design of structures
Vs shear wave velocity for earthquake resistance – Part 5: Foundations, retaining struc-
z depth of slip plane tures and geotechnical aspects. London, UK: British Standards
 slope angle Institution.
0 initial slope angle (pre-earthquake) Hardin, B. O. & Drnevich, V. P. (1972). Shear modulus and
ª soil unit weight damping in soils: design equations and curves. J. Soil Mech.
ªd dry unit weight Found. Div., ASCE 98, No. SM7, 667–692.
ªsat saturated unit weight Ishibashi, I. & Zhang, X. (1993). Unified dynamic shear moduli
s shear strain and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils Found. 33, No. 1,
s,cs shear strain at critical state 182–191.
s,pk shear strain at peak state Jibson, R. W. (1993). Predicting earthquake-induced landslide dis-

add viscous damping ratio placements using Newmark’s sliding block analysis. Transp. Res.
ur Poisson’s ratio (unload–reload) Record 1411, 9–17.
9 normal effective stress Khazai, B. & Sitar, N. (2004). Evaluation of factors controlling
applied applied shear stress earthquake-induced landslides caused by the Chi-Chi earthquake
ult shear strength and comparison with the Northridge and Loma Prieta events. J.
9 effective angle of friction Engng Geol. 71, No. 1–2, 79–95.
9cs critical state angle of friction Kim, J. & Sitar, N. (2004). Direct estimation of yield acceleration
1244 AL-DEFAE, CAUCIS AND KNAPPETT
in slope stability analyses. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 130,
No. 1, 111–115.
Knappett, J. A. & Craig, R. F. (2012). Craig’s soil mechanics, 8th
edn. London, UK: Spon Press.
Kramer, S. L. (2008). Performance-based earthquake engineering:
opportunities and implications for geotechnical engineering prac-
tice. Keynote paper. Proceedings of the 4th conference on
geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, pp. 1–
32. Reston, VA, USA: ASCE.
Lauder, K. (2011). The performance of pipeline ploughs. PhD
thesis, University of Dundee, UK.
Lo Presti, D. C. F., Pallara, O., Fioravante, V. & Jamiolkowski, M.
(1998). Assessment of quasi-linear models for sands. In Pre-
failure deformation behaviour of geomaterials (eds R. Jardine,
M. Davies, D. Hight, A. Smith and S. Stallebrass), pp. 363–372.
London, UK: Thomas Telford.
Loukidis, D., Bandini, P. & Salgado, R. (2003). Stability of
seismically loaded slopes using limit analysis. Géotechnique 53,
No. 5, 463–479, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.5.463.
Lysmer, J. & Kuhlmeyer, R. L. (1969). Finite dynamic model for
infinite media. Proc. ASCE, J. Engng Mech. Div. 95, No. 4,
859–887.
Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E. Jr & Yan, L. (1997). Newmark
deformation analysis degrading yield acceleration. Proceedings
of Geosynthetics ’97, Long Beach, CA, USA, vol. 2, pp. 989–
1000.
Muir Wood, D. (2002). Some observations of volumetric instabil-
ities in soils. Int. J. Solids Struct. 39, No. 13–14, 3429–3449.
Mülhaus, H. B. & Vardoulakis, I. (1987). The thickness of shear
bands in granular soils. Géotechnique 37, No. 3, 271–283,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.3.271.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). Effects of earthquakes on dams and
embankments. Géotechnique 15, No. 2, 139–159, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139.
Oda, M. & Kazama, H. (1998). Microstructure of shear bands and
its relation to the mechanism of dilatancy and failure of dense
granular soils. Géotechnique 48, No. 4, 465–482, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.4.465.
Rathje, E. M. & Bray, J. D. (1999). An examination of simplified
earthquake-induced displacement procedures for earth structures.
Can. Geotech. J. 36, No. 1, 72–87.
Rowe, P. W. (1962). The stress–dilatancy relation for static equili-
brium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc. R. Soc. A
269, No. 1339, 500–527.
Santos, J. A. & Correia, A. G. (2001). Reference threshold shear
strain of soil: its application to obtain a unique strain-dependent
shear modulus curve for soil. Proceedings of the 15th interna-
tional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineer-
ing, Istanbul, Turkey, vol. 1, pp. 267–270.
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P.A. & Bonnier, P.G. (1999). The hardening-
soil model: formulation and verification. In Beyond 2000 in
computation geotechnics (ed. R. B. J. Brinkgreve), pp. 281–290.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
Smith, C. C. & Gilbert, M. (2007). Application of discontinuity
layout optimization to plane plasticity problems. Proc. R. Soc. A
463, No. 2086, 2461–2484.
Wartman, J., Bray, J. & Seed, R. (2003). Inclined plane studies of
the Newmark sliding block procedure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng 129, No. 8, 673–684.
Wartman, J., Seed, R. & Bray, J. (2005). Shaking table modeling of
seismically induced deformations in slopes. J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Engng 131, No. 5, 610–622.