Seismic Slope Instability and

Slope Displacement Procedures

Jonathan D. Bray, Ph.D., P.E.

Univ. of California at Berkeley

Thanks to Dr. Thaleia Travasarou, Prof. Ellen Rathje, & others,

with support from PEER & the Packard Foundation

Seismic Slope Displacement

4th Ave. Slide, 1964 Alaska EQ

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan EQ

EERC Slide Collection

Solid-Waste Landfill
Waste Liner
Tear, 1994
Northridge EQ

Mechanisms Contributing to
Seismic Slope Deformation
Slip along a distinct
surface
Distributed deviatoric
shear deformation
Volumetric deformation
Use procedures such as Tokimatsu and
Seed 1987 for 1D volumetric seismic
compression (e.g., Stewart et al. 2005)

Combined effects

Two Critical Design Issues

Are there materials that will lose significant
strength as a result of cyclic loading?
Flow Slide
If not, will the earth or waste fill system
undergo significant deformations that may
jeopardize system performance?
Seismically Induced Deformations

Terzaghi (1950) commenting on

pseudostatic slope stability analysis:
Theoretically a value of FS = 1 would mean
a slide but in reality a slope may remain
stable in spite of FS being smaller than
unity and it may fail at a value of FS > 1,
depending on the character of the slope
forming materials.
The most sensitive materials are slightly
cemented grain aggregates such as loess
and submerged or partly submerged loose
sand.

Pseudo-Static Stability Analysis

1. k = seismic coefficient, constant that represents earthquake loading

2. S = dynamic material strengths and geometry give FS
3. Potential sliding mass is rigid

Selection of acceptable combination of S, k, & FS requires calibration

through case histories or consistency with more advanced analyses

Static Slope Stability Methods

Limit equilibrium methods that satisfy all
conditions of equilibrium give FS within +/- 6%
(Duncan 1992)
Morgenstern and Price 1965
Spencer 1967
Generalized Janbu 1968

Focus on these most important issues:

Defining geometry
Shear strengths
Unit weights
Water pressures

Some Prevalent Pseudostatic methods

(for embankments that do not lose significant
strength from earthquake shaking)
Hynes-Griffen & Franklin (1984)
20% strength reduction
k = MHA,rock
FS > 1.0

Seed (1979)
appropriate dynamic strengths
k = 0.15
FS > 1.15

BUT these methods were calibrated for earth dams where

~ 1 m of displacement is judged to be acceptable
WHAT about other systems and other levels of acceptable
displacement?

Critical Components of a
Seismic Displacement Analysis

1. Earthquake Ground Motion

2. Dynamic Resistance of Slope
3. Dynamic Response of Potential Sliding Mass

Earthquake Shaking:
Acceleration Time History

acceleration (g)

0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25

MHA = 0.3 g

-0.50
0

10

Tm = 0.63 s & D5-95 = 15 s

15

20

25

30

time (s)

Izmit (180 Comp) 1999 Kocaeli EQ (Mw=7.4) scaled to MHA = 0.30 g

Acceleration Response Spectrum

(provides response of SDOF of different periods at 5% damping,
i.e., indicates frequency content of ground motion)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.5
Sa at T = 0.5 s

1.0

Sa at
T = 1.0 s

0.5
MHA

5% Damping

0.0

Period (s)

Dynamic Resistance:
Simplified Estimates of Yield Coefficient (ky)
(seismic coefficient that results in FS=1.0 in pseudostatic stability
stability analysis)

Shallow Sliding

Deep Sliding

c = cohesion
= friction angle

S2

k y = tan( ) +

S1

c
H cos 2 (1 + tan tan )

FS static =

tan ( S1 H 2 cos2 1 + L + S 2 H 2)
cos1 sin 1 S1 H 2

with 1 = tan 1 (1 S1 )

ky =

( FS static 1) cos1 sin 1 S1 H 2

H ( S1 + S 2 ) 2 + L

Bray et al. 1998

Dynamic Response of Potential Sliding Mass

Seed and Martin 1966

Dynamic Response: Equivalent Acceleration Concept

Seed and Martin 1966

accounts for cumulative effect of incoherent

motion in deformable sliding block

In 1-D, HEA = (h/v) g

Calculate shear stress-time history at slide
plane depth and divide each value by the total
vertical stress acting at that depth
MHEA = max. HEA value

v
h

Kmax = MHEA/g

MHEA depends on stiffness and geometry of the

sliding mass (i.e., its fundamental period)

Ts = 4 H / Vs
,1-D

Ts, 1-D = Initial Fundamental Period of Sliding Mass

H = Height of Sliding Mass
Vs = Average Shear Wave Velocity of Sliding Mass

10

kmax = MHEA/g

Bray & Rathje 1998

Principal Findings
HEA represents hf and thus the seismic loading:
HEA = (h/v) g; k = HEA/g & kmax = MHEA/g
MHEA depends primarily on dynamic response of
sliding mass (Tfill) and input rock motions (MHA,rock, Tm)
Development of pseudostatic method has merit due to
simplicity; key is the selection of strengths, k & FS
Use of k = MHEA/g & FS > 1 with conservative strengths
is equivalent to calculating no sliding displacement
(i.e., max. driving force never exceeds resisting force)
Focus on seismically induced permanent displacements
displacements

11

Newmark (1965) Rigid Sliding Block Analysis

Assumes:
Rigid sliding block
Defined slip surface
Material is rigid-perfectly plastic
Material does not lose strength during shaking
Acceleration-time history defines EQ loading

Key Parameters:

Yield Coefficient (ky) (max. dynamic resistance)

Seismic Coefficient (kmax) (max. seismic loading)

ky/kmax (if > 1 = no displ.; but if < 1 = some displ.)

Rigid
Sliding
Block
(kmax=
MHA)

Deformable
Sliding
Block
(kmax =
MHEA)

12

Decoupled & Coupled Sliding Analysis

Sliding Response

Dynamic Response

Decoupled
Analysis

Rigid Block

Flexible System

Calculate HEAtime history

assuming no
sliding along base

Double integrate
HEA-time
history given ky
to calculate U

Earth Fill

Dynamic Response and

Sliding Response

Potential Slide Plane

FlexibleSystem
System
Flexible

Coupled
Analysis

Max Force at
Base = ky W

Decoupled vs. Coupled Analysis

(b)

Decoupled Conservative

Displacement Difference (cm):

Udecoupled - U coupled

100
k y= 0.05

80
60

k y = 0.1
k y = 0.2

40
20
0
-20
-40
0.1

10

100

U decoupled (cm)

1000

Insignificant
difference for
Udecoupled < 1 cm
Conservative for
Udecoupled > 1 m
Between 1 cm and
1 m, could be
meaningfully
unconservative

From Rathje and Bray (2000)

13

(Bray & Rathje 1998)

Bray & Rathje 1998

14

SAFE

??
UNSAFE

15

Deep Sliding Case: 1D vs. 2D

1D analysis averages accelerations
over depth to compute HEA-t history
2D analysis averages over depth and
width to compute overall HEA-time
history

1D Analysis of 2D Geometry
Common to analyze large slides as 1D
Large areal extent
Relatively flat slopes

Use representative SHAKE columns

Cover
III
I

Base

II

Rock

Calculate HEA-time history for each column at depth of sliding &

calculate mass-weighted average in time of overall HEA-t history

16

Accounting for 2D Shallow Sliding Effects

Topographic Effects
MHAcrest ~ 1.3 MHA1D
(Use MHAcrest ~ 1.5 MHA1D for steep slopes (>60o); Ashford and Sitar 2002)

Localized shallow sliding near crest

MHEA ~ MHAcrest ~ 1.3 MHA1D

Long shallow sliding surface

MHEA ~ 0.5 MHAcrest ~ (0.5)(1.3) MHA1D ~
0.6 MHA1D

Sliding Displacement Programs

USGS computer program available
Rigid and simplified decoupled sliding block
displacement calculations
Degrading Ky vs. U
Large catalog of EQ ground motions
Can import HEA-time histories from other programs
(e.g., SHAKE) for decoupled analysis
Jibson & Jibson (2003) O-F Report 03-005

New USGS program will have coupled nonlinear

sliding block analysis
Jibson, Rathje & Jibson (2007)

17

FEA of Shaking Table Test of Clay Slope

Horizontal displacement (D4)

Vertical displacement (D1)

Displacement (inches)

0.5

-1

-0.5

-2

-1

-3

10

-1.5

Horizontal displacement (D2)

0.5
Displacement (inches)

10

Horizontal displacement (D5)

1

PLAXIS
RECORD

0.5

-0.5

-1
-0.5

-1.5

-1

-2
-2.5

4
6
Time (sec)

10

-1.5

4
6
Time (sec)

10

Summary

First question: will earth materials lose strength?

If not, evaluate seismic slope stability in terms of displacements

Newmark-type approach with deformable sliding mass captures:

Earthquake ground motion

Dynamic resistance of slope
Dynamic response of potential sliding mass

Some Other Issues:

Decoupled sliding approximation is reasonable, with possible exception of near-fault

ground motions case
1D analysis is conservative for deep sliding case and can be corrected for topographic
effects for shallow sliding case
Nonlinear FE analysis can lead to better insights but it is difficult to perform well

With dynamic analyses the full HEA-time history can be calculated for
each input rock motion. With ky, the seismic displacement can be
calculated.

Seismic displacement is an index of performance

Simplified procedures can provide this index of performance

18