NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Module 8
SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY
(Lectures 37 to 40)

Lecture 38
Topics

8.5 STATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

8.5.1 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
8.5.2 Stress-Deformation Analyses
8.6 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
8.6.1 Analysis of Inertial Instability
8.6.2 Pseudostatic Analysis
8.6.3 Selection of Pseudostatic Coefficient
8.6.4 Limitations of the Pseudostatic Approach
8.6.5 Discussion

8.5 STATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Slopes become unstable when the shear stresses required to maintain

equilibrium reach or exceed the available shearing resistance on some
potential failure surface. For slopes in which the shear stresses required to
maintain equilibrium under static gravitational loading are high, the additional
dynamic stresses needed to produce instability may be low. Hence the seismic
stability of a slope is strongly influenced by its static stability. Because of this
and the fact that the most commonly used methods of seismic stability analysis
rely on static stability analyses, a brief summary of static slope stability
analysis is presented.

The procedures for analysis of slope stability under static conditions are well
established. An excellent, concise review of the state of the art for static
analysis was presented by Duncan (1992). Detailed descriptions of specific
methods of analysis can be found in standard references such as National
Research Council (1976), Chowdhury (1978) and Huang (1983). Currently the
most commonly used methods of static slope stability analysis are limit
equilibrium analyses and stress deformation analyses.
8.5.1 Limit Equilibrium Analysis
Limit equilibrium analyses consider force and/or moment equilibrium of a
mass of soil above a potential failure surface. The soil above the potential

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 1

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

failure surface is assumed to be rigid (i.e., shearing an occur only on the

potential failure surface). The available shear strength is assumed to be
mobilized at the same rate at all points on the potential failure surface. As a
result, the factor of safety is constant over the entire failure surface. Because
the soil on the potential failure surface is assumed to be rigid-perfectly
plastic (figure 8.3), limit equilibrium analysis provide no information on
slope deformations.

Slope stability is usually expressed in terms of an index, most commonly

the factor of safety, which is usually defined as

(8.1)

Figure 8.3: Stress-strain curves for a rigid-perfectly plastic material. No shear strain
occurs until the strength of the material is reached, after which the material strains at
constant shear stress

Thus the factor of safety is a ratio of capacity (the shear strength of the soil) to
demand (the shear stress induced on the potential failure surface). The factor of
safety can also be viewed as the factor by which the strength of the soil would
have to be divided to bring the slope to the brink of instability. In contrast to the
assumption of limit equilibrium analysis, the strength of the soil in actual slopes is
not reached at the same time at all points on the failure surface (i.e., the local
factor of safety is not constant).

A variety of limit equilibrium procedures have been developed to analyze the

static stability of slopes. Slopes that fail by translation on a planar failure surface
(figure 8.4.a) such as a bedding plane, rock joint, or seam of weak material can be
analyzed quite easily by the Culman method (Taylor, 1948). Slopes in which
failure is likely to occur on two or three planes (figure 4b) can be analyzed by
wedge methods (e.g., Perlogg and Baron, 1976; Lambe and Whitman, 1969). In
homogeneous slopes, the critical failure surface usually has a circular (figure 4c)
or log-spiral shape. Since the minimum factors of safety for circular and log-spiral
failure surfaces are very close, homogeneous slopes are usually analyzed by
methods such as the ordinary method of slices (Fellenius, 1927) or Bishop’s
modified method (Bishop, 1955), which assume circular failure surfaces. When
subsurface conditions are not homogenous (e.g., when layers with significantly
different strength, highly anisotropic strength, or discontinuities exist), failure
surfaces are likely to be noncircular (figure 4d). In such cases, methods like those

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 2

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

of Morgenstern and Price (1965), Spencer (1967), and Janbu (1968) may be used.
Nearly all limit equilibrium methods are susceptible to numerical problems under
certain conditions. These conditions vary for different methods but are most
commonly encountered where soils with high cohesive strength are present at the
top of a slope and/or when failure surfaces emerge steeply at the base of slopes in
soils with high frictional strength (Duncan, 1922).

Figure 8.4: Common failure surface geometries: (a) planar; (b) multi-planar; (c)
circular; (d) noncircular

In concept, any slope with a factor of safety above 1.0 should be stable. In
practice, however, the level of stability is seldom considered acceptable unless the
factor of safety is significantly greater than 1.0. Criteria for acceptable factors of
safety recognize (1) uncertainty in the accuracy with which the slope stability
analysis represents the actual mechanism of failure, (2) uncertainty in the accuracy
with which the input parameters (shear strength, groundwater conditions, slope
geometry, etc.) are known, (3) the likelihood and duration of exposure to various
types of external loading, and (4) the potential consequence of slope failure.
Typical minimum factors of safety used in slope design are about 1.5 for normal
long-term loading conditions and about 1.3 for temporary slopes or end-of-
construction conditions in permanent slopes (when dissipation of pore pressure
increases stability with time)

When the minimum factor of safety of a slope reaches a value of 1.0, the available
shear strength of the soil is filly mobilized on some potential failure surface and
the slope is at the point of incipient failure. Any additional loading will cause the
slope to fail (i.e., to deform until it reaches a configuration in which the shear
stresses required for equilibrium are less than or equal to the available shear
strength of the soil). The limit equilibrium assumptions of rigid-perfectly plastic
behavior suggest that the required deformation will occur in a ductile manner.
Many soils however, exhibit brittle, strain softening stress strain behavior. In such
cases the peak shear strength may not be mobilized simultaneously at all points on
the failure surface. When the peak strength of a strain softening soil is reached,
such as point A in figure 8.5a, the available shearing resistance will drop from the
peak to the residual strength. As it does so, shear stresses related to the difference
between the peak and residual strength of the soil at point A is transferred to the
surrounding soil. These redistributed shear stresses may cause the peak strength in
the surrounding soil to be reached (figure 5b) and exceeded, thereby reducing
their available shearing resistance to residual values. As the stress redistribution
process continues, the zone of failure may grow until the entire slope becomes

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 3

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

unstable. Many instances of such progressive failure have been observed in strain
softening soils, even when the limit equilibrium factor of safety (based on peak
strength) is well above 1.0. Within the constraints of limit equilibrium analysis,
the stability f slopes with strain softening materials can be analyzed reliably only
by using residual shear strengths.

Figure 8.5: Development of progressive failure in slope comprised of strain

softening materials: (a) exceedance of peak strength at any point (A) reduces
strength at that point to residual value; (b) redistribution of shear stresses from
failure zone to surrounding area produces failure in surrounding zone (point B).
Continued redistribution of stresses can eventually lead to failure of the entire
slope (point C and beyond)

Limit equilibrium analyses must be formulated with great care. Since the available
shearing resistance of the soil depends on pore water drainage conditions, those
conditions must be considered carefully in the selection of shear strength and pore
pressure conditions for the analysis. Duncan (1992) provided guidelines for the
selection of input parameters for limit equilibrium slope stability analyses.

8.5.2 Stress-Deformation Analyses

Stress-deformation analyses allow consideration of the stress-strain behavior of
soil and rock and are most commonly performed using the finite-element
method. When applied to slopes, stress-deformation analyses can predict the
magnitudes and patterns of stresses, movements, and pore pressures in slopes
during and after construction/deposition. Nonlinear stress-strain behavior,
complex boundary conditions, irregular geometries, and a variety of construction
operations can all be considered in modern finite-element analyses.

For static slope stability analysis-stress-deformation analyses offer the

advantages of being able to identify the most likely mode of failure by predicting
slope deformations up to (and in some cases beyond)the point of failure, of
locating the most critically stressed zones within a slope, and of predicting the
effects of slope failures. These advantages come at the cost of increased
engineering time for problem formulation, characterization of material properties
and interpretation of results, and increased computational effort.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 4

 NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The accuracy of stress-deformation analysis is strongly influenced by the

accuracy with which he stress-strain model represents actual material behavior.
Many different stress-strain models have been used for stress-deformation
analysis of slopes; each has advantages and limitations. The accuracy of simple
models is usually limited to certain ranges of strain and/or certain stress paths.
Models that can be applied to more general stress and strain conditions are often
quite complex and may require a large number of input parameters whose values
can be difficult to determine. For many problems, the hyperbolic model
(Kondner, 1963; Konder and Zelasko, 1963; Duncan and Chang, 1970; Duncan
et al. 1980) offers an appropriate compromise between simplicity and accuracy.

8.6 SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

The previously described procedure for static slope stability analysis have been
used for many years and calibrated against many actual slope failures. The
database against which seismic slope stability analyses can be calibrated is much
smaller. Analysis of the seismic stability of slopes is further complicated by the
need to consider the effects of (1) dynamic stresses induced by earthquake
shaking, and (2) the effects of those stresses on the strength and stress-strain
behavior of the slope materials.

Seismic slope instabilities may be grouped into two categories on the basis of
which of these effects are predominant in a given slope. In inertial instabilities,
the shear strength of the soil remains relatively constant, but slope deformations
are produced by temporary exceedances of the strength by dynamic earthquake
stresses. Weakening instabilities are those in which the earthquake serves to
weaken the soil sufficiently that are cannot remain stable under earthquake
induced stresses. Flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility are the most common
causes of weakening instability. A number of analytical techniques, based on
both limit equilibrium and stress deformation analyses are available for both
categories of seismic instability.

8.6.1 Analysis of Inertial Instability

Earthquake motions can induce significant horizontal and vertical dynamic

stresses in slopes. These stresses produce dynamic normal and shear stresses
along potential failure surfaces within a slope. When superimposed upon the
previously existing static shear stresses, the dynamic shear stresses may exceed
the available shear strength of the soil and produce inertial instability of the
slope. A number of techniques for the analysis of inertial instability have been
proposed. These techniques differ primarily in the accuracy with which the
earthquake motion and the dynamic response of the slope are represented. The
following section describe several common approaches to the analysis is inertial
instability. The first, pseudostatic analysis produces a factor of safety against
seismic slope failure in much the same way that static limit equilibrium analyses
produce factors of safety against static slope failure. All the other approaches
attempts to evaluate permanent slope displacement produced by earthquake
shaking.

8.6.2 Pseudostatic Analysis

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 5

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Beginning in the 1920s, the seismic stability of earth structures has been analyzed
by a pseudostatic approach in which the effects of an earthquake are represented by
constant horizontal and/or vertical accelerations. The first explicit application of the
pseudostatic approach to the analysis of seismic slope stability has been attributed
to Terzaghi 91950).

In their most common form, pseudosatic analyses represent the effects of

earthquake shaking by pseudostatic accelerations that produce inertial forces,
,which act through the centroid of the failure mass (figure 8.6). The
magnitudes of the pseudostatic forces are where are horizontal and
vertical psrudostatic accelerations, are dimensionless horizontal and
vertical presudostatic coefficients, and W is the weight of the failure mass.

Figure 8.6: Forces acting on triangular wedge of soil above planar failure surface in
pseudostatic slope stability analysis

(8.2a)

(8.2b)

The magnitudes of the pseudostatic accelerations should be related to the severity

of the anticipated ground motion; selection of pseudostatic accelerations for design
is, as discussed in the next section, not a simple matter. Resolving the forces on the
potential failure mass in a direction parallel to the failure surface.
( )
( )
(8.3)

Where are the Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters that describe the shear
strength on the failure plane and is the length of the failure plane. The
horizontal pseudostatic force clearly decreases the factor of safety-it reduces the
resisting force (for ) and increases the driving force. The vertical pseudostatic
force typically has less influence on the factor of safety since it reduces (or
increases, depending on its direction) both the driving force and the resisting force-
as a result, the effects of vertical accelerations are frequently neglected in
pseudostatic analyses. The pseudostatic approach can be used to evaluate
pseudostatic factors of safety for planar, circular, and noncircular failure surfaces.

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 6

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Many commercially available computed programs for limit equilibrium slope

stability analysis have the option of performing pseudostatic analyses.

Example 2

Assuming , compute the static and pseudostatic factors of

safety for the 30-ft high 2:1 (H:V) slope shown in figure 8.7.

Figure8.7

Solution
Using a simple moment equilibrium analysis the factor of safety can be defined as the
ratio of the moment that resist rotation of a potential failure mass about the center of a
circular potential failure surface to the moment that is driving the rotations. The
critical failure surface, defined as that which has the lowest factor of safety, is
identified by analyzing a number of potential failure surfaces. Shown below are the
factor-of-safety calculations for one potential failure surface which may not be the
critical failure surface.

Computations of the factor of safety require evaluation of the overturning the resisting
moments for both static and pseudostatic conditions. The overturning moment for
static conditions results from the weight of the soil above the potential failure surface.
The overturning moment for psuedostatic conditions is equal to the sum of the
overturning moment for static conditions and he overturning moment produced by the
pseudostatic forces. The horizontal pseudostatic forces are assumed to act in
directions that produce positive (clockwise, in this case) driving moments. In the
calculations shown in tabular form below, the soil above the potential failure mass is
divided into two sections.

Overturning moments:
Secti Are ( ( Mome Static Mome Pseudosta Total
on a ) ) nt Mome (kips/f nt tic Mome
( Arm nt t) Arm Moment nt
) (ft) (kip- (ft) (kip-ft/ft) (kip-

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 7

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

ft/ft) ft/ft)
A 136 110 149.6 30 4488. 15.0 38 570.0 5058.
0 1 0
B 230 125 287.5 5 1437. 28.8 62 1785.6 3223.
0 5 1
5925. 8281.
5 1

Resisting moment:
Section Length (ft) ( ) Force Moment Moment
(kips) Arm (ft) (kip-ft/ft)
A 11.5 600 6.9 78 538.2
B 129.3 1000 129.3 78 10,085.4
10,623.6

Factor of safety:

8.6.3 Selection of Pseudostatic Coefficient

The results of pseudostatic analyses are critically dependent on the value of
seismic coefficient, . Selection of an appropriate pseudostatic coefficient is
the most important, and most difficult, aspect of a pseudostatic stability
analysis. The seismic coefficient controls the pseudosatic force on the failure
mass, so its value should be related to some measure of the amplitude of the
inertial force induced in the potentially unstable material. If the slope material
was rigid, the inertial force induced on a potential slide would be equal to the
product of the actual horizontal acceleration and the mass of the unstable
material. This inertial force would reach its maximum value when the
horizontal acceleration reached its maximum value. In recognition of the
factor that actual slopes are not rigid and that the peak acceleration exists for
only a very short time, the pseudostatic coefficients used in practice generally
correspond to acceleration values well below . Terzaghi (1950) originally
suggested the use of for “severe” earthquake (Rossi-Forel IX),
for “violent, destructive” earthquakes (Rossi-Forel X), and
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. Marcuson
(1981) suggested that appropriate pseudostatic coefficients for dams should
correspond to one-third to one-half of the maximum acceleration, including
amplification or de-amplification effects to which the dam is subjected. Using

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 8

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

shear beam models, Seed and Martin (1966) and Dakoulas and Gazetas (1986)
showed that the inertial force on a potentially unstable slope in an earth dam
depends on the response of the dam and that the average seismic coefficient
for a deep failure surface is substantially smaller than that of a failure surface
that does not extend for below the crest. Seed (1979) also indicated that
deformations of earth dams constructed of ductile soils (defined as those that
do not generate high pore pressure or show more than 15% strength loss upon
cyclic loading) with crest acceleration less than 0.75g would be acceptably
small for pseudostatic factors of safety of at least 1.15 with
( ) ( ). This criteria would allow the use of
pseudostatic accelerations as small as 13 to 20% of the peak crest acceleration.
Hynes-Grifin and Franklin (1984) applied the Newmark sliding block analysis
described in the following section to over 350 accelerograms and concluded
that earth dams with pseudostatic factors of safety greater than 1.0 using
would not develop “dangerously large” deformations.

As the preceding discussion indicates, there are no hard and fast rules for
selection of a pseudostatic coefficient for design. It seems clear, however, that
the pseudostatic coefficient should be based on the actual anticipated level of
acceleration in the failure mass (including any amplification or de-
amplification effects) and that is should correspond to some fraction of the
anticipated peak acceleration. Although engineering judgments’ is required for
all cases, the criteria of Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) should be
appropriate for most slopes.

8.6.4 Limitations of the Pseudostatic Approach

Representation of the complex, transient, dynamic effects of earthquake
shaking by a single constant unidirectional pseudostatic acceleration is
obviously quite crude. Even in its infancy, the limitations of the pseudostatic
approach were clearly recognized. Terzaghi (1950) stated that “the concept it
convey is earthquake effects on slope sis very inaccurate to say the least” and
that a slope could be unstable even if the computed pseudostatic factor of
safety was greater than 1. Detailed analysis of historical and recent earthquake
induced landslides (e.g., Seed et al., 1969, 1975; Marcuson et al., 1979) has
illustrated significant shortcomings of the pseudostatic approach. Experience
has clearly shown, for example, that pseudostatic analyses can be unreliable
for soils that build up large pore pressures or show more than about 15%
degradation of strength due to earthquake shaking. As illustrated in table 4,
pseudostatic analyses produced factors of safety well above 1 for a number of
dams that later failed during earthquakes. These cases illustrate the inability of
the pseudostatic method to reliably evaluate the stability of slope susceptible
to weakening instability. Nevertheless the pseudostatic approach can provide
at least a crude index of relative, if not absolute stability.

8.6.5 Discussion

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 9

NPTEL- EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

The pseudostatic approach has a number of attractive features. The analysis is

relatively simple and straightforward; indeed, its similarly to the static limit
equilibrium analyses routinely conducted by geotechnical engineers makes its
computations easy to understand and perform. It produces a scalar index of
stability (the factor of safety) that is analogous to that produce by static
stability. It must always be recognized, however, that ht eh accuracy of the
pseudostatic approach is governed by the accuracy with which the simple
pseudostatic inertial forces represent the complex dynamic inertial forces that
actually exist in an earthquake. Difficulty in the assignment of appropriate
pseudostatic coefficients and in interpretation of pseudostatic factors o safety,
compiled with the development of more realistic methods of analysis, have
reduced the use of the pseudostatic approach for seismic slope stability
analyses. Methods based on evaluation of permanent slope deformation, such
as those described in the following sections, are being used increasingly for
seismic slope stability analysis.

Table 8.4 Results of Pseudostatic Analyses of Earth Dam That Failed during
Earthquakes
Dam FS Effect of
Earthquakes
Sheffield Dam 0.10 1.2 Complete failure
Lower San 0.15 1.3 Upstream slope
Fernando Dam failure
Upper San 0-15 -2-2.5 Downstream shell,
Fernando Dam including crest
slipped about 6 ft
downstream
Tailings dam 0.20 -1.3 Failure of dam with
(Japan) release of tailings

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur

10