See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260166270

Stability Analysis of Seismically Loaded Slopes Using Finite Element Techniques

Conference Paper  in  Geotechnical Special Publication · February 2013

DOI: 10.1061/9780784412787.132

CITATIONS READS
4 294

4 authors, including:

Mohammad Khosravi Ali Khosravi

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Sharif University of Technology
25 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   379 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of the hydro-mechanical behavior of unsaturated collapsible soils View project

Experimental study on dynamic properties of soil materials in small strain View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Khosravi on 14 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1310
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Stability Analysis of Seismically Loaded Slopes Using Finite Element Techniques

Mohammad Khosravi1, S.M.ASCE, Dov Leshchinsky2, Christopher L. Meehan3,

M.ASCE, and Ali Khosravi4, A.M.ASCE
1
Graduate Student, University of Delaware, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, 301 DuPont Hall, Newark, DE 19716. e-mail: khosravi@udel.edu
2
Professor, University of Delaware, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
301 DuPont Hall, Newark, DE 19716. e-mail: dov@udel.edu
3
Bentley Systems Incorporated Chair of Civil Engineering & Associate Professor,
University of Delaware, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 301 DuPont
Hall, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: cmeehan@udel.edu
4
Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Delaware, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, 301 DuPont Hall, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: khosravi@colorado.edu

ABSTRACT: When performing pseudo-static finite element (FE) analyses to assess

seismic slope stability, there are two commonly used methodologies: the gravity-
induced method and the strength reduction technique. The primary difference
between these techniques is in the path that is traveled to bring the soil structure to the
verge of failure. In the gravity-induced method, the applied load is increased to reach
failure while in the strength reduction technique the strength parameters of the soil
materials are decreased until the slope fails. In the current study, these two techniques
are briefly introduced and a simple approach for their implementation into the FE
computer program ABAQUS is provided. The capability of existing failure criteria
for predicting the pseudo-static factor of safety (FS) or the critical acceleration (KC) is
discussed. Contours of maximum principal plastic strain that are determined using the
FE method are shown to strongly parallel the factor of safety map that results from
LE analyses. Based on the observations that are made in this study, possible concerns
regarding the predictive capability of finite element based techniques for assessing
the seismic stability of slopes are discussed.

INTRODUCTION
Seismic instability of soil slopes can be grouped into two main categories (Kramer
1996): 1) Inertial instability, where dynamic stresses that are induced in a soil slope
by earthquake shaking temporarily exceed the strength of the soil, leading to
accumulating slope displacements, and 2) Weakening instability, where earthquake
shaking weakens a soil such that it cannot remain stable under earthquake-induced
stresses (e.g., flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility).

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1311

Different approaches have been developed to investigate the stability of slopes

under seismic loading conditions, including: load-based procedures (limit equilibrium
(LE) techniques), displacement-based procedures (analytical sliding block
techniques), and numerical modeling procedures (such as finite element (FE) or finite
difference (FD) techniques). (e.g., Kramer 1996, and Loukidis et al. 2003).
Load-based limit equilibrium techniques have a long history of use for seismic
slope stability analysis, and are still commonly used as screening tools to assess
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

whether or not more sophisticated analysis techniques are warranted (e.g., Duncan
1992, Duncan and Wright 2005). To conduct these analyses, the effects of an
earthquake on a slope are represented by applying pseudo-static horizontal and/or
vertical accelerations to a potentially unstable mass of soil (Duncan 1992). The factor
of safety against seismic slope failure is then calculated in much the same way as in
static slope stability LE analyses. In a similar fashion as static LE methods, pseudo-
static (earthquake) analysis approaches for assessing seismic slope stability require
prior assumptions for the definition of the failure slip surface and the computation of
the interslice forces. However, a more significant criticism of this analysis approach
is that it only provides an index of stability/instability (i.e. a pseudo-static Factor of
Safety) but no information on the deformations that are associated with the failure of
the slope (Kramer 1996). For transient loading methods such as earthquakes, a
temporarily low factor of safety value does not necessarily indicate a long-term
problem for the slope, and earthquake-induced displacements are a much better
predictive measure of slope performance.
Sliding block based methods, which are typically formulated after the approach
first presented by Newmark (1965), are commonly used to evaluate the expected
displacement that will be obtained when a slope is subjected to a given shaking event.
Unlike in a load-based analysis approach, displacement is used to quantify failure and
damage within a given sliding block model, instead of a factor of safety alone.
Therefore, compared to load-based analysis approaches, displacement-based
techniques offer a more realistic way of estimating likely hazards (e.g., Chlimintzas
2003). Typically, most sliding block models determine permanent deformations by
doubly-integrating those accelerations in a given earthquake time history that are in
excess of the yield acceleration of the slope (KC). Unfortunately, as yield acceleration
values for a given slope are typically determined using LE-based techniques, the
general shortcomings that are associated with load-based techniques are still
applicable for sliding block analyses (e.g., Duncan and Wright 2005).
More recently, as access to cost-effective computing power has increased, there has
been an increasing trend towards the use of more advanced numerical analysis
methods (FE, FD) for both static and seismic analyses of soil slopes (Duncan 1992).
An advantage of numerical analyses over LE procedures is that they can be used to
calculate expected slope deformations if a realistic stress-strain relationship is
assigned to the soil mass. Advanced constitutive models are also capable of
simulating the effect of the actual time history on the response of the slope to the
ground motion, and other time-dependent or deformation-dependent phenomena
during the earthquake (such as excess pore pressure generation). If performed
properly, dynamic numerical approaches can provide more accurate, refined solutions
to the problem than load-based and deformation-based analyses (Kramer 1996).

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1312

However, the computational cost of weakening instability simulations using a finite

element approach typically limits the applicability of this method to the final stage of
the design process (Kramer 1996, Duncan 1996). As this approach can consequently
only be used for a relatively limited number of projects, it is not considered in the
current paper – instead, this paper will focus on using a finite element analysis
approach in conjunction with the more conventionally utilized inertial instability
methodology for seismic slope stability analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The finite element method (FEM) can be employed to perform pseudo-static

analyses of two-dimensional seismic slope stability problems and to obtain an
accurate approximation of the collapse load. It can also be used to calculate the
expected displacements that are developed from a seismic event, where the high
strain region corresponds to the location of the slip surface. Using this technique,
prior assumptions regarding the critical slip surfaces and interslice forces which are
needed in LE and limit analysis (LA) approaches are removed. These advantages
have been evaluated for various static slope stability cases (e.g., Xu et al. 2011,
Chang and Huang 2005), but few comparative studies have been made for the
computation of the yield acceleration coefficient by numerical methods.
A major limitation of the FEM is that it does not provide geotechnical engineers
with direct information regarding the factor of safety and its associated slip surface,
which is a main concern for the design and evaluation of slopes and embankments.
Therefore, the current study focuses on how two common FE modeling techniques,
the gravity-induced method and the strength reduction technique, can be used to
incorporate FE modeling tools into the framework of an inertial instability analysis
approach for seismic slope stability analyses. Following this approach, the FE
computer program ABAQUS (Hibbitt et al. 2007) is utilized to assess the capability
of existing failure criteria for predicting the factor of safety (FS) or critical
acceleration (KC). Possible concerns regarding the predictive capability of the finite
element based techniques are discussed.

SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS USING LE METHODS

The simplified Bishop method (1955) is commonly used in geotechnical
engineering practice for conducting LE analyses of slopes. This method yields almost
identical FS results to those that are determined using more rigorous slope stability
limit equilibrium methods, including those that utilize a log spiral failure surface
(e.g., Fredlund and Krahn 1977). In this study, the FE results are compared to LE
analysis results that are determined using the simplified Bishop method, which is
implemented in the LE analysis program ReSSA (ADAMA Engineering Inc. 2010).

SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS USING FE METHODS

Finite element analyses were carried out to assess the seismic stability of slopes
using the commercially available finite element program ABAQUS. These pseudo-
static finite element slope stability analyses were performed using two different
procedures: the gravity-induced method (Swan and Seo 1999) and the strength
reduction technique (Zeinkiewicz et al. 1975). For pseudo-static slope stability
analyses conducted using the gravity-induced method (GIM), there are three stages to
the analysis: (a) Establish the geostatic stress field by first applying a vertical

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1313

gravitational acceleration to the slope, (b) Apply horizontal body force loading
incrementally until the slope collapses, and (c) Calculate the factor of safety for each
of the incremental horizontal loadings and find the horizontal acceleration
corresponding to FS = 1 (Swan and Seo 1999). This acceleration is the critical (yield)
acceleration.
In the strength reduction method (SRM), the shear strength parameters of the slope
material are successively reduced until slope equilibrium can no longer be maintained
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Zeinkiewicz et al. 1975). In this study, the same technique as proposed by Xu et al.
(2009) was utilized to implement the SRM technique into ABAQUS. In this
technique, the Mohr-Coulomb soil strength parameters (c and ϕ ) are defined using a
linearly varying adjustable strength weighting value for the purpose of strength
reduction – in ABAQUS, the “temperature” (θ) strength function was used for this
purpose:
c (θ) = (1 − 0.9 × θ)c′ (1)
ϕ (θ) = tan ((1 − 0.9 × θ)tan(ϕ′)) (2)
It should be noted that, in this approach, the thermal expansion coefficients of the
materials are assumed to be zero; therefore, user induced variations in temperature
will not result in any thermal stresses and strains, but can be used to effectively
reduce the strength of the soil until slope failure occurs. Utilizing these definitions,
the factor of safety as a function of the strength weighting value (“temperature” in
ABAQUS) is defined as (Xu et al. 2009):
1
= (3)
(1 − 0.9 × θ )
Finite element analyses using this technique are performed in five stages: (a)
Establish the geostatic stress field by first applying a vertical gravitational
acceleration to the slope. (b) Apply a test horizontal body force, (c) Increase the
strength weighting factor (“temperature” in ABAQUS) at each node from 0.0 to 1.0.
Using the approach that is described herein, the strength parameters of the soil
material are correspondingly reduced according to Eq. (1) and (2). (d) Calculate the
factor of safety according to the critical value of temperature using Eq. 3. (e) Repeat
steps (b) through (d) for different horizontal body forces to identify the body force
that corresponds to a factor of safety of 1. All the analyses in this study were
performed under plane strain conditions. For the sake of simplicity, no water
pressures were considered in the analyses in this paper. The height of the slope is
assumed to be 20 m. The slopes are inclined at two different slope angles, 2H:1V,
1H:1V (Fig. 1). The finite element mesh was developed using bilinear (4-node)
quadrilateral elements for all cases. The bottom boundary of the model, which
coincides with the firm substratum, was fixed. The lateral boundaries were placed far
enough from the region of the shear zone to avoid any effect on the collapse
mechanism and the FE results. Roller lateral boundaries were considered in the
context of this study (Fig. 1).

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1314

Figure 1. Problem configuration for simple homogeneous slopes

CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In this study, in order for a compatible comparison with the LE results, an elasto-
plastic constitutive model with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was selected to
characterize the behavior of the soil material. There are five parameters that are used
in conjunction with Mohr-Coulomb model, namely: the elastic modulus (E), the
Poisson’s ratio (ν), the friction angle (φ'), the cohesion (c'), and the dilation angle (ψ).
Trial FE analyses indicated that the elastic modulus and the Poisson’s ratio of the soil
have little effect on the value of the collapse seismic load, provided both elastic
parameters lie in a reasonable range. (e.g., Griffiths and Lane 1999, Loukidis et al
2003). It is also generally accepted that dilatancy in slope stability analyses has a
negligible effect as the problem is relatively unconfined (Zienkiewch et al. 1975,
Griffiths and Lane 1999). Therefore, in this study, the value of the elastic modulus,
Poisson’s ratio, and dilation angle were assumed to be 100 MPa, 0.3, and 0.0 degrees,
respectively (e.g., Griffiths and Lane 1999, Xu et al. 2009, and Loukidis et al. 2003).
The unit weight of the soil was assumed to be 20 kN/m3.

DEFINITION OF FAILURE
Since the introduction of the strength reduction technique by Zienkiewicz et al.
(1975), several criteria have been utilized to define the limit state of a slope.
Currently, there are four criteria which are widely utilized to analyze the stability of a
slope using the FE method, (1) non-convergence of the solution, (2) achievement of a
pre-defined equivalent shear strain or plastic strain magnitude along the potential slip
surface, (3) full extension of the plastic zone from the toe to the crest of the slope, and
(4) rapid increase in nodal displacement on the slope surface. It has been reported that
the “non-convergence of the solution” approach cannot be generalized to all cases, as
in some situations it can overestimate the factor of safety due to the dependency that
this criterion has on a numerical algorithm that is used in many FE programs (e.g., Xu
et al 2011, and Chang and Huang 2005). The second approach described above also
has some limitations, as it requires that a pre-defined strain level be established prior
to the analyses, the magnitude of which can be open to debate and judgment between
various users of this method.
The third approach, full extension of the plastic zone from the toe to the crest of a
slope, is another failure criterion which can be used to visually determine the KC
value. In this study, it was observed that the contours of maximum principal plastic
strains initiate from the toe at lower values of acceleration and fully extend at the
critical seismic acceleration, KC. Moreover, this criterion coincides with a rapid
increase in the maximum plastic shear strain (or maximum displacement). Therefore,
in this study, full-extension of the plastic zone from the toe to the crest of the slope
was adopted to define the occurrence of slope failure. The critical accelerations

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1315

obtained from GIM and LE, as a function of c'/γH and angle of shearing resistance φ '
for two different slope angles, 2H:1V and 1H:1V, are shown in Figure 3. For these
two example slopes, the maximum difference between the yield acceleration obtained
from the FE analyses and LE methods is approximately 18%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2H:1V 1H:1V
Figure 3. Comparison of critical acceleration values determined using the FE
and LE approaches

Unlike the gravity-induced technique, obtaining critical acceleration values using

the strength-reduction technique is not straightforward and an iterative procedure is
typically required. To avoid this iterative and time-consuming procedure in this study,
values of KC were determined using the gravity-induced technique, and then
compared to those that were obtained using the LE method. Following this step, each
of these values were used to calculate the FS using the strength reduction technique.
According to the definition of the critical horizontal acceleration, KC, a value of FS,
equal to or close to one is expected from the strength-reduction method. The factor of
safety values associated with the critical acceleration (FS = 1) are calculated using the
SRM and presented in Table 1, for each of the cases that are shown in Fig. 3.
Based on the cases that were analyzed, the maximum difference between the FS
obtained from the FE analyses and LE methods is approximately 18%. Also, it can be
observed that the difference between the results becomes more significant as the
value of cohesion increases. The KC values calculated in this study using both GIM
and SRM showed that, in most cases, the FE slope stability analysis overestimates the
value of the critical acceleration, but usually not by a significant amount. It has been
reported that the KC value calculation depends on the flow rule assumption, and for an
associated flow rule, closer agreement between the failure mechanisms and collapse
loads is expected (Wartman and Strenk 2006). The FE pseudo-static slope stability
analyses in this study, however, showed that the difference between the FE and LE
results could also be attributed to the uncertainties associated with the FE slope
stability analyses, such as uncertainties due to mesh size and shape and interpretation
uncertainties. For instance, Xu et al. (2007) examined the effect of element types on
the resulting values of FS, and concluded that the three-node triangular element is not
a proper element type for use with slope stability analyses. Sensitivity analyses
evaluating the effect of mesh size and shape, however, indicated that the size of the
elements in the mesh also has a substantial effect on the value of the collapse load.

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1316

Table 1. Comparison of the KC from FE and LE analysis

φ c' 2H:1V 1H:1V
Rel Err %
c'/γH LE FE LE FE
Degree kPa
KC FS FS KC FS FS 2H:1V 1H:1V
10.0 0.025 0.050 1 1.02 - - - 2 -
20.0 0.050 0.150 1 1.07 - - - 7 -
20
30.0 0.075 0.235 1 1.11 0.065 1 1.030 11 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40.0 0.100 0.310 1 1.15 0.174 1 1.050 15 5

10.0 0.025 0.235 1 1.09 - - - 9 -
30 20.0 0.050 0.340 1 1.11 0.125 1 1.050 - 5
30.0 0.075 0.420 1 1.14 0.255 1 1.050 - 5
0.1 ≈0.00 0.240 1 1.11 - - - 11 -
40
5.0 0.013 0.355 1 1.10 - - - 10 -
5.0 0.013 - 1 - 0.150 1 1.090 - 9
45 10.0 0.025 - 1 - 0.240 1 1.120 - 12
20.0 0.050 - 1 - 0.385 1 1.140 - 14

In the current study, it was found that the results obtained using three-node
triangular elements could also lead to results which are in a good agreement with the
LE results, a finding which contrasts the conclusions from Xu et al. (2007). More
computational effort was required for meshes comprised of three-node triangular
elements than for meshes having four-node quadrilateral elements. Historically,
square meshes have been shown to have a minimal effect on the geometry of the
failure mechanism for homogeneous simple slopes (Shukha & Baker 2003).
Therefore, in this study, four-node quadrilateral elements were adopted for the FE
slope stability analyses. The results from this study indicate that use of a mesh that is
too fine should be avoided, as fine meshes tend to underestimate the results that are
obtained using FE analysis (as compared to the LE analyses).

DISCUSSION ON THE FAILURE MECHANISM IN FE ANALYSES

In the stability analysis of slopes using the FE method, the failure mechanism is
indicated by a localized zone of intense plastic strain accumulation with the
maximum plastic strain values generally being located at the center of the zone and
nearly zero plastic strains at the edge. For the resulting contours of plastic strain, it
can be assumed that regions with higher values of plastic strain coincide with lower
factors of safety, and vice versa. This analogy between the contours of plastic strain
(the maximum principal plastic strain in this study) from FE analysis and the safety
map from LE analysis has been utilized in previous studies to visualize the failure
mechanism of slopes that are subjected to static loading conditions (Baker and
Leshchinsky 2001, Khosravi and Khabbazian 2012). Figs. 4 and 5 show contours of
maximum principal plastic strains compared with the location of the safety map zone
for two different slope angles, 2H:1V and 1H:1V, respectively. The safety map zone
shown in these figures corresponds to FS values between the critical FS to 1.03 times
the critical FS, in accordance with the recommendations made by Khosravi and
Khabbazian (2012). Since FE slope stability analysis is not restricted by the circular

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1317

arc assumption that is made in LE analysis, the pseudostatic LE critical surface is not
necessarily identical to the line that passes through the maximum values of plastic
strain, as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. However, it is clear that the FE analysis approach
can successfully predict the critical failure zone within a soil mass that corresponds to
failure circles that have factors of safety that are close to one. Moreover, by using a
critical failure zone rather than a critical failure surface, uncertainties associated with
the true magnitude of the strength parameters and the assumed failure mechanism of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the slope are minimized.

o o
KC = 0.200g – 2H:1V, φ' = 20 , c' = 30 kPa KC = 0.310g – 2H:1V, φ' = 20 , c' = 40 kPa
Figure 4. Comparison of safety map and the contours of maximum principal
plastic strains-1V:2H

Of particular concern when using the FE approach for slope stability analysis is the
effect of the associated (where φ = ψ) or non-associated (where ψ = 0) flow rule
formulation on the soil behavior that is predicted by the Mohr-Coulomb elastic-
plastic model, a topic which has been the subject of significant controversy (e.g.,
Griffiths and Lane 1999, Manzari and Nour 2000).

o o
KC = 0.240g – 1H:1V, φ' = 45 , c' = 10 kPa KC = 0.174g – 1H:1V, φ' = 20 , c' = 30 kPa
Figure 5. Comparison of safety map and the contours of
maximum principal plastic strains-1H:1V

Some researchers have observed that the shear zone geometry is affected by
dilatancy, and shear zones in the frictional-cohesive soils with non-associated flow
rule are shallower and less curved than those observed in the associative case
(Loukidis et al. 2003, Wartman and Strenk 2006). In contrast, the failure surfaces
determined using FE analysis are almost identical to those from LE results for the
associative case, where φ = ψ (Wartman and Strenk 2006). Others have argued that,
in slope stability analysis, dilatancy has a negligible effect, as the problem is
relatively unconfined (Ziwnkiewicz et al. 1975, Griffiths and Lane 1999). Moreover,
the critical state of a frictional soil is always accompanied by continuous distortion of

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1318

soil element at no volume change and the assumption of normality is no longer valid.
It has been postulated that this could also lead to less conservative results compared
to those from LE analyses (Manzari and Noor 2000). Although this question is not
resolved here, the pseudo-static slope stability analyses conducted in this study
showed that a safety map failure zone of (1 to 1.03)FS includes the failure surfaces
that are determined using either the non-associated or associative flow rules. The
authors consequently believe that the FE failure zone can be practically considered
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the same as the one rendered by the critical slip surface, and which is therefore
theoretically within the range of the precision of the most rigorous LE methods.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Pseudo-static finite element (FE) slope stability analyses were performed using two
common approaches, the gravity induced method and the strength reduction
technique, to study their capability for accurately predicting the critical acceleration
and identifying the failure surface(s) in slope stability analysis. The FE results were
compared with those obtained from LE analyses conducted using the simplified
Bishop method. The possible uncertainties in pseudo-static FE slope stability analysis
were identified through a detailed review of available literature on this topic. In
conjunction with this literature review, this study also investigated: 1) uncertainties
due to modeling such as the effect of mesh size and mesh type, and 2) uncertainties
due to the effect of material model assumptions, in particular the effect of dilation
angle. The results from this study indicated that the FE mesh type and size can have a
substantial effect on the critical acceleration and its associated failure surface. It was
observed that too fine of a mesh should be avoided in FE slope stability analysis, as it
might yield results that underestimate the critical acceleration. This effect is more
pronounced when a non-convergence solution is utilized to define the critical state of
a slope. It was also found that different mesh types could yield similar results, but
more computational effort might be required to reach the same results as those that
could be achieved from LE analyses. Of the element types considered in this study, a
square-element was found to be the most efficient mesh type for use with pseudo-
static slope stability analysis. It was also concluded that presentation of a critical zone
rather than a single critical failure surface is more realistic in the FE analysis. By
using a failure zone rather than a critical line, uncertainties due to material modeling,
especially those having to do with the nature of the failure mechanism, can be
minimized. The current study was only for homogeneous slopes; the same
conclusions may not apply to non-homogeneous slopes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. CMMI-0844836. This National Science Foundation grant partially
supported the first and the third authors in conjunction with their work on this project.

REFERENCES
ADAMA Engineering Inc. (2010). ReSSA (3.0): Reinforced and Unreinforced Slope
Stability analysis. Newark, DE, USA.

Geo-Congress 2013
 Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1319

Baker, R. and Leshchinsky, D. (2001). "Spatial distribution of safety factors." J. of

Geotechnical and Geoenv. Engrg, Vol. 127 (2): 135-145.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). "The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of earth
slopes." Geotechnique, Vol. 5 (1): 7-17.
Chang, Y. L. and Huang, T. K. (2005). "Slope stability analysis using strength
reduction technique." J. of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 28 (2): 231-240.
Duncan, J. M. (1996). "State of the art: Limit equilibrium and finite element analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 02/13/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of slopes". J. of Geotechnical Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 122 (7): 577-596.

Duncan, J. M. and Wright, S. G. (2005). "Soil Strength and Slope Stability", John
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Fredlund, D. G. and Krahn, J. (1977). "Comparison of slope stability methods of
analysis." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 14 (3): 429-439.
Griffiths, D. V. and Lane, P. A. (1999). "Slope stability analysis by finite elements."
Geotechnique, Vol. 49 (3): 387-403.
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. (2007). ABAQUS User’s Manual, Version 6.7.
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. Pawtucket, RI, USA.
Khosravi, M., Khabbazian, M. (2012). "Presentation of Critical Failure Surface of
Slopes Based on the Finite Element Technique", Proc., GeoCongress 2012: State of
the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 225, Oakland, CA, March 25-29, 2012, ASCE, Reston, VA, 536-545.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering." Prentice Hall, 653 pp.
Loukidis, D., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. (2003). "Stability of seismically loaded
slopes using limit analysis." Geotechnique, Vol. 53 (5): 463-479.
Manzari, M. T. and Nour, M. A. (2000). "Significance of soil dilatancy in slope
stability analysis." J. of Geotechnical and Geoenv. Engrg, Vol. 126 (1): 75-81.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). "Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments."
Geotechnique, Vol. 15 (2): 139-160.
Strenk, P.M. and Wartman, J. (2008). "Validity of the pseudostatic surface
assumption for evaluating seismically induced deformation in slopes." Proc. of
First International FLAC/DEM Symposium on Numerical Modeling, August 25-27.
Shukha, R. and Baker, R. (2003). "Mesh geometry effect on slope stability
calculation by FLAC strength reduction method-linear and non-linear failure
criteria." Proc. of Third International FLAC Symposium on FLAC and Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics, October 21-24.
Swan, C. C. and Seo, Y.-K. (1999). "Limit state analysis of earthen slopes using dual
continuum/FEM approaches." International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 23 (12): 1359-1371.
Xu, Q., Yin, H., Cao, X., and Li, Z. (2009). "Temperature-driven strength reduction
method for slope stability analysis." Mechanics Research Communications, Vol. 36:
224-231.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Humpheson, C., and Lewis, R.W. (1975). "Associated and
nonassociated visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics." Geotechnique, Vol.
25 (4): 671-689.

View publication stats Geo-Congress 2013