SEISMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS OF

EARTH STRUCTURES

G. R. Dodagoudar
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

I I T MADRAS, CHENNAI - 600 036

Earth Structures
Slopes Natural and Man-made
Road and Rail Embankments
Earth Dams
Retaining Walls
Gravity walls
Reinforced retaining walls
Reinforced earth walls
Sheet Pile Walls
Bridge Abutments
Quay Walls
Diaphragm Walls
Braced Excavations
Gabion Walls
Crib Walls
PART I
Analysis!

How does one assess the acceptability

of an engineering design?

Design Method!

Design: Application of results of known

methods of analyses.

HOW COMPLICATED DOES IT NEED TO BE?

 Outline of Presentation
Definitions --
Slope Stability An Overview
Slope Failures A Review
Seismic Stability Analysis
Natural slopes
Embankment slopes
Earth Dams
Finite Element Analysis
Seismic Earth Pressure
Seismic Stability of Retaining Walls
Concluding Remarks
Traditional -Deterministic Approach
Loadings are clearly defined
Materials are completely characterised and
have stable properties
~
C No min al Capacity
FS = ~
D No min al Demand
The FS is problem-oriented. Different values--
recommended for different types of analyses
Nominal FS may fail to convey the actual margin
of safety
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF SLOPES

AN OVERVIEW
Limit Equilibrium Methods
1. Limit equilibrium analysis in conjunction with the
method of slices is the most widely used technique for
evaluating stability of slopes.

2. can accommodate complex geometries and variable

soil properties and water pressure conditions.

3. Numerous Limit Equilibrium Methods

Fellenius (1936); Bishop (1955); Janbu (1954);
Morgenstern and Price (1965); Spencer (1967);
Sarma (1973), Fredlund and Krahn (1977);
Chen and Morgenstern (1983); Bell (1968);
Lowe and Karafiath (1960); Corps of Engineers.
Limit Equilibrium Methods
1. In order to obtain a correct value of FS from a given
method, engineers need to have a complete
understanding of the assumptions and the applicable
conditions of the method.
2. The calculated FS in slope stability analysis does not
vary significantly with the different assumptions of the
interslice forces. However, unreasonable assumptions
may cause difficulties in obtaining a convergent solution.
3. Most of the existing assumptions about the interslice
forces lack sound physical basis and sometimes arbitrary
assumptions about the interslice force inclination and
location or shape of distribution are adopted.
Fig. Forces Acting on a Slice through a Sliding Mass
with a Circular Slip Surface
Fig. Forces Acting on a Slice through a Sliding Mass
with a Composite Slip Surface
Fig. Forces Acting on a Slice through a Sliding Mass
Defined by a Fully Specified Slip Surface
Summary of Known Quantities in Solving for FS

____________________________________________________
Number of
Known Quantities Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n Summation of forces in the horizontal direction
n Summation of forces in the vertical direction
n Summation of moments
n Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion
_______________________________________________

4n Total number of equations

_________________________________________
Summary of Unknown Quantities in Solving for the FS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of
Unknown Quantities Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n Magnitude of the normal force at the base of a slice, N
n Point of application of the normal force at the base of each slice
n - 1 Magnitude of the normal force at the interface between slices, E
n - 1 Point of application of the normal force at the interface between
slices
n - 1 Magnitude of the shear force at the interface between slices, X
n Shear force on the base of each slice, S
1 Factor of safety, F
1 Value of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6n - 1 Total number of unknowns
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLOPE STABILITY: DETERMINISTIC

Many Methods --
A question often asked is
Which method gives the best
value?
Specifying a rigorous method (GLE,
Janbu, Spencer and Morgenstern and
Price) can result in a accurate FS
Important factors that need to be
considered when making a decision --
General Limit Equilibrium Method (GLE)

1. The summation of forces in a vertical direction for each slice.

The equation is solved for the normal force at the base of the
slice, N.

2. The summation of forces in a horizontal direction for each slice

is used to compute the interslice normal force, E.

3. The summation of moments about a common point for all

slices. The equation can be rearranged and solved for the
moment equilibrium factor of safety, FSm .

4. The summation of forces in a horizontal direction for all slices,

giving rise to a force equilibrium factor of safety, FSf .
Conditions of Static Equilibrium Satisfied by
Various Limit Equilibrium Methods
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Force Equilibrium Method

1st Direction* 2nd Direction* Moment
(e.g., Vertical) (e.g., Horizontal) Eqlm.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ordinary or Fellenius Yes No Yes

Bishop's Simplified Yes No Yes
Janbu's Simplified Yes Yes No
Janbu's Generalized Yes Yes **
Spencer Yes Yes Yes
Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes Yes
GLE Yes Yes Yes
Corps of Engineers Yes Yes No
Lowe-Karafiath Yes Yes No
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Any of two orthogonal directions can be selected for the

summation of forces.
** Moment equilibrium - to calculate interslice shear forces.
Ordinary or Fellenius --Interslice forces are neglected.
Bishop's Simplified --Resultant interslice forces are horizontal
(i.e., there are no interslice shear forces).
Janbu's Simplified --Resultant interslice forces are horizontal.
An empirical correction factor, f0 , is used to
account for interslice shear forces.
Janbu's Generalized --Location of the interslice normal force is
defined by an assumed line of thrust.
Spencer --Resultant interslice forces are of constant
slope throughout the sliding mass.
Morgenstern-Price --Direction of the resultant interslice forces is
determined using an arbitrary function. The
percentage of the function, , required to satisfy
moment and force equilibrium is computed.
GLE --Direction of the resultant interslice forces is defined using
an arbitrary function. The percentage of the function, ,
required to satisfy moment and force equilibrium is computed
by finding the intersecting point on a FS versus plot.
SLOPE STABILITY: DETERMINISTIC
The FS determined by Bishops
simplified method (BSM) is an
underestimate but the error is unlikely to
exceed 7% and in most cases is less
than 2% (Duncan, 1992).
Spencer (1967) showed that the
accuracy of the BSM, in which only
moment equilibrium is satisfied, is due
to the insensitivity of the moment
equation to the slope of the interslice
forces.
SLOPE STABILITY: DETERMINISTIC
The Morgenstern and Price (1965)
analysis is the most appropriate
because of its inherent accuracy and
because it can deal with noncircular
failure surfaces
Values of parameters c, , ru and are
required for each soil zone
Must be recognised that although
analysis itself is accurate, the values of
FS produced depend on correctness of
the parameters
 From a mathematical view point,
the best FS is obtained from the
methods that satisfy both force
and moment equilibrium.

However, even for these

methods, it is necessary to
make some assumptions about
the interslice shear forces.
Finite Earth Slopes
A homogeneous slope

Soil 8m
c, , and
450

5m
5m

X
Rock Surface

Slope Section used for the Numerical Example

 Soil Data used for the Numerical Example

Soil Parameter Mean Value COV (%)

Cohesion, c (kN/m2) 18.00 22.22
Friction angle, (deg.) 30.00 10.00
Unit weight, (kN/m3) 19.50 3.00
Pore pressure ratio, ru 0.35 50.00
Case Study 1: Selset Landslide

- Rotational slide -- heavily OC boulder clay

- No significant variation -- a depth of 18.3 m
- Average height = 12.8 m, Av. inclination 280

Parameter Mean Value COV (%)

c 8.6 kN/m2 30.0
32.00
7.0

21.8 kN/m3 0.7

ru 0.45 10
Case Study 2: Birch dam

- Corps of Engineers dam in Oklahoma

- Dam is a zoned earth structure -- Fig.

Soil Properties of the Birch Dam

Soil Layer c (kPa) (deg.) (kN/m3)

I c1 = 49.0 1 = 0.0 1 = 20.00

II c2 = 78.0 2 = 18.0 2 = 20.00
II c3 = 49.0 3 = 31.0 3 = 20.00
50 m

40

30
Soil III
c3, 3, 3
Soil II
c2, 2, 2
20

Soil I
c1, 1, 1
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 m

Cross-Section of the Birch Dam

 Minimum Factors of Safety for Birch Dam

Critical Slip Surface

X (m) Y (m) R (m) Reference FS

42.00 45.90 37.20 Celestino & Duncan 1.121

(1981)
41.40 51.20 41.90 Nguyen (1985) 1.117
41.10 44.10 35.40 DeNatale (1991) 1.093
40.00 41.00 32.30 REAME Program 1.062
Natural Earth Slope: Parmachi landslide
Lat. 18 8 N & Long. 73 36 E, Western Ghats, 28/6/1994
Residual soils -- 0.5 m to 10 m cover
Prior to landslide --Rainfall of 240 mm/day for about 24 hr
Soil and rock -- movement of 30,000 m3
Slopes 40 to 60 degrees and elevation 240 m to 500 m.
Slope and Soil data used for Parmachi Landslide
Slope and Soil Mean Range COV( )
Parameters
z (m) 1.5 0.50 - 3.00 0.60
(degrees) 40 40 - 60 0.20
k (m/hr) 3.5 x 10-3 3.8x10-4 - 0.035 0.50
(degrees) 30 25 - 36 0.10
c (kN/m2) 10 4 - 18 0.40
(kN/m3) 21.70 20.3 - 22.74 0.03
(%) 0.423 0.330 - 0.550 0.20
Parmachi Landslide
GL
W.T.
Slope surface
Water flow
1

Failure surface
W

mz u
z

Typical Infinite Slope with Parallel Seepage

Parmachi Landslide

Preliminary Analysis

c ( sat z u w ) cos2 tan

FS =
sat z sin cos

FS =

c ' 1 m m sat w z cos 2 tan '
1 m m z cos sin
sat

zw =

z sin cos cos 2 tan ' c '
cos tan sat w sin cos sat
2 '
Parmachi Landslide

5.5
Suction
5.0 Zero suction
4.5 10 kPa
4.0 20 kPa
Factor of safety, FS

30 kPa
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Depth of failure surface (m)

(a) c = 0
Parmachi Landslide

10 Suction
9 Zero suction
10 kPa
8 20 kPa
Factor of safety, FS

7 30 kPa

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Depth of failure surface (m)

(b) c = 10 kPa

Fig. 3.13 Effect of Suction on FS of Natural Slopes

Parmachi Landslide: Effect of rainfall intensity

Effect of Rainfall Intensity and Duration on COV(FS) and pf

(c, and as random variables)
((c,) = 0.25, (,) = 0.30 and (,c) = 0.20)

Int. of Water table

rainfall Duration height (m) CFS COV(FS) pf
(mm/day) (zw z) (%)
180 At 24 hr 0.1094 1.2871 21.440 0.14753
At 48 hr 0.8713 1.1192 23.555 0.32336
At 60 hr 1.5000 0.9865 25.728 0.51884
240 At 12 hr 0.1694 1.2736 21.590 0.15866
At 24 hr 1.3434 1.0191 25.142 0.46744
Reported failures of slopes having
computed safety factors larger
than unity indicate that no matter
what number is found by
analytical means there is always
some chance of failure.
SLOPE STABILITY: PROBABILISTIC
The accuracy of the stability analysis is
influenced by the accuracy of the soil
parameters and the location of critical
surface of failure than by any
sophisticated definition of the failure
surface.
Also, the shear strength -- a function of
the magnitude as well as the manner of
the application of the loads.
Stress history, strain localisation, etc.
SLOPE STABILITY: PROBABILISTIC

The greatest uncertainties in stability

problems arise in the selection of the
porewater pressure and stress
parameters.
SLOPE STABILITY: PROBABILISTIC
Probabilistic analysis quantifies the pf
of a slope making it possible for us to
consider
How stable is the slope?
Deterministic analysis cannot answer
this question, since a slope is
considered to be stable if the FS > 1 or
unstable if the FS < 1
All limit equilibrium methods:
assumptions must be made -- E and X
 ADOPTING A METHOD
Who said ----- method is the best?
Practical considerations and ease of
application

Various methods of slices:

(1) the statics used in deriving the FS Eq.

(2) the interslice force assumption used to
render the problem determinate
 ADOPTING A METHOD
Local practice and experience are other
factors to be considered in selecting a
FS method.

The selected method may be less

than the mathematical ideal, but it may
be a suitable method provided local
experience and procedures provide an
acceptable understanding of the
stability.
 THEORY AND PRACTICE
There is nothing so practical as a good
theory
Faulty theories can be quite damaging
to the progress of science and
engineering
How to know which models or theories
to accept or reject?
Some ---- believe that certainty about
any theory is never completely
achievable
Slope Failures A Review
Slope Failures A Review
INFLUENCE OF EARTHQUAKE

Widespread devastation
Landslides/Mudslides
Failure of slopes/embankments
Liquefaction related problems
Increase of earth pressures on retaining walls and OTM
leading to their collapse
Some earthquakes where landslides caused enormous
damage: Alaska earthquake of 1964, Haiyuan earthquake
in China in 1920 and 1970 Peru earthquake.
Earthquake damage depends on

Intensity of earthquake
Frequency content
Duration of earthquake
Type of soil and rock
Type of structures
many more
Crack in the upstream slope of an earth dam in Gujarat
Damage in highway embankment of approach road
DIFFERENT FACTORS

Factors Influencing the Stability of Slopes

Geologic and hydrologic
Topography
Climate
Weathering
Land use

Categories of Earthquake Induced Landslides

Disrupted slides and falls
Coherent slides
Lateral spreads and flows
DISRUPTED SLIDES AND FALLS

Earth material is sheared, broken and disturbed

into a random order.
Examples: Rock falls, rock slides, rock
avalanches, soil falls, soil slides etc.
Occurs in steep terrain and produces rapid
movements
Alberta rockslide
Rock falls and slides
Results of the rockslide
of 1903 at Frank,
Alberta, Canada. In less
than two minutes 31
million cubic metres of
rock from Turtle
Mountain slid along a
plane of structural
weakness to cover the
town of Frank.
Great landslide in Chile, 1970
Rock falls and slides

In 1970, an earthquake-induced rock

and snow avalanche on Mt.
Huascaran, Peru, buried the towns
of Yungay and Ranrahirca. The
death toll from the earthquake and
landslide was 66,700. The
avalanche started as a sliding mass
of glacial ice and rock. The
avalanche swept about 16.5 km to
Yungay at a speed of 210280 km/hr.
The fast-moving mass picked up
glacial deposits and by the time it
reached Yungay, it is estimated to
have consisted of about 50100
million m3 of water, mud and rocks.
COHERENT SLIDES

Earth material is translated or rotated

Examples: rock and soil slumps, rock and soil
block slides, slow earth flows
Happens in moderate to steeply sloping terrain
Occurs at lower velocities than in disrupted
slides and falls
LATERAL SPREADS AND FLOWS

Generally happens in case of liquefiable soils

or sensitive clays
Because of low residual shear strength of
these soils, failures may happen in extremely
flat slopes
Produce very high velocities
Frequency of different types of landslides

Description Frequency
Rock falls, disrupted soil >100,000 in 40 earthquakes

Soil lateral spreads, soil slumps 10,000-100,000 in 40 earthquakes

soil avalanches

Soil falls, rapid soil flows, 1,000 to 10,000 in 40 earthquakes

rock slumps

Subaqueous landslides, slow earth flows uncommon

Types and Characteristics of Earthquake-
Induced Landslides
Name Types of Internal Water content Velocity Depth
movement disruption
D U P S
S
Disrupted Slides and Falls
Rock falls Bounding, High or very x x x x Extremely rapid Shallow
rolling, free fall high
Rock slides Translational high x x x x Rapid to Shallow
sliding on basal extremely rapid
shear surface
Rock Complex, High or very x x x x Extremely rapid Deep
avalanches involving high
sliding and/or
flow as stream
of rock
fragments
Soil falls Bounding, High or very x x x x Extremely rapid Shallow
rolling, free fall high
Disrupted soil Translational high x x x x Moderate to Shallow
sliding on basal rapid
shear surface or
zone of
weakened,
sensitive clay
Soil avalanches Translational Very high x x x x Very rapid to Shallow
sliding with extremely rapid
subsidiary flow
 Coherent Slides
Rock slumps Sliding on basal Slight or moderate ? x x x Slow to rapid Deep
shear surface with
component of
headward rotation

Rock block slides Translational Slight or moderate ? x x x Slow to rapid Deep

sliding on basal
shear surface

Soil slumps Sliding on basal Slight or moderate ? x x x Slow to rapid Deep

shear surface with
component of
headward rotation

Soil block slides Translational Slight or moderate ? ? x x Slow to rapid Deep

sliding on basal
shear plane

Slow earth flows Translational slight x x Very slow to Generally shallow,

sliding on basal moderate with occasionally deep
shear surface with very rapid surges
minor internal flow
 Lateral Spreads and Flows
Soil lateral Translation on Generally x x Very rapid Variable
spreads basal zone moderate,
of liquefied occasionally
sand or silt slight or
or high
weakened,
sensitive
clay
Rapid soil flows Flow Very high ? ? ? x Very rapid to Shallow
extremely
rapid

Subaqueous Complex, Generally high or x x Generally rapid Variable

landslides generally very high, to
involving moderate or extremely
lateral slight rapid
spreading
and/or flow
Estimates of smallest earthquakes
likely to cause landslides
Magnitude ML Description
4.0 Rock falls, rock slides, soil falls, disrupted soil slides
4.5 Soil slumps, soil block slides

5.0 Rock slumps, rock block slides, slow earth flows,

soil lateral spreads, rapid soil flows

6.0 Rock avalanches

6.5 Soil avalanches

Maximum Epicentral Distances for Different Types of
Landslides

Dashed line - disrupted falls and

slides
Dash-dot line - coherent slides
Solid line - lateral spreads and

flows
Area Affected by Landslides
 EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY

An internal rupture surface is assumed

Soil is assumed to mobilize its maximum shear strength

along the full length at the same instant

Factor of safety against failure is the ratio of shear

strength to shear force along the rupture surface
 STABILITY OF INFINITELY LONG SLOPES

Soil properties: c,, (Dry soil)

W W = .H.b.cos
v= .H; z= .H.cos
H r n= .H.cos2
n
z f = .H.cos. sin
f
c H cos 2
tan tan
FS r
; if c 0, FS
f H cos sin tan
FACTOR OF SAFETY

Factor of safety is a ratio of capacity (the shear strength of

the soil) to demand (the shear stress induced on the
potential rupture surface).

It can also be viewed as the factor by which the shear

strength of the soil has to be reduced to bring the slope
to the brink of instability.
STABILITY OF INFINITELY LONG SLOPES

tan
FS
tan
b

W z

H ( sat H - w z ) cos 2 tan

n FS
z sat H cos sin
f
when z H
( sat - w ) tan tan
FS
sat tan sat tan
 STABILITY OF FINITE SLOPES

face
failure
H
DH
toe failure base failure
STABILITY OF FINITE SLOPES

N = Wcosi; T = W sini
R = cL + N tan

H wi
i

wi
i
R c La tan wi cos i
N FS
T T wi sin i
Bench width = 30 m
Slope angle = 50

Soil dumps area at

large distance
Factors of safety for excavation face with 50 m bench width

Slope Factor of safety

Bench Height angle ()
(m)
20 60 2.0
70 1.9
25 50 1.9
60 1.8
70 1.7
30 50 1.9
60 1.8
70 1.6
35 50 1.6
55 1.5
60 1.5
70 1.4
40 30 1.6
40 1.6
50 1.5
60 1.4
70 1.3
 PSEUDOSTATIC ANALYSIS

Effects of earthquake are represented by constant

horizontal and/or vertical accelerations (Terzaghi, 1950).

Effects of earthquake represented by pseudostatic

accelerations that produce inertial forces, Fh and Fv
assumed to act through the centroid of the failing mass.

a hW
Fh k hW
g
a vW
Fv k vW
g
 PSEUDOSTATIC ANALYSIS

ah and av are horizontal and vertical pseudostatic

accelerations

kh and kv are dimensionless horizontal and vertical

pseudostatic coefficients

W is the weight of the failure soil mass above the

potential rupture surface.
PSEUDOSTATIC ANALYSIS Planar Failure
Surface

b c
Fv
Fh
Fh
T W = weight of soil in wedge abc
W
Normal component, N = W cos
Shear component, S = W sin
N Shear resistance, T = c L + N tan

a
shear resistance c ac W cos tan
FS static
shear force W sin
 PSEUDOSTATIC ANALYSIS Planar Failure
Surface

Consideration of seismic loads

Pseudostatic forces Fh and Fv act on the slope because of an

earthquake.
Worst possible direction for horizontal seismic force is the
outward direction.
The effect of vertical force is to reduce the weight of the
wedge of soil to (W - Fv).
The horizontal force produces a normal component acting
opposite to the weight and a tangential component that acts
down the slope.
 FS considering the pseudostatic forces

resisting force c ac [(W F v) cos F h sin ] tan

FS seismic
driving force (W F v) sin F h cos

Horizontal seismic force clearly reduces the factor of safety

because it reduces the resisting force and increases the driving
force.
Effect of vertical seismic force is minimal because it decreases
both the resisting and driving forces and hence it has lesser
influence on the stability of slopes.
PSEUDOSTATIC ANALYSIS Slip Circles

The pseudostatic approach can also be used for circular

failure surfaces (using slip circle analysis methods).

In this case, the dynamic forces are assumed to act at the

base of the slices instead of at the centroid of the mass in
each slice.

The sum of all shear resistances and shear forces is

calculated including the additional dynamic forces to
evaluate the pseudostatic factor of safety.
SELECTION OF PSEUDOSTATIC COEFFICIENTS

Pseudostatic values should be related to the amplitude of inertial forces

likely to be induced in the failure soil mass.

Soil wedge is considered as a rigid mass while in reality the soil is far different
from a rigid mass. In recognition of the flexible nature of soil mass and the short
duration of earthquake forces, the pseudostatic factors considered in the
analysis are much lower than the amax.

Terzaghi (1950) originally proposed the use of kh= 0.10 for severe earthquakes,
kh = 0.2 for violent, destructive earthquakes and kh= 0.50 for catastrophic
earthquakes.

Seed (1979) listed pseudostatic design criteria for 14 dams in 10 seismically

active countries; 12 required minimum factors of safety of 1.0 to 1.5 with
pseudostatic coefficients of 0.10 to 0.12.
Haynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) had applied the Newmarks
sliding block analysis to over 350 accelerograms and concluded
that earth dams with pseudostatic factors of safety greater than
1.0 using kh= 0.5amax/g would not develop dangerously large
deformations.

Experience has shown that pseudostatic analysis can be

unreliable for soils that build up large pore pressures or show
more than 15% degradation of strength due to earthquake
shaking.
Some examples of failed earth dams with
high FS from Pseudostatic analysis

Dam kh Factor Effect of earthquake

of
safety
Sheffield dam 0.10 1.2 Complete failure
Lower San Fernando 0.15 1.3 Upstream slope failure
Dam
Upper San Fernando 0.15 2 to 2.5 Downstream shell, including crest
Dam slipped about 6 ft downstream
Tailings Dam (Japan) 0.20 1.3 Failure of dam with release of
tailings
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
The pseudostatic method of analysis provides a measure of safety of
the slopes but no information on the likely deformations that the slope
will undergo.

As the serviceability of an earth dam after an earthquake very much

depends on the deformations, the prediction of likely deformations is
important in any design situation.

Since earthquake induced accelerations vary with time, the

pseudostatic factor of safety will vary throughout an earthquake.

If the inertial forces acting on a potential failure mass become large

enough that the total (static plus dynamic) driving forces exceed the
available resisting forces, the factor of safety will drop below 1.0.
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis

Newmark (1965) considered the behaviour of a slope under such

conditions. When the factor of safety is less than 1.0, the potential
failure mass is no longer in equilibrium; consequently, it will be
accelerated by the unbalanced forces.

The situation is analogous to that of a block resting on an inclined

plane.

Newmark used this analogy to develop a method for prediction of the

permanent displacement of a slope subjected to any ground motion.
 kh(t)W sliding block

W

inclined plane D

R
N

Static factor of safety will be more than unity as long as < .

 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
Let us consider the effect of inertial force transmitted to the block
from an earthquake, ah(t) = kh(t)g (the effect of vertical acceleration
is neglected for simplicity). At a particular instant of time, the
horizontal acceleration will induce a horizontal inertial force khW that
adds additional driving force for sliding the block. Considering this
additional force, the factor of safety under dynamic conditions (FSd)
can be written as

The dynamic factor of safety decreases as kh(t) increases. There

will be one positive value of kh(t) that will produce incipient failure
condition with FS = 1. This coefficient is called as the yield
coefficient, ky. The corresponding yield acceleration ay= kyg.
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
The yield acceleration is the minimum pseudostatic acceleration
required to produce instability of the block. For the condition of
sliding down the slope
ky= tan( - )

For sliding in the uphill direction (when and are small)

The difference between the earthquake acceleration and

this yield acceleration is the one that produces inertial
forces causing deformations in earth slopes.
The block will displace only when it is subjected to an
acceleration level greater than the critical acceleration
(ky).

Consider the case of an inclined plane subjected to a

single rectangular pulse of amplitude A and duration t.

If the yield acceleration ay is less than A, the acceleration

of the block relative to the plane during the period from to
to to+ t is

Arel(t) = ab(t) - ay = A - ay to t to+t

Rectangular pulse of duration t

ab(t)
A
ay
time
Vr(t)

dr(t)

to to+t t1 time
 Rectangular pulse of duration t
Here ab(t) is the acceleration of the inclined plane. The relative movement of
the block during the period can be obtained by integrating the relative
acceleration twice, i.e.,

at t = to + t, the relative velocity reaches its maximum value.

At that time
 After the base acceleration drops to zero at t = t0 + t,
the sliding block is decelerated by the friction force
acting on its base.
The block will continue to move on the plane, but at a
decreasing velocity which eventually reaches zero. The
acceleration during this time is given by
arel(t) = ab(t) a y = 0 - ay = -ay to+t t t1

where t1 is the time at which the relative velocity

becomes zero. Between to+ t and t1, the relative
velocity will also decrease with time according to
 Setting the relative velocity to zero at time
t = t1 gives

Then
 After time t1, both the block and the inclined plane move
together. During the total period of time between t = to and t =
t1, the relative movement of the block is as shown in Figure.
Between the times to and to+t, the relative velocity increases
linearly and the relative displacement increases quadratically.
At time to+t, the relative velocity reaches its maximum value
and decreases linearly beyond that time. The relative
displacement continues to increase (but at a decreasing rate)
until the time t = t1. The total relative displacement
Observations
The relative displacement depends very strongly on the
amount by which the base acceleration exceeds the
yield acceleration and the length of time over which the
yield acceleration is exceeded.
An earthquake motion, however, can exceed the yield
acceleration a number of times thus producing
increments of displacements.
Thus the total displacement will be influenced by strong
motion duration, amplitude and frequency content.
Permanent displacement of a sliding block subjected to
rectangular, sinusoidal and triangular periodic base
motions is proportional to the square of the period of the
base motion.
 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
The sliding block method assumes the potential failure
mass to be rigid.

The actual slopes are composed of yielding soils during

the earthquake motions. Their dynamic response
depends on their geometry and stiffness and on the
amplitude and frequency content of the motion of the
underlying ground.

For slopes composed of very stiff soils and/or slopes

subjected to low-frequency motion the rigid block
assumption will be at least approximately satisfied.

Lateral displacements in potential failure masses of

slopes in softer soils (and/or slopes subjected to higher
frequency motion), however, may be out of phase.
Examples
Numerical solution of
DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION

(t) C U
MU (t) K U(t) R(t)

Versatile
Arbitrary loadings
Multi degree of freedom systems
Parametric solutions
Difficult geometries, boundary conditions etc.
SEISMIC RESPONSE OF EMBANKMENT DAMS

(Quake/w) --Dynamic finite element analysis

Embankment is 5 m high with 2:1 side slopes and the crest

width is 4 m. The loose soil deposit is 10 m deep.
Underneath the loose soil is a very competent material and
for analysis purposes will be considered to be bedrock. The
water table is at the ground surface.

Foundation Soil = 18 kN/m.

Embankment soil = 19 kN/m
Young;s modulus = 10,000 kPa, and
Poissons ratio = 0.334
 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF AN EMBANKMENT

Main criteria
Motion at the crest of the embankment due to
earthquake excitation in the underlying bedrock.
The second objective is to estimate the excess
porewater pressures that may develop in the loose
foundation soils.
 STATIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

First step is to establish the initial static stress conditions

Finite element mesh --Using 8-noded quadrilateral

elements and 6-noded Triangular elements (LST)

Boundary Conditions
Bottom horizontal boundary - Displacement is zero in x & y directions
Vertical boundaries - Displacement is zero in x direction.
 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

The Earth quake record ,material Property functions,Overburden

Correction Function, Ks static shear stress correction function,
Cyclic Number function and Pore pressure function were used as
per the figures shown

Damping Ratio of 0.1

The earthquake record - 10 seconds.

Time increment of 0.02 seconds is used.
Time integration sequence was carried out for 500 steps
 DYNAMIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Left and right vertical boundaries were allowed to

Move freely in the horizontal direction
Vertical boundaries at the ends are however not
free to move up and down
 RESULTS AND COMPARISON

DISPLACEMENT:

PORE PRESSURE VARIATION

RESULTS AND COMPARISON

Static Dynamic
EFFECTIVE STRESS VARIATION

Static Dynamic
Response History
Graphs shown below give the complete motion
history (for 10 sec) of the center point of the crest of
the embankment
LIQUEFACTION ZONES

When the pore pressure reaches the effective confining

stress the soil will be close to or in a liquefied state
PART II
 Dynamic lateral earth pressures
Consider a retaining wall of height H with a sloping backfill with an
angle of , unit weight of , c = 0, friction angle of .

Let be the angle of friction between the backfill soil and the wall. Let us
consider the equilibrium of an arbitrary soil wedge ABC.

The following forces are acting on the soil wedge ABC:

Weight of the soil in the wedge ABC, W

Resultant of shear and normal forces on the failure plane BC, F
Active force per unit length of wall, Pae
Horizontal inertial force khW
Vertical inertial force, kvW
 Force Polygon

C

Pae
A
kvW

khW

W kvW
H

khW

Pae F
F

W
B
Mononobe-Okabe Equations
1
Pae H
2
(1 ) '
kv K a
2

cos 2 ( ' )
Ka
'
2
sin( ' ) sin( ' ) 1 / 2
cos 2 cos cos( )1
cos( ) cos( )

kh
tan 1

1 kv
 When the earthquake inertial factors are zero, K'a= Ka.
The term sin( ' ) has two important implications. First if the term
in the brackets becomes negative, no real solution for Ka is
possible. Physically, this implies that an equilibrium condition will not
exist. Hence, for stability, the limiting slope of the backfill may be
given as
'
. For no earthquake conditions, = 0 and
hence, we get the familiar relation .
For horizontal backfills, = 0 and hence for stability .
Because tan 1[k h /(1 k v)], the above relation can be expressed as

kh (1-kv)tan
Hence, the critical value of horizontal acceleration can be defined as

k hcr (1 k v) tan
 Line of action of resultant force

Seed and Whitman (1970) proposed the

following method.
Let, Pae = Pa + Pae
where Pa is the Coulombs active force for
static conditions, Pae is the additional
active force due to earthquake effects.
Static force on wall

1
Pa
Ka H
2
2
cos 2 ( )
Ka 2
sin( ) sin( )
cos cos( ) 1
2

cos( ) cos( )
Location of resultant
Static force Pa will act at a height of H/3 and
dynamic pressure increment Pae will act at a
height of 0.6H from the base of the wall.
Calculate the location of the resultant Pae as
H
Pa ( ) Pae (0.6 H )
z 3
Pae
Here z is measured from the bottom of the wall.
The force Pae will be inclined at an angle of to
the normal drawn on the back of the wall.
Example
Let H = 3 m, smooth vertical wall with horizontal
backfill
c = 0, = 30, Unit weight = 20 kN/m3
kh= 0.4, kv= 0.2
= 26.56
Ka = 0.889; Ka= 0.333
Pae= 64.05 kN/m; Pa= 30 kN/m

Pae= 34.05 kN/m

z = 1.42 m from base
 Concluding Remarks
The problem of earth structures is one of the oldest in geotechnical
engineering; some of the earliest works were developed to allow rational
design.
Prior to the slope stability analysis, detailed information on geologic,
hydrologic, topographic, geometric and material characteristics must be
obtained.
Inertial instabilities are most commonly analyzed by pseudostatic, sliding-
block, or stress-deformation analyses.
The pseudostatic acceleration required to bring a slope to the point of
incipient failure is known as the yield acceleration. If earthquake-induced
accelerations in a slope momentarily exceed the yield acceleration, the
unstable soil will momentarily accelerate relative to the material beneath it.
The Makdisi-Seed procedure is based on sliding block analyses of earth dams
and embankments. Knowing the fundamental period of vibration of the
dam/embankment and the yield acceleration of the slope, simple charts can
be used to estimate earthquake-induced permanent displacements.
The effects of deformation failures are usually expressed in terms of slope
deformations. A number of approaches have been developed to estimate the
displacements produced by deformation failures.