Adjustment of The Spectral Pseudo-Static Approach To Account For Soil Plasticity and Seismic Zone

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324847133
Adjustment of the spectral pseudo-static approach to account for soil plasticity

and seismic zone
Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · May 2018

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2017-0414
CITATIONS READS
3 113
5 authors, including:
Mourad Karray Mahmoud N. Hussien

Université de Sherbrooke Université de Sherbrooke
189 PUBLICATIONS 688 CITATIONS 113 PUBLICATIONS 492 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Mohamed Souilem Pascal Locat

Université de Sherbrooke Independent Researcher
2 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 669 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Seismic microzonation of Izmir city considering soil amplification and liquefaction View project
CRS testing on geo-materials View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mourad Karray on 29 June 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Page 1 of 34
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Adjustment of the spectral pseudo-static approach to account for soil

plasticity and zone seismicity
Mourad Karraya, Mahmoud N. Hussiena, Mohamed Souilema, Pascal Locat b, Rémi Mompinb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
b
Ministère des transports du Québec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Mourad Karray1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec,
Canada, Mourad.Karray@USherbrooke.ca
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 05/11/18
Mahmoud N. Hussien. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke,, Sherbrooke,
Québec, Canada, Mahmoud.Nasser.Ahmed@USherbrooke.ca; Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, mahmoudnasser2002@aun.edu.eg
Mohamed Souilem. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke,
Québec, Canada, Mohamed.Souilem@USherbrooke.ca
Pascal Locat. Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’Électrification des transports du Québec, Québec,
Canada, pascal.locat@transports.gouv.qc.ca
Rémi Mompin,. Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’Électrification des transports du Québec, Québec,
Canada, remi.mompin@transports.gouv.qc.ca)
1
Corresponding author
Mourad Karray, ing., Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke (Québec) J1K 2R1, Canada
Tel.: (819) 821-8000 (62120)
Fax: (819) 821-7974
E-mail: Mourad.Karray@Usherbrooke.ca
1
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 2 of 34
Abstract
The concept of the spectral pseudo-static procedure has been developed at the Université de Sherbrooke as an
alternative to the conventional pseudo-static approach for the seismic stability analysis of clayey slopes. The
destabilizing effect of an earthquake is approximated, in the new approach, by an inertial force that
hyperbolically varies with depth while being proportional to the maximum acceleration of the seismic event. Its
results have been rigorously verified against available static and dynamic laboratory tests, and have been
extensively validated by a series of simulations performed using the computer code FLAC. Good agreements
have been achieved between the results of the spectral pseudo-static procedure and complete numerical
analyses, in terms of the computed safety factors and the critical slip surfaces. This implies that the spectral
pseudo-static approach can be integrated into limit equilibrium software available providing a useful tool to
examine the effect of dynamic soil characteristics on the proposed seismic coefficient profiles. The herein-
reported study extends the previous endeavors to examine and quantify the effect of PI (0, 15, 30, 50 and 100%)
on the proposed formula of seismic coefficient profile using the same numerical modelling and assumptions.
Original analyses were carried out considering earthquakes compatible with the seismicity of Québec City
(Zone 4), and they have been repeated in the current study for earthquakes compatible with other regions having
different seismicity (Zones 2, 3, and 5). Based on the results of the current analyses, side-formula were
established between the spectral pseudo-static coefficient on ground surface for any value of soil plasticity index
and the corresponding coefficient originally used in the main formula (PI= 30%).
Keywords: spectral pseudo-static; cohesive soil; plasticity index; seismic zone; failure surface.
2
Page 3 of 34
Résumé
Le concept de la méthode pseudo-statique spectrale a été développé à l'Université de Sherbrooke comme une
alternative à l'approche pseudo-statique conventionnelle pour l'analyse de la stabilité sismique des pentes
argileuses. L'effet déstabilisant d'un séisme est remplacé, dans la nouvelle approche, par une force d'inertie qui
varie hyperboliquement avec la profondeur tout en étant proportionnelle à l'accélération maximale de
l'événement sismique. Ses résultats ont été rigoureusement vérifiés à l’aide d’essais de laboratoire (1g) statiques
et dynamiques disponibles, et ont été largement validés par des séries de simulations effectuées en utilisant le
code informatique FLAC. De bons accords ont été obtenus entre les résultats de la nouvelle procédure pseudo-
statique spectrale et les analyses dynamiques complètes, en termes de facteurs de sécurité et de surfaces de
glissement critiques. Cela implique que l'approche pseudo-statique spectrale peut être intégrée dans un logiciel
basé sur l'équilibre limite, fournissant un outil utile pour examiner l'effet des caractéristiques dynamiques du sol
sur les profils de coefficients sismiques proposés. L'étude rapportée ici étend les efforts précédents pour
examiner et quantifier l'effet de l’indice de plasticité IP (0, 15, 30, 50 et 100%) sur la formule proposée de profil
de coefficient sismique en utilisant la même modélisation numérique et hypothèses. Des analyses originales ont
été réalisées en tenant compte des tremblements de terre compatibles avec la sismicité de Québec (Zone 4),
répétées dans la présente étude pour les séismes compatibles avec d'autres régions de sismicité différente (zones
2, 3 et 5). Sur la base des résultats des analyses actuelles, des formules ont été établies entre le coefficient
pseudo-statique spectral à la surface du sol pour toute valeur d'indice de plasticité du sol et le coefficient
correspondant initialement utilisé dans la formule principale (IP = 30%).
Mots-clés: pseudo-statique spectral; sol cohésif; indice de plasticité; zone sismique; surface d'échec
3
Introduction
The pseudo-static slope stability procedures are extensively implemented in engineering
practice to assess the likely seismic performance of both natural and engineered slopes. It has
been proved that these procedures are more convenient, substantially less expensive, and less
time-consuming compared to other rigorous stress–deformation finite element (FE) or finite

differences (FD) approaches. The pseudo-static factor of safety (FS) is fundamentally
calculated by a limit equilibrium (LE) procedure in which the irritating effects of an
earthquake is approximated by static horizontal and vertical inertial forces applied to the
centroid of the potentially sliding mass of soil. These forces are respectively the product of a
horizontal (kh) and a vertical (kv) seismic coefficients (i.e., the horizontal and the vertical
components of the overall seismic coefficient, k) and the weight of the soil mass prone to
failure. The pseudo-static procedure is different from the pseudo-dynamic method in which
the horizontal and the vertical earthquake accelerations are generally represented by uniform
vibrations with or without phase shift between these two. Compared to pseudo-dynamic and
stress–deformation FE or FD approaches, the pseudo-static analysis is relatively simple and
straightforward, what makes its computations easy to understand and perform by
geotechnical engineers. However, it cannot provide a reliable evaluation of the seismic
stability of slopes, as its results are substantially dependent on the selection of the seismic
coefficient. Moreover, the representation of the complex effects of an earthquake by a single,
permanent, unidirectional body force is obviously quite crude. In fact, the dynamic response
of a slope substantially depends on its geometry, stiffness and on the dynamic characteristics
(i.e., amplitude and frequency content) of the ground motion. For example, the lateral
displacement field throughout the potential failure mass will be generally in phase in
relatively stiff slopes subjected to low-frequency ground motions and thus the approximation
of the pseudo-static approach with respect to the representation of the earthquake effect by a
4
Page 5 of 34
unidirectional single force appears to be quite acceptable. On the other hand, lateral
displacements of slopes subjected to motions rich in high-frequency components might be out
of phase. In other words, the inertial forces generated at different points within the failure
mass would be acting in opposite directions and the resultant inertial force might be
substantially less than the imposed pseudo-static force which implies that the pseudo-static
procedure is very conservative (Bray and Travasarou (2009); Kramer (1996), Meehan and
Vahedifard (2013); Steedman and Zeng (1990)). For these particular reasons, clayey slopes
are generally failed in pseudo-static stability analyses (i.e., produce factors of safety less than
1), and the corresponding failure surfaces are entirely prevailed by the thickness of the
cohesive layer (Karray et al. 2018).
As an alternative to the conventional pseudo-static approach, the concept of the spectral
pseudo-static procedure has been developed at the Université de Sherbrooke in collaboration
with the Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’Électrification des transports
du Québec, Québec, Canada (Ghobrial et al. 2015) for the analyses of seismic stability of
clayey slopes. The development of the spectral pseudo-static procedure was primarily based
on detailed static, dynamic, and conventional pseudo-static analyses using the two-
dimensional (2D) explicit finite-differences (FD) program, FLAC (Itasca, 2007). Rigorous
examinations of the obtained results showed that the assumption of replacing the earthquake
effect by a unidirectional force with a variable seismic coefficient over the depth would
substantially improve the pseudo-static results. Several seismic coefficient profiles (i.e.,
coefficient variations with the soil depth) have been tested. However, the hyperbolic profile
of the seismic coefficient has been found to produce factors of safety and failure surfaces
very similar to that obtained from complete dynamic analyses (Ghobrial et al. 2015) or
observed in laboratory experimentations (Karray et al. (2018); Karray et al. (2017);
Ozkahriman (2009)). This means that the modified (spectral) pseudo-static approach can be
5
integrated into available limit equilibrium software providing a useful tool to examine the
effect of dynamic soil characteristics (mainly plasticity index, PI in cohesive soil as it is well-
known that it has a direct impact on the degradation of the soil secant shear modulus and its
damping ratio) on the shape of the seismic coefficient profile. In fact, effects of soil plasticity
on the dynamic response of geotechnical system including natural and artificial slopes have
been discussed in literature (Figini et al. (2012); Mayoral et al. (2015); Rizzitano et al.
(2014); Fatahi et Tabatabaiefar (2012)), and the herein-reported study extends the previous
endeavors (Karray et al. 2018) to examine and quantify the effect of PI on the proposed
formula of seismic coefficient variation with depth using the same numerical modelling and
assumptions. Same geometries and thicknesses of slopes and soil deposits have been also
considered. Different values of plasticity indices of 0, 15, 30, 50 and 100% have been used.
Analyses were carried out first considering an earthquake compatible with the seismicity of
Québec City (Zone 4), then they were repeated for earthquakes compatible with other regions
having different seismicity (Zones 2, 3, and 5). These analyzes aim to examine the effect of
the PI and the seismic zone on the spectral pseudo-static concept, and to decide whether it is
necessary to apply additional modifications to the developed concept to broaden its
applicability. The applicability of the FD model adopted in this study to analyze the static and
dynamic stabilities of clayey slopes has been extensively discussed in (Karray et al. 2018)
based on available laboratory data (Ozkahriman 2009) on static and dynamic slope stabilities.
Numerical modelling
The 2D explicit FD computer code FLAC (Itasca 2007) has been employed in this study to
perform a comprehensive parametric study on spectral pseudo-static and dynamic stabilities
analyses of clayey slopes. Two different homogeneous clayey slopes: 1.75H:1V and 3H:1V
overlying 10 and 20-meter thick homogeneous clay foundation layers underlain by bedrock
6
Page 7 of 34
were considered. Figure 1 shows the basic characteristics (i.e., dimensions, boundaries, and
meshing) of the slope under investigation. Quadrilateral soil elements were used since they
are less prone to strain concentration. Quiet lateral boundaries were set at a horizontal
distance of 150 m from the toe and the crest of the slope so that reflected artificial waves may
be sufficiently damped and their influence in the slope response is minimized. The readers
are referred to (Karray et al. 2018) for the procedure adopted to select the dimension of the
numerical model (i.e. the distances between both the crest and the toe of the slope and the
lateral boundaries of the mesh).
Different values of soil plasticity indices of 0, 15, 30, 50 and 100% have been adopted.
These values were deliberately selected to represent a wide range of soil plasticity and they
coincide with the values of PI used earlier by Vucetic and Dobry (1991). Variations of soil
damping and secant shear modulus (G) with shear strain were modelled using the soil
constitutive model SIG4 , available in the FLAC library, capped by the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criteria and adjusted according to the experimental curves suggested by Vucetic and
Dobry (1991). More specifically, the sigmoidal model parameters were adjusted according to
the damping-shear strain curves provided by Vucetic and Dobry (1991) at different plasticity
indices, and the adjustment/fitted parameters are presented in Table 1, while Figs. 2a and 2b
respectively present the considered variations of soil shear modulus and damping ratio with
the induced shear strain (γc%) at different values of soil plasticity indices. Corresponding
curves suggested by Vucetic and Dobry (1991) are plotted in Fig. 2 as references. The Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion has been adopted to describe the behavior of the cohesive soil
under different loadings. The slope and the underlying deposit, shown in Fig. 1, are sub-
divided into 1- m thick sub-layers with constant properties assigned to each sub-layer.
Typical parameters of the Mohr-Coulomb model are: the density, ρ, the cohesion, c, the
friction angle, φ = 0, the elastic modulus, E, and the Poisson's ratio, ν. The Poisson's ratio of
7
the clayey soil was selected at 0.45 assuming an undrained response of the soil during
loading. The undrained strength, Su of the first sub-layer was selected at 25 kPa and increased
downward. Different rates of increases (∆Su) as shown in Fig. 3 have been considered in this
study, namely ∆Su = 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5-kPa/sub-layer. Additional analyses have been also
performed with ∆Su of 5-kPa/5-m for comparison. The later slope stability analyses (∆Su of 5-
kPa/5-m) have been performed only for soil with plasticity index of 30%. Field data obtained
from St-Adelphe site (Karray et al. 2017) added to Fig. 3 generally falls within the variation
range suggested in this study. The maximum shear modulus, Gmax of the soil were evaluated
according to the value of the undrained shear strength, Su following the correlations suggested
by Locat and Beauséjour (1987):
Gmax = 0.379 Su1.05 (1)
Three different values of soil unit weight of 1.65, 1.70, and 1.75 t/m3 have been
respectively adopted for the three considered ∆Su of 1.5 kPa/m and 5 kPa/5 m, and 2.5-
kPa/m; and the corresponding profiles of Vs are then derived using the elastic relationship
between the Gmax and Vs; Gmax = ρVs2 . Input parameters of the Mohr-Coulomb model used in
this study were determined from the different undrained shear strength profiles presented in
Fig 3.
The FD analyses were performed in two stages. In the first stage (self-weight analysis),
the soil was assumed elastic and in situ stresses were initialized in the soil deposit due to its
own weight. During the second stage of analysis (dynamic analysis), the actual properties of
the soil were assigned. Analyses were carried out first considering an earthquake (Synthetic 1
(Atkinson, 2009) compatible with the seismicity of Québec City (Zone 4) (Fig. 4), then they
were repeated for earthquakes compatible with other regions having different seismicity
(Zones 2, 3, and 5) (Figs. 4 and 5).
8
Page 9 of 34
For all state of analyses except for the dynamic state, side boundary displacements were
fixed in the horizontal direction, while those at the bottom boundary were fixed in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. In the dynamic analyses, quiet boundary conditions were
adopted to avoid spurious wave reflections at the boundaries and thus simulate the effect of
an infinite elastic medium surrounding the analyzed model. The dimension of the soil
element limits the value of the highest frequency, which is transferable. For this reason, the
vertical dimension of a soil element ( h ) follows (Matthees and Magiera 1982):
1 V′ 
h≤  s  (2)
5  f max 
where f max is the highest excitation frequency used in the analyses, f max = 10 Hz and Vs′ is the
shear wave velocity expected after the decline of the shear modulus, G due to soil
nonlinearity and can be related to the initial shear wave velocity Vs by:
2
 G   Vs′  1
 =  = (3)
 Gmax   Vs  10
1/10 is a typical reduction factor of the shear modulus in a range of 1–10% on the strain
dependent shear modulus curve.
Numerical results and discussion
The strength reduction procedure has been adopted in this study to determine the static and
the dynamic global factor of safety in all cases considered. The main idea of the procedure is
to initiate a systematic search for the value of the reduction factor (i.e., the factor of safety) of
the soil-undrained resistance that will bring the slope to fail. For a given analysis, the
calculations are repeated several times with different values of soil shear strength, and the
relative horizontal displacement between two arbitrary points (typically, at the slope toe and
the corresponding point at the bedrock) is noted and plotted as a function of the applied
9
strength reduction factor. The equivalent factor of safety can be then determined from this
plot as the reduction factor corresponding to the general plastification (i.e., the significant and
sudden variation in the relative horizontal displacement). Further details on the determination
of the dynamic factor of safety from relative displacement-strength reduction factor curves
can be found in (Karray et al. 2018). The static FD stability analyses of both clayey slopes
considered in this study have been performed first and the static safety factors have been
calculated using the strength reduction procedure. The same procedure has been also adopted
in the calculation of the spectral pseudo-static safety factors. An important element to be
verified is the overall applicability of the spectral pseudo-static procedure with the variation
of the soil plasticity indices. To do so, two primary aspects must be carefully evaluated. One
refers to the calculated values of the spectral pseudo-static safety factor, and the other is the
formation of the failure surfaces and their compatibility with those obtained from complete
dynamic analyses. These two aspects have to be examined for all cases and values of soil
plasticity indices considered, and it seems necessary to propose correction factors of the
spectral seismic coefficient according to soil plasticity.
The height-normalized relative displacement (an approximation of the soil shear strain,
γ%)-reduction factor curves of the dynamic analyses of 1.75H:1V (having a slope height = 10
m, a deposit thickness = 10 m, ∆Su = 1.5 kPa/m) and 3H:1V (having a slope height = 10 m, a
deposit thickness = 20 m, ∆Su = 2.5 kPa/m) slopes are respectively presented in Figs. 6a and
6b for different values of plasticity indices of 0, 15, 30, 50 and 100%. Relative displacement-
reduction curves from static FD stability analyses of both clayey slopes are also presented in
Figs. 6a and 6b. Table 2 presents the values of the safety factors estimated by the procedure
provided by (Karray et al. 2018). Figure 6 and Table 2 show that the dynamic safety factors
are significantly lower than the corresponding static factor of safety and they are greatly
influenced by the soil plasticity. Figures 6a and 6b indicate that the safety factor varies
10
Page 11 of 34
between 1.287 to 1.183 for the 1.75H:1V slope (Fig. 6a) and between 1.807 to 1.656 for the
3H:1V slope (Fig. 6b) for PI ranges between 0 to 100%. These results are in accordance with
what can be inferred from the experimental results reported earlier by Vucetic and Dobry
(1991) and Zhang et al. (2005), among others. For example, Vucetic and Dobry (1991)
showed that the increase in the plasticity index is associated with a less tendency of the secant
modulus, G, to degrade, which means that for a given Gmax of a deposit, the higher the
plasticity index, the greater the amplification of the seismic event. It is therefore logic, for a
given slope geometry, to expect that the values of the factor of safety against slope failure,
decrease with the increase in the plasticity index.
Failure surfaces (i.e., rapture zones correspond to the localization of soil shear strain)
corresponding to safety factors shown in Figs. 6a and 6b are respectively presented in Figs. 7
and 8. In particular, Figs. 7a and 8a display failure surfaces obtained from the static slope
stability analyses, while Figs. 7b-f and 8b-f compare the failure surfaces obtained from the
spectral pseudo-static limit equilibrium analyses to those obtained from the corresponding
complete dynamic analyses at different values of soil plasticity index for the 1.75H:1V and
3H:1V slopes, respectively. The spectral pseudo-static analyses were conducted using the
same conditions of the static analyses but assuming variable seismic coefficient over the
whole depth [Karray et al. (2018)–9]:
k h ( z ) = k h 0 1 + 2( z / H t ) 2  (4)
where kh 0 is the seismic coefficient at the bedrock (initial value); Ht is the total height of the
slope and the thickness of the clay deposit; and z represents the variation of the height
measured from the presumed bedrock. The values of the pseudo-static coefficients (at the
bedrock and at the ground surface) that produce spectral pseudo-static safety factors close to
those calculated by the complete dynamic analysis are presented to the right of each graph in
11
Figs. 7b-f and 8b-f. The comparison between the spectral pseudo-static failure surfaces with
the localized shear strain surfaces directly plotted from the complete dynamic analyses shows
that although the variation of the soil plasticity index has a direct impact on the seismic
coefficients values at the base and the surface, it has no practical effect on the principle of the
developed spectral pseudo-static approach. More specifically, no major modification of the

developed procedure should be applied before its generalization to wider range of cohesive
soils. Figures 7b-f and 8b-f show also that there are excellent coherences between the failure
surfaces determined from the dynamic analysis based on a rigorous stress–deformation FD
approach with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and those obtained from the spectral pseudo-
static limit equilibrium analyses adopted in the current study. For all combination of slope
geometry and soil plasticity considered, the limit equilibrium procedure assuming variable
seismic coefficient over the whole depth (Eq. 4) produces both safety factors and failure
surfaces that are very close to those resulted from the rigorous FD dynamic analyses.
Besides, the spectral pseudo-static method was originally developed using a soil model
where shear strength increases by a rate of 5 kPa/5 m downward. This configuration was
believed to correspond to the most unfavourable situations in the evaluation of the failure
surface under pseudo-static conditions. The above discussion treated the impact of the
plasticity index on the seismic coefficient using the same increase rate of the soil shear
strength. However, in order to properly generalize the spectral pseudo-static approach, it is
necessary to examine the dependency of the seismic coefficient values on the change of the
soil strength profiles (i.e., different ∆Su). It is therefore decided to investigate the effect of the
plasticity index on the seismic coefficient profiles for different values ∆Su of 1.5 kPa/m, 2
kPa/m and 2.5 kPa/m. The analyses were carried out for deposit heights of 10 and 20 m, and
for PI of 0, 15, 30, 50, and 100%. Variations of the spectral pseudo-static coefficient at the
ground surface with the soil plasticity index and the deposit height are plotted in Figs. 9-11
12
Page 13 of 34
for soil shear strength increase rate of 1.5 kPa/m, 2 kPa/m and 2.5 kPa/m, respectively. In
Figs. 9-11, the at-surface seismic coefficients at different PI of 0, 15, 30, 50, and 100% are
normalized by the corresponding coefficient at PI of 30% (the value of the PI at which the
spectral pseudo-static method has been originally developed (Karray et al. 2018). The
standard deviations are also shown in Figs. 9-11. The general trends in Figs. 9-11 indicate
that the seismic coefficient nonlinearly increases with the increase in the plasticity index.
This increase does not appear to be significantly affected by the rate of the change of the
shear strength profile. However, the effect of PI appears to decrease with the decrease in the
slope inclination. It should be noted that these results pertaining to analyses carried out
considering earthquakes compatible with the seismicity zones 2-3 to 5 and for a deposit
consisting of clay having the same plasticity index. The trends shown in Figs. 9-11 are also
expressed mathematically and the corresponding equations are shown in the same figures.
These equations are not always conservative and should not be directly used in the design.
Instead, different values of the at-surface pseudo-static coefficient at different plasticity
indexes using the values of their counterparts originally calculated at PI of 30% are proposed
in Figs. 9-11. These values are conservative and can be satisfactory used in the design.
The normalized relative displacement-reduction factor curves of 1.75H:1V (PI = 30%)
and 3H:1V (PI = 0%) slopes generated from dynamic analyses considering earthquakes
compatible with the seismicity zones 2-3, 4, and 5 are respectively presented in Figs. 12a and
12b. These figures show in both slopes considered that the safety factors estimated by the
procedure provided by (Karray et al. 2018) decreases with the increase of the seismic stress
(seismic zone).
The comparison between the failure surfaces (i.e., rapture zones correspond to the
localization of soil shear strain) determined using the complete dynamic analyses and those
obtained from the spectral pseudo-static using limit equilibrium analyses at different
13
seismicity zones is important to assess the effect of the change of the seismic zone on the
developed procedure. Figure 13 presents comparisons between the spectral pseudo-static and
the dynamic failure surfaces of 1.75H:1V slope and a 10-m height soil deposit and a PI of
30%, obtained from the analyses of 3 regions of Québec (zones 2-3 to 5). Each plot in Fig. 13
corresponds to different seismic zone. The results shown in Fig. 13 indicate that the change in
the seismic zone has no practical effect on the principle of the developed spectral pseudo-
static approach which is very successful in predicting yield surfaces that are very close to
those obtained from the complete FD analyses in term of both the failure shape and its
location.
The results presented in Figs. 12 and 13 and the abundant recommendation in the relevant
literature infer that the change of the seismic zone generally produces a variation in the
pseudo-static coefficients. Thus it is expected that seismic zones lower than those in the
Québec City region (used to develop the pseudo-static spectral method) should have lower
seismic coefficients, and those of higher seismicity levels should have higher values.
However, the problem is more complicated because of the dependency of the slope dynamic
response on its geometry and the dynamic characteristics of the earthquake events. In order to
develop direct correlation or construct some charts to account for the effect of the seismic
zone, several simulations have been carried out on both the 1.75H:1V and 3H:1V slopes, and
for deposit heights of 10 m and 20 m using different earthquakes compatible with four
regions in the province of Québec (Québec city, Montreal, Tadoussac, Granbay, Sherbrooke,
La Tuque, St-Georges de Cacouna and Trois-Rivières). The analyses were carried out for the
plasticity indices of 0, 15, 30, 50 and 100% and for shear strength profiles which increased
downward by 1.5 kPa/m, 2 kPa/m, and 2.5 kPa/m. Additional analyses have been also
performed with ∆Su of 5-kPa/5-m only for soil with PI of 30%. Figures14a and 14b present
the variation of the at-surface pseudo-static coefficient with the spectral acceleration
14
Page 15 of 34
determined at the fundamental period (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) of the soil deposition for 1.75H:1V
and 3H:1V slopes, respectively. It should be noted that the spectral acceleration (Sa) has been
adopted in this study as a basis for the calculation of the effect of the change in the seismic
zone on the evaluation of the pseudo-static coefficient. Figures14a and 14b show that the
pseudo-static coefficient nonlinearly increases with the spectral acceleration (i.e., depending
on seismic zone and deposit thickness) at different values of PI and different shear strength
profiles. In Figs.14a and 14b, proposed conservative/design values of the at-surface pseudo-
static coefficient at PI of 30% and at different seismic zones are provided.
It is interesting to mention that Fig.14 is very helpful in the design of clayey slopes using
the new developed (spectral) pseudo static approach. Instead of using typical values of
pseudo static coefficients provided in national codes or regulations according the seismic
zone, on can more precisely determine the pseudo static coefficient at the surface of a slope
before conducting the spectral pseudo static analysis from Figs. 14a and 14b as follow:
(i). Given the slope dimension (i.e., the spectral acceleration at the fundamental mode)
and its location (seismic zone), the at-surface pseudo-static coefficient at PI = 30%
can be determined from Fig. 14a and 14b for the 1.75H:1V and 3H:1V slopes,
respectively.
(ii). Using the value at PI = 30% given in the first step, the at-surface pseudo-static
coefficient at any PI from 0 to 100% can be determined from Figs. 9-11 according to
the undrained shear strength considered.
Conclusions
This paper corroborates the ongoing effort of the development of the spectral pseudo-static
approach. The herein-reported study extends the previous endeavours to examine and
quantify the effect of PI (0, 10, 30, 50, and 100%) on the proposed formula of seismic
15
coefficient variation with depth using the same numerical modelling and assumptions.
Analyses were carried out first considering an earthquake compatible with the seismicity of
Québec City (Zone 4), then they have been repeated for earthquakes compatible with other
regions having different seismicity (Zones 2, 3, and 5). Based on the results of the current
analyses, side-formula were established between the spectral pseudo-static coefficient on

ground surface for any value of soil plasticity index and the corresponding coefficient
originally used in the main formula (%PI= 30%). Furthermore, the seismic coefficient was
found nonlinearly increases with the increasing of the spectral acceleration at the fundamental
period of the deposit Sa (T0). A relation between the spectral pseudo static coefficient on
surface and the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the deposit was thus
established.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to le Ministère des Transports, de la
Mobilité Durable et de l’Électrification des Transports for supporting this research.
16
Page 17 of 34
References
Atkinson, G. M. 2009. Earthquake time histories compatible with the 2005 National building code of
Canada uniform hazard spectrum. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2009, 36(6): 991-1000,
10.1139/L09-044.
Bray JD, Travasarou T. 2009. Pseudostatic coefficient for use in simplified seismic slope stability
evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, 135(9): 1336–1340.
Fatahi, B. and Tabatabaiefar, S.H.R. 2014. Fully nonlinear versus equivalent linear computation method for
seismic analysis of midrise buildings on soft soils. International Journal of Geomechanics, 14(4).
Figini, R., Paolucci, R., and Chatzigogos, C.T. 2012. A macro-element model for non-linear soil–shallow
foundation–structure interaction under seismic loads: theoretical development and experimental

validation on large scale tests. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 41: 475–493. doi:10.1002/eqe.1140.
Ghobrial, F.; Karray, M.; Delisle, M.-C., and Ledoux, C. 2015. Development of Spectral Pseudo-Static
Method for Dynamic Clayey Slope Stability Analysis. 68th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Itasca 2007. FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Version 6. User’s Manual. Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Karray, M., Hussien, M.N., Delisle, M.C., and Ledoux, C. 2018. Framework to assess the pseudo-static
approach for the seismic stability of clayey slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0383
Karray, M., Souilem M., Ghobrial F., and Hussien, M.N. 2017. Développement de la méthode pseudo-
statique spectrale pour l’analyse de stabilité dynamique des talus argileux. Report No. Geo-02-17.
Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. USA: Prentice-Hall.
Locat, J., and Beausejour, N. 1987. Corrélations entre des propriétés mécaniques dynamiques et statiques de
sols argileux intacts et traités à la chaux. Can Geotech J; 24:327–34.
Matthees, W., and Magiera, G.A 1982. sensitivity study of seismic structure-soil-structure interaction
problems for nuclear power plants. Nuclear Eng Des; 73(3):343–363.
Mayoral, J.M., Castañon, E., and Sarmiento, N. 2015. Seismic response of high plasticity clays during
extreme events. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 77: 203-207.
Meehan, C.L., and Vahedifard, F. 2013. Evaluation of simplified methods for predicting earthquake-
induced slope displacements in earth dams and embankments. Engineering Geology, 152: 180–193.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.10.016.
Ozkahriman, F. 2009. Physical and numerical dynamic response modeling of slopes and embankments.
Ph.D thesis, Drexel University.
Rizzitano, S., Cascone, E., and Biondi, G. 2014. Coupling of topographic and stratigraphic effects on
seismic response of slopes through 2D linear and equivalent linear analyses. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 67: 66-84
Steedman, R.S., and Zeng, X. 1990. The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth
pressure on a retaining wall. Géotechnique 40 (1), 103 – 112.
Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R. 1991. Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 117(1): 89-107.
Zhang, J., Andrus, R.D., and Juang, C.H. 2005. Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio
Relationships, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 4.
17
Figure captions
Fig. 1: Dimensions, boundaries, and meshing of the slope under consideration.
Fig. 2: Considered trends of G/Gmax versus γc and damping versus γc curves with different soil
plasticity.
Fig. 3: The assumed undrained shear strength profiles considered in the analyses.
Fig. 4: Synthetic accelerogram compatible with the seismicity of Quebec City (Zone 4) used
in the dynamic analysis: (a) acceleration spectra; (b) accelerogram from Atkinson (2009) [18]
data base for magnitude of 7 (Synthetic 1).
Fig. 5: Spectral accelerations of synthetic and real earthquake considered that are compatible
with: (a) the seismicity of zone 5 regions (Synthetic 2 [18]), and zone 2-3 regions.
Fig. 6: Normalized relative displacement-reduction factor curves versus the for the slope: (a)
1.75H:1V and (a) 3H:1V.
Fig. 7: Comparison between failure surfaces obtained from the static and dynamic analyses
and those obtained from the spectral pseudo-static analyses (kh(z) = variable) using the limit
equilibrium method for the slope 1.75H :1V with slope height = 10 m and deposit height = 10
m, (∆Su=1.5kPa/1m): a) static, b) PI=0%, c) PI=15%, d) PI= 30%, e) PI=50%, and f)
PI=100%.
Fig. 8: Comparison between failure surfaces obtained from the static and dynamic analyses
and those obtained from the spectral pseudo-static analyses (kh(z) = variable) using the limit
equilibrium method for the slope 3H :1V with slope height = 10 m and deposit height = 20 m,
(∆Su=2.5kPa/m): a) static, b) PI=0%, c) PI=15%, d) PI= 30%, e) PI=50%, and f) PI=100%.
Fig. 9: Variations of the spectral pseudo-static coefficient with the soil plasticity index and
the deposit height at ∆Su = 1.5 kPa/m for zones 2-3, 4, and 5, for a slope of: (a) 1.75H:1V
and (b) 3H: 1V.
and (b) 3H: 1V.
and (b) 3H: 1V.
Fig. 12: Relative displacement curves versus the reduction factor for a slope inclination of :
(a) 1.75H: 1V (PI = 30%) and (b) 3H:1V (PI = 0%).
Fig. 13: Comparison between failure surfaces obtained from the dynamic analyses and those
obtained from the spectral pseudo-static analyses (kh(z) = variable) using the limit
equilibrium method for the slope 1.75H:1V with slope height = 10 m and deposit height = 10
m, (∆Su=5kPa/5m): a) Zone 2-3, b) Zone 4, and c) Zone 5.
18
of 20 m.
19
determined at the fundamental period of the soil deposition: (a) Depth of 10 m and (b) Depth
Fig. 14: Variation of the at-surface pseudo-static coefficient with the spectral acceleration
Elevation (m)
0
10
20
30
40
-160
Quiet boundary
-140
Shear resistance, τ (kPa)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
-1.2
-120
-0.8
-0.4
0
-100
Hysteresis loops
0.4
Shear straine, γ (%)

0.8
-80
1.2
∆x=0.5 m
-60
-40
Capped by
failure criteria
Mohr-Coulomb
0.5m< ∆x <1 m
-20
1V
0
1.75 or 3 H
20
Distance (m)
1m
40
1m
60
80
100
Fig. 1: Dimensions, boundaries, and meshing of the slope under consideration.

120
140
160
Bedrock
Quiet boundary
180
Page 20 of 34
Page 21 of 34
1
0.8
0.6
G/Gmax
0.4 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) PI = 100 %

SIG 4 models used in
this study PI = 50 %
0.2 PI = 30 %
PI = 15 %
a) Degradation curves PI = 0 %
0
30
b) Damping curves
25 PI = 0 %
Damping, ξ(%)
PI = 15 %
20
PI = 30 %
15 PI = 50 %
PI = 100 %
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain, γ (%)
Fig. 2: Considered trends of G/Gmax versus γc and damping versus γc curves with different soil
plasticity.
Undrained shear resistance, Su (kPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
∆Su=1.5 kPa/m (5m layers)
5 ∆Su=2.5 kPa/m (1m layers)
St-Adelphe FS-7 [7]
St-Adelphe FS-8 [7]
10
Depth (m)
15
20
25
30
Fig. 3: The assumed undrained shear strength profiles considered in the analyses.
Page 23 of 34
1
ξ=5% Quebec city (Classe A) - CNBC 2005

Quebec city (Classe A) - CNBC 2010
0.8 Quebec city (Classe A) - CNBC 2015
Montreal city (Classe A) - CNBC 2015
Synthetic - Atkinson (2009) [18]
Spectral acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
a)
0
2
3
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1 1
Period (sec)
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
b) Synthetic - Atkinson (2009)
-0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
Fig. 4: Synthetic accelerogram compatible with the seismicity of Quebec City (Zone 4) used in
the dynamic analysis: (a) acceleration spectra; (b) accelerogram from Atkinson (2009) data base
for magnitude of 7 (Synthetic 1).
1.4
St-Georges de Cacouna (Classe A) - CNBC 2015
St-Georges de Cacouna (Classe A) - CNBC 2005
1.2
Tadoussac (Classe A) - CNBC 2015
Tadoussac (Classe A) - CNBC 2005
Spectral acceleration Sa(g)
1 Synthetic - Atkinson (2009) [18]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
a) Zone - 5
0
0.4
Granby (Classe A) - CNBC 2015
Granby (Classe A) - CNBC 2005
Sherbrooke (Classe A) - CNBC 2015
0.3 Sherbrooke (Classe A) - CNBC 2005
Spectral acceleration Sa(g)
LaTuque (Classe A) - CNBC 2015

LaTuque (Classe A) - CNBC 2005
Seismic signal from Saguenay 1988
earthquake recorded at Québec city
0.2
0.1
b) Zone - 2-3
0
0.7
4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.1 1
Period, T (sec)
Fig. 5: Spectral accelerations of synthetic and real earthquake considered that are compatible
with: (a) the seismicity of zone 5 regions (Synthetic 2) (Atkinson 2009), and zone 2-3 regions.
Page 25 of 34
Reduction factor ~ Safety factor Reduction factor ~ Safety factor

0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2
-0.2 -0.2
100 % < PI < 0 % 100 % < PI < 0 % F.Sstatic
F.SDynamic F.Sstatic F.SDynamic
0 0
Maximum displacement (toe) / Ht (%)
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.4
Static Static
0.6 PI = 0 % PI = 0 % 0.6
PI = 15 % PI = 15 %
0.8 PI = 30 % 0.8
PI = 30 %
PI = 50%
1 PI = 50 % 1
PI = 100 %
PI = 100 %
1.2 1.2
Zone 4 (Québec city) Zone 4 (Québec city)
1.4 a) Slope 1.75H:1V - ∆Su = 1.5kPa/m Slope Height : 10 m b) Slope 3H:1V - ∆Su = 2.5kPa/m Slope Height : 10 m
1.4
Deposit thikness : 10 m Deposit thikness : 20 m
1.6 1.6
Fig. 6: Relative displacement curves versus the reduction factor for the slope: (a) 1.75H:1V and
(a) 3H:1V.
al use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version Page 26 of 34
40
a) Static khsurface=0.0965 d) Dynamic - PI = 30 %

Elevation (m)
30
Spectral pseudo-static -
20 kh(z) limit equilibrium
analysis
10
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Shear strain scale (%)
4 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0
kh0=0.0322 Shear strain scale (%)
0
40
khsurface=0.083 b) Dynamic - PI = 0 % khsurface=0.113 e) Dynamic - PI = 50 %
Elevation (m)
30
kh(z) limit equilibrium
analysis
analysis
10
kh0=0.0276 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
kh0=0.0377
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Shear strain scale (%) Shear strain scale (%)
0
40
khsurface=0.0918 c) Dynamic - PI = 15 % khsurface=0.127 f) Dynamic - PI = 100 %
Elevation (m)
30
Spectral pseudo-static - Spectral pseudo-static -
kh(z) limit equilibrium
analysis analysis
10
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Fig. 7: Comparison between failure surfaces obtained from the static and dynamic analyses and those obtained from the spectral pseudo-
static analyses (kh(z) = variable) using the limit equilibrium method for the slope 1.75H :1V with slope height = 10 m and deposit height =
10 m, (∆Su=1.5kPa/1m): a) static, b) PI=0%, c) PI=15%, d) PI= 30%, e) PI=50%, and f) PI=100%.
al use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version
Page 27 of 34
40
a) Static khsurface=0.090 d) Dynamic - PI = 30 %
Elevation (m)
30
20
kh(z)
10 Shear strain scale (%) Spectral pseudo-static - Shear strain scale (%)
4 3.2 2.4 1.6 0.8 0 limit equilibrium 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
kh0=0.030 analysis
0
40
b) Dynamic - PI = 0 % khsurface=0.102 e) Dynamic - PI = 50 %
khsurface=0.068
Elevation (m)
30
20
kh(z) kh(z)
10 limit equilibrium
limit equilibrium
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
kh0=0.0227 analysis kh0=0.034 analysis
0
40
khsurface=0.075 c) Dynamic - PI = 15 % khsurface=0.111 f) Dynamic - PI = 100 %
Elevation (m)
30
20
kh(z) kh(z)
10 limit equilibrium
limit equilibrium
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
kh0=0.025 analysis kh0=0.037 analysis
0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Distance (m) Distance (m)
Fig. 8: Comparison between failure surfaces obtained from the static and dynamic analyses and those obtained from the spectral pseudo-
static analyses (kh(z) = variable) using the limit equilibrium method for the slope 3H :1V with slope height = 10 m and deposit height = 20 m,
(∆Su=2.5kPa/m): a) static, b) PI=0%, c) PI=15%, d) PI= 30%, e) PI=50%, and f) PI=100%.
1.6
a) Slope 1.75H:1V − ∆Su = 1.5 kPa/m
1.4
ksurface(PI) / ksurface(PI=30)
1.2
HD = 10 m (zone 2-3)
1
HD = 20 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 10 m (zone 4)
HD = 20 m (zone 4)
0.8
HD = 10 m (zone 5)
HD = 20 m (zone 5)
Standard deviation
0.6 Ksurface(PI)/ksurface(PI=30) =
0.80+0.0078PI- 3.3.10-5PI2
Proposed design values
0.4
1.4
b) Slope 3H:1V − ∆Su = 1.5 kPa/m
1.2
1
HD = 10 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 20 m (zone 2-3)
0.8 HD = 10 m (zone 4)
HD = 20 m (zone 4)
HD = 10 m (zone 5)
HD = 20 m (zone 5)
0.6 Standard deviation
Ksurface(PI)/ksurface(PI=30) =
0.86+0.0055PI- 2.63.10-5PI2
0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Plasticity index, PI
Fig. 9: Variations of the spectral pseudo-static coefficient with the soil plasticity index and the
deposit height at ∆Su = 1.5 kPa/m for zones 2-3, 4, and 5, for a slope of: (a) 1.75H:1V and (b)
3H: 1V.
Page 29 of 34
1.6
a) Slope 1.75H:1V − ∆Su = 2 kPa/m
ksurface(PI) / ksurface(PI=30) 1.4
1.2
1 HD = 10 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 20 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 10 m (zone 4)
HD = 20 m (zone 4)
0.8
HD = 10 m (zone 5)
HD = 20 m (zone 5)
Standard deviation
0.6 ksurface(PI)/ksurface(PI=30) =
0.786+0.00874PI- 4.23.10-5PI2
0.4
1.4
b) Slope 3H:1V − ∆Su = 2 kPa/m
1.2
1
HD = 10 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 20 m (zone 2-3)
0.8 HD = 10 m (zone 4)
HD = 20 m (zone 4)
HD = 10 m (zone 5)
HD = 20 m (zone 5)
ksurface(PI)/ksurface(PI=30) =
0.85+0.0059PI-3.24.10-5PI2
0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
3H:1V.
1.4
a) Slope 1.75H:1V − ∆Su = 2.5 kPa/m
1.2
1
HD = 10 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 20 m (zone 2-3)
0.8 HD = 10 m (zone 4)
HD = 20 m (zone 4)
HD = 10 m (zone 5)
HD = 20 m (zone 5)
0.766+0.00924PI- 4.78.10-5PI2
0.4
1.4
b) Slope 3H:1V − ∆Su = 2.5 kPa/m
1.2
1
HD = 10 m (zone 2-3)
HD = 20 m (zone 2-3)
0.8 HD = 10 m (zone 4)
HD = 20 m (zone 4)
HD = 10 m (zone 5)
HD = 20 m (zone 5)
0.806+0.0079PI-3.75.10-5PI2
0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
3H:1V.
Page 31 of 34
Reduction factor ~ Safety factor Reduction factor ~ Safety factor

0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2
-0.2 -0.2
F.SDynamic F.Sstatic F.SDynamic F.Sstatic
0 0
Maximum displacement (toe) / Ht (%)
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
Static Static
0.8 Zone 2-3 Zone 2-3 0.8
Zone 4 Zone 4
1 Zone 5
1
Zone 5
1.2 1.2
PI =30 % PI = 0%
1.4 a) Slope 1.75H:1V - ∆Su = 1.5kPa/m Slope Height : 10 m b) Slope 3H:1V - ∆Su = 2.0kPa/m Slope Height : 10 m
1.4
Deposit thikness : 10 m Deposit thikness : 20 m
1.6 1.6
Fig. 12: Relative displacement curves versus the reduction factor for a slope inclination of : (a)
1.75H: 1V (PI = 30%) and (b) 3H:1V (PI = 0%).
40
khsurface=0.06 a) Zone 2-3 (PI=30%)
Elevation (m)
30
20 Spectral pseudo-static -
limit equilibrium
analysis
10
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
40
khsurface=0.099 b) Zone 4 (PI=30%)
Elevation (m)
30
20 kh(z) Spectral pseudo-static -

limit equilibrium
analysis
10
kh0=0.033 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0
40
khsurface=0.135 c) Zone 5 (PI=30%)
Elevation (m)
30
20 kh(z) Spectral pseudo-static -

limit equilibrium
analysis
10
1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Distance (m)
Fig. 13: Comparison between failure surfaces obtained from the dynamic analyses and those
obtained from the spectral pseudo-static analyses (kh(z) = variable) using the limit equilibrium
method for the slope 1.75H:1V with slope height = 10 m and deposit height = 10 m,
(∆Su=5kPa/5m): a) Zone 2-3, b) Zone 4, and c) Zone 5.
Page 33 of 34
0.3
Proposed coefficient
Pseudo static coefficient at the surface, Khsurface (IP=30%)
0.25 PI = 100 %
PI = 50 %
PI = 30 %
0.2 PI = 15 %
PI = 0 %
0.15
0.1 Zone 2-3 Zone 5
0.05 Zone 4
a) Slope 1.75H:1V
0
0.3
Proposed coefficient
Pseudo static coefficient at the surface, Khsurface
(IP=30%)
0.25 PI = 100 %
PI = 50 %
PI = 30 %
0.2 PI = 15 %
PI = 0 %
0.15
0.1
Zone 2-3 Zone 5
0.05
Zone 4
b) Slope 3H:1V
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Spectral acceleration at the fundamental period Sa(T0)
Fig. 14: Variation of the at-surface pseudo-static coefficient with the spectral acceleration
determined at the fundamental period of the soil deposition: (a) slope 1.75H:1V and (b) slope
3H:1V
Table 1: SIG4 model adjustment parameters at different plasticity indices.

Plasticity index, a b X0 Y0
%PI
0 1.000 -0.600 -1.500 0.020
15 1.000 -0.600 -1.200 0.040
30 0.975 -0.600 -0.900 0.060
50 0.950 -0.680 -0.580 0.050
100 0.900 -0.750 -0.250 0.050
Table 2: Summary of dynamic factors of safety calculated at different plasticity indices.

Height of Height of Plasticity
∆Su Seismic Factor of
Slope the slope the deposit index Kh surface
(kPa/m) zone safety
(m) (m) % PI
1.75H:1V 10 10 1.5 4 Static 1.490 0.0000

0 1.287 0.0830
15 1.266 0.0918
30 1.255 0.0965
50 1.217 0.1130
100 1.183 0.1270
3H:1V 20 10 2.5 4 Static 2.140 0.0000

0 1.807 0.0680
15 1.781 0.0750
30 1.725 0.0900
50 1.682 0.1020
100 1.656 0.1110
View publication stats

Adjustment of The Spectral Pseudo-Static Approach To Account For Soil Plasticity and Seismic Zone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adjustment of The Spectral Pseudo-Static Approach To Account For Soil Plasticity and Seismic Zone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Adjustment of the spectral pseudo-static approach to account for soil plasticity

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · May 2018

Mourad Karray Mahmoud N. Hussien

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Souilem Pascal Locat

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

CRS testing on geo-materials View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Adjustment of the spectral pseudo-static approach to account for soil

The pseudo-static slope stability procedures are extensively implemented in engineering

time-consuming compared to other rigorous stress–deformation finite element (FE) or finite

differences (FD) approaches. The pseudo-static factor of safety (FS) is fundamentally

calculated by a limit equilibrium (LE) procedure in which the irritating effects of an

stress–deformation FE or FD approaches, the pseudo-static analysis is relatively simple and

straightforward, what makes its computations easy to understand and perform by

geotechnical engineers. However, it cannot provide a reliable evaluation of the seismic

coefficient. Moreover, the representation of the complex effects of an earthquake by a single,

displacements of slopes subjected to motions rich in high-frequency components might be out

cohesive layer (Karray et al. 2018).

As an alternative to the conventional pseudo-static approach, the concept of the spectral

pseudo-static procedure has been developed at the Université de Sherbrooke in collaboration

observed in laboratory experimentations (Karray et al. (2018); Karray et al. (2017);

necessary to apply additional modifications to the developed concept to broaden its

perform a comprehensive parametric study on spectral pseudo-static and dynamic stabilities

lateral boundaries of the mesh).

by Locat and Beauséjour (1987):

Gmax = 0.379 Su1.05 (1)

(Zones 2, 3, and 5) (Figs. 4 and 5).

vertical dimension of a soil element ( h ) follows (Matthees and Magiera 1982):

dependent shear modulus curve.

Numerical results and discussion

in the calculation of the spectral pseudo-static safety factors. An important element to be

spectral seismic coefficient according to soil plasticity.

decrease with the increase in the plasticity index.

whole depth [Karray et al. (2018)–9]:

developed spectral pseudo-static approach. More specifically, no major modification of the

surfaces determined from the dynamic analysis based on a rigorous stress–deformation FD

strength. However, in order to properly generalize the spectral pseudo-static approach, it is

Instead, different values of the at-surface pseudo-static coefficient at different plasticity

The normalized relative displacement-reduction factor curves of 1.75H:1V (PI = 30%)

static coefficient at PI of 30% and at different seismic zones are provided.

the undrained shear strength considered.

analyses, side-formula were established between the spectral pseudo-static coefficient on

foundation–structure interaction under seismic loads: theoretical development and experimental

Kramer, S.L. 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. USA: Prentice-Hall.

Shear straine, γ (%)

Fig. 1: Dimensions, boundaries, and meshing of the slope under consideration.

0.4 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) PI = 100 %

Undrained shear resistance, Su (kPa)

ξ=5% Quebec city (Classe A) - CNBC 2005

Spectral acceleration Sa(g)

1 Synthetic - Atkinson (2009) [18]

LaTuque (Classe A) - CNBC 2015

Reduction factor ~ Safety factor Reduction factor ~ Safety factor

a) Static khsurface=0.0965 d) Dynamic - PI = 30 %

Reduction factor ~ Safety factor Reduction factor ~ Safety factor

20 kh(z) Spectral pseudo-static -

20 kh(z) Spectral pseudo-static -

0.1 Zone 2-3 Zone 5

Table 1: SIG4 model adjustment parameters at different plasticity indices.

Table 2: Summary of dynamic factors of safety calculated at different plasticity indices.

1.75H:1V 10 10 1.5 4 Static 1.490 0.0000