International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Seismic stability of slope using modified pseudo-

dynamic method

Nipa Chanda, Sima Ghosh & Manish Pal

To cite this article: Nipa Chanda, Sima Ghosh & Manish Pal (2017): Seismic stability of slope
using modified pseudo-dynamic method, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/19386362.2017.1372056

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1372056

Published online: 20 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [University of Victoria] Date: 21 September 2017, At: 09:48

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1372056

Seismic stability of slope using modified pseudo-dynamic method

Nipa Chanda, Sima Ghosh and Manish Pal
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Agartala, Jirania, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The paper presents evaluation of factor of safety of slope assuming circular failure surface under seismic Received 25 June 2017
loading condition. The centre of most critical circle is located using Fellenius method. Adopting limit Accepted 23 August 2017
equilibrium method, under the influence of weight of potential sliding mass and seismic inertia forces,
KEYWORDS
factor of safety is evaluated applying new pseudo-dynamic method based on visco-elastic behaviour Limit equilibrium method;
of soil which satisfies zero-stress boundary condition and considers soil amplification inherent to soil Fellenius method; pseudo-
properties. Results are presented and compared with available results from literature. Detailed parametric dynamic analysis; factor of
studies are also carried out to observe the variation of safety factor at different soil strength and seismic
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

safety
forces and these can serve as very good criteria for design of slopes.

Introduction dynamic response of slope made up of clay. Effects of variation

Stability of earth structures, such as slopes, dams, embankments
need to be determined considering seismic loads to attain safety
under earthquake condition. Different methods, such as limit
equilibrium method which considers force and/or moment equi-
librium of a mass of soil above a potential failure surface, limit
analysis method which is based on rigorous plasticity theory,
Stress-deformation analysis which allows consideration of the
stress–strain behaviour of soil are commonly adopted by many
researchers to evaluate the slope safety factor.
Taylor (1937, 1948) developed solution of slope stability prob-
lems under static load. Further, ordinary method of slices by
Fellenius (1936) and simplified Bishop’s method given by Bishop
(1955) are well-known methods for analysis of homogeneous
soil slope having circular failure surface. Later on, adopting sim-
ilar nature to Bishop’s method, Morgenstern and Price (1965),
Spencer (1967), Janbu (1973) proposed procedures to analyse
slope having non-circular or compound failure surface.
Displacement-based pseudo-static analysis was proposed
by Newmark (1965) and effects of seismic forces on dams and
embankments was studied. Seed (1979) concluded that pseu-
do-static inertia forces have very low effects on slopes made up
of clays, dry or moist cohesionless soils and dense cohesionless
soils. Using Newmark model Sarma (1975) analysed effects of
seismic forces on the factor of safety and the subsequent dis-
placement of earth dam during an earthquake. Newmark dis-
placement method was modified by Kramer and Smith (1997)
to compute dynamic response of a sloping mass, as well as the
effect of permanent displacement on that dynamic response,
Rathje and Bray (1999, 2000) analysed earthquake-induced slid-
ing displacements of earth structures, Wartman, Seed, and Bray
(2005) conducted shaking-table test to observe displacement and
of seismic inertia forces on slope safety factor has been observed
by Ling, Leshchinsky, and Mohri (1997), Michalowski (2002),
Choudhury, Basu, and Bray (2007) and further, Ling, Mohri,
and Kawabata (1999), Loukidis, Bandini, and Salgado (2003)
evaluated critical seismic acceleration coefficient as a function
of soil properties and geometry of slopes.
Above-mentioned analysis are pseudo-static analyses where
inertia forces were calculated as product of seismic coefficients
recommended by researchers (Terzaghi 1950) and weight of the
failure wedge, is independent of time and the dynamic nature
of earthquake loading. These limitations were replaced in the
analysis of different earth structure (Choudhury and Nimbalkar
2007, 2008; Ghosh 2010; Ghosh and Sharma 2010) using pseu-
do-dynamic method developed by Steedman and Zeng (1990).
Factor of safety of homogeneous slope has been analysed by
Eskandarinejad and Shafiee (2011), Chanda, Ghosh, and Pal
(2015) using the pseudo-dynamic method and showed effects of
seismic forces and soil strength parameters on the safety of slope.
Although the application of the existing pseudo-dynamic
method is numerous in number for analysis of different soil
structures, the method undergoes certain criticism which was
highlighted by Bellezza (2014), Choudhury, Katdare, and Pain
(2014). Considering visco-elastic behaviour of soil material
Bellezza (2014) proposed a new pseudo-dynamic method to ana-
lyse the backfill behaviour of retaining wall, which successfully
overcomes all those limitations available in the existing pseu-
do-dynamic method. Using this new pseudo-dynamic method,
Pain, Choudhury, and Bhattacharyya (2015a), Pain, Choudhury,
and Bhattacharya (2015b) analysed stability of retaining wall,
as well as seismic uplift capacity of horizontal strip anchors.
Application of the new pseudo-dynamic method on soil slope
was shown by Chanda, Ghosh, and Pal (2017) and observed all

CONTACT  Nipa Chanda  nipachanda@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   N. CHANDA ET AL.

possible findings, such as stability of slope, required reinforce- properties, the medium is modelled as Kelvin–Voigt solid con-
ment to sustain against seismic loading. In this present work, sisting of a purely elastic spring and a purely viscous dashpot
homogeneous c-ϕ soil slope is analysed assuming a circular connected in parallel. In Kelvin–Voigt material elastic compo-
failure surface, locating the centre of most critical circle using nent and viscous component resist, the shearing deformation
Fellenius method. Here, an attempt has been made to determine following the Equation (2) is given below:
the factor of safety of slope by limit equilibrium method consid-
𝜕𝛾s
ering the effect of seismic waves using the new pseudo-dynamic 𝜏 = 𝛾s G + 𝜂 (2)
method. 𝜕t
in which, τ is the shear stress, γs is shear strain, η is the soil vis-
cosity, G is the shear modulus and t is the time.
Method of analysis
For harmonic shaking, 𝜂 = 2G𝜉 𝜔
, ξ = damping ratio.
Review and limitations of existing pseudo-dynamic The equation of motion of Kelvin–Voigt visco-elastic material
method in vectorial form (Bellezza 2014) is:
{ ( )𝜕} ( )
The existing pseudo-dynamic method which was proposed by 𝜕2U 𝜕
𝜌 2 = (𝜆 + G) + 𝜂1 + 𝜂s grad(𝜃) + G + 𝜂s ∇2 U
Steedman and Zeng (1990) and used by many researchers, allows 𝜕t 𝜕t 𝜕t
calculating seismic stability of earth structures on the basis of (3)
the assumption that Shear wave and Primary wave are harmonic
where ρ is the soil density, 𝜆, Gare Lame constant, η1,  ηs are
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

waves propagating upward with different amplitude and same

viscosities of soil, U is the displacement vector of components
frequency as described in Equations (1a) and (1b).
ux, uy, uv, uy and 𝜃 = div(U).
{ [ ( )] Considering wave propagating along z-axis in a Kelvin–Voigt
H −z( )} H −z
ah (z, t) = 1 + fa − 1 ah0 sin 𝜔 t − (1a) homogeneous medium, solution of Equation (3) yields
H Vs
[ ( )] 𝜕 2 uh 𝜕 2 uh 𝜕 3 uh
{ )} 𝜌 =G +𝜂 (4)
H −z( H −z 𝜕t 2 𝜕z 2 𝜕z 2 𝜕t
av (z, t) = 1 + fa − 1 av0 sin 𝜔 t − (1b)
H Vp

where H is height of the earth structure; z is any depth from top

𝜕 2 uv 𝜕 2 uv ( ) 𝜕 3 uv
surface at which seismic inertia forces acting; ah0 and av0 are 𝜌 = (𝜆 + 2G) + 𝜂1 + 𝜂s (5)
amplitude of horizontal and vertical acceleration at the base of 𝜕t 2 𝜕z 2 𝜕z 2 𝜕t
soil mass i.e. z = H; ω is the angular frequency of motion; t is
where uh = ux, uv = uz.
time; Vs and Vp are velocity of Shear and Primary wave prop-
Following Bellezza (2014), for harmonic motion applying the
agating through the soil; fa is amplification factor. The existing
boundary condition i.e. shear stress at the free surface at z = 0
pseudo-dynamic analysis adopted by many researchers in most
and at a depth z = H the base displacement is ub = uh0eiωt. Solving
applications are simplified considering the value of fa = 1 and has
Equation (4) the real part of horizontal displacement yields as:
certain limitations such as
(1) The zero-stress boundary condition at the ground sur- uh0 [( ) ( )
face could not be satisfied by the existing pseudo-dy- uh (z, t) = cs csz + ss ssz cos 𝜔s t
cs2 + ss2
namic method (Bellezza 2014; Choudhury, Katdare,
( ) ( )] (6)
and Pain 2014). + ss csz − cs ssz sin 𝜔s t
(2) The acceleration value assumed to be amplified line-
arly towards the ground surface, which demands the In which
assumption of amplification factor (Pain, Choudhury, ( ) ( )
and Bhattacharyya 2015a). cs = cos ys1 cosh ys2 (6a)
(3) The existing pseudo-dynamic method does not con-
sider energy dissipation whereas; all materials have ( ) ( )
some damping properties. ss = − sin ys1 sinh ys2 (6b)
Bellezza (2014) sorted out limitations of the existing pseu-
(y z ) (y z )
do-dynamic method assuming visco-elastic behaviour of soil and s1
cosh s2
csz = cos (6c)
considering seismic waves which satisfies the zero-stress bound- H H
ary condition at the ground surface. Acceleration equations in
a visco-elastic medium are discussed in the following section.
(y z ) (y z )
s1
ssz = − sin sinh s2 (6d)
H H
Equation of wave propagated through visco-elastic soil
(( )1∕2 )1∕2
media 𝜔s H 1 + 4𝜉 2 +1
ys1 = ( )
This section briefly describes the solution of wave equation for a Vs 2 1 + 4𝜉 2 (6e)
visco-elastic medium. As soil material has damping and elastic
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3

(( )1∕2 )1∕2
𝜔H 1 + 4𝜉 2 −1
ys2 = − s ( ) (6f)
Vs 2 1 + 4𝜉 2
Differentiating Equation (6) twice with respect to time and defin-
ing kh g = −𝜔2s uh0, Bellezza (2014) the horizontal acceleration is
expressed as:

kh g [( ) ]
ah (z, t) = cs csz + ss ssz cos(𝜔s t) + (ss csz − cs ssz ) sin(𝜔s t)
cs2 + ss2
(7)

where ωs is the angular frequency of motion for shear wave.

Similarly, for harmonic motion applying the boundary con-
dition i.e. shear stress at the free surface z = 0 and at a depth
z = H the displacement coincides with the rigid base, ub = uv0eiωt
solution of Equation (5) yields the real part of vertical displace-
ment as:
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

u [( ) ( )
uv (z, t) = 2 v0 2 cp cpz + sp spz cos 𝜔p t
cp + s p
( ) ( )] (8)
+ sp cpz − cp spz sin 𝜔p t Figure 1. Slope geometry under seismic loading condition.

where ωp is the angular frequency of motion for primary wave. Analysis of slope
In which
( ) ( ) A soil slope of height H is considered, the failure surface of which
cp = cos yp1 cosh yp2 (8a) is assumed to be circular (arc PE) as shown in Figure 1. The soil
is considered as a generalised c-ϕ soil, where c is the cohesion of
soil and ϕ is the soil friction angle. It has been assumed that the
( ) ( ) occurrence of an earthquake forces do not affect the basic soil
sp = − sin yp1 sinh yp2 (8b) parameters; the cohesion of soil (c), the soil friction angle (ϕ)
and the unit weight of the soil (γ).

(y z ) (y z ) Fellenius concept to locate the centre of most critical slip

cpz = cos
p1
cosh
p2
(8c) circle
H H
In order to find the centre of critical slip circle ordinarily a large
number of trials are required. The number of trials may be
reduced using a method given by Fellenius (1936) in which the
(y z ) (y z ) locus of the centre of the critical slip circle is located. According
p1 p2
spz = − sin sinh (8d) to this method, for slopes of homogeneous soils with one con-
H H
tinuous inclination and bound by horizontal surface at top and
bottom the centre of critical slip circle lies on line AD (Figure 2).
The location of point D is at a depth H and at a distance 4.5H
(( )1∕2 )1∕2
𝜔p H 1 + 4𝜉 2 +1 from point P (−4.5H, H) at the toe of the slope, where H is the
yp1 = ( ) (8e) height of the slope. The point A is located by drawing two lines
Vp 2 1 + 4𝜉 2 PA and CA, where PA makes angle α with the slope line PC and
CA makes angle β with horizontal at C. Angles α and β are for
different slopes which is provided by Fellenius has been given in
(( )1∕2 )1∕2
1 + 4𝜉 2
𝜔p H −1 Table 1. The centre of the most critical circle may lie anywhere
yp2 = − ( ) (8f) on the line AD or on its extension. For example, if the centres
Vp 2 1 + 4𝜉 2 of trial circles are taken on this line are c1, c2 and c3 as shown
Differentiating Equation (8) twice with respect to time and defin- in Figure 2 factors of safety obtained by taking these points as
ing kv g = −𝜔2p uv0, the vertical acceleration is obtained as: centres of failure surfaces are generally plotted as normal to the
line KAD to obtain a curve of factor of safety, Fs. The centre
kv g [( ) ] corresponding to the minimum factor of safety is denoted as Fc
av (z, t) = cp cpz + sp spz cos(𝜔p t) + (sp cpz − cp spz ) sin(𝜔p t) in the Figure 2, indicates the location of centre of most critical
cp2 2
+ sp
circle. Equation of the line AD based on Fellenius method is
(9) developed and detailed as follows:
 4   N. CHANDA ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

Figure 2. Centre of failure surface having critical factor of safety (Fellenius method).

Table 1. Values of α and β given by Fellenius for different slope.

Slope α β
1:1 28 37
1:1.5 26 35
1:2 25 35
1:3 25 35
1:5 25 37

In Figure 2 taking first point D (0, 0) as origin and point A

be the second point on the line, linear equation passing through
the two points is:
y2 − y1
y − y1 =
x2 − x1
(x − x1 ) (10)

{ }
2 sin (i + 𝛼 + 𝛽) sin i + sin 𝛼 sin 𝛽 Figure 3. Area and centre of gravity of failure wedge.
y= x
4.5 sin (i + 𝛼 + 𝛽) sin i − sin (i + 𝛽) cos (i + 𝛼) (11)

{ ( )} { ( ) ( )}
PC is the slope
{ line where co-ordinate ( of P is)}(x − 4.5H), y − H 𝜃 = 2 sin−1
H
− tan−1
x − 4.5H
and C is (H cot i + x − 4.5H), y − 2H and equation of the 2r sin (𝜃∕2) y−H (15)
line PC as: { ( )} Width of surface
Y = −x tan i + (4.5H − X) + y − H , if r is the radius of √(
most critical circle, then equation of the failure surface PME is: )
CE = B = 2r sin (𝜃∕2)2 − H 2 − H cot i (16)
√
( )2
X 2 + Y 2 = r 2 and r = y − H + (x − 4.5H)2 (12) The whole potential failure mass is divided into two parts, one
is triangle ∆PCE and the other is segment PME as shown in
Figure 3.
H Area of triangular portion of potential failure zone
sin e = (13)
2r sin (𝜃∕2) (√ )
1 2 2
ΔPCE = H (2r sin (𝜃∕2)) − H − H cot i = A1 (17)
2
√( )
2r sin (𝜃∕2)2 − H 2
cos e = (14) Area of segmental portion of potential failure zone
2r sin (𝜃∕2) r2
PME = (𝜃 − sin 𝜃) = A2 (18)
where θ is subtended angle at centre ‘O’ by the circular arc and is 2
calculated after trial and error process by developing an equation
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   5

If x1, and y1 are the centre of gravity of the triangular portion (4) Reaction at the base inclined at an angle ϕm to the
PCE from the vertical and horizontal line passing through O normal.
respectively then these are formulated as:
With arc length, l = 2𝜋r𝜃
360o
weight of potential failure mass PCE
√ is expressed as:
(2r sin (𝜃∕2))2 − H 2 + H cot i
x 1 = x − 4.5H + (19)
3 { (√ ) }
𝛾
W = A𝛾 = H (2r sin (𝜃∕2))2 − H 2 − H cot i + r 2 (𝜃 − sin 𝜃)
2

3y − 5H
y1 = (20) Calculation of inertia forces on soil wedge
3
A thin element of thickness dz at depth z from the top of the
Similarly centre of gravity of the circular wedge x2 and y2 from
surface as shown in Figure 1 is considered. The thickness dz and
the vertical and horizontal line passing through O respectively
width dx of the thin element is expressed as
are given by:
( )
dz = r cos 𝜃. cos 𝜃2 − sin 𝜃 sin 𝜃2 d𝜃 (26)
[ [ { }] ]
r cos(𝜃 + 𝜃2 ) − r sin(𝜃 + 𝜃2 ) cot(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 ) − H − r sin(𝜃 + 𝜃) − sin 𝜃2 cot i
[ { }]
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

dx =
− H − r sin(𝜃 + 𝜃) − sin 𝜃2 cot(𝜃1 + 𝜃2 ) (27)

2H sin2 (𝜃∕2)
x2 = (21) Area of the element is expressed as, A = xdz (28)
3(𝜃 − sin 𝜃)

√ 𝛾
2 sin2 (𝜃∕2) Mass of the element is, m(x, z) = xdz (29)
(22)
2 2
y2 = X (2r sin (𝜃∕2)) − H g
3(𝜃 − sin 𝜃)
The total horizontal seismic inertia force acting on the failure
Thus the corresponding centre of gravity of the whole wedge
wedge can be written as:
with respect to centre ‘O’ are:
√
y−H r 2 −z 2
A x + A2 x2
x̄ = 1 1 (23)
g ∫ ∫
𝛾
A Qh (t) = ah (z, t)dxdz (30)
y−2H 1
m
(z−c)

� √ 2 2 �� � ��
⎡
Y −h r −z
c c + s s cos(2𝜋t∕T) + (s c − c s ) sin(2𝜋t∕T) ⎤
∫ ⎢ −
or, Qh (t) = 𝛾kh ⎢ �cs +ss ��
2 2 s sz s sz
�
s sz s sz
�� ⎥dz
z−c
c c + s s cos(2𝜋t∕T) + (s c − c s ) sin(2𝜋t∕T) ⎥
Y −2H ⎣ m(cs2 +sz2 ) s sz s sz s sz s sz ⎦

A1 y1 + A2 y2 or, Qh (t) = 𝛾kh I1 (31)

ȳ = (24)
A The total vertical seismic inertia force acting on the failure wedge
can be written as:
Forces on the potential failure mass in equilibrium are:
√
r 2 −z 2
(1) Weight (W) acting vertically through its centre of y−H

g ∫ ∫
𝛾
gravity. Qv (t) = av (z, t)dxdz (32)
(2) Cohesive force (c) acting along tangential to the curve y−2H 1
(z−c)
surface in the direction opposite to the direction of m

probable movement of the wedge.

� √ 2 2 �� � ��
⎡
Y −h r −z
c c + s s cos(2𝜋t∕T) + (s c − c s ) sin(2𝜋t∕T) ⎤
∫ ⎢ −
⎢ �cp +sp �� p pz p pz
�
p pz p pz
�� ⎥dz
2 2
Qv (t) = 𝛾kv z−c
c c + s s cos(2𝜋t∕T) + (s c − c s ) sin(2𝜋t∕T) ⎥
Y −2H ⎣ 2 2
m(cp +sp ) p pz p pz p pz p pz ⎦

(3) Horizontal and vertical seismic inertia forces Qh (t) and Qv (t) = 𝛾kv I2 (33)
Qv (t) respectively, and
Evaluating I1 in Equation (31) and I2 in Equation (33) numeri-
cally by Simpson’s 1/3 rule Qh(t) and Qv(t)is determined.
 6   N. CHANDA ET AL.

Calculation of reaction force (R)

Resolving the forces in tangential direction and applying force
equilibrium we get
Qh (t) cos 𝛿 + (W ± Qv (t)) sin 𝛿 = R sin 𝜙m + cm l (34)
Resolving forces in radial direction and applying force
equilibrium
Qh (t) sin 𝛿 + (W ± Qv (t)) cos 𝛿 = R cos 𝜙m (35)
On squaring and adding Equations (34) and (35) we get
( )2 ( )2
⇒ R2 + (cm l)2 + 2R sin 𝜙m cm l = Qh (t) + W ± Qv (t)
( )2 ( )2
⇒ R2 + 2R sin 𝜙m cm l = Qh (t) + W ± Qv (t)) − (cm l)a = 1,
2

b = 2 sin ϕmcml,
[( )2 ( )2 ]
F = − Qh (t) + W ± Qv (t)) − (cm l)2 Figure 4. Forces acting on sliding mass.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

� � �
⎡ � � �� � �2 ⎤
� � �2
1⎢
R = − sin 𝜙m cm l ± � 2 𝛾
(sin 𝜙m cm l) + 4 Qh (t) + ( [H 2 2 2
(2r sin(𝜃∕2)) − H − H cot i + r (𝜃 − sin 𝜃)]+) ± Qv (t)) − (cm l)2 ⎥
2⎢ 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
(36)
Calculation of factor of safety
kv = 0, 0.5kh, kh and c/γH = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, ξ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5. Final
Now, disturbing moments MH and MV due to weight and seismic results in terms of factor of safety (Fs) have been illustrated in
inertia forces about point O as shown in Figure 4 are expressed Tables 2a and 2b.
as: The analysis of the model slope yields following results which
MH = Qh (t)̄y (37) depict a well-defined pattern of variation of factor of safety values
with horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration coefficients for
( [ (√ ) ] )
MV =
𝛾
H (2r sin(𝜃∕2))2 − H 2 − H cot i + r 2 (𝜃 − sin 𝜃) ± Qv (t) x̄
various slope angles and soil friction angle and cohesion. Tables
2 2a and 2b) depicts that the values of factor of safety decreases
with increase in seismic accelerations both in horizontal and
(38) vertical directions, which finally causes the instability of slope.
Similar to the static case, it is also observed that the values of fac-
Factor of safety = (resisting moment)/(disturbing moment) tor of safety decreases with increase in slope angle under seismic
conditions. As expected, the values of factor of safety increases
cm rl + Rr sin 𝜙m
⇒ FS = (39) with increase in the shear strength parameters of soil, is observed
MH + MV in the result. At optimisation, failure surface of slope made up of

� � � � ���
� �2 � �√ � �2
2 2 𝛾 2 2 2 2
cm r 𝜃 + 0.5r sin 𝜙m − sin 𝜙m cm l ± (sin 𝜙m cm l) + 4 Qh (t) + ( 2 [H (2r sin(𝜃∕2)) − H − H cot i + r (𝜃 − sin 𝜃)]+) ± Qv (t)) − (cm l)
Fs = � � �√ � � �
𝛾
Qh (t)̄y + H (2r sin(𝜃∕2))2 − H 2 − H cot i + r 2 (𝜃 − sin 𝜃) ± Qv (t) x̄
2 (40)

The complete form of Equation (40) putting Qh (t), Qv (t), x,

̄ ȳ is c-ϕ soil mostly passes through or above toe, in some cases when
given in Appendix 1. Optimum factor of safety is evaluated using ϕ value of soil is very low, failure surface may passes below the
Matlab (version7.12.0635 2011) and the flow chart is shown in toe of the slope causing base failure. Table 3 shows some results
Figure 5. for base failure of slope.

Results and discussion Parametric study

In this paper, some typical model slopes are analysed using the
above stated methodology. The variation of parameters consid-
ered are as follows: soil friction angle (ϕ) = 20°, 30°, 40°, angle
of slope (i) = 30°, 45°, 60°, horizontal seismic acceleration coef-
ficient kh = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 vertical seismic acceleration coefficient,
Effect of slope angle on factor of safety
Figure 6 shows variation of factor of safety with kh for different
slope inclination at kv = 0.5kh, c/γH = 0.1 and ϕ = 20°, ξ = 0.3.
From the plot it is clearly seen that factor of safety decreases as
the slope angle increases and also decreases as kh increases. The
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   7

percentage decrease in factor of safety with the increase in slope Effect of angle of friction on stability number
angle 30°–45° is 18% over 30°, where as the decrease in factor of
Variation of factor of safety with kh for different values of soil
safety with the increase in slope angle 45°–60° is 10% over 45°
friction angle, ϕ has been observed from Figure 7 with a slope
for kh = 0.2 and kv = kh/2
angle, i = 45°, c/γH = 0.1 and kv = kh/2, ξ = 0.3. From the plot it
Input H,i, ,kh,kv
is clearly seen that as the ϕ increases factor of safety increases
but decreases as the increase in horizontal seismic acceleration
coefficient, kh. The percentage increase in factor of safety with the
Iterate x, t/T
increase in angle of friction 20°–30° is 18% over 20° whereas, the
increase in factor of safety with the increase in angle of friction
Calculate y, r,
30°–40° is 10% over 30° for kh = 0.2 and kv = kh/2.
Calculate W, A, x , y
Effect of cohesion on factor of safety
Calculate Qh(t),Qv(t)
Figure 8 shows variation of factor of safety with kh for different
values of c/γH when i = 45° and ϕ = 20°, ξ = 0.3. From the plot
it is clearly seen that the value of factor of safety increases with
Calculate R using (W+Qv(t)) Calculate R using (W-Qv(t)) the increase in c/γH but the factor of safety decreases with the
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

increases in kv/kh ratio. The increase in factor safety with the

increase in c/γH 0.05–0.1 is 20% on 0.05, where as the % increase
Calculate Fs1 Calculate Fs2
in factor safety with the increase in c/γH 0.1–0.15 is 13.5% on 0.1
at kh = 0.2 and kv = kh/2. As the friction angle increases resistive
moment increases and thus factor of safety increases.
Fs1<Fs2

Yes No
Effect of kv/kh on factor of safety
Fs1 Fs2 Figure 9 shows variation of factor of safety with kh for different
values of kv /kh ratio when ϕ = 20° and i = 45°, ξ = 0.3. The plot
depicts that factor of safety is dependent on both horizontal and
Figure 5. Flowchart to calculate factor of safety of slope.

Table 2a. Factor of safety of slope at different friction angle for different slope angle and soil condition at ξ = 0.1.
c c c
𝛾H
= 0.05 𝛾H
= 0.1 𝛾H
= 0.15
ϕ ϕ ϕ
i 20° 30° 40° 20° 30° 40° 20° 30° 40°
kh = 0, kv = 0
30° 1.09 1 1.391 1.623 1.368 1.643 1.834 1.621 1.85 1.99
45° 0.931 1.120 1.255 1.2154 1.387 1.43 1.48 1.565 1.61
60° 0.7876 0.9801 1.1369 1.0284 1.188 1.3476 1.2459 1.3476 1.4064
kh = 0.1, kv = 0
30° 0.6854 0.8817 1.0418 0.8523 1.0297 1.1622 1.0050 1.1579 1.2602
45° 0.5868 0.7439 0.8697 0.7428 0.8817 0.9804 0.8804 0.9983 1.0685
60° 0.5494 0.6957 0.9197 0.6998 0.8255 0.9171 0.8333 0.9347 0.9983
kh = 0.2, kv = 0
30° 0.5589 0.7276 0.8665 0.6842 0.8391 0.9584 0.7995 0.9369 1.0344
45° 0.5081 0.6575 0.7805 0.6266 0.7633 0.8667 0.7335 0.8549 0.9395
60° 0.4949 0.6419 0.7662 0.6117 0.7433 0.8459 0.7155 0.8333 0.9157
kh = 0.1, kv = 0.05
30° 0.6852 0.8805 1.0395 0.8534 1.0294 1.1606 1.0071 1.1585 1.2590
45° 0.5875 0.7441 0.8693 0.7446 0.8827 0.9805 0.8833 1.000 1.0689
60° 0.5505 0.6964 0.8196 0.7022 0.8270 0.9179 0.8366 0.9370 0.9995
kh = 0.1, kv = 0.1
30° 0.6849 0.8792 1.0372 0.8545 1.0291 1.1590 1.0093 1.1590 1.2577
45° 0.5882 0.7443 0.8688 0.7464 0.8837 0.9807 0.8863 1.0018 1.0692
60° 0.5515 0.6970 0.8196 0.7047 0.8286 0.9187 0.8399 0.9394 1.0006
kh = 0.2, kv = 0.1
30° 0.5581 0.7254 0.8630 0.6847 0.8379 0.9556 0.8013 0.9367 1.0322
45° 0.5093 0.6584 0.7806 0.6289 0.7651 0.8679 0.7012 0.853 0.9408
60° 0.4971 6441 0.7680 0.6153 0.7467 0.8489 0.7204 0.8379 0.9193
kh = 0.2, kv = 0.2
30° 0.5572 0.7232 0.8596 0.6853 0.8368 0.9529 0.8029 0.9367 1.0301
45° 0.5106 0.6595 0.7809 0.6314 0.7671 0.8694 0.7406 0.8603 0.9423
60° 0.4959 0.6424 0.7678 0.6131 0.7447 0.8466 0.7172 0.8339 0.9157
 8   N. CHANDA ET AL.

Table 2b. Factor of safety of slope at different friction angle for different slope angle and soil condition at ξ = 0.5.
c c c
𝛾H
= 0.05 𝛾H
= 0.1 𝛾H
= 0.15
ϕ ϕ ϕ
i 20° 30° 40° 20° 30° 40° 20° 30° 40°
kh = 0, kv = 0
30° 1.09 1 1.391 1.623 1.368 1.643 1.834 1.621 1.85 1.99
45° 0.931 1.120 1.255 1.2154 1.387 1.43 1.48 1.565 1.61
60° 0.7876 0.9801 1.1369 1.0284 1.188 1.3476 1.2459 1.3476 1.4064
kh = 0.1, kv = 0
30° 0.9594 1.2306 1.4546 1.1962 1.4415 1.6223 1.4092 1.6224 1.7619
45° 0.7753 0.9669 1.1176 0.9952 1.1639 1.2734 1.1894 1.3228 1.3889
60° 0.6889 0.8628 1.0101 0.8940 1.0335 1.1368 1.0778 1.1790 1.2394
kh = 0.2, kv = 0
30° 0.9081 1.1656 1.3770 1.1320 1.3645 1.5366 1.3327 1.5356 1.6686
45° 0.7469 0.9326 1.0787 0.9582 1.1220 1.2282 1.1437 1.2743 1.3396
60° 0.6674 0.8361 0.9790 0.8648 1.0013 1.1016 1.0425 1.1422 1.2010
kh = 0.1, kv = 0.05
30° 0.9492 1.2225 1.4490 1.1771 1.4260 1.6114 1.3826 1.6021 1.7473
45° 0.7647 0.9588 1.1118 0.9744 1.1476 1.2633 1.1614 1.3018 1.3772
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

60° 0.6808 0.8573 1.0063 0.8775 1.0221 1.1298 1.0542 1.1639 1.2311
kh = 0.1, kv = 0.1
30° 0.9399 1.2151 1.4438 1.1597 1.4117 1.6013 1.3552 1.5833 1.7335
45° 0.7531 0.9497 1.1043 0.9559 1.1307 1.2518 1.1359 1.2813 1.3634
60° 0.6699 0.8798 1.0028 0.8581 1.0061 1.1202 1.0272 1.1434 1.2186
kh = 0.2, kv = 0.1
30° 0.8939 1.1563 1.3733 1.1026 1.3427 1.5238 1.2909 1.5056 1.6495
45° 0.73 0.9206 1.0715 0.9234 1.0959 1.2135 1.0964 1.2396 1.3216
60° 0.6541 0.8273 0.9738 0.8367 0.9825 1.0905 1.0015 1.1165 1.1875
kh = 0.2, kv = 0.2
30° 0.8819 1.1484 1.3702 1.0775 1.3238 1.5125 1.2507 1.4771 1.6320
45° 0.7123 0.9079 1.0615 0.8941 1.0701 1.1969 1.0561 1.2078 1.3004
60° 0.6373 0.8174 0.9691 0.8060 0.9575 1.0774 0.9579 1.0831 1.1685

Table 3. Factor of safety of slope when critical failure surface exists below the toe 1.4
causing base failure at ξ = 0.1.

c/γH = 0.05 c/γH = 0.1
Factor of safety, Fs

ϕ ϕ 1.2

i 5° 10° 15° 5° 10° 15°

kh = 0, kv = 0
1
15° 0.6835 1.0354 1.3725 1.0018 1.3432 1.6704
30° 0.4770 0.6751 0.8532 0.7311 0.9329 1.1125

0.8
1.7 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
kh
i=30
1.5
i=45
Factor of safety, Fs

Figure 7. Variation of factor of safety with kh for different values of ϕ, when i = 45°,
i=60 c/γH = 0.1 and kv = kh/2.
1.3

1.1 Effect of seismic forces on slope stability number

Slope safety factor can also defined by a dimensionless parameter
0.9
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
called stability number, N  =  cm/γH where cm is the mobilised
kh cohesion. Effects of seismic parameters on the slope stability
number are observed in Figure 10. It has been seen that as the
Figure 6. Variation of factor of safety with kh for different values of i when ϕ = 20° seismic forces increases curves representing stability number
c/γH = 0.1, kv = 0.5kh. is progressing upward which indicates lower factor of safety.
The plot also depicts that present results are on higher side
vertical seismic acceleration resulting a decreasing pattern as kv than results from Ling, Leshchinsky, and Mohri (1997) for both
/kh ratio increases. ξ = 0.1 and ξ = 0.3. The reason may be the application of new
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   9

1.4 Table 4. Comparison of factor of safety values obtained in present study with re-
c/ H=0.05
sults from literature for i = 30o and kv = 0, and c/γH = 0.025.
c/ H=0.1
Choud- Present study
Factor of safety, Fs

c/ H=0.15
1.2 hury,
Basu, Chanda,
Newmark and Bray Ghosh, and
ϕ kh (1965) (2007) Pal (2015) ξ = 10% ξ = 50%
1
40o 0.1 1.48 1.19 1.20 1.13 1.18
45o 0.1 1.79 1.43 1.3 1.04 1.07
0.2 1.52 1.30 1.16 0.88 0.96
0.8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
kh
Table 5. Comparison of factor of safety values obtained in present study with re-
sults from literature for i = 20o and kv = 0, and c/γH = 0.025.
Figure 8. Variation of factor of safety with kh for different values, c/γH of, kh = 0.5kv
when i = 45°, ϕ = 20°. Choudhury, Present study
Newmark Basu, and Bray
ϕ kh (1965) (2007) ξ = 10% ξ = 50%
1.2
35o 0.1 1.45 1.31 1.16 1.19
kv/kh=0
0.2 1.15 1.15 1.02 1.09
kv/kh=0.5 45o 0.1 2.08 1.63 1.23 1.28
0.2 1.64 1.44 1.137 1.17
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

Factor of safety, Fs

1.1 kv/kh=1

1 pseudo-dynamic method for analysis of slope which is capable

to show the dynamic behaviour of seismic inertia forces propa-
gating through the visco-elastic soil material.
0.9
0.1 0.2 0.3
kh Comparison of results
Figure 9.  Variation of factor of safety with kh for different ratio of kv/kh when The values of factor of safety obtained by the present study
ϕ = 20°, i = 45°, and, c/γH = 0.15 are compared with available results from earlier studies for
different values of soil friction angle, horizontal seismic accel-
eration coefficient and presented in tabular form (Tables 4–7).
0.25
i=45˚ Table 4 presents the comparison of results obtained from pres-
Present Result for =10% =20˚ ent study with Newmark (1965), Choudhury, Basu, and Bray
0.2
Present Result for =30%
(2007), Chanda, Ghosh, and Pal (2015) at i = 30°, c/γH = 0.025,
kv = 0. The same for the cases of i = 20°, kv = 0 are shown in
Stability Number, N

0.15 Ling et al. (1995)

=30˚
Table 5. It is found that the results obtained from present
study show lower values of factor of safety in comparison to
0.1 =40˚
Newmark (1965), Choudhury, Basu, and Bray (2007), Chanda,
Ghosh, and Pal (2015). Here, Newmark (1965) used displace-
0.05 ment approach considering pseudo-static forces, Choudhury,
Basu, and Bray (2007), Chanda, Ghosh, and Pal (2015) used
0 pseudo-static method and pseudo-dynamic method respec-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
tively. In present analysis, new pseudo-dynamic method is
kh
used in which the amplitude and phase of acceleration both
0.3
vary with depth. In addition, soil properties directly regulate
i=60˚
amplification of acceleration and hence assumption of any
0.25
Present Result for =10%
amplification value is not required as it can be estimated.
=20˚
Present Result for =30% It has been observed from the present analysis that value of
factor of safety at different condition are lesser than results
Stability Number, N

0.2 Ling et al. (1995) =30˚

found from other studies and this may be due to the above
0.15 =40˚
mentioned advantages of new pseudo-dynamic method. Slope
0.1 stability factor in terms of stability number and factor of safety
obtained from present study are also compared with earlier
0.05 studies (Michalowski 2002). Table 6 is representing that for
a slope inclination, i  =  45° values of stability number and
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
factor of safety of slope from present study are closer to that
kh
obtained from study of Michalowski (2002). However, seismic
coefficient due to which the factor of safety reduced to unity
Figure 10. Variation of slope stability number, N = cm/γH with seismic coefficients is termed as the critical seismic coefficient. Values of criti-
for slope angle i = 45° and 60°, respectively. cal seismic acceleration is determined for slope inclination,
 10   N. CHANDA ET AL.

Table 6. Comparison of slope stability factor obtained in present study with results from literature for i = 45° and 60°, respectively.

N = cm/γH Factor of safety at c/γH = 0.15

Present Result Present Result
Slope inclination ϕm Michalowski (2002) ξ = 10% ξ = 50% ϕ Michalowski (2002) ξ = 10% ξ = 50%
45° 27° 0.049 0.05 0.047 30° 1.73 1.62 1.68
60° 26° 0.08 0.09 0.08 1.44 1.36 1.41
60° 36° 0.0439 0.042 0.041

Table 7. Comparison of critical horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient for homogeneous slope obtained in present study with results from literature (Loukidis, Bandini,
and Salgado 2003) for i = 30°.

Critical acceleration kc (at factor of safety = 1)

Numerical Numerical Spencer’s Bishop’s sim- Sarma’s Present result
lower bound upper bound Finite elements method plified method method
(Loukidis, (Loukidis, (Loukidis, (Loukidis, (Loukidis, (Loukidis,
Bandini, and Bandini, and Bandini, and Bandini, and Bandini, and Bandini, and
ϕ N = cm/γH Salgado 2003) Salgado 2003) Salgado 2003) Salgado 2003) Salgado 2003) Salgado 2003) ξ = 10% ξ = 50%
30° 0.05 0.2735 0.31 0.285 0.283 0.280 0.2775 0.23 0.25
30° 0.1 0.437 0.477 0.451 0.45 0.443 0.44 0.39 0.41
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

30° 0.15 0.445 0.485 0.459 0.458 0.451 0.449 0.4 0.43
30° 0.2 0.552 0.591 0.571 0.572 0.561 0.564 0.48 0.51
30° 0.3 0.596 0.634 0.617 0.618 0.607 0.611 0.56 0.59

i = 30° and compared with other studies (Loukidis, Bandini, r  radius of circular arc
and Salgado 2003) using different methods and presented in g  acceleration due to gravity
a tabular form (Table 7). ϕ  soil friction angle
ϕm  mobilised soil friction angle
Conclusion γ  unit weight of the soil
Vs  shear wave velocity
The study presents analysis of slope made up of c-ϕ soil under
Vp  primary wave velocity
seismic loading condition. In the analysis circular rupture surface
τ  shear stress
is assumed and to get the optimum rupture surface, concept
of Fellenius method is used. All the possible combinations of γs  shear strain
failure i.e. slope failure, base failure and toe failure is considered 𝜂  viscosity
to evaluate the factor of safety of the slope. New pseudo-dy- G  shear modulus of soil
namic method is used in which the elastic property of soil and ζ  damping ratio
depth from the top surface directly estimates the amplification 𝜆  Lame constant
value and accordingly stability of slope has been evaluated. A 𝜌  density
detailed parametric study is also done to observe effects of dif- 𝜂1 , 𝜂s  viscosities
ferent parameters on factor of safety of slope made up of c-ϕ soil. s1, s2  numerical coefficients for horizontal inertia
Results as obtained from the present study are given in tabular force
form which can be used for the design of slope under seismic p1, p2   numerical coefficients for vertical inertia
loading condition. For intermediate portion linear interpolation
force
is suggested. As a further scope of the work vertical slice method
uh(z, t)  horizontal displacement due to shear wave
can be introduced to solve the problem using the new pseu-
do-dynamic method and logarithmic spiral surface can also be uv(z, t)  vertical displacement due to primary wave
introduced instead of circular rupture surface. ωs, ωp  angular frequency of motion for shear wave
and primary wave respectively
kh, kv  seismic acceleration coefficient in the hori-
Notations
zontal and vertical direction, respectively
H  height of the slope t, T  time (s) and period (s) of lateral shaking
i  slope angle ah(z,t)  horizontal seismic acceleration at depth z at
W  weight of failure wedge time t
c  cohesion av(z,t)  vertical seismic acceleration at depth z at
cm  mobilised cohesion time t

Qh(t), Qv(t)  horizontal and vertical inertia force due to
seismic accelerations, respectively
Fs  factor of safety
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Bellezza, I. 2014. “A New Pseudo-Dynamic Approach for Seismic Active
Soil Thrust.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 32 (2): 561–576.
Bishop, A. W. 1955. “The Use of the Slip Circle in the Stability Analysis of
Slopes.” Géotechnique 5 (1): 7–17.
Chanda, N., S. Ghosh, and M. Pal. 2015. “Analysis of Slope Considering
Circular Rupture Surface.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering. 10: 288–296. doi:10.1080/19386362.2016.1142270.
Chanda, N., S. Ghosh, and M. Pal. 2017. “Analysis of Slope Using Modified
Pseudo-Dynamic Method.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017
Engineering. 1–10. doi:10.1080/19386362.2016.1277848.
Choudhury, D., S. Basu, and J. D. Bray. 2007. “Behaviour of Slopes under
Static and Seismic Conditions by Limit Equilibrium Method.” GSP
161 Embankments, Dams, and Slopes. Geo-Denver 2007: New Peaks in
Geotechnics.
Choudhury, D., A. D. Katdare, and A. Pain. 2014. “New Method to Compute
Seismic Active Earth Pressure on Retaining Wall Considering Seismic
Waves.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 32 (2): 391–402.
Choudhury, D., and S. S. Nimbalkar. 2007. “Seismic Rotational
Displacement of Gravity Walls by Pseudo-Dynamic Method: Passive
Case.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (3): 242–249.
Choudhury, D., and S. S. Nimbalkar. 2008. “Seismic Rotational Displacement
of Gravity Walls by Pseudodynamic Method.” International Journal of
Geomechanics 8 (3): 169–175.
Eskandarinejad, A., and A. H. Shafiee. 2011. “Pseudo-Dynamic Analysis
of Seismic Stability of Reinforced Slopes Considering Non-Associated
Flow Rule.” Journal of Central South University of Technology 18: 2091.
Fellenius, W. 1936. “Calculation of the Stability of Earth Dams.” Transactions
of the 2nd Congress on Large Dams 4: 445–459.
Ghosh, S. 2010. “Pseudo-Dynamic Active Force and Pressure behind
Battered Retaining Wall Supporting Inclined Backfill.” Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 30 (11): 1226–1232.
Ghosh, S., and R. P. Sharma. 2010. “Pseudo-Dynamic Active Response of
Non-Vertical Retaining Wall Supporting C-Φ Backfill.” Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering 28: 633–641.
Janbu, N. 1973. “Slope Stability Computations.” In Embankment-Dam
Engineering, edited by R. C. Hirschfeld and S. Poulos, 47–86. New York:
Wiley.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   11
Kramer, S. L., and M. W. Smith. 1997. “Modified Newmark Model for
Seismic Displacements of Compliant Slopes.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (7): 635–644.
Ling, H. I., D. Leshchinsky, and Y. Mohri. 1997. “Soil Slopes under
Combined Horizontal and Vertical Seismic Accelerations.” Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 26: 1231–1241.
Ling, H. I., Y. Mohri, and T. Kawabata. 1999. “Seismic Analysis of Sliding
Wedge: Extended Francais–Culmann's Analysis.” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 18 (5): 387–393.
Loukidis, D., P. Bandini, and R. Salgado. 2003. “Stability of Seismically
Loaded Slopes Using Limit Analysis.” Géotechnique 53 (5): 463–479.
Mat-lab, R. 2011. (Computer Software). The Math Works, Version
7.12.0635.
Michalowski, R. L. 2002. “Stability Charts for Uniform Slopes.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128: 351–355.
Morgenstern, N. R., and V. E. Price. 1965. “The Analysis of the Stability of
General Slip Surfaces.” Géotechnique 15 (1): 79–93.
Newmark, N. 1965. “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments.”
Géotechnique 15 (2): 139–160. 22
Pain, A., D. Choudhury, and S. K. Bhattacharyya. 2015a. “Seismic Stability
of Retaining Wall-Soil Sliding Interaction Using Modified Pseudo-
Dynamic Method.” Géotechnique Letters 5: 56–61.
Pain, A., D. Choudhury, and S. K. Bhattacharya. 2015b. “Seismic Uplift
Capacity of Horizontal Strip Anchors Using a Modified Pseudo-
Dynamic Approach.” Int. J. Geomech., 16 (1): 04015025–(1–12).
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000471.
Rathje, E. M., and J. D. Bray. 1999. “An Examination of Simplified
Earthquake-Induced Displacement Procedures for Earth Structures .”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 36: 72–87.
Rathje, E. M., and J. D. Bray. 2000. “Nonlinear Coupled Seismic
Sliding Analysis of Earth Structures.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (11): 1002–1014.
Sarma, S. K. 1975. “Seismic Stability of Earth Dams and Embankments.”
Géotechnique 25: 743–761.
Seed, H. B. 1979. “Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of
Earth and Rockfill Dams.” Géotechnique 29 (3): 215–263.
Spencer, E. 1967. “A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments
Assuming Parallel Inter-Slice Forces.” Géotechnique 17 (1): 11–26.
Steedman, R. S., and X. Zeng. 1990. “The Influence of Phase on the
Calculation of Pseudo-Static Earth Pressure on a Retaining Wall.”
Géotechnique 40 (1): 103–112.
Taylor, D. W. 1948. Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Taylor, D. W. 1937. “Stability of Earth Slopes.” Four Boston Society of Civil
Engineers 24 (3): 197–246.
Terzaghi, K. 1950. “Mechanisms of Land Slides.” Engineering Geology
(Berkeley) Volume, Geological Society of America, pp. 83–125.
Wartman, J., R. B. Seed, and J. D. Bray. 2005. “Shaking Table Modeling
of Seismically Induced Deformations in Slopes.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131 (5): 610–622.
 12   N. CHANDA ET AL.

Appendix 1

⎡ ⎡ ⎛ (sin 𝜙m cm l)2
0.5
⎞ ⎤⎤
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ √ 2 ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎡ ⎛ y−H r 2 −z 2 ⎞ ⎤ ⎥⎥
⎜ ∫ ∫ a (z, t)dxdz
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ 𝛾 ⎟ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ ⎜ g y−2H 1 (z−c) h ⎟ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ ⎝ � ⎠ � ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
√
m
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ ⎛ 𝛾 2
2
⎞ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ 2 ⎢ − sin 𝜙m cm l ± ⎜ ⎢ ⎜ 2 ( [H (2r sin(𝜃∕2)) − H 2 − H cot i ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎟ ⎟
⎢cm r 𝜃 + 0.5r sin 𝜙m ⎢ ⎜ +4⎢ ⎜ +r 2 (𝜃 − sin 𝜃)]+) ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ +⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎜ √
⎟ ⎟
⎢ ⎜ ± ∫ ∫ av (z, t)dxdz
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ ⎜ 𝛾 y−H r 2 −z 2 ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎟ ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ ⎝ g y−2H 1 (z−c) ⎠ ⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎜ ⎢ m
⎥ ⎟ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎝ ⎣ −(cm l)2 ⎦ ⎠ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎣ ⎦⎦
Fs = √

⎜ g ∫ ∫ ah (z, t)dxdz
⎛ 𝛾 y−H r −z ⎞
2 2

⎟
⎜ y−2H m (z−c)
1 ⎟
⎜ �
3y−5H 2
√ �
⎟
2 sin (𝜃∕2) 2 2
⎜ 3
+ 3(𝜃−sin 𝜃)
X (2r sin (𝜃∕2)) −H
⎟
× � �√ � �
⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ 1
(2r sin (𝜃∕2))2 −H 2 −H cot i + r2 (𝜃−sin 𝜃) ⎠
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 09:48 21 September 2017

H
2
� �√ � �
⎛ ⎡ 𝛾 H (2r sin(𝜃∕2)) 2
− H 2
− H cot i + r 2
(𝜃 − sin 𝜃) ⎤ ⎞
⎜ ⎢ 2 √ ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎢ ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎢ ±𝛾 ∫ ∫ ah (z, t)dxdz
y−H r 2 −z 2
⎥ ⎟
+⎜ ⎢⎣ g y−2H m1 (z−c) ⎥
⎦
⎟
⎜ � √ � ⎟
⎜ x−4.5H+
2 2
(2r sin (𝜃∕2)) −H +H cot i 2
sin (𝜃∕2)
+ 2H3(𝜃−sin ⎟
⎜ ×� �√ 3
�
𝜃)
�
⎟
⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ (2r sin (𝜃∕2))2 −H 2 −H cot i + r2 (𝜃−sin 𝜃) ⎠
1
2
H