Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0529-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack

Yundong ZHOUa, Fei ZHANGa* , Jingquan Wangb, Yufeng GAOa, Guangyu DAIa
a
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University,
Nanjing 210098, China
b
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structure of China Ministry of Education, Southeast University,
Nanjing 211189, China
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: feizhang@hhu.edu.cn

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
ABSTRACT Cracks at the crest of slopes frequently occur during earthquakes. Such cracks result from limited tension
strength of the soil. A tension cut-off in Mohr-Coulomb shear strength can represent this limited strength. Presented is an
extension of variational analysis of slope stability with a tension crack considering seismicity. Both translational and
rotational failure mechanisms are included in a pseudo-static analysis of slope stability. Developed is a closed-form to
assess the seismic stability of slopes with zero tensile strength. The results indicate that the presence of the tension crack
has significant effects on the seismic stability of slopes, i.e., leading to small value of the yield acceleration. Considering
soil tension strength in seismic slope analysis may lead to overestimation on the stability, as much as 50% for vertical
slopes. Imposing tension crack results in transit of the critical failure mode to a straight line from a log-spiral, except for
flat slopes with small soil cohesion. Under seismic conditions, large cohesion may increase the depth of crack, moving it
closer to the slope.

KEYWORDS slope stability, tension, crack, limit equilibrium, seismic effect

1 Introduction vertical purely cohesive cut considering tensile cracks.

Often cracks occur at the crest of slopes proceeded by
delayed total collapse. Many field investigations [1,2]
indicate that earthquakes produce tension cracks thus
destabilizing apparent stable slopes. One reason for the
occurrence of such cracks that tension stresses at the crests
are temporary exceeding of the tensile strength. Baker [3]
noted that the tension strength cut-off may seriously affect
the safety of slopes by shortening the length of the slip
surface while allowing destabilizing hydrostatic water
pressure to build up in the crack. Spencer [4] introduced
tension crack into limit equilibrium (LE) method and then,
using the stress normal to the slip surface, estimated
rationally the depth of the crack. To determine the tension
crack from the tensile strength, Baker [3] used the
variational LE method, obtaining closed-form solutions
for the problem. Utilizing the safety map introduced by
Baker and Leshchinsky [5], Baker and Leshchinsky [6]
investigated the spatial distribution of safety factors in a
Article history: Received May 14, 2018; Accepted Aug 11, 2018
Based on the upper bound of limit analysis (LA), Utili [7]
and Michalowski [8] investigated the effects of cracks on
slope stability. Their analyses are limited to the static slope
problem. Results showing the effects of seismicity are
scarce although earthquakes are known to trigger the
formation of tension cracks in apparently stable slopes.
Currently, seismic stability analyses of slopes include
pseudo-static analysis based on limit equilibrium or limit
analysis as well as deformation based analysis such as
finite element (FE). FE can provide some information on
the distribution of the tensile stress thus enabling rational
assessment of tension crack; however, consideration of
discontinuity [9–11] is needed. The pseudo-static analysis
considers the earthquake loadings in LE or LA as a
pseudostatic force, equal to the soil weight multiplied by a
seismic acceleration coefficient. Although this implemen-
tation is a gross approximation, such an approach is widely
used for seismic design in practice. Nevertheless, most
pseudo-static analyses of the slope stability [12–14]
neglect the tension cracks.
The purpose of this paper is to extend the variational
2 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

analysis of slope stability with tension crack by Baker [3], criterion with a tension cut-off, as
into seismic conditions using pseudo-static approach. Both
c þ
tanf
rotational and translational failure mechanisms (log spiral τ¼ , (1a)
and plane) are considered to find the critical results. Fs
Presented is a procedure for evaluating the effects of
tension crack on the seismic slope stability to obtain the
³ – t, (1b)
closed-form solutions for zero tensile strength. Investi-
where τ = shear stress, σ = normal stress, t = tensile
gated are the effects of the tension crack on the seismic
strength, c = cohesion, f = internal friction angle, Fs=
stability of slopes.
factor of safety. It should be noted that the limiting tensile
strength is independent of the safety factor Fs. Applying
MC criterion the geometry of the critical slip surface
2 Formulation derived from the extremization procedure, may be either a
log spiral (rotational failure) or a planar (translational
The formulation follows the notation introduced by Baker
failure). The details of the variational derivation are
[3], Leshchinsky and San [13]. For clarity of presentation,
presented elsewhere [3,15,16]. For convenience of pre-
a brief description of the derivation procedure and the
sentation of results, the following non-dimensional nota-
relevant formulae are reproduced here. As Baker [3]
tion is introduced (see Fig. 2):
presented, tension cut-off is introduced into Mohr-
Coulomb (MC) failure criterion, as shown in Fig. 1. The x y y d l
tensile strength (t) is defined as an additional independent X ¼ , Y ¼ , Y ¼ , Dc ¼ c , Lc ¼ c ,
H H H H H
variable characterizing the material, complying the MC
c tanf
t
Nm ¼ , ψm ¼ , S¼ , T¼ , (2)
gHFs Fs gH gH
where y(x) and y (x) represent the equation of the slip
surface and the slope surface, dc and lc are the depth of the
tension crack and its horizontal distance on the crest from
the slope, γ = unit weight.
Figure 2 illustrates the potential slip surfaces of
homogeneous slopes. The variational extremization yields
the rotational failure mechanism in Cartesian coordinate
system as
(
X ¼ Xc þ Ae – ψm β sinβ
, (3)
Y ¼ Yc – Ae – ψ m β cosβ
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of MC failure criteria with a where A is a constant of integration. The translational
tension cut-off failure mechanism is

Fig. 2 Notation and convention for the stability analysis of slope with tension crack. (a) Rotational failure mechanism; (b) translational
failure mechanism
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack 3

Y ¼ X tan þ C, (4) grows exponentially approaching infinity. This is unrea-

listic as the foundation soil is inhomogeneous. Physical
where C is an integration constant, and q is the inclination constraints may limit the extent of the slip surface. In this
of the planar slip surface as shown in Fig. 2(b). Introducing study, the potential slip surface is limited to toe failure,
the horizontal seismic effects into Euler’s equation, essentially assuming ‘competent’ foundation, which does
variational extremization conducted by Leshchinsky and not allow for very deep failures. An additional relation can
San [13] obtained the function of the normal stress over the then be imposed as:
log-spiral slip surface as:
X1 ¼ 0: (7c)
A
S ðψ m ≠0Þ ¼ ½ð1 þ 3ψ m kh Þcosβ
1 þ 9ψ 2m Combining the equations of the slip surface (Eq. (3) or
(4)) and these geometrical boundary conditions, one can
1 – e2ψ m β obtain the following:
þ ð3ψ m – kh Þsinβe – ψ m β – Nm Rotational mechanism,
ψm
1 – Dc
þ Be2ψ m β , (5a) A¼ , (8a)
e – ψ m β1 cosβ1–e
– ψ m β2 cosβ
2

Sðψ m ¼ 0Þ ¼ Aðcosβ – kh sinβÞ þ 2Nm β þ B, (5b)

Xc ¼ – Ae – ψ m β1 sinβ1 , (8b)
where kh is coefficient of the horizontal seismic accelera-
tion, B is unknown constant of integration. Furthermore, Yc ¼ Ae – ψm β1 cosβ1 : (8c)
the normal stress along the translational slip surface can be
also obtained from the same procedure by Leshchinsky and Translational mechanism,
San [13] as:
C ¼ 0, (9a)
kh þ tanð – fm Þ
S¼ X þ B: (6)
tanð – fm Þtanfm – 1 X2 ¼ ð1 – Dc Þcot: (9b)
Based on the variationally derived equations of the slip 2) Stress boundary condition
surface (Eqs. (3) and (4)) and the normal stress distribution
(Eqs. (5) and (6)), a closed-form solution can be developed S2 ¼ Sðβ ¼ β2 Þ or SðX ¼ X2 Þ: (10)
for evaluation of the seismic stability of a given slope with Substituting this relation into Eq. (5) or (6) and solving
a selected tensile strength. For a seismic slope in a limiting for B:
equilibrium state, given i, fm, kh, and T, there are still Rotational mechanism,
several unknown parameters for rotational/translational 
failure mechanism, as shown in Table 1. These parameters A
Bðψ m ≠0Þ ¼ S2 – ½ð1 þ 3ψ m kh Þcosβ2
can be determined from the following relations: 1 þ 9ψ 2m
1) Geometrical boundary conditions
þð3ψ m – kh Þsinβ2 e – ψ m β2

 
Y ðX ¼ X1 Þ ¼ 0, (7a)

Y ðX ¼ X2 Þ ¼ 1 – Dc : (7b) 1 – e2ψ m β2 – 2ψ m β2
þNm e , (11a)
ψm
Under seismic conditions, the size of the sliding mass

Table 1 Parameters and equations for a closed-form solution on seismic slope stability
item rotational mechanism translational mechanism
known parameters i, kh,ym, T i, kh,ym, T
unknown parameters A, Xc, Yc, b1, b2, B, Dc, S2, Nm C, q, X1, X2, B, Dc, S2, Nm
required equations Eqs. (8a), (8b), (8c), (11), (13a), (13b), (14), (20a), (22) Eqs. (7c), (9a), (9b), (12), (13a), (16), (20b), (22)
steps for calculation (1) assume a value for b1, b2, and Dc; (1) assume a value for q and Dc;
(2) use Eqs. (8a), (8b), (8c) to calculate A, Xc, Yc; (2) use Eqs. (9a), (9b), (7c) to calculate C, X1, X2;
(3) use Eq. (14) to calculate Nm; (3) use Eq. (16) to calculate Nm;
(4) substituting Eq. (22) into Eq. (11) to calculate B; (4) substituting Eq. (22) into Eq. (12) to calculate B;
(5) integrate Eqs. (13a), (13b), and (23) to determine whether (5) integrate Eqs. (13a) and (23) to determine whether H, S are
H, V , S are close to zero. If yes, the critical results are found. close to zero. If yes, the critical results are found. If no, assume
If no, assume new values for (b1, b2, Dc) and go to step 2. new values for (q, Dc) and go to step 2, repeat until convergence is
Repeat until convergence is achieved. achieved.
4 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Bðψ m ¼ 0Þ ¼ S2 – Aðcosβ2 – kh sinβ2 Þ – 2Nm β2 : (11b) where

X2   
Translational mechanism,
v1 ¼ !X Sðψ m Y # þ 1Þ – Y – Y Þ dX , (17a)
kh þ tanð – fm Þ 1

B ¼ S2 – X: (12)
tanð – fm Þtanfm – 1 2
!X Y #dX :
X2
v2 ¼ (17b)
3) Limiting equilibrium equations for the sliding body 1

 
For rotational mechanism, the equilibrium equations at a 4) Transversality condition
limit state for horizontal forces, vertical forces, and  
moments about the origin of the coordinate system can ∂g 
g–Y # ¼ 0: (18)
be written as follows: ∂Y # X ¼Xi
X2   
H ¼ !X 1
ðNm þ Sψ m Þ – SY # – kh Y – Y Þ dX ¼ 0,
The transversality condition for the slope stability
problem was introduced by Baker and Garber [15]. It
(13a) was used by Baker [3] in static stability problem of slopes
with tension crack. This boundary condition is adopted
X2    also here. The transversality condition can be written for
V ¼ !X 1
ðNm þ Sψ m ÞY # – Y – Y – SÞ dX ¼ 0, (13b) rotational and translational failure mechanism, respec-
tively, as:
 
!X ððNm þ SψmÞðY – XY #Þ – SðYY # þ X Þ SðβÞðψ m cosβ þ sinβÞ þ Nm cosβ – Y – Y Þsinβ
X2
M ¼
1
  
– kh Y – Y Y þ Y þ 2Yc =2Ae – ψ m β Þjβ¼βi ¼ 0, (19a)
Y þY
þðY – Y ÞX þ kh ðY – Y Þ ÞdX ¼ 0: (13c)   
2
Nm þ SðX Þðψ m þ tanð – fm ÞÞ – kh Y – Y
From the moment Eq. (13c), the stability number Nm can
be expressed as:
– tanð – fm ÞðY – Y ÞÞjX ¼Xi ¼ 0: (19b)
m
Nm ¼ – 1 , (14) Applying this relation at point E (see Fig. 2) and finding
m2 
that at this point Y – Y Þ ¼ Dc , one gets:
where  
β2   1 þ 3Yc – Ae – ψ m β2 cosβ2
m1 ¼ !β 1
Y – Y ÞðX – Xc Þ ðcosβ – ψ m sinβÞAe – ψm β dβ S2 ¼ Dc sinβ2 þ kh Dc
2Ae – ψ m β2
– Nm cosβ2

  
β2 Y þ Y – 2Yc =ðψ m cosβ2 þ sinβ2 Þ, (20a)
þkh !β 1
ðY – Y Þ
2
S2 ¼ ðkh Dc þ tanð – fm ÞDc – Nm Þ=ðψ m þ tanð – fm ÞÞ:
– ψm β
ðcosβ – ψ m sinβÞAe dβ, (15a) (20b)

β2 5) Criterion for tension crack

m2 ¼ !β 1
ððY – Yc Þ – ðX – Xc ÞY # Þðcosβ – ψ m sinβÞAe – ψm β dβ:
lim SðX ,Y Þ ¼ – T
(15b) X ↕ ↓X2 : (21)
For translational mechanism, only the equations of force Y ↕ ↓1 – Dc
equilibrium in the horizontal and vertical direction (Eqs.
(13a) and (13b)) are involved. Moment equilibrium is not When the tension crack is occurred, the following
needed to solve the problem (same as Coulomb’s condition should exist:
problem); however, moment equilibrium can be solved Sðβ ¼ β2 or X ¼ X2 Þ ¼ – T : (22)
as well and thus determine the location of the resultant
force over the slip surface. From the vertical forces Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (22), one obtains:
equilibrium Eq. (13b), the stability number Nm can be
expressed as: S ¼ S2 þ T ¼ 0: (23)
v1 Combining these equations for rotational or translational
Nm ¼ – , (16) failure mechanism, a computation scheme is obtained for
v2
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack 5

the closed-form solutions when i, fm, kh, and T are given degenerate to the planar mechanism for vertical slopes.
(see Table 1). As Baker [3], Leshchinsky and San [13] However, for such a case the pole of the log spiral should
demonstrated, the problem is reduced to solving a set of approach infinity, a numerically difficult problem to solve
two or three nonlinear simultaneous equations for transla- accurately.
tional and rotational mechanism, respectively. To find the The assessment of slope stability is usually conducted in
corresponding two or three roots (q and Dc; b1, b2, and Dc), terms of the factor of safety. However, in seismic stability it
the steepest descent algorithm numerical technique is is useful and meaningful to use the yield (or critical)
adopted here. earthquake acceleration. When a slope is subjected to its
yield acceleration (ky), an imminent failure will occur; i.e.,
Fs = 1.0. For example, it is an important characteristic for
3 Results and discussions predicting seismic permanent displacements of a slope by
using the sliding block analysis [17,18]. The calculated
In the calculations, tensile strength T = 0 is specified thus results represent the state of yield acceleration, considering
limiting the results to the extreme (and practical) value of the soil properties and the slope geometry. Since the factor
zero tensile strength material with MC criterion. When the of safety Fs = 1.0, Nm and fm will be expressed as N and f.
acceleration coefficient kh = 0, the problem degenerates to Figures 3–7 show the critical results derived from the
the static problem. First considered are the two failure RM and TM for slopes (i = 90°, 75°, 60°, 45°, 30°) with
modes, the rotational mechanism (RM) and translational tension cut-off of zero. For reference, shown also the
mechanism (TM), under static conditions, to verify for a results for slopes without tension crack. The yield
given problem, which one is the critical mode; i.e., which acceleration is given as a function of N = c/γH for different
one is rendering the largest value of stability number (Nm). internal friction angles f = 10°, 20°, 30°, and 40°. It can be
Using both failure mechanisms, Michalowski [8] included seen that regardless of failure mechanism, ignoring tension
the presence of cracks into the kinematic approach of limit crack will result in larger value of ky, i.e., overestimation of
analysis and obtained the least upper bounds on the critical the seismic stability of the slope. The effects become more
height (γH/c), which is the reciprocal value of stability profound as the value of c/γH increases or as f decreases.
number when Fs = 1.0. Following the same procedure of For flat slopes with small cohesion and friction angle, the
Michalowski [8], the authors calculated the stability rotational mechanism is always the most critical. For steep
numbers using the rotational and translational mechan- slopes (i = 75° and 90°), the most critical failure mode
isms, and then compared them with the variational results, approaches the translational mechanism. Ignoring the
as shown in Table 2. Minor differences in stability numbers effects of tension crack, the rotational mechanism is the
between LA method of Michalowski [8] and this study are most critical in most cases. The results implies that with
observed. The reason for this can be attributed to different zero tension cut-off in seismic analysis of steep slope
considerations on the formation of the tension crack. The stability, using a planar failure mechanism is acceptable
rate of work dissipation along the opening crack is because of its relative criticality and easy use.
included in the energy balance equation to determine the Ling et al. [14] adopted the planar failure mechanism to
least upper bound by Michalowski [8]. Generally, the evaluate the seismic stability of slopes without tension
variationally derived results are in good agreement with the crack. The critical inclination of the wedge sliding surface
upper-bound solutions of Michalowski [8]. The critical (qc) was obtained as:
failure mode in variational analysis or limit analysis is
rotational mechanism for i = 60°, but it transits to i þ f þ atanðkh Þ
c ¼ : (24)
translational mechanism for vertical slope. It should be 2
noted that the log-spiral mechanism could completely The critical angle is a function of the seismic accelera-
tion kh. Based on the closed-form solutions for the
Table 2 Stability number Nm for static slopes with tension crack
translational mechanism, Fig. 8 gives the critical angles
f (°)
i (°) Nm difference
(qc) for steep slopes with and without tension crack.
variational analysis limit analysis Ignoring the tension crack, the derived critical angle is the
TM RM TM RM TM RM same as that calculated from Eq. (24). For vertical slopes,
60 10 0.127 0.144 0.125 0.143 1.62% 0.66% the tension crack has no effects on the critical angle.
20 0.085 0.100 0.083 0.099 1.40% 1.23%
However, for i = 75°, the critical angle for slopes with
tension crack is smaller than when neglecting the crack.
30 0.051 0.065 0.050 0.064 1.15% 1.36%
The critical inclination still has a linear relation with the
90 10 0.280 0.261 0.270 0.270 3.61% – 3.29% horizontal seismic acceleration.
20 0.234 0.219 0.223 0.223 4.82% – 1.78% The presence of a tension crack is an important indicator
30 0.193 0.182 0.183 0.183 5.58% – 0.58% of potential instability for slopes. It implies the maximum
depth of the potential tension crack (i.e., the depth at which
6 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 3 Yield seismic acceleration coefficients for slopes with i = 90°. (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°; (c) f= 30°; (d) f= 40°
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack 7

Fig. 4 Yield seismic acceleration coefficients for slopes with i = 75°. (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°; (c) f= 30°; (d) f= 40°
8 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 5 Yield seismic acceleration coefficients for slopes with i = 60°. (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°; (c) f= 30°; (d) f= 40°
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack 9

Fig. 6 Yield seismic acceleration coefficients for slopes with i = 45°. (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°; (c) f= 30°; (d) f= 40°
10 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 7 Yield seismic acceleration coefficients for slopes with i = 30°. (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°

Fig. 8 Critical angle qc for slopes with translational failures. (a) i = 75°; (b) i = 90°

the normal stress over the slip surface reaches from
negative at the crest to zero). The obtained depth and
location of the crack from the variational analysis could be
useful in designing measures to arrest such crest; i.e., use
of planar reinforcement such as geogrids. Selecting the
critical results of the yield acceleration in Figs. 3–7, the
corresponding values on the depth of the cracks (Dc) and
its horizontal location on the crest behind the slope (Lc) are
presented (see Figs. 9–13). As might be expected, the
depth of the cracks increases as the yield acceleration
increases. For flat slopes, the increase of the cracks has a
sudden change because of the transition in the critical
failure mechanism, as shown in Figs. 5–7. The results
derived from less critical failure mechanism are also shown
in Figs. 11–13, as the dash lines. It can be seen that the
values of Dc or Lc are different for the rotational
mechanism (circular symbol) and translational mechanism
(square symbol). Without the seismic effects (ky = 0), small
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack 11

Fig. 9 Normalized (a) depth and (b) location of tension crack in slopes with i = 90°

Fig. 10 Normalized (a) depth and (b) location of tension crack in slopes with i = 75°

depth of crack could be occurred in the flat slopes, as
shown in Figs. 12(a) and 13(a). However, once seismic
excitation occurs, the depth of the crack becomes larger,
potentially exceeding half the height of the slope. For steep
slopes, the crack depth could develop to a large depth.
Under static conditions, the maximum depth is Dc = 0.33
for vertical slopes, which indicates that the maximum
depth of tension crack does not exceed one third of the
slope height. However, when stable slopes are subjected to
earthquakes, the depth of the crack will significantly
increase, potentially reaching 0.65H for vertical slopes
(i.e., doubling the depth). In addition, the internal friction
angle has significant effects on the values of Dc and Lc. As
the friction angle increases, the crack will be closer to the
face of the slope. For vertical slopes, the cohesion of soil
has small effects on the adverse location of the crack, as
shown in Fig. 9(b).
To further demonstrate the effects of the tension crack on
the seismic stability, a comparison is made for two cases
(see Table 3). When the tension crack is considered in
12 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 11 Normalized (a) depth and (b) location of tension crack in slopes with i = 60°

Fig. 12 Normalized (a) depth and (b) location of tension crack in slopes with i = 45°

seismic stability analysis, the yield acceleration ky will
largely decrease, especially for vertical slopes. The effects
of the tension crack become more significant as the slope
inclination increases and the friction angle decreases.
Typically, tension crack will decrease the yield acceleration
by 50% for vertical slopes. It implies that, neglecting the
tension cracks may significantly overestimate the seismic
stability of steep slopes. Figures 14 and 15 show the
critical slip surfaces and the corresponding critical tension
crack for the two cases above. Also illustrated is the normal
stress distribution along the slip surface. It can be seen that
as the internal friction angle of soil increases (while some
cohesion exists), the tension crack becomes deeper and its
adverse location is closer to the face of the slope. The
critical slip surface is affected by the tension crack. For
vertical slopes, the tension crack results in shallower
critical slip surface.
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack 13

Fig. 13 Normalized (a) depth and (b) location of tension crack in slopes with i = 30°

Fig. 14 Critical slip surfaces for slope with or without tension crack (i = 90°). (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°; (c) f= 30°; (d) f= 40°
14 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 15 Critical slip surfaces for slope with or without tension crack (i = 60°). (a) f= 10°; (b) f= 20°; (c) f= 30°; (d) f= 40°

Table 3 Difference in the yield seismic acceleration for slopes with or rationally within the framework of variational analysis,
without tension crack
as the stress normal to the slip surface is part of the
solution. That is, setting a tension cut-off to zero modifies
f = 10° f = 20° f = 30° f = 40°
the variational normal stress distribution to acts on a
i = 90°, N = 0.30 tension 0.044 0.142 0.219 0.278
crack
surface that starts at the tip of a tension crack whereas at
this tip, the normal stress is zero and it is determined
No crack 0.292 0.402 0.487 0.550
mathematically. Since it is part of a closed-form solution,
difference – 84.9% – 64.7% – 55.0% – 49.5% the location of the critical slip surface as well as the adverse
i = 60°, N = 0.15 tension 0.022 0.196 0.355 0.473 location and depth of the tension cracks are interrelated, all
crack parts of the solution of a set of nonlinear equations. Based
no crack 0.053 0.230 0.393 0.521 on the presented results, the following conclusions may be
difference – 58.5% – 14.8% – 9.7% – 9.2% drawn:
1) The presence of the tension crack significantly
decreases the seismic stability of a slope, typically by
50% for vertical slopes. Neglecting the tension crack will
4 Conclusions largely overestimate the seismic stability of slopes. As the
soil cohesion increases or friction angle decreases, the
Variational analysis of slope stability with tension crack overestimation become more profound.
was extended to seismic conditions. Both rotational and 2) Ignoring the tension crack, the critical failure mode is
translational failure mechanisms are included in the the rotational mechanism in most cases. Considering the
pseudo-static approach. However, failures are limited to tension crack, the critical failure mode transits to a
toe failures essentially assuming competent foundation. translational planar mechanism, except for flat slopes
Based on the extremized results, a closed-form solution is with small soil cohesion.
developed for the seismic stability of slopes with cut-off of 3) As the yield acceleration of slopes increases, the
tensile strength to zero. Such an approach is done tension crack becomes deeper and its adverse location is
 Yundong ZHOU et al. Seismic stability of earth slopes with tension crack
closer to the face of the slope. Comparing with the
maximum depth of crack in static conditions (H/3 for
vertical slopes), the maximum depth under seismic
conditions can exceed one-half of the slope height.
Acknowledgements This study was sponsored by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41630638, 51878248, and
51578213), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(No. 2017B00814) and the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).
References
1. Huang R Q, Pei X J, Fan X M, Zhang W F, Li S G, Li B L. The
characteristics and failure mechanism of the largest landslide
triggered by the Wenchuan earthquake, May 12, 2008, China.
Landslides, 2012, 9(1): 131–142
2. Stahl T, Bilderback E L, Quigley M C, Nobes D C, Massey C I.
Coseismic landsliding during the Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury)
earthquake: Implications for paleoseismic studies of landslides.
Geomorphology, 2014, 214: 114–127
3. Baker R. Tensile strength, tension cracks, and stability of slopes.
Soil and Foundation, 1981, 21(2): 1–17
4. Spencer E A. Effect of tension on stability of embankments. Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1968, 94(5):
1159–1173
5. Baker R, Leshchinsky D. Spatial distribution of safety factors.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2001,
127(2): 135–145
6. Baker R, Leshchinsky D. Spatial distribution of safety factors:
Cohesive vertical cut. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2003, 27(12): 1057–1078
15
7. Utili S. Investigation by limit analysis on the stability of slopes with
cracks. Geotechnique, 2013, 63(2): 140–154
8. Michalowski R L. Stability assessment of slopes with cracks using
limit analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2013, 50(10): 1011–
1021
9. Ren H L, Zhuang X Y, Cai Y C, Rabczuk T. Dual-horizon
peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 2016, 108(12): 1451–1476
10. Ren H L, Zhuang X Y, Rabczuk T. A new peridynamic formulation
with shear deformation for elastic solid. Journal of Micromechanics
& Molecular Physics, 2016, 1(2): 1650009
11. Liu G Y, Zhuang X Y, Cui Z Q. Three-dimensional slope stability
analysis using independent cover based numerical manifold and
vector method. Engineering Geology, 2017, 225: 83–95
12. Koppula S D. Pseudo-static analysis of clay slopes subjected to
earthquakes. Geotechnique, 1984, 34(1): 71–79
13. Leshchinsky D, San K. Pseudostatic seismic stability of slopes:
Design charts. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1994, 120(9):
1514–1532
14. Ling H I, Mohri Y, Kawabata T. Seismic analysis of sliding wedge:
Extended Francais-Culmann’s analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, 1999, 18(5): 387–393
15. Baker R, Garber M. Theoretical analysis of the stability of slopes.
Geotechnique, 1978, 28(4): 395–411
16. Leshchinsky D, Reinschmidt A J. Stability of membrane reinforced
slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1985, 111(11): 1285–
1300
17. Newmark N M. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments.
Geotechnique, 1965, 15(2): 139–160
18. Song J, Gao Y F, Feng T G, Xu G Z. Effect of site condition below
slip surface on prediction of equivalent seismic loading parameters
and sliding displacement. Engineering Geology, 2018, 242(2): 169–
183